Modernist housing estates in European cities of the Western and Eastern Blocs 西方和东方集团欧洲城市的现代主义住宅区
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, Großsiedlungen in Germany, Polı´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.
本文的目的是比较和对比主要发生在20世纪60年代和70年代的城市加速发展时期西方和东方建筑群中的现代主义住宅项目。显而易见的出发点是，东部地区的城市不同于西部地区的城市，因为它们的城市政策性质不同，中央计划经济，缺乏自由土地市场，工业化对建筑施工的影响等等。然而，城市规划和设计中有许多概念，以及城市过程和城市形式，这两种思想体系都有，并且在那个时期的住宅中可以清楚地认识到。本文对铁幕两侧修建的一些现代住宅区的性质进行了比较分析，如法国的Grands Ensembles、德国的Großsiedlungen、西班牙的Polıgonos de viviendas或东欧国家的社会主义住宅区等。目的是了解大众住房形式如何与《雅典宪章》中的现代主义国际城市文化相关联，以及在欧洲各地城市加速发展的那些年中，城市设计在西方或东方环境质量的显著损失中扮演了什么角色。
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
有影响力的共产主义建筑师和理论家埃德蒙·戈德扎姆（Edmund Goldzamt）在其著作《城市化》中称，社会主义国家的城市化可以被视为20世纪两次大战期间欧洲进步经验传统的延续。GaldZaMt认为，雅典宪章中包含的进步思想可以在社会主义计划经济中被假定。1，如果我们考虑苏联计划的这些创新情节，或者德国、匈牙利、Czechoslovakian或波兰建筑师在二战期间设计的先锋建筑和城市主义，他的陈述令人信服。事实上，在第二次世界大战后，当人们决定为日益增长的住房需求提供答案时，这些现代主义原则在东欧城市和西方城市的住宅区都得到了应用，并有一些变体。当然，正如术语本身所反映的那样，存在着明显的差异2，但我们也可以认识到铁幕两侧城市形态的许多共同特征。其中，自六十年代初以来，屋恏的环境质素大幅下降，当时屋恏数目激增，面积大幅增加。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.
住宅区，特别是现代主义住宅项目，一直是城市和规划史学中广泛文献的主题。虽然已经进行了许多地方研究，特别是关于城市的专著和对房地产的历史分析，但很少有与历史和现代争论相关的比较方法。4在采用这种方法时，有必要考虑一些公认的作家，如Edmund Goldzamt，在其他西方建筑师和规划师面前，从“社会主义”的角度理解现代都市主义；或者在这个关键时期，与西方相比，东方的住宅区的设计方式。
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?
本文阐述了关于参考模型中变化的感知、开眼界、尤里卡时刻和范式转换的性质的一些基本问题。同时，它还探讨了现代主义理想对这个充满悖论和歧义的复杂现实的现实意义。然后，介绍了根据这些进步和功能主义理念建造的西欧和东欧住宅区的一些例子，记住，建筑过程常常改变了现代主义理想中的“庸俗”的结果。5，我们试图考虑几个文化和国家的城市和规划传统，关注位于不同和复杂城市的住宅区的一些范例。6我们的方法是形态学的，强调的不是建筑，而是“城市和景观形式”，具有与城市历史学家、地理学家和建筑师的研究一致的开放视角，并应用折衷方法（城市形态的二次来源、地图和直接观察）。7与雷姆库哈斯在威尼斯双年展（2014年）上的提问一致，这是关于理解不同的“城市设计文化”是如何响应二十世纪的“现代主义力量”的。8鉴于西欧和东欧城市的不同城市进程，我们是否可以说这些只是欧洲城市现代化共同进程的不同阶段？现代主义理想是如何实现的不同政治和社会经济制度的变化？在这一特定时期，西方和东方城市对“现代城市乌托邦”的期望和实现之间的差距有多大？出了什么问题？出了多少次问题？
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.
许多史学解释都基于“不同阶段”假设，这意味着一些国家的早期现代化随后是其他国家（尤其是东方国家）的后期现代化。从比较的角度来看，它似乎并不那么明显。与西方（发达）和东方（落后）国家的不同阶段不同，城市增长条件的共同变化似乎几乎是同时发生的，发生在20世纪60年代和70年代，当时欧洲所有城市的房地产都在扩张，其规模也在显著增加。这里的问题是“现代规划和城市设计文化”的贡献和责任，它在东方和西方都有不同的版本，特别是在这几十年中的现代住宅区。正如欧盟委员会的一些官方报告所断言的那样，目前还不清楚所有这些现代住宅区是否“当时规划得很好”。9显然，并非所有这些住宅区都设计得很好，但城市设计都不应承担全部责任。
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
本文没有明确地考虑诸如市场状况、技术诀窍、人的行为、规划法、政治影响等重要问题，相反，它试图识别的是现代城市规划和设计文化模型的长处和短处，特别是在城市加速发展时期，激进的城市主义被应用。回顾这段现代主义建筑和城市历史，本文旨在提供更多的细微差别和比较观点，包括南欧的一些通常被忽视的例子
Modernist ideals, modernist mass housing, 1920s–1970s: paradoxes and contradictions 现代主义理想，现代主义大众住房，1920-1970：悖论与矛盾
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
在第二届国际现代建筑大会（CIAM 2（法兰克福，1929））和第三届国际建筑大会（布鲁塞尔，1930）上，沃尔特·格罗皮乌斯（Walter Gropius）以科学的精确性证明了旧住房模型（柏林的米特卡塞恩）所带来的问题，并支持将高层线性街区作为替代方案（图1）。带有传统街道的城市街区基本上已经过时。10相反，公路干线、孤立的高层建筑和绿地在现代主义布局中占据主导地位。这是一个重要的范式转变，与泰勒主义和福特主义（以及其他因素）的声望有关，这意味着城市空间秩序的新方式。11从20世纪20年代起，现代都市主义以住房和城市形式的根本创新为基础，12但这一点在格罗皮乌斯激进提案中通过明确的城市形式表达得最为明确。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.
根据这一规划和城市设计观点，我们可以假设，在第二次世界大战后，尽管存在不同的文化传统和社会政治状况（包括有趣的建筑和城市布局的一些例外），20世纪60年代和70年代的房地产使现代运动和《雅典宪章》（CIAM4，1933年，1943年出版）的功能主义和实用主义激进主义。当然，这是一个复杂、矛盾和自相矛盾的过程，因为大型住宅区开始按照CIAM原则建造，同时它们开始被不同的城市理论家和实践者拒绝。
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.
如果我们能确定一个“零小时”作为修改激进城市先锋派的起点，我们应该追溯到1950/1951年。1950年，东柏林通过了16项《城市规划十六项原则》。14几乎与此同时，1951年，城市中心举行了第八届国际城市会议。两个文本都表明，矛盾的是，尽管《雅典宪章》原则在20世纪50年代开始在各地传播，但随着对传统城市形式的重新思考，一个平行的修订过程已经开始形成势头。《城市规划十六项原则》与《雅典宪章》相呼应，将20世纪30年代的现代城市主义思想与斯大林时代的苏联概念相结合。15从这个意义上说，值得注意的是，“斯大林试图压扁重新崛起的现代主义，用一种赞美社会主义社会美德的新美学取代其遗产”，16不仅与“社会主义现实主义”有关，还与CIAM 8上的修正主义辩论有关，城市文化维度的重要性；质疑CIAM功能主义都市主义的另一种方式。
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
总而言之，第一次向现代性的共同范式转变发生在1933年至1943年，但现代主义原则的僵化很快导致了第二次世界大战后的第二次转变。它得到了“现代主义第二代”的支持，他们对旧城、城市核心和“心”的价值更为敏感，对传统城市空间的质量与现代主义城市空间的贫困之间的对比更为敏感，对新开发中缺乏城市性更为敏感，17当然，这并不是在所有地方同时发生的，而且各国和城市之间的城市规划传统各不相同，正如最近激烈的史学辩论所表明的那样，这一点仍然悬而未决。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世纪60年代初在西柏林和东柏林出版的两本书展示了乌托邦观点转变为批评和消极声音的速度。在西柏林，沃尔夫·乔布斯特·西德勒（Wolf Jobst Siedler）于1964年出版了《城市的毁灭》（TheMurded City）和伊丽莎白·尼格梅耶（Elisabeth Niggemeyer）的照片，这是一个重要的里程碑。一年前，根据布里吉特·莱曼（Brigitte Reimann）和赫尔曼·亨塞尔曼（Hermann Henselmann）之间收集的信件，《明日之城》（The City of明日之城）已经提供了来自东区的其他批评意见。然而，批评无处不在：J.Jacobs（1961）、G.Cullen（1961）、C.Alexander（1964）、A.Mitscherlich（1965）或A.Rossi（1984）的作品完美地说明了对现代都市主义某些方面日益增长的批评和排斥，尤其是20世纪60年代在西部或东部城市修建的大型住宅项目。19通过一些变体，大多数批评总结了以下问题和弱点：由于单一的功能分区，缺乏城市生活；忽视大型房地产和建筑物中的人的规模；孤立和零散的城市群体融入城市的困难等。
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.
