Geri Dön

Türkiye'de kentleşme ve kat mülkiyeti

Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.

  1. Tez No: 20873
  2. Yazar: MURAT BALAMİR
  3. Danışmanlar: PROF.DR. RUŞEN KELEŞ
  4. Tez Türü: Doktora
  5. Konular: Kamu Yönetimi, Public Administration
  6. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kat mülkiyeti, Kentleşme, Türkiye, Condominiums, Urbanization, Turkey
  7. Yıl: 1992
  8. Dil: Türkçe
  9. Üniversite: Ankara Üniversitesi
  10. Enstitü: Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
  11. Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
  12. Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
  13. Sayfa Sayısı: Belirtilmemiş.

Özet

Özet yok.

Özet (Çeviri)

only to that of well-to-do economies with very high national incomes. Over-production in housing, exceeding in most cases the identifiable 'need', indicate to the 'supply-motivated' nature of constructional activities under the FO relations. FO motivated blocks of flats constitute the greatest parts of housing production since 1960's. Fluctuations in production are observed also to be dominated by factors directly related to apartment construction. Invest ments in such construction seem to gravitate towards external sources rather than remain endemic to the city, The greater proportion of investments are either transferred from abroad or from the rural background. Agricultural rent (almost pointlessly), seems to be channelled to the urban areas, contributing massively to the building-up of cities. Despite the impressive transfers of capital to the urban constructional sector, no real accumulation and transforma tions in production seems to have taken place in the sector during the thirty years of FO practice. The building stock as generated by FO relations, represent also a pool of values in relation to which the social structure of the populations in the cities are determined. With reference to housing ownership, it is possible to identify the formation of a strong 'rentier' class, owner occupiers, house owning tenants and plain tenants, not to mention the janitor households, all symbiotically taking part in the formation of blocks of flats. These groups of households seem to represent distinct and permanent classes. The cleaveges FO generates in society are real and effective as empirical evidence have indicated. It has been observed that the multi-layered structure dictated by the FO relations are as meaningful a differentiation as the conventional 'owner occupier-tenant' distinction. The physical and social destiny of the Turkish cities have thus been cast with the single factor of FO.KAYNAKÇA ABADAN, N. (1949) îsveç Evleri, Karınca (15:146) 23-26 ; Ulus Gazetesi, 6 Şubat. ABADAN, N., KELEŞ, Ketal. (1976) Migration and Development, Ajans Türk. ABİRAL, E. (1950) Kat Mülkiyeti, Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, 25 Şubat. ABRAMOVITZ, M. (1961) The Nature and Significance of Kuznets Cycles, Economic Develop ment, and Cultural Change (9) 225-248. ABRAMOVITZ,M. (1964) Evidences of Long Swings in Aggregate Construction since the Civil War, National Bureau of Economic Research, NY. ABRAMOVITZ, M. (1968) The Passing of the Kuznets Cycle, Economica (35)349-367. ABU-LUGHOD, J., HAY, R. (1977) Third World Urbanization, Methuen, London. AGNEW, JA. (1981) Ownership and the Capitalist Social Order, Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society, eds. M.Dear, AJ. Scott,UP, 456-480. AKÇURA, T. (1974) Urbanization in Turkey and Some Examples, Turkey: Geographic and Social Perspectives, eds. P. Benedict, E. Tümertekin, F. Mansur, EJ.Brill, Leiden. AKITA, T., FUJITA, M. (1982) Spatial Development Processes with Renewal in a Growing City, Environment and Planning (14) 205- 223. AKTÜRE, T. (1982) Konutta Maliyet Ödeme Gücü İlişkisi, Konut 81, Kentkoop, Özgün Matbaacılık, Ankara. ALAÇAM, S. (1949) Yurttaşları Mesken Sahibi Yapmak Amacıyla Çıkartılan iki Kanun ve Bunlann Ankara'da Tatbiki,//fer ve Belediyeler Dergisi (47) 18-21,47; (48) 22-29,58-60; (49) 30- 39. ALBERTS, W.W. (1962) Business Cycles, Residential Construction Cycles and the Mortgage Market, Journal of Political Economy (70) 263-281. ALİSBAH, H. (1955) Birinci İmar Kongresi, İller ve Belediyeler Dergisi (12) 208-212; 280-287; 342-346. AMAÇ, E. (1955) Hisseli Gayrimenkullerde Kat ve Daire Mülkiyeti, İller ve Belediyeler Dergisi (12) 665-666. AMİN, S. (1978) The Law of Value and Historical Materialism,Monthly Review Press, London. ANİ, M.C. (1946) Ankara Kooperatiflerinin Belediyeden İstekleri, Temennileri, Karınca (13:115) 8-17. ARCAK, A. (1988) Açıklamalı, İçtihattı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu, Seçkin Kitabevi, Ankara.

Benzer Tezler

  1. Tez No

    75462

    Konut kooperatifleri Eskişehir örneğinde bir alan çalışması

    Başlık çevirisi yok

    YAPRAK BORÇE

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    1998

    Mimarlıkİstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi

    Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. ŞULE ÖZÜEKREN

  2. Tez No

    24680

    Variation process of building block arrangement in urban settlement areas in republican period case study in İzmir

    Başlık çevirisi yok

    RAHİME OK

    Yüksek Lisans

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    1992

    Şehircilik ve Bölge PlanlamaDokuz Eylül Üniversitesi

    PROF. DR. ÇINAR ATAY

  3. Tez No

    41060

    Türkiyede işletme kooperatifleri

    Management cooperatives in Turkey

    ESİN UÇAR

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    1994

    İşletmeGazi Üniversitesi

    PROF.DR. RAUF ARIKAN

  4. Tez No

    56479

    The Shared ownership process in urban development

    Kentsel gelişmede hisseli mülkiyet süreci

    DİLEK MERAL

    Yüksek Lisans

    İngilizce

    İngilizce

    1996

    Şehircilik ve Bölge PlanlamaOrta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi

    Şehir Planlama Ana Bilim Dalı

    DOÇ. DR. MURAT BALAMİR

  5. Tez No

    79197

    İstanbul metropolitan alanında yasadışı yapılaşan alanlarda kat mülkiyeti esaslı 18. madde uygulaması, Ümraniye Çakmak Mahallesi örneği

    Başlık çevirisi yok

    MUSTAFA ÖZŞENOL

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    1998

    Şehircilik ve Bölge PlanlamaYıldız Teknik Üniversitesi

    Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Ana Bilim Dalı

    DOÇ. DR. ZEKAİ GÖRGÜLÜ

Geri Dön