Urban Design and the Planning System in Izmir - Centrum pro krajinu

Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
Journal of
Landscape
Studies
Urban Design and the Planning System in Izmir
Isin Can
Department of the Built Environment, The University of Nottingham
Abstract
This paper tries to understand the role of master plans and regulations in the transformation of urban morphology of
Izmir through theoretical analysis. It considers the planning system of Turkey in terms of management, control, and
space production. In addition the paper questions, how master plans are developed by which actors? After giving brief
planning history of Izmir since the establishment of the New Turkish Republic, it focuses on the recent development
approaches and policies and examines whether these plans include participation processes of different sectors and
community, strategic approach and vision, collective design and urban design.
Key words: Turkish planning system; Urban Design; Urban space; Master plans; Development plans
1. Introduction
Urban design has achieved growing importance
since the 1950s. Although the urban design
competitions in Turkey have gained further
recognition, especially in the last five to ten years,
it is still not properly defined in policies regarding
the city’s development and not well understood by
local and central governments. So what does urban
design mean for Turkish Cities? Is it just a tool,
which is used to attract investment and transform
the urban space, or is it more than that? Before
moving to planning and urban design practices in
Turkey, it would be useful to give brief definitions
of the concepts.
As we know, neither architecture nor planning
is new phenomenon; they have existed since the
Neolithic period of cities. However, they came to
the fore with the advent of modern practices,
theories and concepts especially with
industrialization and the modernist movement. As
LeGates and Stout (2000) state, ‘urban planning is
as old as cities’, but it is only known as a
professional practice since the industrial period
brought many problems to cities, like rapid
urbanization, health issues, and housing problems.
Today it is defined as social organization and
political governance. In addition planning is a
separate and distinct activity from architecture,
which is a control and management oriented
profession (Oc and Tiesdell, 1994).
While planning is defined principally as an
arrangement and organization of space, urban
design is usually perceived as a creative activity for
smaller scales. Although they are recognised as
two different objects, they are components of the
same process. They are both involved in city
development in different scales (Vardar, 2005).
Urban design began to be recognized as a
discipline distinct from architecture and planning
in 1956. Jose Luis Sert defined urban design as
‘part of city planning which deals with the physical
form of the city’ and also ‘the most creative phase
of city planning’, the intersecting behaviour of
urban design between architects, landscape
architects, and city planners. Hence urban design
* Corresponding autor; E-mail: laxic2@nottingham.ac.uk 181
Available online at: www.centrumprokrajinu.cz/jls/

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
was thought of as a bridge between planning and
design. It has a broad scope with fuzzy boundaries,
because, as Krieger mentions, it does not have a
precise definition yet (Krieger, 2006 in Moor and
Rowland, 2006; p. 19).
Urban design is an expanding,
interdisciplinary, theory and policy-practice based
subject. It deals with the spaces between buildings,
building masses, and the quality of the public
realm. As an effective problem-solving tool it
organizes the city through diverse disciplines and
activities, skills, and professions. It is about the
place and, more importantly, people and the
environment; hence collectively it has a shared
responsibility. In order to achieve the goals set for
the city, it benefits from different spatial scales.
Urban design is a process that is implemented in
the local-global, part-whole relation as well as in
the real world under the affect of the market and
regulations (Carmona et al., 2003).
2. Planning and Urban Design in Turkey
In the 1960s comprehensive planning was
criticised due to its lack of flexibility and the fact
that it was dropping behind the rapid change and
development. Hence in the 1980s there was a move
to a project based approach. With the 1990s
strategic planning approach became popular and
started being used in the western planning system.
Strategic planning is related with the action and the
vision of the city. It is more adaptable,
participatory, action and target-oriented, which is
an organized effort and management technique
(Sanoff, 2006; Ozgur, 2008). Nevertheless, in
Turkey the planning system is far away from the
strategic planning approach (Yildirim, 2006; Ercan,
2007). It is based on development plans. These
plans do not unify with the urban plan and strategic
plan of the region, as well as there is little relation
between large-scale plans and small-scale plans
(Ercan, 2007). They do not deal with the process;
they concentrate on the end-state plan. Hence they
have 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. However, 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 bureaucratization 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).
Urban planning contains 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. Thus it 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 construction
parcels 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. In the
end it becomes a tool for set backs, as well as
building heights and plot ratios. In a sense this
approach is taking 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, development
legislation does not define the regional and local
differences that depend upon climate, topography
and orientation. Municipalities have the possibility
to change these issues according to the region, but
they do not do so. Hence urban environments
182

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
cannot be formed depending on the local context
(Aydemir, 1989). Consequently, Development
Laws were not capable of dealing with urban issues
in Turkey.
In addition to Regulatory problems, in Turkey
there are also institutional problems, e.g. 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 decision of the large-scale plan 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 were in the planning sector
and commissioned by developing plans. However
this resulted in the degradation of waterfront
settlements due to their inexperience in planning.
For instance, as Keles (1994) emphasizes, the
numbers of municipalities were increased although
there was lack of sources. This caused the decrease
in the quality of public services. In addition, in
some cities there is lack of communication between
planners and mayors.
In terms of planning problems, as mentioned
before, in Turkey incremental planning is being
used rather than strategic planning. Due to the
project based approach, some of the urban
transformation projects create gentrification
problems and the privatization 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 parts, like giant shopping areas,
business centres and gated communities, have
increased with this type of transformation project
(Bas, 2006; Ozgur, 2008; Keles, 1994; Ercan,
2007; Vardar, 2005).
In Turkish Cities, gecekondu (squatter areas)
are usually addressed by urban transformation
projects (Akkar, 2006; Yildirim, 2006). As Keles
(1994) mentions, development remissions and
reclamation plans have become tools for
privatisation and give legitimacy to those 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 need 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 macro form is being affected deficiently
(Ercan, 2007).
3. Izmir and its Planning History since Republic
Izmir, the third biggest city in Turkey, has
experienced the same kinds of planning problems
and changes as the other Turkish Cities, that were
mentioned above. With the New Turkish Republic,
the city started to modernize with the influence
from western planning approaches and ideas. The
Danger and Prost plan (1925) was the first attempt
for citywide planning approaches in Izmir. Under
the consultancy of the French planner Henri Prost
and Rene and Raymond Danger, the master plan
for Izmir was developed. It was approved by Izmir
Municipality in 1925 and revised in 1933.
Basically, it was based on the principles of Ecolede
Beaux Arts with radial roads, boulevards, and
public squares at their intersection points. It was
implemented partially for the areas of Alsancak
that had been destroyed by war and fire.
Investment decisions could not be implemented
due to the financial problems. However, this plan is
important for two reasons. Firstly, because the
municipality established a commission of citizen
architects, engineers and doctors defining the
planning targets for Izmir. Secondly, because the
recent urban pattern of the city centre Alsancak has
been defined by this plan, which can be easily seen
from aerial views (Bilsel, 2009; Kaya, 2002).
Secondly, Le Corbusier developed his plan
with a modernist space design approach and using
CIAM principles, and submitted it in 1949. As a
functionalist plan it provided commercial, business
and residential zones, with a comprehensive land
use plan. It proposed to renew the whole city, with
the separation of motor and pedestrian traffic, new
183

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
Figure 1. Le Corbusier’s Plan for Izmir. (Source Arkitera)
Figure 2. 1941 City Guide of Izmir. (Source: Izmir City Archive)
184

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
residential areas in Hatay, and administrative and
cultural buildings in Konak. Here planner and
municipality did not work together, and it did not
include any joint participation. However, his
proposal had come into existence indirectly and
affected some of the decisions of the master plans
later developed. Along with this, it is important in
terms of being the exemplar for the urbanism
framework of CIAM.
After that, the 1950s was the period of Aru,
Ozdes, and Canpolat’s Plan, which was a
competition project launched by the Bank for
Municipal Services. Their approach was defined by
the authorities, a functional approach, dividing the
city into functional regions as Le Corbusier did.
However it was more practical and applicable than
the Corbusier one as well as illustrating the future
development areas of the city, depending on the
survey method and analysis. It became operative in
1953. The most important decision of this plan was
the conservation approach for the traditional
shopping centre in Kemeralti. Regarding the public
demands and the influence of the authorities, initial
decisions were changed. Hence the plan was
exposed to alterations and action area plans for the
preparation of the final master plan. This was a
sign of a kind of participatory process (Bilsel,
2009; Kaya, 2002). Also in this period the
municipality of Izmir organized another
competition for Konak Square and its surrounding,
which was followed by various other architectural
competitions for the governmental buildings. This
indicates the relation between planning and design
that was used in order to form the governmental
centre of Izmir (Bilsel, 2009). Also with this plan,
the extension of the transportation system and the
multi-storey construction decisions were taken for
the waterfront of the city (Yuksel, 2006).
In the 1950s and 60s Izmir had started to
experience the gecekondu (squatter area)
phenomenon due to rapid urbanization. This time
Izmir invited Albert Bodmer for the revision plan.
He mentioned the need for regional and
comprehensive planning that included the city and
its surroundings. Along with a comprehensive
analysis he emphasized the social aspects of the
city regarding squatter areas. However, the
municipality did not want to use comprehensive
planning and they chose to revise the previous plan
(Kaya, 2002). In 1973 the Master Planning Office
of Izmir was established and it proposed a rational
comprehensive approach that considered the city
from different scales, with detailed analysis and
projections. It was the first metropolitan master
plan of Izmir produced in 1/25000 scale with a
coordinative and participatory process. It proposed
a linear macro form for Izmir but, however, it
could not provide the strong control mechanism
that is needed for a linear form (Arkon and
Gulerman, 1995). The plan had many defects, e.g.
it encountered financial problems and it had a
problem in the finalization of the analytical work
as well as in the population projections (Kaya,
2002). There were problems in its implementation
too. Public investments could not be realized due to
the disregard of land ownership, the cadastral maps
for the proposed development areas remained
unfinished, and delays in preparing 1/5000 and 1
/1000 scale implementation plans resulted in the
impromptu use of previous plans (Arkon and
Gulerman, 1995).
After the Second World War until the 1980s,
the production and representation system of
dwelling in Turkey was the ‘squatter’ (gecekondu)
and the ‘build-sell system’ (yap-sat). In the 1980s
Izmir struggled with urban sprawl and mass
housing projects came into existence. Private
entrepreneurs superseded the public sector in the
1990s and, with the change in consumption culture,
gated communities appeared (Sayar and Suer,
2004). In 1984, with the Metropolitan Law, the
Izmir Metropolitan Planning Bureaux was closed.
In 1985, with the new Development Law,
municipalities commissioned the preparation of a
1/5000 master development plan and a 1/1000
implementation development plan. Hence, Izmir
Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) developed the
master plan through revisions, and combination of
previous 1/5000 and 1/1000 scale plans, besides
filling in some of the parts with new plan decisions
(Arkon and Gulerman, 1995). Consequently, this
plan did not use any theoretical background or
method. It did not have any anxiety to form and
design the city, so it had just produced plans
through concentrating on emerging developments.
In addition, with the influence of private investors
and public investments, the city structure was
developed with incremental decisions (Kaya,
2002).
185

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
4. Recent Development Approaches of Izmir
Finally Izmir achieved its 1/25.000 scale Urban-
Region Development Plan (IKNIP) in 2007. Due to
the inadequacy of the 1973 and 1989 plans, in 2002
new master plan preparations started. However, in
order to evaluate IKNIP, as Aysel and Goksu
(2008) mention, it is important to understand in
what kind of environment and planning system the
plan was produced and what is its success related
with, and the differences of the plan from
traditional ones. In Turkey there is an on-going
legislation and institutional arrangements and
changes. These is the 5216 Metropolitan
Municipality Law (2004) giving the authority to
metropolitan municipalities for the preparation of
master plans and implementation; the 5302 Special
Provincial Administration Law (2005) giving
commission to Provincial Parliaments and
Metropolitan Municipalities for the responsibility
of Environmental Plans related with the Province.
Finally with the Environment Law (2006), the
Environment and Forest Ministry was
commissioned for the 1/50.000 and 1/100.000 scale
regional environmental plans (Chamber of City
Planning of Turkey, 2006). IKNIP was prepared in
this unhealthy planning system, which gives
authority to various institutions for different plan
types and results in the conflict of plan preparation
and approval. For instance, when IKNIP was
prepared there were not any large-scale projects
that can direct IKNIP. Also the 1/100.000 scale
Izmir-Manisa-Kutahya Environmental plan
prepared by Environment and Forest Ministry
lacked a large-scale regional plan. These
implementations contradict the gradual unity of
planning. Another contradiction is the giving of
different land use decisions for the same area by
different institution’s plans. For example, Inciralti
in Izmir was defined by master plans as an area
that will be preserved as an agricultural site.
However, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s
Environmental Plan reveals this area as a fair site.
Amongst all of these, IKNIP has positive points as
well. It is problem-based, process-based and
action-oriented. It is strategic spatial planning and
includes negotiation and is open to discussion.
Instead of growth it focuses on the improvement of
the life quality and liveability of the area. In
conclusion it is distinguished from the traditional
processes by its operational decisions allowing the
hierarchy between politics, plan, program, and
projects. Hence instead of being an end state plan it
gives possibilities to discussions and participation
(Aysel and Goksu, 2008). As Izmir Chamber of
Architects mention, the 1/5000 and 1/1000
development plans of Izmir have to be finished
depending on the IKNIP plan decisions (Izmir
Chamber of Architects, 2009).
IMM organized an international urban design
project competition regarding the harbour area and
new city centre in 2001. And by 2003 the New City
Centre Master Development Plan was prepared by
the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality based on the
proposals of the competition. This plan aims to
reduce the construction pressure on the historical
city centre though directing the development
towards a new centre, redefining the architectural,
natural and historical heritage of sites like Bayrakli
Archaeological Site. As well as the plan includes
refurbishment of old industrial buildings
(Sumerbank Factory, City Gas Building), and it
intends to link the north and south part of the city
through removing import and export activities of
the harbour and keeping the existing one just for
cruise passengers, in order to encourage the
waterfront use. The plan proposes business,
tourism, commercial and cultural land uses. Bal et
al., (2005) evaluated the new city centre master
plan from the different perspectives of actors of
public sectors, chambers of different professions
and academicians. As they realized, all the actors
intersect in the vision of Izmir as a harbour city, a
cultural and fair city, thus moving the city centre
towards this area was accepted. However, all the
actors have concerns about the type of the investors
and capital around the site. There must be strategic
planning and targets within a participatory
atmosphere rather than rigid development plans.
Urban design issues are important in that sense.
There are some problems in terms of the
practicality and applicability of the plan. For
example, the ownership pattern and the
development plan do not match in some parts. The
municipality is proposing an expropriation.
However, this is difficult for the public sector in
order to provide the costs. There must be private
and public capital for the development of the area
but also public benefit should be considered. The
reason is that, at the moment, the plan is easily
open to urban rent and the speculations of the
construction sector. It has to be considered through
186

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
comprehensive analysis and studies for the public
use. Especially for the Central Business District,
the construction area for building was proposed as
1/3. Due to the lack of green areas in Izmir, this
plan proposes 2/3 of the construction area for open
spaces. There are special project areas defined by
the municipality for urban design projects. The
Plan report targets this area to become a ‘place to
visit’ rather than a ‘place to pass’. (Bal et al., 2005;
IMM Plan Report, 2003). Hence the source of the
problem was once more the development plan
based approach. At some points, neither the street,
nor the ownership pattern were coherent within the
proposed road system. Scales of the project
(1/5000 and 1/1000) were not capable of
examining the area in detail resulting in some
registered buildings being overlooked.
Development plans should be developed from
architectural and urban design projects at least with
a scale of 1/500, looking at the building masses and
the relations between them, street layout, public
spaces and in-between spaces (Cikis, 2009). As
Vardar (2005) says ‘urban design before
development plans’.
Above all these, there are regeneration and
conservation projects carried by IMM and Konak
Municipality, in the name of ‘Agora and Its
Surroundings Conservation Development and
Revitalization Project’. Konak Square (20 ha area)
was redesigned by EPA Architecture and
implemented in 2003. It was important for the
image of the city as it has been the governmental
centre of the city since the beginning of 19 th
century. Due to the building restrictions Ersen
Gursel cannot propose any building that will
support the liveability of the square with various
land uses. Hence the square looks like a park rather
than an enclosed public square as it was before the
demolishment of Yellow Barracks. It regained the
connection between the sea and the traditional
bazaar. There was not any public participation
during the project design process. Although it is
accessible to everyone and managed by the
municipality it has not entirely satisfied the
publicness criteria. That’s because it cannot be
used efficiently during the night due to safety
reasons and the lack of residential use surrounding
the square (Can, 2007). In addition to Konak,
especially both with the establishment of the
conservation unit in IMM and all the legal
arrangements about conservation, regeneration
projects started around Kemeralti and Agora by
2000s. Kemeralti is being transformed compared
with its original urban structure. However, this old
part of the city is defending against the
transformation to a certain extent through the
regulations and institutions mentioned above
(Goksu, 2005). These projects include the
restoration of registered buildings, facade
arrangements, infrastructure projects, excavations
in Agora, expropriation program, and urban design
arrangements for the vicinity of Kadifekale Castle.
Here there will be an evacuation for the recent
residents who will be taken to the apartment blocks
of TOKI (Housing Development Administration of
Turkey) in Uzundere because of the earth sliding
risk in the vicinity of Kadifekale. In those projects
it is pleasing that both IMM and Konak
Municipality are working in cooperation, and that
the Chamber of Commerce is developing some
schemes and targets for the area in terms of
economical input to Izmir. All these actors are in
pursuit of a touristic and cultural city centre.
During the design and implementation there was a
participatory process with tradesman. However
these participations can include citizens and other
private or public sectors, chambers, and
academicians (Altinors Cirak and Yorur, 2007).
5. General Evaluation
Izmir has developed various plans in the vision of
becoming a tourist, fair and a congress city. All of
these efforts are important for the future target of
the city and Izmir Metropolitan Municipality’s
contributions in this process cannot be denied. In
contrast with other cities; IMM has introduced
Izmir’s urban implementation projects
(transportation plan, urban regeneration projects,
preparation to earthquake, conservation of natural
and historical resources, and etc.) with its strategic
plan on the website. However there are still
planning and social issues that need to be
considered. These can be summarised as follows:
• Urban improvement in order to prevent
segregation and gentrification problems of
urban transformation projects,
• Using resources and potentials efficiently to
achieve sustainability, and to avoid the
building pressure on natural, cultural and
historical reserves and assets,
187

I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
• Defining properly the role and authority of
institutions, preventing the conflicts between
central and local governments (usually central
government does not tend to give the authority
to decide on big investment projects to local
authorities, also different institutions develop
synchronous plans),
• Staging in planning, ensuring the relation
between large and small scale plans,
• Instead of mainly focusing on growth plans,
healthy and liveable urban development
schemes should be developed, as well as with
the housing politics against the problem of
immigration,
• Izmir should develop schemes based on its
own potentials relying on its own resources
rather than imported city visions,
• Apartment blocks especially on the waterfront
creates a wall effect, leaves no green space for
citizens, which results in the degradation of
public realm and quality of city life,
• Involving urban design between planning and
architecture, design based approach instead of
development plan based approach, as well as
using design guides as a tool to improve the
quality of architecture and planning,
• Instead of consecutive relation between
architects and planners, there should be
concurrent relation between many actors,
planning the city and designing the building
together, cooperation between architects and
planners during the whole process (Polat and
Bilsel, 2006; Kayin, 2008; Ozalp, 2006;
Egilmez, 2009; Duyguluer, 2006 ).
Consequently in Turkey as Tekeli (2002) asserts
while rearranging the planning institutions,
modifications in the paradigm of the planning
system has to be considered in terms of theory,
management and control. Cities should have a
process emphasized vision. But the biggest
obstacle is the development plan approach, for the
reason that they are the tools of previous planning
paradigm. Hence, IKNIP is an important start in
terms of strategic planning. However implementing
the decisions through a plot-based approach will
again result in monotonous and characterless areas.
Although there are some incremental urban design
projects in Izmir, integrated and collective urban
design with various scale projects has to be
involved in the planning process and practice.
References
Akkar, Z. M. 2006. Kentsel donusum uzerine Bati’daki
kavramlar, tanimlar, surecler ve Turkiye. Planlama Dergisi,
2, pp. 29-38.
Altinors Cirak, A., YORUR, N. 2007. Strategic Meaning of the
Historical City Center While Designating Future of a City ‘A
Study with Numerous Actors: Izmir City Kemeralti Bazaar
Case’, 43 rd ISOCARP Congress.
Arkon, C., Gulerman, A.R. 1995. Izmir Buyuksehir
Butunundeki Nazim Plan Calismalari Uzerine Bir Inceleme,
Planlama Dergisi, 1-2, pp. 14-20.
Aydemir, S.E. 1989. Imar Mevzuatinin Iklimsel, Topografik,
Psikolojik ve Ekonomik Acidan Irdelenmesi, Planlama
Dergisi, 2-3-4: 51-55.
Aysel, F., Goksu, S. 2008. Izmir Kentsel Bolge Nazim Imar
Plani’nin Degerlendirilme Bicimi Uzerine, Ege Mimarlik, 1:
36-39.
Bal, E., Altinors, A., Dogmus, O.E. 2005. Kente Yon Veren
Aktorler Temelinde Izmir Yeni Kent Merkezi Nazim Plani,
Ege Mimarlik, 1-53: 32-36.
Bas, Y. 2006. Planlama Mimarlik Iliskisi Yeniden
Tanimlanirken, Planlama Dergisi, 4: 7-14.
Bilsel, C. 2009. Izmir’de Cumhuriyet Donemi Planlamasi
(1923-1965): 20. Yuzyil Kentsel Mirasi, Ege Mimarlik,
Ekim, pp. 12-17.
Can, I. 2007. Transformation of Public Space: A Case of
Konak Square, Izmir. Master Thesis submitted to Graduate
School of Engineering and Sciences, Izmir Institute of
Technology, (January 2007).
Carmona, M., Heath, T., OC, T., Tiesdell, S. 2003. Public
Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design,
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Celik, H.M. 2003. Turk Kent Planlama Sisteminin Dunya
Planlama Teorisindeki Yeri ve Acmazlari, Planlama Dergisi,
4: 93-105.
Cikis, S. 2009. Endustriyel Bir Miras Alaninda Donusum: Izmir
Liman Arkasi Bolgesi, Ege mimarlik, Temmuz, pp. 10-13.
Duyguluer, F. 2006. Imar Mevzuatinin Kayiplari, Planlama
Dergisi, 4: 27-37.
Egilmez, B. 2009. Izmir’de Kentsel Donusum ve Secim,
Planlama.org.
http://www.planlama.org/new/kose-yazilari/izmir-de-kentseldonusum-ve-secim-d.-burcu-egilmez.html
Ercan, E.M. 2007. Kentlerimizin Icinde Bulundugu Planlama
ve Yonetim Sorunlari, Planlama Dergisi, 2: 69-73.
Goksu, S. 2002. Planlamada Yenilik Arayislari Uzerine,
Planlama Dergisi, 2-3: 31-34.
Goksu, S. 2005. Kentsel Donusum ya da ‘Yeni Sisede Eski
Sarap’, Ege Mimarlik, 1-53: 9-12.
Gunay, B. 1997. Kentsel Tasarim Kulturu ve Yaraticiligin
Sinirlari, Planlama Dergisi, 2: 54-61.
Izmir Yeni Kent Merkezi Nazim Imar Plani Raporu. 2003. IBB
Planlama Mudurlugu, Izmir.
Kayin, E. 2008. 21. Yuzyil Kentlerinde Kuresel-Yerel Ikilemi
ve Izmir, Ege Mimarlik, 1: 40-43.
Keles, R. 1994. Siyasi ve Idari Yapinin Kent Planlamasina ve
Kent Plancisina Etkileri, Planlama Dergisi, pp. 40-47.
Krieger, A. 2006. Territories of Urban Design, in MOOR, M.
and ROWLAND, J. (Eds) Urban Design Futures, pp. 18-19.
London and New York: Routledge.
Legates, R.T., Stout, F. (eds.) 2000. The City Reader, p. 299.
London and New York: Routledge.
188

Meshur, M.C. 2002. Idari Yargiya Konu Olan 18. Madde
Uygulamalari: Konya Kenti Ornegi, Planlama Dergisi, 4: 57-
61.
Meshur, M.C. 2008. Arazi ve Arsa Duzenlemesi (18. Madde
Uygulamasi) Surecinin Kentsel Mekan Olusumu Acisindan
Irdelenmesi, METU JFA, 2: 21-38.
Mimarlar Odasi Izmir Subesi. 2009. Yerel Secimlerine Dogru
Izmir Kentine Dair Oneriler Talepler Beklentiler.
Oc, T., Tiesdell, S. 1994. Planning in Turkey: The Contrasting
Planning Cultures of Istanbul and Ankara, Habitat Intl., 18,
4: 99-116.
Ozalp, B. 2006. Donusemeyen ve Kimlik Bulamayan Kent:
Izmir, Planlama Dergisi, 3: 41-45.
Ozgur, E.F. 2008. Stratejik Planlamada Kentsel Projeler,
Planlama.org.
http://www.planlama.org/new/makaleler/stratejik-planlamadakentsel-projeler.html
Polat, E., Bilsel, S.G. 2006. Mimarinin ve Kentin Birlikte
Planlanmasi’nda Farklilasan Kavramlar Uzerine, Planlama
Dergisi, 4: 57-67.
Sanoff, H. 2006. Multiple Views of Participatory Design,
METU JFA, 2: 131-143.
Sehir Plancilari Odasi. 2006. Ust Olcekli Planlar Cozum Yerine
Sorun mu Olusturacak?, Planlama Dergisi, 3.
Tekeli, I. 2002. Turkiye Kent Planlamasinin Yeniden
Kurumsallasmasini Duzenlerken Dusunmesi Gerekenler
Uzerine, Planlama Dergisi, 1: 4-11.
Tekeli, I. 2008. Turkiye’de Kent Planlamasi Dusuncesinin
Gelisimi, Planlama.org.
http://www.planlama.org/new/makaleler/turkiyede-kentplanlamasi-dusuncesinin-gelisimi.html
Unlu, T. 2006. Kentsel Mekanda Degisimin Yonetimesi, METU
JFA, 2: 63-92.
Vardar, A. 2005. Nazim Plandan Kentsel Projelere Kentsel
Tasarim, Planlama Dergisi, 3: 20-32.
Yildirim, A.E. 2006. Guncel Bir Kent Sorunu: Kentsel
Donusum, Planlama Dergisi, 1: 7-24.
Yuksel, N. 2006. Esrefpasa’dan Karantina’ya, Planlama Dergisi,
3: 149-151.
I. Can: Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 181 – 189
189