Global transformations versus local dynamics in Istanbul

Abstract

Cataloged from PDF version of article.Istanbul, as the greatest metropolis of Turkey and one of the great cities of the world, has been rapidly transforming in recent years. This paper analyzes various aspects of this transformation to lead to an understanding of an appropriate strategy for metropolitan governance. Recent politicial developments indicate an apparent fragmentation of Istanbul citizens into segments with different expectations and life-styles that make new strategies of governance urgent and vital, yet harder. Istanbul is an arena waiting for the invasion of different citizen groups with different ethnic, religious and communal backgrounds. Although Turkish urban policy has never been welfare-oriented, market and outward orientation has never been so dominant. Policy issues seem to help the articulation with the world economy and to make Istanbul more attractive for foreign capital. Urban politics and government cover only a limited area of urban dynamics in Istanbul. A new approach to governance requires a strategic change in the state of mind of elected municipal officials towards the integration of various communities into governing practices, regardless of their bases of formation. Recent developments give clues about the governance potential in Turkish metropolises. Istanbul, with its urgent problems, may constitute a case study for other cities in Turkey. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Dubaization of Istanbul: Insights from the Knowledge-Based Urban Development Journey of an Emerging Local Economy

“…In doing so, the movement gives birth to new 'urban discourses' such as public participation and sustainable development which have long been neglected in the Turkish planning system (Catterall, 2013). Erkip (2000) and Ozdemir (2002) underline the role of good governance and transparent policy making in articulation of the knowledge economy, thus making Istanbul more attractive for FDI. Erkip (2000, page 371) states, "urban politics and government cover only a limited area of urban dynamics in Istanbul … .…”

The Aesthetic Value of Socio-Cultural Identities and the Cultural Dimension of the Landscape

“…Some districts were 'very degraded' and a new kind of 'urban regeneration' is promoted to correct deficiencies in the urban fabric in order to create new poles of growth. Therewith inside a 'global' context, in this new re-scaled urbanization, tourist and commercial activities which are derived by 'globalizing consumption patterns' (Erkip, 2000) increase social inequality among citizens, by attempting at the same time to attract foreign and corporate capital (Tokatlí and Boyací, 1999). So new cosmopolitan elite creates a 'virtual landscape' in the new metropolitan plan of the city, by founding the new urban projects.…”

“…However, Erkip (2000) claims that 'exhaustive consumption of globally promoted goods and life-styles increases social segregation'. This segregation is reinforced by the fact that the articulation with the world economy seem to be helped by the main policy issue in order to render any city more attractive for international and local capital.…”

“…Urban redistribution, housing problems, inequality, unemployment, and the problems of social justice could be stated as the most important problems of the nowadays 'megacities' (Erkip, 2000), that should be in coherence with the 'cultural landscape' of a city. Architectural creation may influence this cultural dimension of the landscape, because, architecture is not a simple 'form creation' but first of all it is a spatial distribution, in a specific space and time.…”

“…Nowadays, it is clear that the urban policies of the past had never been welfare-oriented by excluding social and cultural factors from the decision making procedure and the landscape of a city, while it is also clear that market and outward orientation had never been so dominant by neglecting some non-economic factors such as 'social capital' , 'reciprocity' and 'trust' that appeared recently in scholar publications (Putnam 1993;Porter 1998;Hadjimichalis, 2006). Furthermore, according to Erkip (2000), an apparent fragmentation of citizens into segments with different expectations and lifestyles is indicated after analyzing the recent political developments in Europe, Asia and United States transforming the 'cultural' into 'virtual' landscape. However, according to Hadjimichalis' approach of agglomeration economies and regional development the above mentioned non-economic factors could be analyzed in order to explain why some regions are more dynamic than others (Hadjimichalis, 2006), by leading towards new strategies of governance and democratic regional political environment, preserving the aesthetic value of socio-cultural identities.…”