美国大城市的死与生最终版

导言作者简明阐述了过去三个城市规划的所谓正统理论，并且指出各理论和实践的问题，对其进行了批判，挑战了长久以来行政者、资本家和规划者对城市建设的理论，提出城市规划治理的核心是城市内部诸要素相互联系的运行机制，规划建设应让城市内部运作达到和谐，而并非单纯注重城市的外在表现。

（花园城市：外围被农业带包围，工业部署在规定区域内，学校、住宅区、绿化带放在生活区，城市公共中心区域里是商业、俱乐部和文化设施。

小城及其绿化带在整体上由一个公共当局控制，城市在其领导下，避免土地使用投机化和所谓非理性变化，消除人口密度增长的企图，人口控制在30000以内。

霍华德认为处理城市功能的方法是分离或分类全部的简单的用途，并以相对的自我封闭的方式来安排这些用途。

）第一部分城市的特性一人行道用途：安全二人行道用途：交往三人行道用途：孩子的同化维护城市的安全是一个城市的街道和人行道的根本任务。

一个成功的城市地区的基本原则是人们在街上身处陌生人之间时必须能感到人身安全，必须不会潜意识感觉受到陌生人的威胁。

造成这种恐惧的野蛮行为或现实而不是想象中的不安全现象不能只归咎于贫民区。

也不能把这个问题归咎于城市的老区。

文明和安全的程度是大不相同的。

不安全这个问题不能通过分散人群，降低稠密度，用郊区的特征来取代城市的特征的方法来解决。

在公共空间与私人空间之间必须要界线分明，不能像郊区的住宅区那样混合在一起。

必须要有一些眼睛盯着街道，（建筑物）它们必须面向街面，不能背向街面，使街道失去保护的眼睛。

人行道上必须总有行人，这样既可以增添看着街面的眼睛的数量，也可以吸引更多的人从楼里往街上看。

从表面上看，我们似乎有一些简单明确的目标：确保街道上的公共空间明确无误，与私人的或什么也不是的空间划清真正的界线。

这样，那些需要监视的地方就会有一个清楚、适用的范围。

另外就是要确保这些公共街道地带有人在监视，并尽量持续不断。

满足这种监视的条件是要在沿着人行道的边上三三两两地布置足够数量的商业点和其他公共场所，尤其是晚上或夜间开放的一些商店和公共场所。

城市消亡记录1.废弃之城：布里夫维尔布里夫维尔被称作“废弃之城”，曾是美国科罗拉多州的一个繁荣的煤矿城市。

19世纪末，布里夫维尔因煤矿业的发展而繁荣起来，成为了美国西部的重要经济中心。

然而，随着20世纪的到来，煤矿业的衰落导致了布里夫维尔的衰落。

煤矿业的萎缩使得城市的经济发展遭受重创，大量的居民离开了这座城市，导致了房屋和商业建筑的空置。

如今，布里夫维尔已成为一座废弃之城，只有少数居民居住在这里，大部分地区已经被荒废。

2.自然灾害：废弃之城——普罗玛蒂克普罗玛蒂克曾是意大利南部的一个繁荣的城市，但在17世纪末遭受了一次可怕的地震袭击后，这座城市已经被废弃。

地震导致了城市大部分建筑的倒塌，许多居民不得不撤离，并在其他地方重新开始他们的生活。

尽管有些人试图重建这座城市，但由于地质灾害频发，城市的繁荣已经成为历史的遗迹。

如今，普罗玛蒂克成为一座废弃之城，它的残骸成为了历史和地质学研究的宝贵资源。

3.环境污染：废弃之城——普安弗兰斯普安弗兰斯曾是法国的一个著名的工业城市，但由于环境污染问题，这座城市已经被废弃。

20世纪初，普安弗兰斯是法国的钢铁工业中心，城市的经济以及人口都得到了快速的增长。

然而，在工业化进程中，城市的环境遭受了严重的破坏，大气污染、水污染以及土壤污染严重影响了居民的生活质量。

由于环境污染问题长期得不到解决，大量居民离开了这座城市，使得普安弗兰斯逐渐成为一座废弃之城。

4.战争破坏：废弃之城——科尔科瓦科尔科瓦曾是克罗地亚的一个繁华的港口城市，但在克罗地亚独立战争中遭受了重大的破坏，这座城市已经被废弃。

科尔科瓦作为克罗地亚的港口城市，在独立战争中遭受了塞尔维亚军队的严重轰炸，许多建筑被摧毁，大量的居民被迫逃离。

尽管战争结束后，一些居民试图重建这座城市，但由于经济发展的滞后以及大量建筑的损毁，科尔科瓦已经无法再次成为一个繁华的城市，只能成为一座废弃之城。

5.经济衰退：废弃之城——底特律底特律曾是美国汽车工业的中心，但随着汽车工业的衰退，这座城市已经被废弃。

美国大城市的生长与消亡简·雅各布斯主要内容自1961年出版以来，这本书即成为城市研究和城市规划领域的经典名作，对当时美国有关都市复兴和城市未来的争论产生了持久而深刻的影响。

作者以纽约、芝加哥等美国大城市为例，深入考察了都市结构的基本元素以及它们在城市生活中发挥功能的方式，挑战了传统的城市规划理论，使我们对城市的复杂性和城市应有的发展取向加深了理解，也为评估城市的活力提供了一个基本框架。

作者简介简·雅各布斯（1916-2006），出生于美国宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿，早年做过记者、速记员和自由撰稿人，1952年任《建筑论坛》助理编辑。

在负责报道城市重建计划的过程中，她逐渐对传统的城市规划观念发生了怀疑，并由此写作了《美国大城市的死与生》一书。

1968年迁居多伦多，此后她在有关发展的问题上扮演了积极的角色，并担任城市规划与居住政策改革的顾问。

1974年成为加拿大公民。

她的著作还有《城市经济学》（1969）、《分离主义的问题。

（1980）、，城市与国家的财富》（1984）、《生存系统》（1993）。

目录导言 (1)第一部分城市的特性 (023)一人行道的用途：安全 (025)二人行道的用途：交往 (048)三人行道的用途：孩子的同化 (066)四街区公园的用途 (079)五城市街区的用途 (100)第二部分城市多样化的条件 (127)六产生多样性的因素 (129)七主要用途混合之必要性 (137)八小街段之必要 (161)九老建筑之必要 (170)十密度之需要 (182)十一有关多样性的一些神话 (201)第三部分衰退和更新的势力 (217)十二多样性的自我毁灭 (219)十三交界真空带的危害 (234)十四非贫民区化和贫民区化 (246)十五渐次性资金和急剧性资金 (267)第四部分不同的策略 (291)十六对住宅的资助 (293)十七被蚕食的城市与对汽车的限制 (309)十八视觉秩序：局限性和可能性 (341)十九拯救和利用廉租住宅区 (360)二十地区管理和规划 (372)二十一城市的问题所在 (393)致谢 (412)索引 (414)。

读书笔记——读《美国大城市的死与生》第一篇：读书笔记——读《美国大城市的死与生》读书笔记——读《美国大城市的死与生》【摘要】：本文为看规划界的著作《美国大城市的死与生》一书后的读书心得。

文章对《美国大城市的死与生》的写作背景、作者简.雅各布斯的情况进行了简单综述；进而对书本中4个部分的主要内容及观点进行了解读；此外，描述了此书对笔者所产生的一些启示及思考，并用书中的方法分析了笔者曾经生活了五年的城市——广州的一些典型公共空间。

1.《美国大城市的死与生》的写作背景1961年，简.雅各布斯出版了她的名著《美国大城市的死与生》（The Death and Life of Great American Cities）。

这本书产生的时代背景，可以追溯到第二次世界大战后西方工业化国家开始出现的人口生育高峰，并由此带来的一系列对基础设施和社会服务的需求。

就美国而言，城镇化进程继续加快，大都会地区进一步形成，原有的、以开发建设为主体的综合规划体系及其理论在新的需求冲击下不知所措。

伴随着郊区的发展，美国大城市普遍出现了城市中心区衰败的现象。

面对“规划师们”采用传统现代城市规划和重建改造正统理论的原则来解决城市更新和改造的问题，作者站在一个普通公众或社会工作者的立场，通过自己的观察与思考，对现代城市规划和城市建设进行了猛烈的抨击，并提出了一些基于社会和经济考虑的城市规划思想。

2.作者简介本书作者：简.雅各布斯Jacobs, Jane(1916-2006)简·雅各布斯1916年生于美国宾夕法尼亚州一个小镇斯克兰顿，她家族中几代女子都与男性一样拥有职业，而且大多数是教师。

在她的家庭中女孩和男孩被同等对待，家族的这一传统塑造了她果敢而特立独行的性格。

中学毕业后雅各布斯不愿去上大学，在接受了一段时间的速记员培训后，她却去了当地的一家报纸《斯克兰顿论坛》做义务记者。

经济大萧条时期她去了纽约，为时尚杂志《Vogue》撰稿。

《美国大城市的死与生》
钟广丽
【期刊名称】《建筑技艺》
【年(卷),期】2006(141)006
【摘要】《美国大城市的死与生》不只是一本探讨现代城镇规划的书，这是一本
关于城市——城市的生命、城市的经济的书。

这本书自1961年出版以来．就成
为城市研究和城市规划领域的经典名作。

在书中，简·雅各布斯并非从专业规划师
的角度，而是以一个普通市民的角度，用眼睛，用直觉，用心灵观察她所在的城市，并提出一些问题：什么使得街道安全或不安全，什么样的城市才是充满活力的，什么使得城市的多样性面临自我毁灭．为什么有的街区仍然贫困而有些却获得新生与活力？这些问题确实足以令踌躇满志的现代城市的规划师发以深省。

【总页数】1页(P32)
【作者】钟广丽
【作者单位】无
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】TU984
【相关文献】
1.《美国大城市的死与生》对我国城市发展启示研究 [J], 梁敏
2.当下中国需要怎样的城市--再读《美国大城市的死与生》有感 [J], 朱凯;隆垚;王嘉
3.关于城市街区人行道功能的认识--读《美国大城市的死与生》有感 [J], 易秋丽;许可
4.《美国大城市的死与生》书评 [J], 黄江松
5.《美国大城市的死与生》读后感 [J], 毛彦琪
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。

美国大城市的生与死(中英文)«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 a nd 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。

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv The Death and Life of Great American Cities美国大城市的死与生 读书笔记一、作者简介及写作原因：简·雅各布斯（1916-2006）1916年出生于美国宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿，早年做过记者、速记员和自由撰稿人，1952年任《建筑论坛》助理编辑。

在负责报道城市重建计划的过程中，她逐渐对传统的城市规划观念发生了怀疑，并由此写作了《美国大城市的死与生》一书。

1968年迁居多伦多，此后她在有关发展的问题上扮演了积极的角色，并担任城市规划与居住政策改革的顾问。

此文是对当下城市规划和重建理论的抨击。

同时,更主要的也是尝试引介一些城市规划和重建的新原则,这些原则与现在被教授的那些东西——从建筑和规划的流派到周末增刊以及女性杂志——不同,甚至相反。

我所进行的抨击不是对重建改造方法的一些不痛不痒的批评,或对城市设计形式的吹毛求疵。

恰恰相反,我要抨击的是那些统治现代城市规划和重建改造正统理论的原则和目的。

在叙述不同的原则时,我主要要讲述一些普通的、平常的事情,比如,什么样的街道是安全的,什么样的不是;为什么有的城市花园赏心悦目,而有的则是藏污纳垢之地和死亡陷阱;为什么有的贫民区永远是贫民区,而有的则在资金和官方的双重压力下仍旧能自我更新;什么使得城市中心迁移了它们的位置,什么(姑且言之)是城市的街区,在大城市中,即便有的话,街区应该承担什么样的工作。

简而言之,我将讲述城市在真实生活中是怎样运转的,因为在城市改造中这是知晓何种规划、何种实践能够促进社会和经济的活力,何种实践、何种原则将窒息城市特性的惟一方式。

有一种一相情愿的神话,那就是,只要我们拥有足够的金钱——金钱的数目通常以数千亿美元计——那么我们就能在十年内消除所有的贫民区,在那些空旷的、毫无生气的灰色地带——它们在过去和过去的过去曾是郊区——扭转衰败的趋势,为那些四处观望的中产阶级找到一个家,为他们找到一个缴税的地方,也许甚至还能够解决交通问题。

但是请看看我们用最初的几十亿建了些什么:低收入住宅区成了少年犯罪、蓄意破坏和普遍社会失望情绪的中心,这些住宅区原本是要取代贫民区,但现在这里的情况却比贫民区还要严重。

