What If Istanbul Implemented Different Urban Planning Strategies?

The Actual History

Istanbul, straddling Europe and Asia across the Bosphorus Strait, stands as one of humanity's most historically significant cities. Founded as Byzantium around 660 BCE, later becoming Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, and finally Istanbul after the Ottoman conquest in 1453, the city has accumulated layers of diverse architectural heritage over millennia.

The modern urban development of Istanbul took a pivotal turn in the early Republican era of Turkey. Following the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the new government under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk sought to modernize the country's urban centers. In 1936, French urban planner Henri Prost was invited to create Istanbul's first comprehensive master plan, which he worked on until 1951. Prost's plan emphasized opening wide boulevards, creating public squares, and establishing green spaces while attempting to preserve the historical fabric of the city.

However, the implementation of Prost's plans was limited and inconsistent. The post-World War II period saw Istanbul experiencing dramatic demographic changes that overwhelmed urban planning efforts. Beginning in the 1950s, rapid industrialization triggered massive rural-to-urban migration. Istanbul's population exploded from about 1 million in 1950 to approximately 4.7 million by 1980, and today exceeds 16 million.

This population surge led to the emergence of gecekondu (literally "built overnight") – informal settlements constructed hastily, often illegally, on public land. By the 1960s and 1970s, vast areas of Istanbul had developed without proper planning, infrastructure, or services. The government's response was generally reactive rather than proactive, frequently granting amnesty to illegal settlements and retroactively providing services rather than implementing comprehensive planning.

The 1980s marked a shift toward neoliberal policies in Turkey, with significant privatization of urban development. The 1984 establishment of metropolitan municipalities gave more power to local authorities, but also opened the door to speculative development. Major infrastructure projects like the first Bosphorus Bridge (completed in 1973) and the second bridge (completed in 1988) facilitated urban sprawl rather than guiding it.

The devastating Marmara earthquake of 1999, which killed over 17,000 people, highlighted the dangers of poor construction and inadequate planning. Despite subsequent building code reforms, enforcement remained inconsistent. The early 2000s saw the rise of large-scale urban transformation projects under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, including gated communities, shopping centers, and luxury developments, often at the expense of community needs and historical preservation.

Major projects like the third Bosphorus Bridge (opened in 2016), Istanbul Airport (opened in 2018), and the controversial Canal Istanbul proposal reflect a development approach prioritizing mega-projects over comprehensive planning. Meanwhile, Istanbul continues to struggle with traffic congestion, inadequate public transportation, environmental degradation, earthquake vulnerability, and the loss of historical fabric and green spaces. The city's rapid growth and development-focused policies have resulted in a complex urban landscape where modern high-rises stand alongside historical monuments and informal settlements, creating stark contrasts in the urban fabric.

The Point of Divergence

What if Istanbul had implemented and maintained a different approach to urban planning following World War II? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Turkey's leadership recognized the imminent urbanization wave and proactively established robust planning mechanisms for Istanbul's development.

The point of divergence occurs in 1950-1951, as Henri Prost's tenure as Istanbul's chief planner was ending. In our timeline, many of Prost's plans were abandoned or only partially implemented as political priorities shifted under the Democratic Party government of Adnan Menderes, who favored rapid development and demolition-based urban renewal.

In this alternate timeline, several plausible divergences could have occurred:

First, the Turkish government might have recognized the strategic importance of Istanbul's orderly development and established a permanent, politically independent Urban Planning Authority in 1951, with constitutional protections and guaranteed funding. This institution could have maintained continuity in planning regardless of political changes, similar to how Singapore later developed its urban planning approach.

Alternatively, international influences might have played a different role. Perhaps UNESCO or other international organizations, recognizing Istanbul's unique historical significance, could have facilitated a comprehensive international planning conference in 1952, resulting in a globally-supported master plan with financial backing from post-war reconstruction funds.

A third possibility involves different political developments. Had Turkey's political leadership more thoroughly embraced Atatürk's modernization principles while balancing them with heritage preservation, they might have seen comprehensive planning as a national priority rather than an impediment to rapid development.

Most plausibly, the divergence likely involved all three elements: institutional continuity, international support, and political commitment. In this alternate timeline, we envision that in 1951, President Celal Bayar, despite being from the pro-development Democratic Party, was persuaded by a coalition of Turkish architects, academics, and civic leaders to establish the Istanbul Metropolitan Planning Commission (IMPC) as an autonomous body with constitutional protections. The IMPC was tasked with implementing an updated version of Prost's plans while accommodating anticipated population growth through planned development rather than unregulated expansion.

This decision, seemingly bureaucratic at the time, would set Istanbul on a dramatically different developmental trajectory over the subsequent decades, transforming it into a model of sustainable urban development while preserving its unparalleled historical heritage.

Immediate Aftermath

Planned Expansion vs. Informal Growth (1951-1960)

The establishment of the Istanbul Metropolitan Planning Commission (IMPC) in 1951 immediately altered how the city approached the early waves of rural migration. Unlike our timeline where migrants settled haphazardly in gecekondu developments, the IMPC implemented a system of planned satellite communities connected to the city center by dedicated transportation corridors.

Drawing inspiration from post-war European planning concepts, particularly the British New Towns movement, the IMPC designated five planned expansion areas around Istanbul: two on the European side (north and west of the historical peninsula) and three on the Asian side. Each was designed with mixed-use neighborhoods, local employment centers, and green belts separating them from each other and the historical core.

Mayor Fahrettin Kerim Gökay, who served until 1957, became an unexpected champion of the new planning approach. Initially skeptical, he was convinced after visiting Stockholm and Copenhagen in 1952 to study their urban planning models. Upon his return, he secured additional funding for the IMPC and expanded its authority to coordinate with national government agencies.

By 1955, when Istanbul's population reached approximately 1.3 million, the first two planned satellite communities—Yeşilköy on the European side and Kartal on the Asian side—were already accommodating approximately 50,000 residents each in a mixture of apartment buildings and row houses, all constructed according to earthquake-resistant building codes.

Transportation Innovation (1954-1962)

Perhaps the most visible immediate impact of the altered planning approach was in transportation infrastructure. Rather than focusing exclusively on road expansions and demolitions for vehicular traffic, the IMPC prioritized a multi-modal transportation network.

In 1954, construction began on Istanbul's first modern light rail system, connecting the historical peninsula to the developing satellite communities. Simultaneously, maritime transportation across the Bosphorus was expanded and standardized, with ferry terminals designed as intermodal hubs connecting to rail and bus networks.

The IMPC also implemented a hierarchical road network that preserved the organic street patterns of historical neighborhoods while creating efficient arterial roads between major districts. This approach departed significantly from the actual timeline, where many historical areas were bisected by major roads during the Menderes period (1950-1960).

By 1958, Istanbul had implemented the region's first dedicated bus lanes on major roads, and by 1960, the first 15 kilometers of light rail were operational, connecting Eminönü, Beyoğlu, and Şişli. These early investments in public transportation infrastructure would prove crucial in accommodating growth while maintaining mobility.

Historical Preservation Framework (1953-1959)

In 1953, the IMPC partnered with UNESCO to develop the Istanbul Heritage Preservation Framework, a pioneering approach to balancing development with cultural conservation. The program was revolutionary for its time, establishing buffer zones around monuments and creating graduated development restrictions in historically significant areas.

The Framework divided the city into preservation zones:

Zone A: Historical core areas including Sultanahmet, parts of Beyoğlu, and selected areas along the Bosphorus, where strict preservation rules applied
Zone B: Transition areas with controlled development requiring architectural review
Zone C: Modern development areas with more flexible guidelines

This system allowed for economic development while protecting Istanbul's architectural heritage. International attention came in 1957 when UNESCO highlighted the Istanbul Framework as a model for developing cities with significant historical assets.

In our actual timeline, many historical buildings and neighborhoods were demolished during the Menderes period's road-widening projects. In this alternate timeline, while some demolitions still occurred, they were significantly reduced and better balanced with preservation concerns.

Adapting to Political Change (1957-1962)

The autonomous nature of the IMPC proved crucial when Turkey experienced political turmoil. After the 1960 military coup that overthrew the Menderes government, many government institutions faced reorganization or dissolution. However, the constitutional protections established for the IMPC allowed it to maintain operational continuity.

During this period, the IMPC actually gained additional authority as the military government, focused on establishing new governance structures, delegated more urban development responsibilities to the technically-oriented planning commission. This period saw the adoption of the First Comprehensive Master Plan of 1962, which formalized many of the ad-hoc innovations of the previous decade and established a 20-year development framework.

By 1962, Istanbul's population had reached approximately 1.8 million, with nearly 40% living in planned developments rather than informal settlements. While this still meant significant informal development existed, it represented a dramatic improvement over the actual timeline, where over 70% of new development during this period occurred without formal planning or infrastructure.

The immediate aftermath of Istanbul's planning divergence thus established three crucial foundations that would shape its long-term development: planned expansion versus uncontrolled sprawl, multi-modal transportation prioritizing public transit, and a balanced approach to historical preservation that neither froze the city in time nor sacrificed its heritage for modernization.

Long-term Impact

Environmental and Geographical Integration (1962-1985)

The long-term environmental benefits of Istanbul's alternative planning approach became increasingly apparent from the 1960s through the 1980s. Unlike our timeline, where Istanbul's watersheds, forests, and coastlines were progressively encroached upon by development, the alternate Istanbul maintained crucial ecological buffers.

The 1962 Master Plan established the "Istanbul Green Ring," preserving the forests north of the city as an ecological buffer and water security zone. The Belgrade Forest, which supplies much of Istanbul's water, remained largely intact rather than suffering the fragmentation and reduction seen in our timeline. By 1975, the IMPC had established a network of large urban parks totaling over 4,000 hectares, approximately three times the amount of accessible green space compared to our timeline.

Perhaps most significantly, the city's relationship with the Bosphorus evolved differently. The IMPC's Bosphorus Conservation Act of 1968 established graduated development zones extending inward from both shorelines. This preserved much of the natural character and historical yalı mansions along the strait while still allowing for public access and moderate development in designated areas. In contrast to our timeline's haphazard development and privatization of shorelines, approximately 60% of the Bosphorus shoreline remained publicly accessible by 1985.

The city's seismic vulnerability was also addressed more comprehensively. Starting in 1970, Istanbul implemented increasingly stringent seismic building codes, enforced through a combination of technical inspections and heavy penalties for non-compliance. While in our timeline the 1999 Marmara earthquake revealed widespread non-compliance with building standards, the alternate timeline's more rigorous enforcement meant that when similar earthquakes struck, casualties and damage were significantly lower.

Transportation and Urban Form (1965-2000)

The early investments in multi-modal transportation yielded increasing dividends as the city grew. By 1975, Istanbul had completed its first metro line connecting Taksim to Levent, decades earlier than in our timeline (where the first line opened in 2000). The ferry system was fully integrated with rail and bus networks through a unified ticketing system implemented in 1978, making Istanbul a pioneer in intermodal public transportation.

The first Bosphorus Bridge was still constructed, opening in 1973 as in our timeline, but with a crucial difference: the bridge was designed from the outset with dedicated lanes for public transportation and was integrated into the existing transportation master plan rather than spurring unplanned development.

Perhaps most significantly, the city developed along transit corridors rather than through automobile-dependent sprawl. The "Transit-Oriented Development" concept, which would only gain global recognition in the 1990s, was effectively implemented in Istanbul decades earlier. By 1990, approximately 65% of Istanbul residents lived within a 10-minute walk of high-capacity public transit, compared to less than 30% in our timeline.

This transportation network supported a different urban form. Rather than the vast, low-density sprawl that characterized much of Istanbul's expansion in our timeline, the alternate city developed as a polycentric metropolis with distinct, relatively self-contained districts connected by efficient public transportation. This pattern reduced average commute times and promoted more localized economies.

Economic and Social Development (1970-2010)

The economic implications of Istanbul's alternative development became increasingly pronounced from the 1970s onward. The city's more ordered development and reliable infrastructure made it more attractive for international investment, particularly as Turkey liberalized its economy in the 1980s.

Tourism developed differently as well. While our timeline saw mass tourism concentrated in a few historical areas with limited capacity, the alternate Istanbul developed a more distributed tourism model. The historical peninsula remained the crown jewel, but better-preserved neighborhoods throughout the city attracted visitors interested in different historical periods and cultural experiences. By 2000, tourism revenue per visitor was approximately 40% higher than in our timeline, with longer average stays and higher visitor satisfaction.

The social composition of the city evolved differently as well. With planned development replacing gecekondu settlements, the stark socioeconomic segregation of our timeline was somewhat mitigated. The satellite communities, initially designed for working-class migrants, developed into mixed-income neighborhoods as infrastructure and amenities improved. This didn't eliminate social stratification, but it created more opportunities for upward mobility and social integration.

Housing affordability remained a challenge, as in any growing global city, but the alternate Istanbul implemented innovative solutions earlier. The Urban Land Trust established in 1982 acquired strategic parcels throughout the metropolitan area, developing them as mixed-income communities with permanently affordable housing components. By 2005, approximately 22% of the city's housing stock had some form of affordability protection, compared to less than 5% in our timeline.

Global Position and Identity (1990-2025)

By the early 21st century, the alternate Istanbul had emerged as a global model for sustainable urban development in historically significant cities. The city regularly hosted international urban planning conferences, and the "Istanbul Model" became shorthand for balanced development that respected historical context while accommodating growth.

The preservation of Istanbul's architectural heritage paid economic and cultural dividends. In 2010, UNESCO expanded Istanbul's World Heritage designation to include not just the historical peninsula (as in our timeline) but also selected areas of Galata, Beyoğlu, and the Bosphorus shoreline, in recognition of the city's success in preserving its multi-layered heritage.

The city's infrastructure development took a different path as well. While our timeline saw a focus on megaprojects like the third Bosphorus Bridge, Marmaray tunnel, and new Istanbul Airport in the 2010s, the alternate timeline prioritized network improvements and capacity enhancements over spectacular but environmentally problematic projects. The third crossing of the Bosphorus was a rail-only tunnel completed in 2010, five years before the Marmaray project of our timeline.

By 2025, the alternate Istanbul has a population of approximately 13 million (smaller than our timeline's 16+ million), housed in a more compact urban form with significantly better public services, transportation, and environmental quality. The city emits approximately 40% less carbon per capita than our timeline's Istanbul, despite having a higher GDP per capita. Most significantly, it has maintained its unique identity as a bridge between cultures, periods, and continents, balancing preservation and innovation more successfully than many global cities.

The contrast with our timeline is perhaps most stark in how the city feels to residents and visitors alike. Where our Istanbul struggles with congestion, pollution, and the jarring juxtaposition of historical monuments amid concrete sprawl, the alternate Istanbul offers a more coherent urban experience where historical layers are more legible and the natural setting of the city remains a defining feature rather than an afterthought.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Murat Güvenç, Professor of Urban Geography at Istanbul City University, offers this perspective: "Had Istanbul implemented and maintained comprehensive planning in the mid-20th century, we would likely see a fundamentally different relationship between the city's inhabitants and its physical form. The gecekondu phenomenon, while problematic from a planning perspective, represented a form of citizen agency in our actual timeline—people building their own solutions when formal systems failed them. In an alternate timeline with better formal planning, we would see different expressions of citizen participation. The critical question is whether top-down planning would have evolved to incorporate meaningful community input, or whether it would have remained technocratic and potentially alienating despite its efficiency."

Professor Ayşe Çinar, Director of Comparative Urban Studies at the London School of Economics, provides a contrasting analysis: "The assumption that better planning necessarily produces better outcomes needs critical examination. Istanbul's chaotic development in our timeline produced numerous problems, but also a vibrant informality that has been central to the city's character and resilience. An alternate Istanbul with stricter planning might have avoided transportation congestion and environmental degradation, but possibly at the cost of economic dynamism and cultural production. The neighborhoods that emerged organically, like portions of Beyoğlu or Kadıköy, might have lacked the creative energy that comes from less regulated development. The ideal scenario would have been a middle path—structured enough to prevent the worst excesses of speculative development but flexible enough to allow for community-driven innovation."

Dr. Nilüfer Göle, urbanist and author of "Istanbul: Between Heritage and Development," notes: "The political economy of urban development cannot be overlooked in any counterfactual analysis. The construction sector has been a primary driver of Turkey's economy since the 1950s, with political patronage networks deeply embedded in development processes. For this alternate timeline to be plausible, we must imagine not just different planning decisions but a fundamentally different political economy where land value capture benefited public infrastructure rather than private interests. This would have required not just technical planning capacity but political institutions resistant to clientelism and corruption. If such conditions had existed, Istanbul might indeed have developed as a model of sustainable urbanism while preserving its historical character, but this would have represented a profound divergence not just in urban form but in Turkey's entire political development."