One thing that modern U.S. historians can agree on is that postwar urban renewal was an unmitigated disaster. In her Bancroft Prize-winning book Lizabeth Cohen has broken that consensus. She has given us a comprehensive history of urban renewal by focusing on the career of Ed Logue, a widely admired urban planner in the postwar period who has been largely forgotten today. Logue embodies the contradictions and complexities of postwar liberalism. He was idealistic about how expert-driven change funded by the state could create a more egalitarian society. And he was attentive to community input, although not always fully responsive to it. But Logue, and other city planners, underestimated the structural inequalities that undergirded segregation and never directly challenged the power elite. The urban renewal plans that resulted were often improvisational and always controversial. But Cohen effectively argues that they cannot simply be dismissed as failures. The book is divided into three parts, allowing Cohen to expand on the two cities and one state Logue’s urban planning impacted: New Haven, Boston, and New York. These projects also reflect the changing nature of urban renewal, from top-down federally funded programs in New Haven and Boston to public-private partnerships at a smaller scale in New York. Focusing on the career of one individual, with all its false starts and complicated motivations, stands in for the complexity of American liberalism. And it moves us away from the oversimplified contest between the villainous urban planner Robert Moses and the saintly critic Jane Jacobs, a particularly useful intervention made by Cohen. As Cohen points out, Jacobs was admired equally by progressives who valued the culture and politics of mixed-income and mixed-used neighborhoods and conservatives critical of big-government interventions into cities. For example, Cohen points out that the arch-neoconservative William F. Buckley appreciated Jacobs’s criticisms of large-scale urban renewal projects. While Moses and Logue were often compared during their lifetimes, Logue insisted that he was more focused on “social change” rather than large-scale

中文翻译：

---

自由主义的遗产

现代美国历史学家可以同意的一件事是，战后城市更新是一场彻底的灾难。在她获得班克罗夫特奖的书中，丽莎贝丝·科恩打破了这一共识。她通过关注 Ed Logue 的职业生涯，为我们讲述了城市更新的全面历史，Ed Logue 是战后时期广受赞誉的城市规划师，如今已基本被遗忘。罗格体现了战后自由主义的矛盾和复杂性。他对国家资助的专家驱动的变革如何创造一个更加平等的社会持理想主义态度。他很注意社区的意见，尽管并不总是完全响应。但洛格和其他城市规划者低估了支持种族隔离的结构性不平等，而且从未直接挑战权力精英。由此产生的城市更新计划往往是即兴的，并且总是有争议的。但科恩有效地辩称，不能简单地将它们视为失败而不予理会。这本书分为三个部分，让 Cohen 可以扩展 Logue 的两个城市和一个受到影响的城市规划：纽黑文、波士顿和纽约。这些项目也反映了城市更新不断变化的性质，从纽黑文和波士顿的自上而下的联邦资助项目到纽约较小规模的公私合作伙伴关系。专注于一个人的职业生涯，其所有错误的开始和复杂的动机，代表了美国自由主义的复杂性。它让我们远离了邪恶的城市规划师罗伯特·摩西和圣洁的评论家简·雅各布斯之间过于简单化的竞争，科恩所做的特别有用的干预。正如科恩指出的那样，雅各布斯同样受到重视混合收入和混合用途社区的文化和政治的进步人士以及批评大政府干预城市的保守派的钦佩。例如，科恩指出，新保守主义者威廉·巴克利赞赏雅各布斯对大型城市更新项目的批评。虽然摩西和洛格生前经常被拿来比较，但洛格坚持认为他更关注“社会变革”而不是大规模的 巴克利赞赏雅各布斯对大型城市更新项目的批评。虽然摩西和洛格生前经常被拿来比较，但洛格坚持认为他更关注“社会变革”而不是大规模的 巴克利赞赏雅各布斯对大型城市更新项目的批评。虽然摩西和洛格生前经常被拿来比较，但洛格坚持认为他更关注“社会变革”而不是大规模的