Urban Planning Approaches in Divided Cities

ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 1 • March 2016 • 139-156 Urban planning approaches in divided cities Gizem CANER1, Fulin BÖLEN2 1 [email protected] • Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey 2 [email protected] • Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey Received: April 2014 • Final Acceptance: December 2015 Abstract This paper provides a comparative analysis of planning approaches in divided cities in order to investigate the role of planning in alleviating or exacerbating urban division in these societies. It analyses four urban areas—Berlin, Beirut, Belfast, Jerusalem—either of which has experienced or still experiences extreme divisions related to nationality, ethnicity, religion, and/or culture. Each case study is investigated in terms of planning approaches before division and after reunification (if applicable). The relation between division and planning is reciprocal: planning effects, and is effected by urban division. Therefore, it is generally assumed that traditional planning approaches are insufficient and that the recognized engagement meth- ods of planners in the planning process are ineffective to overcome the problems posed by divided cities. Theoretically, a variety of urban scholars have proposed different perspectives on this challenge. In analysing the role of planning in divided cities, both the role of planners, and planning interventions are evaluated within the light of related literature. The case studies indicate that even though different planning approaches have different consequences on the ground, there is a universal trend in harmony with the rest of the world in reshaping these cities. This conclusion draws another one; the contemporary planning interventions in divided cities do not address the root causes of division. Hence, incorporation of ‘difference’ as a prominent feature of the city to its plans is not addressed as it should be in these special cases. Keywords doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2016.74936 10.5505/itujfa.2016.74936 doi: Urban space, Divided cities, Divided societies, Urban planning, Segregation. 140 1. Introduction city to observe commonalities as well A search on the term ‘divided city’ as incoherencies between case studies. reveals the work of a variety of urban This conclusion will reveal that in spite scholars who use the same term but of the unique attributes these cities have very different research perspec- shelter, their contemporary planning tives. These different approaches appear approaches are in harmony with the in a duality. The first discourse focuses rest of the world in reshaping the ur- on divided cities as places where divi- ban. All in all, it is expected that this sions of capitalist production processes paper will contribute to further studies are more pronounced. They emphasise which aim to understand urban divi- class, race and gender relations, urban sion and strive to change it with the segregation and increasing inequality help of urban planning. between the affluent and deprived city districts as their main concerns. Their 2. Planning in divided cities geographical concern is with global When dealing with divided cities, cities such as New York, London, Paris planning profession becomes insuffi- and Tokyo (see, for example, Mallen- cient to cope with the fierce situations kopf and Castells, 1991, Fainstein et al., caused by contestations over space. 1992, Marcuse and van Kempen, 2002; In such circumstances, it has to be Marcuse, 1995). re-conceptualized to go beyond the In the last three decades however, narrow framework of physical land- there has been a growing body of lit- use planning. Taking into account that erature concerned about a more spe- planning has the power to change the cific form of urban division, classified spatial, economic, social, and political by its extremeness (Safier, 1997). These dimensions of urban space, the ques- divided cities are less in numbers and tion becomes, which of these dimen- indicate physical or political contes- sions can be used to intensify or less- tations in certain special cases. Well- en contestations over space in divided known examples of such cities are cities? Belfast, Jerusalem, Nicosia, Mostar, Bollens (1998, 2002, 2007) and Beirut, and Berlin. Prominent scholars Yiftachel (1995) propose a group of working in this field (see, for exam- urban ethnic dimensions which are ple, Bollens, 1998, 2007, 2009; Calame used in planning processes to exert and Charlesworth, 2009; Boal, 1994; control or repression in divided cities: Gaffikin and Morrissey, 2011; Hep- 1) The territorial dimension is the most burn, 2004; Kliot and Mansfeld, 1999; powerful tool used to control and dis- Kotek, 1999), in time, have developed, tribute ethnic groups spatially via the what came to be known as the ‘Divided usage of zoning policies. Problems of Cities Discourse’ (DCD). land ownership, drawing of jurisdic- This paper is concerned with the tional boundaries, displacements etc. second type of divided cities and re- are also important tools for control (El- sides with the literature generated by lis, 2000); 2) The procedural dimension DCD writers. In this framework, the can be used to include or exclude dif- first section of the paper gives a brief ferent sections of society from access literature review regarding planning in to decision-making processes; 3) The divided cities. It identifies the existing economic dimension is used to allocate models of planning approaches sug- urban services and spending. The neg- gested by different scholars and, hence, ative and positive externalities of ur- sets a basis for comparison and eval- banisation are distributed by planning uation for case studies. The following processes causing situations like depri- section is devoted to a comprehensive vation or dependence of certain areas; comparative analysis of the case stud- and, 4) Thecultural dimension where ies, regarding planning approaches group identity is maintained or threat- before division and (if applicable) after ened through cultural institutions, ed- reunification. For conclusion, a chart ucation and religious expression. is drawn to visualise and summarise According to these scholars, plan- planning approaches, professional atti- ning has to deal with these conditions tudes and actual interventions in each in order to achieve an effective plan- ITU A|Z • Vol 13 No 1 • March 2016 • G. Caner, F. Bölen 141 Table 1. Models of urban policy strategies (adapted from Benvenisti, 1986; Bollens, 2007). Urban Planning Model Strategies Neutral Strategy • Employs technical criteria in allocating urban resources and Tactic: Address urban symptoms services of ethnic conflict at individual • Distances itself from issues of ethnic identity, power inequalities level and political exclusion Partisan Strategy • Furthers an empowered ethnic group’s values/authority and rejects Tactic: Maintain/Increase the claims of disenfranchised group disparities • Strategies seek to entrench and expand territorial claims or enforce exclusionary control of access Equity Strategy • Gives primacy to ethnic affiliation in order to decrease inter-group Tactic: Address urban symptoms inequalities of ethnic conflict at ethnic group • Allocation of urban services and spending is based on group level identity Resolver Strategy • To connect urban issues to root causes of urban polarization Tactic: Address root causes/ • Impacts and authority of government policy is challenged sovereignty issues ning process in divided cities. Building gradual process of ethno-political po- on to Benvenisti’s (1986) views on par- larization. Housing and employment tisan and resolver planning approaches markets are officially open, yet marked in divided cities, Bollens (1998) sug- by deep patterns of ethnic segregation.” gests a four-model approach that can (Yiftachel, 2006: 299). The ethnocratic be conceptualised around the degree it strategy appears a step further from addresses above-mentioned urban eth- Bollens’ (2007) partisan model. nic dimensions (Table 1). In their book, Planning in Divided According to Bollens (2007); 1) neu- Cities (2011), Gaffikin and Morrissey tral strategy, approaches to division conclude that planning in these cit- technically and distances itself from ies has to encompass a collaborative the problems caused by division; 2) model. This approach denotes public partisan strategy, aims to increase dis- policy decision-making that is inclu- parities between two groups and seeks sive and based on dialogue among all 1Bollens (2007) associates a to empower the dominant group’s au- stakeholders, producing ideally con- different meaning thority further; 3) equity strategy, gives sensual outcomes (Brand et al., 2008). to Benvenisti’s primacy to ethnic group identity and Communicative, dialogic, argumenta- (1986) resolver allocates urban services based on this tive or deliberative planning are relat- strategy. According identity; 4) resolver planning, connects ed concepts to collaborative planning to Benvenisti (1986), resolvers urban problems to division and ad- (Gaffikin and Morrissey, 2011). 6 intervene to a dresses root causes of division. According to Gaffikin and Mor- binary situation In a more extreme vein, Yiftachel rissey (2011), the challenge for collabo- by a third-party and Yacobi (2003) and Yiftachel (2009) rative planning in divided cities is that intervention, which identify an

Load more