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
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?
Itisthepurposeofthisvolumetohelpclarify