Sulukule Transition: Impact on Municipal Destigmatization and Stigma Stickiness

Abstract

This research article revisits the ‘Sulukule’ through the lens of destigmatization, where territorial stigma intersects with Roman ethnicity.’ With reference to socio-spatial developments, this article unpacks the soft and hard components of destigmatization, from displacement to neighborhood renaming, and discusses its design and implementational shortcomings. Future socio-spatial change is the aim of municipalities’ planning anddesignpractices. Basedonourobservationsfromthe2018field survey in Sulukule, we argue that the neighborhood’s negative reputation persists, rendering it "ungentrifable." Consequently, the neighborhood developed its own spatial and social dynamics over time rather than producing the municipality’s planned outcomes. The return of displaced Romani, the uncontrolled influx of refugees, rising tensions between non-Romani and Romani residents in Sulukule, and the flight of local middle-class residents to other districts all affected the outcome. In this context, we identified several flaws, such as the removal of territorial stigma and subsequent neglect of its overlapping nature; policy conflicts at both the central and local scales; and the prevalence of centralist and top-down urban governance. Directly addressing territorial destigmatization as a goal in all official documents and making those documents tangible through negotiations among stakeholders should be integral to the destigmatization process.

Keywords

• Stigmatization
• destigmatization
• Sulukule
• stickiness of stigma
• planned displacement

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Grubu (SOBAG)

Project Number

1001/117K296

Ethical Statement

Sisteme yüklendi

Thanks

Desteklerinden dolayı TÜBİTAK'a ve Proje Ekibine çok teşekkür ediyoruz.

References

1. August, M. (2014). Challenging the rhetoric of stigmatization: The benefits of concentrated poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6): 1317-33. google scholar
2. Aydın, S. (2015, February 8). Belediye Sulukule kültürüne göz dikti. Evrensel. Retrieved from https://www.evrensel.net/haber/104146/ belediye-sulukule-kulturune-goz-dikti google scholar
3. Balci, H. (2009). Kentsel dönüşüm bağlamında Sulukule’yi anlamak: Roman kimliğinin analizi. (Master Thesis). Yildiz Technical University. Turkey. google scholar
4. Clark, E. (2005). The order and simplicity of gentrification: A political challenge. InR. Atkinson and G. Bridge (Eds.). Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. (p. 256-264). London: Routledge., google scholar
5. Daglar, I. (2009, 19 March). New AKP gentry in Roma district. Hürriyet. Retrieved From http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/ new-akp-gentry-in-roma-district- 11239923. google scholar
6. Duman Bay, B., and Polat, İ. (2023). Yerel yönetimlerin yeti kaybı, Birikim, February-March 2024, (418-419): 13-23. google scholar
7. Ergun, N. (2004). Gentrification in Istanbul. Cities, 21(5): 391-405. google scholar
8. Fatih belediye başkanı Turan. (2021, September 30). Sputnik. Retrieved from https://sputniknews.com.tr/20210930/ fatih- belediye- baskani- turan- suriyeli- ya- da- baska- memleketli- fatihte- herhangi- bir- ev- kiralayamaz- 1049384150.html google scholar

