residential preferences in istanbul
TRANSCRIPT
Pergamon HABITAT INTL. Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 241-25t, 1996
Copyright (~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0197-3975/96 $15.00 + 0.00 0197--3975(95)00060-7
Residential Preferences in Istanbul
V. DOKMECI, L. BERKOZ, H. LEVENT, H. YUREKLI and G. CAGDAS
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Since the 1950s, the provision of housing, services and infrastructure has not kept pace with the rapid population expansion of Istanbul. While some of the modern districts have become comparatively more attractive, the historic districts have lost population due to the deterioration of their neighbourhoods. These changes have created locational advantages and disadvantages which are reflected in the urban land markets and have resulted in intra-urban migration.
In this study, the residential preferences of individuals are investigated with respect to their socio-economic characteristics and the general characteristics of the districts. The result of a survey are evaluated with respect to a cross- tabulation. Thus, proximity to relatives, a clean and quiet neighbourhood and a stable social environment are common factors for all income groups. This illustrates the traditional social values that transcend income levels, as well as the universal desire to escape the environmental pollution and social deterioration of a large city. The results of the study can be useful in city development plans and house-building programmes.
INTRODUCTION
Istanbul, the largest city in Turkey, has been expanding rapidly since the 1950s due to rural-urban migration. It is the hub of the country's industry and trade and its main employment centre, housing over 7.5 million people. The provision of housing, services and infrastructure has not kept pace with the rapid population expansion of the city. As a result, there is an acute shortage of housing and a low level of services. Unauthorised settlements are expanding because of the inability of the formal sector to provide affordable housing, especially to rural migrants. At the same time, the rapid expansion of has affected the quality of life in various sections of the city. While some of the modern districts have become comparatively more attractive, the historic districts have lost population due to the deterioration of their neighbourhoods. Thus, Istanbul's districts are undergoing rapid and continuous social, economic and structural change. These changes create locational advantages and disadvantages which are reflected in the urban land markets and have resulted in intra-urban migration.
Differences in household incomes result in variations in existing housing and, to a large extent, also determine the chances of moving to more desirable dwellings. Lack of mobility can indicate bottlenecks in the housing market that prevent households from finding a more suitable dwelling. From this point of view, the percentage of 'stayers' should be higher among low-income households. On the other hand, immobility may be more characteristic of high-income households, who have already achieved a satisfactory housing
241
242 V. Dokmeci, L. Berkoz, H. Levent, H. Yurekli and G. Cagdas
situation.1 In some cases, deterioration in a neighbourhood causes people to migrate to other districts. The nature of the housing stock thus determines to a large extent how the changing socio-economic structure 'translates' itself into a spatial population pattern. In general, immobility increases with age; the proportion of stayers is highest among the middle aged and elderly.
In early empirical models of intra-urban location, 2 employment was the primary determinant of residential choice. Later models 3 argued instead for population-attraction employment. Since nearness to work lowers community costs, employment growth in a particular location should, ceteris paribus, attract both low- and high-income residents. Employment growth in the suburbs, defined as the absolute change in jobs over the decade, should thus have a positive effect on low- and high-income movement from the central city, and employment growth in the city should have a negative effect on out-movement. 4
While inter-urban migration has been well researched in the literature on the Third World, intra-city mobility and residential choice have received less attention. Mobility behaviour and location patterns of migrants have been studied primarily in Latin American cities, and most of the studies have used an isolated neighbourhood approach. Little work has been done on this subject in other parts of the world. 5 However, an understanding of this problem is crucial for effective planning in all large cities in developing countries. An understanding of the settlement patterns and mobility of a large proportion of the population provides insights into the spatial and land-use patterns of the city, and aids in planning for housing. It also identifies needs for service levels (water, electricity, transportation, social facilities), thereby facilitating their provision. 6
Changes in residential locations within the urban area play an important role in altering urban systems and urban spatial structure, particularly with regard to neighbourhood characteristics and the locations of market-oriented activities. While households change residences in response to changes in the urban environment and in the patterns of their daily lives, their migration produces changes in neighbourhood characteristics, and in the spatial distribution and quality of the amenities available to serve them. 7
The determinants of intra-urban residential mobility have received considerable interest. For instance, Quigley 8 and Hanushek and Quigley 9 have examined the role of demographic factors in the decision to move. Job location uncertainty within a multi-centre city provides an additional explanation for observed residential relocation which can be integrated into the existing literature. 10 It also helps to predict the characteristics of residential movers and identifies the possibility of job location changes and residential relocation as a central element of evolving urban form.11 It has been demonstrated that residential relocations are positively related to the degree to which a household's consumption of housing services deviates from an optimal bundle of such services, and negatively related to the various adjustment costs associated with changing from one dwelling unit to another. ~2 In addition, changing attitudes toward lifestyles have induced certain population groups to emphasise quality of life considerations in their residential search and to look for residences suited to their leisure orientations or desired lifestyles.13 The only areas likely to benefit from the aforementioned trends are those endowed with especially attractive environments, strong local economies, and ex-urban areas which have received spillover from metropolitan regions. 14
The present paper deals with residential preferences with respect to both people's socio-economic characteristics and social and physical characteristics of districts in Istanbul. The organisation of the paper is as follows. The general trends of population and employment of the districts are presented in the next section, followed by the methodology and results. The final section is devoted to a conclusion and further research is suggested.
Gm
pina
r
t,
• G
. Osm
anl~
sa
• M
uca
vir
Ala
ni Bak
irko
y :
MA
RM
AR
A
Eyu
p M
ucav
ir A
lani
DE
NIZ
I
Sari
yer
Muc
avir
Ala
ni
Bey
koz
Mue
avir
Ala
ni
Kin
ali ~
A
dala
r
Bur
gaz
~ ¢~
Hey
belia
da
Buy
ukad
a
KA
RA
DE
NIZ
t,
~ e
• °
Um
rani
ye
, .
Muc
avkA
lani
*
~e
~O
me
rli
Bar
aji
[ IM
ecav
ir A
lani
Su
ltanb
eyli
~¢~f
~ /.
! t
".,t E
Fig
. 1.
Loc
atio
n of
Dis
tric
ts i
n ls
tanb
ul.
.~
244 v. Dokmeci, L. Berkoz, H. Levent, H. Yurekli and G. Cagdas
BACKGROUND
Istanbul is divided into 19 districts, the location of which is illustrated in Fig. 1. The districts are divided spatially into three zones with respect to distance from the centre of Istanbul. The core area is up to 3 km from the centre of the city. The first ring is between the core area and up to 12 km from the centre. The second ring is the peripheral area beyond the first ring. The population distribution is given in Table 1. Between 1980 and 1990, while the ratio of population in the second ring increased from 39% to 58%, that of the first ring decreased from 54% to 37% and that of the core area from 7% to 5%. Since a large portion of the periphery is occupied by squatter settlements, this increase also illustrates the growth of squatter settlements in Istanbul since 1980.
Spatial employment distribution is given in Table 2 and sectoral division of employment in Table 3. Before 1970, the core was the main working area. However, in 1985, the employment percentage in the first ring was greater (52%) than that in the core (27%) and in the second ring (21%). So, the shift of job location which altered employment opportunities and resulted in continuous urban development, as well as income growth and changes in social values, has caused residential mobility at a high rate. At the same time, a large amount of public housing construction in some of the peripheral districts stimulated the growth of these districts but also created a trend toward living in modern housing establishments surrounded by green areas and supplied by the necessary facilities.
Some of the districts have common characteristics. For instance, old districts are losing population and employment due to their deteriorating urban structure; as a result, housing demand and potential rates of return there are low. On the other hand, second ring districts - - especially first ring districts with modern office buildings and modern residential settlements - - are gaining population and employment. Therefore, in the first ring districts, demand and potential rates of return are high. In the second ring districts, although demand is high, potential rates of return are not high currently but are promising for the future.
Table 1. Population distribution among the districts in lstanbul
Population in
Districts 1980 1985 1990
Core Beyoglu 223,360 251,555 229,000 Eminonu 93,324 92,485 83,444
First ring Besiktas 188,117 219,998 192,210 Eyup 331,507 376,781 212,986 Fatih 474,578 494,119 462,464 Kadikoy 468,217 573,261 648,282 Sisli 467,685 529,305 250,478 Uskudar 366,186 485,711 395,623 Zeytinburnu 124,543 147,450 165,679
Second ring Bakirkoy G.O.P. Kartal Pendik Sariyer Beykoz Bayrampasa K.Cekmece Kagithane Umraniye
882,505 1,227,970 219,026 291,350 413,839 581,980
117,659 152,475 114,812 133,75(I
1,328,276 393 667 611 532 295 651 171 872 163 786 212 570 479 419 269 (~2 301 257
Residential Preferences in lstanbul
Table 2. Distribution of employment among the districts of lstanbul in 1985
Districts No. of jobs
Core Beyoglu 47,152 Eminonu 60,028
First ring Besiktas 12,246 Egyp 42,687 Fatih 19,433 Kadikoy 30,318 Sisli 90,116 Uskudar 20,006 Zeytinburnu 51,414
Second ring Bakirkoy 81,351 G.O.P. 11,675 Kartal 46,943 Sariyer 7,372 Beykoz 7,889
245
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The spatial distribution of residential preferences of individuals are investigated with respect to their characteristics in Istanbul. A questionnaire consisting of 48 items was used for a survey. The items address individual preferences with respect to districts and their demographic and socio-economic characteristics. The sample size is 1,105 households, proportionally taken from different districts. The results of the survey are evaluated by cross-tabulation.
Of those surveyed, 70.8% want to move to a different location. This high percentage can be explained by the continuous expansion of the city, the increasing number of migrants and the transformation of the urban structure and the social and economic values. Usually, migrants are more mobile than the rest of the city's population as they have already made the decision to move. 15 Sometimes, the mobility rate of a city's population increases if the majority of the population does not want to live within the same district as the migrants. Of those who want to move, 67.8% want to live in an apartment, 8.9% prefer to live in a private house and 23.3% in a squatter house. This result corresponds to the income distribution of Istanbul.
The distribution of residential preferences according to different income groups is as follows: 54.6% of the people who want to change their residences are low income, 33.3% middle income, 8.9% upper middle income and 3.4% high income. The reasons for intra-urban migration for different income groups are as follows. The most important reason for lower-income people's intra-urban migration is, in order of preference, to be in closer proximity to relatives, to live in a clean and quiet neighbourhood, to gain accessibility to the CBD, and to find a stable social environment. These results illustrate that non-economic reasons are the major driving forces compared to the assumptions of many previous models. Since the majority of these people are rural-urban migrants, extended family relationships are more important than the other factors, as a traditional society characteristic, which is also illustrated in other developing countries. Many rural-urban migrants maintain strong ties with their relatives and with their community of origin. People from the same culture support each other in order to deal with the difficulties they face in city life. At the same time, contacts with larger groups increase chances of employment. 16 The second most
HAll ZO:Z4
246 v. Dokmeci, L. Berkoz, H. Levent, H. Yurekli and G. Cagdas
important factor is environmental quality, which is parallel to the results of the study carried out in San Juan County, Washington. 17
The most important reasons for the middle-income people's intra-urban migration is also proximity to relatives, followed by a clean and quiet neighbour- hood, a stable social environment and accessibility to the CBD. Although the first and the second most important factors are similar to those of the lower-income group's reasons for residential preferences, a socially stable environment is more important for the middle-income group than job accessibility.
The most important reason for upper middle-income people's intra-urban migration is a clean and quiet neighbourhood, followed by nearness to relatives and accessibility to parks. The results illustrate that amenities are more important than relatives for this group and the quality of life in their environment becomes an important consideration for many people.
The main reason of upper-income people's intra-urban migration is also nearness to relatives, followed by a clean and quiet neighbourhood and parks/view. Since this group contains a large percentage of rich rural migrants, the relatives are the most important factor for residential preferences. The other reasons emphasise the importance of amenities.
Of the people who wished to change their homes, their residential preferences for different districts were as follows, according to their income level. Of the lower-income people, a large percentage (23.9%) wanted to go to Bakirkoy, which has large new squatter settlements and job opportunities together with amenities. Investigations in South American countries have shown that especially in the large, rapidly growing cities, all low-income residential areas function as reception points for new in-migrants, including consolidated squatter settlements. At a later stage, people moved to new squatter areas, is Of the middle-income people, 32.5% also wanted to go to Bakirkoy, which has large modern housing establishments with amenities and a stable social environment. Of the upper middle-income people, 22.2% wanted to go to Bakirkoy for the same reason and 17.5% to Kadikoy. Of the upper-income level, 25% preferred to go to Kadikoy, 20.8% to Sariyer and 12.5% to Bakirkoy, since these districts have appropriate social environments and amenities for these social groups.
As a result, proximity to relatives, a clean and quiet neighbourhood and a stable social environment are common factors for all income groups. This illustrates the traditional social values that transcend income levels, as well as the universal desire to escape the environmental pollution and social deterioration of a large city. This contrasts with studies in developed countries. House characteristics are the most important, neighbourhood characteristics the second and accessibility is the third factor for mobility in the US and in some Western cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto and London. 19
Residential preferences at the metropolitan level
After the 1960s, socially mobile households moved to the suburbs for the sake of a modern life and amenities and their place in inner districts was taken by lower-class residents or rural migrants. In addition, the growth of the city caused traffic congestion in the core districts and decreased accessibility to the central districts. Further, while new and large firms located in the first ring, which is more prestigious than the core districts, manufacturing and other businesses that provided lower-status working-class occupations stayed in the historic core. Thus, the neighbourhoods of the inner districts that once housed the upper- and middle-class people and top level facilities deteriorated, and rents declined there. 20 As a result, the core districts, such as Beyoglu and Eminonu, have lost their residential attractiveness.
Attraction of the first ring as a job location was increased after the construction
Residential Preferences in lstanbul 247
Table 3. Division of labour in lstanbul between 1970 and 1985
Agricultural Industrial Service Year sector (%) sector (%) sector (%)
1970 11 36 53 1975 10 36 54 1980 6 41 53 1985 5 42 53
Source: Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population, 1985 (State Institute of Statistics, Ankara).
of peripheral highways and the transformation of the CBD. 21 The changes of prestigious job locations from the city core to the first ring, especially to the areas with Bosphorous view, and changes in the housing market, together with the reorganisation of job opportunities, created higher house prices in the new locations. Furthermore, the emergence of a 'new lifestyle' in modern housing establishments, with new shopping and recreational facilities, increased demand for housing in the first ring. This resulted in an increase in housing density and business activities. Thus, some people began to desire to move further to quieter areas.
Construction of new industrial establishments in the periphery attracted mostly rural migrants to their vicinity. Thus, a large percentage of the peripheral districts are squatter settlements and the residents' speculative expectations means that they are in an ongoing construction process which prevents high mobility. At the same time, large industrial establishments in the periphery provide more steady jobs and better incomes than those in the core districts which reduce spatial mobility. So, some of the peripheral areas are attractive to lower-income residents because they provide jobs, while areas with amenities are attractive to middle- and upper-income people who are looking for quieter and greener environments.
Within the context of this short review of the spatial characteristics, people's spatial preferences are investigated according to the rings at the metropolitan level and the results are given in Table 4. A large percentage of the people who wanted to leave the core area of the city preferred to go to the first or second ring. Of the people who wanted to change location within the core, 66.7% wanted to be close to their relatives and 33.3% to be close to their job location. Of the people who wanted to move from the core to the first ring, 29.4% wanted to be close to relatives, 23.5% to live in a clean environment, 23.5% to be close to a job location, 17.6% for amenities and 5.9% for other reasons. The reason for 36.8% of the people who wanted to move from the core to the second ring was again to be close to relatives, 21.1% for a good view, 15.8% for a good social environment, 5.3% for a clean environment and 10.5% for other reasons. So, the main reason for people to move from the core or within the core is social rather than economic, which is common for a traditional society. The majority of the people in the core are rural migrants. According to Turney's theory,
Table 4. Distribution of residential preferences in lstanbul (%) within the concentric rings (see Fig. 1) according to present location
Present location Core 1st Ring 2nd Ring No answer
Core 7.9 22.4 25 44.7 1st Ring 0.2 43.3 14.6 41.9 2nd Ring - - 10.5 36.3 53.1
248 v. Dokmeci, L. Berkoz, H. Levent, H. Yurekli and G. Cagdas
new low-income migrants moving into the city and the proximity of housing to possible work places at the edge of the city centre play a decisive role. Once a fairly steady job with regular wages has been found, people wish to move toward the outskirts of the city. 22
Residential preferences of the people from the first ring are shown in Table 4. The majority of the people in the first ring who wanted to move preferred a new location within the same ring, which is similar to the results of the studies done in other developing countries. 23 The reason that 100% of the people wanted to move to the core was to be close to their job location. Of the people who wanted to change their location within the first ring, 39.5% wanted to be close to relatives, 14.1% to be close to their job location, 12.2% for a clean environment, 8.8% for aesthetic quality, 6.8% for a good social environment, 2.4% for a good view and 2% for other reasons. The remaining 9.3% of the people did not give any reason. So, the reason of people who want to move fi'om the first ring to the core is within the traditional intra-urban migration concept that economic reasons are the primary driving force.
Of the people who wanted to go from the first ring to the second ring, for 23.2% it was to be close to relatives, 20.3% for a good social environment, 20.3% for a clean environment, 13% being close to their job location, 8.7% for aesthetic quality, 5.8% for a good view, 5.8% for availability of green areas and 1.4% for other reasons. Only 1.4% did not give any reason. Thus, social factors are more important than the economic ones for the people's residential preferences within the first ring and from the first to the second ring; this is similar to the results obtained from the studies done in other developing countries. Since the people from the first ring have better incomes than those in the core, the ratio of people seeking amenities and better environment is greater in this zone.
Residential preferences of the people from the second ring are also given in Table 4. A majority of the people who wanted to change their location in the second ring prefer to stay within the same ring. This can be explained by Conway and Brown's postulate that, as the city expands, the first migration step is to the consolidated squatter.settlements in the periphery which have a better traffic connection than the core, in contrast to Turner's point of view. 24 Then, the second migration step is toward the new squatter settlement area as the migrants' conditions improve economically. Nobody from the second ring wanted to move to the core. The reason of 62% of the people wanted to go from the second ring to the first ring was to be close to job locations, 19% to be close to relatives, 6% to live in a clean environment, 2% for a good view and 5% for other reasons. A total of 6% of the people did not give any reason. Forty-six percent of the people wanted to change their location within the second ring to be close to their relatives, 15% to be close to jobs, 14% for a clean environment, 12% for availability of green areas and 5% for other reasons. In this group, 8% of the people did not give any reason. Although economic factors are more important for the people who want to move from the second ring to the first ring, social factors play a primary role for the people who want to change their location within the same ring. So, job centres in the first ring are more developed and attractive than in the second ring.
Finally, only 7.6% of those surveyed would like to live in the core, 54.5% in the first ring and 37.9% in the second ring. This means that, suburbanisation is not as much of a magnetic force as in developed countries.
Residential preferences by districts
Different types of households require different types of dwellings and different types of residential environments. This differentiated demand, together with the existing pattern of housing supply, has led to selective migration over the last
Tab
le 5
. T
he d
istr
ibut
ion
of
resi
dent
ial p
refe
renc
es a
mon
g th
e di
stri
cts
(%)
acco
rdin
g to
pre
sent
loc
atio
n
Pre
sen
t
loca
tio
n
Co
re
Fir
st
rin
g
Sec
on
d
rin
g
Bey
og
lu
Em
ino
nu
B
esik
tas
Ey
up
F
atih
K
adik
oy
S
isli
U
sku
dar
Z
eyti
nb
B
akir
ko
yB
ayra
mp
asa
Bey
ko
z G
.O.P
. K
arta
l K
.Cek
mec
e K
agit
han
e S
ariy
er
Pen
dik
U
mra
niy
e O
ther
No
p
lace
men
tio
ned
Co
re
Bey
og
lu
6.8
--
Em
ino
nu
--
!0
.0
Fir
st
rin
g
Bes
ikta
s --
Ey
up
1
.9
Fat
ih
Kad
iko
y
--
Sis
li
Usk
ud
ar
--
Zey
tin
b
--
Sec
on
d
rin
g
Bak
irk
oy
--
Bay
ram
pas
a --
Bey
ko
z
G.O
.P.
Kar
tal
K.C
ekm
cce
--
Kag
ith
ane
--
Sar
iyer
Pen
dik
Um
ran
iyc
--
m
m
n m
E E E
5.1
--
--
5
.1
3,4
3
.4
..
..
.
5.1
3
.4
--
10
.2
--
1.7
5
.1
10
.0
--
15
.0
10
.0
--
-
-
--
1
0.0
.
..
.
10
.0
--
1
5.
0
--
-
-
--
36
.7
--
--
10
.0
3.3
--
--
3
.3
..
..
..
1
0.0
--
--
6
.6
5.7
M
.4
--
9.4
3
.8
--
--
1.9
--
--
1
.9
--
--
--
9.4
--
1
.9
3.8
--
--
32
.1
3.8
3
.8
1.9
--
3
4.0
.
..
..
..
..
7
.5
1.1
-
-
--
2
1.3
2
.1
1.
1
--
-
-
1.
1
1.
1
--
1
.1
-
-
--
3
.2
1.1
--
3
.2
--
--
1.8
9
.1
27
.3
--
--
3.6
1
.8
..
..
.
5.5
--
--
5
.4
1.8
--
1
.8
6.3
1
.8
~.4
--
1
.8
--
1.8
.
..
..
.
2.7
--
..
..
..
5
2.4
4
.8
..
..
..
..
..
50
.8
20
.0
30
.0
26
.4
17
.0
63
,8
45
.5
35
.5
42
.9
0.6
--
1
.7
2.9
I}
.6
--
--
25
.3
0.6
--
--
--
1
.7
--
2.9
--
--
1
.1
62
.6
..
..
..
.
50
.0
..
..
..
..
..
5
0.0
..
..
.
20
.0
--
--
--
40
.0
..
..
2
0.0
--
2
0.0
--
--
--
--
--
1.3
--
--
--
7
.6
--
--
15
.2
--
--
--
1,3
--
--
1
.3
73
.4
1.4
--
--
2
3.2
--
1
.4
--
2.9
--
--
--
2
0.3
--
--
2
.9
1.4
--
--
4
6.4
--
--
1.8
4
.6
--
--
--
36
.7
..
..
Il
L
1 --
3
,7
--
--
1.8
4
1.3
--
--
--
1.5
1
.5
--
--
2.9
--
1
.5
--
1.5
--
7
,4
7.4
--
1
.5
8.9
6
6.2
..
..
5
.6
11
.1
..
..
..
..
3
3.3
--
--
5
.6
44
.4
--
--
--
13
.8
..
..
..
.
3.4
--
--
--
2
4.1
--
--
5
5.2
3,4
--
--
1
0.3
6
.9
17
.2
..
..
5
.2
..
..
..
3
7.9
--
1
9.0
tO
4~
250 v. Dokmeci, L. Berkoz, H. Levent, H. Yurekli and G. Cagdas
30 years, culminating in a degree of segregation of sections of the population in Istanbul on the basis of income, age, household and lifestyle.
The distribution of residential preferences among districts is shown in Table 5. The most desirable district among those surveyed is Bakirkoy, with 26.1% of the total. The close proximity of jobs, the supply of modern housing with amenities, the attractive shopping facilities and the extensive shoreline are the main reasons for this district's popularity. The second most desirable district is Kadikoy, with 14.4%. Its popularity is attributed to its homogeneous middle- and upper-class social structure, as well as extensive shopping facilities and amenities along the shoreline. Favourable developments in these districts and in the supply of housing seem to have enabled households with above-average incomes to move to these areas. It is also possible that once an area becomes fairly prosperous, it tends to attract more affluent households, thus reinforcing its attraction. Although Kadikoy is most desired by the upper-class people throughout the Istanbul Metropolitan area, some of Kadikoy's residents would prefer to live in greener areas or central districts in the first ring in order to be close to high-quality education or more active leisure, cultural and social opportunities. Increasing density, pollution and traffic congestion produce stress which is not tolerated by the household and results in mobility. Similar results were obtained by De Long and Fawcett 25 and Landale and Guest 26 in developed and developing countries.
With respect to preferences in the squatter areas, contradictary results were obtained. For instance, Zeytinburnu, an old squatter area, has the highest percentage (52.4%) of the people who want to stay in their own district. On the other hand, G. Osman Papa (G.O.P.) has the highest percentage (73.4%) of people who want to leave their district but are unable to give the name of a specific place to move to in the total metropolitan area. Zeytinburnu is socially more stable and has more employment (51,414 jobs) than G.O.P. (11,675), as shown in Table 2. Another old squatter settlement, Bayrampasa, has become a new business and manufacturing area at the cross-section of the radial road coming from the old CBD and the peripheral highway. Nobody wants to stay in this district, indicating that proximity to the main centre of employment is not an important consideration. This suggests that with the decentralisation of the city, migrants no longer have to rely on major employment centres for jobs, or live near them. With the dispersal of economic activity, newcomers are able to find both jobs and accommodation in sub-centres of the city. 27
CONCLUSION
This study has investigated the residential preferences of people at the city and district levels. Understanding the behavioural structure of mobility decisions is essential both for the prediction of future changes in urban areas and for understanding the implications of many policies which affect urban areas. The results illustrate that residential preferences are a function of the household's income as well as their preference structure for spatial interaction and the spatial distribution of locational opportunities and amenities. The considerable variation in residential preferences results not only from current location and socio-economic characteristics of the household, but also from job opportunities, location of relatives and population density and amenities of the districts.
The results also show that the core districts are not able to attract residents and are losing population due to their old structure. Therefore, city government policies should take these conditions into consideration and should take seriously the need for the revitalisation of these districts.
Moreover, instead of the current concentration of high-quality housing
Residential Preferences in lstanbul 251
construction in three clustered locations in Istanbul, a distribution of housing projects along the peripheral highways together with some sub-centres may stimulate more balanced economic development of the city, as well as a more balanced distribution of traffic flows throughout the city. The results of this study can be useful in city development plans and house building programmes. More detailed analyses of residences with respect to demographic characteristics of people are suggested for further research.
N O T E S
1. J. Van Wessep and R. Van Kempen, "Economic Change, Income Differentiation and Housing: Urban Response in the Netherlands", Urban Studies 29 (1992), pp. 979-990.
2. J.F. Kain, "The Journey to Work as a Determinant of Residential Locations", Pap. Proc. Reg. Sci. Assoc. 9 (1962), pp. 137-160.
3. E.S. Mills, Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy (Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, 1972). 4. M.J. Greenwood and R. Stock, "Patterns of Change in the Intrametropolitan Location of Population,
Jobs and Housing: 1950 to 1980", Journal of Urban Economics 28 (1990), pp. 243-276. 5. N. Ahmad, "Choice of Location and Mobility Behavior of Migrant Households in a Third World
City", Urban Studies 29 (1992), pp. 1147-1157. 6. Ahmad (1992), see note 5. 7. L.A. Brown and J. Holmes, "Search Behavior in an Intra-urban Migration Context: A Spatial
Perspective," Environment and Planning 3 (1971), pp. 307-326. 8. J. Ouigley, "Residential Location with Multiple Workplaces and a Heterogeneous Housing Stock",
CPL Exchange Bibliography #388, Council of Planning Librarians, Monticello, Ill. (1979). 9. E. Hanushek and J. Quigley, "An Explicit Model of Intrametropolitan Mobility", Land Economics
54 (1987), pp. 411-429. 10. R. Meyer and K. Wieand, "Risk and Return to Housing, Tenure Choice, and the Value of Housing
in an Asset Pricing Context," European Regional Science Association Meeting (1992). 11. S. Kim, "Labor Heterogeneity, Wage Bargaining, and Agglomeration Economics", Journal of Urban
Economics 28 (1990), pp. 160-177. 12. T.P. Boehm, H.W. Herzog and A.M. Schlottman, ~'Intra-urban Mobility, Migration and Tenure
Choice," The Review of Econometric and Statistics 61 (1989), pp. 59-68. 13. A.S. Williams and P.C. Jobes, "Economic and Quality-of-life Considerations in Urban-rural Migration,"
J. Rural Studies 6 (1990), 187-94. 14. D.J. Adamcheck, "'Further Evidence on Economic and Non Economic Reasons for Turnaround
Migration", Rural Socio. 52 (1987), pp. 108-118. 15. Ahmad (1992), see note 5. 16. A. Gilbert and J. Gugler, Cities, Poverty and Development: Urbanization in the Third World, Oxford
Univ. Press (1982). 17. G. Rudzitis and R.A. Streatfield, "The Importance of Amenities and Attitudes: A Washington
Example," Environmental Systems 22 (1992-93), pp. 269-277. 18. D. Conway and J. Brown, 'qntra-urban Relocation and Structure: Low-income Migrants in Latin
America and Caribbean", Latin American Research Review 15 (1980), pp. 95-125. 19. W.A.V. Clark and J.L. Onaka, "Life Cycle and Housing Adjustment as Explanations of Residential
Mobility", Urban Studies 20 (1983), pp. 47-57. 20. V. Dokmeci and L. Berkoz, Transformation of CBD and Office Buildings in lstanbul (Literatur,
Istanbul, 1993), p. 28. 21. V. Dokmeci and L. Berkoz, "'Transformation of lstanbul from a Monocentric to a Polycentric City",
European Planning Studies 2 (1994), pp. 18%201. 22. J. B~ihr, 'qntra-urban Migration of Lower Income Groups and Peripheral Growth of Latin American
Metropolitan Areas - - The Impact of Political and Socioeconomic Factors", Applied Geography and Development 34 (1994), pp. 7-30.
23. Ahmad (1992), see note 5. 24. Conway and Brown (1980), see note 18. 25. G. De Long and J.T. Fawcett, "Multidisciplinary Frameworks and Models of Migration Decision
Making", in Multidisciplinary Approaches to Micro Level Studies in Developed and Developing Countries (Pergamon Press, New York, 1981), pp. 13--18.
26. N.S. Landale and A.M. Guest, "'Constraints, Satisfaction and Residential Mobility: Speare's Model Reconsidered", Demography 22, 2 (1985), pp. 199-222.
27. Ahmad (1992), see note 5.