外文翻译---城市重建，过去与现在

《外文翻译---城市重建，过去与现在》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译---城市重建，过去与现在（10页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、本科毕业设计（论文） 外 文 翻 译 原文： URBAN REDEVELOPMENT,PAST AND PRESENT Urban “redevelopment” has emerged, in recent years, as one of the key concerns of urban social science in both theoretical and empirical-based settings. This reflects a concomitant trend associated with urban studies more generally,toward s

2、pecifying the economic, political, and cultural factors responsible for uneven metropolitan development. Indeed, even a causal look at our metropolitan areas reveals that they are composed of many different cities and spatial forms that divided according to different land uses as well as related to

3、patterns of race and class. One city is reserved for the rich and affluent； another is composed of working-class and middle-class neighborhoods； other areas cater to commercial interests, entertainment, tourists, and consumers； and still others languish in chronic disinvestment and decay, reserved f

4、or the homeless, the poor, minorities, and the urban underclass. These contrasts are quite graphic,as anyone touring our metropolitan areas can attest, and represents an extreme crisis of inequality produced by the uneven nature of metropolitan development and growth. The city continues to provide t

5、he prime socio-spatial context within which economic and political elites and ordinary people construct and act out the processes of disinvestment, fiscal crisis, and inner city “renaissance.” In recent years, scholars have begun to study redevelopment with an eye toward clarifying the links between

6、 macrostructural processes, specific urban redevelopment efforts, and locally lived realities. This review issue will therefore consider the significance of urban redevelopment as a focus for urban theory and urban research, outlining what such theoretical and methodological contributions and change

7、s may mean for the future of urban scholarship. The study of cities, urbanism, and urban change redevelopment, disinvestment,and so on has a rich tradition in urban scholarship. Europeans such as Marx and Engels, Weber, and Simmel devoted much thought to the importance of the city, for example, as a

8、 seat of the emerging capitalist economy, a site political and economic power, and force of cultural change that affects mental life. In the United Stares, the early Chicago School urban sociologists focused their empirical attention on the spatial distribution of people and organizations,the causes

9、 and consequences of neighborhood racial succession, and ethnic and racial group “adaptation” to the urban environment. Robert Park (1925), Ernst Burgess (1925), Lewis Wirth (1938), all commented on community structure and local institutions, often drawing analogies to biological systems. From these

10、 writings there emerged a theory of urban and neighborhood change as a “lifecycle”beginning with investment and growth and ending with inevitable decline.By the 1930s, social scientists around the nation were employing the insights,models, and analyses developed by the Chicago School to study cities

11、, as well as influence public policy. Yet a lacuna of American urban scholarship in general, and the Chicago School in particular, was the lack of specificity in identifying the webs of interconnections between urban life and wider macrolevel processes. Early urban sociologists, in short, were prima

12、rily concerned with the internal organization and dynamics of cities, while ignoring the larger macrostructures that linked urban change to extra-local processes. In the early 1970s, several Marxist social scientists including Manuel Castells(1977), David Harvey (1973), and Henri Lefebvre (1991), am

13、ong other scholars began to revise Karl Marxs ideas to explain uneven metropolitan development,urban industrial decline, and other urban trends. Castells proposed that urban scholars focus on the collective consumption characteristic of urbanized nations and way in which political and economic confl

14、icts within cities generate urban social movements for change. David Harvey, in contrast, argued that the central issue in making sense of cities was not collective consumption but the more basic Marxist concern with capital accumulation. Influenced by Lefebvre,Harvey (1973) argued that investment i

15、n land and real estate is an important means of accumulating wealth and a crucial activity that pushes the growth of cities in specific ways. Processes as diverse as urban disinvestment and decay,suburbanization, deindustrialization, urban renewal, and gentrification are part and parcel of the conti

16、nuous reshaping of the built environment to create a more efficient arena for profit making. According to Harvey (1989), powerful real estate actors invest, disinvest, and reshape land-uses in a process of “creative destruction” that is continually accelerating, destroying communities and producing

17、intense social conflicts and struggles over meanings and uses of urban space. Despite their different emphases, the work of Marxists helped focus scholarly attention on the capitalist system of for-profit production generally,and class struggle and capital accumulation specifically, as analytical st

18、arting points for understanding the nature of urban redevelopment and disinvestement(for overviews, see Jaret, 1983； Tabb & Sawyers, 1984). By the late 1970s and continuing into 1980s, a new critical approach to the study of cities and urban redevelopment had developed. Usually called the“critical p

19、olitical-economy” or “sociospatial approach,” this perspective emphasized several major dimensions of cities: (1) the importance of class and racial domination (and, more recently, gender) in shaping urban development； (2) the primary role of powerful economic actors, especially those in the real es

20、tate industry, in building and redeveloping cities； (3) the role of growth-assisted government actors in city development； (4) the importance of symbols, meanings,and culture to the shaping of cities； (5) attention to the global context of urban development (for overviews see Feagin, 1998； Gottdiene

21、r & Feagin, 1988；Hutchison, 2000； Savage & Ward, 1993； Smith, 1995). Gottdiener (1994) and Hutchison (2000) prefer the term “sociospatial” perspective to describe the critical political economy paradigm, a term that accents the society/space synergy, and emphasizes that cities are multifaceted expre

22、ssions of local actions and macrostructural processes. They also use the term to distance themselves from older Marxist approaches of Gordon (1984), Dear and Scott (1981), and Storper and Walker (1983) and highlight the diversity of theory and method within the broad paradigm. Molotch (1999, 1976) a

23、nd Logan and Molotch(1987) prefer the term urban political economy and have developed their own“growth machine” theory to explain urban redevelopment. Other critical scholars have embraced a more eclectic and multi-perspectival focus in their empirical work, attempting to develop middle range variants of general theories as an expedient to moving toward constructive dialogue