This paper provides a comparative analysis of planning approaches in divided cities in order to investigate the role of planning in alleviating or exacerbating urban division in these societies. It analyses four urban areas-Berlin, Beirut, Belfast, Jerusalem-either of which has experienced or still experiences extreme divisions related to nationality, ethnicity, religion, and/or culture. Each case study is investigated in terms of planning approaches before division and after reunification (if applicable).The relation between division and planning is reciprocal: planning effects, and is effected by urban division. Therefore, it is generally assumed that traditional planning approaches are insufficient and that the recognized engagement methods of planners in the planning process are ineffective to overcome the problems posed by divided cities. Theoretically, a variety of urban scholars have proposed different perspectives on this challenge. In analysing the role of planning in divided cities, both the role of planners, and planning interventions are evaluated within the light of related literature.The case studies indicate that even though different planning approaches have different consequences on the ground, there is a universal trend in harmony with the rest of the world in reshaping these cities. This conclusion draws another one; the contemporary planning interventions in divided cities do not address the root causes of division. Hence, incorporation of 'difference' as a prominent feature of the city to its plans is not addressed as it should be in these special cases. KeywordsUrban space, Divided cities, Divided societies, Urban planning, Segregation. Gizem IntroductionA search on the term 'divided city' reveals the work of a variety of urban scholars who use the same term but have very different research perspectives. These different approaches appear in a duality. The first discourse focuses on divided cities as places where divisions of capitalist production processes are more pronounced. They emphasise class, race and gender relations, urban segregation and increasing inequality between the affluent and deprived city districts as their main concerns. Their geographical concern is with global cities such as New York, London, Paris and Tokyo (see, for example, Mallenkopf and Castells, 1991, Fainstein et al., 1992, Marcuse and van Kempen, 2002 Marcuse, 1995).In the last three decades however, there has been a growing body of literature concerned about a more specific form of urban division, classified by its extremeness (Safier, 1997). These divided cities are less in numbers and indicate physical or political contestations in certain special cases. Wellknown examples of such cities are Belfast, Jerusalem, Nicosia, Mostar, Beirut, and Berlin. Prominent scholars working in this field (see, for example, Bollens, 1998Bollens, , 2007Bollens, , 2009 Calame and Charlesworth, 2009;Boal, 1994;Gaffikin and Morrissey, 2011; Hepburn, 2004;Kliot and Mansfeld, 1999;Kotek, 1999), in time, have developed,...

Gizem CANEREvery contemporary city is divided to a certain extent. The present study is concerned with urban division defined by extreme tensions related to nationality, ethnicity, religion, and culture, which are channelled into urban arenas. Once these contestations are made spatially visible, the "divided city" with which this study is concerned appears. Well-known examples of such "divided" cities are Belfast, Jerusalem, Nicosia, Mostar, Beirut, and Berlin. Due to distinctive attributes, these cities contain an exclusive discourse that differentiates them from other urban areas. In this context, the aim of the present study was to comparatively analyze urban consequences of division in selected case studies: Belfast and Berlin. As each city has unique attributes of geography, history, and economic development, the processes and outcomes of their division differ substantially. This investigation of the consequences of urban division in a temporal perspective presents patterns of urban development before, during, and after division in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of spatial dramas faced by these cities. Comparative analysis revealed a common pattern of functional and structural urban consequences, in spite of differences. It is suggested that an illustration of common patterns of development can facilitate an early recognition and management of division. It is believed that the findings of the present study will aid future studies that aim to understand the patterning of urban division and generate planning models to tackle problems faced by divided cities. ARTICLE

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, our understanding of cities has gone through important changes due to major sociospatial processes. Specifically, over the last few decades processes like globalisation and decolonisation have produced significant consequences in cities and these have attracted the attention of prominent urban scholars. Of these consequences, segregation has become infamous in the discourse of numerous disciplines, including governmental debates and policies. However, sociospatial transformations have been a source of new challenges for urban theory makers throughout history. At a certain point, the physical focus of early urban theories was no longer sufficient to interpret the city, causing a shift towards process-oriented theory-making. The central theme of this paper is to investigate this shift by analysing the evolution of urban theories with regard to their implications for urban social geography. In this context, the analytical focuses of main urban theories are evaluated and their explanatory power for socio-spatial segregation is stressed. Such a developmental perspective enables us to observe urban theories' receptiveness to changing circumstances, as well as their power to guide urban scholars. The evaluation reveals that urban theories capture the spirit of their time (zeitgeist) through their own lenses and explain the social geography of the city either partially or fully with regard to these lenses. In conclusion, it may be said that urban theories which have implications for segregation are not generated universally, but rather in specific frameworks which might or might not be explanatory for other circumstances. All in all, it is believed that this evaluation will provide guidance for future studies that aim to understand and/ or develop the role of urban theories in explaining socio-spatial segregation in the city.Key words: Segregation; socio-spatial segregation; urban social geography; urban theories. ÖZYirminci yüzyıl başlarından beri, kentler hakkındaki anlayışımız, büyük ölçekli sosyo-mekansal süreçler nedeniyle önemli deği-şimler geçirmiştir. Özellikle 1950'lerden bu yana, küreselleşme ve sömürgecilik sonrası süreçler, kentsel araştırmacıların dikkatini çeken olumsuz kentsel sonuçlar doğurmuşlardır. Bu sonuçlar arasında, ayrışmanın kötü bir ün saldığı ve yönetim birimlerinin söylem ve politikalarında yer edindiği görülmektedir. Ancak, bu sosyo-mekansal dönüşümler, kentsel kuramcılar için uzun zamandır yeni mücadele alanları ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Belirli bir noktaya gelindiğinde, önceki kentsel kuramların fiziksel yaklaşım-ları kenti yorumlamak için yetersiz kalmış ve bu da, süreç odaklı kuram geliştirmeye doğru bir kaymanın yaşanmasına neden olmuştur. Bu makalenin ana konusu; bu yaşanan dönüşümü incelemek için, kentsel kuramların evrimini, kentsel sosyal coğrafyaya ilişkin çıkarımları bağlamında analiz etmektir. Bu çerçevede, temel kentsel kuramların analitik odak noktaları değerlendirilerek, sosyo-mekansal ayrışmayı açıklama konusundaki yeterlilikle...