THE GOLDEN HORN: HERITAGE INDUSTRY VS. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE

The revitalization of former industrial areas has been one of the crucial tasks of urban policy agenda throughout the world since the mid 1970s; whereas heritage industry has become the new orthodoxy in the shift from production to consumption as means for the restructuring and reimaging of post-industrial economies in the global order. The increasing tendency to link heritage and conservation with economic development has brought new meanings to cultural assets, the value of which has started to be related solely to the economic value it sustains or generates. The commodification and instrumentalization of industrial heritage by the heritage industry, in particular, has turned out to be the determining factor for creating opportunity spaces in the post-industrial areas. At the same time, many academics are critical on the attempts to reform post-industrial spaces of consumption with privatized spaces and commodified cultures. Within this context, the paper attempts to evaluate the role and the impact of heritage industry in the revitalisation of the post-industrial spaces of Istanbul, with a case study on the Golden Horn. The results of the paper are related to the following questions: What role the industrial heritage play in the revitalisation of historic environments? What are the ways to turn such industrial heritage into sources of social and economic development? What are the likely impacts on the local economy and local community? The conclusion gives an overview of the extent of the impacts that industrial heritage has on the Golden Horn, and in turn relates this back to the wider idea of heritage industry being promoted for the urban policymaking in Istanbul.


INTRODUCTION
The revitalisation of former industrial areas has been one of the crucial tasks facing the urban policy agenda throughout the world since the mid-1970s; whereas the "heritage industry" has become the new orthodoxy in the shift from production to consumption as means for the restructuring and reimaging of post-industrial economies in the global order. The increasing tendency to link heritage and conservation with economic development has brought new meanings to cultural assets, the value of which has started to become related solely to the economic value it sustains or generates. In particular, the commodification and instrumentalisation of industrial heritage by the heritage industry has turned out to be the determining factor in the creation of "opportunity spaces" in post-industrial economies. At the same time, many academics are critical of attempts to reform post-industrial spaces of consumption with privatised spaces and commodified cultures.
Within this context, the aim of the paper is to evaluate the role and impact of the heritage industry in the revitalisation of the post-industrial spaces of Istanbul, with a case study on the Golden Horn industrial heritage. The results of the paper are related to questions regarding the role industrial heritage plays in the revitalisation of historic environments as well as ways to turn such industrial heritage into sources of social and economic development, and the likely impacts on the local economy and local community. Regarding these questions, the first two sections are devoted to the theoretical discussions to question the role of the instrumentalisation of industrial heritage in the revitalisation of post-industrial economies. The third section explores reflections of these discussions regarding the Golden Horn industrial heritage in relation to the Istanbul heritage industry. The conclusion gives an overview of the extent of the impacts that industrial heritage has on the Golden Horn, and in turn relates this back to the wider idea of heritage industry being promoted for the urban policy-making in Istanbul.

THE HERITAGE INDUSTRY: INSTRUMENTALISATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
In a world, where the value of a cultural asset depends on the economic value it generates, it is not surprising that heritage has become "the" industry itself. The revitalisation of former industrial areas has been one of the crucial tasks facing the urban policy agenda throughout the world since the mid-1970s; whereas the "heritage industry" has become the new orthodoxy in the shift from cultural production to consumption as means for the restructuring and reimaging of post-industrial economies in the global order. Since the mid-1970s, the industrialised world has experienced the effects of the deindustrialisation process through the restructuring of the global economy and its associated production and technology developments. While these deindustrialised areas have been turned into derelict and brownfield lands, communities have faced severe economic, social and spatial detoriation through the lack of economic development potential and reduced quality of life. The urban policies of the 1980s have put these derelict areas on the development agenda within the framework of socio-cultural and economic regeneration initiatives. In particular, deindustrialisation has given them the opportunity to attempt to reinvent themselves within a new role through the use of culture, and especially heritage, more broadly as part of place-marketing, the growing emphasis of which is stimulated by urban entrepreneurship, as well as urban competition.
The economic exploitation of heritage is not a new phenomenon, however the economic function has come more to the forefront in recent times as a result of the global urban agenda and economic imperatives in policy formulation. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank's attempts in justifying investments in urban conservation on purely economic grounds in the 1970s have taken the shape of heritage industry by the late 1980s in symbiosis with tourism industry (see UNDP/UNESCO, 2013). As in Turkey's Ministry of Culture and Tourism, this tendency of linking culture or heritage with economy and specifically tourism has been reflected in various countries' ministries. The development of cultural sector as an industry has led to profound changes in urban policy through the utilisation of regeneration as a driving force to emphasize the role of heritage as an opportunity space. There is even an increasing amount of research that focuses on the necessity of evaluating cultural heritage as an instrument for economic development in response to the challenges brought by globalisation and neoliberalisation (see for instance, Graham et al. 2000;Rypkema, 2008).
According to Tiesdell et al. (1996), the rational economic and commercial choice starts with the desire to conserve historic landscapes. Cultural and particularly heritage industries may provide the basis for economic regeneration in historic urban landscapes; filling the gap left by vanished factories and warehouses and creating a new image that would make them more attractive to mobile capital (Hall, 1998). That is, heritage is an economic sector itself (Graham et al. 2000). Heritage is the industry that it uses resources, produce products and generates returns. Moreover, it has an integrating role in development projects as a catalyst by attracting economic activities, as well as in place-making by creating and promoting place images in the management of economies. The relationship between heritage and the rising tendency of heritage industry is well-defined by Rypkema (1992;. According to him, conservation primarily involves buildings; historic buildings are real estate, and real estate is a commodity. For a commodity to attract investment capital, it must have an economic value; for an economic value, there is a need for scarcity, purchasing power, desire and utility. Thus, heritage has it all. Similar to the governments' increasing focus on economic returns, the role of heritage in economic development has also become the primary policy agenda both for international and national conservation expert institutions (i.e. UNESCO, 2010; ICOMOS, 2011; English Heritage, 2005).
The growing articulation between heritage and industry can be stimulated by a number of factors with regard to general research on cultural and creative industries as an umbrella concept of heritage industry (OECD, 2009): First, there is an increased interest in culture, particularly as a source of identity and differentiation in the face of globalisation. Growing levels of cultural capital, stimulated by rising education levels, postmodern consumption styles, and increased mobility creates a high demand for culture. Secondly, the evidence for the economic contribution of culture reveals high supply potential which includes the development of cultural tourism to stimulate jobs and income, and which projects the external image of regions and nations. In the sense of heritage, it will not be wrong to state that heritage has become a source of identity and differentiation; thus the development of heritage tourism is a pionner factor in increasing image of cities, stimulating job opportunities. As stated in UNDP / UNCTAD (2010) study, tourism centred on heritage sites, particularly the ones in UNESCO World Heritage List, has become a rapidly growing industry in many countries over the last several decades. This is an important indicator due to the fact that cultural tourism, of which heritage is a key component, accounts for nearly 50% of international tourism. In the USA, the surveys of cultural travellers indicate that 30% of domestic tourists are influenced in their choice of destination by a specific artistic, cultural or heritage event or activity. In Africa, Latin America and Asia, tourism is often seen as a means of supporting heritage conservation as well as raising local incomes (Richards, 2007). The heritage sector, which represents an important part of the cultural industries, provides jobs for 8.5 million people in the EU, and contributes 4.5% to Europe's GDP (OECD, 2009). In addition, the tourism industry is a sector that demands less costs in comparison to other industrial sectors (Urry, 1999). According to Urry, the cost of creating labour in tourism and leisure is only 1/8 of manufacturing.
While culture and heritage has become the business of cities as evident from the figures above, one of the most important consequences of neoliberal policies on urban conservation is the transformation of heritage into a "product" with a marketing value under the name of cultural capital. In this way, it is possible to define the heritage industry as the management of historic environments and cultural heritage as consumption spaces that are rearranged and organised to promote consumption. The increasing tendency to link heritage and conservation with economic development has brought new meanings to cultural assets, the value of which has started to be related solely to the economic value it sustains or generates. According to Pendlebury (2009), there is a great tendency to perceive heritage as producing immediate and instrumental benefits, rather than conceptualizing it as important for its own sake. While cultural heritage has been turned into a concept that is related to present conditions as a result of interpretation of history, it also becomes an inseparable part of the global consumption models through the "packaging of history" (Walsh, 1992). This, according to Urry (1999), is the reconstruction of culture.

REIMAGING INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE AS AN INDUSTRY
Industrial heritage is the witness of the industrialisation process of nations. It has affected and continues to affect all social, cultural, technological, and economic dynamics of life. It explains not only the past, but includes present and relates to the future (Alfrey and Putnam, 1992). As the material evidence of this industrial culture, it has become the new opportunity space in the revitalisation strategies of post-industrial economies by providing a unique shift from being centres of production to centres of consumption.
This significant role has been well documented by international conservation institutions. For example, 52 of the 936 UNESCO World Heritage areas listed in 2012 are industrial properties. The scope of industrial heritage consists of buildings and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted and used, transport and all its associated infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to industry such as housing, religious worship or education. According to the Nizhny Tagil Charter for Industrial Heritage (TICCIH, 2003), the values of industrial heritage consist of "universal values" as they are evidence of activities with profound historical consequences; "social values" that provide sense of identity; "technological and scientific values" in the history of manufacturing, engineering, construction; "aesthetic values" for architectural quality, design or planning; "intrinsic values" contained in human memories and customs; and "scarcity", in terms of the survival of particular processes or landscapes. The fundamental that differentiates industrial heritage from other heritage is its nature, which is closely related to individual areas, as well as its social identity and history (Köksal, 2005).
There has been not only an increased awareness of the importance of industrial history in understanding heritage in recent years, but also the growing tendency to use industrial heritage. This tendency has emphasised the importance of sustaining historic buildings and any remaining industrial uses, while attracting new investment and introducing high-quality new designs. There are important examples throughout the world that build conscience to restore and reuse existing industrial heritage stock in order to stimulate cultural and economic regeneration such as London Tate  The reason for this increasing interest in industrial heritage is that they are stated to be more interesting than regular office spaces (Zukin, 1989). According to Zukin (1989) their structure has both a solidity and a gracefulness that suggests a time when form still identified place rather than function. Moreover, the scarcity factor highlights the fact that the process of deindustrialisation after a process of rapid industrialisation has left many places that are in need of reuse; and the value of converted industrial buildings have held their value and remained saleable in depressed housing markets (Tiesdell et al. 1996). Reusing existing buildings is also a simple way of achieving sustainability by saving waste and reducing the need for new building materials (English Heritage, 2005). Apart from the structural characteristics of industrial heritage, it is important to mention its contextual uniqueness as a "historic urban landscape" which has been evolved as a result of the continuous relationship between the built environment, the community and the environment unleashed by the forces of change (see Bandarin and van Oers, 2012). Finally, there is the governmental desire that the heritage industry creates attraction zones not only for visitors but also for enterprises and workers. Industrial heritage may provide opportunity spaces to increase the competitive advantage of cities through the deployment of tourism investments and the branding of space. Even the industrial landscape is emphasized as a strategy to reclaim and validate a post-industrial site in order to turn it into a multifunctional landscape. For instance, UNESCO (2010) states that the Tate Modern is estimated to bring in revenues of over €125 million to London every year. The Birmingham Jewellery Quarter has introduced the role of industrial heritage as an instrument in local economic development. English Heritage (2005) states that the Quarter has turned out to be one of the most important tourist nodes of Birmingham, creating 1500 businesses and 6000 jobs.
However, many academics are critical towards attempts to reform post-industrial spaces of consumption with privatised spaces and commodified cultures which focus on conservation and social consequences. The commodification and instrumentalisation of industrial heritage by the heritage industry, in particular, has turned out to be the determining factor in creating opportunity spaces in post-industrial areas. It has increasingly been threatened with the loss of its functional values due to technological, economical and social changes. The industrial heritage has even become too industrial. This is related to the debates on history versus heritage, which underlines the fundamentals of authenticity values. The process, which started with the model of Disneyland, finds new arenas of use. Examples for the modification of heritage for heritage museums or parks include the change of the Manchester Castlefield Heritage Park, Netherlands Open-Air Museum in Arnhem, or Abu Dhabi Heritage Park. Today, the similar pattern is evident even in shopping malls such as Forum Shops of Ceasar's Palace in Las Vegas. Thus, heritage industry commodifies the past and its architecture into new forms, and stylizes historic areas through abstract and artificial forms. Unless industrial heritage can retain some of its original functions, its intrinsic qualities are lost. According to Lowenthal (1985), even conservation practice has turned into an artificial modification of the past, while ripping away the connection between the conserved and the past. Hewison (1987) emphasizes the examples like the Wigan Pier Heritage Centre as the promotion of British rural life as a romanticized and exaggerated industrial past. According to him, the heritage industry is regarded as responsible for devaluing the cultural worth of cultural objects as they are repackaged for mass consumption. This is romanticisation and commodification of the past which shows itself in Laura Ashley shops, vintage clothing, façadism in urban centres, heritage parks and the souvenir industry. In particular, Urry (1999) states that if we are interested in history, we should protect it from the preservationists. Similarly, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) state that the more conservation, the less locally distinctive identities. Although heritage-led approaches search for distinctiveness/uniqueness, standardisation is perceived, such as in the case of thematic parks, thematic housing projects, shopping malls, and archistar museums. Boyer (1996) states that the city as spectacle is a commodified location for consumption. On the other side of all these developments, the main problems of citizens are ignored, local cultures and identities become lost. For instance, the examples of the Lace Market and the Birmingham Jewellery Quarter, which are stated as good practice examples, are criticized for the fact that the attractiveness of physical buildings has contributed to higher value users wanting to colonise the area and displace the existing buildings. This has brought a threat of gentrification and even the loss of industrial heritage to the area (Pendlebury, 2009). Similar debates have increasingly been seen in Turkey as well. These, while emphasizing the importance of industrial heritage, focus on the threats of commodification and instrumentalisation of industrial heritage by the heritage industry in the creation of "global" Turkey (see for instance, Derleme, 2002;Mimarlar Odası, 2006;Köksal, 2005; Kösebay Erkan, 2012).
With regard to the reuse of industrial heritage, it is therefore important to maintain the links that areas have with their own history. Hence, as Bandarin and van Oers (2012) states, an ideological change is called for creating synergies between socio-economic development and conservation strategies and identifying new roles and resources to maintain them in a sustainable way. This is also reflected in UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011) through the recognition of the need to better integrate and frame urban conservation strategies within the larger goals of overall sustainable development, by identifying, conserving and managing heritage within their broader urban contexts, by considering the interrelationships of their physical forms, their spatial organization and connection, their natural features and settings, and their social, cultural and economic values. The remainder of the paper gives an overview of the extent of the impacts that industrial heritage has on the Golden Horn.

THE GOLDEN HORN INDUSTRIAL [HERITAGE] INDUSTRY
Industrial heritage has always played an important role in the revitalisation process of the Golden Horn. In the 19th century Ottoman Empire, Istanbul and its environs was the place where industrialisation was the most dense. Due to increasing foreign investment, labour and technology in particular, the number of industrial facilities increased after the 1850s. At the beginning of the 20th century, Istanbul had 55% of the total 256 industrial complexes of the Ottoman Empire (Köksal, 2005). Among these, the Golden Horn has always had an importance by virtue of its being a major natural port for economic, cultural, social and military development. Since the Byzantine period, the Golden Horn has been surrounded by shipyards, merchant houses and warehouses. In the Ottoman and Republican periods, it became one of the major industrial zones, In the period starting from the mid-1990s, the Golden Horn has once more become the central focus for city governments in need of creating a world city image for Istanbul and increasing their competitive advantage in the new global order (see Günay and Dökmeci, 2012). This was the same period when the Golden Horn was declared a "cultural valley" by Ali Mufit Gurtuna, Mayor of the Greater Istanbul Municipality between 1999-2004. Considering culture as the growing value of global economy, the goal was to reintegrate the Golden Horn with the rest of the city by providing a new culture-led attraction zone to represent Istanbul globally. The role of the Golden Horn as a culture-led attraction zone was once more mentioned in the 1/100.  Günay and Dökmeci, 2012). This paper particularly focuses on the transformation and refunctioning of industrial heritage.
The number of industrial facilities in Istanbul, which was 256 in the 19th century, decreased to 43 (Köksal, 2005). Today, 15 of the remaining 43 industrial complexes are in the Golden Horn (see Fig. 1). Three of these are now used as museum complexes (Şirket-i Hayriye and Lengerhane/Rahmi Koc Industrial Museum, Silahtaraga Electric Plant/Santral Istanbul Energy Museum), three as congress and exhibition centres (Feshane Textile Factory/Feshane Exhibition Centre, Tophane-i Amire: Imperial Armory/Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Exhibition Centre, Darphane-i Amire: Imperial Mint and Printing Office/Exhibition Centre), and one is now used as a university campus (Cibali Tobacco Factory/Kadir Has University). Silataraga Electric Plant is also accomodated by Istanbul Bilgi University. The 600 year old Golden Horn Dockyards (Tersane-i Amire), which were the oldest dockyards still operating, were recently been closed to be transformed into a marina of entertainment and tourism.  In economic terms, the transformation and refunctioning of historical industrial facilities has resulted in increasing economic vitality, especially by means of new retail investments and land and real estate prices (Günay and Dökmeci, 2012). Firstly, the adaptive reuse of industrial heritage has increased the capacity of cultural institutions financed by the private sector (see Bakbasa and Tore, 2013). This has a potential to reduce the propensity of locals to travel outside of the region for cultural experiences. However, the low cultural participation rate of the locals living in the region is a major factor for the reduction of propensity. Secondly, investing in industrial heritage has made the region more attractive to live in or to establish firms (which may result in increased employment and income). In Sütlüce, where the Sütlüce Congress Hall is located, the abandoned sites have started to be transformed into offices along with new real-estate investment projects including shopping malls and hotels such as the Arçelik Company Headquarters, the Enyapı Shopping Centre, the Hilton Garden Hill, the Mövenpick Hotel, and large-scale housing projects such as the Polisan Residence, the AG Plaza and waterside residences. In particular, the location choice of the Hilton Garden Hill, as the first luxury hotel investment, is very important for the future envisioning of the Golden Horn. Many domestic and foreign business groups such as Koç Holding, Demirören and Ulusoy are also attempting to purchase the remaining land in the area as reflected in the various real-estate newspapers (i.e. Hürriyet, 2010). This has also had an effect on the spread of cultural institutions and facilities along the Hasköy manufacturing zones in the environs of the Rahmi Koc Industrial Museum. The increase in the number of users of the facilities and region is an important variable in determining economic effects, although not directly bounded to industrial heritage itself. While the number of visitors to the Rahmi Koc Industrial Museum reached 134,000, the Feshane Exhibition Centre receives 2 million visitors per year (Günay and Dökmeci, 2012). The cultural activities such as music festivals, design week, congresses increase the number of visitors to the region, as well as local spending within the region. Although property values regarding industrial heritage could not be found, it is possible to make deductions from surrounding land and property values. Considering the land market values declared in the official websites of the Beyoğlu, Fatih and Eyüp Municipalities, it may be seen that there is a major increase both in residential and commercial areas. In the Halıcıoğlu neighbourhood of the Koç Industrial Museum (Fig. 2a), for instance, the price per square metre of residential area land is between €640 -€1560, while it was between €35 -€65 in 2005 (Günay and Dökmeci, 2012). This shows the economic indirect effect of adaptive cultural reuse of industrial heritage within the region.
Despite these economic impacts, the likely impacts on the industrial heritage and community are still under question. The most important reason for this is the fact that the Golden Horn Cultural Valley Project has not been integrated neither into policies for economic development and regional planning nor into policies on urban conservation. Moreover, there has been no comprehensive strategy for the conservation and adaptive reuse of industrial heritage.
