Between 2004 and 2019, more than 30 areas in Istanbul have been earmarked as regeneration zones. But as of August 2019, only two projects are completed while the rest either never reached implementation stage or are stopped by courts, despite the right macroeconomic conditions and unflinching governmental will. Why? The answers lie in the ill-designed legal/institutional infrastructure behind urban regeneration, the conflictual relations between various stakeholders, and the effective utilization of the law by groups opposing the projects. The ill-designed policy generated serious legal uncertainties, institutional clashes, and lack of trust among stakeholders, which raised transaction costs and led to project failures. This has not, however, led the government toward reforming the policy to make it more rational. On the contrary, it has led to a more centralized and authoritarian policy framework. I demonstrate these arguments through an analysis of four failed projects in the city.
AcemogluDaronUcerMurat. 2015. The Ups and Downs of Turksih Growth (2012-2015): Political Dynamics, The European Union and the Institutional Slide. NBER Working Paper no. 21608. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AhunbayZeynepDinçerİclalŞahinÇiğdem. 2016. Neoliberal Kent Politikaları ve Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray: Bir Koruma Mücadelesinin Öyküsü (Neoliberal Urban Policies and Fener-Balat-Ayvansaray: The Story of a Resistance). İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
3.
AkilliHüsniyeAkilliSerkan H.. 2014. “Decentralization and Recentralization of Local Governments in Turkey.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences140: 682–6.
4.
Akkar ErcanMüge. 2011. “Developing Sustainable Communities in Historic Neighborhoods of Istanbul.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie102 (2): 205–19.
5.
AksümerGizemYücelHakan. 2018. “Immaterial Dimensions of the Right to the City: The Case of Istanbul’s Derbent Neighborhood in the Urban Transformation Process.” Planlama28 (1): 76–89.
6.
AlkanAyten. 2015. “New Metropolitan Regime of Turkey: Authoritarian Urbanization Via Local Government Restructuring.” Lex Localis13 (3): 849–77.
7.
BezmezDikmen. 2007. “The Politics of Urban Regeneration: The Case of the Fener and Balat Initiative.” New Perspectives on Turkey37: 59–86.
8.
BezmezDikmen. 2008. “The Politics of Waterfront Regeneration: The Case of Haliç (Golden Horn), Istanbul.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (4): 815–40.
ÇalışkanKoray. 2018. “Toward a New Political Regime in Turkey: From Competitive to Full Authoritarianism.” New Perspectives on Turkey58: 5–33.
11.
CarmonNaomi. 1999. “Three Generations of Urban Renewal Policies: Analysis and Policy Implications.” Geoforum30 (2): 145–58.
12.
CarmonaMatthew. 2009. “The Isle of Dogs: Four Development Waves, Five Planning Models, Twelve Plans, Thirty-Five Years, and a Renaissance . . . of Sorts.” Progress in Planning71 (3): 87–151.
13.
Darrah-OkikeJennifer. 2019. “Disrupting the Growth Machine: Evidence from Hawaii.” Urban Affairs Review55 (2): 428–61.
14.
De SouzaMarcelo Lopez. 2007. “Social Movements as Critical ‘Urban Planning Agents.” City10 (3): 327–42.
Dinçerİclal. 2011. “The Impact of Neoliberal Policies on Historic Urban Space: Areas of Urban Renewal in Istanbul.” International Planning Studies16 (1): 43–60.
17.
DündarÖzlem. 2001. “Models of Urban Transformation: Informal Housing in Ankara.” Cities18 (6): 391–401.
18.
ElicinYeseren. 2014. “Neoliberal Transformation of the Turkish City Through the Urban Transformation Act.” Habitat International41: 150–55.
19.
ErgüvenEmre. 2020. “The Political Economy of Housing Financialization in Turkey: Links with and Contradictions to the Accumulation Model.” Housing Policy Debate30 (4): 1–26.
20.
FainsteinSusan. 2008. “Mega-Projects in New York, London and Amsterdam.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (4): 768–85.
21.
