Workshop 4 - Housing in Developing Countries
The past and present of settlements on squarter reclaımatıon areas
Deniz Erinsel Onder Donder@Yildiz.Edu.Tr Deniz Ozturk
Paper presented at the ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation" Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 - 5 July 2006
THE PAST AND PRESENT OF SETTLEMENTS ON SQUARTER RECLAIMATION AREAS As conducted in the whole Turkey, squarter reclaimation areas in different zones in Istanbul have been formed in order to solve the housing problem of low-income group with a law enacted in 1996 in Turkey. In addition, in 1986, 20.000 houses, pioneered by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, were designed in those areas with the aim of both amending the economy in the context of public policy and contributing to the solution of housing problem. The subject of whether these goals were reached or not was discussed formerly (Abali,A,Z., Onder,E.D., 1991). The aim of this paper is to bring up the matter of whom the dwellers are and if they are contented with their houses or not since 1991. A set of houses in the district of Soganlik Ugur Mumcu in Istanbul was chosen as the case study. In this paper, the housing problem exposed above, the negotiations with the local units, the results of the interview and the questionnaire with the dwellers are conveyed. Introduction It has been previously discussed if the houses built in squatter reclaimation areas that were constituted with a law passed in Turkey in 1966 have achieved their aim (Abali,A.Z; Onder,E.D., 1991). In this paper, the results of the research (Oztürk,D.,2006) are conveyed, questioning who have been using these houses for more than 10 years and whether they are satisfied with the houses they live in or not. Since the announcement of the Republic, we have witnessed governments following several policies about the housing problem. In the five-year-economic growth plans carried especially out in the planned period, the housing problem of the middle and low-income classes was emphasized. However, the principles, policies and precautions which have been put forward related to the housing problem with economic growth plans haven’t been carried out efficiently. Consequently, the problems continuously accelerated parallel to the urbanization. In the post-republic period, some of the legal arrangements about the housing problem are related with the solution of construction problems, some of them are for dispensation, and some are related with the financial problem. Especially the legal arrangements including the dispensation have turned out to be encouraging squatter home construction and irregular urbanization even more, instead of preventing them. Having changed its format by time, the squatter housing problem has become a method of acquiring an estate in the city for the low-income-class, thus this has turned out to be a reason supporting migration from countryside to the major cities. The frequently applied legal arrangements and construction dispensation have caused the problem to grow more and more. One of the legal arrangements is the squatter housing law numbered 775 mentioned above. The law aims to prevent squatter home construction, settle the inhabitants who had to leave their now demolished (to expropriate) homes that were once illegally built and developed into more comfortable and legal houses, provide housing opportunities to low-income-classes, constitute healthy life conditions and urban areas, and spread public housing concept. It also foresees to plan the future urban areas. After the mentioned law passed, as the applications on the squatter reclaimation areas were in progress, the administration aimed to build 20000 houses in order to both solve the housing problem of low-income classes and support the economy by enlivening the housing market. The profile of the potential owners of these houses to be constructed was determined as the “people with a monthly income of lower than 1.000.000 TL, approximately $1500 in that period.” Related to this, in 1986 Istanbul municipality allocated the public domains that had previously been alienated to the municipality and the areas that once had belonged to some individuals by expropriating to the cooperatives with a very low price. Thus, construction area costs were kept to a minimum in these applications.
In a very short time, both the associations and foundations and the independent cooperatives in Istanbul started their projects. Without the expectation of a definite optimum size in deciding the area allocation, cooperatives with a range from 30 to 1000 unit capacity were given a chance. Each of the pre-designs obtained by the cooperatives required the verification of Istanbul municipality, and the construction permit projects obtained the verification of Kartal municipality. Both municipalities handled the projects as if they had been building applications for an ordinary plot in the residential area of the city while being inspected, and consequently, the emerging cooperatives faced a very difficult procedure. This situation resulted in a waste of time, work power and financial resources (Unal,Y;1990). Meanwhile, the municipality not only accelerated the intensity by increasing the floor number that had been determined in the master plan from 3-5 to 10 within its initiative, but also triggered the technology construction costs required to build ten-floor buildings. Another vital problem is that the housing applications had been started before the infrastructure problems were completely solved (Abali,A.Z, Önder,D.E;1991). Moreover, although the inhabitants had begun to settle in their houses at the beginning of following education term, the school and road construction was not finished yet. As a result of the meetings and observations which were held with the municipality officers in 1986, it has been exposed that some of the houses planned to be built in squatter reclaimation areas do not address the squatter users and some of the following outcomes have been reached (Abali,A.Z, Önder,D.E;1991): 1- It is stated that the applications being carried out in the Soganlık squatter reclaimation area are not squatter resident-oriented, due to the fact that this class of people does not have a regular income to pay the instalments, and this application could only be a solution to another problem of “illegal building construction in public areas”. 2- These houses have been used by urbanized or urban origined but low-income people. Thus, the new coming community shows differences from their earlier life and occupational qualification points of view, but has similarities as both are groups suffering economic scarcity.
Evaluation in 2006 After the first evaluation mentioned above was conducted, the question was who the users of Soganlık squatter reclaimation area were in the last 15-year-period. In this part of the paper, the results of a small part of the research regarding the profile of the users and their satisfaction will be explained. In Soganlik, one of the six districts is Ugur Mumcu and there are 11406 houses, 581 buildings, moreover 2 primary schools, 2 high schools and a village clinic (Oztürk,D;2005). Here, the results of the questionnaire which was performed on some users of these houses, and on-site observations are presented. The first phase of the research was carried out in the cooperative buildings which were founded by the Yıldız Technical University staff. The constructions in the cooperative were planned as 5 blocks. According to the data related to construction conditions, the blocks consist of totally 50 units as 3 flats on each floor and ten floors for each building. In this project, 3 separated units are combined symmetrically in central hall. Therefore, all residences both can get some light and it provides equality between the flats and among the 3 units of a block. After the assignment of the building plot, sociological information and the preferences of the members of cooperative are determined by sending a form. The results of the questionnaire have determined the attitude and there is tendency towards single-type housing since there may be different hardships of implementation. After the evaluation of the membership information forms, considering the intensive tendency towards 80m2 of usage space and 3-room-flat, the unit housing programme has been constituted.
As a result of the questionnaire conducted on 123 housing users and the observations made in 2006, the information has come out under the following headings; The family size 57.5% of the families living in Ugur Mumcu district consist of 3-4 people. The average size of a family is 4.1 (According to the data taken from State Statistical Institute in 1990, the average size of a family in Turkey is 4.8). Family size 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people Total Parent Education When parents’ education is examined, it is seen that 47.20% of men are the graduate of vocational schools or universities. This rate is 7.90% for women (According to the data taken from SSI in 2000, the average rate in Turkey is 6.60% for men, 3.90% for women). According to the questionnaire every person has education, except 5.30% of the women (According to the data taken from SS Institute in 2000, the average rate of men and women who do not any education is 21.5% in Turkey). University % Male 32,4 Female 5,3 Monthly income of families Monthly income of 65% families is 1-2.5 billion Turkish Liras, that of 15% of families is 100-500 million Turkish Liras (According to the last data taken from SSI in Dec. 2004 -1 USD=1.430.000TL-the hunger limit of a 4-people family is 180 million Turkish Liras, poverty limit is 463 million Turkish Liras). 100350 Million Turkish Liras %2,5 350-500 Million Turkish Liras %12,5 500-750 Million Turkish Liras %10 750-999 Million Turkish Liras %7,5 1-2,5 Billion Turkish Liras %42.5 1,5-2,5 Billion Turkish Liras %22,5 2,5-5 Billion Turkish Liras %2,5 College % 14,8 2,6 High school % 29,4 39,5 Secondory school % 11,7 18,3 Primary School % 11,7 29 Never % 5,3 Number of Houses 8 5 12 11 2 2 40 Inhabitants 8 10 36 44 10 12 120 Rate % 20 12,5 30 27,5 5 5 100
