Urban Regeneration in Turkish Context

Planning, Law and Property Rights Conference 2015
Department of Planning and Regional Development (DPRD)
University of Thessaly
Urban Regeneration in Turkish Context:
An Evaluation through the Regulations and Legal Frameworks
Assist. Prof. Dr. Tolga Levent
Mersin University
Faculty of Architecture
Department of City and Regional Planning
JUSTIFICATION I
URBAN REGENERATION
- one of the most widely-used concepts
within the domains of Turkish planning system.
in theoretical domain
in practical domain
increasing number of graduate
studies
increasing number of
urban regeneration
projects
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1997-2001
2002-2006
2007-2011
Graduate Thesis
6
23
112
PhD Disstertations
1
5
15
Total
7
28
127
The numbers are derived from the website of National Thesis and Dissertation Center of Turkey.
https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Last accessed at February 2015
2
JUSTIFICATION II
•
In Turkish case, urban regeneration is considered
- as a magical tool for urban development.
- as a panacea curing all kinds of urban problems.
•
This consideration is shared by almost all public institutions of
central and local governments.
3
JUSTIFICATION III
•
This extensive use does not mean that urban regeneration is
problem-free in Turkish context.
THEORY
PRACTICE
Urban regeneration is conceived as a necessity in most cases,
however, there is a lack of theoretical consensus about the
definition, inputs-outputs and process of it.
It increases the physical qualities of urban environments, however,
it depends on a conceptualization of cities as technical collages
and patchworks, the results of which are the loss of spatial
coherence of urban land-uses, weaknesses in urban unities
and the break in public continuities.
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL AMBIGUITY
against the position to urban regeneration
4
JUSTIFICATION IV
SUPPORTING GROUP
Urban regeneration is necessary for the solution for most of
the urban problems. It should be conceived as positive and
inevitable process.
RESISTING GROUP
Urban regeneration should be carefully treated because of its
negative sociospatial impacts such as displacement of others
and unfair redistribution of urban rents.
5
AIM
This presentation aims to reduce these ambiguities through an
evaluation on the changes of urban regeneration endeavors in
recent decades and to introduce new qualities for a new urban
regeneration approach in Turkish context.
The changes basically depend upon the relevant regulations and
legal frameworks and, directly and indirectly, reflected on changing
stakeholders of urban regeneration and their changing priorities.
6
CONTENT
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION
[Justification, Aim for the Presentation]
2. A BRIEF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
[Theoretical Background, Definition]
3. PERIODS OF URBAN REGENERATION IN TURKISH CASE
First Period: 1984-1989
Second Period: 1989-1999
Third Period: 1999-2015
4. CONCLUSION
7
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND I
•
The sociospatial change and transformation is continous in cities.
•
These processes of change and transformation are too complex and
complicated because of different kinds of interactions between
economical, political, social and cultural dimensions of daily lives.
8
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND II
There are various results of these interactions.
- In some cases, these interactions may result in physical
improvements in urban spaces.
- In some cases, however, there may be
degradations and deteriorations in urban environments.
THE FOCUS OF URBAN
REGENERATION
9
AIM of URBAN REGENERATION
Urban regeneration focusses on these degradated and deteriorated
urban environments and aims an amalgam of policies, strategies
and action plans for comprehensive rehabilitation and/or
restructuring of urban space.
10
PERIODS of URBAN REGENERATION in TURKEY
In the historical roots of urban regeneration, there were
European philanthropy movements of 19th century.
More than 100 years later, in 1980’s, urban regeneration
takes a significant role in Turkish urban planning agenda.
The reason of this latency is basically related to the level
of institutionalization of urban planning and its changing
priorities.
11
PERIODS of URBAN REGENERATION in TURKEY
THREE PERIODS OF URBAN REGENERATION
12
FIRST PERIOD: 1984-1989
FIRST PERIOD
•
This period started with a subsidiarity of planning authority
from central government to local governments.
- The Act of Greater City Municipality No:3030
- The Act of Urban Development and Planning No:3194
13
FIRST PERIOD: 1984-1989
•
The main focus of urban regeneration was squatter areas.
- Local rehabilitation plans seemed as the solution for the
problem of quatters.
- The legal framework for these kinds of regeneretion was
the Act No:2981 about the procedures for nonlegal
buildings.
- These rehabilitation plans were basically for the
legitimization for squatter areas, generally proposed for
in succeeded public land. Long-term social and
economical conditions of these areas was not included
within these plans.
14
FIRST PERIOD: 1984-1989
•
The main actors of the development in these areas were the
contractors having limited capital.
•
The only aim of this kind of regeneration was physical
transformation, but the result had been low physical quality
of urban environments because of plot by plot
regeneration.
15
FIRST PERIOD: 1984-1989
http://emlakkulisi.com/derbent-mahallesi-fikirtepe-gibi-olmak-istemiyor/225367
Last accessed at February 2015
http://www.kamudan.com/derbentde-gecekondular-donusuyor-5211.html
Last accessed at February 2015
A squatter area and its transformation
through local rehabilitation plans.
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/fikirtepe-milyonerleri/ekonomi/detay/1922950/default.htm
Last accessed at February 2015
16
FIRST PERIOD: 1984-1989
•
Regeneration of squatter areas.
•
Regeneration in urban fringes.
•
Regeneratation of unplanned squatter areas.
•
Regeneration through market mechanisms: the case of
small capital conractors.
17
SECOND PERIOD: 1989-1999
SECOND PERIOD
•
The main focus of urban regeneration was central areas,
especially degragated and deteriorated residential areas in
transition zones.
•
New models for urban regeneration were introduced,
however, there was a lack of legal framework for these
models.
- Dikmen Valley Project in Ankara.
- Portakal Cicegi Project in Ankara.
