ALTINOK E 2015 Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question PDF

Emrah Altınok "To have or not to have, that is the question: The Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question in Turkey,
The Case of
TOKİ-İstanbul in Post-2000 Period", The Housing Question - Nomad Seminar, University of San Diego, March 12-13, 2015
TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

The Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question in Turkey
The Case of TOKİ-İstanbul in Post-2000 Period
Emrah Altınok*
Abstract Housing investments in Turkey and İstanbul have demonstrated a significant increase
over the last 10 years. The key player in this increase is Housing Development Administration of
Turkey (TOKİ)1, a prime ministerial agency, producing and procuring housing projects for various
income groups. With additional functions other than housing projects, TOKİ emerges as an
institution directly steering the real estate market in metropolitan areas through its administrative
privileges in sales of state properties, expropriation, land development and urban renewal.
Despite the strong opposition to the projects due to their detrimental effects on social and
ecological balances, TOKİ driven housing projects and accompanying mega infrastructure
investments still serve as the one of the key resources for the politics of Justice and Development
Party (AKP) which managed to hold the power since 2002.
In line with the fundamentally adopted macro-economic approach, TOKİ, emerging as a 'state
apparatus' out of the transformation leading to institutionalization of neoliberal economy, is
responsible for the regulation of the economy through real estate market after 2002. David
Harvey’s Theory of Spatio-Temporal Fixes focusing on the relationship between capital shifts to
real estate market as a result of over-accumulation crises (such as 2000-2001 crisis in Turkey)
offers explanatory opportunities to analyze the internal variables of the housing phenomenon
from a political economy standpoint. According to some other approaches, this phenomenon – in
the form of social housing – has a function of redefining the consumption relationships, and
besides curbing social contradictions in a modern capitalist society.
However, the so called social housing projects implemented by TOKİ are not actually affordable for
the target audience to begin with, furthermore, the projects resulting in land transferred to the
private investors essentially translates into a regime of accumulation and modes of regulation
simply based on the uneven (re)distribution of wealth. Consequently, the very phenomenon is
deepening the social contradictions rather than to appease. The urban space continues to
disintegrate, particularly as a result of the mega projects and mass housing investments, in parallel
with the ongoing decomposition of social relations and increasing distinction among social classes.
This paper, building on the results of the doctoral dissertation research completed in January 2012
and updated with current observations, primarily floodlights the historical transformation of the
country's housing policies, followed by the scrutiny of housing projects implemented in İstanbul by
TOKİ. In this sense, as well as general statistics on supply & demand, production & consumption
capacities, the relationships between 'political rhetoric' and 'reality' are discussed. In the light of
the findings, it has been concluded that a switch to a new housing and development model took
place, presenting advantages and disadvantages for different social and political strata.
Keywords: Housing Development Administration of Turkey (HDA / TOKI), 2000-2001 crisis, Post 2000
Period, Theory of Spatio-Temporal Fixes, Accumulation by Dispossession, State-led Dispossession,
Displacement, Loan Dependent Housing Market, Indebtedness, Stability of Economy.
* Emrah Altınok, PhD [Asst. Prof.] Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, İstanbul Bilgi University, Eyüp, İstanbul, Turkey.
e-mail: [email protected]
1
Emrah Altınok "To have or not to have, that is the question: The Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question in Turkey, The Case of
Introduction
Aim of the Research
This paper, which I included the findings of my 3 year long PhD thesis2 completed in January 2012,
and enriched with up-to-date data, is boldly aimed to clarify the unseen dimensions of housing
problem, as promised in the title, motivated by two different drivers. First one is my confidence
that an empirical-objective approach to urbanization and housing issue guided by a well
engineered research question is possible and rational results can be obtained this way. The second
one is my belief that critical urban theory will enable me to explore underlying mechanisms rather
than what is seen on the surface. I examined the post 2000 Istanbul with such a motivation. I took
on a mission to explain what causes the infestation of giant blocks of concrete all over Istanbul in
the light of urban political economy; or in other words, I wanted to discover the hallmark of the
events.
‘What is so special about housing production in Turkey and in Istanbul particularly in the post 2000
period?' There is a rather simple answer to this question: Rapid growth in the real estate market
and the Housing Development Administration of Turkey (Toplu Konut İdaresi - TOKİ).
Although founded in 1984, TOKİ enjoyed vast expansion of its powers in this period (2003 - 2010),
the organization was transformed into a government agency with dozens of legislations enacted,
steering the housing production and overall urbanization practice through its planning privileges,
TOKİ carved its mark on the 2000s. TOKİ is, almost without exception, the implementing
instrument for the ‘mega-projects’ (or 'crazy projects' as the AKP prefers to call them) proposed
for Istanbul by the governing political power, Justice and Development Party (AKP). TOKİ's
preferential engagement in prestige projects which are sort of forcibly integrated into the city in a
fervent global city discourse and public housing projects developed in this way, perpetuating the
uncontrolled growth of the city even defying the ecological threshold on the north of the city,
deepening the dire conditions of poor through transformation projects, renders the main function
of the Administration in the housing industry questionable.
Focus
Adopting a selective attitude to examine the important and seemingly complex dimensions of the
issue is crucial for a clear identification of the focus and extent of the research. Referring 'over
urbanization' as the main problem in terms of such a research would not be surprising. However,
in order to be able to build specific hypotheses on housing, based on such a main problem, the
parties (or players) involved in the process should be identified.
We already noted the rapid growth in the housing market and changing role of TOKİ as the
conditions that make the post 2000 period unique. Therefore, 'housing market' and 'state' (TOKİ as
an agency directly under the organization of the Prime Ministry) are two key aspects of the
subject. Considering the rapidly increasing investments and the role of TOKİ, the question comes
to mind, is it the state that sets the course, or is it the capital? On the other side, there is the
'society' which is usually described as the 'object', but not a ‘player’ in the process. This essentially
2 For the original thesis paper in Turkish language, refer to; The Political Economy of Reorganization of Urban Space and
Interventions on Urban Land Tenure, the Case of Istanbul-TOKİ in Post-2000 Era. PhD Thesis. Department of City and Regional
Planning, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul.
2
falls into the third category of unseen parties in the process. Literature on the subject, highlights
one of these three, usually for the first two, as having a dominant role. 3
So, how to examine the issue in the TOKİ example? What should be the source of our theoretical
framework? Here again, we see three main theoretical paths: capital accumulation (economy),
government policy (political science), social & spatial dynamics (sociology, anthropology,
geography).
Growth in the housing market and the fact that the market is driven by TOKİ, inevitably pushes the
research to the 'economy' aspect. In such a setting, it is strongly probable to examine TOKİ
regulations, as government’s ice breaking interventions cutting through the bottlenecks in capital
accumulation processes. However, the risk here is the explanation will exclusively be built around
arguments derived from capital accumulation relations, crisis or speculative 'bubble' theories.
Another approach is to examine housing production as a 'political tool'. Authors in this lane of the
discussion will try to investigate how and why TOKİ emerged as a state apparatus responsible for
housing production, and the political functions of the state apparatus against the backdrop of the
changing role of the state and public administration. Here, too, we can be swayed to the idea that
all reflexes in the housing market pioneered by TOKİ are mere outcomes of populist politics
developed by the government to remain in power; in other words, there is the risk of depicting the
process completely independent from the capital accumulation or crisis cycles.
In the third approach, where the issue is to be examined on 'socio-spatial dynamics' axis, it can be
said that some authors will tend to discuss the housing problem over urban geography and living
conditions. These authors will focus on the unwelcome consequences of TOKİ driven housing
market on different social groups and the urban geography. Some other authors in the same
group on the other hand will prefer not to regard the society as an ‘affected object’ in the urban
processes steered by economic and political dynamics and claim that social trends and
expectations are actually the factors that shape the market and the housing production. Here, it
can be deduced that the first group of authors are more interested in the impact of the problem
on the society and the city, rather than the source of it, while the second group conclude that
trends and expectations of the communities preset the urban processes (or in other words, the
society is actually blamed of urban problems).
An overview of the current theoretical trends in the field of urban studies in general, rather than a
specific focus on the TOKİ example in the post 2000 period, reveals that the housing problem is
indeed often addressed exclusively through a single one of these basic approaches. So, is it
possible not to regard these three aspects as categories separated from each other by distinct
boundaries?
Henri Lefebvre, who started the groundbreaking discussions in critical urban theory in the 1970s,
regarded urban space as a setting where all these structures and processes are closely
intertwined. In his book "The Production of Space" (1991[1974]) the author cautions not to reduce
the space and the production of the space into the limits of any of these three settings or to a
infrastructure-superstructure debate. According to Lefebvre, these existing components, aspects
3For a study addressing the question whether or not it is possible to talk about a key logic or player that drives the urban processes
and how approaches studying these differ from each other, refer to Şengül, 2009 (original text in Turkish). According to the author,
three basic logics are key in urban paradox and change; 'social classes', 'capital accumulation process' and 'state'.
3
and actors displayed intertwined mobility and it was not possible to identify a single logic that acts
the one and only determinant in urban change.4
This is also the case in terms of sources of theory on the matter. In his work "Urban Revolution"
(2003[1970]) Lefebvre argues that 'fragmentary sciences' fail to investigate the urban
phenomenon comprehensively and defines urban studies as a field struggling with integrity
problems and collecting the residue left unexplained by these disciplines (p.47- 76). Moreover, it is
not possible to explore the subjects in its entirety through the fragmented explanations the
disciplines bring forward, because “fragments do not constitute knowledge" (2003: 49). According
to him, what needs to be done is to walk out of the 'blind field' that keeps us from seeing the city
reality as is, define the 'virtual object' - the urban society and observe the reality through a
'possible-impossible' that transcends it. The reality of the city can be understood through that
perspective, which then should be followed by abandoning phenomenology for analysis and logic
for dialectics in order to reach the 'differential' (2003: 47).
Today, in the field of urban studies, we still cannot be deemed to have surpassed beyond
Lefebvre’s (albeit a bit pessimistic) fragmentary sciences paradox (or integrity issue). However,
thanks to Lefebvre’s revolutionary perspective (with his standpoint of viewing today though the
virtual that enables him to foresee the urban revolution) we can say that critical urban theory has
gone a long way to shed light on the blind field. What makes it possible is 'dialectical method'
rather than the ‘impossibly comprehensive approaches' or 'reductionist models'. Dialectical
method enables us to analyze the intertwined complex components (in our example, the logic of
capital, the logic of state and social processes), see beyond the superficial and reach the
underlying mechanisms to reveal the unseen.
Hypotheses & Methodology

The theoretical sources that this study pillars on are identified to address the four basic
explanation needs mandated by the research questions as listed below.
How can TOKİ be positioned as a state apparatus in the

BURNHAM, P.
1 institutionalization of neoliberalism and transformation of the
Depoliticization of Economic Management
state?
AGLIETTA, M. & REGULATION SCHOOL

How can the state - capital (TOKİ - housing market) relationship be Theory of Capitalist Regulation
2
explained? HARVEY, D.
Structured Coherence
How can the housing market growth in the period after 2003 be HARVEY, D.
3
explained? Theory of Spatio-Temporal Fixes
How should the interventions on urban land tenure by TOKİ HARVEY, D.

4
legislations (state-led dispossession) be explained? Accumulation by Dispossession Thesis
4 There are considerable works evaluating the urban processes in conjunction with economic, social and political parameters and
regarding the impact of these factors equal. For some of them, refer to; Leitner, 1989; Gooby, 1997; Kodras, 2001; Pillay, 2003; Lin,
2008; Redwood, 2010.
4
Accordingly, based on the perspectives imposed by the theoretical background, the research
process was designed over the following assumptions:
[1] With its redefined functions and extended regulatory powers in the post 2000 period,
TOKİ, emerges as a regulatory state apparatus (exempted from audit) facilitating real
estate investments regarded by the capital in search of 'spatio-temporal fixes' as
opportunity to overcome the over-accumulation crisis.
[2] Accordingly, it should be expected that ‘Accumulation by Dispossession' thesis which is
complementary to Harvey's spatio-temporal fixes theory should also be applicable for
TOKİ investments in Istanbul, often times the implemented projects are in essence
marketization of public assets; and as a result, majority such projects are implemented on
public lands.5
[3] By essentially interfering with the urban ownership structure, TOKİ run projects create
inequality in redistribution of wealth.
Theoretical Framework: An Urban Political Economy Approach

Marxist Political Economy and Regulation School for Explaining Crisis
and State-Capital Relationship
Marx puts forward satisfactory explanations for both the reasons of the emergence of capital
accumulation crises and the various interventions put in action in overcoming such crises.
According to Marx (1982 [1890]), state plays a very important role in the relations of production
(infrastructure) and building and sustaining the cultural and institutional structures necessary for
the continuation of the order (superstructure); as the capitalist state is an extension of the ruling
class (the bourgeoisie) which controls the surplus labor.6 In the event of arrangements failing to
generate satisfactory results within the national borders, the state engages in the international
imperialist attacks creating new markets and cheap labor opportunities for capital.
It can be said that, to date all perspectives categorized under the literature of Marxist political
economy have mainly adopted 'the theory of tendency of the rate of profit to fall'. However, the
main differentiation manifests itself in the assertion that the crises occurred after Marx, have their
unique dimensions.
Different fractions suggest different explanations in that matter. For example, Regulation School is
one of the schools of thought that build such explanations. It is one of the few Marxist schools
studying various historical stages of capitalist development (Brenner and Glick, 1991: 46).
However, the main difference of the school separating it from others7 is that their explanations
5 Such investments may also involve the ownership of private lands. Similarly, at the periphery, slum neighborhoods are utilized as
substrates for these investments. In that case, TOKİ has to interfere with the land tenure structures in these locations to ensure the
transfer of ownership of large investors.
6Hay (2006) underlines that the state has three main functions from the perspective of Marxist theory: The repressive arm of the
bourgeoisie, an instrument of the ruling class and a factor of cohesion within the social formation.
7 Growth machine -or growth coalitions - theory is one of structuralist urban politics theories which focuses on the relationship
between politics and economics. It discusses the unchanging partnership of political agenda and private investor decisions and the
dominance of such partnerships. However, the model is criticized by some authors as it is mostly based on local governments
experience in the US, failure of its arguments in explaining the variation of government policies and its tendency to overlook other
social forces engaged in the process. For the theory and the criticism of its, see, Mollenkopf, 1994: 106; Harding, 1994: 679; Ley,
2009: 42-43.
5
involve both state and the capital dimensions in combination, and further, defining the mismatch
between these two as the root causes of crises.
The School earns a unique position in the literature by focusing on the over accumulation problem
of the system and ability to reveal the extent of inequitable development through their analyses.
After the downfall of Keynesianism in the 1970s, publication of "A Theory of Capitalist Regulation"
by Michael Aglietta in 1979 followed by many other French economists contributing to the
literature with their works built around similar arguments is seen as the emergence of the French
Regulation School (Clarke, 1988: 60).
According to the School, history of capitalism is based on the changes of 'regimes of accumulation'
and 'modes of regulation'. The resulting crises are explained by the mismatches between these
regimes and modes of regulation. For the case of TOKİ – Turkey, the mode of regulation is of
particular significance.
The set of organizational forms, relationships and rules mandating the acts of economic units in
order to ensure the necessary concordance between the current regime of accumulation and
social relations is called mode of regulation. Mode of regulation harmonizes the often
contradicting acts of economic units, reregulates and controls the existing accumulation relations
and reproduces the fundamental social relationships. Accordingly, when the development of a
new regime of accumulation is hindered by the obsolete mode of regulation or when the current
accumulation regime reaches to the limits of its potential, structural crises emerge (Taymaz, 1993:
18-19).
Having his unique place among the Regulation School theorists, Bob Jessop criticizes some
commonly held and deep-seated explanations of the school. For example, he incorporates David
Harvey’s spatio-temporal fixes and structured coherence concepts, which are much more complex
and sophisticated, to his explanations while the school tries to fit them in 'mismatches between
regime of accumulation and mode of regulation' explanations.8 Internationalization as one of the
main determinants and root causes of crises can be seen as the main reason why Jessop's
embraces these concepts. Because internationalization led way to the increased demands to be
met overseas rather than within a nation. In that sense, Keynesian domestic focused welfare state
mode of regulation created a territorial divergence9 which in turn deepened the crisis.
The Political Economy of Reorganization of Urban Space

The explanations of Regulation School and other theoretical sources the School rely on (e.g.
'Kondratief waves' and Mandel's theory of Long Waves of Capitalist Development) shows us that
capitalism is prone to go under periodic crises. More recent studies also mention about the
connection between over accumulation and the crises. Harvey's work (2003) is most prominent of
these studies. Although Marx has also referred to underconsumption he gave attached importance
to over accumulation, Harvey followed the footsteps of Marx who first discovered it, as well as
Brenner (2002) who showed that the crises of the last century were over accumulation crises.
8 In his recent studies, Jessop indeed gives these concepts a central role in the explanations. He criticizes Harvey's views through
several standpoints and attempts to add new functions to them. (For further examination, see, Jessop, 2002; 2003; 2004a; 2004b).
9 “Territorial Divergence” definition belongs to Robin Murray (1975). Murray points to the multinational companies increase their
investments in different locations / territories in parallel with the internationalization of capital and states that this is causing a
mismatch as the spatial organization jurisdiction of the state is limited with boundaries of the nation.
6
According to Harvey, over accumulation has two main components. The first is the capital surplus,
which can be in the form of goods, money or idle productive capacities. The second component is
surplus of labor power.
The first major crisis caused by capitalist over accumulation was the economic collapse of 1846 -
1850 which gave rise to the bourgeois revolutionary movement all over Europe. Long-term
infrastructure investments and the geographic expansion especially focusing on the Atlantic trade
can be seen as the solutions employed to overcome this first capitalist crisis (Harvey, 2003: 42-43).
Accordingly, in the process of capitalist development, the geographic mobility of capital and re-
organization of the urban space can said to take place in the wake of each of the cyclical crises.
However, this process should be examined as part of an organization based on the revision and
harmonization of the system rather than a mere spatial intervention.
Seven basic mechanisms, interconnection of which is almost impossible to solve today, are
engaged in the construction of this harmony. These are, namely, the political structure
(government), the military system, the law enforcement system, legal system, monetary system,
property system, transportation-communication system and system of values.10 Consequently,
although the economic exchanges employed in building the structured coherence appear to be the
main driver, reconstruction of system of values is also a part of this process (Harvey, 2003: 102-
103).
Still, examining the structured coherence to be mostly the establishment of neoliberal financial
relationships would not be too inaccurate. Policies imposed through international financial
instruments, such as the IMF and the World Bank, functions as the tools to ensure neoliberalism is
adopted as common model in peripheral countries as well. On the other hand, it should be noted
that such organizational interventions provide ease of movement also for the domestic capital
making investments within national borders, just as internationalized capital.
Circuits of Capital and the Theory of Spatio-Temporal Fixes

According to Lefebvre, real estate functions as a second sector, a circuit that runs parallel to that
of industrial production, which serves the nondurable assets market, or at least those that are less
durable than buildings. This second sector serves as a buffer. It is where capital flows in the event
of a depression (Lefebvre, 2003 [1970]: 159).
Following mostly Lefebvre in his theses, Harvey in his 1981 paper “The Spatial Fix—Hegel, Von
Thunen and Marx” published in Antipode puts forward a similar view. Harvey then expands these
views with the "3 basic cycles of capital" he defines in his work "Urbanization of Capital" (1985)
and incorporates that approach with minor changes, in many studies thereafter. Spatio-Temporal
Fixes Theory takes its latest form in his work “The New Imperialism” published in 2003.11
According to Harvey (2003: 109-115), capitalism has been experiencing over accumulation
problems especially in the post 1970 period. Geographical expansion / temporal or spatial
displacement are the solutions employed in the crises which are particularly driven by such
problems. Accordingly, projects that reorganize the urban space (real estate and infrastructure
10This proposition resembles the "mismatches between regime of accumulation and mode of regulation" based crisis definition put
forward by the Regulation School. For structural coherence mechanisms, see, Harvey, 2003: 89, 102, 200.
11This theory had a considerable impact on the literature. For noteworthy studies, see. Herod, 1997; Arrighi, 2004; Jessop, 2003;
2004a; 2004b; Wyly, 2004; Cerny, 2006; Glasman, 2007; Merk, 2009.
7
investments) become particularly prevalent at times of crisis. In this way, capital surplus is
territorialized, i.e. fixed on land.
This process has two main components. The first is the 'spatial fixes' creating opportunities for
new markets, new production capacities, and new resource, social, and labor possibilities
elsewhere. The second type, the 'temporal fixes', ensure temporal displacement of over
accumulation through investment in long-term capital projects or social expenditures (such as
education and research) (Harvey, 2003: 109).
Having these features, spatio-temporal fixes become parts of a periodical movement, that can be
defined by three main cycles:12
 Primary circuit: Realm of immediate production and consumption
 Secondary circuit (or spatial fixes): built environment of production (factories, plants etc.),
built environment of consumption (housing etc.) and technical infrastructure investments
aimed to increase the efficiency of these two components (motorways, railways, airports,
ports, water, sewer, electricity etc.); or in summary the production of urban space
 Tertiary circuit (or temporal fixes): Investments related to technology, science,
management and social expenditures (education, health, welfare, ideology, police,
military, etc.)
According to Harvey, when the basic economic mechanism driving the production and
consumption dynamics (the primary circuit) comes to a halt, the capital moves into the field of
production of urban space (spatial fixes). Capital also attempts to postpone the over accumulation
crisis by investing in social and cultural fields (temporal fixes). Usually, these two processes run
together (spatio-temporal fixes) providing long-term benefits to the capital. In any case, the
investment is gaining a spatial-geographical nature.
It should be particularly noted that such activity of capital is taking place across uneven
geographical conditions on a global scale. Accordingly, the capital constantly attempts to exploit
such spatial asymmetries to its own use, taking advantage of the unique benefits offered by
different geographies. In every opportunity, capital relocates to geographies presenting
advantages that can be converted into profitable investments. If the options for such geographies
are limited or relocation to distant spots is not profitable, the capital creates these advantages on
its own by reorganizing the space. In such cases, the capital re-organizes the space with large scale
infrastructure projects that will bring high profits in the long run, even to the extent such action
may require defiance of unique traits of such geographical space, if necessary. Harvey (2003:89)
identifies prior accomplishment of structural coherence in the investment geography as the one
and only preliminary condition that ensures this movement, the molecular movements of capital
accumulation in space and time as he calls it, is carried out without interruption or obstruction.
The conclusion to be drawn here is; space is key to overcoming all over-accumulation crisis,
however, merely on its own value of use, the space has no particular significance for the capital.
The space only gains real value if reorganized in line with the needs of capital. At this point, state
mechanisms and all other mechanisms involved in such reorganization of the space, come into
play. Use value is transformed into exchange value, absolute ground rent is transformed into
differential ground rent. Raw land becomes improved land and developed plot. All these
12 ibid, p109.
8
mechanisms take place in the broad sense of the pool of regulation. We call this process
'reorganization of space'. In the following chapters, we will discuss the specific aspects of this
process, In the specific example of TOKİ-Turkey-Istanbul.
Accumulation by Dispossession
In the capitalist system, space is handled as any of the limited resources as its own advantages and
resources are gradually depleted like any other. This resources is consumed continuously in
process as a result of the acts of capital in search of spatial fixes.13 Capitalist market can not be
contained and it is in need of constant expansion.14
The actions of capital facing a crisis of over accumulation is not limited searching different areas of
investment. According to Harvey (2003: 143), capitalist system is essentially in need of 'a fund of
assets outside of itself'. At this point, public assets become the resort and commodification of
these assets take place. So, new assets (assets outside of the capital itself) which were not
available for the capital are introduced in the system.
Dispossession strategy developed by the bourgeoisie, the primitive accumulation as defined by
Marx (indeed Marx calls it theft) is the basis of Harvey’s accumulation by dispossession definition.
Privatization of profitable public institutions, confiscation public land to be used for private
investments are seen as the simplest forms of dispossession. It can also be alternatively defined as
'enclosing the commons’15 or ‘redistribution of assets that increasingly favored the upper classes’.16
Forced migration of common property rights (such as pension rights, welfare rights, health
insurance rights) acquired through years relentless class struggles into the private sphere is the
bare seizure policy of neoliberal system.
Since the essence of the accumulation by dispossession is transforming the common, collective
and state ownership rights to exclusively private property rights, it should be noted that the
natural resources also get their fair share of that plunder.17. Holding the monopoly of legitimate
use of violence and decision making, the state plays a supporting role in this process (Harvey,
2003: 145).
At this point, some observations should be made on neoliberalism and the transformation of the
state, before taking a look at all these processes in the case of Turkey.
13The concept of creative destruction that Schumpeter's derived out of the Marxist theory can be reconsidered here. Although
Harvey used the concept in structured coherence debate, the concept suggests the capital has the ability to reorganize the same
space many times. The codes of a particular space becoming obsolete can always be rewritten. When viewed this way, it is not
possible to consider space as a limited resource. Indeed, the capital appears to be capable of creating new codes to replace
obsolete ones in a particular space and transform any space into a profitable investment anytime it desires. But in fact this is not
very likely. Codes of profitability phase out leaving behind destruction and devaluation after the capital flight and a revival is
extremely costly. On the other hand, there are still geographies on the sphere that are not yet discovered by the capital; in fact it
can be said that such locations are relatively abundant.
14 Because the spatio-temporal fixes suffer devaluation through 'over investment' or 'capacity surplus' which in turn give rise to new
crisis.
15 ibid, p148.
16 ibid, p159.
17 Roy (2001) defines privatization as transfer of all productive public assets (land, forests, water, air, etc.) to the private sector.
9
Institutionalization of Neoliberalism and Transformation of the State

in the Post-2000 period
According to Burnham (2000), most theories dealing with globalization fail to conceptualize the
state-market relationship satisfactorily, as they tend to regard these state and market as isolated
and opposing components of social reality. As a result, arguments emerge; "state lost its power to
the market" or "the state vanished". In fact, the state is not disappearing, it is transforming (Cox,
1987). Historically, the state functions as a shield protecting national economies from destructive
foreign powers and to ensure local prosperity and employment. After 1973, this mission
transformed into ensuring the adaption of local economies to meet the needs of global economy.
During and after the 1980s this change in the role of the state led to the commercialization of
numerous basic public services such as social security, healthcare, education; elimination of the
historical achievements of the working class such as labor laws, unions, social services/benefits.18
As the governmental instruments such as Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Social Security, Ministry of
Industry and Planning which were organizations in connection with the social structure of the past
weakened; financial instruments like Treasury, Ministry of Finance, Central Bank and the Prime
Ministry gained importance.19
Examining the case in the light of Burnham’s arguments, in order to ensure financial functioning of
the neoliberal system, the trust of the capital must be earned at a national scale. Such
environment of trust can only be achieved through the "Depoliticization of Economic
Management". For that purpose, central banks must be made autonomous, revenue
administration must be rendered semi-autonomous and a number of "new independent regulatory
agencies" must be created (Burnham, 2000). According to Güzelsarı (2007), establishment of new
independent regulatory devices, in fact means creation of financial apparatus beyond the control
of the governing authority.20
The state shrinking and stepping out of the economic activities in the early stages of neoliberalism
during the 1980-2000 period, has been transformed since 2000s into a engaging and active
market-friendly entity, implementing regulatory reforms to ensure financial discipline in the
market and even taking place in the market as a player.
In the case of TOKİ, it is possible to regard the Administration as a depoliticized independent
regulatory apparatus, used to walk around the auditory processes and to regulate the economy
leveraging on the real estate market. On the other hand, we know that TOKİ is also used a tool for
populism, particularly employed in the pre-election atmosphere, which is another indicator that
enables us to regard it as seemingly depoliticized, yet highly powerful agency working towards
strictly political goals.
18It should be noted that it is possible to regard this process to be associated with both structured coherence and accumulation by
dispossession.
19For an original doctoral research on this subject bringing together the views of Leo Panitch (1994; 2004) and Robert Cox (1987)
see, Güzelsarı, 2007 (Original in Turkish).
20This organizational approach particularly finding a place for itself under the "new constitutionalism", unburdened the economic
agencies of accountability.
10
Phases of housing development in Turkey-Istanbul

Until the 1980s cities in Turkey are urban spaces where white-collar employees constituting the
majority of middle-class tend to solve the housing problems on their own through independent
constractors (yap-sat21) and housing coops while blue-collar population mostly preferring squatter
housing (gecekondu22) in the peripheral slums. Although the progressive vision of 1960
Constitution led the way to the earliest state subsidized housing initiatives as a solution the
housing problem in the city, along with the institutionalization of the urban planning, these efforts
are far from being a solution to the housing problem. During this period, Istanbul goes under an
identity transformation with the construction the first such bridge on Bosporus and E5 highway 23.
Industrial properties and slum areas providing the required labor started to develop along the E5.
The city with the prevalent development trends along the Bosporus coastline until that time, starts
to grow around a major transport corridor and to expand towards the north; compared with the
growth to be observed in the future periods, this expansion is fairly 'benign' (see. Figure 1 and
Table 1).
The period between 1980-2000 is a phase where 'innocent' one or two story slums are legitimized
through 'amnesties' and turn into apartment complexes thanks to the 'slum improvement plans'
(or ıslah imar planları) while the middle class continued their own urbanization through housing
coops. From its establishment in 1984 to the 2000s, TOKİ operated as an agency responsible of
financing of these housing coops.24 1980s is seen a period in which urban land is transformed into
a means of capital accumulation - again enabled by the policies of a right wing party - for the first
time in Turkey.25 Istanbul has continued to grow rapidly in intermittent sprawls (see. Figure 2). The
urbanization model of the period is an extremely 'aggressive' suburbanization. Driven by the
district municipalities (belde belediyeleri) with numbers multiplied up to 5-6 times compared to
previous periods and furnished with the powers to prepare development plans, illegal urban
development gained momentum and while its character was also transformed in the process.26
Likewise, the characteristics of housing projects constructed in this period significantly differ from
the past, the movement of upper-middle and upper income groups out of the city and settling in
gated communities has become the hallmark of the period.
21 'Yap-sat' (Turkish for 'build and sell'): The scarcity of urban land in the parts of the city with completed zoning plans and the
pressure of need for more housing in the face of a growing population coupled with skyrocketing land values created another form
of improvised housing production (Enlil, 2011).
22 ‘Gecekondu’ (Turkish for 'built overnight'): In Turkey example, poor quality unlicensed housing produced by low income workers
settling in the big cities as a result of intensive migration waves, usually on state owned lands. In this period, the state could not
allocate funds to any other area but industrialization, abandoning the land to the slums. This was a preference reducing the cost of
urbanization as well as reducing pays of the workers (value of socially-necessary labor) as they were not under rent or mortgage
liabilities. The domestic consumption required to ensure economic stability in the import substitution period, was made possible
through the participation of the population relocating in the cities in the consumption.
23 For a comprehensive work on historical change of Istanbul's urban form, see, Enlil, 2011.
24According to Geray (2010), the coops which essentially can be considered as non-governmental organizations that rely on TOKİ
for their development demonstrate a development that is actually a successful model that enables lower-middle and middle class
invest their small savings. However, in the post-2003 period, TOKİ completely lost that its lender character funding coops via loans.
25Production of space was not yet a profitable business for the capital owners who were engaged in the commodity production
business in the past. The slum dwellers was trying to hold on to the city. During this period, the first wave of immigrants took
advantage of being the pioneers, traded up to apartment buildings erected in the land occupied by their makeshift houses. Later
on, capital owners too got on board with this movement of construction of apartment buildings.
26'Hisseli Tapu' - shared deed ownership (or unauthorized subdivisions of property) is the product of this development phase,
which can be summarized as agricultural lands divided into lots and sold by land mafia followed by the construction of housing on
such lots.
11
Figure 1. Sprawl of industrial and residential areas in Istanbul during 1950–1980
Source: Enlil, 2011 cited from Kaptan, 1991
Figure 2. Urban sprawl in Istanbul from 1987 to 1999
Source: Altınok & Cengiz, 2008 cited from Kalkan, S., Çetiz, S., Akay, Z., 2004
12
Table 1. Phases of housing in Turkey and in Istanbul (1950-2015)
1950-1980 URBAN GROWTH

[Densification in the old city center] + [Fine grain sized - low density expansion patterns]
'Planned unplannedness'
 Major transport investments [E5 highway - First bridge crossing on Bosporus]
 Domestic market oriented industrialization movement [linear industrial development alongside the E5 highway]
 First phase of illegal urban development: 'Innocent Squatters'
 Populist policies and social legitimization of squatter development [Slums alongside E5 and Golden Horn: Zeytinburnu,
Üsküdar, Gültepe, Çeliktepe, Kuştepe, Çağlayan, Paşabahçe, Fikirtepe, Güngören etc.]
Condominium Ownership Act and Urbanization Strategy of the Middle Class

 Coalition of non-homeowners: 'Housing Coops'
 Land owner - Constructor coalition: 'Yap-sat' (Build & Sell) development model
'Benign (sub)urbanization' [First Generation]

 First public housing initiatives [Levent, Koşuyolu, Ataköy etc.]
 Blue collar housing initiatives - 'affordable homes' [Zeytinburnu, Koşuyolu etc.]
 1960 Constitution and social housing initiatives in the planned development era [Ministry of Development and Housing,
social housing projects in slum prevention zones: Tozkoparan, Ataşehir İmar İskân Housing Project etc.]
1980-2000 URBAN SPRAWL

[Densification in the centralizing periphery] + [Medium grain sized - medium density expansion patterns]
[Scattered development / Short intermittent leapfrogging] + [Early socio-spatial segregation]
‘Condo-slums’
 Political clientelism and political legitimization of squatter development [Amnesties and slum improvement plans]
 From use value to exchange value - 'Innocent Squatters' turn into apartment buildings [Çeliktepe, Gültepe, Ümraniye etc.]
'Untamed (sub)urbanization' [Second Generation]
 Major transport investments [TEM highway – Second bridge crossing over Bosporus, T1 streetcar line, M2 subway line]
 Decentralization of industry [İkitelli, Tuzla and Dudullu Organized Industrial Zones]
 District municipalities - 'Belde Belediyeleri'
 Slum improvement plans - 'Islah İmar Planları'
 Second phase of illegal development - 'Hisseli Tapu' (shared deed ownership) [Pendik, Şeyhli etc.]
 Gated community model in public housing [Bahçeşehir and Halkalı Atakent examples]
Upper class leaving the center

 First generation gated communities [Göktürk, Kemer Country, Acarkent examples]
2000-2015 (GOVERNMENT DRIVEN) OVER-URBANIZATION

[Densification in both the center and periphery ] + [Coarse grain sized - high density expansion patterns]
[Leapfrog development through massive footprints]  [Social segregation] + [Spatial fragmentation]
'Unplanned Planning'
 1999 Earthquake Effect [Avcılar-Büyükçekmece examples]
 2000-2001 Economic Crisis
 Major transport investments [Marmaray, F1 funicular line, M2, M3, M4 subway lines, T4 streetcar line, Northern Marmara Motorway,
3rd Bridge Crossing, 3rd Airport, Kanalistanbul, Avrasya Tunnel etc.]
 'Housing campaign' and TOKİ
'Monstrous (sub)urbanization' [Third Generation]
 'City Inside The City': TOKİ projects [Kayaşehir, Ataşehir]
 Real Estate Investment Trusts (GYOs-REITs) [Simpaş GYO, Emlak GYO, Torunlar GYO etc.]
 Legitimization of Development on Irreclaimable Forest Areas (2B areas) [Çavuşbaşı example]
 Illegal suburban residences [Sarıyer example]
Middle and Upper Class Creating Its Own Center/Claiming Both the Center and the Periphery
 Gated Communities [Bosporus City example]
 Mixed use development [Residence-Mall-Hotel; 'Mall of Istanbul' example]
 Gentrification [Tarlabaşı, Sulukule etc.]
 Disaster Law and Urban Transformation Movement [Fikirtepe example]
 'Yenişehir' project
13
2000-2001 Crisis and Background of the Reconstruction

The transformation starting to emerge in the 1980-2000 period geared up after 2000 with
increased impact. Especially in Istanbul, urbanization gained momentum and never before seen
intensity in the wake of 1999 Marmara Earthquake and the devastating effects of the economic
crisis of 2000-2001. Given the urbanization expanding into the invaluable ecological zones in the
north, continuously spreading over the existing stain, as well as densification in the center, it can
rather be called 'monstrous (sub)urbanization' instead of over-urbanization. Propelled by dozens
of new transportation projects,27 ecological thresholds, forests and agricultural lands, watersheds,
and all poor neighborhoods around the city turned into investment sites for large scale residential
projects; and the trend still continues.
2000-2001 crisis was the harbinger of a major transformation for Turkey, leading to not only
economic, but also political, legal, social and even cultural transformation. Crisis was a failure story
for the government of the time and served as an 'opportunity' to reset and re-establish the system
by the conservative Islamist AKP government taking power in November 2002 elections28.
Crisis was so effective that the strong and well established political parties of the era (ANAP, DYP
and DSP) were completely wiped out. In fact, "weak coalition governments" in the 1991-2002
period were regarded as obstacles to Turkey’s economic development by the World Bank
(Bademci, 2007).
The AKP government has remained in power since November 2002 (about 13 years), among all the
other governing parties to take the power since 1980, AKP managed to become the first political
power to systematically implement all structural adjustment processes Harvey mentioned
(political, economic, legal, social and military systems), from head to toe. Housing policy was
developed concurrently with this structural transformation. Immediately after the election, the
government launched and 'Emergency Action Plan'. The plan featured a specific section under the
title 'Housing Campaign'. In this context, housing production and planned urbanization were set as
the main goals. Housing and urban renewal were also given impetus in January 2003. During the
next four years, TOKİ's organizational structure was redesigned and its powers was expanded with
new the regulatory actions. The Administration was taken under the organization of the Prime
Ministry and was rendered an independent regulatory body generating its own resources. In time,
Emlak Bank, the organization once operated in the loans for mass housing business and the
General Directorate of Land Development (Arsa Ofisi) was also incorporated into TOKİ’s
organization even expanding the land portfolio of the Administration.
By end of the year 2011 TOKİ - thanks to its new powers - was able to reach and even surpass the
"500 thousand new housing units"29 goal specifically set by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
This figure, as expressed on TOKİ's website, stands for "20 cities with a population of over a 100
thousand."
27 See, Table 1.
28 Conservatism is said to come to a bottleneck in the 1970s and could only rise up to its former glory with the neoliberalist
movement. This paradigm (and also its so-called new form, neo-conservatism) becoming increasingly widespread in most of the
state adopting the neoliberalist policies, gave the opportunity to governments to form alliances with both conservative groups and
the liberal democrats.
29These goal was originally set as 250 thousand (2003), then it was upgraded to 500 thousand, and it is constantly being increased,
as 2011 it has reached 1 million housing units.
14
Re-establishment of TOKİ and Real Estate Market as a Leverage

to Regulate the Economy
We have already noted that TOKİ’s powers were greatly expanded after 2003 and the
Administration ceased to be functioning as a loan provider.30 Taking advantage of these powers
TOKİ has led over-accumulated capital to invest in the real estate market nationwide after the
2000-2001 crisis.
Predictably, post 2003 era appears as a special period in terms of housing production. An
evaluation of Figure 3 reveals that the pre-crisis and post-conditions in housing production verify
Harvey's thesis.
Figure 3. Housing Unit Production Per Thousand Population in Turkey
Source: TÜİK (TSI), Statistical Indicators 1923-2009, Publication No. 3493, Ankara.
The loan dependent housing market also displayed an expansion in the process (44 times
increased loans compared to 1997-2003 period - See Figure 4).31 Unlike the previous period, these
loans were extended by financial institutions, not by TOKİ. Consequently, banks have also
generated significant interest income from these loans.
30Some of the powers and privileges bestowed upon the Administration by the laws enacted (5398, Amended Laws 5403, 5609,
5162, 5335, 5366, 4856, 6306) between 2003-2010 include: transfer of state owned lands to the Administration with sole approval
of Prime Minister, establishing companies, implementing profit oriented projects in order to raise income for the Administration,
drafting and approving urban development plans, expropriation, slum (gecekondu) transformation projects, trading land for
purposes other than housing (industry, education, health, tourism and so on), making deals with other state agencies including
military in order to develop projects on lands owned by such agencies, renovation projects in preservation zones (renewal and
regeneration projects in historical neighborhoods), exemption from audits of Superior Court of Auditors in financial matters,
permanent land tax exemption and so on.
Some of the powers of the Administration has today can be attributed to the Mass Housing Act (Law No. 2985) that directly defines
the responsibilities of Administration. However, some other powers used by the Administration are defined under "bag" amending
several other laws in a single enactment which renders the limits and legitimacy of the practices of Administration questionable
and presents a serious vagueness. For a review arguing that the referred ambiguity is particularly abused in slum transformations,
see, Kuyucu 2014.
31 The chart indicates the total volume of housing loans extended between 1997-2003 is 1.9 billion TL and it rises up to 83.4 billion
in the 2004-2009 period. In other words, the housing loan market took a full 44-fold leap in comparison.
15
Figure 4. Yearly Distribution of Bank Loans for housing in Turkey
25000.0
21,223
20000.0
Bank loans for housing (milion TL)
15,604 15,535 15,360

15000.0
12,966
10000.0
5000.0
2,713
673 805
40 69 47 48 258
0.0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Kalkınma Bakanlığı (Ministry of Development), (2011). Economic and Social Indicators, Section 8.
The housing production target set under the 'housing campaign’ launched by government as soon
as they took the power was based on the grounds of 'housing shortage'. According to the
government, there was a growing demand for housing in the country and the housing market was
far from being capable to meet this demand. On the other hand, especially in academic circles,
there were voices raising, that there wasn’t a housing shortage but in fact there was a 'housing
surplus'. Examining the case in figures, reveals that there were about 2.7 million units housing
surplus in Turkish cities as of 2000 (Altınok, 2012). However, since government based its housing
shortage calculations not on entire housing stock but only buildingS with licenses and residential
permits, it was not hard to create an illusion that there is an actual housing shortage.32
TOKİ still fends for the housing production on housing shortage discourse. These explanations
involve arguments referring to the poor quality or illegality of the existing housing stock and thus
they need to be renewed. However, how much of the housing produced so far were actually used
to meet the housing needs of people living in the so called 'problematic' houses is questionable.33
If the hype is about a housing shortage and the main cause of this shortage is people living in
'problematic' housing, it should reasonably expected that the housing is primarily produced for
that population. Otherwise, the system will constantly keep producing housing 'as an investment
instrument' or 'a luxury object', resulting in people with no housing problems having their second,
third residences while the social strata that is really in need of a quality housing will be deprived of
a solution to their problem.
32 Accordingly, housing shortage is about 2.5 million units when only licensed housing units are taken into account, alternatively the
figure is 6.4 million if residential structures with utilization permits only are taken as basis for calculations. For a more detailed
examination, see, Altınok, 2012:105.
33 Numerical data on the subject for Istanbul example will be given in the next section.
16
To Have or Not To Have, That is the Question

"…In this way the workers must shoulder heavy mortgage debts in order to
obtain even these houses and thus they become completely the slaves of their
employers; they are bound to their houses, they cannot go away, and they are
compelled to put up with whatever working conditions are offered them."
F. Engels, "The Housing Question"
Note by F. Engels to the second German edition, 1887
To the working class - proletariat - who do not own the means of production, the capitalist system
offers the dream of becoming a “homeowner”. There is a political economy notion and a social
background behind this promise. We should take a deeper look at this topic.
For capital, existence of individuals willing to buy houses is a prerequisite for profitability.
Furthermore, since this process heavily relies on 'fictitious capital' both for the investor and for the
consumer, financial intermediaries can also profit in this business along with the investors. Given
'multiplier effect' of the construction industry, it can be said that making individuals become
property owners, indeed creates a massive economic stimulus.
Production of 'affordable housing' has historically been the duty of the state, as these projects are
not profitable for the capital, despite their low costs. In particular, in welfare state, production of
'social housing' by the state is in effect a measure to reduce the costs of manufacturer capital.
Reduction of workers' accommodation and transport costs - due to the fact that social housing
construction sites often fall within the proximity of manufacturing zones - decreases the average
value of socially necessary labor. In this way, capital can enjoy short-term solutions to the problem
of high labor costs.
Development of social or mass housing for both blue-collar and white-collar classes translates into
a spatial organization where mass production meets the mass consumption.34 In addition, other
'collective consumption' areas offered along with the mass housing, play an important role in the
reproduction of labor power and alleviation of social conflicts.35 In a system that encourages
becoming property owner through legitimate paths, individuals are adapted to the system via the
institutions of public consumption while they also become dependent on the system by
borrowing.36 Thus, management and steering of a society composed of individuals adapted to and
34The referred spatial organization includes mass consumption venues (such as shopping malls) and other necessary modernity
functions (transport, education, health, socio-cultural services, recreation, etc.) necessary for the reproduction of labor.
35 Castells calls this entire organized process "collective consumption" (Castells, 1978).
36 "Ownership is in fact a complex bundle of rights, among which security of occupancy may or may not be provided" (Marcuse,
2012). However, people under loan liabilities can not be the owner of the property until the repayment is done completely.
Property is mortgaged, and is actually owned by the lending institution. For example, in the wake of the 1999 Marmara earthquake
the new so-called earthquake-resistant structures marketed in Istanbul, replaced the old structures, rendering the "former property
owners” to “borrowers”. Slightest default in repayment will result the repossession of the mortgaged property. Consequently,
individuals encouraged to become borrowers enticed by the "pay it back as you pay your rent" line, are in fact turned into tenants
paying rent to the banks as the actual owners of their homes. Mortgage is a profitable area for financial institutions for purposes
other than housing. This mechanism enabled the banks to expand their property inventory taking possession of various properties
including urban lands, farmlands, houses and commercial properties in lieu of debts and reselling such properties at highly
profitable rates. It is known that banks established "real estate departments" to manage the sales of repossessed properties. To see
one of these news stories, see "Citizens go bankrupt, banks become real estate moguls." Radikal, 04/12/2011. http://goo.gl/KSJk4Y
[Accessed February 25th, 2015]
17
dependent on the system will be much easier; and political and economic stability will be ensured.
This, in the long term, translates into the alleviation of social conflicts. Indebted individuals are
fixed on the land for the sake of continuity of consumption and stability. Calling this "social
consumption fix" would not be out of the line.
Unseen Dimensions of TOKİ-Led Housing Production in Istanbul

In addition to the data collected on the organizational structure and behavior models of TOKİ two
spatial analyses of different scales was also included in the scope of this research. Istanbul
metropolitan area was the sample of the large-scale analysis. In this scale, the features of projects
implemented by TOKİ are assessed.37 District-scale explores the question of how TOKİ interferes
with ownership structure in general. In this context, one of the sub-development zones
characterized by a particular concentration of TOKİ projects in Istanbul was identified as the study
area of the district-scale analysis. In this field study, data on property ownership and planning
decisions were particularly evaluated.
How TOKİ runs its business?

Before taking an extensive look at TOKİ’s practices in Istanbul, it should be noted that all projects
of the Administration in Turkey is contracted to private companies. In other words, TOKİ does not
perform its projects directly using public resources. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that all of
the projects we call 'TOKİ projects' are actually performed through a number of contractors.
The pattern of the process is usually acquisition and development of lands suited for the project to
be erected, development of the zoning plans and piecewise contracting the various
implementation stages within the zoning area. It should be stated that TOKİ adopts an approach
involving production of large planning zones rather than project implementation on single lot.
Coupled with additional capabilities, TOKİ appears as a planning authority which can act as
landowner, land speculator,38 investor or developer that is even capable of regulate its own real
estate market. In other words, TOKİ is an organization which can basically substitute for all players
of the real estate market (like a chess piece with unlimited moves).39 An organization equipped
with abilities of a private company and governed by corporate management practices as well as an
apparatus directly working towards Prime Minister's political/ideological goals. This unusually
hybrid design makes the Administration a unique actor.40
37 Considering the volume limits of this paper, a large portion of the data had to be excluded. For entire data, see. Altınok, 2012.
38TOKİ is an agency that conducts production of land and keeping such lands under its proprietorship until such time they can be
profitably disposed of. For more details, see Altınok, 2012: 205-211.
39On the other hand, TOKİ is not the solo player in the market. There are seven government funded subsidiaries TOKİ collaborates
with. Public share on the equity of government funded subsidiaries are 49%, therefore these are basically entities equipped with
the rights and powers of private corporations. Emlak Real Estate Investment Trust (EKGYO) and Emlak Marketing Inc. corporate
spin-offs of dissolved Emlak Bank are the two major partners of TOKİ in most of the projects.
40Urban planning (or urbanism) actually redistributes the ownership and rent by reorganizing the space. Through urban planning
new lands are added to the urban real estate market, which creates an absolute rent that was not previously existing. Once the
land is decorated with development rights after the zoning plan a differential rent is also added on top of it. From a political-
economy standpoint this is value created without any labor, or in other words it is value out of thin air. Therefore, how and by
whom (by which ideology) this power of urbanism is exploited is extremely important. Exactly at this point, the hybrid character of
TOKİ alienates the agency to its core purpose. Urban planning, supposedly adopting equitable principles to ensure the welfare of
the society, is expected to relinquish this power back to the society. However, if this power is held by an agency governed in a
18
TOKİ and Government Driven Over-Urbanization in the Post 2000 Period

In Istanbul (see Figure 5, residential areas) one out of every four residential property (24.2%) is
built on natural thresholds (forest, grassland, farmland, watersheds, etc.). Moreover, 64.1% of
these buildings are on urban lands generated through planned development. A similar pattern can
be seen in housing development on areas under geological risk. One out of every five house in
Istanbul (20.4%) is built on geologically risky areas and three quarters of them (76.2%) are licensed
(Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, 2006: 154). This shows that, peripheral sprawls of Istanbul's
growth actually took place legally and planned, i.e. not illegally unlike what may be imagined. The
leading players of this peripheral development were once municipalities, and today it is TOKİ.
Figure 5 also shows the overall land under TOKİ’s control as of 2006. Yellow areas on the map are
not yet acquired, but they are planned to be purchased by TOKİ (in 2006). A close analysis of
Figures #5, #6, #7 and #8 together reveals that TOKİ started stockpiling land on the anticipated
route of the 3rd Bosporus Bridge crossing and its roadway network, even before the existence of
the project. Furthermore, the 'mega-projects' of the post-2012 period shown in Figure 7 (Project
#1, #2, #3, #4 and #5) also coincide with TOKİ’s land assets, and projections as of 2006.
Figure 5. Natural thresholds and existing housing areas in Istanbul – 2006

Source: Altınok, E. (2012:359)
Watersheds
Natural Reserves
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Legally developed
Illegally developed
Current TOKİ Housing Areas
Non-residential
TOKİ LANDS
Ongoing Survey (to be purchased)
Acquired Areas
Ongoing Expropriation
Ongoing Construction
Urban Transformation
corporate manner, urban planning would inevitably turn into a 'profit machine'. Ground rent is distributed unequally between the
players, which are supposedly in competition with each other in fair conditions.
19
Figure 6. Natural thresholds and existing housing areas in Istanbul – 2011
Watersheds
Natural Reserves
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Legally developed
Illegally developed
Current TOKİ Housing Areas
Non-residential
TOKİ LANDS
Ongoing Survey (to be purchased)
Acquired Areas
Ongoing Expropriation
Ongoing Construction
Urban Transformation
Figure 7. 'Yenişehir' Project and 'Mega Projects' in Istanbul 41 - 2015
1
1 The 3rd airport project area
5 2 2 3rd Bosporus Bridge Crossing

3 Northern Marmara Motorway
4 Kanalistanbul
3 5 'Yenişehir ' project area
6
6 Other 'mega-projects'
Source: Istanbul Independent Architects Association, www.megaprojeleristanbul.com
41 'Yenişehir' projects related to the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization see some information in the website.
http://www.csb.gov.tr/gm/mpgm/index.php?Sayfa=haberdetay&Id=12975
20
Figure 8 shows the Başakşehir-Avcılar-Küçükçekmece region where most of the TOKİ plans is
concentrated. Each of the colored regions on the map exactly fits with boundaries of TOKİ
approved development plans. Today, construction has already begun in these areas. The
development zones entirely located on Küçükçekmece Watershed and fertile agricultural lands are
estimated to bring in an additional population of roughly 1.5 million people. Also, re-examination
of Figure 7, indicates that these areas have been incorporated in the Yenişehir Project in 2015.
Here, it can be understood that this development was jointly planned way ahead by TOKİ and the
government. The 'mega-projects' such as the 3rd Bosporus Bridge, its associated roadway network
and the third airport, still under construction despite the public backlash, will cause the
irrevocable destruction of invaluable forest areas and watersheds in the north of İstanbul. This is
exactly the mind-boggling neo-liberal paradigm of urbanization in the post 2000 period.
Figure 8. Estimated additional population to be introduced in the Başakşehir-Avcılar-Küçükçekmece Region by TOKİ

Development Areas - 2011
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
POPULATION:
1.500.000
21
Does TOKİ Produce Social Housing?

TOKİ basically categorizes its housing projects as 'social housing' and 'resource development
housing projects'.42 Projects in the social housing category is further divided into three
subcategories by the Administration: Poor Group, Lower Income Group, narrow and Middle Income
Group.43 In addition, a number of special types of projects are also included in the social housing
classification by TOKİ: "Gecekondu Slum Transformation Projects", "Urban Renewal Projects",
"Disaster Houses", "Immigrant Houses" and "Agriculture-Rural Applications". However, these
project questionably qualify as social housing. For example, during the neighborhood renewal
carried out at Fatih Sulukule, neigborhood was gentrified by driving the poor Romani population
out of the district; furthermore the historical-cultural landscape was destroyed. The luxury
residences built instead clearly do not qualify to be social housing.44 Nevertheless, the
Administration persists to define the urban transformation projects as "social housing".
When urban renewal projects excluded from the classification of social housing projects
implemented by the Administration in Istanbul until January 2012, it can be seen that 70% of the
projects (87,920 units) are resource development housing projects, 22% (28,085 units) are social
housing projects and 8% (9,828 units) are urban transformation projects (Altınok, 2012: 263).
These results show that four out of every five housing unit constructed through TOKİ mechanisms
are targeted for the upper income groups.45
Figure 9. Projects in Istanbul by TOKİ Classification
8%
22%
Sosyal
SocialKonut Projeleri
Housing
Resource
Kaynak Development
Geliştirme Housing (profit orientied)
Konut Projeleri
Not classified:
Sınıflama UrbanProjeleri
Dışı: Dönüşüm Transformation / Neigborhood Renewal
70%
42 TOKİ resource development housing projects (or profit orientied housing projects) are also business schemes based on Revenue
Sharing or Revenue Sharing In lieu of Land. These projects involve the disposal of valuable land under the proprietorship of TOKİ or
its affiliates (usually land acquired free of charge from the state) in favor of investors, based on the revenue sharing scheme for the
total value estimated by the bidder. Usually, at the auction stage, the bidder to offer the highest revenue share is rewarded.
43By this classification that is nothing like the usual classifications made by TSI and other international organizations, TOKİ seems to
be defining low, low-middle and middle income groups. On the other hand, the criteria given on the Administration’s web page and
taken as basis for the categorizations of income groups is not consistent in many ways. For more information see TOKİ, 2010, Konut
Edinme Rehberi.
44 For two research projects conducted on Sulukule, see. İslam, T. & Sakızoğlu, B., 2015 and Uysal, Ü.E., 2012.
45 The distribution of these projects in Istanbul’s districts is plotted in Figure 10. Each district on the map is colored according to a
"location coefficient" for the dominant class of housing projects implemented in the district by TOKİ. Statistically, the color
represents the specialization of the district, or in other words the map shows which kind of projects are clustered in which districts.
Accordingly, it can be seen that projects in the social housing category mostly appear in the peripheral districts, while prestigious
residential projects are concentrated at the shore and districts in proximity of centers.
22
Figure 10. Distribution of TOKİ Housing Projects in Istanbul by TOKİ Classification
1st location coefficient 2nd location coefficient

Profit orientied housing Profit orientied housing
Social housing Social housing
Urban Renewal Urban Renewal
Not classified
Districts has no TOKİ projects
Considering affordability the cost of housing units by low-income groups, it can be seen that
transformation projects are not the only type of project that should be left out of social housing
category. TOKİ promotes part of the housing units in project areas targeting high-income groups as
housing for lower income groups. These units turn out to be 40-50 sqm studio apartments. Here, it
can be said that the family size and loan repayments capacities of low-income households are not
taken into account, hence it is possible to say that this is merely a misleading discourse. For this
reason, income level classifications set forth by TOKİ need to be reconsidered. The lowest cost of
housing units in the housing projects deemed to be within social housing category must be
identified and it should be investigated whether or not such cost is within the limits of affordability
by income groups. Table 2 summarizes this data for public housing projects in five examples.
The installment amounts shown in the table are determined according to best rates and
repayment schemes offered by the bank among all mortgage loan issuing banks. 46 UN Habitat II
(1996) indicators was taken as basis for calculation of monthly income level with respect to the
installment amount. Accordingly, the price of the housing unit should be higher than 5 times the
annual income of the household, while the rent should not exceed 30% of the monthly income of
the household.47 Based on the UN Habitat II indicators a new classification by monthly income was
introduced.48
46 For loan calculations, see: www.kredipazari.com/public/main/apply7.php?view=summary (Accessed: 10/10/2011)

47 Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 2009: 33.
48
The results of a survey conducted on Istanbul was used in this classification. For details, see, Bölen, F. et al. 2006: 34, cited by the
Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 2009.
23
Table 2. Revised Classification of Income Groups in Housing Projects by TOKİ
Data for lowest priced housing unit Necessary

Highest
TOKİ Income income for
Price for Housing Adjusted TOKİ
Project Level affording
Housing Down Repayment Initial unit Income Group
Price Price per Categorization monthly
Unit (TL) payment Term installment floor
(TL) sqm repayments
(TL) (Months) (TL) space
(m2)
Kayaşehir -12. Low Middle

79.950 49.000 8.000 180 228 67 731 Poor 760
Bölge (750-1000 TL)
Tuzla Emlak
Low Income High (3000 TL
Konutları 1. Etap 145.000 56.500 5.000 180 921 59 958 3.070
and Poor or higher)
2.Kısım
Kayaşehir 17. High (3000 TL

250.929 109.763 10.976 96 1.029 122 900 Low – Middle 3.430
Bölge or higher)
High (3000 TL
Varyap Meridian 2.123.000 386.000 81.060 30 11.079 61 6.328 High 36.930
or higher)
Küçükçekmece Mixed (Middle Middle Income

130.000 79.400 16.000 180 352 84 945 1.173
Göl Konutları + Low Income) (1000 - 3000 TL)
Data Sources: for Varyap Meridian www.varyapmeridian.com (Accessed: 10.10.2011) for other projects www.TOKİ.gov.tr (Accessed 10.10.2011).
According to the results, to be able to buy the lowest priced housing unit in Tuzla Emlak Konutları
(Identified to be for poor and low income groups by TOKİ) a family must have a monthly income of
TL 3070; and this figure actually represents high income category, not poor (as of 2011).
Moreover, it should be noted that the floor space of the referred housing unit is 59 sqm, while in
Kayaşehir, where relatively affordable units can be bought, the lowest priced housing unit has a
floor space of 67 sqm.
Taking into account all housing and non-housing business operations of TOKİ and its partnering
companies has a turnover of 11,217 million between 2003-2012, only on resource development
projects in Istanbul. In comparison, TOKİ only used around 1275 million of this turnover (11%)
figure to fund so-called social housing projects.
Table 3. Resources Allocated for Provision of Social Housing in TOKİ’s Istanbul Operations (2003-2011)
Operations Volume
Total revenues from resource development operations 11,217 (million TL)

Turnover per project in resource development operations 104 (thousand TL)
Total revenues from resource development housing projects 9,380 (million TL)
Turnover per housing unit in resource development housing projects 282,393 (thousand TL)
The total cost of social housing projects for TOKİ 1,275 (million TL)
The average cost per housing unit in social housing projects 48,445 (thousand TL)
Source: Altınok, 2012:244-278
24
On the one hand defying all ecological thresholds across Istanbul and at the expense of adding
millions more to the existing 15 million population in the city, TOKİ fails to allocate the funds
generated through its operations for renewal of poor quality housing of low income groups facing
the earthquake risk. Despite the earthquake risk is the selling point of all urban transformation
projects, TOKİ continues to produce housing for “new wealthy class” of the new Turkey.
Interventions on Urban Land Tenure in TOKİ Zoning Areas

and Mechanisms of Resource Transfer
Under the scope of the research, Küçükçekmece-Başakşehir-Avcılar development area located
within the Küçükçekmece watershed is studies in a district scale examination. Within the scope of
this research, the process of property transfer, was examined comparatively for 2002 (prior to
TOKİ operations) and 2010 (post TOKİ period).49
This research builds to the conclusion that TOKİ establishes the necessary conditions for
reorganization of the accumulated capital over urban space by interfering with 'land tenure
structure’. This interference can be summarized as follows:
TOKİ first takes over the property ownership most of lands within the development zones. By
doing this way, TOKİ destroys the existing ownership scene and during the planning process,
provides the conditions for the specific spatial arrangements it desires. Furthermore, the complete
transfer of ownership of such lands to TOKİ, plays an important role in the subsequent transfer of
additional surplus value created by planning.
Figure 11. Mechanisms of Resource Transfer in TOKİ Zoning Areas

(Başakşehir-Avcılar-Küçükçekmece 2002-2010)
2002 2010
TOKİ Properties
TOKİ
TOKİ+Subsidiary shared
TOKİ+Treasury shared
TOKİ+Other Public Institution shared
Other Properties
Treasury
Other Public Institution
Municipality
Foundation
NGO
Private property
No show
Military zone
Source: Altınok, 2012:368-370
49 For all property maps for this study, see. Altınok, 2012: 368-370.
25
TOKİ interferes with private properties50 in two different stages / using three different methods:
The first stage/method is purchase. For that purpose the Administration usually employs its
affiliates (EKGYO and Emlak Marketing Inc.), though these entities acquires the land at lowest
prices as possible.51 If an agreement cannot be reached, as a second stage, TOKİ registers the
district as a mass housing development area, then prepares the zoning plan. By this means, the
Administration opts to land expropriation as a third method, through annotations laid on the
remaining title deeds. To this end, TOKİ plays an intermediary role in the transfer of surplus value
from one owner to the other owner of the private property; expropriation which is supposedly a
power to be exercised for the interests of the public serves as a tool for 'transfer of ownership'.
Conclusion
“Slums and unplanned areas are known to be the fertile ground for terrorism,
drug, anti-establishmentarianism, low education, psychological distress and
health problems. We cannot prohibit settling, but concentration of
impoverished folks in Istanbul must be prevented”
Erdogan Bayraktar (Former Head of TOKİ)
Hürriyet, November 12th, 200752
The housing paradigm which started as the struggle of rural populations migrating to metropolitan
areas in the 1950s and holding on as 'squatters', first took a form of 'self-urbanization' enabling
the urban lower-middle and middle class taking advantage of state subsidized loan opportunities
through 'housing coops' in the wake of 1980s; and today it has transformed into a new model of
state-led 'dispossession' (enforced relocation of the poor53 / privatization of public assets, natural
resources) and 'possession' (by encouraging those who wish to acquire real estates to taken on
loans, making them dependent on the stability of the economic and political system).
At this point, we need to re-think the role of the state and current planning practices. Urban
planning once used as to heal the wounds inflicted by the inequality generating capital, now
directly generates inequality by serving the needs of the capital. For capitalist space production
this inequality may seem trivial, but in reality cannot be overlooked. The geography of investments
created through planning is pillaring on a predetermined consumption and profitability capacity
foundation from the get go. However, this mechanism is dependent on the expectations of the
capital and social dynamics to function. Changing trends and social contradictions can turn the
once advantageous geographical conditions into the disadvantages.
Both Lefebvre (2003: 159) and Harvey (2003) discuss territorialization of productive powers as a
process of freezing the capital itself in a fixed spatial form (in a geometrically limited space) as a
paradox of production of space.
50It should be noted that the referred private properties in the study area of Başakşehir-Avcılar-Küçükçekmece Urban Development
Area (BAKKGA) are mostly large chunks of old farmlands which can be transformed faster/easier.
51At the beginning of the process, the value of the private land is relatively low as there is no development plan. However, once the
zoning plan is completed the value increases. In this way, affiliates grab an unfair advantage.
52News story: "Let's find a way to keep broke folks away from Istanbul." http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/7677664.asp
[Accessed February 24, 2015]
53For two well-known relocation examples, see Kuyucu and Ünsal, 2010 (Ayazma-Beziganbahçe example); İslam and Sakızoğlu,
2015 (Sulukule-Taşoluk example).
26
For capital, financial speculative dynamics is another risk imposed by the process. We know from
experience that pumping excessive cheap loans in the economy, growth of the financial bubble in
parallel with the growing current account deficit and in a scenario where bad loans prevail
immensely deep crises break.54
...and of course, capital accumulation relationships do not explain everything. A large part of the
urban population have needs that are inconsistent with the capital drive. The issue presents social
and spatial dilemmas as well as its political economy dimension.
The most important thing to be said for Istanbul, is that the city has reached an unmanageable
size and at the brink of exhausting all its sources. Excessive housing supply does help nothing but
creation of low quality urban spaces that offers nothing else but housing.
So called social housing projects implemented by TOKİ are not actually affordable for the target
audience. Consequently, the very phenomenon is deepening the social contradictions rather than
to appease. The urban space continues to disintegrate, particularly as a result of the mega projects
and mass housing investments. Gated communities isolated from the urban spaces and urban life
continue to increase. Within a predefined and non-integrated urban structure, different socio-
economic and cultural groups are separated from each other by distinct boundaries.
This social segregation and spatial fragmentation paradox itself is perhaps the very obstacle on
our path that could lead us to the solution.
Defining the 'urban revolution' Lefebvre (1991[1974]:51) also identifies the obstacles in front of it
as follows:
“..It is difficult to see how so odd an indifference could be maintained
without diverting the attention and interest of the 'users' elsewhere,
without throwing sops to them in response to their demands and proposals,
or without supplying replacement fulfilments for their objectives.”
54 Real estate crises in Asia, such as Thailand and Indonesia crises (Harvey, 2003: 112).
27
TOKİ development areas, a view of TOKİ Avcılar-Ispartakule project from West Resneli, 2011.
A transformed slum area and a yet to be transformed slum area facing each other, TOKİ Ağaoglu Ayazma project, 2013.
TOKİ West Ataşehir development area and social-spatial segregation, 2011.
Photos: Emrah Altınok

