5 Between Augmented Disposability and Deferred Disposal: A View from Istanbul

Amidst escalating inequalities and housing insecurity (MacLeod and McFarlane, 2014;Brickell et al, 2017), development-induced displacement is today commonplace across globalizing cities.Many low-and mixedincome urban areas, where an 'urban majority' has established a terrain of sustenance and liveability (Benjamin et al, 2022), are invested by policies of curated disinvestment, underservicing, and social disentanglement (Simone, 2018).These policies concur to magnify conditions of socio-material deterioration that urban redevelopment will eventually fix -or at least erase from view.Financialized urbanization, entrepreneurial governance, and topdown planning narratives often frame such neighbourhoods as disposable, feeding into urban interventions premised upon logics of 'rule by aesthetics' (Ghertner, 2011), 'resiliency revanchism' (Alvarez and Cardenas, 2019) 'hygienization' (Garmany and Richmond, 2020), or 'punitive containment' (Wacquant, 2008).'Popular quarters', and the lifeworld nested therein, are recast by the dominant discourse as the 'constitutive other' of development (Roy, 2011), while their embeddedness within urban metabolism is systematically overlooked (Amin, 2013) and are thus made expendable: they may yield value through their destruction.Urban disposability, in this sense, is a multi-layered and pervasive condition that speaks to the spatial overlap of 'remaindered lives' (Tadiar, 2022), expendable bodies, devalued labour, and 'exhausted territories' (see Chapter 1).In the current era characterized by the continuous production of 'wasted people and wasted places', urban disposability thus emerges as a spatial manifestation of the 'wasting relationships' that separate value from