No abstract

Purpose Residential satisfaction can be viewed as a part of life satisfaction. There are many studies related to the relationship between residents’ satisfaction with their environments and the quality of those environments. The purpose of this paper is to examine how this satisfaction differs according to the type of residential environment. Design/methodology/approach It is based on empirical data on the quality of life in the different residential environments of the Istanbul Metropolitan Area. The primary source of information was a household survey. Findings In an attempt to find solutions to problems with the quality of residential environments, the data were analyzed through several variables related to the subjective perceptions of residential satisfaction. According to the results of the research, residents living in planned neighborhoods in the city are more satisfied than those living in unplanned neighborhoods. The residents who live in the planned sections of the city are satisfied with the attractiveness and accessibility of their neighborhoods, while those who live in unplanned sections of the city are satisfied with their level of attachment to their neighborhoods. Practical implications The study was designed to produce baseline data so that future changes in residential conditions as perceived by the residents of Istanbul could be monitored to support decisions for residential areas. Originality/value Comparative case studies, especially on planned vs unplanned environments, are relatively limited in number. Therefore, there is a need for new researches examining differences between different residential settings within cities. This study adds value to the field of comparative studies on residential environments.

No abstract

Urban sprawl is one of the major issues regarding sustainable urban development. In response to concerns about sprawl, compact development strategies have been proposed to promote sustainable development. However, a compact development approach needs to pay attention to the crucial question of commercial profitability. The aim of this article is to inquire into the commercial profitability of compact development strategies by developing different scenarios and to put forward ways to control urban sprawl through certain spatial strategies in the Istanbul case. The results indicate that the current planning approach is not effective in reducing sprawl without setting certain spatial strategies by which development activity is restricted, or imposing additional requirements for new development in certain areas. It is found that urban sprawl can be reduced by up to 62 per cent through setting certain spatial strategies and that uncontrolled urban sprawl might feasibly be shifted from peripheral to central areas.

This paper provides a comparative analysis of planning approaches in divided cities in order to investigate the role of planning in alleviating or exacerbating urban division in these societies. It analyses four urban areas-Berlin, Beirut, Belfast, Jerusalem-either of which has experienced or still experiences extreme divisions related to nationality, ethnicity, religion, and/or culture. Each case study is investigated in terms of planning approaches before division and after reunification (if applicable).The relation between division and planning is reciprocal: planning effects, and is effected by urban division. Therefore, it is generally assumed that traditional planning approaches are insufficient and that the recognized engagement methods of planners in the planning process are ineffective to overcome the problems posed by divided cities. Theoretically, a variety of urban scholars have proposed different perspectives on this challenge. In analysing the role of planning in divided cities, both the role of planners, and planning interventions are evaluated within the light of related literature.The case studies indicate that even though different planning approaches have different consequences on the ground, there is a universal trend in harmony with the rest of the world in reshaping these cities. This conclusion draws another one; the contemporary planning interventions in divided cities do not address the root causes of division. Hence, incorporation of 'difference' as a prominent feature of the city to its plans is not addressed as it should be in these special cases. KeywordsUrban space, Divided cities, Divided societies, Urban planning, Segregation. Gizem IntroductionA search on the term 'divided city' reveals the work of a variety of urban scholars who use the same term but have very different research perspectives. These different approaches appear in a duality. The first discourse focuses on divided cities as places where divisions of capitalist production processes are more pronounced. They emphasise class, race and gender relations, urban segregation and increasing inequality between the affluent and deprived city districts as their main concerns. Their geographical concern is with global cities such as New York, London, Paris and Tokyo (see, for example, Mallenkopf and Castells, 1991, Fainstein et al., 1992, Marcuse and van Kempen, 2002 Marcuse, 1995).In the last three decades however, there has been a growing body of literature concerned about a more specific form of urban division, classified by its extremeness (Safier, 1997). These divided cities are less in numbers and indicate physical or political contestations in certain special cases. Wellknown examples of such cities are Belfast, Jerusalem, Nicosia, Mostar, Beirut, and Berlin. Prominent scholars working in this field (see, for example, Bollens, 1998Bollens, , 2007Bollens, , 2009 Calame and Charlesworth, 2009;Boal, 1994;Gaffikin and Morrissey, 2011; Hepburn, 2004;Kliot and Mansfeld, 1999;Kotek, 1999), in time, have developed,...