A Conflicting Relationship: Urban Regeneration and Crime

Öz

It is argued that one of the most important benefits of urban regeneration projects implemented to solve the problems in disadvantaged neighborhoods is to reduce crime rates. This claim has been the subject of various quantitative and qualitative research. However, the results of research based on Social Disorganization, Broken Windows and Routine Activity Theories are far from drawing a clear picture of the direction of this relationship. The relationship shows a curvilinear pattern with respect to time. The spatial shift of crime makes it difficult to detect the impact of urban regeneration on crime. In addition to quantitative studies at the structural level, qualitative studies focusing on how urban regeneration affects the social networks in the neighborhood offer the opportunity to understand this relationship at the micro level. Urban regeneration often destroys existing social networks and fails to create a new community. It can lead to the formation of communities that share the same space but live parallel lives. This makes residents vulnerable to crime. Additionally, urban regeneration, which aims to destroy the criminal networks in the neighborhood, has the potential to increase crime rates rather than reduce them.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban regeneration
• crime
• social networks
• criminal networks
• the shift in space

Çetrefilli Bir İlişki: Kentsel Dönüşüm ve Suç

Öz

Dezavantajlı mahallelerde yaşanan sorunları çözmek için sıklıkla başvurulan kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin en önemli faydasının suç oranlarını düşürmek olduğu iddia edilmektedir. Bu iddia nicel ve nitel araştırmaların odağı olmuştur. Fakat Sosyal Düzensizlik, Kırık Camlar ve Rutin Aktivite Teorilerinde temellenen araştırmaların sonuçları bu ilişki hakkında net bir resim çizmekten uzaktır. Nicel araştırmaların bulguları kentsel dönüşüm ve suç ilişkisinin zaman ve mekân bileşenlerinden bağımsız olarak kavranamayacağına işaret etmektedir. Bu ilişki zamana göre eğrisel bir örüntü göstermektedir. Kentsel dönüşümün suç oranları üzerindeki etkisini karmaşık hale getiren diğer bir unsur ise suçun mekânsal kaymasıdır. Yapısal faktörlere odaklanan nicel araştırmaların yanı sıra, kentsel dönüşümün mahalledeki sosyal ilişki ağlarını nasıl yeniden inşa ettiğine odaklanan nitel çalışmalar ise mikro düzeyde bu ilişkiyi anlamakta yardımcı olmaktadır. Kentsel dönüşümün başarısı yeni bir topluluk yaratmakta yatmaktadır. Fakat kentsel dönüşüm çoğu zaman var olan sosyal ağları tahrip etmekte ve yeni bir topluluk yaratma noktasında başarısız olmaktadır. Aynı mekânı paylaşan fakat paralel hayatlar yaşayan toplulukların oluşmasına neden olabilmektedir. Bu durum mahalle sakinlerini suça karşı savunmasız bırakabilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, mahalledeki kriminal ağları tahrip etmeyi hedefleyen kentsel dönüşüm suç oranlarını düşürmek yerine yükseltme ihtimaline sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel dönüşüm
• suç
• sosyal ağlar
• kriminal ağlar
• mekânsal kayma.
• Urban regeneration
• crime
• social networks
• criminal networks
• the shift in space

Destekleyen Kurum

Makale yazım sürecinde herhangi bir kurumdan destek alınmamıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgöz, A. T. (2014). Kentsel dönüşümün ekonomik, mekansal, sosyal etkileri ve kamunun rolü: Ankara Gültepe (Çinçin) örneği. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi , Ankara.
2. Akalın, M. (2016). Kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin suç oranlarına etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi: Ankara/Altındağ örneği. Munzur Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5, 5-33.
3. Aksoy, E. ve Güzey Kocataş, Ö. (2017). Gecekondu alanlarında uygulanan kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin meşruiyet zemini olarak yoksulluk ve suç. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7, 275-295.
4. Aliprantis, D. ve Hartley, D. (2015). Blowing it up and knocking it down: The local and city-wide effects of demolishing high concentration public housing on crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 88, 67-81.
5. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton.
6. Atkinson, R. (2000). The hidden cost of gentrification: Displacement in central London. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 15, 307-326.
7. Barton, M.S. (2016). Gentrification and violent crime in New York City. Crime and Delinquency, 62,1180-1202.
8. Barton, M.S. ve Gruner, C. (2016). A theoretical explanation of the influence of gentrification on neighborhood crime. Deviant Behavior, 37, 130-146.

9. Becker, G.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 168, 1150-1196.
10. Binay, E. (2012). Kentsel dönüşüm projesinin suça etkisi: Ankara ili, Altındağ ilçesi, Gültepe mahallesi örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Kara Harp Okulu, Ankara.
11. Boggess, L. N. ve Hipp, J. R. (2014). The spatial dimensions of gentrification and the consequences for neighborhood crime. Justice Quarterly, 33, 584-613.
12. Bourgois, P. (1995). In search of respect: Selling crack in el barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Bozyaka, M. (2019). Kentsel dönüşüm çalışmalarının kent sakinlerinin güvenlik algıları üzerindeki etkileri: Altındağ örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Konya.
14. Bucerius, S. M., Thompson, S. K. ve Berardi, L. (2017). “They’re colonizing my neighborhood”: (Perception of) Social mix in Canada. City and Community, 16, 486-505.
15. Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519-552.
16. Bursik, R. J. ve Grasmick, H. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington.
17. Cohen, L. E. ve Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
18. Covington, J. ve Taylor, R. B. (1989). Gentrification and crime: Robbery and larceny changes in appreciating Baltimore neighborhoods during the 1970s. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, 142-172.
19. Crawford, A. (2009). Situating crime prevention policies in comparative perspective: Policy travels, transfer and translation. A. Crawford (Der.), Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective içinde (ss. 1-37). Cullompton: Willan.
20. Curtis, R. (1998). The improbable transformation of inner-city neighborhoods: Crime, violence, drugs and youth in the 1990s. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 8, 1233-1276.
21. Erbaş, H. ve Kızılay, Ş. E. (2015). Kentsel dönüşüm, mülksüzleştirme, yerinden edilme ve mahalle mücadelesi: Sarıyer-Derbent örneği. M. Altunoğlu ve Ş. Geniş (Der.) I. Uluslararası kent araştırmaları kongresi: Günümüz kentinde sorunlar bildiri kitabı içinde (ss. 496-522). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
22. Felson, M. ve Clark, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: The practical theory for crime prevention. Police Research Series Paper 98. London: Home Office. 18 Mart 2022 tarihinde, https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_ thief.pdf adresinden erişildi.
23. Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 463–491.
24. Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press
25. Freeman, L. ve Barconi. F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement in New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 39-52.
26. Garland, D. (2001). Crime and social order in the culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
27. Glass, R. (1964). Aspects of change in London. London: Macgibbon & Kee.
28. Hipp, J. R. (2007). Income inequality, race, and place: Does the distribution of race and class within neighborhoods affect crime rates? Criminology, 45, 665-697.
29. Hagedorn, M. V. ve Rauch, B. (2007). Housing, gangs, and homicide: What we can learn from Chicago. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 435-456.
30. İlik, İ., Bulut, İ. ve Ayik, U. (2022). Kentsel dönüşüm projeleri ve sonrası: Antalya Kepez-Santral mahalleleri örneğinde yerinden edilme süreçlerinin analizi. Türkiye Coğrafya Dergisi, 80, 53-70.
31. Jacobs, B. A. (1996). Crack dealers’ apprehension avoidance techniques: A case of restrictive deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 359-381.
32. Kasarda, J. ve Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachments in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328-329.
33. Kirk, D. ve Laub, J. H. (2010). Neighborhood change and crime in the modern metropolis. Crime and Justice, 39, 441– 502.
34. Kreager, D. A., Lyons, C. J. ve Hays, Z. R. (2011). Urban revitalization and Seattle crime, 1982-2000. Social Problems, 58, 615-639.
35. Lauritsen, J. (2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 3-32.
36. Lee, Y. (2010). Gentrification and crime: Identification using the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 549 -577.
37. Lovering, J. ve Türkmen, H. (2011). Bulldozer neo-liberalism in İstanbul: The state led construction of property markets, and the displacement of the urban poor. International Planning Studies, 16, 73-96.
38. McDonald, S. (1986). Does gentrification affect crime rates? A. J. Reiss ve M. Tonry (Der.), Crime and justice: A review of research içinde (ss.163 -202). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Messner, S. F. ve Tardiff, K. (1986). Economic inequality and levels of homicide: An analysis of urban Neighborhoods. Criminology, 24, 297-317.
40. Moeller, K., Copes, H. ve Hochstetler, A. (2016). Advancing restrictive deterrence: A quality meta synthesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 82 -93.
41. Morenoff, J. D. ve Sampson, R. J. (1997). Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Social Forces, 76, 31–64.
42. Newman, K. ve Wyly, E. L. (2006). The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York city. Urban Studies, 43, 23-57.
43. Ousey, G. C. (2018). Population changes at place: Immigration, gentrification and crime. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. 30 Mart 2022 tarihinde https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.314 adresinden erişildi.
44. Papachristos, A.V., Smith, C. M., Scherer, M. L. ve Fugiero, M. A. (2011). More coffee, less crime: The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in Chicago, 1991-2005. City and Community, 10, 215-240.
45. Patel, T. G. (2014). ‘We’ll go grafting, yeah?’: Crime as a response to urban neglect. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14, 179-195.
46. Peterson, R. D. ve Krivo, L. J. (1999). Racial segregation, the concentration of disadvantage and Black and White homicide victimization. Sociological Forum, 14, 495-523.
47. Sakızoğlu, B. (2014). Inserting temporality into the analysis of displacement: Living under the threat of displacement. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociole Geografie, 105, 125-139.
48. Sampson, R. J. ve Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 744-802.
49. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, R.W. ve Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918–24.
50. Shaw, C. R. ve McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. Thompson, S. K., Bucerius, S. ve Luguya, M. (2013). Unintended consequences of neighborhood restructuring: Uncertainty,disrupted social networks and increased fear of violent victimization among young adults. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 924-941.
52. Taylor, R. B. ve Covington, J. (1988). Neighborhood changes in ecology and violence. Criminology, 26, 533-590.
53. Urbanik, M., Thompson, S. K. ve Bucerius, S. M. (2017). ‘Before there was danger but there was rules. And safety in those rules’: Effects of neighbourhood redevelopment of criminal structures. The British Journal of Criminology, 57, 422-440.
54. Van Wilsem, J., Wittebrood, K. ve De Graaf, N. D. (2006). Socioeconomic dynamics of neighborhoods and the risk of crime victimization: A multilevel study of improving, declining, and stable areas in the Netherlands. Social Problems, 53, 226–47.
55. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56. Wilson, J. Q. ve Kelling, L. G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, March, 29-37.
57. Zhang, H. ve McCord, E. S. (2014). A spatial analysis of the impact of housing foreclosure on residential burglary. Applied Geography, 54, 27-34.