Chapter_2

ence or mercy might previously have forbade. Bloodletting could heal only by accident or insofar as it broke the rules, until the time when it was abandoned in favor of the hard, complex business of assembling, using and testing, bit by bit, true descriptions of reality drawn not from how it ought to be, but from how it is. The pseudoscience of city planning and its companion, the art of city design, have not yet broken with the specious comfort of wishes, familiar superstitions, oversimplifications, and symbols, and have not yet embarked upon the adventure of probing the real world.

(39)So in this book we shall start, if only in a small way, adventuring in the real world, ourselves. The way to get at what goes on in the seemingly mysterious and perverse behavior of cities is, I think, to look closely, and with as little previous expectation as is possible, at the most ordinary scenes and events, and attempt to see what they mean and whether any threads of principle emerge among them. This is what I try to do in the first part of this book.

(38)医学的类比，用于社会组织就不免牵强；而且把哺乳动物的生物化学误当作城市里发生的一切也毫无道理。但是将这个类比用于热诚有识之士的所思所想，面对他们不能理解的复杂现象而试图以伪科学来解释，就很有几分道理。就如在放血疗法这一伪科学中一样，城市改造和规划方面的伪科学中，积累经年的学识和连篇累椟的复杂微妙的教条完全建立在荒谬的基础上。技术手段不断稳步完善着。自然而然地，随着时间，强干的人们，令人仰慕的管理者们，把最初的谬见囫囵吞下，并被供以工具、公众信心以及曾被禁止的仁慈。放血疗法能够奏效仅只因为机缘巧合，或者某种程度上突破成规；它一点一点直至某一天终被抛弃—感谢艰辛繁复的调配、使用和检测工作—对现实的正确描述来自于“它究竟如何”，而非“它应该如何”。城市规划的伪科学以及与其相伴的城市设计艺术，还没有告别伪善的祝颂安慰、常见的迷信、过度的简单化以及符号，还没有踏上探索真实世界的冒险征程。

(39)因此在本书我们将开始—哪怕仅仅是从很小的方面—探索真实世界的，我们自己的冒险历程。通向了解看来神秘的和行为乖张的城市的路径，我以为，是近距离观察；先入之见越少越好，于最寻常的景象和事件中，尝试理解其中意义，以及其间有否出现有关原理的任何线?/font>

(40)One principle emerges so ubiquitously, and in so many and such complex different forms, that I turn my attention to its nature in the second part of this book, a part which becomes the heart of my argument. This ubiquitous principle is the need of cities for a most intricate and close-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially. The components of this diversity can differ enormously, but they must supplement each other in certain concrete ways. (41)I think that unsuccessful city areas are areas which lack this kind of intricate mutual support, and that the science of city planning and the are of city design, in real life for real cities, must become the science and art of catalyzing and nourishing these close-grained working relationships. I think, from the evidence I can find, that there are four primary conditions required for generating useful great city diversity, and that by deliberately inducing these four conditions, planning can induce city vitality (something that the plans of planners alone, and the designs of designers alone, can never achieve). While Part I Is principally about the social behavior of people in cities, and is necessary for understanding what follows, Part II is principally about the economic behavior of cities and is the most important part of this book.

(42)Cities are fantastically dynamic places, and this is striking true of their successful parts, which offer a fertile ground for the plans of thousands of people. In the third part of this book, I examine some aspects of decay and regeneration, in the light of how cities are used, and how they and their people behave, in real life.

(43)The last part of the book suggests changes in housing, traffic, design, planning and administrative practice, and discusses, finally the kind of problem which cities pose—a problem in handling organized complexity. (44)The look of things and the way they work are inextricably bound together, and in no place more so than cities. But people who are interested only in how a city “ought” to look and uninterested in how it works will be disappointed by this book. It is futile to plan a city’s appearance, or speculate on how to endow it with a pleasing appearance of order, without knowing what sort of innate, functioning order it has. To seek for the look of things as a primary purpose or as the main drama is apt to make nothing but trouble.

(45)In New York’s East Harlem there is a housing project with a conspicuous rectangular lawn which became an object of hatred to the project tenants. A social worker frequently at the project was astonished by how often the subject of the lawn came up, usually gratuitously as far as she could see, and how much the tenants despised it and urged that it be done away with. When she asked why, the usual answer was, “What good is it?” or “Who wants it?” Finally one day a tenant more articulate than the others made this pronouncement: “Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place. They threw our houses down and pushed us here and around here to get a cup of coffee or a newspaper even, or borrow fifty cents. Nobody cared what we need. But the big men come and look at that grass and say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything!” (46)This tenant was saying what moralists have said for thousands of years: Handsome is as handsome does. All that flitters is not gold. (47)She was saying more: There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served.

(48)In trying to explain the underlying order of cities, I use a preponderance of examples from New York because that is where I live. But most of the basic ideas in this book come from things I first noticed or was told in other cities. For example, my first inkling about the powerful effects of certain kinds of functional mixtures in the city came from Pittsburgh, my first speculations about street safety from Philadelphia and Baltimore, my first notions about the meanderings of downtown from Boston, my first clues to the unmaking of slums from Chicago. Most of the material for these musings was at my own front door, but perhaps it is easiest to see things first where you don’t take them for granted. The basic idea, to try to begin understanding the intricate social and economic order under the seeming disorder of cities, was not my idea at all, but that of William Kirk, head worker of Union Settlement in East Harlem, New York, who, by showing me East Harlem, showed me a way of seeing other neighborhood, and downtowns too. In every case, I have tried to test out what I saw or heard in one city or neighborhood against others, to find how relevant each city’s or each place’s lessons might be outside its own special case.

(49)I have concentrated on great cities, and on their inner areas, because this is the problem that has been most consistently evaded in planning theory. I think this may also have somewhat wider usefulness as time passes, because many of the parts of today’s cities in the worst, and apparently most baffling, trouble were suburbs or dignified, quiet residential areas not too long ago; eventually many of today’s brand-new suburbs or semisuburbs are going to be engulfed in cities and will succeed or fail in that condition depending on whether they can adapt to functioning successfully as city districts. Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most.

(50)But I hope no reader will try to transfer my observations into guides as to what goes on in town, on little cities, or in suburbs which still are suburban. Towns, suburbs and even little cities are totally different organisms from great cities. We are in enough trouble already from trying to understand big cities in terms of the behavior, and the imagined behavior, of towns. To try to understand towns in terms of big cities will only compound confusion. (51)I hope any reader of this book will constantly and skeptically test what I say against his own knowledge of cities and their behavior. If I have been inaccurate in observations or mistaken in inferences and conclusions, I hope these faults will be quickly corrected. The point is, we need desperately to learn and to apply as much knowledge that is true and useful about cities as fast as possible.

(52)I have been making unkind remarks about orthodox city planning theory, and shall make more as occasion arises to do so. By now, these orthodox ideas are part of our folklore. They harm us because we take them for granted. To show how we got them, and how little they are to the point, I shall give a quick outline here of the most influential ideas that have contributed to the verities of orthodox modern city planning and city architectural design. (53)The most important thread of influence starts, more or less, with Ebenezer Howard, an English court reporter for whom planning was an avocation. Howard looked at the living conditions of the poor in late-nineteenth-century London, and justifiably did not like what he smelled or saw or heard. He not only hared the wrongs and mistakes of the city, he hated the city and thought it an outright evil and an affront to nature that so many people should get themselves into an agglomeration. His prescription for saving the people was to do the city in.

(54)The program he proposed, in 1898, was to halt the growth of London and also repopulate the countryside, where villages were declining, by building a new king of town—the Garden City, where the city poor might again live close to nature. So they might earn their living, industry was to be set up in the Garden City, for while Howard was not planning cities, he was not planning dormitory suburbs either. His aim was the creation of self-sufficient small towns, really very nice towns if you were docile and had no plans of your own and did nor mind spending your life among other with no plans of their own. As in all Utopias, the right to have plans of any significance belonged only to the planners in charge. The Garden City was to be encircled with a belt of agriculture. Industry was to be in its planned preserves; schools, housing and greens in planned living preserves; and in the center were to be commercial, club and cultural places, held in common. The town and greed belt, in their totality, were to be permanently controlled by the public authority under which the town was developed, to prevent speculation or supposedly irrational changes in land use and also to do away with temptations to increase its density—in brief, to prevent it from ever becoming a city. The maximum population was to be held to thirty thousand people. (55)Nathan Glazer has summed up the vision well in Architectural Forum: “The image was the English country town—with the manor house and its park replaced by a community center, and with some factories hidden behind a screen of trees, to supply work.”

(56)The closest American equivalent would probably be the model company town, with profit-sharing, and with the parent-Teacher Associations in charge of the routine, custodial political life. For Howard was envisioning not simply a new physical environment and social life. But a paternalistic political and economic society. (57)Nevertheless, as Glazer has pointed out, the Garden City was “conceived as an alternative to the city, and as a solution to city problems; this was, and is still, the foundation of its immense power as a planning idea.” Howard managed to get two garden cities built, Letchworth and Welwyn, and of course England and Sweden have, since the Second World War, built a number of satellite towns based on Garden City principles. In the United States, the suburb of Radburn, N.J., and the depression-built, government-sponsored Green Belt towns (actually suburbs) were all incomplete modifications on the idea. But Howard’s influence in the literal, or reasonably literal, acceptance of his program was as nothing compared to his influence on conceptions underlying all American city planning today. City planners and designers with no interest in the Garden City, as such, are still thoroughly governed intellectually by its underlying principles.

(58)Howard set spinning powerful and city-destroying ideas: He conceived that the way to deal with the city’s functions was to sort and sift out of the whole certain simple uses, and to arrange each of these in relative self-containment. He focused on the provision of wholesome housing as the central problem, to which everything else was subsidiary; furthermore he defined whole some housing in terms only of suburban physical qualities and small-town social qualities. He conceived of commerce in terms limited market. He conceived of good planning as a series of static acts; in each case the plan must anticipate all that is needed and be protected, after it is built, against any but the most minor subsequent changes. He conceived of planning also as essentially paternalistic, of not authoritarian. He was uninterested in the aspects of the city which could not be abstracted to serve his Utopia. In particular, he simply wrote off the intricate, many-faceted, cultural life of the metropolis. He was uninterested in such problems as the way great cities police themselves, or exchange ideas, or operate politically, or invent new economic arrangements, and he was oblivious to devising ways to strengthen these functions because, after all, he was not designing for this kind of life in any case. (59)Both in his preoccupations and in his omissions, Howard made sense in his owm terms but none in terms of city planning. Yet virtually all modern city planning has been adapted from, and embroidered on, this silly substance.

(60)Howard’s influence on American city planning converged on the city from two directions: from town and regional planners on the one hand, and from architects on the other. Along the avenue of planning, Sir Patrick Geddes, a Scots biologist and philosopher, saw the Garden City idea not as a fortuitous way to absorb population growth otherwise destine for a great city, but as the starting point of a much grander and more encompassing pattern. He thought of the planning of cities in terms of the planning of whole regions. Under regional planning, garden cities would be rationally distributed throughout large territories, dovetailing into natural resources, balanced against agriculture and woodland, forming one far-flung logical whole. (61)Howard’s and Geddes’ ideas were enthusiatically adopted in America during the 1920’s and developed further by a group of extraordinarily effective and dedicated people—among them Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, the late Henry Wright, and Catherine Bauer. While they thought of themselves as regional planners, Catherine Bauer has more recently called this group the “Decentrists,” and this name is more apt, for the primary result of regional planning, as they saw it, would be to decentralize great cities, thin them out, and disperse their enterprises and populations into smaller, separated cities or, better yet, towns. At the time, it appeared that the American population was both aging and leveling off in numbers, and the problem appeared to be not one of accommodating a rapidly growing population, but simply of redistributing a static population.

(62)As with Howard himself, this group’; influence was less in getting literal acceptance of its program—that got nowhere—than in influencing city planning and legislation affecting housing and housing finance. Model housing schemes by Stein and Wright, built mainly in suburban settings or at the fringes of cities, together with the writings and the diagrams, sketches and photographs presented by Mumford and Bauer, demonstrated and popularized ideas such as these, which are now taken for granted in orthodox planning: The street is bad as an environment for humans; houses should be turned away from it and faced inward, toward sheltered greens. Frequent streets are wasteful, of advantage only to real estate speculators who measure value by the front foot. The basic unit of city design is not the street, but the block and more particularly the super-block, Commerce should be segregated from residences and greens. A neighborhood’s demand for goods should be calculated “scientifically,” and this much and no more commercial space allocated. The presence of many other people is, at best, a necessary evil, and good city planning must aim for at least an illusion of isolation and suburbany privacy. The Decentrists also pounded in Howard’; premises that the planned community must be islanded off as a self-contained unit, that it must resist future change, and that every significant detail must be controlled by the planners from the start and them stuck to. In short, good planning was project planning.

(63)To reinforce and dramatize the necessity for the new order of things, the Decentrists hammered away at the bad old city. They were incurious about successes in great cities. They were interested only in failures. All was failure. A book like Munford’s The Culture of Cities was largely a morbid and biased catalog of ills. The great city was Megalopolis, Tyrannopolis, Nekropolis, a monstrosity, a tyranny, a living death. It must go. New York’; midtown was “solidified chaos” (Mumfors). The shape and appearance of cities was nothing but “a chaotic accident . . . the summation of the haphazard, antagonistic whims of many self-centered, ill-advised individuals” (Stein). The centers of cities amounted to “a foreground of noise, dirt, beggars, souvenirs and shrill competitive advertising (Bauer). (64)How could anything so bad be worth the attempt to understand it? The Decentrists’ analyses, the architectural and housing designs which were companions and offshoots of these analyses, the national housing and home financing legislation so directly influenced by the new vision-none of these had anything to do with understanding cities, or fostering successful large cities, nor were they intended to. They were reasons and means for jettisoning cities, and the Decentrists were frank about this. (65)But in the schools of planning and architecture, and in Congress, state legislatures and city halls too, the Decentrists’ ideas were gradually accepted as basic guides for dealing constructively with big cities themselves. This is the most amazing event in the whole sorry tale: that finally people who sincerely wanted to strengthen great cities should adopt recipes frankly devised for undermining their economies and killing them.

(66)The man with the most dramatic idea of how to get all this anticity planning right into the citadels of iniquity themselves was the European architect Le Corbusier. He devised in the 1920’s a dream city which he called the Radiant City, composed not of the low buildings beloved of the Decentrists, but instead mainly of skyscrapers within a park. “Suppose we are entering the city by way of the Great Park,” Le Corbusier wrote. “Out fast car takes the special elevate motor track between the majestic skyscrapers: as we approach nearer, there is seen the repetition against the sky of the twenty-four skyscrapers; to our left and right on the outskirts of each particular area are the municipal and administrative buildings; and enclosing the space are the museums and university buildings. The whole city is a Park.” In Le Corbusier’s vertical city the common run of mankind was to be housed at 1,200 inhabitants to the acre, a fantastically high city density indeed, but because of building up so high, 95 percent of the ground could remain open. The skyscrapers would occupy only 5 percent of the ground. The high-income people would be in lower, luxury housing around courts, with 85 percent of their ground left open. Here and there would be restaurants and theaters.

(67)Le Corbusier was planning not only a physical environment. He was planning for a social Utopia too. Le Corbusier’s Utopia was a condition of what he called maximum individual liberty, by which he seems to have meant not liberty to do anything much, but liberty from ordinary responsibility. In his Radiant City much, but liberty from ordinary responsibility. In his Radiant City nobody, presumably, was going to have to be his brother’s keeper any more. Nobody was going to have to struggle with plans of his own. Nobody was going to be tied down. (68)The Decentrists and other loyal advocates of the Garden City were aghast at Le Corbusier’s city of towers in the park, and still are. Their reaction to it was and remains, much like that of progressive nursery school teachers confronting an utterly institutional orphanage. And yet, ironically, the Radiant City comes directly out of the Garden City. Le Corbusier accepted the Garden City’s fundamental image, superficially at least, and worked to make it practical for high densities. He described his creation as the Garden City made attainable. “Nature melts under the invasion of roads and houses and the promised seclusion becomes a crowded settlement . . . The solution will be found in the ‘vertical garden city.’”

(69)In another sense too, in its relatively easy public reception, Le Corbusier’s Radiant City depended upon the Garden City. The Garden City planners and their ever increasing following among housing reformers, students and architects were indefatigably popularizing the ideas of the super-block, the project neighborhood, the unchangeably plan, and grass, grass, grass; what is more they were successfully establishing such attributes as the hallmarks of humane, socially responsible, functional, high-minded planning Le Corbusier really did not have to justify his vision in either humane or city-functional terms. if the great object of city planning was that Christopher Robin might go hoppety-hoppety on the grass, what was wrong with Le Corbusier? The Decentrists’ cries of institutionalization, mechanization, depersonalization seemed to others foolishly sectarian.

(70)Le Corbusier’s dream city has had an immense impact on our cities. It was hailed deliriously by architects, and has gradually been embodied in scores of projects, ranging from low-income public housing to office building projects. Aside from making at least the superficial Garden City principles superficially practicable in dense city, Le Corbusier’s dream contained other marvels. He attempted to make planning for the automobile an integral part of his scheme, and this was in the 1920’s and early 1930’s a new, exciting idea. He proposed underground streets for heavy vehicles and deliveries, and of course like the Garden City planners he kept the pedestrians off the streets and in the parks. His city was like a wonderful mechanical toy. Furthermore, his conception, as an architectural work, had a dazzling clarity, simplicity and harmony. It was so orderly, so visible, so easy to understand. It said everything in a flash, like a good advertisement. This vision and its bold symbolism have been all but irresistible to planners, housers, designers, and to developers, lenders and mayors too. It exerts a great pull on “progressive” zoners, who write rules calculated to encourage nonproject builders to reflect, if only a little, the dream. No matter how vulgarized or clumsy the design, how dreary and useless the open space, how dull the close-up view, an imitation of Le Corbusier shouts one’s achievement. But as to how the city works, it tells, like the Garden City, nothing but lies.

(71)Although the Decentrists, with their devotion to the ideal of a cozy town life, have never made peace with the Le Corbusier vision, most of their disciples have. Virtually all sophisticated city designers today combine the two conceptions in various permutations. The rebuilding technique variously known as “selective removal” or “spot renewal” or “renewal planning” or “planning conservation”—meaning that total clearance of a run-down area is avoided—is largely the trick of seeing how many old buildings can be left standing and the area still converted into a passable version of Radiant Garden City. Zoners, highway planners, legislators, land-use planners, and parks and playground planners—none of whom live in an ideological vacuum—constantly use, as fixed points of reference, these two powerful visions and the more sophisticated merged vision. They may wander from the visions, they may compromise, they may vulgarize, but these are the points of departure. (72)We shall look briefly at one other, less important, line of ancestry in orthodox planning. This one begins more or less with the great Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, just about the same time that Howard was formulating his Garden City ideas. The Chicago fair snubbed the exciting modern architecture which had begun to emerge in Chicago and instead dramatized a retrogressive imitation Renaissance style. One heavy, grandiose monument after another was arrayed in the exposition park, like frosted pastries on a tray, in a sort of squat, decorated forecast of Le Corbusier’s later repetitive ranks of towers in a park. This orgiastic assemblage of the rich and monumental captured the imagination of both planners and public. It gave impetus to a movement called the City Beautiful, and indeed the planning of the exposition was dominated by the man who became the leading City Beautiful planner, Daniel Burnham of Chicago.

(73)The aim of the city Beautiful was the City Monumental. Great schemes were drawn up for systems of baroque boulevards, which mainly came to nothing. What did come out of the movement was the Center Monumental, modeled on the fair. City after city built its civic center or its cultural center. These buildings were arranged along a boulevard as at Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, or were bordered by park, like the Civic Center at St. Louis, or were interspersed with park, like the Civic Center at San Francisco. However they were arranged, the important point was that the monument had been sorted out from the rest of the city, and assembled into the grandest effect thought possible, the whole being treated as a complete unit, in a separate and well-defined way. (74)People were proud of them, but the centers were not a success. For one thing, invariably the ordinary the ordinary city around them ran down instead of being uplifted, and they always acquired an incongruous rim of ratty tattoo parlors and second-hand-clothing stores, or else just nondescript, dispirited decay. For another, people stayed away from them to a remarkable degree. Somehow, when the fair became part of the city, it did not work like the fair.

(75)The architecture of the City Beautiful centers went out of style. But the idea behind the centers was not questioned, and it has never had more force than it does today. The idea of sorting out certain cultural or public functions and decontaminating their relationship with the workaday city dovetailed nicely with the Garden City teachings. The conceptions have harmoniously merged, much as the Garden City and the Radiant City merged, into a sort of Radiant Garden City Beautiful, such as the immense Lincoln Square project for New York, in which a monumental City Beautiful cultural center is one among a series of adjoining Radiant City and Radiant Garden City housing, shopping and campus centers. (76)And by analogy, the principles of sorting out—and of bringing order by repression of all plans but the planners’—have been easily extended to all manner of city functions, until today a land-use master plan for a big city is largely a matter of proposed placement, often in relation to transportation, of many series of decontaminated sortings. (77)From beginning to and, from Howard and Burnham to the latest amendment on urban-renewal law, the entire concoction is irrelevant on urban-renewal law, the entire concoction is irrelevant to the workings of cities. Unstudied, unrespected, cities have served as sacrificial victims.

（6）这种奇迹或许可以实现,然而那些标上了规划师们具有蛊惑力的标志(注:猜想可能是指所住区域被规划)的人们遭排挤,家园被略夺,最终背井离乡,就像是好胜心下的战利品.成千上万的小商业被毁,它们的经营者遭损失.但几乎没有得到补偿的迹象.而整体社区被分裂,象种子般在风中撒落,带着嘲讽,怨恨和失望, 这些规划者必须看到也必须相信这些.一群惊骇于规划重建后芝加哥城市状况的牧师寻问道: （7）当Job写下以下篇章时,是否联想到了芝加哥: （8）这儿的人们改变着周边标志性建筑物… 排挤着穷人,联和压迫着无依无靠的人们. （9）他们收割着不属于自己的土地, 清理着以不正当方式从别处掠夺来的葡萄园… （10）受伤的人们躺在城市街道上呻吟着,传来阵阵哭泣声… （11）假若Job想到了芝加哥,那他也想到了纽约,费城,波世顿,华盛顿,圣鲁乙思,三藩市和其他一些地方.目前的城市重建经济原理只是一骗局.当前的城市重建经济学并不像城市更新理论所宣扬的,真正有效地建立在公民税收津贴的合理投资基础之上,而是依赖于从贫苦区里受害者处强行压榨来的巨额的津贴.为克服城市大改革所带来的分裂及不稳定性, 公共资金永远供不应求,而越来越多从贫苦区里得来的税收归拢于城市最终还是作为这样的投资.将这些税收用于其来源地,只是海市蜃楼,可悲可叹. (2002.2.13 qq00612 译) (12)与此同时,城市规划理论与艺术对于城市局部地区的衰退无能为力——这种早在城市衰退之前便产生的无能——甚至在范围较广的示范区亦无可耐何. 城市规划艺术运用与否似乎并不重要,即使它得以施展,衰退依然避免不了,一定会发生的. 想想纽约的Morningside Heights区. 依照规划理论,本该没有任何问题的. 因为她拥有宽敞的停车场地,校园,操场及一个河景怡人的游戏场所.她还聚集了世界顶级的大学和研究机构—哥伦比亚大学,神学研究学会,朱利叶德音乐学院及其他6个杰出的广受尊敬的教研机构. 她享有设备完善的医院和宗教服务. 她没有工业,出于兼容性,被划区的街道直接通往稳固宽敞的中高层阶级的公寓里. 然而50年代前, Morningside Heights迅速沦为贫民窟. 人们不敢在那可怕的地方步行,这都成了规划研究院迫切解决的首要问题. 他们与政府规划部门合作, 应用更多的规划理论,清理了大多数荒废区域,以配有购物中心面向中等收入阶层的安居工程和另一个公众安居项目取而代之. 重建后的区域享有空气,光线,日照和怡人的景观. 作为挽救城市的大手笔,这个方案广受欢迎. （13）然而,自那以后, Morningside Heights 每况愈下的速度更快了。 （14）Morningside Heights这个例子既不是不公正的，也不是同其他城市不相关的。一个城市接着一个城市，在规划理论指导下，那些精确规划了的区域正在衰退；一个城市接着一个城市，在规划理论指导下，那些精确规划了的区域拒绝衰退，尽管这拒绝不为人注意，其意义同样重大。 （15）城市是个巨大的实验室，其内可以反复试验城市营造和城市设计的成功与失败。正是在这个实验室里