Visionary坂本一成 《当代城市与建筑》
当代城市与建筑
The contemporary city and architecture
坂本一成
翻译：Edie 原文：坂本一成 《住宅——日常的诗学》第三章 自由的构架和广阔的领域
很长一段时间内，建筑师都只是用一种很局限的方式在探讨城市。当讨论建筑时，往往也会谈到城市，这其实与20世纪60，70年代的“城市”讨论中的“城市规划”有很大的差别。我可能说太多次了，当代的建筑师不能脱离城市来讨论建筑，但对这些建筑师来说，谈城市就等同于谈建筑。
有一点，我们必须质疑建筑师眼中的“城市”是否是真的“城市”。至少，他不能和作为城市规划对象的城市划等号。很难将东京，香港，电影银翼杀手里的唐人街捆绑在一起，这些城市相比传统有秩序的“城市”来说，对全世界，尤其是西方的青年建筑师极具吸引力。如果此类“城市”是城市的话，它并不是相对于村庄或乡村的“城市”，而成“非城市”的城市。
世界上那些最大的村庄，随着密度增加，现在已经发展成一个从未有过的城市，或者是一个超级城市，或一个与“城市”相冲突的城市。即使亚洲或日本最大的村庄还比东京和香港小，但它与“非城市”的城市越来越近。
我对插图中常常可见的超级城市非常感兴趣，这类城市是最近才出现的。常被建筑师称为“破产城市”的“非城市”城市，充满了各种矛盾。它内部是无序的，混乱的，嘈杂的。但我能感受到一种指向未来的活力。
这类城市呈现出来的典型特征与巴厘岛艺术中的乡村景象颇为相似。宏观上看，它是高密度的，混乱的但又统一平等；微观上看，每个区域都相对独立建设的，呈现出一种积极的生命力。甚至，各个独立的区域都是灵活的，并彼此相连。这个状态有点像市场中的各个摊位，每个摊位都是独立建立并经营各自的业务。或者拿节肢动物做比喻，组成整体的各个部分独立运动。这样巨大的，亚洲的，村庄样的城市，不同于传统的西方城市，也与依赖于城市轴线或城市中心并带有明确分区的现代城市不同。我们可以从这些嘈杂和混乱（并不是真正的嘈杂和混乱）的生命力中，感受到后现代的未来。
在回应这类城市的建筑中，或者说，在借用“非城市”城市为隐喻的建筑中，我可以感受到建筑的吸引力。我对当代建筑的不安是因为这类“建筑”无法克服或追寻这卓越的现实。传统的非城市建筑，像别墅或豪华宫殿的城市建筑，并不能回应超级城市。建筑经过不同时期的提炼，并逐步呈现“建筑”的价值。结果，关于建筑自身的独立存在，可以说价值已然形成。古典建筑最为典型。我把这类将这独立价值自身内在化的建筑称为“建筑对象”。面对超级城市，超级城市时代的现实，“建筑作为对象”该如何回应，即使它对于“城市时代”的城市或它周围的村庄和乡村是有效的。
我们在寻找“建筑”的一种新的形式。可能是一种可以回应我们这里讨论的超级城市的建筑。或者可以成为超级城市形式的隐喻的建筑。那么可以说建筑创造了一种与场地的联系来回应一个类似超级城市的形式的身体周围的各种层次的联系吗？相对于“建筑对象”我将该建筑称为“环境的建筑”。（1989）
Architects have for a long, if in only a limited way, discussed the "city". By speaking of "city" they are taking up the topic of architecture; and this is a different meaning from the "city planning" discussion of "city" from the 1960s and early 1970s. It might be saying too much to state that contemporary architects cannot speak of "architecture" without speaking of the "city", but for these architects, to speak of the city is the same thing as to speak of architecture.
There is one point where we must doubt if the "city" seen by the architects is the real "city". At least, it is not the same as the "city" that is the object of city planning. It is difficult to bind "Tokyo", "Hong Kong", or the Chinatown of the film Blade Runner, which are so attractive to young architects of the world, especially in the West, to the category of the traditionally ordered "city". If this type of "city" is a city, it is not the "city" that is a place in opposition to the village or countryside, but must be said to be a "non-city city".
The places where the largest villages in the world have progressed in density now produce a type of city that has never existed before, or a super-city, or a city that contradicts "city". Even if the largest villages of Asia or Japan are not the size of Tokyo or Hong Kong, they approach this "non-city city",
The type of super-city actually seen in these vignettes is of interest to me. The type of city that hasn't existed until now, the "city that contradicts the city", or the "non-city city" that some architects have called the "bankrupt city" holds various contradictions. Within it is disorder, confusion and chaos; but I can feel a sense of vitality directed towards the future.
The typical feature indicated by these cities is similar to the village scenes in Balinese art. Seen at a macro level, it is an expanse that is vague with a high density that is confused but uniform and equal; but when seen at the micro level each part becomes independent and builds place, and gives an active life force. Further, each of the independent places has a flexible relationship, and connects with the other places. This state is similar to the marketplace where each stall is independently established and conducts its own business. Or, a metaphor can be made to the individual independent movement of the parts of the arthropods that form the whole. The giant Asian-like, village-like cities are different from the traditional Western city, or the Modernist City dependent on making a city axis or a city center the heart, assuming a clear regional division. Within the life force of this chaos and confusion (which is not really chaos or confusion) can be felt the post-modern future.
Now I can feel the appeal of architecture in an architecture that responds to this type of city. Or, it is perhaps better to say that I can feel the appeal of architecture within the architecture that uses the appearing "non-city city" as a metaphor. Or, my unease with contemporary architecture is because of this "architecture“ can't overcome or follow this surpassing reality. Traditional non-city architecture like the villa, or even the urban architecture of the palazzo, can't respond to this super-city. Architecture has been refined through various periods, and has come to take its value as "architecture". As a result, with respect to the independent existence of architecture itself, it can be said that that value is formed. Classical architecture is the most obvious example. I have called this type of architecture that internalizes for itself this independent value "objective architecture". What kind of response can this "architecture as object" have to the super-city, or the reality of the age of the super-city, even if it is effective with respect to the city of the "age of the city" or to the villages and countrysides and suburbs that surround it?
A new form of "architecture" is being sought. Perhaps that is the architecture that can respond to the super-city discussed here. Or an architecture that makes a metaphor of the form of the super-city. Can that be said to be architecture that makes a relation to the place responding to the various levels of relation around the body like the form of the super-city? I have called this "architecture as environment" in contrast to "objective architecture." (1989)
所有翻译文字版权归属“未冶设计”，配图由译者完成，部分出自原书，未经授权，不得转载
The contemporary city and architecture
坂本一成
翻译：Edie 原文：坂本一成 《住宅——日常的诗学》第三章 自由的构架和广阔的领域
很长一段时间内，建筑师都只是用一种很局限的方式在探讨城市。当讨论建筑时，往往也会谈到城市，这其实与20世纪60，70年代的“城市”讨论中的“城市规划”有很大的差别。我可能说太多次了，当代的建筑师不能脱离城市来讨论建筑，但对这些建筑师来说，谈城市就等同于谈建筑。
有一点，我们必须质疑建筑师眼中的“城市”是否是真的“城市”。至少，他不能和作为城市规划对象的城市划等号。很难将东京，香港，电影银翼杀手里的唐人街捆绑在一起，这些城市相比传统有秩序的“城市”来说，对全世界，尤其是西方的青年建筑师极具吸引力。如果此类“城市”是城市的话，它并不是相对于村庄或乡村的“城市”，而成“非城市”的城市。
世界上那些最大的村庄，随着密度增加，现在已经发展成一个从未有过的城市，或者是一个超级城市，或一个与“城市”相冲突的城市。即使亚洲或日本最大的村庄还比东京和香港小，但它与“非城市”的城市越来越近。
我对插图中常常可见的超级城市非常感兴趣，这类城市是最近才出现的。常被建筑师称为“破产城市”的“非城市”城市，充满了各种矛盾。它内部是无序的，混乱的，嘈杂的。但我能感受到一种指向未来的活力。
这类城市呈现出来的典型特征与巴厘岛艺术中的乡村景象颇为相似。宏观上看，它是高密度的，混乱的但又统一平等；微观上看，每个区域都相对独立建设的，呈现出一种积极的生命力。甚至，各个独立的区域都是灵活的，并彼此相连。这个状态有点像市场中的各个摊位，每个摊位都是独立建立并经营各自的业务。或者拿节肢动物做比喻，组成整体的各个部分独立运动。这样巨大的，亚洲的，村庄样的城市，不同于传统的西方城市，也与依赖于城市轴线或城市中心并带有明确分区的现代城市不同。我们可以从这些嘈杂和混乱（并不是真正的嘈杂和混乱）的生命力中，感受到后现代的未来。
在回应这类城市的建筑中，或者说，在借用“非城市”城市为隐喻的建筑中，我可以感受到建筑的吸引力。我对当代建筑的不安是因为这类“建筑”无法克服或追寻这卓越的现实。传统的非城市建筑，像别墅或豪华宫殿的城市建筑，并不能回应超级城市。建筑经过不同时期的提炼，并逐步呈现“建筑”的价值。结果，关于建筑自身的独立存在，可以说价值已然形成。古典建筑最为典型。我把这类将这独立价值自身内在化的建筑称为“建筑对象”。面对超级城市，超级城市时代的现实，“建筑作为对象”该如何回应，即使它对于“城市时代”的城市或它周围的村庄和乡村是有效的。
我们在寻找“建筑”的一种新的形式。可能是一种可以回应我们这里讨论的超级城市的建筑。或者可以成为超级城市形式的隐喻的建筑。那么可以说建筑创造了一种与场地的联系来回应一个类似超级城市的形式的身体周围的各种层次的联系吗？相对于“建筑对象”我将该建筑称为“环境的建筑”。（1989）
 |
 |
 |
《House F》 1988年 摄影：大橋富夫 |
Architects have for a long, if in only a limited way, discussed the "city". By speaking of "city" they are taking up the topic of architecture; and this is a different meaning from the "city planning" discussion of "city" from the 1960s and early 1970s. It might be saying too much to state that contemporary architects cannot speak of "architecture" without speaking of the "city", but for these architects, to speak of the city is the same thing as to speak of architecture.
There is one point where we must doubt if the "city" seen by the architects is the real "city". At least, it is not the same as the "city" that is the object of city planning. It is difficult to bind "Tokyo", "Hong Kong", or the Chinatown of the film Blade Runner, which are so attractive to young architects of the world, especially in the West, to the category of the traditionally ordered "city". If this type of "city" is a city, it is not the "city" that is a place in opposition to the village or countryside, but must be said to be a "non-city city".
The places where the largest villages in the world have progressed in density now produce a type of city that has never existed before, or a super-city, or a city that contradicts "city". Even if the largest villages of Asia or Japan are not the size of Tokyo or Hong Kong, they approach this "non-city city",
The type of super-city actually seen in these vignettes is of interest to me. The type of city that hasn't existed until now, the "city that contradicts the city", or the "non-city city" that some architects have called the "bankrupt city" holds various contradictions. Within it is disorder, confusion and chaos; but I can feel a sense of vitality directed towards the future.
The typical feature indicated by these cities is similar to the village scenes in Balinese art. Seen at a macro level, it is an expanse that is vague with a high density that is confused but uniform and equal; but when seen at the micro level each part becomes independent and builds place, and gives an active life force. Further, each of the independent places has a flexible relationship, and connects with the other places. This state is similar to the marketplace where each stall is independently established and conducts its own business. Or, a metaphor can be made to the individual independent movement of the parts of the arthropods that form the whole. The giant Asian-like, village-like cities are different from the traditional Western city, or the Modernist City dependent on making a city axis or a city center the heart, assuming a clear regional division. Within the life force of this chaos and confusion (which is not really chaos or confusion) can be felt the post-modern future.
Now I can feel the appeal of architecture in an architecture that responds to this type of city. Or, it is perhaps better to say that I can feel the appeal of architecture within the architecture that uses the appearing "non-city city" as a metaphor. Or, my unease with contemporary architecture is because of this "architecture“ can't overcome or follow this surpassing reality. Traditional non-city architecture like the villa, or even the urban architecture of the palazzo, can't respond to this super-city. Architecture has been refined through various periods, and has come to take its value as "architecture". As a result, with respect to the independent existence of architecture itself, it can be said that that value is formed. Classical architecture is the most obvious example. I have called this type of architecture that internalizes for itself this independent value "objective architecture". What kind of response can this "architecture as object" have to the super-city, or the reality of the age of the super-city, even if it is effective with respect to the city of the "age of the city" or to the villages and countrysides and suburbs that surround it?
A new form of "architecture" is being sought. Perhaps that is the architecture that can respond to the super-city discussed here. Or an architecture that makes a metaphor of the form of the super-city. Can that be said to be architecture that makes a relation to the place responding to the various levels of relation around the body like the form of the super-city? I have called this "architecture as environment" in contrast to "objective architecture." (1989)
所有翻译文字版权归属“未冶设计”，配图由译者完成，部分出自原书，未经授权，不得转载
 |
如有兴趣，可以添加微信公众号： 未冶设计 查看更多 |
> 我来回应