• Home
  • Recreating Concepts in the Architecture of Historical Bodies in the Construction of Interstate Buildings in the Historical Context of Metropolis Iran

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : HOVIATSHAHR-2002-11695 (R10) Visit : 234 Page: 105 - 120

10.30495/hoviatshahr.2022.18452

Article Type: Original Research

Recreating Concepts in the Architecture of Historical Bodies in the Construction of Interstate Buildings in the Historical Context of Metropolis Iran

Subject Areas : architecture

peyman bahramifar 1 , vahid qobadian 2 , mahnaz mahmoudi 3

1 - PhD Candidate, Department of Architecture, UAE Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
2 - Associate Professor, Art and Architecture Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University , Tehran, Iran.
3 - دانشیار، گروه معماری، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

Received: 2020-02-03 Accepted : 2021-10-22 Published : 2022-12-22

Keywords: Interstate buildings, Historical Context, Meaning, Iranian metropolis, Historical bodies,

Abstract :

The monuments of each land are the cultural identity card of the land. In the meantime, urban textures and bodies have emerged as a result of particular circumstances, undergoing changes in various periods of history to become present, and thus becoming unique and unrepeatable entities and entities. In our country, this unparalleled, in the contemporary era, due to various factors, has undergone metamorphosis and collapse. It has taken place in a disruptive, unregulated tether, and has completely transformed the image of many of our historic cities. New buildings, in the historical context, before being merely an architectural monument, are introduced as part of the city that must adhere to particular rules and regulations to maintain consistency with historical sections. Extensive research on the topic of the body in a historical context indicates the importance of this topic among other issues related to architecture and urban planning. Moreover, learning the implications of semantic values embedded in past architecture and utilizing them in contemporary patterns. How Iranians have been thinking of old buildings and bodies for a century and a half now, because of their historical value, and the use of its components, and from what perspectives they organized it, is a fascinating and fascinating subject. And it's a secret. In this regard, the present study aims at explaining the concept of the body as a visually and conceptually communicative space, which is often a criterion for recognizing the value and identity of cities' architecture, and with the help of this framework, it is possible to identify dimensions and angles. And hidden values and their role in the design of the body architectures of old areas, and by exploiting and preserving these patterns and upgrading existing values in the historical context, one can recreate discolored semantic values in interstitial buildings and with identity. Its appearance harmonized. The purpose of this research is to investigate the design framework of interstate buildings in the historical context and how it is constructed. Therefore, data were collected and analyzed using the descriptive-analytical method to achieve research goals. The results show that historical bodies with multiple semantic values in different layers were objectively perceptible (concepts in the body) and subjective (concepts in the human mind) in the context of historical bodies. The proposed model of this research, after analyzing and evaluating the indicators in the metropolitan areas of central Iran (Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz), reveals the strategies that their architects used in the process of creating the work. According to the results obtained from this research in the field of semantic concepts embedded in the historical contextualization and prioritization of the different value levels of those concepts, more criteria can be used to qualify the construction of interstate buildings in the body. Designed and formulated historical texts. From the author's point of view, the priorities of the semantic values that can be easily reproduced in interstate buildings include connectivity/cohesion, rhythm, the order of flexibility, identity, harmony, and other values obtained in subsequent priorities. They can be represented.

References:


  1. آیت‌الله زاده شیرازی، باقر. (1374). تجلیات عرفانی در هندسه معماری «گره بنایی». در مجموعه مقالات کنگره تاریخ معماری و شهرسازی ایران، ارگ بم ـ کرمان، جلد چهارم، تهران: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی کشور، 41 ـ 48. https://www.gisoom.com
    2.
  2. پوراحمد، احمد؛ مشکینی، ابوالفضل؛ و حبیبی، کیومرث. (1386). بهسازی و نوسازی بافت‌های کهن شهری، تهران: انتخاب اول، 50 - 69. https://www.gisoom.com
    3.
  3. پورموسوی، سید موسی؛ناصر مستوفی، انوشیروان؛ شکوهی بیدهندی، محمد صالح.  (1393).  شناسایی اصول و راهکارهای اجرایی توسعۀ میان افزا در شهر تهران به عنوان یکی از ابعاد توسعۀ شهری پایدار. مطالعات توسعۀ اجتماعی ایران،6(4) ،37 - 57 . https://www.sid.ir
    4.
  4. پیرنیا، محمد کریم. (1378). آشنایی با معماری اسلامی ایران، تدوین: غلامحسین معماریان، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، اول، تهران، 350-394. https://www.gisoom.com
    5.
  5. توسلی، محمود؛ پارسی، حمیدرضا. (1379). طراحی شهری خیابان کارگر:فضای حدفاصل میدان انقلاب اسلامی تا میدان حر، تهران: وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی، شرکت عمران و بهسازی شهری، 24- 40. . https://www. isoom.com
    6.
  6. حبیبی، سید محسن؛ مقصودی، ملیحه. ( 1381). مرمت شهری، تعاریف، نظریه ها ، تجارب، منشورها  و قطع نامه های جهانی، روش ها و اقدامات شهری، تهران: مؤسسه انتشارات و چاپ دانشگاه تهران، چاپ سوم. . https://www. dinehbook.com
    7.
  7. حجت، مهدی. (1395). حضور و ظهور در شرح سکوت و نور. تهران: نشر علمی، 50- 61. . https://arch. t.ac.ir
    8.
  8. دیبا، داراب. (1378). مفهوم و اصول بنیادی ایران، مجله معماری فرهنگ، شماره 15، https://www.sid.ir
    9.
  9. راپاپورت، اموس. (1391). معنی محیط ساخته‌شده: رویکردی در ارتباط غیرکلامی، (مترجم: فرح حبیب)، تهران: انتشارات شرکت پردازش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری،20 - 45. https://www.gisoom.com
    10.
  10. رلف، ادوارد. (۱۳۸۹). مکان و بی‌مکانی. (مترجمان: محمدرضا نقصان محمدی، کاظم مندگاری، زهیر متکی) تهران: انتشارات آرمان‌شهر، 38- 56. https://www.fadakbook.ir
    11.
  11. طباطبایی، ملک. (1390). جداره‌های شهری و نقش آن‌ها در فضای شهری، معیارهای نماسازی در فضا شهری، انتشارات آرمان‌شهر، 51 – https://www.asrketab.com
    12.
  12. فروزنده، جوان، علی؛ مطلبی، قاسم. (1391). مفهوم حس تعلق به مکان و عوامل تشکیل‌دهنده آن. هویت شهر، (8)5، 27-37. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir
    13.
  13. قره بگلو، مینو؛ نژاد ابراهیمی، احد؛ اردبیلچی، ایلقار. (۱۳۹۸)، معماری میان افزا؛ رویکردی میان‌رشته‌ای برای طراحی در بافت تاریخی؛ نمونه موردی: مجموعه تجاری مشروطه در بافت تاریخی بازار تبریز،ماهنامه باغ نظر، 76، 57- 68.  https://civilica.com
    14.
  14. قدیری، بهرام؛ آراسته، شیوا. (1385). ساختارهای جدید در محیط‌های تاریخی. تهران: دفتر پژوهش‌های فرهنگی، 71 – https://vista.ir
    15.
  15. گروتر، یورگ. (1383). زیبایی‌شناسی در معماری. (پاکزاد، جهانشاه، همایون، عبدالرضا، مترجم). چاپ پنجم، تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 120- 137. https://www.isau.ir
    16.
  16. مسائلی، صدیقه. (1388). نقشه پنهان به مثابه دست آورد باورهای دینی در مسکن سنتی کویری ایران. هنرهای زیبا، 37، 27-38. https://www.sid.ir
    17.
  17. نقی زاده، محمد. (1387). شهر و معماری اسلامی (تجلیات و عینیات)، چاپ اول، اصفهان: انتشارات مانی،49 – http://jria.iust.ac.ir
    18.
  18. هدمن، ریچارد، یازوسکی، آندرو (1384). (راضیه رضازاده و مصطفی عباس زادگان، مترجمان). تهران: دانشگاه علم و صنعت.https://www.fadakbook.ir
    19.
  19. یوکیلتو، یوکا. (1394). تاریخ حفاظت معماری. (محمدحسن طالبیان و خشایار بهادری، مترجم). تهران: روزنه. https://fidibo.com
    20.
  20. Britain, G. (2005). Design Coding: Testing its use in England. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 169-177. https://scholar.google.com/
