Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)

Abstract Extended Abstract Background and Objectives: In recent times, spatial critical studies have become well-established as an alternative to the positivist traditions of urban studies. This perspective views urban space as a socio-economic product that reflects the dominant political and economic conditions of society. Consequently, the spatial political economy approach serves as an appropriate framework to study built space, which is inherently a fundamental element of the capitalist mode of production and a commodity that contributes to economic growth, accumulation, and surplus value production. By conceptualising space as a commodity, it encompasses both exchange value and use value, becoming an inseparable attribute and driving force of the economy in generating surplus value. We explore the formation of value and the process of creating value within space production. We ask: What types of values are embedded in urban spaces? How have different forms of value been shaped and directed? Who is impacted by these values? And how can a balance between these values be achieved?
Methods: This paper aims to define the concept of value in the production of space and to recognise the formation of value embedded within it. Through a conceptual understanding of value, we explore the trends and controversies in the creation of the built environment, particularly the tendency to prioritise exchange value over use value. The methodology adopted combines interpretivism, with an emphasis on hermeneutic and normative approaches, and post-positivism, with a focus on critical approaches. The central premise is that understanding social realities is insufficient without considering political economy relations.
Findings: Employing a deductive strategy, we present several assumptions and observations in Tehran to develop a conceptual framework for creating value in the creation of space. For instance, housing is a clear example where use value is defined by its characteristics in providing a shelter and privacy, while its exchange value lies in its property value and economic driving force. In Tehran, however, with almost 350,000 to 500,000 vacant properties, housing prices have surged by more than 1200 percent in the last decade. This increase has led to social exclusion and poor housing conditions among the lower and middle social strata, indicating a shift from the social and use value of housing to exchange and capital value, effectively depriving housing of its social function. Furthermore, the inner city of Tehran, a historic area that should be vibrant with high-quality public spaces, has seen a predominance of commercial land use on a large scale. Supportive activities such as warehouses and workshops have dramatically reduced the quality of living and public life, resulting in physical dereliction of the urban fabric. This commercial dominance highlights the prioritisation of exchange value over use value, turning the area into one of the most problematic sites in terms of social decay. Similarly, shopping malls and commercial complexes have proliferated across Tehran in recent decades. Although these establishments serve recreational purposes and meet the public’s daily needs, their genuine function has been altered by the restrictions and controls imposed on them. These fully privatised spaces lack publicness, and their inappropriate locations have caused issues for neighbouring residents. This again illustrates the dominance of exchange value, adjusting public spaces to maximise profit at the expense of social value.
Conclusion: The research findings reveal that a coalition of urban political actors and capital holders has formed a consensus to transform urban space into a platform for profit-making and the acquisition of exchange value. However, urban space is also a public realm for citizens, who should be given primacy in terms of use value. In this context, it is crucial to prioritise use value in our urban spaces, or at least to regain a balance between exchange and use values, to prevent disparities in spatial development and enhance the quality of the built environment. In order to achieve spatial and social justice and improve the quality of the built environment, the gap between exchange value and use value must be bridged by balancing the interests arising from both values. As long as the development of urban spaces is driven solely by exchange value and financial profits, disregarding public interests and social value, the decline in the quality of public places is inevitable. Given that the market and investors invariably pursue higher profit margins, urban planners and policymakers must identify and address stakeholders’ concerns and needs, especially the intangible ones, to foster the creation of inclusive urban spaces.

Abstract Extended Abstract
Objective and Background: Henri Lefebvre’s theory of production of space has been one of the most influential theories in spatial studies that deals with the relationship between the mentality of urban residents and urban space. The triad of spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces, which have been discussed in that theory, have proven to be problematic due to its failure of explanation of the way that semeiotical significations in a representational space lead to the creation of meanings in the mind. In addition, it is not precise from the perspective of the cognitive psychology. The objective of present essay is the criticism of Lefebvre’s triad and explanation of the process of thought and representation in mind by means of Vygotskian School in cognitive psychology and application of the mental schema model. By criticism of Lefebvre’s theory and revelation of its deficiencies and finally, by the use of model of mental schema, the following question is answered: How is urban space created in relation to consciousness and mentality of its residents?
Methodos: The methodology of current essay is based on two general methodological approach: system approach in epistemology and structurationist ontology; with emphasize on becoming, which is dialectic. Thus, it is emphasized that there is something beyond the mere expression of the mutual relationship between structure and culture, environment and psyche of man and it is that social and spatial phenomena should be studied in the course of their evolution, maturation and fall in history; this is indeed the method of dialectic.
Although Lefebvre’s method from the perspective of its three moments helps us to avoid the absolute and one-sided encounter with spatial issues, it is still problematic and subject to criticism that how representational spaces influence human psyche and mind through the process of semiotical significations as well as the adi of physical objects that contain meanings (whether in line with political and social resistance or in line with the regeneration of the dominant way of production through systematization of space and exertion of hegemony over the space).
Findings: This criticism took place through the encounter of the ideas of Lefebvre with the ideas of Vygotsky and Bakhtin and expression of the role of mental schema in understanding of meanings and interpretation of the inputs and their externalization. Firstly, Vygotsky in his discussion as regards inner speech showed that on the one hand, there is a distance between the meaning of a word and its sense. On the other hand, he proved that there is a difference between the scientific concepts and everyday concepts, which in turn reminds us the Hegelian difference of “In-itself” and “For-Itself. In addition, scientific concepts, which are the result of education, surpass the everyday concepts in mental analyses. Secondly, according to Bakhtin’s theory, process of thought has a dialogic nature, and in the word of every individual, there is always a trace of “otherness”. This issue leads us towards understanding the role of social groups in individual consciousness. Thirdly, mental schema, which are the dynamic element of individual consciousness and have a propositional nature change following the creation of question and search for answer. Following the change of the mental schema, if the individual finds the opportunity for institutionalization and popularization of his own idea, the culture would change too. Then, culture can be defined through the change in mental schema. On the other hand, problem of cognitive distortion is also related with the concept of exertion of hegemony and false consciousness, which can be discussed in the form of the intentional manipulation of the mental schema. Through these three theoretical foundations, one can conclude: 1)consciousness acts by means of the concepts that build mental schema; 2)since reality is changing, concepts also change in the course of time, and change in concepts and their relations through raising a question, findings answer, training and institutionalization leads to the change of mental schema; 3)individual consciousness has a collective structure, i.e. it is influenced by social groups which host the individual as their member; 4) factors of hegemony succeed to control cultural space and lived space thanks to cognitive distortion. Definition of culture through model of mental schema causes the mode of production and change of space to be clarified without being entangled with the cognitive deficiencies of Lefebvre’s cognitive theory. In an analysis that was proposed of the everyday concepts and scientific notions, it became clear that perceptions and ideas that take place due to the semiotical metaphors and significations within lived space and through spatial representations of Lefebvre are mere everyday concepts. Therefore, they do not have the logical structure of scientific concepts and even if the end of the concatenation of associations leads to similar action, since they have led to that action with an inferential method and by means of different notions and interrelations between them in the form of mental schema, soon or later, the difference and contradiction of them will be revealed. Therefore, Lefebvre’s political project, i.e. the ideal society that will be realized through resistance of different groups like oppressed, underclasses, ethnic groups, gender groups and other before the capitalist system, is more a poetic notion than a scientific analysis of the mental conditions of those groups.
Conclusion: The results acquired through findings and discussions show that semiotical significations in lived space not in a poetic form that is hidden in Lefebvre’s expression rather through the role that concepts and the relations between them are established between them in the form of schemata in mind. Moreover, study of formation and change of space requires the study of the evolutionary schemata of intentional and active man whose consciousness has taken form by mediation of the semiotical systems and tools and of course, changes in the course of time. Since the consciousness of every individual is influenced by the social group to which the individual belongs, the mental schemata of social groups regarding a determinate space should be studied.