If there's any power in design, that's the power of synthesis. The more complex the problem, the more the need for simplicity. So allow me to share three cases where we tried to apply design's power of synthesis.
如果说设计有任何力量的话, 那就是整合的力量。 问题越复杂, 就越需要简化。 请允许我分享三个案例, 我们尝试在其中运用 设计的“整合力”。
Let's start with the global challenge of urbanization. It's a fact that people are moving towards cities. and even if counterintuitive, it's good news. Evidence shows that people are better off in cities. But there's a problem that I would call the "3S" menace: The scale, speed, and scarcity of means with which we will have to respond to this phenomenon has no precedence in history. For you to have an idea, out of the three billion people living in cities today, one billion are under the line of poverty. By 2030, out of the five billion people that will be living in cities, two billion are going to be under the line of poverty. That means that we will have to build a one million-person city per week with 10,000 dollars per family during the next 15 years. A one million-person city per week with 10,000 dollars per family. If we don't solve this equation, it is not that people will stop coming to cities. They will come anyhow, but they will live in slums, favelas and informal settlements.
[案例一:城市] 让我们从城市化这个全球性的挑战说起。 事实是人们在向城市迁移, 也许有悖常理,但其实这是好消息。 证据表明人们在城市中生活得更好。 但这里有一个问题, 我将它称之为“3S威胁“: 规模,速度和资源匮乏, 即在城市化过程中,我们面对的这三个威胁 是史无前例的。 这是什么概念呢? 在今天居住在城市的三十亿人中, 有十亿人是生活在贫困线以下的。 到2030年,预计有五十亿人 会居住在城市, 在他们中,有二十亿会生活在贫困线以下。 这意味着,在未来的十五年内, 我们必须每周建造一座 能容纳一百万人的城市, 平均每个家庭投入一万美元。 每周一座百万人口的城市, 每个家庭一万美元。 如果我们不解决这个问题, 人们并不会因此不来城市, 他们还是会来, 但他们会住在棚户区,贫民窟 和不正规的定居点中 。
So what to do? Well, an answer may come from favelas and slums themselves. A clue could be in this question we were asked 10 years ago. We were asked to accommodate 100 families that had been occupying illegally half a hectare in the center of the city of Iquique in the north of Chile using a $10,000 subsidy with which we had to buy the land, provide the infrastructure, and build the houses that, in the best of the cases, would be of around 40 square meters. And by the way, they said, the cost of the land, because it's in the center of the city, is three times more than what social housing can normally afford. Due to the difficulty of the question, we decided to include the families in the process of understanding the constraints, and we started a participatory design process, and testing what was available there in the market. Detached houses, 30 families could be accommodated. Row houses, 60 families. ["100 families"] The only way to accommodate all of them was by building in height, and they threatened us to go on a hunger strike if we even dared to offer this as a solution, because they could not make the tiny apartments expand. So the conclusion with the families — and this is important, not our conclusion — with the families, was that we had a problem. We had to innovate.
那么我们该怎么办? 棚户区和贫民窟本身或许可以给我们答案。 在我们十年前被问到的一个问题中 可能就含有答案。 我们被要求为100个家庭提供住所, 他们非法占据了 半公顷的在智利北部的伊基克的市中心土地。 我们有一万美元的补助, 用这些钱,我们必须购买土地, 提供基础设施 和建造住房, 这些住房最多也就大约四十平米。 “对了”,他们说, “土地的价格——由于在市中心—— 可能会比一般社会住房可承担的价格贵三倍。” 因为这个问题的复杂性, 我们决定把那些家庭也包括进来 并一起了解这些限制, 我们启动了一个用户参与式设计流程 并且检验了市场上可以购买到的房屋。 独栋房屋 可以容纳三十个家庭; 排屋,六十个。 [一百个家庭] 唯一能容纳所有人的方法 就是增加高度, 但是他们用绝食来威胁我们, 如果我们敢把这当作一个解决方案的话, 因为他们不能扩建这些狭小的公寓。 [结论?我们遇到麻烦了] 所以,我们一起得出的结论—— 这一点是重要的,这不是我们的结论, 这是我们一起得出的结论——就是我们遇到麻烦了。 我们必须创新 那我们是怎么做的呢?
So what did we do? Well, a middle-class family lives reasonably well in around 80 square meters, but when there's no money, what the market does is to reduce the size of the house to 40 square meters. What we said was, what if, instead of thinking of 40 square meters as a small house, why don't we consider it half of a good one? When you rephrase the problem as half of a good house instead of a small one, the key question is, which half do we do? And we thought we had to do with public money the half that families won't be able to do individually. We identified five design conditions that belonged to the hard half of a house, and we went back to the families to do two things: join forces and split tasks. Our design was something in between a building and a house. As a building, it could pay for expensive, well-located land, and as a house, it could expand. If, in the process of not being expelled to the periphery while getting a house, families kept their network and their jobs, we knew that the expansion would begin right away. So we went from this initial social housing to a middle-class unit achieved by families themselves within a couple of weeks.
一个中产阶级的家庭 在一间大约八十平米的房子里会生活得不错。 但当资金不足时, 市场会把房子的面积 缩减到四十平米。 我们的想法是 如果 我们不把一间四十平米的房子 视作一间狭小的房子, 为什么不将它当作 一间好的房子的一半? 当你把这个问题说成半间好房子 而不是一间小房子时, 问题就变成了,我们要建造哪一半? 我们想,我们必须用公共资金 建造那些家庭无法单独建造的那一半。 我们确认了五个设计条件, 它们都属于建造一座房子中困难的那部分, 然后我们回头找到那些家庭去做两件事: 联合力量和分派任务。 我们的设计是一个 介于一栋楼和一个房子之间的东西。 作为一栋楼,它可以承担 昂贵的,地段良好的土地的价格, 作为一个房子,它可以扩展。 这些家庭不用到城市边缘寻求房子, 如果他们保持他们原有的的社交关系和工作, 我们知道扩建很快就会开始。 所以我们从起初的社会住房 发展成了由那些家庭自己打造的中产阶层单元房, 就在几周的时间内。
This was our first project in Iquique 10 years ago. This is our last project in Chile. Different designs, same principle: You provide the frame, and from then on, families take over.
这是我们第一个项目, 十年前在伊基克。 这是我们在智利的最近一个项目, 不同的设计,相同的原则。 你提供框架, 然后由家庭接手。
So the purpose of design, trying to understand and trying to give an answer to the "3S" menace, scale, speed, and scarcity, is to channel people's own building capacity. We won't solve the one million people per week equation unless we use people's own power for building. So, with the right design, slums and favelas may not be the problem but actually the only possible solution. The second case is how design can contribute to sustainability. In 2012, we entered the competition for the Angelini Innovation Center, and the aim was to build the right environment for knowledge creation. It is accepted that for such an aim, knowledge creation, interaction among people, face-to-face contact, it's important, and we agreed on that. But for us, the question of the right environment was a very literal question. We wanted to have a working space with the right light, with the right temperature, with the right air. So we asked ourselves: Does the typical office building help us in that sense? Well, how does that building look, typically? It's a collection of floors, one on top of each other, with a core in the center with elevators, stairs, pipes, wires, everything, and