تحلیل تطبیقی ماهیت و فرایند تهیه طرح ساختاری راهبردی در ایران و طرحهای توسعه شهری کشورهای توسعه‌یافته

تهیه و اجرای طرح جامع با آشکار شدن ضعفهایش چه در بعد ماهوی و چه اجرایی در جهان، در حدود 60 سال است که در اکثر کشورهای توسعهیافته منسوخ شده است. در ایران اما اجرای آن کماکان ادامه یافته است. گرچه در سالیان اخیر تلاشهایی برای تغییر این روند برداشته شد که نمونه بارز آن آغاز به تهیه طرحهایی موسوم به ساختاری راهبردی از اواسط دهه هفتاد خورشیدی در ایران بوده است. بررسی این طرح و نیز مقایسه با دو طرحی که به نوعی از ترکیب آنها بوجود آمده (استراتژیک و طرح ساختاری) آشکار ساخت طرح ساختاری راهبردی فارغ از برخی پیشرفتهای شکلی، ترکیبی ناقص از سه الگوی جامع، ساختاری و استراتژیک است. در مطالعات وضع موجود از همان الگوی پژوهشی طرح جامع پیروی کرده و در سطوح دیگر نیز ویژگیهای یک طرح نوین را عرضه نمی‌دارد. بهره‌گیری از الگوی استراتژیک به شکل بسیار سطحی و بی ارتباط با بخشهای دیگر و بدون وقوف بر فحوای طرح و استفاده از تنها مطالعات مرحله اول طرح ساختاری انگلستان و عدم دقت در مرحله دوم آن (طرح محلی) و عرضه طرحهایی مجزا از ساختار اصلی، از دیگر نشانه‌های عدم وجود ساختاری نوین در این طرح است. بازنگری مجدد در نظام طرحهای توسعه شهری کشور و تلاش برای پوشش ضعفهای الگوی جامع ضمن اضافه نمودن ویژگیهای مثبت الگوی استراتژیک پیش از تهیه و اجرای کامل این الگوی امتحان پس داده (استراتژیک) با ارائه طرحی جایگزین، می‌تواند راه‌حل مناسبتری نسبت به طرح ساختاری راهبردی برای ساماندهی شهرهای کشور باشد.

Comparative analysis of the nature and process of preparing a Structural-Strategic plan in Iran and Urban Development Plans of developed countries

IntroductionIn Iran, a comprehensive urban plan has been prepared and implemented for almost 5 decades. The most prominent plan that has completely dominated the country’s urban planning system from the early 1960s to the late 1990s and until now (2019) relatively absolutely. Gradually, with the revelation of many weaknesses of this plan, which in combination with the structural weaknesses of the country’s urban planning system became more obvious and prominent, the grounds for changes in the system of urban development plans emerged and based on a review of urban development plan services, and its concepts were revised. The inability of traditional management and thus traditional urban development plans to meet the needs of cities had revealed that urban management needed new patterns. Specifically, with the proposal of preparing structuralStrategic urban plans instead of comprehensive urban plans and preparing detailed basic, local and thematic plans instead of traditional detailed plans in the middle of the 1990s, a serious step was taken to change the old trend and prepare and implement socalled new plans. Specifically, after the evaluation of the Ministry of Urban Development of comprehensive urban plans in 1999, it was suggested that StructuralStrategic plans be prepared as a pattern for some metropolises, and based on this proposal, two research plans were defined to investigate the issue: one called process revision, and the content of urban plans and others called global experiences in structural and strategic planning.Data and MethodThe present article is a kind of basicapplied and developmental research and has considered descriptive and comparativeanalytical methods to achieve its goals. Specifically, the research in the form of an analytical and descriptive approach, first begins with the study of urban development plans in Iran and the world, and with a detailed documentary study, the foundations of the idea are formed. Then, by analytical study of the plan (content analysis) and in a comparative study with urban development plans of developed countries, indicators and data as well as the main principles and objectives of the extracted plan are compared.Results and DiscussionStructuralStrategic plans of Iran, as its title shows, have a twopart structure (structural and strategic), but according to the authors, they have three parts: strategic part, structural part and comprehensive part. Identifying some of the essential weaknesses of this hybrid plan, roughly indicates that the plan is not able to fully and optimally achieve its goals. In addition, the managerial dilemma has dominated the plan from the beginning. The Supreme Council of Urban Planning and Architecture has not reached a complete conclusion and has not fully accepted the StructuralStrategic plan or the name given among the experts, that is, the Comprehensive Strategic Structural plan. Some parts are not approved and some are not approved, and in this situation, consulting engineers and municipalities are naturally confused, and to avoid this situation, the general tendency of the urban planning system to devise and prepare the previous pattern, i.e. Comprehensive, is diverted. Examination of some internal samples clearly showed that this combination has led to a kind of substantial rupture and avoidance of feasibility. It can be said with negligence that only the structural part has been prepared in a way that has more excitability. The existing studies section has many similarities with this section in the comprehensive pattern and unfortunately has the same problems. The strategic part of the plan is not well developed and in accordance with the principles of Western strategic plans