This article was downloaded by:[Swets Content Distribution] On: 12 January 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 768307933] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Housing Policy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713700559
Urban Transformation Projects as a Model to Transform Gecekondu Areas in Turkey: The Example of Dikmen Valley - Ankara Pinar Türker-Devecigil a a MicroImages, Lincoln, NE, U.S.A.
Online Publication Date: 01 August 2005 To cite this Article: Türker-Devecigil, Pinar (2005) 'Urban Transformation Projects as a Model to Transform Gecekondu Areas in Turkey: The Example of Dikmen Valley Ankara', European Journal of Housing Policy, 5:2, 211 - 229 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14616710500163390 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616710500163390
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
European Journal of Housing Policy Vol. 5, No. 2, 211–229, August 2005
Policy Review
Urban Transformation Projects as a Model to Transform Gecekondu Areas in Turkey: The Example of Dikmen Valley – Ankara ¨ ˙IG˙IL PINAR TURKER-DEVEC MicroImages, Lincoln, NE, USA
ABSTRACT Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in transforming the gecekondu areas into more liveable places in Turkey. These practices have taken place especially in the form of urban transformation projects. The most popular example is the Dikmen Valley Housing and Environmental Development Project, which is the first example in Turkey and the largest in scale. This paper focuses on the general characteristics of urban transformation projects in Turkey with reference to developments in the Dikmen Valley. The paper examines this project model as an alternative approach to the transformation problems in terms of the financial model, participation process, legislative framework, social inclusion strategies and diversified perceptions of the transformation problem. The paper concludes that the success of such projects requires awareness of the weaknesses and strengths of the model so that they can be adapted to other cases, which are all unique in terms of the problems encountered. KEY WORDS: Squatter development, urban transformation projects, urban renewal
Introduction Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in transforming the gecekondu1 areas into more liveable places in Turkey. Urban transformation projects are particularly gaining importance as a model to transform gecekondu areas. The most popular example of such projects is the Dikmen Valley Housing and Environmental Development Project (Dikmen Valley Project) in Ankara. Dikmen Valley is located between two densely populated housing quarters, C ¸ ankaya and Dikmen, which are in Ankara’s southern urban development zones. C ¸ ankaya is the most prestigious district of Ankara, where the presidential residence is located. The area stretches south along bottom of the valley for approximately 6 km Correspondence Address: Pinar T¨urker-Devecigil, 6221 S. 32 Ct, 68516 Lincoln, NE, USA. Email: turker@ microimages.com C 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd ISSN 1461-6718 Print/1473-3629 Online 05/020211–19 DOI: 10.1080/14616710500163390
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
212 P. T¨urker-Devecigil
Figure 1. The Location of the Valley in the Ankara. Source: adapted from Metropol ˙Imar (1994).
and has a width of 300 m. It starts almost from the city centre, Kızılay, and reaches the forested areas in the south (Figure 1). The valley has been designated as a natural conservation area in all urban development plans2 because it is one of the most important air circulation corridors and the water basins of Ankara. The gecekondu development process in the valley started after the 1960s and the number of gecekondu units reached 1,916 with nearly 10,000 inhabitants in 20 years (Metropol ˙Imar, 1991). After the 1980s, the valley became a serious intervention area due to the prevailing air pollution and green area problems of Ankara. In 1984, the Greater Ankara Municipality (GAM) introduced the Dikmen Stream Green Area Project, which aimed to relocate the gecekondu owners to another part of the city and transform the valley into an urban park. This project could not be implemented because of high expropriation costs and oppositions of the gecekondu settlers. After the municipal elections of 1989, the new local administration introduced the Dikmen Valley Project as the biggest gecekondu transformation project of Turkey. The project bearers were the Greater Ankara Municipality (GAM), the C¸ankaya District Municipality (C¸DM) and Metropol ˙Imar (a public project management company, whose capital holders were GAM and the district municipalities) (Kuntasal, 1993).
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
213
The main objective of the project was to transform the gecekondu houses in the valley to create a better quality of life as well as to provide an urban park that would serve as an air corridor and a green area for the whole city. The project had different objectives in various scales. However, there has always been confusion in terms of these objectives. According to project documents, the objectives were to preserve the natural characteristics of the valley by providing a green space for Ankara and to transform gecekondu areas within a participatory decision-making mechanism. However, the latter has become the only issue in question during the implementation. In the first 13 years, only two-fifths of the project was completed, many modifications took place in project principles, and many legal disputes occurred between the stakeholders. The project has been under debate, because it is the first example of an urban transformation project. Both its negatives, (displacement of low income groups, high construction rates in the valley, the inadequate analysis for water systems, eco-basins, river-catchment areas and ecosystem approach, etc.), and positives, (participatory mechanism in urban management, new financial innovations, etc.) are being discussed (D¨undar, 1997; G¨unay, 1993; S¸ahin, 1996). Consequently, this paper aims at discussing the general characteristics of urban transformation projects basically focusing on the strengths and weaknesses witnessed during the implementations in Dikmen Valley. First of all, gecekondu development process and the transformation attempts in Turkey will be briefly examined in order to shed light on the models of gecekondu transformation. Then, the question of what possible obstacles may occur during the implementation of such a project model will be answered with reference to observed weaknesses and strengths of the Dikmen Valley Project in terms of the financial model, participation process, legislative framework, social inclusion strategies and diversified perceptions of the gecekondu transformation problem. The Gecekondu Transformation in Turkey The gecekondu transformation has been one of the major urbanization problems in Turkey since the occurrence of the first gecekondu areas in major metropolitan cities. In this section, the gecekondu development process in Turkey will be examined to shed light on the underlying issues of gecekondu transformation, and current gecekondu transformation models in the Turkish system will be discussed. Gecekondu development in Turkey The gecekondu development process in Turkey started after the 1950s, where Turkish metropolitan areas were subject to rapid urbanization and population growth. At the beginning, the gecekondu owners individually settled on public land and built their low-standard gecekondu to meet their basic needs. The central government could not
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
214 P. T¨urker-Devecigil respond to the problems generated by rapid population growth and had to condone illegal solutions to the basic housing problem of the newcomers. After the 1960s, gecekondu, which had started as individual solutions to the housing need of urban poor, grew in number and changed character. Since the public land stock was already eroded during the 1950s, it became impossible for poor individuals to invade public land and build their own gecekondu. Therefore, some of the newcomers had to become tenants of the gecekondu owners who had already constructed their second/third gecekondu in order to get rental income. The others choose to squat on private land. In addition to these developments, the concept of ‘unauthorized shared ownership’ gave rise to a new form of gecekondu development. The developers bought peripheral areas, informally subdivided these lands – leaving arbitrary narrow roads among the plots – and sold them to different individuals through a public notary. However, neither subdivision, nor construction was legal, and title deeds could not be issued (TSSA, 1998; S¸enyapili, 1996). Until the 1980s, the urban transformation attempts of the government were simply enacting new legislations under the name of development amnesty laws, which legalized the existing gecekondu stock. The 1980s witnessed a structural change in metropolitan management and the urban planning system, as well as introducing a new approach to the gecekondu problem. The new amnesty law (Law No. 2981) gave rise to a new urban transformation scheme in the existing gecekondu stock. This law legalized the illegally developed housing areas and provided development rights to owners or users of land via improvement plans. This law is different from the previous amnesty laws in the way that it seeks to transform gecekondu areas into authorized urban land and allows for higher densities equivalent to those in surrounding formal housing areas by improvement plans. Furthermore, local governments were given more authority in the planning process. A two-tier metropolitan system was developed by formation of the Greater City Municipality and district municipalities (D¨undar, 1997, Leitmann & Baharoglu, 1999). Since the 1980s, the district municipalities have been responsible for planning, approval and implementation of urban plans up to 1/5000 scale as well as issuing occupancy and construction permits. On the other hand, Greater City Municipality is responsible for preparing the upper-scale urban plans and controlling the compatibility of the plans in various scales. Improvement plans, which have different standards than the other plan types, are prepared, approved and implemented by district municipalities. Coming into the 2000s, gecekondu development became a general unauthorized housing problem that went beyond an innocent attempt of meeting housing needs of urban poor. Gecekondu has become a general concept that covers a range of different unauthorized housing developments. The total number of legally constructed houses in 2000 has been estimated at nearly 10 million, which accounted for 62 per cent of the total housing stock.3 Currently there are two principal pieces of legislation regarding gecekondu transformation: the Gecekondu Law (No. 775) and the Redevelopment Law (No. 2981).
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
215
The Gecekondu Law, which was passed in 1966, seeks to improve existing gecekondu while clearing out the uninhabitable ones and to develop low-cost housing to prevent new gecekondu settlements. This law basically seeks to upgrade existing gecekondu stock using the existing development pattern. It also intends to clear out the inhabitable gecekondu by relocating gecekondu inhabitants to new housing areas. On the contrary, the Redevelopment Law seeks to clarify the land ownership structure in gecekondu areas and create a base for transforming gecekondu land into formal urban land stock by changing the current structure completely (S¸enyapili, 1996; Leitmann & Baharoglu, 1999). These two pieces of legislation form the basis of two models: the resettlement model and the improvement plan model. Redevelopment Law differentiated the following gecekondu types: Type A: fecekondu built on public land Type B: gecekondu built on private land Type C: gecekondu built on land owned by the builder but without occupancy and/or construction permits. This law regulated the procedures to provide a legal document (tapu tahsis belgesi) for each type of gecekondu. This document was not a formal title deed, but the gecekondu owners, who were provided with these documents, became a right-holder4 of the area that would be redeveloped by improvement plans. Despite the variety in gecekondu types, most of the gecekondu areas in question have been subject to similar environmental, socio-cultural and economical problems. The most common environmental problems have resulted from a deteriorated environmental balance and a lack of measures in risk management and urban services. The socio-cultural problems have been the social exclusion of the gecekondu inhabitants and lack of socio-cultural services. The economical problems have been the increasing speculation that triggers the high-density developments, and the construction privileges given to gecekondu owners. These problems have taken place interchangeably and have brought up different transformation issues to be discussed in the next section. Models of gecekondu transformation There are three major transformation models that have shaped the gecekondu transformation:
r The resettlement model r The improvement plan model r The urban transformation project model. The resettlement model uses the means of expropriation and resettlement of gecekondu owners to another location in order to clear out the existing gecekondu area. This model
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
216 P. T¨urker-Devecigil is usually preferred for the areas where gecekondu houses are located in inappropriate zones, such as flood zones, land slide areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Currently, this model is not favourable for gecekondu transformation mainly because of high economic costs and partially because of the social costs that comes from the reluctance of gecekondu inhabitants to cooperate. The improvement plan model has been introduced as a model to transform gecekondu areas with market incentives. In this model, gecekondu areas are reorganized according to an improvement plan, where new ownership pattern is established to construct modern apartment blocks similar to the ones in authorized areas. Being introduced by the Redevelopment Law, the concept of improvement plan seeks to perform a spatial transformation in gecekondu areas through market conditions. It is a typical build–sell5 model modified for gecekondu areas. The build–sell model of housing provision is the most common model used in authorized housing provision since the 1960s. It is based on the increased development rights in parcel level to build apartment blocks in individual parcels. It has the speculative house builder and landowner as the two main actors at its core. The responsibilities of the speculative house builder are to obtain land, supply required financial sources, get all of the necessary permits, acquire the building project and provide construction. These are usually small entrepreneurs, who have a limited amount of capital. In general, they do not own the land that they develop. They obtain the land within the urban area by contracting the landowner. If the land is located in a prestigious neighbourhood, they share the dwelling units of the apartment with the landowner at a rate of up to 60 per cent. This percentage varies according to the location of the land (Tekeli, 1982). After the 1980s, this model was modified for gecekondu areas by means of improvement plans. These plans simply provide extra development rights that are shared between the gecekondu owners and speculative house builders. The improvement plan model basically provides a new parcel pattern for gecekondu areas that is suitable for the construction of apartment blocks. Each gecekondu owner becomes a shareholder in one of the parcels. Then the dwelling units of the apartment block that will be constructed in one parcel are shared between the gecekondu owners and the speculative house builder (S¸enyapılı, 1996; Tekeli, 1982). The transformation of gecekondu areas with the improvement plan model depends on the location of the gecekondu areas. Some gecekondu areas have location advantages and are attractive to private developers due to high land values, whereas there are other gecekondu areas authorized for higher density development, but are not attractive for development. There are many examples of areas that were transformed by this model as well as areas that could not be transformed. The main problems of the improvement plan model are the standard urban development pattern it generates increases in construction density and its limited capacity to transform the gecekondu areas that do not have location advantages (see Figure 2 for typical build–sell model and gecekondu pattern).
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
217
Figure 2. Dikmen Valley in 1989: gecekondu houses surrounded by authorized housing pattern developed by the Build–Sell Model. Source: personal archive of Kenan Ozdemir.
The urban transformation project model was introduced as an innovative approach to the transformation problem of gecekondu at the end of the 1980s. The urban transformation project model has also been referred as the Dikmen Valley model because it was the first example. Local governments have adopted this model as an alternative
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
