INTRODUCTION AND FOUNDATIONS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENTS AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN TÜRKIYE

​

Istanbul has been a rapidly changing city for centuries, like many other metropolises. The city’s transformation has been shaped by various factors over time, from governance under different civilizations to the influence of global movements such as modernism and capitalism. Türkiye (The Republic of Türkiye changed its official name from The Republic of Turkey on 26 May 2022. [1]) sets in a seismic geography, 44% of the population live in a Degree I earthquake zone, 26% in Degree II, 15% in Degree III, 13% in Degree IV, and 2% in Degree V. [2] Consequently, major urban development practices have been shaped accordingly. 

​

In the last 25 years, three major earthquakes have marked Türkiye’s history: the 1999 Marmara Earthquakes, which significantly affected Istanbul, the 2011 Van Earthquakes, and the 2023 Southeastern Anatolian Earthquakes, the strongest in the history of the Republic of Türkiye with a magnitude of 7.7. [3] In response, urban transformation laws were introduced, but many were later exploited for political purposes.

The 2012 Law on Transformation of Areas at Disaster Risk (Number 6306) incentivized redevelopment in areas like Bağdat Street, offering the highest land share rates for flat owners in Istanbul, averaging 70% which drew contractors and ignited a rapid construction boom. This point is critical because the residents of the neighborhoods that include Bağdat Street became the ones expected to benefit the most from the urban transformation. [4] 

​

​Through this case, the paper explores how legal frameworks have enabled demolitions, frequently bypassing environmental regulations and disrupting everyday urban life. It examines the consequences of these practices, from pollution and public health risks to the erosion of collective memory, and raises questions about enforcement, accountability, and the future of urban living. The paper begins by situating urban transformation in Türkiye’s broader context, then turns to the specific dynamics of Bağdat Street, followed by an analysis of environmental impacts and concluding reflections on alternative approaches.

​

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND URBANIZATION IN BAĞDAT STREET

​

Bağdat Street is an avenue in Kadıköy on the Asian side of Istanbul with its elaborated surrounding neighbourhoods such as Suadiye, Caddebostan, Fenerbahçe or Göztepe. ​​

​

It was named Bağdat Street after the Baghdad expedition of Murad IV in 1638, since it was the way through Baghdad. The presence of still existing fountains and prayer areas on the road, such as Selamiçeşme, Çatalçeşme, and the Mahmud II Fountain, shows that these points were used as places for rest, gathering, and joining up with the convoy. [5] 

After the establishment of ferry companies that carried passengers on the Bosphorus and to the Asian side, by the arrival of ferries to Kadıköy, albeit rarely, different settlements on this side were encouraged.[6] Hence, the settlement around Bağdat Street started firstly as a place for summer houses, with its easy access to the sea and the islands in the southern part of Istanbul – these were places mostly for the upper-class society of Istanbul mainly inhabiting the historical peninsula and some neighborhoods nearby the Bosphorus until early 20th century. [7] 

​

Until the 1950s the area was mainly characterized by wooden mansions. Those mansions were being used periodically, especially in summers for family gatherings or getaways. [8] Starting from 1960s, three-four-story buildings with elaborate balconies replaced the older structures due to new zoning laws. This new wave of urbanism peaked in 1980s with the concrete infill, which habits a main road, walk paths and new building zones, along the shore[9], marking the end of the neighbourhood’s summer retreat atmosphere. 

​

Thus, building heights continued to rise, and geometries shifted, inevitably transforming the area’s character. Accordingly, population increased and in Kadıköy, Bağdat Street became one of the new centers of Istanbul.
​

BEGINNING AND POLITICAL ASPECTS OF URBAN TRANSFORMATION IN BAĞDAT STREET ​

​

Returning to the major transformation that began in 2012, it can be said that the demolition and rebuilding of many apartment buildings on Bağdat Street shifted from being driven by necessity or utility to being primarily focused on its value, which has increasingly overshadowed the use value and the parameter of risk. Viewing housing being an investment tool plays a key role in sustaining the momentum of urban transformation [10]. This is because, in an economically unstable country, housing has evolved into a form of social and economic security. Therefore, the desire for a new house is undoubtedly a situation desired by all classes, but the most important feature that makes Bağdat Street different is the difference in the value and so-called quality between old and new housing. Based on outstanding features, this difference is most clearly seen in the transformation of a low-rise, gardened, supposedly unsecured flat into a mid-rise, secure housing complex or residence. This benefit of land share rates and the prestige of Bağdat Street has aligned flat owners with contractors, encouraging them to reach rapid and immediate agreements. Hence, the urban transformation actively generated and channelled desires rather than needs and rights. Accordingly, the change became inevitable, since profit has been set as a priority. Urban profit is a concept that examines the economic, social and class effects of land use and profit obtained from the increase in value, resulting from the increase in land or property values in cities. This increase in value augments the income of landowners, and of the contractors and construction firms, rather than the community, causing income and opportunity inequality. [11] The concept of urban profit has become an even more common fixture in contemporary political and economic discourse in 21st century Türkiye, driven by the influence of widespread construction activity as mentioned. Therefore, the utilization of urban profit in İstanbul, Kadıköy and Bağdat Street, keeps avoiding collaborative decision and action making. 

​

Sinan Yılmaz, whose apartment building was declared ‘risky’ under law, is one of the residents of the district. Yılmaz says, “I am an earthquake victim,” He talks about the 1999 Marmara Earthquake, “When our newly built, well-engineered building collapsed in Adapazarı, they pulled me out from under the rubble of a five-story building in three hours. However, based on my experience in Adapazarı, I find the current state of the building I live in more resistant to earthquakes. The high level of profit in the region has led to the emergence of many companies that are uncertain about what they are doing in the market and have no previous construction experience. I find the low-quality buildings built by those companies more frightening. Our building is a masonry building. They want to demolish it because it is a risky building, but we are afraid that a new risky building will be built in its place.” [12]

​​

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF URBAN TRANSFORMATION IN BAĞDAT STREET

​

As one of the fallouts of the profit-based approach to housing development, these accelerated construction processes have often bypassed the Environmental Law (Number 2872), leading to severe consequences. In the demolition-reconstruction processes, the dust, smoke and asbestos are released which do cause long-term illnesses, violating the society’s right to health and ecological rights by destroying the environment; causing hundreds of work-related deaths in the construction sector every year; the deaths of dozens of living beings due to the invasion of hundreds of heavy vehicles into metropolitan areas; and causing urban crimes by destroying traces of memory and cultural assets. [13]  

​

To expedite profits and supposedly ‘renew buildings at risk of earthquake damage’, the Law on Transformation of Areas at Disaster Risk (Number 6306) and the Environmental Law (Number 2872) were frequently either inadequately enforced or manipulated through legal loopholes, leading to significant pollution and disorganization. Besides, both laws have undergone significant and frequent changes almost every year, often involving multiple articles or clauses, since their enactment. [14] This raises the questions: Why do processes often require immediate decisions? Is this due to a lack of planning and organization? Is this a matter of enhancement or manipulation? 

​

The 1983 version of the Environmental Law (Number 2872), Article 3, Clause C, stated: “Authorized institutions that make decisions on land and resource use and conduct project evaluations aim to protect the environment and prevent pollution, taking into account not to negatively affect development efforts." [15] which was amended in 2006 to: "Authorized institutions that make land and resource use decisions and conduct project evaluations shall observe the principle of sustainable development in their decision-making processes." [16] In the 2006 revision, sustainable development was defined as: "Sustainable development: Development and progress based on the principle of establishing a balance between environmental, economic and social goals that ensure that present and future generations live in a healthy environment." [17] in 2006 revision. Clause D was also revised. Initially, it stated: “In order to prevent and limit environmental problems in economic activities and in determining production methods, the most appropriate technologies and methods are selected and applied." [18] This was later modified to: "The benefits of economic activities and their impact on natural resources are evaluated in the long term within the framework of the principle of sustainable development." [19] Hence, these potential arguments occur: Do we overlook environmental issues in favour of (sustainable) development? Is sustainable development intended solely for future generations, or how does it address the needs and rights of today’s people? Why are economic activities and their impacts on natural resources primarily evaluated in the long term? Does enforcement weaken or become manipulated as profits increase? 

​

Environmental impact and the process of the urban transformation going on in Bağdat Street are also being framed by the Law on Transformation of Areas at Disaster Risk (Number 6306) as stated. In the ‘Eviction and Demolition’ section, Article 5, Clause 3, it is stated: "For the demolition of risky structures, the owners of these structures are given a period of not more than ninety days." [20] This clause has been revised several times, most recently in 2023. Such frequent revisions contribute to a lack of organization and coherence in demolition and construction processes. Not only that, but due to these factors, daily life on Bağdat Street is changing negatively day by day, and more and more people are starting to be affected by it because of waste, noise and air pollution. Environmental consequences of urban transformation can be categorized into short-term, mid-term, and long-term effects. Short-term consequences include pollution and disruptions that impact daily life, such as immediate street closures, dust emissions, and uncontrolled excavations that leave hazardous pits. Mid-term consequences involve the prolonged presence of construction materials and waste scattered on streets, persisting for months or even years and creating dangerous settings. Long-term consequences arise from the cumulative effects of short-term and mid-term issues, including respiratory diseases caused by exposure to dust, dirt, and asbestos, as well as the amnesia of urban well-being through the manipulation of ecological rights.      

​

In 2016, 18 people lost their lives in accidents caused by giant trucks. [21] With urban transformation, excavation trucks, which have become the nightmare of all residents living in Istanbul, have also become the killer of traffic, by occupying the pavements and carrying hazardous materials without precautions. One of them was Ayşe Altın. Gas concrete fell from a moving truck on 53-year-old Ayşe Altın walking on the sidewalk in Suadiye, a neighborhood in Kadıköy. While the unfortunate woman died at the scene, the driver who left the truck and fled, later went to the police and surrendered [22].

Whilst the city is being revived as a construction site, news headings and interviews are devastating: “Another truck murder,” [23] “Ytong Fell on Her Head While Walking on the Road,” [24] “Lack of control or error?,” [25] “Is there a street that we can sweep?”. [26] Since there has been no change in daily conversations, news or articles in the last 10 years; issue, again brings us to the matter of enforcement and lack of precaution. Furthermore, the lack of enforcement and precaution begins to act as an implicit encouragement for the continued disregard of regulations and safety measures. Thus, various infrastructures, scapes, collective memory, and public health are becoming increasingly at risk.   

​

Furthermore, official statistics published by the Department of Environmental Protection and Control of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, which include annual measurements of various air pollutants, reveal a notable shift in recent years. Among the recorded pollutants, PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less) emerges as particularly significant after 2017. [27] This sudden prominence may not indicate a recent surge in its presence, but rather the fact that PM2.5 began to be systematically monitored for the first time during this period. While not necessarily new in occurrence, its measured rise coincides with intensified urban development and large-scale infrastructure projects throughout the city, underscoring the growing impact of construction-related pollution on Kadıköy’s air quality. Construction activities are a contributor to PM2.5 pollution. Dust generated from demolition, excavation, and the movement of soil releases fine particles into the atmosphere. [28] Additionally, heavy machinery used on construction sites emits diesel exhaust, which is rich in fine particulate matter. Other common practices, such as cutting, grinding, and transporting construction materials, further amplify PM2.5 emissions. The cumulative effect of these activities leads to the release of harmful airborne particles that can remain suspended in the air for extended periods, particularly in dense urban environments with limited air circulation. According to a research in Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Journal, PM2.5 levels are observed to rise significantly during the working hours of construction sites, as active operations like drilling, material handling, and machine use intensify the release of fine particulate matter into the surrounding air. [29] PM2.5 is especially concerning because of its direct association with serious health issues. These fine particles can penetrate deep into the respiratory tract and reach the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), long-term exposure to PM2.5 is the most harmful form of air pollution, with strong scientific evidence linking it to illness and premature death caused by heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. [30] The growing presence of PM2.5 in Kadıköy’s and  Istanbul’s air, therefore, is not just an environmental concern but also a significant public health issue, demanding more rigorous monitoring and regulation, especially in relation to the city’s ongoing construction boom.

​

CONCLUSION

​

“Deviant”, I defined the demolitions. Deviant they are. Why? Bağdat Street holds a unique status due to its prestige and its connection to profit, which influences law enforcement. However, also the broader urban transformation occurring in 21st century Türkiye, along with the demolitions and construction projects it involves, is deeply questionable and tricky. The process is shrouded in ambiguity; politically, socially, spatially, and environmentally both in its roots and consequences. Furthermore, it is as corrupt as it is nondescript. The environmental impact of this transformation is severe. While humane sustainable practices and law are being ignored, pollution and occupation are being normalized. Collective memory is being damaged through not only historical and cultural context but also diminishing public health and the quality of life. Top-down approaches are to dictate remembering and forgetting by lowering the awareness, which is the backbone of the bottom-up potential, of the society and to prevent them from using this value as a resistance mechanism. Thus, instead of exalting the existing spatial memory and rights, on the contrary, attempts to destroy them will inevitably continue. The earthquake risk factor is a fact, but not an excuse for what is happening, nor for moving away from participatory and egalitarian processes. Participatory and egalitarian urban processes are not merely alternative ideals but necessary correctives to the injustices embedded in top-down transformations. In practice, this means involving residents, local experts, and civil society organizations in transparent decision-making processes at every stage, from risk assessment and project design to environmental monitoring and legal enforcement. It demands that laws like 6306 and 2872 be implemented not just as reactive tools for disaster mitigation or development, but as frameworks shaped by local contexts and democratic input by communities’ needs and demands. Thus, there would be spring to emerge; one that stands in contrast to the grim irony voiced by Mücella Yapıcı, a socialist, feminist, and activist architect from Türkiye, who once remarked the current issue as: “If Marx had lived, the poor guy would have rewritten Das Kapital!” [31]​

​