It should be stated that the attempts on transformation and refunctionning of Golden Horns's industrial heritage have a major tendency to provide post-industrial spaces of consumption with privatised spaces, commodified heritage and displaced community. As the commodification and instrumentalisation of industrial heritage of Golden Horn by the heritage industry has been the determining factor in creating attraction zone to represent Istanbul globally as mentioned above, the region has increasingly been threatened with the loss of industrial heritage's functional values that makes it unique. Regarding the heritage values, the interventions have had tendencies to compromise historical integrity or the authenticity of industrial heritage such as in the Sütlüce Slaughterhouse and Tersane-i Amire case. Once defined as "the gigantic ghost" (Radikal, 2002), Sütlüce Slaughterhouse was demolished and reconstructed as a congress hall by the Municipality (Fig. 2c). Moreover, there are still a considerable number of industrial sites to be registered and utilized such as the Kasımpaşa Flour Factory, the Cendere Pump Station or the Unkapanı Flour Factory. These show the importance of private sector incentives in the conservation of industrial heritage, contrary to the general norms when the state is the primary enabler of conservation. In the Golden Horn case, the private sector has been able to refunction these industrial complexes by respecting their original uses, contrary to the incentives promoted by the Municipality such as the demolition of the Sütlüce Slaughterhouse. On the other hand, the proposals on the replacement and refunctioning of Tersane-i Amire (Fig. 2d) as a privatised tourism facility have raised serious debates (Birgün, 2008;Bardakçı, 2014; see also Haliç Dayanışması). The 600 year old Golden Horn Dockyards (Tersane-i Amire), which were the oldest dockyards still operating, were recently been closed to be transformed into a marina of entertainment and tourism. The debates focus on this unique industrial heritage's contribution to Istanbul's and Turkey's economy as a major node of employment and income (see Bardakçı, 2014); but moreover as a major node of heritage, memory and identity such as others (Haydarpaşa train station, Mecidiyeköy liqeur factory, Eczacıbaşı factory, etc.). Because industrial heritage cannot retain some of its original functions, its intrinsic qualities are lost and its cultural worth is devalued.
Regarding the social consequences, one of the criticisms focuses on the fact that economic vitality is limited to specific locations. This is also related to the provision of the functional integrity of industrial heritage to the wider surrounding. The privatisation of public spaces, such as in the case of the Rahmi Koc Industrial Museum or Kadir Has University, has prevented public use and public service. In addition to public spaces, the emphasis on building the infrastructure for attracting visitors such as convention centres, prestige hotels or thematic parks results in the transformation of residential areas into business districts and the isolation of the community (Günay and Dökmeci, 2012). Considering cultural participation and heritage accessibility, most of the visitors are outsiders and the accessibility of the community is limited to participating in cultural activities in their neighbourhoods. Moreover, these facilities increase the social tension in the area. The restaurants of Santral Istanbul and Bilgi University have been transformed into non-alcohol cafes due to the concerns brought by the Prime Minister and Eyüp Municipality. Moreover, the attractiveness of physical buildings has contributed to higher value users wanting to colonise the area and displace the existing buildings. This has brought a threat of gentrification and even the loss of industrial heritage to the area. That is, investing in the heritage itself may make the region more attractive to live in for some; but these developments have increasingly created countereffects such as displacement as in Örnektepe through the Sütlüce Urban Renewal Project, which has been started by October 2012.

CONCLUSION: HERITAGE INDUSTRY VS. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
The fundamental that differentiates industrial heritage from other types is the fact that it is about communities' own lives, identities and histories. This makes industrial heritage a social phenomenon along with its potential to be a catalyst for further cultural and economic development. The paper has demonstrated that there have been important investments during the previous decades to encourage the transformation and re-functioning of industrial heritage in the world, including Istanbul. However, this growing interest could not prevent industrial heritage from becoming deteriorated. While the general tendency is to demonstrate history "in just one day", there is still a misunderstanding of the value of industrial heritage, the lack of community conscience and political responsiveness.
The paper shows that the Golden Horn projects run the risk of commodification of industrial culture and heritage; although they have played a vital role not only in improving the image of the Golden Horn, but also in being part of the branding of Istanbul. The solution is more to do with the conservation of the "industrial landscape" through the preservation of the "spirit of place", as ICOMOS (2008) states. This necessitates programmes for the conservation of the industrial heritage to be integrated into planning processes and into policies for socio-economic development and the preservation of historical integrity and authenticity. The adaptation and reuse that respect the historical identity of industrial heritage is an appropriate and a cost-effective way of ensuring the survival of industrial heritage; on the other hand, the use of original patterns and the utilization of new uses by creating links to their own history may contribute to the sustainability of the industrial heritage of the Golden Horn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is the product of the initial findings that were presented in the 26th Annual Congress of AESOP (Association of European Schools of Planning) in July 2012 / Ankara.