218 P. T¨urker-Devecigil to the resettlement model and improvement plan model. It is an intermediary solution between these two models in terms of the financial resources used and the urban environment created. The resettlement model depends on public resources, which are likely to be used for meeting the basic housing needs of gecekondu owners. The improvement plan model uses private resources, which generate extra values to be shared by gecekondu owners, and speculative house builders, where it is more likely for a gecekondu owner to become better off by getting more than one dwelling. On the other hand, the Dikmen Valley model uses private resources generated through the project itself, where the extra value generated is shared by more diversified groups of stakeholders, such as local government, project company, gecekondu owners, landowners and city inhabitants. It has the same logic of using extra development rights as an improvement plan model. The main difference of the Dikmen Valley model is that the new developments do not take place in a parcel level as it does in the improvement plan model, so the urban environment created is likely to have more open spaces. In the Dikmen Valley model, the project area and the right-holders are defined by the project bearers. The additional urban rants created by extra development rights are used to accomplish the financial sustainability of the project. The Dikmen Valley model is usually preferred for strategic areas of a whole city that are prone to gecekondu invasion, and for areas that are designated as inhabitable due to unsuitable physical conditions (flood zones, land slide areas). The main reason is that improvement plans cannot be implemented for such areas due to physical constraints; gecekondu inhabitants of such areas still have the expectation of a transformation with the improvement plan model. The weaknesses and strengths of the urban transformation project model will be discussed in the following section with reference to the Dikmen Valley. Weaknesses and Strengths of Urban Transformation Projects The urban transformation project model is an alternative approach to gecekondu transformation problems in terms of the financial model, participation process, legislative framework, social inclusion strategies and diversified perceptions of this problem. However, each characteristic has both strengths and weaknesses to be considered carefully. In this section, the weaknesses and strengths of the urban transformation project model will be highlighted with reference to the developments in the Dikmen Valley Project. The financial model The basic strength of the Dikmen Valley model is its self-financing structure that brings minimum financial burden to local governments. Additional construction rights and marketable urban uses are the means of meeting financial costs in this model. These are also used to convince the gecekondu owners to take part in the project as shareholders. However, development rights are not used by gecekondu owners individually, as is
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
219
the case in the improvement plan model. In this model, such rights are used to meet the project costs, which also include the costs of meeting basic housing needs of gecekondu inhabitants. This model is an alternative to the resettlement model where the project area is expropriated and gecekondu owners are given land in another region of the city to build their own houses. The Dikmen Valley Urban Housing and Environmental Development Project first came to the agenda as a resettlement project. The project was approved as a green area project and the expropriation decision was taken. However, the resettlement project was never implemented due to the oppositions from the valley inhabitants. In 1984, most of the gecekondu owners were provided right-holder status by the Redevelopment Law. There was also a valid expropriation decision taken for the area. Consequently, in 1989, the project was reformulated adopting a new model of transformation, known as the Dikmen Valley model. The project consists of five implementation zones, where only the first and second implementation zones were completed (see Figure 3 for the implementation zones). In the first and second implementation zones, new housing constructions were located at the upper sides of the valley integrated with the existing dense housing, with a green-recreation stripe at the valley bottom. Since Dikmen Valley has been a physical threshold separating upper-income groups in the west and lower-income groups in the east, the project aimed to provide integration between these two income groups by increasing socio-cultural activities in the valley. The Culture Bridge, proposed as a structure that would enable cultural and shopping activities, was designed as a living environment where people could meet. Similarly, Culture Park, located at the valley bottom, is composed of open green areas integrated with some social, cultural, recreational and sports facilities. The density of the facilities, to a degree, protect the green and open space character of the valley. Avoiding dense housing areas, the valley bottom was designated as an open space. The residential areas were located only in the upper parts of the valley in order to allow resettlement of the gecekondu population and also to yield extra rent for finance of the project (Metropol ˙Imar, 1991). Furthermore, buildings containing commercial centres, municipal services and car parking facilities were constructed under the name of Valley Gates.6 There were three ‘gates’: one was C ¸ etin Eme¸c, and the others were Ayrancı and Dikmen via Culture Bridge. However, these ‘gates’ were all converted to residential areas after 1994 (Figure 4 shows the residential houses constructed). These gates served not only as social infrastructure but also had financial purposes. Although these design principles were the backbone of the self-financing character of the project, they became the weakness of the financial model. These constructions were not completed in the proposed time span, mainly due to the other factors such as general economic crisis, political disputes, and legal problems. Therefore, the financial revenues could not be generated as planned. Especially in third, fourth and fifth implementation zones, design principles were modified to serve the financial sustainability of the project
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
220 P. T¨urker-Devecigil
Figure 3. Dikmen Valley project implementation zones. Source: adapted from Metropol ˙Imar (1991), D¨undar (1997).
resulting in high construction, dense population and decrease in service provision, which will be discussed later. The participation process Public participation is another feature that makes the Dikmen Valley model popular. It has always been a difficult task for local governments to convince gecekondu
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
221
