Unplanned Settlements within the context of Urbanization Process of ...

Unplanned Settlements within the context of Urbanization Process of Turkey Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey

Key words: Urbanization, Unplanned (Gecekondu) settlements, Urban transformation, Legislation.

SUMMARY Urban areas should be developed according to a plan and these plans should be based on a fully and detailed study of the local conditions. However, in Turkey due to both rapid urbanization trend since 1950s and developing differences between the regions, population and investments have been accumulated in certain regions, disordered, unhealthy and unreliable urban areas have been occurred. Besides, site areas in these regions have been destroyed partially; illegal settlements have been seen on the agricultural areas, forest areas and catchment areas. Today, Mass Housing Organization of our country explained half of our provinces and districts that have population of more than 70 thousand have the gecekondu areas an unregistered construction problem. The number of illegal buildings accumulated in the three largest cities of our country is estimated as about 2 million. Social, economic and physical place-problems relating to this situation has increased day by day. It has been seen that laws made in the past as a solution to illegal construction aimed two methods; demolishing illegal constructions and preventing to build new ones, and ensuring poor people to have building lands. In addition that such approaches could not be a solution to the problem, searches have shown that cost of illegal construction was much higher than that of social residence offered by the public, and transforming public areas to private properties of individuals has gone beyond the residence requirements only. Urban assets were not used for the benefit of the society. Moreover, illegal settlement (gecekondu) has become a social security factor, making individual use more significant. In this paper, the development and transformation of unplanned settlements in the context of urbanization process of Turkey will be evaluated by explaining the legal structure of the country.

Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

1/10

Türkiye’de ki Kentleşme Süreci Bağlamında Plansız Yapılaşmalar Anahtar Kelimeler: Kentleşme, Plansız Yapılaşmalar, Gecekondular, Kentsel Dönüşüm, Kanunlar.

ÖZET

Kentlerin bir plana göre gelişmesi ve planların da yerel koşulların esaslı ve ayrıntılı bir etüdüne dayanması gerekmektedir. Ancak, gerek 1950’li yıllardan bu yana yaşanan hızlı kentleşme eğilimi, gerekse bölgeler arasındaki gelişmişlik farkları nedeniyle nüfus ve yatırımlar dengesiz olarak belirli bölgelere yığılmış, köylerden kentlere hızlı göç sonrasında düzensiz, sağlıksız ve güvenli olmayan bir takım yerleşim alanları ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca, bu bölgelerdeki koruma alanları da yer yer tahrip edilmiş, tarım alanları, orman alanları, su havzalarında ve yapılaşmaya uygun olmayan zeminler üzerinde kaçak veya mevzuata aykırı yapılaşmalar görülmüştür. Bu durumun beraberinde getirdiği toplumsal, ekonomik, kültürel, psikolojik ve fiziksel mekan sorunları da her geçen gün büyümektedir. Gecekondu sorununun çözümünde geçmişte çıkarılan yasaların çözüm olarak, gecekonduları yıkmak ve yenisini yaptırmamak ve yoksul ve dar gelirlilerin arsa edinmelerini sağlamak olmak üzere iki yolu benimsedikleri görülmektedir. Bu yaklaşımlar soruna çözüm olamadığı gibi yapılan araştırmalar gecekondunun kamu tarafından sunulan sosyal konutlardan çok daha pahalı bir konut olduğunu ortaya koymuş, kamusal toprakların bireylerin özel mülkü durumuna getirilmesi, barınma ihtiyacının ötesine geçmiştir. Kentin ortaya çıkarttığı rantlar kente döndürülerek toplum yararına kullanılamamış, bireysel yararlar ön plana çıktığı gibi gecekondu bir sosyal güvenlik aracı haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmada, ülkenin yasal yapısı açıklanarak Türkiye’de ki kentleşme süreci içinde plansız yapılaşmaların gelişimi ve dönüşümünün değerlendirilmesi yapılacaktır.

Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

2/10

Unplanned Settlements within the context of Urbanization Process of Turkey Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey

1. INTRODUCTION Turkey, similar to the other developing countries, has been experiencing rapid urbanization after the Second World War. The urbanization rate in Turkey was 4.35% per annum from 1965 to 1985 compared to the rate of 3.5 and 3.7% per annum in average in middle and low income economies, respectively. The rate was an average of 1.5% per annum in industrialized countries. The percent of urban population in the largest city of Turkey, Istanbul, was 24% in 1980 compared to 18% in 1960. The population of Istanbul was 11,2 million in 2000 compared to 11,3 million of Paris and 11,1 million of Osaka, Kobe (10) This situation has caused important changes to the cities in the country. After the War, the new social atmosphere has brought hope for better living conditions in cities and has attracted the rural population to urban settlements. In contrast to this development some have argued that the main forces behind the urbanization were mechanization process at rural, giving priority to highway transport and selecting land for industry in the urban areas of big cities. Therefore, in the 1950s, Turkey has met the fact of mass migration from rural to urban areas. This process was not only the change at the spatial organization of population. It occurred as a series of important changes in economic, political, social and cultural levels. The government could not produce adequate shelter to the new urban population and migrated groups built their own dwellings creating a special and original form of housinggecekondus. (1) 2. URBANIZATION PROCESS of TURKEY and the DEVELOPMENT of UNPLANNED SETTLEMENTS Turkey is a developing country with an increasing population density. While, the population was about 21 million in 1950, this number has reached to about 68 million in 2005. The population of Turkey has undergone a structural change with regard to urbanization especially starting from 1950s. 1970 census indicated that more than one-third of the population (38,5%) were living in settlements which are considered as urban. The percentage increased to 53.0 in 1985 and 59.0 in 1990. According to the 2000 population census, proportion of urban population increased to 65 percent.

Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

3/10

Table 1. Yearly increasing rates of the rural and urban areas and the ratios in the total population (www.tuik.gov.tr)

Years 1927 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000

Total population (1000) 13,648 16,158 17,821 18,790 20,947 24,065 27,755 31,391 35,605 40,348 44,737 50,664 56,473 67,804

Share Annual rate Rural population (%) of increase (%) (1000) 10,342 75,8 12,355 76,5 2,223 13,475 75,6 1,734 14,103 75,1 0,912 15,703 75,0 2,149 17,138 71,2 1,748 18,895 68,1 1,953 20,585 65,6 1,714 21,914 61,5 1,251 23,479 58,2 1,379 25,092 56,1 1,329 23,799 47,0 -1,058 23,147 41,0 -0,556 23,735 35,0 -

Share Annual rate Urban population (%) of increase (%) (1000) 3,306 24,2 3,803 23,5 1,750 4,346 24,4 2,672 4,687 24,9 1,510 5,244 25,0 2,247 6,927 28,8 5,567 8,860 31,9 4,921 10,806 34,4 3,971 13,691 38,5 4,733 16,869 41,8 4,175 19,645 43,9 3,047 26,866 53,0 6,261 33,326 59,0 4,310 44,109 65,0 -

As seen on the table that, there was a sharp decline in the share of rural population and, naturally, considerable increase in the share of urban population between the years 19501955 and 1980-1985. Within a decade (between 1950 and 1960) 1.5 million immigrants arrive into urban areas (600 000 into the four largest cities) and the urban population rose from 25 to 32 percent of the nation’s total (11). The increase of urban population is mainly due to migration from rural to urban places. In the last term, 1/3 of this increase is natural and 2/3 of it is from migration. Migration as a process restricted rural growth and finally annual growth rate of rural areas became less than 5 per thousand. Unlike in developed countries, urbanization process in Turkey has occurred as a migration phenomenon in which urban poverty is preferred to being rural (9). This phenomenon cannot be seen as only a population behavior, it is an indicator of development, and migration is such a negative concept. Productivity of the countryside gives new lifestyles to the people live in there, on the other hand, some people, who cannot shelter anymore, are detached from there. Increasing productivity underlies the urbanization, while decreasing income and according as inevitability underlies the immigration. Migration phenomena give rise to important social and economical changes in the system and rapidly increasing investment needs of urban (2).

Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

4/10

Table.2. Migrated population across places of residence, 1975-2000

Places of residence Total % From city to city % From village to city % From city to village % From village to village %

1975-1980

1980-1985 1985-1990

1995-2000

3 584 421 100

3 819 910 100

5 402 690 100

6 692 263 100

1 752 817 48,90

2 146 110 56,18

3 359 357 62,18

3 867 979 57,80

610 067 17,02

860 438 22,53

969 871 17,95

1 168 285 17,46

692 828 19,33

490 653 12,84

680 527 12,60

1 342 518 20,06

528 709 14,75

322 709 8,45

392 935 7,27

313 481 4,68

As table shows that not only from village to city migration, but also from city to city migration is considerable, especially between the years 1980-1985. In this point, it is usefull the explain that this city to city migration have occured from cities with rural characteristics to metropolitan cities, like Istanbul, Izmir,Ankara etc. The major dynamic shaping the years 1950-1960, postwar rapid urbanization had already gained pace during the 1950s as an outcome of the integration of the countries economy into the world market. The modernization of agriculture during the 1950s (Within the context of the Marshall Plan) created surplus labor flowing into the cities. Although the mechanization may have played a role, the fact that until the end of 1960s there was plenty of uncultivated land shows that the rural labor force preferred to migrate to cities instead of opening new lands to farming practice. This process is related to the land ownership character of rural, which has also influenced the form of urbanization through gecekondus. (1) The “gecekondu” is officially defined as the dwelling unit on somebody else’s site which was built without obtaining the approval of the landowner and built in a way which is not approved by the general legal provisions for building and construction. It is usually constructed out of second-hand material to a very low standard, it lacks utilities and by urban standards, constitutes a health hazard (8). Rapid urbanization has led to considerable bottlenecks in urban services, to the evolution of problem burden centers as a result of its unplanned nature and the emergencies of Gecekondus where sub-culture groups are not yet assimilated to the urban way of life blossoms. The process of rapid urbanization accelerated the growth of environmental Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

5/10

problems. Additionally, insufficiency in employment, infrastructure and social services and limited skills of individuals and a low prevalence of knowledge and economic activities lead to depreciation of rules and value of judgements in urban areas. The characteristics of this rapid urbanization process of Turkey were designated by three significant factors; 1- The lack of capital for a late industrialized country, 2- The milieu of multi-party political regime, 3- The existence of a modern Development Law before rapid urbanization. The lack of capital caused a problematic transformation for industrialization, required infrastructure and the reconstruction of cities. On the other hand, the milieu of a political regime of multi-party resulted in a populist approach in the distribution of high rental areas caused by the rapid urbanization and the modernist Development Law decreased the impacts of the populist politics which could cause social depressions.

3.

LEGISLATION SETTLEMENTS

RELATED

WITH

UNPLANNED

(GECEKONDU)

In the 1950s, two primary methods of housing production dominated in the country. The first of these involved small-scale contractors that controlled the formal housing sector. In the absence of an advanced sector with large scale capital and high construction technology, such contractors performed low-capital intensive activities with non-unionized, low wage labor. While the small contractors served the formal sector of the urban middleclasses, gecekondu emerged as the informal housing method of the urban poor. Interestingly enough, these two spontaneous processes were legitimized by the state in the mid-1960s in attempts to regulate them. The 1965 “Flat Ownership Act” for the first time organized the ownership of apartments in a single building, facilitating house production by small contractors. On the other hand, 775 numbered “Gecekondu Act”, established in 1966, referred to the gecekondu settlements for the first time and proposed certain measures recognizing their existence yet trying to avoid new ones to be built. (11) With the Law, these areas gained infrastructure, new roads and streets. The Act was significant in recognizing the existence of these settlements yet it is difficult to say that it was successful in preventing the expansion of gecekondu settlements. Actually, after the Law gecekondu grew in number and changed character. Since the public land stock was already eroded, it became impossible for poor individuals to invade public land and build their own gecekondu. Some of the new incomers had to become tenants of the gecekondu owners who had already constructed their second/third gecekondu in order to get rental income (1). Meanwhile, the ability of gecekondu settlements in effectively reducing the cost of urbanization as well as industrialization also brought “self-help housing” into the agenda. This was in fact a strategy advised by the UN to Third World countries experiencing similar problems caused by rapid urbanization (11). Hence, the year 1974 witnessed the first attempts of the municipalities in mass housing projects. The major examples of large-scale housing projects were the “new settlements” in Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

6/10

İzmit and “Batıkent in Ankara, both of which were started in 1974 and planned as alternatives to squatter areas (11) As pointed out by Isık (6); the 1980s was a period when the gecekondu became increasingly commodified and ceased to be a solution for the masses migrating to the cities. This was a period when the, initially a land market and later a construction market devoted entirely to the gecekondu appeared. The practice of users building their own houses ceased to be the norm. Soaring values of gecekondus, as urban properties, encouraged some gecekondu owners to pull their original houses down to build multi-storey ones. The additional units thus obtained were either sold or offered for rent. Concomitant with the decreasing rate of owner occupiers was an observable decline in environmental standarts. Aiming to legalize the existing stock and solve the ownership problem of gecekondu districts a series of amnesty laws has been put into force between the years 1983-1988. With the amnesty laws (no.2981) established in 1984 “Improvement and Development Plans” have been prepared for the gecekondu areas. Within the coming into force of Urban Development Law (no.3194), the municipalities have been acquired huge authority about urban development since 1985. They have been responsible for planning, approval and implementation of urban plans up to 1/1000 scale as well as issuing occupancy and construction permits. On the other hand, Greater City Municipality is responsible for preparing the upper-scale (1/5000) urban plans and controlling the compatibility of the plans in various scales (1). In order to solve gecekondu problem 16 development amnesty codes have been put into effect, however unregistered constructions and illegal urbanization have not been prevented. In contrast, these legal arrangements provide legality for gecekondu by the government and municipalities because of the political and social reasons (2). Table 3. The number of Gecekondu and Population by Years Years

1955

1960

1965

1970

1980

1990

1995

The number of gecekondu (1000) The population of gecekondu (1000)

50

240

430

600

1,150

1,750

2,000

250

1,200

2,150

3,000

5,750

8,750

10,000

Especially after 1970s, the number of gecekondu in cities and the number of population living in there have been accelerated positively. The estimated number of houses built in the 8th Plan Period (2001-2005) is about 1.3 million, which falls considerably short of the new housing need projection of 2,450,000 for the same time period. It is certain that illegal buildings fill the gap left by the inadequate housing requirement and the provision of lots of urban structure. The number of illegal buildings accumulated in the three largest cities of the country (İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir) is estimated as about 2 million.The trend has spread throughout the country, spoiling the physical appearance and environmental quality and Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

7/10

living stndarts in the cities. As Inam pointed (3), local authorities, unfortunatelly, are not effective on preventing the process which results as the degeneration of the cities on physical, economical and social aspect.

4. URBAN TRANSFORMATION WORKS

While Article 56 of our Constitution says that everbody has the right of living in a healthy and well-organized environment and developing such an environment is the task of the state and the citizens, Article 57 of it says that the state obligate to take the necessary measures corresponding residence requirement within a plan considering town characteristics and environmental situations. Gecekondu have been defined as an urgent urban problem waiting for a solution to transform into more healthy and livable urban areas since 1960s. (4). In order to solve the problems of gecekondu areas and to achieve rapid urban transformation on a mass scale, transformation in gecekondu areas was first included in the Improvement and Development Laws in 1948 an after (no.775, 2981). Henceforward improvement end development plans became important implementetion tools for transformation of gecekondu areas (1). There are two main models that have transformed the gecekondu areas: the improvment plan model and the urban transformation project model. At the end of the 1980s the urban transformation project model end its positive aspects was introduced. In this model, the related area is handled with a holistic approach instead of parcel scale. On the contrary, in the improvement plan model gecekondu parcels are reorganized according to the improvement plan in market conditions. These plans provide new parcel pattern for the constraction of apartment blocks, in which gecekondu owners become a shareholder (4) Since, there is no standart approach applicable in urban areas for urban transformation in Turkey, the works on preparation of an urban transformation law containing a standard approach applicable to all urban areas are underway for the last two years. For this purpose, several urban transformation bills have been prepared by different organizations. The final form of urban transformation bill has not yet been enacted. On the other hand, the two Laws which came into force have brought in some provisions for urban transformation. One of them defines the urban transformation to be carried out in protection areas, while the other establishes the approaches that legalize the transformation process (5). 5. CONCLUSION It has been seen that laws made in the past as a solution to illegal construction aimed two methods; demolishing illegal constructions and preventing to build new ones, and ensuring poor people to have building lands. In addition that such approaches could not be a solution to the problem, searches have shown that cost of illegal construction was much higher than that of social residence offered by the public, and transforming public areas to private properties of individuals has gone beyond the residence requirements only. Urban Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

