نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 کارشناس ارشد معماری منظر
2 پژوهشگر دکتری معماری، دانشگاه علم و صنعت
3 کارشناس ارشد معماری منظر، دانشگاه تهران
عنوان مقاله [English]
Following the communism pattern governing on urban spaces before the independence of Georgia, urban views and buildings architecture also affected by socialist ideas. However, the overall structure of today’s city in Georgia is following the general face of that pattern, but in the years after independence and separation from the Eastern Block, increasing political, social and cultural communication with West, parallel with the trend to globalization and attempt to attract more tourists, this change has been intensified. In recent years, adopting two approaches of “traditionalism” and “westernism” are the predominant approaches in the architecture and city development of Georgia. First approach is to return to the traditional forms and the components governing on it which can be seen in architecture, landscape and urban design, especially in new cities. In this approach, classic patterns using stony materials with high details which is one of this area’s architecture properties is performed in views of buildings with various applications. The second approach is constructing form-oriented buildings and using modern urban elements for creating a new identity and attracting tourist. These grammatical structures, regardless of native aesthetic values and regardless of cultural and social background play the role as visual focus in cities. However, the tradition-oriented approach in building architecture and urban spaces can be considered as an effort to set identity for the landscape of the area cities, but this approach is diminished to the level of imitation from old architecture and formal loan-translation. Second approach with economic aims and competition with western countries regardless of cultural, operational, geographical and historical properties of this area has also resulted in only chaotic and eclectic face of city. The intersection and the problem of both current approaches is neglecting identity problem and the identity dimensions of future architecture in Caucasus. The identity meaning the continuity of a culture during the historyof a nation is forgotten in both approaches; in first approach with formal view to tradition and history, and in second view with fascination and pure imitation from western architecture. Continuing this process undoubtedly leads to cities without identity which are wandered in the search for a lost in history or an un-detected in west.