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

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