Küreselleşme Çağında Sosyal Konut Kavramının Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye Örneği
Küreselleşme Çağında Sosyal Konut Kavramının Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye Örneği
Dosyalar
Tarih
2015-06-25
Yazarlar
Hazar, Ezgi
Süreli Yayın başlığı
Süreli Yayın ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayınevi
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Institute of Science And Technology
Institute of Science And Technology
Özet
Günümüzde dünya nüfusunun yarısı (3,4 milyar) kentlerde yaşamaktadır. Kentli nüfusun hızlı artışının devamlılığı halinde, 2030 yılında toplam kentli sayısının beş milyar civarında olması öngörülmektedir (Url-1). Nüfus yoğunluğunun artması, küresel kapitalist sistem içerisinde, kentlerin metropollere evrilmesini hızlandırıcı bir dönüşümü de beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu durumda, kentlerin metropolleşmesi ve bir sonraki evrede megapolleşmesi tarihsel süreçle birlikte ilerleyecektir. Kentlerin hızla metropolleşmesi, küreselleşmenin etkidiği alanların artmasına neden olmaktadır. Dış sermaye kuruluşlarının, metropoller üzerinde şube açmasıyla genişleyen finans ağı içerisinde, bu alanlar, kaynak yatırım ve dağıtım merkezlerine dönüşmektedir. Ekonomik merkez işlevinde görülen metropoller, istihdam olanaklarının gelişmesiyle kentten kente göçlerin artması sonucu, sosyokültürel değişimleri birlikte yaşamaktadır. De Certeau bu yerleşimler üzerinden sosyal değişimi; kaos, heterojen yapı, parçalanma, merkezden uzağa yayılma, gruplaşma, bireysel özgürlük ve erkten bağımsız hareketlerin oluşturduğu mekansal büyüme gibi postmodern etkilerle açıklamaktadır (de Certeau, 1984). Kaosun ve karmaşanın her daim var olduğu kentlerde, demografik büyüme ve farklı insan profillerinin bir araya gelmesine bağlı olarak heterojen sosyal çevrelerin ortaya çıktığı gözlenmektedir. Metropolün olumlu özellikleri içerisinde ele alınan heterojen yapısı ve bu yapının oluşturduğu kültürel melezleşme sonucu kentler, siyasi, sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik anlamda birçok farklı katmanın iç içe geçtiği karmaşık, yaşayan ve canlı bir organizma durumundadır. Bu katmanlaşmanın kent için hem olumlu hem de olumsuz yönleri mevcuttur. Olumlu yönü, kent yaşamının, farklı bireysel isteklerle durağan olmayan, dinamik bir dönüşümle evrilmesi ve kültürel farklılıkların bu devinimi hızlandırmasıdır. Olumsuz yönü ise, devlet politikalarıyla desteklenerek kaosun, kent yaşamına adapte olmakta güçlük çeken kent yoksullarını daha da görünmez hale getirmesi olarak değerlendirebilir. Daha somut bir anlatımla, kent yoksullarının yaşamsal gereksinimleri ve talepleri, bu kesimin istedikleri ölçütlerde karşılanamayarak, kent içindeki mağduriyetlerinin artmasına sebep olunmaktadır. Sağlık, beslenme ve barınma geçmişten günümüze kentsel mekanda üç temel yaşamsal ihtiyaç olarak belirmektedir. Bu gereksinimlerin karşılanmasında ortaya çıkan eksiklikler ve eşitsizlikler ise her dönem devlet yöneticilerinin, yerel idarecilerin, mimar, kent plancıları, sosyal bilimciler gibi farklı disiplinlerin çözmeye çalıştığı konular arasında yer almıştır. Kalabalık nüfusun kentteki en temel gereksinmesi barınma olarak belirmekte, bu konu en çok kentli yoksulları etkilemektedir. Dar gelirli ve yoksul (işsiz, göçmen, mülteci, engelli, yaşlı, öğrenci, vb.) olarak adlandırılan kentli mağdurun barınma gereksinimine bir çözüm olarak ortaya çıkan sosyal konut kavramı, en genel ifadeyle devletin alt gelirli, yoksul olarak tanımlanan vatandaşlarına az maliyetli ya da tamamen ücretsiz sunduğu bir konut / barındırma hizmeti olarak tanımlanabilir. Başka bir tanımda, sosyal konutun düşük gelirli ya da belirli ihtiyaçlara muhtaç olan insanlar için kamu kuruluşları veya kar amacı gütmeyen kuruluşlar tarafından sağlanan konutlar olduğu ifade edilmektedir (Soanes, Stevenson, 2003). Sosyal konut kavramı, sosyal devlet düşüncesinin oluştuğu 1945 yılından sonra ortaya çıkmış olmasına rağmen bu yıl öncesinde de olgunun, farklı aktörler, ekonomik koşullar, uygulamalar bağlamında farklı şekillerde tanımlandığı görülür. Günümüzde bu tanımlardan bazıları kullanılmaya devam etmektedir. “Komünal-müşterek konut” (communal housing), “şirket kent konutları” (company town), “yerel yönetimin inşa ettiği konutlar” (council housing), “toplu konutlar” (public housing), “kiralık konutlar” (rental housing), “dar gelirliler için konut” (affordable housing) sosyal konutun tarihsel süreçte ekonomik bileşenlere bağlı olarak aldığı farklı isimlendirmeler olarak sıralanabilir. Sosyal konut modellerinin ortaya çıkmasında üç önemli kırılma dikkat çekmektedir. Bunlar Endüstri Devrimi, İkinci Dünya Savaşı ve 1970 sonrası neoliberal dönem olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında sosyal konutun evrimi bu kırılmalar arasında yaşanan dört dönem içerisinde ele alınmaktadır: 1. Endüstri Devrimi Öncesi Dönem, 2. Endüstri Devrimi - İkinci Dünya Savaşı Arasındaki Dönem, 3. İkinci Dünya Savaşı - 1972 Pruitt-Igoe Sosyal Konutu’nun Yıkılışı arasındaki Dönem, 4. 1972’den Günümüze Yaşanan Neoliberal Dönem. Küresel konut politikalarındaki kırılmaların gerçekleştiği bu dört dönem içerisinde, Endüstri Devrimi’nin başladığı İngiltere, erken endüstrileşen Fransa, geç endüstrileşen Almanya, Pruitt-Igoe sosyal konut uygulamasının yapıldığı Amerika ile sosyalist Sovyetler Birliği incelenecek ülkeler olarak belirlenmiştir. Tezin ilk bölümünde, çalışma konusuna giriş yapılarak, araştırmanın yöntemi ve çalışma kapsamında ele alınacak sorular ortaya konmuştur. Tezin ikinci bölümünde, sosyal konutun ilk dile geldiği ütopyalardan günümüze değin dünyada mimari uygulamalarda ve politik modellerde yer bulan hikayesi dört dönem içerisinde incelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Her dönem aralığında, mimari uygulamalar mekansal olarak haritalanmıştır. Tezin üçüncü bölümünde, dünyadaki sosyal konut uygulamalarında öne çıkan kavramsal bileşenler belirlenmiş, bu bileşenler idari ve mimari bileşenler anlamında örnekler üzerinden tartışılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Tezin dördüncü bölümünde, Türkiye özelinde sosyal konut ele alınmış, sözü edilen dört dönem içerisinde konut politikaları, modelleri, aktörleri ve uygulamaları incelenmiştir. Her dönem aralığında, Türkiye’deki mimari uygulamalar, dünyada sosyal konut tasarımında ele alınan kavramsal bileşenler temel alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Tezin sonuç bölümünde, dünyadaki ve Türkiye’deki sosyal konut pratikleri karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda Türkiye’de gelecekte kentli mağdur (dar gelirli, işsiz, yoksul, evsiz, mülteci, yaşlı, öğrenci, vb.) için tasarlanan konutlara yeni bir bakış açısı getirilmesi ve mimari çözüm ve yaklaşımlara yeni bir yön verilmesi hedeflenmiştir.
Today, half of the world's population (3.4 billion) is living in cities. It is suggested that if the rapid rise in urban population continues, the total number of urban residents will become around five billion by the year 2030. The increase in population density brings the change and rapid transformation of cities into metropolises inside the global capitalist system. The rapid metropolization of the cities causes an increase on places that have been affected by globalization. Inside the financial networks that large companies shape in the metropolises, these areas are being transformed into centers of investment and logistics. Considered as financial centers, metropolises experience socio-cultural changes as the employment opportunities and the immigration to the cities increases. It can be seen that demographic growth and combination of different profiles cause heterogeneous social circles in the cities where the chaos and complexity always exist. As a result of the heterogeneous structure of metropolis and the cultural hybridization, the cities become a living organism where different political, social, cultural and economic layers intertwine. This stratification has both positive and negative effects to the city. The positive aspect can be observed as the evolution of city life according to the different individual demands and the acceleration of this evolution due to the cultural diversity. The negative aspect is not being able to support the demands and vital needs of the poor population and increasing their victimization which are ignored by the chaos supported by the policies. Accommodation is determined as the basic need of the urban crowd and this subject affects the urban poor the most. Because of the lack of low-priced housing with sufficient quality, it becomes inevitable for the government to apply a real estate solution itself. Originated as a solution to the sheltering needs of low income groups in the city (unemployed people, immigrants, refugees, the disabled, elderly people, students etc.), social housing can be defined as the sheltering service of government towards its poor people. In another definition, social housing is described as the houses provided by public institutions or non-profit organizations for the low-income people or the citizens that have specific needs. Although the term "social housing" has emerged after 1945 with the birth of the notion "social state", we can see that the same phenomenon had been defined in different ways with different actors, economic conditions and applications before this date. Today, some of these definitions are still in use. Communal housing, company town, council housing, public housing, rental housing, and affordable housing can all be counted as the different names the social housing notion has been called according to the different economic components throughout the history. During the Pre-Industrial Revolution era when the feudal structuring and capitalist economy was widely accepted, "a communal housing where everyone lives together in monotype houses for free" was being imagined, while the capitalist Industrial Revolution evolved this dream into the single-celled houses provided in exchange of labor by factory owners in the city campuses. After the Industrial Revolution when the immigration from rural areas to the cities increased, workers' housing estates have been constructed by the benefactors and factory owners, thus the minimum housing units designed for the workers started to emerge. These areas tended to be too small to accommodate an elementary family and they offered bed units for just one person. Sanitary and culinary areas (bathroom, toilet, kitchen, dining room, laundry, yard etc.) were designed out of the living areas which are called individual housing, providing the other vital and social needs of the individual in the collective spaces.The terms "communal housing" and "minimum housing" are associated with each other in this context. Again, social housing places (council housing) were constructed by the municipalities and rented to urban victims during the same period. These houses were created as a result of portioning the responsibilities of the central government to the local governments and they were usually in the form of linked houses and had hut type with a couple of floors. After World War II, public housing had become the housing model, comprehensively applied by many states. These housing estates were mass-constructed on the lands planned by the government. While they had a few storey plans initially, they were started to be constructed in multi-storey plans in the next stage. It is also worth mentioning the social housing models which were constructed for urban poor and the ones emerged in neoliberal period after 1970 by the local government, the state, and the housing unions and called as "affordable housing". Three breaking points could be noted on the emerge of the social housing models. These can be listed as Industrial Revolution, World War II and Post 1970 Neoliberal Era. Within the scope of this study, the evolution of social housing is examined in four periods experienced between these breaking points: 1. Pre-Industrial Revolution 2. The period between Industrial Revolution and World War II, 3. The period between World War II and the 1972, demolishing of Pruitt Igoe Social Housing, 4. The Neoliberal period from 1972 until today. It is mapped to see which practices were structured in the world by social housing, including United Kingdom where Industrial Revolution started, the early industrialized France, late industrialised Germany, United States with its Pruitt Igoe application, and the Soviet Union. The housing policies, models, actors and applications in these countries have been deciphered and the design parameters have been discussed. The next part of the study is focused on the experience of Turkey. The social housing development in Turkey is examined between these four periods. Social housing applications in Turkey are evaluated comparatively based on the design parameters dealt within the social housing practices throughout the world. The aim of the study is to put forth the evolution of the applications, models, actors, design parameters observed in the social housing designs in Turkey by learning the social housing experience in the world. In the first part of the thesis, the research method and questions to be adressed by study scope have been revealed by prefacing subject. In the second part, social housing history from which had been emerged within social utopias to today is examined in the world’s architectural aplications and politic models in four period. In Each period interval, architectural social housing aplications are mapped. In the third part, firstly conceptual components which come to the forefront in social housing applications of the world are identified. Secondly, these components are discussed and evaulated on some architectural samples in terms of “administrative” and “architectural”. In the fourth part, social housing idea is handled in specific to Turkey. In following four historical period, social housing politics, models, actors and applications are examined. In Each period interval, architectural applications are discussed over conceptual components identified on the world’s architectural practices. In the last part of the thesis, social housing applications of the world and Turkey are discussed together comparatively over conceptual components and models. In this context, the aim is to bring a new perspective to social housing which are designed for civic victims (unemployed people, immigrants, refugees, the disabled, elderly people, students etc.) in the future and direct to architectural solutions and approaches about social housing newly.
Today, half of the world's population (3.4 billion) is living in cities. It is suggested that if the rapid rise in urban population continues, the total number of urban residents will become around five billion by the year 2030. The increase in population density brings the change and rapid transformation of cities into metropolises inside the global capitalist system. The rapid metropolization of the cities causes an increase on places that have been affected by globalization. Inside the financial networks that large companies shape in the metropolises, these areas are being transformed into centers of investment and logistics. Considered as financial centers, metropolises experience socio-cultural changes as the employment opportunities and the immigration to the cities increases. It can be seen that demographic growth and combination of different profiles cause heterogeneous social circles in the cities where the chaos and complexity always exist. As a result of the heterogeneous structure of metropolis and the cultural hybridization, the cities become a living organism where different political, social, cultural and economic layers intertwine. This stratification has both positive and negative effects to the city. The positive aspect can be observed as the evolution of city life according to the different individual demands and the acceleration of this evolution due to the cultural diversity. The negative aspect is not being able to support the demands and vital needs of the poor population and increasing their victimization which are ignored by the chaos supported by the policies. Accommodation is determined as the basic need of the urban crowd and this subject affects the urban poor the most. Because of the lack of low-priced housing with sufficient quality, it becomes inevitable for the government to apply a real estate solution itself. Originated as a solution to the sheltering needs of low income groups in the city (unemployed people, immigrants, refugees, the disabled, elderly people, students etc.), social housing can be defined as the sheltering service of government towards its poor people. In another definition, social housing is described as the houses provided by public institutions or non-profit organizations for the low-income people or the citizens that have specific needs. Although the term "social housing" has emerged after 1945 with the birth of the notion "social state", we can see that the same phenomenon had been defined in different ways with different actors, economic conditions and applications before this date. Today, some of these definitions are still in use. Communal housing, company town, council housing, public housing, rental housing, and affordable housing can all be counted as the different names the social housing notion has been called according to the different economic components throughout the history. During the Pre-Industrial Revolution era when the feudal structuring and capitalist economy was widely accepted, "a communal housing where everyone lives together in monotype houses for free" was being imagined, while the capitalist Industrial Revolution evolved this dream into the single-celled houses provided in exchange of labor by factory owners in the city campuses. After the Industrial Revolution when the immigration from rural areas to the cities increased, workers' housing estates have been constructed by the benefactors and factory owners, thus the minimum housing units designed for the workers started to emerge. These areas tended to be too small to accommodate an elementary family and they offered bed units for just one person. Sanitary and culinary areas (bathroom, toilet, kitchen, dining room, laundry, yard etc.) were designed out of the living areas which are called individual housing, providing the other vital and social needs of the individual in the collective spaces.The terms "communal housing" and "minimum housing" are associated with each other in this context. Again, social housing places (council housing) were constructed by the municipalities and rented to urban victims during the same period. These houses were created as a result of portioning the responsibilities of the central government to the local governments and they were usually in the form of linked houses and had hut type with a couple of floors. After World War II, public housing had become the housing model, comprehensively applied by many states. These housing estates were mass-constructed on the lands planned by the government. While they had a few storey plans initially, they were started to be constructed in multi-storey plans in the next stage. It is also worth mentioning the social housing models which were constructed for urban poor and the ones emerged in neoliberal period after 1970 by the local government, the state, and the housing unions and called as "affordable housing". Three breaking points could be noted on the emerge of the social housing models. These can be listed as Industrial Revolution, World War II and Post 1970 Neoliberal Era. Within the scope of this study, the evolution of social housing is examined in four periods experienced between these breaking points: 1. Pre-Industrial Revolution 2. The period between Industrial Revolution and World War II, 3. The period between World War II and the 1972, demolishing of Pruitt Igoe Social Housing, 4. The Neoliberal period from 1972 until today. It is mapped to see which practices were structured in the world by social housing, including United Kingdom where Industrial Revolution started, the early industrialized France, late industrialised Germany, United States with its Pruitt Igoe application, and the Soviet Union. The housing policies, models, actors and applications in these countries have been deciphered and the design parameters have been discussed. The next part of the study is focused on the experience of Turkey. The social housing development in Turkey is examined between these four periods. Social housing applications in Turkey are evaluated comparatively based on the design parameters dealt within the social housing practices throughout the world. The aim of the study is to put forth the evolution of the applications, models, actors, design parameters observed in the social housing designs in Turkey by learning the social housing experience in the world. In the first part of the thesis, the research method and questions to be adressed by study scope have been revealed by prefacing subject. In the second part, social housing history from which had been emerged within social utopias to today is examined in the world’s architectural aplications and politic models in four period. In Each period interval, architectural social housing aplications are mapped. In the third part, firstly conceptual components which come to the forefront in social housing applications of the world are identified. Secondly, these components are discussed and evaulated on some architectural samples in terms of “administrative” and “architectural”. In the fourth part, social housing idea is handled in specific to Turkey. In following four historical period, social housing politics, models, actors and applications are examined. In Each period interval, architectural applications are discussed over conceptual components identified on the world’s architectural practices. In the last part of the thesis, social housing applications of the world and Turkey are discussed together comparatively over conceptual components and models. In this context, the aim is to bring a new perspective to social housing which are designed for civic victims (unemployed people, immigrants, refugees, the disabled, elderly people, students etc.) in the future and direct to architectural solutions and approaches about social housing newly.
Açıklama
Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2015
Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2015
Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2015
Anahtar kelimeler
sosyal konut,
küreselleşme,
tasarım,
mimari bileşenler,
kavramsal bileşenler,
Türkiye,
Dünya,
uygulamalar.,
social housing,
globalisation,
design,
architectural components,
conceptual components,
Turkey,
the World,
practices.