Neoliberalism and the Urban Condition

ISTANBUL BILGI UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE

NEOLIBERALISM AND THE URBAN CONDITION

ARCH309 - Production of Space and the Urban Condition “Problematizing Urbanization”

İREM ERSOY 11695142

Istanbul-2018 1

NEOLIBERALISM AND THE URBAN CONDITION

Since the late 70s, neoliberal paradigm has become a contemporary ideology for

understanding and re-creating the urban space. Neoliberalism supports the idea of increasing the welfare level of the society whilst legalizing a new order focusing on free market and freehold.

However, this essay argues that the neoliberal understanding in the context of urbanism forced marginalization in society and an invisible separation with the visible existence of walls. This political and economical statement has caused inevitable shifts in the process of urbanism. Urban projects have become the product of the relationship between the government and the capital stock.

The available lands have become attractions for major investors. With these continuous actions, the substantial alteration in urban space changed the accumulation manner of the residents. The urban transformation and gentrification planning projects resulted in marginalization of the urban spaces an the society.

It is a well-known fact that cities plot the place of their governments in the global order. The

developing technology, machinery, transportation and operation since the industrial revolution brought an alteration to the operational order of the system. So-called socio-political ideologies are fed by urbanism, according to Lefebvre. A revolution that does not produce a new space has not realized its full potential ; indeed it has failed in that it has not changed life itself, but has merely changed ideological superstructures, institutions or political apparatuses. A social transformation, to be truly revolutionary in character, must manifest a creative capacity in its effects on daily life, on language and on space ( Lefebvre, 1991, s. 53).

During the process of neoliberalism, the city has become a consumption commodity; thus,

the city is aimed to be operated and marketed in parallel with market expectations in the global order. The potential areas, which lost rent in the city, has been redeployed in order to provide new rent areas. Urban transformation formed by the neoliberal ideology and the creative deconstruction of urban spaces have caused separation not only in economical order, but also in socio-cultural order.

The inequality in the lands of the city has given cause for insecurity within the society, affecting the common living areas.

Turkey has adapted the neoliberal order both in political and economical relations in the

years between 1980-2000. During this process, the principle of statism started to fade away in political relations while the free market has started to rise and the available lands have become zoned for construction. After September 12, 1980 Turkish coup d’Êtat, the economical transformation reorganized the planning of the urban spaces once again. However, the rent of the 2

reorganized urban spaces did not address the citizens. In the beginning of 2000s, the city was invaded with so-called mega projects on especially lands where the return on rent was high. As a result of the application of this neoliberal method, the society was forced to leave a part of the value created as a result of their own efforts and investments to title holder individuals (KeleĹ&#x;, 2012, p.8).

Thus, the city has become a meta to be reproduced by urban entrepreneurs, contractors, investor companies, and speculators.

As the physical quality of urban space accrued, the capital stock started to address the high

income earner class. Even though this is considered as gentrification, it acts a separator in society; therefore, causes discrimination and disintegration both ethnically and culturally (Grabska, 2006, p.

287-307). In order to relate the spatial differentiation of the city with the formation of the social stratum, Harvey introduced four assumptions:

1. Spatial differentiation should be explained within the framework of the

reproduction of social relations in capitalist society.

2. Mechanical units, neighborhood units, local communities are special social

interaction environments that will significantly affect the values, expectations,

consumption habits, market equipment and states of consciousness of individuals.

3. The division of large population densities into different communities serves for the

division of class consciousness in Marxian terms, and thus makes it difficult to

transform from capitalism to socialism through class struggle.

4. Spatial differentiation models reflect and embody many of the contradictions in

capitalist society; the processes that create and sustain them are consequently

instability and places of conflict (Harvey, 2002, p.161).

The neoliberal policies have driven a wedge up between the lower and upper income levels, and the free market understanding has worsened the gap between different social groups. Thus, it is proven that spatial differentiation and social marginalization are a result of capitalist production process rather than the citizens’ choices. Social marginalization can be defined as the spatial differentiation caused by the social and cultural discrepancy (Andersen, 2003, p.14).

Social segregation is the result of marginalization of a group by another in social and

economical level and spatial segregation can be considered as concrete instance for this term. This segregation process reveal marginalized urban spaces such as ghettos, slums, gated housing estates, etc. Groups formed in society as a result of neoliberalism started to withdraw from society itself and the differences between these groups originated a distrust. Individualism has substituted socialism.

Rising walls have substituted streets, open spaces, neighborhood units. Gated housing estates 3

increased and security has become a necessity. These estates separated the residents from the others; however, this so-called privilege is actually caused apartheid.

In conclusion, the neoliberalism ideology has played a significant role in shaping today’s

urban condition. Despite neoliberal order opposed to provide a better welfare in society while legalizing a new order focusing on free market and freehold, it caused a marginalization in both society and urban spaces. The unavoidable shifts in the process of urbanism generated urban projects to become the product of the relationship between the government and the capital stock.

The available lands have become attractions for major investors. As a result, the urban transformation and gentrification planning projects resulted in marginalization of the urban spaces and the society.

REFERENCES Andersen, Hans S. (2003) "Urban Sores: On the Interaction Between Segregation”, Urban Decay and Deprived Neighbourhoods, Ashgate, Great Britain, p.14.

Brenner, N. Marcuse, P. and Mayer, M. (2009) “Cities for People, Not for Profit”, City, p.13:2-3, 176-184.

Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2005) “Neoliberalism and the Urban Condition”, City, p.9:1, 101-107.

Grabska, K. (2006) “Marginalization in Urban Spaces of the Global South: Urban Refugees in Cairo”, Journal of Refugee Studies, Volume 19, Issue 3, p. 287–307.

Harvey, D. (2002) “Sınıfsal Yapı ve Mekansal Farklılaşma Kuramı” (Çev. Bülent Duru ve Ayten Alkan), 20.Yüzyıl Kenti, İmge Kitabevi, p. 161.

Harvey, D. (2005) “The Neoliberal State”, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford, p. 69:2,70 Keleş R. (2016) "Kentleşme Politikası”, İmge Kitabevi, 15. Baskı, Ankara, p.39.

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford.

4