美国大城市的生与死(中英文)
美国大城市的生与死1
⒒ 有关多样性的一些神话
⒐ 老建筑之必要
老建筑对于城市是如此不可或缺，如果没有它们，街道和地 区的发展就会失去活力。 旧的主意和思想有时可以在新建筑里实践，但新主意必须使 用旧建筑。 老建筑是城市多样性的一个必需成分，当今天的老建筑变老 时，老建筑仍将成为一种必需。 在一个活跃的地区，没有什么建筑会由于年代太久而被废弃， 因为总有人会来选择它---其位置始终不会被新的建筑取代。 在大城市的街道两边，最令人赞赏和最使人赏心悦目的景致 之一是那些经过匠心独运的改造而形成新用途的旧建筑。 旧建筑将会成为这个地区必要的、有重要价值的庇护所，成 为很多中等、低等和无产出的企业的栖身之地。
谢谢！
《美国大城市的死与生》
——简· 雅各布斯 第三组成员： 翟贝贝 冯微微 齐腾飞 易文生 张金龙 张洪亮 董洋 指导老师：朱玲玲
第二部分 城市多样性的条件
⒐ 老建筑之必要
（一个地区的建筑应该各色各样，年代和状况各不相同，应该包括有 适当比例的老建筑）
⒑ 密度之需要
（人流的密度必须要达到足够高的程度，不管这些人是以什么目的来 到这里，其中包括本地居民）
内容提炼
活。 持续上涨的建房成本也是导致老建筑必要性的简单原因。 街角杂货店（很古老）与现代大型商业中心的较量对比，给城市多样化所 作贡献。 在一个活跃地区，老建筑的位置不可能被新建筑取代，老建筑中有各式各 样的行业。 改造后的旧建筑之风采。 旧建筑培育多样性的混合用途。（eg:布鲁克林）
北滩—电报山
里顿豪斯广场
纽 约 布 鲁 克 林
⒒ 有关多样性的一些神话
欣欣向荣的城市多样性有多种因素组成，包括混合首要用途、 频繁出入的街道、各个年代的建筑以及密集的使用者等。 观点一:多样性产生丑陋的外貌 观点二：城市用途的一致性或近似产生效果上很多困惑 城市多样性用途会带来毁坏吗 ①垃圾场和二手车车场 ②酒吧、剧院、诊所、营业场所和生产场所 ③土地用途之炼胶厂 ④太平间或者说是殡葬间 ⑤停车场、维修厂、加油站之类的
美国大城市的死与生
《美国大城市的死与生》试读：--人行道的用途：安全编辑介绍：Jane Jacobs started writing about city life and urban planning as a neighborho od activist, not as a trained professional.简·雅各布斯开始写关于城市生活和城市规划作为一个社区活动家，而不是作为一个训练有素的专业人员。
Dismissed as the original "little old lady in tennis shoes" and derided as a poli tical amateur more concerned about personal safety issues than state-of-the-art pla nning techniques, she nonetheless struck a responsive chord with a 1960s public e ager to believe the worst about arrogant city planning technocrats and just as eage r to rally behind movements for neighborhood control and community resistance to bulldozer redevelopment.更关心个人安全问题而不是很艺术的规划技术，她被轻蔑的视为以前的“穿网球鞋的小老太太”和业余政治爱好者，但她与20世纪60年代的公共共鸣急于相信最坏的人身安全问题，而不是作为一个政治业余关于的傲慢城市规划技术官僚一样渴望团结邻里控制与社区推土机重建的阻力运动背后。
