The federal urban renewal program began in 1949, during a period when professional planners, designers, and public officials generally favored technocratic solutions to urban problems. By the time it concluded in 1974, many policy makers had come to question their ability to even adequately characterize the problems they faced, let alone identify causes or solutions. The path to this realization was far from direct, and the route traveled was not limited to large metropolitan centers. Instead, it was the combined result of the experiences of small and large cities across the country learning often painful lessons about the interconnected nature of social and urban design issues in the mid-twentieth American city. By doing more to recognize the geographic diversity of the communities that made use of urban renewal funds, we hope that this special issue will provide a better understanding of who was affected by the program, how they were affected, and how those community members responded. There are, of course, far more small cities in the United States than large cities, and while few of these cities have the cultural or economic influence of their largest counterparts, their collective experience more accurately reflects the course and consequences of urban renewal for the nation as a whole. And while it is unlikely that all 1, 258 localities to have had an urban renewal grant approved will ever have their stories told, expanding the list of communities that we use to draw conclusions about the urban renewal program will identify new areas for urban renewal research and help to better connect the program to other themes within urban planning history. The articles in this special issue ask us to reframe the geography and scale of urban renewal and of urban history generally. This history has tended to focus on the larger cities of the Northeast and Midwest. This is understandable, given the age and size of these cities and the postwar decline (the so-called urban crisis) that many endured. Yet through 1966, cities with fewer than 100,000 residents accounted for about seven-eighths of the locations undertaking urban renewal projects, and about two-third of the urban renewal projects were located in those places. Although these smaller cities accounted for only about 35 percent of federal urban renewal funds, the impact on these places

中文翻译：

---

小城市更新专刊介绍

联邦城市更新计划始于1949年，当时专业的规划师，设计师和政府官员普遍倾向于采用技术官僚的方式解决城市问题。到1974年它结束时，许多决策者开始质疑他们是否能够充分地描述所面临问题的能力，更不用说查明原因或解决方案了。实现这一目标的途径远非直接，而且所走的路线并不局限于大型都会中心。取而代之的是，这是美国各地大小城市经验的综合结果，这些经验教训往往是关于二十世纪中叶美国城市社会与城市设计问题相互联系的本质的痛苦教训。通过更多地认识到利用城市更新资金的社区的地域多样性，我们希望通过本期专刊可以更好地了解谁受到该计划的影响，他们如何受到影响以及这些社区成员如何回应。当然，美国的小城市比大城市要多得多，虽然这些城市中很少有最大的城市具有文化或经济影响力，但它们的集体经验更准确地反映了城市更新的进程和后果。整个国家。尽管不太可能将所有1,258个获得城市更新拨款批准的地区都讲述其故事，但扩大我们用来得出城市更新计划结论的社区列表将为城市更新研究确定新领域并将其更好地与城市规划历史中的其他主题联系起来。本期特刊的文章要求我们重新定义城市更新和城市历史的地理和规模。这段历史倾向于集中在东北和中西部的大城市。考虑到这些城市的年龄和规模以及许多人忍受的战后衰落（所谓的城市危机），这是可以理解的。但是到1966年，人口少于100,000的城市约占进行城市更新项目的地区的八分之八，约有三分之二的城市更新项目位于这些地区。尽管这些较小的城市仅占联邦城市更新资金的35％，但对这些地方的影响 这段历史倾向于集中在东北和中西部的大城市。考虑到这些城市的年龄和规模以及许多人忍受的战后衰落（所谓的城市危机），这是可以理解的。但是到1966年，人口少于100,000的城市约占进行城市更新项目的地区的八分之八，约有三分之二的城市更新项目位于这些地区。尽管这些较小的城市仅占联邦城市更新资金的35％，但对这些地方的影响 这段历史倾向于集中在东北和中西部的大城市。考虑到这些城市的年龄和规模以及许多人忍受的战后衰落（所谓的城市危机），这是可以理解的。但是到1966年，人口少于100,000的城市约占进行城市更新项目的地区的八分之八，约有三分之二的城市更新项目位于这些地区。尽管这些较小的城市仅占联邦城市更新资金的35％，但对这些地方的影响 000名居民约占进行城市更新项目的地区的八分之一，约有三分之二的城市更新项目位于这些地方。尽管这些较小的城市仅占联邦城市更新资金的35％，但对这些地方的影响 000名居民约占进行城市更新项目的地区的八分之一，约有三分之二的城市更新项目位于这些地方。尽管这些较小的城市仅占联邦城市更新资金的35％，但对这些地方的影响