Analysis of Public Space Control in the Parks of Tehran

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD Student of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
One of the most influential trends in the production of contemporary public spaces is the growing tendency to control and monitor these spaces. However, this trend has so far been less studied. Public spaces are becoming increasingly controlled over time, as some critics claim. Hence, the assessment of public spaces control allows researchers to prevent intensification of the control while supervising and continuously monitoring this process. On the other hand, it is very important to address the issue of controlling the public space from the aspect of environmental quality. The extent to which our public spaces are encouraging differences is an important debate that affects the use of these spaces and their invitation. In this sense, a space which encourages freedom of use, behavior, and access, is a more open and democratic space. Accordingly, two major issues have been addressed in this research: The first is to measure the level of control of the public space and its methods in the parks of Tehran and the second is to examine the views of users of these parks on the issue of controlling the space.
Methodology
The study area includes the parks of "Mellat", "Laleh", "Razi" and "Shahr" in Tehran, all of which are considered as downtown area parks. These parks were selected based on three criteria including regional functional scale, the central position in the city and size of the parks. The first part of this study is the empirical framework developed by Németh & Schmidt (2011). In this empirical method, public space control is measured through four dimensions including "rules and regulations", "Surveillance and policing", "access and territoriality" and "design and image". The first two dimensions include hard methods and the third and fourth dimensions include soft methods of space control. The method of data collection in this section was direct observation and field study. Thus, by going to the parks, the data for each variable were taken and then the variables were scored according to the intensity of their presence in each park. In the end, the final score for each park was calculated and the results were analyzed. To measure the second part, we have used a researcher-made questionnaire designed in the 5-point Likert scale. The components of the questionnaire include the degree of agreement with the four methods of control of the public space, as well as questions that measure the relationship between the control of the public space and the quality of the public space. The statistical population of this section was the users of these parks. In the sampling stage, 100 users of each park were questioned by "Random available" method. Also, interview and talk with some users were used as a complementary method of data collection.
Results and dicscusion
Based on the results of the first section, among the parks under study, the Mellat Park and Laleh Park have a low degree of control, and the Shahr Park and Razi Park are highly controlled. The first group of the parks has the "openness" characteristic. This feature encourages differences and provides more freedom for users. However, it makes the environment of the parks more vulnerable in terms of security considerations. In spite of the differences between the studied parks, in general it can be said that hard control methods have been used more than soft control methodsThe results of the second part showed that the level of public space control is directly related to the quality of the public space and the excessive control over the space, reduces its quality in variables such as the feeling of comfort, pleasure and the desire to re-use that space. On the contrary, increased control will increase the security of space. In addition, reviewing the views of users on the four dimensions of public space control was shows that in the context of laws and regulations, we are faced with a diversity of tastes and opinions among users of various parks. For this reason, we cannot speak of samepattern. But despite of the variation in interests, users of all four parks, with a high degree of agreement, wanted preventing the entry of marginal groups such as beggars, child labor and homeless people into the parks. The main reason for this is that people and users frequently fail to make the distinction between identity and behavior. Therefore, the identity of the marginal groups conveys abnormal behaviors in the minds of users, which leads to opposition with the presence of these groups in public spaces. In the context of policing and police, in all cases, users were opposed with these methods. But in terms of design and image, the average of all four parks was close, and users had high agreement with design techniques to control the spaces. Also, space control through territoriality methods is more acceptable to users than access restriction methods. In general, the users of the parks agree to apply more soft methods of control over the public space than hard methods. However, Tehran's parks are often controlled by hard methods.
Conclusion
The results of this research showed that there is a significant relationship between age and sex with user’s preferences in controlling public space. Thus, the age group of over 60 years old was more likely than the other groups to like the control of the public space. As the same way, women were more likely than men to agree with soft control methods. In terms of exacerbating control over the space, Razi Park users, unlike three other parks, demanded more control and monitoring over the park's space, due to the low security of the area where the park is located in. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the factors, including the variety of users, their interests and their different expectations of how much the public space is controlled, make it difficult to achieve a specific standard. Nevertheless, the process of production, management and change of public spaces should include a democratic and open process to consider the demands and interests of different individuals and groups as much as possible.

Keywords

References

  1. Altman, Irwin; Zube, Erwin H (2012), Public Places and Spaces, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
  2. Amin, Ash (2008), Collective culture and urban public space, City, Vol 12, No 1, pp. 5–24.
  3. Ashrafi, Yousef; Pourahmad, Ahmad (2015), Modernity and developments in urban public space, Academic Center of Education, Culture and Research, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).  
  4. Ashrafi, Yousef; Pourahmad, Ahmad; Rahnamaiee, Mohammad Taghi; Rafieian, Mojtaba (2015), Conceptualization and typology of contemporary urban public space, Journal of Geographical Urban Planning, Vol 2, No 4, pp. 435-464 (In Persian).
  5. Bagheri, Nazgol (2017), Tehran’s subway: gender, mobility, and the adaptation of the ‘proper’ Muslim woman, Social & Cultural Geography, DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2017.1356364.
  6. Banerjee, Tridib (2001), The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 67, No 1, pp. 9–24.
  7. Carmona, Matthew (2010), Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification, Journal of Urban Design, Vol 15, No 2, pp. 157–173.
  8. Carr, Stephen, Francis, Mark; Rivlin Leanne G; Stone, Andrew M (1992), Public space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Cuthbert, Alexander R (1995), The right to the city: surveillance, private interest and the public domain in Hong Kong, Cities, Vol 12, No 5, pp. 293–310.

10. Cybriwsky, Roman (1999), Changing patterns of urban public: Observations and assessments from the Tokyo and New York metropolitan areas, Cities, Vol 16, No 4, pp. 223–231.

