Helga TILIÇ RITTERSBERGER, Reyhan GÖRK VARLI

367

Bir Soylulaştırma Örneği: Ankara'da Yerinde Islah Projesinin Beklenmedik Sonuçları

Bu makale, Türkiye'nin başkenti Ankara'da gerçekleşen mütenalaştırma/soylulaştırma süreçlerinin en erken örneklerinden biri üzerinedir. Kent merkezinde Koza Sokak'ta bulunan gecekondu mahallesinin görece küçük sayılabilecek olan bir bölümünün 19982016 yılları arasında gözlenmesi ve aynı zamanda hem mahalleye yeni gelen soylulaştırıcılardan hem de yerinden edilen gecekondu sakinlerinden toplanan verilerin değerlendirilmesi ile özgün bir mütenalaştırma [soylulaştırma] süreci değerlendirilmiştir. İlkesel olarak mahalle sakinlerini proje sürecine dâhil eden bir Yerinde Islah Projesi olmasına rağmen, tüm sokak boyunca ve mahalle genelinde büyük ölçekte gerçekleşen mekânsal dönüşüm sonucunda proje öncesi nüfusun yüzde doksanı yerinden edilmiştir. Projenin birinci etabının uygulandığı 47 gecekondu hak sahibinden yerinden edilmiş on dokuz aileden toplanan verileri de kapsayan farklı zamanlarda (1998, 2001, 2004, 2009) yapılmış alan araştırmalarını ve takip ziyaretini (2016) kapsayan bu çalışma, Türkiye'de gerçekleşen 'soylulaştırma' süreçlerinin değişen aşamalarını eleştirel bir yaklaşımla değerlendirmektedir. Soylulaştırma kavramı genellikle, öncesinde imtiyazsız sınıfların yerleşik oldukları kentsel arazilerin orta sınıfların akınına maruz kalması sonucu yerinden edilmesi anlamına gelmektedir. Ancak, Türkiye'deki soylulaştırma sürecinin ilk örnekleri, bu örnekte olduğu gibi sosyal demokrat belediyelerin eşitlikçi, kapsayıcı, ilerlemeci değerleri ile yerinde ıslahı amaçlayarak başlamış; yerel sakinlerin planlama sürecine katılımını özendirmiş; projenin gerçekleşmesi yönünde kaynak yaratma aşamasında özel sektörle işbirliğini "Üçüncü Yol" kentleşmeye dümen kırmış; ve sonunda yerel sakinlerin "tercihen yerinden edilmeleri" aşamalarını izlemiştir. Bugünün kentsel dönüşüm projelerinin sonunda gerçekleşen yerel sakinleri yer değiştirmeye zorlayan süreçler ise "zorunlu yerinden edilme' olarak adlandırılabilir. Ancak, bizim örneğimizde görüldüğü gibi, mütenalaştırma/soylulaştırma sürecinin bileşenleri olan 'yerinden eden' ve 'yerinden edilen' kavramlarının bulanıklaşması Türkiye'ye özgü mekânsal ve siyasal dinamiklerin ayrıca değerlendirilmesi zorunluluğunu gerektirmektedir.

An Example of a Gentrification: Unintended Consequences of an in Situ Rehabilitation Project in Ankara

This article is about an early example of gentrification processes in Ankara, the capital of Turkey. A unique form of the gentrification process is examined using a case study of a small inner-city neighborhood on Koza Street through the monitoring of the area between 1998 and 2016, and giving voice to both the gentrifiers and gentrified. Almost ninety percent of the population in the area was displaced despite the inclusionary principles of an in situ Rehabilitation Project which has led to a large scale transformation of the physical space of the street. The study includes four field studies conducted at different time intervals (1998, 2001, 2004, 2009) and a follow-up visit (2016) to the neighborhood, to critically assess the progression of gentrification in Turkey through its phases. Even though gentrification usually refers to the middle class invasion of urban land originally inhabited by the less privileged, our case reveals the effects of successive modes of a gentrification process which starts as an in situ rehabilitation project of a squatter prevention area initiated by a social democratic municipality with the "participation of local groups", and turns into "gentrification by choice" in the successive years in the shadow of "Third Way" values. What is currently happening could be regarded as "gentrification by force" following urban renewal. In our case, however, the line between the two major components of gentrification, i.e., the "gentrifier" and the "gentrified", seems to have become ambiguous, which calls for a further analysis of Turkey's unique political and spatial dynamics.
PDF

___

  • Abrams, C. (1964). Man's struggle for shelter in an urbanizing world. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Anahtar Teslimi [news]. (1996, 16 Ekim). Cumhuriyet. Accessed on Jan. 13, 2012 at http://www.gundemturkiye.org/detail. php?&id=26275
  • Aslan, S. and Güzey, Ö. (2015). Karşılanabilir konut sunumu: TOKİ Ankara Kusunlar yoksul grubu konutları örneği, [Affordable housing provision: A case study of TOKI Ankara
  • Kusunlar low-income housing] Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Ankara Studies], 3(1), 42-53.
  • Atkinson, R. (1998). Displacement from gentrification: How big a problem? Radical Statistics, 69, 21-24.
  • Atkinson, R. (2000). Measuring gentrification and displacement in greater London. Urban Studies, 37, 149-165.
  • Ayata, S. (1989). Toplumsal çevre olarak gecekondu ve apartman [The gecekondu and the flat as social environments]. Toplum ve Bilim, (46/47), 101-127.
  • Belediye Kanunu'na Bâzı Maddeler Eklenmesine Dair Kanun. [Kanun no: 5656]. (1950, 31 Mart). T.C. Resmî Gazete, 7471. Accessed on June 14, 2016 at https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/KANUNLAR_KARARLAR/kanuntbmmc032/kanuntbm mc032/kanuntbmmc03205656.pdf
  • Brown-Saracino, J. (2009). A neighborhood that never changes: Gentrification, social preservation, and the search for authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Butler, T. (1997). Gentrification and the middle classes. Sydney: Ashgate.
  • Butler, T. (2007). For gentrification? Environment and Planning A, 39, 162-181.
  • Caulfield, J. (1994). City Form and everyday life: Toronto's gentrification and critical social practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Clark. E. (1988). The rent gap and the transformation of the built environment: Case studies in Malmo 1860-1985. Geografiska Annaler, 70B, 241-254.
  • Clark, E. (1991). Rent gaps and value gaps: Complementary or contradictory. In J. van Weesep and S. Musterd (Eds.) Urban housing for the better off: Gentrification in Europe (pp. 17-29). Utrecht: Stedelijke Netwerken.
  • Davidson, M. (2008). Spoiled mixture: Where does state-led 'positive' gentrification end? Urban Studies, 45(12), 2385-2405.
  • De Soto, H. (2001). The mystery of capital. London: BlackSwan. Değişen Çankaya, GEÇAK RP leaflet. (1996). Ankara: Municipality of Çankaya District,
  • Erder, S. (1996). İstanbul'a bir kent kondu: Ümraniye [A city sprouted in İstanbul: Ümraniye]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayinlari. Erder, S. (1997). Kentsel gerilim [Urban tension]. Istanbul: Uğur Mumcu Araştırmacı Gazetecilik Vakfı.
  • Ergun, C., and Gul, H. (2009). Toplumcu belediyecilik ve kent kapılarını sermayeye açan anahtar olarak kentsel dönüşüm [Social progressive municipal governments and urban renewals as the key that unlocks the city gates to capital]. In I. Kamalak and H. Gul (Eds.). Yerel yönetimlerde sosyal demokrasi, toplumcu belediyecilik: teorik yaklaşımlar, Türkiye uygulamaları (pp. 295-332). İstanbul: SODEV Yayınları.
  • Erman, T. (1998a). Kentteki kırsal kökenli göçmenlerin yaşamında gecekondu ve apartman [The squatter housing and the flat in the life of the rural migrants in the city]. In 75 yılda değişen kent ve mimarlık (pp. 317-324). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
  • Erman, T. (1998b). Becoming urban or remaining rural: the views of Turkish rural-to-urban migrants of the integration question. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30, 541-561.
  • Erman, T. (2001). The politics of squatter (gecekondu) studies in Turkey: the changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse, Urban Studies, 38(7), 983-1002.
  • Erman, T. (2016). Mış gibi site: Ankara'da bir TOKI - gecekondu dönüşüm sitesi. [As if site (Building complex): A TOKI in Ankara-squatter settlement transformation site] İstanbul: İletişim.
  • Ezema, I. C., Opoko, P. A. Oluwatayo, A. A. (2016) Urban regeneration through state-led, new-build gentrification in LagosInner City, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences 11(1), 135-146.
  • Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  • Gecekondu Kanunu. [Kanun No: 775]. (1966, 30 Temmuz). T.C. Resmî Gazete, 12362, 2626. Accessed on June 14, 2016 at http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.775.pdf
  • Gecekonduya 'yerinde ıslah' modeli [An in situ gecekondu rehabilitation model] (1994, 13 Şubat) Ekonomist, 5, 44.
  • GEÇAK Projesi çerçevesinde gecekondular davul-zurna eşliğinde yıkıldı [Within the framework of the GEÇAK Project gecekondus were demolished with joy] [news] (n.d.). Accessed on 23.03.2012 at http://www.portakal.com/ahaber-GEÇAKprojesi-cercevesinde-gecekondular-davul-zurna-esligindeyikildi-66379.html
  • GEÇAK Projesi Raporu [GEÇAK Project Report] (1995). Ankara: Çankaya Belediyesi İmar Müdürlüğü [Municipality of Çankaya District].
  • Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: A literature review. (2015). Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Community Development Investment Center. Accessed on 05.02.2016 at http://www.frbsf.org/communitydevelopment/files/wp2015-05.pdf
  • The gentrification reader. (2008). New York, London: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Giddens, A. (2000). The third way and its critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Gilbert, A. Gugler, J. (1989). Cities poverty and development. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Glass, R. L. (1964). London: Aspects of change. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
  • Gottdiener, M. (1988). Beyond the Marxian political economy: The trinity formula and the analysis of space. In The social production of space. Texas: The Union of Texas Press.
  • Gökçe, B., Acar, F., Ayata, A., Kasapoğlu, A., Özer, İ., & Uygun, H. (1993). Gecekondularda ailelerarasi geleneksel dayanışmanın çağdaş organizasyonlara dönüşümü [The transformation of traditional inter-family solidarity into contemporary organizations]. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık, Kadın ve Sosyal Hizmetler Müsteşarlığı Yayını.
  • Grier, G. and E. Grier. (1978). Urban displacement: A reconnaissance. Bethesda, Maryland: The Grier Partnership.
  • Güneş Ayata, A. (1986). Migrants and natives: Urban bases of social conflict. In E. Jeremy (Ed.) Migrants, workers and social order (pp. 234-247). London: ASA.
  • Güzey, Ö. (2006). Understanding the logic of gentrification in different geographies: A comparison of five regeneration projects in Ankara, Turkey. paper presented to 42nd ISoCaRP Congress, İstanbul.
  • Hackworth, J. (2002). Postrecession gentrification in New York city, Urban Affairs Review. 37(6), 815-843.
  • Hackworth, J., and Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification, Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie. 92(4), 464-477.
  • Hammel. D. J. (1999a). Re-establishing the rent gap: An alternative view of capitalized land rent. Urban Studies, 36(8), 1283-1293.
  • Hammel, D. J. (1999b). Gentrification and land rent: A historical view of the rent gap in Minneapolis, Urban Geography, 20(2), 116-145.
  • Hamnett, C. (1984). Gentrification and residential location theory: A Review and assessment. In D. Herbert, R.J. Johnston (Eds.). Geography and the urban environment: Progress in research and applications (pp. 283-319). New York: WileyGEÇAK Projesi Raporu [GEÇAK Project Report] (1995). Ankara: Çankaya Belediyesi İmar Müdürlüğü [Municipality of Çankaya District].
  • Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: A literature review. (2015). Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Community Development Investment Center. Accessed on 05.02.2016 at http://www.frbsf.org/communitydevelopment/files/wp2015-05.pdf
  • The gentrification reader. (2008). New York, London: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Giddens, A. (2000). The third way and its critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Gilbert, A. Gugler, J. (1989). Cities poverty and development. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Glass, R. L. (1964). London: Aspects of change. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
  • Gottdiener, M. (1988). Beyond the Marxian political economy: The trinity formula and the analysis of space. In The social production of space. Texas: The Union of Texas Press.
  • Gökçe, B., Acar, F., Ayata, A., Kasapoğlu, A., Özer, İ., & Uygun, H. (1993). Gecekondularda ailelerarasi geleneksel dayanışmanın çağdaş organizasyonlara dönüşümü [The transformation of traditional inter-family solidarity into contemporary organizations]. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık, Kadın ve Sosyal Hizmetler Müsteşarlığı Yayını.
  • Grier, G. and E. Grier. (1978). Urban displacement: A reconnaissance. Bethesda, Maryland: The Grier Partnership.
  • Güneş Ayata, A. (1986). Migrants and natives: Urban bases of social conflict. In E. Jeremy (Ed.) Migrants, workers and social order (pp. 234-247). London: ASA.
  • Güzey, Ö. (2006). Understanding the logic of gentrification in different geographies: A comparison of five regeneration projects in Ankara, Turkey. paper presented to 42nd ISoCaRP Congress, İstanbul.
  • Hackworth, J. (2002). Postrecession gentrification in New York city, Urban Affairs Review. 37(6), 815-843.
  • Hackworth, J., and Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification, Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie. 92(4), 464-477.
  • Hammel. D. J. (1999a). Re-establishing the rent gap: An alternative view of capitalized land rent. Urban Studies, 36(8), 1283-1293.
  • Hammel, D. J. (1999b). Gentrification and land rent: A historical view of the rent gap in Minneapolis, Urban Geography, 20(2), 116-145.
  • Hamnett, C. (1984). Gentrification and residential location theory: A Review and assessment. In D. Herbert, R.J. Johnston (Eds.). Geography and the urban environment: Progress in research and applications (pp. 283-319). New York: Wiley
  • Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of London, 1961-2001. Urban Studies, 40, 2401-2426.
  • Harvey, D. (1998). Globalization and the body, in INURA, Possible urban worlds: Urban strategies at the end of the twentieth century (pp.26-39). Basel: Birkhauser.
  • Harvey, D. (2006) Spaces of global capitalism: Towards a theory of uneven geographical development. London and New York: Verso.
  • Huse, T. (2014). Everyday life in the gentrifying city: on displacement, ethnic privileging, and the right to stay put. Farnham: Ashgate.
  • İmar ve Gecekondu Mevzuatına Aykırı Yapılara Uygulanacak Bazı İşlemler ve 6785 Sayılı İmar Kanunu'nun Bir Maddesinin Değiştirilmesi Hakkında Kanun [Kanun no: 2981].
  • (1984, 8 Mart). T.C. Resmî Gazete, 18335, 36. Accessed on June 14, 2016 at http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2981.doc İslam, T. (2005). Outside the core: Gentrification in Istanbul. In R. Atkinson and Bridge, G. (Eds.). Gentrification in a global context: The new urban colonialism. London: Routledge.
  • İstanbul'da soylulaştırma: Eski kentin yeni sahipleri [Gentrification in Istanbul: The New Owners of the Old City]. (2006). İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Jelinek, C. (2011). State-led gentrification and relocation in Budapest. Unpublished master's thesis, Central European Universty, Budapest.
  • Keil, R. (1997) Globalization makes states: Perspectives of local governance in the age of world city. Review of International Political Economy, 5(4), 616-646.
  • Keil, R. (2000). The third way urbanism: opportunity or dead end? Alternatives, 25(2), 247-267.
  • Keleş, R. (1987) Yerel yönetimler ve konut. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(1), 1-13. Accessed on June 14, 2016 at http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/dergi/ pdf/42/1/rusenkeles.pdf
  • Kuzu, A. (1997). Urban redevelopment approaches for the squatter areas within a changing context of urban planning case study Ankara: GEÇAK Urban Redevelopment Project. Unpublished master's thesis, METU, Ankara.
  • Lees, L. (2015) Tone Huse: Everyday life in the gentrifying city: On displacement, ethnic privileging, and the right to stay put. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30, 705-706.
  • Legates, R. and Hartman, C. (1986). The anatomy of displacement in the United States. In N. Smith and Williams, P.
  • (Eds.). Gentrification of the City (pp. 178-203). London: Allen and Unwin.
  • Lemanski C. (2014). Hybrid gentrification in South Africa: Theorising across southern and northern cities. Urban Studies, 51(14), 2943-2960.
  • Ley, D. (1994). Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class. Environment and planning D: Society and space. 12(1), 53-74.
  • Ley, D. (1996). The new middle class and the remaking of the central city. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ley, D. (2003). Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2527-2544.
  • Malusardi, F. and Occhipinti, G. (2003). Informal settlements upgrading: the gecekondus in Ankara. Paper presented to the 39th ISoCaRP Congress, Cairo.
  • Marcuse, P. (1986). Abandonment, gentrification, and displacement: The linkages in New York City. In N. Smith and P. Williams (Eds.) Gentrification of the City, (pp. 153-77). NewYork: Routledge.
  • Marcuse, P. (1997). Dual city: Muddy metaphor for a quartered city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13, 697-708.
  • Newman, S. J. and Owen, M. S. (1982). Residential displacement: Extent, nature, and effects. Journal of Social Issues,38(3), 135-148.
  • Niedt C. (2006). Gentrification and the grassroots: Popular support in the Revanchist suburb. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(2), 99-120.
  • Pattillo, M. (2008). Black on the block: The politics of race and class in the city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Peker, M. (1996). Internal migration and the marginal sector. In E. Kahveci, Sugur, N. and Nichols, T. (Eds.) Work and occupation in modern Turkey (pp. 7-37). New York: Man Sell.
  • Redfern, P. A. (2003). What makes gentrification 'gentrification'? Urban Studies, 40(12), 2351-2366.
  • Rittersberger Tılıç, H. (1997) Farklı kuşak göçmenlerin kente uyumları: Ankara'da iki gecekondu örneği [Adaptations of different generations of migrants to urban life: Two gecekondu cases in Ankara] paper presented to 3. Ulusal Nüfusbilim Konferansı [the 3rd National Congress of Demography] Ankara.
  • Sandercock, L. (1998). The death of radical planning: Radical praxis for a postmodern age. In Douglass, M., and Friedman, J. (Eds.) Cities for citizens-planning and the rise of the civil society in a global age (pp. 163-184). Chichester: Wiley.
  • Sargın, G. A. (2004). Displaced memories or the architecture of forgetting and remembrance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 659-680.
  • Satterthwaite, D. (2009). Getting land for housing; what strategies work for low-income groups? Environment & Urbanization, 21(2), 299-307.
  • Şengül, H. T. (2003). On the trajectory of urbanisation in Turkey: An attempt at periodisation. IDPR, 25(2), 153-168.
  • Şengül, H. T. (2009). Kentsel çelişki ve siyaset [Urban contradiction and politics]. Ankara: Imge Kitabevi.
  • Senyapili, T. (1981). Gecekondu: Çevre işçilerin mekanı [Gecekondu: the space of workers from the periphery]. Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi.
  • Senyapili, T. (2004). Charting the voyage of squatter housing in urban spatial Quadruped. European Journal of Turkish Studies, Thematic Issue (1). Accessed on 20.06.2012 at http:// www.ejts.org/document142.html
  • Slater, T. (2004). What is gentrification. Accessed on 1.06.2012 at http://members.lycos.co.uk/gentrification/whatisgent.html
  • Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City, 13(2/3), 293-311.
  • Slater, T., Curran, W. and Lees, L. (2004). Guest editorial. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1141-1150.
  • Smith, C. Duncan, B. Reid, L. (1988). Disinvestment, reinvestment and the economic frontier live in gentrifying neighborhoods. Paper presented to the Housing Policy and Innovation Conference, Amsterdam, June, 1988.
  • 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.
  • Smith, N. (1987). Of yuppies and housing: gentrification, social restructuring and the urban dream. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 5, 151-172.
  • Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Smith, N. (2002). Gentrification generalized: from local anomaly to urban regeneration as global urban strategy. Paper presented to the conference, Upward Neighborhood Trajectories: Gentrification in a New Century, Glasgow, 26-27 September.
  • TOKI. (2012). Accessed on 27.06.2012 at https://www.toki.gov. tr/en/background.html
  • Türker Devecigil, P. (2009). Kentsel dönüşümün aktörleri ve sürdürülebilirlik: Dikmen Vadisi örneği [The actors of urban transformation and sustainability: The Dikmen Valley example] In Gecekondu, dönüşüm, kent, Tansı Şenyapılı'ya Armağan, [Gecekondu, Transformation, City, A Tribute to Tansı Şenyapılı]. Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları.
  • Ulufer, B. Çırak, H. (1997). Bir gecekondu semti olan Kırkkonaklar [Kırkkonaklar: a gecekondu community]. Unpublished term paper. Ankara: METU, Department of Sociology.
  • Uzun, N. C. (2003). The impact of urban renewal and gentrification on urban fabric: three cases in Turkey. Tijdschriftvoor Economische en Sociale Geographic, 94(3), 363-375.
  • Uzun, N. (2008). Ankara'da kentsel dönüşüm [Urban renewal in Ankara]. Paper presented to Ankara Kent Sorunları Sempozyumu [Ankara Urban Issues Symposium] Accessed on (20.06.2012) at http://www.tmmob.org.tr/resimler/ ekler/7cdfd23373b17c6_ek.pdf
  • Varlı Görk, R. (2002). Gecekondu bölgeleri ve yerinde islah projelerine sosyolojik bir bakış: Gecekondu sorunu ve yoksulluk üzerine görgül bir çalışma. Paper presented to the 26. Dünya Şehircilik Günü Kolokyumu [26th World Urbanization Day Colloquium] . Gazi Üniversitesi Şehir Bölge Planlaması Bölümü, Ankara.
  • Varlı Görk, R. (2005) Gentrification in Ankara following the rehabilitation plan(s). Paper Presented to the 22nd World Congress of Architecture, UIA 2005, İstanbul
  • Wharton, J. L. (2008) Gentrification: The new colonialism in the modern era. Forum on public policy. Accessed on 08.02.2016 at http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer08papers/archivesummer08/wharton.pdf
  • Wyly E. (2015). Gentrification on the planetary urban frontier: The evolution of Turner's noösphere. Urban Studies, 52(14), 2515-2550
  • Wyly, E., Newman, K., Schafran, A. and Lee, E. (2010). Displacing New York. Environment and Planning A, 42, 2602-2623.
  • Zukin, S.(1982). Loft living: Culture and capital in urban change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrification: Culture and capital in the urban core. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 129-47.
  • Zukin, S. (2009). Naked city: The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford University Press.
Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2147-8724
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: Koç Üniversitesi VEKAM
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Başkent Ankara'da Cumhuriyet Sonrası Yaşanan Büyük Değişim: Modern Yaşam Kurgusu ve Modern Mekânlar

Adile Nuray BAYRAKTAR

Rusûhî İsmâil Ankaravî Bibliyografyası

Ömer GÖK

Bir Soylulaştırma Örneği: Ankara'da Yerinde Islah Projesinin Beklenmedik Sonuçları

Helga TILIÇ RITTERSBERGER, Reyhan GÖRK VARLI

Ankara'da Resimli Bir Ev: Dedebayrak Evi

Muzaffer KARAASLAN

Değişen Kültürel Mekânlar, Dönüşen Gelenekler: Ankara'da Hıdırellez Kutlamaları ve Hamamönü Hıdırellez Şenlikleri

Selcan TEKE GÜRÇAYIR

Ankara'ya Demiryoluyla Göçler ve İskan Siyaseti (1890-1910)

İhsan Seddar KAYNAR, Murat KORALTÜRK