GerringJohn. 2004. “What Is a Case and What Is It Good For.” The American Political Science Review98 (2): 341–54.
22.
GoertzGaryMahoneyJohn. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
GülöksüzElvan. 2002. “Negotiation of Property Rights in Urban Land in Istanbul.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research26 (2): 462–76.
24.
HarveyDavid. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
HealeyPatsy. 1991. “Urban Regeneration and the Development Industry.” Regional Studies25 (2): 97–110.
26.
HyraDerek. 2012. “Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal: Comparing the Past to the Present.” Urban Affairs Review48 (4): 498–527.
KaramanOzanİslamTolga. 2012. “On the Dual Nature of Intra-Urban Borders: The Case of a Romani Neighborhood in Istanbul.” Cities29 (4): 234–43.
29.
KingGaryKeohaneRobert O.VerbaSidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
Kısar KoramazElifKoramazTurgay K.ÖzerÖzlem. 2018. “İUrban Transformation Through Property-Led Regeneration: A Case of Building Renewals in İstanbul.” ITU A/Z15 (2): 183–96.
31.
KösebayErkan. 2013. “Haydarpaşa Tren Garı: Bugün, Dün ve Yarın (Haydarpa Train Station: Past, Present and Future).” METU JFA30 (1): 99–116.
32.
KuyucuTuna. 2014. “Law, Property and Ambiguity: The Uses and Abuses of Legal Ambiguity in Remaking Istanbul’s Informal Settlements.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies38 (2): 609–27.
33.
KuyucuTuna. 2017. “Two Crises, Two Trajectories: The Impact of the 2001 and 2008 Economic Crises on Urban Governance in Turkey.” In Neoliberal Turkey and Its Discontents: Economic Policy and the Environment Under Erdogan, edited by AdamanFikretAkbulutBengiAkselMurat, 67–83. London: I.B. Tauris.
34.
KuyucuTuna. 2018. “Politics of Urban Regeneration in Turkey: Possibilities and Limits of Local Regeneration Initiatives in a Highly Centralized Country.” Urban Geography39 (8): 1152–76.
35.
KuyucuTunaDanışDidem. 2015. “Similar Processes, Divergent Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Urban Redevelopment Projects in Three Turkish Cities.” Urban Affairs Review51 (3): 381–413.
36.
KuyucuTunaÜnsalÖzlem. 2010. “‘Urban Transformation’ as State-Led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul.” Urban Studies47 (7): 1479–99.
37.
LearyMichaelMcCarthyJohn. 2013. The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration. New York: Routledge.
38.
LelandaisGülçin Erdi. 2014. “Space and Identity in Resistance Against Neoliberal Urban Planning in Turkey.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38 (5): 1785–806.
39.
LichtermanPaulReedIsaac. 2014. “Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography.” Sociological Methods & Research44 (4): 585–635.
40.
LiebersonStanley. 1991. “Small ‘N’s and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning Based on a Small Number of Cases.” Social Forces70 (2): 307–20.
41.
LoganJohn R.MolotchHarvey L.. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
LoveringJohn. 2007. “The Relationship Between Urban Regeneration and Neoliberalism: Two Presumptuous Theories and a Research Agenda.” International Plannıng Studies12 (4): 343–66.
43.
MahoneyJohn. 2012. “The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.” Sociological Methods & Research41 (4): 570–97.
44.
MayerMargit. 2009. “The ‘Right to the City’ in the Context of Shifting Mottos of Urban Social Movements.” City13 (2/3): 362–74.
45.
MoulaertFrankRodriguezArantxaSwyngedouwErik. 2003. The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
Öktem UnsalBinnur. 2015. “State-Led Urban Regeneration in Istanbul: Power Struggles Between Interest Groups and Poor Communities.” Housing Studies30 (8): 1299–316.
47.
ÖncüAyşe. 1988. “The Politics of Urban Land Market in Turkey: 1950–1980.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research12 (1): 38–64.
48.
ÖnişZiya. 2009. “Beyond the 2001 Financial Crisis: The Political Economy of the New Phase of Neo-Liberal Restructuring in Turkey.” Review of International Political Economy16 (3): 409–32.
