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

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