The Three Historic Currents of City Planning
The Three Historic Currents of City Planning
复制标题
城市规划的三大历史潮流
DOI：
10.1002/9781444395105.ch56
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Marcuse
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Marcuse
现代规划主流的特点是三种截然不同的方法：技术方法、社会改革方法和社会正义方法。每一个都在特定的时间和地点突出，形成了规划历史中的三种可识别的方法，在大多数但并非所有情况下，其他方法同时存在。因此，这三种方法常常混合在一起，有时甚至相互冲突，很少是纯粹的，但它们的方法和目标却截然不同。恭敬的技术专家方法可以追溯到几千年前，建立在工程师的城市工作基础上，并且必然对那些拥有权力和资源委托这项工作的当权者做出反应。在现代历史上，它的发展源于对新工业经济组织中效率低下的关注，最初主要是物质上的低效率，这些低效率抑制了经济增长和繁荣。它没有质疑，而是尊重现有制度关系的维持，并关注效率的价值，认为这些关系的延续是理所当然的。因此，它得到了既定政治、经济和社会团体的主要支持。根据这个定义，技术人员规划本质上服从于现状的权力结构。社会改革方法同样是出于对工业化外部性的关注而发展起来的，但关注的是其社会福利方面：健康、犯罪、不卫生的住房、社会动荡、污染，而不是其经济过程。它本着改革的精神处理这些问题，期望并常常成功地在现有权力结构内解决社会问题。它对社会问题的看法通常来自外部和高层，来自于这些问题如何影响那些受益于现有既定经济和社会的人们的健康和福祉。
Three quite different approaches characterize the mainstream of modern planning: a technical one, a social reform one, and a social justice one. Each is prominent at a particular time and place, forming three identifiable approaches in planning history, in most but not all cases with the simultaneous presence of the others. The three approaches thus often mix, sometimes conflict, are rarely pure, but differ significantly in their methods and goals. The deferential technicist approach, going back millennia, builds on the urban work of engineers, and is necessarily responsive to those in power that have the authority and resources to commission the work. In modern history it developed out of a concern with the inefficiencies, initially mainly the physical, in the organization of the new industrial economy, inefficiencies which inhibited economic growth and prosperity. It did not question, but rather deferred to, the maintenance of existing institutional relationships, and focused on the value of efficiency, taking the continuance of those relationships for granted. It thus had primary support from established political, economic, and social groups. Technicist planning is inherently, in this definition, subservient to the power structures of the status quo. The social reform approach similarly developed out of a concern with the externalities of industrialization, but with their social welfare aspects: health, crime, unsanitary housing, social unrest, pollution, not with their economic processes. It approached those issues in the spirit of reform, expecting to, and often succeeding in, remedying social problems within the existing structures of power. Its view of social problems was generally from outside and above, from how they might affect the health and wellbeing of those benefiting from existing established economic and