Speakers
Description
Studentification—the social, cultural, and physical transformation of urban areas driven by the influx of student populations—presents opportunities and challenges for the cities that choose the path of student-centered urban development (Smith, 2005). The literature on studentification typically highlights how students stimulate the housing market in the neighborhoods where they cluster (Hubbard 2009; Smith and Holt 2007), how they contribute to the development of new commercial establishments by creating an important consumer class (Chatterton, 1999; Chatterton and Hollands, 2002; Ma et al. 2018), and potentially disrupt community cohesion through their antisocial behavior (Allinson, 2006; Munro and Livingston 2012).
Aside from a few studies, research on studentification has largely overlooked its diverse socio-cultural impacts, particularly its influence on daily routines and the cultural exchange between students and local residents. This study aims to address this gap by exploring whether studentification can serve as a catalyst for inclusion, equity, and positive change through community empowerment and the expansion and democratization of public spaces in university towns in Turkey.
By focusing on Kayseri—a rapidly transforming and traditionally conservative city in Central Anatolia, Turkey—this research examines the complex dynamics of student-centered spatial development and its impact on social life and public space usage. The study is part of an ongoing TÜBİTAK 1001 project investigating the socio-cultural impacts of the studentification process in six Central Anatolian cities, including Kayseri. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research incorporates quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews with long-term residents to explore diverse local perspectives on the sociocultural transformations driven by studentification.
The study reveals distinct patterns of neighborhood transformation in commercial and residential districts, highlighting the temporal and spatial evolution of public spaces. Findings indicate that different demographic groups perceive and practice public life in varied ways, leading to complex and contested spatial patterns of daily practice and social interactions.
Proponents of the studentification process support its new dynamics and opportunities, including the expansion of public places, increasing attractiveness of studentified districts, and the emergence of new social interactions fostered by these spaces. They also perceive student-centered environments as socially secure and tend to embrace the relaxation of social norms. This includes increased open-mindedness toward social practices that challenge established norms, shifts in public dress codes, evolving socialization patterns, and new relationship dynamics.
On the other hand, opponents express concerns about the erosion of traditional values and a diminished sense of security, manifested in the loss of familiar public spaces, reduced neighborhood tranquility, and the weakening of long-standing social ties. These concerns are often framed within a moral panic narrative, portraying studentification as a threat to tradition. This perspective emphasizes the abandonment of conventional values, resistance to shifting norms of public interaction and relationships, tensions over evolving dress codes, and the influence of student culture on the social expressions and practices of young local residents.
This study aims to contribute both to the theoretical understanding of contemporary urban transformation processes through the lens of student-centered urban development and to the empirical expansion of the literature into unexplored territories. The findings may offer valuable insights for urban planning policies and community engagement strategies in university towns, particularly in traditional communities experiencing rapid educational expansion and urbanization.
References
References
Allinson, John (2006) Over-educated, over-exuberant and over here? The impact of students on cities. Planning Practice and Research, 21 (1), pp.79-94.
Chatterton, Paul (1999) University students and city centres–the formation of exclusive geographies: The case of Bristol, UK. Geoforum, 30 (2), pp.117-133.
Chatterton, Paul and Hollands, Robert (2002) Theorising urban playscapes: Producing, regulating and consuming youthful nightlife city spaces. Urban Studies, 39 (1), pp.95-116.
Hubbard, Phil (2009) Geographies of studentification and purpose-built student accommodation: Leading separate lives? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 41 (8), pp.1903-1923.
Ma, Zuopeng, Li, Chenggu, Liu, Yanjun and Zhang, Jing (2018) The transformation of traditional commercial blocks in China: Characteristics and mechanisms of youthification. City, Culture and Society, 14, pp.56-63.
Munro, Moira and Livingston, Mark (2012) Student impacts on urban neighbourhoods: Policy approaches, discourses and dilemmas. Urban Studies, 49 (8), pp.1679-1694.
Smith, D. (2005) “Studentification”: The gentrification factory? In Atkinson, R and Bridge, G. (eds.) Gentrification in a global context: The new urban colonialism. Routledge.
Smith, Darren and Holt, Louise (2007) Studentification and ‘apprentice’ gentrifiers within Britain's provincial towns and cities: Extending the meaning of gentrification. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39 (1), pp.142-161.
| Keywords | studentification, transformation of public space, cultural change, moral panic, Turkey. |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
