FROM GROUND TO ROOF: THE GECEKONDU

[0.1]

My Personal Relationship with Gecekondu and What is its Relevance

According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,1 the need for shelter is one of the basic necessities for a human to grow and evolve. Taking the global housing shortage into account, today this seems even more relevant than ever before. When put in a personal context, almost anyone reading this text would be able to relate to it on many levels. Even the privileged struggle with housing: finding a place, rental contracts, house owners, repairments, and the list goes on. Residential issues create a stress factor in people’s lives, especially in urban settings like big cities. When we use the word “housing”, what usually comes to mind is a 2+1 flat or a nice house with some greenery. However, as finding a place to settle became harder, alternative ways of living emerged. Currently, tiny houses and van life are the most popular ones since they provide mobility for relatively cheaper prices. Squat houses, houseboats, treehouses, tents, yurts, and cooperative houses can be considered as other ways of residing which don’t come to mind immediately when the word “housing” is used.

Coming from Istanbul, a megalopolis with a rapidly growing housing market fuelled by neoliberal policies, it is relatively easy to observe the impact that housing issues have on citizens. As a person who lives in both countries, Turkey and Holland, when one compares the housing crisis in the Hague and Istanbul, the biggest difference is that in Istanbul, citizens tend to take more agency over the problem and create their own solutions. One reason for this might be the vastness of the city of Istanbul which has become a megalopolis in which regulations are difficult to sustain when it comes to certain informal settlements. These informal settlements are named gecekondu and they can be considered as the best example of a DIY philosophy, a disobedience towards legal restrictions and means to create a home. Gecekondu, in a literal sense, means landed overnight. This term occurred when people from the eastern part of Türkiye started migrating to bigger cities. As they wanted to settle, they built their own illegal houses on empty lands they found, whether these plots of land were unowned remains controversial. Since then, gecekondu settlements have become a prominent part of the urban landscape of Istanbul, and many layers of meanings shaped throughout time around this word. They come with a complex cultural, social, and economic structure, being used to indicate certain stereotypes and refer to a specific living culture. Though, it’s debatable whether these associations with gecekondu neighborhoods are still accurate due to the dynamic social setting in Istanbul.2 My personal association with these structures, while keeping in mind my privileged point of view, was always the concept of flexibility. Flexibility in movement, space, and choices. Children playing on the streets without any limitations always looked very tempting. This was the first realization of how the creation of space could affect the way we use our bodies to move and our social interactions with other human beings. A perfectly cleanlooking house came with rigidity and a selfbuilt structure with a “build it yourself” mentality came with fluidity. Nonetheless, this would be romanticizing the gecekondu, it’s crucial to describe the infrastructural and social issues caused by informal structures first.

[1.0]

Problems the Informal Settlements Pose

Informal settlements caused by rapid urban growth bring many complications within cities on different levels. The World Bank’s urban population data helps to put the immensity in perspective since it states that as of 2020 half of the urban dwellers in the Global South reside in informal settlements.3 Considering that formations of slums and informal settlements often go hand in hand in this context, in the global report ‘The Challenge of Slums - Global Report on Human Settlements’ by UN-Habitat, slum areas are defined by the absence of qualities such as access to basic necessities, legal construction policies, social integration, and so on. The irregularity may cause disruption not only for its surroundings but its inhabitants as well. In a news article released by the World Health Organization, the struggles of the urban poor regarding the rapid spread of diseases and various health issues were reported. The lack of comprehensive sanitary facilities, access to basic needs, limited access to health care service, overcrowds, and industrial pollutants can be considered contributing factors.4 The health hazards within selfbuilt districts might be less obvious to the rest. But, considering the waste products lying on the streets of gecekondu neighbourhoods in Istanbul (Fig. 1), insufficient facilities in these areas may be more visible from the outside. In the report of UN-Habitat, the lack of services in these types of districts is also stated as insufficient waste management, electricity distribution, drainage systems, etc.5 Another first-hand consequence of informal housing is safety deficiency. Poverty being one of the main reasons, criminal rates are usually higher in slum areas in big cities. Poor infrastructure and planning of the areas make it more challenging for the police to address criminal activities and respond on time.6 The unsystematic structure of gecekondus causes similar malfunctions in cities which may put the urban poor in a vulnerable state. Therefore, gecekondus are almost always defined as a “problem”. Although, in gecekondus case, it’s not the lack of urban planning that is referred to as an issue, it’s the sociocultural intervention they cause within cities. In this paper, while recognizing the distress informal settlements can cause both for the city structure and its inhabitants, specifically the creative characteristics of gecekondus and the appearance of gecekondus in the art and design scene will be explored.

