SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14

POVERTY AND CRIME AS THE BASIS OF LEGITIMIZATION OF URBAN REGENERATION IN SQUATTER HOUSING AREAS

GECEKONDU ALANLARINDA UYGULANAN KENTSEL DÖNÜŞÜM PROJELERİNİN MEŞRUİYET ZEMİNİ OLARAK YOKSULLUK VE SUÇ

Erman Aksoy(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ, ŞEHİR VE BÖLGE PLANLAMA BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-5215-7021
Özlem Güzey Kocataş(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ, ŞEHİR VE BÖLGE PLANLAMA BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7660-1054
Pages
275–295
Publication Date
2017-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This change has become visible in the social and physical  space and Sincan’s Mayor has announced his decision on applying urban regeneration in the Saraycık  Neighborhood.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While urban regeneration in Turkey emerges as an effective method of intervention in the transformation  of urban space into areas of attraction for the global capital, intervention areas are squatter housing areas  where degradation is visible, the population of which gradually loses its acceptability in social integration  processes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Evolving from the 1940s up to the present, the urbanites, meeting an unexpected population  and space, have always viewed squatter housing population as a problem.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This change has become visible in the social and physical  space and Sincan’s Mayor has announced his decision on applying urban regeneration in the Saraycık  Neighborhood.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gecekondu · Gecekondulu · Yoksulluk

Abstract

While urban regeneration in Turkey emerges as an effective method of intervention in the transformation  of urban space into areas of attraction for the global capital, intervention areas are squatter housing areas  where degradation is visible, the population of which gradually loses its acceptability in social integration  processes. Evolving from the 1940s up to the present, the urbanites, meeting an unexpected population  and space, have always viewed squatter housing population as a problem. Government policies are  formulated in accordance with this social perception. The difference with today’s regeneration applications  is their legitimization of intervention through elements of poverty and crime. But as the squatter housing  areas are demolished and subject to gentrification, squatter population moves to different areas of the  city with their problems. So it is inevitable that these areas will be subject to regeneration. This study first  questions this phenomenon in a historical perspective and then discusses its results in two case study  areas in Ankara. The preliminary research area is Çinçin in where increasing poverty and crime ratesbrought about urban regeneration. Yet, while some portion of the criminal population migrated to other  destinations after regeneration, another portion has remained and sustained the crime rates. The second  study area is Sincan Saraycık Neighborhood, a place where Altındağ’s squatter population migrated  to and the original population abandoned. This change has become visible in the social and physical  space and Sincan’s Mayor has announced his decision on applying urban regeneration in the Saraycık  Neighborhood.

Özet

Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşüm, mekânın küresel sermayeye çekici alanlara dönüşümünde etkin bir müdahale

🔖

Cite This Article

Aksoy, E., Kocataş, Ö. G. (2017). POVERTY AND CRIME AS THE BASIS OF LEGITIMIZATION OF URBAN REGENERATION IN SQUATTER HOUSING AREAS. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14, 275–295. https://ajindex.com/articles/1117140

