题目内容
Joseph Rykwert entered his field when post-war modernist architecture was coming under fire for its alienating embodiment of outmoded social ideals. Think of the UN building in New York, the city of Brasilia, the UNESCO building in Paris, the blocks of housing "projects" throughout the world. These tall, uniform boxes are set back from the street, isolated by windswept plazas. They look inward to their own functions, presenting no "face" to the inhabitants of the city, no "place" for social interaction. For Mr. Rykwert, who rejects the functionalist spirit of the Athens Charter of 1933, a manifesto for much post-war building, such facelessness destroys the human meaning of the city. Architectural form should not rigidly follow function, but ought to reflect the needs of the social body it represents. Like other forms of representation, architecture is the embodiment of the decisions that go into its making, not the result of impersonal forces, market or history. Therefore, says Mr. Rykwert, adapting Joseph de Maistre"s dictum that a nation has the government it deserves, our cities have the faces they deserve. In this book, Mr. Rykwert. a noted urban historian of anthropological love, offers a flaneur"s approach to the city"s exterior surface rather than an urban history from the conceptual inside out. He does not drive, so his interaction with the city affords him a warts-and-all view with a sensual grasp of what it is to be a "place". His story of urbanization begins, not surprisingly, with the industrial revolution when populations shifted and increased, exacerbating problems of housing and crime. In the 19th century many planning programs and utopias (Ebenezer Howard"s garden city and Charles Fourier"s "phalansteries" among them) were proposed as remedies. These have left their mark on 20th-century cities, as did Baron Hausmann"s boulevards in Paris, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc"s and Owen Jones"s arguments for historical style, and Adolf Loos"s fateful turn-of-the-century call to abolish ornament which, in turn, inspired Le Corbusier"s bare functionalism. The reader will recognize all these ideas in the surfaces of the cities that hosted them: New York, Paris, London, and Vienna. Cities changed again after the Second World War as populations grew, technology raced and prosperity spread. Like it or not, today"s cities are the muddled product, among other things, of speed, greed, outmoded social agendas and ill-suited postmodern aesthetics. Some lament the old city"s death; others welcome its replacement by the electronically driven "global village". Mr. Rykwert has his worries, to be sure, but he does not see ruin or chaos everywhere. He defends the city as a human and social necessity. In Chandigarh, Canberra and New York he sees overall success; in New Delhi, Paris and Shanghai, large areas of falling. For Mr. Rykwert, a man on foot in the age of speeding virtual, good architecture may still show us a face where flaneurs can read the story of their urban setting in familiar metaphors. The author associates the issue of functionism with post-war modernist architecture because
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Joseph Rykwert entered his field when post-war modernist architecture was coming under fire for its alienating embodiment of outmoded social ideals. Think of the UN building in New York, the city of Brasilia, the UNESCO building in Paris, the blocks of housing "projects" throughout the world. These tall, uniform boxes are set back from the street, isolated by windswept plazas. They look inward to their own functions, presenting no "face" to the inhabitants of the city, no "place" for social interaction. For Mr. Rykwert, who rejects the functionalist spirit of the Athens Charter of 1933, a manifesto for much post-war building, such facelessness destroys the human meaning of the city. Architectural form should not rigidly follow function, but ought to reflect the needs of the social body it represents. Like other forms of representation, architecture is the embodiment of the decisions that go into its making, not the result of impersonal forces, market or history. Therefore, says Mr. Rykwert, adapting Joseph de Maistre"s dictum that a nation has the government it deserves, our cities have the faces they deserve. In this book, Mr. Rykwert. a noted urban historian of anthropological love, offers a flaneur"s approach to the city"s exterior surface rather than an urban history from the conceptual inside out. He does not drive, so his interaction with the city affords him a warts-and-all view with a sensual grasp of what it is to be a "place". His story of urbanization begins, not surprisingly, with the industrial revolution when populations shifted and increased, exacerbating problems of housing and crime. In the 19th century many planning programs and utopias (Ebenezer Howard"s garden city and Charles Fourier"s "phalansteries" among them) were proposed as remedies. These have left their mark on 20th-century cities, as did Baron Hausmann"s boulevards in Paris, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc"s and Owen Jones"s arguments for historical style, and Adolf Loos"s fateful turn-of-the-century call to abolish ornament which, in turn, inspired Le Corbusier"s bare functionalism. The reader will recognize all these ideas in the surfaces of the cities that hosted them: New York, Paris, London, and Vienna. Cities changed again after the Second World War as populations grew, technology raced and prosperity spread. Like it or not, today"s cities are the muddled product, among other things, of speed, greed, outmoded social agendas and ill-suited postmodern aesthetics. Some lament the old city"s death; others welcome its replacement by the electronically driven "global village". Mr. Rykwert has his worries, to be sure, but he does not see ruin or chaos everywhere. He defends the city as a human and social necessity. In Chandigarh, Canberra and New York he sees overall success; in New Delhi, Paris and Shanghai, large areas of falling. For Mr. Rykwert, a man on foot in the age of speeding virtual, good architecture may still show us a face where flaneurs can read the story of their urban setting in familiar metaphors. The last sentence of the second paragraph implies______.
Joseph Rykwert entered his field when post-war modernist architecture was coming under fire for its alienating embodiment of outmoded social ideals. Think of the UN building in New York, the city of Brasilia, the UNESCO building in Paris, the blocks of housing "projects" throughout the world. These tall, uniform boxes are set back from the street, isolated by windswept plazas. They look inward to their own functions, presenting no "face" to the inhabitants of the city, no "place" for social interaction. For Mr. Rykwert, who rejects the functionalist spirit of the Athens Charter of 1933, a manifesto for much post-war building, such facelessness destroys the human meaning of the city. Architectural form should not rigidly follow function, but ought to reflect the needs of the social body it represents. Like other forms of representation, architecture is the embodiment of the decisions that go into its making, not the result of impersonal forces, market or history. Therefore, says Mr. Rykwert, adapting Joseph de Maistre"s dictum that a nation has the government it deserves, our cities have the faces they deserve. In this book, Mr. Rykwert. a noted urban historian of anthropological love, offers a flaneur"s approach to the city"s exterior surface rather than an urban history from the conceptual inside out. He does not drive, so his interaction with the city affords him a warts-and-all view with a sensual grasp of what it is to be a "place". His story of urbanization begins, not surprisingly, with the industrial revolution when populations shifted and increased, exacerbating problems of housing and crime. In the 19th century many planning programs and utopias (Ebenezer Howard"s garden city and Charles Fourier"s "phalansteries" among them) were proposed as remedies. These have left their mark on 20th-century cities, as did Baron Hausmann"s boulevards in Paris, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc"s and Owen Jones"s arguments for historical style, and Adolf Loos"s fateful turn-of-the-century call to abolish ornament which, in turn, inspired Le Corbusier"s bare functionalism. The reader will recognize all these ideas in the surfaces of the cities that hosted them: New York, Paris, London, and Vienna. Cities changed again after the Second World War as populations grew, technology raced and prosperity spread. Like it or not, today"s cities are the muddled product, among other things, of speed, greed, outmoded social agendas and ill-suited postmodern aesthetics. Some lament the old city"s death; others welcome its replacement by the electronically driven "global village". Mr. Rykwert has his worries, to be sure, but he does not see ruin or chaos everywhere. He defends the city as a human and social necessity. In Chandigarh, Canberra and New York he sees overall success; in New Delhi, Paris and Shanghai, large areas of falling. For Mr. Rykwert, a man on foot in the age of speeding virtual, good architecture may still show us a face where flaneurs can read the story of their urban setting in familiar metaphors. 28 The word "exacerbating"(Para 4) means______.
Joseph Rykwert entered his field when post-war modernist architecture was coming under fire for its alienating embodiment of outmoded social ideals. Think of the UN building in New York, the city of Brasilia, the UNESCO building in Paris, the blocks of housing "projects" throughout the world. These tall, uniform boxes are set back from the street, isolated by windswept plazas. They look inward to their own functions, presenting no "face" to the inhabitants of the city, no "place" for social interaction. For Mr. Rykwert, who rejects the functionalist spirit of the Athens Charter of 1933, a manifesto for much post-war building, such facelessness destroys the human meaning of the city. Architectural form should not rigidly follow function, but ought to reflect the needs of the social body it represents. Like other forms of representation, architecture is the embodiment of the decisions that go into its making, not the result of impersonal forces, market or history. Therefore, says Mr. Rykwert, adapting Joseph de Maistre"s dictum that a nation has the government it deserves, our cities have the faces they deserve. In this book, Mr. Rykwert. a noted urban historian of anthropological love, offers a flaneur"s approach to the city"s exterior surface rather than an urban history from the conceptual inside out. He does not drive, so his interaction with the city affords him a warts-and-all view with a sensual grasp of what it is to be a "place". His story of urbanization begins, not surprisingly, with the industrial revolution when populations shifted and increased, exacerbating problems of housing and crime. In the 19th century many planning programs and utopias (Ebenezer Howard"s garden city and Charles Fourier"s "phalansteries" among them) were proposed as remedies. These have left their mark on 20th-century cities, as did Baron Hausmann"s boulevards in Paris, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc"s and Owen Jones"s arguments for historical style, and Adolf Loos"s fateful turn-of-the-century call to abolish ornament which, in turn, inspired Le Corbusier"s bare functionalism. The reader will recognize all these ideas in the surfaces of the cities that hosted them: New York, Paris, London, and Vienna. Cities changed again after the Second World War as populations grew, technology raced and prosperity spread. Like it or not, today"s cities are the muddled product, among other things, of speed, greed, outmoded social agendas and ill-suited postmodern aesthetics. Some lament the old city"s death; others welcome its replacement by the electronically driven "global village". Mr. Rykwert has his worries, to be sure, but he does not see ruin or chaos everywhere. He defends the city as a human and social necessity. In Chandigarh, Canberra and New York he sees overall success; in New Delhi, Paris and Shanghai, large areas of falling. For Mr. Rykwert, a man on foot in the age of speeding virtual, good architecture may still show us a face where flaneurs can read the story of their urban setting in familiar metaphors. According to Mr. Rykwert, he______.
Few people, except conspiracy theorists, would have expected so public a spat as the one this week between the two ringmasters of Formula One (F1) motor racing. Bernie Ecelestone, a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. It would seem with his longstanding associate, Max Mosley, president of F1"s governing body, the Federation International of Automobile (FIA). On the surface, the dispute has broken out over what looked like a done deal. Last June, the FIA voted unanimously to extend Mr. Ecelestone"s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast F1 racing, which expire in 2010. For these favorable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecelestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecelestone, who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecelestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the F1 rights after 2010, perhaps in a group of car makers that own F1 teams. For his part, Mr. Ecelestone has, rather theatrically, accused Mr. Mosley of "trying to do some extortion". What is going on Only three things can be stated with confidence. First, the idea that Mr. Ecelestone cannot find the 560 million is ridiculous: his family trust is not exactly short of cash. having raised around $2 billion in the past two years. Second. it would not be in Mr. Ecelestone"s long-term financial interest to discard a deal which could only enhance the value of his family"s remaining 50% stake in SLEC, the holding company for the group of companies that runs the commercial side of F1. Third, the timing of the dispute is very interesting. Why Because the other 50% stake in SLEC owned by EM. TV. a debt-ridden German media company, is up for sale. EM. TV badly needs to sell this stake in the near future to keep its bankers at dead end. The uncertainty created by the dispute between Mr. Ecelestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV"s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecetestone"s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV"s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecelestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion—and the better the deal Mr. Ecelestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV"s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecelestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecelestone has the fight to veto a plan proposed last December by Kireh, a privately owned German media group, to buy half of EM. TV"s holding for $550 million. In the coming weeks, Mr. Ecelestone will doubtless be deploying his formidable negotiating skills to best advantage. It would be hasty to bet against his securing a good deal out of EM. TV"s difficulties. His dispute with the F1A may then be easily resolved. As usual, he holds all the cards. FIA would give its partner the right to stage the racing till ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付