The Effect of Open Spaces of Residential Complexes on the Social Interactions of Residents, (Case Study: Three Residential Complexes in Isfahan)

Subject Areas : architecture

Samira Yazdani ¹ , Siavash Teimouri ²

1 - Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch (Isfahan) – Isfahan – Iran
2 - Ph.D, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch – Tehran - Iran

Received: 2012-03-10 Accepted : 2012-07-16 Published : 2013-11-22

Keywords: residential complex, Open spaces, Social interactions, Neighborly relations,

Abstract :

Iranian patterns of construction have changed severely in the last decades, due to the increasing urbanization processes, as in many other countries worldwide, Demands for large scale building constructions decreased the sensitivity and accuracy of the Architectural designs. Lack of appropriate concern and consideration for human needs and the subsequent psychological effects on modern residential designs in Iran causes many complications in social and individual life. Among the most important human needs, which have been neglected in the modern Iranian designs, we can mention the needs for privacy and social interactions. Today, based on a wide verity of reasons people are required to live a collective life in the form of “multi-unit building”. However they are not only deprived from the advantages of this kind of social life, but also they consider this situation, as a compromise to their privacy and individuality. This also contributes to the problems of relationship between the residents. In fact, there should be a solution to establish a balance between the social interaction and privacy of people living in such a situation. On the other hand, in Iran, being neighbors is traditionally considered as a close functional and emotional relationship. Therefore, the roots of the current cold relationships in residential environments should be looked for in the lack of consideration in the design of the neighborhoods and buildings. Also, In  the contemporary architecture of Iran, following the decline of open spaces in residential architecture, and converting them to a route for moving cars, not only these spaces are not adequate to satisfy social needs but cause the cutting of social relations in the neighborhoods. So, considering the importance of relationships and social interactions between humans and ignoring that in modern designs, as for the lacking of  such researching in the country, this study will improve the social interactions of residents and enhance  neighborly relations by examining and understanding the factors in the design of open spaces in residential complexes. This study is the type of applied-survey research, after explaining the various aspects of social relationships among humans, investigates the effect of environment and the role of open spaces in increasing the social interactions of residents. And in the process of this review has been used the comments from residents of three residential complexes in Isfahan for quantitative assessment. These residential complexes have different patterns of design; “Zeitoon complex” is an example that has been attended to the type of landscaping design and creation of open spaces. “Moshtagh complex” is another complex that has a wide outdoor space but considering the various factors in the design of open space can be seen less. “Aftab complex” is the third complex that has no open space. After analyzing the questionnaires responses, findings show that various factors such as socially homogeneous of residents and use of effective design patterns for creating the safe, attractive and convenient environment for the presence of family members in open spaces of complex has considerable impacts in relationships and social interactions of the neighborhoods.

References:

1. آلتمن، ایروین. (1382). محیط و رفتار اجتماعی ( خلوت، فضای شخصی، قلمرو و ازدحام) . (علی نمازیان، مترجم ). تهران : مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.


2. الکساندر ،کریستوفر.( 1387). زبان الگو : شهرها ، (رضا کربلایی نوری، مترجم) . تهران: مرکز مطالعاتی و تحقیقاتی شهرسازی و معماری.


3. تی وود، جولیا. (1379). ارتباطات میان فردی: روانشناسی تعاملات اجتماعی . (مهرداد فیروزبخت، مترجم) . تهران: انتشارات مهتاب.


4. چرمایف، سرج ؛و الکساندر، کریستوفر. (1376). عرصه های زندگی جمعی و زندگی خصوصی به جانب یک معماری انسانی . (منوچهر مزینی، مترجم) . تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.


5. ذبیحی، حسین؛ حبیب، فرح؛و رهبری منش کمال. (1390) . بررسی رابطه بین، میزان رضایت از مجتمع های مسکونی و تأثیر مجتمع های مسکونی بر روابط انسان (مطالعه موردی چند مجتمع مسکونی در تهران) . مجله هویت شهر. )8(، 103-118.


6. سیف الهی، سیف الله. (1381). جامعه شناسی مسائل اجتماعی ایران (مجموعه مقالات و نظرها). تهران: انتشارات جامعه پژوهان سینا.

7 . عزیزی، محمدمهدی ؛و ملک محمدنژاد، صارم. (1386). بررسی تطبیقی دو الگوی مجتمع های مسکونی(متعارف و بلندمرتبه) مطالعه موردی: مجتمع های مسکونی نور و اسکان تهران. مجله هنرهای زیبا. )32 (، 27-38.

8. عینی فر، علیرضا. (1379). عوامل انسانی- محیطی مؤثر در طراحی مجموعه های مسکونی.مجله هنرهای زیبا.)8(، 109- 118.


9. قاسمی اصفهانی، مروارید. (1383). اهل کجا هستیم؟ هویت بخشی به بافت های مسکونی . تهران: انتشارات روزنه.


10. کاشانی جو ،خشایار. (1389). بازشناخت رویکردهای نظری به فضاهای عمومی شهری. مجله هویت شهر. )6(، 95-106.


11. لنگ ،جان.(1383). آفرینش نظریه معماری(نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط . (علیرضا عینی فر، مترجم) . تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.


12. مطلبی، قاسم. (1380) . روانشناسی محیطی دانشی نو در خدمت معماری و طراحی شهری. مجله هنرهای زیبا. )10(، 52- 66 .


13. نمازیان، علی. (1379). نیازهای روانی در رابطه با محیط مصنوع. مجله صفه. )74(، 30- 81 .


14. نوذری، شعله. (1383). رهنمودهای طراحی فضاهای باز مسکونی. مجله صفه. )39( ، 45- 64 .


15. Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.


16. Huang Shu-Chun, L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 193-204.


17. Lee, Y., Kim, K., & Lee, S. (2010). Study on building plan for enhancing the social health of public apartments. Journal of Building and Environment, 45, 1551-1564.


18. Marcus, C., & Sarkissian, W. (1986). Housing as if People Mattered: Site Design Guildlines for Medium-Density Family Housing.( 1^st ed.). California: University of California press.


19. 19. McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (1989). Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves.( 1^st ed.). Oakland: Ten Speed Press.


20. Min, B., & Lee, J. (2006). Children’s neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 51-71.


21. Nasar, J., & Julian, D. (1995). The psychological sense of community in the neighborhood. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61,178-184.

22. Scotthanson, C., & Scotthanson, K. (2005). The Cohousing Handbook: A Place for Community.(1^st ed.). Canada: New Society Publishers.

23. Wood, L., Frank, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Journal of Social Science & Medicine,70,1381-1390.

24.Google earth V6.2.2.6613 .(July 18, 2013).Razmandegan st, Isfahan.39°42’ 03.83”N,51°39’ 10.81”E, Eye alt 6322 ft. DigitalGlobe 2013.http://www.earth.google.com [December 8, 2013].

25.Google earth V6.2.2.6613 .(July 18, 2013).Sepahanshahr, Isfahan.32°33’ 07.13”N,51°41’ 06.09”E, Eye alt 5697 ft. DigitalGlobe 2013.http://www.earth.google.com [December 8, 2013].

26.Google earth V6.2.2.6613 .(July 18, 2013).Sarvesaran st, Isfahan.32°37’ 45.66”N,51°43’ 55.89”E, Eye alt 6374 ft.DigitalGlobe 2013.http://www.earth.google.com [December 8, 2013].