The Etiology of Social Demands on Removal of Architectural Heritages from National Heritage List The Case Study: Demands of Owners of Architectural Heritages in Tehran during Last Decade

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MA in Restoration and Conservation of Historical Buildings and Urban Fabrics, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

3 MA in Criminal Law and Criminology, Director of Legal and Comparative Studies of the Ministry of Justice of Islamic Republic of Iran

Abstract

Conservation is an inevitable step to conserve historical heritage. Historical and cultural heritage, including architectural heritage, needs conservation based on their characteristics and values. After registering the architectural heritage in the national heritage register, the recorded heritage is legally governed by the Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization and is subjected to the rules and regulations for conservation of national monuments. The process of architectural heritage conservation, in addition to being related to technical and physical issues, also requires attention to various aspects beyond the physical object, such as social aspects in the conservation of architectural heritage. In the field of architectural heritage conservation, the role of people and their relation with these properties is more significant than other types of cultural heritage; it is because of the concept of architecture. As a matter of the fact, some factors can result in multiple consequences: social participations can cause dynamics of conservation process, however, on the other hand, they can make some problems like social conflicts and dispute besides preventing the progress of conservation process. The interaction and equilibrium between cultural and historic dimensions of past methods of living and contemporary needs and demands of the present requires elimination or control of misunderstanding and social conflicts, based upon conservative approach. In this regard, according to available evidence, Tehran has witnessed numerous threats related to the national architectural heritage due to the removal of monuments from the national heritage register by private owners. The hypothesis of the current study is the existence of weakness in the cognitive aspects of valuable historic cultural monuments in terms of importance of architectural heritage conservation. It also mentions the incoherence between “the rules and policies of architectural heritage conservation” and “needs and demands of heritage buildings' owners. This paper is considering the cognition of the causes of owners’ demands of removing their architectural heritage from the national heritage register in the form of a case study in Tehran. The historic urban fabric of Tehran is considered as one of the most problematic urban areas regarding conservation issues of cultural heritage, and therefore is chosen as a case study in this research. The question of this research is ‘what are the causes of social demands in the cancellation of architectural heritage registration operations from the national heritage register in Tehran?”. The aim of this research is to improve the quality of the conservation process based on reducing or solving related problems in the social sphere. The findings of the studies carried out in this paper indicate that various causes are effective in the above-mentioned social demands, most of which include: the weakness of the owners' cognition and awareness of why and how to conserve the architectural heritage, weakness in paying attention to owner’s needs and demands from the authorities in charge of conservation, non-comprehensive and incomplete laws related to the subject and lack of incentive policies for the owners. 

Keywords

References

-   ابویی، رضا، و نیک‌زاد، ذات الله (1396). حفاظت معماری و نسبت آن با تاریخ معماری، با نگاه به تجربۀ حفاظت در ایران. دو فصلنامۀ معماری ایرانی، 11، 169-188.
-   بارون، رابرت، دان، بیرن، و نایلا، برنسکامب (1388). روانشناسی اجتماعی (مترجم: یوسف کریمی). چاپ دوم، تهران: نشر روان. 
-   بدار، لوک، دزیل، ژوزه، و لامارش، لوک (1387). روانشناسی اجتماعی (مترجم: حمزه گنجی). چاپ ششم، تهران: نشر ساوالان.
-   توکلی، احمد (1391). کامیابی‌ها و ناکامی‌های بازار - دولت، اقتصاد بخش عمومی. تهران: نشر سمت.
-   حبیبی، سیدمحسن (1380). مسیر پیادۀ گردشگری. مجله هنرهای زیبا، ۹، 43-51.
-   حبیبی، سیدمحسن، و مقصودی، ملیحه (1381). مرمت شهری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
-   رازقی، علی‌رضا (1391). علل بروز تعارض‌های اجتماعی در حفاظت از میراث معماری. رساله دکتری، دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز.
-   رازقی، علی‌رضا، پیربابائی، محمدتقی، و ندیمی، حمید (1392). علل بروز تعارض‌های اجتماعی در حفاظت از میراث معماری؛ مطالعۀ موردی: مجموعۀ ثبت جهانی گنبد و ارگ سلطانیه. فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی، 13، 45-54.
-   رضایی، نعیمه، و فرجی، فرناز (1397). ارزیابی نقش سازمان‌های غیردولتی در حفاظت از میراث معماری و شهری؛ مطالعه تطبیقی ایران و فرانسه. هویت شهر، 12(33)، 27-36. 
-   شادنوش، امیرحسن (1392). بررسی ابعاد حقوقی ثبت آثار تاریخی - فرهنگی در فهرست آثار ملی در پرتو آرای دیوان عدالت اداری. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی تهران مرکز.
-   صفایی، سیدحسین (1388). حقوق مدنی اشخاص و اموال. چاپ نهم، تهران: نشر میزان.
-   فلاح‌فر، سعید (1395). قانون حفظ آثار ملی و عتیقات 1309. تهران: انتشارات آوینه.
-   قانون راجع به حفظ آثار ملی مصوب 1309، سازمان میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری. 
-   محمدی، محمود، بیدرام، رسول، و ناصری اصفهانی، هاجر (1393). ارزیابی اثربخشی مشوق‌های محرک حفاظت از خانه‌های باارزش تاریخی، مطالعۀ موردی: بناهای تاریخی شهر اصفهان. فصلنامۀ اقتصاد و مدیریت شهری، 6، 1-18.
-   نشست تخصصی «میراث فرهنگی و مالکیت خصوصی یا منفعت عمومی» در تاریخ 25/2/1392، پژوهشگاه قوه قضائیه.
-   یوکهیلتو، یوکا (1387). تاریخ حفاظت معماری (مترجمان: محمد حسن طالبیان و خشایار بهاری). تهران: روزنه.
 
-   Abdul Rashid, R., & Ahmad, A. G. (2011). Overview of maintenance approaches of historical buildings in kuala lampur-A current practice. Procedia Engineering, 20, 424-425.
-   Barillet, C., Joffroy, T., Longuet, I. & et al. (2006). A Guide for African local Governments cultural heritage and local development. Grenoble: CRATerre- ENSAG/ Convention France- UNESCO.
-   Danner, J. C. (1998). TDR- Great idea but questionable value. The Appraisal Journal, 65 (2), 133-142. 
-   Dümcke, C., & Gnedovsky, M. (2013). The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage. EENC Paper.
-   Ercan, M. A. (2010). Searching for a Balance Between community needs and conservation policies in historic neighborhoods of Istanbul. European planning studies, 18(5), 833-859. 
-   Hegazy, S. M. (2014). Conservation of historical buildings- The omani- French museum as a case study. Housing and Building National Research Center: HBRC Journal, 11, 264-274.
-   ICOMOS (1987). First Brazilian Seminar about the Preservati on and Revitalization of Historic Centers (ICOMOS Brazilian Committee, Itaipava, July 1987).
-   Imon, S. S. (2005). Stakeholder Participation in Cultural Heritage Management. Honoi: Asian academy for Heritage Management, 2ndField School, Viewed 3 December 2011.
-   McCleary, R. L. (2005). Financial Incentives for Historic Preservation: an International View. USA: University of Pennsylvania.
-   Merlin, P., & Choay, F. (2005). Dictionnaire de I’amenagement. PUF: Paris.
-   Sigmund, Z. (2016). Sustainability in architectural heritage: review of policies. DE GRRUYTER OPEN.
-   Yung, E. K., Zhang, Q., & Chan, E. (2017). Underliing Social factors for Evaluating Heritage Conservation in Urban Renewal Districts. Habitat international, 66, 135-148.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 11, Issue 22
May 2019
Pages 53-70

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics