We've been asked to address the theme of changing conversations. And I think certainly in the field that I'm in, that's a really important point to be at. From the discourses that are going on within architecture as well as throughout society, I think it is time to change the way that we look at things. As an architect, I've been involved with architectural projects, with urban planning projects, and more recently, projects that engage much more with the landscape. Now I can see so many opportunities and so many ways in which design can contribute and has the capacity to effect social change. And that's what I'm going to talk to you today about.
我們被要求談論 「改變對話」這個主題。 而我確信我現在所處的領域, 真的需要特別重視。 從目前正在進行的建築業 到整體社會的研討對話, 我認為現在該是改變我們 看待事物的方式的時候了。 身為建築師,我參與過 建築專案計畫、 還有都市計畫專案, 最近還有很多景觀設計相關的專案。 如今我看到有很多機會和方法, 可以讓設計這個領域 對社會有所貢獻, 並有能力帶動社會的變革。 那就是我今天要和各位談的。
Starting off, I think it might be useful to talk a little bit about architecture, because I think for many people, architecture is a slightly mystical activity. Not many people know what architects do. A lot of the time, I'm not sure the architects know what they're doing. But we try, and it's important to try and embrace that and try and understand what that means. When I talk about architecture today, I'm not talking about the profession. I'm not talking about an activity that's pursued by a select group of people with some specialized knowledge. I'm talking about architecture in the bigger sense: architecture in terms of the room that we're in, architecture as a pervasive activity, architecture as the activity that is the creation of shelter, the creation of space, the design and the creation of spaces between buildings, the landscape. It's man's interaction with the landscape. Our construction of the built environment -- that's what I mean by architecture. It's not a specialized thing.
一開始先談談建築領域 可能會比較有幫助, 因為,對許多人來說, 建築是有點神秘的活動。 很多人不知道建築師是在做什麼。 很多時候我不確定 建築師到底知不知道自己在做什麼。 但我們會嘗試。 嘗試了解背後的意義相當重要。 我現在探討的建築 不是指建築這個行業, 也不是擁有特定專業知識的 精英團隊所從事的活動。 我要從更廣的方面來討論建築: 談論我們現在所處的空間, 這種無所不在的建築活動, 創造庇護所、創造空間的建築活動, 建築物與地景之間的空間設計, 人與地形景觀之間的互動, 和我們建造的建築環境-—— 這就是我要談的建築, 而不是甚麼專業化的東西。
And over the last, I suppose, 20 or 30 years, with the predominance of the internet and the wonderful and exciting advancements that are taking place in technology, one of the things that has happened is that our perception of the world has become commodified. It's become reduced in many ways to a perception that is two-dimensional. We spend a lot of our time, a lot of our lives, looking at the world through screens, whether it's our laptops or television screens or monitors at airports or in the workplace or even our telephones are now screens. And it has this effect of reducing our perception of the world. It expands it in many ways, but it can reduce it, it can turn into icons our idea or our notion of certain concepts or ideas that are, in fact, maybe a lot more pervasive than the two-dimensional image can convey. And I think that's true about architecture. I think we've grown accustomed to thinking about architecture in a really primarily two-dimensional way, in a flat way, that the building is about what it looks like, how it appears, it's visual commodity.
我估計在過去二十或三十年間, 隨著網際網路的主導, 這些美好又振奮人心的進步 在科技界不斷發生。 其中一件就是 我們看向世界的角度 和概念變得商品化了。 通過各種方式, 濃縮成了二維平面的感知。 我們花了很多的時間、精力 透過螢幕觀察世界, 不論是用筆電、電視螢幕 或是機場或工作場所的顯示器, 連我們的手機都是一種屏幕了。 這降低了我們對世界的感知。 屏幕可以通過很多方式拓展感知, 但同時也可以限制它, 它可以把我們對於某些概念的想法 或見解轉變成圖標, 事實上,也許比二維圖像 所能傳達的更加普遍。 而我認為對建築業亦然。 我認為我們對建築業的概念 已經根深柢固, 固定在以相當平面、 相當二維的角度 呈現大樓的外觀與外貌。 它是一種視覺商品。
But it's much more than that. It's much more than an aesthetic or just a sensory experience. That's very important, but it's much more than that. It's a complex operation. And a big part of architecture and a big part of design involves understanding the context in which that design exists or in which it's going to exist. It's having the imagination to try and predict or project where the building or where the urban space or where the landscape is going to be located, how it's going to be used, what are the operations, what are the activities that are going to take place in that space. And you might call those the programmatic aspects of architecture, the programmatic aspects of design. And I think that in recent times, we've tended to privilege or put at a higher level that visual sensory perception or desire about architecture ahead and in advance of those programmatic needs. We've tended to kind of create monuments, create icons that create a sensation or create effect, without really thinking through the value of the operation that those places or those spaces can affect. And it's in that zone or in that area that I think we need to start looking or trying to understand how architecture or how design can really impact on society, and how it can address some of the problems that we're facing.
