Nilüfer Kart Aktaş, Hande Sanem Çınar


At every stage of human history, people migrate by force or by their own will. Both forced and willing migrations are caused by wars, poverty and a higher expectation for better living standards, employment, residence, social status, quality life, education, and others. In Turkey, migration from rural to urban areas that took place between the 1950s and 1980s has caused millions of people to migrate to cosmopolitan cities, like Istanbul. One of the main reasons for immigration to the city was due to the quality of life in the city and rural areas. This geographically displaced process of millions of people has influenced economic, social and cultural change and transformation in both the city and the village. Migrants often migrate to cities without proper knowledge, skills, and expertise, which significantly affect their economic, social and cultural status in the city where they have moved. For this reason, immigrants usually use their own "integration strategies". Most of the migrants could not adapt to the rapid life of the metropolis, so they preferred to live in shanties by isolating themselves from metropolitan life, which became one of the major urban problems. The Urban regeneration process, which entered our life rapidly as a result of the great earthquake that occurred in 1999, led to rapid changes in both the social and physical space and even the transformation in Istanbul. Thus, this study aims to analyze the physical, spatial and social changes in the urban regeneration process of the regions where the first shanty was established in Istanbul. An assessment of this shanty in Istanbul is significant because it received the biggest number of migrants between the 1950s and 1980s. Consequently, urban, economic, social and cultural effects of these changes continue to shape present-day Istanbul’s urban system and urban identity.


Urban change, urban transformation, urbanization, Istanbul, Turkey.

Full Text:



Altınöz, İ. (2007). Gypsies in the Ottoman State Administration in the Century of XVI., Foreigners of the Earth, Gypsies, Simurg Publication, Istanbul.

Ataöv, A. and Osmay, S. (2007). Methodological Approach to Urban regeneration in Turkey. METU JFA 24 (2):57-82.

Belge, R. and Çeker, A. (2015). A Case of Urban Regeneration in Istanbul: Gentrification. Turkey Geographical Journal 65: 77-86.

Cohen B. (2006). Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in Society 28; 63–80.

Çağlayan, S. (2013). Urban Sociology. Anadolu University Publication No: 2978, Open Education Faculty Publication No: 1932.

Dündar, D. (2001). Models of Urban Transformation: Informal Housing in Ankara. Cities, 18 (6); 391-401.

Es, M. (2012). Urban Regeneration. Magnet Magazine, Yalova University İİBF Ankara Chamber of Industry Publication Organization | July /August.

Kahraman T. (2006). Urban Regeneration Projects and Planning Processes in Istanbul. Planning Magazine, 2; 93-103, Chamber of Urban Planners Publication.

Kıyak Ingin, A. and Islam, T. (2011). The Reordering of a Romany Neighbourhood. Interface Planning Theory and Practice. 12(1): 115-153, Routledge Taylor&Francis Group.

Koçak, H. and Tolanlar, M. (2008). Urban Regeneration Practices: Aydın and Afyonkarahisar Examples. Afyon Kocatepe University, İ.İ.B.F. Magazine 10 (2): 397-415.

Mbanaso M. U. and Ozden, K., 2017. Urbanization, Migration and Sustainable Development: A case Analysis of Nigeria. Nigerian Studies Review, 2; 23-46.

Nerse, S. (2013). Zeytinburnu Textile Workers' Future on the Urban Regeneration Project, VII. National Society of Sociology New Social Structures: Transitions, Intersections, Deviations, 3: 591-601, 2-5 October, Muğla.

Özkan, M. (2011). Urban Politics with Culture and Art in Istanbul. Skop Magazine; 1.

Roberts, P. (2000). The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration. Urban Regeneration a Handbook, p. 14.

Ulu, A. and Karakoç, İ. (2004). The Impact of Urban Change on Urban Identity. Planning Magazine, 29: 59-66, Chamber of Urban Planners Publication of TMMOB.

Uysal, U. E. (2006). Applicability of Gentrification Theories in Istanbul: An Example of Cihangir. Planning (2), 77-92.

URL 1. (2018). Retrieved: 12.02.2018.

URL 2. (2018). Retrieved: 10.02.2018.

URL 3. (2018). Retrieved: 16.01.2018.

URL 4. (2018).ğlu%20eski%20fotoğraflar& Retrieved: 02.02.2018.

URL 5. (2018). Retrieved: 10.02.2018.

URL 6. (2018). Retrieved: 20.04.2018.

URL 7. (2018). Retrieved: 10.02.2018.

URL 8. (2018). Retrieved: 10.03.2018.

URL 9. (2018). Retrieved: 20.01.2018.

URL 10. (2018).ı%201960& Retrieved: 15.04.2018.

URL 11. (2018).önüşüm& Retrieved: 15.04.2018.

URL 12. (2018). Retrieved: 10.04.2018.

URL 13. (2018).,28.9775819,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x14cab6ea321836e1:0xbf71bapıştıralım4bd7c23d138!8m2!3d41.0814028!4d28.9819731. Retrieved: 15.04.2018.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Epiphany

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Epiphany (pISSN 2303-6850, eISSN 1840-3719) is currently Indexed/Abstracted