When we use the word "architect" or "designer," what we usually mean is a professional, someone who gets paid, and we tend to assume that it's those professionals who are going to be the ones to help us solve the really big, systemic design challenges that we face like climate change, urbanization and social inequality. That's our kind of working presumption. And I think it's wrong, actually.
当我们提到建筑师或者设计师 通常是指专业的人员 以专业水平收取报酬 我们就认为是那些专业人员 会帮助解决 我们所面对的巨大的系统设计难题 比如气候变化,城市化和社会不平等问题 这是我们想当然的看法 但我认为事实并非如此
In 2008, I was just about to graduate from architecture school after several years, and go out and get a job, and this happened. The economy ran out of jobs. And a couple of things struck me about this. One, don't listen to career advisers. And two, actually this is a fascinating paradox for architecture, which is that, as a society, we've never needed design thinking more, and yet architecture was literally becoming unemployed. It strikes me that we talk very deeply about design, but actually there's an economics behind architecture that we don't talk about, and I think we need to.
2008年时,我正准备从建筑学院毕业 经过几年的学习之后 准备出去找份工作 而这就是当时的现状 经济形式导致就业市场低迷 这使我意识到几件事 第一点 不要听信职业顾问的话 第二点 同时也是一个有趣的建筑学驳论 即社会史无前例地需要更深思熟虑的设计 而当时建筑学专业却逐渐呈失业状 我意识到关于建筑设计我们讲的很深 但实际上 建筑背后的经济学 我们却没有讨论到,而我认为是值得关注的
And a good place to start is your own paycheck. So, as a bottom-of-the-rung architecture graduate, I might expect to earn about 24,000 pounds. That's about 36,000, 37,000 dollars. Now in terms of the whole world's population, that already puts me in the top 1.95 richest people, which raises the question of, who is it I'm working for? The uncomfortable fact is that actually almost everything that we call architecture today is actually the business of designing for about the richest one percent of the world's population, and it always has been. The reason why we forgot that is because the times in history when architecture did the most to transform society were those times when, actually, the one percent would build on behalf of the 99 percent, for various different reasons, whether that was through philanthropy in the 19th century, communism in the early 20th, the welfare state, and most recently, of course, through this inflated real estate bubble. And all of those booms, in their own various ways, have now kicked the bucket, and we're back in this situation where the smartest designers and architects in the world are only really able to work for one percent of the population.
首先谈谈我们的工资 作为一名最底层的建筑学专业毕业生 我预期能够赚到2万4千英镑 约合美元3万6,3万7左右 以全世界的人口来看 这已经使我居于前1.95%的富人当中 我不禁要问,我究竟在为谁工作? 令人不安的事实是 如今几乎所有我们可以称之为建筑的建筑 事实上都在为 世界上最富有的1%的人而设计建造 一直如此 我们之所以忽略这一点 是因为历史上 因建筑造成社会转型 事实上,都是那些1%的人 就代表了99%的人,出于不同原因而造的 不管是因为19世纪的慈善活动 或是20世纪前期的共产主义 或是福利国家,当然还有近年来的 膨胀的房地产泡沫 所有这些建筑繁荣的时期,尽管各自方式不同 如今都已消逝殆尽了 于是我们退回到这种情形 世界上最棒的设计师和建筑师 只能为那1%的人工作
Now it's not just that that's bad for democracy, though I think it probably is, it's actually not a very clever business strategy, actually. I think the challenge facing the next generation of architects is, how are we going to turn our client from the one percent to the 100 percent? And I want to offer three slightly counterintuitive ideas for how it might be done.
这不仅有害于民主政治 虽然我认为可能性很大 事实上这不是个明智的商业战略 我想下一代建筑学家所面临的挑战是 怎样将这我们的客户 从那1%扩展到所有人 我来跟大家说三个略微有些反常规的想法 解释如何实现这一目标
The first is, I think we need to question this idea that architecture is about making buildings. Actually, a building is about the most expensive solution you can think of to almost any given problem. And fundamentally, design should be much, much more interested in solving problems and creating new conditions. So here's a story. The office was working with a school, and they had an old Victorian school building.
第一,我觉得我们得质疑 建筑就是盖楼这一观点 事实上,盖楼大概是你能想到的 解决问题最昂贵的方法 设计应该更注重在解决问题和创建新环境上 在解决问题和创建新条件上 给大家讲一个故事 有个团队正在和一所学校合作 学校有一栋维多利亚时代的老建筑
And they said to the architects, "Look, our corridors are an absolute nightmare. They're far too small. They get congested between classes. There's bullying. We can't control them. So what we want you to do is re-plan our entire building, and we know it's going to cost several million pounds, but we're reconciled to the fact."
