Efficiency of planning in the transformation process of informal built areas: A Case study of Gültepe

The phenomena of rapid urbanisation in Turkey resulted in population explosion in urban areas since 1950's, as a result of rapid large scale population movements from rural areas, so callled "migration". This has required the provision of large scale housing development at prices affordable to migrated population to fulfil their basic needs. Neither the housing market nor government policies have met this demand and continue to supply houses for middle and upper-middle income groups in urban areas. The provision of houses for low income groups, especsially migrant groups has been completely ignored by the housing market and government, in other words the legal mechanisms for the provision of housing. Therefore, those who migrated were left alone to address their basic need for shelter which they did through the formation and development of illegal housing areas. From 1948 and onwards, the government's attitude was to accept the existence of these illegally developed areas and legalise them through the introduction of several new pieces of legislation ( new regulatory mechanisms ). This eventually led to the provision of deeds for illegally developed houses and infrastructure. Illegally developed housing areas first started with the construction of a few houses, then expanded with the arrival of newcomers to the size of neighbourhoods. They eventually constituted large tracks of built structure in urban areas and become a part of the pre existing city scape. The development of illegal housing areas, such as gecekondu's, has created a situation whereby Turkish cities are characterised by dual built structures. One is legally developed housing areas for middle and upper-middle income groups and the other is illegally developed area for low income groups, in particular migrants. Illegally developed housing areas now cover 70 % of the built up areas in large cities such as Ystanbul. These areas have also been left alone to be illegally rebuilt. This has excalerated exsisting problems in many areas. The boundaries of municipal government were gradually extended towards illegally developed housing areas. This areas were gradually located within municipal boundaries and utilised the provision of municipal services, including settlement plans. Thus, illegally developed housing areas have been transformed by the regulatory planning mechanisms, legislation and municipal policies. The formation of illegal developed settlements had been in existence before the plans and planning policies of municipalities were formulated and implemented. The function of municipal planning was to regulated the rebuilding processes in this areas through incentives ( Yncreasing construction rights and providing secure conditions) to speculative developers. As a result, illegally developed housing areas have been promoted to the same level as those legally developed. The aim of the research is to explore forces behind the formation, development and transformation of illegal developed housing areas and identify problems created by this processes. In order understand how the processes of formation, development and tpansrormation of illegal developed housing areas have taken place, it is necessary to analyse the historical development of these areas. Therefore, Gültepe is selected as a case study. Gültepe, as one of the oldest illegally developed settlements in Ystanbul, has passed through several stages. It has moved from an illegally developed housing settlement, built by individuals for their own use, a so called "gecekondu area", to apartment blocks created for speculative development. In the first stage, internal forces produced and developed illegal built structures, whilst in the second stage external forces influenced and entered into the process of transforming the existing illegal built structures. Therefore, two distinctive periods are identified in the development and transformation of the illegal housing areas. All of the various actors involved in the process, from land suppliers through constructors and speculative builders to actual gecekondu owners attempts to utilise the existing conditions for their own benefits. Land speculators attempt to minimise the provision of social and physical infrastructure to unacceptable levels in order to maximise treir profits. Both speculative builders and gecekondu owners struggle to increase construction rights, so as to maximise their own profits. They aim to determine and utilise the market value of land as far as possible, so as to increase their profit levels. Therefore, illegally videveloped housing areas often lack and community amenities. The right to a healthy enviromnent and living standard does not exist in these areas. The phemomena of speculation, along with the regulatory mechanisms, plan and legislation, stimulates the transformation process of illegal developed housing areas. The requirement to maximize the profitability of land encourages both the transformation processes of illegal developed housing areas, from low density gecekondu areas, to high rise apartment blocks and the continuation of illegal developments. The first part of tins study explores the development and transformation processes of illegal developed housing areas in relation to rapid urbanisation as a general process. It continues to look at the mechanisms in which illegal houses have been built and at the impact of planning and the system of local government on the development and transpormation of these areas. This study analyses illegal development and transformation processes and examines the criteria of sustainability, equalty and citizenship rights. This study explores how this areas could be transformed and developed to meet the needs of future generations. A series of hypothesis formulated in this study are used to analyse and develop an understanding of the transformation processes of this areas. Recommendation are also developed for the transformation of these illegal developed housing areas within the principles of sustainability, livabilty and social equality.