Path dependency in aesthetic control management within Turkish planning history

ABSTRACT

This article examines the effects of socio-economic and political events on the control and management of aesthetics by analysing Turkey’s urban planning process using Istanbul as the case study. The external events were analysed in Istanbul by exploring the historical patterns of Turkey’s urban planning and development history. The urban aesthetics concept, characterized by different periods from the late Ottoman era until today, includes the involvement, development, and continuity of different concepts of aesthetics in the planning process. In this study, the path dependence concept has been used as a methodology, which reveals that critical junctures or major changes have happened by changing economic and political conditions at the national and international levels. Five critical junctures were identified. The findings indicate that path dependence and trajectories revealed different institutional structures without any integrity for aesthetic control under planning regulations.

KEYWORDS:

• Aesthetic control
• path dependence
• history
• urban planning
• Turkey

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Gregor, “Baumgarten’s ‘Aesthetica,’” 357.

2 Ahmad Nia and Alpar Atun, “Aesthetic Design Thinking Model,” 195.

3 Wood and Abe, “The Aesthetics of Control,” 3241.

4 Sternberg, “The Urban Aesthetic in Comparative Perspective,” 70.

5 Healey, “European Urban Planning Systems,” 701.

6 Karakaya, “Construction of the Republic.”

7 Hastaoglou Martinidis, “Urban Aesthetics,” 153.

8 Karakaya, “Construction of the Republic,” 44.

9 Beer, “The Contingent Public Value of ‘Good Design,’” 282.

10 Rezafar, “Aesthetic Control Management.”

11 Garvin and Leroy, “Design Guidelines,” 3.

12 Ziegler, “Aesthetic in Ohio Land Use Law,” 2.

13 Sorensen, “Taking Path Dependence Seriously,” 17.

14 Tasan Kok, “Analysing Path Dependence,” 2184.

15 Rezafar and Turk, “Urban Design Factors Involved in the Aesthetic Assessment,” 83.

16 Yılmaz Bakır “Delineation of Path,” 49.

17 Paul Pierson, “Interesting Returns, Path Dependence,” 251.

18 Mahoney, “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology,” 507.

19 Yılmaz Bakır, “Delineation of Path,” 53.

20 Woodlief, “The Path Dependence City,” 405.

21 Conteh and Panter, “Path-Dependence,” 1.

22 Woodlief, “The Path Dependence City,” 405.

23 Conteh and Panter, “Path-Dependence,” 4.

24 Lee, “Rethinking Path Dependency and Regional Innovation,” 92.

25 Tasan Kok, “Analysing Path Dependence,” 2184.

26 Woodlief, “The Path Dependence City,” 405.

27 Ayataç, “Influence of International”; Rezafar and Turk, “The History of Aesthetic Control and Management in the Planning System”; and Öztürk and Çıracı, “The Planning History of Turkey.”

28 Ayataç, “Influence of International,” 13.

29 Özcan, “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları.”

30 Karakaya, “Construction of the Republic,” 44.

31 Keleş, “İmar Kanunu ve Yönetmeliklerinin.”

32 Özcan, “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları,” 50.

33 Karakaya, “Construction of the Republic,” 66.

34 Erkan, “Urban Planning in Turkey,” 188.

35 Özcan, “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformları,” 159.

36 Çelik, “The Remaking of Istanbul.”

37 Karakaya, “Construction of the Republic,” 50.

38 Erkan, “Urban Planning in Turkey,” 188.

39 Keleş, “İmar Kanunu ve Yönetmeliklerinin,” 24.

40 İbidan, “The Urban Development of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century.”

