A Critical Analysis of Housing Affordability Literature: Turkish Housing Experience Konut Ödenebilirliği Literatürünün Eleştirel Bir Analizi: Türk Konut Deneyimi

Full text

153
A+ArchDesign - Year: 6 Number: 2 - Yıl: 6 Sayı: 2 - 2020 (153-163)
[8] Chini, A., & Nguyen, H. (2003). Optimizing Deconstruction of Lightwood Framed Construction.
Proceedings of the 11th RinkerInternational Conference, Deconstruction and Materials Reuse (s. 311-
321). Gainesville, Florida, USA: CIB Publication 287.
[9] Macozoma, D. (2001). Building Deconstruction, CSIR Building and. South Africa: CIB publication.
[10] ILSR. (2004). (Institute for Local Self-Reliance), Environmental
Benefits.www.ilsr.org/recycling/environmentalbenefits.htm.
[11] Guy, B., & Ciarimboli, N. (2007). DFD Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment: A guide
to closed-loop design and Building. Pennsylvania, USA.
[12] URL-2 <http://www.guvenliinsaat.gov.tr/yikimis.html,>, yıkım işlerinde iş sağlığı ve güvenliği,
erişim: 10.03.2019.
[13] URL-3 <https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification/>, erişim tarihi:05.11.2018.
[14] Macozoma, D.S. (2002). Understanding the Concept of Flexibility in Design for Deconstruction,
Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39, CIB Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.
[15] Guy, B., & Gibeau, E, M. (2003). A Guide to Deconstruction, Deconstruction Institute, Florida,
USA.
[16] Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K.C.G., & Chandra, L.R. (2014). Economic And Environmental
Assessment of Deconstruction Strategies Using Building İnformation Modeling, Automation in
Construction No.37, 131–144.
[17] Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: Total Design Method. Newyork: John Wiley
and Jons.
[18] TURKSTAT, 2011. Population and Housing Survey.
[19]URL-4. www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/turkiyede-2012den-bu-yana-saptanan-197-bin-20-riskli-yapidan-
165-bin-556si
yikildi/1717557#:~:text=Ge%C3%A7en%20y%C4%B1l%209%20bin%20647,343%20ile%20Konya%20
takip%20etti, last accessed on 30.01.2020.
Ebru Dogan, Dr.,
She received her license in 2010, master degree in 2014 and doctoral degree in 2020 from Mimar Sinan
Fine Art University. She worked as a research assistant at Bingöl University and Mimar Sinan Fine Arts
University. She has been continuing her academic activities in Munzur University as Assistant Professor
since 2020. Her main research areas are construction systems, building technologies, design for
deconstruction.
Ilkay KOMAN, Assoc. Prof.Dr.,
Since 1992, she has been continuing her academic activities in Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty
of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Building Science Department. She gives lectures on building
and construction systems, building technologies, prefabrication in architecture at undergraduate and
graduate levels and takes part in architectural project studios. Her research interests include construction
systems, building systems, facade systems, modular structures, modular construction, prefabrication, and
prefabricated building design. She has also recently focused on researching issues related to
constructability, deconstruction and construction history.
Research Article
A Critical Analysis of Housing Affordability Literature:
Turkish Housing Experience
Dr. Şeyda EMEKÇI
Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University
Department of Architecture
semekci@ybu.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-000d2-5470-6485
Received: 30.10.2020
Accepted: 25.11.2020
Abstract: Measuring housing affordability is a key challenge for most communities. Housing affordability
has often been described as housing expenditures-to-income ratio. But, in the housing affordability
literature, “housing expenditures” still open to discussion. This article introduces the concept of “lifetime
affordability” to describe the affordability of households during the housing life cycle period considering
the complexity of determining realistic housing affordability. The concept will be explained through the
Turkish housing experience.
Keywords: Affordability, housing policy, lifetime affordability.
Konut Ödenebilirliği Literatürünün Eleştirel Bir Analizi: Türk Konut Deneyimi
Özet: Konut ödenebilirliğinin ölçülmesi çoğu topluluk için kilit bir zorluktur. Konutlarda ödenebilirlik
genellikle hanehalkı gelirlerinin konut giderlerine oranı olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bununla birlikte,
ödenebilirlik literatüründe "konut giderleri" hala tartışılmaktadır. Bu makale, konutun yaşam ömründe,
gerçekçi konut ödenebilirliğinin belirlenmesinin karmaşıklığını da göz önüne alarak, hanehalklarının
ödenebilirliğini tanımlamak için "yaşam boyu ödenebilirlik" kavramını tanıtmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu
kavram Türk konut deneyimi ile ele alınmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ödenebilirlik, konut politikası, yaşam boyu ödenebilirlik.
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the housing affordability problem has become serious all over the world, especially in
developing countries. Although housing affordability is perceived as the relationship between housing and
its users, risks regarding housing affordability problems are borne by society. The problem has the capacity
to make it more difficult to manage investments. Alternatively stated, housing affordability affects not only
households but also the country's economy negatively. For these reasons, a reliable and efficient measure
of housing affordability is so crucial for decision and policymakers.
It is possible to define the affordability as housing expenditures-to-income ratio. However, in the housing
affordability literature, “housing expenditures” are not clearly expressed and are considered as a short-term
indicator. In other words, only the initial cost of the housing is considered. The housing maintenance and
operational costs are generally ignored during a housing life span. Since there is no long-term indicator,
lifetime affordability cannot be determined. This article aims to discuss “housing expenditures” considering
the complexity of determining realistic housing affordability and to introduce the concept of lifetime
housing affordability through the Turkish housing experience. In the article, firstly housing affordability

154
A Critical Analysis of Housing Aordability Literature: Turkish Housing Experience
literature is analyzed and discussed the shortcomings of the literature. Then, the concept of lifetime
affordability is tried to explain through the Turkish housing experience.
2. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing as a fulfillment of the sheltering need has been one of the fundamental rights of an individual
throughout civilization history. Besides being the basic human rights, it is an obvious commodity in the
market due to the fact that it has some features (durability, immobility, etc.) and many functions for the
community (shelter, investment/consumption good, etc.).
The public sector is an important actor in housing markets making decisions (i.e., location, target
population, new housing development) that is important for the housing sector. Therefore, changes most of
the time in economic (unemployment, the distribution of wealth, homelessness, housing quality,
unemployment, and housing affordability) affect the housing market [6]. Positive developments in the
economy have influenced the demand for property ownership instead of renting. However, despite the
increasing housing needs since the industrial revolution, a limited housing supply, increasing house prices,
etc, have prevented households, especially for the lower-income groups, from becoming homeowners. In
this context, housing affordability is gaining increasing importance in solving the problem.
The terms “affordable housing” or “housing affordability” has been popularized in the past two decades
and has changed the “housing need” at the center of the discussion on providing adequate housing for all
[40, 49]. It may be that the reason for this popularity gaining is that in many countries more “market-
oriented reforms” in the housing sector are being accepted [11]. As a result, increased concerns about rising
levels of “homelessness”, “housing costs”, “difficulties in accessing to credit”, “mortgage defaults” have
brought housing affordability to the center of housing policy discourse since the early 1990s [6, 13, 24, 49].
The literature on housing affordability is quite large. Ndubueze [28] states housing affordability simply the
ability to afford to house. According to a very general definition of housing affordability in literature,
housing is accepted as affordable if “the housing cost is less than or equal to 30% of gross income” [3].
Maclennan & Williams [24] explains that “Affordability is concerned with securing some given standard
of housing at a price or a rent, which does not impose, in the eyes of government an unreasonable burden
on household incomes.”
Stone [38] describes affordability as a difficulty for cost-balancing under income limits for households. He
also states as “an expression of the social and material experiences of people constituted as households,
concerning their housing situations” [38]. Gan and Hill [15] define affordability as “the ratio of median
house price to median income”. Milligan et al. [25] explain that affordable housing is designed usually to
“meet the needs of households whose incomes are not enough to let them access convenient housing in the
market without assistance”. According to Hancock [17] who evaluates from another angle, affordability is
“any rent would be affordable if leaves the consumer with socially acceptable standards of both housing
and non-housing consumption after rent is paid”. Bramley [5] describes affordability as; “Households
should be able to occupy housing that meets well-established social sector norms of adequacy given
household type and size at a net rent which leaves them enough income to live on without falling below
some poverty standard”. However, more inclusive housing affordability definition is that; “Affordable
housing is housing that is appropriate for the needs of a range of low to moderate-income households and
priced so that low and moderate incomes are able to meet their other essential basic living costs” [52].
2.1. Measurement Methods of Housing Affordability
Affordability in housing policy has become more and more important every day. However, there is no
consensus in terms of measuring affordability in the literature. Measurement of housing affordability and

155
A+ArchDesign - Year: 6 Number: 2 - Yıl: 6 Sayı: 2 - 2020 (153-163)
Şeyda EMEKÇI
literature is analyzed and discussed the shortcomings of the literature. Then, the concept of lifetime
affordability is tried to explain through the Turkish housing experience.
2. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing as a fulfillment of the sheltering need has been one of the fundamental rights of an individual
throughout civilization history. Besides being the basic human rights, it is an obvious commodity in the
market due to the fact that it has some features (durability, immobility, etc.) and many functions for the
community (shelter, investment/consumption good, etc.).
The public sector is an important actor in housing markets making decisions (i.e., location, target
population, new housing development) that is important for the housing sector. Therefore, changes most of
the time in economic (unemployment, the distribution of wealth, homelessness, housing quality,
unemployment, and housing affordability) affect the housing market [6]. Positive developments in the
economy have influenced the demand for property ownership instead of renting. However, despite the
increasing housing needs since the industrial revolution, a limited housing supply, increasing house prices,
etc, have prevented households, especially for the lower-income groups, from becoming homeowners. In
this context, housing affordability is gaining increasing importance in solving the problem.
The terms “affordable housing” or “housing affordability” has been popularized in the past two decades
and has changed the “housing need” at the center of the discussion on providing adequate housing for all
[40, 49]. It may be that the reason for this popularity gaining is that in many countries more “market-
oriented reforms” in the housing sector are being accepted [11]. As a result, increased concerns about rising
levels of “homelessness”, “housing costs”, “difficulties in accessing to credit”, “mortgage defaults” have
brought housing affordability to the center of housing policy discourse since the early 1990s [6, 13, 24, 49].
The literature on housing affordability is quite large. Ndubueze [28] states housing affordability simply the
ability to afford to house. According to a very general definition of housing affordability in literature,
housing is accepted as affordable if “the housing cost is less than or equal to 30% of gross income” [3].
Maclennan & Williams [24] explains that “Affordability is concerned with securing some given standard
of housing at a price or a rent, which does not impose, in the eyes of government an unreasonable burden
on household incomes.”
Stone [38] describes affordability as a difficulty for cost-balancing under income limits for households. He
also states as “an expression of the social and material experiences of people constituted as households,
concerning their housing situations” [38]. Gan and Hill [15] define affordability as “the ratio of median
house price to median income”. Milligan et al. [25] explain that affordable housing is designed usually to
“meet the needs of households whose incomes are not enough to let them access convenient housing in the
market without assistance”. According to Hancock [17] who evaluates from another angle, affordability is
“any rent would be affordable if leaves the consumer with socially acceptable standards of both housing
and non-housing consumption after rent is paid”. Bramley [5] describes affordability as; “Households
should be able to occupy housing that meets well-established social sector norms of adequacy given
household type and size at a net rent which leaves them enough income to live on without falling below
some poverty standard”. However, more inclusive housing affordability definition is that; “Affordable
housing is housing that is appropriate for the needs of a range of low to moderate-income households and
priced so that low and moderate incomes are able to meet their other essential basic living costs” [52].
2.1. Measurement Methods of Housing Affordability
Affordability in housing policy has become more and more important every day. However, there is no
consensus in terms of measuring affordability in the literature. Measurement of housing affordability and
problem-related to housing date back to the 19th-century studies. In the 19th-century, Engel & Schwabe
studied “households’ budget and affordability”. They find its expression as “one week's wage for one
month's rent” [37]. Later, this term was often used in the United States [30]. In 1912, Kengott suggested
for housing rent “at least twenty percent of the earnings of the husband in the family” [20]. The adage of a
“one week's wage ...” used in the 19th century, began to change towards the end of the 20thcentury. As a
result of urban developments in the 20th-century, the price to income ratio was used instead of the adage
of a “one week's wage ...”. Proposed rate corresponds to approximately 25% or 30% of income [2, 18, 38].
These ratio assumptions are based on grossly generalized assumptions without specifying which households
were included in the average. After the 1980s, affordability was associated with economic-based problems
experienced by households [7, 16, 17, 23, 49]. The ratio of housing expenses to income has been changed
at different times according to different institutions. In the 1930s, the federal housing program started by
identifying a threshold of 20 percent of income to be spent on rent. Then, the threshold enhanced to 25
percent in the 1970s. Since the 1980s, the standard threshold has been 30 percent of income [26]. Kutty
[21] states:
“Over time, thresholds of the housing cost-to-income ratio have been set at 25 percent, 30
percent, 40 percent, and 50 per cent. In the USA, the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 set rents for federal rental housing assistance programs at 25 percent of income.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 increased this to 30 percent. One of these
criteria was a housing cost burden in excess of 50 percent of income. The preference rules
were published in 1988 (Office of the Federal Register). Households exceeding these cost
burdens are identified as having an affordability problem” [21].
3. THE CRITICISM OF AFFORDABILITY LITERATURE
The affordability of housing is important for researchers and policymakers in many countries. It is also a
multidimensional issue and should be tackled with many problems that are “the distribution of income, the
ability of households to borrow, public policies affecting housing markets, conditions affecting the supply
of new or refurbished housing, and the choices that people make about how much housing to consume
relative to other goods” [33]. Although this multidimensional situation makes it hard to describe and
measure it, housing affordability is generally described as housing expenditures-to-income ratio. However,
in the affordability literature, “housing expenditures” still open to discussion. On the one hand, while,
according to Bogdon & Can [4] and Linneman & Megbolugbe [23], housing expenditures are defined as
only housing cost, in many countries around the world measuring of housing affordability has
conventionally been based upon the mortgage repayment capacity. For example, the U.S. EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) states that housing is accepted as affordable if the mortgage repayment
constitutes 30 percent or less of household income. In the affordability literature, this is a commonly used
method [4, 8, 13, 15, 23], However, this method does not provide accurate information about the housing
total cost to the buyer [36].
On the other hand, “housing expenditures” are not based on independent cost information [14, 29]. That
is, while housing expenditures are being calculated, it is overlooked that each housing has household
consumption patterns. Calculations are based on average housing expenses. The problem is a cursory
“broad-brush” calculation that does not calculate all the costs of the homeownership. Hulchanski [18]
comments on this problem as follows.
“There is no escaping the fact that household consumption patterns and the means by which
households meet their needs are as diverse as the individual humans and their life situations
who comprise these households” [18].

156
A Critical Analysis of Housing Aordability Literature: Turkish Housing Experience
Chaplin and Freeman [9] supported Hulchanski.
“A single ratio is not appropriate for all households, for housing and non-housing costs vary
by household type. Furthermore, the ratio does not distinguish between households with very
different income levels. A single ratio does not account for regional variation in housing and
non-housing costs” [9].
Stone [38] discusses that the method ignores the household size variety on most criteria, so for
families with children and large households’ affordability measurement is not very realistic and
Mimura [26] states that the current measurement method of the housing affordability is not based on
the real economic challenges facing lower-income groups.
4. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN TURKEY
4.1. Overview of Turkish Housing Experience
The provision of affordable housing for all segments of society is one of the most important problems facing
developing countries in particular. Like the other developing countries, it is a priority to Turkey. With the
continuous rise of demand for housing in urban areas, it is worthwhile to discuss producing affordable
housing for society.
In Turkey, after the industrialization movement, the first signs of squatter housing began to be observed.
With the outbreak of the Second World War, while industrial activity slowed down, illegal construction
increased uncontrollably [10]. However, the possibility of entering the Second World War slowed down
housing production. This tendency in the economy has led to housing becoming a scarce substance
throughout the country. Besides, high rents for housing have become a problem during the Second World
War, even if the government introduced a law to amend housing rents, the effects continued into the 1960s
[53]. Between 1923-1950, the government did not make any improvements to housing policies to provide
housing. Another change in the housing sector, between the years 1927-1950 is the shift from detached
houses to apartments. The apartments were located in the only capital city of Istanbul during the Ottoman
Empire period. In 1927, there were 1441 apartments and 89762 houses in İstanbul. Then the number of
these houses was 102361, and in 1950, the number of apartments reached 5384 [19]. The main reason for
the increase in apartment blocks is “the unaffordability of individual housing provision for households”
[1].
After the 1950s, the government began designing housing policies, as well as providing housing and
financing. Housing demand and squatter housing problems are also beginning to appear in government
programs. Besides, the programs included information on affordable housing. However, most of these
initiatives have failed. In Turkey, the housing problem has always been qualitative and quantitative [46].
Nevertheless, these problems were discussed only as a quantitative problem for governments [1]. The main
reasons underlying the housing problem are population growth and rural migration.
After the industrialization movement, it began a massive migration from rural to urban areas. Housing
problems have emerged over time because of this massive migration. For the housing problem, each
government began to produce its solution. However, these solutions were inconclusive because they did
not come to the source of the problem. Rather than designing policies to supply housing for lower-income
groups, the governments allowed the construction of squatter [41]. Therefore, the housing needs of the
growing population can cause irregular settlements. These settlements refer to the low-cost building.

157
A+ArchDesign - Year: 6 Number: 2 - Yıl: 6 Sayı: 2 - 2020 (153-163)
Şeyda EMEKÇI
Chaplin and Freeman [9] supported Hulchanski.
“A single ratio is not appropriate for all households, for housing and non-housing costs vary
by household type. Furthermore, the ratio does not distinguish between households with very
different income levels. A single ratio does not account for regional variation in housing and
non-housing costs” [9].
Stone [38] discusses that the method ignores the household size variety on most criteria, so for
families with children and large households’ affordability measurement is not very realistic and
Mimura [26] states that the current measurement method of the housing affordability is not based on
the real economic challenges facing lower-income groups.
4. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN TURKEY
4.1. Overview of Turkish Housing Experience
The provision of affordable housing for all segments of society is one of the most important problems facing
developing countries in particular. Like the other developing countries, it is a priority to Turkey. With the
continuous rise of demand for housing in urban areas, it is worthwhile to discuss producing affordable
housing for society.
