Konut Üretiminde Arz-Talep Dengesi Kurulamamasının Nedenleri ve Sonuçları

Öz

Türk inşaat sektörü, özellikle 1980’li yılların ikinci yarısından itibaren ekonomik büyümenin lokomotifi olmuş, yaşanan ekonomik kriz dönemlerinde bile bu konumunu sürdürmeyi başarmıştır. 2018 yılından itibaren kendini göstermeye başlayan finansal krizin, bu durumu değiştirmemekle birlikte, inşaat sektörünü hiç beklemediği bir şekilde konut fazlası sorunu ile karşı karşıya bıraktığı hususu son birkaç yılda Türkiye kamuoyu gündemini meşgul eden ana başlıklardan biri haline gelmiştir. Konut fazlası veya konut stoku gibi anahtar kelimeler kullanılarak internette bir arama yapıldığında sadece birkaç saniye içinde konuya ilişkin çok sayıda bilgi ve yoruma ulaşılabilmektedir. Üretilen konutların önemli bir bölümünün planlanan takvime uygun şekilde satılamadığına, dolayısıyla da konut stoklarının arttığına ilişkin tespit ve değerlendirmeler ile bu durumun ortaya çıkardığı başarısızlık hikâyeleri bu bilgi ve yorumlardan bazılarıdır. Söz konusu başarısızlığın ortadan kaldırılabilmesi için konut kredisi faizlerinde indirim, peşinat düşürme, taksitleri uzun vadelere yayma, ödemeleri erteleme ve maliyetine satış gibi çeşitli yollara başvurulmuş ve bunlara ilaveten daha neler yapılabileceği konuşulmaya başlanmıştır. Böyle bir ortamda gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmada; sorunun kaynağını oluşturabilecek nedenler tartışılarak gelecekteki geliştirmelere katkı sağlanabilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla öncelikle Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK)’nun yapı ruhsatı, yapı kullanma izin ve ilk satış konut istatistikleri yardımıyla, bahsi geçen sorunun varlığı değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar 2000-2019 döneminde ruhsata bağlanarak yapımına başlanılan toplam 12.543.047 bağımsız bölümün %16,96’sına karşılık gelen 2.127.086 adedin tamamlanamadığını, 2012-2020 döneminde yapı kullanma izni almış olan toplam 6.614.059 konutun %23,57’sini oluşturan 1.558.808 adedin ise 2021 yılı sonu itibariyle satılamamış olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonrasında, konut geliştirmenin tamamlanamama ve pazarlanamama başarısızlıkları olarak da nitelendirilebilecek bu durumun neden ve sonuçları üzerine odaklanılmıştır. Genelde gayrimenkul geliştirmenin, özelde konut geliştirmenin temel özellikleri, riskleri ve süreçlerine ilişkin literatür bilgileri temel alınarak, geliştirmede başarı için anahtar olabilecek unsurlar ile bu unsurların gerektiği gibi dikkate alınmamasından doğabilecek sonuçların vurgulanmasına çalışılmıştır. Yapılan değerlendirmeler, konut sektöründe üretim-arz-talep dengesinin kurulabilmesi için proje geliştirme yaklaşımlarının yeniden gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğini göstermiştir. Gelecekteki konut geliştirmelerde; risklerin en önemli kaynağını oluşturan geliştirmenin temel özelliklerine ve risk yönetimi yapılanmasına daha fazla dikkat edilmesi zorunluluğu vurgulanmıştır. Karar vermede en önemli noktayı teşkil eden uygulanabilirlik analizlerine ve bu analizler içerisinde programlamaya, geçmişte olduğundan çok daha fazla önem verilmesi ve bu yönde hareket edilmesi gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Konut Geliştirme
• Gayrimenkul Geliştirmede Başarı
• Geliştirme Süreçleri
• Konut Fazlası
• Konut Stoku

Reasons and Consequences of Supply-Demand Establishment in Housing Production

Öz

The Turkish construction sector has been the locomotive of economic growth, especially since the second half of the 1980s, and has managed to maintain this position even in times of economic crisis. Although the financial crisis that started to show itself since 2018 did not change this situation, the fact that the construction industry faced the problem of surplus housing in an unexpected way has become one of the main topics that occupied the public agenda of Turkey in the last few years. When a search is made on the Internet using keywords such as housing surplus or housing stock, many information and comments on the subject can be found in just a few seconds. Some of these information and comments are the determinations and evaluations that a significant part of the houses produced could not be sold in accordance with the planned schedule, thus increasing the housing stocks, and the failure stories brought about by this situation. To eliminate the said failure, various ways such as reducing the housing loan interest rates, reducing the down payment, extending the installments over long terms, delaying the payments and selling at the cost have been used, and in addition to these, it has been started to talk about what can be done. In this study carried out in such an environment; It is aimed to contribute to future developments by discussing the reasons that may cause the source of the problem. For this purpose, first of all, the existence of the aforementioned problem has been evaluated with the help of the Turkish Statistical Institute's (TUIK) construction license, occupancy permit and first sales house statistics. The results obtained indicate that 2,127,086 units, corresponding to 16.96% of the 12,543,047 independent sections that were licensed and started to be built in the period of 2000-2019, could not be completed. The results also showed that 1,558,808 units, which constitute 23.57% of the total 6,614,059 residences that received occupancy permits in the 2012-2020 period, could not be sold by the end of 2021. Afterwards, the focus is on the causes and consequences of this situation, which can also be described as the failure of the housing development to be incomplete and unmarketable. Based on the literature on the basic features, risks and processes of real estate development in general, and housing development in particular, it has been tried to emphasize the factors that may be key to success in development and the consequences that may arise from not taking these factors into account properly. Evaluations have shown that project development approaches need to be reconsidered in order to establish a production-supply-demand balance in the housing sector. In future housing developments; It was emphasized that more attention should be paid to the basic features of development which constitute the most important source of risks and risk management structure. It has been concluded that applicability analyzes, which constitute the most important point in decision-making, and programming within these analyzes should be given more importance than in the past and acted in this direction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Housing Development
• Success in Real Estate Development
• Development Stages
• Housing Surplus
• Housing Stock

Kaynakça

1. Aliefendioğlu Y., Tanrıvermiş H. ve Keskin E. (2019). Türkiye’de konut yatırımları ve yönetim modellerinin değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Tesis Yönetim Konferansı, 10-11 Ekim, Ankara, Türkiye. Aibinu, A.A. ve Jagboro, G.O. (2002). The effects of construction delays on project delivery in Nigerian construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20; 593-599. PII: S0263-7863(02)00028-5
2. Andrade, J.B., Vieira, S.M. ve Bragança L. (2012). Selection of key sustainable indicators to steel buildings in early design phases. Concepts and Methods for Steel Intensive Building Projects, Technical Committee 14 Sustainability and Eco-Efficiency of Steel Construction, No 130, Chapter IV-Sustainable Design, 167-178. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55622510.pdf
3. Antoniou, F., Aretoulis, N.A., Konstantinidis, D. ve Kalfakakou, G.P. (2013). Complexity in the evaluation of contract types employed for the construction of highway projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74; 448-458. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.048
4. Baloi, D. ve Price, A.D.F. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost performance. International Journal of Project Management, 21; 261-269. DOI:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00017-0
5. Bragança, L., Vieira, S.M. ve Andrade, J.B. (2014). Early stage design decisions: The way to achieve sustainable buildings at lower costs. Hindawi Publishing Corporation The Scientific World Journal, 1-8, Article ID 365364. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/365364
6. Buertey, J.I.T., Abeere-Inga, E. ve Kumi, T.A. (2013). The financial impact of risk factors affecting project cost contingency: evidential reasoning method. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Management, 3 (2), 65-73. DOI:10.32738/JEPPM.201307.0003
7. Chapman, R.J. (2001). The controlling influences on effective risk identification and assessment for construction design management. International Journal of Project Management 19, 147-160. PII: S0263-7863(99)00070-8
8. Chou, J.S. (2011). Cost simulation in an item-based project involving construction engineering and management. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 706–717. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.010

9. Costello, G. ve Preller, F. (2010). Property development principles and process-an industry analysis. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 16(2), 171-189. DOI:10.1080/14445921.2010.11104300
10. Cretu, O., Stewart, R. ve Berends, T. (2011). Risk Management for Design and Construction. R.S. Means, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 253, New Jersey.
11. Çıracı, M. (2010). Yapımda Maliyet Yönetimi (Ders Notu). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 45, İstanbul.
12. Dikmen, İ., Birgönül, M.T., Tah, J.H.M. ve Özer, A.H. (2012). Web-based risk assessment tool using integrated duration-cost influence network model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(9); 1023-1034. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000547
13. Elkington, P. ve Smallman, C. (2002). Managing project risks: A case study from the utilities sector. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 49-57. PII: S0263-7863(00)00034-X
14. El-Sayegh, S.M. (2008). Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 26; 431-438. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.004 Enshassi, A., Al-Hallaq, K. ve Mohamed, S. (2006). Causes of contractor’s business failure in developing countries: The case of Palestine. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 11(2); 1-14. https://www.researchgate.net Evbuomwan, N.F.O. ve Anumba, C.J. (1998). An integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design and construction. Advances in Engineering Software, 29(7-9), 587-597. PII:S0965-9978(98)00024-6
15. Fisher, P. (2005). The property development process: Case studies from Grainger Town. Property Management, 23(3), 158-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637470510603510
16. Flanagan, R. ve Norman, G. (2000). Risk Management and Construction. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Blackwell Science, 207, Malden.
17. Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. ve Crawford, L. (2003). Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 321-326. DOI:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00055-8
18. Fung, I.W.H., Tam, V.W.Y., Lo, T.Y. ve Lu, L.L.H. (2010). Developing a risk assessment model for construction safety. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 593-600. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.006
19. Gehner E., Halman, J.I.M. ve De Jonge, H. (2006). Risk management in the Dutch real estate development sector: A survey. Proceedings of the 6th International Postgraduate Research Conference in the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, UK, 541-552. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB9048.pdf
20. Graaskamp, J. A. (1989). Fundamentals of Real Estate Development. Development component series, Urban Land Institute (ULI), Third Printing, 1-131, Washington, D.C. http://morris.marginalq.com/GREM_RE720_MoreFiles/Urban%20Econ%20Graaskamp%20ULI.PDF
21. Isaac, D. (1996). Property Development: Appraisal and Finance. First Edition, Macmillan Press Ltd., 287, London.
22. Isaac, D., O’leary, J. ve Daley, M. (2010). Property Development: Appraisal and Finance. Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 262, New York.
23. Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00047-2
24. Kaliba, C., Muya, M. ve Mumba, K. (2009). Cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 522-531. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.07.003
25. KarimiAzari, A.R., Mousavi, N., Mousavi, S.F. ve Hosseini, A.B. (2011). Risk assessment model selection in construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38; 9105-9111. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.110
26. Kartam, N.A. ve Kartam, A.A. (2001). Risk and its management in the Kuwaiti construction industry: A contractors’ perpective. International Journal of Project Management, 19; 325-335. PII: S0263-7863(00)0014-4
27. Keskin, E., Aliefendioğlu, Y. ve Tanrıvermiş, H. (2019). Gecekondu dönüşümlerinde hak sahipliği ve karşılaşılan sorunlar. Kent, İnşaat ve Ekonomi Kongresi, 2-4 Mayıs 2019, Gaziantep. Kongre Kitabı 605-623. https://www.gto.org.tr/uploads/1581596476-260114.pdf
28. Lavingia, N.J. (2006). How to create a world class project management organization. AACE International Transactions, PM.01, 1-5. https://icoste.org/AACE2006%20Papers/pm01.pdf
29. Li, H., Chan, N., Huang, T., Guo, H.L., Lu, W. ve Skitmore, M. (2009). Optimizing construction planning schedules by virtual prototyping enabled resource analysis. Automation in Construction, 18, 912-918. DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.04.002
30. Lim, C.S. ve Mohamed, M.Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248. PII: S0263-7863(98)00040-4
31. Lo, T.Y., Fung, I.W.H. ve Tung, K.C.F. (2006). Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(6); 636-649. https://ascelibrary.org
32. Long, N.D., Ogunlana, S., Quang, T. ve Lam, K.C. (2004). Large construction projects in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 553-561. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.03.004
33. Lucius, D. I. (2001). Real options in real estate development. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 19(1), 73-78. DOI:10.1108/14635780110365370
34. Lundgren, A. ve Thun, V. (2013). Real estate development organisational structure and conceptualisation of ideas. Master’s Thesis, 2013:114. Chalmers University of Technology Division of Construction Management Department of Civil and Enviromental Engineering, 43, Göteborg. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/185818/185818.pdf
35. MacFarlane, J. (1995). The use of simulation in property investment analysis. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 13(4), 25-38. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14635789510099427/full/pdf
36. Madichie, N.O. ve Madichie, O.A. (2009). A theoretical review of the property development challenges in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 1(3), 296-311. DOI:10.1504/IJBEM.2009.023448
37. Mahamid, I. (2013). Effects of project’s physical characteristics on cost deviation in road construction. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, 25, 81-88. https://www.researchgate.net
38. Mendeş, M. (2022). Gayrimenkul geliştirme projelerinde maliyet riskleri analizi: Kamu yurt projeleri örneği. Doktora tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Gayrimenkul Geliştirme ve Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, 378, Ankara.
39. Meng, X. (2012). The effect of relationship management on project performance in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 30; 188-198. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.04.002
40. Miles, M.E., Berens, G.L., Eppli, M.J. ve Weiss, M.A. (2007). Real Estate Development, Principles and Process. Fourth Edition, ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 657, Washington. D.C. https://www.scribd.com/book/168081029/Real-Estate-Development-4th-Edition-Principles-and-Process
41. Missbauer, H. ve Hauber, W. (2006). Bid calculation for construction projects: Regulations and incentive effects of unit price contracts. European Journal of Operational Research, 171; 1005-1019. DOI:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.014
42. Ostwald, P.F. (2001). Construction Cost Analysis and Estimating. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, 453, New Jersey.
43. Ökmen, Ö. ve Öztaş, A. (2010). Construction cost analysis under uncertainty with correlated cost risk analysis model. Construction Management and Economics, 28, 203-212. DOI: 10.1080/01446190903468923
44. Öztaş, A. ve Ökmen, Ö. (2005). Judgmental risk analysis process development in construction projects. Building and Environment, 40, 1244-1254. DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.10.013
45. Peiser, R.B. ve Frej, A.B. (2003). Professional Real Estate Development. The Uli Guide to The Business, Second Edition, 397, Washington D.C.
46. Pheng, L.S. ve Hongbin, J. (2004). Estimation of international construction performance: Analysis at the country level. Construction Management and Economics, 22; 277–289. DOI: 10.1080/0144619032000089607
47. Reilly, J., McBride, M., Sangrey, D., MacDonald, D. ve Brown, J. (2004). The development of CEVP - WSDOT’S cost-risk estimating process. BSCE CEVP Paper Final Draft, 1-26. https://santafempo.org.
48. Rezgui, Y. (2006). Ontology-centered knowledge management using information retrieval techniques. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 20(4); 261-270. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2006)20:4(261)
49. Susilawati, C. (2007). Affordable housing investment and management: A risk assessment process of investment life cycle. In Proceedings 2nd Australasian Housing Researchers; Conference: Reshaping Australasian Housing Research, 1-21, Brisbane. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/11359/
50. Tah, J.H.M. ve Carr, V. (2001). Towards a framework for project risk knowledge management in the construction supply chain. Advances in Engineering Software, 32, 835-846. PII: S0965-9978(01)00035-7
51. Tanrıvermiş, H. (2019). Türkiye ekonomisinde inşaat ve gayrimenkul sektörlerinin rolleri ve gelişme eğilimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Kent, İnşaat ve Ekonomi Kongresi 2-3-4 Mayıs 2019, Gaziantep. Kongre Kitabı s.36-57. https://www.gto.org.tr/uploads/1581596476-260114.pdf
52. Tanrıvermiş, H. (2020). Possible impacts of COVID-19 outbreak on real estate sector and possible changes to adopt: A situation analysis and general assessment on Turkish perspective. Journal of Urban Management, Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 263-269, ISSN 2226-5856, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2020.08.005.
53. Taroun, A., Yang, J.B ve Lowe, D. (2011). Construction risk modeling and assessment: Insights from a literature review. The Built and Human Environment Review, 4(1); 87-97. https://www.researchgate.net
54. Taygfeld, P., Coiacetto, E., Shearer, H., Dodson, J. ve Banhalmi-Zakar, Z. (2012). Developing Adaptively: The role and capacities of private sector developers and financing in urban climate change adaptation. Draft report. Urban Research Program, Griffith University, 116, Mount Gravatt.
55. Tserng, H.P, Yin, A.Y.I, Dzeng, R.J., Wou, B., Tsai, M.D. ve Chen, W.Y. (2009). A study of ontology-based risk management framework of construction projects through project life cycle. Automationin Construction, 18; 994-1008. DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.05.005
56. Ucol-Ganiron Jr., T. (2012). Structural engineers career success. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, August, 3(4); 321-326. DOI:10.7763/IJIMT.2012.V3.247
57. Uher, T.E. ve Toakley, A.R. (1999). Risk management in the conceptual phase of a Project. International Journal of Project Management, 17(3), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00024-6
58. Wyatt, P. (2013). Real Estate Development. University of Reading, School of Real Estate & Planning, Henley Business School, 36, Reading.
59. Zeng, J., An, M. ve Smith, N.G. (2007). Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 589-600. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.006
60. Zhi, H. (1995). Risk management for overseas construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 13(4), 231-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00015-I
61. Zou, P.X.W, Zhang, G. ve Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25; 601-614. DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001
62. İnternet Kaynakları
63. URL-1. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Web sitesi, https://tuik.gov.tr Son erişim tarihi: 05.12.2022 URL-2. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Web sitesi, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?locale=tr Son erişim tarihi: 05.12.2022
64. URL-3. Building design process Web Sitesi, https://www. designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Building_design_process Son erişim tarihi: 15.12.2022