SIXTH INTERNATIONAL METROPOLIS CONFERENCE
26-30
November 2001, Rotterdam
SOCIAL COHESION AND SPATIAL
SEGREGATION IN GLOBALISATION ERA:
THE CASE OF ISTANBUL
Dr. Fatma UNSAL
Mimar Sinan University Faculty of Architecture City
and Regional Planning Department
Istanbul / Turkey e-mail: fatmaunsal@superonline.com.tr
Dr. A. Erdem ERBAS
Mimar Sinan University Faculty of Architecture City
and Regional Planning Department
Istanbul / Turkey e-mail: erdem@msu.edu.tr
Res. Ass. Erbatur CAVUSOGLU
Mimar Sinan University Faculty of Architecture City
and Regional Planning Department
Istanbul / Turkey
e-mail: erbatur@msu.edu.tr
Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.THE PLACE OF ISTANBUL IN NATIONAL AND GLOBAL SYSTEM.................................................... 3
2.THE CHANGING SCOPE OF SOCIAL COHESION IN ISTANBUL......................................................... 6
3. THE DISPLAY OF SOCIAL COHESION: SPATIAL SEGREGATION and ILLEGAL
DEVELOPMENT 6
3.1. THE
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL SEGREGATION IN ISTANBUL................................. 8
1923-1950
period................................................................................................................................. 8
1950-1980
period................................................................................................................................. 9
POST 1980 period.............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2. SPATIAL
SEGREGATION IN TODAY'S ISTANBUL............................................................................. 9
4. THE BACKGROUND OF SOCIAL COHESION: THE ATTITUDE OF THE STATE AND
HIDDEN SOCIAL CONTRACTS 12
5. CONCLUSION AND
PROPOSALS.....................................13
Bibliography................................................................................................................................................. 15
Istanbul is a Metropolitan City,
which is the window opening of Turkey into the global market and carrying the
burden of national economics. Istanbul, which receives a high flow of internal
immigrants due to its dual role, has faced a rapid urbanisation process since
1950's and has shown an atypical urbanisation model within its limited
resources. What makes this urbanisation model so atypical is the illegal
development and spatial segregation in the forefront and the social agreements
in the background, leading to social
cohesion coming unexpectedly out of this segregated structure. Undoubtedly
there are fronts of cultural disputes. But these disputes are diluted in the
feelings of relative welfare originating from the sharing of the appreciation
in real estate and the social cohesion is achieved as the by-product of an
uncontrolled urban development.
The fact that Turkey is an
undercapitalised country and that the limited resources of the country have
been routed to industrialisation after the World War II rather than urban
development has prepared the ground for illegal development in this rapidly
growing city. After 1980's the process of rewarding solely financial activities
rather than industrialisation and encouraging growth of large capital rather
than smaller industries has led to financial interest - seeking economic
structure. The unfair income distribution and the increase of poverty are the
outcomes of this economic structure. The urban areas where the ever-growing
low-income groups are living form the illegal spaces of a disadvantaged spatial
quality.
The developmental amnesties due to
the populist attitudes of the State at times of different governments of
changing political parties encourage the illegal development and the low
spatial quality as an unavoidable and permanent characteristic of Istanbul.
This illegal development which
started as the generation of a simple accommodation by the newcomers has
changed into an instrument of getting larger and larger proportion of
appreciation of real estate. In this evolution the segregation due to the legal
status has turned into segregation based on the differentiation of income. For
the newcomers, it is more important to move to more prestigious area rather
than struggling for the legal rights of their current accommodations. It is believed that this permeability and
the conditions, which create this permeability between the segregated housing
areas, contributes to the social cohesion.
The illegal development has taken
Istanbul hostage not because it is not possible to prevent illegal developments
but because the will to prevent is absent. Illegal development substitutes the
housing developments, urban services and the social security tools, which have
not been provided by the State. It also makes it possible to tolerate the
tension of unfair income distribution.
The social solidarity model, which
made the illegal developments possible, was converted into protectionism of
informal groups after 1980s. Articulation of these informal groups into the
political system by the radical right / left ideologies led the micro level
illegal developments grow into an illegal town on a macro scale. This
transformation created unsustainable conditions in a city like Istanbul where
the urban development is restricted by the historical, cultural and natural
thresholds. Furthermore, the overlap of spatial segregation with religious and
ethnic segregation in certain areas and the tension caused by the manipulation
of this segregation at certain times has increased since 1980 and coming
together with the tension caused by the unfair income distribution has
triggered the events threatening the social cohesion.
The cost of social cohesion, which
has been obtained upon sacrificing spatial quality, is being paid heavily as
seen in the major Marmara Earthquake of 1999.
As a result, social cohesion should
be supported by spatial decisions which take into account the physical
constraints and the important role of the social solidarity as well as the face
to face relations of the State and the people for maintaining the social cohesion.
INTRODUCTION
The main goal of this study is to
express the experience of spatial and social segregation and social cohesion of
Istanbul, the city at the eastern most end of Europe, in the perspective of an
urban planner.
At the first glance, it may be
expected that the polarisation due to the spatial segregation should threaten
the social cohesion in this giant metropolitan city of a lately developed
country, which attracts dense internal immigration rather than external
immigration and has an unfair income distribution. Although there is a spatial
segregation, the case of Istanbul has a picture of cohesion, but it cannot be
identified as a success story or a sustainable development. It can still be
considered as an interesting case, which has the clues of how to maintain the
social cohesion.
This study has five parts. In the
first part, the place of Istanbul in the global and national system and its
metropolitan characteristics are brought up. In the second part, the changing
of the perception of social cohesion is defined. In the third section, the
spatial segregation and the illegal development as urban realities of Istanbul
are discussed in relation to social cohesion in a retrospective perspective. In
the fourth part, the informal relations taking place in the background of the
social cohesion are presented. Starting from the point of view that spatial
segregation reflecting different life styles is not an obstacle in the
formation of social cohesion, the actors, roles, structures in the construction
of this cohesion are investigated. In conclusion, we present our views on the
structure and tendencies, policy proposals and the new questions to be
discussed.
Finally, we should mention the
difficulties of doing a research in a lately developed county. It has been
impossible to reach part of the data due to the security considerations and the
ones, which have been reached, could not be updated. For instance, there is no
official study on the distribution of income since 1994. Furthermore the
reliability of the information is somewhat questionable. Although the
proportion of the unregistered economy to the registered economy is noted as 20
% in official records, it is thought to be around 100 % of the registered
economy by some researchers.
Istanbul is a metropolitan city of
10 million inhabitants, which is 1/6 of the whole population of Turkey in the
year of 2000. Turkey is a country, which has lived through the process of
industrialisation, modernisation, capitalisation and urbanisation in a delayed
fashion. Istanbul has a high rate of increase of population, which means a
heavy flow of internal immigrants towards Istanbul. The observed population
increase of 500.000 inhabitants every year in Istanbul could be the cause for
significant difficulties even in a well-planned metropolitan city of a
developed country.
Istanbul is an agglomeration of 10
million inhabitants that is more than the population of Portugal, Denmark,
Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Austria and covers an
area of 5711 km2. As 63 % of the population of Istanbul have been
born in cities other than Istanbul, it can be considered as a local
cosmopolitan city (Sönmez, 1996:125).
Istanbul, where the 242 of the 500
largest industrial companies of Turkey are accommodated, receives more than 40
% of the national budget (Sönmez, 1996:144).
Many of universities, banks, media
and cultural activities, trade institutions, touristic sights and other service
organisations are densely located in Istanbul.
Map 1: The Location of Turkey and
Istanbul in Europe
2.THE CHANGING SCOPE OF SOCIAL COHESION IN ISTANBUL
Istanbul, the capital of 3 empires
in a history of 2600 years, had been a multi cultural cosmopolitan world
capital till the republic of Turkey was established. The motive of creating a
nation and the destructive methods of national modernisation has unfortunately
weakened the memory of Istanbul and made it an anonymous national, metropolitan
city. At the beginning of the 21st century, Istanbul is not a
multicultural cosmopolitan city any more with only small populations of
minorities. But this does not mean that Istanbul has a homogenous structure of
population.
Istanbul was considered to be a
multicultural cosmopolitan world city in the era of the Ottoman Empire. A
mosque, a church and a synagogue next to each other shows that the peaceful
conditions had been maintained for different segments of the society. It can be
said that the spatial segregation originating from the polarisation between the
Islamic groups and others, elites and commons, seculars and the radical fundamentalists,
Turks and minorities had never been a strict segregation and always had a high
permeability historically.
Istanbul, receiving a dense
population of internal immigrants after 1950's, has a variety of different
cultural groups. The scope of social cohesion is changed from the multicultural
cosmopolitan structure to a peaceful social structure in which different social
groups can live together. Istanbul is
an interesting giant city in which polarised groups live in peace.
As Istanbul is located at the edge
of Europe and has not completed the process of integration to the European
Union yet, it is different than the other metropolitan cities of Europe, which
have multinational populations. Istanbul does not have the ghettos based on the
ethnic and national differentiation, which can be seen in the other European
metropolitan cities. Although the rate of external immigrants has begun to
increase in the last few years, it is still far away from creating a cultural
polarisation and social tensions. But the multicultural face of Istanbul
originates from a variety of groups coming from different parts of Turkey,
which has a considerably large geography. If we need to identify a factor
threatening social cohesion, it is the unfair income distribution, rather than
the cultural variance.
High income groups (20 %) get 57-60
% of the national income, whereas the low income groups (20 %) get 4-6 %
(Sönmez, 2001:19). It is interesting to observe social cohesion and low crime
rates in Istanbul where the ratio of low income to high income is 1/1437.
