The identity problem of settlements that are administratively districts but remain “satellites” of their former districts

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Article 12)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

In the administrative division of Türkiye, making a settlement a district gives it a center identity on paper, but sociological and economic realities do not always match this status. While the “Virtual Province Effect” discussed in the previous article mostly covers the dependence of new districts on the provincial center, the “Shadow Centers” phenomenon refers to the situation where new districts established by splitting from a district cannot escape the attraction zone of their former district and remain as its satellite. This situation leads to an administrative deadlock that prevents the newly established unit from developing its own unique urban identity (1).

The primary factor in the formation of shadow centers is the artificiality of administrative boundaries. Dividing a large district into two by accepting a main street or a stream as a boundary may fragment the historical and social integrity of that settlement on paper, but it cannot sever it in practice. The region that has become a new district cannot turn into a real center because its market, bazaar, bank street, or cultural focal points still remain in the “old center.” The act of “going to the center” in the mind of the citizen still points to the center of the old district, while the newly established district remains only in the status of a “residential area” or a “dormitory zone” (2).

This identity problem also brings along a loss of administrative efficiency. Although the municipal and district governorate organizations established in the new district make large expenditures to create a “center attraction” in their own regions, investors and tradesmen still do not give up the density offered by the old center. This situation creates two units that are very close to each other but functionally asymmetric, where the service quality does not increase perceptibly despite the division of public resources (3).

To overcome this problem, a model of “functional partnerships” should be implemented in settlement architecture instead of “rigid administrative boundaries.” Instead of trying to forcibly make districts in the position of shadow centers independent, it constitutes a requirement to define them as a “sub-center” compatible with the main center and to plan transportation and infrastructure services as a whole. In future reforms, while determining the statuses of such settlements, whether that unit has a self-sufficient “commercial and social core” should be measured with scientific criteria rather than population (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: Some Districts Showing Shadow Center Characteristics (Examples)

• The unbreakable bond of Ataşehir, separated from Kadıköy, or some new units on the Üsküdar/Ümraniye axis with the main centers in Istanbul.
• Çiğli or Bayraklı, separated from Karşıyaka in Izmir, remaining in the shadow of the main center in their urban identity construction.
• Settlements in Ankara established by dividing from Yenimahalle or Çankaya but whose commercial focal point is still attached to the old district.

Annex B: Fundamental Indicators of Shadow Centers

• Their own bazaar or trade center remaining weak.
• The local population using the old district for social and cultural activities at a rate of 70% and above.
• The new district being unable to move away from its “dormitory town” (residential weighted) identity.

REFERENCES

(1) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Interior, Local Governments and Urban Identity Research Report. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr

(2) Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), Intra-city Population Mobility and Consumption Centers Analysis. https://www.tuik.gov.tr

(3) Tiryaki, A. (2026). Virtual Province Effect (Article 11 of the Series).

(4) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Spatial Strategy Plans and Sub-Center Designs. https://www.csb.gov.tr