Assoc. Prof. Cem Tutar, Head of Üsküdar University Faculty of Communication Media and Cultural Studies Department, was the guest of the Communication Training Seminars for Society, organized by Üsküdar University Faculty of Communication within the scope of its social contribution and science communication mission, with the title “Urban Readings: Urban Space and Neighborhood Culture.”
In his presentation, Assoc. Prof. Tutar addressed the differences between the concepts of "mekân" (space) and "yer" (place), emphasizing that "mekân" refers more to a physical and mathematical area, while the concept of "yer" gains meaning only through human interaction, culture, memory, and communication processes. Assoc. Prof. Tutar pointed out that social relations, historical memory, economic structure, and political functions are decisive in a "mekân" becoming a "yer."
"Şehir" and "Kent" Do Not Mean the Same Thing
Drawing attention to the differences between the concepts of "kent" (city/urban area) and "şehir" (historical city/town) in his speech, Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that "şehir" represents a historical, cultural, and traditional structure; while "kent" is a modern spatial structure that emerged after the Industrial Revolution, shaped by production relations. Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “'Kent' emerged with industrialization, automation, and mass migration. In this context, 'şehir' and 'kent' do not mean the same thing.”
Stating that today's "kents" (urban areas) are not yet “fully formed” spaces, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “A true urban space is possible in a structure where people participate in governance and have a say. Today, however, 'kents' continue to exist as fragmented and controlled areas by the capitalist system.”
The Right to the City; the Right to Govern and Own the City
Referring to the concept of “the right to the city,” Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “This concept was developed by Henri Lefebvre. The right to the city is not limited to merely voting. The right to the city is the right to produce, transform, govern, and own the city. If individuals do not participate in this process, the city shapes, alienates, and isolates them.”
Stating that participation and ownership are essential for the sustainability of urban areas, Tutar expressed the need to strengthen civil society and local participation mechanisms.
Urbanization is Not Just an Act of Living in the City
Assoc. Prof. Cem Tutar emphasized that urbanization is not merely an act of living in the city, stating, “Urbanization means adopting, internalizing, and integrating the modern world's system of life, communication forms, and cultural codes into daily life.”
Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that modern cities created strong social and psychological effects on individuals at the beginning of the twentieth century, noting that the concept of “metropolitan personality type” is used in the literature to describe this situation, and added, “Metropolitan personality type refers to an individual who isolates themselves from others within the city and experiences feelings of alienation. This situation is directly related to the development of media industries, division of labor, specialization, and the anonymous structure of the city.”
Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that one of the most distinctive features of the city is anonymity, and said, “The city gives individuals the right to go unrecognized and to get lost. This feature brings with it isolation as much as individual freedom in modern urban life. Relationships become instrumentalized, and individuals are forced to assume multiple roles within the city.”
From the 1970s Onwards, Cities Became New Areas of Accumulation
Stating that a radical transformation in the structure of cities occurred with the transition to the neoliberal era, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said that from the 1970s onwards, cities became centers of class struggle and capital accumulation. Explaining this process with the concept of “accumulation by dispossession,” Assoc. Prof. Tutar emphasized that urban transformation projects, privatization, indebtedness, financialization, and the commodification of nature are parts of this new regime of accumulation.
“Today, housing is not merely a shelter; it has become an investment tool where capital changes hands,” said Assoc. Prof. Tutar, adding that housing has become one of the fundamental elements of capital transfer in Türkiye.
The City Transformed into an Area of Consumption and Spectacle
Stating that city centers changed their function after the 1970s, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “Cities have ceased to be production centers and have transformed into areas of consumption and spectacle. While business areas shifted to the periphery of the city, city centers have become a 'spectacle space' surrounded by shopping malls, media technologies, and screens.”
Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that this transformation brought about the transition from the modern city to the metropolis, and from the metropolis to the post-metropolis, adding that today's cities now exhibit features of urban polarization, where income, class, and identity-based segregations are intensified.
“Istanbul Articulated with the Global System from the 1980s Onwards”
In his speech, Assoc. Prof. Tutar also touched upon Istanbul’s historical transformation, stating that urban planning began in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the 19th century, and during the Republic era, nation-state building was continued with spatial strategies. Assoc. Prof. Tutar emphasized that Istanbul’s main turning point was its conceptualization as a global city with the 1980s, and noted that the Bosphorus, Beyoğlu, and Golden Horn regions were integrated into the global system with different functions during this process.
“A Neighborhood Cannot Be Established with Arbitrary Borders”
Addressing the concept of neighborhood in his speech, Assoc. Prof. Cem Tutar stated that the word "mahalle" originates from the Arabic word “mahalla,” meaning accommodation and settlement. Emphasizing that neighborhoods cannot be formed with arbitrary borders, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “A neighborhood is formed through shared living practices, culture, and daily interactions.”
Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that the most fundamental characteristic of a neighborhood is its ability to host differences, and said, “A neighborhood exists through the relationship established with strangers. A neighborhood that excludes strangers eventually transforms into a political community structure and loses its neighborhood characteristic.”
Referring to today's neighborhoods through the phenomenon of migration, Assoc. Prof. Tutar assessed, “A neighborhood is an area for mingling, coming together, and producing a common culture. A neighborhood that loses these characteristics transforms into only a physical settlement area.”
A Neighborhood is Not Merely a Physical Settlement Area
Emphasizing that a neighborhood is not merely a physical settlement area, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “A neighborhood is an interface located between the macro structure of the city and the micro world of the individual. It is one of the fundamental areas where social relationships, identity, and daily life are established.”
Pointing out that a neighborhood possesses community characteristics, Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that mutual familiarity, informal relationships, and informal social control mechanisms are fundamental elements of neighborhood life.
Assoc. Prof. Tutar noted that a neighborhood is also an area for identity and belonging production, and said, “‘Which neighborhood are you from?’ is a strong reference to an individual’s social status and identity. A neighborhood creates a class-based and cultural distinction through space.”
“A Neighborhood is Also a Space of Inequality and Segregation”
Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that under neoliberal policies, neighborhoods become spaces where class segregation becomes visible, and expressed that migration, poverty, and inequalities in income distribution are spatialized through neighborhoods.
Assoc. Prof. Tutar also said that a neighborhood is the stage for daily life, and stated, “Streets, parks, markets, and all practices seen as ordinary transform into a cultural and communicative form in the neighborhood.”
Emphasizing that neighborhoods are in a constant state of transformation, Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that processes of apartmentization, gated community formation, and urban transformation radically change the neighborhood fabric.
“In the Ottoman Empire, the City Was the Sum of Neighborhoods”
Stating that the neighborhood was the basic organizational unit of the city during the Ottoman period, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “In the Ottoman Empire, the city was considered the sum of its neighborhoods. Being an urbanite was directly related to belonging to a neighborhood.” Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that neighborhoods were shaped around religious centers and that face-to-face relationships, strong neighborly ties, and a community-type structure were the fundamental characteristics of an Ottoman neighborhood.
Expressing that the neighborhood provided moral order and informal control, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “This structure was a highly functional control mechanism for pre-modern cities. Belonging was strong, individual freedoms were limited, but the sense of security was high.”
“With the Republic, the Neighborhood Transformed into an Administrative Unit”
Stating that cities were re-conceptualized in the early Republican period with the claim of modernization and secularization, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said that urban development plans, boulevards, and modern architecture came to the forefront. Emphasizing that the neighborhood lost its cultural meaning from the Ottoman era during this process, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “The neighborhood has ceased to be a structure representing a community and has become an administrative and physical settlement area.”
“In the Post-2000 Period, the Neighborhood Remained Merely a Name”
Stating that urban space was fragmented with globalization and neoliberal policies after 1980, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said that gated communities became widespread in the 2000s and remarked, “In these areas, the neighborhood continues to exist only as a name. Sterile and isolated spatial experiences emerge, where there are no organic encounters or contact with strangers.”
Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that homogeneous population structures and limited and professional neighborly relations are observed in gated communities, adding that these structures are the most prominent examples of spatial segregation. Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that the exodus from city centers is linked to fear of crime and socioeconomic inequalities, and assessed, “However, no one can spend their life in a cage. When they leave these areas, everyone has to face the real city again.”
“Urban Health is a Societal, Not an Individual, Responsibility”
Emphasizing that cities should be improved not only through secure areas but also within social and environmental integrity, Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated, “Healthy cities are those where crime is minimized and social ties are strong. This is a common responsibility not only of individuals but of society.”
Stating that a participatory urban environment is possible, Assoc. Prof. Tutar said, “If we want to uphold the concept we call the right to the city, we must be involved in the governance of the city and claim our streets, avenues, and public spaces.”
Answering participants’ questions at the event, Assoc. Prof. Tutar made assessments especially on gated communities and new settlement areas. Assoc. Prof. Tutar stated that living in such spaces also signifies a status and symbolic capital, and added, “Being there also brings with it a certain class and cultural positioning.”
“Culture Can Change Even if Architecture Remains the Same”
Responding to a participant's question, “Can a space that remains architecturally the same change culturally?” Assoc. Prof. Tutar concluded, “The preservation of architectural form does not mean that the cultural structure remains unchanged.”
