附录一 外文原文

There is often a large gap between how lsquo;the good city lsquo;is conceptualized in urban design theory and the actual urban development. This is often true, not only in cases where the initial intent to realize “the good city “is low, but also in cases where ambitions of making good urban design are high. Within the urban design discourse, this seeming impotence of urban design is often ascribed to the increasingly complex nature of society in general and the context of urban design and planning in particular.

Yet, to resign on the capacity of urban design to create lsquo;the good cityrsquo; with reference to conditions external to urban design, in essence, is to renounce on urban design as a meaningful field of activity altogether. Thus, SedenSyd if the practice of urban design is to make any sense, the causes for its seeming demise must be sought within urban design itself. Because urban design–like all design activities–is a creative activity, it is inherently normative. It is impossible to make design choices without judging which choice is better. At the same time, the practice of urban design, because it is embedded within the context of society, is always a process evolving in time. The procedural aspect of how to reach from concept to realization is therefore equally central to the practice of urban design. Finally, as the process of urban design in a western democratic context most often involves a number of stakeholders, views and interests, the institutional setting of urban design is typically interdisciplinary.

In order to reach an understanding of why urban design as it is conceptualized theoretically may not always work in practice, it is therefore relevant to investigate its normative foundations, its procedural concepts, as well as other fields of theorization pertaining to the creation of urban space. Finally, if the purpose of examining these theoretical fields is to qualify the practice of urban design, the theoretical studies must be coupled with an investigation of the practice of urban design.

The research project which forms the basis of this paper has therefore been organized as a twofold investigation of urban design, planning and urban theory, with respect to both normatively and process, and a case study of two urban development histories, focusing on the normative content of the original urban design schemes, as well as on the urban design process.

While the bulk of urban design theory is normative, dealing primarily with definingrsquo; the good cityrsquo;, it has generally little to say about the process of urban design. Planning theory, on the contrary, is mainly concerned with the process of planning, while the underlying normatively of different planning approaches is not always made explicit. As urban theory is less concerned with doing than urban design and planning theory,it does generally not deal with procedural issues. A parallel distinction is possible however, as urban theory may be normative, or prescriptive, dealing with the question of how to create “the good society “and its implications in space at different scales, as well as process oriented, or descriptive, dealing with the actual processes within society and their implications in space, likewise at different scales.

The two urban development histories which form the basis of the case study, have been picked from the context of Danish urban planning in the 1990s.They both represent planning initiatives in the form of socalled local plans(similar in scope to the British notion of a district plan)with a high urban design content. One of the local plans, the Skejbygard Plan in the city of Aarhus, was a highly profiled project, made in a combined effort between a consulting architect and the Aarhus City Planning Department, while the other local plan, the SedenSyd Plan in the city of Odense, was made by the Odense City Planning Department under more modest circumstances.

The PhD-project is structured into two parts. In the first part, the normative urban design content of the two local plans that make up the case study is discussed and followed up by an investigation of different normative positions within urban design, urban planning and urban theory respectively. In the second part, the actual urban development process as it took place in the two local plan areas is examined and followed up by an investigation of different positions on the process of urban design within urban design theory as well as a discussion oflsquo;the processes of the cityrsquo; on the basis of current urban theory.

Normative Theories of Urban Design

Normative theories of urban design deal with the question of how to create the best urban environment, or, as Lynch puts it, lsquo;how to know a good city when you see onersquo;. However, what is best is a question of values as well as how cities are conceptualized in terms of what they are for. For some, the most important aspect of a city may be its aesthetic qualities. Although aesthetics may be valued very differently by different people, this quality of a city has a high rank for most people. Others may look at a city primarily in terms of its capacity as a place to do a particular kind of business, and yet others may prioritize how a city meets their social, economic or cultural requirements to everyday life.

Different theorists have offered different ways of categorizing normative theories of urban design. They may be categorized according to their conceptual roots, their philosophical approach ,their guiding metaphors or whether they are based on the big town or small town paradigm .Such categorizations, however, do not offer an overview of the theories focus of interest, nor necessarily of their normative positions.

Although some theories may cover the same aspects of urban design it does not mean that they necessarily share the same approach. Their normative stance, or how they deal with the different aspects, in

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[500006]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word