1. Introduction
Moreover, Kadıköy is an area that has witnessed many of the political, social, and economic transformations and ruptures throughout the country’s history. The second reason for selecting this district is that it has historically been home to numerous prominent literary figures and has served as a space of both literary production and interaction. As a result, researchers have access to a wide range of memoir novels from different periods that reflect the region’s transformation (Öner, 2013).
Considering Kadıköy’s extensive area of approximately twenty-five square kilometers—stretching from the Üsküdar border to the districts of Ataşehir and Maltepe—and its diverse functions and user profiles, a more specifically defined study area within the district has been selected. Neighborhoods such as Kadıköy center, Yeldeğirmeni, Rıhtım, Fikirtepe, and Hasanpaşa have been excluded from the scope of this study due to their differing economic, social, and functional characteristics in relation to the research objectives. While these areas served as significant commercial centers in the early stages of settlement, they later became residential zones for lower- to middle-income populations who migrated internally. As such, these regions have undergone transformations that involve not only political and economic changes but also the process of “gentrification,” making them outside the intended focus and scope of this study.
The neighborhoods of Moda, Göztepe, Suadiye, Kızıltoprak, and Erenköy—predominantly inhabited by upper and upper-middle income groups—have been designated as the study area. These districts represent key examples of “qualified” urban development. Furthermore, they were chosen as the focus of this research because, unlike areas shaped by spontaneous or unplanned construction, they were deliberately designed and transformed by architects and urban planners.
2. Transformation of Housing Typology and Its Imprints on Users’ Perceptions
This study focuses on three distinct phases in the transformation of housing typologies in Kadıköy. These periods were identified not only through architectural history data but also by analyzing the transitions described by authors in the selected memoir novels—who, in another sense, represent the housing users of their respective eras. The classification is based on both scholarly sources and the experiential narratives embedded in these literary works.
The most explicit account of these periods is found in Adnan Giz’s somewhat wistful book Bir Zamanlar Kadıköy (“Once Upon a Time in Kadıköy”). After describing the residential architecture of the late Ottoman period, Giz identifies two successive phases that, in his view, led to the erasure of that earlier architectural memory:
“In Istanbul, according to the changing conditions of the construction market, first, mansions and similar buildings would be demolished to make way for uniformly unattractive concrete houses, and in the second phase, these houses would be replaced by massive apartment blocks.”
Through Giz’s remarks, we obtain not only a concise summary of the transformation of residential architecture in Kadıköy, but also a valuable reference point for the pace of this transformation. Having lived from 1914 to 1989, Giz personally witnessed all three layers of change over a span of seventy-five years, making his perspective particularly insightful regarding the evolution of housing typologies in the region.
2.1 Kadıköy as a Landscape of Summer and Hunting Mansions – Period 1
As emphasized in Bir Zamanlar Kadıköy (Giz, 1998), following the Tanzimat Edict of 1839 and the emergence of Western-inspired reforms within the Ottoman Empire—along with Sultan Abdülmecid’s distinct personal disposition—two large mansions were constructed in the Hasanpaşa area of Kadıköy, on the land where the IETT (Istanbul Electric Tram and Tunnel Company) garage now stands. These mansions were built for the princes who had long been confined to the palaces within the historical peninsula. This development played a pivotal role in initiating Kadıköy’s use by the Ottoman dynasty as a residential area.
Subsequently, after the proclamation of the Second Constitutional Era in 1908, princes and pashas began to commission the construction of summer mansions in the area by their own volition. This period, which began around 1830 when Kadıköy emerged as a prominent summer retreat, extended until the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish Republic, at which point new housing reflecting early Republican architecture began to appear.
A particularly noteworthy point is that the end of this first period is marked not merely by a change in political regime, but by the architectural transition from the construction of mansions to a new residential typology—villas. The disappearance of the physical traces of these Period 1 structures, and their demolition, occurred in different forms during Periods 2 and 3.
Another factor contributing to Kadıköy’s emergence as a significant residential area during this period was its transformation into a new zone of investment, driven by advancements in transportation networks. With the increase in both maritime and suburban railway services to Kadıköy, investors began purchasing land in the area, which, though more affordable than the then-prestigious Bosphorus neighborhoods, offered equally beautiful scenery and environment. Adnan Giz provides the following account:
“In 1873, a suburban railway line covering four or five stations between Haydarpaşa and Pendik was inaugurated. Thus, Istanbul gained a brand-new summer resort, blessed with fresh air, clean water, and scenic beauty. As nearly three-quarters of the land in this region was still vacant and suitable for settlement—and also more affordable than the developed resorts along the Bosphorus—shrewd businessmen, high-ranking civil servants, and even viziers began acquiring large plots in the Kadıköy suburbs to build gardened mansions with surrounding walls.”
These developments led Kadıköy to host summer residences not only for members of the royal family but also for numerous upper-class families, high-ranking officials, pashas, and viziers, solidifying its status as a favored summer retreat.
User Profile
During this period, it is observed that many Sultans, Princes, and Pashas resided in Kadıköy in mansions that resembled “small palaces.” Among them were Prince Abdülaziz and Murad, Mehmed Ziyaeddin Efendi, Mehmed Selim Efendi, Abdulkadir Efendi, Cemile Sultan, Hatice Sultan, Rıdvan Pasha, Rıza Pasha, Ahmed Eyüp Pasha, Gazi Osman Pasha, Deli Fuad Pasha, Gazi Ethem Pasha, Reşad Pasha, and Damad Ferid—figures frequently mentioned in memoir novels as residents of the region.
Highlighting these individuals is important because the mansions and residences they inhabited were often named after them. As a result, contemporary residents of Kadıköy still encounter these names in the names of buildings and streets throughout the area. This underscores a key point: the users of these residences contributed significantly to the identity of the neighborhood—what we might today refer to as its sense of place or community character.
Including even a limited selection of narratives about buildings that have continued to be remembered through their associations with their users is considered valuable in this study, as it provides a deeper understanding of the character of the period.
“…Mehmed Selim Efendi (1870–1937), the eldest son of Sultan Abdulhamid II, purchased a mansion with 18 rooms situated on more than 20 acres of land in Göztepe, on Ömer Paşa Street near Kayışdağı Avenue, on the right-hand side…” (Giz, A., p.109)
“…During the Constitutional Era, Hatice Sultan settled in Erenköy by purchasing a mansion formerly owned by Topçu Dairesi Reisi (Artillery Department Head) Hacı Hüseyin Pasha, located on Ömer Paşa Street across from Şehremini Rıdvan Pasha’s mansion…” (Giz, A., p.115)
The detailed way in which Adnan Giz associates each mansion with its user in his memoir highlights how significantly the user profile influenced the architectural and social character of the buildings during this period. Furthermore, the continued existence of these individuals’ names in the street names of the neighborhood illustrates how their presence continues to shape the collective identity and spatial memory of the community—even into the 2000s.
Beyond members of the royal family, the area was also home to wealthy families and high-ranking civil servants. One notable example is Ethem Efendi, who owned gardens and mansions spread over 100 dönüms of land, and whose name is still preserved in a local street name (Giz, A.). Additionally, the region was inhabited by many prominent intellectuals and literary figures. Among them were Süleyman Nazif, Ahmet Rasim, Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, Refik Halit Karay, Yahya Kemal Beyatlı, and Ahmet Haşim—each of whom played a significant role in shaping the cultural landscape of Kadıköy.
In Yakup Kadri’s memoirs, extensive insights into the lives of wealthy and intellectual families of this period can be found. Below is an excerpt from Kadri’s recollections that mark the end of Kadıköy’s “serene” days:
“One of the days spent at Refik Halit’s father’s mansion, laughing and joking while discussing Verhaerens, Maupassants, and Barrès, coincided with the outbreak of the Balkan War, and I could no longer spend my afternoons in the vineyards and gardens of Erenköy.” (Karaosmanoğlu, Y.K., p.61)
Yakup Kadri, who lived in more middle-income neighborhoods of Kadıköy, frequently spent time at his close friend Refik Halit’s father’s mansion in Erenköy due to the latter’s high-ranking civil servant status.
Architectural Characteristics
Kadıköy was regarded as a summer resort located away from the city center, which at the time was the historic peninsula. Residences functioned primarily as summer mansions. Users would typically arrive at their Kadıköy homes in April or May and return to their permanent residences on the European side after September or October. Some mansions also served as hunting lodges for larger families.
Descriptions often highlight spacious, generally three-story wooden mansions sprawling over large plots of land. Depending on the owner’s wealth, the properties ranged in size from 25 to 100 dönüms. Visitors would enter through a main selamlık (reception) gate into a front garden, then pass through the main garden gate to reach the mansion’s garden. The primary mansion usually had three floors, two main salons, and between 10 to 30 rooms. Frequently, an additional selamlık pavilion and outbuildings (müştemilat) are also mentioned in the narratives.
Memoirs particularly emphasize the extensive main garden, as well as the presence of vineyards, flower, and fruit gardens within the estate. Adnan Giz, in his book Bir Zamanlar Kadıköy, includes an album section with archived photographs that allow us to visually recall many of the period’s structures.
Examining the architectural features of these residences through the words of literary figures aligns closely with the purpose of this study.
“Şadiye Sultan (1886–1977) would spend winters in Nişantaşı and summers at her husband’s mansion in Erenköy. In her published memoirs, she says: ‘We would migrate to the summer house in Erenköy at the beginning of May. The mansion had 36 rooms and was situated on a large estate. It had an extensive organization comparable to a farm, with separate vineyards, fruit and flower gardens, and a vegetable patch. We would swim regularly every morning and evening.’” (Giz, A., p.116)
“The Muhtar Pasha mansion, smaller than Eyüp Pasha’s, was one storey with three floors. It had a grand staircase, two salons, four rooms on the ground floor, and six rooms on the second floor…” (Giz, A., p.119)
“When completed, the main building was considered the most beautiful mansion in Istanbul. It featured gold-gilded walnut doors, crystal stair railings, and a shower facility in the bedroom. Even Pertevniyal Sultan, mother of Abdülaziz, came to visit one day after hearing of its beauty…” (Giz, A., p.107)
“Cemile Sultan, wife of Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha, owned a mansion in Erenköy. Compared to today’s layout, this mansion and its outbuildings were situated on a 50-dönüm plot between Tellikavak Street and Şemseddin Günaltay Avenue…”
2.2 The Location of the New Republic’s Villas in Kadıköy – Period 2
Following the establishment of the Republic and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a new phase of development began in the region after the demolition or change of ownership of mansions previously owned by the Ottoman dynasty—who had left the country—as well as intellectuals who were exiled or forced to flee for political reasons. The mansions belonging to pashas and large families were often left abandoned, subjected to looting, or burned down.
Properties owned by the dynasty were confiscated by the state, many of which were repurposed as public buildings or put up for sale along with their large plots of land. Additionally, as mentioned in İsmet Kür’s Yarısı Roman—a personal historical account—the newly founded Republic of Turkey, oriented towards the “encircled civilizations,” began constructing smaller-scale mansions in a modern architectural style, and the neighborhood structure started to change.
Adnan Giz describes the subdivision of large parcels in Bir Zamanlar Kadıköy as follows:
“The Muhtar Pasha mansion was likely demolished around 1938, and a neighborhood was effectively established on its grounds.”
Although Kadıköy still retained its character as a summer resort, this period marked the construction of new mansions in the early Republican modern architectural style.
User Profile
Many pashas and families of Ottoman descent left the region—and in many cases, the country—after the Republic was established. However, Kadıköy remained a residence for influential families. The presence of high-ranking civil servants, intellectuals, writers, Levantines, and wealthy non-Muslim families in the area is frequently emphasized in the narratives of Karaosmanoğlu, Karay, and Kulin.
Kulin, in his book containing the memoirs of Münir Nurettin Selçuk, recounts an anecdote about the “high society” gatherings in Kadıköy mansions:
“How many of us still remember the late Princess Zehra Hanımefendi’s mansion on Fener Yolu? When the princess entered the room, we all stood up. Ali Rıfat Bey announced, ‘My lady, your nightingale will come tonight.’” (Kulin, A., p.73)
Architectural Characteristics
During this period, two- to three-story villas used as summer residences are depicted. However, these villas are now situated on comparatively smaller plots of land. Despite the reduced size of the lots, access to the building is still typically through a garden. Although expansive vineyards and orchards have disappeared, accounts describe the presence of identity-rich vegetation, such as flower-filled front gardens and, in some cases, kitchen gardens (vegetable patches).
Selim İleri, recalling his childhood during this era, describes it as follows:
“…The next flower must have been honeysuckle. In my childhood, honeysuckle would climb and spread over fences in every garden of Kadıköy, blending its pleasant fragrance with the breeze. I witnessed Istanbul’s days of garden-filled homes. In Kadıköy with its wooden houses, flowers and orchards have not faded from my memory…” (İleri, S., p.20)
“…The lilacs I remember were in Kadıköy. Gardens lined the routes from Şifa to Moda and from Şifa to Kızıltoprak…” (İleri, S., p.10)
As seen in the above recollections by Selim İleri, the gardens and vegetation surrounding residences during this period are characteristic features of the housing typology.
“… Both sides of this street are lined with garden villas. For example, the white mansion of the famous tailor Adalet Hanım. Or the two-story villas of Admiral Cevat Bey. Behind pine trees, a pale yellowwashed house resembling a Japanese print…” (İleri, S., p.54) As observed, although the buildings are smaller in volume, mansions and villa-type houses still stand side by side.
Notably, in houses used by the Muslim population, the presence of separate haremlik (private family area) and selamlık (men’s reception area) salons within the building is described, with eight or nine rooms in total. In non-Muslim houses, on the other hand, there is usually a single large salon accompanied by multiple rooms.
During this period, concrete—a material compatible with modernist architecture—began to be used as a construction material. The modernist influence is also reflected in the facades with various design approaches.
Architecturally, interior spaces in these houses show a shift from the simplicity of the previous period toward a more ostentatious style characterized by classical furniture. Unlike the first-period residences, there is very little ornamental carving found in the joinery, ceilings, or facades.
2.3 Kadıköy Under the Occupation of Apartment Buildings – Period 3
With the development of suburban lines and the increasing working-class population, the housing demand imposed by economic transformation caused mansions and villas in Kadıköy to be replaced by apartment buildings. In addition to Istanbul’s economic development and transformation, as emphasized in both Youth and Literary Memories (Karaosmanoğlu, 1990) and Istanbul is Life (Durbaş, 2010), the abandonment of the last mansions owned by non-Muslims after the events of September 15-16 physically facilitated this process. During this period, mansions inherited from the Ottoman dynasty, either privatized or repurposed as public buildings, were demolished, and buildings owned by non-Muslims were also destroyed to create new construction sites. Adnan Giz describes the demolition of the early-period mansions as follows:
“The Gazi Osmanpaşa mansion, highly valued by the people of Göztepe, was located inside a garden on the right side when exiting the station on Tütüncü Mehmed Efendi Street. After the Pasha’s death, his wife Zatıgül Hanımefendi lived in this mansion, and their eldest son Nureddin Pasha had additional buildings constructed in the garden. When the era of mansion demolition began, the bank that purchased the property planned to build apartments in place of the historical buildings, although a small building formerly used by the grooms was preserved as the bank’s guesthouse…” (Giz, A., p.111)
Along with these changes, a transformation compatible with the “new Turkey” was observed in the neighborhood fabric. İsmet Kür mentions the social transformation of the neighborhood:
“Leaving the large house and its vast garden in Göztepe was very difficult for me, and getting used to this new house too… At all hours, especially in the mornings and evenings, a vendor traffic emerged, which was a completely new phenomenon for me… There was nothing like this in Göztepe… The milk, newspaper, and bread deliveries in the mornings were always quiet…” (Kür, İ., p.117)
Some memories refer to this period either as the era of apartment buildings or the demolition of mansions.
