2014毕业设计翻译(城市规划类).docx

Urban planning and Development inTehranPlanning through infrastructure design and development: foundations for growthThe first phase of Tehrans planning refers to the period before the Second World War, whereby atleast three major efforts set the framework for the citys growth and development: walling the city(1550s) , expanding the walled city (1870s) and building a new urban infrastructure (1930s). They were all led by the governments ability and desire to instigate change and shape the city through undertaking large-scale infrastructure projects. Tehran was a village outside the ancient city of Ray, which lay at the foot of mount Damavand, the highest peak in the country, and at the intersection of two major trade highways: the eastwest Silk Road along the southern edge of Alburz mountains and the northsouth route that connected the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. Ray had been inhabited for thousands of years and was the capital of the Seljuk dynasty in the 11th century; however, it declined at the end of the medieval period, when Tehran started to grow (Lockhart, 1960). The first large-scale town planning exercise in Tehran was undertaken in 1553, with the construction of a bazaar and city walls, which were square and had gates on four sides, in accordance with the pattern of ancient Persian cities (Barthold, 1984). This set the framework for other developments that followed, and the city grew in significance, eventually to be selected in 1785 as the capital of the Qajar dynasty (17791925).On becoming the capital, the city swelled by courtiers and soldiers, who were followed by trades and services. From a population of 15,000 at the end of the 18th century, Tehran grew tenfold by the 1860s, with a 10th of its inhabitants now living outside the old walls (Ettehadieh, 1983). The countrys military defeats in its encounters with Britain and Russia had engendered a process of reform, which was now being extended to the capital city. The second large-scale town planning exercise in Tehran, therefore, was conducted for accommodating growth and introducing modernization and reform. Starting in 1868 and lasting for 12 years, new city walls, in the form of a perfect octagon with 12 gates, were constructed, which were more useful for growth management and tax collection than for their defensive value. Selection as the capital city and these transformations, which included a new central square, new streets, a bank, an institute of technology, a hospital, a telegraph house, hotels and European-style shops, were, according to a British observer, a twofold renaissance for Tehran (Curzon, 1892, p. 300).The city continued to grow and pressure for modernization intensified, which was manifested in the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. A modern municipality was established in 1910, transforming the old system of urban governance. After the First World War, the Pahlavi dynasty came to power and this lasted from 1925 to 1979. The new regimes emphasis was on secularism and nationalism, which were reflected in administrative centralization, modernization of the army, expansion of bureaucracy, development of a transport network, integration of regions into a national market, and restructuring towns and cities (Abrahamian, 1982). The 1930s witnessed widespread road-widening schemes that tore apart the historic urban fabric, making them accessible to motor vehicles. The city of Tehran thus went through its third major town planning exercise. The city walls of the 1870s were far too restrictive for a growing city. By 1932, population density had doubled to 105 persons per hectare and a third of the population lived outside the walls. In addition to demographic pressure, the arrival of motor vehicles, the regimes desire to control urban populations and to modernize the urban infrastructure led to a substantial transformation of the capital, in which it was radically re-planned and re-built (Lockhart, 1939, p. 11). New boulevards were built on the ruins of the city walls and moats, as part of a transport network of 218 km of new roads. The walled royal compound was fragmented and replaced by a new government quarter; retailers were encouraged to move to new streets and to abandon the old streets of the bazaar; and new buildings and institutions sprang up all over the city. The new street network was imposed on the winding streets of old neighborhoods, with the aims of unifying the space of the city, overcoming the traditional factional social structure, easing the movement of goods, services and military forces, strengthening the market economy and supporting the centralization of power. The city was turned into an open matrix, which was a major step in laying the foundations for further modernization and future expansion. The immediate result was the growth of the city from 310,000 inhabitants in 1932 to 700,000 in 1941. These large-scale urban planning and development phases of Tehran were all efforts at modernization, instigating and managing radical change. However, while the first phase had used distinctively ancient Persian imagery and local expertise, the second and third phases employed European images and experts, primarily from France and Germany. What these early town planning efforts shared was that they were all envisaging a particular new form and implementing it through the (re)development of the urban environment; they were all plans for a major series of physical changes executed in a relatively short period of time.The reforms in the second half of the 19th century opened up the citys society and space to new economic and cultural patterns, and unleashed centrifugal and dialectic forces that exploded in two major revolutions. Economically, the city started to be integrated into the world market as a peripheral node. Embracing the market economy divided the city along the lines of income and wealth, while new cultural fault lines emerged along lifestyle and attitude towards tradition and modernity. Rich and poor, who used to live side by side in the old city, were now separated from one another in a polarizing city. Moreover, modernizers welcomed living in new neighborhoods and frequented new streets and squares, while traditionalists continued to live and work in the older parts of the city. Ever since, these economic and cultural polarizationsand their associated tensionshave characterized Irans urban conditions. The city has been compared to a poem, a sculpture, a machine. But the city is more than a text,and more than an artistic or technological. It is a place where natural forces pulse and millions of people livethinking,feeling,dreaming,doing. An aesthetic of urban design must therefore be rooted in the normal processes of nature and of living.I want to describe the dimensions of such an aesthetic. This aesthetic encompasses both nature and culture; it embodies function,sensory perception, and symbolic meaning; and it embraces both the making of things and places and the sensing, using, and contemplating of them. This aesthetic is concerned equally with everyday things and with art: with small things, such as fountains, gardens, and buildings, and with large systems, such as those that transport people or carry wastes. This aesthetic celebrates motion and change, encompasses dynamic processes rather than static objects and scenes, and embraces multiple rather than singular visions. This is not a timeless aesthetic, but one that recognizes both the flow of passing time and the singularity of the moment in time, and one that demands both continuity and revolution.Urban form evolves in time,in predictable and unpredictable ways, the result of complex, overlapping, and interweaving dialogues. These dialogues are all present and ongoing; some are sensed intuitively;others are clearly legible. Together, they comprise the context of a place and all those who dwell within it.This idea of dialogue, with its embodiment of time, purpose, communication, and response, os central to this aesthetic.Concomitant with the need for continuity in the urban landscape is the need for revolution. Despite certain constants of nature and human nature, we live in a world unimaginable to societies of the past. Our perceptions of nature, the quality of its order,and the nature of time and space are changing, as is our culture, provoking the reassessment of old forms and demanding new ones. The vocabulary of formsbuildings, streets, and parksthat are often deferred to as precedents not only reflects a response to cultural processes and values of the time in which those forms were created. Some of these patterns and forms sill express contemporary purposes and values, but they are abstractions. What are the forms that express contemporary cosmology, that speak to us in an age in which photographs of atomic particles and of galaxies are commonplace, in which time and space are not fixed, but relative, and in which we are less certain of our place in the universe than we once were? Conceiving of new forms that capture the knowledge, beliefs, purposes, and values of contemporary society demands that we return to the original source of inspiration, be it nature or culture,rather than the quotation or transformation of abstractions of the past. The process of dwelling,an irreducible fact of every culture, is an aesthetic act, entailing being and doing, a correspondence between nature and culture. Through cultivation and construction, individuals and societies forge a place within nature that reflects their own identitiestheir needs, values, and dream. Making and caring for a place, as well as contemplating these labors and their meanings, comprise the aesthetic experience of dwelling.This concept, as explored by the philosopher Heidegger, has important implications for designers and planners of human settlements. A major issue for designers is how to relinquish control (whether to enable others to express themselves or to permit natures processes to take their course) while still maintaining an aesthetically pleasing order. The pleasing quality of the allotment gardens of community gardens that are popular in both European and North American cities depends upon a gridded framework of plots. Each garden plot is a whole in itself, an improvisation on similar themes by different individuals. Yet all are part of a whole unified by materials, structure, and the process of cultivation.In Granada, Spain, allotment gardens lie within the Alhambra and Generalife. The gardens rest within a highly organized framework of walls and terraces, and enliven the scene rather than detract from it. They complement the formal gardens and courtyards,where vegetables and nut and fruit trees are planted among flowers and vines. There is no arbitrary separation in this Moorish garden between ornamental and productive, between pleasurable and pragmatic,between sacred and secular.It is possible to create urban landscapes that capture a sense of complexity and underlying order,that express a connection to the natural and cultural history of the place, and that are adaptable to meet changing needs. The solution lies in an understanding of the processes that underlie these patterns, and there are some principles that can be derived for urban design:establish a framework that lends overall structurenot an arbitrary framework, but one congruent with the deep structure of a place, define a vocabulary of forms that expresses natural and cultural processes, the encourage a symphony of variations in response to the conditions of a particular locale and the needs of specific people. The result should be a dynamic, coherent whole that can contine to evolve to meet changing neeeds and desires and that also connects the present with the past.The Fens, in Boston, is such a place. As originally conceived and constructed in the 1880s and 90s ,the Fens and its extension in the Riverway were innovative models for public open space that integrated engineering, economics, and aesthetics. The Fens and the Riverway created an integrated system of park, parkway, storm drain, flood detention basin, and streetcar line that formed the skeleton for the growth of adjacent neighborhoods.Frederick Law Olmsted and his partners designed the Fens as a salt water marsh that would function as a flood control reservoir and that would be a counterpoint to the surrounding city. This marsh was human construct dug out of polluted mudflats, but it was designed to appear like a natural salt marsh around which the city had happened to grow. Time and chang, process and purpose are expressed by its shape-a bowl with an irregular edge-and the pattern of plants-bands of grasses and shrubs variably tolerant of fluctuating water levels; even when riverflow was low, its form recalled that it was designed to receive.Olmsteds imitation of nature represents a divergence from the then prevailing pastoral and formal styles, both of which were domesticated landscapes and abstractions of nature. The fens and the Riverway, in their time, represented a new aesthetic for the urban districts which grew up around them, of sufficient scale to hold their own against the large buildings at their edge, and recalling the original condition of the land prior to colonial settlement, they initiated a powerful and poetic dialogue. Imitation of nature was, in this case, a successful design strategy. Today, one must know their history to fully appreciate them as a designed rather than natural landscape. Olmsteds contemporaries, however, knew full well they were built, not preserved. Planning through land-use regulation: harnessing speculative developmentThe second type of planning to emerge in Tehran was in the 1960s, which saw the preparation of plansto regulate and manage future change. The city had grown in size and complexity to such an extent thatits spatial management needed additional tools, which resulted in the growing complexity of municipalorganization, and in the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the city. After the Second World War, during which the Allied forces occupied the country, there was a period of democratization, followed by political tensions of the start of the cold war, and strugglesover the control of oil. This period was ended in 1953 by a coup detat that returned the Shah topower, who then acted as an executive monarch for the next 25 years. With high birth rates and an intensification of ruralurban migration, Tehran and other large citiesgrew even faster than before. By 1956, Tehrans population rose to 1.5 million, by 1966 to 3 million, and by 1976 to 4.5 million; its size grew from 46 km in 1934 to 250 km in 1976 (Kariman, 1976; Vezarat-e Barnameh va Budgeh, 1987). Revenues 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 Tehran. The land reforms of the 1960s released large numbers of rural populationfrom agriculture, which was not able to absorb the exponential demographic growth. This new labourforce was attracted to cities: to the new industries, to the construction sector which seemed to be always booming, to services and the constantly growing public sector bureaucracy. Tehrans role as theadministrative, economic, and cultural centre of the country, and its gateway to the outside world, was firmly consolidated.Urban expansion in postwar Tehran was based on under-regulated, private-sector driven, speculative development. Demand for housing always exceeded 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 directions along the outgoing roads, integrating the surrounding towns and villages, and growing new suburban settlements. This intensified social segregation, destroyed suburban gardens and green spaces, and left the city managers feeling powerless. A deputy mayor of the city in 1962 commented that in Tehran, the buildings and settlements have been developed by whomever has wanted in whatever way and wherever they have wanted, creating a city that was in fact a number of towns connected to each other in an inappropriate way (Nafisi, 1964, p. 426). There was a feeling that something urgently needed to be done, but the municipality was not legally or financially capable of dealing with this process. The 1966 Municipality Act provided, for the first time, 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 institutional 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 Comprehensive Plan in 1968. It was produced by a consortium of Aziz Farmanfarmaian Associates of Iran and Victor Gruen Associates of the United States, under the direction of Fereydun Ghaffari, an Iranian city planner (Ardalan, 1986). The plan identified the citys problems as high density, especially in the city centre; expansion of commercial activities along the main roads; pollution; inefficient infrastructure; widespread unemployment in the poorer areas, and the continuous migration of low-income groups to Tehran. The solution was to be found in the transformation of the citys physical, social and economic fabric (Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968).The proposals were, nevertheless, mostly advocating physical change, attempting, in a modernistspirit, to impose a new order onto this complex