Spatial Arts in Tehran!
Ahh Shahpoor those were the days! I remember when Vali-asr was like that!
http://en.tehran.ir/default.aspx?tabid=77&ArticleId=748Efforts 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.
its obvious they use the most garbage quality products, shame on themShapoor said:The rainfall of the last 2 days caused even more damage to the sidewalks and water canals
Full photo report here: http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1651252
i was ignorant , apologiesShapoor 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.
http://calgarybuzz.com/2016/02/sustainable-amsterdam-transformation/Sharing Amsterdam’s story of transformation into a city for people
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.”
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
You don't ask them to stop driving. That's never worked anywhere. You make them stop driving.The other major problem would be getting the people to buy into it. The last 2 generations are all about driving for everything.
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.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. .........
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.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.