نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانش آموخته دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

در این مقاله فرایند طراحی شهری به عنوان اصلی‌ترین مؤلفه‌ی چنته دانش طراحی شهری مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و مناسبت این فرایند با تحقق پروژه‌ها به لحاظ نظری تحلیل شده است. به این منظور فرایند طراحی شهری در بستر نظری رشته طراحی شهری به عنوان یک رشته‌ی آکادمیک مستقل تحلیل شده و مشکلات تحقق‌پذیری پروژه‌ها در قالب رابطه سه گانه تئوری، حرفه و اجرا مورد بحث قرار گرفته است. هدف مقاله دستیابی به روش‌شناسی مناسب برای مواجهه طراحی شهری با مشکلات مرتبط با تحقق‌پذیری پروژه‌هاست. این روش‌شناسی در چارچوب نظری مقاله ارائه شده است. چارچوب نظری مقاله مبتنی بر تبیینی جدید از فرایند طراحی شهری است که به منظور افزایش تحقق‌پذیری پروژه‌ها مطرح شده است. فرایند یاد شده با عنوان فرایند تدریجی طراحی شهری مرحله اجرا را نیز به مراحل متداول فرایند، مطالعه، تحلیل و اجرا می‌افزاید و آنها را در یک مناسبت غیر خطی و غیر چرخه‌ای به صورت نامنظم و وابسته به مراحل اجرا در نظر می‌گیرد. این فرایند پیشنهادی در قالب روش‌شناسی پژوهشی اقدام‌پژوهی در یک پروژه طراحی شهری مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. پروژه طراحی اراضی کن جنوبی شهر تهران مبتنی بر این روش‌شناسی در بستر عالم واقع و شرایط محیط حرفه­ای مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفته است. در بررسی این نمونه‌ی موردی مراتب افزایش تحقق‌پذیری پروژه از طریق به کار گرفتن روش تدریجی شرح داده شده است. همچنین به عنوان شاهد عدم کامیابی فرایند کلاسیک طراحی شهری اسناد تحقق یک نمونه موردی دیگر، طرح جامع ویژه‌ی اراضی عباس‌آباد، با روش تحلیل محتوا آنالیز شده است. در نهایت در نتیجه بحث تعمیم‌پذیری فرایند تدریجی طراحی شهری به عنوان یک سازوکار جایگزین یا تکمیل‌کننده فرایندهای روتین و متداول طراحی شهری مطرح گردیده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

From Process review to product realization: towards a gradual approach to the urban design process

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farshad Nourian 1
  • Behnaz Aminzadeh 2
  • Mazyar Abaee 3

1 School of Urban Planning and Design, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 School of Urban Planning and Design, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 School of Urban Planning and Design, University of Tehran, Tehran. Iran.

چکیده [English]

Highlights

The urban design process has a vital role in the implemented result of urban design projects.
 Bridging the theory-practice in urban design needs a combination of the implementation phase in the design process.
The gradual approach to the urban design process deals with a step-by-step process combined with real-world implementation and feedbacks. 

 
Introduction
Although more than half a century has passed since the academic birth of urban design, it still suffers from ambiguities in theory and practice. Questions emerge such as the following. Can urban design be a definite discipline? Is urban design independent of urban planning, architecture, and landscape architecture? What is the role of urban design in the real world, and what is the final product? What is the appropriate process and the main toolboxes? Answers to these questions must be part of the common discourse of the field, definite answers to clarify all the ambiguities.
 