18
SECOND PERIOD: 1989-1999
•
There was a lack of spatial plans and programs giving a
frame of reference for these projects.
•
There were promotions for the public-private partnerships
for the ease of implementation of these projects, especially
for the solution of property problems.
19
SECOND PERIOD: 1989-1999
Demolished squatters in Dikmen Valley just before the Project.
http://www.blogankara.com/tag/dikmen-vadisi/
Last accessed at February 2015
20
SECOND PERIOD: 1989-1999
http://www.resimseli.net/resim-ankara-dikmen-vadisi-3421.html
Last accessed at February 2015
Dikmen Valley Project.
http://ankaraforum.yetkinforum.com/t54-dikmen-vadisi
Last accessed at February 2015
21
SECOND PERIOD: 1989-1999
•
Regeneration of central areas in and around urban cores.
•
Regeneration of both planned and unplanned areas.
•
Regeneration through market public and private
partnerships.
22
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
THIRD PERIOD
• This period had started with the Izmit Earthquake in 1999.
•
There was a broad consensus on making and implementing
urban regeneration projects to increase the low physical
quality of building stock.
•
There were two main sources for there project.
1. Projects by Housing Development Agency of Turkey.
Urban regeneration and squatter prevention projects.
Produced 95.565 units of houses, which is app. 15 % of all
houses produced by this agency.
2. Projects of metropolitan cities having a global city
vision. Proposed for the location having a possibility of
higher urban rents.
23
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Projects by Housing
Development Agency of
Turkey.
• Disconnected from cities (distant public lands).
• Low level interactions with the existing
sociospatial structure.
• High costs of urban service provisions and
technical infrastructure.
Projects of metropolitan
cities having a global city
vision
• On strategic locations having a possibility of
higher urban rents.
• Urban development under the control of market
actors.
• Invasion of private entrepreneurs into the
planning mechanisms.
• Spatial displacements of ‘others’ from those
locations.
24
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
•
There have been new regulations and legal frameworks for urban
regeneration.
- The Act of Urban Regeneration Project for North Ankara City Gate
No:5104 (2004) – It is an act of urban regeneration for a specific location.
- The Act of Municipalities of Greater Cities No:5216 (2004) – It gives
implementation authority of projects to municipalities of greater cities.
- The Act of Municipalities No:5393 (2005) – There are additional tasks
and responsibilities by achieving urban regeneration projects. Area and
population size become criteria by defining urban regeneration area.
- The Act of Conservation and Use by Surviving of Deterioted Cultural
and Natural Entities No:5366 (2005) – It gives chance to propose urban
regeneration projects in historical sites, but may increase the possibility of
threats for the totality of protection sites and conservation plans.
- The Act of Urban Regeneration of Spaces under the Risk of Disaster
No:5216 (2012) – It neglects the planning hierachy.
25
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
•
All of these acts define physical and economical implementation
tools for urban regeneration and try to smooth the way for the future
implementations legally.
•
But the result ?
26
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Inconsistent Urban Regeneration:
The Case of Housing Development Agency I
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/kentsel-donusum-belediyelere-takildi/ekonomi/ekonomidetay/08.09.2012/1593138/default.htm
Last accessed at February 2015
27
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Inconsistent Urban Regeneration:
The Case of Housing Development Agency II
http://www.emlaktasondakika.com/Kentsel-donusum/Kentsel-Donusum-Nedir/haber-48962.aspx
Last accessed at February 2015
28
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Incongruous Development through Urban Regeneration Projects I
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/21447414.asp
Last accessed at February 2015
29
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Incongruous Development through Urban Regeneration Projects II
http://emlak.haber7.com/konut/haber/1006811-gecekondular-cazibe-merkezine-donustu
Last accessed at February 2015
30
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Urban Regeneration Projects out of Context
http://www.bursa.bel.tr/?bolum=haber&id=13136
Last accessed at February 2015
31
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Mega Projects of İstanbul: Galataport
http://t24.com.tr/haber/10-maddede-galataportun-hikayesi,278055
Last accessed at February 2015
32
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Mega Projects of İstanbul: Maltepe Recreational Area
http://www.yurtgazetesi.com.tr/yasam/denize-dolan-rantin-resmi-h35029.html
Last accessed at February 2015
33
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Mega Projects of İstanbul: Kanalistanbul I
http://www.internethaber.com/kanal-istanbul-projesi-hizlandi-iste-detaylar-foto-galerisi-39207-p1.htm
Last accessed at February 2015
34
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
Mega Projects of İstanbul: Kanalistanbul II
http://www.internethaber.com/kanal-istanbul-projesi-hizlandi-iste-detaylar-foto-galerisi-39207-p1.htm
Last accessed at February 2015
34
THIRD PERIOD: 1999-2015
•
Regeneration on distant public lands and for urban parts
having a potential for higher urban rents.
•
Regeneration through independent urban parts.
•
Regeneration through global capital.
36
CONCLUSION
•
Urban regeneration is reduced to physical transformation
of urban environment. Social, economical and
environmental dimensions of urban regeneration are
neglected different than Europe. These dimensions should
be included in a new comprehensive approach relating
social transformation, economical development,
ecological/environmental protection, balance between
preservation and development, sustainability and similar
issues.
•
The general and universal principles of urban regeneration
should be combined with the context-dependent conditions
for coherency and consistency of projects.
37
CONCLUSION
•
A balance should be achieved between global, national and
local demands. The last one is very crucial since it is
ignored in the Turkish case.
•
Public and private partnership, as it was experienced in the
second period, should be take into consideration for the
sake of implementation.
•
Urban regeneration projects should depend on urban plans
and programs in an hierarchical manner and should not
force changes in urban plans and programs.
38
thank you for your patience…
26.02.2015