Explaining the Theory-Practice Gap In Iranian Urban Design Projects Based on Communicative Theory

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Urban planning, Collage of fine arts, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Urban planning, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.

3 Department of Urban planning, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran


Referring to the concepts of communicative theory, urban design introduced as an interdisciplinary knowledge that is involved in political and social struggles. so it cannot play a neutral and purely scientific role in practice, Due to direct interference in the interests of various economic and social groups. The purpose of this study is to identify the basic concepts of communicative theory and to examine the application of these concepts in urban design projects in Iran. Therefore, by examining the philosophical theories affecting the communicative theory, the basic concepts and how these concepts are applied in the process of urban design are set, in the form of a conceptual framework. The developed conceptual framework provides the basis for the analysis and evaluation of selected projects in the next step by using directed qualitative content analysis method. The results show that by placing the most stages of urban design process in very low scale, the projects focused only on the technocratic aspects of process, and concepts of communicative theory such as power and its role in guiding process, empowerment and acquaintance of the society with their interests and expectations, and how to participate and follow it up in the form of a process of social learning have been neglected. While communicative theory, as a missing link in Iranian urban design project, with the reformulation of the relationship between space, designer, people and the institution of power, consider urban design as a product of processes in which competing discourses, based on communicative action, maximize their understanding scope by accepting multiple interest, and configure space in a participatory process. Accordingly by Ignoring the theoretical knowledge’s evolution in practice, the knowledge generated in practice will be subsequently incapable to develop and modify theoretical knowledge and consequently increase the gap between theory and practice.


  1. Abdolah Zadeh Fard, A., Zare, S. (2018). 'An Examination of the Effect of Social dimensions on Peoples’ use of Urban Public Spaces (Case study: Chamran Recreational Site of Shiraz Located Between Shahidan Sheikhi and Niayesh Bridge)', Space Ontology International Journal, 7(1), pp. 67-76.
  2. Akbari Motlaq, M. (2019). 'From Rationalism Toward Humanity: Review of Notions Evolution in Urban Planning', Space Ontology International Journal, 8(4), pp. 27-36.
  3. Albrecht, j. )1986(. 'Development, Context, and Purpose of Planning', Journal of school of architecture, 3(2).
  4.  Alexander, C. (1971). A Timeless way of building. New York, oxford university press.
  5. Alexander, E.R. (1984). 'After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown', Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(1), pp. 62-69.
  6. Alexander, E.R. (2010). 'Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how?', Planning Theory, 9(2), pp. 99-107.
  7. Alikaei, S., Amin Zadeh Gohar Rizi, B. (2019). 'An Analysis of substantial and procedural evolution of urban design process and its application in Iranian urban design projects', Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 23(4), pp. 67-80.
  8. Arabi, S., Golabchi, M., Darabpour, M. (2020). 'A Qualitative Approach Towards the Implementation of Urban Sustainability in Tehran', Space Ontology International Journal, 9(1), pp. 77-91.
  9. Banerjee, T. and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, eds. (2011). Companion to Urban Design, London: Routledge.
  10. Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning Theory, Planning Environment. Cities, Palgrave Macmillan, UK.
  11. Campbell, S., Fainstein, S. (1996). Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory, Readings in Planning Theory, Blackwell Publications Massachusetts.
  12. Carmona, M. (2014). 'The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process', Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), pp. 2-36.
  13. Cuthbert, A. (2011). Urban Design and Spatial Political Economy, In Companion to Urban Design. edited by T. Banerjee, and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, London: Routledge.
  14. Faludi, A. (1983).  'Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology', Urban Studies, 20, pp. 265-278.
  15. Flyvbjerg, B., & T. Richardson. (2002). Planning and Foucault, in Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory. in P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr _Jones (eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, London: Rutledge, pp. 44-62.
  16. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power, Berkeley, CA: university of California press.
  17. Forester, J. (1993). Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.
  18. Forester, J. (2001). 'An Instructive Case study Hampered by Theoretical Puzzles', Critical Comments on Flyvbjerg`s Rationality and Powe, International Planning Studies, 6(3).
  19. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 1972-1977, edited by Collin Gordon, New York: Pantheon. Books.
  20. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
  21. Golkar, K. (2011). 'urban design, process or processes?', Scientific-research Journal of Soffeh, (52), PP. 99-134.
  22. Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, Mass: Beacon Press.
  23. Healy, P. (1993). 'The communicative work of development plans', Environment and planning B: planning and design, 20, pp. 83-104.
  24. Healey, P. (1996). 'The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation', Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23/2(3), pp. 217-234.
  25. Hoch, C. (2007). 'Making plans: Representation & intention', Planning Theory,  6(1), pp.15-35.
  26. Innes, J. (1995). 'Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice', Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), pp.183–189.
  27. Istgaldi, M., Shokouhi, M., Rahnama, M., Mirkatouli, J. (2015). 'Communicative Action as a Basis for Realization of Citizen Participation in Urban Development Process (Case Study: City of Gorgan)', Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR), 3(3), pp. 263-283.
  28. Kelly, M, (2006). criticizing power; recreating the negotiations between Foucault and Habermas, tr. Foruzat Sojudi, Tehran, Akhtaran Publication Institute.
  29. Krieger, A.  (2003). Where and how urban design happen?, Published in “Alex Krieger and Williams Saunders, urban design, university of Minnesota press”, pp.113-120.
  30. Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  31. Lang, J. (2005). Urban Design, A Typology of Procedures and Products. Oxford: Architectural Press.
  32. Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial process. John wiley & son.
  33. Madanipour, A. (2006). 'Role and challenges of urban design', Journal of urban design, 11 (2), pp.173-193.
  34. Mayring, P. (2000), 'Qualitative content analysis'. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385 Punter, J. (1991), 'Participation in design of urban space', landscape design,
  35. Rapoport, A. (1990). History and precedual in environmental design, New York, plenum pres.
  36. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
  37. Sager, T. (1992). 'Why plan? A Multi-Rationality Foundation for planning', Scandinavian Housing &planning Research, 9, pp.129-147.
  38. Sattarzad Fathi, M., Zarei, M., Hashempour, R. (2020). 'An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Behavioral and Democratic Urban Spaces; Integrating the Theories', Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism, 10(2), pp. 61-84.
  39. Sharifzadegan, M; Shafiee, A. (2015), 'Communicative planning az new approach for community planning (Case study: Tehran, Farahzad Community)', Social Welfare, 15(56), pp. 281-313.
  40. Tebi masrour, H .(2017), 'Explain the theory of “citizen dialogue” and “communicative action” in recognition of the “public space” based on the ideas of Habermas', ijurm, 15(45), pp. 73-94.
  41. Tewdwr, J. (1998). Deconstruction communicative rationalty: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Vol 30. Pion publication printed in great Britain.
  42. Watson, V. (2016). 'Shifting Approaches to Planning Theory: Global North and South', Urban Planning, 1(4), pp. 32–41.
  43. Yiftachel, O. (2016). 'The Aleph-Jerusalem as critical learning', City, 20(3), pp. 483–494.