Attending cultural activities It is observed that 5% of families attend cultural activities once a week and 22.5% of them attend once a month, yet 22.5% of families never attend any cultural activities. Once Once a month a week Once a two month Once a six month Once a year Never
%5
%22,5
%10
%25
%15
%22,5
Eating in restaurants with the aim of recreation activity It is observed that 20% of families eat in restaurants once a week, 30% of them eat once a month, yet 17.5% of them never eat in restaurants. Once a Once a month week %20 %30 Once a two month %10 Once a six month %10 Once a year %12,5 Never %17,5
Ownership of housing 75% of families have the ownership of the house they live in, but 25% of them are tenants Possession Ownership Tenant The way of owning a house 53% of families own their houses by means of cooperative; on the other hand 40% of them have their houses with their own financial resources. Cooperative % 53 Own resources % 40 Bank Credit % Others % 7 Number of Houses 30 10 Rate % 75 25
Other houses the families have It is determined that every one family out of four that have a house has at least one more house besides the one they live in. Other houses that the families have % 25 Are they the first users It is seen that 55% of families are the first users of their houses, 45% of them own their houses later. First user % 55 How many years have they been living in? It is understood that 50% of the families have been living there for the last 5 years, 47.5% of them have been staying for 5-10 years. Less than 1-2 years % 2-5 years % 5-10 years % 10-15 years% Second, Thirth, …. User % 45 Other houses that the families have not % 75
one year % -
17,5
32,5
47,5
2,5
The cities that families lived before 80% of the families have lived in Istanbul before they moved there and 20% of them have lived in other cities. İstanbul % 80 Whether there is change in houses It is understood that 67.5% of the families have made changes in their houses, 32.5% of them have not made any changes. Houses with changes % 67,5 In Terms Of User Satisfaction How do they perceive the district? 67.5% of the families find the district they live in fine. Excellent Good %7,5 %67,5 Transportation means to the district 62.5% of the families find the transportation facilities sufficient. Excellent Good %0 %62.5 Closeness to business opportunities 72.5% of the families consider the closeness of the district to their work places reasonable, but 22.5% of them think vice versa. Excellent %0 Good %32.5 Average %40 Bad %25 Dreadful % 2.5 Average %27.5 Bad %7.5 Dreadful % 2.5 Average %25 Bad %0 Dreadful %0 Houses without changes % 32,5 Different city % 20
Neighbourhood relationships in the housing area 50% of the families find the neighbourhood relationships good, 25% of them think that it is average. 20% of them think that it is excellent. Excellent %20 Good %50 Average %25 Bad %5 Dreadful %0
Shopping opportunities 42.5% of the families finds the shopping opportunities good, 37,5% of them finds it average, 15% of them finds it excellent. Excellent %15 Good %42.5 Average %37.5 Bad %5.0 Dreadful %0
Opportunities in the surroundings 45% of the families think that social and cultural opportunities (e.g. school, cinema, theatre) are average, 50% of them finds them insufficient. Excellent %2.5 Good %2.5 Average %45 Bad %50 Dreadful %0
The capacity for green area 42.5% of the families think that the number of green area in the surroundings is good, 50% of them find it excellent. Excellent %50 Good %42.5 Average %7,5 Bad %0 Dreadful %0
Social centre opportunities in the surroundings 40% of the families think that the number of social centres is average, 32.5% of them find it insufficient. Excellent %12.5 Good %15 Average %40 Bad %32.5 Dreadful %0
Spaciousness of the house 65% of the families think that spaciousness of the houses they live in is good, 15% of the find it excellent. Excellent Good %15 %65 Average %17.5 Bad %0 Dreadful %0
Largeness of the living room 57.5% of the families think that the largeness of the living room in the houses is good, 32.5% of them find it average. Excellent Good %2.5 %57.5 Average %32.5 Bad %7.5 Dreadful %0
Largeness of kitchen 50 % of the families find the largeness of the kitchen average, 27.5% of them find it good, 20% of them finds it insufficient. Excellent Good %0 %27.5 Largeness of bedrooms Average %50 Bad %20 Dreadful %2.5
50% of the families find it good, 40% of them find it normal. Excellent %0 Good %50 Average %40 Bad %10 Dreadful %0
Largeness of bathroom 37.5% of the families find it good, 45% of them finds it normal, 17.5% of them find it insufficient. Excellent %0 Location of the rooms 85% of the families find the location of the rooms good. Excellent %0 Good %85 Average %12.5 Bad %2.5 Dreadful %0 Good %37.5 Average %45 Bad %17.5 Dreadful %0
Adequacy of the number of the rooms 70% of the families find it good, 22.5% of them find it normal. Excellent %0 Good %70 Average %22.5 Bad %5 Dreadful %2.5
Degree of having sunshine of the houses 45% of the families find it good, 25% of them find it excellent and 20% of them find it average. Excellent %25 Good %45 Average %20 Bad %7.5 Dreadful %2.5
Heat isolation of the houses 30% of the families find it normal, 42.5% of them find it bad and 15% of them find it dreadful.
