96 020

展览exhibition

都市主义

近日，斯蒂文·霍尔建筑事务所巡回展览“都市主义”

来到北京当代MOMA，此展览回顾了斯蒂文·霍尔和

合伙人李虎在中国的四个作品：南京艺术与建筑博物馆、北京

当代 MOMA-联接复合体、深圳万科中心以及成都来福士广

场。《Abitare住》就此次展览与李虎探讨建筑与都市，商业与

社会的的关系。

A 请解释一下展览主题“urbanisms”的用意，是在什么尺

度的“都市主义”？

李虎 “Urbanisms”一定是宏观的，我们的展览的几个项

目大多是在城市的尺度。我愿意把精力集中在城市，因为我相

信城市。当下的中国必须要关心城市，因为我们不可能处于一

种村庄的状态，或者更准确说是郊区状态，城市的反面是郊

区。中国近十年的发展把城市变成了巨大的郊区——郊区和城

市的最大的区别是不具有连续性，没有街道商业空间，也很少

共享的空间。

“Urbanism”很难翻译，若直译为“都市主义”，很容易

让人联想到“new urbanism”，即“新都市主义”，而这是一

种保守的，往回看的古典主义。Urbanism不是一种理念，而是

与城市相关的问题，是一个学科及其实践。new urbanism的确

是种理念或者思潮。

面对中国的现实，虽然我们目前还没有机会介入传统意义

上的公共建筑，比如图书馆、博物馆等有真正公共性的场所，

但现在的机会也给我们带来两点可能：其一，一个博物馆或音

乐厅最终呈现和被记住是作为一个物件（object），一个纪念

碑（monument），而我们的作品关心的是城市尺度——一种

街区尺度，或者按西方的传统是几个街区的尺度。建筑师不得

不思考更大范围的问题，任何项目都不是一个建筑，而是一组

建筑。其二，处理这些本来都是私有化的东西——通常或者围

合，或者架高的住宅、总部办公楼，我们所关心的是把公共性

引入私有空间。这是通过多功能性和开放性来实现的。万科中

心包含了最理想的公共性，建筑主体完全架空，地面是没有限

制的公共空间，傍晚周围居民区的各色人等都会去那里遛弯。

万科中心的公共空间是大梅沙地区除了海滩之外唯一的一片留

个体是潜在疲惫的——

但民主是后活力的。

陶醉是后历史性的——

但未来是早熟的。

享乐是后进食的——

但沉默是大脑的，

不一而足。

让 · 波德里亚

文 由宓 / Text by Umi图片提供 斯蒂文 · 霍尔

建筑事物所 / photo courtesy of Steven Holl Architect

斯蒂文·霍尔建筑事务所巡回展览 北京

97020

Urbanism and so on...

the exhibition Urbanisms: Steven Holl+ Li Hu: 4 Projects in China by Steven Holl Architects opened at Linked Hybrid,

Beijing. Attention were drawn to SHA’s Chinese projects, Nanjing Museum of Art and Architecture, Beijing Linked Hybrid, Shenzhen Horizontal Skyscraper, and Chengdu Sliced Porosity Block. Abitare speaks with SHA partner Li Hu on architecture and city, the commercial and the social.

A Please shed light on “Urbanisms”, on what scale we are speaking of ?Li We are speaking on the macro levels. Our projects featured in the exhibition are mostly at an urban scale. I focus on the city, because I believe in cities. In present-day China, one must focus on the city, as we cannot stay in the time of villages, or more precisely put, the time of suburbs, which is the direct opposite side of cities. The development in the recent decade has transformed Chinese cities into vast suburbs--central to suburbanity is the lack of continuity, street-level business, and shared space.“Urbanism” is hard to translate into Chinese, as people may easily associate it with “new urbanism”, the latter being a conservative, retroactive take of Classism. “Urbanism” is not an idea, but a cluster of questions concerning the city, it is a subject and its practices. New

urbanism is an idea. In light of the Chinese reality, we [Steven Holl Architects] haven’t engaged ourselves in public architecture--in its traditional sense, namely in designing libraries, museums etc., but we have taken our opportunities and extended in two ways: one is, as much as it is public, a museum or a concert hall is ultimately presented and honored as an object, a monument, whereas we care about an urban scale, one that accounts for an entire neighborhood, or a few neighborhoods put together, as defined by Western topography. Thus we mind not just one single building, but series of them. The other is, in dealing with the private apartment houses, headquarter office building, so commonly enclaved or elevated so to avoid contact with the outside world, we try to introduce the public into the private. This is achieved by multifunctional use and the opening up of spaces. Vanke Headquarter (Horizontal Skyscraper), for example, incorporates the maximum imaginable publicness-- the building is entirely elevated, leaving an unconstrained colossal area on the ground, which the residents of nearby neighborhoods gladly take advantage of for their nightly walks. The Vanke Headquarter building provides for the last open space in its surrounding region of Dameisha. A There are few notations for the exhibits--photo and video screening, is it intended?

The individual is moribund -- 

But democracy is post-

perennial.

Ecstasy is post-history --

But the future is premature.

Jouissance is post-prandial --

But silence is cerebral, etc.

Jean Baudrillard

The exhibition：4 Projects in China by Steven Holl Architects

98 020

白。

A 展出的资料很少有注解，设计用意是怎样的呢？

李 一年以前冒出这个展览的想法时，我想到为每个作品

做一部纪录片，因为建筑很重要特性在于它是一个过程。无论

是模型，图纸，还是动画，出现在展览里，观众普遍关注的是

其结果。这个展览更主要是给学生和有求知欲的建筑师做的，

没有随机冒出来的图片材料。一个设计产生的复杂过程，从方

案到可以施工的过程，施工中间的过程，设计在其中是持续

的——斗争也是持续的。

展览中影像由照片和少量动画构成，很少有注解，像Chris

Marker的电影La jetée中那些绵延数秒的静止画面。我甚至曾经

设想过每个电影的长短与该项目周期的长度成正比，在时间坐

标上对齐，观众被四面屏幕环绕，每个时刻看到同时发生的历

史事件。

A 您的实践在此理论支持下还有什么条件？您对这些条件

的现状有何评价？

李 从客观背景来讲，一个国家经济腾飞时会有一个乐观

积极但也可能是天真的时期，在中国这个时期似乎已经过去

了。现在我们进入了一种“贪婪”期，从上至下，从政府到个

人。在房价越来越走高的情况下，这种情况愈加明显，建筑就

怕贪婪。

展出的几个项目的发生正好处于那个积极的时期，我们抓

住了当时对未来的憧憬和好奇，做出了这些有意思的尝试。当

然这些项目的实现一定程度上来自对大师事务所的崇拜。对此

我们应该批判地看待：如果大师们负责任的做事，就是好事。

我们应该尽最大努力留住这种乐观、积极的精神，而不要让它

被保守主义和贪婪所取代。这些项目在今天很难有一个可能被

重复——在精神上重复。 但如果一代人去努力，有可能把这

种精神留住。

这个展览也标志着我和斯蒂文·霍尔合作的阶段性高潮。

A 您怎么避免“都市主义”被“地产主义”侵蚀呢？

李 事实上我们四个项目的业主都是地产商，但在中国，

连鸟巢的投资方有包含地产商的参与。

比如当代MOMA，我们2004年汇报设计方案时受到巨大的

阻力，因为甲方只看重市场。当时所谓的豪宅都是纯粹的住

宅——纯粹到连一层都是住宅，并且完全封闭。而我们的设

计，包括了酒店、书店和电影院等元素，地面全部为商业区，

楼与楼之间由天桥连接，社区全部开放，当时甲方极力反对过

这些想法。可到了今天，这家开发商在做其它地产项目时，居

然坚持要把电影院、酒店等设计其中，似乎这成为他们的成功

模式了。所以如果7年前，我们这些建筑师盲目迎合当时的市

场的话，做出的东西7年后便是个错误。

今年的当代MOMA比去年更有人气了，任何人都可以进去

逛逛，警卫没有权力阻拦，里面有北京最好且最便宜的艺术影

院（百老汇影院）。

另外一例是成都来福士广场。这是开发商先后在新加坡、

上海、北京、成都、杭州做的系列项目，除了我们的项目，其

它几个设计无论怎样变形，基本都是一个模式：在占据了数层

的底商上面竖起几个塔楼。而我们的设计则不然，我们把通常

占据五六层楼的底商购物中心部分安置在地下，地面上沿街只

有一层，慢慢过渡到两层、三层。行人可以从各个角度走上底

座的公共广场，周围完全开放。事实上这种设计对商业没有任

何损伤，但说服开发商并不容易。我们实践了一个简单的道

理：从街道到达商场，上行两层，下行两层，比直接上到六层

方便，那些常见的商场顶层都是游戏机厅或大排档之类的物业

类型。

中国当下最严重的城市问题就是过度私有化，与政府和规

划者直接有关。现在政府划出面积庞大的土地交给开发商，首

先以此减少政府投资建设道路，减少建设基础设施，同时卫

生、治安力量也交由开发出来的小区自己负责。第二，土地地

块大了，政府可以把和众多开发商打交道的机率降到最低。这

造就了中国的超级街区。

曼哈顿是一个极端资本主义的例子，可是政府花很多钱维

护这个城市，成就了丰富的公共空间文化。在当下的中国，我

们也有可能同样来实践，我们所关注的绿色、环保、低碳建

筑，已经被各级领导所接受，基本不用做斗争了，但同时，一

个国家的可持续发展绝对也离不开社会文化层面的关怀，如果

大家抓住每个机会做好这些，城市将更加精彩。

99020

Li When the idea of doing an exhibition hit me a year ago, I thought of making a documentary, as architecture is an art in its process. In an exhibition, however, be it models, drawings, or animation, the audience expects most of all just the results. This exhibition is for students and architects willing to know the process. There are no images in the slides making random, not orderly appearances. From idea to design, from design to construction, from construction to occupation, design is a consistent process, so is the struggle. The screening consists of images and a small number of animation, with very few notations. The overall effect is like that of Chris Marker’s film, “La jetée”, made up of stills lingering on screen for tens of seconds. We even envisioned a setup, where the video’s length is determined by the time period a project extends, the time of the event’s taking place would match each other on all four screens, and the four videos would be set up around the audience and played-back simultaneously. At any given second, the audience would be able to see what happened at the same time, on different projects.A What are the conditions for practicing your theories in China? What do you think of these conditions?Li In the path of a surging economy, there is always a period of positivity and optimism, of potentially naivety. This period is gone for China. Now we are entering a period of greediness, from the top down below, from the government to individuals. This is ever more evident as the price for property skyrockets. Architecture bears not greediness. The projects in the exhibition happened exactly in the period of “positivity”. We seized people’s curiosity for the future and made interesting experiments. These project happened also out of a somewhat blind admiration for masters. A critical standpoint is necessary: it is only good when the masters exercise their capabilities in a responsible way. Our part should be trying to retain the positivity and optimism, instead of being taken over by conservatism and greediness. It wouldn’t be possible to replicate these projects from us today, not spiritually. But if a generation tries to seize it, we may be able to retain this spirit. This exhibition marks the milestone of my collaboration with Steven. A How do you then avoid a sort of “propertism” in place of “urbanism”?Li In face, all four of our projects are funded by real estate developers. This is no surprise in China: even the Olympic stadium is funded in part by a real estate developer. Let’s look at Linked Hybrid. Back in 2004, we were met with immense criticism when submitting our design. Our client looked only to the market, which for top-end housing then meant pure housing--so pure

that the ground level must be houses, and gated. Our design, incorporating a hotel, bookstore, cinema, loads of street-level business, linking high up with overhangs, were to their opposition. The same developer today asks to include a cinema, a hotel in all his developments, as if following a set model. This means, if architects follow suit without questioning, what he makes will be outdated already in seven years. Linked Hybrid seems livelier than last year, as it gains more popularity. Anybody can come and hang out, the guards have no rights to stop them. The best and cheapest cinema in Beijing (Broadway Cinematheque) recently opened there. Another example is the Raffles City in Chengdu. Raffles City has its chains in Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu and Hangzhou respectively, all towers but the ones in Chengdu are but modifications of one prototype: a podium housing the apartment store, usually 5 or 6 floors high, on top of which stands a few towers for office and apartments. In our design, the apartment store are “pushed” down halfway underground, leaving on the street level openings at different sides for passengers to walk in and reach an open plaza. It wasn’t easy to persuade the developer. This actually causes no sales downturn. Here, the customers go up or down two levels to reach a destination, significantly easier than having to go up some six levels at one time. This explains why in many apartment stores in China, the top floor is reserved only for fast-food eateries and arcade machines. The single most piercing problem in China is over privatization, for which the government and urban planners should be held accountable. Now that they allocate massive blocks of land to real estate developers, the government could cut back on costs of buildings roads and infrastructures, leave the hygiene and security responsibilities to the developers. The government also gains by having to deal with less developers with distribution of bigger pieces of land. Together, this makes the mega Chinese neighborhoods. Manhattan is an example of capitalism at its extreme. Yet the officials spend generously on maintenance of the city, and helps make public spaces throughout town thrive. Isn’t China standing right at a point of extreme capitalism? Our other concern is green, environmental and low-carb building, which is generally accepted--less struggles for us. The problems of Chinese cities can only be resolved by passing new policies. But if everybody seizes his opportunity to do good, the city will be a delight for everyone.