City Research Online
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Unsal, Ozlem (2013). Inner‐ city regeneration and the politics of resistance in Istanbul: a comparative analysis of Sulukule and Tarlabaşi. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London) City Research Online Original citation: Unsal, Ozlem (2013). Inner‐ city regeneration and the politics of resistance in Istanbul: a comparative analysis of Sulukule and Tarlabaşi. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London) Permanent City Research Online URL: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/13026/ Copyright & reuse City University London has developed City Research Online so that its users may access the research outputs of City University London's staff. Copyright © and Moral Rights for this paper are retained by the individual author(s) and/ or other copyright holders. All material in City Research Online is checked for eligibility for copyright before being made available in the live archive. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to from other web pages. Versions of research The version in City Research Online may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check the Permanent City Research Online URL above for the status of the paper. Enquiries If you have any enquiries about any aspect of City Research Online, or if you wish to make contact with the author(s) of this paper, please email the team at [email protected]. INNER‐CITY REGENERATION AND THE POLITICS OF RESISTANCE IN ISTANBUL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SULUKULE AND TARLABAŞI -VOLUME I- Özlem Ünsal Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of a Doctor of Philosophy City University School of Social Sciences Department of Sociology June 2013 THE FOLLOWING IMAGES HAVE BEEN REDACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR COPYRIGHT AND/OR DATA PROTECTION REASONS: Page 111: Fig. 2 Page 112: Fig. 3 Page 113: Fig. 4 Page 122: Fig. 5 Page 123: Fig. 6 Page 124: Fig. 7 Dedicated to the loving memory of Saime Siret Bahçeli and all gestures and actors of civil opposition that made #occupygezi possible in Istanbul VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ______________________________________________________________________________ i List of Figures ________________________________________________________________________________ iii Acknowledgements __________________________________________________________________________ v Declaration ___________________________________________________________________________________ vii Abstract _______________________________________________________________________________________ ix List of Abbreviations _________________________________________________________________________ xi 1. Introduction _______________________________________________________________________________ 1 2. Reproaching Neoliberal Urbanization and Rights to the City: How to Tackle Urban Social Movements? ____________________________________________________________ 21 2.1 Urban Land as the Territory of Change: On Spatial Reorganization and Fragmentation ____________________________________________ 23 2.2. Urban Land as the Tool of Change: On New Urban Governance and Inequality ________________________________________________ 26 2.3. Urban Social Movements and Spatial Justice: Reintroducing ‘Rights to the City’ __________________________________________________________ 30 2.4. Translating ‘Right to the City’ into Practice: A Frame of Analysis for Urban Social Movements _________________________________________ 37 2.5. Private Ownership as Impediment to Collective Action? ____________________________ 46 3. The Two Rounds of Urban Globalization and Spatial Fragmentation in Istanbul ___________________________________________________ 53 3.1. Commodification of Urban Land Markets in Istanbul: The First Round of Urban Globalization (1980‐2000) ____________________________________ 54 3.1.1. Engineering The Space of Flows: Legal, Administrative and Institutional Grounds _____________________________________ 58 3.1.1.1. Restructuration of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) ______ 59 3.1.1.2. Manufacturing Tourism and ‘Prestige’ Areas __________________________ 60 3.1.1.3. Reconfiguring Housing Markets: Provision of Housing and Formalization of Informality _______________________ 62 3.1.1.4. Emergence of Middle to Upper Middle Class Housing ________________ 64 3.1.2. Istanbul in the 1990s: Landscape of the First Round of Urban Globalization _______________________________ 67 3.2. The Ultimate Urban Transformation of Istanbul: ‘The Second Round of Urban Globalization (2002 – … ) __________________________________ 72 3.2.1. Actualizing Neoliberal Urbanism: Legal, Administrative and Institutional Grounds ___________________________________ 80 3.2.1.1. Further Empowerment of Local Governance ________________________ 80 3.2.1.2. Complete Eradication of Informality _________________________________ 82 3.2.1.3. Restructuration of the Mass Housing Administration ______________ 84 3.2.1.4. Revitalization of Historic Urban Core _________________________________ 85 3.2.2. Istanbul in the 2000s: Landscape of the Second Round of Urban Globalization ___________________________ 87 i 4. Oppositional Movements and Grassroots Resistance to Urban Transformation in Istanbul _________________________________________________________ 97 4.1 Origins of Urban Oppositional Movements in Istanbul ______________________________ 99 4.1.1. Politicization of Housing Struggle: The Late 1970s _________________________ 100 4.1.2. A Middle‐Class Defence of the ‘Neighbourhood’: The Post‐1980s _________________________________________________________________ 103 4.2. Urban Opposition and Grassroots Resistance Today: The Post‐2000s ____________ 108 4.2.1. Framing Civil Initiatives _______________________________________________________ 109 4.2.1.1. An Overview of Main Arguments _____________________________________ 112 4.2.2. Neighbourhood Associations __________________________________________________ 120 4.2.2.1. An Overview of Main Arguments ______________________________________ 125 4.3. On the ‘Possibilities and Impossibilities of Collective Action’: Assessing the Potentials of Urban Oppositional Movements __________________________ 130 5. ‘Getting In’ and ‘Getting On’: The Uses and Intricacies of Ethnographic Fieldwork in Urban Transformation Zones _____________________ 141 5.1. Understanding the Realm of Urban Transformation in Istanbul____________ 142 5.2. The Neighbourhood as The Heart of Ethnographic Investigation _________________ 145 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Istanbul showing the administrative boundaries of Fatih (where Sulukule is located) and Beyoğlu (where Tarlabaşı is located) ______________________ 8 Figure 2: Poster of Emek Bizim (Emek is Ours) hung on the scaffoldings protecting the constructions, which will turn the historical Emek Cinema into a shopping mall ________________________________________________________________________ 111 Figure 3: Taksim Dayanışması protesting against the pedestrianization project targeting Taksim Square and Gezi Parkı _____________________________________________ 112 Figure 4: Haydarpaşa Dayanışması protesting against the closure of Haydarpaşa train station and its transformation into a potential hotel within the context of a marina project _________________________________________________________________________ 113 Figure 5: Image showing Başıbüyük residents, dressed in what looks like burial robes, protesting against the urban transformation project targeting their neighbourhood in Maltepe town centre _____________________________________________ 122 Figure 6: Image showing Ayazma residents protesting against TOKİ (i.e. MHA) and Küçükçekmece Municipality __________________________________________________________ 123 Figure 7: Residents of Fener‐Balat‐Ayvansaray protesting against regeneration plans envisaged for their neighbourhood. ___________________________________________ 124 iii iv Acknowledgements What made the completion of this thesis possible is the support and companionship of an army of people. My deepest gratitude goes to my supervisors Prof. Frank Webster and Dr. Patria Roman Velazquez for their immense tolerance, support and encouragement throughout the writing process. Many hardships were overcome with their genuine faith in what I aimed to do and I cannot think of a way to thank them enough. Tuna Kuyucu and Tolga İslam deserve special thanks for their company at the time of fieldwork. Without the discussions we had and exchanges we made in the early stages of our research, I would not be able to find the inspiration to further my ideas. Time spent with them on the ground has been invaluable and will always be remembered with appreciation. Another big thank you goes to Ayfer Bartu Candan, Emrah Kavlak and Saitali Köknar for their active presence in the final stages of completion. Whereas Ayfer read big chunks of an earlier draft and provided me with valuable feedbacks, Emrah created the much‐needed maps and Saitali gave me a hand with the formatting. It was due to their generous help that I made it to the end of my long journey. My colleagues at the City University, Department of Sociology were those who magnificently saved me from the isolation of writing a PhD thesis. Eylem, Damien, Sam, Doğuş, Jimmy, Lena, Nico, Akri and Sheed provided me with the joy, comfort and friendship I needed rain, or shine. I feel very lucky to have known each one of them. No words can describe the kind presence of Burcu, Saitali, Elif A., Tuna, Cüneyt, Ayfer, Fatma, Rukiye, Can, Josh,