- [Archive]

How can Turkey become world’s 10th largest economy with these pavements? 12/12/2011 - Viewed 3331 times

I spent the last week in three different cities: three days in Istanbul, two days in Paris and two days in Ankara. Lately, whenever I leave Ankara, questions about city planning run through my mind. The biggest question I had after the two days in Paris was, “If Paris is a city, what is Ankara?”

It is not my place to talk about city planning; I neither studied city planning nor have I read the city planners who think it is a virtue not to be understood.[1] So, in this commentary, I just want to ask a couple of questions, risking looking like a fool in the eyes of the experts on this subject. As my dear friend Onur Mumcu says, “I don’t know; I’m just asking.”[2]

1. Why are the sidewalks in Ankara made of uneven stones instead of asphalt or concrete? In all of the successful cities of the world, that is, New York, London, Paris, etc., the sidewalks are made of a simple form of concrete-asphalt. A single color, a single pattern, and neat. Here in Istanbul or in Ankara, and probably in all of the cities in Turkey, we use fancy bricks for the sidewalks. But these eventually become either loose or broken and people trying to walk on the pavement are hurt. In Ankara, the district in which I live is governed by the Republican People’s Party and the street on which my house is located is governed by the metropolitan municipality from the Justice and Development Party. And believe me, I miss walking along a sidewalk without stumbling. All I want is neat sidewalks, not colorful paving. I am wondering which one is cheaper, the fancy sidewalks in Turkey or the concrete sidewalks in Paris or New York? Which is more convenient for welfare of society? Can someone please explain?
2. Why does the freedom to park cars supersede pedestrians’ right to walk on pavements? Ten minutes before I was writing these lines, I walked across Kadıköy Altıyol. Ten hours ago, I walked by Tunalı Hilmi Street in Ankara. The common feature of these two streets of two large cities in Turkey is that, while pedestrians were trying to walk in close quarters on two-meter wide sidewalks, two-meter wide empty cars were parked in between the sidewalk and the road. What is even worse, people dare to park their cars on the sidewalks. Would it be an unaffordable luxury if cars did not park on the sidewalks or if the sidewalks were widened to accommodate the pedestrians? Can we not revise the parking lot systems of cities from this perspective? Would we ease the local traffic problem by tripling parking lot fees, relying on the country’s tradition of easily introducing price hikes? Or does the state respect four-wheel machines more than it respects pedestrians? Does putting people in cars serve the purpose more than enabling them to walk on sidewalks given that the majority of tax revenues are collected via the special consumption tax on gas? Or if there is not a rooted strategy, do our administrators rely on a system of philosophical thought which assumes that pedestrians are unimportant anyway? I really do not know; just asking.
3. What is the place of pedestrians and sidewalks in Turkey’s city planning approach? Ankara and Istanbul, two cities with which I am closely acquainted, have been growing and developing rapidly. Newspapers and TV channels are full of ads for new residence, office, and shopping mall projects. However, none of these ads depicts sidewalks or pedestrians. Frankly, this concerns me. After all, cities should have mass transport systems so that people from every sect and class can travel afoot. People can walk forever on the streets of Paris, New York and London thanks to their developed subway system, I guess. I am wondering what percentage of the investment in these advertized settlements is allocated to develop mass transportation systems? Is there a new assumption among city administrations that mass transport is for the underclass, private automobiles for the middle class and helicopters for the ruling class? Why is it more difficult (and riskier!) to ride a bike than parachute into Ankara while some mayors of modern countries ride their bikes to work instead of using official cars? Will walking take place only on treadmills in the rising Turkish life style? If this is the assumption, I wonder how cities will look like as the middle class continues to expand. I also wonder what the correlation, if any, is between the growing problem of obesity in Turkey and weak mass transportation systems. Of course, the issue has another aspect: the US has been trying for decades to control oil producing countries in order to maintain the awkward lifestyle of American society. So, are Turkish foreign policy makers aware of the new directions the current city planning policy might require in the future? For instance, do we have any idea how many years can northern Iraq’s oil reserves supply cars in Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir?

Since I am not acquainted with the subject, I cannot offer any solutions. But a policy like the following one would not cause any further loss: Stop sidewalk construction projects throughout the country for one year. Save all of the resources allocated for these projects in a fund. Then, force all of the mayors of Turkey to live in a European or Japanese city the same size as their hometowns for one year, provided that they will get around on foot. I believe only then we can start having cities which the tenth largest economy of the world deserves. Maybe then I will not feel like I am living in the capital city of an African country while I live only a hundred meters away from the Çankaya Presidential Palace.

[1] These days I have been reading the works of İlhan Tekeli, Ed Glaeser and Jane Jacobs. İlhan Tekeli’s works are on discount at Idefix book fair, if you are interested.

[2] Those who know the answer, I appreciate if you could share your views with me at esen.caglar@tepav.org.tr

Esen Çağlar, TEPAV Economic Policy Analyst, http://www.tepav.org.tr/en/ekibimiz/s/1025/Esen+Caglar