ارزیابی عمومیت مراکز خرید معاصر، مورد مطالعاتی: مجموعه سیتی‌سنتر اصفهان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

2 دانشیار شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان،اصفهان، ایران.

3 کارشناسی ارشد طراحی شهری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

یکی از مصادیق جهانی شدن در شهرها، دگردیسی در نیروها و عوامل مؤثر بر شکل‌گیری فضاهای عمومی شهری است. در سال‌های اخیر، نیروی اقتصاد با به خدمت گرفتن نیروی فناوری، قدرت خود را در قالب معماری و طراحی فضاهای جدید در ساخت شهر نشان می‌دهد. نتیجه این امر ظهور فضاهای شبه عمومی و یکنواخت در شهرها، با هدف سوددهی اقتصادی و ایجاد محیط‌های امن و جذاب برای سرمایه گذاران و کارگزاران است. مراکز خرید معاصر، نمودی از این فضاهای نوظهور هستند که مطابق با ایدئولوژی مصرف جهانی در حال جایگزینی با فضاهای عمومی شهرها و مراکز خرید سنتی (بازارها) هستند. این در حالی است که از دیدگاه صاحب نظرانی نظیر اوژه، این فضاها به سبب ارائه نوع و نحوه خدمات مشابه و تجربه همسان در استفاده از فضا، قابلیت انباشتگی خاطرات و تاریخی و واقعی جلوه‌دادن آن‌ها را ندارند و از این‌رو نمی‌توانند به‌عنوان فضای مدنی و عمومی در نظر گرفته شوند. سنجش میزان عمومیت فضا در این مراکز هدف این پژوهش است. بدین منظور با استفاده از روش تحقیق توصیفی- تحلیلی، میزان عمومیت فضا در نمونه موردی،  مرکز خرید شهر اصفهان، براساس معیارهای برگرفته از مدل ستاره‌ای که شامل مؤلفه‌های مدیریتی و طراحی محور (مالکیت، کنترل، مدنیت، پیکره‌بندی فضایی و پویایی و تحرک) است، مورد سنجش قرار گرفته است. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد میانگین عمومیت در مجموعه سیتی سنتر پایین است که دلیل آن را می‌توان در رویکردهای مدیریتی در مجموعه، کنترل بیش از اندازه از مرکز و محل قرارگیری آن جستجو کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing the Publicness of Contemporary Shopping Centre,Case Study: City Center Complex of Isfahan

نویسندگان [English]

  • Bahador Zamani 1
  • Mahmoud Ghalehnoee 2
  • Parisa Fazeli 3
1 Associate Professor of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Iran..
2 Associate Professor of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Iran.
3 M.A. of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

In recent decades, Due to the impacts of changes taking place since 1970s as well as economic issues and globalization, the production of public spaces, usage, characteristic, forces and factors affecting the formation of urban public spaces have changed. The restricted social welfare policies, a general decrease in state power and the rise of private-public partnership are some of the essential political implications of the globalization process. Nowadays Economy along with technology has rattled of its strength in terms of architecture and design of the new spaces. As a result, privatized public and uniform spaces are constructed in cities with aim of economic profitability and create a safe and attractive environment for investors. Modern shopping centers and shopping malls are manifestation of the new spaces that are formed with focusing on ideology of global consumption. Recently they have been at the center of a controversy regarding public and private space. In viewpoints of some experts, these spaces due to some factors such as providing the same service and experience in usage of space and discouraging of the presence of disadvantaged people are not recognized as a public space. Furthermore they are normally privately owned, therefore, their access to open spaces, shopping and other facilities within it becomes the prerogative of the mall operators. Hence, they cannot serve as civil or public space. On the other hand, some experts argue that shopping malls are valuable public space for people, teenager in particular, because it is a place where they can shop and/or socialize. This challenge and controversy intensify the importance of assessing the definition of contemporary shopping center as a public space because they are substitution of traditional public spaces and shopping (markets) which are recognized as the most important and successful public spaces in the past and now their past role and identity have lost. The purpose of this study is to measure publicness of shopping centers as a new alternative of former public space. To this end, by using the descriptive-analytic study after a literature review about public space, consider publicness as a multi-dimensional concept and identify different dimensions of it based on an academic discourse. At the end a Star model has chosen as a comprehensive model for assessing publicness. As each dimension in star model includes a broad concept, to translate the Star Model into a tool for synthesizing and quantifying a place’s ‘publicness’, a set of indicators for each dimension was developed. This Model consist of five dimensions (ownership, control, civility, configuration and Animation). Base on definitions Ownership refers to a place’s legal status and the second and third dimensions, control and civility, are the managerial dimensions of publicness. The control dimension of publicness refers to the different measures taken to limit the individual freedom and the political manifestations of the members of a certain social group, when they are present in a public place. It refers both to measures taken as part of the management of public places and to methods imbedded in the design of public place. Civility describes how a public place is managed and maintained and involves the cultivation of a positive and welcoming ambience. The fourth and fifth dimensions—physical configuration and animation—are two design-oriented dimensions of publicness. Distinction can be made between a place’s macro-design—its relationship with its hinterland, including the routes into it and its connections with its surroundings place)—and its micro-design—the design of the place itself (i.e. within-the-place). Based on these dimensions, definition of ideal public space as a standard of publicness is publicly owned by democratically elected bodies, well connected in the surrounding urban grid and designed according to principles that foster activity and social interaction, used by a large and diverse public in a variety of ways, controlled in a non-oppressive manner and characterized by an inviting and tidy atmosphere (Varna and tiesdell, 2010). According to this definition, publicness in a contemporary shopping center in Isfahan as a case study, that is called Isfahan City Center, was surveyed. It is a large commercial and entertainment complex in Isfahan, Iran and one of the largest shopping malls containing a museum in the world. It is located near the city of Isfahan and the towns of Sepahan Shahr and Baharestan.
The results showed that the average publicness in the City Centre complex is low. The reasons can found in management approaches in the complex, its over-control approaches and location.
As regard to the restricted public use and the increased social exclusion of some groups, shopping centers cannot be regarded as public spaces. Public use depends on the location of shopping centers which means that especially shopping centers within suburban areas mostly serve their nearer neighborhoods rather than having the opportunity for the use of different groups from whole areas of the city as city centers provide.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Privatization
  • Publicness of Public Space
  • Modern Shopping Centers
  • Isfahan City Centre Complex
Allen, J. (2006). Ambient Power: Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the Seductive Logic of Public Spaces. Urban Studies, 43, 441-455.
Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Banerjee, T. (2001). The Future of Public Space. Journal of American Planning Association, 67.
Benn, S., & Gaus, G. (1983). Public and Private in Social Life. New York: St. Martin‘s Press and London & Canberra: Croom Helm.
Carmona, M. (2010a). Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification, Part One: Critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 125-150.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G., & Stone, A.M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cybriwsky, R. (1999). Changing Patterns of Urban Public Space, Cities, 16, 223-231.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993). Oxford: Claredon Press
Nasution, D., & Zahrah, W. (2012). Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 466 – 475.
Dijkstra, L. (2000). Public Spaces: A Comparative Discussion of the Criteria for Public Space. Constructions of Urban Space. Stamford: Jai Press Inc.
Goodsell, C. (2003). The Concept of Public Space and its Democratic Manifestations, American Review of Public Administration, 33, 361 – 383.
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, P. (1998). Domesticating the Street: The Contested Spaces of the High Street and the Mall’ in N. R. Fyfe (ed). Images of the Street. New York & London: Routledge, 176-191.
Kohn, M. (2004). Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. London: Routledge.
Kressel, S. (1998). Privatizing the Public Realm. New Democracy Newsletter.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Banerjee, T. (1998). Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of form University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Low, S. (2000). On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Lowe ,G., & Lovejoy, F. (2000). Shopping Malls as Teenage Public Space. University of New South Wales.
Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. The MIT Press.
Lynch, K., & Carr, S. (1979). Open Space: Freedom and Control. in Banerjee, T. & Southworth, M, eds. (1991). City Sense and City Design: Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch. Cambridge Mass, MIT Press, 413- 417.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-spatial Process. Chichester: Wiley.
Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development. London: Routledge.
Marcuse, P. (2005). The threat of terrorism and the Right to the City. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 32, 767 – 785.
Mensch, J. (2007). Public Space. Continental Philosophy Review, 40, 31-47.
Mierzejewska, L. (2011). Appropriation of Public Urban Space as an Effect of Privatisation Andglobalisation.Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public Space: Modelling and Measuring Publicness. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 38, 5-23.
Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. (1999). The Fortress, the Panoptic, the Regulatory and the Animated: Planning and Urban Design Approaches to Safer City Centres. Landscape Research, 24 265-286.
Project for Public Spaces, Accessed June2011. http://www.pps.org/about/ approach/
Slessor, C. (2001). Public Engagement (Evaluation of Public Space).
Smithsimon, G. (2000). People in the Streets: The Promise of Democracy in Everday Public Space. & http://www.columbia.edu/~gs228/writing/importanceps.htm visited on 10.07.2013.
Staeheli, L., & Mitchell, D. (2008). The People’s Property? Power, Politics, and the Public. New York: Routledge.
Tibbalds, F. (2001). Making People - Friendly Towns Improving the Public Environment Intowns and Cities (M. Ghasemi). Tehran: Rozaneh Press
Varna, G. (2011). Assessing the Publicness of Public Places: Towards a New Model. PhD Thesis.
Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the Publicness of Public Space: The Star Model of Publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 575-598.
Young, I.M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Zukin, S. (1995). The Cultures of Cities. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.