Planning Capital Cities under Regional Conflict: Paradoxical Urban Spaces – Jerusalem as a Paramount Model

3.1 Belfast: Navigating sectarian divides

Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, is a vibrant city known for its rich history, cultural heritage, and shipbuilding legacy. It is a city that is subject to dispute, where the management of urban planning is of utmost importance in addressing the sectarian divisions between the Protestant and Catholic sectors. The city has a protracted history of war, commonly referred to as “The Troubles,” which has resulted in a lasting inheritance of entrenched divisions based on religious and political affiliations. The urban development in Belfast has often been shaped by the need to deal with these divisions, leading to the creation of ‘peace walls’ – physical barriers built to separate mainly Protestant and Catholic communities – which are seen as a significant representation and a lasting consequence of the Troubles. The peace walls in Belfast are tangible partitions that segregate Protestant and Catholic districts, intending to mitigate conflict and hostility between the two populations. Although these walls have effectively decreased immediate conflict, they have also strengthened segregation, impeding the city’s progress toward authentic integration [12]. Attempts to tackle these divisions through urban planning have involved endeavors to encourage the use of communal areas and foster interaction between different communities. Nevertheless, the obstacles to addressing long-standing segregation and distrust are substantial, highlighting the constraints of urban planning in resolving entrenched social problems [13].

Efforts have also been made to improve public spaces and transportation networks to better connect different parts of the city and bridge the divides between communities. Regeneration projects, such as those in the areas around the Falls and Shankill Roads, have focused on creating shared public spaces, improving infrastructure, and enhancing community relations. However, the process is delicate, requiring careful consideration of the social sensitivities and the need for ongoing dialog among residents. Urban planning in Belfast, therefore, balances the goal of modernizing and unifying the city with the recognition of its complex, often painful past. Despite these advancements, urban planning in Belfast still faces challenges, such as addressing ongoing socioeconomic disparities and ensuring that new developments are inclusive and sustainable. The city’s planners continue to work toward creating a more unified, vibrant, and resilient urban environment.

3.2 Sarajevo: Rebuilding in the aftermath of war

Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, presents a unique approach to urban planning and design in cities affected by conflict, with a particular emphasis on the process of rebuilding after the war. The city underwent severe destruction during the Bosnian War in the 1990s, resulting in the fragmentation of its diverse population due to acts of brutality and prolonged blockade. Since the end of the war, significant endeavors have been made to reconstruct Sarajevo, encompassing both its physical and social aspects. The focus of urban planning in Sarajevo has been to rebuild the city’s infrastructure and foster healing among its segregated communities. An important obstacle faced in post-war Sarajevo has been the task of confronting the enduring effects of ethnic segregation that arose during the conflict. The Dayton Peace Agreement, which brought an end to the war, established ethnic differences by constructing an intricate governmental framework that mirrors the territorial dominance of several ethnic groups throughout the war. The urban planning of Sarajevo has had to navigate the complex political situation, often leading to projects that strengthen rather than resolve ethnic differences [14]. Nevertheless, there have been endeavors to utilize urban planning as a means to foster integration and reconciliation. The projects, including the restoration of the city’s historic center and the construction of mixed-use properties, have the objective of revitalizing Sarajevo’s diverse identity and promoting social unity. The outcomes of these endeavors have been varied, indicating the persistent difficulties of harmonizing a city that still bears profound wounds from past conflicts [15].

3.3 Nicosia: A divided capital

Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, is one of the world’s last divided cities, where the legacy of conflict and division is deeply embedded in its urban planning and development. The Green Line, a United Nations buffer zone, cuts through the heart of Nicosia, separating the Greek Cypriot south from the Turkish Cypriot north. The split of Nicosia has had a profound impact on urban planning in the city. The city’s efforts to control and plan its growth have faced challenges due to the presence of the Green Line, which has hindered the integration of the city’s infrastructure and services both physically and symbolically. This division, which has persisted since 1974 following a coup and subsequent Turkish invasion, has resulted in two distinct urban environments with separate governance, infrastructure, and social services. Urban planning on both sides has developed independently, often reflecting the political realities and economic conditions unique to each community. In the south, efforts have focused on modernization and integration with the European Union, while the north has been shaped by Turkish influence and a more constrained economic environment. The buffer zone itself, a mix of abandoned buildings and military installations, serves as a stark reminder of the city’s division. Despite numerous peace talks and initiatives aimed at reunification, urban planning in Nicosia continues to grapple with the challenges of fostering cohesion in a divided city. Cross-border cooperation on issues like waste management, transportation, and heritage preservation has been limited, often stalling due to the broader political impasse [16]. The future of Nicosia’s urban landscape hinges on the potential for a political solution that could bridge the divide, allowing for more integrated and inclusive urban planning that benefits all its residents. Nevertheless, the partition of the city still poses substantial challenges to integrative urban planning.

3.4 Beirut: A segregated capital

Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, is a city deeply marked by sectarian divisions that have profoundly influenced its urban planning and development. The legacy of the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990) is still visible in the city’s fragmented urban landscape, where different religious and political groups maintain control over specific neighborhoods, leading to a patchwork of distinct enclaves. This sectarian geography is reflected in the city’s infrastructure, social services, and even architecture, with each community often investing in its own areas to the exclusion of others. The Green Line, which once divided the Christian East from the Muslim West during the Civil War, has since been redeveloped, but the underlying divisions remain. Urban planning in Beirut is further complicated by the absence of a strong central government capable of implementing cohesive city-wide policies, resulting in uncoordinated development and glaring inequalities between different parts of the city [17]. This has led to disparities in public services, housing quality, and economic opportunities, reinforcing the sense of division. Additionally, political instability and economic crises have hindered efforts to address these urban challenges, leaving many parts of Beirut underdeveloped and vulnerable to further sectarian tensions. The future of Beirut’s urban planning depends on addressing these divisions through more inclusive and integrated approaches, capable of overcoming the historical and social barriers that continue to shape the city. The urban planning of Beirut exemplifies the challenge of reconstructing a contested city in a manner that effectively tackles the fundamental socioeconomic issues [18, 19].

3.5 Mostar: A polarized city

Mostar, a picturesque city in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is renowned for its iconic Stari Most (Old Bridge), a symbol of resilience and unity following the Balkan conflicts. The city beautifully blends Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian architecture, reflecting its diverse cultural heritage. Mostar is a city that stands as a striking example of urban division, where the scars of the Bosnian War continue to influence its planning and development. The Neretva River divides the city into two distinct halves: the predominantly Bosniak (Muslim) east and the predominantly Croat (Catholic) west. This division is not just geographical but also deeply entrenched in the city’s governance, education, and infrastructure. Each side of Mostar has developed its own parallel institutions, with separate schools, healthcare systems, and even utilities, reflecting the ethnic and political fragmentation that persists decades after the war. The iconic Stari Most bridge, rebuilt after being destroyed during the conflict, symbolizes both the potential for reconciliation and the ongoing challenges of integration. Despite international efforts to foster unity, including initiatives by the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and the European Union, urban planning in Mostar is often hampered by the lack of cooperation between the two communities [20]. This has resulted in uneven development, with disparities in public services and infrastructure that perpetuate the divide. Mostar’s future as a unified city depends on overcoming these deep-seated divisions, requiring a concerted effort to create inclusive governance structures and promote social cohesion, while acknowledging the complex historical context that continues to shape its urban landscape. Efforts to create shared spaces and integrate the city have faced resistance, as the political structures put in place by the Dayton Agreement continue to reinforce ethnic divisions [14].

3.6 Mitrovica: A split city

Mitrovica, a city in northern Kosovo, epitomizes the complexities of urban planning in a divided context, where ethnic and political divisions between its Serbian and Albanian populations have shaped its development. The city has been a focal point of ethnic tensions in Kosovo, particularly after the Kosovo War in 1999. Urban planning in Mitrovica has been heavily influenced by these divisions, with limited interaction between the two sides of the city. The Ibar River physically and symbolically separates North Mitrovica, predominantly inhabited by Serbs, from South Mitrovica, mainly Albanian. This divide has led to the creation of parallel governance structures, economic systems, and public services, with each side operating largely in isolation. Infrastructure development, education, and social services are fragmented, often reflecting the differing priorities and allegiances of the two communities. Efforts to bridge this divide, such as the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Ibar River, international mediation, and joint projects like the Mitrovica Peace Park, have faced significant challenges, underscoring the deep mistrust and lack of cooperation between the sides. The European Union and other international organizations have been involved in efforts to promote integration and economic development in Mitrovica, but the city remains one of the most divided in the Balkans. As a result, urban planning in Mitrovica remains a microcosm of the broader tensions in Kosovo, with the city’s future hinging on the ability to foster dialog and integration in a context where historical grievances continue to shape present realities [21, 22].

4.1 Historical and political background

Jerusalem is widely recognized as a highly contested city, where the planning and creation of the urban landscape have been significantly influenced by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Following Israel’s illegal takeover of East Jerusalem in 1967, the city has been home to a significant Palestinian population. Nevertheless, the international world has not acknowledged this annexation, and Palestinians consider East Jerusalem to be the capital of a prospective Palestinian state. The regressive Israeli urban planning plans have been employed as instruments to establish dominance over the city and mold its demographic and geographic landscape. Israeli planning authorities have enacted rules that restrict the growth of Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem while promoting the expansion of Jewish colonies. The policies in question encompass stringent zoning regulations that designate extensive portions of Palestinian territory as “green zones,” where construction is strictly forbidden. Consequently, this significantly hinders the growth and development of Palestinian towns and neighborhoods [23, 24].

Israel initiated the construction of the separation wall in the early 2000s to physically separate East Jerusalem from its neighboring Palestinian neighborhoods and areas. This demonstrates how regressive urban planning may strengthen tensions within a contested city. The wall, which traverses Jerusalem, has additionally established tangible and psychological divisions between Palestinian and Israeli communities. The presence of the Israeli-controlled sections has a detrimental impact on the social structure of the city, as it hinders the Palestinians’ ability to access crucial services. Moreover, it has faced criticism for effectively incorporating Palestinian territory into Israeli-controlled territories [25]. The development tactics employed in Jerusalem exemplify how urban planning may be utilized to solidify authority and perpetuate divisions in a disputed city, as depicted in Figure 3.

4.2 Spatial planning context in Jerusalem

Jerusalem is a very complicated and contested city, characterized by profound religious, ethnic, and political conflicts that are clearly evident in its urban fabric and urban planning policies. Spatial planning in Jerusalem is a complex and multifaceted process, deeply intertwined with the city’s unique historical, political, and religious significance. Jerusalem, being one of the most ancient towns, carries significant significance for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This makes the task of constructing its physical layout exceptionally delicate and difficult. The city’s urban planning is shaped by various variables, such as demographic changes, political dynamics, religious tensions, and the imperative to safeguard its abundant cultural legacy. Jerusalem is a city characterized by the coexistence of ancient monuments and new urban constructions, resulting in a distinctive landscape that necessitates meticulous planning and urban design to ensure a harmonious equilibrium between progress and conservation [27]. Political issues exert a substantial influence on the geographical layout of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been the focal point of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with politically sensitive matters like property ownership, zoning, and infrastructure development being of great significance. The Israeli government policies, particularly regarding settlements in East Jerusalem, have significant implications for spatial planning, influencing the city’s demographic and geographic landscape.

Geographically, the city is partitioned into West Jerusalem, primarily inhabited by Jews and under Israeli jurisdiction, and East Jerusalem, where the majority of the population is Palestinian and is claimed as the capital by both Israelis and Palestinians. The separation, which sprang from the consequences of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and was reinforced by Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 after the 6 Day War, has resulted in a fractured urban environment [28]. Urban planning in West Jerusalem prioritizes the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods, enhancing infrastructure, and integrating the city with Israel’s wider development strategies. Conversely, East Jerusalem experiences a consistent lack of financial support, resulting in Palestinian communities frequently missing sufficient infrastructure, public services, and development permits due to restrictive restrictions imposed by Israel. The erection of the separation barrier has exacerbated the complexity of the urban landscape by separating sections of East Jerusalem and disrupting social and economic connections with the West Bank. Notwithstanding these conflicts, Jerusalem continues to be a city of deep religious importance for Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike, hence introducing an additional level of complication to urban design endeavors [29]. The future planning of the city is closely connected to the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and any alterations to the city’s urban environment are expected to have substantial political and social consequences. Establishing a more integrated and equitable city remains a formidable challenge, with urban planning often reflecting and reinforcing the deep-seated divisions that characterize Jerusalem’s reality.

4.3 Planning of division and fragmentation

Divided Jerusalem refers to the physical, social, and political separations within the city, particularly between West Jerusalem, predominantly Jewish, and East Jerusalem, largely Palestinian. The division of Jerusalem is rooted in the city’s tumultuous history, especially the events surrounding the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 Six-Day War. Following the 1948 war, Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan, with the western part of the city under Israeli control and the eastern part, including the Old City, under Jordanian rule. This division lasted until 1967, when Israel captured East Jerusalem during the Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it, a move not recognized by the international community. The division of Jerusalem is not just a matter of historical and political boundaries; it also manifests in the daily lives of its residents. West Jerusalem is predominantly Jewish, characterized by modern infrastructure, well-developed neighborhoods, and access to public services. In contrast, East Jerusalem, home to a predominantly Palestinian population, faces significant challenges, including underdevelopment, inadequate infrastructure, and disparities in access to public services. These differences are exacerbated by Israeli policies that restrict building permits for Palestinians, leading to overcrowded conditions and the proliferation of unrecognized housing in East Jerusalem. Figure 4 clearly demonstrates the significant contrast in urban development between the Palestinian neighborhoods and the Israeli quarters [30, 31].

Jerusalem’s urban development and expansion can be observed through two distinct approaches. The first is a deliberate growth strategy led by the central government, primarily focused on West Jerusalem and Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. The second approach, however, is characterized by limitations that do not adequately address the natural requirements of the indigenous Palestinian population residing in East Jerusalem. The existence of two parallel communities in Jerusalem is intriguingly emphasized, as: “A look at Israel’s demographic and territorial policies in Jerusalem and the West Bank reveals how these policies laid the foundation for the development of two different and separate system of living, which nourished the conditions of ethnic segregation. Both systems run along different but overlapping urban fabrics and each has its own geographic flow. Both connect and interact at certain points but are relatively autonomous, governed by different laws, and with a life of their own” ([32], p. 29). The political division of Jerusalem remains one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Israel considers the entire city its eternal and indivisible capital, Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. International efforts to resolve the status of Jerusalem have repeatedly stalled, with proposals ranging from re-dividing the city to establishing a shared capital. The future of Jerusalem remains uncertain, with its division emblematic of the broader struggle for sovereignty, identity, and rights in the region [33].

4.3.2 The Separation Wall

Jerusalem has experienced profound and startling changes in both its physical and social environments as a result of the construction of the separation wall. The construction of this wall was carried out unlawfully and in clear breach of international law. The wall serves as an ethnic barrier, partitioning two communities residing in the same city. It forms segregated clusters and discrete spaces. Also known as the apartheid wall, part of the larger ethnic separation system that Israel began constructing in 2002, is a physical structure composed of fences, eight-meter-tall concrete walls, surveillance systems, and electric sensors that encircles much of the city and extends for hundreds of kilometers, into the West Bank – Figure 5. Officially, Israel refers to it as the “security barrier”. However, Palestinians and many international observers describe it as an “apartheid wall” or “separation wall,” viewing it as a tool of annexation and control that infringes on Palestinian rights. The construction of the separation wall has enduring consequences throughout all four aspects of spatial sustainability: environmental, economic, social, and cultural-historical [35]. Legally, the status of the separation wall is highly contentious. The Israeli government considers it a temporary security measure, although its placement often extends beyond the 1949 Green Line into occupied Palestinian territories, effectively altering the borders on the ground. This has led to widespread criticism, with many arguing that it constitutes a de facto annexation of Palestinian land. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion declaring the construction of the wall in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, to be contrary to international law. The ICJ stated that the wall violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the annexation of occupied territory and the imposition of demographic changes. Despite this, Israel has continued to build and maintain the wall, asserting its necessity for national security, while the international community remains divided over how to address the issue [36, 37, 38].

4.3.3 Infrastructure and service provision

Infrastructure and service provision in Jerusalem are deeply divided along socio-political lines, reflecting the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In West Jerusalem, predominantly inhabited by Jewish Israelis, infrastructure and public services are generally well-developed, with modern amenities, reliable utilities, and well-maintained roads and public spaces. In contrast, East Jerusalem, home to a significant Palestinian population, suffers from stark disparities. Palestinian neighborhoods often lack adequate infrastructure, such as proper sewage systems, paved roads, and public transportation. Access to water and electricity is inconsistent, and educational and healthcare facilities are frequently underfunded and overcrowded (Figure 6). Moreover, the municipality’s budget allocation tends to favor Jewish neighborhoods, leaving Palestinian areas with limited resources for essential services. This uneven distribution of infrastructure and services exacerbates socioeconomic inequalities and contributes to the marginalization of the Palestinian community in Jerusalem (Figure 7) [39, 40].

4.3.5 Contrasted urban fabric and landscape

Contrasted urbanism and segregated landscapes are common phenomena in contested cities [45]. The urban fabric and landscape of Jerusalem starkly contrast between the predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem and Palestinian East Jerusalem, reflecting the city’s complex socio-political dynamics (Figure 8). West Jerusalem and the Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem are characterized by well-planned neighborhoods with modern infrastructure, wide streets, and green spaces. It features a mix of residential, commercial, and cultural areas, including parks, shopping centers, and public facilities, all designed with a cohesive urban vision. The architecture here often adheres to contemporary styles, with uniform building codes that maintain a consistent esthetic. In contrast, East Jerusalem presents a vastly different picture, with a more fragmented and uneven urban landscape. Palestinian neighborhoods often lack coherent planning and suffer from overcrowding due to restrictive zoning laws that limit new construction. The streets are narrower, public spaces are scarce, and the infrastructure is underdeveloped. The built environment is a patchwork of older, traditional buildings alongside unlicensed, makeshift structures, reflecting the community’s struggle to meet housing needs in the face of stringent building regulations. The landscape in East Jerusalem is further marred by the presence of the separation barrier, which cuts through Palestinian communities, creating physical and social divides. This juxtaposition of urban fabrics not only highlights the disparity in living conditions but also underscores the deep-rooted tensions and inequalities that define Jerusalem’s contested urban space [46, 47].