University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Transformation of housing in slum upgrading areas: lessons from Turkey

(USC Thesis Other)

Transformation of housing in slum upgrading areas: lessons from Turkey

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

TRANSFORMATION OF HOUSING IN SLUM UPGRADING AREAS:
LESSONS FROM TURKEY

by

Sema Dogan
_______________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PLANNING)

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Sema Dogan

ii
DEDICATION

To my son,
My mom and dad, and the people in Gultepe

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to the members of my dissertation
committee – Professors Harry Richardson, Bill Baer, Tridib Banerjee, and Jeff Nugent –
for all their help and encouragement in producing this dissertation. My special thanks go
to Harry Richardson, who served as my advisor. He not only guided me with his
academic comments, but also gave me encouragement whenever I was distressed and
lost. I owe a great deal to Bill Baer, who also served me as my previous advisor. He was
always willing to help by giving me his advice and feedback on my work. I would like to
thank Tridib Banerjee for sharing his own experience and advising me. I would like to
thank Jeff Nugent for agreeing to be on the committee on short notice and giving me his
comments on the study.
Without the help from many local governmental institutions in Turkey that I
received during the data gathering process, I would not have been able to complete this
study. Personnel in the planning department of Konak Municipality and Izmir
Metropolitan Municipality were particularly helpful. Without any hesitation, they always
made the archives and any documents I was looking for ready for me to evaluate or copy.
I would also like to thank the manager of the State Institute of Statistics in Izmir for
providing me online statistical information whenever I needed it. This study would not
have been possible if the residents in Gultepe neighborhoods had not been willing to
participate in my field survey. Not only did they show interest in my study, they were
always very friendly, helpful and kind during the time I was in the field.
iv
My special thanks also go to my friends and my family, whose help and support
was invaluable. My special thanks go to Omur Saygin and Levent Unverdi, in particular,
for helping me prepare the maps and make them presentable using the Arch-View or GIS
programs. Whenever I had a computer problem, Omur Saygin always there to help me
solve the problem. Emel Yucekus Ganapati became one of the important figures in my
work, particularly after I returned to the United States in late 2008. Her advice and
comments on my work and her precious strategies regarding the dissertation process were
extremely valuable and helpful. My special thanks also go to Fatma Senol, who has also
been through the process. She not only encouraged me by sharing stories of her own
dissertation struggles, but also shared a lot of laughter with me. Nicel Saygin, Cigdem
Tarhan and Emel Goksu are other friends who supported me in this process. I am very
grateful to Lillian Marenco, Frank Nodarse, and Sandra and Nicholas Fonseca, who
opened their doors of their homes without hesitation, and with welcoming hearts, and
kept me company throughout the process. I must also thank my editor, Michael Presky,
who patiently helped me with the intricacies of American academic English.
Last but not least, I must thank my family for their constant support and love, but
most importantly for giving me the courage to walk down this path. And finally, my most
special thanks go to my son, Guney Kocan, who also supported me with his love and
laughter.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
ABBREVIATIONS xv
ABSTRACT xvi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Scope and Objectives 1
1.2. Definitional Clarifications 7
1.3. Research Questions 9
1.4. Findings 10
1.5. Research Methodology 11
1.5.1. Data Collection Methods 14
1.5.1.1. Interviews with Households 15
1.5.1.2. Interviews with Muhtars 17
1.5.1.3. Review of Secondary Sources 18
1.5.2. Sampling 19
1.5.3. Limitations of Study 21
1.6. The Organization of This Study 21
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW – TRANSFORMATION OF
HOUSING IN SLUM UPGRADING AREAS 24
2.1. Introduction 24
2.2. Slums and Self-Help Housing Paradigm 25
2.2.1. The Rise of Slums 25
2.2.2. The Response to the Logic of Slums as Marginals 27
2.2.3. Self-Help Housing Paradigm 32
2.2.4. Critique of Turner’s Self-Help Ideas 37
2.2.5. Current Position of Self-Help 41
2.3. State Initiatives to Improve Slum Conditions: Slum Upgrading Processes 49
2.3.1. The Early Programs for Slum Upgrading, 1972-1985 51
2.3.1.1. Sites-and-Services Projects 51
2.3.1.2. In-Situ Upgrading Programs 53
2.3.1.3. General Evaluation of Early Programs for Upgrading 55
2.3.2. Whole Sector Housing Programs: Enabling Housing Market 56
vi
2.3.3. Promising Land of “User-Initiated” Housing Improvement in
Upgrading 61
2.4. Conclusion 65
CHAPTER 3: URBANIZATION AND SLUM DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY 69
3.1. Introduction 69
3.2. Urbanization Process in Turkey by Numbers 71
3.3. Slum Developments in Turkey 75
3.4. Evolution of Slum Developments 79
3.4.1. The Period between 1923 and 1950 80
3.4.2. The Period between 1950 and 1980 84
3.4.2.1. Slums between 1950 and 1960 85
3.4.2.2. Slums between 1960 and 1980 89
3.4.3. The Period after the 1980s 92
3.5. Conclusion 99
CHAPTER 4: SLUM FORMATIONS IN IZMIR METROPOLITAN CITY 101
4.1. Introduction 101
4.2. Migration Associated Urbanization in Izmir 102
4.3. Formation of Slums in Izmir 107
4.3.1. Period before the Independence War: Socio-Economic Spatiality
of Izmir in the 19
th
Century 108
4.3.2. Period between 1923 and 1950: the Restructuring Period of Izmir 112
4.3.3. Period between 1950 and 1980: Industrialization Impact on
the City 117
4.3.4. After the 1980s: The Influence of Liberal Economic Policies
on Slums 122
4.4. Conclusion 130
CHAPTER 5: MEANS OF TRANSFORMATION – SLUM UPGRADING
PLANS IN IZMIR 134
5.1. Introduction 134
5.2. State Policy from Avoidance to Acceptance 135
5.3. Slum Upgrading Plans 137
5.3.1. Objectives of Slum Upgrading Plans 138
5.3.2. Technical Processes of Upgrading Plans 142
5.3.3. Different Approaches to Transformation of Slums 145
5.4. Slum Upgrading Plans in Izmir 151
5.4.1. The Local Governmental Structure of Izmir 151
5.4.2. Implementation of Slum Upgrading Plans in Izmir 156
5.5. Conclusion 162
vii
CHAPTER 6: SLUM UPGRADING PLANS IN GULTEPE DISTRICT 165
6.1. Introduction 165
6.2. Historical Background of Gultepe 167
6.2.1. Slum Developments in Gultepe District 170
6.2.2. Development of Neighborhoods in Gultepe District 173
6.3. Demographic Characteristics of Gultepe District: 176
6.4. Slum Upgrading Plans in Gultepe District 183
6.4.1. Implications of Upgrading Plans on Gultepe Slums 183
6.4.2. Evaluation of Upgrading Plans 185
6.5. Conclusion 189
CHAPTER 7: USER-INITIATED HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AS
UPGRADING STRATEGY 191
7.1. Introduction 191
7.2. Motivational Differences of Slum-Dwellers in User-Initiated Housing
Improvement 195
7.2.1. Who are the Slum-Dwellers? 197
7.2.2. Differences of Slum Dwellers in Tenure Characteristics 200
7.2.3. Housing Improvement Pattern of Dwellers: Who Improves? 202
7.2.3.1. Who are the Improvers? 205
7.2.3.2. Forms of Housing Improvement Motives of Households 209
7.2.4. Decision to Improve 213
7.2.4.1. Reasons for Slum Dwellers to Improve 214
7.2.4.2. Family Structure in Decision to Improve 216
7.2.4.3. Influence of the Heads of Households in Housing
Improvement 221
7.2.5. Income and Wealth in Decision to Improve 224
7.2.5.1. Implication of Household Income on Housing
Improvement 225
7.2.5.2. Additional Income as Wealth Determinant 228
7.2.6. Occupation of Households 229
7.3. Housing Improvement to Create Household Satisfaction Among
Households 231
7.3.1. Physical Conditions of Dwellings 232
7.3.2. Neighborhood Satisfaction of Households 235
7.3.3. Reasons to Move 239
7.4. The Transformation Process: Upgrading or Customization? 241
7.4.1. Construction Process of Households 242
7.4.2. Timing of the Construction Process 244
7.4.3. Construction Process: Who Construct the Units? 245
7.4.4. Financing the Housing Improvement 247
7.4.5. Regulations and Upgradation of Slums 250
7.4.5.1. Tenure Rights of Slum Dwellers 250
7.4.5.2. Permissions for Dwellings 254
viii
7.4.6. Household Perceptions of Slum Upgrading Plans 255
7.4.6.1. Household Perceptions on Physical Changes 255
7.4.6.2. Household Perceptions on Household Characteristics 258
7.4.6.3. Perceptions on Residential Mobility of Households 259
7.4.6.4. Who are the Movers? 262
7.5. Conclusion 264
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION 271
8.1. The Experience of Slum Upgrading in Gultepe District 273
8.2. Community-level Dynamics: User-Initiated Housing Improvement as
Upgrading Strategies in Gultepe District 274
8.3. Policy Implications of User-Initiated Housing Improvement 280
8.4. Future Research 284
BIBLIOGRAPHY 286
APPENDIX A 307
APPENDIX B 308
APPENDIX C 309
APPENDIX D 312
APPENDIX E 336
APPENDIX F 339

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Distribution of Interviews with Households 20
Table 3.1: Distribution of Urban and Rural Population in Turkey: 1927-2000 71
Table 3.2: Annual Growth Rate of Urban Population 73
Table 3.3: Annual Growth Rate of the Biggest Cities in Turkey 75
Table 3.4: Slum Development and Population in Turkey 76
Table 3.5: Annual Growth Rate of Istanbul 77
Table 3.6: Ankara Slums 78
Table 3.7: Izmir Slums 79
Table 4.1: Population Increase in Izmir (1927-2000) 105
Table 4.2: Migration Rate of Izmir (1975-2000) 107
Table 4.3: The Role of Cooperative in the Housing Sector in Izmir 125
Table 5.1: Slum Upgrading Plans by Approval Years and by Districts (1985-1998) 157
Table 5.2: Land Ownership of Upgraded Slum Areas between 1985 and 1992 158
Table 5.3: Izmir Slums Built between 1985 and 2002 159
Table 6.1: Distribution of Slums in Izmir in 1965 171
Table 6.2: Population Distribution in Gultepe District by Years 172
Table 6.3: Neighborhoods in Gultepe District 174
Table 6.4: Population Distribution of Neighborhoods in Gultepe District 178
Table 6.5: Population by Place of Birth and Neighborhoods (2000) 181
Table 6.6: Slum Upgrading and Revision Plans of Gultepe by Plan Approval Dates 184
Table 6.7: Estimated Population and Densities of Slum Upgrading Plans in Gultepe 187
Table 6.8: Public Services Provided by Slum Upgrading Plans for Gultepe District 188
x
Table 7.1: Household Structure of Gultepe District 198
Table 7.2: Tenure Characteristics of Dwellers by Neighborhoods 199
Table 7.3: Household Structure and Tenure Characteristics of Dwellers 200
Table 7.4: Chi-Square Test of Household Structure and Tenure Characteristics 200
Table 7.5:Tenure Characteristics by Ownership 202
Table 7.6: Housing Improvement of Dwellings by Households 207
Table 7.7: Housing Improvement Motives of Renters 208
Table 7.8: Differences of Dwellers in Making Housing Improvements 209
Table 7.9: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Making Housing
Improvements 209
Table 7.10: Type of Housing Improvements of Slum-Dwellers 211
Table 7.11: Differences of Dwellers in Various Forms of Improvement Motives 212
Table 7.12: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Various Forms of
Improvement Motives 212
Table 7.13: Factors Important for Dwellers in Decision to Improve 215
Table 7.14:Reasons to Improve of Households 215
Table 7.15: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Reason to Improve 216
Table 7.16: Independent Samples t-Test between Housing Improvement and
Household Size 218
Table 7.17:Household Composition of Gultepe Neighborhoods 219
Table 7.18: Characteristics of Households in Gultepe Neighborhoods 222
Table 7.19: Independent Samples t-Test between Housing Improvement and
Age of Head of Households 223
Table 7.20: Independent Samples t-Test between Housing Improvement and
Length of Stay in Units 223
Table 7.21: Total Household Income (Monthly Income) 226
xi
Table 7.22: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Old and New Dwellers in
Undertaken Improvements by Income 227
Table 7.23: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Undertaken
Improvements by Ownership and Income 228
Table 7.24: Additional Income of Households 229
Table 7.25: Occupation and Employment Status of Head of Households 230
Table 7.26: Independent Samples t-Test between Households and Housing
Size (m
2
) 233
Table 7.27: Increase in Housing Size in Slum Dwellings 234
Table 7.28: Neighborhood Satisfaction of Households on Public Services 236
Table 7.29: Do Dwellers Consider Moving? (Neighborhood Satisfaction) 238
Table 7.30: Chi-Square of Differences of Dwellers by Housing Improvement and
Neighborhood Satisfaction 238
Table 7.31: Chi-Square of Differences of Dwellers by Homeownership and
Neighborhood Satisfaction 239
Table 7.32: Reasons of Households to Consider Moving 240
Table 7.33: Length of Years to Make Extensions (mean value) 243
Table 7.34: Years of Extension Phases of Upgraded Units 244
Table 7.35: Who Made the Extensions? 246
Table 7.36: Financing the Housing Improvements 249
Table 7.37: Land Acquisition and Land Tenure of Households 252
Table 7.38: Reasons Not to Apply for Legal Title Deed for Lands 253
Table 7.39: Received Dates of Official Title Deeds for the Land (median) 253
Table 7.40: Building Permissions of Upgraded Units 254
Table 7.41: Increase of Housing Value after Slum Upgrading Plans 256
Table 7.42: Physical Changes Occurred after the Slum Upgrading Plans 256
Table 7.43: Increase of Renters 259
xii
Table 7.44: Mobility Rate of Households 260
Table 7.45: Who are the Movers? 263

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Population Change of Turkey between 1927 and 2000 72
Figure 3.2: Population Density by Cities (person per square km) 74
Figure 4.1: Map of Izmir Region (2009) 103
Figure 4.2: Population Change of Izmir between 1927 and 2000 105
Figure 4.3: Izmir in the 19
th
Century 110
Figure 4.4: Social Structure of Izmir in the 19
th
Century 111
Figure 4.5: Izmir Macro-Form between 1923 and 1950 114
Figure 4.6: The Rene Dange Plan (1925) 116
Figure 4.7: Le Corbusier’s Plan (1948) 117
Figure 4.8: Slum Areas between 1940 and 1950 119
Figure 4.9: Slum Areas between 1960 and 1970 121
Figure 4.10: Distribution of Mass Housing Cooperatives in Izmir (1984-1996) 126
Figure 4.11: Spatial Formation of Slums by Years 129
Figure 5.1: Izmir Municipalities before 1980 152
Figure 5.2: Izmir Municipalities in 1980 153
Figure 5.3: Izmir Municipalities between 1984 and 2004 154
Figure 5.4: District Municipalities in Izmir Metropolitan Region (2008) 155
Figure 5.5: Illegally Developed Areas in Izmir Metropolitan City (1984-2002) 160
Figure 6.1: Location of Gultepe District within Izmir Metropolitan City 168
Figure 6.2: Slum Development in Gultepe District (1950-1970) 175
Figure 6.3: Current Names of Neighborhoods with Notation of Old Names 176
Figure 6.4: Population Change in Gultepe District 178
xiv
Figure 6.5: Population Characteristics in Gultepe District by Place of Birth (2000) 180
Figure 6.6: Slum Upgrading Plans in Gultepe District 185
Figure 6.7: Slum Upgrading Plan Sample 186

Photos 1 and 2: Buildings Constructed Through User-Initiated Involvements 339
Photos 3 and 4: Incrementally Upgraded Housing Units on Secondary Streets 339
Photos 5 and 6: Buildings on Secondary Streets 340
Photos 7 and 8: Main Streets of Gultepe District with Retails and Businesses 340
Photo 9: A View from Gultepe District Indicating the Construction Level 341
Photo 10: Another View from Gultepe District 341

xv
ABBREVIATIONS

BURNS Bureau of Urban Renewal and New Settlements
CBRT Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
DEU Dokuz Eylul University
FAR Floor Area Ratio
GDP Gross Development Product
HDA Housing Development Administrative of Turkey
ICC Izmir Chamber of Commerce
ILO International Labour Office
IMF International Monetary Fund
IMM Izmir Metropolitan Municipality
IMMPD Izmir Metropolitan Municipality Planning Department
MLSC Ministry of Labour and Social Security
MPWS Ministry of Public Works and Settlement
NGOs Non-governmental Organizations
RPP Republican People’s Party
SAPs Structural Adjustment Programs
SIS State Institute of Statistics
SPO State Planning Organization
UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
UN-HABITAT The United Nations Human Settlements Programme
xvi
ABSTRACT

This study examines the role of community-level dynamics in the transformation
of housing by slum upgrading programs in Turkey, with a special focus on user-initiated
involvement in improving housing conditions. Drawing from an understanding that slum
areas, where market-oriented actors are not interested in implementing upgrading plans,
have been transformed by community-level dynamics and households acting as
entrepreneurs, this study attempts to understand the ways in which user-initiated
involvement affects the slum upgrading plans in their communities.
Based on a field survey done in Gultepe district, in the Izmir metropolitan area,
and drawing particularly on the quantitative case study method, the study tries to
integrate the self-help housing literature with the housing adjustment literature in the
study of the slum upgrading programs implemented in the context of developing nations.
The study specifically examines what the role of user-initiated involvement in the slum
upgrading process should be, if user-initiated housing improvements can improve the
housing conditions in slums, if this involvement increases the community attachment of
households, and how households are involved in implementing the slum upgrading plans
in their communities.
The study found that user-initiated involvement in slum upgrading plans could
indeed trigger improvement in housing conditions by increasing the habitable space and
comfort of slum units, and by encouraging the use of more durable construction
materials. The findings suggest that incremental improvements resulting from user-
initiated methods have been effective in upgrading housing, and that they motivate slum
xvii
dwellers by giving them the opportunity to improve their units based on their own needs
and economic constraints. The findings also suggest that user-initiated housing
improvement does indeed trigger an increase in neighborhood satisfaction and
community attachment. However, the planning and design decisions of municipalities
also influence the neighborhood satisfaction of households.
Overall, the findings suggest that user-initiated housing improvement gives the
actual residents in slum areas the opportunity to shape their own communities. Therefore,
it is suggested that, since user-initiated housing improvement activities have been
effective as a form of neighborhood upgrading, community-level dynamics and user-
initiated involvements should be integrated into current slum upgrading programs in
developing countries.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Scope and Objectives
This dissertation focuses on examining slum upgrading plans in Turkey, with
specific attention to user-initiated involvements in the implementation stage of
upgradation processes in slum areas. I argue that, unlike market-driven transformations of
slum areas, user-initiated housing transformation both improves housing conditions of
old slum dwellers and increases housing and neighborhood satisfaction among
households. Consequence of such transformation creates decreasing the displacement of
the population. Improving the neighborhood satisfaction of households, therefore, opens
up new possibilities of understanding, embracing and encouraging user-initiated
involvements in slum upgrading programs.
Slums are increasingly becoming the citadels of the world’s urban poor and
vulnerable. Their growth is a daunting problem, particularly for cities in the developing
world. While the size and volume of slum dwellers varies across regions, according to the
United Nation’s estimates, more than half of the urban population of the developing
world currently lives and will continue to live in the slums or places characterized by
substandard housing with poor structural housing conditions and severe overcrowding,
inadequate water and sanitation facilities, and insecurity of tenure (UN-HABITAT,
2003a:3-5, 2003b:8-9; World Bank, 2004:37).
While the increasing urbanization of the developing world has direct
consequences for the physical, socio-economical and psychological well being of the
urban populations in general, considerable attention has been specifically given to the
slum upgrading programs. To address the growing problem of slum formation, many
2
national and city governments, as well as international financial institutions, primarily in
association with the World Bank, have created ongoing programs aimed at reducing the
rate of future slum formation and improving the lives of existing slum dwellers (UN-
HABITAT, 2003a; World Bank, 2003). These have operated for more than two decades,
and, if they have not eradicated the urban poverty
1
prevalent in the developing world,
have certainly improved the living conditions of the urban poor (World Bank, 2008).
Using the current housing stock for providing and improving housing to low-
income groups in the developing world has proven to be a sound strategy for tackling
urban problems, particularly for national governments operating under severe economic
constraints. Since the 1970s, national governments and development agencies have
chosen to implement various kinds of slum upgrading programs as different strategies to
improve the living conditions of slum dwellers. Some of the types of programs include
sites-and-services programs, in-situ upgrading projects, and slum redevelopment
programs.
The main purposes of slum upgrading plans are to legalize ownership of units in
slum areas by securing the title deeds of slum dwellers, and to regularize the existence of
slum areas by providing them basic public services that are up to modernist planning
standards, including potable water supply, sewage disposal, waste collection, housing,
access roads, sidewalks, lighting, schools, health and community centers (Payne, 1997,
2004). Through legalization and regularization of slums, in fact, slum upgrading
programs have become effective tools with which governmental authorities can transform

1
Although there has been a significant drop in the urban poverty rate between 1980 and 1988, the urban poverty is still
a challenging issue in the rapidly urbanizing world. Almost half of the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day,
according to the World Bank’s Report (World Bank, 2000).
3
once unauthorized or illegal housing areas and integrate them with the formal housing
stocks.
Recently, the most adopted upgradation program is slum redevelopment projects,
due to the fact that they are implemented with market-driven forces or through the
initiations of private entrepreneurs rather than direct state involvement (Dasgupta & Lall,
2006; Mukhija, 2003; Takeuchi et al., 2006). Adopted and launched by the World Bank
as the new, preferred method of slum upgradation since 1980s, the slum upgrading
programs have become more under the influence of the market-driven forces. Introduced
as ‘enabling strategy’ by the World Bank, a more inclusive upgradation process that is
based on market-oriented housing provision process is being adopted by the developing
nations. In fact, such a policy shift in slum upgrading programs has been based on the
new regulations brought by the neo-liberal economic policy embraced by nations globally
in order to survive the economic crisis of the 1980s.
By the 1980s, due to the impact of globalization and neo-liberal economic policy
that was embraced by the nations in order to survive from the economic crisis of the
1980s; reorganization and restructuring in every dimensions of socio-economic policy,
including housing policy, was needed (Jenkins et al., 2007). To be able to fight against
the economic austerity policies and create ways to revitalize the market, three essential
concepts (decentralization, privatization, and deregulation) have taken the part of
restructuring nations in every dimension (Mukhija, 2003; World Bank, 1993). This has
meant increasing the role of market in housing provision in the developing nations in
general, and in slum upgrading programs in particular. Hence, the state-aided slum
upgrading policies have begun being abandoned and enabling strategies with more
4
market-orientation policies have been launched by governments of the developing
nations.
The basic purpose of the enabling strategy is to upgrade the slum areas through a
legalization process with the specific goal of empowering communities with more
community participation under the alliance of market-driven actors (private
entrepreneurs) and the mentoring role of the local authorities (World Bank, 1993).
However, as much as community participation and involvement seem to be the major
points of the enabling strategy, the difficulties of implementing such recipes in slum areas
have become a major issue to overcome. Market-driven forces have become the major
actors in the transformation of slum areas. However, as they increase the property values
of slums in the housing market and the commercialization of slum areas, they often
negatively influence the success of the upgrading projects in providing the housing to the
actual users (Mukhija, 2003:12; Muraya, 2006:126-128).
The literature indicates that the direct involvement of market-forces without
closer governmental control increases the land values of slum areas and erodes the
availability of cheap land for the lower-income groups. It also creates population
displacement, and hence decreases the success of slum upgrading programs (Berner,
2001; Mukhija, 2003).
However, the shortcomings of market-driven upgrading strategy can be reduced
or eliminated through the introduction of user-driven involvement in slum upgradation
processes. It seems that slum upgrading programs generally undermine the influence of
user-driven initiations. However, the received wisdom from the housing adjustment
literature reflects the view that user-initiated involvement in unit improvement creates a
5
more satisfactory environment among households (Berner, 2001; Seek, 1983).
Households who make extensions to their units are more likely to stay in their housing
units. This helps stabilize the population in older neighborhoods and creates less
population displacement (Carmon, 2002; Gosling et al.,1993; Mandic, 2001).
However, the experiences from recent slum upgrading processes through
redevelopment strategies tells us that the increasing population displacement in upgraded
slum areas as a result of more market-driven involvement puts in danger the success of
upgrading programs intended to serve the actual slum dwellers. On the other hand,
upgrading existing slum dwellings still provides cheaper solutions both for local
authorities and for the low-income households, and also improves the overall housing
stock of these households (Struyk, 1982).
However, market-driven actors in the upgradation process may endanger the slum
upgrading processes. Among all of the various planning strategies available, self-help or
user-initiated slum improvement still continues to be an effective slum upgrading
strategy. Thus, the primary concern of this dissertation in general is to understand the role
of user-initiated housing improvement in the upgradation process of slum areas from the
case study in Gultepe District, Izmir, Turkey.
Although there has been little direct involvement with the World Bank in this
area, Turkey is also among those developing nations that have extensively experimented
with slum upgrading programs since the 1980s. Under the neo-liberal economic policy
embraced in 1980, the Turkish government began to decentralize its power through
deregulation strategies. As one strategy, the local municipalities have been given more
power to deal with local problems, including solving the housing problems of the low-
6
income households associated with slum areas. As a political strategy, in 1984 the
Turkish government introduced a comprehensive amnesty law (number 2981)
2
in order to
encourage local governmental authorities to undertake slum upgrading programs in the
slum areas within their administrative boundaries. Law 2981 was the first law addressed
at upgrading Turkey’s slums. Since 1984, many local authorities have launched slum
upgrading plans. These have primarily revolved around three planning strategies:
clearance, improvement, and redevelopment. In general, the slum upgradation processes
in Turkey were not implemented via market-driven forces. However, there is little known
of the outcomes of slum upgrading plans in the absence of market-driven programs.
The usual assumption by the authorities in the developing world is that the slum
upgrading process is one-dimensional and linear, one that begins with the regularization
of the slum areas, and which is followed by the issuance of title deeds to the slum
population. Within such a process, it is assumed and usually accepted that after
regularization and the launch of development plans, the slum upgrading areas will be
transformed from informal into formal housing areas.
By exploring the ways in which user-initiated involvement transforms the slum
areas, this dissertation will reveal that slum upgrading is a multi-dimensional and circular
process, and that within this process housing improvements are continuously being
initiated by the slum dwellers themselves. The major contribution of this dissertation will
be to document and discuss the significant role of self-help initiatives in the housing
upgrading processes, particularly within those communities that otherwise lack resources.

2
The Amnesty Law (Number 2981) [2981 Sayili Imar Affi Kanunu]. (1984). Retrieved on December 2, 2008, from
TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site: http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat
/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=31
7
In the pursuit of these goals, I examined the literature on housing in the
developing nation context by looking primarily at two bodies of literature, both of which
help inform and provide important insights for my study. On the one hand, the self-help
theoretical approach conceptualizes our understanding about informal housing areas and
how they have occurred in the urban context of developing nations. On the other hand,
housing policy approaches highlight the state initiatives towards slum areas, mainly
through slum upgrading plans.
To provide another perspective I also reviewed the housing adjustment literature
from the west, which offered insights from those experienced with international aid and
development. Drawing on these various sources will help me achieve greater
understanding about the implementation of slum upgrading plans through user-driven
forces. It will help me uncover the hidden side of the slum upgrading programs and
hopefully help me offer some insights about housing upgrading policies for slum areas.
1.2. Definitional Clarifications
Before going any further, it is important to make some clarifications on some of
the terms used in this dissertation. Following the definition of UN-HABITAT (2003b), I
use the term slum to describe any form of illegally constructed housing units; this
includes inner city slums, squatter areas and unauthorized dwellings built on the land
without the right to use the land for housing development or which is built on the land
designated for housing but built illegally. As the latest evidence indicates, despite some
differences in location and legality, these various forms of illegal housing developments
have common characteristics that are closely connected with perception of poverty, lack
of access to basic services and tenure insecurity (UN-HABITAT, 2003b). Thus, in this
8
dissertation, I use the catch-all term slum to refer to all illegal housing forms, however
with a particular emphasis on squatter settlements which are the dominant form of
informal housing arrangements in Turkey.
By slum upgrading plans, I refer to the physical development plans that are
introduced to improve or redevelop the conditions of informal housing areas. By
upgradation or upgradation process I refer to a process that is aimed at or related to
improving slum areas. My argument revolves around understanding the role of the user-
initiated transformation process in slum upgrading areas.
Following Tipple, who coined the term ‘user-initiation’ in his book, Extending
Themselves: User-initiated Transformations of Government-Built Housing in Developing
Countries (2000), I used the term ‘user-initiated’ transformation or ‘user-initiated’
involvement in upgradation process of slums, referring to housing improvement motives
of households. Due to the fact that conventional understanding of self-help housing as in
Turner’s proposition has been molded into more commercialized form, I prefer using
another term while emphasizing the importance of involvement of households in shaping
and controlling their units. Tipple’s term of ‘user-initiated’ involvement has given a
better emphasis for the purpose of this dissertation. Thus, by using the term ‘user-
initiated’ housing improvement instead of self-help housing, I both emphasize the role of
households in the housing improvement process and acknowledge that although
households do not necessarily build their units by using their own labor-force as in the
conventional self-help motive; it is still the best promising practice that works, albeit
more in commercial market.
9
While referring to user-initiated transformation, I particularly indicate any form
of housing improvement activities that the actual residents (households) have been
undertaking in the transformation or re-formation of their housing units. In addition, by
housing improvement, I follow Seek’s definition (1983), and define a housing
improvement as any form of housing extension that adds more space into the original
housing structure.
1.3. Research Questions
The basic thesis presented in this dissertation is that the implementation of slum
upgrading plans through user-initiated involvements can help create habitable
environments for lower-income households while also increasing the neighborhood
satisfaction of households. The primary goal of this dissertation is to understand the
transformation of housing in slum upgrading areas through user-initiated involvements.
This dissertation studies the role of user-initiated involvement in slum upgradation
processes by formally evaluating an old slum area that was upgraded through user-
initiated involvement and asking the following questions:
1. What is the form of user-initiated involvement?
2. What kind of physical and social environment is created through the user-
initiated involvements?
3. Does user-initiated housing improvement improve the living conditions of
housing units, and therefore of the households?
4. Does the user-initiated housing improvement create neighborhood
satisfaction among the households?
10
5. How do the households in the upgraded slum area perceive the slum
upgrading plans? Do they consider the plans successful in regards to their
housing related demands?
6. How do households implement slum upgrading plans? Do user-initiated
housing improvements follow the rules and planning regulations of the
government-directed slum upgrading plans?
I evaluate these questions based on three levels of assumptions. My first
assumption is that user-initiated housing improvement activities improve the housing
conditions of slum dwellings, yet that there are different motivations among households
for undertaking housing improvements. My second assumption is that user-initiated
housing improvement activities have increased the level of households’ satisfaction with
both their units and their neighborhoods, and reduced the likelihood that they would
move elsewhere. My third assumption is that while neighborhood-wide slum upgrading
projects have led to the improvements in the physical environment and in the services
received, the goals of city planning regulations and of the slum projects do not always
coincide with the actual needs of families.
1.4. Findings
My findings from the case study in Gultepe District overall suggest that user-
initiated housing improvements give the actual residents opportunities to shape their own
communities. The findings from the case study in Gultepe District that I made indicate
that, unlike market-driven slum upgrading programs, user-initiated slum upgrading
processes not only improve the living conditions of households, and contribute to
reducing their vulnerability; they also stabilize the community in their actual places.
11
Thus, they serve the actual residents and lower-income households by providing cheaper
housing solutions while also prohibiting excessive increases in property values. In sum,
user-initiated involvement provides demand-driven slum upgradation processes that can
be formulated to meet the actual demands of households.
The findings of this dissertation are important for understanding the roles of
demand-driven initiations in slum upgradation processes in order to help to improve and
sustain residents’ involvements in shaping their own communities. This is important both
for the community and for the housing policy purposes. Thus, the findings of this
dissertation contribute to understanding slum upgrading policies in general.
By highlighting the conditions for the user-initiated implementation of slum
upgrading plans within ten interlinked residential neighborhoods, the current study tries
to shed light on slum upgrading programs. The purpose is to help integrate user-
initiations or demand-driven factors into the planning of current slum upgrading
programs and to make them more effective. This requires public planners and policies to
acknowledge that individuals’ motivations and capacities for user-initiated involvement
derive from their everyday experiences of the households and housing units. The findings
suggest that in order to motivate residents and improve their capacity for user-initiated
involvement, housing policies need to deal with the problems of households in the realms
of the housing construction process, income, finance, and framing the planning
regulations based on the needs and desires of the residents.
1.5. Research Methodology
In order to understand the role of user-initiated transformation of housing in slum
upgrading plans, I conducted a quantitative field survey in a case study from Gultepe
12
District, Izmir, Turkey. Undertaking a case study enabled me to develop a deeper
understanding of the relationship between the everyday relations of households with their
housing units and the implementation process of slum upgrading plans in their units.
Since I was originally from there, I chose my case study from Izmir, a large
metropolis in Turkey. As a native speaker, conducting my interviews in Turkish helped
me to communicate better with the slum dwellers, and allowed me to acquire useful
insights from the field survey. However, launching this analysis in Turkey and Izmir has
a special relevance for understanding the user-initiated transformation process in slum
upgrading projects. First of all, Turkey has more than half of its urban population residing
in slum areas that were largely introduced with slum upgrading programs that began in
the early 1960s. Hence the country has broad experience with various forms of slum
upgradation processes, and so is a good example for the purposes of my dissertation.
Turkey also has broad experience with market-driven slum upgradation processes, which
were mostly adopted after law 2981 was passed in 1984.
By the same token, Izmir, as the third biggest metropolitan city in Turkey, with
more than 40% of its population residing mostly in upgraded slum areas, also serves as a
good example for the purpose of this study. The Izmir Metropolitan Municipality (IMM)
is among those that have initiated a relatively high proportion of slum upgrading plans
within its administrative boundaries, beginning in 1985. According to the 2005 data of
the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality Planning Department (IMMPD), 3,432 hectares
have already been planned as slum upgrading areas, which cover about 36% of the total
residential area (IMM, 2008:222). There was a great deal of slum upgrading between
1985 and 1998.
13
Based on the fact that the Izmir setting was a good example for the purpose of my
study and that as a researcher I was quite familiar with the general environment of the
city, I decided to conduct my case study on an old slum neighborhood located there. I
chose Gultepe District as my case study area. This area developed as a grouping of
several residential areas constructed since 1945, and mostly through slum housing
developments. In fact Gultepe District is among the first slum areas in Izmir, and thus
represents quite an old slum neighborhood. Once located in the peripheral area of the
city, Gultepe District is now in the central part of the city, and is closely integrated with
other residential areas. It was among the slum areas where slum upgrading plans were
first introduced. However, the implementation of slum upgrading plans has mostly been
left to the hands of slum dwellers. Being an old slum area, an example of the first slum
upgrading programs in Izmir, and an example of the user-initiated slum upgradation
process make Gultepe District an ideal area to be chosen as a case study for this
dissertation.
Gultepe District had a total population of 56,622 in 2007 (SIS, 2007). The District
consisted of twelve neighborhoods during the 1970s, and now contains thirteen Yavuz
Selim, 26 Agustos, Zeybek, Huzur, Trakya, Anadolu, Saygi, Mehmet Akif, Millet, Murat,
Ulubatli, Atamer, and Cinartepe. Each of these thirteen neighborhoods, except Ulubatli,
had mostly begun as slums, and was introduced to slum upgrading plans between 1986
and 1992.
However, I only conducted my study within ten of the neighborhoods: Yavuz
Selim, 26 Agustos, Zeybek, Huzur, Trakya, Anadolu, Saygi, Mehmet Akif, Millet, and
14
Murat.
3
My elimination of three neighborhoods was for two reasons: (a) I eliminated
Ulubatli because it was the only neighborhood that had developed mostly as formal
housing areas, and, therefore, including this neighborhood would not make any sense for
my analysis; and (b) I also eliminated Atamer and Cinartepe neighborhoods since they
have the youngest neighborhoods that were established after the 1980s. Due to the fact
that this dissertation aims to look at the transformation processes of mature
neighborhoods, these two youngest neighborhoods were eliminated from the analysis.
The fieldwork for this study was conducted over a period of eleven months
between September 2005 and July 2006.
1.5.1. Data Collection Methods
The data for the analysis of transformation of housing in slum upgrading plans
through user-initiated involvements was gathered primarily from three sources: (a)
questionnaires given to the existing households in Gultepe District; (b) in-depth
interviews with long existing households, and local municipality headmen or muhtar;
4

and; (c) secondary sources that were relevant to the Gultepe District, including reports,
plans, documents, laws and regulations both from public and private archives.

3
The historical background, the neighborhood formalization and the slum upgrading plan evaluations of Gultepe
District are particularly explained and evaluated in Chapter 6 in-depth.
4
Muhtars are the lowest level of local governmental authorities that are assigned for each neighborhood by local
municipalities in order to serve the needs and demands of neighborhoods. Usually from the local population, muhtars
can be considered both official personnel of the local as well as an individual who knows better and aware of the
problems associated from their neighborhoods. They are assigned by the local municipalities in every four –years to
service to the assigned communities.

15
1.5.1.1. Interviews with Households
As my major research method, I interviewed households who resided in Gultepe
neighborhoods between September 2005 and July 2006, a period of eleven months. The
interviews were based on a structured questionnaire, which included different levels of
questions. In addition to the closed-ended questions, it also included a wide range of
semi-structured and open-ended questions that might be shaped or formed differently
during the course of the interview. The questions in the survey were aimed at acquiring a
wide range of household-level information related to the impact on their housing units of
the introduction of planning and slum upgradation processes housing to their
neighborhood.
I used closed-ended questions to gather socio-economic level information from
households (e.g., age, sex, family size, education level, occupation, income etc.), which
helped me to understand the general pattern of socio-economic values of households. I
used both structured and semi-structured questions to collect information about the
housing units regarding how households have been using their units, and how they have
formed their units over time. Finally, I also used open-ended questions to gather
perceptions of households about their housing, their neighborhood environment, and
about the slum upgrading plans that were introduced for their communities.
However, I only directed open-ended questions to the older slum households
(long-term dwellers), those who had been residing in the same neighborhoods prior to the
introduction of the slum upgrading plans. The older households were the only group who
could make judgments about their communities and compare the living conditions and
neighborhood environment before and after the upgrading. Therefore I chose to focus on
16
and make in-depth interviews with those households.
5
So whenever I interviewed an old
slum household, regardless of whether they were owners or renters, I asked the open-
ended and in-depth questions.
All my interviews were face-to-face. They were conducted by me and by four
additional surveyors who worked with me in the field. I chose only female surveyors,
knowing that male surveyors might have a more difficult time conducting interviews with
households who were culturally from a closed-society. I spent a week with the four
surveyors in order to introduce them to the questions in the survey, and to train them in
the interview techniques and the processes needed to handle the interviews in the field.
After the one week training, we spent another week in the field testing the questions in
the questionnaire. After I did necessary revisions on the questionnaire, we began to
conduct the interviews with households in Gultepe District. I did my interviews alone,
and had the other four worked in teams of two.
The duration of interviews with households varied from forty-five minutes to one
hour depending on the answers of the households, how much they enjoyed expressing
themselves, their life in the connection with their neighborhoods, and so on. At first, it
was not easy to connect with households. We faced much resistance during the first two
weeks. However, after the residents began seeing us regularly and the word spread
through the neighborhoods, they began to accept us and appreciate the purpose of the
survey. Once they learned our backgrounds, we were welcomed more than ever. We were
invited for lunch, introduced to other families or relatives, and even sometimes for

5
Please refer to Appendix D for the questionnaire.
17
special occasions. After such connections were built between us, they showed more
willingness to have their voices heard, particularly by the local authorities.
While conducting the fieldwork, I traveled daily to the field areas to interview
both females and males in order to understand different points of views. I only
interviewed the heads of households or the spouses of heads who were over 18 years old.
As one requirement of the USC UPIRB rules regarding the conduct of interviews, I have
not included any personal information that could reveal the identity of my interviewees.
Therefore, although I typed their answers on the questionnaire, when necessary I refer
them as Mr. (for men) and Mrs. (for women). The data collected through interviewing
households was then coded as an SPPS data file so that the data analysis could examine a
wide range of variables.
1.5.1.2. Interviews with Muhtars
Muhtars are local headmen. Since they usually reside in the same neighborhoods
that they serve in they are a useful source to consult about getting detailed information on
the formation of neighborhoods. Therefore, I conducted in-depth interviews with muhtars
in order to systematically gather information about the socio-economic structure of the
neighborhoods and related changes, and about the daily life cycles, expectations and
satisfactions of the populace. The primary purpose of interviewing the muhtars in
Gultepe neighborhoods was to learn the history of how the neighborhoods evolved in the
history, and how slum upgrading plans have affected the neighborhoods. I wanted to
know what kinds of expectations or demands the muhtars have been making on their
households and neighborhoods, and vice versa.
6

6
Please refer to Appendix E for interview questions with muhtars.
18
The interviews were semi-structured and based on thematically organized open-
ended questions. I conducted face-to-face interviews with muhtars at different periods of
time. The interviews usually took about one hour, depending on how well the muhtars
knew the neighborhoods they had been serving, whether they had been residing in the
same neighborhood prior to slum upgrading initiations, and how long they had been
serving as muhtars for their communities. It was found that many muhtars had served for
their communities for more than two terms. While interviewing muhtars, I mostly typed
their answers on the question sheet in order to guide me during the interviewing. After
the interviews were finished, I typed them in a spreadsheet based on a three-tiered matrix
I had prepared in order to analyze their answers.
1.5.1.3. Review of Secondary Sources
I supported this analysis with supplementary archival works that were relevant to
the Gultepe District, including reports, plans, documents, laws and regulations, and
statistical data collections both from public and private archives were. I used the
following methods to gather data from various sources:
1. Gathered statistical data for documenting the socio-economic characteristics
of the areas from the data sources of the State Institution of Statistics (SIS),
the planning department archives of the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality
(IMM) and Konak Municipality, and from scholarly reports, books and
dissertations,
2. Reviewed laws and regulations, mainly the slum amnesty laws and local
municipality planning regulations, to order to understand the way in which
slum upgrading plans were initiated at the local level,
19
3. Gathered information from published documents, including various reports,
publications, and plans, both from governmental and private agencies.
1.5.2. Sampling
Two main concerns actually helped me to shape the sampling area in Gultepe
District for the field survey. The first concern was related to the boundaries of slum
upgrading plans. The second concern was related to the boundaries of the affected
neighborhoods. Since the purpose of this dissertation is based on understanding the ways
in which slum upgrading plans have been implemented through the process of user-
initiated involvements, I needed to create a sampling area that only included households
within the boundaries of slum upgrading plans. Therefore, the boundaries established by
the slum upgrading plans were a primary concern for conducting the research.
As I discovered during the data gathering process regarding the Konak District
Municipality, slum upgrading plans were only introduced for certain areas within the
neighborhoods in the slum areas. So the plans did not affect all of the households within
the neighborhoods. Considering that collecting the data on a neighborhood basis would
give me insights into the outcomes of slum upgrading plans and their possible different
impacts over neighborhoods, I conducted my fieldwork analysis based on the use of a
stratified sampling technique of partitioning based on neighborhood and slum upgrading
plan boundaries.
In order to draw a representative sample from the population of neighborhoods, I
used systematic sampling techniques for each neighborhood data collection process. In
order to increase the data reliability, I conducted my interviews by using an 8% sample
size for each ten neighborhoods, using as the sample unit housing units located within
20
each neighborhood. To identify the units that I wanted to interview, I first gathered
statistical data for each neighborhood from the muhtars, as well as from the Directorate
of Utilities and Construction of Konak Municipality.
Since the data the Directorate did not differentiate housing units by slum
upgrading planning boundaries, I also did land-use field surveys for the purpose of
getting the total housing unit numbers located in the slum upgrading areas. After mapping
the land-use on 1.1000 scale maps, I assigned the housing units that I would interview
based on the 8% sample size. If a household refused to be involved with the project, or a
household could not be found in the unit after three visits, another household in the same
building and/or in the same street close to the previously identified household was
selected instead.
The visited housing units were then systematically marked in scaled-maps to
assist the field-workers. Based on the 8% sampling size in each neighborhood, I
conducted a total of 614 interviews with households (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1: Distribution of Interviews with Households
Neighborhoods Interviewed units
26 Ağustos 48
Yavuz Selim 60
Zeybek 48
Huzur 78
Anadolu 30
Saygı 98
Mehmet Akif 34
Millet 98
Trakya 30
Murat 90
Total 614
21

1.5.3. Limitations of Study
I conducted this study on ten neighborhoods of Gultepe District with high sample
size in order to obtain better results from the field survey. Although the fieldwork done
for this study had a high sample size and evaluated ten neighborhoods adjacent to each
other, making generalizable conclusions from the findings may still be difficult. In order
to make more generalizable conclusions, other neighborhoods in the same or different
cities need to be examined as well. However, I would like to note here that my primary
aim in doing this study was not to generalize the findings to other contexts but rather to
shed light on the context by filling the gap of unknown facts; that was the purpose of
studying user-initiated housing transformation in slum areas. Nevertheless, I believe that
the findings of this study in conjunction with the findings of other studies in the literature
will contribute to a better understanding of these developments.
1.6. The Organization of This Study
This dissertation is divided into eight chapters. Apart from the introduction and
the concluding chapter, the body of the dissertation includes six chapters. Chapter two
elucidates the conceptual framework of this study by providing an overview of the three
bodies of literatures. This chapter first presents a self-help housing theory to set up the
baseline necessary to understanding the formation of slums in developing nations, then
elucidates the slum upgrading programs assigned for slum areas since 1970s, and then
makes a connection between user-initiated housing improvement motives and slum
upgradation process. Following this, chapter three presents a review of state initiatives
relating to the management of slum areas in Turkey. This chapter reviews basic
22
information necessary for understanding the ways in which slum areas have developed as
a result of urbanization in Turkey. The chapter discussed the slum development based on
three different essential turning periods for the slum formations.
Chapter four turns to the slum formation in the Izmir metropolitan area, and
describes the three major turning periods of slum developments in Izmir. After the
historical setting is introduced in chapters three and four, chapter five demonstrates state
roles towards slum areas and discusses the slum upgrading programs introduced in
Turkey and Izmir for the purpose of improving the living conditions of slum areas. After
reviewing the slum amnesty laws, this chapter explains the slum upgrading plans and
how they were introduced and implemented.
Chapter six discusses slums and slum upgrading plans in the case study area,
Gultepe District. This chapter gives some historical background about the district.
Chapter seven is the case study chapter, which tells the story of slum upgrading plans in
Gultepe District in the eyes of the households. It mainly focuses on the fieldwork analysis
in the case study of ten neighborhoods in Gultepe District. The different merits of user-
initiated housing improvement are reviewed. The main purpose of this chapter is to
illustrate the impact of the outcomes of user-initiated housing improvement strategies on
the implementation of slum upgrading plans, with specific attention paid to evaluating
how such involvement may create more satisfaction among households.
The final chapter, chapter eight, is the concluding chapter, which returns to the
initial research questions and interprets the findings. It suggests that the market can only
be a response at a certain point in upgrading slum areas. Yet, the user-initiated
involvement in upgradation process seems to be a powerful tool that could be used and
23
integrated within the upgradation process in order to capitalize the market in efficient
way. This chapter suggests that user-initiated housing improvement helps to improve the
slum neighborhoods by protecting the actual neighborhood population, in contrast to the
impact of the many market-driven slum improvement programs. It thus helps to set an
example for developing housing policies that are better at responding to the interests of
the actual lower-income groups that live in these areas.

24
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW – TRANSFORMATION OF HOUSING IN
SLUM UPGRADING AREAS
2.1. Introduction
The current conventional wisdom indicates that user-initiated, or, in Turner’s term
(Turner, 1972, 1977) self-help, housing improvement for slum inhabitants has lost ground
today, and that various forms of commercialization are now considered more effective at
providing low-cost housing and dealing with the problems of the world’s growing slums.
However, in this dissertation I argue otherwise, stating that the self-help housing strategy
continues to be prevalent in the upgraded slum areas, and that the dwellers use this
process when developing their housing units, especially when the market-forces are not
involved as they are in the slum redevelopment programs.
This literature review elucidates three aspects of housing transformation in the
slum upgrading areas in order to make a comprehensive evaluation of the literature about
slum development. I begin by arguing that the concept of self-help housing is still
relevant for dealing with the problems of today’s slums. I then review the state initiatives
that have been developed under the ruling of the self-help housing propositions of the
Turner school in order to understand the outcomes of the slum upgrading programs
introduced in recent decades. Finally, after the slum upgrading programs are discussed, I
turn my attention towards current self-help or user-initiated housing improvements to see
if they still offer effective approaches for the improvement of slum areas, even in an era
of neo-liberalization and privatization. I argue that slum upgrading programs need to
consider user-initiated involvements and integrate them into the planning and developing

25
programs, rather than simply stating that commercialization is the one and only effective
method of improving and eliminating slums.
2.2. Slums and Self-Help Housing Paradigm
2.2.1. The Rise of Slums
Much of the literature in urban theory posits that urban space is a socially created
phenomenon, a product of a ‘socially constructed reality,’ one shaped by the socio-
cultural, economic and political constructions of society (Peattie, 1979:1017), and which
manifests itself differently in different periods and places (Fainstein & Campbell, 1996;
Jenkins et al., 2007; Sassen, 1994). In this respect, it is important to understand that the
urbanization process is much different in developing nations than it is in the developed
world. Unlike in developed nations, the urbanization process in developing countries
does not necessarily overlap with the industrialization process occurring simultaneously.
Thus the social context of such urbanization ends up creating a much different urban
space (Castells, 1979:42), which manifests itself in the formation of ‘urban informality’
7

in various forms (Roy & Alsayyad, 2004). Despite many differences and appearances in
various forms, one of the outcomes of the urban informality that we observe in the urban
space of the developing nations are the informal housing areas or slums, which currently
provide living accommodations to more than fifty percent of the urban population in
these nations; thus making urbanization synonymous with ‘favelization’
8
(Davis,
2006:17).

7
Roy and Alsayyad (2004) in their recent book “Urban Informality”, by looking at the Middle East, Latin America, and
South Asia, try to explain the similarities and differences of urban informality in the developing context with the
connection of globalization and liberalization. See Roy and Alsayyad (2004) for more information.
8
Favela is the local term that refers to informal housing settlements or squatters in the Latin America context.
26
Beginning in the early 1950s, the continued growth of urbanization in developing
countries was caused mostly by rural to urban migration. The inadequate supply of urban
housing for this new low-income population quickly led to the unavoidable proliferation
of slums within the cities in these nations. Many of the people coming from rural areas
into urban areas solved their own shelter problems by building their own homes, mostly
on the peripheral areas where the land was cheaper and more readily available. During
the 1950s and 1960s the populations of these areas was rather homogenous, consisting
almost entirely of rural migrants. However, current studies have demonstrated that the
slum populations are now much more heterogeneous than before, and do not consist
merely of migrants, but also of lower-income households, and even some middle-income
ones (Gilbert, 1993b; Rodwin & Sanyal, 1987).
In developing nations that have adapted capitalist economic systems, such as
Turkey, housing solutions are mostly aimed at the middle- and upper-income groups,
whose needs are met through the formal housing market systems (Tekeli, 1982). The
private sector agencies direct and supply most of the housing improvements, while
governmental authorities control, manage and facilitate the system indirectly with finance
mechanisms or with subsidies (Castells, 1978; Harvey, 1985; Mingione, 1977; Pugh,
1990).
While this policy works for middle- and upper-income groups, who can receive
loans through the bank and/or mortgage systems, and who can generally make their
monthly payments, it does not generally work for the lower-income groups without
regular employment, and who therefore cannot afford regular monthly payments. As a
result, low-income households, in particular the newcomers who came to the city with
27
less money, find no choice but to settle down on invaded or peripheral land and build
their own housing units illegally (Drakakis-Smith, 1981). In sum, the proliferation of
slums is partly the result of the formal housing market’s deficiencies and its inability to
produce housing at the required levels of affordability. In most countries, the slums were
generally tolerated, until the mid-1960s, when attitudes changed somewhat and urban
authorities began being more hostile towards them.
2.2.2. The Response to the Logic of Slums as Marginals
The first reaction of the state and governmental authorities towards the rise of
informal housing areas in Turkish cities was deviant and violent. The response of the
state was the eradication of slums through slum clearance activities (Peattie & Aldrete-
Haas, 1981:164-165). Such a reaction on the part of the state was primarily led by the
popular belief that slum developments were deviant and full of filth, an idea which was
supported by the logic of the modernization school that stated the importance of creating
an ‘orderly society’ in the urban sphere in order to protect and control the production of
capital (Harvey, 1985, 1989). Within this logic, the slums were perceived as a threat to
the creation of orderly society, and therefore one that needed to be quickly eliminated.
This logic was heavily supported by urban anthropologists, who stated that slum
populations were deviant and marginal, and that there was no hope of them surviving
such blight.
The term “marginality” was first introduced by Robert Park (1928) in his article
Human Migration and the Marginal Man, in which he posited that as marginal men the
migrants were continuously struggling between two worlds: the traditional rural world
they were used to but which could not serve them any longer, and the modern-urban
28
world, which was full of “spiritual instability, intensified self-consciousness, restlessness,
and malaise” (Park, 1928:893). But it was Oscar Lewis (1951, 1959, 1961, 1965) who
first examined the concept of marginality as it related to slum development. Lewis coined
the term ‘culture of poverty’ to describe the situation of migrants in the urban context. He
saw the culture of poverty as a causal factor, and noted the negative living environment
of slums by documenting how the families in them have been living in continuous
desperation that could not be escaped either by the actual users or by the future
generations.
Lewis’ notion of culture of poverty, as Portes stated,
{…} has come to denote a situation in which people are trapped in a social
environment characterized by apathy, fatalism, lack of aspirations,
exclusive concern with immediate gratifications, and frequent
endorsement of delinquent behavior. Not only material, but moral
destitutions as well, is an essential part of slum life. (Portes, 1972:269)
Lewis argued that the poverty of slum populations was a perpetuating factor that would
go on from generation to generation with no escape possible (Lewis, 1965). His ‘culture
of poverty’ discussion made a great imprint on the literature that formed the perception of
marginality among urban planners, and hence helped create an attitude in the public
sphere unaccepting of the slums and their populations.
The first round of research on slums, informal land markets, housing and other
poverty-related concepts in developing nations was conducted in the Latin American
context by scholars from various fields: political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists,
architects and urban planners. These studies eventually helped to dismantle the notions of
a ‘culture of poverty’ and ‘marginality,’ and placed the debate within a broader
ideological framework of political economy of informality (Roy & Alsayyad, 2004:1).
29
The works of DESAL
9
(a Catholic foundation) in Chile have been particularly important
in disseminating the notion of marginality in connection with the politics of populist
mobilizations (e.g., the migrant population), state power and economic dependency in the
context of Latin America. Although DESAL’s intention was to demonstrate how the slum
populations were prohibited and eliminated purposely from the political, social, and
economic systems in society, their analyses of slum areas were not entirely without
prejudice against slum dwellers. Although they framed the issues somewhat differently,
within DESAL’s analyses slum populations in fact were still depicted as areas full of filth
and despair, with the same lack of trust, cooperation, and social and political organization
portrayed in Lewis’s conceptualization of a culture of poverty (Perlman, 1976:119-120).
Hence, with their analyses, DESAL also contributed to the popularization of the idea of
marginality by mirroring the conceptualization of Lewis’s culture of poverty in Chile. As
a result of all these pejorative views towards slum and slum populations created in the
literature, the complete eradication of slums became the major goal of housing policy
approaches towards slum areas.
However, the negative attitudes towards slums and their populations began
changing during the late 1960s, as new views gradually emerged from various fields of
research. Urban economic analyses on the connection of the informal sector to the formal
sector (Guha-Khasnobis et al., 2006; Hart, 1973; ILO, 1972), urban theoretical analyses
of the urbanization process in the developing nations (Fainstein & Campbell, 1996;
Jenkins et al., 2007), the critical writings of neo-Marxist and neo-liberal analysts engaged

9
DESAL is the abbreviation of Centro para el Desarrollo Economica y Social de America Latina in Spanish. See
Perlman (1976: 119-120) for detailed information.
30
in decoding the urbanization process in the developing nations and their connection with
urban informality (Castells, 1979; Harvey 1985), and sociological and empirical analyses
of the slums (Collier 1976; Dwyer, 1974, 1979; Mathey, 1992; Pearlman, 1976 ) have all
contributed to shaping a new and more positive understanding of slums and their types of
populations.
By the mid-1960s and early 1970s researchers had come to several conclusions
about self-help housing. There was an increased awareness that the perpetual increase of
slums in many ways had a positive impact on the housing market by increasing the
employment rate and gross development product (GDP) on the local and national levels
(Klaassen et al., 1987). There was also a growing understanding that informal housing
supplied much cheaper housing for lower-income households than any other system of
supplying housing (De Soto, 1989; Jimenez, 1982; Rodwin & Sanyal, 1987; Turner,
1972), and that this consequently has helped eased social tensions between different
income groups within societies (Castells, 1978, 1983). All of these developments have
contributed to the acceptance of informal housing arrangements in the cities of the
developing world.
It was primarily the anthropologists, sociologists and architects who first studied
the slum populations who began reacting to the conceptualization of marginality
introduced by Lewis. While anthropologists focused mainly on the slum populations in
their sociological analysis, planners and architects focused mostly on the slum housing
arrangements, how slum dwellers interacted with their dwelling units, and what slums
meant to the dwellers. As a result, although from different perspectives, both sociologists
31
and planners started looking at the slums through the eyes of the slum dwellers
themselves rather than through those of outsiders.
In particular, the concept of marginality has been strongly criticized by Peattie
(1968), Portes (1972), and Perlman (1976). In their studies they drew attention towards
how slum populations have been moving away from being marginal, and how they quite
rationally sought out their own self-interests and calculated the possible outcomes of the
opportunities available for them. They have all depicted how the slum populations have
been full of hope and achievements backed by strongly rational behavior rather than
apathy and despair.
For instance, Peattie (1968), in her notable book The View from the Barrio,
showed how the migrants (e.g., squatters) had built their barrios using strong kinship
relations, that they were well organized, and that they had a clear view of how they could
solve their housing problems through their own efforts. In the same vein, Portes
(1972:272) argued that slum populations have been as rational as more established urban
middle-classes in developing solutions to their housing problems. By looking at the slum
dwellers’ participatory actions, he observed that when there was a clear need to act
collectively, then the slum dwellers were well-organized enough to create such collective
actions in their communities. Portes observed that the behaviors of slum populations have
provided the most efficient way of securing their socio-economic rewards as a function of
rational-utilitarian action, and therefore they were as rational as the other parts of the
urban sphere (Portes, 1972).
Following Peattie and Portes, Perlman’s (1976) empirical study has been the most
influential. Her major contribution was initially to show how the proposed marginality
32
theory was a myth that was created by class bias and ethnocentrism (Perlman, 1976:195-
258). Perlman revealed that when squatters were investigated from inside rather than
outside, things were seen quite differently. She observed that the squatter populations
carefully arranged their dwellings in ways that reflected the organizational patterns
within their communities (Perlman, 1976:195). She also concluded that the slum dwellers
were not marginal peoples at all, but rather a population that was exploited and repressed
in order to serve the system, and that in fact the elites often deliberately facilitated their
growth as a means of providing cheap labor (Perlman, 1976:195-258). Examining the
functionality of favelas, she also demonstrated that favelas were well designed, organized
and planned communities (Perlman, 1976:196-199).
As a result of the work of Perlman, Peattie and Portes, a greater awareness and a
more positive understanding of slums and its population has been created, leading to the
adoption of more positive attitudes in the political arena. However, while positive
connotations in the body of literature from anthropology and sociology helped form a
new perspective on slum developments, planners and architects were also major
contributors in shaping up a new housing policy towards slum developments. In
particular, the seminal works of Abrams (1964), Turner (1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1977,
1982, 1992; jointly with Mangin, 1968, 1969) and Mangin (1967) helped structure the
principles of housing policy that notably evolved around the concept of ‘self-help’
housing for lower-income housing in the context of the developing nations.
2.2.3. Self-Help Housing Paradigm
What is self-help housing and how was it accepted as a housing strategy for
lower-income households in the developing world? This section aims to elucidate these
33
questions with particular attention to the Turner school of thinking. Briefly, ‘self-help’
means ‘self-build’ or ‘self-improvement’ (Burgess, 1982:57), and self-help housing refers
to housing that is built by the actual inhabitants of the units under their own control and
management. As Harms (1982, 1992) illustrated in his writings, self-help housing was
neither a new nor unique concept for the developing nations, but in fact was a traditional
way of house building of the rural population in the developed world as well (Harms,
1992:35-37). However, with the seminal works of Abrams, Mangin and Turner, the term
was coined and stigmatized by its association with the low-income housing within the
context of the developing nations, and came to refer to traditional housing construction
through the self-build system that allowed users to incrementally improve their own
units. These writers argued passionately that squatters were not a problem, but were
rather an effective solution for housing the poor. Squatters, they argued, were well
adapted to the needs and circumstances of the poor. They allowed the actual users to
improve their units over a period of time (Harris, 2003:249-257).
Abrams (1964), in fact, was the first planner who highlighted the importance of
housing as an economically productive investment, emphasizing the significance of
informal settlements for cities. He argued that rejecting informal housing settlements
would create more problems to the cities than it solved. He championed promoting
homeownership in informal settlements by providing security of tenure (Abrams, 1964).
He defined housing as a ‘whole social milieu’ and stated that squatting was merely the
by-product of people’s struggle for shelter, and that it was a symptom rather than a cause
(Abrams, 1964:25). In fact, Abrams was the first planner, even before Turner, who really
seriously proposed that low-cost core-housing - what he called ‘installment construction’-
34
could be progressively implemented and improved over time (Mathey, 1992:380). He
claimed that;
Installment building is the only way many families without savings can
get their houses built. It may seem more practical to deposit the savings
until there is enough to pay for the house. {…} It may seem more
reassuring to see one’s savings in the form of bricks. Brick saving is
nevertheless a tedious process, tying up family capital and often ending in
frustration. The installment builder needs financing to help him complete
his building, and often a small loan will be sufficient. (Abrams, 1964:175)
In Abrams’ view, importance should be given to the core housing construction
and the installment building process as an effective method of building self-help housing.
Core housing was defined as housing production processes that aimed to provide an
“organized, cheap, and practical scheme for the urban and urbanizing areas of poorer
countries” (Abrams, 1964:175). By that, he, even before Turner, asserted the importance
of organized self-help in the urban areas of developing nations.
Although Abrams was the first one who pointed out the significance of self-help
housing and gradual home-improvement in his seminal work Man’s Struggle for Shelter
in an Urbanizing World, the debate became polarized around Turner’s writings, as
Mathey noted (Mathey, 1992: 283). It was Turner who made the major twist in the
literature with a positive acceptance of self-help housing arrangements. Turner’s work in
Lima (1972) and Mexico (1977) set the groundwork for the concept of ‘progressive
change’ towards a new housing policy approach to informal settlements (Pugh, 1997:92).
Turner transformed the term self-help into both a theory and a practice, so much so that
the idea became known in the literature as the Turner school of thinking, or as Bromley
(2003) asserts, the ‘Turnerian vision’ of housing.
35
In recent decades, Turner’s arguments have gained more acceptances in the
literature, mostly due to the fact that he stuck to his self-help argument in his writings and
persisted in stressing the positive importance of self-help as the only solution for lower-
income households in developing nations. Harris puts this succinctly by demonstrating
how Turner responded critically and continuously to the conventional housing programs
that created structures based on minimum-modern standards that were not suitable for the
life circumstances of the poor (Harris, 2003:260).
In his writings Turner told the world that in Lima’s slums, instead of there being a
feeling of marginality and disorganization among the people, there was optimism and
hope for the future, and a great deal of social organization. He pointed out that “the
squatters are mainly interested in consolidating their housing investment, getting their
kids in school, and identifying themselves as respectable property owners” (Mangin and
Turner, 1968:155). Turner proposed support for the informal housing arrangements rather
than demolishing what they built. He and Mangin both valued the self-help process,
seeing it as a crucial part of the solution of the housing problems of the poor (Mangin,
1967; Turner, 1968), and even claiming that housing should be seen as a verb instead of
as a noun or as a commodity (Turner, 1972:151).
One of Turner’s major contributions was to see the users as the principal actors in
housing issues rather than the planning organizations, by arguing that households should
be free to choose their own housing and to build and direct its construction, or to use and
manage it based on their own needs (Turner, 1972:154). He claimed that the users could
be the best judges of how to “control of the design, construction, and management of his
own” (Turner, 1972:158), and that in fact this method was quite cost effective. He
36
argued, “given the land and secure land, the squatter can build the same house as the
government agency at half the cost” (Turner, 1972:158).
Turner argued that creating unfinished dwellings that could be improved over
time was the most appropriate and inexpensive strategy for the poor. He recommended
self-help housing that could be built gradually by the actual users over a period of time
and based on the income ability of the users. Essentially, what Turner proposed was
autonomy in housing. According to him, autonomy and community participation should
be encouraged in the planning and management of housing (Turner, 1977). By pointing
out that who decides what to build had a crucial control over part of the process; Turner
argued that autonomy in housing was important for the poor (Turner, 1972, 1977). He
described autonomy as “freedom of action” for the slum dwellers (and pointed out that it
did not mean being able to build a house wherever they want) (Turner, 1972:247).
Autonomous housing, as he explained later on (1977), meant locally ‘self-governing’
housing systems that were monitored by the actual users of the dwellings (Turner,
1977:27).
Turner argued that “the best results are obtained by the user who is in full control
of the design, construction, and management of his own home,” and that “it is of
secondary importance whether or not he builds it with his own hands, unless he is very
poor” (Turner, 1972:158). This is where he echoed his argument that housing was a verb,
not a noun. In his view, the autonomous housing approach was a bottom-up approach
rather than a top-down one (Turner, 1977:40). He argued that it was necessary to
recognize different meanings of the value of housing rather than just recognizing and
37
valuing housing by its market value. He also stressed that human values were also quite
significant in shaping housing demand (Turner, 1977:64).
In sum, the principles of self-help housing, as established and popularized by
Turner, are: (a) autonomous housing meant self-governing housing monitored by the
actual users; (b) full participation of households in the design, construction, and
management of units; (c) incremental housing construction controlled and managed by
the users; (d) state-subsidized self-help housing, meaning that state should subsidize low-
income households so that the poor could build their own housing units based on the
needs of households rather than on the required standards; and (e) supported with tenure
security in the belief that there was a direct relationship between securing the tenure and
encouraging investment in housing (Turner, 1972, 1977, 1978). Overall, Turner’s
principles of self-governing in housing, of using small-scale technologies and materials,
and of building homes by using self-help labors on a secured piece of land became
influential. They were eventually translated into housing policies mostly through the help
of the World Bank when modernization development strategies were seen as not working
(Jenkins et al., 2007:161).
2.2.4. Critique of Turner’s Self-Help Ideas
However, the concept of self-help housing has not been free of critique. Since the
time that self-help housing was proposed and accepted as a low-income housing strategy,
a controversial debate on several levels has arisen among theorists, practitioners and
development agency personnel (Jenkins et al., 2007:163; Mathey, 1992:379).
Reactions towards the self-help housing approach of the Turner school of thought
have especially come from neo-Marxist scholars who have seen the self-help housing
38
approach as a representative tool of capitalist exploitation. Their major arguments
focused around emphasizing that the urban poor were still being dominated by the
capitalist system, and that the self-help approach was just another form of capitalist
exploitation and one that inevitably resulted in further control by the state of the poor
(Palmer & Patton, 1988:10). The analytical arguments of neo-Marxist critiques on self-
help have mainly adopted their arguments from the articulation theory of the capitalist
production system, and focused on describing how all of the mechanisms for providing
housing were formed for the protection of the capital and with the intention of controlling
the social relations (e.g., class relations), all as a means of protecting the capitalist mode
of production system.
10

The first serious critique of Turner’s ideas came from Pradilla Cobos (1976,
1979) in his study of housing in Peru (cited in Mathey, 1992:383). Working from a
Marxist point of view, he posited that the self-help housing strategy reduced the cost of
labor by supporting the self-build system, thus encouraging the construction industry to
pay lower wages, and that therefore this was only another form of dominating the labor
class under the ruling of the capitalist hegemony (Mathey, 1992:383). Pradilla’s line or
argument was later taken up by Rod Burgess in the late 1970s, who argued that self-help
housing was an effective method for double exploitation under capitalist control. In fact,
Burgess, among others, has become one of the most influential critics of the self-help
housing approach in the literature with his point-to-point elucidations and rebuttals of
Turner’s self-help approach.

10
See Castells (1978), Harvey (1981) for the relations between mode of production, capitalism and the state role. See
Mingione (1977), Scott (1980), Roweis and Scott (1981), Harvey (1985) for the meaning of urban land and ownership
within the capitalist economic system.
39
By addressing Turner’s arguments and views on self-help, Burgess (1977, 1978,
1982, 1985, 1992) systematically posited that Turner’s ideas on self-help housing ended
up depoliticizing housing from the wider economic context and the relations of classes
within societies. His major arguments were based mainly on two concepts: (a) that
housing should be considered within the broader economic context rather than only
concerned with the use-value of housing, as Turner stated; and (b) that self-help housing
also fell into the realm of capitalist commodity relations that were therefore inevitably
subject to the exchange-market.
Within these contexts, Burgess’ main criticism was that Turner’s self-help
housing notion was essentially the ‘petty-commodity production of housing,’ another
form of capitalist production system, whose special value in the housing market was still
subject to market forces (Burgess, 1977, 1978). He argued that Turner’s self-help housing
did not necessarily mean self-building in the market; on the contrary, this ‘petty-
commodity housing’ was subject to capitalist exchange-values rather than the use-value
that Turner posited (Burgess, 1978:1114). Burgess argued that self-help housing had
more market value than use-value, because it was not necessarily built through the hands
of actual users but mostly through the labor power hired by the users. He also argued that
the commercially supplied materials used in this construction had significant market
value, and that this was another example of how self-housing was actually
commercialization in disguise (Burgess, 1978:1107-1108, 1982:56). Using the same
logic, he pointed out that self-help labor and throwaway materials or construction
materials have had a place in the market that fell into the realm of marketable
commodities (Burgess, 1978:1113). Hence, as Burgess argued, “once housing is
40
conceived in these terms it is nonsense to look at low-income housing in terms of use-
values alone” (Burgess, 1982:61).
For Burgess, self-help housing was merely “operating in a different sphere of
circulation of capital - that covered by the petty-commodity production of housing”
(Burgess, 1982:66). It has not escaped the logic of capitalism, and therefore became just
another way of controlling the poorer classes for the benefit of the richer ones, and thus
helped the capitalist and market production system to continue to work. In other words,
he asserted, the self-help system was primarily a tool for the maintenance of the status
quo that promoted the general conditions of capitalist development in third world nations
(Burgess, 1982:57; Ward, 1982:9). Within the neo-Marxist understanding of capitalism
and urban formation, Burgess pointed out that self-help housing supported exploitation of
the labor by allowing the urban poor to build their units incrementally and with cheaper
production materials, strategies that in fact only served to lower labor wages. So, to him,
the self-help housing strategy covertly served the purpose of controlling the labor market,
and therefore was not significantly different than any other subordination system in a
capitalist society (Burgess, 1985:272-275). Accordingly, he therefore criticized Turner’s
self-help housing strategy as ‘depoliticizing housing’ by detaching the housing from the
broader economic relations within the capitalist nations and by ignoring the class
interests.
The debate on self-help housing between the Turner school and Burgess that came
to dominate academic discussions on the subject, and which set the tone of the self-help
housing debate in the 1970s, was also applied by scholars (Angel & Benjamin, 1976;
Collier, 1976; Leeds, 1981; Ward, 1976, 1983) to other developing nations. However,
41
this debate came to a halt at the beginning of the 1980s after it was realized that the
discussion of the issues Burgess raised provided no practical solutions for providing low-
income housing needs in the rapidly urbanizing developing nations (Mathey, 1992:384-5;
Palmer & Patton, 1988:10). In fact, both Turner’s and Burgess’ theories have
demonstrated flaws in practice. While Turner’s argument was perhaps too romanticized,
Burgess’ argument was too theoretical, and with no practical use. Accordingly, the
theoretical debate on self-help housing reached an end, and attention began to be given to
more empirical studies as a way of understanding the merits of self-help housing, and as a
method of evaluating the outcomes of the state-subsidized self-help housing initiatives,
which had mainly developed through the influence of Turner’s self-help housing strategy.
The empirical studies demonstrated that while self-help housing has not totally lost its
place in policy and practice, it certainly was becoming more commercialized and was not
as simple as Turner had suggested.
2.2.5. Current Position of Self-Help
Later studies on slum areas or informal housing areas have been organized around
various aspects of slum development that are related to larger economic, social, physical,
and political problems. They mainly either attempted to test the propositions of Turner’s
and Burgess’ self-help theoretical arguments in practice, or observed various aspects of
the social, physical, economic and political outcomes of the proliferation of slum areas.
Discussions since the 1980s have generally attempted to evaluate various aspects of the
outcomes of the state self-help housing programs.
Early studies were conducted to understand the motives of the new migrants and
how their new living environment – informal housing units – existed in relation to city
42
life and the overall adaptation of migrants to the city (Collier, 1976; Lloyd, 1979; Payne,
1984; Peattie, 1968, 1987a; Pearlman, 1976). Later on, under the influence of Turner and
his followers, the discussion in the literature turned mostly to how self-help housing was
allocated in the developing nations in areas other than Latin America, which was where
Turner developed his self-help housing argument. Among various similarities, the
scholars pointed out the cultural and geographical differences among developing nations
that needed to be carefully evaluated (Angel & Benjamin, 1976; Collier, 1976; Leeds,
1981; Peattie and Aldrete-Haas, 1981; Ward, 1976). For instance, Dwyer (1974, 1979)
examined both Latin American and Asian slums, and found that geographical differences
were significant in the forms that the slums took. He argued that self-help propositions
could not exactly be applicable to Asia, since Asia had different shelter priorities and
land title concerns that were embedded in the culture (Dwyer, 1974, 1979). Dwyer
demonstrated that various aspects of self-housing had different relevance in different
locations and geographies, and that each of these different aspects required their own
particular attention.
While location based studies have been part of the process, the studies around the
discussion of economic values and productivity of informal housing units have mostly
focused on the functionality of self-help in the market and the affordability level for the
lower-income households. Around the economic concerns, some studies have illustrated
convincing results regarding the fact that informal housing has been as cost-effective and
economic as the formal housing processes in supporting cheaper accommodation for the
urban poor. In this regard Jimenez’s economic analyses of informal housing have been
particularly significant. He asserted that self-help housing solutions were as economically
43
sound as formal housing one (Jimenez, 1982). In his Philippines-based study, he found
that self-help was valued at some 190% of annual low-income household income
(Jimenez, 1982). He also asserted that self-help could be considered as implicit savings
and investment, since the potential for rent from the housing could provide additional
income for the builders if necessary.
On the other hand, in evaluating within a broader economic context its
relationship with the formal economy and urban economic development, other studies
have pointed out how self-help has been economically productive by generating more
GNP with its small-scale construction pattern than the formal larger-scale construction
companies by providing a pool of labor for other urban economic development (Klaasen
et al., 1987; Moavenzadeh, 1987; Pugh, 2000; Rodwin & Sanyal, 1987). In addition,
these other studies have also indicated the economic importance and value of informal
housing by providing direct job placement for low-income labor (Peattie, 1987a; Rodwin
& Sanyal, 1987; Strassmann, 1986; Tipple, 2005). Slums are home-based enterprises and
hence represent both welfare and economic assets (Peattie, 1987b:276-277). While such
studies with broader economic context have spread the positive acceptance of the
informal housing areas in the political arena, they have also posited that the meaning of
housing was much different for the slum dwellers. By generating job opportunities, a
house could encompass both use-value and economic-value by necessitating more
flexible housing construction or design processes (Payne & Majale, 2004; Tipple, 2005).
Arguing that self-help housing provided more affordable and cheaper housing
solutions for low-income households, these studies have analyzed the cost effectiveness
of informal housing units, and found that informal housing with its cheap labor through
44
the self-build method and incremental production process provided cheaper and hence
less costly housing for low-income populations (Connolly, 1982; Jimenez, 1984; Lobo,
1982; Tipple et al., 1998; Turner, 1972). Jimenez (1984) asserted that “the price of the
formal alternative is greater than the price of illegal squatter settlements, and this
difference represents the premium for security of tenure” (Jimenez, 1984; cited in Pugh,
1990:81). Dowall (1991), in his study of Karachi, found that formal private sector
housing costs three times as much as informal housing units (Dowall, 1991).
However, other studies have indicated little cost-savings through informal
housing construction built through self-help or self-constructed. Schiffler (1991), in a
case study of Tunis, pointed out that there were very few cost savings (only 3%)
generated through self-help labor. Lovera (1982) and Bolivar (1982) also found no cost
savings in Venezuelan informal housing areas. In fact, they reported that when self-help
dwellers decided to sell their units, the selling price generally could not compensate for
the total investment of the dwellers, especially if the cost of their labor was included
(cited in Mathey, 1992:385). Yet, as Bermen pointed out in his study of Manila, the
principal attraction of informal housing has been the “possibility of incremental
development and building improvement which leads to a [phased] spreading the costs”
(Berner, 1997:236-237)
By pointing out the fact that conventional informal land and housing markets have
declined to give way to more commercialized informal relations in the informal market,
these authors have asserted that very few cost-savings were created in the self-help
housing, primarily because of the changing nature of the construction process over time.
They stated that self-help housing was no longer being constructed merely by the self-
45
labor of the actual homeowner but in fact by informal sub-contracting which created less
cost-saving among low-income households (Drakakis-Smith, 1981; Mathey, 1992;
Steinberg, 1990). Although early studies indicated less sub-contracting in the informal
housing (Peattie, 1987b:270; Ward, 1982: 187-189), the findings after the 1980s have
demonstrated that there has been more paid labor and informal sub-contracting in the
informal housing areas (Jones & Datta, 1999; Taschner, 1992, 1995; Tipple, 1994, 1996,
2000).
Tipple (1994), who studied the subject of autonomous housing in several
developing countries, found that self-help housing did not mean building with one’s own
hands; on the contrary, self-help rather generally meant users’ control of a construction
process in which hired workers played the most essential role (Tipple, 1994, 1996, 2000).
Even studies from the self-help programs, mainly sites and services programs, have found
that the houses have been primarily built by paid labor. For instance, in Lusaka, it was
found that 92% of the households in the sites and services’ project used a hired labor
force (Laquian, 1983). By the same token, Datta and Jones have argued that self-help
housing was a myth, finding that “most self-help housing [was] actually constructed with
the paid assistance of artisans, and for specialist tasks, skilled labor” (Jones & Datta,
1999:12).
The arguments on the changing features of the construction process of self-help
housing also addressed the commodification of the materials used in the construction of
self-help housing units. In contrast to what Turner claimed, more recent studies have
argued that self-help housing mostly used the conventional construction materials sold in
the formal market (Moavenzadeh, 1987; Soliman, 1995; Steinberg, 1990; Tipple, 2000), a
46
practice which gradually increased the housing costs for low-income households (Gilbert
& Ward, 1985). Nevertheless, as the literature has indicated, in the long run the
incremental building process of self-help has certainly created better living conditions for
the self-help population (Pugh, 2000:330). However, it has increased the economic value
of self-help housing and informal land by making them less available for the vulnerable
people who had been seeking accommodation in these areas as the only possible option
available for them.
In fact, the commodification or commercialization of the informal land and
housing market has been widely emphasized in the wide-ranging reviews in the literature
since the 1980s. It has been pointed out that the increased demand for peripheral land has
put pressure on informal land allocation systems, and hence on informal housing, which
has ultimately increased the costs of the informal land and housing market (Aldrich &
Sandhu, 1995; Angel, 1983; Baross & Linden, 1990; Durand-Lasserve, 1990; Nientied &
Van Der Linden, 1990; Payne, 1989; Ward, 1990).
In particular, by the 1970s, the informal land and housing markets have become
profitable areas of investment in developing nations, a process that was accelerated under
the influence of the economic stagnation that the developing nations mostly faced in the
1980s. As a consequence of the high inflationary environment in the developing nations
in recent decades, investing in land has become one of the most profitable tools available
for fighting against inflation in developing countries, a development which ultimately
attracted speculators to the informal land and housing market (Doebele, 1987; Durand-
Laserve, 1990). A consequence of this was the formation of illegal-land subdivisions in
the informal land market and the emergence of small-scale contractors in the informal
47
housing market, which created more complicated markets with higher prices (Durand-
Lasserve, 1990; Gilbert & Ward, 1985; Payne, 1989; Smart, 1986; Van Der Linden,
1983; Ward, 1990; Yonder, 1987). ‘Pirate urbanization’ has initially accelerated the
privatization of slum areas (Davis, 2006:40). This has been criticized in the literature as
leaving the urban poor in an even more vulnerable situation, since the once cheaper
solutions have become more expensive. This was called as ‘urban landlessness’
phenomenon by Doebele (1987), or called ‘commercialization’ by many other scholars
such as Angel et al. (1983), Baross and Van Der Linden (1990), and Pamuk (1996).
The problems of speculative activities in informal housing have been multi-
dimensional. On one hand, renting in the informal housing areas has become a more
widespread phenomenon with an increasing share in the informal housing units, leaving
the most vulnerable as renters (Amis, 1988, 1996; Gilbert, 1993a; Soliman, 2004).
‘Slumlordism,’ in Davis’ term, has become widespread in the informal housing areas
(Davis, 2006:82). On the other hand, the population that has occupied the informal
housing settlements has become more heterogeneous (Gilbert & Varley, 1991; Rodwin &
Sanyal, 1987).
Caroline Moser (1987) has drawn our attention towards gender concerns in the
informal housing areas, noting the important role of women in housing production, and
the fact that they are the most dominant consumer group in the informal housing areas.
Yet, it has been observed that female-headed households have become the most
vulnerable among all other groups in the informal housing areas, and one that needs
special attention (Chant & Ward, 1987). For instance, Eckstein (1990) pointed out the
vulnerable position of women in finding and protecting their jobs since the informal
48
housing areas have begun to be on distant peripheral land, which makes it difficult for
them to commute in a daily basis.
Speculative activities and price increases in the informal housing areas have also
created physical transformation in these areas. Researchers have pointed out the decrease
in plot sizes as a method of creating more profits from the peripheral land (Ward,
1990:157), and that the ‘verticularization’ of cities (Taschner, 1995:196) has become the
dominant physical form observed in the informal housing areas (Davis, 2006; Mohan,
1994; Pamuk, 1996; Steinberg, 1990; Taschner, 1995). The conventional one-story
informal housing units have been transformed into multi-story apartment buildings,
almost identical to apartment buildings in the formal housing market (Pamuk, 1996).
The increase of commercialization in the slums and the proliferation of informal
housing are related. In fact, the proliferation of slums and speculative activities have been
accelerated by the regularization and legalization processes of the state-initiated slum
upgrading programs that have been adopted since the early 1970s under the influence of
Turner’s ideas about self-help housing (Gilbert, 1990; Gilbert & Ward, 1985). Tenure
security or giving official title deeds to the slum dwellers has become the most significant
tool in the state-initiated slum upgrading programs (Pugh, 1995). However, the
legalization process, instead of preventing future slum developments, has accelerated new
slum developments in the peripheral areas by giving a covert promise to slum dwellers
that their property ownership will become legalized in the future (Baross & Van Der
Linden, 1990:14).
Today, it is apparent from the literature and practice that slum development has
certainly taken a more commercialized direction not foreseen by Turner’s theories.
49
Informal housing developments have lost their innocence along the way as they have
become transformed into more commoditized settlements with higher prices. However,
slum development still provides the only possible option to most of the urban poor. In
fact, while the gaps between informal housing practice and policy have been widening,
Turner’s self-help propositions have continued to influence housing policy towards
informal housing in low-income areas. The fact that half of the population in urban areas
reside in the informal housing settlements provides a unique indication that their
importance has not decreased at all. The fact that slum populations still rely
predominantly on self-help remains the key issue regarding housing policies and
practices, and still requires attention from researchers and policy makers.
Producing more effective housing policies in these settlements is still the major
political challenge for local and state authorities. While community involvement in
improving the housing conditions of slum dwellings offers promise for improving the
state of the slum areas, current state programs have shifted their housing policies towards
more market-oriented upgrading solutions that, if not in theory certainly in practice, seem
to ignore the direct involvement of the slum dwellers in this process.
2.3. State Initiatives to Improve Slum Conditions: Slum Upgrading Processes
Beginning in the late 1960s, in order to protect the development strategies of
developing nations, various international agencies became major actors in supporting the
economic and political stability of nation states and promoting international security. By
the 1970s, these agencies, in particular the United Nations and the World Bank, began
looking for more effective ways to upgrade the conditions of slums in developing nations.
50
They began adopting the self-help ideas of Turner and other researchers, and supporting
various slum upgrading programs in different countries.
Over time, as it became obvious that the modernization development strategies
were not working that effectively, new development strategies based on concepts such as
‘basic needs’ and ‘redistribution with growth’ were adopted (Jenkins et al., 2007:36-37).
These policies came to dominate the lending strategies of international development
agencies during the 1970s in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. This shift in their
strategies initially led the agencies to embrace and assist self-help housing policies in
order to improve the conditions of slum population in the developing nations (Jenkins et
al., 2007:161-162).
11
As a result, a significant amount of state-aided self-help housing
projects became sponsored by these agencies, particularly by the World Bank (Harris,
2003; Pugh, 1995, 1997).
Both the UN and the World Bank worked closely with Turner beginning in the
early 1960s, and consequently were highly influenced by his self-help housing proposals
(Harris, 2003).
12
Since the early 1970s, the World Bank has become the principal agency
providing funds for promoting various self-help projects in the developing nations. As
part of this process, while the World Bank has been funding the states of the developing
nations, the governments themselves have helped low-income households to acquire
houses by helping them build their own dwellings (Harris, 2003; Pugh, 1997, 2001). The
self-help housing strategy became the principal housing policy aimed at upgrading slum
areas and improving the living conditions in them (Burgess, 1992).

11
For more details, see chapter 2:34-55 in Jenkins et al. (2007).
12
For more details, see Harris (2003).
51
In his evaluation of the changing roles of self-help housing during this period
Pugh (1995, 1997, 2001) has identified three slum upgrading programs endorsed by the
World Bank: (a) sites-and-services projects, (b) in-situ slum upgrading programs, and (c)
housing enablement programs. While the early programs introduced between 1972 and
1982 were based on state-aided approach, the later upgrading programs have shifted
towards a ‘whole sector housing development’ approach, which is more market-oriented
and which requires less state involvement in the programs (Pugh, 2001). While the early
programs were based on a project-by-project approach, the whole sector housing
development programs have been based on a more complex approach and the articulation
of the concept of ‘housing enablement’ (Mathey, 1992; Pugh, 1997; Werlin, 1999). These
programs have begun being articulated in more economically focused terms (Jenkins et
al., 2007:171). In this context, the following section will briefly examine the primary
implications of the various slum upgrading projects implemented in the developing
nations during and since the 1970s.
2.3.1. The Early Programs for Slum Upgrading, 1972-1985
2.3.1.1. Sites-and-Services Projects
The early slum upgrading programs that were adopted and launched by the World
Bank began in 1972 with sites-and-services schemes. However, the inadequacies and
failure of these types of projects in many places brought about the adoption of in-situ
upgrading programs as another tool for improving the conditions of slum areas and
implementing upgrading processes. As Pugh has demonstrated, these upgrading programs
were implemented between 1972 and 1985 in various cities in the developing nations
(Pugh, 1997, 2001). Both types of schemes introduced during this period were based on
52
state-aided upgrading programs in which land and public services were provided by
governments, while the dwelling units themselves were constructed through the self-help
housing process. Yet, there are some differences between these two schemes.
The sites-and-services schemes were based on planned land subdivisions, and
focused on providing basic public services such as water, sanitation and road access. In
these projects, the slum populations were transferred to new areas. The objectives of the
sites-and-services schemes were to provide land to slum dwellers where households
could build their own units through self-help arrangements, to finance and assist dwellers
with the installation of infrastructure in the new locations, and to secure property rights to
land for the dwellers (Pugh, 1997; Van Der Linden, 1986).
The success and continuation of these projects was dependent on full cost-
recovery being provided by slum dwellers (Angel, 1983; Mathey, 1992; Mayo, 1987),
which was the primary concern of this scheme. The households could invest in the
construction of their homes and gradually pay back the necessary costs for their share in
the projects (Pugh, 1997:95). According to the World Bank, a good sites-and-services
project would have reached the lowest 20
th
percentile of the population in terms of
income. However, the results of implemented projects indicate that most of the time the
projects failed to reach the lowest percentile of the income groups (Mathey, 1992;
Peattie, 1982, 1987b; Ramirez & Burgess, 1988).
The other major failure of the sites-and-services projects were the problems
associated with the premise of full cost recovery of the projects: the locational problems
of the schemes, and the high standards of the projects increased costs and decreased the
affordability level for lower-income households (Choguill, 1995:405-407; Mathey,
53
1992:385; Mayo, 1987:61; Ward, 1983:39-40). As the failures of the sites-and-services
schemes increased, by the late 1970s the emphasis of the World Bank began shifting to
in-situ slum upgrading programs (Pugh, 2001).
2.3.1.2. In-Situ Upgrading Programs
In-situ upgrading schemes were designed for slum areas that were already built
up. The objective of these types of upgrading programs was to provide slum dwellers
basic public services in their existing locations in order to preserve the economic systems
that already had been established, which made them more convenient and appealing for
slum dwellers (Choguill, 1995; Pugh 1995). The emphasis of these upgrading processes
was on: providing installation of public infrastructure (e.g., water, sewage, electricity
systems and paved roads), rearranging some parts of the layout, providing social services
to the upgraded locations, securing property rights to the land for the slum dwellers, and
sometimes providing direct financial and construction assistance for the improvement of
housing units (Choguill, 1995:409).
Tenure security has generally been considered one of the most essential elements
for the success of any upgrading schemes. Thus, both sites-and-services and in-situ
upgrading programs were designed to secure the property rights of land for the actual
dwellers. In fact, securing property has been seen as the a priori requirement for the
success of upgrading programs and the improvement of housing conditions in slum areas
(Pugh, 1995, 1997). Although studies that examined the relationship of tenure security
and housing improvement have shown that securing tenure has not necessarily been the
major indication of success for housing improvement or the most significant motive for
investing in housing, and that households do invest in their units once the community
54
level or ‘de facto’ recognition of slums was established (Angel, 1983; Baross, 1990;
Payne, 1989, Payne & Majale 2004; Porio & Crisol, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1992; De
Souza, 2001), slum upgrading schemes have continued emphasizing tenure security and
the formalization of slum areas as among their primary goals.
It has been observed that in-situ upgrading programs have achieved more success
than the sites-and-services projects in protecting the actual slum population and providing
the formalization process to the slum dwellers. Martin (1983) has outlined four
advantages of upgrading over the sites-and-services schemes. First, slum upgrading
programs help preserve existing economic systems and job opportunities in the existing
locations for the lower-income households. Second, upgrading schemes preserve the
existing low cost housing stock at their present locations. Third, they help preserve
community structure and thus preserve the social dynamics of the existing slum
communities. Fourth, they preserve the actual locations of housing and hence reduce
population displacement, a major problem with the sites-and-services schemes (cited in
Choguill, 1995:409).
Because of these factors, beginning in late 1970s, slum upgrading projects have
been widely adopted by the local governments in various developing nations. As Mukhija
(2003) recently pointed out, slum upgrading programs have been widely used in many
nations as the most preferable solutions among households (Mukhija, 2003:1). Slum
upgrading programs were considered less costly than the sites-and-services schemes in
dealing with the urban poor. Churchill (1980) estimated that an average unit in an
upgrading project cost US$38 per household, while a core housing unit in a site-service
55
project cost US$1000-2000 (cited in Werlin, 1999:1524), which is an enormous
difference.
The early evaluations of slum upgrading projects in Calcutta, Jakarta, and Manila
indicated remarkable successes, and the slum upgrading projects became the primary type
of programs encouraged by the World Bank (Pugh, 1990: 211; Werlin, 1999: 1525).
However, by the end of the 1980s, the benefits of upgrading efforts began to appear
ephemeral or inconsistent. Later evaluations indicated that only a small percentage of
beneficiaries would be able to pay for the services they received due to the high
infrastructure costs, and the funding problems of governments had begun creating
funding cutbacks, which hampered the continuation of these programs (Alexander, 1988:
134; Werlin, 1999:1526).
2.3.1.3. General Evaluation of Early Programs for Upgrading
The early programs were based on project-by-approaches. Thus, their successes
were tied to successful community participation and management as well as the cost-
recovery abilities of households. Although there were some success stories with these
types of projects, the major reason for the failure of these projects was due to the lack of
recognition of the vulnerability of low-income households in developing nations (Mayo,
1987; Peattie, 1982; Pugh, 1997; Ward, 1983). These projects were based on full cost-
recovery approaches, but the households were usually unable to pay for them.
In general, the problems associated with these projects were mainly due to the
inadequacy of the selected locations for preserving the existing employment possibilities
for the beneficiaries, land allocation programs which did not benefit the poor, a lack of
coordination among government agencies, gaps in land policy, unwieldy institutions
56
retarding implementation, low cost recovery, high standards for housing improvement,
project delays, gaps in housing finance systems, corruption during the implementation
process, and a high population turnover rate (Drakakis-Smith, 1981; Gilbert & Gugler,
1992; Mathey, 1992; Nientied et al., 1986; Nientied & Van Der Linden, 1988; O’Hare &
Abbott, 1998; Payne, 1989; Pugh, 1990; Choguill, 1995; Van der Linden, 1986; Ward,
1982). Consequently, during the late 1980s, these problems caused the World Bank to
explore new approaches towards improving the lives of slums. Thus, a more
comprehensive approach, the ‘enabling’ or ‘whole sector housing approach,’ has been
adopted by the World Bank as a new strategy for improving the conditions of slums
(World Bank, 1993).
2.3.2. Whole Sector Housing Programs: Enabling Housing Market
By the late 1980s, in order to achieve more responsive housing policies, the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) and the World Bank had
decided to develop a more comprehensive approach towards slum housing areas. Based
on this concept, UNCHS (1987) and the World Bank (1993) developed a ‘new agenda,’
the enabling approach. In general, the enabling approach represented a comprehensive
plan to improve the well-being of urban and housing developments. The overall emphasis
was more on the economic growth of urban housing rather than only on its physical
improvement (UNCHS, 1987; World Bank, 1993).
While UNCHS has established the general outline of the enabling strategy, the
World Bank has put these strategies into practice by defining a seven-point set of
principles in its document Housing Enabling Markets to Work (UNCHS, 1987; World
Bank, 1993). However, UNCHS and the World Bank approached the enabling strategy
57
from different perspectives. The enabling approach of UNCHS was based more on
community participation and a community approach, while the implementation of the
World Bank’s enabling strategy was based more on utilizing market forces and enlisting
the cooperation of business interests (Pugh, 1997, 2001).
The enabling approach was first defined by UNCHS (1987) in the Global Report
on Human Settlements and later in its Global Shelter Strategies, which stated that the
main goal was to achieve the well-being of the human settlements in developing nations.
The theme of UNCHS’s enabling approach was based on state facilitation, rather than
direct state initiatives, “through enabling the private and community sectors to respond to
housing demand” (Jenkins et al., 2007:169). The basic concept of the enabling approach
was that “human settlements contribute positively to economic as well as social
development” (Jenkins et al., 2007:169). Based on this concept, enabling was aimed at
facilitating the economic growth of human settlements by connecting the roles of the
states, the markets, the NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) (Pugh,
1997:97). In other words, “enablement strategies must . . . fuse settlement-wide action
with local initiative” (UNCHS, 1987:19), which meant that the state’s role was seen as
more to be a moderator rather than a direct provider (World Bank, 1993:7). In this
concept, the idea of enabling was regarded as the “whole sector housing development,” a
more program-based approach rather than a project-by-project approach (Pugh, 1997:98;
Pugh, 2001:407).
In 1989, the enabling approach or the ‘new agenda’ of UNCHS was published
with more coherent and multiple objectives, which in turn became the basis for the
strategies of the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 (GSS) (UNCHS, 1990). In
58
1993, the World Bank began putting the enabling strategy into practice by converting
these general ideas into a seven-point set of operational principles delineated in Housing:
Enabling Markets to Work (World Bank, 1993). These principals were based on: (a)
developing property rights through the regularization of insecure tenure; (b) developing
housing finance systems; (c) developing well-targeted, measurable, transparent subsidies;
(d) providing infrastructure and land development for the urban poor; (e) regulating land
and housing development with the introduction of regulatory audits in order to remove
regulations that prevented housing development for the urban poor; (f) organizing the
building industry better in order to create greater competition in the industry; and (g)
developing the institutional framework for managing the housing sector (World Bank,
1993:39-44).
In this approach, arguing that housing sector performance has been fundamentally
shaped by market forces, the World Bank encouraged more market involvement in the
upgrading programs in order to achieve more effective programs and more lasting
success. As the principal of this strategy, the World Bank aimed to create interdependent
relationships among the state, self-help households, and markets, while giving more
emphasis to the role of market-forces (Pugh, 1995; World Bank, 1993).
13
In this
approach, the state’s role has been shifted into encouraging market forces, which meant
declines in direct housing subsidies by state.
In fact, the inclination towards market-friendly housing policies by the World
Bank was not accidental. It reflected the imprint of the neo-liberal economic policies
adopted globally during the 1980s, which necessitated new economic austerity plans by

13
For detailed information, see the World Bank (1993).
59
the state and which brought about the adoption of structural adjustment programs (SAPs)
for the revitalization of economic growth (Davis, 2006:151-173). The key policy
elements of this new economic policy were based on reorganization of delivery systems
that were realized through decentralization, privatization, and deregulation.
Decentralization was defined as transferring the state power and responsibility
into other organizations, mainly to the private sector. Arguing that central authorities
were inefficient at providing services to local communities, it was argued that local
communities should be empowered by decentralizing the state power and transferring the
responsibilities into the hands of local communities (Mukhija, 2003:8).
Privatization was defined as emphasizing the role of the private sector or markets.
It was argued that in order to let the markets function efficiently, the governments should
avoid directly intervening in housing and land markets, and should encourage the markets
to provide more housing. It was asserted that housing does not only have a social sector,
but, most importantly, an economic sector as well, and that the public sector should not
be ruled out in the private markets since the economic sector could provide more
optimum solutions (World Bank, 1993:19-37). As these new ideas gained hold, the
World Bank started encouraging market-oriented upgrading processes as its major
approach to improving the living conditions in slums.
Market-delivery of housing through privatization necessitated deregulation of
policy control over housing provision. As a consequence of deregulation, direct housing
provision by the state was prohibited with new regulations. The new regulations required
less state involvement. The state, in this new understanding of the enabling approach, was
to become merely a facilitator for developing private property rights, mortgage finance
60
instruments, and mutual credit associations for beneficiaries (Jenkins et al., 2007:168;
Mukhija, 2003:9).
As a consequence of the need to adapt new strategies after the 1980s, the World
Bank conceptualized the enabling policy as its new housing policy instrument for
improving the lives of slums. Thus, the World Bank’s enabling approach “was coached in
the language of economics and markets, with a predominance of macro-economic
considerations” (Jenkins et al., 2007:169).
In order to empower and encourage the market forces to get involved with
housing provision, the strategies of slum upgrading programs also shifted from improving
strategies to redevelopment strategies (Dundar, 2001; Mukhija, 2003). While the
improvement strategy was based mainly on improving the living conditions of slums in
their existing places with fewer or no additional development rights (e.g., additional floor
area ratio (FAR)), the redevelopment strategy was structured based on the principles of
market rules in order to encourage the market forces to get involved with housing
provision. Therefore, slum upgrading through the redevelopment strategy has brought
additional development rights, such as FAR, to the upgraded areas. However, the recent
evidence from the developing countries indicates that such slum upgrading programs are
not problem free.
For instance, Mukhija, after studying the Parshwanath Township Case in
Ahmadabad, India, has demonstrated that market-based housing programs often failed to
provide adequate or sufficient housing. The developer stopped building housing for
lower- and moderate-income households, primarily because there was not enough profit
in it (Mukhija, 2004). In another study, Mukhija pointed out that market-based slum
61
upgrading processes have accelerated property values and thus endangered housing
provision for the urban poor (Mukhija, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2003,).
The same results have been observed in Turkey as well. For instance, Dundar
(2001) has evaluated the impact of gentrification on slum upgrading programs through
redevelopment programs that have been structured according to market rules and the
profit motive. Nevertheless, market forces can be responsive to community concerns to a
certain point. However, the role of households seems to be generally lessened or
forgotten in this new approach. The community-driven forces should be integrated into
this approach. Thus, the enabling approach or market-driven enabling policy needs to be
accompanied by more community integration and state control. This dissertation, thus,
aims to look at and emphasize the role of community-driven forces in order to understand
how to capitalize on community-driven involvement and investment in slum upgrading
processes.
2.3.3. Promising Land of “User-Initiated” Housing Improvement in Upgrading
14

Enabling markets in slum upgrading programs does also have shortcomings. It
seems that the market can be effective at upgrading slum areas only to a certain point.
However, as I suggest, households do still have power to control their housing
environments and hence improve their housing units through time. As the evidence has
shown us, Turner’s conventional understanding of self-help housing development has
evolved into a more commercialized form. However, I do not think that it means that
self-help has entirely lost its relevance for today. In fact, as the evidence from both from
the developing and developed worlds indicates, households tend to control their housing

14
The term ‘user-initiated’ was cited from Tipple, Graham A (2000).
62
units even if they do not build their units with their own hands. Turner’s proposal to build
housing incrementally, which means allowing the lower-income population living in
slums to improve gradually improve their own units, still holds hope for the urban poor
and the upgrading of slum areas via household-based initiatives.
As the experiences from the developing world indicate, incremental improvement
for consolidation of housing improves the living conditions of housing units while
improving the consumption level of housing (Baross, 1990; Baross & Mesa, 1986;
Ramirez et al., 1992). Although, as Baross stated, consolidation has been de facto zoning
that resulted in price increases of slum units (Baross, 1990:65), the ability to improve
their own housing has created better living conditions for slum dwellers. For instance, in
his case study from India, Dowall posits that gradual improvement of housing in katchi
abadis has resulted in improvements in the housing conditions of the slums there
(Dowall, 1991).
By the same token, other recent studies have also noted the continuing importance
of incremental housing improvement motives in slum areas. For instance, Berner (2001),
studying the Philippines and Pakistan, emphasized the importance of incremental
developing in informal housing areas in increasing the value of units as economic assets
(Berner, 2001:299). Additionally, among others, De Souza, in case studies from Recife,
Brazil, and Porio and Cristol from metropolitan Manila, has also pointed out that slum
dwellers continue investing in their housing units even though they have no tenure
security for their land (De Souza, 2001; Pario & Cristol, 2004).
In his work Extending Themselves, Tipple (2000) has examined the
transformation of governmental-built housing in four case study areas from Bangladesh,
63
Egypt, Ghana, and Zimbabwe, and has found household-level involvement to play an
important role in housing improvement (Tipple, 2000). However, instead of using the
term self-help housing, Tipple has coined the term ‘user-initiated transformation’ to refer
to the housing improvement motives of households. In the current study, following the
Tipple’s example, I also use the term ‘user-initiated’ housing improvement instead of
self-help housing. But both emphasize the role of households in the housing improvement
process and acknowledge that although households do not necessarily build their units by
using their own labor-force as in the conventional self-help process, it is still the most
promising and effective practice, albeit more in commercial terms. In other words,
households do continue to have the power to control the decisions over their dwellings,
even they do not build or improve their units with their own hands.
Studies from housing literature in developed nations have also emphasized the
important role of user-initiated involvement in adjusting the housing units based on
household needs and demands. In the housing literature on developed nations, the early
studies had discussed the issue in terms of the economic value of residential mobility,
arguing whether the housing consumption level had been at the equilibrium level
(Alonso, 1964; Goodman, 1976; Ratcliff, 1949; Rossi, 1955), or whether the cost of
moving was seen as less than the cost of improvement (Dynarski, 1986; Edin & Englund,
1991; Goodman, 1976; Goodman, 1989, 1995; Hamushek & Quigley, 1978; Mendelsohn,
1977; Montgomery 1992; Shear, 1983; Potepan, 1989). The main argument in this
context was based on the idea that households tended to move when they were not
satisfied or the transaction costs of moving were not too high for households.
64
Others, following this argument, began emphasizing that moving was not
necessarily the only choice of households, but that households did constantly face the
choice between moving or improving (Clark & Onaka, 1983; Edin & Englund, 1991;
Littlewood & Munro, 1997). As Seek has succinctly put it, households have been in a
constant debate between improving their units or moving to new units (Seek, 1983). Seek
has argued that households decide to improve based on their changing tastes and
preferences that have affected the needs and demands of their households. As he has
illustrated, households who could improve their units based on their housing needs and
demands intended to stay in their improved units longer rather than moving (Seek, 1983).
He has pointed out that ”housing stress” and ”housing shocks” have played the initial role
in triggering the housing improvement or housing mobility choices of households (Seek,
1983:456-457).
As Seek and others have tried to emphasize in the housing adjustment discussion,
household structure or family life-cycle is a non-monetary element that has been a
significant factor in households’ decisions whether to stay and improve their units or
simply to move (Boehm, 1982; Clark & Onaka, 1983; Gosling et al., 1993; Kendig, 1984;
McLeod & Ellis, 1983; Seek, 1983). Gosling et al. (1993) have stressed that housing
improvement has not been directly associated with family life-cycles, although
progressive housing improvement has been essential to achieve higher space standards in
housing units in a case study from Wokingham, United Kingdom. The importance of
family structure or family life-cycle has been significantly emphasized in many other
studies, indicating a strong connection of housing improvement strategy of households
65
with family life-cycles (Clark & Onaka, 1983; Cox, 1975; Ihlanfeldt, 1981; Lansing &
Kish, 1957; McLeoad & Ellis, 1983; Michelson, 1977).
The motives for housing improvement by households have been analyzed by
looking at the extensions undertaken by households for their units. As Gosling et al.
(1993) have put it; extensions have been thought to bring the same impact as moving,
albeit by standing still. Littlewood and Munro have also pointed out the fact that housing
improvement has been another housing choice among other alternatives (Littlewood &
Munro, 1997). In other words, housing extension decisions for improving the housing or
adjusting the housing based on the needs of households seem to have created the same
effect on the satisfaction of households as moving (Gosling et al., 1993).
In-place user-initiated housing adjustment motives have been also seen as creating
upward filtering in communities (Ozo, 1986:459; Seek, 1983:458; Tipple, 2000:78). In
fact, the user-initiated housing improvement motive is more likely to be even more
important in housing markets of the urban poor in areas such as developing nations. Thus,
user-initiated housing improvement motives seem more relevant and are an important
tool for improving housing conditions in slum areas in general. Consequently, it is
important to find ways to integrate user-initiated housing involvement in slum upgrading
programs and to find ways to capitalize on user-initiated involvement within the market
economic system.
2.4. Conclusion
The housing literature in developing nations has shown that, with more than half
of the urban population living in slum areas, slum areas continue to be an important
phenomenon in the urban areas of the developing nations. Improving slum areas must be
66
an essential part of housing policy concerns in providing habitable and sustainable
housing areas for the urban poor.
As this chapter has elucidated, slum areas and housing improvement schemes
have been widely examined in the literature since the early 1960s. The pejorative
connotations of early discussions on slum or informal areas as deviant and marginal
shifted into more positive discussions beginning in the early 1970s. Turner’s school of
thought, with its theories regarding self-help housing, became the turning point in the
studies affecting public policy towards slum areas.
The conventional understanding of self-help housing in Turner’s proposition
during the 1970s defined self-help as meaning that the actual users built the housing units
using their own time, income and labor force. The self-help housing ideas of Turner also
suggested incremental housing building processes, or as Turner put it the consolidation of
housing, as the major and most effective way of constructing housing for the lower-
income households.
Self-help housing theory initially became a practice in the hands of international
agencies, namely the World Bank, and hence of the governments of developing nations,
beginning in the early 1970s. The early upgrading programs (e.g., sites-and-services and
in-situ upgrading programs) of the World Bank were initially prepared based on the
Turner’s ideas regarding self-help housing and community involvement, which were
mostly state-aided programs.
However, by the 1980s, the state-aided slum upgrading policies began being
abandoned by the governments of the developing nations in favor of more market-based
approaches that utilized commercialization and the profit motive. After more neo-liberal
67
economic doctrines regarding development were adopted during the 1980s, with the
necessity of fighting against the economic austerity policies and creating ways to
revitalize the market, the three essential concepts of decentralization, privatization, and
deregulation have become the guides for restructuring nations in all dimensions. This
meant increasing the role of markets in housing provision in the developing nations in
general (and in developed nations as well), and in slum upgrading programs in particular.
As a result of these new ideas and the restructuring of housing improvement
policies, the state-aided programs were abandoned and the whole sector or enabling
housing approach was adopted by the World Bank and the governments of most
developing nations. The World Bank encouraged more market involvement in the
upgrading programs. As the principal of this strategy, the World Bank aimed to create
interdependent relationships among the state, self-help households, and markets, while
giving more emphasis to the role of market-forces. However, in practice, the
implementation of the enabling strategy focused much more on market-based approaches
rather than on community-based ones.
In practice, governments have tended to embrace redevelopment strategies as
their slum upgrading policies in order to empower and encourage market forces to get
involved with providing housing for slums. However, market-based upgrading programs
can only be a responsive to a certain degree, and in particular seem to be inadequate for
the poorest of households, whose income and employment stability is not high enough to
provide the potential for sustained profit. The major shortcoming of market-based
upgrading approach is the occurrence of high population turnover in upgraded areas.
68
However, as I have tried to emphasize in this chapter, by referring to the studies,
findings and conclusions found in the housing literature, both in developing and
developed nations, community-level dynamics, particularly user-initiated involvements
of households in upgrading process, have provided promising solutions for upgrading
slum areas. Although it is now almost impossible to talk about the conventional meaning
of self-help housing due to the fact that self-help has become more commercialized along
the way, and constructing housing using household labor force is not a significant issue
any more, the evidence both from developing and developed nations illustrates that in
many areas households are still in control, one way or another, of the formation of their
own housing units. Thus, in this dissertation, I argue that integration of user-initiated
housing improvement motives of households into upgrading programs, and finding ways
to capitalize on household-based market forces within the upgrading process, are
essential to achieving improvements in housing for lower-income households, and in
addressing the problems of slum expansion in general.

69
CHAPTER 3: URBANIZATION AND SLUM DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY
3.1. Introduction
A slum dwelling or a squatter is defined as a housing unit that is illegally
occupying someone else’s land (either public or private) in order a slum dweller to build
a housing structure without securing any building permits (Yonder, 1987: 214).
15
These
housing structures have become a major phenomenon in almost all cities in developing
nations including Turkey. Turkey, in particular, has experienced a half century of
massive urbanization and squatterization, especially in its larger cities.
16

Beginning in 1950, and reaching its highest peak between 1960 and 1980, a
massive migration flow from rural to urban areas in Turkey generated rapid urbanization
growth with increasing squatterization. Between 1950 and 1980, the Turkish urban
population approximately quadrupled, increasing from 3.9 million to 20.3 million. By
1980, more than one-third of the urban population was already residing in three major
cities; Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir (Danielson & Keles, 1985:27; Oncu, 1988:40). By
1990, cities were facing enormous difficulties in dealing with urban related problems,
with more than half of the neighborhoods formed from slum populations (Keles, 2002;
Senyapili, 1998).
Newcomers who arrived from rural areas into cities with hope of finding jobs
generally could not find affordable urban land for themselves. Consequently, they solved
their own accommodation problems by invading land, usually public land located on the
periphery of the cities. As Harms has shown, building slums of their own was simply the

15
In this dissertation, by using the Davis’ and World Bank’s latest description on the illegal formations, I use the term
‘slum’ instead of ‘squatter’ to describe illegally built housing units. See Davis, 2006 and UN-HABITAT, 2003b.
16
The term squatterization was coined by Davis (Davis, 2006).
70
continuation of a conventional way of construction process, the same ones used by the
migrants to build their homes in rural areas. They have simply followed their own
traditional way of solving housing problems in urban areas (Harms, 1982, 1992). Bugra
argues that over time, slums or gecekondus have become “a moral legitimacy as a form
of need satisfaction complementing the deficiencies of formal mechanisms of exchange
and redistribution” (Bugra, 1998:306-307).
These developments began on peripheral urban land, but a process of integration
with the rest of the city soon began. By the late 1960s, their existence was creating
enormous pressure on urban land, which ultimately led to the integration of these
peripheral lands into urban land stocks. This was done by the legal recognition of
ownership through amnesty laws, and by slum upgrading programs and plans, which
were initiated for slum areas in the larger cities during the mid-1960s.
Slums were justified as a housing solution for the migrants between 1960 and
1970. The justification of slums by national and local governmental authorities had multi-
faceted dimensions that were linked to the structural conditions of the 1960s. The
national government and local municipalities, who were having economic, institutional,
and political difficulties in dealing with the urbanization problems caused by slum
population, embraced clientelistic relations with slum populations. This in turn, however,
encouraged even greater population growth and slum expansion (Bugra, 1998; Oncu,
1988; Yonder, 1987). With official recognition, the slums soon lost their innocence. By
the 1980s, slums were already becoming such a profitable investment that a new, yet
illegal, housing sector had been formed to meet the demand (Pamuk, 1996).
71
3.2. Urbanization Process in Turkey by Numbers
The urbanization process began as the result of the widespread industrialization
that began in Turkey during the 1950s. Huge migration flows from rural into urban areas
created tremendous population increase in urban centers. Although the urbanization
process has hardly gone hand in hand with economic development in Turkey, as has been
the case for many the developing nations, it has kept increasing over the decades. By the
end of the century, the population of urban areas had more than doubled, reaching a total
44 million people, with 65% of the total Turkish population residing in urban areas
(Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1).
Table 3.1: Distribution of Urban and Rural Population in Turkey: 1927-2000
Years Urban pop
a
% Rural pop % Total pop
1927 3,305,879 24.2% 10,342,391 75.8% 13,648,270
1935 3,802,642 23.5% 12,355,376 76.5% 16,158,018
1940 4,346,249 24.4% 13,474,701 75.6% 17,820,950
1945 4,687,102 24.9% 14,103,072 75.1% 18,790,174
1950 5,244,337 25.0% 15,702,851 75.0% 20,947,188
1955 6,927,343 28.8% 17,137,420 71.2% 24,064,763
1960 8,859,731 31.9% 18,895,089 68.1% 27,754,820
1965 10,805,817 34.4% 20,585,604 65.6% 31,391,421
1970 13,691,101 38.5% 21,914,075 61.5% 35,605,176
1975 16,869,068 41.8% 23,478,651 58.2% 40,347,719
1980 19,645,007 43.9% 25,091,950 56.1% 44,736,957
1985 26,865,757 53.0% 23,798,701 47.0% 50,664,458
1990 33,326,351 59.0% 23,146,684 41.0% 56,473,035
2000 44,006,274 64.9% 23,797,653 35.1% 67,803,927
a: pop means population.
Source: SIS, 2000c.
72
Figure 3.1: Population Change of Turkey between 1927 and 2000

Source: SIS, 2000c.
Up to the 1920s, Turkey was more a rural than an urban country, one in which
cities grew only at a moderate pace. At that time less than one-sixth of the population
lived in urban areas. In 1927 the urban share of the population was only 24.2%, with
75.8% of the people living in rural areas. However, by 1960, urbanization had accelerated
rapidly, adding 3.3 million people and doubling the urban population. The highest urban
growth rate was between 1935 and 1960 (Danielson & Keles, 1985:27).
The end result of these developments was that by the 1980s Turkey was well on
its way to becoming an urbanized nation, with 43.9% of the total population living in the
cities. Although the urbanization rate dropped slightly during the 1980s, the urban
population share within the total population kept growing, reaching a peak in 1985 (Table
3.2). By 2000, 65% of the total population had been urbanized, while rural populations
had declined drastically. As Table 3.1 indicates, the urbanization that began during the
1950s has never halted in Turkey, and is expected to continue to grow in the future.
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
1927
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
Urban
Rural
Total
73
Table 3.2: Annual Growth Rate of Urban Population
Annual Growth Rate (%0)
Years Urban growth Rural growth
1970 47.3 12.5
1975 41.8 13.8
1980 30.5 13.3
1985 62.6 -10.6
1990 43.1 -5.6
1997 28.2 -7.4
Source: SIS, 2000c.
The urbanization process in Turkey was at first facilitated and controlled by
governmental policies. In order to promote the industrialization of the nation during the
1950s, the government encouraged the rural population who had already lost their jobs to
come to the cities where new industrial jobs were available. This state action significantly
encouraged the migration towards urban areas. However, the rate of urbanization kept
increasing faster than the rate of housing construction, with the result that slum areas
became homes to the new migrants and unemployed (Kartal, 1992; Karpat, 2003).
Urbanization has not been distributed evenly among all Turkish cities. Disparities
between regions and among certain cities have grown. The most significant development
is that western Turkey has become more urbanized and industrialized than the other
regions. The advantageous locations of the western cities and their extensive experience
with maritime commerce made them natural centers for growth, and they experienced a
higher urbanization rate than the other cities in the country. In particular, the cities of
Istanbul and Izmir became important centers and grew into major metropolitan areas.
As port cities, both Istanbul and Izmir have been important commercial centers
since the times of the Ottoman Empire (Beyru, 2000:47-49; Ok & Tiesdell, 1994:105).
The western Anatolian port cities of the Ottoman Empire, which connected the
74
commercial districts of Anatolia with other parts of the world, have kept their importance
in modern times. These ancient port cities, in fact, have become control nucleuses for the
current Turkish government (DEU, 1996).
Figure 3.2: Population Density by Cities (person per square km)

Source: SIS, 2000c.
The western cities of Turkey have become the major centers of industry and
commercial development, which gives them control of the nation’s surpluses (Hardoy &
Satterthwaite, 1981:194). Since most industry is located in larger cities in western
Turkey, western Turkey has far more industrial development than the less urbanized
eastern cities inland (Danielson & Keles, 1985:35) (Figure 3.2).
Although western Turkey developed more, in order to distribute national
resources more evenly, starting in 1923, the Turkish government generated urbanization
and development policies in other parts of the country. As the first step, the Ataturk
government made Ankara, which was a small town before 1923, the national capital
75
(Tekeli, 1984). However, although today Ankara has grown into the second largest
metropolitan area in Turkey, the western cities have not lost their historical importance.
Because of the population disparities among regions, and the fact that economic
development and capital was not evenly distributed among the regions, by the 1980s
certain cities had come to have the highest populations and largest concentrations of
capital (Tekeli, 2008). In particular, the cities of Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir have become
the most significant metropolitan areas, each having more than three million people in
their core city centers (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3: Annual Growth Rate of the Biggest Cities in Turkey
Rank order Cities 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 Annual Growth Rate (%0)
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
1975-
1980
1980-
1985
1990-
2000
1 Istanbul 3,905 4,742 5,843 7,196 10,019 38.86 41.76 33.09
2 Ankara 2,586 2,855 3,306 3,236 4,008 19.82 29.33 21.37
3 Izmir 1,674 1,977 2,318 2,695 3,371 33.25 31.83 22.38
4 Konya 1,423 1,562 1,769 1,753 2,192 18.73 24.82 22.37
5 Adana 1,241 1,486 1,726 1,549 1,850 36.08 29.97 17.71
6 Bursa 9,610 1,149 1,324 1,596 2,125 35.65 28.39 28.62
Source: SIS, 2000c.
Because of the economic development in these big cities, migrants from other
parts of Turkey have been attracted by the more and better job opportunities there.
Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, therefore, now have the highest slum developments among
all cities in Turkey (Danielson & Keles, 1985:49-70).
3.3. Slum Developments in Turkey
As urban growth kept increasing, so did the slum areas. Nearly six million people
were estimated to be living in slums in 1980. By the 1980s, slum areas had become the
one and only alternative housing solution for lower-income urban populations (Table
3.4), and accounted for 30% of the population. Danielson and Keles posited (1985) that
76
“almost three-fourths of Ankara’s population lived in squatter housing in 1980, while
Istanbul, Izmir all housed more than two-fifths of their residents in gecekondus”
(Danielson & Keles, 1985:41-42). Since then they have continued to grow, and have now
become a complex and widespread phenomenon, serving the needs of 35% or more of the
urban population.
Table 3.4: Slum Development and Population in Turkey
Years Slum dwellings Slum population
Population share of slums
(%)
1955 50,000 250,000 4.7
1960 240,000 1.200.000 16.4
1965 430,000 2.150.000 22.9
1970 600,000 3.000.000 23.6
1980 1,150,000 5,750,000 26.1
1990 1,750,000 8,750,000 33.9
1995 2,000,000 10,000,000 35.0
2002 2,200,000 11,000,000 27.0
Source: Keles, 2002:557.
Among all Turkish cities, Istanbul has a special importance in terms of slum
developments. Today, Istanbul is the most densely populated and industrialized
metropolitan area of Turkey with 10 million people, 55% of whom live in upgraded or
newly built slums. Istanbul began growing rapidly between 1950 and 1955 when the state
launched a program of economic incentives in order to promote industrial development
(Table 3.5). Many factories were built at this time. Migrants who came to Istanbul began
to construct unauthorized dwellings on lands near to where the new factories were built.
For instance, in 1947, Zeytinburnu, the first slum neighborhood, was established in an
area close to a cluster of factories. By 1949 there were 3,200 slum dwellings out of 5,000
dwellings in the neighborhood (Sonmez, 1996:89).

77
Table 3.5: Annual Growth Rate of Istanbul
Years Turkey Istanbul
1935-40 17.0 22.9
1940-45 10.6 16.9
1945-50 21.7 15.7
1950-55 27.8 54.2
1955-60 28.5 40.6
1960-65 24.6 39.6
1965-70 25.2 54.8
1970-75 25.0 51.4
1975-80 20.7 38.9
1980-85 24.9 41.8
1985-90 21.7 44.8
Source: Sonmez, 1996:32.
By the mid-1960s, Istanbul had 660,000 slum dwellings within its municipal
boundaries. Between 1950 and 1965, the city was virtually surrounded by slum
neighborhoods (Sonmez, 1996:89-91). According to the data of the Planning Department
of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Istanbul still has the highest rate of internal
migration in Turkey, with 500,000 people flowing into the city every year. Slum areas
have kept growing within the city boundaries, and currently cover approximately 51,760
hectares (Turkdogan, 2006:40).
The development of slums in Ankara began to accelerate during the 1960s. When
Ankara was designated as the capital city of Turkey in 1923, its built-up areas were only
140 hectares. As with many major cities of the time, Ankara too needed to be re-
constructed, and in addition was planned to be the new capital of the Ataturk government.
Reconstruction of cities through modern planning tools and techniques was in fact a
priority for the nation at the time, which had recently come out of long-lasting national
wars that had destroyed many cities in the nation. The transformation of Ankara from a
small village to a large city needed to be encouraged and directed by incentives from the
state.
78
The first restructuring process was launched by preparing a master plan for the
city. In 1928, a German architect named Jansen prepared the first master plan, one for a
city of 270,000 people. Yet, only a very small amount of urbanization occurred between
1920 and 1940, and only some minor slum units appeared in the old city center
(Senyapili, 2004a). The systematic construction of slum neighborhoods began in Ankara
between 1950 and 1960. By 2002, 62.5% of the total population of Ankara resided in
upgraded and new slum neighborhoods (Table 3.6).
Table 3.6: Ankara Slums
Years Slum units Slum pop % share in pop
1955 12,000 62,400 21.8%
1960 70,000 364,000 56.0%
1966 100,000 520,000 57.4%
1970 144,000 748,000 60.6%
1975 202,000 1,156,000 64.9%
1978 240,000 1,300,000 68.4%
1980 275,000 1,450,000 72.4%
1990 350,000 1,750,000 58.3%
1995 450,000 2,250,000 65.0%
2002 500,000 2,500,000 62.5%
Source: Keles, 2002:557.
The slum development pattern in Izmir has shown almost the same trajectory as
the other large cities in terms of slum population increase. Slums began spreading widely
in Izmir during the 1950s and 1960s, located mostly near the city core. They began
spreading to outer areas during the 1970s. However, the slums in Izmir have not
increased as rapidly as in Istanbul and Ankara. One reason for the lower level of increase
in Izmir is that Izmir employs its population mainly in the agriculture and service
industries. It has a relatively small manufacturing sector, and so is not as much of an
attraction for migrant workers as Istanbul and Ankara (Beyru, 2000; Karaman et al.,
1998). Nevertheless, despite the slowdown in the rate of increase, it still has 45 % of its
79
population living in slum areas, making the city one of those with the highest percentage
(Table 3.7).
Table 3.7: Izmir Slums
Years Slum units Years Slum pop % share in pop
1950 12,000 1965 122,253 %29,70
1960 70,000 1966 - %33,40
1966 100,000 1970 234,880 %36,70
1970 144,000 1972 - %36,00
1978 240,000 1980 790,800 %40,00
1985 1,043,100 %44,70
Source: Sevgi, 1988.
In sum, today the biggest three metropolitan cities in Turkey continue to grow,
and the slums expand with the size of the population. Upgrading programs were launched
between 1980 and 1990, but despite them the development of slums could not be halted.
Although the construction of slum neighborhoods has slowed down somewhat, even as
the urban population continues to grow, their existence in the large cities indicates that
they will continue to be of concern.
3.4. Evolution of Slum Developments
The history of slum development in Turkey reflects the stages of the economic
and social restructuring and transformation of the nation as a whole. Beginning as simple
accommodations of migrants seeking low-income housing solutions, slums have become
more formalized and commercialized, drawing ever more awareness and interest by both
the local and governmental authorities, as well as private investors. There have been three
major periods in the formation of slum developments: (a) urbanization of the nation state
(the period between 1923 and 1950); (b) urbanization of labor power (the period between
1950 and 1980); and (c) urbanization of the capital (the period after the 1980s).
80
3.4.1. The Period between 1923 and 1950
This is the period that began with the foundation of the new national government
in 1923. It was the period of reconstruction of the nation, heavily damaged by the recent
wars, through new political, ideological, economic and spatial strategies. It was the
period of rejuvenation of the entire nation through new land allocation systems, along
with redevelopment and reconstruction programs. However, as the new government was
faced with enormous economic problems, a lack of effective, modern institutions and
many torn down and burned cities to rebuild, the new regime was not able to accomplish
all that it promised. Yet, it was a period of hope, a time when people worked together to
establish a new nation. However, it was not a period during which the nation faced
significant slum problems, since the industrialization and urbanization that caused the
growth of the modern slums was just beginning.
The new government intended a wholesale reconstruction of the socio-economic
and spatial relations of the nation, and to address the legacy of problems inherited from
the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire had lacked effective administrative control
over its cities. Cities were usually controlled and governed by foreign nations through the
proclamation of the Ottoman Decree signed in 1839 and the Capitulation rules. In
particular, the Ottoman Empire had no control over the cities that were the centers of
commerce, and closest to the international commercial centers and foreign influence. The
port cities, such as Istanbul and Izmir, were very important to the nation as the
accumulation point of agricultural products and goods, but they were governed and
controlled through the semi-autonomous rules (Beyru, 2000).
81
The Kemalist regime wanted to change this and establish a central administrative
body to control and redistribute the resources of the nation. Therefore, the new regime
needed to restructure the nations’ spatial arrangements and relations. In accordance with
the new political strategy of government to establish and popularize the nation state
notion, concepts of citizenship and nationalism were particularly highlighted (Kazgan,
1999; Sengul, 2001). In the process of establishing the new nation state, new spatial
arrangements in urban spaces were urgently required. Deeply segregated neighborhoods
based on ethnicity were the legacy inherited from the Ottoman period. For instance, while
populations of foreign societies, called laventans, were living in more modernized
neighborhoods closer to the commerce nodals, Muslim neighborhoods were located in
other parts of the cities, with very little social connections between each other (Beyru,
2000). This spatial pattern of cities also made it necessary to reestablish the notion of
national citizenship among the people, and in particular among the Anatolians (Sengul,
2001; Tekeli, 1998).
The newly adopted economic relations and patterns of administration required the
formation of new urban centers, new investments in infrastructure and new institutions
(Tekeli, 1998:1). These changes began when Ankara, a center for Anatolian culture,
became the headquarters of the Turkish Republic (Tekeli, 1998:50). When Ankara was
declared the national capital, Istanbul’s primacy over international commercial functions
was reduced, even as industrialization and urbanization continued to make it grow.
Ankara, which had previously relied upon agricultural production, became the
political center of the nation. Ankara was developed through the use of modern planning
strategies, initiatives and tools. Danielson and Keles have summarized the ideology
82
behind the Kemalist regime’s restructuring plans, and have shown how urbanization was
equated with modernization, and seen as central to the process of making Turkey a
modern nation.
Ataturk’s overwhelming objective was to remold Turkey into a modern
nation, with Western Europe’s political, economic, and social structures
providing the model of the new Turkey.{…} After the revolution,
urbanization was widely equated with the modernization, and cities seen
as the economic and social vanguard of a modernized society. Ankara was
developed to symbolize the new Turkey, a planned modern city on the
model of the great European capitals. (Danielson and Keles, 1985:10)
As a symbol of modern development for the entire nation, expansion plans for
Ankara were introduced in 1928 as part of the first master plan in Turkish history. By
1927, Ankara’s population had already reached around 75,000 people. The scale of the
population increase made the city elites and the government concerned about future
growth. As a result, a limited competition between three planners was held in 1928 in
order to prepare a development plan for a future population of 300,000 people. The plan
produced by Hermann Jansen was the winner. Approved in 1932, Jansen’s Plan began
being implemented. Yet, in a very short period of time, the city’s growth made the Jansen
plan’s structures and goals obsolete (Tekeli, 1998:4-8).
The implementation of the Jansen Plan faced serious difficulties by the end of the
1930s, mainly because increasing demand for urban encouraged land speculation among
the middle-income or city elites, and excluded low-income groups from the formal land
market (Bugra, 1998; Senyapili, 2004b). This exclusion led to the acceleration of
unauthorized housing settlements, and slums in Ankara’s urban sphere. Although the
urbanization rate did not increase tremendously, it was enough to draw the attention of
the city elites, the group who mostly controlled urban development and political
83
decisions of the government in Turkey between 1923 and 1960 (Isik & Pinarcioglu,
2001). In 1948, laws number 5218 and 5228 were enacted, the first laws that regarding
the slums. Slums were for the first time spatially and formally recognized, although it
was intended primarily as a one-time recognition (Altaban, 1998). This practice
accelerated during the 1960s and 1970s.
The Jansen plan addressed urban planning and the construction of an urban
infrastructure. In addition, as a political strategy, the new government formed
municipality regulatory frameworks in order to create central managerial control as well
as promote a more orderly society.
17
The first step of such control was the initiation of
municipality law, which reformed municipalities as political local centers who were
given the major responsibility for preparing development plans within their jurisdictions.
Using these laws, the central government could direct the arrangements, and control the
urban areas through the planning process (Tekeli, 1980).
However eager the government was to restructure urban areas at the beginning,
the realization of modern urban society between 1923 and 1950 was hardly successful.
For one thing, the government simply did not have the money and other resources
necessary to carry out the large-scale plans. In addition, the government functions could
not institutionalized in such a short period of time. The municipalities also had a difficult
time financing their plans. By the end of 1950, only 58.5 % of total municipalities had
prepared development plans, and few of these had reached the implementation stages
(Sengul, 2001:74-75).

17
Modernist planning aims to create orderly society by assigning different land-uses for the use of the social groups in
order to protect the capital, control the labor, and increase the productivity of the labor force. Neo-Marxist theoretical
perspective particularly explained modernist way of thinking based on three major users: the capital owners, the labor
force and the land. For more information, see Castells (1979), Harvey (1973, 1985), and Saunders (1981).
84
3.4.2. The Period between 1950 and 1980
This period reflected the newly established socio-economic patterns and relations
after the World War II. The major development during this period was the rapid
urbanization process that was launched beginning in the early 1950s. As the necessity of
the liberal economic system that the government has adopted (Isik & Pinarcioglu, 2001),
new industries with governmental incentives were located around the cities,
18
which
pulled rural populations into places where the jobs were more available. The push factor
of the rural and the pull factor of the urban areas combined for an ever increasing amount
of rural to urban migration (Kartal, 1992). The emergence of the multi-party systems
adopted in Turkey since 1950s also supported the acceleration of the urban migration
process, as the parties began to take note of the new urban populations. Tekeli (1998)
described this process as the populist-clientelistic relations of the modernist project of the
liberal economic system.
Looking at the spatial structure of the urban areas, we can observe a significant
transformation associated with the high rate of urban growth during this period. Urban
areas were formed and reformed through the illegal arrangements. Duality in cities, the
division between formal and informal areas, as in many other developing nations as well,
became the prevalent factor shaping the culture of urban centers in Turkey. Beginning
gradually in the early 1960s, illegal arrangements in urban areas soon became widely
visible and inseparable.

18
Yet, not all cities were treated equally. Great disparities were realized among Turkish cities. The new investments
were mostly realized in West Anatolia and Ankara. See Kazgan (1999) and Kongar (1998) have widely discussed this
period of time in their writings.
85
By the 1980s, the rapidly growing slums had become one of the major concerns
of the government. For the purpose of analysis, this period can be divided into two: the
early period of urbanization and slums (between 1950 and 1960), and the mature period
of squatterization (between 1960 and 1980).
3.4.2.1. Slums between 1950 and 1960
The migrations centered on a couple of major cities that experienced high rates of
urbanization were initially the outcome of the national economic, politic and social
relations of the postwar Turkey. After the World War II, Turkey was in an economic
crisis. The size of the predominantly agriculture-based economy, heavily reliant on food
exports, had declined about 40% (Keyder, 1987:10). At this point, the United States
introduced the Marshall Plan to Turkey and the rest of Europe, albeit initially to serve the
military purposes of the United States (Kiray, 1998:69-70).
The Marshall plan helped accelerated the migration from rural to urban areas. It
encouraged the mechanization of farms, providing farmers with tractors and other
equipment. Such restructuring in the agricultural production system was essential for the
creation of new markets and the distribution of goods and purchasing power within the
nation (Kiray, 1998:69-70; Isik & Pinarcioglu, 2001:100-101). However, this created
marginal groups of displaced rural workers whose jobs had been eliminated (Kartal,
1992; Kiray, 1998). According to Kartal, about one million farmers were dislocated by
some 40,000 tractors introduced by the Marshall Plan (Kartal, 1992:156). Consequently,
these unemployed rural began to move to urban areas, a flow that became noticeable by
the 1960s.
86
In the meantime, in order to combat inflation during the postwar period the
Turkish government adopted import-substitution industrialization as its new economic
development policy. Import-substitution economic system was a system that was
intended to rejuvenate and sustain an inward-oriented economic structure (Isik &
Pinarcioglu, 2001; Oncu, 1988). The main purpose of the import-substitution economic
development was to develop certain economic incentives to expand the internal market
and the internal market’s ability to manufacture and sell consumer goods (Eralp, 1981).
Although intermediate goods still needed to be imported in order to allow domestic
manufacture of consumer goods for the internal market, this was a process stringently
controlled by the state.
Development of the internal market required economic incentives under state
control as well as the opening up of new market places. The state took a referee role in
adjusting the regulations, and mostly left the local initiatives to the local communities,
where they originated from the middle-class. Keyder (1987) has extensively discussed the
role and relationship of the middle-class with the state, indicating how the middle-class
was important for the nations’ economic development, and how the state was
manipulated by and worked with by this class, the class who held the capital. The state in
Turkey had never been a welfare state, but one dependent on a large middle class. There
was a reciprocal relationship between the middle-class and the state (Keyder, 1987).
However, beginning in the 1960s, the working class also became important to the
economic development of nation.
The same reciprocal relationship developed between the state and the labor force.
Embracing the continuous economic development as its major political strategy, the state
87
adopted the urbanization process. It encouraged the rural population, who were seen as
the future labor force to be employed in the new factories and manufacturing businesses,
to come over to the urban areas where the jobs were most available (Borotav, 1988;
Eralp, 1981; Senyapili, 2004b).
Multi-party relations played a particularly important role in the development of the
patron-clientele relationships being built between the state and the rural poor. As Oncu
notes,
Competitive multiparty elections, in a system wherein party support at the
grass-roots level is based on clientelistic networks, {…} became rooted in
exchange of the vote for short-term individual benefits rather than broader
appeals of programme or ideology, and mass-based political parties
became dependent upon material incentives to generate popular support
and sustain consensus. (Oncu, 1988:43-44)
The extent of the rural migration to the cities shocked the national and municipal
governments. Unprepared for this development, neither one could supply housing for this
low-income group. In fact, as Pamuk notes, the Turkish government has never been very
effective in producing low-income housing. Only 5% of the housing produced between
1960 and 1970 was public housing, a relatively low amount (Pamuk, 1992). It was
generally private incentives, usually through the build-and-sell system, that created
housing for the migrants (Tekeli, 1982:71-75).
Consequently, with a lack of income and no job in the urban areas, the newcomers
had to solve their housing problems on their own. They invaded vacant land and built
their own slum units by themselves, using their own labor. Turner coined the term self-
help to describe the construction process of slums in this manner (Turner, 1972, 1977).
This new form of housing development gradually divided the cities into areas with formal
housing areas and those with informal slum developments.
88
At first the authorities did not know how to respond to these illegal housing
arrangements. They initially did not want to tolerate them, and often ordered the
demolition of the shacks. However, they were limited in what they could do since they
were not in a position to provide alternative shelter. It was also not acceptable for the
state, which encouraged private property rights, to take possession of or responsibility for
the slums. Consequently, very little was done (Keles, 2002). The newcomers were
referred to as a marginal and unwanted group in the cities, and generally ignored
(Senyapili, 1981; Erman, 2004).
The newcomers, by building their slums in or around urban land, gradually created
a conflict between themselves and the middle class, centered around the distribution of
urban resources, primarily the urban land. The middle-class who controlled the urban
land felt attacked by the slum developments, since they reduced the rent-seeking middle-
classes’ potential for profit in a number of ways. After all, who would pay rent if they
could get a place for free. Thus, the middle-class, who had the control over urban land,
did not want to share it with the newcomers or allow the expansion of the slums (Sengul,
2001:78-79).
As a result, the first reaction towards slums was a combination of ignorance and
hostility, and the usual, half-hearted response was slum clearance. Yet, it soon became
obvious that slum clearance would bring no solution to the proliferation of slums, as
those dispossessed by clearance simply created new slums in other areas, or moved to
different cities. The state could not meet the housing demand coming from the slum
dwellers. Hence, the state mostly ignored the slums, taking no action but also providing
no services. After all, despite the problems they were creating, these unauthorized
89
housing arrangements were also easing the economic responsibilities of the state by
building their own dwellings without any economic incentives from the state or requiring
any expensive infrastructure.
3.4.2.2. Slums between 1960 and 1980
By the mid-1960s, the slum population had become more integrated into the
urban space. Slowly the unskilled but cheap migrant labor penetrated into the informal
labor market, which gave more power to them in both the economic sector, albeit
informally, and in the housing sector. During the early 1960s, the economic sector was
not yet well-institutionalized, and the migrants could find themselves a way to penetrate
the economic market by providing cheaper labor in the production of consumer goods to
the market (Eraydin, 1988, 1992). The duality within the urban space between the living
areas of the middle and working classes became more apparent. However, while there
were conflicts, one outcome of this was more acceptance and recognition of the
newcomers and their illegal housing arrangements. In 1966, the government issued the
first comprehensive amnesty law, which forgave the slum settlements and attempted to
organize them spatially (Keles, 2002).
The migrant population or slum population not only gained great importance in the
economic sector, but had also gained a great deal of attention from the party leaders, who
began seeing the new migrants as their potential major voters, which strengthened patron-
clientele relations between them (Tekeli, 1992). Consequently, slum populations gained
some privileges for their dwellings in exchange for their votes. By the late 1960s some of
the slums that had been built by the migrants through the self-help method were provided
with basic infrastructural services, such as roads, electricity, water and transportation.
90
The slum populations also began demanding the rights to be granted ownership of the
land they occupied (Tekeli, 1980; Sengul, 2001). The growing importance of the slum
populations in economic and political networks further solidified the presence of the slum
settlements in the urban space.
The political importance of slum population became even more significant in
1973, after the leftist Republican People’s Party (RPP) won election to power, and
adopted grass-roots development through the urban leftist movement as its principal
urban policy. By strengthening the position of municipalities in the managerial system,
the RPP encouraged grass-roots initiatives from the municipalities in order to meet the
needs of the urban poor, mainly the slum population. By the second half of the 1970s, the
parties supported by slum inhabitants had become the group that set the political agenda
of urban areas (Tekeli, 1992). Accordingly, the slums have gained more official
acceptance from the governmental authorities. In parallel with such acceptance, the slum
population was no longer referred to as marginal groups or ‘others’ (Erder, 1996, 1997;
Erman, 2004; Senyapili, 1981, 2004b).
Investing in urban land has always been one of the most profitable and secure
investment tools in Turkey. High inflation, the limited amount of credit support system
available for lower-income groups, and the low level of housing investment from the
public sector all made the urban land the ‘inflation-resistant’ and favored form of
investment for the nation (Oncu, 1988:41).
Another development between the 1960s and the late 1970s was a certain loss of
innocence in the slums in the face of a speculative boom of informal land allocation
systems created by small-scale profit-seeking land speculators. The private speculators,
91
who already controlled the formal urban land and housing allocation systems, began
getting involved in the informal land allocations. Tekeli (1982) has succinctly described
the ways in which formal land and housing markets were controlled by the build-and-sell
small-scale contractors, and how these same small-scale land investors got involved with
the land sub-division process. After investing in large tracts of peripheral land, they
subdivided the large tracks into small plots and sold the pieces to the population.
Provision of land supply through illegal land sub-divisions has been a common
phenomenon in the urbanization process of many developing nations (Gilbert, 1994;
Gilbert & Varley, 1991; Payne, 1989; Ward, 1990). However, in Turkey, at least, land
supply through sub-division process was not necessarily illegal in nature. Although land
acquisition through the sub-division process was been banned by law 3194 in 1985, a
Supreme Court decision of 1976 legitimized the buying and selling of already acquired
land through the sub-division process (Yonder, 1987:215), although illegal subdivisions
certainly continued. In this process, small-scale investors have most of the time sub-
divided their legally owned tracks by juxtaposing their lands located nearby to the public
lands, usually the forestry land that belonged to the State of Treasury, and then sold these
divided lands. Land speculation in the informal land allocation system also opened up
new channels for speculative actions in the illegal housing market. As Yonder has shown
(1987), in addition to the build-and-sell contractors, single or multi-unit owners with an
increasing proportion of renters became common.
These new patterns of informal land and housing allocation systems and the
increasing economic and political power of the slum inhabitants have all influenced the
transformation of slums from being marginal into another form of housing market, one
92
focused on meeting the needs of lower-income groups. The process of self-help
construction also began changing. More and more of the construction were done through
small-scale contractors, resulting in higher quality work that gradually made certain areas
more commercial (Davis, 2006; Pamuk, 1996). As this process continued, the economic
value of constructions began to pass their use value.
19
That is, people began constructing
units with the intention of renting them out, not as places to live, which was a significant
change in the dynamic of slum growth.
In sum, by the time of the late 1970s, the slum settlements had manifested
themselves in the urban space by creating more political and social acceptance, by
serving the low-income housing sector, albeit informally, with significant amounts of
housing, but at the price of losing their innocence as purely migrants’ housing
arrangements as they began to become more commercial.
3.4.3. The Period after the 1980s
During the late 1970s, Turkey was hit by an economic crisis associated with the
worldwide oil shock. The import-substitution economic system could not cope with the
foreign exchange bottleneck created by the rise in oil prices. As the nation’s balance of
payment deficits increased drastically, the government needed to take new economic
measures to survive (Isik & Pinarcioglu, 2001:102). It was apparent that the import-
substitution economic policy had become obsolete and was no longer effective. As a
result, the government adapted the economic liberalization policies pushed by the

19
While use-value represents the benefits of the housing to the users associated with the use of unit, economic value
represents the profitability of the unit in the monetary terms. The use and exchange-value of the housing has been
particularly the concept brought by the Marxian and neo-Marxian theorists. Among many, Burgess particularly has
important intakes on the self-help housing allocations within the limits of use-value and economic value discussion
(Burgess, 1978).
93
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and restructured its economy accordingly (Kazgan,
1999).
As a prerequisite of the liberal economy, export-oriented industrialization was
embraced and Turkey opened up its doors to international capital. New economic
measures, known as Ozal’s regulations, were introduced on 24
th
January 1980, with the
goal of attracting international capital. These measures minimized the state role in the
economy, reduced government subsidies to the rural sector, reduced social aid, opposed
unionization, and froze wages (Borotav, 1988; Kazgan, 1999). The policies also meant
the termination of government protection of many different groups in the nation, in
particular the labor force, which had few choices and rights in the new labor markets.
Another result of these policies was that the reduction in subsidies to the rural sector
forced a new and unprecedented flow of rural migrants into urban areas. These
developments resulted in the significant increase of a new type of absolute poverty in
cities (Senyapili, 2004a:10).
The liberalization of the economic system reformed and restructured not only the
economic system of Turkey but also the socio-economic and spatial relations in the
nation. These new policies brought new investments intended to boost the internal
economy, particularly in the service sector, the infrastructure, transportation and housing.
In the meantime, the major metropolitan areas had gained greater importance in the
economic picture, and so major incentives were introduced in order to attract
international investment in them (Sengul, 2001:87).
These new trends in the major urban areas accelerated the urbanization process
even more, and also created even greater disparities between regions and cities. While
94
only 43.9% of population was living in urban areas during the 1980s, to the percentage
had reached 70.6% by the 2000s. The three biggest metropolitan areas of Istanbul, Izmir,
and Ankara kept growing, and cities with more than one million population, such as
Adana, Bursa, Diyarbakir, Gaziantep, Icel, Samsun and Konya, gained greater
importance.
Within this economic system, the state’s role was reduced and the degree of the
national government’s control over the local governments was diminished. The state no
longer effectively controlled or managed the cities. In fact, the state authorized the
municipalities as the major institutions in the control of investments for their locales
(Sengul, 2001; Tekeli, 1992). Consequently, while municipalities were equipped with the
resources transferred via the state, they were left alone in the struggle with the urban
problems associated with the new economic liberal model. As Eraydin has pointed out,
after the 1980s, Turkey began a new era, the era of the hegemony of the urban
investments (Eraydin, 1988, 1992).
The liberalization package not only reformed the economy, but also affected the
socio-cultural and spatial patterns of the urbanization process in Turkey. Various social
groups in the cities had to form new strategies in order to survive. The severity of the
measures adopted created a highly competitive environment for every group and
increased social polarization among these groups (Erder, 1997). Urban land once again
demonstrated its value as a means of survival. As Turkey became more of a rent-paying
society, every group began trying to gain a share from the urban market. As a
consequence of rent-seeking strategies, the various groups that had begun prospering
during the late 1970s flourished. Expanding their patron-clientele relationships and their
95
informal networks, they began gaining more political power, both formally and
informally (Bugra, 1998; Erder, 1997; Oncu, 1988). They began putting pressure on the
municipalities in order to increase rent payments from urban land.
In the meantime, the municipalities, which were in the process of restructuring the
cities in order to make them more attractive to international companies and investors,
began to develop their physical and social infrastructures through the use of planning
tools and the creation of mega-projects. The outcome of all these in the spatial context
was the decentralization and suburbanization of cities in the form of leapfrogging growth.
After the 1990s, this new form of new urbanization became particularly common in the
larger metropolitan areas.
On the other hand, municipalities tried to ease the increasing social tension
between groups. They began using planning tools to affect the distribution of urban rent
as a way of easing the increasing social tension. New regulations and legislations were
adopted. One of the most significant initiatives was brought about by the Mass Housing
law passed in 1984, which was launched by the Housing Development Administrative of
Turkey (HDA) in 1984 (Keles, 2002; Pamuk, 1996). What the Mass Housing law did was
to allow the establishment of middle-class housing cooperatives in order to support their
housing demands through a credit system granted and monitored by the HDA with the
partnership of municipalities. This law became a turning point both for the rapid
urbanization and expansion of the cities.
Housing cooperatives requiring large tracts of land have focused on the urban
peripheral areas where cheaper land was available. At the same time, municipalities that
were in charge of providing land to these cooperatives supported them with their public
96
lands, which were also usually located in the periphery. Consequently, housing
cooperatives have become one of the major actors in the housing market, especially on
the urban fringes. For instance, between 1985 and 1990, the share of housing produced
by the HDA reached 31.2%. Between 1984 and 1995, more than one million housing
units were produced through housing cooperatives financed by the HDA (Isik &
Pinarcioglu, 2001:132). These huge cooperatives have become major lobbies regarding
urban land development.
Another group, the urban rich, has also been attracted to the cities’ peripheral
lands. Squeezed by the cities’ small-sized housing areas, their changing housing
preferences and tastes, and the desire to protect themselves from the urban poor, the rich
began searching for new and bigger tracts to live on
20
(Erder, 1997). Consequently, after
the 1980s, the urban rich have become another group who played a significant role in the
new urbanization process.
As decentralized urbanization has become the major form of metropolitan cities
as a result of the new socio-economic structuring of the nation observed after the 1980s,
it has particularly squeezed the lower income groups who seek informal housing
arrangements. The peripheral land that was once abundantly available with cheaper
prices, even during the 1970s, has become less available and more expensive.
Additionally, although beginning during the late 1970s, the land Mafiosi-type of
relationships became even more institutionalized in the informal land and housing market
after the 1980s. As indicated earlier, land-brokers and small-scale build-and-sell

20
Discussions on fortified enclaves, fortified territories, or gated communities have become the interest of the Turkish
literature particularly after the late 1990s. Erder (1997), Isik and Pinarcioglu (2001) are among a few who discussed
thoroughly it in their papers.
97
contractors have become more organized in the informal market. Erder (1996)
particularly emphasized this new pattern of informal market in her Umraniye, Istanbul
case study, and Pamuk (1996), among others, has also discussed the process of the
commercialization of slum settlements.
Since the 1990s, the commercialization of housing in slum areas has been
motivated by at least three factors. First, conventional ways of acquiring illegal lands
both in inner city slum areas and in the urban peripheries have become irrelevant. The
informal land and housing markets have come under the control of institutionalized,
albeit informal, small-scale companies and/or speculators. Secondly, the conventional
slum construction process has almost become irrelevant in most of the slum areas. Slums
are now usually built through the build-and-sell system and small-scale contractors.
Newcomers often rent a unit rather than build one. Thirdly, slum dwellers, particularly
the earliest migrants, have become speculators who own more than one unit and rent the
others out. The slum dwellers themselves have begun seeking profits out of the slum
arrangements, improving the units, and collecting rents from them. In her study done with
the SPO (State Planning Organization) for Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, Senyapili (1993)
found that the number of rental arrangements has increased drastically in slum areas.
About one third of the slum dwellers surveyed have been found to be renters: 33% in
Istanbul, 29 % in Ankara and 28 % in Izmir (Pamuk, 1996:108). As a consequence of all
of these factors, slums have become more and more competitive places, especially for the
lowest-income groups.
The social structure of slum dwellers has also been influenced by the changes in
the slum areas. Slum areas have become more heterogeneous in population since the
98
1980s. Social polarization has grown. Isik and Pinarcioglu have coined the term rotated-
poverty, to describe how the first time migrants, who built their own slums in
conventional ways, have been able to make profits out of the changing nature of the
slums by renting out their additional slum units to newcomers. By doing so, they improve
their income and their social status among the other lower-income groups. Under this
process, the older residents can rise into a higher social level within their communities,
leaving the social place they have been in to the newcomers. In effect, they rotate or pass
on their poverty to the newcomers (Isik & Pinarcioglu, 2001:155-157).
Inter-city migration rather than rural to urban migration is a different form of
migration that has appeared since the 1980s. The literature also particularly pulled our
attention to the forced, terror related migration that occurred between 1980 and 1990. The
structural and social changes that have occurred in the slum areas have resulted in them
acquiring a greater importance within the urban sphere, one that grows with the increase
in population.
One factor that has influenced the proliferation of slums in the urban space has
been the legalization and regularization of the slums by the governmental authorities,
either as a result of the role of patron-clientele relationships, or just in the hope of solving
the ongoing problem of the illegal arrangements. There were many measures, but perhaps
the most significant one was in 1984, when the legalization and regularization of slums
through reclamation or upgrading was endorsed by law number 2981. For the first time in
Turkish history, illegal occupation of slums and other illegal use of buildings, was
forgiven, upgradation plans were encouraged, and official title was issued to residents
99
3.5. Conclusion
As this chapter demonstrates, urban areas in Turkey have been growing at an
increasing rate since the 1950s. The urbanization process has been particularly great in
the larger or metropolitan cities. Parallel with the industrialization period that began in
the 1950s; the urbanization process at that time was both supported and monitored by the
state through direct state incentives and policies. By the 1980s, however, the new liberal
economic policies largely privatized the urbanization process and led to significant
further development of both the cities and the slums, especially in outlying areas.
As shown in this chapter, there were three major periods for the urbanization
process of Turkey. The early years of urbanization process were the outcome of the
restructuration process that built the foundation of the Turkish national state. The second
turning period, beginning in the 1950s, what we may call ‘urbanization of labor power,’
was the result of the industrialization and development policies adopted after World War
II. The mechanization introduced in rural areas and the direct state incentives for
industrial developments in urban areas ultimately caused significant population flow from
rural areas into the urban areas, where jobs were more available.
The third period has been the urbanization period of capital. Beginning around
1980, under the liberal economic policies adopted by the government, the new strategy
was one of fewer state incentives and no direct involvement in the municipalities. In
order to create a liberal economic environment within the society, the state decentralized
its power by giving more responsibility to municipalities in the nation. Under these
policies, larger cities have gained more importance. Consequently, the urbanization rate
100
of the metropolitan areas has accelerated steeply, causing the expansion of both the
settled areas of the cities and an increase in their populations.
Of these three periods, the most significant one has been the liberal economic
period that we have been living in since the 1980s. Although each period has left a
particular imprint on the nation’s spatial and social structure, the liberal economic
policies have been the most distinctive. This period has brought a distinctive urbanization
practice, the ‘capitalist urbanization’ practice. This created new relationships not only in
the economic sphere, but also in the spatial and social arrangements among different
groups in the nation. It seems to have created more social tensions among them.
The urbanization that went on throughout all three of these periods has been
accompanied by a striking amount of slum development, beginning in the 1950s with
significant rural migration to the cities. The slums have continually evolved as they have
grown, reflecting the evolution of the cities themselves. By the 1980s, the slums had lost
their innocence and turned into commercialized areas where rents were paid, sometimes
even to older slum dwellers. The regularization and formalization processes caused by
the slum upgrading initiatives have been a major influence in the transformation of slum
areas. Beginning during the 1980s, such initiatives have created both redistribution of
urban rents to lower-income groups (e.g., the slum population), and a new channel and a
source of hope for the slum population.
101
CHAPTER 4: SLUM FORMATIONS IN IZMIR METROPOLITAN CITY
4.1. Introduction
Over the last 30 years, global economic developments have transformed every
dimension of daily life in Turkey. Urban areas, particularly the metropolitan cities, have
been affected the most from this process. The most observable outcome of such
transformation has been the rapid urbanization prevalent in the larger cities of Turkey. As
they have become the economic centers of the nation, the larger cities have gained greater
importance and seen the greatest population increase. As part of this transformation, and
as a result of the political, economic and social agendas adopted by the nation, the cities
have been dramatically reformed.
Like the other big cities, Izmir has also been widely influenced by this
transformation and the socio-economic consequences of it. Under the impact of the new
economic structuring, between 1990 and 2000 its population increased from 2,695,000
people to 3,371,000 people, representing an annual growth rate of 22.38%. However, the
central core of the city, which consists of nine district municipalities of the IMM, has
grown even faster, with a 44% annual growth rate in the same period (IMM, 2008:39).
Today, Izmir has over 3 million people located on 890 hectares of urban land, with 44%
of the population residing in slum areas.
Because of the changes in both its spatial and socio-economic structures, Izmir
faces multi-faceted problems associated with social tensions among its various social
groups on a daily basis. As a consequence of the economic crisis of 2008, it is probable
that the metropolitan cities will continue to be the major economic centers for the nation,
and that they will attract even more people. Therefore, Izmir needs to find new ways to
102
cope with the socio-economic and resulting spatial relationships among the various
groups within its boundaries. In particular, Izmir needs to find new solutions to its
increasing housing problem, especially its growing squatterization problem. One of the
ways to deal with the social tension, as previously discussed, has been distributing some
of the urban rent among the various groups.
In order to understand today’s development of slums in Izmir we need to look at
the historical development of the city. This chapter aims to look at the economic, social,
and spatial factors that have influenced the spatial formation of today’s Izmir. After
briefly looking at the urbanization process in Izmir, the formation of slums in Izmir will
be evaluated within three periods. The first period is that between 1923 and 1950, during
which the city was affected by the socioeconomic changes resulting from the emergence
of the new nation state. The second period, the period between 1950 and 1980, will be
evaluated as the period during which the first stages of the slum dynamics were
established in the city. Finally, the period during and after the 1980s will be evaluated in
order to understand the current dynamics of slum formation and the impact of the neo-
liberal policies adopted after 1980.
4.2. Migration Associated Urbanization in Izmir
Today, Izmir is the third biggest metropolitan city in Turkey with over 3 million
people residing within its administrative boundaries. With roots going back to its
foundation around 3000 BC, and located at the heart of the Aegean region of Turkey,
Izmir, as a port city, has always played an important role in the economic development of
all of the different civilizations that have arisen in that area (Figure 4.1).
103
Figure 4.1: Map of Izmir Region (2009)

Source: ICC [Izmir Ticaret Odasi]. Competitiveness, Management and Performance of Young
Entrepreneurs. Retrieved on March, 02, 2009, from Izmir Ticaret Odasi, Web site: http://www.
compete-youth.eu/izto/izmir_tr.html
The particular importance of Izmir has been associated with its central location on
the coast, a place where agricultural, commercial and industrial services have been
combined, controlled, and then distributed overseas. With such an important role, Izmir,
after Istanbul, has become the second most significant port city in Turkey, and one that
plays an important role in linking the nation with the outside world. The economic and
hence locational importance of Izmir has been even more important since the 1980s,
when the Turkish government adopted an export-oriented economic policy in order to
boost the nation’s economic development.
Surrounded by fertile agricultural land, Izmir has been the major Turkish center
for the distribution of agricultural products and industrial goods. As the last stop of the
pack trains in Anatolia, during the 17
th
and 18
th
centuries Izmir became the commercial
104
center of its region (Beyru, 2000). By the 18
th
century, the city began growing in
population and expanding its boundaries. However, the population fluctuations observed
during this period and into the 19
th
century were fairly mild compared to the dramatic
population increases after the 1950s.
The city’s population did not experience great growth until the 1950s. At that time
the city began experiencing a large flow of migrants, resulting in a rate of growth larger
than that of the nation as a whole. The SIS census of population data indicates that
between 1927 and 2000 the population of Izmir continuously increased. The population
of Turkey grew approximately 5 times during this period, while the population of Izmir
has grown 6.3 times. The city reached its highest rate of growth between 1950 and 1955,
with an annual increase rate of 33.9‰. Although the annual increase rate of the
population declined somewhat between 1960 and 1970, the city population still continued
to grow, with most of the new inhabitants settling in the core urban areas, but gradually
extending into peripheral areas as well.
As a consequence of this growth, by 1960 the urban population in Izmir became
greater than the rural population, reaching a 51.6% share of the total Izmir population
(Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2). By the 1990s, the city had become more urbanized than ever
before. The city’s urban population share reached 77.6% in 1985, and 81% in 2000.
Although part of the high urban growth since 1985 was due simply to the changes in the
administrative boundaries of Izmir metropolitan city, it also tells us that the city has been
sprawling through its peripheries which were previously rural land but have since been
integrated into the city’s urban area.
105
Table 4.1: Population Increase in Izmir (1927-2000)
Izmir population (general total) Annual Rate of Growth (%0)
Years Total Urban Rural
Urban
share (%) Total Urban Rural
1927 531,579 254,444 277,135 47.87 - - -
1935 596,850 287,295 309,555 48.14 14.48 15.18 13.83
1940 640,107 303,688 336,419 47.44 13.99 11.10 16.64
1945 673,581 318,342 355,239 47.26 10.19 9.43 10.89
1950 768,411 359,372 409,039 46.77 26.34 24.25 28.20
1955 910,476 441,047 469,449 48.44 33.93 40.96 27.55
1960 1,063,490 548,327 515,163 51.56 31.06 43.54 18.58
1965 1,234,667 621,553 613,114 50.34 29.85 25.07 34.81
1970 1,427,173 753,041 674,132 52.76 28.98 38.38 18.98
1975 1,673,966 905,059 768,907 54.07 31.90 36.78 26.31
1980 1,976,763 1,059,183 917,580 53.58 33.25 31.45 35.35
1985 2,317,829 1,800,797 517,032 77.69 31.83 106.15 -114.73
1990 2,694,770 2,134,816 559,954 79.22 30.14 34.03 15.95
2000 3,370,864 2,732,669 638,197 81.07 22.38 - -
Source: SIS, 1990, 2000c.

Figure 4.2: Population Change of Izmir between 1927 and 2000

Source: SIS, 1990, 2000c.
By the time the city reached the 1990s, the city was even more urbanized than
ever before. The city’ urban population share reached 77.6% in 1985, while it was 81% in
2000. Although such a high urban share since 1985 was due to the changes in the
administrative boundaries of Izmir metropolitan city, it also tells us that the city has been
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
1927
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
Total
Urban
Rural
106
sprawling through its peripheries, which were previously rural land but have become
integrated into the city’s urban area.
In sum, Izmir, as the third biggest city of Turkey, has been faced with continuous
urban population increase since the 1950s, particularly between 1950 and 1980. Such an
increase in population, as in many other large cities of Turkey, was and is associated with
an increase in migration, mainly from the outer rural areas into the city proper. As Izmir
has become one of the most influential metropolitan centers, it attracted population flow
from rural areas, particularly between 1950 and 1980. Although the urbanization in Izmir
has continued to increase after the 1980s at unprecedented rates, the migration has
become more associated with the urban to urban migration flow rather than from rural to
urban areas (Unverdi, 2002). The development and expansion of the slums has been one
result of this migration, in Izmir as in other metropolitan areas of Turkey.
As Table 4.2 indicates, Izmir has been a center for the migrant population for
decades, with particular breaking points in the 1980s and 1990s. Izmir reached its highest
net migration level with the 73.6% rate between 1975 and 1980 as a reflection of the
economic and social restructuring processes of this time. Although a decline in the net
migration rate occurred between 1980 and 1985, the migration flow has remained high
enough to create more slum developments in the city. Between 1985 and 1990, another
leap in the net migration rate, to 63.8%, occurred in Izmir (Table 4.2).

107
Table 4.2: Migration Rate of Izmir (1975-2000)
Period Population
In-
migrat.
a

In-
migrat.
rate %
Out-
migrat.
Out-
migrat.
rate %
Net
migrat.
Net
migrat.
rate %
1975-1980 1,685,725 203,777 120.88 83,881 53.57 119,896 73.60
1980-1985 2,000,733 194,245 97.09 112,072 58.41 82,173 41.90
1985-1990 2,366,343 276,378 116.80 130,170 58.63 146,208 63.80
1995-2000 3,078,981 306,387 99.51 186,012 62.87 120,375 39.90
a: migrat. is the abbreviation of migration.
Source: SIS, 2000b.
According to Sevgi’s study (1988), by 1985 the migration associated with the
population increase accelerated the share of slums in the city to a 44.7% total share of the
total housing areas. In that year, 1,043,100 slum units were found to be located in Izmir,
occupying 110 neighborhoods out of 245 (Sevgi, 1988:49).
By 2000, over 50% of the population was estimated to be living in the slum areas,
in both the older areas, and the upgraded slums which were built after the 1980s
(Karadag, 2000; Ozdemir et al., 2002). By 2000 Izmir had reached its physical ability to
grow through its peripheral areas, which caused urban rents to begin to rise, and brought
pressure by various groups to achieve a more equal distribution of rents. The city spatial
formation in general and the slum formation of today in particular cannot be separated
from the economic and social relations of the city. The urbanization of the contemporary
Izmir metropolitan area can only be understood by looking at the past developments that
have affected the city.
4.3. Formation of Slums in Izmir
Four major turning points have been particularly influential on the city’s spatial
formation and the squatterization of today. The first turning point came during the
Ottoman Empire period. Although this period is not directly relevant to discussion of the
slum formation in the city, since there appeared to be no slums during the Ottoman times,
108
it is important to understanding the manifestation of the urban spatial arrangements and
how they were affected by Izmir’s emergence as a major port city. The second turning
point began after 1923 as the new nation state began restructuring the cities. Under the
influence of new nation-state and its economic policies, Izmir, as in many other cities in
Turkey, too, began reformulating its economic system, and hence its spatial formation.
The third turning point began during the 1950s after the establishment of manufacturing
industries around the city attracted migrants into the city from rural areas. Finally,
another breaking point for the formation of slums in the city came with the new economic
restructuring after 1980 under the influence of globalization and the adoption of neo-
liberal economic policies.
4.3.1. Period before the Independence War: Socio-Economic Spatiality of Izmir in the
19
th
Century
By the 19
th
century, European nations that had already industrialized, particularly
Great Britain, began searching for new places to expand their markets. What the
industrialized nations needed at that time was partly to be able to sell their surplus goods
to new markets, but mostly to be able to acquire the raw materials available in other
countries so that they could produce more goods and products. Because of such needs,
European nations created colonial or semi-colonial type of relationships with many
unindustrialized nations.
21
At that time, transferring natural resources meant having

21
Colonial relations of the industrialized nations with the less-developed or developing nations were mainly based on
exploitation of the population and the natural resources of the less-developed nations. Developed nations, on the
process of the natural resources’ transfers for their use, had to establish almost a full or semi-control over the resources
of the developing nations, which usually meant some control over the developing nations’ governance (Hardoy &
Satterthwaite, 1981).

109
access to ports. Hence, port cities gained great importance and became a major focus of
the expansion efforts of the more developed and industrialized nations.
During the 19
th
century, the Ottoman Empire also attempted to become integrated
with this new economic system and to expand overseas trade. Thus it helped create all of
the conditions necessary for the European nations to come and acquire and process the
natural resources and raw materials of the Empire. Thus, the Empire’s provision of
sufficient conditions necessary for the European nations, on one hand, and, on the other
hand, the search of the industrialized nations for new markets to expand their economic
development both significantly influenced Izmir’s socio-economic and spatial
development during the 19
th
century (Tekeli, 2008:47).
During the 19
th
century, Izmir became the second most important port city of the
Ottoman Empire, after Istanbul (Martal, 1999:183). Although Izmir, as a port city, has
always been an important commercial center, going as far back as 3000 BC, during the
19
th
century it became even more important to the Ottoman Empire as the commercial
center of the Middle Eastern world. The city became the center for the accumulation and
distribution of the nation’s agricultural products (Figure 4.3). The agricultural products
that were coming from the fertile agricultural hinterlands of Izmir were accumulated in
the city and from there distributed overseas (Atay, 1998; Beyru, 2000). Izmir soon
became a citadel of the foreign nations, who ended up controlling the accumulation and
distribution of the raw materials and resources (Beyru, 2000; Tekeli, 2008).
110
Figure 4.3: Izmir in the 19
th
Century

Source: Canpolat, 1953.
The agricultural products and raw materials that had to be moved from the inner
areas of the Aegean Region of Anatolia were transported over the railways built by the
foreign nations during this period. For instance, in 1868 construction of the Izmir dock
began, and the English began building the Izmir-Aydin and Izmir-Kasaba railway tracks.
The English built 1309 kilometers of railways, coming all the way from Aydin, through
the two major river valleys of the region. These made it possible to transport agricultural
resources and raw materials into the dock area (Kiray, 1972:25). Distributed like a spider
web in the region, the Aydin-Izmir railway tracks resulted in giving control over the
natural products of the region into the hands of the foreign nations, and thereby ended up
increasing the Ottoman Empire’s dependency on foreign sources (Kiray, 1972:27).
Figure 4.4: Social Structure of Izmir in the 19
Source: Aydar & Altincekic, 1987:19.
A typical spatial formation resulting from these deve
grow from the port area towards its periphery (Figure 4.3
along the coastal shores of the city where the Greeks, Armenians, Jewish, and Laventines
were mostly located, and in and around the Punta (A
was located. The Laventines also created suburbs in Izmir. Bornova, Buca and Karsiyaka
became the suburbs used by the Laventines, and these suburbs were supported by railway
tracks so that the Laventines could travel
Muslims lived mostly on the Izmir hills
suburbs in Kadifekale, Corapkapi, Tilkilik, Iki
homes of both Muslim and Jewish groups
the different locations of the Levantines and Muslim populations, representing different
Social Structure of Izmir in the 19
th
Century
Altincekic, 1987:19.
A typical spatial formation resulting from these developments has made the city
grow from the port area towards its periphery (Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4).
along the coastal shores of the city where the Greeks, Armenians, Jewish, and Laventines
were mostly located, and in and around the Punta (Alsancak) districts where the city port
The Laventines also created suburbs in Izmir. Bornova, Buca and Karsiyaka
became the suburbs used by the Laventines, and these suburbs were supported by railway
tracks so that the Laventines could travel between their mansions and businesses.
Muslims lived mostly on the Izmir hills surrounding Punta (Beyru, 2000:386)
suburbs in Kadifekale, Corapkapi, Tilkilik, IkiCesmelik, Namazgah and Karatas were the
homes of both Muslim and Jewish groups (Yetkin, 2001). During this period, because of
the different locations of the Levantines and Muslim populations, representing different
111

lopments has made the city
). The city grew
along the coastal shores of the city where the Greeks, Armenians, Jewish, and Laventines
lsancak) districts where the city port
The Laventines also created suburbs in Izmir. Bornova, Buca and Karsiyaka
became the suburbs used by the Laventines, and these suburbs were supported by railway
between their mansions and businesses.
(Beyru, 2000:386). The
, Namazgah and Karatas were the
. During this period, because of
the different locations of the Levantines and Muslim populations, representing different
112
income groups, there was little interaction between the different areas unless it was
absolutely necessary (Figure 4.4).
In sum, by the end of the 19
th
century, as a result of these developments, Izmir
began to experience some population flow, albeit not so high, into its core area. Its total
population was 180,000 in 1857 and 207,547 in 1890, reaching 250,000 by 1910 (Kiray,
1998:39). However, the migrants from rural areas worked mostly as porters, unskilled
workers, farmer, daily workers, or street vendors (Yetkin, 2001). These unskilled workers
were mostly accommodated in ramshackle units, which somewhat resembled the early
forms of slum dwellings (Tekeli, 1982:39).
4.3.2. Period between 1923 and 1950: the Restructuring Period of Izmir
After the Turkish Republic founded in 1923, Turkey went through various
economic, social and cultural restructuring processes. As previously emphasized, the new
government, wanted to overcome the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and promote the
economic development of the nation. The adoption of an import-oriented economic
policy was one of the methods that the new government used to help establish the new
nation state. One aspect of this was the search to find ways to support economic
development through special investments in order to increase economic activity within
the nation in general, and in the cities in particular. Therefore, during the period between
the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 and the 1950s, like many other parts of
the nation Izmir experienced significant restructuring and reformulation.
The first economic mobilization was initiated after the first Conference of
Economics was held in 1923, which set up new goals and objectives to the economic
growth for the city (Sonmez, 1982:20). In the light of the objectives established at this
113
conference, the textile industry was identified as one of the most fruitful sectors of the
region, and so was made a focal point of the city and region’s economic development.
The nation began expropriating the investments previously owned by the foreigners, and
also set up incentives to encourage the textile sector in and around the city (Altincekic,
1987:30-35).
Although the worldwide economic crisis after 1929 affected agricultural
production and hindered the economic growth of Izmir, the fertility of the agricultural
land adjacent to the city, the basis of textile production, was good enough to allow the
textile sector to flourish. In fact, during the period between 1923 and 1950, Izmir
experienced greater economic growth with a significant increase in textile manufacturing
by middle and small-scale companies. These agro-industries provided the basis for
Izmir’s future economic development (Altincekic, 1987:36; DEU, 1996:10-12).
Economic development through these agro-industries initially reduced the
disintegration of rural communities and migration towards the core of the city, at least
until the 1940s. Consequently, Izmir was faced with only minor population increases
between 1923 and 1935. Hence, spatial arrangements in the city during this period were
not significantly different than previously. However, the social structure of the city
changed considerably. After the Independence War was won, many foreigners left the
city, and the high and middle-income groups took possession of their houses. The city’s
new affluent groups and middle-income groups began residing in and around Alsancak
(Punta), Karatas, Buca and Bornova, while the middle and lower income groups and the
new arrivals with lower skills were located around them (Karadag, 2000:52-53).
114
Yet, no significant transformation in the city’s macro-form occurred until the mid-
1930s. Until then, the city grew at a steady pace in basically the same spatial pattern as
during the late 19
th
century (Figure 4.5). The city’s layout continued to grow mostly
along the railway tracts. The railway tracks and the port continued to keep their important
roles, both in the economic structure and the spatial layout of the city (Ak, 1981:89).
Figure 4.5: Izmir Macro-Form between 1923 and 1950

Source: Ak, 1981.
One of the most striking developments of this period occurred through the arrival
of the exchange immigrants into the city. The exchange immigrants were Turkish citizens
that had been living in other countries. The new Turkish government made a concerted
effort to bring them back to Turkey to live. Between 1928 and 1935, the exchange
immigrants arrived in different parts of Turkey, mainly in western Anatolia, while some
groups, particularly from Salonika (Greece), moved to Izmir. The government attempted
to build some housing for these immigrants in the city. However, those who could not
115
afford or could not obtain housing supplied by the government began resettling
themselves, establishing the first squatter areas in the city. They began to establish
themselves in the 1.Kadriye, Yeni Istiklal, Zeytinlik, Yesildere, Cumhuriyet and
Naldoken neighborhoods (Karadag, 2000:125). With the arrival of exchange immigrants,
Izmir suburbs such as Karsiyaka, Buca and Bornova began to grow in size. Izmir’s
population reached 170,959 in 1935, and by 1950, had already reached 290,000 people
(Karadag, 2000:53). For the first time in the city’s history, unexpected housing problems
began which resulted in the first slums in the city. This influx of immigration became
acute after 1944.
In the meantime, as the nation-state’s primary goal was to create modern cities,
Izmir was also introduced to modernist planning approaches in order to create an orderly
society and to place the city’s growth and development under the control of the
government. A French architect, Rene Dange, was invited to develop a master plan for
the city. The Dange Plan was endorsed in 1925 but only partially planned the city. Only
the burnt areas were included in the plan. Following the French modernist planning
approach, the plan created prestigious areas by opening up wide radial roads connected
with wide squares (Figure 4.6) (Altincekic, 1987:50).
The Dange plan, which mostly covered the Alsancak (Punta) area, initially
reorganized the spatial arrangements as prestigious housing areas. The plan mainly
relocated unsanitary and unwanted activities to the outer parts of the planned area (DEU,
1996:15). However, by the 1930s, another plan was needed in the city.
The Behcet Uz plan implemented in 1938 had almost the same planning
objectives as the Dange plan, but with wider planning boundaries (Segmen, 1990:174).
116
The first truly comprehensive planning was realized during the 1940s with Le
Corbusier’s plan (1948). Le Corbusier’s plan planned the city for a 50-year period. It
mainly prepared for new housing development in various areas. Most importantly, for the
first time, it set up zoning regulations for land use throughout the city (Figure 4.7)
(Segmen, 1990:176).
Figure 4.6: The Rene Dange Plan (1925)

Source: Altincekic, 1987:47.
117
Figure 4.7: Le Corbusier’s Plan (1948)

Source: Karadag, 2000.
Through these plans the city gained more and better streets and some public
transportation systems, efforts were made to organize sanitation, and new housing areas
were begun, particularly in Karsiyaka and Karatas. Goztepe, Karatas, Alsancak and
Karsiyaka became prestigious housing areas. However, these plans very shortly became
out of date due to the increase in city’s population growth after 1944.
4.3.3. Period between 1950 and 1980: Industrialization Impact on the City
The economic development and spatial reformation of the city became more
prevalent after the 1950s, expanding along with the industrialization of the entire nation.
Although the city was in a reconstruction stage between 1923 and 1940, the economic
crisis after 1929 and the economic hardship during World War II, in addition to the un-
institutionalized and relatively inefficient governmental authorities all hindered the city’s
efforts to achieve its planned economic and spatial development.
118
The export-oriented industrialization adopted by the nation state to promote
economic development provided new economic incentives for the cities. As a
consequence of such incentives, Izmir continued to attract new economic investments.
Industrial companies and manufacturing investments started locating in and around the
city, increasing the population density in and near the industrialized areas. During the
early years of this period in Izmir, government investments in the manufacturing industry
tripled (Ak, 1981:90). For instance, while there were only 712 businesses in 1950, their
number reached 2,775 during the 1960s (Avcıoglu, 1984:730). As a consequence of the
economic incentives to the city, Izmir began rapidly increasing both in economic value
and in population.
With the increase in the number of businesses, industrial areas began locating
around the nearby towns of the city. For instance, while 60% of the industries were found
in the core city area around Alsancak and Bornova (see Figure 4.6), 30% of the total
industries were located in the nearby towns, mainly in the Pinarbasi, Karabaglar, Camdibi
and Gaziemir areas (Ak, 1981:166).
The increase in the city’s industrial businesses began attracting more people into
the city. The urban population of Izmir reached 239,616 in 1950, indicating a 55%
increase since 1927. By 1970, the city’s population had grown even more, reaching
554,105 people, almost double its 1950 population (Sevgi, 1988:39).
This population growth was associated with the rural migration into the city,
which was the second biggest population flow after the arrival of the exchange
immigrants. The spread of mechanization in the rural areas for increasing agricultural
production created a surplus workforce in the rural areas who then migrated into Izmir as
119
a place where more jobs were available. Since there was not enough housing for all those
moving to the city, these unskilled and lower income migrants began to solve their
housing problems by building their own housing units closer to the existing jobs. After
beginning in the II Kadriye neighborhood, between 1944 and 1950 ten slum areas were
added into the spatial formation of the city, establishing today’s Gurcesme, Kadifekale,
Bogazici, Gultepe and Ferahli neighborhoods (Figure 4.8) (Karadag, 2000:126).
Figure 4.8: Slum Areas between 1940 and 1950

Source: Unverdi, 2002:165.
Since the areas where the new inhabitants built their housing were outside of the
planning boundaries of the Le Corbusier Plan (1948), they were able to hide from the
local authorities during their first years in the city. At the same time they were able to
build their slums close enough to reach to the existing jobs located in the urban core.
These were in fact the first slum areas later integrated into the spatial macro-form during
120
the mid 1970s. They were also the first slums that opened up the slum development on
publicly owned land.
According to data from the Ministry of Public Works and Settlements, the
population share of the slums in the city had reached 33.4% by the 1960s (Altincekic,
1987:59). The new slums were mainly located on the bay side of the Kadifekale hillsides,
in the western valley of the Meles river, in the eastern area by the Bayrakli railway line,
mainly on the Altindag, Bornova and Yamanlar hillsides, and in the southern areas of the
city in the Yesilyurt, Karabaglar, Bozyaka and Yesildere areas where the treasury land
was abundant (Karaman et al., 1998:47).
The increased investments for the city’s industrial development and the
population flow to the city core continued to make the city expand towards its
peripheries. During the 1950s, the city’s boundaries only encompassed the Konak,
Alsancak, and Goztepe districts. However, by the 1970s, the boundaries of the city
encompassed the Konak, Alsancak, Karsiyaka, Bornova, Buca, Camdibi, Altindag,
Gultepe, Ornekkoy, Balcova and Yesilyurt districts. The Cigli, Gaziemir and Narlidere
districts also saw substantial growth in population (Figure 4.9) (Karadag, 2000:60; Sevgi,
1988:123).
By the time the city arrived in these areas during the 1970s, its slum areas had
already begun surrounding the other residential areas of the city, reaching 36.7% of the
population. Slum formation in the city has been mainly established near businesses and
jobs, mostly near the industrial areas. The proliferation and locational choices of the
slums after the 1960s were strongly connected with the new industrial investment during
the 1960s. For instance, the slums located around Pinarbasi, Isikkent, Bornova, and
121
Karsiyaka were located near the new factories established around the same period (DEU,
1996:28-29).
Figure 4.9: Slum Areas between 1960 and 1970

Source: Unverdi, 2002:170.
In the meantime, numerous different development plans were introduced. Among
all of these, Aru’s Plan (1951), Bodmar’s Plan (1959) and the Structure Plan of the
Master Plan Bureau (1973) were the most significant ones. Yet, none of these plans could
possibly solve the city’s problems associated with such a substantial increase in the
population. In a very short period of time after these plans were approved, they each
became outdated. Nevertheless, they were, especially the 1973 Structure Plan, influential
on the spatial formation of the city by defining the zoning regulations for the major land
uses such as industries and residential areas, which initially formed the spatial
distribution of the city (Imar Iskan Bakanligi, 1973).
122
Beginning in the early 1950s, the slum areas have been predominant in the city
spatial formation. However, while the slums were spreading in and around the urban land
of Izmir, they became more and more integrated in the job market, both in the formal and
informal economic sectors, making it impossible to eliminate them. As previously
discussed, as a result of the oil crisis during the 1970s, the nation entered an economic
crisis during which the state began looking for new ways to economically survive. In
such difficult times, the state, as in many cities, directly subsidized new industries for
manufacturing the intermediate goods in the city, which ultimately created even more
population increase in Izmir (Altincekic, 1998).
The result of such incentives created further migration flows into the city
surroundings, which increased the density of the slums in the urban space of Izmir. As a
consequence of this population growth, the city began growing through its peripheries in
a radial macro-form and adding more formerly independent municipalities to its
administrative boundaries. Beginning as the three municipalities of the Central City,
Karsiyaka and Bornova during the 1950s, the city was divided into 13 municipalities in
1969 under the management of the Izmir Municipality Consolidated Area (DEU,
1996:29). Today, Izmir’s metropolitan area has expanded even more, and now includes
nineteen municipalities within its new metropolitan boundaries (IMM, 2008:27).
4.3.4. After the 1980s: The Influence of Liberal Economic Policies on Slums
After the economic crisis in the 1970s, Turkey adopted liberal economic policies
that required embracing export-oriented economic development. In the meantime the
nation also adopted the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the IMF (Davis,
2006). As a consequence of these arrangements, during the 1980s the nation underwent a
123
new economic and hence spatial restructuring phase. The aim was to enable Turkey to
compete within this newly established global economic system.
22
The competition with
the global economy was needed to create an economic environment suitable for both the
international companies to invest in the nation and to develop new economic
opportunities for investment for the nation itself. Cities have played a particularly
important role in these new developments by becoming attraction points both for the
national and international investments.
Since the 1980s, Izmir has continued to be one of the important cities of the
nation. As the liberal economic system depended on decentralization, when the state was
depoliticized in the economic activities, the local authorities, namely the municipalities,
became the most important agencies able to deal with any problems within their
administrative boundaries. Within such an environment, the metropolitan cities played a
particularly important role in the integration of the Turkish economy with the global
economic system.
The market efficiency of the liberal economic system depended on the adoption of
policies to simplify all trade procedures in order to attract and encourage new
investments by both national and international companies. Simplification of the
procedures was realized through adopting deregulatory frameworks. Deregulation has
mainly depended on easing the urban land use regulations, resulting in opening up
speculative investments in urban land for various groups (Tekeli, 2008).