Theoretical Frameworks
Despite these ambiguities, urban design continues to be considered as an intellectual tradition. It plays a significant role in everyday human life, and remains a subject matter in many studies. In recent years, many urban projects have sought to create noble environments for people while providing economic benefits for the private sector and local governments. Some research has attempted to evaluate such projects. The results point to the fact that many such projects have failed to accomplish their stated goals. Theoretically, this appears to be the result of a theory-practice dichotomy.
However, there has been a gap in comprehensive research since the 1990s on the urban design process. Although several different parameters affect the implementation of designed projects, the urban design process may play a significant role in the end product. Hence, the question is what could be the relationship between the urban design process and on-the-ground project realization? A complementary question is whether we can manipulate the urban design process to achieve the stated design goals and realize the projects as intended. To answer these questions, we first present a literature review on the urban design process and then discuss the results of our examination of some implemented projects to find clues about how to handle the urban design process and solve the theory-practice dichotomy of urban design itself.
Urban design ambiguities can influence the urban design process as its central procedural dimension, which has implemented projects as its results. Although different parameters cooperate to make it troublesome to utilize a project, all designs are affected by the urban design process. Thus, the question concerns the relationship between the urban design process and project realization. It is also unknown whether we can manipulate the urban design process to ensure the realization of projects. In addition, based on the theory-practice dichotomy, we need to know whether the evaluation of urban design projects and their realization can give us a clue as to how to handle the urban design process. Therefore, we attempt to resolve theoretical ambiguity in urban design by examining some real-world projects. Here, we assume that the urban design process can also transfer theoretical ambiguities to real-world practice as a medium that canalizes theoretical knowledge to practice.  
 
