بازاندیشی در نسبت طراحی شهری و برنامه‌ریزی: بازگشت به ریشه ها

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

10.22124/upk.2019.12723.1174

چکیده

تفاوت­گذاری و تمایز فزاینده­یِ مابین برنامه­ریزی و طراحی شهری چگونه شکل گرفته و سپس بسط یافته است؟ مقاله با تمرکز بر این پرسش، به مناسبت و تا جایی که منطق بحث اقتضا می­کند، مقدمات این تمایز را از منظر نئولیبرالیسم، رقابت­پذیریِ جهانی و الگوواره­یِ نوشهرگرایی به مثابه­یِ چارچوب­های نوینِ تفکر و آگاهی­ در عرصه­یِ مطالعات شهری توضیح خواهد داد. رویارویی برنامه­ریزی و طراحی شهری از این منظرْ نیازمندِ توضیحی است که در این­ پژوهش از مجرای اشاره و مناقشه­ای در ماهیّتِ طراحی شهری و کشمکش بنیادین­ مابینِ «علم» و «طراحی» تشریح خواهد شد. مقاله به لحاظ روش­شناسی دارای ماهیت تبیینی­ ـ اکتشافی است و کشف روابط علّیِ موضوعِ پژوهش یعنی بررسی چرایی شکل­گیریِ تمایل فزاینده به تفاوت­گذاری مابین طراحی شهری و برنامه­ریزی برای سنجش­گری آن، چارچوب اساسی مقاله را تشکیل می­دهد. دریافت و توضیح روند «استقلال طراحی شهری» و مطرح شدن انگاشت­هایی هم­چون حکمروایی به جای تجویز برنامه­ریزانه و تالی­های آن، زمینه را برای این ادعا فراهم می­کند که طراحی شهری می­بایستی به ریشه­ها و خاست­گاه خود به مثابه­یِ زیرمجموعه­یِ کاربست برنامه­ریزی بازگردد. در شرایطی که می­بایست نظام آموزشی شالوده­ای نو در عرصه­یِ مطالعات شهری بر مبنای ارزش­های برنامه­ریزی هم­چون عدالت اجتماعی و منافع همگانی برای درک ماهیت مشکلات شهری در دوران جدید فراهم می­کرد، ایده­ئولوژی­های جزم­اندیشی هم­چون نوشهرگرایی به­واسطه­یِ چرخش به سمتِ طراحی شهری، جانشین ارزش­های برنامه­ریزی شده و راه برای تبیین دقیق مشکلات یاد شده دشوار و در برخی موارد مسدود کرده است. فراخوان بازگشت به برنامه­ریزی و احیای جایگاهِ واقعیِ طراحی شهری، راه­کار ارائه شده در این مقاله است؛ به­طوری­که همراه مضامینی هم­چون سرزندگی و حس مکان، مفاهیم عمیق­تر در حوزه­­یِ عدالت محیطی، اجتماعی، انصاف اجتماعی ـ اقتصادی و قومی در ارتباط با تفاوت­ها، تنوع­ها و پایداریِ بوم­شناختی نیز مورد توجه طراحی شهری قرار ­گیرد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Rethinking the Relationship Between Urban Design and Planning: Back to the Roots

نویسنده [English]

  • Behzad MalekpourAsl
Assistant professor, School of Architecture and Town Planning, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Today the field of urban design has emerged as an important area of intellectual pursuit, involving theory, research, and pedagogy, all intended to inform and improve practice. Also, there has been a progressive differentiation between urban planning and urban design. How has this differentiation occurred? This article calls for a return to planning values in contemporary increasing differentiation between planning and urban design. A direct explanation of urban design nature -without stumbling into a simplistic anti-design approach- is a necessary step forward in understanding of differentiation trend and real values in planning process. This article reverse the imposing perspective of neoliberalism, global competition and new urbanism to trace reassertion of planning values (such as public interest and social justice) through explanation of fundamental tension between design and science and changes in planning process. It signals right from that an intention to tamper with the familiar interpretation of urban design theories to shake up current flow of theorization to allow other, more radical thoughts to be emerge. The article will conclude that planners and policy-makers should be involved with public vales more than anything else and considers both fields (urban design and planning) in a neoliberal dominated world of global competition, particularly as personified by the diversified visions produced by the New Urbanism.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban design
  • Planning values
  • New urbanism
  • Neoliberalism

امیدی، علی (1392). رویکردهای سه­گانه­یِ روش­شناختی در مطالعات علوم اجتماعی و مقایسه­یِ آن با نظریه­یِ ادراکات علامه طباطبایی، مجله حکمت و فلسفه، 9(4)، 99-118.

امیدی­فرد، علی (1384). بررسی و نقد نظریه­یِ هیوم درباب علیّت، اندیشه­های فلسفی، 2(4)،  87-100.

پایا، علی، ابراهیم آبادی، حسین و آروین، بهار. (1394). آسیب­شناسی نقادانه علوم انسانی و اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات طرح نقد.

پایا، علی. (1395). فلسفه­یِ تحلیلی از منظر عقلانیت نقاد. تهران: انتشارات طرح نقد.

پولانی، کارل. (1391)، دگرگونی بزرگ: خاستگاه­های سیاسی و اقتصادی روزگار ما. ترجمه­یِ محمد مالجو، تهران: انتشارات سیمای دانش.

پوپر، کارل ریموند. (1369). جستجوی ناتمام. ترجمه ایرج علی آبادی، تهران: انتشارات و آموزش انقلاب اسلامی.

حسنی، شبگیر. (1394). نظریه‌ی مارکسیستی ارزش و سه برهان آن. منتشر شده در سایت پروبلماتیکا،14-38. http://problematicaa.com/the-theory-of-surplus-value/

حقدار، علی­اصغر. (1372). رهیافت فکری کارل پوپر. کیهان اندیشه، 51، 18-22.

مارکس، کارل. (۱۳۹۴). سرمایه، نقد اقتصاد سیاسی جلد اول، ترجمه حسن مرتضوی، تهران: انتشارات لاهیتا.

Arefi, M. (2004). The pedagogy of the American city: revisiting the concepts of place, non-place, and place lessness. Urban Design International9(3), 103-117.

Arefi, M., & Triantafillou, M. (2005). Reflections on the pedagogy of place in planning and urban design. Journal of planning education and research25(1), 75-88.

Birch, E. L. (2011). From CIAM to CNU: the roots and thinkers of modern urban design: Fugénie L. Birch. In Companion to urban design (pp. 29-49). Routledge.

Carmona, M. (2009). Design coding and the creative, market and regulatory tyrannies of practice. Urban Studies46(12), 2643-2667.

Childs, M. C. (2010). A spectrum of urban design roles. Journal of Urban Design15(1), 1-19.

Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and Country Planning in the UK. Routledge.

Cuthbert, A. (2001). Going global: Reflexivity and contextualism in urban design education. Journal of Urban Design6(3), 297-316.

Cuthbert, A. )2003(. Introduction. In Designing cities, Ed. A. Cuthbert, 1-20. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Cuthbert, A. R. (2005). A debate from down-under: spatial political economy and urban design. Urban Design International10(3-4), 223-234.

Cuthbert, A. )2006(. The form of cities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Cuthbert, A. R. (2007). Urban design: requiem for an era–review and critique of the last 50 years. Urban Design International12(4), 177-223.

Cuthbert, Alexander )2011(. Urban design and spatial political economy. In Companion to Urban Design. Ed. T. Banerjee and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, M. Park, Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge.

Day, K. (2003). New urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity. Journal of Planning Education and research23(1), 83-95.

Dickenson, D. (2002). Commodification of human tissue: implications for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Bioethics2(1), 55-63.

Ellis, C. (2002). The new urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design7(3), 261-291.

Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban affairs review35(4), 451-478.

Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of planning education and research25(2), 121-130.

Fainstein, S. S. (2008). Mega‐projects in New York, London and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(4), 768-785.

Fainstein, S. )2010(. The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Fishman, R. (2011). The open and the enclosed: shifting paradigms in modern urban design. In Companion to Urban Design (pp. 50-60). Routledge.

Florida, R. )2000(. Competing in the age of talent. Pittsburgh, PA: Mellon Foundation.

Florida, R. )2003(. The Rise of The Creative Class. Melbourne: Pluto.

Florida, R.L. )2002(. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

Forester, J. )1989(. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Forester, J. )1999(. The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marsh, D., & Furlong, P. (2002). A skin not a sweater: ontology and epistemology in political science. Theory and methods in political science2, 17-41.

Garde, A. (2006). Designing and developing new urbanist projects in the United States: Insights and implications. Journal of Urban Design11(1), 33-54.

Gillies, D. )2000(. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Routledge.

Goonewardena, K. (2011). Critical urbanism: space, design, revolution. In Companion to Urban Design (pp. 116-127). Routledge.

Gunder, M. (2004). Shaping the planner’s ego-ideal: a Lacanian interpretation of planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research23(3), 299-311.

Gunder, M. (2006). Sustainability: Planning’s saving grace or road to perdition?. Journal of planning education and research26(2), 208-221.

Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning theory9(4), 298-314.

Gunder, M. (2011). Commentary: Is urban design still urban planning? An exploration and response. Journal of Planning Education and Research31(2), 184-195.

Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2007). Planning as urban therapeutic. Environment and Planning A39(2), 467-486.

Gunder, M., and J. Hillier. )2009(. Planning in ten words or less. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Hackworth, J. )2007(. The neoliberal city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harvey, D. )1982(. The limits to capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harvey, D. )2010(. The enigma of capital. London. Profile Books.

Healey, P. )2005(. Collaborative planning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

 Helmer, O., Brown, B., & Gordon, T. (1966). Social technologyBasic Books.

Higgins, M. (2010). Urban design and the planning system in Aotearoa-New Zealand: Disjuncture or convergence?. Urban Design International15(1), 1-21.

Jenkins, B. )2006(. The Dialectics of Design., space and culture vol. 9 no. 2, may 2006 195-209.

Krieger, A.) 2006(. Territories of urban design. In Urban design futures, Ed. M. Moor & J. Rowland, 18-29. London: Routledge.

Lang, J. )2007(. Urban design as a discipline and as a profession. In The urban design reader, Ed. M. Larice & E. Macdonald, 461-78. London: Routledge.

Larice, M., and E. Macdonald. )2007(. Editors’ introduction. In The urban design reader, Ed. M. Larice & E. Macdonald, 308-9. London: Routledge.

Lynch, K. (1980). City design: What it is and how it might be taught. Urban Design International1(2), 48-53. Reprinted in Banerjee, T. & Southworth, M. (Eds.) (1990). City Sense and City Design, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mackie, G. (2003). Democracy Defended, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and challenges of urban design. Journal of urban design11(2), 173-193.

Manee.S.H. (2018). The ‘Truth’ Between Realism and Anti-Realism. International Journal of Philosophy, 6(2), 32-39.

Marshall, R. (2003). Emerging urbanity: Global urban projects in the Asia Pacific Rim. London: Spon Press.

McGuirk, P., & Dowling, R. (2009). Neoliberal privatisation? Remapping the public and the private in Sydney's masterplanned residential estates. Political Geography28(3), 174-185.

McLoughlin, J. B. (1994). Centre or periphery? Town planning and spatial political economy. Environment and Planning A26(7), 1111-1122.

Memon, A. (1993). Keeping New Zealand green. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press.

Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C., & Signoretta, P. (2003). Urban Design. Method and Techniques (2nd Edition), Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

Murphy, L. (2008). Third-wave gentrification in New Zealand: The case of Auckland. Urban Studies45(12), 2521-2540.

Palazzo, D. (2011). Pedagogical traditions. In Companion to urban design. Ed. by T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge.

Polanyi, Karl. (2001). The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time,  Boston: Beacon Press.

Popper, K. R. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York: Routledge.

Punter, J. (2006). The planning system and the delivery of design quality. In Urban design futures, Ed. M. Moor and J. Rowland, 50-56. London: Routledge.

Punter, J. (2007). Developing urban design as public policy: Best practice principles for design review and development management. Journal of Urban Design12(2), 167-202.

Research 32 (4): 768–785.

Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.) (2007). The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schaffer, J. (2000a). Causation by disconnection. Philosophy of Science67(2), 285-300.

Schaffer, J. (2004b). Trumping preemption. The Journal of Philosophy97(4), 165-181. repr. in Collins et al. (Eds.) (2004), 59– 73.

Seamon, D. (1996). A Singular Impact, Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology Newsletter, 7(3): 5–8.

Smith, N. (2008). Uneven Development: Nature. Capital and Production od Space. Third Edition, The University of Georgia Press, Athens and London.

Smith, Stive (2001). Reflectivist and Constructivism Approach in International Theory. Columbia: University of South Earolina Press.

Snow, M. (2004). Towards an urban design agenda for Queensland? The role of the UDAL. Australian Planner41(2), 22-24.

Solomon, D. (2003). Global city blues. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Sternberg, E. (2000). An integrative theory of urban design. Journal of the American Planning Association66(3), 265-278.

Strong, A.L. (1990). G. Holmes Perkins: Architect of the School’s Renaissance in A.L. Strong, G.E. Thomas (Eds.) The Book of the School. 100 Years, Philadelphia: The Graduate School of Fine Arts of the University of Pennsylvania.

Talen, E. (2006). Design that enables diversity: The complications of a planning ideal. Journal of Planning Literature20(3), 233-249.

Talen, E. (2008). New urbanism, social equity, and the challenge of post-Katrina rebuilding in Mississippi. Journal of Planning Education and Research27(3), 277-293.

Talen, E. (2009). Design by the rules: The historical underpinnings of form-based codes. Journal of the American Planning Association75(2), 144-160.

Taylor, N. (2009). Legibility and aesthetics in urban design. Journal of Urban design14(2), 189-202.

The Builder (1908). The Systematic Study of Town Planning, The Builder. Available https://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/%20liverpool.htm (accessed 15 March 2009).

Verma, N. (2011). Urban design: An incompletely theorized project. In Companion to urban design (pp. 76-88). Routledge.

Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woodward, J. (2004). Counterfactuals and Causal Explanation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18, 41– 72.

Yilmaz-Saygin, N. (2006). Commodification of Cities: Promoting Izmir (Turkiye) as a World City. 42nd ISoCARP Congress 2006.

Zimmerman, M. (2001). Is new urbanism growing old? An interview with Andres Duany. Planning 67(6), 10-13.