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.
如果在設計裡有任何力量的話, 就是「綜效力」。 難題越是複雜, 就越需要簡單來看。 請讓我分享三個案例, 其中我們試著運用 設計的綜效力。
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.
讓我們先從全球的 都市化挑戰講起, 人們正不斷地湧進 都市是事實, 即便是跟直覺相違背, 這是個好消息。 有證據說大家在城市裡 是比較好過日子的, 不過會有一個我管它叫 「3S威脅」的麻煩: 「規模(scale)、速度(speed)、 資金的短缺(scarcity)」, 我們必須處理這些威脅, 這種前所未見的現象。 為了讓你有個概念, 今天有著超過30億以上的 人口住在城市裡面, 其中10億人處於貧窮線 之下的生活水準; 等到了2030年, 將有超過50億的人口 住在城市裡面, 其中有20億人處於貧窮線 之下的生活水準。 這代表我們將得要 每個星期建造 一座百萬人口的城市、 每個房子要花1萬美金, 在接下來的15年裡面。 「每週產生一座有百萬人口的城市、 每個房子要花1萬美金」, 如果我們不能解答這個公式, 大家並非就停止 進到城市來, 不論如何他們還是 會來到, 而他們將會住在市中心 或城市外緣的貧民窟裡, 以及不合適的居地。
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.
那要怎麼辦呢? 有一個來自這些貧民窟 本身的答案, 這個問題的線索 可能就在 我們十年前被要求 做的事情, 我們被要求安置 100個家庭, 這些家庭一直以來 非法霸佔在 智利北方的伊基克市 市中心半公頃的土地。 利用每個家庭10,000 美金的補助, 我們得要買土地、 提供基礎建設、 還有建造房子, 最理想的狀況 大概是40平方米大。 順便一提, 他們告訴我們土地的 取得成本, 因為是市中心, 要比社會住宅 通常所能承擔的 要多出三倍; 因為問題的棘手性, 我們決定在瞭解 各種限制的過程中 將家戶們納進來參與, 我們啟動了 參與式的設計過程, 而且檢驗了在市場上 所能買到的房子, 「獨棟房子」 可以容納30個家庭; 「排屋」能容納60個家庭, (那100個家庭呢?) 唯一可以容納他們的辦法 就是透過往上加蓋, 他們威脅我們 將要進行絕食, 如果我們膽敢提出 這個當解決方案, 因為他們沒辦法 使窄小的公寓變大, 所以和家戶們一起 做出的結論, 不是我們的結論, 這很重要, 和家戶們的結論 就是我們有麻煩了, 我們必須要創新。 結果我們做了什麼呢?
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.
好吧,一個中等的家庭, 住得相當不賴, 大概要80平方米上下; 可是當錢不夠時, 市場就把房子的大小, 降為40平方米大, 我們講的就是, 這樣如何呢? 與其把40平方米 認為是小房子, 我們何不改想成是 半間的好房子呢? 當你把問題換個說法, 把小房子說成是 半間房子, 關鍵的問題來了: 我們該蓋哪半間? 而我們認為該用公款蓋的, 是家戶不能獨自建造 的那半間, 我們區分出了五項條件, 屬於房子比較 難蓋的那半間, 然後我們回頭找家戶們 做兩件事情: 「一起出力和分散任務」。 我們的設計是某種 介於於建築物和房子 之間的作品, 以建築物來說它可以買到 昂貴的、好位置的土地; 而以房子來講它要能擴建, 假使你得到了一間房子, 不想要在居住過程中被 擠到了房子邊緣, 家戶們還能保有他們的 人際網絡和工作, 我們知道擴建要 立刻啟動。 所以我們從這些基本的 社會住宅, 轉變成由家戶們自己 只花幾個禮拜 就蓋好的中等住宅。
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.
那就是我們10年前 在伊基克的第一個案子。 這個則是我們在智利 最新的案子, 不一樣的設計,一樣的原則, 你提供房子的結構, 此後讓家戶們來負責。
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.
所以設計的目的、 試著瞭解和給「3S威脅」 一個答案, 3S威脅:規模、速度和 資金的短缺, 就是導入民眾自己的建造力, 除非是我們運用民眾 自己力量來建造, 否則我們將無法滿足每個禮拜 100萬人口的公式。 所以有了正確的設計, 市中心和城市外圍的貧民窟 也許將不再是問題, 事實上還是唯一可行 的解決辦法。 第二個案例是如何讓設計 可以增進永續性, 在2012年時我們參加了 Angelini集團的 UC創新中心的競標, 目的是要打造出 知識創造的合適的環境, 為了這目標:「知識創造」, 人們彼此間的互動、 面對面接觸, 被公認是很重要的! 而我們也同意。 但是對我們來說 「合適的環境」 是非常字面的問題; 我們需要一個工作空間, 有著合適的燈光、 合適的溫度、 合適的空氣等等, 所以我們問自己, 傳統的辦公室建築是否 在這方面對我們有幫助? 那麼一般來說傳統建築 看起來像什麼? 它是一個樓層的合體, 每一層樓之上還有一層樓, 在中央是核心, 有著升降梯、樓梯、水管、 線路等等一切, 然後外面披著玻璃的表皮, 因為直射的太陽光波, 在裡面製造了很大的 溫室效應, 除此之外讓我們假設: 有個傢伙在第七樓工作, 每一天都會經過第三樓, 但是卻完全不曉得 那層樓的人 正在做些什麼事, 所以我們想要把玻璃 表皮給內外翻轉過來, 我們做的事就是: 來做個開放式的中庭吧! 一個中空的核心, 一樣的樓層合體, 在邊緣有牆壁、有雜物, 如此一來當陽光照到, 那就不是直接照射玻璃, 而是一片牆, 當樓層裡面有著一個 開放的中庭, 你就能從大樓裡面看到 其他人正在幹什麼, 你有一個比較好的方法 來控制光線, 當你在外圍設置了 雜物、牆壁, 你可以避開直射的太陽光波; 你也能打開窗戶, 讓樓層內彼此通風, 我們就是使這些開放空間, 這麼大規模的空間, 可以當作是空中廣場、 戶外空間, 從上到下貫通整間大樓。 這些都不是太尖端的科學, 你不需要做精密的演算, 這跟科技沒啥關係, 這就只是很古老、原始的 基本常識, 透過利用這些基本常識, 我們從每年每平方米 要12萬瓦特的電力; 那是傳統上讓玻璃塔降溫 電力的消耗量, 變成每年每平方米 4萬瓦特。 因此用了正確的設計, 永續性不過就是 嚴謹的運用常識。 最後一個我想要分享的案例, 是設計如何能提出 更完整的答案來 對抗自然災害。 你們可能知道在 2010年智利被 芮氏8.8級的地震 以及海嘯侵襲, 而我們被找去 做智利南部的 「孔斯蒂圖西翁」的重建, 我們被限制了要在100天內, 也就是3個月內, 設計出幾乎每一樣東西, 從公共建築到公共空間, 街道網絡、運輸系統和房子, 最重要的是如何 保護該城市 面對未來的海嘯。 這在智利的城市設計上 來說是首見的, 而且有好幾個可行辦法 馬上就能想到, 第一、禁止在震央區蓋房子, 3,000萬美金主要是花在 徵收土地上, 這正是日本今天在 討論的東西, 如果有像日本那樣 守紀律的人民, 這或許就行得通; 不過我們都清楚在智利 這塊地到頭來將會 被人非法佔據, 所以這個方案既不實際 、也不受歡迎。 第二個方案、 建造高大的牆壁。 厚實的基礎建設阻擋 浪潮的能量, 這個方案可輕易地由 大建設公司來進行遊說, 因為這代表了4,200萬 美金的合約, 而且也是政治上比較 受喜愛的, 因為它不需要徵收土地。 但是日本證實了企圖阻擋 大自然的力量是無效的, 所以這個方案是 不負責任的作為。 在蓋房子的過程中, 必須將社群涵蓋進來, 以找出解決方案, 因而我們啟動了 參與式設計步驟。
(Video) [In Spanish] Loudspeaker: What kind of city do you want? Vote for Constitución. Go to the Open House and express your options. Participate!
(影片-西班牙語)廣播器: 哪一種城市是你所要的? 為「孔斯蒂圖西翁」來投票吧! 來Open House表達你的意見吧! 來參與吧!
Fisherman: I am a fisherman. Twenty-five fishermen work for me. Where should I take them? To the forest?
漁夫:我是個漁夫, 有25個漁夫在我手下工作, 我應該把他們擺在那兒呢? 森林裡嗎?
Man: So why can't we have a concrete defense? Done well, of course.
男士:為什麼我們不能有個 混凝土的護堤呢? 當然了,是完善的護堤。
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.
男士2號:我是世居在 「孔斯蒂圖西翁」的人, 而你們來這裡是要跟我說 我不能繼續居住在這裡了嗎? 我整個家庭都住在這裡、 我在這裡撫育我的子女長大、 而我的子女們將來也會 在這裡撫育他們的小孩、 我的孫子以及其他每個人 也會這樣做, 可是為什麼你要強逼我呢? 你們!就是你們強逼我! 在危險區我不准蓋東西, 他就是這樣講。
Man 3: No, no, no, Nieves...
男士3號: 不..不..不!(握緊拳頭)
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.
亞歷山大.阿拉維那: 我不曉得你們是否 看得懂字幕, 但是你們可以從 肢體語言分辨出來, 參與式設計 並非是嘻皮的、浪漫的, 像是:「關於城市的未來, 讓我們一起來想像吧!」 諸如此類的。 事實上它是... (掌聲) 它並不是真的要和家戶們 試著找出正確的答案, 它主要是想準確辨別出 什麼才是對的問題, 沒有什麼比好好回答了 一個錯誤的問題 還要再糟糕的事情,
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)
所以經過這個步驟之後 就很清楚的, 因為氣氛太緊張了, 我們在這邊放棄了、 閃人了, 或者是我們進一步問道, 「還有什麼事情困擾 著你們嗎?」、 「你們還有其他問題嗎?」、 「你們要我們現在就來負責, 城市會從傷痕中重新考慮?」 他們說:聽著保護城市應付 未來的海嘯是好事, 我們真的很感激, 不過,什麼!下一個海嘯 是發生在20年之後嗎? 但是每一年我們都會 因為下雨產生淹水的麻煩, 還有我們位在國家 森林地區的中央, 而且我們的公共空間 爛透了, 既差勁又很稀少, 而且城市的起源、 我們的特色, 並不是真的與倒塌了的 建築物有關聯, 而是跟河川有關, 但是河川並不能 開放給大家使用的, 因為它的河岸是 私人持有的, 所以我們認為我們得要 提出第三個方案, 我們的辦法是: 對付地理的威脅, 會有地理的答案, 這樣如何呢? 在城市和大海中間 我們有著一個森林的話, 森林並不會阻擋大自然 的能量, 但是會產生分化來 逐漸消耗它, 森林也許能夠壓薄水量, 而避免淹水, 那也許得用公共空間的 歷史性包袱作為代價, 最終可能會開放給 所有人來使用河川, 因此作為參與式設計 的結論, 解決方案在政治上 還有社會上被認可, 但是仍然有成本上的問題: 4,800萬美金。 所以我們在公共投資 系統裡面 做過一個調查, 然後在完全相同的地點 找到了3個部會的3個計畫, 彼此不知道對方 計畫的存在, 它們合計是5千2百萬美金。 所以設計力量的綜效 是想要讓城市裡少到 不行的資源 做出更有效的利用, 此資源指的並不是金錢 而是協調。 透過這樣做我們可以 節省400萬美元, 這就是今天森林 已經在造林的原因。 (鼓掌!)
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.
所以當成它是自蓋建築的力量、 基本常識的力量、 或者是大自然的力量也行, 所有這些力量需要 轉換成形式, 用這形式打造出模型或外觀的 並不是水泥、磚頭 或是木料, 而是生命的真義! 設計的綜效力 就只是一種企圖心, 要把生命的力量放進 建築的靈魂裡面,
Thank you so much.
非常謝謝大家!
(Applause)
(掌聲...)