<david.passig@gmx.de><\/a><\/p>\n“The economy of urban diversity” – this was the main topic dealt with by
\nan international symposium in Essen from January 13th to 15th, 2011. It
\nwas arranged by the members of the working group “Economy” of the
\n“Global Young Faculty”, an interdisciplinary research group promoted by
\nthe Stiftung Mercator, in collaboration with the Institute for Advanced
\nStudy in the Humanities, Essen (KWI).<\/p>\n
What does urban diversity mean in the present and what did it mean in
\nthe past? How is diversity communicated? Does it have a certain impact
\non urban development? And, is diversity in urban spaces only a challenge
\nto be dealt with or is there also economic potential that can be taken
\nadvantage of? These were the main questions the academics of the working
\ngroup wanted to consider with their international guests, as Steffen
\nBrinckmann (Bochum), chairman of the group, stated in his opening
\nspeech. In an effort to find answers to them, two metropolitan areas,
\nwhich have been quite strongly affected by the phenomenon “diversity”,
\nwere analyzed as case studies: the Ruhr area and Istanbul. Past and
\npresent of these two metropolises, both of which were European Capital
\nof Culture in 2010, cannot be taken into consideration without including
\ntheir diverse ethnic and religious minorities.In her paper, MARIA CHRISTINA CHATZIIOANNOU (Athens) proved, that in the
\ncase of the metropolis Istanbul, diversity has already been influencing
\nthe urban space and its economic development since the 19th century,
\nwhen Istanbul was part of the Ottoman Empire. In this regard, Ottoman
\nIstanbul can be seen as an example for the impacts of diversity and
\ngovernmental behavior towards them. Giving the example of the district
\nof Galata, where a sizable community of wealthy non-Muslim merchants,
\ndiplomats and bankers concentrated, Chatziioannou demonstrated the
\nextensive economic networks of parts of the non-Muslim population of
\nIstanbul. For instance, the bankers of Galata financed both commercial
\nand private activities, even beyond the area of Istanbul. She argued
\nthat since the independence of Greece in 1830, the Greek Orthodox
\nbankers in particular had participated successfully in a number of
\nprojects in the emerging markets of the young state. Chatziioannou
\nstated further that in consequence in this period a new non-Muslim
\nbourgeoisie was emerging in Galata: Especially the Greek Orthodox
\npopulation began to build a novel middle class stratum that was to have
\na strong impact on both urban economy and architecture.<\/p>\n
EDHEM ELDEM (Istanbul) defined the Constantinopolitan cosmopolitism as a
\nkind of Levantine identity, which was influenced perceptibly by such
\nGreek merchant communities in the Mediterranean. It disappeared in the
\n19th century, at the same time as the flourishing city?s bourgeoisie,
\nwhich lost its access to power due to growing nationalism.<\/p>\n
Another example for minority entrepreneurship and its influences on
\nurban development was given by REN\u00c9 LEICHT (Mannheim) and SABINE WECK
\n(Dortmund), who focused on migrant business in the present-day Ruhr
\narea. Leicht stated that both the rates of creation and of liquidation
\nof migrant businesses were notably higher than those of the indigenous
\nGermans. Thereby ethnic background seems to have a strong influence on
\nthe predilection to self-employment: Leicht suggested that more than 50%
\nof the self-employed migrants were not members of the “classical”
\nmigration groups, such as Turks, Russians or Italians. Altogether, he
\ndetected a strong relation between education, ethnic group and
\nself-employment. The often quoted process of “ghettoisation” was
\noverrated. More than half of migrant businesses were not settled in
\nareas of co-ethnic segregation.<\/p>\n
Weck pointed to the strong North-South-divide in nearly all of the
\ncities in the Ruhr area and to the fact that districts of low prosperity
\ngenerally had a higher percentage of migrants than wealthier districts.
\nShe argued further that two aspects of migrant business were remarkable.
\nFirst, there was still a strong concentration on traditional business
\nfields among migrant groups. Secondly, in districts with a high
\npercentage of migrants, such as Dortmund Nordstadt, the supply structure
\nwas mostly occupied by those migrants. To exhaust the economic potential
\nof migrant groups, both Leicht and Weck demanded better access to
\neducation and the extension of specific consulting services for
\nmigrants. Huge, established institutions like the Chamber of Industry
\nand Commerce lacked such offers, especially for small-scale businesses.<\/p>\n
But what exactly is the impact of such commercial activities of
\nminorities on the urban development? According to KORINNA SCH\u00d6NH\u00c4RL
\n(Essen), the raising prosperity of the Greek Orthodox bankers of Galata
\nin the 19th century was strongly linked to the so-called process of
\ngentrification, which means the social upgrading of an urban area or
\nquarter by acquisition of the buildings by wealthier people, thereby
\ndriving out low-income groups. In the district of Galata, the low-income
\npopulation, mostly Muslim, was affected by displacement and crowding-out
\nfrom the 1850s onwards. This effect, she argued, became even stronger
\nwhen, in 1856, the Sultan allowed the residents to found a municipal,
\nwestern-styled self-administration. Sch\u00f6nh\u00e4rl explained that the fact
\nthat this council recruited its members mostly from the Christian
\ncommunity of the district led to a one-sided style of clientele politics
\nwithout consideration of other social groups.<\/p>\n
Against the background of this historical perspective the gentrification
\nprocesses in present-day Istanbul, as described by DARJA REUSCHKE
\n(Trier), seem to be a new application of an old practice. The paper
\nshowed that since the 1980s, a new wave of crowding-out of low-income
\ngroups has taken place in several districts of the city, labeled as
\ngovernmental efforts to conserve and renovate historical architecture.
\nReuschke exemplified this with the eviction of 3,500 Roma people from
\ntheir houses in Sulukule and their resettlement 45 kilometers away in
\n2009, or the displacement of several minorities from the district of
\nTarlabasi.<\/p>\n
CEMILE NIL UZUN (Ankara) explained the way in which such a state-led
\ngentrification has taken place during the last three decades in the
\ncity. According to her, since the 1980s it has become common practice
\nfor the administration to initiate social housing in the peripheral
\nareas of Istanbul and thereby to move low-income groups out of the
\ncentral districts. Those central, historic areas were then upgraded and
\nrebuilt in public and private partnerships. The consequence was a
\ndistinctive segregation depending on income level. DENIZ YONUCU (Ithaca,
\nNY) added that in order to make the city attractive for foreign capital,
\nthe administration was acting extremely intolerantly towards the
\nlow-income stratum.<\/p>\n
With the help of these examples it has become clear that diversity has
\nnotably influenced the urban development of the examined metropolises.
\nBut how is diversity perceived and communicated? Is it part of a kind of
\nurban identity?<\/p>\n
Considering the long history of migration in Germany – not just limited
\nto the foreign workers – one could ask why there is still no migration
\nmuseum. DIETMAR OSSES (Bochum) stated that all previous efforts to
\nestablish a permanent exhibition about migration in Germany have failed
\ndue to the lack of financing opportunities, the clich\u00e9 of museums
\npersisting in the past without giving any answers to recent questions,
\nand the sometimes ideological current discourses about topics like
\nIslamism, fundamentalism and integration. Nonetheless, Osses argued, a
\nGerman migration museum is still possible. Examples of successful
\nprojects like the emigrant museums in Bremerhaven and Hamburg
\nBallinstedt confirmed this. From his point of view, the concept of
\npresenting different “migration vitae” and thus showing the impact of
\nmigration on the economy, as it has been sampled in a number of projects
\nin the past, might also be a leading idea for a migration museum.<\/p>\n
In present-time Istanbul, diversity has repeatedly been pictured as a
\nproblem, as Yonucu demonstrated by pointing to the discrimination of the
\nlower strata of the city. Sometimes called “the other Turkey”, in terms
\nof an uncivilized, underdeveloped group, the working class which
\nconsists to a large extent of Kurds and other minorities was heavily
\nstigmatized today. The media images of working class quarters as no-go
\nareas or “bombs about to explode” was linked to “ideological phantasies”
\nof a unified Istanbul, excluding “the other Turkey”. The eviction of
\ninformal settlements of the low-income groups called “Gecekondus” by
\npolice forces became virtually media events. She argued that the
\ncriminalization of the working class had thus become part of the
\ngentrification of Istanbul.<\/p>\n
These processes entail the question about the legal status of minority
\ngroups. Although they were privileged in matters of self-administration,
\nAYSE OZIL (Istanbul) pointed to the legal difficulties non-Muslim
\nminorities had to deal with in Ottoman Istanbul. Ozil argued that even
\nin the second half of the 19th century, when non-Muslim entrepreneurs
\nwere still welcome, there were various problems and a degree of
\nvagueness in matters relating to the legal status of the communal
\ninstitutions of the minorities. Although several attempts were made to
\nreform the legal framework for such institutions during the 19th and
\n20th century, their legal corporate status remained imprecisely defined,
\nand, as Ozil suggested, this is still the case today.<\/p>\n
The situation of the non-Muslim minorities changed rapidly during the
\nfinal stage of the Ottoman Empire from 1912, as DIMITRIS KAMOUZIS
\n(Athens) explicated. He argued that due to the emergence of Turkish
\nnationalism and ideas of a Turkish national economy, the non-Muslim
\nentrepreneurs were affected by several boycotts, discrimination and
\nintimidation campaigns. These tendencies grew even stronger during the
\n1920s and 1930s after the founding of Turkey, when the trend towards
\neconomic nationalism intensified. Kamouzis explained that in order to
\ncreate a new Turkish middle class, the Turkish administration enacted a
\nnumber of regulations and restrictions that openly disadvantaged the
\nnon-Muslim body of entrepreneurs and caused many of the Greeks to leave
\nIstanbul.<\/p>\n
One of the main questions of the symposium – and also in the discussions
\nof its participants – was whether the Ruhr area and Istanbul could be
\ncompared at all in terms of the past and present of diversity. The
\nresults seem to prove that a comparison is at least problematic. Both
\nthe historical and the actual processes seem to differ too much. Maybe,
\nas Maria Chatziioannou stated, it is rather the confrontation of
\nphenomena than the comparison from which one can benefit.<\/p>\n
In addition, YUNUS ULUSOY (Essen) indicated that Istanbul and the Ruhr
\narea might not be seen in isolation from each other. Diversity in both
\nIstanbul and the Ruhr area was strongly affected by the migration
\nstreams between these two metropolitan areas, he explained. Brisk
\nmovement between Istanbul and the Ruhr area had not only be seen during
\nthe period of foreign workers, but continued today. However, the
\nmigration streams seemed to have become far more complex over time. The
\ncurrent image of more and more Turks moving from Turkey to Germany had
\nto be reconsidered. He argued that although there were legal
\nopportunities, the number of Turks moving to Germany was falling
\nrapidly, whereas the number of those leaving Germany increased
\nconstantly.<\/p>\n
In a final analysis, one may conclude that Istanbul and the Ruhr area
\nare entirely different and thus incomparable. However, they are linked
\nby the phenomenon of diversity. In both cases there are several examples
\nof certain economic potentials of diversity being utilized, while others
\nremain unrecognized. In the Ruhr area as well as in Istanbul, diversity
\nseems to have been a major challenge for a long time, right up to the
\npresent day. But in both regions, it has also always been and continues
\nto be an opportunity. Maybe, in some ways, the metropolises can learn
\nfrom each other. But the symposium showed that various questions need
\nfirst to be solved. The researchers will, in fact, have to reconsider
\nsome of their theses and categories. They will have to modify their
\nimages of groups in order to destroy existing stereotypes whereby class
\nissues often count for more than ethnical or religious disparities in
\nurban development. And, finally, they will have to attain a
\ntransnational point of view in order to discover both a common past and
\na common future.<\/p>\n
Conference overview:<\/p>\n
Opening Event
\nChair: Steffen Brinckmann (Ruhr-University Bochum)<\/p>\n
Steffen Brinckmann (Ruhr-University Bochum)
\nPresentation of the Working Group “Economy” of the “Global Young
\nFaculty”<\/p>\n
Korinna Sch\u00f6nh\u00e4rl (University of Duisburg-Essen), Darja Reuschke (Trier
\nUniversity), represented by J\u00f6rg Pl\u00f6ger (Research Institute for Regional
\nand Urban Development, Dortmund)
\nThe Interchange of Economy and Urban Diversity – a Case Study of
\nMetropolis Istanbul<\/p>\n
Session: Chances and Risks of Integrating Economic Perspectives in
\nMigration Museums
\nChair: Jens Kroh (Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities,
\nEssen)<\/p>\n
Dietmar Osses (Westphalian Industrial Museum “Hannover Colliery”,
\nBochum; Working Group “Migration” of the German Museums Association)
\nA Migration Museum for Germany. Concepts, Efforts, Alternatives<\/p>\n
Yasemin Yadigaroglu (ESTA Bildungswerk gGmbH)
\nCommentary<\/p>\n
Udo G\u00f6\u00dfwald (Director Museum Neuk\u00f6lln, Berlin; Chairman ICOM Europe)
\nCommentary<\/p>\n
Session: The Cross under the Crescent: Christians in Istanbul in the
\n19th Century
\nChair: Korinna Sch\u00f6nh\u00e4rl (University of Duisburg-Essen)<\/p>\n
Ayse Ozil (Bogazi\u00e7i University, Istanbul)
\nThe Legal Framework of Greek Orthodox Communal Institutions in the Late
\nOttoman Empire<\/p>\n
Maria Christina Chatziioannou (Institute for Neohellenic Research,
\nAthens), Dimitris Kamouzis (Centre for Asia Minor Studies, Athens)
\nFrom Great Empires to National States: The Economic Activities of the
\nGreek Orthodox in Istanbul, ca.1870-1939<\/p>\n
Edhem Eldem (Bogazi\u00e7i University, Istanbul)
\nCommentary<\/p>\n
Session: Self-employed with Migrant Background: Economic Potential of
\nthe Metropolis Ruhr?
\nChair: Sabine Weck (Research Institute for Regional and Urban
\nDevelopment, Dortmund)<\/p>\n
Ren\u00e9 Leicht (Institut f\u00fcr Mittelstandsforschung, University Mannheim)
\nSelf-employed with Migrant Background: Characteristics and Determinants
\nof an Economic Potential<\/p>\n
Sabine Weck
\nSelf-employed with Migrant Background in the Ruhr Area – Overrated
\nResource or Underestimated Potential?<\/p>\n
Session: Handling of Cultural Diversity in Contemporary Urban Planning
\nand the European Capital of Culture 2010 in Istanbul
\nChair: Darja Reuschke (Trier University)<\/p>\n
Deniz Yonucu (Cornell University, Ithaca\/NY)
\nThe Middle Class Takeover of Istanbul: Commodification of the City and
\nRe-Marginalization of Poverty<\/p>\n
Cemile Nil Uzun (Middle East Technical University, Ankara)
\nUrban Space and Gentrification in Istanbul in the 20th Century<\/p>\n
Session: Human Streams and Interrelations between the Ruhr Area and
\nIstanbul
\nChair: J\u00f6rg Pl\u00f6ger (Research Institute for Regional and Urban
\nDevelopment, Dortmund)<\/p>\n
Yunus Ulusoy (Centre for Studies on Turkey, Essen)
\nMigration from Turkey to the Ruhr Area up to the Present Day<\/p>\n
Final Discussion
\nChair: Monika Salzbrunn (University of Lausanne)<\/p>\n
David Passig
\nHistorisches Institut
\nUniversit\u00e4t Duisburg-Essen<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Working group “Economy” der Global Young Faculty 13.01.2011-15.01.2011, Essen Report by: David Passig, Historisches Institut der Universit\u00e4t Duisburg-Essen E-Mail: <david.passig@gmx.de> “The economy of urban diversity” – this was the main topic dealt with by an international symposium in Essen from January 13th to 15th, 2011. It was arranged by the members of the working group … <\/p>\n
Continue reading “Conference Report: The Economy of Urban Diversity”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4,14],"tags":[39],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=255"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":257,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255\/revisions\/257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.urban-studies.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}