Kentsel dönüşümün mağdurları Suriyeli mülteciler: Ankara’da Önder ve Ulubey mahalleleri örneği

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 170 - 192, 29.07.2022

Sezen Savran Penbecioğlu

https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1026611

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Suriye İç Savaşı, çok sayıda sivili ülkesinden ayrılmaya zorlamış ve 2011-2015 yılları arasında Türkiye’nin açık kapı politikasından yararlanan milyonlarca Suriye vatandaşı sınırı geçerek sığınma arayışına girmiştir. Türkiye’nin Suriyelilere uyguladığı geçici koruma politikasının niteliği, insan hakları çerçevesinden kapsamlı sosyo-mekansal politikaların geliştirilememesine neden olmuştur. Barınma hakkı bağlamında da politika üretilememiş olması, Suriyeli mültecileri Türkiye’deki gecekondu ve kentsel dönüşüm gibi mevcut sorunlu barınma süreçlerinin bir parçası haline getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, zayıf barınma koşulları, sosyo-mekânsal izolasyon, pahalılık ve zoraki yer değişiklikleri gibi Suriyeli mültecilerin karşılaştığı konut sorunlarının farklı boyutlarını Ankara örneği üzerinden ortaya koymaktadır. Kentsel dönüşüm sürecindeki bir bölgede yaşamanın bu sorunları derinleştirdiği ileri sürülmektedir. Araştırma, nicel verilerin analizi, Suriyeli mültecilerle yapılan anket çalışması, Suriyeli mülteciler ve diğer önemli aktörlerle yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler ve katılımcı gözlemleri içeren karma bir yönteme dayanmaktadır. Saha çalışması, Önder ve Ulubey mahallelerinde 2017-2019 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuç bölümünde bulgular, gelecekteki planlama ve politika oluşturma süreçlerine girdi sağlayacak biçimde tartışmaya açılmıştır.

Keywords

Kentsel dönüşüm, Suriyeli mülteciler, Kent mülteciliği, Barınma hakkı, Ankara

Supporting Institution

Araştırma, Koç Üniversitesi Vehbi Koç Ankara Araştırmaları Merkezi VEKAM'ın 2019 yılı Araştırma Ödülleri kapsamında finansal olarak desteklenmiştir.

Syrian refugees as the victims of urban regeneration: A case study of Ankara, Önder and Ulubey neighborhoods

Abstract

The Syrian Civil War compelled vast numbers of Syrians to leave their homeland, and taking advantage of Turkey’s Open Door Policy, millions of Syrians crossed the shared border between 2011 and 2015 in search of refuge. The temporary protection nature of Turkey’s Policy for Syrians prevented the formation of comprehensive socio-spatial policies related to the provision of human rights. Regarding to the right to housing, the lack of government accommodation for refugees meant that the Syrian refugees became a part of Turkey’s existing housing problems, such as squatting and failed urban regeneration projects. The present study reveals different dimensions of housing problems that Syrian refugees encountered such as poor housing conditions, socio-spatial isolation, unaffordability, and forced mobility through the Ankara case. It is argued that living in an area in the process of urban regeneration has exacerbated these multiple housing problems. The research is based on a mixed-method including the analysis of quantitative data, questionnaire with Syrian refugees, semi-structured in-depth interviews with both Syrian refugees and key actors, and participant observations. Field study of the Önder and Ulubey neighborhoods was conducted between 2017 and 2019. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the findings, and an explanation of their potential for use in the future in urban policymaking and planning processes.

Keywords

Urban Regeneration, Syrian Refugees, Urban Refugees, Right to Housing, Ankara

References

• Adelkhah, F., Olszewska, Z. (2007): The Iranian Afghans, Iranian Studies, 40(2), 137-165.
• Alhusban, A. A., Alhusban, S. A., & Al-Betawi, Y. N. (2019). Assessing the impact of urban Syrian refugees on the urban fabric of Al Mafraq city architecturally and socially. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(2/3), 99-129.
• Altıntaş, S. (2016). İstanbul’un Mülteci Semtleri: Kumkapı ve Küçükpazar. İLEM Blog, 4, 1-9.
• Andersson, R. (1998). Socio-spatial Dynamics: Ethnic Divisions of Mobility and Housing in Post-Palme Sweden. Urban Studies, 35(3), 397-428.
• Ataöv, A., Osmay, S. (2007). Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşüme yöntemsel bir yaklaşım. METU JFA, 24(2) 57-82.
• Balkan, B., Tok, E., Torun, H., & Tumen, S. (2018). Immigration, housing rents, and residential segregation: evidence from Syrian refugees in Turkey. IZA DP, No. 11611.
• Batuman, B. (2013). City profile: Ankara. Cities, 31, 578-590.
• Bayraktar, A. N. (2016). Başkent Ankara’da cumhuriyet sonrası yaşanan büyük değişim: modern yaşam kurgusu ve modern mekânlar. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 67-80.
• Beer, A. Foley, P. (2003). Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees in Australia, Australia Housing and Urban Research Institute, Southern Research Centre. Retrieved May 25, 2020, from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/48
• Betts, A., Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Transforming a broken refugee system. London: Penguin UK.
• Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of actually existing neoliberalism. Antipode, 34(3), 349-379.
• Carter, T. S., Osborne, J. (2009). Housing and neighbourhood challenges of refugee resettlement in declining inner city neighbourhoods: A Winnipeg case study. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 7(3), 308-327.
• Centlivres, P., Centlivres-Demont, M. (1988). The Afghan refugees in Pakistan: a nation in exile. Current Sociology, 36(2), 71-92.
• Danişan, E. (2012). Violation of Housing Rights via State, as a Case of Aktaş Neighbourhood, Altindağ (Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University). https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12615220/index.pdf
• Diken, B. (2004). From refugee camps to gated communities: Biopolitics and the end of the city. Citizenship studies, 8(1), 83-106.
• Dündar, Ö. (2001). Models of urban transformation: Informal housing in Ankara. Cities, 18(6), 391-401.
• Elicin, Y. (2014). Neoliberal transformation of the Turkish city through the Urban Transformation Act. Habitat International, 41, 150-155.
• Erman, T. (2001). The politics of squatter (gecekondu) studies in Turkey: the changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse. Urban Studies, 38(7), 983-1002.
• Gümüşboğa, B. Y. (2009). Katılım ekseninde kentsel dönüşüm: Altındağ Aktaş Mahallesi örneği (Doctoral dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Çevre Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı).
• Güzey, Ö. (2016). The last round in restructuring the city: Urban regeneration becomes a state policy of disaster prevention in Turkey. Cities, 50, 40-53.
• Haliloğlu Kahraman, Z. E. (2021). Subjective evaluations of Syrian refugees on residential satisfaction: an exploratory study in an ethnic enclave in Turkey. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1-29.
• Keleş, R. (2015). Kentleşme Politikası, 14. Baskı, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Kocak, E. (2019). Kentsel Dönüşüm Projelerinde Soylulaştirici Olarak Toki’nin Rolü: Ankara İli, Aktaş Mahallesi Örneği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Şehir Ve Bölge Planlama Ana Bilim Dali.
• Kuyucu, T. (2018). Politics of urban regeneration in Turkey: Possibilities and limits of municipal regeneration initiatives in a highly centralized country. Urban Geography, 39(8), 1152-1176.
• Layder, D. (2005) Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research London: Sage
• Lefebvre, H. (2006). Critique of Everyday Life: From Modernity to Modernism (Towards a Metaphilosophy of Daily Life), Vol. 3. New York: Verso Books.
• Lovering, J., Türkmen, H. (2011). Bulldozer neo-liberalism in Istanbul: The state-led construction of property markets, and the displacement of the urban poor. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 73-96.
• Peach, C. (1996). Does Britain have ghettos?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 216-235.
• Phillips, D. (2006). Moving towards integration: the housing of asylum seekers and refugees in Britain. Housing Studies, 21(4), 539-553.
• Pinarcioğlu, M. & Işik, 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), 1353-1370.
• Poppe, W. (2013). Patterns and meanings of housing: Residential mobility and homeownership among former refugees. Urban Geography, 34(2), 218-241.
• Rajaee, B. (2000). The politics of refugee policy in post-revolutionary Iran. The Middle East Journal, 44-63.
• Sadioğlu, U., Tiryaki, V., Korkmaz, A. (2016). Altındağ Belediyesi Örneği Üzerinden Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm Politikasının Değerlendirilmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 71(3), 757 - 796.
• Sönmez, M. E. (2016). Suriyeli Sığınmacıların Gaziantep Şehrindeki Mekânsal Dağılışı ve Geleceği. TÜCAUM Uluslararası Coğrafya Sempozyumu, 13-14 Ekim 2016, Ankara.
• Türker-Devecigil, P. (2005). Urban transformation projects as a model to transform gecekondu areas in Turkey: The example of Dikmen Valley–Ankara. European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(2), 211-229.
• Türkün, A. (2011). Urban regeneration and hegemonic power relationships. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 61-72.
• UNHCR (2020). 3RP Annual Report . Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/86636
• Unsal, B. O. (2015). State-led urban regeneration in Istanbul: Power struggles between interest groups and poor communities. Housing Studies, 30(8), 1299-1316.
• Uysal, Ü. E. (2012). An urban social movement challenging urban regeneration: The case of Sulukule, Istanbul. Cities, 29(1), 12-22.
• Uzun, C. N. (2005). Residential transformation of squatter settlements: Urban redevelopment projects in Ankara. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(2), 183-199.
• Uzun, B., & Simsek, N. C. (2015). Upgrading of illegal settlements in Turkey; the case of North Ankara entrance urban regeneration project. Habitat International, 49, 157-164.
• Yıldız, A., & Uzgören, E. (2016). Limits to temporary protection: non-camp Syrian refugees in İzmir, Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(2), 195-211.
• Yiftachel, O. (2020). From displacement to displaceability: A southeastern perspective on the new metropolis. City, 24(1-2), 151-165.