عنوان مقاله [English]
An uncontrolled expansion of urban population in Iran has made constructing mass residential complex as an alternative for replacing traditional housing in large cities like Tehran. This changing pattern and approach in housing in spite of affecting on interior spaces of house caused more important changing in resident’s life: the deletion of private yard and their considerable roles in Iranian daily social and private life from the citizen’s life. These days open spaces in residential complex act as private yards in resident’s private life in addition to its various role in their social life and also its different potential consider in improving the quality of residents life in the various aspects and scales. Recently due to the increasing governmental construction of large scale residential complexes in order to the developing considerations, regarding to the importance of the quality of life in large cities in Iran- especially in Tehran as the capital, it’s important to research on the response rate of open spaces in these complexes through studies in Iran and Tehran, regarding to the various social, cultural, psychological and physical aspects of resident’s life. The aim of this paper is to identify the different levels of private and social function of open spaces in Tehran’s residential complexes and study on the response rate of these spaces to the various demands in resident’s life. Therefore the conclusion of this paper will be underlying consciously planning for open spaces in residential complexes in Tehran and maximum use of these spaces in improving the quality of life in the residential complexes. To achieve this goal after studying and classifying various levels and facets of the open space’s functions and its roles in the resident’s life, the current functions of open spaces in Tehran’s large scale residential complexes was studied in adaption with these library studies. With this goal the six great residential complexes in Tehran with more than70% of open spaces were studied: Mahestan residential complex, Sobhan residential complex, Atisaz residential complex, Parc de Prance residential complex, Ekbatan residential complex and Hormozan residential complex. At the end the final chart classifies the level and scales (from public to private) of different functions (from function related to sport activities to educational and commercial activities) in Tehran’s residential complexes. The achievements of this research show that, among six grand residential complexes in Tehran which were visited and acutely analyzed, the various potential of open spaces in residential complex is ignored not only by planners and designers but also by the residents; in Tehran’s residential complexes only the social- condominium resident’s functions are considered and the function of open spaces in private life of residents and also in urban life are eliminated. Besides, among the social- condominium resident’s functions in these complexes, only recreational and sports activities are considered. After that, in this scale, local commercial activities are considered and it is noticeable that cultural and educational activities are most ignored in all these residential complexes. At the end, it seems that the ornamental approaches in which open spaces of the residential complex considered as a park are caused the problems in a series of residential complexes, such as Mahestan residential complex, with high quality in designing and preserving the green and open spaces. In these groups of residential complexes in Tehran, the lack of preparation of especial functions and activities among the open spaces, beside the inappropriate locating the contemplated functions in these areas, considerably are reduced the presence of the residents in open spaces and minimized their utilizations from these green spaces and deeply affected the possibility of utilizing the various potentials of the open spaces in different scale of personal and social lives of residents. As a result, the first step in increasing the role of the residential open spaces of the grand complexes in the resident's life in Tehran is considering and defining the various domains of functions and activities for open spaces. The field query of this research revealed that the residential complexes’ open spaces in the city of Tehran have a long distance to reach the minimum standards of the field of open space's functions. Beyond all these, the survey among the large scale residential complexes in Tehran showed that mainly the flowed management in open spaces after the construction has the main role to fulfill the residences daily requirements from these spaces.
-- Ainifar, A. (2007). The Dominant Role of the General Proto-Type in Residential District Design. Honar-Ha-Ye-
Ziba, 32, 39-50.
-- Arabi, N. (2002). An Analysis on the Problems in Mass Instruction in Tehran. Anbouh Sazan Maskan, 7, 16-25.
-- Einifar, A., Ghazizadeh, S.N. (2011). The Typology of Tehran Residential Building Based on Open Space Layout.
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Design. (5), 35-45
-- Nozari, Sh. (2004). Open Space Residential Design Guidelines. SOFFEH, 39, 35-45.
-- Cullen, G. (1995). The Concise Townscape. New York: Routledge.
-- Memarian, Gh. (2007). Acquaintance with Residential Building’s Architecture, Introverted Typology. Tehran: Soroush.
-- Rafiaian, M., Hadadian, K. (2007). Pathology Mass Housing, Spatial Pattern Analysis of the High Rises in Tehran.
Abadi, 55, 102-107.
-- Beer, A. R. (1983). The Landscape Architect and Housing Areas. University of Sheffield, Department of Landscape.
Paper LA 11.
-- CABE (2009). Decent Homes Need Decent Spaces; An Action Plan to Improve Open Spaces in Social Housing
Area. London: National Housing Federation.
-- Memarian, Gh., Brown, F. (2006). The Shared Characteristic of Iranian and Arab Courtyard House. In B. Edwards.
(Ed.), Courtyard Housing; Past, Present and Future (pp.27-41). New York: Taylor & Francis.
-- Rao, S., Yates, A., Brownhill, D., Howard, N. (2000) Eco Homes: The Environmental Rating for Homes. Garston,
Watford: Building Research Establishment, Centre for Sustainable Construction.
-- Smith, C., Clayden, A. & Dunnet, N. (2008). Residential Landscape Sustainability, a Checklist Tool. UK: Blackwell
-- Thwaites, K. (2001). Experiential Landscape Place: An Exploration of Space and Experience in Neighbourhood
Landscape Architecture. Landscape Research, 26(3), 245–255.
-- Tzonis A. (2006). Rethinking Design Methodology for Sustainable Social Quality, in J. H. Bay and B. L. Ong.
(Ed.), Tropical Sustainable Architecture: Social and Environmental Dimensions (pp. 17-28). Oxford: Architectural
-- Wilkinson, P. F. (1983). Urban Open Space Planning. Toronto: York University Press.