what is a city

1、-作者xxxx-日期xxxxwhat is a city【精品文檔】What is a cityEditors introduction Lewis Mumford (1895-1990) has been called Americas last great public intellectual. Beginning with his first book in 1922 and continuing throughout a career that saw the publication of some twenty-five influential volumes, Mumford m

2、ade signal contributions to social philosophy, American literary and cultural history, the history of technology and, preeminently, the history of cities and urban planning practice.編者介紹：一直以來，路易斯芒福德都被認為是美國最后一位偉大的公共知識分子。自1922年第一部著作出版了，他一生出版了25部極具分量的著述。對社會哲學(xué)、美國文學(xué)、文化史和技術(shù)史都有著重大的貢獻，尤其對城市歷史和城市規(guī)劃產(chǎn)生了不可低估的影響

3、。 Mumford saw the urban experience as an integral component in the development of human culture and the human personality. He consistently argued that physical design of cities and their economic functions were secondary to their relationship to the natural environment and to the spiritual values of

4、 human community. Mumford applied these principles to his architectural criticism for The New Yorker magazine in the 1920s, his work With the Regional Planning Association of America, his campaign against plans to build a highway through Washington Square in New Yorks Greenwich Village in the 1950s,

5、 and his lifelong championing of Garden City Ideals of Ebenezer Howard.芒福德認為，在人類文化和個性發(fā)展過程中，城市經(jīng)驗是必不可少的構(gòu)成部分。他始終堅持，相較于城市與自然環(huán)境、城市與公眾精神價值之間的關(guān)系，城市的設(shè)計和經(jīng)濟功能是相對次要的。在二十世紀20年代，芒福德為紐約客所寫的那些建筑學(xué)批評文章就體現(xiàn)了他的這些原則。此外，芒福德更以此作為自己的行動理念，無論是與RPA(全美區(qū)域設(shè)計協(xié)會)的合作，50年代反對在紐約格林威治的華盛頓廣場橫穿高架，還是他為之奮斗了一生的挑戰(zhàn)埃比尼茲哈佛的完美花園城市，莫不如此。 In What

6、is a City?” Mumford lays out his fundamental propositions about city planning and the human potential, both individual and social, of urban life. The city, he writes, is “a theater of social action,” and everything else - art, politics, education, commerce - only serves to make the “social drama . .

7、 . more richly significant, as a stage-set, well-designed, intensifies and underlines the gestures of the actors and the action of the play.” It was a theme and an image to which Mumford would return over and over again. In his chapter on The Nature of the Ancient City in The City in History (1961)

8、, He wrote that the city is “above all things a theater” and, as d commenting on the cultural conformity of the 1950s, warned that an urban civilization that has lost its sense of dramatic dialogue is bound to have a fatal last act.”在城市是什么？一文中，就城市規(guī)劃和人類影響，芒福德提出了他的基本主張，涵蓋了個人和社會兩個部分。他寫道，城市就是“社會活動的劇場，”至

9、于其它所有的東西，包括藝術(shù)、政治、教育，商業(yè)，都是為了讓這個“社會戲劇更具有影響，精心設(shè)計的舞臺能夠盡可能地突出演員們的表演和演出效果。”這就是芒福德不斷重復(fù)的主題和印像。在歷史中的城市（The City in History） (1961)一書中，芒福德在“古代城市的本質(zhì)”一章中寫道，城市“首先是一個劇場”。這樣的說法就好像在評論50年代的文化整合(conformity)一樣，同時，他也警告說，城市文化如果失去了戲劇對白的意識，那么“必然走向致命的最后一幕”。 Mumfords influence on modern urban planning theory can hardly be o

10、verstated His “urban drama idea clearly resonates with an entire line of urban cultural anaylsts. Jane Jacobs, for example, talks about street ballet (). William Whyte(p.483) says that a good urban plaza should function like a stage. Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard (p. 491) urge planners to fulfil

11、l human needs for “fantasy and exoticism. The city, they write. has always been a place of excitement; it is a theater, a stage upon which citizens can display themselves and be seen by others.”可以說，芒福德對于現(xiàn)代城市規(guī)劃的影響是不可限量的。他所提出的“城市戲劇”理念引發(fā)了整個城市文化分析界的共鳴。比方簡杰可布（Jane Jacobs）就提到了“街道芭蕾”；威廉懷特（William Whyte）提出，

12、好的城市廣場應(yīng)該具有舞臺的功能。阿倫杰克布（Allan Jacobs）和唐納德阿普爾亞德（Donald Appleyard）則督促規(guī)劃者要滿足人們對“幻想和異國情調(diào)”的需求。他們寫道，“城市早已經(jīng)成為一個充滿驚喜的場所，那里就是一個劇院，人們既可以在舞臺上展現(xiàn)自己，也能被別人所欣賞。 As a historian, Mumford is the antithesis of Henri Pirenne (p 37), whom Mumford considered too much of an economic determinist despite his excellent basic sc

13、holarship. Mumfords emphasis on community values and the citys role in enlarging the potential of the human personality connects him with a long line of urban theorists that includes Louis Wirth (p 97) and many others.作為一名歷史學(xué)家，芒福德站在“杰出學(xué)者”亨利皮雷納（Henri Pirenne）的對立面，芒福德認為對方是一個經(jīng)濟決定論者。芒福德強調(diào)的是在人類個性潛力（poten

14、tial）的擴展中的公眾價值和城市角色，這使不少城市理論家們與他站在同一戰(zhàn)線，包括路易斯韋斯（Louis Wirth）等。 The City in History (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1961) is undoubtedly Mumfords masterpiece, but an earlier version of the same material, The Culture of Cities (New York:Harcourt Brace, 1938) is still of interest The Urban Prospect (New York

15、: Harcourt Brace, 1968) is an outstanding collection of his essays on urban planning and culture, and The Myth of the Machine (new York: Harcourt Brace, 1967) and The Pentagon of Power(New York: Harcourt Brace, 1970; are excellent analyses of the influence of techn0109Y an human culture The magister

16、ial The Transformations of Man New York: Harper, 1956) invites comparison with V. Gordon Childes theory Of the urban revolution p. 22). A sampling of Mumford writing are included in Donald L Miller (ed.), The Lewis Mumford Reader (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995).無疑，歷史中的城市（The City in Hist

17、ory）是芒福德的代表作，與之相比，城市文化的選材相同，但作為更早的版本并不失為一本有趣的書。The Urban Prospect是他討論城市規(guī)劃和文化的一本非常出色的合集，在The Pentagon of Power一書中，芒福德對人類文化受到的技術(shù)影響做出了精彩的分析。而且，頗有些專橫的The Trasformations of Man引發(fā)了他與戈登柴爾德( Childe)關(guān)于城市革命理論的論爭。這本書被收到了唐納德米勒選編路易斯芒福德讀本（The Lesis Mumford Reader）中。 Mumford illuminating correspondence with Patric

18、k Geddes (p. 330; is contained in Frank G.Novak, Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The Correspondence (London. Routledge. 1995). Mumford is being rediscovered by the current generation of environmental planners. Examples of recent books applying his perspective to current ecological issues are Mark

19、Luccarelli Lewis, Mumford and the Ecological Region: The Politics of Planning (New York: Guilford Press, 1997) and Robert Wojtowicz, Lewis Mumford and American Modernism: Eutopian Theories for Architecture and Urban planning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).芒福德和派屈克杰德斯（Patrick Geddes）之間的

20、通信極具啟發(fā)性，被收到Lewis Muford and Patrick Geddes:The Correspondence一書中。由于環(huán)境規(guī)劃學(xué)的誕生，芒福德也得到了再發(fā)現(xiàn)。近來，許多社會生態(tài)學(xué)著作運用了他的觀點，如馬克L路斯（Mark Luccarelli Lesis）的Mumford and the Ecological Region:The Politics of Planning，羅伯特（Robert Wojtowicz）的Lewis Mumford and American Modernism:EtuopianTheories for Architecture and Urban P

