Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-g7ldn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-18T02:29:57.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated Town and a Public Housing Project in İstanbul

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Ayfer Bartu Candan  and
Biray Kolluoğlu
Ayfer Bartu Candan
Affiliation:
Sociology Department, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, ayfer.bartu@boun.edu.tr
Biray Kolluoğlu
Affiliation:
Sociology Department, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, biray@boun.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

İstanbul has undergone a neoliberal restructuring over the past two decades. In this paper, we focus on two urban spaces that we argue to have emerged as part of this process—namely Göktürk, a gated town, and Bezirganbahçe, a public housing project. We examine these spaces as showcases of new forms of urban wealth and poverty in İstanbul, demonstrating the workings of the neoliberalization process and the forms of urbanity that emerge within this context. These are the two margins of the city whose relationship with the center is becoming increasingly tenuous in qualitatively different yet parallel forms. In Göktürk's segregated compounds, where urban governance is increasingly privatized, non-relationality with the city, seclusion into the domestic sphere and the family, urban fear and the need for security, and social and spatial isolation become the markers of a new urbanity. In Bezirganbahçe, involuntary isolation and insulation, and non-relationality with the city imposed through the reproduction of poverty create a new form of urban marginality marked by social exclusion and ethnic tensions. The new forms of wealth and poverty displayed in these two urban spaces, accompanied by the social and spatial segregation of these social groups, compel us to think about future forms of urbanity and politics in İstanbul.

Keywords

Urban transformationneoliberal urbanismpublic housinggated communitiessocial and spatial segregationnew forms of wealth and poverty

