a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>justice</strong> are evaluated will be studied <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> next chapter. This <str<strong>on</strong>g>evaluati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> will base <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
c<strong>on</strong>crete reflecti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> abstract c<strong>on</strong>ceptual frame and <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> dimensi<strong>on</strong> which c<strong>on</strong>flicts<br />
<strong>on</strong> urban space have reached.<br />
3.5.2.4. Results Orient<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Turkish Practices<br />
While plann<strong>in</strong>g before 1980 was def<strong>in</strong>ed as an important tool <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
development paradigm <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state as a public activity, after 1980 <strong>the</strong> legitimate base<br />
entered <strong>in</strong>to a crisis <strong>on</strong> which this public activity based <strong>on</strong> by market <strong>process</strong>es tak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> place <strong>of</strong> development ec<strong>on</strong>omy. In this period development amnesty laws,<br />
privatizati<strong>on</strong> laws and practices <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> “shr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g” <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state are am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
arrangements that affected <strong>the</strong> urban plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e. These developments caused a<br />
new period <strong>in</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e. Plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e entered <strong>in</strong>to a new period with<br />
new ec<strong>on</strong>omic demands loaded <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> space with <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> newly def<strong>in</strong>ed right,<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest, freedom and equality approaches <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e side and globalizati<strong>on</strong> period <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r. These developments create a paradox am<strong>on</strong>g <strong>the</strong> acceptances <strong>of</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>es <strong>of</strong><br />
law, ec<strong>on</strong>omy and plann<strong>in</strong>g and deeper yet from <strong>the</strong> view po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> legitimacy <strong>of</strong><br />
plann<strong>in</strong>g. This paradox; is different def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s and practices <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cepts like equality,<br />
right, freedom and <strong>in</strong>terest which are <strong>the</strong> comp<strong>on</strong>ents <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual percepti<strong>on</strong>,<br />
legal decisi<strong>on</strong>s, ec<strong>on</strong>omic selecti<strong>on</strong>s and plann<strong>in</strong>g practices. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, searches for<br />
right as c<strong>on</strong>flicts seen <strong>on</strong> urban land, compete <strong>the</strong>ir own discourses and practices <strong>on</strong><br />
urban space by found<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m <strong>on</strong> different acceptances. This <strong>process</strong> <strong>in</strong> Turkish practice<br />
shows <strong>the</strong> tensi<strong>on</strong> between different values <strong>of</strong> multi-dimensi<strong>on</strong>al def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cept<br />
and <strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> ownership as an ec<strong>on</strong>omic value, as an <strong>in</strong>dividual right, as a resp<strong>on</strong>se<br />
to need to shelter, as a tool <strong>in</strong> meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>in</strong> public space. The multi-dimensi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ownership <strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> is; it shows <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>flict between<br />
1. Public <strong>in</strong>terest and private <strong>in</strong>terest;<br />
2. Individual rights and social rights.<br />
The dimensi<strong>on</strong>s/results <strong>of</strong> this c<strong>on</strong>flict occur with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> frame <strong>of</strong> divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
city <strong>in</strong>to legal and illegal build<strong>in</strong>g areas (gecek<strong>on</strong>du areas and gecek<strong>on</strong>du problems and<br />
illegal build<strong>in</strong>gs) and urban land policies.<br />
These differentiati<strong>on</strong>s are also resp<strong>on</strong>ses to <strong>the</strong> differentiati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sider<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>justice</strong> <strong>in</strong> urban area from different approaches, too, <strong>in</strong> Turkey.<br />
98