Comparative urban planning between Iasi and Istanbul

Depending on how you count, Istanbul has been the capital city of three, or perhaps four,
empires. It is still shaped by the surviving fragments of Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Venetian and
Ottoman civilisations. It has Orthodox Christian churches, Sunni mosques, and Sephardic synagogues.
It has vast classical cisterns, ring upon ring of ancient fortifications, souks and palaces. It also has
desolate concrete suburbs of extraordinary bleakness, urban terrorism, and a rootless, dispossessed
underclass struggling to come to terms with city life.

It is a city whose influence is shaped by both culture and commerce.

Iai is the largest city in eastern Romania and the seat of Iai County. Located in the Moldavia
region, Iai has traditionally been one of the leading centres of Romanian social, cultural, academic
and artistic life. The city was the capital of the Principality of Moldavia from 1564 to 1859, then of
the United Principalities from 1859 to 1862, and the capital of Romania from 1916 to 1918. Known
as The Cultural Capital of Romania, Iai is a symbol in Romanian history. It is a city shaped by
historical background, by cultural and religious traditional conditions.

Geographically situated on two narrow peninsulas separated by Bosphotus, the northen shores
of either landmass are covered by ecologically sensitive forest, water catchments and reservoirs vital
in development of the city. Istanbuls built-up area has expanded from the pre-fifteenth century up to
2000. In the late Ottoman era, the city started to develop from the historical peninsula on the
Bosporus. By 1950, the built-up area expanded along the East-West axis, covering most of the
Marmara Seas coast on the Anatolian side. Between 1950 and 1970, the first wave of large-scale
migration brought with it gecekondu (informal) settlements occupying large areas on the peripheries.
Industrial development continued to promote migration, and by 1990, the forest and water reservoirs
began to be threatened by uncontrolled development, further fuelled by the opening of two bridges
spanning the Bosporus. In 2000, the built-up area spread even further outwards on the European and
Asian sides. A significant portion of this recent expansion can either be tied to the development of
gated communities for the wealthiest of the citys population or to mass housing for its middle classes.
It is easy to see that Istanbul denity levels are high, particulary when compared to others European
cities.
Istanbul also displays a distinct difference between the European and Asian sides: while
density levels on the European side vary considerably the highest and also some of the lowest
densities within the built-up area can be found here the Asian side is much more homogeneous and is
dominated by mid-range densities .
For some 2,500 years, Istanbul has developed and re-developed itself, creating a city of
multiple layers which are sometimes complementary and sometimes dissonant in response to its
dramatic vertical topography and varied terrain along both side of the Bosporus Straits. Rapid
urbanisation brought with it the challenge of combining integrated planning with a careful
consideration of both the citys traditional urban grain and the natural resources that have been
supplying the city throughout its long history, including its busy waterways.
Because of position between two continents, Istanbul is transited by all kind of people moving
in and out of the coutry, each carrying with them specific histoories and cultures, feeding Istanbuls
cosmopolitanism. This effect can be seen in the urban layers of the city. It is felt like small islands or
cities grown inside of Istanbul. An other element is Turkeys internal migration wich has had the effect
of making the inequalities of Istanbul grow more acute, rather than less, even as it has prospered over
the last decades.
 Spatial planning and urban development in the Istanbul Metropolitan area are controlled by a
mosaic of decisionmaking bodies at the supra-national, national, regional and local levels. At the same
time, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality faces overcrowding, immigration, insufficient policy
programmes, illegitimacy, and an inefficient control system.Globalisation is forcing open the citys
urban spaces and cultural practices, bringing with it a parallel process of cultural change.
Starting with 1980 the city start the development, the processes determining the structure and
expansion of Istanbul also underwent an important change: instead of growing through the addition of
individual, cities were being transformed by the actions of large organisations and powerful actors.
The most important of these was a mass housing model derived from the build-and-sell method.
Mass building is not reserved for residential development but was applied to business needs as well.
This included industrial zones and sites for warehouses, wholesale trade centres, transport services,
specialised production and free trade zones. The creation of new self-contained business centres with
all the necessary facilities and infrastructure undermined the role of the historical central business
districts.The most prominent example was seen in Istanbul, where the old city centres of Eminn and
Beyolu could not meet the new control and management requirements. In constructing the new
central business district of skyscrapers located along the Mecidiyeky and Maslak axes at the western
ridges of the Bosporus, access was provided to high-income residential areas in the North thanks to
Istanbuls new found capacity to mobilise large amounts of capital.
Important transformations were also taking place in the old urban zones. Three key factors
determined this transformation.The first was the new development dynamics that transformed Istanbul
from overgrown industrial cities to city-regions. This transformation prompted important functional
changes in the city centres. For example, although Eminn, the citys oldest centre of business, lost
several of its production and service functions, it gained important touristic and cultural roles. A
similar process has taken place in Beyolu. A second change took place in the provision of transport
infrastructure to realise public transportation projects. This led to gentrification of some
neighbourhoods near the city centre, as in the cases of Cihangir and Kuzguncuk. The third factor was
environmental and attempted to address the risks from earthquakes.
The area around the Golden Horn started to become an attractive tourist destination, although
currently there is no masterplan to coordinate development. According to PAB Architecture, the
uncontrolled developments on the banks of the Golden Horn will eventually break the connections
within the existing residential tissue. Without a masterplan many facilities are being constructed
without any relation between them. If this process is not stopped, the future of the Golden Horn may
again be as it was a hundred years ago, but this time not as an industrial brown field but a deserted
spoiled graveyard of tourist facilities.
These new clusters are intended to release the pressure on the existing urban tissue and to
adjust the balance of empty green parks by creating multi-use structures that include housing, small
offices and commercial facilities. These building clusters will also act as visual and physical bridges to
the residential areas behind the road along the coast.
It is a business platform for the transnational corporate elite as well as a playing field for the
cosmopolitan consumers of global lifestyles. There are blocks of newly erected high-rise office
buildings, luxury residential compounds and towers, dozens of shopping centres offering an exclusive
shopping experience. The city has been successful in showcasing its unrivalled cultural heritage,
attracting a growing number of tourists. Its central areas have been beautified to offer the trimmings of
global lifestyles. The gentrification of Beyolu and the historic peninsula, and the re-building of the
waterfront around the Golden Horn have created new spaces of leisure and culture. Luxury hotels and
world-class restaurants open every week, occupancy rates are high as international meetings and
congresses proliferate, the nightlife and culinary delights are legendary.
 Two defining, intertwined features of Istanbul: its skyline and its valleys. One of the most
obvious of Istanbuls unique features is its geography. Topography is the strongest factor in Istanbul
differentiating it from other global megacities. Steep hills, valleys, and the sinuous curves of the
Bosporus dramatically shape the citys urban pattern: its settlements and transport and even the
ecology of the city. In Istanbul, the terrain creates the notion of orientation, almost inscribing a mental
map of the city in the minds of its residents. Living in Istanbul one is constantly aware of water, a
presence always in close proximity or just within view. One knows that the slopes of the valleys lead
to the Bosporus or the Golden Horn. It is this presence of water straits and the citys rising topography
which make the scene an omnipresent feature in the everyday life of Istanbuls citizens, an urban
feature accessible by the majority without any social or economic class differentiation. And it is not a
single scene but a collection of scenes from numerous vistas thanks to the dynamic topography of the
city. The ability to experience the city with the visual senses creates an awareness of the whole, as if
the whole city were an enormous stage or collection of screens. So we can easily assert that
topography is the major factor which makes Istanbul unique, even though it creates many problems for
mass transportation.
Another unique aspect of Istanbul are different layers, each with slightly different colours,
hues, textures and shapes. It is not a patchwork of similar orthogonal shapes,i t is more like a cloth that
has a camouflage pattern, where the shapes are amorphous. One of the layers of these amorphous
shapes may correspond to the social strata of the city, while the other overlaps with topography, and
yet another corresponds to the characteristics of its built environment. These layers and shapes do not
have a specific rule. Against these expectations, Istanbul becomes a surprising and dynamic city. At
the northern end of the Taksim-Harbiye axis, for instance, is one of the citys most exclusive areas. It
borders the Nianta neighbourhood, a predominantly residential area featuring high-end shops for
luxury foreign brands. Steps away in the adjacent Feriky-Pangalt neighbourhood, located on the
slopes of the Dolapdere valley, are rows of apartment buildings and a rectilinear street grid which
differ greatly from the interwoven streets and built form found elsewhere in the city. The social pattern
of this area is also marked by lower income groups and strong neighbourhood relationships. And yet,
at the lower end of the Taksim-Harbiye axis sit the congress centre, five star hotels and cultural
facilities the jewels of the valley. The same kind of juxtaposition can be found in any part of the
city; in the gentrified urban grain of Cihangir, located near the low-income residents of Tophane and
its neighbouring coastal business district. It is the relatively short distances between these unique areas
that make the city unpredictable in every sense. The changing architectural styles, street patterns,
topographical features, neighbourhood sizes and densities do not adhere to a rule that can be aligned to
the social and economic characteristics of the inhabitants of these regions. Perhaps that is why the city
lacks a strategic masterplan: until recently, analysis of this camouflage pattern has never been
considered by the municipalities. Istanbul lacks squares which can be efficiently used for public
spaces. However, the notion of public space in Istanbul is different from what it is perceived to be in
western terminology. In Istanbul, public space does not occupy a static public square; it is defined as
the axes where people move through and intersect in the city
In 1936, a proposal to preserve this skyline stipulated that 40 metres above sea level, no new
buildings should exceed 9.5 metres in height. This principle is still in force today, and has ensured the
preservation of the historic peninsula until now. However, the city's rapid urbanisation has led to new
settlements reaching the edge of the northern forests, which has almost hidden this topography with a
homogeneous blanket that neglects the citys dominant and unique geographic features and
differences.
The valleys act as ecological corridors that regulate air circulation within the city while they
also collect and direct rainwater to the coast. However, until now those valleys have been considered
as barriers for urbanisation: their riverbeds are covered and their banks are filled with, sometimes
illegal, apartment blocks with insufficient infrastructure and social facilities.
In Istanbul, public life is very vivid on the streets and defies any predictions or plans. The
improvised public use of the streets is a key factor to consider while designing for Istanbul. Istanbul is
well known for the lack of planned and designed open spaces for the public. Given this situation one
might expect that Istanbuls open areas lack public life.
An other problem of the urban planing is Gecekondu, a typical urban phenomen in Istanbul.
Gecekondu derived from everyday language to signify a specific housing and settlement typology of
self-service urbanisation that occurred during Turkeys industrialisation and rural migration in the
period between 1945 and 1985. The term has evolved to encompass a variety of informal settlements
and building typologies. Its usage denotes a bottom-up, spontaneous action, especially prevalent
during the first wave of mass-migration, to provide mass housing under conditions in which
conventional or governmentinitiated models of housing supply failed. These newcomers provided for
their own welfare; and by growing food in their own courtyards and walking to jobs in nearby
industrial factories, these newcomers were able to reduce the costs of urban living. All was made
possible by the availability of publicly owned lots on what was then the urban periphery. Residents of
the gecekondus were spared the full-scale expropriation and economic expulsion that commonly
occurs during periods of intense urbanisation. Instead, they became urban without being forced to
change too much, occupying a self-built garden town that was both rural and urban. The names of the
original gecekondu settlements frequently ended with tepe, meaning hill, to denote their location on
the steep slopes of the valleys surrounding the citys new industrial zones. These groups of residents
created ad-hoc solutions that now constitute the distinctive features of the urban fabric in and aroung
Istanbul. Such as sites along Marmara sea, Gulensu in the Maltepe district on the Anatolian side.
Informal housing in Istanbul took place on small parcels of land, irrespective of topography, in
back-to-back building blocks on narrow streets according to the orthogonal street grid. The problem
with gecekondu is that rise challenges with deforestation, transport, health care and education among
other urban issues. A modern megacity, full of contrasts, it has has rapid growth with
relatively little effective planning, bringign major problems, such as illegal land
occupation, the spread of slums, bad transortation confestion, air and water
pollution.
It is hard to compare the urban planning of Istanbul with the urban
planning of Iasi. Are two cities with a different historical and cultural background
and an other difference is the difference of scale. In the plan of Istanbul can be
seen Islamic influence, typical features include an abundant amount of organic
networks having a large number of cul-de-sac, winding and narrow roads, created
of human scale, and a lack of main streets. Islamic cities tend to have the same
features in the street networks: abundant closed ends, large blocks, less number
of intersections with four or more connected streets.
The only geological similarity between Iasi and Istanbul is that both are on
seven hills, but the breadth is different. An other similarity could be the difference
of planimetry. As can be seen in Taksim-Tarlabasi area, the urban pattern is
different from a side to other of the main street of Tarlabasi, it looks like the
development of the city has stop in the same time with the ending of the main
road. Can be seen that on the side with Taksim square and Istiklal street the grid
of the urban plann is rectangular, made by the model of European cities, and
after the main street of Tarlabas it became more organic, more natural
development as Islamic pattern. It can be said that the Tarlabas steet is similar
with The Berlin Wall because it looks at first sight like two different cities and the
contrast is strong. A similar exemple is also in Iasi. It is easy to observe that
Copou, the oldest part of the city it has organic shapes of the urban plan.
Iasi is defined by clear axes, main streets and a lots of main intersections,
between more than four streets. It is crossed by Bahlui river, but the relationship
with the water is undefined.
The same problem of traffic is also in Iasi, but the difference is that in the
last few years was searching solution to design the city more for perestrian
circulation than fro cars. Because of that some roads were closed and become
exclusiv pedestrian circulation. Also in this was was created a cultural ax, from
Palas of Culture to the hill of Copou. This ax was in the first place a century ago.
Istanbul, although of the dimensions has almost 50% of it area is green
spaces, the Iasi has a major problem with green areas, because most of them
was replaced with mass-buildings. What i appreciate about Istanbul is that i saw
the care for ecological and sustenability buildings, and for including natural
elements into the built area.
The pattern of Iasi is more free, the streets are larger and in most of the
cases you can see the ending of a main circulation ax. An other thing is the
accebility of the runway. The distance between to focal points is short enough to
be easily to go everywhere. Beeing an university town, it is poly-centrified. It is a
historical center, cultural center, civic center, universitar center etc. Also the
educational system attracted students from all around the world, more than
turists.
All the layers of urban tissue are mixed. For exemple, istanbul has clear
center, like bussiness centers, turist centers etc. In iasi you cant anticipate the
layers.
Same as Istanbul most of the public spaces of Iasi are actually circulation
areas. Only public parks or mixed-use complexes and shopping centers are
designed to invite you to stay.
In conclusion, Istanbul is a city deffined by diversity of cultures, layers it
has the strongest elements the topography, the relationship with water, its
skyline and valleys. Public life is very vivid on the streets and defies any predictions or plans. The
improvised public use of the streets is a key factor to consider while designing for Istanbul. Istanbul is
well known for the lack of planned and designed open spaces for the public. Given this situation one
might expect that Istanbuls open areas lack public life. If we take out the water from the main plan we
will see a city like any other big wich is confrunting with rapid growth with relatively little
effective planning, bringign major problems, with different social, economical,
urban and cultural layers. The pedestrian ways and thoroughfares are different
between Iasi and Istanbul and i found it hard to compare. Only if we see in small
details of the plans and thake small elements to compare. Iasi is created more
spontaneous and doesnt have clear heighbourhood determined by function or
height.