Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

---

This article is an attempted to redesign of communal and private spaces in public apartments to enhancing social health with the case study of Baharestan 2 complex of Sanandaj city. The Baharestan complex is a public apartment which is built by governmental organizations. The complex is placed on southern part of the city and in a half-old and half-modern context. This residential complex construction process has begun in 2007 by Bonyad-Maskan (Housing Institute) organization and now all constructions are done. Studies indicates that most of residents are dissatisfied from limited spaces, ignoring cultural and social contrast which result in low congruence and convergence of collective and private spaces. In the first look, uniformity of buildings and similarity of blocks over the complex will result visual confusion and reduces sense of place in residents. Also residents complained about some collective, semi collective and private spaces like lobby, waiting hall, corridors and interior plan. This kind of construction reduces value of home in to building which result in increasing soulless spaces. Thus problems of Baharestan 2 complex can be consider as Social health issues. Hence, the relative reduction of problems and subsequently enhancing residents Social-environment statues with architectural design approach is the main purpose of this study. Housing as a place of residence and mental comfort, is one of the human basic needs. Bachelard defines home as internal space regarding external spaces like cities, streets, farms, seas, nature and even universe; a place for fostering dreams. At other hand, Heidegger thinks basic crisis of home is not lack of construction, but is human desire to residence. Schultz defines residence as establishment of a deep relationship between human and surrounded environment. This relationship is an attempt to granting identity and sense of place to a place and emphasizes that human would consolidate if he finds his home. Rappaport believes that home is consist of several parameters but social and cultural aspects are the most important. At other hand WHO defines “Health” as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. The Definition has not been amended since 1948. Also in 1986 WHO said that “a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.” In this definition, each member of a family is a member of society and welfare of a member is connected to welfare and health of others. In a residential complex underlying motivations as social stability, reduce conflict and social problems, strengthening social stimuli or perhaps local support is of particular importance. According to Mead (1973) there are several factors which makes a residential complex in to a desired one. These factors are: Compatible neighbors, sense of community and a sense of continuity, knowledge of the biosphere and sense of common destiny. Also diversity, avoiding social-separation, social integration, coexistence, sharing values, lack of social stress, lack of inhibition to develop links with local citizens, ownership, encourage collaboration, safety, security and trust, protection of accidents, theft and vandalism , feedback, participation, effectiveness in decisionmaking, planning and open decision-making, active control mechanisms and appropriate services, are other included factors. Whereas social environment should be compatible with community values. It means that social environment should encourage individual to control and monitor, not to pushing stress on them and deprived them of necessary drivers. Lynch believes human should be able to see well and hear well and interact with others in the community. Elements and components such as the environment, hallway, door, stairs and slopes must comply with individual and social needs of residents. According to Levine, social health is to answer to this fundamental question that whether it be natural method (peaceful or compatible) and acceptable to continue to live with others. Also a method presented to define social health in physical environment design. As social integration concept three subject defined: Social facilitation (social initiation, observability, convergence and accommodation) regarding to intermediary space like corridor, hall and entrance space, social participation (Possibility of choice, productive participation) regarding to personal space like housing unit and social mingling in relation with local community assumed as apartment building. With this background, this paper is dealing with serious problems in residential plans, and specially focused on redesigning collective and semi collective spaces like lobby, waiting hall and corridors, and also possible considerations applied in private plans. This article is a resaerch with survey method. For selecting the respondent›s imporbable sampling method was used. Research has been consist of visionary part (articles, books, specialty Journals, consulting with professors and experts), and operational (analyzing architectural palns, documents, questionaries, workshops with some residents, providing photos and Maping). Workshops with public notification and the presence of a number of heads of household and board of directors in buildings held three sessions. In addition existing and corrective plans evaluated by thirty resident with simple random sampling method. The main assumption was that the proposed plans was to reduce the costs of interventions so that no financial pressure felt by residents and also increases amount of community participation. The questionnaire includes four existing and proposed plans and results in the form of bar graphs extracted and presented in each section. Also data has been analysed with SPSS17.0. Statstical software. Proposed plans defined and designed according to workshops and data obtained from survey research. Quaternaries results indicated that 85 percent of residents are not satisfied with existing plans and about 74 percent are satisfied with proposed plan of lobby. 73 percent of residents are not satisfied with existing plans and about 50 percent are satisfied with proposed plan waiting hall. 70 percent of residents are not satisfied with existing plans and about 74 percent are satisfied with proposed plan corridors. 67 percent of residents are not satisfied with existing plans and about 70 percent are satisfied with proposed interior plan. All in all results indicated that resident are not satisfied with collective, semi collective and private spaces. After accurate explaining of problems and issues, by two-dimension plans, various options presented and after analyzing and discussions and also holding numerous specialty meetings with some residents, final option was chosen and finally plans in details was designed. Main hypothesis of the study was reduction of interventions Costs, to minimizing financial pressure on resident sand increases community participation of residents. Results of the paper has a good agreement with previous studies in this field like Newman (1974), Beer and Higgins (2011), Lynch (2010), Greenbie (1974), and Cooper and Sarkissian (1986), as presented in discussion. All in all, the article as a result emphasizes on requisite of healthy, design, pleasant and sustainable, Particular attention to the needs, desires, and social patterns of the residents general population as main owners of building. There is no doubt that alongside this issue, a lot of mental, social, economic factors have roles in how people behave towards the environment, thus planners and designers should consider appropriate manners.

Keywords: collective and private spaces, social health, public apartments, Sanandaj

Full-Text [PDF 1306 kb]   (13606 Downloads)    

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

---