واکاوی ویژگی‌های تئوری‌های پیچیدگی در طرح جامع (راهبردی-ساختاری) شهر تهران
محورهای موضوعی : برنامه ریزی شهریاسفندیار زبردست 1 , محمد امین سعیدی 2 *
1 - استاد گروه شهرسازی دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 - پژوهشگر دکتری شهرسازی دانشکده شهرسازی ، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: برنامه‌ریزی شهری, عدم قطعیت, سیستم پیچیده, تئوری‌های پیچیدگی, ویژگی‌های شهر پیچیده,
چکیده مقاله :
امروزه، شهرها، به عنوان یک سیستم باز، پویا و همراه با تغییرات مداوم پذیرفته شده اند. برنامه ریزی برای چنین پدیده ای نیازمند نگرشی است که توانایی رویارویی با این تغییر و تحول دائمی را داشته باشد. محوریت تئوری پیچیدگی بحث درباره این فرایند تغییر و دگرگونی دائمی است. در این تحقیق، با استفاده از ویژگی های سیستم های پیچیده، ماهیت شهر، مورد بررسی و شناسایی قرار می گیرد. با استفاده از بررسی و مرور نظرات صاحبنظران تئوری های پیچیدگی شهری، هشت مفهوم «مشارکت»، « پیش بینی کیفی»، «تکامل تدریجی»، «ارتباط کنشگر و مکان»، «خودسازماندهی»، « قوانین بازدارنده»، «بازنگری و اصلاح» و « تکامل تدریجی» به عنوان ویژگی های طرح های توسعه شهری برای رویارویی با عدم قطعیت وتغییرات دائمی شهر معرفی شده اند. سپس با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی تلخیصی، این مفاهیم در طرح جامع (ساختاری_راهبردی) شهر تهران مصوب ۱۳۸۶ مورد بررسی قرار گرفته اند.
Todays’ cities are accepted as dynamic and ever-changing phenomena and are classified as “complex systems” in which Planning encounters with much “uncertainties”. In this kind of systems, absolute cognition of existing condition is impossible. In complex systems, “optimum” is not predictable. So, we cannot be sure about the existing condition of complex systems nor about the future and the consequences of our manipulation, then, how can we think of planning in this system?
Complexity theories are about studying nonlinear dynamic complex systems. These theories deliver new approaches to study complex systems like cities. Complex systems have some common characteristics which introduce them. Openness, ever-changing, non-linear behaviors, non-equilibrium and being on the edge of chaos, self-organization, uncertainty, emergence and naturally unpredictability are some of these characteristics. Therefore, popular linear methods of planning don’t work for complex systems. In this article, eight key elements of the urban planning process are proposed based on the complexity theories approaches. Qualitative prediction, gradual evolution (path dependence), actor-space relationship, actor cooperation, self-organization, inhibitor rules, ongoing evaluation, innovation, and intuition are introduced with huge literature review as core characteristics of the urban planning process.
Afterward, in the latest Tehran master plan, the use of these keywords are analyzed. The Summative qualitative content analysis method is used to do this. Tehran has been chosen since the importance of this city in Iran. Tehran is Iran’s capital and also the economic center of Iran. It has about 8.7 million inhabitants in about 700 square kilometers area. Tehran has been known as “a problem” for more than fifty years ago. Three development plans are prepared for Tehran but problems like transportation, pollution and etc. are getting worth. Tehran is one of the most complicated cities in Iran, so, is selected as a case study in this article. The latest development plan is selected because it is written that Tehran is a very complex problem and the plan is prepared with this consciousness. The results of the analysis show that Tehran Comprehensive Plan has not used the concept of gradual evolution, self-organization and innovation, and intuition in its process of plan preparation. In the case of ongoing evaluation, just 1 process (every five years) is proposed. Cooperation (of citizens) been referred to mostly in the implementation part of the plan and not in the preparation process of the plan. The concept of inhibitor rules are used in the plan, and the most refers to existing sanctioned rules, only 8 new rules are developed in the plan. The actor-space relationship is user 11 times in the plan. Qualitative prediction is used as some patterns and processes in the plan and the most are related to the proposed stage. After all, it seems that eight keywords proposed in this article are seldom used in Tehran comprehensive plan. In the complex context of Tehran, it is recommended to use complexity theory concepts to better understand the status quo and the existing trends. Off course, this is not only the duty of preparation organizations but also all who are involved in the plan.
