International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXIX-B4, 2012
B4, 2012 XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August — 01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia
The reasons for Istanbul's growth have been already discussed.
All other cities are placed in a good developed environment and
do not profit as much as Istanbul from the countryside. The
contrast of a country placed at the threshold of development is
one of the important reasons for its development in comparison
to the others. So far, Istanbul should be compared to other cities
with similar situation, but only for the MOLAND-cities the data
arc comparable by this method.
Finally, we should try to compare more in detail the absolute
and relative changes among the cities’ developments. In figure
11, the absolute values are shown with the sorting done by the
business areas. So far, Istanbul seems to be the busiest city in
the MOLAND context. Indeed, this interpretation is only based
on the used area but gives an idea on the financial power of
such an area. The change also is of interest like seen on the
values for the 50ies. Brussels was of this time the number one
and Istanbul on the 9" place. Also in residential surface
Istanbul is the number one in the 90ies meanwhile in the 50ies
Istanbul is ranking on place 11. Regarding the change and the
trend visible in the figure, Istanbul does not behave so much
different than other cities, only the absolute change is at a
higher level. Based on this fact we should have a look to the
changes relative to the urbanised areas in the analysed years to
point out the internal structure of the cities to compare them.
5 m
B Residential Area 50' in 96 of Urban Area
B Residential Area 90' in % of Urban Area E:
Figure 9: The directions, where the increase might be
orientated. The length of the arrows shows the intensity.
6. ISTANBUL AND THE MOLAND-
CITIES
As mentioned before, the study on Istanbul was part of a wider
project. All 25 “Moland” cities have reached during the study
period their highest growth-rate within the last hundred years.
{700 — 800 7:
600 + |
Ec Growth in 96 ——Sprawl in km2
475
0,110
2,584
4,683
6,120
6,963
500 4
400
SPRAWL IN %
+ 400
SPRAWL IN km2
300
+ 300
(200
es
+ 200
by the water-
100 + 1 10d
tu
Prague [3
1 LJ
Brussels Tz T
Dublin E
o
Bibao &
Sunderland ms
= t o
0 " + + 282315: I $3 58 € 5 2 2 2 8 2
fe aie pa A A FERE. 525353575 2 5 = 2 2 8
=02c0 £ c o & SEoopospoocngoss9?s 3 = S = % 2 2€ 2:9 5 4
$9 coc sS ® = S SES TS 5 SE % 2 5 ES E É * = s Qk 2a. zs
28395 € a > > = 5 8235855065285 E s B 5 Oo 8 = A
25355 = 8 = = 925 282823585858 Ls x 3
ES Rg >= es mz O5 225 95 95528 o
= sn = s © + à =
& 3 a mo o di
o o "
8
= a.
Figure 12: values on “MOLAND”-Cities for residential areas
Figure 10: urban sprawl of “MOLAND”-Cities within the last related to the urhanised area
50 years.
Figure 12 shows interesting changes in the internal structures of
the MOLAND-cities. 14 cities lost residential surface for
business areas or infrastructure while 11 still have a growth in
residences — means a change more to a living city. Istanbul is
ranking in the middle and can be compared by its structural
dynamic and the relative values with Dresden — on different
absolute level of course. The smallest residential percentage can
be detected at Bilbao with an ongoing trend to less residential
area. On opposite Palermo has residential area on high level
also with an ongoing trend. The most extreme changing cities
towards to more residential are Nicosia and Iraklion, in the case
of loosing residential percentages it is Bilbao, Bratislava,
Figure 10 clearly points out, how Istanbul's growth relates to
these cities. The difference is enormous. The relative growth is
shown, measured on the urban surface between the newest and
oldest year. With a sprawl of 680% and the biggest growth in
absolute space, Istanbul is the “number one” of all MOLAND-
cities.
out of the trend km Absolute urban values of MOLAND-Cities /
00 FL | fig
"9 Business Ama 50°
—e— Business Arga 90°
4 from 2000 to
ar however if we
Besidential Ares 50°
Prague Helsinki and Oporto. I am not able to analyse here the
ld. be: less. The wl | | iz Resigentat raa go Al details in such an overview, there is of course the trend to
calístic. If we Lr ML suburban growth in residences and the use of cities for business.
sr : ; S :
indicates clearly à La ad Istanbul seems to change its internal structure not as dramatic as
1ndi pA jo ed x ; £4
the Pus N pe EL ^] other cities.
crease than ars EET
o mee A Red z
8 8 8 e 2 t5 a & & & 3 b ce x 8 G £ ^
ETE Ys” S55 rc TIS
$53 g 8
® Q
—— —— >
Figure 11: absolute values within the last 50 years.
339
