A look at the Social-Cultural Sustainability Indicators of Historical Schools in Isfahan (Case Study: Imamieh School and Chahar Bagh School)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Master student, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Shahid Ashrafi Isfahani Non-Governmental University, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty Member, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Shahid Ashrafi Esfahani University, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Shahid Ashrafi Esfahani University, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract
The architecture of historical schools in Iran serves as a profound reflection of the country’s rich cultural, artistic, and scientific heritage, playing a pivotal role in shaping socio-cultural identity and urban character. Among these, the schools of Isfahan stand out as exemplary instances of traditional architectural design, embodying values of cultural continuity and social interaction. The concept of socio-cultural sustainability—which encompasses social justice, psychological security, environmental interaction, economic self-sufficiency, and proportional harmony—provides a critical framework for assessing these architectural achievements.
Methodology
This study conducts a comparative analysis of socio-cultural sustainability indicators in two prominent historical schools of Isfahan: the Imamieh School, built during the Ilkhanid period, and the Chaharbagh School, a masterpiece of Safavid-era architecture. By examining their architectural components and their impact on cultural sustainability, the study aims to highlight how these elements can inform contemporary educational space design while reinforcing their significance as key elements of urban identity.
Employing a qualitative and descriptive-analytical methodology, the research integrates library research, field observations, quantitative evaluations, and a structured questionnaire administered to 50 architecture experts. Key criteria for analysis include social justice, social interactions, psychological security, connection with nature, spatial proportions, and economic viability. The collected data were analyzed to determine the distinct contributions of each school to socio-cultural sustainability and urban identity.
Discussion and Result
The Imamieh School, one of the earliest examples of four-iwan schools in Islamic architecture, exhibits fundamental design elements such as symmetrical layouts and spatial arrangements conducive to education and prayer. However, it lacks the refinements observed in later architectural examples. The single entrance and limited interaction with the surrounding urban environment hinder its integration into the broader community. Additionally, the absence of gardens, a spatial hierarchy at the entrance, and a direct connection to natural elements constrain its overall socio-cultural sustainability.
In contrast, the Chaharbagh School exemplifies the architectural evolution of the Safavid era, integrating advancements in spatial planning, ecological interaction, and communal functionality. Its intricate hierarchical layouts, gardens, water features, and open courtyards foster a serene environment conducive to both learning and social interaction. Strategically positioned entrances enhance connectivity with the adjacent market and public spaces, fostering a sense of belonging and inclusivity. Moreover, shared spaces such as a mosque and communal gathering areas facilitate greater interaction between students and the broader community.
Socio-Cultural Indicators

Social Justice and Equity: The Chaharbagh School excels in promoting equity through the equal distribution of rooms and shared facilities. Its modular design ensures that all students, regardless of social status, have equal access to educational resources. Conversely, while the Imamieh School provides access to all, its smaller scale and unequal room sizes result in less emphasis on spatial justice.
Social Interaction and Community Engagement: The Chaharbagh School prioritizes social interaction by incorporating large iwans, smaller iwanche spaces, and open courtyards that encourage dialogue and collaboration. Its integration with the surrounding urban fabric, facilitated by entrances aligned with the market and public spaces, further enhances communal engagement. In contrast, the Imamieh School’s single, small entrance isolates it from its surroundings, and its design provides fewer communal spaces.
Psychological Security and Well-Being: Psychological well-being is closely tied to architectural elements that foster a sense of safety and comfort. The Chaharbagh School achieves this through its symmetrical layout, natural lighting, and hierarchical spatial organization. Features such as gardens, water elements, and well-ventilated rooms enhance the overall learning environment. The Imamieh School, while preserving basic principles of Islamic architecture, lacks hierarchical entrances and designated green spaces, limiting its contribution to psychological security.
Connection with Nature: The Chaharbagh School demonstrates a profound connection with nature through its central courtyard, gardens, and water features, including a small waterway (madi). These elements provide both aesthetic and functional benefits, fostering a tranquil setting. The Imamieh School, however, lacks significant natural features, focusing more on enclosed spaces.
Proportionality and Spatial Harmony: The Chaharbagh School exemplifies proportionality through its adherence to human-scale dimensions and geometric harmony. Its hierarchical spatial organization, transitioning from the entrance through the courtyard to the mosque, creates a clear navigational flow. This is further emphasized by the alignment of its central axes with its primary entrance. The Imamieh School, while adhering to the four-iwan model, does not achieve the same level of spatial refinement, with misaligned axes and less effective use of peripheral spaces.
Economic Self-Sufficiency: Both schools exhibit economic sustainability through the use of locally sourced materials such as brick and tile. However, the Chaharbagh School’s larger scale and integration of a dedicated library and communal amenities indicate a higher degree of self-sufficiency and adaptability to the evolving needs of its users.
 

Conclusion
The comparative findings highlight the Chaharbagh School as a superior example of socio-cultural sustainability. Its design not only adheres to the principles of Islamic architecture but also extends them through innovative features that foster community engagement, environmental harmony, and spatial proportionality. While the Imamieh School holds historical significance and serves as a foundational example of Islamic educational architecture, it falls short in achieving the same level of functionality and integration.
This study underscores the importance of revisiting and adapting historical architectural principles for contemporary educational space design. Incorporating socio-cultural sustainability indicators—such as social justice, ecological integration, and spatial harmony—can enhance the functionality and cultural relevance of modern educational environments. Additionally, the findings suggest further research into the role of traditional architectural elements in fostering sustainability, particularly in rapidly urbanizing contexts.

Keywords

Subjects


  1.  

    1. Ahangari, M., & Motadayin,. H. (2017). Rethinking the quality of the relationship between school and city based on the analysis of the sociability of schools from the Timurid period to the beginning of the 14th century. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture and Urban Planning , 21 (4), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2017.61658 [in Persian]
    2. Ahmadi Moghadam, A., Goljan, Mehdi., & Yalfani, R. (2021). The role of Shiite schools of the Safavid era in the development of Islamic culture and civilization (with emphasis on the two schools of Khan Shiraz and the Chahar Bagh School of Isfahan). Theological Doctrinal Research (Islamic Sciences), 11(41), 7-30. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.98991735.1400.11.41.1.4 [in Persian]
    3. Asadi, L., & Majidi, H. (2016). Typology of School-Mosque in Ilkhani, Timurid, Safavid and Qajar Eras. International Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 10(3), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsts.s.2015030201.37
    4. Bamanian, M., Momeni, K., & Soltanzadeh, H. (2011). A comparative study of the tile motifs of two mosques - the Chaharbagh and Seyyed Isfahan schools. Comparative Art Studies, 1(2), 1-16. [in Persian]
    5. Chardin, J. (1959). Chardin's Travelogue. (Abbasi, M.) Tehran: Amir Kabir. [in Persian]
    6. Cuthill, M., 2009. Strengthening the ‘‘social’’ in sustainable development: developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 18 (6), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.397
    7. Farrokhi, M., & Tahouri N. (2023). Isfahan's Chaharbagh School Mosque: A Sustainable Museum of Islamic Art. Interdisciplinary Studies in Iranian Architecture , 2 (3), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.22133/isia.2023.377329.1032 [in Persian]
    8. Ghasemi, E. (2021). Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization: Convergence or Divergence?!. Quarterly Journal of Space and Place Research in the City, 5(2 (18th issue), 83-96. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.25386050.1400.1400.18.6.5 [in Persian]
    9. Habibi, S. M., & Ahari, Z. (2011). Isfahan School: The Language of Urban Design in Ancient Cities. Tehran: Cultural Research Office. [in Persian]
    10. Hastrup, K. (1989). Kultur som analytisk begreb. Hastrup, Kirsten og Kirsten Ramløv (eds).
    11. Hillenbrand, R. (2021). Islamic architecture. (Ayatollahzadeh Shirazi, B.) Tehran: Rowzaneh. [in Persian]
    12. Hoshyari, M. M., Pournadari, H., & Fereshtehnejad, S. M. (2013). Mosque-School Typology in Iranian Islamic Architecture, Examining the Relationship between Educational and Worship Spaces. Iranian Architectural Studies, 2(3), 37-54. [in Persian]
    13. Hylland-Eriksen, T., (2001). Small Places – Large Issues. Pluto Press, London.
    14. Karahmadi, M. (2023). Contemporary and Ancient Schools of Isfahan, Esfahan: Cheshmah Afarinesh. [in Persian]
    15. Kasaei, N. (1995). Military schools and their scientific and social impacts. Tehran: Amir Kabir. [in Persian]
    16. Lului, K. (2000). Four-porch plans of religious schools article, Iran recognized, 6(16-17), 120-131. [in Persian]
    17. Mahmoudi, A., Hamzenezhad, M., & Taghdir, S. (2023). The Impact of School Architecture on Socio-Cultural Sustainability in Multi-Level Societies. CIAUJ. 8(2), 107-128. doi:10.61186/ciauj.8.2.107 [in Persian]
    18. Mahmoudi, M., & Newy, S. (2011). The trend of climate technology development with a sustainable development approach. Role of the World , 1 (1), 35-52. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23224991.1390.1.1.7.0 [in Persian]
    19. Mokhtari Malekabadi, R., Marsousi, N., Hosseini, S. A., & Gholami, M. (2015). Measuring and evaluating socio-cultural sustainability indicators in extractive cities (case study: Asaluyeh extractive city). Quarterly Journal of Urban Research and Planning , 5 (19), 91-110. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22285229.1393.5.19.6.9 [in Persian]
    20. Momeni, K., Attarian, K., Dideban, M., & Masoudi, Z. (2018). Comparison of the architectural design of Safavid mosques in Isfahan and the mosques of the Ilkhanid period. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Planning, -(23), 95-114. [in Persian]
    21. Mousavi Faridani, M. A. (2005). Isfahan from another perspective. Esfahan: Naqsh Khurshid. [in Persian]
    22. Mousavi Khu, S. M., & Mehman Nawaz, M. (2019). The advantages and disadvantages of the Imamiyya educational system in the Safavid era with an emphasis on the Riyad al-Ulama. Islamic History Research Institute, Quarterly Journal of Islamic History Studies , 10 (38), 139-160. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286713.1397.10.38.4.6 [in Persian]
    23. Murphy, K. (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, practice and policy8(1), 15-29.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081
    24. Narimisa, M., Kabuli, A. (2019). The influence of gardens on Safavid period buildings: A case study of the Chahar Bagh School in Isfahan. The Third International Congress of Contemporary Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Planning, Tehran. [in Persian]
    25. Navaei, A., Ghafarifard, A., (2007). History of Political, Social, Economic and Cultural Transformation of Iran in Safavids Period. Tehran: Samt. [in Persian]
    26. Pope, A. (2014). Iranian architecture. (Sadri Afshar, Gh.) Tehran: Akhtaran. [in Persian]
    27. Qtaishat, Y., Emmitt, S., & Adeyeye, K. (2020). Exploring the socio‐cultural sustainability of old and new housing: Two cases from Jordan. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 102250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102250
    28. Rafiei Mehrabadi, A. (1973). National Monuments of Isfahan. Tehran: Iranian National Monuments Association. [in Persian]
    29. Sakhinia, R., Karami, E., Rafiian, M., & Foruzandeh, A. (2020). Cultural Sustainability, Density, and Housing Typology; A Case Study: Examples of Residential Areas in Tabriz Metropolitan Area. Iranian-Islamic Urban Studies , 38 (38), 65. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.2228639.1398.10.38.5.1 [in Persian]
    30. Salehi Milani, S., & Mohammadi, M. (2010). Goals and indicators for achieving cultural sustainability. Letter of Architecture and Urban Planning, 3(5), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.30480/aup.2011.183 [in Persian]
    31. Sami Azar, A. (1997). History of school developments in Iran. Tehran: Organization for Renovation, Development and Equipment of Schools in the Country. [in Persian]
    32. Soini, K., & Birkeland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum, 51, 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001
    33. Soltanzadeh, H. (1985). History of schools in Iran (from ancient times to the establishment of Darul Funun). Tehran: Agah. [in Persian]
    34. Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum42(3), 342-348.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002
    35. Williams, R., 1985. Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    36. World Commission on Environment. (1987). Our common future. Peterson's.‏
    37. Yao, K., & Rasidi, M. H. B. (2025). Place Attachment of Ancient Bridge: Socio-Cultural Perspective Exploration of the SDG. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review5(2), e03095-e03095. https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v5.n02.pe03095
    38. Yuan, Y., & Ren, H. (2024). Research on the application status and countermeasures of traditional architectural elements in architectural environment design. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 192, p. 01016). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419201016