Public interest is one of the most fundamental concepts in urban planning, but in practice its realization is shaped by power relations, institutional structures, and dominant discourses. Meanwhile, neighborhood development has been proposed as an approach to strengthen participation, spatial justice, and local governance. However, how it contributes to reproducing the concept of public interest in the Tehran metropolis still requires clarification. Therefore, the present paper was conducted with the aim of analyzing the position of neighborhood development realization in the reproduction of the concept of public interest.

This paper employed a qualitative approach within the interpretive paradigm framework. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was performed using inductive qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software.

The results indicated that the reproduction of the concept of public interest at the neighborhood level is formulated within six main categories, including: redefining the neighborhood in the modern era and innovation, the system of regulations and the rule of law, reconstruction of identity and social capital, the political economy of land and conflict of interest management, neighborhood-centered governance and participatory institutionalization, and spatial justice and standardization of services. Furthermore, themes such as the conflict between private and public interests, equitable distribution of facilities, bottom-up processes in identifying needs, provision of local per capita standards, fostering a sense of belonging, and confronting law evasion were found to be of the greatest importance in the participants' perception of public interest.

The findings reveal that public interest in neighborhood development is a dynamic and context-dependent concept, reproduced through the interaction among institutional structures, power relations, dominant discourses, and the participation of local actors. Therefore, its realization requires strengthening neighborhood-centered governance, increasing transparency, managing conflicts of interest, reducing centralization, and expanding effective citizen participation in urban decision-making processes.