評論
打印
For the first time in history more people live in towns than in the country.
與鄉村人口相比，人類歷史上第一次有更多的人居住在城鎮。
In Britain this has had a curious result.
這在英國產生了奇怪的結果。
While polls show Britons rate "the countryside" alongside the royal family, Shakespeare and the National Health Service (NHS) as what makes them proudest of their country, this has limited political support.
民意調查顯示，盡管英國人把“鄉村”與英國皇室、莎士比亞和國民醫療服務制度一起當成英國的四大驕傲，但英國人的這種觀點只得到了有限的政治支持。
A century ago Octavia Hill launched the National Trust not to rescue stylish houses but to save "the beauty of natural places for everyone forever."
一個世紀前，奧克塔維亞·希爾發起成立了國民托管組織，此舉不是去挽救那些雅致的房屋，而是“為所有人永久保存自然之地的美”。
It was specifically to provide city dwellers with spaces for leisure where they could experience "a refreshing air."
此舉是專門為城市居民提供休閑空間，在那里他們可以呼吸新鮮空氣。
Hill's pressures later led to the creation of national parks and green belts.
后來，由于希爾的助推，促成了各種國家公園和綠化帶的建立。
They don't make countryside any more, and every year concrete consumes more of it.
而現在，公園和綠化帶不再造就鄉村，相反，混泥土建筑每年侵占更多的鄉村。
It needs constant guardianship.
鄉村需要持續的保護。
At the next election none of the big parties seem likely to endorse this sentiment.
但在下一屆選舉中，幾個大黨都不太可能支持這一觀點。
The Conservatives' planning reform explicitly gives rural development priority over conservation, even authorizing "off-plan" building where local people might object.
保守黨的規劃改革明確表示要給予鄉村開發而不是鄉村保護優先權，該改革方案甚至批準了建造項目，但遭到了當地人的反對。
The concept of sustainable development has been defined as profitable.
可持續發展觀已經被定義成了有利可圖的發展。
Labour likewise wants to discontinue local planning where councils oppose development.
工黨同樣也想終止那些遭到地方議會反對的地方性規劃。
The Liberal Democrats are silent.
而自由民主黨則保持沉默。
Only Ukip, sensing its chance, has sided with those pleading for a more considered approach to using green land.
只有英國獨立黨支持那些呼吁政府在使用綠地方面要深思熟慮的人，因為他們覺得自己的機會來了。
Its Campaign to Protect Rural England struck terror into many local Conservative parties.
該黨的“保護英國鄉村運動”使許多地方性保守黨膽戰心驚。
The sensible place to build new houses, factories and offices is where people are, in cities and towns where infrastructure is in place.
鄉村的新住房、工廠和辦公室明顯應該建在人聚居的地方，城鎮的則要建在基礎設施完善的地方。
The London agents Stirling Ackroyd recently identified enough sites for half a million houses in the London area alone, with no intrusion on green belt.
最近，倫敦房地產中介公司“Stirling Ackroyd”在倫敦找出了足夠多的建設地點，這些地方能夠建設五十萬套住房，且不會侵占綠化帶。
What is true of London is even truer of the provinces.
如果在倫敦市都能如此，那么在其他省份就更能如此了。
The idea that "housing crisis" equals "concreted meadows" is pure lobby talk.
“住房危機”等同于“混泥土草地”的這個想法是純粹的游說說辭。
The issue is not the need for more houses but, as always, where to put them.
真正的問題不在于需要更多的住房，而是像以往一樣，在哪里建設它們。
Under lobby pressure, George Osborne favours rural new-build against urban renovation and renewal.
迫于游說壓力，喬治·奧斯本選擇支持在鄉村建設新住房，而不是對城鎮進行改造和翻新。
He favours out-of-town shopping sites against high streets.
他支持在遠離城鎮的地方而不是商業大街上建設購物中心。
This is not a free market but a biased one.
這種做法可不是自由的市場行為，而是存在偏見的市場行為。
Rural towns and villages have grown and will always grow.
鄉鎮和鄉村已經得到了發展，并將一直發展下去。
They do so best where building sticks to their edges and respects their character.
當把高樓大廈保持在城鎮和鄉村的邊緣，尊重它們的特色時，城鎮和鄉村才能發展得最好。
We do not ruin urban conservation areas.
我們沒有毀壞城鎮的保護區域。
Why ruin rural ones?
卻為什么要去毀壞鄉村的保護區域？
Development should be planned, not let rip.
開發前需要規劃，而不任其發展。
After the Netherlands, Britain is Europe's most crowded country.
英國是繼荷蘭之后歐洲第二擁擠的國家。
Half a century of town and country planning has enabled it to retain an enviable rural coherence, while still permitting low-density urban living.
但半世紀以來，合理的城鄉規劃使英國得以保留令其他國家羨慕的鄉村協調性，同時還允許低密度的城鎮人口。
There is no doubt of the alternative—the corrupted landscapes of southern Portugal, Spain or Ireland.
不進行合理規劃所帶來的后果是毋庸置疑的——無序的鄉村建設使得葡萄牙南部，西班牙或愛爾蘭的某些地帶遭到破壞就是實例。
Avoiding this rather than promoting it should unite the left and right of the political spectrum.
應該聯合英國的左派和右派勢力來避免無序的鄉村建設這一政策，而不是支持無序的鄉村發展這一政策。
