-B4, 2012
N TO
|G CITIES
ata of the
owth; especially
te level. Athens
ile Thessaloniki
time. Yerevan,
ocialism in their
nd due to a re-
flight from the
wth at the end of
eak down in the
w impulse of
Therefore, these
5. Grouping the
11d result in the
1s indicator for a
th-rates of these
dependent from
uM us Tay RAN.
s Aka dti EOYPT
Coro, EGVPT
drm TURKEY
as iptan, INAN.
‚Ankara TÜRKEN
Haifa ISRAEL
Adana TURKEY
To AVIV. JIT ISRAEL
Jatarlaul, TERKEY
Baku
ihesselno GHtkt
Amens GREECE.
Narovon ARMENA
Cs Sofia BOLGARIA
sos dNIREGEONGMA.
XE
le neighboured
|d Urbanisation
er year. Istanbul
er to the level of
are still growing.
Dies, Istanbul has
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensin
g and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXIX-B4, 2012
XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August — 01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia
a relatively constant development, which documents a
sustainable change. Compared to the international Mega-cities’
growth, (see Figure 15 and 16), the annual growth-rate is
smaller in average.
There can be found strong changes in the growth-rate for nearly
every city initiated by political or social impacts, which cannot
discussed in detail in this study. For Istanbul it will be done in
the Turkish context, for some others it was mentioned already.
Surprising, however, is the growth of Mosul/Iraq, with a
homogeneous rate-change in the last decades and the highest-
level forecasted for 2015. For Egypt-cities and for former
Soviet-Union cities an increase in the annual rate is expected.
It can be said that in the prognosis, all the cities observed will
become more similar with an average annual growth-rate of
about 296. Exceptions are Tbilisi, Sofia, Yerevan, Athens,
Thessaloniki and Baku. Except of the two cities in Israel that
grow by ongoing immigration, all analysed cities are part of the
Islamic world in the near east and developing towards to
become industrialised and well developed.
What is the situation like in Turkey itself and Istanbul as its
business centre? Figure 17 shows, based on the data of the
World's urbanisation Prospect 2003, the 6 biggest cities in
Turkey. Referring to figure 9 and 10 of the introduction of this
study, these cities belong to the most densely populated regions
in Turkey. They are centres for immigration of the hinterland,
mainly of the eastern and northern Anatolian region. While
Istanbul, Bursa and Izmir in the western part of Turkey are
relatively close to cach other, Adana and Gaziantep are
neighbours in the southern Part of the Mediterranean Turkey.
Ankara is placed in the western part of the central Anatolian
plateau.
inem A diria Population: esee Atskcaras Populatiori sesso Bursa Population is
T Gaziantep Population tzmir Population. Tstanibut Population
T0 *Adane Growth-Rete > > > > Ankara Growdh-Fate *** *Bursa Orowth-Rete
ol Ganantep Growin-Nate Ze Grows stant Growin. ste TT
z
=
: rau $
7 &J°
= = =
x n 2
2 d: 5
N > hana Br 4
. A E ; at». i. : | as
x
©
ab mess o
5 —
3 me
& ee
©
2 pe coat 4
ue ne
ae >
er
ssammrmmoone 7 T
U "
1950 1960 1970 1900 1990 2000 2010
Figure 17: Annual growth-rates of Turkish agglomerations,
based on Data of the World Urbanisation Prospects - Revision
2003
During the last 50 years, Istanbul's growth-rate was on similar
level as all cities are and this seems to continue like this in
future. Between 1960 and 1975, strong changes in the annual
gowth-rate of all the cities can be detected. The
Industrialisation in Izmir was strong and lead to a high growth-
fale around 1965. Istanbul and Bursa had a similar increase in
this time. The first economical problems around 1975 stopped
this effect, after 1980, it again started. Bursa capitalized most
from the second step of industrialisation with two impulses in
1980 and 1990. Close to Istanbul, Bursa is in a kind of
competition due to foreign investments. Like this, there is a
kind of changing trends to one of the cities and vice versa.
Adana, as a strong developing industrial but more a touristic
region, has been profiting from foreign investments since 1980.
Gaziantep however does not show such extreme changes; this
city develops with small industry and agricultural production on
irrigated land, supported by state water management with dams.
Ankara as the most Turkish administrative city, profits only
indirectly from industrialisation and shows the trends in a
smoothed way.
The strongest growing city, prognosticated for the future, is
Bursa. Since 1995, it has been the fourth biggest city in Turkey.
Of all the analysed six cities, Istanbul will have the smallest
annual growth in the year 2015.
8. ISTANBUL AND THE WORLD
BIGGEST URBAN AREAS
Figure 18: Population growth in the 25 biggest cities (except
Tokyo) or agglomerations in the world with included trend-
analyses. (Data from UN 2004 in: UN - World Urbanization
Prospects)
The data in figure 18 are based on the World Urbanisation
Prospect of the United Nations. They include real data from the
year 2003 and estimate the population for the year 2005. The
years 2010 and 2015 are calculated using the population growth
index. To keep the overview in the graphic, Tokyo was
excluded from this graphic due to its extremely high number of
inhabitants of more than 36 million people. The remaining top
25 agglomerations are listed in this figure while the other cities
mentioned in a previous period have been one of these top 25.
One difficulty in such data is the fact that the areas of the
demographic data are not precisely defined. In some cases the
city is taken into account, in other cases a wider region is used
for the analyses. In some cases, net of big cities included in one
study object was used as basis. On the other side, we find
Istanbul relatively small to the data used in the previous
chapter. In the graphic only the city is analysed, not the Istanbul
district. As already discussed, the urban area of Istanbul crosses
the district border but does not fill the entire administrative
district in the north and west. Due to such administrative
divergences, especially between different countries, absolute
values have to be interpreted carefully. Nevertheless, the change
of the population highlights the dynamic of cities in developed,
underdeveloped and threshold countries.
Analysed on such a base, Turkey is not a developed country
neither an underdeveloped one. Compared to other cities of
threshold countries, Istanbul has a continuing growth, which
341
