Confusion in city identity and naming conventions in administrative terminology

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Article 13)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

In the civil administration system of Türkiye, the naming of settlement units brings about a unique confusion in both social perception and official correspondence. In our 51 provinces that do not have metropolitan status, the district that serves as the administrative center of the province is usually referred to simply as the “Center” (Merkez). This situation causes the settlement to represent both the province as a whole and that specific geographical point with the same name. For example, it remains unclear within this terminology whether a person saying, “I am going to Niğde,” has entered the provincial borders or reached the market center of the city (1).

This naming format has been overcome through a structural necessity in provinces with metropolitan status. When a province gains metropolitan status, with the expansion of administrative borders and the concentration of population, the former central district is usually divided into several parts and takes on new and unique names such as Süleymanpaşa (Tekirdağ), Artuklu (Mardin), or Menteşe (Muğla). This process is a natural result of the city’s growth and the increase in its administrative capacity (2).

In the 51 provinces that still maintain the “Center” naming, the situation is directly related to the current scale of those settlements. Attempting to give artificial names to these units before they become metropolises carries the risk of being a forced step that will not harmonize with the urban fabric. Indeed, the changing or becoming unique of a settlement’s name is not just a sign change; it is a more comprehensive development stage that requires the administrative division of that settlement and the production of new districts (3).

In conclusion, the fact that the province name and the central district name are intertwined today reflects the current state of Türkiye’s settlement hierarchy. This terminological uncertainty will give way to a more professional and defined structure as settlement units grow and the transition to a metropolitan structure is made. The future of settlement architecture lies in this transformation taking place not through artificial interventions, but through the natural growth and division processes of settlements (4).

Aydın Tiryaki Ankara, January 12, 2026

---

All ideas, opinions, and suggestions in this article belong to the author. During the process of writing the text, the artificial intelligence Gemini was utilized for writing assistance and information compilation.

ANNEXES

Annex A: Centers That Changed Names as a Natural Result of the Metropolitan Process

• Mardin Center: When the city grew and became a metropolitan municipality, the central district took the name “Artuklu.”
• Muğla Center: Similarly, with metropolitan status, the central district was named “Menteşe.”
• Ordu Center: With the development of the urban fabric, the central district took the name “Altınordu.”

Annex B: Current Status and Future Projection

• Current Status: In 51 provinces, the province name matches the central district name (e.g., Bolu – Bolu Center).
• Development Process: When population growth and administrative requirements increase, these centers are expected to divide and take unique names.
• Scale Relationship: A name change is generally an administrative reform that occurs when that unit grows too large to be managed from a single center.

REFERENCES

(1) Provincial Administration Law No. 5442 and Implementation Regulations. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr

(2) Law No. 6360 on the Establishment of Metropolitan Municipalities in Thirteen Provinces. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr

(3) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Interior, Reports on Civil Administrative Units and Settlements. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr

(4) General Directorate of Development Agencies, Capacity Development in Local Governments and Urbanization Dynamics. https://www.ka.gov.tr