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 39 , Fall 2008 , pp. 5 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/.Google Scholar
The Association of the Tourist Hotelkeepers and Hotel Managers, http://www.turob.org/.Google Scholar
T.C. Başbakanlık Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı, http://www.toki.gov.tr/.Google Scholar
Boyut Yayın Grubu, http://www.travelguide.gen.tr.Google Scholar
“775 Sayılı Gecekondu Kanunu.” TBMM, 1966.Google Scholar
“2985 Sayılı Toplu Konut Kanunu.” TBMM, 1984.Google Scholar
“5216 Sayılı Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kanunu.” TBMM, 2004.Google Scholar
“5366 Sayılı Yıpranan Tarihi ve Kültürel Taşınmaz Varlıkların Yenilenerek Korunması ve Yaşatılarak Kullanılması Hakkında Kanun.” TBMM, 2005.Google Scholar
“5393 Sayılı Belediye Kanunu.” TBMM, 2005.Google Scholar
“Market Research, Real Estate Market Review 2007.” Colliers International, 2007.Google Scholar
“Misyon & Vizyon.” Küçükçekmece Belediyesi, http://www.kucukcekmece.bel.tr/icerik_de-tay.asp?tur=20&id=7.Google Scholar
Adaman, Fikret, and Keyder, Çağlar, eds. “Poverty and Social Exclusion in the Slum Areas of Large Cities in Turkey.” Brussels: European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG, 2006.Google Scholar
Aguirre, Adalberto Jr., Eick, Volker, and Reese, Ellen. “Introduction: Neoliberal Globalization, Urban Privatization, and Resistance.” Social Justice 33, no. 3 (2006): 1–5.Google Scholar
Arıkanlı-Özdemir, Maya. “Kentsel Dönüşüm Sürecinde Eski Bir Gecekondu Mahallesi: Karanfilköy Kentlere Vurulan “Neşter”ler.” In İstanbul'da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar, edited by Kurtuluş, Hatice, 187–222. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2005.Google Scholar
Aslan, Şükrü. 1 Mayıs Mahallesi: 1980 Öncesi Toplumsal Mücadeleler ve Kent. İstanbul: İletişim, 2004.Google Scholar
Augé, Marc. Non-places: An Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso, 1995.Google Scholar
Ayata, Sencer. “Varoşlar, Çatışma ve Şiddet.” Görüs, no. 18 (1981): 18–23.Google Scholar
Bartu, Ayfer. “Who Owns the Old Quarters? Rewriting Histories in a Global Era.” In Istanbul: Between the Local and the Global, edited by Keyder, Çağlar, 31–45. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. “Urban Space Wars: On Destructive Order and Creative Chaos.” Citizenship Studies 2, no. 3 (1998): 109–23.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcasts. Maiden: Blackwell, 2004.Google Scholar
Baydar, Oya. “öteki'ne Yenik Düşen İstanbul.” İstanbul, no. 23 (1996): 74–81.Google Scholar
Blakely, Edward J., and Synder, Mary Gail. Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Blandy, Sarah, and Atkinson, Rowland, eds. Gated Communities: International Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2006.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Wacquant, Loïc. “Neoliberal Newspeak: Notes on the New Planetary Vulgate.” Radical Philosophy, no. 105 (2006): 2–5.Google Scholar
Bourgois, Philippe. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Bozkulak, Serpil. ““Gecekondu”dan “Varoş”a: Gülsuyu Mahallesi.” In İstanbul'da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar, edited by Kurtuluş, Hatice, 239–66. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2005.Google Scholar
Brenner, Neil, and Theodore, Nik. “Cities and the Geographies of Actually Existing Neoliberalism.” Antipode 34, no. 3 (2002): 349–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Neil, and Theodore, Nik. Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in Western Europe and North America. Oxford; Boston: Blackwell, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buğra, Ayşe. “The Immoral Economy of Housing in Turkey.” The International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22, no. 2 (1998): 303–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buğra, Ayşe, and Keyder, Çağlar. “New Poverty and the Changing Welfare Regime of Turkey.” Ankara: United Nations Development Programme, 2003.Google Scholar
Caldeira, P. R. Teresa. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in Sao Paulo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, P. R. Teresa. “Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation.” In Theorizing the City: The New Urban Anthropology Reader, edited by Low, Setha M., 83–107. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Comaroff, Jean, and Comaroff, John L., eds. Millenial Capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danış, Aslı Didem. “İstanbul'da Uydu Yerleşmelerin Yaygınlaşması: Bahçeşehir örneği.” In 21. Yüzyıl Karşısında Kent ve insan, edited by Cümüşoğlu, Firdevs, 151–60. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2001.Google Scholar
Danış, Aslı Didem, and Pérouse, Jean-François. “Zenginliğin Mekânda Yeni Yansımaları: İstanbul'da Güvenlikli Siteler.” Toplum ve Bilim, no. 104 (2005): 92–123.Google Scholar
Davis, Mike. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. New York: Verso, 1990.Google Scholar
Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. London: Verso, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellin, Nan. “Shelter from the Storm or Form Follows Fear and Vice Versa.” In Architecture of Fear, edited by Ellin, Nan, 13–45. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Erder, Sema. İstanbul'a Bir Kent Kondu: Ümraniye, İstanbul: İletişim, 1996.Google Scholar
Erder, Sema. Kentsel Gerilim. Ankara: Uğur Mumcu Araştırmacı Gazetecilik Vakfı, 1997.Google Scholar
Erdoğan, Necmi, ed. Yoksulluk Halleri: Türkiye'de Kent Yoksulluğunun Toplumsal Görünümleri, İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı, 2002.Google Scholar
Erman, Tahire. “The Politics of Squatter (Gecekondu) Studies in Turkey: The Changing Representations of Rural Migrants in the Academic Discourse.” Urban Studies 38, no. 7 (2001): 983–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gans, Herbert J.The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Ghannam, Farha. Remaking the Modern: Space, Relocation, and the Politics of Identity in a Global Cairo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasze, Georg, Webster, Chris, and Frantz, Klaus, eds. Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2006.Google Scholar
Güvenç, Murat, and Işık, Oğuz. “İstanbul'u Okumak: Statü-Konut Mülkiyeti Farklılaşmasına İlişkin Bir Çözümleme Denemesi.” Toplum ve Bilim, no. 71 (1996): 6–60.Google Scholar
Hackworth, Jason. The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Hart, Charles William Merton. Zeytinburnu Gecekondu Bölgesi, İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası, 1969.Google Scholar
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar
Holston, James, and Appadurai, Arjun. “Introduction: Cities and Citizenship.” In Cities and Citizenship, edited by Holston, James, 1–19. Durham: Duke University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Işık, Oğuz, and Pınarcıoğlu, M. Melih. Nöbetleşe Yoksulluk: Sultanbeyli Örneği, İstanbul: İletişim, 2001.Google Scholar
Karpat, Kemal H.The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
“Kentsel Dönüşüm Gecekonduculara Takıldı.” Zaman, 28 November 2007.Google Scholar
“Kentsel Dönüşüm Projeleri, Suç Örgütlerinin Sığınaklarını Yok Ediyor.” Zaman, 18 May 2008.Google Scholar
Keyder, Çağlar. “Liberalization from Above and the Future of the Informal Sector: Land, Shelter, and Informality in the Periphery.” In Informalization: Process and Structure, edited by Tabak, Faruk and Crichlow, Michaeline, 119–32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Keyder, Çağlar. State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development. London: Verso, 1987.Google Scholar
Keyder, Çağlar, and Öncü, Ayşe. Istanbul and the Concept of the World Cities, İstanbul: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 1993.Google Scholar
Kurtoğlu, Ayça. Hemşehrilik ve Şehirde Siyaset: Keçiören Örneği, İstanbul: İletişim, 2001.Google Scholar
Kurtuluş, Hatice, “İstanbul'da Kapalı Yerleşmeler: Beykoz Konakları Örneği.” In İstanbul'da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar, edited by Kurtuluş, Hatice, 25–76. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2005.Google Scholar
Lash, Scott, and Urry, John. The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Lipietz, Alain, and Slater, Malcolm. Towards A New Economic Order. Postfordism, Ecology and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Low, Setha. “How Private Interests Take Over Public Space: Zoning, Taxes, and Incorporation of Gated Communities.” In The Politics of Public Space, edited by Low, Setha and Smith, Neil. New York: Routledge, 2006.Google Scholar
Low, Setha M.Behind the Cates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London: Routledge, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mbembe, Achille. “Aesthetics of Superfluity.” Public Culture 16, no. 3 (2004): 373–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, Evan. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Merrifield, Andy, and Swyngedouw, Erik, eds. The Urbanization of Injustice. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1996.Google Scholar
Miraftab, Faranak. “Governing Post-apartheid Spatiality: Implementing City Improvement Districts in Cape Town.” Antipode 39, no. 4 (2007): 602–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miraftab, Faranak. “Making Neoliberal Governance: The Disempowering Work of Empowerment.” International Planning Studies 4, no. 9 (2004): 239–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Don. “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States.” Antipode 29, no. 3 (1997): 303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nader, Laura. “Up the Anthropologist-Perspectives Gained From Studying Up.” In Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Hymes, Dell H., 284–311. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus, and others. Disorganized Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Öktem, Binnur. “Küresel Kent Söyleminin Kentsel Mekânı Dönüştürmedeki Rolü: Büyükdere-Maslak Hattı.” In İstanbul'da Kentsel Ayrışma: Mekansal Dönüşümde Farklı Boyutlar, edited by Kurtuluş, Hatice, 25–76. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2005.Google Scholar
Öncü, Ayşe. “The Politics of Urban Land Market in Turkey: 1950-1980.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 12, no. 1 (1988): 38–64.Google Scholar
Özgün, Gökhan. “Yeni Aristokrasi.” Taraf, 28 June 2008.Google Scholar
Özkan, Funda. “Vatandaş Omuz Vermezse Kentsel Dönüşüme 500 Yıl da Yetmez.” Radikal, 10 January 2008.Google Scholar
Peck, Jamie, and Tickell, Adam. “Neoliberalizing Space.” Antipode 34, no. 3 (2002): 380–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Relph, E. C.Place and Placelessnes. London: Pion, 1977.Google Scholar
Ritzer, George. The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Robertson, Roland. “Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept.” Theory, Culture & Society 7, no. 2-3 (1990): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, Dennis. “‘Disembedding’ the City: Crime, Insecurity and Spatial Organization in Managua, Nicaragua.” Environment and Urbanization 16, no. 2 (2004).Google Scholar
Sassen, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Sassen, Saskia. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Schlör, Joachim. Nights in the Big City: Paris, Berlin, London 1840-1930. London: Reaktion Books, 1998.Google Scholar
Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf, 1977.Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” In Sociological Perspectives: Selected Readings, edited by Thompson, Kenneth and Thunstall, Jeremy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971.Google Scholar
Stallybrass, Peter. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Suttles, Gerald D.The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, Erik, Moulaert, Frank, and Rodriguez, Arantxa. “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy.” Antipode 34, no. 3 (2002): 542–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şenyapılı, Tansı. Gecekondu: ‘Çevre’ İsçilerin Mekanı. Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi, 1981.Google Scholar
Tekeli, İlhan. “Gecekondu.” In İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1993.Google Scholar
Turgut, Sırma, and Ceylan, Eda Çaçtaş, eds. Küçükçekmece Mekansal Stratejik Planı, İstanbul: Küçükçekmece Belediye Başkanlığı Kentsel Dönüşüm ve Ar-Ge Şefliği, 2006.Google Scholar
Wacquant, Loïc. “Labour Market Insecurity and the Criminalization of Poverty.” In Youth and Work in The Post-Industrial City of North America and Europe, edited by Roulleau-Berger, Laurance, 408–19. Netherlands: Brill, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacquant, Loïc. “Territorial Somatization in the Age of Advanced Marginality.” Thesis Eleven 91, no. 1 (2007): 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, Louis. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” The American Journal of Sociology 44, no. 1 (1938): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YEMAR. “Türk Yapı Sektörü Raporu.” İstanbul: Yapı-Endüstri Merkezi, 2006.Google Scholar
“Yeniay: Kentsel Dönüşüm Kimseyi Mağdur Etmeyecek.” Zaman, 9 August 2005.Google Scholar
Yonucu, Deniz. “A Story of a Squatter Neighborhood: From the Place of the ‘Dangerous Classes’ to the ‘Place of Danger’.” The Berkeley Journal of Sociology 52 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Young, Michael, and Willmott, Peter. Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957.Google Scholar
Zukin, Sharon. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.Google Scholar