List by different professors英文电子资料.docxVIP

1.???????“Managing Singapore’s Land Needs” (see? HYPERLINK .sg/Style%20Library/Ethos%20Documents/ETHOS_IS02.pdf \t _blank .sg/Style%20Library/Ethos%20Documents/ETHOS_IS02.pdf, pp 8-17), paper described the urban planning process. 2.???????“Integrated Planning for a Sustainable and Compact City” (see? HYPERLINK /EXTSDNET/Resources/Presentation1.pdf \t _blank /EXTSDNET/Resources/Presentation1.pdf), presentation showed the urban planning process. ? 3.???????“Designing our Cities – Planning for Sustainable Singapore” (see? HYPERLINK .sg/skyline/skyline12/skyline12-03/special/URA_Designing%20our%20City%20Supplement_July12.pdf \t _blank .sg/skyline/skyline12/skyline12-03/special/URA_Designing%20our%20City%20Supplement_July12.pdf), technical info on recent urban plan. Dear Shen Guoqiang ? Peter Hall made some good points. I would like to add only that, speaking of Britain since 1950, two other changes can be noted. First, following the assessment by sociologist Hebert Gans of ‘The Levittowners’, a lower middle-class speculative suburb in Long Island, New York, the views of consumers of new towns/new suburbs began to be seen as important. And what Gans showed, of course, was that while Levittown was scorned by Manhattan’s architectural elite for being tacky, those who moved there from claustrophobic tenements in Brooklyn and Queens loved it. It gave them the much-prized goals of home-ownership, private outdoor space and the possibility of automotive life-styles. ? Second, by the time the British were designing the ‘new city’ of Milton Keynes in the late 1960s, not only were many different forms of expertise present in the team (the ‘planners’ embraced Llewellyn Davies, an architect, Forestier-Walker and Bor, a planner) but thanks to consultant Melvin Webber from the University of California at Berkeley, it was accepted that the first step was to identify societal goals. So, a long time was spent debating what people moving to the ‘new city’ would want, and only then did the