Figure 1: Waste materials on the street, Gülsuyu

[1.1]

Informal Settlements, Art, and the Globe

In a global sense, there are different variations of informal settlements similar to gecekondus. As in Türkiye’s case, the socio-economic structures of countries manifest themselves through urban landscapes. With this in mind, informal settlements can be considered to be universal, since these areas originate for similar reasons.7 As contemporary art can be used to shed light on social and cultural dynamics, irregular settlements around the world make an appearance in art and design disciplines. Even though the representation of social issues in artistic work is a sensitive matter, since the aestheticization of topics such as poverty can cause demeaning of certain groups, it can help urban planners and the state to have a broader understanding of social constructions. Favelissues8is a collaborative blog that researches Favelas in Brazil and produces information about informal urbanization. Created by Adriana Navarro Sertich is a good example of how such research can make the history of informal settlements accessible to the public while raising awareness about the urban realities. 9 Returning to gecekondu, “Ada”, translates as ‘Island’, by Oda Projesi showcased the construction process of a gecekondu house during the 8th International Istanbul Biennial together with Mustafa Tetik, a gecekondu master-builder, and his colleagues. Part of the project consisted of advertisement banners with “Gecekondu for rent” written on them placed on the street (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).10 Distancing gecekondu from its social context, this performative piece may have not communicated to the audience as intended,11 however, it still revealed a significant part of gecekondus reality.

Figure 2: “Ada, Mustafa Tetik Model, in collaboration with Mustafa Tetik and his colleagues, 8th Istanbul Biennial, 2003”
Figure 3: . "'Gecekondu for sale' billboard advertisement, Ada, 8th Istanbul Biennial, 2003."

[1.2]

Modernization, Industrialization, and Gecekondu

Gecekondus organically shaped as there was an urgent need for a housing solution and became rather political. To understand the background of gecekondu, it’s necessary to understand the political evolution of Türkiye. When the Republic of Türkiye was founded in 1923, Western financial models were adopted to reach the idea of a “civil” nation and maintain the modernization of the new-born country. The Eastern and South-eastern parts of Anatolia (Fig. 4) were always underdeveloped compared to the Western parts of Türkiye. This was partly because of challenging geographical conditions and political matters such as terrorism, and neglection of the government. The main source of income was agriculture and farming in these parts of the country, The Green Revolution (Third Agricultural Revolution) fuelled rapid urbanization that was happening.12 The structural change in agriculture outcasted the need for labour force in agriculture, leaving people no other choice than to look for alternative ways to make a living. Less job opportunities left, poverty the absence of cultural institutions, educational establishments, and life-threatening situations like terrorism, were more than enough reasons to migrate to bigger cities like Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, or Bursa.13 In a sense, for the sake of modernization, many people were compelled to leave their villages.

Figure 4: Geographical Regions of Türkiye

[1.3]

Internal Migration: Rising Numbers

Istanbul was romanticized as a solution to people’s problems. The saying “Istanbul’s soil is gold” soon became the motive for people to leave their villages in hopes of starting a new life. To put the greatness of internal migration in perspective, between the years 1927 and 1965 the population in big cities increased approximately 400 percent.14 To have a better understanding of the current state of the population of Istanbul, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), Istanbul’s official population hit 15 million 907 thousand 951 in 2022.15 (To give a clearer idea one must look back to numbers from the 1960s when Istanbul’s population was approximately 2 million.)16 It’s important to keep in mind that the numbers provided only represent registered citizens, but in reality, there are over 16 million residents in Istanbul today.17 The process of “Gecekonduzation” of the city was the result of the earlier mentioned uncontrolled mass migration from the East to the West. Rural migrants who came to the city started building their own homes overnight, and so the story of gecekondu began. In (Fig. 5) the current expansion route of Istanbul can be seen. Kuipers and Broekema divided the urban formation as East to West and South to North. The Northern expansion alongside the Bosporus represents a higher quality of architecture whereas the extension from East to West embodies mostly informal settlements and a larger quantity of dwellings.18 The way in which formations are explained in this article makes it easier to understand the characteristics of Istanbul’s districts as well as providing a simple visual representation of the socio-economic separation within the city.

Figure 5: “The growth of the city roughly follows the main infrastructure. The more exclusive milieus sprawl along the Bosporus.”

[1.4]

Who Fits into the City?

Towards the end of the 20th Century, significant parts of Türkiye’s population were already settled in urban areas. Almost half of Istanbul’s landscape consisted of gecekondu settlements already after a very short amount of time. Still relevant to current demographic dynamics in Türkiye, migration is viewed as the key phenomenon in the context of gecekondu. Even though population movement is considered the most significant reason for unplanned urbanization, it may be the result rather than the reason. Yeğin says, “Almost every city, first sketched on paper and then constructed, shortly finds itself deviating from the initial plans, succumbing to unplanned development, and ultimately facing the destiny shared by all cities. The incident here, constantly recurring, is not unplanned urban development; rather, it is the inability of the plan to constrain the city. (Önce kağıt üzerinde çizilen sonra inşa edilen neredeyse her kent, çok kısa bir zaman sonra, öncelikle doğrudan planların dışına, plansızlığa ve ardından da bütün kentlerin kaderine mahkum olur. Burada sorun, sürekli tekrarlanan şey, kentin plansız gelişmesi değil, tam tersine planın kenti sınırlayamaz olmasıdır.)”.19 Uncontrollable numbers migrating to the city do indeed contribute to informal urbanization. However, the fundamental factor here is the reluctance to include outsiders in cities. The socio-cultural background and socio-economic consequences of mass migration were not taken into consideration in Türkiye’s case. Therefore, migrants invented their own ways to exist in the city, not only spatially but culturally too. The idea that people should fit into space created a distinct social separation within Istanbul, although space should form according to people’s needs.

[1.5]

Squatting and Gecekondus

Given the circumstances in which gecekondu emerged, it can be challenging to define them. They are often compared to squatter settlements even though they are not exactly the same. In order to mention squatting we need to be speaking about an architectural formation that already exists. However, in the case of gecekondu settlements, the structure is constructed by the settlers themselves, on empty land whether it has an owner or not. We can only speak of a similarity between squatting and gecekondu if the land on which gecekondu is built is an owned property. In that case, the space would be occupied by another individual other than the land-holder, which is a similar action to squatting.20

[2.0]

Perception of Gecekondu

The perception of the gecekondu changed over time parallel to the political dynamics of Türkiye. Although the positioning of gecekondu showed slight changes throughout time, gecekondu residents were always considered as “others” in the city. Erman articulates four variations of “others” which shaped corresponding to the socio-political scene in Türkiye: “ ‘the rural Other’, ‘the disadvantaged Other’, ‘the urban poor Other(s)’, ‘the undeserving rich Other(s)’, ‘the culturally inferior Other(s) as Subculture’ and, ‘the threatening/varoşlu Other’”.21 Cities, by cities it’s referred to the urban living culture, always exclude the ‘others’. As vague as these divisions may sound without an extensive explanation, the classifications of “others” simply indicate that the perception of gecekondu shifted from being seen as an obstacle to modernization to being considered a threat in the city. Gecekondu inhabitants have been outcasted for being in an in-between state of two opposite living styles, urban life and rural life. Gecekondu dwellers were always expected to assimilate, keep pace with the city, and live up to the urban ‘standards’. With the emergence of informal settlements, there were sociological surveys made to understand how “modern” gecekondu residents are constituted. The level of education, the way they dress, whether women put on make-up or not, and whether they contributed to cultural activities such as concerts, theatre plays, and movies were measured.22 Although the true intentions behind the gecekondu surveys remain unclear, it’s debatable if they were extensive enough to capture the wide range of experiences and backgrounds within the gecekondu communities.

[2.1]

Witnessing the Shift Through News Headlines

Media channels played an important role in shifting the perception of the gecekondu, especially newspapers, among the rest of Türkiye’s population. Jean-François Pérouse, a social geographer, started creating an archive consisting of news regarding gecekondu over thirty years ago. In his interview with Yaşar Adnan Adanalı, in Gecekondu Talks, he says he aimed to “establish a somewhat alternative/independent memory for an oppressed ‘object’ that was created in a top-down manner, moving away from everyday life and navigating through the context of neighbourhoods.” According to Pérouse, he observed a drastic change in the stigmatization of gecekondu after the 90s, and this shift in recognition could be observed in the social structure. Although the notion of poverty was always emphasized in the news, the illegality element of gecekondu was more present after the 90’s according to Perouse.23 Part of this evolution can be seen in Hürriyet’s headlines. In the issue of June 4th, 1948, the headline read “More and more Istanbul looks like an Anatolian village”. In 1976, the May 2nd issue of Hürriyet was dedicated exclusively to the gecekondu problem.24 From one headline to a whole newspaper issue, the problem of gecekondu not only grew in square meters but also on paper. The concerns of Istanbulites regarding the legal angle were taking place in the news more frequently than before.

[2.2]

The Controversy of Gecekondu

Legitimization of gecekondu was strongly linked to the political interests of the government. Migrants chose election periods to build their gecekondus since the government would not interfere with the construction of gecekondu.25 The government and gecekondu settlers themselves understood the significance of their influence regarding the results of the elections.26 The silent agreement made between the state and gecekondu residents enabled the state to use gecekondus as a tool for its own benefit, while rural dwellers planning to move to the city were able to build their homes without disturbance. To get a clearer idea about the legal conflicts surrounding the topic of gecekondu Tuba Çetin shared her perspective for this research. As she said, legal regulations allowed gecekondu residents who were already settled to claim the plot after a certain amount of years. This resulted in the occupation of valuable territories in Istanbul by gecekondus and led to controversy among citizens. Even the area along the Bosporus, which was a non-developable zone and Istanbul’s most prized lands, began to be populated with gecekondus. Registration of gecekondus with title deeds within high-value lands of Istanbul resulted in the labelling of gecekondu residents as the “undeserving others” as Erman states. According to Çetin, it is favorable for Istanbul's lands to be opened for zoning. Since the state usually does not implement necessary regulations for lands that are off-limits for zoning, they tend to be more susceptible to informal settlements. The absence of financial security within the country compelled all parties to pursue any opportunities regarding the real estate sector. Consequently, gecekondu owners also became more aware of the value of their properties.27

Another interview in Gecekondu Talks with Velaaddin Kılıç reveals the background of gecekondus. While we encounter a strong tone of criticism towards gecekondus in the archived newspapers, Kılıç is commenting on the photography archive from the German Archaeological Institute with a touch of nostalgia. The archive consists of pictures taken by urban researchers from Germany who came to Istanbul in the final years of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s. (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) The images do indicate the associations regarding gecekondu were different then. Gecekondus were truly a solution in which rural migrants created their space fitting for their way of living. In some of these images, there is no electricity, no sufficient public transportation let alone pavements, yet the man cleaning the street in Fig. 8 indicates a space looked after. Kılıç says “Gecekonduization, as a product of a different historical period, had provided a solution to the needs of people setting out with the hope for education, health, work, and sustenance. If you ask, 'In today's world, whose needs are being met by new-kondus?' could you please take another look at the photo, this time more carefully? Which one is more pleasing to the eye?” (Gecekondulaşma, farklı bir tarihsel dönemin bir ürünü olarak eğitim, sağlık, iş ve aş umuduyla yola düşen insanların ihtiyaçlarına çözüm olmuştu. “Yeni kondular günümüzde kimin hangi ihtiyacını karşılıyor?” derseniz, fotoğrafa bir kez daha ve dikkatlice bakar mısınız? Hangisi daha estetik ?)28 The landscape reminds us of a village indeed, but it’s arguable if glass residential skyscrapers are more ‘civilized’ than the structures in the pictures. In fact, flats with identical floorplans seem to be less fitting to human nature.

Figure 6: Children playing in a gecekondu neighbourhood,
Figure 7: Gecekondus on a hill in Istanbul
Figure 8: A man brooming the street in a gecekondu neighbourhood

[2.3]

The Gecekondu Way of Living

Moving away from how gecekondus are perceived in society, it’s important to zoom into gecekondus themselves to comprehend the social framework of gecekondu districts. Ayşegül Cankat, a Turkish architect uses gecekondu houses as architectural propositions and talks about the spatial formation of gecekondus. As she observed during her visits to gecekondu neighbourhoods, the correlation between social interactions and space is one of the identifying traits of gecekondus. The collective aspect of gecekondu areas was first shaped as a result of the migration of family relatives from rural areas. Later on, the gathering of gecekondu residents under the same umbrella as a multitude of “others” led to ambiguity regarding the social diversity within gecekondu districts. The lack of clarity on socio-cultural divisions contributed to gecekondu inhabitants being seen as one group.29 The phrase “hemşerilik”, often used to describe the communal bonds among gecekondu neighbours, illustrates an expression of the social construction through language. One of the differentiating characteristics of gecekondu is the expansive use of the exterior areas (Fig. 9). The overflow of the interior to the exterior in gecekondu districts, which can be considered as a continuation of the rural lifestyle, supports the social interactions of the neighbours.30 The absence of privacy in the gardens of gecekondus doesn’t allow inhabitants to be very individual either, which allows us to speak of a communal social structure.

Figure 10: “Chart of different types of settlements that form Istanbul.”

The notion of oneness in the context of gecekondu can also be observed architecturally. As the mapping of different urban formations shows in Fig.10, navigating through gecekondu neighbourhoods is different than formal settlements. Informal settlement areas exemplified on the maps are curvilinear, reminding us of natural forms. It seems to be much more suitable for social relations as gardens of the houses act as spaces for human interaction. Built to serve social engagement, gecekondus are in contrast to cities, where people usually try to avoid each other. Another distinctive feature of gecekondu is the incompleteness of the architecture. The top floors of the houses are usually kept unbuilt in case a family member comes to settle (Fig. 11). The idea of expansion resurfaces here, to provide additional space for newcomers and is another instance of space facilitating social needs. While in residential apartments, where space is pre-built, the flexibility to shape according to social occurrences stays in question. Living in pre-established spaces fails to give individuals the authority for the way they interact with the world through their movement. Returning to the initial paragraph, this statement is what sparked my interest, and may be the core difference between formal and informal lifestyles.

Figure 9: The yard of a gecekondu
Figure 11: Unbuilt roof of a gecekondu and stairs for access

[3.0]

Disappearing Gecekondus

Today it’s harder to find original gecekondus after land amnesties allowed the legalization of the typology of the gecekondus, which encouraged gecekondu owners to build multi-story apartments instead of single-story houses.31 Later on, the unclear land ownership situation in gecekondu districts became a tool for the private and state actors to carry their neo-liberal policies under the name of Urban Renewal. After the Marmara earthquake, many gecekondu areas were claimed by the state, declaring them disaster risk areas. This led to the eviction of gecekondu dwellers and many mega-housing projects arose among the cityscapes.32 Zeytinburnu being one of the first gecekondu neighbourhoods, and still being referred to as a gecekondu area, has almost no gecekondus anymore. Therefore, I couldn’t continue to explore the subject of gecekondu in the Zeytinburnu area. Instead, the Gülsuyu neighbourhood was chosen to go in person for this paper, where the original gecekondus can still be seen.

[3.1]

A Walk Through Gülsuyu

To begin describing my walk through Gülsuyu, it’s important to start with the map. Even though gecekondus make up an important part of Istanbul, it’s not officially declared which neighbourhoods are gecekondu districts. For instance, municipalities’ websites usually show the neighbourhoods within a district, and maybe mention the history of gecekondus built there previously. However, it’s not possible to find official information about which streets still contain original gecekondus. Everyone sees, talks, and hears about gecekondu, but it’s not easy to be specific about their place on the map. It’s possible to learn about the locations of gecekondus based on33 Now, gecekondus can be compared to a legend passed down from mouth to mouth. In Fig.12 a screenshot from Google Maps is shown, demonstrating the Maltepe district in Istanbul. The area left within the red border is the Gülsuyu neighbourhood and towards the top left corner, the Zümrütevler neighbourhood can be seen. When you look closer to the streets, it’s easy to locate the gecekondus and other forms of settlements. Gülsuyu’s streets from a bird’s-eye view look much more chaotic than Zümrütevler for instance. The difference between urban formations can be observed on the map. To locate gecekondus on the map one must look at the organic formation of the streets, as in this comparison Zümrütevler generally consists of multi-story mid-class apartment settlements while Gülsuyu mostly contains gecekondus.

Figure 12: Gülsuyu on Google Maps

If you’re from Türkiye, ‘varoş’ is the word that would come to mind when speaking of gecekondus. Varoş is where the poor, the uneducated, and the so-called uncivilized live. The term was invented at the beginning of the 90’s and turned the gecekondu into an enemy in cities. In a literal sense, the word is used to refer to neighbourhoods far away from the city centre. But in today’s context, it is used to refer to districts with lower socio-economic classes within urban settings. Drifting away from its actual meaning, varoş does not mean someplace far geographically, rather it’s somewhere culturally distant. The assigned meaning to the term created negative associations in the Turkish social scene.34 Unlike what gecekondus were when they first made an appearance in the urban landscape, they became something to avoid and dangerous to encounter. Gülsuyu is one of the varoş neighbourhoods where mostly Kurdish and Alevi people currently live. Besides the stigmatization of gecekondu present in the Turkish society, it’s clear that feeling safe is challenging in gecekondu regions. Gülsuyu is one of the neighbourhoods which is considered rather safe compared to some other areas in Istanbul.35 The pictures you see were taken during a walk through this area in December 2023. While talking to Çetin (mentioned in the first chapter) during our walk, a lot of legal terms arose. Rentier (excessive profit gain)35, hypothec (“an obligation, right, or security given by contract or by operation of law to a creditor over property of the debtor without transfer of possession or title to the creditor”)37, land (“an area of ground, especially when used for a particular purpose such as farming or building”)38, property (“buildings and land, considered as things to be bought and sold”)39, title deed (“a document that states and proves a person's legal right to own a piece of land or a building”)40 were some of them. Many Turkish citizens have a strong grasp of the meaning of these terms since urban transformation projects led to a housing market boom in the finance scene.

[3.2]

Elements of Gülsuyu

While the legal terms aim to organize the ownership over land, territory, a plot and the construction of property, the materiality of gecekondus forms another layer that grabs attention. Certain architectural elements are taken out of their context and repurposed. For instance, many doors are used to divide the space between the streets and the gardens/patios of the houses. In the sense of creating a barrier between the exterior and the interior, as a door usually does, they are still used in a similar way. Some doors were displaced and put in a way which could not be used anymore (Fig. 13). Coming across fixtures losing their functionality from place to place is one of the results of spontaneity. Many metal panels in different shapes and forms were used to divide spaces and create fencing (Fig. 14). It can be imagined that natural materials used in village houses, such as wood, stone, mud, reed, etc. were replaced by industrial materials in the city. Steel, plastic, aluminum, and PVC frequently appear in the Gülsuyu district due to the exchange of building components. Opposing to minimalistic residences in cities, gecekondus are overflowing with details. Materials gathered have many different patterns, creating a clashing environment. Concrete being the main construction element, is another material that can be seen often. Bare cement revealed on the streets composes a raw atmosphere (Fig. 15). The tangibility of Gülsuyu houses brings a sense of sincerity, where architecture is not necessarily attractive but is configured according to human action. Although, some gecekondus have very bright colors (Fig. 16): blue, yellow, fuchsia, pink, green even bright orange. Compared to an accent wall in a living room, it’s used as a way to add character to gecekondus. Personalized bright-colored gecekondus create “accent” residences among the city landscape.

Figure 16: Blue and yellow gecekondu
Figure 14: Metal fencing
Figure 15: Bare facade of gecekondus
Figure 13: Unfunctional door of a gecekondu

[3.3]

Understanding the Formation of Informal Settlements

Figure 17: “Spaces created by the juxtaposition and merging of spatial practices”

Materials used in gecekondus are important components of solution-making in the context of sheltering emergencies and are used in architectural models. Cankat, who was mentioned in the previous paragraphs, analyses gecekondus to create more sustainable architectural propositions (Fig. 17).41 She is a firm believer in the redrawing of gecekondus and incorporating knowledge generated in the literature of architecture. Internationally speaking, Teddy Cruz might be a better-known architect who also studies space-making methods used to construct informal settlements in Tijuana as a starting point for his own designs (Fig. 18). In his Ted Talk, Cruz states that surely there is a lot to observe among slum areas in Tijuana in terms of socioeconomic sustainability. He has been investigating the circulation of materials to Tijuana from San Francisco, and the transformation of these materials into building agents. According to Cruz, bungalows that are no longer used, tires, and garage doors are a few examples of materials that can be supplied to citizens of Tijuana and could help ease the housing emergency.42 Analysis of informal housing could provide tools for architects and urban designers to be better prepared for future shelter crises. Coming back to Türkiye’s case, gecekondu could offer valuable insight into how space can be utilized for a more inclusive urban environment.43 Understanding the architectural formation of informal settlements can lead to a stronger grasp of the social ecosystem within gecekondu neighborhoods and find harmony between the formal and the informal.

Figure 18: “Teddy Cruz, Fonna Forman Manufactured Sites: A Housing Urbanism Made of Waste/Maquiladora, project (Model, 2005) 2005-2008”

[4.0]

Conclusion and a Question

The story of Gecekondus started 80 years ago as an answer to the search by villagers for a better life. They were renamed, re-shaped, and re-constructed throughout history. Gecekondus became the symbol of the poor, disdained, and the vulnerable. They have been the home to ‘others’ in the endless urban. These plain pieces of land turned into prizes to fight over, and so gecekondus were used, appropriated, and even taken advantage of. From village houses in the city to apartment blocks to glass residences, gecekondus became a part of a true transformation(!). On one hand, the legal conflicts brought by informality, on the other hand, the struggle of the urban poor with social injustice bring the story of the gecekondus to a multifaceted point. Today’s gecekondus are becoming playthings between the state and big corporations, and once again show the complex connection between urban growth and the social, economic, and political structures of society.44 The housing market in Istanbul, where the soil is considered gold, became an instrument of rapid profit making rather than something serving the need for shelter leaving the urban poor defenseless. Can attaining insight into the gecekondu way of living, which has always been looked down upon until now, turn the scale around and ensure a more sustainable urban life on both social and financial levels?

  1. Maslow, A. H. “A theory of human motivation.” Psychological Review, vol. 50, no. 4, July 1943, pp. 370–396, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.↩
  2. Erman, Tahire. “The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 1 June 2001, pp. 983–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980123501.↩
  3. “Population Living in Slums (% of Urban Population) - South Asia.” World Bank Open Data, data.worldbank.org/indica tor/EN.POP.SLUM.UR.ZS?locations=8S&name_desc=true&view=map. Accessed 6 Feb. 2024. ↩
  4. “Unplanned Urbanization a Challenge for Public Health.” World Health Organization, www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/05-04-2010-unplanned-urbanization-a-challenge-for-public-health. Accessed 2 Feb. 2024.↩
  5. UN‐Habitat. “The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements 2003.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Jour-nal, vol. 15, no. 3, 1 June 2004, pp. 10–11, https://doi.org/10.1108/meq.2004.15.3.337.3.↩
  6. Wang, Yiying. “Crime and Violence in Informal Settlements: Unsafe Neighborhoods.” 5th International Conference on Economy Devel-opment and Social Sciences Research, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom, 2022, pp. 75–81. ↩
  7. Kınay, Bahri. “İstanbul, Zeytinburnu Gecekondu Bölgesinde İstanbul Dışı Doğumlu Nüfusun Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı ve İstanbul’a Göç Du-rumlarının Analizi.” Istanbul University, İstanbul Üniversitesi Merkez Kütüphanesi, 1981.↩
  8. Favelissues, www.instagram.com/favelissues/?hl=tr. Accessed 9 Feb. 2024.↩
  9. Özkan, Derya. “Gecekondu chic? Urban Poverty as Cultural Commodity.” Dérive, no. 56, July 2014, pp. 43–46.↩
  10. Özkan, Derya. “Gecekondu chic? Urban Poverty as Cultural Commodity.” Dérive, no. 56, July 2014, pp. 43–46.↩
  11. Özkan, Derya. “Spatial Practices of Oda Projesi and the Production of Space in Istanbul.” OnCurating, no. 11, pp. 51–54, https://www.on-curating.org/issues.html.↩
  12. Yeğin, Metin, and Merve Tuba Tanok. Kent Reformu ve Yeni Gecekondu Hareketi: Ve “Kendi Evini Kendin Yap” Kılavuzu. Nota Bene, 2014. ↩
  13. Kınay, Bahri. “İstanbul, Zeytinburnu Gecekondu Bölgesinde İstanbul Dışı Doğumlu Nüfusun Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı ve İstanbul’a Göç Du-rumlarının Analizi.” Istanbul University, 1981.↩
  14. Tas, Halil, and Dale Lightfoot. “Gecekondu settlements in Turkey: Rural—urban migration in the developing European periphery.” Journal of Geography, vol. 104, no. 6, Nov. 2005, pp. 263–271, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340508978648.↩
  15. “Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları, 2022.” Tüik Kurumsal, data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=49685#:~:text=%C4%B0stanbul. Accessed 6 Feb. 2024. ↩
  16. Sayım Yıllarına Göre İstanbul Nüfusu, Sayımlar Arası Yıllık Nüfus Artışı Hızı ve Yıl Ortası Nüfus Tahmini Sayılarla İstanbul, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi 2001↩
  17. “Population, Total - Netherlands.” World Bank Open Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=NL. Accessed 6 Feb. 2024.↩
  18. Kuipers, Stijn, and Hylke Broekema. “Failed Policy, Successful Architecture: Selfmade City Istanbul.” Failed Architecture, 16 Dec. 2013, failedarchi-tecture.com/failed-policy-successful-architecture-self-made-city-istanbul/.↩
  19. Yeğin, Metin, and Merve Tuba Tanok. Kent Reformu ve Yeni Gecekondu Hareketi: Ve “Kendi Evini Kendin Yap” Kılavuzu. Nota Bene, 2014.↩
  20. Tas, Halil, and Dale Lightfoot. “Gecekondu settlements in Turkey: Rural—urban migration in the developing European periphery.” Journal of Geography, vol. 104, no. 6, Nov. 2005, pp. 263–271, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340508978648.↩
  21. Erman, Tahire. “The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic dis-course.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 1 June 2001, pp. 983–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980123501.↩
