READING CLASS BETWEEN LINES:

SPATIAL TRANSFORMATION IN BARTIN

Ferdi İnanlı
BİLKENT UNIVERSITY
LAUD
Ankara
2009

Abstract
This research is about gentrification in Bartın, a semi-urban or semi-rural sett
lement in Turkey. The urban space in Bartın has transformed by means of sprawls
both from the city towards the surrounding rural periphery, and from the rural
areas towards the city. Although gentrification, by definition, is defined as cl
ass oriented regeneration or renewal, Bartın does not fit this definition. As a
sharp class differentiation is absent in Bartın, gentrification involves socio-c
ultural transformation in the renewed or regenerated areas. This report focuses
on this lack of class differentiation with a particular discussion of the Gazhan
e and Kırtepe districts that are potential gentrification areas in Bartın.

Glossary
Muhtar: District leader elected by the inhabitants of that district.
Gazete: Newspaper.
Kent: town, subdivision of a province.
Şehir: used as province center. (Every şehir is a kent at the same time but ever
y kent is not şehir)
Gecekondu: Shanty towns or squatter settlements in various part of the world, th
at are called gecekondu in Turkey, are different than inner-city slums, although
they also provide housing for the poor.
1-Introduction:
This research is about gentrification in Bartın, a semi-urban or semi-rural sett
lement in Turkey. In these days Bartın experiences a spatial transformation in t
erms of demographics changes. Like other small cities of Turkey, Bartın’s inhabi
tants migrate to Turkey’s big cities such as İstanbul and Ankara and meanwhile,
people migrate to Bartın from the rural parts of the province. As a result, Bart
ın experiences very rapid demographic changes and inevitable spatial transformat
ion because of this rapid and cannot be prevented change and transformation.
In this research I used various methods including a brief field work. I went to
Bartın three times and stayed there for a total of seven days. As I stayed ther
e I made observations about Bartın. I also spoke to many inhabitants of Bartın a
nd read the daily newspapers Bartın Gazetesi, Bartın Ekspres, Bartın Halk Gazete
si and Bartın Olay. I also acquired the issues for the last two weeks. During my
research for the project area I read many internet newspapers, news portals and
official sites of Bartın. Therefore, in my research, I utilized text analysis a
s a method, as well as speaking with the inhabitants of Bartın and with my instr
uctors who are familiar with the town. As I read the daily news about Bartın to
find “class” between the lines of the news, my research title is “reading class
between lines”.
In this report I will first discuss the issue of class and gentrification under
the title of “Gentrification in urban studies”. I will present a short history o
f gentrification in global perspective and then look into some examples in Turke
y, specifically in İstanbul, to understand how gentrification works nationally a
nd internationally, and to see the contextual nature of gentrification. Gentrifi
cation involves diverse concepts so I will touch upon the different conceptualiz
ations of gentrification.
In the second part of the research, I will discuss gentrification in Bartın foll
owing a general introduction to gentrification in Turkey. Here I will mention th
e classes and demographics of Bartın, gentrification projects and potential gent
rification areas in Bartın.
In the conclusion part, following a short summary of the research and the findin
gs, I make further research suggestions.
2- Gentrification in urban studies
2.1. Class and gentrification
“Gentrification is the process; I would begin, by which poor and working-class n
eighborhoods in the inner city are refurbished via an influx of private capital
and middle-class homebuyers and renters-neighborhoods that had previously experi
enced disinvestment and a middle-class exodus. The poorest working-class neighbo
rhoods are getting a remake: capital and the gentry are coming home, and for som
e of their wake is not entirely pretty sight. Often as not ended the conversatio
n, but is not occasionally led to exclamations that gentrification sounded like
great idea: had I come up with?” (Smith, 1996)
2.2. History of gentrification
The term "gentrification" is coined rather recently, although the concept itself
, as a part of urban renewal, is old. Throughout the history of urban civilizati
on, cities have grown, stagnated, and then decayed. Often the cities residents
or others have then rebuilt and revitalized the city (US History Encyclopedia).
By the end of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century especi
ally major cities of the United States and the metropolises of Europe faced grow
ing slums and blighted areas in older portions. The decline included neglect an
d abandonment of public and private buildings in the old/historic quarters of th
e cities by the growth of poverty of the remaining residents, often recent immig
rants, minorities, and the elderly.
Urban decline in Europe and the United States became a prominent concern after W
orld War II (1939–1945), and organizations, particularly the governments (in na
tional and local dimension especially the municipalities) used various programs
to attack the problem. These generally were termed urban renewal projects (US Hi
story Encyclopedia). In the emergence of “gentrification”, upgrading of housing
and retail business in a neighborhood with an influx generally of private invest
ment seems to be essential. However, by the restoration of run-down urban areas
by the middle class; it seems that, this renewal caused a displacement of low-in
come residents from their neighborhoods. In other words, as a result of increase
d rents and property values in the renewed areas of cities, low income inhabitan
ts in most of these inner cities ended up moving out of their houses. Therefore,
in England, urban renewal became a term synonymously used with "gentrification"
. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gentrification&sub=Search+WordNe
t&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h= 22/04/2009)
2.3. Different conceptualizations and factors of gentrification
“Gentrification” normally refers to changes in urban neighborhoods. The dictiona
ry definition is the rehabilitation and settlement of decaying urban areas by mi
ddle-and high-income people. These changes in urban neighborhood, means especia
lly a demographic change in the “gentrification” areas so gentrification is a ne
w dimension of struggle class. N. Smith (Smith, 1996) sees the motor of “gentrif
ication” as the de-industrialization, and therefore loss in value of land, in th
e inner city (rent gap).
According to Neil Smith,” gentrification” is through economics and the relations
hips between flows of capital and the production of urban space (Smith, 1987). S
mith argued that during the two decades after World War II, low rents on the urb
an periphery (sprawls) led to a continuous movement of capital toward the develo
pment of suburban areas. Therefore the city lives a "devaluation" of inner-city
capital, which resulting in the substantial abandonment of inner-city properties
in favor of those in the periphery, and a consequent fall in the price of inner
-city land relative to rising land prices in the suburbs(Smith, 1987). From this
, Smith put forth his rent-gap theory, that describes the disparity between "the
actual capitalized ground rent (land price) of a plot of land given its present
use and the potential ground rent that might be gleaned under a higher and bet
ter use".
For the process of “gentrification”, Smith supposes that the rent-gap theory was
the fundamental explanation. He also defend that the developers, landlords, and
other people with a vested interest in the development of land would see the po
tential profit to be had in reinvesting in inner-city properties and redevelopin
g them for new inhabitants when the rent-gap was wide enough. Such redevelopment
effectively closes the rent-gap and leads to higher rent, mortgage and lease ra
tes (Smith, 1996).
The de-industrialization of the inner-city is seen as a prerequisite. I think th
at the capitalist system set up this for its survival and to make profit by the
transformation and by the speculations on market of immoveable possessions becau
se the capitalist system think that it cannot survive(also become more powerful
and expand its controls) without live transform itself. A loss of investment ca
pital available to maintain the physical stock of urban neighborhoods causes pre
cipitating a decline in the number of blue-collar jobs available for the urban w
orking class. De-industrialization is often coupled with the growth of a divided
white collar employment sector, one part of that is engaged in professional/man
agerial positions which follow the spatial centralization of capital. This is a
product of capitalism that requiring spatial proximity to reduce decision-making
time so capitalism needless to say prefer to return the city.
Factors, which cause to the process of “gentrification”, are several. One factor
is growth of job opportunities in the city (especially inner-city or even on it
s periphery, such as Silicon Valley in California, Route 128/95 in Massachusetts
, or Fairfax County in Virginia) (http://www.answers.com/topic/gentrification en
tered in 23 may 2009). Young technical professionals, in other words the new ris
ing middle-class (white-collar), move to the revitalized areas of a city for a r
everse-commute or to take the places of blue-collar who live at the center becau
se in the 1970s and 1980s, corporations reinvested in central city districts and
transformed them commercially and residentially (the greatest return of the cap
italism to the center/inner-city).
A second factor, that contributing to gentrification, is the housing market actu
ally by perceiving the cities as merchandise by capitalism. As inner cities decl
ined in the move to the suburbs , city housing deteriorated, thus providing oppo
rtunity for housing speculators and rehabilitation, in other worlds for gentrifi
cation. Capitalism sought neighborhoods with gentrification potential to find ba
rgain housing that could be renovated and sold for great profits but nowadays th
ey do not called this “gentrification”, they used the nice world “urban rehabili
tation” or “directly “urban renewal”. In fact, for those impoverished, evicted
or made homeless in its wake, gentrification is indeed a dirty word and should s
tay a dirty word(Smith, 1996); because capitalism sought public housing was an e
arly postwar solution to renovate or revitalize cities, because these usually ma
ssive structures deteriorated and governments sought other remedies and because
public housing structures have been torn down and the land sold at relatively lo
w prices to developers for new office buildings and gentrified housing because o
f gentrification is always means a displacement( a displacement which is involun
tary moreover by force).
The cultural life of the city can be as a third factor promoting conditions for
gentrification and gentrifiers. This is a preference for the easy access to dive
rse people and diverse entertainment which the cities especially the inner-citie
s offer, this is, at the same time, means that, geography of a place is promotin
g conditions for gentrification . Growth in the number of artists living in the
area is generally considered a sign of coming gentrification. For example, Kuzg
uncuk (and also Cihangir) has been able to chart gentrification and predict pote
ntial for new gentrified areas by following the settlement patterns of artists (
first an architecture Cengiz Bektaş settle and he propose a rehabilitation proje
ct by his initiative for Kuzguncuk) over a period of years. Artists move to area
s where there is plenty of space that is cheap and where they live in a traditio
nal neighborhood. Cafes, bookstores, and theaters follow. The gentrifiers move i
n and the prices go up, forcing the artists to move on.
2.4. Contextual nature of gentrification
The academic environment in Turkey cannot translate or find an exact world which
refines gentrification because gentrifications is not a universal world/concept
but also “context depended” world/concept. Gentrification is have economical co
ntent but at the same time carrying to many cultural or local aspects so it cann
ot think or translate without considering its “context dependency” (Güvenç, 2006
- Mimarist 39-45). Therefore in Turkey academicians use different worlds such as
mutenelaştırma, güzelleştirme,iyileştirme, soylulaştırma or gentrifikasyon for
different gentrification examples/types. Moreover, Bound and Morris claim that,
gentrification type, start, method effected from local forms and national urban
and economic conditions which shapes the urban fabric so there is not a gentrif
ication model which is hegemonic in everywhere, every country or every time. Bi
lgin, especially call attention to cultural aspect of gentrification. He support
s that, cultural investments can gentrify the around of it but not cause any dis
placement (Bilgin, 2006- Mimarist 52-56).
The understood of gentrification as not an independent process from the process
es of transformation of cities’ economics and social transformations is strengt
hen the argument of context dependency of gentrification. Especially the proces
ses while a place is gentrifying and the difficulties of guessing how or when (b
ecause sometimes gentrification of a place can stops and continues after many ye
ars) gentrification will occur, is clarify the context dependency of gentrificat
ion. Gentrification usually occurs step by step and contains originalities. Its
producer-consumer focused structure and social-spatial context make it original
(özgün).
In the examples in Paris, we see the government as the initiator by its cultural
investments. Government of Paris, choices comparatively undeveloped parts of th
e city for make cultural investments like Pompidou Center and opera of Bastille
(Keyder, 2006 Mimarist 46-51). Therefore, that districts’ statues start to rise
again but this gentrification is not includes uneven displacement but may be a s
low and small changes in the demographics of that site because culture of distri
cts, cities not the come from buildings but also come from inhabitants of that s
ite
3- Gentrification in Bartın
The city is surrounded by also with positive potentials and negative potentials.
Bartın is an unstable city. Bartın where is at the West part of Black sea regio
n is at 13km distance from Black sea .The city was surrounded Black sea from no
rth, Kastamonu from east, Karabük from south and Zonguldak from west. City is su
rrounded from its three sides by the rivers Kocaçay and Kocanaz which constitute
Bartın River. These two rivers are unifying at Gazhane cape and then spilled Bl
ack sea at Boğaz location (Map 1.1). We can easily say that city is surrounded b
y rivers by surrounded like city walls. For this reason city did not develop or
spread too much and not jump over the river until 1980s. Population of Bartın is
47.082(city center) and the rate of urban population is %24 so Bartın is a prov
ince center where is not live the urbanization too fast.
3.1. A glance at gentrification in Turkey.
Past of gentrification is new and too tight in Turkey. Only in İstanbul we can f
ind gentrification areas and may be some small gentrification in some parts of A
ntalya, İzmir and Ankara. Therefore, in this part of the research I will mentio
n about gentrification projects in İstanbul.
History of gentrification in İstanbul starts at the ends of 1980s. In first wave
Kuzguncuk, Arnavütköy and Çengelköy gentrified. Main factors of these gentrific
ations are geographic locations of these districts(they are at the bosphours)
3.2. Class in Bartın
3.3. Gentrification projects in Bartın
The urban space in Bartın has transformed by means of sprawls both from the city
towards the surrounding rural periphery, and from the rural areas towards the c
ity.
4-Conclusion
Conclusion-Last words-Further researches & suggestions
Less negative more positive consequences of urban renewal.
Slow and balanced change in the absence of sharp class differences may result in
a more preferable spatial change for public benefit.
We may talk about a cultural or ethnic gentrification rather than a class based
gentrification.

References Cited
1. 1. http://www.answers.com/topic/gentrification downloaded on 30/04/2009
1.2. http://www.bartin74.net/index.asp downloaded on 30/04/2009
1.3. http://www.bartinbelediyesi.com/bld/ downloaded on 12 April 2009
1.4. http://www.bartin.info/ downloaded on 12 April 2009
1.5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00263 downloaded on 19 April 2009
1.6. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gentrification&sub=Search+Word
Net&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h= downloaded on 18 April 2009
1.7. İslam, Tolga and Ciravoğlu Ayşen. Mimarist. sayı 21. Güz 2006. “Soylulaştır
ma ve İstanbul. 37-38.
1.8. Özden, Pelin Pınar, 2008. Kentsel Yenileme. İmge Yayınevi. Ankara and İstan
bul.
1.9. Özkan, Emin. 2009. Interviews with Muhtars of Bartın neighborhoods http://
www.bartin.gov.tr/ downloaded on 12 April 2009.
1.10. Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier. Gentrification and the Revanchi
st City. Routledge. London and New York
1.11 Smith, Neil. 1987. Gentrification and the rent-gap, Annals of the Associati
on of American Geographers 77 (3) pp. 462–465.
1.12. Uzun, Cemile Nil. 2001. Gentrification in İstanbul: A diagnostic study. K
NAG. Utrecht.
1.13. Uzun, Cemile Nil. 2003. The impact of Urban Renewal and Gentrification in
Urban Fabric: three cases in Turkey. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geo
grafie, Middle East Technical University and Knag. Ankara and Utrecht