AN OVERVIEW OF URBAN REGENERATION PROJECTS IN TURKEY Yunus Konbul Res. Ass., Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Izmir Katip Celebi University, 35620 Balatcik, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey, [email protected] Mehmet Çete Assoc. Prof. Dr., Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Izmir Katip Celebi University, 35620 Balatcik, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey, [email protected]

ABSTRACT Urban regeneration (UR) is an effective tool to make cities livable in the contexts of social, environmental and economic aspects. While some countries use this tool mainly to improve economic conditions of cities, some others use it not only to provide economic but also social and environmental improvements of their cities. Turkey is a good example for the latter. Large illegal settlement areas emerged especially during the rural to urban migration period experienced after 1950s on the outskirts of metropolitan cities in the country. Today, many of those areas remain in the city centers. Considering most of the population lives under earthquake risk in the country, vitality and urgency of the Turkish UR projects can be better understood. In this sense, a number of laws on UR enacted in the last decade. With the latest arrangements, Turkish authorities expect that UR projects to be carried out in a short period of time in many parts of the country. Currently, many local governments as well as the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization are beginning to develop and implement new projects some of which draw much criticism in different cities. Elimination of the issues experienced in those projects has a vital importance to improve future projects. This paper, firstly, describes legal base and organizational structure of the UR projects carried out in Turkey. Then, it discusses the issues experienced in the projects. It is concluded with proposals in a modern and academic point of view both to solve the issues and to improve current projects. Keywords: Urban regeneration, slum, squatter, legal background, Turkey

INTRODUCTION Urban regeneration is a holistic approach to improve living spaces with the consideration of not only physical, but also social, economic and environmental aspects. Due to insufficiency of physical and social infrastructure, economic problems, illegal settlement issues, etc. living spaces are becoming unhealthy and risky areas for communities. In order to renew these areas, authorities use various 257

methods with different names. Today the most common and well-known method is called “Urban Regeneration” (UR) because of its comprehensive and holistic manner (Zheng et al., 2014; Couch et al., 2011). Main focus of the UR projects was to improve physical conditions of places with less attention on the social side in the past (Andersen and Kempen, 2003). However, in the recent years it was understood that focusing on the social side in UR projects is critical for the ultimate success. Otherwise, social unrest occurs; complaints and demonstrations arise (Uysal, 2012). Today, the projects are started with the consideration of ensuring community participation. Turkey has faced with a serious problem of illegal settlements (called gecekondu in Turkish), starting from the 1950s. Industrialization and mechanization in agriculture after the World War II have caused rapid urbanization in the metropolitan cities (Baharoglu and Leitmann, 1998). The agricultural employment had shrunk because of the technological developments, which led peasants leave their villages and move to metropolitan cities to find a new livelihood. The first comers had built their shanties on the outskirts of the cities where were cheap in value, however, the expansion of these areas were so rapid that the simple shanties had turned into shanty towns in a short period of time. Even though the earlier Turkish governments had seen this incident as a threat to urban spaces and modern urban culture, no implementations had been done. It had been ignored even encouraged by many later governments and municipalities for political benefits, like votes, or for humanitarian reasons as if gecekondus were a type of social housing (Baharoglu and Leitmann, 1998). It had been welcomed by private sector because squatters were cheap and unorganized labors (Erman, 2001; Baharoglu and Leitmann, 1998). Several laws were enacted for the clearance of these areas. The first versions of the laws aimed to improve gecekondus in good condition, to demolish others, and to prevent construction of new ones. The 1980s version of the law about gecekondus, known as “the amnesty law”, actually went further from innocent provision of gecekondus, but instead led them to commercialization and eventually made them turn into four story apartment buildings (Erman, 2001; Baharoglu and Leitmann, 1998; Dündar, 2001). With the latest arrangements, Turkish authorities expect that UR projects are carried out in a short period of time in many parts of the country. Currently, many local governments as well as the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization are beginning to develop and implement new projects some of which draw much criticism in different cities. Elimination of the issues experienced in those projects has a vital importance to improve future projects. This paper, firstly, describes legal base and organizational structure of the UR projects carried out in Turkey. Then, it discusses the issues experienced in the projects. It is concluded with proposals in a modern and academic point of view both to solve the issues and to improve current projects.

258

ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND OF UR IN TURKEY Organizational background There are several administrations carrying out UR projects in Turkey. They can be separated into two parts: local and national authorities. Local authorities are municipalities and special provincial administrations. National authorities authorized for urban regeneration are the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, and the Housing Development Administration (TOKI) (Uzun et al., 2010). The Ministry possesses dominating power over any administrations for any kind of development projects in Turkey. It can prepare, approve, modify, change or cancel development plans and projects of all kinds. The second national authority, TOKI, with the support of national government has large authorizations for urban regeneration (Figure 1). TOKI today is very active to renew gecekondu areas and it has built around 88,236 apartment units within 14 years in UR projects. Statistics say that 85.93% of the projects carried out by TOKI targeted to build houses for low and middle income people, 14% of which are UR projects (TOKI, 2014).

Figure 1: An urban regeneration project carried out by TOKI (before and after) (TOKI, 2014)

Legal background There are several laws related to urban regeneration in Turkey. These laws are:  The Municipality Law (03.07.2005);  The Law about Renewal of the Areas under Disaster Risk (16.05.2012);  The Law on Renovation, Conservation and Use of Dilapidated Historical and Cultural Immovable Assets (16.06.2005);  Law on Northern Ankara Entrance Urban Regeneration Project (04.03.2004);  The Housing Development Law (02.03.1984); and  The Development Law (03.05.1985) According to Article 73 of the Municipality Law, municipalities are authorized to determine “urban regeneration project areas” to carry out UR projects in order to construct housing, industrial, commercial, public services, recreational and any type of social areas, and technological parks; renew outdated urban spaces; preserve historical and cultural assets; or take measures against earthquake risk. Urban regeneration area cannot be smaller than 5 hectares. Destruction, reconstruction or expropriation processes can be made with the stakeholders’ mutual agreement. This may refer to participation at some point, however, the law does not mention any structural plan on participation issue. Municipalities can expropriate any real estate in the project area, if necessary. Municipalities are also authorized to change or 259

renew the facades of buildings, or to make environmental adjustments. Residents living in the project areas are subject to pay only ¼ of all kinds of development taxes. The purpose of The Law about Renewal of the Areas under Disaster Risk is the clearance and renewal of the areas which are under the risk of natural disasters, or renewal of risky buildings. The Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, relevant municipalities, special provincial administrations, and the Housing Development Administration (TOKI) are authorized to carry out renewal projects in the risky areas. The main focus is to renew the risky buildings in a short period of time. The law seeks mutual agreement between administrations and owners of real estate that are subject to demolishing. However, administrations can expropriate the real estate, if necessary. The projects that are carried out under this law are free from all kinds of development taxes. The main purpose of The Law on Renovation, Conservation and Use of Dilapidated Historical and Cultural Immovable Assets is to protect, renovate, conserve and use dilapidated cultural and natural heritage assets in protection zones. With the authorization of this law, local administrations can construct housing, business, culture, tourism and social facilities; take measures against natural disaster risks in protection zones. Mutual agreement is sought between authorities and persons for evacuation, demolition and expropriation. However, administrations can expropriate real estate in case of disagreement. This law can only be applicable if the area is determined as “protection zone”. Protection zones are determined by the “Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Boards” consisting of convenient scholars and experts. The projects that are carried out according to this law are free from all kinds of development taxes. The Law on Northern Ankara Entrance Urban Regeneration Project was enacted to carry out an urban regeneration project in a specific area in the northern part of Ankara and it authorizes Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara to design and carry out the project. It is valid for a specified part of Ankara until the completion of the project. In other words, the law was enacted for a specific time, place and duty. The Housing Development Law authorizes Housing Development Administration (TOKI) to carry out regeneration projects and to purify gecekondu areas. Normally, municipalities or provincial administrations are authorized to design and approve development plans; however, with the authorization of this law, TOKI can also design and approve development plans on its own in gecekondu areas with specific conditions. TOKI is also authorized with the right of expropriation. The Development Law is the main law that provides fundamental principles and guidelines of developments in Turkey. Municipalities and special provincial administrations are authorized to prepare urban and regional plans; regulate land use, and unite, separate, expropriate, sell, swop the parcels and ownership rights through Land Readjustment (LR). In this law, there is no specific statement about urban regeneration; instead it is used as a supporting material. Some scholars suggest that this law can also be used for urban regeneration. It is suggested that 260

LR can be functional and cost efficient if the area to be regenerated has a low building density and if stakeholders volunteer for that (Turk and Altes, 2010).

