Modernist housing estates in European cities of the Western and Eastern Blocs?西方和東方集團(tuán)歐洲城市的現(xiàn)代主義住宅區(qū)
The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast modernist housing projects in Western and Eastern Blocs built in the period of accelerated urban growth that took place mainly in the 1960s and 1970s. The obvious starting point is that cities in the Eastern Bloc were different from Western cities because of the distinct nature of their urban policies, the centrally planned economy, the absence of a free land market, the impact of industrialization on building construction, etc. However, there are many concepts in urban planning and design, as well as urban processes and urban forms, shared by both ideological systems and that can be clearly recognized in housing estates from that period. This paper offers a comparative perspective of the nature of some of those modern Housing Estates built on both sides of the Iron Curtain such as Grands Ensembles in France, Gro?siedlungen in Germany, Pol?′gonos de viviendas in Spain, or Socialist Housing Estates equivalents in Eastern Bloc countries. The goal is to understand how mass housing forms were related to the modernist international urban culture of the Athens Charter and what was the role of urban design in the significant loss of environmental quality appreciable either in the West or in the East in those years of accelerated urban growth almost everywhere in Europe.
本文的目的是比較和對比主要發(fā)生在20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代的城市加速發(fā)展時期西方和東方建筑群中的現(xiàn)代主義住宅項(xiàng)目仇箱。顯而易見的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是唠雕，東部地區(qū)的城市不同于西部地區(qū)的城市，因?yàn)樗鼈兊某鞘姓咝再|(zhì)不同，中央計劃經(jīng)濟(jì)涂屁，缺乏自由土地市場蟀悦，工業(yè)化對建筑施工的影響等等沟于。然而噪窘，城市規(guī)劃和設(shè)計中有許多概念，以及城市過程和城市形式泞遗，這兩種思想體系都有惰许，并且在那個時期的住宅中可以清楚地認(rèn)識到。本文對鐵幕兩側(cè)修建的一些現(xiàn)代住宅區(qū)的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行了比較分析史辙，如法國的Grands Ensembles汹买、德國的Gro?siedlungen、西班牙的Pol?gonos de viviendas或東歐國家的社會主義住宅區(qū)等聊倔。目的是了解大眾住房形式如何與《雅典憲章》中的現(xiàn)代主義國際城市文化相關(guān)聯(lián)晦毙，以及在歐洲各地城市加速發(fā)展的那些年中，城市設(shè)計在西方或東方環(huán)境質(zhì)量的顯著損失中扮演了什么角色耙蔑。
Keywords: mass housing estates; socialist housing estates; post-1945 Europe modernism; urban design; urbanity
Introduction
In his book Urbanistyka krajo′w socjalistycznych: problemy spoleczne [Urban Planning in Socialist Countries], the influential communist architect and theorist Edmund Goldzamt asserts that urbanism in socialist countries can be seen as a continuation of the tradition of interwar twentieth century European progressive experiences. Goldzamt thought that progressive ideas included in the Athens Charter could be assumed in socialist planned economies.1 If we consider these innovative episodes of Soviet Planning, or the avant-garde architecture and urbanism designed in the interwar period by German, Hungarian, Czechoslovakian, or Polish architects, his statement becomes convincing. In fact, after the Second World War, when the decision to give an answer to the growing demand for housing was made, those modernist principles were applied, with some variants, in the housing estates of Eastern European cities as well as in the Western cities. Of course, there were obvious differences – as the terminology itself reflects2 – but we can also recognize many common characteristics in urban forms on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Among them, a significant loss of environmental quality in housing estates since the beginning of the 1960s, when the proliferation and a spectacular increase of the size of the estates took place.3
有影響力的共產(chǎn)主義建筑師和理論家埃德蒙·戈德扎姆（Edmund Goldzamt）在其著作《城市化》中稱见妒，社會主義國家的城市化可以被視為20世紀(jì)兩次大戰(zhàn)期間歐洲進(jìn)步經(jīng)驗(yàn)傳統(tǒng)的延續(xù)。GaldZaMt認(rèn)為甸陌，雅典憲章中包含的進(jìn)步思想可以在社會主義計劃經(jīng)濟(jì)中被假定须揣。1，如果我們考慮蘇聯(lián)計劃的這些創(chuàng)新情節(jié)钱豁，或者德國耻卡、匈牙利、Czechoslovakian或波蘭建筑師在二戰(zhàn)期間設(shè)計的先鋒建筑和城市主義牲尺，他的陳述令人信服卵酪。事實(shí)上，在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后，當(dāng)人們決定為日益增長的住房需求提供答案時溃卡，這些現(xiàn)代主義原則在東歐城市和西方城市的住宅區(qū)都得到了應(yīng)用溢豆，并有一些變體。當(dāng)然塑煎，正如術(shù)語本身所反映的那樣，存在著明顯的差異2臭蚁，但我們也可以認(rèn)識到鐵幕兩側(cè)城市形態(tài)的許多共同特征最铁。其中，自六十年代初以來垮兑，屋恏的環(huán)境質(zhì)素大幅下降冷尉，當(dāng)時屋恏數(shù)目激增，面積大幅增加系枪。3
Housing estates, particularly modernist housing projects, have been the subject of extensive literature in urban and planning historiography. Although many local studies have been carried out – especially monographs on cities and historical analysis of housing estates – there are very few comparative approaches related to historical and present day debates.4 In taking this approach it is necessary to consider how some recognized authors, such as Edmund Goldzamt, understood modern urbanism from a ‘socialist’ perspective, in front of other architects and planners from the West; or the way Eastern housing estates were designed in this critical time period in comparison with the Western ones.
住宅區(qū)雀哨，特別是現(xiàn)代主義住宅項(xiàng)目，一直是城市和規(guī)劃史學(xué)中廣泛文獻(xiàn)的主題私爷。雖然已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了許多地方研究雾棺，特別是關(guān)于城市的專著和對房地產(chǎn)的歷史分析，但很少有與歷史和現(xiàn)代爭論相關(guān)的比較方法衬浑。4在采用這種方法時捌浩，有必要考慮一些公認(rèn)的作家，如Edmund Goldzamt工秩，在其他西方建筑師和規(guī)劃師面前尸饺，從“社會主義”的角度理解現(xiàn)代都市主義；或者在這個關(guān)鍵時期助币，與西方相比浪听，東方的住宅區(qū)的設(shè)計方式。
This paper sets out some fundamental questions about the nature of changing perceptions, eyeopeners, eureka moments, and paradigm shifts in reference models. At the same time, it explores the practical implications of modernist ideals about this complex reality full of paradoxes and ambiguities. Then, it addresses some examples of Western and Eastern European housing estates that were built according to these progressive and functionalist ideas, keeping in mind that often the building process transformed the results in the ‘vulgata’ of the modernist ideals.5 We have tried to consider several cultural and national urban and planning traditions, focusing on some paradigmatic examples of housing estates located in different and complex cities.6 Our approach is morphological and emphasizes not away of building but an ‘urban and landscape form’, with an open perspective consistent with studies from urban historians, geographers, and architects, and applying an eclectic methodology (secondary sources, mapping, and direct observation of urban forms).7 In keeping with RemKoolhaas’ query at the Venice Biennale (Absorbing Modernity 2014), it is about understanding how different ‘urban design cultures’ have responded to the ‘forces of modernism’ in the twentieth century.8 In view of distinct urban processes in Western and Eastern European cities, can we say that these showed simply different stages of a common process of European urban modernization?Howdid modernist ideals change in different political and socio-economic systems? How wide was the gap between expectation and realization of ‘modern urban utopias’ in both Western and Eastern cities in this particular period? What went wrong? How often did it go wrong?
本文闡述了關(guān)于參考模型中變化的感知眉菱、開眼界迹栓、尤里卡時刻和范式轉(zhuǎn)換的性質(zhì)的一些基本問題。同時俭缓，它還探討了現(xiàn)代主義理想對這個充滿悖論和歧義的復(fù)雜現(xiàn)實(shí)的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義迈螟。然后，介紹了根據(jù)這些進(jìn)步和功能主義理念建造的西歐和東歐住宅區(qū)的一些例子尔崔，記住答毫，建筑過程常常改變了現(xiàn)代主義理想中的“庸俗”的結(jié)果。5季春，我們試圖考慮幾個文化和國家的城市和規(guī)劃傳統(tǒng)洗搂，關(guān)注位于不同和復(fù)雜城市的住宅區(qū)的一些范例。6我們的方法是形態(tài)學(xué)的，強(qiáng)調(diào)的不是建筑耘拇，而是“城市和景觀形式”撵颊，具有與城市歷史學(xué)家、地理學(xué)家和建筑師的研究一致的開放視角惫叛，并應(yīng)用折衷方法（城市形態(tài)的二次來源倡勇、地圖和直接觀察）。7與雷姆庫哈斯在威尼斯雙年展（2014年）上的提問一致嘉涌，這是關(guān)于理解不同的“城市設(shè)計文化”是如何響應(yīng)二十世紀(jì)的“現(xiàn)代主義力量”的妻熊。8鑒于西歐和東歐城市的不同城市進(jìn)程，我們是否可以說這些只是歐洲城市現(xiàn)代化共同進(jìn)程的不同階段仑最？現(xiàn)代主義理想是如何實(shí)現(xiàn)的不同政治和社會經(jīng)濟(jì)制度的變化扔役？在這一特定時期，西方和東方城市對“現(xiàn)代城市烏托邦”的期望和實(shí)現(xiàn)之間的差距有多大警医？出了什么問題亿胸？出了多少次問題？
Many of the historiographic interpretations are based on a ‘different stages’ hypothesis, meaning early modernization in some countries was followed by later modernization in others (especially in Eastern countries). Looking with a comparative perspective, it does not seem so obvious. Rather than different stages between Western (advanced) and Eastern (backward) countries, it would appear that a common change in the conditions of urban growth happened almost at the same time, during the 1960s and 1970s when housing estates spread in all European cities with their size increasing spectacularly. The issue here is the contribution and responsibility of the ‘modern planning and urban design culture’ with its different versions in East and West, especially regarding modern housing estates in those decades. It is not so clear that all of these modern housing estates were so ‘well planned at the time’ as some official reports from the European Commission assert.9 Obviously, not all of them were so well designed, but neither urban design should bear the whole responsibility.
許多史學(xué)解釋都基于“不同階段”假設(shè)预皇，這意味著一些國家的早期現(xiàn)代化隨后是其他國家（尤其是東方國家）的后期現(xiàn)代化侈玄。從比較的角度來看，它似乎并不那么明顯吟温。與西方（發(fā)達(dá)）和東方（落后）國家的不同階段不同拗馒，城市增長條件的共同變化似乎幾乎是同時發(fā)生的，發(fā)生在20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代溯街，當(dāng)時歐洲所有城市的房地產(chǎn)都在擴(kuò)張诱桂，其規(guī)模也在顯著增加。這里的問題是“現(xiàn)代規(guī)劃和城市設(shè)計文化”的貢獻(xiàn)和責(zé)任呈昔，它在東方和西方都有不同的版本挥等，特別是在這幾十年中的現(xiàn)代住宅區(qū)痰娱。正如歐盟委員會的一些官方報告所斷言的那樣橡卤，目前還不清楚所有這些現(xiàn)代住宅區(qū)是否“當(dāng)時規(guī)劃得很好”。9顯然担敌，并非所有這些住宅區(qū)都設(shè)計得很好郭宝，但城市設(shè)計都不應(yīng)承擔(dān)全部責(zé)任辞槐。
This paper does not explicitly consider important issues such as market situation, technical know-how, behaviour of people, planning law, influence of politics, etc., instead, what it tries to identify is the strengths and weaknesses of modern urban planning and design culture models, especially when radical urbanism was applied in the period of accelerated urban growth. Reviewing this episode ofmodernist architectural and urban history the paper aims to offer greater nuance and a comparative view, including some examples from Southern Europe which are usually neglected
本文沒有明確地考慮諸如市場狀況、技術(shù)訣竅粘室、人的行為榄檬、規(guī)劃法、政治影響等重要問題衔统，相反鹿榜，它試圖識別的是現(xiàn)代城市規(guī)劃和設(shè)計文化模型的長處和短處海雪，特別是在城市加速發(fā)展時期，激進(jìn)的城市主義被應(yīng)用舱殿“侣悖回顧這段現(xiàn)代主義建筑和城市歷史，本文旨在提供更多的細(xì)微差別和比較觀點(diǎn)沪袭，包括南歐的一些通常被忽視的例子
Modernist ideals, modernist mass housing, 1920s–1970s: paradoxes and contradictions?現(xiàn)代主義理想湾宙，現(xiàn)代主義大眾住房，1920-1970：悖論與矛盾
At the International Congresses of Modern Architecture 2 (CIAM 2 (Frankfurt, 1929)) and CIAM 3 (Brussels, 1930) Walter Gropius demonstrated with scientific precision the problems old housing models (Mietkasernen in Berlin) entailed and he championed the high-rise linear block as an alternative (Figure 1). Urban blocks with conventional streets largely went out of fashion.10 Instead, highway arteries, isolated high-rise buildings, and green spaces became dominant in modernist layouts. This was an important paradigm shift related to the prestige of Taylorism and Fordism (among other factors) that implied new ways of ordering urban spaces.11 From the 1920s onward, modernist urbanism was based on radical innovations in housing and urban forms,12 but nowhere this was so clearly expressed through explicit urban forms as in Gropius radical proposals.13
在第二屆國際現(xiàn)代建筑大會（CIAM 2（法蘭克福冈绊，1929））和第三屆國際建筑大會（布魯塞爾侠鳄，1930）上，沃爾特·格羅皮烏斯（Walter Gropius）以科學(xué)的精確性證明了舊住房模型（柏林的米特卡塞恩）所帶來的問題焚碌，并支持將高層線性街區(qū)作為替代方案（圖1）畦攘。帶有傳統(tǒng)街道的城市街區(qū)基本上已經(jīng)過時霸妹。10相反十电，公路干線、孤立的高層建筑和綠地在現(xiàn)代主義布局中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位叹螟。這是一個重要的范式轉(zhuǎn)變鹃骂，與泰勒主義和福特主義（以及其他因素）的聲望有關(guān)，這意味著城市空間秩序的新方式罢绽。11從20世紀(jì)20年代起畏线，現(xiàn)代都市主義以住房和城市形式的根本創(chuàng)新為基礎(chǔ)，12但這一點(diǎn)在格羅皮烏斯激進(jìn)提案中通過明確的城市形式表達(dá)得最為明確良价。13
Under this planning and urban design perspective, we can assume that, after the Second World War, in spite of different cultural traditions and socio-political situations (including some exceptions with interesting architecture and urban layouts), housing estates of the 1960s and 1970s radicalized the functionalism and pragmatism of the Modern Movement and the Athens Charter (CIAM4, 1933, published in 1943). Of course, this was a complex, contradictory, and paradoxical process, since the large housing estates began to be built according to the CIAM principles at the same time that they started to be rejected by different urban theorists and practitioners.
根據(jù)這一規(guī)劃和城市設(shè)計觀點(diǎn)寝殴，我們可以假設(shè)，在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后明垢，盡管存在不同的文化傳統(tǒng)和社會政治狀況（包括有趣的建筑和城市布局的一些例外）蚣常，20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代的房地產(chǎn)使現(xiàn)代運(yùn)動和《雅典憲章》（CIAM4，1933年痊银，1943年出版）的功能主義和實(shí)用主義激進(jìn)主義抵蚊。當(dāng)然，這是一個復(fù)雜溯革、矛盾和自相矛盾的過程贞绳，因?yàn)榇笮妥≌瑓^(qū)開始按照CIAM原則建造，同時它們開始被不同的城市理論家和實(shí)踐者拒絕致稀。
If we could identify one ‘zero hour’ as a starting point for the revision of the radical urban avant-garde, we should go back to 1950/1951. In 1950, 16 Grundsa¨tze des Sta¨dtebaus (Sixteen Principles of Urban Planning) were passed in East Berlin.14 Almost at the same time, in 1951, the CIAM 8 The Heart of the City took place. Both texts show that paradoxically, while the Athens Charter principles were starting to spread everywhere in the 1950s, a parallel revision process was already beginning to gain momentum with the reconsideration of traditional urban forms. The Sixteen Principles of Urban Planning, as a counterpoint to the Athens Charter, combined the ideas of the modern urbanism of the 1930s with Stalin-era, Soviet concepts. 15 In this sense, it is interesting to note that ‘Stalin’s attempt to squash the re-emerging modernism, supplanting its legacies with a new aesthetic that extolled the virtues of a socialist society’,16 could be related not only to ‘socialist realism’ but also to the revisionist debate, present at the CIAM 8, on the importance of the cultural dimension in cities; another way of questioning CIAM functionalist urbanism.
如果我們能確定一個“零小時”作為修改激進(jìn)城市先鋒派的起點(diǎn)冈闭，我們應(yīng)該追溯到1950/1951年。1950年抖单，東柏林通過了16項(xiàng)《城市規(guī)劃十六項(xiàng)原則》拒秘。14幾乎與此同時号显，1951年，城市中心舉行了第八屆國際城市會議躺酒。兩個文本都表明押蚤，矛盾的是，盡管《雅典憲章》原則在20世紀(jì)50年代開始在各地傳播羹应，但隨著對傳統(tǒng)城市形式的重新思考揽碘，一個平行的修訂過程已經(jīng)開始形成勢頭。《城市規(guī)劃十六項(xiàng)原則》與《雅典憲章》相呼應(yīng)园匹，將20世紀(jì)30年代的現(xiàn)代城市主義思想與斯大林時代的蘇聯(lián)概念相結(jié)合雳刺。15從這個意義上說，值得注意的是裸违，“斯大林試圖壓扁重新崛起的現(xiàn)代主義掖桦，用一種贊美社會主義社會美德的新美學(xué)取代其遺產(chǎn)”，16不僅與“社會主義現(xiàn)實(shí)主義”有關(guān)供汛，還與CIAM 8上的修正主義辯論有關(guān)枪汪，城市文化維度的重要性；質(zhì)疑CIAM功能主義都市主義的另一種方式怔昨。
To sum up, the first common paradigm shift to modernity took place from 1933 to 1943, but it was the rigidity of themodernist principles that quickly led to a second shift after the Second World War. It was supported by a ‘modernist second generation’,more sensitive to the values of old cities, urban cores, and ‘hearts’, to the contrast between the quality of traditional urban spaces and the poverty of modernist ones, to the lack of urbanity in new developments, etc.17 Of course this did not happen at once in all places and furthermore the urban planning traditions differed among countries and cities, as the recent intense historiographical debate, still open, shows.1
總而言之雀久，第一次向現(xiàn)代性的共同范式轉(zhuǎn)變發(fā)生在1933年至1943年，但現(xiàn)代主義原則的僵化很快導(dǎo)致了第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后的第二次轉(zhuǎn)變趁舀。它得到了“現(xiàn)代主義第二代”的支持赖捌，他們對舊城、城市核心和“心”的價值更為敏感矮烹，對傳統(tǒng)城市空間的質(zhì)量與現(xiàn)代主義城市空間的貧困之間的對比更為敏感越庇，對新開發(fā)中缺乏城市性更為敏感，17當(dāng)然奉狈，這并不是在所有地方同時發(fā)生的卤唉，而且各國和城市之間的城市規(guī)劃傳統(tǒng)各不相同，正如最近激烈的史學(xué)辯論所表明的那樣嘹吨，這一點(diǎn)仍然懸而未決搬味。1
Two texts, published in the early 1960s inWest and East Berlin, demonstrate how fast utopian views turned into critical and negative voices. InWest Berlin, the publishing of TheMurdered City in 1964 byWolf Jobst Siedler with photographs by Elisabeth Niggemeyer was an important landmark. One year before, The City of Tomorrow, based on the collected letters between Brigitte Reimann and Hermann Henselmann, had already afforded other critical views coming from the eastern side. However, criticism spread from everywhere: the texts by J. Jacobs (1961), G. Cullen (1961), C. Alexander (1964), A. Mitscherlich (1965), or A. Rossi (1984) illustrate perfectly the growing criticism and rejection of some aspects of modernist urbanism, especially the large-scale housing projects built in the 1960s either in Western or Eastern cities.19 With some variants, most of the criticism summarizes the problems and weakness as follows: lack of urban life because of the single functional zoning; neglect of the human scale in large-scale estates and buildings; difficulties of isolated and fragmentary urban groups integrating into the city, etc.
20世紀(jì)60年代初在西柏林和東柏林出版的兩本書展示了烏托邦觀點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榕u和消極聲音的速度。在西柏林蟀拷，沃爾夫·喬布斯特·西德勒（Wolf Jobst Siedler）于1964年出版了《城市的毀滅》（TheMurded City）和伊麗莎白·尼格梅耶（Elisabeth Niggemeyer）的照片碰纬，這是一個重要的里程碑。一年前问芬，根據(jù)布里吉特·萊曼（Brigitte Reimann）和赫爾曼·亨塞爾曼（Hermann Henselmann）之間收集的信件悦析，《明日之城》（The City of明日之城）已經(jīng)提供了來自東區(qū)的其他批評意見。然而此衅，批評無處不在：J.Jacobs（1961）强戴、G.Cullen（1961）亭螟、C.Alexander（1964）、A.Mitscherlich（1965）或A.Rossi（1984）的作品完美地說明了對現(xiàn)代都市主義某些方面日益增長的批評和排斥骑歹，尤其是20世紀(jì)60年代在西部或東部城市修建的大型住宅項(xiàng)目预烙。19通過一些變體，大多數(shù)批評總結(jié)了以下問題和弱點(diǎn)：由于單一的功能分區(qū)道媚，缺乏城市生活扁掸；忽視大型房地產(chǎn)和建筑物中的人的規(guī)模；孤立和零散的城市群體融入城市的困難等最域。
Anyway, neither the impact of criticism nor the view of the ‘modernist second generation’ was particularly significant since the increasing size of housing estates and the rapidity of the building process became the norm from the end of the 1950s onwards. Since that moment, the shift from the huge expectations that modern urbanism had awakened to the questioning and eventual verification of the failure was brief and conclusive.
無論如何谴分，批評的影響和“現(xiàn)代主義第二代”的觀點(diǎn)都不是特別顯著的，因?yàn)閺?950年代末開始镀脂，不斷擴(kuò)大的屋面積和快速的建筑過程成為常態(tài)牺蹄。從那一刻起，從現(xiàn)代城市主義喚醒的巨大期望到對失敗的質(zhì)疑和最終驗(yàn)證的轉(zhuǎn)變是短暫和決定性的薄翅。
Modernist housing estates in Western and Eastern Blocs: ‘Modern urban culture mistake’ or ‘low-quality urban design’??東西方建筑群中的現(xiàn)代主義住宅區(qū)：“現(xiàn)代城市文化錯誤”還是“低質(zhì)量城市設(shè)計”沙兰？
Western Bloc
The building and proliferation of large housing estates was exceptional all over Europe during the 1960s and 1970s. This was firstly due to the critical shortage of houses and the willingness to?solve this problem rapidly; and secondly, because standardization and prefabrication afforded the possibility of building quickly, consequently, both planners and governments found it convenient to postulate the CIAM theories. The problem arose when these principles were quickly adopted in the context of accelerated urban growth. Of course modern architecture and urban planning resulted in the indisputable improvement of life quality and habitability, but they also brought with them noteworthy weaknesses resulting from the excesses of radical urban innovation and of the limited attention paid to urban and architectural design.20 Rather than talking about a ‘mistake’ in the statements of the modern urban culture we should consider the vulgarization of the CIAM tenets in the 1960s and the generalized low environmental quality in urban design and architecture.21 This happened both in the West and in the East, as an amazing unifying force which ‘defied the dichotomy of the Cold War’,22 as the ensuing examples evidence.
在20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代，歐洲各地的大型住宅區(qū)的建設(shè)和擴(kuò)散是異常的匿刮。這首先是由于住房嚴(yán)重短缺以及愿意迅速解決這一問題僧凰；其次探颈，由于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和預(yù)制提供了快速建造的可能性熟丸，因此，規(guī)劃者和政府都發(fā)現(xiàn)伪节，假設(shè)CIAM理論很方便光羞。當(dāng)這些原則在城市加速增長的背景下迅速被采納時，問題就出現(xiàn)了怀大。當(dāng)然纱兑，現(xiàn)代建筑和城市規(guī)劃帶來了無可爭議的生活質(zhì)量和宜居性的改善，但他們也帶來了值得注意的弱點(diǎn)化借，由于過度的激進(jìn)的城市創(chuàng)新和對城市和建筑設(shè)計的有限關(guān)注潜慎。20，而不是談?wù)撘粋€“錯誤”在現(xiàn)代城市文化的陳述中蓖康，我們應(yīng)該考慮到庸俗化的CIAM原則在20世紀(jì)60年代和城市設(shè)計和建筑中普遍存在的低環(huán)境質(zhì)量铐炫。21這在西方和東方都發(fā)生了，作為一種驚人的統(tǒng)一力量蒜焊，它“挑戰(zhàn)了冷戰(zhàn)的二分法”倒信，22隨后的例子就是證據(jù)
As in other Western European countries, in the UK the modernist tradition was so deep that ‘the modern movement finally became the new orthodoxy of the 1960s’.23 The intense debate and battles on housing models gave rise to important examples, such as the Churchill Gardens in Pimlico (1946–1962), a true laboratory of high quality urban forms, or the Roehampton flats in West London (Alton East and Alton West, 1953), an expression of the ‘Corbusian dream’ in the UK.24 Park Hill Housing Project in Sheffield (1954–1961), ‘one of the most celebrated public housing schemes of the post-war period’ and one of the first paradigmatic episodes to show the gap between expectations and realization ‘enjoyed qualified critical approval’.25 Shortly after its completion the critic Reyner Banham did not stint his praises:
與其他西歐國家一樣，英國的現(xiàn)代主義傳統(tǒng)如此深厚泳梆，“現(xiàn)代運(yùn)動最終成為20世紀(jì)60年代的新正統(tǒng)”鳖悠。23關(guān)于住房模式的激烈辯論和斗爭產(chǎn)生了重要的例子榜掌，如皮姆利科的丘吉爾花園（1946-1962），一個真正的高質(zhì)量城市形式實(shí)驗(yàn)室乘综，或者倫敦西部的羅漢普頓公寓（奧爾頓東部和奧爾頓西部憎账，1953年），表達(dá)了英國的“科爾布西夢想”卡辰。24謝菲爾德公園山住宅項(xiàng)目（1954-1961年）鼠哥，“戰(zhàn)后最著名的公共住房計劃之一”和第一個顯示期望與實(shí)現(xiàn)之間差距的范例集之一“獲得了有條件的批判性批準(zhǔn)”。25該計劃完成后不久看政，評論家雷納·巴納姆（Reyner Banham）毫不吝惜地贊揚(yáng)：
Park Hill seems to represent one of those rare occasions when the intention to create a certain kind of architecture happens to encounter a programme and a site that can hardly be dealt with in any other way, and the result has the clarity that only arises when – as in the Villa Rotonda – aesthetic programme and functional opportunity meet and are instantly fused.26
Park Hill似乎代表了一種罕見的情況朴恳，即創(chuàng)建某種建筑的意圖碰巧遇到了一個無法以任何其他方式處理的方案和場地，結(jié)果只有當(dāng)美學(xué)方案和功能性機(jī)會相遇并立即融合時允蚣，才會產(chǎn)生清晰的效果于颖，就像在羅通達(dá)別墅一樣。26
However, since the end of the 1950s ‘Modernism became indelibly associated with social housing and with being the dwellings of those who had no choice’.27 So what went wrong? The decline of Park Hill came soon, largely due to the devastation of the steel industry and also to council housing policies that contributed to damaging the original ideal of equality: Park Hill became the ghetto of a suppressed underclass, a sink estate. But the urban and architectural design also contributed to the decline of the estate: public spaces belonging to nobody soon turned into neglected and desolated corridors, and ‘radical modernist concepts’ led to complete standardization of architectural solutions, which was not the best way to facilitate its appropriation by the new inhabitants28 (Figure 2).嚷兔、
然而森渐，自20世紀(jì)50年代末以來，“現(xiàn)代主義與社會住房以及那些別無選擇的人的住房有著不可磨滅的聯(lián)系”冒晰。27那么同衣，出了什么問題？帕克山的衰落很快就到來了壶运，這主要是由于鋼鐵工業(yè)的破壞耐齐，也由于議會的住房政策破壞了最初的平等理想：帕克山成了受壓迫的下層階級的貧民區(qū)，一個貧民區(qū)蒋情。但城市和建筑設(shè)計也導(dǎo)致了莊園的衰落：無人擁有的公共空間很快就變成了被忽視和荒涼的走廊埠况，“激進(jìn)的現(xiàn)代主義概念”導(dǎo)致了建筑解決方案的完全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化，這不是促進(jìn)新居民占用土地的最佳方式28（圖2）
The Bijlmermeer neighbourhood (1966–1972) in Amsterdam was also a paradigm of modern urban planning. It was presented as an advanced suburb in the motorized age, an achievement by the most radical functionalists.29 Curiously, even if the authors were disciples of the great architects of the glorious former generation (van Eesteren, Bakema), we can find a strong contrast between the radical and simplified forms of this large-scale estate and the carefully designed modernist Amsterdam Western extension.30 Only 10 years after Bijlmermeer had finished being built, this modern icon turned into a recognized mistake, as it happened in Park Hill.31 So, what went wrong this time? The construction of Bijlmermeer coincided with large migratory flows as a result of the independence of the former Dutch colony of Surinam in 1975, resulting in many immigrants being housed there. But this could not be the only?explanation for the failure. Besides these social problems, an excessive ambition led to believe that a large-scale urban project could be conceived and design just as a large-scale architectural one. Bijlmermeer demonstrates how projects become more complex when the scale increases and concepts radicalize.32 As Rem Koolhaas says, ‘the Bijlmer represents a particular architectural doctrine realized in retrospect . . . So near and yet so far . . . Pre-war CIAM urbanism realized in the late sixties’.33 Here we see the paradox of the application of pre-war CIAM tenets in the 1960s, in a moment where they were already being rejected. Again, the urban and architecture design was not the only thing responsible for the problems, but it showed the limits of those megastructures (Figure 3).
阿姆斯特丹Bijlmermeer街區(qū)（1966-1972）也是現(xiàn)代城市規(guī)劃的典范棵癣。它被描述為摩托化時代的高級郊區(qū)辕翰，這是最激進(jìn)的功能主義者的成就。29奇怪的是狈谊，即使作者是光榮的前一代偉大建筑師（范·埃斯特倫喜命，巴科馬）的門徒，我們可以在這個大型莊園的激進(jìn)和簡化形式與精心設(shè)計的現(xiàn)代主義阿姆斯特丹西部擴(kuò)建之間找到強(qiáng)烈的對比河劝。30比杰爾默米爾建成僅10年后壁榕，這個現(xiàn)代標(biāo)志就變成了公認(rèn)的錯誤，就像發(fā)生在帕克山一樣丧裁。31那么护桦，這次出了什么問題？1975年荷蘭前殖民地蘇里南獨(dú)立后煎娇，Bijlmermeer的修建與大量移民流動同時進(jìn)行二庵，導(dǎo)致許多移民居住在那里贪染。但這并不是失敗的唯一原因。除了這些社會問題之外催享，過度的野心導(dǎo)致人們相信杭隙，一個大型城市項(xiàng)目可以像一個大型建筑項(xiàng)目一樣進(jìn)行構(gòu)思和設(shè)計。Bijlmermeer展示了隨著規(guī)模的增加和概念的激進(jìn)主義因妙，項(xiàng)目如何變得更加復(fù)雜痰憎。32正如Rem Koolhaas所說，“Bijlmer代表了一種在回顧中實(shí)現(xiàn)的特定建筑理念攀涵。如此近卻又如此遠(yuǎn)铣耘。戰(zhàn)前CIAM城市主義在60年代末實(shí)現(xiàn)。33在這里以故，我們看到了在60年代應(yīng)用戰(zhàn)前CIAM原則的悖論蜗细，當(dāng)時這些原則已經(jīng)被拒絕。同樣怒详，城市和建筑設(shè)計不是造成這些問題的唯一原因炉媒，但它顯示了這些巨型建筑的局限性（圖3）。
Looking now to Sarcelles (1955–1970), on the outskirts of Paris, we find one of the most significant French cases – a sort of archetype of grand ensemble;34 representing an obvious example of the radical application of modernist concepts and of the absolute standardization of architectural solutions. Its monolithic composition in horizontal residential slabs was organized in a rigid grid in strict compliance with rationalist CIAM tenets, with much less attention to the urban forms that had been paid to earlier post-war projects, such as Le Havre or Montrouge (1955–1958). The existing literature is strongly critical (as with previous examples) due in part to the prevalent use of prefabrication that led to a general rejection in the 1960s.35 Despite considerable experimentation in some of the grands ensembles (such as in Toulouse-le-Mirail, a sort of ‘megastructure’ like Park Hill or Bijlmermeer) the results were poor: resulting in morphological monotony, hard architecture, and lack of facilities, commercial areas, and activities. The fact that Sarcelles has given its name to the mal des grands ensembles, la Sarcellite or sarcellitis,36 is symptomatic enough (Figure 4).
現(xiàn)在看看巴黎郊區(qū)的Sarcelles（1955-1970）昆烁，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個最重要的法國案例——一種大合奏的原型吊骤；34代表了現(xiàn)代主義概念的徹底應(yīng)用和建筑解決方案的絕對標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的明顯例子。它在水平住宅板中的整體結(jié)構(gòu)是嚴(yán)格按照理性主義的CIAM原則在剛性網(wǎng)格中組織的静尼，而很少關(guān)注戰(zhàn)后早期的城市形式白粉，如勒阿弗爾或蒙特羅日（1955-1958）。現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)具有強(qiáng)烈的批判性（與前面的例子一樣）茅郎，部分原因是預(yù)制的普遍使用導(dǎo)致了20世紀(jì)60年代的普遍拒絕蜗元。35盡管在一些大合奏中進(jìn)行了大量的實(shí)驗(yàn)（例如在圖盧茲勒米拉爾或渤，一種類似帕克山或比杰爾梅米爾的“巨型結(jié)構(gòu)”）結(jié)果很差：導(dǎo)致形態(tài)單調(diào)系冗，建筑堅硬，缺乏設(shè)施薪鹦、商業(yè)區(qū)和活動掌敬。Sarcelles將其命名為mal des grands ensembles，la Sarcellite或sarcellitis池磁，36這一事實(shí)足以說明問題（圖4）奔害。
Among all the different European urban cultures Germany stands out since the Weimar Republic because of its deep modernist tradition linked to social housing programmes. Reference architects such as W. Gropius, H. Meyer, B. Taut, and E. May developed a systematic reflexion about mass housing in the interwar period, and German cities became a true laboratory for large-scale housing estates. Gropius himself was the author (with Wils Ebert and his American office The Architects Collaborative (TAC) of one of the most paradigmatic Gro?siedlungen in Berlin: Gropiusstadt (1962–1975)). This extraordinary example gives interesting clues for understanding some strengths and weaknesses of these large-scale housing estates in contrast to earlier experiences built up until the 1950s. Was this large-scale housing estate so ‘well planned at the time?’ Despite the typological diversity, radical modern tenets (too fluid, open with no well-defined spaces, and no clear hierarchy) dominated. The image of the modernist development was discredited by being linked to drugs and social problems, especially after the success of a book by a teenager who lived at this large-scale housing estate. Again, urban forms were credited as being responsible for these problems. Despite this rather unfair association, recent analysis found many weaknesses (as well as strengths) in the original project and the layout of the estate.37 As it happens, the Gropiusstadt, and the Ma¨rkisches Viertel (1963–1974)38 in West Berlin, could be seen as ‘textbook example[s] for the Gro?siedlungen experience’.39 Both examples were defined by tall blocks and huge open spaces according to similar urban principles, not dissimilar in concept to the grands ensembles or their Dutch and UK equivalents (Figure 5).
在所有不同的歐洲城市文化中，德國自魏瑪共和國以來脫穎而出地熄，因?yàn)槠渖詈竦默F(xiàn)代主義傳統(tǒng)與社會住房計劃相聯(lián)系华临。參考建筑師如W.格羅皮烏斯、H.邁耶端考、B.托特和E.梅在兩次大戰(zhàn)期間對大眾住房進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的反思雅潭，德國城市成為了大型住宅區(qū)的真正實(shí)驗(yàn)室揭厚。格羅皮烏斯本人（與威爾斯·埃伯特和他的美國辦公室建筑師合作組織（TAC）一起）是柏林最具代表性的格羅西德隆根之一：格羅皮烏斯塔特（1962-1975）的作者。這個非同尋常的例子為我們提供了有趣的線索扶供，讓我們了解這些大型屋苑的一些優(yōu)勢和劣勢筛圆，與50年代以前的經(jīng)驗(yàn)形成對比。這座大型住宅區(qū)是否“當(dāng)時規(guī)劃得很好椿浓？”盡管類型多樣太援，但激進(jìn)的現(xiàn)代信條（過于流暢、開放扳碍，沒有明確的空間定義提岔，也沒有明確的等級制度）占主導(dǎo)地位。現(xiàn)代主義發(fā)展的形象因?yàn)榕c毒品和社會問題聯(lián)系在一起而受到質(zhì)疑笋敞，尤其是在一位住在這座大型住宅區(qū)的青少年成功地完成了一本書之后唧垦。同樣，城市形式被認(rèn)為是造成這些問題的原因液样。盡管存在這種相當(dāng)不公平的關(guān)聯(lián)振亮，但最近的分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，原始項(xiàng)目和地產(chǎn)布局中存在許多弱點(diǎn)（以及優(yōu)勢）鞭莽。37碰巧坊秸，西柏林的格羅皮斯塔特和馬爾基什·維特爾（1963-1974）38可以被視為“教科書式的例子”對于Gro?siedlungen體驗(yàn)”，39這兩個例子都是根據(jù)類似的城市原則澎怒，以高大的街區(qū)和巨大的開放空間來定義的褒搔，與grands ensembles或其荷蘭和英國等效物在概念上沒有什么不同（圖5）。
Among all the different European urban cultures Germany stands out since the Weimar Republic because of its deep modernist tradition linked to social housing programmes. Reference architects such as W. Gropius, H. Meyer, B. Taut, and E. May developed a systematic reflexion about mass housing in the interwar period, and German cities became a true laboratory for large-scale housing estates. Gropius himself was the author (with Wils Ebert and his American office The Architects Collaborative (TAC) of one of the most paradigmatic Gro?siedlungen in Berlin: Gropiusstadt (1962–1975)). This extraordinary example gives interesting clues for understanding some strengths and weaknesses of these large-scale housing estates in contrast to earlier experiences built up until the 1950s. Was this large-scale housing estate so ‘well planned at the time?’ Despite the typological diversity, radical modern tenets (too fluid, open with no well-defined spaces, and no clear hierarchy) dominated. The image of the modernist development was discredited by being linked to drugs and social problems, especially after the success of a book by a teenager who lived at this large-scale housing estate. Again, urban forms were credited as being responsible for these problems. Despite this rather unfair association, recent analysis found many weaknesses (as well as strengths) in the original project and the layout of the estate.37 As it happens, the Gropiusstadt, and the Ma¨rkisches Viertel (1963–1974)38 in West Berlin, could be seen as ‘textbook example[s] for the Gro?siedlungen experience’.39 Both examples were defined by tall blocks and huge open spaces according to similar urban principles, not dissimilar in concept to the grands ensembles or their Dutch and UK equivalents (Figure 5).
在所有不同的歐洲城市文化中喷面，德國自魏瑪共和國以來脫穎而出星瘾，因?yàn)槠渖詈竦默F(xiàn)代主義傳統(tǒng)與社會住房計劃相聯(lián)系。參考建筑師如W.格羅皮烏斯惧辈、H.邁耶琳状、B.托特和E.梅在兩次大戰(zhàn)期間對大眾住房進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的反思，德國城市成為了大型住宅區(qū)的真正實(shí)驗(yàn)室盒齿。格羅皮烏斯本人（與威爾斯·埃伯特和他的美國辦公室建筑師合作組織（TAC）一起）是柏林最具代表性的格羅西德隆根之一：格羅皮烏斯塔特（1962-1975）的作者念逞。這個非同尋常的例子為我們提供了有趣的線索，讓我們了解這些大型屋苑的一些優(yōu)勢和劣勢边翁，與50年代以前的經(jīng)驗(yàn)形成對比翎承。這座大型住宅區(qū)是否“當(dāng)時規(guī)劃得很好？”盡管類型多樣符匾，但激進(jìn)的現(xiàn)代信條（過于流暢叨咖、開放，沒有明確的空間定義，也沒有明確的等級制度）占主導(dǎo)地位〉楦鳎現(xiàn)代主義發(fā)展的形象因?yàn)榕c毒品和社會問題聯(lián)系在一起而受到質(zhì)疑仰剿，尤其是在一位住在這座大型住宅區(qū)的青少年成功地完成了一本書之后。同樣痴晦，城市形式被認(rèn)為是造成這些問題的原因南吮。盡管存在這種相當(dāng)不公平的關(guān)聯(lián)，但最近的分析發(fā)現(xiàn)誊酌，原始項(xiàng)目和地產(chǎn)布局中存在許多弱點(diǎn)（以及優(yōu)勢）部凑。37碰巧，西柏林的格羅皮斯塔特和馬爾基什·維特爾（1963-1974）38可以被視為“教科書式的例子”對于Gro?siedlungen體驗(yàn)”碧浊，39這兩個例子都是根據(jù)類似的城市原則涂邀，以高大的街區(qū)和巨大的開放空間來定義的，與grands ensembles或其荷蘭和英國等效物在概念上沒有什么不同（圖5）箱锐。
Less attention has generally been paid to the experience of housing estates in SouthernEurope. In Italy, modernist tradition had its own development after the Second World Warand became also the new orthodoxy in the 1960s urbanism.40 As with other Southern European?cities, the economic development of the 1960s led to an explosion of self-built neighbourhoods, borgate, and mass housing estates gained relevance, producing interesting examples.41 The case of Quarto Cagnino in Milan (1964–1973)42 contrasts strongly with the experiences of the 1950s比勉、 such as QT8 in Milan (1953), or Tuscolano in Rome (1950–1952). This estate had several problems from the beginning and, as it happened in other case studies already mentioned, they were not only of urban or architectural nature: for instance, the legal framework limited the development of public housing estates to the availability of economic plots, that sometimes, as in Paris, were marginal appendix to the city.43 ‘The 120 thousand public housing dwellings planned in 1961 turned into a galaxy of settlements localized in whichever areas were available to construct on, that is to say the most distant suburbs’.44 Besides that, the plan’s economic limitations hindered the complete development of the original project, which provided carefully designed inbetween spaces and different housing typologies, paying special attention to the connection of common spaces with the private sphere. These changes, as in other previous cases, resulted in the poverty of public space and in the low urban quality of the estate (Figure 6).
人們對南歐住宅區(qū)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)普遍關(guān)注較少。在意大利驹止，現(xiàn)代主義傳統(tǒng)在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后有了自身的發(fā)展浩聋，并在20世紀(jì)60年代的城市化中成為新的正統(tǒng)觀念。40與其他南歐城市一樣臊恋，20世紀(jì)60年代的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展導(dǎo)致自建社區(qū)衣洁、博蓋特和大眾住宅區(qū)的激增，產(chǎn)生有趣的例子抖仅。41米蘭的卡格尼諾四重奏（1964-1973）42與20世紀(jì)50年代的經(jīng)歷形成強(qiáng)烈對比坊夫，例如米蘭的第八重奏（1953年）或羅馬的塔斯科拉諾（1950-1952年）。該房地產(chǎn)從一開始就有幾個問題撤卢，正如前面提到的其他案例研究中所發(fā)生的那樣环凿，這些問題不僅僅是城市或建筑性質(zhì)的：例如，法律框架將公共房地產(chǎn)的開發(fā)限制在經(jīng)濟(jì)地塊的可用性上放吩，有時智听，如在巴黎，是城市的邊緣附錄屎慢。43“1961年規(guī)劃的12萬套公共住房變成了一個居住區(qū)星系瞭稼，位于任何可供建設(shè)的區(qū)域，即最遙遠(yuǎn)的郊區(qū)”腻惠。44除此之外，該計劃的經(jīng)濟(jì)局限性阻礙了原項(xiàng)目的全面發(fā)展欲虚，它提供了精心設(shè)計的中間空間和不同的住房類型集灌，特別注意公共空間與私人空間的連接。與以前的其他案例一樣，這些變化導(dǎo)致公共空間的貧困和房地產(chǎn)的低城市質(zhì)量（圖6）欣喧。
Spain shares with Italy a common urban design culture related to a tradition of ‘urbanism’ that differs conceptually from the Anglo-Saxon ‘town planning’:
西班牙與意大利有著共同的城市設(shè)計文化腌零，與“城市主義”傳統(tǒng)相關(guān)，這在概念上與盎格魯-撒克遜“城市規(guī)劃”不同：
In that structure, as a valuable intermediate step between the city-municipality and the familyhouse, the ‘barrio-pol?′gono’ has been introduced; the ‘neigbourhood unit’ of British urban planners, the ‘Siedlungen’ of the Germans, or the ‘grands ensembles’ of the French were baptized ‘pol?′gonos’ (housing estates) in Spain, although with the ambiguity that the use of a definition implies, resorting only to the assistance of geometry.46
在該結(jié)構(gòu)中唆阿，作為城市市政當(dāng)局和家庭住宅之間的一個重要中間步驟益涧，引入了“barrio pol?′gono”；英國城市規(guī)劃師的“鄰舍單元”驯鳖、德國人的“Siedlungen”或法國人的“grands ensembles”在西班牙被命名為“pol?′′gonos”（住宅區(qū)）闲询，盡管使用定義意味著含糊不清，只能借助幾何學(xué)浅辙。46
Besides the important experiences of the post-war poblados dirigidos and poblados de absorcio ′n in Madrid, in other Spanish cities there were also many other good examples of modern housing estates built in the 1950s and 1960s, such as the ones ‘listed’ in heritage institutions, such as the International Working Party for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO) Ibe′rico.47 Then, as in other Western cities and countries, this earlier ‘well planned’ pol?′gonos de viviendas of the 1950s contrast with ‘a(chǎn)n avalanche of low-quality architectural projects’ that characterized a large part of 1960s and 1970s modern Spanish peripheries.48
在馬德里扭弧，在西班牙的其他城市，也有許多其他50年代和60年代建造的現(xiàn)代住宅區(qū)的好例子记舆，例如在遺產(chǎn)機(jī)構(gòu)中“列出”的那些鸽捻，例如現(xiàn)代運(yùn)動建筑、遺址和街區(qū)的文獻(xiàn)和保護(hù)國際工作組（DoCoMo）Ibe'rico.47然后泽腮，與其他西方城市和國家一樣御蒲，這座早期的“精心規(guī)劃”的1950年代的“活火山”與“大量低質(zhì)量建筑項(xiàng)目”形成了鮮明對比，后者是20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代西班牙現(xiàn)代外圍地區(qū)的一大特點(diǎn)诊赊。48
Gran San Blas in Madrid (1958–1963),49 the largest housing estate of the period in Spain, was based on the modernist concept of a district divided into neighbourhood units. In this case, the different solutions applied to the various units reveal that there was no unified approach and that the attitudes towards the Athens Charter tenets varied. This circumstance helped to avoid the monotony of other estates. Curiously, the unit designed more in accordance with the CIAM tenets maintains a certain urban quality, since the size of open spaces and buildings is somewhat reduced and proportionate; strong evidence of the importance of the scale. In Gran San Blas the main problem lies in non-built areas and neglected open spaces. That was in part the result of the definition of residual spaces between the different units, since volumetric options had the main role in the design proposal. There is another important factor to take into account: the obsolescence of the construction and also of the dwelling types, initially thought to house a population coming from shanty towns (Figure 7).50
馬德里的格蘭圣布拉斯（Gran San Blas删咱，1958-1963），49西班牙當(dāng)時最大的住宅區(qū)豪筝，是基于將一個地區(qū)劃分為鄰里單元的現(xiàn)代主義概念痰滋。在這種情況下，適用于不同單位的不同解決方案表明续崖，沒有統(tǒng)一的方法敲街，對《雅典憲章》原則的態(tài)度也各不相同。這種情況有助于避免其他地產(chǎn)的單調(diào)严望。奇怪的是多艇，根據(jù)CIAM原則設(shè)計的單元保持了一定的城市質(zhì)量，因?yàn)殚_放空間和建筑的大小有所減少像吻，并且比例適當(dāng)峻黍；有力的證據(jù)證明了量表的重要性。在Gran San Blas拨匆，主要問題在于未建成區(qū)域和被忽視的開放空間姆涩。這在一定程度上是不同單元之間剩余空間定義的結(jié)果，因?yàn)轶w積選項(xiàng)在設(shè)計提案中起主要作用惭每。還有另一個需要考慮的重要因素：建筑和居住類型的過時骨饿，最初被認(rèn)為居住著來自棚戶區(qū)的人口（圖7）。50
Also in Barcelona the poverty and inflexibility of most of the urban layouts of the pol?′gonos de vivienda reflected a rigid interpretation of modern architectural culture tenets. Of course, the wish of private and public developers to simplify projects to obtain the best conditions for strict?housing production can easily be recognized. This was a generalized situation that did not prevent certain experimentation with some interesting results. That is the case of the so-called Beso′s Southwest estate (1959–1961),51 the largest housing estate in Barcelona built in the North-east area of the city. It may serve as an example of a prototypical pol?′gono de vivienda even if it is, at the same time, exemplary: ‘Different lengths and heights, separation and thickness, with considerably varied architectural and housing typologies, show that will of innovation which results in a quality architectural project which contrast with others in the same city and period’ (Figure 7).52
同樣在巴塞羅那，生活宮的大多數(shù)城市布局的貧困和僵化反映了對現(xiàn)代建筑文化信條的嚴(yán)格解釋宏赘。當(dāng)然绒北，私人和公共開發(fā)商簡化項(xiàng)目以獲得嚴(yán)格住房生產(chǎn)的最佳條件的愿望很容易得到承認(rèn)。這是一種普遍的情況察署，并不妨礙某些實(shí)驗(yàn)產(chǎn)生一些有趣的結(jié)果闷游。這就是所謂的貝索西南莊園（1959-1961）的情況，51這是巴塞羅那最大的住宅區(qū)贴汪，建于該市東北部地區(qū)脐往。它可以作為典型的pol??′gono de vivienda的一個例子，即使它同時也是一個例子：“不同的長度和高度，不同的間隔和厚度，具有相當(dāng)不同的建筑和住房類型痕囱，顯示出創(chuàng)新的意志，這將產(chǎn)生一個與同一城市和同一時期的其他建筑項(xiàng)目相比的高質(zhì)量建筑項(xiàng)目”（圖7）辖源。52
In Saragossa the pol?′gonos de viviendas Ebro Viejo (1964–1970) and Gran V?′a-Romareda (1961–1975)53 were also designed in accordance with modernist urban principles, even if their application was not so radical and the scale of public spaces was rather domestic. Together with Beso′s Southwest they are among the best estates of that period in comparison to many others of lesser urban quality. However, problems arose again in some of them: isolation resulting from the design as independent urban fragment, spaces in-between neither well defined nor maintained (no man’s land), etc. Furthermore, in Ebro Viejo, the rigidity in the location and design of commercial facilities has become obsolete: most of the little shops, that helped to configure the domestic public spaces, stand abandoned in the interior of the estate. On the other hand, although buildings are well maintained, the lack of some facilities, such as elevators, has led to the loss of the apartment’s value and has become one of the most important problems for an aged population (Figure 7).54
在薩拉戈薩，埃布羅·維耶霍（1964-1970年）和格蘭·維耶拉·羅馬雷達(dá)（1961-1975年）53號生命線的設(shè)計也符合現(xiàn)代主義城市原則希太，即使它們的應(yīng)用不是那么激進(jìn)克饶，公共空間的規(guī)模也相當(dāng)國內(nèi)化。與其他許多城市質(zhì)量較差的地產(chǎn)相比誊辉，與貝索的西南地區(qū)一起矾湃，它們是當(dāng)時最好的地產(chǎn)之一。然而堕澄，其中一些城市再次出現(xiàn)了問題：作為獨(dú)立的城市碎片的設(shè)計導(dǎo)致了孤立邀跃，兩者之間的空間既沒有很好的界定也沒有得到維護(hù)（無人區(qū)），等等蛙紫。此外拍屑，在埃布羅·維喬，商業(yè)設(shè)施位置和設(shè)計的僵化已經(jīng)過時：大多數(shù)小商店坑傅，這有助于配置住宅公共空間僵驰，這些空間被遺棄在莊園內(nèi)部。另一方面唁毒，盡管建筑物維護(hù)良好蒜茴，但缺少一些設(shè)施，如電梯浆西，已導(dǎo)致公寓價值的損失粉私，并已成為老年人口最重要的問題之一（圖7）。54
The analysis of these Spanish examples yet again shows the heterogeneity that can be found both in different project strategies and in the resulting urban forms. There is a wide variety in the integration, in the context of these relatively autonomous units (planned and managed as a whole), in the morphology of the estates, in the design and scale of the in-between spaces, in the way they integrate in the topography, and in the architecture of towers and slabs that contribute to their morphological definition. Yet in all of them, the legacy of the modernist urban principles constitutes the basis of their urban design. Many have a monolithic character, due in part to a scarce typological diversity. Generally speaking, achievements, weaknesses, and difficulties are shared by most of the mentioned estates. Nevertheless, in the Spanish examples there is an important difference with other European countries: in many cases the dwellings have been sold and become private property, so the social decline has not been so obvious as we have seen in Park Hill, Bijlmermeer, or Ma¨rkisches Viertel, and the existence of ghettos is not so extreme.
對這些西班牙實(shí)例的分析再次表明室谚，在不同的項(xiàng)目戰(zhàn)略和由此產(chǎn)生的城市形式中都可以發(fā)現(xiàn)異質(zhì)性毡鉴。在這些相對獨(dú)立的單元（作為一個整體進(jìn)行規(guī)劃和管理）的背景下崔泵，在房地產(chǎn)的形態(tài)秒赤、中間空間的設(shè)計和規(guī)模以及它們在地形中的整合方式方面猪瞬，存在著多種多樣的整合，在塔樓和石板的建筑中入篮，有助于它們的形態(tài)定義陈瘦。然而，在所有這些城市中潮售，現(xiàn)代主義城市原則的遺產(chǎn)構(gòu)成了城市設(shè)計的基礎(chǔ)痊项。許多都具有整體性，部分原因是缺乏類型多樣性酥诽。一般來說鞍泉，上述大部分屋苑都有共同的成就、弱點(diǎn)和困難肮帐。然而咖驮，在西班牙的例子中，與其他歐洲國家有一個重要的區(qū)別：在許多情況下训枢，住宅被出售并成為私有財產(chǎn)托修，因此，社會衰落并不像我們在帕克山恒界、比杰爾梅梅爾或馬爾基什·維特爾看到的那樣明顯睦刃，貧民窟的存在也沒有那么極端。
Eastern Bloc
As in the Western countries, the critical shortage of housing after the Second World War led to an accelerated process of urbanization almost everywhere, obviously with some differences, and the modernist ideals seemed perfectly suited to the new circumstances. Because of this, the arrival to the Soviet Union of avant-garde architects from Western Europe in the 1930s, with their strong idea ‘that the modern way of building houses could be best realized by following the production methods of a Ford automobile’ can be seen as a sort of selective borrowing of some of the fundamental CIAM tenets.55 So, Eastern new estates were based on a version of modernist urban design paradigms, as happened with the ‘organic urbanism’ and neighbourhood unit concepts, which were the basis of the new urban planning. It is therefore not surprising that the 1935 Moscow Plan, with obvious connections to Western counterparts, had also already?established these new urban tenets for other soviet cities.56 Sharing the spirit of the Athens Charter, the third of the 10 ‘Principles for planning the socialist city’ specified the characteristics of the residential units.57 Later, in Soviet town planning during the post-war period, the microrayon emerged as the basic planning unit.58 The Ideal Communist City, a book initiated in the late 1950s by Alexei Gutnov and other Soviet urban planners and sociologists, shows the renewal of ideas and models related to the new organization of the physical environment that was taking place in Russia.59 Also Goldzamt’s review of urban culture in Eastern countries during the Socialist period gives key information through its extensive description of housing estates in Eastern cities.60 The evolution of the concept from the neighbourhood unit to ‘social settlement’ and microrayon, explained by Goldzamt, matches with the concept of an ideal and self-sufficient community. The microrayon is considered the basic unit of the residential development, as in Western countries, although it has a different scale. Apart from this question, we can see some specificities but also important similarities with the functionalist and organic urbanism that became dominant internationally.61
與西方國家一樣十酣，第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后住房嚴(yán)重短缺導(dǎo)致幾乎所有地方的城市化進(jìn)程加速涩拙，顯然存在一些差異，而現(xiàn)代主義理想似乎完全適合新的環(huán)境耸采。正因?yàn)槿绱耍?0世紀(jì)30年代西歐的前衛(wèi)建筑師來到蘇聯(lián)兴泥，他們的強(qiáng)烈想法是“現(xiàn)代房屋建造方式最好是遵循福特汽車的生產(chǎn)方法”可以被視為是對CIAM一些基本原則的選擇性借用。55因此洋幻，東部新屋基于現(xiàn)代主義城市設(shè)計范式郁轻，正如“有機(jī)城市主義”和鄰里單元概念一樣，這是新城市規(guī)劃的基礎(chǔ)文留。因此好唯，毫不奇怪，與西方同行有著明顯聯(lián)系的1935年莫斯科計劃也為其他蘇聯(lián)城市確立了這些新的城市原則燥翅。56與《雅典憲章》的精神相同骑篙，10條“社會主義城市規(guī)劃原則”中的第三條規(guī)定了居住單元的特征。57后來森书，在戰(zhàn)后蘇聯(lián)城市規(guī)劃中靶端，人造絲成為基本規(guī)劃單元谎势。58理想的共產(chǎn)主義城市，阿列克謝·古特諾夫（Alexei Gutnov）和其他蘇聯(lián)城市規(guī)劃師和社會學(xué)家于20世紀(jì)50年代末撰寫的一本書杨名，展示了與俄羅斯正在發(fā)生的物理環(huán)境的新組織相關(guān)的理念和模型的更新脏榆。59 Goldzamt對社會主義時期東方國家城市文化的回顧也通過其對東方城市住宅區(qū)的廣泛描述提供了關(guān)鍵信息。60概念的演變Goldzamt解釋說台谍，從鄰里單位到“社會安置”和人造絲须喂，符合理想和自給自足社區(qū)的概念。與西方國家一樣趁蕊，微人造絲被視為住宅開發(fā)的基本單元坞生，盡管其規(guī)模不同。除了這個問題之外掷伙，我們還可以看到與國際上占主導(dǎo)地位的功能主義和有機(jī)城市主義的一些特點(diǎn)是己，但也有重要的相似之處。61
So, it could be said that housing estates in Eastern bloc cities were as much an expression of modern urbanism as of Socialist urban policies. In particular, those doctrinal formulations that are the basis of the mass housing estates, as Lydia Coudroy de Lille states, precede the establishment of socialism in Europe and differ from Soviet revolutionary urbanism, even though the large housing estates adopt the model of towers and slabs everywhere. De Lille even confers the status of modern city (although out of breath) on ‘grands ensembles de la ville socialiste’.62 The issue here is that important changes happened after 1955 when Socialist urbanism drastically adopted European radical models of ‘open urbanism’. Following the Soviet lead, references to acceptable Western planning models became more common. As S. Ward asserts ‘. . . By 1960 modernism’s radical roots and 1930s connections with the Soviet Union were also being rediscovered’.63 In this sense, it is surprising the degree of experimentalism that, despite the pragmatism that characterized mass housing production in the 1960s, was reached in some Eastern countries, as the projects for Eratrea (1967), Petrzˇalk (1967), and Vilnius (1969) demonstrate.64 But these are only exceptions. It is well known that, in opposition to the experimentalism of the interwar period, the production of large housing estates was more a pragmatic option than a ‘model of the socialist city’.65 As it happened in Western countries, almost everywhere in the Eastern Bloc housing policy was taking a more practical turn towards mass production by the later 1950s. In fact, since the 1960s, the urban and, especially, suburban landscapes of cities of the Eastern Bloc were shaped by the proliferation of some forms characterized by the repetition of standard constructions.66 In this regard, authors such as Paul Waley reflect on the similarities between the specific case of New Belgrade with the grands ensembles. 67 But the picture about the impact of international urban planning culture in Eastern cities is still incomplete.68
因此任柜，可以說卒废，東方集團(tuán)城市的住宅區(qū)既是現(xiàn)代都市主義的表現(xiàn)，也是社會主義城市政策的表現(xiàn)乘盼。特別是升熊，利迪亞·庫德羅·德·里爾（Lydia Coudroy de Lille）指出，作為大眾住宅區(qū)基礎(chǔ)的那些理論公式先于歐洲社會主義的建立绸栅，并不同于蘇聯(lián)革命城市主義级野，盡管大型住宅區(qū)到處都采用塔樓和樓板的模式。德里爾甚至將現(xiàn)代城市的地位（盡管上氣不接下氣）授予了“社會主義者大合唱團(tuán)”粹胯。62這里的問題是蓖柔，1955年后發(fā)生了重大變化，當(dāng)時社會主義城市主義徹底采納了歐洲激進(jìn)的“開放城市主義”模式风纠。在蘇聯(lián)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下况鸣，參考可接受的西方規(guī)劃模式變得更加普遍。正如S.沃德所斷言的那樣竹观。到了1960年镐捧，現(xiàn)代主義的激進(jìn)根源和1930年代與蘇聯(lián)的聯(lián)系也被重新發(fā)現(xiàn)。63從這個意義上說臭增，令人驚訝的是懂酱，盡管20世紀(jì)60年代大規(guī)模住房生產(chǎn)的特點(diǎn)是實(shí)用主義，但在一些東方國家卻達(dá)到了實(shí)驗(yàn)主義的程度誊抛，如埃拉特里亞（1967年）的項(xiàng)目列牺、佩特茲·阿爾克（Petrzˇalk）（1967年）和維爾紐斯（1969年）64但這些只是例外。眾所周知拗窃，與兩次世界大戰(zhàn)期間的實(shí)驗(yàn)主義相反瞎领，建造大型住宅區(qū)更為務(wù)實(shí)泌辫，而不是“社會主義城市的典范”。65正如西方國家所發(fā)生的那樣九默，幾乎所有東方國家的住房政策都在采取more到20世紀(jì)50年代后期震放，實(shí)際轉(zhuǎn)向大規(guī)模生產(chǎn)。事實(shí)上荤西，自20世紀(jì)60年代以來澜搅，東部地區(qū)城市的城市景觀伍俘，尤其是郊區(qū)景觀邪锌，是由一些以重復(fù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)建筑為特征的形式的擴(kuò)散形成的。66在這方面癌瘾，保羅·韋利等作家反思了n新貝爾格萊德的特例是大劇院觅丰。67但是關(guān)于國際城市規(guī)劃文化在東部城市的影響的描述仍然不完整。68
Logically, it is in Moscow where greater continuity with the international modern urban culture can be observed, in spite of attempts during the Stalinist period to differentiate from Western urbanism. Economic criteria determined the election of standard designs for the large-panel and large-block buildings of the ‘first generation’ of housing estates. Problems associated with prefabrication became evident in the large estates built in the 1960s. In the Kruschev era the commitment to industrialization and prefabrication led to well-known consequences in the urban forms of estates:
從邏輯上講妨退，盡管斯大林主義時期曾試圖與西方城市主義區(qū)分開來妇萄，但莫斯科與國際現(xiàn)代城市文化的延續(xù)性更強(qiáng)。經(jīng)濟(jì)準(zhǔn)則決定了“第一代”屋的大型嵌板和大型砌塊建筑的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)設(shè)計的選擇咬荷。與預(yù)制相關(guān)的問題在20世紀(jì)60年代建造的大型房地產(chǎn)中變得顯而易見冠句。在克魯舍夫時代，工業(yè)化和預(yù)制的承諾導(dǎo)致了眾所周知的城市地產(chǎn)形式的后果：
The minimal number of types of flats and apartment houses was adopted . . . The density of the construction was not high and the houses ‘floated’ freely in space, without organizing that space. All these circumstances taken together generated a drab monotony of the residential environment.69
采用了最小數(shù)量的公寓和公寓房屋類型幸乒。建筑密度不高懦底，房屋在空間中自由“漂浮”，沒有組織空間罕扎。所有這些情況加在一起聚唐，形成了單調(diào)乏味的居住環(huán)境
As a ‘solution’ to the problem of monotony, large housing developments were broken up into smaller neighbourhoods, which were arranged in accordance with the same structural scheme: green internal spaces with a mixed construction pattern and a game of contrast between low volumes and verticals towers, etc. The huge area of the Moscow North-East districts of Khimki-Khovrino (1960–1966) and other such as Fili-Izmajlovo or Chorosevo-Mnevniki built in those years can be mentioned as characteristic housing estates of these new trends.70
作為單調(diào)問題的“解決方案”，大型住宅開發(fā)被分割成更小的街區(qū)腔召，這些街區(qū)按照相同的結(jié)構(gòu)方案進(jìn)行布置：混合建筑模式的內(nèi)部綠色空間杆查，以及低容積和垂直塔樓之間的對比游戲，等臀蛛。莫斯科東北部的Khimki Khovrino區(qū)（1960年至1966年）和其他地區(qū)（如Fili Izmajlovo或Chorosevo Mnevniki）的大片區(qū)域可以被稱為這些新趨勢的特色住宅區(qū)亲桦。70
Unlike Russian cities, the rest of the socialist block experienced a certain lack of continuity with the modernist tradition in the post-war period. In the case of German Democratic Republic cities, an important difference lies in the fact that its construction was linked to industrial settlements. In contrast to Western urban models, industry was the ‘city builder’ according to Soviet urban planning from the early 1930s (for instance Magnitogorsk or the New City of Eisenhu¨ttenstadt in the 1950s). This circumstance introduced a new problem: the cities were abandoned when the factories closed. Another interesting issue is the persistence of still rather closed and compact urban forms, more related to the Wiener Ho¨fe than to the radicalism of slabs – independent of the road network and of the blocks – which have become dominant since then.71 In a paradigmatic city such as Berlin, the Cold War capital, we can find one of the most identifyingfeatures of Eastern mass housing estates: regardless if they were built in the historical town centre (Fischerinsel, since 1967) or in the outskirts (Marzahn, since 1975) they were charged with the ideology of prefabricated concrete blocks, since the State dictated that this was the preferred system.72 However, most of these large estates were located, as in the Western European cities, far away from the centre, what some authors see, with some exception, as a reason for the failure of these new towns: ‘The only really successful new town was Halle-Neustadt, attractive because it was near an old large town’.73 Talking about number and size of estates, it is important to note that at the time of reunification in 1990 the 17 large prefabricated slab estates housed the majority of East Berlin’s population in 270,000 apartments with 700,000 inhabitants.74
與俄羅斯城市不同，社會主義街區(qū)的其他部分在戰(zhàn)后時期與現(xiàn)代主義傳統(tǒng)缺乏一定的連續(xù)性浊仆。就德意志民主共和國的城市而言客峭，一個重要的區(qū)別在于其建設(shè)與工業(yè)定居點(diǎn)相聯(lián)系。與西方城市模式不同氧卧，根據(jù)20世紀(jì)30年代早期的蘇聯(lián)城市規(guī)劃桃笙，工業(yè)是“城市建設(shè)者”（例如20世紀(jì)50年代的馬格尼托戈?duì)査箍嘶虬捞厮固固匦鲁牵＿@種情況帶來了一個新問題：當(dāng)工廠關(guān)閉時沙绝，城市被廢棄了搏明。另一個有趣的問題是仍然相當(dāng)封閉和緊湊的城市形式的持續(xù)存在鼠锈，這更多地與維納霍夫有關(guān)，而不是與從那時起就占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的樓板的激進(jìn)主義有關(guān)星著。71在一個典型的城市购笆，如冷戰(zhàn)首都柏林，我們可以找到東部大型住宅區(qū)最具特色的一個特征：無論它們是建于歷史悠久的市中心（費(fèi)舍林塞爾虚循，自1967年以來）還是郊區(qū)（馬爾扎恩同欠，自1975年以來），它們都帶有預(yù)制混凝土砌塊的思想横缔，由于國家規(guī)定這是首選系統(tǒng)铺遂。72然而，這些大型地產(chǎn)大多位于遠(yuǎn)離中心的西歐城市茎刚，一些作者認(rèn)為襟锐，除了一些例外，這些新市鎮(zhèn)失敗的原因是：“唯一真正成功的新市鎮(zhèn)是Halle Neustadt膛锭，有吸引力粮坞，因?yàn)樗拷粋€古老的大城鎮(zhèn)。73談到房地產(chǎn)的數(shù)量和規(guī)模初狰，有必要注意到莫杈，1990年重新統(tǒng)一時，17個大型預(yù)制板房地產(chǎn)居住著東柏林的大部分人口奢入，共有270000套公寓筝闹，居住著700000名居民。74
Also in Poland, probably the socialist country where the modernist planning culture was most important after the War,75 the presence of industry was a determining factor: Soviet concepts from the 1920s and 1930s as well as the experiences of the USSR five-year plans76 are recognizable in Polish estates. Nowa Huta, the large housing estate in Poland, next to Krakow, is the most significant episode, which tried to learn from both positive and negative Soviet experiences (Figure 8). Given the huge scale of the estate and the autonomous organization of each residential unit (osiedle),77 urban forms with very different urban planning coexist. As we have mentioned before, the predominance of the system of streets and squares in the first residential units built in the 1950s contrasts with the open urbanism of the later districts of Bienczyce (50,000 inhabitants) or Wzgorza Krzeslawickie (11,000 inhabitants); this last one was chosen as the image for the cover of Goldzamt’s reference book. The succession of linear blocks, regularly arranged in a wide green space and related to a hierarchically organized traffic network,78 reveals the legacy of the CIAM urbanism, even if the Athens Charter never directly addressed the issue of the relation between industry and city.
同樣在波蘭俊马，可能是戰(zhàn)后現(xiàn)代主義規(guī)劃文化最為重要的社會主義國家丁存，75工業(yè)的存在是一個決定性因素：1920年代和1930年代的蘇聯(lián)概念以及蘇聯(lián)五年計劃76的經(jīng)驗(yàn)在波蘭的地產(chǎn)中是可以認(rèn)識的。波蘭靠近克拉科夫的大型住宅區(qū)Nowa Huta是最重要的事件柴我，它試圖從蘇聯(lián)的正面和負(fù)面經(jīng)驗(yàn)中學(xué)習(xí)（圖8）解寝。鑒于房地產(chǎn)的巨大規(guī)模和每個住宅單元的自治組織（osiedle），77種城市形式與非常不同的城市規(guī)劃共存艘儒。正如我們之前所提到的聋伦，20世紀(jì)50年代建造的第一批住宅單元中街道和廣場系統(tǒng)的主導(dǎo)地位與比恩齊斯（50000居民）或Wzgorza Krzeslavicie（11000居民）后期的開放城市化形成對比；最后一幅被選為戈?duì)栐诽貐⒖紩饷娴膱D像界睁。線性街區(qū)的連續(xù)性觉增，規(guī)則地排列在寬闊的綠地中，并與分層組織的交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)相關(guān)翻斟，78揭示了CIAM城市主義的遺產(chǎn)逾礁，即使雅典憲章從未直接解決工業(yè)與城市之間的關(guān)系問題。
In a similar way as it happened in Polish cites, Prague saw modernist traditions continue after the War. Housing estates (sidliste) such as Solidarita (1947–1949) or Invalidovna (1950–1965)?are a good examples of this continuity.79 In spite of the fact that the monolithic urbanism of the Panelak was dominant, important experimentation took place in the central years of the socialist period, giving rise to some proposals equivalent to those of most quality in the international urban and architectural culture.More recent large-scale estates built in the second half of the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, such as Bohnice, in the Northern part of the city, and Jihoza′padn?′ Meˇsto (South-west Town), again confirm that these mass housing estates correspond to functionalist and rationalist standards that belong to the international modernist culture, with blocks and towers standing loosely grouped inside quiet zones with playgrounds and greenery (Figure 9).
與波蘭城市發(fā)生的情況類似访惜，布拉格看到現(xiàn)代主義傳統(tǒng)在戰(zhàn)后得以延續(xù)嘹履。例如Solidarita（1947-1949）或Invalidovna（1950-1965）等住宅區(qū)（sidliste）就是這種連續(xù)性的一個很好的例子腻扇。79盡管Panelak的整體城市化占主導(dǎo)地位，但重要的實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)生在社會主義時期的中心年份砾嫉，產(chǎn)生了一些與國際城市和建筑文化中最優(yōu)質(zhì)的方案相當(dāng)?shù)姆桨赣卓痢Ｗ罱拇笮头康禺a(chǎn)建于20世紀(jì)80年代后半期和90年代初，如位于城市北部的博尼茨和Jihoza ` padn?` Meˊsto（西南城鎮(zhèn)）焕刮，再次確認(rèn)這些大型住宅區(qū)符合功能主義和理性主義標(biāo)準(zhǔn)舶沿，屬于國際現(xiàn)代主義文化，街區(qū)和塔樓松散地排列在安靜的區(qū)域內(nèi)配并，有操場和綠地（圖9）括荡。
Housing production in the Ukraine was dependent, as in other Soviet republics, on decisions made by the Ministry of Construction in Moscow.80 Therefore, similarities with Russian housing estates were strong, even if there were some experimental housing projects, especially in the 1960s. As in other countries of the Eastern Bloc, cities were planned according to the principles of the 1935 Moscow Master Plan. Large housing estates continued to be an important part of the total housing stock up until the 1980s and their forms were still influenced by the Moscow Plan, mainly in a first generation.81 Late housing estates such as the Sykhivs’kyi district in Lviv, ‘one of the integral symbols of the city’which started its building process in the 1970s, could also be compared to otherWesternexamples.82A singular experience worthmentioning is the Rusanivska mikrorayon in Kiev (1961–1974), planned as a model sleeping district not directly tied to industry.83 Recent surveys and visits to these and other housing estates in Eastern Europe cities confirm that their main problem does not lie in the definition of the public spaces and urban design, but rather, in the large scale of the states, in the low quality of the construction, and, in some cases, in the abandonment of the industrial areas they were linked to (Figure 9).
與其他蘇維埃共和國一樣，烏克蘭的住房生產(chǎn)依賴于莫斯科建設(shè)部作出的決定荐绝。80因此一汽，即使有一些試驗(yàn)性住房項(xiàng)目，特別是在1960年代低滩，烏克蘭的住房生產(chǎn)與俄羅斯的住房有很大的相似性。與東方集團(tuán)的其他國家一樣岩喷，城市是根據(jù)1935年《莫斯科總體規(guī)劃》的原則規(guī)劃的恕沫。直到20世紀(jì)80年代，大型住宅區(qū)仍然是總住房存量的重要組成部分纱意，其形式仍然受到莫斯科計劃的影響婶溯，主要是在第一代。81晚期住宅區(qū)偷霉，如利沃夫的Sykhivs'kyi區(qū)迄委，“城市的整體象征之一”，該區(qū)于20世紀(jì)70年代開始建設(shè)类少，也可以與其他西方國家的例子相比較叙身。82值得一提的是基輔的Rusanivska mikrorayon（1961年至1974年），計劃作為一個與工業(yè)沒有直接聯(lián)系的示范睡眠區(qū)硫狞。83最近對東歐城市的這些和其他住宅區(qū)的調(diào)查和訪問證實(shí)信轿，它們的主要問題不在于公共空間和城市設(shè)計的定義，而在于各州的大規(guī)模建設(shè)質(zhì)量低下残吩，以及财忽，在某些情況下，他們放棄了與之相關(guān)的工業(yè)區(qū)（圖9）泣侮。
Concluding remarks: similarities and contrasts of a common legacy
結(jié)束語：共同遺產(chǎn)的相似之處和對比
Let us go back to our original question about contrasts and similarities between modernist housing projects in Western and Eastern cities of Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. Looking from a morphological perspective, we find that differences are not so relevant.
讓我們回到我們最初的問題即彪，即20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代歐洲東西部城市的現(xiàn)代主義住宅項(xiàng)目之間的對比和相似之處。從形態(tài)學(xué)的角度來看活尊，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)差異并不那么相關(guān)隶校。
The first and obvious difference is that we find more large-scale mass housing projects, with more homogenous housing typologies, in Eastern than in Western cities. It is also remarkable that the quality of construction is lower in the East, mainly for economic reasons. Besides, the State administration commitment to standardization and prefabrication and the prevalent unified code imposed, according with the socialist idea that uniform dwellings were a sign of equality among inhabitants, led to the radical homogeneity and monolithic look of Eastern cities’ urban landscapes. As a consequence, a great part of a mixed population lived in the large housing estates of Eastern countries; there are no social ghettos as we find in other Western cities. Nor is it overlooked that the different versions of those urban forms in the East and in the West are also a consequence of distinct urban policies, land possession, possibilities of centralized planning in socialist countries, commitment to prefabrication, etc.
第一個明顯的區(qū)別是琼蚯，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)東部城市比西部城市有更多大規(guī)模的大規(guī)模住房項(xiàng)目，住房類型更加同質(zhì)惠况。同樣值得注意的是遭庶，東部地區(qū)的建筑質(zhì)量較低，主要是由于經(jīng)濟(jì)原因稠屠。此外峦睡，國家行政部門對標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和預(yù)制的承諾以及普遍實(shí)施的統(tǒng)一規(guī)范，符合統(tǒng)一住房是居民平等標(biāo)志的社會主義理念权埠，導(dǎo)致了東部城市景觀的徹底同質(zhì)化和整體化榨了。因此，大部分混合人口居住在東部國家的大型住宅區(qū)攘蔽；沒有我們在其他西方城市所發(fā)現(xiàn)的社會貧民區(qū)龙屉。同樣不容忽視的是，東西方城市形態(tài)的不同版本也是不同城市政策满俗、土地占有转捕、社會主義國家集中規(guī)劃的可能性、預(yù)制的承諾等的結(jié)果唆垃。
But we should not forget that differences among Western cities themselves exist too. For instance the contrast between housing estates, urban forms, and the morphology of the surrounding neighbourhoods is bigger in most of the North-western and Western central European cities (in Germany, UK, even in France), where high-rise and slabs developments contrast with low density suburbs, than in Southern European cities (in Italy or Spain), where we find more continuities in urban forms. Therefore, the dichotomyWest/East or ‘capitalist’/‘socialist’ should be reconsidered
但我們不應(yīng)忘記五芝，西方城市之間也存在差異。例如辕万，在大多數(shù)西北歐和中西歐城市（德國枢步、英國、甚至法國）渐尿，住宅區(qū)醉途、城市形態(tài)和周邊街區(qū)形態(tài)之間的對比比南歐城市更大，那里的高層建筑和平板建筑與低密度郊區(qū)形成對比（在意大利或西班牙）砖茸，我們在城市形式中發(fā)現(xiàn)了更多的連續(xù)性隘擎。因此，應(yīng)該重新考慮西方/東方或“資本主義”/“社會主義”的二分法
Nevertheless, despite those differences between West and East in the referred period, parallels with the application of urban design strategies close to the most radical modernist CIAMtenets are evident in both sides of the Iron Curtain. In fact, similarities in housing estates urban forms built everywhere in the 1960s and 1970s are evident. AsWassenberg stated, high-rise estates dominated the building in that era and there has never been a period in house building in which the similarities between countries have been as great.84 Actually, the strategies and experimentation in applying CIAMprinciples were similar in the East and in theWest. And also the strong contrast between the great experimentation of early post-war examples and the growing standardization and radicalization of the projects of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to a vulgarization of the Athens Charter, was a similar process in the East and in the West. Of course there are some interesting and successful examples, but they are only exceptions in a landscape of low quality projects which characterize almost all European city peripheries built in that period of accelerated urban growth.
盡管如此渔彰，盡管在上述時期東西方之間存在著這些差異嵌屎，但在鐵幕的兩側(cè)都明顯存在著與最激進(jìn)的現(xiàn)代主義建筑風(fēng)格相近的城市設(shè)計策略應(yīng)用的相似之處。事實(shí)上恍涂，在1960年代和1970年代建造的各處住宅區(qū)和城市形式的相似之處是顯而易見的宝惰。正如沃森伯格所說，在那個時代再沧，高層住宅占據(jù)了建筑的主導(dǎo)地位尼夺，在住宅建設(shè)中，從來沒有一個時期的國家之間的相似性如此之大。84實(shí)際上淤堵，在東方和西方寝衫，應(yīng)用CIAMP原則的策略和實(shí)驗(yàn)是相似的。戰(zhàn)后早期范例的偉大實(shí)驗(yàn)與20世紀(jì)60年代和70年代項(xiàng)目的日益標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和激進(jìn)主義之間的強(qiáng)烈反差導(dǎo)致了《雅典憲章》的庸俗化拐邪，這在東方和西方也是一個類似的過程慰毅。當(dāng)然也有一些有趣和成功的例子，但它們只是低質(zhì)量項(xiàng)目景觀中的例外扎阶，這些項(xiàng)目幾乎是在城市加速發(fā)展時期建造的所有歐洲城市外圍的特征汹胃。
It seems clear that the responsibility of modernist urban culture for the significant loss of environmental quality and urbanity in the estates built in those decades must be carefully defined: modern urban planning began to fail as the CIAM tenets became more radical, larger, and standardized, and consequently when urban design was developed with evident less care. Even if it sounds too generic and should be nuanced, we share Rem Koolhaas critical view applied to that years, especially regarding large-scale housing estates: ‘Modernism’s alchemistic promise – to transform quantity into quality through abstraction and repetition – has been a failure, a hoax: magic that didn’t work. Its ideas, aesthetics, strategies are finished’.85
顯然，現(xiàn)代主義城市文化對幾十年來建成的房地產(chǎn)環(huán)境質(zhì)量和城市性的重大損失的責(zé)任必須仔細(xì)界定：隨著CIAM宗旨變得更加激進(jìn)东臀、更大和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化着饥，現(xiàn)代城市規(guī)劃開始失敗，因此惰赋，當(dāng)城市設(shè)計發(fā)展時宰掉，人們顯然不那么在意。即使這聽起來過于籠統(tǒng)赁濒，應(yīng)該細(xì)致入微轨奄，我們也同意雷姆·庫哈斯（Rem Koolhaas）當(dāng)年的批判性觀點(diǎn)，特別是關(guān)于大型住宅區(qū)的批判性觀點(diǎn)：“現(xiàn)代主義的煉金承諾——通過抽象和重復(fù)將數(shù)量轉(zhuǎn)化為質(zhì)量——已經(jīng)失敗了流部，這是一場惡作勂萑啤：魔法根本不起作用。它的思想枝冀、美學(xué)、策略都完成了
In this regard, it is interesting to consider the diagnosis of present day housing estates made by the European Commission. The establishment of international networks, such as Restructuring Large Housing Estates in European Cities (RESTATE),86 evidence the relevance and intellectual complexity of the modernist housing estates legacy, with similar problems in the East and in the West related to the commitment with radical modern urban forms, an issue that needs to be addressed with clarity and creativity.
在這方面耘子，考慮到歐盟委員會目前對住宅小區(qū)的診斷是很有意思的果漾。國際網(wǎng)絡(luò)的建立，如重組歐洲城市的大型住宅區(qū)（重述）谷誓，86證明了現(xiàn)代主義住宅區(qū)遺產(chǎn)的相關(guān)性和知識復(fù)雜性绒障，東方和西方的類似問題與激進(jìn)現(xiàn)代城市形式的承諾有關(guān)，這是一個需要清晰和創(chuàng)造性地解決的問題捍歪。
At any rate the international validity of the modernist models may end up being ambiguous and paradoxical. Art and literature show how similar urban forms can serve different ideologies. Let us conclude with some quotations from this respect that make reference to ironies and ambivalences of history. Brigitte Reimann writes in her diary about Berlin: ‘I have a suspicion: Modern architecture looks like in West and in East’. Also the Spanish writer Javier Pe′rez Andu′jar when he refers to Barcelona’s outskirts expresses himself as follows: ‘A landscape interchangeable with other cities all over the world . . . Before feeling part of a country, of a fatherland or of nation, I intend to belong to the International of the slabs’. Along the same lines, the Slovenian artist Marjetica Potrcˇ reveals ironically the utopian nature of ‘The Modernist Project’: equality and justice for all . . . in the West and in the East87 (Figure 10).Figure 10).
無論如何户辱，現(xiàn)代主義模式的國際有效性最終可能是模棱兩可和自相矛盾的。藝術(shù)和文學(xué)展示了相似的城市形式如何服務(wù)于不同的意識形態(tài)糙臼。讓我們以這方面的一些引文作為結(jié)束庐镐，其中提到歷史的諷刺和矛盾。Brigitte Reimann在關(guān)于柏林的日記中寫道：“我有一個懷疑：現(xiàn)代建筑看起來像是在西方和東方变逃”啬妫”。西班牙作家哈維爾·佩雷斯·安杜賈爾在提到巴塞羅那郊區(qū)時也這樣表達(dá)：“一個可以與世界各地其他城市互換的景觀。在感覺自己是一個國家名眉、一個祖國或民族的一部分之前粟矿，我希望自己屬于世界的一部分。同樣损拢，斯洛文尼亞藝術(shù)家Marjetica Potrcˇ諷刺地揭示了“現(xiàn)代主義工程”的烏托邦性質(zhì)：人人平等和正義陌粹。在西部和東部87（圖10）。圖10）福压。
