本科毕业设计外文翻译 题目： 德黑兰城市发展
学 院: 专 业: 学 号: 学生姓名: 指导教师:
城市建设学院 建筑学
日 期: 二零一一年六月
First Chapter：Development of the city of Tehran
Ali Madanipour 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
Tehran :the making of a metropolis，First Chapter：Development of the city of Tehran ，Ali Madanipour，ISBN：0471957798，Pre： New York John Wiley，1998，page five to page eleven。
第一章：德黑兰市的发展
阿里.马丹妮普尔
德黑兰：一个大都市的建造，第一章：德黑兰市的发展，阿里.马丹妮普尔，书号：0471957798，纽约John Wiley出版社，1998，第五页到第十一页。
德黑兰市的发展
全市已长成了一定的规模性和复杂性，以这样的程度，空间管理需要另外的手段来处理城市组织和不断发展的复杂性，并为城市总体规划做准备。
第二次世界大战后，在盟军占领国家的期间，有一个时期的民主化，在冷战时开始的政治紧张局势之后，它们互相斗争对石油的控制权。这个时期已经结束于1953年，结果
2 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
是由政变产生了伊朗王，那个后来担任了25年的行政君主的人。随着高出生率和农村向城市迁移，德黑兰和其他大城市增长加剧甚至比以前更快地。到1956年，德黑兰的人口上升到150万，到了1966至300万， 1976至450万，其规模也从1934年46平方公里到1976年的250平方公里。
从石油行业的收入增长创造的盈余资源，需要流通和经济的吸收。50年代中期，特别是在工业化的驱动下德黑兰许多大城市有了新工作。20世纪60年代的土地改革释放了大量来自农业的农村人口，这是不能吸收的指数人口增长。这种新的劳动力被吸引到城市：到新的产业，到似乎始终蓬勃发展建筑界，去服务不断增长公共部门和官僚机构。德黑兰的角色是国家的行政，经济，文化中心，它坚定而巩固地通往外面的世界。 德黑兰战后的城市扩张，是在管制、私营部门的推动，投机性的发展下进行的。房屋一直供不应求，并有大量可用的富余劳动力和资本，因此在德黑兰建筑行业蓬勃发展，土地和财产的价格不断上涨。这个城市成长为一个在某种意义上道路对外脱节的，城镇和乡村一体化的，郊区不断增长的新的定居点。这加强了社会的孤立性，破坏了郊区的花园和绿地，并使城市管理者的感到无能为力。1962年一位副市长在德黑兰表示：“建筑物和居民点已经满足人们所想要的无论何处何种样子”，创造了一个“事实上城镇相互连接的方式不当”的城市（Nafisi, 1964,第426页）。有许多事情迫切需要做，但市政府并没有法律上或经济上有能力处理这进程。
1966年市政法第一次规定了城规最高委员会的法律体制和土地利用规划公司的综合计划。还有他一系列法律，以支持德黑兰市的新的法律和体制安排，使住房和其他管理工作在城市中发展起来。最重要的一步是策划的德黑兰综合计划于1968年被批准。它是由一个伊朗规划师Fereydun Ghaffari领导下的美国的Victor Gruen和伊朗的Aziz Farmanfarmaian所共同产生的（Ardalan，1986）。该计划确定的城市的问题是：城市密度过高特别是城市中心、主要道路沿线商业活动的膨胀、污染、不完善的基础设施，贫困地区广泛的失业和低收入群体不断地迁移到德黑兰。解决的办法是城市自然社会和经济结构的转型。(Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968).不过该提案大多主张形态上的变化，试图强调一个现代化的理念，强加这个复杂的都市的秩序。设想这个城市的未来可向西形成一个线性多中心的形式，减少密度和市中心的挤塞情况。全市将形成10个地区，其他各区由绿化带隔开，每个地区约50万居民，并设置拥有高楼的商业及工业中心。各个地区（mantagheh）将分为若干区域（nahyeh）和社区（mahalleh）。每个区域人口约1.5到3万，有一所中学和商业中心以及其他必要设施。每个社区有大约5000居民，有一所小学和一个当地的商业中心。这些地区和区域将有相连的交通运输网络，包括高速公路，捷运路线及巴士路线。过境路线的站点会迅速发展为活动度高居住密度高的节点。重建及改善计划中将有60万人离开中心地区(Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968).。
几乎所有这些措施可以追溯到那个拥有时尚规划理念的时代，这主要是受英国新城镇的影响。在Victor Gruen的《我们城市的心脏》（1965）书中，曾设想未来的中心大
3 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
都市会由10个城市包围，每个国家都有它自己的中心。这很像Ebenezer Howard’s（1960年，第142页）提到的，那个四周被园林城市群包围着的中心城市：“社会的城市”。在德黑兰的规划中，这一概念的直译版被使用。另一个在英国新城镇被使用的概念，比如Redditch和 Runcorn，是把公共交通路线作为城市的骨架的重要性，其停车点是它的重点服务中心。使用邻里中心和小学来限制邻里单元人口，这被广泛应用于这些新市镇，这是一个曾在20世纪20年代在美国发展的想法(Mumford, 1954)。这些思想依然存在，但是，主要是在纸面上。该计划已执行，已在美国城市规划中有根深蒂固的想法，包括了用高速公路网的不断延伸去连接城市的脱节部分;在不同地区的社会管理和物理性质的基础上进行区划;引进容积率的控制发展的密度。
在20世纪70年代进行的其他主要规划工作包括Shahrak Gharb的局部发展新城镇，以及Shahestan依照英国顾问Llewelyn–Davies提出的规划新的城市行政中心，虽然这被当做正在上升的革命浪潮后来从未实施过。
革命和后革命时期可分为三个阶段：革命（1979-1988年），重建（1989-1996年）和改革（1997-2004），每个都展示了德黑兰城市规划中不同的做法。
德黑兰和其他城市经过两年大量实证，1979年有代表性的是一个革命的到来推翻了伊朗君主，由议会共和制和神父统治的不稳定结合所取代。其原因可以追溯到在国王的发展模式导致了许多冲突，现代与传统，经济发展与政治发展，全球市场力量和地方资产阶级力量，外国势力和民族主义，腐败和自满中坚分子与不满的群众。像1906年的革命一样，许多隐藏意见的累积使1979的革命成为可能。在第一次革命，维新已占了上风，而在第二次，传统主义者赢得了领导。然而，无论革命的态度还是他们掌握政权之后的一系列重大问题，包括城市发展都显示出现代化的偏好。从这个意义上讲，该国的这两个爆炸革命事件可以被看作是在动荡中逐步转型所作的努力（Madanipour，1998，2003）。 革命是在与伊拉克长期战争（1980-1988）之后，其间停止了经济的发展。在城市发展方面的投资减少，而农村地区和省城受到革命政府的青睐，同时遏制从农村向城市迁移并与大城市公平对待。在此期间主要规划干预是对白天城市中心的私家车活动的限制。同时，战争和新政府的免费或低费用的设施，吸引了更多的人承诺向首都城市移民，到1986年人口达600万。从20世纪50年代城市人口的增长速度已开始减慢，而直到80年代中期首都的增长都更快，但是它的增长率也开始下降（Khatam, 1993）。 在革命和战争后，正常化和重建时期开始了，其中大部分持续到上世纪90年代。这期间见证了德黑兰城市规划的若干努力。但是没有一个有效的框架来管理剧烈的城市发展。综合计划在革命后遭到攻击，因为它被认为无法适应变化。 1998年，市长批评它主要是形态上的发展规划、植根于前政权的政治框架、并没有足够重视实际操作问题（Dehaghani，1995）。
综合计划的25年寿命在1991年结束。一个伊朗顾问公司（A-Tech）受委托于1985年筹备1986-1996期间的规划。经过多次延迟，在1993年，该计划最终被城市规划高级理事会批准。该计划还注重增长的管理和线性空间战略，利用了城市区域，次区域，地
4 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
区，小区和邻里尺度。它促进保护、权力下放、多中心发展，有五个卫星新市镇，并发展住宅增加城市密度。该协会建议，城市在5个亚区中被划分成22个区，每个区都拥有自己的服务中心（Shahrdari-e Tehran, 2004）。
1993年的计划不受市政当局欢迎，不同意它的估价和优先次序，认为它不现实、昂贵、无法实施。1996-2001年期间市政当局自己做了一个战略规划，它被认为是德黑兰市政的第一个规划或是德黑兰80。它强调对一个城市提出战略和政策来实现他们的第一个规划，而不是以介绍土地利用规划为目标。它把城市的主要问题确定为能提供服务的资源短缺、城市发展模式和速度、环境污染、缺乏有效的公共交通工具、效率低下和官僚主义。然后市政府对城市的未来远景概述了六个主要特征：一个清洁的城市，建设便于运动的城市公园和绿化带，新的文化和体育设施，改革发展的城市组织，以及对城市空间的改善，包括土地利用和保护的全面和详细的计划的编制规划(Shahrdari-e Tehran, 1996)。
全市实施了1968年的计划中提出的一部分建议，诸如增加南方的绿色开放空间，或是兴建高速公路网;开放城市的大部分地区使之得到新的发展以缓解全城的运作。继承1993年计划的意见，市政府放宽容积率限制，并允许热闹地带有更高的密度。然而，这并非基于规划的考虑，主要是为了使市政当局的财政独立。这在发展产业区广受欢迎，但受到公民的争议。开发者可以通过向市政府缴纳罚款建立更高的建筑物，而不必考虑对周围环境的影响，这个政策俗称“密度销售”。该城市的面貌，特别是在其北部地区，是在短期内改变的，其中包括中通过宽阔的街道和高速公路连接高楼大厦。在较贫穷的南部，一个大型的重建项目Navab穿过密集而破旧的建筑物建造高速公路，建立庞大的上层建筑的各个方面。这个城市的行政边界扩大了两次，一次向外，一次向西，涵盖了700平方公里的22个区市。
这个时期的重建争议随着民主的改革而产生，它重新启动了城市市议会的选举，这首先造成了市长和市政府关系的制度混乱。该会于2001年公布了自己的城市构想作为德黑兰宪章，这总结了大会上安理会成员、非政府组织和市政专家之间原则上同意的问题。该宪章主要采纳了可持续性和民主性原则，被用于开发自然和处理环境、交通、社会、文化、经济问题、城市管理战略、区域性城市，国家和国际角色 。
Development of the city of Tehran The city had grown in size and complexity to such an extent thatits spatial managementneeded 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,
5 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
and struggles over 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 km² in 1934 to 250 km² 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 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, 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 powerle.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 proce.
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 Aociates of Iran and Victor Gruen Aociates of the
6 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
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, neverthele, 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 to 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 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 neceary 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 (Farmanfarmaian 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
7 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
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 ma 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 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 maes.Like the revolution of 1906, a coalition of many shades of opinion made the revolution of 1979 poible.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 iues, including urban development, show a preference for modernization.In this sense, both revolutions can be seen as explosive episodes in the country’s troubled efforts at progreive 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
8 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
lasted for most of the 1990s.This period witneed 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 commiioned 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 aements and priorities, finding it unrealistic, expensive, and impoible to implement.The municipality 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 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 characteristics: a clean city, ease of movement in the city, the creation of parks and green spaces, the development of 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 acro 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
9 武汉科技大学本科毕业设计外文翻译
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 encompa 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 congre 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 iues, urban management, and the city’s regional, national and international roles .
