【正文】 ctively ancient Persian imagery and local expertise, the second and third phases employed European images and experts, primarily from France and Germany. What these early town planning efforts shared was that they were all envisaging a particular new form and implementing it through the (re)development of the urban environment。 they were all plans for a major series of physical changes executed in a relatively short period of time. The reforms in the second half of the 19th century opened up the city‘s society and space to new economic and cultural patterns, and unleashed centrifugal and dialectic forces that exploded in two major revolutions. Economically, the city started to be integrated into the world market as a peripheral node. Embracing the market economy divided the city along the lines of ine and wealth, while new cultural fault lines emerged along lifestyle and attitude towards tradition and modernity. Rich and poor, who used to live side by side in the old city, were now separated from one another in a polarizing city. Moreover, modernizers weled living in new neighborhoods and frequented new streets and squares, while traditionalists continued to live and work in the older parts of the city. Ever since, these economic and cultural polarizations—and their associated tensions—have characterized Iran‘s urban conditions. Planning through landuse regulation: harnessing speculative development 2 The second type of planning to emerge in Tehran was in the 1960s, which saw the preparation of plans to regulate and manage future change. The city had grown in size and plexity to such an extent that its spatial management needed additional tools, which resulted in the growing plexity of municipal organization, and in the preparation of a prehensive plan for the city. After the Second World War, during which the Allied forces occupied the country, there was a period of democratization, followed by political tensions of the start of the cold war, and struggles over the control of oil. This period was ended in 1953 by a coup detat that returned the Shah to power, who then acted as an executive monarch for the next 25 years. With high birth rates and an intensification of rural–urban migration, Tehran— and other large cities—grew even faster than before. By 1956, Tehran‘s population rose to million, by 1966 to 3 million, and by 1976 to million。 its size grew from 46 km178。 in 1934 to 250 km178。 in 1976 (Kariman, 1976。 Vezarate Barnameh va Budgeh, 1987). Revenues from the oil industry rose, creating surplus resources that needed to be circulated and absorbed in the economy. An industrialization drive from the mid1950s created many new jobs in big cities, particularly in Tehran. The land reforms of the 1960s released large numbers of rural population from agriculture, which was not able to absorb the exponential demographic growth. This new labour force was attracted to cities: to the new industries, to the construction sector which seemed to be always booming, to services and the constantly growing public sector bureaucracy. Tehran‘s role as the administrative, economic, and cultural centre of the country, and its gateway to the outside world, was firmly consolidated. Urban expansion in postwar Tehran was based on underregulated, privatesector driven, speculative development. Demand for housing always exceeded supply, and a surplus of labor and capital was always available。 hence the flourishing construction industry and the rising prices of land and property in Tehran. The city grew in a disjointed manner in all directions along the outgoing roads, integrating the surrounding towns and villages, and growing new suburban settlements. This intensified social segregation, destroyed suburban gardens and green spaces, and left the city managers feeling powerless. A deputy mayor of the city in 1962 mented that in Tehran, ??the buildings and settlements have been developed by whomever has wanted in whatever way and wherever they have wanted‘‘, creating a city that was ??in fact a number of towns connected to each other in an inappropriate way‘‘ (Nafisi, 1964, p. 426). There was a feeling that something urgently needed to be done, but the municipality was not legally or financially capable of dealing with this process. The 1966 Municipality Act provided, for the first time, a legal framework for the formation of the Urban Planning High Council and for the establishment of landuse planning in the form of prehensive plans. A series of other laws followed, underpinning new legal and institutional arrangements for the Tehran municipality, allowing the Ministry of Housing and others to work together in managing the growth of the city. The most important step taken in planning was the approval of the Tehran Comprehensive Plan in 1968. It was produced by a consortium of Aziz Farmanfarmaian Associates of Iran and Victor Gruen Associates of the United States, under the direction of Fereydun Ghaffari, an Iranian city planner (Ardalan, 1986). The plan identified the city‘s problems as high density, especially in the city centre。 expansion of mercial activities along the main roads。 pollution。 inefficient infrastructure。 widespread unemployment in the poorer areas, and the continuous migration of lowine groups to Tehran. The solution was to be found in the transformation of the city‘s physical, social and economic fabric (Farmanfarmaian and Gruen, 1968). The proposals were, nevertheless, mostly advocating physical change, attempting, in a modernist 德黑蘭的城市規(guī)劃與發(fā)展 3 spirit, to impose a new order onto this plex metropolis. The future of the city was envisaged to be growing westward in a linear polycentric form, reducing the density and congestion of the city centre. The city would be formed of 10 large urban districts, separated from each other by green belts,