?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 magazin es. 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。文化中心里不能找到一个好的书店。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.一群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骗局.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群落的质量,必要性,优点和表征完全混淆在一起了. (2002.2.15 qq00612 译)