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Adaman, F. & Keyder, Ç. (2006). Türkiye’de Büyük Kentlerin Gecekondu ve Çöküntü Mahalle¬lerinde Yaşanan Yoksulluk ve Sosyal Dışlanma. Rapor.
  2. Akman, K. (2009). İstanbul’da Kentsel Farklılaşmalar ve Mekansal Yansımaları, ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 117-127.
  3. Ayata, S. (1996). Varoşlar Çatışma ve Şiddet, Görüş, (6), 18-23.
  4. Bektaş, Y. & Yücel, C. (2013). Ankara-Altındağ Tepesi Gecekondu Bölgesi'nde Mekansal Ayrış¬manın Gözlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, MEGARON, 8(2), 115-129.
  5. Bozkulak, S. (2005). Gecekondudan Varoş’a: Gülsuyu Mahallesi, İstanbul’da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar, (166), 239.
  6. Brantingham, P.J. (1995). Criminality of Place: Crime Generators and Crime Attractors, Europe¬an Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, (3), 5-26.
  7. Buğra, A. (2008). Kapitalizm, Yoksulluk ve Türkiye’de Sosyal Politika, İletişim Yayınları, İs¬tanbul.
  8. Çakır, S. (2011). Türkiye’de Göç, Kentleşme/Gecekondu Sorunu ve Üretilen Politikalar, SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (23), 209-222.
  9. Davis, M. (2007). Gecekondu Gezegeni, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul.
  10. Demirtaş, N. & Şen, S. (2007). Varoş Identity: The Redifinition of Low Income Settlements in Turkey, Middle Eastern Studies, 43(1), 87-106.
  11. Dönmezer, S. (1981). Kriminoloji, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, İstanbul.
  12. Emini, F. T. (2009). Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimler Reformunun İç ve Dış Dinamikleri, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 16(2), 31-48.
  13. Erder, S. (1996). İstanbul’a Bir Kent Kondu Ümraniye, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  14. Erman, T. (2007). Çandarlı-Hıdırlıktepe (Altındağ, Ankara) Örneği Üzerinden Suç ve Mekân İlişkisi ve Mahalleli Deneyimleri, Kent ve Suç, Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi Bülteni, (6), 30–33.
  15. Erman, T. (2004). Gecekondu Çalışmalarında ‘Öteki’ Olarak Gecekondulu Kurguları, European Journal of Turkish Studies, 1. Etöz, Z. (2000). Varoş: Bir İstila, Bir Tehdit, Birikim, (132), 49-53.
  16. Geniş, Ş. (2006). Review: İstanbul’da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar, European Journal of Turkish Studies.
  17. Gove, W. R. (1975). The Labelling Perspective: an Overview, Sage Publications, New York- London, 3-20. Gunder, M. (2010). Planning As The Ideology of (Neoliberal) Space, Planning Theory, 9(4), 298-314.
  18. Güzey, Ö. (2012). Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm Uygulamaları: Neo-liberal Kent Politikaları, Yeni Kentsel Aktörler ve Gecekondu Alanları, İdeal Kent, (7), 64-83. Harvey, S. (2005). Literature Review: Police Practice in Reducing Residential Burglary, Rese¬arch on the effectiveness of Police Practice in Reducing Residential Burglary Report 3, Ministry of Justice Publishes, New Zealand, 19-59.
  19. Hubbard, P. (2004). Revenge and Injustice in the Neoliberal City: Uncovering Masculinist Agen¬das, Antipode, 665-686.
  20. Işık, O. & Pınarcıoğlu, M. (2001). Nöbetleşe Yoksulluk, Sultanbeyli Örneği, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  21. Kara, M. & Palabıyık, H. (2009). 1980 sonrası Türkiye’de konut politikaları: Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı (TOKİ) Gecekondu Dönüşüm Uygulamaları, http://idc.sdu.edu.tr (10.04.2012).
  22. Karaman, O. (2012). Urban Renewal in Istanbul: Reconfigured Spaces, Robotic Lives, Internati¬onal Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01163.x.
  23. Kılınç, Z, A. & Çelik, A. (2009). Kentsel Dönüşüm ve Kültürel Dönüşüm, Selçuk Üniversitesi, İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Konya, (18), 145–164.
  24. Kıray, M. (1998). Modern Çehirlerin Gelişmesi ve Türkiye’ye Has Bazı Eğilimler, Kentleşme Yazıları, Bağlam Yayınları.
  25. Kurtuluş, H. (2006). Kentsel Dönüşüme Modern Kent Mitinin Çöküşü Çerçevesinden Bakmak, Planlama, (2), 7-12.
  26. Lovering, J. (2007). The Relationship Between Urban Regeneration and Neoliberalism: Two Presumptuous Theories and A Research Agenda, International Planning Studies, 12(4), 343-366.
  27. Lovering, J. & Türkmen, H. (2011). Bulldozer Neo-Liberalism in Istanbul: The State-led Cons¬truction of Property Markets, and The Displacement of The Urban Poor”, International Planning Studies, 16(1), 73-96.
  28. Öniş, Z. (2004). Turgut Özal and His Economic Legacy: Turkish Neo-Liberalism in Critical Perspective”, Middle Eastern Studies, 40(4), 113-134.
  29. Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing Space, Antipode, 380-404.
  30. Pınarcıoğlu, M. & Işık, O. (2008). Not Only Helpless But Also Hopeless: Changing Dynamics of Urban Poverty in Turkey, The Case of Sultanbeyli-Istanbul, European Planning Studies, 16(10), 1353-1368.
  31. Sheldon, K. (1998). The Home Range: Topographical & Psychological Influences on the Tar¬get Selection of House Burglars, Liverpool Hope University 1998-99 Library Articles, (1), 7-21.
  32. Sokullu-Akıncı, F. (1994). Suç Nedenleri, Kriminoloji, İstanbul.
  33. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F. & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal Urbanism in Europe: Large-scale Urban Development Projects and The New Urban Policy, Antipode, 542-577.
  34. Şenyapılı, T. (1998). Cumhuriyet’in 75. Yılı, Gecekondunun 50. Yılı, 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, Y. Sey (der), Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 301-316. Şenyapılı, T (2004). Charting the ‘Voyage’ of Squatter Housing in Urban Spatial ‘Quadruped, European Journal of Turkish Studies, 1.
  35. Taşan-Kok, T. (2010). Entrepreneurial Governance: Challenges of Large-scale Property-led Urban Regeneration Projects, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(2), 126-149.
  36. Tekeli, İ. (2008). Göç ve Ötesi, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul.
  37. TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Yönetim Kurulu, (2006). Kentsel Dönüşüm Değil, Rant Amaçlı Tasfiye Yasası, Planlama, (2), 5-6.
  38. Türkün, A. (2011). Urban Regeneration and Hegemonic Power Relationships, International Planning Studies, 16(1), 61-72.
  39. Ulusoy, A. (2008). Kentsel Dönüşüm ve Ankara’da Toplu Konut Uygulamaları, Mülkiye Dergisi, (32), 151-160. Uzun, C. N. (2006). Yeni Yasal Düzenlemeler ve Kentsel Dönüşüme Etkileri, Planlama, (2), 49-52.
  40. Wacquant, Loic J.D. (2006). Territorial Stigmatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality, The¬sis Eleven, (91), 66- 77.
  41. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecekondu
  42. https://www.toki.gov.tr/TR/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2 EF693712DAEAF2E646 (01.04.2012).
  43. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ankara/24489201.asp (16.02.2014).
  44. http://www.emlakproje.com/suc-mahallesinde-buyuk-donusum (16.02.2014).
  45. http://www.bugun.com.tr/son-dakika/-maalesef-bugun-kentsel-donusum--haberi/1224722 (16.02.2014).
  46. http://www.aksam.com.tr/yasam/tassal-donusum--84717h/haber-84717 (16.02.2014).
  47. http://www.altindag.bel.tr/haber.asp?islem=1&haber_ID=4018 (20.01.2017).
  48. http://www.sincan.bel.tr/HaberDetay.aspx?HID=88 (20.01.2017).