The Death and Life of Great American Cities hit the world of city planning like an earthquake when it Appeared in 1961. The book was a frontal attack on the planning establishment. Jacobs derided urban renewal as a process that only serve d to create instant slums. She questioned universally accepted articles of faith - for example, that parks were good and that crowding was bad, Indeed she suggested that parks were often dangerous and that crowded neighborhood sidewalks were t he safest places for children to play.1961年，美国大城市的死与生的冲击世界城市规划像地震一样。
美国大城市的死与生
城市衰退的原因
1 城市多样性的自我摧毁 2 交界真空袋的恶性效应 3 贫民区的不当改造 4 资金的不当投入
解决策略
1 建立住房补贴机制——房屋担保法 2 平衡机动车和行人之间的关系，减少汽车对城市的蚕食 3 通过“视觉阻断”加强街区的集中使用与周边环境的整体感，
同时充分利用地标来强调城市的独特性与多样性
美国大城市的死与生
MG1508083 仇亚雯
2015
简·雅各布斯（Jane Jocobs）著 金衡山译 译林出版社2005年出版
人行道不知所终，也不见散步的人； 快车道让城市伤痕累累。
这不是城市的改建，
而是对城市的洗劫。
——简〃雅各布斯《美国大城市的死与生》
城市的特性 城市多样化的条件 衰退和更新的势力 不同的策略
4 5 6
Hale Waihona Puke 关键词：“多样性”“多样性”指的并不只是城市总体功能的多样 性，而是深入地区、街区、街道的多样性，是每一 条街的多样性。无论是主要用途的混合、小街段、 老建筑还是合适的密度，也无论是隔断还是地标的 运用，都在于一个小范围内的——或者借用上文的 名词，即“城市居民生活可及范围内”的——多样 性，实质反映的是街道中生活的“人”所内生的多 样性的要求。 城市不能成为一件艺术品，城市是由人组成的， 是生活。
目 录
CONTENTS
安全
人行道的用途
交往
孩子的同化
“街道眼”（Street Eye）、“公共人物” 城市最基本的成功要素就是你可以在街道上安全、信 任地与陌生人进行接触，这就需要人们下意识的监督 ，而不是单纯依靠安全部门的监管。
如何在城市的街道和地区生发丰富的多样性？ 1 地区以及其尽可能多的内部区域的主要功能必须要多于一个
《美国大城市的死与生》
《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
本文由飞鸽516贡献doc文档《美国大城市的生与死》摘要美国大城市的生与死》作者简介及写作背景：作者简介及写作背景：1916 年，简·雅各布出生于宾西法尼亚州的克兰顿，高中毕业后曾在一家地方报社工作过一年。
经济大萧条时期，她来到纽约，并很快成为一名自由撰稿人。
不久，她嫁给一位建筑师，定居在格林威治村的休斯顿大街。
与此同时，她得到了一份更好的工作：为美国战争信息办公室和国务院写作。
由于受到丈夫职业的影响，从1952 年起，她开始在《建筑论坛》担任助理编辑。
随着她在纽约居留时间的增长，她的文章开始更多地涉及到城市设计问题。
1959 年，当得知雅各布想写一本关于城市设计的书之后，洛克菲勒基金会立即慷慨解囊，资助她去美国各大城市旅行并专注于写作。
一年多以后，《生与死》问世了。
感想：1 居民生活创造城市空间雅各布斯指出，成功的城市街区必须具备的三个条件：1）公共空间与私人空间之间必须要界线分明；2）必须有一些眼睛盯着街道；3）人行道上必须总有行人。
这里主要是说街道必须有安全感，而这种安全感是由生活在这里的人共同创造的。
由于需求创造了空间，这些街道便成了联系居民生活各种需求的绳索，把整个地区连成一个整体，人们都有了共同维护的的意识，因此，这样的街道是有安全感的。
“人的空间行为是环境设计的有机构成部分，在这个环境中，使用者要求发现自我，表现自我，要求思想交流文化共享等。
” 雅各布斯所指的街道大多讲的居住区里的，因此，对比当下大城市里的居住区，都是居住小区组成，而每一个小区都被围起来了，小区之间的居民并没有任何联系，设计者从高空上看，这是一个居住的片区，而实际上，居民的生活都是分散的，城市空间创造着居民的生活，人在这中间是被动的。
居民能做的，只能是适应这样的空间生活。
街道成了城市的道路，失去了街道本应是公共区域的功能。
而小区之间的围墙便成了雅各布斯所说的“真空地带”，人们非必要时是不会停留在那里。
居住区失去安全感。
美国大城市的生与死(中英文)
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》读书笔记
读«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)二书籍内容全书一共分为导言和四个章节。
第一章通过观察城市中最普通的场景和时间，主要写了城市中人的社会行为；第二章探讨城市多样性的四个原则，这是全书的中心部分；第三章从城市在真实生活中是如何被使用、城市中的人是如何行事的角度，考察了衰落和更新的某些方面；第四章则是在住宅、交通、设计和管理实践方面的一些建议。
城市的特性第二章有5个小节，前三个都以城市人行道为论述主角，分别写了城市人行道在维护城市街道和街区安全、维持街区人与人的交往和地区之间交叉活动产生的活力、教导和监督孩子们的成长三大方面所起的作用。
第四第五小节则讨论了街区公园和城市街区的作用。
1人行道的用途：安全街道及其人行道，是城市中的主要公共区域，是一个城市的最重要的器官。
但许多人行道都面临着生意惨淡和行人安全得不到保障等诸多问题。
但街道不安全的原因不能只归咎于它们正巧处于贫民区或者老城区，也不能把责任都算在街头族裔、穷人和流浪汉身上。
想要消除街道不安全隐患的手段，不是一味的加强安保巡逻工作，也不是过了傍晚实行街道消禁，而是让街道保持活力。
具体点来说，就是为街道提供人气，让街道上即有行走的人也有观看的人——他们，就是街道安全最好的监督者。
想要让街道变得有人气，前提工作是街道得有吸引力。
沿街形形色色各式各样的小店，混合一两栋白天人来人往的办公楼和夜晚也活力不减的小酒吧或者电影院，再加上周围的住宅区，足以使这个街断生龙活虎魅力无限。
这样的街道里，街上随时可见来往的人，大家汇聚街头点头寒暄的气氛也能吸引低层住宅楼上里的住户往下观看，街边的小吃部或者酒吧可以营业到很晚，从白天到晚上，这些公共街道地带总有人在监视，并且持续不断。
这就为街道提供了稳定的安全保障，人们下班晚归也不用担惊受怕了。
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】：“此书是对当下城市规划和重建理论的抨击”。
这是简在书的导言中的第一句话，也是简对自己的书的一个定义。
在书中，雅各布斯用很浅显的语言，平实的情感描述她在城市生活中所碰到的各种问题，同时，雅各布斯尝试引介一些城市规划和重建的新原则。
【关键词】：抨击、街道安全、老建筑、贫民区【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。
1. 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。
22岁去哥伦比亚大学进修了2年，随后进入战争信息办公室工作。
1944年简和一位擅长医院规划的建筑师结婚，定居在纽约的格林威治村。
美国大城市的死与生
目录
01
02
城市的特性
城市多样化
01
城市的特性
人行道 街区公园 城市街区
人行道——安全
维护城市的安全是一个城市的街道和人行道的根本任务。
街道/人行道——
城市 的印象器官
sidewalk
警察？
陌生人多
一个成功的城市地区：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
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。
本书框架
城市的特性
人行道
街区公园的用途
城市街区的用途
01
安全
交往
孩子的同化
城市多样化的条件
02
用途混合
产生多样性的因素
有关多样性的一些神话
小街段
老建筑
密度
引发思索？
真正的城市规划到底是什么？理论与实际的对立怎么取舍？
方
街区公园
维护城市的安全是一个城市的街道和人行道的根本任务。
街区公园
费城
富兰克林
1
里顿豪斯
是一个用途广泛、人人喜爱、 非常成功的公园；时尚街区的 中心。
2
城市贫民流浪者聚集的公园，吸引 着肮脏的人，整个街区已经上了动 迁的日程表。
3
赏心悦目的休闲胜地？
华盛顿
Or
犯罪场所的温室？
佩恩
4
最初为恶人的聚集地公园，后 被拆除重新设计，改为办公中 心。
主要用途混合
哈得孙的“街头芭蕾”
第一种多样性：首要用途
VS
1、地区以及尽可能多的内部区域的 主要功能必须要多于一个，最好是多
(完整版)《美国大城市的死与生》读书笔记
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。
美国大城市的生与死
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
作者简介
• 简· 雅各布斯（1916-2006） 过去半个世纪中对美国乃至世 界城市规划发展影响最大的人 士之一 她写的《美国大城市 的死与生》震撼了当时的美国 规划界这本书终结了五十年代 美国政府以铲除贫民窟和兴建 高速路为特征的大规模的城市 更新运动
多样性 复杂性 自然化第四部分源自Part 4不同的策略
对住宅的资助、 被蚕食的城市与对汽车的限制 视觉秩序局限性可能性、 拯救和利用廉租住宅区、 地区的管理和规划、 地区的管理和规划
对住宅的资助
现行的政府对城市住宅的资助存在 很多弊端，不仅把人按收入按收入 划分到一个封闭的区域，而且政府 亲自负责这些项目，容易忽视城市 的运作方法，这对城市的建设毫无 关系。
地区的管理和规划
大城市的城市管理和规划很复杂，但是现 在采取的方法却是按照管理一个小城市 或是小城镇的方法和体制来放大，这完 全无益与大城市的管理，就其对实际问 题的了解还有各部门的沟通都非常困难。
城市的问题所在
城市运作是个有复杂性问题，但是规划师，政府 并没有意识到这点，所以城市规划这个领域到 了停滞不前的地步。最后，作者重申：单调、 缺乏活力的城市只能是孕育自我毁灭的种子。 但是，充满活力，多样化和用统计中的城市孕 育的则是自我再生的种子，及时有问题的需要 超出了城市的限度，他们也有足够的力量延续 这种再生能力并最终就绝那些问题个需求。
在城市里，街道能够提供主要视觉景致， 可以通过两种方法引进视觉变化，1.在 街道互相分得很开的地方增加更多的街 道。2.在缺少非规整和视觉这段的地方 引入视觉遮断。
拯救和利用廉租住宅区
把生机引入一个廉价住宅以及与其接壤的 交界处使其能够加入整个地区，在此之前 规划者必须要进行诊断和分析，该地区是 缺少哪一种生发多样性的条件，并抓住一 切机会将这种缺失补上。
《美国大城市的死与生》读书笔记
读«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)二书籍内容全书一共分为导言和四个章节。
第一章通过观察城市中最普通的场景和时间，主要写了城市中人的社会行为；第二章探讨城市多样性的四个原则，这是全书的中心部分；第三章从城市在真实生活中是如何被使用、城市中的人是如何行事的角度，考察了衰落和更新的某些方面；第四章则是在住宅、交通、设计和管理实践方面的一些建议。
城市的特性第二章有5个小节，前三个都以城市人行道为论述主角，分别写了城市人行道在维护城市街道和街区安全、维持街区人与人的交往和地区之间交叉活动产生的活力、教导和监督孩子们的成长三大方面所起的作用。
第四第五小节则讨论了街区公园和城市街区的作用。
1人行道的用途：安全街道及其人行道，是城市中的主要公共区域，是一个城市的最重要的器官。
但许多人行道都面临着生意惨淡和行人安全得不到保障等诸多问题。
但街道不安全的原因不能只归咎于它们正巧处于贫民区或者老城区，也不能把责任都算在街头族裔、穷人和流浪汉身上。
想要消除街道不安全隐患的手段，不是一味的加强安保巡逻工作，也不是过了傍晚实行街道消禁，而是让街道保持活力。
具体点来说，就是为街道提供人气，让街道上即有行走的人也有观看的人——他们，就是街道安全最好的监督者。
想要让街道变得有人气，前提工作是街道得有吸引力。
沿街形形色色各式各样的小店，混合一两栋白天人来人往的办公楼和夜晚也活力不减的小酒吧或者电影院，再加上周围的住宅区，足以使这个街断生龙活虎魅力无限。
这样的街道里，街上随时可见来往的人，大家汇聚街头点头寒暄的气氛也能吸引低层住宅楼上里的住户往下观看，街边的小吃部或者酒吧可以营业到很晚，从白天到晚上，这些公共街道地带总有人在监视，并且持续不断。
这就为街道提供了稳定的安全保障，人们下班晚归也不用担惊受怕了。
(整理)《美国大城市的生与死》....
«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》读书心得
评·美国大城市的死与生The Death and Life of Great American Cities肖卉Xiao Hui【作者介绍】我所了解的简·雅各布斯，她对于城市充满了热情，就算随着时间的不断推进，她所研究的主题一切都以城市为核心，从文明，国家的财富，合乎道德的行为中发现主题.她的最后一本书《集体失忆的年代》哀叹社会中相互依赖的丧失，一如往常一样，她憎恨无孔不入的规划，赞成由市场主导一切发展。
简·雅各布斯是半个世纪以来，美国城市规划史上最有影响的人物之一，她以她女性特有的视角和敏锐的洞察力书写了美国城市发展的新篇章。
2006年4月25日，这位20世纪最伟大的思想家之一——简·雅各布斯在加拿大多伦多的一家医院逝世，享年89岁。
读王军的《采访本上的城市》时，不断地看到他对《美国大城市的死与生》的推崇，今天终得一读。
这是一本从事新闻报道行业人员对自己在负责报道城市规划过程中，逐渐对传统的城市规划观念产生了怀疑，并整理写成的这一本书，所以不太像是一部可以放在案头反复咀嚼的理论参考书。
此书是对当下城市规划和重建理论的抨击。
同时，更主要的也是城市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。
因此，在此书中，将开始的是一次冒险历程，即使是微不足道，也值得一做。
要弄清楚城市表现出来的神秘莫测的行为，方法是自习观察最普通的场景和事件，尽可能的抛弃以前曾经的期待，试着看看能否发现他们表达的意义，是否从中能浮现有关某些原则的线索。
【内容介绍】本书分成四个部分：第一部分主要是关于城市中人的社会行为，第二部分主要是关于城市的经济行为，这是本书最重要的部分。
第三部分，从城市在真实生活中是如何被使用、城市中的人是如何行事的角度，考察了衰落和更新的某些方面。
第一部分的五章是论点提出的基础——论据；讲述了“城市的特性”。
美国大城市的生与死(中英文)
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。
janejacobs-美国大城市的死与生
The Death and Life of Great American CitiesForeword to the Modem Library Editionby Jane JacobsWhen I began work on this book in 1958, I expected merely to describe the civilizing and enjoyable services that good city street life casually provides-and to deplore planning fads and architectural fashions that were expunging these necessities and charms instead of helping to strengthen them. Some of Part One of this book: that's all I intended.But learning and thinking about city streets and the trickiness of city parks launched me into an unexpected treasure hunt. I quickly found that the valuables in plain sight -- streets and parks --were intimately mingled with clues and keys to other peculiarities of cities. Thus one discovery led to another, then another. Some of the findings from the hunt fill the rest of this book. Others, as they turned up, have gone into four further books. Obviously, this book exerted an influence on me, and lured me into my subsequent life's work. But has it been influential otherwise? My own appraisal is yes and no.Some people prefer doing their workaday errands on foot, or feel they would like to if they lived in a place where they could. Other people prefer hopping into the car to do errands, or would like to if they had a car. In the old days, before automobiles, some people liked ordering up carriages or sedan chairs and many wished they could. But as we know from novels, biographies, and legends, some people whose social positions required them to ride --except for rural rambles -- wistfully peered out at passing street scenes and longed to participate in their camaraderie, bustle, and promises of surprise and adventure. In a kind of shorthand, we can speak of foot people and car people. This book was instantly understood by foot people, both actual and wishful. They recognized that what it said jibed with their own enjoyment, concerns, and experiences, which is hardly surprising, since much of the book's information came from observing and listening to foot people. They were collaborators in the research. Then, reciprocally, the book collaborated with foot people by giving legitimacy to what they already knew for themselves. Experts of the time did not respect what foot people knew and valued. They were deemed old-fashioned and selfish --troublesome sand in the wheels of progress. It is not easy for uncredentialed people to stand up to the credentialed, even when the so-called expertise is grounded in ignorance and folly. This book turned out to be helpful ammunition against such experts. But it is less accurate to call this effect "influence" than to see it as corroboration and collaboration.Conversely, the book neither collaborated with car people nor had an influence on them. It still does not, as far as I can see.The case of students of city planning and architecture is similarly mixed, but with special oddities. At the time of the books publication, no matter whether the students were foot or car people by experience and temperament, they were being rigorously trained as anticity and antistreet designers and planners: trained as if they were fanatic car people and so was everybody else. Their teachers had been trained or indoctrinated that way too. So in effect, the whole establishment concerned with the physical form of cities (including bankers, developers, and politicians who had assimilated the planning and architectural visions and theories) acted as gatekeepers protecting forms and visions inimical to city life. However, among architectural students especially, and to some extent among planning students, there were foot people. To them, the book made sense. Their teachers (though not all) tended to consider it trash or "bitter, coffee-house rambling" as one planner put it. Yet the book, curiously enough, found its way onto required or optional reading lists --sometimes, I suspect, to arm students with awareness of the benighted ideas they would be up against as practitioners. Indeed, one university teacher told me just that. But for foot people among students, the book was subversive. Of course their subversion was by no means all my doing. Other authors and researchers --notably William H. Whyte -- were also exposing the unworkability and joylessness of anticity visions. In London, editors and writers of The Architectural Review were already up to the same thing in the mid-1950s.Nowadays, many architects, and some among the younger generation of planners, have excellent ideas --beautiful, ingenious ideas --for strengthening city life. They also have the skills to carry out their plans. These people are a far cry from the ruthless, heedless city manipulators I have castigated. But here we come to something sad. Although the numbers of arrogant old gatekeepers have dwindled with time, the gates themselves are another matter. Anticity planning remains amazingly sturdy in American cities. It is still embodied in thousands of regulations, bylaws, and codes, also in bureaucratic timidities owing to accepted practices, and in unexamined public attitudes hardened by time. Thus, one may be sure that there have been enormous and dedicated efforts in the face of these obstacles wherever one sees stretches of old city buildings that have been usefully recycled for new and different purposes; wherever sidewalks have been widened and vehicular roadways narrowed precisely where they should be -- on streets in which pedestrian traffic is bustling and plentiful; wherever downtowns are not deserted after their offices close; wherever new, fine-grained mixtures of street uses have been fostered successfully; wherever new buildings have been sensitively inserted among old ones to knit up holes and tatters in a city neighborhood so that the mending is all but invisible. Some foreign cities have become pretty good at these feats. But to try toaccomplish such sensible things in America is a daunting ordeal at best, and often enough heartbreaking.In Chapter Twenty of this book I proposed that the ground levels of self-isolating projects within cities could be radically erased and reconstituted with two objects in view: linking the projects into the normal city by fitting them out with plentiful, new, connecting streets; and converting the projects themselves into urban places at the same time, by adding diverse new facilities along those added streets. The catch here, of course, is that new commercial facilities would need to work out economically, as a measure of their genuine and not fake usefulness.It is disappointing that this sort of radical replanning has not been tried-as far as I know-in the more than thirty years since this book was published. To be sure, with every decade that passes, the task of carrying out the proposal would seem to be more difficult. That is because anticity projects, especially massive public housing projects, tend to cause their city surroundings to deteriorate, so that as time passes, less and less healthy adjoining city is available to tie into. Even so, good opportunities still exist for converting city projects into city. Easy ones ought to be tried first on the premise that this is a learning challenge, and it is good policy for all learning to start with easy cases and work up to more difficult ones. The time is coming when we will sorely need to apply this learning to suburban sprawls since it is unlikely we can continue extending them without limit. The costs in energy waste, infrastructure waste, and land waste are too high. Yet if already existing sprawls are intensified, in favor of thriftier use of resources, we need to have learned how to make the intensifications and linkages attractive, enjoyable, safe, and sustainable --for foot people as well as car people.Occasionally this book has been credited with having helped halt urban-renewal and slum-clearance programs. I would be delighted to take credit if this were true. It isn't. Urban renewal and slum clearance succumbed to their own failures and fiascos, after continuing with their extravagant outrages for many years after this book was published. Even now they pop up when wishful thinking and forgetfulness set in, abetted by sufficient cataclysmic money lent to developers and sufficient political hubris and public subsidies. A recent example, for instance, is the grandiose but bankrupt Canary Wharf project set in isolation in what were London's dilapidated docklands and the demolished, modest Isle of Dogs community, beloved by its inhabitants.To return to the treasure hunt that began with the streets and one thing leading to another and another: at some point along the trail I realized I was engaged in studying the ecology of cities. Offhand, this sounds like taking note that raccoons nourish themselves from citybackyard gardens and garbage bags (in my own city they do, sometimes even downtown), that hawks can possibly reduce pigeon populations among skyscrapers, and so on. But by city ecology I mean something different from, yet similar to, natural ecology as students of wilderness address the subject. A natural ecosystem is defined as "composed of physical-chemical-biological processes active within a space-time unit of any magnitude." A city ecosystem is composed of physical-economic-ethical processes active at a given time within a city and its close dependencies. I've made up this definition, by analogy.The two sorts of ecosystems --one created by nature, the other by human beings --have fundamental principles in common. For instance, both types of ecosystems --assuming they are not barren --require much diversity to sustain themselves. In both cases, the diversity develops organically over time, and the varied components are interdependent in complex ways. The more niches for diversity of life and livelihoods in either kind of ecosystem, the greater its carrying capacity for life. In both types of ecosystems, many small and obscure components --easily overlooked by superficial observation -- can be vital to the whole, far out of proportion to their own tininess of scale or aggregate quantities. In natural ecosystems, gene pools are fundamental treasures. In city ecosystems, kinds of work are fundamental treasures; furthermore, forms of work not only reproduce themselves in newly created proliferating organizations, they also hybridize, and even mutate into unprecedented kinds of work. And because of their complex interdependencies of components, both kinds of ecosystems are vulnerable and fragile, easily disrupted or destroyed.If not fatally disrupted, however, they are tough and resilient. And when their processes are working well, ecosystems appear stable. But in a profound sense, the stability is an illusion. As a Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, observed long ago, everything in the natural world is in flux. When we suppose we see static situations, we actually see processes of beginning and processes of ending occurring simultaneously.Nothing is static. It is the same with cities. Thus, to investigate either natural or city ecosystems demands the same kind of thinking. It does not do to focus on "things" and expect them to explain much in themselves. Processes are always of the essence; things have significances as participants in processes, for better or worse.This way of seeing is fairly young and new, which is perhaps why the hunt for knowledge to understand either natural or city ecology seems so inexhaustible. Little is known; so much yet to know.We human beings are the only city-building creatures in the world. The hives of socially different in how they develop, what they do, andtheir potentialities. Cities are in a sense natural ecosystems too --for us. They are not disposable. Whenever and wherever societies have flourished and prospered rather than stagnated and decayed, creative and workable cities have been at the core of the phenomenon; they have pulled their weight and more. It is the same still. Decaying cities, declining economies, and mounting social troubles travel together. The combination is not coincidental.It is urgent that human beings understand as much as we can about city ecology --starting at any point in city processes. The humble, vital services performed by grace of good city streets and neighborhoods are probably as good a starting point as any. So I find it heartening that The Modern Library is issuing this beautiful new edition for a new generation of readers who, I hope, will become interested in city ecology, respect its marvels, and discover more.Jane JacobsToronto, Canada October 1992Jane Jacobs appeared in San Francisco in spring 2004 to discuss her new book, Dark Age Ahead. Much of what she said, and what she wrote, is relevant to our mission of bringing walking back into the mainstream of American society.To read more:/mags_jacobs1.htm/~plan303/。
美国大城市的死于生片段
和规划者一样,银行家有他们自己的理论,他们依照那些理论行事。
他们的理论和规划者一样来自同一个思想源头。
银行家和担保抵押款的政府行政官员们并不发明规划理论,甚至(让人感到惊奇)也不发现关于城市的经济法则。
在当今时代,他们只是被启蒙,从上一代的理想主义者那里吸取思想。
因为城市规划理论在一代多的时间里并没有采纳什么重要的新思想,所以规划理论家、金融家和那些官僚们都处在同一个水平上。
直言不讳地说,他们都处在一种貌似学问的迷信这样一个阶段上,就像上个世纪早期医学面对的情况一样;那时,内科医生深信放血疗法,即把认为是造成疾病的带着邪气的血液抽出来。
为了这种放血疗法,人们通过多年研习来确切地知道应该切开哪根静脉,通过哪种程序,治疗哪种疾病。
一个有着复杂技术的庞大结构通过貌似客观的细节被建立起来,其文献直到今天读来还令人觉得有根有据。
但是,即使人们完全沉浸于描绘与实际相冲突的“现实”时,他们依然还保留着一点观察和独立思考的能力,因此,放血疗法在它长期支配的大部分时间里,通常掺和进了某些常识,由此减弱了它的影响。
或者说至少在它传到美国前,它的影响减缓了。
但在年轻的美利坚共和国,这种技术达到了顶峰。
放血疗法在这个国度里风靡无阻。
其最大的、影响最深远的支持者是本杰明?拉什医生,至今他仍被尊为革命和联邦时期最伟大的国务活动家兼内科医生,同时也是一位医疗管理的天才。
拉什医生做了很多很多的事。
有些既有用又有益,其中之一便是推广、实践、教授和传播放血疗法,尤其针对那些在此之前因为谨慎和怜悯而限制了放血疗法的病例。
他和他的学生们从那些幼小的孩子们、那些肺痨病人、那些年龄很大的老人们身上放血,在他的管辖范围内任何不幸患病的人都得放血。
他这种极端的做法引起欧洲一些放血疗法医生的警觉和恐惧。
但是,直到1851年,纽约州议会任命的一个委员会仍然为其全方位的放血疗法进行严肃的辩护。
这个委员会严厉地讽刺和谴责了一位名叫威廉?特纳的内科医生,因为他竟贸然地写了一个小册子,批评拉什的方法,并声称“这种在病人身上抽血的方法有悖常识、一般经验、理智以及上帝的神圣的法则”。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
«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)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。