城市规划专业英语.pdf

《城市规划专业英语.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《城市规划专业英语.pdf（156页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、大 学 专 业 英 语 系 列 教 程城 市 规 划 专 业 英 语ENGLISHFORURBANPLANNING张冠增 张剑涛 编著同 济 大 学 出版 社内容简介本书根据历年来同济大学城市规划专业英语教学的实际情况,参考已出版的国外专业读物编写而成。本教材的主要内容包括:社会学(第 1、4、6 单元),城市文化(第 2 单元),城市交通(第 3、10单元),城市历史(第 5、8 单元),城市生态(第 7 单元),历史保护(第 9 单元),公共政策(第 11、14 单元),城市设计(第 12、16 单元),开发控制(第 13、15 单元),区域规划(第 17 单元),新城(第 18 单元)。

2、本书可供从事城市规划专业英语教学的教师、规划专业大学生、研究生以及与城市规划有关的人员使用。图书在版编目(CIP)数据 城市规划专业英 语/张冠增,张剑涛编 著.上海:同济大学出版社,2006.1(大学专业英语系列教程)ISBN 7-5608-3190-7 .城.张.张.城市规划英语高等学校 教材 .H31 中国版本图书馆 CIP 数据核字(2005)第 129038 号城市规划专业英语张冠增 张剑涛 编著 责任编辑 朱振华 刘燕萍 责任校对 徐春莲 装帧设计 潘向蓁出 版发 行 同济大学出版社 (上海四平路 1239 号 邮编 200092 电话 021-65985622)经 销 全国各地新

3、华书店印 刷 同济大学印刷厂印刷开 本 787mm960mm 1/16印 张 10字 数 200000印 数 13100版 次 2006 年 1 月第 1 版 2006 年 1 月第 1 次印刷书 号 ISBN 7-5608-3190-7/H387定 价 15.00 元本书若有印装质量问题,请向本社发行部调换l1 前 言近年来,我国高校不断加强对外开放的力度,国际间的学术交流活动也日渐频繁,这些都为包括城市规划专业在内的大学本科生、研究生提供了优越的英语实践条件。一方面,是大学生、研究生的阅读和会话水平大幅度地提高,四、六级和托福合格者的比例快速增长;另一方面,是学生们在各自专业领域与国外学者

4、的直接交流范围,以及他们对最新知识和最新动态的需求,都远远超出现有教材的容量,英语教学出现了供需失衡的矛盾。为此,根据历年来同济大学城市规划专业英语教学的实际情况,参考已出版的专业读物,我们编写了这本新教材,以尽可能满足当今大学生对专业英语知识的渴求。和以往的大学专业英语教程相比,本教材有如下几方面的特点:1.使用范围只限于城市规划专业的学生,因此选材尽量涉及目前城市规划学科的各个领域,包括城市社会学、城市规划原理、城市设计、区域规划、公共政策、城市历史及历史文化保护、城市文化、城市交通、城市生态等,力求给学生以比较全面的城市规划学科的知识;2.本教材所有的文章均节选自国外杂志、刊物、著作,力

5、求提供最新的、有代表性的研究成果;3.本教材结合学生的英语实践活动,尽可能扩大阅读中的词汇量,重点培养学生灵活使用英文单词、自主开拓阅读空间的能力,而不提倡一词一意的死记硬背和在同一水平上的重复;4.根据同济大学出版社的要求,每篇文章的后面均附有参考译文,引导学生不拘泥于字面上的含义,而着眼于对内容的理解,提高实践的水平,学习和掌握恰当、准确、结构合理的表达方法。本书选材比较宽泛,篇幅较多,也有一定难度。因此,在教学中可根据实际情况,有选择地把某些单元作为重点,即精读材料,逐句逐段分析、归纳、思索,同时辅助以课后练习,以增强对课文结构的理解;有些单元可作为泛读材料,主要培养阅读速度,不拘泥于某

6、个词或某段话,以达到对课文内容的了解为基本目的。学习过程应难易相间、长短搭配、重点明确;单词表中未列出的基本词汇和词组,需要学生自己动手查阅词典,从不同用法和词义中比对筛选,以逐步养成良好的阅读习惯;要有机结合精读和泛读两种方法,培养对本专业内相似英文资料触类旁通的技能,既可以通过快速浏览了解文章概要,也能够从语法、词汇、文体的角度深入分析,掌握更扎实的英文知识,为进一步开拓学习领域奠定基础。在本书编写过程中,同济大学城市规划系主任赵民教授给予了大力支持,出版社的有关编辑也提出了很多建设性的意见,为本书的出版奠定了基础。研究生赵l2 莹、彭菁菁、毛丽青参加了练习部分的讨论与修改,对很多细节提出

7、了宝贵意见,在此谨一并表示衷心的感谢。限于编者自身的水平、选材的局限性以及时间的紧迫,书中的错误和不当之处在所难免,敬请广大读者及时发现问题并反馈到同济大学出版社,以便我们在今后的工作中予以改正。本书由张冠增全面规划和组织,并负责编写了社会学、城市文化、城市交通、城市历史、城市生态和历史保护部分;张剑涛负责编写了公共政策、城市设计、开发控制、区域规划和新城部分,全书最后由张冠增统稿。本书可供从事城市规划专业英语教学的教师、规划专业大学生、研究生以及与城市规划有关的人员使用。编 者2005 年 6 月l1 CONTENTSUnit 1 Community Participation in Urb

8、an Regeneration Partnerships(1)Exercises(5)Unit 2 Cultural Planning for Urban Sustainability(8)Exercises(12)Unit 3 Mobility and Accessibility(15)Exercises(19)Unit 4 Qualitative and Quantitative Data(22)Exercises(26)Unit 5 Early City Form(29)Exercises(34)Unit 6 Cities as Actors in EU Governance(37)Ex

9、ercises(41)Unit 7 Agricultural Landscape Preservation(44)Exercises(48)l2 Unit 8 An Economic History of Zoning(51)Exercises(55)Unit 9 The Renewal of Clusters in Old Industrial Areas(58)Exercises(63)Unit 10 London s Transport Plans(66)Exercises(69)Unit 11 Public Housing and Urban Renewal(72)Exercises(

10、76)Unit 12 Architectural Design Review(78)Exercises(82)Unit 13 Regulatory and Discretionary Control(84)Exercises(88)Unit 14 Public Action and Private Interest(90)Exercises(93)Unit 15 Certainty,Flexibility and Accountability(96)Exercises(99)l3 Unit 16 Imageability(101)Exercises(104)Unit 17 The Contin

11、uing North-south Divide(107)Exercises(110)Unit 18 The Social and Economic Impact of the New Towns(113)Exercises(117)Appendix:Key to Exercises(Units 118)(119)Appendix:Chinese Translations of the Texts(Units 118)(121)l1 Unit 1Community Participation in UrbanRegeneration PartnershipsAcross Europe,there

12、 are a wide range of schemes which have attempted totackle urban social exclusion by involving local people in area-based regenerationschemes through the medium of partnerships.Community participation in urbanregeneration partnerships is thought to make schemes more efficient and effective inthe sen

13、se that it helps to ensure that they address the problems which local peopleperceive as important1.Residents often come up with2 new and innovativeideas/methods for dealing with problems and their participation ensures thelegitimacy of such schemes.In addition,community involvement ensures thatpreex

14、isting community groups,and their activities,are not ignored,but aredrawn intotheregeneration process.In termsofthe fourinstitutionaldimensions of exclusion discussed above,area-based schemes can contribute in anumber of ways:It is hoped that some unemployed residents will be able to gain directempl

15、oyment in schemes which are part of the projects.Training schemes will equip others to find employment in regenerationprojects or elsewhere in the city.By providing services such as welfare advice centers,many people will bebetter equipped to take up benefits to which they are entitled but have notp

16、reviously claimed.Local authorities will,either voluntarily or through pressure fromresidents,provide better services to the area.The very act of participation itself will reduce the“alienation”manyexcluded people feel from the political system.And,finally,the process of participation may bring the

17、communitytogether,as they attempt toidentify and articulate their interests,andl2 therefore enhance social cohesion in the area.Clearly this is an ambitious agenda and one would not expect to find everyproject exhibiting all these characteristics to the same extent,if at all in somecases3.A great de

18、al will depend upon the previous national experiences ofurban regeneration and,as noted above,there are considerable variationsbetween member-states with regard to this issue 4.It is perhaps here that the Commission has an important role to play bylaunching initiatives which will help to disseminate

19、 examples of best practice,tostimulate innovation and,in some instances,to raise awareness of problemswhich have previously not figured on the political and policy agenda or in thepublic s consciousness.At thesupranationallevel,initiatives such as Poverty3,URBAN,INTEGRA and a range of other schemes

20、associated with the structural fundshave fulfilled this function.For instance,the majority of Poverty 3 projectswere located in urban areas and thus played an important role in raising theawareness of urban social exclusion in individual countries such as Spain wherepreviously such issues had not fi

21、gured on the policy agenda.At national level,there are a wide range of schemes such as the Single Regeneration Budget 5inEngland,kvarterlof t in Denmark;and Contrats de Villes in France.Withvarying degrees of explicitness,these schemes have sought to counter socialexclusion and facilitate integratio

22、n by involving communities in regenerationpartnerships.However,it needs to be stated that partnerships and communityinvolvement are no panacea for these problems,they bring with them their ownlimitations and difficulties.For instance,many of the problems experienced bypeople living in excluded space

23、s have their origins in wider structural(i.e.economic and social)forces,political actions and institutional/organizationalproblems.On their own,area-based initiatives cannot solve the problems ofthese areas;it is vital that such schemes articulate with,and are supported by,wider policies(on the econ

24、omy,employment,social protection)in otherwords,placed-based policies need to be integrated with people-based policies6.Turning to the multi-sectoral partnerships that have increasingly come tocharacterize area-based urban regeneration,we need to acknowledge that theyare often problematic.In part,thi

25、s derives from the relative newness ofl3 organizations which attempt to combine the public,private,voluntary andcommunity sectors.Until relatively recently,there has been little experience ofhow such organizations operate and as a result partnership formation is verymuch a“learning process”.For inst

26、ance,until recently in France urban regeneration partnerships werelargely partnerships between different levels of government,and the communityand voluntary sectors were ignored.In a sense,all the participants have to learnto work together and,at least attempt,to set aside their individual interests

27、 anddevelop a notion of the“common good”.Many of the problems whichpartnerships have experienced stem from an unwillingness to recognize that theyinvolve power relations and there has been relatively little sustained discussion,at European or national levels,of what partnership means or of the proce

28、sses ofpartnership formation and operation7.(Rob Atkinson,Combating Social Exclusion in Europe:The New Urban Policy Challenge,Urban Studies,2000,Vol.37,No.56,10371055)Vocabularyagenda n.议事日程,会议议程alienation n.离间,疏远感articulate vt.清楚表达be integrated with 与融合characterize v.以为特征cohesion n.凝聚力,粘结,团结counter

29、 v.对抗,反击 n.计算器,交易derive v.从得到dimension n.量度,维度,部分disseminate vt.传播,散布effective adj.能产生效果的,显著的efficient adj.效率高的entitle v.给资格,给权利exclusion n.排斥,拒绝explicitness n.清晰度,明确程度facilitate vt.给提供机会,有助于figure v.出现,露头initiative n.主动性,创始in a sense从某种程度说in terms of就而言launch vt.发动,发射l4 legitimacy n.合理性,合法性limitati

30、on n.局限性multi-sectoral adj.多重因素的panacea n.灵丹妙药perceive vt.意识到,察觉problematic adj.有疑难点的scheme n.计划,方案set aside phr v.搁置stem from phr v.发源于,来自stimulate vt.刺激,促使structural funds n.结构基金supranational adj.超国家的sustain vt.延续,遭受tackle vt.解决,处理take up phr v.获得voluntarily adv.主动地,志愿地Notes1.Community participati

31、on in urban.which local people perceive asimportant.在英语中,这样较长和结构较复杂的句子很常见,在翻译时应首先抓住 其 基 本 结 构。本 句 的 主 语 是 Community participation,谓 语 是 isthought to,表示认为能达到的预期目标,而 in the sense that 是个修饰性的状语从句,其中的 it 又是个小主语,最后由 which 来引导一个定语从句,修饰从句中的宾语 the problems。e up with,固定词组,表示:想到、提出。3.if at all in some cases,基

32、本结构是 if in some cases,而 at all 表示疑问:即便是有。4.with regard to this issue,或者 in regard to,表示就这件事而言。5.the Single Regeneration Budget,独立振兴预算,词义内容与丹麦、法国有所不同,但表示同样内容的城市政策。6.it is vital that.need to be integrated with people-based policies.虽然句子很 长,结 果 却 不 复 杂。主 语 是 schemes,由 it is vital that 来 引 导,被articulate

33、 with 和 be supported by 两个动词结构所限定,对 wider policies 发生作用。in other words 则是另一句话,和前面的表述 it is vital that.并列。be integrated with 是“与融合”的意思。7.Many of the problems 是主语,后面紧跟一个由 which 引导的定语从句,然后是谓语 stem from,unwillingness 是由 to recognize 及后面的部分来限定的。而 there has been 和注 6 的情况一样,引导出另一个独立的句子。l5 ExercisesEx.Quest

34、ion and AnswerDirections:Read the following questions carefully and answer them inaccordance with the contents of the text.1.Communityparticipationinurbanregenerationpartnershipsisconsidered important,because.A.it will address the important problem of the local people.B.it will assure that the activ

35、ities of the community will be noticed.C.the community will be more concerned about the urban regeneration.D.It will make the regeneration schemes more efficiently and effectively.2.How can the people take up benefits to which they are entitled but havenot previously claimed?A.They have to gain dire

36、ct employment from the area-based schemes.B.The local authorities will help them to take up benefits under thepressure of residents.C.People have to be educated at the welfare advice centers before theyare aware of what benefits they re entitled to but never claimed.D.The process of participation wi

37、ll bring the community together andpeople will learn how to identify and articulate their interests.3.All the schemes have sought to counter social exclusion and facilitateintegration by involving communities in regeneration partnerships,butA.different countries have their own situations,community i

38、nvolvement cannot solve all the problems.B.social exclusion in some countries is not a problem at all.C.at the supranational level,the range of schemes isso wide that socialproblems can t be solved effectively.D.only at the national level that all the schemes will effectively faceeven difficult situ

39、ation of social exclusion.4.What is the meaning of“placed-based policies need to be integrated withpeople-based policies”?A.Social problems could not be solved by either placed-based policiesor people-based policies respectively.l6 B.Wide range of policies on economy,employment and social protection

40、will support schemes of urban regeneration,and these policies are on thebasis of place and people.C.Social problems shall only be solved by the local government,whichwill make the policies in accordance with the people and the place.D.Every policy has two aspects,one is the people,the other is thepl

41、ace.5.Why the multi-sectoral partnerships are always problematic?A.Because the participants are only interested in area-based urbanregeneration,not the problems experienced by the local people.B.The partnerships attempt to involve all the related factors,but theydon t have any experience and the ope

42、ration itself is quite new.C.The multi-sectoral partnerships is formed at the national level.D.Somepeopledon t likesomany sectors beinvolvedin thepartnership.6.In what way shall the participants learn to work together?A.They have to discuss with each other about all the schemes.B.All the participant

43、s have to know each othersexperiences anddifficulties they are facing in the cooperation.C.They have to set aside their own interests and develop a commoninterest.D.The participants have to tell each other what power relations theyhad involved in.Ex.Vocabulary in context1.dimensionA.roomB.sizeC.leng

44、thD.weight2.legitimacyA.being lawfulB.being powerfulC.being usefulD.being wonderful3.alienationA.changeB.distinctionC.uniquenessl7 D.estrangement4.initiativeA.important stepB.preparing stepC.introductory stepD.careful step5.efficientA.effectiveB.able to bring about theresult intendedC.able to work w

45、ith high speedD.able to solve problems6.articulateA.speak obviouslyB.speak distinctlyC.speak differentlyD.speak directlyl8 Unit 2Cultural Planning for UrbanSustainability1)The historical trajectory of urban cultural policies in Western EuropeIt is extremely difficult to generalize about the evolutio

46、n of urban culturalpolicies in Western Europe,because of the scarcity of comparative research andstandardized data,the great diversity in the definitions of“culture”adopted bypolicy-makers,andotherimportantvariationsindifferentnationalcontexts1 for instance,in the levels of local political and fisca

47、l autonomy,the size and nature of local markets for cultural activity,and the improvementof the private sector in the policy-making process.Despite these differences both between and within countries,it is possibleto outline a common trajectory in the evolution of the arguments used to justifyexpend

48、iture on urban cultural policies from the end of the Second World War tothe 1990s.There are some differences also in terms of periodisation betweendifferent countries,but three broad phases can be identified:from the late1940s to the late 1960s;the 1970s and the early 1980s,and from the mid-1980sto

49、present day.It is important to emphasize,however,that a policy rationaledoes not neatly replace the previous one with the passage from one historicalperiod to the next.The process is more one of accumulation,with the oftenuneasy coexistence of old and new nationals.2)Contributionofcontemporary urban

50、cultural policies tosustainabledevelooeel9 life was also important to appeal to investors and skilled personnel.The use ofcultural policy for urban and regional economic development,however,gaverise to policy dilemmas such as those between cultural provision in the citycenter and in disadvantaged,pe