I'll start with my favorite muse, Emily Dickinson, who said that wonder is not knowledge, neither is it ignorance. It's something which is suspended between what we believe we can be, and a tradition we may have forgotten. And I think, when I listen to these incredible people here, I've been so inspired -- so many incredible ideas, so many visions. And yet, when I look at the environment outside, you see how resistant architecture is to change. You see how resistant it is to those very ideas. We can think them out. We can create incredible things. And yet, at the end, it's so hard to change a wall. We applaud the well-mannered box. But to create a space that never existed is what interests me; to create something that has never been, a space that we have never entered except in our minds and our spirits. And I think that's really what architecture is based on.
我最喜愛的靈感女神艾米莉·迪金森曾說 想像不是知識,也不是無知 想像是介乎於 我們對未來的憧憬,和 即將消逝的傳統之間 當我在這裡聽到許多優秀的人物演講時 啟發了我許多想法,原來有這麼多傑出的點子和願景 但當我往窗外一看 你會發現我們的建築物是那麼的死板 是那麼的抗拒新想法 我們可以想像改變,我們可以創造美好的東西 但到了最後 這面高牆還是難以翻越 我們依舊讚揚那些四四方方的建築物 我只對創造前所未有的空間有興趣 和創造史無前例的東西 一個只曾在我們想像和心靈存在的空間 我認為這才是建築的本質
Architecture is not based on concrete and steel and the elements of the soil. It's based on wonder. And that wonder is really what has created the greatest cities, the greatest spaces that we have had. And I think that is indeed what architecture is. It is a story. By the way, it is a story that is told through its hard materials. But it is a story of effort and struggle against improbabilities. If you think of the great buildings, of the cathedrals, of the temples, of the pyramids, of pagodas, of cities in India and beyond, you think of how incredible this is that that was realized not by some abstract idea, but by people.
建築不是奠基於混凝土 鋼鐵或是泥土上 而是奠基於我們的想像 想像使我們建成最偉大的城市,和 最美好的生活空間 我想建築便是如此。建築是一個故事 建築是一個透過 實體來說的故事 一個關於努力和奮鬥 抗衡不可能的故事 當你想到那些偉大的建築物、大教堂、寺廟 金字塔、寶塔 在印度的城市及以後以外城市 那些不可思議的城市和建築不是來自 一個抽象的概念,而是來自人
So, anything that has been made can be unmade. Anything that has been made can be made better. There it is: the things that I really believe are of important architecture. These are the dimensions that I like to work with. It's something very personal. It's not, perhaps, the dimensions appreciated by art critics or architecture critics or city planners. But I think these are the necessary oxygen for us to live in buildings, to live in cities, to connect ourselves in a social space.
我們可以重塑那些現有的建築物 或是讓它們更完美 這些是我認為對建築來說 真正重要的東西 我期盼能在這些概念下創作 這是我個人的想法 或許這不是藝術評論家 或建築評論家或城市規劃者所讚賞的 但我認為在怎樣的建築物裡、城市生活 並連結我們彼此的社交空間 跟呼吸一樣重要
And I therefore believe that optimism is what drives architecture forward. It's the only profession where you have to believe in the future. You can be a general, a politician, an economist who is depressed, a musician in a minor key, a painter in dark colors. But architecture is that complete ecstasy that the future can be better. And it is that belief that I think drives society.
樂觀精神是推動建築設計進步的動力 建築在未來的進步是你可以看得到的 你可以是一個沮喪的將軍,政治家,經濟學家 一個憂鬱的音樂家,一個暗沉的畫家 但建築是帶著狂喜地期盼美好的未來 而我認為這便是推動社會進步的信念
And today we have a kind of evangelical pessimism all around us. And yet it is in times like this that I think architecture can thrive with big ideas, ideas that are not small. Think of the great cities. Think of the Empire State Building, the Rockefeller Center. They were built in times that were not really the best of times in a certain way. And yet that energy and power of architecture has driven an entire social and political space that these buildings occupy.
現今我們被悲觀的說法包圍 然而在這樣的時代 建築也可以為偉大的想法而奮鬥 想想那些偉大的城市 想想帝國大廈和洛克菲勒中心 它們的建造時間 都是在最艱困的時代 然而建築物帶來的精神和力量 卻讓整個社會和政治環境得到進步
So again, I am a believer in the expressive. I have never been a fan of the neutral. I don't like neutrality in life, in anything. I think expression. And it's like espresso coffee, you know, you take the essence of the coffee. That's what expression is. It's been missing in much of the architecture, because we think architecture is the realm of the neutered, the realm of the kind of a state that has no opinion, that has no value. And yet, I believe it is the expression -- expression of the city, expression of our own space -- that gives meaning to architecture.
我認為建築能表現某些事情 我從來不是一個中立者 我不喜歡在生活上或任何事上中立 表現就像 就像濃縮咖啡,把咖啡的精髓提煉出來 這就是我所謂的表現 而我們大部分的建築已經失去這樣的能力 因為我們認為建築是一個中立的領域 一個沒有看法的領域 也沒有價值觀 但我仍然相信建築是一種表現 是城市和生活空間的表現 賦予了建築物意義
And, of course, expressive spaces are not mute. Expressive spaces are not spaces that simply confirm what we already know. Expressive spaces may disturb us. And I think that's also part of life. Life is not just an anesthetic to make us smile, but to reach out across the abyss of history, to places we have never been, and would have perhaps been, had we not been so lucky.
建築物表現的空間並不是沈默的 這表現的空間不只是 表達我們已知的事情 這空間可能會使我們不安 我認為這也是人生的一部分 人生不該只有那些麻痺的笑容 而是越過歷史的深淵 到達我們從未到過的地方 如果我們不試,可能無法到達那種境界
So again, radical versus conservative. Radical, what does it mean? It's something which is rooted, and something which is rooted deep in a tradition. And I think that is what architecture is, it's radical. It's not just a conservation in formaldehyde of dead forms. It is actually a living connection to the cosmic event that we are part of, and a story that is certainly ongoing. It's not something that has a good ending or a bad ending. It's actually a story in which our acts themselves are pushing the story in a particular way.
激進與保守 什麼是激進?那是根深蒂固的 在傳統上生根的 我認為建築也是激進的 而不是像死去一樣 被保護在傳統的束縛裡 建築是活生生的 聯系著宇宙 它是一個正在進行的故事 它的結局可以是好也可以是壞 它是我們正參與著的故事 我們的行為會影響這故事
So again I am a believer in the radical architecture. You know the Soviet architecture of that building is the conservation. It's like the old Las Vegas used to be. It's about conserving emotions, conserving the traditions that have obstructed the mind in moving forward and of course what is radical is to confront them. And I think our architecture is a confrontation with our own senses. Therefore I believe it should not be cool.
我是個激進建築的信徒 你們都見過蘇聯的建築 那就是傳統 那就像過去的拉斯維加斯一樣 著重的是保守和傳統 這些阻礙了我們的思想進步 激進就是要對抗這些保守思想 我認為建築正在和我們的 知覺對抗 所以我認為建築不該是冷酷的
There is a lot of appreciation for the kind of cool architecture. I've always been an opponent of it. I think emotion is needed. Life without emotion would really not be life. Even the mind is emotional. There is no reason which does not take a position in the ethical sphere, in the philosophical mystery of what we are. So I think emotion is a dimension that is important to introduce into city space, into city life.
許多人喜歡那種冷酷的建築 我一直反對這個想法,我認為建築必須要有情緒 沒有情緒的人生便不是人生 甚至我們的思想都是情緒化的 沒理由情緒不能出現在我們的倫理觀 或像哲學般地解釋我們是誰 我認為情緒是一種維度 把情緒帶進城市空間和城市生活中是非常重要的
And of course, we are all about the struggle of emotions. And I think that is what makes the world a wondrous place. And of course, the confrontation of the cool, the unemotional with emotion, is a conversation that I think cities themselves have fostered. I think that is the progress of cities. It's not only the forms of cities, but the fact that they incarnate emotions, not just of those who build them, but of those who live there as well.
