美國大城市的生與死(中英文)

#theseattributes.(2002.2.8)?美國大城市的生與死?(THEDEATHANDLIFEOFGREATAMRICANCITIES)美國女作家簡.雅各布斯(JaneJacobs)1IntroductionThisbookisandattackoncityplanningandrebuilding.Itisalso,andmostly,anattempttointroducenewprinciplesofcityplanningandrebuilding,differentandevenoppositefromthosenowtaughtineverythingfromschoolsofarchitectureandplanningtotheSundaysupplementsandwomen'smagazines.Myattackisnotbasedonquibblesaboutrebuildingmethodsorhairsplittingaboutfashionsindesign.Itisanattack,rather,ontheprinciplesandaimsthathaveshapedmodern,orthodoxcityplanningandrebuilding.(2002.2.8)Insettingforthdifferentprinciples,Ishallmainlybewritingaboutcommon,ordinarythings:forinstance,whatkindsofcitystreetsaresafeandwhatkindsarenot;whysomecityparksaremarvelousandothersarevicetrapsanddeathtraps;whysomeslumsstayslumsandotherslumsregeneratethemselvesevenagainstfinancialandofficialopposition;whatmakesdowntownsshifttheircenters;what,ifanything,isacityneighborhood,andwhatjobs,ifany,neighborhoodsingreatcitiesdo.Inshort,Ishallbewritingabouthowcitiesworkinreallife,becausethisistheonlywaytolearnwhatprinciplesofplanningandwhatpracticesinrebuildingcanpromotesocialandeconomicvitalityincities,andwhatpracticesandprinciplewilldeaden譯文：介紹（1）這是一本抨擊現(xiàn)今城市規(guī)劃和改造的書。應該說書中的大多數(shù)內(nèi)容，嘗試著介紹新的城市規(guī)劃和改造原則，這些原則不同于學校里所傳授的東西，不同于周日特刊的計劃，也不同于從婦女雜志中所看到的，甚至是與那些原則完全相反的。我的抨擊并不是以關(guān)于改建手法的模棱兩可的雙關(guān)語為基礎，也不是對設計的時尚吹毛求疵。它所抨擊的是那些形成現(xiàn)代和傳統(tǒng)城市規(guī)劃和改造的原則和目的。（2）為了闡明這些不同的原則，我從那些普通的事物寫起：例如，什么樣的城市街道是安全的，而什么樣的是不安全的；為什么有的城市公園是美妙的不可思議的，而有的則成為了城市藏污納垢的死角；為什么有些貧民窟長久保持原樣有些不顧財政和政府的反對不斷生成；是什么讓城市不斷變換他們的中心；什么是一個城市的臨近地區(qū)，它有擔當了什么樣的一種職能。簡而言之，我要寫的是城市在現(xiàn)實生活中是如何運作的，因為這是學習規(guī)劃原則和怎樣用改建來提升城市的社會和經(jīng)濟活力的唯一方法，通過這樣的學習，也能知道什么樣的原則和實踐會扼殺這些活力。（2002.2.9benbentiao譯）Thereisawistfulmyththatifonlywehadenoughmoneytospend—thefigureisusuallyputatahundredbilliondollars—wecouldwipeoutallourslumsintenyears,reversedecayinthegreat,dull,graybeltsthatwereyesterday'sandday-before-yesterday'ssuburbs,anchorthewanderingmiddleclassanditswanderingtaxmoney,andperhapsevensolvethetrafficeproblem.(2002.2.9)Butlookwhatwehavebuiltwiththefirstseveralbillions:Low-incomeprojectsthatbecomeworsecentersofdelinquency,vandalismandgeneralsocialhopelessnessthantheslumstheyweresupposedtoreplace.Middle-incomehousingprojectswhicharetrulymarvelsofdullnessandregimentationsealedagainstanybuoyancyorvitalityofcitylife.Luxuryhousingprojectsthatmitigatetheirinanity,ortryto,withavapidvulgarity.Culturalcentersthatareunabletosupportagoodbookstore.Civiccentersthatareavoidedbyeveryonebutbums,whohavefewerchoicesofloiteringplacethanothers.Commercialcentersthatarelacklusterimitationsofstandardizedsuburbanchain-storeshopping.Promenadesthatgofromnoplacetonowhereandhavenopromenaders..Expresswaysthateviscerategreatcities.Thisisnottherebuildingofcities.Thisisthesackingofcities.(2000.2.9)（3）有一種理想的“神話”，前提是我們擁有足夠的資金——通常得上百億美金——我們便可在十年內(nèi)清除所有的貧困區(qū)，隱藏起從前城市中那些龐大、陰暗、沉悶地帶內(nèi)所呈現(xiàn)出的衰敗景象，轉(zhuǎn)而安置飄泊的中產(chǎn)階級，沉淀及其附帶的游離資金，這樣甚至可以解決交通問題。（2002.2.10永遠的埃及譯）（4）現(xiàn)在看看我們用一開始的幾十億作了什么：低收入居民區(qū)變成了錯誤，破壞藝術(shù)行為和社會絕望的中心，代替了貧民窟給社會帶來的影響。中層收入居民區(qū)的無趣和對一切輕快和有活力的城市生活的管轄讓人覺得驚奇。奢華的小別墅妄圖用一種粗俗的設計手法區(qū)減輕他們的愚蠢。文化中心里不能找到一個好的書店。除了流浪漢誰都不愿意去城市中心，因為那里是少數(shù)幾個能供他們閑逛的場所。商業(yè)中心是標準的郊區(qū)連鎖店的翻版。散步道不知位于何處，當然見不到散步的人，高速公路變成了城市的精華部分。這不是對城市的改造，這是對城市的毀壞。（2002.2.11benbentiao譯）Underthesurface,theseaccomplishmentsproveevenpoorerthantheirpoorpretenses.Theyseldomaidthecityareasaroundthem,asintheorytheyaresupposedto.Theseamputatedareastypicallydevelopgallopinggangrene.Tohousepeopleinthisplannedfashion,pricetagsarefastenedonthepopulation,andeachsorted-outchunkofprice-taggedpopulacelivesingrowingsuspicionandtensionagainstthesurroundingcity.Whentwoormoresuchhostileislandsarejuxtaposedtheresultiscalled“abalancedneighborhood.”Monopolisticshoppingcentersandmonumentalculturalcenterscloak,underthepublicrelationshoohaw,thesubtractionofcommerce,andofculturetoo,fromtheintimateandcasuallifeofcities.(2002.2.10)Thatsuchwondersmaybeaccomplished,peoplewhogetmarkedwiththeplanners'hexsignsarepushedabout,expropriated,anduprootedmuchasiftheywerethesubjectsofaconqueringpower.Thousandsofsmallbusinessesaredestroyed,andtheirproprietorsruined,withhardlyagestureatcompensation.Wholecommunitiesaretornapartandsowntothewinds,withareapingofcynicism,resentmentanddespairthatmustbeheardandseentobebelieved.AgroupofclergymeninChicago,appalledatthefruitsofplannedcityrebuildingthere,ask,CouldjobhavebeenthinkingofChicagowhenhewrote:Herearementhataltertheirneighbor'slandmark...shoulderthepooraside,conspiretooppressthefriendless.（5）事實上,這些整治比它們那些有夠衰的pretense們更衰.它們極少如它們的理論所臆斷的那樣,在自身周圍增加新的城市環(huán)境.相反,這些從城市機體上截下來的部分往往發(fā)育成急性壞疽:在時尚的規(guī)劃指導下,居民人口被貼上價格的標簽,塞進某處組團.而每一坨甄選出來帶著價標的人口,則在與周圍城區(qū)日益增長的懷疑與緊張關(guān)系中生長.如果兩個以上的互含敵意的組團被擱在了一起,那么我們就得到了一個平衡社區(qū)在公共關(guān)系hoohaw的張羅下,壟斷型商業(yè)中心和紀念碑樣的文化中心掩飾了商業(yè)和文化的匱乏而后兩者,在隨意而親切的都市生活中,曾是如此的豐富（2002.2.12除夕的鞭炮響過之后Spade譯）（6）這種奇跡或許可以實現(xiàn),然而那些標上了規(guī)劃師們具有蠱惑力的標志（注:猜想可能是指所住區(qū)域被規(guī)劃）的人們遭排擠,家園被略奪,最終背井離鄉(xiāng),就像是好勝心下的戰(zhàn)利品.成千上萬的小商業(yè)被毀,它們的經(jīng)營者遭損失.但幾乎沒有得到補償?shù)嫩E象.而整體社區(qū)被分裂,象種子般在風中撒落,帶著嘲諷,怨恨和失望,這些規(guī)劃者必須看到也必須相信這些.一群驚駭于規(guī)劃重建后芝加哥城市狀況的牧師尋問道:（7）當Job寫下以下篇章時,是否聯(lián)想到了芝加哥:（8）這兒的人們改變著周邊標志性建筑物.排擠著窮人,聯(lián)和壓迫著無依無靠的人們.Reaptheythefieldthatisnoneoftheirs,striptheythevineyardwrongfullyseizedfromitsowner...Acrygoesupfromthecitystreets,wherewoundedmenliegroaning.Ifso,hewasalsothinkingofNewYork,Philadelphia,Boston,Washington,St.Louis,SanFranciscoandanumberofotherplaces.Theeconomicrationaleofcurrentcityrebuildingisahoax.Theeconomicsofcityrebuildingdonotrestsoundlyonreasonedinvestmentofpublictaxsubsides,asurbanrenewaltheoryproclaims,butalsoonvast,involuntarysubsideswrungoutofhelplesssitevictims.Andtheincreasedtaxreturnsfromsuchsites,accruingtothecitiesasaresultofthis“investment,”areamirage,apitifulgestureagainsttheeverincreasingsumsofpublicmoneyneededtocombatdisintegrationandinstabilitythatflowfromthecruellyshaken-upcity.Themeanstoplannedcityrebuildingareasdeplorableastheend.(2002.2.12)他們收割著不屬于自己的土地,清理著以不正當方式從別處掠奪來的葡萄園…受傷的人們躺在城市街道上呻吟著,傳來陣陣哭泣聲.假若Job想到了芝加哥，那他也想到了紐約,費城,波世頓,華盛頓,圣魯乙思,三藩市和其他一些地方.目前的城市重建經(jīng)濟原理只是一騙局.當前的城市重建經(jīng)濟學并不像城市更新理論所宣揚的，真正有效地建立在公民稅收津貼的合理投資基礎之上，而是依賴于從貧苦區(qū)里受害者處強行壓榨來的巨額的津貼.為克服城市大改革所帶來的分裂及不穩(wěn)定性，公共資金永遠供不應求，而越來越多從貧苦區(qū)里得來的稅收歸攏于城市最終還是作為這樣的投資.將這些稅收用于其來源地，只是海市蜃樓，可悲可嘆.(2002.2.13qq00612譯)Meantime,alltheartandscienceofcityplanningarehelplesstostemdecay—andthespiritlessnessthatprecedesdecay—inevermoremassiveswatchesofcities.Norcanthisdecaybelaid,reassuringly,tolackofopportunitytoapplytheartsofplanning.Itseemstomatterlittlewhethertheyareappliedornot.ConsidertheMorningsideHeightsareainNewYorkCity.Accordingtoplanningtheoryitshouldnotbeintroubleatall,foritenjoysagreataboudanceofparkland,campus,playgroundandpleasantgroundwithmagnificentriverviews.Itisafamouseducationalcenterwithsplendidinstitutions—ColumbiaUniversity,UnionTheologicalSeminary,theJuilliardSchoolofMusic,andhalfadozenothersofeminentrespectability.Itisthebeneficiaryofgoodhospitalsandchurches.Ithasnoindustries.Itsstreetsarezonedinthemainagainst“incompatibleuses“intrudingintothepreservesforsolidlyconstructed,roomy,middle-andupper-classapartments.Yetbytheearly1950'sMorningsideHeightswasbecomingaslumsoswiftly,thesurlykindofsluminwhichpeoplefeartowalkthestreets,thatthesituationposedacrisisfortheinstitutions.Theyandtheplanningarmsofthecitygovernmentgottogether,appliedmoreplanningtheory,wipedoutthemostrun-downpartoftheareaandbuiltinitssteadamiddle-incomehousingprojectcompletewithshoppingcenter,andapublichousingproject,allinterspersedwithair,light,sunshineandlandscaping.Thiswashailedasagreatdemonstrationincitysaving.與此同時,城市規(guī)劃理論與藝術(shù)對于城市局部地區(qū)的衰退無能為力這種早在城市衰退之前便產(chǎn)生的無能甚至在范圍較廣的示范區(qū)亦無可耐何.城市規(guī)劃藝術(shù)運用與否似乎并不重要,即使它得以施展,衰退依然避免不了,一定會發(fā)生的.想想紐約的MorningsideHeights依照規(guī)劃理論，本該沒有任何問題的.因為她擁有寬敞的停車場地，校園，操場及一個河景怡人的游戲場所.她還聚集了世界頂級的大學和研究機構(gòu)—哥倫比亞大學，神學研究學會，朱利葉德音樂學院及其他6個杰出的廣受尊敬的教研機構(gòu).她享有設備完善的醫(yī)院和宗教服務.她沒有工業(yè)，出于兼容性，被劃區(qū)的街道直接通往穩(wěn)固寬敞的中高層階級的公寓里.然而50年代前，MorningsideHeights迅速淪為貧民窟.人們不敢在那可怕的地方步行，這都成了規(guī)劃研究院迫切解決的首要問題.他們與政府規(guī)劃部門合作，應用更多的規(guī)劃理論，清理了大多數(shù)荒廢區(qū)域，以配有購物中心面向中等收入階層的安居工程和另一個公眾安居項目取而代之.重建后的區(qū)域享有空氣，光線，日照和怡人的景觀.作為挽救城市的大手筆，這個方案廣受歡迎.Afterthat,MorningsideHeightswentdownhillevenfaster.Noristhisanunfairorirrelevantexample.Incityaftercity,preciselythewrongareas,inthelightofplanningtheory,aredecaying.Lessnoticed,butequallysignificant,incityaftercitythewrongareas,inthelightofplanningtheory,arerefusingtodecay.Citiesareanimmenselaboratoryoftrialanderror,failureandsuccess,incitybuildingandcitydesign.Thisisthelaboratoryinwhichcityplanningshouldhavebeenlearningandforminganddiscipline(ifsuchitcanbecalled)haveignoredthestudyofsuccessandfailureinreallife,havebeenincuriousaboutthereasonsforunexpectedsuccess,andareguidedinsteadbyprinciplesderivedfromthebehaviorandappearanceoftowns,suburbs,tuberculosissanatoria,fairs,andimaginarydreamcities—fromanythingbutcitiesthemselves.(2002.2.13)Ifitappearsthattherebuiltportionsofcitiesandtheendlessnewdevelopmentsspreadingbeyondthecitiesarethereducingcityandcountrysidealiketoamonotonous,unnourishinggruel,thisisnotstrange,Itallcomes,first-,second-third-orfourth-hand,outofthesameintellectualdishormush,amushinwhichthequalities,necessities,advantagesandbehaviorofgreatcitieshavebeenbehaviorofotherandmoreinerttypesofsettlements.（13）然而,自那以后,MorningsideHeights每況愈下的速度更快了。（14）MorningsideHeights這個例子既不是不公正的，也不是同其他城市不相關(guān)的。一個城市接著一個城市，在規(guī)劃理論指導下，那些精確規(guī)劃了的區(qū)域正在衰退；一個城市接著一個城市，在規(guī)劃理論指導下，那些精確規(guī)劃了的區(qū)域拒絕衰退，盡管這拒絕不為人注意，其意義同樣重大。（15）城市是個巨大的實驗室，其內(nèi)可以反復試驗城市營造和城市設計的成功與失敗。正是在這個實驗室里，城市規(guī)劃應該不斷學習，自我完善和自我約束（如果可以這樣稱呼的話）。恰恰相反，正是這個實驗室忽略了對現(xiàn)時生活中成敗的研究；正是這個實驗室漠視了意外成功之緣由；也正是這個實驗室，只是在從城鎮(zhèn)，郊區(qū)，修養(yǎng)地，集會及夢幻城的行為與表象演繹得來的信條的指導下或者說任何方面的指導下來運行，而不是由城市本身領導下運行。（2002.2.14qq00612譯）（16）即便城市重建部分和無止盡更新發(fā)展顯現(xiàn)出不單單使城市與鄉(xiāng)村轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐煌敕ξ肚覠o營養(yǎng)的稀粥的情形,也不足為奇.就算是碗長智力的玉米粥,它也只是按首要,次要,再次,更次來考慮問題.在這碗玉米粥里,大城市的質(zhì)量,必要性,優(yōu)點和表征已完全和另外的及缺乏活力住宅群落的質(zhì)量,必要性,優(yōu)點和表征完全混淆在一起了.（2002.2.15qq00612譯）Thereisnothingeconomicallyorsociallyinevitableabouteitherthedecayofoldcitiesorthefresh-minteddecadenceofthenewunurbanurbanization.Onthecontrarynootheraspectofoureconomyandsocietyhasbeenmorepurposefullymanipulatedforafullquarterofacenturytoachievepreciselywhatwearegetting.Extraordinarygovernmentalfinancialincentiveshavebeenrequiretoachievethisdegreeofmonotony,sterilityandvulgarity.Decadesofpreaching,writingandexhortingbyexpertshavegoneintoconvincingusandourlegislatorsthatmushlikethismustbegoodforus,aslongasitcomesbeddedwithgrass.Automobilesareoftenconvenientlytaggedasthevillainsresponsiblefortheillsofcitiesandthedisappointmentsandfutilitiesofcityplanning.Butthedestructiveeffectsofautomobilesaremuchlessacausethanasymptomofourincompetenceatcitybuilding.Ofcauseplanners,includingthehighwaymenwithfabuloussumsofmoneyandenormouspowerattheirdisposal,areatalosstomakeautomobilesandcitiescompatiblewithoneanother.Theydonotknowwhattodowithautomobilesincitiesbecausetheydonotknowhowtoplanforworkableandvitalcitiesanyhow—withorwithoutautomobiles.