a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

urban settlers by the urban physical space decisions and their spatial results. How the
opportunities and profits, advantages and disadvantages are distributed and shared
among who are important points from the viewpoint of distribution process. At this
point from the viewpoint of “just” distribution principle; in the <strong>evaluation</strong>s about its
spatial dimensions, considering it separate from social and economic process causes
formation of problems in the practices of “just” distribution principle and just process.
At the survey fields, in Balçova and Narlıdere, it is seen that no planning is done basing
on objective criteria which is one of the planning discipline principles and the planning
practices especially after 1980 are done as fragmented plans, basing sometimes on plot
sometimes on block scale with plan alteration decision and peacemeal plans. Therefore,
it is possible to conclude that the social costs and benefits are considered as individual
cost and benefits in the decisions and on the areas, that individual right especially
property owning right increased, however social rights were disregarded. Inefficient
facility areas at minimum levels even detected at the existing structure on the same area
show that equal distribution which is accepted as a planning discipline principle is not
reached. In this sense a great gap and differences come out between the planning
discipline principles and planning practices. This differentiation also represents the
differences between the definition of “justice” and definition of planning discipline
field, by the actors playing role in practical process (local administrative, plaintiffs,
defendants, property owner, etc).
Another point that should be mentioned is that social integrity is a homogenous
integrity and that an equal distribution can be made to this homogenous integrity.
Within this legal frame, a just distribution can be made to a homogenous social structure
is only a mistake. A similar acceptance takes place among the discoursal acceptances in
planning discipline field and practices. This pre-acceptance sources from the fact that
while developmental state policies before 1980 bases on interventions done in order to
increase the equalities in urban space which is the organization area of these policies, no
new approach was developed from the planning discipline yet, even in spite of a
breaking point in this paradigm. In this sense, considering that these changes do not
exist in spite of all the social and economic policies and continuing with the same
principles causes the gap between the practice and theory to deepen further. As well as
inequalities in physical space, acceptance of social, economic and cultural inequalities
are important factors in Turkish practice of planning discipline. This process in other
187