建筑學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯</p><p>　　First Chapter：Development of the city of Tehran</p><p>　　Ali Madanipour</p><p>　　Tehran :the making of a metropolis，F(xiàn)irst Chapter：Development of the c

2、ity of Tehran ，Ali Madanipour，ISBN：0471957798，Press： New York John Wiley，1998，page five to page eleven。</p><p>　　第一章：德黑蘭市的發(fā)展阿里.馬丹妮普爾</p><p>　　德黑蘭：一個(gè)大都市的建造，第一章：德黑蘭市的發(fā)展，阿里.馬丹妮普爾，書號(hào)：0471957798，紐

3、約John Wiley出版社，1998，第五頁到第十一頁。</p><p><b>　　德黑蘭市的發(fā)展</b></p><p>　　全市已長成了一定的規(guī)模性和復(fù)雜性，以這樣的程度，空間管理需要另外的手段來處理城市組織和不斷發(fā)展的復(fù)雜性，并為城市總體規(guī)劃做準(zhǔn)備。</p><p>　　第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后，在盟軍占領(lǐng)國家的期間，有一個(gè)時(shí)期的民主化，在冷

4、戰(zhàn)時(shí)開始的政治緊張局勢(shì)之后，它們互相斗爭對(duì)石油的控制權(quán)。這個(gè)時(shí)期已經(jīng)結(jié)束于1953年，結(jié)果是由政變產(chǎn)生了伊朗王，那個(gè)后來擔(dān)任了25年的行政君主的人。隨著高出生率和農(nóng)村向城市遷移，德黑蘭和其他大城市增長加劇甚至比以前更快地。到1956年，德黑蘭的人口上升到150萬，到了1966至300萬， 1976至450萬，其規(guī)模也從1934年46平方公里到1976年的250平方公里。</p><p>　　從石油行業(yè)的收入增長創(chuàng)

5、造的盈余資源，需要流通和經(jīng)濟(jì)的吸收。50年代中期，特別是在工業(yè)化的驅(qū)動(dòng)下德黑蘭許多大城市有了新工作。20世紀(jì)60年代的土地改革釋放了大量來自農(nóng)業(yè)的農(nóng)村人口，這是不能吸收的指數(shù)人口增長。這種新的勞動(dòng)力被吸引到城市：到新的產(chǎn)業(yè)，到似乎始終蓬勃發(fā)展建筑界，去服務(wù)不斷增長公共部門和官僚機(jī)構(gòu)。德黑蘭的角色是國家的行政，經(jīng)濟(jì)，文化中心，它堅(jiān)定而鞏固地通往外面的世界。</p><p>　　德黑蘭戰(zhàn)后的城市擴(kuò)張，是在管制、私營部

6、門的推動(dòng)，投機(jī)性的發(fā)展下進(jìn)行的。房屋一直供不應(yīng)求，并有大量可用的富余勞動(dòng)力和資本，因此在德黑蘭建筑行業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展，土地和財(cái)產(chǎn)的價(jià)格不斷上漲。這個(gè)城市成長為一個(gè)在某種意義上道路對(duì)外脫節(jié)的，城鎮(zhèn)和鄉(xiāng)村一體化的，郊區(qū)不斷增長的新的定居點(diǎn)。這加強(qiáng)了社會(huì)的孤立性，破壞了郊區(qū)的花園和綠地，并使城市管理者的感到無能為力。1962年一位副市長在德黑蘭表示：“建筑物和居民點(diǎn)已經(jīng)滿足人們所想要的無論何處何種樣子”，創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)“事實(shí)上城鎮(zhèn)相互連接的方式不當(dāng)”的

7、城市（Nafisi, 1964,第426頁）。有許多事情迫切需要做，但市政府并沒有法律上或經(jīng)濟(jì)上有能力處理這進(jìn)程。</p><p>　　1966年市政法第一次規(guī)定了城規(guī)最高委員會(huì)的法律體制和土地利用規(guī)劃公司的綜合計(jì)劃。還有他一系列法律，以支持德黑蘭市的新的法律和體制安排，使住房和其他管理工作在城市中發(fā)展起來。最重要的一步是策劃的德黑蘭綜合計(jì)劃于1968年被批準(zhǔn)。它是由一個(gè)伊朗規(guī)劃師Fereydun Ghaffar

8、i領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的美國的Victor Gruen和伊朗的Aziz Farmanfarmaian所共同產(chǎn)生的（Ardalan，1986）。該計(jì)劃確定的城市的問題是：城市密度過高特別是城市中心、主要道路沿線商業(yè)活動(dòng)的膨脹、污染、不完善的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，貧困地區(qū)廣泛的失業(yè)和低收入群體不斷地遷移到德黑蘭。解決的辦法是城市自然社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的轉(zhuǎn)型。(Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968). 不過該提案大多主張形態(tài)上的變化，試圖強(qiáng)調(diào)一個(gè)現(xiàn)

9、代化的理念，強(qiáng)加這個(gè)復(fù)雜的都市的秩序。設(shè)想這個(gè)城市的未來可向西形成一個(gè)線性多中心的形式，減少密度和市中心的擠塞情況。全市將形成10個(gè)地區(qū)，其他各區(qū)由綠化帶隔開，每個(gè)地區(qū)約50萬居民，并設(shè)置擁有高樓的商業(yè)及工業(yè)中心。各個(gè)地區(qū)（mantagheh）將分為若干區(qū)域（nahyeh）和社區(qū)</p><p>　　幾乎所有這些措施可以追溯到那個(gè)擁有時(shí)尚規(guī)劃理念的時(shí)代，這主要是受英國新城鎮(zhèn)的影響。在Victor Gruen的《我

10、們城市的心臟》（1965）書中，曾設(shè)想未來的中心大都市會(huì)由10個(gè)城市包圍，每個(gè)國家都有它自己的中心。這很像Ebenezer Howard’s（1960年，第142頁）提到的，那個(gè)四周被園林城市群包圍著的中心城市：“社會(huì)的城市”。在德黑蘭的規(guī)劃中，這一概念的直譯版被使用。另一個(gè)在英國新城鎮(zhèn)被使用的概念，比如Redditch和 Runcorn，是把公共交通路線作為城市的骨架的重要性，其停車點(diǎn)是它的重點(diǎn)服務(wù)中心。使用鄰里中心和小學(xué)來限制鄰里單

11、元人口，這被廣泛應(yīng)用于這些新市鎮(zhèn)，這是一個(gè)曾在20世紀(jì)20年代在美國發(fā)展的想法(Mumford, 1954)。這些思想依然存在，但是，主要是在紙面上。該計(jì)劃已執(zhí)行，已在美國城市規(guī)劃中有根深蒂固的想法，包括了用高速公路網(wǎng)的不斷延伸去連接城市的脫節(jié)部分;在不同地區(qū)的社會(huì)管理和物理性質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行區(qū)劃;引進(jìn)容積率的控制發(fā)展的密度。</p><p>　　在20世紀(jì)70年代進(jìn)行的其他主要規(guī)劃工作包括Shahrak Ghar

12、b的局部發(fā)展新城鎮(zhèn)，以及Shahestan依照英國顧問Llewelyn–Davies提出的規(guī)劃新的城市行政中心，雖然這被當(dāng)做正在上升的革命浪潮后來從未實(shí)施過。 </p><p>　　革命和后革命時(shí)期可分為三個(gè)階段：革命（1979-1988年），重建（1989-1996年）和改革（1997-2004），每個(gè)都展示了德黑蘭城市規(guī)劃中不同的做法。</p><p>　　德黑蘭和其他城市經(jīng)過兩

13、年大量實(shí)證，1979年有代表性的是一個(gè)革命的到來推翻了伊朗君主，由議會(huì)共和制和神父統(tǒng)治的不穩(wěn)定結(jié)合所取代。其原因可以追溯到在國王的發(fā)展模式導(dǎo)致了許多沖突，現(xiàn)代與傳統(tǒng)，經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展與政治發(fā)展，全球市場力量和地方資產(chǎn)階級(jí)力量，外國勢(shì)力和民族主義，腐敗和自滿中堅(jiān)分子與不滿的群眾。像1906年的革命一樣，許多隱藏意見的累積使1979的革命成為可能。在第一次革命，維新已占了上風(fēng)，而在第二次，傳統(tǒng)主義者贏得了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。然而，無論革命的態(tài)度還是他們掌握政權(quán)之

14、后的一系列重大問題，包括城市發(fā)展都顯示出現(xiàn)代化的偏好。從這個(gè)意義上講，該國的這兩個(gè)爆炸革命事件可以被看作是在動(dòng)蕩中逐步轉(zhuǎn)型所作的努力（Madanipour，1998，2003）。</p><p>　　革命是在與伊拉克長期戰(zhàn)爭（1980-1988）之后，其間停止了經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。在城市發(fā)展方面的投資減少，而農(nóng)村地區(qū)和省城受到革命政府的青睞，同時(shí)遏制從農(nóng)村向城市遷移并與大城市公平對(duì)待。在此期間主要規(guī)劃干預(yù)是對(duì)白天城市中心

15、的私家車活動(dòng)的限制。同時(shí)，戰(zhàn)爭和新政府的免費(fèi)或低費(fèi)用的設(shè)施，吸引了更多的人承諾向首都城市移民，到1986年人口達(dá)600萬。從20世紀(jì)50年代城市人口的增長速度已開始減慢，而直到80年代中期首都的增長都更快，但是它的增長率也開始下降（Khatam, 1993）。</p><p>　　在革命和戰(zhàn)爭后，正?；椭亟〞r(shí)期開始了，其中大部分持續(xù)到上世紀(jì)90年代。這期間見證了德黑蘭城市規(guī)劃的若干努力。但是沒有一個(gè)有效的框架來

16、管理劇烈的城市發(fā)展。綜合計(jì)劃在革命后遭到攻擊，因?yàn)樗徽J(rèn)為無法適應(yīng)變化。 1998年，市長批評(píng)它主要是形態(tài)上的發(fā)展規(guī)劃、植根于前政權(quán)的政治框架、并沒有足夠重視實(shí)際操作問題（Dehaghani，1995）。</p><p>　　綜合計(jì)劃的25年壽命在1991年結(jié)束。一個(gè)伊朗顧問公司（A-Tech）受委托于1985年籌備1986-1996期間的規(guī)劃。經(jīng)過多次延遲，在1993年，該計(jì)劃最終被城市規(guī)劃高級(jí)理事會(huì)批準(zhǔn)。該計(jì)

17、劃還注重增長的管理和線性空間戰(zhàn)略，利用了城市區(qū)域，次區(qū)域，地區(qū)，小區(qū)和鄰里尺度。它促進(jìn)保護(hù)、權(quán)力下放、多中心發(fā)展，有五個(gè)衛(wèi)星新市鎮(zhèn)，并發(fā)展住宅增加城市密度。該協(xié)會(huì)建議，城市在5個(gè)亞區(qū)中被劃分成22個(gè)區(qū)，每個(gè)區(qū)都擁有自己的服務(wù)中心（Shahrdari-e Tehran, 2004）。 </p><p>　　1993年的計(jì)劃不受市政當(dāng)局歡迎，不同意它的估價(jià)和優(yōu)先次序，認(rèn)為它不現(xiàn)實(shí)、昂貴、無法實(shí)施。1996-2001年

18、期間市政當(dāng)局自己做了一個(gè)戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃，它被認(rèn)為是德黑蘭市政的第一個(gè)規(guī)劃或是德黑蘭80。它強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)一個(gè)城市提出戰(zhàn)略和政策來實(shí)現(xiàn)他們的第一個(gè)規(guī)劃，而不是以介紹土地利用規(guī)劃為目標(biāo)。它把城市的主要問題確定為能提供服務(wù)的資源短缺、城市發(fā)展模式和速度、環(huán)境污染、缺乏有效的公共交通工具、效率低下和官僚主義。然后市政府對(duì)城市的未來遠(yuǎn)景概述了六個(gè)主要特征：一個(gè)清潔的城市，建設(shè)便于運(yùn)動(dòng)的城市公園和綠化帶，新的文化和體育設(shè)施，改革發(fā)展的城市組織，以及對(duì)城市空間的改

19、善，包括土地利用和保護(hù)的全面和詳細(xì)的計(jì)劃的編制規(guī)劃(Shahrdari-e Tehran, 1996)。</p><p>　　全市實(shí)施了1968年的計(jì)劃中提出的一部分建議，諸如增加南方的綠色開放空間，或是興建高速公路網(wǎng);開放城市的大部分地區(qū)使之得到新的發(fā)展以緩解全城的運(yùn)作。繼承1993年計(jì)劃的意見，市政府放寬容積率限制，并允許熱鬧地帶有更高的密度。然而，這并非基于規(guī)劃的考慮，主要是為了使市政當(dāng)局的財(cái)政獨(dú)立。這在發(fā)

20、展產(chǎn)業(yè)區(qū)廣受歡迎，但受到公民的爭議。開發(fā)者可以通過向市政府繳納罰款建立更高的建筑物，而不必考慮對(duì)周圍環(huán)境的影響，這個(gè)政策俗稱“密度銷售”。該城市的面貌，特別是在其北部地區(qū)，是在短期內(nèi)改變的，其中包括中通過寬闊的街道和高速公路連接高樓大廈。在較貧窮的南部，一個(gè)大型的重建項(xiàng)目Navab穿過密集而破舊的建筑物建造高速公路，建立龐大的上層建筑的各個(gè)方面。這個(gè)城市的行政邊界擴(kuò)大了兩次，一次向外，一次向西，涵蓋了700平方公里的22個(gè)區(qū)市。<

21、/p><p>　　這個(gè)時(shí)期的重建爭議隨著民主的改革而產(chǎn)生，它重新啟動(dòng)了城市市議會(huì)的選舉，這首先造成了市長和市政府關(guān)系的制度混亂。該會(huì)于2001年公布了自己的城市構(gòu)想作為德黑蘭憲章，這總結(jié)了大會(huì)上安理會(huì)成員、非政府組織和市政專家之間原則上同意的問題。該憲章主要采納了可持續(xù)性和民主性原則，被用于開發(fā)自然和處理環(huán)境、交通、社會(huì)、文化、經(jīng)濟(jì)問題、城市管理戰(zhàn)略、區(qū)域性城市，國家和國際角色 。</p><p&

22、gt;　　Development of the city of Tehran</p><p>　　The city had grown in size and complexity to such an extent thatits spatial managementneeded additional tools, which resulted in the growing complexity of muni

23、cipalorganization, and in the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the city. </p><p>　　After the Second World War, during which the Allied forces occupied the country, there was a period of democratizatio

24、n, followed by political tensions of the start of the cold war, and struggles</p><p>　　over the control of oil. This period was ended in 1953 by a coup detat that returned the Shah to</p><p>　　p

25、ower, who then acted as an executive monarch for the next 25 years. With high birth rates and an intensification of rural–urban migration, Tehran— and other large cities—grew even faster than before. By 1956, Tehran’s po

26、pulation rose to 1.5 million, by 1966 to 3 million, and by 1976 to 4.5 million; its size grew from 46 km² in 1934 to 250 km² in 1976 (Kariman, 1976; Vezarat-e Barnameh va Budgeh, 1987).</p><p>　　Re

27、venues from the oil industry rose, creating surplus resources that needed to be circulated and absorbed in the economy. An industrialization drive from the mid-1950s created many new jobs in big cities, particularly in T

28、ehran. The land reforms of the 1960s released large numbers of rural population from agriculture, which was not able to absorb the exponential demographic growth. This new labour force was attracted to cities: to the new

29、 industries, to the construction sector which seemed to be</p><p>　　Urban expansion in postwar Tehran was based on under-regulated, private-sector driven, speculative development. Demand for housing always e

30、xceeded supply, and a surplus of labor and capital was always available; hence the flourishing construction industry and the rising prices of land and property in Tehran. The city grew in a disjointed manner in all direc

31、tions along the outgoing roads, integrating the surrounding towns and villages, and growing new suburban settlements. This intensified social</p><p>　　The 1966 Municipality Act provided, for the first time,

32、a legal framework for the formation of the Urban Planning High Council and for the establishment of land-use planning in the form of comprehensive plans. A series of other laws followed, underpinning new legal and instit

33、utional arrangements for the Tehran municipality, allowing the Ministry of Housing and others to work together in managing the growth of the city. The most important step taken in planning was the approval of the Tehran

34、Comp</p><p>　　The proposals were, nevertheless, mostly advocating physical change, attempting, in a modernist</p><p>　　spirit, to impose a new order onto this complex metropolis. The future of t

35、he city was envisaged to</p><p>　　be growing westward in a linear polycentric form, reducing the density and congestion of the city centre. The city would be formed of 10 large urban districts, separated fro

36、m each other by green belts,each with about 500,000 inhabitants, a commercial and an industrial centre with high-rise buildings.</p><p>　　Each district (mantagheh) would be subdivided into a number of areas

37、(nahyeh) and neighborhoods (mahalleh). An area, with a population of about 15–30,000, would have a high school and a commercial centre and other necessary facilities. A neighborhood, with its 5000 inhabitants, would have

38、 a primary school and a local commercial centre. These districts and areas would be linked by a transportation network, which included motorways, a rapid transit route and a bus route. The stops on the rapid tra</p>

39、;<p>　　Almost all these measures can be traced to the fashionable planning ideas of the time, which were largely influenced by the British New Towns. In his book, The Heart of Our Cities, Victor Gruen(1965) had en

40、visaged the metropolis of tomorrow as a central city surrounded by 10 additional cities,each with its own centre. This resembled Ebenezer Howard’s (1960, p. 142) ‘‘social cities’’, in which a central city was surrounded

41、by a cluster of garden cities. In Tehran’s plan, a linear version of this </p><p>　　Other major planning exercises, undertaken in the 1970s, included the partial development of a New Town, Shahrak Gharb, and

42、 the planning of a new administrative centre for the city—Shahestan—by the British consultants Llewelyn–Davies, although there was never time to implement the latter, as the tides of revolution were rising. </p>&

43、lt;p>　　Planning through policy development: reconstruction after the revolution and war</p><p>　　The revolutionary and post-revolutionary period can be divided into three phases: revolution (1979–1988), r

44、econstruction (1989–1996), and reform (1997–2004), each demonstrating different approaches to urban planning in Tehran. </p><p>　　After two years of mass demonstrations in Tehran and other cities, the year

45、1979 was marked by the advent of a revolution that toppled the monarchy in Iran, to be replaced by a state which uneasily combined the rule of the clergy with parliamentary republicanism. Its causes can be traced in the

46、shortcomings of the Shah’s model of development, which led to clashes between modernization and traditions, between economic development and political underdevelopment, between global market forces and lo</p><

47、p>　　The revolution was followed by a long war (1980–1988) with Iraq, which halted economic development. Investment in urban development dwindled, while rural areas and provincial towns were favoured by the revolutiona

48、ry government, both to curb rural–urban migration and to strike a balance with large cities. The key planning intervention in this period was to impose daytime restrictions on the movement of private cars in the city cen

49、tre. Meanwhile, the war and the promise of free or low-cost facilit</p><p>　　After the revolution and war, a period of normalization and reconstruction started, which lasted for most of the 1990s. This perio

50、d witnessed a number of efforts at urban planning in Tehran. Once again, urban development had intensified without an effective framework to manage it. The comprehensive plan came under attack after the revolution, as it

51、 was considered unable to cope with change. In 1998, the Mayor criticized it for being mainly a physical development plan, for being rooted in the pol</p><p>　　The comprehensive plan’s 25-year lifespan came

52、to an end in 1991. A firm of Iranian consultants (A-Tech) was commissioned in 1985 to prepare a plan for the period of 1986–1996. After much delay, it was only in 1993 that the plan was finally approved by the Urban Plan

53、ning High Council. This plan also focused on growth management and a linear spatial strategy, using the scales of urban region, subregion, district, area and neighbourhood. It promoted conservation, decentralization, pol

54、ycentric deve</p><p>　　The 1993 plan was not welcomed by the municipality, which disagreed with its assessments and priorities, finding it unrealistic, expensive, and impossible to implement. The municipalit

55、y produced its own strategic plan for the period 1996–2001, known as Tehran Municipalty’s First Plan, or Tehran 80. Rather than introducing a land-use plan as its goal, this was the first plan for the city that emphasize

56、d a set of strategies and propose d policies to achieve them. It identified the city’s main pro</p><p>　　The municipality implemented part of the proposals, such as increasing the amount of green open space

57、s in the south, or constructing new parts of the motorway network, which was proposed by the 1968 plan; opening large parts of the city to new development, and easing movement across the city. Following the advice of the

58、 1993 plan, the municipality relaxed FAR limits and allowed higher densities through bonus zoning. This, however, was not based on planning considerations, but was mainly to bring</p><p>　　This controversial

59、 period of reconstruction was followed by a period of democratic reform, which re-launched an elected city council for the city, which at first caused institutional confusion about its relationship with the mayor and the

60、 municipality. The council published its own vision of the city as Tehran Charter in 2001, which was the summary of the principles agreed between council members, non-governmental organizations, and urban experts at a co