  22. Erman, Tahire. “The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 1 June 2001, pp. 983–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980123501. ↩
  23. Adanalı, Yaşar Adnan. Gecekondu Sohbetleri: Arşiv, Bellek, İmge, Mekan, Mimari. GSAAP Books, 2018. ↩
  24. Aslan, Şükrü, and Tahire Erman. “The Transformation of the Urban Periphery: Once Upon a Time There Were Gecekondus in İstan-bul.” Whose City Is That? Culture, Design, Spectacle and Capital in Istanbul, Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2014, pp. 95–113. ↩
  25. Tas, Halil, and Dale Lightfoot. “Gecekondu settlements in Turkey: Rural—urban migration in the developing European periphery.” Journal of Geography, vol. 104, no. 6, Nov. 2005, pp. 263–271, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340508978648. ↩
  26. Karpat, Kemal H. “The genesis of the Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization (1976).” European Journal of Turkish Studies, no. 1, 1 Sept. 2004, https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.54. ↩
  27. Çetin, Tuba. Personal interview. 15 February 2024. ↩
  28. Adanalı, Yaşar Adnan. Gecekondu Sohbetleri: Arşiv, Bellek, İmge, Mekan, Mimari. GSAAP Books, 2018. ↩
  29. Erman, Tahire. “The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 1 June 2001, pp. 983–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980123501. ↩
  30. Cankat, Ayeşgül. “Gecekondu: Şekillenmeyen Mekânlar; Direnç, Çeşitlilik, Yaratıcılık.” Çarşamba Seminerleri. 26 May 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrJJXEjCBS8&t=271s, Https://Www.Youtube.Com/Watch?v=PrJJXEjCBS8&t=271s. ↩
  31. Aslan, Şükrü, and Tahire Erman. “The Transformation of the Urban Periphery: Once Upon a Time There Were Gecekondus in İstan-bul.” Whose City Is That? Culture, Design, Spectacle and Capital in Istanbul, Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2014, pp. 95–113. ↩
  32. Hinze, Annika Marlen. “Sold Overnight: Istanbul’s Gecekondu Housing and the Challenge of Ownership.” Middle East Institute, 12 Jan. 2016, www.mei.edu/publications/sold-overnight-istanbuls-gecekondu-housing-and-challenge-ownership. ↩
  33. Özkan Baştürk, Esra. Personal interview. 30 December 2023. ↩
  34. Erman, Tahire. “The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 1 June 2001, pp. 983–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980123501. ↩
  35. Özkan Baştürk, Esra. Personal interview. 30 December 2023. ↩
  36. “Türk Dil Kurumu: Sözlük.” TDK Sözlük, sozluk.gov.tr/?q=rant&aranan=. Accessed 27 Jan. 2024. ↩
  37. “Hypothec Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothec. Accessed 27 Jan. 2024. ↩
  38. “Meaning of land in English” Cambridge English Dictionary: Meanings & Definitions, dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/. Ac-cessed 27 Jan. 2024. ↩
  39. “Meaning of property in English” Cambridge English Dictionary: Meanings & Definitions, diction-ary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2024. ↩
  40. “Meaning of title deed in English” Cambridge English Dictionary: Meanings & Definitions, diction-ary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2024. ↩
  41. Cankat, Ayeşgül. “Gecekondu: Şekillenmeyen Mekânlar; Direnç, Çeşitlilik, Yaratıcılık.” Çarşamba Seminerleri. 26 May 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrJJXEjCBS8&t=271s, Https://Www.Youtube.Com/Watch?v=PrJJXEjCBS8&t=271s. ↩
  42. Cruz, Teddy, and Fonna Forman. “Ten Minutes with Teddy Cruz and Fonna Forman: On Building Citizenship.” Museum of Modern Art. Ten Minutes, 27 Jan. 2023, https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/843. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. ↩
  43. Cruz, Teddy. “How Architectural Innovations Migrate across Borders.” TEDGlobal 2013. Think Again, Edinburgh, https://www.ted.com/talks/teddy_cruz_how_architectural_innovations_migrate_across_borders. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. ↩
  44. Erman, Tahire. “The politics of squatter (Gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, 1 June 2001, pp. 983–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980123501. ↩