Sulukule: Kentsel Dönüşüme Etno-Kültürel Bir Direniş

Öz

Türkiye’de neoliberal kentleşme politikalarının benimsenmesi çoğunlukla kentsel dokunun korunması, depreme dayanıklı konutların inşa edilmesi, yaşam koşullarının iyileştirilmesi ve turizme katkı sağlanması gibi olumlu söylemler içeren çok sayıda kentsel dönüşüm projesinin uygulanmasına zemin hazırladı. İstanbul’un Roman tarihi mahallesi Sulukule’de uygulanan kentsel dönüşüm projesi, mahalle sakinlerinin karar verme sürecinin dışında tutulması ve tek taraflı kararların uygulamaya konulması üzerine, mahalledeki hak sahiplerinden ve bağımsız aktivistlerden oluşan bir kentsel toplumsal hareketin (Sulukule Platformu) kurulmasına neden oldu. Bu çalışmada Sulukule Platformu kentsel toplumsal hareketler çerçevesinde analiz edilecektir. Çalışmada Sulukule Platformu’nun yapısı, talepleri, eylemleri ve stratejileri ile birlikte hareketin Sulukule’deki kentsel dönüşüm süreci üzerindeki etkileri tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sulukule,Sulukule Platformu,kentsel yenileme,kentsel toplumsal hareketler,yerinden edilme

Sulukule: An Ethno-Cultural Resistance Against Urban Regeneration

Öz

The adaptation of Neoliberal urbanization policies in Turkey paved the way for the implementation of several urban regeneration projects, which often include positive discourses such as conservation of urban tissue, construction of earthquake-resistant buildings, improvement of life standarts and contribution to tourism. The urban regeneration project implemented in Istanbul’s historical Romany neighborhood and the denial of participation of locals in decision making caused the formation of an urban social movement (The Sulukule Platform) by locals and independent activists.  This study analyzes the Sulukule Platform in the context of urban social movements. The study discusses  the Sulukule Platform’s structure, demands, activities and strategies and its influences on urban regeneration process in Sulukule.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sulukule,Sulukule Platform,urban renegeration,urban social movements,eviction

Kaynakça

1. Adanalı, Y. A (2011). Dünya’dan “Kent Hakkı” İçin Kentsel Mücadele Örnekleri: Hindistan, Dominik Cumhuriyeti, Brezilya, Venezuella ve ABD. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 9(36), 14-30.
2. Alada, A. (2001). Yeni Bir Toplumsal Yapılanma için İslevsel bir Kamu Alanı: Mahalle, Avrupa Birligi Süreci ve Planlama, 7 – 9 Kasım 2001, 25. Dünya Sehircilik Günü, 5. Türkiye Sehircilik Kongresi, Ankara: TBMMOB – ODTÜ
3. Başaran, R. (2008, 18 Ocak). ‘Meclis Sulukule dosyasını kapattı’. Radikal.
4. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. J. Richardson (Der.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education içinde (ss. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
5. Bridges, G. (2006). Perspectives on Cultural Capital and the Neighbourhood. Urban Studies 43(4), 719-730.
6. Buğra, A. (1998). The immoral economy of housing in Turkey. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(2), 303–317
7. Castells, M. (1977). The Urban Question. London: Edward Arnold.
8. Castells, M. (1978a). Urban social movements and the struggle for democracy: The Citizen’s Movement in Madrid. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1), 133–146.