11. Dadashpour, Hashem; Yazdanian, Ahmad; Keshtkar, Vahid (2017), Identification and analysis of the influential factors on women's presence in public space (Case Study: Shoosh Park in Tehran), Women in Development & Politics, Vol 15, No 1, pp. 21-43 (In Persian). 

12. Davis, Mike (1992), Fortress Los Angeles: The militarization of urban space, In Michael Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a theme park (pp. 154–180), New York: Noonday Press.

13. Davis, Mike (2006), Fortress L.A, in City of Quartz: Excavating the Future of Los Angeles, Verso Publications, pp. 240–263.

14. Ellin, Nan (1997), Postmodern Urbanism, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

15. Flusty, Steven (2001), The banality of interdiction: surveillance, control and the displacement of diversity, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 25, No 3, pp. 658–664.

16. Francis, Mark (2012), Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality, in Altman, Irwin; Zube, Erwin H (2012), Public Places and Spaces, 2012th ed., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

17. Geyh, Paula (2009), Cities, citizens, and technologies: urban life and postmodernity, Taylor & Francis group: New York, London.

18. Ghaderzade, Omid; Khazaie, Sara (2014), A qualitative study of semantic implications women's sense of insecurity in public spaces, Women in Development & Politics, Vol 12, No 3, pp. 405-424 (In Persian).

19. Graham, Stephen (2011), Cities under siege: The new military urbanism, London: Verso.

20. Kayden, Jerold S (2000), Privately owned public space: The New York City experience, New York: Wiley.

21. Kohn, Margaret (2004), Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space, Routledge: New York and London.

22. Kruppa, Frederique (1993), The privatization of public space, MA, thesis, available at: http://www.simple-is-beautiful.org/fredek/pps.html, Accessed July 20, 2018.

23. Lefebvre, Henry (1991), The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell.

24. Mitchell, Don (1995), The End of Public Space? People's Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol 85, No 1, pp. 108–133.

25. Németh, Jeremy (2004), Redefining security in public space: The case of LOVE Park, IEEE Technology and Society, Vol 23, No 4, pp. 19–20.

26. Németh, Jeremy (2006), Conflict, Exclusion, Relocation: Skateboarding and Public Space, Journal of Urban Design, Vol 11, No 3, pp. 297–318.

27. Németh, Jeremy (2010), Security in public space: an empirical assessment of three US cities, Environment and Planning A, Vol 42, No 10, pp. 2487–2507.

28. Németh, Jeremy; Hollander, Justin (2010), Security zones and New York City’s shrinking public space, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 34, No 1, pp. 20–34.

29. Németh, Jeremy; Schmidt, Stephan (2011), Publicly Accessible Space and Quality of Life: A Tool for Measuring the Openness of Urban Spaces, In Quality-of-life Community Indicators for Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, (pp. 41–66), edited by Megha Budruk, Rhonda Phillips, London: Springer.

30. Oc, Taner; Tiesdell, Steven (1999), The Fortress, the panoptic, the regulatory and the animated: planning and urban design approaches to safer city centres, Landscape Research, Vol 24, No 3, pp. 265–286.

31. Paddison, Ronan; Sharp, Joanne (2007), Questioning the end of public space: Reclaiming control of local banal spaces, Scottish Geographical Journal, Vol 123, No 2, pp. 87–106.

32. Pennaya, Amy; Mantona, Elizabeth; Savic, Michael (2014), Geographies of exclusion: Street drinking, gentrification and contests over public space, International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol 25, No 1, pp. 1048–1093.

33. Phadke, Shilpa (2007), Dangerous Liaisons: Women and Men: Risk and Reputation in Mumbai, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 42, No 17, pp. 1510–1518.

34. Schmidt, Stephan; Németh, Jeremy; Botsford, Erik (2011), The evolution of privately owned public spaces in New York City, Urban Design International, Vol 16, No 4, pp. 270–284.

35. Sennett, Richard (2002), The Fall of Public Man, New York: Penguin book press.

36. Shafiei, Masoumeh; Alikhah, Fardin (2014), Space and Reproduction of Power (A Study on the Gender Segregation in Tehran Universities), Journal of Iranian Cultural Research, Vol 7, No 1 - Serial Number 25, pp. 95-122 (In Persian).

37. Shearer, Scott; Walters, Peter (2015), Young people's lived experience of the ‘street’ in North Lakes master planned estate, Children's Geographies, Vol 13, No 5, pp. 604–617.

38. Sorkin, Michael (1992), Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space, New York: Hill and Wang Press.

39. Thörn, Catharina (2011), Soft Policies of Exclusion: Entrepreneurial Strategies of Ambience and Control of Public Space in Gothenburg, Sweden, Urban Geography, Vol 32, No 7, pp. 989–1008.

40. Van Melik, Rianne; Van Aalst, Irina; Van Weesep, Jan (2007), Fear and Fantasy in the Public Domain: The Development of Secured and Themed Urban Space, Journal of Urban Design, Vol 12, No 1, pp. 25–42.

41. Viswanath, Kalpana; Mehrotra, Surabhi Tandon (2007), Shall we go out? Women's Safety in Public Spaces in Delhi, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 42, No 17, pp. 1542–1548.

42. Whyte, William H (1990), City: Rediscovering the center, New York: Doubleday.

43. Wilson, Elizabeth (1992), The Sphinx in the City: Urban Life, the Control of Disorder, and Women, Berkeley: University of California Press.

44. Zieleniec, Andrzej (2015), Space and Social Theory, Translated by Mahmoud Shourcheh, Parhamnaghsh Publication, Tehran, Iran (In Persian).

Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 6, Issue 4
January 2019
Pages 649-673

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics