Does Gentrification Displace the Urban Poor? The Case of Bursa, Turkey

Year 2012, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 25 - 46, 30.05.2016

Doğan Bıçkı Serhat Özgökçeler

Abstract

Gentrification is probably the most debated category of all the urban renewal strategies. This is because, as a consequence of the gentrification process, there is a possibility that social change may occur that may lead to changes in the social pattern (Ball, 2002, p.833). This possibility is, for some, an inevitable consequence and for some others a case to be approached with relativity. Our stance in this study is that local conditions, such as cultural or historical capital, should be taken into consideration not only due to their formation but also to their consequences.In this regard, the goal of the study is to identify whether the urban renewal observed in the Tophane Hisar district in Bursa, one of the historical cities in Turkey, could be analyzed through the concept “gentrification”. In addition, if it could, what will its scope be? And is the displacement of the urban poor by gentrification an issue for this district?

Keywords

Gentrification, urban poor, neighborhood, displacement, ownership change.

References

• Alver, K. (2007). Steril Hayatlar: Kentte Mekânsal Ayrışma ve Güvenlikli Siteler [Sterile Lives: Spatial Segregation in the Urban and Gated Communities]. Ankara: Hece Yayınları.
• Atkinson, R. (2003). “Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker? The Many Meanings and Problems of Gentrification”, Urban Studies, 40 (12), 2343–
• Atkinson, R. (2004). “The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification. New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance”, European Journal of Urban Policy, 4 (1), 107–131.
• Badcock, B. (1989). “An Australian view of the Rent Gap Hypothesis”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79 (1), 125–145.
• Bailey, N. and Robertson, D. (1997). “Housing Renewal, Urban Policy and Gentrification”, Urban Studies, 34 (4), 561–578.
• Ball, A.M. (2002). “Gentrification in a Residential Mobility Framework: Social Change, Tenure Change and Chains of Moves In Stockholm”, Housing Studies, 17 (6), –856.
• Behar, D. and Islam, T. (2006). İstanbul’da “Soylulaştırma”: Eski Kentin Yeni Sahipleri, Gentrification in İstanbul: New Owners of the old City]. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Bondi, L. (1991). “Gender Divisions and Gentrification: A Critique”, Transactions of the Instıtute of British Geographers, 16, 190–198.
• Bridge, G. (1995). “The Space for Class? On Class Analysis in the Study of Gentrification”, Transactions of the Instıtute of British Geographers, 20 (2), 236–247.
• Bridge, G. (2001). “Bourdieu, Rational Action and the Space Strategy of Gentrification”, Transactions of the Instıtute of British Geographers, New Series 26, 205– 216
• Bridge, G. (2003). “Time-Space Trajectories in Provincial Gentrification”, Urban Studies, 40 (12), 2545–2556.
• Butler, T. (2003). “Gentrification and It’s ‘Other’ in North London”, Urban Studies, 40 (12), 2469–2486.
• Butler, T. and Robson, G. (2003). “Negotiating their Way in: The Middle Classes, Gentrification and the Development of Capital in a Globalizing Metropolis”, Urban Studies, 40 (9), 1791–1809.
• Clark, E. (1988). “Rant Gap and Transformation of the Built Environment: Case Studies in Malmö, Sweden 1860–1985”, Geografiska Annaler Series B, Human Geography, 70 (2), 241–254.
• Clark, E. (1992). “On Blindness, Centrepieces and Complementarity in Gentrification Theory”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 17 (3), 358–362.
• Cole, D. B. (1985). “Gentrification, Social Character, and Personal Identity”, Geographical Review, 75 (2), 142–155.
• Criekingen, M. and Decroly, J.M. (2003). “Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification: Neighbourhood Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal”, Urban Studies, 40 (12), –2468.
• Dooling, S. (2009). “Ecological Gentrification: A Research Agenda Exploring Justice in the City”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33 (3), 621–39.
• Featherstone, M. (2007). Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications.
• Glass,R. (1964). London: Aspects of Change. Report No:3, Centre for Urban Studies, London, Mc Gibbon & Kee
• Hackworth, J. and Smith, N. (2001). “The Changing State of Gentrification”, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92 (4), 464–477.
• Lees, L. (2000). “A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards a ‘Geography of Gentrification’, Progress in Human Geography, 24 (3), 389–408.
• Lefebvre, H. (1998). Modern Dünyada Gündelik Hayat [La Vie quotidienne dans le monde moderne]. I. Gürbüz (çev.), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Ley, D. (2003). “Artists, Aestheticisation and the Field of Gentrification”, Urban Studies, 40 (12), 2527–2544.
• Niedt, C. (2006). “Gentrification and the Grassroots. Popular Support in the Revanchist Suburb”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 28 (2), 99–120.
• Partch, J. (2004). “The Embedded Landscape of Gentrification”, Visual Studies, 19 (2), –187.
• Redfern, P.A. (2003). “What Makes Gentrification ‘Gentrification’?”, Urban Studies, 40 (12), 2351–2366.
• Slatter, T. (2004). “Municipally Managed Gentrification in South Parkdale, Toronto”, The Canadian Geographer, 48 (3), 303–325.
• Slatter, T. (2006). “The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30 (4), 737–757.
• Smith, H. and Graves, W. (2005). “Gentrification as Corporate Growth Strategy: The Strange Case of Charlote, North Carolina and the Bank of America”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 27 (4), 403–418.
• Smith, N. (1979). “Toward a Theory of Gentrification A Back to the City Movement by Capital, not People”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 45 (4), 538—548.
• Uzun, N. (2006). “Kentsel Dönüşümde Yeni Bir Kavram: ‘Seçkinleştirme’” [A New Concept in Urban Renewal: ‘Gentrification’] in A. Eraydın (ed.), Değişen Mekan Changing Space]. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.
• Zukin, S. (1987). “Culture and Capital in the Urban Core”, Annual Review of Sociology, (-), 129–147.