Search

Large-scale high-rise architecture projects have been central to the rise of the construction industry in Turkey in recent years. This vertical escalation, however, has not been received without dissidence. Scholars, activists, journalists and officials with different viewpoints have participated in media debates regarding the reasons and consequences of this transformation. In these discussions, stakeholders have raised various environmental, cultural and ethical concerns that the vertical organisation of cities generate. Focussing on juxtapositions of Izmir and Istanbul in debates on urban verticality in the city of Izmir, Turkey's third most populated city, the paper examines how such comparisons with Istanbul, where the recent urban neoliberal transformation is experienced most intensely, have been mobilised to oppose vertical expansion. The paper argues that as a result of the recent centralisation of the Turkish economy around construction, the hyper-visibility of skyscrapers and the concentration of the urban transformation generated by the Turkish construction industry in Istanbul, skyscrapers have become materialised symbols of Istanbul's integration into global capitalism, neoliberal urbanisation, and the difference between Istanbul and other urban centres in Turkey. This example establishes urban verticality as a discursive axis at which urban centres outside of the Global North establish their difference from each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper foregrounds the state–corporate alliance in real estate development in Istanbul since the early 2000s. Employing a geo-coded sample of 294 private housing development projects built since the early 1980s and in-depth interviews with the private development companies, the paper focuses on how the construction industry and the massive commodification of urban land produced a new state–space nexus. The underlying question here is the nascent shape of urban political-economy, the trends of housing construction, the cycles of boom and bust and the mechanisms of capital accumulation concerning the state's centralising control over space. In this sample, a few critical aspects of the production of concrete space became apparent. Seven findings are discussed. First, the developers of Istanbul followed the clientelistic patterns in the urban built environment. The second aspect is that the state is the sole supply-side actor that determines Istanbul's built environment. The third point in this analysis of urban development initiated by the private sector is focused on the fact that the real estate speculation is state-led. The fourth and fifth points are related to the Turkish real estate developers' inability to procure financing for the duration of the construction process. The sixth factor in the evaluation of the private real estate sector in Istanbul is the geographical and class dispersal of active development projects. The seventh factor in understanding those real estate developers is their novel approach to marketing and advertisement and the way they employ architecture as an extension of public relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]