There was a shift in the conventional architectural approach starting from 1960s when communities organized themselves to protest against the governmental policies to demolish their neighborhoods without involving them in these decisions. For sometimes concept of participation was accepted without deep consideration and also allowed non professional with lack knowledge in design process. “Turner” (1977), believes that: participation does not necessarily imply self-help building by undernourished and over-worked people without credit, with inadequate tools and poor materials… The central issue is that of control and power to decide. To provide better relation and results, community design was proposed. The discussion of community participation in architecture, first initiated in the 1960s, become a buzzword in mid-1970s after the sites and services housing schemes received funding and acceptance by the World Bank in developing countries.(Hamdi, 1991) By the 1980s the potential of community participation in the meaningful development of the built environment had been established in several built projects. Charles Abrams, Nick Wates, Nabeel Hamdi, John Turner, Christopher Alexander, Peter Hackney, Charles Knevitt, … discussed about it. “Wates” defines Community Architecture as “architecture carried out with the active participation of the end-users”. In spite of many researches and practices it had not been accepted as a method in design process. But neglect of community design in developing countries causes many changes in shape and form of architecture. There are famous projects in these countries that after occupation, users made many changes. This article compares how community based design differs with other methods. Tow case studies that one is more conscious about community and other not, are compared. Aranya town house (India) and Shushtar town house (Iran) are tow cases. Comparative analysis through two case studies shows that some factors can affect architecture in order not to be only form and space. Projects with high level of architectural values when are not according to community needs can not play their real role in architectural literature. Some community aspects can affect architecture that shouldn’t be neglected. In these projects some factors are more important than others:  Personal space  Privacy  Territory  Security  The poor community Concept of poverty, play important role in design decision making of these projects. One has considered (Aranya) and other (Shushtar) not. Some behavioral factors such as personal space, privacy, territory and security are too important. Lack of sense of community in Shushtar New Town, leads this project to be a failure in design despite of priority in architectural forms and spaces. In Aranya , Doshi believes that planning has been based on requirements of the end users who are economically weaker but end users were neglected in Shushtar project. Low level culture of residents was neglected and also in predicted for designers. Architectural forms and spaces through the time should be in adjutancy with the users. Some aspects of community can affect architecture so should not be neglected. Especially in developing countries some community aspects are too important. Considering the community does not mean that design process should be with community; it means that community needs should be considered in design process.

Keywords