中等收入住宅区则是死气沉沉、兵营一般封闭,毫无城市生活的生气和活力可言,真正让人感到不可思议。

那些奢华的住宅区域试图用无处不在的庸俗来冲淡它们的乏味;而那些文化中心竟无力支持一家好的书店。

市政中心除了那些游手好闲者以外无人光顾,他们除了那儿无处可去。

商业中心只是那些标准化的郊区连锁店的翻版,毫无生气可言。

«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 magazi nes. 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)(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)(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-taggedpopulace 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.(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 pitifulgesture 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)(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 “i ntruding into the preserves for solidly constructed, roomy, middle-and upper-classapartments. 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.(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.(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 howto plan for workable and vital cities anyhow—with or without automobiles.(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 inte ntions 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) (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.(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.(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 downi n 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 11.2.The TB death rate is very low, less than 1 per ten thousand, can’t understand it, it’ slower eventhan 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.”(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.)(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!”(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.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 prac tice 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(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.(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。

美国大城市的死与生
美国大城市的死与生是指在这些城市中的居民的生命和死亡现象。

在美国大城市，生活和死亡是紧密相连的。

这些城市拥有繁忙的人口和经济活动，因此也伴随着各种健康和社会问题。

以下是一些关于美国大城市死与生的主要方面：
1. 平均寿命：美国大城市的平均寿命通常高于全国平均水平。

这部分是因为大城市提供更好的医疗设施和服务，以及更多的机会获得高质量的教育和就业。

2. 健康风险：大城市的生活方式可能增加患病的风险。

空气污染、职业压力、不健康的饮食和缺乏锻炼等因素可能导致疾病，并对人们的生命健康产生负面影响。

3. 犯罪率：美国大城市一般有更高的犯罪率，这可能增加
人们在城市中受伤或死亡的风险。

暴力犯罪、枪支暴力和
车祸等都可能导致生命的丧失。

4. 医疗设施：美国大城市通常拥有先进的医疗设施和专业
人员。

人们可以获得更好的医疗服务，从而提高生命的质
量和预期寿命。

5. 社会压力：大城市的快节奏生活和竞争环境可能导致人
们面临更多的压力。

这种压力可能对人们的身心健康产生
负面影响，并可能增加自杀率。

总之，美国大城市的死与生是一个复杂的议题，涉及诸多
因素。

尽管大城市提供了更多的机会和便利，但也存在各
种健康和社会问题，可能影响人们的预期寿命和生活质量。

美国大城市的生与死(中英文)«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 a nd 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。

美国大城市的死与生简·雅各布斯第五章城市街区的用途01其一贯的“反动”观点：1. 要反掉传统的、以公共设施服务距离为基准的街区设置方法（7000人街区）.2. 反对传统的内向的、“温馨的”、封闭的街区观念――城市的最大优越性之一就是“流动”！3. 反对在设计中以乡村或者小城镇为模板来设计大城市。

大城市有着大城市的优越性，和小型聚落（乡村和小城镇）是完全不同并且应该是不同的因为这样才能够互补）。

“广泛的选择和丰富的机会不正式城市所要提供的吗？”中心问题：街区是干什么的？街区是日常的自治机构――自治本地化――街区的必要性――街区的本质街区是必要的，但是反对伪街区。

作者认为的三种必须的、有用的街区（我想其英文应该是zoning，是说明的一种分区制）：1. 作为一个整体的城市2. 街道为主的街区3. 大城市中的地区（约为100,000的“城中之城”）其中：1.“城市”级别：应该能够形成一些特殊利益集团“20～30个性情相投（同一个圈子）的朋友”、“他希望他的朋友们知道他在说什么。

”“一个城市的整体性表现在能够将有着共同兴趣的人集拢在一起”，这个是城市的最大的可用资源之一。

2.“街区”――街道为主的街区能够形成公共监视网――街道自治功能的最重要体现另一功能：在不可能自我解决的问题上寻求外界帮助街区的大小――“这个问题完全没有意义”。

街区成功的一个很大原因是依赖于各个街区之间的互相交错和重合――街区组――产生多样性、带来变化（视觉上、经济上）。

3.地区其主要功能是“协调”作用，协调城市和街道之间的关系，作为了一种“中介”。

街区，必须“反”隔绝雅各布斯认为的理解城市的思维角度：1）对过程的考虑。

2）从归纳推导的角度来考虑问题，从点到面，从具体到整体，而不是相反。

（从局部到整体，从小到大。

）3）寻找一些“非平均”的线索，这些线索会包括一些非常小的变数，正式这些小的变数会展现大的和更加“平均”的变数活动方式。