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