تحلیلی بر تحولات محتوایی و رویه‌ای فرایند طراحی شهری و کاربست آن در پروژه های طراحی شهری ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه تهران

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

چکیده

امروزه شهرها با مسائل پیچیده‌ای مواجه گردیده­اند که فرایند رایج طراحی ­شهری توانایی مقابله با آنها را ندارد؛ از این رو، بسیاری از طراحان ­شهری به دنبال دانشی هستند که بتوانند آنان را در چگونگی پیمایش فرایند­ هدایت کرده، و محصول فرایند طراحی ­شهری را مشروعیت بخشد. براین­اساس، هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر، شناخت مفاهیم موثر بر تحولات محتوایی و رویه­ای فرایند طراحی و ارزیابی میزان کاربست این مفاهیم در پروژه­های طراحی ­شهری ایران است. بدین­منظور به دلیل عدم نظریه­پردازی مباحث رویه­ای در چارچوب دانش طراحی شهری، با رجوع به نظریه­های رویه­ای دانش برنامه­ریزی شهری و بررسی آن در چارچوب تحولات ماهیت طراحی شهری و فراورده مورد انتظار از آن، مفاهیم اساسی تاثیرگذار بر چگونگی پیمایش فرایند طراحی شهری استخراج و در قالب چارچوب ارزیابی پژوهش تدوین و تشریح گردیده است. این چارچوب امکان بررسی و تحلیل فرایند­ طراحی ­شهریِ پروژه­های منتخب را با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی جهت­دار و روش­های آماری متناسب، فراهم می­آورد. نتایج ارزیابی نشان می­دهد مفاهیم خواست­عمومی، قدرت و مشارکت­مردمی، به­ترتیب کمترین، و مفاهیم مداخله چندسطحی، زمینه­گرایی، مساله­گرایی و انعطاف­پذیری، به ترتیب بیشترین میزان کاربست در پروژه­ها را به خود اختصاص داده­اند؛ که این امر نشان از غلبه رهیافت راهبردی در پروژه­های طراحی ­شهری کشور دارد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

An Analysis of substantial and procedural evolution of urban design process and its application in Iranian urban design projects

نویسندگان [English]

  • saeede alikaei 1
  • Behnaz Amin Zadeh Gohar Rizi 2
1 faculty of urban planning university of Tehran
2 Full Professor, Facualty of Urban Planning, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Nowadays, cities are faced with complicated problems and challenges with which current urban design processes are not capable to cope. Hence, many urban designers are looking for the processes that through which the products cope with the time requirements, circumstances of the context on one hand and the knowledge base of urban design on the other hand. However, the failure to develop such knowledge has caused the urban design process to be carried out on the practical experiences of designers and a framework outside of the concepts of theoretical knowledge. Therefore, its legitimacy is characterized without the theory-based structure. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analysis the substantial and procedural evolutions of urban design process. Due to the lack of the theoretical consideration of the procedural issues in the framework of urban design knowledge, procedural theories of urban planning knowledge is studied and the basic concepts affecting the urban design process have been elicited, elaborated and described. Such a framework, in addition to explaining all the effective concepts that guide the process, describes how these concepts are applied on stages of the urban design process, and in this way the obscure and sometimes abstract concepts are applied in a practical way, since the compiled categories clearly illustrate how each of the concepts is applied based on the steps of urban design process. Power, public interest, public participation, problem orientation, context orientation, flexibility, and multi-level intervention are some concepts that appropriate the main implications of the evaluation framework referring to the strategic approach, the communication approach, and that of rational problem solving. In addition to providing some indicators for defining the concepts and determining how to apply them in the urban design process, the considered framework makes it possible to analyze and evaluate the process of urban design projects, regardless of time and location. Consequently, in the next step and in order to assess the application of the evaluation framework in Iranian urban design projects, 10 Iran’s urban design projects approved within 2007- 2017 were investigated using directed qualitative content analysis method and appropriate statistical methods.  The assessment outcomes demonstrate that the concepts of public interest, power, and public participation, respectively, have had the lowest and those of multi-level intervention, context orientation, problem orientation, and flexibility have had the highest rate of application in the selected projects. This represents the prevailing strategic approach, at the both theoretical and practical levels, in Iran’s urban design discourse. Despite introducing the concept of participation in the urban design discourse of Iran, the communication approach has faced major challenges to be applied in Iranian design projects because of neglecting the concept of power and its undeniable role in guiding the urban design process, lack of empowerment and acquaintance of the society with their demands and expectations from the plan, and how to pursue and follow it up in the form of a process of social learning. This vividly reveals the significance of the further researches on the challenges ahead applying the concepts of communication approach in Iranian urban design projects.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Theory
  • practice
  • urban design process
  • Evaluation
  • Qualitative Content Analysis
  • Iranian urban design projects

بحرینی، سیدحسین (1377)، فرایند طراحی شهری، فرایند طراحی شهری، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

گلکار، کوروش (1382)، از تولد تا بلوغ طراحی‌شهری، نشریهعلمی پژوهشیصفه، شماره 36، صص 23-8.

گلکار، کوروش (1390). طراحی شهری، فرآیند یا فرآیندها؟، نشریهعلمی پژوهشیصفه، شماره52 ، صص 134-99.

Albrecht, J (1986). Development, context and purpose of planning, IL: University of Illinois, Champaign.

Alexander, C (1971), A Timeless way of building, Oxford University press, New York.

Alexander, E.R (1984), After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown, Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(1), pp.62-69.

Alexander, E.R (2010), Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how?, Planning Theory, 9(2), pp. 99-107.

Allmendinger, P (2002), Planning Theory, Planning Environment, Cities, Palgrave Macmillan, UK.

Banerjee, T and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, eds. (2011), Companion to Urban Design, Routledge, London.

Campbell, S & Fainstein, S (1996), Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory, Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell Publications Massachusetts.

Canter, D (1977), The Psychology of Place, Architectural Press, London.

Carmona, M. et al (2003), Public Places, Urban Spaces, Architectural Press, London.

Carmona, M (2014), The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban. Design Process, Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), pp.2-36.

Cuthbert, A (2011), Urban Design and Spatial Political Economy, In Companion to Urban Design, edited by T. Banerjee, and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, 84– 96. London: Routledge.

Etzioni, A (1967), Mixed scanning, a third approach to decision-making, Public Administration Review, 27(5), pp.358-392.

Faludi, A (1983), Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology, Urban Studies, 20, pp.265-278.

Flyvbjerg, B & T. Richardson (2002), Planning and Foucault, in Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory, in P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr _Jones (eds.) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, London, Rutledge, 44-62.

Forester, J (1989), Planning in the face of power, Berkeley, CA: university of California press.

Forester, J (1993), Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice, State University of New­York Press, Albany, New York.

Foucault, M (1980), Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 1972-1977, edited by Collin Gordon, Pantheon Books, New York.

Friedmann, J (1987), Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

George, V.R (1997), A Procedural Explanation for Contemporary Urban Design, Journal of Urban Design, 2(2), pp.143-161.

Habermas, J (1985), The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Mass: Beacon Press, Boston.

Hall, P (1989), Urban and Regional Planning, Unwin Hyman, London.

Healey, P (1996), The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23/2(3), pp.217-234.

Hillier, B; Musgrove, J and O’Sullivan, P (1972), Knowledge and design, In W J Mitchell Environmental design: research and practice 2, Proceedings of the EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference. pp 29-3-1–29-3-14.

Hoch, C (2007), Making plans: Representation & intention, Planning Theory, 6(1), 15-35.

Inam, A (2002), Meaningful Urban Design: Teleological/Catalytic/Relevant, Journal of Urban Design, 7 (1), pp.35–58.

Innes, J (1995), Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), pp.183–189.

Jacobs, J (1994), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Penguin, London.

Krieger, A (2003), Where and how urban design happen? Published in “Alex Krieger and Williams Saunders, Urban Design, University of Minnesota press”, 113-120.

Lindblom, C, E (1959), The science of muddling through, Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp.79-88.

Lang, J (1987), Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Lang, J (2005), Urban Design, A Typology of Procedures and Products, Architectural Press, Oxford.

Madanipour, A (1996), Design of urban space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial process, John wiley & son, University of Newcastle, UK.

Madanipour, A (2006), Role and challenges of urban design, Journal of urban design, 11 (2), pp.173-193.

Mayring, P (2000), Qualitative content analysis, from http://www.qualitative- research.net/ fqs-texte/2-00/02-00 mayring-e.htm.

Moughtin, C; R. Cuesta; C. Sarris and P. Signoretta (1999), Urban Design: Method and Techniques, Architectural Press, Oxford.

Punter, J (1991), Participation in design of urban space,  journal of Landscape Design, 200(2), pp.24–27.

Rapoport, A (1990), History and precedual in environmental design, Plenum Press, New York.

Relph, E (1976), Place and placelessness. Pion.

Sager, T (1992), Why plan? A Multi-Rationality Foundation for planning, Scandinavian Housing &planning Research, 9, pp.129-147.

Shirvani, H (1985), The Urban Design Process, Van Nostrad Reinhold, New York.

Steinø, N (2003), VISION, PLAN and REALITY– urban design between conceptualization and realization, Arkitektskolen i Aarhus, Åarhus.