對于舊城衰敗和新近城市化地區(qū)剛開始的衰退,經(jīng)濟因素與社會因素從來都是貫穿其中。相反,在整整25年里再也沒有其他方面像經(jīng)濟與社會這兩只手那樣一心一意地致力將城市建設成現(xiàn)在這樣。大量的政府財政支出用以成就今日城市之千篇一律，缺乏活力,鄙陋不堪的狀況。數(shù)十年來，專家們的說教、著述、勸誡使得立法者和我們相信像上述玉米粥那樣的城市只要鋪滿草坪，就一定有利于我們。(2002.2.18qq00612譯)人們出于方便,將城市弊端和城市規(guī)劃中的敗筆及令人失望處歸咎于小汽車的不是。但與其說汽車是造成這種局面的原因，還不如說是我們在城市建設方面無能的一種表征。當然規(guī)劃者，包括擁有驚人錢財和龐大處置權(quán)的攔路搶劫犯，都不知如何使小汽車同城市相互兼容。他們不知如何對付城市里的汽車問題因為他們不知如何規(guī)劃運行良好，充滿活力的城市—無論小汽車存在還是不存在。Thesimpleneedsofautomobilesaremoreeasilyunderstoodandsatisfiedthanthecomplexneedsofcities,andagrowingnumberofplannersanddesignershavecometobelievethatiftheycanonlysolvetheproblemsoftraffic,theywilltherebyhavesolvedthemajorproblemofcities.Citieshavemuchmoreintricateeconomicandsocialconcernsthanautomobiletraffic.Howcanyouknowwhattotrywithtrafficuntilyouknowhowthecityitselfworks,andwhatelseitneedstodowithitsstreets?Youcan't.(2002.2.15)Itmaybethatwehavebecamesofecklessaspeoplethatwenolongercarehowthingsdowork,butonlywhatkindofquick,easyouterimpressiontheygive.Ifso,thereislittlehopeforourcitiesorprobablyformuchelseinoursociety.ButIdonotthinkthisisso.(2002.2.16)Specifically,inthecaseofplanningforcities,itisclearthatalargenumberofgoodandearnestpeopledocaredeeplyaboutbuildingandrenewing.Despitesomecorruption,andconsiderablegreedfortheotherman'svineyard,theintentionsgoingintothemesseswemakeare,onthewhole,exemplary.Planners,architectsofcitydesign,andthosetheyhaveledalongwiththemintheirbeliefsarenotconsciouslydisdainfuloftheimportanceofknowinghowthingswork.Onthecontrary,theyhavegonetogreatpainstolearnwhatthesaintsandsagesofmodernorthodoxplanninghavesaidabouthowcitiesoughttoworkandwhatoughttobegoodforpeopleandbusinessesinthem.Theytakethiswithsuchdevotionthatwhencontradictoryrealityintrudes,threateningtoshattertheirdearlywonlearning,theymustshrugrealityaside.(2002.2.17)小汽車的簡單需求比起城市的復雜要求來，更容易被理解和滿足。并且越來越多的城市規(guī)劃設計師相信只要他們能解決交通問題，那么他們就能解決城市的主要問題。城市里存在著比汽車交通更為錯綜復雜的經(jīng)濟社會問題。在你明白城市自身如何運作及她還需要哪些來維護城市道路之前，你豈能了解怎樣處理交通問題。你了解不了的。(2002.2.19qq00612譯)可能是我們變得和庸民(sofecklessaspeopledointherestoftheworld?)一樣無能，可能是我們不再關(guān)心事物的內(nèi)在規(guī)律，而只在乎事物表現(xiàn)出來的那種效果簡單而快捷。如果是這樣的話，我們的城市就幾乎沒什么希望，或者可能連我們社會中其它許多的事物也將如此。但我認為事實并非如此。尤其是,就城市規(guī)劃來說,顯然有很多的善良熱心的人們深切關(guān)心城市的建設與發(fā)展。盡管存在某程度上的腐敗以及人與人之間的相互傾軋現(xiàn)實，人們對我們城市規(guī)劃造成的爛攤子的種種改造設想，總的說來，可以作為我們的榜樣。(不過)城市規(guī)劃師、建筑師以及在他們觀念影響下引導的那些人并非有意蔑視實事求是的重要性。相反，他們曾經(jīng)不辭辛勞地去掌握當代正統(tǒng)的規(guī)劃理論的圣賢們的理論，關(guān)于城市應當怎樣運作,以及怎樣做才是對城市中的人們及事物有益的。他們對這類理論深信不疑，以至于當事實與理論截然相反，并有可能打破他們好不容易學到的東西時，他們就理所應當?shù)匕咽聦崚佋诹艘贿?。Consider,forexample,theorthodoxplanningreactiontoadistrictcalledtheNorthEndinBoston.Thisisanold,low-rentareamergingintotheheavyindustryofthewaterfront,anditisofficiallyconsideredBoston'sworstslumandcivicshame.Itembodiesattributeswhichallenlightenedpeopleknowareevilbecausesomanywisemenhavesaidtheyareevil.NotonlyistheNorthEndbumpedrightupagainstindustry,butworsestillithasallkindsofworkingplacesandcommercemingledinthegreatestcomplexitywithitsresidences.Ithasthehighestcommercemingledinthegreatestcomplexitywithitsresidences.Ithasthehighestconcentrationofdwellingnits,onthelandthatisusedfordwellingunits,ofanypartofBoston,andindeedoneofthehighestconcentrationstobefoundinanyAmericancity.Ithaslittleparkland.Childrenplayinthestreets.Insteadofsuper-blocksorevendecentlylargeblocks,ithasverysmallblocks;inplanningparlanceitis“badlycutupwithwastefulstreets.”Itsbuildingsareold.EverythingconceivableispresumablywrongwiththeNorthEnd.Inorthodoxplanningterms,itisathree-dimensionaltextbookof“megalopolis”inthelaststagesofdepravity.TheNorthEndisthusarecurringassignmentforM.I.T.andHarvardplanningandarchitecturalstudents,whonowandagainpursue,undertheguidanceoftheirteachers,thepaperexerciseofconvertingitintosuper-blocksandparkpromenades,wipingawayitsnonconforminguses,transformingittoanidealoforderandgentilitysosimpleitcouldbeengravedontheheadofapin.(22)譬如，以正統(tǒng)的規(guī)劃理論對波士頓一個稱為NorthEnd的街區(qū)的分析為例，來看一看。這是一塊融入位于濱水地帶的重工業(yè)區(qū)的區(qū)域，陳舊而且租金低廉，被公認為是波士頓最糟糕的貧民區(qū)和城市的恥辱。它體現(xiàn)了所有文明人認為丑惡的特性因為那么多的高明人士都說過這些特性是丑惡的。不僅僅是由于該地區(qū)突出與工業(yè)區(qū)緊緊相鄰，更糟糕的是它的各式各樣的工作區(qū)和商業(yè)交易活動以最復雜的形式與居住區(qū)混合在一起。最頻繁的商業(yè)交易活動和其居住區(qū)以最復雜的形式相混雜。在其用作建造住宅單元的島上,擁有波士頓最密集的住宅單元,事實上也是在美國任何城市中所能找到的最密集的居住區(qū)之一。它幾乎沒什么公用場地。孩子們都在大街上玩耍。沒什么(大型)車輛禁行區(qū)甚至象樣一點的大型街區(qū)，它只擁有非常小的街區(qū)；以規(guī)劃的說法就是：“被多余的街道拙劣地分割開”。它的建筑也陳舊不堪。NorthEnd本身聯(lián)想得到的每一件事大概都是錯誤的。以規(guī)劃的科班術(shù)語來說，它是一本關(guān)于“特大城市(理論)”在過去衰落階段的立體教科書。NorthEnd也因而被反復作為麻省理工學院和哈佛規(guī)劃建筑專業(yè)學生的作業(yè)，在老師的指導下，學生們堅持不懈地在紙上把它變得擁有車輛禁行區(qū)和公園散步場所，去除其不適宜的用途，把它轉(zhuǎn)變成一個秩序井然和優(yōu)雅高尚的理想典范，做起來好象簡單得微不足道。(2002.2.20leonx譯)WhenIsawtheNorthEndagainin1959,Iwasamazedatthechange.Dozensanddozensofbuildingshadbeenrehabilitated.InsteadofmattressesagainstthewindowstherewereVenetianblindsandglimpsesoffreshpaint.Manyofthesmall,convertedhousesnowhadonlyoneortwofamiliesintheminsteadoftheoldcrowdedthreeorfour.Someofthefamiliesinthetenements(asIlearnedlater,visitinginside)haduncrowdedthemselvesbythrowingtwoolderapartmentstogether,andhadequippedthesewithbathrooms,newkitchensandthelike.Ilookeddownanarrowalley,thinkingtofindatleastheretheold,squalidNorthEnd,butno:moreneatlyrepointedbrickwork,newblinds,andaburstofmusicasadooropened.Indeed,thiswastheonlycitydistrictIhadeverseen—orhaveseentothisday—inwhichthesidesofbuildingsaroundparkinglotshadnotbeenleftrawandamputated,butrepairedandpaintedneatlyasiftheywereintendedtobeseen.Mingledallamongthebuildingsforlivingwereanincrediblenumberofsplendidfoodstores,aswellassuchenterprisesasupholsterymaking,metalworking,carpentry,foodprocessing.Thestreetswerealivewithchildrenplaying,peopleshopping,peoplestrolling,peopletalking.HaditnotbeenacoldJanuaryday,therewouldsurelyhavebeenpeoplesitting.(23)當我于1959年再見NORTHEND時，驚訝于她的變化。成打成打的建筑恢復原貌。由外往里看，原本靠窗擺放的床墊被威尼斯風格的窗簾所替代，透過窗簾，可以瞥見墻上清新的油漆。那些原來擠塞著三四個家庭改修過的狹窄的房屋里現(xiàn)在只有一戶或兩戶人家。當我進去拜訪時，我才發(fā)現(xiàn)一些租住在里面的家庭將兩套老公寓連通，使房子更為寬敞，并且還配備了浴室，廚房等等設施。我仔細查看了一條窄窄的過道，希望最起碼能在那兒找到骯臟陳舊NORTHEND的痕跡。但是，所能發(fā)現(xiàn)的是比以前砌得更整潔的磚，嶄新的窗簾和開門時傳來的樂音。事實上，這是我以前見過的或者說是迄今為止見到的唯一一個街區(qū)，在其中，停車場和住宅建筑物之間的空地沒有被廢棄或是隔斷，而是被修葺粉刷一新仿佛有意要人看見。與住宅區(qū)想融合的是多的難以置信的精致的食品店和諸如室內(nèi)裝潢，五金店，木具加工，食品加工等商業(yè)。街道上由于戲耍的孩子，購物和散步的人們而變得生氣盎然。假如現(xiàn)在不是寒冷的一月，那么肯定會有人小坐于此。(2002.2.21qq00612譯)Thegeneralstreetatmosphereofbuoyancy,friendlinessandgoodhealthwassoinfectiousthatIbeganaskingdirectionsofpeoplejustforthefunofgettinginonsometalk.IhadseenalotofBostoninthepastcoupleofdays,mostofitsorelydistressing,andthisstruckme,withrelief,asthehealthiestplaceinthecity.ButIcouldnotimaginewherethemoneyhadcomefromfortherehabilitation,becauseitisalmostimpossibletodaytogetanyappreciablemortgagemoneyindistrictsofAmericancitiesthatarenoteitherhigh-rent,orelseimitationsofsuburbs.Tofindout,Iwentintoabarandrestaurant(whereananimatedconversationaboutfishingwasinprogress)andcalledaBostonplannerIknow.“WhyintheworldareyoudownintheNorthEnd?”hesaid.“Money?Why,nomoneyorworkhasgoneintotheNorthEnd.Nothing'sgoingondownthere.Eventually,yes,butnotyet.That'saslum!”“Itdoesn'tseemlikeasluminthecity.Ithastwohundredandseventy-fivedwellingunitstothenetacre!IhatetoadmitwehaveanythinglikethatinBoston,butit'safact.”“Doyouhaveanyotherfiguresonit?”Iasked.“Yes,funnything.Ithasamongthelowestdelinquency,diseaseandinfantmortalityratesinthecity.Italsohasthelowestratioofrenttoincomeinthecity.Boy,arethosepeoplegettingbargains.Let'ssee...thechildpopulationisjustaboutaverageforthecity,onthenose.Thedeathrateislow,8.8perthousand,againsttheaveragecityrateof11.2.TheTBdeathrateisverylow,lessthan1pertenthousand,can'tunderstandit,it'slowereventhanBrookline's.IntheolddaystheNorthEndusedtobethecity'sworstspotfortuberculosis,butallthathaschanged.Welltheymustbestrongpeople.Ofcourseit'saterribleslum.”（24）大街上輕快，友好，健康的氣氛是如此具有傳染力，以致我開始以問路的方式插入人們的閑聊，享受這份樂趣。在過去的幾天里我見了波士頓不少地方，絕大多數(shù)非常讓人失望，但NORTHEND作為城市中最健康的地方讓我震驚，也令我慰藉。但我不能想象這筆重建資金從何而來。因為現(xiàn)如今在美國，除了高租金區(qū)和仿郊區(qū)的項目，其他的幾乎不可能獲得抵押貸款。為找到答案，我去了間酒吧，也可稱飯店。那兒，一場關(guān)于釣魚的談話正如火如荼地進行著。我給一位認識的波士頓規(guī)劃師掛了電話。（2002.2.22qq00612譯）（25）“你究竟到NORTHEND來做什么?”,他說:“錢?為什么?沒什么錢或是工作投入到NORTHEND.那兒什么都沒發(fā)生.是的,將來會有的,但現(xiàn)在還沒有.那是個貧民窟!”（26）“她看上去并不象貧民窟。她每英畝地有275個單元！我不愿承認我們在波士頓有這樣的地方，但這是事實?！保?7）“你有關(guān)于她的其他數(shù)據(jù)嗎？”我問他。（28）“有，很有趣。她的犯罪率，疾病率，嬰兒死亡率是全城最低的。她的租金與收入比也是最低。嘿，哪兒的人們真可算是揀到便宜貨了。我們來看看。。。人口中，孩子所占的比例與全市平均值持平，剛剛到。死亡率為千分之8.8，與全市平均死亡率千分之11。2比起來，很低。TB死亡率也低，不到千分之一，不可思議,甚至比BROOKLINE還慢。以前NORTHEND是全市最嚴重的肺結(jié)核病高發(fā)點，但所有這一切都改變了。住在那兒的人們身體肯定很強壯。當然她仍然是個可怕的貧民區(qū)”?！癥oushouldhavemoreslumslikethis,”Isaid.“Don'ttellmethereareplanstowipethisout.Yououghttobedownherelearningasmuchasyoucanfromit.”“Iknowhowyoufeel,”hesaid.“Ioftengodowntheremyselfjusttowalkaroundthestreetsandfeelthatwonderful,cheerfulstreetlife.Say,whatyououghttodo,yououghttocomebackandgodowninthesummerifyouthinkit'sfunnow.You‘dbecrazyaboutitinsummer.Butofcoursewehavetorebuilditeventually.We'vegottogetthosepeopleoffthestreets.”(2002.2.18)Herewasacuriousthing.Myfriend'sinstinctstoldhimtheNorthEndwasagoodplace,andhissocialstatisticsconfirmedit.Buteverythinghelearnedasaphysicalplanneraboutwhatisgoodforpeopleandfoodforcityneighborhoods,everythingthatmadehimanexpert,toldhimtheNorthEndhadtobeabadplace.TheleadingBostonsavingsbanker,“aman'wayupthereinthepowerstructure,”towhommyfriendreferredmeformyinquiryaboutthemoney,confirmedwhatIlearned,inthemeantime,frompeopleintheNorthEnd.Themoneyhadnotcomenowknowsenoughaboutplanningtoknowaslumaswellastheplannersdo.“NosenseinlendingmoneyintotheNorthEnd,”thebankersaid.“It'saslum!It'sstillgettingsomeimmigrants!Furthermore,backintheDepressionithadaverylargenumberofforeclosures;badrecord.”(Ihadheardaboutthistoo,inthemeantime,andhowfamilieshadworkedandpooledtheirresourcestobuybacksomeofthoseforeclosedbuildings.)“你們應該有更多像這樣的貧民區(qū)”,我說,”別告訴我你們正計劃清除她.你應該親自下來看看,從中你會發(fā)現(xiàn)許多東西.”“我知你感受”,他說,“我經(jīng)常一個人去那而走走感受那美好快樂的街道生活.看,你該做的是夏天時回來再去那兒,假如你現(xiàn)在覺得很有趣.到那時你會為她瘋狂.但是最終我們?nèi)匀徊坏貌恢亟ㄋ?我們已將居民與一些街道隔離.”(2002.2.25qq00612譯)這是件古怪的事。我朋友的直覺告訴他NORTHEND是個好地方，且他手上的關(guān)于社會方面的數(shù)據(jù)也證明了這點。但是作為一名循規(guī)蹈矩的城市規(guī)劃者，他所學的關(guān)于什么有利于人民，有利于城市周邊地區(qū)發(fā)展的知識和那些使他成為專家的的學識告訴他NORTHEND不得不是個糟糕的地方。(2002.2.27qq00612譯)關(guān)于資金來源問題，那位朋友讓我向波士頓最首要的管理存款業(yè)務的銀行家咨詢，他也是權(quán)力機構(gòu)中舉足輕重的人物。這位銀行家證明了我從NORTHEND里獲悉的情況，資金并不是從銀行系統(tǒng)中而來?，F(xiàn)在的銀行和規(guī)劃師一樣懂得足夠的規(guī)劃知識，知道什么是貧民區(qū)。將錢投入到NORTHEND完全沒有意義?！便y行家說道：她是個貧民窟！而且至今仍有人遷徙進來。更糟糕的是，在經(jīng)濟大蕭條期間，那地區(qū)大量住戶被銀行取消贖回房屋權(quán)，紀錄不良.”(我曾經(jīng)聽說過這消息，并且在那兒參觀時還聽說了人們是如何工作以買回一部分被銀行禁止贖取的樓盤。)。(2002.2.28qq00612譯)Thelargestmortgageloansthathadbeenfedintothisdistrictofsome15,000peopleinthequarter-centurysincetheGreatDepressionwerefor$3,000,thebankertoldme,“andvery,veryfewofthose.”Therehabilitationworkhadbeenalmostentirelyfinancedbybusinessandhousingearningswithinthedistrict,plowedbackin,andbyskilledworkbarteredamongresidentsandrelativesofresidents.BythistimeIknewthatthisinabilitytoborrowforimprovementwasagallingworrytoNorthEnders,andthatfurthermoresomeNorthEnderswereworriedbecauseitseemedimpossibletogetnewbuildingintheareaexceptatthepriceofseeingthemselvesandtheircommunitywipedoutinthefashionofthestudents'dreamsofacityEden,afatewhichtheyknewwasnotacademicbecauseithadalreadysmashedcompletelyasociallysimilar—althoughphysicallymorespacious—nearbydistrictcalledtheWestEnd.Theywereworriedbecausetheywereawarealsothatpatchandfixwithnothingelsecouldnotdoforever.“Anychanceofloansfornewconstructioninthe.NorthEnd?”Iaskedthebanker.“No,absolutelynot!”hesaid,soundingimpatientatmydenseness.“That'saslum!”“經(jīng)濟大蕭條后的25年內(nèi),在這個擁有15000人的地區(qū),最大金額的抵押貸款只有3000元,”銀行家告訴我,“且貸款數(shù)量相當相當少.”重建項目的資金決大多數(shù)來自區(qū)域內(nèi)的商業(yè)和住房供給項目的贏利及再投資所獲的利,還有當?shù)鼐用?居民親戚間的技術(shù)勞動的交換.。(2002.3.1qq00612譯)至此，我終于明白無能貸款進行社區(qū)改建對于北角居民而言的確是一大煩惱，且在未來也不可能修建新建筑，除非以按照學生間流行的伊甸園夢之城將他們的家園完完全全取而代之為代價。北角居民為這樣的命運擔憂，他們已看到所謂伊甸園之城并不是基于學術(shù)上，因為它已徹底瓦解了位于北角附近，與北角社會結(jié)構(gòu)相似雖然空間上要小于北角，名為西角的街區(qū)。北角居民為他們的前景擔憂，他們已意識到僅僅修修補補之類的改建不會一直持續(xù)下去?！坝锌赡転楸苯切陆椖抠J到款嗎？”我問那位銀行家?！安?，絕對不可能！”他說，對于我的重復追問似乎以不耐煩，“那里是貧民區(qū)！”。(2002.4.17qq00612譯)Bankers,likeplanners,havetheoriesaboutcitiesonwhichtheyact.Theyhavegottentheirtheoriesfromthesameintellectualsourcesastheplanners.Bankersandgovernmentadministrativeofficialswhoguaranteemortgagesdonotinventplanningtheoriesnor,surprisingly,eveneconomicdoctrineaboutcities.Theyareenlightenednowadays,andtheypickuptheirideasfromidealists,majornewideasforconsiderablymorethanageneration,theoreticalplanners,financersandbureaucratsarealljustabouteventoday.Andtoputitbluntly,theyareallinthesamestageofelaboratelylearnedsuperstitionasmedicalsciencewasearlyinthelastcentury,whenphysiciansputtheirfaithinbloodletting,todrawouttheevilhumorswhichwerebelievedtocausedisease.Withbloodletting,ittookyearsoflearningtoknowpreciselywhichveins,bywhatrituals,weretobeopenedforwhatsymptoms.Asuperstructureoftechnicalcomplicationwaserectedinsuchdeadpandetailthattheliteraturestillsoundsalmostplausible.However,becausepeople,evenwhentheyarethoroughlyenmeshedindescriptionsofrealitywhichareatvariancewithreality,arestillseldomdevoidofthepowersofobservationandindependentthought,thescienceofbloodletting,overmostofitslongsway,appearsusuallytohavebeentemperedwithacertainamountofcommonsense.Oritwastempereduntilitreacheditshighestpeaksoftechniquein,ofallplaces,theyoungUnitedStates.Bloodlettingwentwildhere.銀行家同規(guī)劃師一樣，對于他們運作的城市有著同樣的認知，如同規(guī)劃師般從豐富的資源里獲悉原理。令人驚奇的是，銀行家與為貸款抵押擔保的政府行政官員既不是規(guī)劃理論的創(chuàng)建者，也不是城市經(jīng)濟學說的著述者。然而現(xiàn)在他們被啟蒙了，從較其晚一輩的理想主義者那兒拾取理論。由于純理論性的城市規(guī)劃學說并不具備大量跨年代的新觀點，規(guī)劃師，金融家和官僚家現(xiàn)如今也只是蠢蠢欲動罷了。(2002.4.21qq00612譯)坦白而言,它們?nèi)慷荚谥T如上世紀早期的醫(yī)學那樣處于過度癡迷于迷信的階段之中,當時,醫(yī)生們相信放血能夠釋放出人體內(nèi)的致病病魔.由于放血這個錯誤的治療手段,醫(yī)生們用了多年才準確地知道,對于什么樣的癥狀,用什么方式,適宜切開什么人體管道.但是一個技術(shù)上的障礙在宏觀結(jié)構(gòu)上已經(jīng)被建立起來,并且有著直觀的細節(jié),所以即使如此糟糕的放血治療仍然聽起來是可行的.因為人們即使耳濡目染在紛繁復雜的對現(xiàn)實的描述中,這些描述是與現(xiàn)實有出入的,人們還是會保有觀察與獨立思考的能力,然而,放血的偽科學在它長年的軌跡中,似乎顯得與常識有一些背道而馳.或是說,它在達到自身技術(shù)的最高峰時,與常識背道而馳.這時候,每一個地方,尤其是美國,放血治療瘋狂地被實踐著.IthadanenormouslyinfluentialproponentinDr.BenjaminRush,stillreveredasthegreateststatesman-physicianofourrevolutionaryandfederalperiods,andageniusofmedicaladministration.Dr.RushGotThingsDone.Amongthethingshegotdone,someofthemgoodanduseful,weretodevelop,practice,teachandspreadthecustomofbloodlettingincaseswhereprudenceormercyhadheretoforerestraineditsuse.Heandhisstudentsdrainedthebloodofveryyoungchildren,ofconsumptives,ofthegreatlyaged,ofalmostanyoneunfortunateenoughtobesickinhisrealmsofinfluence.HisextremepracticesarousedthealarmandhorrorofEuropeanbloodlettingphysicians.Andyetaslateas1851,acommitteeappointedbytheStateLegislatureofNewYorksolemnlydefendedthethoroughgoinguseofbloodletting.Itscathinglyridiculedandcensuredaphysician,WilliamTurner,whohadthetemeritytowriteapamphletcriticizingDr.Rush'sdoctrinesandcalling“thepracticeoftakingbloodindiseasescontrarytocommonsense,togeneralexperience,toenlightenedreasonandtothemanifestlawsofthedivineProvidence.”Sickpeopleneededfortifying,notdraining,saidDr.Turner,andhewassquelchedBenjaminRush醫(yī)生有著極為有影響力的支持呼聲,在我們革命與聯(lián)邦時期,他仍然被視為最偉大的政治家與醫(yī)生,并且是一個天才般的醫(yī)務管理人才.“Rush醫(yī)生能做到”.在他所做的事當中,有一些是好的,有用的,有一些則是在細心和仁慈阻礙了放血治療的傳統(tǒng)時,去發(fā)展,實踐,教育和拓展它.他和他的學生們對幼兒,對老人,對幾乎所有在他的勢力范圍內(nèi)不幸害病的人們放血.他的極端行為激起了歐洲放血醫(yī)師的警覺和恐慌.但是,直到現(xiàn)在1851年,一個由紐約州政府任命的委員會仍然嚴正地為放血的全面應用辯護.WilliamTurner覺得被這個事實嚴重地戲弄與侮辱了,他便勇敢地寫了一個小冊子Rush;批評Rush醫(yī)生的教條和聲稱”放血的實踐有違常識,通常經(jīng)驗,開放的理由與神圣的法律.(2002.7.20Divercity譯)Medicalanalogies,appliedtosocialorganisms,areapttobefarfetched,andthereisnopointinmistakingmammalianchemistryforwhatoccursinacity.Butanalogiesastowhatgoesoninthebrainsofearnestandlearnedmen,dealingwithcomplexphenomenatheydonotunderstandatallandtryingtomakedowithapseudoscience,dohavepoint.Atinthepseudoscienceofbloodletting,justsointhepseudoscienceofcityrebuildingandplanning,yearsoflearningandaplethoraofsubtleandcomplicateddogmahavearisenonafoundationofnonsense.Thetoolsoftechniquehavesteadilybeenperfected.Naturally,intime,forcefulandablemen,admiredadministrators,havingswallowedtheinitialfallaciesandhavingbeenprovisionedwithtoolsandwithpublicconfidenceormercymightpreviouslyhaveforbade.Bloodlettingcouldhealonlybyaccidentorinsofarasitbroketherules,untilthetimewhenitwasabandonedinfavorofthehard,complexbusinessofassembling,usingandtesting,bitbybit,truedescriptionsofrealitydrawnnotfromhowitoughttobe,butfromhowitis.Thepseudoscienceofcityplanninganditscompanion,theartofcitydesign,havenotyetbrokenwiththespeciouscomfortofwishes,familiarsuperstitions,oversimplifications,andsymbols,andhavenotyetembarkedupontheadventureofprobingtherealworld.Sointhisbookweshallstart,ifonlyinasmallway,adventuringintherealworld,ourselves.Thewaytogetatwhatgoesonintheseeminglymysteriousandperversebehaviorofcitiesis,Ithink,tolookclosely,andwithaslittlepreviousexpectationasispossible,atthemostordinaryscenesandevents,andattempttoseewhattheymeanandwhetheranythreadsofprincipleemergeamongthem.ThisiswhatItrytodointhefirstpartofthisbook.醫(yī)學的類比，用于社會組織就不免牽強；而且把哺乳動物的生物化學誤當作城市里發(fā)生的一切也毫無道理。但是將這個類比用于熱誠有識之士的所思所想，面對他們不能理解的復雜現(xiàn)象而試圖以偽科學來解釋，就很有幾分道理。就如在放血療法這一偽科學中一樣，城市改造和規(guī)劃方面的偽科學中，積累經(jīng)年的學識和連篇累櫝的復雜微妙的教條完全建立在荒謬的基礎上。技術(shù)手段不斷穩(wěn)步完善著。自然而然地，隨著時間，強干的人們，令人仰慕的管理者們，把最初的謬見囫圇吞下，并被供以工具、公眾信心以及曾被禁止的仁慈。放血療法能夠奏效僅只因為機緣巧合，或者某種程度上突破成規(guī)；它一點一點直至某一天終被拋棄--感謝艱辛繁復的調(diào)配、使用和檢測工作--對現(xiàn)實的正確描述來自于“它究竟如何”，而非“它應該如何”。城市規(guī)劃的偽科學以及與其相伴的城市設計藝術(shù)，還沒有告別偽善的祝頌安慰、常見的迷信、過度的簡單化以及符號，還沒有踏上探索真實世界的冒險征程。因此在本書我們將開始--哪怕僅僅是從很小的方面--探索真實世界的，我們自己的冒險歷程。通向了解看來神秘的和行為乖張的城市的路徑，我以為，是近距離觀察；先入之見越少越好，于最尋常的景象和事件中，嘗試理解其中意義，以及其間有否出現(xiàn)有關(guān)原理的任何線?/font>Oneprincipleemergessoubiquitously,andinsomanyandsuchcomplexdifferentform