then a glass skin on the outside that, due to direct sun radiation, creates a huge greenhouse effect inside. In addition to that, let's say a guy working on the seventh floor goes every single day through the third floor, but has no idea what the guy on that floor is working on. So we thought, well, maybe we have to turn this scheme inside out. And what we did was, let's have an open atrium, a hollowed core, the same collection of floors, but have the walls and the mass in the perimeter, so that when the sun hits, it's not impacting directly glass, but a wall. When you have an open atrium inside, you are able to see what others are doing from within the building, and you have a better way to control light, and when you place the mass and the walls in the perimeter, then you are preventing direct sun radiation. You may also open those windows and get cross-ventilation. We just made those openings of such a scale that they could work as elevated squares, outdoor spaces throughout the entire height of the building. None of this is rocket science. You don't require sophisticated programming. It's not about technology. This is just archaic, primitive common sense, and by using common sense, we went from 120 kilowatts per square meter per year, which is the typical energy consumption for cooling a glass tower, to 40 kilowatts per square meter per year. So with the right design, sustainability is nothing but the rigorous use of common sense. Last case I would like to share is how design can provide more comprehensive answers against natural disasters. You may know that Chile, in 2010, was hit by an 8.8 Richter scale earthquake and tsunami, and we were called to work in the reconstruction of the Constitución, in the southern part of the country. We were given 100 days, three months, to design almost everything, from public buildings to public space, street grid, transportation, housing, and mainly how to protect the city against future tsunamis. This was new in Chilean urban design, and there were in the air a couple of alternatives. First one: Forbid installation on ground zero. Thirty million dollars spent mainly in land expropriation. This is exactly what's being discussed in Japan nowadays, and if you have a disciplined population like the Japanese, this may work, but we know that in Chile, this land is going to be occupied illegally anyhow, so this alternative was unrealistic and undesirable. Second alternative: build a big wall, heavy infrastructure to resist the energy of the waves. This alternative was conveniently lobbied by big building companies, because it meant 42 million dollars in contracts, and was also politically preferred, because it required no land expropriation. But Japan proved that trying to resist the force of nature is useless. So this alternative was irresponsible. As in the housing process, we had to include the community in the way of finding a solution for this, and we started a participatory design process.
所以,设计的目的, 试图理解和解决“3S”威胁, 即规模(scale),速度(speed) 和匮乏(scarcity), 就是启发人们自身的建造的能力, 如果我们不利用人们自己的力量, 我们就无法解决这个每周为一百万人提供住房的问题。 所以,有了正确的设计, 贫民窟和棚户区可能就不再是问题了, 而是唯一可能的解决方案。 案例二:CO2(二氧化碳) 第二个案例体现了设计是如何 对可持续性起到帮助的。 在2012年,我们参与了安杰利尼创新中心的竞标, 我们的目标是为知识的创造提供合适的环境。 有一点是公认的, 那就是对于知识创造这样一个目标来说, 人与人之间面对面的交流和互动是很重要的, 我们也同意这点。 但对于我们,合适的环境 其实就是一个表面的问题。 我们想打造一个有着合适光线和 适宜的温度和空气的工作空间。 于是我们问自己, 典型的办公建筑 是否在这些方面对我们有帮助? 这些建筑看上去一般是什么样的? 它是许多楼层的集合, 层层相叠, 在中间有一个核心, 其中有电梯,楼梯,管道,线路等等, 外部有一层玻璃外墙, 因为阳光的直射, 在内部制造了严重的温室效应。 另外, 就拿一个在七楼工作的人来说, 他每天都要经过三楼, 但他对在那层的人的工作一无所知。 于是我们想,好吧,或许我们应该把这个设计反一下。 我们所做是 让我们建造一个开放的中庭, 一个空的中轴, 同样的楼层的集合, 但把外墙和其他东西安排在四周, 所以当阳光照射时, 不直接照在玻璃上,而是在墙上。 当你在内部有了一个开放的中庭时, 你就可以从内部看到别人在做什么, 你也可以更好的控制光线, 另外当你把杂物和墙壁 放在外围时, 你就可以阻止阳光的直射。 你也可以打开那些窗户 让穿堂风通过。 我们设计了这种大规模的开放空间, 它们成了整个建筑的空中广场和户外空间。 这些都不是什么尖端科技, 你不需要做复杂的规划, 这些都无关技术, 这只是一种古老的,原始的常识。 通过运用这些常识 我们把这座大楼用于降温的能耗 从一座传统的玻璃幕墙建筑的 每平米每年120千瓦 降到了每平米每年40千瓦。 所以,有了正确的设计 可持续性就不过是对常识的严格运用。 [案例三:海啸] 我想分享的最后一个案例 是关于设计可以如何为对抗自然灾害 提供一个全面的答案。 你们或许知道,智利在2010年 被一场里氏8.8级的地震和海啸袭击, 我们被叫去参与 南部的孔斯蒂图西翁市的重建工作。 我们有100天时间,大约三个月, 来设计出几乎所有的东西, 从公共建筑到公共空间, 街道网络,交通,住房, 以及最主要的—— 保护城市抵御未来海啸的方法。 这在智利的城市设计中是前所未有的, 当时还有三个其他的选项。 第一, 禁止在危险区域内的建设 如果这样做,政府需要花三千万美元在征地上。 这个方案正是现在在日本被讨论的, 如果你的民众像日本民众一样遵守秩序, 那这个方案或许可行。 但是我们知道,在智利 这些土地是无论如何都会被非法占据的, 所以,这个方案既不现实也不理想。 第二个选项:修建一堵巨大的墙, 用坚固的结构来抵御洪水的力量。 大型建筑公司极力游说此方案, 因为这能带来4200万美元的合同, 而且这在政治上也是首选的, 因为它并不需要任何征地项目。 但是日本的经验证明了 想要去抵抗自然的力量是徒劳的, 所以这个方案是不负责任的。 就像在住房项目中一样, 我们必须让社区参与到 为这个问题寻找方案的过程中来, 我们启动了一个参与式设计流程。 (录像)[西班牙语] 扩音器:你们想要什么样的城市?
(Video) [In Spanish] Loudspeaker: What kind of city do you want? Vote for Constitución. Go to the Open House and express your options. Participate!
为孔斯蒂图西翁投票, 参加开放日, 发表你的意见, 参与进来! 渔民:我是一个渔民,
Fisherman: I am a fisherman. Twenty-five fishermen work for me. Where should I take them? To the forest?
手下有二十五个人, 我该带他们去哪里?去森林吗? 男子:我们为什么不可以建水泥堤坝?
Man: So why can't we have a concrete defense? Done well, of course.
当然了,要修建好。 男子2:我祖上就住在这里,
Man 2: I am the history of Constitución. And you come here to tell me that I cannot keep on living here? My whole family has lived here, I raised my children here, and my children will also raise their children here. and my grandchildren and everyone else will. But why are you imposing this on me? You! You are imposing this on me! In danger zone I am not authorized to build. He himself is saying that.
而你们现在告诉我我不能继续住在这里? 我的全家都一直住在这里, 我在这里抚养我的孩子们长大, 我的孩子们也会在这里抚养他们的孩子, 我的孙子们和后代所有人都会在这里, 但你们为什么要强迫我? 你!你们就是在强迫我! 说什么在危险区,我不能盖房子, 他,他自己就是这样说的。 男子3:不,不,不,不是……
Man 3: No, no, no, Nieves...
Alejandro Aravena: I don't know if you were able to read the subtitles, but you can tell from the body language that participatory design is not a hippie, romantic, let's-all-dream-together-about- the-future-of-the-city kind of thing. It is actually — (Applause) It is actually not even with the families trying to find the right answer. It is mainly trying to identify with precision what is the right question. There is nothing worse than answering well the wrong question.
演讲者:我不知道你们是否能看懂字幕, 但是你们可以从肢体语言判断 这个参与式设计 不是一个嬉皮的,浪漫的 “大家一起梦想城市的未来”之类的事情, 它实际上 ——(掌声) 它实际上甚至不是要和那些家庭一起 尝试寻找正确答案, 而主要是要明确 什么才是恰当的问题。 没有什么比正确回答一个错误的问题更糟糕的了。 很明显,在这之后
So it was pretty obvious after this process that, well, we chicken out here and go away because it's too tense, or we go even further in asking, what else is bothering you? What other problems do you have and you want us to take care of now that the city will have to be rethought from scratch? And what they said was, look, fine to protect the city against future tsunamis, we really appreciate, but the next one is going to come in, what, 20 years? But every single year, we have problems of flooding due to rain. In addition, we are in the middle of the forest region of the country, and our public space sucks. It's poor and it's scarce. And the origin of the city, our identity, is not really connected to the buildings that fell, it is connected to the river, but the river cannot be accessed publicly, because its shores are privately owned. So we thought that we had to produce a third alternative, and our approach was against geographical threats, have geographical answers. What if, in between the city and the sea we have a forest, a forest that doesn't try to resist the energy of nature, but dissipates it by introducing friction? A forest that may be able to laminate the water and prevent the flooding? That may pay the historical debt of public space, and that may provide, finally, democratic access to the river. So as a conclusion of the participatory design, the alternative was validated politically and socially, but there was still the problem of the cost: 48 million dollars. So what we did was a survey in the public investment system, and found out that there were three ministries with three projects in the exact same place, not knowing of the existence of the other projects. The sum of them: 52 million dollars. So design's power of synthesis is trying to make a more efficient use of the scarcest resource in cities, which is not money but coordination. By doing so, we were able to save four million dollars, and that is why the forest is today under construction. (Applause)
我们应该畏缩离开,因为气氛太紧张了? 还是我们更进一步 去问“还有什么别的事情困扰你们吗?” “你们还有什么其它问题?” “既然这座城市要从零开始重新规划, 你们还有什么想让我们帮忙解决的吗?” 他们说, 好,保护城市抵御海啸是好事, 我们很感激这一点, 但是下一场海啸什么时候会来?二十年后? 但每一年,我们都会遇到由降雨带来的洪水, 另外,我们处在这个国家的森林地区, 我们的公共空间糟透了, 条件差而且非常有限。 而且这座城市的根源,我们的认同感 和那些倒掉的建筑并没有什么关系, 而是和河流相连的, 但河流是不对公众开放的, 因为河岸是被私人所有的。 所以我们认为我们必须想出第三个方案 我们的想法是,应对地方性的威胁 需要有地方性的答案。 如果 在城市和海洋之间 有一片树林, 这片树林并不是用来阻止 自然的力量的, 而是通过引入障碍来削弱它? 一片森林或许可以分开水流 并且避免洪水? 它或许也可以解决公共空间的历史问题, 并且最终 为公众提供一条开放的河流。 所以,作为参与式设计的结论, 这个方案在政治上和社会上都是可行的, 但成本的问题依然存在, 4800万美元. 我们对公共投资系统做了一个调查, 我们发现这里有三个不同的部门 在同一个地方有三个彼此独立的项目, 他们都不知道对方的存在, 而这些项目的成本总和是:5200万美元。 所以,“设计的整合力” 就是尝试去高效地利用城市中稀缺的资源, 这无关金钱,而是协调。 通过这样做,我们能节省 四百万美元,这也是为什么 那片森林现在已经在种植了。 (掌声) 所以,自我建造的力量,
So be it the force of self construction, the force of common sense, or the force of nature, all these forces need to be translated into form, and what that form is modeling and shaping is not cement, bricks, or wood. It is life itself. Design's power of synthesis is just an attempt to put at the innermost core of architecture the force of life.
常识的力量, 或自然的力量,所有这些力量 需要被转化成一种形式, 而这种形式最终打造的 并不是水泥,砖块或木材, 而是生活本身。 设计的整合力 不过是一种 把生命的力量注入建筑的灵魂的努力尝试。
Thank you so much.
谢谢!
(Applause)
(掌声)