Inversion of urban transformation approach in Turkey into family-friendly transformation

  • Miray GürEmail author


The factors of economic value increases, quantitative dimension of physical requirements, organization and legal structuring come to the forefront in the transformations in which cities are restructured by TOKI with government support in Turkey. Although the stated ultimate aim of these transformation projects is the social rehabilitation of residences, the implementations developed have failed to take into consideration the social life of the people, and moreover, because these implementations have also not been mindful of the quality of the living environments to which individuals are accustomed, the neighborhood culture is lost, the sense of belonging to social and physical environment disappears, and individuals are unable to adapt to the new living environments. In this context, this study evaluates the transformation approach from the family-friendly perspective that is compatible with the social structure and the lifestyle based on the neighborhood culture in Turkey. For this purpose, family-friendly settlements are conceptually examined; relevant results of the case study conducted on the socio-spatial effects, which have been reversed in the transformations implemented in line with the current policies, are discussed. The study results suggest that the lifestyle facilitated through a pre-transformation horizontal physical space organization that was close to city center could not be transferred to the post-transformation vertical settlements in the periphery, the social network is lost, the sense of insecurity spread, accessibility, affordability and suitability for raising children declined and so the transformations destroyed the former family-friendly neighborhood structure. In conclusion, recommendations were developed to rework the structures in the family-friendly transformations that are resident-and-family-oriented, appropriate to residents’ lifestyles and capable of being socially and physically integrated within the city.


