ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Towards a Democratic Process in Urban Planning and Design;
Assessing the Status of Citizens’ Involvement in Urban Plans and Projects in Iran
AbstractProblem Statement: it seems that in current times, many of the urban designs and plans in Iran have totalitarian, centralized, and monopolistic essences. This condition is predictably originated from the absence of deliberative and collaborative democracies; in light of the foregoing, the inefficiencies of the stages of presentation and implementation have led to neglecting the citizenship rights and the public preferences. Hence, citizens have little social responsibilities for the negative consequences of inefficient urban practices. In addition, an appropriate context is not provided for them to affect the various steps of urban processes, claiming their rights to the city, and expressing their opinions. In this spirit, the urban projects lose their basic figures in providing stability and promoting the role of people in urban development and management. Hence, the impetus behind this study is to improve the urban democracy in the process of urban planning and design.Purpose: this study attempts to investigate the reasons for the lack of democratic involvement by the citizens in the process of urban development and management, as well as to find some solutions to remove this widespread deep-rooted social dilemma. Research hypothesis: the realization of democracy and actual participation of citizens in the process of developing the urban spaces can lead to more accurate and efficient decision makings, as well as more successful implementation of urban plans and projects. Research method: this article was conducted through content analysis and comparative methods. While studying the pillars of the democratic system, the methods of democratic participation of citizens in the processes of urban development and management in Iran was studied regarding the Principles of the Critical Theory. In fact, an effort was made to provide a platform for presenting the findings and suggested solutions through the process of criticizing and analysing the current situation of the Iranian urban plans and designs along with comparing them with the necessary elements for the realization of democratic and people-friendly urban processes. This should be stated that the data collection method was based on interviews with people, studying documents, and also field observations. Conclusion: results indicate that Dilemmas in the Iranian urban system have been originated from the non-democratic factors, such as the lack of participation, the lack of all-inclusiveness, the violation of citizenship rights and urban justice, illegitimate urban laws, inflexibility, the downfall of pluralism, and etc. Hence, through scheming criteria such as the diversity of opinions, all-inclusiveness, flexibility, forming NGOs, the citizen education and discourse, diversity and respecting the citizen’s rights, etc., these processes can be democratized and also a platform for the emergence of a comprehensive type of a democratic urban planning and design would be materialized; a process which strengthens the urban democracy and honors the position of people, not as the problem but as the solution, by creating equal opportunities in a disinterested fashion.
http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_93430_e0724ba68bc500445cc6f8bd22bdb714.pdf
2019-09-23
5
20
10.22034/bagh.2019.135523.3627
Deliberative and Collaborative Democracy
Urban justice
Social participation
Democratic urban development
The right to the city
Nasser
Barati
nasserbarati1955@yahoo.com
1
Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Fardin
Heidari
f.heidari@edu.ikiu.ac.ir
2
Master of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
AUTHOR
Mani
Sattarzad Fathi
m.sattarzad@edu.ikiu.ac.ir
3
Master of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
AUTHOR
بشیریه، حسین. (1392). درسهای دموکراسی برای همه. تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر.
1
بنتلی، ای ین؛ الکک، آلن؛ مورین، پال؛ مکگلین، سو و اسمیت، گراهام. (1391). محیطهای پاسخده: کتاب راهنمای طراحان (ترجمۀ مصطفی بهزادفر) تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علم و صنعت.
2
بهزادفر، مصطفی و محمودی کردستانی، پیام. (1388). هنجارهای کیفی طراحی فضای شهری مردممدار (آزادیمدار). معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر، 2(3)، 32-48.
3
بهزادفر، مصطفی. (1392). طرحها و برنامههای شهرسازی. تهران: انتشارات شهر.
4
بیکن، ادموند. (1391). طراحی شهرها (ترجمۀ فرزانه طاهری). تهران: انتشارات شهیدی.
5
پوپر، کارل. (1380). جامعۀ باز و دشمنان آن (ترجمۀ عزتالله فولادوند). تهران: انتشارات خوارزمی.
6
پیرزاده، حسین. (1387). اصلاح نظام مدیریت توسعه شهری در ایران براساس رویکرد راهبردی. تهران: وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی.
7
توکلینیا، جمیله؛ رئیسی، حسین و آقایی، پرویز. (1394). سنجش میزان کارایی زیرگذرهای شهری در راستای پایداری (مورد پژوهی: زیرگذر چهارراه ولیعصر، تهران). مطالعات مدیریت شهری، 7(21)، 22-34.
8
تیبالدز، فرانسیس. (1387). شهرسازی شهروندگرا: ارتقای عرصههای همگانی و محیطهای شهری (ترجمۀ محمد احمدینژاد). اصفهان: انتشارات خاک.
9
حبیبی، سید محسن. (1378). جامعه مدنی و حیات شهری. هنرهای زیبا، 7، 21-33.
10
خادمالحسینی، احمد و عارفیپور، صفیه. (1391). شهرسازی مشارکتی و جایگاه مردم در برنامهریزی شهری. مطالعات برنامهریزی سکونتگاههای انسانی، 7(19)، 108-123.
11
خلیلی، احمد؛ نورالهی، حانیه؛ رشیدی، نعیمه و رحمانی، مریم. (1393). ارزیابی سیاستهای مسکن مهر در ایران و ارائۀ راهکارهایی جهت بهبود آن. مطالعات شهری، 4(13)، 83-92.
12
سالیوان، راجر جی. (1380). اخلاق در فلسفۀ کانت (ترجمۀ عزتالله فولادوند). تهران: طرح نو.
13
شماعی، علی؛ فخری پور محمدی، افسانه؛ زنگانه، احمد و پریزادی، طاهر. (1395). ارزیابی رضایتمندی شهروندان از عملکرد زیرگذرها در شهر تهران (مطالعه موردی: پروژه زیرگذر چهارراه ولیعصر شهر تهران). مطالعات مدیریت شهری، 8(27)، 42-53.
14
کامروا، سید محمد علی. (1392). شهرسازی معاصر ایران. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
15
لینچ، کوین. (1390). تئوری شکل خوب شهر (ترجمۀ سید حسین بحرینی). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
16
هابرماس، یورگن. (1391). نظریه کنش ارتباطی (ترجمۀ کمال پولادی). تهران: مرکز.
17
هاروی، دیوید و مریفیلد، اندی. (1392). حق به شهر: ریشههای شهری بحرانهای مالی (ترجمۀ خسرو کلانتری). تهران: مهرویستا.
18
Appleyard, D. (1979). Planning the pluralist city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19
Atlee, T. (2003). The tao of democracy: using co-intelligence to create a world that works for all. Cranston, RI: The Writers Collective.
20
Bahrainy, H. & Aminzadeh, B. (2007). Evaluation of Navab regeneration project in central Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Environmental Research, 1(2), 114-127.
21
Barzegaran, M. & Daroudi, M. R. (2015). Assessment of Mehr housing project as an example of housing for low-income people in Iran. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 12(1), 70-74.
22
Jahanbegloo, R. (2007). Conversations with Isaiah Berlin. London: Halban Publishers.
23
Bickford, S. (2000). Constructing inequality: city spaces and the architecture of citizenship. Political Theory, 28(3), 355-376.
24
Brain, D. (2006). Democracy and urban design: The transect as civic renewal. Places Journal, 18(1), 17-23.
25
Fainstein, S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2013.834643
26
Francis, M. (1987). The making of democratic streets. In A.V. Moudon (Ed.), Public streets for public use. New York: Columbia University Press.
27
Griffin, T. L., Cohen, A. & Maddox, D. (2015). The just city essays: 26 vision for urban equity, inclusion and opportunity (Volume 1 of The Just City Essays Series). Independent Publisher. Available at: https://www.thenatureofcities.com/the-just-city-essays
28
Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation: political essays (M. Pensky, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29
Hamdi, N. (2004). Small change; about the art of practice and the limits of planning in cities. London: Earthscan.
30
Hamdi, N. (2010). The placemaker’s guide to building community. London: Earthscan.
31
Haughton, G. & Hunter, C. (2005). Sustainable cities. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
32
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House Publication.
33
Jacobs, A. & Appleyard, D. (1982). Towards an urban design manifesto. UC Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Working No. 385. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/35v0b85k#author
34
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A.W. Wood, Trans.). London: Cambridge University Press.
35
Kapeller, J. & Pühringer, S. (2012). Democracy in liberalism and neoliberalism: the case of Popper and Hayek. No: 10. ICAE working paper series. Linz, Austria: JKU Press.
36
King, L. A. (2004). Democracy and city life. Journal of Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 3(1), 97-124.
37
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
38
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Trans and Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
39
Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society: modernizing Middle East. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
40
Maghsoodi Tilaki, M. J., Azizi, B., Aldrin, A. & Hedayati Marzbali, M. (2014). Improving the preparation of Iranian urban development plans: lessons learned from other experiences. Modern Applied Science, 8(4), 144-157.
41
Mahmoudi Kurdistani, P., Khodabakhsh, P. & Mashayekhi, S. (2012). Democratic urban streets design guideline codifications. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 5(8), 71-82.
42
Mäntysalo, R. (2004). Approaches to participation in urban planning theories. Brozzi and Le Piagge Neighbourhoods: Rehabilitation of Suburban Areas: Diploma Workshop in Florence, 2004/05.
43
Miraftab, F. (2012). Planning and citizenship (R. Weber & R. Crane, Eds.) New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 38, 1180-1204.
44
Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guildford
45
Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: the right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58(2-3), 99-108.
46
Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 564-590.
47
Purcell, M. (2013). Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the right to the city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), 141-154.
48
Purcell, M. (2016). For democracy: planning and publics without the state. Planning Theory, 15(4), 386-401.
49
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness; a restatement. London: Harvard University Press.
50
Rowe, C. & Koetter, F. (1978). Collage city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51
Sanoff. H. (2007). Community based design learning: democracy and collective decision making. In A. M. Salama & N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 21-38). Gateshead, UK: Urban International Press.
52
Sanoff, H. (2008). Multiple views of participatory design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 57-69.
53
Sanoff, H. (2010). Democratic design: participation case studies in urban and small town environments. Düsseldorf, Germany: Verlag-Muller.
54
Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Cambridge: Blackwell.
55
Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
56
Wates, N. (2000). The community planning handbook; how people can shape their cities, towns and villages in any part of the world. London: Earthscan.
57
Wates, N. (2008). The community planning event manual; how to use collaborative planning and urban design events to improve your environment. London: Earthscan.
58
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Process of Preparing Urban Development Plans and Explaining Types of False Reasoning in Responding to Public Opinions
(Case Study: ISNA Workshops in Review of Tehran Comprehensive Plan)
Problem statement: This article has been prepared according to the publication of the book “Review of the Comprehensive Plan of Tehran 2007”. Today, it has been about ten years since the Comprehensive Plan of Tehran (TCP) was approved. A review of the efforts of a number of university professors while preparing this plan, supported by a group of experts and led to hold workshops at the Iran Student News Agency (ISNA), is a good example for evaluating the position of expert opinions in the process of developing urban development projects in Iran. The present article focuses on the “Responsiveness” of the planners of the Tehran Comprehensive Plan (consultants and employers) answering the criticism to this plan. So, it has been tried to show how different types of false reasoning can be identified and explained in these answers. Exposing this false reasoning of the planners against critiques can probably more responsibility for future planners to improve their products or answer to criticisms.Objective: The purpose of this article is to explain the types of false reasoning when providers of Tehran Comprehensive Plan answer to critics.Method of Research: The research method in this study is the discourse analysis method. Accordingly, the discussions of nine ISNA workshops have been reviewed, and in particular the responses of the suppliers to the Tehran Comprehensive Plan have been analyzed. It has been tried to categorize the answers according to a framework derived from the Schopenhauer’s book, entitled The Art of Being Right. Conclusion: The study findings show that there are three general categories of responses to criticisms. The first category of responses, while admitting some criticisms, points out that since these criticisms have already been addressed to previous projects, they cannot be modified in this plan (TCP can merely continue the current procedure of planning). The second category of responses, instead of responding to the critique, attempts to accuse critics with vague statements. The third category also offers criticism: a tempting proposition that silences the critic! The common point in all three ways is that there is no attempt to eliminate defects or respond to criticisms.
http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_93431_de8fac4581dea1db6f3da8f1e043635f.pdf
2019-09-23
21
30
10.22034/bagh.2019.100892.3261
responsiveness
false reasoning
Tehran Comprehensive Plan
Mohammadsaleh
Shokouhibidhendi
saleh.shokouhi@gmail.com
1
Assistant Professor, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
بومسازگان، مهندسان مشاور. (1385). طرح راهبردی-ساختاری توسعۀ شهر تهران: طرح جامع تهران، خلاصه گزارش نهایی طرح (ویرایش اول). تهران: نهاد مدیریت و برنامهریزی تهیه طرحهای توسعه شهری تهران.
1
پرهیزکار، اکبر و کاظمیان، غلامرضا. (1384). رویکرد حکمروایی شهری و ضرورت آن در منطقۀ کلانشهری تهران. فصلنامۀ پژوهشهای اقتصادی، (16)، 29-49.
2
تقوایی، علیاکبر و تاجدار، رسول. (1388). درآمدی بر حکمروایی خوب شهری در رویکردی تحلیلی. فصلنامه مدیریت شهری، (23)، 58-45.
3
حاتمی، علی و جبارنژاد، سمیرا. (1385). تحلیل گفتمان به مثابه یک روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی. کنگرۀ ملی علوم انسانی. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
4
شکوهی بیدهندی، محمدصالح. (1393). ارزیابی عدالت فضایی در برنامههای توسعۀ شهری، مورد پژوهشی: طرح راهبردی-ساختاری توسعه و عمران شهر تهران (طرح جامع تهران) و برنامۀ آمایش و توسعه پایدار پاریس (PADD). (رسالۀ منتشرنشدۀ دکتری شهرسازی)، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.
5
شوپنهاور، آرتور. (1385). هنر همیشه برحقبودن: 38 راه برای پیروزی در هنگامی که شکست خوردهاید (ترجمۀ عرفان ثابتی). تهران: ققنوس.
6
شورای عالی نهاد برنامهریزی توسعۀ شهری تهران. (1388). اساسنامۀ نهاد برنامهریزی توسعۀ شهری تهران. تأییدشده در تاریخ 5/2/88.
7
عندلیب، علیرضا. (1388). نهاد برنامهریزی توسعۀ شهری تهران: گذشته، حال و آینده. منظر، (1)، 25-33.
8
فریور صدری، بهرام. (1388). مروری بر جریان برنامهریزی شهری در تهران. منظر، (1)، 34-37.
9
قالیباف، محمدباقر. (1387). نامۀ شماره 8717803/8710 مورخ 30/2/87، از طرف شهردار تهران.
10
منصوری، سید امیر. (1388). درسهایی از گزارش APUR درباره طرح جامع جدید تهران. منظر، (1)، 77-80.
11
منصوری، سید امیر. (1395). نقد و بررسی طرح جامع تهران 1386.تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده نظر.
12
Hendriks, F. (2013). Understanding Good Urban Governance: Essentials, Shifts, and Values, Urban affairs review. Urban Affairs Review, 50(4), 553-576.
13
Panday, P. K. (2017). Performing Urban Governance in Bangladesh: The city corporation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
14
Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
15
Un-Habitat. (2017). Global Campaign on Urban Governance: Principles. Retrived from http://mirror.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=25&cid=2097, [accessed Oct. 12, 2017].
16
Van den Dool, L., Hendricks, F., Gianoli, A. & Schaap, L. (2015). The Quest for Good Urban Governance: Theoretical References and International Practices. Springer.
17
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
An Analysis of the Role of Social class’s Lifestyle in the Pattern of Housing;
Case Study: The late Qajar and Early Pahlavi Houses in Ardabil
Problem statement: Human beings shape the organization, and structure of their settlements, based on their lifestyle. On the other hand, in every environment, differences in social, economic, cultural, and symbolic capitals lead to the formation of different social classes and differences in the way of life. Accordingly, the search for how the pattern and structure of the houses of the upper and middle-classes of Ardabil in the late Qajar and early Pahlavi periods are shaped by the status of the social class of the inhabitants, is the main issue of research. Aim: The importance and necessity of research in regard to different types of housing, especially middle-class houses, irradiation on part of Ardabil›s architectural history, and attention to the role of Non-structural components (culture and society) in residential architecture. The purpose of the present study is to explain the effect of different capital combinations of the middle and the upper classes on lifestyle and to analyze how the structure of houses is influenced by the way of life in the case studies. Research method: The research method is descriptive-analytical. After analyzing the spatial dimension of the houses, during a comparative review, the effect of lifestyle on the structure of houses based on capital ratios in the middle and the upper classes has been discussed. Required information is extracted through documentary studies, interviewing, observing, and field studies. Conclusion: Findings of the study shows that physical and spatial differences in the houses of the upper and middle-classes of Ardabil in the late Qajar and early Pahlavi periods, has been influenced by the amount of their economic capital. Findings of the study shows that the people of Ardabil have been sharing each other with many components of social and cultural capitals. In the meantime, what made class differentiation was the kind of different approaches to these components. As the upper class often acted more deeply and in a sense of differentiation in the face of issues such as status, social relationships, taste, and so on. Physical-Spatial representation of these items can be seen in the entrance, facade, guestroom, service spaces, home furnishings, and the decorations of the upper and middle-class houses.
http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_93432_df965935b4d17bc31a657a57e362c97d.pdf
2019-09-23
31
44
10.22034/bagh.2019.138376.3667
Lifestyle
Social classes
middle-class
Housing pattern
Ardabil
Parisa
Mohamadhoseini
parisamh22@gmail.com
1
Ph.D Candidate,Department of Architecture, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran.
AUTHOR
Ali
Javan Forouzande
alijavanforouzande@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ismael
Jahani Dolataabad
sml.jahani@gmail.com
3
Department of Architecture, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran. Assistant Professor in University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.
AUTHOR
Ali Akbar
Heidari
aliakbar_heidari@iust.ac.ir
4
Department of Architecture, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran. Assistant professor of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Yasouj University, Iran.
AUTHOR
ارژمند، محمود و خانی، سمیه. (1391). نقش خلوت در معماری خانۀ ایرانی. شهر ایرانی اسلامی، 2(7)، 27-39.
1
ارمغان، مریم؛ سلطانزاده، حسین و ایرانی بهبهانی، هما. (1394). بازتعریف نقش زن در خانواده و تأثیر آن بر تزیینات نقاشی و ساختار خانههای اعیانی تهران در دورة قاجار. باغ نظر، ۱۲(34)، 11-24.
2
افشاری، محسن و پوردیهیمی، شهرام. (1395). مقیاسهای روش زندگی در مسکن. مسکن و محیط روستا، 35(154)، 3-16.
3
بابا صفری، علی اصغر. (1371). اردبیل در گذرگاه تاریخ (ج 1، 2 و 3). اردبیل: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی اردبیل.
4
پوردیهیمی، شهرام. (1390). فرهنگ و مسکن. مسکن و محیط روستا، 30(134)، 3-18.
5
حجت، عیسی و حیدری، عرفان. (1395). خانة بغدادى در کرمانشاه، نمودى از تعاملات فرهنگى بازرگانى دو ملت ایران و عراق در عصر قاجار. صفه، 26(2)، 123- 138.
6
درینی، ولیمحمد؛ تابان، محمد؛ نامدار جویمی، احسان و باهنر، ناصر. (1394). بررسی رابطۀ سرمایۀ نمادین با سرمایۀ فرهنگی (مورد مطالعه دانشجویان دانشگاه ایلام). مطالعات فرهنگ-ارتباطات، 16(31)، 178- 197.
7
فکوهی، ناصر. (1381). تاریخ اندیشه و نظریههای انسانشناسی. تهران: نی.
8
گرب، ادوارد. (1373). نابرابری اجتماعی: دیدگاههای نظریهپردازان کلاسیک و معاصر (ترجمۀ محمد سیاهپوش و احمدرضا غرویزاد). تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
9
گنجی، محمد و حیدریان، امین. (1393). سرمایۀ فرهنگی و اقتصاد فرهنگ (با تأکید بر نظریههای پییر بوردیو و دیوید تراسبی). راهبرد، 23(72)، 77- 97.
10
محمدحسینی، پریسا. (1390). بررسی پیوند کالبد خانه و فرهنگ در خانههای قاجاری تبریز براساس دیدگاه ایمس راپوپورت، پایاننامۀ منتشرنشدۀ کارشناسی ارشد مطالعات معماری ایران. دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
11
ممتاز، فریده. (1383). معرفی مفهوم طبقه از دیدگاه بوردیو. پژوهشنامۀ علوم انسانی، (41-42)، 149ـ160.
12
مؤمنی، کورش و ناصری، ندا. (1394). بررسی ابزارها و روشهای ایجاد محرمیت در خانۀ زینتالملک شیراز منطبق بر آیات و روایات اسلامی. پژوهشهای معماری اسلامی، 3(4)، 18-33.
13
مؤید حکمت، ناهید. (1392). درآمدی بر رویکرد روششناختی پیر بوردیو به مفهوم سرمایۀ فرهنگی. جامعهپژوهی فرهنگی، 4(1)، 155-178.
14
ناصری، ندا؛ مؤمنی، کورش؛ کاکیزاده، محمدامیر و وثیق، بهزاد. (1395). بازشناسی تأثیر شغل و سطح اجتماعی مالکان مسلمان خانههای قجری بوشهر در شکلگیری سلسلهمراتب محرمیت فضای ورودی. فرهنگ معماری و شهرسازی اسلامی، 2(2)، 77-92.
15
نوذری، حسینعلی. (1382). سیاست اجتماعی و تغییرات اجتماعی در ایران (نقش و جایگاه طبقۀ متوسط در فرایند توسعۀ سیاسی-اقتصادی ایران در بستر انقلاب). رفاه اجتماعی، 3(11): 101-129.
16
وبستر، هلنا. (1396). بوردیو برای معماران (ترجمۀ احسان حنیف). تهران: کتاب فکر نو.
17
هزار جریبی، جعفر. (1389). بررسی نظری در شناخت طبقۀ متوسط (با تأکید بر طبقۀ متوسط جدید ایران). علوم اجتماعی، 17(50)، 63-90.
18
Archer, J. (2015). Social Theory of Space: Architecture and the Production of Self, Culture, and Society. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 64(4), 430- 433.
19
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction (R. Nice Trans.). London: Routledge.
20
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
21
Gartman, D. (2013). Culture, Class, and Critical Theory: Between Bourdieu and the Frankfort School. New York : Routledge.
22
Lamont, M. & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments. Journal of Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153-168.
23
Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
24
Rapoport, A. (2003). Cultura, Arquitectura y Diseño. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.
25
Savage, M. (2012). The Lost Urban Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. (G. Bridge & S. Watson Eds.). New York: Blackwell Publishing.
26
Turner, J. H. (1998). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
27
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Role of Landscape Approach in Improving Satisfaction with the Urban Environment
Problem statement: Satisfaction is the process of positive judgment of the phenomena and is influenced by the components that rely on a studied theoretical basis. Today, the urban landscape projects have increased in quantity; however, it is yet a question why the quality of these projects cannot satisfy the citizens’ needs and leave a significant impact on their positive judgment and the tangible quality of the city. Therefore, the main question of this study asks: “what is the relationship between the components of the landscape approach and the components of satisfaction?”Aim: The aim of this research is to increase the audience’s satisfaction from urban landscape projects, and hence the city, and to define a specific setting for urban landscape projects.Research method: This study is conducted using qualitative and content analysis methods. Therefore, the concept of satisfaction and the influential variables are reviewed, and a new definition of satisfaction is presented in the next stage. Thereafter, the experts’ points of view about the concept of the landscape is discussed, and eventually, the relationship between the landscape approach and the effective factors of satisfaction are scrutinized.Conclusion: The results of this study shows that satisfaction and landscape approach are common in paying attention to the audience’s subjectivity. However, the proprietary nature of landscape approach is to pay concurrent attention to both the objective and the subjective aspects of the phenomenon, which, in principle, cannot be achieved independently and separately. Therefore, the landscape approach provides a better and more favorable condition for promoting satisfaction, since objective factors are transformed according to mental interpretations. The landscape approach emphasizes on the simultaneous function of the object and subject in the presentation of a project and believes that when the urban space is recognized as a landscape, it is impossible to distinguish between its different dimensions, such as the substance and meaning.
http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_93423_8f82b6e0cfcc5550c59f020757ccc167.pdf
2019-09-23
45
56
10.22034/bagh.2019.183817.4091
Satisfaction
Landscape Approach
objectivity and subjectivity
Maryam
Majidi
maryam_majidi85@yahoo.com
1
Department of Architecture, South branc, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
Seyed Amir
Mansouri
seyedamir.mansouri@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Jaleh
Sabernejad
jsabernejad@yahoo.com
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, South branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
Nasser
Barati
nasserbarati1955@yahoo.com
4
Associate Professor, Department of Urban planning, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
AUTHOR
آل هاشمی، آیدا؛ منصوری، سید امیر و براتی، ناصر. (1395). زیرساخت شهری و لزوم تغییر نگاه در تعریف و برنامهریزی آن؛ زیرساخت منظرین مفهومی در تعریف زیرساختهای شهری قرن بیست و یک. باغ نظر، 13(43)، 5-16.
1
آل هاشمی، آیدا و منصوری، سید امیر. (1396). منظر؛ مفهومی در حال تغییر، نگاهی به سیر تحول مفهوم منظر از رنسانس تاکنون. باغ نظر، 14(57)، 33-44.
2
انصاری، مجتبی؛ شریفیان، احسان و عبدالهی ثابت، محمدمهدی. (1392). وحدتگرایی رویکردی الهی به طراحی شهری. هویت شهر، 7(16)، 27-38.
3
برک، آگوستین. (1392). آیا واژه منظر متحول میشود؟ مجلۀ منظر، 5(23)، 25-27.
4
بهرامپور، عطیه و مدیری، آتوسا. (1394). مطالعۀ رابطۀ میان رضایتمندی ساکنان از محیط زندگی و میزان حس تعلق آنها در مجتمع مسکونی بلندمرتبۀ شهرک کوثر تهران. هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی، 20(3)، 85-94.
5
دونادیو، پی یر. (1392). منظر به مثابه دارایی مشترک، منظر، 5(23)، 36-38.
6
رضایی، حسین؛ کرامتی، غزال؛ دهباشی شریف، مزین و نصیرسلامی، محمدرضا. (1397). تبیین الگووارهای فرآیند روانشناختی حصول معنای محیطی و تحقق حس مکان با تمرکز بر نقش واسط ادراک. باغ نظر، 15(65)، 49-66.
7
رفیعیان، مجتبی و خدایی، زهرا. (1388). بررسی شاخصها و معیارهای مؤثر بر رضایتمندی شهروندان از فضاهای عمومی شهری. راهبرد، 18(53)، 227-248.
8
رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ عسگری، علی و عسگریزاده، زهرا. (1388). رضایتمندی شهروندان از محیطهای سکونتی شهری. علوم محیطی، 7(1)، 57-68.
9
ضابطیان طرقی، الهام. (1397). تبیین سازگاری روانی با حس مکان در فضاهای عمومی شهری در جهت ارتقای ادراک آسایش حرارتی (نمونۀ موردی: میدان امام خمینی و میدان امام حسین در شهر تهران). رسالۀ دکتری منتشرنشدۀ تخصصی رشتۀ شهرسازی، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ هنر، معماری و شهرسازی نظر.
10
عادلوند، پدیده؛ موسویلر، اشرفسادات و منصوری، سید امیر. (1395). هنر شهری به مثابه پدیدهای منظرین در جامعۀ امروز. باغ نظر، 13(39)، 39-44.
11
غفوریان، میترا و حصاری، الهام. (1395). بررسی عوامل و متغیرهای زمینهای مؤثر بر رضایتمندی ساکنان از محیط مسکونی. مطالعات شهری، 5(18)،91-100.
12
لاسوس، برنارد. (1392). یک رویکرد جهانی به سرزمین: منظر. منظر، 5(23)، 31-32.
13
مظفری، نگین؛ لطیفی، بیتا و برکپور، ناصر. (1394). سنجش و مقایسه میزان رضایتمندی ساکنان از سیستم سکونتی؛ مطالعۀ موردی: مناطق 3 و 11 شهر تهران. فصلنامۀ مطالعات شهری، 5(17)، 77-92.
14
منصوری، سید امیر. (1383). درآمدی بر شناخت معماری منظر. باغ نظر، 1(2)، 69-78.
15
منصوری، سید امیر. (1391). منظر شهری، مؤلفههای کمی و شاخصهای هدایت و کنترل اسناد فنی. مجموعه مقالات همایش ملی منظر شهری، جلد 3. تهران: سازمان زیباسازی تهران.
16
منصوری، سید امیر. (1392الف). فرهنگ منظرین ایران، منظر، 5(23)، 56-57.
17
منصوری، سید امیر. (1392ب). چشم اسفندیار معماری منظر در تهران. منظر، 5(24)، 24.
18
منصوری، سید امیر و فرزین، محمدعلی. (1395). رویکرد منظرین در طراحی شهر، روششناسی طراحی شهری. تهران: پژوهشکدۀ هنر، معماری و شهرسازی نظر.
19
نوروزی طلب، علیرضا. (1389). هرمنوتیک منظر شهر؛ قرائت شهر به مثابه متن. منظر، 2(11)، 18-21.
20
نوسوم، یان. (1390). پژوهشی در تحولات مفهوم منظر شهری. مجلۀ منظر، 3(16)، 16-21.
21
mérigo, M., & Argonés, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57.
22
Antrop, M. (2006). From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In: Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G. & Opdam, P. (Eds.), From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, Wageningen UR Frontis Series No. 12. Dordrecht: Springer.
23
Barreira, A. P., Nunes, L. C., Guimaraes, M. H. & Panagopoulos, T. (2019). Satisfied but thinking about leaving: The reasons behind residential satisfaction and residential attractiveness in shrinking Portuguese cities. Intetnational Journal of Urban Science, 23(1), 67-87.
24
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 331–352.
25
Campbell, A., Converse, P. & Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.
26
Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: A facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 659-698.
27
Canter, D. (1997). The facets of place. In E. H. Zube, G. T. Moore, (Eds), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design. New York: Plenum Press.
28
Cao, X., Wu, X. & Yuan, Y. (2018). Examining Built Environmental Correlaates of Neiborhood satisfaction: A Focus on Analysis Approache. Journal of Planning Literature, 33(4), 1-14.
29
Chapman, D. & Lombard, D. (2006). Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction in fee-based gated and nongated communities. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 769-799.
30
Chen, L. & Ng, E. (2012). Outdoor thermal comfort and outdoor activities: A review of research in the past decade. Cities, 29(2), 118-125.
31
Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer, & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3-20). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
32
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the built environment from the users’ point of view. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
33
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Evaluating the built environment from the users Perspective: implications of attitudinal models of satisfaction. In W. F. E. Preiser, A. E. Hardy and U. Schramm (Eds.), Building performance evaluation. Cham: Springer.
34
Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and Contextual correlates. Environmental and Behaviour, 13(6), 735–758.
35
Galster, G. C. (1985). Evaluating indicators for housing policy: Residential satisfaction vs marginal improvement priorities. Social Indicators Research, 16(4), 415–448.
36
Ibem, E. O., Opoko, A. P., Adeboye, A. B. & Amole, D. (2013). Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria: Users’ satisfaction perspective. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 2(2), 178-190.
37
Ibem, E. O., Opoko, A. P., & Aduwo, E. B. (2017). Satisfaction with neighbourhood environments in public housing: Evidence from Ogun State, Nigeria. Social Research Indicators, 130(2), 733–757.