owners of transformation because they have never trusted the governments, who have always treated them as invaders. For the Dikmen Valley model, consensus building – especially on value share – and trust creation between gecekondu owners and project bearers are the main issues that determine the success of the project. The participation process in Dikmen Valley was successful in terms of consensus building and the trust creation when compared with many other transformation attempts that failed. However, it was limited in terms of the participant groups and the degree of participation. The participation process in the Dikmen Valley included local governments and gecekondu owners. On the local governments’ side, there were GAM, C¸DM and Metropol ˙Imar as the main decision-makers. These groups were actively involved in the participation mechanism, which was composed of face-to-face meetings and decision committees. The face-to-face meetings took place at the beginning of the project to convince the gecekondu owners to take part in this project. The main decision-making mechanism was the decision committees. These consisted of the mayors of GAM and the C¸DM, the directors of Metropol ˙Imar, Ankara Water and Sewer Directorate, Urban Utilities and Urban Development Directorates of GAM and the cooperatives.7 The housing cooperatives were encouraged within the projects to include gecekondu owners in the decision-making mechanism and to promote social communication and solidarity patterns. As a result, four cooperatives were established as representatives of the four neighbourhoods during the decision-making process (Metropol ˙Imar, 1992). Their main responsibility was better representation of their members and keeping their members continuously informed of the project development while passing information from their members to project developers. This participation scheme was based on the following terms determined by the project bearers:
r Each gecekondu owner would get an apartment regardless of how many units he
r
r
had on the plot and regardless of who owns the land. However, they would pay the cost of these apartments and the land expropriated in some kind of a credit mechanism (the quality of apartments was determined by the negotiations). The apartments to be built were 80 m2 , two rooms and balcony with a valley view in the first implementation zone). The values of land and the gecekondu would be assessed separately to determine the debt of each right-holder. If the value of the gecekondu in the valley was above the value of the new houses to be built, the right-holder would be compensated. If it was below that price, the right-holder would pay back. Each landowner, regardless of the gecekondu houses built on it, would be paid the expropriation value of the land. In the case of type B gecekondu, the landowners would be paid the expropriation value whereas the gecekondu owner who invaded this land would get an apartment. According to legislation, all landowners had the option of filing a suit and asking for financial compensation if he thought that the expropriation value was lower than the market price.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
222 P. T¨urker-Devecigil Consequently, the groups such as some of the landowners in the case of type B gecekondu, city inhabitants or NGOs were not included in this participation process since they didn’t have direct economic benefit. Eighty per cent of the landowners in this condition filed a suit against GAM to increase expropriation values (GAM, 2003). At the end of these lawsuits, GAM had to pay a significant amount of money, which destroyed the feasibility of the project. After 2002, GAM decided to include the landowners as right-holders for the third, fourth and fifth implementation zones with a new agreement8 with the following terms:
r If the landowner accepts a certain amount of land price, determined as an expror r r
priation value, he will have the option of getting the expropriation value or an apartment that will be built in the valley if they have a land larger than 200 m2 . The landowner who has a gross area larger than 400 m2 has a right to get a 120 m2 (gross) apartment. The landowner who has a gross area of 201–399 m2 will pay the value of the amount that will be accounted according to the determined land price. After receiving a contract in return for 400 m2 of land, if the landowner has an amount of land of 201–399 m2 , he can make an agreement for another 120 m2 house using the terms of the third item.
This project is the first public participatory project completed up to a level in which a degree of consensus was established between the gecekondu owners and decision-making authorities. However, these participation mechanisms did not continue after the administration change in 1994. Furthermore, the public meetings and the decision committee meetings indicated that the project details were not vital for right-holders, whose main target was to have a house in the valley. As stated by the participants (T¨urker-Devecigil, 2003), most of them were afraid of voicing their needs and the level of participation could not go beyond giving information. As stated by the project holders, the media for communication and participation was provided but the participants were not interested in project details. Despite the critiques, these mechanisms worked at the beginning but did not continue after the municipal elections of 1994. During the ten years of the implementation process, the project principles and terms of agreement were changed and the participatory character of the project was totally lost since the main issue turned into sharing the values generated by the project. Legislative framework The absence of a clear legislative framework for urban transformation is one of the weaknesses that resulted in unexpected problems during the implementation of the Dikmen Valley model. The legal basis is important, especially in determining rightholders and setting up the tasks of decision-making authorities, such as preparing and implementing urban plans and issuing occupancy and construction permits. Since
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
223
there is no specific law in regards to the urban transformation using the Dikmen Valley model, several laws are valid for similar problems, for example existing gecekondu and redevelopment laws, urban development law and metropolitan administration law. Therefore, the developments that took place in the Dikmen Valley case have been open to debate in legislative terms and they were mostly used by the opponents to the project. Many suits were filed against site plans of the project. The technical claim behind these objections was that GAM did not have the authority to prepare the plans in 1/1000 scale. The individual objections were usually rejected by the court, however the suits, which were filed by the district municipality, resulted in delays in the implementation process. After the 1990s, the two local government units – GAM and C¸DM – were contradicting each other and the problems of the valley were accelerated due to these disputes. Until the 1990s, partial decisions and implementations took place in the environs of the valley because of partial implementations of C¸DM. The source of these implementations was several plans, which were in conflict with all the master plans that had proposed the protection of valleys as green area. These developments narrowed the borders of the valley, as well as increasing the construction density around the valley. Furthermore the gecekondu inhabitants and landowners in the valley started to expect to receive the same development rights for the valley (Metropol ˙Imar, 1994). After the 1990s, the dispute between C¸DM and GAM resulted in serious obstacles for the project. In the 1996–2002 period, GAM prepared 13 plans of different scales, which had to be approved by C ¸ DM as a legal procedure but ended up in court. In appearance, the problems were basically about the