Haitham Abdulhussein Alshamari | Nabil T. Ismael* | Hussam S.O. Adelphil | Shaimaa M. Hamza
© 2022 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
There are two dominant concepts about traditional cities, first, the physical traditional environments reflect the lifestyle form of their individuals and vice versa. that means, in one respect, the urban traditional form explains and supports the unity of the society’s nature which is manifested in social cohesion. Second, those cities with their societies are able to preserve themselves over time, in spite of forces of change. So, the paper is interested in exploring the mutual relationship between the physical built environment and social cohesion in traditional cities as the socio-spatial Phenomenon. Its problem is that some development projects for traditional cities do not care about social cohesion and do not deal with these cities as one of the socio-spatial types. The paper's question is, how can additions and development projects enhance and promote social cohesion in Traditional cities? The hypothesis of the paper is that social cohesion results from seven factors that pressure individuals to be under a relatively clear and defined social Order, these are (Customs, kinship, values and ethics, law, interests and conflicts, responsibilities, and rights) and that there is correlative compatibility between the phenomenon of social cohesion and the features of the physical Built environment for traditional cities. The project of developing the traditional city of Kadhimiya in Baghdad was taken as a case study, The paper concluded that all urban environments have seven factors, but their arrangement is what determines the socio-spatial Type. The results of the project’s assessment weren't suitable to promote the traditional socio-spatial type, but it was promoting the modern type according to the arrangement of its seven factors. So, there is a special arrangement for traditional cities that must be taken into account in any addition or urban development.
social cohesion, traditional type, socio-spatial, seven factors, Kadhimiya city
The city is a changeable socio-spatial phenomenon, which represents the interaction between individuals and the environment to produce the form of urban lifestyle. All the Social interactions are translated into relationships within the built environment. These relationships are governed by various factors or norms such as customs, kinship, values, laws, interests, responsibilities, and rights. These factors represent pressure commitments that act like glue to bind individuals together in the same urban place to show a coherent social order. Commitments within the group may be independent of inclinations, and self-interests, and perhaps if the group formulates its commitments in a way that does not intersect with the self-interests of its members, the social order becomes more coherent and continuous. There is always a rational reason for social obligations, including self-interest people who are jointly committed have obligations towards one another. Thus, membership in a social group in the plural subject sense carries obligations with it. Plural subject phenomena include collective goals, beliefs, values, and social rules or norms. they have a common core: joint commitment [1]. Therefore, those factors of pressure commitments can be called the powers.
In urban spatial phenomena, social interactions occur when individuals exist in a particular place. Therefore, social interaction involves the careful assessment of the practices of everyday communication between people in various (usually) real-life contexts [2]. these interactions contain all forms of similar and different social bonds which reflect their traces on the arrangement of the places. In addition, social interactions had been divided into three constituent properties: motivational, interactional, and structuring. Motivational processes are those that energize and mobilize actors to interact; interactional processes concern how actors use gestures to signal and interpret, and structuring processes are those behaviors among motivated individuals that allow them to repeat and organize interactions across time and space [3]. Through this division, social interaction affects the organization of the built environment in three directions, namely (activities that include land use and functions, behavior that includes movement (mobility) and accommodation, and cognition that includes mental health and a sense of place).
According to Michael Mann, power is the capacity to get others to do things that otherwise they would not do. In a city, individuals enter into power relations involving both cooperation and conflict with other people, and these relations generate societies. So, power may be collective [4]. Therefore, the power of social capital represents a collective power that generates social orders. This power enforces its factors on people who live in the same place and have many links, interests, activities, and common issues to produce a particular form of social cohesion.
Social cohesion is a broad concept, covering several dimensions at once: A sense of belonging and active participation, and trust. It is related to tolerance and respect for other people, and a sense of responsibility, it means also enables citizens to live in societies where they enjoy a sense of belonging and trust [5]. In addition, it includes that are common values and civic culture; social order and social control; social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities; social networks and social capital; and territorial belonging and identity [6]. Therefore, social cohesion is the result of socio-spatial factors that govern individuals within a particular place, it is a manifestation of the urban places' classification.
In addition, the urban place has a particular power that comes from the place's components themselves, like Activities, people, buildings, spaces, and other physical elements. These components give a place’s characteristics, which are classified as locational, demographic, religious, linguistic, medical, economic, and social factors combine to formulate an aggregate power of place that is further defined by natural and environmental conditions [7]. Therefore, the power of the place's components enforces its factors as with the power of society to generate the type of urban form. The nature of the lifestyle, behaviors, and Activities are affected by reactions toward physical elements of a place. This effect appears in the urban shape (morphologically), as such this power considers one of many fundamental manifestations to achieve a sense of place unity.
Shaping place needs the actors who may behave some or all these concepts: (Legitimacy, authorities, capabilities, ownership, interests, and specializations). These factors also participate in producing the power of urban form, it is called “Actors' power” which is represented by stakeholders, and agencies’ abilities to produce urban form as the developers, architects, and builders (as direct agents). And on planners and politicians (as indirect agents) [8]. Therefore, this power is mainly related to the need and desires of individuals, companies, and institutions.
The Paper’s hypothesis is that the socio-spatial type follows social cohesion. It in turn follows the power of the organization of the built environment, the power of society, and the power of the role of individuals. These powers are subject to seven factors which are: (Customs, kinship, values, laws, interests, responsibilities, and rights). Therefore, the paper assumes that each built environment has a type of social cohesion determined according to the arrangement of the importance of these seven factors (Figure 1).
Most urban morphological studies refer to classify the types of socio- spatial into three main types that are: traditional, modern, and hybrid. These studies also consider that cities are changeable phenomena due to unstable their powers and several interventions over time.
The paper’s motivation is that traditional cities suffer from shrinkage and decay due to the massive removal of their built environment, the accompanying demographic change of their original inhabitants, and sudden urban changes, which have weakened the identity of the place. The traditional city was affected by urban additions and it witnessed many transformations due to urban development projects. Therefore, the traditional socio-spatial type and its social cohesion will be changing too.
The paper’s problem is that some projects for the development of traditional areas do not pay attention to the priority of these Seven factors of social cohesion and their arrangement. So, these projects may have negative effects on social cohesion and its socio-spatial type.
Figure 1. The structure and the concept of the paper
The paper's question is (How are the urban additional interventions in traditional cities affecting their social cohesion, thus on the socio-spatial form?). To answer this question makes the paper's methodology is including many items like, the literature review, analysis of studies, deducts the indicators, the questionnaire, and suggestions for the evaluation of the urban development project.
The paper methodology mixed two approaches, first the critical approach, which suggests the seven factors of social cohesion, and the second descriptive approach, which uses a literature review, previous information, and a questionnaire of experts.
A questionnaire was conducted to clarify the relationship between the socio-spatial form and the arrangement of the Seven factors: (Customs, kinship, values, laws, interests, responsibilities, and rights). Within the priorities of society to achieve social cohesion. Thus, revealing the traditional, hybrid, and Modern Forms. That is according to the arrangement and priorities of the Seven factors resulting from the responses of experts.
The methodology also included evaluating an urban development project for the traditional Kadhimiya city in Baghdad to determine the extent of the project's ability to support and promote social cohesion in the traditional built environment.
After reviewing the literature related to social cohesion, the summary was prepared in the table below:
Table 1.Literature review of social cohesion
|
Study |
Definitions of Social Cohesion and Study Focuses |
Study's Conclusions |
|
(1) Ade Kearns & Ray Forrest (2000) [6] |
|
|
|
||
|
(2) Regina Berger-Schmitt (2002) [9] |
|
|
|
||
|
(3) Van Kempen Ronald & Bolt Gideon (2009) [10] |
|
|
|
||
|
(4) Robert Oxoby (2009) [11] |
|
|
|
||
|
(5) OECD (2011) [5] |
|
|
|
||
|
(6) Tim Cassiers & Christian Kesteloot (2012) [12] |
|
|
|
||
|
(7) Nick Buck et al. (2015) [13] |
(1) common values. (2) social order and social control. (3) social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities. (4) social networks and social capital. (5) place attachment and identity. |
|
|
||
|
(8) Natalina Carrà (2016) [14] |
|
|
|
||
From Table 1, this paper found that:
There are multiple definitions of social cohesion. All Studies have agreed that the definition of social cohesion takes an ambiguous form according to the aspect covered. Therefore, they tried to clarify its concept through its elements or the dimensions related to different aspects of the social phenomena. However, previous studies can be classified to define social cohesion as follows:
Through studies' conclusions, the paper found that the phenomenon of social cohesion has extensions to other urban dimensions. In addition, they refer to the idea that the image of social cohesion is not complete without the other urban dimensions. Thus, social cohesion is occurring with the presence of actors who have roles according to their responsibilities within a spatial level. It is the result of social, spatial, and economic interaction with political wills, which are a strong driver for that. Some studies suggest measuring cohesion through social phenomena such as social inclusion and within different city levels that confirm that social phenomenon. In summary, those studies pointed to the impact of social characteristics on the urban form.
The term social cohesion is considered a relative description. Its degree may differ from one city to another or from one neighborhood to another within the same city. It is often considered a positive phenomenon, a tool to categorize the identities of societies, and a reason for the cohesive places of the cities.
Social cohesion is usually related to making the image of society appear as a unifying form or as a group of people who form social capital and are linked by material and non-material actors. In other words, social cohesion is a mechanism for looking at society as a group of individuals who are formed social capital within their common rules. This paper defines social cohesion as (The emergence of individuals as groups, which are classified within the spatial level by transforming the norms, values, and behaviors into social capital). Thus, social capital is producing a coherent social order, which reflects the cohesive image of society in the spatial dimension. Either the other social dimensions of inclusion, solidarity, or any dimensions; represent a glue for individuals within a certain category and in particular situations.
The paper assumes that the norms and factors of individuals’ behavior have been classified into seven factors that represent the powers of the cohesion of place and society. These are namely:
These factors of social capital are what create a unified classification of the social order. They generate a feeling of pressure on individuals to obligate and discipline within the group due to nearness and interaction. Thus, they make a group that represents the individuals giving a spatial identity come according to the relations and the priorities of the individuals themselves. These factors are arranged together in place to give the characteristics of the socio-spatial form.
Therefore, the paper assumed that these seven factors represent the following:
The practical part of the study in terms of managing urban development projects will later establish a method to support the appropriate social cohesion of the built environment to be developed. It alerts decision makers and developers, such as architects and urban planners, to the necessity of decoding the norms and rules of social mix to know the arrangement of the seven factors of cohesion and the priorities of individuals in dealing with each other and their effect on the activities, behavior, and the sense of place or cognition, that preserves on the traditional cities and makes them more actual sustainability.
5.1 The questionnaire
5.1.1 The types of socio-spatial forms
There is a strong relationship between the built environment and the social environment. There are many different points of view and propositions in explaining the impact of one on the other, but in summary, there are three socio-spatial can be categorized as follows:
The Arrangement of the seven factors for each type will be revealed, by conducting a questionnaire for experts, and thus the differences between the social cohesion of each type can be diagnosed and linked to the way the built environment is organized depending on the arrangement of those factors.
The goals and objectives of any urban development project that adopts strategies and mechanisms that directly or indirectly support the seven factors to achieve social cohesion, but must support the social cohesion of the type according to the arrangement of the seven factors in terms of priority. From this simple test and analysis, we will know how much development projects support social cohesion in traditional environments.
5.1.2 The characteristics of the respondents
The paper is based on a specialized sample of 100 experts in the field of architecture and urban planning and analyzed using SPSS.
(1) Personal data
Table 2. Numbers and percentages of participants according to the academic title
|
Academic Title |
No. |
Percentages |
|
Assistant Lecturer |
21 |
21% |
|
Lecturer |
37 |
37% |
|
Assistant Professor |
14 |
14% |
|
Professor |
2 |
2% |
|
Others |
26 |
26% |
Table 3. Numbers and percentages of participants according to experience years
|
Experience years |
No. |
Percentages |
|
Less than 5 |
15 |
15% |
|
5-10 |
19 |
19% |
|
10-15 |
23 |
23% |
|
More than 15 |
43 |
43% |
It is evident from the above that the sample is diverse and has high scientific and practical experience and knowledge in the field of urban planning and architecture.
(2) Analysis of the questionnaire
The factors extracted from the theoretical framework of the paper have a great impact on the establishment of the shape of the urban place and have a link that reflects the socio-spatial order of society by giving the social specificity that expresses the urban cohesion of the community.
First type: The traditional
Table 4 shows that the highest factor for establishing the traditional spatial type and having a very strong effect is the customs factor with a mean of 4.35, followed by kinship and values and morals with a strong effect and a mean of 3.72, and this shows that the form of traditional places is governed by the social values of society associated with the social order that emerged as a result of the role of religion, customs, traditions, and human principles that affected the spatial organization of traditional cities, and thus appeared in a coherent, interconnected and convergent form of the reflection of these factor affecting social-spatial cohesion and to give an urban form compatible with these affecting factors.
Second type: The modern
Table 5 shows that the highest factors that have a strong effect on the emergence of the modern spatial type are laws and legislation with a mean of 3.63, followed by the interest and conflicts factor with a mean of 3.41, and this shows the transformation of the social order in the spatial organization in the emergence of modern cities by adopting the laws and planning and design legislation that It emerged as a result of intellectual, technological and informational progress, which affected the urban social cohesion of individuals and the change of the urban formation pattern of modern cities, in addition to the effect of the prevalence of individual and collective interests and conflicts on the modern spatial type through the establishment of types with economic efficiency and profitability, which reduces the social cohesion of society. Modern cities approach wide streets and wide neighborhoods to take into account the modern technological and informational requirements. Consequently, the urban spatial form of the city differed.
Third type: The hybrid
Table 6 shows that the highest factor and strong effect on the emergence of a mixed spatial type are interests and conflicts with a mean of 3.48, and this is the result of the forces driving urban transformation in mixed cities as a result of the conflict between the traditional and modern cities and the overlap of responsibilities, laws, and traditions with each other, which requires the emergence of a mixed spatial type an urban form is adopted that reflects its foundations, which has led to an urban form in which cohesion and convergence overlap with divergence and spread.
Table 7 shows the values of the factors according to the three spatial types, which show that the traditional spatial type emergence as a result of the effect of the factors of custom and traditions, kinship, values, and ethics, while the modern spatial type emergence as a result of the effect of the factors of laws and legislation, interests and conflicts, and the emergence of the mixed spatial type result of the effect of the factor interests and conflicts.
Table 4. Result of the traditional type
|
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Effect |
|
Custom (habits and tradition) |
100 |
2.00 |
5.00 |
4.3500 |
.82112 |
Very strong |
|
Kinship |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.7200 |
.95431 |
Strong |
|
Values and ethics |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.7200 |
.91099 |
Strong |
|
Laws and regulations |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.7500 |
1.14040 |
Medium |
|
Interests and conflicts |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2600 |
1.06002 |
Medium |
|
Responsibilities |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.9800 |
.95325 |
Medium |
|
The rights (right of living, ownership, etc.) |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.9600 |
.98391 |
Medium |
Table 5. Result of the modern type
|
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Effect |
|
Custom (habits and tradition) |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.4800 |
1.06818 |
Weak |
|
Kinship |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.3900 |
1.01399 |
Weak |
|
Values and ethics |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.7600 |
1.01623 |
Medium |
|
Laws and regulations |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6300 |
1.11604 |
Strong |
|
Interests and conflicts |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4100 |
1.12002 |
Strong |
|
Responsibilities |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.1100 |
.97333 |
Medium |
|
The rights (right of living, ownership, etc.) |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.3700 |
1.09779 |
Medium |
Table 6. Result of the hybrid type
|
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Effect |
|
Custom (habits and tradition) |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.1500 |
.91425 |
Medium |
|
Kinship |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.8200 |
.99879 |
Medium |
|
Values and ethics |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.0100 |
.96917 |
Medium |
|
Laws and regulations |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2000 |
1.05409 |
Medium |
|
Interests and conflicts |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4800 |
.98964 |
Strong |
|
Responsibilities |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.1100 |
.82749 |
Medium |
|
The rights (right of living, ownership, etc.) |
100 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2900 |
1.02784 |
Medium |
Table 7. Values of the factors according to the three spatial types
|
Factor |
Traditional type |
Modern type |
Hybrid type |
|
Customs |
4.3500 (Very Strong) |
2.4800 (Weak) |
3.1500 (Medium) |
|
Kinship |
3.7200 (Strong) |
2.3900 (Weak) |
2.8200 (Medium) |
|
Values and ethics |
3.7200 (Strong) |
2.7600 (Medium) |
3.0100 (Medium) |
|
Laws and regulations |
2.7500 (Medium) |
3.6300 (Strong) |
3.2000 (Medium) |
|
Interests and conflicts |
3.2600 (Medium) |
3.4100 (Strong) |
3.4800 (Strong) |
|
Responsibilities |
2.9800 (Medium) |
3.1100 (Medium) |
3.1100 (Medium) |
|
The rights (right of living, ownership, etc.) |
2.9600 (Medium) |
3.3700 (Medium) |
3.2900 (Medium) |
5.2 The traditional Kadhimiya city and Dewan project
5.2.1 A brief history of Kadhimiya city
Kadhimiya is a historic city in Baghdad, it formed around the mosque as its main focus [23]. It has gone through three stages of growth as follows:
A. Origin (799 - 835 AD)
Kadhimiya was a suburb far from the historic rounded city of Baghdad in the Abbasid Islamic era. The Abbasids used it as a cemetery in the beginning. It was known as Kadhimiya after the burial of Imam Mosa Al-Kadhim (peace be upon him) in the year 799AD. He is the sixth imam of the Shiite Muslims.
Then his grandson, Imam al-Jawad (peace be upon him) was buried in the same Imam Mosa Al-Kadhim’s shrine year 835 AD, the eighth Imam of the Shiites, which made the place attractive to live next to the honorable shrines (Figure 2). This stage witnessed the residence near the holy shrine, and the houses were few scattered units, and they increased and were organized around the shrine with the progress of time.
Figure 2. Kadhimiya city 799 - 835 AD [24]
B. Before 1936 AD
It is characterized by the urban expansion of the city and its extensive growth around the shrine, the emergence of narrow alleys with closed ends, the use of animal-drawn carts as a means of transportation, and the emergence of markets and commercial inns (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Kadhimiya city before 1936 AD [25]
C. From 1937 - 2015 AD
The city began to expand to the south and southeast after it became a great destination for Muslim pilgrims (Figure 4). New and straight streets were created within it, and the streets and commercial areas in the area expanded to keep pace with the increasing number of visitors. The old city surrounding the holy shrine remained with its traditional pattern and compact texture, and this city was surrounded by new urban additions as a ring of the modern built environment that surrounds the traditional city.
The traditional city has become the focus of decision makers' attention to carry out maintenance and development and to accommodate the increasing number of pilgrims.
Figure 4. Kadhimiya city from 1937 - 2015 AD [26]
5.2.2 Dewan project (Urban development of Kadhimiya traditional city)
A. Concept of the development project’s
The Holy Shrine is the heart of the city and its nucleus, surrounded from the outside by various successive rings of the urban fabric to form all of them with the Holy Shrine, an integrated unit [27] (Figure 5).
B. Objectives of the development project’s
- Meet the requirements of the large numbers of pilgrims to the Holy Shrine during special religious occasions.
- Preserve the part of the historical urban fabric of the area surrounding the shrine.
- Rehabilitation of urban areas in the region.
C. The project rings
The plan requires [27]:
- Expansion of the main pedestrian yard around the shrine and the open areas surrounding it.
- The plaza is surrounded by three successive rings: the first includes part of the preservation area and historical areas, in addition to two rings outside it whose heights vary as we move away from the outside (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Kadhimiya project [27]
Figure 6. Three successive rings [26]
First Ring: Includes Historic District (A), and consists of the remains of the urban historical fabric, parts of which were sacrificed in order to provide open spaces around the Holy Shrine [27].
Second ring: It includes the residential area (B) and the middle residential area (C), they occupy an area farther from the historical center of Kadhimiya city with a number of simple handicraft and industrial activities, and multi-use buildings Interspersed with vehicular traffic with car parks [27].
Third ring: Includes area (D) and consists of a group of residential buildings and modern hotel buildings along the main roads around the historical center of Kadhimiya to form a ring around it [27].
D. Steps to implement and own the project
- The first step is the acquisition of land and real estate throughout the development area by the Baghdad Mayoralty. In addition, prepare studies and detailed designs for buildings and services, and announce tenders for their implementation.
- The second step is the preparation of the structural and planning controls for the project by the Baghdad Mayoralty. Demanding real estate owners in the area to develop them according to these controls, each at his own expense.
- The third step: the establishment of a joint-stock company for the development and reconstruction of the city center of Kadhimiya, linking the owners of real estate rights and the investors, and the owners are shareholders in the company with a number of investors, and the benefit of the project is for all, each according to the percentage of his contribution.
The essence of the project’s concept ensures the response of the traditional city to accommodate the influx of pilgrims coming from outside. The concept came to integrate the functional and morphological relationships and thus improve the functionality of the traditional city. The idea supports interests, competition, and conflicts through the priorities and preference for accommodating pilgrims over the original inhabitants of the city.
The Objectives were mainly concerned with the requirements of pilgrims, such as absorbing their numbers at the time of rituals and special visits, providing services and infrastructure, and providing commercial and recreational activities and events at the expense of traditional residential use, while maintaining and maintaining the remainder of that use. So, the Objectives did not serve the traditional social cohesion much but rather caused the removal of the old houses and the deportation of the original families from the area. The values were functional, religious rituals and economic values to achieve the interest of the pilgrims, and try to achieve social justice for some of the remaining parts of the old fabric.
The project’s rings included the removal of large areas of residential buildings and their replacement with streets and a very large gathering yard. Removing housing means disturbing social cohesion to move residents, disperse lineages and kinship, and weaken the values that were prevalent, while at the same time changing land uses and disintegration of the traditional compact fabric.
Through the steps of implementing the project, we find that the project was the responsibility of the Baghdad Mayoralty, which is a government agency, with the investors. The acquisition of land is done legally by buying it from the original residents at attractive prices and thus moving them to live in places other than the traditional city. We note it is the formal type and dominates the law on the project implementation steps.
The residents did not participate in the decisions to develop the city, they were not given the freedom to own property, but the sums were paid to buy the land from them. The project did not mention the importance of social cohesion in traditional environments.
Finally, the conclusion that the project promotes social cohesion which has an arrangement of the seven factors as follows:
|
|
Factors |
The strength |
|
1 |
Interests and conflicts |
Strong |
|
2 |
Laws and regulations |
Strong |
|
3 |
Responsibilities |
Medium |
|
4 |
Values and ethics |
Weak |
|
5 |
The rights |
Weak |
|
6 |
Kinship |
Weak |
|
7 |
Customs |
Weak |
The development project promotes the modern socio-spatial form, it is unsuitable for the traditional environment, in spite of carrying the traditional physical features like arches, courtyards, and brick finishing.
Social cohesion means there is social order with strong social ties, it is a mechanism for looking at society as a group of individuals who formed social capital and order within their common rules. Thus, social cohesion follows the seven factors or rules, which are (customs, kinship, values and ethics, laws, interests and conflicts, responsibility, and rights). The arrangement of these seven factors corresponds with the socio-spatial type, which classifies here into three types are (traditional, modern, and hybrid).
Every one of these types has built environment features that promote social cohesion; therefore, the seven factors and their arrangement have the ability and influence to determine the nature of cohesion and its socio-spatial type in its environment.
The roles and the arrangements of the seven factors were deducted and explored by experts who have experience in urban planning and architecture. The traditional socio-spatial type had a special arrangement of the seven factors, that is: (Customs, kinship, values, interests and conflicts, responsibilities, rights, and laws). In this type, collective behavior is dominant over the individual, the traditional society is under the control of norms, lineage, values, and the distribution of responsibilities in an informal and cooperative manner to individuals that regulates their rights, the traditional type does not care much about official law or what government institutions impose on that city. While the second that is the Modern socio-spatial type had a special arrangement that was: (Laws, interests and conflicts, responsibilities, rights, values, customs, and kinship). In this type, laws, and interests top the seven factors. The law represents a reductionist force generalized to everyone by the power of the government, while interests are characterized as individualism, behind them are capitalist ideologies and appear in functional relations, land uses, building patterns, real estate prices, etc. The responsibilities are often centrally represented by the government and whoever it sees as its partners, such as investors or the political will of influential interest groups. Rights in the modern style appear through the fulfillment of the population's requirements for services and facilities and the preference of the interest according to the vision of the elite or the state. Often rights are based on economic or political values and are not satisfied with religious or social values. This style does not care about kinship or customs because it replaced them with laws and interests.
The third type that is the hybrid socio-spatial type has a special arrangement of the seven factors, that is: (Interests and conflicts, rights, laws, customs, responsibilities, values, and kinship). In this type, there is a convergence between interests and rights, as well as between law and norms, then responsibilities, values, and kinship. It attempts to combine traditional collective behavior with modern individual behavior, even in the fusion of urban characteristics between the traditional and modern environment.
Social cohesion relatively goes hand in hand with the built physical environment to form the socio-spatial type. Therefore, any urban addition will influence the arrangement of the seven factors thus it will change or promote the socio-spatial type and its cohesion level.
The project of Kadhimiya development wasn't suitable to promote the traditional socio-spatial type, but it was promoting the modern type according to the arrangement of the seven factors that knew their priority from project and designers' texts, the concept of the project, the goals or objectives, steps, and procedures. The project participated to occur the demographical change in social structures by transmitting and replacing the original residents of the traditional city, which affected the level and nature of social cohesion. That makes us put the main recommendation, that any development project in a traditional city must take the arrangement of the social cohesion factors.
This work is supported by the engineering faculties of Al-Nahrain University, Diyala University, Wasit University and Mustansiriyah University.
[1] Gilbert, M. (2006). A theory of political obligation: Membership, commitment, and the bonds of society. Clarendon Press Oxford Scholarship Online, 30-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199274959.001.0001
[2] Manusov, V. (2020). Social Interaction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199756841-0028
[3] Jonathan, H.T. (1988). A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford University Press.
[4] Mann, M. (2013). The Sources of Social Power. Volume 4 Globalizations, 1945-2011, Cambridge University Press, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236782
[5] OECD Development Centre. (2011). Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World. OECD Publishing, pp. 53-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/persp_glob_dev-2012-en
[6] Kearns, A., Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5-6): 995-1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050011208
[7] De Blij, H. (2008). The Power of Place: Geography, Destiny, and Globalization’s Rough Landscape. Oxford University Press, 156. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195367706.001.0001
[8] Oliveira, V. (2016). Urban Morphology: An Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities, Springer, International Publishing Switzerland, 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32083-0
[9] Berger-Schmitt, R. (2002). Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: Concept and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 58: 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015752320935
[10] Van Kempen, R., Bolt, G. (2009). Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(4): 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9161-1
[11] Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion, and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12): 1133-1152. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290910996963
[12] Cassiers, T., Kesteloot, C. (2012). Socio-spatial inequalities and social cohesion in European cities. Urban Studies, 49(9): 1909-1924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012444888
[13] Buck, N., Gordon, L., Harding, A., Turok, I. (2015). Changing Cities Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance. Chapter 3, Social Cohesion in Cities, Palgrave Macmillan, 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21203-9
[14] Carrà, N. (2016). Heritage / culture and social cohesion in the project of metropolitan city. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223: 583-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.353
[15] Krier, L., Thadani, D., Hetzel, P. (2009). The Architecture of Community. Washington, DC: Island Press, 251.
[16] Gray, I. (1991). Politics in Place, Social Power Relations in an Australian Country Town. Cambridge University Press, 166-168.
[17] Hashim, B.H., Hamza, S.M. (2019). Value as a criticism strategy for contemporary architecture products. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 518: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/518/2/022005
[18] Carmona, M., de Magalhães, C., Edwards, M. (CABE). (2001). The Value of Urban Design. London. Thomas Telford Publishing, 14.
[19] Fukuyama, F. (2000). The Great Disruption Human Nature and The Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press; 1st Edition, p. 201.
[20] Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of Urban Space an Inquiry into a Socio-spatial Process. John Wiley & Sons, 1st Edition, 45.
[21] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/law, accessed on 26 June, 2022.
[22] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/responsibility, accessed on 08 July, 2022.
[23] Al-Jaberi, A.A., Al-Khafaji, A.S.A., Al-Salam, N.A., Alrobaee, T.R. (2021). The crossing as a new approach for the urban transformation of traditional cities towards the sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 16(6): 1049-1059. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.160606
[24] Sousa, A. (1952). Atlas of Baghdad. Public Survey Directorate Press, Baghdad, Iraq.
[25] https://tareekh.tumblr.com/post/168335107967/%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B8%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9-1935-%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9/amp, accessed on 18 July, 2022.
[26] Baghdad Mayoralty, Kadhimiya Municipality, Geographic Information Orders (GIS) Division. A Map of Land Uses in Kadhimiya City 1997.
[27] Dewan Architects and Engineers (2015). Refreshing Social and Economic Uplift for Kadhimiya Turning it into a Picturesque Example of a Living and Evolving Historical City. https://www.dewan-architects.com/work/kadhimiya-development, accessed on 20 July, 2022.