9. Castells, M. (1978b). City, Class and Power. London: Macmillan.
10. Castells, M. (1983). The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London: Edward Arnold.
11. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
12. Çavdar, A. (2008). Akıntıyı tersine cevirmek. Express, 9.
13. Foggo, H. (2007). The Sulukule affair: Roma against expropriation. Roma Rights Quarterly, 4, 41–47.
14. Foggo, H. (2008, 13 Ocak). Sulukulelileri saklasak mı yeşil alan mı yapsak? Radikal 2..
15. Göncüoğlu, S. F., & Yavuztürk, S. P. (2009). Sulukule ve çingeneleri. Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23, 107–134.
16. Gönenç, M., ve Baştürk, D. (2009, 27 Mart). ‘Yerel seçim Sulukuleli’nin umurunda bile değil.’ Taraf.
17. Gümüş, K. (2007, 4 Aralık). Sulukule Projesi’nin asıl amacı ne? Radikal 2.
18. Haila, A. (2008). From Annankatu to Antinkatu: Contracts, development rights and partnerships in Kamppi, Helsinki. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 804–814.
19. Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, 53, 23–40.
20. Harvey. D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, New York: Verso.
21. İslam, T. (2009). Implications of an urban renewal based state-led gentrification process in Roma neighbourhood in Istanbul. In ISA RC21 conference: Inequality, inclusion and the sense of belonging, 23–25 Ağustos, Sao Paolo.
22. Karaman, O. (2008). Urban pulse: (Re)making space for globalization in Istanbul. Urban Geography, 29(6), 518–525.
23. Kavoulakos, K. (2006). The emergence, development and the limits of the alternative strategy of the urban movements in Germany. City, 10(3), 343–354.
24. Kuyucu, T. (2009). Romantik olmayan alternatif. Express, 1.
25. Leontidou, L. (2006). Urban social movements: From the ‘right to the city’ to transnational spatialities and flaneur activists. City, 10(3), 259–268.
26. Marsh, A. (2008). A brief history of gypsies in Turkey. E. Uzpeder, S. Roussinova, S. Ozceli, ve S. Gokcen (Der.), We are here: Discriminatory Exclusion and Struggle for Rights of Roma in Turkey içinde (ss. 5–21). Istanbul: Mart Matbacılık Sanatları Tic.ve San. Ltd.
27. Mayer, M. (2000). Urban social movements in an era of globalisation. P. Hamel, N. Lushiger-Thaler, ve M. Mayer (Der.) içinde, Urban Movements in a Globalising World içinde (ss. 141–152). London and New York: Routledge.
28. Mayer, M. (2003). The Onward Sweep of Social Capital: Causes and Consequences for Understanding Cities, Communities and Urban Movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 110-132.
29. Mayer, M. (2009). The ‘Right to the City’ in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements. City, 13(2–3), 362–374.
30. Milicevic, A. S. (2001). Radical intellectuals: What happened to the new urban sociology? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(4), 759–777.
31. Mischek, U. (2002). The professional skills of gypsies in Istanbul. KURI Journal of Dom Research Centre, 1(7).
32. Nicholls, W. J. (2008). The Urban Question revisited: The importance of cities for social movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 841–859.
33. Nicholls, W. J. (2009). Place, networks, space: Theorizing the geographies of social movements. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34(1), 78–93.
34. Ozan, N. (2008). Romanlara İnsan Hakları Komisyonun’da ayrımcılık ve aşağılama (http://www.bianet.org/bianet/biamag/103963 Erişim tarihi 25.05.09)
35. Öktem, B. (2011) İstanbul’da Neoliberal Kentleşme Modelinin Sosyo-Mekansal İzdüşümleri. İ.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 23-40.
36. Özden, P. P. (2008). An opportunity missed in tourism led regeneration: Sulukule. F. D. Pineda & C. A. Brebbia (Derl.) içinde, Sustainable Tourism III. UK: Wessex Institute of Technology.
37. Pickvance, C. (1986). Concepts, contexts and comparison in the study of urban movements: A reply to M. Castells. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 4(2), 221–231.
38. Pickvance, C. (1995). Where have the urban movements gone? C. Hadjimichalis, ve D. Sadler,(Der.) içinde, Europe at the margins: New mosaics of inequality içinde (ss. 197–218). London.
39. Pickvance, K. (2000). The diversity of Eastern European social movements: Urban movements, new social movements and nationalist movements in postsocialist societies. P. Hamel, N. Lushiger-Thaler, & M. Mayer (Derl. içinde, Urban Movements in a Globalising World (ss. 191–208). London and New York:Routledge.
40. Pickvance, C. (2003a). A review of M. Castells, the city and the grassroots. F. Webster ve B. Dimitrou (Derl.) içinde, Manuel Castells, Masters of Modern Social Thought 1 içinde (ss. 185–188). London: John Wiley.
41. Pickvance, C. (2003b). From urban social movements to urban movements a review and introduction to a symposium on urban movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 102–109.
42. Placing Sulukule Report (2007). Towards an alternative proposal to conserve the living heritage of Romani culture. University College London, Development Planning Unit.
43. Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Tradition in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44. Şahin, O. (2009, 6 Mayıs). Sulukule Hıdrellez’i bu sene Hafriyat’ta karşılıyor. Radikal.
45. Saymaz, I. (2007, 5 Aralık). Yeni Sulukule: Taşoluk. Radikal.
46. Somersan, S. (2007). Swapping identities in Sulukule. INTER: A European cultural studies conference in Sweden (ss. 721–732), Norrkoping, 11–13 June.
47. Somersan, S., & Kırca Schroeder, S. (2008). Resisting eviction: Sulukule Roma in search of right to space and place. Anthropology of East Europe Review: Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Eurasia, 25(2), 96–107.
48. Sulukule Dava Metni, 07.04.2008 (Şehir ve Bölge Plancıları Odası).
49. Tan, P. (2007). 40 Gun 40 Gece Sulukule Platformu (http://www.arkitera.com/soylesi_68_asli-kiyak-ingin.html Erişim tarihi 22.11.09)
50. Fatih Belediyesi Resmi Sitesi. (http://www.fatih.bel.tr, Erişim tarihi 13.12.11).
51. Sulukule Platformu İnternet Portalı (http://www.sulukulegunlugu.blogspot.com, Erişim tarihi 04.07.12).
52. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Report (2009). Resmi olmayan Türkçe çevirisi, Şehir ve Bölge Plancıları Odası.
53. Uysal, Ü. E. (2012) An Urban Social Movement Challenging Urban Regeneration, The Case of Sulukule, Istanbul. Cities, 29(1), 12-22.
54. Yavuz, F., ve Göreci, I. (2008). Sulukule’nin tarihcesi (http://www.mimarizm.com/KentinTozu Erişim tarihi 13.07.09).