Bir müşterek olarak kent imgesi: İstanbul Bağdat Caddesi örneği
City image as commons: Istanbul Bagdat Street's case
Yazar: ÖZGÜN GÜRSÜRER
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. MELTEM AKSOY
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı / Mimari Tasarım Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2019
Konu: Mimarlık = Architecture ; Şehircilik ve Bölge Planlama = Urban and Regional Planning

Özet:
Bu yüksek lisans tez çalışmasının amacı, "kentsel müşterekler" ve "kent imgesi" kavramları arasındaki ilişkileri araştırmaktır. Böylece ortak kent imgesinin bir kentsel müşterek olduğu kabulü ile paylaşma, üretim ve katılım kavramları üzerinden tartışılması hedeflenmiştir. Ayrıca Bağdat Caddesi ve çevresi bu tartışma çerçevesinde vaka çalışması olarak yer almaktadır.
Kentsel müşterekler düşüncesinin arkasında kentin tüm yaşayanların ortak kullanımına açık bir kaynak olduğu yönündeki düşünce yatmaktadır. Zaten müştereklerle ilgili çalışmalar temel olarak kimseye ait olmayan ama herkesin kullanımına açık kaynakların sürekliliğiyle ilgilenmektedir. Kent çalışmalarından örneklerle müştereklerin kentte karşılık geldiği özyönetim, katılım, üretim ve paylaşım süreçleri tartışmaya açılmıştır. Bunun sonucunda kentin müştereklerin üretimi için uygun bir ortam oluşturduğu görülmüştür.
Müşterekler insan ilişkilerine dayalı bir süreci; katılım, iş birliği, özyönetim, üretim ve paylaşım üzerine temellenen toplumsal pratikleri işaret etmektedir. Nitekim günümüzde müşterekler (commons) olgusu birçok bilim insanı tarafından bir bileşen üçlemesiyle açıklanmaktadır: "Kaynak" (Resource), "Ortaklaşma" (Commoning), "Paydaşlar" (Commoners).
•	"Kaynak" (Resource) paylaşılan ve faydalanılan şeyi temsil etmekte; 
•	"Ortaklaşma" (Commoning) müşterek üretim mekanizmalarını işaret etmekte;  
•	"Paydaşlar" (Commoners) ise katılımcılar arasındaki ilişkiler bütününden söz etmektedir.
Bu tanıma göre kentsel müşterekler, kentteki kamusal varlıklardan başka, insanların bir araya gelme, mekân üretme ve kullanma süreçlerinin bütününü kapsamaktadır.
Diğer yandan kent imgesi, içinde yaşayan bireylerin kente ortak birtakım kavramlarla zihinsel karşılıklar üretmesidir. Kent imgesi hem kentte bulunmanın sonucu hem de kentli olma durumunun nedeni olabilir. Bireylerin zihinlerindeki bu ortak tanımın hem kent mekânı üzerinden somut hem de bireylerin ilişkileri üzerinden soyut dayanakları vardır. Bu yüzden bu iki durumda da bireylerin bir araya gelme biçimleri, kent imgesinin toplumca üretilmesi ve bu imgenin kent hayatı üzerindeki etkileri kentsel mekân üzerinden tartışılmıştır. Kent imgesinin bireyler tarafından ortaklaşa üretilen bir mekânsallaşma biçimi olduğu vurgulanmıştır. Böylece kent imgesi ve kentsel müşterekler kavramları arasındaki paralellikler açığa çıkarılmak istenmiştir.
Bu çalışma ayrıca Bağdat Caddesi ve çevresi örneğinde kent imgesinin izini sürmeyi, müşterekler üzerinden bir okuma kurgulamayı amaçlamıştır. Bu bölgenin seçilmesinin nedeni, ayırt edici bir kent imgesine sahip olmasıdır. Gerçekten de kentlilerin zihninde bu yerleşim yeri parçası olduğu İstanbul'dan farklı algılanmaktadır. Özellikle üç imge bu noktada öne çıkmaktadır: Sayfiye, Yeşil ve Modern. 
Bu üç imge tarihsel süreçte incelenerek, yukarıda belirtilen "Kaynak" (Resource), "Ortaklaşma" (Commoning) ve "Paydaşlar" (Commoners) kavramları ışığında tartışılmıştır. Bu sayede buraya özel kent imgesinin paylaşma, üretim ve katılım süreçleri üzerinden, yani müşterekler zemininde açılması hedeflenmiştir. Başka bir değişle, bu bölgede müşterek kent imgesi okunmaya çalışılmıştır. Diğer yandan, kent mekanını dönüştüren olaylara da değinilmiş, kent imgesine etkisinden kısaca bahsedilmiştir. Kentin modern, sayfiye ve yeşil imgelerinin farklı dönemlerin farklı mekansallıkları içerisinde tekrar üretilebildiği görülmüştür. Kent imgesinin bu şekilde katmanlaşabilmesini sağlayan ise her dönem ortaklaşma pratiklerinin varlığı ve paydaşların kent üzerindeki tasarrufu olarak gözükmektedir.
Günümüzde yaşanan "kentsel dönüşüm" sürecine kısace değinildiğinde ise kentin müşterek üretim süreçlerinin dışında, serbest piyasa prensipleri uyarınca değiştiği, ayrıca bu değişimde merkezi otoritenin mevzuat üzerinden yerel yönetimden daha etkili olduğu görülmektedir. Bu sürecin üreteceği kent imgesinin, müşterek yöntemlerle üretilen kent imgesinden farklılaşacağı düşünülmektedir.

Abstract:
The aim of this master thesis is to investigate the relationships between the notions of "urban commons" and "image of the city". Thus, with the assumption that the shared image of the city is an urban common, it is aimed to discuss it through the concepts of sharing, production and participation. Moreover, Istanbul Bağdat Street and its environs were selected as a case study in the context of this discussion.
Behind the conception of urban commons is the idea that the city is an open source for the common use of all its inhabitants. Indeed, the work on the commons is primarily concerned with the sustaining of resources which are not owned by anyone but open to everyone. The commons first existed in the history through the concepts of public sphere and property and pointed to concepts such as self-management and inclusiveness. They also provide an alternative to the dilemmas of public-private, state-market in urban production through concepts such as cooperation and participation. 
Self-management, participation, production and sharing processes in the city to which the commons correlate were opened to discussion with examples from urban studies. As a result, it is seen that the city creates a suitable environment for the production of the commons. It is also seen that urban commons exist by definition naturally in the social and mental representations of city. So much so that what is spontaneously developed as a result of intergenerational labor and institutionalized in the city is the commons. The density and diversity environment provided by the cities, daily events, streets, produce commons as a process; urban commons appear as a concept that is always present but intangible.
This master thesis study primarily examined the commons and tried to find a general method for identifying the commons. Commons refer to process concerning human relations; and to social practices based on participation, cooperation, self-management, production and sharing. Indeed, today, the notion of commons is explained by many researchers by a trilogy: Resources, Commoning and Commoners.
•	"Resource" represents what is shared and utilized;
•	"Commoning" refers to common production mechanisms;
•	"Commoners" frames the totality of relations between stakeholders.
According to this definition, besides public space in the city, urban commons cover the whole process of people coming together, producing and using space.
On the other hand, the image of the city refers to the act of producing mental representations and common concepts of a city by its inhabitants. The city is not only a gathering of people, streets and buildings, but a mood, traditions, attitudes and thoughts that are transmitted through traditions. Parallel to this, the production of the city includes the production of its image. Urban space is a product of social relations and therefore contains the judgments of society. In other words, the production of space paves the way for the image of the city. The image that people see fit to the city becomes embodied and represented in the city. In the opposite direction, space and its image affect the lives of the individuals who use it.
Thus, for a city dweller, the image of the city can be both the result of being in the city and the reason for being an urbanite. The common definition in the minds of individuals has both concrete foundations through urban space and abstract bases through individuals' relationships. Therefore, although individuals are aware of their existence, they cannot easily explain the image of the city. 
Therefore, in both cases, the forms of individuals coming together, the production of the image of the city by society and the effects of this image on urban life are discussed through urban space. It is emphasized that the image of the city is a form of spatialization produced together by individuals. So, when individuals participate in the production of the city, the latter can also exist mentally. The co-production of the mental equivalents of the city opens the way to discuss the image of the city on the basis of commons. In this way, it is aimed to reveal the parallels between the image of the city and the urban commons.
This study also aims to trail the image of the city in Istanbul Bağdat Street and its surroundings and to construct a reading of it through the commons. This region is chosen because it has a distinctive image of the city. Indeed, in the minds of the citizens, this settlement is perceived quite different from Istanbul. Especially, three images come into prominence at this point: Sayfiye (summer uses), Green and Modern.
These three images are examined in their historical process and are discussed in the light of the above-mentioned Resources, Commoning and Commoners concepts. In this way, it is aimed to open up the city image particular to this place here through the processes of sharing, production and participation, that is, on the basis of the commons. In other words, the common image of  the city was tried to be read in this region. Paralelly, the events that transform the urban space and their effect on the image of the city are briefly mentioned. It is seen that modern, sayfiye (summer) and green images of the city can be reproduced within different spatialities of different periods. What makes the image of the city stratified in this way seems to be the existence of commoning practices and the power of commoners over the city.
There are three main periods in which the production practices of the image of this region ; in every period, the image of urban space and city is reproduced or transformed.
The first period covers the late Ottoman and early Republican periods, which continued until the 1950s when the Şirket-i Hayriye started to organize regular ferry services to the region. In this period, the upper income group or the senior officials have sown the seeds of the modern, summer and green images of the region. The western and secular lifestyle brought by these people started the modern image, the use of the beach and the sea started the summer image, the gardens and built landscape built in this period started the green image. Another point to be emphasized in this period is that the city developed spontaneously, unlike the modernist urban planning practices of the period.
The second period started in the 1950s and continued until the zoning rights in the region increased in the 1980s. Meanwhile, the city's modern, summer and green images have been reproduced by a wider population. Even the urban space was reproduced commonly in accordance with these images. The housing buildings, which were the products of this period, made the citizens of the physical space a shareholder through the real estate property law.
The third and final period is the one from 1980s to today's urban transformation movement. In this period, the identity of Kadıköy has not changed even though the urban texture has been densified; the images of green, summer, and modern life have preserved themselves.
The production of urban space produces and transforms the image of the city in parallel. For a city to have its own powerful image, it is critical for its inhabitants to recognize it, embrace it as a living space, and actively participate in its formation. This is where the commons gain importance. This study has shown that opening up to discussion the processes of urban production through commons can create more qualitative research areas about the city.
As to briefly mention the current "urban transformation" process, it is seen that the city has changed in accordance with the principles of free market contrary to the common production processes, and that central authority is more effective than local government through legislation in this change. It is thought that the urban image produced by this process will differ from the urban image produced by commons practices.