Urban transformation Family-friendly housing TOKI Livability Relocation 



  1. AARP. (2017). AARP Policy book 2017–2018. Retrieved September 4, 2018.
  2. Appold, S. (2011). Community development in tall residential buildings. In B. Yuen & A. G. O. Yeh (Eds.), High rise living in Asian cities (pp. 149–178). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arslan, H. (2014). Kentsel dönüşüm süreçlerinin kentsel haklar temelinde değerlendirilmesi gerekliliği. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16, 33–41.Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett, S. (1999). Children’s experience of the physical environment in poor urban settlements and the implications for policy, planning and practice. EnvironmentandUrbanization, 11(2), 63–74.Google Scholar
  5. Batuman, B., & Erkip, F. (2017). Urban design-or lack thereof-as policy: The renewal of Bursa Doğanbey District. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 32(4), 827–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baysal, C. U. (2010). İstanbul’u küresel kent yapma aracı olarak kentsel dönüşüm ve ardındaki konut hakkı ihlalleri: Ayazma(n)’dan Bezirganbahçe’ye tutunamayanlar, İstanbul Bilgi University Institute of Social Sciences Master Thesis.Google Scholar
  7. Çakırer Özservet, Y. (2015). Aile dostu kent için kavramsal analiz. Aile dostu kentler etüt araştırması (Family-friendly cities research) (pp. 53–68). Retrieved August 25, 2017.
  8. Candan, A. B., & Kolluoğlu, B. (2008). Emerging spaces of neoliberalism: A gated town and a pubkic housing Project in Istanbul. New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canzoneri, D., & Wilson, B. (2014). Family-sized housing: An essential ingredient to attract and retain families with children in Seattle, A White PaperandAction Agenda from The Seattle Planning Commission. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
  10. Cappon, D. (1971). Mental health in the high-rise. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 62(5), 426–431.Google Scholar
  11. Carvalho, M. A., & Koteng, Z. (2014). Systematic assessment of the child friendly city/district(CFC/D) initiative in Indonesia. UNICEF. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
  12. City of Emeryville. (2015). Emeryville housing element 2015–2023. Retrieved September 6, 2018.—Complete-Document?bidId=.
  13. City of Vancouver. (1992). High-density housing for families with children guidelines. City of Vancouver Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines. Retrieved September 4, 2018.
  14. Conway, J., & Adams, A. (1977). The social effects of living off the ground. Habitat International, 2(5–6), 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costello, L. (2005). From prisons to penthouses: The changing images of high-rise living in Melbourne. Housing Studies, 20(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crisp, R., & Robinson, D. (2010). Family, friends and neighbours: Social relations and support in six low income neighbourhoods. Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research. Retrieved September 4, 2018.
  17. Currie, J., & Yelowitz, A. (2000). Are public housing projects good for kids? Journal of Public Economics, 75, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T., & Scott, M. S. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4), 713–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalkılıç, B., & Aşkın, M. (2018). Gayrimenkul ve konut sektörüne bakış. Emlak Konut. Retrieved September 27, 2018.
  20. Eranıl Demirli, M., Tuna Ultav, Z., & Demirtaş-Milz, N. (2015). A Socio-spatial analysis of urban transformation at a neighborhood scale: The case of the relocation of Kadifekale inhabitants to TOKİ Uzundere in İzmir. Cities, 48, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, G. W., & Kantrowitz, E. (2002). Socioeconomic status and health: The potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (2003). Housing and mental health: A review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique. Journal of Social Issues, 59(3), 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fincher, R. (2004). Gender and life course in the narratives of Melbourne’s high-rise housing developers. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(3), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fincher, R., & Costello, L. (2005). Narratives of high-rise housing: Placing the ethnicized newcomer in inner Melbourne. Social and Cultural Geography, 6(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fincher, R., & Gooder, H. (2007). At home with diversity in medium-density housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 24(3), 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forrest, R., LaGrange, A., & Ngai-Ming, Y. (2002). Neighbourhood in a high rise, high density city: Some observations on contemporary Hong Kong. Sociological Review, 50(2), 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furlong, T., & Cunningham, B. (2007). Principles of child-friendly housing. Portland Courtyard Housing Competition. City of Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  28. Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighborhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2111–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gifford, R. (2007). The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ginsberg, Y., & Churchman, A. (1985). The pattern and meaning of neighbor relations in high-rise housing in Israel. Human Ecology, 13(4), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gökmen, H., & Taşçı, B. G. (2016). Children’s views about child friendly city: A case study from Izmir. Megaron, 11(4), 469–482.Google Scholar
  32. Haikkola, L., Pacilli, M. G., Horelli, L., & Prezza, M. (2007). Interpretations of urban child-friendliness: A comparative study of two neighborhoods in Helsinki and Rome. Children, Youth, and Environments, 17(4), 319–351.Google Scholar
  33. Accessed date September 7, 2018.
  34. Accessed date September 7, 2018.
  35. date September 29, 2018.
  36. İçli, G. (2011). Kentsel dönüşüme ilişkin sosyolojik bir değerlendirme. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 3(1), 43–57.Google Scholar
  37. Imbriano, K. R. (2010). Parks, open space and recreation: expanding lifestyle amenities for families. Planning for Family-Friendly Communities Briefing Paper Cornell University, NY.
  38. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2010). External effects of neighborhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Policy, 27, 662–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koçak, Y. (2014). Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarının göç üzerine etkisi: Kars 29 Ekim Mahallesi örneği. International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(5), 1411–1432.Google Scholar
  40. Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawrence, R. J. (2014). High-Rise housing reconsidered from an integrated perspective. Paper Presented at IAPS conference, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, E. M. (2017). Housing for families with children. San Francisco: San Francisco Planning Department Citywide Policy Planning.Google Scholar
  43. Purkis, S. (2017). Konut fazlası mı? Konut açığı mı?: İstanbul örneği üzerinden bir tartışma. Paper Presented at V. Anadolu international conference in economics, Eskişehir Turkey.Google Scholar
  44. Raply, M., & Beyer, S. (1996). Daily activity, community participation and quality of life in an ordinary housing network. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rojaz Hernandez, J. (2017). Citizen participation, quality of life and territorial transregional justice: A social basis for common good. AmbienteandSociedade, 20(1), 21–42.Google Scholar
  46. Routhier, G. (2015). The family shelter system in Massachusetts: A snapshot of program models, service needs, promising practices, and challenges. Homes For Families. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  47. Rözer, J., Mollenhorst, G., & Poortman, A.-R. (2016). Family and friends: Which types of personal relationships go together in a network? Social Indicators Research, 127, 809–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Şentürk, M. (2015). Aile dostu kentler etüt araştırması (Family-friendly cities research). T.C. Ministry of Family and Social Policies. Retrieved August 25, 2017.
  49. Tiftik, C., & Turan, İ. (2015). Women, social housing and urban spaces: Places to dwell and places where women are being attacked on their way home. ITU A|Z, 12(1), 243–255.Google Scholar
  50. TOKİ. (2010). Türkiyenin Geleceğini İnşa Ediyoruz TOKİ Kurum Profili. Ankara: TC Başbakanlık Toplu Konut Idaresi Başkanlığı.Google Scholar
  51. TOKİ. (2011). Gecekondu Dönüşüm Kentsel Yenileme Projeleri. Ankara: TC Başbakanlık Toplu Konut Idaresi Başkanlığı.Google Scholar
  52. Turgut, S., & Ceylan, E. Ç. (2010). Bir Yerel Yönetim Deneyiminin Ardından: Küçükçekmece Ayazma-Tepeüstü Kentsel Dönüşüm Projesi”. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.Google Scholar
  53. Türkün, A. (2011). Konut Alanlarında Radikal Dönüşümler. In Konut Sempozyumu (pp. 339–381) İstanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Yayınları).Google Scholar
  54. Türkün, A., & Aslan, Ş. (Eds.). (2014). Ayazma ve Tepeüstü’nden Bezirganbahçe’nin konut depolarına: Mekanı değişen yoksulluk. Mülk, Mahal, İnsan İstanbul’da Kentsel Dönüşüm (pp. 355–389). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  55. Warner, M. E., & Baran-Bees, R. (2012). The economic importance of families with children. Issue Brief: Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning, NY.Google Scholar
  56. Warner, M. E., & Rukus, J. (2013). Planning for family friendly communities: Motivators, barriers and benefits, Planning Across Generations project directed by Mildred Warner, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2013.
  57. Whitzman, C. (2010). Can tall buildings be child-friendly? The vertical living kids research Project. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  58. Wilkerson, A., Carlson, N. E., Yen, I. H., & Michael, Y. L. (2011). Neighborhood physical features and relationships with neighbors: Does positive physical environment increase neighborliness? Environment and Behavior, 44(5), 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, S., Wright, H., & Dohna, F. (2017). Cities alive: Designing for urban childhoods. ARUP, Retrieved September 5, 2018.
  60. Woolcock, G., & Gleeson, B. (2007). Child-friendly cities: Critically exploring the evidence base of a resurgent agenda. Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  61. Woolcock, G., & Steele, W. (2008). Child-friendly community indicators—A literature review. NSW Commission for Children and Young People. Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Retrieved September 6, 2018.
  62. Yuen, B. (2011a). Garden and ecology in the sky. In B. Yuen & A. G. O. Yeh (Eds.), High rise living in Asian cities (pp. 65–80). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yuen, B. (2011b). Liveability of tall residential buildings. In B. Yuen & A. G. O. Yeh (Eds.), High rise living in Asian cities (pp. 129–148). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuen, B. (2011c). In the march of high-rise. In B. Yuen & A. G. O. Yeh (Eds.), High rise living in Asian cities (pp. 179–186). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yuen, B., Yeh, A., Appold, S. J., Earl, G., Ting, J., & Kwee, L. K. (2006). High-rise living in Singapore public housing. Urban Studies, 43(3), 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uludağ University Faculty of Architecture Department of Architecture Görükle CampusBursaTurkey

Personalised recommendations