In the 1960s comprehensive planning was criticised due to its lack of flexibility and the fact that it lagged behind the rapid change and development. Hence in the 1980s there was a move towards a project-based approach. With the 1990s, the strategic planning approach became popular and started to be influential in the western planning systems. Strategic planning is related with the action and vision of the city. It is more adaptable, participatory, action and target-oriented, which involves organised effort and management technique (Ozgur, 2008; Sanoff, 2006). Nevertheless, in Turkey the planning system is still a long way behind the strategic planning approach (Ercan, 2007; Yildirim, 2006). It is based on development plans, which do not unify with urban and strategic plans of the region; in addition,there is little relation between large-scale and small-scale plans (Ercan, 2007). Development plans focus on the end-state plan rather than the process. Hence these plans are of a static nature, which is inflexible and prevents the possibility of urban change (Unlu, 2006).
The planning system is related to three main contexts: regulatory, procedural, and socio-political contexts. In Turkey these contexts operate differently. Firstly,
the regulatory context includes a plot- based approach, which should be replaced with design frameworks leading to character areas. Secondly, the procedural context is more about the bureaucratisation of control mechanisms, which should be changed with the active interaction of stages and the revision processes. Finally, in the socio-political context we come across individual actions instead of coordinated ones (Unlu, 2006).
In addition to context, urban planning comprises many processes. In Turkey the most important process is the implementation of development plans. The main purpose here is to form building parcels and implement urban rent sharing. This causes a variety of spatial problems concerning the distribution of property rights equally and fairly (Meshur, 2008). There are three methods in the implementation process of development plans: 1) expropriation (kamulastirma), 2) separation and join (ifraz-tevhid), and 3) the most common one, Land Readjustment (Arazi ve Arsa Duzenleme) (Meshur, 2002). However, land readjustment operates just as a production of building plots rather than to form an urban space. Consequently it removes the design opportunities and flexibility, which results in the randomly formed in-between spaces between buildings. This method is understood as an engineering problem that includes geodesy and cartography, whereas architects and planners are excluded from the process (Meshur, 2008).
Development planning is unsuccessful in terms of creating an integrated urban form; it generates monotonous, built environments without identity and character due to its economical and practical features. It can also be implemented without design; it encourages the build-sell system (yap-sat) and small capital investors to build apartment blocks in small construction plots. Additionally, as Sayar and Suer (2004) stress, from the end of the Second World War to the 1980s, the production and representation system of dwellings in
Turkey was squatter Gecekondu1 and ‘build-sell’ system Yap-sat2. Through the production of yap-sat, at the end, development plans turned into a tool for setbacks, as well as building heights and plot ratios. In a sense this approach takes the design responsibility away from architects and planners (Bas, 2006). As a consequence, Turkish Cities have lost the quality of urban space and public realm through development plans, regulation and the planning system (Unlu, 2006). Moreover, urban development legislation does not define the regional and local differences that depend upon climate, topography and orientation. Municipalities had the possibility to change these issues according to the region, but they did not. Hence urban environments cannot be formed depending on the local context (Aydemir, 1989). Consequently, laws regarding urban development were not capable of dealing with urban issues in Turkey.
In addition to regulatory problems, in Turkey there are also institutional problems, such as the lack of cooperation between institutions. Since the 1980s there has been an increase in the number of institutions commissioned with planning which has caused governance chaos between multi actors. For instance, local government does not consider the planning decisions of the large-scale plans of central government. Besides this, district municipalities are preparing small-scale plans without respecting the master plans of metropolitan municipalities. There is an ambiguity regarding development and planning authorities between central and local governments (Ercan, 2007). In 1985, although there was not enough knowledge and technical support, municipalities fell within the planning sector and commissioned by developing plans. This
1
Gecekondu is a kind of indigenous urban vernacular but not a slum, an urban housing solution for low in- come groups (Pamir, 1982, p.16).
2
Yapsatçılık (build-sell) is a system emerged after the condominium act. The small contractor agrees with the land owner and obtains building permission. He starts building with a small capital outlay and during the construction sells flats and increases his capital. Thus by this system the small contractor can sustain the building of apartment blocks in various empty lots (Tekeli, 2008).
however resulted in the degradation of waterfront settlements. As Keles (1994) emphasises, the numbers of municipalities were increased despite a lack of resources. This caused the decrease in the quality of public services. In addition, in some cities there is a lack of communication between planners and mayors. In terms of planning problems, as mentioned before, in Turkey, incremental rather than strategic planning is prominent. Due to the project-based approach, some of the urban transformation projects create gentrification problems and the privatisation of the public realm. In Turkey urban design should be an integral part of the strategic plan rather than focusing on the special project areas, with big private investors encouraging the urban rent and speculation. Ruptured urban patterns, such as giant shopping areas, business centres and gated communities, increased with urban transformation projects (Bas, 2006; Ercan, 2007; Keles, 1994; Ozgur, 2008; Vardar, 2005).
In Turkish Cities, gecekondu settlements are usually referred as urban transformation projects (Akkar, 2006; Yildirim, 2006). As Keles (1994) states, development remissions and reclamation plans have become tools for privatisation and give legitimacy to geekondu areas. It is important that urban transformation is not just a physical issue; it has an economical, social, and environmental frame as well (Akkar, 2006). Reclamation plans are not considered within the framework of urban design, and those areas are not ameliorated due to the needs of gecekondu residents (Gunay, 1997). Large-scale plans do not include the settlement’s regional development tendencies; social, cultural, natural and economical sources, ethnological structure, and identity. Development plans should be developed and referenced due to master plan decisions, but urban rent and speculations force urban transformation to be used under different land uses and density decisions. Hence the macro form diminishes (Ercan, 2007).