AND NOW, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO LIVE ?
What are the effects of Urban transformation on the socio-spatial Fabric of Fikirtepe?
CONTENTS
01 | PREFACE & GEOGRAPHY
02 | CASE STUDY OF FIKIRTEPE / 2011-2021
2.1 Framework 2005-2021
2.2 Timeline
2.3 Map of Actors
2.4 Effects of Urban transformation
2.2.1 Horizontal Layer
2.2.2 Ghost Layer
2.2.3 Scrap Layer
2.2.4 Vertical layer
PART 03 | WORLD MAP
PART 04 | CONCLUSION & CONNECTION TO COURSE / MIND MAP
PART 05 | APPENDIX
PART 06 | BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abstract & Editorial
Team’s Approach
Abstract
This case study our explores the effects of urban transformation on the socio-spatial fabric of Fikirtepe, a district in Istanbul. The report introduces the subject with discussing the framework of Urban Transformation in the area. The aim is to present the most important events that led to the destruction of the socio-spatial environment in Fikirtepe, therefore the timeline as well as the Actors are included. The report, continues with the investigation of the different socio-spatial effects of the urban transformation in Fikirtepe. It analyses the implications seen through four distinct physical layers that overlap each other. Those layers are, the Horizontal, the Ghost, the Scarp and the Vertical layers.
The report concludes with reference to urban theories and readings such as, “The Right to the City by Harvey”. The intention is to understand how theories of urban scholars can be applied to the case study of Fikirtepe as means to develop a deeper understanding of the urban conflict. In the Appendix, the reader can also find additional information about fikirtepe such as a brief history from 1950s.
The research is based on various sources such as past reports, urban transformation projects, surveys, contemporary news, photos and writings by academic scholars such George Simmel and David Harvey.
Editorial Team Perspective
The editorial team approaches the conflict of Fikirtepe with evidents visible on the socio-physical matter. In this investigation, it was important to evaluate all possible perspectives in order to understand the real implications. However, the report is influenced greatly by scholars such as David Harvey and George Simmel. Those scholars have produced works that speak through the lenses of Marxism. Therefore, it is expected that the report will reference capitalism, economic growth, exploitation and other theories related to this school of thought.
Clarification of Term
Urban Regeneration / “is the attempt to reverse a decline [of an area] by both improving [its] physical structure, and, more importantly and elusively, [its] economy.” (Weaver Matt, 2001)
In this report the term “regeneration” needs to be addressed through two different perspectives. Although authorities see Fikirtepe’s urban transformation as a tool to regenerate the area, the local community does not consider this process as ‘regeneration’ but rather as a process that destroys their houses, creates homelessnesses and leads to turmoil and distress.
Geography
Fikirtepe is located on the Anatolian side of Istanbul, Turkey, withing the borders of Kadıköy district. Excavations for the Baghad Railway in 1907, revealed that the history of the region dates back to the Neolithic period with the first settlements being formed around 5000 BC. The prehistoric settlement of Fikirtepe was formed on a hill near the coast line of Marmara sea between Kurbağalıdere region and the valleys. Its geographical location determined the life-style and main economic activities of the community that included argicultural production and hunting. With that being said, Fikirtepe is considered one of the most important sites of traces from the Neolithic period in Istanbul.
In the 1950s, Fikirtepe experienced a great wave of migration from various non-city spaces. As a result, Fikirtepe became home to different migrating groups who came together and formed Fikirtepe’s squatter settlements. Nowadays, Fikirtepe still acquires a strategic location, being in close proximi-
ty to Kadıköy district. The aforementioned, is considered one of the most cosmopolitan geographies in the Asian side of Istanbul and is characterized by plurality in commercial spaces and residential buildings. As it will be further studied in the next chapters, Fikirtepe’s geographical location plays a substantial role in its urban transformation and conflict.
02 / AND NOW, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO LIVE ?
What are the effects of urban transformation on the socio-spatial fabric of Fikirtepe?
Introduction
The geography of Fikirtepe District in Istanbul has been undergoing urban transformation since the 1950s. Following World War II, a new layer of the bourgeoisie emerged promoting a new form of free-market capitalism. The new economic perspective resulted in the transformation of Turkey into an industrial land stimulating a rapid acceleration in agricultural and industrial activity. This rapid transformation was followed by dynamic changes on the spatial territory with masses migrating from rural geographies to the city. As the State appeared impotent to provide affordable housing, the migrating population built informal settlements around the city’s periphery creating a type of a Parasite Settlement. Fast forward in 2021, Fikirtepe is undergoing another type of urban transformation seen through the lenses of regeneration. The municipality has been promoting a series of renewal projects that target the few elites of Istanbul. The Parasite dwellers have been struggling with issues of demolition, eviction, social distress
and livelihood while their “right to the city” is questioned. At the same time, the urban fabric of Fikirtepe has been transformed into an amalgam of layers being squatter settlements, ghost structures, scrap building elements and new built constructions. The following report will investigate the effects of urban transformation in the socio-spatial fabric of Fikirtepe between the years 20112021.
Urban Transformation Framework
Even though the Urban Transformation of Fikirtepe was a subject of discussion since the Marmara earthquake in the 2000s, the first official proposal was presented in 2005. The urban proposal considered Fikirtepe as a private project area that aimed to change the urban identity, enforce adaptation of emerging areas and improve the quality of life. In fact, it was defined as a “special project area” covering 131 hectares of land, with 20% of the plan being devoted to parks, public spaces, kindergartens and other public facilities. Three years later, in 2008, the proposal advanced by adopting a new “1/1000 scale implementation area plan”. With this proposal, the mayor of the Municipality (IMM) Kadir Topbas promised to
solve unemployment, improve the economy of Istanbul and regenerate the building fabric of Fikirtepe. The proposal was so successful that by 2011 the council increased the zone of intervention from 10% to 80%. The new plan allowed the construction of whole city blocks and therefore 61 plots were created from the assembly of 4.794 parcels. Former industrial areas and squatter housing blocks in Fikirtepe were to be replaced by newly built residential towers targeting the elite of the Turkish society. It becomes clear, that this plan required the eviction of the local population who were either compensated or promised a home in exchange.
But in 2013 the Fikirtepe Urban Transformation project started experiencing its first failures. More specifically, due to economic hatred and unstable regulations, 57 out of 61 projects were behind on schedule while a major construction company who had made contracts with 380 families experienced bankruptcy. As a result, a series of protests were organised and the public demanded governmental measures against construction companies.
“About 50 people protesting on Fikirtepe Mandıra Caddesi blocked the road with garbage containers. Activists said that the authorities of the construction company closed their offices and disappeared and they could not find any contact. Citizens who claimed that the construction company did not inspire confidence, asked the authorities to investigate the company in question. and asked for it to be examined.” (1)
Those protests led to the intervention of the Government of Istanbul who paused all Fikirtepe’s Urban Transformation projects. At the same time, the area of Fikirtepe was declared “risky” and was included in the scope law of 6306 on Transformation of
Areas under Disaster Risks. This law regulated measures to be taken against disasters in the pre-disaster periods and brought more restrictions on property rights. In other words, the law expanded the boundaries of the limitation of property rights and freedoms giving more power and control to authorities. The justification for the high risk area declaration was based on studies that found the plots in Fikirtepe dangerous and under urgent exploration. In practice, this meant that in the case of a parcel owned by several landowners, if the majority agreed to compensate, the developers were allowed to acquire the land.
The physical actions towards the Urban Regeneration’ of Fikirtepe started in 2014 with the first demolitions. Developers, knowing that they had the municipality’s support, took advantage of the law 6306 and forcefully acquired land under the justification of “urgent exploration”. In 2016, after two years of physical destruction, former landowners who had come into agreement with developers started protesting against the construction companies. The landowners, now being homeless, claimed that the developers did not keep their promise of rebuilding their houses. Their agitation was expressed through a series of symbolic protests; many evicted started living in tents next to construction sites. The problems of urban transformation where enhanced by environmental destruction. In 2017, Aykut Nuhoğlu, mayor of the Kadikoy Municipality, stressed the importance of addressing issues such as air pollution, caused by Fikirtepe’s destruction, by forming a collaboration between the Municipality and the Ministry of the Envi-
ronment. In response, in 2018, the Ministry of the Environment and Urbanisation created an authority that would assist those affected by the regeneration. Yet, the authority was insufficient to provide adequate solutions. After the local elections in 2020, the representative of the IMM became Ekrem İmamoğlu. Under his leadership, major development projects that were paused, were given the green light for the continuation of the construction processes. This process was accompanied with greater governmental involvement as many construction projects were handed to the government. As a result, by 2021 the local community of Fikirtepe was completely evicted giving room to the competition of the new projects and the radical change of Fikirtepe’s Urban Identity.
“The state left us with the contractors. The contractor firm determines our destiny.” (1)
“Fikirtepe is no longer left to live. It would be better if there were no urban transformation.” (1)
The contract should be explained before we sign. The state should protect the public. They said to take care of ourselves.” (1)
1 (The Second Migration of Poverty: Fikirtepe, İstanbul. Journal of Social Humanities Sciences Research, 2019)
early 2000’s urban tissue in Fikirtepe
planning phase 2005
byIMM assembly of land
1/1000 zoning plan Ministry of Environment and Urbanization
situation in 2019
confırmation of increasements for zonings
first public announcement
Mayor of Istanbul
Kadir Topbaş
2004-2017 IMM
President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Faruk Nafız Özak
2005-2009
Mustafa Demir 2009-2011
Minister of Environment Formed 2011
Erdoğan Bayraktar 2011-2013
AE Architecture (Anka Group - Evim Kadıköy)*
DB Architects (Keleşoğlu - EBA İnşaat)
Salon Architects
FIKIRTEPE RESIDENCES
declaration as a “risky area”
Council of Ministers
first bankrupcy of contractor approvement of plans in case of an agreement with 2/3 majority, no waiting for the 1
definition “special project area” to “urban transformation area”
1/5000 master development
Ministry of Environment and Ministry to
change of authorities to fasten the demolition urgent expropriations
Mayor of Istanbul
Mevlüt Uysal
2017-2019 IMM
President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Minister of Public Works Housing
İdris Güllüce
2013-2015
Fatma Güldemet Sarı
2015-2016
Mehmet Özhaseki
2016-2018
Murat Kurum 2018
protests of landowners targeting construction companies
local elections of 2019
cancellation of zoning plans
air pollution due to demolition in construction sites
suspension of 1/5000 Scale Master Zoning Plan Amendment
1/1000 Scale Implementation Zoning Plan Amendment for Fikirtepe
undertakement for the unfinished and not started parts from Ministry and government
IMM
authorities the process ceremony expropriations
suspension of Risky Area
1/5000 Scale Master Plan of Fikirtepe and surroundings
Ministry of Environment and City
opening a liaison office for solving problems of landowners such as: rent assistance etc.
protests on site and online platform
continuing on evacuations
and
Eren Talu (Başaran GayrimenkulMina Tower)
Ergün Mimarlık (Güral İnşaatGüral Göztepe Konutları)
Tabanlıoğlu Architects(Nuhoğlu İnşaat - Yenitepe Kadıköy)
Mayor of Istanbul
Kadir Topbaş
2004-2017
IMM
Ekrem İmamoğlu
2019-
President of Turkey
Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Murat Kurum
2018 -
Çamoğlu
Architecture (Selimoğlu İnşaat & Pana YapıBrooklyn Park)
Constractors
BABACAN&BASARAN
USTA INSAAT
MUTLU
GUROL
Constractors
Dumankaya
Anka (Editorial Team, 2021)
Mimarlık (Güral Güral Göztepe
Mimarlık (Güral Güral Göztepe
Mapping the Actors
2005-2021
IMM
Kadir Topbaş 2004-2017
Private Public
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Faruk Nafız Özak
Minister of Public Works and Housing
2005-2009
Mustafa Demir 2009-2011
Faruk Nafız Özak
2005-2009
Mustafa Demir 2009-2011
Minister of Environment Formed 2011
Minister of Environment Formed
Erdoğan Bayraktar 2011-2013
2011
Erdoğan Bayraktar 2011-2013
President of Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
President of Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
2019IMM
Ekrem İmamoğlu
2019-
Ekrem İmamoğlu
2005-2014
AE Architecture (Anka Group - Evim Kadıköy)*
Public
Public
DB Architects (Keleşoğlu - EBA İnşaat)
DB Architects (Keleşoğlu - EBA İnşaat)
Salon Architects
Salon Architects
FIKIRTEPE RESIDENCES
FIKIRTEPE RESIDENCES
IMM National
Mevlüt Uysal 2017-2019
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Minister of Public Works and Housing
İdris Güllüce
İdris Güllüce
2013-2015
2013-2015
Local
Gurol
Gurol
Usta Insaat
Usta Insaat
Mutlu
Mutlu
Babacan&Basaran
Çamoğlu Architecture (Selimoğlu İnşaat & Pana Yapı - Brooklyn Park)
Fatma Güldemet Sarı
Fatma Güldemet Sarı 2015-2016
2015-2016
Mehmet Özhaseki 2016-2018
Mehmet Özhaseki 2016-2018
Murat Kurum 2018 -
Murat Kurum 2018 -
President of Turkey
President of Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
2014-2019
2014-2019
Group - Evim Kadıköy)*
Group - Evim Kadıköy)*
Public
Kadir Topbaş 2004-2017
Kadir Topbaş 2004-2017
Private Public
Research Thematic Seminar /Architecture and Urban Design / Politecnico di Milano/ 2021-2022/ Group 01
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Faruk Nafız Özak 2005-2009
Faruk Nafız Özak 2005-2009
Mustafa Demir 2009-2011
Mustafa Demir 2009-2011
Minister of Environment Formed 2011
Minister of Environment Formed 2011
Erdoğan Bayraktar 2011-2013
Erdoğan Bayraktar 2011-2013
President of Turkey
President of Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
National 2005-2014
DB Architects (Keleşoğlu - EBA İnşaat)
DB Architects (Keleşoğlu - EBA İnşaat)
Salon Architects
Salon Architects
FIKIRTEPE RESIDENCES
FIKIRTEPE RESIDENCES
Eren Talu (Başaran Gayrimenkul - Mina Tower)
Eren Talu (Başaran Gayrimenkul - Mina Tower)
Ergün Mimarlık (Güral İnşaat - Güral Göztepe Konutları)
Ergün Mimarlık (Güral İnşaat - Güral Göztepe Konutları)
IMM
IMM
Ekrem İmamoğlu 2019-
Ekrem İmamoğlu 2019-
Public
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Minister of Public Works and Housing
Murat Kurum 2018 -
Murat Kurum 2018 -
Gurol
Gurol
Usta Insaat Mutlu Babacan&Basaran
Usta Insaat Mutlu Babacan&Basaran
Çamoğlu Architecture (Selimoğlu İnşaat & Pana Yapı - Brooklyn Park)
Çamoğlu Architecture (Selimoğlu İnşaat & Pana Yapı - Brooklyn Park)
Anka
Anka
Dumankaya
Dumankaya
Tabanlıoğlu Architects(Nuhoğlu İnşaatYenitepe Kadıköy)
Tabanlıoğlu Architects(Nuhoğlu İnşaatYenitepe Kadıköy)
President of Turkey
President of Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
2019- 2014-2019
2019-
(Editorial Team, 2021) (Editorial Team, 2021) (Editorial Team, 2021)
Tradition of Fikirtepe & The Horizontal Layer
About Tradition
In order to evaluate the effects of urban transformation on the socio-spatial fabric of Fikirtepe it is crucial to understand its tradition. Fikirtepe’s tradition can be traced on the first layer of discussion, the horizontal, which consists of the Gecekondu or else, squatter settlements. The first Gecekondu houses (= built overnight) were built during the first phase of urban migration as a response to the lack of affordable housing. Studying the case of the formation of the Gecekondu neighbourhood in Ege district, in Istanbul, can help us speculate that similar practices took place in the establishment of those in Fikirtepe.
The first formation of a Gecekondu neighbourhood followed a bottom up approach. It was a process that was led by and built for the migrating community primarily serving its needs. The male population would gather to decide on the urban fabric; where the roads and plots for Gecekondu had to be. The owner of the existing land would then
negotiate the selling of the plots through informal contracts that would either request a small amount of money or household objects such as a vacuum cleaner. The new owners would invite their extended family, that would later buy part of the land to build their own settlement. It can therefore be argued that kinship and trust within the community members was a hallmark of a Gecekondu neighbourhood.
Once the land was acquired the new owner would visit a storage space selling elements from demolished buildings and collect all the required materials for the construction of the gecekondu house. Following the collection of the materials, the owner had to build the house overnight and complete it, or give by the next morning, the impression of a finished house. The time frame was such that dwellers could get away with the municipality checks who had the right to demolish unfinished and illegal constructions. Therefore, the fast construction of a Gece-
kondu required the help of neighbours creating a sense of community. In addition, another aspect that enhanced the community’s bonds was the collective resistance against demolition acts. Adults and children would join forces to prevent the demolition teams, with the latter throwing stones or blocking the path for the bulldozer. Other means locals used to prevent demolition was through bribing members of the municipality.
It therefore becomes evident that the first Gecekondu settlements were a product of the local population. Even though they lacked planning and housing policies, people appeared to have what David Harvey names the “right to the city”. The urban fabric was shaped according to the community’s needs and locals shared a sense of belonging. Although poor, locals had created a great sense of love for their homes and neighbourhood and for them eviction was not negotiable. Trust among dwellers as well as collective resistance against municipality forces were characteristic of Fikirtepe’s migrating culture. All of the above mentioned, can contribute in shaping the “tradition” of Fikirtepe’s migrating community that would later suffer due to urban transformation, gentrification and migration.
Horizontal Layer
Even though Fikirtepe’s tradition can still be glanced on parts of the horizontal layer, its spatial expansion due to urban transformation, seems to have changed its socio-spatial morphology. As the area continued to expand, Fikirtepe became a protagonist in the wrong and unplanned usage of land. As a result, nowadays, the horizontal layer of Fikirtepe consists primarily of deteriorated road networks and infrastructure. In addition, it is enhanced with two settlement types that appear as evolved models of the Gecekondu. Those new additions are the jerry-built units which are two to three floor apartments and high-rise apartments of 4-5 floors. Yet, what remains from the horizontal building fabric, being unplanned and having no regulations, does not provide live-able conditions.
As far as the local population is concerned, following the plans for Urban transformation, a large number of dwellers had to leave Fikirtepe either “temporarily” or permanently. More specifically, the initial plan of urban transformation was limited to the regeneration of 54 plots in the Fikirtepe district. By 2014 the Municipality established new regulations that would allow the construc-
tion of whole city blocks. As a result developers sought to maximize their land area by acquiring and merging smaller plots. Construction firms approached locals who either sold their land to them or were promised a housing unit in exchange once the projects were realized. It is important to mention that if we consider “trust” as part of Fikirtepe’s culture, one can argue that the local population could be easily persuaded. In both cases, the locals were promised something in exchange that was far beyond their economic and living standards. Yet, to what extent the offer was “fair” remains negotiable.
In fact, in the Fikirtepe Urban Transformation Project Survey, held in 2015, 64% of locals claimed that “they did not know how many square meters they would get from the developers”. At the same time, those who did not wish to sell their land, had to face the upcoming reality of urban transformation, being that the area would eventually become unaffordable. In the same survey, 80% of the responders claimed that “they no longer wish to live in Fikirtepe because they will not be able to afford to live in “new” Fikirtepe and they prefer to move to a similar and close neighborhood”. The aforementioned, provides a new dimension on the implications of Fikirtepe urban transformation
as the existing population seeks relocation and therefore the problem is not diminished but transferred to another area. The horizontal layer can be therefore considered as a layer that is gradually fading due to urban transformation. As it will be later discussed, those who refused to leave will be evicted and demolitions will destroy even further its urban fabric.
Ghost Layer
In 2012, a new overlapping layer started emerging as a result of parallel processes that changed Fikirtepe’s physical and social dimensions. The eviction of the local community, the demolition of existing structures and road networks, as well as a big pause on the construction works, created a layer of vacant spaces; the Ghost layer.
More specifically, the formation of the Ghost Layer, began with the eviction of the community living in the Horizontal layer. As previously mentioned, driven by capitalistic tendencies, developers sought to maximise their plot sizes in order to acquire larger profits. Meanwhile, the municipality was constantly changing its planning policies creating a feeling of distrust for the developers. At the same time, the public urban fabric was being demolished by the Municipality who planned to implement a new mobility system with wide road axes and large public spaces. Those parameters led to the deceleration of the construction processes and to
the socio-spatial fragmentation of Fikirtepe. Therefore, the ghost layer consisted of vacant constructions, demolished houses and deteriorated networks. The everyday organisation of people’s life was being reshaped while the vast majority was forced to move to other districts such as Fındıklı and Ünalan, and partly to Zümrütevler, Kayışdağı and Bulgurlu creating new urban conflicts.
In addition, the deceleration of the construction procedures gave the Ghost layer environmental and socio-political dimensions. As far as the Environmental challenges concern, the demolition process caused the creation of a dust cloud adding to the air pollution of the area. In fact, the rubble formed by this processes appeared as a filling layer changing the border. In terms of socio-political dimensions, the formation of the Ghost layer, coincides with the refugee crisis. The presence of Syrian refugees occupying some of the vacant buildings was highly observed. In fact, hundreds of refugees were living in
the abandoned houses, under the risk of collapsing roofs, without any access to sanitation and clean water. Those dehumanising conditions were intensified by the spread of various diseases.
“We took shelter in these houses, rather than staying on the streets. When you are in despair, you try anything. Most of our husbands have died. Our children beg on the streets to make money. We haven’t taken a shower for months,” a female refugee told daily Hürriyet. (1)
It becomes therefore clear that the ghost layer has both physical and social features. It is a layer that is characterised by demolished houses, skeleton buildings and destroyed public networks. At the same time, the victimised protagonists are both the evicted population but also the refugees who seek shelter in un-liveable spaces.
