We are going through a period in which housing in Turkey is no longer just a necessity, but has become a painful “survival issue” that darkens lives, postpones dreams and threatens social peace. In the shadow of exorbitant rent increases, TOKİ's ongoing social housing lotteries are undoubtedly of vital importance for millions seeking a safe roof over their heads. In essence, we support this project, which gives hope to low-income citizens and provides a concrete respite from the property crisis. However, the fact that this huge investment not only delivers “four walls” but also starts to play with the social genetics of the society is the main issue we need to address in the second century of the Republic.
The Contradiction of Social Housing: Is One Hand Giving and the Other Taking?
As we step into the second century of our Republic, we must remember the cornerstone of our founding philosophy: A non-privileged, classless, united mass. This ideal recognizes a single class in the eyes of the state: the entire population. Today's practice, however, subjects citizens to a spatial and linguistic hierarchy according to the money in their wallet.
Projects rising on the most valuable coupon lands in the city center; “Sky Residence”, “Garden Life”, “Vadi Style”, “Luxury Tower” or “Grand Elite” With foreign names such as “the dream”, citizens are not being sold a “dream”, but a “privilege”. These glittering names whisper that there is an elite world behind those walls. On the other hand, the same state institution has no problem giving the most “plain” and "cold" name to its project in the farthest periphery of the city: “TOKI Social Housing” or just “TOKI Houses”. While one is glittering with the promise of a sparkling and “upper class” life, the other is merely an institutional name for poverty. This nomenclature alone is an admission that we have divided the equal citizens of the Republic into “customers” and “beneficiaries”.
Reverse Urbanism: Bringing the Poor to the Center and the Rich to the Periphery
Here we have to rethink the logic of urbanism and the public interest: If a spatial distinction is to be made, rational state reason should say the opposite. Urban centers should be reserved for low-income citizens, while the peripheries of the city should be reserved for the wealthy who can afford the cost of transportation. Sweeping a poor family 50 kilometers out of the city means making that family travel for hours every day, burdening their children with the burden of the shuttle service, and condemning the state to spend huge public resources to transport services to this far distance. In the opposite scenario, if a low-income citizen lives close to the center, he or she can walk to work or use a more convenient means of transportation, and his or her children will be spared the hassle of being shuttled. The wealthy, on the other hand, already have the economic power to solve the transportation problem with their own means.
Vertical Slums and the Dilemma of Population Growth
On the other hand, the recent decline in the population growth rate, which the state authority rightly complains about, is not independent of these settlement policies. You cannot encourage population growth by condemning citizens to isolated concrete blocks on the outskirts of the city, to vertical slums devoid of social facilities. People do not want to prepare their children for the future according to the results of a “lottery”, but in neighborhood cultures where they can raise their children safely, centrally and without economic burden.
Does the Key Only Open the Door or Skip Class?
In conclusion, TOKİ's social housing drive is a critical fire brigade in the economic conflagration and this effort deserves appreciation. But in the new century of the Republic, our goal should not only be to “house” but also to “unite”. In a system where former slum owners are enriched by the urban transformation rent, it is not a picture of justice that those who live off their labor are exiled to the outskirts of the city. Each key that comes out of the lottery bag should not be a document that cuts citizens off from the heart of the city; it should be an invitation to an equal life on every street of the city. Otherwise, we will face the risk of leaving the consciousness of citizenship homeless while making homeowners.