disagreement on the plan proposals, and issuing construction and occupancy permits. The implicit reason hidden behind these problems was the disagreement about the shares of the revenues generated by the project.9 Whenever C ¸ DM was not content with the implementations of GAM, the problems ended up in court. On the other hand, there were also cases where C¸DM transferred its authorities voluntarily. As an example, in 2001 C¸DM transferred all its planning authorities as well as construction and occupancy permits10 related to the Dikmen Valley project to GAM with a protocol.11 The project lost its economical feasibility due to expropriation values increased by the court, and the unexpected rescheduling of the constructions due to legal disputes. In addition, the model was so vulnerable to the socio-economic and political situation prevailing in the country that the ongoing economic crisis and changing administrations resulted in unexpected outcomes during the implementation of the Dikmen Valley project. The impact of these obstacles on the project resulted in several modifications of land use, development rights, design principles, and value shares. All municipal service areas were converted to municipal residential areas to increase the revenues of the project since there was relatively more demand for housing rather than for offices and new working areas due to the economic crises that prevailed. Additionally, the design principles of the project were changed, leading to
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
224 P. T¨urker-Devecigil the cancellation of some access roads and proposals of several new uses to increase the profits and decrease the costs. Modifications on development rights occurred as an increase of construction densities in the valley occurred (see Table 1). The landowners were also accepted as right-holders, resulting in additional development rights in the valley. The impact of these changes was a decrease in the quality of life in the region because the services in the area were not designed for this new population. Only two-fifth of the project could be completed in 13 years and the modifications changed the targets of the project: The protection of the valley remained as a secondary target and lost its sensitivity in terms of seeking for a balance between environmental and economical dimensions. Social inclusion strategies The Dikmen Valley model is capable of preventing social exclusion since it has more creative tools for designing space for social integration when compared to the other models. Since Dikmen Valley is a physical threshold separating the upper income groups in the west and lower income groups in the east, the project aimed to provide integration between these income groups. Several design policies were proposed in order to provide a new life style for the gecekondu owners. However, most of the design features were cancelled, postponed or changed due to the financial and legal obstacles. It is also difficult to state that the Culture Bridge and the Culture Park realized this integration. Although the Dikmen Valley model provided a more flexible environment for thinking on social integration, the danger of displacement of low-income groups remains as one of the weaknesses of the Dikmen Valley model. In the Dikmen Valley, in 1997, the right-holders occupied 49 per cent of the total social housing units completed (D¨undar, 1997). In 2003, this ratio decreased to 39 per cent. There were 342 right-holders that resided in the valley (Table 1) (T¨urker-Devecigil, 2003). Table 1. The plan proposals compared Third implementation zone Area (ha) 1994 2001
1994 2001
No. of residential units
Population density (person/ha)
21.2 663 125 28.6 1039 145 Fourth and fifth implementation zone and eastern part Area (ha)
No. of residential units
Population density
67.7 176
1503 4200
89 95
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
225
This project can be referred as successful in sharing the financial values generated in the valley compared to the improvement plan model. However, this share targets solely gecekondu owners and disregards the tenants. There is a tendency in government levels to see the Dikmen Valley model as the most convenient way of dealing with the gecekondu transformation problems. However, this model is far from solving the problems of gecekondu tenants who account for most of the population residing in gecekondu areas. The last problem encountered in such project areas is the social polarization created between the residents of the social houses and the luxury houses. In the first and second Implementation zones there are 1,047 luxury houses that were built for upper-income groups using the municipal service areas12 and 882 social houses that were built for gecekondu owners. Most of the ex-gecekondu owners complained about the low quality of materials used in kitchens and bathrooms. They also complained about the construction of the houses in the municipal service areas because of increasing residential density results in limited parking areas, lack of children’s’ playgrounds and sports areas. They also indicated that they are uncomfortable with the high-rise luxury houses, which have private tennis courts.13 Diversified perceptions of gecekondu transformation problem There are four different perceptions of transformation problem that shaped the developments in Dikmen Valley. Thus, Dikmen Valley is perceived: 1. 2. 3. 4.
as a natural element to be preserved as an invaded natural element to be rescued as an urban area to be rehabilitated as a value to be shared.
Until the 1980s, the government, at both an urban and local level, perceived the valleys of Ankara as natural elements to be preserved but did nothing for their preservation. Squatters invaded the most important valleys of Ankara, which were to be protected in all plan proposals. After the 1980s, instead of preserving the valleys as natural elements, the other three approaches were mostly adopted by the different local administrations. Therefore, the Dikmen Stream Green Area Project of 1984 dealt with the valley as an invaded natural element to be rescued. The former project perceived the valley as an urban area to be transformed. Since that time, serious modifications took place on the project, converting the valley to a value to be shared. These diversified perceptions resulted in various combinations of economical, environmental and socio-cultural targets related to the project area, but the project lacked the necessary steps to achieve a balance between these three targets. The project model was based on a sacrifice of protecting the valley for high construction ratios. The limits of this sacrifice continued to increase due to the unexpected or underestimated costs of the project. It can be claimed that the project was unsuccessful in
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
226 P. T¨urker-Devecigil
Figure 4. Dikmen Valley first implementation zone in 2003: the Culture Park surrounded by the social apartment blocks for gecekondu owners. The high-rise blocks (Ayrancı and Dikmen Gates) are the luxury houses that are connected by Culture Bridge.
terms of protecting the valley with it natural characteristics, but successful in terms of clearing the gecekondu areas and providing a better environment for the inhabitants (see Figure 4). Conclusions In recent years, there has been a growing interest in transforming gecekondu areas using the Dikmen Valley model in Turkey. The model seems to be appropriate for the transformation of gecekondu areas that are located in areas advantageous for development. It is likely to provide higher-quality urban spaces with relatively fair distribution of urban gains compared to the improvement plan model and use less public resources than the resettlement model. However, all three models have been inadequate for solving the gecekondu transformation problem due to several reasons. First, there are no public resources diverted for gecekondu transformation in Turkey that make the resettlement model impossible to implement. Thus, any gecekondu transformation model in question should create its own financial resources. Both the improvement plan model and the Dikmen Valley model were developed to solve this self-financing problem and both models depend on additional urban development rights to create financial resources. Second, the fact that the success of self-financing mechanisms is dependent on the location of gecekondu areas is usually ignored. These models cannot be implemented for the gecekondu areas, which are not located in advantageous areas of the city. Third, all three models ignore the problems of the tenants in the gecekondu areas. Thus, transforming a gecekondu area is not likely to
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
227
solve the problems of gecekondu inhabitants in question. Fourth, the transformation of gecekondu areas is a complex problem that depends on the special conditions of the area. It is almost impossible to transform gecekondu areas that are composed of high-rise apartment blocks and joint ownership structure using these three models. Finally, the improvement plan model and the Dikmen Valley model do not make a clear distinction between the gecekondu areas in terms of their strategic importance in the urban layout. When either of these models is implemented, the environmentally sensitive areas that are prone to gecekondu invasion are subject to development pressure. This paper puts particular emphasis on the Dikmen Valley model and highlights certain weaknesses encountered during the implementation processes. The strengths of the model are referred to as better environmental quality, a self-financing system, participation mechanism, and social inclusion strategies. However, the following factors convert these strengths to weaknesses. Financial mechanism: the Dikmen Valley model depends on the creation of marketable products such as shopping centres, offices and new housing units that can be sold to finance the costs of transformation. The main weaknesses that arise due to this mechanism, which is highly vulnerable to economic conditions prevailing in the country, require additional development rights that might be threatening to urban health, and include the danger of not being attractive for the developers. Transformation areas that will use this model should be identified carefully in upper scales, taking into account the whole picture of the economic system. Participation process: this model has the capacity to provide innovative solutions in terms of participation. However, a participatory approach is still an evolving process in the Turkish urban planning system, where people are not accustomed to discussing their needs in a democratic process. The participation processes are mostly directed by the struggles of individuals, which are based on the disagreements of sharing economic benefits. Therefore, the participation processes tend to end up with agreements that are not in favour of the whole urban community. There is a need to have a broader participation that would not be limited to solely the shareholders. The active participation of NGOs is highly required especially to pursue environmental and socio-cultural targets. Social inclusion strategies: this model has more potential for developing social inclusion strategies by means of urban design (such as more common areas, cultural activities, etc.), besides the participation mechanisms. However, the integrative design strategies in spatial terms do not solve the social segregation problem that arises due to the two different income-level groups using the same space. The process usually ends up with social exclusion of the low-income groups and their ‘voluntary’ dislocation. There is a need to look for innovations that will enable ‘modest’ land uses instead of ‘luxury’ ones to minimize the social gaps. Legislative framework: the Dikmen Valley case indicates that the current legislation does not provide the necessary framework to transform the areas using the Dikmen Valley model. This is a certain weakness that decreases the success of the project.
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
228 P. T¨urker-Devecigil New legislation is required, that will take into account the diverse nature of gecekondu areas and provide different solutions. Within the absence of the legislative framework, the project bearers must take into account the possible obstacles that may occur. Diversified perceptions of the problem: Urban authorities should clearly define the priorities of the transformation area. The Dikmen Valley model is appropriate for transforming gecekondu areas into new housing areas for a better quality of life. Whenever it is used for mixed targets, such as protecting a valley with its natural characteristics, more regulations should be considered to overcome the problems of high-density developments. The Dikmen Valley case also indicates that there is confusion in terms of problem definition, where the valley was transformed as a housing environment ignoring the conservation issue. This situation brought about a problem of scale. Relatively better quality of life for gecekondu inhabitants does not always mean an improvement for the quality of life in an urban scale. In the Dikmen Valley case, the valley lost its function of being an air corridor for the city, although it provided a better environment for former gecekondu inhabitants. As a result, it is misleading to propose such a model as a remedy for all gecekondu transformation problems of Turkey. This paper put forward the possible obstacles that are likely to occur when transforming the gecekondu areas by the Dikmen Valley model with reference to the developments in the Dikmen Valley. Therefore, every transformation area should be considered as a unique case under the light of the previous examples and the Dikmen Valley model must be taken into account carefully while being adapted to other cases. Notes 1. Gecekondu is a Turkish word used for squatter urban areas in Turkey. It is a general term to describe all kind of illegal housing. The word gecekondu means ‘built overnight’ in Turkish. 2. Jansen Plan (1933), Uybadin-Y¨ucel Plan (1957), Ankara metropolitan Area Planning Bureau Plan (1982). 3. In 2000 the total number of housing stock was 16,235,989 (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2000); the total number of construction permits was 10,115,265, the total number of occupancy permits was 5,476,601 (Undersecretariat of Housing, 2002). The number of the legally built areas was estimated to be maximum the total number of construction permits. 4. In this study the ‘hak sahibi’ concept was translated as ‘right-holder’ to denote the squatter house owners who were accepted as a holder of house ownership right according to development amnesty laws. ‘Hak sahibi’ is a specific term in Turkish law that simply means holder of a specific right. 5. ‘Build–Sell’ is the translation of the Turkish words Yap-Sat. It is a common term used both in daily conversations as well as academic writings. Speculative house building is another term used interchangeably. 6. The term ‘Gate’ was especially used for these facilities in project documents since they were considered as the entrance points to the valley. 7. The management and control boards of the cooperatives, lawyers of Metropol Imar, GAM Property Expropriation Directorate could also participate in the meetings but without a voting right. 8. Municipal Council Decision no. 36, 28.01.2002. 9. According to municipal records, in 9–10.10.2002, a meeting was held about the Municipal Residential Areas in the project plans. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that Municipal Residential Area
Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:04 12 January 2008
Urban Transformation Projects
10.
11.
12.
13.
229
No. 7 would be registered to C¸ankaya Municipality. This was a residential area with 15,000 m2 of construction area for 100 residential units. The occupancy and construction permits were to be issued by the AGM. However, the expenditures would be paid to C¸DM. The GAM council agreed on this protocol on 03.08.2001 (decision no. 181) and the C¸DM council on 24.08.2001 (decision no. 483). The 10th Administrative Court cancelled the protocol (K: 2001/1443) in 2002. However, this does not change the relations between the GAM and C¸DM. Since they agreed, the planning decisions were implemented without problem. Municipal service areas are potential service areas left for social infrastructure. These areas are legally allocated for services such as offices, trade centres, working places and parking places, but actually they are the areas considered as ‘areas that could be sold for profit’. For that reason, in the Dikmen case, there is also a plan note indicating that the use of these areas also could be changed to housing. After 1994, all these uses in municipal service areas were changed to housing. The reason was simply the market conditions: There was no demand for offices and new working areas due to the economic crises that prevailed, and there was relatively more housing demand. These views are based on the in-depth interviews conducted in December 2002 for field research. The number of the in-depth interviews conducted with the landowners and ex-gecekondu owners during the field survey is 40 (T¨urker-Devecigil, 2003).
References ¨ (1997) Changing Meanings of Urban Renewal: Ankara Dikmen Valley Development Project, D¨undar, O. PhD Thesis, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, METU, Ankara. GAM (Greater Ankara Municipality) (2003) Directorate of Expropriation, interviews with the officials. G¨unay, B. (1993) Dikmen Vadisi Projesine ˙Ili¸skin De˘gerlendirme, in: Ankara S¨oyles¸ileri (Ankara: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Subesi Yayını). Kuntasal, K. (1993) Dikmen Vadisi Projesi, in: Ankara S¨oyles¸ileri (Ankara: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Subesi Yayını). Leitmann, J. & Baharoglu, D. (1999) Reaching Turkey’s spontaneous settlements: the institutional dimension of infrastructure provision, International Planning Studies, 4(2), pp. 95–212. Metropol ˙Imar (1991) Dikmen Vadisi Projesi Uygulama I˙mar Planı Raporu (Ankara). Metropol ˙Imar (1992) Dikmen Vadimiz Sayı:4 (Ankara: Metropol ˙Imar Yayını). Metropol ˙Imar (1994) Dikmen Vadisi Projesi ve Yıldız-Oran Aksı Revizyon I˙mar Planı Raporu (Ankara). ¨ S¸ahin, S¸. (1996) Dikmen Vadisi Peyzaj Potansiyelinin Saptanması Ve De˘gerlendirilmesi Uzerine Bir ¨ Aras¸tırma, PhD Thesis, Ankara Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstit¨us¨u, Ankara University. S¸enyapili, T. (1996) 1980 Sonrasında Ruhsatsız Konut Yapımı, T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Toplu Konut ˙Idaresi Ba¸skanlı˘gı Konut Ara¸stırmaları Dizisi: 8 (Ankara: ODTU Basım I¸sli˘gi). Tekeli, ˙I. (1982) T¨urkiye’de Konut Sunumunun Davranı¸ssal Nitelikleri ve Konut Kesiminde Bunalım, in: Konut 81 (Ankara: Kent-Koop Yayınları). T¨urker-Devecigil, P. (2003) An Agent-oriented Approach to the Analysis of Urban Transformation Process: Ankara-Dikmen Valley Within the Context of Sustainable Urban Development, PhD Thesis, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, METU, Ankara. Turkish Statistical Institute (D.˙I.E.) (2001) Bina Sayımı 2000 (2000 Building Census), (ANKARA: T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Devlet ˙Istatistik Enstit¨us¨u Yayını). TSSA (Turkish Social Science Association) (1998) Housing Policy Development Studies, Phase 2: Interim Report (Ankara: Turkish Prime Ministry Housing Development Administration). Undersecretariat of Housing (2002) 2000–2010 Turkiye Konut ˙Ihtiyacı Arastırması (2000–2010 Research on Housing Need of Turkey), unpublished working paper.