當然,情緒會有所衝突 我認為這讓世界變得美好 冷酷和情緒化之間的對峙 是一個城市中 所兼容的對話 我認為這是城市的進步 不只是城市形態的進步而已 這些具體化的情緒 不只是來自建築工人 也來自居民的情緒
Inexplicable versus understood. You know, too often we want to understand everything. But architecture is not the language of words. It's a language. But it is not a language that can be reduced to a series of programmatic notes that we can verbally write. Too many buildings that you see outside that are so banal tell you a story, but the story is very short, which says, "We have no story to tell you." (Laughter)
難以言表與理解。我們往往想理解所有事 但建築不是一種有文字的語言 它是一種語言,但不是一種能被簡化為 文字來表達的語言 外面有許多平庸的建築 它們也會說故事,但大多很短 它說 “我無話可說” (笑聲)
So the important thing actually, is to introduce the actual architectural dimensions, which might be totally inexplicable in words, because they operate in proportions, in materials, in light. They connect themselves into various sources, into a kind of complex vector matrix that isn't really frontal but is really embedded in the lives, and in the history of a city, and of a people. So again, the notion that a building should just be explicit I think is a false notion, which has reduced architecture into banality.
重要的是 要介紹真正的建築各個面相 是不是能用言語陳述的 因為這語言是以比例 材質,光線組成的 它們以不同元素連成一種 複雜的向量矩陣 它不是平鋪直述 但深入我們的生活 深入城市和居民的歷史 那些認為建築應該直截了當的想法 我認為是錯誤的 它會把建築簡化為平庸
Hand versus the computer. Of course, what would we be without computers? Our whole practice depends on computing. But the computer should not just be the glove of the hand; the hand should really be the driver of the computing power. Because I believe that the hand in all its primitive, in all its physiological obscurity, has a source, though the source is unknown, though we don't have to be mystical about it. We realize that the hand has been given us by forces that are beyond our own autonomy. And I think when I draw drawings which may imitate the computer, but are not computer drawings -- drawings that can come from sources that are completely not known, not normal, not seen, yet the hand -- and that's what I really, to all of you who are working -- how can we make the computer respond to our hand rather than the hand responding to the computer.
手繪與電腦 當然,今日誰能不用電腦呢? 我們這個行業是依賴電腦的 但電腦應該只是手套 手才是手套後面真正賜予電腦力量的東西 因為我相信手 在原始、複雜的生理機能背後 仍然有種力量,雖然我們不知從何而來 我們不需要故作神秘 我們知道手是由 一種超越我們能力的力量所賜予 我認為當我繪圖時 可以畫得很像電腦畫的,但實際上不是 這手繪圖像是出自於 一種未見,未知,無解的力量 但是手 -- 我想告訴你們的是,在這個領域工作的你們 -- 要如何讓電腦回應我們的手 而不是手回應電腦
I think that's part of what the complexity of architecture is. Because certainly we have gotten used to the propaganda that the simple is the good. But I don't believe it. Listening to all of you, the complexity of thought, the complexity of layers of meaning is overwhelming. And I think we shouldn't shy away in architecture, You know, brain surgery, atomic theory, genetics, economics are complex complex fields. There is no reason that architecture should shy away and present this illusory world of the simple. It is complex. Space is complex. Space is something that folds out of itself into completely new worlds. And as wondrous as it is, it cannot be reduced to a kind of simplification that we have often come to be admired. And yet, our lives are complex. Our emotions are complex. Our intellectual desires are complex. So I do believe that architecture as I see it needs to mirror that complexity in every single space that we have, in every intimacy that we possess.
