Speaker
Description
Due to its geographical location, Turkey has been and will continue to be exposed to major earthquakes at different times. This situation requires new buildings to be constructed with the performance to meet the earthquake risk on the one hand, and on the other hand, it requires the existing building stock to be made earthquake resistant. For second situation, two important policies in different countries come to the fore. The first one is the retrofitting of existing buildings in terms of earthquake preparedness, while the second one is earthquake-oriented urban renewal, which envisages the demolition and reconstruction of existing buildings. However, instead of integrating these two policies, governments mostly favour the latter. The main motivation behind such a preference is the pressure of the real estate market, the expectation of high earnings in a short time, and the recognition that construction-led growth increases GDP and employment.
A similar approach has been adopted in Turkey. As a matter of fact, after the 1999 Marmara Earthquake, earthquake-focused urban renewal approach was adopted in order to strengthen the existing building stock and the main justification was determined as earthquake in different urban renewal laws enacted since 2004. Especially in the ‘Law on the Transformation of Areas under Disaster Risk’, which entered into force in 2012, although the use of urban renewal at both single parcel (building) scale and spatial scale is introduced, urban renewal at single parcel (building) scale is mostly used. However, the idea of applying only urban renewal to all existing building stock in order to improve the building stock in Turkish cities against earthquake risk is not realistic in terms of both financial resources and ensuring improvement in a short time.
While it is stated that the transformation of 2 million 200 thousand independent units across the country has been completed since 2012 when the Law No. 6306 entered into force, it is emphasised that only one fourth of the independent units that need to be transformed have been transformed in the 11 years in question. However, it is stated that approximately 6 million dwellings are under risk throughout the country and 2 million independent units need to be transformed urgently. Such a picture indicates that the other option, retrofitting, should also be used as a tool. However, neither the international literature nor the national literature sufficiently emphasises the use of ‘retrofitting’ as an option, and it also shows that governments and landowners have a negative bias towards retrofitting. On the other hand, the importance of a mixed approach where different policies can be used together instead of a policy dependent on only one tool in earthquake risk reduction has not been discussed. Is it possible to use ‘retrofitting’ and ‘urban renewal’ in earthquake risk reduction not as alternatives but as complementary policy approaches? While there are several studies on the use and management of ‘retrofitting’ in earthquake risk reduction, there are no studies that focus on the dilemma of ‘retrofitting’ and ‘urban renewal’ or how these two tools can be used in an integrated manner in earthquake risk reduction.
This paper analyses the dilemma of ‘Retrofitting’ and ‘Urban Renewal’ for earthquake preparedness with its legal dimensions and discusses the question of how the two policies can be integrated on the case of Turkey. Focusing on literature review as a methodology, the paper analyses the practices and results of retrofitting existing buildings for earthquake preparedness after 2000. The findings of the study can contribute to policy approaches in earthquake-prone countries with problematic existing building stocks by analysing the dilemma of ‘retrofitting’ and ‘urban renewal’ in a comparative and holistic manner.
References
Basaglia, A., A. Aprile, E. Spacone, and L. Pelà. (2020) Assessing community resilience, housing recovery and impact of mitigation strategies at the urban scale: A case study after the 2012 Northern Italy earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 18: 6039–74.
Egbelakin, T.K. ,Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R., Ingham, J. (2011) Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective, Building Research & Information, 39:3, 286-300
Margalit, T., Mualam, N. (2020) Selective rescaling, inequality and popular growth coalitions: The case of the Israeli national plan for earthquake preparedness, Land Use Policy, 99, 105123.
| Keywords | Retrofitting, Urban Renewal, Legal Aspects, Planning System, Istanbul, Turkey |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