Methodology
The research addresses many unknown topics and undefined parameters. Thus, it may not be possible to develop a specific theoretical framework with a clear list of measurable criteria to meet the research goals through a classified research method. Our literature review leads to a framework that points to a relationship between the subject matters. This framework is not exhaustive because our research does not rely on quantitative measurements and focuses on experience with the subject. 
Therefore, the study is restricted to qualitative research. Due to the uncertainties about the topics, a theoretical interpretation is made of the literature based on qualitative research to develop a framework for an experimental approach to the issue. Content analysis and action research lead us to calibration of the framework. The result provides an ultimate configuration for a practical framework which can be an a priori model which can be calibrated to an ultimate model by experience. Such an experience clarifies the parameters and their relationships through direct contact with the research domain. Therefore, a model is created for the urban design process after the literature review, applicable to examination of operational experience. Finally, we observe that the process is not an ultimate one but can help us find an ultimate one based on the iteration of the a priori model.
Here, the case study addresses the master plan for the Abbasabad region in Tehran. We use this project as the subject of our content analysis. The project is examined through the documents, i.e., reports, administrative correspondences, and proceedings, based on the meetings of cultural and technical committees. 
The documents are analysed in MaxQda. The keywords used in the software include project, realization, process, ratification, Article 5 Commission, master plan, specific plan, implementation, and construction. After the first search in the documents, the useless words are eliminated, and the search is carried out again for their classification. The results are analyzed interpretively. Next, another project–i.e., design of the southern Kan area–is used as a case study implemented on the ground. 
 Results and discussion
The generalization of the incremental process can be explained theoretically, but the experimental proof requires more cases and several, repeated experimental applications of the process. Practical application of the process can calibrate the framework to a more realistic one. The result of the theoretical explanation is that the general format of the process can change over time to turn to a complete model, other models, or derivations of the present model. 
In fact, a model is generated after the literature review calibration of which through experimental research leads to a design process. 
 Conclusion
The incremental process, as proposed in this paper, needs to be tested over time. The relationship between practice and implementation can be recognized through direct experimentation with the incremental process. However, the relationship between implementation and theory (following that between theory and practice) can be recognized through research methods such as design studies. This can demonstrate how theoretical knowledge can be converted to the practical material of projects.
Acknowledgment: The article has been derived from the Ph.D. thesis entitled Revisiting the Urban Design Process with a Focus on Implementation of Projects, which has been defended by the third author under the first author’s supervision and the second author’s advisory at the University of Tehran.
We should thank Naghshe Jahan-Pars Consulting Co. And Gozineh Consulting Co. for providing us with the materials for the two case study projects of Abbas Abad Region Master Plan and Southern Kan Area Design, respectively.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban design
  • Urban Design Process
  • Gradual Approach to Urban Design
  • Action Research
Alexander, C. (1979). A Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C. (1987). A New Theory of Urban Design. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, E. R. (2010). Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how? Planning Theory, 9(2), 99-107.
Alnsour, J., & Meaton, J. (2009). Factors affecting compliance with residential standards in the city of Old Salt. Habitat International, 33(4), 301-309.
Amin, A. (2008). Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), 5-24.
Bahrainy, H. (1999). Urban Design Process. University of Tehran Press.
Bahrainy, H., & Azizkhani, M. (2012). Institutional barriers to the application of urban village as a tool for achieving urban sustainability in developing countries—the case of Asheghabaad, Isfahan, Iran. Armanshahr Journal 4(8), 43-57.
Beauregard, R. A. (1998). Writing the planner. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(2), 93-101.
Bentley, I. (1985). Responsive environments: A manual for designers. Routledge.
Binder, G. (2012). Theory(izing)/practice: The model of recursive cultural adaptation. Planning Theory, 11(3), 221-241.
Boelens, L. (2010). Theorizing Practice and Practising theory: Outlines for an Actor-Relational- Approach in Planning. Planning Theory, 9(1), 28-62.
Carmona, M. (2014). The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 1-36.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places–urban spaces: A guide to urban design. Architectural Press.
Childs, M. C. (2010). A spectrum of urban design roles. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 1-19.
Cowan, R. (2002). Urban Design Guidance: urban design frameworks, development briefs and master plans. Thomas Telford Publishing.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.
Cuthbert, A. (2011). Understanding cities: method in urban design. Routledge.
Etzioni, A. (1973). Mixed-scanning: a third approach to decision-making. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon Press.
Friedman, K. (2000). Creating design knowledge: from research into practice. IDATER 2000 Conference, Loughborough University.
Garcia, M. (2010). The diagrams of architecture: AD Reader. Wiley.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space. Island Press.
Hamid, S. (1985). Urban design process
  Van Nostrand-Reinhold
Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and planning, 30(9), 1531-1546.
Hoch, C. J. (2002). Evaluating plans pragmatically. Planning Theory, 1(1), 53-75.
Inam, A. (2002). Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant. Journal of Urban Design, 7(1), 35-58.
Kreditor, A. (1990). The Neglect of Urban Design in the American Academic Succession. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 9(3), 155-163.
Krieger, A. (2003). Where and How Does Urban Design Happen. In A. Krieger & W. Saunders (Eds.), Urban Design (pp. 113-120). University of Minnesota Press.
Krieger, A. (2006). Territories of urban design. In M. Moor & J. Rowland (Eds.), Urban Design Futures (pp. 36-46). Routledge.
Lang, J. (2005). Urban design: A typology of process and products, Illustrated with over 50 case studies. Elsevier/Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think? Pennsylvania State University.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public administration review, 19(2), 79-88.
Lindblom, C. E. (1973). The Science of Muddling Through. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon Press.
Liu, Y., He, S., Wu, f., & Webster, C. (2010). Urban villages under China's rapid urbanization: unregulated assets and transitional neighbourhoods. Habitat International, 34(2), 135-144.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. John Wiley & Son Ltd.
Madanipour, A. (1997). Ambiguities of Urban Design. The Town Planning Review, 63(3), 363-383.
Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 11(2), 173-193.
March, A. (2010). Practising theory: When theory affects urban planning. Planning Theory, 9(2), 108-125.
Marshall, S. (2009). Cities, design and evolution. Routledge.
Mera, K. (1967). Consumer sovereignty in urban design. Town Planning Review, 37(4), 305.
Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C., & Signoreta, P. (1999). Urban Design: Method and Techniques. Architectural Press.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 304-361.
Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design studies, 27(3), 229-265.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Schurch, T. W. (1999). Reconsidering Urban Design: Thoughts about its Definition and Status as a Field or Profession. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1), 5-28.
Sorkin, M. (2013). The end (s) of urban design. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The Urban design Reader. Routledge.
Talen, E. (1996). After the Plans: Methods to Evaluate the Implementation Success of Plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10(3­), 79-91.
Talen, E. (1996). Do Plans Get Implemented? A Review of Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 10(3), 248-259.
William, K., & Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 135.