In Turkey, after the industrialization movement, the first signs of squatter housing began to be observed.
With the outbreak of the Second World War, while industrial activity slowed down, illegal construction
increased uncontrollably [10]. However, the possibility of entering the Second World War slowed down
housing production. This tendency in the economy has led to housing becoming a scarce substance
throughout the country. Besides, high rents for housing have become a problem during the Second World
War, even if the government introduced a law to amend housing rents, the effects continued into the 1960s
[53]. Between 1923-1950, the government did not make any improvements to housing policies to provide
housing. Another change in the housing sector, between the years 1927-1950 is the shift from detached
houses to apartments. The apartments were located in the only capital city of Istanbul during the Ottoman
Empire period. In 1927, there were 1441 apartments and 89762 houses in İstanbul. Then the number of
these houses was 102361, and in 1950, the number of apartments reached 5384 [19]. The main reason for
the increase in apartment blocks is “the unaffordability of individual housing provision for households”
[1].
After the 1950s, the government began designing housing policies, as well as providing housing and
financing. Housing demand and squatter housing problems are also beginning to appear in government
programs. Besides, the programs included information on affordable housing. However, most of these
initiatives have failed. In Turkey, the housing problem has always been qualitative and quantitative [46].
Nevertheless, these problems were discussed only as a quantitative problem for governments [1]. The main
reasons underlying the housing problem are population growth and rural migration.
After the industrialization movement, it began a massive migration from rural to urban areas. Housing
problems have emerged over time because of this massive migration. For the housing problem, each
government began to produce its solution. However, these solutions were inconclusive because they did
not come to the source of the problem. Rather than designing policies to supply housing for lower-income
groups, the governments allowed the construction of squatter [41]. Therefore, the housing needs of the
growing population can cause irregular settlements. These settlements refer to the low-cost building.
However, the uncontrolled settlements were orderless, unhealthy, lack of infrastructure and risky in terms
of life.
In 1980, the “National Housing Policy” was constituted by the Council of Ministers to provide housing for
the people who were not homeowners. As a consequence of this policy, in 1981, the first mass housing
lawNo.2487 was enacted. Between 750 and 1000, units of mass housing were built. This housing was
financed by the state. Afterwards, the second mass housing law numbered 2985was enacted in1984.In
addition to the law, the Housing Development Administration (TOKİ) was established. TOKI's corporate
duties are to provide housing that is suitable for those who do not have the ability to pay in market
conditions. Between 1983 and 1988, a number of laws concerning the transformation of squatter houses
enacted. With these laws, the squatter houses were made legal [35].
The Turkish policymakers have begun to discuss this issue after 2000 within the framework of urban
transformation. In 2002, “open up to the world” and “become fully integrated into the global economic
system” are proclaimed in the government action plan. This action plan caused the urban transformation to
be taken on the agenda. The aim of urban transformation is creating more attractive and competitive urban
centres. Then, according to the Government program the Gecekondu (squatter housing) Transformation
Projects were put into action with the aim of preventing “prevent unhealthy and ugly urbanization” in 2004.
These projects have been started by the Housing Development Administration of Turkey (TOKİ) in
collaboration with the local governments. In consequence, the number of housing has increased
dramatically. This method was first perceived as producing affordable housing on their land by
municipalities. However, the law contributed to expanding the authority of “the metropolitan
municipalities” over “the district municipalities”.
Afterward, interventions to ensure the affordability of rental houses began to increase. The government has
put restrictions on rent increases. To this end, to keep the rent of the housings under control, the state set a
maximum rent increase percentage in 2000. After 2000, rent increases can be made according to “the
producer price index during the preceding 12 months” at most. After 2003, the authorities given to TOKİ
have increased considerably. With these authorities, TOKI has become the sole authority in all subjects on
the built environment. TOKI has been criticized for not taking into account the user characteristics and
environmental factors in producing housing. Besides inadequate payment, lack of arrangements for tenants
and some shortcomings in an arrangement for homeowners have also been criticized [47]. TOKI has
become an important actor in the housing sector in a short period. TOKI adopts the following method that
they gain income from high-income projects and use them in housing construction for the middle- and low-
income group. Arrangements were made in the methods of housing financing. The housing mortgage
system was presented as a solution offered. However, this method was not a solution to the problem of
affordability of low-income groups. Instead of this, this method facilitated housing acquisition of upper-
income groups.
In the 9th five-year development plan (2007 - 2013), housing was not considered comprehensively. While,
in this plan, financial resources and models for housing has been increasing, it does not offer a solution to
the housing problem of lower-income groups. When these conditions were examined, while housing was
perceived as an investment good for higher-income groups, it became a growing problem for lower-income
groups.
In 2003, the Justice and Development Party aimed to find solutions to the housing problem of lower-income
groups, beginning with the housing production and urban transformation program. However, the rate of
households in 2000 was 68%, in 2007, this ratio dropped to 60% [45]. As can be understood from these
ratios, the houses that are produced did not reach to people who did not have housing. The households used

158
A Critical Analysis of Housing Aordability Literature: Turkish Housing Experience
housing as an investment tool. Therefore, these houses have not been a solution to the affordability problem
of the lower-income group [1]. Among the identified objectives of 2023, there is an emphasis on urban
transformation regarding housing. However, urban transformation activities have not gone beyond profit-
oriented activities. Urban transformation, presented as a solution, cannot contribute to solving the
affordability problem of lower-income groups. Although housing affordability problem is very critical for
Turkey, the problem could not be managed properly.
4.2. In terms of Life-Time Housing Affordability
Although there is no consensus definition for the term, according to Gan and Hill [15], in the literature, at
least three different ways of affordability are commonly encountered. They are respectively income
affordability, purchase affordability, and repayment affordability. In its simplest term, affordability of
housing is denoted by the house price to income ratio or the rent to income ratio known as income
affordability; more sophisticated terms are repayment affordability, purchase affordability. Firstly, income
affordability is expressed only by a mathematical percentage that would bring out less accurate results as
discussed by Stone [38], Gan & Hill [15], (2009) and Thalmann [42]. According to this type, the
affordability is primarily the problem of income inadequacy and it is desirable that the parameters are not
overcrowded in the calculations in order not to become unnecessarily complex [42]. If the housing rent or
expenditure is less than the household income, that housing could be considered as affordable. In this
approach, the ratio of the average rent to income includes hedonic price estimates for various housing
attributes, this leads to the difference between actual affordability and apparent affordability. This approach
can be difficult to implement due to the luxury definitions depending on the individual. Secondly, purchase
affordability considers whether a household can borrow enough funds to purchase a dwelling of the
appropriate size and minimum physical and sanitary standards. In this type of affordability, first-time
homebuyers are considered as the target group [39], and it is most commonly expressed by the relationship
between housing price and household income [50]. Then lastly, repayment affordability considers the
burden imposed on a household of repaying the mortgage. This approach focuses on the relationship
between repaying the mortgage and household income. Repayment affordability does not indicate the true
cost of housing at the present-state [34] and often consider factors such as loan-to-value ratio and the down
payment [22]. When analysing all three types of affordability; since housing standards change from
country-to-country, the ratios are the same, and locality is less meaningful. Current methods tend to target
initial cost or rent of housing which can have unintended effects and omit the other housing costs over
incurred in its life cycle period. These methods have not been a real indicator of the total cost for the buyer,
so lifetime affordability remains uncertain. In other words, the housing which initially appears affordable
after a while may not be affordable when the life cycle cost has been calculated due to energy costs, hot
water costs etc. Therefore, long-term policy perspectives are required to ensure actual housing affordability.
From this point of view, a new type of affordability has been added as “lifetime affordability”. This method
considers not only the initial cost or rent of the housing but also the total cost incurred in housing lifecycle
periods such as operational, maintenance and disposal costs.
In many countries around the World, measuring of housing affordability has conventionally been based
upon the mortgage repayment capacity or price-to-income ratio. According to the U.S. EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency), it is generally affordable housing, if it constitutes 30% or less of household income.
This affordability measuring method is the most common in many countries around the World. Besides, in
Turkey, this method is widely used [31]. However, this method does not provide any accurate information
about the total costs. A single ratio is not enough to determine housing affordability for all households.
Moreover, the ratio does not offer differences between households with different income levels. It also does
not consider regional differences.

159
A+ArchDesign - Year: 6 Number: 2 - Yıl: 6 Sayı: 2 - 2020 (153-163)
Şeyda EMEKÇI
housing as an investment tool. Therefore, these houses have not been a solution to the affordability problem
of the lower-income group [1]. Among the identified objectives of 2023, there is an emphasis on urban
transformation regarding housing. However, urban transformation activities have not gone beyond profit-
oriented activities. Urban transformation, presented as a solution, cannot contribute to solving the
affordability problem of lower-income groups. Although housing affordability problem is very critical for
Turkey, the problem could not be managed properly.
4.2. In terms of Life-Time Housing Affordability
Although there is no consensus definition for the term, according to Gan and Hill [15], in the literature, at
least three different ways of affordability are commonly encountered. They are respectively income
affordability, purchase affordability, and repayment affordability. In its simplest term, affordability of
housing is denoted by the house price to income ratio or the rent to income ratio known as income
affordability; more sophisticated terms are repayment affordability, purchase affordability. Firstly, income
affordability is expressed only by a mathematical percentage that would bring out less accurate results as
discussed by Stone [38], Gan & Hill [15], (2009) and Thalmann [42]. According to this type, the
affordability is primarily the problem of income inadequacy and it is desirable that the parameters are not
overcrowded in the calculations in order not to become unnecessarily complex [42]. If the housing rent or
expenditure is less than the household income, that housing could be considered as affordable. In this
approach, the ratio of the average rent to income includes hedonic price estimates for various housing
attributes, this leads to the difference between actual affordability and apparent affordability. This approach
can be difficult to implement due to the luxury definitions depending on the individual. Secondly, purchase
affordability considers whether a household can borrow enough funds to purchase a dwelling of the
appropriate size and minimum physical and sanitary standards. In this type of affordability, first-time
homebuyers are considered as the target group [39], and it is most commonly expressed by the relationship
between housing price and household income [50]. Then lastly, repayment affordability considers the
burden imposed on a household of repaying the mortgage. This approach focuses on the relationship
between repaying the mortgage and household income. Repayment affordability does not indicate the true
cost of housing at the present-state [34] and often consider factors such as loan-to-value ratio and the down
payment [22]. When analysing all three types of affordability; since housing standards change from
country-to-country, the ratios are the same, and locality is less meaningful. Current methods tend to target
initial cost or rent of housing which can have unintended effects and omit the other housing costs over
incurred in its life cycle period. These methods have not been a real indicator of the total cost for the buyer,
so lifetime affordability remains uncertain. In other words, the housing which initially appears affordable
after a while may not be affordable when the life cycle cost has been calculated due to energy costs, hot
water costs etc. Therefore, long-term policy perspectives are required to ensure actual housing affordability.
From this point of view, a new type of affordability has been added as “lifetime affordability”. This method
considers not only the initial cost or rent of the housing but also the total cost incurred in housing lifecycle
periods such as operational, maintenance and disposal costs.
In many countries around the World, measuring of housing affordability has conventionally been based
upon the mortgage repayment capacity or price-to-income ratio. According to the U.S. EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency), it is generally affordable housing, if it constitutes 30% or less of household income.
This affordability measuring method is the most common in many countries around the World. Besides, in
Turkey, this method is widely used [31]. However, this method does not provide any accurate information
about the total costs. A single ratio is not enough to determine housing affordability for all households.
Moreover, the ratio does not offer differences between households with different income levels. It also does
not consider regional differences.
At end of 2014, Turkey’s population is about 77.7 million inhabitants. In 2014, the rate of annual population
growth in Turkey was 13.3 per-thousand [44]. The population of the country continues to increase and to
urbanize. A great number of houses are built every year in Turkey. Most of them are composed of mass
houses. At first, the housing may seem initially affordable when evaluated according to the price-to-income
ratio. However, while evaluating their life cycle periods, they are not affordable for especially lower-
income groups. In order to have affordable housing in Turkey, it is required to have the following
conditions: “the maximum income level cannot exceed to 3200 ₺” or who have a “Green Card” or
“benefiting from the Social Aid and Solidarity Encouragement Fund”, or “benefiting from the Social Aid
and Solidarity Encouragement Fund” or “not having been dependent on any one of the social security
institutions” or “receive a salary within the meaning of the Law No.2022205” or [43]. According to the
definition, the presence of households with no income should also be considered in these housing. How
can this ratio be applied to people who have no income? The problem is a cursory ‘broad-brush’ calculation
that does not calculate all the costs of the homeownership. The price-income ratio often used 30% which
has been previously set at 25 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, and 50 percent by different institutions does
not provide information on housing affordability.
