BASAK TANULKU BA, MA AN EXPLORATION OF TWO GATED COMMUNITIES IN ISTANBUL Ph.D. THESIS SUBMITTED TO LANCASTER UNIVERSITY OCTOBER 2009 1 I dedicate this thesis to my mother and father... 2 I, Basak Tanulku, declare that this thesis is my own work, and this is not submitted elsewhere for the award of a higher degree. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (REMOVED) 4 ABSTRACT In the process of globalisation, big cities in Turkey have witnessed the emergence of gated communities a much debated issue in public opinion. This thesis is a comparative research, which distinguishes it methodologically from the rest of the Turkish literature. Contrary to the mainstream literature, I will show that gated communities interact with their surroundings, rather than being isolated housing developments. For this purpose, I selected the communities of Istanbul Istanbul and Kasaba built by the same developer company in Gokturk and Omerli. I have four main interests in this research. First, I examine the relations established with the residents in nearby communities, the local populations and municipalities which lead to economic, political and cultural changes in Gokturk and Omerli. Second, I examine how residents establish boundaries with different groups. In doing this, I argue that gated communities are the reflections of different class and cultural groups so that each social group has its “socially situated symbolic capitals” relevant for that group. Third, I also examine how space is shaped by and shapes people’s lives. For this purpose, I examine the competition between imaginary and real spaces, i.e. “designed” and “lived” places, which gives interesting results about how residents experience their homes leading to the re- evaluation of “sign-value”. Fourth, I explore the “security” aspect of gated communities. For this purpose, I examine how residents perceive Istanbul which has become a dangerous city due to increasing crime rates and the threat of a future earthquake. I also examine how security is ensured inside gated communities. Finally, I argue that gated communities do not create totally safe and isolated places, but they lead to new insecurities. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES OF CONTENTS V-VII FIGURES AND TABLES VII-VIII CHAPTER ONE: AN EXPLORATION OF TWO GATED COMMUNITIES IN ISTANBUL 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 THESIS STRUCTURE 4 CHAPTER TWO: ISTANBUL: MICROCOSM OF GLOBAL PROCESSES INTRODUCTION 12 2.1 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING AND NEW LABOUR MARKETS 14 2.2 NEW POWER: CITIES IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY 19 2.3 GLOBAL ISTANBUL 23 2.4 THE NEW URBAN SPACE 25 2.5 FRAGMENTATION OF PUBLIC SPACE AND CONFLICTING ISTANBULS 31 2.5.1 Tensions in Istanbul: The Entrapment of Elites 41 2.6 FROM A GLOBAL CITY INTO A CITY OF FEAR 43 2.6.1 “The Moment when Time Stopped…” 48 CONCLUSION 51 CHAPTER THREE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LITERATURE ON GATED COMMUNITIES INTRODUCTION 54 3.1 GATED COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD 55 3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES AND THE SEARCH FOR SECURITY 60 3.3 A SUBURBAN PHENOMENON 65 3.4 A COMMUNITY LIFE 69 3.5 “MICRO-GOVERNMENTS” 72 3.6 WHO LIVES THERE? 76 3.6.1 Status and Distinction 78 3.7 DIFFERENT FORMS OF GATED COMMUNITIES 80 3.8 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 81 3.9 METHODS 87 CONCLUSION 94 CHAPTER FOUR: A TALE OF TWO VILLAGES: GOKTURK AND OMERLI INTRODUCTION 98 4.1 A SYMBIOTIC RELATION 98 4.1.1 “Permeable Closeness”: Social and Economic Relations 107 4.2 COOPERATIVE COMPETITORS 112 4.3 MODERNITY, BUT HOW? 121 4.3.1 Different Relations 128 4.3.2 In-between Modernity: A Gendered Dimension 131 4.3.3 Honest Villagers and Natural Village Life 135 6 CONCLUSION 141 CHAPTER FIVE: PLURAL DISTINCTIONS IN A SINGLE SPACE INTRODUCTION 145 5.1 SOCIAL CLOSURE AND PLURAL DISTINCTIONS 146 5.2 RESIDENTS AND LOCAL POPULATIONS 155 5.3 DIFFERENCES INSIDE THE SAME COMMUNITY 167 5.4 “WHICH ONE IS THE BEST?” 174 5.4.1 “We Are Not as Snobbish as Kemer Country” 180 CONCLUSION 187 CHAPTER SIX: THE COMPETITION BETWEEN IMAGINARY AND REAL COMMUNITIES INTRODUCTION 191 6.1 IMAGINARY COMMUNITIES 192 6.1.1 Different Niches in the Same Neighbourhood 192 6.1.2 A House “with a Soul” 196 6.1.3 “It Seems 40 Years Old” 201 6.1.4 The Competition between Foreign and Local Architects 208 6.1.5 Advertisements and Other Visuals 211 6.1.6 The Crown of Distinction 213 6.2 REAL COMMUNITIES 216 6.2.1 Turkish Life in an American House 226 CONCLUSION 232 CHAPTER SEVEN: “GUANTANAMO CAMPS” IN SUBURBAN ISTANBUL INTRODUCTION 237 7.1 THE FEAR OF URBAN SPACE AND EARTHQUAKE 238 7.1.1 Children 242 7.1.2 A Safe and Mobile Life 247 7.2 SAFE LIVING 248 7.2.1 Panopticon in Reverse 248 7.2.2 Spontaneous Security 254 7.3 NEW FORMS OF INSECURITY 257 7.3.1 Class and Ethnic/Religious Segregation 257 7.3.2 The Forest: Protection and Danger 260 7.3.3 Different Forms of