Hierarchical Pattern of the Place Meaningfulness through Establishing Events in the Urban Public Spaces (Case Study: The Central Pedestrian District of Rasht)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Planning, Najafabad Branch, Isalamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

2 Visiting Assistant Professor of Department of Urban Planning, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran; Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Najafabad Branch, Isalamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

Abstract

Background: Human is a social creature that needs interaction and relationship with others, hence he needs some spaces for presence. The quality of such a presence depends on the meaningfulness of the space and consequently on the place creation. Places find their meanings based on the events taking place there. This is why the place is defined as a part of the space that is specified by the social relationships with their own meanings and values. Place making encourages people to consider the public spaces as the heart of their society and reimagine or rebuild it.
Objectives: This research attempted to make Rasht public spaces more meaningful through the social activities and events and hence to promote such spaces to places.
Methodology: It was a qualitative research based on the phenomenological approach. The related phenomenon, i.e. the conducted events at the central pedestrian district of Rasht during the spring 2017 up to the spring 2019 were scrutinized based on the real experience of being and confronting with the places extracted from the in-depth interviews.
Results: The results led to a hierarchical model of meaningfulness of events for place making among the audiences of the events and the urban space management. The “cause of presence” is the minimum setting for the meaningfulness of the place making among the citizens, while the urban space management plays the most important role in paving the way. The higher degree of meaningfulness belongs to the “pleasure of the presence”. Although the role of the urban space management is not so prominent, however, the quality, type and degree of companionship are still the responsibility of the urban space management. The factor of “degree of effective participation in the event” creates a more meaningful and higher degree of place making.
Conclusion: The most meaningful degree of place making for an event is the “degree of advancement of the event space”. At this level, the audiences show their own creativity and ability to the public and hence they gain a deeper self-scrutiny.

Highlights

The places get meaning based on the events taking place there. Social events are one of the most important contexts for the place making and the quality and way of audiences’ participation in the events can be fulfilled with the different degrees of place making.