但建築遠不只如此。 它遠遠不止是美學或感官的體驗。 那確實很重要, 但並不局限於此。 它是一種複雜的運作。 建築還有設計有很大一部分 涉及理解環境脈絡中的設計, 或是未來發生在環境脈絡的事情。 建築設計是想像、嘗試、預測或籌劃 把建築物、城市空間 或景觀建在哪裡、 如何使用、怎麼營運, 會有什麼活動在這個空間內發生。 你或許可以把這些稱作為 建築的計畫性面向、 設計的計畫性面向。 我認為近來我們傾向於讚揚 過於重視建築的視覺觀感 或過於渴望建築的外型, 甚至把它看得 比設計的計畫需求還重要。 我們傾向於創造一些 有紀念價值、搶眼, 能造成轟動效應的建築物, 卻沒用心去想那些地方或那些空間 能帶來怎樣的營運價值。 還有建築物所座落的地帶或區域 才是我們需要去觀察或試圖了解的, 理解建築或設計 能如何真正影響社會 和解決一些我們正面臨的問題。
The big buzzword in design and in what I do and I think what everybody does is the idea of sustainability. Sustainability is an idea, a notion or a concept that's triangulated by three very important concepts or ideas: the environment, the economy and society. Well, the global economy seems to be currently in a kind of meltdown situation. A lot of work needs to be done there. The environment that we live in is challenged. We've got global warming, we've got rising tides, we've got all sorts of disasters taking place, all sorts of things happening that threaten the equilibrium of the world and the environment that we live in. And society itself is also challenged and threatened by some of the issues that we're faced with. I think we've heard about some of those issues today and the need to change the paradigm in which we perceive those things. It's really very crucial that we do that.
在我的設計工作領域中 有個很熱門的詞, 我想在各位的領域亦然, 就是「永續性」的想法。 永續性是一種想法、觀念或概念, 它是由三種非常重要的 概念或想法所建構而成: 環境、經濟和社會。 全球經濟目前似乎正處在 一種潰敗的情況中, 很多狀況急需處理。 我們的環境面臨挑戰: 全球暖化、海潮上漲, 各式各樣的災難層出不窮, 各種事情全都在發生中, 整個世界以及我們所處環境的 平衡受到了威脅。 社會也受到這些問題挑戰和威脅。 我想,我們今天已經聽到 其中一些議題, 以及我們必須要改變 看待那些事物的想法。 這至關重要。
So how does design impact that? How can how can I, as a designer, or anybody as a designer or any architect or how can society -- in what way can design impact on that, in what way can it affect that? I'm going to talk today about ways in which I think design can impact on society, very specifically on society, and how that idea of design can infiltrate the idea of society and work with society in the operations of society in this programmatic way to effect social change. This is an image of Frederick Street in the early part of the last century. And I think it's a good image in lots of ways. It seems like that little triangulation of the environment, the economy and society seems to be in a kind of balance. So it seems that in cities we can see that balance that cities are symbols or ciphers or ways in which we can we can understand the confluence of those forces.
那麼,設計如何影響呢? 我這個設計師、其他的設計師, 或任何建築師, 或社會,要如何—— 要用什麼方式設計來影響呢? 要用什麼方式產生影響? 今天我要談的, 是我認為設計能夠影響社會的方式, 特別是針對社會來談, 以及設計理念能如何 滲透到社會理念, 並在社會的運作當中與社會合作, 用計畫的方式來影響社會變遷。 這張圖是上個世紀初期的 弗雷德里克街。 我認為它在許多層面上 是張很棒的照片。 似乎,那個三角關係, 就是環境、經濟和社會的三角關係, 似乎處於某種平衡狀態。 所以,我們似乎能在 城市中看到那種平衡, 城市是種象徵或暗號 讓我們得以了解 那些力量是如何匯聚起來的。
And through time, there have been times when cities have done that very successfully. There are lots of examples of very good cities which have found themselves at a specific moment in time at a point of balance or equilibrium. If we look at Port of Spain as a city, and we consider the idea that, once upon a time, Port of Spain was just a little cluster, a little fishing village at the mouth of the St. Ann's River. And yet it's grown to be such a big, complex conglomeration, a big conurbation of lots and lots of complex ideas.
隨著時間, 有些時期,城市在這點上 做得非常成功。 有許多例子,都是非常棒的城市, 它們發現自己身處在 非常明確的一個時點, 達到平衡或均衡的那個點。 如果我們把西班牙港 視為一個城市, 試想很久很久以前, 西班牙港只是一個小群聚地, 一個小漁村,位在聖安河的河口。 但它卻成長成一個 又大又複雜的混合體, 是許許多多複雜想法 結合而成的城市。
The Italian architect Aldo Rossi, a 20th-century architect who died at the end of the last century, made a very profound statement. He said architecture is the making of the city over time. I think that's a great statement, because it talks, on one level, about the individual production and manufacture of an object -- architecture -- and it talks about architecture as being a form of cultural production, as something that speaks to an issue or speaks to ideas that are bigger than the sum of the parts of the building, and it relates it to the city.
義大利建築師亞德‧羅西 是二十世紀的建築師, 在上世紀末過世, 他有一段非常深刻的陳述。 他說建築是城市發展的面向。 我認為那是段很棒的陳述, 因為這在某個層面上 談的是「建築」這個 個別生產和製造的物品, 把建築物視為文化產物的一種形式, 建築本身能闡述事件, 闡述比建築物本身 各部件總合還要大的想法。 而這些都與城市的發展有關。
It also suggested that it's a constant, dynamic, changing process. And I think that's a very important thing to understand, that it's also part of the program. It's nothing to do with visual, it's to do with the program. It's how does this evolve, what are the dynamics, what are the components, what are the elements that contribute to the unraveling and the creation of the city? It also speaks to the fact that the city is something that can be imagined. In the same way as we can conceive and imagine of a space or a building, we can conceive and imagine of a city. And it speaks to the idea of the individual and the collective. And it's that link -- the individual to the collective, the idea of the civitas, the idea of the society -- that I think is a really important axiom for understanding how design can infiltrate and how design can effect change.
它也指出這是一個持續、 動態、改變的過程。 我認為了解這些變化是很重要的, 而且它也是計畫的一部分。 它和視覺無關,和計畫有關。 城市如何演變、變化? 成分有哪些?原理是什麼? 哪些元素造就了城市的創建? 同時講述了一件事實: 城市是可以被想像出來的。 用的方法就是在構思空間、 想像一棟大樓的方法, 我們可以構思、想像城市的景象。 它能闡述個體與集體的理念。 正是這種連結—— 個體到集體的連結, 古典社會與現代社會的想法— 我認為這是非常重要的原則, 可以用來了解如何傳遞設計理念 及如何影響社會的變遷。
These are some images of how Port of Spain evolved over a relatively short period of 200 years, from a colonial plan that was developed following some ordinances sent out by the king of Spain, called the Laws of the Indies. Many cities in the Caribbean and Latin America were predicated and formulated on this. It was a gesture, it was a single design that addressed the needs and the requirements of those establishing cities and new colonies. And it expanded, and over time, as trade began to develop in Trinidad, the city expanded, and it grew, and it started appropriating, more and more, the surrounding landscape, until it grew to pretty much what we have today, or what we understand to be the city of Port of Spain.
這些圖片說明了西班牙港 過去短短兩百年間的變遷, 剛開始只是在西班牙國王 頒佈一些法令之後 開發出來的一個殖民計畫, 這些法令叫「印度群島法令」。 加勒比海和拉丁美洲的許多城市 都是根據這些法令而形成的。 它是一種行動,它是單一設計, 用來處理 建立城市和新殖民地的需求。 城市擴張了,千里達島的貿易 隨著時間開始發展, 這個城市擴張了,成長了, 開始佔用到越來越多周圍的地景, 直到它成長到現今這個樣子, 就是我們所知的西班牙港。
But as we all know, that process grew also on a kind of macro scale as well. We have the evolution and the development of this big conurbation that stretches from Port of Spain to the west and over to Arouca in the east and seems to be continuing. So we've developed into this concept or idea that far exceeds the original Laws of the Indies plan. And it's turned into a complex arrangement and matrix of infrastructures and complex issues, issues that, in many ways, have led to a lot of problems. They've led to a lot of infrastructural problems. And we share this with many, many cities in the world. Cities all over the world are expanding, they're increasing, they're undergoing the same type of development that we've undergone to the point where the original Port of Spain and the downtown Port of Spain that used to comprise the city, used to constitute the city, has now turned into this sort of megalopolis, this sprawl, and it's difficult to comprehend. And when we think of the problems, we think of the infrastructural problems: the water, the power, the traffic congestion, the crime, the segregation, the polarization that exists, the situation that has led to what's happened in this country recently with the state of emergency ... Sometimes it seems completely insurmountable. It seems like we've got to a point where we can't really control it in the way that we can control that original plan. We can't really control this anymore. It's almost as if we're victims of the city, rather than people that have willingly or willfully designed the city or formulated the city.
但我們都知道 這個過程也在宏觀規模上有所成長。 這個大型城市演化、發展, 從西班牙港延伸到西方, 東邊延伸到阿羅卡, 似乎還持續在延伸。 我們所發展出來的概念或想法, 遠遠超過了原本 印度群島法令的規畫。 它轉變成為基礎建設 和複雜議題的 複雜安排和模型, 這些議題在很多層面上 帶來很多問題。 它們帶來許多基礎建設上的問題。 全世界的許多城市都有這些問題。 全世界的城市都在擴張、增大, 經歷我們曾有過的發展。 原本的西班牙港和港的鬧區, 過去構成城市的地區 如今已經轉變為 雜亂擴展的巨型都市。 很難去理解它。 當我們在想問題的時候, 我們想的是基礎設施問題:水、電 交通擁塞、 犯罪、隔離、現存的兩極化, 這些情況導致這個國家 最近在緊急狀況下所發生的事情。 有時,這看起來是無法克服的。 這就像遇到一個 我們無法控制的點, 無法遵照原計劃的方式去控制。 我們真的無法再控制這事了。 彷彿我們是城市的受害者, 而不是有心設計或建構城市的人。
Another phenomenon that has happened commensurate with these issues of size and scale of infrastructure is the predomination of what I would call "typologies," different types of development. We're all familiar with the high-rise development. This is some buildings in Hong Kong, you know, the magnificent, tall structures that cost a fortune to build. But they predominate; it's almost as if you can't have a city unless you've got a high-rise building in it. They're symbolic, they seem emblematic with modernity and development. And then shopping malls is another predominant type, another prevalent type that all cities want to have, the idea that you can concentrate all these shops and all this retail activity in one place and create an environment for people to come and do specific retail functions and purchase things and be in a specific place at a specific time. And then the highway, the idea of cutting through landscapes to create how it's to increase the speed with which we can get from one point to another. And then we also have suburban development. These are all typologies that are emblematic of the type of development that has taken place in modern cities, in Port of Spain and cities all over the world.
另一種發生的現象 與這些基礎設施的規模和尺度有關, 我稱之為「象徵性建築」的現象 佔據主導地位, 它指的是不同類型的開發。 我們熟悉的是高層建築的開發。 這是香港的一些建築。 這些宏偉高大、 耗費巨資的建築掌握主導權, 彷彿沒有它們就沒有城市那樣。 它們是地標,看似現代發展的象徵。 購物中心是另一種主導類型, 所有城市都想要的另一種流行形式, 這是一種概念,可以將所有店鋪、 所有零售活動都集中在同一個地方, 創造一個環境,讓所有人 在特定時間、特定地點, 進來做些特定的零售活動, 或是買東西。 然後是高速公路, 切穿地景以提高速度, 使我們能從一處到達另一處。 此外,我們也有市郊發展。 這裡同樣也有些象徵性建築, 它們象徵著現代城市、 西班牙港口、全球城市的各類發展。
Now, there's nothing wrong with shopping malls, there's nothing wrong with highways, and there's nothing wrong with high-rise buildings or suburban development. What is kind of wrong is that what we seem to be doing is privileging types or ways of building or ideas about building above other really very important ways of how we can conceive or how we imagine space. What about schools? What about parks? What about making streets that are really comfortable to walk on and the people are not confronting traffic noise and congestion all the time? Where is that in the equation?
如今,購物中心並沒有什麼問題, 高速公路並沒有什麼問題, 同樣,高樓和市郊發展也沒什麼問題。 有問題的是 我們似乎過度重視 對特定類型建築的建造方式或想法, 遠遠超出真正重要的事, 那就是怎樣構想和想像空間。 那麼學校呢? 公園呢? 為何不考慮一下 如何設立適合人們走路的街道, 如何使人們不必對抗 交通噪音和擁堵? 一個平衡發展的城市中, 這類建築的地位是什麼?
It seems that with our focus on these types of structures and these typologies, which are motivated and driven primarily because they generate profit, they're part of an economic consumer system, they generate profit, that's why they're favored, that's why they are privileged above other types of development. But schools, parks, elements of cities that used to be really significant and really important are being diminished and marginalized as a consequence of the focus on this type of development. They're undermining the integrity of the city, they're undermining the capacity of the city to accommodate social interaction, to accommodate everybody, because the other thing is they're also exclusive. To work in a high-end office, you need to be qualified, you need to be educated, or you need to have access or the resources to get the qualifications or the training that allow you to get the job in there. If you don't have those, you work outside somewhere. We're not concerned about what those places are like, you just go and work somewhere else.
我們專注於這些結構型態 以及這些象徵性建築, 讓它們成為首要推動的項目, 似乎是因為它們能產生效益, 它們是經濟消費體系的一部分, 能產生效益便討喜, 這就是為什麼它們相較 其他發展類型享有更多特權。 但是學校、 公園, 曾經是非常重要的城市基本元素 被刪減、被邊緣化, 這是聚焦於這種發展類型的結果。 這削弱城市的完整性, 削弱城市容納社會交流的能力, 容納所有人的能力。 另一個原因是 這類型的建築是排外的, 在高檔辦公室中工作的人 必須具備資格, 需要受過教育, 或是有管道或資源的協助, 使你能得到相符的訓練或資格, 而能在那種地方工作。 如果你沒有這些, 你就只能在別的地方工作。 我們不關心別的地方是什麼樣子, 反正你們去那邊工作就是了。
Similarly, those people that used to live in the cities or used to live and contribute to the life of cities are being pushed out because buildings like high-rise buildings push them out. There's a premium on land price that pushes people out of cities. People can't go to shopping malls unless they've got cars, because those malls are generally located on the peripheries of cities. People can't go buy things in shopping malls, because they don't have enough disposable income; they're not going to spend money there. So those types of buildings, whilst they work for sectors of society, don't work for everybody. They're not equitable. Yet, an undue amount of attention is paid by government, by society on ensuring that those types of buildings proliferate, because they're seen as positive aspects of development -- at the expense of types of building and types of program that could be beneficial to everybody, types of program that encourage interaction, that encourage education, that encourage people to be with each other and encourage a sense of community. These types of development dissipate society, they disaggregate society, they polarize society. They create isolated groups of activity to which access depends upon how much money you've got in your pocket. It's a polarizing and negative force. We see it in this city, and we're seeing it more and more other cities.
同樣,那些曾經居住在城市裡的人 或者曾經住過,而且 為城市生活做出貢獻的人, 正被逼著離開, 像是被高樓大廈逼走。 被昂貴的地價逼著離開城市。 人們要先有車才可以去購物中心, 因為那些購物中心通常在城市邊緣。 人們沒能力在購物中心買東西, 因為他們的可支配收入不足, 所以不打算在那裡消費。 所以那些類型的建築物, 是服務社會上特定行業的人, 而不能為所有人所用。 這並不公正合理。 如今,政府和社會 過度關注這類的建築物, 想確保這類建築能快速增加。 這被當成是發展的正面表徵, 犧牲其他類型的建築、 其他類型的計畫項目, 犧牲那些對人人有益的建築項目, 那些鼓勵人們交流互動的項目, 那些促進教育的項目, 那些鼓勵共同生活的項目, 以及那些促進社區意識的項目, 那些象徵發展的建築類型讓社會鬆散, 粉碎社會,讓社會兩極化。 產生了孤立的活動圈子, 而你口袋有多少錢 決定了你是否能參與。 這是股兩極分化的消極力量。 我們能在這個城市中感受到。 也在越來越多的城市中感受到。
And what ends up happening is that we end up with this sort of stack, that's like a time bomb. At some point the system must collapse, it's really not sustainable. It's like the economic system in the world today -- it's really not a sustainable system, and we have to find ways of addressing it. Design can't provide the solution, but what it can address is some of the conditions that people live with. It can address some of the circumstances in which people find themselves, some of the areas of cities to which people have been shunted or pushed aside because they can no longer afford to live in the center, and they can't participate actively or fully in this consumerized, capitalized system. And we need to try and conceive of how we can transform these types of spaces, how we can integrate the activities that happen in these types of spaces within a bigger picture, how we can identify small moves or small gestures, whether through design or economic initiative or social initiative that effect change and that allow transformation of spaces that encourage and facilitate greater participation. And there are lots of ways of doing that. And whilst it might seem complex when we look at cities, when we look at the aggregate parts of cities, it may seem insurmountable. But if we try and isolate individual acts, individual ways of looking at things and formulate a program, a manner or way of understanding how we can do that, then we can get nearer to achieving or effecting some kind of social change.
