The real estate sector directs urban transformation in Istanbul

Abstract

In the 1950s, Turkey experienced significant rural-to-urban migration, particularly to major metropolitan areas. Rapid industrialization led to the emergence of informal settlements, especially around industrial zones, in major cities like Istanbul. Fikirtepe, located on the Anatolian side of Istanbul, was one of the first areas where these informal settlements, known as gecekondu, appeared. Gecekondu, referring to hastily constructed illegal dwellings, received its name due to its ability to be built overnight. However, starting in the 1980s, these gecekondu areas underwent transformation influenced by both central and local government policies. The central government, driven by political considerations, enacted a series of amnesty laws, legalizing these areas, while local governments provided social and technical infrastructure, driven by electoral expectations. Consequently, gecekondu areas in Turkey stand apart from many other illegal settlements worldwide. During the same period, decisions were made to relocate industrial areas, which had been the reason for gecekondu settlements' location choices, away from the city center. This led to areas like the Basın Ekspres Axis, situated on the city's periphery at the time, becoming attractive for both industries and gecekondus. In the following years, as Istanbul continued to expand rapidly, both Fikirtepe and the Basın Ekspres Axis remained within the city's center. In parallel with these developments, after the 2000s and under the influence of neoliberal policies, Turkey adopted a construction-focused approach. Various transportation and infrastructure investments were made in both regions, resulting in an increase in land values. This aligned with Smith's rent gap theory, which posits that the larger the gap between "potential ground rent" and "capitalized ground " in a location, the more attractive it becomes for capital investment in land redevelopment. Fikirtepe was declared an urban renewal area, while the Basın Ekspres Axis was designated as a central business district, making them attractive for capital investment. Intensive added construction rights were granted in the Fikirtepe to demolish gecekondu areas and construct new buildings, and in the Basın Ekspres Axis to replace industrial areas with new buildings. Although the urban fabric and functions of these two regions differed, these planning decisions resulted in similar urban areas with comparable functions and characteristics. Both areas witnessed the construction of skyscrapers, ranging from 20 to 30 stories in height, designed for various funcƟons such as offices, residences, and hotels. These two examples illustrate that in urban areas planned with the aim of capitalizing on potential ground rent, decisions are made to meet the demands of national and international capital without considering the needs, future, and socio-economic expectations of the city and its residents. The case of Istanbul serves as an important example, having rapidly urbanized over the past 70 years, particularly in the last decade, with a focus on construction. In a time when the sustainability of cities is extensively debated, and the consequences of the climate crisis have reached alarming levels, planning the cities solely based on potential rent gaps is equivalent to destroy the city. This study aims to discuss the consequences of urban renewal solely based on potential rent gap, using the examples of Fikirtepe and the Basın Ekspres Axis in Istanbul.