21、lanning。 Biographies of Lewis Mumford are Donald L Millers Lewis Mumford: A Life New York: Weidenfeld &Nicolson. 1989, Thomas P. Hughes and Agatha C. Hughes (eds.) Lewis Mumford: Public intellectual (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990), and Frank G. Novak, Lewis Mumford (New York: Twayne Publishe

22、rs, 1998). A bibliography of Mumfords writing is Elmer S. Newman. Lewis Mumford: A Bibliography. 1914- 1970 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971).路易斯芒福德的傳記有多納德L米勒（Donald ）的Lewis Mumford: A Life，湯姆斯P胡吉斯（Thomas P. Hughes） 和阿加莎C胡吉斯（Agatha ）合著的路易斯芒福德：公共知識分子（Lewis Mumford:Public Intellectual）以及弗朗德G

23、諾華（Frand G. Novak）所寫的路易斯芒福德（Lewis Mumford）。Most of our housing and city planning has been handicapped because those who have under-taken the work have had no clear notion of the social functions of the city. They sought to derive: these functions from a cursory survey of the acridities and interests

24、 of the contemporaryurban scene. And they did not, apparently, suspect that there might be gross deficiencies, misdirected efforts, mistaken expenditures here that would not be set straight by merely buildingsanitary tenements or straightening out and widening irregular streets.我們現(xiàn)在多數(shù)的住宅和城市規(guī)劃都是不完善的，

25、因為在那些設(shè)計者的構(gòu)想中，并沒有考慮到城市應(yīng)負擔(dān)哪些社會功用，對此缺乏明確的概念。設(shè)計者們只是通過做一些非常簡單的調(diào)查，比如考察一些同時代其它城市的活動及影響力，就想當(dāng)然的認為這些就是城市功能。顯然，他們自然從不懷疑自己的做法可能存在著許多缺漏之處，付出的努力完全可能將他們引向誤區(qū)，甚至導(dǎo)致全局性的錯誤。因為，社會功能不是僅僅通過建造衛(wèi)生的廉租房，或者是延展、拓寬不規(guī)則的街道，就能直接解決的。 The city as a purely physical fact has been subject to numerous investigations. Bur what is the city

26、as a social institution? The earlier answers to these questions, in Aristotle, Plato, and the Utopian writers from Sir Thomas More to Robert Owen. have been on the whole more satisfactory than those of the more systematic sociologists; most contemporary treatises on urban sociology in America throw

27、no important light upon the problem. One of the soundestdefinitions of the city was that framed by John Stow, an honest observer of Elizabethan London,who said:作為一個純粹的物質(zhì)存在，城市一直是被調(diào)查的對象；但作為社會的公共機構(gòu)，城市又是什么呢？整體而言，早期對城市的理解各有不同，亞里士多德，柏拉圖、烏托邦的作者摩爾、歐文，他們都有著對于城市的理解，并且，他們的回答遠比社會學(xué)家們那些系統(tǒng)性很強的的回答更令人滿意。在當(dāng)代美國，“城市社會”

28、并沒有獲得普遍的重視與關(guān)注。約翰斯透（John Stow）是生活在伊莉沙白時期的一位觀察家，但是他對城市的定義是至今為止最為合理的定義之一，他說：Men an: congregated into cities and common wealths for honesty and utilitys sake. These shortly be the commodities that do come by cities. commonalties and corporations. First, men by this nearness of conversation are with. dra

29、wn from barbarous fixit7 and force. To certain mildness of manners. and to humanity and justice . . . Good behavior is yet called urbanitas because it is rather found in cities than elsewhere. In sum, by often hearing, men be better persuaded in religion, and for that they live in the eyes of others

30、, they be by example the more easily trained to justice, and by shame fastness restrained from injury. 人們?yōu)榱俗非笳焙屠娑鴣淼搅顺鞘泻吐?lián)邦，伴隨著城市、民間團體和公司的誕生，自然很快就形成了商業(yè)。這時的人們已經(jīng)不再使用野蠻的暴力，而是通過談判達成協(xié)議，舉止更文明、更人性化，并且更加公正。于是，良好的舉止理所當(dāng)然地被認為是城市化的象征，在城市中，我們顯然比別的地方看到的文明現(xiàn)象更多些。因為個人始終生活在他者的注視下，也更易被訓(xùn)練得公正，并且用羞愧來抑制自己所受到的傷害。 And where

31、as commonwealths and kingdoms cannot have, next after God, any surer foundation than the love and good will of one man towards another, that also is closely bred andmaintained in cities, where men by mutual society and companying together. do grow to aIIiances, commonalties, and corporations.然而，聯(lián)邦和王

32、國除了堅持各種美好的愿望，強調(diào)人要熱愛他人，并沒有其它更明確的立場。這樣的態(tài)度雖然也在城市中滋生與維持，但在城市中，人們可以通過共同的社會進行合作，組成了聯(lián)盟、民間團體和法人團體。 It is with no hope of adding much to the essential insight of this description of the urbanprocess that I would sum up the sociological concept of the city in the following terms: 我并不想再強調(diào)或者描述城市的發(fā)展進程，我只想用下面幾條術(shù)語

33、來概括社會學(xué)意義上的“城市”：The city is a related collection of primary groups and purposive associations: the first, family and neighborhood, are common to all communities, while the second are especially characteristic of city life. These varied groups support themselves through economic organizations that are

34、 likewise of a more or less corporate, or at least publicly regulated, character; and they are all housed in permanent structures, within a relatively limited area. The essential physical means of a citys existence are the fixed site, the durable shelter, the Permanent facilities for assembly, inter

35、change, and storage; the essential social means are the social division of labor, which serves nor merely the economic life bur the cultural processes. The city in its complete sense, then, is a geographic plexus, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theater of social action, and an

36、 aesthetic symbol of collective unity. The city fosters are and is art; the city creates the theater and is the theater. It is in the city, the city as theater that mans more purposive activities are focused, and work out, through conflicting and cooperating personaIities, events, groups, into more

37、significant culminations.城市是原始集體與具有特定目的團體的合成。首先，在所有團體中，家庭、鄰居是相當(dāng)普遍的。第二點也是城市生活的特征，不同團體通過經(jīng)濟合作得以維持，其性質(zhì)或者是共同自治的，或者是被公開管理的。在被限定的的區(qū)域中，這些團體都被固定在不變的結(jié)構(gòu)之中。城市的存在意義就是為各種力量的聚集、內(nèi)部交換、儲備提供固定場所、庇護所及設(shè)施；城市的社會意義在于區(qū)分社會勞動，他所提供的不僅僅是經(jīng)濟生活，更是文化進程。整體而言，城市是一個集合體，涵蓋了地理學(xué)意義上的神經(jīng)叢、經(jīng)濟組織、制度進程、社會活動的劇場以及藝術(shù)象征等各項功能。城市不僅培育出藝術(shù)，其本身也是藝術(shù)，不僅創(chuàng)造了

38、劇院，他自己就是劇院。正是在城市中，人們表演各種活動并獲得關(guān)注，人、事、團體通過不斷的斗爭與合作，達到更高的契合點。Without the social drama that comes into existence through the focusing and intensification of group activity there is not a single function performed in the city that could not be performed - and has not in fact been performed- in the open c

39、ountry. The physical organization of the city may deflate this drama or make it frustrate; or it may, through the deliberate efforts of art, politics, and education, make the drama more richly significant, as a stage-set, well- designed, intensifies and underlines the gestures of the actors and the

40、action of the play. It is not for nothing that men have dwelt so often on the beauty or the ugliness of cities: these attributes qualify mens social activities. And if there is a deep reluctance on the part of the true city dweller ro leave his cramped quarters for the physically more benign environ

41、ment of a suburb - even a model garden suburb! - his instincts are usually justified: in its various and many-sided Life, in its very opportunities for social dis- harmony and conflict, the city creates drama; the suburb Iacks it.社會戲?。╯ocial drama）的出現(xiàn)自然需要借助于各種集體活動的匯集和強化。如果沒有社會戲劇的存在，即使是最單一的功能都不能在城市中得

42、到實現(xiàn)。事實上，即便是在一個開放的國度中，也面臨著同樣的問題。城市機構(gòu)總會試圖降低城市戲劇的重要性，甚至阻撓其發(fā)展，否則在藝術(shù)、政治 、教育推動下，精心設(shè)計的舞臺會突出演出的效果和演員們的表演，戲劇也將會承載更為重大的意義。顯然，人們在城市中都有著各自的目的，但是城市的屬性卻限制了人們的社會活動。一位市民在城市中的住處可能是非常逼蟄的，但即使如此，如果要他離開城市到郊區(qū)去，即便郊區(qū)的生活環(huán)境更舒適些，甚至還有非常現(xiàn)代的花園，他也會非常不情愿、猶豫再三。因為他的直覺會立刻做出判斷，城市生活是多樣的、多面的，城市生活在社會的分歧和斗爭中總是充滿著機遇，城市創(chuàng)造了戲劇，而這些正是鄉(xiāng)村生活所缺乏的。O

43、ne may describe the city, in its social aspect, as a special framework directed toward the creation of differentiated opportunities for a common life and a significant collective drama. As indirect forms of association, with the aid of signs and symbols and specialized organizations, supplement dire

44、ct face-to-face intercourse, the personalities of the citizens themselves become many-faceted: they reflect their specialized interests, their more intensively trained aptitudes, their finer discriminations and selections: the personality no longer presents a more or less unbroken traditional face t

45、o reality as a whole. Here lies the possibility of personal disintegration; and here lies the need for reintegration through wider participation in a concrete and visible collective whole. What men cannot imagine as a vague formless society, they can live through and experience as citizens in a city

46、. Their unified plans and buildings become a symbol of their social relatedness; and when the physical environment itself becomes disordered and incoherent, the social functions that it harbors become more difficult to express.我們可以從社會化的角度來描述城市，并將其視為一種特殊的架構(gòu)。不論是普通的個體，還是那些杰出的團體，都能在城市中獲得發(fā)展的機會。在各種標(biāo)識和專業(yè)組織

47、的輔助下，以社團作為間接形式，城市提供了更多人與人直接交流的機會，城市人的個性也就更為多面：顯示出更專業(yè)化的興趣愛好，更精深的受訓(xùn)態(tài)度，并且具有更杰出的辨別力和更廣泛的選擇力。就整體而言，人們在面對現(xiàn)實時不再呈現(xiàn)出頑固的傳統(tǒng)性，個體的崩潰也就順理成章了。這樣的影響作用于具體的個人，個體就會產(chǎn)生參與社會活動、融入其中的需求。但是，一個城市的市民身份使人們無法想像一個模糊的、不定型的社會。各種經(jīng)驗、建筑被視為是社會關(guān)系的標(biāo)志，一旦這些外在的環(huán)境變得混亂、不連貫，那么它們所包涵的社會功能也就很難被表達清楚了。One further conclusion follows from this conce

48、pt of the city: social facts are primary, and the physical organization of a city, its industries and its markets, its lines of communication and traffic, must be subservient to its social needs. Whereas in the development of the city during the last century we expanded the physical plant recklessly

49、 and treated the essential social nucleus, the organs of government and education and social service. as mere afterthought, today we must treat the social nucleus as the essential element in every valid city planning the spotting and inter-relationship of schools, libraries, theaters, community cent

50、ers is the first task in definingthe urban neighborhood and faying down the outlines of an integrated city.從城市概念出發(fā)，可以引申出意義更深遠的結(jié)論，社會現(xiàn)實是第一位的，而城市的各種機構(gòu)，包括產(chǎn)業(yè)、市場、信息與交通業(yè)，都是為社會需要提供輔助。然而，在近一個世紀的城市發(fā)展中，我們不顧一切地擴展工廠，卻將社會核心、政府機構(gòu)、教育和社會服務(wù)這些基礎(chǔ)項目作為后續(xù)項目。如今，我們應(yīng)將社會核心作為日常城市規(guī)劃的必須元素：在確定城市的邊界、規(guī)定城市整體的輪廓時，首要任務(wù)便是確定學(xué)校、圖書館、劇院、社團

51、的定位及內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。In giving this-sociological answer to the question: What is a City? One has likewise provided the clue to a number of important other questions. Above all, one has the criterion for a clear decision as to what is the desirable size of a city - or may a city perhaps continue to grow until a

52、single continuous urban area might cover half the American continent, with the rest of the world tributary to this mass? From the stand- point of the purely physical organization of urban utilities - which is almost the only matter upon which metropolitan planners in the past have concentrated - thi

53、s latter process might indeed go on indefinitely. But if the city is a theater of social activity, and if its needs are defined by the opportunities it offers to differentiated social groups, acting through a specific nucleus of civic institutes and associations, defined limitations on size follow f

54、rom this fact.如果一定要對“城市是什么”做出社會學(xué)意義上的解釋，人們可能還能提出一系列類似的、非常重要的問題。明確的結(jié)論總需要明確的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為基礎(chǔ)，比如一個城市最合適的人口是多少？城市是否可能保持持續(xù)地增長，直到連綿不斷的市區(qū)覆蓋了大半個美洲大陸，世界的其余部分也服從于此？完全站在城市公用事業(yè)機構(gòu)的立場來看：后一項過程正在悄無聲息地進行中。這可能是他們唯一要關(guān)注的問題，也是都市規(guī)劃者們在近期所關(guān)注的。但是，如果城市是社會活動的劇場，那么它的需求就會不斷受到質(zhì)疑，因為城市為不同的社會組織提供各種機會，在一些特定的核心市民協(xié)會、團體中，某些不足之處就被呈現(xiàn)出來。In one of L

55、e Corbusiers early schemes for an ideal city, he chase three million as the numberto be accommodated: the number was roughly the size of the urban aggregate of Paris, but thathardly explains why it should have been taken as a norm for a more rational type of city development.在柯布西埃(Le Corbusier)早期對理想

56、城市的構(gòu)想中，他認為城市人口在300萬是比較合理的數(shù)字。這個數(shù)字大概正好是巴黎的城市人口總合。但是有一點很難解釋，為什么這個數(shù)字會被視為城市發(fā)展的合理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 If the size of an urban unit, however, is a function of its productive organization and its opportunities for active social intercourse and culture, certain definite facts emerge as toadequate ratio of population to the p

57、rocess to be served.如果城市單位的大小決定著城市生產(chǎn)組織的職能，決定著活躍的社會、文化交往的機會，那么人們又要面對一些切實的問題，如發(fā)展過程中適當(dāng)?shù)娜丝诒嚷?。Thus, at the present level of culture in America, a million people are needed to support a university. Many factors may enter which will change the size of both the university and the population base;在美國現(xiàn)有的文化狀況下

58、，一所大學(xué)的維持需要一百萬的人口基數(shù)，當(dāng)然還有其它的許多因素會產(chǎn)生影響，進而改變大學(xué)和人口基數(shù)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。nevertheless one can say provisionally that if a million people are needed to provide a sufficient number of students for a university, then two million people should have two universities. One can also say that, other things being equal, five million people will not provide a more effective university than one million people would. The alternative to recognizing these ratios is to keep on overcrowding and overbuilding a few existing institutions, thereby limiting. rather than expanding;, their genuine educational facilit