The organization of walkable areas with a view to improving urban design qualities, case study: “Saff” Street, Tehran

Subject Areas :

ریحانه آقاملایی ¹ (دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی)
آزاده لک ² (استادیار شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)

Received: 2015-10-19 Accepted : 2016-04-23 Published : 2018-05-22

Keywords: Quality, Urban Design, Urban environment, public space, walkability,

Abstract :

Being one of main subjects of urban areas, motor vehicles have brought a lot of difficulties to the urban fabric. With rising of motor vehicles, the real meaning of cities has vanished. Thus walkability has become one of the major concerns in urban planning however due to lack of information and experiences to understand the factors affecting the degree of walkability in cities and neighborhoods. If these roads have low environmental quality, people won’t spend their time there. The aim of this study is to declare strategies to improve quality of these places. Hence, by using literature review, factors involved in improving the quality of environment identified and the hypothetical model was developed. To test the model validity, it was presented to experts in this field. The model was modified duo to their comments so that it would be appropriate and indigenous to nature of the case. The final model which is based on Canter model, consist of three dimensions including environmental, functional and aesthetic. The case chosen is a walkable street named “Saf” in Tehran city. To run the appraisal procedure, SWOT model- a renowned analytical system- was used to determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. According to analysis, street is in the inappropriate position, weakness and threats are more powerful than other cases. So it is situated in TW position and the solution are presented for this special condition to expunge the weaknesses and moderate threats .In order to achieve the research goal which is environmental quality improvement, guidelines are suggested to regulate the environment with a view to eliminate weaknesses and possibilities of threats. For each quality, special solution are presented. They are proposed to provide the ground to implement a walkable area in which commercial and recreational activities associated with it, would become more thriving.

References:

 

1-   احمدی، م.، حبیب، ف.1387. توسعه پایدار شهری با تأکید بر حرکت پیاده در آسیا. مجله علوم و فن‌آوری محیط‌زیست. دوره دهم. شماره سوم.13-1.

2-   پاکزاد، ج.، 1390. راهنمای طراحی فضاهای شهری در ایران.، شهیدی، تهران.

3-   پیرس، ج.، رابینسون، ر.1380. برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت استراتژیک. ترجمه سهراب خلیلی شورینی. یادواره کتاب. تهران. چاپ دوم.

4-   دهخدا، ع.الف.1372. لغت‌نامه دهخدا. مؤسسه چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

5-   سلطانی، ع.، پیروزی، ر. 1391. پیمایش قابلیت پیاده مداری محورهای تاریخی فرهنگی تاریخی مطالعه موردی محور حافظ شیراز. نشریه شهر و معماری بومی. شماره 3. پاییز و زمستان. ص 65 تا 77

6-   شهابیان، پ.، اسدی، ر. 1395. میزان تحقق اصول عملکردی توسعه مبتنی بر حمل و نقل همگانی مطالعه موردی: مجتمع ایستگاهی شهرک اکباتان. فصلنامه آمایش محیط. شماره 36. 156-133.

7-   صرافی، م.، محمدیان مصمم، ح. 1392. امکان سنجی پیاده راه سازی مرکز شهر همدان. فصلنامه آمایش محیط. شماره 21. 138-111.

8-   گلکار، ک. 1390. آفرینش مکان پایدار: تاملاتی در باب نظریۀ طراحی شهری. دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. تهران.

9-   نظم فر، ح.، محمدی، چ. 1394. سنجش کیفیت زندگی شهری ( مطالعه موردی: منطقه دو شهر اردبیل). فصلنامه آمایش محیط. شماره 36. 92-69.

10-    وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی. 1375. آیین‌نامه طراحی راه‌های شهری. بخش 10. مسیرهای پیاده. وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی. تهران.

11-    یزدچی، ش. 1389. ساماندهی و طراحی حرکت عابر پیاده به‌منظور ارتقاء حیات شهری. مرداد . نشریه اینترنتی نوسازی. شماره 9، 1-13

12-    Al-Hagla, K. 2009. Evaluating New Urbanism’s Walkability Performance: A comprehensive Approach to Assessment in Saifi Village. Beirut, Lebanon. Urban Design international.139-151.

13-    Appleyard, D. 1981. Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14-    Biddulph, M. 2008. Editorial. Urban Design International 13. 57-60.

15-    Brambila, R., Long, G. 1977. For Pedestrians Only: Planning and Management of Traffic Free Zones. New York. Whitney library of Design.

16-    Canter, D. 1977. The psychology of place, London. Architectural press LTD.

17-    Cervero, R. 1996. Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice vol. 30.no. 5. pp.361-377.

18-    Forsyth, A., Southworth M. 2008. Cities A foot—Pedestrians, Walkability and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design. 13(1): 1-3.

19-    Friedman, B., Gordon, S.P., & Peer, J.B. 1994. Effect of nontraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record, 1466: 63-70.

20-    Gehl, J. 1987. Life Between Building: Using Public Space. New York: Van nor strand Reinhold.

21-    Gemzoe, L., Gehl, J. 2006. The Copenhagen experience what the pedestrian wants. Ekim Tan Delft University of Technology photos.

22-    Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R. J. 2003. Relative influences of individual, social environmental and physical environmental correlates of walking. American Journal of Public Health. 93(9): 1583-1589.

23-    Hoehner, Ch. M., Brennan R., Elliott, L.K., Handy, M. B., & Brownson,R. C. 1994. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Transportation Research Record. 1466: 63-70.

24-    Hooker, S.P., Wilson, D. Griffin, S., Ainsworth, B. 2005. Perceptions of environmental supports for physical activity in African American and white adults in a rural county in South Carolina. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2(4): A11.

25-    Fruin, J.1971. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners. Sports & Recreation -206 pages

26-    Jun, H. Hur, M. 2015. The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography. 62: 115-124.

27-    Lenthe, V., Brug, J., & Mackenbush, F.J., J.P. 2005.  Neighborhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighborhood attractiveness. Proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands. Social science & medicine. 60(4): 763-765.

28-    Forsyth, A., Southworth M. 2008. Cities A foot—Pedestrians, Walkability and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design. 13(1): 1-3.

29-    Friedman, B., Gordon, S.P., & Peer, J.B. 1994. Effect of nontraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record, 1466: 63-70.

30-    Gehl, J. 1987. Life Between Building: Using Public Space. New York: Van nor strand Reinhold.

31-    Gemzoe, L., Gehl, J. 2006. The Copenhagen experience what the pedestrian wants. Ekim Tan Delft University of Technology photos.

32-    Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R. J. 2003. Relative influences of individual, social environmental and physical environmental correlates of walking. American Journal of Public Health. 93(9): 1583-1589.

33-    Hoehner, Ch. M., Brennan R., Elliott, L.K., Handy, M. B., & Brownson,R. C. 1994. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Transportation Research Record. 1466: 63-70.

34-    Hooker, S.P., Wilson, D. Griffin, S., Ainsworth, B. 2005. Perceptions of environmental supports for physical activity in African American and white adults in a rural county in South Carolina. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2(4): A11.

35-    Fruin, J.1971. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners. Sports & Recreation.

36-    H. Jun., Hur, M. 2015. The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography. 62: 115-124.

37-    Lee. C., Vernez Moudon, A. 2006. Correlates of walking for transportation or recreation purposes. J Phys Act Health. 3:77–98.

38-    Lockwood, I., Stillings, T. 1998. Traffic calming for crime reduction & neighborhood revitalization. West Palm Beach. FL: City of West Palm Beach.

39-    McCormack, G., Friedenreich Ch., Sandalack Beverly A., Giles-Corti B., Doyle-Baker, P. K. 2012.  The relationship between cluster-analysis derived walkability and local recreational and transportation walking among Canadian adults, Health & Place. 18: 1079–1087.

40-    Moudon, A.V., Hess, P. M., Snyder, M.C., Stanilov, K. 1997. Effects of site design on pedestrian travel in mixed-use. medium-density environments. Transportation Research Record. 1578: 48-55.

41-    Moughtin, C. et al. 1999. Urban Design, Method and Technique. Architectural Press.

42-    Oxford basic English dictionary. 1992. Tehran: Hamid.

43-    Rappoport, A. 1987. Pedestrian Street Use, culture & perception. Anee Moudon Ed.Public Streets for public use. New York: Van Nostand Reinhold.

44-    Southworth, M. 2005. Designing the walkable city. Journal of urban planning and development. pp. 246-257.

45-    Southworth, M. 1997. Walkable suburbs: An evaluation of neo-traditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association. 63(1):28-44.

46-    Wood, D., Lawrence, F., Giles-Corti, B. 2010. Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine. 70: 1381-1390.

47-    http:// earth.google.com