8/10

assets were not used for the benefit of the society. Moreover, gecekondu has become a social security factor, making individual use more significant.

Under these circumstances, for ensuring the settlement reliable, qualified and proper to live, it is required the areas with disaster risk, physically, socially and economically dilapidated areas, natural, historical and cultural environmental areas, that should be protected, to be emptied, renewed and improved. For this aim, after 1995, various municipalities have carried out urban regeneration and renewal projects indivudally, especially in the gecekondu areas of big cities. Although, recently, urban transformation procets have been applied by Greater Municipalities in disaster prone regions and gecekondu areas, major legislative changes are required in order to establish a more comprehensive and rational basis for the implementation of urban regeneration, rehabilitation and transformation projects.

REFERENCES (1) Köroğlu, B.,Ercoşkun, Ö., “Urban Transformation: a Case Study on 7 Çukurambar, Ankara”, G.U.Journal of Science ,19(3): 173-183, (2006). (2) Gur, M.,Cagdas, V., and Demir, H., “Urban-Rural Interrelationship and Issues in Turkey”, 2nd FIG Regional Conference, Marrakech, Morocco, December 2-5, 2003. (3) Inam, S., and Cagla,H., “A Research on the Contribution of Urban Transformation Projects to the Renewal of Cadastral Activities in Turkey”, Shaping the Change, XXIII FIG Congress, Munich, Germany, October 8-13, 2006. (4) Devecigil,P.T., “Urban Transformation Projects as a Model to Transform Gecekondu Areas in Turkey: The Example of Dikmen Valley- Ankara”, European Journal of Housing Policy, Vol.5, No.2, 211-229, 2005. (5) Turk,S.S., “The Critical Overview to the Legal Structure Related with Urban Transformation in Turkey”, Shaping the Change, XXIII FIG Congress, Munich, Germany, October 8-13, 2006. (6) Isık,O.,“Changing Landscapes”, http://www.tusiad.org/yayin/private/autumn97/html/isik.html (7) Baytın,C., “Dwelling in Turkey’s 50 Years of ‘Modern’ Urbanization Period:Sample Istanbul”, ENHR 2000 Conference, Gavle, 26-30 June 2000. (8) Kongar,E., “A Survey of Familial Change in Two Turkish Gecekondu Areas”, in J.G.Peristiany, ed., Mediterranean Family Structures, Cambridge University Press, 205-218, 1976. Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

9/10

(9) Country Report of Turkey for The Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference. (10) Akın, D., and Demircioğlu, E., “Usability of Large Urban Facilities in Spatial Transformation: Case Study of Regional Shopping Centres in Istanbul”, 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association-ERSA 2005, 23-27 August 2005. (11) Batuman, B., “Turkish Urban Professionals and the Politics of Housing,1960-1980”, METU JFA 2006/1, (23:1), 59-81. CONTACTS Gamze Ozer City and Regional Planner Ministry of Public Works and Settlement General Directorate of Technical Research and Implementation Ankara TURKEY Tel. + 90 312 410 23 60 Fax + 90 Email:[email protected] Web site: http:// www.bayindirlik.gov.tr

Gamze OZER, Ender VARDAR and Mehmet Nazım OZER, Turkey Unplanned Settlemets in the context of Urban Process of Turkey Spatial Information Management toward Legalizing Informal Urban Development FIG Commission 3 Workshop Athens, Greece, March 28-31, 2007

10/10