Visibility: A Gendered Dimension 264 7.3.4 Less Traffic, Longer Road 267 7.3.5 “Enemy Inside” 271 CONCLUSION 274 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION 278 8.1 MAJOR CONTRIBUTION 280 8.2 MUTUALLY-INCLUSIVE FACTORS 289 8.3 FUTURE RESEARCH 295 7 APPENDIX 1 CHAPTER 3 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR PARTICIPANTS 298 1. Interview Questions for Residents 298 2. Interview Questions for Experts 299 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTS 300 1. Istanbul Istanbul 300 2. Kasaba 303 APPENDIX 2 CHAPTER 5 THE LOCATION OF PREVIOUS RESIDENCES: Istanbul Istanbul 307 THE LOCATION OF PREVIOUS RESIDENCES: Kasaba 308 REFERENCES 309 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: THE LOCATIONS OF ISTANBUL ISTANBUL AND KASABA 4 FIGURE 1.2: THE MAP OF ISTANBUL 11 FIGURE 4.1.1.1: ALEV PRIMARY SCHOOL 109 FIGURE 4.2.1: ISTANBUL AVENUE 117 FIGURE 4.2.2: A SECONDARY ROAD NEAR ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 118 FIGURE 4.2.3: ISTANBUL AVENUE 119 FIGURE 4.3.1: THE PAST AND THE PRESENT OF GOKTURK 122 FIGURES 4.3.2 AND 4.3.3: THE PAST AND THE PRESENT OF OMERLI 124 FIGURE 4.3.4: OMERLI REPUBLIC PARK 125 FIGURE 4.3.2.1: LOCAL WOMEN IN OMERLI 132 FIGURE 5.2.1: A MANGAL SET 157 FIGURE 5.2.2: A BARBEQUE 158 FIGURE 6.1.2.1: THE PLAN OF ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 198 FIGURE 6.1.2.2: THE SOCIAL CLUB BUILDING IN ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 200 FIGURE 6.1.2.3: THE PLAN OF KASABA 201 FIGURE 6.1.3.1: [Image Removed] 207 FIGURE 6.1.3.2: ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 207 FIGURE 6.1.4.1: MIPIM AWARD OF ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 210 FIGURE 6.1.6.1: AN ADVERTISEMENT OF “CASABA” 214 FIGURE 6.2.1: ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 218 FIGURE 6.2.2: KASABA 224 FIGURE 6.2.1.1: THE SKETCH OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF A HOUSE IN KASABA 230 FIGURE 7.1.1: KASABA AND ITS’ EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE 239 FIGURE 7.2.1.1: THE ENTRANCE OF KASABA 250 FIGURE 7.2.1.2: THE ENTRANCE OF ISTANBUL ISTANBUL 250 FIGURE 7.2.2.1: CARICATURE OF BEHIC AK 254 FIGURE 7.3.2.1: KASABA AND THE FOREST 263 8 TABLES TABLE 2.1.1: MAIN ECONOMIC SECTORS IN TURKEY 18 TABLE 2.1.2: FIRE SECTORS IN TURKEY 18 TABLE 2.1.3: FINANCIAL FLOWS IN TURKEY- EXPORTS AND IMPORTS 18 TABLE 2.6.1: COMPARISON OF CRIME STATISTICS OF TURKEY 44 9 CHAPTER ONE AN EXPLORATION OF TWO GATED COMMUNITIES IN ISTANBUL 1.1 INTRODUCTION In the process of globalisation, Turkey has witnessed the emergence of “gated communities” started in Istanbul, the biggest and the most populated city. In most of the literature gated communities have had negative meanings and have often been described as developments which increase social polarisation and further urban fragmentation (Caldeira, 2000) while sociologists generally regard gated communities as exclusionary, elitist and anti- social (El Nasser, 2002). They lead to paradoxes, as in the words of Lang and Danielsen, such as they create civic engagement and avoidance, deregulation and hyperregulation, integration and segregation and vigilance and negligence toward crime (Lang and Danielsen, 1997: 875- 876). Notwithstanding increasing worldwide interest in gated communities, this is a new subject to explore in Turkey. One reason which led people to move to gated communities has been the degrading aspects of city life (Alver, 2007; Ayata, 2002; Isik and Pinarcioglu, 2005; Oncu, 1999; Senyapili, 2003). The negative understanding of the “urban” has resulted in suburban expansion as depicted in the literature (Perouse and Danis, 2005; Kurtulus, 2005b). Gated communities have become a part of suburban expansion in Istanbul since the 1980s, accelerated by political arrangements and the rise of the new middle classes and a search for lifestyle. In most of the media, gated communities have different and sometimes conflicting representations. For instance, professional chambers of architects and urban planners have depicted gated communities as homogenous settlements which reinforce urban fragmentation. 10 In this context, gated communities are also regarded as illegal developments which raid forestry lands and destroy natural resources such as the news’ headlines: Construction cannot swallow forest (Fikret Bila, Milliyet Newspaper, 3 December 2006) Slaughter Started on 12 September (Miyase Ilknur, Cumhuriyet Newspaper, 6 December 2006) These quotations show that the construction of gated communities is regarded as “slaughtering” of forestry lands which is situated in a new socio-economic and political period of liberalisation started after the coup d’etat of 12 September 1980. However, developer companies regard gated communities as examples of planned housing, which could be models for the rest of the population as depicted in these quotations taken from brochures or advertisements: Kasaba, much more than a beautiful house and garden, a total way of lifestyle.