The total number of reported
security related incidents is 75706 (excluding traffic incidents) This means
630 incidents per 100 000 persons. (Official Records of General Directorate of
National Security)
As there is a lack of institutional
tools, social cohesion is maintained by establishing defensive and adapting
mechanisms. The main mechanism is the
process enabling almost all members of the society to get a share of the appreciation
of real estate in the urban areas. This makes the poor people tolerate the
system.
The existence of social cohesion in
Istanbul currently does not necessarily mean that its sustainability in the
long term is also guaranteed. On the
contrary, the low spatial quality based on low cost urbanisation is to such an
extent that it is almost intolerable. The real cost of "gratis modernisation" (Bilgin, 1999) which
means low cost urbanisation through illegal processes, has been faced sadly in
the major Marmara earthquake in 1999. The low cost urbanisation model, which
is, dominated by random land use decisions and uncontrolled process of housing
construction has been paid by the tragic death of more than 20.000 people.
The social cohesion at Istanbul is
de facto achieved. However it should be supported by spatial decisions to make
it firm and sustainable. If the integration of spatial quality and social
cohesion is aimed and realistic proposals are expected, then it is required to
understand the display and background of social cohesion.
Social cohesion is surprisingly
extracted from a segregated spatial structure at Istanbul. The main determinant
of this segregation has been illegal development till 1980s. In 1980s, as the
development amnesties become a routine part local politics, the determining
factor of spatial segregation has changed from the legality of the housing
development to level of income.
Istanbul, a city where a population
increase of 500.000 people has to be accommodated each year, has to face the
reality of providing the housing units for the newcomers and the urban services
as well as solving the urban problems which have already existed.
There are inadequacies in providing
housing units through legally acceptable manners for the newcomers who are
being added to the current population of Istanbul rapidly and continuously like
waves. The financial and professional skills of the newcomers are inadequate
for owning a house in legal ways. It is vital for the newcomers to have a job,
even if it is at the informal sector immediately and to get a shelter through
their own efforts.
A house is more than a shelter in
Turkey. It is a speculative economic possession and a tool of social security,
which makes the people feel confident about their futures.
The inadequacy of resources due to
being lately capitalised makes the investments on housing developments more
profitable and reliable than the other investment instruments like gold,
foreign money, bank deposits, stock shares of public and private sectors. As it
is not possible to transfer the added value of the real estate to the public
domain or to tax it, it is the most profitable way of investment to buy a
building lot or even a field at the fringe of the city. This kind of investment
is also attractive for the big capital owners as well as individuals. The
appreciation of real estate in the urban areas has been shared comprehensively
by the small investors and contributes to increase the supporters of the regime
till 1980's. But after 1980's, as the industrialisation lost its pace,
investment on urban appreciation rather than industrialisation became more
interesting for the large capital owners (Tekeli, 1991:175). The risky
political environment after 1980's made it attractive for the investors who had
formerly engaged in banking and industrial production to invest on real estate.
So the appreciation of real estate takes the place of the other risky
investments (Boratav.1995: 69)
Owning a residence is the most
important instrument of social security in a risky, unstable economic
environment with an unfair distribution of national income and low national
income per capita. The legislation on the partial private ownership of a property
(1964) started a move among low income groups and small scale investors to
invest on real estate in legal or illegal terms, middle income groups on
weekend and summer houses and finally the large scale investors on stocks of
land at the fringes of the metropolitan cities for speculation. The proportion
of families who own their residence is 50 % for the low-income groups. Illegal housing developments, which have
been theoretically tolerated for the right of having a shelter, has turned into
an instrument of getting a share in the process of appreciation of urban
property.
It is very difficult, almost
impossible for a family who respect legal boundaries to own a house / flat in
Istanbul. For example, the rental value of a modest flat of 70 m2,
is 300 $ per month and the sale value is about 70.000 $ which is the sum of the
rent for 20 years. Everything seems to be normal at this point. The puzzle
starts when the salary of the academician is noted, which is a monthly payment
of 300 $. If she/he saves 10 % of her/his income, she/he can afford that house
in 200 years. The monthly subsidy for housing given by the State is 0,3 $ per
month for this academician. This situation can be considered as black humour.
The State aid for housing had been
satisfactory before the 1980's when the neo-liberal economic policies have
started to be applied heavily and it became unavoidable for most of the
population to take jobs at the unregistered part of the economy. After the
1980's, economic structure in which the cost of labour was quite low attracted
foreign capital and stimulated the integration with the global system by
offering lowly paid labour (Boratav, 1995:39). This trend downgraded the
white-collar middle class in terms of economic conditions and forced them to be
involved in unqualified jobs, to move to the illegal housing areas and lower
their ethic standards. The erosion of the moral values were unfortunately
started and stimulated by the economic conditions.
The spatial developments of Istanbul
have been taken hostage by the illegal housing due to the economic conditions.
It is ironic that the informality is supported by the governments to release
the resources and transfer them to the other sectors. In this respect, informal
procedures are tolerated and supported indirectly by the governments to
substitute or complete the insufficient public policies. Castells and Portes
(1986) also confirm that informality can turn out to be a process, which is,
supported by the government itself.
With its 70 % of the housing stock
as illegal or recently legalised status, Istanbul is the proof of the indirect
support of the governments to the formation of illegality. The official
statistics of the legal status of housing stock at the year of 1992 is as
follows (Sönmez, 1996.140)
Housing units of legal status:
850.000
Housing units of legalised status:
750.000
Housing units of illegal status:
400.000
The ratio of the legal housing units
to the illegal ones is not more than 40/100.
Graph 2: The Legal Status of the Housing
Stock at Istanbul (1992)
The registration of a housing unit
as a legal property does not necessarily mean that it has been constructed
through a legal process. The legalisation process has been realised through 15
development amnesties, which have been granted every 3-4 years. It is touching
that 8 of these amnesties, have been established after 1980 when neo-liberal
economic policies and unfair income distribution have become extensive. It may
be interpreted that the amnesties are the relief valves of the system for the
partial recovery of unfairness of the income distribution and the social
tension. This mechanism that is enabling the relief of low income groups pays
back by the mass of votes and makes it possible for the providers of the system
to articulate the political sphere as decision makers.
The illegal developments, which are
the display of the spatial segregation undoubtedly, existed and reached this
level at the end of a process of 50 years for Istanbul.
It is thought that the evaluation of
the housing stock and the spatial segregation in a historical perspective
covering the near past will contribute to make proposals targeting the
integration of spatial quality and social cohesion.
It is possible to define three
segregated parts of housing stock in Istanbul. These are illegal, legal and
legalised housing areas. There is also segregation due to income level, which
still brings three segregated parts. These are the housing areas of low income,
middle income and high-income groups. The last one has a high spatial quality
as a result of being affected from / inspired by the global web of influential
relations. The legal housing areas mostly correspond to the middle income
groups whereas being illegal fits both the low and high-income groups. The
middle class is the only social segment that prefer to be in peaceful relations
with the State authorities where the low and high income groups are capable of
staying out of the legal framework of urban the development (Tekeli, 1991: 4).
The changing of the econo-political
aspects of urbanisation after 1950's, the destructive dynamics of neo-liberal
and global trends (Keyder, 2001:171) affecting the physical development after
the 1980's and the evaluation of the permeability within the housing areas have
to be analysed to realise the spatial reality of Istanbul.
This is an era when the Republic of
Turkey emerged as a nation State after the War of Independence and the
agricultural and commercial capital accumulated after the modernisation
efforts. Istanbul did not have a central role in the basic policies targeting
the integration of the national markets and developing the country as a whole.
This kept Istanbul out of the immigration process in this period.
It is not possible to identify the
illegal developments as an urban characteristic in the 1923-1950 period. It was
a period in which modern urban planning with its
legislation were started instead of traditional ones.
A State bank for providing housing
credits has been established in 1926. This revealed that the State had the
preference of keeping out of the direct process of developing housing areas and
leaving that sphere to the individual developers but contending with providing
financial aid. The other decision of the State that have direct influence on
the urban development is the use of foreign resources (professional and
technical) for the preparation and the implementation of urban plans as well as
the architectural trends. These changes have been accompanied by a series of
legal adjustments. But these legal sanctions which were adapted without
regarding the real financial and technical conditions of the country made it
ordinary to be out of the legal frame and justified the status of being illegal
(Tekeli, 1980:67).
Homogeneous distribution of
resources all over the country has been targeted in this period. The land use
decisions of industrial investments and determination of the infrastructure
network supported this decision. The urban plans, which have been prepared in
this period, based on the assumptions that the fair distribution of resources
over the country would continue and disregarding the unexpected increase of
population due to internal migration. These plans have lost their functions
because the planned economies have been abandoned and the unattended liberal
policies invaded the urban dynamics drastically after the 1950's.
Turkey shifted to an economic structure
in which trade was more important than industrialisation and Istanbul was the
centre of that system after the World War II. The concentration of public and
private investments at Istanbul has changed the inter-regional equilibrium of
development and triggered the migration process of masses towards Istanbul,
which became a threat to the rational urbanisation of Istanbul. The drastic
population increase at Istanbul was started in 1950's. The existing residential
areas of the city firstly absorbed the newcomers. As the potential of the
existing housing areas of the city started not to meet the needs of the
newcomers, they started to look for new places to settle down. The newcomers,
who had to produce houses in illegal process, preferred the fringe of the city
where the control of the State authorities was relatively weak and the
ownership of the property was blurred. In this way the illegal housing areas,
invading the land owned by the State or a foundation or the agricultural
fields, encircled the existing residential areas and fingered into the existing
city depending on the weakness of the property.
The fact that the case of Istanbul
is a concession of illegal housing development does not mean that there is an
inadequacy of control but the will to control. State, as the owner of most of
the land invaded by the illegal housing units, does not take an authoritarian
manner that does not fit the concept of a tolerant State. This makes it
possible to protect the low-income groups against the market mechanisms as well
as the use of limited resources for the sectors other than urbanisation.
Besides it is thought that there is an expectation of a mass of votes behind
the allocation of land owned by the State to the newcomers. As a result, the
governments have an indirect role in the formation of illegal housing
development in Istanbul.
There is also a change in the legal
housing development of Istanbul in the 1950-1980 period. The traditional
heterogeneous neighbourhoods at which poor people are protected by their rich
neighbours and reflecting a social life of solidarity and harmony changed into
newly developed homogeneous neighbours at which social relations got weakened.
The legal regulations, which made it possible for the big gardens of the
mansions to turn into building lots, were the main dynamic of this process. The
legal act of partial ownership of a property enabled the process in which the
mansions were demolished and turned into building lots and the private
investors built low quality, multi-storey buildings to share with the owner of
that property. This process also made it possible for the middle groups to pay
the price of the new apartments in a period of 2-3 years. This can be
considered as a financial model of a short-term credit (Keyder, 2000:182). In
other words, the development process itself turns out to a tool of social
security and financial aid, which did not exist till then.
Housing cooperatives were an
alternative way of housing development in the 1950-1980 period. Acquisition of
a house by means of housing cooperative
was not an appropriate way for the low-income groups. The housing cooperatives,
which protected the middle income groups efficiently against the market
mechanisms, were developed on top of the privileged relationships with the
decision makers and mostly resulted by the allocation of a piece of land owned
by the State or foundations (Keyder, 2000.182). The proportion of housing
supplied by cooperatives in the whole housing stock was very low, that is
around 10 %.
It is figured out that the housing
stock, which have a legal status and supplied by either small investors or
cooperatives were realised to meet the accelerating demand at the cost of
neglecting the spatial quality. The high-density housing areas of low aesthetic
quality disregarding the landscape and the public spaces originated from the
scare resources, under-qualified labour and an inadequate State control.
1950-1980 period can be considered
as the period when the State sacrificed the spatial quality and let people maximise
their private interest. It is a paradox that the ill-developed structure, which
has been strengthened by the political system that gave access to the providers
of the illegal developments to articulate the decision making process,
contributed to the maintaining of social cohesion. The heterogenous
neighbourhoods have changed into homogeneous islands at this period. However
keeping the process of individualistic attempts in housing production and the
narrow scale of mass housing projects kept spatial segregation's dimension at
acceptable levels and retained the social cohesion.
There is a relatively short period
between 1950-1980 at which the social cohesion has been wounded. Some of the
illegal housing areas corresponded to the idea of being against the existing
system at that time. This set up was supported by the radical left ideologists
and stimulated the spatial segregation up to its highest level. The areas,
which had very low rate of permeability, called "the saved regions" were the
product of that period. The military intervention in 1980 enabled solving the
security problem at the cost of sacrificing democracy. After the security
problems were solved, it was preferred to let the market mechanisms regulate
the system without the presence of public policies for maintaining the spatial
and social integration.
1980 was a breaking point for Turkey
in respect to both internal and external dynamics. It was a period, which was
started by a military intervention and continued with an agenda of
globalisation targeting the integration of the lately developed countries to
the global network. These were the years when the neo-liberal policies have
been acknowledged. The social and forgiving vision of the State has turned into
a market oriented one in the last quarter of the 20th century. The
identification of Istanbul as the World City of Turkey was supported by almost
all of the political parties.
There is a mutual interaction
between the market mechanisms and globalisation. The free flow of labour and
the capital enabled the globalisation whereas the global processes were the
most important dynamics of the free markets. The conditions of acquiring a
house / flat were determined by the market mechanisms and the buffer mechanisms
for low-income groups do not exist in this market. Due to the high demand of
densely populated areas, it becomes attractive for the large-scale capital to
invest in housing sector and start up mass housing projects instead of
individual attempts in housing developments.
After the legislation about mass
housing in 1984, the State encouraged the local authorities to be involved in
housing projects or subsidises. This changed the illegal housing areas into low
cost mass housing areas with a limited spatial quality. The proportion of the
housing units built by the State is low (it is almost 15/2000) whereas it is
200/2000 for the large-scale private investors.
The mass housing is considered as a
tool to justify the legal status but it has a negative role on the issue of segregation
by creating an income level oriented spatial segregation. Although the mass
housing projects trigger the spatial segregation, they are still preferred by
the low-income groups, as it is a symbol of prestige to live in a multi-storey
building rather than a single dwelling of poor conditions. The solidarity
within the neighbourhood is not important any more for the second generation of
newcomers. They prefer to be articulated to the existing system.
There are two alternatives for the
low-income groups in the process of becoming wealthy. One of them is to move to
a more prestigious neighbourhood and rent their former house to a newcomer and
the other alternative is to turn it into a multi-storey building. Both of the
alternatives have drawbacks. In the first one, illegal housing areas become
ruined, as the newcomers do not have the capability to maintain it. The second
alternative is much more risky in a high-risk zone of earthquakes. Although the
permeability of the housing areas relieves the low-income groups and
contributes to the social cohesion, unsustainable conditions come up.
The threat on social cohesion is
becoming more distinctive as the unfairness of distribution of income
increases. As a matter of fact, the reactions of the people are becoming more
harsh and frequent as they acknowledge the standard of living of high society.
These events are considered as the clues of possible social explosion.
The illegal housing areas have the
potential of social tension. The ideological, religious and ethic segregation
turns into a dangerous weapon in the hands of informal groups who are in charge
of these illegal neighbourhoods. If the religious and racial segregation
overlap to spatial segregation, it is thought that the small conflicts can turn
into widely spread social disaster (Kongar, 1998:580)
The polarisation of housing areas is
another characteristic of the period after 1980. Although the polarisation is
quite low, there are housing areas of very high standard, gated societies next
to the low quality housing areas.
In summary; the urban development
based on imported rules and regulations have changed into unplanned and
uncontrolled urban developments after 1950's. The illegal housing developments,
which have started as, rights of shelter for the lowest income groups have
turned into a commercial process and an instrument of taking a share in the
urban appreciation of property due to the forgiving manners and legislative
interventions of the State. This process is stimulated by the expectation of a
mass of votes. There is an interesting web in which the governments and the
illegal forces come together behind the urbanisation of Istanbul. Social
cohesion is the by-product of this urbanisation process in which the spatial
quality and sustainability is sacrificed. After 1980's, the protectionism of
informal or ideological groups have substituted the solidarity model depending
on the origins and resulted in the transfer of added value to these groups.
This process broke the chain of events, which created the social cohesion.
This change in the power structure
of the illegal housing areas has come together with the social tension based on
the unfair income distribution and threatens the social cohesion. It is also
unacceptable in the long-run to sacrifice the spatial quality and
sustainability for the sake of social cohesion.
3.2. SPATIAL SEGREGATION IN TODAY'S ISTANBUL
Today, the main determinant of
spatial segregation in Istanbul is not legal status any more, but income level.
It is also necessary to discuss the effects of ideology, religion, culture,
living style, duration of urbanity and citizenship on the spatial
segregation. It was observed that the
first tendency of new immigrants in urban life is to choose the common places
that have been preferred by their relatives and acquaintances previously, then
they transferred to other parts of the city depending on the duration of
staying in the city and being able to be an urbanite.
The regions and districts that had
been segregated with the effects of conflicted ideologies lost their validity
to a certain degree after 1980 Military Coup. Yet, there are still regions that
are composed of groups of people having ideologies that are against the formal
one. These regions have the potential for an action resulting from the tension
originating from the distribution of income.
Since 1990's, after the organisation
of political Islam and being power of Muslim parties in the local elections,
religious identity has become more visible in some parts of the city. For
instance, in some areas, the number of women with veil was significantly higher
than the average or the Alawi groups became dense in certain parts of the city.
Yet those regions are not threatening the social peace.
From the perspective of culture and
living style, there are clear preferences among the city people. It has been
seen that university students, artists and intellectuals became dense in
certain parts of the city. Yet high level of permeability is possible among
these different groups in terms of both social and spatial considerations.
The social life in Istanbul reflects
the compression of rural life traditions and urban life habits. With the
contribution of the media having circulation and rating concerns, this
degenerated culture with kitsch cultural features has become dominant in Istanbul.
Immigrants coming from villages to the cities brought their rural life rituals
and they tried to create their own places. Inevitably, this situation
conflicted with the living style of citizens of Istanbul and caused new
conflicting sides.
Although it is possible to say that
those different groups share and consume the city centres and public places
together or in turn, they may differ in their preferences in terms of
entertainment and recreation purposes depending on the culture and social
distance they have. It should be indicated that lowest and highest income level
groups are out of this consideration. It means common use of city centers and
public places are not valid for them. People having high social economic status
use private vehicles for transportation between their secured homes and luxury
work centers, prefer isolated private places for vacation, entertainment and
recreation. People belonging to the low social economic status groups more
likely cannot find time and money for such kind of activities, even to go to
city center is a luxury for most of them. They just try to survive in their
restricted social, cultural places. It is possible to define the rest of the
group as homogeneous and permeable, they live together cohesively.
The studies of Erder (1997)
suggested that social peace that is shaped by hegemonic adaptation and defence
mechanisms could cause urban tension and social explosion since its basis were
based on unfair sharing of the sources. Today, the proportion of people
quitting their education due to financial reasons and working in jobs with
minimum salaries with no insurance benefits or have to work in the two jobs at
the same time informally without any saving are the realities of Istanbul and
they cannot be underestimated. But the hidden anger of this class has started
to show itself more frequently. The destruction of flowers by young people in
Gazi events was just an example of it. For this group, television has been the
only source for entertainment. Television also provokes unintentionally that
group as they are informed about the big gap between them and the Istanbul high
society. This anger also manifested itself in the New Year Night by the attack
of low-income groups to the five star hotels with the slogan of "bourgeois
out".
Another factor that strengthens the
urban conflict is the transformation of the housing construction process from
individual to collective scale. Although collective urban housing projects play
important roles in increasing the spatial quality and in controlling urban
macroform, they are also obstacles for the social interaction between the
different social classes since they segregate the different social classes from
each other by creating homogeneous social environments.
Social cohesion and peace in the
Turkish Society can be explained by the protective relationships that were
inherited from the Ottoman Empire or the significant role of the family on the
traditional Turkish culture. However,
in the latent part, the reason of this social cohesion may be the affectionate
and tolerant State structure that replaces the social Welfare State.
As a late developing country, the
sources in Turkey were reserved for growth, so the creation of Social State and
the services related with it could not be produced. As Turkey was slowly
integrated to the world economic system, she has started to follow more liberal
politics. The inequality in income distribution grew as Turkey was lately
capitalised. Since the State was not strong enough to provide social services
that would diminish the tension between the classes, populist politics were
preferred and ad-hoc solutions of the public were condoned. These politics
played an important role not only in controlling the protest and reducing the
contrariness but also in structuring approval basis hegemony and gaining social
constitution. Moreover, this State structure replacing Social State overlooked
informal economic relations and life styles that were in favour of dominant
social classes.
Informal processes should not be
considered as peculiar to housing. Besides housing, working, transportation,
usage of urban services and daily life experiences can be realised informally.
Migrant population which came to the
cities due to security and economic problems, are employed with low costs and
without any insurance at least a period of time. This labour cost is an
economic advantage for the capital. Generally it is not very easy to supply
urban services in the illegal areas. So, a peculiar type of transportation
called "dolmus", illegal links to electric lines and Jerry-built infrastructure
can be observed. Peddling, which provides the cheap and low quality goods, is another evidence of informal urbanisation.
Shortly, it can be said that a very low cost urbanisation model including
housing, working and urban services was built.
State condones the occupation of
land that she cannot control. The portion of State in total land ownership is
almost 60%. On the other hand, lack of land stocks is a handicap for the local
government in order to control and regulate the urban development and to create
sources. Thus, the local governments prefer speculative developments in some
cases. Saner (2000) formulate this process which plunders State sources as a
Quartet Alliance. First group is the plunderer and the second group is mafia.
The third group is politicians and the last one is a politically corrupted
bureaucrat. It is clear that this agreement which covers almost the whole
society do not have difficulties in gaining social recognition. This system of
plundering is functioning as a contract, which the society agreed on secretly.
State merely organises and regulate this distribution.
The role of State in forming the
illegal areas is not limited with condones in
occupation of public land. Illegal areas grow up to district scale so State
registers them as district municipalities. Another paradox is that the
municipalities that are legally responsible for controlling the illegal
urbanisation can be located in illegal buildings in some cases. Some public
service buildings like schools, hospitals or police stations can be in illegal
status as well.
The informal partnership (there is
an exchange of votes with housing opportunities) that forms illegal housing
areas can also be observed in providing urban services. There is also a condone
in integration of illegal areas to limited infrastructure and in ad-hoc
solutions getting the public services. Expanding and improving the
infrastructure network goes parallel to election process.
Istanbul can be described as an
informal city with the 70% of illegal housing stock and also State's
responsibilities are replaced by market. The most important result of this
process is that the model helps marginal group to stand the improper living
conditions and prevent them protesting and threatening the social cohesion.
After 1980's as a major group of
people are marginalised, some defence and adaptation mechanisms are
produced. In the process named as
"cities that create itself" (Cubuk, 1999), political authorities use the construction
permits, land rent speculations and construction amnesties as costless tools
that bring total votes of the area. Land rent benefits are great opportunities
for these classes that are getting poorer. As the owners of squatters receive a
sudden offer of four flats in an apartment building, they do not consider much
of social and economic distribution problems like real decrease in incomes.
In 1988 the president Ozal's
declaration "We have registered more than 2,5 million of illegal houses within
5 years. So they will be able to build some more flats and improve their
income" should be considered both as degenerating populism and also a hegemonic
process which the State prevent raising social protest against unequal income
distribution. In the last 20 years, it can be said that it is getting worse for
the rural population of the country in terms of life standards and income.
