Contemporization of Historical Neighborhoods with the Aim of Urban Spaces Place Making

Authors

1 PH.D Candidate, Department of Urbanism, West Tehran branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 a

3 Department of Architecture, Faculty of art and architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction and Purpose:  One of the dimensions of urban contemporization is social. Cultural experiences are considered as stimuli of contemporization. For this reason, the reproduction of place for the basis of the application of cultural experiences must be the basis of many contemporization plans. The present study is an attempt to develop a place-based contemporization approach. It seems that there is a meaningful relationship between the underlying factors, developmental factors, foresighting, social interactions and unconscious reproduction, and the location-based contemporization approach in these spaces.
Method: The present study requires a qualitative approach; hence the basis of the research ontology is free research. In this paper, to evaluate the content validity according to the experts in terms of the amount of coordination between the measurement tool and the purpose of the research, two methods of qualitative and quantitative are used. Cronbach's alpha method was used to assess the reliability of research tools. In order to achieve the main goal of the paper, structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been used to assess the validity of described environmental features.
Findings: Finally, it can be said that the orientation of this research in the field of describing the place-based contemporization approach can be provided in five main dimensions of "underlying factors", "developmental factors", "social processes", "prospective factors", "everyday interactions", and "unconscious reproduction".  
Conclusion: In general, it can be concluded that the unconscious reproduction factor has the greatest impact on the place-based contemporization approach. Local knowledge, use of place, and interactions and experiences are among the criteria that influence this process. The criterion of everyday interactions and experiences has the greatest impact on the unconscious reproduction and, consequently, on the process of the place-based contemporization.

Keywords


حناچی، پیروز و فدائی نژاد، سمیه، (1390)، تدوین چارچوب مفهومی حفاظت و بازآفرینی یکپارچه در بافت‌های فرهنگی – تاریخی، شماره 46، نشریه هنرهای زیبا، تهران.
Assefa, G. , & Frostell, B. (2007). Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies. Technology in society.
Arefi, (2014); deconstructing placemaking: needs. Opportunities and assets (Routledge research in planning and urban design) routledge: 1 edition.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design.
Carmona, M. , Heath, T. , Oc, T. , & Tiesdell, S. (2007). The communication process. Routledge.
Cook, I. R. (2008). Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US Business Improvement Districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies, 45(4), 773-795.
Calthorpe, P. , & Fulton, W. (2001). The regional city. Island Press.
Colantonio, A. , & Dixon, T. (2011). Social sustainability and sustainable communities: Towards a conceptual framework. Urban Regeneration & Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities.
DeLanda, M. (2006). Deleuzian social ontology and assemblage theory. Deleuze and the Social, 250-266.
DiSalvo, C. (2010, July). Design, democracy and agonistic pluralism. In Proceedings of the design research society conference (pp. 366-371).
Dovey, K. , & Raharjo, W. (2010). Becoming prosperous: Informal urbanism in Yogyakarta. Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power, 79-101.
Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 101(3), 543-577.
Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans. Island Press.
Kitchen, H. (2007). Grants to small urban governments. Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 319-338.
Lefebvre, H 1991; the production of space, Cambridge: Blackwell.
Madanipour, A, 2014: urban design space and society (planning, environment, cities), palgrave macmicllan.
Marchart, O. (1998). Art, Space and Public Sphere (s). Na.
Martin, D. G. (2003). Enacting Neighborhood1. Urban Geography, 24(5), 361-385.
Project for Public Space [PPS] (2001) "How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces" , New York: PPS, from www. pps. org,
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management journal, 49(1), 85-101.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness (Vol. 1). Pion.
Soja, E. W. (1999). In different spaces: The cultural turn in urban and regional political economy. European Planning Studies, 7(1), 65-75.
Schneekloth, L. H. , & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practice of building communities. Wiley.
Turok, I. (2004). Cities, regions and competitiveness. Regional studies, 38(9), 1069-1083.
Tuan, Y. F. T. (1974). A Study of Environmental Perception. Attitudes, and Values.
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy.