城市规划与发展毕业论文中英文对照资料外文翻译文献

中英文对照资料外文翻译文献Urban planning and development inTehranWith a population of around 7 million in a metropolitan region of 12 million inhabitants, Tehran is one of the larger cities of the world. This paper charts its planning and development through the ages, particularly since the mid-20th century, a period in which the city has gained most of its phenomenal growth. Three phases are identified in this historical process, with different types of urban planning exercised through infrastructure design and development, land use regulation, and policy development._ 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Planning, Urban growth, Iranian citiesPlanning through infrastructure design and development: foundations for growth The first phase of Tehra n‘s planning refers to the period before the Second World War, whereby at least three major efforts set the framework for the city‘s 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 government‘s 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 east–west Silk Road along the southern edge of Alburz mountains and the north–south 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 (1779–1925).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德黑兰的城市规划与发展1860s, with a 10th of its inhabitants now living outside the old walls (Ettehadieh, 1983). The country‘s 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 l asted from 1925 to 1979. The new regime‘s 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 regime‘s 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 city‘s 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本科毕业设计（外文翻译）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 polarizations—and their associated tensions—have characterized Iran‘s urban conditions.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 plans to regulate and manage future change. The city had grown in size and complexity to such an extent that its spatial management needed additional tools, which resulted in the growing complexity of municipal organization, 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 to power, 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 population rose to 1.5 million, by 1966 to 3 million, and by 1976 to 4.5 million; its size grew from 46 km²in 1934 to 250 km²in 1976 (Kari man, 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 population from agriculture, which was not able to absorb the exponential demographic growth. This new labour force 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. Tehran‘s role as the administrative, economic, and cultural centre of the country, and its gateway to the outside world,wa s 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德黑兰的城市规划与发展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 city‘s 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 city‘s physical, social and economic fabric (Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968). The proposals were, nevertheless, mostly advocating physical change, attempting, in a modernist spirit, to impose a new order onto this complex metropolis. The future of the city was envisaged tobe 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 from each other by green belts, each with about 500,000 inhabitants, a commercial and an industrial centre with high-rise buildings. Each district (mantagheh) would be subdivided into a number of areas (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 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 transit route would be developed as the nodes for concentration of activities with a high residential density. A number of redevelopment and improvement schemes in the existing urban areas would relocate 600,000 people out of the central areas (Far manfarmaian and Gruen, 1968).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 envisaged 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 by a cluster of garden cities. In Tehran‘s plan, a linear version of this concept was used. Another linear concept, which was used in the British New Towns of the time such as Redditch and Runcorn, was the importance of public transport routes as the town‘s spine, with its stopping points serving as its foci. The use of neighborhood units of limited population, focused on a neighborhood centre and a primary school, was widely used in these New Towns, an idea that had been developed in the 1920s in the United States (Mumford, 1954). These ideas remained, however, largely on paper. Some of the plan‘s ideas that were implemented, which were rooted in American city planning, included a network of freeways to connect the disjointed parts of the sprawling metropolis; zoning as the basis for managing the social and physical character of different areas; and the introduction of Floor Area Ratios for controlling development densities.Other major planning exercises, undertaken in the 1970s, included the partial development of a New Town, Shahrak Gharb, and 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.Planning through policy development: reconstruction after the revolution and war The revolutionary and post-revolutionary period can be divided into three phases: revolution (1979–1988), reconstruction (1989–1996), and reform (1997–2004), each demonstrating different approaches to urban planning in Tehran.After two years of mass demonstrations in Tehran and other cities, the year 1979 was marked by the advent of a revolution that toppled the monarchy in Iran, to be replaced by a state which uneasily本科毕业设计（外文翻译）combined the rule of the clergy with parliamentary republicanism. Its causes can be traced in the 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 local bourgeoisie, between foreign influence and nationalism, between a corrupt and complacent elite and discontented masses. Like the revolution of 1906, a coalition of many shades of opinion made the revolution of 1979 possible. In the first revolution, the modernizers had the upper hand, while in the second the traditionalists won the leadership. However, the attitudes of both revolutions—and the regimes that followed them—to a number of major issues, including urban development, show a preference for modernization. In this sense, both revolutions can be seen as explosive episodes in the country‘s troub led efforts at progressive transformation (Madanipour, 1998, 2003).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 revolutionary 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 centre. Meanwhile, the war and the promise of free or low-cost facilities by the new government attracted more migrants to the capital city, its population reaching 6 million by 1986. The rate of population growth in the city had started to slow down from the 1950s, while the metropolitan region was growing faster until the mid-1980s, when its growth rate also started to decline (Khatam, 1993).After the revolution and war, a period of normalization and reconstruction started, which lasted for most of the 1990s. This period 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 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 political framework of the previous regime, and for not paying enough attention to the problems of implementation (Dehaghani, 1995).The comprehensive plan‘s 25-year lifespan came 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 Planning 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, polycentric development, development of five satellite new towns, and increasing residential densities in the city. It proposed that the city be divided into 22 districts within five sub-regions, each with its own service centre (Shahrdari-e Tehran, 2004).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 municipality produced its own strategic plan for the period 1996–2001, known as Tehran Municipal ty‘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 emphasized a set of strategies and propose d policies to achieve them. It identified the city‘s main problems as shortage of resources to deliver its services; the pace and pattern of urban growth; environmental pollution; the absence of effective public transport, and inefficient bureaucracy. The municipality‘s vision for the future of the city was then outlined to have six major c haracteristics: a clean city, ease of movement in the city, the creation of parks and green spaces, the development of德黑兰的城市规划与发展new cultural and sports facilities, reform of the municipal organization, and planning for the improvement of urban space, including preparation of comprehensive and detailed plans for land use and conservation (Shahrdari-e Tehran, 1996).The municipality implemented part of the proposals, such as increasing the amount of green open spaces 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 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 financial autonomy to the municipality. This proved to be popular with the development industry, but controversial with citizens. Developers could build taller buildings by paying fines to the municipality, in a policy popularly known as ‗‗selling density‘‘, without having to show their impacts on the surrounding environment. The face of the city, particularly in its northern parts, was transformed in a short period, consisting of medium to high-rise buildings connected through wide streets and motorways. In the poorer south, a major redevelopment project, Navab, cut a motorway through the dense and decayed fabric, building gigantic superstructures on each side. The city‘s administrative boundaries were expanded twice, once outward and then westward, to encompass 22 district municipalities in 700 km².This controversial 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 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 congress about the subject. The Charter adopted sustainability and democracy as its key principles, which were used to develop strategies for natural and built environments, transport, social, cultural and economic issues, urban management, and the city‘s regional, national and international roles (Shahrdari-e Tehran, 2004).Currently, detailed plans are being prepared for the city‘s 22 districts, and work is unde r way on a strategic plan to link these detailed plans and to guide the future development of the city as a whole. Even though the city is more integrated and democratic than before and has a more coherent approach to planning (Hourcade, 2000), some authorities still see plans as isolated documents, rather than seeing planning as a continuous process. Land use plans are produced by private sector consultants for a specified period. The role of the municipality is merely implementation of these plans, rather than generating and revising them. New schemes for urban motorways and large-scale radical redevelopment of the central and decayed areas continue to be prepared and implemented. The last mayor, who was elected the president of the republic in 2005, was a civil engineer, putting road building schemes high on his agenda, even aiming to widen parts of the most beautiful boulevard in the city (Vali Asr) to ease traffic flows. Meanwhile, the city continues to suffer from acute social polarization, high land and property prices, heavy traffic congestion and some of the worst atmospheric pollution in the world, and remains unprepared for any serious earthquake.Managing change in a metropolisLeaving aside the earlier phases, the key urban planning stages in the 20th century (1930s, 1960s, 1990s) show some broad similarities: they mark the periods of relative economic and political strength, in which at once urban development flourishes and the government feels able enough to manage growth. Iran‘s oil econo my is so much integrated with the global economy that these periods parallel the international economic cycles and periods of urban development booms. These planning stages also本科毕业设计（外文翻译）show cyclical development pressure, cyclical attention to planning matters, within an overall move towards democratic urban governance, to sophistication of municipal organization and city planning approaches, which are nevertheless far behind the momentous process of urban growth and development. The main focus has remained management of physical development. Each phase, however, has added a new dimension to city planning: from design to regulation and policy development; each new approach adding to the complexity of the process, rather than replacing the previous approach.The other feature they all share is their preference for redevelopment, which is the hallmark of a country with a young population caught in the fever of modernization, despite its upheavals and setbacks. Post-revolutionary governments claimed to revive many traditional forms and practices, as a reaction to radical modernization of the past. In relation to the built environment, however, they have shown strong modernist tendencies, with redevelopment remaining their favourite device, similar to previous generations. This is mainly due to the pressure for change that characterizes the modern history of Iran, as reflected in the advent of two revolutions, i.e., radical breaks from the past. It is also partly due to institutional continuity, whereby legal and institutional arrangements for urban planning remained almost intact, despite change of individuals, and despite structural changes at the higher levels of government after 1979. Also, the expert communities and their technocratic culture passed through the revolution without major internal changes, despite the flight of many professionals from the country.Tehran‘ governance has been dominated by the central government. Although the municipality has grown in size and complexity, it is still under the shadow of government ministries, even after the launch of an elected city council and a degree of financial autonomy. It is only charged with implementing the plans, rather than preparing them; and yet it is expected to have financial autonomy, resulting in controversial ways of implementing or changing planning regulations. It is only charge d to manage its 22 districts, and yet the urban region covers 5 million inhabitants outside the city‘s boundaries. Without empowering the municipality to take full control of planning for its jurisdiction within a democratic and accountable framework, and to collaborate with other authorities in charge of the urban region, planning and management of the metropolis remain less than effective.ConclusionTeh ran‘s planning history shows early stages in which new infrastructure was designed and developed by the government as part of its strategy for modernization and growth management. The intensity of speculative development after the Second World War met the demands of the exponential growth of the city‘s population. This, however, needed to be controlled and regulated through a planning process, which produced Tehran‘s comprehensive plan of 1968. Within a decade, the revolution interrupted its implementation, and growth could only be managed through piecemeal efforts. The period of reconstruction in the 1990s relaxed some of the limits of the 1968 plan, which showed the urgent need for an updated planning framework. Several planning documents were launched in this period, which show a stronger role for the municipality and attention to policy development. Work on a strategic plan for the city continues today. These plans all have much that has remained unimplemented, although they have managed to some extent to steer the course of events and develop a more sophisticated approach to planning. And yet social and economic upheavals of the past three decades, the intensity of speculative development—especially since the Second World War—and the speed of events seem to have left the city authorities and citizens alike feeling trapped in a turmoil, lagging behind the events, and unable to manage change. The city continues to suffer from a range of problems, including traffic德黑兰的城市规划与发展congestion, environmental pollution, and unaffordable property prices.德黑兰的城市规划与发展摘要：德黑兰是世界上较大的城市之一，拥有居民人口1200万，都市人口约700万，本文主要介绍其规划和历代的发展，特别是自20世纪中期，在这个时期城市获得了其最显着的增长。