This study examines the relationship between urban space and collective memory through an in-depth analysis of the Fener neighborhood in Zonguldak, a historically significant urban space in Turkey’s industrialization process. Drawing on archival research and semi-structured interviews, the study explores how urban collective memory is shaped by spatial transformations, everyday practices, and socio-political narratives. It emphasizes the role of urban landscapes in embedding memory and identity, highlighting how place-based experiences and symbolic landmarks contribute to the construction of shared meaning. The findings demonstrate that urban memory is not merely a passive recollection of the past but a dynamic process actively reproduced through lived experiences and emotional attachments to space. The case of Fener reveals how nationalist-modernist planning, industrial work, and cultural institutions coalesce to create a unique memoryscape that continues to influence residents’ sense of belonging and identity.
ArendtH. (2016). The human condition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
2.
ArslanN.KerestecioğluF. (2022). Maden Kentinin Gündelik Hayatı ve Üretime Dayalı Mekânsal Kullanımları; 1850-1926 Zonguldak Üzülmez Vadisi [Everyday Life in the Mining City and Production-Oriented Spatial Practices: Zonguldak’s Üzülmez Valley, 1850–1926]. Karadeniz Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 219–237.
3.
AssmannJ. (2010). Globalization, universalism, and the erosion of cultural memory. In AssmannA.ConradS. (Eds.), Memory in a global age. Palgrave Macmillan memory studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
AssmannJ.CzaplickaJ. (1995). Collective memory and cultural identity. New German Critique, 65, 125–133.
5.
AzaryahuM. (2012). Renaming the past: Changes in “city text” in Germany and Austria, 1945–1947. History and Memory, 7(2), 23–52.
6.
BilginN. (2013). Tarih ve kolektif bellek [History and Collective Memory]. Bağlam Yayıncılık.
7.
BoyerM. C. (1994). The city of collective memory: Its historical imagery and architectural entertainments. MIT Press.
8.
CresswellT. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Blackwell Publishing.
9.
DeSilveyC.EdensorT. (2013). Reckoning with ruins. Progress in Human Geography, 37(4), 465–485.
10.
DicksB. (2008). Performing the hidden injuries of class in coal-mining heritage. Sociology, 42(3), 436–452.
11.
D’OrsiL.Lambert-PenningtonK. (2025). Contested landscape transitions: Ruins? Repair? Re-membering? In late-industrial Southern Italy. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 30(1), 1–14.
12.
EdensorT. (2005). The ghosts of industrial ruins: Ordering and disordering memory in excessive space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(6), 829–849.
13.
EmeryJ. (2019). Geographies of deindustrialization and the working-class: Industrial ruination, legacies, and affect. Geography Compass, 13(2).
14.
EspinosaC. S. (2016). Narrativizing cities, localizing urban memories: The (re)construction of place through urban cueca in Santiago de Chile (1990–2010). Space and Culture, 19(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331215617205
15.
FidanF.ÖnürS. (2021). Analysis of the industrial heritage in Zonguldak and recommendations for its reutilization. International Journal of Conservation Science, 12(1), 177–194.
16.
FooteK. E.AzaryahuM. (2021). Toward a geography of memory: Geographical dimensions of public memory and commemoration. Journal of Political Geography, 87, 1–11.
17.
HalbwachsM. (1992). The social frameworks of memory (CoserL. A., Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
HaydenD. (1996). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. MIT Press.
20.
HighS. (2013). “The wounds of class”: A historiographical reflection on the study of deindustrialization, 1973–2013. History Compass, 11(11), 994–1007.
21.
HolmL.McEwanC. (2019). The city as critical project: A poetics of collective life. ARQ: Architectural Research Quarterly, 23(2), 179–194.
22.
HuyssenA. (2003). Present pasts: Urban palimpsests and the politics of memory. Stanford University Press.
23.
JonesP.EvansJ. (2011). Rescue geography: Place making, affect and regeneration. Urban Studies, 49(11), 2315–2330.
24.
Kalaycı, İB. (2016). Bir zamanlar Zonguldak [A Past Era in Zonguldak]. BAKKA.
25.
LandJ. (2023). Synthesizing collective memory and counter-memory in urban space. Urban Geography, 44(5), 1011–1020.
26.
LavrenceC. (2005). The Serbian Bastille: Memory, agency, and monumental public space in Belgrade. Space and Culture, 8(1), 31–46.
27.
LefebvreH. (1974). The production of space (Nicholson-SmithD., Trans.). Blackwell Publishing.
28.
LeggS. (2007). Reviewing geographies of memory/forgetting. Environment and Planning A, 39(3), 456–466.
29.
LöwM.StevensQ. (2022). Memory work in the contemporary city. Memory Studies, 15(3), 479–497.
30.
LynchK. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
31.
MahA. (2010). Memory, uncertainty and industrial ruination. Journal of Historical Sociology, 23(4), 565–587.
32.
MillingtonN. (2013). Post-industrial imaginaries: Nature, representation and ruin in Detroit, Michigan. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 279–296.
33.
MutluE.KayaA. (2019). Kent kimliğinin korunması ve kolektif bellek mekanlarının tespiti [Preserving Urban Identity and Identifying Spaces of Collective Memory]. İleri Teknoloji Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 42–50.
34.
NoraP. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7–24.
35.
Norberg-SchulzC. (1971). Existence, space and architecture. Studio Vista.
36.
PallasmaaJ.HollS. (2011). Questions of perception: Phenomenology of architecture (3rd ed.). William Stout Publishers.
37.
PoshorO. A. (2012). Fener’in çocukları [The Children of Fener]. Promat Basım Yayın.
38.
RossiA. (1992). The architecture of the city (GhirardoD.OckmanJ., Trans.). MIT Press.
39.
SakS.SenyapiliB. (2019). Evading time and place in Ankara: A reading of contemporary urban collective memory through recent transformations. Space and Culture, 22(4), 341–356.
40.
SteadN. (2015). Architecture and memory in W. G. Sebald’s Austerlitz. ARQ: Architectural Research Quarterly, 19(1), 41–48.
41.
StranglemanT. (2017). Deindustrialisation and the historical sociological imagination: Making sense of work and industrial change. Sociology, 51(2), 466–482.
42.
TillK. (2012). Wounded cities: Memory-work and a place-based ethics of care. Political Geography, 31(1), 3–14.
43.
TokelR. (2019). Yayla Mahallesi ve yayla mahallesindeki tüneller üzerine [The Yayla Neighborhood and Its Tunnels]. Zonguldak Pusula Son Dakika Haberleri. https://www.pusulagazetesi.com.tr
44.
TopaloğluG.BeşgenA. (2017). Bir kolektif bellek hikâyesi: Trabzon tekel binası ve çevresinin anlattıkları [A Tale of Collective Memory: What Trabzon Tekel Building and Its Environs Tell Us]. İdealkent, 8(22), 692–721.
45.
TuanY.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
46.
Turkish Hard Coal Enterprises. (2021). Genel müdürlük proje arşivi [Project Archive of the General Directorate]. Türkiye Taşkömürü Kurumu.
47.
YoungJ. E. (1993). The texture of memory: Holocaust memorials and meaning. Yale University Press.
48.
ZamanE. M. (2021). Zonguldak insan-mekân-zaman [Zonguldak: People, Space, and Time]. Kule Kitap.
