Publication: Kentsel dönüşüme verilen tepkiden hareketle mekânı anlamlandırmadaki farklılıklar : Gülsuyu-Gülensu örneği
Abstract
Mekân, öne çıkan pozitif ve/ veya negatif nitelikle birlikte anılır ve bu nitelikle var olur. Niteliğin mekâna atfedilmesi ve bu nitelikle özdeşleşmesi bir süreç gerektirir. Bu süreçte mekâna atıfta bulunanlar kimi zaman mekândakiler olurken kimi zaman mekânın dışındakiler olabilmektedir. Nihayetinde mekânın öne çıkan ya da çıkarılan niteliği ne ise mekânda bulunanlar da bu niteliklerle anılır. Mekânın sahip olduğu nitelikler, içerisinde damgalamayı da barındırmaktadır. Damgalanmış mekânlara dair planlanan farklı ideolojik temellere dayalı projelerin o mekânlardaki negatif bileşenleri ortadan kaldıramadığı çeşitli çalışmalarda ortaya konmuştur. Mekâna dışarıdan müdahale sorunlara çözüm üretememiş, yeni sorunların doğmasına sebep olmuştur. Mekândan dolayı damgalanan insanlar ise çeşitli platformlar aracılığıyla mücadele stratejileri geliştirmiş ve mekânın içerisinden eylemler sergilemişlerdir. Mekâna müdahale etmek, kenti yeniden planlamak toplumsal sorunlara çözüm üretememiştir. Bu araştırmada, Türkiye’deki hızlı kentleşme ve gecekondulaşma (slum), kentsel dönüşüm stratejileri bağlamında ve soylulaştırma (gentrification) kavramı perspektifinden Gülsuyu ve Gülensu mahalleleri örnekleriyle birlikte incelenmiştir. Mahallelerin ortaya çıkış koşulları, iç dinamiklerinden hareketle nasıl bir büyüme gerçekleştirdiği ve kentsel dönüşüm sürecinde devletin kendisini nasıl ve nerede konumlandırdığı, bu konumlandırma karşısında mahallelinin tutumu araştırmanın kapsamını oluşturmaktadır. Gülsuyu-Gülensu Mahallesinin kentsel dönüşüme karşı sergilediği tavır, yereli aşan bir tepki olarak, Türkiye’de en geniş katılımlı ve en örgütlü mücadele şekli olması açısından önemli bir muhalefettir. Mekânsal damgalanmaya maruz kalan Gülsuyu-Gülensu Mahallelerinin kentsel dönüşüm projelerine bakış açısından hareketle mekânı anlamlandırma biçimlerine ve stratejik planlarına odaklanılmıştır. Mekânın içeriden ve dışarıdan farklı anlamlandırmalara sahip olabileceği araştırmanın varsayımını oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın hipotezi ise kentli bireylerin kent hakkında söz söyleme hakkına sahip olabileceğidir. Mekânda yaşayan insanların mekân hakkında söz sahibi olup olamayacağı, sosyal katılımcılık mefhumunun ne derece gerçekçi olabileceği araştırmanın hareket noktasını oluşturmuştur. Mekân ve insan arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkinin anlaşılabilmesi amacıyla, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden epistemolojik felsefi varsayımdan hareketle, sosyal yapılandırmacılık görüşü çerçevesinde, yarı-yapılandırılmış mülakatlar aracılığı ile yanıtlar aranmıştır.
Space is mentioned together with the prominent positive and/ or negative quality and exists with this quality. Attributing a quality to space, and space’s being identified with this quality require a process. In this process, those referring to the space are either the ones in the space or the ones outside the space. Ultimately, those in the space are also associated with these qualities, which are prominent or highlighted in the space. The space’s qualities also includes the stigmatization. It has been demonstrated in various studies that the projects based on different ideological foundations planned for stigmatized spaces could not eliminate the negative components in those spaces. External intervention to the space could not provide solutions to the problems; instead, it has caused new problems to arise. People stigmatized because of the space, on the other hand, developed strategies of struggle through various platforms, and exhibited actions from within the space. Interfering with the space, and re-planning the city could not provide solutions to the social problems. In this research, rapid urbanization and slum in Turkey are examined within the context of urban transformation strategies and from the perspective of the concept of gentrification, together with the examples of Gulsuyu and Gulensu neighbourhoods. The conditions of neighbourhoods’ emergence, how they expand based on their internal dynamics, how and where the state positions itself during the urban transformation process and the residents’ attitude towards this positioning constitute the scope of the research. The attitude of Gulsuyu-Gulensu Neighbourhood towards urban transformation is an important opposition in terms of having the broadest participation and of being the most organized form of struggle in Turkey as a reaction that goes beyond the local. Based on the perspective of the urban transformation projects of Gulsuyu-Gulensu Neighbourhoods, which are exposed to spatial stigma, it is focused on the way they make sense of the space and their strategic plans. The presupposition of the research is that the space can have different meanings from inside and outside. The hypothesis of the research is that urban individuals may have the right to have a voice about the city. The starting point of the research is whether the people living in the space can have a voice about the space, and how realistic the concept of social participation can be. In order to understand the mutual relationship between space and people, answers are sought through semi-structured interviews within the framework of social constructivism, based on the epistemological philosophical assumption that is one of the qualitative research methods.
Space is mentioned together with the prominent positive and/ or negative quality and exists with this quality. Attributing a quality to space, and space’s being identified with this quality require a process. In this process, those referring to the space are either the ones in the space or the ones outside the space. Ultimately, those in the space are also associated with these qualities, which are prominent or highlighted in the space. The space’s qualities also includes the stigmatization. It has been demonstrated in various studies that the projects based on different ideological foundations planned for stigmatized spaces could not eliminate the negative components in those spaces. External intervention to the space could not provide solutions to the problems; instead, it has caused new problems to arise. People stigmatized because of the space, on the other hand, developed strategies of struggle through various platforms, and exhibited actions from within the space. Interfering with the space, and re-planning the city could not provide solutions to the social problems. In this research, rapid urbanization and slum in Turkey are examined within the context of urban transformation strategies and from the perspective of the concept of gentrification, together with the examples of Gulsuyu and Gulensu neighbourhoods. The conditions of neighbourhoods’ emergence, how they expand based on their internal dynamics, how and where the state positions itself during the urban transformation process and the residents’ attitude towards this positioning constitute the scope of the research. The attitude of Gulsuyu-Gulensu Neighbourhood towards urban transformation is an important opposition in terms of having the broadest participation and of being the most organized form of struggle in Turkey as a reaction that goes beyond the local. Based on the perspective of the urban transformation projects of Gulsuyu-Gulensu Neighbourhoods, which are exposed to spatial stigma, it is focused on the way they make sense of the space and their strategic plans. The presupposition of the research is that the space can have different meanings from inside and outside. The hypothesis of the research is that urban individuals may have the right to have a voice about the city. The starting point of the research is whether the people living in the space can have a voice about the space, and how realistic the concept of social participation can be. In order to understand the mutual relationship between space and people, answers are sought through semi-structured interviews within the framework of social constructivism, based on the epistemological philosophical assumption that is one of the qualitative research methods.