Explaining the Concept of the Immanent Connection of the Building and the City; Towards a Non-Institutional Architecture

Heidari, Milad; Malekafzali, Ali Asghar; Mirmightadaee, Mahta

Explaining the Concept of the Immanent Connection of the Building and the City; Towards a Non-Institutional Architecture

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

M. Heidari ¹

A. A. Malekafzali ²

M. Mirmightadaee ³

¹ PhD Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad

² Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

³ Faculty member, Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Objectives: Today, the expansion of urbanization is associated with the disappearance of human activities in the space between buildings. The purpose of this research is to understand the dimensions of the connection between buildings and the city and how it is captured by the dispositive, and finally to find a way to emancipate in the form of an immanent connection.

Method: The research is done by a qualitative method. The research paradigm is emancipation, the strategy is discourse analysis and the tactics are data collection, coding, analysis, display, explanation, and profanation.

Result : The findings indicate that the building and the city connection factors are related to each other through a hidden network in the form of three scales: the large scale includes semantic factors, the medium scale social factors, and the small scale include formal and functional-behavioral aspects. Therefore, social institutions on a medium scale, will be captured by the dispositive after constituting as they have a specific form and function, and will lose their relationship with the large scale and exist officially in the form of a formal institution, which ultimately leads increasing control and power, and further disintegration.

Conclusion: To achieve an immanent connection between the building and the city, the official institution should be disabled to reconnect the semantic scale for redefining the social institution. Also, it should be profane from whatever dispositive has been placed on the concept of institution. This is realized by the presence of non-institution in the space between the buildings

Keywords

connection of the building and the city

the dispositive

social institutions

measurement and un measurement area

non-institution

Subjects

Quality of Urban Public Spaces

]1[ Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City (F. Noorian, Trans.). Tehran: Processing and urban planning Publication.
]2[ Lang, J. (2005). Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products (S.H. Bahrainy, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
]3[ Gehl, J. (2006). Close Encounters with buildings. Urban Design International, 11, 29-47.
]4[ Haeri, M.R. (2009). House in Culture & Nature of Iran. Tehran: Architecture and Urban Development Research Center Publication.
]5[ Fazeli, N. (2012). Culture and City: Cultural Turn in Urban Discourses Focusing on Tehran Urban Studies. Tehran: Teesa Publication.
]6[ Norberg-Schulz, C. (1988). Architecture: meaning and Place (V. Norouz Borazjani, Trans.). Parham Naghsh Publication.
]7[ Zieleniec, A. (2007). Space And Social Theory (M.Shoorjeh, Trans.). Tehran: Modiran Emrooz Publication.
]8[ Dereyfus, H. (1982). Michel Foucault, Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (H. Bashiriyeh, Trans.). Tehran: Nashreney Publication.
]9[ Boano, C. (2017). The Ethics of a Potential Urbanism: Critical Encounters between Giorgio Agamben and Architecture. New York: Routledge.
]10[ Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research Methods (A.R. Eynifar, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
]11[ Hosseini, A. & Pourahmad, A. (2020). Explain the Concepts and Approaches of Polycentricity Urban Regions; Developing a Conceptual Framework. Urban Planning Knowledge. 5 (2). 37-62.
]12[ Carmon, M. & Tiesdell, S. & Heach, T. & Taner. (2003). Pubic Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Spaces. Tehran: University of Art Press.
]13[ Tibaldz, F. (1992). Making People Friendly Towns (M. GHasemi Esfahani, Trans.). Tehran: Rozaneh.
]14[ Yeganeh, M. (2012). Indication of Criteria of Linkage Between Buildings and City in Urban Public Spaces Case Study: Vali Asr Street Tehran. (Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation). Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Art and Architecture.
]15[ Yeganeh, M. & Bemanian, M.R. (2015). Analysis of the Continuity of the Masses and Public Space in the City. Modiriyatshahri. 39. 407-428.
]16[ Yeganeh, M. & Bemanian, M.R. & Eynifar, A. & Ansari, M. (2013). Explanation of Relationship between Citizens’ Territorial Behavior and Perception of Integration of Buildings and city in urban Public Spaces (Case Study: Vali-e- Asr(aj) Street of Tehran).Hoviatshahr. 8 (19). 5-18.
]17[ Tavassoli, M. (1997). Principles and Methods of Urban Design and Residential Spaces in Iran (Volume1). Tehran: Urban planning & Architecture Research Center Publication.
]18[ Golestani, S. & Hojat, I. & Saedvandi, M. (2017). A Survey on Spatial Integration and its Evolutionary Progress in Iranian Ancient Mosques. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba-Memari-Va-Shahrsazi. 22 (4). 29-44.
]19[ Haeri, M.R. (2014). The Place of Space In Iranian Architecture. Tehran: Cultural Research Bureau.
]20[ Balilan Asl, L. & Sattarzadeh, D. (2015). The place of In-between Space in the Spatial Organization of Architectural and Urban Elements in Iran. Environmental Science and Technology. 17 (2). 169-181.
]21[ Gehl, J. & Svarre, B. (2013). How To Study Public Life (M. Behzadfar & M. Rezai & A. Rezai, Trans.). Tehran: Elm-e Memar Publication.
]22[ Pakzad, J. (2011). An Intellectual History Of Urbanism (1). Tehran: Armanshahr Publication.
]23[ Gehl, J. (1971). Life Between Buildings (A. Akbari & F. Karamian & N. Mehrabi, Trans.). Tehran: Parham Naghsh Publications.
]24[ Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great Americans Cities (H.R. Parsi & A. Aflatuni, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
]25[ Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City (M.Mozayeni, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
]26[ Baghbeh, K. & Pourjafar, M.R. & Ranjbar, E. (2013). Analysis and Assessment of Sitting Activity in Urban Spaces Case Study: Tehran’s Theatre Shahr Square. Journal of Architecture and Urbam Planning. 7 (13). 113-130.
]27[ Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless way of Building (M. Ghayumi Bidhendi, Trans.). Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University Press.
]28[ Alexander, C. (1977). A Pattern Language (F. Hoseini, Trans.). Tehran: Mehrazan Publication.
]29[ Gharibpour, A. (2010). The concept of performance in Louis Kahn's thought. Sofeh. 51. 32-51.
]30[ The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Edition. CD.
]31[ De certeau, M. (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
]32[ Norberg-Schulz, C. (1979). Genius loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (M.R. Shirazi, Trans.). Tehran: Rokhdad-e No Publication.
]33[ Zumthor, P. (1998). Architektur Denken (A. Shalviri, Trans.). Tehran: Herfeh Honarmand Publication.
]34[ Nimkoff, M & Ogburn, W & Aryanpour, A.H.(1966). Sociology Context. Tehran: Gostareh Publication.
]35[ Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architecture Theory: The Role of Behavioral Sciences in Environmental (A. Eynifar, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
]36[ Frost, T. (2019). The Dispositif between Foucault and Agamben. Law, Culture and the Humanities. 15, 151-171