1. الکساندر، کریستوفر. (1381). معماری و راز جاودانگی. (مهرداد قیومی بیدهندی،مترجم). تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
2. بوم‌سازگان، مهندسین مشاور. (1386 الف). طرح جامع تهران، سند اصلی طرح راهبردی _ساختاری توسعه و عمران شهر تهران-تهران.
3. بوم‌سازگان، مهندسین مشاور. (1386 ب). طرح جامع تهران، گزارش سنتز طرح راهبردی_ساختاری توسعه و عمران شهر تهران-جلد اول. تهران.
4. بوم‌سازگان، مهندسین مشاور. (1386 پ). طرح جامع تهران، گزارش سنتز طرح راهبردی_ساختاری توسعه و عمران شهر تهران-جلد دوم. تهران
5. سیاسی، علی اکبر. (1341). گزارش سمینار درباره مسائل اجتماعی شهر تهران. مجله دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران. 9 (4)، 111-121.
6. مرکز آمار ایران. (1395). نتایج سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن. تهران:پدیدآوردنده.
7. میچل، ملانی. (1395). سیری در نظریه پیچیدگی. (رضا امیر رحیمی،مترجم). تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
8. Alexander,C. (1965). A City Is Not a Tree. Architectural Forum, 122, 58-62.
9. Alexander, E. R., & Mazza, L., & Moroni, S. (2012). Planning Without Plans? Nomocracy or Teleocracy for Social-Spatial Ordering. Journal of Progress in Planning, 77, 37-87.
10. Allen, P. M. (2012). Cities: The visible expression of co-evolving complexity. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age (pp. 67-89). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
11. Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research. New York: Macmillan.
12. Batty, M., & Marshall, S. (2012). The Origins of Complexity Theory in Cities and Planning. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come Of Age (pp. 21-45). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
13. Baynes, T. M. (2009). Complexity in urban development and management: historical overview and opportunities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 214-227.
14. Bettencourt, L.M. A. (2013). The Kind of Problem a City Is. Santa Fe: SFI.
15. Colander, D., & Kupers, R. (2014).Complexity and the art of public policy – Changing Society from the Bottom Up. United States (N.Y.): Princeton University Press.
16. Crawford, R. (2016). What can complexity theory tell us about urban planning?. New Zealand: Productivity Research note.
17. De Roo, G., & Rauws, W. (2012). Positioning Planning in the World of Order, Chaos and Complexity: on Perspectives, Behaviour and Interventions in a non-Linear environment. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age (pp. 207-219). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
18. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes Cambridge:The MIT Press.
19. Geddes, P. (1949). Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics. London :Williams & Norgate.
20. Gershenson, C. (2008). Complexity: 5 questions. Copenhagen: Automatic press/ VIP.
21. Haken, H. (2012). Complexity and complexity theories: Do these concepts make sense?. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age (pp.7-19). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
22. Hayek, FA. (1978). New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. London: Routledge.
23. Hayek, FA. (1967). Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. London: Routledge.
24. Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies. New York: Routledge.
25. Hillier, B. (2012). The Genetic Code for Cities: Is It Simpler Than We Think? In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come Of Age (pp. 129-151). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
26. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S.E.(2005).Three approaches to qualitative content analysis, Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288.
27. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.
28. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
29. Kotzebue, J. R. (2016). The EU integrated urban development policy managing complex processes in dynamic places. European Planning Studies, 24(6), 1098-1117.
30. Marshal, S. (2012). Planning, Design and the Complexity of Cities. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come Of Age (pp. 191-205). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
31. McLoughlin, B. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. London: Faber and Faber.
32. McPhearson, T. (2016). Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems. Ecological Indicators, 70, 566-573.
33. Moroni, S. (2015). Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction urban codes for self- organising cities. Planning Theory, 14(3), 248-267.
34. Portugali, J. (1999). Self-Organization and the City.Berlin: Springer.
35. Portugali, J. (2012a). Complexity Theories of Cities: Achievements, Criticism and Potentials. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age (pp.47-62). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
36. Portugali, J. (2012b). Complexity theories of cities: implications to urban planning. In Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come Of Age (pp. 221-243). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
37. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284.
38. Silva, P. (2016).Tactical urbanism towards an evolutionary cities approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43,1-12.
39. Soja, E. W. (1987).Economic restructuring and internationalization of the Los Angeles region. Basil: Blackwell publication.
40. Talen, E. (2015). Do it Yourself Urbanism. Planning History, 14(2), 135-148.
41. Talvitie, A. (2009). Theoryless Planning. Planning Theory, 8(2), 166–190.
42. Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory culture society, 22, 1-14.