Critical Reading of a Participatory Model of Urban Rehabilitation in an Inner City Multi-Ethnic Low-Income Neighborhood: ‘İzmir History Project’
Synopsis
This study by Neslihan Demirtaş-Milz critically examines the İzmir History Project (İTP), initiated by the İzmir Metropolitan Municipality in 2013, focusing on its participatory and socially sensitive urban rehabilitation model implemented in the historical city center (Kadifekale, Agora, Basmane). Presented as an alternative "İzmir Model" to the state- and TOKİ-led authoritarian urban transformation projects in Turkey based on displacement, İTP aims to achieve physical and social rehabilitation, local participation, and social cohesion without causing gentrification or excluding local residents. The field research setting around Patlıcanlı Slope is a multi-ethnic, low-income, physically deteriorated informal settlement comprising Kurdish migrants from Mardin, settled Turks, and Syrian refugees. The paper evaluates the theoretical and practical limits of participatory processes through the lens of Habermas, Mouffe, and Flyvbjerg's power relation theories. Despite İTP’s successful social initiatives such as children’s and women’s workshops and the Neighborhood Center, it is highlighted that local participation rates remained low, powerful actors like muhtars dominated discussions by spreading disinformation due to real estate speculation, and vulnerable groups such as tenants and Syrian refugees remained marginalized in decision-making. In conclusion, for the project to evolve from a mere tool of legitimization into a bottom-up democratic model, proactive measures must be taken to protect the rights of disadvantaged groups, generate local employment, and establish legal precautions against uncontrolled gentrification.
References
Birol-Akkurt H, Zengin-Çelik H, Güner, D, (2017). Tarihsel dokuda sosyal değişime duyarlı bir sağlıklaştırma modeli; Patlıcanlı Yokuşu-İzmir (A rehabilitation model responsive to social changes in historic districts: Patlıcanlı Yokuşu-İzmir). TÜBA-KED, 16, 89-107.
Bull A C & Jones B (2006). Governance and social capital in urban regeneration: a comparison between Bristol and Naples. Urban Studies, 43(4), 767-786.
Calderon, C. (2012). Social urbanism: integrated and participatory urban upgrading in Medellin, Colombia. In R. J. Lawrence, H. Turgut, & P. Kellett (Eds.), Requalifying the built environment: challenges and responses (pp. 179-198). Cambridge: Hogrefe.
Demirtaş-Milz N. (2013). The regime of informality in neoliberal times in Turkey: the case of Kadifekale urban transformation project. International Journal of Urban and Regional Resrarch, 37(2), 689-714.
Demirtas-Milz N. & Saracoglu C. (2015). Space, capitalism and Kurdish migrants in Turkey: an analysis of Kadifekale’s transformation in İzmir. In Z. Gambetti & J. Jongerden (Eds.), Kurdish Issue in Turkey: A Spatial Perspective (pp. 185-212). New York and London: Routledge.
Dikmen-Özarslan A. (2017). Kentsel dönüşümün Bomonti’nin eski sakinleri üzerine etkisi. In Ş.Aslan & C. Cinemre (Eds.), Current Debates in Sociology and Anthropology (pp.173-187). London and İstanbul: IJOPEC.
Elnokaly A.M. & Elseragy B. (2012). Historic city centers as catalysts for wider sustainable urban generation. In R. J. Lawrence, H. Turgut, & P. Kellett (Eds.), Requalifying the Built Environment: Challenges and Responses (pp. 29-49). Cambridge: Hogrefe.
Eraydin, A. & Tasan-Kök, T. (2014) State response to contemporary urban movements in Turkey: a critical overview of state entrepreneurialism and authoritarian interventions. Antipode, 46(1), 110-129.
Erkan N.E. & Altıntaş S. (2018). Soylulaştırmanın gündelik hayattaki görünümleri: Balat’ın mekansal ve sosyal dönüşümü. İdeal Kent Dergisi, 23(9), 292-335.
Flyvbjerg B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 353-366.
Hillier J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be real. Planning Theory, 2, 37-59.
Jezierska K. (2019). With Habermas against Habermas. Deliberation without consensus. Journal of Public Deliberation, 15 (1), article 13.
Kapoor İ. (2002). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? The relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe debate for Third World politics. Alternatives, 27, 459-487.
Kılıç E. M., & Göksu A. E. (2018). Bir kentsel dönüşüm deneyimi: Kadifekale-Uzundere ikileminde bireysel öyküler üzerine düşünmek (an urban transformation practice: thinking about the individual stories through the Kadifekale-Uzundere dilemma). Planlama, 28(2), 201-217).
Kutlu G. H., (2016). Agora, Kadifekale, First and Second Circle Residential Areas. İzmir Tarih, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Kuyucu T. & Unsal O. (2010). Urban transformation and state-led property transfer: an analysis of two cases of urban renewal in İstanbul. Urban Studies, 47(7), 1479–99.
Lees L., Slater T. & Wyly E. (2008). Gentrification. New York & London: Routledge.
Lovering, J. & Hade, T. (2011) Bulldozer neo-liberalism in İstanbul: the state-led construction of property markets and the displacement of urban poor. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 73-96.
Lees L. (2012). Ideologies of gentrification and the right to the city. In R. J. Lawrence, H. Turgut, & P. Kellett (Eds.), Requalifying the Built Environment: Challenges and Responses (pp. 69-91). Cambridge: Hogrefe.
Matejskova T. & Leitner, H. (2011). Urban encounters with difference: the contact hypothesis and immigrant integration projects in eastern Berlin. Social and Cultural Geography, 12(7), 717-741.
Mouffe C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745-758.
Saraçoğlu C. & Demirtaş-Milz N. (2014). Disasters as an ideological strategy for governing neoliberal urban transformation in Turkey: insights from İzmir/Kadifekale. Disasters, 38(1), 178-201.
Tekeli İ. (2018). The İzmir model: proposal for a democratic municipal model for İzmir. İzmir: İzmir Mediterranean Academy.
Tekeli İ, Kutlu G. H, Coşkun-Öner Ö, (2019). Tasarım stratejisi raporu. İzmir Tarih, İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Uzun N. C. (2003). The impact of urban renewal and gentrification on urban fabric: three cases in Turkey. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94(3), pp. 363-375.
Uzunçarşılı-Baysal C. (2016). The case of İstanbul. In O. H. Hagen (Ed.), Habitat Norway Report # 3 Who Owns the City? Exclusion and Inclusion: Global Perspectives (pp.9-14). www.habitat-norge.org.
Varlı-Görk R & Rittersberger-Tılıç H. (2016). An example of a gentrification: unintended consequences of an in suti rehabilitation project in Ankara. Journal of Ankara Studies VEKAM, 4(1), 23-43.
