Kaleiçi (Pictures 7.54; 7.55) was put under the protection of the Real Estate Antique Works and Monuments High Commission against irregular construction in 1967. With a protocol signed by the Ministry of Tourism, the Antalya Municipality and the Monuments High Commission in 1973, it was decided that the port and its vicinity would be expropriated and restored. The ‘Kaleiçi Protection Oriented Planning Work’ was begun in 1979 by the Department of Architecture at Middle East Technical University. The project undertaken through this work received the Tourism Oscar, the Golden Apple Award [Awarded by FIJET] in 1984. Informant R6, underlines the success of the tourism infrastructure investments made in Antalya with government support and control in the beginning of the 1980s but for him, in later years, tourism investments were influenced by politics, leading to lack of planning, programming and foresight:
R6: After 1985, 1986, loads of people came here. Of course I mean just southern Antalya. Meanwhile the second stage of the project began: Belek. Expropriations, etcetera. Meanwhile the Yacht Marina was being built. The Marina Project in 84 won the international Golden Apple Award (the Oscars of Tourism) [Awarded by FIJET] as it is such an important project. The World Bank was behind it and the Tourism Bank was implementing it. The team working was serious politics weren’t involved. That’s why it was an award-worthy project. Hundreds of shops were identified down to their location in the marina. Shops that would suit Antalya’s culture. A meatball restaurant, a traditional pastry shop, a fish restaurant. Over ninety houses were expropriated up there to provide lodging. But, alas, politics got involved and the Tourism Bank was taken out of the picture. Governors and Ministers took over. Believe me, I haven’t been down to the marina in three years. To the marina that won the Golden Apple. This is what it is: politics.
With commercial life speeding up after 1981 and the appealing atmosphere, Perdahlı (2007: 44) says that the native inhabitants of the Kaleiçi Neighborhood jumped onto the development bandwagon. Parallel to this change, the real estate value in this area rose immensely, resulting in imbalance. By the time disappointed investors were replaced by other enthusiastic investors, the ‘real estate blackmarketism’ mentioned above by the Kaleiçi inhabitants had already begun.
Almost all Kaleiçi business owners said they were not able to make even half of what they had envisioned; meanwhile the number of one day visitors dropped dramatically. Today, Kaleiçi is a place where nearly all the natives have moved away, leaving behind no neighborly relations, where almost all buildings are commercial enterprises. The number of those settled in the neighborhood is dropping day by day without being replaced by others. According to Perdahlı, the most important reason why the Kaleiçi neighborhood is undesirable as a residential area is because “accommodation and survival needs and noisy and active entertainment functions clash”. The Chairman of the KALEDER Board of Directors, Müfit Perdahlı (2007: 44) says that as of 2007 only 3% of those living in Kaleiçi are natives of Antalya As he mentions, it is no longer possible to say that 2,000 years of history has been sustained. Kaleiçi, as the center of where the city of Antalya was founded, is still considered by Antalyalites to be the most representative of Antalya, but it has all but forgotten what it symbolizes as Antalya’s most important ‘collective cultural capital’, even ‘collective symbolic capital’.
All of the informants, almost as if in unison, express their disappointment in the lack of preservation or abuse of Antalya’s existing cultural heritage and the transformation of this heritage with a profit oriented approach. The only way to turn concerns that mistakes made will denigrate Antalya’s multi-layered cultural heritage into actions which may bring about solutions only seems possible through funding being allocated to preservation and restoration projects. The informants, who see Antalya as its original location, the Castle District, commented thus:
R3: This city could have been a meeting point for cultures. That boat has sailed. Kesik Minare, for example, witnessed first Byzantine, then Seljuk, then, Ottoman and finally the Republic periods.
R22: We stand before one of the greatest pieces of Antalya’s cultural heritage: Kaleiçi. Is this [what] Kaleiçi deserves? Definitely not. Fixing the roads of Kaleiçi means landscaping Kaleiçi and illuminating it. If we are to restore Kaleiçi, the restoration of Kesik Minare and Hıdırlık Kulesi is also necessary. To be frank, unfortunately I don’t see many restorations going on in Antalya. The restoration of historical works is crucial for Antalya. This would benefit the whole country, not just the city. It wouldn’t just be Antalyalites who benefit; if Antalya benefits, so does Turkey.
R17: The Castle District is important; that’s where Antalya is. If it were me, I would make a law saying the Castle District is the place in the world most worth seeing. Kaleiçi is equivalent to Antalya.
R16: In my terms as well, not much was done for the Kaleiçi. When it got commercialized, the storekeepers became pushy with the tourists. There are even those today that say the Kaleiçi has become a center for prostitution. There were serious restoration efforts in the 70s but they stopped towards the 80s. Then some people came and bought houses and turned them into commercial enterprises.
R17: There are business people trying to make money in other ways. There are some sectors that are not worthy of the Kaleiçi. Once security is strengthened, the infrastructure built, I think some buildings no in keeping with the architecture of the Kaleiçi should be torn down. There were about 25. Most were built 10-15 years ago illegally.
December 9, 2016
Kaleiçi (Pictures 7.54; 7.55) was put under the protection of the Real Estate Antique Works and Monuments High Commission against irregular construction in 1967. With a protocol signed by the Ministry of Tourism, the Antalya Municipality and the Monuments High Commission in 1973, it was decided that the port and its vicinity would be expropriated and restored. The ‘Kaleiçi Protection Oriented Planning Work’ was begun in 1979 by the Department of Architecture at Middle East Technical University. The project undertaken through this work received the Tourism Oscar, the Golden Apple Award [Awarded by FIJET] in 1984. Informant R6, underlines the success of the tourism infrastructure investments made in Antalya with government support and control in the beginning of the 1980s but for him, in later years, tourism investments were influenced by politics, leading to lack of planning, programming and foresight:
The urban spatial structure in Antalya is the result of the city’s economic structure, social structure and the urbanization that has stemmed from it. It is a fact that the urban spatial structure in Antalya is shaped by the two dominant sectors in the region— “agriculture, which yields 2 billion USD and tourism, which yields 2-3 billion USD” per year (Antalya Kent Vizyonu İlk Rapor Sunuşu, 2008: 24)—. As in other coastal towns, the urban development in Antalya has only been definitive after the development of tourism, following tourism investments. Among those typologies mentioned in subsection 2.4.2, Antalya can be described both as a large historical city with the whole Pamhylia and as a place of purpose built integrated resorts city following the implementation of the GATGP.
The urbanization of Antalya is a true model of tourism urbanization which is a city built or developed exclusively for tourists, meaning that their economies, politics, residential life, and built environments are different. Where ‘industrial urbanization’, for example, was accompanied by an infrastructure of production, such as factories, canals, and railways, ‘tourism urbanization’ is supported by an infrastructure of consumption made up of theme parks, casinos, hotels, convention centers, golf courses, and so forth (Mullins, 2003: 128).
In the 2004-2009 term municipal governance, while the growth coalition in Antalya was trying to develop strategies for becoming an urban tourism oriented city of culture they were also trying to become an entertainment city through efforts to build a Theme Park. When viewed from an urban cultural politics standpoint, the project to pedestrianize the historical city center, inherently for urban tourism purposes, can be defined as Cultural Planning or Europeanization. Europeanization as such is a cultural urban policy in which the policies adopted by European cities having been declared as ECOC are following. Antalya, in an effort to become a ‘city of culture’, is highlighting the city’s collective cultural capital and trying to represent ‘the historical center’, or more accurately Kaleiçi with the ‘Antalya brand,’ which is to become the city’s collective symbolic capital.
Efforts to represent Kaleiçi with the ‘Antalya’ brand are, in other words, by making Kaleiçi (which embodies the collective cultural capital of the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Seljuk, Ottoman periods of today) the new image of ‘Antalya’ (reimagining Antalya with Kaleiçi), the collective cultural capital and symbolic cultural capital that attached to Antalya, which is intended to be transformed in the global market into a ‘value’ to represent a positive portrayal of city. However, by identifying Antalya with Kaleiçi, the city’s image becomes a spectacle itself. In other words, the inner city, the Kaleiçi becomes the spectacle of festival marketplace through which it becomes a destination place attracting urban tourists and potential investors. In its nature, festival marketplace is the new way of packaging time and place as it is also the key feature of postmodern urbanism (see subsection 2.2.4). Festival marketplaces also provide a range of activities, including leisure, special events like film festivals and shopping. Most also have an aquarium, a convention center, four and five star hotel accommodation, theaters, restaurants and even a sports stadium. As discussed above, Antalya, aspiring to become a ‘city of culture’, is only missing a sports stadium and an aquarium to become a festival marketplace. What cultural policy literature also refers to as Americanization, or festival market place, is turning Antalya into an entertainment city as a second urban cultural policy followed. Antalya, which is trying to become Europeanized on the one hand and Americanized on the other, actually presents a very accurate representation of Turkey, as mentioned in Chapter 9.
Copying the ‘Barcelona model’ of restructuring associated with the preservation of historical inner city and of cultural heritage, with the Olympic Game Stadium, with the deindustrialization of the inner city, with the changes in transportation, and with the new image as the key strategies of the ‘urban tourism’ policies, Antalya is being repackaged to be re-presented in the global market. Similar to some wannabe world cities, the strategies for constructing a signature building for the Antalya City Museum to attract the visitors to a place near to the center is another side of the project. There are a number of well known example of the construction of new ‘Flagship Museums’ in terms of both their size and spectacular architecture in urban regeneration of cities like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, and the Tate Modern in the former Bankside power station in London (Hamnett and Shoval, 2003: 222).
Urban spatial restructuring, which appears as the change and transition of the built environment inside the city in Antalya, is a result of the shift towards UPPs in the urban planning approach, and from modern urbanism to postmodern urbanism. It has presented itself simultaneously with the results of the local election in April 2004; as transition from Urban Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism (shift in municipal urban governance) and transition from Social Progressive Urbanism to Neoliberal Urbanism (shift in urban policy). In short, it could be said that new urban policies are being created with the purpose of gaining annuity from city spaces.
A managerial urban governance, a more social progressive and modernist urbanism beside some Third Way Projects, and a more pluralist social learning and communicative model of planning during the social democratic mayor period from Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (the Republican People’s Party, CHP) between the years 1999 and 2004 shifted into entrepreneurial urban governance, a neoliberal and postmodern urbanism, and strategic UPPs boosted by growth alliances during the liberal-conservative-islamist mayor from Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (the Justice and Development Party, AKP) between the years 2004-2009.
With these shifts in the subfields of urban governance, rather than being a city of culture Antalya is becoming a ‘fantasy city’ by which Hunnigan (1998; see subsection 2.2.4) describes a city offering pleasure and profit. For Hunnigan, ‘fantasy city’ is bounded and defined by six central features: theme-o-centric, branded, operating day and night, modular, solipsistic, and postmodern.
Most of the inhabitants of the houses in the Kaleiçi, which is a 3rd degree preservation site, are old and lack the funds to have their houses which are even older than they are professionally restored. Moreover, they are prohibited from doing repairs on their houses, considered historical artifacts, except for restoration. Therefore, when their houses become uninhabitable, or the business owners bother them overmuch with the volume of the music playing, they wither sell their homes or rent them out and move elsewhere. The empty houses are usually invaded by businesses or burned down and replaced with structures built that are not consistent with the Kaleiçi’s architectural style:
R17: The Kaleiçi is very important. At least it has been preserved to some extent until now. The project for the restoration won awards but since then has been abandoned. Everyone with any authority in Antalya talks about doing something but it is an area whose problems have yet to be resolved. It is essential for Antalya It consists of four neighborhoods. The identity of the Kaleiçi must be taken into consideration while searching for solutions. Should it be an entertainment center? A shopping area or a tourism center? It may not be limited to one definition but there should be a goal. For this, especially local administrations must be bold. I don’t see any other way out. I believe there are about 110 buildings that burned down because they are over 100 years old. The owners are old as well and are disturbed by the loud music. It doesn’t make sense that there are hotels near these bars and clubs either, since no one can truly rest nor reside in this area with the loud noise. This is where we need a radical decision. What will become of the Castle District? Then work must be begun.
FG4: Home owners in the Kaleiçi are bound. Either they stay there and pay to have the house restored or they move or they live in aging structures needing repair. No foundations or institutions are offering to pay, either. The houses turn into relics with disrepair once emptied or are burned down and a new one built in their stead. Thus, a part of history is disappearing.
R17, representing the Municipality of Muratpaşa District which includes the Kaleiçi, is at the top of the list of those trying to come up with solutions. R16, who is a former Head of the Antalya Greater City Municipality once suggested the state ownership of the Kaleiçi but was not able to implement this solution:
R17: This job is too big to carry out using grants. Even laying cobblestones would cost a great deal. The infrastructure, the lighting and the restoration is a huge challenge. The solution would be to have the Ministry of Finance allocate funds to the Ministry of Tourism. First 100 trillion then increase this amount. If necessary this could be supplemented by the political party in power through the city directorates of the Ministry of Tourism. But they should announce what is to be done in a report. They could put out a contract themselves. They don’t have to use middlemen. The municipalities don’t have to do it; they could just be given the authority to oversee it. The restoration could be turned into a competition. The Ministry of Culture grants one festival [the Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival in 2006] with about 150 billion in funds. One rumor has it that they sent 4 trillion. The Castle District could be allotted a 100 trillion budget. The Film Festival would find sponsors somehow. The municipalities could generate funds. Other ways could be found as they always have. It isn’t a big deal when there are problems with the festival but the loss of the
Kaleiçi is a huge problem.
Apart from all of these debates, according to Erdoğan (2007: 15), the reasons why Kaleiçi could not be protected are public will and civil administration. Erdoğan says that problems erupted when TURBAN, which had been running operations of the region (Kaleiçi and the Marina) as an agent of public until the early 1990s, was left out. As mentioned above, TURBAN’s success in the Kaleiçi Conservation Project as an implementer and operator was proven by the Golden Apple Award. While AGM, a public will on a local scale, intended to give pedestrians the opportunity to walk around freely in a secure area in the Kaleiçi pedestrianization project, and yet requested that cars be allowed to enter and leave so that not only the inhabitants but also the touristic enterprises in the region can fulfill their needs. Viewed from this standpoint, the way in which public will should be shaped appears as a problems. As a civil will made up of those residing in Kaleiçi business owners working there, or rather of the Kaleiçi neighborhood, KALEDER is aware that the only way Kaleiçi can become a touristic and cultural center of attraction is through the pedestrianization of the area
Erdoğan believes the role that the Conservation, Implementation and Control Office (KUDEB) founded within the AGM will play is crucial in terms of cooperating with the owners of the dilapidated real estates in Kaleiçi, consulting for restoration projects and creating loan opportunities as well as guiding and monitoring as a public will (Ibid.: 21). Informants R16 ve R12 believe that public will be more effective from the central government and the Culture and Tourism Ministry, and say the following about Kaleiçi:
R16: Kaleiçi could simply be made public property. The Ministry of Culture could do this but the real estate value of the area is high. I gave this a try when I was a member of parliament during Istemihan Talay’s appointment in 95-99. Practices involving the Kaleiçi must be sustained. Policies change when municipal administrations change. They usually do things to look good to the public and so projects aren’t sustained.295
R12: For example, Kaleiçi is a place ignored for all these years. Something must be done in cooperation with the Culture and Tourism Ministry there. No projects involving it have been prepared. The revenues from tourism should be channeled towards cultural projects. Because the raw material of tourism isn’t hotels, it is the natural and cultural heritage. This is the rationale behind sustainable tourism. more social responsibility projects carried out by businesses operating here.296
imkanlarını kullanabilir bugüne kadar kullandığı gibi. Ve çok büyük sorunlar ortaya çıkarmaz film festivali. Yani Festival dört dörtlük olmadığı zaman büyük olay değildir ama Kaleiçi kaybedildiği zaman büyük olaydır.
295 R16: Kaleiçi’nin tamamının kamulaştırılması. Belki bunu Kültür Bakanlığı yapabilir ama emlak değeri çok yüksek o bölgenin. Ben Milletvekilliği yaptığım dönemde de restorasyonların yapılması için girişimde bulundum İstemihan Talay döneminde, 95-99’da milletvekilliği yaptım. Kaleiçi’ne dair uygulamaların süreklilik kazanması gerekir. Belediyeler zaman zaman yönetimlerin sık değiştiği kurumlar dolayısıyla politikalar da değişiyor.
296 R12: Örneğin Kaleiçi, bunca yıldır ihmal edilmiş bir yer. Mutlaka Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı ile işbirliği içinde bir şeyler yapılmalı orada. Oraya dair hiçbir proje geliştirilmedi. Turizmde kazanılan paranın kültür projelerine aktarılması gerekir. Çünkü turizmin hammaddesi oteller değil doğal ve kültürel mirastır. Sürdürülebilir turizmin mantığı da budur. Daha fazla sosyal sorumluluk projeleri yapmalı burada iş yapan kuruluşlar şirketler.
Informants R12, R16, R17 think that Kaleiçi can only be restructured with a large budget that the central government will allocate through the Culture Ministry. The suggestion they make regarding “the transfer of the revenues made in tourism to cultural projects”, can be explained as follows using a Bourdiean approach: The economic capital gained in one field, the field of tourism in this case, is reused in the protection of the city’s collective cultural capital through its transfer to the field of culture, or to the Kaleiçi image represented with the Antalya brand (see Chapter 9) as the collective cultural capital and collective symbolic capital will be retransformed into economic capital. Among the fields such circular transformation of the species of capital is what R12 proposes as sustainable tourism.
As discussed in Chapter 9, efforts to have people conjure up Kaleiçi as the heart of Antalya instead ‘sun, sea, sand’, or strategies of branding ‘Antalya’ are urban tourism oriented strategies. The representation of the ‘Antalya’ brand with Kaleiçi , what the city elite also call strategic branding, means the sale of Kaleiçi as a cultural value (=Kaleiçi is for Sale).
Ironically, at the Art Festival in the Kaleiçi in 2003, an artist put up a board on the Clock Tower as his work, which read “The Kaleiçi is For Sale”. With his work, the artist tried to get across the warning that the Kaleiçi, as one of Antalya’s most important pieces of objectified ‘collective cultural capital’ (see Chapter 6) was being sold and leased, in other words had been commercialized and turned into economic capital. However, the message was misunderstood and received negative reactions especially from Antalyalites. FG1, a witness to that day, describes the irony of the incident:
FG1: Artist Gustav Herbert put up a board on the Clock Tower hoping to get the message across that this is your cultural heritage and it needs to be preserved. Everyone, even the so called intellectuals reacted..
With all of these negative developments mentioned above, Kaleiçi remains an area where even the natives are hesitant to go alone, let alone after dark, that they do not recommend to tourists due to safety reasons, where cement blocks have replaced old vernacular buildings long gone (Pictures 7.61; 7.62; 7.63; 7.64), where some old ones may be left to rot for this very reason and those standing frequently change hands, where commercial buildings always have ‘For Sale’ or ‘For Rent’ signs hung on the windows (see Picture 7.57; 7.58; 7.59; 7.60). Kaleiçi, the historic city center has been spatially restructured because of some classic inner city problems associated with migration and commercial gentrification of the vernacular houses through their sales. In order to attract the hypertourists, Pos-tourists, urban tourists or niche tourists, to this Old Town, called Kaleiçi,
As mentioned in the sixth chapter, among the informants, some have mentioned that the only way to preserve the Kaleiçi is to render it non-commercial with a radical decision. For Perdahlı too, the most effective solution to Kaleiçi problem in Antalya is encouraging people to dwell in Kaleiçi District so that the balance between residential and commercial units can be rearranged to keep Kaleiçi’s cultural identity alive. Perdahlı’s other recommendations are listed below:
• The historical ‘Arasta’, known as the Castle Gate on the North Gate of the Castle should be restored to serve as a ‘Kapalıçarşı’ (covered market or Bedesten);
• Kaleiçi should be taken into hand as a whole with the Kalekapısı, Balbey and Haşim İşcan neighborhoods and the entire area should be declared a cultural center;
• Real Estate owners should receive real estate, investment and restoration consulting and the business people should receive management and marketing support;
• The Marina should be made active regarding passenger transportation via the sea;
• All infrastructure services at Kaleiçi and the Gate should be completed;
• Suitable lighting should be installed to encourage nighttime shopping during the summer months;
• The permits of businesses should be checked along with their Antalya Commerce and Industry Chamber or Antalya Tradesmen and Artisans Chambers Association memberships;
• The area to be declared a cultural and art center should be closed off to traffic;
• The insect and vermin problem rapidly worsening in Kaleiçi should be resolved with due haste;
• Camera security systems should be increased;
• The municipality should increase the security measures to dispel beggars, street vendors and shoe cleaners who discourage tourists from coming (Perdahlı, 2007: 44).
The recommendations listed above seem more in line with increasing Kaleiçi’s commercial potential than protecting it. Very arguably, these suggestions will serve less to turn it into a residential area and more to turn into a safer historical shopping mall. Still, all of his recommendations had been applied by the entrepreneurial governance of the 2004-2009 AGM administration between harmonious with the neoliberal policies supported by the central government. As mentioned in subsection 2.2.2, being both destructive of existing local economies and conservative of traditional hierarchical, patriarchal, and exploitative structures, neoliberal governors imagine a city with commercialized and malled street life, suburbanized inner cities, private instead of collective consumption, invisible poverty and homelessness, controlled public spaces, and managed segregation on various scales (Keil, 2000).
With an increase in the use of camera security system Kaleiçi becomes a controlled public space. With some discriminative polices picking up the baggers and street vendors it is aimed to make the poverty and homelessness invisible. Needless to say, the commercialization of the Kaleiçi in the face of the undeniable commercial gentrification of the residential houses is completed with the sterilization of the whole place with the measures recommended by Perdahlı above. As it is true for Kaleiçi case too, although neoliberal politics proposes the liberation of individual entrepreneurial freedoms it is often combined with the most conservative social policies politically possible: they are often anti-immigrant and always anti-marginal
As an urban spatial restructuring example, another change that took place during the AGM 2004-2009 governance term in Antalya was the integration of the historical AGM building in the Karaalioğlu Park (Picture7, the Matrimonial Office , the Silkworm School (Picture 7.39) and Deniz Restaurant buildings with Karaalioğlu Park and their transfer to the Antalya City Museum as ‘display areas’. What is known today as the Karaalioğlu Park , was built on a swamp area with the efforts of Antalya Governor Haşim İşcan during World War II (1940-1945). The construction activities of the building of Karaalioğlu Park began in 1941. Çimrin (2007, v1: 580) describes how famous the park was when it was completed three years later, and that in April 1943 the president of the time, İsmet İnönü came to see Karaalioğlu Park and how Governor Haşim İşcan built Antalya in the war years. Çimrin also mentions that Governor Haşim İşcan dreamt of this park as a Mediterranean Fair. During the 1999-2004 municipal governance term, the national level ‘Antalya Historical Karaalioğlu Park Municipality Building and its Surroundings Urban Design and Preservation Project Competition, which was opened by the AGM on 1 July 2002 under the coordination of MOAŞ, was concluded on 11 October 2002 (MOAŞ, 2004: 130-131). The design team that won first place described their design criteria:
This project involves the regain of a damaged historical City Park and its surroundings in the Antalya city center back to the city. The general approach in the project is to bring out the existing physical and social potential rather than construct a brand new physical and functional city landscape.
The project writers suggested the continuation of the use of the spaces within the park’s historical parts which had a place in the memory of the city within the framework of new arrangements. Within this context, the existing playground, tea gardens, Deniz Restaurant and the Wedding Hall would be given new functions. Later, with the project writers’ consent, it was decided that the Karaalioğlu Park projects would be integrated with the historical structures around it and be turned into the Antalya City Museum (ATSO, 2007 20/237: 31). One of the three types of exhibition types in the Antalya City Museum (AKEM) Project, the ‘permanent exhibitions’ part in the Karaalioğlu Park would be displayed in the four buildings named above. In accordance with this decision, the opening of the museum was planned for 2010 in stages. In the first stage, the “Development of Culinary Culture in Antalya” exhibition would be in and around Deniz Restaurant (Picture 7. 44); “The Family and Marriage in Antalya over the Ages” exhibition was planned in and around the Matrimony Office (Picture 7.42). In the second stage, the “Antalya’s Nature” exhibition to be in the Old Silk Worm Institute (Picture 7.39) and the “Future Perspectives for Antalya” exhibition to be at the old Agricultural House (Picture 7.40) were planned to be opened by the end of 2010. In the third stage, the “Antalya and Antalyalites from the Karain Caves until Today” Exhibition would be in the Public House (Picture 7.41) of the Museum and in the main sections of the Atatürk Sports Hall to be opened in 2011. In the fourth stage, after the moving of the Atatürk Stadium, the Guest Exhibition Hall, the parking lot and the Open Air theater would be opened in 2012 (http://www.antalyakentmuzesi.org.tr).
Today, the historical building still occupied by the AGM was built as the Antalya Public
House and the Republican People’s Party, and was inaugurated on 13 July 1932 (Çimrin, 2007, v1: 361). As acknowledged by the winning project writers the Public House and the Ataturk House within the project area have been certified as ‘unmovable cultural entities’.
Despite being a certified structure, it was recommended that the Agricultural House be preserved considering its place in the city’s memory as a reference from the past. The winning project writers planed a socio-cultural use for this structure. To this end, the ‘Silkworm School’ founded in 1928 and the adjacent “Agricultural House built in 1934 as a Silkworm Station, where mulberry saplings were grown and education took place,” were preserved as exhibition spaces under AKEM (Çimrin, 2007, v1: 540).
The AKEM, planned for the historical Karaalioğlu City Park shows parallel tendencies with the trend in the world regarding the founding of city museums. As discussing enormous amounts of literature about museums and museology would extend beyond the scope of this thesis, only brief information will be provided here about museums in Turkey and the development of museums.
Without doubt, collection was the main reason to establish the museums which led foundation of current museums. Upon opening collections to the public in the eighteenth century in the West, brought about the need for systematic corporate approaches, in addition to the exhibitive and informative functions, and with the social, economic and political developments encountered in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, the museums entered a fast-changing development process. Today, within this process, museums aim at social totality with a visitor and communication based approach. In Turkey, museums’ target primarily began with the protection of Turkey’s rich historical and cultural heritage and the museums emerged as a “contemporary organization” as an indicator of westernization efforts in 19th century (Özkasım and Ögel, 2005: 96).
The founding and development of the Antalya Museum is unusual. On 25 March 1919 the Italians occupied Antalya. One or two archeologists who came to Antalya with the occupying forces started to collect the antique items found in the course of their exploration of the region and transporting them to the Italian Consulate. At that time educator Suleyman Fikri Bey opposed to the Italians who claimed they were doing this in the name of civilization. The small abandoned mosque next to the Tekeli Mehmet Pasha Mosque was rearranged and the foundation of the Antalya Museum was thus laid. When the Italians evacuated Antalya the works of art they had collected were transported to this little museum. After 1937 the Fluted Minaret Mosque was used as a museum. However, more and more ancient remains were being unearthed and exhibited (http://www.kultur.gov.tr). With the discussions of the modern museum approach in the West starting in the 1930-40s and spreading in the 1960s museums were founded in Turkey as well parallel to the approach in the west (Özkasım and Ögel, 2005: 97). Since 1972, the Antalya Museum on Konyaalti, serving in its present building, and reflecting the contemporary museum concepts of the 1960s, is one of Turkey’s largest museums, with 14 exhibition halls and an open air gallery. It covers an area of 7000 m² and has 5000 works of art are exhibited. The Antalya Museum was awarded with the 1988 ‘European Council Special Prize’.
The Antalya City Museum, whose preparations were initiated by AGM under the consultancy and coordination of the Historical Foundation, has the support of NGOs comprising firstly the Antalya City Museum Entrepreneurs Association, then ATSO, ANSİAD, Akdeniz University, academics and Antalyalites. The main purpose of this formation is to bring to daylight Antalya’s history left in the shadow of the sea-sun-sand, to contribute to and spread the citizenship and history awareness among Antalyalites through this education, communication and culture center (ATSO, 2007(237): 30-31).
Orhan Silier (2007: 1), who has also acted as the founding curator of the Antalya City Museum Project, points out that in recent years, many new city museums have opened up all over the world or the first generation city museums that cropped up between the late 19th and early 20th century have renewed themselves with huge investments in terms of content and have moved to much larger spaces than in the past. The historical structures in the enormous land considered for the Antalya City Museum Project and the new museum building are in line with the new tendencies in city museums. During the field research, Orhan Silier states, “The idea of city museums in Turkey came about as a new type of museum culture developed in the world between 93-95, when new city museums were being founded” and provides the following information:
R7: I see my duty not as starting something brand new to materialize my dreams, this would be selfish, but as developing the best model possible with what is at hand and fulfilling existing functions, needs and longings. This overlaps with the structure of the city museum. I don’t believe that the City Museum is a drawing board from some genius curator to try out his craze or his creativity; it should be an optimization and synthesis of the longings of the residents of the city, those running the city, its scientists and artists; it should ease negotiations, and bring together financiers, residents, experts and average people to bring out the commonalities and interact with the best city museum examples in the world. There are two groups of city museums in the world right now; city museums in the world are undergoing their most significant turning point. What I mean is: I have observed a transition from object oriented preservation and storage and display oriented curatorship to a narrative oriented curatorship—not that it excludes objects but— toward a more communicative and educational function and one that contributes to the development of social identities. And this is very clear in city museum curatorship.
To repeat Silier’s words, “the presence of the sharpest transition in museums world from an object oriented, conservation, storage, and exhibition oriented curatorship to a narrative oriented curatorship that brings forth the function of contributing to social identity developments is taking place in the field of city museums” requires a different understanding of history. To explain this transition in Silier’s (2007: 9) words again, a transition is observed in museum culture, from historiography ‘other’ing those from different races, peoples, religions and languages with various superiority claims; in opposition to scientific historiography, based on the rejection of universal values; racist or religious historiography,” or ideological official historiography, to an approach shaped by civil history and oral history.
The Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam, in my opinion one of the best narrative based museums, does not have many items on display. It is not just a narrative based museum, but one where the displays give the visitor a true ‘sense’ of the museum space, which consists merely of an apartment building. The ‘sense’ I get is that there is only a space and this is what is experienced. You get a true sense of that feeling of being imprisoned. Anne Frank has memoirs; you read them, try to understand them and feel ashamed. Then there are the accounts of those who witnessed those years, everything that transpired around Anne Frank, though not directly what she accounts in her diaries. You listen to those accounts, you watch and you feel them. Even though it is a foreign tongue, and you may not understand, you certainly feel the pain in their voices; and what happened in that apartment reminds you of itself in its form as a museum—even though you have never witnessed these events, the experience of being in the museum permanently implants Anne Frank’s memories on your mind.
New City Museums, designed with a narrative based museum approach especially implemented in city museums, appear as spaces that – to brow terms from computer lingo- format the memory of the old city and the new city data is downloaded into the visitors’ mind. Though Silier states at every turn that city museums were born of need, it is debatable whether this need is for producing tourism oriented consumption of space or for ‘cities’ starting to establish City Museums in an effort to prove they are. Informant R7 explains the founding reasons of the City Museum as well as the reasons why Antalya, and in fact, Antalyalites have a ‘profound need’ for a City Museum (see the Pictures 7.52; 7.53):
R7: I think there are a few reasons. First, there is a visionary Mayor, to take a project like this seriously. Second, a group of citizens have conceived of the idea of founding a City Museum Entrepreneurs Association for the last five-six years. Then this association carried this issue to the City Council’s agenda, and the fact that The Historical Society was inspired by local historianism and brought the up topic of the city and this was discussed at ATSO, and another factor might be that Antalya, as a city that rapidly grew after the 80s, really needs a city museum. […]Antalya, like many cities in Turkey—these cities have other qualities—is actually a huge Tourism Town. Those people in this city who are a bit educated and want to look after its future want it to be more than just a big tourism town, not for it to lose this quality, but for it to have more. One of the new critical institutions they came up with that the city needs was a City Museum. There is a wide consensus on this. So no one is saying, what is the need? We already have an Archeology Museum and the one in Kaleiçi. They are aware that similar cities like Krakow, which also receives about 8 million tourists, has 39 museums. One and a half museums in Antalya is not enough. During the period when the museum tourism in Kaleiçi was just beginning to grow, it took on very important functions. A very small unit. I hope that the Suna İnan Kıraç Foundation in Antalya will decide soon and that a good Ethnographical Museum is opened in Antalya, which would make my job easier. I hope the project involving the Weaving Factory being turned into a Fine Arts Museum will work out. All of these are projects that will nurture each other, and cooperate; and these projects will be more necessary because the others exist. They will not compete, to the contrary… I think that to put the situation in Antalya correctly; there is something that TÜBA says: it is an issue of “creating a culture sector”. There is a totality in the work that needs to be done for this purpose. It involves many things like making an inventory of cultural assets to the other end, developing cultural policies and discussion the philosophy but there is also the field of museums and a critical institution of this could be a city museum.
The issue of “creating a culture sector” that Silier speaks of is about the term ‘value’ used in an academic study [“Türkiye’de Kültür Sektörü: Yeni Bir Yapılanma İçin Stratejik Yaklaşımlar” (Culture Industry in Turkey: Strategic Approaches for a New Restructuring)] prepared by Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi (TÜBA)], is a very term easily transformable to the term ‘value’ used in the field of economics. Within the framework of this approach, which affirms the commodification of cultural values in the economic sense, cultural values are transformed into commodities through the culture industry and face the risk of losing their ability to carry cultural value. In response to what he thinks about such a risk, Informant R7 replies:
R7: I don’t agree very much. Here’s what I think. We live in a world with a single pole and rough forms of capitalism rule. Not just in terms of high culture, but in all fields of culture capitalism has huge impacts on the process of cultural production and its operation. The impact is also seen on Museums, and not surprisingly, the only lively area of curatorship in Turkey is Fine Arts Museums and a curatorship field where there are huge capital establishments. This concrete fact—when I say fact I don’t mean to condone it, I mean it as a phenomenon or process—we need a culture that is not commodified within the underlying conditions and one that is not under the control of large capital; what we should do, and what I believe could happen, is to democratize the process, make it widespread, come up with alternatives, have discussions. Therefore, for example, it is not a solution to observe the negative effects of tourism and say “oh let’s not have any more tourists come”. The thing to do here is to try to influence the type of the tourism and to change it. One of the positive aspects of this could be, for example, to channel more resources towards culture more directly. This could also [benefit] the preservation of cultural heritage and nature. [In the tourism field] Just as we can’t say ‘Stop, don’t come’, I think the same is true in the field of museum curatorship and cultural production. It is necessary to take a stance in the processes today so that better alternatives can come about in the future and to make it more democratic and in response to most of the society’s needs.
In R7 terms, “Participating in today’s processes so that better alternatives may come about tomorrow” in Bourdiean terms means occupying on the field as social agent. But for Bourdieu “social agents are not ‘particles that are mechanically pushed and pulled by external forces,” like the “particles under the sway of forces of attraction of repulsion as in magnetic field.” Rather, to Bourdieu (1986: 108), social agents are bearers of [species of] capitals, and depending on their trajectory and on the position they occupy in the field by virtue of their endowment (volume and structure) in capital, they have a propensity toward the preservation of the distribution of capital or toward the subversion of this distribution.
Antalya city MuseumProject Founding Curator Silier, with his high cultural capital as a professor has a wealth of knowledge, or social capital as one of the founders of the Historical Foundation has a social network especially in the field of curatorship, and symbolic capital as one of the people who worked for the İstanbul City Museum Project. As in Bourdieu’s theory of field, the relationship between positions and position-takings of informant R7, the mayor as an individual agent and other occupants as institutions in the field of culture industry is mediated by their dispositions, their feel for the game—habitus. During the game their strategies are a function of the convergence of position and position-taking mediated by their habitus.”
In analytical terms, Bourdieu (Ibid.: 97) defines field as a network, or configuration, of objective relations between positions. In the field of culture industry, in Bourdiean terms, these positions are objectively defined, in their existence and in the determinations they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital) whose possession commands access to the specific profits that are stake in the field, as well as by their objective relation to other positions (domination, subordination, homology, etc.).
The Antalya City Museum Project is a formation whose budget is provided by the AGM and, as of the moment it opens its doors to visitors, it will take its position in the culture industry field and sell Antalya’s collective cultural capital (collective cultural capital attached to Antalya) as a ‘value’ to its visitors. In this formation, which could be defined as a public-private partnership, the public part is the funder AGM. The private part is the Historical Foundation, an NGO. Informant R7, the founding curator of AKEM representing the Historical Foundation upon the AGM’s own request comments on the content and budget of the project:
R7: Actually the budget right now is 25 million YTL [circa 15 million USD]. But I don’t think it can be completed just with 25 million. I think this will increase by about 10% or 20%. When we were just looking at initial estimates, we weren’t aware of the lack of material and research (staff). We thought it would be found but it is hard to find these things. We thought there were experts that could do this, but there mostly isn’t so we had to do it the costly way and bring them in from the outside. That’s why [it would be hard] with a budget of 25-30 million YTL; all of this is funded by the Municipality. I don’t think it will happen this way. Some [needs to be funded by] the private sector, ATSO, ANSIAD and so on. Some sponsorships from national and international corporations. A small but important amount of contribution could be obtained from international culture organizations like the EU or UNESCO’. If the total of these achieve the creation of an autonomous establishment as it says in the first article here, I believe it would be a strong structure.
The past ten to twenty years, however, have seen a dramatic change in the role, character, nature and design of museums and in museum visitors. In the late twentieth century, a growing number of museums have become centers of style and design, blockbuster exhibitions, corporate patronage, and cultural distinction. In addition, in the search for social distinction in a more populist age, marked by the expansion of a wealthy professional and managerial middle class, art and patronage of art museums have become powerful new sources of cultural distinction (Bourdieu, 1984). Today museums are more customer-oriented since they frequently have to rely more on admission charges, corporate sponsorship and other commercial activities than on shrinking public funding. Finally, given the success of some spectacular new and refurbished museums in attracting large numbers of visitors, and generating jobs and visitor spending, museums now have a growing role as ‘tools’ for urban regeneration (Hamnett and Shoval, 2003: 222).
It is obvious that the historical Karaalioğlu City Park will be spatially restructured with the winning project and the new arrangements to be made to turn it into the City Museum. All these projects which have been spatially restructuring the field of urban in Antalya mentioned above are indeed the social processes resulting in the production of the city were not distinctly urban, but endemic to capitalist society in Castells’ understanding of city. As he (2000: 393) argues, “spatial transformation must be understood in the broader context of social transformation: space does not reflect society, it expresses it, and it is fundamental dimension of society”.
The winning project (see Pictures from 7.46 to 7.51) writers of the ‘Antalya Historical Karaalioğlu Park Municipality Building and its Surroundings Urban Design and Preservation Project Competition’ recommended the building of a new AGM Building. To this end, the project writers suggested a smaller, accessible and a local administration structure integrated into socio-cultural uses, against the tendency to approach local administration structures in the cities’ new development areas as large scale monumental structures. However, a new location was found for the AGM building and construction commenced.
The construction of the Cotton Textile Factory of Sümerbank began in 1955. The factory went into production in 1961 and closed in 2003 (Pictures 7.28; 7.29; 7.30). The area where the Battery Factory and the Weaving Factory are were planned as a sub-center and a City Park in
grounds along with the market. Later, an advance project was prepared by the Metropolitan Municipality regarding the space but the 1/1000 scale plan change wasn’t made as the project had not become certain and election time had come.
accordance with Antalya’s general development tendencies and the Master plan strategies. The Zoning Plans approved by the municipalities were taken into consideration in line with these strategies. The east of the Weaving Factory was planned as a City Park and the west was planned as a ‘sub-center’ with to have specialized markets, office buildings, multi-storey parking lots, a city square, neighborhood sports area and other public spaces, the basis for the all set on scientific and technological data and with the support of the citizens and NGOs. In the approved Zoning Plan, there would be an east-west pedestrian traffic flow between the areas of the two factories and the park would be integrated with central and commercial uses.
According to MOAŞ, “a new plan was made with the sole purpose of attaining annuity despite the objections of the people and NGOs, without any basis in scientific or technical data by the Turkish Privatization Administration (ÖİB) and it received the approval dated 26 April 2004 and numbered 2004/34” within the scope of the privatization of the Weaving Factory, which closed down in 2003 (MOAŞ, 2007: 85; MOAŞ, 2006: 14). Upon the continuing objections to the plan, the privatization decision for the Weaving Factory Area was revoked by the ÖİB and was handed over to the Kepez Municipality Company, who was the resident of the space, and to the Kepez Municipality as per the public interest principle. According to the MOAŞ report dated 2007, the planning of the area was started out correctly by the Kepez Municipal Company. Later, however, despite all objections from profession chambers, NGOs and the public, and even though the land was public property, this space, which also contained the factory buildings mentioned above, was granted to a company with a foreign partner for 49 with right of construction. R19, R7 and FG5 say the following about this area which was planned through public-private partnership with the entrepreneurial governance model:
R19: Before the municipality, it was brought under the scope of privatization in 2002. In September 2003, they stopped production in the factory altogether. Around that time, plans were underway for the privatization of the place. Let’s prepare a plan together but first this place has to be owned. The NGOs, everyone supported Hasan Üstün and the City Council started collecting signatures. This is how they usually do it; they set up a lure, if no one says anything they go on, if there’s opposition they step down. That’s what happened then too. When the protests got louder around September- October 2004, they gave up the tender idea. Of course the Mayor and the Kepez Mayor came and said they had been successful and we thanked them. The approval of the Privatization board is necessary again because it was transferred to the municipality without leaving the scope of privatization. Hasan Üstün called me and asked, “This place can not be demolished. What can we do?” We decided to first petition the Preservation Board. We were lucky that Hasan Üstün had time to spare for this around that time. They said it would take the board two months to decide. Then we thought about what to do. Those who were bidding for Factory Area were a Dutch company, who mostly build office and shopping centers. A multinational corporation called Multi-TürkMall. They form multinational corporations to overcome legal problems in the country they will do business in, these kinds of companies. Then the board decided for the protection of those buildings in their present state. It was widely debated and the Architects’ Chamber and the City Planners’ Chamber opposed the protection order. First they gave the job to Eren Talu, an architect from İstanbul. He said, it would be sacrilegious to destroy the main buildings of this factory and got out. R7: As a result, when they are thinking about an old industrial facility that the city deems unfunctional and how to use that piece of land as large as this that has so much economic value, a contract is announced and a company called TürkMall gets it. Plans are made for the factory part to become a cultural center, a fine arts center but for the large land to be made into a mall. The city’s affluent conservationist intellectuals, with the Architects’ Chamber in the lead, file a law suit, saying that this is disproportionately based on shopping and economic gain and the State Council stops the bid. I believe that a short while later a decision will come from the council and if the power balance continues like this, the project will go on somehow. […] I think the problem is that this is disproportional, they are disconnected from the city’s intelligentsia and want to do everything themselves. I don’t think there is a problem having to do with the essence of the project or the museum, but with style, relations and proportions but there are people with more knowledge about this than me.
FG5: Farther along the Weaving Factory’s land, there is a piece of forest land that belongs to the foundation toward our university. Now that place was allocated to a Dutch company called Multi-Türkmall by the Kepez Municipality to. The factory part in the front is going to be turned into a technology museum (or a modern arts museum). That land was leased to Multi-Turkmall for 49 years with the factory building on it. They will build a closed and then an open mall. They are going to build an open courtyard space with commercial establishments like in the shopping area in Kaleiçi. Two towers at the end s of the mall. One designed as a hotel, the other as a residence. These two towers are actually residences. A three level shopping mall in the front and two towers behind it. Then the open air shopping area like Kaleiçi, more fitting for the antique city culture and architecture and then there’s a third step behind that,; they are thinking hospital tourism. That also has its own permanent shops. Something like IKEA and one of those typical chain supermarkets.
In October 2005, with the public pressure mentioned above, the ‘Forum Antalya Leisure
Park’ to be built by the TurkMall company, brought about the demolition of the buildings in the Weaving Factory area handed over to the Kepez Municipality from the Turkish Privatization Administration.259 Later, the Weaving factory, the project for which had been prepared by architect Eren Talu260 to become one the world’s best Museum of Modern Arts (MOM), was declared an ‘Unmovable Cultural Entity’ upon NGOs’ petition dated 7 September 2005 by the Preservation Board.261 Levent Eyuboğlu (Dokuma Modern Art Museum Sculpture Symposium, 2007: 2-3), the
CEO of the multi-national developer company Multi Turkmall, explains the objectives of the Project262 (Pictures 7.31; 7.32; 7.33; 7.34) that for this inactive factory and the land it occupies as follows:
We, as Multi Turkmall, are determined to wake the sleeping giant which is located close to the center of Antalya, with the color of its buildings fading day by day, the grease of its machines and drying and its land becoming infertile. In and around the factory, where there is an intense greenery, there will be an urban park open to all Antalya citizens, a modern art museum, places for cultural and artistic events and areas where people can spend time. In some of the buildings that will be saved around the factory, workshops for presenting and teaching arts and crafts will be opened. Also within this area, places for symposiums, panels, demonstrations and exhibitions will be created for public use. In this 200 thousand square meter area, with its culture and art, with its museum and entertainment, with the green of its trees and the blue of its ponds, citizens of Antalya will inhale the air that they’ve been missing in the city. In the nearby area of 288 thousand square meters, a shopping mall inspired by the region’s distinctive architecture will be built. Within the mall, there will be bazaars hosting word-famous brand shops, streets, squares and entertainment areas. All the investment will be made by local firms.
Eyüboğlu also claims that with this Project, which will provide employment for five thousand people, one of the world’s biggest aquariums will be built in Antalya. According to the plan the textile factory will rejoin the city as a center of culture, art and commerce, meeting the requirements of both today and tomorrow. As all other projects spatially restructuring Antalya this investment is to attract the tourist to the urban life. FG5, who believes that with this project a shopping mall will be created in this space and not a cultural center:
In Lefebvreian terms the whole are of the factory which was socially produced as space of consumption in the late 1950s had been exploited for the purpose and by means of production of consumer goods in quantities for 42 years. However, this old building left in the middle of the city and the 288 acres of green space around it are still an attractive investment prospect for investors. Regardless, this project presented as a cultural center project also to include a Museum of Modern Arts (MOM) to create a new attraction center in Antalya is actually a shopping mall project. The earlier space of consumption is going to be transformed into consumption of space for the purpose of unproductive forms of consumption and by means of consumption of this charming space for the qualities consumers seek namely, cultural, artistic and entertaining qualities, and leisure and shopping practices, in this place the developer company has named ‘Forum Antalya Leisure Park’.
One of the three basic strategies the city shareholders list in the Presentation of the Antalya City Vision Kent First Report as multi-centered decentralization through the transformation of spatially specialize areas into centers of attraction appears to be implemented in the Weaving Area, which remains within the boundaries of the Kepez Municipality. Informant R18, speaking on behalf of the Kepez municipality says the following on this project:
R18: The project we’re trying to in the Cotton Textile Factory Area is a project for creating a city center. Not just for Kepez, but for Antalya. It’s a 500 acre project, with a 300 acre city square. It is here that there is a City Museum. The Modern Art Museum and this is a project to give the city an identity by conserving all of the factory spaces and turn them into a city museum. Furthermore, in our project there is the world’s third largest aquarium underground to make it a center of attraction. Next to it, there will be residences, office buildings and movie theaters to support these and thus serve citizenship. But right now the project is idle, pending. Hopefully after the elections. It was a project we cared about, hopefully it will come into being. We don’t foresee any problems right now. […] First of all, this project was going to change the city center. Second, it would help decongest Antalya traffic. Third, it will save it from having a single center. I think the greatest problem with cities is that they have a single center. There should be a few. Look at the big cities in the world, they all have a few centers. Like, go to Istanbul, Taksim is a center and so is Kadıköy.
Kepez Mayor Erdal Öner says they have turned Kepez into an attraction with the infrastructure and supra structure investments they have achieved at the information meeting held by the Antalya
The Weaving Working Group claimed that the Sculpture Symposium (Pictures 7.35; 7.36) held on 1-22 September 2006 on the Weaving Factory Space declared as an ‘Unmovable Cultural Entity’ “was a new illegal attempt concealed behind the art of sculpture” (Ekspres, 31.08.2006). As Eyuboğlu, the CEO of the Multi Turkmall, admits too “the first step of the Dokuma Modern Art Museum would be a symposium.” For him, the host of the International Sculpture Symposium would be the area where the museum would be set up. Again, some objections comes from informant R19:
R19: I think that holding a Sculpture Symposium there before the law suit against the Municipality is resolved is making a fool of people. It also involves completely ignoring the presence of NGOs. Doing something before this stain is removed is trying to forcefully do something people deem wrong.
What should be first understood from Molotch’s (1976) ‘growth machine’ thesis is that the pro-growth coalition typically brings together landowners and land developers—often those with concentrated investments in old or emerging business districts where potential land values are highest—and this coalition is typically reinforced by local utility companies, construction unions, news media, and even cultural organizations. MOAŞ, repeated the conciliatory attitude for the UTP developed for Kaleiçi and the surrounding area for the project developed in the Cotton Textile Factory area. The President of MOAŞ informant R21, gives the following explanation in reaction to the public criticism they received for their supportive attitude towards pro-growth coalition projects:
R21: The weaving factory was privatized. Then the architects’ chamber said that they would sue if this place was revitalized, then we took it to Local Agenda 21, fought it out there and it got out of privatization. It was turned over to a company, 99,99% of whose shares belong to the Kepez Municipality. The Municipality was consulting with NGOs about what to do and finally they ended up giving the contract to a Dutch company, which I didn’t think was right. Then we asked for an investigation into which of the buildings could be preserved and which had to be torn down with the preservation board. A journalist came out and said that this should be declared a historical site, the whole thing should be preserved. […] Then the chamber of architects and the Municipality gave each other ultimatum in front of the public. We said we’d build in the front and in the back, if the construction index was dropped from 1% to 0,50%, can’t really remember the index right now, but we said if you decrease the index by half, we will sue you because you will have obtained it from privatization. So they decreased the index as per our request. Then the others asked for the whole space to be declared a historical site and we disagreed, saying what could be preserved should be preserved but that this could be structured as a sub-center of Antalya in Kepez. So we should preserve what we can but let’s not make the whole area into a preservation area and leave the preservation council in a difficult position. But they disagreed with us.
R21: Look, there was a newspaper journalist […] who made suggestions about the weaving factory that I couldn’t believe, he said it couldn’t be done this way and that it should be done that way, he was angry. He said that this building and that building shouldn’t be torn down […] But we say it like it is. We have [no part in] politics. We are not led by a political party. We do not belong to the AGM either. Bow we came out and said, “Friends, we fought for a long time and filed lots of law suits and look at what has become of the city. This term we are going to try and negotiate and compromise and see if we can’t protect some spaces.” Wow, this made everyone really angry. They said the architects’ chamber was scared and so on. Then we came to the point where, we have filed thirty law suits against the Municipality but those who criticize us have done nothing. So we said,: “we are going to compromise, and file law suits as the last resort if we need to”. But we came out of the negotiations with two gains. For example, we negotiated with the Konyaaltı Municipality and won back 60 thousand square meters of space, 60 acres for the city, the one that belonged to the Highways Directorate. […] [The Conservation Board], after completing its investigation, resolved that the buildings there, except for the administrative building, could be torn down. […] Despite the Board’s decision about the weaving factory, we recommended that the building should be preserved in its entirety. […] The plan for the preservation of places previously resolved for demolition was approved by the board. Now the court has stopped the project because it has been put out to tender. A Modern Arts Museum is going to be built in the front anyway. The housing will be torn down. The main factory building will remain. [In the front] there will be a shopping mall, but we can say that it is the best planned place in Antalya to date.
The protection of all of the buildings on the factory land that MOAŞ says is a victory as a result of the compromise does not seem like it will prevent this 288 acres of green space in the middle of the city from being turned into a shopping mall. An important but often overlooked aspect of Molotch’s thesis was the claim that growth coalitions not only strive to create the material preconditions for growth but also to convince people of the importance of growth to their well being. Under leadership of the AGM, an observable elite organization (of Chamber-s of Commerce and others like MOAŞ, ANSIAD, Akdeniz University, etc.) actively supporting growth promotion by using the media and even the multi-level governance of state indicates the existence of growth machine in Antalya. In addition to these three indicators of the existence of growth machine, there are others who are not convinced with these growth tails of entrepreneurial projects and neoliberal policies in Antalya. Owing to this opposition group, in Eyuboğlu’s (the CEO of the developer firm) words “the sleeping [green] giant close to the center of Antalya” still stays green.
Olympic Sports Stadium
Another important project to change the appearance of the city is the construction of a stadium in compliance with FIFA criteria, with 30 thousand spectator capacity, a closed gym with 10 thousand capacity and a 100 thousand m2 commercial area to ensure annuity for the construction of this facility, in the area where the 100. Yıl Sports Facility serving amateur athletes lies behind the Falez and Sheraton hotels (Picture 7.37). During the AGM’s 2004-2009 governance term, the right to use the 100. Yıl Sports Facility space, the property of which belongs to the Youth and Sports General Directorate, was granted to the ABŞS for 49 years. Following the allocation, the AGM made a change in the plans that changed 40,000 m2 of the area to a commercial zone under the heading “central development axis”, and planned for the central government to build a 30,000 seat stadium and a 12,000 capacity closed gym (Picture 7.38). According to MOAŞ, with this plan change, another public property was taken away for the purpose of annuity (MOAŞ, 2007: 85). MOAŞ and the city’s NGOs opposed the project for the following reasons:
“The AGM’s duties do not involve building stadiums; the facility suggested will be adjacent to an 800 bed capacity hospital and two large 5 start touristic resorts and dense residential areas; no investigation of the environmental impact has taken place; the plan is in violation of the Transportation Master Plan decisions and other relevant regulations; the project requires parking space to fit 5,000 cars, and 250 buses for a 30,000 spectator capacity stadium; and because it doesn’t fit criteria such as the following: the parking area should not be more than 1,500 meters away from the stadium, the main road should be easily accessible, the buses of the two teams should be put in two separate parking lots…” (Sönmez, 2008: 43)
Mayor Türel, in the interview he gave on 18 September 2006 to Hürriyet-Akdeniz journalist Dursun Gündoğdu, explains the stadium project and why they wanted to build it inside the city:
FIFA, UEFA and FIBA do not want investments made in sports facilities not in walking distance for the public, that are not on public transport routes, that are far from hospitals.
The 100. Yıl Sport Complex tender announced on 6 September 2006, which resulted in a huge controversy, was given to the company that had also won the Lara City Park tender. After the announcement of the results, Mayor Türel said, “The tender was transparent, everything is legal”; while the MHP City President Akar said, “This tender was the rematch for the Lara City Park and we will take legal action to cancel this tender”. The CHP City President Melli said, “This is a political annuity project”. Despite all objections from the people and the civil initiatives done by legal means the AGM has started the project. The contents of the AGM contract are below:
The tender covering the project prepared by the AGM involves; the construction of a 30,000 spectator capacity multipurpose football stadium compliant with UEFA criteria on 164,187 m2 of the 246,251 m2 of 100. Yil Sports Complex land that belongs to the Youth and Sports General Directorate; a gymnasium and an indoor Olympic sized swimming pool, each with 2,500 spectator capacity on the Foundations General Directorate’s land in the Kızıltoprak Neighborhood. 40,000 m2 will belong to the company.
As an example to UPPs the Olympic Stadium project is used as instrument of social control relates to the way ‘growth machines’ appropriate local sources of civic pride as part of their own legitimization. Like other UPPs, the Olympic Stadium project for the activities of local football teams and other sports organizations is developed by the partnership of the local municipal governments and private sectors while annihilating the autonomy—independency in Pahl’s word (see Chapter 2.2., and Chapter 3.3.2.)—of the managers, as controllers, planners or social workers, architects or education officers, even estate agents or property developers.
The Antalya Branch of the Chamber of Architects claimed that the work that began in the center of Antalya in 2004 changed the appearance of the city considerably and that this change would continue rapidly with implementation of the current projects (Sönmez, 2008: 39). Having retired from his position as the president of ATSO followed by his election as AGM mayor in 2004, Menderes Türel, was interviewed in 2006 by Dursun Gündoğdu for the newspaper HürriyetAkdeniz235. In the piece, Türel announces this rapid change by advising the people of Antalya that “they should take pictures of Antalya today and keep them in albums at home, because Antalya’ picture is going to change”.
The Local Agenda 21-Antalya City Council (LA21), AGM and the Antalya Chamber of
Trade and Industry (ATSO) jointly published in 2008 the Presentation of the Antalya City Vision First Report. This report, which concerned Antalya’s vision for the future, identified ‘three fundamental areas for development potential”236 to form as a basis for the change and transformation in the city.
233 R2: Mesela 1930’larda Muratpaşa Vakfı’nın arazisi 106 000 dönüm. Şimdi 3000 dönümden az. Ne oldu bu 103 000 dönüm? Kent oldu, bina oldu, yol oldu. Şimdi 3000 dönüm zeytinlik kaldı, gözlerini oraya diktiler şimdi. Orası kentin içinde ada gibi kaldı. Burdur’a giderken solda Ferro-Krom arasında 3000 dönüm zeytinlik kaldı.
234 Unless another source has been cited, the information in this section has been summarized from Sönmez, R. (2008) “Antalya’da Yeni Kentsel Düzenlemeler” Mimarlık, 344: 39-43.
235 See the Interview mayor Menderes Türel gave to Dursun Gündoğdu “Haftanın Sohbeti” Hürriyet-Akdeniz, 18.09.2006.
236 The following are recommendations for the first, which regards mobilizing Antalşya’s potential to become a city of “specialized service in tourism” (Antalya Kent Vizyonu İlk Rapor Sunuşu, 2008: 8):
1. Creating an environment for trade, service and tourism recreation investments in Antalya;
2. Supporting tourism and recreation activities in and near the city to make Antalya a national and international level culture and convention as well as sports and health tourism center;
3. Supporting specialization and diversification in tourism and year-round activities;
4. Ensuring the development of Antalya in the trade and service sectors, and intensification ofculture, recreation and trade activities.
The second are recommendations for improving the quality of life in Antalya and for the realization of the urban transformation for inhabitable and healthy urban surroundings:
1. Ensuring the balanced distribution of population and activities in the subregions to prevent the uncontrolled growth of the city on the edges and in the center;
2. Developing the transportation and infrastructure systems in the city so that they ease living;
(2008: 8). The first of these for Antalya to gain the qualification of “specialized service in tourism”; the second was for transformation to take place in Antalya towards “the improvement of living standards and an inhabitable urban environment”; and third was defined as the realization of an “effective and democratic local administration”. Three basic strategies were developed for the potential for development mentioned above:
The aim is to: decrease the pressure on the city center through a planned ‘decentralization’ strategy by handling the spatial development of the city by including nearby municipalities and rural areas; protect tradition and historical assets; moving unorganized businesses to outside the city; and enable transformation projects in these areas; and develop intracity and intercity transportation and operations. Thus, the goal is to make each spatially specialized region into a center of attraction.
Within the scope of Urban transformation strategies the sub-strategies developed were; the ‘protection’ substrategy, the ‘redevelopment’ sub-strategy regarding a planned property order, ‘renewal and revitalization’ strategies for shanty areas, public spaces and old industrial sites within the scope of privatization
The goals within Implementation strategies were the consideration of urban design as a tool to serve as data for the planning, and the development of models based on ensuring the fair distribution of social benefits from city rentier creation among the city share holders the project implementation phase through participation oriented forms of organization.
The projects planned and mostly implemented within the framework of the three fundamental strategies listed have been given in detail below. Antalya, in the context of these projects, as in all cities governed by neoliberal politics, is imagined as a city with commercialized and malled street life, with entrepreneurial urban governance instead of strong managerial urban government, with low residential property taxes, private instead of collective consumption, invisible poverty and homelessness through picking up the beggars from the streets of inner city, controlled public spaces with camera security systems, and managed segregation on various scales.
Inner-city Transportation Network
According to MOAŞ, one of the most important endeavors changing the constructed structure of the city has been the construction of large scale intersections and underground passes (Pictures 7.6; 7.7; 7.8) in the inner-city transportation network. When we look at the other cities in
Turkey under the administration mayors from AKP—Ankara, İstanbul, Denizli—we see that the
3. Protecting the city’s historical assets by making it possible for them to gain new meaning within the city’s constantly renewed identity;
4. Kentte çevresel değerlerin koruyarak geliştirilmek ve çevre standartlarını arttırmak;
5. Göçle gelen nüfusu yerleşik nüfus ile bütünleştirmek.
The third are recommendations for the implementation of “an active and democratic local government”:
1. Facilitating the formation of an administrative integrity and planning authority for the purpose of establishing an active and democratic local government system in Antalya together with the nreadby municipalities and rural areas;
2. Ensuring a planned development that encompasses the surrounding settlements within the inhabiting and construction process in Antalya;
3. Organizing by empowering professional organizations, NGOs and local administrations for an effective and participatory planning model.
underground passes and intersections exist in Antalya a well. Informant R19 says the following on this matter:
R19: So Ankara, then Istanbul, and now Antalya. The projects, you know about those; things like building underpasses, overpasses and bridged junctions. Then you see that the contractor that built the construction in Ankara is the same as the one that built them in Antalya or Denizli. I think we can conclude that the metropolitan mayors in cities like Ankara, Antalya and Istanbul have no function. They get orders from higher up to write up projects that so and so companies can take on, and the mayors from the AKP party approve such projects, the company that will win the contract is set anyway. I think that local governments need to regain their local authority. Today, especially AKP’s municipalities are the local spokespeople for the central government and they function as the mechanisms that lift the obstructions in front of the bureaucratic hindrances.
The municipal governances, which function as sub-mechanisms that the central government uses to overcome bureaucratic problems in localities (the same projects being implemented by the same companies in local governances as in the example provided by R19), overlook the narrowing of their own general field of power when necessary, in the event that they come up against local oppositions (as in the declaration of the Lara Region as a KTKGB and the transfer of the entire authority on the subfield to the ministry of the central government). As seen in Antalya case, too, neoliberals believe that privatization and deregulation combined with competition, eliminate bureaucratic red tape, increase efficiency and productivity, improve quality, and reduce costs, both directly to the consumer through cheaper commodities and services and indirectly through reduction of the tax burden to improve city’s competitive position as an entity vis-à-vis other states in the global market (Harvey, 2006: 27).
According to the Antalya Branch of the Chamber of Architects, should the intersection plans implemented by the Antalya Greater City municipality and the 13th Regional Office of the Directorate of are completed, the main plan guiding the city’s transportation and traffic system will be violated from the get go. In other words, this intersection and road system underway will act as data and this incorrect data will yield an incorrect plan.
It was announced that the tunnel interchanges, whose construction started with a ground breaking ceremony on 24 October 2004 attended by Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with the promise of completion within 120 days, would be open for use four months later on 15 February 2005 (ATSO, 2004: 9). The plans involved a system starting from the Kızıltoprak Neighborhood in the area called ‘Meydan’ (Main Square) in Antalya, going past Mevlana Street to Güllük and to Konyaaltı, and then to the shopping center structure (called Migros). These plans for the intersection on the main artery of the city, which was referred to by the citizens as ‘battı-çıktı’, led to a great deal of controversy but were eventually implemented. MOAŞ’s opinion regarding the artery on which there are seven intersections can be summarized as follows:
The intersections AGM claims to have been built according to the Antalya Transportation Master Plan can only be a short term solution to traffic. In the long term they will make traffic more congested, negatively affect the rail system to be built in the future in the city, and that, despite the statements made, the construction of these intersections without the Antalya Transportation Master Plan will not yield positive results Sönmez, 2008: 39).
Another example of urban spatial restructuring in Antalya is the transition to rail system transportation within the inner-city transportation network. In an interview he gave on 18 September 2006, mayor Türel announced that the rail system tender would take place at the end of 2006 (Hürriyet-Akdeniz, 18.09.2006). Named Antalya Stage 1 Rail System Line, the rail system was planned to run from the north of the city to the city center in the south along the main artery— Kepez, Bus station, Muratpaşa, Meydan. The plan was that system would be 11.1 km long, and have two lines, one in each direction. The first stage of the Light Rail System (Picture 7.9), which had been planned to go into use in 2010, was completed within the promised period. The first trial run of three kilometers took place with AGM mayor Menderes Türel in attendance from the Fatih stop to the Bus Station intersection on 2 January 2009.
In addition to the new arrangements made in the inner-city transportation network, in this period, discussions of Antalya’s connection to the railroad network resurfaced. This matter, which was thought to be among the most urgent action plans, is commented on by ANSIAD president informant R23:
R23: The government should invest in direct flights to Antalya’. There should be a fast train from Antalya to Alanya and the train should also connect Antalya to Ankara and Istanbul, this is crucial. I mean, look, we have lots of wealthy people who go abroad from İstanbul and Ankara. If there were a fast train, they would come to Antalya as well. More of our mid-level income citizens would come to Antalya if there were a fast train. If the city center of Antalya were revitalized, canyon tourism, golf tourism, football tourism and so on would become significant. And if the gastronomy tourism were revitalized, it could easily be done in the city center. You know, Mediterranean cuisine.
For example, in the preface of Akşin’s (1997: 20) The History of Turkey, Volume 5: Turkey Today (1980-1995); the necessity of the immediate linkage of Bursa, Antalya and Trabzon to the railroad network is stressed. In fact, this issue debated since the 1980s. In the booklet called ANSIAD Following the Founding Years (Kuruluş Döneminin Ardından) (1999: 38) which is a collection of the views of Sadık Badak, the founding president of ANSIAD between 1990 and 1998, it is underlined that tying Antalya to Central Anatolia via the railroad is an economic as well as strategic necessity. According to Badak, with the lack of railroad taken care of, the Antalya Port will be able to fully join the Turkish and regional economy and an immense mobility of goods will be enabled. In another ANSIAD publication, the booklet called Antalya’s Vision 2023, the Antalya242 of the year 2023 is imagined as follows:
We dream of a city which is connected via to Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir a motorway, there are fast trains running, the airport is among the 50 largest in the world, there are flights to all of the major cities in the EU and chartered flights to some US cities, Courvoisier ships visit often, ferryboats run to the important Mediterranean ports, there are small boats going between coastal towns, and a light rail system exists for inner- city transportation (Antalya 2023 Vizyon, 2006: 10-11).
It is clear that the issue is on the central government’s agenda from a comment statement made by Kemal Unakıtan, the Minister of Finance on 2 June 2007, at ATSO’s Special Assembly Meeting “The railroad should be brought to Antalya” (ATSO, Vizyon, 2007 20/233:25). These words by the Minister of Finance support one of the central arguments of this dissertation that the ‘state’, or more accurately, ‘the central government’ is literally an actor in the ‘growth machine’ formation. Looking at how often the Prime Minister and the relevant ministries visit Antalya, the significance the city holds for the central government is clear. Informants R21, R18 and R14 comment on the importance the central government places on Antalya:
R21: Imagine, Recep Tayyip comes to Antalya every chance he gets. It’s because the market is here.243
R18: Let me tell you this: the investments made by the government in the last 4-5 years are equivalent to the investments made over the last 50 years. This means five quadrillion. This is a serious figure. Antalya has become a city of considerable prestige with all its roads, connecting roads, the second airport terminal, its hall of justice and all other investments. The central government has contributed enormously. In the last five years, that is. If it weren’t for this support, honestly, tourism in Antalya would come to a halt. […] The prime minister visited 25 times, ministers came and other work was done here every week. It is a great stroke of luck for Antalya to have a minister in the central government.
R14: The central government and Antalya have always gotten along actually. I have always has a positive view of investments in Antalya. The government places importance on Antalya. It has been this way this year as well ever since the new government came along. AKP won here, anyway; Menderes Türel. He is fully supported by the prime minister and the ministry. But this isn’t only about Antalya; there are issues the Ministry of Tourism needs to resolve. The ministry is a bit passive on these.245
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, during a speech on television on a news show said, “I have been to Antalya 28 times. Why? Because we need vision cities, [we need] brand cities” and reveals the active role the central government plays in restructuring Antalya.246
The Pedestrianization of the City Center
During the 2004-2009 period, the AGM started a second project, namely the transformation of Antalya’s traditional city center to a cultural city center. Sönmez (2008: 39-40) defines the scope and goals of the Project to Pedestrianize the Historical City Center in Antalya:
The protection and development of the region’s historical and cultural assets, landscaping, efforts to reveal historical structures that can not be perceived or tracked due to disorganized construction, as well as the Pedestrianization of the city center. Furthermore, the Pedestrianization of the Antalya city center starting from Republic Square to the area called the East Station and to Hadrian’s Gate, also named Üç Kapılar is under consideration. It has been deemed a necessity to close Kaleiçi off to traffic with the exception of a limited number of private vehicles and the existing rail system.
The project implemented by AGM to pedestrianize the traditional city center of Antalya as an ‘Urban Arrangements Project’ is actually and ‘Urban Transformation Project’
245 MOAŞ explains their opinions about the Urban Transformation Projects as follows: “Urban transformation, considering examples of implementation, has become a name coined by the Government to directly or indirectly make the people living in shanty neighborhoods left in the middle of the city, as a result of the rapid growth of cities, move to areas farther from the city where the annuity is lower and thus appropriate the city annuity to itself, by claiming that this will improve the economy. With this method, depending on the capital, these valuable shanty lands now in the middle of the city will be home to new and luxury buildings under the heading of URP, and new annuity oriented projects will be created around them for more capital. According to the Government and capital circles, this will rejuvenate the stagnant construction sector and the real estate market and create new annuity as well economic dynamism with other annuity facilities to be created around the luxury housing built, thus revitalizing many other sectors. On the other hand, the shanty properties owned by economically disadvantaged or public properties near or in the city center are also given to domestic or international capital that wants to appropriate city annuity and build multi storey residences is also now being called urban transformation. TOKİ has been and is being used as a tool to ease this process and avoid penalties determined in laws and bylaws and avoid any obstacles hindering the implementation. Urban transformation has become a method of
However, an active NGO in Antalya, the Antalya Branch of the Chamber of Architects (MOAŞ), supported this UTP which they believed would enable the people of the city to remember the traditional city center and sustain it, and, tourists and citizens to use this center as pedestrians. However, the support extended by MOAŞ to the project was interpreted as support of the municipality in creating annuity in the city center for the profit of some. With the belief that policies and projects can be created in the interest of the public by opposing the dominant philosophy of UTPs and annuity, substantiate their response to these criticisms and accusations with this project, which was nominated for the 2008 historical cities union promotion and incentive and conservation awards, not to mention the award it won the Historical Cities Union Jury Special Award for implementation
The Antalya Branch of the Chamber of Architects has started legal action against the Culture and Tourism Conservation and Development Zones declared in accordance with the Tourism Support Act.248 However, during the course of this lawsuit, the area encompassing Kaleiçi, Balbey, the Haşim İşcan Neighborhood and Kalekapısı has been declared KTKGB by the Council of Ministers. MOAŞ has kept its distance, taking into consideration the lack of serious work Municipal Governments up to now have done in the area as well as the decreased authority compared to the present that Greater City Municipalities have been granted regarding cultural spaces in previous local administration laws. During the declaration of the aforementioned area as KTKGB, as far as it could be seen from the public eye, negotiations were held about not taking legal action provided the AGM undertakes serious work with NGOs, and MOAŞ, and the decision was made that no legal action would be taken regarding this area with the condition that the AGM take into account MOAŞ feedback and recommendations. Informant R21, who represents MOAŞ within the scope of the field research describes the happenings:
R21: You see many Urban Transformation Projects (UTP) in Turkey, don’t you? Now there is a URP that the AGM is carrying out in the city center. The greatest supporter of their project is MOAŞ. According to this tourism support law, MOAŞ has filed lawsuits against all of the tourism zones, tourism centers, or as they are now called, all culture tourism development regions within the city limits of Antalya. We filed 13 lawsuits. As we sued them, the ministry changed their plans, without the city’s people even knowing about it. Now, the Tourism Ministry has declared Antalya’s Kaleiçi, Balbey Haşim İşcan, Kalekapısı and their surrounding areas as KTKGB. After this declaration, the chamber of architects Antalya branch came out and said to the AGM: “Look, nothing has been done in Kaleiçi since 1980. None cared about Kaleiçi or Balbey. Now if you’re going to do serious work here, you need to involve the NGOs, and if you do, then we might not sue to save these areas. But we want guarantees.” It turned out that the AGM said, “Yes, don’t sue us and let’s work together and we’ll give you the guarantee you want”. As MOAŞ and AGM, we signed a new protocol concerning the replanning of these areas. The main goal of the protocol was to gather NGOs, all Antalya residents and experts in cultural spaces in Turkey and to work on making this place a cultural center. A project to turn this traditional city center into a cultural center. Immediately after signing the protocol we put together a local and a national board.
The fact that MOAŞ had sued the other KTKGBs declared within the city limits of Antalya but not Kaleiçi and its surroundings and was involved in the planning process, served to legitimatize and exonerate the UTP developed for this area in the public eye. Thus, with the participation of MOAŞ, the Kaleiçi Area UTP, intrinsically an example of entrepreneurial planning, is perceived as a participatory, communicative and negotiative planning process. Informant R19 holds similar opinions regarding this UTP:
R19: Planning has become a tool recently. For example, if they manage to turn Kaleiçi into a cultural center, it would be good for the area, but they just haven’t been able to do it. Why not? Because they see it as a source of money; they are thinking about who they can give it to that will operate it and give us some of his earnings. Now no one can come into Antalya Kaleiçi, all of those cultural assets are disintegrating. It only means something if you make culture and art in the existing cultural assets in Antalya. A project on this could be done, at least to bring some energy here; Kaleiçi could become a cultural center. Because they also have a UTP. For example, the Kalekapısı area is a UTP. It is in the local administrations law since 2000. Central Governments don’t have any funds for projects anymore. But local governments do.
This UTP’s primary goal is to “ensure that the Antalya tradesmen earn enough from tourism, the citizens use the historical and cultural center to be organized as pedestrians, the tourists visiting the city center to live together with the locals and enable cultural exchange.” The UTP comprises a series of small scale projects. The first o these is the demolition of the present governor’s office, as suggested by the Antalya Governor’s office, the integration of this area with the Republic Square (Picture 7.10; 7.13; 7.14; 7.15; 7.16), and the governor’s office service units to be transferred to the historical Gazi Mustafa Kemal Primary School (Picture 7.11) behind where the Governor’s used to stand. The governor’s office was torn down and a parking structure was built with the capacity to fit 20 buses and 100 cars. A second project involved the restoration of the facades of the buildings around the small square that remained in the place of the old Governor’s office (Picture 7.10). The residents of the buildings agreed to let the façades be done under their supervision by architects they would choose and this façade project was prepared by architects determined as a result of negotiations with the AGM.
The decisions taken by the ‘national Board’ regarding Kaleiçi and its surroundings for the UTP as also mentioned above by R21 involved the integration of the aforementioned areas within the scope of the KTKGB, and, to this end, the Balbey Neighborhood was connected to the Kaleiçi Neighborhood. On this vein, plans were made to demolish two schools east of Kalekapısı (İnönü Primary School and İsmet İnönü Girls’ Vocational High School) as well as a health facility (the old Maternity Hospital), and in the event of AGM locating resources, to confiscate the privately owned properties wound the schools and demolish them (Picture 7.12). Discussions took place about the AGM rebuilding the two schools in another area. At this point of the project, a group of citizens and some organizations took legal action to prevent the demolition of these schools on the grounds that they have historical and emotional value and that they embody the architectural style of the period.
During and after the ‘Kalekapısı Project Competition’ held in 1990 with MOAŞ’s contributions, the said structures were not to be preserved according to investigations. MOAŞ states that it is more important to formulate a historical and cultural center and thus attempts to justify their agreement with the municipality concerning providing uninterrupted pedestrian access; the integration of the area with Kalekapısı, Kaleiçi, the Haşim İşcan Neighborhood and Atatürk Street so that the area is more orderly an perceived better, the consideration of the demolition of the Vakıf Office Building, the Tekel Building, İş Bank and the Municipality Office Building; the demolition of the hospital and school structures due to the certification of the Preservation Board that they have lost the architectural characteristics of the period in which they were built; the remembrance values being maintained in the Antalya City Museum work About a year before the demolition of the buildings, informant R1, who was the AKSAV president under the AGM says, “All old buildings in Antalya should be torn down The Vakıf Hospital, the east bus station, the market, they were all old and were taken down. I think these areas should be made into green spaces to let the city breathe,” and signals that the old public buildings in the city will probably be torn down.
It was decided that the empty land obtained following the demolition of the schools and the health facility would have a one storey cafeteria not to exceed 300 m2’ and the rest of the space would be used as a green space and a square, and below the ground, there would be a four storey parking lot. During the field research, some informants (R3, R8, R19, R20, R27, FG1, FG3), share the view that particularly the public buildings of the early Republic Period (İnönü Primary School, İsmet İnönü Girls’ Vocational High School, the old Maternity Hospital, the old Governor’s Building, etc.) are being torn down as a “revenge against the Republic ideology,” in other words a revanchist urbanism. R3 and R3/1 are critical of the AGM, who only engage in dialogue with civil initiatives they can ally themselves with to legitimatize the destruction they are implementing within the scope of the UTP:
R3: The civic initiatives should be able to pressure the municipalities. Because we live in this city. For example, a Keykubat Statue was made here. No one was consulted. I mean, there are artists living in this city. An artist can not create when he is used for ambition or economic value instead of art. Each artist has spaces he can take shelter in depending on his attitude. Manifestoes come out in the common work done in these spaces. These spaces are disappearing one by one. The city is also losing its identity because of it. The past is being destroyed. There used to be a ‘Dönerciler Market’. It had an identity, now it’s gone. There was the Girls’ Technical High school, and the Inonu school, which are all being demolished many important structures are being taken down under the name of the ‘Kalekapısı Project’. These are the old buildings of Antalya. Balbey Neighborhood, where I grew up, there are spikes every 50 meters. You can’t go in anymore. Kaleiçi is the same way.
R3/1: Civic initiatives are only consulted in the event of an overlapping political stance with the local government in that city. Of course they don’t want to hear a view opposing theirs.253
R20: They have projects under the heading urban transformation that involve, like, demolishing public buildings, pedestrianizing the city center, making small squares, and such. I mean, I am not against the Pedestrianization of the city, but this is not how you do this, by bringing traffic to a halt. Then I also agree with the idea to make squares, but just taking down public buildings and making spaces that may not ever be used… 254
The area known as the School District (Pictures 7.18; 7.19; 7.20; 7.21), where the aforementioned destructions took place, was planned to be integrated with the Tinsmiths and Furnacemen’s Market, previously obtained through competition. The protection of the market’s current tradesmen was brought up as an absolute condition by MOAŞ and agreement was reached on this point with and protective measures were covered in the project.
Doğu Garajı / East Bus Station Area
Recently, new and large scale malls are being built in Antalya. However, from a cultural perspective, the importance of traditional markets for Antalya can not be denied (Picture 7.22; 7.23). These markets can be defined as trade spaces where all kinds of goods, especially produce is sold in small units, that enable the traditional tradesmen and customer relations to be maintained in sociocultural continuity, and an urban meeting space that locals and tourists will make use of together. During the 2004-2009 AGM administration period, an architectural project competition was held under the coordination of the Antalya Branch of the Chamber of Architects for the Doğu Garajı,255 which had been remodeled during the 1999-2004 AGM administration period in
yok olmakta bugün. Kent kimliği de yok oluyor böylelikle. Geçmiş yok ediliyor. Bir dönerciler çarşısı vardı. Kimliği vardı. Yok oldu. Kız teknik Lisesi, İnönü okulu bunlar yıkılıyor. Kale Kapısı Projesi adı altında çok önemli yapılar yıkılıyor. Bunlar Antalya’nın eski binaları. Balbey Mahallesi benim doğduğum yer. 50 metrede bir kapan kurmuşlar. Girilemiyor şimdi. Kaleiçi de öyle.
253 R3/1: Sivil insiyatifin görüşünün alınması o kentteki yerel yönetimin siyasi duruşuyla örtüşmesi doğrultusunda geçerli. Aksi bir görüşü duymak istemiyorlar elbette.
254 R20: Kentsel dönüşüm adı altında yapılmakta olan işte kamu binalarının yıkılıp, işte kent merkezini yayalaştırma ve meydancıklar oluşturma, projeleri var. Yani, kentin yayalaştırılmasına bir şey demiyorum ama yöntemi bu değil, ulaşımı felç ederek değil. Sonra meydanlar oluşturulması fikrine evet diyorum ama, kamu binalarını sadece yıkıp yerine ne idüğü belirsiz, belkide hiç kullanılmayacak alanlar oluşturmak…
255 When the East Station Area was a rural bus terminal, the Antalya Muratpaşa Municipal Assembly changed the plan with the resolution dated 20.11.1995 and numbered 179. According to this changed plan, the north section of the space was turned into a commercial center made up of shopping and office floors with a total construction area of 50.000 m2. The south part where the public market is was turned into a 3 storey underground car park with about 1500 car capacity by using the slope of the space. With this resolution, considering that the levels below the ground were left out of the construction area and the zoning plan notes, about 100.000 m2 of construction was carried out in the north side of the area. The project was suspended with pressure from NGOs. Again, the East Station area (in 1999-2004, during Mayor Kumbul’s term) a new plan was resolved by the assembly dated 19.12.2003 and numbered 278. This plan was a 1/5000 scale zoning plan and would include commercial space, a market and a small section would be for parking. With a correct decisision, the 100.000 m2 construction area was decreased to 19.000 m2 excluding the carpark and was spread over the
accordance with the 1/5000 scale plan modified according to the sound construction of the 1/1000 and not to violate the 1/5000 scale plan to be added to the plan (Picture 7.24; 7.25). It was decided that the competition would involve measures enabling the whole region to live 24 hours with the KTGGB. According to the Kalekapısı Tradesmen Empowerment and Development Association (KALDER)’s view seen in the media and relayed to MOAŞ, “KALDER, has organized the tradesmen at Kalekapısı and with this organization, has decided that while not the Golden Orange tradesmen, life could be sustained in these spaces. The promotion of the Historical and Cultural Center to tourist sending countries and other countries can be carried out by local administrations with the support of the Ministry of Tourism, thus dispelling any notion of the tour operators not bringing tourists to the areas with jewelers, leather traders and other tradesmen.” On the other hand, it was understood that the Golden Orange Market tradesmen would not contribute to the municipality for the construction of the new market and that new solutions would be found in the space they were moved to temporarily. For these reasons, the Golden Orange Tradesmen did not need to stay in the underground market in the School District so that life in the area could be developed. (“Antalya ‘Belediyeler ve Uzman Oda İttifakına Ödül” Mimarlar Odası Antalya Şubesi, As informant R3 puts it, “The fishermen and the stores were cast out to other places.”
The construction on the East Bus Station area started in 2005 in accordance with the projects whose plans were obtained through a competition under the coordination of MOAŞ. However, grave remains from the Antique Attaleia City East Necropolis were found during the digs in what was to be the marketplace area of the Doğu Garajı (Picture 7.26; 7.27). Construction came to a halt and it was decided that staging and modifications would be made in the project to ensure the transformation of the historical site into a museum. (Sönmez, 2008: 42-43). Though the Necropolis, where 556 antique tombs were found with some dating back to the 3rd century BC, it was declared a ‘Potential Historical Site’ by the Preservation Board, construction continues in some parts of the area
Lara City Park
New plans came into play during the 2004-2009 term AGM local administration for the Lara City Park space, as if this subject had never been discussed before. MOAŞ describes this process as follows:
As there was no other land left to allocate to tourism investments in the region where Lara City was and since the allocation made by the Ministry of Forests could not be cancelled, the only way to allocate the lands to investors with expectations of the land by taking it from the general public through the cancellation of the allocation was to give the right of disposal to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The only way to do this was found: “The region including Lara City Park was declared a Cultural and Tourism Preservation and Development Region (KTKGB).” The resolution was put into effect through its announcement in the September 6th, 2004 issue of Official Gazette numbered 25575. (MOAŞ, 2007: 71-72)
With this resolution, all planning authority regarding the space at any scale was handed over to the Culture and Tourism Ministry. Even though the Ministry gave the authority to approve to the AGM, it removed the decision for the City Park and put forth the Theme Park decision in line with the expectations of the 2004-2009 term AGM administration and the Culture and Tourism Ministry for the allocation of the land. The Ministry later completely disregarded the decisions made during the previous period, handed over the planning to the investor and allocated the land. In other words, the Culture and Tourism Ministry changed the 1/5000 scaled Lara Kundu KTKGB Regulatory Zoning Plan prepared previously by the AGM, whose authority was withdrawn, against all scientific and technical principals to the detriment of the public and right at the approval stage. In the new 1/5000 scale plans prepared by the ministry, the themes in the previous plans for the space were eliminated and instead, the Building Intensity index was increased to E= 0,10, which allowed the construction of facilities identified as theme parks in the “Regulations Concerning the Certification and Qualifications of Tourism Facilities”.213
sektörünün evrilmesine ilişkin olarak yeni turizm alanlarının açılmasına ilişkin bir yasa çıkmıştı. O zaman ben şunu söyledim: “Kent sınırları içindeki alanların planlanması Turizm Bakanlığı ile Belediye İşbirliği içerisinde yapılmalıdır” ibaresi koyulsun bu yasaya dedim. Beni dinlemediler. Kent sınırı içindeki yerler yalnız Turizm Bakanlığı’nın kararına göre turizm alanı olarak planlanmamalı. Orada yaşayan halka da sorulmalı diye düşünüyorum hala. Yerel yönetimlerin katkısıyla planlanmalı.
213 “25 Temmuz 2005 tarih ve 25882 sayılı Resmi Gazetede yayınlanan ve onay için Kurula sunulan planlar “Koruma Amaçlı İmar Planları ve Çevre Düzenleme Projelerinin Hazırlanması, Gösterimi, Uygulaması, Denetimi ve Müelliflerine İlişkin Usul ve Esaslara Ait Yönetmelik”e uygun hazırlanmamıştır. Bu yönetmeliğin 6/f maddesi hükümleri gereği, plan
The Regional Preservation Board decreased the Building Intensity index to maximum E= 0,02 (%02) for the plan which had been prepared by the Culture and Tourism Ministry without complying with the regulation, and stipulated the condition that themes be detailed and made the decision to re-present the 1/1000 and 1/5000 scale implementation plans to the board. During the time the decision was under discussion Menderes Türel, the mayor of AGM states his views on the Lara City Park Project:
We had expressed that this area should be used as a theme park as an election promise. […] I envisioned a theme park with not an index of 0.02, but one of at least 0.05 or even 0.10. However, the with the Preservation Board’s decision being 0.02, we will have to make do. Frankly, it is hard to achieve the project I have been dreaming of with an index of 0.02 but we will do our best to succeed. (Hürriyet, 18.09.2006)
Türel also mentions that the public’s objections stemming from the possibility that the Lara Theme Park Project will be closed to the public’s use are not realistic, and that the objections and protests (Picture 7.4; 7.5) are political, and that those objecting to the project are anti-modern (Hürriyet-Akdeniz, 18.09.2006).214 The 3,500 acre Lara City Park Project Contract was in the media as “Turkey’s largest tourism contract” and was made under the authorization of the Culture and Tourism Ministry on 17 August 2006.215 A representative of the company which won the bid with their 22 million 720 thousand YTL offer for 49 years stated216 that they would “invest at least 306.2 million YTL in Lara Park and create employment for thousands of people” (Hürriyet, 18.08.2006). In the statement he made to a local newspaper, the owner of the corporation stated his belief in the Lara City Park allocation project and continued, “Lara City Park is the project I will go down in history for. It will bring me prestige abroad, as well” (Yeni Şafak, 9.10.2006).217
The radical change in the Building Intensity Index in the planning and determination of Mayor Türel to execute such a theme park by disregarding the public opposition to this project with a claim that “75% of the public wants this project and 80% will in six months once I have [this project] done” and “it is for the benefit of the public” because for him this project will attract
hazırlama sürecinde idarelerce plan yapılacak alanda ilgili meslek odalarının, sivil toplum örgütlerinin, konunun uzmanlarının, üniversitelerin ilgili bölümlerinin ve KTTGK içinde yaşayan halkın, faaliyet gösteren esnafın katılımı ile gerçekleşen toplantılarda planla ilgili görüşler, hedefler, araçlar, sorunlar tartışılmalı ve bunun sonucunda hazırlanan taslak plan koruma kuruluna sunulmalı idi” (MOAŞ, 2007: 72).
214 See the Interview mayor Menderes Türel gave to Dursun Gündoğdu “Haftanın Sohbeti” Hürriyet-Akdeniz, 18.09.2006, “Şu anda Lara Temalı Parkı içindeki alandan yararlanan insan sayısı 100’ü geçmez. Onlar da kumu romatizmaya iyi geliyor diye gidiyor. […] Ben anket yaptırdım, halkın %75’i, altı ay sonra yaptırdığımda ise %80’i [bu projeyi] istiyor.”
215 See the news “Disneyland tutkusu Lara Park’ta fiyatı ikiye katladı” Vatan, 18.08. 2006, accessed on 29.03.2010 at http://www.arkitera.com/news.php?action=displayNewsItem&ID=11036.
216 “AKP’den şaibe iddialarına yanıt” Hürriyet, 18.08.2006, accessed on 29.03.2010 at http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/4939286.asp?m=1, 29.03.2010
217 See the news “Lara Kentle ismimi tarihe yazdıracağım” Yeni Şafak, 9.10.2006 accesed at http://yenisafak.com.tr/Ekonomi/Default.aspx?t=09.10.2006&i=9134 29.03.2010.
millions of tourists to the region. As an exemplary strategic UPP, this project allows some multilevel of governance with the very mediation of the ‘state’ itself, partnership with the private sector even in the planning level, and legitimization with the involvement of civil society in the form of NGOs. Instead of the possibility of negotiated universalism, of democratization, of social justice, and of urban ecology in the Third Way Urbanism often uses the social learning communicative model in planning, during the neoliberal urbanism of this period, the platform for communication and negotiation is cancelled by the hand of the central government (or state) through the intervention of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture with some new regulations relating to this 3,500 acre Nature Reserve. Informant R16, the 1999-2004 term AGM mayor comments on The Lara City Park soon after it has been concluded in an interview:
R16: Now that the authority has been handed over to the Culture and Tourism Ministry, all that’s left for everyone else to do is to sit and watch. Unfortunately now we can’t see where the Lara Cultural Park Project is headed. It’s not about who gets the job. There will be a bid and someone will win it. I think the way that the work is done is what’s important. The conditions of the contract are set; anyone who complies with the conditions has the right to enter the bid. [The company that prepares] the tender correctly wins the bid. OF course the company will invest and desire a return on this investment. But if the specifications are such that they are more beneficial for Antalya, the company that commits to these will win.
Those among the informants that work in the tourism and trade field believe that a center to attract tourists to Antalya is necessary, even if this is not a Disneyland. R12 and R22 claim that all projects are geared towards tourists due to the presence of tourism in Antalya and comment on the Lara Theme Park as follows:
R12: What the tradesmen in Antalya want is for the tourists in the hotels to come downtown. How would a tourist not able to get downtown go to Lara Park? Take a bus? There are no buses that go there anyway. They take [the tourists] downtown on a tour bus for a couple hours on certain days, and that’s it.
R22: Antalya needs a theme park. Antalya needs parks. But not Disneyland. There should be a theme that will make tourists spend money.
Informant R19 makes the comments below about the Lara City Park Project, which recommends high density construction despite the sand structure that is useful in the treatment of rheumatism related illnesses and thus suitable for health tourism:
R19: This area which had previously been identified in the Antalya Zoning Plan as Antalya City Park belonged to the Ministry of Forests. This Ministry transferred it to the Ministry of Tourism. And the Metropolitan Municipality got this place during Bekir Kumbul’s term for 15 years, as if it were a company, then it was changed to 49 years. The legal arrangement were made. In the project planned back then, the rear would have remained the City Park with the construction limit below 1%, the sand’s special property would have been utilized, there would have been small health units geared towards health tourism, and spaces like an amusement park and a botanical garden. That project was also highly debated in Antalya. For example, there were two hotels in that project. Then it was discussed and shelved. This was the plan. But in the end the project wasn’t carried out. If it had been, it would have meant that a project that the city’s people had decided on would have been implemented. The Muratpaşa County Municipality and the Metropolitan Municipality couldn’t agree on anything despite being from the same party. That project was left to [administrators in] this term. […] Can you imagine? They made changes in the tariffs of the Tourism Ministry’s Tourism Investments Foundations Regulations. They added the definition Theme Park, and then they put out a tender for a Theme Park. Now they are going to do what they want there. […] There is no project out right now, but what is being done is this: you buy the land, allocate it, and prepare a zoning plan according to the terms of the contract. The ratio et by the Ministry in the tender was a maximum of 2%. What is 2%? It’s such a big space over there that you can build 75.000 m2 of closed space. It’s going to be made into a place like Disneyland. Maybe they won’t use the name, it’s a brand, but it will be similar. NGOs objected, but then they accused them of objecting to everything. They are opposed to everything. Go and do it. There’s another place over there, in fact, let’s all have a share as city residents, we have the money let’s become partners through the Municipality.
R19 agrees with the stance MOAŞ has taken towards the situation in Lara. As R19 also points out, the space is already a ‘theme’ in and of itself, without requiring any construction due to its pine nut trees, sand and other natural characteristics. To repeat R19’s question, “Does it make any sense to destroy the theme that already exists?”
During these debates, after the passing of the Law Concerning Amendments to the Tourism Support Act in the Grand National Assembly in 2008, the investor company, which won the right to resume its activities in Lara Park, founded the Istanbul based ‘Lara Theme Park Tourism
Investments, Inc.’ on 23 October. On its trade registration, it says about the company’s purpose of establishment and its establishment, “Setting up, operating, buying or leasing out all types of parks and theme parks where people can enjoy themselves”.
The Lara Region has been turning into an attractive region not only for the purposes of the theme park, but also the luxury housing constructions built on the lands behind the themes hotels in the Lara Kundu Area as an extension (see Chapter 8). This region, which did not even have a highway in the early 2000s, has been linked to the city with the main artery called Özgürlük Bulvarı (Freedom Boulevard) The target for these residences were Russian buyers demanding luxury housing, with the added bonus of revitalizing the real estate market through arrangements easing the sale of real estate to foreign nationals. During the field research, informants FG5 and FG4 share their views concerning the region and the spatial divergence in terms of the social stratification based on residences:
FG5: [Özgürlük Bulvarı] The Freedom Boulevard has a series of hotels on it where this policy is implemented. When I came here 3-5 years ago, it was just a dusty side street. This boulevard is going to be the main artery that connects these hotels to the city. A road that goes all the way to Topkapı Palace, and the Kremlin. But the parts close to the city weren’t very valuable a few years back. Those parts were designed as luxury housing just to increase the value of that area. Because they couldn’t have the tourists pass through that bad area to the hotels. This is why they redefined the residential region there.
FG5: A residential complex was built in Kemer. There were three storey villas and a wall like a rampart. A pool was built in the front. Even though they are very close to the sea, they don’t have a sea view because of the tall buildings blocking. And they don’t care about this. But in İstanbul, for example, you try to show people your sea view even from a single window. […] These villas in Kemer with this kind of a view are being sold for 350,000 Dollars. You could buy a luxury apartment on the bosphorus with that kind of money. Also, these villas are empty, without anything done in the inside. No bathroom or kitchen. If you buy this house and fix the inside, you have to part with 500,000 Dollars. Who has that kind of money? And for a place like that? This place isn’t worth that much, I know because I am an architect. All you can do here is to launder money.
FG4: Lara and Arapsuyu, for example, are where the wealthy live. In Lara, there are mostly the high level executives of the hotels or travel agency owners and in Arapsuyu there are many jewelry store owners. So we can say that most of the jewelers are Antalyalites but most hotel managers are from elsewhere. The other migrants hold lower level jobs like busboys and waiters. They live across from the bus station in the shanty housing area called Kepezüstü. Then the migrants from the east live in a shanty neighborhood near the football pitch behind Topçular and they mostly work as waiters, busboys and construction workers. They also work as bouncers.
Muratpaşa Vakıf Çiftliği /Muratpaşa Foundation Farm
The 2,630,000 m2 urban green space in the Antalya city center called the Antalya Muratpaşa Foundation Farm has been used as an olive grove production site since 1936. This space carries special significance for Antalya in that it has enabled the survival and relay of the city’s agriculture culture to the future. In 1998, the City Council Zoning and Planning Working Group of Local Agenda 21 (LA21) requested demanded that the Foundation Farm become a park in a questionnaire with responses from 30,000 Antalyalites. Then the Agriculture Lands Working Group, once again, of LA21226, wrote in a report that even making the area into a park would have detrimental effects. In accordance with these views, Vakıf Çiftliği was declared a Natural Preservation Area of the first degree as per the 14 July 1998 decision numbered 596 by the Antalya Commission for the Preservation of Natural and Cultural Entities during Lawyer Hasan Subaşı’s term as Mayor with the efforts of AGM. It was also decided that no activities related to the space were to be carried out without the permission of the Conservation Board (MOAŞ, 2007: 81). R21, who is also the Chair of the City Council, comments on the founding reasons for the LA21 in Antalya and the democratic organization based on volunteerism during the founding efforts that began in 1996. As well, City Council member informant R2 comments on the functions of the Antalya City Council and LA21:
R2: I think the City Council is a great idea, a very good organization model. It worked very well in the beginning. A council was established during Hasan Subaşı’s term and Bekir Kumbul’s. But now it is merely a symbolic institution. Local Agenda 21 as you know aimed to create solutions for the problems cities would face in the 21st century by planning the development. For example, what do various commissions think or predict about the Lara Project? It was a council created to facilitate the exchange of ideas. LA21 was actually started to convey the decisions it made to these institutions and receive feedback They had some very glamorous meetings, but I couldn’t attend the recent ones for health reasons. But it is a good idea. It needs to be activated. But I see that it isn’t working that well. The city councils were born with potential but I think they are dying. Council decisions are not given much consideration.
R21: Here’s how the City Council was founded: For example, the chamber of architects has filed at least 100 lawsuits since 1988. It tried to gain public support many times on its own, to no avail. Some platforms were created. Like profession chambers, democracy platform, and serious battles were fought by these regarding the country’s problems. But it was seen that none of these was enough. In the 1994 elections, NGOs said that platforms in the city like a local parliament or a city council was necessary. All of the mayors of the time promised to make this happen. After the 1994 elections, Hasan Subaşı became the mayor. In 1996, he worked on the creation of this council for two years. He is a very democratic man. He said, “okay, you take there and investigate.” Let’s implement whatever is the most suitable. […] We prepared a report and said, “this is how we can do this.” We can start an effort under LA21 and get UN support. But we also told him of our concerns […] together, we wrote the by laws of the city council. With these bylaws, mayor Hasan Subasi put a call out to NGOs and in, 1997, Local Agenda 21 Antalya City Council was established. The Antalya City Council has been the most interesting organization in Turkey since 1997.
However, the Vakıf Çiftliği, which covers 2,630,000 m2 of land, was put out to tender on 28 September 2006 to be leased to the private sector; the tender was subsequently cancelled due to the reactions from the city people, NGOs and the media with the support of some members of parliament from Antalya. MOAŞ and the Chamber of Agricultural Engineers worked together after the tender was cancelled to prevent the same mistake from being made by the Regional Foundations Directorate by keeping the issue on the current agenda and continued to warn NGOs. The two chambers were proven correct by the Regional Foundations Directorate’s tender dated 18 December 2006 regarding the collection and sale of the olive crops at the farm. The Directorate
prepared a new ‘Agreement’231 in violation of the ‘Specification’ which did not exist in the specifications of the cancelled tender. According to the 11th article232 added to the ‘agreement’, they would be able to lease the land to the company that won the contract for collecting and selling the yields, according to the specifications of the previously cancelled bid by signing a new lease agreement concerning the Foundation’s Olive Groves at any time. This situation which might seem complicated, despite the Foundations Directorate Regional Manager’s statement, “a mistake was unknowingly made”, constitutes “an illegal act carried out to enable leasing unbeknownst to the general public” according to MOAŞ.
On the other hand, Vakıf Çiftliği was left undefined in all of the plans AGM made in the 2004-2009 term on the grounds that it was a Natural Preservation Site. MOAŞ was not comfortable with this lack of definition of the space. In 2004, MOAŞ cited the decision of the Antalya Commission for the Preservation of Natural and Cultural Entities’ dated 14 July 1998 and numbered 596 concerning the declaration of Vakıf Çiftliği as a Natural Preservation Site of the first degree. This ensured that the space was declared as ‘special product land whose agricultural character will be maintained’ and that this decision was recorded into plans at all scales.” Thanks to MOAŞ’s efforts, the Vakıf Çiftliği space was resolved to be an ‘agricultural space’ instead of a ‘park space’, and ‘special product land whose agricultural character will be maintained’ instead of ‘undefined space’. If not for MOAŞ, it might have been inevitable that this enormous green space in the center of the city, which had been characterized as an undefined park, would be turned into a Disneyland-type ordinary theme park as a result of rentier policies, as constantly stressed by MOAŞ. According to the 2007 report by MOAŞ, the sale of treasury and public lands in Antalya is wrong. However, it is apparent from informant R2’s comments that no lessons have been learned from repeated mistakes of this kind:
R2: For example, in the 1930s, the land of the Muratpaşa Foundation covered 106,000 acres. Now it is less than
3000 acres. What happened to the 103,000 acres? It became the city, it became buildings and roads. Now the olive
annexes under the condition of the protection and maintenance of the natural asseets and the land structure” (TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Antalya Şubesi, 2007: 81).
231 Though the tender prepared by the Foundations Regional Directorate was cancelled, a Contract contradicting the subject and contents of the an already existing ‘Specification’ was made as defined here: The olive crops from the groves of the immovable space covering 2,630,000 m2 in Antalya, Central County Ahatlı Neighborhood Duraliler Area Plot number 226 (new plot number nb: 2906) (Antalya Vakıf Muratpaşa Farm) shall be sold within the framework of this specification and the liabilities in its annexes under the condition of the protection and maintenance of the natural asseets and the land structure. It is subject to the decrees of the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets Law numbered 2863” (TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Antalya Şubesi, 2007: 81).
232 Madde 11: “The correspondence between the parties after the signing of the contract does not affect the contract and is not binding to the parties opposing the decrees of the contract. The contract can only be modified by mutual free will declarations and the signing of a document covering the modificationand legal procedures being completed..” (TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Antalya Şubesi, 2007: 82).
groves cover 3000 acres, and now they want that too. It’s stuck in the middle of the city like an island. It’s on the left hand side on the way to Burdur, only 3000 acres left between it and the Ferro-chrome Factory.233
As seen in two cases (Lara Kent Park and Vakıf Çiftliği), neoliberalism as a form of governance is that of the ‘public-private partnership’ in which “state and key business interests collaborate closely together to coordinate their activities around the aim of enhancing capital accumulation” (Harvey, 2006: 27). That is the reason why neoliberalism should not be understood as a bundle of characteristics, but as “a political project, a process of neoliberalization to reestablish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites.”
Among the work he was a part of during his term as mayor, Kumbul places a lot of importance on the Biological Purification Facility, as one of the infrastructure activities to make Antalya a more habitable place (ATSO, 2002, ATSO Dergisi, 16/175: 8). In the interview he gave to the ATSO Magazine, Kumbul emphasizes that this facility built to protect the coast at Antalya especially used for tourism purposes and the sewage investments made have saved Antalya’s future. Another work he finds important is the ‘Geological Study Report’. Kumbul was involved in many projects during his term.
One project implemented during Mayor Kumbul’s period was the Kepezüstü Waste Dump Rehabilitation Project. Then there was the ‘Family History Project’, which was developed during the 1999-2004 local administration period, which was used to form the basis of the ‘Antalya City Museum’. The idea for this museum had first been mentioned in the report published by the Antalya City Council on 15 January 1998. The ‘Disabled People’s Village’ and the ‘Culture Tents’ projects reflect the social democrat side of this period’s administration, while the Atatürk Park and Karaalioğlu Park plans aiming to revitalize the city center as well as the ‘Surönü Project’ in cooperation with the Muratpaşa Country Municipality appear as third way urbanism.
In general, a look at the 1999-2004 municipal governance period reveals that the projects developed were Third Way Urban projects. As defined by Keil (2000: 262), Third Way Urban Projects differ slightly from neoliberal and social progressive urban projects. As a blend of two they are to produce an environment located in a field of tension between neoliberal and progressive projects. Most prominently, ecological modernization (sustainability and smart growth), even entrepreneurialism, cultural modernization, and modest feminist politics are its hallmarks. Third Way Urbanism takes urban design as a means through which to devise social solutions.
Another project that could be defined as a Third Way Project was the Furnacemen’s Market (Demirciler İçi) Project of 2002 (see Picture 7.1). The architectural project competition held for the new market, which aimed to protect traditional trades with their masters was finalized but the implementation was left for the next administration. The planning process for the Lara City Park and Muratpaşa Vakfı Çiftliği, which were widely debated in this period, has been discussed in detail below.
Lara City Park
The space planned as the Lara City Park is a 3,500 acre piece of land that was granted to the municipality by the Ministry of Forests with the consent of the residents of the city during the 19992004 AGM local administration period in the Lara Area (see Pictures 7.2 and 7.3). This space, called Lara Park by Antalyalites for a long time, has a unique fauna, flora, endemic species, misshapen Red Pines unique to the space, various bird species, and a rare sand ecosystem, and is a unique piece of nature. Due to these characteristics, the area was declared a ‘nature reserve area’ by the Antalya Regional Committee for the Protection of Culture and Nature in 1992. Thus, the Lara City Park is an important natural value that could be offered for tourism Taking into account these characteristics, the Lara City Park was approved in 1998 and was reserved as a park area to meet the recreational and green space needs of Antalyalites with the currently in effect 1/5000 and 1/1000 scale plans. According to the common opinion of the people of Antalya, “the Lara City Park belongs to 900,000 Antalyalites, has been marked as a nature reserve site on 3,500 acres, is home to the unique endemic system described above and can not be turned into a theme park like Disneyland.” (MOAŞ, 2007: 71)
During the 1999-2004 AGM local governance term, when the Lara City Park plans started, the Forest Ministry stopped the allocation of the land to AGM. However, this land was regained through the efforts of the AGM administration and the Forest Ministry. Then a plan was prepared following discussions with all of the city’s NGOs, profession chambers, experts, related university departments and high attendance rates of the public over three years between 2000-2003 under the leadership of the municipality and in accordance with the “6/f provisions of the legislation for the Manner and Principles concerning the Preparation, Display, Implementation, Monitoring of Zoning Plans for Conservation and Landscaping Projects”. The related projects were presented to the general public, approved by the Antalya Regional Directorate of Conservation and the AGM as well as the Forest Ministry and put into practice. In this period, two hotels intended for construction in the space was cancelled upon the public’s strong opposition. Informant R19’s impressions of the process are as follows:
R19: Rixos had made a request a long time ago during Bekir Kumbul’s term but it was left until this term. Bekir Kumbul did not see anything wrong with this group, with its considerable capital, doing the project. In fact, once the project had been developed within the municipality, he asked these people if they would do it on account of their significant capital. […] The Rixos group said that they wouldn’t win [the bid] with the project developed during Bekir Kumbul’s term because it involved 1% structuring. In other words, they said they wouldn’t invest in this community project because they wouldn’t be able to make much of a profit ad they suggested another project: “We could make an investment if you dropped this project and we could develop another one to make this place into an entertainment center,” they said. […] This is an area special in many ways, and it’s large; one side is the sea, the other is a forest; it attracts people and it attracts capital. […] The capital of some Ukrainian and Kazakh guys . Actually in Kazakhstan there’s a man called Igor that later worked in the Ukraine. Then he comes to Turkey to invest. To make such an investment in Turkey he has to have a Turkish partner.
The space, according to the plan prepared as per the planning regulations during the 19992004 AGM administration and expert views from various fields, the City Park was planned with the Building Intensity index / modulus E= 0,01. This plan, which was made with the precondition of minimum structuring aiming to benefit the general public and preserve the unique natural characteristics of the area, was not seen as adequately profitable by the contracting companies who were candidates for the space. ‘Themes’ were created to increase the diversity of use according to the plan prepared in the previous period. The goal of this plan, which was made according to themes grouped under park titles such as Aquapark, Naturepark, Culturepark, Healthpark, was a build-operate-transfer or profit partnership model. The Mayor during 1999-2004 said the following during the interview within the scope of the field research about Lara City Park:
R16: That’s a place covering thousands of acres of land; a special place with the sea on one side and a forest on the other. In my day, it was an area designed as a Cultural Park. Our rationale was to bring Antalyalites and the tourists together. As its name implies: a “Cultural Park”. It was going to be a place where the construction would be low density. Its sand has healing properties. It was thought that something inspired by the Yörük Tents would be made. It was the only culture park area in Antalya. A law concerning the creation of new tourism fields related to the evolution of the tourism sector had passed. In those days I said the addition, “The planning of the areas within city limits should be carried out through collaboration between the Ministry of Tourism and the Municipality,” should be made to this law. They didn’t listen to me. Areas within city limits should not be planned as tourism areas merely through the decision of the Ministry of Tourism. I still think that the community living there should be consulted. They should be planned with the contributions of the local government.
The mayor for the term 1999-2004 says, “The people living there should be consulted” and summarizes the pluralist participatory planning approach of his governance period known in the planning literature as “the social learning communicative model”.
Since the main aim of this thesis is to understand the process of ‘restructuring Antalya’ under the leading agency of Antalya Greater Municipality between 2004-2009 and the strategies of the ‘growth machine’ under a ‘grand scenario’ of ‘transforming Antalya into a city of culture’, the municipal governance of Antalya by a social democratic mayor during the previous period between the years 1999-2004 was also examined to see any shift in urban policies, urban governance, urban planning and urban design.
In order to understand how Antalya has been spatially restructured during this period, some of the recent strategic urban projects were chosen. To this end, the following spaces have been chosen as the research objects to be discussed in this chapter of the dissertation: The Lara area, Vakıf Çiftliği; The Textile Factory and Battery Factory Spaces, Karaalioğlu Park, the spaces included in the Pedestrianization of the Historical City Center Project-namely the School District, Republic Square, Kalekapısı, the spaces of the Vakıf Office Building, 100. Yıl Sports Facilities and the East Bust Station and the Bazaar, as well as the neighborhoods of Kaleiçi, Haşim İşcan and Balbey. The decisions made and the related planning process concerning the two spaces known as the Lara Area and Vakıf Çiftliği differ greatly. Therefore these two spaces have been investigated separately for each municipal administration considering the potential oppositions in Antalya In this period, The AGM, has designed, and managed to implement many of, a series of ‘flagship projects’ under the name, ‘City Transformation Projects’ in the spaces listed above. These Projects could easily be called Urban Propaganda Projects. With the grand scheme of transforming Antalya into a ‘city of culture’, these UPPs, each of which are offered to the public as an ‘urban spectacle’ and a ‘hallmark event’, are presented in terms of efforts made by urban elite “to refashion collective emotion and consciousness in order to legitimate political projects that function primarily in their interest.” These UPPs were chosen because they were used as instruments to sustain support from Antalya’s people, to legitimatize the formation of the ‘growth machine’, and to persuade them with the claim that “growth makes jobs” (Molotch, 1976: 323).
In the 1960s, in the Preinvestment Surveys of the Antalya Region, it is also recommended that the airport and airport facilities in Antalya should be planned and developed as soon as possible to ensure direct flights from Western Europe. The installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS), together with appropriate marker beacons, was called for (FAO-UN, Vol. 3, 1966: 81). In the beginning of the 1980s, the Antalya province had the capacity to be transformed by main roads and high ways, as well as sea and airways (Antalya İli V. 5 Yıllık Kalkınma Programı, 1986: 181). The construction of the Antalya Airport, which had been used as a Military airport until the 1970s, began in 1973 with the purpose of serving the general public. Its capacity reached 2,500,000 with the terminals built in the 1980s. In 1985, the Antalya Airport terminal had the capacity to serve three million passengers a year (Ibid.: 302). Today, it has become one of the major sea ports and the second major airport in Turkey.
“If it weren’t for the Antalya Airport, Antalya wouldn’t be Antalya,” says informant R15, and would appear to be correct, since tourism, the most dominant industry in the city, would not be able to develop if not for the Antalya Airport. Similarly, informant R14 says following: “99% of the tourists visiting Antalya come by airway the economy for Antalya opens up here. Any investments made in the Antalya airport are justified; this is a huge necessity.” Without the Antalya airport, which is a 30 minute drive away from the city center, the Isparta Airport, an hour and a half away and the Dalaman Airport, five hours away, would not serve the same purpose, and Antalya would probably not have become the tourism destination it is today. The Antalya Airport, where flights go to and from many European cities as well as İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir in Turkey is a lifeline for the city and provides about 9,000 people with employment382.
The Antalya Airport International Flight Terminal 1 was built by the State Airports Administration (DHMİ) under the first build-operate-transfer project during Turkey’s transition to neoliberal policies, when international terminal design and operations were new to Turkey.383 As seen in this project, the ‘state’, played an active part in the implementation of neoliberal policies as a prime agent itself, through the mediation of DHMİ. Informant R15, who also represents the
connects the region with Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. In the period 1960/61 to 1963/64 passenger and cargo traffic by air increased greatly. […] Present facilities can cope with this increase, but development of air transport and the airport are essential if the tourist trade is to play its part in the region’s economy. Package holidays and charter flights alone can overcome one of the main obstacles—the high cost of the flight journey to Antalya by regular services and the long duration of travel by other means. Airport development will require no great investment since there is already an adequate runway with a bearing of 50 tons, single wheel load” (FAO-UN, Vol. 1, 1966: 13). Reporters say that the total cost of an ILS would be between 52,000 dollars and 130,000 dollars at that time (in 1960).
382 According to the information obtained from the Antalya Airport Domestic Flight Terminal Manager as of December 2006, there are over 2,500 employees working in the Domestic Terminal. There are 5,000 employees in Antalya International Terminal 1, 30% of whom are seasonal; and about 2,000 employees in the Antalya International Terminal 2 (ATSO, Vizyon, 2006, 20/217: 30-33).
383 “The Fraport-IC İçtaş Holding consortium won the 2007 contract for the operation of three airport terminals in Antalya and won the right to run the operations until 2024. The Antalya Airport Terminal building, is the first 5 million capacity building following extensive research on how new terminals can be added so that eventually it will serve 40 million passengers in the future. It was especially requested in the bid specifications that the arriving and departing passengers reach the structure from the existing road grade. Therefore, the resolution of the passenger, luggage and service transportation issues called for a lot of research and an original solution was found. As the Antalya Airport is mostly a tourism oriented airport, the new terminal building was thought to need an architectural quality and not just the characteristics of a well oiled machine, as in most new airports today. The goal was for the building to be proportionate with Turkey’s position in the modern world, mature and unostentatious, and provide a positive and lasting first and last impression for visiting tourists” (http://arkiv.arkitera.com/p303, accessed on 20.03.2010).
Antalya Airport Directorate, a unit under the DHMI, which operates the Antalya Airport Domestic flights terminal, has served for the state many years in the field of airport operations, and believes the build-operate-transfer models implemented in this field have yielded positive results:
R15: Good call. The transition of the government to this kind of model has been good for the government and the function. Because it was getting difficult to deal with the red tape. We could never have finished the construction system nearly as quickly. They are professional teams.
It took about three years for the “privatization” law to go into effect, thereby allowing the Antalya International Terminal 1 to be built as the first build-operate-transfer model terminal in Turkey. The terminal commenced operations in 1998 and had a capacity of five million passengers per year. The Assistant General Manager of the company that won the contract and was operating the terminal in November 2006, during the time of the field research, Informant R13, says the following about the process:
R13: A Turkish company [Bayındır İnşaat] won the bid. It was contracted out in 1993 but because the privatization law wasn’t in effect then, and the governments changed so often, the construction was only able to start in 1996. From 1993 to 1996 only the permit was obtained. Then the construction period of 24 months was completed in 20 and the terminal was opened on April 1st 1998. At the time, Bayındır Construction was the first private enterprise to operate a terminal in Turkey. Fraport was the consultant. There was not a clause in the List of Specifications mandating a foreign partner but there needed to be an expert. In this context, a consulting agreement was signed with Fraport. Fraport had no shares in 1998; they were only consultants. Then they bought 50%, and then some more, and finally in the last few years they became almost full shareholders. Within a period from 2004 to 2005, Fraport bought all of the shares. Right now, it is a corporation, all of whose shared are owned by a foreign company despite having been founded in Turkey in accordance with Turkish trade laws. Fraport is Europe’s second largest terminal operator.
Informant R14, interviewed within the scope of the field research in November 2006, who was at the time the general manager of the company operating International Terminal 2, says that Explosive Detection System (EDS) was utilized in the Antalya Airport before anywhere else in Turkey in line with DHMI’s request following the events of September 11th, 2001. The Chairman of the Board of the company operating the Antalya Airport International Terminal 2 from 2004, when they undertook the construction and operation, until September 2009 states that they “are a global player in the field of terminal operations.
The companies operating the two Antalya Airport International Terminals after establishing a consortium, and together with the Domestic Terminal, have won the right to running operations together until 2024. This airport, a witness to many firsts in Turkey, aims to be not only a source of prestige, but also to provide standard services in line with the universal rules of airline operations. This airport is also open to technological improvements while staying faithful to its architectural design even in the event that new terminal buildings are added. Since tourism cannot be reduced only to social activity; it is relationally linked to a wide variety of objects, machines, systems, texts, non-humans, bureaucracies, and to changes in aviation technology and the management of airport terminal building in time. As an ordering it organizes a complex meshed collaboration of humans and non-humans and creates ordering effects. Tourism as an ordering (Franklin, 2004; see also subsection 2.4.) means that tourism is always on the move, ordering new places but also by enrolling new objects and by becoming subject to other orderings. Informant R14 and R13 express how tourism orders in the field of terminal management:
R14: We usually work with standards in aviation. These standards are set by civil aviation or DHMİ. Or, to take it further, there are some international or supra-national institutions. They identify the rules, which outline operations. So there really isn’t a way to make huge differences in the services, with the exception of more quality elements, more smiles, fewer mistakes, but the rules are already set and we must work within those rules; we have no choice.
R13: Whether it’s the cheapest or the most expensive tourist, they will pay us the same amount. But if there are lots of high socio-economic level visitors, then we might have to make changes in terms of VIP terminals and business branches that might serve that profile.
Thus, aviation technology and consumer demand shape the architecture of airport terminals as much as do the airline industry and government regulation. In Horwitz’s words airspace is a zone of strict enforcement where international regulations define rules of sovereignty and degrees of control in horizontal and vertical layers. The social theory of transit and tourism, particularly related to airports, may not have caught up with the loss of life and the loss of perceived safety that occurred on September 11, 2001 (Horwitz, 2007: 93). With regard to the theory of ‘tourism as an ordering’ an airport can reasonably be portrayed as a ‘global product’. Based on the universal rules of aviation technology and the sanctions for the safety measure, an airport as a commodity serves its users who have more or less the same ‘global culture’ of tourism or ‘tourism culture’ having its own distinctive way of behaving different from their domestic lives; as tourists.
Antalya is one of the first destinations that pop into one’s mind within the context of tourism, tourism investment, or even when planning a holiday. Both foreign and Turkish tourism investors are attracted to the region because of its historical treasures and natural beauty together with untouched shores and translucent seas. Pursuant to the law on the permission of the lease for 49 or 99 years and of construction in the forest areas along the coastal line set forth by the central government in the early 1980s, tourism investment both in the city and along a 640 km shoreline resulted in hundreds of licensed establishments built by this date.
This chapter aimed to highlight one particular dimension in Antalya’s political economy in the field of tourism. In this chapter, ultimately, I argue that Antalya’s vision of becoming a tourism capital is predicated upon overcoming the decline in the tourist profile in spite of its cultural heritage since antiquity, immersed in its natural beauty with long sea shores in a number of ways: through urban development policies and cultural policies for strategic tourism imagining. In terms of policy, the field research shows that beside the mass tourists coming to simulacra proliferated as tourist bubbles on the ‘islets’, Antalya has outlined clear goals to develop ‘urban tourism,’ which would attract its own hypertourist willing to spend lots of money. Another strategy pertains to transforming Antalya into a ‘health center,’ whereby middle class pensioners from Europe are expected to come for treatment and therapy, and for holidays during winter season. This strategy may also result in employment opportunities for another group of skilled laborers in the health service and industry in Antalya.
What distinguishes ‘urban tourism’ from ‘traditional tourism’ is the way in which an offer has been packaged and marketed. Thus, cities have shifted from being centers of production to centers of consumption. Here, leisure enjoyment and pleasure are produced, packaged, marketed and consumed. Beside the urban regeneration through the implementation of a cultural planning at the neighborhood level around the traditional city center and Kaleiçi, restructuring strategies in the field of art and culture via the transformation of the AGOFF into an international festival (see chapter 6), Antalya yearns to become a regional tourism hub for culture and convention, entertainment and events. Other flagship projects or UPPs like the construction of an Olympic stadium in the city center, a city museum, a city park, building a Modern Art Museum (MOM) in the Cotton Textile Factory in the Kepez District are conceived to revitalize not only ‘dead’ seasons but also ‘dead’ places in the city centre for cultural purposes (see Chapter 6 and Chapter 7).
With the new focus on the culture industry’s film business and the health services mentioned above, it is expected by the members of the growth machine that a related strategy will encourage new investments from both the public and private sector, and even at the international level. In order to achieve its goals, Antalya has been collaborating with İstanbul as a tourism partner in some cultural events and festivals. As defined by Costa and Martinotti (2003), the term ‘collaboration’ is a process of joint decision-making among relatively autonomous, key stakeholders of inter-organizational community tourism. Rather than concerning itself only with ‘competition’ among cities, collaboration theory can be considered as a regulatory system with local institutions and firms that are the constitutive agents of the ‘growth machine’ in cities as the governing coalitions for crisis aim at socio-spatial restructuring the city center or revalorizing the inner cities beside urbanization based on the tourism controlling the land economy.
As discussed in subsection 1.3.1, the term ‘restructuring,’ which means the system’s attempt to resolve the crises has shifted from economic to ‘urban restructuring’. With this shift at the global level, local governments have been promoted as major actors of urban, social and economic change. As observed in Antalya, these interest groups comprising a “growth coalition” under AGM as the leading agency seek to mobilize the powers of the local government in order to structure an environment conducive to growth. From an entrepreneurial standpoint, the stake holders in the field of tourism, through their common interest in absolute growth and the enhanced profitability of properties, are united overall with the intent of restructuring Antalya so that it allows for ‘urban tourism’. Thus, cities have pursued growth not because they had to, but because those who controlled their politics used them for this purpose. As understood from the quotations of the interviews, one can argue that in addition to the ‘urban elite’ comprising the ‘growth machine’ in Antalya, the central government has become the most important player in all fields during the process of restructuring Antalya.