In Urban Transformation, Is the Priority Minimum Cost or Maximum Real Estate Value?
An approach that prioritizes keeping initial costs low—whether in project design, façade architecture, material selection, communal areas, or planning—can limit the property's long-term value-creation potential.
I conduct regular field surveys in areas such as Beşiktaş Etiler, Ulus, Nisbetiye Avenue, Büyükdere Avenue, Bebek, and the Bosphorus waterfront.
I also frequently visit other parts of Beşiktaş.
One common issue stands out during these observations: some new buildings fail to reflect the full potential of their locations.
Prioritizing low initial costs in project design, façade architecture, material selection, communal areas, and layout planning can limit the property's long-term value-generation capacity.
It is a mistake to settle for renovated buildings that—while avoiding upfront design or extra costs—end up having limited appeal, poor layouts, and inadequate social amenities in the medium to long term.
It is always worth remembering:
Beşiktaş is one of Istanbul’s most prestigious residential areas.
Consequently, the sales and rental values per square meter are exceptionally high.
In such a prime location, the higher the quality of the building, the greater the appreciation in value and the stronger the demand.
One should not miss out on the high return potential of renovated buildings simply to achieve low or zero costs in the short term.
A successful urban renewal project is not the one completed at the lowest cost; it is the one that best unlocks the potential of its location and continues to generate value for years to come.
What's Your Reaction?
