内容发布更新时间 : 2024/5/17 11:21:17星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。

的增长都更快，但是它的增长率也开始下降（Khatam, 1993）。 在革命和战争后，正常化和重建时期开始了，其中大部分持续到上世纪90年代。这期间见证了德黑兰城市规划的若干努力。但是没有一个有效的框架来管理剧烈的城市发展。综合计划在革命后遭到攻击，因为它被认为无法适应变化。 1998年，市长批评它主要是形态上的发展规划、植根于前政权的政治框架、并没有足够重视实际操作问题（Dehaghani，1995）。 综合计划的25年寿命在1991年结束。一个伊朗顾问公司（A-Tech）受委托于1985年理事会批准。该计划还注重增长的管理和线性空间战略，利用了城市区域，次区域，地区，小区和邻里尺度。它促进保护、权力下放、多中心发展，有五个卫星新市镇，并发展住宅增加城市密度。该协会建议，城市在5个亚区中被划分成22个区，每个区都拥有自己的服务中心（Shahrdari-e Tehran, 2004）。

1993年的计划不受市政当局欢迎，不同意它的估价和优先次序，认为它不现实、昂市政的第一个规划或是德黑兰80。它强调对一个城市提出战略和政策来实现他们的第一个规划，而不是以介绍土地利用规划为目标。它把城市的主要问题确定为能提供服务的资源短缺、城市发展模式和速度、环境污染、缺乏有效的公共交通工具、效率低下和官僚主义。然后市政府对城市的未来远景概述了六个主要特征：一个清洁的城市，建设便于运动的城市公园和绿化带，新的文化和体育设施，改革发展的城市组织，以及对城市空间的改善，包括土地利用和保护的全面和详细的计划的编制规划(Shahrdari-e Tehran, 1996)。

全市实施了1968年的计划中提出的一部分建议，诸如增加南方的绿色开放空间，或是兴建高速公路网;开放城市的大部分地区使之得到新的发展以缓解全城的运作。继承1993年计划的意见，市政府放宽容积率限制，并允许热闹地带有更高的密度。然而，这并非基于规划的考虑，主要是为

了使市政当局的财政独立。这在发展产业区广受欢迎，但受到公民的争议。开发者可以通过向市政府缴纳罚款建立更高的建筑物，而不必考虑对周围环境的影响，这个政策俗称“密度销售”。该城市的面貌，特别是在其北部地区，是在短期内改变的，其中包括中通过宽阔的街道和高速公路连接高楼大厦。在较贫穷的南部，一个大型的重建项目Navab穿过密集而破旧的建筑物建造高速公路，建立庞大的上层建筑的各个方面。这个城市的行政边界扩大了两次，一次向外，一次向西，涵盖了700平方公里的22个区市。

这个时期的重建争议随着民主的改革而产生，它重新启动了城市市议会的选举，这首先造成了市长和市政府关系的制度混乱。该会于2001年公布了自己的城市构想作为德黑兰宪章，这总结了大会上安理会成员、非政府组织和市政专家之间原则上同意的问题。该宪章主要采纳了可持续性和民主性原则，被用于开发自然和处理环境、交通、社会、文化、经济问题、城市管理战略、区域性城市，国家和国际角色 。

Development of the city of Tehran

The city in size and complexity to such an extent thatits spatial managementneeded additional tools, which resulted in the growing complexity of municipalorganization, and in the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the city.

After the Second World War, during which the Allied forces occupied the country, there was a period of democratization, followed by political tensions of the start of the cold war, and struggles

over the control of oil. This period was ended in 1953 by a coup detat that returned the Shah to

power, who then acted as an executive monarch for the next 25 years. With

intensification of rural–urban migration, Tehran— and other large cities—grew even faster than before. By 1956, Tehran’s population rose to 1.5 million, by 1966 to 3 million, and by 1976 to 4.5 million; its size grew from 46 km2 in 1934 to 250 km2 in 1976 (Kariman, 1976; Vezarat-e Barnameh va Budgeh, 1987).

Revenues from the oil industry rose, creating surplus resources that needed to be circulated and absorbed in the economy. An industrialization drive from the mid-1950s created many new jobs in big cities, particularly in Tehran. The land reforms of the 1960s released large numbers of rural population from agriculture, which was not able to absorb the exponential demographic growth. This new labour force was attracted to cities: to the new industries, to the construction sector which seemed to be always booming, to services and the constantly growing public sector bureaucracy. Tehran’s role as the administrative, economic, and cultural centre of the country, and its gateway to the outside world, was firmly consolidated. Urban expansion in postwar Tehran was based on under-regulated, private-sector driven, speculative development. Demand for industry and the rising prices of land and property in Tehran. The city grew in a disjointed manner in all directions along the outgoing roads, integrating the surrounding towns and villages, and growing new suburban settlements. This intensified social segregation, destroyed suburban gardens and green spaces, and left the city managers feeling powerless. A deputy mayor of the city in 1962 commented that in Tehran, ‘‘the buildings and settlements developed by whomever whatever way and wherever they fact a number of towns connected to each other in an

inappropriate way’’ (Nafisi, 1964, p. 426). There was a feeling that something urgently needed to be done, but the municipality was not legally or financially capable of dealing with this process.

The 1966 Municipality Act provided, for the first time, a legal framework for the formation of the Urban Planning High Council and for the establishment of land-use planning in the form of comprehensive plans. A series of other laws followed, underpinning new legal and institutional arrangements for the Tehran municipality, allowing the Ministry of Housing and others to work together in managing the growth of the city. The most important step taken in planning was the approval of the Tehran Comprehensive Plan in 1968. It was produced by a consortium of Aziz Farmanfarmaian Associates of Iran and Victor Gruen Associates of the United States, under the direction of Fereydun Ghaffari, an Iranian city planner (Ardalan, 1986). The plan identified the city’s problems as the city centre; expansion of commercial activities along the main roads; pollution; inefficient infrastructure; widespread unemployment in the poorer areas, and the continuous migration of low-income groups to Tehran. The solution was to be found in the transformation of the city’s physical, social and economic fabric (Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968). The proposals were, nevertheless, mostly advocating physical change, attempting, in a modernist

spirit, to impose a new order onto this complex metropolis. The future of the city was envisaged to

be growing westward in a linear polycentric form, reducing the density and congestion of the city centre. The city would be formed of 10 large

urban districts, separated from each motorways, a rapid transit route and a bus route. The stops on the rapid transit route would be developed as the nodes for concentration of activities with a the existing urban areas would

Almost all these measures can be traced to the fashionable planning ideas of the time, which were largely influenced by the British New Towns. In (1965) centre. This resembled Ebenezer Howard’s (1960, p. 142) ‘‘social cities’’, in which a central city was surrounded by a cluster of garden cities. In Tehran’s plan, a linear version of this concept was used. Another linear concept, which was used in the British New Towns of the time such as Redditch and Runcorn, was the importance of public transport routes as the town’s spine, with its stopping points serving as its foci. The use of neighborhood units of limited population, focused on a neighborhood centre and a primary school, was widely used in these New Towns, an idea that developed in the 1920s in the United States (Mumford, 1954). These ideas remained, paper. Some of the plan’s ideas that were implemented, which were rooted in American city planning, included a network of freeways to connect the disjointed parts of the sprawling metropolis; zoning as the basis for managing the social and physical character of different areas; and the introduction of Floor Area Ratios for controlling development densities.

Other major planning exercises, undertaken in the 1970s, included the partial development of a New Town, Shahrak Gharb, and the planning of a new administrative centre for the city—Shahestan—by the British consultants Llewelyn–Davies, although there was never time to implement