واکاوی تحولات «فهم تهران» در طرح های توسعه شهری آن

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران

2 استاد دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

طرح‌های توسعه شهری تهران مبتنی بر فهمی از آن تهیه شده‌اند که نشان دهنده تحولات دانش و تجربه شهرسازی، ساختار نظام تصمیم‌گیری شهری و زمینه اجتماعی، اقتصادی و سیاسی دوران 40 ساله برنامه ریزی شهری تهران (1347-1386) است. این پرسش که تهران در طرح‌های توسعه خود چگونه فهمیده شده، کمتر مورد تامل شهرسازان و متولیان امر قرار گرفته است. مروری بر تحولات در نظریه های شهرسازی در این مدت نشان از دگرگونی جدی در چگونگی فهم شهر دارد. در این تحقیق، با تحلیل محتوای هرمنوتیکی طرح‌های سه گانه تهران (1347، 1370 و 1386)،کدها و موضوعات "فهم تهران" استخراج و با تحلیل روابط میان آن‌ها، یک روایت از این فهم‌ها ارائه شده است. به منظور روشن‌تر شدن نتیجه، تحولات فهم تهران در طرح‌های تهران با تحولات فهم شهر در نظریه شهرسازی مقایسه شده است. شناسایی و واکاوی چنین فهمی، شامل پیش فهم‌ها و سازوکار شکل‌گیری آن‌ها، سهم به سزایی در شکل‌گیری نوعی تفکر انتقادی به برنامه‌ریزی شهری تهران خواهد داشت. روند تحولات فهم تهران در طرح های آن نشان داد که علی رغم تحولات گسترده نظریه برنامه‌ریزی در طول پنجاه سال اخیر، تحولی جدی در این فهم ها اتفاق نیفتاد ه و صرفا در برخی مولفه های سطحی دگرگون شده است. بنابراین، تهران همچنان تعین یافته، ابژه‌وار و کنترل‌پذیر فهم می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Trend Analysis of “Understanding of Tehran” Through Its Development Plans

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehrdad Rahmani 1
  • Mohammad Mehdi Azizi 2
1 Assistant professor, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran
2 Professor, School of Urban Plannig, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Tehran’s urban development plans are based on the understanding of Tehran, which represents the evolution of knowledge and experience of urban planning as well as the structure of the urban decision-making system during the 40-year period of urban planning in Tehran between 1967 to 2007. The reason for such a claim is that understanding of Tehran in these plans is the same as that of the plan's developers and the people involved in reviewing and approving it. Therefore, it is traceable and not an illusion. If we believe that the first determining factor in how to deal with a phenomenon is how to understand it, there is a significant gap in the theoretical and experimental literature of urban planning in Tehran over the last 40 years, which the current study aims to address and answer. Grasping and analyzing such understanding, including pre-conceptions and the mechanism of understanding formation, will play an important role in the birth of a kind of critical thinking to urban planning in Tehran. In this research, by content analyzing of Tehran urban development plans (1967, 1991 and 2007) through a coding process; the components of "Understanding of Tehran" are extracted and then, by analyzing the relations between them, a narrative of these understandings is presented. In order to analyze the compatibility and validity of the research, the second researcher has been employed in the research process. The evolution of understanding of Tehran within its urban development plans has shown that these understandings are entirely dependent on the authors, time and context, and despite extensive advances in planning theory over the last fifty years, there hasn’t been considerable change in how Tehran is understood. Therefore, it is still understood as determined, as an object, controllable and reduced. The findings, although verifying and agreeing with Gadamer's hermeneutic philosophy, remind us that no phenomenon, including the city, has a single essence, and its meaning is as many interpretations as possible. As a result, any encounter with the phenomena of the city that is based on a single understanding of it is considered a form of reductionism. Consequently, any phenomenon's understanding evolves with time and will not remain constant. Of course, given that the producers of the three Tehran development plans' understanding were primarily focused on the visible layer of needs and desires, what has changed in their understanding is primarily related to the superficial issues rather than the roots and foundations; and as a result, their basic understandings of Tehran have not changed over time significantly. In terms of approach and method, this research has a significant contribution, and it may be used not only to examine the planning process in other cities, but also for other ill-conceived concepts of urban planning. In other words, this study opens a new chapter in the evaluation of urban development plans and, more broadly, the evaluation of the application of urban planning concepts, which can bring numerous issues from urban planners' collective subconscious into their sphere of consciousness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tehran
  • City Understanding
  • Development Plans
  • Content Analysis

مراجع

بلایشر، یوزف (1393)، گزیده هرمنوتیک معاصر، ترجمه سعید جهانگیری، نشر پرسش، تهران، ایران.
پالمر، ریچارد (1390)، علم هرمنوتیک، ترجمه محمدسعید حنایی کاشانی، نشر هرمس، تهران، ایران.
رحمانی، مهرداد؛ عزیزی، محمدمهدی؛ نوریان، فرشاد (1398)، ریشه یابی مسائل تهران امروز با رویکرد هرمنوتیک فلسفی، نشریه دانش شهرسازی، دوره 3، شماره 3، صص 1-20.
مجتهد شبستری، محمد (1394)، درسگفتارهای هرمنوتیک جدید (صوتی)، حسینیه ارشاد، تهران، ایران
مشاور آتک (1370)، طرح جامع (ساماندهی) تهران، وزارت مسکن و شهرساز، تهران، ایران.
مشاور آتک (1370)، طرح ساماندهی (جامع) تهران، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی، تهران، ایران.
مشاور بوم سازگان (1386)، طرح جامع (ساختاری- راهبردی) تهران، دستاوردها و نتایج، نهاد مطالعات برنامه ریزی شهری تهران، تهران، ایران.
مشاور فرمانفرمایان –ویکتورگروئن (1347)، طرح جامع شهر تهران، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی، تهران، ایران.
واینسهایمر، خوئل (1393)، هرمنوتیک فلسفی و نظریه ادبی، نشر ققنوس، تهران، ایران.
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). The Art and Science of Mess Management. Interfaces, 11(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.11.1.20##
Alexander, E. R. (1995). Approaches to planning: Introducing current planning theories, concepts, and issues. Taylor & Francis.
Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-postivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77–99.
Bleicher, J. (2017). Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique. Taylor & Francis. Burchell, R. W., & Sternlieb, G. (2013). Planning Theory. Transaction Publishers.
Chiodelli, F. (2012). Re-politicizing space through technical rules. Planning Theory, 11(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211420839##
Corliss, R. L. (1993). Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic and its critics. Religious Studies, 29(3), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003441250002240X##
Cunningham, F. (2007). Cities: a philosophical inquiry. CUCS Research Bulletin, 39, 1–9.
Donaghy, K. P., & Hopkins, L. D. (2006). Coherentist Theories of Planning are Possible and Useful.
Planning Theory, 5(2), 173–202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095206064974##
Eade, J., & Mele, C. (2002). UNDERSTANDING THE CITY.
Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (2016). Readings in Planning Theory: Fourth Edition. In Readings in Planning Theory: Fourth Edition.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119084679.ch13##
Fainstein, S. (2003). New directions in planning theory. Readings in Planning Theory, 35(4), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808740003500401##
Faludi, A. (1973). A Reader in Planning Theory. In A Reader in Planning Theory.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-017066-4.50010-2##
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton University Press.
Grondin, J. (2016). What is the hermeneutical circle? The Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics (Unpublished), 1–14. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/13944229/What_is_the_hermeneutical_circle##
Grondin, J. (2006). L’herméneutique. Presses Universitaires de France.
Grondin, J. (2003). The Philosophy of Gadamer. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Grondin, J., & Weinsheimer, J. C. (1994). Introduction to philosophical hermeneutics.
Yale studies in hermeneutics. Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9(4), 298–314.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368878##
Harrington, A. (2001). Hermeneutic dialogue and social science : a critique of Gadamer and Habermas. In Routledge studies in social and political thought ; 31.
Hoch, C. (2016). Utopia, scenario and plan: A pragmatic integration. Planning Theory, 15(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213518641##
Hoch, C. (2009). Planning Craft: How Planners Compose Plans. Planning Theory, 8(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209105528##
Hodge, J. (2008). Unquiet Understanding: Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics. In The British Journal of Aesthetics (Vol. 48, Issue 1).
https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/aym050##
Hudson, B. M., Galloway, T. D., & Kaufman, J. L. (1979). Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 387–398.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2015). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195–213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356##
Leach, Joanne M. et al (2019). Reading cities: Developing an urban diagnostics approach for identifying integrated urban problems with application to the city of Birmingham, UK, Cities 86 (2019) 136–144.
Makkreel, R. A. (1971). Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer (review). Journal of the History of Philosophy, 9(1), 114–116.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.1163##
Palmer, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Visual object understanding. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1364##
Ricoeur, P. (1977). Schleiermacher’s Hermeneutics. Monist, 60, 181–197.
https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview20051315##
Sims, David. (2010). Understanding Cairo, The American University in Cairo Press.
Simmie, J. (1987). Planning theory and planning practice: an analysis of the San Francisco downtown plan. Cities, 4(4), 304–324.
Schmidt, L. K. (2009). Understanding hermeneutics. Understanding Hermeneutics. https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844653843##
Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2005). Rawls’s “justice as fairness”: A moral basis for contemporary planning theory. Planning Theory, 4(2), 147–172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095205054603##
Taylor, N. (1980). Planning Theory and the theory of planning. Urban Studies, 17, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210386065##
Vieira1, K. A. L., & De Queiroz2, G. M. (2017). Hermeneutic Content Analysis: a method of textual analysis. Www.Ijbmm.Com International Journal of Business Marketing and Management, 2(8), 2456–4559.
www.ijbmm.com##
Watson, V. (2002). The Usefulness of Normative Planning Theories in the Context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Planning Theory, 1(1), 27–52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100103##
Yiftachel, O. (1989). Towards a New Typology of Urban Planning Theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16(1), 23–39.
https://doi.org/10.1068/b160023##
نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی
دوره 26، شماره 1
فروردین 1400
صفحه 31-41

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار