Kuramsal ve Yasal Çerçevede Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm

Year 2012, Issue: 28, 61 - 70, 01.08.2012

Halil İbrahim Aydınlı Hilal Turan

Abstract

Küreselleşme sürecinin yaygınlaştığıgünümüzde, devletlerin ve ulus altıyapılanmaların bu sürece eklemlenme çabalarında da artışyaşanmaktadır. Küreselleşmenin dönüştürdüğü üretim ve tüketim anlayışındaki gelişmeler, bunlara uyum sağlayabilecek mekânsal yeniden yapılanmalarıda zorunlu kılmıştır. Özellikle gelişmişülkelerde bu ihtiyaca cevap verme niteliği taşıyan kentsel dönüşüm uygulamaları, ülkemizde daha çok kaçak yapıların ıslahıve önlenmesi, depreme dayanıksız konutların tasfiyesi, kentlerin estetize edilmesi ve özellikle büyük şehirlerin ekonomik ve turistik anlamda cazibe merkezi haline gelmesi amaçlarınıtaşımaktadır.Çalışma, kentsel dönüşüm kavramının kuramsal arka planıçerçevesinde, Türkiye'de kentsel dönüşümün yasal/kurumsal boyutlarınıirdelemeyi, mevcut düzenlemelerdeki eksik yönleri ortaya koymayıve nihayet çözüm önerilerinde bulunmayıamaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Kent, Kentsel Dönüşüm, Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm, Yerel Yönetimler

Kuramsal ve Yasal Çerçevede Theoretical And Legislative

Abstract

Today when the globalization process is commonplace, there is an increasing trend in the articulation efforts of states and sub-national bodies to this process. Developments in production and consumption understanding transformed by the globalization have made obligatory the spatial restructuring which can adapt to these developments. In developed countries, these are urban transformation activities which aim to respond to this requisite whereas in our country, these are with the aim of prevention or amelioration of unlicensed construction, elimination of residences which are not resistant to earthquake and to aesthetic view to the cities. Historical origins dating back to the neolithic age and industrialization, along with the cities to be effective in the initial formation of agricultural production suffered a major change in the quality, focus on urban migration to urban centers has greatly increased. Since the 1970s, the emerging and settled in the focal point of knowledge, various paradigmatic approaches such as industrybordertransformation, post fordism, post modernism, information society, globalization to shape the new era, urbanization began to change in the spatial and sociological structure of the incomparable history, urban played a key role in the dynamic structure to adapt to new processes. Industry and industrial pre-aging of the moment, but in some areas due to various factors and leads to a crash. The process of globalization and the increasing importance of such a case, renewal and transformation needs of cities, primarily to governments, central and local authorities started to become the main problematic. This is the solution of problems in ensuring the sustainability of cities, is of vital importance in the formation of a healthy and livable cities. Urban transformation, in order to respond to the needs of all the functions and processes of renovation of cities all over the world the basic interests of the industrialized countries has been one of the early and late. Today, when the globalization process is commonplace, there is an increasing trend in the articulation efforts of states and sub-national bodies to this process. Developments in production and consumption understanding transformed by the globalization have made obligatory the spatial restructuring which can adapt to these developments. In early industrialized countries, this process intensified in the 18. and 19. centuries, but in our country, after the 1950s partly, after the 2000s in parallel with the local governments reforms, legal and institutional re-structuring processes are often discussed, and began to reach a certain density of discourse. The concept of urban renewal in the literature, the definition of many, In general, suffered a change in an urban region's economic, physical, social and environmental problems, said to be a point of view, trying to find a permanent solution. It is also possible to express the transformation of urban, social, economic and physical conditions in the worn-out structures in the city in mind, without prejudice to the revitalization of cultural texture, arrangement. The rapid change of the city's urban renewal projects of increasing social, economic, infrastructural needs, is intended to respond to the redevelopment of parts of the city. Re-arrangement of old areas of cities with urban renewal happens. Urban prosperity and enhancing the quality of life put forward a successful approach to economic development, urban regeneration objectives. Physical and social corruption, as well as one of the most important reasons coming to urban areas become depressed regions, the economic vitality of this area darkening. Urban transformation projects, which have become areas of physical and social collapse in parts of the city to develop strategies that will bring back the economic vitality of urban prosperity and quality of life in order to increase and thus. Akkar, 2006: 30 . Another area of depressed urban areas became a cause underlying social disorders. Urban renewal projects, investigate the causes for corruption in society, they take preventative measures, such as the objectives are also advising. Transferred to future generations the cultural heritage of the city, the urban transformation of the city's historic and cultural preservation purposes and tissue. 19. developed countries of Western Europe since the mid-century, resulting in physical, economic, social and cultural achievements have been made to solve the problems of urban regeneration through. Depressed during the first period in the areas of physical, economic forces, I've overcome the main objective, since the early 1990s the area became more important with the

Keywords

City, Urban Transformation, Urban Transformation in Turkey, Local Governments

References

• Akkar, Müge (2006), “Kentsel Dönüşüm Üzerine Batı’daki Kavramlar, Tanımlar, Süreçler ve Türkiye”, Planlama, Sayı. 36, s. 29-38.
• Ataöv, Anlı ve Sevin Osmay (2007), “Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüme Yöntemsel Bir Yaklaşım”, Middle East Tecnihal University Journal Of The Faculty Of The Architecture, Vol. 2, pp. 57-82.
• Genç, Fatma Neval (2008), “Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm: Mevzuat ve Uygulamaların Genel Görünümü”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, Cilt. 15, Sayı. 1, s. 115-130.
• Göz, Ali Cem (2008), “Kentsel Dönüşümün Esasları ve İskoçya Whitfield Örneği”, Yerel Siyaset, Yıl 3, Sayı 31, Temmuz, s. 8-12.
• Gündoğan, Özdemir (2006), “Kentsel Dönüşüm, Tarihsel ve Güncel Bir Kırılma Noktası Mı?”, Planlama, Sayı. 36, s. 39-47.
• İlkme, Murat (2008), Kentsel Dönüşüm ve Bursa Raporu, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Bursa.
• Keleş, Ruşen (2010), “Türkiye’de Kentleşme Kime Ne Kazandırıyor?”, İdeal Kent, Sayı 1, s. 28-31.
• Koçak, Hüseyin (2011), “Kent-Kültür İlişkisi Bağlamında Türkiye’de Değişen ve Dönüşen Kentler”, Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları, Sayı. 2, s. 259-269.
• Lam, Kara (2003), “Revitalisation From The Inside Out: The Attempts To Move Towards An Urban Renaissance In The Cities Of The United States And The United Kingdom”, Connectrcut Journal Of International Law, 19. Conn, J. Int’l L, pp. 159-164.
• Mcwilliams, A. Dougles (1994), “Environmental Justice And Industrial Redevelopment: Economics And Eguality In Urban Revitalization”, Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 21, N. 3, pp. 705-782.
• Özdemir, D (2003), “Yeniden Canlandırma Projelerinde Kültür, Turizm ve Emlak Piyasaları Üzerine Kurulu Stratejilerin Başarı/sızlık Koşullarının İncelenmesi”, Kentsel Dönüşüm Sempozyumu, İstanbul.
• Özden, Pelin Pınar (2008), Kentsel Yenileme, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
• Özden, Pelin Pınar (2006), “Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşümün Uygulanabilirliği Üzerine Düşünceler”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, No. 36, Ekim, s. 215-233.
• Özden, Pelin Pınar (2001), “Kentsel Yenileme Uygulamalarında Yerel Yönetimlerin Rolü Üzerine Düşünceler ve İstanbul Örneği”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, No. 24, Mart, s. 255- 270.
• Roberts, Peter (2000), “The Evolution, Definition And Purpose Of Urban Regeneration”, Ed. Peter Roberts and Hugh Sykes, London, Sage Publications, pp. 9-36.
• Smith, Neil (2002), “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification As Global Urban Strategy”, Antipode, Vol. 34, pp. 427-450.
• Sönmez, Nihan (2006), “Düzensiz Konut Alanlarında Kentsel Dönüşüm Modelleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Planlama, Sayı. 36, s. 121-127.
• Şahin, Zafer (2006), “Kentsel Dönüşümün Kentsel Planlamadan Bağımsızlaştırılması/Ayrılması Sürecinde Ankara”, Planlama, Sayı. 36, s. 111-120.
• Türk Dil Kurumu Türkçe Sözlüğü, www.tdk.gov.tr, 25.02.2012.
• Türkün, Asuman ve Zuhal Ulusoy (2006), “Kentsel Sit Alanlarında Turizm Amaçlı Dönüşüm ve Sorunlar: Ankara Kalesi Örneği, Planlama, Sayı. 36, s. 129-138.
• Uzun, Nil (2006), “Yeni Yasal Düzenlemeler ve Kentsel Dönüşüme Etkileri”, Planlama, Sayı. 36, s. 49- 52.
• Yasin, Melikşah (2005), “Kentsel Dönüşüm Uygulamalarının Hukuki Boyutu”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği, Sayı. 60, s. 105-137.