Is informal housing the destiny of the urban poor?

In recent decades the squatter phenomenon has been studied and interpreted by different researchers from various perspectives. As these researchers have taken into account different aspects of this phenomenon in relation to their backgrounds, their definitions and interpretations they have differed widely from each other. This differentiation demonstrates the complexity and the multidimensional nature of the problem. The first definition we have chosen is ‘Squatterisation is a transition process from rural to urban life, a transitional life style and its reflection onto space utilisation'. The second defines squatterisation as a matter of distribution of wealth (income), social structure and social security rather than only being a shelter (Arslan, 1989, pp.34-37). The third approach takes into account the aspects related to ownership, legislation and construction processes and defines this phenomenon as ‘the casual buildings which have been built on lands or plots without having any ownership and/or the right to built on it in terms of building legislation and laws.' These definitions show that the fact of squatter settlements and the squatting process itself are complex because of their socio-cultural, psychological, economic, political and physical attributes. We cannot isolate these different attributes from each other; for example, we cannot study the subject as if it were only a social problem or just a shelter or socioeconomic or political problem. We have to have a holistic approach in order to reach much more comprehensive definitions and interpretations.