最近網友從澳洲回來，分享他工作上的成果，然後即將在出發倫敦找工作，前往更寬廣的建築設計舞台，受到他的鼓舞，翻翻英文。
網路上剛好有一些文字是我感興趣的，是一篇講稿，同時有演講的影片，花了兩天的時間，斷斷續續地，看過一次影片，然後將講稿翻出來，一方面是練習一下語言，一方面這是我感興趣的內容，都市規劃相關的演講。
翻完之後，花了不少時間，不過翻完在看過影片之後，覺得內容大致瞭解八成以上。自我感覺良好。以前念研究所的時候，重要文獻大概這樣收集資料，當時有一個資料袋的原文影印及其翻譯。同學開玩笑，學長也半開開玩笑，說，我們是讀都市計畫研究所，不是讀英文研究所。後來這些資料另外一個同門師兄的研究需要，於是送出去。雖然沒有完成學業，我始終告訴自己，那有累積的事物絕對適值得的，不管別人懂不懂，不管能不能被量化或被標籤。我們儘量試著充實自己，不過每個人的路和命都不同。學著接受完美的一半和不完美的一半，人生，就完整了。
原文和譯文貼在下面和大家分享。影片位址如下：
http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_dunham_jones_retrofitting_suburbia.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-06
講稿本文
We've had ... In the last 50 years, we've been building the suburbs with a lot of unintended consequences. And I'm going to talk about some of those consequences and just present a whole bunch of really interesting projects that I think give us tremendous reasons to be really optimistic that the big design and development project of the next 50 years is going to be retrofitting suburbia. So whether it's redeveloping dying malls or reinhabiting dead big box stores or reconstructing wetlands out of parking lots, I think the fact is, the growing number of empty and under-performing, especially, retail sites throughout suburbia gives us actually a tremendous opportunity to take our least-sustainable landscapes right now and convert them into more sustainable places. And in the process, what that allows us to do is to redirect a lot more of our growth back into existing communities that could use a boost, and have the infrastructure in place, instead of continuing to tear down trees and to tear up the green space out at the edges.
So why is this important? I think there are any number of reasons. And I'm just going to not get into detail, but mention a few. Just from the perspective of climate change, the average urban dweller in the U.S. has about one-third the carbon footprint of the average suburban dweller, mostly because suburbanites drive a lot more, and living in detached buildings, you have that much more exterior surface to leak energy out of. So strictly from a climate change perspective, the cities are already relatively green. The big opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually in urbanizing the suburbs. All that driving that we've been doing out in the suburbs, we have doubled the amount of miles we drive. It's increased our dependence on foreign oil despite the gains in fuel efficiency. We're just driving so much more, we haven't been able to keep up technologically.
Public health is another reason to consider retrofitting. Researchers at the CDC and other places have increasingly been linking suburban development patterns with sedentary lifestyles. And those have been linked then with the rather alarming growing rates of obesity, shown in these maps here, and that obesity has also been triggering great increases in heart disease and diabetes to the point where, today, a child born today, has a one-in-three chance of developing diabetes. And that rate has been escalating at the same rate as children not walking to school anymore, again, because of our development patterns.
And then there's finally -- there's the affordability question. I mean, how affordable is it to continue to live in suburbia with rising gas prices? Suburban expansion to cheap land, for the last 50 years -- you know the cheap land out on the edge -- has helped generations of families enjoy the American dream. But increasingly, the savings promised by drive-til-you-qualify affordability -- which is basically our model -- those savings are wiped out when you consider the transportation costs. For instance, here in Atlanta, about half of households make between 20,000 and 50,000 a year. And they are spending 29 percent of their income on housing and 32 percent on transportation. I mean, that's 2005 figures. That's before we got up to the four bucks a gallon. You know, none of us really tend to do the math on our transportation costs. And they're not going down any time soon.
Whether you love suburbia's leafy privacy or you hate its soulless commercial strips, there are reasons why it's important to retrofit. But is it practical? I think it is. June Williamson and I have been researching this topic for over a decade. And we've found over 80 varied projects. But that they're really all market driven. What's driving the market in particular: Number one is major demographic shifts. We all tend to think of suburbia as this very family focused place. But that's really not the case anymore. Since 2000, already two-thirds of households in suburbia did not have kids in them. We just haven't caught up with the realities of this. The reasons for this have a lot to with the dominance of the two big demographic groups right now, the Baby Boomers retiring, and then there's a gap, Generation X, which is a small generation. They're still having kids. But Generation Y hasn't even started hitting child rearing age. They're the other big generation.
So as a result of that, demographers predict that through 2025, 75 to 85 percent of new households will not have kids in them. And the market research, consumer research, of asking the Boomers and Gen Y what it is they would like, what they would like to live in, tells us there is going to be a huge demand -- and we're already seeing it -- for more urban lifestyles within suburbia. That basically the Boomers want to be able to age in place, and Gen Y would like to live an urban lifestyle, but most of their jobs will continue to be out in suburbia.
The other big dynamic of change is the sheer performance of underperforming asphalt. Now I keep thinking this would be a great name for an indie rock band. But developers generally use it to refer to underused parking lots. And suburbia is full of them. When the postwar suburbs were first built out on the cheap land away from downtown, it made sense to just build surface parking lots. But those sites have now been leapfrogged and leapfrogged again, as we've just continued to sprawl. And they now have a relatively central location. They no longer make sense. That land is more valuable than just surface parking lots. It now makes sense to go back in, build a deck and build up on those sites. So what do you do with a dead mall, dead office park? It turns out, all sorts of things. In a slow economy like ours, reinhabitation is one of the more popular strategies.
So this happens to be a dead mall in St. Louis that's been reinhabited as art space. It's now home to artist studios, theater groups, dance troupes. It's not pulling in as much tax revenue as it once was. But it's serving its community. It's keeping the lights on. It's becoming, I think, a really great institution. Other malls have been reinhabited as nursing homes, as universities, and as all variety of office space. We also found a lot of examples of dead big box stores that have been converted into all sorts of community-serving uses as well -- lots of schools, lots of churches and lots of libraries like this one.
This was a little grocery store, a Food Lion grocery store that is now a public library. In addition to, I think, doing a beautiful adaptive reuse, they tore up some of the parking spaces, put in bioswales to collect and clean the runoff, put in a lot more sidewalks to connect to the neighborhoods. And they've made this what was just a store along a commercial strip, into a community gathering space. This one is a little L-shaped strip shopping center in Phoenix, Arizona. Really all they did was they gave it a fresh coat of bright paint, a gourmet grocery, and they put up a restaurant in the old post office. Never underestimate the power of food to turn a place around and make it a destination. It's been so successful, they've now taken over the strip across the street. And the real estate ads in the neighborhood all very proudly proclaim, "Walking distance to Le Grande Orange," because it provided its neighborhood with what sociologists like to call "a third place." If home is the first place and work is the second place, the third place is where you go to hang out and build community. And especially as suburbia is becoming less centered on the family, the family households, there's a real hunger for more third places.