The cause of presence in the event, the degree of pleasure of presence, the degree of effective participation in the event and the degree of advancement of the event space constitute the hierarchical degrees of the event meaningfulness of the place creation by the audience.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abedi, H. (2010). Application of Phenomenological Research Method in Clinical Sciences. Journal of Rahbord, 19 (54), 207-224.(in Persian)
Antchak, V. (2018). City Rhythms and Events. Annals of Tourism Research, 68, 52-54.
Arefi, M. & Triantafillou, M. (2005). Reflections on the Pedagogy of Place in Planning and Urban Design. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 75-88.
Arefi, M. (1999). Non- Place and Placelessness as Narratives of Loss: Rethinking the Notion of Place. Journal of Urban Design, 4(2), 179-193.
Auburn, T. & Barnes, R. (2006). Producing place: a neo- Schutzian perspective on the Psychology of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 38-50.
Bonakdar, A. & Gharaei, F. (2011). Changing Paradigms in Urban Design Principles: From Physical, Social and Perceptual Components to the Placemaking Approach. Journal of Architecture & Urban Planning of Art University, 6, 51-68.(in Persian)
Brown, L. J., Dixon, D. & Gillham, O. (2009). Urban Design for an Urban Century: Placemaking for People .Tehran: Tehran University Publication. (in Persian)
Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: the Architectural press Ltd.
Carmona, M. & Tiesdell, S. (2007). Urban Design Reader.  Tehran: Azarakhsh Publication. (in Persian).
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification, Part One: Critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 123-148.
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary Public Space: Critique and Classification, Part Two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157-173.
Carmona, M. (2014). The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Design Process. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 2-36.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Tiesdell, S., Oc, T. (2003). Public Places Urban Spaces; The Dimensions of Urban Design. Tehran: Tehran: Art Tehran University Publication. (in Persian)
Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: A Short Introduction. Tabriz: Akhtar Publication. (in Persian)
Evans, B. & McDonald, F. (2011). Space, Place, Life. Mashhad: Mesgarani Publication. (in Persian (
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington: Island Press.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between Buildings; Using Public Space. Translation by Jo Koch.Washington: Island Press. (Original work published 1971)
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meaning of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical Conceptualization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5-16.
Habibi, M. (1999). Urban Space; Event Life and Collective Memories. Journal of Soffeh, 28, 16-21.(in Persian)
Laverty, S. (2003). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparision of Historical and Methodological Considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21-35.
Madanipoor, A. (1996). Design of Urban Space: an Inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process. Tehran: Pardazesh Barnamerizi shahri Association Publication. (in Persian)
Manzo, L. c. & Devine- Wright, P. (2014). Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. London & New York: Routledge.
Manzo, L. C. (2005), For Better or Worse: Exploring Multiple Dimensions of Place Meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 67-86.
McKay, D. & Brady, C. (2005). Practices of place-making: Globalization and Locality in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(2), 89-103.
Norberg-Shulz, Ch. (1975), Meaning in Western Architecture, New York: Praeger Publishers
Norberg-Shulz, Ch. (2000), Architecture, Landscape and Place, Tehran: Niloofar Publication. (in Persian)
 Othman, S., Nishimura, Y. & Kubota, A. (2013), Memory Association in Place Making: A Review. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 554-563.
Pakzad, J. (2007). Theoretical Foundations and Urban Design Process. Tehran: Shahidi Publication. (Original work published 2005). (in Persian)
Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T. and Guaralda, M. (2015). Place Making Facilitators of Knowledge and Innovation Spaces: Insights from European Best Practices. Int. J. Knowledge- Based Development, 6(3), 215-240.
Panjtani, M. (2015). Phenomenology Outside the Borders of Philosophy; Interview with Yazdan Mansourian. Journal of Wisdom and Knowledge Information, 6, 5-11. (in Persian)
Placemaking; What if We Built Our Cities Around Places. [Booklet]. (2018).Project for Public Spaces.
Poorjafar, M., Sadeghi, A. & Yousefi, Z. (2009). Recognizing the Effect of Meaning on the Immortality of Place; Case Study: Huraman Takht Village of Kurdistan. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 125, 2-17.(in Persian)
Public Spaces, Activity and Urban Form; Strategic Framework Plan Phase 1. City of Saskatoon. [Pamphlet]. (2011). Saskatoon: Urban Design- Land Branch.
Punter, J. (1991), Participation in the Design of Urban Space, Landscape Design, 200, 24-27.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Tehran: Tabrizi Publication. (in Persian)
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placenessness. London: Pion.
Saar, M. (2009). The Dimensions of Place Meanings. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 3, 1-24.
Sadooghi, A. & Memariyan, GH. (2010). Application of Qualitative Research Method to Understanding Emotional Dimensions of Place; Case Study: Shoadan Underground. Journal of Letter of Architecture and Urban Planning of Art University, 5, 119-134.(in Persian)
Sadooghi, A. (2011). Understanding the Nature of the Iranian House by Phenomenology; Case Study: Shoadan and Pre-Canvas in Dezful House. Unpublished Phd Thesis, University of Science & Technology. Tehran, Iran.(in Persian).
Smith, A. (2016). Events in the City; Using Public Spaces as Event Venues. London & New York: Routledge.
Tavasoli, M. & Bonyadi, N. (2007). Urban Space Design. . Tehran: Shahidi Publication. (in Persian)
The Function Report of Cultural, Social and Sport Organization of Rasht Municipalityin 2019[E-Pamphlet]. (2019). Rasht:Cultural, Social and Sport Organization of Rasht Municipality.
Tibbalds, F. (2004). Making People- Friendly Towns. In: Taylor & Francis e- library and Spon Press.
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and Place, the Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
What is Placemaking? [Website Article]. (2007). Retrieved 2018, March. 15, from https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking
Zieleniec, A. (2007). Space and Social Theory. Tehran: Parham Naghsh Publication. (in Persian)

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 September 2019
  • Revise Date: 19 November 2019
  • Accept Date: 28 November 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics