Advertisement

The Urban Growth and Development Periods of Turkish Cities: A Fringe-Belt Perspective

  • Tolga ÜnlüEmail author
  • Yener Baş
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

This study aims to elaborate a discussion on the urban growth of Turkish cities from an urban morphological viewpoint and to question the applicability of the urban fringe-belt concept to explain the growth of Turkish cities and their urban structure. It has been recognized that the inner fringe belt that surrounded the historic core emerged and developed during the late Ottoman period was consolidated during the early Republican period and then experienced further changes in the subsequent periods. The inner fringe belt was enveloped by residential accretions, produced as a bourgeoisie environment by jumping over the inner fringe belt. The units of the middle fringe belt began to appear in the early Republican period and intensified during the 1950s. It was consolidated after the second wave of sprawl through large-scale housing projects, while at the same time, informal residential environments encircled the inner and middle fringe belts. This study suggests a tentative framework for a discussion on the development periods of Turkish cities in relation to fringe-belt development. The more these cities are studied, the more accurate results will be acquired.

Keywords

Urban fringe belt Urban growth Urban structure Development period Turkish cities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was funded by TUBITAK (the National Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey), grant number 113K131.

References

  1. Altaban Ö (1996) Toplu konut alanlarında örgütlenme ve işletme [Organization and management of mass housing]. ODTÜ, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews RB (1942) Elements in the rural-urban pattern. J Land Publ Util Econ 18(2):169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aru KA (1998) Türk Kenti [Turkish city]. Yem, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaufort F (1817) Karamania or a brief description of the Southeast Coasts of Asia Minor and the remains of the antiquity. Printed for R, Hunter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilgin İ (1998) Modernleşmenin ve toplumsal hareketliliğin yörüngesinde Cumhuriyet’in imarı [Redevelopment project of the Republic within the politics of modernization and social mobility]. In: Sey Y (ed) 75. yılda değişen kent ve mimarlık [The changing city and architecture in the 75th year]. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, pp 255–272Google Scholar
  6. Burgess EW (1925) The growth of the city, an introduction to a research project. In: Park RE, Burgess EW, McKenzie RD (eds) The city: suggestions for investigation of human behavior in the urban environment. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 47–62Google Scholar
  7. Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick: Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication. George Philip, London, p 27Google Scholar
  8. Conzen MRG (1962) The plan analysis of an English city centre. In: Norborg K (ed) Proceedings of the IGU symposium in urban geography Lund 1960, p. 383–414; reprinted in Whitehand JWR (ed) The urban landscape: historical development and management: papers by MRG. Conzen, Institute of British Geographers, Special Publication no.13. Academic Press, London, pp 25–54Google Scholar
  9. Conzen MRG (1966) Historical townscapes in Britain. In: House JW (ed) Northern geographical esssays in honour of G.H.J. Daysh. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 56–78Google Scholar
  10. Conzen MRG (1969) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis, 2nd edn, vol 27. Institute of British Geographers Publication, Institute of British Geographers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Conzen MP (2009) How cities internalize their former urban fringes: a cross-cultural comparison. Urban Morphol 13(1):29–54Google Scholar
  12. Dear M (2002) Los Angeles and the Chicago: invitation to a debate. City Commun 1:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dear M (2013) The Los Angeles school of urbanism: an intellectual history. Urban Geogr 24(6):493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erie SP, MacKenzie SA (2011) From the Chicago to the L.A. school. In: Judd DR, Simpson D (eds) The city revisited. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pp 104–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Günay B (2005) Ankara çekirdek alanının oluşumu ve 1990 Nazım Planı hakkında değerlendirme [Development of the city centre of Ankara and an assessment on 1990 regulatory plan]. In: Şenyapılı T (ed) Cumhuriyet’in Ankarası [Republic’s Ankara]. ODTÜ, Ankara, pp 61–119Google Scholar
  16. Halle D, Beverige AA (2011) The rise and decline of the L.A. and New York schools. In: Judd DR, Simpson D (eds) The city revisited. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pp 137–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris CD, Ullman EL (1945) The nature of cities. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 242:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hazar D, Kubat AS (2015) Fringe belts in the process of urban planning and design: comport, ve analysis of İstanbul and Barcelona. AZ ITU J Fac Archit 12(1):53–65Google Scholar
  19. Hazar D, Kubat AS (2016) The fringe-belt development process of İstanbul International Seminer on Urban Form. Nanjing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  20. Hohenberg PM, Lees LH (1996) The making of urban Europe, 1000–1994. Harvard University, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoyt H (1939) The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities. Federal Housing Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Judd DR (2011) Theorizing the city. In: Judd DR, Simpson D (eds) The city revisited. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pp 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kıray M (1965) Modern şehirlerin gelişmesi ve Türkiye’ye has bazı eğilimleri [Development of modern cities and some trends peculiar to Turkish cities]. Mimarlık 7:10–12Google Scholar
  24. Kıray M (1982) Az gelişmiş ülkelerde metropolitenleşme süreçleri [Development trends in the metropolitan cities of underdeveloped countries]. In: Gülöksüz (ed) Tükiye Birinci Şehircilik Kongresi [1st Turkish Congress on Urbanism], pp 1–12Google Scholar
  25. Kıray M (1984) İstanbul Metropolitan kent [İstanbul: the metropolitan city]. Mimarlık 84(1):28–33Google Scholar
  26. Kıray M (1998) Azgelişmiş memleketlerde şehirleşme eğilimleri: Tarihsel perpspektif içinde İzmir [Urbanization in underdeveloped countries: İzmir within a historical perspective]. In Kıray M. Kentleşme Yazıları [Writings on urbanization]. Bağlam, İstanbul, pp 28–65Google Scholar
  27. Kubat AS, Gümru F (2014) Investigating the fringe belt concept: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. International Seminer on Urban Form, Porto, Portugal, 3–6 Temmuz 2014, unpublished paperGoogle Scholar
  28. Larkham P, Jones AN (1991) A glossary of urban form. Historical geography research series no: 26. Urban Morphol Res Group, University of Birmingham, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  29. Louis H (1936) Die geographische Gliederung von Gross-Berlin. Festschrift zur Vollendung des sechzigsten Lebensjahres Norbert Krebs. Engelhorn, Stuttgart, Länderkundiche Forschung, pp 146–171Google Scholar
  30. Öktem B (2005) Küresel kent söyleminin kentsel mekanı dönüştürmesindeki rolü [The role of global city discourse on transformation of urban space]. In: Türkün A, Kurtuluş H (eds) İstanbul’da kentsel ayrışma [Urban segregation in İstanbul]. Bağlam, İstanbul, pp 25–76Google Scholar
  31. Öktem B (2011) The role of global city discourses in the development and transformation of the Buyukdere–Maslak Axis into the international business district of Istanbul. Int Plann Stud 16(1):27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Öncel AD (2010) Apartman: Galata’da yeni bir konut tipi [Apartment: A new housing type in Galata]. Kitap, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  33. Park RE, Burgess EW, McKenzie RD (1925) The city: suggestions for investigation of human behavior in the urban environment. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  34. Pryor RJ (1968) Defining the rural-urban fringe. Soc Forces 47(2):202–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rykwert J (2000) The seduction of place. University of Oxford Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Selvi Ünlü T (2009) Bir İskeleden Liman Kentine Doğu Akdeniz’in Önemli Bir Limanı Olarak On Dokuzuncu Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Mersin’de Mekansal Gelişim [Development of Urban Form of Mersin during the second half of nineteenth century]. Planlama 3(4):5–26Google Scholar
  37. Selvi Ünlü T, Göksu E (2018) Osmanlı’dan ulus devlete Doğu Akdeniz liman kentlerinde mekana müdahale ve kent kimliğindeki değişim: Mersin ve Volos örneği [Changing urban identity in the Eastern Mediterranean port cities from the Ottoman period to the nation states: the case of Mersin and Volos].  https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2018.1.3
  38. Sey Y (1998) Cumhuriyet döneminde Türkiye’de mimarlık ve yapı [Production of architecture and building during the Republican period]. In: Sey Y (ed) 75. yılda değişen kent ve mimarlık [The changing city and architecture in the 75th year]. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, pp 25–40Google Scholar
  39. Şengül T (2001) Türkiye’de Kentleşmenin İzlediği Yol Üzerine: Bir Dönemleme Girişimi [On the path of urbanization in Turkey: an attempt for periodization], Kentsel Çelişki ve Siyaset: kapitalist kentleşme süreçleri üzerine yazılar [Urban contradiction and politics: writings on the capitalist urbanization]. Demokrasi Kitaplığı, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  40. Tekeli İ (1971) The evolution of spatial organization in the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic. Ekistics 31(182):57–60Google Scholar
  41. Tekeli İ (1998) Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet döneminde kentsel gelişme ve kent planlaması [Urban development and planning in Turkey during Republican period]. In: Sey Y (ed) 75. yılda değişen kent ve mimarlık [The changing city and architecture in the 75th year]. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  42. Tekeli İ (2011a) Saçaklanma, Kentsel Etek, Kırsal Etek [Urban sprawl]. In: Kent, Kentli Hakları, Kentleşme ve Kentsel Dönüşüm Yazıları [Writings on the city, citizen rights, urbanization and urban regenration]. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, pp 96–115Google Scholar
  43. Tekeli İ (2011b) İzmir için orta boy açıklama [Medium-scale explanation for İzmir]. In: Kent, Kentli Hakları, Kentleşme ve Kentsel Dönüşüm Yazıları [Writings on the city, citizen rights, urbanization and urban transformation]. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul, pp 315–331Google Scholar
  44. Toksöz M (2000) The Çukurova: from nomadic life to commercial agriculture, 1800–1908. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Graduate School of Binghamton University, State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Tuna N, Günay B, Topaktaş L, Ülkenli ZK (1996) Türkiye’de toplu konut uygulamlarının kentsel gelişmeye etkileri [Impacts of mass housing practices on urban development in Turkey]. ODTÜ, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  46. Türkün A (2014) Mülk, mahal, insan: İstanbul’da kentsel dönüşüm [Property, site, humanbeing: Urban regeneration in İstanbul]. Bilgi Üniversitesi, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  47. Ünlü T (2013a) Transformation of a Mediterranean port city into a ‘city of clutter’: dualities in the urban landscape—the case of Mersin. Cities 30:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ünlü T (2013b) Thinking about urban fringe belts: a Mediterranean perspective. Urban Morphol 17(1):5–20Google Scholar
  49. Ünlü T, Baş Y (2016) Multi-nuclear growth patterns in a rapidly changing Turkish city: a fringe-belt perspective. Urban Morphol 20(2):107–121Google Scholar
  50. Ünlü T, Baş Y (2017) Morphological processes and the making of residential forms: morphogenetic types in Turkish cities. Urban Morphol 21(2):105–122Google Scholar
  51. Ünlü T., Selvi Ünlü T (2012) Developing commerce, changing city: Mersin, 1850–1950 (Mersin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mersin Books Series-1, Mersin)Google Scholar
  52. Whitehand JWR (1972a) Building cycles and the spatial pattern of urban growth. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 56:39–55Google Scholar
  53. Whitehand JWR (1972b) Urban-rent theory, time series and morphogenesis: an example of eclecticism in geographical research. Area 4:214–222Google Scholar
  54. Whitehand JWR (1974) The changing nature of the urban fringe: a time perspective. In: Johnson JH (ed) Suburban growth. Wiley, London, pp 31–52Google Scholar
  55. Whitehand JWR (1981) Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition. In: Whitehand JWR (ed) The urban landscape: historical development and management. Papers by M. R. G. Conzen Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 13. Academic Press, London, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  56. Whitehand JWR (1987) The changing face of cities: a study of development cycles and urban form Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 21. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 76–94Google Scholar
  57. Whitehand JWR (1994) Development cycles and urban landscapes. Geography 79:3–17Google Scholar
  58. Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphol 5(2):103–109Google Scholar
  59. Whitehand JWR, Carr CMH (2001) Twentieth-century suburbs: a morphological approach. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2003) Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice. Environ Plan 30:819–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (1992) The urban landscape: issues and perspectives. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: International perspectives historical development and management. Routledge, London, pp 1–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional Planning and the Center for Mediterranean Urban StudiesMersin UniversityMersinTurkey
  2. 2.Department of City and Regional PlanningMersin UniversityMersinTurkey

Personalised recommendations