Abstract One of the most important tools for urban policy analysis is the theory of urban regimes, which, based on the nature of the ruling coalition, the structure of relations between actors and their resources, deals with the role of the private & public sectors and government in the concepts of growth coalition, urban regime and urban growth machine .Isar neighborhood as a participatory model, during the last decade has been able to experience a significant development, external from decline and significant improvement with a special development strategy. Accordingly, the fundamental question is why, how and on what model the coalition of groups with different interests in the Isar neighborhood was formed? The present study deals with the role and composition of stakeholders in upgrading declining urban neighborhoods by relying on the regime and urban growth machine models. This research is descriptive-analytical in terms of type and causal after occurrence in terms of method. Field surveying data is processed with SPSS, Excel and Arc GIS softwares. Spatial regression model has been used in identifying factors and factor analysis techniques has been used to extract hidden data structures, the contribution of each component in factors and naming factors. Finally, by examining the role of different coalition actors, the type of neighborhood regime was identified. According to studies, the process of upgrading the neighborhood since the 2000s has been based on the model of urban growth machine and relying on the entrepreneurship of production-commercial elites. In this regard, the study of the coefficient of factor analysis shows that the year of establishment (0.561), the type of property occupation (0.396) and having a production workshop (0.311) were the most influential factors. The municipality has also played a role as one of the actors in the urban regime by controlling the issuance of commercial licenses. The role of private sector economic elites, along with city managers and the government, is the subject of this study and the development strategy of Isar neighborhood can be modeled on other unsettled neighborhoods.
گودوین، مارک؛ و جو پینتر. (1395). «دولت محلی، بحران فوردیسم و تغییر جغرافیای تعدیل». باز ساخت شهر، تجربههایی چند. (نیکلاس فایف و جودیت تی کنی). ترجمه ابوالفضل مشکینی و همکاران. تهران: آراد کتاب.
مدرسرضوی، محمد؛ و همکاران. (1386). مشهد در آغاز قرن چهاردهم خورشیدی. مشهد: آهنگ قلم.
مرکز آمار ایران، تهران. (1365 تا 1395). نتایج سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن.
مشکینی، ابوالفضل؛ و همکاران. (1389). «تحلیل و بررسی پیامدهای جهانی شدن بر شهرها، با تاکید بر رژیم های شهری». مدیریت شهری. (شماره 25). 7-20.
مککارتی، جان. (1390). شراکت، برنامهریزی تعاونی و بازآفرینی شهری. ترجمه محمدهادی خلیل نژادی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
مؤمنی، مصطفی؛ و همکاران. (1389). تحلیلهای آماری با استفاده از spss. تهران: مومنی.
نوریان،مرتضی؛ و همکاران. (1386). فرازی بر نرمافزار 14 spss. تهران: بیشه.
نهاد مطالعات و برنامهریزی شهرداری مشهد. (1397). «لایههای اطلاعات مکانی».
Bassett, K& Harloe, M. (2006). “swindon: the rise and decline of a growth coalition”. Place policy and politics, Do Localities matter?. (Harloe, M & et al). US: Taylor & fancies.
Beckoven, E. (2005). Theories of neigbourhood Chnge and neighood decline: their significance for post – WWII large housing estates. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Camou, M. (2014). “Labor-Community Coalitions Through an Urban Regime Lens: Institutions and Ideas in Building Power from Below”. Urban Affairs Review, (vol 50), 623–647.
Carter, T and C Polevychock. (2006). under studing Disinvestment and Decline. Canada Research chair in urban change and Adaptaion. Winnipeg: university of Winnipeg.
Clark, J. (2001). “Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation On The Development Of Alternative Regimes”. Public AdministrationQuarterly. (vol 25), 3-48.
Davies, J. S. (2003). “Parther ships versus Regims, Why Regime theory cannot explain urban coalitions in the uk”. Journal of urban affairs, (vol 25), 253-269.
Demirtas-Milz, N. (2013). “The Regime of Informality in Neoliberal Times in Turkey: The Case of the Kadifekale Urban Transformation Project”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, (vol 37), 689–714.
Dowding, k. (2001). “explaining urban regimes”. international journal of urban and regional research. (vol 25), 150-163.
Elkins, D. R. (1995). “The Structure and Context of the Urban Growth Coalition: The View from the Chamber of Commerce”. Policy Studies Journal, (vol 23), 583-600.
Frazier, A & et al. (2013). “The spatio-temporal impacts of demolition land use policy and crime in a shrinking city”. Applied Geography, (vol 41), 55-64.
Friedrichs, J. (1993). “A Theory of Urban Decline: Economy, Demography and Political Elites”. Urban Studies, (vol 30), 907-917.
Friesen, W. (2009). “The Demographic Transformation of Inner City Auckland”. New Zealand Population Review, (vol 35), 55-74.
Harloe, M & et al. (2006). Place policy and politics, do localities matter. US: Taylor & foncis.
Heying, c. h. (1995). “Civic elits, civic institutions and the urban growth dynamic”. For phd degree. Carolina: political scince.
Hollander, J. (2010). “Moving toward a shrinking cities Metric: Analyzing landuse changes Ass ciated with Depopulation in flint, Michigan”. City sape: A journal of policy Development and research, (vol 12), 137-157.
Long, Th. (2005). Insights in the British Debate about urban Decline and urban Regeneration, Working paper. Leibniz: institute for Regional Development and Structural planning.
Miszczyk, A. (2013). “Specialized Growth: Planning and Politics in Rochester, MN and the Growth Machine Theory”. Cities in the 21st Century, (vol 3), 567-579.
pacione, M. (2005). Urban geography,a Global perspective. Landan and New York: Routledge.
Patrick Hogan, J. (2006). “The politice of urban Regimeration”. Irish urban studies, (vol 2), 27-37.
Pierre, J. (2014). “Can Urban Regimes Travel in Time and Space? Urban RegimeTheory, Urban Governance Theory, and Comparative Urban Politics”. Urban Affairs Review, (OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 10), 1–26.
Pitkin, B. (2001). Theories of Neighborhood Change: Implications for Community Development Policy and Practice. US: UCLA Advanced Policy Institute.
Power, A & K. Mumford. (1999). the slow death of great cities? urban abandonment or urban renaissan. York: Jaseph Rowntree foundation.
Rast, J. (2015). “Urban Regime Theory and the Problem of Change”. Urban Affairs Review, (vol 51), 138–149.
Smit, E. (2014). “Nelghborhood regeneration in a declining city: the case Of Detroit”. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Stone, C. (2015). “Reflections on Regime Politics: From Governing Coalition to Urban Political Order”. Urban Affairs Review. (vol 51), 101–137.
Ward, K. (1996). “Rereading Urban Regime Theory: a Sympathetic Critique”. Geoforum, (vol 27), 427-438.
Ward, K. G. (1997). “Coalitions in urban regeneration: a regime approach”, Environment and Planning, (vol 29). 1493 -1506.
Weir, M & et al. (2005). “The calculus of coalions Cities, Suburbs, and the Metropolitan Agenda”, urban affairs review, (vol 40). 730-760.
Weir, M. (2001). Metropolitan coalition-Building strategies. Urban seminar on Children’s Health and Safety. Harvard: Harvard University.
Zwiers, m & at al. (2014). “Neighborhood Decline and the economic crisis”. IZA Discussion paper. (vol 87). 1-21.
(2020). Re-reading micro-urban developments from the perspective of the theory of regimes (Case study of Isar neighborhood of Mashhad). Journal of Great Khorasan, 11(38), 108-91.
MLA
. "Re-reading micro-urban developments from the perspective of the theory of regimes (Case study of Isar neighborhood of Mashhad)". Journal of Great Khorasan, 11, 38, 2020, 108-91.
HARVARD
(2020). 'Re-reading micro-urban developments from the perspective of the theory of regimes (Case study of Isar neighborhood of Mashhad)', Journal of Great Khorasan, 11(38), pp. 108-91.
VANCOUVER
Re-reading micro-urban developments from the perspective of the theory of regimes (Case study of Isar neighborhood of Mashhad). Journal of Great Khorasan, 2020; 11(38): 108-91.