城市规划专业外文翻译----德黑兰的城市规划与发展(编辑修改稿)

城市规划专业外文翻译----德黑兰的城市规划与发展(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

each with about 500,000 inhabitants, a mercial and an industrial centre with highrise 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 mercial centre and other necessary facilities. A neighborhood, with its 5000 inhabitants, would have a primary school and a local mercial centre. These districts and areas would be linked by a transportation work, 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 work 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 postrevolutionary period can be divided into three phases: revolution (1979–1988), reconstruction (1989–1996), and reform (1997–2020), 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 bined the rule of the clergy with parliamentary republicanism. Its causes can be traced in the shortings 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 placent 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 4 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 troubled efforts at progressive transformation (Madanipour, 1998, 2020). 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 lowcost 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 mid1980s, 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 prehensive 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 prehensive plan‘s 25year lifespan came to an end in 1991. A firm of Iranian consultants (ATech) was missioned 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 strat。