    21.
  21. Byard, P. S. (1998). The architecture of additions: design and regulation. WW Norton & Company, 137-149. https://scholar.google.com
    22.
  22. (2005). Design coding: testing its use in England. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. https://journals.sagepub.com
    23.
  23. Carbonara, G. (2009). Some reflections from the Italian perspective on architectural restoration, in conserving the authentic: essays in honour of Jukka Jokilehto, ICCROM Publishing, Rome. https://www.iccrom.org
    24.
  24. Grimmer, A. E., Weeks, K. D. (2010). New exterior additions to historic buildings: Preservation concerns. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services, 125-146. https://books.google.com/books
    25.
  25. Guzmán-Torres, Z. (2009). Historic buildings and contemporary additions: the elements of a cohesive design relationship. Unpublished Master Thesis. University of Maryland. Maryland, 69-84. https://drum.lib.umd.edu
    26.
  26. Haughey, R. M. (2001). Urban infill housing: Myth and fact. Washington, D.C: Urban Land Institute, 138-139. https://scholar.google.com
    27.
  27. Farris, J. T. (2001). The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smart Growth. Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), 1-30. https://www.scirp.org
    28.
  28. Kavaratzis, M., Ashworth, G. J. (2006). City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Place Branding, 2(3), 183-194. https://books.google.com
    29.
  29. Latham, D. (2016). Creative reuse of buildings: Volume one, 120-146. https://books.google.com/
    30.
  30. Lehmann, S. (2012). Sustainable Construction for Urban Infill Development Using Engineered Massive Wood Panel Systems. Sustainability, 4(12), 2707-2742. https://www.mdpi.com
    31.
  31. Mısırlısoy, D. (2016). Contemporary extensions and heritage buildings: A design methodology. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 97-185. https://scholar.google.com/
    32.
  32. Mornement, A. (2007). Extensions, Laurence King Publishing, London, 222-239. https://www.amazon.co
    33.
  33. Orbasli, (2008). Architectural Conservation, Blackwell Publishing, London, 15-85. http://www.aylinorbasli.com
    34.
  34. Powell, K., (1999). Architecture reborn: the conversion and reconstruction of old buildings. London: Laurence King, 118-230. http://www.openbibart.fr/
    35.
  35. Riza, M., & Doratlı, N. (2011). A review on the design of new buildings in historic settings: Harmonious integration. Verlag Dr Müller, 52-59. https://scholar.google.com/
    36.
  36. Schittich, C. (Ed.). (2003). Building in Existing Fabric: Refurbishment, Extensions, and New Design. Birkhauser. scholar.google.com
    37.
  37. Stewen, S.W. (2009). Differentiated and compatible. Online available from: http://www.traditionalbuilding.com., 126-140.
    38.
  38. Worthington, J. (1998). Conservation through development. University of York: Architectural Press, 168-184. https://arch.ut.ac.ir/en/history
    39.
  39. Yüceer, H., & İpekoğlu, B. (2012). An architectural assessment method for new exterior additions to historic buildings, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 13 (4), 419–425. https://www.sciencedirect.com
    40.
  40. Archail(2019) Retrieved March,2019,from http://www.archdaily.com/775601/ad-classics-new-german-parliament-reichstag-foster-plus-partners
    41.
  41. Mojnews (2018). Retrieved Octobr, 2018, from http://www.mojnews.com
    42.
_||_

Related articles

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]