In Turkey, housing affordability measurement studies are in the tendency to target housing initial
costs. However, it is able to produce undesirable and unexpected problem in the long term. In
housing projects, since commonly only housing initial cost is considered and the housing
maintenance and operating costs are not taken into account, the housing producing after a while
cannot be affordable. Besides, due to the increase in the share of housing expenses in household
income, the person would have to allocate less money for healthcare, food and other expenses. It
can damage society. Generally, in the early stage of the construction process, the costs including
heating, electricity, water utilities etc. are not taken into consideration. Therefore, lifecycle cost
and energy demand that belong to that housing are unclear. In the literature, it is possibly seen that
the initial cost has a lower rate than the housing operational and maintenance costs in the total
building life-cycle cost [27, 32, 48, 51].
A typical household must allocate a large portion of the monthly income to the operating costs of the
housing such as electricity, heating and water [12]. For this reason, the operation and maintenance costs
that occur during the building life cycle must be considered in the calculation of housing affordability.
Therefore, in developing countries especially Turkey, housing options that appeal to different segments,
integrated with life cycle costing have been needed. To ensure the lifetime affordability, long-term policy
perspectives that are inclusive, systematic are required. For each housing, it is necessary to establish a
system in which the housing can assess the costs incurred in its lifetime. In the housing affordability
literature, it is necessary to discuss "Lifetime affordability" taking into consideration the costs specific to
each housing.

160
A Critical Analysis of Housing Aordability Literature: Turkish Housing Experience
Table 1. Studies on life cycle costing and their percentages
5. CONCLUSION
The provision of affordable housing is an unanswered issue in many countries. This problem is a major
challenge, particularly in developing countries. Like the other developing countries, it is a priority to
Turkey. Turkey has experienced dynamic urbanization, especially during the last five decades that have
increased demand significantly in urban areas. Increasing demand for housing in urban areas provides to
discuss the opportunities of affordable housing. However, the problem could not be managed properly. The
underlying causes of this are as followed.
Firstly, there no exist affordability housing policies regarding the institutional dimension of the housing
affordability; Housing affordability has never been considered in a comprehensive manner and as a priority
issue in Turkish housing policy. Although the construction sector was seen as a pioneer of economic growth
in Turkey, housing production was supported without awareness as a problem of housing affordability.
Besides, the number of studies that draw attention to this issue is quite limited in Turkey. Housing
affordability should be an inevitable part of Turkish housing policies and addressed urgently. It is necessary
to establish a comprehensive housing policy in order to develop access to more affordable, more efficient
and quality housing.
Secondly, the housing affordability evaluates essentially as a short-run indicator and the ratio approach
measurement can be used. Predominantly, previous research on housing affordability has concentrated on
the costs of accessing housing i.e., housing rent, housing purchase cost, mortgage repayment. Other
ongoing costs i.e., water, energy, and other and utility costs, housing maintenance costs tend to be omitted
in the affordability debate. This method is not a real indicator of the total cost for the buyer, so lifetime
affordability remains uncertain. Affordability issue could not be addressed in isolation from “lifetime
affordability”.
A third issue is directly associated with the target of housing expenditure. In a small number of studies that
housing expenditures are calculated, the calculations are based on average housing expenses. The problem
is a cursory “broad-brush” calculation that does not calculate all the costs of the homeownership. A

161
A+ArchDesign - Year: 6 Number: 2 - Yıl: 6 Sayı: 2 - 2020 (153-163)
Şeyda EMEKÇI
Table 1. Studies on life cycle costing and their percentages
5. CONCLUSION
The provision of affordable housing is an unanswered issue in many countries. This problem is a major
challenge, particularly in developing countries. Like the other developing countries, it is a priority to
Turkey. Turkey has experienced dynamic urbanization, especially during the last five decades that have
increased demand significantly in urban areas. Increasing demand for housing in urban areas provides to
discuss the opportunities of affordable housing. However, the problem could not be managed properly. The
underlying causes of this are as followed.
Firstly, there no exist affordability housing policies regarding the institutional dimension of the housing
affordability; Housing affordability has never been considered in a comprehensive manner and as a priority
issue in Turkish housing policy. Although the construction sector was seen as a pioneer of economic growth
in Turkey, housing production was supported without awareness as a problem of housing affordability.
Besides, the number of studies that draw attention to this issue is quite limited in Turkey. Housing
affordability should be an inevitable part of Turkish housing policies and addressed urgently. It is necessary
to establish a comprehensive housing policy in order to develop access to more affordable, more efficient
and quality housing.
Secondly, the housing affordability evaluates essentially as a short-run indicator and the ratio approach
measurement can be used. Predominantly, previous research on housing affordability has concentrated on
the costs of accessing housing i.e., housing rent, housing purchase cost, mortgage repayment. Other
ongoing costs i.e., water, energy, and other and utility costs, housing maintenance costs tend to be omitted
in the affordability debate. This method is not a real indicator of the total cost for the buyer, so lifetime
affordability remains uncertain. Affordability issue could not be addressed in isolation from “lifetime
affordability”.
A third issue is directly associated with the target of housing expenditure. In a small number of studies that
housing expenditures are calculated, the calculations are based on average housing expenses. The problem
is a cursory “broad-brush” calculation that does not calculate all the costs of the homeownership. A
uniform housing expenditure calculation for the whole country ignoring local differences in household,
housing conditions and household consumption patterns is doomed to be unsuccessful to achieve lifetime
affordability. This calculation could be designed with respect to these differences.
Systematic, detailed, and comprehensive methods and studies integrated with the life cycle are required to
solve this problem properly. Long-term policy perspectives are required to ensure lifetime housing
affordability. It is necessary to discuss "Lifetime affordability" taking into consideration the costs specific
to each housing, not a single ratio.
REFERENCES
[1] Aksoy, E. (2017). Housing Affordability of Different Income Groups in Turkey: Regional Comparison.
Middle East Technical University.
[2] Bacher, J. C. (1993). Keeping to the Marketplace: The Evolution of Canadian Housing Policy.
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
[3] Belsky, E. S., Goodman, J., & Drew, R. (2005). Measuring the nation’s rental housing affordability
problems (The Joint Center for Housing Studies). Harvard University.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/rental/rd05- 1_measuring_rental_affordability05.pdf
[4] Bogdon, A., & Can, A. (1997). Indicators of local housing affordability: Comparative and spatial
approaches. 25, 43–80.
[5] Bramley, G. (1990). Access, Affordability and Housing Need. 16.
[6] Bramley, G, Bartlett, W., & Lambert, C. (2004). Key Issues in Housing: Policies and Market in 21st
Century in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan.
[7] Bramley, G. (1994). An affordability crisis in British housing: Dimensions, causes and policy impact.
Housing Studies, 9(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039408720777
[8] Burke, T., & Ralston, L. (2004). Measuring housing affordability. AHURI Research and Policy
Bulletin, 45.
https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2923/AHURI_RAP_Issue_45_Measuring_housing
_affordability.pdf
[9] Chaplin, R., & Freeman, A. (1999). Towards an accurate description of affordability. Urban Studies,
36(11), 1949–1957.
[10] Çoban, A. N. (2012). Cumhuriyetin ilanından günümüze konut politikası. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF
Dergisi, 67(03), 075–108.
[11] Fallis, G. (1993). On Chosen Social Policy Instruments: The Case of Non-Profit Housing, Housing
Allowance or Income Assistance. Pergamon Press.
[12] Fankhauser, S., & Tepic, S. (2007). Can poor consumers pay for energy and water? An affordability
analysis for transition countries. Energy Policy, 35(2), 1038–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.02.003
[13] Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation: Vol. Third-Edition. MIT
Press.
[14] Gabriel, M., Jacobs, K., Arthurson, K., Burke, T., & Yates, J. (2005). Conceptualising and
measuring the housing affordability problem,. National Research Venture 3: Housing Affordability for
Lower Income Australians.
[15] Gan, Q., & Hill, R. J. (2009). Measuring housing affordability: Looking beyond the median. Journal
of Housing Economics, 18(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2009.04.003
[16] Hallett, G. (1993). The New Housing Shortage: Housing Affordability in Europe and the USA.
Routledge.
[17] Hancock, K. E. (1993). Can’t Pay? Won’t Pay? The Economic Principles of Affordability. Urban
Studies, 30, (1), 127–145.

162
A Critical Analysis of Housing Aordability Literature: Turkish Housing Experience
[18] Hulchanski, J. D. (1995). The concept of housing affordability: Six contemporary uses of the housing
expenditure‐to‐income ratio. Housing Studies, 10(4), 471–491.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039508720833
[19] Kaya, A. Ö. (1961). Cumhuriyet Devrinde Mesken Meselesi. Ankara:Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi
Maliye Enstitüsü.
[20] Kengott, G. F. (1912). The Record of a City: A Social Survey of Lowell Massachusetts. MacMillan
Press Ltd.
[21] Kutty, N. K. (2005). A new measure of housing affordability: Estimates and analytical results.
Housing Policy Debate, 16(1), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2005.9521536
[22] Lin, Y.-J., Chang, C.-O., & Chen, C.-L. (2014). Why homebuyers have a high housing affordability
problem: Quantile regression analysis. Habitat International, 43, 41–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.01.013
[23] Linneman, P., & Megbolugbe, I. (1992). Housing affordability: Myth or reality. 29, 369–392.
[24] Maclennan, D., & Williams, R. (1990). Affordable Housing in Britain and the United States. Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
[25] Milligan, V. (2004). A practical framework for expanding affordable housing services in Australia
learning from experience. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
[26] Mimura, Y. (2008). Housing Cost Burden, Poverty Status, and Economic Hardship among Low-
income Families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-
007-9085-4
[27] Mithraratne, N., & Vale, B. (2004). Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Building and
Environment, 39(4), 483–492.
[28] Ndubueze, O. J. (2009). Urban Housing Affordability and Housing Policy Dilemmas in Nigeria
[Doctor of Philosophy]. the University of Birmingham.
[29] Norris, M., & Shiels, P. (2007). Housing inequalities in an enlarged European Union: Patterns,
drivers, implications. Journal of European Social Policy, 17(1), 65–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928707071893
[30] Orshansky, M. (1965). Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile. Social Security
Bulletin, 28, 3–29.
[31] Özdemir Sarı, B., & Aksoy, E. (2016). Excess Production, Rising Prices and Declining Affordability:
Turkish Housing Experience. AMPS Government and Housing in a Time of Crisis: Policy, Planning,
Design and, Liverpool: England.
[32] Pellegrini‐Masini, G., Bowles, G., Peacock, A. D., Ahadzi, M., & Banfill, P. F. G. (2010). Whole
life costing of domestic energy demand reduction technologies: Householder perspectives. Construction
Management and Economics, 28(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903480027
[33] Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn’t It More Affordable?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533004773563494
[34] Robinson, M., Scobie, G. M., & Hallinan, B. (2006). Affordability of Housing: Concepts,
Measurement and Evidence. 52.
[35] Şenyapılı, T. (2006). Gecekondu Olgusuna Dönemsel Yaklaşımlar. In A. Eraydın (Ed.), Değişen
Mekân Mekânsal Süreçlere İlişkin Tartışma ve Araştırmalara Toplu Bakış 1923-2003. Dost Kitabevi Yay.
[36] Smith, P. V. (2010). Life Cycle Costs & Housing Affordability Measurement.
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/research/handle/10453/16598
[37] Stigler, G. J. (1954). The Early History of Empirical Studies of Consumer Behavior. The Journal of
Political Economy, 57, (2), 95–113.
[38] Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach.
Housing Policy Debate, 17(1), 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564

163
A+ArchDesign - Year: 6 Number: 2 - Yıl: 6 Sayı: 2 - 2020 (153-163)
Şeyda EMEKÇI
[18] Hulchanski, J. D. (1995). The concept of housing affordability: Six contemporary uses of the housing
expenditure‐to‐income ratio. Housing Studies, 10(4), 471–491.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039508720833
[19] Kaya, A. Ö. (1961). Cumhuriyet Devrinde Mesken Meselesi. Ankara:Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi
Maliye Enstitüsü.
[20] Kengott, G. F. (1912). The Record of a City: A Social Survey of Lowell Massachusetts. MacMillan
Press Ltd.
[21] Kutty, N. K. (2005). A new measure of housing affordability: Estimates and analytical results.
Housing Policy Debate, 16(1), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2005.9521536
[22] Lin, Y.-J., Chang, C.-O., & Chen, C.-L. (2014). Why homebuyers have a high housing affordability
problem: Quantile regression analysis. Habitat International, 43, 41–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.01.013
[23] Linneman, P., & Megbolugbe, I. (1992). Housing affordability: Myth or reality. 29, 369–392.
[24] Maclennan, D., & Williams, R. (1990). Affordable Housing in Britain and the United States. Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
[25] Milligan, V. (2004). A practical framework for expanding affordable housing services in Australia
learning from experience. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
[26] Mimura, Y. (2008). Housing Cost Burden, Poverty Status, and Economic Hardship among Low-
income Families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-
007-9085-4
[27] Mithraratne, N., & Vale, B. (2004). Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Building and
Environment, 39(4), 483–492.
[28] Ndubueze, O. J. (2009). Urban Housing Affordability and Housing Policy Dilemmas in Nigeria
[Doctor of Philosophy]. the University of Birmingham.
[29] Norris, M., & Shiels, P. (2007). Housing inequalities in an enlarged European Union: Patterns,
drivers, implications. Journal of European Social Policy, 17(1), 65–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928707071893
[30] Orshansky, M. (1965). Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile. Social Security
Bulletin, 28, 3–29.
[31] Özdemir Sarı, B., & Aksoy, E. (2016). Excess Production, Rising Prices and Declining Affordability:
Turkish Housing Experience. AMPS Government and Housing in a Time of Crisis: Policy, Planning,
Design and, Liverpool: England.
[32] Pellegrini‐Masini, G., Bowles, G., Peacock, A. D., Ahadzi, M., & Banfill, P. F. G. (2010). Whole
life costing of domestic energy demand reduction technologies: Householder perspectives. Construction
Management and Economics, 28(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903480027
[33] Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn’t It More Affordable?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533004773563494
[34] Robinson, M., Scobie, G. M., & Hallinan, B. (2006). Affordability of Housing: Concepts,
Measurement and Evidence. 52.
[35] Şenyapılı, T. (2006). Gecekondu Olgusuna Dönemsel Yaklaşımlar. In A. Eraydın (Ed.), Değişen
Mekân Mekânsal Süreçlere İlişkin Tartışma ve Araştırmalara Toplu Bakış 1923-2003. Dost Kitabevi Yay.
[36] Smith, P. V. (2010). Life Cycle Costs & Housing Affordability Measurement.
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/research/handle/10453/16598
[37] Stigler, G. J. (1954). The Early History of Empirical Studies of Consumer Behavior. The Journal of
Political Economy, 57, (2), 95–113.
[38] Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach.
Housing Policy Debate, 17(1), 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564
[39] Struyk, R. J. (2005). Home Purchase Affordability and Mortgage Finance. In J. Hegedüs & Local
Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (Eds.), Housing finance: New and old models in Central
Europe, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Open Society Inst.
[40] Swartz, R., & Miller, B. (2002). Welfare reform and housing. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/pb16.pdf
[41] Tekeli, İ. (2012). Türkiye’de Yaşamda Yazında Konutun Öyküsü (1923-1980) (1st ed.). Tarih Vakfı
Yurt Yayınları.
[42] Thalmann, P. (2003). House Poor or Simply Poor? Ournal of Housing Economics, 12(4), 291–317.
[43] TOKI. (2016). TOKİ Kurum Profili 2010-2011. TOKİ. https://www.toki.gov.tr/content/images/main-
page-slider/30102016225052-pdf.pdf
[44] TUİK. (2014). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt
Sistemi Sonuçları, 2014. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18616
[45] TUİK. (2009). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Total household population, number of households and
average size of households by locality, 2009. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=insaat-ve-
konut-116&dil=1.
[46] Turhan, I. (2008). Housing sector in Turkey: Challenges and opportunities. 17 Th Annual.
[47] Uzun, N. (2006). Ankara’da konut alanlarının dönüşümü: Kentsel dönüşüm projeleri. In T. Şenyapılı,
(Ed.), In Cumhuriyet’in Ankara’sı,. ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
[48] Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in
green building design optimization. Building and Environment, 40(11), 1512–1525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.11.017
[49] Whitehead, C. M. E. (1991). From need to affordability: An analysis of UK housing objectives. Urban
Studies, 28 (6), 871–887.
[50] Whitehead, C., Monk, S., Clarke, A., Holmans, A., & Markkanen, S. (2009). Measuring Housing
Affordability: A review of data sources. Cambridge: Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning
Research.
[51] Wong, I. L., Perera, S., & Eames, P. C. (2010). Goal directed life cycle costing as a method to
evaluate the economic feasibility of office buildings with conventional and TI‐façades. Construction
Management and Economics, 28(7), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003753867
[52] Yates, J., Milligan, V., Berry, M., Burke, T., Gabriel, M., Phibbs, P., Pinnegar, S., & Randolph,
B. (2007). Housing affordability: A 21st century problem. Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute.
[53] Yenal, O. (2001). Cumhuriyet’in İktisat Tarihi. (Vol. 2028). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
ŞEYDA EMEKCI, Ph.D.,
Seyda Emekci, studied architecture at Middle East Technical University in Ankara and graduated in 2011.
After graduating, she started her master's degree in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the
Faculty of Architecture. She completed her master's degree in Urban Design in 2014. She started her
doctorate studies in Middle East Technical University in 2014 and graduated with a doctorate degree in
2018. She worked as Associate in Development Agency between 2011-2014 and General Directorate of
Nature Conservation and National Parks between 2014-2017. In 2019, she worked as a postdoctoral
researcher at East London University. She is currently working as an Assistant Professor at Ankara Yıldırım
Beyazıt University Department of Architecture. Her areas of expertise include sustainability, smart homes,
smart cities, urban design, affordability, and housing policies. She teaches architectural design and
sustainability courses. She has referees in international indexed journals and articles published in national
and international journals and conferences.