Speaker
Description
According to Lefebvre (2013), the prioritization of exchange value in urban space forms the basis of urban injustice and inequality. Under the influence of neoliberal policies, housing has transformed from a basic need for shelter into an investment, prestige, and rent-generating commodity. The 2000s, as a period when neoliberal policies became spatialized, marked a time of significant changes in Turkey's planning legislation and restructuring of planning institutions (Alkay, 2020). During this period, comprehensive regulations were made in planning legislation to facilitate real estate investments, construction processes, and the supply of land to market actors. Significant powers and opportunities were given to central institutions, and the planning process was centralized. Especially after 2010, centralization increased and local governments were made passive (Balaban, 2012).
The aim of the study is to examine the social reflections of the legal regulations made in the planning legislation in the 2000s, when neoliberal policies became spatial and the new government pursued a construction and housing-based economic policy, in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area through case studies. The study, based on a document analysis of the 22-year period between 2002 and 2024, is structured in two phases. In the first phase, the regulations made between 2002-2010 and 2010-2024 are examined in detail. In the second phase, literature research based on field studies in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area are examined.
The legal regulations made in the process have led to urban transformation practices and new housing projects that have become tools for generating and sharing rents in urban areas, and this has brought about social problems such as social segregation, exclusion, displacement, polarization, gentrification and the reproduction of poverty. These processes have resulted in violations of housing and urban rights (Bülbül-Akın & Türkün, 2019 ; Doğru, 2021; Kaplan, 2017) After the year 2000, both the new housing supply and interventions in existing housing areas have caused the fragmentation of urban space among different income groups, spatial segregation, and an increase in urban crime.The typology of the land and housing produced has also played a significant role in the socio-spatial separation based on economic accessibility to housing. The trend in housing production targeting middle and upper-income groups in Istanbul, based on large land parcels, generally favors closed, secure, high-rise housing complexes. The features and location choices of these housing projects change living styles and socio-cultural structures, creating tangible barriers that separate society based on purchasing power. In gated communities and high-rise buildings, people are isolated from the street and each other, leading to alienation. As a result, the concepts of neighborhood culture and community have almost disappeared in Istanbul, except for its older settlements (Çınar-Erdüzgün & Çizmeci-Yöreş, 2019; Kılıç & Ayataç, 2019; Sönmez, 2019). Housing issues have become an increasingly significant problem not only for vulnerable groups such as low-income households, students, and refugees, but also for middle classes, who are the foundation of strong and sustainable economic growth and social welfare. The quality of housing and life is declining for many segments of society (Ayhan, 2019).
References
• Alkay, Elif (2020) Konut piyasası aktörleri gözüyle Türk planlama sistemi. Planlama, 30 (2), pp. 172–186.
• Ayhan, Fatih (2019) Esenyurt İlçesi’nde nüfusun gelişimi ve bu gelişimde rol oynayan etmenler. Kent Akademisi, 12 (37), pp. 67–81.
• Balaban, Osman (2012) The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment in Turkey: Unraveling the role of the public sector. Habitat International, 36, pp. 26–35.
• Bülbül Akın, Başak & Türkün, Asuman (2019) Dar gelirli konut alanlarının dönüşümünde sosyal karma politikası: Fikirtepe örneği. Megaron, 14 (1), pp. 192–217.
• Çınar Erdüzgün, Selin & Çizmeci Yöreş, Füsun Ç. (2019) Kentsel dönüşüm kıskacında kent ve konut hakkı: Tozkoparan. Megaron, 14, pp. 29–38.
• Doğru, Havva Ezgi (2021) Çılgın projelerin ötesinde: TOKİ, devlet ve sermaye. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Kaplan, Onur (2017) 5366 sayılı kanun kapsamında yenileme alanlarında gerçekleştirilen kentsel dönüşüm süreci üzerine bir deneme. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (2).
• Kılıç, Hümeyra & Ayataç, Hatice (2019) Konut sunum biçimlerinin İstanbul’un sosyokültürel ve mekansal değişimine etkileri. Megaron, 14 (SUPPL. 1), pp. 109–121.
• Lefebvre, Henri (2013) Kentsel devrim. İstanbul: Sel Yayınları.
• Sönmez, Ömer (2019) İstanbul'un kentsel dönüşüm sürecinde konut yoğunlukları değişimi. Megaron, 14, pp. 137–149.
| Keywords | Neoliberal policies; social dimension of the planning legal framework; Istanbul |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
