Embedded Files
12.20.2024
這個車站是真的蓋的還蠻美的
現代建築是鋼與玻璃的材質表現，堅固且輕盈。這個組合也隱約暗喻著對新穎，潔淨，與資本主義的擁護。它所宣傳的是工業革命後世代的先進，與過去的鮮明對比。現代建築追求一個永遠停留在完美的狀態，需要維護與維持，而它將在時間的摧殘下衰退。而木構建築卻不一樣: 它會隨著時間的流動而漸漸改變，走向仛寂；而它所代表的，是對「時間性」的接受與兼容。
屋頂上突出的小屋頂是作為通風的功用，在許多工廠與農場可以看到類似的類型。這說明這個火車站有可能是在以前，由原本的工廠裝潢改造的。鐵皮屋的構造也支持這個推測，畢竟普遍台灣早期的火車站都是水泥建築，而這個例子是例外。但這不是重點: 重點是木材的使用與影響，如何改變這個車站的立場與態度。
「它站在現代與歷史的交叉點，成為一座橋樑，或時間的通道。」
這種態度是我覺得我們這個世代建築師必備的觀點-- 我們不該捨棄過去，而是接受它，並以不同的口吻去詮釋它。近幾年來著名的諾貝爾奪主也偏向這樣的趨勢，相較與早年的Norman Foster或Rem Koolhaass強調著突兀與創新，近期的David Chipperfield或Peter Zumthor都是藉由以獨特的方式去詮釋地區性或歷史來建立自己的風格。Neri&Hu也是知名的例子。
其實每個建築師只是他們時代的鏡子與剪影，反映著當代的人們的需求與聲音，透過設計留下痕跡。有名與否與對錯無關，建築只是單純的，把那個時刻最重要的立場與感覺，純粹的誠實的，表達出來而已。丹下健三的結構主義反映著戰後日本重建需要的動力與堅實，而妹島和世和西澤立衛的SANAA事務所卻告訴過去，「好了!是時候該停了。我們已經夠好了。」，用溫柔與有機的設計去體現日本文化曖昧的美學。
而我(和David Chipperfield與Peter Zumthor)提出的時間性論點，也是近期趨勢的觀察，似乎反映著我們時代的需求，想要慢下來，和過去重新連結的渴望。過去的我們是離家出走而獨立長大成人的孩子，就像村上春樹的【海邊的卡夫卡】中的少年，用如鋼鐵般堅硬的心保護著脆弱的自己；而現在的我們，是願意選擇接受內心脆弱，和過去和解，那個依舊想回家，渴望愛的少年。
「它站在現代與歷史的交叉點，成為一座橋樑，或時間的通道。」
這種態度是我覺得我們這個世代建築師必備的觀點-- 我們不該捨棄過去，而是接受它，並以不同的口吻去詮釋它。近幾年來著名的諾貝爾奪主也偏向這樣的趨勢，相較與早年的Norman Foster或Rem Koolhaass強調著突兀與創新，近期的David Chipperfield或Peter Zumthor都是藉由以獨特的方式去詮釋地區性或歷史來建立自己的風格。Neri&Hu也是知名的例子。
其實每個建築師只是他們時代的鏡子與剪影，反映著當代的人們的需求與聲音，透過設計留下痕跡。有名與否與對錯無關，建築只是單純的，把那個時刻最重要的立場與感覺，純粹的誠實的，表達出來而已。丹下健三的結構主義反映著戰後日本重建需要的動力與堅實，而妹島和世和西澤立衛的SANAA事務所卻告訴過去，「好了!是時候該停了。我們已經夠好了。」，用溫柔與有機的設計去體現日本文化曖昧的美學。
而我(和David Chipperfield與Peter Zumthor)提出的時間性論點，也是近期趨勢的觀察，似乎反映著我們時代的需求，想要慢下來，和過去重新連結的渴望。過去的我們是離家出走而獨立長大成人的孩子，就像村上春樹的【海邊的卡夫卡】中的少年，用如鋼鐵般堅硬的心保護著脆弱的自己；而現在的我們，是願意選擇接受內心脆弱，和過去和解，那個依舊想回家，渴望愛的少年。
Riken Yamamoto
Breaking Free from the Institutionalization of Architectural Spaces
- Our unawareness of architectural space, "a force at work that dulls our awareness." The force is extremely convenient because it makes people unconscious that they are in "managed spaces."
- The institutionalization of architectural space:
- Make architectural spaces as uniform and standard as possible
- Architectural space consists of the space itself and the relationship of the building with its surroundings.
- The rule that each building ought to be of a single type and occupy its own individual site-- "one type, one site."
- An architecture that was flat, standard and uniform represented liberation from the architecture of the past. Mies van der Rohe called such an architectural space "universal space."
- The countries of Europe after WWI were developing into nation-states. The standardization of architectural space was important for that development"
- The bureaucratic system of government refers to architectural spaces that have been cut and divided in accordance with the "one type, one site" rule as "facilities."
- Today, we have come to accept as natural the notion of architectural spaces being independent "facilities," each on its own site. The word "facility" signifies its singleness, its highly independent i.e. isolated character relative to its surroundings, and its being under the complete management of a bureaucratic government that is divided into vertically organized sects.
- Architecture spaces are spaces of symbols:
- Inside architectural spaces we unconsciously adopt a pre-established style of action. By "an established style of action" I mean manner. They are designed to foster the attitude that individuals must be worthy of their respective social status.
- The people who appear in architectural spaces are not people with distinct personalities but symbols that adopt the behavior which society has dictated, that is, roles in society. No matter who they are, they appear as people transformed into symbols. There is no other way they can appear. That is in the nature of architectural spaces.
- The modern architecture movement was a liberation from such symbols.
- However, at the same time it proved an extremely convenient space from the perspective of those on the management side. The space that was supposed to symbolize nothing was, as it turned out, a symbol of standard human beings-- the human image that us the easiest to manage-- for the purposes of bureaucratic government.
- That is precisely why, by converting architectural spaces into facilities, that is, by cutting and dividing architectural spaces into space of the "one type, one site" kind, it becomes possible to treat the people who appear there as uniform, standardized symbols.
- That is the essence of the hidden mechanism of management. People who have been made standard and uniform ar incapable of seeing those standardized architectural spaces. They are not aware of the fact that they are being managed.
- The institutionalization of housing:
- The method used to institutionalize architectural spaces-- namely cutting and dividing spaces in accordance with the "one type, one site" rule-- led to the invention of a method of supplying housing: "one house = one family."
- The house in which the group called the family lives was originally devised in such as way that it could serve its tole only in the context of a local community.
- Today, housing is like an isolated facility, separated and packaged into units by the "one house = one family" method and arranged so that there is no interaction between the units.
- Housing was an educational device to ensure such a working force. It was hoped that standardized housing would create standardized families and continue to reproduce a standardized working force. It was with such an intention that housing converted into facilities was supplied.
- Standardized, mutually isolated housing was a device for educating the standard family (in behavior considered proper to the standard family). Each family would maintain and manage itself independently inside the house. Diverse social contradictions were treated as problems inside "one house = one family." This is the premise for the administration of the state in Japan.
- Society as conceived by the bureaucratic system of government:
- "Society expects from each of its members a certain kind of behavior, imposing innumerable and various rules, all of which tend to "normalize" its members, to make them behave, to exclude spontaneous action of outstanding achievement."
- Bureaucracy is "the most social form of government" and "the largest stage of government in the nation-state."
- Sectarianism. It is a system of government for managing the state by a vertically organized method by departments and bureaus (i.e. sects) that are divided in an exclusionary way.
- A system of precedent is the basis for the exclusionary character of a sect. A system of precedent is effective as an alibi for the fact that a sect has no ideology of its own. A sect is non-ideological. Without a system of precedent, a sect cannot explain the basis for the legitimacy of its private character. The privatization of sects based on a non-ideological character is the ultimate form of a bureaucratic system of government.
- It is precisely our contemporary society symbolized by the institutionalization of architectural spaces that is the ultimate form of a bureaucratic system.
- The non-ideological character of "designer facilities":
- In Japan, the designers of architectural spaces are designers of facilities. The people who believe that architectural spaces ought to be functional, that is, that architectural spaces ought to be standard, are in the overwhelming majority.
- The instillment of the belief that architectural spaces are such things that completes the process-- the process of the institutionalization of spaces.
- Infrastructure and facilities connected to infrastructure:
- "Tokyo Plan 1960," by Kenzo Tange, for example, proposed an enormous infrastructure cutting across Tokyo Bay. The Plug-In City by Archigram consisted of tower-like infrastructure into which units transformed into facilities were plugged.
- Improvement of infrastructure is indispensable to the institutionalization of architectural spaces. The spaces we live in are a relationship between isolated "one type, one site" facilities and a network of infrastructure supporting those facilities. Many of us share that image of space, so that it is by now regarded as indubitable and commonsensical. That commonsensical view has been instilled in us and is at times articulated in criticism of designers of facilities. The criticism is that facilities ought to be designed ina standard, uniform way. It is voiced not simply by the authorities but also by users who assume that architectural spaces are facilities.
- They have been created through the ingenuity of architects intent in each case on expressing in architectural space both the unique character of the local community and people's strong attachment to that community. Excellent architectural spaces are not single-type facilities that simply stand where they have been built. They have the power to stimulate their surrounding environment and to change the local community itself.
- In fact everyone has the right to propose something "unusual," that is, something that departs from the norm. It is not just playwrights or architects who have the right. It is a responsibility. What stands in the way is bureaucratic sectarianism and the power of standardization. The problem is both sectarianism itself and we ourselves who accept as a matter of course the institutionalization of architectural spaces by sectarianism.
- Is the architect a package designer?
- A belief in the strength of that relationship only works to the advantage of a bureaucratically managed society. To assume it is strong is to think already as a citizen of a bureaucratically managed society. Infrastructure is not as powerful as many people believe. It is in fact weak. It is so weak it could be changed immediately if our assumption-- the idea that it is powerful which has been instilled in us-- were to change.
- Designing architectural space together with infrastructure:
- We proposed housing premised on a community. That is precisely where the design of infrastructure comes in. We designed that infrastructure together with the unit plans. We proposed an arrangement in which transparent facades face each other across courtyards. That is, to people in units, people on the other side are visible. Here, public housing itself is itself social infrastructure.
- "Local community area model":
- To include infrastructure in the consideration of a project is to consider that particular local community.
THOUGHTS
The Progressive City:
Homogenization of Contemporary Urban Centers and Their Irreversible Estrangement from History
A chemical reaction, by common perception, is a process involving the irreversible change in properties of the reactants and the formation of new matters (products); in conjunction, a physical reaction is a mere change in the formal appearance of the reactants while maintaining the originality of the products. This concept is essentially important in understanding the evolution of contemporary cities, where various architectural typologies acceleratively fuse under the catalysts of capitalism, politics, and culture, creating new forms of urbanism. The transformative process is sometimes explosive, like a chemical reaction, engendering innovative and revolutionary ingenuity, marking a presence in the course of human history, while some processes remain traditional, or “physical,” grounded to the core values that they derive from. Commonly, as a human tendency to be attracted to awe and possibilities, the “chemical” or more gravitating establishments offer more competitive incentives, appeal to public attention and the modern norm of novelty, become the dominant process for change and formation, overcasting the humble physical processes and eradicating deeply rooted history. The resulting products, overwhelmingly, play the scenes of our contemporary Generic City.
Rem Koolhaas, in The Generic City, proposes that global homogenization of styles in contemporary cities liberates architecture from the imprisonment of identity and that the neglect of history is an inevitable consequence of civilization’s exponential growth. Progress and rationality are roots of and ironically, the “identity” of the Generic City: “simply to abandon what doesn’t work” (Koolhaas, 1252). To stray away from the past, in Koolhaas’s view, is to rebirth. Indeed, modernization is a powerful chemical reaction that initiates opposition towards traditional, ineffective ways of design and promotes the development of new, surprising, and sometimes unpredictably wonderful outcomes of urbanism. For instance, the full implementation of public transportation systems and the corresponding buildings of services and commerce in their proximity, or the recent invention of artificial intelligent self-driving cars that become the neurons of the city’s integral network, created “systems” of life that can be efficiently and reliably replicated in different places, making the contemporary city perfectly precise. The homogenization of global cities will only continue to accelerate as supported by technological development.
On the other hand, Toyo Ito, in 建築で日本を変える2 (translated as Changing Japan with Architecture), argues that the concept of the Generic City is “horrifyingly homogeneous and extremely totalitarian,” (Ito, 37) for instance: contemporary Tokyo. Ito elaborates that “if our future is one that solely emphasizes the enhancement of precision, then it is imaginable that a society with no overhead, merely nerve-recking, and absolutely no tolerance for flexibility is born” (Ito, 40). The contemporary city of Tokyo is “a complete eradication of the history and culture, nature and harmony, and sense of community inherited from the Edo Period” (Ito, 39). The critical regionalist argues that this deeply rooted cultural heritage should guide the positions and the directions moving forward for the urban spaces of Tokyo. During the Edo Period, Tokyo City was a miraculous existence of harmony between nature and the waterfronts by utilizing topographical design; even after tremendous deformations, such as large earthquakes, the Meiji Reformation, and WWII, every rehabilitation and repair movement was planned reasonably with respect of history and by the principles of nature. Ito defines the “faith of the contemporary” as “faster, farther, and more rational,” synonymous with the notion of “progress” (Ito, 63). Ito further proposes an alternative mode of development in his summary of 4 principles:
1. Repair the relationship with nature2. Search for regionality3. Inherit the land’s history and culture4. Recreate the connections between people and social spaces
(Ito, 69). Instead of blindly sprinting into a deterministic, homogenized future, preserving the values and beauty of the past with Ito’s suggested fundamentals seems more accountable. If Koolhaas’s Generic City were an electrifying chemical process that is irreversible, leaving the resulting products becoming the “Junkspaces” (as discussed in Junkspace) of the process of human civilization, then Ito’s instructions would be more of a physical process that is transparent, tranquil, and (re)tracible. Architecture is ultimately created to celebrate humanity, where stories are valued and memories are cherished. It should not become a social machine, and the only variable to overcome that is people as agents. Lastly, Ito summarizes his aspiration in his memo: “I am unable to give high hopes for contemporary Japan at where it stands now. If we continue the negligence, the fear that “Japan” will disappear is going to exacerbate day by day. Replacing Japan after its extinction is the inorganic, hollow, neutral, wealthy, and flawless economic powerhouse that resides in the extreme East. Perhaps there are people who believe that this is alright, but this causes me to become unable to keep any relationships with them” (Ito, 44). Perhaps Edo-Tokyo was fragile but open-minded, while contemporary Tokyo is fortified yet isolated. Architecture reflects the values of the people who embody it and is therefore dynamic and ever-changing. In fact, a chemical process, as commonly misunderstood, is surprisingly reversible, however only under careful operations. The homogenization of modern cities is also evitable, however only if given sufficient care.
Architecture history is circular, and no development is irreversible nor are outcomes inevitable. Combustion is a chemical process that turns the organic, living wood into lifeless ashes, and though it seems futile to intervene, ashes can become fertilizers that help the new seedlings grow. Similarly, while many tragedies or miracles can occur in the experimentation of architectural processes, damage can be identified, mitigated, repaired, tended, and eventually become nutrients for new possibilities that can benefit mankind. Modernization of the city improves the quality of life, enhances accessible education, and democratizes public spaces. While the homogenization of contemporary cities is truly a danger to be aware of, it is important to not discredit the social and economic process of modernization, which is extremely valuable as well, and it can be elevated by incorporating more cultural components and bringing the center of design back to the people. A modern, yet heterogeneous contemporary city is a utopia that can be fulfilled, where different regions of the world can shine with their intrinsic identities while maintaining strength, energy, and empowerment.
Rem Koolhaas, in The Generic City, proposes that global homogenization of styles in contemporary cities liberates architecture from the imprisonment of identity and that the neglect of history is an inevitable consequence of civilization’s exponential growth. Progress and rationality are roots of and ironically, the “identity” of the Generic City: “simply to abandon what doesn’t work” (Koolhaas, 1252). To stray away from the past, in Koolhaas’s view, is to rebirth. Indeed, modernization is a powerful chemical reaction that initiates opposition towards traditional, ineffective ways of design and promotes the development of new, surprising, and sometimes unpredictably wonderful outcomes of urbanism. For instance, the full implementation of public transportation systems and the corresponding buildings of services and commerce in their proximity, or the recent invention of artificial intelligent self-driving cars that become the neurons of the city’s integral network, created “systems” of life that can be efficiently and reliably replicated in different places, making the contemporary city perfectly precise. The homogenization of global cities will only continue to accelerate as supported by technological development.
On the other hand, Toyo Ito, in 建築で日本を変える2 (translated as Changing Japan with Architecture), argues that the concept of the Generic City is “horrifyingly homogeneous and extremely totalitarian,” (Ito, 37) for instance: contemporary Tokyo. Ito elaborates that “if our future is one that solely emphasizes the enhancement of precision, then it is imaginable that a society with no overhead, merely nerve-recking, and absolutely no tolerance for flexibility is born” (Ito, 40). The contemporary city of Tokyo is “a complete eradication of the history and culture, nature and harmony, and sense of community inherited from the Edo Period” (Ito, 39). The critical regionalist argues that this deeply rooted cultural heritage should guide the positions and the directions moving forward for the urban spaces of Tokyo. During the Edo Period, Tokyo City was a miraculous existence of harmony between nature and the waterfronts by utilizing topographical design; even after tremendous deformations, such as large earthquakes, the Meiji Reformation, and WWII, every rehabilitation and repair movement was planned reasonably with respect of history and by the principles of nature. Ito defines the “faith of the contemporary” as “faster, farther, and more rational,” synonymous with the notion of “progress” (Ito, 63). Ito further proposes an alternative mode of development in his summary of 4 principles:
1. Repair the relationship with nature2. Search for regionality3. Inherit the land’s history and culture4. Recreate the connections between people and social spaces
(Ito, 69). Instead of blindly sprinting into a deterministic, homogenized future, preserving the values and beauty of the past with Ito’s suggested fundamentals seems more accountable. If Koolhaas’s Generic City were an electrifying chemical process that is irreversible, leaving the resulting products becoming the “Junkspaces” (as discussed in Junkspace) of the process of human civilization, then Ito’s instructions would be more of a physical process that is transparent, tranquil, and (re)tracible. Architecture is ultimately created to celebrate humanity, where stories are valued and memories are cherished. It should not become a social machine, and the only variable to overcome that is people as agents. Lastly, Ito summarizes his aspiration in his memo: “I am unable to give high hopes for contemporary Japan at where it stands now. If we continue the negligence, the fear that “Japan” will disappear is going to exacerbate day by day. Replacing Japan after its extinction is the inorganic, hollow, neutral, wealthy, and flawless economic powerhouse that resides in the extreme East. Perhaps there are people who believe that this is alright, but this causes me to become unable to keep any relationships with them” (Ito, 44). Perhaps Edo-Tokyo was fragile but open-minded, while contemporary Tokyo is fortified yet isolated. Architecture reflects the values of the people who embody it and is therefore dynamic and ever-changing. In fact, a chemical process, as commonly misunderstood, is surprisingly reversible, however only under careful operations. The homogenization of modern cities is also evitable, however only if given sufficient care.
Architecture history is circular, and no development is irreversible nor are outcomes inevitable. Combustion is a chemical process that turns the organic, living wood into lifeless ashes, and though it seems futile to intervene, ashes can become fertilizers that help the new seedlings grow. Similarly, while many tragedies or miracles can occur in the experimentation of architectural processes, damage can be identified, mitigated, repaired, tended, and eventually become nutrients for new possibilities that can benefit mankind. Modernization of the city improves the quality of life, enhances accessible education, and democratizes public spaces. While the homogenization of contemporary cities is truly a danger to be aware of, it is important to not discredit the social and economic process of modernization, which is extremely valuable as well, and it can be elevated by incorporating more cultural components and bringing the center of design back to the people. A modern, yet heterogeneous contemporary city is a utopia that can be fulfilled, where different regions of the world can shine with their intrinsic identities while maintaining strength, energy, and empowerment.
Google Sites
Report abuse