International finance companies; IMF and World Bank suggest stopping
agricultural support politics and subvention; thus rural population is affected
seriously. Moreover, since there is not speculation and transfer of land as in
the urban areas, the only adaptation mechanism for the agricultural population
is to migrate to the cities and become cheap labour and to wait for the next
populist political period in order to get benefit of appreciation of land and
to join to the urban consumer group; thus integrating to the process named
as "rotating urban poverty" (Isik and
Pinarcioglu, 1999).
On the other hand, it should be
taken into account that the new citizen group has an important portion in
consumption. These groups are encouraged by media to become a part of the
consumption society.
In summary, these events display an
unsustainable view. The city is plundered without mercy through a hidden
agreement between State and society. On the other hand, social cohesion is
provided as the plunderers' life standards improve relatively.
However, the plundering system that
is awarded and is supported by the 15 development amnesties in the last 50
years created a very unhealthy built environment thus this unaesthetic and low
standard urban development begin to force ecological thresholds. Istanbul has a
rapid and uncontrolled development through water basins and forest areas.
Making of social cohesion via urban plundering cannot be considered as a
healthy and sustainable project.
This model on which the central and
local governments, planners and citizens agreed through a hidden contract;
represents the praxis of today's popular concept "governance". However, the
basis of this plundering system should be called as kleptocracy instead of democracy
(Kongar, 1998: 570)
5. CONCLUSION AND
PROPOSALS
·
The issue in Istanbul is the
protection of social cohesion rather than elimination of segregation
·
The worldwide trend of reducing the
power of the State should be handled with caution in developing countries in
order to balance the market driven growth with the ecological and sociological
concerns
·
Since the current system does not let
the appreciation of urban land to be taxed or transferred to the public domain,
a fiscal policy should be designed to provide a basis for the subsidies
·
The financial and institutional
limitation of a developing country like Turkey make it necessary to maintain
and modernise the traditional and self-occuring support mechanisms
·
Unfair income distribution and the
globalisation are the overwhelming reasons for segregation. So, income
distribution should be improved and the benefits of globalisation should reach
handicapped parts of the segregated structure
·
The permeability between the
different social groups is high and works as another relief mechanism
·
The social cohesion in Istanbul is
based on the social intra-support mechanisms and the sense of satisfaction due
to sharing appreciation of urban land
·
The conditions in which social
cohesion is achieved threaten the ecological environment and the sustainability
of the city
·
The dilemma is between the low
standard housing development due to construction techniques and infrastructural
inadequacies and mass housing with relatively better spatial conditions but
disregarding the social intra-support system
·
Rather than prescribing general
solutions for all, solutions based on individual cases should be designed which
take into account specific ethnic, origin based habits
·
Producing urban plots with
infrastucture instead of mass housing which imposes a certain life style will
help,
o
to eliminate the informal groups who
organise the illegal housing developments,
o
to select development site in which
sismic and ecological considerations are taken into account,
o
to form a heterogeneous environment in
which family size and income level determines the spatial variety
o
to provide a basis for the recovery of
the social intra-support system
·
Instruments such as hometown related
associations should be considered as the enhancers of the institutional tools
established by the State for the social support
·
In the current market driven developing
economies, subsidy policies such as low cost or free transportation to the
edges of the city will provide an incentive for the low income to integrate
with the urban life
Bibliography
Bilgin, Ihsan, (1999), Bedelsiz Modernlesme,
Cogito Deprem Özel Sayisi, sayi: 20, Güz 1999, YKY,
Istanbul.
Boratav, Korkut, (1995), 1980'li Yillarda türkiye'de
Sosyal Siniflar ve Bölüsüm, Gerçek Yayinevi, 2. Baski,
Istanbul.
Castells, Manuel and Portes Alejandro, (1986), Baska
Bir Dünya: Enformel Ekonominin Kökenleri, Dinamikleri ve Sonuçlari,
TMMOB-SPO Yayinlari, Ankara.
Çubuk, Mehmet, (1999),Türk Sehircilik
Sistematigi, MSU,Istanbul.
Erder, Sema, (1997), Kentsel Gerilim: Enformel
Iliski Aglari Alan Arastirmasi, Um:ag
Yayinevi, Ankara.
Isik, Oguz and Pinarcioglu,
Melih, (1999), Sultanbeyli Notlari, Birikim no:123.
Keyder, Çaglar, (2001), Istanbul: Yerel ile
Küresel Arasinda, Metis Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Kongar, Emre, (1998), 21. Yüzyilda Türkiye, Remzi
Kitabevi, Istanbul.
Saner, Ihsan, (2000), Devletin Ranti Deniz,
Iletisim Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Sönmez, Mustafa, (1996), Istanbul'un Iki Yüzü,
Arkadas Yayinlari, Ankara.
Sönmez, Mustafa, (2001), Gelir Uçurumu, Om Yayinlari,
Istanbul.
Tekeli, Ilhan, (1991), Kent Planlamasi
Konusmalari, TMMOB-MO Yayinlari, Ankara.
