t24.com.tr
Istanbul's Earthquake Vulnerability: A Legacy of Unsustainable Urban Development
Mimar Mücella Yapıcı attributes Istanbul's vulnerability to earthquakes to socio-economic policies favoring international capital, neglecting sustainable urban planning since the Ottoman era, exemplified by the privatization of public spaces and the developer-centric construction system.
- How did socio-economic policies and historical practices contribute to Istanbul's current vulnerability to earthquakes?
- Istanbul's haphazard urbanization, a recurring issue after recent earthquakes, stems from socio-economic policies prioritizing international capital and disregarding sustainable urban planning. This resulted in neglecting infrastructure and prioritizing profit, leaving the city vulnerable.
- What role did foreign investment and the developer-centric construction system play in shaping Istanbul's urban development?
- The pattern of prioritizing profit over sustainable urban planning in Istanbul is rooted in historical practices, including the outsourcing of urban development to Armenians during the Ottoman era and the current system that prioritizes developers' profits. This has led to the neglect of crucial infrastructure, as seen in the closure of Ataturk Airport and the deterioration of hospitals.
- What systemic changes are necessary to mitigate the risks of future earthquakes and ensure sustainable urban development in Istanbul?
- Future-proofing Istanbul requires a fundamental shift away from the current system, which prioritizes short-term profit and foreign investment over sustainable urban planning. This includes reforming land ownership policies and restructuring the construction industry to prioritize safety and community needs over developer profits. Failure to do so will exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the issue as a consequence of flawed socio-economic policies and the influence of international capital, emphasizing the negative impacts of these factors. While valid points are raised, the framing might overshadow other contributing elements and potentially reinforce pre-existing biases.
Language Bias
While the expert uses strong terms like "yağma" (plunder) and "çöküntüye bırakıldı" (left to decay), these are used within the context of describing a complex situation. Neutral alternatives could include "mismanagement of resources" or "neglect". However, the overall language is relatively neutral and avoids overly charged terminology.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the socio-economic and political factors influencing urban development in Istanbul, potentially overlooking other contributing elements such as technological limitations in construction or the impact of natural disasters beyond earthquakes. The role of individual negligence in construction and building code violations is not directly addressed.
False Dichotomy
The expert's statements present a somewhat simplistic view, contrasting a supposedly harmonious past with the current problematic state. This framing neglects the complexities and potential positive aspects of historical urban development in Istanbul. The dichotomy of 'Osmanlı's ineptitude' versus modern 'urban plunder' simplifies a lengthy and intricate process.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses unsustainable urban development in Istanbul, highlighting the negative impacts of socio-economic policies, uncontrolled land ownership, and prioritizing profit over sustainable urban planning. This has led to a city vulnerable to earthquakes and lacking in crucial infrastructure like hospitals. The consequences include loss of life, economic disruption, and environmental damage, all directly impacting the livability and resilience of the city. The focus on short-term economic gains at the expense of long-term urban sustainability directly contradicts the principles of sustainable urban development.