9. Foggo, H. (2007). The Sulukule affair: Roma against expropriation. Roma Rights Quarterly, 4: 41-47. google scholar
10. Gençdal, D. (2024, February 14). İmamoğlu duyurdu: 11. İdare Mahkemesi, Kanal İstanbul’un imar planını iptal etti. Medyascope.tv. Retrieved from https://medyascope.tv/2024/02/14/imamoglu-duyurdu-kanal-istanbul-imar-plani-iptal-edildi/ google scholar
11. Hammel, D. J. (1999). Re-establishing the rent gap: An alternative view of capitalized land rent. Urban Studies, 36(8): 1283-1293. google scholar
12. Harvey, D. (1978). The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1-3): 101-131. google scholar
13. Hastings, A., and Dean, J. (2003). Challenging images: tackling stigma through estate regeneration. Policy Polit., 31(2): 171-184. google scholar
14. Horgan, M. (2018). Territorial stigmatization and territorial destigmatization: A cultural sociology of symbolic strategy in the gentrification of Parkdale (Toronto). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(3): 500-516., google scholar
15. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2019). Baseline assessment in Istanbul province, Annual Report. May-July 2019. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/IST_Baseline_Assessment_Phase5_ENG_29012020.pdf. google scholar
16. Islam, T. (2009). Devlet eksenli soylulaşma ve yerel halk: Neslişah ve Hatice Sultan mahalleleri (Sulukule) örneği. (Doctoral Dissertation). Yıldız Technical University, Turkey. google scholar
17. Islam, T., and Enlil, Z. (2010). 5366 sayılı yasa merkezli dönüşüm ve Sulukule örneği: Belediye’nin hedefleri ve yaşanan gerçeklik. InD. Özdemir (Eds.). Kentsel Dönüşümde Politika, Mevzuat, Uygulama: Avrupa Deneyimi, Istanbul Uygulamaları, (p. 317-334). Ankara: Nobel. google scholar
18. Islam, T., and Sakizlioglu, B. (2015). The making of, and resistance to, state-led gentrification in Istanbul, Turkey. In L. Lees, H. B. Shin, and E. Lopez-Morales (Eds.). Global Gentrification: Uneven Developments and Displacements, (p.245-264). Bristol: Policy Press. google scholar
19. Istanbul Buyuksehir Belediyesi (IBB) Stratejik Plan (2020-2024). Retrieved from January 10, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ibb.istanbul/Uploads/2020/2/iBB-STRATEJIK-PLAN-2020-2024.pdf. google scholar
20. Kaban, E. (2011). Kentsel dönüşüm ve Istanbul’un ilk kentsel dönüşüm uygulama projesi: Sulukule örneği. (Master Thesis). Istanbul University, Turkey. google scholar
21. Kallin, H. and Slater, T. (2014). Activating territorial stigma: Gentrifying marginality on Edinburgh’s periphery. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6): 1351-1368. google scholar
22. Kailin, H. (2017). Opening the reputational gap. In P. Kirkness & A. Tije-Dra (Eds.), Negative Neghborhood Reputation and Place Attachment. The Production and Contestation of Territorial Stigma. (p.102-118). Abongdon: Routledge. google scholar
23. Karaman, O., and Islam, T. (2012). On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of a Romani neighborhood in Istanbul. Cities, 29(4): 234-243. google scholar
24. Kavas, A., Avşar, İ., Kadkoy, O. and Bilgiç, E.B. (2019). İstanbul’da Suriyeliler ve savaş sonrası gettoları. Haziran 2019. TEPAV Report. Retrieved from https://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/mce/2019/haberler/tepav_istanbulda_suriyeliler_ve_savas_sonrasi_suriye_gettolari.pdf google scholar
25. Kocabas, A. and Gibson, M. (2011). Planned gentrification in Istanbul: The Sulukule renewal area (2005-2010). International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 6(4): 420-446. google scholar
26. Lees, L., Shin, H. B., and Lopez-Morales, E. (2015). Conclusion: Global gentrifications. In L. Lees, H. B. Shin, and E. Lopez-Morales (Eds). Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement. (p.441-452). Bristol: Policy Press. google scholar
27. Letsch, C. (2023). Territorial stigmatization: Urban renewal and displacement in a central İstanbul neighborhood. Transcript Publishing. google scholar
28. Megakent’te suçun yüksek olduğu 6 ilçe! (2020, February 13). Haberturk. Retrieved from google scholar
29. http://www.haberturk.com/megakent-te-sucun-yuksek-oldugu-6-ilce-caliskan-kadina-siddette-bircok-avrupa-kenti-daha-kotu-2582819 google scholar
30. Mösgen, A., Rosol, M., and Schipper, S. (2019). State-led gentrification in previously ‘un-gentrifiable’ areas: Examples from Vancouver, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26(4), 419-433. google scholar
31. Mustafa Demir’den istifa açıklaması. (2009, March 19). Hürriyet. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/ mustafa-demirden-sulukule-aciklamasi-11240332. google scholar
32. Ozcan, C. (2015). The effects of gentrification on cultural identity: A case study in Istanbul, Sulukule. (Master Thesis). Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Sweden. google scholar
33. Ozet, İ. (2020). Fatih Başakşehir: Muhafazakar mahallede iktidar ve dönüşen habitus. İstanbul: İletişim. google scholar
34. Paton, K., McCall, V., and Mooney, G. (2017). Place revisited: Class, stigma and urban restructuring in the case of Glasgow’s Commonwealth games. The Sociological Review, 65(4): 578-594. google scholar
35. Paton, K. (2018). Beyond legacy: Backstage stigmatization and ‘trickle-up’ politics of urban regeneration. The Sociological Review, 66(4): 919-934. google scholar
36. Pattison, J. (2023). “You don’t go there”: Spatial strategies of stigma negotiation in a post-industrial town. Antipode, 55(4): 1213-1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12930 google scholar
37. Penbecioglu, M. (2013). Urban Development Projects and the Construction of Neoliberal Urban Hegemony: The Case of Izmir. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 30(1): 165-189. google scholar
38. Sahinkaya, C., Duran-Diaz, P., and Bendzko, T. (2018). Urban regeneration in the context of two different planning approaches: A case study of Sulukule (Istanbul, Turkey) and Haidhausen (Munich, Germany). In: FIG Congress 2018, Istanbul, Turkey, 6-11 May 2018. google scholar
39. Sakizlioğlu, B. (2014). Living under the threat of displacement. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr, 105: 206-220. google scholar
40. Sakizlioglu, B. and Uitermark, J. (2014). The symbolic politics of gentrification: The restructuring of stigmatized neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul. Environment and Planning A, 46(6): 1369-1385. google scholar
41. Saracoglu, C., and Belanger, D. (2019). Loss and xenophobia in the city: Contextualizing anti-Syrian sentiments in Izmir, Turkey. Patterns of Prejudice, 53 (4): 363-383 google scholar
42. Schultz Larsen, T., and Delica, K. (2019). The production of territorial stigmatisation, City, 23(4-5): 540-563. google scholar
43. Schultz Larsen, T., and Delica, K. (2021). Territorial destigmatisation in an era of policy schizophrenia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 45(3), 423-441. google scholar
44. Simon, P. (2008). Gentrification of old neighborhoods and social integration in Europe. In Yuri Kazepov (Eds.). Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion, (p. 210-232). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
45. Slater, T. (2017). Territorial stigmatization: Symbolic defamation and the contemporary metropolis. In J. Hannigan and G. Richards (Eds.). The Handbook ofNew Urban Studies (p.110-125). London: SAGE. google scholar
46. Slater, T. (2018). The invention of the ‘sink estate’: Consequential categorization and the UK housing crisis. The Sociological Review, 66(4): 877-897. google scholar
47. Sisson, A. (2021). Territory and territorial stigmatization: on the production, consequences and contestation of spatial disrepute. Progress in Human Geography, 45(4): 659-681. google scholar
48. STOP girişimi: Kentsel toplumsal muhalefette farklı bir deneyim. (2009, June 2009). Mimarizm. Retrieved from https://www.mimarizm.com/ makale/stop- girisimi- kentsel- toplumsal- muhalefette- farkli- bir- deneyim_114062 google scholar
49. Sulukule Gunlugu. (2013). Blog. Retrieved from http://sulukulegunlugu.blogspot.com.tr/. google scholar
50. Tuna, K., Satıroglu, A., and Çaglayandereli, M. (2006). Neslişah mahallesi toplumsal yapı araştırması. In A. Kara, B. Kara, and H. Suver (Eds.). Bir Çingene Yolculuğu, (p.154-180). Istanbul: Fatih Municipality Publications. google scholar
51. Turkun, A. (2015). Kentsel dönüşümü yeniden düşünmek: Mevcut uygulamalar ve hâkim söylem üzerinden bir değerlendirme In B. Duman and İ. Coşkun (Eds.). Neden Nasıl ve Kim İçin Kentsel Dönüşüm, (p.285-332). Istanbul: Litera google scholar
52. Tyler, I. (2013) Revolting subjects: Social abjection and resistance in neoliberal Britain. London: Zed Books. google scholar
53. Uitermark, J. (2014). Integration and control: The governing of urban marginality in Western Europe, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), 1418-1436. google scholar
54. Uysal, U. E. (2012). An urban social movement challenging urban regeneration: The case of Sulukule, Istanbul. Cities, 29(1): 12-22. google scholar
55. Vural, G. (2016, January 25). Ranzalı kent: Sulukule [Bunkbed City: Sulukule]. Nokta. Retrieved from google scholar
56. http://www.kuzeyormanlari.org/2016/02/02/ranzali-kent-sulukule/. google scholar
57. Wacquant, L. (2007). Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven, 91(1): 66-77. google scholar
58. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press. google scholar
59. Wacquant, L., Slater, T., and Pereria, V. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6): 1270-1280. google scholar
60. Yardimci, Ö. (2020), State stigmatization in urban Turkey: Managing the “insurgent squatter dwellers in Dikmen Valley, Antipode, 52(5): 1519-1538. google scholar
61. Yilmaz, E. (2009). Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarında süreç ve aktörler: Sulukule örneği. (Master Thesis). Mimar Sinan Guzel Sanatlar University, Turkey. google scholar