Excellent Good %2.5 %10
Average %30
Bad %42.5
Dreadful %15
Airy rooms of the houses 55% of the families are pleased with it, 30% of them find it normal and 7.5% of them find it bad. Excellent Good %5 %55 Average %30 Bad %7.5 Dreadful %2.5
Heating system of the houses 32.5% of the families find it good, 35% of them find it average, 22.5% of them find it bad and 10% of them find it dreadful. Excellent Good %0 %32.5 Average %35 Bad %22.5 Dreadful %10
Results In Turkey, with the law numbered 775, preventing the establishment of squatter settlements is aimed, and with the help of this law, a solution has been researched for the housing problem of the families, who have low-income, by establishing squatter reclaimation areas in the places under the risk of incoming squatters. However, the law has not been successful, as it does not match the realities of the country. The numerical data is obtained from the questionnaire that is conducted on the users who live in the cooperative houses in Soğanlık squatter reclaimation area and the observations. • • • • • • A large number of users are middle-income families and 3 out of 4 families have the ownership of their houses. 25% of the families who have the ownership possess at least one more house. It is understood that 45% of the families are not the first users of their houses; they gained the ownership of the houses later. This case indicates that the users of the houses who owned by means of cooperative have changed. Another result is that 50 % of the families have been living in these houses for the last five years. Education level of the users is quite above the average in Turkey. It is observed that 80% of the families had lived in Istanbul before they moved into this district, only 20% of them came from other cities and settle there.
According to the results of the data concerning the satisfaction of the users with respect to the houses and the surroundings in Ugur Mumcu District Mass Housing Settlement Area; • • Most users have claimed that they are pleased with the district they live in, the transportation opportunities and their neighbourhood relationships. Shopping opportunities are found sufficient by most users, but they think that the number of cultural social foundations (e.g. cinema, theatre…) is insufficient.
• •
Most users think that the spaciousness of the house, planning of the usage area, largeness and the number of the rooms are reasonable but on the other hand, they claim that some technical aspects such as isolation, heating system are not enough. Also most users think that having sunshine and fresh air in the houses is positive.
“According to the results listed above, the people who live in Ugur Mumcu site seemed to be pleased with the housing area and its surroundings. The data proves that the project work that was made for the middleincome users “by considering their wish and needs” has become successful although the users had some changes over time. As a last word, although settlers living in squatters are unaware of the problem of housing, today there is a positive attitude towards the need of housing. On the other hand, a solution for the housing problem of a squatter user is: 1. By preparing infrastructure and dividing it into parcels, 2. By assigning housing areas that are designed for a variety of household sizes to the ones that are in need, 3. And by providing materials and credit, Establishing housing areas under control would be beneficial. Also, as most of the settlers living there are unemployed and are doing daily jobs, besides the housing problem supplying job and educational opportunities, social and cultural requirements should be among the most important tasks to be fulfilled by the government. References Abali,A.Z; Onder,D.E; 1991; New Settlements Of Istanbul Emerging On The Squatter Reclaimations Areas, Housing For The Urban Poor, European Network For Housing Research, ITU, Building and Earthquake Research & Application Centre, pp:C50-55. Oztürk, D., İstanbul’da Oluşturulan Gecekondu Önleme Bölgeleri: Kullanıcı Profili Açısından Soganlık, Ugur Mumcu Mahallesi Örneği; YTU FBE Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 2005. Unal, Y., 1990, Soganlık 2 no’lu Gecekondu Önleme Bölgesi Planlaması Üzerine, Tasarım Dergisi, Sayı4.