 Our next discussant is Ilhan Tekeli, who is Professor of City and Regional Planning at Middle East Technical University in Ankara. Thank you. Today's three presentations made very clear that Istanbul is a success story. And before coming to this meeting, I was also believing that Istanbul is a success story. But I have realized in this meeting that this success is beyond my presumed level. But that this success is not result of a planning activity. Even the influence of the political actors are not seen. This is a kind of success story attributed to the emergence and rather than certain actors. And of course we can have this type of a theory. This is not a problem. But I'm looking at this type of a theory from the planner's point of view. If you have this type of a theory and if you are a planner, how you will use this theory? In this point, now I have certain questions. Because this theory doesn't show any possible approach. For me, it only says me, okay, everything good, continue in this way. In a sense, this theoretical framework doesn't provide even any framework to criticize existing way of development. Of course, if you are a planner, that means you don't have anything to do. You can close the table and you can meet. Therefore we had to ask a question. Whether these theories are sufficient theories? Whether the sufficiency test will be successful? I can put the three criteria for the sufficiency test. First one, whether these explanations are sufficient? Second, using these theories, whether we can develop successful policies? Third, this is even harder, is how we can make a spatial strategic plan using these theories. Space dimension is entirely missing. Existing theoretical framework should be discussed from this adequacy point of view in order to improve our future position at least. I know it is not easy, but I will try to give one example. We have a big agglomerations, not in the Turkey, overall the world. In our theories, we don't have even in the conceptual level about the possible boundaries of these agglomerations. This is all the diseconomies, that sort of things. These are meaningless in a sense. You couldn't measure. If you couldn't measure, the growth shows us that the economies of scale, economies of agglomeration is continuing. It is not. These theoretical frameworks at least show us a conceptual level of limits we should elaborate. Then we can say that if we continue in this way and the cities grows like this, we don't know what emerges as a city or not. Today we are using other terms, endless cities, urban regions. I think we are in need of very hard questioning existing theoretical framework. I have other points, but four minutes is finished. Thank you, Ilhan, for bringing us back to the question of the way in which planners operate. Particularly at the end there, the extent or the way in which cities can be in any sense limited. Certainly the new mega cities can in any sense be limited and what they become if they are not limited. Interesting question. Our final but by no means least speaker is Nefiz Bazoglu. The former chief monitoring systems branch of the UN Habitat here in Istanbul. Thank you very much. All the presentations were very stimulating and exciting and I wouldn't agree in the least with also Dieter and Gerald on their remarks on the social capital. And the fact that they have a high potential of being endangered. Now I would like to go to the ranking of Kierney, which you have used Saskia. And I'm looking at these top ten cities aside from Istanbul. I'm looking at Washington, Brussels, New York, London, Vienna, Cairo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires. Except for Buenos Aires, I've seen, I've lived there. And I'm thinking now, what is the aspect that you were alluding to which is different in Istanbul? Istanbul is global vis-a-vis all the indicators that Kierney has used in his research. But also very local in a sense. And that local element of Istanbul, which is, I call it the character, the spirit of Istanbul, in a way maybe not in the formal sense of social capital, but in the informal sense of social capital. It has been a very strong city. It's demonstrated to have a very high community spirit, conviviality. People can look at each other while they are walking and they don't avoid their glances like they do in Washington, for example, like they can do in London, for example. And people give the liberty to themselves to just make some small talk with each other as they are sitting next to each other. These are the kinds of interaction modes that you can't find in other cities. And this is the kind of social capital which we cannot afford to lose, I think. So human flows, skill flows, intersection, yes. But also the way they interact, the mode of people interaction and community behavior is also extremely important. And this is something we should not be losing. Istanbul is a success story from the aspect of other criteria. I agree. When you look at the economic indicators, yes. It's a success story. When we look at the lifestyle indicators, like Cialar was alluding to in his paper, posh restaurants, international cuisine, designer malls, whatever, those people driving in their SUVs, whether it's necessary or not, luxurious consumption. So we have all of these. However, what we don't have actually, we are success in our local domain as well as I was just telling. But we will soon be a failure in what makes Istanbul, Istanbul, and make it similar, make it like all global cities are the same, you were saying. We don't want Istanbul to be... Are you done? I don't want to stop you. No, no, I mean... Keep going, but only for one more minute, then I'll allow Saskia to come back. Yeah, they look the same with standard office buildings and business districts. But there's a difference of Istanbul we shouldn't use. But the policies, I think, which is this extremely rapid and militaristic way of urban renovation and regeneration, I think we are bound to lose it. Thanks. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to have interrupted you there at the end. Now, Saskia, that was directed directly at you. Could you, as briefly as possible, respond? And then I'll ask the other two speakers very briefly to comment as well. And then we must wrap up in three or four minutes. Yes. Well, thank you for all the comments. They were very important. Let me suggest first, I never said success stories, so I'm not sure where that all came from. And I just want to clarify that my argument is precisely that the differences matter, even for global corporate actors. Third point, I agree with all the highly critical comments that were made, especially Jerry's focus on democracy. I totally agree with all of that, and I'm hoping that my account didn't suggest that I don't. I just use these occasions to explore, to discover. I don't want to be giving you what I have written endlessly about, the new inequalities, the displacements, et cetera. I took the liberty and the luxury to make an exploration, rather than let you know all the horrors that are part of the story. That is why I know success story, that you already know better anyhow than I do. Now, substance. Two minutes on substance? One minute on substance. I want to pull out two categories that were mentioned. One is this question of social capital, but the way you talked about it, not the standard sociological category. I don't want that. So I like what you said, informal, but it is a form of social capital. And the other one is something that I may have mentioned in passing, making. See, I think what you're alluding to, what you're alluding to is about the capacity to make, whether you're poor, whether you are an ecological entrepreneur, i.e. a garbage picker in the slums, because there is now an identity around that. And so what I find interesting about Istanbul is that you have the capacity to make still, I'm getting it mostly via your description right now, that there is something, the neoliberal project we know is devastating. It is devastating. I mean, I have zeroed out about that, but I just didn't want to just simply talk about that. So it seems to me, it comes back to you, what are the big challenges that are bigger than the neoliberal project? Climate change is one of them. The devastating of neighborhoods, et cetera, that then create devastations. Look at New York City with all it. That's another one. I would say that is bigger because it is all over the world. The radicalness of poverty nowadays. We're talking the globe. That is actually also one that is bigger than the neoliberal project. And then comes this notion of mind of making. We need to make. The city is a very concrete space. I love the way you were putting it. You know how the city is a very concrete space for making. You can be poor, you can make. So the problem that I see in the United States is citizens consume their citizenship. Citizens consume democracy. They don't make. And what one senses in Istanbul still is a capacity to make. Thank you very much. Well done. We agree. Excellent. Juan. Okay. I also reject the idea that I'm talking about the success history. This is a history without adjectives. So we will see in the future if it becomes a success. But now what are we seeing is a huge growth and a huge change. But the color and the quality of this growth and change is still not defined. Because we are still at the $11,000 pre-inhabitant and we will see what is going to happen in the future. Are we going to grow? Are we going to have the institutionalization democratic institutionalization enough to allow for a democratic growth? And this is something that is very important to be solved by the Turkish population, not by foreigners that we come to this country time to time. But this is a real challenge. The change, the political change that we are seeing now in Turkey for example with the idea of placing Turkey inside the European Union it's a very relevant one but it's not the only one. We are seeing other things happening in the country which are touching the soul of the Turkish identity. For example, if you ask the people these two weeks, the late two weeks, here the issue now is the Kurdish opening which is a huge question. But not in terms of solving the problem of the south-east of the country but also of arranging some kind of civic arrangements of a part of the population inside the cities. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Shagli? Yeah, well it is a success story. I believe it is because of the project. The project was very clear to make Istanbul into a global city, a good node for all the networks and perhaps even a hub for the Balkans, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the Black Sea. I mean these were all talked about. So it's a question of recognizing that there was in fact a very well spelled out project and within the confines of that project we are talking about success. Now it has to be remembered that globalization as we have been experiencing it for the last 20, 25 years is also a deepening of commodity relations, a deepening of markets, a deepening of capitalism in the old vocabulary. And within that, all these things are happening and the question that I was trying to raise was that in a context such as Istanbul, such as Turkey where these things were not yet resolved, the last few years have been witnessing a resolution of these problems. The ambiguities are now much clearer, the political situation is fairly resolved. We don't have to deal, Istanbul coalitions do not, urban coalitions don't have to deal with what they would consider the obscurantism of Ankara bureaucrats. They don't have to cope with the ambivalences of the legal infrastructure. So these are novelties that have been resolved. Now this doesn't mean that we're going to have democracy or it doesn't mean that we're going to have utopia. Not at all. I mean of course autonomous bodies are not democratic. Of course urban coalitions ride roughshod over the popular elements in the city. These of course are happening. The point I want to make is that if all the ambiguities are resolved then we are living in a new world of capitalist commodified environment. And the kinds of politics that this requires are very different from the kinds of politics which had to rely on ambivalences, had to rely on populists, had to rely on national popular policies. It's a different world. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been asked to make concluding remarks, but I will win your eternal gratitude by keeping it to a few sentences only. I think towards the end of the session, which proved to be fascinating, because in spite of the hour I don't, I saw nobody leaving the room, leaving the hall, so that is the success of the speakers and the commentators here definitely. Towards the end I think everyone became cautiously optimistic. As a project maybe Istanbul was successful but to answer a number of critical questions tossed up for instance are the residents of Istanbul is the future of the city in the hands of the residents is a clear no. Only very indirectly, maybe once every five years when they go to the polls and in Turkish local elections generally national issues or international issues are discussed rather than local issues. There is no separate local agenda. In spite of development of some participatory mechanisms during the past few years in the form of city councils and other mechanisms where there is a kind of deliberative democracy emerging but at very infancy at the moment in spite of that the average citizen is not involved and there are not sufficient mechanisms to involve them. Another question about central and local relations certainly there is a continuing tutelage of central government over local administrations in various ways and the local government laws are not liberal at all and since they cannot levy taxes and they have no control over their finances whatsoever so that's a major handicap and deficiency. The role of public corporations what we call them municipal companies or municipal economic enterprises there are 23 of them in Istanbul there is no accountability. They are outside of the control national mechanisms, court of accounts and in certain cases the directors of Istanbul greater municipality serve on the boards of these so who is controlling whom becomes a real puzzle. The question whether developers, private enterprise have greater say over than ordinary citizens or even organized citizens is a clear yes in the case of Istanbul and probably most other cities in the world. The so-called success of Istanbul and I think everyone here the Turks are generally proud of their city and quite happy living in it in spite of that the so-called successes have been sometimes coincidental but certainly eclectic not based on the deliberate plan or any of the modern management methods approaches or theories that we know of. No liberal project as a causing one devastation kind of devastation I think Turkey has the opportunity of developing certain offshoots of it and certain alternative policies because the neoliberal project in Turkey is relatively new mid-1980s before that Turkey has a very extensive history and accumulation in local government and different methods have been used there are many projects pointing out alternative ways and finally a question was asked you are very interesting comment about can Istanbul be developed for Europe? I think it's a crucial question I think Istanbul accepts most of the global values and the values of the European Union to a very large extent but the major question and probably a better way of putting it is Europe ready for Istanbul and Turkey Thank you very much all.