（外文文献翻译）
学生姓名：
学 院： 建筑学院
系 别： 城市规划系
专 业： 城市规划专业
班 级：
指导老师：
二 〇 一 三 年 六 月
外文文献1
题目:城市的共同点
简要说明：美国是一个幅员辽阔的大陆规模的国家，国土面积大,增加人口或国内生产总值明显。美国的趋势，乡村的经济发展的时候，例如考虑如何美国新城市规划的已经席卷英国，特别是在约翰·普雷斯科特满腔热情地通过了。现在，在欧洲，我们有一个运动自愿自下而上的地方当局联合会,西米德兰兹或大曼彻斯特地区的城市，这意味着当地政府的重新
组织。因此，在大西洋两侧的，这可能是一个虚假的黎明。这当然是一个看起来不成熟的凌乱与现有的正式的政府想违背的机构。但是,也许这是一个新的后现代的风格，像我们这样的社会管理自己的事务的征兆。有趣的是，在法国和德国的类似举措也一起萌生,它们可以代表重大的东西的开端。
出处:选自国外刊物《城市和乡村规划》中的一篇名为《城市的共同点》的文章。其作者为霍尔·彼得。
原文：
That long—reheard notion of American exceptionlism tends to recur whenever you riously engage with
events in that country。 For one thing, the United States is a vast continental-scale country-—far larger in area， although not of cour inopulation or GDP, than our European Union， let alone our tiny island or the even tinier strip of denlyrbanid territory that runs from the Susx Coast to the M62. For another——an associated （but too oftengnored） thing—-the United States has a federal system of government, meaning that your life (and even， if youappen to be a murderer, your death） is almost totally dependent on the politics of your own often—obscure Stateapitol， rather than on tho of far—distant Washington, DC。
And， stemming from tho two facts， America is an immenly Iocalid and even islatednation。 Particularlyif you happen to live in any of the 30 or so states that form its deep interior heartland， from an Americanvantage point the world—-even Washington, let alone Europe or China-—really is a very long way away.Although no—one ems exactly to know, it appears that an amazingly small number of Americans have apassport： maybe one in five at most。 And since I was reliably told on my recent visit that many Americans thinkthey need one to visit Hawaii， it's a fair bet that even fewer have ever truly ventured abroad。
That thought recurred repeatedly on the flight back， when in the airport bookstall I picked up a best-llingpiece of the higher journalism in which America excels， What’s the Matter with Kansas？， by Thomas Frank. Anative of Kansas, Frank pos the question: why in 2000 （and again in 2004） did George W。 Bush sweep somuch of his home state--as of most of the ’red America' heartland states-—when the people who voted for himwere voting for their own economic annihilation？ For Frank convincingly shows that they were denying theirown basic lf-interests--sometimes to the degree that
they were helping to throw themlves out of work.
The strange answer is that in 21st-century America， the neo—conrvatives have succeeded in fighting electionson non—economic， so-called moral issues——like abortion, or the teaching of intelligent design in the publicschools。 And the people at the bottom of the economic pile are the most likely to vote that way。
Well， we’re a long way behind that curve-—or ahead of it， you might say。 But American trends， howeverimplausible at the time, have an alarming way of arriving in the UK one or two decades later (just look at trashTV）. Who knows？ Maybe by 2016, orearlier， our own home—grown anti—evolutionists will be busily engaged inmass TV burnings of 10 [pounds sterling] notes—-assuming of cour that by then the portrait of Darwin hasn't been replaced by a Euro-bridge. Meanwhile， vive la difference.
Yet， despite such fundamental divides, the interesting fact is that in academic or professional life the intellectualcurrents and waves tend to respect no frontiers. Consider for instance how the American New Urbanismmovement has swept the UK, particularly af
ter John Prescott so enthusiastically adopted it and made it aLeitmotif of his Urban Summit a year ago。 And now, as Mike Teitz shows in his piece in this issue of Town &Country Planning, there's yet another remarkable development: apparently in complete independence, acityregionmovement is spring up over there， uncannily similar in some ways to what's happening here.
Just compare some parallels.
Here, we had metropolitan counties from 1973， when a Tory government created them， to 1986， when a Torygovernment abolished them. There， they had a movement for regional 'councils of governments’——but they wereweak and unpopular, and effectively faded away.
Now, we have a movement for city-regions as voluntary bottom-up federations of local authorities in certainareas, like the West Midlands or Greater Manchester, but without any suggestion that this means localgovernment re—organisation。 And there, they have what Mike Teitz calls regionalism by stealth: in California'slarger metropolitan areas， suc
h as Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area， there is a new movement thatmakes no attempt to create new regional agencies, but instead us any convenient existing agency in order toinvolve local governments cloly in updating their land u plans to reflect regional goals。
