SkyscraperCity banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Spatial Arts in Tehran!
Joined
·
759 Posts
Shapoor, the place hasn't changed that much, just the photo looks reminiscent of those 1950's Tehran ones for some odd reason, but great photography none the less.
 

·
Highrise Resident
Joined
·
2,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Parts of Valiasr Street's (Tehran) sidewalks are being replaced again due to wear and cracks. As you can see in the image the stones need replacement:

Source: myself

Also a short update on Tehran sidewalks and standardization:
Efforts have been made since the past few years for standardization of sidewalks in Tehran and the measure is currently under implementation. Making passages appropriate for transportation of the disabled is among plans that are being pursued in this field.

Accordingly to Shahrnevesht, proper directives for appropriation of passages in the city were approved in the calendar year 1374 (1995-96) but up to the year 1383 (2004-2005) and approval of the comprehensive law on support for the rights of the disabled no proper measure was taken. Although the directive was not welcomed that much for different reasons, however Tehran Municipality in recent years has put appropriation of urban passages and places high on its agenda. According to new plans, construction of parks, stadiums, sidewalks and street entries is being implemented.

According to Shahrnevesht, Shapour Divsalar, Technical and Urban Projects Deputy of Tehran Beautification Organization said: “Vali-e Asr, Enqelab, 17th Shahrivar, Jomhouri Eslami, Ferdowsi, Mowlavi and … are among avenues where sidewalks have been improved for all strata of the people, including the disabled. Also, the Marvi market, Safa sidewalk, Baradaran Mozaffar Street, Naser Khosrow, Bab-e Homayoun, Sour-e Esrafil, Hassanabad Square and 15th Khordad are among places which have been completely turned into sidewalks and motor traffic is prohibited there.

He also assured that all the operations are in accordance with world standards and the materials used are in conformity with the standards as well. For example, he said, Vali-e Asr Avenue has obtained all the modern standards.

27/06/2012
http://en.tehran.ir/default.aspx?tabid=77&ArticleId=748
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,924 Posts
^^ so stupid in my opinion, its alright if they have some cracks, no need to spend all that money (god knows how much budget they get and spend it for themselves) for such a small thing for now when so much of the city needs work, if these guys care so much about small cracks they should care about the rest of the city especially the north and its gardens, the south , the centre and its historic core, the business areas the traffic the city ......

this is a very silly and cover up type of act in my opinion
 

·
Highrise Resident
Joined
·
2,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
The earth beneath the street became empty hence the fall and shifting. Will Iranians ever stop pointing and blaming, being experts in the field of speculation? P.S. it doesn't matter anyway, the stones were going to be replaced either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,924 Posts
Shapoor said:
The earth beneath the street became empty hence the fall and shifting. Will Iranians ever stop pointing and blaming, being experts in the field of speculation? P.S. it doesn't matter anyway, the stones were going to be replaced either way.
i was ignorant , apologies

but was the earth dug out priviously? even in that case they should make sure the ground is secure when they are doing such projects, whats if a person collapsed along with it? they could get seriously injured
 

·
a tangy drink!
Joined
·
4,261 Posts
When will Iran stop building stupid inner city highways, rip them out and start rehabilitating cities as properly liveable places? It is so behind the curve. It's not just Amsterdam but many cities around the world that are making this change. The government needs to challenge people's habit of driving by getting rid of parking, ripping out roads and increasing car use costs.

Sharing Amsterdam’s story of transformation into a city for people
By
Chris & Melissa Bruntlett

11:01 AM MST, Mon February 29, 2016


Images: Amsterdam Archives & Thomas Schlijper

At first glance, Cornelia Dinca’s journey from the oil fields of Alberta to the bicycle-friendly streets of Amsterdam seems like an unlikely one. But the relationship between the way we design our cities, and the energy we use is one that has long fascinated her.

After immigrating to Western Canada with her Romanian family at the age of eleven, Dinca had a typical suburban upbringing in Calgary, and – with a Bachelor’s in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering from the University of Calgary – spent some time working in the fossil fuel industry before Europe began calling her to return.

“I took a year off to live in France before starting university, and also completed a work term in Germany,” Dinca recalls. But it was a (poorly paid) internship crunching numbers at an Amsterdam climate change consultancy that ended up sealing the deal.

The experience of living and working in Amsterdam was transformational, shifting her focus from one of environmental sustainability to urban livability. Securing a job as a tour guide to supplement her income, she would show historical photographs of the city’s car-choked streets to tourists, and their reactions were almost entirely uniform: “They would almost always say the exact same thing: ‘That looks an awful lot like my city,’” remembers Dinca.



Dinca and her Californian partner briefly moved back to North America for nine months in 2013, drawn by Vancouver’s reputation for world-class quality of life and progressive politics. But a frustrated stint into the bicycle advocacy scene – including the fledgling Streets for Everyone – would often end in the same reaction from local leaders: “This isn’t Amsterdam”. But, drawing on those archival photos she had collected over the years, Dinca reminded them that, as recently as the 1980s, neither was Amsterdam.

And so, rather than continue down that rather unproductive and unsatisfying path, Dinca decided it was time to return to her adopted home, and complete her Master’s in Urban Planning at the University of Amsterdam, with an emphasis on exploring the (often undervalued) connection between transportation and land use planning.



When it came time to select her thesis project, Dinca recalled the old black-and-white photos that she would show to tourists, and asked herself a compelling question: “Why don’t cities learn from their peers’ historical mistakes and successes?”

She knew, for example, there was intense opposition and outrage at the removal of car parking at the time, while, decades later, almost all Amsterdammers would enthusiastically agree it was a positive step. So she set about better defining and quantifying these dramatic steps towards a city for people, and the average person’s reaction to them.



“Generally speaking, I identified three distinct periods in Amsterdam during the 20th century,” says Dinca. “I called them the pre-war, post-war, and post-car eras.”

The higher density, mixed-use streets built before the Second World War were undoubtedly the easiest to retrofit, whereas the post-war streets proved far more challenging because of their low density, inflexible zoning, and auto-centric design.

But no matter the original design intent, planners were simply retrofitting them to accommodate a diversity of users and uses, not unlike the period before the invention of the automobile. ‘”It wasn’t just about building bike lanes,” insists Dinca, “But building streets that act as destinations rather than traffic sewers, and slowing everyone down to a speed where people will chose to walk or cycle.”

It wasn’t until a viral tweet by University Professor Marco te Brömmelstroet, and a subsequent FastCoExist article, that Dinca began to understand the power and potential of using social media to share her work. She became far more active on Twitter, and resolved to take full advantage of the opportunities it presented her.



“I connected with Thomas Schlijper, often called ‘The Photographer of Amsterdam’, whose beautiful work I was using to illustrate the current conditions,” says Dinca, “And, after a couple of beers, we decided to collaborate on a social media campaign.”

Dinca and Schlijper officially launched their #LivableCities campaign in December 2015 under the Sustainable Amsterdam moniker, an organization Dinca started the previous year to make sense of what she was learning. The group now offers guided tours and study programs to visiting students, professionals, and politicians; each designed to communicate her passion for the city she calls home, and her desire to impart its successful approach to creating smart and vibrant communities.



In addition to her collaboration with Schlijper, Dinca recently partnered up with artist, urbanist, and fellow Canadian Lucas Brailsford to create a wonderful animated video of her collages.


While Dinca and her American partner plan to remain in Amsterdam for the long-term, that certainly won’t prevent their wanderlust from taking them around the world, including a six-week tour of South American cities this summer.

“I am really passionate about sharing Amsterdam’s story of transformation,” Dinca says proudly, but is careful not to insist it has all of the answers. “Every city has its own unique conditions and challenges,” she admits. “It’s not about making all cities like Amsterdam. It’s about making them better versions of themselves.”

http://calgarybuzz.com/2016/02/sustainable-amsterdam-transformation/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
^^^^

Hi Herbicide. Love Amsterdam, used to do a club night in Escape every month. It's a brilliant city.

It's so different to how Tehran is planned though. I would say the freeways in Tehran are actually the only way to keep the city running in any fisco-economic sense because of the topology of the city as well as the distances between the population centres through the years. Remember Tehran is not a planned city like a fair few US cities that grew exponentially since the 50s. Although they ultimately use very similar tools to deliver identical solutions to transportation of goods. The driving issue is not human transport but that of goods and how cheaply it's done. The overcrowding by personal cars is the added headache that municipalities have to cope with as the by-product.

For Tehran, there are very obvious areas that can be easily pedestrianised and I think that is happening. The Amsterdam model ESP around Rembrandt Platz is quite nicely done. But the shopping streets are hideous as I see them. The quality of the shops really reflects that too. Shops resist any attempt to pedestrianise because they know it means a huge drop in trade. Even no parking zones in London get vilified by shop-owners on some core arteries. It's not an easy or even exact solution in many cases.

