外文翻译城市重建过去与现在.docx

外文翻译城市重建过去与现在.docx

《外文翻译城市重建过去与现在.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译城市重建过去与现在.docx（9页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

外文翻译城市重建过去与现在

中文3440字

本科毕业设计（论文）

外文翻译

原文：

URBANREDEVELOPMENT,PASTANDPRESENT

Urban“redevelopment”hasemerged,inrecentyears,asoneofthekeyconcernsofurbansocialscienceinboththeoreticalandempirical-basedsettings.Thisreflectsaconcomitanttrendassociatedwithurbanstudiesmoregenerally,towardspecifyingtheeconomic,political,andculturalfactorsresponsibleforunevenmetropolitandevelopment.Indeed,evenacausallookatourmetropolitanareasrevealsthattheyarecomposedofmanydifferentcitiesandspatialformsthatdividedaccordingtodifferentlandusesaswellasrelatedtopatternsofraceandclass.Onecityisreservedfortherichandaffluent;anotheriscomposedofworking-classandmiddle-classneighborhoods;otherareascatertocommercialinterests,entertainment,tourists,andconsumers;andstillotherslanguishinchronicdisinvestmentanddecay,reservedforthehomeless,thepoor,minorities,andtheurbanunderclass.Thesecontrastsarequitegraphic,asanyonetouringourmetropolitanareascanattest,andrepresentsanextremecrisisofinequalityproducedbytheunevennatureofmetropolitandevelopmentandgrowth.Thecitycontinuestoprovidetheprimesocio-spatialcontextwithinwhicheconomicandpoliticalelitesandordinarypeopleconstructandactouttheprocessesofdisinvestment,fiscalcrisis,andinnercity“renaissance.”Inrecentyears,scholarshavebeguntostudyredevelopmentwithaneyetowardclarifyingthelinksbetweenmacrostructuralprocesses,specificurbanredevelopmentefforts,andlocallylivedrealities.Thisreviewissuewillthereforeconsiderthesignificanceofurbanredevelopmentasafocusforurbantheoryandurbanresearch,outliningwhatsuchtheoreticalandmethodologicalcontributionsandchangesmaymeanforthefutureofurbanscholarship.Thestudyofcities,urbanism,andurbanchange–redevelopment,disinvestment,andsoon–hasarichtraditioninurbanscholarship.EuropeanssuchasMarxandEngels,Weber,andSimmeldevotedmuchthoughttotheimportanceofthecity,forexample,asaseatoftheemergingcapitalisteconomy,asitepoliticalandeconomicpower,andforceofculturalchangethataffectsmentallife.IntheUnitedStares,theearlyChicagoSchoolurbansociologistsfocusedtheirempiricalattentiononthespatialdistributionofpeopleandorganizations,thecausesandconsequencesofneighborhoodracialsuccession,andethnicandracialgroup“adaptation”totheurbanenvironment.RobertPark（1925）,ErnstBurgess（1925）,LewisWirth（1938）,allcommentedoncommunitystructureandlocalinstitutions,oftendrawinganalogiestobiologicalsystems.Fromthesewritingsthereemergedatheoryofurbanandneighborhoodchangeasa“lifecycle”beginningwithinvestmentandgrowthandendingwithinevitabledecline.Bythe1930s,socialscientistsaroundthenationwereemployingtheinsights,models,andanalysesdevelopedbytheChicagoSchooltostudycities,aswellasinfluencepublicpolicy.YetalacunaofAmericanurbanscholarshipingeneral,andtheChicagoSchoolinparticular,wasthelackofspecificityinidentifyingthewebsofinterconnectionsbetweenurbanlifeandwidermacrolevelprocesses.Earlyurbansociologists,inshort,wereprimarilyconcernedwiththeinternalorganizationanddynamicsofcities,whileignoringthelargermacrostructuresthatlinkedurbanchangetoextra-localprocesses.

Intheearly1970s,severalMarxistsocialscientistsincludingManuelCastells（1977）,DavidHarvey（1973）,andHenriLefebvre（1991）,amongotherscholarsbegantoreviseKarlMarx’sideastoexplainunevenmetropolitandevelopment,urbanindustrialdecline,andotherurbantrends.Castellsproposedthaturbanscholarsfocusonthecollectiveconsumptioncharacteristicofurbanizednationsandwayinwhichpoliticalandeconomicconflictswithincitiesgenerateurbansocialmovementsforchange.DavidHarvey,incontrast,arguedthatthecentralissueinmakingsenseofcitieswasnotcollectiveconsumptionbutthemorebasicMarxistconcernwithcapitalaccumulation.InfluencedbyLefebvre,Harvey（1973）arguedthatinvestmentinlandandrealestateisanimportantmeansofaccumulatingwealthandacrucialactivitythatpushesthegrowthofcitiesinspecificways.Processesasdiverseasurbandisinvestmentanddecay,suburbanization,deindustrialization,urbanrenewal,andgentrificationarepartandparcelofthecontinuousreshapingofthebuiltenvironmenttocreateamoreefficientarenaforprofitmaking.AccordingtoHarvey（1989）,powerfulrealestateactorsinvest,disinvest,andreshapeland-usesinaprocessof“creativedestruction”thatiscontinuallyaccelerating,destroyingcommunitiesandproducingintensesocialconflictsandstrugglesovermeaningsandusesofurbanspace.Despitetheirdifferentemphases,theworkofMarxistshelpedfocusscholarlyattentiononthecapitalistsystemoffor-profitproductiongenerally,andclassstruggleandcapitalaccumulationspecifically,asanalyticalstartingpointsforunderstandingthenatureofurbanredevelopmentanddisinvestement（foroverviews,seeJaret,1983;Tabb&Sawyers,1984）.

Bythelate1970sandcontinuinginto1980s,anewcriticalapproachtothestudyofcitiesandurbanredevelopmenthaddeveloped.Usuallycalledthe“criticalpolitical-economy”or“sociospatialapproach,”thisperspectiveemphasizedseveralmajordimensionsofcities:

（1）theimportanceofclassandracialdomination（and,morerecently,gender）inshapingurbandevelopment;

（2）theprimaryroleofpowerfuleconomicactors,especiallythoseintherealestateindustry,inbuildingandredevelopingcities;（3）theroleofgrowth-assistedgovernmentactorsincitydevelopment;（4）theimportanceofsymbols,meanings,andculturetotheshapingofcities;（5）attentiontotheglobalcontextofurbandevelopment（foroverviewsseeFeagin,1998;Gottdiener&Feagin,1988;Hutchison,2000;Savage&Ward,1993;Smith,1995）.Gottdiener（1994）andHutchison（2000）prefertheterm“sociospatial”perspectivetodescribethecriticalpoliticaleconomyparadigm,atermthataccentsthesociety/spacesynergy,andemphasizesthatcitiesaremultifacetedexpressionsoflocalactionsandmacrostructuralprocesses.TheyalsousethetermtodistancethemselvesfromolderMarxistapproachesofGordon（1984）,DearandScott（1981）,andStorperandWalker（1983）andhighlightthediversityoftheoryandmethodwithinthebroadparadigm.Molotch（1999,1976）andLoganandMolotch（1987）preferthetermurbanpoliticaleconomyandhavedevelopedtheirown“growthmachine”theorytoexplainurbanredevelopment.Othercriticalscholarshaveembracedamoreeclecticandmulti-perspectivalfocusintheirempiricalwork,attemptingtodevelopmiddlerangevariantsofgeneraltheoriesasanexpedienttomovingtowardconstructivedialogueandcommongroundinthedirectionofsynthesizedtheorybuilding（seee.g.Smith,1995;Orum,1995;Squires,1994;foranoverview,seeGotham&Staples,1996）.

Despiteambitioustheoreticalandanalyticalcontributionsincriticalurbanscholarship,discussionsof“redevelopment”havebeenslowtodealwiththecomplexnatureoftheinterrelationshipsthatexistbetweenthemacro-micro,class/race/gender,theeconomicandcultural,andthedialecticofspaceandsocial,amongothers.Indeed,theserelationshipsmanifestthemselvesinurbansettingsmakingurbanredevelopmentanauspiciousprocessfraughtwithmanydilemmas,conflicts,andcontradictionsregardingthelinksbetweenspace,capital,andpower.Anumberofeditedcollectionsonurbanredevelopmenthaveappearedinthe1980sand1990s,includingtheworkofRosenthal（1980）andcontributorson“urbanrevitalization”inthe1960sand1970s,theworkofSquires（1989）andcolleagueson“unequalpartnerships,”FainsteinandFainstein’s（1986）firstandsecondeditionsonthepoliticaleconomyofurbanredevelopment,Cumming’s（1988）editedvolumeontheroleofbusinesselites,KearnsandPhilo’s（1993）collectionofessaysoncultureandthe“sellingofcities,”StoneandSander’s（1987）editedbookonthe“politics”ofurbandevelopment,andKing’s（1996）editedvolumeontransformationsin“worldcities.”Asthesecollectionsshow,thesocialcontext,strategies,andmeaningofurbanredevelopmenthavechangeddramaticallythroughoutthetwentiethcentury.Moreover,areassuchaslaw,transportation,housing,policy,andlocalfinancingdevicesareimportantmechanismsforpromotingurbanredevelopmentandexacerbatingurbandisinvestment.Inaddition,conflictsoverdisinvestmentandredevelopmentreflectbroaderstrugglesoveranarrayofsocialissues,forexample,poverty,race,andschools,amongothers.

Thecontributorstothisvolumeaddtothisgrowingliteraturebutalsotackleseveralunresolvedissuesandunansweredquestions:

Whatarethehistoricalsourcesofcontinuityandvariationinthestructure,influence,andcompositionofpublic-privatepartnershipsandrelatedgrowthcoalitionsinU.S.cities?

Whatimpacthavegloballevelchangeshadonthetransformationofcitiesintoplacesofleisureandentertainmentinthe1970sandlater?

Howarethesechangesrelatedtothedynamicsofrace,class,andgender?

Howhavechangesinfederalfundingandbureaucraticarrangementsaffectedthecontentandprocessoflocalredevelopmentmeasures?

Whatideologies,themes,symbols,andmotifsundergirdcurrentandpastredevelopmentstrategies?

Whatformsofconflict,opposition,andcollectivemobilizationhaveoccurredinresponsetolocalredevelopmentefforts?

Whatnewtheories,methods,anddatasourceshaveprovedmoreusefulthanothersinhelpingscholarsunderstandthecausesand

consequencesofurbanredevelopment?

Itisthepurposeofthisvolumetohelp