عنوان مقاله [English]
In parallel with the growing trend of urban design in the planning system of Iran, it is very important to note its implementation process. Along with the rest of the world, recently, some projects named “urban design projects” has been provided and ran in different parts of Iran, especially in Tehran. These projects aim to improve the quality of our urban environment and urban spaces. In the early 80s of HejriShamsi, city managers and citizens expressed more interest in these projects. In fact, our approach is changing to concentrate more on quality than quantity in urban projects. Urban design involves the arrangement and design of buildings, public spaces, transport systems, services, and amenities. On the other hand, Urbandesign is about making connections between people and places, movement and urban form, nature and the built fabric. Urban design draws together the many strands of place-making, environmental stewardship, social equity and economic viability into the creation of places with distinct beauty and identity. An urban design plan consists of schemes for the integration of social, economic and spatialaspectsin urban development. Urban design plan is usually prepared for a distinct urban block; however, urban areas should be planned in an integrated way so that the whole and the parts forma unified architecture: the architecture of the city. Urban design aims to plan the city without designing individual buildings. Each block and each neighbourhood should have an urban designplan prior to plan approval for the development of projects. However, the process of urban design cannot solve complex social, economical, and environmental problems. But the process of urban design can help a community visualize a desired future in which social, economic, and environmental needs are balanced and met. In the urban design process, implementation phase is very important. Implementation is the carrying out, execution, or practice of a plan, a method, or any design for doing something. Implementation is the action that must follow any preliminary thinking in order for something to actually happen. The planning process is incomplete without plans being implemented. Each provision in the planning policy should have a corresponding means of implementation. The institution which prepared the plan does not need to be an implementer nor to become the monitor of implementation. However, there should be a body that facilitates the implementation and a means to realize plans. Monitoring of plan implementation is a mean for the collection of time-series data for the next round of planning. Development control departments involved in plan implementation should have a section that deals with monitoring of plan implementation. The implementing body should have a clear vision of implementation. It is not enough to define the vision at plan preparation stage if it is not an influence plan implementation. Having a clear vision implies focusing on potentials and exploiting opportunities. Councils and urban managers are expected tohave clear vision for the urban area and constantly inform the public as achieving their visions by implementing plans. On the other hand, Implementation has different end points for the different products of urban design. If the urban design product is a rule, implementation means enactment andenforcement. If the product is a pilot project, then implementation means construction. Implementation is rarely in the hands of the urban designers ifhe ir she is acting as a designer. Rather, implementation in the urban design process relies on the factors of politics and finance. A plan requires some political cajoling for adoption, but in the end, it is just a plan. No one needs to stick it. However, a rule requires a much bigger political lift. If implemented, it wins the legal power of enforcement and gains the weight of the governing organization behind it. The present study attempted to identify and prioritize the criteria and effective indicators in the urban design implementation process. Therefore, we reviewed several documents and relevant literature to initially develop a theoretical framework and then, identify primary criteria and indicators using analytical- comparative method accompanied by review of documents and related opinions of other scholars. These criteria and indicators were elaorated and fulfilled through an interview with experts so as to localize and conform to Iran’s context. Finally, the significance of each criterion and indicator was determined via a questionnaire by the main actors of urban design projects in Iran; afterwards, prioritization was carried out. The findings of this study indicated that in the current circumstance of urban design in Iran, employer eligibility criterion, project management, public participation and relevant indicators are the most important and the level of legal interaction criterion, scientific-academic support and its relevant indicators are the least important factors from the main actors’ viewpoint.
-- Alexander, E. R. (1985). From Idea to Action: Notes for a Contingency Theory of the Policy Implementation Process.
Administration & Society, 16, 403.
-- Alterman, R., Morris H. (1978). Implementation of Urban Land Use Plans. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 33(1), 274-85.
-- Behn, R.D. (1980). Why Murphy Was Right?. Policy Analysis, 6, 361-363.
-- Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Dixon, J. (2006).What Makes Plan
Implementation Successful? An Evaluation of Local Plans and Implementation Practices in New Zealand. Environment
And Planning B: Planning & Design 33 (4), 581-600.
-- Burby R., May P., Berke P., Dalton L., French S., Kaiser E. ( 1997). Making Governments Plan: Experiments in
Managing Land Use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
-- Burby, R. J. (2003). Making Better Plans That Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 69, 33 – 44.
-- Calkins, Hugh W. (1979). The Planning Monitor: An Accountability Theory of Plan Evaluation. Environment and
Planning A, 11 (7), 745-58.
-- Carmona, M., De Magalhães, Edwards, M. (2001).The Value of Urban Design. London, CABE (Thomas Telford).
-- Carmona, M. Tiesdell, S. (2007).Oxford: Urban Design Reader. Architectural Press.
-- Cowan, R. (2005). Tisbury: The Dictionary of Urbanism. Streetwise Press.
-- Dalton, J., Elias, M., Wandersman, A. (2007). Community Psychology: Linking Individuals and Communities. (2nd
Ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
-- Durlak, J. A., Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation
on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41, 689–708.
-- Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. Political Science
Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
-- Golkar, K. (2009). Policy-Oriented Urban Design versus Design-Oriented Urban Design. SOFFEH, 46.
-- Golkar, K. (2011). Urban Design: Process or Processes. SOFFEH, 52.
-- Gosling, D. (1996). Gordon Cullen: Visions of Urban Design. London: Academy Editions.
-- Faludi, A. (1973). Planning Theory. Per- Gamon, Oxford.
-- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A
Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University Of South Florida, Louis De La Parte Florida Mental Health
Institute, the National Implementation Research Network.
-- Khoury, Zaki B. (1996). Implementing the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Ismailia, Egypt. Environment &
Urbanization, 8 (1). April.
-- Lang, J. (2005). Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. Oxford: Architectural Press.
-- Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., Chapman, S. (2004). What
Drives Plan Implementation? Plans, Planning Agencies and Developers. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 47 (4), 555-77.
-- Matland, Richard E. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy
Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 5(2), (Apr. 1995) 145-174.
-- Moughtin, K., Cuesta, R, Sarris, C, Signoretta, P. (1999). Urban Design, Method and Techniques. Oxford: Architectural
-- Norton, Richard K. (2005). More And Better Local Planning: A Statemandated Local Planning In Coastal North
Carolina. Journal of The American Planning Association, 71 (1), 55-71.
-- Nutt, Paul C. (2007). Examining the Link between Plan Evaluation and Implementation. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change. 74(8), 1252-1271.
-- Oliveira, V., Pinho, P. (2009). Evaluating Plans, Processes and Results. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1), 35 –
-- Pakzad, J. (2007). How The Pioneers Of Urban Design In Iran Think. Abadi, 17, 8-19.
-- Rosenbaum, D. P. (1986). Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
-- Sager T. (1995). From Impact Assessment to Recommendation: How are the Impact Assessment Results Presented
and Used? Environ Impact Assess Rev, 15, 377–97.
-- Talen, Emily. (1996). After The Plans: Methods to Evaluate the Implementation Success of Plans. Journal of Planning
Education and Research.16 (2), 79-91.
-- Talen, Emily. (1997). Success, Failure and Conformance: An Alternative Approach to Planning Evaluation. Environment and Planning.
-- Trancik, R. (1986). Finding Lost Space. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
-- Wandersman, A., Goodman, R. M., Butterfoss, F. D. (2005). Understanding Coalitions and How They Operate (M.
Minkler, Ed.), Community Organizing and Community Building For Health (2nd Ed., 292–313). New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
-- Wildavsky, Aaron. (1973). if Planning is Everything Maybe is Nothing. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 127-53.