那麼,最後會發生什麼? 這些日積月累的問題, 就像是一個定時炸彈, 到某個時候,系統一定會崩潰, 這絕不是永續的。 這就像今天的經濟體系— 這真的不是永續的體系, 而我們必須去尋找 處理這個問題的方法。 設計無法直接解決, 它能處理的是生活上一些問題, 它能應對一些情況, 就像大家發現自己 在一些城市的區域中, 被迫轉移到其他地方或被忽視, 因為他們不再能夠支付 在中心區域的居住費用, 因為他們無法積極、完全地參與 這個消費、資本化的系統。 那麼我們需要嘗試和設想 如何轉變這些空間類型, 我們如何融合 這些空間類型裡的活動, 融合到更廣大的視野裡, 我們怎樣辨識細微的動作 或細微的行動, 無論它們是透過設計 或者經濟措施或者社會措施, 都可以影響改變、 能使空間發生轉變、 鼓勵和促使更好的民眾參與。 有許多方式可以做到。 當我們看城市的時候, 可能看上去很複雜。 當我們看到整體城市的時候, 這看上去可能是難以解決的。 但是,如果嘗試分離每個部分、 每個獨立視角去看待事情, 制定計畫和行動,了解如何去做, 那麼我們就能更進一步完成 或者影響某些社會改變。
And there are examples in the world where that's been done. Barcelona is a really good example of a city where people sat down and collectively and actively tried to conceive of ways in which they could effect change, and they did it very successfully. And nearer to home, in Bogotá, Enrique Peñalosa, the mayor of Bogotá, when he took office, he decided, "I'm not going to spend billions of dollars on creating more highways. I'm going to appropriate the funds I have, and I'm going to create places -- parks that everybody can use, public spaces that people can use." And as he created, more and more people came into those spaces. And those spaces were very effective in encouraging participation, encouraging senses of community amongst people, getting people to come together to forget what little trifling contests they had between each other, to start doing things together, to start moving around the city together and try to start acting together.
世界上有已經完成的例子。 巴賽隆納是一個非常好的例子, 大家在那裡一起坐下來 積極嘗試尋找方法, 去思考能夠影響改變的方法, 他們做得很成功。 離家很近的地方,波哥大 波哥大的市長,恩里克·佩納洛薩 (EnriquePeñalosa) 他任職的時候決定: 「我不會花幾十億美元 蓋更多高速公路上。 我會撥出資金, 建造一些地方— 大家都可以使用的公園, 大家可使用的公共空間。」 當他蓋好了, 越來越多人到這些地方。 那些地方能夠有效地鼓勵市民參與, 人群之間的社區意識增強了, 使大家聚在一起, 忘記過去瑣碎的爭吵, 他們開始一起共事, 開始一起在城市裡四處走動, 開始嘗試一起活動。
So there are ways of doing it; there are models. And it comes back to this idea of program. What's our program? Well, I think we want to create equitable society. Then we want to create societies where there's active and equitable participation for everybody and where we can break down some of those inhibitions, those barriers. We can remove economic stigma, we can remove stigma around race, around where you live, around all those factors and try and bring people together in constructed and effective ways. In Trinidad, there are a number of examples. There are opportunities to do this all over the place.
所以這是有方法的, 我們有一些模範。 這又回到了計畫的想法。 我們的計畫是什麼? 我想我們要創造一個公平的社會。 我們想要創造這樣的社會, 每個人都能積極平等參與的社會, 可以打破限制、打破壁壘的社會。 可以消除經濟階級分化的社會, 可以消除種族歧視的社會, 圍繞我們周遭居所的這些因素, 嘗試用有效的、建設性的方式 把大家聚在一起。 在千里達,有很多這樣的例子。 到處都有這樣做的機會。
This is City Gate. It's the entrance to the city for tens of thousands of people. People come in and out of it every day. And yet, what they're confronted with is pretty bleak, horrid, grey, unwelcoming and sometimes unsafe because of all the traffic zooming around. And that space from City Gate that moves up to Independence Square could be a really wonderful experience, you know, with landscaping, with proper accommodation of the sort of facilities and amenities that people would need and would enjoy. It could become a really very important civic space.
這是「城市大門」。 這是數萬人進入城市的入口。 大家每天從這裡進出。 但人們必須面對 黯淡、恐怖、灰暗、 不受歡迎、有時不安全的環境, 因為交通流量急遽上升。 但是,從城市大門到獨立廣場的空間 可以有相當美妙的體驗, 因為有景觀設計的美化、 適當配置一些設施 符合大家的需求和愛好。 它可以變成非常重要的市民空間。
This is the Prado in Havana. It's just a notional idea of how that space could be treated so that movement in and out of the city every day becomes a really important and uplifting transition from the maxi taxi to the place where you work. In San Fernando we've got the waterfront, which is a really very beautiful part of this landscape in this country, but is in complete neglect. There are some really beautiful, fine examples of 19th-century architecture that form, in and of themselves, some really fine spaces.
這是哈瓦那的普拉多大道。 這只是一個如何處理空間的概念, 可以怎樣讓每天進出城市 變成一件重要且令人振奮的過渡, 從大型出租車到你所工作的地方。 聖費爾南多的海濱區 是這個國家內景觀非常漂亮的地方, 但這裡完全被忽視了。 這裡有些非常精美的 19 世紀的建築, 它們組成了非常精緻的空間。
We need to we need to look at those spaces, we need to appropriate them, we need to determine uses for those spaces that would encourage all types of activity: spaces for performance, spaces for children to play in and learn that it's cool and it's OK and it's fun to be around other people, spaces for people to do all the kinds of activities that people like to do, that they enjoy doing collectively and that benefit society and encourage people to interact, regardless of their social or economic circumstance, or places for people to reflect, parks, places for people to sit and relax. And there are lots of ways we can do that, ways in which we can address and look at how we break down those barriers. We can do it with architectural language. We can look at the ways that spaces are formulated to break down divisions and barriers between inside and outside, between green and hard surfaces and try and generate spaces that really encourage interaction, encourage people to do things together and encourage a sense of community. We need to mandate government, we need to provide examples to developers, to people to generate that the benefit of these may not be measured in a financial return on investment, but the social benefit to us all is really immeasurable in the long run.
我們需要看一下這些空間, 我們需要妥善的對待。 我們需要好好決定那些空間的用途。 使這些空間能促發各種的活動: 作為表演的空間、 作為孩子嬉戲的空間, 並且了解到與其他人在一起 是一件很酷有趣的事情。 大家可以在這裡進行 自己喜歡做的各種活動, 在空間中享受集體活動, 對社會有益, 鼓勵人們交流, 無論社經地位背景。 它也是讓人們能夠思考的空間, 像是公園,讓人坐下來放鬆的空間。 這可以透過許多方法達成, 可以透過許多方法處理, 研究如何打破那些壁壘。 用建築語言做得到。 我們可以觀察形塑空間的方式, 打破内、外的分別和屏障, 打破綠地和硬鋪面間的區隔; 嘗試創造促進交流的空間, 鼓勵人們合作的空間, 激發社區意識的空間。 我們需要委任政府, 我們需要提供例子給開發商和大家 去創造有益處的空間, 而這些效益是可能無法 用財務投資回報來估量的。 而這些空間的社會效益, 長遠上是不可計量的。
And if we do that, I think we can demonstrate -- and we've demonstrated in the past that designers had the capacity to do that -- I think if we can do that, we can demonstrate to people that society is an inclusive community, and that if everybody is included, and if everybody feels part of the society, then we have a much better chance of ensuring a sustainable future.
如果這麼做,我想我們能證明, 我們在過去已經證明了 設計者有能力那樣做, 我想我們做得到, 我們能向世人證明 社會是一個包容性的群體, 如果所有人都包含在内, 如果所有人都覺得 自己是社會的一份子, 那麽我們更有機會 去確保一個永續發展的未來。
Thank you.
謝謝大家!