无论如何，批评的影响和“现代主义第二代”的观点都不是特别显著的，因为从1950年代末开始，不断扩大的屋面积和快速的建筑过程成为常态。从那一刻起，从现代城市主义唤醒的巨大期望到对失败的质疑和最终验证的转变是短暂和决定性的。
Modernist housing estates in Western and Eastern Blocs: ‘Modern urban culture mistake’ or ‘low-quality urban design’? 东西方建筑群中的现代主义住宅区：“现代城市文化错误”还是“低质量城市设计”？
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世纪60年代和70年代，欧洲各地的大型住宅区的建设和扩散是异常的。这首先是由于住房严重短缺以及愿意迅速解决这一问题；其次，由于标准化和预制提供了快速建造的可能性，因此，规划者和政府都发现，假设CIAM理论很方便。当这些原则在城市加速增长的背景下迅速被采纳时，问题就出现了。当然，现代建筑和城市规划带来了无可争议的生活质量和宜居性的改善，但他们也带来了值得注意的弱点，由于过度的激进的城市创新和对城市和建筑设计的有限关注。20，而不是谈论一个“错误”在现代城市文化的陈述中，我们应该考虑到庸俗化的CIAM原则在20世纪60年代和城市设计和建筑中普遍存在的低环境质量。21这在西方和东方都发生了，作为一种惊人的统一力量，它“挑战了冷战的二分法”，22随后的例子就是证据
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:
与其他西欧国家一样，英国的现代主义传统如此深厚，“现代运动最终成为20世纪60年代的新正统”。23关于住房模式的激烈辩论和斗争产生了重要的例子，如皮姆利科的丘吉尔花园（1946-1962），一个真正的高质量城市形式实验室，或者伦敦西部的罗汉普顿公寓（奥尔顿东部和奥尔顿西部，1953年），表达了英国的“科尔布西梦想”。24谢菲尔德公园山住宅项目（1954-1961年），“战后最著名的公共住房计划之一”和第一个显示期望与实现之间差距的范例集之一“获得了有条件的批判性批准”。25该计划完成后不久，评论家雷纳·巴纳姆（Reyner Banham）毫不吝惜地赞扬：
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似乎代表了一种罕见的情况，即创建某种建筑的意图碰巧遇到了一个无法以任何其他方式处理的方案和场地，结果只有当美学方案和功能性机会相遇并立即融合时，才会产生清晰的效果，就像在罗通达别墅一样。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).、
然而，自20世纪50年代末以来，“现代主义与社会住房以及那些别无选择的人的住房有着不可磨灭的联系”。27那么，出了什么问题？帕克山的衰落很快就到来了，这主要是由于钢铁工业的破坏，也由于议会的住房政策破坏了最初的平等理想：帕克山成了受压迫的下层阶级的贫民区，一个贫民区。但城市和建筑设计也导致了庄园的衰落：无人拥有的公共空间很快就变成了被忽视和荒凉的走廊，“激进的现代主义概念”导致了建筑解决方案的完全标准化，这不是促进新居民占用土地的最佳方式28（图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街区（1966-1972）也是现代城市规划的典范。它被描述为摩托化时代的高级郊区，这是最激进的功能主义者的成就。29奇怪的是，即使作者是光荣的前一代伟大建筑师（范·埃斯特伦，巴科马）的门徒，我们可以在这个大型庄园的激进和简化形式与精心设计的现代主义阿姆斯特丹西部扩建之间找到强烈的对比。30比杰尔默米尔建成仅10年后，这个现代标志就变成了公认的错误，就像发生在帕克山一样。31那么，这次出了什么问题？1975年荷兰前殖民地苏里南独立后，Bijlmermeer的修建与大量移民流动同时进行，导致许多移民居住在那里。但这并不是失败的唯一原因。除了这些社会问题之外，过度的野心导致人们相信，一个大型城市项目可以像一个大型建筑项目一样进行构思和设计。Bijlmermeer展示了随着规模的增加和概念的激进主义，项目如何变得更加复杂。32正如Rem Koolhaas所说，“Bijlmer代表了一种在回顾中实现的特定建筑理念。如此近却又如此远。战前CIAM城市主义在60年代末实现。33在这里，我们看到了在60年代应用战前CIAM原则的悖论，当时这些原则已经被拒绝。同样，城市和建筑设计不是造成这些问题的唯一原因，但它显示了这些巨型建筑的局限性（图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).
现在看看巴黎郊区的Sarcelles（1955-1970），我们发现了一个最重要的法国案例——一种大合奏的原型；34代表了现代主义概念的彻底应用和建筑解决方案的绝对标准化的明显例子。它在水平住宅板中的整体结构是严格按照理性主义的CIAM原则在刚性网格中组织的，而很少关注战后早期的城市形式，如勒阿弗尔或蒙特罗日（1955-1958）。现有文献具有强烈的批判性（与前面的例子一样），部分原因是预制的普遍使用导致了20世纪60年代的普遍拒绝。35尽管在一些大合奏中进行了大量的实验（例如在图卢兹勒米拉尔，一种类似帕克山或比杰尔梅米尔的“巨型结构”）结果很差：导致形态单调，建筑坚硬，缺乏设施、商业区和活动。Sarcelles将其命名为mal des grands ensembles，la Sarcellite或sarcellitis，36这一事实足以说明问题（图4）。
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 Großsiedlungen 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 Großsiedlungen 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).
在所有不同的欧洲城市文化中，德国自魏玛共和国以来脱颖而出，因为其深厚的现代主义传统与社会住房计划相联系。参考建筑师如W.格罗皮乌斯、H.迈耶、B.托特和E.梅在两次大战期间对大众住房进行了系统的反思，德国城市成为了大型住宅区的真正实验室。格罗皮乌斯本人（与威尔斯·埃伯特和他的美国办公室建筑师合作组织（TAC）一起）是柏林最具代表性的格罗西德隆根之一：格罗皮乌斯塔特（1962-1975）的作者。这个非同寻常的例子为我们提供了有趣的线索，让我们了解这些大型屋苑的一些优势和劣势，与50年代以前的经验形成对比。这座大型住宅区是否“当时规划得很好？”尽管类型多样，但激进的现代信条（过于流畅、开放，没有明确的空间定义，也没有明确的等级制度）占主导地位。现代主义发展的形象因为与毒品和社会问题联系在一起而受到质疑，尤其是在一位住在这座大型住宅区的青少年成功地完成了一本书之后。同样，城市形式被认为是造成这些问题的原因。尽管存在这种相当不公平的关联，但最近的分析发现，原始项目和地产布局中存在许多弱点（以及优势）。37碰巧，西柏林的格罗皮斯塔特和马尔基什·维特尔（1963-1974）38可以被视为“教科书式的例子”对于Großsiedlungen体验”，39这两个例子都是根据类似的城市原则，以高大的街区和巨大的开放空间来定义的，与grands ensembles或其荷兰和英国等效物在概念上没有什么不同（图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 Großsiedlungen 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 Großsiedlungen 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).
在所有不同的欧洲城市文化中，德国自魏玛共和国以来脱颖而出，因为其深厚的现代主义传统与社会住房计划相联系。参考建筑师如W.格罗皮乌斯、H.迈耶、B.托特和E.梅在两次大战期间对大众住房进行了系统的反思，德国城市成为了大型住宅区的真正实验室。格罗皮乌斯本人（与威尔斯·埃伯特和他的美国办公室建筑师合作组织（TAC）一起）是柏林最具代表性的格罗西德隆根之一：格罗皮乌斯塔特（1962-1975）的作者。这个非同寻常的例子为我们提供了有趣的线索，让我们了解这些大型屋苑的一些优势和劣势，与50年代以前的经验形成对比。这座大型住宅区是否“当时规划得很好？”尽管类型多样，但激进的现代信条（过于流畅、开放，没有明确的空间定义，也没有明确的等级制度）占主导地位。现代主义发展的形象因为与毒品和社会问题联系在一起而受到质疑，尤其是在一位住在这座大型住宅区的青少年成功地完成了一本书之后。同样，城市形式被认为是造成这些问题的原因。尽管存在这种相当不公平的关联，但最近的分析发现，原始项目和地产布局中存在许多弱点（以及优势）。37碰巧，西柏林的格罗皮斯塔特和马尔基什·维特尔（1963-1974）38可以被视为“教科书式的例子”对于Großsiedlungen体验”，39这两个例子都是根据类似的城市原则，以高大的街区和巨大的开放空间来定义的，与grands ensembles或其荷兰和英国等效物在概念上没有什么不同（图5）。
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、 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).
人们对南欧住宅区的经验普遍关注较少。在意大利，现代主义传统在第二次世界大战后有了自身的发展，并在20世纪60年代的城市化中成为新的正统观念。40与其他南欧城市一样，20世纪60年代的经济发展导致自建社区、博盖特和大众住宅区的激增，产生有趣的例子。41米兰的卡格尼诺四重奏（1964-1973）42与20世纪50年代的经历形成强烈对比，例如米兰的第八重奏（1953年）或罗马的塔斯科拉诺（1950-1952年）。该房地产从一开始就有几个问题，正如前面提到的其他案例研究中所发生的那样，这些问题不仅仅是城市或建筑性质的：例如，法律框架将公共房地产的开发限制在经济地块的可用性上，有时，如在巴黎，是城市的边缘附录。43“1961年规划的12万套公共住房变成了一个居住区星系，位于任何可供建设的区域，即最遥远的郊区”。44除此之外，该计划的经济局限性阻碍了原项目的全面发展，它提供了精心设计的中间空间和不同的住房类型，特别注意公共空间与私人空间的连接。与以前的其他案例一样，这些变化导致公共空间的贫困和房地产的低城市质量（图6）。
Spain shares with Italy a common urban design culture related to a tradition of ‘urbanism’ that differs conceptually from the Anglo-Saxon ‘town planning’:
西班牙与意大利有着共同的城市设计文化，与“城市主义”传统相关，这在概念上与盎格鲁-撒克逊“城市规划”不同：
In that structure, as a valuable intermediate step between the city-municipality and the familyhouse, the ‘barrio-polı´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 ‘polı´gonos’ (housing estates) in Spain, although with the ambiguity that the use of a definition implies, resorting only to the assistance of geometry.46
在该结构中，作为城市市政当局和家庭住宅之间的一个重要中间步骤，引入了“barrio polı´gono”；英国城市规划师的“邻舍单元”、德国人的“Siedlungen”或法国人的“grands ensembles”在西班牙被命名为“polı´´gonos”（住宅区），尽管使用定义意味着含糊不清，只能借助几何学。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’ polı´gonos de viviendas of the 1950s contrast with ‘an avalanche of low-quality architectural projects’ that characterized a large part of 1960s and 1970s modern Spanish peripheries.48
在马德里，在西班牙的其他城市，也有许多其他50年代和60年代建造的现代住宅区的好例子，例如在遗产机构中“列出”的那些，例如现代运动建筑、遗址和街区的文献和保护国际工作组（DoCoMo）Ibe'rico.47然后，与其他西方城市和国家一样，这座早期的“精心规划”的1950年代的“活火山”与“大量低质量建筑项目”形成了鲜明对比，后者是20世纪60年代和70年代西班牙现代外围地区的一大特点。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
马德里的格兰圣布拉斯（Gran San Blas，1958-1963），49西班牙当时最大的住宅区，是基于将一个地区划分为邻里单元的现代主义概念。在这种情况下，适用于不同单位的不同解决方案表明，没有统一的方法，对《雅典宪章》原则的态度也各不相同。这种情况有助于避免其他地产的单调。奇怪的是，根据CIAM原则设计的单元保持了一定的城市质量，因为开放空间和建筑的大小有所减少，并且比例适当；有力的证据证明了量表的重要性。在Gran San Blas，主要问题在于未建成区域和被忽视的开放空间。这在一定程度上是不同单元之间剩余空间定义的结果，因为体积选项在设计提案中起主要作用。还有另一个需要考虑的重要因素：建筑和居住类型的过时，最初被认为居住着来自棚户区的人口（图7）。50
Also in Barcelona the poverty and inflexibility of most of the urban layouts of the polı´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 polı´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
同样在巴塞罗那，生活宫的大多数城市布局的贫困和僵化反映了对现代建筑文化信条的严格解释。当然，私人和公共开发商简化项目以获得严格住房生产的最佳条件的愿望很容易得到承认。这是一种普遍的情况，并不妨碍某些实验产生一些有趣的结果。这就是所谓的贝索西南庄园（1959-1961）的情况，51这是巴塞罗那最大的住宅区，建于该市东北部地区。它可以作为典型的polıı´gono de vivienda的一个例子，即使它同时也是一个例子：“不同的长度和高度，不同的间隔和厚度，具有相当不同的建筑和住房类型，显示出创新的意志，这将产生一个与同一城市和同一时期的其他建筑项目相比的高质量建筑项目”（图7）。52
In Saragossa the polı´gonos de viviendas Ebro Viejo (1964–1970) and Gran Vı´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
在萨拉戈萨，埃布罗·维耶霍（1964-1970年）和格兰·维耶拉·罗马雷达（1961-1975年）53号生命线的设计也符合现代主义城市原则，即使它们的应用不是那么激进，公共空间的规模也相当国内化。与其他许多城市质量较差的地产相比，与贝索的西南地区一起，它们是当时最好的地产之一。然而，其中一些城市再次出现了问题：作为独立的城市碎片的设计导致了孤立，两者之间的空间既没有很好的界定也没有得到维护（无人区），等等。此外，在埃布罗·维乔，商业设施位置和设计的僵化已经过时：大多数小商店，这有助于配置住宅公共空间，这些空间被遗弃在庄园内部。另一方面，尽管建筑物维护良好，但缺少一些设施，如电梯，已导致公寓价值的损失，并已成为老年人口最重要的问题之一（图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.
对这些西班牙实例的分析再次表明，在不同的项目战略和由此产生的城市形式中都可以发现异质性。在这些相对独立的单元（作为一个整体进行规划和管理）的背景下，在房地产的形态、中间空间的设计和规模以及它们在地形中的整合方式方面，存在着多种多样的整合，在塔楼和石板的建筑中，有助于它们的形态定义。然而，在所有这些城市中，现代主义城市原则的遗产构成了城市设计的基础。许多都具有整体性，部分原因是缺乏类型多样性。一般来说，上述大部分屋苑都有共同的成就、弱点和困难。然而，在西班牙的例子中，与其他欧洲国家有一个重要的区别：在许多情况下，住宅被出售并成为私有财产，因此，社会衰落并不像我们在帕克山、比杰尔梅梅尔或马尔基什·维特尔看到的那样明显，贫民窟的存在也没有那么极端。
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
与西方国家一样，第二次世界大战后住房严重短缺导致几乎所有地方的城市化进程加速，显然存在一些差异，而现代主义理想似乎完全适合新的环境。正因为如此，20世纪30年代西欧的前卫建筑师来到苏联，他们的强烈想法是“现代房屋建造方式最好是遵循福特汽车的生产方法”可以被视为是对CIAM一些基本原则的选择性借用。55因此，东部新屋基于现代主义城市设计范式，正如“有机城市主义”和邻里单元概念一样，这是新城市规划的基础。因此，毫不奇怪，与西方同行有着明显联系的1935年莫斯科计划也为其他苏联城市确立了这些新的城市原则。56与《雅典宪章》的精神相同，10条“社会主义城市规划原则”中的第三条规定了居住单元的特征。57后来，在战后苏联城市规划中，人造丝成为基本规划单元。58理想的共产主义城市，阿列克谢·古特诺夫（Alexei Gutnov）和其他苏联城市规划师和社会学家于20世纪50年代末撰写的一本书，展示了与俄罗斯正在发生的物理环境的新组织相关的理念和模型的更新。59 Goldzamt对社会主义时期东方国家城市文化的回顾也通过其对东方城市住宅区的广泛描述提供了关键信息。60概念的演变Goldzamt解释说，从邻里单位到“社会安置”和人造丝，符合理想和自给自足社区的概念。与西方国家一样，微人造丝被视为住宅开发的基本单元，尽管其规模不同。除了这个问题之外，我们还可以看到与国际上占主导地位的功能主义和有机城市主义的一些特点，但也有重要的相似之处。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，可以说，东方集团城市的住宅区既是现代都市主义的表现，也是社会主义城市政策的表现。特别是，利迪亚·库德罗·德·里尔（Lydia Coudroy de Lille）指出，作为大众住宅区基础的那些理论公式先于欧洲社会主义的建立，并不同于苏联革命城市主义，尽管大型住宅区到处都采用塔楼和楼板的模式。德里尔甚至将现代城市的地位（尽管上气不接下气）授予了“社会主义者大合唱团”。62这里的问题是，1955年后发生了重大变化，当时社会主义城市主义彻底采纳了欧洲激进的“开放城市主义”模式。在苏联的领导下，参考可接受的西方规划模式变得更加普遍。正如S.沃德所断言的那样。到了1960年，现代主义的激进根源和1930年代与苏联的联系也被重新发现。63从这个意义上说，令人惊讶的是，尽管20世纪60年代大规模住房生产的特点是实用主义，但在一些东方国家却达到了实验主义的程度，如埃拉特里亚（1967年）的项目、佩特兹·阿尔克（Petrzˇalk）（1967年）和维尔纽斯（1969年）64但这些只是例外。众所周知，与两次世界大战期间的实验主义相反，建造大型住宅区更为务实，而不是“社会主义城市的典范”。65正如西方国家所发生的那样，几乎所有东方国家的住房政策都在采取more到20世纪50年代后期，实际转向大规模生产。事实上，自20世纪60年代以来，东部地区城市的城市景观，尤其是郊区景观，是由一些以重复标准建筑为特征的形式的扩散形成的。66在这方面，保罗·韦利等作家反思了n新贝尔格莱德的特例是大剧院。67但是关于国际城市规划文化在东部城市的影响的描述仍然不完整。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:
从逻辑上讲，尽管斯大林主义时期曾试图与西方城市主义区分开来，但莫斯科与国际现代城市文化的延续性更强。经济准则决定了“第一代”屋的大型嵌板和大型砌块建筑的标准设计的选择。与预制相关的问题在20世纪60年代建造的大型房地产中变得显而易见。在克鲁舍夫时代，工业化和预制的承诺导致了众所周知的城市地产形式的后果：
