美國(guó)大城市的生與死(中英文)

#theseattributes.(2002.2.8)?美國(guó)大城市的生與死?(THEDEATHANDLIFEOFGREATAMRICANCITIES)美國(guó)女作家簡(jiǎn).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(shū)。應(yīng)該說(shuō)書(shū)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(xué)校里所傳授的東西，不同于周日特刊的計(jì)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(yǔ)為基礎(chǔ)，也不是對(duì)設(shè)計(jì)的時(shí)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(xiě)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(zhǎng)久保持原樣有些不顧財(cái)政和政府的反對(duì)不斷生成；是什么讓城市不斷變換他們的中心；什么是一個(gè)城市的臨近地區(qū)，它有擔(dān)當(dāng)了什么樣的一種職能。簡(jiǎn)而言之，我要寫(xiě)的是城市在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中是如何運(yùn)作的，因?yàn)檫@是學(xué)習(xí)規(guī)劃原則和怎樣用改建來(lái)提升城市的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)活力的唯一方法，通過(guò)這樣的學(xué)習(xí)，也能知道什么樣的原則和實(shí)踐會(huì)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(jí)，沉淀及其附帶的游離資金，這樣甚至可以解決交通問(wèn)題。（2002.2.10永遠(yuǎn)的埃及譯）（4）現(xiàn)在看看我們用一開(kāi)始的幾十億作了什么：低收入居民區(qū)變成了錯(cuò)誤，破壞藝術(shù)行為和社會(huì)絕望的中心，代替了貧民窟給社會(huì)帶來(lái)的影響。中層收入居民區(qū)的無(wú)趣和對(duì)一切輕快和有活力的城市生活的管轄讓人覺(jué)得驚奇。奢華的小別墅妄圖用一種粗俗的設(shè)計(jì)手法區(qū)減輕他們的愚蠢。文化中心里不能找到一個(gè)好的書(shū)店。除了流浪漢誰(shuí)都不愿意去城市中心，因?yàn)槟抢锸巧贁?shù)幾個(gè)能供他們閑逛的場(chǎng)所。商業(yè)中心是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的郊區(qū)連鎖店的翻版。散步道不知位于何處，當(dāng)然見(jiàn)不到散步的人，高速公路變成了城市的精華部分。這不是對(duì)城市的改造，這是對(duì)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(shí)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?chē)黾有碌某鞘协h(huán)境.相反,這些從城市機(jī)體上截下來(lái)的部分往往發(fā)育成急性壞疽:在時(shí)尚的規(guī)劃指導(dǎo)下,居民人口被貼上價(jià)格的標(biāo)簽,塞進(jìn)某處組團(tuán).而每一坨甄選出來(lái)帶著價(jià)標(biāo)的人口,則在與周?chē)菂^(qū)日益增長(zhǎng)的懷疑與緊張關(guān)系中生長(zhǎng).如果兩個(gè)以上的互含敵意的組團(tuán)被擱在了一起,那么我們就得到了一個(gè)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(jì)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(guò)之后Spade譯）（6）這種奇跡或許可以實(shí)現(xiàn),然而那些標(biāo)上了規(guī)劃師們具有蠱惑力的標(biāo)志（注:猜想可能是指所住區(qū)域被規(guī)劃）的人們?cè)馀艛D,家園被略?shī)Z,最終背井離鄉(xiāng),就像是好勝心下的戰(zhàn)利品.成千上萬(wàn)的小商業(yè)被毀,它們的經(jīng)營(yíng)者遭損失.但幾乎沒(méi)有得到補(bǔ)償?shù)嫩E象.而整體社區(qū)被分裂,象種子般在風(fēng)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(wèn)道:（7）當(dāng)Job寫(xiě)下以下篇章時(shí),是否聯(lián)想到了芝加哥:（8）這兒的人們改變著周邊標(biāo)志性建筑物.排擠著窮人,聯(lián)和壓迫著無(wú)依無(wú)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(dāng)方式從別處掠奪來(lái)的葡萄園…受傷的人們躺在城市街道上呻吟著,傳來(lái)陣陣哭泣聲.假若Job想到了芝加哥，那他也想到了紐約,費(fèi)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(jì)原理只是一騙局.當(dāng)前的城市重建經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)并不像城市更新理論所宣揚(yáng)的，真正有效地建立在公民稅收津貼的合理投資基礎(chǔ)之上，而是依賴(lài)于從貧苦區(qū)里受害者處強(qiáng)行壓榨來(lái)的巨額的津貼.為克服城市大改革所帶來(lái)的分裂及不穩(wěn)定性，公共資金永遠(yuǎn)供不應(yīng)求，而越來(lái)越多從貧苦區(qū)里得來(lái)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(lái)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(shí),城市規(guī)劃理論與藝術(shù)對(duì)于城市局部地區(qū)的衰退無(wú)能為力這種早在城市衰退之前便產(chǎn)生的無(wú)能甚至在范圍較廣的示范區(qū)亦無(wú)可耐何.城市規(guī)劃藝術(shù)運(yùn)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(huì)發(fā)生的.想想紐約的MorningsideHeights依照規(guī)劃理論，本該沒(méi)有任何問(wèn)題的.因?yàn)樗龘碛袑挸ǖ耐＼?chē)場(chǎng)地，校園，操場(chǎng)及一個(gè)河景怡人的游戲場(chǎng)所.她還聚集了世界頂級(jí)的大學(xué)和研究機(jī)構(gòu)—哥倫比亞大學(xué)，神學(xué)研究學(xué)會(huì)，朱利葉德音樂(lè)學(xué)院及其他6個(gè)杰出的廣受尊敬的教研機(jī)構(gòu).她享有設(shè)備完善的醫(yī)院和宗教服務(wù).她沒(méi)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(jí)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(wèn)題.他們與政府規(guī)劃部門(mén)合作，應(yīng)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(gòu)物中心面向中等收入階層的安居工程和另一個(gè)公眾安居項(xiàng)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(gè)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(gè)例子既不是不公正的，也不是同其他城市不相關(guān)的。一個(gè)城市接著一個(gè)城市，在規(guī)劃理論指導(dǎo)下，那些精確規(guī)劃了的區(qū)域正在衰退；一個(gè)城市接著一個(gè)城市，在規(guī)劃理論指導(dǎo)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(gè)巨大的實(shí)驗(yàn)室，其內(nèi)可以反復(fù)試驗(yàn)城市營(yíng)造和城市設(shè)計(jì)的成功與失敗。正是在這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室里，城市規(guī)劃應(yīng)該不斷學(xué)習(xí)，自我完善和自我約束（如果可以這樣稱(chēng)呼的話）。恰恰相反，正是這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室忽略了對(duì)現(xiàn)時(shí)生活中成敗的研究；正是這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室漠視了意外成功之緣由；也正是這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室，只是在從城鎮(zhèn)，郊區(qū)，修養(yǎng)地，集會(huì)及夢(mèng)幻城的行為與表象演繹得來(lái)的信條的指導(dǎo)下或者說(shuō)任何方面的指導(dǎo)下來(lái)運(yùn)行，而不是由城市本身領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下運(yùn)行。（2002.2.14qq00612譯）（16）即便城市重建部分和無(wú)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(wú)營(yíng)養(yǎng)的稀粥的情形,也不足為奇.就算是碗長(zhǎng)智力的玉米粥,它也只是按首要,次要,再次,更次來(lái)考慮問(wèn)題.在這碗玉米粥里,大城市的質(zhì)量,必要性,優(yōu)點(diǎn)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(diǎn)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(duì)于舊城衰敗和新近城市化地區(qū)剛開(kāi)始的衰退,經(jīng)濟(jì)因素與社會(huì)因素從來(lái)都是貫穿其中。相反,在整整25年里再也沒(méi)有其他方面像經(jīng)濟(jì)與社會(huì)這兩只手那樣一心一意地致力將城市建設(shè)成現(xiàn)在這樣。大量的政府財(cái)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(lái)，專(zhuān)家們的說(shuō)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(chē)的不是。但與其說(shuō)汽車(chē)是造成這種局面的原因，還不如說(shuō)是我們?cè)诔鞘薪ㄔO(shè)方面無(wú)能的一種表征。當(dāng)然規(guī)劃者，包括擁有驚人錢(qián)財(cái)和龐大處置權(quán)的攔路搶劫犯，都不知如何使小汽車(chē)同城市相互兼容。他們不知如何對(duì)付城市里的汽車(chē)問(wèn)題因?yàn)樗麄儾恢绾我?guī)劃運(yùn)行良好，充滿活力的城市—無(wú)論小汽車(chē)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(chē)的簡(jiǎn)單需求比起城市的復(fù)雜要求來(lái)，更容易被理解和滿足。并且越來(lái)越多的城市規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)師相信只要他們能解決交通問(wèn)題，那么他們就能解決城市的主要問(wèn)題。城市里存在著比汽車(chē)交通更為錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)問(wèn)題。在你明白城市自身如何運(yùn)作及她還需要哪些來(lái)維護(hù)城市道路之前，你豈能了解怎樣處理交通問(wèn)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(wú)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(lái)的那種效果簡(jiǎn)單而快捷。如果是這樣的話，我們的城市就幾乎沒(méi)什么希望，或者可能連我們社會(huì)中其它許多的事物也將如此。但我認(rèn)為事實(shí)并非如此。尤其是,就城市規(guī)劃來(lái)說(shuō),顯然有很多的善良熱心的人們深切關(guān)心城市的建設(shè)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(shí)，人們對(duì)我們城市規(guī)劃造成的爛攤子的種種改造設(shè)想，總的說(shuō)來(lái)，可以作為我們的榜樣。(不過(guò))城市規(guī)劃師、建筑師以及在他們觀念影響下引導(dǎo)的那些人并非有意蔑視實(shí)事求是的重要性。相反，他們?cè)?jīng)不辭辛勞地去掌握當(dāng)代正統(tǒng)的規(guī)劃理論的圣賢們的理論，關(guān)于城市應(yīng)當(dāng)怎樣運(yùn)作,以及怎樣做才是對(duì)城市中的人們及事物有益的。他們對(duì)這類(lèi)理論深信不疑，以至于當(dāng)事實(shí)與理論截然相反，并有可能打破他們好不容易學(xué)到的東西時(shí)，他們就理所應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)匕咽聦?shí)拋在了一邊。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(duì)波士頓一個(gè)稱(chēng)為NorthEnd的街區(qū)的分析為例，來(lái)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(rèn)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(rèn)為丑惡的特性因?yàn)槟敲炊嗟母呙魅耸慷颊f(shuō)過(guò)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(dòng)以最復(fù)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(dòng)和其居住區(qū)以最復(fù)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(shí)上也是在美國(guó)任何城市中所能找到的最密集的居住區(qū)之一。它幾乎沒(méi)什么公用場(chǎng)地。孩子們都在大街上玩耍。沒(méi)什么(大型)車(chē)輛禁行區(qū)甚至象樣一點(diǎn)的大型街區(qū)，它只擁有非常小的街區(qū)；以規(guī)劃的說(shuō)法就是：“被多余的街道拙劣地分割開(kāi)”。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(cuò)誤的。以規(guī)劃的科班術(shù)語(yǔ)來(lái)說(shuō)，它是一本關(guān)于“特大城市(理論)”在過(guò)去衰落階段的立體教科書(shū)。NorthEnd也因而被反復(fù)作為麻省理工學(xué)院和哈佛規(guī)劃建筑專(zhuān)業(yè)學(xué)生的作業(yè)，在老師的指導(dǎo)下，學(xué)生們堅(jiān)持不懈地在紙上把它變得擁有車(chē)輛禁行區(qū)和公園散步場(chǎng)所，去除其不適宜的用途，把它轉(zhuǎn)變成一個(gè)秩序井然和優(yōu)雅高尚的理想典范，做起來(lái)好象簡(jiǎn)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(dāng)我于1959年再見(jiàn)NORTHEND時(shí)，驚訝于她的變化。成打成打的建筑恢復(fù)原貌。由外往里看，原本靠窗擺放的床墊被威尼斯風(fēng)格的窗簾所替代，透過(guò)窗簾，可以瞥見(jiàn)墻上清新的油漆。那些原來(lái)擠塞著三四個(gè)家庭改修過(guò)的狹窄的房屋里現(xiàn)在只有一戶或兩戶人家。當(dāng)我進(jìn)去拜訪時(shí)，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(shè)施。我仔細(xì)查看了一條窄窄的過(guò)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(kāi)門(mén)時(shí)傳來(lái)的樂(lè)音。事實(shí)上，這是我以前見(jiàn)過(guò)的或者說(shuō)是迄今為止見(jiàn)到的唯一一個(gè)街區(qū)，在其中，停車(chē)場(chǎng)和住宅建筑物之間的空地沒(méi)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(jiàn)。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(gòu)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(huì)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(kāi)始以問(wèn)路的方式插入人們的閑聊，享受這份樂(lè)趣。在過(guò)去的幾天里我見(jiàn)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(lái)。因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)如今在美國(guó)，除了高租金區(qū)和仿郊區(qū)的項(xiàng)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(chēng)飯店。那兒，一場(chǎng)關(guān)于釣魚(yú)的談話正如火如荼地進(jìn)行著。我給一位認(rèn)識(shí)的波士頓規(guī)劃師掛了電話。（2002.2.22qq00612譯）（25）“你究竟到NORTHEND來(lái)做什么?”,他說(shuō):“錢(qián)?為什么?沒(méi)什么錢(qián)或是工作投入到NORTHEND.那兒什么都沒(méi)發(fā)生.是的,將來(lái)會(huì)有的,但現(xiàn)在還沒(méi)有.那是個(gè)貧民窟!”（26）“她看上去并不象貧民窟。她每英畝地有275個(gè)單元！我不愿承認(rèn)我們?cè)诓ㄊ款D有這樣的地方，但這是事實(shí)。”（27）“你有關(guān)于她的其他數(shù)據(jù)嗎？”我問(wèn)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(lái)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(lái)，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(yán)重的肺結(jié)核病高發(fā)點(diǎn)，但所有這一切都改變了。住在那兒的人們身體肯定很強(qiáng)壯。當(dāng)然她仍然是個(gè)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(yīng)該有更多像這樣的貧民區(qū)”,我說(shuō),”別告訴我你們正計(jì)劃清除她.你應(yīng)該親自下來(lái)看看,從中你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)許多東西.”“我知你感受”,他說(shuō),“我經(jīng)常一個(gè)人去那而走走感受那美好快樂(lè)的街道生活.看,你該做的是夏天時(shí)回來(lái)再去那兒,假如你現(xiàn)在覺(jué)得很有趣.到那時(shí)你會(huì)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(jué)告訴他NORTHEND是個(gè)好地方，且他手上的關(guān)于社會(huì)方面的數(shù)據(jù)也證明了這點(diǎn)。但是作為一名循規(guī)蹈矩的城市規(guī)劃者，他所學(xué)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(shí)和那些使他成為專(zhuān)家的的學(xué)識(shí)告訴他NORTHEND不得不是個(gè)糟糕的地方。(2002.2.27qq00612譯)關(guān)于資金來(lái)源問(wèn)題，那位朋友讓我向波士頓最首要的管理存款業(yè)務(wù)的銀行家咨詢(xún)，他也是權(quán)力機(jī)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(lái)?，F(xiàn)在的銀行和規(guī)劃師一樣懂得足夠的規(guī)劃知識(shí)，知道什么是貧民區(qū)。將錢(qián)投入到NORTHEND完全沒(méi)有意義?！便y行家說(shuō)道：她是個(gè)貧民窟！而且至今仍有人遷徙進(jìn)來(lái)。更糟糕的是，在經(jīng)濟(jì)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(jì)錄不良.”(我曾經(jīng)聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)這消息，并且在那兒參觀時(shí)還聽(tīng)說(shuō)了人們是如何工作以買(mǎi)回一部分被銀行禁止贖取的樓盤(pán)。)。(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(jì)大蕭條后的25年內(nèi),在這個(gè)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(dāng)相當(dāng)少.”重建項(xiàng)目的資金決大多數(shù)來(lái)自區(qū)域內(nèi)的商業(yè)和住房供給項(xiàng)目的贏利及再投資所獲的利,還有當(dāng)?shù)鼐用?居民親戚間的技術(shù)勞動(dòng)的交換.。(2002.3.1qq00612譯)至此，我終于明白無(wú)能貸款進(jìn)行社區(qū)改建對(duì)于北角居民而言的確是一大煩惱，且在未來(lái)也不可能修建新建筑，除非以按照學(xué)生間流行的伊甸園夢(mèng)之城將他們的家園完完全全取而代之為代價(jià)。北角居民為這樣的命運(yùn)擔(dān)憂，他們已看到所謂伊甸園之城并不是基于學(xué)術(shù)上，因?yàn)樗褟氐淄呓饬宋挥诒苯歉浇c北角社會(huì)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(dān)憂，他們已意識(shí)到僅僅修修補(bǔ)補(bǔ)之類(lèi)的改建不會(huì)一直持續(xù)下去?！坝锌赡転楸苯切陆?xiàng)目貸到款嗎？”我問(wèn)那位銀行家?！安?，絕對(duì)不可能！”他說(shuō)，對(duì)于我的重復(fù)追問(wèn)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(duì)于他們運(yùn)作的城市有著同樣的認(rèn)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(dān)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(jì)學(xué)說(shuō)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(xué)說(shuō)并不具備大量跨年代的新觀點(diǎn)，規(guī)劃師，金融家和官僚家現(xiàn)如今也只是蠢蠢欲動(dòng)罷了。(2002.4.21qq00612譯)坦白而言,它們?nèi)慷荚谥T如上世紀(jì)早期的醫(yī)學(xué)那樣處于過(guò)度癡迷于迷信的階段之中,當(dāng)時(shí),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(gè)錯(cuò)誤的治療手段,醫(yī)生們用了多年才準(zhǔn)確地知道,對(duì)于什么樣的癥狀,用什么方式,適宜切開(kāi)什么人體管道.但是一個(gè)技術(shù)上的障礙在宏觀結(jié)構(gòu)上已經(jīng)被建立起來(lái),并且有著直觀的細(xì)節(jié),所以即使如此糟糕的放血治療仍然聽(tīng)起來(lái)是可行的.因?yàn)槿藗兗词苟δ咳驹诩姺睆?fù)雜的對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的描述中,這些描述是與現(xiàn)實(shí)有出入的,人們還是會(huì)保有觀察與獨(dú)立思考的能力,然而,放血的偽科學(xué)在它長(zhǎng)年的軌跡中,似乎顯得與常識(shí)有一些背道而馳.或是說(shuō),它在達(dá)到自身技術(shù)的最高峰時(shí),與常識(shí)背道而馳.這時(shí)候,每一個(gè)地方,尤其是美國(guó),放血治療瘋狂地被實(shí)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(shí)期,他仍然被視為最偉大的政治家與醫(yī)生,并且是一個(gè)天才般的醫(yī)務(wù)管理人才.“Rush醫(yī)生能做到”.在他所做的事當(dāng)中,有一些是好的,有用的,有一些則是在細(xì)心和仁慈阻礙了放血治療的傳統(tǒng)時(shí),去發(fā)展,實(shí)踐,教育和拓展它.他和他的學(xué)生們對(duì)幼兒,對(duì)老人,對(duì)幾乎所有在他的勢(shì)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(jué)和恐慌.但是,直到現(xiàn)在1851年,一個(gè)由紐約州政府任命的委員會(huì)仍然嚴(yán)正地為放血的全面應(yīng)用辯護(hù).WilliamTurner覺(jué)得被這個(gè)事實(shí)嚴(yán)重地戲弄與侮辱了,他便勇敢地寫(xiě)了一個(gè)小冊(cè)子Rush;批評(píng)Rush醫(yī)生的教條和聲稱(chēng)”放血的實(shí)踐有違常識(shí),通常經(jīng)驗(yàn),開(kāi)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(xué)的類(lèi)比，用于社會(huì)組織就不免牽強(qiáng)；而且把哺乳動(dòng)物的生物化學(xué)誤當(dāng)作城市里發(fā)生的一切也毫無(wú)道理。但是將這個(gè)類(lèi)比用于熱誠(chéng)有識(shí)之士的所思所想，面對(duì)他們不能理解的復(fù)雜現(xiàn)象而試圖以偽科學(xué)來(lái)解釋?zhuān)秃苡袔追值览怼＞腿缭诜叛煼ㄟ@一偽科學(xué)中一樣，城市改造和規(guī)劃方面的偽科學(xué)中，積累經(jīng)年的學(xué)識(shí)和連篇累櫝的復(fù)雜微妙的教條完全建立在荒謬的基礎(chǔ)上。技術(shù)手段不斷穩(wěn)步完善著。自然而然地，隨著時(shí)間，強(qiáng)干的人們，令人仰慕的管理者們，把最初的謬見(jiàn)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?yàn)闄C(jī)緣巧合，或者某種程度上突破成規(guī)；它一點(diǎn)一點(diǎn)直至某一天終被拋棄--感謝艱辛繁復(fù)的調(diào)配、使用和檢測(cè)工作--對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的正確描述來(lái)自于“它究竟如何”，而非“它應(yīng)該如何”。城市規(guī)劃的偽科學(xué)以及與其相伴的城市設(shè)計(jì)藝術(shù)，還沒(méi)有告別偽善的祝頌安慰、常見(jiàn)的迷信、過(guò)度的簡(jiǎn)單化以及符號(hào)，還沒(méi)有踏上探索真實(shí)世界的冒險(xiǎn)征程。因此在本書(shū)我們將開(kāi)始--哪怕僅僅是從很小的方面--探索真實(shí)世界的，我們自己的冒險(xiǎn)歷程。通向了解看來(lái)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(jiàn)越少越好，于最尋常的景象和事件中，嘗試?yán)斫馄渲幸饬x，以及其間有否出現(xiàn)有關(guān)原理的任何線?/font>Oneprincipleemergessoubiquitously,andinsomanyandsuchcomplexdifferentform