User Profile
This period witnessed significant changes in the housing user profile in Kadıköy. Due to internal migration, Kadıköy became a residential area for the new working and middle classes coming from rural areas. Selim İleri describes the change from his perspective:
“The State Statistics Institute identified Istanbul’s densely populated districts, with an annual migration of 450,000 people. According to their data, people from the Black Sea region settled in Sarıyer, Pendik, Zeytinburnu, Kartal, and Kadıköy… Those from the East and Southeast settled in Büyükçekmece, Gaziosmanpaşa, Beyoğlu, Kadıköy, Üsküdar… People from Gümüşhane and Ordu in Ümraniye, Kağıthane, and Kadıköy… And there were also the so-called ‘real’ Istanbulites burning with nostalgia for the ‘old’ Istanbul…”
In Refik Durbaş’s memoirs, the forced removal of the identity-rich user profile and the non-Muslim population from the area is particularly highlighted:
“Fazılpaşa Street, number fourteen, with a footnote: Moda Point, map: 39, block: 78, parcel: 5. In the second-floor window, the shadow of François Maurice Arnolda Christian Frederici… In front of the door, his wife Marie Christian Frederici… Both from Italian families who started settling in Moda after the 1830s… Yes, once, not long ago, Fazılpaşa Street was lined with such houses belonging to the Frederici family, many with gardens… At the gates and in the gardens, there were silk trees, Judas trees, horse chestnuts, mastic trees, and a variety of flowers that took their scent from the Marmara sun and the color of the wind… Right in front of the windows stood the Moda Sea Club. A little further on was the Moda Pier, likewise abandoned and left to decay.”
Architectural Characteristics
By this time, the city had expanded and the buildings in the area lost their status as summer residences, becoming permanent homes. It should be noted that while Period 1 residences were called mansions and Period 2 residences villas, in Period 3 the housing units are termed “apartments.”
Mansions were replaced by four or more story apartment blocks. Gardens and vegetable patches disappeared completely. Narrow apartments with two or three rooms were built. Many buildings’ basements were inhabited. Even spaces adjacent to coal cellars were used as janitor apartments. İsmet Kür laments this era somewhat bitterly:
“What we used to call attic spaces became mezzanine floors, and even basements—where the cats and dogs of the house used to refuse to go—were now inhabited, and people paid millions to live there… Moreover, most were right next to the boiler rooms and coal cellars… How merciful! Property owners left the boiler floors to the janitors’ families.” (Kür, İ., p.122)
3. TRACES OF TRANSFORMATION ON THE USERS
The transition between Period 1 and 2 coincided with an important national restructuring and the end of an imperial era, so the transformation is often viewed with nostalgic longing rather than rejection. This is frequently encountered in the accounts of Yakup Kadri:
“However, at our first meeting, the place where we sat and talked was the garden of the mansion in Erenköy where we had spent many pleasant times. Every corner should have awakened a memory in us. Although the main mansion with its spacious veranda had burned down, the old wooden house opposite it was about to be demolished. I think one of the elder brothers had lived there once. The garden, now overgrown with wild weeds, was quite ruined. I could not bring myself to ask ‘What has happened here?’ Where is your brother? Is your father alive or dead?” (Karaosmanoğlu, Y.K., p.132)
Despite this, the fact that the new buildings still retained the character of 2-3 story mansions, with gardens, preservation of plant cover, and the continued existence of vegetable gardens, alongside the silhouette being protected despite the change in materials, the similarity in plan layouts and logic, as well as the retention of the user identity and the region’s distinctive identity as a summer resort, indicates that this transition was internalized by the users. İsmet Kür describes this perspective as follows:
“Due to work and friends, I find myself in Kadıköy. Memories flood my mind. I now gaze upon the places where I spent my childhood. Kadıköy has changed so much. The Kadıköy of over forty years ago will clearly be completely erased. Yet, that Kadıköy was almost identical to the Kadıköy before it. It still preserved its historic silhouette as it was. It still bore traces from the beginning of the century, even from the last century. While passing through a street, one would come across wooden bay-windowed houses. Not just bay windows — each of these wooden houses almost had its own personality, each told us its own story with its distinct architectural features.”
On the other hand, despite the modernist approach promoted by the state, there is frequent criticism of the transition to reinforced concrete construction and the subdivision of large parcels. Similar objections are observed regarding the change of ownership in the mansions formerly owned by the dynasty. When looking at the transition to Period 3, although it is described as a crucial transformation for the country’s development, serious resistance to the change in housing is evident. The first and strongest opposition focuses on the elimination of garden and vegetable plot areas, which altered the spirit of the street and homes, and the user habits. Nearly all authors exhibit a rejecting attitude toward this change. Selim İleri expresses this sentiment:
“The life of old houses did not separate people from nature as the current apartments do. One would enter the house through the garden; water was drawn from a well to water the garden. Flowers would enter the houses from the garden; lavender flowers spread their scents of cleanliness onto the beds. People did not neglect the seasons that changed their pleasures nor the animals they loved. Cats snored in the most comfortable corners of the house.”
From his perspective, Refik Durbaş states:
“For example, on a map marking the year 1938, descending from Moda Street to the pier, on the right was the Sea Club, next to it a boathouse… On the left, another boathouse and a beach… And fields, vegetable gardens, and mansions… Parks and children’s playgrounds… Now all gone with the wind… One side is a bitter nostalgia for our past life, the other a testament to how much damage we have inflicted on the environment in less than a human lifespan…”
The second area of opposition concerns the change in user identity. Families associated with mansion names moved away, and an important identity shift occurred in the region. Many memoir novels criticize how this affected neighborhood habits. The third point is that the new housing type is significantly smaller and lower in quality relative to human scale. İsmet Kür harshly emphasizes:
“What we used to call attic spaces are now called mezzanine floors, and even the basements, where even the cats and dogs of the house would not go, are now inhabited… And people pay millions to live there…”
4. CONCLUSION
When examining the differences between periods, it is observed that users, despite being subject to broad historical and economic conditions, do not accept a housing transformation that is incompatible with human scale, dysfunctional, and architecturally inferior. Housing users place importance on the relationship between the dwelling and open spaces, and consistently feel discomfort when the connection with nature is severed. The user regards a defined user identity as important. Uniformity in the user profile also plays a decisive role in neighborhood relations. Additionally, changes in the user profile are perceived by users as changes in the identity of the region. Façade and building characteristics are among the areas most impacting user perception. The ratio of façade width to height, the proportion of green spaces, materials, and the silhouette of the street and region are all significant for user perception.
When looking at the study as a whole, many detailed descriptions of Period 1 buildings are found, whereas by Period 3, the descriptions of new buildings are largely replaced by narratives of criticism of the new and longing for the old. This clearly reveals user awareness caused by the production of low-quality buildings, which negatively affects literary representation and detaches contemporary spaces from literature. All this data demonstrates that residential buildings and their textures occupy a place in the collective memory at least as significant as public buildings. Therefore, in today’s rapidly transforming residential areas, the social memory impact of designed buildings must be considered beyond their functionality and profitability. This approach rightly places a great responsibility on architects, one of the key agents in housing transformation. The study concludes with a quote from Abdülhak Şinasi Hisar emphasizing this responsibility:
“Architectural works cannot tolerate excessive ugliness or strangeness. We can protect our souls from harmful effects by avoiding looking at ridiculous paintings or listening to poor poetry or discordant music; but it is not so easy to avoid the work of a bad architect. When a weak imagination and poor spirit are transformed into a massive stone figure erected in the middle of the street, it becomes a danger capable of damaging the spiritual health of an entire city for generations.”
References
Öner, H. (2013). Anı Eserlerinde Kadıköy, in Yeni Türk Edebiyatında Kadıköy. (Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University, Institute of Turkish Studies, Department of Turkish Language and Literature, Doctoral Program in New Turkish Literature), pp. 175-233, İstanbul.
Durbaş, R. (2010). İstanbul Hayattır. İstanbul: Heyamola Yayınları.
Giz, A. (1990). Bir Zamanlar Kadıköy. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
İleri, S. (2008). Yıldızlar Altında İstanbul. İstanbul: Doğan Yayıncılık.
Karaosmanoğlu, Y.K. (1990). Gençlik ve Edebiyat Hatıraları. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Karay, R.H. (1996). Bir Ömür Boyunca. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Kulin, A. (2008). Bir Tatlı Huzur. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları.
Kür, İ. (2006). Yarısı Roman. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları.
Levi, M. (2010). İçimdeki İstanbul Fotoğrafları. İstanbul: Doğan Yayıncılık.
*This article was prepared as part of the Master’s thesis studies in the Building Science program at the Department of Architecture, Yıldız Technical University.
PINAR BAYRAKTAR
MAY 2016