28
Bibliography
Altınok, E. (2012) The Political Economy of Cerny, P., (2006). "Restructuring the state in a
Reorganization of Urban Space and Interventions globalizing world: capital accumulation, tangled
on the Urban Land Tenure, the Case of Istanbul- hierarchies and the search for a new spatio-
HDA in Post-2000 Era. PhD Thesis. Department temporal fix", Review of International Political
of City and Regional Planning, Yildiz Tecnical Economy 13, 4 October 2006: 679–695
University, Istanbul. [in Turkish] (Routledge Taylor and Francis Group).
Altınok, E. & Cengiz, H. (2008) The Effects of Urban Clarke, S. (1988) Overaccumulation, Class Struggle
Sprawl on Spatial Fragmentation and Social and the Regulation Approach. Capital and Class,
Segregation in İstanbul. ISoCaRP 44th 36:59-92.
International Planning Congress - Urban Growth
Cox, R. (1987) Production, Power and World Order.
without Sprawl: A Way Towards Sustainable
Colombia University Press, New York.
Urbanization. 19-23 Sep. 2008, Dalian-China.
Enlil, Z.M. (2011) The Neoliberal Agenda and the
Arrighi, G., (2004). "Spatial and Other “Fixes” of
Changing Urban Form of Istanbul. International
Historical Capitalism", Journal of World-Systems
Planning Studies, 16:1, 5-25.
Research, X-2:527-539.
Geray, C. (2010) AKP ve Konut: Toplumsal Konut
Bademci, E. (2007) World Bank’s Changing
Yöneltisi Açısından TOKİ Uygulamaları. içinde:
Approach to Poverty from a Neoliberal to a Third
AKP Kitabı, der: İ. Uzgel, B. Duru, Phoenix Yay.,
Way Approach: The Case of Turkey. Doctoral
Ankara: 743-753.
Thesis, The Graduate School of Social Sciences of
Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Glasman, J., (2007). "The GMS and Thailand’s
‘Spatial Fix’", presented at the international
Ministry of Public Works and Housing, (2009)
conference on Critical Transitions in the Mekong
Original in Turkish: Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı
Region, Chiang Mai, 29–31 January 2007,
Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı Kentleşme Şûrası
Thailand.
Genel Sekreterliği, (2009) Kentleşme Şurası
2009: Kentsel Dönüşüm, Konut ve Arsa Gooby, P.T. (1997) In Defence of Second-best
Politikaları Komisyonu Raporu, Ankara. Theory: State, Class and Capital in Social Policy.
Journal of Social Policy, 26(2): 171–192.
Bölen, F. & others (2006) Konut Yerleşim
Alanlarında Fiziksel Çevre Kalitesi Analizi, İMP Güzelsarı, S. (2007) Küresel Kapitalizm ve Devletin
Konut ve Yaşam Kalitesi Grubu Raporu, Cilt I, Dönüşümü, Türkiye'de Mali İdarede Yeniden
İstanbul. Yapılanma. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Brenner, R. & Glick, M. (1991) The Regulation
Approach: Theory and History. New Left Review, Harding, A. (1994) Urban Regimes and Growth
188:45-119. Machines: Toward a Cross National Research
Agenda. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 29-3:356-383.
Brenner, R. (2002) The Boom and the Bubble: The
U.S. in the World Economy. Londra: Verso. Harvey, D. (1981) The Spatial Fix—Hegel, Von
Thunen and Marx. Antipode 13-2: 1–12.
Burnham, P. (2000) "Globalization, Depoliticization
and 'Modern; Economic Management". in Harvey, D. (1982) The Limits to Capital, Blackwell
Bonefeld, W. & Psychopedis K. (ed.), The Politics Publishers, Oxford.
of Change: Globalization, Ideology and Critique. Harvey, D. (1985) The Urbanization of Capital, Basil
Palgrave. Blackwell, Oxford.
Castells, M. (1978) City, Class And Power. St. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity,
Martins Press, New York Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
29
Harvey, D. (1993[1973]) Social Justice and the City, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University,
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Lancaster LA1 4YN.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Jessop, B. (2004a) Spatial Fixes, Temporal Fixes, and
Geography of Difference, Blackwell Publishers, Spatio-Temporal Fixes. published by the
Oxford. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University,
Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK.
Harvey, D. (2001) Globalization and the Spatial Fix.
Marxism in Geography, Geographische Jessop, B. (2004b) From Localities via the Spatial
Zeitschrift für Literatur und Diskussion Jahrgang Turn to Spatio-Temporal Fixes: A Strategic -
3(2). Relational Odyssey. Lancaster University
Department of Sociology, Secons Discussion
Harvey, D. (2003) The New Imperialism, Oxford
Forum, (6).
University Press, New York.
Kalkan, S., Çetiz, S., Akay, Z. (2004) İstanbul
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism,
Metropoliten Alanı ve Bu Alanda Yaşanan
Oxford University Press, New York.
Yapısal Değişim. 28. Dünya Şehircilik Günü
Harvey, D. (2008) "The Right to the City", New Left Kolokyumu, “Değişen-Dönüşen Kent ve Bölge" 8-
Review 53, September - October 2008:23-40. 9-10 Kasım 2004, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
Harvey, D. (2010) The Enigma of Capital, Oxford Kalkınma Bakanlığı (Ministry of Development),
University Press, New York. (2011) Economic and Social Indicators, Section 8.
Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel Cities From the Right to the Original in Turkish: Kalkınma Bakanlığı, (2011)
City to the Urban Revolution, Verso, London. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Göstergeler, 8. Bölüm.
Hay, C. (2006) What is Marxist about - Marxist State Kaptan, H. (1991) The development process of the
Theory?. in Hay, C., Lister, M. and Marsh, D. service sector in the Istanbul metropolitan area:
(ed.)., The State: Theories and Issues. An analysis of the Buyukdere sub-region,
Houndmills, Palgrave. unpublished research report.
Herod, A., (1997). "From A Geography Labor To A Kodras, J.E. (2001) State, Capital, And Civil Society In
Labor Geography: Labor's Spatial Fix And The The Battle Over Welfare Reform: The
Geography of Capitalism", Antipode 29(1): 1-31. Contribution of Geographic Perspectives. Urban
Geography, 22(5): 499–502.
İslam, T. & Sakızoğlu, B. (2015) The Making of, and
resistance to, State-led Gentrification in Istanbul- Kuyucu T. and Ünsal Ö. (2010) ‘Urban
Turkey. in Global Gentrifications: Uneven Transformation’ as State-led Property Transfer:
Development and Displacement, (edited by: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in
Loretta Lees, Hyun Bang Shin), Policy Press, Istanbul. Urban Studies 47(7) 1479–1499.
Bristol, 245-264. Kuyucu, T. (2014) Law, Property and Ambiguity: The
Uysal, Ü.E. (2012) An urban social movement Uses and Abuses of Legal Ambiguity in Remaking
challenging urban regeneration: The case of Istanbul’s Informal Settlements. International
Sulukule, Istanbul. Cities, Volume 29, Issue 1, Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Volume
February 2012, Pages 12–22. 38.2 March 2014 609–27.
İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality (2006) Istanbul Lefebvre, H. (1991[1974]) The Production of Space.
Metropolitan Planning Office (IMP), (English translation by Donald Nicholson-Smith).
Environmental Plan Report - 1:100.000, İstanbul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell [Originally published
1974].
Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State.
Polity Press, Cambridge. Lefebvre, H. (2003[1970]) The Urban Revolution
(English translation by Robert Bonono).
Jessop, B. (2003) The Crisis of the National Spatio- Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Temporal Fix and the Ecological Dominance of [originally published 1970].
Globalizing Capitalism. published by the
Leitner, H. (1989) Urban geography: the urban
dimension of economic, political and social
2
30
restructuring. Progress in Human Geography, 13: Panitch, L. (1994) Globalization and the State. The
551–565. Socialist Register 1994: Between Globalization
and Nationalism, (Eds. Ralph Miliband; Leo
Ley, A. (2009) Housing as Governance: Interfaces
Panitch), Merlin Press, London 1994, s. 60-93.
between Local Government and Civil Society
Organisations in Cape Town, South Africa. Panitch, L. (2004) Devlet: Emperyalizmin Ana
Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften, Berlin. Halkası? (Çev. Selen Göbelez) Conatus Çeviri
Dergisi, 2: 55-61.
Lin, K. P. Y. (2008) Constructing the Distinct Urban
Form: The Integration of Political, Economic and Pillay, D. (2003) The Challenge of Partnerships
Social Factors in Hong Kong and Singapore. Between the State, Capital, and Civil Society: The
London School of Economics & Political Science Case of the Media Development and Diversity
(LSE) Working Paper Series. Agency in South Africa. International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14 (4),
Marcuse, P. (1996) Space and Race in The Post-
401–420.
Fordist City: The Outcast Ghetto and Advanced
Homelessness in The United States Today. Urban Redwood, Y. (2010) Social, Economic, and Political
Poverty and The Underclass, E. Mingione (ed.), Processes That Create Built Environment
Blackwell, Oxford. Inequities: Perspectives From Urban African
Americans in Atlanta. Family & Community
Marcuse, P. (2012) A critical approach to solving the
Health: 33(1): 53–67.
housing problem. In Cities for people, not for
profit: critical urban theory and the right to the Roy, A. (2001) Power Politics. Cambridge, Mass.:
city, edited by Neil Brenner et.al. South End Press, p16.
Marx, K. (1982 [1890]) Capital: A Critique of Political Sarıoglu, G. P. (2013) Housing development and
Economy; Volume I. Introduced by Ernest policy change: what has changed in Turkey in the
Mandel, Translated by Ben Fowkes, Penguin last decade in the owner-occupied and rented
Books, London. sectors?. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 29(1) , 155-175.
Merk, J. , (2009). "‘Spatial fix’ or ‘technical fix’?
Labour conditions, CSR and the re-organization Şengül, H.T. (2009) Kentsel Çelişki ve Siyaset;
of the global athletic footwear product chain", Kapitalist Kentleşme Süreçlerinin Eleştirisi, 2.
‘Changing Cultures of Competitiveness’ 17 April Basım, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
2009, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster
Taymaz, E. (1993) Kriz ve Teknoloji, Toplum ve Bilim,
University, Lancaster.
(56-61): 5-41.
Mollenkopf, J. (1994) A phoenix in the ashes: The
TOKİ (2010) Konut Edinme Rehberi 2010, Ankara.
rise and fall of the Koch coalition in New York.
www.toki.gov.tr/AppResources/UserFiles/files/K
(Paperback edition including a chapter on the
onutEdinmeRehberi.pdf [Access 01.03.2015]
1993 mayoral election). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press. TÜİK (TSI) (2009) Statistical Indicators 1923-2009,
Publication No. 3493, Ankara. Original in Turkish:
Murray, R. (1975) The Internationalization of Capital
TÜİK, (2009) İstatistik Göstergeler. 1923-2009,
and the Nation State. International Firms and
Yayın No: 3493, Ankara.
Modern Imperialism: Selected Readings (Ed.
Hugo Radice), Penguin Books, Middlesex. Wyly, E.K., vd, (2004). "Has Mortgage Capital Found
an Inner-City Spatial Fix?", Housing Policy
Negri, A. (2009) Insurgencies: Constituent Power
Debate, 15(3).
and the Modern State. University Of Minnesota
Press. Yüksel Y.D. & Gökmen G.P. (2009) Changing Housing
Markets; Integration, Segmentation. Paper
Oyan, A. (2012) Kamu Yönetiminin ve Mülkiyet
presented at ENHR Conference, June 28-July 1,
İlişkilerinin Dönüştürülmesi. Mülkiye Dergisi,
2009, Prague.
36(3), 133-153.
31
3

ALTINOK E 2015 Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALTINOK E 2015 Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALTINOK E 2015 Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emrah Altınok "To have or not to have, that is the question: The Unseen Dimensions of Housing Question in Turkey,

TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

Hypotheses & Methodology

How can TOKİ be positioned as a state apparatus in the

AGLIETTA, M. & REGULATION SCHOOL

How should the interventions on urban land tenure by TOKİ HARVEY, D.

Theoretical Framework: An Urban Political Economy Approach

The Political Economy of Reorganization of Urban Space

Circuits of Capital and the Theory of Spatio-Temporal Fixes

Institutionalization of Neoliberalism and Transformation of the State

Phases of housing development in Turkey-Istanbul

Figure 1. Sprawl of industrial and residential areas in Istanbul during 1950–1980

Source: Enlil, 2011 cited from Kaptan, 1991

Figure 2. Urban sprawl in Istanbul from 1987 to 1999

Table 1. Phases of housing in Turkey and in Istanbul (1950-2015)

1950-1980 URBAN GROWTH

Condominium Ownership Act and Urbanization Strategy of the Middle Class

'Benign (sub)urbanization' [First Generation]

1980-2000 URBAN SPRAWL

Upper class leaving the center

2000-2015 (GOVERNMENT DRIVEN) OVER-URBANIZATION

2000-2001 Crisis and Background of the Reconstruction

Re-establishment of TOKİ and Real Estate Market as a Leverage

Figure 3. Housing Unit Production Per Thousand Population in Turkey

Figure 4. Yearly Distribution of Bank Loans for housing in Turkey

15,604 15,535 15,360

To Have or Not To Have, That is the Question

Unseen Dimensions of TOKİ-Led Housing Production in Istanbul

How TOKİ runs its business?

TOKİ and Government Driven Over-Urbanization in the Post 2000 Period

Figure 5. Natural thresholds and existing housing areas in Istanbul – 2006

Figure 6. Natural thresholds and existing housing areas in Istanbul – 2011

Source: Altınok, E. (2012:360)

Figure 7. 'Yenişehir' Project and 'Mega Projects' in Istanbul 41 - 2015

5 2 2 3rd Bosporus Bridge Crossing

Source: Istanbul Independent Architects Association, www.megaprojeleristanbul.com

Figure 8. Estimated additional population to be introduced in the Başakşehir-Avcılar-Küçükçekmece Region by TOKİ

Source: Altınok, E. (2012:364)

Does TOKİ Produce Social Housing?

Figure 9. Projects in Istanbul by TOKİ Classification

Source: Altınok, E. (2012:364)

Figure 10. Distribution of TOKİ Housing Projects in Istanbul by TOKİ Classification

1st location coefficient 2nd location coefficient

Source: Altınok, E. (2012:364)

46 For loan calculations, see: www.kredipazari.com/public/main/apply7.php?view=summary (Accessed: 10/10/2011)

Table 2. Revised Classification of Income Groups in Housing Projects by TOKİ

Data for lowest priced housing unit Necessary

Kayaşehir -12. Low Middle

Kayaşehir 17. High (3000 TL

Küçükçekmece Mixed (Middle Middle Income

Total revenues from resource development operations 11,217 (million TL)

Source: Altınok, 2012:244-278

Interventions on Urban Land Tenure in TOKİ Zoning Areas

Figure 11. Mechanisms of Resource Transfer in TOKİ Zoning Areas

Source: Altınok, 2012:368-370

TOKİ West Ataşehir development area and social-spatial segregation, 2011.

Photos: Emrah Altınok

You might also like