Villages of Iran do not maintain a clear border with nature. In these villages, construction for habitation is harmonized with nature. As Iranians believe, nature is an entity having its own life and flow and neighboring the nature occurs in adaptation with it. Conquering nature or rupturing with nature is not agreeable in their beliefs. Consistency with nature during the course of history has gradually created a specific type of aesthetics in the Iranian rural regions where pristine nature is significantly admired. The scenes that nature creates during its lifetime is stunning; since Iranians consider nature as the product of systematic activities within nature rather than accidental scenes, the activities many of which are not clear to us in nature. However, alike fractal geometry, they depend on an adjustable arrangement beyond their offering variety. Therefore, a tree that has long been able to interact with mountain rocks is recognized as a part of the "existing" nature. Such trees are seen abundantly in Persian landscape. Moreover, the emergence of the Persian triple landscape, that is also a historical and artistic landscape, is due to the power and authenticity of such an approach in the history of Persian culture. The houses built in the rocks can be considered as the imitation of a tree's survival among the mountains. As the trees are adapted to nature, the houses imitate the adaptation to the environment in terms of size and shape and the three continue their life in a harmonious equilibrium. However, Iranian cities often have contradictory edges to nature. In most cases, a solid barrier is defined between the city and nature. This edge is so evident that some gates are built as thresholds when passing from the cities to nature. The "behavior" in communicating the city and nature has become so significant that the gates have become the symbol of the city and they determine the city structure and organization. The separation of the city and the surrounding in contrast to the reconciliation of the village with the environment are two opposing approaches. The reasons for that have to be sought in the entity and destiny of the city. For a long time, the barriers were recognized as a meaningful edge for the inhabitants inside, creating a secure citadel. Subsequently and in accordance with the same method, the cities ignored to harmonize themselves to nature in order to preserve themselves and their inhabitant's property for sake of security. Nevertheless, an Iranian citizen was a privileged person in a pre-Islamic city and stood in a higher social position than the inhabitants of the surrounding nature. Regardless of the early centuries of the Islamic era when the city walls were collapsed to realize the social equality of people inside and outside the city, the old tradition of privileged living space was created on the pretext of security. The severe result of this rebirth was the separation of the city from nature, which continued in the modern period by adding ornamentation. Although the green belts of the modern cities create favorable spaces for the environment or city services in detail, they continue to maintain the duality of the city and the surrounding and establish an incompatible relation with their natural environment in a holistic point of view; a relation that emphasizes on transforming it into an independent entity that buffers the city and the nature.
)