There has been a big debate on hierarchical planning system and plan implication processes since mid- 1980s. The remarking topics have arisen around the technocratic planning approach that ignores actor participation in the process, results incompetent resource use and reflects societal dynamics ineffectively on spatial plans. The necessity of reforming technocratic approach and replacing it with collaborative approach; and, preregulatory land use plans with spatial strategic plans has been emphasized in order to strongly directing urban development in neoliberal era. The EU integration process stimulated the reforming period and substantial changes have been made on the planning system and regulations since 2003. Although institutional structure reframed and substantial changes made in regulations, amazingly, the hierarchical planning system has protected and technocratic planning is still dominate the plan making processes. Distinctively, the planning regime is recentralized. Recentralized multi-level hierarchical system is bulky and several numbers of responsible authorities make difficult to scrutinize the operations of actors in different levels. Actors and local dynamics are external in the planning process and conventional physical plans direct the urban development primarily rather than strategic plans. The aim of this paper is to investigate the material reflections of new planning regime in Turkey in urban areas as well as in housing construction market. Methodological approach based on old institutional economics. Several interviews were done with governmental institutions, municipalities and market actors in order to reflect insights to understanding the abilities and/or inabilities and capacity of the new regime. A remarkable pattern has arisen on interviews that capable of reflecting the gaps and conflicts of the new regime. Accordingly, hierarchical system causes multi-level markets that prevent perfect information between layers; actors diversify base on layers that provide excessive opportunities to politically and/or economically strong actors particularly in higher levels; static physical plans unaware about local and market dynamics and weak in capacity in directing urban development; the balance between flexibility and changes in plan decisions is failure; the market is uncertain and risky and transaction costs are arisen.