Urbanization in Turkey has followed a pattern similar to the developing nations of the Third World in the postwar era. It comprised clientelist policies subsuming the immigrant populations into the urban realm. This pattern later gave way to a second phase across the globe, which depended on ‘‘new entrepreneurialism’’ seeking participatory governance methods. The peculiar form of this phase in Turkey rested on amnesties legalizing squatter areas surrounding the major cities (Eraydın and Tas¸an-Kok 2014). Local improvement plans allowing building heights up to 4–۵ floors not only transformed the physical textures of the Turkish cities but also turned squatters into landlords and developers undertaking the redevelopment of their neighborhoods. While the increasing dominance of local improvement plans represented the decline of comprehensive planning in Turkey, they also created a sort of ‘‘entrepreneurial subjectivity’’ transforming the squatters as urban political actors.2 The fragmentary development of Turkish cities disregarding macro-decisions opened up the path to the deployment of urban design projects as a means of urban growth in the following decade. As we will discuss shortly, both this method and this particular form of subjectivity were important in the regeneration of Dog˘anbey. Continuous population growth was inevitably coupled by the constant need for housing production. TOKI was established in 1984 to this end, with the objective of providing lowincome citizens with proper housing to remove squatter settlements. The administration initially funded housing cooperatives, which resulted in the use of its resources to support middle-class housing rather than the urban poor (Tekeli 1996). In 2003, TOKI was granted new powers. Accordingly, it was allowed to establish companies, execute projects to create new funds, and use public land without charge. In 2004, it was granted planning authority in the regeneration sites and the power to determine the value of expropriation in squatter areas. In 2007, the duties of the Ministry of Public Works regarding slum clearance were also transferred to TOKI. With these regulations, the administration became exempt from almost all of the bureaucratic mechanisms and could freely expropriate, plan and redevelop areas. Moreover, it became the major actor in housing production and the main facilitator of public private partnership. In inner city areas, TOKI undertakes the appropriation of multi-parceled land without legal obstacles or popular resistance and creates an investment-friendly environment. Land is appropriated under its market value, which provides enormous advantages for the developers in reducing costs. Using its administrative power to evaluate land lower than the market price, TOKI acts as a monopoly and mobilizes public–private partnerships (Rawlins 2013).