In this regard, the values that are created in İstanbul or that are brought to the city from outside are not salient. The city itself resembles, more and more, a gigantic shanty town, and it is characterized with all sorts of Anatolian nostalgia associations set up by fellow countrymen. Cafes, bars, clubs and similar places and various social solidarity centers do not give room to the notion of neighborhood, which turns these groups into isolated islands. For most of time, there are no ferries operating from/to these islands. In time, this leads to new fractures in the cultural cleavages of the city. In the Ottoman Empire, neighborhood was not established on the basis of some relationship or kinship or any sort of patronage, and therefore, it represented an organic community of diversities. But today, there is an amorphous, gigantic metropolis, which adversely affects the formation of the awareness of belonging to İstanbul or being an İstanbulite.
Another factor undermining the formation of a common identity is uncontrolled migration. Before a wave of migrants can adapt to the city, a new wave arrives, and everything done for the adaptation process has to be reset for each new wave of newcomers migrating en masse. The rate of physical and social growth of İstanbul does not allow for an awareness of belonging to take root. The most obvious values brought by the people migrating to İstanbul are the material needs which are not satisfied in the minimum and the ambition to become rich, as embodied in the famous description of İstanbul as “having golden stones and soil.” Their mental priorities are not to have a higher quality of living or urban awareness, but to carry their village, town or country habits to the places they settle.
It should be noted that this has nothing to do with the urban traditions prevalent in Anatolia. Newcomers first settle on the edge of the city and they prioritize non-economic values, and then, with the material betterment acquired in time, they move toward the center of the city -- without any improvement in urban culture and awareness. In this process, the values which are products of a more civilized city and which are the most obvious characteristics of old İstanbul, qualities such as solidarity, learning and acquiring new habits were not “foregrounded” and they were not shared with common decisions or willpower. Not only newcomers, but also people who were born and have grown up in İstanbul are not eager to establish a bond of belonging to İstanbul.
Given the magnitude of the migration to İstanbul in the past, the important thing is that the people living in this city should voluntarily arrive at an identity of being an İstanbulite. If they do not show this eagerness, it is not possible to solve the problems stemming from coexistence.
It is no longer possible to tackle the problems of the city with imposed measures or only with comprehensive physical planning. In this regard, the people living in this city should create a common/upper identity of their own accord and agree on common denominators that will allow diversities to exist living under the umbrella of being an İstanbulite. If the inhabitants of a city do not love that city, you cannot solve the problems stemming from common living spheres and forms. In this respect, the city administration has to ensure that the inhabitants actively participate in the administration of the city and can exert influence on the decision-making processes in order to create a common identity.
People without sensitivities cannot be expected to develop an awareness of the city. Those who live in İstanbul without seeing the city as their own home cannot be expected to have any affection for the city. The majority of the people living in İstanbul are ignorant about the city and they do not know the city's map of natural and cultural assets. Chaos, indifference and the population's living in isolated islands are obstacles to the development of a common sense of belonging.
Short, medium and long-term efforts are needed for the emergence of the awareness of being an İstanbulite. With the involvement of local administrations, the Metropolitan Municipality, nongovernmental organizations, universities, business circles and individuals, networks of education, training and active sharing and interaction should be established and organizational structures should be improved. This in turn relies on the development of a philosophical and civilizational perspective. It is this perspective that the governors of İstanbul lack.
