Policy analysis reveals misalignments between financial incentives and sustainability goals in heritage planning, suggesting conditional governance is vital to prevent displacement.
This article critically examines the role of cultural heritage in Istanbul’s contemporary planning framework by analysing the interaction between Law No. 5225 on the Promotion of Cultural Investments and Initiatives (2004) and Istanbul’s Vision 2050 strategy through a document-based and case-informed policy analysis. As a historic metropolis shaped by recurrent shocks such as earthquakes, fires and epidemics, Istanbul provides a compelling context for exploring transformative resilience, path dependency, and multi-scalar governance in cultural heritage management. The study first outlines the significance and vulnerabilities of Istanbul’s World Heritage Sites but shifts beyond descriptive accounts to evaluate how current governance models mediate tensions between economic pragmatism and social-ecological objectives. Findings reveal that while Law 5225 offers instrumental financial incentives for restoration and adaptive reuse, Vision 2050 provides a normative framework aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 11.4 that prioritises public value, social justice and ecological sustainability. However, the lack of binding integration mechanisms between these policy logics creates risks of implementation gaps, commodification, and gentrification-driven displacement. The article argues that Istanbul’s ability to transition from reactive to ‘bounce forward’ resilience depends on establishing governance arrangements that condition economic incentives on measurable social and cultural outcomes. By synthesising policy frameworks and examining micro case dynamics, the article contributes to scholarly debates on urban heritage governance and proposes avenues for building an adaptive and socially equitable model for the city’s future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Memiş et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: