Analysis of the Role of Communicative Approach Concepts in Urban Design Process (Case Study: Iranian Urban Design Projects)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran , Tehran, Iran

2 Full Professor, Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran , Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: With the advent of the communicative approach, urbanism knowledge has taken a critical approach to attract social, moral, and participatory ideas and theories, and has been introduced as an interdisciplinary knowledge dealing with political and social struggles. However, these developments have often taken place in the field of urban planning knowledge and are less explicitly discussed in the context of urban design knowledge and the urban design process.
Objectives: The main purpose of this study is to identify the basic concepts of communicative approach, and examine the application of these concepts in urban design projects in Iran.
Methodology: In the first step, by reviewing the critical theories affecting the communicative approach, the basic concepts and it’s application in the process of urban design are set to form a conceptual framework. The developed conceptual framework provides a basis for analysis and evaluation of selected projects in the next step by using direct qualitative content analysis method.
Results: 87% of communicative approach categories in selected projects are in a “Strongly Disagree situation”, and 13% are in a “Disagree situation”. Accordingly, the problem-finding and problem-solving process in projects focuses only on the technocratic aspects of space, and the decisive role of concepts of the communicative approach in how the urban design process is navigated is neglected. This is what separates the country's urban design process from the people and degrades experts to the level of tools at the disposal of the power to change the urban space.
Conclusion: The communicative approach with re-formulating the relationship between space, designer, people and the institution of power, in addition paying attention to the technical and creative dimensions of space, introduces critical aspects of urban planning knowledge into the urban design process. Thus, space design is considered as the product of processes in which competing discourses maximize their understanding of interests in a process based on communicative action and accept the multiple interests in the field of space, configuring space in a participatory and multilevel process.

Highlights

Provide a conceptual framework for surveying the urban design process that examines the procedural and content dimensions of the process in relation to each other and the nature of urban design.

Evaluate and analyze the content and procedures of Iran’s urban design projects in specific periods and determine the status of the common discourse of urban design among professionals and compare it with the discourse governing theoretical knowledge in specific periods.

Keywords

References

Albrecht, J. )1986(. Development, Context, and Purpose of Planning. Journal of school of architecture, 3, 2.
Alexander, E. R. (1984). After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown, Journal of the American Planning Association, 50 (1), 62-69.
Alexander, E. R. (2010). Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how? Planning Theory, 9 (2), 99-107.
Allmendinger, Philip. (2002). Planning Theory, Planning Environment. Palgrave Macmillan, UK: Cities.
Armanshahr Consulting Engineers. (2007). Urban design of Ahmad abad street of Mashhad. Mashhad: Mashhad Municipality. (in Persian)
Arseh Consulting Engineers. (2009). Urban design framework of Delavaran street. Tehran: Deputy of Urban Planning and Architecture of Tehran Municipality.  (in Persian)
Banerjee, T., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A.(Eds.). (2011). Companion to Urban Design. London: Routledge.
Barati, N., Heidari, F., & Sattarzad Fathi, M. (2019). Towards a Democratic Process in Urban Planning and Design; Assessing the Status of Citizens’ Involvement in Urban Plans and Projects in Iran. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh- E Nazar, 16 (76), 5-20. (in Persian)
Bavand Consulting Engineers. (2011). Quality-based design of 17shahrivar street. Tehran: Tehran zibasazi Organization. (in Persian)
Campbell, S, & Fainstein, S. (1996). Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Ma: Blackwell.
Carmona, M. (2014). The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process. Journal of Urban Design, 19 (1), 2-36.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell. S. (2003). Public Places, Urban Spaces. London: Routledge.
Cuthbert, A. (2011). Urban Design and Spatial Political Economy. In T. Banerjee, & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design (pp. 84– 96). London: Routledge.
Emco Iran Consulting Engineers. (2010). Urban design framework of Chitgar Lake and chaharbagh street. Tehran: Technical and Civil Engineering Deputy of Tehran Municipality. (in Persian)
Fainstein, S. (2000). New direction in planning theory. Urban affairs review, 35 (4), 451-478.
Fajr-e-Tosea Consulting Engineers. (2008). Urban design ofPilgrimage-cultural street. Qom: Qom Municipality. (in Persian)
Faludi, A. (1983). Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology. Urban Studies, 20, 265-278.
Farnahad Consulting Engineers. (2010). Urban design of Lands of Abbasabad. Tehran: Deputy of Urban Planning and Architecture of Tehran Municipality. (in Persian)
Flyvbjerg, B., & Richardson, T. (2002). Planning and Foucault, in Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory. In P. Allmendinger, & M. Tewdwr _Jones (Eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory (pp. 44-62). London: Rutledge.
Forester, J. (1993). Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Forester, J. (2001). An Instructive Case study Hampered by Theoretical Puzzles, Critical Comments on Flyvbjerg`s Rationality and Powe. International Planning Studies, 6 (3).
Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (Eds.). (1980). Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action (A. Aghvami Moghadam, Trans.). Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Publication. (in Persian)
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Golkar, K. (2003). From birth to adulthood Urban design. Scientific-research Journal of Soffeh, 36, 8-23. (in Persian)
Golkar, K. (2008). Urban design in action; A model for multi-level guidance and control in urban design. Quartley Joural on Archtecture & Urbanism of Abadi, 17 (56), 23-43. (in Persian)
Golkar, K. (2011). Urban design, process or processes? Scientific-research Journal of Soffeh, 52, 99-134. (in Persian)
Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, Mass: Beacon Press.
Hall, P. (1989). Urban and Regional Planning. London: Unwin Hyman.
Healey, P. (1993). The communicative work of development plans. Environment and planning B: planning and design, 20, 83-104.
Healey, P. (1997). The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23 (2), 217-234.
Hoch, Charles (2007). Making plans: Representation & intention, Planning Theory. 6 (1), 15-35.
Innes, J. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14 (3), 183–189.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lang, j. (2005). Urban Design: A Typology of Procedure and Products. London: Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial process. Hoboken, NJ: John wiley.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. from https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385.
Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C., & Signoretta, P. (1999). Urban Design: Methods and Techniques. London: Routledge.
Pakzad, J. (2006). Theoretical Basics & Process of Urban Design. Tehran: Shahidi Publication. (in Persian)
Piravash Consulting Engineers. (2010). Urban design of chaharbagh street of district 22. Tehran: Deputy of Urban Planning and Architecture of Tehran Municipality. (in Persian)
Rahnamaei, M., & Keshavarz, M. (2010). Investigating the model of good governance and the role of government in managing urban affairs in Iran. Journal of Urban Ecology Researches, 1 (1), 23-55. (in Persian)
Rahvandshahr Consulting Engineers. (2010). Urban design of Imam Khomeini street. Tehran: Deputy of Urban Planning and Architecture of Tehran Municipality. (in Persian)
Roberts, M., & Greed C. (2001). Approaching Urban Design, the Design Process. London: Routledge.
Sager, T. (1992). Why plan? A Multi-Rationality Foundation for planning. Scandinavian Housing &planning Research, 9, 129-147.
Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Avebury.
Sharan Consulting Engineers. (2015). Urban design of moradaab public space. Karaj: Karaj Municipality. (in Persian)
Shirvani, H. (1985). The Urban Design Process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Tash Consulting Engineers. (2013). Local plan with urban design approach of west of shohada square. Mashhad: Deputy of Urban Planning and Architecture of Mashhad Municipality. (in Persian)
Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and planning A, 30 (11), 1975-1989.
Urban Planning Knowledge
Volume 4, Issue 4
January 2021
Pages 81-100

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 July 2020
  • Revise Date: 14 September 2020
  • Accept Date: 10 November 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics