This article discusses the role of squatters in the commodification of urban space in Turkey since the 1960s. Although squatting until the early 1980s was regarded as the expression of the demands of rural-to-urban migrants for their citizenship rights, early migrants eventually built multistorey buildings on the plots they occupied and rented the extra space to late migrants. Thus, squatting as ‘self-help put into practice’ became a major mechanism of commodification of urban land in Turkey. The commodification brought about significant antagonism between early migrants/new petty bourgeois and late migrants/new working class, as the latter became the tenants of the former. This division in working-class neighbourhoods is mostly invisible to the current literature. However, if this historical transformation is conceptualised as the ‘enclosure of urban space’, contradictions among different segments of squatter communities can be analysed in a comparative manner.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AksoyluY. F. (1982) Challenge to bureaucracy: the informal networks of urban squatters and communication with the local authorities in Istanbul. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
2.
AndruszG. D. (1984) Housing and Urban Development in the USSR. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
3.
AslanS. (2004) 1 Mayıs Mahallesi: 1980 Öncesi Toplumsal Mücadeleler ve Kent. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
4.
de AzevedoS. (1987) Housing policies in Latin America: the myths of self-help construction, American Political Science Association, 20(4), pp. 895–901.
5.
BayatA. (1997) Street Politics: Poor People’s Movements in Iran. New York: Columbia University Press.
6.
BlockA. (1954) Soviet housing: some town planning problems, Soviet Studies, 6(1), pp. 1–15.
BuğraA. (1998) The immoral economy of housing in Turkey, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(2), pp. 303–317.
9.
BurgessR. (1978) Self-help housing: a new imperialist strategy? A critique of the Turner school, Antipode, 9(2), pp. 50–59.
10.
CoitK. (1994) Self-help housing for the poor: a cross-cultural study, Cities, 11(2), pp. 115–124.
11.
CrononW. (1991) Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: W.W. Norton.
12.
DavisM. (2006) Planet of Slums. New York: Verso.
13.
Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı [State Planning Organisation] (1991) Gecekondu Araştırması. Sosyal Planlama Başkanlığı, Ankara.
14.
DiMaioA. (1974) Soviet Urban Housing: Problems and Policies. New York: Praeger.
15.
DoğanE. (1980) Kentlileşsen Efendiler. Istanbul: Ortak Yayinlar.
16.
EngelsF. (1970) The Housing Question. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
17.
ErderS. (1996) Istanbul’a Bir Kent Kondu: Ümraniye. Istanbul: Iletişim.
18.
ErmanT. (1997) Squatter (gecekondu) housing versus apartment housing: Turkish rural-to-urban migrant residents’ perspective, Habitat International, 28(1), pp. 91–106.
19.
ErmanT. (2001) The politics of squatter (gecekondu) studies in Turkey: the changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse, Urban Studies, 38(7), pp. 983–1002.
20.
FayM.WellensteinA. (2005) Keeping a roof over one’s head: improving access to safe and decent shelter, in: FayM. (Ed.) The Urban Poor in Latin America, ch. 3. Washington, DC: World Bank.
21.
FichterR.TurnerJ. F. C.GrenellP. (1972) The meaning of autonomy, in: TurnerJ. F. C.FichterR. (Eds) Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process, ch. 10. New York: Macmillan.
22.
GandyM. (2002) Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
23.
GilbertA. (1993) In Search of a Home: Rental and Shared Housing in Latin America. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
24.
GilbertA.VarleyA. (1991) Landlord and Tenant: Housing the Poor in Urban Mexico. New York: Routledge.
25.
GülöksüzE. (2002) Negotiation of property rights in urban land in Istanbul, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(2), pp. 462–476.
26.
HarmsH. (1982) Historical perspectives on the practice and purpose of self-help housing, in: WardP. M. (Ed.) Self-help Housing: A Critique, pp. 17–53. London: Mansell.
27.
HarrisR. (1998) A crank’s fate and the feting of a visionary: reflections on the history of aided self-help housing, World Planning Review, 29(3), pp. iii–viii.
28.
HarrisR. (2003) A double irony: the originality and influence of John F. C. Turner, Habitat International, 27, pp. 245–269.
29.
HartC. W. M. (1969) Zeytinburnu Gecekondu Bölgesi, transl. by SaranN.. Istanbul: Kutulmuş Matbaası.
30.
HarveyD. (2003) Paris: Capital of Modernity. New York: Routledge.
31.
HeperM. (1978) Gecekondu Policy in Turkey: An Evaluation with a Case Study of Rumelihisarustu Squatter Area in Istanbul. Istanbul: Boğgaziçci University Publications.
32.
IşıkO.PınarcıoğluM. M. (2001) Nöbetleşe Yoksulluk. Istanbul: Iletişim Yayınları.
33.
KarpatK. H. (1976) The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KeyderC. (1987) State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development. New York: Verso.
36.
KeyderC. (1999) The housing market from informal to global, in: KeyderC. (Ed.) Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local, pp. 143–159. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
37.
KöksalS. (1990) Istanbul’daki Sosyal Demokrat Belediye Başskanları ve Gecekondu. İstanbul: Türkiye Sosyal Ekonomik Siyasal Araşstırmalar Vakfı.
38.
KoolhaasR. (1994) Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: Monacelli Press.
39.
Lee-SmithD. (1990) Squatter landlords in Nairobi: a case study of Korogocho, in: AmisP.LloydP. C. (Eds) Housing Africa’s Urban Poor, ch. 9. Manchester: Manchester University Press for the International African Institute.
ÖzlerŞ. İ. (2000) Politics of the gecekondu in Turkey: the political choices of urban squatters in national elections, Turkish Studies, 1(2), pp. 39–58.
46.
PageM. (2003) The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900–1940. London: University of Chicago Press.
47.
RamirezR.FioriJ.HarmsH.MatheyK. (1992) The commodification of self-help housing and state intervention: household experiences in the barrios of Caracas, in: MatheyK. (Ed.) Beyond Self-help Housing, pp. 95–144. London: Mansell.
TekeliI. (1994) The Development of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area: Urban Administration and Planning. Istanbul: Kent Basımevi.
53.
TillK. (2004) The New Berlin: Memory, Politics, Place. London: University of Minnesota Press.
54.
Turkish Statistical Institute (2000) Building census 2000. T. C. Basbakanlik Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu, Ankara.
55.
Turkish Statistical Institute (2007) Statistical indicators, 1923–2006. TSI Printing Division, Ankara.
56.
TurnerJ. F. C. (1968) Uncontrolled urban settlement: problems and policies. Working Paper No. 11, Agenda Item No. 4 and (illus) for the UN Inter-regional Seminar at Pittsburgh Oct/Nov 1966, in: International Social Development Review No. 1, Urbanization: Development Policies and Planning, United Nations, New York.
57.
TurnerJ. F. C. (1976) Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. London: Marion Boyars.
58.
TurnerM. (1984) Enclosures in Britain 1750–1830. London: Macmillan.
59.
UN-Habitat (2003) The Challenge of Slums. London: Earthscan.
60.
WardP. M. (1990) Mexico City: The Production and Reproduction of an Urban Environment. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall.
61.
YeldanA. E. (2000) The impact of financial liberalization and the rise of financial rents on income inequality: the case of Turkey. Research Paper No. 206, World Institute for Development Economics Research.
62.
YönderA. (1998) Implications of double standards in housing policy: development of informal settlements in Istanbul, in: FernandezE.VarleyA. (Eds) Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries, pp. 55–68. New York: Zed Books.
