Özet:

During the post 1990s, where globalization and neoliberal policies dominated, new urban and social policies were developed to fight increasing poverty, the strategies for the transformation of cities and the forms of intervention towards low-income housing areas were changed, and different approaches to low-income housing policies for the resolution of social problems were presented. Among these approaches, the "social karma policy", which has an impact in many European and U.S. cities, holds an important place. According to this approach, poverty is concentrating in low-income, unemployment and crimes-related low-income housing areas, thus deepening social and mechanical divisions. Therefore, the objective is to prevent these problems by destroying the social housing, which are living areas of narrow income, and by organizing these areas in a way that narrow and medium income people will live together. In Turkey, in the 2000s, this perspective has emerged in the urban transformation approach and speech. The city transformation phenomenon, which forms the most important agenda of Turkey after the 1999 Marmara earthquake, is addressed in the framework of the understanding of social karma policy in the high-scale plans with the approach to coaching the living spaces of different socio-economic groups and ensuring social integration and is similar to the developments in the world in terms of their results. In this study, the scope, objectives, implementation and results of the social karma policy will be studied, the relationship with the urban transformation approach in Turkey will be established, the work area will be discussed in the Ideaspe Urban Transformation Project Area specifically. In the context of this policy, which is supported by statements such as catastrophic risk, unhealthy living conditions, security, the question will be about the extent in which the transformation strategy for the living together of different income groups in the transformation practice is achieved, whether the needs and demands of all income groups are not taken into account and whether the project produces solutions to socio-economic problems.