“I was a tenant when my shop was demolished; I had to move to Umraniye (a settlement away from here), I lost my job.” (2)
“I don’t know how to read or write. They took our houses from us. We’re victims. Some parcels have been partially evacuated. Some islands have reached a deal. There is severe chaos in the neighborhood.” (2)
“The houses around were destroyed, our building island remained in the middle, our neighbors are trying to live in the construction dust.” (2)
“People did not want to leave Fikirtepe. But nobody asked them their opinion; they were offered a project they can not refuse.” (2)
“Fikirtepe is no longer left to live. It would be better if there were no urban transformation.”(2)
1 (Daily Hurriyet)
2 (The Second Migration of Poverty: Fikirtepe, İstanbul. Journal of Social Humanities Sciences Research, 2019)
Scrap Layer
As the existing building fabric was being demolished in Fikirtepe, an additional layer began to form that can be named the “Scrap layer”. This layer was formed by three processes. Firstly, the demolition of the existing settlements created a big amount of scrap materials that were often left on site. At the same time, the local community in an effort to save as much as possible from the houses they built with their bare hands, collected building elements such as windows and doors by deconstructing their homes. Being homeless, those building components were often left on the street. Thirdly, “wreckers” being individuals who collected scrap material for reuse and resale, formed the wreckyard markets expanding their selling influence in neighbourhoods around Fikirtepe and therefore prolonging the construction of squatter houses. Even nowadays, the scrap layer is highly present. Almost daily the scrap-men collect pieces of leftover metal, iron and plastic that they later sell for low prices. It is a cyclical process of demolition
and reuse, as what is considered “garbage” from the swamp settlement of Fikirtepe becomes a valuable building material for the same evicted poor population. One can argue that collecting the scrap building elements is a way for the local community to get back their “right to the city”. It is a form of resistance as locals struggle to prolong their tradition of building their own neighbourhoods and houses based on their needs.
Vertical Layer
The last physical layer that can be observed in Fikirtepe is the Vertical layer that describes the existence of newly built high rise buildings complexes. The aim of this layer, is to completely cover the layers beneath it with multifunctional buildings that include offices, commercial spaces and residential compartments. In other words, the vertical layer, once completed, will turn Fikirtepe into one of the most expensive areas in Istanbul, being the “Anatolian Manhattan”. In terms of physical dimensions, the new constructions are high rise buildings that reach up to 28 floors. The layer is planned to cover an area of 10.000 square meters in 61 plots which is equal to 4.794 old squatter plots. The complexes expand vertically, giving room to open public areas and green spaces. In addition, the new-built constructions are built with high quality materials that exceed the “human scale” and the “crafted” feeling of the horizontal layer. In terms of amenities the majority of the projects offer buildings equipped with pools, fit-
ness-centres, spas and kids playgrounds. The buildings offer apartments from 60 to 200 square meters and prices exceed 100.000 Turkish Liras.
Interestingly, despite the fact that by 2019 only 16 out of 61 projects were completed the implications of the vertical layer were already visible. Fikirtepe has transformed from a low-income neighbourhood to an area for the few elites. In fact, Turkish real estate companies already advertise Fikirtepe as the ideal residential neighbourhood near Kadikoy which is district “that finds itself on the top of the list when it comes to the average GDP per capita, therefore, housing families that have living standards above average”(1). Consequently, it becomes clear that real estate agents target high income groups and ignore the existence of the evicted homeless population that live between the horizontal, ghost and scrap layers. In any case though, it is true that the local population cannot afford the living standards of
1 (Property Istanbul, 2021)
new Fikirtepe. Even in the case the constructors kept their promise by giving a new apartment in exchange for the acquired land, the local is not able to keep up with the new living expenses. The luxurious apartments and the new public spaces require maintenance which is translated into high condominium fees.
What you see
What you don’t see
What you see
What you don’t see
(Property Istanbul, 2021) , (Gülistan Alagöz, 2018), (Getty Images, 2019), Edited by Editorial Team
Relationship between Migration and Socio-spatial changes
The analysis of the socio-spatial effects of urban transformation in Fikirtepe created an additional topic for exploration which is the relationship between of those changes and Migration.
The vertical layer that dramatically reshaped the urban landscape of Fikirtepe, has a different pattern . More specifically, there is the “migration” of “the right people” (1) who share a high socio-economic
HORIZONTAL LAYER DEMOLITION LAYER
HORIZONTAL LAYER DEMOLITION LAYER
Horizontal layer Scrap Layer
SCRAP LAYER
VERTICAL LAYER
Rural Migrants 1950s who later became the Locals of Fikirtepe
“Right people”
Refugees