ISSUES EXPERIENCED IN UR PROJECTS IN TURKEY Although direct intervention of TOKI or its partnership with municipalities can produce faster and effective results from the physical point of view, many TOKI interventions have received criticism about ignoring local communities’ needs and causing gentrification (Güzey, 2009). TOKI on the other hand defends itself by stressing that interventions are mainly focused on gecekondu and risky areas, where illegal occupancy problems and unhealthy living conditions are seen. In this respect, TOKI and other administrations responsible of UR projects in the country generally use the motto of “regeneration without gentrification” in their projects. The term is widely being used by politicians and mayors in order to stress that gentrification is not intended and residents are encouraged to stay where they are. The comments about UR projects carried out by municipalities vary as well. Municipalities, with the authorization of Municipality Law and with some other related laws, can determine “urban regeneration areas” with a decision of their municipal council, and start regeneration projects. Since there are different political agendas and socio-economic varieties of the purviews of municipalities, the methods and results vary as well. The most common criticism from the social perspective is the lack of participation and gentrification. Increasing building heights and density are also criticized. Some UR projects were found very aggressive because of their gentrification-orientation and lack of participation (Uysal, 2012), some others were found rather successful because of the inclusive attitude of relevant municipalities (Özgür, 2013).

DISCUSSIONS Any building, neighborhood or even district can be regenerated easily without any need of a mandatory law or a regulation if the stakeholders could agree on the terms. But mostly it seems impossible. Priority of public interest, environment and public health can be provided by laws and regulations. There is a discussion about why illegal settlers enjoy UR benefits; on the other hand “good citizens” who have not joined such illegal activities receive no such benefit other than what they have paid for. There is a fundamental philosophical issue here. Some people look at this issue as a state’s housing support to disadvantaged groups, because the Turkish State apparently failed to provide social houses in the 1960s-1980s even though Gecekondu Law envisaged providing social houses for low income communities. On the other hand, some other people oppose it and say that it is an awarding those who have got their land parcels through illegal ways. Are the laws in Turkey capable of carrying out UR projects? There are many different laws addressing urban regeneration and they can be considered effective from the 261

physical point of view however they are lacking social perspective. They do not urge or enforce community participation. If all these laws are considered together, it can be understood that there are too many laws in Turkish legislation for urban regeneration. Although the Development Law is or should be the basis of any kind of development projects, it seems to be pushed away by the regeneration laws. Güzey (2009) criticizes enacting split and partial legislations on development issues. She claims that every new law overruns the fundamental principles of the Development Law and damages holistic urban planning. From the socio-economic point of view, there are very deep problems worldwide. There is a “downward spiral effect” in the areas that are less favorable for many people and preferred only by those with low economic capability because of low rents and prices offered in those areas. Therefore these areas are like a center of low income families. However, in a free economy, theoretically these people have the chance and equipment to break through their economic deficiencies. But when we observe the second and third generation of families who have grown up in the same neighborhoods actually show the same economic deficiencies in most time. What lies behind it is the lack of education (Figure 2). It is a common knowledge that people with low education can make low incomes in general. While the needs increase together with the number of family members, economic deficiency converts into depression. In a depressive psychology, people become more open to illegal activities, such as theft, robbery or other organized crimes. When media brings it to the attention on the news, people from upper social classes stigmatize that neighborhood. Stigmatizing a neighborhood makes its residents lose their personal pride and sense of belonging and finally it converts into social unrest and radical activism. A child who grows up in such environment develops a self-defeating idea what is called “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975) which refers to a person who thinks that he/she is absolutely helpless and worthless whatever he/she does. It essentially destroys the desire of young minds to get educated. Individuals in this circumstance find it useless to have an education and that leads them to earn low income in their lives; and the downward spiral continues. Therefore, education opportunities should be increased persistently to break this negative circle. Authorities and non-profit organizations can provide educational activities for the people. Suggesting to increase education opportunities is not a new thing, it was stressed as well in 2007 meeting of Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities consisted of the EU Ministers for Urban Development (Couch et al., 2011).

262

Figure 2: Downward spiral of disadvantaged groups in deprived areas

CONCLUSION Turkey has started the journey of urban regeneration with a top-down mentality just like any other western countries, but today reached an understanding of the importance of using holistic methods with partnerships and participation. There are still many problems that need to be solved. National and local governments show their willingness for finding better methods and repeatedly express their interests in public/private/community partnerships and community participation. Public-private partnership method is getting used more and more, because public capacity is not enough for such large projects. The authors conclude that municipalities should act as a mediator between the communities and construction companies. However, satisfying every need is a difficult task and it takes time, so authorities and communities should be aware of that the planning process may take a long time if needed. Planning process can reveal better holistic solutions, so stakeholders should understand, encourage and advocate this process rather than putting pressure on authorities to get quick decisions. Also, authorities should not put pressure on stakeholders to reach a quick decision either. Helping out disadvantaged groups is a must in current mentality and doing that can be possible through holistic urban regeneration projects that put people first to solve social problems by simply increasing job opportunities and providing social and educational activities. Authorities try to overcome economic deprivation by implementing urban regeneration programs to these areas by simply generating spaces for shops, stores, markets or any other activities that can provide job opportunities. Also, education and training opportunities should be increased to break the negative circulation of “low education - low income - crime”. Community councils, boards and non-profit organizations have positive impact on the process and results of UR projects. The authors also concluded that these networks can be empowered with laws and regulations so that their positions and participation can be ensured. 263

Finally, legal background of UR in Turkey seems to be capable of carrying out UR projects effectively mostly from a physical point of view. However the laws are very scattered. Having many laws on UR does not restrict the capability of the authorities but it causes confusion. Therefore collecting those in a single law, preferably in the Development Law, and supporting it with comprehensive regulations and guidelines might be a good idea.

REFERENCES Zheng, Helen Wei, Shen, Geoffrey Qiping, and Wang, Hao. 2014. “A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal.” Habitat International 41, no. 1 (January): 272-279. Uysal, Ülke Evrim. 2012. “An urban social movement challenging urban regeneration: The case of Sulukule, Istanbul.” Cities 29, no. 1 (February): 12-22. Andersen, Hans Thor, and Kempen, Ronald Van. 2003. “New trends in urban policies in Europe: evidence from the Netherlands and Denmark.” Cities 20, no. 2 (April): 77-86. Erman, Tahire. 2001. “The Politics of Squatter (Gecekondu) Studies in Turkey: The Changing Representations of Rural Migrants in the Academic Discourse.” Urban Studies 38, no. 7: 983– 1002. Baharoglu, Deniz, and Leitmann, Josef. 1998. “Coping Strategies for Infrastructure: How Turkey's Spontaneous Settlements Operate in the Absence of Formal Rules.” Habitat International 22, no. 2 (June): 115-135. Uzun, Bayram, Çete, Mehmet, and Palancıoğlu, H. Mustafa. 2010. “Legalizing and upgrading illegal settlements in Turkey.” Habitat International 34, no. 2 (April): 204–209. Dündar, Özlem. 2001. “Models of Urban Transformation: Informal Housing in Ankara.” Cities 18, no. 6 (December): 391–401. Özgür, Ebru Firidin. 2013. “Urban design projects and the planning process: The Kadıköy Old Market Area Revitalization Project and the Kartal Industrial Area Regeneration Project.” Cities 31, no.1 (April): 208–219. Güzey, Özlem. 2009. “Urban regeneration and increased competitive power: Ankara in an era of globalization.” Cities 26, no.1 (February): 27–37. Couch, Chris, Sykes, Olivier, and Börstinghaus, Wolfgang. 2011. “Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain, Germany and France: The importance of context and path dependency.” Progress in Planning 75, no. 1 (January): 1–52.

Seligman, Martin. 1975. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Turk, Sevkiye Sence, and Altes, Willem K. Korthals. 2010. “How suitable is LR for renewal of inner city areas? An analysis for Turkey.” Cities 27, no.5 (October): 326–336. TOKI, The Housing Development Administration. 2014. Accessed February 6, 2014.

www.toki.gov.tr.

264