Urban Vitality Evaluation in Vali Asr Crossroad on the Basis of Activity Patterns


1 Urban Design (M.A.), Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran. Urban Design (M.A.), Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

2 Department of Urban Planning and Design, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University


Nowadays, the sociology of urban space has been the focus of researchers in urban planning and design fields. This has caused the cities and urban spaces within these cities to be considered more than the bodies in them and the relatively large structures in which they were built. In comparison with other sociological factors, vitality in urban spaces is a factor that has been given special attention. This kind of expectations would arise immediately after the introduction of the urban space in the minds of citizens. In fact, one of the most promising expectations of people from urban spaces is the dynamism and liveliness of that space, which is understood as the concept of urban vitality. It seems that the factor that plays a vital role in creating this vitality is the existence of activities in the context of urban spaces. The research tries to investigate the effect of existing activity patterns on the vitality of urban spaces. The Vali Asr Crossroad in Tehran have been identified as a key point in the heart of Tehran and in the structure of Tehran, and It is a totally urban space full of activity patterns, but studies show that vitality in this space is not at the optimal level. For this reason, the study of vitality based on activity patterns in this important urban space is investigated. In the analytical section, a questionnaire based on a conceptual model was designed and then a regression model was used to analyze the results.The results show that the factor of performance as a vital variable in promoting social interactions and as a result of creating vitality at the Vali Asr crossroad plays an important role. Meanwhile, the two factors of static / dynamic activity and diversity at Vali Asr crossroad are factors weakening social interactions and urban vitality.


• Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Vol. 5). ‎Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Bahrainy, H. (2008). Urban design process. Tehran: University of Tehran.
• Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). California: Sage publications.
• Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Public places-Urban spaces. London: Routledge.
• Coleman J. (1987). Opportunities for Invasion in Urban Design Education. Melbourn: Australian Planner.
• Cowan, R. (2005). The Dictionary of Urbanism. Tisbury, Wiltshire: Streetwise press.
• Fanea-Ivanovici, M. (2013). Urban Revitalisation in the Creative Economy and the Development of the Creative Society. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 2 (587): 65-70.
• Gehl, J. (2005). Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press.
• Golkar, K. (2007). Mafhum- e keyfiyat- e sarzendegi dar tarahi- ye shahri [The concept of quality of vitality in urban design, chapter. Soffeh, 16 (88): 39-66.
• Habibi, A. (2012). Jozve- ye tasviri- ye amuzesh- e kamel- e SPSS [Complete SPSS Tutorial; SPSS Full Tutorial Illustration]. Tehran: Pars Maodir.
• Habibpour Gattabi K. & Safari, Sh. (2009). Rahnama- ye jame- e Karbord- e SPSS dar tahghighat- e peymayeshi [A comprehensive guide to SPSS application in survey research]. Tehran: Loya.
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Press.
• Jacobs, A. & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (1): 112-120.
• Jin, X., Long, Y., Sun, W., Lu, Y., Yang, X., & Tang, J. (2017). Evaluating cities’ vitality and identifying ghost cities in China with emerging geographical data. Cities, (63): 98-109.
• Khastoo, M. & Saeedi Rezvani, N. (2010). The Effective Factors on Urban Spaces Vitality (Creating a Lively Urban Space with Emphasizing the Concept "Pedestrian Mall"). Hoviate shahr, 4 (6): 63-74.
• Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
• Lopes, M. N. & Camanho, A. S. (2013). Public green space use and consequences on urban vitality: An assessment of European cities. Social indicators research, 113 (3):
• Lynch, K. (1981). Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
• Marquet, O. & Miralles-Guasch, C. (2015). Neighbourhood vitality and physical activity among the elderly: The role of walkable environments on active ageing in Barcelona, Spain. Social Science & Medicine, (135): 24-30.
• Michelson, W., & Michelson, W. M. (Eds.). (1975). Behavioral research methods in environmental design. Stroudsburg PA: Dowden Hutchinson and Ross.
• Pakzad, J. (2007). Mabani- ye nazari va frynd- e trrhi- ye shahri [Theoretical Foundations and Urban Design Process]. Tehran: Shahidi Publishing.
• Rogers, W. (2003). The excellent city park system. In What Makes it Great and How to Get There. P Harnik (Ed). Washington, DC: The Trust for Public Land Pub.
• Talebi, J. (2004). Ravabet- e ejtemaie dar fazahay- e shahri [Social interactions in urban spaces]. Nameye Olom Ejtemaie, 3 (24):161-180.
• Tibbalds, F. (1993). Making People Friendly Towns: Improving thePublic Environments in Towns and Cities. Harlow, Essex: Longman Press.
• Thiel, P. (1961). A sequence-experience notation. Town Planning Review, 32 (1): 33-52.
• Tibbalds, F. (1992). Making People Friendly Towns: Improving thePublic Environments in Towns and Cities. Harlow, Essex: Longman Press.
• Southworth, M. (1989). Theory and practice of contemporary urban design: a review of urban design plans in the United States. Town Planning Review, 60(4), 369.
• Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban space. New York: Project For Public Spaces,Inc.