首页 > 外语翻译

美国大城市的生与死(中英文版)

2023年12月30日发(作者：人力资源管理师报考条件)

«美国大城市的生与死»

(THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT

AMRICAN CITIES)

美国女作家简.雅各布斯(Jane Jacobs)

1 Introduction

(1) This book is and attack on city

planning and rebuilding. It is also, and

mostly, an attempt to introduce new

principles of city planning and

rebuilding, different and even opposite

from those now taught in everything

from schools of architecture and

planning to the Sunday supplements

and women’s magazines. My attack is

not based on quibbles about rebuilding

methods or hairsplitting about fashions

in design. It is an attack, rather, on the

principles and aims that have shaped

modern, orthodox city planning and

rebuilding.(2002.2.8)

(2) In setting forth different principles,

I shall mainly be writing about

common, ordinary things: for instance,

what kinds of city streets are safe and

what kinds are not; why some city

parks are marvelous and others are

vice traps and death traps; why some

slums stay slums and other slums

regenerate themselves even against

financial and official opposition; what

makes downtowns shift their centers;

what, if anything, is a city

neighborhood, and what jobs, if any,

neighborhoods in great cities do. In

short, I shall be writing about how

cities work in real life, because this is

the only way to learn what principles

of planning and what practices in

rebuilding can promote social and

economic vitality in cities, and what

practices and principle will deaden

these attributes.(2002.2.8)

译文：

介绍

（1）这是一本抨击现今城市规划和改造的书。应该说书中的大多数内容，尝试着介绍新的城市规划和改造原则，这些原则不同于学校里所传授的东西，不同于周日特刊的计划，也不同于从妇女杂志中所看到的，甚至是与那些原则完全相反的。我的抨击并不是以关于改建手法的模棱两可的双关语为基础，也不是对设计的时尚吹毛求疵。它所抨击的是那些形成现代和传统城市规划和改造的原则和目的。

（2）为了阐明这些不同的原则，我从那些普通的事物写起：例如，什么样的城市街道是安全的，而什么样的是不安全的；为什么有的城市公园是美妙的不可思议的，而有的则成为了城市藏污纳垢的死角；为什么有些贫民窟长久保持原样有些不顾财政和政府的反对不断生成；是什么让城市不断变换他们的中心；什么是一个城市的临近地区，它有担当了什么样的一种职能。简而言之，我要写的是城市在现实生活中是如何运作的，因为这是学习规划原则和怎样用改建来提升城市的社会和经济活力的唯一方法，通过这样的学习，也能知道什么样的原则和实践会扼杀这些活力。(2002.2.9 benbentiao 译)

(3) There is a wistful myth that if only

we had enough money to spend—the

figure is usually put at a hundred

billion dollars—we could wipe out all

our slums in ten years, reverse decay

in the great, dull, gray belts that were

yesterday’s and day-before-yesterday’s

suburbs, anchor the wandering middle

class and its wandering tax money, and

perhaps even solve the traffice

problem.(2002.2.9)

(4) But look what we have built with

the first several billions: Low-income

projects that become worse centers of

delinquency, vandalism and general

social hopelessness than the slums they

were supposed to replace.

Middle-income housing projects which

are truly marvels of dullness and

regimentation sealed against any

buoyancy or vitality of city life.

Luxury housing projects that mitigate

their inanity, or try to, with a vapid

vulgarity. Cultural centers that are

unable to support a good bookstore.

Civic centers that are avoided by

everyone but bums, who have fewer

choices of loitering place than others.

Commercial centers that are lackluster

imitations of standardized suburban

chain-store shopping. Promenades that

go from no place to nowhere and have

no promenaders. . Expressways that

eviscerate great cities. This is not the

rebuilding of cities. This is the sacking

of cities.(2000.2.9)

（3）有一种理想的“神话”，前提是我们拥有足够的资金——通常得上百亿美金——我们便可在十年内清除所有的贫困区，隐藏起从前城市中那些庞大、阴暗、沉闷地带内所呈现出的衰败景象，转而安置飘泊的中产阶级，沉淀及其附带的游离资金，这样甚至可以解决交通问题。(2002.2.10 永远的埃及

译)

（4）现在看看我们用一开始的几十亿作了什么：低收入居民区变成了错误，破坏艺术行为和社会绝望的中心，代替了贫民窟给社会带来的影响。中层收入居民区的无趣和对一切轻快和有活力的城市生活的管辖让人觉得惊奇。奢华的小别墅妄图用一种粗俗的设计手法区减轻他们的愚蠢。文化中心里不能到一个好的书店。除了流浪汉谁都不愿意去城市中心，因为那里是少数几个能供他们闲逛的场所。商业中心是标准的郊区连锁店的翻版。散步道不知位于何处，当然见不到散步的人，高速公路变成了城市的精华部分。这不是对城市的改造，这是对城市的毁坏。(2002.2.11 benbentiao 译)

(5) Under the surface, these

accomplishments prove even poorer

than their poor pretenses. They seldom

aid the city areas around them, as in

theory they are supposed to. These

amputated areas typically develop

galloping gangrene. To house people in

this planned fashion, price tags are

fastened on the population, and each

sorted-out chunk of price-tagged

populace lives in growing suspicion

and tension against the surrounding

city. When two or more such hostile

islands are juxtaposed the result is

called “a balanced neighborhood.”

Monopolistic shopping centers and

monumental cultural centers cloak,

under the public relations hoohaw, the

subtraction of commerce, and of

culture too, from the intimate and

casual life of cities.(2002.2.10)

(6) That such wonders may be

accomplished, people who get marked

with the planners’ hex signs are pushed

about, expropriated, and uprooted

much as if they were the subjects of a

conquering power. Thousands of small

businesses are destroyed, and their

proprietors ruined, with hardly a

gesture at compensation. Whole

communities are torn apart and sown

to the winds, with a reaping of

cynicism, resentment and despair that

must be heard and seen to be believed.

A group of clergymen in Chicago,

appalled at the fruits of planned city

rebuilding there, ask,

(7) Could job have been thinking of

Chicago when he wrote:

(8) Here are men that alter their

neighbor’s landmark…shoulder the

poor aside, conspire to oppress the

friendless.

（5）事实上,这些整治比它们那些有够衰的pretense们更衰. 它们极少如它们的理论所臆断的那样,在自身周围增加新的城市环境.相反,这些从城市机体上截下来的部分往往发育成急性坏疽: 在时尚的"规划"指导下,

居民人口被贴上"价格"的标签, 塞进某处组团. 而每一坨甄选出来带着价标的人口,则在与周围城区日益增长的怀疑与紧张关系中生长. 如果两个以上的互含敌意的组团被搁在了一起,那么我们就得到了一个"平衡社区". 在公共关系hoohaw的张罗下, 垄断型商业中心和纪念碑样的文化中心掩饰了商业和文化的匮乏 --- 而后两者, 在随意而亲切的都市生活中,曾是如此的丰富

(2002.2.12 除夕的鞭炮响过之后 Spade 译)

（6）这种奇迹或许可以实现,然而那些标上了规划师们具有蛊惑力的标志(注:猜想可能是指所住区域被规划)的人们遭排挤,家园被略夺,最终背井离乡,就像是好胜心下的战利品.成千上万的小商业被毁,它们的经营者遭损失.但几乎没有得到补偿的迹象.而整体社区被分裂,象种子般在风中撒落,带着嘲讽,怨恨和失望, 这些规划者必须看到也必须相信这些.一惊骇于规划重建后芝加哥城市状况的牧师寻问道:

（7）当Job写下以下篇章时,是否联想到了芝加哥:

（8）这儿的人们改变着周边标志性建筑物… 排挤着穷人,联和压迫着无依无靠的人们.

(9) Reap they the field that is none of

theirs, strip they the vineyard

wrongfully seized from its owner…

(10) A cry goes up from the city streets,

where wounded men lie groaning…

(11) If so, he was also thinking of

New York, Philadelphia, Boston,

Washington, St. Louis, San Francisco

and a number of other places. The

economic rationale of current city

rebuilding is a hoax. The economics of

city rebuilding do not rest soundly on

reasoned investment of public tax

subsides, as urban renewal theory

proclaims, but also on vast,

involuntary subsides wrung out of

helpless site victims. And the increased

tax returns from such sites, accruing to

the cities as a result of this

“investment,” are a mirage, a pitiful

gesture against the ever increasing

sums of public money needed to

combat disintegration and instability

that flow from the cruelly shaken-up

city. The means to planned city

rebuilding are as deplorable as the

end.(2002.2.12)

（9）他们收割着不属于自己的土地, 清理着以不正当方式从别处掠夺来的葡萄园…

（10）受伤的人们躺在城市街道上呻吟着,传来阵阵哭泣声…

（11）假若Job想到了芝加哥,那他也想到了纽约,费城,波世顿,华盛顿,圣鲁乙思,三藩市和其他一些地方.目前的城市重建经济原理只是一.当前的城市重建经济学并不像城市更新理论所宣扬的,真正有效地建立在公民税收津贴的合理投资基础之上,而是依赖于从贫苦区里受害者处强行压榨来的巨额的津贴.为克服城市大改革所带来的分裂及不稳定性, 公共资金永远供不应求,而越来越多从贫苦区里得来的税收归拢于城市最终还是作为这样的投资.将这些税收用于其来源地,只是海市蜃楼,可悲可叹.

(2002.2.13 qq00612 译)

(12)Meantime, all the art and science

of city planning are helpless to stem

decay—and the spiritlessness that

precedes decay—in ever more massive

swatches of cities. Nor can this decay

be laid, reassuringly, to lack of

opportunity to apply the arts of

planning. It seems to matter little

whether they are applied or not.

Consider the Morningside Heights area

in New York City. According to

planning theory it should not be in

trouble at all, for it enjoys a great

aboudance of parkland, campus,

playground and pleasant ground with

magnificent river views. It is a famous

educational center with splendid

institutions—Columbia University,

Union Theological Seminary, the

Juilliard School of Music, and half a

dozen others of eminent respectability.

It is the beneficiary of good hospitals

and churches. It has no industries. Its

streets are zoned in the main against

“incompatible uses “intruding into the

preserves for solidly constructed,

roomy, middle-and upper-class

apartments. Yet by the early 1950’s

Morningside Heights was becoming a

slum so swiftly, the surly kind of slum

in which people fear to walk the streets,

that the situation posed a crisis for the

institutions. They and the planning

arms of the city government got

together, applied more planning theory,

wiped out the most run-down part of

the area and built in its stead a

middle-income housing project

complete with shopping center, and a

public housing project, all interspersed

with air, light, sunshine and

landscaping. This was hailed as a great

demonstration in city saving.

(12)与此同时,城市规划理论与艺术对于城市局部地区的衰退无能为力----这种早在城市衰退之前便产生的无能----甚至在范围较广的示范区亦无可耐何. 城市规划艺术运用与否似乎并不重要,即使它得以施展,衰退依然避免不了,一定会发生的. 想想纽约的Morningside Heights区. 依照规划理论,本该没有任何问题的. 因为她拥有宽敞的停车场地,校园,操场及一个河景怡人的游戏场所.她还聚集了世界顶级的大学和研究机构—哥伦比亚大学,神学研究学会,朱利叶德音乐学院及其他6个杰出的广受尊敬的教研机构.

她享有设备完善的医院和宗教服务. 她没有工业,出于兼容性,被划区的街道直接通往稳固宽敞的中高层阶级的公寓里. 然而50年代前, Morningside Heights迅速沦为贫民窟.

人们不敢在那可怕的地方步行,这都成了规划研究院迫切解决的首要问题. 他们与政府规划部门合作, 应用更多的规划理论,清理了大多数荒废区域,以配有购物中心面向中等收入阶层的安居工程和另一个公众安居项目取而代之. 重建后的区域享有空气,光线,日照和怡人的景观. 作为挽救城市的大手笔,这个方案广受欢迎.

(13)After that, Morningside Heights

went downhill even faster.

(14)Nor is this an unfair or irrelevant

example. In city after city, precisely

the wrong areas, in the light of

planning theory, are decaying. Less

noticed, but equally significant, in city

after city the wrong areas, in the light

of planning theory, are refusing to

decay.

(15)Cities are an immense laboratory

of trial and error, failure and success,

in city building and city design. This is

the laboratory in which city planning

should have been learning and forming

and discipline (if such it can be called)

have ignored the study of success and

failure in real life, have been incurious

about the reasons for unexpected

success, and are guided instead by

principles derived from the behavior

and appearance of towns, suburbs,

tuberculosis sanatoria, fairs, and

imaginary dream cities—from

anything but cities

themselves.(2002.2.13)

(16) If it appears that the rebuilt

portions of cities and the endless new

developments spreading beyond the

cities are the reducing city and

countryside alike to a monotonous,

unnourishing gruel, this is not strange,

It all comes, first-, second- third- or

fourth-hand, out of the same

intellectual dish or mush, a mush in

which the qualities, necessities,

advantages and behavior of great cities

have been behavior of other and more

inert types of settlements.

（13）然而,自那以后, Morningside Heights

每况愈下的速度更快了。

（14）Morningside Heights这个例子既不是不公正的，也不是同其他城市不相关的。一个城市接着一个城市，在规划理论指导下，那些精确规划了的区域正在衰退；一个城市接着一个城市，在规划理论指导下，那些精确规划了的区域拒绝衰退，尽管这拒绝不为人注意，其意义同样重大。

（15）城市是个巨大的实验室，其内可以反复试验城市营造和城市设计的成功与失败。正是在这个实验室里，城市规划应该不断学习，自我完善和自我约束(如果可以这样称呼的话)。恰恰相反，正是这个实验室忽略了对现时生活中成败的研究；正是这个实验室漠视了意外成功之缘由；也正是这个实验室，只是在从城镇，郊区，修养地，集会及梦幻城的行为与表象演绎得来的信条的指导下---或者说任何方面的指导下来运行，而不是由城市本身领导下运行。(2002.2.14

qq00612 译)

（16）即便城市重建部分和无止尽更新发展显现出不单单使城市与乡村转变为一碗乏味且无营养的稀粥的情形,也不足为奇. 就算是碗长智力的玉米粥,它也只是按首要,次要,再次,更次来考虑问题. 在这碗玉米粥里,大城市的质量,必要性,优点和表征已完全和另外的及缺乏活力住宅落的质量,必要性,优点和表征完全混淆在一起了. (2002.2.15

qq00612 译)

(17) There is nothing economically or

socially inevitable about either the

decay of old cities or the fresh-minted

decadence of the new unurban

urbanization. On the contrary no other

aspect of our economy and society has

been more purposefully manipulated

for a full quarter of a century to

achieve precisely what we are getting.

Extraordinary governmental financial

incentives have been require to achieve

this degree of monotony, sterility and

vulgarity. Decades of preaching,

writing and exhorting by experts have

gone into convincing us and our

legislators that mush like this must be

good for us, as long as it comes bedded

with grass.

(18)Automobiles are often

conveniently tagged as the villains

responsible for the ills of cities and the

disappointments and futilities of city

planning. But the destructive effect s

of automobiles are much less a cause

than a symptom of our incompetence

at city building. Of cause planners,

including the highwaymen with

fabulous sums of money and enormous

power at their disposal, are at a loss to

make automobiles and cities

compatible with one another. They do

not know what to do with automobiles

in cities because they do not know how

to plan for workable and vital cities

anyhow—with or without automobiles.

(17)对于旧城衰败和新近城市化地区刚开始的衰退, 经济因素与社会因素从来都是贯穿其中。相反,在整整25年里再也没有其他方面像经济与社会这两只手那样一心一意地致力将城市建设成现在这样。大量的政府财政支出用以成就今日城市之千篇一律，缺乏活力,鄙陋不堪的状况。数十年来，专家们的说教、著述、劝诫使得立法者和我们相信像上述玉米粥那样的城市只要铺满草坪，就一定有利于我们。(2002.2.18 qq00612 译)

（18）人们出于方便,将城市弊端和城市规划中的败笔及令人失望处归咎于小汽车的不是。但与其说汽车是造成这种局面的原因，还不如说是我们在城市建设方面无能的一种表征。当然规划者，包括拥有惊人钱财和庞大处置权的拦路抢劫犯，都不知如何使小汽车同城市相互兼容。他们不知如何对付城市里的汽车问题因为他们不知如何规划运行良好，充满活力的城市—无论小汽车存在还是不存在。

(19)The simple needs of automobiles

are more easily understood and

satisfied than the complex needs of

cities, and a growing number of

planners and designers have come to

believe that if they can only solve the

problems of traffic, they will thereby

have solved the major problem of

cities. Cities have much more intricate

economic and social concerns than

automobile traffic. How can you know

what to try with traffic until you know

how the city itself works, and what

else it needs to do with its streets? You

can’t.(2002.2.15)

(20)It may be that we have became so

feckless as people that we no longer

care how things do work, but only

what kind of quick, easy outer

impression they give. If so, there is

little hope for our cities or probably for

much else in our society. But I do not

think this is so.(2002.2.16)

(21)Specifically, in the case of

planning for cities, it is clear that a

large number of good and earnest

people do care deeply about building

and renewing. Despite some corruption,

and considerable greed for the other

man’s vineyard, the intentions going

into the messes we make are, on the

whole, exemplary. Planners, architects

of city design, and those they have led

along with them in their beliefs are not

consciously disdainful of the

importance of knowing how things

work. On the contrary, they have gone

to great pains to learn what the saints

and sages of modern orthodox

planning have said about how cities

ought to work and what ought to be

good for people and businesses in

them. They take this with such

devotion that when contradictory

reality intrudes, threatening to shatter

their dearly won learning, they must

shrug reality aside.(2002.2.17)

（19）小汽车的简单需求比起城市的复杂要求来，更容易被理解和满足。并且越来越多的城市规划设计师相信只要他们能解决交通问题，那么他们就能解决城市的主要问题。城市里存在着比汽车交通更为错综复杂的经济社会问题。在你明白城市自身如何运作及她还需要哪些来维护城市道路之前，你岂能了解怎样处理交通问题。你了解不了的。(2002.2.19 qq00612 译)

(20)可能是我们变得和庸民（so feckless as

people do in the rest of the world?）一样无能，可能是我们不再关心事物的内在规律，而只在乎事物表现出来的那种效果---简单而快捷。如果是这样的话，我们的城市就几乎没什么希望，或者可能连我们社会中其它许多的事物也将如此。但我认为事实并非如此。(21)尤其是,就城市规划来说,显然有很多的善良热心的人们深切关心城市的建设与发展。尽管存在某程度上的腐败以及人与人之间的相互倾轧现实，人们对我们城市规划造成的烂摊子的种种改造设想，总的说来，可以作为我们的榜样。（不过）城市规划师、建筑师以及在他们观念影响下引导的那些人并非有意蔑视实事求是的重要性。相反，他们曾经不辞辛劳地去掌握当代正统的规划理论的圣贤们的理论，关于城市应当怎样运作,以及怎样做才是对城市中的人们及事物有益的。他们对这类理论深信不疑，以至于当事实与理论截然相反，并有可能打破他们好不容易学到的东西时，他们就理所应当地把事实抛在了一边。

(22)Consider, for example, the

orthodox planning reaction to a district

called the North End in Boston. This is

an old, low-rent area merging into the

heavy industry of the waterfront, and it

is officially considered Boston’s worst

slum and civic shame. It embodies

attributes which all enlightened people

know are evil because so many wise

men have said they are evil. Not only

is the North End bumped right up

against industry, but worse still it has

all kinds of working places and

commerce mingled in the greatest

complexity with its residences. It has

the highest commerce mingled in the

greatest complexity with its residences.

It has the highest concentration of

dwelling nits, on the land that is used

for dwelling units, of any part of

Boston, and indeed one of the highest

concentrations to be found in any

American city. It has little parkland.

Children play in the streets. Instead of

super-blocks or even decently large

blocks, it has very small blocks; in

planning parlance it is “badly cut up

with wasteful streets.” Its buildings are

old. Everything conceivable is

presumably wrong with the North End.

In orthodox planning terms, it is a

three-dimensional textbook of

“megalopolis” in the last stages of

depravity. The North End is thus a

recurring assignment for M.I.T. and

Harvard planning and architectural

students, who now and again pursue,

under the guidance of their teachers,

the paper exercise of converting it into

super-blocks and park promenades,

wiping away its nonconforming uses,

transforming it to an ideal of order and

gentility so simple it could be

engraved on the head of a pin.

(22)譬如，以正统的规划理论对波士顿一个称为North End的街区的分析为例，来看一看。这是一块融入位于滨水地带的重工业区的区域，陈旧而且租金低廉，被公认为是波士顿最糟糕的贫民区和城市的耻辱。它体现了所有文明人认为丑恶的特性---因为那么多的高明人士都说过这些特性是丑恶的。不仅仅是由于该地区突出与工业区紧紧相邻，更糟糕的是它的各式各样的工作区和商业交易活动以最复杂的形式与居住区混合在一起。最频繁的商业交易活动和其居住区以最复杂的形式相混杂。在其用作建造住宅单元的岛上,拥有波士顿最密集的住宅单元,事实上也是在美国任何城市中所能到的最密集的居住区之一。它几乎没什么公用场地。孩子们都在大街上玩耍。没什么（大型）车辆禁行区甚至象样一点的大型街区，它只拥有非常小的街区；以规划的说法就是：“被多余的街道拙劣地分割开”。它的建筑也陈旧不堪。North End本身联想得到的每一件事大概都是错误的。以规划的科班术语来说，它是一本关于“特大城市（理论）”在过去衰落阶段的立体教科书。North End也因而被反复作为麻省理工学院和哈佛规划建筑专业学生的作业，在老师的指导下，学生们坚持不懈地在纸上把它变得拥有车辆禁行区和公园散步场所，去除其不适宜的用途，把它转变成一个秩序井然和优雅高尚的理想典范，做起来好象简单得微不足道。

(2002.2.20 leonx 译)

(23)When I saw the North End again

in 1959, I was amazed at the change.

Dozens and dozens of buildings had

been rehabilitated. Instead of

mattresses against the windows there

were Venetian blinds and glimpses of

fresh paint. Many of the small,

converted houses now had only one or

two families in them instead of the old

crowded three or four. Some of the

families in the tenements (as I learned

later, visiting inside) had uncrowded

themselves by throwing two older

apartments together, and had equipped

these with bathrooms, new kitchens

and the like. I looked down a narrow

alley, thinking to find at least here the

old, squalid North End, but no: more

neatly repointed brickwork, new blinds,

and a burst of music as a door opened.

Indeed, this was the only city district I

had ever seen—or have seen to this

day—in which the sides of buildings

around parking lots had not been left

raw and amputated, but repaired and

painted neatly as if they were intended

to be seen. Mingled all among the

buildings for living were an incredible

number of splendid food stores, as well

as such enterprises as upholstery

making, metal working, carpentry,

food processing. The streets were alive

with children playing, people shopping,

people strolling, people talking. Had it

not been a cold January day, there

would surely have been people sitting.

(23)当我于1959年再见NORTH END时, 惊讶于她的变化。成打成打的建筑恢复原貌。由外往里看，原本靠窗摆放的床垫被威尼斯风格的窗帘所替代，透过窗帘，可以瞥见墙上清新的油漆。那些原来挤塞着三四个家庭改修过的狭窄的房屋里现在只有一户或两户人家。当我进去拜访时，我才发现一些租住在里面的家庭将两套老公寓连通，使房子更为宽敞，并且还配备了浴室，厨房等等设施。我仔细查看了一条窄窄的过道，希望最起码能在那儿到肮脏陈旧NORTH END的痕迹。但是，所能发现的是比以前砌得更整洁的砖，崭新的窗帘和开门时传来的乐音。事实上，这是我以前见过的或者说是迄今为止见到的唯一一个街区，在其中，停车场和住宅建筑物之间的空地没有被废弃或是隔断，而是被修葺粉刷一新仿佛有意要人看见。与住宅区想融合的是多的难以置信的精致的食品店和诸如室内装潢，五金店，木具加工，食品加工等商业。街道上由于戏耍的孩子，购物和散步的人们而变得生气盎然。假如现在不是寒冷的一月，那么肯定会有人小坐于此。(2002.2.21 qq00612 译)

(24)The general street atmosphere of

buoyancy, friendliness and good health

was so infectious that I began asking

directions of people just for the fun of

getting in on some talk. I had seen a lot

of Boston in the past couple of days,

most of it sorely distressing, and this

struck me, with relief, as the healthiest

place in the city. But I could not

imagine where the money had come

from for the rehabilitation, because it

is almost impossible today to get any

appreciable mortgage money in

districts of American cities that are not

either high-rent, or else imitations of

suburbs. To find out, I went into a bar

and restaurant (where an animated

conversation about fishing was in

progress) and called a Boston planner I

know.

(25)“Why in the world are you down

in the North End?” he said. “Money?

Why, no money or work has gone into

the North End. Nothing’s going on

down there. Eventually, yes, but not

yet. That’s a slum!”

(26)“It doesn’t seem like a slum in the

city. It has two hundred and

seventy-five dwelling units to the net

acre! I hate to admit we have anything

like that in Boston, but it’s a fact.”

(27)“Do you have any other figures on

it?” I asked.

(28)“Yes, funny thing. It has among

the lowest delinquency, disease and

infant mortality rates in the city. It also

has the lowest ratio of rent to income

in the city. Boy, are those people

getting bargains. Let’s see . . . the child

population is just about average for the

city, on the nose. The death rate is low,

8.8 per thousand, against the average

city rate of TB death rate is

very low, less than 1 per ten thousand,

can’t understand it, it’ slower even

than Brookline’s. In the old days the

North End used to be the city’s worst

spot for tuberculosis, but all that has

changed. Well they must be strong

people. Of course it’s a terrible slum.”

(24)大街上轻快，友好，健康的气氛是如此具有传染力，以致我开始以问路的方式插入人们的闲聊，享受这份乐趣。在过去的几天里我见了波士顿不少地方，绝大多数非常让人失望，但NORTH END 作为城市中最健康的地方让我震惊，也令我慰藉。但我不能想象这笔重建资金从何而来。因为现如今在美国，除了高租金区和仿郊区的项目，其他的几乎不可能获得抵押贷款。为到答案，我去了间酒吧，也可称饭店。那儿，一场关于钓鱼的谈话正如火如荼地进行着。我给一位认识的波士顿规划师挂了电话。(2002.2.22 qq00612 译)

（25）“你究竟到NORTH END 来做什么?”,他说: “钱? 为什么? 没什么钱或是工作投入到NORTH END. 那儿什么都没发生.是的,将来会有的,但现在还没有. 那是个贫民窟!”

（26）“她看上去并不象贫民窟。她每英亩地有275个单元！我不愿承认我们在波士顿有这样的地方，但这是事实。”

（27）“你有关于她的其他数据吗？”我问他。

（28）“有，很有趣。她的犯罪率，疾病率，婴儿死亡率是全城最低的。她的租金与收入比也是最低。嘿，哪儿的人们真可算是拣到便宜货了。我们来看看。。。人口中，孩子所占的比例与全市平均值持平，刚刚到。死亡率为千分之8.8，与全市平均死亡率千分之11。2比起来，很低。

TB死亡率也低，不到千分之一，不可思议，甚至比BROOKLINE还慢。以前NORTH

END是全市最严重的病高发点，但所有这一切都改变了。住在那儿的人们身体肯定很强壮。当然她仍然是个可怕的贫民区”。

(29)“You should have more slums like

this,” I said.“ Don’t tell me there are

plans to wipe this out. You ought to be

down here learning as much as you can

from it.”

(30)“I know how you feel,” he said.“ I

often go down there myself just to

walk around the streets and feel that

wonderful, cheerful street life. Say,

what you ought to do, you ought to

come back and go down in the summer

if you think it’s fun now. You ‘d be

crazy about it in summer. But of

course we have to rebuild it eventually.

We’ve got to get those people off the

streets.” (2002.2.18)

(31)Here was a curious thing .My

friend’s instincts told him the North

End was a good place, and his social

statistics confirmed it. But everything

he learned as a physical planner about

what is good for people and food for

city neighborhoods, everything that

made him an expert, told him the

North End had to be a bad place.

(32)The leading Boston savings banker,

“a man ’way up there in the power

structure ,” to whom my friend

referred me for my inquiry about the

money, confirmed what I learned, in

the meantime, from people in the

North End . The money had not come

now knows enough about planning to

know a slum as well as the planners do.

“No sense in lending money into the

North End,” the banker said. “It’s a

slum! It’s still getting some immigrants!

Furthermore, back in the Depression it

had a very large number of

foreclosures; bad record.” (I had heard

about this too, in the meantime, and

how families had worked and pooled

their resources to buy back some of

those foreclosed buildings.)

(29)“你们应该有更多像这样的贫民区”,我说,”别告诉我你们正计划清除她.你应该亲自下来看看, 从中你会发现许多东西.”

(30) “我知你感受”,他说, “我经常一个人去那而走走感受那美好快乐的街道生活. 看,你该做的是夏天时回来再去那儿,假如你现在觉得很有趣. 到那时你会为她疯狂. 但是最终我们仍然不得不重建她. 我们已将居民与一些街道隔离.” (2002.2.25 qq00612 译)

(31)这是件古怪的事。我朋友的直觉告诉他NORTH END是个好地方，且他手上的关于社会方面的数据也证明了这点。但是作为一名循规蹈矩的城市规划者，他所学的关于什么有利于人民，有利于城市周边地区发展的知识和那些使他成为专家的的学识告诉他NORTH END 不得不是个糟糕的地方。(2002.2.27 qq00612 译)

(32)关于资金来源问题，那位朋友让我向波士顿最首要的管理存款业务的银行家咨询，他也是权力机构中举足轻重的人物。这位银行家证明了我从NORTH END里获悉的情况，资金并不是从银行系统中而来。现在的银行和规划师一样懂得足够的规划知识，知道什么是贫民区。“将钱投入到NORTH END完全没有意义。”银行家说道：她是个贫民窟！而且至今仍有人迁徙进来。更糟糕的是，在经济大萧条期间，那地区大量住户被银行取消赎回房屋权，纪录不良.”（我曾经听说过这消息，并且在那儿参观时还听说了人们是如何工作以买回一部分被银行禁止赎取的楼盘。）。(2002.2.28 qq00612 译)

(33)The largest mortgage loans that

had been fed into this district of some

15,000 people in the quarter-century

since the Great Depression were for

$3,000, the banker told me, “and very,

very few of those.” The rehabilitation

work had been almost entirely

financed by business and housing

earnings within the district, plowed

back in, and by skilled work bartered

among residents and relatives of

residents.

(34)By this time I knew that this

inability to borrow for improvement

was a galling worry to North Enders,

and that furthermore some North

Enders were worried because it

seemed impossible to get new building

in the area except at the price of seeing

themselves and their community wiped

out in the fashion of the students’

dreams of a city Eden, a fate which

they knew was not academic because it

had already smashed completely a

socially similar—although physically

more spacious—nearby district called

the West End. They were worried

because they were aware also that

patch and fix with nothing else could

not do forever. “Any chance of loans

for new construction in the. North

End?” I asked the banker.

(35)“No, absolutely not!” he said,

sounding impatient at my denseness.

“That’s a slum!”

(33)“经济大萧条后的25年内,在这个拥有15000人的地区,最大金额的抵押贷款只有3000元,”银行家告诉我, “且贷款数量相当相当少.” 重建项目的资金决大多数来自区域内的商业和住房供给项目的赢利及再投资所获的利,还有当地居民,居民亲戚间的技术劳动的交换. 。(2002.3.1 qq00612 译)

(34)至此，我终于明白无能贷款进行社区改建对于北角居民而言的确是一大烦恼，且在未来也不可能修建新建筑，除非以按照学生间流行的伊甸园梦之城将他们的家园完完全全取而代之为代价。北角居民为这样的命运担忧，他们已看到所谓伊甸园之城并不是基于学术上，因为它已彻底瓦解了位于北角附近，与北角社会结构相似----虽然空间上要小于北角，名为西角的街区。北角居民为他们的前景担忧，他们已意识到仅仅修修补补之类的改建不会一直持续下去。“有可能为北角新建项目贷到款吗？”我问那位银行家。

(35)“不，绝对不可能！”他说，对于我的重复追问似乎以不耐烦，“那里是贫民区！” 。(2002.4.17 qq00612 译)

(36)Bankers, like planners, have

theories about cities on which they act.

They have gotten their theories from

the same intellectual sources as the

planners. Bankers and government

administrative officials who guarantee

mortgages do not invent planning

theories nor, surprisingly, even

economic doctrine about cities. They

are enlightened nowadays, and they

pick up their ideas from idealists,

major new ideas for considerably more

than a generation, theoretical planners,

financers and bureaucrats are all just

about even today.

(37)And to put it bluntly, they are all in

the same stage of elaborately learned

superstition as medical science was

early in the last century, when

physicians put their faith in

bloodletting , to draw out the evil

humors which were believed to cause

disease. With bloodletting, it took

years of learning to know precisely

which veins, by what rituals, were to

be opened for what symptoms. A

superstructure of technical

complication was erected in such

deadpan detail that the literature still

sounds almost plausible. However,

because people, even when they are

thoroughly enmeshed in descriptions

of reality which are at variance with

reality, are still seldom devoid of the

powers of observation and independent

thought, the science of bloodletting,

over most of its long sway, appears

usually to have been tempered with a

certain amount of common sense. Or it

was tempered until it reached its

highest peaks of technique in, of all

places, the young United States.

Bloodletting went wild here.

(36) 银行家同规划师一样，对于他们运作的城市有着同样的认知，如同规划师般从丰富的资源里获悉原理。令人惊奇的是，银行家与为贷款抵押担保的政府行政官员既不是规划理论的创建者，也不是城市经济学说的著述者。然而现在他们被启蒙了，从较其晚一辈的理想主义者那儿拾取理论。由于纯理论性的城市规划学说并不具备大量跨年代的新观点，规划师，金融家和官僚家现如今也只是蠢蠢欲动罢了。(2002.4.21 qq00612

译)

(37)坦白而言, 它们全部都在诸如上世纪早期的医学那样处于过度痴迷于迷信的阶段之中, 当时,医生们相信放血能够释放出人体内的致病病魔. 由于放血这个错误的手段, 医生们用了多年才准确地知道, 对于什么样的症状,用什么方式,适宜切开什么人体管道. 但是一个技术上的障碍在宏观结构上已经被建立起来, 并且有着直观的细节,所以即使如此糟糕的放血仍然听起来是可行的. 因为人们即使耳濡目染在纷繁复杂的对现实的描述中, 这些描述是与现实有出入的,人们还是会保有观察与独立思考的能力, 然而,放血的伪科学在它长年的轨迹中, 似乎显得与常识有一些背道而驰. 或是说,它在达到自身技术的最高峰时,与常识背道而驰. 这时候,每一个地方,尤其是美国,放血疯狂地被实践着.

It had an enormously influential

proponent in Dr. Benjamin Rush, still

revered as the greatest

statesman-physician of our

revolutionary and federal periods, and

a genius of medical administration. Dr.

Rush Got Things Done. Among the

things he got done, some of them good

and useful, were to develop, practice,

teach and spread the custom of

bloodletting in cases where prudence

or mercy had heretofore restrained its

use. He and his students drained the

blood of very young children, of

consumptives, of the greatly aged, of

almost anyone unfortunate enough to

be sick in his realms of influence. His

extreme practices aroused the alarm

and horror of European bloodletting

physicians. And yet as late as 1851, a

committee appointed by the State

Legislature of New York solemnly

defended the thoroughgoing use of

bloodletting. It scathingly ridiculed

and censured a physician, William

Turner, who had the temerity to write a

pamphlet criticizing Dr. Rush’s

doctrines and calling “the practice of

taking blood in diseases contrary to

common sense, to general experience,

to enlightened reason and to the

manifest laws of the divine

Providence.” Sick people needed

fortifying, not draining, said Dr. Turner,

and he was squelched

Benjamin Rush 医生有着极为有影响力的支持呼声, 在我们革命与联邦时期,他仍然被视为最伟大的政治家与医生,并且是一个天才般的医务管理人才. “Rush医生能做到”.

在他所做的事当中,有一些是好的,有用的,

有一些则是在细心和仁慈阻碍了放血的传统时,去发展,实践,教育和拓展它. 他和他的学生们对幼儿,对老人,对几乎所有在他的势力范围内不幸害病的人们放血. 他的极端行为激起了欧洲放血医师的警觉和恐慌.

但是,直到现在1851年,一个由纽约州政府任命的委员会仍然严正地为放血的全面应用辩护. William Turner觉得被这个事实严重地戏弄与侮辱了,他便勇敢地写了一个小册子Rush;批评Rush医生的教条和声称”放血的实践有违常识,通常经验,开放的理由与神圣的法律. (2002.7.20 Divercity 译)

(38)Medical analogies, applied to

social organisms, are apt to be

farfetched, and there is no point in

mistaking mammalian chemistry for

what occurs in a city. But analogies as

to what goes on in the brains of earnest

and learned men, dealing with

complex phenomena they do not

understand at all and trying to make do

with a pseudoscience, do have point.

At in the pseudoscience of bloodletting,

just so in the pseudoscience of city

rebuilding and planning, years of

learning and a plethora of subtle and

complicated dogma have arisen on a

foundation of nonsense. The tools of

technique have steadily been perfected.

Naturally, in time, forceful and able

men, admired administrators, having

swallowed the initial fallacies and

having been provisioned with tools and

with public confidence or mercy might

previously have forbade. Bloodletting

could heal only by accident or insofar

as it broke the rules, until the time

when it was abandoned in favor of the

hard, complex business of assembling,

using and testing, bit by bit, true

descriptions of reality drawn not from

how it ought to be, but from how it is.

The pseudoscience of city planning

and its companion, the art of city

design, have not yet broken with the

specious comfort of wishes, familiar

superstitions, oversimplifications, and

symbols, and have not yet embarked

upon the adventure of probing the real

world.

(39)So in this book we shall start, if

only in a small way, adventuring in the

real world, ourselves. The way to get

at what goes on in the seemingly

mysterious and perverse behavior of

cities is, I think, to look closely, and

with as little previous expectation as is

possible, at the most ordinary scenes

and events, and attempt to see what

they mean and whether any threads of

principle emerge among them. This is

what I try to do in the first part of this

book.

(38)医学的类比，用于社会组织就不免牵强；而且把哺乳动物的生物化学误当作城市里发生的一切也毫无道理。但是将这个类比用于热诚有识之士的所思所想，面对他们不能理解的复杂现象而试图以伪科学来解释，就很有几分道理。就如在放血疗法这一伪科学中一样，城市改造和规划方面的伪科学中，积累经年的学识和连篇累椟的复杂微妙的教条完全建立在荒谬的基础上。技术手段不断稳步完善着。自然而然地，随着时间，强干的人们，令人仰慕的管理者们，把最初的谬见囫囵吞下，并被供以工具、公众信心以及曾被禁止的仁慈。放血疗法能够奏效仅只因为机缘巧合，或者某种程度上突破成规；它一点一点直至某一天终被抛弃--感谢艰辛繁复的调配、使用和检测工作--对现实的正确描述来自于“它究竟如何”，而非“它应该如何”。城市规划的伪科学以及与其相伴的城市设计艺术，还没有告别伪善的祝颂安慰、常见的迷信、过度的简单化以及符号，还没有踏上探索真实世界的冒险征程。

(39)因此在本书我们将开始--哪怕仅仅是从很小的方面--探索真实世界的，我们自己的冒险历程。通向了解看来神秘的和行为乖张的城市的路径，我以为，是近距离观察；先入之见越少越好，于最寻常的景象和事件中，尝试理解其中意义，以及其间有否出现有关原理的任何线?/font>

(40)One principle emerges so

ubiquitously, and in so many and such

complex different forms, that I turn my

attention to its nature in the second

part of this book, a part which

becomes the heart of my argument.

This ubiquitous principle is the need of

cities for a most intricate and

close-grained diversity of uses that

give each other constant mutual

support, both economically and

socially. The components of this

diversity can differ enormously, but

they must supplement each other in

certain concrete ways.

(41)I think that unsuccessful city areas

are areas which lack this kind of

intricate mutual support, and that the

science of city planning and the are of

city design, in real life for real cities,

must become the science and art of

catalyzing and nourishing these

close-grained working relationships. I

think, from the evidence I can find,

that there are four primary conditions

required for generating useful great

city diversity, and that by deliberately

inducing these four conditions,

planning can induce city vitality

(something that the plans of planners

alone, and the designs of designers

alone, can never achieve). While Part I

Is principally about the social behavior

of people in cities, and is necessary for

understanding what follows, Part II is

principally about the economic

behavior of cities and is the most

important part of this book.

(42)Cities are fantastically dynamic

places, and this is striking true of

their successful parts, which offer a

fertile ground for the plans of

thousands of people. In the third

part of this book, I examine some

aspects of decay and regeneration, in

the light of how cities are used, and

how they and their people behave, in

real life.

(43)The last part of the book

suggests changes in housing, traffic,

design, planning and administrative

practice, and discusses, finally the

kind of problem which cities pose—a

problem in handling organized

complexity.

(44)The look of things and the way

they work are inextricably bound

together, and in no place more so

than cities. But people who are

interested only in how a city “ought”

to look and uninterested in how it

works will be disappointed by this

book. It is futile to plan a city’s

appearance, or speculate on how to

endow it with a pleasing appearance

of order, without knowing what sort

of innate, functioning order it has.

To seek for the look of things as a

primary purpose or as the main

drama is apt to make nothing but

trouble.

(45)In New York’s East Harlem

there is a housing project with a

conspicuous rectangular lawn which

became an object of hatred to the

project tenants. A social worker

frequently at the project was

astonished by how often the subject

of the lawn came up, usually

gratuitously as far as she could see,

and how much the tenants despised

it and urged that it be done away

with. When she asked why, the usual

answer was, “What good is it?” or

“Who wants it?” Finally one day a

tenant more articulate than the

others made this pronouncement:

“Nobody cared what we wanted

when they built this place. They

threw our houses down and pushed

us here and around here to get a cup

of coffee or a newspaper even, or

borrow fifty cents. Nobody cared

what we need. But the big men come

and look at that grass and say, ‘Isn’t

it wonderful! Now the poor have

everything!”

(46)This tenant was saying what

moralists have said for thousands of

years: Handsome is as handsome

does. All that flitters is not gold.

(47)She was saying more: There is a

quality even meaner than outright

ugliness or disorder, and this meaner

quality is the dishonest mask of

pretended order, achieved by

ignoring or suppressing the real

order that is struggling to exist and

to be served.

(48)In trying to explain the

underlying order of cities, I use a

preponderance of examples from

New York because that is where I

live. But most of the basic ideas in

this book come from things I first

noticed or was told in other cities.

For example, my first inkling about

the powerful effects of certain kinds

of functional mixtures in the city

came from Pittsburgh, my first

speculations about street safety from

Philadelphia and Baltimore, my first

notions about the meanderings of

downtown from Boston, my first

clues to the unmaking of slums from

Chicago. Most of the material for

these musings was at my own front

door, but perhaps it is easiest to see

things first where you don’t take

them for granted. The basic idea, to

try to begin understanding the

intricate social and economic order

under the seeming disorder of cities,

was not my idea at all, but that of

William Kirk, head worker of Union

Settlement in East Harlem, New

York, who, by showing me East

Harlem, showed me a way of seeing

other neighborhood, and

down-towns too. In every case, I

have tried to test out what I saw or

heard in one city or neighborhood

against others, to find how relevant

each city’s or each place’s lessons

might be outside its own special case.

(49)I have concentrated on great

cities, and on their inner areas,

because this is the problem that has

been most consistently evaded in

planning theory. I think this may

also have somewhat wider usefulness

as time passes, because many of the

parts of today’s cities in the worst,

and apparently most baffling,

trouble were suburbs or dignified,

quiet residential areas not too long

ago; eventually many of today’s

brand-new suburbs or semisuburbs

are going to be engulfed in cities and

will succeed or fail in that condition

depending on whether they can

adapt to functioning successfully as

city districts. Also, to be frank, I like

dense cities best and care about

them most.

(50)But I hope no reader will try to

transfer my observations into guides

as to what goes on in town, on little

cities, or in suburbs which still are

suburban. Towns, suburbs and even

little cities are totally different

organisms from great cities. We are

in enough trouble already from

trying to understand big cities in

terms of the behavior, and the

imagined behavior, of towns. To try

to understand towns in terms of big

cities will only compound confusion.

(51)I hope any reader of this book

will constantly and skeptically test

what I say against his own

knowledge of cities and their

behavior. If I have been inaccurate

in observations or mistaken in

inferences and conclusions, I hope

these faults will be quickly corrected.

The point is, we need desperately to

learn and to apply as much

knowledge that is true and useful

about cities as fast as possible.

(52)I have been making unkind

remarks about orthodox city

planning theory, and shall make

more as occasion arises to do so. By

now, these orthodox ideas are part of

our folklore. They harm us because

we take them for granted. To show

how we got them, and how little they

are to the point, I shall give a quick

outline here of the most influential

ideas that have contributed to the

verities of orthodox modern city

planning and city architectural

design.

(53)The most important thread of

influence starts, more or less, with

Ebenezer Howard, an English court

reporter for whom planning was an

avocation. Howard looked at the

living conditions of the poor in

late-nineteenth-century London, and

justifiably did not like what he

smelled or saw or heard. He not only

hared the wrongs and mistakes of

the city, he hated the city and

thought it an outright evil and an

affront to nature that so many

people should get themselves into an

agglomeration. His prescription for

saving the people was to do the city

in.

(54)The program he proposed, in

1898, was to halt the growth of

London and also repopulate the

countryside, where villages were

declining, by building a new king of

town—the Garden City, where the

city poor might again live close to

nature. So they might earn their

living, industry was to be set up in

the Garden City, for while Howard

was not planning cities, he was not

planning dormitory suburbs either.

His aim was the creation of

self-sufficient small towns, really

very nice towns if you were docile

and had no plans of your own and

did nor mind spending your life

among other with no plans of their

own. As in all Utopias, the right to

have plans of any significance

belonged only to the planners in

charge. The Garden City was to be

encircled with a belt of agriculture.

Industry was to be in its planned

preserves; schools, housing and

greens in planned living preserves;

and in the center were to be

commercial, club and cultural places,

held in common. The town and

greed belt, in their totality, were to

be permanently controlled by the

public authority under which the

town was developed, to prevent

speculation or supposedly irrational

changes in land use and also to do

away with temptations to increase its

density—in brief, to prevent it from

ever becoming a city. The maximum

population was to be held to thirty

thousand people.

(55)Nathan Glazer has summed up

the vision well in Architectural

Forum: “The image was the English

country town—with the manor

house and its park replaced by a

community center, and with some

factories hidden behind a screen of

trees, to supply work.”

(56)The closest American equivalent

would probably be the model

company town, with profit-sharing,

and with the parent-Teacher

Associations in charge of the routine,

custodial political life. For Howard

was envisioning not simply a new

physical environment and social life.

But a paternalistic political and

economic society.

(57)Nevertheless, as Glazer has

pointed out, the Garden City was

“conceived as an alternative to the

city, and as a solution to city

problems; this was, and is still, the

foundation of its immense power as

a planning idea.” Howard managed

to get two garden cities built,

Letchworth and Welwyn, and of

course England and Sweden have,

since the Second World War, built a

number of satellite towns based on

Garden City principles. In the

United States, the suburb of

Radburn, N.J., and the

depression-built,

government-sponsored Green Belt

towns (actually suburbs) were all

incomplete modifications on the idea.

But Howard’s influence in the literal,

or reasonably literal, acceptance of

his program was as nothing

compared to his influence on

conceptions underlying all American

city planning today. City planners

and designers with no interest in the

Garden City, as such, are still

thoroughly governed intellectually

by its underlying principles.

(58)Howard set spinning powerful

and city-destroying ideas: He

conceived that the way to deal with

the city’s functions was to sort and

sift out of the whole certain simple

uses, and to arrange each of these in

relative self-containment. He focused

on the provision of wholesome

housing as the central problem, to

which everything else was subsidiary;

furthermore he defined whole some

housing in terms only of suburban

physical qualities and small-town

social qualities. He conceived of

commerce in terms limited market.

He conceived of good planning as a

series of static acts; in each case the

plan must anticipate all that is

needed and be protected, after it is

built, against any but the most

minor subsequent changes. He

conceived of planning also as

essentially paternalistic, of not

authoritarian. He was uninterested

in the aspects of the city which could

not be abstracted to serve his Utopia.

In particular, he simply wrote off the

intricate, many-faceted, cultural life

of the metropolis. He was

uninterested in such problems as the

way great cities police themselves, or

exchange ideas, or operate politically,

or invent new economic

arrangements, and he was oblivious

to devising ways to strengthen these

functions because, after all, he was

not designing for this kind of life in

any case.

(59)Both in his preoccupations and

in his omissions, Howard made sense

in his owm terms but none in terms

of city planning. Yet virtually all

modern city planning has been

adapted from, and embroidered on,

this silly substance.

(60)Howard’s influence on American

city planning converged on the city

from two directions: from town and

regional planners on the one hand,

and from architects on the other.

Along the avenue of planning, Sir

Patrick Geddes, a Scots biologist

and philosopher, saw the Garden

City idea not as a fortuitous way to

absorb population growth otherwise

destine for a great city, but as the

starting point of a much grander

and more encompassing pattern. He

thought of the planning of cities in

terms of the planning of whole

regions. Under regional planning,

garden cities would be rationally

distributed throughout large

territories, dovetailing into natural

resources, balanced against

agriculture and woodland, forming

one far-flung logical whole.

(61)Howard’s and Geddes’ ideas

were enthusiatically adopted in

America during the 1920’s and

developed further by a group of

extraordinarily effective and

dedicated people—among them

Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, the

late Henry Wright, and Catherine

Bauer. While they thought of

themselves as regional planners,

Catherine Bauer has more recently

called this group the “Decentrists,”

and this name is more apt, for the

primary result of regional planning,

as they saw it, would be to

decentralize great cities, thin them

out, and disperse their enterprises

and populations into smaller,

separated cities or, better yet, towns.

At the time, it appeared that the

American population was both aging

and leveling off in numbers, and the

problem appeared to be not one of

accommodating a rapidly growing

population, but simply of

redistributing a static population.

(62)As with Howard himself, this

group’; influence was less in getting

literal acceptance of its

program—that got nowhere—than

in influencing city planning and

legislation affecting housing and

housing finance. Model housing

schemes by Stein and Wright, built

mainly in suburban settings or at the

fringes of cities, together with the

writings and the diagrams, sketches

and photographs presented by

Mumford and Bauer, demonstrated

and popularized ideas such as these,

which are now taken for granted in

orthodox planning: The street is bad

as an environment for humans;

houses should be turned away from

it and faced inward, toward

sheltered greens. Frequent streets

are wasteful, of advantage only to

real estate speculators who measure

value by the front foot. The basic

unit of city design is not the street,

but the block and more particularly

the super-block, Commerce should

be segregated from residences and

greens. A neighborhood’s demand

for goods should be calculated

“scientifically,” and this much and

no more commercial space allocated.

The presence of many other people

is, at best, a necessary evil, and good

city planning must aim for at least

an illusion of isolation and

suburbany privacy. The Decentrists

also pounded in Howard’; premises

that the planned community must be

islanded off as a self-contained unit,

that it must resist future change, and

that every significant detail must be

controlled by the planners from the

start and them stuck to. In short,

good planning was project planning.

(63)To reinforce and dramatize the

necessity for the new order of things,

the Decentrists hammered away at

the bad old city. They were incurious

about successes in great cities. They

were interested only in failures. All

was failure. A book like Munford’s

The Culture of Cities was largely a

morbid and biased catalog of ills.

accepted as basic guides for dealing

constructively with big cities

themselves. This is the most amazing

event in the whole sorry tale: that

finally people who sincerely wanted

to strengthen great cities should

adopt recipes frankly devised for

undermining their economies and

killing them.

The great city was Megalopolis,

Tyrannopolis, Nekropolis, a

monstrosity, a tyranny, a living

death. It must go. New York’;

midtown was “solidified chaos”

(Mumfors). The shape and

appearance of cities was nothing but

“a chaotic accident . . . the

summation of the haphazard,

antagonistic whims of many

self-centered, ill-advised

individuals” (Stein). The centers of

cities amounted to “a foreground of

noise, dirt, beggars, souvenirs and

shrill competitive advertising

(Bauer).

(64)How could anything so bad be

worth the attempt to understand it?

The Decentrists’ analyses, the

architectural and housing designs

which were companions and

offshoots of these analyses, the

national housing and home

financing legislation so directly

influenced by the new vision-none of

these had anything to do with

understanding cities, or fostering

successful large cities, nor were they

intended to. They were reasons and

means for jettisoning cities, and the

Decentrists were frank about this.

(65)But in the schools of planning

and architecture, and in Congress,

state legislatures and city halls too,

the Decentrists’ ideas were gradually

(66)The man with the most dramatic

idea of how to get all this anti-city

planning right into the citadels of

iniquity themselves was the

European architect Le Corbusier.

He devised in the 1920’s a dream

city which he called the Radiant City,

composed not of the low buildings

beloved of the Decentrists, but

instead mainly of skyscrapers within

a park. “Suppose we are entering

the city by way of the Great Park,”

Le Corbusier wrote. “Out fast car

takes the special elevate motor track

between the majestic skyscrapers: as

we approach nearer, there is seen the

repetition against the sky of the

twenty-four skyscrapers; to our left

and right on the outskirts of each

particular area are the municipal

and administrative buildings; and

enclosing the space are the museums

and university buildings. The whole

city is a Park.” In Le Corbusier’s

vertical city the common run of

mankind was to be housed at 1,200

inhabitants to the acre, a

fantastically high city density indeed,

but because of building up so high,

95 percent of the ground could

remain open. The skyscrapers would

occupy only 5 percent of the ground.

The high-income people would be in

lower, luxury housing around courts,

with 85 percent of their ground left

open. Here and there would be

restaurants and theaters.

(67)Le Corbusier was planning not

only a physical environment. He was

planning for a social Utopia too. Le

Corbusier’s Utopia was a condition

of what he called maximum

individual liberty, by which he seems

to have meant not liberty to do

anything much, but liberty from

ordinary responsibility. In his

Radiant City much, but liberty from

ordinary responsibility. In his

Radiant City nobody, presumably,

was going to have to be his brother’s

keeper any more. Nobody was going

to have to struggle with plans of his

own. Nobody was going to be tied

down.

(68)The Decentrists and other loyal

advocates of the Garden City were

aghast at Le Corbusier’s city of

towers in the park, and still are.

Their reaction to it was and remains,

much like that of progressive

nursery school teachers confronting

an utterly institutional orphanage.

And yet, ironically, the Radiant City

comes directly out of the Garden

City. Le Corbusier accepted the

Garden City’s fundamental image,

superficially at least, and worked to

make it practical for high densities.

He described his creation as the

Garden City made attainable.

“Nature melts under the invasion of

roads and houses and the promised

seclusion becomes a crowded

settlement . . . The solution will be

found in the ‘vertical garden city.’”

(69)In another sense too, in its

relatively easy public reception, Le

Corbusier’s Radiant City depended

upon the Garden City. The Garden

City planners and their ever

increasing following among housing

reformers, students and architects

were indefatigably popularizing the

ideas of the super-block, the project

neighborhood, the unchangeably

plan, and grass, grass, grass; what is

more they were successfully

establishing such attributes as the

hallmarks of humane, socially

responsible, functional, high-minded

planning Le Corbusier really did not

have to justify his vision in either

humane or city-functional terms. if

the great object of city planning was

that Christopher Robin might go

hoppety-hoppety on the grass, what

was wrong with Le Corbusier? The

Decentrists’ cries of

institutionalization, mechanization,

depersonalization seemed to others

foolishly sectarian.

(70)Le Corbusier’s dream city has

had an immense impact on our cities.

It was hailed deliriously by

architects, and has gradually been

embodied in scores of projects,

ranging from low-income public

housing to office building projects.

Aside from making at least the

superficial Garden City principles

superficially practicable in dense

city, Le Corbusier’s dream

contained other marvels. He

attempted to make planning for the

automobile an integral part of his

scheme, and this was in the 1920’s

and early 1930’s a new, exciting idea.

He proposed underground streets

for heavy vehicles and deliveries,

and of course like the Garden City

planners he kept the pedestrians off

the streets and in the parks. His city

was like a wonderful mechanical toy.

Furthermore, his conception, as an

architectural work, had a dazzling

clarity, simplicity and harmony. It

was so orderly, so visible, so easy to

understand. It said everything in a

flash, like a good advertisement.

This vision and its bold symbolism

have been all but irresistible to

planners, housers, designers, and to

developers, lenders and mayors too.

It exerts a great pull on

“progressive” zoners, who write

rules calculated to encourage

nonproject builders to reflect, if only

a little, the dream. No matter how

vulgarized or clumsy the design, how

dreary and useless the open space,

how dull the close-up view, an

imitation of Le Corbusier shouts

one’s achievement. But as to how the

city works, it tells, like the Garden

City, nothing but lies.

(71)Although the Decentrists, with

their devotion to the ideal of a cozy

town life, have never made peace

with the Le Corbusier vision, most

of their disciples have. Virtually all

sophisticated city designers today

combine the two conceptions in

various permutations. The

rebuilding technique variously

known as “selective removal” or

“spot renewal” or “renewal

planning” or “planning

conservation”—meaning that total

clearance of a run-down area is

avoided—is largely the trick of

seeing how many old buildings can

be left standing and the area still

converted into a passable version of

Radiant Garden City. Zoners,

highway planners, legislators,

land-use planners, and parks and

playground planners—none of

whom live in an ideological

vacuum—constantly use, as fixed

points of reference, these two

powerful visions and the more

sophisticated merged vision. They

may wander from the visions, they

may compromise, they may

vulgarize, but these are the points of

departure.

(72)We shall look briefly at one other,

less important, line of ancestry in

orthodox planning. This one begins

more or less with the great

Columbian Exposition in Chicago in

1893, just about the same time that

Howard was formulating his Garden

City ideas. The Chicago fair

snubbed the exciting modern

architecture which had begun to

emerge in Chicago and instead

dramatized a retrogressive imitation

Renaissance style. One heavy,

grandiose monument after another

was arrayed in the exposition park,

like frosted pastries on a tray, in a

sort of squat, decorated forecast of

Le Corbusier’s later repetitive ranks

of towers in a park. This orgiastic

assemblage of the rich and

monumental captured the

imagination of both planners and

public. It gave impetus to a

movement called the City Beautiful,

and indeed the planning of the

exposition was dominated by the

man who became the leading City

Beautiful planner, Daniel Burnham

of Chicago.

(73)The aim of the city Beautiful was

the City Monumental. Great

schemes were drawn up for systems

of baroque boulevards, which

mainly came to nothing. What did

come out of the movement was the

Center Monumental, modeled on the

fair. City after city built its civic

center or its cultural center. These

buildings were arranged along a

boulevard as at Benjamin Franklin

Parkway in Philadelphia, or were

bordered by park, like the Civic

Center at St. Louis, or were

interspersed with park, like the

Civic Center at San Francisco.

However they were arranged, the

important point was that the

monument had been sorted out from

the rest of the city, and assembled

into the grandest effect thought

possible, the whole being treated as a

complete unit, in a separate and

well-defined way.

(74)People were proud of them, but

the centers were not a success. For

one thing, invariably the ordinary

the ordinary city around them ran

down instead of being uplifted, and

they always acquired an

incongruous rim of ratty tattoo

parlors and second-hand-clothing

stores, or else just nondescript,

dispirited decay. For another, people

stayed away from them to a

remarkable degree. Somehow, when

the fair became part of the city, it

did not work like the fair.

(75)The architecture of the City

Beautiful centers went out of style.

But the idea behind the centers was

not questioned, and it has never had

more force than it does today. The

idea of sorting out certain cultural

or public functions and

decontaminating their relationship

with the workaday city dovetailed

nicely with the Garden City

teachings. The conceptions have

harmoniously merged, much as the

Garden City and the Radiant City

merged, into a sort of Radiant

Garden City Beautiful, such as the

immense Lincoln Square project for

New York, in which a monumental

City Beautiful cultural center is one

among a series of adjoining Radiant

City and Radiant Garden City

housing, shopping and campus

centers.

(76)And by analogy, the principles of

sorting out—and of bringing order

by repression of all plans but the

planners’—have been easily

extended to all manner of city

functions, until today a land-use

master plan for a big city is largely a

matter of proposed placement, often

in relation to transportation, of

many series of decontaminated

sortings.

(77)From beginning to and, from

Howard and Burnham to the latest

amendment on urban-renewal law,

the entire concoction is irrelevant on

urban-renewal law, the entire

concoction is irrelevant to the

workings of cities. Unstudied,

unrespected, cities have served as

sacrificial victims.

（7）当Job写下以下篇章时,是否联想到了芝加哥:

（8）这儿的人们改变着周边标志性建筑物… 排挤着穷人,联和压迫着无依无靠的人们.

（9）他们收割着不属于自己的土地,

清理着以不正当方式从别处掠夺来的葡萄园…

（10）受伤的人们躺在城市街道上呻吟着,传来阵阵哭泣声…

译)

(12)与此同时,城市规划理论与艺术对于城市局部地区的衰退无能为力----这种早在城市衰退之前便产生的无能----甚至在范围较广的示范区亦无可耐何.

城市规划艺术运用与否似乎并不重要,即使它得以施展,衰退依然避免不了,一定会发生的. 想想纽约的Morningside Heights区. 依照规划理论,

本该没有任何问题的. 因为她拥有宽敞的停车场地,校园,操场及一个河景怡人的游戏场所.她还聚集了世界顶级的大学和研究机构—哥伦比亚大学,神学研究学会,朱利叶德音乐学院及其他6个杰出的广受尊敬的教研机构. 她享有设备完善的医院和宗教服务. 她没有工业,出于兼容性,被划区的街道直接通往稳固宽敞的中高层阶级的公寓里. 然而50年代前, Morningside

Heights迅速沦为贫民窟. 人们不敢在那可怕的地方步行,这都成了规划研究院迫切解决的首要问题. 他们与政府规划部门合作, 应用更多的规划理论,清理了大多数荒废区域,以配有购物中心面向中等收入阶层的安居工程和另一个公众安居项目取而代之. 重建后的区域享有空气,光线,日照和怡人的景观. 作为挽救城市的大手笔,这个方案广受欢迎.

（13）然而,自那以后, Morningside

Heights 每况愈下的速度更快了。

译)

(2002.2.15 qq00612 译〕

译〕

(20)可能是我们变得和庸民（so

feckless as people do in the rest of the

world?）一样无能，可能是我们不再关心事物的内在规律，而只在乎事物表现出来的那种效果---简单而快捷。如果是这样的话，我们的城市就几乎没什么希望，或者可能连我们社会中其它许多的事物也将如此。但我认为事实并非如此。

(21)尤其是,就城市规划来说,显然有很多的善良热心的人们深切关心城市的建设与发展。尽管存在某程度上的腐败以及人与人之间的相互倾轧现实，人们对我们城市规划造成的烂摊子的种种改造设想，总的说来，可以作为我们的榜样。（不过）城市规划师、建筑师以及在他们观念影响下引导的那些人并非有意蔑视实事求是的重要性。相反，他们曾经不辞辛劳地去掌握当代正统的规划理论的圣贤们的理论，关于城市应当怎样运作,以及怎样做才是对城市中的人们及事物有益的。他们对这类理论深信不疑，以至于当事实与理论截然相反，并有可能打破他们好不容易学到的东西时，他们就理所应当地把事实抛在了一边。

没什么公用场地。孩子们都在大街上玩耍。没什么（大型）车辆禁行区甚至象样一点的大型街区，它只拥有非常小的街区；以规划的说法就是：“被多余的街道拙劣地分割开”。它的建筑也陈旧不堪。North End本身联想得到的每一件事大概都是错误的。以规划的科班术语来说，它是一本关于“特大城市（理论）”在过去衰落阶段的立体教科书。North End也因而被反复作为麻省理工学院和哈佛规划建筑专业学生的作业，在老师的指导下，学生们坚持不懈地在纸上把它变得拥有车辆禁行区和公园散步场所，去除其不适宜的用途，把它转变成一个秩序井然和优雅高尚的理想典范，做起来好象简单得微不足道。 (2002.2.20 leonx 译)

（26）“她看上去并不象贫民窟。她每英亩地有275个单元！我不愿承认我们在波士顿有这样的地方，但这是事实。”

（27）“你有关于她的其他数据吗？”我问他。

TB死亡率也低，不到千分之一，不可思议，甚至比BROOKLINE还慢。以前NORTH END是全市最严重的病高发点，但所有这一切都改变了。住在那儿的人们身体肯定很强壮。当然她仍然是个可怕的贫民区”。

(29)“你们应该有更多像这样的贫民区”,我说,”别告诉我你们正计划清除她.你应该亲自下来看看, 从中你会发现许多东西.”

(30) “我知你感受”,他说, “我经常一个人去那而走走感受那美好快乐的街道生活. 看,你该做的是夏天时回来再去那儿,假如你现在觉得很有趣. 到那时你会为她疯狂. 但是最终我们仍然不得不重建她. 我们已将居民与一些街道隔离.” (2002.2.25 qq00612 译〕

qq00612 译〕

(33)“经济大萧条后的25年内,在这个拥有15000人的地区,最大金额的抵押贷款只有3000元,”银行家告诉我, “且贷款数量相当相当少.” 重建项目的资金决大多数来自区域内的商业和住房供给项目的赢利及再投资所获的利,还有当地居民,居民亲戚间的技术劳动的交换. 。(2002.3.1 qq00612 译〕

(34)至此，我终于明白无能贷款进行社区改建对于北角居民而言的确是一大烦恼，且在未来也不可能修建新建筑，

除非以按照学生间流行的伊甸园梦之城将他们的家园完完全全取而代之为代价。北角居民为这样的命运担忧，他们已看到所谓伊甸园之城并不是基于学术上，因为它已彻底瓦解了位于北角附近，与北角社会结构相似----虽然空间上要小于北角，名为西角的街区。北角居民为他们的前景担忧，他们已意识到仅仅修修补补之类的改建不会一直持续下去。“有可能为北角新建项目贷到款吗？”我问那位银行家。

(35)“不，绝对不可能！”他说，对于我的重复追问似乎以不耐烦，“那里是贫民区！” 。(2002.4.17 qq00612 译〕

然而,放血的伪科学在它长年的轨迹中,

似乎显得与常识有一些背道而驰. 或是说,它在达到自身技术的最高峰时,与常识背道而驰. 这时候,每一个地方,

尤其是美国,放血疯狂地被实践着.

Benjamin Rush 医生有着极为有影响力的支持呼声, 在我们革命与联邦时期,他仍然被视为最伟大的政治家与医生,并且是一个天才般的医务管理人才.

“Rush医生能做到”. 在他所做的事当中,有一些是好的,有用的, 有一些则是在细心和仁慈阻碍了放血的传统时,去发展,实践,教育和拓展它. 他和他的学生们对幼儿,对老人,对几乎所有在他的势力范围内不幸害病的人们放血. 他的极端行为激起了欧洲放血医师的警觉和恐慌. 但是,直到现在1851年,一个由纽约州政府任命的委员会仍然严正地为放血的全面应用辩护.

William Turner觉得被这个事实严重地戏弄与侮辱了,他便勇敢地写了一个小册子Rush;批评Rush医生的教条和声称”放血的实践有违常识,通常经验,开放的理由与神圣的法律. (2002.7.20

Divercity 译)

化以及符号，还没有踏上探索真实世界的冒险征程。 (39)因此在本书我们将开始--哪怕仅仅是从很小的方面--探索真实世界的，我们自己的冒险历程。通向了解看来神秘的和行为乖张的城市的路径，我以为，是近距离观察；先入之见越少越好，于最寻常的景象和事件中，尝试理解其中意义，以及其间有否出现有关原理的任何线?/font>

1 介绍

（1）这是一本抨击现今城市规划和改造的书。应该说书中的大多数内容，尝试着介绍新的城市规划和改造原则，这些原则不同于学校里所传授的东西，不同于Sunday supplments的计划，也不同于从妇女杂志中所看到的，甚至是与那些原则完全相反的。我的抨击并不是以关于改建手法的模棱两可的双关语为基础，也不是对设计的时尚吹毛求疵。它所抨击的是那些形成现代和传统城市规划和改造的原则和目的。

(3) There is a wistful myth that if

only we had enough money to

spend—the figure is usually put at a

hundred billion dollars—we could wipe

out all our slums in ten years, reverse

decay in the great, dull, gray belts that

were yesterday’s and

day-before-yesterday’s suburbs, anchor

the wandering middle class and its

wandering tax money, and perhaps even

solve the traffice problem.(2002.2.9)

(4) But look what we have built with

the first several billions: Low-income

projects that become worse centers of

delinquency, vandalism and general

social hopelessness than the slums they

were supposed to replace.

Middle-income housing projects which

are truly marvels of dullness and

regimentation sealed against any

buoyancy or vitality of city life. Luxury

housing projects that mitigate their

inanity, or try to, with a vapid vulgarity.

Cultural centers that are unable to

support a good bookstore. Civic centers

that are avoided by everyone but bums,

who have fewer choices of loitering

place than others. Commercial centers

that are lackluster imitations of

standardized suburban chain-store

shopping. Promenades. Expressways

that eviscerate great cities. This is not

the rebuilding of cities. This is the

sacking of cities.(2000.2.9)

有一种理想的“神话”，前提是我们拥有足够的资金——通常得上百亿美金——我们便可在十年内清除所有的贫困区，隐藏起从前城市中那些庞大、阴暗、沉闷地带内所呈现出的衰败的景象，转而安置飘泊的中产阶级，沉淀及其附带的游离资金，这样甚至可以解决交通问题。

(3)...gray belts that were yesterday’s and

day-before-yesterday’s suburbs

译文中似乎少了"环带"及"郊区"这两个概念

(4)现在看看我们用一开始的几十亿作了什么：低收入居民区变成了错误，破坏艺术行为和社会绝望的中心，代替了贫民窟给社会带来的影响。中层收入居民区的无趣和对一切轻快和有活力的城市生活的管辖让人觉得惊奇。奢华的小别墅妄图用一种粗俗的设计手法区减轻他们的愚蠢。文化中心里不能到一个好的书店。除了流浪汉谁都不愿意去城市中心，因为那里是少数几个能供他们闲逛的场所。商业中心是标准的郊区连锁商店的翻版。高速公路变成了城市的精华部分。这不是对城市的改造，这是对城市的毁坏。

(5) Under the surface, these

accomplishments prove even poorer

than their poor pretenses. They seldom

aid the city areas around them, as in

theory they are supposed to. These

amputated areas typically develop

galloping gangrene. To house people in

this planned fashion, price tags are

fastened on the population, and each

sorted-out chunk of price-tagged

populace lives in growing suspicion and

tension against the surrounding city.

When two or more such hostile islands

are juxtaposed the result is called “a

balanced neighborhood.” Monopolistic

shopping centers and monumental

cultural centers cloak, under the public

relations hoohaw, the subtraction of

commerce, and of culture too, from the

intimate and casual life of

cities.(2002.2.10)

纯属意译,望有高手斧正,以免误导

(5)事实上,这些整治比它们那些有够衰的pretense们更衰. 它们极少如它们的理论所臆断的那样,在自身周围增加新的城市环境.相反,这些从城市机体上截下来的部分往往发育成急性坏疽:

在时尚的"规划"指导下, 居民人口被贴上"价格"的标签, 塞进某处组团. 而每一坨甄选出来带着价标的人口,则在与周围城区日益增长的怀疑与紧张关系中生长. 如果两个以上的互含敌意的组团被搁在了一起,那么我们就得到了一个"平衡社区". 在公共关系hoohaw的张罗下, 垄断型商业中心和纪念碑样的文化中心掩饰了商业和文化的匮乏 --- 而后两者, 在随意而亲切的都市生活中,曾是如此的丰富。

to spade:

hoohaw, i think maybe it is another form

of hooha which means fuss

大概的意思可能是: 公共关系的瞎忙呼(我猜的)

搞不动这本专业书里居然有如此非正式的SLANG

That such wonders may be

accomplished, people who get marked

with the planners’ hex signs are pushed

about, expropriated, and uprooted much

as if they were the subjects of a

conquering power. Thousands upon

thousands of small business are

destroyed, and their proprietor ruined,

with hardly a gesture at compensation.

Whole communities are torn apart and

sown to the winds, with a reaping of

cynicism, resentment, and despair that

must be heard and seen to be believed. A

group of clergymen in Chicago, appalled

at the fruits of planned city rebuilding

there, asked,

Could Job have been thinking of

Chicago when he wrote:

Here are men that alter their neighbour’s

landmark…

shoulder the poor aside, conspire to

oppress the friendless.

Reaping they the field that is none of

theirs, strip they the vineyard wrongfully

seized from its owner…

A cry goes up from the city streets,

where wounded men lie groaning…

If so, he was also thinking of New York,

Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, St

Louis, San Francisco, and a number of

other places. The economic rationale of

current city rebuilding is a hoax. The

economics of city rebuilding do not rest

soundly on reasoned investment of

public tax subsidies, as urban renewal

theory proclaims, but also on vast,

involuntary subsidies wrung out of

helpless site victims. And the increased

tax returns from such sites, accruing to

the cities as a result of this ‘investment’,

are a mirage, a pitiful gesture against the

ever-increasing sums of public money

needed to combat disintegration and

instability that flow from the cruelly

shaken-up cities. The means to planned

city rebuilding are as deplorable as the

ends.

这种奇迹或许可以实现,然而那些标上了规划师们具有蛊惑力的标志(注:猜想可能是指所住区域被规划)的人们遭排挤,家园被略夺,最终背井离乡,就像是好胜心下的战利品.成千上万的小商业被毁,它们的经营者遭损失.但几乎没有得到补偿的迹象.而整体社区被分裂,象种子般在风中撒落,带着嘲讽,怨恨和失望, 这些规划者必须看到也必须相信这些.一惊骇于规划重建后芝加哥城市状况的牧师寻问道:

当Job写下以下篇章时,是否联想到了CHICAGO:

这儿的人们改变着周边标志性建筑物…

排挤着穷人,联和压迫着无依无靠的人们

他们收割着不属于自己的土地, 清理着以不正当方式从别处掠夺来的葡萄园…

受伤的人们躺在城市街道上呻吟着,传来阵阵哭泣声…

假若Job想到了CHICAGO,那他也想到了纽约,费城,波世顿,华盛顿,圣鲁乙思,三藩市和其他一些地方.目前的城市重建经济原理只是一.当前的城市重建经济学并不像城市更新理论所宣扬的,真正有效地建立在公民税收津贴的合理投资基础之上,而是依赖于从贫苦区里受害者处强行压榨来的巨额的津贴.为克服城市大改革所带来的分裂及不稳定性, 公共资金永远供不应求,而越来越多从贫苦区里得来的税收归拢于城市最终还是作为这样的投资.将这些税收用于其来源地,只是海市蜃楼,可悲可叹.

反正放假, 闲着也是闲着,正好手头有这本书,便来凑凑热闹

只是本人两文(中文,英文)都弱

还请各位高人多多指正

(12)与此同时,城市规划理论与艺术对于城市局部地区的衰退无能为力----这种早在城市衰退之前便产生的无能----甚至在范围较广的示范区亦无可耐何.

城市规划艺术运用与否似乎并不重要,即使它得以施展,衰退依然避免不了,一定会发生的. 想想纽约的Morningside Heights区. 依照规划理论,本该没有任何问题的. 因为她拥有宽敞的停车场地,校园,操场及一个河景怡人的游戏场所.她还聚集了世界顶级的大学和研究机构—哥伦比亚大学,神学研究学会,朱利叶德音乐学院及其他6个杰出的广受尊敬的教研机构. 她享有设备完善的医院和宗教服务. 她没有工业,出于兼容性,被划区的街道直接通往稳固宽敞的中高层阶级的公寓里. 然而50年代前, Morningside

（13）然而,自那以后, Morningside

Heights 每况愈下的速度更快了。

（15）城市是个巨大的实验室，其内可以反复试验城市营造和城市设计的成功与失败。正是在这个实验室里，城市规划应该不断学习，自我完善和自我约束(如果可以这样称呼的话)。恰

恰相反，正是这个实验室忽略了对现时生活中成败的研究；正是这个实验室漠视了意外成功之缘由；也正是这个实验室，只是在从城镇，郊区，修养地，集会及梦幻城的行为与表象演绎得来的信条的指导下---或者说任何方面的指导下来运行，而不是由城市本身领导下运行。

PS:觉得不14中的WRONG AREA, 15中的FORMING AND DISCIPLINE翻得不妥,好象篡改了原意.

(16) If it appears that the rebuilt portions

of cities and the endless new

development spreading beyond the cities

are reducing city and countryside alike

to a monotonous, unnourishing gruel,

this is not strange, It all comes, first-,

second-, third-, or fourth-land, out of the

same intellectual dish of mush: a mush

in which the qualities, necessities,

advantages, and behaviour of great cities

have been utterly confused with the

qualities, necessities, advantages, and

behaviour of other and more inert types

of settlement.

即便城市重建部分和无止尽更新发展显现出不单单使城市与乡村转变为一碗乏味且无营养的稀粥的情形,也不足为奇. 就算是碗长智力的玉米粥,它也只是按首要,次要,再次,更次来考虑问题. 在这碗玉米粥里,大城市的质量,必要性,优点和表征已完全和另外的及缺乏活力住宅落的质量,必要性,优点和表征完全混淆在一起了.

(17)对于旧城衰败和新近城市化地区刚开始的衰退, 经济因素与社会因素从来都是贯穿其中。相反,在整整25年里再也没有其他方面像经济与社会这两只手那样一心一意地致力将城市建设成现在这样。大量的政府财政支出用以成就今日城市之千篇一律,缺乏活力,鄙陋不堪的状况。数十年来，专家

们的说教，著述，劝诫使得立法者和我们相信像上述玉米粥那样的城市只要铺满草坪，就一定有利于我们。

(20)可能是我们变得和庸民（so

feckless as people do in the rest of the

(21)尤其是,就城市规划来说,显然有很多的善良热心的人们深切关心城市的建设与发展。尽管存在某程度上的腐败以及人与人之间的相互倾轧现实，人们对我们城市规划造成的烂摊子的种种改造设想，总的说来，可以作为

我们的榜样。（不过）城市规划师、建筑师以及在他们观念影响下引导的那些人并非有意蔑视实事求是的重要性。相反，他们曾经不辞辛劳地去掌握当代正统的规划理论的圣贤们的理论，关于城市应当怎样运作,以及怎样做才是对城市中的人们及事物有益的。他们对这类理论深信不疑，以至于当事实与理论截然相反，并有可能打破他们好不容易学到的东西时，他们就理所应当地把事实抛在了一边。

简单得微不足道。

当我于1959年再见NORTH END时,

惊讶于她的变化。成打成打的建筑恢复原貌。由外往里看，原本靠窗摆放的床垫被威尼斯风格的窗帘所替代，透过窗帘，可以瞥见墙上清新的油漆。那些原来挤塞着三四个家庭改修过的狭窄的房屋里现在只有一户或两户人家。当我进去拜访时，我才发现一些租住在里面的家庭将两套老公寓连通，使房子更为宽敞，并且还配备了浴室，厨房等等设施。我仔细查看了一条窄窄的过道，希望最起码能在那儿到肮脏陈旧NORTH END的痕迹。但是，所能发现的是比以前砌得更整洁的砖，崭新的窗帘和开门时传来的乐音。事实上，这是我以前见过的或者说是迄今为止见到的唯一一个街区，在其中，停车场和住宅建筑物之间的空地没有被废弃或是隔断，而是被修葺粉刷一新仿佛有意要人看见。与住宅区想融合的是多的难以置信的精致的食品店和诸如室内装潢，五金店，木具加工，食品加工等商业。街道上由于戏耍的孩子，购物和散步的人们而变得生气盎然。假如现在不是寒冷的一月，那么肯定会有人小坐于此。

(24)大街上轻快，友好，健康的气氛是如此具有传染力，以致我开始以问路的方式插入人们的闲聊，享受这份乐趣。在过去的几天里我见了波士顿不少地方，绝大多数非常让人失望，但NORTH END 作为城市中最健康的地方让我震惊，也令我慰藉。但我不能想象这笔重建资金从何而来。

因为现如今在美国，除了高租金区和仿郊区的项目，其他的几乎不可能获得抵押贷款。为到答案，我去了间酒吧，也可称饭店。那儿，一场关于钓鱼的谈话正如火如荼地进行着。我给一位认识的波士顿规划师挂了电话。

（26）“她看上去并不象贫民窟。她每英亩地有275个单元！我不愿承认我们在波士顿有这样的地方，但这是事实。”

（27）“你有关于她的其他数据吗？”我问他。

29）“你们应该有更多像这样的贫民区”,我说,”别告诉我你们正计划清除她.你应该亲自下来看看, 从中你会发现许多东西.”

(30) “我知你感受”,他说, “我经常一个人去那而走走感受那美好快乐的街道生活. 看,你该做的是夏天时回来再去那儿,假如你现在觉得很有趣. 到那时你会为她疯狂. 但是最终我们仍然不得不重建她. 我们已将居民与一些街道隔离.”

31）这是件古怪的事。我朋友的直觉告诉他NORTH END是个好地方，且他手上的关于社会方面的数据也证明了这点。但是作为一名循规蹈矩的城市规划者，他所学的关于什么有利于人民，有利于城市周边地区发展的知识和那些使他成为专家的的学识告诉他NORTH END 不得不是个糟糕的地方。

（32）关于资金来源问题，那位朋友让我向波士顿最首要的管理存款业务的银行家咨询，他也是权力机构中举足轻重的人物。这位银行家证明了我从NORTH END里获悉的情况，资金并不是从银行系统中而来。现在的银行和规划师一样懂得足够的规划知识，知道什么是贫民区。“将钱投入到NORTH END完全没有意义。”银行家说道：她是个贫民窟！而且至今仍有人迁徙进来。更糟糕的是，在经济大萧条期间，那地区大量住户被银行取消赎回房屋权，纪录不良.”（我曾经听说过这消息，并且在那儿参观时还听说了人们是如何工作以买回一部分被银行禁止赎取的楼盘。）

(33)“经济大萧条后的25年内,在这个拥有15000人的地区,最大金额的抵押贷款只有3000元,”银行家告诉我, “且贷款数量相当相当少.” 重建项目的资金决大多数来自区域内的商业和住房供给项目的赢利及再投资所获的利,还有当地居民,居民亲戚间的技术劳动的交换.

(35)“不，绝对不可能！”他说，对于我的重复追问似乎以不耐烦，“那里是贫民区！”

PS:这段的文笔很好,无论是语式还是句构(算是美文吧,按照中文系的MM说). 可惜我的中文不行,翻不出那个意境来. 将就着看吧.

小弟翻译了一下37段,关于放血的比喻,真的很难翻呀….不过好好玩….

(37)And to put it bluntly, they are all in

the same stage of elaborately learned

superstition as medical science was early

in the last century, when physicians put

their faith in bloodletting , to draw out

the evil humors which were believed to

cause disease.

坦白而言, 它们全部都在诸如上世纪早期的医学那样处于过度痴迷于迷信的阶段之中, 当时,医生们相信放血能够释放出人体内的致病病魔.

With bloodletting, it took years of

learning to know precisely which vein,

by what ritual, were to be opened for

what symptoms.

由于放血这个错误的手段, 医生们用了多年才准确地知道, 对于什么样的症状,用什么方式,适宜切开什么人体管道.

A superstructure of technical

complication was erected in such

deadpan detail that the literature still

sounds almost plausible.

但是一个技术上的障碍在宏观结构上已经被建立起来, 并且有着直观的细节,所以即使如此糟糕的放血仍然听起来是可行的.

However, because people, even when

they are thoroughly enmeshed in

descriptions of reality which are at

variance with reality, are still seldom

devoid of the powers of observation and

independent thought,

因为人们即使耳濡目染在纷繁复杂的对现实的描述中, 这些描述是与现实有出入的,人们还是会保有观察与独立思考的能力,

the science of bloodletting, over most of

its long sway, appears usually to have

been tempered with a certain amount of

common sense.

然而,放血的伪科学在它长年的轨迹中,

似乎显得与常识有一些背道而驰.

Or it was tempered until it reached its

highest peaks of technique in, of all

places, the young United States.

Bloodletting went wild here.

或是说,它在达到自身技术的最高峰时,与常识背道而驰. 这时候,每一个地方,尤其是美国,放血疯狂地被实践着.

It had an enormously influential

proponent in Dr. Benjamin Rush, still

revered as the greatest

statesman-physician of our revolutionary

and federal periods, and a genius of

medical administration.

Benjamin Rush 医生有着极为有影响力的支持呼声, 在我们革命与联邦时期,他仍然被视为最伟大的政治家与医生,并且是一个天才般的医务管理人才.

Dr. Rush Got Things Done. Among the

things he got done, some of them good

and useful, were to develop, practice,

teach and spread the custom of

bloodletting in cases where prudence or

mercy had heretofore restrained its use.

“Rush医生能做到”. 在他所做的事当中,有一些是好的,有用的, 有一些则是在细心和仁慈阻碍了放血的传统时,去发展,实践,教育和拓展它.

He and his students drained the blood of

very young children, of consumptives,

of the greatly aged, of almost anyone

unfortunate enough to be sick in his

realms of influence.

他和他的学生们对幼儿,对老人,对几乎所有在他的势力范围内不幸害病的人们放血.

His extreme practices aroused the alarm

and horror of European bloodletting

physicians.

他的极端行为激起了欧洲放血医师的警觉和恐慌.

And yet as late as 1851, a committee

appointed by the State Legislature of

New York solemnly defended the

thoroughgoing use of bloodletting.

但是,直到现在1851年,一个由纽约州

政府任命的委员会仍然严正地为放血的全面应用辩护.

It scathingly ridiculed and censured a

physician, William Turner, who had the

temerity to write a pamphlet criticizing

Dr. Rush’s doctrines and calling “the

practice of taking blood in diseases

contrary to common sense, to general

experience, to enlightened reason and to

the manifest laws of the divine

Providence.”

William Turner觉得被这个事实严重地戏弄与侮辱了,他便勇敢地写了一个小册子Rush;批评Rush医生的教条和声称”放血的实践有违常识,通常经验,开放的理由与神圣的法律.

(38)Medical analogies, applied to social

organisms, are apt to be farfetched, and

there is no point in mistaking

mammalian chemistry for what occurs in

a city. But analogies as to what goes on

in the brains of earnest and learned men,

dealing with complex phenomena they

do not understand at all and trying to

make do with a pseudoscience, do have

point. At in the pseudoscience of

bloodletting, just so in the

pseudoscience of city rebuilding and

planning, years of learning and a

plethora of subtle and complicated

dogma have arisen on a foundation of

nonsense. The tools of technique have

steadily been perfected. Naturally, in

time, forceful and able men, admired

administrators, having swallowed the

initial fallacies and having been

provisioned with tools and with public

confidence or mercy might previously

have forbade. Bloodletting could heal

only by accident or insofar as it broke

the rules, until the time when it was

abandoned in favor of the hard, complex

business of assembling, using and

testing, bit by bit, true descriptions of

reality drawn not from how it ought to

be, but from how it is. The

pseudoscience of city planning and its

companion, the art of city design, have

not yet broken with the specious comfort

of wishes, familiar superstitions,

oversimplifications, and symbols, and

have not yet embarked upon the

adventure of probing the real world.

本文发布于:2024-09-23 18:22:17，感谢您对本站的认可！

本文链接：https://www.17tex.com/fanyi/45019.html

上一篇：2023年专八英语改错辅导试题带答案解析

下一篇：collapse的形容词形式

标签：城市人们规划

留言与评论（共有 0 条评论）