ارزیابی میزان تحقق‌پذیری پروژه‌های طراحی شهری در ایران، نمونه موردی: پروژه‌های اجراشده در تهران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران

2 استاد شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار شهرسازی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

طراحی شهری به عنوان یک تخصص و یک رشته آکادمیک از اهمیت قابل توجهی برخوردار است. این امر از یک طرف به دلیل حاد شدن مسائل گوناگون شهرها و تنزل کیفیت آن‌ها و از طرف دیگر تلاش طراحان شهری برای فعال‌تر و غنی‌تر کردن دانش آن به منظور پاسخگویی مؤثرتر به نیازهای روزافزون جوامع کنونی در ارتباط با محیط های انسان ساخت می‌باشد. در کشور ما علیرغم نیاز شدیدی که در شرایط کنونی به خدمات این حرفه در مقیاس‌ها، زمینه‌ها و برای اهداف گوناگون احساس می‌شود، متأسفانه حرفه طراحی شهری نتوانسته است جایگاه، موقعیت و هویت مناسب خود را بیابد. نتیجه مشخص این امر عدم موفقیت پروژه‌های مختلفی است که تحت عنوان طراحی شهری طی سالیان گذشته در کشور به اجرا در آمده است. از سوی دیگر ارزیابی چندانی از وضعیت این قبیل پروژه‌ها انجام نگرفته است. بدین جهت مسأله اصلی این تحقیق، ارزیابی میزان تحقق‌پذیری پروژه‌های طراحی شهری، به‌عنوان یکی از طرح‌های توسعه شهری در ایران می‌باشد و اینکه طراحی شهری در عمل تا چه اندازه موفق بوده است. بدین منظور با مروری بر متون نظری و به منظور دستیابی به چارچوب ارزیابی تحقیق، رویکرد، معیارها و شاخص‌های ارزیابی شناسایی شدند. بدین صورت که معیارها و شاخص‌های مذکور با استفاده از روش تحلیلی‌- تطبیقی و مرور مستندات و آراء مشابه سایر اندیشمندان، مشخص شد و سپس به منظور بومی‌سازی و انطباق با زمینه ایران، معیارها و شاخص‌ها با روش مصاحبه با صاحب‌نظران تدقیق و تکمیل شد. در نهایت میزان اهمیت و میزان توجه و کاربست هر یک از معیارها و شاخص‌ها به‌وسیله پرسشنامه توسط بازیگران اصلی، در پروژه‌های طراحی شهری منتخب (اجرا شده در تهران) تعیین و عمل ارزیابی انجام شد. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان می‌دهد که پروژه‌های طراحی شهری در ایران، از نظر میزان تحقق‌پذیری، در وضعیت نیمه‌مطلوب تا نامطلوب قرار دارند. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Implementing Urban Design Projects in Iran, Case Study: Implemented Projects in Tehran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Arash Saghafi Asl 1
  • Esfandiar Zebardast 2
  • Hamid Majedi 3
1 Ph.D. Graduate, Department of Art & Architecture, College of Urban Planning, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor of Urban Planning, Department of Fine Arts, College of Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Department of Art & Architecture, College of Urban Planning, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Urban design approach to prepare and implemente an urban general planning scheme leads to uncoordinated city form and pattern in terms of packaging spontaneously a series of detailed planning schemes of various and diverse environmental neighborhoods such as residential, industrial, commercial, institutional and etc. Urban design involves the arrangement and design of buildings, public spaces, transport systems, services, and amenities. Urban design is the process of giving form, shape, and character to groups of buildings, to whole neighborhoods, and the city. Urban design is about making connections between people and places, movement and urban form, nature and the built fabric. Urban design draws together the many trends of place-making, environmental stewardship, social equity and economic viability into the creation of places with distinct beauty and identity. On the other hand, Implementation tools offer different mechanisms for the delivery of proper quality in urban design outcomes whileare used by a range of professionals to manage, motivate and organise urban design projects. Unlikly, the implementation tools focus on the means of making good quality for urban design projects. Implementation tools can be considered through all stages of an urban design project. A number of the tools focus on discussing and resolving design issues before the construction of a project. Implementation tools can help clear roadblocks in the design process, provide collaborative management structures, and develop creative design solutions. Also, Project implementation (or project execution) is the phase where visions and plans become reality. This is the logical conclusion, after evaluating, deciding, visioning, planning, applying for funds and finding the financial resources of a project. After you have carefully planned your project, you will be ready to start the project implementation phase, the third phase of the project management is life cycle. The implementation phase involves putting the project plan into action. In this phase the project manager will coordinate and direct project resources to meet the objectives of the project plan. As the project unfolds, it’s the project manager’s job to direct and manage each activity, every step of the way. That’s what happens in the implementation phase of the project life cycle: you follow the plan you’ve put together and handle any problems that come up. The implementation phase is where you and your project team actually do the project work to produce the deliverables. The word “deliverable” means anything your project delivers. The deliverables for your project include all of the products or services that you and your team are performing for the client, customer, or sponsor, including all the project management documents that you put together.The steps undertaken to build each deliverable will vary depending on the type of project you are undertaking, and cannot therefore be described here in any real detail. For instance engineering projects will focus on using equipment, resources, and materials to construct each project deliverable, whereas computer software projects may require the development and implementation of software code routines to produce each project deliverable. The activities required to build each deliverable will be clearly specified within the project requirements document and project plan. Project implementation must be carefully planned, managed and monitored if activities are to be successfully implemented on schedule and produce the intended outputs and outcomes. Along with the movement in the world, recently, some projects are called “urban design projects” which are running in different parts of Iran, especially in Tehran. These projects aim to improve the quality of our urban environment and urban spaces. Urban design projects with the aim of improving the quality of urban spaces have been considered as Iran’s urban development plans since the early 80s of Hejri Shamsi and different experiences have been passed. However, no assessment has been made for their conditions. The present study aimed to evaluate implementation of urban design projects as one of the urban development plans. For this purpose, we reviewed several documents and relevant literature to initially develop an evaluation framework and then, identify primary criteria and indicators using analytical- comparative methods, review of documents and similar opinions of other scholars. These criteria and indicators were elaborated and fulfilled through an interview with experts so as to localize and conform to Iran’ context. Finally, the significance and contribution of each criterion and indicator was determined via a questionnaire for the main actors of urban design projects in Iran (especially Tehran) and then evaluation was performed. The findings of the present study indicated that under the current circumstance of urban design projects in Iran, the degree of implementation is semi-appropriate to poor.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • evaluation
  • Implementation
  • Urban Design Project
  • Iran
  • Tehran

Alexander, E.R. (1985). From Idea to Action: Notes for a Contingency Theory of the Policy Implementation Process, Administration & Society, 16, 403.
Alexander, E.R. (2009). Dilemmas in Evaluating Planning, or Back to Basics: What is Planning For?, Planning Theory & Practice, 10(2), 233–244.
Alexander, E.R., & Faludi. A. (1989). Planning and Plan Implementation: Notes on Evaluation Criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 16 (1), 127-40.
Alterman, R., & Hill, M. (1978). Implementation of Urban Land Use Plans, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33(1), 274-85.
Baer, W.C. (1997). General Plan Evaluation Criteria. Journal of the American Planning Association. 63(3), 329-44.
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.
Booth, Ph. (1995). Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 14(2), 103-112.
Brody, S.D., & Wesley, E. H. (2005). Does Planning Work? Testing the Implementation of Local Environmental Planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-75.
Burby, R., May, P., Berke, P, Dalton, L., French, S., Kaiser, E. (1997). Making Governments Plan: Experiments in Managing Land Use, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Calkins, H.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).
Cowan, R. (2005). The Dictionary of Urbanism, Streetwise Press, Tisbury.
Dalton, J., Elias, M., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Community Psychology: Linking Individuals and Communities, (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Elmore, R.F. (1979). Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions, Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
Golkar, K. (2007). Urban Design in Action. Journal of Abadi, 17.
Golkar, K. (2011). Urban Design: Process or Processes. Journal of Soffeh, 52.
Gosling, D. & Mitland, B. (1984). Concepts of Urban Design, Academy Editions/St. Martin’s Press, London.
Khoury, Zaki B. (1996). Implementing the New Urban Agenda: The Case of Ismailia, Egypt, Environment & Urbanization, 8(1).
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), 555-577.
Norton, R.K. (2005). More and Better Local Planning: A State mandated Local Planning in Coastal North Carolina, Journal of the American Planning Association. 71 (1), 55-71.
Nutt, P.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), 35-63.
Talen, E. (1996a). Do Plans Get Implemented? A Review of Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature. 10(3), 248-259.
Talen, E. (1996b). After the Plans: Methods to Evaluate the Implementation Success of Plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research.16 (2), 79-91.
Talen, E. (1997). Success, Failure and Conformance: An Alternative Approach to Planning Evaluation, Environment and Planning.