41 Ersoy, “Relations Between Central and Local Governments in Turkey,” 325.

42 Duyguluer, “Imar ve Şehir Planlama Mevzuatının.”

43 Ayrancı, “Metropoliten alanlarda.”

44 Sınacı, “Stratejik Mekansal Planlamanın.”

45 Gül and Lamb, “Urban Planning in Istanbul in the Early Republican Period,” 59.

46 Tankut, “Ankara’nın başkent,” 94.

47 Ibid., 104.

48 Tekeli, “Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama.”

49 Tankut, “Ankara’nın başkent,” 93.

50 Ibid., 93.

51 Egli, “Genç Türkiye İnşa Edilirken.”

52 Ibid., 324.

53 Tekeli, “Türkiye’de Kent Planlaması Düşüncesinin Gelişimi,” 37.

54 Hastaoglou Martinidis, “Urban Aesthetics,” 153.

55 Bilsel and Zelef, “Mega Events in Istanbul,” 621.

56 Pierre, “The Urbanism of Henri Prost and Transformations of İstanbul.”

57 Bilsel and Zelef, “Mega Events in Istanbul,” 634.

58 Tekeli, “Lessons to Turkey’s Urbanization Experience.”

59 Tekeli, “Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama,” 111.

60 Karakaya, “Construction of the Republic,” 66.

61 Hastaoglou Martinidis, “Urban Aesthetics,” 182.

62 Tekeli, “Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama,” 111.

63 Ayrancı, “Metropoliten alanlarda,” 30.

64 Balaban, “The Negative Effects,” 26–35.

65 Şengül, “Planlama Paradigmalarının Dönüşümü Üzerine Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme.”

66 Ayataç, “Influence of International,” 12.

67 Cantemir, “Çok PartiLi Hayata Geçiş Sürecinde Istanbul’un Mekân ve Sosyal Yapi Dönüşümü (1946–1960).”

68 Ayataç, “The International Diffusion of Planning,” 114.

69 Duyguluer, “Imar ve Şehir Planlama Mevzuatının.”

70 Rezafar and Turk, “Proposing a Checklist for Aesthetic Control and Management,” 68.

71 Yıldırım, “Critical Evaluation.”

72 Yenice, “Türkiye’nin Kentsel Dönüşüm Deneyiminin Tarihsel Analizi,” 76.

73 Ersoy, “Kentsel Planlama Kuramları”; and Yıldırım, “Critical Evaluation,” 61.

74 Türkün, Mülk, Mahal, İnsan.

75 Uzun, “Yeni Yasal Düzenlemeler ve Kentsel Dönüșüme Etkileri,” 49.

76 Çelik, “19. yüzyılda Osmanlı Başkenti, Değişen İstanbul, (çev. Deringil, S., 1996).”

77 Duyguluer, “Imar ve Şehir Planlama Mevzuatının.”

78 Torlak, “Gecekondulaşmanın Gelişimi,” 64.

79 Boratav, Yeldan, and Köse, “Globalization, Distribution and Social Policy,” 3.

80 Öktem, “Küresel Kent Söyleminin Kentsel Mekanı Dönüştürmedeki Rolü.”

81 Suher, “Kent Kimliğine Etkili Yasa Uygulamaları.”

82 Özalp and Erkut, “Kamu yararı perspektifinden İstanbul’da kentsel müdahaleler,” 242.

83 Sınacı, “Stratejik Mekansal Planlamanın,” 80.

84 Günay, “Yeni Liberal Kentleşme Kavramı ve Politikaları.”

85 Ünal, “Türk Şehir Planlama Hukukunun Dünü, Bugünü 1985–2015.”

86 Özalp, “İstanbul’da Neoliberal Kentleşme Dinamikleri.”

87 Dinçer, “The Impact of Neoliberal Policies,” 60.

88 Ataöv and Sevin, “Türkiye’de Kentsel DönüşÜme,” 82.

89 Ünal, “An Examination of Turkish Planning.”

90 Özkan and Turk, “Emergence, Formation, and Outcomes of Flexibility,” 34.

91 Kilinç, Özgür, and Neval, “The Possible Sources of Ethical Issues,” 65.

92 Turk and Demircioğlu, “Use of Market-led Measures for Land Assembly,” 210.

93 Arıkboğa, “Büyükşehir Belediye Modeli ve Reform,” 32.

94 Ayataç, “The International Diffusion of Planning,” 137.

95 Salman and Kuban, “Boğaziçi tarihi sit alanının yokoluş süreci,” 114.

96 Köktürk, “Türkiye’de ’Gecekondu ve İmar Affı’ Üzerine Bir İnceleme,” 66.

97 Uzun, “Yeni Yasal Düzenlemeler,” 52.

98 Torlak, “Gecekondulaşmanın gelişimi,” 73.

99 Yıldırım, “Critical Evaluation,” 80.

100 Keleş, “Kent ve Çevre Değerleri Bağlamında Kamu Yararı Kavramı.”

101 Özalp and Erkut, “Kamu Yararı Perspektifinden İstanbul’da Kentsel Müdahaleler,” 242.

102 Ataöv and Osmay, “Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüme,” 57–82.

103 Gedikli, “Examination of the Interpretation of Strategic Spatial Planning,” 297.

104 Yıldırım, “Critical Evaluation,” 80.

105 Ayataç, “Influence of International,” 13.

106 Tasan Kok, “Analysing Path Dependence,” 2209.

107 Balaban, “The Negative Effects,” 26.

108 Türkün, “Urban Regeneration and Hegemonic,” 72.

109 Ibid., 26.

110 Ibid., 72.

111 Öztürk and Terhorst, “Variety of Urban Tourism Development Trajectories,” 683.

112 Dinçer, “The Impact of Neoliberal Policies,” 60.

113 Kuyucu, “Türkiye'de Kentsel Dönüşümün Dönüşümü,” 386.

114 Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, “Riskli Bina Sayısı.”

115 “Risky Buildings.”

116 Güzey, “The Last Round in Restructuring the City,” 40.

117 Çevre Düzeni Raporu, https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/mpgm/icerikler/cdp_rev_rapor_2021-duzenlenm-s--20210323135631.pdf (accessed July 5, 2022).

118 “Toki.”

119 “Haber, Atatürk Havalimanı Millet bahçesi oluyor.”

120 Kastas Uzun and Senol, “Recent ‘Nation Gardens’ and Historical Development,” 240.

121 Şengül, “Planlama Perspektifinden Büyükúehirlerde Hastanelerin Yer Seçimi Kararları.”

122 Çelebi and Torus, “The Investigation of City Hospitals,” 7–12.

123 Çavdar, “Kutsal Hırsın Beton Gölgesi.”

124 Sarı and Dülgeroğlu, “The Development of High-rise Housing Image in Istanbul,” 144.

125 Schaller, “Aesthetic Control Management in the German Planning Process,” 39; Punter, “Aesthetic Control/Design Control in the United Kingdom,” 67; VanWeert, “Aesthetic Control Management in the Netherlands,” 15; Ploger, “Discoursive Planning and the Ethics of Closeness,” 1–20; and Nelissen and Vocht, “Aesthetic Control in Europe,” 347.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Azadeh Rezafar

Azadeh Rezafar she earned her Ph.D. Degree in Urban and Regional Planning from Istanbul Technical University. She is a faculty member at Istanbul Arel University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture. Her research interests focus on the urban laws and regulations, urban aesthetic control management, urban design, sustainability in design and planning. She has articles published or will be published in recognized and respected journals on these subjects.

Sevkiye Sence Turk

Sevkiye Sence Turk she is a faculty member at Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning. Her research interests focus on the legal and administrative problems of urban areas, land development processes in urban and urban development areas, urban renewal and location theory. She has articles published in recognized and respected journals on these subjects, international books and book chapters. The book titled 'Land Readjustment Experience in Turkey' was published by UN-Habitat in 2014. The chapter titled “Could Land Readjustment be participatory and inclusive in Turkey?” was published in the book “Global Experiences in Land Readjustment” by UN-Habitat in 2018.