نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهر قدس.

10.34785/J011.2022.008

چکیده

امروزه موضوع مدیریت تقاضای تخریب و ساخت به عنوان چالشی برای چگونگی حفاظت از ساختمان­های بادوامی که همچنان قابل استفاده برای زندگی و فعالیت هستند، تبدیل گردیده است. اهمیت این موضوع از آنجایی است که بر بهره­ وری شهری مؤثر است. بهره­ وری شهری، مفهومی کلی است که شهر و تمامی کارکردهایش را در برمی ­گیرد. ساختمان از جمله عناصر کلیدی در ساختار اقتصادی و همچنین فضایی شهرهاست و نقش تعیین کننده­ای در مدیریت و توسعه شهری دارد و بهره­ وری آنها در مفهوم مدیریت تقاضای تخریب و نوسازی به معنای بهره ­برداری از تمام ظرفیت ­های سازه ­ای و کالبدی آنها تعریف می­ شود. ساختمان همواره یکی از اولویت­ های سرمایه گذاری در شهر تهران بوده است. این در حالی است که الگوهای مدیریتی و نظام حقوقی حاکم، فاقد ضوابطی برای مدیریت تخریب و ساخت است. این مهم از آنجایی نشأت می­گیرد که فواید سریع الوصول حاصل از تخریب و نوسازی، هزینه ­های بلندمدت ناشی از آن را پنهان نموده است. براین اساس، در این پژوهش با اتکا بر چند پیش فرض و بهره ­گیری از روش نمونه ­گیری چند مرحله ­ای،چهار هزار و  526 نمونه در سطح مناطق شهر تهران انتخاب و تحلیل روند تغییرات آن را با توجه به مبانی حقوقی و اقتصادی کلان، مورد بررسی قرار می ­دهد. نتایج حاصل از این تحلیل نشان می­ دهد که غلبه­ ارزش زمین بر ساختمان، اصلی‌ترین محرک تخریب و نوسازی ساختمان­ ها در شهر تهران است؛ به گونه ­ای که مناطق برخوردار از بافت فرسوده، لزوماً سهم بیشتری از صدور پروانه تخریب و نوسازی نداشته ­اند.  همچنین دوام و سن ساختمان، مانعی از سوی ضوابط حقوقی مدیریت شهری به منظور جلوگیری از تخریب ایجاد نمی­ کند. این در حالی است که تخریب ساختمان ­های واجد ظرفیت نگهداشت الزاماً برای مدیریت شهری منفعتی ایجاد نمی­ کند. بنابراین ایجاد تغییر در تعاریف و  ضوابط در ایجاد ارزش افزوده و افزایش تمایل به نگهداشت ساختمان از سوی مالک ضروری است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Managerial-Economic drivers in Decreasing Buildings’ Productivity Period, Tehran

نویسنده [English]

  • AmirHossein Pourjohari

Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Shahr-e-Qods branch, Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Highlights
- The great part of the construction sector in national investment affects the achievement of urban efficiency.
- Destruction of durable buildings is in conflict with optimal use of capital.
- Destruction and reconstruction of buildings without rights is an obstacle to achievement of life quality.
 