22
So called globalization has created a new way of economic relationships between nations which are controlled
mostly by the power of the international companies. The global economic system needs to create high circulation of the
goods and products worldwide in order to create more consumption patterns among consumers. Therefore, it needs free
market circulation worldwide. Saskie Sassen (2001), Portes et al. (1989) are among those who explained the
globalization impact in the context of the developing world or in the informal sector.
124
These new economic-related strategies and deregulatory frameworks have
significantly affected Izmir, as they have all cities in Turkey. However, after the 1980s,
Izmir has somewhat lost its major importance in terms of industrial development. The
Istanbul and Gebze regions have been assigned as the major economic regions to be
integrated into the global economic system. As a consequence of such strategies,
industrial investments in Izmir have fallen since the 1980s. The dominant industrial
companies since then have been mainly manufacturing companies that were fed on the
small-scale, mostly informal, companies that have produced intermediate goods for
themselves, other smaller companies and local residents (DEU, 1996:43). Such
relationships between industrial companies have also encouraged the distribution of
housing areas, mainly the slum areas, within the city space. Slum areas have been
spreading in between areas of middle-scale manufacturing and small-scale companies
(DEU, 1996:43-44).
In the meantime, revitalization of the capital stock has been realized through
nonindustrial investments, mainly through speculative investments in urban land. The
building construction sector has become the major investment tool for the strategy of
revitalizing the capital stock. For instance, according to the building statistics of the SIS
of Turkey, between 1980 and 1985, the number of construction permits issued in Izmir
doubled, reaching 27,393 permits in 1985, but since then there has been a sharp decline
(SIS, 2000a).
The construction sector, in fact, has become the most profitable investment tool
used by the state as part of its strategy for boosting the national economy. It also
contributed to politicizing the redistribution of urban rent among various groups, mainly
125
the middle and lower income groups who were heavily influenced by the new economic
strategies. In other words, due to the ability of the construction sector to compensate for
the economic inability of the lower income groups, the state encouraged the housing
sector to flourish through state incentives (Keles, 2002; Tekeli, 1998).
As a result of the advantageous position of the housing sector, the state initiated
the mass housing laws that offered more available credit facilities with low interest loans
to the middle-income groups (Keles, 2002). Housing development in Izmir was greatly
influenced by these laws. Under such incentives, housing construction through the
cooperatives has been accelerated in Izmir too, reaching its highest peak in 1985 with its
45.6% share in the total dwelling units there (Table 4.3) (Koc, 2000:45).
Table 4.3: The Role of Cooperative in the Housing Sector in Izmir
Years Total Dwelling Units
Estimated units produced
by cooperatives
% share of
cooperatives
1980 8,128 1,325 13.30%
1981 7,779 1,942 24.96%
1982 8,083 1,949 24.11%
1983 11,512 3,010 26.15%
1984 13,864 2,729 19.68%
1985 27,393 12,456 45.47%
1986 19,916 4,400 22.09%
1987 22,242 4,501 20.24%
1988 21,161 6,206 29.33%
1989 19,081 4,267 22.36%
1990 18,825 2,532 13.45%
1991 24,579 4,656 18.94%
1992 18,314 5,591 30.53%
1993 29,740 9,229 31.03%
1994 25,144 6,847 27.23%
1995 25,686 4,924 19.17%
1996 26,038 6,981 26.81%
Source: Koc, 2000:45.
The housing construction sector has been particularly accelerated with the mass
housing cooperatives initiated in Izmir. For instance, between 1984 and 1996, in addition
to the cooperative arrangements of the private companies, about 30 cooperatives covering
approximately 1,052 hectares of urban land have been established through the initiatives
126
of the Housing Development Administration of Turkey (HDA) and local-municipalities
in Izmir (Koc, 2000:46-48).
Primarily located on peripheral urban land where public land with larger tracts
was available, these cooperative arrangements have put pressure both on the urban land
development as well as on the spatial formation of the city. One of the results was less
public land available for new slum developments on the urban peripheries. Izmir has been
surrounded by these mass-housing arrangements on the northern, southern and eastern
sides of the city. On the north, the Karsiyaka and Cigli areas have been covered with the
mass housing cooperatives, while the Buca and Bornova areas have been covered with
other humongous mass housing projects (Figure 4.10).
Figure 4.10: Distribution of Mass Housing Cooperatives in Izmir (1984-1996)

Source: DEU, 1996:51.
While investment in the land and housing sectors through the cooperative
arrangements has fostered the accumulation of capital and hence boosted the national
127
economy, it has also created land shortages for the lower-income groups. After the 1980s,
free public land became unavailable for the use of the lower-income groups or for new
slum arrangements in the city, which accelerated the increase of the commercial-based
informal land and housing allocation systems for slum provision. Since the 1980s, illegal
land sub-divisions have increased by the provision of informal land to the lower-income
groups in Izmir. For instance, as Koc demonstrates, of the 183,931 slum applicants who
applied to receive their official title deeds based on the enacted squatter amnesty law in
1984, 73,059 applicants were residing in illegally sub-divided plots, totaling about 40%
of the total illegal arrangements (Koc, 2001:118).
In sum, the 1980s have seen the acceleration of the commercialization of the
urban land among various groups in the city. The impact of commercialization on the
urban land has been particularly influential on the informal land and housing markets.
Various groups seeking profit maximization from urban rents have begun investing in
these markets. In a short period of time, informal land and housing brokers have created
another market within the city, which made free public land or cheaper housing
allocations almost impossible to acquire for the lower-income groups.
While these arrangements have created the informal land-subdivision processes as
the most significant informal housing allocation processes, small-scale contractors have
begun taking a role in building and selling informal housing units to lower-income
groups. The outcome of these arrangements has been the creation of informal housing
markets. In addition to these changes in the informal land and housing market,
commercialization has become also influential among the slum population themselves.
128
The original slum dwellers have begun renting out their additional units to lower-income
groups.
The outcome of all these arrangements of various groups in the informal housing
market was the acceleration of the vertical growth of the slum housing units within the
city sphere. Studies have shown that the share of units, land and/or housing transfers of
units and apartment blocks in Izmir’s slum areas devoted to rental units has grown since
the 1980s. For instance, in his study in five neighborhoods in Izmir Sevgi (1988) found
that 20% of slum dwellers have been renters, indicating a noticeable increase in rental
arrangements in Izmir slums. He has also found that the slum units in five neighborhoods
already had buildings larger than one story, indicating the commercialization impact of
the urban land on the slum areas (Sevgi, 1988). Also, a study of the State Planning
Organization of Turkey (SPO) in 1991 has found that the free land allocation for slums
fell sharply in the 1980s. The SPO has found that only 31% of the interviewed slum
population in Izmir was able to invade public lands with no cost (Alpar & Yener, 1993).
By the same token, another study in 1999 has indicated a rapid decline in obtaining free
public land for slum allocations. The study, realized for the Local Agenda 21, has found
that only 7.4% of the interviewed population could acquire urban land with no cost at all
(Karaman et al., 1998). Although making a full comparison is hard to make since case
study areas generally do not cover the same neighborhoods, they still give useful insights
into how the informal land markets underwent a change towards more commercialized
arrangements during the 1980s.
Today, the slums in Izmir, especially the ones that were built before the 1980s,
have already been integrated into the other residential areas of the city (Figure 4.11).
129
Surrounding the formal residential areas, new slum arrangements, albeit at a slower pace,
continue growing in the peripheral areas of the city, mostly on hillsides, landslide areas,
or in the conservation belts of highways. With their more than 40% share of the
population, slum areas are still a significant part of contemporary Izmir, and are likely to
remain so for some time to come.
Figure 4.11: Spatial Formation of Slums by Years

Source: Sevgi, 1988:126.
Today’s spatial formation of the city has not only been shaped by the economic
structuring process of the city but also by the legal and planning arrangements introduced
in the city. Today’s formation of slums in Izmir have been particularly shaped by the
influence of the amnesty laws, mainly through Act number 2981, which was enacted in
1984. This amnesty law has not only formalized the old slum areas, but also has given
legal title deeds to the slum dwellers while improving their slum neighborhoods by
130
development plans linked to the very same law. As a consequence of this law, almost all
of the slum areas in Izmir have been transformed and upgraded through legal and
planning arrangements. Yet, these arrangements have not put a halt to new slum
arrangements. They have mostly just changed the nature of the slums into more
commercialized areas with more integration and acceptance from the local authorities.
4.4. Conclusion
As a port city, since the 18
th
and 19
th
centuries Izmir has played an important role
for its region and hence for the nation by providing overseas trade connections. During
the 19
th
century, the industrialized European nations increased the importance of the city
through building transportation lines, mainly railway tracks, to carry the agricultural
goods and products from the fertile areas in the Aegean region into the city so they could
transport the goods overseas. The availability of this transportation encouraged further
migration flow to Izmir as early as the 1920s.
Izmir has kept growing since the 1920s, mainly through the flow of migrants into
the city. Today, with over three million people, of whom 50% reside in slum dwellings,
the city still keeps growing through the migration flow into the city. Influenced and
formed by the various developments (e.g., economic, political, and social) of the nation,
the city has been spatially reformed and reformulated, and consequently has reached its
current spatial formation.
Following the Ottoman Empire period, three major turning points have been
particularly influential on the spatial structure of the city in general, and of the slum areas
in particular. In the early 1920s, after the Ataturk government took control of the nation,
Izmir like many other cities was also faced with the restructuration stage of the city and
131
introduced modernist planning approaches, both in order to create a modern looking
nation and to improve the living conditions of people in the city. The early republican
period in Turkey was mainly the period for creating a new structure for the nation that
would help address the many economic and institutional deficiencies. Thus, no
significant transformation in the city’s spatial formation occurred until the mid-1930s.
While the city kept growing in a steady pace, the first population flow with high quantity
appeared with the arrival of the exchange immigrants between 1928 and 1935. With the
arrival of exchange immigrants, slum developments also began to be visible in the city.
Yet, it was not until the early 1950s that the slums were seen as problems by the
governmental authorities.
Export-oriented industrialization adopted by the nation state for economic
development during the 1950s opened up the cities to new economic incentives supplied
by the nation state, which consequently created more population flow into Izmir. After
the 1950s, initiatives for industrialization on one hand, and the mechanization introduced
with agricultural areas on the other hand, created a flow of migrants from rural areas into
the city. Because of its unique influences on the urbanization process and the formation
of slum developments, the early period of the 1950s was a significant turning point for
the city. While the city’s annual urban growth rate was 25.2% in 1950, it accelerated to
40.9% in 1955, and even reached 43.5% in 1960. This increase was greatly associated
with slum development. By 1960 and 1970, the population share of slums in the city
reached 33.4% and 36.7% respectively.
By the 1970s, the slum population became integrated within the city space, not
only through housing arrangements but also through economic developments. Slum
132
populations, who usually worked in the informal small-scale businesses, have been
supporting the formal sector by providing intermediate goods to this sector. Additionally,
slum populations controlling the informal economic sector have also been providing
cheaper goods for the lower income population, which has helped ease many possible
tensions arising from these groups. Thus, the economic and social benefits generated by
the slum population, despite their illegal housing arrangements, led them to gain more
acceptances from the middle and upper classes between the late 1960s and the 1970s.
Another turning point arrived during the 1980s. In order to compete with the
newly established global economy and to survive the economic crisis of this period, the
nation adopted the liberal economic policies favored by globalization and underwent an
economic restructuring. Liberal economic policy required very little or no direct state
involvement in economic growth. Hence, as the state lost its major role as the direct
initiator for the economic development, the municipalities, mainly the metropolitan
municipalities, gained in importance and acquired new powers. Empowered by planning
and managerial authorities to create economic development at the city level, metropolitan
cities, such as Izmir, began looking for new ways to create capital accumulation in the
city. However, during the same period, Izmir has also faced economic loss in the city as
other metropolitan areas, particular those around Istanbul and Gebze, became the favored
centers for industrialization.
Using urban land to generate economic growth has become one of the major
strategies for the local authorities seeking to boost development for their locales. Hence,
by supplying more local jobs and creating short-term capital accumulation, the
construction sector has become the major economic booster among the authorities.
133
Beginning during the 1980s, these initiatives have ultimately accelerated the commercial
use of the urban land by various groups, including the slum populations. The impact of
commercialization has been particularly influential on the informal land and housing
markets. While slums continued increasing, their character has changed from being
temporary into permanent settlements, and from being one-story structures into larger
multi-story structures.
On the other hand, the planning initiatives undertaken during the 1980s have also
significantly influenced the formation of new slum developments in the city. As the
redistribution strategy of the capital (i.e., urban land), various planning strategies were
adopted and implemented during the mid-1980s. On one hand, mass housing
cooperatives were built as the foundation of the housing strategy developed for the
middle-income households. On the other hand, slum upgrading plans were introduced
within actual slum areas as a major part of the redevelopment strategy. As a consequence
of legislation and the planning initiatives of the metropolitan and district authorities in
Izmir, upgrading plans have been introduced to almost all of the slum areas in Izmir, with
the goal of redeveloping the actual slum areas by legalizing and formalizing them as
authorized housing areas. While in this chapter I have discussed the slum formation in
Izmir Metropolitan city from the historical perspective, in the following chapter, I will be
discussing the slum upgrading plans introduced with the slums located within the
administrative boundaries of Izmir Metropolitan city.
134
CHAPTER 5: MEANS OF TRANSFORMATION – SLUM UPGRADING PLANS IN
IZMIR
5.1. Introduction
As was indicated earlier, slum areas are the result of population flow into major
cities of Turkey, a flow that has been also encouraged by the state, at least at the
beginning, in order to capitalize on the migrant population as the urban labor force.
However, while the state encouraged the flow of migration from rural to urban areas in
order to rejuvenate economic development during the early stages of the industrialization
of the nation, it could not possibly have supplied affordable housing solutions to all of
these groups. Consequently, the slums have spread in urban spaces at unprecedented
rates.
Such a rapid increase of slums in Turkey’s major cities confronted the state with
some difficulties. On one hand, the state had been supporting the migration flow into
cities both overtly and covertly. On the other hand, as it embraced private property rights
as the major property right, the state could not ignore slum developments but had to find
ways to prohibit their existence. The state’s initial response to slums was to prohibit and
demolish them through legal means. The first reactions towards slums were realized in
Ankara with a special law in 1924 that was issued for the demolition of Ankara slums.
Additional legislation was enacted in 1949 that gave authority to local municipalities to
eliminate any further slum units (Danielson & Keles, 1985:171). Yet, neither these nor
the subsequent laws followed by these legislations up until the 1960s could possibly have
prohibited new slum developments in the urban space, and the populations of the slums
have kept increasing. As a consequence of such an increase as well as the realization of
135
the positive economic input of the slum population, the state has changed its position
from avoiding the slums into accepting them.
This chapter aims to look at state policies towards slum areas with particular
attention being paid to the slum upgrading plans introduced by the IMM. First, I will
briefly examine the state policies towards slum areas in Turkey from a historical
perspective, with particular attention to the major amnesty laws introduced for slum
areas. Second, I will examine the concept of slum upgrading plans in conjunction with
the legislation passed regarding slum upgrading, in order to depict how the slum
upgrading plans have been originated, what their major point of focus in the upgradation
processes of slums was, and how they have been implemented in urban spaces. In the
examination of the implementation of slum upgrading plans, different planning
approaches will also be briefly reviewed in order to understand the various objectives of
these plans. After the general explanation on slum upgrading plans is given, I will
evaluate the implementation stages of upgrading plans in the Izmir metropolitan area.
The aim of the general overview of the slum upgrading plans is to establish a foundation
for the following empirical chapters where I examine in detail the implementation of
slum upgrading plans through user-initiated involvement in Gultepe District.
5.2. State Policy from Avoidance to Acceptance
When restrictive policies failed to prohibit slum development, some minor
recognition of slum units began to arise among governmental authorities. Beginning in
1948, the first recognition of slum units was realized with law number 5218, which was
aimed at improving the housing conditions of the existing slum units in Ankara and
providing building plots for the lower-income housing units (Keles, 2002:569).
136
Additional legislation followed this law, aimed at solving the local problems associated
with slum arrangements.
However, the first comprehensive recognition of slums was not realized until the
Gecekondu Amnesty Law was enacted in 1966 under the influence of the First Five-Year
National Development Plan of Turkey. This law, for the first time, officially used the
term ‘gecekondu,’ referring to a squatter or slum unit in Turkey. Massive slum
arrangements growing in the major cities of Turkey in the 1960s caused the creation of
amnesty laws for the slums. The Gecekondu Amnesty Law of 1966 (Number 775)
23

proposed a comprehensive approach to deal with the slum units. The law mainly
proposed three approaches towards slum areas: legalization and improvement of existing
structurally acceptable slums by supplying major public services to slum areas, clearance
of unacceptable slums, and prohibiting any future slum developments in urban areas
(Danielson & Keles, 1985:175-177). By this law, the slum areas began to be supplied
with the major public services, which made some basic improvements in the slum areas.
Again, with this law, for the first time the slums gained full legal acceptance and the slum
inhabitants were granted official title deeds for the lands they had been occupying. For
the first time in Turkey’s history, this Gecekondu Amnesty Law provided for the
redistribution of urban rents among the urban poor. It could not, however, protect the
urban land from additional slum developments. On the contrary, the slum areas have kept
growing, even more rapidly than ever before.

23
For more information see the Gecekondu Law (Number 775) [775 Sayili Gecekondu Kanunu]. (1966). Retrieved on
December 2, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site: http://
www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.php?kod= 27

137
By the time that Turkey reached its highest rate of squatterization during the
1980s, the concern of the national and local governmental authorities, mainly the
metropolitan municipalities, regarding efforts to solve the squatterization problem in big
cities had also reached its peak. The solutions produced before the 1980s for resolving
the squatter settlement related problems were not that successful. None of the legislative
and regulatory frameworks succeeded in prohibiting any future slum development in the
cities. As a result, in 1984 a broader and more comprehensive slum amnesty law was
introduced.
5.3. Slum Upgrading Plans
As one reflection of the decentralization political approach of the state, during the
1980s the comprehensive planning approach, which treated the urban space as a total
unity, was abandoned. The comprehensive strategic planning approaches, which were
under the control of the central planning authorities (e.g. MPWS), were terminated, and
piecemeal planning approaches were embraced by local authorities. The amnesty laws
regarding unauthorized housing areas and slum upgrading planning processes that were
endorsed after the 1980s were in fact the outcomes of such piecemeal planning policies.
Between 1983 and 1988 various laws were enacted to prevent further slum
developments in urban areas. Among all of these laws, law number 2981 regarding slum
amnesty has perhaps had the most influence over the transformation of slum areas in
today’s spatial formation. The initial aim of the government in issuing slum amnesty laws
was to prevent subsequent slum developments in cities. However, what these laws and
the piecemeal slum upgrading plans did in reality was secure the position of slums by
making them permanent housing areas. In other words, the commercialization of slums
138
has been accelerated through the help of the slum amnesty laws and piecemeal planning
approaches in Turkey (Davis, 2006; Pamuk, 1996).
24
Today’s slum formation in cities
has been directly associated with the slum upgrading initiatives, which I will be
examining it in the following section.
5.3.1. Objectives of Slum Upgrading Plans
By the early 1980s the squatterization process had become a special concern of
the state as massive settlements in the metropolitan cities began to develop. Although
Turkey was faced with squatterization as a major problem in the big cities, such as
Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, beginning in the 1960s, and therefore had passed regulatory
and amnesty laws against squatters, it was clear by the 1980s that stronger law
enforcement was needed. Act number 2981, passed in 1984, was the first law that
introduced slum upgradation processes to all illegal housing arrangements, including
squatter settlements in Turkey. The law not only regulated squatter settlements but
affected all illegal housing arrangements, and attempted to legalize these areas
nationwide. Law 2981 was the first law in Turkey that brought about the transformation
of slums through the tool of slum upgrading plans. Beginning in 1984, the slum areas in
major cities were transformed through the implementation of this law in parallel with the
local planning initiatives of the municipalities.
In the meantime, responsibility for the implementation of the amnesty law of
1984 was given to the local municipalities through two major laws passed during the

24
Commercialization of slums is associated with the ability of slum dwellings to join and have a particular share in the
land and housing market economy. As the literature argues, commercialization of slum dwellings has been accelerated
through various forces. Although market forces have been one influential force in the commercialization of slums,
overtly and covertly initiated government policies have had the major role in the formation of commercialization of
slums. See Burgess (1978), Pamuk (1996), Davis (2006).
139
1980s. The municipalities were given the power to endorse upgrading plans in their
administrative boundaries. By the 1980s, the larger cities, namely the metropolitan areas,
became more important for the state as centers of the nation’s economic system, and as
the state looked for ways to increase capital accumulation, it began to decentralize its
authority by transferring almost all of the planning power to local authorities. Therefore,
the state enacted two major pieces of legislation in 1984 and 1985. First, law number
3030 was enacted in 1984 and gave special administrative authority to the Metropolitan
Municipalities.
25
A year later, in 1985, as part of the decentralization policies being
promoted by the state at that time, the Physical Development Planning Law, number
3194,
26
gave local authorities the major responsibility for dealing with the planning
initiatives within their boundaries (Agacli, 1992; Tercan, 1996).
Under the jurisdiction of these laws, municipalities in general, and metropolitan
municipalities in particular, have begun to deal with their urban related problems through
the implementation of various planning approaches, among which slum upgrading plans
have taken a prominent place. Metropolitan municipalities, such as Izmir Metropolitan
Municipality, have begun implementing slum amnesty law number 2981 by using the
powers given to them by laws number 3030 and 3914 to introduce slum upgrading plans
for the slum areas within their administrative boundaries. Between 1984 and 1998, IMM,

25
The Metropolitan Municipality Law (Number 3030) [3030 Buyuksehir Belediyelerinin Yonetimi Hakkinda 3030
Sayili Kanunun Uygulanmasi ile Ilgili Yonetmelik]. (1984). Retrieved on December 2, 2008, from TMMOB The
Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site:http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.php?
kod=31
26
For more details see the Physical Development Planning Law (Number 3194) [3194 Sayili Imar Kanunu]. (1985).
Retrieved on December 5, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site:
http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=33
140
like other metropolitan cities, transformed nearly all of the slum areas that were
established before 1981 with slum upgradation planning processes.
What the slum upgrading plans mainly did was to legalize slums under the
jurisdiction of the amnesty law number 2981 by issuing official title deeds to the slum
dwellers, and to transform the slums by improving their housing and neighborhood
conditions through the newly assigned improvement plans. The slum upgrading plans
were basically prepared as in-situ upgrading plans, by which slum units were supplied
with basic public services (e.g., roads, sewage systems, electric and water supplies) and
public facilities (e.g., parking places, parks, recreational areas, schools, and local health
centers), but with additional development rights (FAR).
Additional development rights have been generally created to make the slum
areas more attractive to market-forces so that they can get involved with the
implementation of slum upgrading plans. Market agencies, particularly the small-scale
built-and-sell contractors in Turkey, as institutions that looked for profit maximization,
would only be involved with upgrading process when there was any potential for profit.
Thus, the logic behind of additional development rights in slum upgrading plans brought
by the law number 2981 was to encourage the involvement of market-forces in the
implementation of slum upgrading plans (Dundar, 2003; Oncu, 1988).
Although amnesty law number 2981 did not specify that the upgrading plans
should prepare for additional population increase in the slum areas, the municipalities,
which were responsible with the preparation of slum upgrading plans, were usually
inclined to prepare the upgrading plans with additional built-areas in order to encourage
market participation in the slum upgrading processes (Baharoglu, 1996:56-57). However,
141
as technical as it sounds, the slum upgrading plans have become in fact a political tool in
the hands of local government authorities. Municipalities, as the local governmental
authorities, have included additional redevelopment rights with slum upgrading plans by
supplying official title deeds to the slum dwellers in exchange for political support from
the slum dwellers (Tekeli, 1998, 2008). Hence, in Turkey, slum upgrading plans have
generally become identical with redevelopment plans.
In sum, what the amnesty law and the slum upgrading plans have put into practice
that was different from the previous amnesty laws was that they facilitated the slum
improvement process by allowing additional floors as part of the deal between negotiated
between the slum dwellers and small-scale contractors in order to actualize the
transformation of slum areas into authorized housing stocks (Baharoglu, 1996:56; Uzun,
2005:185).
Such transformation processes of slum areas have changed the slums from being
temporary shelters into investment tools. In this context, the slum upgrading plans have
come to represent political as well as economic solutions to the requirements of the slum
dwellers, investors and political parties in the local communities. As political planning
processes, the slum upgrading plans were also prepared as technical tools. The
preparation of slum upgrading plans was linked to certain requirements through the
amnesty law, number 2981. Above all, unless a slum upgrading plan was endorsed for a
specified slum area, no official title deeds could be issued for the slum owners who were
residing in that area. The first step to prepare upgrading plans was to identify the current
land ownership and land users of the assigned area to be planned. The second step was to
document the slum dwellings in terms of their physical structures. As the third step, new
142
cadastral plans needed to be prepared in order to introduce new planning regulations for
the area to be planned. Only after these steps were taken could the slum upgrading plan
be prepared and introduced as an official document for new development strategies, and
only then could official title deeds be issued to slum dwellers.
5.3.2. Technical Processes of Upgrading Plans
27

According to act number 2981, slum upgrading plans have required more than
just preparing simple improvements plans for illegally developed areas. Prior to the
preparation of slum upgrading plans, slums needed to be specified, application forms had
to be filled out by slum users in order to receive the government certificates, registration
forms had to be filled out by the certified technical officers who were responsible for the
land specification process, and finally new plot plans had to be prepared for the
registration of the land (Uzel, 1986:155-157).
Once a slum area has been designated for the preparation of slum upgrading plan,
the first step is the completion of land-use plans of the area, along with the preparation of
a current map that shows the actual current users and the patterns of land ownership in
the area. These define both the legal and actual users of the land and the physical
structure of the dwellings in the area to be planned.
Planners then work from this land-use plan to prepare the future planning
strategies of the settlements. They need to identify which slum dwellings could be
preserved as they are, which ones need to be redeveloped, and which ones need to be

27
The following section is prepared as an explanation of the amnesty law number 2981. So, the text of this section is
mainly from this legislation. For more details of the law, please refer to the Amnesty Law (Number 2981) [2981 Sayili
Imar Affi Kanunu]. (1984). Retrieved on December 2, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir
Plancilari Odasi] Web site: http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=31

143
demolished. At this stage, the new ownership pattern of the settlements together with
their physical structure is determined through the help of new cadastral plans introduced
after the site observations. To be more precise, the planners redefine the new size and
location of each plot by using the technical guidelines provided by the law.
As widely accepted in the literature regarding slums in the developing nations
(Friedman et al., 1988; Payne, 1997), Turkish governmental authorities have also
considered the success of slum upgrading as being closely linked to the transferring of
property rights of land to their actual residents. Thus, transferring of the property rights
has been a priority for the slum upgrading programs in Turkey. Therefore, prior to the
preparation of slum upgrading plans, land allocation with the help of cadastral plans that
are also known as ‘plot plans’ must be organized. Only then can the slum upgrading plans
be prepared and implemented.
Plot plans were in fact the new cadastral plans that would subdivide public land
into small parcels (no bigger than 400 square meters, according to law number 2981), and
restrict these subdivided parcels for the use of certain slum dwellers. Plot plans were also
part of the process whereby the property rights of public land were transferred into
private ownership. In order to develop plot plans, the actual slum users had to be
designated by names, plot sizes, and location on site survey documents certified by
bureau officials. The certified planners had to fill out the appraisal forms in order to
appraise the total fee that each slum dweller would have to pay for the land they had been
occupying in order to be officially certified as users of the land, and hence to receive their
official title deeds after the slum upgrading plans were approved.
144
In this process, as one of the requirements of Physical Development Planning law
number 3194, a maximum of 35% of the land is compulsorily expropriated for the
creation of public facilities (i.e., parks, schools, health centers, roads). After the 35% land
expropriation is assigned for each parcel, the rest of the land is either merged with other
land, or used separately to create an adequate-sized building plot. The plot size that is
required by law number 2981 cannot exceed more than 400 square meters for one slum
owner. Those who own land that is not designated for housing are either given another
plot or shares of several plots, or compensated for the lost of his/her land share.
The appraisal forms and the applications of the slum users for the new land
allocation process lead to the preparation of new plot plans. In the meantime, government
certificates are issued to the slum dwellers who had applied during the land allocation
process. Government certificates can be issued prior to the preparation of plot plans or
slum upgrading plans. A government certificate is in fact a document that represents the
eligibility of the certificate holder to be certified as the user who illegally occupied of the
land. However, it is also considered an a priori document that is used during the land
allocation process. A slum user who does not hold a government certificate for their lot
cannot be granted an amnesty for their slum unit. Slum dwellers who have received their
government certificates have to wait for land allocation approval, new plot plans and the
slum upgrading plans. In the meantime, after their applications are approved the slum
dwellers have to pay for the lands they occupied within four years, with no more than
twelve installment payments. Only after the land is purchased and the fees are fully paid,
are the official title-deeds of the land granted to the slum dwellers.
145
Only after the plot plans are prepared can the slum upgrading plans be introduced.
Slum upgrading plans are in fact plans that are assigned for implementation stages.
Therefore, they are prepared within the master plan implementation scale of 1.1000. They
are the plans that assign development regulations to planned areas, usually with some
additional population increase in the planned areas, which may differ depending on the
characteristics and location of the particular slums.
After these procedures are completed by the planners, the slum upgrading plan for
the area is prepared and endorsed after one month public exhibition is done in order to
allow for any appeals about the planning decisions on the prepared plans. Slum dwellers
can apply for changes. When it is necessary, revisions may be applied. At the final stage,
the plan is approved by the municipalities, and new title deeds are issued based on the
applications of the slum dwellers. Prepared slum upgrading plans have become official
documents and are readied for the implementation stage by their jurisdictional
municipalities.
5.3.3. Different Approaches to Transformation of Slums
As was previously explained, the primary purpose in issuing slum upgrading
plans is to transform slum areas into formal housing stocks by improving their living
conditions. Within this goal of the upgrading plans, however, different planning strategies
have been applied by local municipalities in different slum areas. Three factors are
particularly influential in applying different transformation strategies on slum areas: (a)
the location of slum areas, (b) the complexity of the de facto land ownership structure, (c)
the willingness and ability of market forces to get involved with slum upgradation
process.
146
Based on where the slum area is located, whether the area has been integrated
with the other parts of the city, or is located on highly profitable urban land, the slums
might be transformed through different political strategies. The experiences from Ankara
and Istanbul indicate that when the slum areas were located on profitable land or near
prestigious urban areas, these slums have been transformed by issuing high population
density increases (Dundar, 2003:68; Uzun, 2005:184-185). On the other hand, the land
ownership structure and the density of the occupied land have been used by the slum
dwellers to help define what type of slum improvement policy needs to be issued for the
transformation of the slum area. It is more likely that more densely occupied slum areas
would create more complex problems, especially during the re-assignment process of
new cadastral parcels to the actual slum users, which may require density increases in the
slum area in order to be upgraded and hence transformed into authorized housing areas.
By the same token, the willingness of the market forces to get involved with slum areas
during the transformation process is also a priority in order to assign a particular planning
strategy for the slum upgrading.
In fact, since the mid-1960s market forces have become essential to the formal
housing market in Turkey. As was explained in previous chapters, because of the lack of
response by governmental authorities, the housing market has been mostly controlled and
managed by small-scale build-and-sell contractors (Oncu, 1988; Yonder, 1987). How a
build-and-sell contractor works in this market is that he usually builds a building
structure for the landowner, assigning them one or two units, with additional units being
147
transferred to the contractor himself as their compensation for constructing the building.
28

The contractor sells these additional units to others in order to make a profit and/or to
acquire the capital necessary for staying in business. Through this mechanism, a
contractor both seeks to compensate for his expenses and earn profits from the
construction process (Oncu, 1988:50-54). Thus, in order to get a contractor involved with
construction in the slum upgrading area, some additional floor area increase needs to be
given through the plans.
Under the influence of these factors, four major planning strategies have been
commonly observed in the slum upgrading plans: (a) clearance of slums, (b) conservation
of slums, (c) improvement of slums, and (d) redevelopment of slums. How these
strategies would be chosen as the particular slum transformation strategy for any given
area depends on the aforementioned conditions of the slum areas, the conditions of the
market forces in the area, and most importantly, the intentions or future expectations of
the local authorities about the slum area to be planned.
For example, the redevelopment strategy is usually chosen as the planning
strategy for transforming slum areas when the slum areas are in the most profitable
locations where rents are high. When the redevelopment strategy is chosen it brings more
aggressive changes to the slum areas by increasing its actual population tremendously,
and by changing its physical characteristics from one to two story slum units to high-rise
apartment blocks, which might be as high as eight to twelve stories. This strategy is
usually initiated by the direct involvement of the local municipality and the big

28
The compensation rate changes depending on the rent value or profitability of the land, but usually between40% to
60% share of the constructed unit. If a build-and-sell contractor agrees with the land owner to build the construction
with 60% share taken from the built structure, it means that the contractor takes three of the units for selling purposes
and gives the two units to the land owner if the constructed building is five story building with one unit in each floor.
148
construction companies (Dundar, 2003). The redevelopment strategy for transformation
of slums in fact can be specified as a form of urban renewal strategy, and generally
results in a significant population displacement after the implementation of these plans.
The redevelopment strategy has usually meant that the whole slum area will be
transformed into much higher densely populated areas. For instance Dundar and
Devecigil have found a great population turnover in the Dikmen Valley and Portakal
Cicegi Projects, projects that were realized under the redevelopment strategy of slum
areas and the direction of the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality (Devecigil, 2005;
Dundar, 2001).
29

On the other hand, an improvement strategy is usually chosen when the slum
areas are located near to important transportation axis, are integrated with the formal
residential areas, or are in the periphery of formal residential areas. In these schemes, the
primary intention is to improve the living conditions of the slum areas by redeveloping
them within the constraints of current market forces, which rule the involvement of
small-scale build-and-sell contractors. In this strategy, some additional population
increase might be encouraged in these areas by the new planning regulations so that the
slum areas can be transformed by market forces. How much population increase would
be applied usually depends on the locality and the goals of the planning authorities.
A market oriented development or improvement strategy refers to transforming
one to two story slum units into four to five story apartment blocks on a regular plot no

29
The Dikmen Valley Project is the first example in Turkey for slum upgrading project through the local governmental
incentives. The project has set an example for the other profitable sections of the cities occupied by the slums as a way
of redevelopment strategies. After this project, the subsequent implementations have been realized mainly in Ankara
and Istanbul metropolitan cities. Yet, Izmir has been still in the process of such redevelopment strategies implemented
in the slum areas. Although some prospective studies are designed or considered for implementation, no such
redevelopment projects issued by big construction companies have been issued in Izmir so far.
149
bigger than 400 square meters with the hope of build-and-sell contractors’ involvement.
However, while the transformation might be achieved based on the planning expectations
in slum areas located in or integrated with other parts of cities, it cannot be achieved in
certain slum areas that are not located in places that attract contractors’ involvements.
Case studies have shown that improvement strategies have become more
successful in retaining slum populations in their places than the other forms of
redevelopment. For instance, Ozdemir (1998) did a comparative study of two upgraded
neighborhoods, where one was transformed through small-scale agency and the other was
transformed through the involvement of a big company. She found that, in terms of
population turnover, the success of slum upgrading plans through small-scale contractors
was much higher in the areas that were transformed by the big construction companies.
However, albeit more successful keeping the actual population in their old neighborhoods
than the transformations implemented by big companies, she has even found population
displacement in the upgradation process in areas upgraded by small-scale contractors
(Ozdemir, 1998).
The conservation strategy, on the other hand, can be considered as a mild form of
improvement strategy that aims to legalize slums by preserving their slum areas with
almost no additional population in the upgraded areas. It mainly upgrades the slum areas
by applying the basic planning process mentioned earlier. This planning strategy mostly
aims at preserving the existing land-use patterns as it is in order to avoid unnecessary
demolition, expropriation and relocation, since they are costly actions for the local
municipalities to take. Hence, this strategy does not bring about any profitable activities
through transforming the slum areas based on conservative planning strategies.
150
The last strategy, clearance, is generally used when it is really necessary, usually
when opening a major road, or to acquire space for certain public service areas (e.g.,
schools, health centers, etc.). This strategy is generally used in conjunction with the
redevelopment or conservation strategies. Since it is generally used together with the
redevelopment approach, those who lose their houses are either given another plot ready
for redevelopment within the planning area or are compensated for their loses. One of the
goals of compensation is to reduce potential tension between the slum owners and local
authorities.
Within these strategies, the most popularly strategy adopted in recent years by
local authorities has been the redevelopment strategy. This approach is also favored by
the slum dwellers, since slum upgrading plans through the redevelopment strategy bring
some additional profit in addition to the improvement of slum areas. However, whether to
upgrade or improve the slum areas through the redevelopment strategy or the
improvement strategy is usually linked to the political expectations of the local
authorities from the slum areas as well as the locational abilities of slums to be
transformed with a particular planning strategy. In other words, how the upgrading would
be implemented is both the outcome of adopted planning strategies as well as the
available market forces. If the prepared upgrading plans would not attract market forces
to the slum areas, or the market forces are not interested in the slum area, then the slum
areas would be transformed through the user-initiated transformation process, which I
intend to evaluate in this dissertation in order to understand the outcomes of such
involvement in slum upgrading process. Since user-initiated transformation and
upgrading of slums has generally been ignored in the literature regarding slums in
151
Turkey, exploring the ways in which user-initiated involvement transforms the slum areas
will help fill the gap in the literature, and give more clues about future alternative
upgradation processes.
5.4. Slum Upgrading Plans in Izmir
IMM is among those municipalities that have initiated a high proportion of the
slum upgrading plans, beginning in 1985. According to the 2005 data of the IMMPD,
3,432 hectares have already been planned as slum upgrading areas, which cover about
36% of the total residential area of IMM (IMM, 2008:222). Today, based on the same
data, the number of buildings in the upgraded areas totaled 144,370, representing a 42%
share of the total buildings in the city (IMM, 2006:179). Such huge slum upgrading
planning processes were especially realized between 1985 and 1998. For instance, by
1987, a large amount of slum upgrading plans were approved for a total of 2800 hectares
of slum areas in the city (Koc, 2001:114).
In this section, I will mainly evaluate the slum upgrading plans initiated in IMM.
However, I will first give a brief explanation of the local governmental structures of
Izmir, since understanding the administrative boundaries is important to describing how
planning approaches work in Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey.
5.4.1. The Local Governmental Structure of Izmir
Prior to the passage of Metropolitan Municipality law number 3030 in 1984, all
cities, regardless of their size, had a single municipal administration that was governed by
a mayor and a city council. In 1969, under the direction of the Izmir Master Plan Bureau,
the boundaries of the Izmir Municipality Adjacent Areas were determined by the thirteen
municipalities as well as by the Izmir Municipality itself (DEU, 1996:29). At that time,
152
all of these municipalities were independent municipalities under the administration of
the central planning authority, which was known as the Izmir Master Plan Bureau (Figure
5.1).
However, during the military coup of the 1980, these thirteen municipalities were
merged together and restructured as four municipalities. These were the Central Core
Municipality (Konak), and the Bornova, Karsiyaka and Buca Municipalities (DEU,
1996:40) (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.1: Izmir Municipalities before 1980

Source: DEU, 1996:29.
153
Figure 5.2: Izmir Municipalities in 1980

Source: DEU, 1996:40.
When the law of 1984 was enacted under the decentralization political approaches
of the government, the municipalities were separated into nine district municipalities,
which were Balcova, Bornova, Buca, Cigli, Gaziemir, Guzelbahce, Karsiyaka, Konak
and Narlidere (DEU, 1996:40) (Figure 5.3). With this law, the Izmir municipality, like
other metropolitan municipalities, has become a multi-faceted administration responsible
for controlling and monitoring the decisions of these nine districts. However, by 2004,
another boundary formation was needed to define the administrative boundaries of the
Izmir Metropolitan Region.
154
Figure 5.3: Izmir Municipalities between 1984 and 2004

Source: DEU, 1996:40.
In 2004, with the law number 5216,
30
the administrative boundaries of the IMM
were expanded towards its peripheries by including all district municipalities located
within 50 kilometers of the central core of Izmir. Consequently, today there are nineteen
district municipalities in the administrative boundaries of the IMM, yet the nine original
municipalities are still the major municipalities that define the Metropolitan core (Figure
5.4).

30
See the Metropolitan Municipality Law (Number 5216) [5216 Sayili Buyuksehir Belediyesi Kanunu]. (2004).
Retrieved on December 10, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site:
http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=181
155
Figure 5.4: District Municipalities in Izmir Metropolitan Region (2008)

Source: IMM, 2008:27.
Within this system and based on the law number 3030 (1984), the IMM acts as a
coordinator between the district municipalities by monitoring and supervising their
planning development decisions. In this context, in order to coordinate the planning
decisions for the city, to make coherent and sound decisions, and to maintain the fiscal
adjustments throughout the city, such coordination through the IMM is necessary. The
IMM is also responsible for preparing structure and master plans in the scales of 1.25.000
and 1.5000, respectively. The district municipalities, however, supervise the planning
decisions within their own administrative boundaries. They mainly provide the basic
municipal services to the people in their districts, including the preparation of the
156
development master plans in the implementation scale of 1.1000, and supervising
construction, garbage collection and other public works. With this system, the district
municipalities and the IMM have to coordinate their actions. Hence, all planning
decisions and development plans prepared and approved by the district municipalities
have to then be evaluated and approved by the mayor and the city council of the IMM.
The same rules apply to the preparation of slum upgrading plans. As the
institutions primary responsible for them, the district municipalities first prepare the slum
upgrading plans. After the mayors and district councils approve the prepared upgrading
plans, they are sent to the IMM for final approval. If the plans do not coincide with the
IMM’s structural plan, then some revisions might be required. After the approval of the
slum upgrading plans by the IMM, they are published so that the public has 30 days to
review them and make any appeals. After the plans are approved and if the 30 days pass
with no appeal, then the plans become official and are ready to be implemented. In this
dissertation, as the slum development has been in the core districts of the Izmir
Metropolitan Region, my evaluation on slum areas there focuses on the core areas.
5.4.2. Implementation of Slum Upgrading Plans in Izmir
After the necessary legal frameworks were established by the central government,
the IMM immediately launched slum upgrading planning studies. The first slum
upgrading plans were completed as early as 1985. By 1987, slum upgrading plans
covering 2800 hectares had been completed in the city (Koc, 2001:114). By 1998, slum
upgrading plans for about 3,215 hectares had been approved by the IMM (Table 5.1).
According to the data from IMMPD, by the end of 2000, 3,432 hectares of slum area had
been upgraded through the slum upgrading plans (IMM, 2008:222).
157
Table 5.1: Slum Upgrading Plans by Approval Years and by Districts (1985-1998)
Districts
1985-
1987 %
1988-
1994 %
1995-
1998 % Total %
Bornova 57.0 2.6 19.7 4.0 363.3 68.2 440.0 13.7
Buca 261.2 11.9 263.3 53.5 3.2 0.6 527.9 16.4
Cigli 129.0 5.9 5.2 1.1 22.5 4.2 156.7 4.9
Gaziemir 36.7 1.7 3.0 0.6 10.2 1.9 49.9 1.6
Guzelbahce - - - - 1.1 0.2 1.1 0.0
Karsiyaka 812.3 37.1 36.2 7.4 100.5 18.9 949.0 29.5
Konak 856.7 39.1 164.7 33.5 31.7 6.0 1,053 32.8
Narlidere 36.9 1.7 - - - - 36.9 1.1
Izmir (column
%) 2,189.8
100.
0 492.1
100.
0 532.5
100.
0
3,214.
6
100.
0
Izmir (row %) 2,189.9 68.1 492.1 15.3 532.5 16.6
3,214.
6
100.
0
Source: Retrieved and calculated from Ozdemir et al., 2002:128.
As Table 5.1 indicates, the most aggressive planning period was between 1985
and 1987. 68.1% of all of the total slum upgrading plans were approved during this
period. The first slum upgrading plans were prepared for the areas that were located in or
nearby the city center. Konak and Karsiyaka districts were the first districts in the city
that introduced slum upgrading plans. About 40% of the upgrading plans completed
between 1985 and 1987 were in the Konak and Karsiyaka districts. Although Konak
District has continued issuing slum upgrading plans in a great proportion (33.5%)
between 1988 and 1994, peripheral districts such as Buca and Bornova have begun
issuing upgrading plans within this period. For instance, upgrading plans were issued
after 1988 in Buca and Bornova Districts, and more than 50% of the approved upgrading
plans were in these two districts.
Overall, beginning from the core area of the city and the Konak district, and
expanding towards its peripheries, slum areas have been introduced to a large amount of
slum upgrading plans in the Izmir Metropolitan City, mostly between 1985 and 1998. By

158
the end of 2000, the total upgraded slum areas included 3,432 hectares, covering almost
all slum areas in the city.
When looking at the land ownership structure of the slum areas, it was found that
the slum upgrading plans were mostly issued for illegally sub-divided land in the city.
According to a study done in 1992 (Yavas, 1992), 50% of the upgraded slum areas in
Izmir Metropolitan City were planned for slums developed through illegal sub-divisions.
The highest proportion of slum development (66%) through illegal sub-divisions was in
the Buca district. Following Buca, 46% of upgrading plans that were initiated for illegally
sub-divided slum areas were completed in the Konak district. Only in Karsiyaka were
slum upgraded plans issued mostly for slums on private land (Table 5.2).
In fact, these are the areas in which high-rise redevelopment policies were usually
introduced through the slum upgrading plans. Public and treasury land was distributed in
the Konak district. Whenever slum upgrading plans were introduced for slums located on
public and treasury land, less aggressive redevelopment strategies were chosen when
preparing the slum upgrading plans. The distribution of slum upgrading areas based on
the land ownership structure of the slum areas indicates that slum upgrading initiatives
have become more important in resolving land ownership problems of the slum areas in
addition to improving the conditions of slums.
Table 5.2: Land Ownership of Upgraded Slum Areas between 1985 and 1992
Districts Illegally sub-
divided land
Treasury
land Public land Private land
Total
(ha)
Buca 66 34 - - 607
Konak 46 28 22 4 1475
Karşıyaka 40 12 5 43 1038
Bornova - - - - 28
Izmir 50 25 9 16 3148
Source: DEU, 1996, p.48.
159
Today, most of the slum areas in the Izmir Metropolitan city have been
transformed through various slum upgrading projects, except for the new slum formations
that appeared after the slum upgrading law was passed in 1984. Although the proportion
of new slums is not as high as it had been in the earlier periods, there has still been
considerable growth. The estimated population living in slums that were established after
1985 is 1,074,664 people (IMM, 2006:176).
31
Additionally, another study (IMM, 2008)
that evaluated new slum developments in Izmir has documented that there are 3,753 slum
units in the Izmir Municipality Core Area (including nine districts), which were built
between 1985 and 2002 (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3: Izmir Slums Built between 1985 and 2002
Districts Slum Units %
Buca 625 16.7%
Bornova 697 18.6%
Gaziemir 125 3.3%
Karsiyaka 1,445 38.5%
Konak 414 11.0%
Narlidere 447 11.9%
Total 3,753 100.0%
Source: IMM, 2008:222.
As Table 5.3 depicts, the new slum developments have mostly been in the
northern areas of the Izmir metropolitan area (38.5%). Karsiyaka in the north and
Bornova in the east side of Izmir Metropolitan City are the primary districts that are
currently facing slum development issues. Table 5.3 indicates that, at one point, the inner
city area of Izmir had fully completed its ability to absorb any additional population any
more. The table also indicates that slum development is most likely to continue growing,
albeit more slowly, and will cause the city to expand towards its peripheries.

31
The estimation is realized by the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality Planning Bureau while preparing the Izmir
Metropolitan Municipality Strategic Plan Report in 2006. For details, see IMM (2006).
Today, Izmir Metropolitan City must not only deal with new slum developments
but other forms of illegal developments as well (Figure 5.5).
therefore illegal developments, in the authorized residential areas that are subj
formal master plan regulations are another illegal form that has appeared in the city,
especially after the mid-1980s. According to the data retrieved in 2007 from the Bureau
of Urban Renewal and New Settlements, a bureau that works independentl
management, out of 167,770 total illegal units, 10,694 dwelling units were determined to
be illegal developments located in the authorized residential areas in the city
2008: 222-223). Yet, as Figure 5.5 indicates, slums introduced with s
have been taking the highest share among all illegal construction types (86.1%).
Figure 5.5: Illegally Developed Areas in Izmir Metropolitan City (1984
Source: Ozdemir et al., 2002, p.129.
Today, Izmir Metropolitan City must not only deal with new slum developments
but other forms of illegal developments as well (Figure 5.5). Inconsistent constructions,
efore illegal developments, in the authorized residential areas that are subj
formal master plan regulations are another illegal form that has appeared in the city,
1980s. According to the data retrieved in 2007 from the Bureau
of Urban Renewal and New Settlements, a bureau that works independentl
management, out of 167,770 total illegal units, 10,694 dwelling units were determined to
be illegal developments located in the authorized residential areas in the city
. Yet, as Figure 5.5 indicates, slums introduced with slum upgrading plans
have been taking the highest share among all illegal construction types (86.1%).
Illegally Developed Areas in Izmir Metropolitan City (1984-2002)
Ozdemir et al., 2002, p.129.
160
Today, Izmir Metropolitan City must not only deal with new slum developments
Inconsistent constructions,
efore illegal developments, in the authorized residential areas that are subject to the
formal master plan regulations are another illegal form that has appeared in the city,
1980s. According to the data retrieved in 2007 from the Bureau
of Urban Renewal and New Settlements, a bureau that works independently under IMM
management, out of 167,770 total illegal units, 10,694 dwelling units were determined to
be illegal developments located in the authorized residential areas in the city (IMM,
lum upgrading plans
have been taking the highest share among all illegal construction types (86.1%).
2002)

161
All these figures from various data indicate that slum areas in the city have been
widely introduced with the upgradation processes that were mostly based on the
improvement strategy with some additional population increase in order to get the plans
implemented through market forces. On the other hand, the subsequent slum
developments point out to other future upgradation initiatives.
In fact, the IMM established a new bureau in 2005, the Bureau of Urban Renewal
and New Settlements (BURNS), particularly to deal with the urban renewal projects in
the specified areas in the city. As part of the new mission of the metropolitan cities, Izmir
Metropolitan City officials too, as in Istanbul and Ankara, are inclined to redevelop some
of the areas in the city through urban renewal projects, in the hope of revitalizing and
encouraging local capital accumulation.
32
Hence, through the initiation of the BURNS,
since 2005 new urban renewal projects have been recently launched within the
boundaries of the Izmir Metropolitan Region.
33
These new initiatives have initially
created new hopes both among the people who are residing in the new or upgraded slum
areas, and among the local business community, interested in the additional profits that
might be obtained with the new urban land arrangements if an urban renewal project is
begun in their neighborhoods. Within the edge of such delicate period, it is important to
understand the ways in which the user-initiated transformation in the slum upgrading
areas have took place in order to deal and/or create new planning strategies.

32
While Ankara and Istanbul have already implemented various urban renewal projects for the inner-city old slum
areas which had been issued with upgrading plans early on, Izmir has recently launched urban renewal projects in the
city. For details, see IMM (2006).
33
The information is retrieved from IMM [Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi]. Kentsel Donusum ve Yeni Yerlesmeler Sube
Mudurlugu, Retrieved on April, 1, 2009, from Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi Web site: http://www.izmir.bel.tr
/orgSemaDetail.asp?birimID=81&oID=73

162
5.5. Conclusion
Izmir metropolitan city has been developed through migration flow beginning as
early as the 1940s. As a port city, throughout its history, Izmir has served as one of the
major agglomeration and distribution centers for the products, consumer goods and
services for the nation. Today, Izmir metropolitan city, with a population of over three
million, continues to offer opportunities for capital accumulation for both its own locales
and for the nation as a whole. As a result, slum areas have become a major part of the
city, with a 42% share of the total population.
Although avoided by authorities in the early years, over time the slums have
become widely accepted, especially after the 1980s. Although becoming major problems
for the cities due to their rapid increase, the slum developments have gained a great deal
of tolerance both from the state and the local municipalities.
As a result of the new political conditions that emerged during the 1980s, the
slums have gained official status through the use of amnesty laws. Although the first
amnesty law was issued as early as in 1966 (number 755), it was the law of 2981 (1984)
that created today’s spatial formations of cities by transforming and integrating slum
areas with the other parts of cities (e.g., the authorized residential areas). Beginning in
1985, using powers granted under the Physical Development Planning Law number 3194
(1984) and the Metropolitan Municipality Act number 3030 (1985), the metropolitan
municipalities such as Izmir have begun to issue slum upgrading plans based on the
amnesty law 2981. Under the jurisdictions of these laws, IMM has issued various slum
upgrading plans for the slum areas that were built prior to 1984. Thus, between 1985 and
1998, various upgrading plans were introduced to almost all slum areas in Izmir
163
Metropolitan city. By the end of 2000, the total upgraded slum areas totaled 3,432
hectares, covering almost all slum areas in the city.
The slum upgrading plans were prepared to improve the living conditions of the
slum population as well as to solve land ownership related problems in these areas.
However, preparation of slum upgrading plans also has other economic and political
implications. The IMM, like other metropolitan areas, has also issued upgrading plans for
its slum areas for the purpose of revitalized the local capital by stimulating the local
housing market. Due to the economic downturn of the major industries in the city during
the 1980s, IMM and the district municipalities have been using slum upgrading processes
as a survival strategy for the local economy. In other words, serving as a safety buffer for
the local economy, the upgrading plans have been used to stimulate the construction
sector so that local employment could increase.
Consequently, the slum upgradation processes, along with other developments in
the housing markets of Izmir, have not only transformed the old slum areas into formal
housing areas but have also stimulated additional slum formations in peripheries of the
city, creating escalating urban sprawl.
34

From the experience of the city, it is obvious that, beginning in the early 1980s,
the city has been economically and spatially transformed into a new direction. Today, the
old slum areas have already been economically and spatially, if not socially, integrated
into the city, first through the initiations of slum upgrading plans and later through the

34
Yet, the urban sprawl is not the only outcome associated with the slum developments. As it is earlier explained, after
the 1980s, other groups (i.e. middle-income and higher-income groups) have also wanted to take a share from the urban
rent. While the higher-income groups have wanted to settle down in the gated communities located in the peripheral
areas of the city (i.e. Urla, Seferihisar), middle-income groups had started locating in the peripheral land through the
initiations of Mass Housing Cooperatives. All of these initiations have influenced the urban sprawl of the Izmir
Metropolitan City.
164
revision plans, which were usually introduced after the upgrading plans. By the mid-
2000s, however, the city has been experiencing another turning point and begun creating
new capital flows. Here again, at least in the planning practices, creating new capital
flows can be made possible through another spatial reformation of the urban land. With
this goal in mind, new urban renewal projects have recently been launched in the older
residential areas. Hence, it is particularly important to once again evaluate the way in
which slum upgrading planning processes have been initialized by the actual users of
these informal housing areas. Such an evaluation would also give us clues for the near
future of housing policies and planning strategies towards low-income housing solutions.
Thus, in the following chapter, I will be looking at the slum upgrading planning
experiences in Gultepe District, a district that was among the first slum developments in
Izmir.

165
CHAPTER 6: SLUM UPGRADING PLANS IN GULTEPE DISTRICT
6.1. Introduction
Konak District, governed and monitored by the Konak Municipality, is among the
first districts where slum upgrading initiatives in Izmir Metropolitan city were
introduced. In fact, as explained in the previous chapter, Konak District, located in the
central core of the Izmir Metropolitan City, is the district in which the first urban spatial
formations ever occurred.
In parallel with this spatial formation, the district was also one of the first districts
in which the first slum developments began. The Konak District began experiencing slum
developments within its boundaries as early as 1940. As Ayan (1973) notes, Izmir
experienced its first slum developments between 1928 and 1935. However, the first
significant slum developments due to the increasing rate of population growth were seen
between 1942 and 1950, mostly around the central core of the city (Ayan, 1973:87).
During this period, ten slum neighborhoods, including Gultepe District, began to emerge
in the city and surrounding areas.
Gultepe District was spatially formed mainly through the slums, beginning in
1948. By the 1980s, it had become integrated with the other parts of the city. Under the
influence of law number 2981, slum upgrading plans were introduced in Gultepe District
as early as 1986. In fact, Gultepe District was among the first slum areas where slum
upgrading plans were launched. Today, two decades later, the district has been entirely
integrated into Izmir, and its slums have been transformed into authorized residential
areas through various upgrading initiatives.
166
When looking at the planning strategies of the slum upgrading plans prepared for
Gultepe District, it can be seen that prepared plans were initially focused on preserving
the actual characteristics of the area with additional minor population increase in order
for the slums to be upgraded and transformed through market forces, primarily through
contractor-driven forces. As explained previously, market forces have always been the
most significant triggering factor in the Turkish housing market. However, as it turned
out in the implementation stage, market forces, usually the small-scale build-and-sell
contractors were not interested in becoming involved with the transformation stage of the
slums in Gultepe District since the zoning regulations of the slum upgrading plans did not
allow for population increases in this locale, which limited the potential for profits from
rents. Hence, the ‘user-initiation transformation process’ took the major role in the
implementation of the slum upgrading plans and integration of the housing units into the
authorized housing stock of the city.
Today, the late 2000s, urban planning is on the edge of another historical turning
point in the search for new ways to create additional capital flows for the development of
the city. In this quest, urban redevelopment projects have recently been accepted as the
major planning practice for the older residential areas, including the older slum areas.
However, without careful evaluation and planning, launching these projects for
transforming the older slum areas can only create more chaos for the lower-income
households who mostly reside in the upgraded slum areas. Thus, this dissertation, by
looking at the user-initiated transformation of slums, aims to gather more information in
order to understand the transformation stages of the slum upgrading process. In addition,
167
it also aims to fill the gap in the literature regarding the slum transformation process by
looking at the user-initiated transformation process.
In the quest to understand the user-initiated transformation process of slum
upgrading plans, this chapter first aims to give background information about Gultepe
District and the slum development in the district in order to provide a base for further
discussion. The following chapters will be mainly about analyzing the data from the slum
upgrading plans, examining the archival works for the locale, and evaluating the
interviews that I have done with muhtars and the actual residents that lived there between
September 2005 and July 2006. In this chapter, after briefly giving background
information about the district, I will describe the general characteristics of Gultepe
District in order to understand the social structure of the locale. Lastly, I introduce and
evaluate the slum upgrading plans initiated for the district between 1986 and 1992. The
evaluation in this chapter will set a base for understanding the user-initiated
transformation of slums as an upgradation process.
6.2. Historical Background of Gultepe
Gultepe District is an old squatter area that was formed as early as 1948. Gultepe,
meaning a hill with roses, is settled on a hill that is located about four miles (6
kilometers) to the east of the center core of Izmir metropolitan city (Figure 6.1).
Currently fully integrated into the city and located close to the Izmir central core, Gultepe
began its journey in 1948 as a small village on the outskirts of Izmir. It began to grow in
the early 1950s, with a major population expansion during the 1960s and 1970s. In terms
of slum development and population density, it reached its maturity by the 1980s.
168
Figure 6.1: Location of Gultepe District within Izmir Metropolitan City

Source: DEU, 1996.
Beginning its journey as a small village, its population began to grow, and it was
formally designated as a separate municipality, the Gultepe Municipality, in the early
1960s. After the administrations of three mayors, Huseyin Polat, Ismet Uc, and Aydin
Erten, Gultepe Municipality was formally terminated in 1981 due to the regulations of the
military coup. The major spatial development of Gultepe District was initially between
1963 and 1981, when it became part of the Izmir municipality district.
35
Of the three
earlier mayors, Aydin Erten was a particularly well-known and respected mayor, who
effectively oversaw the improvement and development of the community for two
mayoral periods between 1973 and 1980 (Yayman, 2003).

35
Information retrieved from interviews with muhtars between 2005 and 2006.
169
As the mayor from a leftist party, the Republican People’s Party (RPP), Mayor
Erten worked hand in hand with the residents of Gultepe to supply basic public services
to the community. As the muhtars remembered it, the dwellings in Gultepe were supplied
with basic public services, mainly sewage, water and electricity systems at this time.
Through the initiative of the Gultepe Municipality and the participation of residents, the
pipes for both the water and sewage systems were carried by and established for the
community in the early 1970s. Patron-clientele relationships established between the
mayors and the community residents and the passage of slum amnesty law number 775 in
1966 both resulted in the acceleration of new slum developments within the locale
between 1963 and 1980. However, these services pulled more people into the community
and prepared the conditions of today’s changes in the locale’s spatiality.
However, Gultepe municipality could only serve its community until 1981 when
the municipality was consolidated with Konak Municipality, one of the nine core
municipalities of IMM (Yayman, 2003:76). While the spatial developments were
occurring in Gultepe District, the locale was also under the influence of a social
transformation that created political chaos during the mid-1970s. As a result of a new
political awareness, the locale became a center for leftist groups that needed to be
controlled by the governmental authorities. After the military took over government
management in 1980, as in many other locales, Gultepe Municipality was terminated in
order to control the community and was assigned to the administration of Konak
Municipality (Yayman, 2003:80). Since then, although continuing its journey as a
separate district, Gultepe has become a part of Konak Municipality. Yet, the District had
170
already reached its maturity in terms of slum development and population increase by the
early 1980s.
6.2.1. Slum Developments in Gultepe District
Gultepe District is an old squatter area that began to be formed as early as 1948.
Once covered with olive trees and shrubs on land that mostly belonged to the treasury,
the first squatters began appearing in Gultepe during the early 1940s. In fact, while still a
small village, Gultepe District had become the attraction point for exchange immigrants
who had arrived from Yugoslavia and Bulgaria under the Exchange Program Law of the
Turkish government. The exchange immigrants came in groups to the District and began
invading public lands. They had begun settling on the land in Gultepe by the late 1940s
(Yayman, 2003:76-77). The exchange immigrants were the first group to introduce slums
into Gultepe. Following them, new migrants, particularly from Kars, Konya, and
Erzincan, began arriving during the 1950s and 1960s (Yayman, 2003:76).
The new immigrants caused the population of Gultepe to steadily grow.
Beginning as a small village in 1948, Gultepe’s population reached 16,803 in 1963,
28,060 in 1965, and 37,447 in 1970, indicating excessive population increase in the
locale.
36
Gultepe District, more than doubled its population between 1960 and 1970
(Table 6.1 and 6.2).
As Table 6.2 shows, in terms of the population increase of the district, three
periods have been particularly important. The sharpest population increase in the district
was observed in the early 1960s. The district’s population growth rate reached 40.1% in

36
See Yerel Net. Yerel Yonetimler Portali. Retrieved on January 12, 2009, from Yerel Net Web site: http://
www.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/il_secim.php?ilid=35&yil= 1963
171
1965. By 1970, although the population growth rate had slowed down a little bit, it was
still growing. The population growth rate of Gultepe District between 1965 and 1968 was
24.9%. Finally, the third highest population increase occurred between 1980 and 1990.
According to the census data from 1990, by 1990 the population of the district increased
from that of 1980 by 22.7%, another significant increase. The population increase by
1990 may also indicate and reflect the influence of slum upgrading initiatives undertaken
for the area between 1986 and 1992, which have resulted in some population increase.
Table 6.1: Distribution of Slums in Izmir in 1965
Neighborhoods
Establishment
years Number of slum units Population in slums
I.Kadriye 1928 610 2,910
Yeni Istiklal 1930 200 1,300
Zeytinlik 1930 650 3,290
Yesildere 1930 670 3,380
Ege-Cingene Mah. 1930 - 845
Cumhuriyet 1931 460 2,270
Naldoken 1935 420 2,110
II.Kadriye 1942 900 4,560
Samantepe 1944 630 3,260
Ferahli 1945 1,800 9,100
Gurcesme 1945 1,100 5,590
Istikbal 1945 1,390 7,080
Kadifekale 1945 930 4,920
Bogazici 1947 1,350 6,830
Gultepe 1948 5,010 26,080
Ballikuyu 1948 1,280 6,520
Cicek-Bayrakli 1950 1,190 5,180
Aziziye 1950 430 1,960
Yesilyurt 1951 2,190 10,350
Uckuyular 1951 130 600
Imariye 1952 1,260 6,690
Cay 1953 470 2,380
Cenetoglu 1956 530 2,160
Veziroglu 1957 690 3,540
Bozyaka 1957 140 550
Total 24,430 123,455
Source: Ayan, 1973:72 cited from the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement data between August
and September 1965.

However, another interesting point about the population distribution of the district
is that Gultepe District began experiencing a population decline after 2000. When
comparing the population of 1990 with that of 2000, it was found that the population
172
declined about 5% between 1990 and 2000, indicating an out-migration flow from
Gultepe District into other locations. Although the current population indicates a slight
increase in the district after 2000, with a 4% increase, it seems to indicate that Gultepe
District has effectively reached its limits in terms of population (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Population Distribution in Gultepe District by Years
Year Population Population difference Increase rate
1963 16,803 - -
1965 28,060 11,257 40.1%
1968 28,115 55 0.2%
1970 37,447 9,332 24.9%
1973 38,586 1,139 3.0%
1977 44,116 5,530 12.5%
1990 57,096 12,980 22.7%
2000 54,367 -2,729 -5.0%
2007 56,622 2,255 4.0%
Source: Ayan, M, 1973; SIS, 1990, 2000c, 2007; Yerel Net: Yerel Yonetimler Portali, Retrieved on
January 12, 2009, from Yerel Net Web site: http://www.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/ilsecim.php?ilid=35&yil
=1963
While population increases have been mainly in the slum developments in the
district, it is also important to look at the way in which these slums were occupied and
how the land was allocated. When looking at the land allocation in the locale, it is seen
that the early years of the land invasion resulted in a transformation of the forms of land
allocation between 1960 and 1970. Originally, the land in Gultepe District had mostly
belonged to the Treasury, with some private property adjacent to it. At first, the public
land was invaded by the migrants (e.g., exchange immigrants) between 1940 and 1950,
when Gultepe was only a small village under the administration of the Bornova District.
However by the 1960s the land allocation system had become more commercialized.
The interviews with the muhtars’ indicated that although the land in Gultepe
District was excessively belonged to the State, there had also been an excessive amount
173
of the private property in Gultepe District that belonged to just five individuals
37
who
owned large chunks of un-plotted land in the district. This contributed to both the land
invasions and the illegal sub-divisions in the district. Beginning with the land invasion in
the early years, the land owned by these individuals began to be sub-divided and sold to
the people who were seeking illegal housing arrangements. Such land allocation observed
in the locale also gives us a clue about how illegal land allocation has become
commercialized in the hands of private land owners or land speculators since 1960s.
6.2.2. Development of Neighborhoods in Gultepe District
Beginning its journey as a small village, Gultepe District has grown very quickly,
and by the end of 1970 had already reached its maturity in terms of population increase
and slum developments. At this time, Gultepe included eleven neighborhoods in its
administrative boundaries. According to the data retrieved from an earlier study of Ayan
(1973); these eleven neighborhoods were Fatih, 27 Mayis (previously Cumhuriyet),
Yavuz Selim, Zafer, Ataturk, Kazim Karabekir, Fevzi Cakmak, Yildirim Beyazit, Namik
Kemal, Hurriyet, and Mehmet Akif (Table 6.3).

37
As the muhtars have pointed out during the interviews, Cihat Citak, Mumin Citak, Ahmet Seyhanli, Ayse Hikmet and
Mahmut Tatarlar are the names who have sub-divided their lands and sold the divided plots to the slum dwellers in
Gultepe District.
174
Table 6.3: Neighborhoods in Gultepe District
Previous names Current names of neighborhoods
Fatih Ulubatli
27 Mayis (Cumhuriyet) 26 Agustos
Yavuz Selim Yavuz Selim
Zafer Zeybek
Ataturk Huzur
Kazim Karabekir Trakya
Fevzi Cakmak Anadolu
Yildirim Beyazit Murat
Namik Kemal Atamer & Cinartepe & Millet
Hurriyet Saygi
Mehmet Akif Mehmet Akif
Source: Ayan, 1973; Guven, 2006.
Although the names of the neighborhoods were changed after the 1980 military
coup for political reasons, these neighborhoods initially determined today’s spatial
formation of Gultepe District. The first slum units were built in and adjacent to a small
village named Ataturk beginning in the mid-1940s. The neighborhoods known today as
26 Agustos, Yavuz Selim, Zeybek, and Huzur were the first slum neighborhoods and
were built on the land of Ataturk village between 1945 and 1957. These were also the
first neighborhoods chosen by the exchange immigrants (Figure 6.2).
Over time, new slum units were developed by surrounding these neighborhoods
and expanding their boundaries into new neighborhoods. By the 1960s, new
neighborhoods such as Anadolu, Saygi, Trakya, Mehmet Akif, and Millet were beginning
to be developed. By Murat was developed around 1970, and Atamer and Cinartepe
neighborhoods began developing by the late 1970s (Figure 6.2). In fact, Cinartepe and
Atamer neighborhoods are the youngest neighborhoods in the Gultepe District. Along the
way, due to the increase in population, some of the neighborhoods were separated and
established as new neighborhoods.
175
Figure 6.2: Slum Development in Gultepe District (1950-1970)

Source: Ayan, 1973.
Today, Gultepe District constitutes thirteen neighborhoods within its boundaries
that are locally bound to different muhtars. These are: Ulubatli, 26 Agustos, Yavuz
Selim, Zeybek, Huzur, Trakya, Anadolu, Saygi, Mehmet Akif, Murat, Millet, Atamer and
Cinartepe (Figure 6.3).
176
Figure 6.3: Current Names of Neighborhoods with Notation of Old Names

Previous Names of Gultepe Neighborhoods
(1) Ataturk
(2) Fatih
(3) Fevzi Cakmak
(4) Hurriyet
(5) Kazim Karabekir
(6) Mehmet Akif
(7) Namik Kemal
(8) Yavuz Selim
(9) Yildirim Neyazit
(10) 27 Mayis
(11) Zafer
Source: Ayan, 1973; Guven, 2006.

6.3. Demographic Characteristics of Gultepe District:
Although developed in different periods of time, except Ulubatli, the common
ground of these thirteen neighborhoods lies is the fact that each neighborhood was mostly
developed by slums and transformed by slum upgrading planning initiations. While
177
Atamer and Cinartepe are the youngest neighborhoods and only began developing during
the late 1970s and the 1980s, the rest of the neighborhoods are the most established and
hence older neighborhoods in the district. Yet, despite such similarities in spatial
development, each neighborhood somewhat reflects different demographic
characteristics. To understand the current socio-economic characteristics of Gultepe
District in general, it is important to look at the demographic characteristics of each
neighborhood in order to capture and examine any dissimilarities between
neighborhoods.
As stated earlier, the rate of population growth in Gultepe District began slowing
after 1990. In fact, between 1990 and 2000, the total population declined by 4.8%, yet a
slight population increase was observed again between 2000 and 2007, indicating minor
in- and out-migration flows in the district as a whole. When looking at the population
distribution by neighborhoods, it is observed that while more mature or older
neighborhoods have begun showing out-migration from their neighborhoods, the younger
neighborhoods (e.g., Atamer, Murat, and Cinartepe) with more available land to expand
did not decline but rather increased in population between 1990 and 2007 (Table 6.4).
As Table 6.4 and Figure 6.4 both indicate, the overall population of each
neighborhood has shown some increase between 2000 and 2007. In particular, the
Atamer, Murat, Saygi, Ulubatli, and Cinartepe neighborhoods have shown population
increase during this time. There appears to have been a drastic population decrease in
Millet neighborhood, but this, however, was mostly the outcome of the neighborhood
boundary being changed in 1990, a factor which must also be kept in mind (SIS, 1990).

178
Table 6.4: Population Distribution of Neighborhoods in Gultepe District
Neighborhoods 1990 Pop.
a
2000 Pop. 2007 Pop. 1990-2000 2000-2007
Anadolu 2,883 2,255 2,200 -21.8% -2.4%
Atamer 2,664 3,682 3,967 38.2% 7.7%
Huzur 3,024 2,801 2,819 -7.4% 0.6%
M.Akif 3,137 2,636 3,175 -16.0% 20.4%
Millet 9,319 6,251 6,278 -32.9% 0.4%
Murat 6,450 6,651 7,017 3.1% 5.5%
Saygi 5,768 5,650 5,853 -2.0% 3.6%
Trakya 2,445 2,394 2,139 -2.1% -10.7%
Ulubatli 8,558 8,913 9,554 4.1% 7.2%
Y.Selim 2,026 1,917 1,991 -5.4% 3.9%
26 Agustos 3,579 3,166 3,165 -11.5% 0.0%
Zeybek 2,771 2,331 2,388 -15.9% 2.4%
Cinartepe 4,472 5,720 6,076 27.9% 6.2%
Gultepe Total 57,096 54,367 56,622 -4.8%
b
4.1%
Konak District 866,700 782,308 847,409 -9.7%
b
8.3%
Izmir (Urban) 2,694,770 3,370,866 3,739,353 25.1% 10.9%
a: Pop. indicates population
b: The population decline in here is due to the boundary changes occurred in Konak Municipality in 2000
Source: SIS, 1990, 2000c, 2007.

Figure 6.4: Population Change in Gultepe District

Source: SIS, 1990, 2000c, 2007.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Anadolu
Atamer
Huzur
M.Akif
Millet
Murat
Saygi
Trakya
Ulubatli
Y.Selim
26Agustos
Zeybek
Cinartepe
Population
Neighborhoods
1990
2000
2007
179
The figures in Table 6.4 and Figure 6.4 tell us two important things about the
current population characteristics of the neighborhoods. First, younger neighborhoods
that are located on the peripheral areas of Gultepe District still have room to expand, and
thus are able to accommodate population increases within their neighborhoods. Second,
older neighborhoods that do not show any population increase but rather some population
decline do so either because they have already reached their limits in terms of population
capacity, or because people have moved to other areas. This may be due to either the
changing tastes of households or some other social factors that I will examine in the
subsequent sections.
When looking at the population characteristics by place of birth, we observe a
somewhat different pattern in the population character of each neighborhood in terms of
place of birth. As stated previously, the first migrants that moved into Gultepe District
during the 1940s were the exchange immigrants. Following them, migrants from Central
Anatolia (mostly from Konya) and East Anatolia (mostly from Erzincan and Kars) began
settling in the area at a higher rate (Yayman, 2003:76). When examining the data of the
SIS (2000) in order to understand the current distribution of population by place of birth,
it is observed that, unlike early years, many of the current residents of Gultepe District
were born in Izmir itself (47.4%). Following Izmir-born residents, Kars, Konya and
Erzurum born and foreign-born (e.g., immigrants) residents represent the next largest
share of the district’s population (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5: Population Characteristics in Gultepe
*= Ulubatli is excluded from the calculation due to
Source: SIS, 2000c.
When looking at the data for each neighborhood, it is also observed that people
born in Izmir are the highest proportion in the individual neighborhoods, with more than
a 50% share of the total populations. However, there are some differences in certain
neighborhoods. For instance, the population in Cinartepe and Atamer has a lower rate of
people born in Izmir than the other neighborhoods. With about a 50% share, the highest
share in these two neighborhoods is from people who were born in East Anatolia (Table
6.5). Other neighorborhoods, such as Saygi, Millet, and Mehmet Akif, have a large
number of people who have migrated from East Anatolia. Overall, people who have
migrated from East Anatolia have the second biggest share in the population of the
Gultepe District.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Izmir
Kars
47.4%
10.4%
haracteristics in Gultepe District by Place of Birth
*= Ulubatli is excluded from the calculation due to the fact that it does not a slum neighborhood.
When looking at the data for each neighborhood, it is also observed that people
born in Izmir are the highest proportion in the individual neighborhoods, with more than
total populations. However, there are some differences in certain
neighborhoods. For instance, the population in Cinartepe and Atamer has a lower rate of
people born in Izmir than the other neighborhoods. With about a 50% share, the highest
two neighborhoods is from people who were born in East Anatolia (Table
6.5). Other neighorborhoods, such as Saygi, Millet, and Mehmet Akif, have a large
number of people who have migrated from East Anatolia. Overall, people who have
tolia have the second biggest share in the population of the
Kars
Konya
Erzurum
immigrants
Manisa
10.4%
7.1%
5.7%
5.1%
4%
180
irth (2000)

the fact that it does not a slum neighborhood.
When looking at the data for each neighborhood, it is also observed that people
born in Izmir are the highest proportion in the individual neighborhoods, with more than
total populations. However, there are some differences in certain
neighborhoods. For instance, the population in Cinartepe and Atamer has a lower rate of
people born in Izmir than the other neighborhoods. With about a 50% share, the highest
two neighborhoods is from people who were born in East Anatolia (Table
6.5). Other neighorborhoods, such as Saygi, Millet, and Mehmet Akif, have a large
number of people who have migrated from East Anatolia. Overall, people who have
tolia have the second biggest share in the population of the
Agri
2.4%
181
Table 6.5: Population by Place of Birth and Neighborhoods (2000)
Regions
b
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Neighborhoods
Saygi 56.0% 1.7% 1.7% 2.2% 9.0% 26.2% 1.1% 2.1%
Cinartepe 38.7% 0.1% 0.5% 1.2% 3.4% 49.1% 6.7% 0.3%
Millet 50.0% 1.2% 0.2% 4.8% 7.9% 33.3% 0.7% 1.9%
M.Akif 64.0% 1.9% 1.5% 1.7% 6.8% 20.2% 2.4% 1.7%
Atamer 40.5% 0.9% 0.2% 2.9% 5.0% 49.4% 0.7% 0.3%
26Agustos 67.0% 4.7% 0.8% 2.5% 6.0% 5.0% 1.0% 12.8%
Y.Selim 69.3% 2.4% 1.0% 1.3% 8.4% 2.6% 0.0% 15.1%
Zeybek 68.7% 2.0% 0.7% 2.4% 9.1% 4.9% 0.0% 12.3%
Ulubatli 66.1% 3.6% 2.1% 3.1% 8.2% 12.5% 1.3% 3.1%
Huzur 65.8% 3.0% 1.1% 1.1% 18.4% 2.4% 1.2% 6.9%
Anadolu 68.9% 1.8% 0.7% 0.9% 6.8% 6.4% 0.4% 14.1%
Trakya 64.4% 1.6% 0.0% 1.9% 17.4% 2.2% 0.8% 11.7%
Murat 58.8% 1.9% 1.7% 3.4% 16.9% 11.7% 1.5% 4.1%
Gultepe Total
a
56.2% 1.7% 0.9% 2.5% 9.5% 22.3% 1.7% 5.1%
Izmir 62.8% 3.8% 2.2% 4.9% 7.7% 9.7% 5.0% 3.9%
a: Ulubatli is excluded from the calculation
b: Regions are; 1= Aegean Region, 2= Marmara Region, 3= Mediterranean Region, 4=Black Sea
Region, 5=Central Anatolia, 6=East Anatolia, 7=South-Eastern Anatolia, 8=Foreign-Born population
Source: SIS, 2000c.
In fact, when looking at the distribution of population for Izmir as a whole, it is
found that people born in the East Anatolia region represent the second highest
percentage of all other regions (Table 6.5). Although the migrated population from East
Anatolia in Cinartepe and Atamer neighborhoods is slightly higher, the results of the
interviews with the muhtars indicate that people from East Anatolia are mostly coming to
reside there in order to be close to their relatives and friends. As the muhtars in the
thirteen neighborhoods of the Gultepe District have pointed out, the newcomers after the
1990s have usually settled in the Cinartepe and Atamer neighborhoods since those are the
areas where land has still been available for housing themselves. However, the muhtars
of Cinartepe and Atamer neighborhoods felt that the households in these two
neighborhoods have not represented a major difference in terms of the homeownership
level of households, the housing transformation performances of households, the overall
182
socio-economic structure of households, or the slum upgrading processes than the
households in the other neighborhoods of Gultepe District.
38

On the other hand, the exchange immigrants are still mostly residing in the first
slum neighborhoods, such as 26 Agustos, Zeybek, Y.Selim, and Anadolu, which have the
highest population share of exchange immigrants (with a 12% to 15% population share)
(Table 6.5).
These characteristics of population in Gultepe District tell us that people are still
choosing to reside in Gultepe District because of social networking concerns. In other
words, they choose certain neighborhoods to live based on where their relatives or
acquintances from the same city they were born in were living. On the other hand, the
high proportion of Izmir-born people in the district indicates that either there was a high
population turnover in these neighborhoods with more Izmir born people, or that the
second generation prefers living in the same neighborhoods as their parents. In addition,
the youngest neighborhoods, such as Cinartepe and Atamer, have become the residential
neighborhoods of choice for the newcomers who arrived in the area after the 1990s, due
to the fact that they had more land available than the other, more mature neighborhoods.
Whether the current population is the outcome of population turnover or represent the
second generation will be examined in the subsequent sections where the data analysis of
the case study is introduced.

38
Due to the fact that households in Atamer and Cinartepe neighborhoods have not been indicated as any differently
than the households residing in other neighborhoods in Gultepe District, and these neighborhoods were the youngest
neighborhoods among others, they were excluded in the analysis of this dissertation that was covered in Chapter 8.
183
6.4. Slum Upgrading Plans in Gultepe District
Once covered with olive trees and shrubs belonging to the treasury land, Gultepe
began developing as one of the first slum areas of Izmir city, but since the 1970s has
become fully integrated with the other residential areas of the city. In fact, the integration
with the city has been fostered by the slum upgrading initiatives introduced in the
Gultepe District. As in many other slum areas, slum upgrading plans have begun to be
prepared and implemented for the locale. Gultepe slums were one of the first of those that
pioneered slum upgrading development plans as a result of law 2981. In compliance with
slum upgradation initiatives, the slums of Gultepe District were legalized and
transformed from illegal housing arrangements into authorized residential areas. To
understand how slum upgrading plans transformed the slums of Gultepe District, this
section aims to evaluate the spatial implications of the upgrading plans introduced for
Gultepe slums. The evaluations have been made by comparing the zoning regulations of
each upgrading plan and calculating the spatial distribution of these plans.
6.4.1. Implications of Upgrading Plans on Gultepe Slums
As mentioned, Gultepe District was one of the first slum areas in Izmir
Metropolitan city where slum upgrading plans were introduced. After the planners of
Konak Municipality identified the slums in order to determine where the upgrading plans
would begin, the slum upgrading plans were prepared and introduced into the Gultepe
slums. Between 1986 and 1992, twelve slum upgrading plans were introduced to various
parts of the Gultepe slum neighborhoods (Table 6.6). Most upgrading plans were revised
later on in order to resolve any property related problems. However, the upgrading plans
184
initially dictated the primary regulations and development strategies for the Gultepe
slums.
Table 6.6: Slum Upgrading and Revision Plans of Gultepe by Plan Approval Dates
Neighborhoods Plan Approval Dates Revision plans
Saygi 10.15.1986 02.23.1994
Cinartepe 10.15.1986 06.08.1987
Mehmet Akif 12.12.1987 04.18.1990
Atamer 12.12.1987 04.18.1990
Millet 12.12.1987, 11.09.1992 04.18.1990
26 Agustos 04.20.1988 - -
Yavuz Selim 04.20.1988 02.23.1994
Zeybek 04.20.1988, 11.09.1992 02.23.1994
Ulubatli 04.20.1988, 11.09.1992 02.23.1994
Huzur 11.09.1992 02.23.1994
Trakya 11.09.1992 02.23.1994
Anadolu 11.09.1992 02.23.1994
Murat 11.09.1992 02.23.1994
Source: Konak Municipality, 2005.
The slum upgrading plans applied to the Gultepe District have been prepared for
various slum areas within the Gultepe neighborhoods. Those residential areas that had not
been developed illegally were not included within the boundaries of the initial slum
upgrading plans, yet they were effectively endorsed by their inclusion in the master plans
for the district. As Figure 6.6 shows, except for Ulubatli, most of the neighborhoods of
Gultepe were developed and dominated by slums, and hence have received slum
upgrading plans (Figure 6.6).
As part of the general agenda of slum upgrading plans, while these plans
formalized and transformed Gultepe slums into authorized housing units, they also
legalized slums by allowing the slum dwellers to apply for legal title deeds for the land
they were residing on. As part of the planning strategy of the Gultepe District, the slum
upgrading plans aimed to improve the conditions of Gultepe slums through new
development regulations.
185
Figure 6.6: Slum Upgrading Plans in Gultepe District
Source: Konak Municipality, 2005.

6.4.2. Evaluation of Upgrading Plans
When evaluating the regulations of the slum upgrading plans in Gultepe District,
it is observed that although the plans were issued at different dates, they are consistent in
terms of planning regulations for the redevelopment of the slums. The evaluations of the
regulations indicate that the slum upgrading plans mostly designated five-story building
developments on main streets as mixed residential area zoning, and two-story housing
developments on secondary streets and blocks (Figure 6.7).
186
Figure 6.7: Slum Upgrading Plan Sample

Source: Konak Municipality, the approval date of the plan: 10.15.1986.
In addition to such consistency in regulations, it is also observed that only a minor
population increase was anticipated in Gultepe slum neighborhoods by these slum
upgrading plans. Based on the calculations that I have done on the slum upgrading plans,
it seems that about 50,000 people would be living in the upgraded slum areas after the
plans were fully implemented (Table 6.7). Comparing the upgrading plans’ anticipated
population with the population in 1977, when Gultepe had 44,116 people living in
thirteen neighborhoods, it is calculated that the slum upgrading plans have only increased
the population by about 35%, indicating that the plans introduced for the area were
187
mainly for improving the living conditions in slums and neighborhoods and aimed at
keeping the actual population in its place. Additionally, such a small population increase
did not attract market forces (e.g., small-scale build-and-sell contractors) very much, and
hence the transformation of slums in Gultepe District was done by user-initiated
involvements. We will examine the outcomes of this transformation process in the
subsequent sections.
Table 6.7: Estimated Population and Densities of Slum Upgrading Plans in Gultepe
Gultepe Cinartepe Millet Saygi Ulubatli
Total
area
Population 25,272 5,632 6,676 3,072 8,372 49,024
Population density* 355 289 197 532 407 356
Housing density ** 555 518 445 567 564 530
Services/facilities (ha) 25.7 8.6 18.8 0.4 5.8 59.0
Total area (ha) 71.2 19.5 33.8 5.8 20.6 151.0
Total residential area (ha) 45.4 10.9 15.0 5.4 14.8 92.0
* = population/total area (ha)
** = population/total residential area (ha)
Source: Calculated from upgrading plans (2005).

Assigned slum upgrading plans have not only brought some population increase
in the district but also supported it with public services and facilities. Along with the
provision for basic public services, including paved roads, electricity, water and sewage
supplies, the plans have also supplied the neighborhoods with basic social facilities,
mainly schools, health facilities, parks and playgrounds in order to improve the living
conditions there (Table 6.8).
Table 6.8 indicates that the biggest share of the public facilities provided through
the slum upgrading plans were paved roads. About 85% of the public facilities built have
been the paved roads, while only 15% of the social facilities have been assigned for other
uses, which indicate that the upgrading plans only provided the most basic public services
188
to the area and fewer social facilities. Yet, comparing the services provided by the slum
upgrading plans with the required standards of the development planning regulations
indicates that even the services provided by the upgrading plans are not adequate for the
affected populations.
Table 6.8: Public Services Provided by Slum Upgrading Plans for Gultepe District
Land-use Provided by plans % Required standards
a

(m2) (m2)
Parks 13,020 2 34,300
Health 2,882 0 147,000
Public facility 10,536 2 98,000
Primary School 22,681 4 49,000
High School 28,500 5 196,000
Mosques 7,284 1 23,000
Parking Place 2,007 0 98,000
Paved roads 505,065 85 --
Total (ha) 591,975 100 --
a: Required standards are determined by the physical development planning law number 3194.
39

Source: Calculated from upgrading plans (2005).
In sum, since being introduced 23 years ago, slum upgrading plans for the
Gultepe District have focused primarily on creating orderly housing neighborhoods by re-
arranging the parcels, issuing redevelopment regulations for the slums, supplying basic
public services, and giving official title deeds to the slum dwellers. The goal of this
process has been the redevelopment of the slum areas by upgrading them and hence
improving the neighborhoods’ living conditions. Based on the regulations of slum
upgrading plans, it is clear that it was assumed that the slum dwellers would rebuild their
slums based on the plan regulations.

39
For details see the Physical Development Planning Law (Number 3194) [3194 Sayili Imar Kanunu]. (1985).
Retrieved on December 5, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site:
http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=33
189
6.5. Conclusion
Gultepe District began its journey as a small village named Ataturk in 1948.
Ataturk village was located in the area where the Huzur neighborhood is located today. It
began to increase in population as the exchange immigrants moved in. The Huzur,
Zeybek, Y. Selim, and 26 Agustos neighborhoods were the first central core of Ataturk
village, which then began to expand towards the boundaries of these neighborhoods.
Available free land, which belonged to the treasury, attracted more migrants into the area
during the 1950s. Following them, more newcomers, particularly from Eastern and
Central Anatolia, came to settle in the area. As the result of such a high level of
population flow into the area, the area was soon designated as a municipality district
under the name of Gultepe District in 1963, when it had 26,080 people.
In a very short period of time, the Gultepe District has sprawled towards its
peripheries mostly through the use of slum arrangements, and has become one of the
largest slum districts in the city of Izmir. Slum expansion especially accelerated between
1963 and 1980 when the district was an independent municipality. During this period,
patron-clientele relations between the mayors of the district and slum dwellers boosted
slum proliferation in the district. By the 1980s, the slum development in the district had
already reached its maturity. Today, with a population of 56,622 people, Gultepe District,
which now includes thirteen neighborhoods, encompasses 218 hectares of land.
Slum upgradation initiatives undertaken by the Konak Municipality have been
particularly influential on today’s spatial formation of Gultepe District. Beginning 23
years ago, slum upgrading initiatives, which were introduced into the district’s slums
between 1986 and 1992, essentially aimed to regularize and formalize slums by preparing
190
for the improvement of conditions in the slum units and neighborhood environments
through planning and zoning regulations. Today, most of the housing units in Gultepe
District have been fully transformed into authorized housing stock through these slum
upgrading plans.
The transformation process was mostly left in the hands of market forces.
However, with only a 35% additional population increase supplied through the upgrading
plans, the area has not convinced market forces to become involved with the
transformation stages of the district very much, mainly just the small-scale build-and-sell
contractors. As a consequence of such an economic environment, the transformation of
the slums was mostly supported by the direct involvement of the actual residents, through
the user-initiated involvements. Yet, it is mostly still not understood how these
neighborhoods have been upgraded through the user-initiation involvements. Thus, the
overall research goal of this dissertation is to develop a longer-term understanding of how
user-initiated improvements work to upgrade slums through the example of the Gultepe
upgradation process, which will be evaluated in the following sections.
191
CHAPTER 7: USER-INITIATED HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AS UPGRADING
STRATEGY
7.1. Introduction
Housing is as much a socially produced entity as it is a physical production. It is
something that must be understood as a product of the culture of the residents rather than
merely a byproduct of physical environments. This is particularly true in informal
housing structures. The research has shown that the production of informal housing or
slum dwellings has been the active product of the culture of the users. Turner made this
particularly clear in his self-help housing theoretical argument by introducing to the
literature the concept of self-help housing provision as a verb and as a solution to lower-
income housing provision instead of seeing it as a problem (Turner , 1972,1977).
Turner’s major and particularly influential contribution to self-help housing and
the incremental housing construction process of slum-dwellers was to open up new
perspectives about slum developments and the establishment of low-income housing
policies. Based on a case study in Peru, Turner (1972, 1977) argued that the incremental
housing construction process self-help housing has produced better housing
environments, better housing conditions, and more satisfaction, as well as cheaper
housing arrangements for the lower income households (Turner, 1972,1977). He found
that squatters often showed great organizational skills in their land management and
housing construction processes, and therefore should be supported in their attempts to
provide cost-effective housing for lower-income households. Recent research indicates
that self-help housing is still the primary housing method of sheltering the urban poor
(Berner, 2001:293).
192
As a result of Turner’s contributions on the observed outcomes of self-help
housing developments, the type of self-help and incremental housing construction
processes recommended by Turner were widely adopted by international institutions,
mainly the World Bank, and the governments of developing nations as part of their
efforts to improve the living conditions of slum populations in the developing nations
(Pugh, 1997, 2001). Beginning during the 1970s, various slum upgrading projects under
various planning strategies were introduced (e.g., sites and services, slum upgrading
plans, and slum redevelopment projects) to the slums of developing nations in order to
improve the habitability of the slum dwellings and their overall environment (Mukhija,
2003; Werlin, 1999). By the late 1980s, the ‘enabling strategy’ was formulated by the
World Bank as a new housing policy towards slum upgrading initiations. The key policy
element in this model was the decentralization of the state role in the slum upgrading
programs and the incorporation of more market-driven actors (World Bank, 1993).
Slum upgrading strategy in Turkey was also influenced by these ideas. World
Bank sponsored slum upgrading projects are not common in the Turkey context. As
discussed earlier, in Turkey local governmental institutions (e.g., municipalities) have the
major control over planning practices and slum upgrading processes within their
boundaries, and they are inclined to create market-driven slum upgrading initiatives.
The literature on slum housing indicates that market-driven developments can
have negative impacts on lower-income residents and slum dwellers. The literature
indicates that the direct involvement of market-forces without close governmental control
increases the land values of slum areas and erodes the cheap land availability for the
lower-income groups, creates population displacement, and hence decreases the success
193
of slum upgrading programs (Berner, 2001:297-299; Carmon, 2002:302; Mukhija,
2002:554-557; Mukhija, 2003:12-13).
I argue that the shortcomings of the market-driven upgrading strategy can be
reduced or eliminated through the integration of user-driven involvement into the
process. Experience has shown that markets can only be a responsive to a certain level.
The integration of user-initiated involvement into the upgrading programs can create
more successful and longer-lasting results and better serve the needs of the actual slum
dwellers (Berner, 2001; Seek, 1983).
The advantages and effectiveness of user-initiated housing improvements in the
context of developed nations have been well established and have been extensively
discussed in the housing adjustment literature that has addressed the housing demand
behavior of households. It was argued that households planned to move or improve their
units according to the demands from the current households. The literature indicates that
households who made extensions to their units were more likely to stay in their housing
units, and therefore stabilize the population in the older neighborhoods and create less
population displacement (Carmon, 2002:302; Carmon & Gavrieli, 1987:331-332;
Gosling, et al., 1993:1561; Littlewood & Munro, 1997:1776; Mandic, 2001:57-62; Seek,
1983:455).
In this dissertation, based on the housing adjustment theoretical arguments of the
self-help arguments of the Turner school, and, above all, the case study from Gultepe
District, I have specifically emphasized the positive role of households in the
transformation of slum areas and have argued that user-initiated involvement in slum
upgrading programs should be considered a powerful tool and be integrated into these
194
programs in order to develop effective methods of providing housing to lower-income
households and to ensure outcomes that also address social concerns.
Hence, the overall aim of this dissertation in general, and of this chapter in
particular, is to understand the role of user-initiated housing improvement in the
upgrading process of slum areas from the case study in Gultepe District, Izmir, Turkey.
In order to develop a longer-term understanding of the user-initiated role in upgraded
slums I focus on three specific arguments in this chapter, while also evaluating the case
study findings from the ten neighborhoods of Gultepe District where I did field work
between September 2005 and July 2006,
The three specific arguments that I make in this chapter are as follows:
(1) There are motivational differences among slum-dwellers in undertaking user-
initiated housing improvement activities for their units. Older slum dwellers
are more inclined to improve their residences than the newer ones, and the
major motives of older-slum dwellers in improving their housing are based on
social and family reasons, while it is economic reasons for new-dwellers.
(2) User-initiated housing improvement both creates better housing and improves
the satisfaction of the population with their neighborhoods, which ultimately
creates less likelihood of households moving elsewhere, and hence helps
prevent population displacement.
(3) User-initiated housing upgrading process takes place under the rules of
informal arrangements rather than following the officially determined
planning regulations of upgrading plans due to the fact that the goals of the
195
planning regulations do not always coincide with the housing needs of
households, or simply are not practical.
The first argument is to understand the motivational differences among
households in undertaking housing improvement activities. The second is to understand
the role of housing improvement on the satisfaction level of dwellers. The third is to
evaluate the perception of slum-dwellers on slum upgrading projects in order to
understand the long-term impacts of slum upgrading plans on the slum dwellers
themselves.
7.2. Motivational Differences of Slum-Dwellers in User-Initiated Housing Improvement
This section evaluates the role of user-initiated housing improvement in the
upgraded Gultepe slum neighborhoods with particular attention to the motivational
differences among slum-dwellers in order to see how such differences may influence the
upgrading process. However, while looking at the differences of households, this section
also elucidates the characteristics of households.
In this quest, I argue that old slum-dwellers improve their units more than the
newer ones. The major motive of old dwellers to improve their units is based on their
changing needs driven from social and family reasons, while new slum dwellers are
really not that committed to housing improvement activities. Since the main aim here is
to understand the motives of the older dwellers who had been residing in the same
neighborhoods prior to the slum upgrading plans, dwellers are stratified into two major
groups as old and new slum-dwellers. Old slum dwellers are defined as the dwellers that
have been residing in the same neighborhood prior to the slum upgrading plans
introduced in their neighborhood (i.e., pre-slum dwellers). New slum-dwellers are
196
defined as the dwellers that have come to the neighborhood after the slum upgrading
plans were introduced (i.e., post-slum dwellers).
The evaluation of housing improvement motives of households will be realized by
looking at the ‘housing extensions’ undertaken by households. Following Tipple and
other researchers, I use ‘housing extensions’ as a housing improvement indicator while
evaluating the user-initiated housing improvement motives of households (Gosling et al.,
1993:1561; Littlewood & Munro, 1997:1776; Michelson, 1977:457; Tipple, 2000). Thus,
old and new slum dwellers will be evaluated according to whether or not they have
undertaken any extensions to their units. However, in order to understand the differences,
old and new slum-dwellers will also be evaluated within four sub-groups that are
stratified based on if the households had made any improvements to their units or not.
Accordingly, old and new slum-dwellers are defined as pre-improvers, pre-non-
improvers, post-improvers and post-non-improvers. In this classification, pre-improvers
are the old slum dwellers that had been residing in the area prior to the slum upgrading
plans and who made any extensions within their units either before or after the slum
upgrading plans were introduced. Post-improvers are new slum-dwellers who had come
to the area after the slum upgrading plans but had undertaken some form of housing
extension in their units. By the same token, pre-non-improvers are the old slum-dwellers
that had been residing in the area prior to the upgrading plans but had made no extensions
to their units since their first occupancy year in the units; and post-non-improvers are the
new slum-dwellers that had been residing in the area prior to the upgrading plans but had
made no extensions to their units since their first occupancy year in the units. The
arguments in the text, tables, and figures are based on these classifications.
197
7.2.1. Who are the Slum-Dwellers?
Based on the household survey conducted in the ten neighborhoods located in the
Gultepe District, it was found that most of the residents were among the old slum
dwellers who have been residing in the same locale prior to the introduction of the slum
upgrading plans. 67.3% of the slum dwellers were old dwellers who had been living in
the area for an average of about 35 years. On the other hand, 32.7% of the residents were
new dwellers who had been living in the area for about 13 years on average. As Table 7.1
indicates, old slum dwellers in Gultepe District who had continued residing in their actual
neighborhoods were the highest percentage share among households.
When comparing the neighborhoods in terms of household structure, only very
small differences were found among neighborhoods. For instance, it was found that there
was a slightly higher percentage of new residents in the Yavuz Selim and Zeybek
neighborhoods than in the other neighborhoods, yet old slum dwellers were still the most
predominant households even in these two neighborhoods. The increasing level of new
dwellers in neighborhoods was both a factor of the population increase brought about by
the slum upgrading plans and of the neighborhood locations. It is likely that the
neighborhoods closer to the main transportation lines that connect the district to the
central business district of Izmir have the higher possibility of population displacement
within their neighborhoods. Yet, overall, more than 60% of the dwellers in these
neighborhoods were among old slum-dwellers, indicating that old dwellers have been
inclined to stay in their mature neighborhoods.

198
Table 7.1: Household Structure of Gultepe District
Neighborhoods Pre-dwellers Post-dwellers Total
Saygi
61 37 98
62.2% 37.8% 100.0%
Millet
63 35 98
64.3% 35.7% 100.0%
M.Akif
28 6 34
82.4% 17.6% 100.0%
26Agustos
37 11 48
77.1% 22.9% 100.0%
Y.Selim
36 24 60
60.0% 40.0% 100.0%
Zeybek
29 19 48
60.4% 39.6% 100.0%
Huzur
55 23 78
70.5% 29.5% 100.0%
Anadolu
22 8 30
73.3% 26.7% 100.0%
Trakya
21 9 30
70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Murat
61 29 90
67.8% 32.2% 100.0%
Gultepe total units 413 201 614
% 67.3% 32.7% 100.0%
Length of stay years (mean) 35 13 28
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
Among interviewed households, it was also found that homeowners are the
predominant group residing in neighborhoods of Gultepe District. About 72% of dwellers
in Gultepe District are homeowners, while only the 28% of the dwellers are renters
(Table 7.2).

199
Table 7.2: Tenure Characteristics of Dwellers by Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods Homeowners Renters Total
Saygi 66 32 98
67.3% 32.6% 100.0%
Millet 72 26 98
73.5% 26.5% 100.0%
M.Akif 30 4 34
88.2% 11.8% 100.0%
26 Agustos 40 8 48
83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Y. Selim 43 17 60
71.7% 28.3% 100.0%
Zeybek 30 18 48
62.5% 37.5% 100.0%
Huzur 53 25 78
67.9% 32.1% 100.0%
Anadolu 22 8 30
73.3% 26.7% 100.0%
Trakya 20 10 30
66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Murat 65 25 90
72.2% 27.8% 100.0%
Gultepe total units 441 173 614
% 71.8% 28.2% 100.0%
Izmir
units
591,974 249,897 841,871
a

%
70.3% 29.6% 100.0%
a: Households who are residing in free quarters are not included.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; SIS, Census of Population, 2000.
When comparing the tenure characteristics of neighborhoods, it was found that
except for the Mehmet Akif and 26 Agustos neighborhoods, about 30% of the
interviewed dwellers were renters, indicating that the slum upgrading plans have brought
additional population into the neighborhoods and that these new residents are still mostly
renters. Yet, overall, with a 72% share, homeownership has still the highest percentage
share among households in all neighborhoods of Gultepe District.
Based on the information illustrated in the tables, households of the Gultepe
neighborhoods were mostly the old slum-dwellers and homeowners who had been
residing in the same neighborhoods about 35 years in average. The high percentages of

200
ownership and of old-slum dwellers in the district tell us that households keep residing in
their neighborhoods, which may be the outcome of user-initiated housing improvements.
7.2.2. Differences of Slum Dwellers in Tenure Characteristics
When comparing slum dwellers in terms of household structure and tenure
characteristics, a statistically significant difference between old and new dwellers was
found (Table 7.4). As the Pearson chi-square test indicates, within a 95% confidence
interval, there was a statistical difference between old and new dwellers in terms of
tenure structure. In other words, the difference among different groups of slum-dwellers
was significant in that slum-dwellers behaved differently in terms of tenure structure. The
dimensions of this difference can be observed in Table 7.3 and Table 7.4.
Table 7.3: Household Structure and Tenure Characteristics of Dwellers
Dwellers Homeowners Renters total
Pre-dwellers 373 40 413

90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Post-dwellers
68 133 201
33.0% 67.0% 100.0%
Gultepe total units 441 173 614
% 71.8% 28.2% 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

Table 7.4: Chi-Square Test of Household Structure and Tenure Characteristics

Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 213.147
a
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
210.365 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 210.175 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 212.800 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 614
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 56.63.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
201
As illustrated in Tables 7.3 and 7.4, while old-slum dwellers were mostly owners,
the new-slum dwellers that began residing in the Gultepe District after the slum
upgrading plans were mostly renters. Among 201 new dwellers, 67% of them were
renters, while only 33% of them were homeowners. On the other hand, among old
dwellers, only 9.4% of them were renters, while 90.6% of them were owners.
Such a relationship specifically tells us that rental arrangements have increased
since the introduction of slum upgrading plans. In other words, additional population
increase caused by planning regulations and slum upgrading plans has pulled renters into
the Gultepe neighborhoods. It also shows that upgrading plans have given opportunities
to old slum households to be able to generate rental arrangements for additional income.
However since the percentage of rental units are not too excessive in rate than the norms
brought by the upgrading plans, it is difficult to conclude that old slum dwellers have
been improving their housing units for the purpose of making economic gains out of their
units. In fact, with a higher percentage share of old slum dwellers, it would seem that old
dwellers preferred to stay in the same neighborhoods. Thus, although some
commercialization has appeared in the area, it is difficult to conclude that a great deal of
commercialization has been brought about by the upgrading plans.
While there was a significant difference among dwellers, when looking at the
characteristics of homeowners closer, it was found that households who were owners
have been even more stratified in terms of who officially owned the dwellings. As noted
in Table 7.5, the percentage of second generation dwellers (e.g., family inherited and
family owned units) was as high as the owners in Gultepe neighborhoods (Table 7.5).
202
While 39.3% of the total units belonged to old owners, 32.6% belonged to second
generation dwellers, which refers to the children of the previous homeowners in the area.
Table 7.5: Tenure Characteristics by Ownership
Tenure Characteristics Units %
Owner 241 39.3
Family inheritance 70 11.4
Family owned 130 21.2
Renter 173 28.2
Gultepe total 614 100.0
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
As Table 7.5 indicates that second generation dwellers continued to reside in
Gultepe neighborhoods. There are two possible explanations for the continued residence
of second generation residents in the district. One is that the second generation population
preferred living in the same neighborhoods as their parents because they were satisfied
with both the units and the neighborhoods. The other is that they simply had no other
options due to economic constraints. These two possibilities are evaluated in the
subsequent sections.
7.2.3. Housing Improvement Pattern of Dwellers: Who Improves?
The housing adjustment literature indicates that households are in a constant
choice making process about whether to move from their housing or improve them
without moving. Housing improvement lately has been considered as an alternative
choice to moving that, in fact, becomes the first choice of households most of the time.
As some studies indicate, households filter up their units through improving (Gosling et
al., 1993). Through making extensions, households can both enhance the living
conditions of housing and reform them based on the changing needs of households.
203
Around this argument, for instance, Gosling et al. (1993) found that housing
extensions were closely related to “progressive upgrading of property to achieve higher
space standards” (Gosling et al., 1993:1561). By the same token, Seek (1983), has found
that most households intended to improve rather than move. He posits that contrary to the
filtering process, housing improvements through additions and alterations in dwellings
create better housing without having to move (Seek, 1983:455-468). Among these two
alternatives, improving has been found to offer the highest net benefit to households.
In his study of low-income housing units in the United Kingdom Pahl (1984), has
also found growing self-help activities in home improvements and has pointed out the
positive impact of self-help housing improvements (Pahl, 1984:59). Littlewood and
Munro (1997), on the other hand, cited empirical evidence about the magnitude of house
improving activities, indicating the importance of housing extension activities as an
alternative method of adjusting the housing consumption pattern of households
(Littlewood & Munro, 1997:1771). In examining the moving or improving choices of
households, Mandic (2001), in a study from a transitionary society in Slovenia, posited
that non-movers are not necessarily unworthy just because they are not able to move but
rather choose to stay and improve. He argued that, on the contrary, by making in-place
adjustments, households simply improve the livability conditions of their units (Mandic,
2001:55-57).
While the growing literature on the housing adjustment strategy of households
through housing improvements indicated how home improvement made a significant
impact on influencing households’ consumption patterns, a growing awareness towards
such housing improvement has also been applied in the context of developing nations.
204
However, as Jones (1979) pointed out early on, such discussion on the decisions of
households regarding moving or improving seems irrelevant for the developing nations’
housing market, where housing markets are tighter and there are fewer choices for
households, especially those with lower-income. As he warns us, households with the
worst housing conditions, as in the developing nations, were the ones who were the least
capable of moving their units (Jones, 1979:204). The only practical choice of these
lower-income households has been to improve their units.
This was particularly emphasized in Turner’s self-help housing model (Turner,
1968, 1972). By the same token, Turner (1991) suggested that within the constraints of
households in developing nation context, households made housing choices based on
their preferences, their constraints and the given range of options available to them in
certain period of time (Turner, 1991).
Based on this argument, Ozo (1986) in his intra-urban mobility analysis in
Nigeria asserts that the poor may move less due to the higher moving expenses. He
suggests this indicates that housing markets are not open to the urban poor in the
developing nations as they are in the developed nations, and that thus the urban poor face
constraints forcing them to stay in their actual places rather than to move to improve their
housing living conditions (Ozo, 1986:459-469).
Some researchers have focused their studies on examining what factors were
influential in the decision to improve or move. For instance, Sinai (2001), in his Kumasi
study, has argued that households seek a satisfactory residential environment to maximize
their utility, and therefore prefer to make adjustments in their units because they cannot
easily move (Sinai, 2001). In another study, Tipple et al. (1995) tried to develop a two-
205
stage econometric analysis in order to understand housing extension decision in the
context of developing nations where housing markets were tighter than in the developed
nations. They have found that households tended to improve on certain conditions;
particularly if they had originally built the house or if the housing units originally had
lower standards such as less rooms and living spaces (Garrod et al., 1995:961).
Additionally, Tipple (2000), in an international comparative study, also looked at the
factors that influenced the decisions to make housing extensions in the government-built
lower-income housing areas, and found that housing characteristics have basically
improved through housing extensions (Tipple, 2000).
Based on these arguments in the literature, the motives for user-initiated housing
improvement of households provide an insightful strategy for creating effective slum
upgrading programs while providing housing for the lower-income households as well as
protecting the actual population in the existing locales. As ‘housing extension’ is the
major motivation for housing improvement, in the following sections, I evaluate who the
actual improvers were and what types of improvement motives they have undertaken in
housing units with particular attention to the differences among old and new dwellers.
7.2.3.1. Who are the Improvers?
Before arguing who the improvers were in Gultepe District, it is important to
define what I mean by ‘housing improvement’ or how I measure housing improvement.
Based on the argument in the literature that additional space is the essential factor in
motivating housing improvement, I measured housing improvement motive of
households by looking at the housing extensions that had created additional space to the
units. In this dissertation, by using the definition in the study of Seek (1983), I define a
206
housing extension as any form of addition and/or alteration that meets the demands of
households for more space and better housing conditions (Seek, 1983:455). Based on this
definition, any extensions that have created additional space were considered housing
improvement activity. However, alterations that were not for the purpose of creating
more space (e.g., changing the bathroom tiles) have not been considered as housing
improvement activities.
In this section, as my first argument, I particularly look at the motivational
differences among slum-dwellers in undertaking user-initiated housing improvement
activities for their units, and to see if old-slum dwellers were more inclined to improve
than the new dwellers. I also examine how the housing improvement motives of older
slum dwellers were different than those the newer dwellers.
In this assumption, I differentiate households based on if the households are old
and new dwellers (pre- and post-slum improvement dwellers), and if they had undertaken
any form of housing extensions for their units since their first occupancies. To clarify, I
differentiate pre-improvers and post-improvers from pre- and post-non improvers to see
if old and new households’ improvement motives are different from each other. In this
classification, pre-improvers refers to households who had been residing in the same
neighborhood prior to the slum upgrading plans and who had undertaken housing
extensions for their units. Post-improvers refers to those households who had moved to
the district after the initiation of slum upgrading plans and had then undertaken housing
extensions for their units. These are enumerated in Table 7.6.

207
Table 7.6: Housing Improvement of Dwellings by Households
Dwellers Units Percent
Pre-Improver 321 52.5
Post-Improver 28 4.6
Pre-non-improver 92 15.0
Post-non-improver 173 28.2
Improvers 349 56.8
Non-improvers 265 43.2
Gultepe total 614 100.0
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
In the search of who the housing improvers were in Gultepe neighborhoods, it
was found that 56.8% of households were improvers, while 43.2% were non-improvers
(Table 7.6). In other words, overall, while half of the housing units in Gultepe District
were improved in some form, almost half of the units had not been improved at all.
Additionally, it was found that old dwellers improved more than the new dwellers. While
52.5% of households were among the old dwellers that had improved their units, only
4.6% of the new dwellers had improved their units. This picture indicates that, overall,
there was a motivational difference between old and new dwellers in terms of improving
their units.
However, the interview results of Gultepe District indicated that renters did not
make any investments for improving the units they are occupying at all (Table 7.7).
Although, according to the survey results, some of the renters had been residing in the
district prior to the slum upgrading plans, none of them had undertaken any form of
housing improvement in their rental units. It was only the homeowners who have
undertaken extensions in their units.

208
Table 7.7: Housing Improvement Motives of Renters
Tenure characteristics
no-extensions extended units Total
Homeowners 92 349 441
20.9% 79.1% 100.0%
Renters 173 0 173
100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total units 265 349 614
% 43.2% 56.8% 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
In fact, renters not undertaking any housing improvement activities were not
uncommon for households who were living in economic constraints. As Tipple et al.
argued previously, “transformation is a means of extending property ownership.” Thus,
making any housing improvements would only be profitable for the owners of the units
rather than the renters (Tipple et al., 2000:42). Considering that these were slum
neighborhoods with households facing serious economic constraints, it is reasonable to
expect that renters would not get involved with housing improvement actions, and this
was the case for the slum dwellers in the Gultepe District. Therefore, renters, in the
following arguments, have been eliminated in the analysis of the housing improvement
pattern of slum dwellers since they do not have any influence over the housing
improvement process.
Taking the renters out of the analysis and looking at the homeowners’ housing
improvement motives and examining if old slum dwellers intended to move more than
the new slum dwellers, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference in
housing improvement motives between old and new slum dwellers in the neighborhoods
in Gultepe District. In other words, as the chi-square analysis depicts, within a 95%
confidence interval, old households who originally built housing units have been inclined
to undertake housing improvement while new dwellers preferred not to do so (Tables 7.8
209
and 7.9). However, only in the Mehmet Akif and Trakya neighborhoods were there no
statistically significant differences observed between old and new dwellers in undertaking
housing improvement activities.
40

Table 7.8: Differences of Dwellers in Making Housing Improvements
Dwellers

no-extensions extended units Total
Pre-Improvers 52 321 373
13.9% 86.1% 100.0%
Post-Improvers 40 28 68
58.8% 41.2% 100.0%
Total unit 92 349 441
% 20.9% 79.1% 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

Table 7.9: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Making Housing Improvements

Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 70.177
a
1 .000

Continuity Correction
b
67.485 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 58.246 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 70.018 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 441
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.19.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
7.2.3.2. Forms of Housing Improvement Motives of Households
It might be well expected that there was no one single form of housing
improvement undertaken for housing units. Slum dwellings were incrementally usually
built or improved based on the availability of household income and the changing
housing demands of households. In such nature of slums, it is to be expected that various
forms of housing extensions will be seen. This was the case for the dwellings in the
Gultepe District.

40
See Appendix C for details.
210
The survey results found that with a 79.1% share in total dwelling units, the
overall housing dwellings in Gultepe District had mostly been improved or upgraded
through various housing improvement schemes. On the other hand, not all slum dwellers
improved their dwellings. Overall, about 21% of dwellers had not undertaken any form of
housing improvement to their units. Among those who have not done any housing
improvement, as explained in the previous section, are mostly the new households. Some
neighborhoods have a higher rate of non-improvers, as in the Zeybek, Huzur, Trakya,
Yavuz Selim and Millet neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, more than 20% of the
dwellers, who were mostly old slum dwellers, had upgraded their units in any way (Table
7.10).
Yet, based on Table 7.10, among housing improvement motives, rebuilding was
found as the predominant motive in the upgrading process of dwelling units in the
Gultepe District. Following this, extending the main units through building upper floors
was the second motive for upgrading housing (Table 7.10).
Table 7.10 also illustrates that among households who had improved their units,
69.6% of slum dwellers have rebuilt a new unit in their assigned parcels, while 30.4% of
slum dwellers have made housing extensions to improve their units. When slum dwellers
have improved their units, they have either made horizontal extensions to their main units
or made vertical extensions by building upper floors.
As the extension choice, upper floor extensions take the biggest share among
households who had improved their units. Overall in the Gultepe District, almost 18% of
slum dwellers have made upper floor extensions while improving their units. When
looking at the neighborhoods, despite some differences, it was also observed that
211
rebuilding units and upper floor extensions were the major housing improvements
undertaken by households, which indicates that households intended to transform their
units into multi-story apartment areas over time, attempting to make them physically
identical to those in formal residential areas.
Table 7.10: Type of Housing Improvements of Slum-Dwellers
Neighborhoods
Main unit
extension
Rebuilding
unit
Upper
floor
extension Total Improvers No extension
Saygi 6 37 14 57 9
10.5% 64.9% 24.6% 86.4% 13.6%
Millet 5 45 5 55 17
9.1% 81.8% 9.1% 76.4% 23.6%
MAkif 7 17 4 28 2
25.0% 60.7% 14.3% 93.3% 6.7%
26Agustos 4 22 10 36 4
11.1% 61.1% 27.8% 90.0% 10.0%
YSelim 3 23 7 33 10
9.1% 69.7% 21.2% 76.7% 23.3%
Zeybek 3 17 1 21 9
14.3% 81.0% 4.8% 70.0% 30.0%
Huzur 7 24 2 33 20
21.2% 72.7% 6.1% 62.3% 37.7%
Anadolu 4 12 4 20 2
20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 90.9% 9.1%
Trakya 2 11 1 14 6
14.3% 78.6% 7.1% 70.0% 30.0%
Murat 4 35 13 52 13
7.7% 67.3% 25.0% 80.0% 20.0%
45 243 61 349 92
Gultepe total 12.9% 69.6% 17.5% 79.1% 20.9%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
Such differences of slum dwellers in undertaking housing improvement motives
in fact represent a statistically significant difference. As the chi-square test in Table 7.12
illustrates, within a 95% confidence interval, there was a statistically significant
difference between old and new dwellers in terms of housing improvement activities
(Table 7.11 and Table 7.12).

212
Table 7.11: Differences of Dwellers in Various Forms of Improvement Motives
Dwellers
Main unit
extension
Rebuilding
unit
Upper floor
extension No extension total
Pre-Dwellers 42 231 48 52 373
11.3% 61.9% 12.90% 13.90% 100.0%
Post-Dwellers 3 12 13 40 68
4.4% 17.6% 19.1% 58.8% 100.0%
45 243 61 92 441
Total 10.2% 55.1% 13.8% 20.9% 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

Table 7.12: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Various Forms of
Improvement Motives
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 80.273
a
3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 72.378 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 69.857 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 441
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.94.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

New dwellers were not inclined to undertake any extensions at all. However,
when new dwellers improved, they usually made upper floor extensions. This might be
because of the fact that the new dwellers were residing in better structured units than the
old dwellers who had built their slum dwellings from scratch and then made incremental
housing improvements. However, on the other hand, it also tells that the longer period of
time spent in the housing unit increases the likelihood that major improvements will be
made.
In sum, households have managed to improve their slum dwellings into more
structured housing units almost identical to those formal residential housing areas. In the
housing upgrading process, being the original households has been the significant aspect
regarding improvement. In other words, the findings from the Gultepe District indicate
that user-initiated involvement in housing upgrading process has in fact helped the
market to work under the control and for the benefit of slum-dwellers.
213
7.2.4. Decision to Improve
As the findings from the Gultepe District indicate, the user-driven housing
upgrading process has been more common than the contractor-driven upgrading process.
Where the contractors have not really become interested with upgrading process of
Gultepe slums, households themselves have become the market forces. In such a user-
driven market, households acted on transforming their housing units on their own
initiative and because they were motivated by their own needs to do so. However, it is
essential here to look at the differences in the user-initiated housing improvement
processes in order to understand if housing improvement has been undertaken by the
households for the purpose of improving the habitability of housing units based on family
needs, or simply to gain economic benefits as is has been the case with contractor-driven
initiations.
As according to the housing adjustment literature, housing improvement generally
takes place when there is a need for space triggered by an increase in household size or
there are new needs in households due to their changing housing consumption patterns
(Michelson, 1977; Seek, 1983; Tipple, 2000). On the other hand, discussions in the
housing literature of the developing nations on slums have particularly called our
attention to increasing economic-based relations affecting slum populations as a result of
the ‘commercialization’ of slum areas and the increasing amount of rental arrangements
in such lower-income households (Davis, 2006; Gilbert, 1993a; Pamuk, 1996). It has
been argued that slum populations have begun acting as the real entrepreneurs and have
tried ways to improve their economic gain over the slums, usually by renting out both
their units and the additional units they have built.
214
7.2.4.1. Reasons for Slum Dwellers to Improve
To understand if the households have improved their units for economic reasons
or for family reasons, this section examines the dimensions of the housing improvement
motives of households with specific attention to the differences in motivations between
old and new slum dwellers.
Based on the above discussions, two things might be expected to be seen in the
improvement decisions of slum dwellers in Gultepe District. On one hand, the slum
dwellers might choose to extend their units for purpose of gaining additional income
from the extended spaces they have built (e.g., units).
41
On the other hand, they might
choose to improve in order to have more spaces for their families and their changing
preferences.
In order to understand the motives of slum dwellers to undertake housing
improvement activities for their units, I asked the respondents their major reasons for
making extensions in their units. As Table 7.13 indicates, it was found that households
extended their units mostly for family reasons, not for economic ones. It was found that
households who had undertaken housing improvements mainly improved their units in
order to house their increasing families instead of creating additional income from their
upgrading processes (Table 7.13). Interviewed households mostly identified the major
motives of housing extensions for their units as the desire to create additional space for
their growing families. 65.5% of all improvers have upgraded their units through making
extensions to their units so their children can live in these built-up spaces (Table 7.13).

41
Renting out a room to others while using the other sections of the dwelling is not culturally common in Turkey
215
Table 7.13: Factors Important for Dwellers in Decision to Improve
Reasons to Improve
Pre-
Improvers %
Post-
Improvers %
Total-
improvers %
a

Housing stress reasons:
More people joining the
household 62 16.9% 6 17.6% 68 17.0%
To house the older children
Total
176
238
48.1%
65.0%
18
24
52.9%
70.6%
194
262
48.5%
65.5%
Economic reasons:
To rent out rooms 43 11.7% 5 14.7% 48 12.0%
To have a business 9 2.5% 1 2.9% 10 2.5%
Total 54 14.2% 6 17.6% 58 14.5%
Other reasons:
To improve infrastructural
facilities 78 20.8% 4 11.8% 80 20.0%
a: results are based on multiple responses of households.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
Comparing the households, no statistically significant difference was found
between old and new slum dwellers (Tables 7.14 and 7.15). As the chi-square table above
indicates, both old and new dwellers mostly improved their units for household or family
related reasons, not financial considerations. Although there was some concern about
establishing extra space for creating rental units among households, especially among
new households, such concerns are not indicated in the statistics in Table 7.14.
Table 7.14: Reasons to Improve of Households
Dwellers

Family-based reasons Economic reasons Total
Pre-dwellers 278 43 321
86.6% 13.4% 100.0%
Post-dwellers 23 5 28
82.1% 17.9% 100.0%
Total unit 301 48 349
% 86.2% 13.8% 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

216
Table 7.15: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Reason to Improve

Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .432
a
1 .511
Continuity Correction
b
.138 1 .710
Likelihood Ratio .404 1 .525
Fisher's Exact Test .564 .337
Linear-by-Linear Association .431 1 .512
N of Valid Cases 349
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.85.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
In sum, the major reason for improving households was associated with family
needs. Such housing improvement motives of households indicate that user-initiated
housing upgrading process in Gultepe District have transformed their units for
themselves and their families rather than increasing the marketability of units.
7.2.4.2. Family Structure in Decision to Improve
The housing adjustment literature points out that there is a connection between
housing consumption level and the various stages of households (‘family life-cycle’).
Households tend to improve their units when there is an increase in household size or
changes in housing needs. Seek explains this phenomenon with the ‘housing stress’ and
‘housing shocks’ (Seek, 1983:456-458). An increase in family members with more kids
or with kids getting older creates housing stress that triggers the improvement of the
housing units. On the other hand, sometimes the current housing is simply not adequate,
and then growing families tend to move rather than improve (Seek, 1983).
Based on this discussion, it might be expected that household composition and
family structure of households in the Gultepe District may also be influential on
households’ decision to improve. The different motives of old and new slum dwellers for
undertaking housing improvement motives might also be related to family based
217
structural differences. Thus, it was important to evaluate the family structures of
households in the Gultepe District.
Around these arguments, it might be reasonable to expect that larger households
with more family members and with more children or adult members have improved their
units more than the smaller size households. Older slum dwellers might have made
housing improvements because they have mature household structures associated with
older household members in their units, have larger families, and/or older children in
their households than the new slum dwellers. Overall, four people per household is the
common household size in Gultepe District (Table 7.17). However, when comparing the
household size of the old and new slum dwellers that improved their units no statistically
significant difference is found in slum dwellers in the Gultepe District (Table 7.16).
Additionally, when comparing the households in terms of household
characteristics, there was no significant difference observed between improvers and non-
improvers as well as between old and new slum dwellers in terms of the number of
children, numbers of adults, and the age of the children in the households (Table 7.17).
Table 7.17 also indicates that there was no significant difference in terms of number of
children and their ages per household. Overall, families have two kids and two adults per
household with four total family members in the same units.
Additionally the ages of children in households are, on average, almost identical
to each other. Kids living in improved units are the same age as the kids living in the non-
improved units. On the other hand, although improvers have older adults than the non-
improvers, this difference is not statistically significant at all.
218
In sum, the data from the survey does not directly indicate that there was a strong
relationship between slum upgrading motives and household composition in the Gultepe
District. Although the housing improvement motives of households were influenced by
mostly family reasons rather than economic reasons, changing family structure did not
seem to be a strong motivation for making housing improvements.
Table 7.16: Independent Samples t-Test between Housing Improvement and Household
Size

Housing Improvement N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
No.of people
per household
no-extensions 92 3.66 1.345 .140
extended units 349 3.63 1.389 .074

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
No.of people
per household F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper
Equal
variances
assumed .025 .873 .184 439 .854 .030 .162 -.288 .348
Equal
variances not
assumed .188 146.32 .851 .030 .159 -.284 .343
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

219
Table 7.17: Household Composition of Gultepe Neighborhoods
Median Saygi Millet M.Akif 26Agustos Y.Selim Zeybek Huzur Anadolu Trakya Murat Gultepe
a
Izmir
b

No. of people per household: 3.6
Pre-Improver 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
(mean)
Post-Improver 4 5 6 4 4 5 . 3 5 4 4
Pre-non-improver 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
Post-non-improver 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Improvers 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4
Non-improvers 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
No. of adults per household:
N/A
Pre-Improver 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3

Post-Improver 2 4 4 3 2 3 . 3 4 2 2

Pre-non-improver 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2

Post-non-improver 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2

Improvers 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2

Non-improvers 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2

No. of kids per household:
N/A
Pre-Improver 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Post-Improver 2 1 2 1 2 2 . . 1 2 2

Pre-non-improver 2 2 . 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2

Post-non-improver 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

Improvers 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Non-improvers 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

Source: (a) Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; (b) SIS, 2000c.

220
Table 7.17: Continued
Median Saygi Millet M.Akif 26Agustos Y.Selim Zeybek Huzur Anadolu Trakya Murat Gultepe
a
Izmir
b

Age of kids:
N/A
Pre-Improver 9 12 10 10 13 12 9 6 9 8 11

Post-Improver 7 7 12 12 5 11 . . 6 6 7

Pre-non-improver 6 9 8 4 11 10 5 10 10 9

Post-non-improver 6 7 8 8 7 10 9 5 7 8 8

Improvers 8 12 11 10 11 11 9 6 7 7 10

Non-improvers 6 8 8 8 7 10 10 5 8 9 8

Age of adults:
N/A
Pre-Improver 47 47 50 50 58 52 46 47 47 50 50

Post-Improver 35 44 34 36 30 46 . 52 45 33 38
Pre-non-improver 51 42 50 71 63 45 56 56 41 47 52
Post-non-improver 35 34 34 36 37 37 43 28 32 36 36
Improvers 46 47 48 48 55 52 46 47 47 46 47
Non-improvers 40 40 37 43 38 40 50 43 37 41 40
Source: (a) Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; (b) SIS, 2000c.

221
7.2.4.3. Influence of the Heads of Households in Housing Improvement
The literature indicates that families tended to improve their units when they were
younger, when they had more need for space in their units. Thus, in the search of housing
improvement motives, it is important to look at the age of the heads of households in
Gultepe District to see if it had any influence on the housing improvement decisions of
households.
As Table 7.18 illustrates, families in the Gultepe District were mostly in their
middle-age family stages. However, at an average of 56 years of age, old slum dwellers
were among the more mature families who had improved their units in their younger
family years. In fact, when looking at the differences between slum dwellers in the
relation to the age of head of households in their first occupancy years, a statistically
significant difference was found between households (Table 7.19). Older households in
fact improved their units in their early family years, while new households improved in
their later years (Table 7.18). For instance, new dwellers improved their units when the
heads of households were in their late thirties. Such late year improvement of new
dwellers reflects the fact that the newer households were living in periods of more
economic constraints where the land and housing prices in low-income areas have
become more expensive.
On the other hand, as it was previously pointed out, the most important variable
that influences the housing improvement motives of households is the length of stay in
housing units. As Table 7.18 and 7.20 both indicate, older households with longer time
spending in the same units have improved more than the new households.

222
Table 7.18: Characteristics of Households in Gultepe Neighborhoods
Median Saygi Millet M.Akif 26Agust Y.Selim Zeybek Huzur Anadolu Trakya Murat Gultepe
a
Izmir
b
Age of head of households: N/A
Pre-Improver 55 51 56 56 65 53 60 60 57 62 57
Post-Improver 37 65 45 38 31 48 . 50 63 33 42
Pre-non-improver 55 53 53 71 64 49 60 57 42 50 55
Post-non-improver 39 40 37 40 38 39 45 30 33 39 39
Improvers 54 54 56 53 65 52 60 59 59 60 56
Non-improvers 45 44 39 43 38 41 53 45 38 43 43
Age of head of household in first occupancy year: N/A
Pre-Improver 25 25 28 30 25 26 26 28 27 27 27
Post-Improver 28 51 39 29 24 42 . 45 55 27 35
Pre-non-improver 30 31 51 37 31 31 36 57 30 34 33
Post-non-improver 32 34 35 36 29 33 38 28 29 34 34
Improvers 26 25 29 30 25 26 26 28 28 27 27
Non-improvers 30 33 37 37 29 32 38 37 30 34 34
Age of head of household in the year of first housing improvement action undertaken: N/A
Pre-Improver 30 32 35 38 31 32 29 33 34 31 32
Post-Improver 32 51 41 31 29 44 . 45 58 35 37
Length of stay
(years):

N/A
Pre-Improver 34 35 35 40 44 35 33 38 35 35 35
Post-improver 9 14 7 9 7 8 . 7 7 7 9
Pre-non-improver 19 28 2 28 28 18 16 9 16 15 18
Post-non-improver 3 3 2 3 5 4 4 4 2 4 4
Improvers 30 35 35 40 43 35 33 37 33 33 35
Non-improvers 6 6 2 4 5 6 8 4 7 8 6
Source: (a) Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; SIS, (b) Census of Population, 2000c.

223
Table 7.19: Independent Samples t-Test between Housing Improvement and Age of Head
of Households

Housing
Improvement N Mean
Std.
Deviation Std. Error Mean
Age of head in first
occupancy year
no-extensions 92 33.40 14.689 1.531
extended units 349 29.66 10.232 .548

Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper

Equal variances
assumed 13.705 .000 2.822 439 .004 3.737 1.324 1.134 6.340
Equal variances
not assumed 2.298 115.27 .023 3.737 1.626 .516 6.959
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

Table 7.20: Independent Samples t-Test between Housing Improvement and Length of
Stay in Units

Housing
Improvement N Mean
Std.
Deviation Std. Error Mean
Length of stay in
unit
no-extensions 92 24.092 20.2676 2.1130
extended units 349 34.450 12.2162 .6539

Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std. Error
Differen
ce Lower Upper
Equal variances
assumed 25.136 .000 -6.196 439 .000 -10.357 1.672 -13.643 -7.072
Equal variances
not assumed -4.683 109.00 .000 -10.357 2.212 -14.741 -5.974
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

In sum, households in Gultepe District had different improvement motives
associated with the length of stay and the age of the head of households. Older
households have improved their units in their early years in their units. On the other
hands, new households have improved their units in their mid-thirties. Households who

224
did not improve their units were mostly in their middle-age years. In other words, if
households had not improved their units in their early years, when they were very active
in the economic sector, they did not later institute housing improvement activities, and
the most likely reason for this was because of the economic constraints they were faced
with.
7.2.5. Income and Wealth in Decision to Improve
In the housing literature, there is no one-dimensional explanation of the impact of
household income over the housing consumption patterns of households. On one view,
the housing adjustment literature in the western world has argued that income is not
always the most significant determinant for housing consumption patterns and shaping
the housing improvement motives of households as much as the status, financial
commitments and future housing consumption expectancy of households (Edin &
Englund, 1991; Littlewood & Munro, 1997; Seek, 1983). On the other hand, some
scholars have argued that income and wealth are more important factors than others, such
as the family structure (McLeod & Ellis, 1982).
However, in the developing nation context, household income seems to be the
major determinant in housing improvement decisions of households. Turner (1972) has
suggested that such processes serve lower-income households better since it allows them
to build their housing units based on their income levels. Later studies have kept focusing
on the impact of income factor. As Sinai (2001) has pointed out in his case study from
Kumasi, Ghana, household income, the physical conditions of housing units, tenure, and
household characteristics are all factors that influence the housing adjustment choices of
households (Sinai, 2001:97).

225
Yet, some contrary arguments also appeared on this subject in the developing
nations’ literature. For instance, Tipple, in case studies done in four cities, has pointed out
that household income was not usually the major determinant on decisions to improve,
especially in low-income housing areas (Tipple, 2000). As he posits, in areas where
incremental housing improvement are possible, income was not found to be a significant
determinant in influencing housing improvement.
Thus, based on these arguments, it is important to understand the impact of
income in the housing improvement activities of households. Consequently, the following
sections will examine the household income to see how income may affect the housing
improvement motivations of household in the Gultepe District.
7.2.5.1. Implication of Household Income on Housing Improvement
To determine the influence of household income on the housing improvement
motives of households, I have looked at both the distribution of total household income
and the saving ability of households in order to determine the different levels of wealth in
households. Additionally, I have also analyzed occupation status, labor-force and regular
salary of households to see if there was a relationship between these variables and the
housing improvement motives of households.
As shown in Table 7.21, the monthly household income of households in the
Gultepe District swung either between the income bracket of the minimum wage earners
(earners between 301 and 400 Turkish Liras (TL)) and the income bracket of the middle
and upper wage earners (earners with 900 TL and more). According to Turkish Statistical
Institute data sets, the average gross minimum wage was determined to be 488 TL in

226
2005, with the net amount of 350 TL, which is the equivalent of US$259.58 in 2009.
42

Although the national data of Turkish Statistical Institute specified that none of the
households were working for less than US$1 per day and hence were not in the extreme
poverty level in Turkey, Table 7.21 indicates that households in the minimum wage in the
Gultepe District represent that the population in the district was living in economic
constraints in terms of income level.
Table 7.21: Total Household Income (Monthly Income)
43

Improvers Non-improvers
Household Income
a

Pre-
dwellers
Post-
dwellers Total
Pre-
dwellers
Post-
dwellers Total Owner Renter
Less than 200 TL
4 0 4 0 1 1 5 5
1.2% .0% 1.1% .0% 2.5% 1.1% 1.1% 2.9%
Between 200-300 TL
3 2 5 1 2 3 8 12
.9% 7.1% 1.4% 1.9% 5.0% 3.3% 1.8% 6.9%
Between 301-400 TL
67 9 76 12 13 25 101 49
20.9% 32.1% 21.8% 23.1% 32.5% 27.2% 22.9% 28.3%
Between 401-500 TL
23 3 26 4 10 14 40 28
7.2% 10.7% 7.4% 7.7% 25.0% 15.2% 9.1% 16.2%
Between 501-600 TL
19 2 21 7 2 9 30 14
5.9% 7.1% 6.0% 13.5% 5.0% 9.8% 6.8% 8.1%
Between 601-700 TL
46 2 48 8 2 10 58 16
14.3% 7.1% 13.8% 15.4% 5.0% 10.9% 13.2% 9.2%
Between 701-800 TL
38 0 38 5 4 9 47 20
11.8% .0% 10.9% 9.6% 10.0% 8.8% 10.7% 11.6%
Between 801-900 TL
39 4 43 3 2 5 48 10
12.1% 14.3% 12.3% 5.8% 5.0% 5.4% 10.9% 5.8%
More than 900 TL
82 6 88 12 4 16 104 19
25.5% 21.4% 25.2% 23.0% 10.0% 17.4% 23.6% 11.0%
Total Units 321 28 349 52 40 92 441 173
% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Izmir
b
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: (a) Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; (b) SIS, 2000c.
When looking at these two income brackets in Table 7.21 and comparing the
differences between households, it was found that improvers earned more than the non-
improvers, which was not surprising. In other words, while 25.2% of improvers earned

42
See Appendix B for details.
43
Average gross minimum wage was determined by the Turkish Government as 488 YTL. The exchange rate of US$1
was equal to 1.3483 Turkish Liras in 2005. See Appendix A and B for details.

227
900TL and more, this rate was only 17.4% for non-improvers. By the same token, while
27.2% of non-improvers earned between 301 and 400TL, this rate was only 21.8% for
improvers. When looking at the chi-square analysis between dwellers in connection with
the household income variable, it was found that there was a statistically significant
difference between households in terms of their household income level, which indicates
that household income influenced the housing improvement motives of households in the
Gultepe District (Table 7.22).
Table 7.22: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Old and New Dwellers in Undertaken
Improvements by Income
Household Income by Dwellers Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 43.252
a
24 .009
Likelihood Ratio 42.245 24 .012
Linear-by-Linear Association 13.391 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 441
a. 18 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .32.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
On the other hand, among all different groups in the population, renters were
found to be the most vulnerable groups in all households. When looking at the
differences between owners and renters in terms of the income level of households, a
statistical difference between owners and renters was found (Table 7.23). As Table 7.21
also illustrates, renters were mostly minimum wage earners. 28.3% of renters have
household income between 301 and 400TL, while renters comprise only 11% of the
group that earn 900TL or more.

228
Table 7.23: Chi-Square Test of Differences of Dwellers in Undertaken Improvements by
Ownership and Income
Household Income by Ownership Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 34.763
a
8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 34.521 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 24.949 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 614
a. 18 cells (5.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.82.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
In sum, household income had an impact on the housing improvement motives of
households in the Gultepe District. While renters were the most vulnerable group among
all, all non-improvers could not improve their units due to the economic constraints they
are facing within their families. These all indicate that housing improvement could only
be possible within households with better income situations. This would suggest that it is
important to create support systems for lower-income households within the slum
upgrading programs in order to achieve an effective and high level of housing upgrading
within slum areas.
7.2.5.2. Additional Income as Wealth Determinant
It is important to note, however, that the higher income of improvers in Gultepe
District was not due to the fact that improvers had more professional or higher status jobs
that generated more income than the non-improvers. It was usually simply that more than
one member per household among improvers were in the work force.
In fact, as Table 7.24 illustrates, this was especially the case for the old slum
dwellers. They were generating more income mainly because there was more than one
person with a regular income. When looking at the number of people with regular salaries
per household, it was found that additional income in the households made an impact on
their ability to improve their units. This picture of slum dwellers also indicates that

229
households in pre-upgrading households were in their mature years with more retired
population in their units. Thus, households who could not generate more income for their
families were less likely to undertake any housing improvement activities in their units.
Table 7.24: Additional Income of Households
Improvers Non-improvers
Additional Income
Pre-
dwellers
Post-
dwellers Total
Pre-
dwellers
Post-
dwellers Total
No. of people in work force (median) 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of people with regular salary(median) 2 1 2 1 1 1
Additional Income in Households (%) 70% 3% 73% 5% 23% 27%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

7.2.6. Occupation of Households
The economic activities and employment status of households were other
determinants that may reflect household wealth and the social status of households within
the society. It was expected that households with stable or regular jobs with longer years
in employment tended to improve their dwellings.
As Table 7.25 depicts, the households in the Gultepe District predominantly
worked at jobs in the manufacturing or service sectors, and were working as regular
employees in secured jobs with regular salaries. However, older households who had
improved their housing units differed from others, particularly those who had not
undertaken housing improvement. Older households who improved their units had a
higher rate of job security and retired people in their families than the other groups,
which explains that housing improvement was related to stable income.

230
Table 7.25: Occupation and Employment Status of Head of Households
Major economic activities: (%) Manufacturing Services
Pre-Improvers 22 29
Post-improvers 1 3
Pre-non-improvers 5 10
Post-non-improvers 9 20
Improvers 23 32
Non-improvers 14 30
Izmir
a
25 37
Occupation type: (%) Regular employment Retired pop
Pre-Improvers 20 30
Post-improvers 4 1
Pre-non-improvers 6 8
Post-non-improvers 23 4
Improvers 24 31
Non-improvers 29 12
Izmir 67 17
Pre-Improvers 42 7
Post-improvers 3 1
Pre-non-improvers 13 2
Post-non-improvers 23 4
Improvers 45 8
Non-improvers 36 6
Izmir 59 20
Job Security: (%) Jobs with security No security
Pre-Improvers 47 3
Post-improvers 3 1
Pre-non-improvers 13 2
Post-non-improvers 21 8
Improvers 50 4
Non-improvers 32 10
Izmir N/A N/A
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; (a) SIS, 2000c.
Additionally, the length of time in jobs of households also created incentives for
households to improve their units. For instance, old dwellers that improved their units
had been in the same jobs for longer years (an average of 20 years) than the other
households. In sum, among all, secure jobs, years being in the same job, and the number
of retired people in households seemed to be the only explanatory variables for
influencing the decision of households on improving their units. Overall, as the findings
suggest, income was the primary determinant of housing improvement motives of
households in the Gultepe District.

231
7.3. Housing Improvement to Create Household Satisfaction Among Households
This section evaluates the second argument of this chapter that user-initiated
housing improvement not only increased the housing size of units, it also created
neighborhood satisfaction in households and helped prevent population displacement.
Based on this argument, it was expected that a higher rate of neighborhood satisfaction of
households in the Gultepe District would be associated with the housing improvement
activities of households.
Improving the slum conditions and protecting the actual population in their
original residential areas have become the major focus of slum upgrading programs since
the early 1970s. Following Turner’s ideas on self-help, various upgrading programs have
tried to prevent the actual slum population from moving after the implementation of
upgrading programs. However, the outcomes of the upgrading programs have not been as
successful as the theorists anticipated. Contrary to what was expected, the outcomes of
upgrading programs, particularly those that were implemented through market-driven
forces, have created high levels of population displacement in the upgraded areas
(Mukhija, 2003; Ozdemir, 1998). Some scholars also argue that even upgrading the slum
areas by transforming old one-story slum units into multi-story apartment buildings can
cause population displacement due to the fact that slum households have lost the
attachment to their neighborhoods that they had in their previous old slum neighborhoods
(Erman, 1997; Senyapili, 1993). However, I argue that community-driven housing
upgrading process has been a powerful source in creating housing satisfaction and that it
helps keep the actual population in place.

232
7.3.1. Physical Conditions of Dwellings
To understand the impact of housing improvement activities over housing and
neighborhood satisfaction of households, this section first examines the physical
conditions of housing structures in the district in order to try to understand if housing
improvement has increased the housing satisfaction of households. It then examines how
such improvement influenced the neighborhood satisfaction of households.
It was expected that households that improved their units did so to improve
physical conditions and to create more space and room in their units over time. In fact,
the t-test analysis between households and housing size (m
2
) shows that there was a
statistically significant difference between improvers and non-improvers in terms of
housing size (Table 7.26).
The dimensions of such difference are illustrated in Table 7.27, which indicates
that housing units have increased in size along with user-initiated housing improvements.
When comparing the housing sizes of improvers and non-improvers, it was found that,
overall, improvers had increased the size of their dwellings 15% more than the non-
improvers. Among all households, old dwellers who improved their units had in fact
created more space for the use of their families. When comparing the old dwellers that
improved their units (pre-improvers) with the old dwellers that did not improve their
units (pre-non-improvers), it was found that improvers, by a 30% difference, have made a
greater space increase in their units. Table 7.26 indicates that the housing improvement
activities of households do impact on space increases in their units as compared to those
that did not undertake any improvement activities in their dwellings.

233
Table 7.26: Independent Samples t-Test between Households and Housing Size (m
2
)

Housing
Improvement N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Housing Unit size
(m2) no-extensions 88 81.95 15.263 1.627

extended units 341 98.29 25.652 1.389

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Housing Unit
size (m2) F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper
Equal
variances
assumed 12.882 .000 -5.715 427 .000 -16.336 2.858 -21.954 -10.718
Equal
variances not
assumed -7.636 228.93 .000 -16.336 2.139 -20.551 -12.120
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
When we compare the number of rooms in dwelling units in original units and
current units, we also observed that the current units have more space. While the original
units were mostly two-room units, the current units are three-room units.
44
Although it is
striking to observe that most units were originally built with two rooms in Gultepe
District, a previous study of Ayan (1973) from Gultepe District has also confirmed that
this was the case for the Gultepe District slum dwellings (Ayan, 1973). The received
wisdom informs us that the original units were mostly the temporary units that were
incrementally built and improved over time. Nevertheless it indicates that dwellings in
Gultepe District had already begun their journey to improved housing.

44
Although it seems that only a slight increase in units has occurred (with one room additions to the units) it is
important to keep in mind that the expansions are both covers the additional rooms to the actual units as well as new
building up the new units. However, table 7.27 only evaluates the physical conditions of interviewed units.

234
Table 7.27: Increase in Housing Size in Slum Dwellings
Neighborhoods Saygi Millet M.Akif
26
Agustos Y.Selim Zeybek Huzur Anadolu Trakya Murat

Gultepe
a
Izmir
b
Size of current house (m2) (median) N/A
Pre-Improver 96 105 97 96 90 95 95 98 96 96 99
Post-improver 90 100 85 115 95 130 . 120 95 95 95
Pre-non-improver 73 78 82 75 73 72 80 68 75 80 78
Post-non-improver 80 90 95 90 86 90 90 80 95 85 90
Improvers 96 103 95 96 90 95 95 99 95 96 98
Non-improvers 76 84 89 83 80 82 85 78 85 83 86
Number of rooms: (median)

Originally 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N/A
Currently 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N/A
Houses provided with inside kitchen (%)
Originally 78 66 57 55 59 65 76 54 70 64 62 N/A
Currently 100 98 100 85 97 100 100 100 97 99 97 97
Houses provided with inside toilet (%)
originally 25 23 40 20 19 27 43 12 18 33 28 N/A
currently 96 95 100 85 97 92 95 100 94 95 94 86
Services provided for units (%)

Houses provided with water source:
originally 35 19 29 24 15 18 21 25 16 20 22 N/A
currently 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94
Houses provided with sewage system:
originally 35 21 29 22 11 18 21 25 12 24 22 N/A
currently 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A
Houses provided with electricity source:
originally 35 20 29 24 15 18 22 25 15 20 22 N/A
currently 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A
Source: (a) Household Interview Results, 2005-2006; (b) SIS, Census of Population 2000c.

235
The building structures of dwellings also have shown improvement in terms of the
materials used during the transformation process. In fact, improvement in building
structure has been mainly the outcome of the high rate of rebuilding the units by
households. Moreover, some basic facilities such as lavatory and kitchen facilities have
been attached to the main structure of housing units over time through the rebuilding
activities of units, which has improved the livability of dwelling units by their users.
Overall, we observe that the services provided for the units in the Gultepe District have
improved dramatically. While the original slums lacked water, electricity and sewage
supply systems in their units, almost all now have such services. Supporting the units
with public services along with the housing improvements of households has both helped
to enhance the actual value and sustainability of dwellings for their users. In sum,
physical conditions of housing units have improved drastically through the user-initiated
housing improvement activities.
7.3.2. Neighborhood Satisfaction of Households
One of the issues addressed in the current study is whether housing improvement
had an impact on the increase on the neighborhood satisfaction level of households. To
understand this, households were asked if they were happy with the public services
provided for their neighborhoods, and if they were not happy with the public services,
they were then asked what kinds of problems they were facing in their neighborhoods
that they would like to see resolved (Table 7.28).
When examining the differences between households – between old and new
households, between improvers and non-improvers, and between owners and renters – in
terms of neighborhood satisfaction, there was no statistically significant difference

236
observed from the data in the various groups. As Table 7.28 shows, households in the
Gultepe District overall stated that they were satisfied with public services (e.g.,
electricity, water supply, roads, parks, transportation, etc.) provided for their
neighborhoods. While 74% of households were satisfied with the provided public
services, 26% of the households indicated that they were not satisfied at all.
When the households were asked to identify the most important three problems
they thought they were facing in their neighborhoods, inadequate social facilities, public
transportation, and increasing crime alerts were identified as the most crucial problems in
the neighborhoods of the Gultepe District. Households specifically pointed out that the
neighborhoods did not provide adequate amount of parks and playgrounds for their
children (Table 7.28).
Table 7.28: Neighborhood Satisfaction of Households on Public Services
Satisfied Unsatisfied don’t know
Satisfied from provided public services: (%)
Households
Pre-Improver 73 26 0.6
Post-improver 71 29 0
Pre-non-improver 75 25 0
Post-non-improver 73 25 1.7
Total 74 26 0.8
Tenure Characteristics by Ownership
Main Owners 73 26 1.3
Children of main owners 72 28 0
Renters 75 24 0.6
Tenure Characteristics
Owners 73 26 0.9
Renters 75 24 0.6
Public services required by households: (%)
1st 2nd 3rd
Inadequate social facilities (mainly parks) 36 - -
Inadequate public transportation - 30 -
Increasing crime alerts - - 19
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
As these identified problems reflect, although households have indicated that they
were generally happy with the public services provided, the problems they have been

237
facing in their neighborhoods certainly influenced their satisfaction level with the
neighborhoods. Thus, it might be expected that the problems they have pointed out might
have an influence on households in their future decisions to stay or move. To see if
neighborhood satisfaction was associated with the provided services, the respondents
were asked if they had considered moving into other neighborhoods in Izmir metropolitan
city. However, it is found that, overall households did not consider moving out of their
units.
As Table 7.29 indicates, the majority of households in the district did not consider
moving out from their neighborhoods. In fact, regardless of the problems they specified,
they reported that they were happy with their neighborhoods. On the other hand, there
were some differences observed among households in terms of the desire to move to
some other neighborhoods. For instance, non-improvers considered moving out more
than the improvers (59%). However, households who improved their units tended not to
want to move (60%).
When comparing the households in terms of their neighborhood satisfaction level,
it was found that the observed difference between improvers and non-improvers (Table
7.29) was in fact a statistically significant difference. This indicates that user-initiated
housing improvement activities do in fact increase the neighborhood satisfaction among
households (Table 7.30).

238
Table 7.29: Do Dwellers Consider Moving? (Neighborhood Satisfaction)
Dwellers Yes row% No row% total
Pre-Improver
36 11% 285 89% 321
Post-improver
3 11% 25 89% 28
Pre-non-improver
16 17% 76 83% 92
Post-non-improver
40 23% 133 77% 173
Improvers
39 41% 310 60% 349
Non-improvers
56 59% 209 40% 265
total
95 15% 519 85% 614
Yes row% No row% total
Owners
19 6% 292 94% 311
Family owned
30 19% 100 77% 130
Renters
46 27% 127 73% 173
total
95 16% 519 85% 614
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

Table 7.30: Chi-Square of Differences of Dwellers by Housing Improvement and
Neighborhood Satisfaction
Neighborhood Satisfaction Happy Not Happy Total
Non-improvers 209 56 265
Improvers 310 39 349
Total 519 95 614

Value df
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.419
a
1 .001
Continuity Correction
b
10.670 1 .001
Likelihood Ratio 11.312 1 .001
Fisher's Exact Test .001 .001
Linear-by-Linear
Association 11.400 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 614
a. 18 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 41.00.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
When comparing the owners and renters in terms of neighborhood satisfaction, it
was observed that, among households who considered moving out, renters (27%) and
second generation households (19%) demonstrated a greater intention to move out of
their neighborhoods (Table 7.29). In fact, as Table 7.31 illustrates, there was a

239
statistically significant difference between renters and owners in terms of housing
satisfaction levels.
Table 7.31: Chi-Square of Differences of Dwellers by Homeownership and
Neighborhood Satisfaction
Neighborhood Satisfaction Yes No Total
Homeowners 387 54 441
Renters 132 41 173
Total 519 95 614

Value df
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 12.466
a
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
11.605 1 .001
Likelihood Ratio 11.668 1 .001
Fisher's Exact Test .001 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 12.445 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 614
a. 18 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 26.77.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
According to the findings illustrated in tables (Tables 7.28 thru 7.31), renters were
less satisfied with their neighborhoods mostly because they did not have housing and
neighborhood attachments due to the fact that they had not improved their units. On the
other contrary, owners were generally satisfied with their neighborhoods due to the fact
that they improved their units. In sum, user-initiated housing improvements motives of
households in fact created neighborhood satisfaction among households so they tended to
want to stay in their locations. In other words, the user-driven upgrading process
encouraged the actual population to remain in their homes.
7.3.3. Reasons to Move
Households who considered moving pointed out that they would like to move into
neighborhoods that were equipped with better physical and social services. Moving into
better equipped neighborhoods with recreational places and other social amenities was

240
the major reason that households would consider moving. On the other hand, renters
mostly indicated economic reasons for considering moving to other neighborhoods.
Renters were the most vulnerable group in terms of income level, and had a harder time
supporting themselves even in lower-income household neighborhoods such as the
Gultepe District (Table 7.32).
Table 7.32: Reasons of Households to Consider Moving
Dwellers
to an
economic
place
to a better
equipped
place
be closer
to work
be closer to
relatives
to own a
house
to a safer
place total
Pre-improver 0% 56% 16% 6% 23% 19% 100%
Post-improver 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 67% 100%
Pre-non-improver 13% 31% 0% 6% 19% 31% 100%
Post-non-improver 23% 38% 8% 5% 25% 3% 100%
Total 12% 43% 9% 5% 15% 16% 100%

Owner 11% 42% 0% 11% 0% 32% 100%
Family owned 0% 60% 10% 3% 10% 17% 100%
Renter 20% 33% 11% 4% 24% 9% 100%
Total 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
One of the most interesting insights gained from the data was that households that
considered moving also indicated safety issues as their other major concerns about the
neighborhoods. Owners especially indicated safety concerns. 32% of the households that
mentioned safety issues were owners. In sum, while renters were more concerned about
rental prices, safety issues were more of the owners’ concerns, particularly among the
older households that had been living in the neighborhoods for longer periods of time.
Overall, as the findings on neighborhood satisfaction have pointed out in this
section, it was observed that housing improvement activities of households did have a
positive impact on housing satisfaction. Households who improved their units in the
district demonstrated greater satisfaction and less willingness to move out of their
neighborhoods. This would confirm that user-initiated housing improvements were a tool

241
that helped upgrading old slum areas while also controlling their neighborhoods.
Additionally, user-driven involvement not only helps preserving the population turnover
occur in upgraded slum areas, but also preserves the housing stocks for the use of lower-
income groups in better physical shape with better public and private services more
effectively than other types of slum upgrading plans.
7.4. The Transformation Process: Upgrading or Customization?
This section attempts to evaluate the third argument of this dissertation in order to
understand how the housing transformation process through user-initiated involvement
has been realized. The argument is that user-initiated housing upgrading process takes
place under the rules of informal arrangements rather than following the officially
determined planning regulations of upgrading plans due to the fact that planning
regulations do not usually coincide with the housing needs of households. In examining
this, this section looks at the way in which the housing improvement activities of
households have taken place with the connection to the planning regulations and
evaluates the perceptions of households about the officially introduced upgrading plans in
order to understand how the plans could respond to the housing needs and abilities of
households in the Gultepe District.
User-initiated housing improvement in Gultepe District is supposedly associated
with the planning regulations of the introduced slum upgrading plans in Gultepe
neighborhoods. However, the literature tells us that the administrative rules, planning
regulations, and planning standards have been mostly introduced with higher
expectations that do not usually match the housing demands of slum households (Payne,
2001; Payne & Majale, 2004).

242
Yet, as we have seen in the previous sections, slum upgrading plans introduced to
Gultepe neighborhoods have been careful about assigning the users to their existing land
and careful about protecting the actual neighborhoods in the neighborhood by not
designating much population increase in the slum upgrading plans. Therefore, it is more
likely to expect that user-initiated housing transformations in Gultepe neighborhoods
would coincide with the slum upgrading planning regulations. However, based on the
argument in the literature, it is important to evaluate the relationship between the
household transformation process and the planning regulations.
7.4.1. Construction Process of Households
The incremental construction process has been indicated as the most common
characteristic of informal housing arrangements. Additionally, as the housing adjustment
literature argues, housing improvement activities usually take place when households are
faced with a ‘housing stress’ or ‘housing shock’ in their dwelling units, referring to the
gradual housing improvement process (Seek, 1983). Thus, it is more likely to expect that
housing improvements in Gultepe neighborhoods might have been realized
incrementally, meaning that households have made extensions to their units when they
thought it was necessary for them to expand their units. To understand how the housing
improvements have taken place in the Gultepe District, I examined the sequence of years
over which the households extended their units (Table 7.33).
As Table 7.33 indicates, the approximate construction period of slum dwellings in
the extension process is 6.3 years, indicating that it usually took 6.3 years after moving in

243
for households to make housing extensions for their units.
45
However there was a
difference between old and new households. It was found that while new households
(post-improvers) have improved their units more quickly than the old slum dwellers (4.7
years), old households (pre-improvers) have taken more time to improve their units (6.5
years). This indicates that old dwellers, when they need housing improvement for their
units, were able to improve more quickly than the old dwellers. In fact, in some
neighborhoods, new dwellers have even been able to improve their units within a one-
year period (Table 7.33).
Table 7.33: Length of Years to Make Extensions (mean value)
Neighbor
hoods S Mi M.A 26.A Y.S Z H A T M Gultepe
Pre-Improver 8.2 8.6 3.8 4.8 8.7 3.7 4.2 3.8 6.8 7.4 6.5
Post-improver 5.6 6.0 1.0 4.5 1.0 6.0 . 1.0 1.0 5.3 4.7
total improvers 7.9 8.4 3.6 4.8 8.4 3.8 4.2 3.7 6.4 7.1 6.3
Main unit
extension 2.0 1.8 2.7 1.8 5.7 3.3 2.4 2.0 3.0 1.3 2.6
Rebuilding the
unit 7.6 8.8 2.8 6.0 9.8 3.8 4.0 4.8 6.7 7.3 6.7
Upper floor
extension 11.6 11.6 8.5 3.7 5.0 5.0 13.5 2.9 9.0 8.4 7.9
total 7.9 8.4 3.6 4.8 8.4 3.8 4.2 3.7 6.4 7.1 6.3
S= Saygi, Mi= Millet, M.A= M.Akif, 26A= 26Agustos, Y.S= YSelim, Z= Zeybek, H= Huzur, A= Anadolu,
T= Trakya, Mu=Murat
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
When looking at the motives of housing improvements of households, it was
found that making extensions to the main unit on the ground level took less time than
making upper level extensions or rebuilding the units. When main units were extended
within 2.6 years overall, upper floor extensions have taken 7.9 years and rebuilding the
units have taken 6.7 years. One interesting point in this picture is that upper floor

45
The extension years only indicate the current situation of households. Yet, it does not mean that extending housing is
an ended-process. The results only indicate the position of households in making extensions to their units by the time I
interviewed them between September 2005 and July 2006.

244
extensions usually have taken more time than rebuilding the units from the scratch. This
is likely related to the economic constraints of households.
7.4.2. Timing of the Construction Process
Examining the timing of the transformation process of dwellings in Gultepe
District, it is interesting to observe that most housing improvements began decades after
the households’ first occupancy periods. Overall total improvers have undertaken their
first improvement actions 24 years after the first construction period of their buildings
(from 1960 to 1984). Old households (pre-improvers) first began improving their units 21
years later after their buildings were constructed, and the new households (post-
improvers) began to make their first housing improvement activity 34 years after their
original housing units were constructed. This picture particularly tells us that although
old slum dwellers were eventually able to make housing extensions, it took them a long
time to begin.
Table 7.34: Years of Extension Phases of Upgraded Units
Years of extensions
First year of
buildings
a

First year to
extend
Years to
extend 2nd
floors
Years to
extend 3rd
floors
Pre-Improver 1,960 1,981 1,988 1,993
Post-improver 1,960 1,994 1,996 1,999
total improvers 1,960 1,984 1,988 1,994
Main unit extension 1,960 1,978 . .
Rebuilding the unit 1,960 1,984 1,988 1,992
Upper floor extension 1,962 1,984 1,989 2,000
total units extended 1,960 1,984 1,988 1,994
a= First year of building represents the construction year of the original building instead of households
first time to start living in the building.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
Additionally, it was found that although the first initiations began very late,
housing dwellings have continued to be improved over time through user-initiated

245
extensions. As Table 7.34 illustrates, after the first extensions were made on the first
floors, the upper floor extensions were made more quickly. After the first extensions
were made, the households made incremental extensions for their units over time. For
instance, households who made second floor extensions for their units have mostly made
such extensions within four years after the first extensions were occurred. By the same
token, when the households extended their third and upper floors, they usually have made
such improvements within six years after they extended the second floors of their
dwellings. What is striking in this picture is that old households have extended their
upper floors much later than the new households, indicating that old dwellers face greater
economic constraints and that the new dwellers for some reason were better able to make
housing improvements.
In sum, user-initiated housing improvements have upgraded their dwellings
incrementally, mostly when they needed additional spaces to house their growing
families. User-initiated improvements in the Gultepe District generally happened under
the rubric of the incremental housing construction process.
7.4.3. Construction Process: Who Construct the Units?
Extensions to existing units are ideally suited to self-help initiatives, meaning that
extensions were being done by the labor of the actual households. However, as the
housing literature in the developing nations points out, the self-help method is no longer a
common phenomenon for the construction process of slum dwellings (Baross & Van Der
Linden, 1990; Gilbert & Varley, 1991; Mukhija, 2002; Yonder, 1987). Instead,
commercial construction processes through paid workers or tradesmen has become the
most common method for constructing slum dwellings (Tipple, 2000). The impact of

246
commercialization on the construction process of informal units has also been
significantly observed in the Turkish context. Like many others, Yonder and Oncu have
pointed out the changing nature of the construction process of slum areas with more
involvement by small-scale build-and-sell contractors (Oncu, 1988; Yonder, 1987).
Examining the construction process of housing extensions in Gultepe
neighborhoods, it was found that the dominant group that made the housing extensions
were the small-scale tradesmen. Even the small scale build-and-sell contractors were not
preferred by households while improving their units in the Gultepe District (Table 7.35).
Table 7.35: Who Made the Extensions?
Dwellers self-help
paid
workers/
tradesmen
single
contractor
mixed /self-
help plus
paid
workers total

Pre-Improver 71 210 21 19 321
% 22.1% 65.4% 6.5% 5.9% 100.0%
Post-improver 6 14 7 1 28
% 21.4% 50.0% 25.0% 3.6% 100.0%
Extending main units 27 16 0 2 45
% 60.0% 35.6% .0% 4.4% 100.0%
Rebuilding the units 30 176 25 12 243
% 12.3% 72.4% 10.3% 4.9% 100.0%
Upper floor extensions 20 32 3 6 61
% 32.8% 52.5% 4.9% 9.8% 100.0%
total extended units 77 224 28 20 349
% 22.1% 64.2% 8.0% 5.7% 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
The primary reason for this seems to be the form of payment that the dwellers had
to make if they made agreements with the small-scale contractors. If the households
chose contractors while expanding their units, they had to make regular payments to the
contractors, usually installment payments. However, households hired tradesmen on a
daily basis and made the payments as they went along. Such agreement and payment
options helped the households both to control the decisions and designs of the
improvements, and to more carefully control and monitor their budgets based on their

247
economic abilities. As it was found, even the households who rebuilt their units from
scratch preferred hiring tradesmen rather than contractors (Table 7.35).
Evaluating Table 7.35, only the new households preferred hiring single
contractors more than the old households. Among new households that improved their
units (post-improvers), 25% of the post-improvers preferred hiring single contractors
while this rate was only 6.5% for the pre-improvers. Old dwellers that made extensions to
their units (pre-improvers) usually preferred hiring tradesmen (65.4%) (Table 7.35).
However, the data also tells us that the conventional self-help construction process has
not totally lost all grounds. As Table 7.35 also demonstrates, approximately 20% of the
households who improved their units have used direct family labor force. Self-help
housing extensions were usually in the form of ground level extensions. When the
rebuilding units and upper floor extensions were done it was mostly the tradesmen who
constructed the units. Table 7.35 indicates once again that the self-help housing
construction process, although it has not entirely lost its grounds in slum areas, has been
mostly replaced by paid workers, usually local tradesmen, who have become the major
source for user-initiated housing improvement processes.
7.4.4. Financing the Housing Improvement
Financing has been a major concern for all forms of slum upgrading schemes.
However, as the informal housing literature has documented, the available official
housing financial systems cannot effectively support the lower income households. The
lower income households, with no effective available financial systems for them to use,
usually try to resolve their housing problems by applying to their own resources or even
to informal financial resources (Gough, 1999; Jones and Datta, 1999; Pamuk, 1992).

248
Evaluating the households in the Gultepe District, it was found that almost none
of the households in the district applied to the formal banking system when improving
their units (Table 7.36). Households predominantly financed the improvement of their
units by using their own regular household incomes and savings (55%).
Households using their own income and savings would indicate that households
upgraded their units when the money was available for them to do so. Additionally,
households also applied to various other sources as their second most preferable financial
choice when improving their units. Of the households who undertook housing
improvements for their units, 33% used multiple sources to finance their housing
improvement activities. Multiple sources refer to both household income and savings,
and other monetary sources such as borrowing from relatives or friends, capital from
property sales, or retirement grants. This would indicate that economic constraints were
an important concern among households in improving their units.

249
Table 7.36: Financing the Housing Improvements
Sources used by dwellers Saygi Millet M.Akif 26Agustos Y.Selim Zeybek Huzur Anadolu Trakya Murat Gultepe
bank loan 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 5
% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1%
loan from relatives 1 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 2 4 17
% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 17% 6% 0% 10% 6% 4%
money from real estate sale 6 11 2 0 4 1 2 0 1 6 33
% 9% 15% 7% 0% 9% 3% 4% 0% 5% 9% 7%
household income +savings 29 38 15 28 22 17 35 14 11 32 241
% 44% 53% 50% 70% 51% 57% 66% 64% 55% 49% 55%
multiple sources 30 23 13 11 13 7 12 8 6 21 144
% 45% 32% 43% 28% 30% 23% 23% 36% 30% 32% 33%
Inherited 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 66 72 30 40 43 30 53 22 20 65 441
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

250
7.4.5. Regulations and Upgradation of Slums
Planning regulations introduced for slum upgrading schemes were mostly based
on rigid planning standards that were usually applied for the formal housing areas.
However, as Payne and Majale have recently pointed out, rigid planning regulations are
not really suitable for the slum areas or the housing needs of the slum households (Payne
& Majale, 2004). When the regulatory frameworks were found to be too rigid by the
actual slum households, and they felt that they inhibited and hampered the flexibility they
needed to improve their units, then the households chose to not comply with the planning
rules at all (Horen, 1999; Payne, 2001; Porio & Crisol, 2004; De Souza, 2001).
7.4.5.1. Tenure Rights of Slum Dwellers
It is important to understand if housing improvement activities have indeed
followed the municipalities’ planning regulations for the neighborhoods in the Gultepe
District. This section evaluates the user-initiated housing improvements to see if
households have improved their units within the rules of the planning regulatory
frameworks. For the purpose of such understanding, two aspects were evaluated: (a) if
the households had official title deeds for their lands, and (b) if they had official
permissions for their units prior to the improvement activities undertaken in their units.
One of the major goals of slum upgrading programs is to legalize tenure in the old
slum areas through establishing new regulations. The literature on slum and informal
housing areas has pointed out the importance of legalization of tenure rights for the
success of the slum upgrading programs (Angel, 1983; Friedman et al., 1988; Payne,
1997). In fact, it was found that even de facto recognition of slums by the local
governmental authorities was sufficient for households to invest in their slum units

251
(Horen, 1999). As it is becoming a prerequisite for upgrading slums in illegal housing
areas, the formalization process starts with tenure recognition of slum dwellers.
Since it is an old slum district where slum upgrading plans were introduced
decades ago, it is expected that most households in Gultepe District were already
legalized and had received their official title deeds from the local governmental
authorities. As Table 7.37 illustrates, it was found that almost all households had received
official title deeds for their plots. Overall, 74.8% of dwellers had their official title deeds
for their plots. However, 25.1% of dwellers did not have their official title deeds (Table
7.37). Among households with no title deeds, 11.3% of them were holding government
certificates, which are a semi-legal document that is given to the households as proof that
they are the ones who are residing on certain plots.
46
However, 13.8% of the households
have not even applied for their title deeds or other governmental certificates at all. These
households in fact are illegally residing on their existing parcels. Although the rate of
households with no deeds is low, it still indicates that illegal arrangements are still in
place in many of these old slum neighborhoods in the Gultepe District.

