Urban regeneration projects have become a focus of attention in Istanbul due to tourism promotion, particularly great expectations from the European Capital of Culture 2010 Event. Sulukule, a Romani neighborhood on the historical peninsula of Istanbul, was designated as an urban redevelopment zone. The Sulukule Urban Regeneration Project is one of the recent efforts to present “a better urban environment” to foreign visitors and investors. The project has accelerated the struggle for land, causing dispossessions, evictions and demolitions. Locals’ needs and rights are denied. Consequently, the citizens in Sulukule started to oppose regeneration and formed an urban social movement. This paper attempts to analyze the urban social movement in Sulukule, the Sulukule Platform, which emerged as an urban coalition challenging tourism-led regeneration.
The Sulukule Urban Regeneration Project is one of the recent regeneration projects in Istanbul, which has caused tensions between the authorities and activists. In Sulukule, a mixed group of activists have organized themselves as the Sulukule Platform (SP), challenging state-led urban regeneration for tourism promotion. The activists monitor Roma identity in Sulukule, which is one of the oldest Roma settlements in Europe. Urban regeneration in Sulukule is related to the ‘cultural turn’ in urban studies. As the government and the municipalities define a legitimate ‘urban culture’, while the ‘Romani subculture’ in Sulukule is viewed as threatening the cultural sustainability of the city. Moreover, urban resistance in Sulukule claims the right against accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2008) and urges evictions to stop. Thus, the Sulukule case calls for a broad, multidisciplinary analysis. With awareness of this socio-economical and cultural complexity, I introduce and describe the Sulukule Urban Regeneration Project and analyze SP as an urban social movement.
In this paper, I ask the following research questions: How did the activists gain capacity to resist urban regeneration? How did the activists present their demands? In which ways did SP contribute to the struggle against urban regeneration? To what extent have the activists influenced the urban process in Sulukule?
The research covers two periods: May–September 2009 (during large scale demolitions) and May–July 2010 (after demolitions). During these periods, I occasionally visited Sulukule. Therefore, my personal observations were the first motivation for beginning this study. Eight interviews were conducted in total and categorized into three groups for analysis. The first group of interviews was conducted with activists and professionals. The focus was on how SP opposed regeneration. Second, I interviewed with locals in Sulukule who encouraged the documentation of individual stories. I focused on how ambiguous property rights caused problems and how displacement affected the Roma. Third, I conducted interviews with the residents of the adjacent neighborhood, Çarşamba. I was able to document the prejudice against the Roma in Turkey, which later played a role in SP’s fate. Further primary data sources consisted of newspapers, petitions, court documents, statistics, domestic and international reports, surveys conducted by the Fatih Municipality and SP, and websites and portals of SP and the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and the Fatih Municipality. In analyzing data, I focused on the causal relationship between the events. I tried to find out how the locals struggled with dispossessions, eviction and displacement and how SP consequently reacted and organized locals against urban regeneration.
I will begin by discussing urban social movements (USMs). Then, I will introduce Sulukule and the Sulukule Urban Regeneration Project, following which I will analyze the demands presented by SP. Finally I will critically evaluate the achievements and effects of SP, its role in the struggle against urban regeneration in Istanbul and future prospects.
In this paper, I have analyzed SP as an USM in Istanbul, challenging the Sulukule Urban Regeneration Project. I introduced SP by focusing on its formation and structure. Then, I discussed the criticism that SP presented to acquire domestic and international support to stop urban regeneration. I also evaluated its role in the struggle against urban regeneration and its distinctive features as a unique urban resistance. Furthermore, I presented the demands and activities of SP and analyzed the major obstacles that SP experienced. Finally, I evaluated the achievements and failure of SP in the physical preservation of the neighborhood.
Despite its optimistic rhetoric, the Sulukule Regeneration Project did not fulfil its promises. Promises concerning preservation turned into demolitions; economic development to unemployment, homelessness and poverty; integration turned to eviction and participation turned to exclusion. None of the changes provided benefits for Sulukule’s Romani population. All the traditional houses were demolished. SP did not manage to preserve the historical heritage of Sulukule. Authorities violated residents’ property rights, displaced them and forced them to live in a different environment. The ones who chose to stay faced miserable living conditions.
Although demolitions took place at a large scale, SP survived without disintegration. SP continues to challenge local authorities, and thus, the neighborhood’s fate is unpredictable. Therefore, it is still too early to declare SP as a complete failure. Activists continue their struggle by demanding that the local authorities negotiate and compromise. If they accomplish the return of the locals to Sulukule, the process may gain a new dimension. Only then will it be possible to discuss conservation of an ethnic culture and socio-economical redevelopment in Sulukule.
