Speakers
Description
Turkey operates under a regulatory planning system; however, zoning plans allow for significant flexibility through plan notes. This flexibility often leaves urban development and transformation at the mercy of market dynamics. As a result, plans fall short of providing a clear vision for cities and fail to ensure sustainable urban development.
This study aims to explore how zoning plans struggle to guide urban development, using Istanbul's Bagcilar district as a case study. Bagcilar is a significant industrial district where rapid industrialization occurred during the 1970s. Since the 2000s, however, policies of industrial decentralization have been implemented. Consequently, while industrial activities have been relocated in certain areas of the district, they persist in others. The coexistence of industrial and other functions is largely facilitated by plan notes, which enable a wide variety of uses. For instance, in areas designated as Central Business Districts (CBDs) or Prestige Axes, zoning plans permit a mix of offices, hotels, residences, and even manufacturing. This uncertainty is evident as approximately 22% of areas planned as CBDs or Prestige Axes still accommodate manufacturing, while industrial activity is permitted in 45% of designated zones. Furthermore, research conducted in 2022 revealed that 75% of manufacturing firms prefer to remain in the area.
This study focuses on how zoning plans, while assigning specific functions to an area, create ambiguity through the variety of uses allowed by plan notes. This raises the question: How can such planning decisions result in diverse and divergent urban development and transformation? To address this, the study highlights how zoning plans in Bagcilar enable diverse—and sometimes contradictory—development scenarios. The development of these scenarios was supported by field studies conducted in the district between November 2022 and December 2023. These efforts included site surveys, in-depth interviews, sectoral workshops, and a detailed examination of planning processes. Based on the findings, three potential development scenarios were identified:
i) Manufacturing and Housing-Oriented Transformation
ii) R&D and Design based Manufacturing-Oriented Transformation
iii) Housing-Oriented Transformation
Each scenario presents distinct implications for the population, employment opportunities, housing demand, socio-economic structure, and the social and technical infrastructure requirements of the district. However, there is no mechanism to assess which scenario aligns best with sustainable development goals or to implement measures toward that objective.
The study argues that zoning plans prepared under the regulatory planning system fail to effectively guide urban development due to the uncertainty created by plan notes. It also underscores the need for regulatory adjustments in planning systems to achieve sustainable urban growth.
References
Booth, P. (1996) Controlling development Certainty and discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong, Taylor and Francis, London.
Steele, W. & Running, K. (2012). Flexibility Versus Certainty: Unsettling the Land-Use Planning Shibboleth in Australia. Planning, Pratice & Research, 27(2), 155-176.
Tasan-Kok, T. (2008). Changing Interpretations of ‘Flexibility’ in the Planning Literature: From Opportunism to Creativity? International Planning Studies, 13(3), 183-195.
Voltanen, E, Falkenbach, H., Viitanen,K. (2017) Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland, European Planning Studies, 25 (6), 1053–1075.
| Keywords | Uncertainty; regulatory planning system; industrial district; sustainable urban development |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
