| 中文简介: |
9月11日和城市 * * 拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生曾经写道 "文明的考验是从城市中汲取最大利益的力量," 那么, 对恐怖主义的考验很可能是对那些相同的文化中心造成最大伤害的力量, 商业和交流。这是 "9·1 1" 恐怖分子很好理解的。穆罕默德·阿塔是一个非常熟悉城市的力量和威严的人-大概是他们的耐久性和韧性。他接受过工程师、建筑师和城市规划师的培训。然而 , 在原教旨主义的扭曲下 , 阿塔成为了 e . b . white 几十年前在纽约想象的梦想家 , 他将在曼哈顿解开闪电 , 并试图象征性地、字面上地摧毁它。而即使在 "9·1 1" 事件后的几天和几周里, 世界贸易中心的废墟在燃烧, 美国的专家们也预言了市中心的死亡和我们所知道的城市的终结。但城市经历了数千年的创伤和暴力, 其中比9月11日穆罕默德·阿塔释放的痛苦要严重得多。历史上对这座城市的任何研究都将表明, 人类住区具有在破坏之后复活自己的基本能力, 而弹性城市座谈会希望重申这一点。 * * 城市创伤与城市复原力 * * 本文通过分析创伤、康复和记忆的概念, 考察了城市复原力的近乎普遍。它质疑 "复原力的定义," 探讨建筑环境的恢复与衡量 "恢复正常" 的其他方式之间的关系。城市创伤与城市复原力一样, 有多种形式, 可以通过多种方式进行分类。首先, 破坏的规模可能从一个小的单一区域到整个城市 (或者可能是一个更大的区域) 不等。第二, 人们可以根据死亡和生命中断的人数, 将这些创伤按其人员伤亡来衡量。第三, 人们可以根据这些破坏性行为的假定原因来组织这些破坏性行为, 这些原因是地震和洪水等大自然的巨大无法控制的力量造成的;其他的则是自然力量和人类行动的混合体, 如火灾;而还有一些人更完全是出于故意的人类意志, 不管是被征服的军队、空中轰炸还是恐怖袭击所执行的。仅仅提出有关城市恢复的一般性问题是不够的;我们必须问谁恢复了城市的哪些方面, 以及由什么机制恢复。灾后恢复的进程是了解受灾社会权力结构的一个窗口。同样, 问关于记忆的问题, 就是询问记忆是如何构建的, 什么时候被构建的, 是由谁建造的。
|
| 课程简介: |
**September 11th and the City** Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote "The test of civilization is the power of drawing the most benefit out of cities." The test of terrorism, then, may well be the power to inflict the greatest harm to those same centers of culture, commerce, and exchange. This is something that the September 11 terrorists well understood. Mohamed Atta was a man well acquainted with the power and majesty of cities--and presumably their durability and resilience. He was trained as an engineer, architect and urban planner. Yet, warped by fundamentalism, Atta became the "perverted dreamer" that E. B. White imagined decades ago in Here is New York, a man who would "loose the lightning" on Manhattan and attempt to destroy it, symbolically and literally. And even as the rubble of the World Trade Center smoldered in the days and weeks following September 11, pundits in the United States, too, foretold of the death of downtown and the end of the city as we know it. But cities have endured trauma and violence for millennia, much of it far worse than that unleashed by Mohamed Atta on September 11. Any study of the city in history will reveal that human settlements possess an essential ability to resurrect themselves in the wake of devastation, a point that the Resilient City colloquium hopes to reaffirm. **Urban Trauma and the Resilience of Cities** This paper examines the near-ubiquity of urban resilience by analyzing the concepts of trauma, recovery, and remembrance. It questions the definition of "resilience," by exploring the relationship between recovery of the built environment and other ways that a "return to normalcy" may be measured. Urban trauma, like urban resilience, takes many forms, and can be categorized in many ways. First, there is the scale of destruction-which may range from a small single precinct to an entire city (or, potentially, an even larger area). Second, one may rank these traumas in terms of their human toll, as measured by deaths and disruption of lives. Third, one may organize these destructive acts according to their presumed cause-some result from the largely-uncontrollable forces of nature, such as earthquakes and floods; others are hybrids of natural forces and human action, such as fires; while still others result more wholly from deliberate human will, whether executed by conquering armies, aerial bombardment, or terrorist strikes. It is not enough to ask general questions about urban recovery; we must ask who recovers which aspects of the city, and by what mechanisms. The process of post-disaster recovery is a window into the power structure of the society that has been stricken. Similarly, to ask about remembrance is to inquire how what is remembered gets constructed, when, and by whom.
|
图 书 馆