So the most dramatic retrofits are really those in the next category, the next strategy, redevelopment. Now, during the boom, there were several, really dramatic redevelopment projects where the original building was scraped to the ground and the whole site was rebuilt at significantly greater density, a sort of compact, walkable urban neighborhoods. But some of them have been much more incremental. This is Mashpee Commons, the oldest retrofit that we found. And it's just incrementally, over the last 20 years, built urbanism on top of its parking lots. So the black and white photo shows the simple 60's strip shopping center. And then the maps above that show its gradual transformation into a compact, mixed use New England village, and it has plans now that have been approved for it to connect to new residential neighborhoods across the arterials and over to the other side. So, you know, sometimes it's incremental. Sometimes it's all at once.
This is another infill project on the parking lots, this one of an office park outside of Washington D.C. When Metrorail expanded transit into the suburbs and opened a station nearby to this site, the owners decided to build a new parking deck and then insert on top of their surface lots a new Main Street, several apartments and condo buildings, while keeping the existing office buildings. Here is the site in 1940. It was just a little farm the village of Hyattsville. By 1980 it had been subdivided into a big mall on one side and the office park on the other. And then some buffer sites for a library and a church to the far right. Today, the transit, the Main Street and the new housing have all been built. Eventually, I expect that the streets will probably extend through a redevelopment of the mall. Plans have already been announced for a lot of those garden apartments above the mall to be redeveloped. I mean, transit is a big driver of retrofits. So here's what it looks like. You can sort of see the funky new condo buildings in between the office buildings and the public space and the new Main Street.
This one is one of my favorites, Belmar. I think they really built an attractive place here and have just employed all green construction. There's massive P.V. arrays on the roofs as well as wind turbines. This was a very large mall on a hundred-acre superblock. It's now 22 walkable urban blocks with public streets, two public parks, eight bus lines and a range of housing types. And so it's really given Lakewood, Colorado the downtown that this particular suburb never had. Here was the mall in its heyday. They had their prom in the mall. They loved their mall. So here's the site in 1975 with the mall. By 1995, the mall has died. The department has been kept. And we found this was true in many cases. The department stores are multistory; they're better built. They're easy to be re-adapted. But the one story one story stuff ... That's really history.
So here it is at projected build out. This project, I think, has great connectivity to the existing neighborhoods. It's providing 1,500 households with the option of a more urban lifestyle. It's about two-thirds built out right now. Here's what the new main street looks like. It's very successful. And it's helped to prompt -- eight of the 13 regional malls in Denver have now, or announced plans to, be retrofitted. but it's important to note that all of this retrofitting is not occurring -- just bulldozers are coming and just plowing down the whole city. No, it's pockets of walkability on the sites of under-performing properties. And so it's giving people more choices. But it's not taking away choices.
But it's also not really enough to just create pockets of walkability. You want to also try to get more systemic transformation. We need to also retrofit the corridors themselves. So this is one that has been retrofitted in California. They took the commercial strip shown on the black and white images below, and they built a boulevard that has become the Main Street for their town. And it transformed from being an ugly, unsafe, undesirable address, to becoming a beautiful, attractive, dignified sort of good address. I mean now we're hoping we start to see it -- They've already built city hall, attracted two hotels. I mean I could imagine beautiful housing going up along there without tearing down another tree. So there's a lot of great things. But I'd love to see more corridors getting retrofitted.
But densification is not going to work everywhere. Sometimes regreening is really the better answer. There's a lot to learn from successful landbanking programs in cities like Flint Michigan. There's also a burgeoning suburban farming movement -- sort of victory gardens meets the internet. but perhaps one of the most important regreening aspects is the opportunity to restore the local ecology, as in this example outside of Minneapolis. When the shopping center died, the city restored the site's original wetlands, creating lakefront property which then attracted private investment, the first private investment to this very low-income neighborhood in over 40 years. So they've managed to both restore the local ecology and the local economy at the same time. This is another regreening example. It also makes sense in very strong markets. This one in Seattle is on the site of a mall parking lot adjacent to a new transit stop. And the wavy line is a path alongside a creek that has now been daylit. The creek had been culverted under the parking lot. But daylighting our creeks really improves their water quality and contributions to habitat.
So I've shown you some of the first generation of retrofits. What's next? I think we have three challenges for the future. The first is to plan retrofitting much more systemically at the metropolitan scale. We need to be able to target which areas really should be regreened. Where should we be redeveloping? And where should we be encouraging reinhabitation? These slides just show two images from a larger project that looked at trying to do that for Atlanta. I led a team that was asked to image Atlanta 100 years from now. And we chose to try to reverse sprall through three simple moves -- expensive, but simple. One, in a hundred years, transit on all major rail and road corridors. Two, in a hundred years, a thousand foot buffers on all stream corridors. It's a little extreme, but we've got a little water problem. In a hundred years, subdivisions that simply end up too close to water or too far from transit, won't be viable. And so we've created the eco acre transfer to transfer development rights to the transit corridors and allow the regreening of those former subdivisions for food and energy production.
So the second challenge is to improve the architectural design quality of the retrofits. And I close with this image of democracy in action. This is a protest that's happening on a retrofit in Silver Spring, Maryland on an Astroturf town green. Now, retrofits are often accused of being examples of faux downtowns and instant urbanism. And not without reason; you don't get much more phony than an Astroturf town green. I have to say, these are very hybrid places. They are new, but trying to look old. They have urban streetscapes, but suburban parking ratios. Their populations are more diverse than typical suburbia, but they're less diverse than cities. And they are public places, but that are managed by private companies. And just the surface appearance is -- like the Astroturf here -- they make me wince. So, you know, I mean I'm glad that the urbanism is doing its job. The fact that a protest is happening really it does mean that the layout of the blocks, the streets and blocks, the putting in of public space, compromised as it may be, is still a really great thing. But we've got to get the architecture better.
The final challenge is for all of you. I want you to join the protest and start demanding more sustainable suburban places -- more sustainable places, period. But culturally, we tend to think that downtowns should be dynamic, and we expect that. But we seem to have an expectation that the suburbs should forever remain frozen in what ever adolescent form they were first given birth to. It's time to let them grow up. So I want you to all support the zoning changes, the road diets, the infrastructure improvements and the retrofits that are coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Thank you.
我的翻譯如下：
Interactive Transcript
郊區閒置的購物中心與停車場，轉型設計成為永續社區。
我們已經在過去的五十年裡，我們建造了許多郊區及其伴隨而來非計劃性的後果. 我想談一下關於這些後果和現在正在進行的一大堆有趣的專案（計劃），我想這些計畫給我們很充足而樂觀的理由來作這接下來的五十年大設計及發展計劃關於善郊區。所以說，是否要更新那些垂死的購物中心或是在促進移入居民到沒落商城的居民移居或是或是停車用土地周邊的濕地改建，我想真相是這樣，這些空洞而執行欠佳的數量的正在增加，特別是，遍佈郊區的零售商業用土地，事實上給我們一個很大的機會使我們至少永續的地景立刻轉變為更加永續的場所。而且在這過程中，允許我們去作的是，回到現有既存的社區去改變都市成長的方向， 透過利用一些誘因幫助建設當地的基礎設施，以代替林地的破壞及邊緣地帶綠帶的毀壞。0831
所以，為什麼這個是重要的？ 我想有很多理由。我並不想深入探討太多細節不過會稍微提一下。從氣候變遷的觀點，美國一般的都市居民的碳足跡（碳耗用量）平均是一般郊區居民的三分之一，主要是因為郊區居民交通上開車多很多，而且住在分散的建築物，因此會有更多的建築物外殼表面流失能源。所以嚴格來說從氣候變遷的觀點，都市相對上是比較生態的。將郊區都市化的同時有很大量的機會去減少溫室氣體溢散。在郊區我們所需要的交通量（耗能）大約是在都市的兩倍左右。這增加了我們對外國原油的依賴儘管有燃料效率上的獲益。我們就是耗費（開車）這麼多，而且技術上我們無法改善（停止）。
公共健康是我們考慮環境改善的另外一個理由。疾病防治中心的研究人員和其他相關領域指出郊區發展模式和久坐的生活形態的關連。而那也關連到肥胖的驚人成長比率，呈現在地圖上的這裡，而肥胖也引發心血管疾病及糖尿病，今天，現今的新生兒約有三分之一的機率發展成將來的糖尿病。而這樣的機率仍逐步上升中，和還沒上學的幼童有相同上升的比率。而這，歸咎於我們的都市發展模式。
最後是，負擔能力的問題。我是說，要怎樣才負擔得起繼續過這種生活，在汽油價格逐漸上漲下繼續住在郊區？在過去五十年裡，郊區擴張到便宜的土地，幫助這一事帶的家庭達成美國夢想。但是逐漸地，透過「通勤」住在你受得了辛苦通勤的便宜租金的地方原本可以確保節省家庭開銷的情形～基本上這是我們的模式 ～這樣的節省效果已經沒有了，當你將運輸成本考慮進去。例如，亞特蘭大這裡， 約有一半的家戶有一年約為20,000到50,000個家庭需要通勤。他們花費收入的29％在房租及32％在交通上。根據2005年的圖表。這是以前一加侖四美元的時候。你知道的，我們之中沒有人真的會想去算一下我們的交通開銷，而這些交通成本短期內也不會降低。
不管是你喜歡郊區的綠意盎然、私密清靜或者你討厭郊區沒精神的帶狀商業區域，有些理由說明為什麼郊區被改造是重要的。但這是可以可實踐的嗎？我想是可以的。June Williamson 和我大約研究這個主題約十年了。而我們找到80個以上不同的有執行的計劃。但他們大多由市場導向，由市場主導。特別地，是什麼驅動了市場：首先是人口遷移。我們都認為郊區是容易遷移而聚集的場所。但不再是這樣了。2000年之後，大約有將近三分之二的家庭，子女不留在身邊。我們只是沒有注意到這個事實。 這個現象的原因有很多指向人口統計上現存的兩個大族群的優勢地位，逐漸退休的嬰兒潮世代，以及他們的下一代X世代，這是一個小一點的族群。他們仍然有小孩。但是Y世代還沒開始有小孩。Y世代是另外一個大的世代。
也因為這樣，人口統計學者預測大約在2025年, 75 to 85％的家庭小孩將不會留在身邊。而市場研究、消費者研究結果指出，嬰兒潮世代的人和Y世代將會住在郊區。這的研究告訴我們這將會變成一個巨大的需求 – 而我們幾乎已經看見 – 在郊區裡有更多都市生活形態。基本上，嬰兒潮世代的人將傾向於在當地終老，而Y世代也選擇郊區生活形態，但他們的工作大多都將繼續在郊區之外（而透過通勤上班）。
這個變化的其他動力是柏油路全面鋪設。現在我仍然認為這是個好名字就作為一系列硬鋪面的帶狀。但是開發商一般將它充分利用在停車場。而郊區到處都有。 當時戰後郊區地價便宜的地區比市區還要先開始重建，這是很合理的因為要盡快將停車場土地建設出來。但那些土地看來都是被「蛙跳」再「蛙跳」（意指不效率的盲目開發），我們只是持續在蔓延地開發。如今這些地方都有相對地中心區。原先這樣的作法不在合理。這些以前很便宜的土地如今更珍貴比當時被開闢成停車場的時候。現在這樣才是合理的，整地並在那些土地上蓋房子。 所以，面對沒落的商城，沒落的辦公室公園？你會怎麼處理？所有事物都被轉變。在一個較緩慢的經濟結構下，reinhabitation 是一個很受歡迎的策略之一。
然後這是發生在聖路易市的已經沒落的商場，現在被改造為藝術特區。現在這裡是藝術家工作室，劇場團體，舞團進駐的場所。當然沒有像以前帶來很多稅收。 但可以他搭配並服務社區。讓街燈明亮不再陰暗。我認為他變成一個真的很好的機透團體。其他的購物中心改建成護理之家，學校，各種辦公空間。我們也發現很多案例讓沒落的購物中心轉變為各種社區的設施，學校、教堂圖書館等。
過去這是一個小雜貨店, 現在是一個圖書館。. 除此之外，我認為，這是很恰當的再利用，選用了一部份停車場土地設置礫石過濾溝來收集和清潔溢流物。設置更多的人行道來連接鄰近地區。沿著商業帶從商店到商業集散地區設置。這是一個在亞利桑納鳳凰城的L形購物中心。他們所做的就是圖上明亮色彩的表面覆蓋，一個美食雜貨店, 他們在老郵局裡開一間餐廳。 不曾低估食物的力量，轉變該地區及周遭並改變他的命運。 這相當成功，如今他們發展過了這條街，這個商業帶。而當地的房地產廣告非常驕傲地宣稱, " Le Grande Orange的徒步區" ，因為他提供了鄰里地區那些社會學家所說的 「第三場所」。 如果家是第一個場所，工作環境是第二個場所，第三場所就是那些你會去居住而且建立社交的場所。特別是，當郊區越來越不是家庭寄望的中心而，家戶卻越來越渴望第三場所。
最戲劇化的改造是下一種類型，下一個策略，都市再發展計劃（redevelopment）。現在，在這股熱潮之中，有很多戲劇化的更新計劃出現，有幾種相當戲劇化的更新計劃，原始建築物被夷為平地，取而代之的是相當高密度的重建，一種緊密的、可步行的都市鄰里。這樣的計劃下，有些大幅增值。這是Mashpee Commons的案例，我們所找到最老的改造計劃。在過去20年裡地價上漲，建立都市生活在停車場土地上。這些黑白照片顯示，60年代帶狀商業區的樣式。上面的地圖顯示。這是一個New England village很大的轉變，變成為一個緊密發展而混合使用（低程度使用分區的）, 這個城市現在有一個計劃等候審查核准，就是計劃通過主要幹道連接到新的住宅區及其他地方的連結系統。所以，你可以想像，有時候會造成地價上漲地產增值，有時候畢其功於一役。
這是另外一個案例在停車場上嵌入新設施的案例，華盛頓特區外的其中一個公園。當捷運延伸到郊區並在基地附近設置一個車站，地主決定興建一個新的停車場並開始開發新的大街的臨路側的土地，興建幾座個公寓建築，同時保存現存辦公大樓。這是1940年基地的樣子。這時候還有一點農村的感覺。在1980年經過政府土地細分之後一邊出現了出現一個大型購物中心，另一邊則是大型停車場。這些緩衝地帶設置一個圖書館和一間教堂在更右邊的地方。今天，交通運輸，主要商業街區以及新的住宅已經被興建完成了。終於，我預計這些街道將來可能擴大到穿越購物中心而被納入再發展計劃。已經公告的計劃包含很多購物中心上面即將開發興建的高級花園公寓。我認為，交通運輸是一個改造上的驅動力。他看起來像是這個樣子。你可以稍微分辨出在新的住宅大樓在辦公大樓和公共空間和新的大街之間的畏縮（疏離）。
這是我最喜歡的案例Belmar。我覺得他們真的在這做出一個很吸引人地場所並採用生態的構造方式。這些是厚重的P.V. 配置陣列，在屋頂設置排風渦輪。這是一個很大的購物中心在一個超大街廓上。這是22個可步行的街廓透過公共街道，兩個都市公園,，八條公車路線和一些住宅樣式。然這真的為Lakewood, Colorado的市區帶來不曾擁有的受歡迎的環境。這裡是全盛時期的購物中心。 他們在購物中心有自己的音樂會。他們熱愛他的購物中心。這裡是1975年的購物中心。購物中心在1995年沒落。這些百貨公司仍然存續。而我們發現在很多案例中可以看見這類改變。 百貨公司是多元化的混合商店，通常他們蓋的比較好。他們很容易適應。專櫃一間又一間的進駐。這真的是歷史。
這是另一個案例。我認為這個計劃是一個很棒的對於現有鄰里地區的網絡連結。提供1500個家戶一個更都市生活形態的的選擇。現在大約有三分之二建築工程完成。這是主要街道看起來的樣子。這相當成功。這計畫有助於刺激改變當地，Denver 的13個地區型購物中心裡面的8個有新的已經公告的地區改造的發展計劃。但值得注意的是這些改造計劃是現在進行式。推土機正在推動並正要推倒整個城市。不！ 推倒的是將設置土地上將來步行的區塊。所以給人們更多選擇。但是沒有剝奪任何選擇。
但這還是不夠，如果只是創造可供步行的口袋公園。你也會想試著達到越來越多的系統化運輸。我們也需要改造道路交通。所以這是加州的改造案例之一。他們讓商業帶呈現出多元的氣氛，設置一條林蔭大道變成他們都市的主要大街。把一個醜陋、不安全、令人討厭的地方變成一個美麗、吸引人、高貴的好地方。我是說現在我們希望也開始看見，他們已經建造了市政廳並吸引兩棟旅館經營者設置旅館。我可以想像美麗的住宅沿著發展出來而不用損毀其他林地生態，。這是很棒的事情。但我更希望看見更多的交通幹道被這樣改造。0413
緻密化運用在很多地方。有時候再綠化是一個很好的解決方案。從成功土地銀行的計劃中，有多可以學習的方法，例如，Flint密西根。在網路上也看的到一些非常成功的花園，也有一些發展迅速的郊區耕作運動。但是也許從再綠化觀點中最重要的一點是機會，恢復地區生態,的機會，如同明尼蘇達州的戶外案例。 當一個購物中心沒落，城市恢復了基地的原始濕地，創造出湖濱土地，若吸引私人投資投入，則這第一筆私人投入到這低收入的鄰近地區約長達40年。所以他們計劃同時恢復地區生態和地區經濟。這是另外一個再綠化的案例。這也是很合理在非常市場。這一個在西雅圖的地方是靠近一個新的交通站旁的停車場。而這波浪狀的線是一個路徑沿著溪流如今是一個活動聚集點。這條溪在停車場地下化。經過對溪流的日照能改善水質對於動植物棲息地有所貢獻。
所以我想呈現一些第一代的改造結果。下一個會是什麼？我想未來我們有三個挑戰。 第一個挑戰是去規劃更有系統地大都會尺度地改造計劃。我們需要可以更精準確認哪些地方真的需要被再綠化。哪些地方應該再開發？哪些地方需要促成住宅區（reinhabitation）？ 這些投影片顯示兩張圖面，這是在亞特蘭大改造計劃中的兩張圖片。我帶了一個團隊去描繪出亞特蘭大接下來的100年應該要有的風貌。 試著從三件事來翻轉—昂貴但是簡單。首先，在一百年內，透過主要鐵路和幹道運輸。其次，在一百年內，緩衝支流幹道底部上設置一千個緩衝設施.。這有極端，但是我們有一點地貌水文上的問題要克服。在一百年內。土地細分上 會使土地過於接近水域或是離公共運輸系統太遠，將會逐漸變得不合理。因此我們創造生態土地移轉來緩衝發展權利移轉到接近交通幹道附近的地方並且允許那些早期土地細分下的土地再綠化來栽種及從事生產。
第二個挑戰是改善樣式翻新的建築設計品質。而我同意接受民主體制運作下的結果. 這是一個反抗（反對）發生在Silver Spring的改建上，馬里蘭州，人工草皮的綠化。如今，「重建計劃」被控告為假的市中心和速食的都市主義的實例。毫無理由地，你不用接受這些假貨比Astroturf town的綠化。我得說，這些是很真假混合的場所。他們是新的，但試著要看起來是舊的東西。他們有他們有城市街景卻只有郊區的停車數量。這些地區的人口比典型的郊外更加不同，但是他們很接近城市。然後他們明明是公共場所, 但是被私人公司所經營管理。同時一如表面所呈現的 – 就像這裡的人工草皮 –他們讓我畏縮。所以你知道，我很高興都市主義正在作著他們的這些工作。真相是反對街廓規劃，街道和街廓，公共場所的增加,這些工作進行中，而妥協可能仍是一個重要的方法。但我們得讓我們的建築物更好。
最後的挑戰是給你們所有的人。我要你參加反對及積極開始更永續的郊區地方，更永續的郊區地方，期間。從文化的角度上，我們傾向這樣思考市區應該要有活力的，我們也這樣認為。但我們似乎總是期待郊區應該停滯在我們從出生到青少年時期的那個樣子。該是讓這些地區成長的時候了。所以我希望你們大家去支持那即將出現在你家附近的鄰近地區區域改變，道路規劃精簡效率化，改善基礎設施，翻新改進。
謝謝！
網路上剛好有一些文字是我感興趣的，是一篇講稿，同時有演講的影片，花了兩天的時間，斷斷續續地，看過一次影片，然後將講稿翻出來，一方面是練習一下語言，一方面這是我感興趣的內容，都市規劃相關的演講。
翻完之後，花了不少時間，不過翻完在看過影片之後，覺得內容大致瞭解八成以上。自我感覺良好。以前念研究所的時候，重要文獻大概這樣收集資料，當時有一個資料袋的原文影印及其翻譯。同學開玩笑，學長也半開開玩笑，說，我們是讀都市計畫研究所，不是讀英文研究所。後來這些資料另外一個同門師兄的研究需要，於是送出去。雖然沒有完成學業，我始終告訴自己，那有累積的事物絕對適值得的，不管別人懂不懂，不管能不能被量化或被標籤。我們儘量試著充實自己，不過每個人的路和命都不同。學著接受完美的一半和不完美的一半，人生，就完整了。
原文和譯文貼在下面和大家分享。影片位址如下：
http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_dunham_jones_retrofitting_suburbia.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-06
講稿本文
We've had ... In the last 50 years, we've been building the suburbs with a lot of unintended consequences. And I'm going to talk about some of those consequences and just present a whole bunch of really interesting projects that I think give us tremendous reasons to be really optimistic that the big design and development project of the next 50 years is going to be retrofitting suburbia. So whether it's redeveloping dying malls or reinhabiting dead big box stores or reconstructing wetlands out of parking lots, I think the fact is, the growing number of empty and under-performing, especially, retail sites throughout suburbia gives us actually a tremendous opportunity to take our least-sustainable landscapes right now and convert them into more sustainable places. And in the process, what that allows us to do is to redirect a lot more of our growth back into existing communities that could use a boost, and have the infrastructure in place, instead of continuing to tear down trees and to tear up the green space out at the edges.
So why is this important? I think there are any number of reasons. And I'm just going to not get into detail, but mention a few. Just from the perspective of climate change, the average urban dweller in the U.S. has about one-third the carbon footprint of the average suburban dweller, mostly because suburbanites drive a lot more, and living in detached buildings, you have that much more exterior surface to leak energy out of. So strictly from a climate change perspective, the cities are already relatively green. The big opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually in urbanizing the suburbs. All that driving that we've been doing out in the suburbs, we have doubled the amount of miles we drive. It's increased our dependence on foreign oil despite the gains in fuel efficiency. We're just driving so much more, we haven't been able to keep up technologically.
Public health is another reason to consider retrofitting. Researchers at the CDC and other places have increasingly been linking suburban development patterns with sedentary lifestyles. And those have been linked then with the rather alarming growing rates of obesity, shown in these maps here, and that obesity has also been triggering great increases in heart disease and diabetes to the point where, today, a child born today, has a one-in-three chance of developing diabetes. And that rate has been escalating at the same rate as children not walking to school anymore, again, because of our development patterns.
And then there's finally -- there's the affordability question. I mean, how affordable is it to continue to live in suburbia with rising gas prices? Suburban expansion to cheap land, for the last 50 years -- you know the cheap land out on the edge -- has helped generations of families enjoy the American dream. But increasingly, the savings promised by drive-til-you-qualify affordability -- which is basically our model -- those savings are wiped out when you consider the transportation costs. For instance, here in Atlanta, about half of households make between 20,000 and 50,000 a year. And they are spending 29 percent of their income on housing and 32 percent on transportation. I mean, that's 2005 figures. That's before we got up to the four bucks a gallon. You know, none of us really tend to do the math on our transportation costs. And they're not going down any time soon.
Whether you love suburbia's leafy privacy or you hate its soulless commercial strips, there are reasons why it's important to retrofit. But is it practical? I think it is. June Williamson and I have been researching this topic for over a decade. And we've found over 80 varied projects. But that they're really all market driven. What's driving the market in particular: Number one is major demographic shifts. We all tend to think of suburbia as this very family focused place. But that's really not the case anymore. Since 2000, already two-thirds of households in suburbia did not have kids in them. We just haven't caught up with the realities of this. The reasons for this have a lot to with the dominance of the two big demographic groups right now, the Baby Boomers retiring, and then there's a gap, Generation X, which is a small generation. They're still having kids. But Generation Y hasn't even started hitting child rearing age. They're the other big generation.
So as a result of that, demographers predict that through 2025, 75 to 85 percent of new households will not have kids in them. And the market research, consumer research, of asking the Boomers and Gen Y what it is they would like, what they would like to live in, tells us there is going to be a huge demand -- and we're already seeing it -- for more urban lifestyles within suburbia. That basically the Boomers want to be able to age in place, and Gen Y would like to live an urban lifestyle, but most of their jobs will continue to be out in suburbia.
The other big dynamic of change is the sheer performance of underperforming asphalt. Now I keep thinking this would be a great name for an indie rock band. But developers generally use it to refer to underused parking lots. And suburbia is full of them. When the postwar suburbs were first built out on the cheap land away from downtown, it made sense to just build surface parking lots. But those sites have now been leapfrogged and leapfrogged again, as we've just continued to sprawl. And they now have a relatively central location. They no longer make sense. That land is more valuable than just surface parking lots. It now makes sense to go back in, build a deck and build up on those sites. So what do you do with a dead mall, dead office park? It turns out, all sorts of things. In a slow economy like ours, reinhabitation is one of the more popular strategies.
So this happens to be a dead mall in St. Louis that's been reinhabited as art space. It's now home to artist studios, theater groups, dance troupes. It's not pulling in as much tax revenue as it once was. But it's serving its community. It's keeping the lights on. It's becoming, I think, a really great institution. Other malls have been reinhabited as nursing homes, as universities, and as all variety of office space. We also found a lot of examples of dead big box stores that have been converted into all sorts of community-serving uses as well -- lots of schools, lots of churches and lots of libraries like this one.
This was a little grocery store, a Food Lion grocery store that is now a public library. In addition to, I think, doing a beautiful adaptive reuse, they tore up some of the parking spaces, put in bioswales to collect and clean the runoff, put in a lot more sidewalks to connect to the neighborhoods. And they've made this what was just a store along a commercial strip, into a community gathering space. This one is a little L-shaped strip shopping center in Phoenix, Arizona. Really all they did was they gave it a fresh coat of bright paint, a gourmet grocery, and they put up a restaurant in the old post office. Never underestimate the power of food to turn a place around and make it a destination. It's been so successful, they've now taken over the strip across the street. And the real estate ads in the neighborhood all very proudly proclaim, "Walking distance to Le Grande Orange," because it provided its neighborhood with what sociologists like to call "a third place." If home is the first place and work is the second place, the third place is where you go to hang out and build community. And especially as suburbia is becoming less centered on the family, the family households, there's a real hunger for more third places.
So the most dramatic retrofits are really those in the next category, the next strategy, redevelopment. Now, during the boom, there were several, really dramatic redevelopment projects where the original building was scraped to the ground and the whole site was rebuilt at significantly greater density, a sort of compact, walkable urban neighborhoods. But some of them have been much more incremental. This is Mashpee Commons, the oldest retrofit that we found. And it's just incrementally, over the last 20 years, built urbanism on top of its parking lots. So the black and white photo shows the simple 60's strip shopping center. And then the maps above that show its gradual transformation into a compact, mixed use New England village, and it has plans now that have been approved for it to connect to new residential neighborhoods across the arterials and over to the other side. So, you know, sometimes it's incremental. Sometimes it's all at once.
This is another infill project on the parking lots, this one of an office park outside of Washington D.C. When Metrorail expanded transit into the suburbs and opened a station nearby to this site, the owners decided to build a new parking deck and then insert on top of their surface lots a new Main Street, several apartments and condo buildings, while keeping the existing office buildings. Here is the site in 1940. It was just a little farm the village of Hyattsville. By 1980 it had been subdivided into a big mall on one side and the office park on the other. And then some buffer sites for a library and a church to the far right. Today, the transit, the Main Street and the new housing have all been built. Eventually, I expect that the streets will probably extend through a redevelopment of the mall. Plans have already been announced for a lot of those garden apartments above the mall to be redeveloped. I mean, transit is a big driver of retrofits. So here's what it looks like. You can sort of see the funky new condo buildings in between the office buildings and the public space and the new Main Street.
This one is one of my favorites, Belmar. I think they really built an attractive place here and have just employed all green construction. There's massive P.V. arrays on the roofs as well as wind turbines. This was a very large mall on a hundred-acre superblock. It's now 22 walkable urban blocks with public streets, two public parks, eight bus lines and a range of housing types. And so it's really given Lakewood, Colorado the downtown that this particular suburb never had. Here was the mall in its heyday. They had their prom in the mall. They loved their mall. So here's the site in 1975 with the mall. By 1995, the mall has died. The department has been kept. And we found this was true in many cases. The department stores are multistory; they're better built. They're easy to be re-adapted. But the one story one story stuff ... That's really history.
So here it is at projected build out. This project, I think, has great connectivity to the existing neighborhoods. It's providing 1,500 households with the option of a more urban lifestyle. It's about two-thirds built out right now. Here's what the new main street looks like. It's very successful. And it's helped to prompt -- eight of the 13 regional malls in Denver have now, or announced plans to, be retrofitted. but it's important to note that all of this retrofitting is not occurring -- just bulldozers are coming and just plowing down the whole city. No, it's pockets of walkability on the sites of under-performing properties. And so it's giving people more choices. But it's not taking away choices.
But it's also not really enough to just create pockets of walkability. You want to also try to get more systemic transformation. We need to also retrofit the corridors themselves. So this is one that has been retrofitted in California. They took the commercial strip shown on the black and white images below, and they built a boulevard that has become the Main Street for their town. And it transformed from being an ugly, unsafe, undesirable address, to becoming a beautiful, attractive, dignified sort of good address. I mean now we're hoping we start to see it -- They've already built city hall, attracted two hotels. I mean I could imagine beautiful housing going up along there without tearing down another tree. So there's a lot of great things. But I'd love to see more corridors getting retrofitted.
But densification is not going to work everywhere. Sometimes regreening is really the better answer. There's a lot to learn from successful landbanking programs in cities like Flint Michigan. There's also a burgeoning suburban farming movement -- sort of victory gardens meets the internet. but perhaps one of the most important regreening aspects is the opportunity to restore the local ecology, as in this example outside of Minneapolis. When the shopping center died, the city restored the site's original wetlands, creating lakefront property which then attracted private investment, the first private investment to this very low-income neighborhood in over 40 years. So they've managed to both restore the local ecology and the local economy at the same time. This is another regreening example. It also makes sense in very strong markets. This one in Seattle is on the site of a mall parking lot adjacent to a new transit stop. And the wavy line is a path alongside a creek that has now been daylit. The creek had been culverted under the parking lot. But daylighting our creeks really improves their water quality and contributions to habitat.
So I've shown you some of the first generation of retrofits. What's next? I think we have three challenges for the future. The first is to plan retrofitting much more systemically at the metropolitan scale. We need to be able to target which areas really should be regreened. Where should we be redeveloping? And where should we be encouraging reinhabitation? These slides just show two images from a larger project that looked at trying to do that for Atlanta. I led a team that was asked to image Atlanta 100 years from now. And we chose to try to reverse sprall through three simple moves -- expensive, but simple. One, in a hundred years, transit on all major rail and road corridors. Two, in a hundred years, a thousand foot buffers on all stream corridors. It's a little extreme, but we've got a little water problem. In a hundred years, subdivisions that simply end up too close to water or too far from transit, won't be viable. And so we've created the eco acre transfer to transfer development rights to the transit corridors and allow the regreening of those former subdivisions for food and energy production.
So the second challenge is to improve the architectural design quality of the retrofits. And I close with this image of democracy in action. This is a protest that's happening on a retrofit in Silver Spring, Maryland on an Astroturf town green. Now, retrofits are often accused of being examples of faux downtowns and instant urbanism. And not without reason; you don't get much more phony than an Astroturf town green. I have to say, these are very hybrid places. They are new, but trying to look old. They have urban streetscapes, but suburban parking ratios. Their populations are more diverse than typical suburbia, but they're less diverse than cities. And they are public places, but that are managed by private companies. And just the surface appearance is -- like the Astroturf here -- they make me wince. So, you know, I mean I'm glad that the urbanism is doing its job. The fact that a protest is happening really it does mean that the layout of the blocks, the streets and blocks, the putting in of public space, compromised as it may be, is still a really great thing. But we've got to get the architecture better.
The final challenge is for all of you. I want you to join the protest and start demanding more sustainable suburban places -- more sustainable places, period. But culturally, we tend to think that downtowns should be dynamic, and we expect that. But we seem to have an expectation that the suburbs should forever remain frozen in what ever adolescent form they were first given birth to. It's time to let them grow up. So I want you to all support the zoning changes, the road diets, the infrastructure improvements and the retrofits that are coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Thank you.
我的翻譯如下：
Interactive Transcript
郊區閒置的購物中心與停車場，轉型設計成為永續社區。
我們已經在過去的五十年裡，我們建造了許多郊區及其伴隨而來非計劃性的後果. 我想談一下關於這些後果和現在正在進行的一大堆有趣的專案（計劃），我想這些計畫給我們很充足而樂觀的理由來作這接下來的五十年大設計及發展計劃關於善郊區。所以說，是否要更新那些垂死的購物中心或是在促進移入居民到沒落商城的居民移居或是或是停車用土地周邊的濕地改建，我想真相是這樣，這些空洞而執行欠佳的數量的正在增加，特別是，遍佈郊區的零售商業用土地，事實上給我們一個很大的機會使我們至少永續的地景立刻轉變為更加永續的場所。而且在這過程中，允許我們去作的是，回到現有既存的社區去改變都市成長的方向， 透過利用一些誘因幫助建設當地的基礎設施，以代替林地的破壞及邊緣地帶綠帶的毀壞。0831
所以，為什麼這個是重要的？ 我想有很多理由。我並不想深入探討太多細節不過會稍微提一下。從氣候變遷的觀點，美國一般的都市居民的碳足跡（碳耗用量）平均是一般郊區居民的三分之一，主要是因為郊區居民交通上開車多很多，而且住在分散的建築物，因此會有更多的建築物外殼表面流失能源。所以嚴格來說從氣候變遷的觀點，都市相對上是比較生態的。將郊區都市化的同時有很大量的機會去減少溫室氣體溢散。在郊區我們所需要的交通量（耗能）大約是在都市的兩倍左右。這增加了我們對外國原油的依賴儘管有燃料效率上的獲益。我們就是耗費（開車）這麼多，而且技術上我們無法改善（停止）。
公共健康是我們考慮環境改善的另外一個理由。疾病防治中心的研究人員和其他相關領域指出郊區發展模式和久坐的生活形態的關連。而那也關連到肥胖的驚人成長比率，呈現在地圖上的這裡，而肥胖也引發心血管疾病及糖尿病，今天，現今的新生兒約有三分之一的機率發展成將來的糖尿病。而這樣的機率仍逐步上升中，和還沒上學的幼童有相同上升的比率。而這，歸咎於我們的都市發展模式。
最後是，負擔能力的問題。我是說，要怎樣才負擔得起繼續過這種生活，在汽油價格逐漸上漲下繼續住在郊區？在過去五十年裡，郊區擴張到便宜的土地，幫助這一事帶的家庭達成美國夢想。但是逐漸地，透過「通勤」住在你受得了辛苦通勤的便宜租金的地方原本可以確保節省家庭開銷的情形～基本上這是我們的模式 ～這樣的節省效果已經沒有了，當你將運輸成本考慮進去。例如，亞特蘭大這裡， 約有一半的家戶有一年約為20,000到50,000個家庭需要通勤。他們花費收入的29％在房租及32％在交通上。根據2005年的圖表。這是以前一加侖四美元的時候。你知道的，我們之中沒有人真的會想去算一下我們的交通開銷，而這些交通成本短期內也不會降低。
不管是你喜歡郊區的綠意盎然、私密清靜或者你討厭郊區沒精神的帶狀商業區域，有些理由說明為什麼郊區被改造是重要的。但這是可以可實踐的嗎？我想是可以的。June Williamson 和我大約研究這個主題約十年了。而我們找到80個以上不同的有執行的計劃。但他們大多由市場導向，由市場主導。特別地，是什麼驅動了市場：首先是人口遷移。我們都認為郊區是容易遷移而聚集的場所。但不再是這樣了。2000年之後，大約有將近三分之二的家庭，子女不留在身邊。我們只是沒有注意到這個事實。 這個現象的原因有很多指向人口統計上現存的兩個大族群的優勢地位，逐漸退休的嬰兒潮世代，以及他們的下一代X世代，這是一個小一點的族群。他們仍然有小孩。但是Y世代還沒開始有小孩。Y世代是另外一個大的世代。
也因為這樣，人口統計學者預測大約在2025年, 75 to 85％的家庭小孩將不會留在身邊。而市場研究、消費者研究結果指出，嬰兒潮世代的人和Y世代將會住在郊區。這的研究告訴我們這將會變成一個巨大的需求 – 而我們幾乎已經看見 – 在郊區裡有更多都市生活形態。基本上，嬰兒潮世代的人將傾向於在當地終老，而Y世代也選擇郊區生活形態，但他們的工作大多都將繼續在郊區之外（而透過通勤上班）。
這個變化的其他動力是柏油路全面鋪設。現在我仍然認為這是個好名字就作為一系列硬鋪面的帶狀。但是開發商一般將它充分利用在停車場。而郊區到處都有。 當時戰後郊區地價便宜的地區比市區還要先開始重建，這是很合理的因為要盡快將停車場土地建設出來。但那些土地看來都是被「蛙跳」再「蛙跳」（意指不效率的盲目開發），我們只是持續在蔓延地開發。如今這些地方都有相對地中心區。原先這樣的作法不在合理。這些以前很便宜的土地如今更珍貴比當時被開闢成停車場的時候。現在這樣才是合理的，整地並在那些土地上蓋房子。 所以，面對沒落的商城，沒落的辦公室公園？你會怎麼處理？所有事物都被轉變。在一個較緩慢的經濟結構下，reinhabitation 是一個很受歡迎的策略之一。
然後這是發生在聖路易市的已經沒落的商場，現在被改造為藝術特區。現在這裡是藝術家工作室，劇場團體，舞團進駐的場所。當然沒有像以前帶來很多稅收。 但可以他搭配並服務社區。讓街燈明亮不再陰暗。我認為他變成一個真的很好的機透團體。其他的購物中心改建成護理之家，學校，各種辦公空間。我們也發現很多案例讓沒落的購物中心轉變為各種社區的設施，學校、教堂圖書館等。
過去這是一個小雜貨店, 現在是一個圖書館。. 除此之外，我認為，這是很恰當的再利用，選用了一部份停車場土地設置礫石過濾溝來收集和清潔溢流物。設置更多的人行道來連接鄰近地區。沿著商業帶從商店到商業集散地區設置。這是一個在亞利桑納鳳凰城的L形購物中心。他們所做的就是圖上明亮色彩的表面覆蓋，一個美食雜貨店, 他們在老郵局裡開一間餐廳。 不曾低估食物的力量，轉變該地區及周遭並改變他的命運。 這相當成功，如今他們發展過了這條街，這個商業帶。而當地的房地產廣告非常驕傲地宣稱, " Le Grande Orange的徒步區" ，因為他提供了鄰里地區那些社會學家所說的 「第三場所」。 如果家是第一個場所，工作環境是第二個場所，第三場所就是那些你會去居住而且建立社交的場所。特別是，當郊區越來越不是家庭寄望的中心而，家戶卻越來越渴望第三場所。
最戲劇化的改造是下一種類型，下一個策略，都市再發展計劃（redevelopment）。現在，在這股熱潮之中，有很多戲劇化的更新計劃出現，有幾種相當戲劇化的更新計劃，原始建築物被夷為平地，取而代之的是相當高密度的重建，一種緊密的、可步行的都市鄰里。這樣的計劃下，有些大幅增值。這是Mashpee Commons的案例，我們所找到最老的改造計劃。在過去20年裡地價上漲，建立都市生活在停車場土地上。這些黑白照片顯示，60年代帶狀商業區的樣式。上面的地圖顯示。這是一個New England village很大的轉變，變成為一個緊密發展而混合使用（低程度使用分區的）, 這個城市現在有一個計劃等候審查核准，就是計劃通過主要幹道連接到新的住宅區及其他地方的連結系統。所以，你可以想像，有時候會造成地價上漲地產增值，有時候畢其功於一役。
這是另外一個案例在停車場上嵌入新設施的案例，華盛頓特區外的其中一個公園。當捷運延伸到郊區並在基地附近設置一個車站，地主決定興建一個新的停車場並開始開發新的大街的臨路側的土地，興建幾座個公寓建築，同時保存現存辦公大樓。這是1940年基地的樣子。這時候還有一點農村的感覺。在1980年經過政府土地細分之後一邊出現了出現一個大型購物中心，另一邊則是大型停車場。這些緩衝地帶設置一個圖書館和一間教堂在更右邊的地方。今天，交通運輸，主要商業街區以及新的住宅已經被興建完成了。終於，我預計這些街道將來可能擴大到穿越購物中心而被納入再發展計劃。已經公告的計劃包含很多購物中心上面即將開發興建的高級花園公寓。我認為，交通運輸是一個改造上的驅動力。他看起來像是這個樣子。你可以稍微分辨出在新的住宅大樓在辦公大樓和公共空間和新的大街之間的畏縮（疏離）。
這是我最喜歡的案例Belmar。我覺得他們真的在這做出一個很吸引人地場所並採用生態的構造方式。這些是厚重的P.V. 配置陣列，在屋頂設置排風渦輪。這是一個很大的購物中心在一個超大街廓上。這是22個可步行的街廓透過公共街道，兩個都市公園,，八條公車路線和一些住宅樣式。然這真的為Lakewood, Colorado的市區帶來不曾擁有的受歡迎的環境。這裡是全盛時期的購物中心。 他們在購物中心有自己的音樂會。他們熱愛他的購物中心。這裡是1975年的購物中心。購物中心在1995年沒落。這些百貨公司仍然存續。而我們發現在很多案例中可以看見這類改變。 百貨公司是多元化的混合商店，通常他們蓋的比較好。他們很容易適應。專櫃一間又一間的進駐。這真的是歷史。
這是另一個案例。我認為這個計劃是一個很棒的對於現有鄰里地區的網絡連結。提供1500個家戶一個更都市生活形態的的選擇。現在大約有三分之二建築工程完成。這是主要街道看起來的樣子。這相當成功。這計畫有助於刺激改變當地，Denver 的13個地區型購物中心裡面的8個有新的已經公告的地區改造的發展計劃。但值得注意的是這些改造計劃是現在進行式。推土機正在推動並正要推倒整個城市。不！ 推倒的是將設置土地上將來步行的區塊。所以給人們更多選擇。但是沒有剝奪任何選擇。
但這還是不夠，如果只是創造可供步行的口袋公園。你也會想試著達到越來越多的系統化運輸。我們也需要改造道路交通。所以這是加州的改造案例之一。他們讓商業帶呈現出多元的氣氛，設置一條林蔭大道變成他們都市的主要大街。把一個醜陋、不安全、令人討厭的地方變成一個美麗、吸引人、高貴的好地方。我是說現在我們希望也開始看見，他們已經建造了市政廳並吸引兩棟旅館經營者設置旅館。我可以想像美麗的住宅沿著發展出來而不用損毀其他林地生態，。這是很棒的事情。但我更希望看見更多的交通幹道被這樣改造。0413
緻密化運用在很多地方。有時候再綠化是一個很好的解決方案。從成功土地銀行的計劃中，有多可以學習的方法，例如，Flint密西根。在網路上也看的到一些非常成功的花園，也有一些發展迅速的郊區耕作運動。但是也許從再綠化觀點中最重要的一點是機會，恢復地區生態,的機會，如同明尼蘇達州的戶外案例。 當一個購物中心沒落，城市恢復了基地的原始濕地，創造出湖濱土地，若吸引私人投資投入，則這第一筆私人投入到這低收入的鄰近地區約長達40年。所以他們計劃同時恢復地區生態和地區經濟。這是另外一個再綠化的案例。這也是很合理在非常市場。這一個在西雅圖的地方是靠近一個新的交通站旁的停車場。而這波浪狀的線是一個路徑沿著溪流如今是一個活動聚集點。這條溪在停車場地下化。經過對溪流的日照能改善水質對於動植物棲息地有所貢獻。
所以我想呈現一些第一代的改造結果。下一個會是什麼？我想未來我們有三個挑戰。 第一個挑戰是去規劃更有系統地大都會尺度地改造計劃。我們需要可以更精準確認哪些地方真的需要被再綠化。哪些地方應該再開發？哪些地方需要促成住宅區（reinhabitation）？ 這些投影片顯示兩張圖面，這是在亞特蘭大改造計劃中的兩張圖片。我帶了一個團隊去描繪出亞特蘭大接下來的100年應該要有的風貌。 試著從三件事來翻轉—昂貴但是簡單。首先，在一百年內，透過主要鐵路和幹道運輸。其次，在一百年內，緩衝支流幹道底部上設置一千個緩衝設施.。這有極端，但是我們有一點地貌水文上的問題要克服。在一百年內。土地細分上 會使土地過於接近水域或是離公共運輸系統太遠，將會逐漸變得不合理。因此我們創造生態土地移轉來緩衝發展權利移轉到接近交通幹道附近的地方並且允許那些早期土地細分下的土地再綠化來栽種及從事生產。
第二個挑戰是改善樣式翻新的建築設計品質。而我同意接受民主體制運作下的結果. 這是一個反抗（反對）發生在Silver Spring的改建上，馬里蘭州，人工草皮的綠化。如今，「重建計劃」被控告為假的市中心和速食的都市主義的實例。毫無理由地，你不用接受這些假貨比Astroturf town的綠化。我得說，這些是很真假混合的場所。他們是新的，但試著要看起來是舊的東西。他們有他們有城市街景卻只有郊區的停車數量。這些地區的人口比典型的郊外更加不同，但是他們很接近城市。然後他們明明是公共場所, 但是被私人公司所經營管理。同時一如表面所呈現的 – 就像這裡的人工草皮 –他們讓我畏縮。所以你知道，我很高興都市主義正在作著他們的這些工作。真相是反對街廓規劃，街道和街廓，公共場所的增加,這些工作進行中，而妥協可能仍是一個重要的方法。但我們得讓我們的建築物更好。
最後的挑戰是給你們所有的人。我要你參加反對及積極開始更永續的郊區地方，更永續的郊區地方，期間。從文化的角度上，我們傾向這樣思考市區應該要有活力的，我們也這樣認為。但我們似乎總是期待郊區應該停滯在我們從出生到青少年時期的那個樣子。該是讓這些地區成長的時候了。所以我希望你們大家去支持那即將出現在你家附近的鄰近地區區域改變，道路規劃精簡效率化，改善基礎設施，翻新改進。
謝謝！
沒有留言:
張貼留言