The results of the research at the district level were evaluated in the categories of core, outer and inner periphery, considering the spatial and historical dimensions of the districts. Districts in the core region are Kadıköy, Beşiktaş, Şişli, Üsküdar, Beyoğlu and Fatih. Districts evaluated in the periphery are Bakırköy, Ataşehir, Sarıyer, Adalar, Beykoz, Maltepe, Zeytinburnu, Eyüpsultan and Kağıthane. In the outer periphery, Kartal, Pendik, Gaziosmanpaşa, Bayrampaşa, Ümraniye, Çekmeköy, Beylikdüzü, Güngören, Şile, Sancaktepe, Bahçelievler, Başakşehir, Küçükçekmece, Tuzla, Sultanbeyli, Bağcılar, Büyükçekmece, Esenler, Silivri, Sultangazi, Çatalca, Arnavutköy, Avcılar and Esenyurt districts.

 

It is clearly observed that especially Fatih District in the core region urgently needs rehabilitation. It has been evaluated that there are areas that require urban renewal in order to increase the quality of life in the core region, excluding Fatih, that transportation problems within the region should be alleviated, that the general image is good, but that there may be problems of spatial run-down and social filtration in various districts that go beyond the boundaries of the district. In these places, it would be appropriate to direct the applications with more detailed examinations.

It has been observed that the quality of life levels in the periphery are generally affected positively in the urban transformation areas, however, these districts, which are close to the center, have lower quality of life levels compared to these advantages. It is thought that this region, which is thought to be adversely affected by urban sprawl, actually has a very high potential to offer quality of life, and priority projects should focus on these areas. In this way, both the housing pressure on the core can be reduced and the core can be better utilized for economic activities, and it can be ensured that the districts on the outer periphery that cannot benefit from urban services sufficiently can meet some of their needs from the surrounding districts. It is thought that this region should be examined as a service area in terms of the outer periphery, where the quality of life is the lowest.

In the outer periphery, Esenyurt and Avcılar were determined as the most open to development areas. Generally, it is observed that one or more districts around these have problems on the basis of sub-indices. As seen in other examples, district borders are administrative borders and may not exactly coincide with real spatial patterns regarding quality of life. It is thought that issues such as self-sufficiency in the outer periphery of the city and revitalizing social life are important. Districts in the outer parts of the city also attract those who want to benefit from urban services from neighboring provinces. In these places, daily shopping, entertainment, health and so on. It is thought that a better understanding of the effects of visits on local urban infrastructure and services is needed.

YOU CAN REVIEW THE DISTRICT POSTERS TO REVIEW THE GENERAL INDEX AND SUB-INDEX RANKINGS OF THE DISTRICTS