49.
OruetaFernando DiazFainsteinSusan. 2008. “The New Mega-Projects: Genesis and Impacts.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (4): 759–67.
50.
ÖzdemirDilek. 2011. “The Role of the Public Sector in the Provision of Housing Supply in Turkey, 1950–2009.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35 (6): 1099–117.
51.
ÖzdenPınar. 2010. “Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm Politikaları ve Mevzuatına Eleştirel Bir Bakış (A Critical Look at Urban Transformation Policies and Law in Turkey).” In Kentsel Dönüşümde Politika, Mevzuat, Uygulama, edited by ÖzdemirDilek, 194–224. Ankara: Nobel Yayınlari.
52.
Özkan ErenMiray. 2017. “2000–2017 Yılları Arasında Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm Siyaseti: Kartal Sanayi Alanı Dönüşüm Vakası (Urban Regeneration Politics in Turkey Between 2000–2017: The Case of Kartal’s Industrial Zone).” PhD thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Istanbul.
PorterLibbyShawKate. 2009. Whose Urban Renaissance: An International Comparison of Urban Regeneration Strategies. London: Routledge.
57.
PrasadMonica. 2006. The Politics of Free Markets: The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Policies in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
58.
SavaşkanOsman. 2017. “2000 Sonrası Türkiyesi’nde Yerel Yönetimler Reform Süreci (Reform Processes of Local Governments in 2000s Turkey).” Toplum Ve Bilim141: 140–72.
59.
SkocpolThedaSomerMargaret. 1980. “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.” Comparative Studies in Society and History22 (2): 174–97.
60.
SmallMario. 2009. “‘How Many Cases Do I Need’: On Science and the Logic of Case Selection in Field-Based Research.” Ethnography10 (1): 5–38.
61.
SmithNeil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Routledge: New York.
62.
SorensenAndré. 2018. “Institutions and Urban Space: Land, Infrastructure and Governance in the Production of Urban Property.” Planning Theory & Practice19 (1): 21–38.
63.
StoneClarence. 2005. “Looking Back to Look Forward: Reflections on Urban Regime Analysis.” Urban Affairs Review40 (3): 309–41.
64.
SwyngedousErikMoulaertFrankRodriguesArantxa. 2002. “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy.” Antipode34 (3): 542–577.
65.
TarakcıSezenTurkSevkiye Sence. 2018. “Impact of Planning on Land Value in Urban Renewal Practice: The Case of Istanbul-Fikirtepe.” FIG Congress Proceedings, Istanbul.
66.
TürkünAsuman. 2011. “Urban Regeneration and Hegemonic Power Relationships.” International Planning Studies16 (1): 61–72.
67.
UysalÜlke Evrim. 2012. “An Urban Social Movement Challenging Urban Regeneration: The Case of Sulukule, Istanbul.” Cities29 (1): 12–22.
68.
Haydarpaşa
69.
İstanbul 5. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2012/2012—Karar no: 2015/1475
70.
Kartal
71.
İstanbul 7. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2008/1776
72.
İstanbul 1. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2010/1154
73.
İstanbul 9. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2010/1024—Karar no: 2012/227
74.
İstanbul 2. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2011/1967—Karar no: 2013/965
75.
İstanbul 2. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2013/818
76.
Fener-Balat
77.
İstanbul 5. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2010/465—Karar no: 2012/1504
78.
İstanbul 1. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2012/668—Karar no: 2014/179
79.
İstanbul 9. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2013/48—Karar no: 2015/131
80.
Danıştay 6. Daire Esas no: 2013/2182—Karar no: 2015/4634
81.
Derbent
82.
İstanbul 8. İdare Mahkemekesi Esas no: 2013/81—Karar no: 2014/267
83.
İstanbul 6. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2013/74—Karar no: 2014/2326
84.
İstanbul 6. İdare Mahkemesi Esas no: 2013/75—Karar no: 2014/2327
85.
Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu Esas no: 2014/4112—Karar no: 2015/1235
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
