Volume 14, Issue 52 (8-2025)
Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2025, 14(52): 53-72 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mahmoudian Mosleh S, Saeideh Zarabadi Z S, Tabibian M, Habib F. Rereading the dimensions and components of the timeless urban space based on Grounded Theory Method. Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2025; 14 (52) :53-72
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2243-en.html
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2243-en.html
Abstract: (1221 Views)
Introduction: In the face of identity crises and declining quality in contemporary urban spaces, this study investigates the concept of the timeless urban space as an enduring, meaningful, and adaptable spatial phenomenon. Unlike ordinary urban environments shaped by fleeting trends or rigid historical preservation, timeless urban spaces integrate cultural memory, spatial continuity, and emotional resonance. While many previous studies have focused on the durability of architectural monuments or the aesthetics of historical spaces, few have explored the multidimensional essence of timelessness in urban design. This research aims to identify and categorize the dimensions, components, and criteria that define timeless urban spaces.
Methodology: This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory–explanatory approach using Grounded Theory Methodology as developed by Glaser and Strauss. The data was gathered through systematic review of literature (books, peer-reviewed articles, and theses), followed by a multi-step coding process (open, axial, and selective). In the open coding phase, 76 concepts were extracted from 131 significant quotations. These concepts were then grouped into 18 components and ultimately into 8 core dimensions: meaning, form, perception, identity, culture, politics, economy, and time. The axial coding organized these dimensions according to Strauss and Corbin’s paradigm model, identifying causal conditions, strategies, contextual factors, and consequences.
Results: The findings highlight that timelessness is the result of a holistic balance among spatial, social, cultural, and symbolic factors. Dimensions such as meaning, identity, and continuity emerged as dominant themes in shaping timeless urban space. Other influential components include spiritual expression, collective memory, sense of belonging, presence, flexibility, legibility, accessibility, and material durability. The research also confirms that timelessness entails both temporal continuity and spatial adaptability—embedding emotional, symbolic, and functional values across generations. A key insight is that meaning and identity are not static, but actively constructed through engagement, ritual, and cultural interaction within the urban environment.
Conclusion: A timeless urban space is one that evokes emotional resonance, sustains social and cultural interactions, and adapts to shifting temporal and functional needs. It must support symbolic expression, material resilience, and user presence, while respecting local values and ecological context. Timelessness is neither pure nostalgia nor resistance to change—it is the capacity of urban space to remain relevant and meaningful through time. This study offers a strategic framework for integrating timeless qualities into urban planning and design.
Methodology: This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory–explanatory approach using Grounded Theory Methodology as developed by Glaser and Strauss. The data was gathered through systematic review of literature (books, peer-reviewed articles, and theses), followed by a multi-step coding process (open, axial, and selective). In the open coding phase, 76 concepts were extracted from 131 significant quotations. These concepts were then grouped into 18 components and ultimately into 8 core dimensions: meaning, form, perception, identity, culture, politics, economy, and time. The axial coding organized these dimensions according to Strauss and Corbin’s paradigm model, identifying causal conditions, strategies, contextual factors, and consequences.
Results: The findings highlight that timelessness is the result of a holistic balance among spatial, social, cultural, and symbolic factors. Dimensions such as meaning, identity, and continuity emerged as dominant themes in shaping timeless urban space. Other influential components include spiritual expression, collective memory, sense of belonging, presence, flexibility, legibility, accessibility, and material durability. The research also confirms that timelessness entails both temporal continuity and spatial adaptability—embedding emotional, symbolic, and functional values across generations. A key insight is that meaning and identity are not static, but actively constructed through engagement, ritual, and cultural interaction within the urban environment.
Conclusion: A timeless urban space is one that evokes emotional resonance, sustains social and cultural interactions, and adapts to shifting temporal and functional needs. It must support symbolic expression, material resilience, and user presence, while respecting local values and ecological context. Timelessness is neither pure nostalgia nor resistance to change—it is the capacity of urban space to remain relevant and meaningful through time. This study offers a strategic framework for integrating timeless qualities into urban planning and design.
Keywords: Timelessness, Urban Space, Continuity, Identity, Grounded Theory, Sense of Place, Cultural Memory
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2025/08/3 | Accepted: 2025/08/1 | Published: 2025/08/1 | ePublished: 2025/08/1
Received: 2025/08/3 | Accepted: 2025/08/1 | Published: 2025/08/1 | ePublished: 2025/08/1
References
1. احمدآبادی، زهره، صالحی هیکویی، مریم، و احمدآبادی، علی. (1386). رابطه مکان و جرم: مطالعه آسیبشناسی گیمنتهای شهر تهران، فصلنامه رفاه اجتماعی، 7 (27)، 253-275.
2. اساسی، وریا. (1396). تدوین الگوی عوامل موثر بر شکل گیری مکان ماندگار در خاطره جمعی نمونه موردی: بوستان(شفق، ملت، آب و آتش). رساله دکتری. دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم تحقیقات.
3. اسلامی، شیرین، و شاهیوندی، احمد. (1402). سنجش شاخص های خلق حس مکان در توسعههای جدید شهری، نمونه مورد مطالعه: (شهرک قدس قم)، فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 12(47)، 51-64
4. امیدیان کلشگرانی، لیلا، ثقفی اصل، آرش، ستاری ساربانقلی، حسن، و فرامرزی اصلی, مهسا. (1402). شناسایی مؤلفههای تأثیرگذار بر تغییر کارکردهای اجتماعی فضاهای شهری با تأکید بر اقتصاد سیاسی و طرحهای توسعه (مطالعه موردی: مناطق 3 و 12 کلانشهر تهران)، جغرافیا و آمایش شهری منطقهای، 14(50)، 1-28
5. پور جعفر، محمد رضا. (1386). جاودانگی در شهرسازی با نگاهی به شهر رم، ماهنامه شهرداری ها، شماره54 ص 51-54
6. حسنی میان رودی، نسیم، ماجدی، حمید، زرآبادی، زهرا السادات سعیده، و زیاری، یوسفعلی. (1396) واکاوی مفهوم خاطره جمعی و بازیابی آن در فضاهای شهری با رویکرد نشانه شناسی (نمونه موردی میدان حسن آباد)، باغ نظر. 14(56 ):17-32.
7. خاتمی، سیدیحیی.(1397). تبیین نقش ابررویدادهای آیینی- فرهنگی بر دگردیسی و ماندگاری فضاهای شهری (مطالعه موردی: رویداد عزاداری اردبیل). رساله دکتری. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، دانشکده هنر
8. خالقیان، سیما، و صالحی، ابوذر. (1398). تأثیر تداوم کارکرد در ماندگاری بافت تاریخی شهر زواره، فصلنامه مطالعات تاریخ فرهنگی. ۱۰ (۴۰) :۱-۲۵
9. دانایی فرد، حسن، الوانی، سید مهدی، و آذر، عادل. (1387). روش شناسی پژوهش کمی در مدیریت: رویکردی جامع. اشراقی، تهران.
10. دانایی فرد، حسن، و امامی، مجتبی. (1386). استراتژی های پژوهش :کیفی تأملی بر نظریه پردازی داده بنیاد، اندیشه. مدیریت، 1 (2) :69-97
11. درفشی، علی. (1386). منظر جاودان. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
12. شعاعی، حمیدرضا.(1390). مطالعه تطبیقی علل ماندگاری حسینه های ایران( تهران، ساری، بندرلنگه و نائین)، رساله دکتری. دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم تحقیقات.
13. شفیعیان داریانی، فائزه، پورجعفر، محمدرضا، و قبادی، علیرضا. (1393). مفهوم ماندگاری در معماری اسلامی و مقایسهی آن با مفهوم پایداری در معماری معاصر. پژوهشهاي معماري اسلامي. ۲ (۴) :۳۲-۴۸
14. شیبانی، مهدی، درفشی، علی، و پرهوده، فاطمه. (1392). سنجش چرایی دلبستگی مخاطبان به برخی مناظر و عوامل شکل دهنده آن. صفه، -(63)،48-63
15. عشایری، طاها، نیازی، محسن، و وثوقی اصل، محسن. (1400). مطالعه ترس از جرم در بین شهروندان اردبیلی. پژوهش های جامعه شناسی. 15 (1) :111-140
16. مغربی، شاهد.(1398). تبیین مفهوم ماندگاری در فضای شهری با تاکید بر دگردیسی، پایایی، مورد پژوهی محله ی علی قلی آقا شهر اصفهان. رساله دکتری. دانشگاه هنر اصفهان.
17. نقره کار، عبدالحمید، حمزه نژاد، مهدی، و آیسان فروزنده. (1388). راز جاودانگی آثار معماری (تحلیلی بر نگرش های نوگرا و فرانوگرا و رویکردهای فراگیرتر) . باغ نظر. 6 (12) :۳1-۴4
18. Ben-Hamouche, M. (2013). The paradox of urban preservation: Balancing permanence and changeability in old Muslim cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6(2), 192-212. [DOI:10.1080/17549175.2013.820213]
19. Blake, K. S., & Smith, J. S. (2000). Pueblo Mission Churches as Symbols of Permanence and Identity. Geographical Review, 90(3), 359-380.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2000.tb00342.x [DOI:10.2307/3250858]
20. Boussaa, D. (2017). Urban regeneration and the search for identity in historic cities. Sustainability, 10(1), 48. [DOI:10.3390/su10010048]
21. Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban design international, 24(1), 47-59. [DOI:10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3]
22. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Tanner, E., & Tisdel, S. (2009). Public places, urban spaces: various dimensions of urban design. Translated by Fariba Qaraei et al. Tehran: University of Arts Publications.
23. Cho, I. S., Heng, C. K., & Trivic, Z. (2015). Re-framing urban space: urban design for emerging hybrid and high-density conditions. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315725147]
24. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
25. Corodescu-Roșca, E., Hamdouch, A., & Iațu, C. (2023). Innovation in urban governance and economic resilience. The case of two Romanian regional metropolises: Timișoara and Cluj Napoca. Cities, 132, 104090. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2022.104090]
26. Curnier, S. (2022). Universal Singular: Public Space Design of the Early 21st Century (p. 272). De Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783035621006]
27. Derrett, R. (2003). Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a community's sense of place. Event Management, 8(1), 49-58. [DOI:10.3727/152599503108751694]
28. Feola, G., Goodman, M. K., Suzunaga, J., & Soler, J. (2023). Collective memories, place-framing and the politics of imaginary futures in sustainability transitions and transformation. Geoforum, 138, 103668. [DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.103668]
29. Gamba, F., & Cattacin, S. (2021). Urbans rituals as spaces of memory and belonging: A Geneva case study. City, culture and society, 24, 100385. [DOI:10.1016/j.ccs.2021.100385]
30. Gürleyen, T. (2018). Memory layers, porosity and montage as representative interfaces of anamnesis and forgetting. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 15(2), 125-135. [DOI:10.5505/itujfa.2018.75002]
31. Hussein, F., Stephens, J., & Tiwari, R. (2020). Memory for social sustainability: Recalling cultural memories in Zanqit Alsitat historical street market, Alexandria, Egypt. Sustainability, 12(19), 8141. [DOI:10.3390/su12198141]
32. Jiao, L., Wu, Y., Fang, K., & Liu, X. (2023). Typo-morphological approaches for maintaining the sustainability of local traditional culture: A case study of the Damazhan and Xiaomazhan historical area in Guangzhou. Buildings, 13(9), 2351. [DOI:10.3390/buildings13092351]
33. Kaiser, G., & Presmeg, N. (2019). Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education (p. 532). Springer Nature. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7]
34. Karimi, K. (2000). Urban conservation and spatial transformation: preserving the fragments or maintaining the 'spatial spirit'. Urban Design International, 5(3), 221-231.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave/udi/9000012 [DOI:10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000012]
35. Kasurinen, J. (2012). Software organizations and test process development. In Advances in Computers (Vol. 85, pp. 1-63). Elsevier. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-396526-4.00001-1]
36. Kim, M. (2015). The matters of the continuity in architecture. GSTF Journal of Engineering Technology (JET), 3(3), 27. [DOI:10.7603/s40707-014-0027-x]
37. Krzyżanowska, N. (2016). The discourse of counter-monuments: semiotics of material commemoration in contemporary urban spaces. Social semiotics, 26(5), 465-485. [DOI:10.1080/10350330.2015.1096132]
38. Laurìa, A., & Vessella, L. (2021). Small Forgotten Places in the Hearth of Cities: On the residuality of public spaces in historical contexts: Florence as a case study (p. 156). Firenze University Press. [DOI:10.36253/978-88-5518-497-7] []
39. Lesiège, M. H. An Architecture Of Permanence (Doctoral dissertation, Toronto Metropolitan University).
40. Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of environmental psychology, 28(3), 209-231. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001]
41. Madanipour, A., Knierbein, S., & Degros, A. (2013). Public space and the challenges of urban transformation in Europe. In Public Space and the Challenges of Urban Transformation in Europe (pp. 183-190). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315880495]
42. Mihaila, M. (2012). Urban memory and continuity. Journal Argument EUIM, 4, 307-323.
43. Miller, W. (2015). Understanding grounded theory. Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 197-200. [DOI:10.29074/ascls.28.3.197]
44. Moayedi, M., Salehi, S. K., & Kheyroddin, R. (2015). Identification of effective components for creation of rituals in public spaces, promotion of social values and capital. International Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 3(2), 81. [DOI:10.11648/j.ijsts.s.2015030201.26]
45. Motalebi, G., & Sedaghati, A. (2020). Forming a unique identity derived from cultural values hidden in the collective memories of citizens. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management, 5(3).
46. Mowla, Q. A. (2004). Memory association in place making: understanding an urban space. Memory, 9(52-54).
47. Pallasmaa, J. (2016). Inhabiting time. Architectural Design, 86(1), 50-59. [DOI:10.1002/ad.2001]
48. Paphitis, T. (2020). Haunted landscapes: place, past and presence. Time and Mind, 13(4), 341-349.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2020.1835092 [DOI:10.1080/1751696X.2020.1835091]
49. Rembeza, M., & Sas-Bojarska, A. (2022). The changing nature of in-between spaces in the transformation process of cities. Urban Planning, 7(1), 32-43. [DOI:10.17645/up.v7i1.4444]
50. Stepanchuk, A., Salyakhova, M., & Salyakhova, V. (2021). Preserving identity while reorganizing urban spaces. In E3S Web of conferences (Vol. 274, p. 01017). EDP Sciences. [DOI:10.1051/e3sconf/202127401017]
51. Stern, A. (2017). Sense of place, sense of self. Saybrook University.
52. Upadhyaya, M. (2022, February 3). Modern memorials: 7 moving monuments found across North America. Architizer Journal. https://architizer.com/blog/inspiration/collections/modern-memorials-north-america/
53. Vollstedt, M., & Rezat, S. (2019). An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm. Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education, 13(1), 81-100. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_4]
54. Xie, Y. (2022). Permanence and resilience: The framing role of landscape architecture. Restructuring Cultural Landscapes in Metropolitan Areas: Characterization, Typology and Design Research, 29-43. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-19-0755-5_3]
55. Yuen, B. (2005). Searching for place identity in Singapore. Habitat International, 29(2), 197-214. [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2003.07.002]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