Introduction
Management of the demand for destruction and reconstruction has been known as a challenge to preserve durable buildings which are still available for use as places to live in or perform activity. It is also effective on urban productivity, a general concept that contains all the urban functions. Buildings make up the main factor in specification of the economic and spatial structure in a city. They have a determinative role in urban management and development, and their productivity is interpreted as the use of all the physical and structural capacities. Therefore, it can be claimed that buildings are important in urban productivity.
Buildings are a priority in the investment made in cities, particularly in our country. However, managerial patterns and legal system are not established based on the roles and rights to manage the demands for destruction and reconstruction. This results from the readily-available benefits of destruction and reconstruction, which conceal the costs. Due to the importance of buildings as a national value and given the concept of sustainable development, it is necessary to analyze the statistical trends and study the different factors which impact the public tendency to destroy and reconstruct buildings.
Theoretical framework
An essential approach to protection of durable buildings concerns infill development. This approach, which originates from sustainable development, includes one of the most serious activities performed to preserve durable buildings: adaptive reuse of buildings which exhibit the capacity to be preserved (based on their forms and functions). In other words, adaptive reuse of buildings is based on their capacities and characteristics.  
Therefore, the main approach to durable building preservation stems from sustainable development. Return to life cycle is the relevant pattern which can increase the efficiency period of a building. Urban efficiency is a way to improve urban management.
It is worth mentioning that urban land, as a basis for creation of buildings, has a remarkable role in the attempt to achieve urban efficiency. The city and the functions which are created there are defined on that basis.
Methodology
In this research, statistical information on destruction and reconstruction permits granted in a twenty-year period has been analyzed. In addition, 4526 cases have been selected as durable buildings using random sampling. Moreover, an evaluation of the income codes of Tehran Municipality in the defined period has been considered. Therefore, this research has studied the public and managerial trends concerning the preservation of durable buildings and the relevant side effective factors.
Result and discussion
The results of this investigation revealed that the value added due to destruction and reconstruction is the most important factor that encourages people to make such demands. However, an analysis of urban management income shows that destruction of durable buildings has no great impact thereon. It seems that  a number of modifications in urban terms and restrictions need to be considered in durable building preservation. In this case, one must consider definition of new methods for creation of value added to satisfy the owners of durable buildings in order to preserve them.
Conclusion
The factor that distinguishes this study from others is that it has focused on legal principles in management of the demand for destruction and reconstruction. Moreover, failure in supervision and administration and management inconsistency have been identified as the most important factors in the decision to destroy buildings which have the capacity to be preserved. In other words, urban management does not provide appropriate techniques to manage the demand for destruction and reconstruction.
In conclusion, the tendency to destroy durable buildings could be explained in terms of the following.
A. Economic and Social Factors
The lack of balance in urban economics and uncertainty of investment in productive departments have been recognized as parameters that increase the tendency to destroy and reconstruct durable buildings.
B. Legal Factors
- There is no definition for durable buildings and the importance of their preservation as a national value.
-  Economic policies such as reduction of interest on bank deposits have facilitated investment in construction.
C. Cultural Factors
There is conflict between individual and public benefits which stem from culture. Therefore, people’s priorities are defined by their own benefit. In addition, the importance and priorities of individual benefits over public ones result from legal documents. Thus, the public tendency to give priority to individual benefits has been affected by laws and rights. Moreover, the poor sources of supplying sustainable income in urban management make up another factor that increases managerial tendency to construct.
In other words, urban management benefits from the added value of destruction and reconstruction. However, there are no facilities or techniques to modify the tendency.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban Management
  • Demand for Management of Destruction and Reconstruction
  • Destruction Demand
  • Sustainable Urban development
  • Urban Productivity
Bullen A. P. (2007). Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings, Facilities, Vol. 25 No. 1/2.
Celadyn, W. (2014). Durability of Buildings and Sustainable Architecture, Technical Transactions. 7-A.
Chen, J. & Zhu, A (2008). The Relationship between Housing Investment and Economic Growth in China: A panel Analysis Using Quarterly Provincial Data. Working Paper. Department of Economics. Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
City-Parish Planning Commission(CPPC). (2004). Infill Development. Louisiana: Information Bulletin, No. 43.
Civilization Office of Tehran Municipality (C. O. T). (2020). Amalkard e Radifha-ye shahrsazi [Urban Planning Codes' Function]. Tehran: Tehran Municipality. [in Persian]
Cohen, M. & Simet,L. (2018). Macroeconomy and Urban Productivity,Chapter 6; Dynamic Urban Planet. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.
Department of Planning and Architecture Tehran Municipality (D.P.A). (2020),Parvaneha-ye Sadereh az Sal e 1371 ta Nimeh Khordad e 1399[Licenses issued to Construct during 20years].Tehran: Tehran Municipality.[in Persian].
Douglas, J. (2006). Building Adaptation, 2nd edn, London: Butterworth- Heinemann.
Farahzadi,M(2018).Barressi va Tahlil e Amarha-ye Makan va Sakhteman[Evaluation & Analysis of Housing and building],Tehran: Statistical Centre of Iran. Retrieved from https://www.amar.org.ir/news/ID/. [in Persian]
Felt, E. (2006). Patching the Fabric of the Neighborhood: The Practical Challenges of Infill Housing Development for CDCs, Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies and Neighbor Works America.
Glaeser, L, E., & Xiang, W (2017). Urban Productivity in the developing world, Oxford Review of Economic Policy,33(3).373-404.
Hajilo, H. (2004). Moarefi Ravashha-ye Tahlil e Dadehha-ye Keifi ba Taakid bar Raveshha-ye Tahlil e Mohtava [Introduction of Methods to Qualitative Data Analysis with focus on qualitative content analysis]. Etelae Resani,Amouzeshi va Pazhoheshi,(2)7-8,55-62. [in Persian]
Iran Amar Organization(2016), Sarshomari-ye Nofous va Maskan e sal e 1395
[Detailed census information of 2016 in Iran], [in Persian].
Langston, C., & Chen L.Y. (2007). Application of the adaptive reuse potential model in Hong Kong: A case study of Lui Seng Chun, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 11)4(.193-207.
Langston, C. (2011). The Sustainability Implications of Building Adaptive Reuse, this research is funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project grant 2007-2010 in collaboration with The Uniting Church in Australia and Williams Boag Architects.
Langston, C., Yung, E. H-K., & Chan, E. HW. (2013). The application of ARP modelling to adaptive reuse projects in Hong Kong, Habitat International 40 (2013) 233-243.
Leung, Ch. (2004). Macroeconomics and Housing: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Housing Economics, 13 (4) .249- 267.
Mehregan,N, & Tatar,M(2014). Barresi e Asarat Kotah Modat va Bolanad Modat e Hazineha bar Gheimat e Maskan e Tehran [Evaluation of short and long effects of Expenses on the price of housing in Tehran], Eghtesad e Maskan,50.48-68. [in Persian].
Mokhtarpour, R. (2020). Sakht va Saz ha-ye Shahri [Urban Construction], Tehran: Iran's Municipalities and village administrators. [in Persian].
Pollakowski,H (2003). Rent Control and Housing Investment: Evidence from Deregulation in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Journal of Housing Economics. No.36.55-70.
Ravanbakhsh,M(2019).Farhang[Culture],Retrieved fromhttp://www.tansimnews.com. [in Persian]
Sahebi, M. & Etezadifar, H. (2014). Moarefi e Shakhesha-ye Omr e Mofid e Baghimandeh Sakhteman Baraye Arzayabi Asibpaziri e Larzei Sazeha [Presentation of effiency age of Building to Evaluate Earthquake Vulnerability], Sazeh va Foulad,10(15),55-66. [in Persian]
Spiliotopoulou,M & Roseland,M (2021). Urban sustainability via urban productivity? A conceptual review and framework proposal, Environment & Sustainability Journal.No.2.177-196.
Tehran Municipality ICT Organization (2020). Amarnameh-ye Shahr e Tehran [Statistical Yearbook of Tehran in 2019]. Tehran: Tehran Municipality. [in Persian].
Tan, Y., Chen L.., & Langston, C. (2014). A fuzzy approach for adaptive reuse selection of industrial building in Hong Kong, international journal of strategic property management, 18(1). 66–76.