Explaining Qualitative Criteria in the Process of Integrated Formation in Urban Public Spaces (Case Study: District Five of Tehran Municipality)

Subject Areas : urbanism

Nila Pazhouhandeh ¹ , Esmaeil Shieh ² , Maryam Moinifar ³

1 - Ph.D. Student, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Qazvin, Iran.
2 - Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran.Iran.
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.

Received: 2021-03-27 Accepted : 2022-02-25 Published : 2022-03-21

Keywords: Measurement Model, District 5 of Tehran municipality, spatial quality, Confirmatory Factor Analysis,

Abstract :

In recent decades, several approaches have been proposed regarding the formation of "quality of urban public spaces,« and various researches have been conducted in this field. However, what can be discerned so far is the lack of attention to the concept of integrative spatial quality and its holistic approach in the field of urban planning as "the basic elements of urban design.» This research explains the critical criteria of the process of forming an integrative spatial quality in urban public spaces. To achieve the purpose of the study, District 5 of Tehran Municipality, due to numerous public spaces in line with the research criteria of the article and the low age of construction, has been studied as a case study. Based on the theories, views, and researche identified in the framework of the mentioned purpose, five critical criteria are essential. The research method is analytical-descriptive. In reference to the contribution and role of this research, it can be emphasized that the foundation of integrative spatial quality in public spaces is only possible by simultaneous attention to allthe key Components: "physical,« "perceptual,» "social,« "environmental,» "functional."Thirty-three variables have considered further study and explanation of these five criteria regarding structural equations and validity and reliability. Thus, it is possible to design a 5-factor model in the field of measuring the quality of integrative spatial in public spaces, which at the same time is a fundamental step in developing a structural model at a higher level, the adequacy of this measurement model, due to various indicators, indicates that the model in question has an acceptable fit from the view of data coordination, including 220 samples with its factor structure. The main goal, part of which, by pursuing the question, "What criteria in the process of forming an integrative spatial quality in urban public spaces, what is their role and position?« is reflected in the present article. This research showed that the optimal quality of selected urban public spaces in this region was related to physical –aesthetic, and functional attributes. In addition, evaluation of this process, planning, and acting in order to enhance it should be considered accordingly based on this framework. Further specific studies on these factors and their effectiveness and relationships are issues that can be addressed in future research to clarify the theoretical findings. Every public space needs unique features; but based on the results, these suggestions are also presented to improve the quality of the urban area and its integration in the five districts of Tehran:The ability to access the communication structure of public spaces for the disabled and people with disabilitiesExecutive diversification of public spaces in accordance with seasonal changes, forming a network of connected public spaces that have interactive quality indicators and also invite individuals to establish sustainable social interactionMeaningful spaces and granting new uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, and more for the proper use of public spaces in the direction of dynamism, vitality, and prosperity.

References:

1. احمدی­پور، زهرا؛ و قادری حاجت، مصطفی. (1394). ساماندهی و آمایش سیاسی فضای شهری، تهران: مرکز مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.


2. ارباب، پارسا؛ عزیزی، محمدمهدی؛ و زبردست، اسفندیار. (1394). تبیین معیارهای کلیدی فرآیند شکل­گیری هویت مکان در توسعه شهری جدید (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 22 تهران). هنرهای زیبا، 20(4)، 5- https://jfaup.ut.ac.ir/article_59666_848dd7c3d03e3076ceeedaa874f53703.pdf


3. بریاجی، فرزاد؛ حاتمی­نژاد، حسین؛ و اقبالی، ناصر. (1398). تحلیلی بر کیفیت زندگی شهری و تفاوت‌های فضایی آن در (مناطق 1 و 19 کلان‌شهر تهران). فصلنامه جغرافیا، 9(2). 457-473. http://www.jgeoqeshm.ir/article_89105_ee177599e72f7d10f699dc5e60f2ea87.pdf


4. بنتلی، ایان؛ الکک، آلن؛ مورین، پال؛ مک گلین، سو؛ اسمیت، گراهام. (1386). محیط­های پاسخ­ده، کتاب راهنمای طراحان، (مصطفی بهزادفر، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علم و صنعت. (نشر اصلی اثر، 1985).


5. پاک‌نهاد، حدیثه؛ و پژوهان­فر، مهدیه. (1396). بهبود الگوهای کیفیت فضایی پارک­های شهری به‌منظور افزایش تعاملات اجتماعی شهروندان، نمونه موردی: پارک­های شهر گرگان. آمایش جغرافیایی فضا، 26، 183-197. http://gps.gu.ac.ir/article_60548_e0c5b78c986c64a8acdc7fc98e0e059b.pdf


6. پورحسین روشن، حمید؛ پورجعفر، محمدرضا؛ و صارمی، حمیدرضا. (1398). تبیین و بازتولید قدرت­های مؤثر بر افزایش کیفیت حضور پذیری بانوان با رویکرد ایرانی – اسلامی (فضای شهری پیرامون بقعه متبرکه). هویت شهر، 45 (15)، 97- 110. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_14942_75ca355a05c5abf098c75de747a73ca3.pdf


7. تیموری، شراره. (1392). تبیین و بررسی شاخص­های روش­های تحقیق کاربردی در طراحی صنعتی. هنرهای زیبا- هنرهای تجسمی، 18(4)، 67-74. https://jfava.ut.ac.ir/article_36444_17ab7fabaa2c010ce34dcbff305f733d.pdf


8. تیموریان، کتایون؛ و محسن میر، سید. (1399). ارزیابی کیفیت بصری- فضایی منظر شهری در گذر زمان (موردمطالعه: ناحیه 8 منطقه یک تهران). مطالعات مدیریت شهری، 12(43)، 15-26. https://ums.srbiau.ac.ir/article_17123_fbdf89c469a806a4ad54108661126d66.pdf


9. رلف، ادوارد. (1389). مکان و بی مکانی. (محمدرضا نقصان محمدی، کاظم مندگاری، زهیر متکی مترجمان). تهران: آرمان‌شهر. چاپ دوم.


10. سلطانی فرد، هادی؛ و صابری کاریزی، زهرا. (1397). بررسی اثرات پیکره­بندی بر کیفیت فضایی پارک­های شهری مشهد مطالعه موردی: پارک­های شهر مشهد. فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 27، 27-40. https://urbstudies.uok.ac.ir/article_60848_a7b6bd4298e83de2fade2c54fe6888d5.pdf


11. شیر محمدیان­زاده، رعنا؛ و خطیبی، محمدرضا. (1400). کاربست مفهوم فضاهای تنفس­گاهی در محلات شهری با تأکید بر مؤلفه زیست محیطی. هویت شهر، 45(15)، 49-64. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_15716_d8102300c6c530921ee427759032e3b5.pdf


12. شیرمحمدیان، شارین؛ و عزیزی، شادی. (1399). شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر کیفیت فراغت زنان از دیدگاه کنش متقابل در مراکز چندمنظوره شهری (مطالعه موردی: مرکز چندمنظوره کوروش). هویت شهر، 42(14)، 95-108. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_15021_c495b63a9bc78f1bbc6c49ec886fda39.pdf


13. محمدی، چنور، نظم فر، حسین، محمدی، سعدی. (1397). ارزیابی توزیع فضایی کیفیت زندگی در محلات شهری، موردمطالعه: منطقه دو شهر اردبیل. فصلنامه علمی ـ پژوهشی پژوهش‌های بوم‌شناسی شهری، 9 (18)، 27-40. doi: 10.30473/grup.2018.4453


14. معصومی، افسانه؛ و قلمبر دزفولی، مریم. (1398). سنجش عوامل مؤثر بر کیفیت زیبایی­شناختی در مسکن شهری (محله جمال‌آباد). هویت شهر، 42(14)، 81- 94. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_15936_21b41172dc35fcfc17682eccc57ea0fd.pdf


15. منصور حسینی، ندا؛ و جوان فروزنده، علی. (1397). نقش مؤلفه­های کالبدی - معنایی مکان­های عمومی مجتمع­های مسکونی در حضور پذیری سالمندان، هویت شهر، 33(12)، 61-74. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_12498_d8bd52f16918adddf03906102a830085.pdf


16. مهوری، پریسا؛ قلعه­نویی، محمود؛ و مختارزاده، صفورا. (1399). سنجش کیفیت فضای شهری بر اساس معیارهای مکان سازی با تأکید بر کیفیت دسترسی؛ مورد پژوهی: میدان عتیق اصفهان. مطالعات شهری. 9(35)، 47-60. https://urbstudies.uok.ac.ir/article_61328_eaa217a506b6b28103b9910adf4238ed.pdf


17. صدری کیا، سمیه؛ بمانیان، محمدرضا؛ و انصاری، مجتبی. (1397). کیفیت ادراک معنای فضا با دریافت نور روز. هویت شهر، 3 (12)، 1-18..https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_13392_a6e2f883edd5bcb33e57e1dde4c33519.pdf


18. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. )1977(. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.


19. Appleyard, D., & Jacobs, A. (1982). Toward an Urban Design Manifesto (Working Paper No. 384).


20. Bacon, E. (1974). The Design of Cities. New York: Penguin.


21. Banerjee, T. )2001(. “The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.« Journal
    of the American Planning Association, 67 (1), 9–24


22. Bentley, I. (1998). “Urban Design as an Anti-Profession”. Urban Design Quarterly, 65: 15. https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/65%20JANUARY%201998%20-%20ISSUE%2065%20text%20under%20image.pdf


23. Carmona, M. (2003). Public Place and Urban Spaces. London: Architectural Press.


24. Carmona, M. (2014). “The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process”. Journal of Urban Design,19(1), 2–36.


25. Carmona, M., Magalhaes, C., & Hammond, L. (2008). Public Spaces: the management Dimension, USA and Canada: Routledge.


26. Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press.


27. Cullen, G.)1961(. London: Architectural Press.


28. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability”. Journal of Urban Design. 14(1), 65–84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13574800802451155


29. Gurer, N., Imran Guzel, B., & Kavak, I. (2017). Evaluation on Living Public Space and their Qualities, Case Study from Anlara Konur, karanful & Yuksel Streets. Iop Conference. Series, materials, Science & Engineering, 245(7): 1-14. https://ur.booksc.eu/book/68379308/0bf4b9


30. Javanbakht, Mihammad, Moghadam, Majid Kiavarz, Neisani Samani, Najmeh, Zebardast, Lobat, & Darvishi Boloorani, Ali. (2021).Spatial-temporal analysis of urban environmental quality of Tehran, Ecological Indicatorsjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind


31. Khan, A. , Moulaertb, F., Schreursb, J., & Miciukiewiczc, K. (2014). Integrative Spatial Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and Planning. Journal of Urban Design. 19(4), 393-411, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2014.936142. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264351627_Integrative_Spatial_Quality_A_Relational_Epistemology_of_Space_and_Transdisciplinarity_in_Urban_Design_and_Planning


32. Khan, A. Z., Moulaert, Z., F. & Schreurs, J. (2013). “Epistemology of Space: Exploring Relational Perspectives in Planning, Urbanism, and Architecture”. International Planning Studies. 18(3–4): 287– 303. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563475.2013.837138


33. Khan, A. Z., Vandevyvere, Z., H. & Allacker. K. )2013(. “Design for the Ecological Age: Rethinking
    the Role of Sustainability in Architectural Education”. Journal of Architectural Education. 67(2):
    175–185. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/154416/1/DEA-Oct2013.pdf


34. Koslova, L., & Koslov, V. (2018). Ten Quality Criteria of the Public Spaces in a Large City, MATEC web of Conferences. 212(21):1-6.


35. Li, X., Hung, Y., & Ma, X. (2021). Evaluation of the accessible urban public green space at the community-scale with the consideration of temporal accessibility and quality. Ecological Indicators. 131, 108-231. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind


36. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. )2012(. “Addressing the Challenges of Urban Landscapes: Normative Goals for
    Urban Design”. Journal of Urban Design. 17(4): 467–484. DOI: 1080/13574809.2012.706601


37. Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


38. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press and Harvard University Press.


39. Madanipour, A. (2006). “Roles and Challenges of Urban Design”. Journal of Urban Design. 11(2): 173– 193. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240530028_Roles_and_Challenges_of_Urban_Design


40. Mateo-Babiano, I. (2019). Pedestrin Space Management as a Strategy in Achieving Sustainabl Mobility, Retrieved March 23, 2020, from website: http://www.oikos-international.org.


41. Mehta, V. (2014). “Evaluating Public Space”. Journal of Urban Design. 19(1). http://dspace.conacyt.gov.py/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/42849/Evaluating-Public-Space.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


42. Pacheco, F., & Wyckmans, A. (2012). Spatial Ouality Assessments for Building Performance Tools in Energy Renovation, Chapter 6, Building Sustainability Assessment tools. Portugal SBB, Contribution of Sustainable Building to Meet 20-20-20 Targets. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernanda-Acre-Pacheco/publication/272826151_Spatial_Quality_Assessments_for_Building_Performance_Tools_in_Energy_Renovation/links/54f07c120cf2432ba65b2bb9/Spatial-Quality-Assessments-for-Building-Performance-Tools-in-Energy-Renovation?origin=publication_detail


43. Panter, J. (1991). Participation in the Design of Urban Urban Space. Landscape Design. 200.


44. Ochieng Omollo, W. (2019). Determinants of Quality Assurance within the Building Construction Industry (Case Study: Kisii Town, Kenya). International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development. 9(4), 5-16. https://journals.srbiau.ac.ir/article_14933_c9fcd83cd3d5cae52a765a03dd2aa975.pdf


45. Oswald, F., & Bacini, P. (2003). Netzstadt. Designing the urban, Basel, Boston. Berlin: Birkhäuse.


46. Shultez, N.(2011), Splite of Place, translate by: Mohammadreza Shirazi, Second time, Tehran: Rokhdadno press.[in Persian]


47. Sternberg, E. (2000). An Integrative Theory of Urban Design”. Journal of the American Planning Association. 66 (3).


48. Wojnarowska, A. (2016). MODEL FOR ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC SPACE QUALITY IN TOWN CENTERS. European spatial research and policy, Volume 23, 81-109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305110607_Model_for_Assessment_of_Public_Space_Quality_in_Town_Centers/fulltext/5782527308ae69ab88285ca5/Model-for-Assessment-of-Public-Space-Quality-in-Town-Centers.pdf?origin=publication_detail


49. Zhou, R., Liu, G., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Sustainability evaluation and spatial heterogeneity of urban agglomerations: a China case study. Discover Sustainability,  2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00012-3