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
采用了最小数量的公寓和公寓房屋类型。建筑密度不高，房屋在空间中自由“漂浮”，没有组织空间。所有这些情况加在一起，形成了单调乏味的居住环境
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
作为单调问题的“解决方案”，大型住宅开发被分割成更小的街区，这些街区按照相同的结构方案进行布置：混合建筑模式的内部绿色空间，以及低容积和垂直塔楼之间的对比游戏，等。莫斯科东北部的Khimki Khovrino区（1960年至1966年）和其他地区（如Fili Izmajlovo或Chorosevo Mnevniki）的大片区域可以被称为这些新趋势的特色住宅区。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
与俄罗斯城市不同，社会主义街区的其他部分在战后时期与现代主义传统缺乏一定的连续性。就德意志民主共和国的城市而言，一个重要的区别在于其建设与工业定居点相联系。与西方城市模式不同，根据20世纪30年代早期的苏联城市规划，工业是“城市建设者”（例如20世纪50年代的马格尼托戈尔斯克或艾森豪特斯坦特新城）。这种情况带来了一个新问题：当工厂关闭时，城市被废弃了。另一个有趣的问题是仍然相当封闭和紧凑的城市形式的持续存在，这更多地与维纳霍夫有关，而不是与从那时起就占据主导地位的楼板的激进主义有关。71在一个典型的城市，如冷战首都柏林，我们可以找到东部大型住宅区最具特色的一个特征：无论它们是建于历史悠久的市中心（费舍林塞尔，自1967年以来）还是郊区（马尔扎恩，自1975年以来），它们都带有预制混凝土砌块的思想，由于国家规定这是首选系统。72然而，这些大型地产大多位于远离中心的西欧城市，一些作者认为，除了一些例外，这些新市镇失败的原因是：“唯一真正成功的新市镇是Halle Neustadt，有吸引力，因为它靠近一个古老的大城镇。73谈到房地产的数量和规模，有必要注意到，1990年重新统一时，17个大型预制板房地产居住着东柏林的大部分人口，共有270000套公寓，居住着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.
同样在波兰，可能是战后现代主义规划文化最为重要的社会主义国家，75工业的存在是一个决定性因素：1920年代和1930年代的苏联概念以及苏联五年计划76的经验在波兰的地产中是可以认识的。波兰靠近克拉科夫的大型住宅区Nowa Huta是最重要的事件，它试图从苏联的正面和负面经验中学习（图8）。鉴于房地产的巨大规模和每个住宅单元的自治组织（osiedle），77种城市形式与非常不同的城市规划共存。正如我们之前所提到的，20世纪50年代建造的第一批住宅单元中街道和广场系统的主导地位与比恩齐斯（50000居民）或Wzgorza Krzeslavicie（11000居民）后期的开放城市化形成对比；最后一幅被选为戈尔扎姆特参考书封面的图像。线性街区的连续性，规则地排列在宽阔的绿地中，并与分层组织的交通网络相关，78揭示了CIAM城市主义的遗产，即使雅典宪章从未直接解决工业与城市之间的关系问题。
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´padnı´ 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).
与波兰城市发生的情况类似，布拉格看到现代主义传统在战后得以延续。例如Solidarita（1947-1949）或Invalidovna（1950-1965）等住宅区（sidliste）就是这种连续性的一个很好的例子。79尽管Panelak的整体城市化占主导地位，但重要的实验发生在社会主义时期的中心年份，产生了一些与国际城市和建筑文化中最优质的方案相当的方案。最近的大型房地产建于20世纪80年代后半期和90年代初，如位于城市北部的博尼茨和Jihoza ` padnı` Meˊsto（西南城镇），再次确认这些大型住宅区符合功能主义和理性主义标准，属于国际现代主义文化，街区和塔楼松散地排列在安静的区域内，有操场和绿地（图9）。
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).
与其他苏维埃共和国一样，乌克兰的住房生产依赖于莫斯科建设部作出的决定。80因此，即使有一些试验性住房项目，特别是在1960年代，乌克兰的住房生产与俄罗斯的住房有很大的相似性。与东方集团的其他国家一样，城市是根据1935年《莫斯科总体规划》的原则规划的。直到20世纪80年代，大型住宅区仍然是总住房存量的重要组成部分，其形式仍然受到莫斯科计划的影响，主要是在第一代。81晚期住宅区，如利沃夫的Sykhivs'kyi区，“城市的整体象征之一”，该区于20世纪70年代开始建设，也可以与其他西方国家的例子相比较。82值得一提的是基辅的Rusanivska mikrorayon（1961年至1974年），计划作为一个与工业没有直接联系的示范睡眠区。83最近对东欧城市的这些和其他住宅区的调查和访问证实，它们的主要问题不在于公共空间和城市设计的定义，而在于各州的大规模建设质量低下，以及，在某些情况下，他们放弃了与之相关的工业区（图9）。
Concluding remarks: similarities and contrasts of a common legacy
结束语：共同遗产的相似之处和对比
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.
让我们回到我们最初的问题，即20世纪60年代和70年代欧洲东西部城市的现代主义住宅项目之间的对比和相似之处。从形态学的角度来看，我们发现差异并不那么相关。
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.
第一个明显的区别是，我们发现东部城市比西部城市有更多大规模的大规模住房项目，住房类型更加同质。同样值得注意的是，东部地区的建筑质量较低，主要是由于经济原因。此外，国家行政部门对标准化和预制的承诺以及普遍实施的统一规范，符合统一住房是居民平等标志的社会主义理念，导致了东部城市景观的彻底同质化和整体化。因此，大部分混合人口居住在东部国家的大型住宅区；没有我们在其他西方城市所发现的社会贫民区。同样不容忽视的是，东西方城市形态的不同版本也是不同城市政策、土地占有、社会主义国家集中规划的可能性、预制的承诺等的结果。
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
但我们不应忘记，西方城市之间也存在差异。例如，在大多数西北欧和中西欧城市（德国、英国、甚至法国），住宅区、城市形态和周边街区形态之间的对比比南欧城市更大，那里的高层建筑和平板建筑与低密度郊区形成对比（在意大利或西班牙），我们在城市形式中发现了更多的连续性。因此，应该重新考虑西方/东方或“资本主义”/“社会主义”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.
尽管如此，尽管在上述时期东西方之间存在着这些差异，但在铁幕的两侧都明显存在着与最激进的现代主义建筑风格相近的城市设计策略应用的相似之处。事实上，在1960年代和1970年代建造的各处住宅区和城市形式的相似之处是显而易见的。正如沃森伯格所说，在那个时代，高层住宅占据了建筑的主导地位，在住宅建设中，从来没有一个时期的国家之间的相似性如此之大。84实际上，在东方和西方，应用CIAMP原则的策略和实验是相似的。战后早期范例的伟大实验与20世纪60年代和70年代项目的日益标准化和激进主义之间的强烈反差导致了《雅典宪章》的庸俗化，这在东方和西方也是一个类似的过程。当然也有一些有趣和成功的例子，但它们只是低质量项目景观中的例外，这些项目几乎是在城市加速发展时期建造的所有欧洲城市外围的特征。
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
显然，现代主义城市文化对几十年来建成的房地产环境质量和城市性的重大损失的责任必须仔细界定：随着CIAM宗旨变得更加激进、更大和标准化，现代城市规划开始失败，因此，当城市设计发展时，人们显然不那么在意。即使这听起来过于笼统，应该细致入微，我们也同意雷姆·库哈斯（Rem Koolhaas）当年的批判性观点，特别是关于大型住宅区的批判性观点：“现代主义的炼金承诺——通过抽象和重复将数量转化为质量——已经失败了，这是一场恶作剧：魔法根本不起作用。它的思想、美学、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.
在这方面，考虑到欧盟委员会目前对住宅小区的诊断是很有意思的。国际网络的建立，如重组欧洲城市的大型住宅区（重述），86证明了现代主义住宅区遗产的相关性和知识复杂性，东方和西方的类似问题与激进现代城市形式的承诺有关，这是一个需要清晰和创造性地解决的问题。
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).
无论如何，现代主义模式的国际有效性最终可能是模棱两可和自相矛盾的。艺术和文学展示了相似的城市形式如何服务于不同的意识形态。让我们以这方面的一些引文作为结束，其中提到历史的讽刺和矛盾。Brigitte Reimann在关于柏林的日记中写道：“我有一个怀疑：现代建筑看起来像是在西方和东方。”。西班牙作家哈维尔·佩雷斯·安杜贾尔在提到巴塞罗那郊区时也这样表达：“一个可以与世界各地其他城市互换的景观。在感觉自己是一个国家、一个祖国或民族的一部分之前，我希望自己属于世界的一部分。同样，斯洛文尼亚艺术家Marjetica Potrcˇ讽刺地揭示了“现代主义工程”的乌托邦性质：人人平等和正义。在西部和东部87（图10）。图10）。
