بررسی تطبیقی میزان رضایت مندی ساکنان بین دو نمونه از مجتمع های مسکونی میان مرتبه و بلندمرتبه، نمونه های موردی: مجتمع های مسکونی شهید محلاتی و سبحان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گرایش مسکن، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

3 عضو هیأت علمی دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهیدرجایی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

امروزه تأمین مسکن به عنوان یکی از مسائل اساسی در ساخت و توسعه شهرها مطرح است. در ایران همراه با رشد شهرنشینی و ازدیاد جمعیت و کمبود زمین مناسب جهت ساخت و ساز، احداث مجتمع های مسکونی از جمله اقداماتی در جهت پاسخ گویی به این نیاز روزافزون مسکن می باشد. تحقیق حاضر پس از بررسی معیارهایی در طراحی مجتمع های مسکونی و بیان مطالعات پیشین انجام گرفته در این زمینه، برخی از این معیارها را در دو نمونه انتخاب شده از مجتمع های مسکونی میان مرتبه و بلندمرتبه، تجزیه و تحلیل می کند. مقایسه بین این معیارها از طریق بررسی مدارک موجود، مطالعات میدانی، توزیع پرسشنامه به صورت مساوی بین ساکنان دو مجتمع مسکونی شهید محلاتی )میان مرتبه( و مجتمع مسکونی سبحان )بلندمرتبه( و مصاحبه با آنان انجام می گیرد. انتخاب نمونه ها به صورت تصادفی ساده از بین 5 بلوک مسکونی می باشد. از طریق مقایسه امتیاز هر یک از این معیارها بین دو نمونه، میزان رضایت مندی ساکنان از هر یک از مجتمع های مسکونی مشخص می گردد. فرضیه تحقیق بر این استوار است که رضایت مندی ساکنان در مجتمع های مسکونی میان مرتبه به نسبت مجتمع های مسکونی بلندمرتبه، بیشتر بوده و نتایج پژوهش نیز بر این مطلب صحه می گذارد. لازم به ذکر است اگر چه در روند مقایسه این معیارها بین دو نمونه، مجتمع مسکونی بلندمرتبه سبحان به نسبت مجتمع مسکونی میان مرتبه شهید محلاتی در برخی موارد برتری پیدا می کرد، ولی با درنظر گرفتن تمامی معیارها بین دو نمونه و مقایسه آن ها، نشان داده شد که مجتمع مسکونی میان مرتبه شهید محلاتی رضایت مندی بیشتری را برای ساکنان خود فراهم می کند. تراکم ساختمانی بیش از حد، عدم مشارکت ساکنان با هم، دسترسی های نامناسب به خدمات عمومی، ناهماهنگی با بافت اطراف از نقاط ضعف مجتمع مسکونی سبحان به حساب می آید. در حالی که تراکم پایین، بالا بودن روابط اجتماعی ساکنان با یکدیگر و هماهنگی با بافت اطراف از مهم ترین ویژگی های مجتمع مسکونی شهید محلاتی به حساب می آید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparative Study of Satisfaction Evaluation between Residents of Mid-Rise and High-Rise Housings

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saba Amini 1
  • Seyed Bagher Hosseini 2
  • Saeed NorouzianMaleki 3
1 M.A. Student of Housing Trends, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
3 Faculty of Engineering Department of Architecture, University of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Providing houses for people is considered as one of the key issues in urban construction and development. In Iran, along with the growing urbanization, increasing population and the lack of suitable land for construction, construction of residential complexes is one of the activities in order to meet the growing need for housing. Because of spatial considerations, housing development has been transformed from low to medium density and horizontal spread to high density and vertical stretch. The problems of high-rise  housing have been concerned issues of many architects and environmental designers. The majority of the residents of high-rise complexes are not satisfied with their living environments in the metropolitan area. The relation between people and their residential environment is a significant topic in environmental psychology, possibly because home environments are one of the most salient environments in human experience. Housing satisfaction, which refers to residents’ overall evaluation of their housing, for a long time, has been a major research subject in sociology, planning, and related disciplines. Research suggests that it has a complex and multidimensional basis relating to both the actual and perceived environment. Many studies have deaed with housing satisfaction in the fields such as sociology, psychology, or urban planning. Some of those researches have focused on socio-demographic factors such as age, gender, or economic resources, while others have dealed with the physical characteristics of the housing that influence residential  satisfaction. A broad literature review suggests that housings aesthetics such as wellmaintained homes and good air quality are important bases for residents’ environmental and general satisfaction. Safety may be particularly salient to residents. Indeed, housing safety is an important predictor of satisfaction for the residents perhaps because of their vulnerability to crime and traffic dangers as well as their greater awareness of these dangers. Access to green areas such as parks and natural areas is often found to be related to residents’ satisfaction. Residential satisfaction has been positively related to proximity to green areas. In terms of the physical environment, we draw on research that considers multiple features of the physical environment, including urban design, architectural features, safety from traffic and crime, air quality and pollution, cleanliness as well as green areas, such as parks and natural areas. The aim of this paper is to examine residential satisfaction of residential complexe in Tehran. Consistent with previous researches, the present project examines residents satisfaction from their housings, their residential complexes, and their relations with neighbors. In contrast to some previous researches which have used a single index of combined residential and neighborhood satisfaction, we measure residents’ satisfaction through different environmental domains. The present research method is a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches  (mixed methods). In the first step, design criteria for residential complexes were studied and previous studies conducted in this area were reviewed. This research has analyzed some of these criteria in two selected samples between middle-rise and high-rise residential complexes. Comparing these criteria is done through a review of existing documents, field studies, questionnaires and interviews Questionnaire forms were equally distributed between residents of “ShahidMahallati” and “Sobhan” residential complexex. Random sampling is done among five residential blocks in each complex. Residents assessed perceived attributes of complexes by indicating their satisfaction from different categories. Participants were asked to evaluate their local area by responding to statements concerning various environmental attributes. The response format was a five point scale ranging from “strongly agree” (score +2) to “strongly disagree’’ (score -2). Finally, the obtained data was analyzed by various computer software programs. At last, the resident’s satisfaction was determined by comparing the scores of each of these criteria between two samples. The finding show that although in comparing two samples with only some of the criteria, Sobhan residential complex was ranked higher, but generally Shahid Mahallati residential complex was more successful in meeting resident’s satisfaction. Differences arise from the physical dimensions of housing.Among the physical characteristics, landscape is an important feature which is related to visible amenities and to esthetic preferences. Excessive building density, nonparticipation in social activities, low access to public services, and inconsistency with the surrounding parts are considered as weaknesses of high-rise residential complexes, while in the low density, the high level of social relationship between residents and consistency with the surrounding environment, are considered as the most important features of middle-rise residential complexes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • High-Rise Construction
  • High-Rise Residential Complex
  • Middle-Ris Residential Complex
  • Resident’s Satisfaction
-- Azizi, M. M. & Malek-Mohammadnezhad, S. (2008). Comparative Study on High-rise and Conventional Residential

Complexes. Honar-ha-ye Ziba, 32, 27-38.

-- Benson, E. D., Hansen, J. L., Schwartz, Jr., A. L. & Smersh, G. T. (1998). Pricing Residential Amenities; the Value

of View. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16 (1), 55-73.

-- Blake, P. (1977). Form Follows Fiasco. Little Brown, Boston, Castells, M, Goh, L and Kwok, R. (1990) The Shek

Kip Mei Kong and Singapore Pion, London.

-- Chiara, J. D. & Crosbie, M. J. (1995). Time-saver Standards for Building Types. New York: McGraw-Hill Pub.

-- Conway, J. & Adams, B. (1977). The Social Effects of Living Off the Ground, Habitat International, 2 (5-6),

595-614.

-- Department of Environment, (1970) Design Bulletin 21, Families Living at Higher Density: a Study of Estates in

Leeds, Liverpool and London. London: HMSO.

-- Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential Satisfaction Composition and Contextual Correlates. Environment

and Behavior, 13 (6), 735-758.

-- Ghorbanian, M. (2011). Recognizing Neighborhood Satisfaction; Significant Dimension and Assessment Factors.

International Journal of Academic Research, 3 (1), 273-282.

-- Gifford, R. (1991). Welcome to the neighborhood. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Applied psychology: Variety and opportunity

(pp. 1-19). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

-- Golabchi, M. (2001). The Principles of High-rise Buildings Design. Honar-ha-ye Ziba, 9, 52-62.

-- Greater London Council, (1968). Housing Development, Management Branch Height Preference Survey (J. Fairman,

B. Moore), London: The council.

-- Haber, G. M. (1977). The Impact of Tall Buildings on Users and Neighbors; Human Response to Tall Buildings.

Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

-- Helleman, G. & Wassenberg, F. (2004). The renewal of what was tomorrow’s idealistic city. Amsterdam’s Bijlmermeer

high-rise. Cities, 21 (1), 3-17.

-- Huang, S. C. L. (2006). A Study of Outdoor Interactional Spaces in High-Rise Housing. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 78 (3), 193-204.

-- Hur, M., Nasar, J. L. & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood Satisfaction, Physical and Perceived Naturalness and

Openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (1), 52-59.

-- Jim, C. Y. & Chen, W. Y. (2010). External Effects of Neighborhood Parks and Landscape Elements on High-Rise

Residential Value. Land Use Policy, 27 (2), 662-670.

-- Johnson, B. (2002). Living the High Life. Atlanta: National Real Estate Investor.

-- Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile Ground For Community: Inner-City Neighborhood

Common Spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26 (6), 823–851.

-- Lim, B. P. (1994). Environmental Design Criteria of Tall Buildings. Pennsylvania, USA.

-- Morancho, A. B. (2003). A Headonic Valuation of Urban Green Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66 (1),

35-41.

-- Rafieian, M., Asgari, A. & Asgarizadeh, Z. (2009). Units Residential Satisfaction Assessment of Navab Resident.

Human Geography Research, 67 (1), 53-68.

-- Wang, M. S. & Chien, H. -T. (1997). Environmental Behavior Analysis of High-Rise Building Area in Taiwan,

Building and Environment, 34 (1), 85-93.

-- Yuen, B. (2005). Romancing the High-Rise in Singapore. Cities, 22 (1), 3-13.

-- Van Poll, R. (1997). The Perceived Quality of the Urban Residential Environment A Multi Attribute Evaluation.

[Dissertation]. (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen).