The Challenge of Dominated Urban Planning Intervention in Blighted Areas in Iran and Promoting the Institutional Approach in Facing the Challenge Case Study: the Pioneer Housing Plan in Tehran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Qazvin, Iran

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

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to discuss the challenges of dominated urban planning intervention (DUPI) in achieving urban planning goals for blighted areas in Iran. Based on theoretical review on considering public services as one of the major goals of urban planning, it is clear that in the profession, the government failure as well as the market failure make planners to adopt new approaches in solving the problem. In this regards, the lack of public services has always been one of the major problems in Tehran, especially in the blighted areas. In spite of large-scale urban reconstruction efforts since the beginning of 2000’s, there is still a significant shortage of public services in the neighborhoods, although the situation has become more critical due to population growth and increased number of residential units. The main point here is that debates on providing public services is an important discussion nowadays, and it is not just about Iran. Since 1990s, by promoting the ideas of ecological and social sustainability and doctrines of responsive planning (after postmodernism), especially after global financial crisis of 2008 and its economic recession, and exploring ideas of energy saving and usage of information technologies in planning, approaches for development of human settlements have extremely transformed. All dimensions of urban planning intervention are affected by these changes. Facing new causes of uncertainty and a sense of failure in such intervention lead researchers to question consolidated planning methodologies. In this regards collaborations in public interest, values, public participation, equity, and environmental sustainability have become major issues and concerns in urban planning and design. The methodology of this research is based on mixed research method. Through sixteen deep conversations with main stockholders, the six challenges of DUPI of Iran were identified. Therefore, the reasons for impossibility of providing public services in dominated urban planning in Iran were analysed and discussed. The paper consists of a short review on various theories of planning purposes and intends to elaborate the institutional approach as one of the innovative solutions for urban planning discipline which acts desirablely in local conditions and promotes its usage for solving of DUPI challenges. It seems that this approach is significant in urban planning procedurally and substantively for three reasons: as a means (that is, as means of analysis); as and end (that is, as objects of analysis); and as design (that is, as phenomenon to be reformed). Promoting the institutional approach requires a change in the structure of Iran’s urban planning and recognition of development institutions (such as developers) and defining developmental ethics, based on the recognition of development agencies. The research tries to describe the arrangements of institutional approach as an optimal approach consistent with new trends in Iran urban development. The case study, which was discussed in this paper, was an important statement of government for intervention in Tehran blighted areas. This pioneer project was considered to be implement by a developer (the private sector) under government supervision. Finally, based on theoretical debates of this paper, the case study was critically assessed and suggestions were made to strengthen its institutional approach.

Keywords

References

مارشال، استفن (1395). شهرها، طراحی و تکامل (مترجم: سید حسین بحرینی و آمنه بختیار). ت‍ه‍ران: دانش‍گاه ت‍ه‍ران.
-  معاونت شهرسازی و معماری (1397). تدوین برنامه سوم توسعه شهر تهران. معاونت شهرسازی و معماری شهرداری تهران. کمیته فضایی-کالبدی. ارائه شده در جلسه کمیته شهرسازی شورای اسلامی شهر تهران مورخ 5/8/1397.
-  وزارت راه و شهرسازی (1396). طرح پیشگام مسکن. وزارت راه و شهرسازی، تهیه شده توسط گروه توسعه ایرانیان. 
-  وبگاه دانشنامه آکسفورد https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/institution
-  وبگاه دفتر هیئت دولت
 http://cabinetoffice.ir/fa/news/3491/بازآفرینی-شهری-رویکردی-نو-در-نوسازی-بافت-های-فرسوده-شهری
-  وبگاه شرکت بازآفرینی شهری http://udrc.ir/
 
-   Albrecht, J. (1986). Development, context, and purpose of planning (Urbanism). School of Architecture, University of Illinois.
-   Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a Post-Positivist Typology of Planning Theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77-99.
-   Archer, M. S. (2015). Generative Mechanisms Transforming the Social Order. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
-   Barker, C. (2005). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.                 
-   Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Relaity. England: Penguin Books Ltd. Registered Offices: Harmondsworth. Middlesex. 
-   Blair, T. L. (1973). Recent epirical work on the determinants of relative house prices. Urban Studies, 10(2), 213-233
-   Bolan, R. S. (1967). Emerging Views of Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33(4), 233-245.
-   Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
-   Commons, J. R. (1931). Institutional Economics. American Economic Review, 21(3), 648–657. 
-   Davidoff, P., & Reiner, T. A. (1962). A Choice Theory of Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,28(2), 103-115.
-   Etzioni, A. (1969). Toward a Theory of Societal Guidance. The American journal of Sociology, 73(2), 173-187.
-   Evans, A. W. (2004). Economics & Land Use Planning, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
-   Faludi, A., & Altes, W. K. (1997). Evaluating communicative planning, in Evaluating Theory-Practice and Urban-Rural Interplay in Planning. Borri D., Khakee A., & Lacirignola C. (ed.s), Selected papers presented at a workshop on Evaluation and Planning held at Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Mediterraneennes (CIHEAM) in Valenzano (Bari) in November 1993, Springer-Science+Business Media, Bv.
-   Faragó, L. (2004). The General Theory of Public (Spatial) Planning. Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Series editor: Zoltán Gál. 
-   Friedmann, J. (1969). Notes on societal action. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 311-318.
-   Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 
-   Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-   Gunder, M. (2011). Commentary: Is Urban Design Still Urban Planning? An Exploration and Response. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31, 184.
-   Hall, P. (1982). Urban and Regional Planning, 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
-   Hall, P.A., & Taylor, R.C.R. (1998). The potential of Historical Institutionalism: A response to Hay and Wincott. Political Studies, XLVI, 958-962.
-   Harding, A. (1997). Urban Regimes in a Europe of the Cities? European Urban and Regional Studies, 4, 291-314.
-   Harris, B. (1988). The Emerging Unity of Science and Humanism in Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(4), 521-524.
-   Hayek, F.A. (1978). Liberalism, in: New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 119-151.
-   Healey, P. (1993). The communicative work of development plans. Environment and Planning, 20, 83-104.
-   Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What Are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1-25.
-   Hodgson, G. M. (1998). The Approach of Institutional Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 166-192.
-   Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: the logic of making plans. Washington: Island Press.
-   Inam, A. (2002). Institutional Analysis and Urban Planning: Means or Ends? The University of Michigan.
-   Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt.
-   Moore, T. (1978). Why Allow Planners to Do What They Do? A Justification from Economic Theory. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(4), 387-398.
-   North, D. (1986). Institutions and economic growth: An historical introduction. Paper prepared for the Conference on the Role of Institutions in Economic Development. Ithaca: Cornell University
-   Olson, M. (2002). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Revised of 1971 edi. Harvard University Press. 
-   Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4(2), 155-169.
-   Popper, K. R. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge und Kegan Paul.
-   Rydin, Y. (2011). The Purpose of Planning: Creating Sustainable Towns and Cities. Bristol: The Policy Press.
-   Savini, F., & Salet, W. (2017). Planning projects in transition, Federico Savini and Willem Salet (Eds.). Berlin: JOVIS Verlag GmbH.
-   Savini, F., Majoor, S., & Slaet, W. (2017). Dilemmas of planning: Intervention, Regulation and Investment in planning projects in transition. Federico Savini / Willem Salet (Eds.). JOVIS Verlag GmbH, Berlin. 6-27.
-   Shone, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action, United State of America: Basic Book.
-   Throgmorton, J. A. (1993). Planning as a Rhetorical Activity- Survey Research as a Trope in Argument. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), 334-346.
-   Verma, N. (Ed.). (2007). Institutions and Planning: Current Research in Urban and Regional Studies. New York, NY: Elsevier
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 12, Issue 27
July 2020
Pages 79-97

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics