The Origins, Processes and Emerging Outcomes of Neighbourhood Redevelopment in Gaziosmanpaşa, Istanbul

Abstract

Large scale neighbourhood redevelopment programmes are emerging in Turkish cities which are implementing a national policy commitment to the demolition and replacement of 6 million earthquake vulnerable homes, over a period of 20 years. This phenomenon is analysed with particular references to the Istanbul Municipal District of Gaziosmanpaşa. The homes affected are mainly in poor, illegally developed, gecekondu neighbourhoods which are the legacy of the explosive postwar urbanisation. In the aftermath of the devastating 1999 Marmara earthquake, the Turkish authorities initiated the development of the legal and institutional framework for neighbourhood redevelopment which culminated in the Urban Regeneration Law of 2012. This was a controversial process which included several projects that were heavily criticised for causing displacement, dispersal and forced evictions. The case study of the ongoing redevelopment of the Sarıgöl neighbourhood identifies the processes which continue to generate these negative outcomes and sustained opposition from residents, professional bodies and academics.

Two Decades of Planning for Earthquake Resilience in Istanbul

“…5393 (2005). The former extended the boundaries of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and authorized it to develop master plans and strategic plans concerning disasters (Erdik and Durukal 2008) whereas the latter gave municipalities powers to take measures against earthquake risk along with designation and implementation of urban transformation projects (Gökşin et al 2016). A more controversial and comprehensive urban transformation law that was also debated at this time was substantially narrowed down into the Law No.…”

“…It is unavoidable then, for this kind of thinking not to shape the subsequent Urban Transformation Law, which the development industry unabashedly views as an investment opportunity (Adanalı 2013). The law is heavily criticized by academics, professional organizations, and activist and community groups for being an 'excuse' to legitimize and speed up urban transformation projects which cause forced evacuations, gentrification, and violation of property rights (Adanalı 2013) while failing to minimize disaster risk (Gibson and Gökşin 2016;Gökşin et al 2016).…”