我想這也是建築複雜的一部分 因為我們都習慣認為 簡單是好的觀念,但我卻不這麼想 今天聽各位演講,這些複雜的思考 這些意含的層次是驚人的 而我認為我們不應該忽略建築學這個領域 腦科手術、原子論 遺傳學、經濟學 都是一些非常複雜的領域 建築學沒有理由被忽略 它不是呈現一個虛假的簡單世界 世界是複雜的,空間是複雜的 空間將自己摺疊成一個新世界 多神奇阿 它不能被簡化成那些 我們往往過分讚揚的作品 我們的生活是複雜的 我們的情緒是複雜的 我們對知識的慾望是複雜的 所以我相信建築應該 反應那些環繞我們的複雜的生活和空間 在我們所有的親密性中
Of course that means that architecture is political. The political is not an enemy of architecture. The politeama is the city. It's all of us together. And I've always believed that the act of architecture, even a private house, when somebody else will see it, is a political act, because it will be visible to others. And we live in a world which is connecting us more and more. So again, the evasion of that sphere, which has been so endemic to that sort of pure architecture, the autonomous architecture that is just an abstract object has never appealed to me. And I do believe that this interaction with the history, with history that is often very difficult, to grapple with it, to create a position that is beyond our normal expectations and to create a critique.
這代表著建築是政治的 政治不是建築的敵人 政治是城市,是我們所有人 我一直相信建築本身 就算是私人住宅,當有人見到它,它便成為一個政治行為 因為他人也可以看見 而我們住在一個彼此越來越有關聯的世界 但我們依舊逃避這個事實 而普遍的選擇一種純粹的建築 那些"自發的建築"看上去像個抽象物件 我對那些從來不感興趣 我相信與歷史產生 相互作用是困難的 設法解決它 創造超越一般預設的立場及評判
Because architecture is also the asking of questions. It's not only the giving of answers. It's also, just like life, the asking of questions. Therefore it is important that it be real. You know we can simulate almost anything. But the one thing that can be ever simulated is the human heart, the human soul. And architecture is so closely intertwined with it because we are born somewhere and we die somewhere. So the reality of architecture is visceral. It's not intellectual. It's not something that comes to us from books and theories. It's the real that we touch -- the door, the window, the threshold, the bed -- such prosaic objects. And yet, I try, in every building, to take that virtual world, which is so enigmatic and so rich, and create something in the real world. Create a space for an office, a space of sustainability that really works between that virtuality and yet can be realized as something real.
因為建築不只是給答案 同時也在發問 正如人生一樣,不斷地發問 因此重要的是保持真實 我們幾乎可以模擬所有東西 但有一件事是永遠不能模擬的 便是人心和人的靈魂 建築和它們息息相關 因為我們生於建築,死於建築 真正的建築出自內心,而不是來自知識 不是來自書本或理論 而是來自我們可觸碰的真實。一扇門,一扇窗 門檻,床 這些平凡的物件 我試著在虛擬世界 把這些深奧又多元的作品展示出來 然後在真實世界中把這些作品實體化 創造一個辦公環境 一個永續空間 存在於虛擬世界中 也能在真實世界中存在
Unexpected versus habitual. What is a habit? It's just a shackle for ourselves. It's a self-induced poison. So the unexpected is always unexpected. You know, it's true, the cathedrals, as unexpected, will always be unexpected. You know Frank Gehry's buildings, they will continue to be unexpected in the future. So not the habitual architecture that instills in us the false sort of stability, but an architecture that is full of tension, an architecture that goes beyond itself to reach a human soul and a human heart, and that breaks out of the shackles of habits.
意外與習慣 習慣是什麼?不過是一個束縛 是一種我們自己造成的毒藥 意外總是出人意料 就像大教堂,是意外 永遠是意想不到的 就像弗蘭克蓋裡的建築,將繼續在今後帶給我們驚歎 而不是那些我們早已習慣的建築形態 虛假的穩定 而是充滿張力的建築形態 一個超越自己 能感動心靈的建築 它打破古舊習慣的束縛
And of course habits are enforced by architecture. When we see the same kind of architecture we become immured in that world of those angles, of those lights, of those materials. We think the world really looks like our buildings. And yet our buildings are pretty much limited by the techniques and wonders that have been part of them.
當然建築也加強了我們的習慣 當我們日復一日見到同樣的建築 我們會開始習慣於從這個角度看世界 這些光線,這些材質 我們開始相信世界就像我們看到的這些建築一樣 但這些建築卻受限於創造者的 技術和想像力
So again, the unexpected which is also the raw. And I often think of the raw and the refined. What is raw? The raw, I would say is the naked experience, untouched by luxury, untouched by expensive materials, untouched by the kind of refinement that we associate with high culture. So the rawness, I think, in space, the fact that sustainability can actually, in the future translate into a raw space, a space that isn't decorated, a space that is not mannered in any source, but a space that might be cool in terms of its temperature, might be refractive to our desires. A space that doesn't always follow us like a dog that has been trained to follow us, but moves ahead into directions of demonstrating other possibilities, other experiences, that have never been part of the vocabulary of architecture.
因此,意外就是原始 我時常想到原始和精緻 原始是什麼?原始就是 一種純淨的經驗,不被奢華 和昂貴的材質影響 不被那些高度文明 所認同的那些精緻珍品影響 空間裡的原始 在未來可以把永續的概念 變成原始空間 一個不經裝飾的空間 一個不經矯飾的空間 一個涼爽的空間 反應著我們所期望的 一個不會像一條訓練良好的狗 一樣跟隨著我們的空間 而是帶領我們 示範著其它的可能性、其它的經驗 發掘那些在建築史上從未使用的
And of course that juxtaposition is of great interest to me because it creates a kind of a spark of new energy. And so I do like something which is pointed, not blunt, something which is focused on reality, something that has the power, through its leverage, to transform even a very small space.
交叉重疊也是我的興趣 因為它創造一種新的能量 而且我也喜歡尖銳,而不是遲鈍的 那些專注於真實的 那些力量飽滿的,藉著它來影響 就算只是一個小地方
So architecture maybe is not so big, like science, but through its focal point it can leverage in an Archimedian way what we think the world is really about. And often it takes just a building to change our experience of what could be done, what has been done, how the world has remained both in between stability and instability. And of course buildings have their shapes. Those shapes are difficult to change. And yet, I do believe that in every social space, in every public space, there is a desire to communicate more than just that blunt thought, that blunt technique, but something that pinpoints, and can point in various directions forward, backward, sideways and around. So that is indeed what is memory. So I believe that my main interest is to memory. Without memory we would be amnesiacs. We would not know which way we were going, and why we are going where we're going.
建築可能不像科學那樣偉大 但藉著這個焦點 可以產生一種阿基米德式的槓桿效應 改變我們對世界的看法 往往我們只需要一個建築 就能改變我們對過去歷史和未來可能性的看法 甚至瞭解世界如何存在於穩定和震盪中 當然建築都有它們各自的形態 這些形態是很難改變的 但我仍然相信在所有社交空間 在所有公共空間裡 都有一種想要溝通的慾望 而不是模糊的想法,模糊的技術 是能明確指出不同方向的 是要前進、後退、左右或是環繞 這是一個共同的記憶 我相信我最大的興趣便是記憶 沒有記憶我們就成了失憶者 我們會忘記我們的前進的方向 以及我們選擇這個方向的原因
So I've been never interested in the forgettable reuse, rehashing of the same things over and over again, which, of course, get accolades of critics. Critics like the performance to be repeated again and again the same way. But I rather play something completely unheard of, and even with flaws, than repeat the same thing over and over which has been hollowed by its meaninglessness. So again, memory is the city, memory is the world. Without the memory there would be no story to tell. There would be nowhere to turn.
所以我對那些過目即忘的再製品從來不感興趣 把那些做過的事反覆地重新排列 當然,它們能得到評論家的讚揚 評論家總是喜歡那些一再重複的演出 但我寧可演奏一些 前所未有的音符 就算有瑕疵 也不要重複那些被反覆演奏的樂章 它們毫無意義而且空洞 記憶組成城市,記憶組成世界 沒有記憶,便沒有值得訴說的故事 也無路可走
The memorable, I think, is really our world, what we think the world is. And it's not only our memory, but those who remember us, which means that architecture is not mute. It's an art of communication. It tells a story. The story can reach into obscure desires. It can reach into sources that are not explicitly available. It can reach into millennia that have been buried, and return them in a just and unexpected equity.
那值得記憶的,是我們的世界,我們對世界的觀感 那不只是我們的記憶 還有那些記憶我們的人 建築不是沉默的 它是一門溝通的藝術 它訴說一個故事。這故事可以碰觸到我們隱藏的欲望 碰觸那些平日接觸不到的資源 碰觸那些被埋葬已久的 千年記憶 讓它們回到一個正確而平等的地位
So again, I think the notion that the best architecture is silent has never appealed to me. Silence maybe is good for a cemetery but not for a city. Cities should be full of vibrations, full of sound, full of music. And that indeed is the architectural mission that I believe is important, is to create spaces that are vibrant, that are pluralistic, that can transform the most prosaic activities, and raise them to a completely different expectation. Create a shopping center, a swimming place that is more like a museum than like entertainment. And these are our dreams.
我想,我從來不被 沉默的建築所吸引 一個沉默的墳場是好的,但沉默的城市是不好的 城市應該活躍,充滿音樂和聲音 這是建築的任務 我相信這是重要的 去創造這樣一個活躍的 多元的空間 能夠把看似普通的活動 變得出乎意料 能把一個購物商場,一個游泳池 做得更像博物館,而非娛樂場所 這是我們的夢想
And of course risk. I think architecture should be risky. You know it costs a lot of money and so on, but yes, it should not play it safe. It should not play it safe, because if it plays it safe it's not moving us in a direction that we want to be. And I think, of course, risk is what underlies the world. World without risk would not be worth living. So yes, I do believe that the risk we take in every building. Risks to create spaces that have never been cantilevered to that extent. Risks of spaces that have never been so dizzying, as they should be, for a pioneering city. Risks that really move architecture even with all its flaws, into a space which is much better that the ever again repeated hollowness of a ready-made thing.
我認為建築應該冒險 當然這要花很多金錢和精力 但不應該保守 我們不應該因為保守而保守 這不能帶我們前進去我們想去的方向 當然 冒險是世界的基礎 沒有冒險的世界是不值得活的 是的,我相信在每一個建築裡冒的險都是值得的 冒險去做那些從未懸吊的這樣遠的空間 冒險去做一個前所未有的 迷人燦爛的 像所有城市的先驅 那些真正讓建築進步的冒險 就算有它的缺陷,還是好過那些 一直重複的 空虛的現成品
And of course that is finally what I believe architecture to be. It's about space. It's not about fashion. It's not about decoration. It's about creating with minimal means something which can not be repeated, cannot be simulated in any other sphere. And there of course is the space that we need to breathe, is the space we need to dream. These are the spaces that are not just luxurious spaces for some of us, but are important for everybody in this world.
這就是我所相信的建築的意義 這是關於空間,而不是關於時尚 也不是關於裝潢 只是希望創造一些 不能被重複的 不能在其它地方被模擬的 我們在那裡可以呼吸 可以夢想 這些空間 不只是一些人的奢侈享受 而是對世上每個人都很重要的地方
So again, it's not about the changing fashions, changing theories. It's about carving out a space for trees. It's carving out a space where nature can enter the domestic world of a city. A space where something which has never seen a light of day can enter into the inner workings of a density. And I think that is really the nature of architecture.
這無關時尚,或是改變理論 而是為樹木創造一個空間 在空間中創造一個能夠迎接大自然的地方 城市中的家居空間 一個從未見光的空間 可以進入城市的密度 這就是建築的本質
Now I am a believer in democracy. I don't like beautiful buildings built for totalitarian regimes. Where people cannot speak, cannot vote, cannot do anything. We too often admire those buildings. We think they are beautiful. And yet when I think of the poverty of society which doesn't give freedom to its people, I don't admire those buildings. So democracy, as difficult as it is, I believe in it.
我支持民主 我不喜歡那些極權國家 所建造的美麗建築 那裡的人民不能自由發言,不能投票,什麼也不能做 我們太常讚揚那些建築,認為它們很美麗 當我想到這些社會的貧窮 它們無法還給人民自由的狀況 我就無法讚揚這些建築 雖然民主並不容易,我仍然相信它
And of course, at Ground Zero what else? It's such a complex project. It's emotional. There is so many interests. It's political. There is so many parties to this project. There is so many interests. There's money. There's political power. There are emotions of the victims. And yet, in all its messiness, in all its difficulties, I would not have liked somebody to say, "This is the tabula rasa, mister architect -- do whatever you want." I think nothing good will come out of that.
"零地帶"還剩什麼(世貿中心的倒塌現場) 這是一個很複雜的計劃 很多個人情緒,很多人感興趣 它也是政治,許多人參與這個項目 他們都為了不同的原因,有金錢和權力參與其中 有受害者家屬的情緒 但在這些困難和混亂中 我不希望有人說 “這是一張白紙,建築師。自由發揮吧” 我不認為這樣能產出優秀的作品
I think architecture is about consensus. And it is about the dirty word "compromise." Compromise is not bad. Compromise, if it's artistic, if it is able to cope with its strategies -- and there is my first sketch and the last rendering -- it's not that far away. And yet, compromise, consensus, that is what I believe in. And Ground Zero, despite all its difficulties, it's moving forward. It's difficult. 2011, 2013. Freedom Tower, the memorial. And that is where I end.
我認為建築是一種共識 這都和“妥協”有關,其實妥協並不是壞事 妥協,如果那是具藝術性的 如果那和策略的配合有關 這是我的第一個草圖,左邊是手繪圖 兩者相差不大 但是,妥協,共識 是我所相信的 "零地帶",無論過程多麼困難,它正在前進 這的確困難。 2011年、2013年,自由塔,紀念館 我就說到這裡
I was inspired when I came here as an immigrant on a ship like millions of others, looking at America from that point of view. This is America. This is liberty. This is what we dream about. Its individuality, demonstrated in the skyline. It's resilience. And finally, it's the freedom that America represents, not just to me, as an immigrant, but to everyone in the world. Thank you.
當我以移民身份,像無數人一樣坐船 來到這裡的時候,我被啟發了 從這個角度看美國 這是美國,這是自由 這就是我們夢想的,它的獨立 從地平線描繪出來的,它的彈性 這就是美國所代表的自由意義 不只是身為移民的我,還有世界上每個人,謝謝大家
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Chris Anderson: I've got a question. So have you come to peace with the process that happened at Ground Zero and the loss of the original, incredible design that you came up with?
我有一個問題 所以你已經不再在意 "零地帶"的發展過程中所發生的一切嗎 你不介意失去你原本出色的設計嗎?
Daniel Libeskind: Look. We have to cure ourselves of the notion that we are authoritarian, that we can determine everything that happens. We have to rely on others, and shape the process in the best way possible. I came from the Bronx. I was taught not to be a loser, not to be somebody who just gives up in a fight. You have to fight for what you believe. You don't always win everything you want to win. But you can steer the process. And I believe that what will be built at Ground Zero will be meaningful, will be inspiring, will tell other generations of the sacrifices, of the meaning of this event. Not just for New York, but for the world.
我們必須要糾正 自身的獨裁 告訴自己我們不可能控制每件事情 我們必須互相信賴,然後找出最好的解決方法 我在布朗克斯長大,在成長中我學會了不做輸家 亦不會在爭鬥中輕易放棄 你必須爭取你相信的。你並不能總是贏得 你所有要贏得的。但你能引導這個過程 我亦認為將建在"零地帶"的設計 將是有意義的,將是鼓舞人心的 將能告訴後代 911 事件的犧牲 和含意 不止是對於紐約,而是對整個世界
Chris Anderson: Thank you so much, Daniel Libeskind.
主持人 Chris Anderson: 非常感謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)