然后他们跟建筑师说:“看, 我们的走廊真是惨不忍睹 实在是太小了,课间的时候就会特别挤 因此有学生被欺负,我们实在是没办法 所以我们希望你们能重新设计整个建筑 我们也知道会耗资数百万英镑 但我们也接受现实了
And the team thought about this, and they went away, and they said, "Actually, don't do that. Instead, get rid of the school bell. And instead of having one school bell that goes off once, have several smaller school bells that go off in different places and different times, distribute the traffic through the corridors." It solves the same problem, but instead of spending several million pounds, you spend several hundred pounds. Now, it looks like you're doing yourself out of a job, but you're not. You're actually making yourself more useful. Architects are actually really, really good at this kind of resourceful, strategic thinking. And the problem is that, like a lot of design professions, we got fixated on the idea of providing a particular kind of consumer product, and I don't think that needs to be the case anymore.
然后这个团队想了一下就走了 他们说,”其实,没必要 只需在校铃上做文章即可 与其让校铃敲响一次 倒不如分几个小的校铃 在不同的时间和地点分批响 对走廊实行交通分流。” 问题就迎刃而解了 相比耗资几百万英镑 你们只需几百英镑就搞定 这样看起来似乎你砸了自己的饭碗 其实不然,你实际上让自己的价值提升了 建筑师其实都是非常非常擅长 这种足智多谋和具有策略性的思考方式 问题是,像很多专业设计师 我们总会自我禁锢在 “要做出某一种特定的产品”这一想法上 我觉得这种想法是时候改变了
The second idea worth questioning is this 20th-century thing that mass architecture is about big -- big buildings and big finance. Actually, we've got ourselves locked into this Industrial Era mindset which says that the only people who can make cities are large organizations or corporations who build on our behalf, procuring whole neighborhoods in single, monolithic projects, and of course, form follows finance. So what you end up with are single, monolithic neighborhoods based on this kind of one-size-fits-all model. And a lot of people can't even afford them. But what if, actually, it's possible now for cities to be made not just by the few with a lot but also by the many with a bit? And when they do, they bring with them a completely different set of values about the place that they want to live. And it raises really interesting questions about, how will we plan cities? How will finance development? How will we sell design services? What would it mean for democratic societies to offer their citizens a right to build? And in a way it should be kind of obvious, right, that in the 21st century, maybe cities can be developed by citizens.
第二个值得质疑的,是关于20世纪 大众建筑离不开大型二字 大型建筑和庞大的资金 其实是我们自己挣脱不出 工业时代这一思维定势,即 只有那些大型组织才能建造城市 或是那些以我们的名义而建造的公司企业 把我们的整个社区 押在单一的,大型的项目上,当然 形式要服从财政 所以我们看到的是那些单一大型的社区 建造格局都是通用型的 并且有很多人还负担不起 但如果,其实现在已经有可能 让城市不再由那些少数持巨资的人所建造 而是由大众平民取而代之? 一旦成真了,他们就他们想要的居住环境 引入一套完全不同的价值观 这就引发了很有趣的问题 如我们将如何规划城市?资金要如何开发? 我们将如何推销设计服务? 这对民主社会为市民提供创城机会来说 意味着什么? 这应该是显而易见的,对吧 在21世纪,也许城市可以由市民来发展规划
And thirdly, we need to remember that, from a strictly economic point of view, design shares a category with sex and care of the elderly -- mostly it's done by amateurs. And that's a good thing. Most of the work takes place outside of the monetary economy in what's called the social economy or the core economy, which is people doing it for themselves. And the problem is that, up until now, it was the monetary economy which had all the infrastructure and all the tools.
第三点,我们需要记住 从经济学角度严格来说 设计和性还有老年人的护理是同个类别的 大部分都是由业余人士来完成的 这是个好事 大部分都不是发生在货币经济体系之内 而是在社会经济体系或核心经济体系内 即人们是为了他们自身而做 问题就是,到目前为止 拥有全部设施和工具的 是货币经济体系
So the challenge we face is, how are we going to build the tools, the infrastructure and the institutions for architecture's social economy? And that began with open-source software. And over the last few years, it's been moving into the physical world with open-source hardware, which are freely shared blueprints that anyone can download and make for themselves. And that's where 3D printing gets really, really interesting. Right? When suddenly you had a 3D printer that was open-source, the parts for which could be made on another 3D printer. Or the same idea here, which is for a CNC machine, which is like a large printer that can cut sheets of plywood. What these technologies are doing is radically lowering the thresholds of time and cost and skill. They're challenging the idea that if you want something to be affordable it's got to be one-size-fits-all. And they're distributing massively really complex manufacturing capabilities. We're moving into this future where the factory is everywhere, and increasingly that means that the design team is everyone. That really is an industrial revolution. And when we think that the major ideological conflicts that we inherited were all based around this question of who should control the means of production, and these technologies are coming back with a solution: actually, maybe no one. All of us.
那么我们面临的挑战就是 我们将如何建造这些工具,设施和机构 来实现建筑学的社会经济体系? 这从开源软件而开始 在过去的几年里,它逐渐过渡到 开源硬件的物质世界状态 即免费分享的蓝图 人人都可以下载自行建造 而3D打印技术也因此变得有趣 当你突然有台3D打印机 资源开放,其零件可通过 另外一台3D打印机上制作出来 或者同样原理,放到数控机床上, 好像一个可以切割夹板的大型打印机 这些技术所做的是大幅度地 降低了时间、成本和技能的门槛 他们挑战了传统的观点 即你想要便宜就得接受通用的模型 它们也大规模地传播 非常复杂的生产制造能力 我们将要步入的未来是到处都有工厂 同时也意味着 每个人都是设计师 那真是一场工业革命 当我们思考我们继承的主要意识形态冲突 都是基于这样一个问题 即谁应该控制生产途径 而这些技术给出了答案: 实际上,不是一个人,而是我们大家
And we were fascinated by what that might mean for architecture. So about a year and a half ago, we started working on a project called WikiHouse, and WikiHouse is an open-source construction system. And the idea is to make it possible for anyone to go online, access a freely shared library of 3D models which they can download and adapt in, at the moment, SketchUp, because it's free, and it's easy to use, and almost at the click of a switch they can generate a set of cutting files which allow them, in effect, to print out the parts from a house using a CNC machine and a standard sheet material like plywood. And the parts are all numbered, and basically what you end up with is a really big IKEA kit. (Laughter) And it goes together without any bolts. It uses wedge and peg connections. And even the mallets to make it can be provided on the cutting sheets as well. And a team of about two or three people, working together, can build this. They don't need any traditional construction skills. They don't need a huge array of power tools or anything like that, and they can build a small house of about this size in about a day.
我们也惊讶于 这对建筑学意味着什么 大约一年半以前 我们开始了一个项目叫做维基之家 这是一套开放性的建筑系统 旨在让每个人都能够 上网查找免费共享的资源库 寻找能够下载并适用的3D模型 目前SketchUp由于其免费、使用方便 几乎只需点一下按钮 就能生成一套切割文件的特点 使得他们 能够通过数控机床打印出各部件 以及标准的板材如夹板 各部件都有标号 基本上你得到的就是一个超大的宜家工具箱 (笑声) 无需任何螺栓就能组装 它用的是楔子和挂钩来连接 甚至制作它的木槌 都能通过板材来制作 一个由两三人组成的团队 就能合作制造 他们无需任何传统的建筑技能 无需任何大马力的工具 就能制造这样大小的一间房子 只需大约一天时间
(Applause)
(掌声)
And what you end up with is just the basic chassis of a house onto which you can then apply systems like windows and cladding and insulation and services based on what's cheap and what's available. Of course, the house is never finished. We're shifting our heads here, so the house is not a finished product. With the CNC machine, you can make new parts for it over its life or even use it to make the house next door. So we can begin to see the seed of a completely open-source, citizen-led urban development model, potentially.
你只需要关于建房的一些基本知识 比如如何安装窗户 如何覆盖外墙,铺设绝缘层和其他功能区 根据价格和适用的材料而定 当然,房子没有完成 我们看这里,房子还没有完工 有了数控机床,你还可以制作其他新的部件 甚至用它来造隔壁的房子 我们可以看到开放性资源为 市民引导的城市发展模型播下了种子
And we and others have built a few prototypes around the world now, and some really interesting lessons here. One of them is that it's always incredibly sociable. People get confused between construction work and having fun. But the principles of openness go right down into the really mundane, physical details. Like, never designing a piece that can't be lifted up. Or, when you're designing a piece, make sure you either can't put it in the wrong way round, or, if you do, it doesn't matter, because it's symmetrical. Probably the principal which runs deepest with us is the principal set out by Linus Torvalds, the open-source pioneer, which was that idea of, "Be lazy like a fox." Don't reinvent the wheel every time. Take what already works, and adapt it for your own needs. Contrary to almost everything that you might get taught at an architecture school, copying is good.
我们和同行们已经在世界各地建造了一些原型 有一些非常有趣的知识 其中一点就是这是相当大众化的 人们分不清盖楼和找乐的区别 但开放性的原理直接涉及 平凡的物理细节 比如,永远不要设计一块抬不起来的材料 或者,当你设计材料的时候 要么确保怎么放都不会错 或者放错了也没关系,因为是对称的 也许最深入我们内心的原理 是来自于林纳斯·托瓦兹 开放性的先驱 那种“像狐狸一样懒惰”的理念 不要每次都重新发明一种轮子 拿现行的,稍作改进符合自己的需要 和你在建筑学院里学的恰恰相反 抄袭是好事
Which is appropriate, because actually, this approach is not innovative. It's actually how we built buildings for hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution in these sorts of community barn-raisings. The only difference between traditional vernacular architecture and open-source architecture might be a web connection, but it's a really, really big difference. We shared the whole of WikiHouse under a Creative Commons license, and now what's just beginning to happen is that groups around the world are beginning to take it and use it and hack it and tinker with it, and it's amazing. There's a cool group over in Christchurch in New Zealand looking at post-earthquake development housing, and thanks to the TED city Prize, we're working with an awesome group in one of Rio's favelas to set up a kind of community factory and micro-university. These are very, very small beginnings, and actually there's more people in the last week who have got in touch and they're not even on this map. I hope next time you see it, you won't even be able to see the map.
这很合适,因为实际上 这种方法并不创新 这其实就是工业革命前数百年来 我们盖楼的方式 用那些社区谷仓筹集的钱 传统地方建筑和开放性建筑的 唯一区别就在于 网络连接 但两者却大相径庭 我们分享维基之家的所有一切 基于创作共用授权的精神 而现在逐渐开始看到 世界各地的人们开始使用它 进行各种改造利用,非常的神奇 在新西兰克赖斯特彻奇有一群非常酷的人 在研究地震后的房屋发展设计 由于TED城市奖的存在 我们与里约贫民窟的一个很棒的群体合作 建立一种社区工厂 和微型大学 这些是很小很小的开端 事实上在上一周 与彼此建立了联系,而他们还都不在这幅地图上 我希望下一次你甚至都看不到这幅地图
We're aware that WikiHouse is a very, very small answer, but it's a small answer to a really, really big question, which is that globally, right now, the fastest-growing cities are not skyscraper cities. They're self-made cities in one form or another. If we're talking about the 21st-century city, these are the guys who are going to be making it. You know, like it or not, welcome to the world's biggest design team.
我们意识到维基之家只是一个很小很小的答案 但却回答了一个很大很大的问题 即现在全球发展最迅速的城市 并非那些拥有摩天大楼的城市 他们是各种自力更生的城市 要说21世纪的城市谁会成功 这些人会取得成功 不论你是否喜欢,欢迎来到世界最大的设计团队
So if we're serious about problems like climate change, urbanization and health, actually, our existing development models aren't going to do it. As I think Robert Neuwirth said, there isn't a bank or a corporation or a government or an NGO who's going to be able to do it if we treat citizens only as consumers. How extraordinary would it be, though, if collectively we were to develop solutions not just to the problem of structure that we've been working on, but to infrastructure problems like solar-powered air conditioning, off-grid energy, off-grid sanitation -- low-cost, open-source, high-performance solutions that anyone can very, very easily make, and to put them all into a commons where they're owned by everyone and they're accessible by everyone? A kind of Wikipedia for stuff? And once something's in the commons, it will always be there. How much would that change the rules? And I think the technology's on our side.
如果我们真正想要解决问题 如气候变化、城市化和健康问题 其实我们现有的发展模式并不能解决 我记得罗伯特.纽沃夫曾说过: “没有一间银行或企业或政府或非政府组织 能够解决这些问题 如果我们依然把市民当做是消费者” 试想一下那会多神奇,如果 我们不仅能够找到 解决结构优化的方法 而且还能找到解决如太阳能空调 自给自足能源、环境卫生等基础设施问题 价格低廉、开放性、高效能的方法 每个人都方便地制造 所有都能为大众公用 归大众所有,为大众所用 一种物质的维基百科 一旦有东西为大众公用 它就会一直存在 那将如何改变世界规则? 我认为技术也站在我们这一边
If design's great project in the 20th century was the democratization of consumption -- that was Henry Ford, Levittown, Coca-Cola, IKEA — I think design's great project in the 21st century is the democratization of production. And when it comes to architecture in cities, that really matters. Thank you very much. (Applause)
如果20世纪设计的伟大项目 是对消费的民主化 如亨利福特、莱维顿、可口可乐、宜家- 我认为21世纪设计的伟大项目 即是生产的民主化 而谈到城市的建筑时 那真的是至关重要 谢谢大家 (掌声)