One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it For example, while there are no doubt many shopping malls in Istanbul, I doubt there is "at least one in every neighborhood!" (unless that word is better translated as something more like a suburb) This makes it harder to trust all of the details of the more seriou…
And yup, there are a phenomenal number of shopping malls, some only a couple of hundred meters from another.
I did spot check quite a few, looked at a few of the websites, and they are all multi-level, large shopping malls.
In fact this one is a mere 300m from Gezi Park: http://www.demirorenistiklal.com/
The great thing about the internet is that it is possible to get a sense of whether a claim is true or not very swiftly.
On the one fact you doubt and then use as an example to undermine the rest of the argument, a quick search verifies that claim. (Should you revisit the doubt you extended to the rest of the argument in light of some evidence to the claims that you used to undermine it?)
Of course there is emotion in there too (the government selling the nation to corporations), but we're mostly rational and will spot that surely.
The fundamental question is whether or not the reports in general speak of a true event, and overwhelmingly they do appear so. The level of consistency in the very many reports and sources is too much to be attributable and dismissed as any individual being emotional... of course they are emotional; some of their friends, family and fellow citizens are dead, others are in hospital or jail.