Amsterdam also has the canals that no one really notices but are absolute life-savers for goods transportation like beer delivery for example that is traditionally so cheap in Holland because it has always been done by water, at 1/50th the cost of road transportation. If only Iran had more rivers!! I would say if it was less mountainous too, though that is one fact, no matter how detrimental to transport costs, I would never want changed. Tehran is the same with all the hills and valleys. And transportation carries the burden Mr. Flat Earth Amterdam!! Lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,924 Posts
The world is moving away from large round abouts and massive car movements in city cores

While in iran we are just starting to build massive squares and car overpasses
We are completely out of phase with the examples from amsterdam

There are some hollistic ideas tha need to be changed prior for iran to be able to impliment any form of mass pedestrianization
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
I think this is certainly more implementable in Iran than North America.

Considering the density in Iranian cities and the continued investment in public transportation (BRT and subways) it could certainly be done.

The other major problem would be getting the people to buy into it. The last 2 generations are all about driving for everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
The world is moving away from large round abouts and massive car movements in city cores

While in iran we are just starting to build massive squares and car overpasses
We are completely out of phase with the examples from amsterdam

There are some hollistic ideas tha need to be changed prior for iran to be able to impliment any form of mass pedestrianization
It's not being out of phase, it's following a trajectory that is almost inevitable. Without roads you don't get the economic muscle to build up dense communities that have sufficient economic clout to demand and organise amenities in any city. They become slum like and while retaining some charm wither away through depopulation. There is a huge number of towns in Europe and I daresay in US too, that make the concept of 'if you don't build them they won't come' that is the core of arguments against roard painfully redundant. Once there is enough economic momentum, yes you can stop the build up of this interconnectivity.

You're last sentence is key, if that process is curtailed by over planning, the result will be economic hardship without doubt. If you look at Tehran, barely 50 years ago Shemiran was completely seperate from Tehran. It was even considered a different town really. The way Karaj is viewed now. Pahlavi avenue was extended north to Tajrish on the whole, AFTER Hilton Hotel was built in the 60s. That and Shariati that used to be known as the Old Shemiran Road, were it. But the economic benefits made the two roads magnates for the build up of population that relied on trade and cheap transport for its prosperity even then. The roads being built in Iran are catch up, not a retrograde oversight.

You can't do deliveries of goods on public transport. Even if you have fabulous public transport and no private cars, the roads are needed for the economy to function. This stubborn idea that roads are always a sign of backward planning is just totally baseless. ESP when you mention Amsterdam as the ideal aspiration. The city is built on the most incredible waterway system in the world that makes transportation of goods almost independent of road haulage. Tehran, Shiraz, Tabriz are all examples of cities where geography dictates reliance on a rapid road haulage is the only possible way for the population to prosper without having to rely on handouts.

Don't forget most historic city centres eventually evolve into dead tourist-based pastiches unless the feeder transport system, whether water or road based is what is termed vascular, ie like blood vessels can connect everyone efficiently and rapidly. Tehran's roads that are choked to the brim with traffic during the day, carry the goods needed to sustain the economy, at night and during off-peak hours.

I agree it would be wonderful if there was a lot more pedestrian areas that had sufficient footfall to sustain the commercial lifeboold of the area too. Frankly I can think of Tajrish and the very core central part of Tehran. Is there anywhere else other? Other than little pockets of localised gathering points? Tehran's inner city is being overhauled as we speak. On the whole don't you agree the move was quite well planned?

Tajrish is a tricky one because under the meydan there are 4 covered waterways that in the Spring can put most rivers to shame. To pedestrianise, in essence restricting daytime access by road, would mean 3 layers of tunneling through granite. It's an engineering nightmare. But I can see it being done none the less. Engineers hate tunneling under rivers because rivers usually erode the topsoil and often run over sold rock. Seasonal rivers exceptionally so.

That would open up the meydan area with Pahlavi / Valiassr going under the rivers but above or beside the metro link to Zafferanieh. Then the roads going up to Darband can be more or less pedestrianised and cobbled over all the way up and down to Elahieh. The riverside landscaping can just lift the whole area into one of the most picturesque spots in Tehran. I think the addition of an underground carpark and Taxi rank right next to the entrance to the bazaar would just complete the utility of transport for both businesses as well as pedestrians shoppers etc.
 

·
a tangy drink!
Joined
·
4,261 Posts
I would say the freeways in Tehran are actually the only way to keep the city running in any fisco-economic sense because of the topology of the city as well as the distances between the population centres through the years.
That could never be true. No city needs to have a transport network like Tehran. The amount of cars negotiating the streets is a abject failure of transport policy not an inevitability. Tehran is a very dense metropolis that has a woefully excessive road network. Tokyo, the worlds largest metropolis which has even higher density depends on rail based public transport to move people. It simply wouldn't work any other way and it doesn't really work in Tehran either.

Tehran doesn't have a long history as a mega city and unsurprisingly in the last forty years the wrong choices were made in transport policy as it grew into one. It's a similar story in other less developed countries where there was little funds, resources or political will to properly plan sustainable transport infrastructure.

But today Iran has the resources to correct this if only the authorities would properly look at transport policy and best practice around the world

The driving issue is not human transport but that of goods and how cheaply it's done. The overcrowding by personal cars is the added headache that municipalities have to cope with as the by-product.
Overcrowding of roads by private cars is not a by product of having roads to allow delivery vehicles. All cities have roads and vehicle access. Few developed cities have a traffic problem like Tehran. It is a failure to curtail car use by the tools the authorities have to hand. They have allowed it to be too cheap and convenient to use cars and instead of acting to reduce driving to stop congestion. They have made the mistake of increasing road capacity which only increases the scale of the problem as the only thing that keeps the amount of driving in check is the gridlock and the congestion itself.
Generally congested streets, regular gridlock and an unpleasant and unhealthy urban environment are the future for Tehran until driving is tackled through punitive measures.

The other major problem would be getting the people to buy into it. The last 2 generations are all about driving for everything.
You don't ask them to stop driving. That's never worked anywhere. You make them stop driving.

It's not being out of phase, it's following a trajectory that is almost inevitable. Without roads you don't get the economic muscle to build up dense communities that have sufficient economic clout to demand and organise amenities in any city. They become slum like and while retaining some charm wither away through depopulation. There is a huge number of towns in Europe and I daresay in US too, that make the concept of 'if you don't build them they won't come' that is the core of arguments against roard painfully redundant. Once there is enough economic momentum, yes you can stop the build up of this interconnectivity.

You're last sentence is key, if that process is curtailed by over planning, the result will be economic hardship without doubt. If you look at Tehran, barely 50 years ago Shemiran was completely seperate from Tehran. It was even considered a different town really. The way Karaj is viewed now. Pahlavi avenue was extended north to Tajrish on the whole, AFTER Hilton Hotel was built in the 60s. That and Shariati that used to be known as the Old Shemiran Road, were it. But the economic benefits made the two roads magnates for the build up of population that relied on trade and cheap transport for its prosperity even then. The roads being built in Iran are catch up, not a retrograde oversight.

You can't do deliveries of goods on public transport. Even if you have fabulous public transport and no private cars, the roads are needed for the economy to function. This stubborn idea that roads are always a sign of backward planning is just totally baseless. ESP when you mention Amsterdam as the ideal aspiration. The city is built on the most incredible waterway system in the world that makes transportation of goods almost independent of road haulage. Tehran, Shiraz, Tabriz are all examples of cities where geography dictates reliance on a rapid road haulage is the only possible way for the population to prosper without having to rely on handouts.

Don't forget most historic city centres eventually evolve into dead tourist-based pastiches unless the feeder transport system, whether water or road based is what is termed vascular, ie like blood vessels can connect everyone efficiently and rapidly. .........
The road use you are advocating for Tehran is the outdated practice of the '50s and 60's when transport planning strategists for large cities had not yet realised the full implications of a road dominant transport system. Well planned metropolises of the world have turned their back on that line of transport policy decades ago.

Its the transport strategy for a village or small town blown up in scale to megacity proportions and it is not realistically sustainable.

Roads used primarily for goods delivery do not need to be anywhere near as extensive. There are much more efficient ways for the city population to move around. Private car use is actually the least efficient mode of transport, using the most resources and space per person of any urban mode. Hence, in normal developed megacities, car use is much less than in small towns and villages. There is a reason that many cities have introduced road charging and limited access.

Cities with higher populations, more dynamic economies and more challenging topography have made a success of transport policy where car use has been significantly constrained for the benefit of the city, the environment and the economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
That could never be true. No city needs to have a transport network like Tehran. The amount of cars negotiating the streets is a abject failure of transport policy not an inevitability. Tehran is a very dense metropolis that has a woefully excessive road network. Tokyo, the worlds largest metropolis which has even higher density depends on rail based public transport to move people. It simply wouldn't work any other way and it doesn't really work in Tehran either.

Tehran doesn't have a long history as a mega city and unsurprisingly in the last forty years the wrong choices were made in transport policy as it grew into one. It's a similar story in other less developed countries where there was little funds, resources or political will to properly plan sustainable transport infrastructure.

But today Iran has the resources to correct this if only the authorities would properly look at transport policy and best practice around the world


Overcrowding of roads by private cars is not a by product of having roads to allow delivery vehicles. All cities have roads and vehicle access. Few developed cities have a traffic problem like Tehran. It is a failure to curtail car use by the tools the authorities have to hand. They have allowed it to be too cheap and convenient to use cars and instead of acting to reduce driving to stop congestion. They have made the mistake of increasing road capacity which only increases the scale of the problem as the only thing that keeps the amount of driving in check is the gridlock and the congestion itself.
Generally congested streets, regular gridlock and an unpleasant and unhealthy urban environment are the future for Tehran until driving is tackled through punitive measures.


You don't ask them to stop driving. That's never worked anywhere. You make them stop driving.


The road use you are advocating for Tehran is the outdated practice of the '50s and 60's when transport planning strategists for large cities had not yet realised the full implications of a road dominant transport system. Well planned metropolises of the world have turned their back on that line of transport policy decades ago.

Its the transport strategy for a village or small town blown up in scale to megacity proportions and it is not realistically sustainable.

Roads used primarily for goods delivery do not need to be anywhere near as extensive. There are much more efficient ways for the city population to move around. Private car use is actually the least efficient mode of transport, using the most resources and space per person of any urban mode. Hence, in normal developed megacities, car use is much less than in small towns and villages. There is a reason that many cities have introduced road charging and limited access.

Cities with higher populations, more dynamic economies and more challenging topography have made a success of transport policy where car use has been significantly constrained for the benefit of the city, the environment and the economy.
You keep on about private cars. Private cars do not feature in any economic planning for urban development in the initial assessments. The first thing every competent planner looks at is how to provide a viable way to reduce impediment to commerce. Then environmental necessities are added and optimised and finally public transport is added to the model to alleviate the over-use of roads by private cars. The only concession made to private cars is to engender measures to keep traffic flow bottlenecks at the minimum. No roads are built just for usage by private cars. Not in Amsterdam or Tehran. As much as politicians crow about it, if building roads was just to allow private cars to go from getting from A to B, you would have a handful of main roads and that would be it.

You are comparing a city like Amsterdam to Tehran. Amsterdam does not need road based haulage at its busiest, most densely populated centre. Just behind the Central Station you have a massive port practically, that also operates as a distribution hub that feeds the canals. The road usage is then restricted on all the roads approaching the station and room made for cyclists and tramways. If the canal system did not exist, Amsterdam would have been unable to have such a successful and integrated cycling pathways or indeed no need for an elaborate metro system. Don't confuse Amsterdam's good fortune with another city's vital needs. In Tehran if the road system was not there, the metro project had not been delayed and all 11 lines were finished, the businesses would have been screaming about the excessive cost of delivering goods to shops, cafes, etc. you can not transport carts of oranges and apples on the subway. You couldn't do it in the 60s and you won't be able to do it in the 22nd century. Every model available now to predict modes of transportation in 50 or 75 years from now, allows for haulage using roads within the city limits. Granted rail is predominat for intercity haulage and water transport for longer distances.

Tehran is still within its 60s metropolitan boundaries for all the sprawls it is famous for. It is not a sprawl as defined by the way American models describe the urban growth in the US. Tehran grows along the roads network. The network is there to connect pre-existing populations, ie the old villages and towns. That is the most sensible way to fill in the empty areas in-between traditional suburban centres. Tehran's nominal density is really high not because it has too many apartment blocks like Tokyo and Hongkong but because of the way southern areas have grown almost without any shops or amenities in tightly packed inaccessible little prison cells that are called houses. There are no provisions for cars anyway because most use at best mopeds to get to work. The 'roads' are barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass, forget car traffic. They walk for miles to a bus stop otherwise. you are confusing frustration of drivers in North Tehran with necessities of getting rid of this unfair and unseen aspect of Tehran. Don't get me wrong, it has improved immeasurably but it still has a fair bit to go. The roads allow them to improve their own lives by getting jobs locally in the workshops all the way down to Rhyeh, that in turn service the consumers in other areas. Before they worked as domestic servants for the northerners or peddled laboo along the roads for 18+ hours so their sons could go to school. Please don't compare Tehran with Amsterdam or any other fully developed city as if it was just the centre and north that mattered. Tehran's problems have always been how to empower the rural migrants to fit in and become independent before falling foul of the pushers and the peddlers. In a very ironic yet logical way, yes the northern road system does help to pull them up in the most empowering way and what you see as congestion is a by-product that would have been to a large degree alleviated if the metro system had progressed as planned. Planning as I said was not the issue.
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top