"Reasons that Necessitate Urban Transformation"

Although urban transformation in our country is often considered only in the context of earthquake risk, it is actually based on much broader technical, social, economic, and legal reasons. This process is not merely administrative actions carried out through unilateral decisions of public authorities; it is also a vast area of ​​private law encompassing disputes between property owners, contracts with contractors, and the limits of property rights.

In this article, while addressing the objective reasons that make urban transformation inevitable, the exemplary decisions (case law) of the Supreme Court of Appeals on the subject in both civil and private law.

1. Physical and Technical Reasons Necessitating Urban Transformation

The most concrete and undisputed justification for urban transformation is that buildings have reached the end of their physical lifespan and pose a clear threat to life safety. Under this heading, three main sub-reasons stand out.

Building Material Strength Loss and Concrete Lifespan

A significant portion of the building stock in our country was constructed according to the old disaster management regulations in effect before the 1999 Marmara Earthquake. It is known that the quality of concrete used in buildings constructed during this period (generally C12, C16 levels or lower, hand-poured concrete containing sea sand) is far below today's standards (minimum C25, C30). Due to chemical processes such as carbonation and corrosion (rusting and thinning of the rebar), the bond (adhesion) between the concrete and the rebar breaks down over time. This leads to buildings entering a structural fatigue phase where they struggle to support their own weight, even without an earthquake.

Lack of Engineering Services and Construction Without Project Planning

Illegal structures built during periods of rapid rural-to-urban migration, or buildings legalized through processes like zoning amnesty but lacking any engineering calculations (static and reinforced concrete calculations), are among the primary targets of urban transformation. Multi-story buildings constructed on low-bearing capacity fill soils without proper soil testing pose a physical danger, ready to collapse at any moment.

2. Social, Urban and Infrastructural Reasons

Transforming a city doesn't just mean demolishing and rebuilding buildings. Areas that are physically intact but don't fit into the urban fabric are also subject to urban transformation.

Infrastructure Deficiencies and Urban Decay Areas

Neighborhoods that were not planned in advance, have narrow streets, and whose sewage, water, and electricity networks cannot handle the existing population density are called urban slum areas. The lack of roads wide enough for emergency vehicles (fire trucks, ambulances) in these areas is a direct public safety problem. Therefore, urban transformation aims not so much at renovating buildings individually, but rather at creating new breathing spaces (green areas, wide streets, parking lots) for the city through "block-based" or "area-based" planning.

Social Integration and Crime Rate Reduction

As academic sociological studies have shown, areas with a high concentration of physically dilapidated and abandoned buildings gradually transform into socially isolated and unsafe zones with rising crime rates. Urban transformation aims to improve these areas physically, thereby promoting social integration, reducing crime rates, and enhancing the quality of life for the local population.

3. Economic Reasons and the Concept of "Economic Lifespan"

In law and economics, a structure is not only expected to collapse physically. Transformation is also necessary when the structure loses its functionality in relation to its land value and modern living standards.

End of Economic Lifespan: This occurs when the maintenance, repair, and renovation costs of a building exceed the benefits it provides or the income it generates; the building becomes an economically unsustainable burden.

The Supreme Court frequently considers not only the building's potential collapse in an earthquake but also its "completion of its economic lifespan" as a justification for renovation and evacuation in property disputes. For example, if a building lacks an elevator, is uninsulated, constantly experiences plumbing failures, and does not meet modern comfort standards, and its economic value is significantly lower than the land value, then demolishing and rebuilding it is a rational economic necessity.

4. Legal Reasons Requiring Urban Transformation in Light of Supreme Court Jurisprudence

The biggest area of ​​conflict in the civil law (condominium law, contract law, property law) dimension of urban transformation is the inability of property owners to reach a common decision. While the majority of property owners in an apartment building want to renovate the building, a minority may block the process for various personal or financial reasons. The Supreme Court, in resolving these impasses, examines the reasons necessitating urban transformation through a legal lens.

A. The Criteria of "Destruction" and "Economic Lifespan" in Partition Cases

According to the Turkish Civil Code and the Condominium Law, if a building is completely dilapidated or has reached the end of its economic lifespan, the parties cannot be expected to continue the co-ownership.

According to the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court's General Assembly of Civil Law and its relevant chambers, if it is proven by official institutional reports or expert opinions that a building subject to condominium ownership has completed its economic lifespan and is vulnerable to earthquakes, then no owner has a legally protected interest in continuing the condominium ownership.

As clearly emphasized in the Supreme Court rulings:

• The building poses a danger if used in its current state

• The repair would require exorbitant costs, and these costs would exceed the value of the building (economic impossibility)

• The structure has reached the end of its structural lifespan

This provides a legal basis for dissolving the partnership not through partition (dividing) but through sale, and for paving the way for urban transformation processes on the land.

B. Prohibition of Abuse of Rights (Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code) and the Status of Minority Owners

The Urban Transformation Law No. 6306 introduced the rule of a simple majority (50 percent plus 1) for decisions regarding the reconstruction of buildings . However, even if this majority is achieved, some dissenting property owners may sabotage the process by refusing to sign the contracts or making unfair demands.

In such cases, the Supreme Court uses the principles of "Honest Conduct" and "Prohibition of Abuse of Rights," enshrined in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code, as the primary legal justification for urban transformation.

"The exercise of a right solely for the purpose of harming another or gaining an unfair advantage cannot be protected by the legal system." (Turkish Civil Code, Article 2/2)

In Supreme Court rulings, when a building is definitively deemed risky by technical reports, and all other owners have reached a reasonable agreement with the contractor, the attempt by a single owner to halt the project solely on the basis of personal demands such as "I want more apartments" or "I want the top floor," which are contrary to market realities, is considered an "abuse of rights." The Supreme Court accepts that the decisions and agreements made by the majority are valid in such cases, and does not allow the unjustified resistance of the minority to hinder urban transformation (and consequently, public safety).

C. "Unforeseen Circumstances" in Construction Contracts Based on Land Share and Adaptation of the Contract

The most common financing model for urban transformation is "Land Share-Based Construction Contracts" (APKİS), where property owners transfer their land shares to a contractor, who in turn builds new apartments. However, as urban transformation processes drag on, economic fluctuations, changes in zoning plans, or new legal regulations may make the implementation of these contracts impossible or create excessive difficulty for one of the parties to perform.

In such cases, the Supreme Court "Adaptation of the Contract to Changing Circumstances" (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus) can move into their homes. If the building rights are revoked by an administrative decision during the construction of the urban transformation project, and the contractor is no longer able to deliver as many apartments as initially promised to the owners, the Supreme Court advocates not for the termination of the contract, but for the fair redistribution of the parties' rights according to the current zoning situation (keeping the contract in effect). This approach is a crucial legal safeguard that prevents urban transformation from becoming an unfulfilled dream.

5. Balancing Public Interest with Individual Property Rights

The deepest academic debate on the reasons necessitating urban transformation "Public Interest" and "Property Rights ." Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees property rights, while also stipulating that these rights can only be restricted by law "for the purpose of public interest."

According to the commonly accepted approach of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation, a person's life, right to shelter, and safety (Article 17 of the Constitution – Right to Life and Protection of Material/Moral Existence) take precedence over the inviolability of property rights. In a country located in an earthquake zone, the transformation of dilapidated and structurally unsound buildings is a matter of paramount public interest, concerning not only the safety of those living in the building but also that of ordinary citizens passing by and the entire society.

Therefore, when judicial bodies issue decisions that encourage urban transformation and legitimize restrictions on property rights (expropriation, sale of shares, forced eviction), they always base their decisions on this principle of paramount public interest and safety of life.

Conclusion: Transformation as a Shared Truth of Law and Science

The reasons necessitating urban transformation consist of multifaceted realities such as technical deficiencies, physical deterioration, social needs, and the completion of the economic lifespan of buildings. These reasons are not merely engineering data or administrative decisions, but also legal necessities confirmed by judicial bodies.

The Supreme Court, by applying the principle of good faith in thousands of property disputes brought before it, preventing the abuse of rights, and allowing the demolition of structures that have completed their economic lifespan, strengthens the legal infrastructure of urban transformation. The law protects property; however, where property fails to protect the people living within it, transforming that property becomes the very reason for the law's existence. The harmonious functioning of the technical transformation indicated by scientific data and the legal boundaries drawn by the high court is the only key to both protecting individual rights and building resilient cities that look to the future with confidence.