38
Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World archaeology, 25(2), 152-174.
39
Kweon, B. S., Ellis, C. D., Leiva, P. L. & Rogers, G.O. (2010). Landscape components, Land use and neighborhood satisfaction, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(3), 500-517.
40
Lee, S.W., Christopher, D. E., Kweon, B. S. & Hong, S. K. (2008). Relationship between Landscape Structure and Neighbourhood Satisfaction in Urbanized Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(1), 60–70.
41
Lee, S. M., Conway, T. L., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K. L. & Sallis, J. F. (2017). The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 136–160.
42
Liu, Y., Wu, F., Liu, Y. & Li, Z. (2017). Changing Neighbourhood Cohesion under the Impact of Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Urban Geography, 38(2), 266-290.
43
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S. & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighbourhood satisfaction versus traditional environments: an evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighbourhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37-48.
44
Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264–287.
45
Marans, R. W. & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. In A. Hawley & V. Rock (Eds.), Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective. New York: Halsted Press.
46
Mohit, M. A. & Al-Khanbashiraj, A. M. M. (2014). Residential satisfaction concept theories and empirical studies. Urban Planning and Local Governance, 3(3), 47-66.
47
Morris, E. W. & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of Housing Adjustment Housing Norms, Housing Satisfaction and the Propensity to Move. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37(1), 88-97.
48
Shin, J. (2016). Toward a theory of environmental satisfaction and human comfort: A process-oriented and contextually sensitive theoretical framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 11–21.
49
Sirgy, M. J. & Cornwell, T. (2002). How Neighbourhood Features Affect Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79-114.
50
Thompson, I. H. (2016). The role of theory. In A. Van den Brink, D. Bruns, H. Tobi & S. Bell (Eds.), Research in Landscape Architecture Methods and Methodology. London: Routledge.
51
Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeyer, K., Marsman, G. & De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being. Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 5–18.
52
Van Poll, R. (1997). The Perceived Quality of the Urban Residential Environment. A Multi-Attribute Evaluation. Roermond: Printing Westrom.
53
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Infill Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Design of Historic Context; Case Study: Mashruteh Complex in the Historic Bazaar of Tabriz, Iran
Problem statement: Studying infill architecture in historic contexts requires an interdisciplinary approach in an interactive framework involving architecture, urbanism, and restoration. Neglecting this interaction may cause irreversible damage to the values of historic contexts, such as the Bazaar Context of Tabriz, and hinder the realization of expectations from infill architecture.Purpose: The purpose of this research is to explain infill architecture in historic Contexts via an interactive framework involving urbanism, architecture, and restoration. This will provide us with a deeper insight into the quiddity of infill architecture and help us formulate a design and evaluation model in the framework of an interdisciplinary perspective. Then, we will use this model to evaluate Mashruteh Complex as part of the Historic Bazaar Context of Tabriz.Research method: The study uses a descriptive-analytic research method from an applied perspective. In this way, by studying the theories related to the concept of infill architecture in historic urban contexts, we will provide a model that explains interdisciplinary relations and, then, use it as the basis for evaluating the case study.Conclusion: The results show that infill architecture should be considered in an interdisciplinary framework composed of urbanism (i.e., smart development, sustainable development and new urbanism), restoration (i.e., urban restoration and architectural restoration) and architecture (i.e., preservationism, contemporization and moderationism). An interdisciplinary approach contributes to explaining infill architecture in terms of reciprocating patterns among the three fields mentioned above. Our study of Mashruteh Commercial Complex in the Historic Bazaar Context of Tabriz from the perspective of infill architecture shows that the building conforms to urban restoration in terms of preservation; sustainable development and new urbanism in terms of urbanism; and, contemporization in terms of architecture. The results of our SWOT analysis also suggest that the addition of this new construct, along with the strengths and opportunities, has led to some weaknesses and threats which need to be eliminated based on strength-threat, strength-opportunity and weakness-opportunity axes.
http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_93433_f6379bea34879d0d580a16e6b1e63742.pdf
2019-09-23
57
68
10.22034/bagh.2019.142666.3713
infill architecture
Historic context
Architecture
Preservation
Urbanism
Mashruteh Complex
Tabriz
Minou
Gharebaglou
minoo_gha@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ahad
Nejad Ebrahimi
ahadebrahimi@tabriziau.ac.ir
2
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran.
AUTHOR
Ilgar
Ardabilchi
e.ardabilchi@tabriziau.ac.ir
3
Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Iran.
AUTHOR
ابلقی، علیرضا. (1382). جایگاه مرمت ابنیه تاریخی در فرایند مرمت شهری و تجارب سازمان عمران و بهسازی شهری در این زمینه. هفتشهر، 1(12و13)، 83-87.
1
بهمنشراد، جواد. (1389). در جستجوی هویت شهر تبریز. تهران: مرکز مطالعاتی و تحقیقاتی شهرسازی و معماری.
2
پاکزاد، جهانشاه. (1386). سیر اندیشهها در شهرسازی: از کمیت تا کیفیت. تهران: آرمانشهر.
3
پورموسوی، سیدموسی، ناصر مستوفی، انوشیروان و شکوهی بیدهندی، محمدصالح. (1393). شناسایی اصول و راهکارهای اجرایی توسعۀ میانافزا در شهر تهران به عنوان یکی از ابعاد توسعۀ شهری پایدار. مطالعات توسعۀ اجتماعی ایران، 6(4)، 37-57.
4
ترکزبان، شقایق و محمدمرادی، اصغر. (1390). ضوابط طراحی معماری در بافتهای تاریخی. شهر و معماری بومی، 1(1)، 53-66.
5
حبیبی، محسن و مقصودی، ملیحه. (1394). مرمت شهری؛ تعاریف، نظریهها، تجارب، منشورها و قطعنامههای جهانی، روشها و اقدامات شهری. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
6
حیدری، جهانگیر. (1392). مبانی و مفاهیم توسعه پایدار و توسعه پایدار شهری. تهران: آذرخش.
7
رحمانی، امیر و شمس، وحید. (1393). اصول، مبانی و دیدگاههای توسعۀ شهری با رویکرد رشد هوشمند شهر. ملایر: انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.
8
زنگنه شهرکی، سعید و همتیزاده، سمانه. (1394). حرکت به سوی رشد هوشمند شهری؛ اصول و سیاستها. تهران: آراد کتاب.
9
سرمد، زهره، بازرگان، عباس و حجازی، الهه. (1394). روشهای تحقیق در علوم رفتاری. تهران: آگاه.
10
شاهتیموری، یلدا و مظاهریان، حامد. (1391). رهنمودهای طراحی برای ساختارهای جدید در زمینۀ تاریخی. هنرهای زیبا، 17(4)، 29-40.
11
شریفیان، احسان. (1389). بهرهگیری از ظرفیتهای درونی شهر. منظر، 2(10)، 47-50.
12
فلامکی، محمد منصور. (1386). باززندهسازی بناها و شهرهای تاریخی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
13
قدیری، بهرام. (1385). ساختارهای جدید در محیطهای تاریخی. تهران: دفتر پژوهشهای فرهنگی.
14
قربانی، رسول و نوشاد، سمیه. (1387). راهبرد رشد هوشمند در توسعة شهری، اصول و راهکارها. مجلة جغرافیا و توسعه، 6(12)، 163- 180.
15
محمدیدوست، سلیمان، خانیزاده، محمدعلی و زیلایی، شهباز. (1395). امکانسنجی بهکارگیری اصول نوشهرگرایی در بازآفرینی پایدار محلات ناکارآمد و مسئلهدار شهری با تأکید بر رشد هوشمند (مورد پژوهی: بخش مرکزی شهر اهواز). برنامهریزی منطقهای، 6(24)، 215-230.
16
مسعود، محمد و بیگزادهشهرکی، حمیدرضا. (1391). بناهای میانافزا در بافتهای تاریخی (مبانی طراحی و معیارهای ارزیابی). تهران: آذرخش.
17
مظاهریان، حامد و شاهتیموری، یلدا. (1391). رویکردهای جهانی به حضور ساختارهای جدید در زمینۀ تاریخی (بررسی نظریهها و توافقنامههای بینالمللی). نقش جهان-مطالعات نظری و فناوریهای نوین معماری و شهرسازی، 2(1)، 7-18.
18
میرمقتدایی، مهتا، رفیعیان، مجتبی و سنگی، الهام. (1389). تأملی بر مفهوم توسعۀ میانافزا و ضرورت آن در محلات شهری. شهرداریها، 10(98)، 44-51.
19
CABE. (2005). Design coding: testing its use in England. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
20
Farris, J. T. (2001). The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smart Growth. Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), 1-30.
21
Haughey, R. M. (2001). Urban infill housing: Myth and fact. Washington, D.C: Urban Land Institute.
22
Lehmann, S. (2012). Sustainable Construction for Urban Infill Development Using Engineered Massive Wood Panel Systems. Sustainability, 4(12), 2707-2742.
23
Listokin, D., Walker, C., Ewing, R., Cuddy, M. & Cander, A. (2006). Infill development Standards and Policy Guide. Retrieved from https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/codes/alerts/pdfs/2006_6_rev2007_4_infill_dev_stds.pdf
24
Macdonald, S. (2011). Contemporary architecture in historical urban environment. Conservation Perspectives–The Ghetty Conservation Newsletter on Historic Cities, 26(2), 13–15.
25
McConnell, V. & Wiley, K. (2010). Infill Development: Perspectives and Evidence from Economics and Planning, Washington, D.C: Resources for the future.
26
Robinson & Cole LLP. (2002). Best Practices to Encourage Infill Development. New York: National Association of Realtors. Retrieved from: https://www.nar.realtor/smart_growth.nsf/docfiles/infilldevelopment.pdf/$FILE/infilldevelopment.pdf
27
Siravo, F. (2011). Conservation Planning — The Road Less Travelled. The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, 26(2), 4–9.
28
Warren, J., Worthington, J. & Taylor. S. (1998). The historical context: principles and philosophies. Boston: Architectural press.
29
Worthington, J. (1998). Conservation through development. University of York: Architectural Press.
30
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Etruscan civilization: The origin of the geometric regulation in ancient Roman Gardens
Problem statement: The Roman garden style is one of the most important products of the ancient Roman empire. Although many of the Roman cultural aspects follows the Greece civilization, the Roman garden layout does not follow the structural characteristics of Greece gardening and it seems to be a follower of the other ideas. This approach is contrary to the Greek garden layout, which lacks regular geometric organization, follows an axial and straight line in the plan. While scholars have several assumptions and hypotheses on justifying the emergence of this geometrical order in Roman gardening, there remain many ambiguities. It must be noted that before the formation of the Roman Empire, the Etruscan civilization: were resided in the region of Tuscany in Italy and affected many cultural achievements of the Roman civilization. Also, the sacred importance of the geometric regulation in the beliefs of these peoples which is reflected in their remained cities, temples and the other buildings can be considered as the roots of the geometrical order in the Roman gardening. Aim: Analyzing and criticizing the existing opinion and assumptions and submitting new evidence, the current study aims to provide a new perspective on the roots of geometrical order in Roman gardening. Research method: The study also applies a content analysis method for the interpretation and criticism of some of the available documents. The study also attempts to achieve a new interpretation of the subject applying interpretive-historical research method.Conclusion: Accordingly the current study by questioning and doubting the available literature assumes the Etruscan civilization as the roots of geometric regulation in the ancient gardening.
http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_93526_597038d94da0f463bd6c20bceb8ae13e.pdf
2019-09-23
69
80
10.22034/bagh.2019.173112.4008
Roman gardening
Etruscan civilization
Greek gardening
geometric regulation
Morteza
Hemmati
hemmati.m@ut.ac.ir
1
PhD Candidate in Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Farshad
Bahrami
farshad.bahrami@ut.ac.ir
2
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Heshmatollah
Motedayen
motedayn@ut.ac.ir
3
Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
ترنر، تام. (۱۳۹۵). تاریخ باغسازی (ترجمۀ حمیدرضا عظمتی و محسن فیضی). تهران: دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی.
1
گاردنر، هلن. (۱۳۹۷). هنر در گذر زمان (ترجمۀ محمدتقی فرامرزی). تهران: نگاه.
2
ناردو، دان. (۱۳۹۶). جمهوری روم (ترجمۀ سهیل سمی). تهران: ققنوس.
3
Bannon, C. J. (2009). Gardens and Neighbors: Private Water Rights in Roman Italy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press Publication.
4
Bartoloni, G. & Bocci Pacini, P. (2003). The Importance of Etruscan Antiquity in the Tuscan Renaissance. In J. Fejfer, T. Fischer-Hansen & A. Rathje (Eds.), The Rediscovery of Antiquity: The Role of the Artist. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
5
Becker, H. (2013). Political systems and law. In J. Macintosh Turfa (Ed.), The Etruscan World. London & New York: Routledge.
6
Bell, S. & Carpino, A. (2006). A Companion to the Etruscans. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell Press.
7
Bergman, B. (1995). Greek masterpieces and Roman recreative fictions. HSCP, (97), 79-120.
8
Bini, M., Rossi, V., Amorosi, A., Pappalardo, M., Sarti, G., Noti, V., Capitani, M., Fabiani F. & Gualandi, M. L. (2015). Palaeoenvironments and palaeotopography of a multilayered city during the Etruscan and Roman periods: early interaction of fluvial processes and urban growth at Pisa (Tuscany, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science, (59), 197-210.
9
Bowe, P. (2004). Gardens of the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Bowe, P. (2010). The evolution of the ancient Greek garden. Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes, 30(3), 208-223.
11
Brown, D. (1995). Etruscans: Italy’s Lovers of Life (Lost Civilizations). Virginia: Time Life Book.
12
Bule, S. (1996). Etruscan Echoes in Italian Renaissance Art. In J. F. Hall (Ed.), Etruscan Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era. Utah: Brigham Young University.
13
Carroll-Spillecke, M. (1992). The Gardens of Greece from Homeric to Roman Times. The Journal of Garden History, 12(2), 84-101.
14
Conan, M. (1986). Nature into art: gardens and landscapes in the everyday life of Ancient Rome. The Journal of Garden History, 6(4), 348-356.
15
D’Ambra, E. (1993). Roman art in context: An anthology. London: Pearson.
16
De Grummond, N. T. (2013). Haruspicy and augury: Sources and procedures. In J. MacIntosh Turfa (Ed.), The Etruscan world. London & New York: Routledge.
17
Dupuy, T. (1993). The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History. New York: HarperCollins.
18
Edlund-Berry, I. (2006). Ritual Space and Boundaries in Etruscan Religion. In N. Thomson, de Grummond & E. Simon (Eds.), The religion of the Etruscans. Texas: University of Texas Press.
19
Farrar, L. (2016). Gardens and Gardeners of the Ancient World: History, Myth and Archaeology. UK: Windgather Press.
20
Ferriolo, M. V. (2012). Homer’s Garden. The Journal of Garden History, 9(2), 86-94.
21
Gottarelli, A. (2010). Templum solare e culti di fondazione. Marzabotto, Roma, Este: appunti per una aritmo-geometria del rito (IV). Ocnus, (18), 53-74.
22
Holmstorm, J. (2015). Etrusca Tuscana: The Reception of Etruscan Civilisation in the Italian Renaissance. Canberra: Australian National Univerity Press. Retrived from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel_Holmstrom.
23
Huxley, A. J. (1978). An Illustrated History of Gardening. Lyons: Lyons Press.
24
Izzet, V. (2007). The Archaeology of Etruscan Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25
Janson, H. W. & Janson, A. (1962). A short history of art. New York: Prentice Hall.
26
Jashemski, W. F. (2017). Produce Gardens. In W. F. Jashemski, K. L. Gleason, K. J. Hartswick & A. Malek (Eds.), Gardens of the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27
Jones, F. M. A. (2014). Roman gardens, imagination, and cognitive structure. Mnemosyne, 67(5), 781-812.
28
Kane, T. (1998). Garden paintings in Pompeii: context and meaning. Hamilton: McMaster University.
29
Kuttner, A. (1999). Looking outside inside: ancient Roman garden rooms. Studies in the History of Gardens& Designed Landscapes, 19(1), 7-35.
30
Leland, C. (2015). Etruscan Roman Remains. New York: Scholar’s Choice.
31
Littlewood A. R. (1979). Romantic Paradises: The Role of the Garden in the Byzantine Romance. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 5(1), 95-114.
32
Littlewood A. R. (1992a). A colloquium on gardens of the ancient Mediterranean. The Journal of Garden History, 12(2), 83.
33
Littlewood, A. R. (1992b). Gardens of Byzantium. The Journal of Garden History, 12(2), 126-153.
34
Littlewood, A. R. (2002). The Scholarship of Byzantine Gardens. In A. R. Littlewood, H. Maguire, J. & Wolschke-Bulmahn (Eds.), Byzantine garden culture. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton oaks research library and collection.
35
Mac Dougall, E. (1999). Prelude: Landscape Studies, 1952–1972. In M. Conan (Ed.), Perspectives on garden histories. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
36
Macaulay Lewis, E. (2006). The role of ollae perforatae in understanding horticulture, planting techniques, garden design, and plant trade in the Roman World. First Conference on Crop Fields and Gardens Archaeology, Barcelona: University of Barcelona.
37
Macintosh Turfa, J. (2012). Divining the Etruscan World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38
Magini, L. (2015). Stars, myths and rituals in Etruscan Rome. Cham: Springer.
39
Rohner, D. D. (1996). Etruscan domestic architecture. In Hall, J. F. (Ed.), Etruscan Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era. Utah: Brigham Young University.
40
Sassatelli, G. & Govi, E. (2013). Etruria on the Po and the Adriatic. In J. Macintosh Turfa (Ed.), The Etruscan World. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
41
Simelius, S. (2018). Pompeian peristyle gardens as a means of socioeconomic representation. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/238264
42
Smith, C. (2006). The beginning of urbanization in Rome. In R. Osborne & C. Barry (Eds.), Mediterranean Urbanization 800-600 BC. London: Oxford University Press.
43
Sparavigna, A. C. (2014). Solstices at the Hardknott Roman Fort, Philica, (12). Retrived form https://ssrn.com/abstract=2745184
44
Spivay, N. (2006). Etruscan Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
45
Steingräber, S. (2008). The Process of Urbanization of Etruscan Settlements from the Late Villanovan to the Late Archaic Period (End of the Eighth to the Beginning of the Fifth Century B.C.): Presentation of a Project and Preliminary Results. Etruscan Studies, (8), 7-33.
46
Thompson, D. E. Griswold, R. E. (1986). Garden lore of ancient Athens. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
47
Torelli, M. (2001). The Etruscans. New York: Rizzoli.
48
Vernesi, C., Caramelli, D., Dupanloup, I., Bertorelle, G., Lari, M., Cappellini, E., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Chiarelli, B., Castrı, L., Casoli, A., Mallegni, F., Lalueza-Fox, C. & Barbujani, G. (2004). The Etruscans: A Population-Genetic Study. Am. J. Hum. Genet, (74), 694–704.
49