Abstract

Housing markets have been subject to a wide range of state policies to increase the efficiency in the production and distribution of existing and new housing stock and regulate the market. The provision of social housing is also among these policies. In Turkey, however; social hous-ing provided by the Housing Development Administration (HDA) differs significantly from the European examples in many respect, and sustainability and effectiveness of this provision have been questioned. This study, rather than new housebuilding, examines the likelihood of a social housing model that focuses on the effective use of vacant dwelling units in the private rented sector of Cevizlidere Neighbourhood. The assumption that “if these were social hous-ing units, duration of their vacancy would be close to zero” is questioned. Considering these units are rented for-profit and have different durations of vacancy, this study explores how they can be used as social housing displaying the necessary rent levels and identifying the households who can afford these rents. As a result, a framework has been developed to ad-dress the efficiency problem of use on the supply side (vacant units and long sale-letting periods), along with the affordability problem (particularly for low-income households) on the demand side.

Keywords

• Residential vacancy
• Social housing
• Affordability

Özel Kiralık Kesimde Boş Konut Birimlerinin Sosyal Konut Olarak Kullanılması Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme: Cevizlidere Mahallesi Örneği

Abstract

Konut piyasaları, mevcut ve yeni konut stokunun üretim ve dağıtım süreçlerinde verimliliğini arttırmak ve piyasayı düzenlemek için çeşitli devlet politikalarına konu olmuştur. Sosyal konut aracılığıyla hane halklarına konut sunumu da bunlardan biridir. İlk etapta yeni birimler üretmek aracılığıyla gerçekleştirilen sosyal konut sunumu zamanla özel kesim elindeki mevcut stokun ve stoktaki boşlukların etkili kullanımına odaklanmıştır. Ancak Türkiye’de Toplu Konut İdaresi’nin (TOKİ) inşasını üstlendiği sosyal konut olarak adlandırılan birimler Avrupa örneklerinden pek çok açıdan farklılaşmakta, sürdürülebilirliği ve etkinliği sorgulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, genel eğilimden farklı olarak odağı yeni konut sunumu olmayan, özel kesim elindeki mevcut kiralık stoktaki boşlukların kullanılabilirliğini sorgulayan bir sosyal konut modelinin olabilirliği tartışılmaktadır. Cevizlidere mahallesi özelinde yapılan saha çalışmasında boş konut birimleri için “bu birimler sosyal konut birimi olsaydı, boş kalma süreleri sıfıra yakın olurdu” varsayımı kabul edilmiştir. Değişen sürelerde boş kalan ve kâr amacı güdülerek kiralanan birimlerin sosyal konut olarak nasıl kullanılabileceği gözden geçirilmiş ve sosyal konuta uyarlanabilmeleri için gereken yeni konut kira düzeyleri ve bu konutlara ekonomik olarak erişebilecek hane halkı profili ortaya konulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, konutun arz tarafında görülen kullanım verimliliği problemini (boş birimler ve uzun satılma-kiralanma süreleri), talep tarafında (özellikle düşük gelirli hane halkları) gözlenen konuta ekonomik erişebilirlik sorunu ile beraber sorgulamaya yönelik bir çerçeve geliştirilmiştir.

Keywords

• Boş konut stoku
• Sosyal konut
• Konuta ekonomik erişebilirlik

References

1. Aksoy Khurami, E. ve Özdemir Sarı, Ö. B. (2019). Konut üretim performansının konuta ekonomik erişebilirlik üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi. Planlama, 29(1), 23-32.
2. Andrews, D., Caldera Sánchez, A. ve Johansson, Å. (2011). Housing markets and structural policies in OECD countries. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 836, OECD, Paris. 30 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-bibliography/ working-discussion- research-papers/2011/ Andrews_etal_Housing_Markets_and_ Structural_Policies.pdf adresinden erişildi.
3. Arundel, R. (2017). The end of mass homeownership? Housing career diversification and inequality in Europe. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 15 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=aa6990ca-fdaa-4ab5-873d-571278a0446c adresinden erişildi.
4. Belsky, E. ve Goodman, J. L. (1996). Explaining the vacancy rate-rent paradox of the 1980s. The Journal of Real Estate Research, 11(3), 309-323.
5. Branas, C., Rubin, D. ve Guo, W. (2012). Vacant properties and violence in neighborhoods. International Scholarly Research Network Public Health. 15 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://repository.upenn.edu /cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&cont ext=cml_papers adresinden erişildi.
6. Couch, C. ve Cocks, M. (2013). Housing vacancy and the shrinking city: Trends and policies in the UK and the city of Liverpool. Housing Studies, 28(3), 499–519.
7. de Leeuw, F. ve Ekanem, N. F. (1971). The supply of rental housing. American Economic Review, December 1971, 61, 806-17.
8. Dewilde, C. ve Ronald, R. (2017). Housing wealth and welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

9. Doling, J. ve Ronald, R. (2010). Home ownership and asset-based welfare. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(2), 165-173.
10. Fielder, S. ve Smith, R. (1996). Vacant dwellings in the private sector. Department of the Environment. London: H.M.S.O.
11. Ford, J. ve Wilcox, S. (1998). Owner occupation, employment and welfare: the impact of changing relationships on sustainable home ownership. Housing Studies, 13(5), 623-638.
12. Gabriel, S. ve Nothaft, F. (1988). Rental housing markets and the natural vacancy rate. AREUEA Journal, 16, 419-429.
13. Gabriel, S. ve Nothaft, F. (2001). Rental housing markets, the ıncidence and duration of vacancy, and the natural vacancy rate. Journal of Urban Economics, 49, 121–49.
14. Glaeser, E. ve Gyourko, J. (2005). Urban decline and durable housing. Journal of Political Economy, 113(2), 345–375.
15. Glock, B. ve Häussermann, H. (2004). New trends in urban development and public policy in eastern Germany: Dealing with the vacant housing problem at the local level. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 919–929.
16. Grabka, M. ve Verbist, G. (2015). Non-cash benefits from social housing in Europe: a comparative perspective. ImPRovE Working Papers, Discussion Paper No. 15/07. 15 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/hdlimprov/1507.htm adresinden erişildi.
17. Guasch, J. L. ve Marshall, R. C. (1985). An analysis of vacancy patterns in the housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 17, 208-229.
18. Han, H. S. (2014). The impact of abandoned properties on nearby housing prices. Housing Policy Debate, 24, 311–334.
19. Hepp, S. (2013). Foreclosure and metropolitan spatial structure: Establishing the connection. Housing Policy Debate, 23(3), 497–520.
20. Hollander, J. (2011). Sunburnt cities: The great recession, depopulation and urban planning in the American Sunbelt. London: Routledge.
21. Immergluck, D. (2016). Examining changes in long-term neighborhood housing vacancy during the 2011 to 2014 US national recovery. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(5), 607–622.
22. Kıvrak, H. K. (2019). An investigation of the residential vacancy patterns in an urban housing market: The case of Gemlik. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
23. Mallach, A. (2018). The empty house next door: understanding and reducing vacancy and hypervacancy in the United States. Policy Focus Reports, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 01 Eylül 2019 tarihinde https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default /files/pubfiles/empty-house-next-door-full.pdf adresinden erişildi.
24. Mallach, A. ve Brachman, L. (2010). Ohio’s cities at a turning point: Finding the way forward. Brookings, SD: Metropolitan Policy Program.
25. Malpass, P. (2008). Housing and the new welfare state: Wobbly pillar or cornerstone? Housing Studies, 23(1), 1-19.
26. Nassauer, J. I. ve Raskin, J. (2014). Urban vacancy and land use legacies: A frontier for urban ecological research, design, and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 245–253.
27. Newman, G. ve Kim, B. (2017). Urban shrapnel: Spatial distribution of non-productive space in a growing city. Landscape Research, 42(7), 699–715.
28. Özdemir Sarı, Ö. B. (2019). Redefining the housing challenges in Turkey: An urban planning perspective. Ö. B.
29. Özdemir Sarı, S. S. Özdemir, N. Uzun (Yay. Haz.). Urban and regional planning in Turkey içinde (s. 167-184). The Urban Book Series, Switzerland: Springer.
30. Özdemir Sarı, Ö. B. ve Aksoy Khurami, E. (2018). Housing affordability trends and challenges in the Turkish Case. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9617-2.
31. Özdemir Sarı, Ö.B. (2015). Konut üretiminde aşırılık ve stok boşluk oranları: Yenimahalle ve Altındağ örnekleri. Konut içinde (s. 73-84). Şehir Placıları Odası, Ankara, Türkiye.
32. Rosen, K., ve Smith, L. (1983). The price-adjustment process for rental housing and the natural vacancy rate. American Economic Review, 73, 779-785.
33. Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C. ve Arrigoitia, M.F. (2014). Social housing in Europe. Wiley Blackwell.
34. Spelman, W. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime?. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(5), 481–495.
35. Thalmann, P. (2012). Housing market equilibrium (almost) without vacancies. Urban Studies, 49(8), 1643-1658.
36. Vakili-Zad, C. ve Hoekstra, J. (2011). High dwelling vacancy rate and high prices of housing in Malta a mediterranean phenomenon. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 26, 441–455.
37. Wang, K. ve Immergluck, D. (2019). Housing vacancy and urban growth: explaining changes in long‑term vacancy after the US foreclosure crisis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(2), 511-532.
38. Wheaton, W.C. (1990). Vacancy, search, and prices in a housing market matching model. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1270-129