Kent hakkı ve kentsel katılım bağlamında kendin yap pratikler
Do-it-yourself practices in the context of right to the city and uurban participation
Yazar: GÖKÇE ÖCAL
Danışman: PROF. DR. GÜLDEN ERKUT
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Şehir Planlama Ana Bilim Dalı / Şehir Planlama Bilim Dalı
Derece: Doktora, 2019
Konu: Şehircilik ve Bölge Planlama = Urban and Regional Planning

Özet:
Son yıllarda dünyanın çeşitli kentlerinde olduğu gibi Türkiye'nin çeşitli kentlerinde de literatürde "kendin yap kentleşme" olarak adlandırılan farklı bir kentsel pratik/ muhalefet/ yaratıcılık/ direniş/ dönüştürme/ ihlal yaklaşımı ilgi çekici olmaya başlamıştır. Çoğunlukla birbirinden farklı ve bağımsız çeşitli kişi ve grupların kentsel mekânlara izinsiz, resmi olmayan müdahalelerini içeren bu eylemler ve pratikler, kentsel mekânları kimi zaman geçici ve anlık olarak dönüştürmeyi hedeflemekte, kimi zaman uzun erimli bir dönüşümün yolunu kentsel mekânı belirlenmiş, tanımlanmış, planlanmış işlevinin dışında farklı kullanım biçimlerine açarak ve farklı anlamlandırmaları mümkün kılarak gerçekleştirmektedir. Tabandan gevşek bir biçimde organize olan bu "kendin yap" kentleşme pratikleri taktikler ve yaratıcı eylemler yoluyla aktivizm, kentsel tasarım ve planlama arasındaki ayrımları silikleştirmekte, kent mekânı üzerinde hak iddia etmekte ve kenti farklı kullanımlar yoluyla dönüştürmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu bağlamda, sokak sanatından, grafitiye, işgal evlerinden, alternatif toplu ulaşım gruplarına, kent bahçeciliğinden, reklam tabelalarını bir gecede değiştirmekten yaratıcı kent mobilyaları inşa etmeye mekânlara oyuncu bir biçimde geçici müdahalelerde bulunan topluluklara kadar geniş bir yelpazede değerlendirilebilecek olan bu hareketler yeni bir kentsel ve toplumsal muhalefetin habercisi olabilir.
Bu araştırmanın konusu İstanbul'da "kendin yap" kentleşme bağlamında yeni kent bostanlarının araştırılması, bu bostanların ortaya çıkış koşullarının, özelliklerinin, bostan katılımcılarının motivasyonlarının, amaçlarının, duygu ve düşüncelerinin anlaşılması ve yeni kent bostanlarının kent hakkı, kentsel katılımcılık ve mekân siyaseti bağlamında analiz edilerek değerlendirilmesidir. Bu tez araştırmasının kapsamını İstanbul'da "kendin yap" olarak tanımlanacak kent bostanları oluşturmaktadır. İstanbul'un Beyoğlu ilçesindeki Cihangir Roma Bostanı ve Beşiktaş ilçesinde bulunan Boğaziçi Üniversitesi yerleşkesinin içerisindeki Tarla Taban tezin kapsamında incelenmiş iki "kendin yap" kent bostanıdır. Ayakta kalan son tarihi "bostanlar"ın aksine, kullanım değeri ile örgütlenmiş olan bu bostanlar yalnızca bahçeciler tarafından yürütülmekte ve hasat beslenmeden çok simgesel değeri için yapılmaktadır. Bu makalenin dayandığı ampirik araştırmayagöre, İstanbul'da genelde kentsel kamusal alanın, özelde ise kamusal yeşil alanların son yıllardaki tahribinin, kolektif dayanışma ve bilgi paylaşım alanları olduğu kadar ekolojik kaygıların dillendirildiği ve görünür kılındığı alanlar olan kendin yap bahçeleri vücuda getirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu makale, söz konusu kentsel bahçelerin, otoriter neoliberal kentsel politikalara karşı kamusal alan talep eden yeni bir kentsel muhalefetin tahayyül edilmesine nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu keşfetmektedir.
Gündelik hayat pratiklerinin direnişçi, dönüştürücü ve yeniden kurucu potansiyeli yoluyla mekânı anlamaya yönelen bir kuramsal çerçeve içerisinden hareketle İstanbul'da "kendin yap" kentleşme içerisinde değerlendirilebilecek pratiklerden "yeni kent bostanları" vaka çalışması olarak incelenmiş, katılımcı gözlem ve derinlemesine mülakat yoluyla katılımcıların kentsel mekânları nasıl temellük ettikleri, sahiplendikleri ve dönüştürdükleri anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışma, İstanbul'daki kent bostanlarını dünyada "kendin yap" kentleşme literatürü içerisinden karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmiş, yeni kent bostanlarının dünyadaki farklı örneklerle benzerliklerini, farklılıklarını ve kendi özgül ortaya çıkış ve varoluş koşullarını bostan katılımcıların öznel motivasyonlarını ve algılarını da dikkate alarak araştırmıştır. Ayrıca bu çalışma, İstanbul'daki bu yeni kentsel pratikleri kentsel katılım ve kent hakkı bağlamında inceleyerek, bu pratiklerin mekân siyaseti bağlamında analiz etmiş ve bu oluşumların kentsel tasarım ve planlama ile kurabileceği olası ilişkileri eleştirel bir biçimde sorgulayarak yeni öneriler geliştirmiştir.
, dört bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde, kendin yap kentleşme kentsel planlamada katılımcılık ve katılımcılık olgusunun dönüşümü çerçevesinden analiz edilmiş, kendin yap kentleşmenin kentsel
katılımcılık bağlamında potansiyelleri ve sınırlılıkları değerlendirilmiştir.
kent bahçelerini bu literatür içerisinden yola çıkarak değerlendirmiş ve tezin konusunu oluşturan bostanları böyle bir çerçeveyle
ilişkilendirmiştir. Tezin üçüncü bölümü,
Bu araştırma niteliksel araştırma yaklaşımını belirlemiş ve bu araştırmanın kapsamı içerisinde belirlenen vakalar olan Roma Bostanı ve Tarla Taban'a aktif olarak katılmış/katılan kişiler içerisinden toplam on sekiz kişi ile derinlemesine mülakat yapılmıştır. Bostancılar ile yapılan derinlemesine mülakatların yanı sıra Roma Bostanı'nın içine kurulduğu Cihangir mahallesinden de bostan ile ilgili düşünce ve tutumlarını anlayabilmek için kota örneklemesi yoluyla altı kadın ve altı erkek olmak üzere toplam on iki kişiyle yarı yapılandırılmış sorular yöneltilerek görüşülmüştür. Görüşmecilerin hem mahallede yaşayan hem de mahallede çalışanlardan oluşmasına, farklı sosyo-ekonomik statü ve yaş kategorilerini temsil etmesine özen gösterilmiştir.
Bu araştırmayı ortaya çıkaran temel sorunsal, Türkiye bağlamında "kendin yap" bostanların hangi spesifik siyasi, toplumsal bağlam içerisinde ortaya çıktığının ve bu bostanların nasıl bir kuramsal çerçeve içerisinden analiz edilebileceğinin
araştırılmasıydı. Bu sorunsal ekseninde bu çalışma
bölümü, önce "kendin yap" kentleşmenin akademik literatürde nasıl yorumlandığına odaklanmış, "kendin yap" kentleşmenin özellikle Batı coğrafyasındaki tarihsel köklerine eğilmiş ve daha sonra da "kendin yap" kentleşme örneklerinin bir
Tezin ikinci
değerlendirmesini yapmıştır. Daha sonra,
İstanbul'un yeni bostanlarını akademik literatürde kent bahçeleri tartışmasının içerisine oturtmuş ve İstanbul'un yeni bostanlarının ortaya çıkışını kendi özgül koşulları içerisinde Türkiye'deki neoliberal kent politikaları ile ilişkilendirmiştir. Tezin son bölümünde, saha araştırmasının temel bulguları ortaya konmuş, bu bulgular, tezin araştırma soruları kapsamında kent hakkı, kentsel katılımcılık ve mekân siyaseti
bu çalışmanın konusunu oluşturan
bağlamında yorumlanmıştır.
Türkiye'de neoliberalizasyon ve paralel uygulanan neoliberal kent politikaları ekseninde değerlendirildiğinde "kendin yap" kent bostanları bu sürece bir tepki olarak ortaya çıkmış, bostancıların sosyo-mekânsal örgütlenmeleri ve önerdikleri pratikler de
büyük ölçüde
2013'te İstanbul'da baş gösteren toplumsal olaylar
ve sonrasındaki
süreçte şekillenmiştir. Bu çalışma göstermektedir ki bir kentsel mekân talebi olarak Roma Bostanı ve Tarla Taban otoriter neoliberal kent politikalarına karşı "kent hakkı" bağlamında değerlendirilebilir. Bu çalışma, bostanlar gibi mikro-mekânsal pratiklerin de kent siyaseti açısından yeni bir alan açtığını ve bu alanı farklı mücadelelerin ilişkilenebileceği katılımcı ve dayanışmacı bir zemin olarak kurguladığını öne sürmüştür. Örgütlü kentsel mücadele veya alışılmış kentsel muhalefet ve siyaset biçimlerinden farklı olsa da Roma Bostanı ve Tarla Taban "kendin yap" pratikler yoluyla "kent hakkı" talebinin somut olarak dile getirildiği, bu anlamda da kentsel
mücadelenin alternatif biçimlerini ortaya koyan çarpıcı örneklerdir.
Kentlerin anti-demokratik yollarla, yukarıdan-aşağı kararlar ve süreçlerle planlandığı ve büyük- ölçüde metalaştığı günümüzde böyle pratiklerin öncelikle kentsel katılımcılık, kent hakkı ve kentsel planlama ve tasarım ile kurabileceği ilişkiler üzerine düşünmek önem kazanmaktadır. Böyle pratikler bir yandan daha adil ve kapsayıcı bir kentsel politikaya ve gerçek anlamda katılımcı bir kentselliğe doğru açılımlar ihtiva ederken, bir yandan da anlamlı ve bütünlüklü bir kentsel muhalefet üretmekten yoksun kalma riskini beraberinde taşımaktadır. Bu tez çalışması "kendin yap kentleşmenin" bir biçimi olarak görülen kent bostanlarının İstanbul'daki yeni örnekleri üzerinden "kendin yap kentleşmenin" Türkiye genelinde ve İstanbul özelinde ihtiva ettiği anlamları çözümleyerek böyle pratiklerin kent hakkı kavramı bağlamında değerlendirilebilecek bir kamusal alan talebi olduğunu, doğrudan katılımcılığın birer örneği olduğunu ve dolayısıyla yeni bir muhalefet biçimi olduğu ölçüde siyasal olduklarını öne sürmektedir.

Abstract:
This study focuses on two of the "do-it-yourself" urban gardens, the Roma Garden and Tarla Taban in Istanbul, Turkey in the context of urban participation, right to the city and urban struggle. Urban agriculture has a very long history in Istanbul where traditional urban market gardens called "bostans" had provided the city with food for centuries. While the last remaining historical gardens are now under threat due to municipal policies favoring urban development, Istanbul has witnessed the formation of "do-it-yourself" urban gardens in the aftermath of the social movements in Istanbul in 2013. These gardens, initiated on public land and maintained by a small group of gardeners, are open to public without any legal relation to the local state. In contrast to last remaining historical "bostans" these gardens; organized around the use value; are managed solely by the means of the gardeners and the harvest is not meant to be nourishment, rather it has a symbolic value. The empirical research which this study is based on demonstrates that the destruction of urban public space in general and public green space in particular over the last decade in Istanbul gave way to do-it- yourself urban gardens as spaces of solidarity, collectivity and shared knowledge as well as spaces where ecological concerns can be raised and made visible. This study also explores the ways in which these urban gardens contribute to envisage a new kind of urban opposition centered around the demand for public space against the authoritative neoliberal urban policies.
"Do-It-Yourself Urbanism" has attracted significant attention from the academics globally in recent years. "Do-It-Yourself Urbanism", distinguished from the more conventional and institutionalized forms of urban design, generally refers to the grass- roots, small-scale acts and practices which aim to temporarily and creatively transform and appropriate public space by means of unauthorized intervention, yet the differences in scale, duration, motivations and the broader impacts of these practices complicate a general definition and framework. In current literature "Do-It-Yourself Urbanism" is discussed through a wide spectrum of acts which includes various forms of street art, squatting, urban and guerrilla gardening, yarn bombing, informal housing. The diversity of these practices and the variety of social, political and cultural context in which they are embedded makes it difficult to analyze these practices and their impact on urban life under a general scheme. While most of the current literature focuses on the political possibilities these practices might entail, some authors have critically assessed the political implications and the greater impacts that these practices had for the reproduction of the neoliberal urban policies and reaffirming the existing social privileges along the lines of gender, class, ethnicity etc.
In the existing literature, there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a "Do-It- Yourself" urban garden. Urban gardens around the world vary greatly in terms of scale, function, characteristics and the broader context in which they have founded.Community gardens are defined as spaces sustained by volunteers with no or differing degrees of relations with the local/national state and public and private initiatives. From this perspective, collectivity and publicness are perceived as key features of an urban garden. Some studies analyze urban gardens from the perspective of politics of food and in a broader context of urban agriculture. In the North American context, urban gardens are generally considered in terms of the economical, social and health benefits for the broader ethnic and/or class community as well as their community building benefits. Urban gardens have also been studied as spaces of collective environmental learning and social empowerment and in terms of their contribution to urban sustainability. Some studies have interpreted urban gardens as spaces of contestation which could challenge the existing neoliberal urban and social policies. Besides these studies which have primarily focus on the promises and potentials of the gardens, it has also been argued that urban gardens might reproduce and enforce neoliberal policies. A certain type of spatial intervention called "guerrilla gardening" is also gaining wider interest from academia in recent years. Guerrilla gardening is defined by the unauthorized activities of either the individuals or collective participants on public or private land without consent. Guerrilla gardening activities, distinguished from the more organized or conventional forms of urban gardening, are generally considered as more anonymous and temporary interventions to public space. Many studies have interpreted guerrilla gardening through the lens of "resistance" and its potentials to subvert, challenge and transform the existing socio-spatial arrangements such as the property relations, increasing commodification and control over the public space, thus evaluate these practices as political acts as "critical urban gardening". Despite the widespread interpretation of guerrilla gardening as a resistive political act, some studies have shown that the practice of guerrilla gardening could have a more complicated relation with the neighborhood, the local authorities and the planning agents. Depending on the broader context, these practices might reflect and conform the mainstream planning and design tendencies and even acquire some kind of legitimacy.
By drawing from the current literature, the aim of this study is to think about the practices of the gardeners as a form of "do-it-yourself urbanism" and whether they have a potential to contribute to current urban politics. This study demonstrates that in the Turkish context, "do-it-yourself" urban gardening came into existence with the stimulus and motivation of the social movements in Istanbul, relying mostly on the alternative socio-spatial configurations which the events have engendered. Moreover, the aim is to point out that these practices are a demand for public space that could be interpreted in the general framework of the right to the city against the authoritarian neoliberal urban governance and urban and environmental destruction. Although not politically organized in a conventional sense, their gardening practices nevertheless open up ways to rethink the nature of the 'political' beyond the confines of the representative participatory scheme. The case of the gardens demonstrate that the "do- it-yourself" urban gardens in Istanbul was far from being a piecemeal, small-scale urban correction to a particular urban space, but rather a possibility where alternative urban politics could be imagined and actualized with concrete consequences and gains.
This study is based on the empirical data that has been collected between December 2016 and June 2017. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with a total of eighteen gardeners from both gardens along with hours of field observation. Although the number of the gardeners fluctuates with circulating participants, the gardeners who were very active during the foundation of the garden and the gardeners who are active now are all in-depth interviewed. The gardeners were reached through common acquaintances and then by relying on the snow-ball technique. The gardeners interviewed were composed of five males and fifteen females, aged from 25-55, they were all university-educated. Their occupations vary greatly, ranged from a Pilates instructor to academician, musician, informatics and executive assistant. Two of the participants were unemployed at the time of the interviews. None of them had any membership to a political party or an organization yet some of them had loose connections with certain urban collectives or solidarity associations or initiatives. Regardless of gender and age, most of the participants cited the events of 2013 as a turning point in their lives in terms of the transformation it had created personally and politically.
Additionally, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with the residents of Cihangir in order to comprehend their attitudes and perspectives towards the urban garden in their neighborhood. The informants were between 25-67 years of age and they came from diverse educational and social backgrounds. While, some of the informants were uninformed about the garden, many residents were aware but reluctant to participate in the gardening activities. Although, from their perspective, having an urban garden as a public space in the neighborhood enacted positive feelings, the interaction between the gardeners to the rest of the neighborhood remains quite limited.
This study suggests that the case the urban gardens might well fit with what Lefebvre has called "the right to the city". In Istanbul, top-down, authoritarian urban governance alongside the increasing commodification, standardization and closure of the urban environment raises the issue of public participation as a major concern. This study argues that "do-it-yourself" urban gardens came into existence as a palpable demand for public space where the gardeners' struggle to transform and to advocate the garden has become their "cry and demand" for a transformed and "renewed right to urban life". As the cases of this study clearly demonstrates, the gardeners' intentions to claim and sustain the garden as a green space accompanies their wish to construct the urban space with ecological considerations. What they implicitly demonstrate is the production of urban space where collectivity, solidarity and shared labor should be intrinsic to the planning and design of the cities. There is a strong emphasis on collectivity and non -hierarchical types of organization, a serious inclination towards solidarity and cooperation, and a potent challenge to the commodification and colonization of the everyday life. All those aspects can be interpreted as a demonstration of how the possibility of alternative socio-spatial productions are latent waiting to be actualized to their fullest extent.
This study demonstrates that both in symbolic and actual terms, the gardeners feel themselves excluded and alienated from the public space, the decisions regarding the production of space and the enforced neoliberal identity which the government wishes to construct. This exclusion and disregard to the culminating resistance in all spheres to a large generated collective spatialized practices including the "do-it-yourself urban gardens" as a novel phenomena in Istanbul. What this study suggests is that the gardeners' demand is neither only about participating in urban design and planning decisions nor limited to deserve to remain in the garden as a garden. It is more a demand for a more democratic, ecological, just and open society based on mutual learning rather than competition, use-value rather than profits, self-expression rather than oppression. This study demonstrates that collective gardening practices could turn into a site of direct participation and expressing demand, a space for struggle and a space for different groups connect and support each other. It is through envisioning the garden as a long-term endeavor and the gardeners' insistence to continue to work in the garden that the space is politicized. As many have argued, it is through the acts and practices an urban space becomes political. It is not just their presence in space but also their emphasis on collectivity, equality and openness proofs their demand extends well beyond the physical boundaries of the garden into a demand of freedom and democracy.