46
For more information, please refer to Chapter 5.

252
Table 7.37: Land Acquisition and Land Tenure of Households
Dwellers originally % currently %
Land acquisitions

bought from previous owner/broker (illegal) 351 79.6% 116 26.3%
bought from the Government (legal) 2 .5% 313 71.0%
Invaded (illegal) 88 20.0% 12 2.7%
total 441 100.0% 441 100.0%

Land tenure
with official deed 85 19.1% 330 74.8%
without official deed (illegal) 350 79.5% 61 13.8%
Government certificate (semi-legal) 6 1.4% 50 11.3%
total 441 100.0% 441 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
As noted in Table 7.37, overall, the land that was originally obtained through
illegal formations (99.6% of households have held their land illegally at some point,
either through illegally buying the land from the previous owner or invading the public
land) was currently formalized by slum upgrading plans. Yet, not all households have
been entirely legalized. With the influence of the slum upgrading programs introduced
for the area, only 74.8% of the households have been able to receive their official titles
after making the payment for their plots through an installment plan that was specified by
their administrative local municipality, the Konak Municipality. In addition, many of
those households that had government certificates for their plots had still not received
their official title deeds because they were not able to make the required payments for
their plots.
To understand the constraints of households who did not currently have official
deeds, the interviewers were asked what would be the most significant reasons for them
not to hold an official title deed. As Table 7.38 depicts, the most significant reason for the
households for not holding official title deeds was specified as the economic-based
constraints they have been facing to make necessary payments for their plots. 65.8% of

households specified that economic reasons
Following this, lengthy and bureaucratic
significant determinant for not applying for official title deeds.
Table 7.38: Reasons Not to
Reasons not apply for title deed
Economic difficulties
Lengthy procedures
No planning permit to upper floors
Inheritance related problems
On the installment payment plan
others
total
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005

Table 7.39: Received Dates
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005
When evaluating the time period for receiving the legal title deeds, it was found
that most of the official title deeds for the
between 1994 and 1998; which
that economic reasons were the most significant determinant.
and bureaucratic procedures were identified as the second most
significant determinant for not applying for official title deeds.
ot to Apply for Legal Title Deed for Lands
pply for title deed Dwellers
73
15
o planning permit to upper floors 9
7
payment plan 5
2
111
Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
Dates of Official Title Deeds for the Land (median)
Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
When evaluating the time period for receiving the legal title deeds, it was found
official title deeds for the plots in the Gultepe District were
; which indicates that slum dwellers have received their legal
253
ignificant determinant.
procedures were identified as the second most
%
65.8%
13.5%
8.1%
6.3%
4.5%
1.8%
100.0%
(median)

When evaluating the time period for receiving the legal title deeds, it was found
were distributed
that slum dwellers have received their legal

254
titles within five and eight years after slum upgrading plans were introduced for the
Gultepe District. As the data analysis illustrates, overall, Gultepe neighborhoods have
mostly completed the legalization process by receiving the official title deeds. However,
it has not yet been completed for many residents.
7.4.5.2. Permissions for Dwellings
The fact that most of the slum households had their official title deeds in the
Gultepe District indicates that most households did follow the planning regulations of the
slum upgrading plans. However, when looking at the data to see if the households
followed the regulations of plans while they were improving their units, it was found that
only 17.2% of households that improved their units had applied for building permissions
from their local municipality, Konak Municipality (Table 7.40). On the contrary, 81.9%
of households had not applied for building permits when improving or rebuilding their
dwellings.
Table 7.40: Building Permissions of Upgraded Units
Reasons not to Apply Building Permissions Units %
too expensive 82 24.3
lengthy procedure 11 3.3
non compliance of planning regulations with user needs 20 5.9
not considered necessary to issue a permit 163 48.4
partly have a permit 1 0.3
have a permit 58 17.2
others 2 0.6
Total 337* 100.0
*= Total units represent the slum dwellers who undertook housing improvements for their units.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
In fact, most households did not even it consider necessary to apply for issuing
permits for their housing improvement activities. As Table 7.40 depicts, 48.4% of the
households did not consider it necessary to apply for an official building permit.
Following them, 24.3% of households of households had not applied for permissions due

255
to economic reasons. They indicated that issuing an official building permit was too
costly a procedure for them. In sum, overall, although most households have legal title
deeds for their plots, their dwelling units were mostly improved outside of the formal
rules of planning regulations, but within of the informal arrangements. Most of the
households that have undertaken housing improvements for their dwellings had not even
thought about applying for a permit.
7.4.6. Household Perceptions of Slum Upgrading Plans
The question of how the slum households in neighborhoods of the Gultepe
District perceived the slum upgrading plans in shaping their neighborhoods is important
in understanding the success of these plans in answering the needs of the households
from their own point of view. To understand if the upgrading plans have succeeded in the
eyes of households and if they were happy with the recreated environment through the
planning regulations of upgrading plans, regardless of whether they were homeowners or
renters, I interviewed old slum dwellers to understand their perceptions about the
implemented plans and their regularized neighborhoods in Gultepe District. Thus, this
section evaluates the perceptions of the old slum dwellers who had been residing in their
neighborhoods before the slum upgrading plans were introduced to the Gultepe District.
7.4.6.1. Household Perceptions on Physical Changes
When the households were asked how they perceived the physical changes that
occurred with the upgrading plan initiatives in their neighborhoods, they mostly specified
that no significant changes had occurred other than some major public service provisions
by the local authorities. Most households did not think that the slum upgrading plans had
brought any increase in the economic value of their housing units or to the neighborhoods

256
in the Gultepe District. In terms of housing value increase, only 9.1% of old slum
dwellers thought that a increase in the housing values of their units was observed after the
upgrading. And 43.4% of the old slum dwellers did not consider there to have been any
important changes in the housing value of their units. Only 47.5% of dwellers thought
that that some increase appeared in the housing value, but even those did not think it was
as high as they had expected (Table 7.41).
Table 7.41: Increase of Housing Value after Slum Upgrading Plans
Dwellers
Head of
households %
high increase 34 9.1
somewhat high increase 178 47.5
moderate increase 113 30.1
no increase 50 13.3
Total 375 100.0
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
As Table 7.41 reflects, it is plausible to assume that households have had higher
expectations from slum upgrading plans, and that they thought that they would bring
more economic advantage to their neighborhoods. Yet, what they have perceived after the
implementation of the plans did not coincide with their hopes.
Table 7.42: Physical Changes Occurred after the Slum Upgrading Plans
Physical changes
Head of
households %
municipality services arrived 109 26.0%
nothing changed 94 22.4%
become a better, organized neighborhood with services 68 16.2%
services arrived with increase in construction process 149 35.5%
Total 420 100.0%
Preference of households
preferred old neighborhood before the slum upgrading
projects 12 2.9%
preferred current neighborhood 392 93.3%
have no other choice to live 16 3.8%
Total 420 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

257
Slum dwellers thought that what upgrading plans have brought to their
neighborhoods were mainly the basic municipality services, such as water, electricity and
sewage supplies, with some increase of additional construction permits introduced by the
slum upgrading development plans. However, overall, households involved in the
upgrading process in their neighborhoods have specified that they preferred the
neighborhoods after the upgrading process occurred. This would indicate that the
households are generally satisfied from their neighborhoods today since they are also
more interested in upgrading their units (Table 7.42). As one of the interviewee posits:
In old days, this neighborhood was barren, there was nothing on it.
Everywhere was highland. But now, we have paved roads, we have
apartments, we have businesses. All here was improved for better. People
built their apartments for their children. They have more rooms for their
children now. We like it here better now. (Interview with Mr. E., a
resident of Saygi, 2006).
42.2% of the households have indicated that the most significant change occurred
in their neighborhoods was the full provision of public services to the neighborhoods.
26% of them thought that municipal services were the only major changes received their
neighborhoods, while 16.2% of them thought that the neighborhood has become a better
and organized neighborhood both through the municipality services and the planning
regulations of upgrading plans. This would indicate that the dominant perception of
households about what the upgrading initiations have brought to their communities was
the provision of basic services by the local municipality.
Yet, most of the households stated that they preferred the current conditions of
neighborhoods to the previous conditions. 93.3% of households stated that they liked
their current neighborhoods better than before. When they were asked about their

258
preferences, only 3.8% said that although they did not prefer living in these
neighborhoods with the current conditions; they stated that they had no other choice but
to live here. Additionally, only 2.9% of the households stated that they preferred the
previous conditions of neighborhoods, mainly because they had better interactions with
their neighbors. Mrs. A. stated in her interview that:
Twenty years ago the streets were ours. In the good weathers, we always
sat in front of our porches and spoke with neighbors. We saw each other
all day long. We knew who was good or who was bad; who was in trouble
so we could help. Now, we know nobody. All these apartments make us
stay home. Our children are also like in prison. Before, they were playing
outside all day long. But now, they cannot go out. There is no place to
play. Now, all we have is this little courtyard. But, we do not know our
neighbors any more. I miss my old days. (Interview with Mrs. A, a
resident of Zeybek, 2006).
In sum, although slum upgrading planning initiations have not fulfilled the
expectations of households for more economic gains through the implementation of
upgrading plans, they also perceived that the slum upgrading plans have brought the basic
services to their neighborhoods and thus improved the physical conditions of their
neighborhoods, which make them feel more satisfied about their neighborhoods.
7.4.6.2. Household Perceptions on Household Characteristics
Households who had been residing in the same neighborhoods for about two
decades have perceived that most households in the area were still held by the older
homeowners, indicating that although more people were added to the neighborhoods by
the slum upgrading plans, overall, residents were still familiar with their neighbors. 48%
of the old dwellers have stated that the households in the neighborhoods were
predominantly homeowners. Yet, 34.4% of households indicated that the slum upgrading
plans have brought rental arrangements into the area. However, only the 17.6% of

259
households have stated that they saw an increasing level in rental arrangements (Table
7.43).
Table 7.43: Increase of Renters
Dwellers Head of Households %
predominantly homeowners 191 48.0
some renters but mostly owners 137 34.4
increasingly renters 70 17.6
Total 398 100.0
Length of stay in neighborhoods

long-term stay by owners 318 78.9
increased household movement 49 12.2
long-term stay by owners, short-term stay by renters 36 8.9
Total 403 100.0
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
The results shown in Table 7.43 indicate that although households acknowledged
an increasing amount of rental arrangements after the slum upgrading, they felt that the
dominant groups in the neighborhoods were still the owners, not the renters. They also
perceived that residents in their neighborhoods were usually staying in neighborhoods for
longer period of times. As was stated, 78.9% of the households had long-term residents.
On the other hand, although it was a small percentage, 12.2% of households stated that
the general habit of households of staying in the neighborhoods for longer periods of time
was declining, indicating that there appeared to be a certain amount of household
mobility in the Gultepe neighborhoods, and that it was increasing.
7.4.6.3. Perceptions on Residential Mobility of Households
As the findings suggest us, user-initiated housing improvements have positively
contributed to less neighborhood mobility in the neighborhoods of the Gultepe District.
Households also perceived that households, especially older households, did not intend to

260
move. However, more recently households have started perceiving an increased
residential mobility in Gultepe neighborhoods. 52.8% of households have stated that they
observed moderate mobility in their neighborhoods, while 27.4% of households saw only
minor mobility in their neighborhoods. In other words, 80.2% of households saw
household mobility in their neighborhoods, while only 19.8% have indicated no mobility
at all (Table 7.44).
Table 7.44: Mobility Rate of Households
Mobility perception of households Head of households %
moderate mobility 210 52.8%
minor mobility 109 27.4%
no mobility 79 19.8%
Total 398 100.0%
Mobility period
some mobility started 5 years ago 65 31.0%
some mobility started 10 years ago 141 67.1%
some mobility started 15 years ago 4 1.9%
Total 210 100.0%
Reason to move out
movers were not happy with Gultepe 24 6.9%
new place is closer to work/relatives 8 2.3%
new place is better equipped neighborhood 95 27.4%
new place is safer and better equipped neighborhood 164 47.3%
new place is a safer neighborhood 13 3.7%
to become a homeowner 21 6.1%
for economic reasons 22 6.3%
Total 347 100.0%
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.
When they were asked when the households began observing the housing
mobility in their neighborhoods, 67.1% of households stated that household mobility
became particularly observable in their neighborhoods 10 years ago (in 1996), while 31%
of households said that housing mobility was a recent phenomenon that began to happen
five years ago. These perceptions of households indicate that household mobility had
become especially noticeable after legalization processes were introduced to Gultepe
neighborhoods. In other words, considering that most of the households received their

261
official title deeds between 1994 and 1998 in Gultepe neighborhoods, the perceived
household mobility beginning in 1996 indicates that households began being more
mobile after receiving their official title deeds.
When the households were asked about their perceptions on why some of the
households have moved out, 47.3% of households stated that the households have moved
because of the inadequate public services and facilities provided in the neighborhoods of
the Gultepe District. The movers, as the current residents of Gultepe neighborhoods have
perceived it, have moved to the neighborhoods with better services (e.g., parks,
playgrounds, better transportation services to various places to the city) and to those that
provided safer environments. Additionally, 27.4% of households in the Gultepe
neighborhoods also stated the important role of better serviced neighborhoods in the
decision to move out of the Gultepe neighborhoods. Overall, it was found that most of the
current households in Gultepe neighborhoods felt that the movers have moved mostly in
order to receive better public services. Following this, according to the current household
perceptions, the safety concern also takes an important role for the movers to move into
other neighborhoods. For instance Mrs. M., as becoming the voice of households in the
Gultepe neighborhoods, noted how the safety has become a problem for Gultepe
neighborhoods:
Yes, it is true that our neighborhoods have improved. We have roads, we
have buses. But, our neighborhoods are not the same any more. We cannot
go out with our children anymore. Because we are afraid that something
bad will happen to them. We cannot let our children go and play on their
own to the park two blocks away from our house. Our parks are occupied
by bum people. Our youngsters have no jobs. So, they prefer drinking
alcohol. They drink alcohol in our parks. We have no security anymore.
Neighbors burglarize neighbors in this neighborhood. No! Nothing is the
same here anymore. People are looking forward finding ways to escape

262
from Gultepe. They want their kids to survive, to live in better
neighborhoods. If they can move, they do so. They move to Buca,
Bornova, all better places to live. What are they going to do here?
(Interview with Mrs. M., a resident of Millet, 2006).
In sum, perceptions of households on their neighborhoods after the
implementation of slum upgrading reflect that although slum upgrading enhanced the
physical conditions of neighborhoods and improved the satisfaction level of the actual
households, the growing rental arrangements that have emerged have created safety and
crime issues in the neighborhood, which have made many people want to move into some
other neighborhoods in Izmir.
7.4.6.4. Who are the Movers?
The households have felt that most of the households that have moved out of the
Gultepe neighborhoods are the young families who are usually the children of the older
residents. 47.1% of the interviewees have stated that it was usually the young families
who have moved out from Gultepe neighborhoods for better serviced places (Table 7.45).
Mr. M. states that:
Married children stay here, but only because they have no other option to
live. They stay in this neighborhood out of the necessity. Parents build the
upper floors for their children to stay. If the children can find money to
move, then they chose not to stay in Gultepe. It is usually the elderly
population who willingly want to stay here. However, the movers are
usually the young married families. They want to live in better
neighborhoods. (Interview with Mr. M., a resident of Yavuz Selim, 2005).
Savings, income and other financial concerns conditions are also considered as
important determinants affecting peoples’ decision to move out of the Gultepe
neighborhoods. 34.1% of the households consider that the movers could move because

263
they had more savings than the households who stayed in the Gultepe neighborhoods
(Table 7.45).
Table 7.45: Who are the Movers?
The Movers Head of Households %
young households 253 47.1%
households who made savings 75 14.0%
young households who made savings 108 20.1%
renters 98 18.2%
households with tight budgets and renters 3 0.6%
Total 537* 100.0%
*= Multiple answers of heads of households apply in this table.
Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

As perceived by the current households, households with better saving abilities
could move out to other places as owners. This was particularly well stated by Mr. A.,
who noted that they move places with better equipped neighborhoods, but which were
still economical:
Families who can move out of here are usually young families, newly
married with young kids. When they move out to other neighborhoods,
they chose to move to other economical neighborhoods to live. They
usually chose to live in the Buca, Bornova cooperative areas. First they
apply for a cooperative unit or buy a unit from these cooperatives, and
then they move to their new units. Although these cooperatives are also
inexpensive places, they are better than here. They are planned areas with
more parks and playgrounds for the children to play. Families who move
out to other locations either sell their existing units in Gultepe
neighborhoods or rent them out to others. Renters who are living in
Gultepe neighbors are poorer than us. The renters choose Gultepe so they
can make savings for their family. Rents are low in Gultepe
neighborhoods. So, the renters prefer living in Gultepe. They do not have
money. (Interview with Mr. A., a resident of Huzur, 2005).
These perceptions of current households about the movers indicate that younger
families with more income are better able to move out of the Gultepe neighborhoods.
This would indicate that the Gultepe District has not been perceived as a good

264
environment to live in the eyes of the better-off second generation households. On the
other hand, old households do not move out of their neighborhoods mostly because they
are happy with their established, and usually improved units, as well as with the
neighborhood. They know their neighbors, which is an important consideration to many
people.
7.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have tried to examine the role of user-initiated housing
improvement in slum upgrading in the case study area of Gultepe District. This chapter
first looked at the role of housing improvement activities to see if households have
improved the physical conditions of their dwellings through user-driven forces rather
than exclusively through market-forces. In this argument, it was assumed that old slum
dwellers who have been residing in the area before the slum upgrading plans have mostly
improved their dwellings.
As the findings have strongly indicated, old households in fact have improved
their units more than the new households. In other words, user-initiated housing
improvement activities have increased the physical conditions of old slum dwellings. In
the user-initiated housing improvement process, tenureship was found to be an important
determinant for households in undertaking any housing improvement activities. As was
observed, only the owners have improved their dwellings. None of the renters, even the
renters who have been residing in the same units for long periods of time, have made any
improvements to their units.
On the other hand, it was found that while the old dwellers are usually
homeowners, the newer households who have begun living in the community are mostly

265
renters, indicating that additional population brought there by the slum upgrading
planning decisions mostly live in rentals. This also gives us a clue that the slum
upgrading plans have brought investment related opportunities to the actual homeowners
who could make extensions for the rental arrangements in order to gain additional income
out of their improvement activities. However, such an outcome may not necessarily be
such a bad thing since they provide additional housing for the lower-income households.
Finding that most of the renters coming to reside in Gultepe neighborhoods are lower-
income households than the actual homeowners, we may consider that the slum
upgrading plans, whether user or market derived, have been somewhat successful in
providing housing for the urban poor. However, it was also found that there appeared to
be some social implications of such rental arrangements in the Gultepe neighborhoods.
When looking at the motivations for housing improvement among households, it
was observed that rebuilding the housing units from the scratch was the dominant form of
housing improvement. As rebuilding a unit is the most expensive way to improve housing
conditions, it may be expected that households might have improved their units for
economic reasons such as to rent out the extended units. However, as the findings have
indicated, on the contrary, households have improved their units mostly for family-
related reasons. The primary reason that households improved their units was to provide
accommodations for their married children. The most common intention of households in
improving or expanding their homes was to add additional space so that they could
provide rooms for their children and their children’s families.
The analysis of the interview results have also indicated that, contrary to what has
been found in the housing literature from the developed world, no strong connections

266
between family structure and housing improvement activities was observed among
different households in the Gultepe neighborhoods. However, they give us some
indications that older slum dwellers improved their units in their early ages when their
families were at their early stages with younger kids or when they needed additional
space the most. Yet, when looking at the length of stay in connection with housing
improvement, it was found that the longer the households spent time in their home, the
more they undertook housing improvements. This would explain why homeowners were
more inclined to improve their units than the other households.
While analyzing the household characteristics in the connection of housing
improvement motives of households, it was found that households in Gultepe
neighborhoods were mostly workers in service and manufacturing businesses. In other
words, they were always under economic constraints and constantly under pressure to
make ends meet. However, a strong relationship was found between household income
and housing improvement activities of households. Households that have improved their
units were those who also had more household income than the households that had not
improved their units. Additionally, a regular income in households is found to an
important factor in affecting the improvement ability of households. As the income
related findings indicate, housing improvement for the lower-income households was
generally only possible when there is a regular source of income available.
When the physical environment was evaluated to see if the user-initiated housing
improvements had increased space in the improved units, it was found that housing
improvement activities did in fact increase the space within the improved housing units
as compared to the non-improved units. Rebuilding the units and expanding the buildings

267
through upper floor extensions have been the two major ways of improving units in the
Gultepe District.
Addressing the second major argument of this dissertation, this chapter also
looked at user-initiated housing improvement motives of households to see if improving
housing units in addition to providing public services to the neighborhoods has created
neighborhood satisfaction among households that has ultimately helped prevent
population displacement in the neighborhoods. The evaluation has indicated that
households were mostly satisfied with their neighborhoods, especially the older
households, and that they did not want to move to other neighborhoods.
When analyzing the data by household characteristics, it was found that the actual
owners of households who had made improvements to their units were more satisfied
both with their units and neighborhoods than the other households. However, it was
found that the second generations in the Gultepe neighborhoods (the children of actual
households) were not really satisfied with the results of the planned neighborhoods
created by the slum upgrading plans. They felt that adequate public services, mainly the
social infrastructures, have not been fully provided for the Gultepe neighborhoods. In
fact, they were the ones who considered moving out to better neighborhoods with more
parks and better transportation connections to other places in the Izmir area.
Overall, it was found that, in terms of the neighborhood satisfaction of
households, while the old dwellers were more satisfied with their current neighborhoods,
created both through user-initiated housing improvement and slum upgradation planning
processes, new dwellers and the second generation of households seemed to stay in the
Gultepe neighborhoods because of economic constraints. But as the perceptions of old

268
households about their neighborhoods and about the households who have already moved
out to other places reflect, whenever young families found a chance to move, they moved
out to better equipped neighborhoods that provided better social infrastructures to their
families.
Although the actual households in the Gultepe neighborhoods asserted that they
preferred their neighborhoods better after the slum upgrading, they also emphasized the
inadequacy of provided public services within their communities and felt that was is the
major reason for household mobility among young households. Households also felt that
the increasing level of rental arrangements did increase safety concerns in the Gultepe
neighborhoods, which also became a reason for young households to want to move to
safer neighborhoods. Overall, as the slum upgrading initiatives have provided certain
public services and the user-initiated housing improvement has increased the physical
conditions of housing units in the Gultepe neighborhoods, it is apparent that the
upgrading processes in Gultepe has not been flawless for the actual households.
Finally, as the last question of this dissertation was about examining the
transformation of housing through user-initiated slum upgradation processes, I have
looked at the planning stages and construction phases within the neighborhoods to see if
the transformations of housing through the user-initiated processes have been realized
based on the planning regulations of slum upgrading plans. Considering that most of the
housing was improved through rebuilding the structures from the start, it is expected that
housings would be transformed under the planning regulatory frameworks of slum
upgrading plans. It was found from the data analysis that receiving official title deeds for
the land was quite important for the households. Most of the households have made the

269
necessary payments in order to receive their official title deeds from the local
municipality. However, they did not seem to follow the regulations when it came to
applying to permissions for improving their units. The findings have indicated that
households did not even consider applying for building permissions unless there was an
urgent reason for them to do so. Households considered that applying for permissions
was too costly a procedure for them since they had to deal with costly and lengthy
procedures, such as hiring an architect to draw a plan, have the plan approved by the local
authorities for relevant permissions, and make the payment to the local authorities before
they were able to begin the construction. Consequently, they preferred not to apply for
permission but continued improving their housing units in illegal ways. This finding
indicates that in order to get the lower-income households to follow the regulations, it is
important to set up reasonable regulations for them to follow, and fees that they can
afford.
As another reflection of regulatory frameworks, I also looked at how the
construction process has been realized by the user-initiated involvement. It was found
that incremental or gradual housing improvement was the dominant way of improving the
housing units. Even when they chose to rebuild units from scratch, they only did so when
the money was available for the households to continue to do the additional
improvements.
Households, who were looking for housing improvements compatible with their
income abilities, preferred hiring small scale tradesmen whenever they were ready to
undertake housing improvement activities for their units. These tradesmen worked on a
daily payment basis under the supervision of the households. They preferred these

270
tradesmen to small-scale contractors, since they could hire them on an as-needed basis,
and when they could afford to pay them. The small-scale contractors required regular
payments which many households found prohibitive.
Overall, it was found that both housing living conditions and the satisfaction level
of households with their neighborhoods were improved by user-initiated housing
transformation activities. However, such transformations were usually realized using
illegal arrangements, indicating the incompliance of slum upgrading requirements or
regulatory frameworks with the actual demands of households living in the upgraded
areas.
Additionally, households stated that although they liked their actual
neighborhoods with the introduction of legalization and formalization initiations through
the upgrading plans, they also were not totally satisfied with the results of slum
upgrading plans. So, the findings indicate that, while user-initiated housing improvement
can be particularly useful to embrace as a strategy for the low-income household
neighborhoods, it is important to provide these neighborhoods with social services and
the regulations that coincide with the household needs and their abilities to perform the
user-initiated transformations.

271
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION
Slum upgrading programs have been widely accepted as the panacea to improving
the living conditions of residents in slum areas. Various slum upgrading programs have
been introduced to slums in the developing nations since the early 1970s. The common
ground of all these upgrading programs has been to improve the living conditions of
existing slums while preventing the development of new ones. Regularization and
formalization processes focused on providing slum areas with basic public services and
facilities with secure tenure of land have been adopted by slum upgrading programs as
the major formula for the success of these programs.
Since the 1970s, slum upgrading programs have begun transforming slums by
integrating them into the formal housing market. However, the ways in which these slum
upgrading programs have been implemented have changed over time. After being
launched during the 1970s, slum upgrading programs began shifting their positions from
community-based state-subsidized upgrading programs to market-oriented upgrading
programs. Such changes in the orientation of the slum upgrading programs have been the
outcome of the global and national economic dynamics of developing nations adopted by
the neo-liberal economic system after the 1980s. However, they were also adopted to
eliminate the deficiencies of the previous upgrading programs.
Yet, the experiences of market-oriented upgrading programs do not also always
depict more successful stories. In fact, they seem to be ignoring community level
dynamics in the slum upgrading processes. However, experiences from my field work in
Gultepe District, which was upgraded with community-level dynamics rather than
market-oriented dynamics, demonstrate that community-level dynamics, what I call user-

272
initiated upgrading processes, provide hopes for improving the living conditions of slums
while helping to preserve the actual slum population in their current neighborhoods,
which is much better for the lower-income households. As the findings from Gultepe
District suggest, user-initiated upgrading activities should be integrated in the new
formulations of slum upgrading programs.
As the study findings have suggested, user-initiated housing improvement
motives seem more relevant and are an important tool for improving housing conditions
in slum areas in general. Consequently, it is important to find ways to integrate user-
initiated housing involvement in slum upgrading programs and to find ways to capitalize
on user-initiated involvement within the market economic system. The integration of
user-initiated housing improvement motives of households into upgrading programs, and
finding ways to capitalize on household-based market forces within the upgrading
process, are essential in achieving improvements in housing for lower-income
households, and in addressing the problems of slum expansion in general.
In this chapter, I return to my initial research questions about the role of user-
initiated involvement in slum upgrading processes in order to understand the power of
community-level dynamics in the upgrading programs. My research questions included
the following: (a) What is the form of user-initiated involvement in slum upgrading
process? (b) What kind of physical and social environment is created through the user-
initiated involvements? (c) Does user-initiated housing improvement increase living
conditions of housing units therefore of the households? (d) Does the user-initiated
housing improvement create neighborhood satisfaction among the households? (e) How
do the households in the upgraded slum area perceive the slum upgrading plans? Do they

273
consider the plans are successful to answer their housing related demands? (f) Does user-
initiated housing improvement follow the rules of planning regulations of the slum
upgrading plans? This chapter summarizes the findings of the study from the previous
chapters, and then focuses on the lessons for future policy making.
8.1. The Experience of Slum Upgrading in Gultepe District
Gultepe District’s slum upgrading strategy was based on the conventional
upgrading program that aimed to improve the living conditions of slum housing units in
their current places while also regulating the slum areas through new planning regulations
with additional population increase and FAR, and through legalizing property rights by
issuing official title deeds to the slum-dwellers. Slum upgrading plans introduced in
Gultepe District mainly supported the district with basic public services and amenities
while regulating the district through new planning regulations.
As part of the new planning regulations for Gultepe District, upgrading plans
designated five-story building developments on main streets as the mixed residential area
zoning, and assigned two-story housing developments to secondary streets and blocks.
Such planning regulations of slum upgrading plans have only planned for minor
population increases for the district, resulting in a lack of interest by market-oriented
actors in getting involved with the upgrading process.
In fact, state and local governmental authorities that have adopted neo-liberal
economic policies since the 1980s have only gotten involved with certain aspects of the
slum upgrading processes. While land disputes and property rights were resolved by the
direct involvement of local governmental initiatives through expropriation or land
transfer and by issuing legal title deeds to slum-dwellers, local authorities have not gotten

274
directly involved with the implementation process of slum upgrading but left it to the
hands of the market forces. However, with the minor population increases brought about
by the slum upgrading plans, market-forces who have been looking to maximize their
profits were not very much attracted by the Gultepe District’s slum upgrading plans.
Therefore, Gultepe District has been left in the hands of community-level dynamics, and
to the direct initiatives of slum-dwellers in the implementation stages of slum upgrading
plans. This study aimed at understanding the role of community-level dynamics that are
formed as the result of user-initiated involvement in the implementation of slum
upgrading plans.
8.2. Community-level Dynamics: User-Initiated Housing Improvement as Upgrading
Strategies in Gultepe District
I have evaluated the role of user-initiated housing improvement in slum upgrading
process in Gultepe District based on three assumptions. My first assumption has been that
user-initiated housing improvement activities improve the housing conditions of slum
dwellings. My second assumption has been that the improved conditions of housing units
create neighborhood satisfaction among households, and prevent population displacement
in slum areas, thus better serving the needs of the actual population. My third assumption
has been that user-initiated housing improvement takes place outside the rule of planning
regulations. This study has found three main findings regarding the role of user-initiated
upgrading process and how such processes perform.
In my case study of Gultepe District, the first finding is that user-initiated
involvement in the implementation of upgrading plans could indeed trigger
improvements in housing conditions and hence the habitability of slum units.

275
Households, particularly the older slum-dwellers who have been residing in the same
neighborhood for longer periods of time, have been able to improve their own housing
units. Any form of extensions that supplied additional space in the housing units have
been considered as housing improvement activities. I have found this to be the major
motivation for households to make extensions to their units. However, making extensions
to units has not been the only form of improvements preferred by households. In fact,
rebuilding units in their plots has been observed as the primary housing improvement
goals of slum dwellers.
User-initiated housing improvement activities have increased the habitable space
and size of slum units while improving the housing structures by using more durable
construction materials. However, rebuilding new units has not only created more space
but has also created additional units for the use of slum dwellers. In fact, slum dwellers
that have rebuilt their units or made upper floor extensions for their units have usually
also created additional units rather than merely extending the living space of their own
units. The creation of additional units was predominantly aimed at accommodating the
expanded household members rather than profiting from the additional units. Although
there are some rental housing units developed by housing extensions, the main reason to
create additional units has been predominantly for housing the members of the current
households, or for their children or relatives.
The economic constraints facing slum dwellers play a major role in motivating the
residents to want to create additional units for the use of their families. Renters are the
most vulnerable among all. Yet, according to the description of the United Nations urban
poverty level that measures poverty as having an income of less than one dollar per day,

276
there are no households living in the urban poverty level in Gultepe District. However,
the households there are still under constant economic constraints and struggle to make
ends meet. Therefore, the housing improvement activities of slum dwellers seem to be
used as survival mechanisms by households fighting against their economic constraints.
In the process of housing improvement, it is found that housing improvement has
generally taken place over a period of time. In other words, incremental improvements of
housing units have been the major form of user-initiated housing improvement by slum
dwellers in Gultepe District. Incremental housing improvement has taken both the form
of adjusting housing use with the housing demands of the households and adjusting
housing improvement activities with households’ economic abilities. Due to the lack of
financial supports from the state or local governmental authorities or from the formal
market systems, households have been left to rely on their own financial resources, and
therefore can only improve their units through the incremental housing improvement
method as it is the only possible way for them to do so.
The second major finding is on neighborhood satisfaction and how housing
improvement activities have impacted on preserving the social structure of
neighborhoods in Gultepe District. In the case study of Gultepe District, user-initiated
housing improvement was found to indeed trigger improved neighborhood satisfaction
among households, particularly among the actual slum dwellers who have been residing
in the same neighborhood for longer periods of time. Households who have undertaken
housing improvement in their units not only improved their units to increase their
satisfaction level from their dwellings, but also indicated more satisfaction from their
neighborhoods so they do not consider moving out to another neighborhood in Izmir. In

277
other words, housing improvement causes households to become more attached to their
neighborhoods. However, households who did not make housing improvements to their
units tended to be less satisfied and less attached to their neighborhoods, and so were
more willing to move out to another neighborhood when the conditions allow them to do
so. The only reason for them to stay in the Gultepe District is because they cannot afford
to move. Economic constraints thus once again play a significant role in the mobility
decisions of households in Gultepe District.
Community attachment and the neighborhood satisfaction of households in
Gultepe District are also related to the planning decisions developed for the Gultepe
District. Although the households have received the basic public services for their units
(e.g., water, sewage, and electricity), the district has an inadequate level of social
facilities, which has created less neighborhood satisfaction among households,
particularly among the younger dwellers. Inadequate parks, playground areas, and
inadequate public transportation services, which were indeed attached to the planning
decisions, have activated a lack of neighborhood attachment among households in
Gultepe District. Consequently, although the housing improvement activities of slum-
dwellers increase the housing satisfaction level and attachment level of households, the
planning decisions that result in an inadequate supply of social services for the
households have created a lack of neighborhood satisfaction among households,
especially among the younger households. Hence, while housing improvement helps to
preserve the actual households in their neighborhoods, thus helping to protect the social
structure of slum neighborhoods, the flaws in planning decisions and the inability to
supply social services causes a lack of satisfaction among households. This ultimately

278
creates a desire and willingness to move out, and hence endangers the goal keeping the
current population in their places.
Based on the households’ perceptions, household mobility in the Gultepe District
began to be seen ten years after the slum upgrading plans were introduced, which means
that after the property rights of households were secured, their mobility rate rose. It also
indicates that the expectation of households from upgrading plans have not been met by
the plans introduced for the Gultepe District. On the other hand, households do not
perceive there to be much economic advantage brought about by the slum upgrading
plans in their communities. This might be due to not satisfying the expectations of
households for increases in the value of their properties by the slum upgrading plans.
However, the ability to make housing improvements does indeed help the households
stay in the same neighborhoods.
The third major finding relates to understanding the ways in which the housing
improvement activities of households have been affected by the rules the planning
regulations developed by the slum upgrading plans. In the case study of Gultepe District,
user-initiated housing improvements have mostly been undertaken outside of the
planning regulations. Housing improvement of households has been mostly realized
incrementally over time based on the household needs and their economic abilities.
Households do not improve their units based on the planning regulations. Most
households have not received any permission for improving or rebuilding their units.
Although the households have paid for their plots in order to receive the official title
deeds for their lands, and secured the property rights of their lands, tenure has not really
been considered necessary for applying for building permission for their units.

279
Essentially, planning regulations do not coincide with or encourage the incremental
housing improvement processes of households. Furthermore, undertaking housing
improvement activities under the rules of the planning regulations has been considered a
costly process for the households, and the costs have discouraged them from applying for
official building permissions prior to their housing improvement activities. Consequently,
the non-compliance of regulatory frameworks with the housing improvement goals of
households has resulted in households preferring not to apply for any further official
permission.
In sum, findings from the case study in Gultepe District overall suggest that user-
initiated housing improvement gives opportunities to the actual users to shape their own
communities through the slum upgrading process. Unlike market-driven slum upgrading
programs, user-initiated slum upgrading processes improve the living conditions of
households, contribute to reducing their vulnerability, and also help stabilize the residents
in their actual places. They thus serve the actual users or the actual lower-income
households by providing cheaper housing solutions while prohibiting an excessive
increase in property values. Thus, it is important to integrate user-initiated housing
improvement in slum upgrading programs as a way to capitalize household-based forces
within the upgrading process in order to achieve effective solutions in upgrading
programs without depoliticizing the actual population and displacing them. However, the
failure of the municipalities to use planning regulations to improve the social facilities of
these areas with social facilities endangers the neighborhood by encouraging population
mobility. Thus, it is important for local governmental authorities to work closely with

280
communities prior to the upgrading projects’ implementations and set up regulatory
frameworks that work with the housing needs of actual households.
8.3. Policy Implications of User-Initiated Housing Improvement
Since the 1980s, the slum upgrading strategies of governmental authorities in
developing nations have shifted from state-subsidized approaches towards more market-
oriented approaches (Mukhija, 2003). The changing policies towards slum upgrading
strategies, beginning in the 1980s, should be understood as the result of changes in the
political and economic climate in the developing world due to the introduction of the neo-
liberal economic system (Jenkins et al., 2007).
As part of the adoption of the neo-liberal economic system, governments have
started encouraging free enterprise as a method of achieving economic development.
This has meant deregulation and the decentralization of state power and the privatization
of state resources (Mukhija, 2003). Due to these new economic policies, and the desire to
reduce direct state initiatives, the strategies for upgrading slum areas have been integrated
with more market-oriented processes.
Within these new slum upgrading strategies, the general approach towards
upgrading the conditions of slum areas has usually been through redevelopment projects
which make the areas more attractive to business and market interests. The initial strategy
of this new slum upgrading approach has been introduced as the ‘enabling strategy’ of
slum areas by the World Bank with the goal of creating a whole approach towards the
slum areas with inclusion of community involvement (Pugh, 1997, 2001). However, the
experiences indicate that community level dynamics have been almost neglected by this
approach (Berner, 2001). As the literature indicates, market-oriented strategies for

281
upgrading slum areas have not only increased the property values in these areas
(Mukhija, 2001, 2003), but have also increased the population turnover in these areas due
to the increased marketability provided by the new upgrading strategy. The experiences
of slum upgrading programs in Turkey are not any different (Dundar, 2001, 2003;
Ozdemir, 1998).
Turkey’s efficient amnesty law (number 2981), enacted in 1984, initially
upgraded slum areas through slum upgrading plans initiated by local governmental
authorities and which mostly depended on market-oriented forces (e.g., small-scale build
and sell contractors), as was explained in chapter 5. Although local level dynamics have
played a role in the formulation of slum upgrading programs for certain areas, the
involvement of market-forces in the implementation process has been considered an a
priori condition for the implementation of slum upgrading processes. Thus local
governmental authorities have only been involved with plan preparation, resolving the
disputed land problems, and securing the property rights for the slum dwellers when the
conditions were met. How the upgrading process itself would be implemented has been
mostly left in the hands of market-forces.
With such market-oriented upgrading strategies, slum dwellers have mostly lost
control over the upgrading process. In other words, with the focus on market-oriented
improvement of slum areas, community involvement seems to be left out. However, as
the experience of Gultepe District indicates, slum areas where the market-oriented actors
would not get involved with implementing slum upgrading plans have been able to
transform themselves through the community-level dynamics that have given full control
of households over their units and neighborhoods while improving the living conditions

282
of their communities. Acting as direct entrepreneurs, households have improved their
dwellings over a period of time, which has given them control over the decisions
regarding the upgrading process in their neighborhoods. Such control not only
encouraged improvement of the areas but also helped to preserve the social structure of
the slum communities. Thus, user-initiated housing improvement activities have acted as
a form of neighborhood upgrading which needs to be encouraged as part of the slum
upgrading programs.
However, this is not meant to suggest a return to the old types of slum upgrading
programs. What is suggested though is that the use of user-initiated housing improvement
activities can serve better for achieving the enabling strategies in slum areas by
encouraging community control over their neighborhoods, which ultimately preserves the
social structure of slum communities. User-initiated housing improvement provides
flexibility for households in forming their housing units based on their family needs and
their economic abilities. Investing on a timely basis also increases the attachment of
households to their neighborhoods and communities. However, there are some issues that
need to be concerned when integrating such user-initiated housing improvement in the
upgrading process.
Although the flexible development of units should be encouraged for the
successful improvement of housing units via community-level dynamics, some
development controls with some established firm boundaries should also be introduced
for controlling the problems, such as overcrowding, that affect the well-being of housing
units. Such flexibility can only be supplied by relaxing the planning regulations and
standards required by the laws and planning decisions. Planning regulations should be

283
sensitive to place-based requirements, which means that planners and designers should be
in constant communication with households in the slum communities in order to design
flexible plans that can respond to the needs of the households. In other words, working
with actual households through community participation is necessary for successful slum
upgrading. Community leaders, such as the muhtars and others, could be used as the
major consultants in creating a community participation link with the households.
On the other hand, supporting the households with finance mechanisms that
would be suitable for the low-income households is another major issue that needs to be
considered by the governmental authorities. Supporting households with reasonable
financial mechanisms, preferably with short-term loans, would quicken the housing
improvement processes of households, and therefore help the transformation process. In
this mechanism, some place for rental arrangements should also be considered.
As another important mechanism, planners and designers should not only be
concerned with the securing of property rights, but should also create room for the
development of efficient social structures in these areas in order to socially integrate
these communities with the other parts of the society in the city space. As the lack or
inefficiency of social infrastructures, such as playgrounds, parks, and public
transportation systems, have been indicated as major factors causing households to move
out to better equipped neighborhoods, it is necessary to tackle the problem of creating
communal spaces in these areas. Such design concerns cannot be created without
consulting the community needs.
The general proposal of this dissertation can be summarized as considering the
user-initiated housing improvement activities as a valuable resource for improving the

284
conditions of slum neighborhood. They contribute to the creation and use of community-
level dynamics in the formation of their communities. In this approach, households
should be allowed to act as providers or entrepreneurs in order to establish habitable
communities for themselves. It is important to capitalize household-based forces within
the upgrading process in order to achieve effective and efficient upgrading programs that
serve for the actual communities while upgrading housing for lower-income households
and preventing population displacement in general. In this process, the change and the
changing needs towards their housing units should be considered as a valuable and
normal part of the housing improvement process. Hence, it is important for local
governmental authorities to work closely with the local population and set up workable
regulatory frameworks for the lower-income households in order to establish such
community-based upgrading approach.
8.4. Future Research
This dissertation has aimed to understand the role of user-initiated involvement in
the transformation of housing units in slum upgrading areas. However, this does not end
the quest to understand the role and power of user-initiated housing improvement or
community-level dynamics in the reformation of slum communities. Further studies are
needed to be able to make more generalizable comments on upgrading processes, and
hence to create more effective housing policy recommendations. While more research
around the same concerns should be done, it is also important to study the role of
community-level dynamics in the slum redevelopment project areas when examining the
constraints and flexibilities of households in controlling and forming their communities
and their housing units. Comparative studies will bring us more insightful understanding

285
of how user-initiated involvement may be integrated with other types of processes for
improving the slum areas.

286
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Charles. (1964). Man's Struggle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World.
Massuchusetts: MIT.
Agacli, Omer. (1992). Duzensiz Konut Alanlarinda Imar-Iyilestirme-Planlama Surecinin
Irdelenmesi. Ankara: Maliye ve Gumruk Bakanligi.
Ak, Inci. (1981). Metropollesme Surecinde Turkiye. Ankara: DPT Sosyal Planlama
Dairesi Arastirma Subesi Yayinlari.
Aldrich, Brian C. and Ranvinder S. Sandhu. (1995). The Global Context of Housing
Poverty. In Aldrich, Brian C. and Ranvinder S. Sandhu (eds). Housing the Urban
Poor: Policy and Practice in Devloping Countries (pp. 17-33). London: Zed
Books.
Alexander, Ernest R. (1988). Informal Settlement in Latin America and Its Policy
Implications. In Patton, Carl V.(ed). Spontaneous Shelter: International
Perspectives and Prospects (pp. 125-146). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Alonso, William. (1964). Location and Land Use. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Alpar, Istiklal and Samirah Yener. (1993). Gecekondu Arastirmasi. Ankara: DPT Sosyal
Planlama Genel Mudurlugu Arastirma Dairesi.
Altaban, Ozcan. (1998). Cumhuriyetin Kent Planlama Politikalari ve Ankara Deneyimi.
In Sey, Yildiz (ed). 75 Yilda Degisen Kent ve Mimarlik (pp. 41-64). Istanbul:
Tarih Vakfi.
Altincekic, Funda. (1987). Izmir'de Planlama Kavrami: Kentsel Gelisme Dinamikleri ve
Sonuclari Uzerine Bir Arastirma. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul Universitesi.
Altincekic, Funda. (1998). Mekan Organizasyonunun Uretiminde Birikim Iliskilerinin
Rolu: Bir Aygit Olarak Sanayi Kapitali. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Fen
Bilimleri Fakultesi (Unpublished PhD Dissertation).
Amis, Philip. (1988). Commercialized Rental Housing in Nairobi, Kenya. In Patton, Carl
V. (ed). Spontanenus Shelter: International APproaches and Prospects (pp. 235-
257). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Amis, Philip. (1996). Long-Run Trends in Nairobi's Informal Housing Market. Third
World Planning Review, 18(3):271-285.

287
Angel, Shlomo. (1983). Land Tenure for the Urban Poor. In Angel, Shlomo et al., Land
for Housing for the Poor (pp. 110-143). Singapore: Select Book.
Angel, Shlomo and Stan Benjamin (1976). Seventeen Reasons Why the Squatter Problem
Can't Be Solved. Ekistics, 41(242):20-26.
Angel, Shlomo et al. (1983). Reflecting on the Land Issue. In Angel, Sholomo et al.,
Land for Housing for the Poor (pp. 2-31). Singapore: Select Book.
Atay, Cinar. (1998). Osmanli'dan Cumhuriyet'e Izmir Planlari. Ankara: Yasar Egitim ve
Kultur Vakfi Yayinlari.
Avcioglu, Dogan. (1984). Milli Kurtulus Tarihi. Istanbul: Ilgi Kitabevi.
Ayan, Mesut. (1973). Izmir'de Gecekondu Problemi ve Gultepe Gecekondularinda Sosyo-
Ekonomik Bir Arastirma . Izmir: Dokuz Eylul Universitesi.
Aydar, Esin and Funda Altincekic. (1987). Sehirsel Sinif Sisteminin Mekansal Boyutlari.
Izmir: Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Muhendislik-Mimarlik Fakultesi Yayinlari.
Baharoglu, Deniz. (1996). Housing Supply Under Different Economic Development
Strategies and the Forms of State Interventions. Habitat International, 20(1):43-
60.
Baross, Paul. (1990). Sequencing Land Development: The Price Implications of Legal
and Illegal Settlement Growth. In Baross, Paul and Jan Van Der Linden (eds). The
Transformation of Land Supply Systems in Third World Cities (pp. 57-82).
Aldershot: Avebury.
Baross, Paul and Jan Van Der Linden. (1990). Introduction. In Baross, Paul and Jan Van
Der Linden (eds). The Transformation of Land Supply Systems in Third World
Cities (pp. 1-15). Aldershot: Avebury.
Baross, Paul and Nora Mesa. (1986). From Land Markets to Housing Markets: Th
Transformation of Low Income Settlements in Medellin. Habitat International,
10(3):153-170.
Berner, Erhard. (1997). Defending a Place in the City. Manila, Phillippines: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
Berner, Erhard. (2001). Learning from Informal Markets: innovative approaches to land
and housing provision. Development in Practice, 11(2&3):292-307.
Beyru, Rauf. (2000). 19 yy.da Izmir'de Yasam. Istanbul: Literatur yayinlari.

288
Boehm, Thomas P. (1982). A Hierarchical Model of Housing Choice. Urban Studies,
19(1):17-31.
Borotav, Korkut. (1988). Turkiye Iktisat Tarihi: 1908-1985. Istanbul: Gercek Yayinlari.
Bromley, Ray. (2003). Peru 1957-1977: How Time and Place Influenced John Turner's
Ideas on Housing Policy. Habitat International, 27(2):271-292.
Bugra, Ayse. (1998). The Immoral Economy of Housing in Turkey. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 22(2):303-317.
Burgess, Rod. (1977). Self-Help Housing: A New Imperialist Strategy? A Critique of the
Turner School . Antipode, 9(2):50-60.
Burgess, Rod. (1978). Petty Commodity Housing or Dweller Control? A Critique of John
Turner's Views on Housing Policy. World Development, 6(9/10):1105-1133.
Burgess, Rod. (1982). Self-Help Housing Advocacy: A Curious Form of Radicalism. A
Critique of the Work of John F. C. Turner. In Ward, Peter M. Self-Help Housing:
A Critique (pp. 56-98). London: Mansell.
Burgess, Rod. (1985). The limits to self-help housing programmes. Development and
Change, 16(2):271-312.
Burgess, Rod. (1992). Helping Some to Help Themselves: Third World Housing Policies
and Development Strategies. In Mathey, Kosta (ed). Beyond Self-Help Housing
(pp. 75-91). London: Mansell.
Canpolat, Emin. (1953). Izmir Kurtulusundan Bugune Kadar. Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik
Universitesi.
Carmon, Naomi and Tamar Gavrieli. (1987). Improving Housing by COnventional
Versus Self-Help Methods: Evidence from Israel. Urban Studies, 24(4):324-332.
Carmon, Naomi. (2002). User-controlled Housing: Desirability and Feasibility. European
Planning Studies, 10(3):285-303.
Castells, Manuel. (1978). City, Class and Power. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Castells, Manuel. (1979). The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Castells, Manuel. (1983). The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley, Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

289
CBRT [Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankasi], (2009), Exchange Rates. Retrieved on
February 12,2009, from Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankasi Web site: http://
www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/kurlar/kurlar.html
Chant, Sylvia and Peter Ward. (1987). Family Structure and Low-Income Policy. Third
World Planning Review, 9(1):5-19.
Choguill, Charles L. (1995). The Future of Planned Urban Development in the Third
World. In Aldrich, Brian C. and Ranvinder S. Sandhu. Housing the Urban Poor:
Policy and Practice in Developing Countries (pp. 403-414). London: Zed Books.
Clark, W. A. V. and J. L. Onaka. (1983). Life Cycle and Housing Adjustment as
Explanations of residential Mobility. Urban Studies, 20(1):47-57.
Collier, David. (1976). Squatter Settlements and the Incorporation of Migrants into
Urban Life: the Case of Lima. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
Connolly, Pricilla. (1982). Uncontrolled Settlements and Self-Build: What Kind of
Solution? The Mexico City Case. In. Ward, Peter M. Self-Help Housing A
Critique (pp. 141-174). London: Mansell.
Cox, Eli P. (1975). Family Purchase Decision Making and the Process of Adjustment.
Journal of Marketing Research, 12(2):189-195.
Danielson, Michael N. and Rusen Keles. (1985). The politics of rapid urbanization :
government and growth in modern Turkey . New York : Holmes & Meier.
Dasgupta, Basap and Somik V. Lall. (2006). Assessing Benefits of Slum Upgrading
Programs in Second-Best Settings, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper
3993. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Davis, Mike. (2006). Planet of Slums. London: Verso.
De Soto, Hernando. (1989). The Other Path. New York: Harper & Row.
De Souza, Flavia A. (2001). The Future of Informal Settlements: Lessons in the
Legalization of Disouted Urban Land in Recife, Brazil. Geoforum, 32(4):483-492.
DEU [Dokuz Eylul Universitesi]. (1996). Habitat II Dunya Deneyimleri Kapsaminda
Izmir Baglamina Nasil Bakilabilir: Bir Gelismenin Anatomisi. Izmir: DEU.
Mimarlik Fakultesi.
Devecigil, Pinar T. (2005). Urban Transformation Projects as a Model to Transform
Gecekondu Areas in Turkey: The Example of Dikmen Valley - Ankara. European
Journal of Housing Policy, 5(2):211-229.

290
Doebele, William A. (1987). Land Policy . In Rodwin, Lloyd. Shelter, Settlement and
Development (pp. 110-132). Boston, London: Allen and Unwin.
Dowall, David E. (1991). A Tale of Two Cities: A Comparison of Karachi's Informal and
Formal Housing Delivery Systems. Berkeley: University of California at
Berkeley.
Drakakis-Smith, David. (1981). Urbanization, Housing and the Development Process.
London: Croom Helm.
Dundar, Ozlem. (2001). Models of Urban Transformation. Cities, 18(6):391-401.
Dundar, Ozlem. (2003). Kentsel Donusum Uygulamalari Uzerine Kavramsal Bir
Tartisma. Kentsel Donusum Sempozyumu (pp. 65-74). Istanbul: Yidliz Teknik
Universitesi Yayinlari.
Durand-Lasserve, Alain. (1990). Articulation Between Formal and Informal Land
Markets in Cities in Developing Countries: Issues and Trends . In Baross, Paul
and Jan Van Der Linden (eds). The Transformation of Land Supply Systems in
Third World Cities (pp. 37-56). Aldershot: Avebury.
Dynarski, Mark. (1986). Residential Attachment and Housing Demand. Urban Studies,
23(1):11-20.
Dwyer, Denis J. (1974). Attitudes Towards Spontaneous Settlement in Third World
Cities. In Denis J (ed). The City in the Third World (pp. 204-218). New York:
Barnes and Nobles.
Dwyer, Denis J. (1979). People and Housing in Third World Cities: Perspectives on the
Problem of Spontaneos Settlements. London: Longman.
Eckstein, Susan. (1990). Urbanization Revisited: Inner-City Slum of Hope and Squatter
Settlement of Despair. World Development, 18(2):165-181.
Edin, Per-Anders, and Peter Englund. (1991). Moving Costs and Housing Demand: Are
Recent Movers Really in Equilibrium? Journal of Public Economics, 44(3):299-
320.
Eralp, Atila. (1981). Import-substitution strategy and foreign capital in Turkey. METU
Studies in Development, 612-633.
Eraydin, Ayla. (1988). Sermaye Birikim Surecinde Kentler. Defter, (5): 133-152.
Eraydin, Ayla. (1992). Post-Fordizm ve Degisen Mekansal Oncelikler. Ankara: ODTU,
Mimarlik Fakultesi Yayinlari.

291
Erder, Sema. (1996). Istanbul'a Bir kent Kondu: Umraniye. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari.
Erder, Sema. (1997). Kentsel Gerilim. Ankara: Um: Ag Yayini.
Erman, Tahire. (1997). Squatter (Gecekondu) Housing versus Apartment Housing:
Turkish Rural-to-Urban Migrant Residents' Perspectives. Habitat International,
28(1):91-106.
Erman, Tahire. (2004). Gecekondu Çalışmalarında 'Öteki' Olarak Gecekondulu
Kurguları. Retrieved on 02 12, 2009, from European Journal of Turkish Studies
Web site: http://www.ejts.org/document85.html
Fainstein, Susan and Scott Campbell. (1996). Introduction: Theories of Urban
Development and Their Implications for Policy and Planning. In Fainstein, Susan
and Scott Campbell (eds). Reading in Urban Theory (pp. 1-18). Massachusetts:
Blacwell.
Friedman, Joseph et al., (1988). The Demand for Tenure Security in Developing
Countries. Journal of Development Economics, 29(2 ):185-198.
Garrod, Guy et al. (1995). A Two-Stage Econometric Analysis of the Housing Extension
Decision in Kumasi, Ghana. Urban Studies, 32(6):953-970.
Gilbert, Alan. (1990). The Costs and Benefits of Illegality and Irregularity in the Supply
of Land. In Baross, Paul and Jan Van Der Linden (eds). The Transformation of
Land Supply Systems in Third World Cities (pp. 17-36). Aldershot: Avebury.
Gilbert, Alan. (1993a). In Search of A Home: Rental and Shared Housing in Latin
America. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Gilbert, Alan. (1993b). Third World Cities: The Changing National Settlement System.
Urban Studies, 30 (4/5):721-740.
Gilbert, Alan. (1994). The Latin American City. Nothingham: Russell Press.
Gilbert, Alan and Ann Varley. (1991). Landlord and Tenant: Housing the Poor in Urban
Mexico. London, New York: Routledge.
Gilbert, Alan and Josef Gugler. (1992). Cities, Poverty, and Development: Urbanization
in the Third World . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, Alan and Peter Ward. (1985). Housing, the State and the Poor. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

292
Goodman, Allen C. (1989). Topics in Empirical Urban Housing Demand. In Muth,
Richard F. and Allen C. Goodman (eds), The Economics of Housing Markets (pp.
49-136). London: HArwood Academic Publishers.
Goodman, Allen C. (1995). A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Housing Demand and
Mobility with Transactions Costs. Journal of Housing Economics, 4(4):307-327.
Goodman, J. L. Jr. (1976). Housing Consumption, Disequilibrium and Local Residential
Mobility. Environment and Planning A, 8(8):855-874.
Gosling, James A. et al. (1993). House Extensions and Housing Market Adjustment.
Urban Studies, 30(9):1561-1576.
Gough, Katherine V. (1999). Affording a Home: the strategies of self-help builders in
Colombia. In Jones,Gareth and Kavita Datta, Housing and Finance in Developing
Countries (pp. 119-135). London, New York: Routledge.
Guha-Khasnobis, Basudeb et. al., (2006). Beyond Formality and Informality. In R. K.
Basudeb Guha-Khasnobis, Linking the Formal and Informal Economy (pp. 1-20).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guven, Yusuf (ed). (2006). Izmir Kent Rehberi. Istanbul: Mepmedya Yayinlari.
Hamushek, Eric and John M. Quigley. (1978). An Explicit Model of Intra-Urban
Mobility. Land Economics, 54(4):90-111.
Hardoy, Jorge.E. and David Satterthwaite. (1981). Shelter: Need and Response: housing
land and settlements policies in seventeen Third World nations. New York:
Wiley.
Harms, Hans. (1982). Historical Perspectives on the Practice and Purpose of Self-Help
Housing. In Ward, Peter M. Self-Help Housing A Critique (pp. 17-53). London:
Mansell.
Harms, Hans. (1992). Self-Help Housing in Developed and Third World Countries. In
Mathey, Kosta. Beyond Self-Help Housing (pp. 33-52). London: Mansell.
Harris, Richard. (2003). A double irony: the originality and influence of John F.C.
Turner. Habitat International, 27(2):245-269.
Hart, Keith. (1973). Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana.
Journal of Modern African Studies, 11(1):61-89.
Harvey, David. (1973). Social Justice and the City. London: The John Hopkins
University Press.

293
Harvey, David. (1981). The Urban Process Under Capitalism: a Framework for Analysis.
In Dear, Michael and Allen J. Scott (eds). Urbanization and Urban Planning in
Capitalist Society (pp. 91-122). London: Methuen.
Harvey, David. (1985). The Urban Experience. Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins
University Press.
Harvey, David. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity: an Inquiry into the Origins of
Cultural Change. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Horen, Basil Van. (1999). The de facto rules: the growth and change of an informal
settlement in Durban, South Africa. Third World Planning Review, 21(3):261-
282.
ICC [Izmir Ticaret Odasi]. Competitiveness, Management and Performance of Young
Entrepreneurs. Retrieved on March, 02, 2009, from Izmir Ticaret Odasi Web site:
http://www.compete-youth.eu/izto/izmir_tr.html
Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. (1981). An Empirical Investigation of ALternative Approaches to
Estimating the Equilibrium Demand for Housing. Journal of Urban Economics,
9(2):97-105.
ILO [International Labour Office]. (1972). Incomes, Employement and Equality in
Kenya. Geneva: ILO.
Imar ve Iskan Bakanligi. (1973). Izmir Metropolitan Alan Nazim Plan Raporu. Ankara:
Imar Iskan Bakanligi Planlama Imar Genel Mudurlugu.
IMM [Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi]. (2006). 1/25.000 Olcekli Izmir Kentsel Bolge Nazim
Imar Plani Raporu. Izmir: Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi Planlama Mudurlugu.
IMM [Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi]. (2008). Izmir Kent Saglik Profili. Izmir: Izmir
Buyuksehir Belediyesi.
IMM [Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi]. Kentsel Donusum ve Yeni Yerlesmeler Sube
Mudurlugu, Retrieved on April, 1, 2009, from Izmir Buyuksehir Belediyesi Web
site: http://www.izmir.bel.tr /orgSemaDetail.asp?birimID=81&oID=73
Isik, Oguz and M. Melih Pinarcioglu. (2001). Nobetlese Yoksulluk: Sultanbeyli Ornegi.
Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari.
Jenkins,Paul et al., (2007). Planning and Housing in the Rapidly Urbanising World.
London, New York: Routledge.
Jimenez, Emmanuel. (1982). The Value of Squatter Dwellings in Developing Countries.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 30(4):739-752.

294
Jimenez, Emmanuel. (1984). Tenure Security and Urban Squatting. Review of Economics
and Statistics, 66(4):556-567.
Jones, Colin. (1979). Housing: The Element Choice. Urban Studies, 16(2):197-204.
Jones, Gareth and Kavita Datta. (1999). From Self-Help to Self-Finance: the Changing
Focus of Urban Research and Policy. In Datta, Jones, Gareth and Kavita Datta.
(eds). Housing and Finance in Developing Countries (pp. 3-25). London, New
York: Routledge.
Karadag, Arife. (2000). Kentsel Gelisim Sureci. Izmir: Ege-Koop Yayinlari.
Karaman, Z. et al. (1998). Izmir Yerel Gundem 21. Izmir: Izmir BuyukSehir Belediyesi
Yayinlari.
Karpat, Kemal. H. (2003). Turkiye'de Toplumsal Donusum . Ankara: Imge Kitabevi.
Kartal, Kemal. (1992). Ekonomik ve Sosyal Yonleriyle Turkiye'de Kentlilesme. Ankara:
Adim Yayinlari.
Kazgan, Gulten. (1999). Tanzimat'tan XXI.yy'a Turkiye Ekonomisi. Istanbul: Bilimsel
Sorunlar Dizisi Altin Kitaplar Yayinevi.
Keles, Rusen. (2002). Kentlesme Politikasi. Ankara: Imge Kitabevi.
Kendig, Hal L. (1984). Housing Careers, Life Cycle and Residential Mobility:
Implications fo the Housing Market. Urban Studies, 21(3):271-283.
Keyder, Caglar. (1987). State and Class in Turkey. London: Verso.
Kiray, Mubeccel. (1972). Orgutlesemeyen Kent: Izmir. Ankara: Baglam Yayincilik.
Kiray, Mubeccel. (1998). Turkiye'de Dis Gocten Etkilenen Tarimsal Isletmelerin
Yeniden Yapilanisi. In Kiray, Mubeccel (ed). Kentlesme Yazilari (pp. 66-89).
Istanbul: Baglam Yayinlari.
Klaassen, Leo H. et al. (1987). Economic Impact and Implications of Shelter
Investments. In L. Rodwin, Shelter, Settlement, and Development (pp. 35-59).
Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Koc, Hulya. (2000). Konut Uzerine Yazilar. Izmir: DEU, Mimarlik Fakultesi Bilim
Dernegi Yayinlari.
Koc, Hulya. (2001). Cumhuriyet Doneminde Izmir'de Sosyal Konut ve Toplu Konut
Uygulamalari . Izmir: DEU Mimarlik Fakultesi Yayinlari.

295
Konak Municipality. (2005). The Archive of Planning Department of Konak Municipality
. Izmir: Konak Municipality, Planning Department.
Kongar, Emre. (1998). 21.Yuzyilda Turkiye: 2000'li Yillarda Turkiye'nin Toplumsal
Yapisi. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Lansing, John B. and L. Kish. (1957). Family Life Cycle as an Independent Variable.
American Sociological Review, 22(5):512-519.
Laquian, Aprodicio A. (1983). Sites and Services and Shelter: an Evaluation. Habitat
International, 7(5/6):211-225.
Leeds, Anthony. (1981). Lower Income Settlement Types: Processes, Structures,
Policies. In UNCHS-Habitat, The Residential Circumstances of the Urban Poor in
Developing Countries (pp. 21-62). New York : Praeger.
Lewis, Oscar. (1951). Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Lewis, Oscar. (1959). Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty .
New York: Basic Books.
Lewis, Oscar. (1961). The children of Sánchez, Autobiography of a Mexican Family.
New York: Random House.
Lewis, Oscar. (1965). La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty - San
Juan and New York. New York: Random House.
Littlewood, Amanda and Moira Munro. (1997). Moving and Improving: Strategies for
Attaining Housing Equilibrium. Urban Studies, 34(11):1771-1787.
Lloyd, Peter C. (1979). Slums of Hope? Shanty Towns of the Third World. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Lobo, Susan. (1982). A House of My Own: Social Organization in the Squatter
Settlements of Lima, Peru. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.
Mandic, Srna. (2001). Residential Mobility versus In-Place Adjustments in Slovenia:
Viewpoint from a Society in Transition. Housing Studies, 16(1):53-73.
Mangin, William. (1967). Latin American Squatter Settlements: a Problem and a
Solution. Latin American Research, 2(3):65-98.
Mangin, William and John F.C. Turner. (1968). The Barriada Movement . Progressive
Architecture, May:154-162.

296
Mangin, William and John F.C. Turner. (1969). Benavides and the barriada movement. In
Oliver, Paul (ed.), Shelter and Society (pp. 127-136). New York: F.A. Praeger.
Martal, Abdullah. (1999). Degisim Surecinde Izmirde Sanayilesme. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul
Universitesi Yayinlari.
Mathey, Kosta. (1992). Position's on Self-Help Housing. In K. Mathey, Beyond Self-Help
Housing (pp. 379-396). London: Mansell.
Mayo, Stephen K. (1987). Household Preferences and Expenditure. In Rodwin, Lloyd.
Shelter, Settlement and Development (pp. 62-72). Boston, London: Allen and
Unwin.
McLeod, P.B. and J.R. Ellis. (1982). Housing Consumption over the Family Life Cycle:
an Empirical Analysis. Urban Studies, 19(2):177-185.
McLeod, P.B. and J.R. Ellis (1983). Alternative Approaches to the Family Life Cycle in
the Analysis of Housing Consumption. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
45(3):699-708.
Mendelsohn, Robert. (1977). Empirical Evidence on Home Improvements. Journal of
Urban Economics, 4(4):459-468.
Michelson, William M. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential
Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mingione, Enzo. (1977). Theoretical Elements for a Marxist Analysis of Urban
Development. In Harloe, Michael (ed). Captive Cities (pp. 89-110). London: John
Wiley & Sons.
MLSC [Calisma ve Sosyal Guvenlik Bakanligi]. Yillar Itibariyle Gunluk ve Aylik Asgari
Ucretler. Retrieved on February 18, 2009, from Calisma ve Sosyal Guvenlik
Bakanligi Web site: http://www.csgb.gov.tr/articles.php?category_id=50
Moavenzadeh, Fred. (1987). The Construction Industry. In Rodwin, Lloyd (ed). Shelter,
Settlement and Development (pp. 73-109). Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Mohan, Rakesh. (1994). Understanding the Developing Metropolis: Lessons from the
City Study of Bogota and Cali, Colombia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Montgomery, Claire. (1992). Explaining Home Improvement in the Context of
Household Investment in residential Housing. Journal of Urban Economics,
32(3):326-350.

297
Moser, Caroline. (1987). Women, Human Settlements, and Housing: a Conceptual
Framwork for Analysis and Policy-Making. In Moser, Caroline and Linda Peake
(eds). Women, Human Settlements, and Housing (pp. 12-32). London, New York:
Tavistick .
Mukhija, Vinit. (2001a). Enabling Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy Paradox in
Practice. Housing Studies, 16(6):791-806.
Mukhija, Vinit. (2001b). Upgrading Housing Settlements in Developing Countries.
Cities, 18(4):213-222.
Mukhija, Vinit. (2002). An Analytical Framework for Urban Upgraiding: Property
Rigths, Property Values and Physical Attributes. Habitat International,
26(4):553-570.
Mukhija, Vinit. (2003). Squatters as Developers? Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai.
Hampshire: Ashgate.
Mukhija, Vinit. (2004). The Contradictions in Enabling Private Developers of Affordable
Housing: A Cautionary Case From Ahmedabad, India. Urban Housing,
41(11):2231-2244.
Muraya, Petronella W. (2006). Failed Top-Down Policies in Housing: The cases of
Nairobi and Santa Domingo. Cities, 23(2):121-128.
Nientied, et al. (1986). Some Comparative Evidence on Displacement and Income-
Housing Policy. World Development, Mimeo Manuscript cited in Mathey, Kosta
(ed). (1992) Beyond Self-Help Housing, London: Mansell.
Nientied, Peter and Jan Van Der Linden. (1988). Approaches to Low-Income Housing in
the Third World. In J. G. (ed), The Urbanization of the Third World (pp. 294-
307). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nientied, Peter and Jan Van Der Linden. (1990). The Role of the Government in the
Supply of Legal and Illegal Land in Karachi. In Baross, Paul and Jan Van Der
Linden (eds). The Transformation of Land Supply Systems in Third World Cities
(pp. 225-242). Aldershot: Avebury.
O’Hare, Greg and Dina Abbott. (1998). A Review of Slum Housing Policies in Mumbai.
Cities, 15(4):269-283.
Ok, Taner and Steven Tiesdell. (1994). Planning in Turkey: The Contrasting Planning
Cultures of Istanbul and Ankara. Habitat International, (18): 99-116.
Oncu, Ayse. (1988). The Politics of the Urban Land Market in Turkey: 1950-1980.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Researh, 12(1):38-64.

298
Ozdemir, Nihan. (1998). Transformation of Squatter Settlements into Authorised
Apartment Blocks: A Case Study of Ankara. Cantenbury: University of Kent
(Unpublished PhD Dissertation).
Ozdemir, Semahat et al. (2002). Izmir Aflari Sonrasinda Izmirde Gecekondulasma.
Yoksulluk, Kent Yoksullugu ve Planlama 8. Kasim Dunya Sehircilik Gunu
Kolokyumu (pp. 127-155). Ankara: TMMOB Sehir Plancilari Odasi.
Ozo, A.O. (1986). Residential Location and Intra-Urban Mobility in a Developing
Country: some empirical observations from Benin City Nigeria. Urban Studies,
23(6):457-470.
Pahl, Raymond E. (1984). Divisions of Labour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Palmer, Elizabeth K. and Carl V. Patton. (1988). Evolution of Third World Shelter
Policies. In Patton, Carl V. Spontaneous Shelter (pp. 3-24). Philadephia: Temple
University Press.
Pamuk, Ayse. (1992). Comparative analysis of housing delivery systems for low-income
households : policy options for Turkey. Berkeley: University of California at
Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development (Working Paper).
Pamuk, Ayse. (1996). Convergence Trends in Formal and Informal Housing Markets:
The Case of Turkey. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(2):103-
113.
Park, Robert. (1928). Human Migration and the Marginal Man. The American Journal of
Sociology, 33(6):881-893.
Payne, Geoffrey. (1984). Low Income Housing in the Developing World. Chichester:
John Wiley.
Payne, Geoffrey. (1989). Informal Housing and Land Subdivisions in Third World Cities:
a Review of the Literature. Oxford, UK: Centre for Development and
Environment Planning .
Payne, Geoffrey. (1997). Urban Land Tenure and Property Rights in Developing
Countries. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Payne, Geoffrey. (2001). Lowering the Ladder: Regulatory Frameworks for Sustainable
Development. Development in Practice , 11(2&3):308-318.
Payne, Geoffrey. (2004). Land Tenure and Property Rights: an Introduction. Habitat
International, 28(2):167-179.

299
Payne, Geoffrey and Michael Majale. (2004). The Urban Housing Manual: making
Regulatory Frameworks Work for the Poor. London: Earthscan.
Peattie, Lisa. (1968). The View from the Barrio. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Peattie, Lisa. (1979). Housing Policy in the Developing Countries:two puzzles. World
Development, 7(11-12):1017-1022.
Peattie, Lisa. (1982). Some Second Thoughts on Sites-and-Services . Habitat
International, 6(1/2):131-139.
Peattie, Lisa. (1987a). Affordability. Habitat International, 11(4):69-76.
Peattie, Lisa. (1987b). Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guayana. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Peattie, Lisa and Jose A. Aldrete-Haas. (1981). Marginal Settlements in Developing
Countries: Research, Advocacy of Policy, and Evolution of Programs. Annual
Review of Sociology, (7):157-175.
Perlman, Janice. (1976). The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de
Janeiro. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Porio, Emma and Christine Crisol. (2004). Property rigths, security tenure and the urban
poor in Metro Manila. Habitat International, 28(2):203-219.
Portes, Alejandro. (1972). Rationality in the Slums: An Essay on Interpretive Sociology.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 14(3):268-286.
Portes, Alejandro et al. (1989). The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less
Developed Countries. London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Potepan, Michael J. (1989). Interest Rates, Income and Home Improvement Decisions.
Journal of Urban Economics, 25(3):282-294.
Pugh, Cedric. (1990). Housing and Urbanization: a study of India. New Delhi, London:
Sage Publications.
Pugh, Cedric. (1995). The Role of the World Bank in Housing. In Aldrich, Brian C. and
Ranvinder S. Sandhu. Housing the Urban Poor: Policy and Practice in
Developing Countries (pp. 17-33). London: Zed Books.
Pugh, Cedric. (1997). The changing roles of self-help in housing and urban
policies:1950-1996. Third World Planning Review, 19(1):91-109.

300
Pugh, Cedric. (2000). Squatter Settlements: Their Sustainability, Architectural
Contributions, and Socio-Economic Roles. Cities, 17(5):325-337.
Pugh, Cedric. (2001). The Theory and Practice of Housing Sector Development for
Developing Countries: 1950-99. Housing Studies, 16(4):399-423.
Ramirez, Ronaldo and Rod Burgess. (1988). Affordability and No Cost Recovery!
TRIALOG , 18(3):9-12.
Ramirez et al. (1992). The Commodification of Self-Help Housing and State
Intervention: Household Experiences in the Barrios of Caracas. In Mathey, Kosta.
Beyond Self-Help Housing (pp. 95-144). London: Mansell.
Ratcliff, Richard U. (1949). Urban Land Economics. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rodwin, Lloyd and Bishwapriya Sanyal. (1987). Shelter, Settlement, and Development:
an overview. In Rodwin, Lloyd (ed). Shelter, Settlement, and Development (pp. 3-
34). Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Rossi, Peter H. (1955). Why Families Move. Glencoe: Free Press.
Roweis, Shoukry T. and Allen J. Scott. (1981). The Urban Land Question. In Dear,
Michael and Allen J. Scott (eds). Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist
Society (pp. 123-158). London: Methuen.
Roy, Ananya and Nezar Alsayyad. (2004). Urban Informality. Lanham: Lexington
Books.
Sassen, Saskia. (1994). Cities in a World Economy . Thousand Oaks, London: Pine Forge
Press.
Sassen, Saskia. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Saunders, Peter R. (1981). Social Theory and the Urban Question. London: Hutchinson.
Scott, Allen J. (1980). The Urban Land Nexus. London: Pion.
Seek, N.H. (1983). Adjusting Housing Consumption: Improve or Move. Urban Studies,
20(4):455-469.
Segmen, Ulker B. (1990). 1930-1946 Tek Parti Belediyeciligi Donemi - Izmir: Behcet Uz
Ornegi. Turk Belediyeciliginde 60. Yil Uluslararasi Sempozyum (pp. 159-192).
Ankara: Ankara BuyukSehir Belediyesi Yayinlari.
Sengul, Tarik. (2001). Kentsel Celiski ve Siyaset. Istanbul: WALD yayinlari.

301
Senyapili, Tansi. (1981). Gecekondu: Cevre Iscilerin Mekani. Ankara: ODTU Mimarlik
Fakultesi Yayinlari.
Senyapili, Tansi. (1993). Orgutlenemeyen Nufusa Orgutlu Cozum: Cozumsuzluk. Konut
Arastirmalari Sempozyumu (pp. 31-48). Ankara: Basbakanlik Toplu Konut Idaresi
Baskanligi.
Senyapili, Tansi. (1998). Cumhuriyet'in 75.Yili, Gecekondunun 50.Yili. In Sey, Yildiz
(ed). 75 Yilda Degisen Kent ve Mimarlik (pp. 301-316). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi
Yayinlari.
Senyapili, Tansi. (2004a). Baraka'dan Gecekonduya: Ankara'da Kentsel Mekanin
Donusumu1923-1960. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayincilik.
Senyapili, Tansi. (2004b). Charting the ‘Voyage’ of Squatter Housing in Urban Spatial
‘Quadruped’. Retrieved on 02 10, 2009, from European Journal of Turkish
Studies Web site: http://www.ejts.org/document142.html
Sevgi, Cezmi. (1988). Kentlesme Surecinde Izmir ve Gecekondular. Izmir: Kuvvet
Matbaacilik.
Shear, William B. (1983). Urban Housing Rehabilitation and Move Decisions. Southern
Economic Journal, 49(4):1030-1052.
Sinai, Irit. (2001). Moving or Improving: Housing Adjustment Choice in Kumasi, Ghana.
Housing Studies, 16(1):97-114.
SIS [Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu]. (1990). Census of Population:Social and Economic
Characteristics of Population. Ankara: TUIK.
SIS [Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu]. (2000a). Census of Population:Building Construction
Statistics. Ankara: TUIK.
SIS [Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu]. (2000b). Census of Population:Migration Statistics.
Ankara: TUIK.
SIS [Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu]. (2000c). Census of Population:Social and Economic
Characteristics of Population. Ankara: TUIK.
SIS [Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu]. (2007). Census of Population: Social and Economic
Characteristics of Population –Izmir. Ankara:TUIK.
Smart, Alan. (1986). Invisible Real Estate: Investigations into Squatter Property Market.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10(1):29-45.

302
Soliman, Ahmed M. (1995). A Tale of Informal Housing in Egypt . In Aldrich, Brian C.
and and Ranvinder S. Sandhu. Housing the Urban Poor: Policy and Practice in
Developing Countries (pp. 297-316). London: Zed Books.
Soliman, Ahmed M. (2004). Tilting at Sphinxes: Locating Urban Informality in Egyptian
Cities . In Roy, Ananya and Nezar Alsayyad. Urban Informality: Transnational
Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South East (pp. 171-208).
Lanham: Lexington Books.
Sonmez, Mustafa. (1982). Turkiye Ekonomisinde Bunalim II. Istanbul: Belge Yayinlari.
Sonmez, Mustafa. (1996). Istanbulun Iki Yuzu: 1980'den 2000'e dogru. Ankara: Arkadas.
Steinberg, Florian. (1990). Cairo: Informal Land Development and the Challenge for the
Future . In Linden, Paul B. and Jan Van Der Linden (eds). The Transformation of
Land Supply Systems in Third World Cities (pp. 111-132). Aldershot, England:
Avebury.
Strassmann, W. Paul. (1986). Types of Neighborhoods and Home-Based Enterprises:
evidence from Lima, Peru. Urban Studies, 23:485-500.
Struyk, Raymond J. (1982). Upgrading Existing Dwellings: an element in the housing
strategies of developing countries. Journal of Developing Areas, 17(1):67-75.
Takeuchi, Akie et al. (2006). The Welfare Effects of Slum Improvement Programs: The
Case of Mumbai, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3852 . Washington
D.C.: World Bank.
Taschner, Suzana P. (1992). Changes in the Process of Self-Help Housing Production in
Sao Paulo. In Mathey, Kosta (ed). Beyond Self-Help Housing (pp. 145-156).
London: Mansell.
Taschner, Suzana P. (1995). Squatter Settlements and Slums in Brazil: Twenty Years of
Research and Policy. In Aldrich, Brian C. and and Ranvinder S. Sandhu. Housing
the Urban Poor: Policy and Practice in Developing Countries (pp. 171-184).
London: Zen Books.
Tekeli, Ilhan. (1980). Turkiye'de Kent Planlamasinin Tarihsel Kokenleri. In T. Gok,
Turkiye'de Imar Planlamasi Icinde (pp. 8-112). Ankara: ODTU Minarlik
Fakultesi Yayini.
Tekeli, Ilhan. (1982). Turkiye'de Konut Sunumunun Davranissal Nitelikleri ve Konut
Kesiminde Bunalim. In Tekeli, Ilhan and Rusen Keles (eds). Konut 81' (pp. 57-
89). Ankara: Kent-Koop Yayinlari.

303
Tekeli, Ilhan. (1984). Bahcelievlerin Oykusu. Ankara: Batikent Konut Yapi
Kooperatifleri Birligi.
Tekeli, Ilhan. (1992). Belediyecilik Yazilari. Istanbul: IULA.
Tekeli, Ilhan. (1998). Turkiye'de Cumhuriyet Doneminde Kentsel Gelisme ve Kent
Planlamasi. In Sey Yildiz (ed). 75 Yilda Degisen Kent ve Mimarlik (pp. 1-24).
Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi.
Tekeli, Ilhan. (2008). Turkiye'de Kentlesme. Istanbul: Iletisim.
Tercan, Binali. (1996). Gunumuze Degin Imar Aflari. TMMOB Sehir Plancilari Odasi
Planlama Dergisi, (1-4):5-9.
The Amnesty Law (Number 2981) [2981 Sayili Imar Affi Kanunu]. (1984). Retrieved on
December 2, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir
Plancilari Odasi] Web site:http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat/mevzuat_detay.
php?kod=31
The Gecekondu Law (Number 775) [775 Sayili Gecekondu Kanunu]. (1966). Retrieved
on December 2, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City Planners [Sehir
Plancilari Odasi] Web site: http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat
/mevzuat_detay.php?kod= 27
The Metropolitan Municipality Law (Number 3030) [3030 Buyuksehir Belediyelerinin
Yonetimi Hakkinda 3030 Sayili Kanunun Uygulanmasi ile Ilgili Yonetmelik].
(1984). Retrieved on December 2, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City
Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site:http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat
/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=31
The Metropolitan Municipality Law (Number 5216) [5216 Sayili Buyuksehir Belediyesi
Kanunu]. (2004). Retrieved on December 10, 2008, from TMMOB The
Association of City Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site:
http://www.spo.org.tr /mevzuat /mevzuat_detay.php?kod=181
The Physical Development Planning Law (Number 3194) [3194 Sayili Imar Kanunu].
(1985). Retrieved on December 5, 2008, from TMMOB The Association of City
Planners [Sehir Plancilari Odasi] Web site: http://www.spo.org.tr/mevzuat
/mevzuat_detay.php?kod=33
Tipple, Graham A. (1994). A matter of interface: the need for a shift in targeting housing
intervention. Habitat International, 18(4):1-16.
Tipple, Graham A. (1996). Housing Extensions as Sustainable Development. Habitat
International, 20(3):367-376.

304
Tipple, Graham A. (2000). Extending Themselves: User-Initiated Transformation of
Government-Built Housing in Developing Countries. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Tipple, Graham A. (2005). The Place of Home-Based Enterprises in the Informal Sector:
Evidence from Cochabamba, New Delhi, Surabaya and Pretoria. Urban Studies,
42(4):611-632.
Tipple, Graham A. et al., (1998). Who is Building What in Urban Ghana? Housing
Supply in Three Towns. Cities, 15(6):399-416.
Tipple, Graham A. et al., (2000). An Assessment of the Decision to Extend Government-
Built Houses in Developing Countries. Urban Studies , 37(9):1605-1617.
Turkdogan, Orhan. (2006). Istanbul Gecekondu Kimligi. Istanbul: IQ Kultur Sanat
Yayincilik.
Turner, John F.C. (1963). Dwelling Resources in South America. Architectural Design,
(33):360-393.
Turner, John F. C. (1965). Lima's Barriadas and Corralones: Suburbs versus Slums.
Ekistics, (19):152-155.
Turner, John F. C. (1968). Housing Priorities, Settlement Patterns and Urban
Development in Modernizing Countries. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, (34):354-363.
Turner, John F.C. (1972). Housing as a Verb. In Turner, John F.C. and Robert Fichter,
Freedom to Build (pp. 148-175). New York: Macmillan.
Turner, John F. C. (1977). Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building
Environments. New York: Panthean Book.
Turner, John F. C. (1978). Housing in three Dimensions. Terms of Reference for the
Housing Question Redefined. World Development, 6(9/10):1135-1145.
Turner, John F. C. (1982). Issues in Self-Help and Self-Managed Housing. In Ward, Peter
M. (ed). Self-Help Housing: A Critique (pp. 99-113). London: Mansell.
Turner, John F. C. (1992). Forward. In Mathey, Kosta (ed). Beyond Self-Help Housing
(pp. xi-xiv). London: Mansell.
Turner, Jonathan H. (1991). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont, CA :
Wardsworth Publishing Company.

305
UNCHS. (1987). Global Report on Human Settlements 1986. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
UNCHS. (1990). The Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. Nairobi: UNCHS
(Habitat).
UN-HABITAT. (2003a). Global Urban Observatory, Guide to Monitoring Target 11:
Improving the Lives of 100 Million Slum Dwellers. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
UN-HABITAT. (2003b). The Challenge of Slums . London: Earthscan.
Unverdi, Hayat. (2002). Sosyo-Ekonomik Iliskiler Baglaminda Izmir Gecekondularinda
Kimlik Yapilanmalari. Izmir: DEU Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu (Unpublished PhD
Dissertation).
Uzel, Ahmet. (1986). Imara Iliskin Bagislamalarinin Gelisimi ve Degerlendirilmesi.
Ankara: Kent-Koop.
Uzun, C. Nil. (2005). Residential Transformation of Squatter SSettlements: Urban
Redevelopment Projects in Ankara. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 20(2):183-199.
Van Der Linden, Jan. (1983). The Squatter's House as a Source of Security. In Schoorl, J.
W. et al., Between Basti Dwellers and Bureaucrats: Lessons in Squatter
Settlement Upgrading in Karachi (pp. 69-76). Oxford, New York: Pergamon
Press.
Van Der Linden, Jan. (1986). Sites-and-Services Approach Reviewed. Aldershot: Gower.
Ward, Peter M. (1976). The Squatter Settlement as Slum or Housing Solution: The
Evidence from Mexico City. Land Economics, 53(3):330-346.
Ward, Peter M. (1982). The Practice and Potential of Self-Help Housing Mexico City. In
P. M. (ed). Self-Help Housing: A Critique (pp. 175-208). London: Mansell.
Ward, Peter M. (1983). Land for Housing the Poor: How Can Planners Contribute? In
Angel, Shlomo et al., Land for Housing the Poor (pp. 34-53). Singapore: Select
Books.
Ward, Peter M. (1990). The Politics and Costs of Illegal Land Development for Self-Help
Housing in Mexico City. In Baross, Paul and Jan Van Der Linden, The
Transformation of Land Supply in Third World Cities (pp. 133-168). Aldershot,
England: Avebury.
Werlin, Herbert. (1999). The Slum Upgrading Myth. Urban Studies, 36(9):1523-1534.

306
World Bank. (1993). Housing: Enabling Markets to Work:With Technical Supplements,
Policy Paper. Washington D.C: World Bank.
World Bank. (2000). Entering the 21st Century: World Development Report. Washington
D.C: World Bank.
World Bank. (2003). The Millennium Development Goals: Making Services Work for
Poor People. Washington D.C: World Bank.
World Bank. (2004). World Development Indicators 2004. Washington D.C: World
Bank.
World Bank. (2008). World Development Indicators 2008. Washington D.C: World
Bank.
Yavas, Seher. (1992). 2981 Sayili Yasa ve Islah Planlarinin Planlama Olgusu Icindeki
Yeri ve Yasallastirma Surecinde Olusturdugu Sonuclar. Izmir: DEU Sehir ve
Bolge Planlama Bolumu (Unpublished Project Thesis).
Yayman, Duygu O. (2003). Gultepe'de Huzunlu Bir Sonbahar. Izmir Life , 7(3):76-80.
Yerel Net. Yerel Yonetimler Portali. Retrieved on January 12, 2009, from Yerel Net Web
site: http://www.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/il_secim.php?ilid=35&yil= 1963
Yetkin, Sabri. (2001). Kolera Gunlerinde Izmir (1910-1911). Retrieved on March 12,
2009, from Izmir BuyukSehir Belediyesi Kent Kitapligi Web site: http://
www.izmirkitap.com/turkce.html
Yonder, Ayse. (1987). Informal Land and Housing Markets: the Case of Istanbul,
Turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(2):213-219.

307
APPENDIX A
Currency Exchange Rates

Year Turkish Liras per US Dollar
Official Rate Month
2000 675,004 TL December
2001
1,453,615
TL December
2002
1,647,654
TL December
2003
1,399,998
TL December
2004
1.3427
YTL
a
December
2005

1.3483 YTL December
2006 1.4124 YTL December
2007 1.1649 YTL December
2008 1.5291 YTL December
2009 1.6424 YTL January
(a): In December 2004, Turkey announced exchange rate in terms of New Turkish Liras (YTL).
Source: CBRT [Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankasi], (2009), Exchange Rates. Retrieved on
February 12, 2009, from CBRT Web site: http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/ yeni/kurlar / kurlar. html

308
APPENDIX B
Daily and Monthly Minimum Wages for Workers by Years

Official
Gazatt
e Date
and
Numbe
r
Effective
Date
Above 16 Years of Age (TL) Below 16 Years of Age (TL)
Daily Monthly
Incre
ase
Rate
% Daily Montly
Increa
se
Rate
%
22.12.
2000 /
24268
01.07.2001
31.07.2001 4,898,250 146,947,500 5.0 4,164,000 124,920,000 5.0
29.12.
2001 /
24625
01.01.2002
30.06.2002 7,400,025 222,000,750 32.2 6,290,025 188,700,750 32.2
31.12.
2002 /
24980
01.01.2003
31.12.2003 10,200,000 306,000,000 22.0 8,550,000 256,500,000 20.3
31.12.
2003 /
25333
01.01.2004
30.06.2004 14,100,000 423,000,000 38.2 12,000,000 360,000,000 40.4
30.12.
2004 /
25686
01.01.2005
31.12.2005 16.29 488.70 10.0 13.86 415.80 10.0
23.12.
2005 /
26032
01.01.2006
31.12.2006 17.70 531.00 8.7 15.00 450.00 8.2
28.12.
2006/2
6390
01.07.2007
31.12.2007 19.50 585.00 4.0 16.38 491.40 3.1
29.12.
2007/2
6741
01.07.2008
31.12.2008 21.29 638.70 5.0 18.02 540.60 4.9
Source: MLSC [Calisma ve Sosyal Guvenlik Bakanligi]. Yillar Itibariyle Gunluk ve Aylik Asgari Ucretler.
Retrieved February 18, 2009, from Calisma ve Sosyal Guvenlik Bakanligi Web site:
http://www.csgb.gov.tr/articles.php?category_id=50

309
APPENDIX C
Chi Square Test: Differences of Households in Terms of Their Housing Improvement
Motives by Neighborhoods

Chi-Square Tests
Neighborhoods Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Saygi Pearson Chi-Square 9.785
a
1 .002
Continuity Correction
b
7.092 1 .008
Likelihood Ratio 7.758 1 .005
Fisher's Exact Test .007 .007
Linear-by-Linear
Association
9.637 1 .002

N of Valid Cases 66
Millet Pearson Chi-Square 6.889
c
1 .009
Continuity Correction
b
5.013 1 .025
Likelihood Ratio 5.975 1 .015
Fisher's Exact Test .017 .017
Linear-by-Linear
Association
6.793 1 .009

N of Valid Cases 72
MehmetAkif Pearson Chi-Square 3.810
d
1 .051
Continuity Correction
b
.536 1 .464
Likelihood Ratio 2.323 1 .128
Fisher's Exact Test .193 .193
Linear-by-Linear
Association
3.683 1 .055

N of Valid Cases 30
26Agustos Pearson Chi-Square 7.901
e
1 .005
Continuity Correction
b
3.735 1 .053
Likelihood Ratio 5.013 1 .025
Fisher's Exact Test .043 .043
Linear-by-Linear
Association
7.704 1 .006

N of Valid Cases 40

310

Chi-Square Tests: Continued
Neighborhoods Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
YavuzSelim Pearson Chi-Square 27.473
f
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
23.019 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 25.150 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
26.834 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 43
Zeybek Pearson Chi-Square 4.451
g
1 .035
Continuity Correction
b
2.321 1 .128
Likelihood Ratio 4.063 1 .044
Fisher's Exact Test .069 .069
Linear-by-Linear
Association
4.302 1 .038

N of Valid Cases 30
Huzur Pearson Chi-Square 9.109
h
1 .003
Continuity Correction
b
6.418 1 .011
Likelihood Ratio 10.628 1 .001
Fisher's Exact Test .005 .005
Linear-by-Linear
Association
8.938 1 .003

N of Valid Cases 53
Anadolu Pearson Chi-Square 13.933
i
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
7.034 1 .008
Likelihood Ratio 9.585 1 .002
Fisher's Exact Test .013 .013
Linear-by-Linear
Association
13.300 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 22
Trakya Pearson Chi-Square 2.260
j
1 .133
Continuity Correction
b
.672 1 .412
Likelihood Ratio 2.065 1 .151
Fisher's Exact Test .202 .202
Linear-by-Linear
Association
2.147 1 .143

N of Valid Cases 20

311

Chi-Square Tests. Continued
Neighborhoods Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Murat Pearson Chi-Square 5.826
k
1 .016
Continuity Correction
b
4.148 1 .042
Likelihood Ratio 5.136 1 .023
Fisher's Exact Test .025 .025
Linear-by-Linear
Association
5.737 1 .017

N of Valid Cases 65
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.64.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
c. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.60.
d. 3 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .20.
e. 3 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .40.
f. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.09.
g. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.20.
h. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.89.
i. 3 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27.
j. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .90.
k. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.80.

Source: Household Interview Results, 2005-2006.

312
APPENDIX D
Household Survey, Gultepe District, Izmir

District : Questionaire
No.
Household No. Family No.
Neighborhood :
Street #
Unit #
FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW AT THE END OF EACH VISIT

Visit No. Interviewed
person
Interview
Result
Date Time of
Visit
(head of
household,
spouse)
a
(look at the
codes below)
day/month
/year

1
2
3
a: do not identify any names of the participants.

Interview Codes

1. Interview postponed to meet the head household

2.Interview Completed with a Household member

(specify: e.g. spouse, head of household) _____________________

3.Interview Partly Completed / will Return

4.Interview Stopped by Respondent

SECTION I: Mobility Characteristics of Households
Interviewer: Please make every effort to interview the head of household and/or his/her
spouse.
1. What is total number of household of this unit?
_____________ persons
2. What is the number of family living in this unit?
_____________ family

313
3. What is the place of birth?
Head of households ______________
Spouse ______________

4. How many years have you been living in Izmir?
Head of households ______________
Spouse ______________
5. Where were you living before moving in Izmir?
Head of households ______________
Spouse ______________
6. Including Izmir, how many cities you lived in until today?
Head of households ______________ (total cities lived)
Spouse ______________ (total cities lived)

7. What were the reasons to move in Izmir? (circle - multiple choices may apply)
Head of Household Spouse
(0) Born in Izmir (0) Born in Izmir
(1) To get a job (1) To get a job
(2) To get a better job (2) To get a better job
(3) For educational purpose (3) For educational purpose
(4) For health purpose (4) For health purpose
(5) To live in a bigger city (5) To live in a bigger city
(6) To give better opportunities to children (6) To give better opportunities to children
(7) To be closer to relatives (7) To be closer to relatives
(8) Other (specify)

(8) Other (specify)

(9) No Answer (9) No Answer

8. Including this unit, how many housing units you moved in within Izmir?
(total units moved unit) _____________
Note: Go to Question 11, if this unit is the only unit that the household lived in since
they come to Izmir.
9. Which neighborhood you lived in before moving in this neighborhood?
First move to Izmir ____________
(specify the neighborhood) ____________

314
10. How long have you lived in your previous neighborhood? Identify periods.
First move to Izmir _____________
From _________ (year) to _____________ (year)
11. How long have you been living in this house?
(specify the year) _____________
12. How long have you been living in this neighborhood?
(specify the year) ______________
13. Why did you move into this neighborhood? (indicate the first three reasons)
1. This was the only affordable option / for economic reasons
2. The unit was built on the lot that belongs to the family/ one of the
members of the family
3. Previous housing unit was sold
4. House-owner evicted the household
5. Rent went too high
6. Close to work / easy access to work
7. Close to school / easy access to school
8. Close to relatives
9. Close to citizens and friends
10. General dissatisfaction from previous housing unit and
neighborhood
11. Others (specify) _________________________________
12. Inherited
13. Not stated
14. Would you like to move out from this neighborhood into another neighborhood?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not decided yet / don't know
15. Where would you like to move out?
(specify the neighborhood or city) ________

315
16. If you would like to move out, why would you like to move?
1. To move into more affordable place/neighborhood
2. To move into a better serviced neighborhood with paved streets and better
infrastructure
3. To move into a closer neighborhood to work
4. To move into a closer neighborhood to school
5. To be close to relative/citizens
6. Others (specify) ___________________

SECTION II: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households
Interviewer: Please make every effort to interview the head of household and/or his/her
spouse.
Sub-Section IIA: Educational Level of the Members of Household
17 18 19 20 21 22

Household
members
Relationship to
Head of Household Sex

Age

Place of
birth
Highest Educational
Achievement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Relationship to the head of
hh.
Sex Highest Educational Attainment
1. Head of Household
2.Spouse
3.Child
4.Grandchild
5.Parent (mother/father)
6.Brother/sister
7.Parent-in-law
8.Other-in-law
9.Relative
10.Other (specify)
0.Male
1.Female
0.N/A (less than 3 years old)
1.Kindergarden
2.Literate (no school completed)
3.Illeterate
4.1st-5th grade
5. Elementary School Diploma
5.6th-8th grade
7.Middle-School diploma
6.9th grade
7.10th grade
8.11th grade, no diploma
9.High school diploma
10.Some college, no diploma
11. Bachelor's degree.
12. Master's degree and higher

316

Sub-Section IIB: Employment Status of Households.
Note: Even the respondent is retired, specify his/her final employment status.

23 24 25 26 27 28
Household
members
Employment
status (1)
Occupa
tion
a

Class
of
Worke
r (2)
Year
last
worked
b

Place
of
work

Means of
Transportation
to work
Transportation
(3) -
Commuting
time (4)
head of hh.
spouse

a: Clearly specify what kind of job respondents are working at (e.g. food vendor, maid,
teacher etc.)
b: If he/she is still working, indicate the column as zero (0)

Status (1) Class of Worker (2)
0.N/A (child under school age)
1.Working full-time (regular basis)
2.Working part-time (regular basis)
3.Working irregularly (when a job is available)
4.Seasonal worker
5.Not working / Unemployed
6.Housewife
7.Retired
8.Rentier

0.N/A (child under school age)
1.Employee with wages, salary, or commissions
/ with social security benefits
2.employee with wages, salary, or commissions
/ with no social security benefits
3.local government employee
4.self-employed in owned business or
professional practice / not an employer
5.employer (self-employed and an employer)
6.working in family business with payment
7.working in family business without payment
8.unemployed, or not working
9.Other_______________________________
Means of transportation (3) Commuting time (4)
0.N/A (not a worker or a schooler)
1.Bus
2.Railroad / Subway.
3.Car,truck, or van
4.Taxi-Van (Dolmus)
5.Taxicab
6.Motorcycle
7.Bicycle.
8.On foot
9.Working at home
10.Other
0.N/A (not a worker or a schooler, or a a person
working at home)
1.(0-15) minutes
2.(16-30) min
3.(31-45) min.
4.(46-60) min.
5.(1-1.5) hours.
6. (1.6-2) hours.
7.more than 2 hours
29. Do you have an automobile? 0.No ______ 1. Yes _______
Identify the status of the last job of the unemployed and/or the retired respondent.

317
Sub-Section IIC: Economic Structure of Households.
30. Are you happy with your job? (If yes, go to the question # 32)

Household members happy with job?
Head of household
Spouse
Person1
a

Person2
Person3
Person4
Person5
Person6
a: clearly specify the relationship of the member to the head of household. (e.g. if the
member is the child of the head, type as ``child``).
Happiness at work
1. yes
2. no
31. Would you like to change your job or work place? If yes, explain why?

Household members any attempt to change work reason to change work
Head of household
Spouse
Person1 *
Person2
Person3
Person4
Person5
Person6

attempt to change work reason to change work
Yes
No
N/A (not working)
1.Low payment
Like to open my own business
Like to open my own business
Low level of accessibility to work
Others (specify) ____________
32. Is this your first job? / If you are retired, was the last job your first job?

Household members First job? (1.Yes / 2.
No)
Head of household
Spouse

318
33. How long have you been working / have worked at your current / last job?

Household members year at current job
Head of household
Spouse
Person1 *
Person2
Person3
Person4
Person5
Person6
(specify the months and years that has been at the work)
34. What kind of job you were working at before you started at this job? How long had
you worked at your previous job?
34A 34B
Household members previous job duration at previous job
Head of household
Spouse
Person1 *
Person2
Person3
Person4
Person5
Person6
35. Approximately, what is your monthly household income?
0. Not answered
1. Less than 200 TL
2. 200-300 TL
3. 301-400 TL
4. 401-500 TL
5. 501-600 TL
6. 601-700 TL
7. 701-800 TL
8. 801-900 TL
9. 901 and over
36. Approximately, what is your monthly household expenditure?
________________________ TL.

319
37. What other additional incomes your household has? (multiple answers can apply)
1. No additional income
2. Income from cultivation
3. Income from property sale
4. Income from interest rate of savings
5. Income from abroad / hometown
6. Income from rented out unit
7. Other (specify) _________
8. Don’t know

38. Are the members of household working at home for extra earning? If yes, what kind
of work they do?

1. No
2. Yes
2.1. Food preparation / Vending from unit
2.2. Garment making / Sewing
2.3. Appliance repairment
2.4. Jewelery processing / Embroidery
2.5. Carpet, Kilim production
2.6. Sub-goods production for industry companies (specify) ____________
2.7. Child-care
2.8. others (specify) ___________________________
3. Not stated / don’t know
39. Among all, what are the three most important monthly expenses of your household?
1. Rent
2. House Repair
3. Housing Construction, building additions
4. Heating
5. Utility services (water, electricity)
6. Transportation
7. Education
8. Clothing
9. Entertainment
10. Others (specify) ____________
11. Food Expenses
40. How much of your household income goes to the repairmen / to rent?
0. N/A (or not stated)
1. _____________________ TL.

320
41. Can you save money? If so, what types of savings can you make?
0. No savings
1. Buying a real-estate
2. Buying plots
3. Buying agricultural lots
4. Buying cattles
5. Buying exchange money,
6. Buying motor-vehicles
7. Buying hoouse utilities (e.g. TV, video)
8. Putting into bank account for earning interest rate
9. Investing money to business
10. Others (specify) )_____________ gold, jewelery
11. Not stated / don't know

SECTION III: Characteristics of Households
Sub-Section IIIA: Tenure Status
42. Are you a homeowner or a renter of this housing unit?

1. Renter (Go to the questions between #43 - 51)
2. Homeowner (Go to the question #52)
For Renters:
43. Since when have you been a renter? _____________ (specify the year)

44. Have you ever become a homeowner? If yes, how long have you been a homeowner?
1. Yes____________ (specify the year) (go to the question #44)
2. No (always been a renter) (go the question #45)

45. Why did you chose to become a renter while previously you were a homeowner?
________________________________________________________
46. Have you had any attempt to become a homeowner?
1. Yes. Why would not you become a homeowner?_________
2. No

321
47. What was the first time monthly rent value of this unit and what is the current
monthly rent value?

1. first time monthly rent value _______TL(and specify the year) ________
2. Today's monthly rent value _______________________TL
48. Do you think that the monthly rent has increased extensively since you moved in?
1. Extensive increase
2. Moderate increase
3. Very low / no increase
4. Decreased
5. No idea
49. Currently, do you face any hardship to pay the rent?
1. Extreme hardship to pay the rent
2. Moderate hardship to pay the rent
3. No hardship to pay the rent
50. Do you know how many times this housing unit has been sold / rented?
1. _____________ time of sold (homeownership exchange)
2. _____________ time of rented (rental exchange)
3. don't know
51. Based on your current income ability, where would you buy a housing unit?
1. (specify the neighborhood) _________________
2. cannot buy a house
3. don't know /not stated
For Homeowners:
52. Since when have you been a homeowner? _____________ (specify the year)
53. Have you ever been a renter? If yes, how long have you been a renter?
1. Yes ____________ specify the year -->Between 19_____ to __19____
2. No (always been a homeowner)
54. Can you give the story of how you have become a homeowner?

322
55. What was the first time cost of this unit (how much you had paid for the unit) and
what is the current cost of the unit if you would like to sell it today?

1. First time value(TL) __________19___(specify the year)
2. Home value of today(TL) ______________________________
56. What would be the rental price of a housing unit such as this today?
________________________________TL.
57. Do you know how many times this housing unit has been sold / rented?
0. Don’t know
1. _____________ time of sold (homeownership exchange)
2. _____________ time of rented (rental exchange)
58. Who has the ownership of the housing unit?
1. I own the ownership
2. Ownership belongs to a relative _______________
3. Others ________________
4. not stated

59. If the ownership belongs to you, since when you have the ownership?
______________________ (specify the year)
60. Do you have official title deed of the land your housing unit was built in?
1. Yes __________. When have you received the official deed? ______
2. No
0. don't know / not stated

323
61. Please indicate the tenure status of the land from the list below. (put in circles)
1.Official title deed, purchased from individual 11. No official deed/sub-divided land by
individual
2.Official title deed, purchased from developer 12.No official deed/sub-divided land by
developer
3.Official title deed, purchased from the state 13.No official deed/purchased with a letter
agreement
4.Inherited with official title deed 14. Rent free (specify
5.Gifted with deed 15.Squatting/first time settler
6.Sub-divided with deed purchased from an
individual
16.Squatting/set on an abandoned land
7.Sub-divided with deed purchased from developer 17.Squatting/purchased from previous owner
8.Have Government Certificate 18. Squatting/purchased from a developer
9.No official deed/purchased from individual 19. Undivided inheritance/with multiple share
10.No official deed/purchased from a developer 0. Not Applicable
62. Do you have official title deed of the housing unit?
1. Yes __________> If yes, when have you received the official deed? __19_______
2. No
0. Don’t know
63. Indicate the tenure status of housing unit from the list below. (put in circles)
0 .N/A
1. Having official title deed
2. Unofficial title deed/written agreement received from an individual
3. Unofficial deed/written agreement received from a private developer
4. No title deed / purchased based on trust
5. No title deed / squatting
6. Other (specify)_____________________________
64. If you do not have an official title deed for your unit, please explain why you couldn't
take the official title deed?

324
65. How did you first acquire / own your unit and the the land?
Land House
1.Invaded from 11.Municipality
12. the Treasury
13.private Administrative Office of the City
14.the Governmental foundation
15.the Forest Treasury
16.Private ownership
17. don’t know
2.purchased from 21.previous owner /individual
22.developer / land-broker
23. Municipality
24. the Government Treasury
25.the Governmental Foundation
26.the Forest Treasury
27.don’t know
3.Inherited 31.from parents
32.from relative
4.built by owner 41.by me
42.by parents
43.by previous owner
5.not stated

66. Can you briefly tell the story of how the land and the house was obtained for the first
time?
66A. Were you purchased the plot from someone else or invaded it by yourself?

66B. When did you first move in this plot? Please specify the date. (year)

66C. (If you purchased the plot from someone else), do you know the story of first- time
land acquisition of this plot? How had the first owner of this plot acquired this land? Had
he/she purchased it or invaded it?

66D. Do you know when this land was first transformed into a plot? If so, please tell the
story behind it?
66E. If any, what kind of deed for the plot you had when you purchased it? Was it a
personal agreement between the parties, a sub-divided deed, or an official title deed, or
else?
66F. Was this housing unit existed when you purchased the plot, or was it built after you
purchased the plot?
66G.Was the first housing unit in this plot a squatter? If so, what kind of purchasing
agreement you made when you purchased the squatter? Was it a sub-divided deed
agreement?

325
66H. Have you demolished the squatter unit and built this one from scratch, or have you
renovated the squatter unit into this one?
67. Who built this housing unit? 0. N/A
1. self constructed / built by myself (no help from relatives) (go to #73)
2. built by myself with communal help from relatives, friend (go to #73)
3. built by hiring paid-workers (go to #73)
4. built by hiring one contractor for the whole job
5. self-constructed by the previous owner (go to #75)
6. built by the previous owner by hiring paid-workers (go to #75)
7. don't know (go to #75)
8. others (specify) ___________________________
If the Housing Unit was Built by the Contractor:
68. When did you make an agreement with a contractor to build this unit?
(specify the year) _______________________
69. When did the contractor submit the building to you?
1. Within 6 months
2. 1 year
3. 2 years
4. 3 years
5. 4 years
6. Other _____________

70. Have you received any additional benefits from the contractor so he can built the
unit?
1. number of units you received
2. number of commercial units you received
3. cash allowance you received
0. Nothing/ I paid and he constructed

71. Are you the only share-holder of this building?
Identify the number of share-holders of this building __________

326
72. If there is more than one share holder, please indicate what have the other share-
holders received from the contractor?
Share-Holders 1 2 3 4
number of housing
unit number of commercial units
cash allowance received
73. (If you constructed your dwelling unit,) have you gotten a construction permit to
construct this unit?
1. Yes (go to question# 75)
2. 2.No (go to question# 74)
3. 3.don't know
4. 4.not responded
74. (If you did not get a construction permit for your unit,) please explain why you
haven't gotten the construction permit? (multiple answers may apply)
1. High price to acquire a building permit
2. Lengthy procedures to acquire a permit
3. The plot that the unit is built on is still in illegal status
4. Others_________________________
5. Already have a building permit
6. don't know
7. not stated / responded
75. When was this building / housing unit built?
Beginning date of the construction ___ 19___
Ending date of the construction ___ 19___
76. What type of improvements / rehabilitations have you undertaken in your housing
unit since you have moved in? (multiple answers may apply)
Year
1. Built the second floor
2. Built the third and/or more floors
3. Constructed another unit on one portion of
the plot

4. Had extensions to the existing structure /
unit (e.g. an additional room, bathroom, indoor
WC etc.)

5. Major renovations / rebuilt the structure
6.Others ____________________
7. No renovation (go to #79)

327
If there is any type of improvement occurred in the unit:
77. What was the reason for improvement of this unit /structure?(multiple answers may
apply)
1. Household expansion
2. Units for rent
4. Units for business
5. 4.Others (specify) _____________________
78. If you did not get a permit for improvements of the structure, what was the reason for
not applying for a rehabilitation permit? (multiple answers may apply)
0. N/A (rental unit, rent-free, or inherited)
1. High price to acquire a permit
2. Lengthy procedures
3. Others____________________
79. What type of financial resources have you used for purchasing, building and/or
renting your housing unit? (multiple answers may apply)
1. commercial bank loan
2. loan from family members / close relatives
3. loan from second degree relatives / friends
4. loan from money lender / pawnbroker
5. loan from the employer
6. cash from household savings
7. household income (monthly income - no savings)
8. selling real estate (e.g. house, plot, land)
9. selling gold & jewelry
10. remittances from abroad
11. others (specify)_________________________
Sub-Section IIIB: Additional Property
80. Do you have another property elsewhere? If yes, how many? (multiple answers may
apply)
1. Yes
1.1. housing unit
1.2. housing plot
1.3. Others ___________________________
2. No
3. Not stated

328
If you have additional property other than this unit
81. What is the current status of your property / properties?
(multiple answers may apply, when multiple answers occur, also identify the
quantity of properties in relevant cells)
- A - Unit B - Land / Plot

C - Others
0. N/A
1.Rental
2.Occupied by a
family
member/relative
a

3.Occupied by a friend
*

4.Vacant
5.For sale
6.Other (specify)
a: represents rent -free occupation by family members, relatives, and friends.
82. Where is your other property located at?
- A - Unit B - Land / Plot

C - Others
0. N/A
1.In the same building
2.On the same street
3.In the same
neighborhood

4.In another
neighborhood of the
city (specify)

5.In other villages of
Izmir province (specify)

6.Other (specify)

SECTION IV: Physical Characteristics of Housing Units
Sub-Section IVA: Observations of Housing
83. What is the total number of housing units in this building?
_________________ total number of units
84. Are all the units in this building occupied?
1. All units are occupied
2. 2.Some units are occupied (specify vacant units) _______

329
85. Are there any units under-construction in this building? If yes, how many?
1. No units under-construction
2. _____________ unit(s)

86. What is the size of this plot?
_________________________ square meter.
87. What is the size of this housing unit?
_________________________ square meter.
88. What is the use purpose of your housing unit?
1. For residency purpose only
2. Primarily for residency use with some auxiliary uses
2.1. Shop/Grocery____________________________
2.2. Some production of goods, sub-goods for industrial uses__________
2.3. Clothing /Tailoring, Altering
2.4. Repairment (e.g. auto repair, appliance repair etc.)_______________
2.5. Others ____________________________
Interviewer: Fill out the above questions based on your observations.
89. Please indicate the type of housing unit you interviewed
1. Separate Detached House (one unit)
2. Separate Attached House (one unit)
3. Attached House
4. Flat or Apartment Unit in Multi-Unit Building
5. Squatter
6. Other _____________________
90. Indicate the number of stories of the building
_______ total number of stories
91. Indicate the topography of the plot
1. Flat
2. Moderate Slope
3. Steep Slope

330
92. Is there any extension potential to grow vertically in the building?
1. Yes - there are concrete roots on the roof of the building
2. No -there are no concrete roots on the roof of the building
If There is any Vacant Unit in the Building
93. How long has the vacant unit(s) been vacant?
______________ (years, months)

94. Do you know why the unit is vacant?

1. to give it as rental
2. to sell it
3. others _________

95. Does the owner of this vacant unit live in his/her own unit or live in rental unit?
1. live in his/her own housing unit
2. live in rental unit
3. others ____________________________
Sub-Section IVB: Physical Characteristics of Housing and its Nearby Environment
96. Please indicate the number of rooms of your current and previous housing unit.
First time structure of
the current unit- 1

Current structure of the
unit - 2

The structure of
previous housing-3
number of rooms*
number of bedrooms
*do not count bathrooms, kitchens, and entrees.
97. Please identify structural features of your dwelling unit.
Structural features *

First time structure of
the current unit- 1

Current structure of the
unit -2

The structure of
previous housing-3
Construction materials
Structure of the wall
material

Roof material
Floor material

331

Interviewer: Please look up the codes below to fill out the information in the table.
Construction Materials Structure of Wall Materials
1.Stone piling 1.Prefabricated materials
2.Concrete 2.Concrete block
3.Prefabricated concrete 3.Wood
4.Bricks and concrete 4.Concrete and wood
5.Wood 5.Temporary materials
6.Temporary materials 6.Others
7.Others
Roof Materials Floor Material (indoor)
1. Metal sheeting (tin, zinc, alumni etc.) 1.Wood
2. Tile shingles 2.Concrete/wood
3.Concrete 3.Concrete and wood
4.Other 4.Brick
5.Stone
6.Parquety
7.Dirt
98. Please identify current and previous housing services in your units.
Services

First times of
the current unit -
1
Current unit - 2

Previous unit - 3
Drinking water supply source *
Electricity supply source *
Plumbing facilities (yes/no)
toilet
bathroom
kitchen
Sewage disposal system *
No of toilets/bathrooms
toilet only
Bathroom only
Both toilet & bathroom
Interviewer: Please look up the codes below to fill out the information in the table.
Drinking water supply system
1.public pipe system
2.water tanker (private)
3.dug well
4.neighborhood fountain
5.other
Electricity supply system
1.TEDAS-TEAS electricity line
2.hooked up line (illegal)
3.no electricity
4.other
Sewage disposal system
1.public sewage system
2.septic tank
3.outhouse
4.other

332
Neighborhood Facilities
99. Are you happy from your neighborhood?
1. Very happy
2. Somewhat happy
3. Not happy
100. Are you generally happy with the public services in your neighborhood?
1. Yes
2. No

101. Does the local municipality collect your garbage regularly? Please identify the
current condition of garbage collection.
1. Yes
2. No (go to the question# 104)

102. Since when has the local municipality been collecting your garbage?
______________ (specify the year)
103. How frequently is your garbage being collected today?
1. daily
2. every other day
3. once a week
4. 4.twice a week
5. 5.irregular pattern
6. 6.other (specify) ______________________
7. not collected / self disposal
104. What are the three most disliked things in public services for your housing unit and
the neighborhood? (please list the first most disliked thing in the #1 square)
1. Poor drainage system, sewage system ( )
2. Poor roads (lack of roads, high steep roads, unpaved roads) ( )
3. Poor public water supply system (lack of water supply, water pollution, water
cuts) ( )
4. Poor public garbage collection system ( )
5. Poor public transportation system (lack of adequate buses, low level of service
frequency, low level of efficient transportation system) ( )
6. Poor electricity line system (poor connection, frequent blackouts) ( )
7. High level of crime ( low security, drugs, vandalism and theft) ( )

333
105. Which public amenities in the list below you would like to have in your
neighborhood?
1 2 3
Public Amenities Yes- love to No- don't want to don't know
Park - picnic area
Playground
Childcare facility
Elementary school
High school
Library
Health Clinic
Police Station
Bus Route/ Stop
Dolmus/ Mini-bus
Mosque
Soccer yard
Community center/
hobby center

Section V: Additional Questions to the Older Households
Interviewer: In below, there are open-ended questions. So, please fill out the
relevant spaces with a special care in listening and writing.
106. Have you been living in this neighborhood before the improvement plan approved?
1. Yes (go to # 107 and continue from #109)
2. No (go to # 108)
107. What was the property value of your housing unit and the plot before the approval
of the improvement plan?
Land Value : _____________________ TL (also indicate the year)
Housing Value :______________________ TL (also indicate the year)
Don't know: _________________________
108. Have you been living in this neighborhood during the implementation of the
improvement plan?
1. Yes (go to the question# 109)
2. No (if the answer is no, end the interview here).

334
109. Do you think that there has been increase in the land and housing value in this
neighborhood with the improvement plans? If so, how do you describe this increase?
1. Tremendous increase
2. Moderate increase
3. Low increase
4. No increase
Note: Ask the following questions to the household you interview, if only the
household has been living in this neighborhood before and during the
improvement plans. Otherwise, finalize the interview by thanking to the household
for its collaboration.
110. According to you, what kind of physical changes occurred in this neighborhood by
the implementation of improvement plan?
111. Would you prefer living in the previous appearance of your neighborhood that was
covered with squatters, or are you happier of today's appearance of the neighborhood
that was created by the improvement plan?
1. prefer living in the previous neighborhood
2. prefer living as in today
112. How do you describe the timely changes of the public services in your
neighborhood? When was the first time that the local government had brought the
regular public service in this neighborhood?
113. Comparing the before and after years of the improvement plans implemented in
this neighborhood, do you think there has been an increase in homeownership after
the improvement plans, or is there an increase in the rental housing units in your
neighborhood? Please explain briefly.
114. Based on your observations, do the households generally live in this neighborhood
for a longer time or do they incline to move out of this neighborhood?
115. If there is any, when was the first time you paid attention to the out mobility? What
would be the reason for out mobility?
116. Who would incline to move out of the neighborhood?

117. Do you know where the households that moved out of this neighborhood live in
today? Please indicate the neighborhood:
118. Why do they prefer to live in these neighborhoods?

335
119. Do the households who moved out of this neighborhood mostly live in their new
neighborhood as homeowners or renters? If they mostly prefer living as renters, why
do you think they prefer this option over being homeowner?
120. Do you know anybody who has moved out of this neighborhood? If so, do you
know whether they are happy in their new neighborhood or not?
121. Do you know anybody who has moved out of this neighborhood because of the
economic hardship he/she faced with the increase in land values occurred by the
neighborhood transformation through improvement plans? If so, where did they go?
122. If you still in touch with any of such households, can I get their telephone numbers
and addresses, so I can make interview with them too?
123. Comparing the before and after years of the improvement plans implemented in
this neighborhood, what type of characteristics in household structure have changed?
Do you think that younger families have started to prefer this neighborhood?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COLLABORATION TO
THIS QUESTIONNAIRES.

336
APPENDIX E
Interview with Muhtars, Gultepe District

Neighborhood Name
Name of Muhtar
1. How many people live in this neighborhood? How many units there are in this
neighborhood?
___________________________
2. How long have been living in this neighborhood?
___________________________ (specify the year)
3. How long have been the muhtar of this neighborhood?
____________________________ (specify the year)
4. How many times you have been the muhtar of this neighborhood?
____________________________
5. Have you been living in this neighborhood before the implementation of upgrading
plans?
1. No _________________________ 2. Yes ________________________
6. What kinds of changes occurred in this neighborhood since the upgrading plans?
Please tell the story of differences and changes occurred in your neighborhood.
Physical changes ________________________________________________
Changes in public services and amenities _____________________________
7. When were the roads built? When was the water and electricity supply come to the
neighborhood? Please tell the story behind each of these facilities?
Roads ___________________________________________________
Water supply ___________________________________________________
Electricity supply ________________________________________________

337
8. Do you think that households are happy with the services provided in this
neighborhood? What kinds of demands the households are coming to you related with
the services?
9. Comparing with the times before the upgrading plans introduced to this neighborhood,
what are the major differences of services provided to this neighborhood?
10. What are the general characteristics of population in your neighborhood?
1. Where have the households predominantly come from? Please tell about the
origins of the population in this neighborhood.
2. Is the population among young households or elderly households?
3. Are the households generally among the older households who had been residing
in this neighborhood before the upgradation processes? Or do you think that this
neighborhood is receiving new households? If so, since when do you think it
started? And, is there a characteristic difference between the old households and
new-comers?
11. Can you compare the characteristics of households who have been residing in this
community before the upgrading plans were introduced and today?
12. Do you think that the educational level has increased especially among the young
population? Do you think the educational level of new comers is higher than the older
households? Please explain how you thing about the population educational level in
this neighborhood.
13. How do you think that the economic level of households in this neighborhood?
1. Are they mostly among middle-income households, or minimum-wage earners?
2. Do you think that the unemployment rate is increased in this neighborhood?
3. What kinds of jobs does the population in this neighborhood usually work at?
4. What is the general income level of the population in this neighborhood?
5. Do you think that there has been a change in employment rate per household? If
so, please explain how and in what way?
6. How is the employment rate among women?
14. Do you think there has been a change in homeownership level?
1. If so, what kinds of changes in homeownership level of households occurred in
this neighborhood?

338
2. Do you think there has been an increase in renters? If so, when did the increase in
renters have particularly become prevalent in this neighborhood?
15. Do you think the sale price of housing units and/or rental price have increased in this
neighborhood after the the upgrading plans? If so, please explain how, and when?
16. Do you think that there has been an increase in vacancy level of housing units in this
neighborhood? If so, why do you think that is the case?
17. Do you think that there has been an increase in investing on land and housing for
speculative purposes? If so, please explain how?
18. Do you think the households in this neighborhood live here for a long time? Has
household mobility rate increased in this neighborhood? If so, please explain why and
how?
19. Where do the households who moved-out this neighborhood moved-in? Do you know
why households are moving out?
20. Do you know anybody who moved-into another neighborhood that I can talk with?
Are the households that moved-out into another neighborhood happy with their new
neighborhoods?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

339
APPENDIX F
Photos from Gultepe District (2005-2006)
Photos 1 and 2: Buildings Constructed Through User-Initiated Involvements

Photos 3 and 4: Incrementally Upgraded Housing Units on Secondary Streets

340
Photos 5 and 6: Buildings on Secondary Streets

Photos 7 and 8: Main Streets of Gultepe District with Retails and Businesses

341

Photo 9: A View from Gultepe District Indicating the Construction Level

Photo 10: Another View from Gultepe District

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the role of community-level dynamics in the transformation of housing by slum upgrading programs in Turkey, with a special focus on user-initiated involvement in improving housing conditions. Drawing from an understanding that slum areas, where market-oriented actors are not interested in implementing upgrading plans, have been transformed by community-level dynamics and households acting as entrepreneurs, this study attempts to understand the ways in which user-initiated involvement affects the slum upgrading plans in their communities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

From “squatters” to citizens? Slum dwellers, developers, land sharing and power in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

PDF

The social construction of brownfields

PDF

Fostering a newly defined entrepreneurship in impoverished communities: a key component of the solution for eradicating poverty in America

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

Beyond the limits to planning for equity: the emergence of community benefits agreements as empowerment models in participatory processes

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

Governance and urban design: Omaha by design

PDF

Shades of conflict and conviviality: negotiating intercultural living and integration in Los Angeles's globalizing multi-ethnic spaces

PDF

Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants

PDF

The long-term impact of COVID-19 on commute, employment, housing, and environment in the post-pandemic era

PDF

Housing market crisis and underwater homeowners

PDF

A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district

PDF

Exploring the effectiveness of continuing medical education for physicians enrolled in an MBA program

PDF

The political economy of implementation: intellectual property rights protection across the world

Asset Metadata

Creator Dogan, Sema (author)

Core Title Transformation of housing in slum upgrading areas: lessons from Turkey

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Planning

Publication Date 07/07/2009

Defense Date 05/13/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag housing improvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,slum areas,slum upgrading programs,slums in developing nations,transformation of housing,user-initiation and upgrading

Place Name administrative areas: Gultepe (geographic subject), Izmir (city or populated place), Turkey (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Richardson, Harry W. (committee chair), Baer, William C. (committee member), Banerjee, Tridib (committee member), Nugent, Jeffrey B. (committee member)

Creator Email dogan.sema@gmail.com,kocan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2327

Unique identifier UC153432

Identifier etd-Dogan-2959 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-171716 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2327 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Dogan-2959.pdf

Dmrecord 171716

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dogan, Sema

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu