欧美建筑院校访谈

美国哈佛大学 Harvard University
美国麻省理工 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

美国耶鲁大学 Yale University
美国哥伦比亚大学 Columbia University
美国宾夕法尼亚大学 University of Pennsylvania
Trends of the Top Architecture and Urbanism Programs in Europe and North America
加拿大麦吉尔大学 McGill University

加拿大卡罗顿大学 Carleton University
美国加州大学伯克利分校 University of California, Berkeley
欧美建筑城市院校动态访谈精选
Edited by Fei Wang and Junfeng (Jeff) Ding

INTER-VIEWS
交叉视角
中国建筑工业出版社
荷兰贝尔拉格学院 The Berlage Institute 编辑王飞丁峻峰
荷兰代尔夫特理工 TU Delft
英国建筑联盟 The Architectural Association
英国伦敦大学学院 University College London
交叉视角交叉视角欧美建筑城市名校前沿
欧美建筑城市院校动态访谈精选中国建筑工业出版社
中国建筑工业出版社
INTER-VIEWS
The Trends of the Top Architecture and Urbanism

作者简介 398 Contributors

目录 Contents
介绍 003 Preface
导叙访谈 008 Introductory Interview

张永和 008 Yung Ho Chang
美国哈佛大学 022 Harvard University, USA

莫森•莫斯塔法维 024 Mohsen Mostafavi
普雷斯顿•斯科特•科恩 036 Preston Scott Cohen
库塔斯•特则提斯 054 Kostas Terzidis
美国哥伦比亚大学 076 Columbia University, USA

马克•威格利 078 Mark Wigley
肯尼斯•弗兰普顿 095 Kenneth Frampton
理查德•普朗茨 111 Richard Plunz
美国宾夕法尼亚大学 122 University of Pennsylvania, USA

代特勒夫•默廷斯 124 Detlef Mertins
大卫•勒瑟巴热 144 David Leatherbarrow
温卡•度别丹 164 Winka Dubbeldam
美国加州大学伯克利分校 180 University of California, Berkeley

雷妮•周 182 Renee Chow
尼古拉斯•蒙昭 198 Nicholas de Monchaux
维拉•朝克 210 Raveevarn Choksombatchai
美国耶鲁大学 220 Yale University, USA

彼得•埃森曼 222 Peter Eisenman
弗兰克•盖里 237 Frank Gehry
英国建筑联盟 The Architectural Association, UK

布莱特•斯蒂勒 Brett Steele
迈克尔•维斯托克 Michael Weinstock
雨果•辛斯利 Hugo Hinsley
英国伦敦大学 University College London, UK

乔纳森•希尔 Jonathan Hill

目录 Contents
加拿大麦吉尔大学 252 McGill University, Canada

阿尔贝多•贝雷斯-戈麦斯 254 Alberto Perez-Gomez
里卡多•卡斯多 266 Ricardo Casto
加拿大卡罗顿大学 284 Carleton University, Canada

马尔•弗拉斯卡理 286 Marco Frascari
荷兰贝尔拉格学院 298 Berlage Institute, The Netherlands

韦德然•弥弥卡 300 Vedran Mimica
彼得•初莫 318 Peter Trummer
皮尔•维托瑞•奥热理 327 Pier Vittorio Aureli
荷兰代尔夫特理工 336 TU Delft, The Netherlands

斯蒂芬•瑞德 338 Stephen Read
伯纳德•卢本 360 Bernard Leupen
翰•麦耶 377 Han Meyer
作者简介 398 Contributors

前言
前言
对于中国建筑系学生来讲，出国留学已经不再是什么新话题。自二十世纪
初梁思成为代表的第一代建筑师留洋海外，过去一百年来已有不计其数的华
人学子赴海外深造，巨大影响了中国建筑和教育的成就。伴随当今中国极速膨
胀的建筑实践和都市革新的步伐，二十一世纪标志着新一代的建筑学子漂洋过
海，寻求更多的学习机会以投身与西方建筑学实践和意识形态的学习这一新历
史的开始。然而，由于相对短缺的信息和有限的交流，西方的名校就其在国际
建筑学的文化和教育的卓越位置对于学子们而言依旧神秘。“西方各大学校之
间到底有什么不同，出国究竟留学意味着什么，出国留学到底让你如何不同？
”对很多人来讲，这些都是急待回答的重要话题。
此书精选美国和欧洲知名建筑学府里极具代表的资深理论家、一线教育
家、前沿建筑师进行访谈，这些欧美主要建筑学院包括：哈佛，耶鲁，哥伦比
亚，伯克利，宾大，麦吉尔，贝尔拉格，代夫特。作为系主任，或学院院长，
被采访着都是学术带头人，在其领域具有极高的学术地位。我们的访谈注重院
校的特色，深入挖掘差异，探讨共通性，透析现状以试图展示预测当代西方建
筑教育领域最前沿的研究趋势。
我们的采访还包括很多当代著名实践建筑师，作为教授，他们与学生分享
他们在设计和建筑实践中的理论精髓。这些采访论及诸如：形式，建构，意识
形态，和相关深邃而极具时代意义的前沿话题。
作为编者，我们都在海外学习实践多年，同教授们已经建立起较为近距离
的关系，多年来我们在选修他们的主导的设计课，理论研究课同时，或者在他
们亲自主办的设计工作室工作过程中，积累了大量关于学院和教授们的信息，
以及对他们研究领域更精确的理解。正是如此，所以我们的采访展示了前所未
有的第一手资料，在着实诠释了教授们的研究方向基础上，更透析了他们的独
特人格文化精髓。
Preface
所以能劈开表象。我们的访谈不再是肤浅学校的表皮描画，我们的对话是
更切题、更具思维性。通过各个层面的对话，我们更注重挖掘潜入的本质，分
析学院体系文化、教育资源优势，展示学科前沿，推断经纬联系，以推导西方
学校最前沿的研究和发展趋势。
所以这一个合集，第一次以这样的阵容向中国读者展示西方建筑教育、建
筑理论、建筑实践的多样化与复杂化。我们相信这样的一本合计会是对于建筑
学领域的多样化的代表性的个体的一本十分有趣和启迪性的册子。对于建筑系
学生来说,他们能通过我们对于不同学校的学术重点解析，有针对性择选适合
自己继续深造的理想学府。对于建筑学界的教育家，他们能从我们有关西方的
体系的最新研究领域的讨论汲取养料，以融合调整中国几个世纪未曾改变的教
育体系。对于实践建筑师来说，他们能从我们有关教育，理论和实践的讨论中
受益。对于其他的读者，我们希望他们会对有关建筑学文化，文化差异，以及
中西文化交流的多样话题感兴趣。
由于时间的关系，我们不能覆盖所有的西方著名的建筑学院，但是我们衷
心希望这本集子会成为我们有关建筑学和相关领域的论题系列丛书的重要起
点。
王飞丁峻峰
2009年2月
于安娜堡与芝加哥
前言
Preface
An international education prerogative for Chinese architecture students

is not a recent phenomenon. Since the first generation of foreign educated
architects represented by Liang, Sicheng at the beginning of the 20th
Century, there have been many Chinese students that have studied oversea,
significantly impacting China's architectural and educational achievements.
Motivated by the rapidly expanding architectural practice and urban
evolutions in China, the early 21st Century marked the beginning of a new
generation of Chinese architectural student traveling abroad for increased
educational opportunities and exposure to Western architectural practice
and ideologies. However, due to the lack of exposure of Western universities
in China, there remains an unclear comprehension of these institutions and
their prominence within international architecture culture and pedagogy.
"What are the differences between world-class Western universities? What's
does it mean to study abroad? How does one distinguish themselves by
studying abroad?" These are still major questions waiting to be answered by
many people.
This book is comprised of a series of interviews with representatives

in the field of architecture from well renowned theorists, to highly
experienced educators and progressive, practicing architects from selected
major American and European architectural universities and institutions
including: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Berkeley, University of Pennsylvania,
McGill, Berlage, and Delft. As Dean or Chair of their respective schools,
these architects are important leaders in the community with prominent
academic performance in their field. These dialogues predict future trends
in architecture based on the analysis of current conditions of individual
institutions and how they are relevant to broader academic scales and how
they attempt to reveal the most pioneering and ground-breaking research
topics in contemporary Western architectural education.
Preface
Some individuals interviewed include practicing architects with high

profile firms. As professors, they contribute to their affiliated schools by
sharing their design intelligence and practice experiences to their students.
The discussion touches on advanced topics such as form, tectonics and
ideology tied to their profound, contemporary meanings and implications
within design.
We, as editors, have been studying, practicing and educating abroad

for a number of years and have developed close, working relationships
with interviewees and, through time, have gained a precise understanding
of the affiliated institutions and mantras to those who were interviewed are
affiliated with. Over the years we have attended their seminars, have taken
their design studios, worked in their offices and have been guided by their
direction as influential professors within the architectural community. It is in
these ways that we have received first-hand knowledge and understanding
about not only their theories, but their eccentric personality and cultural
agendas as well.
These experiences have helped us curate direct dialogue with

these individuals that best describes the current state of the Western
architectural institution. The discourse through this collection of interviews
will be provocative, thoughtful and to the point. Through various levels of
examination and questioning, we hope to bring to the forefront the essence
of the university architectural system’s culture, educational resource
advantages, and demonstrate how advances are being made on academic
forefronts. We also hope to extrapolate relationships and derive the
leading edge of research and development trends in the selected Western
architecture institutions that will be relevant and provide a guiding force for
future architectural discourse.
前言
This collection will offer Chinese readers a great opportunity to

understand what a Western architecture education is, how diverse they are
and what architectural trends are currently forthcoming. We believe this book
will be interesting and enlightening for a diverse cross-section of individuals
within the architecture community. Students will be able to identify differences
and specialties of each university and will be able to apply this knowledge
to help better select an abroad university that couples their educational
interests. Architectural educators in China will be able to identify new areas
of study currently being explored by more contemporary universities in the
West in order to adjust the current Chinese architectural education system,
which has remained unchanged for decades; Architectural practitioners
will benefit from the discussion of trends in architecture and the relationship
between education, theory and practice. For other interested readers,
they will see the diverse discussion on architectural culture and societal
differences and exchanges between the West and China.
Since the shortage of the time, we was not able to cover all the top
institutes in this issue, but We hope this book becomes an important starting
point of a series of books with topics about foreign study in architecture and
related fields.
Fei Wang and Junfeng (Jeff) Ding

February 2009
Ann Arbor and Chicago
Introductory Interview
张永和
非常建筑工作室主持建筑师；美国麻省理工学院(MIT)建筑系主任
1985年任教于美国保尔州立大学、密执安大学、伯克利加州大学、莱斯
大学、哈佛大学等。自1993年起，与鲁力佳成立非常建筑工作室并开始在国
内的实践，从事建筑设计、实践。1996年任南京大学客座教授。1999年担任
北京大学建筑学研究中心主任。2005年担任美国麻省理工学院建筑系主任。
1997 年出版《非常建筑》作品专集， 2000 年出版《张永和 / 非常建筑工

作室专集1、2》。在国内的学术刊物上多次发表学术文章，并先后在法国的
《今日建筑》，意大利的《瞬间艺术》，日本的《新建筑》，《空间设计》，
西班牙的 2G，美国的《进步建筑》及《建筑》，韩国的《空间》，《韩国建
筑师》，英国的《世界建筑》，《AA档案》等杂志及美国的《慢空间》一书
中发表作品及文章。
导言
采访者：王飞
时间：2008年10月21日
地点：美国麻省理工建筑系系主任办公室
感谢：葛文俊
张教授，我们采访您作为本书的导叙访谈，因为您的在中国和美国长期实践和
教育的经历。您是能连接中西教育的关键人物。我们的主要问题是：您认为理
想的建筑教育模式或者系统是什么？怎么教？怎么学？怎么建？
要回答这个问题，首先最好谈谈其他一些相关的问题。
从欧洲的建筑学校讲起，我比较熟悉伦敦的建筑联盟 (Architectural
Association, AA)和鹿特丹的贝尔拉格学院(the Berlage Institute)。AA对
20 世纪 60-80 年代的建筑学教育贡献特别大。贝尔拉格在一定程度上是
依照AA的模型建立的。他们并不属于欧洲典型的建筑教育体系。重要的
是， AA 等欧洲的建筑学校曾经是建筑学发展的主导。大概是 80 年代以
后，建筑教育最活跃的中心转到美国了。过去 20、30年间美国好像起了
一个主导的作用。可是美国建筑实践的状况完全不能支持这样一个观察。
因为，恰恰是欧洲，亚洲和拉美的实践要比北美的实践活跃很多。为什么
是这样？第一，活跃与否是由数量定义的，相比较其他国家而言，美国简
直是惨极了，近几十年来的好建筑太少了。我们谈的建筑不仅仅只是市
场经济的一部分，而是作为一个文化现象和技术现象，包含着一个根本问
题是现在盖房子，是不是和以前是一样的？曼谷盖房子是不是和波士顿是
一样的？等等很多问题。令人瞩目的日本的现当代建筑是战后开始的。
印度当代建筑师，像查尔斯•科里亚(Charles Correa)等等，70年代以来也
成为一个成熟的现象。然后在日本、印度以外，其他的亚洲国家中还有
一个可以作为参考系的人物是马来西亚的杨经文。大概在二十几年前，
在亚洲各个国家和城市，像韩国、香港，都可以看到独立的建筑师的出
现，都盖起有意思的房子来了。像新加坡的陈家毅和莫玮玮。亚洲的建
筑实践崛起了，而且势头很猛。美国的实践则越发显得底气不足。波士
顿在战后的五六十年代，由欧洲建筑师主导，先格罗皮乌斯后何塞•路易
斯•赛特(Jose Luis Sert)打头，推动现代建筑，但到现在现代建筑还是在
挣扎。像Diller+Scofidio盖的波士顿当代艺术馆(Institute of Contemporary
Art, ICA)，从亚洲的眼光来看就没有可看的。因为他们盖的房子实在太少
了。ICA应该是他们的第二栋。盖的多意味着盖得快，盖得快意味着有会
机会消化和发展。当然商业化的大生产一点意义没有。可是他们等于一直
憋在那儿，进步就慢。这些都是我很主观的分析。不过ICA的一些设计是
挺失败的，就像这种（折来折去）形式，多少建筑师画过？这应该是建筑
教育要反思的一个情况。
10 Introductory Interview
去年彼得•艾森曼(Peter Eisenman)来麻省理工讲演。80年代我在密
歇根大学时接触过他，但这次来变化特别大。以前他是特别傲气的，说话
的口气里就是要创造历史，有一种历史使命感的。这次来他就谦虚了。以
前他有一种自信，不仅是自信自己的能力，而是自己觉得看的很清楚，历
史应该这么发展，他认为自己在历史进程里会起到一个作用。去年来，他
不肯定了，然后他在反思。以前是向前看，现在他向后看，艾森曼谈到这
过去30年时有了很多的不肯定。
我讲的都是些片段的现象。从亚洲建筑的崛起到美国建筑的消沉是我
做一个判断的基础。从我个人来说如果我要是呆在了美国，没回中国，我
对美国的教育可能不会有太深刻的认识；因为我离开了，回了中国，而且
主要是做实践，再反过来看美国，很多问题就很清楚了。美国现代建筑教
育的基础实际上是从美国战后，一开始是欧洲现代主义教育，密斯凡德罗
贡献很大，格罗皮乌斯贡献很大。后来，在美国东岸，自己形成了一个小
圈子，麻省理工是圈子以外的，主要就是像普林斯顿、哈佛、耶鲁、哥伦
比亚等学校。这些学校并不都一样，但是他们有一些基本态度，具体包括
对设计的操作，都很类似。但在有些地方还是形成了一些不同的声音。
一个最大的不同声音就是从麻省理工开始的，一个重要的人物是凯瑟
琳•鲍尔(Catherine Bauer)，她是40年代麻省理工建筑学院的院长威廉姆•
W•伍斯特(William W Wurster)的妻子。院长夫人对建筑教育有非常强烈的
观点。他们应该是从加州过来，实践是在湾区。这对夫妇后来去了伯克利
加大。鲍尔的雕像至今摆在伯克利的图书馆里。她认为建筑学科之间分所
谓的建筑、规划、城市设计和景观设计是一个过时的态度，人类生存环境
的问题需要的是跨学科的合作；第二个就是对社会的关注。建筑师的社会
责任感是什么？到了现在，凯瑟琳•鲍尔式的改革扩散到了全美。麻省理
工的规划系叫城市研究和规划(Urban Studies and Planning)，规划系的老
师主要是社会学的学者，研究的典型问题是社会性的，如贫穷问题等等，
还有些区域经济学家等等。基本不做设计，反映了整个西方知识界结构的
改变。恐怕要到1968年以后这批关注社会的学者形成了鲜明“反设计”的态
度，成了一个问题。同时伍斯特造房子。路易斯牧•福德(Lewis Mumford
)写了一篇文章叫“地域性的现代主义(Regional Modernism)”，讨论的是把
欧洲的现代主义形式语言拿来，用美国的木结构盖，引用的案例就是伍斯
特的实践。这是美国版的现代主义，也是后来的批判地域主义的先声。他
到了伯克利，设计学院改称“环境设计学院”。美国本土的现代主义在湾区
实际上是发展过的，重心不在东岸。
1980 年代以后，美国有了一个 “ 建筑师老师( architect teacher ) ” 的

概念，路易 • 康应该算是第一位，说法是芝加哥的建筑师托马斯 • 毕比
(Thomas Beeby)提出的，他曾是耶鲁80年代的一任院长，他有一篇文章
谈建筑师老师，对建筑教育很重要。建筑师老师指的是一种新的职业途
径：以前的学生读了本科学位到事务所去工作，有心人在一个好的事务所
干若干年， 5年8年，然后出来自己做。到了1980年代，教职已经挺热门
导言 11
了，一个原因是实践的机会少了，很多人又不愿意去商业事务所做事。毕
比分析，从路易斯•康开始，有一些有理想的建筑师不去事务所，而是通
过教书使自己成熟起来。这批人中间有的就此完全脱离实践，有些教了几
年书有了实践的机会就离开学校，有些没有离开学校，就一边教书一边做
实践。建筑师老师就成为美国的一个事业发展的模型，和欧洲的不一样，
欧洲遇见一个老建筑师常常是教授，我现在说的是年轻的。我自己完全就
是走的这条路，当时并不知道自己走了一个定式。像彼得•艾森曼和伯纳
德•屈米(Bernard Tschumi)，他们也是建筑师老师出身。由于有学术的背
景，自然地把理论和实践的关系给明确成“从理论到实践”。现在就有一个
后遗症：美国建筑师常有两个情节：一是羡慕艺术家，觉得艺术家比建筑
师的文化地位高，中国没有这个，欧洲也没有这么厉害；第二个就是羡慕
学者。或者说建筑师把自己想象成为艺术家和学者，而不是建筑师。这就
伏下了一个危机，现在危机就全面开花了。
当代美国建筑教育除了第一次在 40 年代以伍斯特和鲍尔为旗帜的改
革，后来发展成社会责任感和设计相互对抗，还有第二次80 年代的以设
计为中心的改革，也延续了设计和社会责任感的对抗。后现代主义，作
为一个文化运动，也把建筑带到一个很尴尬的境地。当时出现了非常会
“设计”的建筑师，“设计”取代了建筑。艾森曼的视觉敏感性是非常平面性
的（graphic），他把那种敏感性代替了材料结构，于是他的房子不太建
筑，可是很“设计”，当然也很“理论”。再加上设计也发展到了几乎和社会
完全脱离的地步。总的来说，建筑教育第二次革命，以东岸为大本营，席
卷了美国大陆。很多建筑学老师至今不情愿用 “building” 这个词，太直接
了，不够理论，他们觉得不舒服。很多事情他们都不能直说。他们在设计
里面追求一个很绕的逻辑，认为这个逻辑是对理论的一种反映，然后将它
实现成很复杂繁琐的装置，而不是房子。这种思想方法反映到房子上，就
出现了美国建筑风格。美国的一个房子和欧洲的一个房子比，能想到的用
来形容美国建筑的词就是fussy (繁琐)， fussy architecture(繁琐建筑)。在
美国，如果能够少繁琐一点就是很好的建筑师。另外一个美国设计概念是
材料调色板，用点不同的材料，木头、石头、金属等，进行构图。实际上
这就是问题了，建筑最本质的是什么？有没有一个好建筑的评判标准，这
一方面是很难讨论的，可是另一方面，恰恰在很多其他地区，像拉美、澳
大利亚、亚洲、欧洲，看见好建筑，大家都知道是好的。如果美国建筑的
设计差，建造质量又一般，那么建筑教育出了什么问题？
刚才说到从理论到实践的建筑学模型，这个你非得质疑，否则跳不出
去。如果建筑师不是一个伪学者不是一个伪艺术家，那么建筑学一定有其
核心知识，这个核心知识应是其他学科是没有的，那它到底是什么？像麻
省理工，3年前，研究生一年级是又看电影，又读小说，又看画，这就是
不知道和不接受建筑有核心知识的表现，是建筑教育的完全走偏了的学
术化（intellectualization）。一个新进来的研究生没有学过建筑，你叫他
看电影看书，让他翻译成建筑，但是他哪有这个能力？因此第一个紧迫的
事就是对建筑实践和理论的关系，还有对核心知识进行调整和定义。这些
理论的脊梁骨是什么性质，现在看的很清楚，很多都是形而上的，和当代
的很多问题没有什么关系，像气候改变。它实际上是一个非常抽象、非常
象牙塔性质的理论，所以建筑即使和它发生关系，也是和今天的社会没有
太大关系。因此盖出来房子也不可能有地域性，也不涉及技术的问题。所
以，第一是把实践和理论的关系改变，同时解决核心或基础知识的问题。
第二要面对现实。受库哈斯影响的建筑师对当今问题就比较关注，包括城
市、技术、环境、文化等问题，例如全球化现象。这就形成了一个新的建
筑教育模型：以前的模型是从上到下的，新的模型不具备垂直性，而是一
个水平的环，环的起点和终点可以说是一个也可以是两个，因为都是实
践。第一个实践就是建立建筑的核心知识，包括设计的基本技能和基本建
筑问题，如空间、基地、材料、结构等等，的处理能力；把美国一些学
校20年多来的经验积累不是排斥而是包容进来，通过计算机对几何学对制
图等进行重新的认识和掌握。一个美国毕业生对复杂形体的掌握能力比一
个中国学生要强的多。还有一个更基本的问题就是建筑工作的性质，对于
建筑师和建筑学生，就是建筑的物质性：建筑属于物质世界，不是抽象的
世界。第二个实践是社会实践，应对各种当代问题：当今社会的问题，环
境的问题，城市的问题，技术的问题，如计算机技术和建造方法及材料，
文化的问题，生活方式，全球化交流带来的文化变化。这一组问题是建立
起社会实践的基础，它生产出来知识又反馈回建筑教育里去。就是说，第
一个实践最终转化为第二个实践。第二个实践又反过来影响第一个实践。
于是形成一个环。在过程中，你还照样看电影，看画，读理论。这里有一
个内有一个外，从外面什么都可以进来，还是一样，但是最后都要转化为
建筑。建筑就是内。现在这个环状模型开始是建筑，最终还是建筑。一路
上你爱吸收什么都可以。
美国建筑教育最失败的是工程的含量大大的缩减了，越所谓的大学校
这方面越糟糕。如果一个建筑师没有学过工程就去实践简直无法想象。他
不能比他的业主和施工单位知道的还少。其实现在已经出现了这种状况。
欧洲的学校，如西班牙、瑞士、德国、还有日本的技术教育都做得很好。
中国和美国的问题很大。美国的毕业生都是能说，教育就是这样，但是
他们的实际操作能力和欧洲学校的毕业生，如比利时的鲁汶(Leuven)或
圣•卢卡(St. Luka)的毕业生，根本没法比。这还有其他的原因，因为在欧
洲，本科研究生都念建筑，一口气7年，基础打得扎实。美国读建筑常常
只念3年半的硕士课程。现在我觉得还是苏黎士瑞士联邦高工 (ETH)搞得
最好，他们一年级的专业课叫建筑设计，二年级叫建筑设计与技术。在瑞
士、德国和奥地利，建筑和工程是同步的。
数码技术在建筑教育和实践中的运用和比重越来越大。您如何看待？
数码(digital) 技术和技术(technology)是两回事。技术革新在美国很
火，在哪里呢？在社会上，在建筑实践里。而且常常在大事务所里。因
为，技术方面的探索是对人员组合和资源管理有个要求。一个极端就是
ARUP ，在伦敦有上千人。还有专门的立面技术部，等等。 SOM 的技术
导言 13
含量也是很高的。问题是学校怎么能帮学生做好准备。伯纳德•屈米在哥
大的革命，到现在差不多刚好20 年了，那主要上是把数码技术用来生成
新的建筑形式。本来用新技术的结果是应该更开放，是一个生成的过程
(generative process)。如果是固定的结果，生成就没意义了。现在一提
到数码建筑你就可以想象到是个什么样子，那就有问题了。尽管 “ 团块 ”
(blob)作为一个运动已经是历史，很多建筑师对数码的认识还是停留在那
个层面上。我对计算机了解不多，但是一点是它可以处理大量的信息，而
人是做不到的。比如北京市的城市研究，如分层，以前才可以分多少层？
现在可以分 150 多层，没有计算机是无法想象的。现在像盖里技术公司
(Gehry Technologies)把施工图做成一个三度模型，即建筑信息模型(BIM)
改动一点，所有图纸都跟着改了，把计算机用在设计生产上，而不是生成
建筑形式上，我觉得也很积极。还有数码建造(digital fabrication)。
设计在美国也值得提一下。有一个英国人叫特伦斯 • 考伦( Terence

Conran)，他在战后把现代设计推向市场，他因此还被授了勋，在欧洲各
大城市都有店。但是第一次在纽约开店，没人买，就关掉了。到了21 世
纪初又重新去美国开店，终于产生了些影响。说明美国对设计接受的程度
低。在美国自己比较成功的案例是靶公司(Target)，推设计推得很好。像
麦克•格雷夫斯(Michael Graves)，他为这家公司做产品设计，比他的房子
做要好。当然这是题外话。
您对每年大量的出国留学是如何看待的？
留学对中国是什么样的影响，现在还言之过早。留学美国的太多，也
比较盲目，对盖好房子是没有太多帮助的。中国大陆所谓的新建筑只有十
几年的历史，看着都挺好，因为是和零来比。但你看台湾的新建筑都是80
年代建起来的，几乎都是留学生做的，但没有给台湾建筑带来真的突破，
因为最终都是外来的想法，和本土关系不大。但是中国可能不太一样，我
们有更多实践的机会。如果说今天什么是最好的建筑教育，去念欧洲的本
科，相对务实，然后念偏理论的美国的研究生。这个最理想。
Yung Ho Chang
Professor and Head of Department of Architecture, MIT; Princinpal architect
of Atelier FCJZ
Yung Ho Chang is currently the Chair of Architecture at MIT, from

Peking University where he was Head and Professor of the Graduate
Center of Architecture. He received his M.Arch. from the University of
California at Berkeley and taught in the US for 15 years before returning to
Beijing to establish China's first private architecture firm, Atelier FCJZ. He
has exhibited internationally as an artist as well as architect and is widely
published, including the monograph Yung Ho Chang/Atelier Feichang
Jianzhu: A Chinese Practice. His interdisciplinary research focuses on the
city, materiality, and tradition. He often combines his research activities with
design commissions.
导言 15
Interview by: Fei Wang

Time: October 21, 2008
Location: Chair’s Office, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA
Credits: Wenjun Ge
Professor Chang, 1st of all, we interview you as introductory interview for the book,
because of your international backgrounds of architectural practicing and teaching.
You are the key to connect architecture education between the West and China.
Our main question is: what do you think the ideal architectural education model or
system is? How to teach? How to learn? How to build?
Before answering this question, I have to clarify some related

issues.
In terms of European architectural schools, I’m more familiar with

Architectural Association (AA) in London and the Berlage Institute in
Rotterdam. AA made a huge contribution to architectural education in
1960-1980. Berlage has more or less modeled after AA. Both of them
are not typical products of the European system. It is important to know
that these atypical European schools like AA were once leading in the field
of architecture. Since 1980s, the center of architectural education shifted
to the United States. During the past 20-30 years, the US has been the
crucial place for education. However, architectural practice in the US
doesn’t really match this assertion. Meanwhile in Europe, Asia and Latin
America, practice has been much more active. Why? Poor quantity of
construction for one. Compared to many other countries, the construction
quantity in the US is relatively low and very well built buildings in the
US were few during the past decades. Architecture is not just part of
the market but it is also a cultural and technological phenomenon. The
basic questions are: To build today is the same as in the past or not?
To build in Bangkok is the same as in Boston or not? There are many
questions. In Japan, the architectural scene began to flourish after World
War II. For Indian architects, such as Charles Correa, became mature
since 1970s. As for other Asian regions besides Japan and India, a
reference point is Ken Yeang in Malaysia. Around 2 decades ago, many
independent architects started to build interesting buildings, such as Kay
Ngee Tan and Mok Weiwei in Singapore. Architectural practice in Aisa
has been on the rise. In comparison, the practice in the US appears to
be very lame. In 1950-60s after WWII, European architects, like Gropius
and Jose Luis Sert, led practice in Boston and promoted Modernism,
yet today Modernist architecture is still struggling. Currently, in Boston,

buildings like Diller+Scofidio’s Institute of Contemporary Art are not
so special, from an Asian architect’s point of view. Because they have
built too few buildings before; they only had ideas and concepts, not
built work. If one can build more, it means there are chances to digest
and develop an idea better. Of course the commercial mass production
doesn’t mean anything. But Diller+Scofidio were stuck for many years
and their development has been very slow, from my point of view. Look
at this kind of idea of folding, how many architects have thought about
it? This is one reason why we shall reflect upon architectural education.
Last year Peter Eisenman lectured at MIT. I had met him in 1980s
at University of Michigan, but this time his change is obvious. Before,
he was very confident, aspired to create history, and had a very strong
sense of his position in the history. But this time, he became more
moderate. He was not as sure. He is rethinking. He was looking forward
before, whereas now he is looking backwards into the past 30 years.
Eisenman talked about these 30 years now with quite a bit of uncertainty.
I have not been coherent. Anyway, the rise in Asia and decline in
the US are the foundation for my judgment. Personally, if I were to stay
on in the US all these time and didn’t go back to China for a decade, I
wouldn’t have the comprehensive understanding of American education.
Because I left the US for China to practice, it is much clearer for me
to comprehend many problems in the US. American contemporary
architectural education took shape after WWII and began with the
European Modernist doctrine. Gropius and Mies made important
contributions. Then on the East Coast, it became a circle, including
Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc, MIT was not in there. All these
schools are different but they have shared a basic mentality and similar
design approaches. The genuinely different voices came from other
places.
One of the major independent voices was from MIT. The key figure
was Catherine Bauer, William W. Wurster’s wife, who was the dean of
MIT School of Architecture and Planning in the later part of the1940s.
The dean’s wife had a strong opinion on architectural education. They
came from California with practice in the Bay Area. The couple went
back to UC Berkeley after MIT. Her statue is still in the Berkeley’s library.
She observed that the division between architecture disciplines, such
as architecture, urban planning, urban design and landscape, was
out of dated and there should be an inter-disciplinary collaboration in
designing human living environment. The second question was about
导言 17
design and the society. What is architect’s social responsibility? By now,

The Bauer revolution has spread all over America. The department
of urban planning in MIT is called “Urban Studies and Planning”, and
faculty members in that department are mainly sociologists, regional
economists, etc., and typical research is about social issues, such
as poverty. Basically, they don’t design, which reflects the change of
knowledge structure in the West. A clear “anti-design” attitude was
formed by some of the social scientists after 1968. On a different note,
Wurster was practicing architecture in California. Lewis Mumford wrote
an essay called “Regional Modernism”, in which he discussed how
European Modernist formal language was transplanted to the US and
built with wood. Wurster was one of the examples. This was American
version of Modernism and the forerunner of critical regionalism. Wurster
went back to Berkeley and renamed its architecture school “the College
of Environmental Design”. Actually American Modernism was further
developed in the Bay Area, rather than on the East Coast.
Since 1980s, there was a new type of architect in the US called

“architect teacher”, the term came from the Chicago architect Thomas
Beeby, who was then the dean at Yale. Louis Kahn was most likely the
first architect teacher. Beeby’s essay on architect teacher was a very
important one for architectural education. Architect teacher refers to a
new career path: before, students worked at architecture firms, ideally
at good ones for about 5 to 8 years, after receiving their degrees and
before starting their own practice. In 1980s, teaching positions were
already very competitive to get. One reason was that opportunities
to get building commissions were rare and many architects were
not willing to work at commercial offices. Beeby claimed that, since
Kahn, some architects with ambitions and dreams didn’t choose to
work in firms but to teach to achieve maturity. Some of the architect
teachers would never practice; some taught for a few years then went
into practice; some stayed in school and practiced at the same time.
Architect teacher became an American model of career development,
different from Europe. I chose this path too, unconsciously. Architects
like Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi were architect teachers.
Because of their academic background, naturally they emphasized a
direct relationship of theory and practice and approached design as
“from theory to practice”. Another consequence was that architects envy
two disciplines: one is artist, who is perceived as having higher cultural
stature than architect; the other is scholar for their mastery of theory.
In other words, architects imagine themselves as artists and scholars,
rather than architects. So it created a crisis, which was later widely
spread.
In the past four or five decades, architectural education in America

experienced at least two revolutionary events: the first one was the
reform led by Wurster and Bauer in the 1940s and evolved into the
opposition between social responsibilities and design; the second
one in the1980s brought design back to the center while the social
responsibilities vs. design debate continued. Post-modernism as a
cultural movement put architecture in a very awkward position. Some
architects emerged as being good at “design” and “design” replaced
building. Eisenman’s visual sensitivity is very “graphic” and this
sensitivity overrides thinking on materiality and structure. The end
product could be theoretical and “well designed” but not “architectural”.
In addition, with the social development of the US, architecture is
further away from the society today than before. In general, the second
revolution of architectural education, centered on the East Coast,
influenced all American schools. Now many teachers in architecture
are not willing to use the word “building” because it is too direct and not
theoretical enough and they feel uncomfortable. They cannot say many
things in a straightforward way. The design logic could be convoluted to
reflect theory and produces art installation rather than building. Thus, in
the US, a certain architectural “style” emerges. Compared to architecture
in Europe, a term that describes this American style would be “fussy”,
or “fussy architecture”. If an architect can downplay complexity, he/she
is already a good architect. The other American design concept is
“material palette”: a little bit wood, a little bit stone and a little metal, etc.,
to make a composition. Here are the questions: What is the essence
of architecture? Are there any standards for good architecture? On the
one hand, this is hard to discuss; on the other hand, in Latin America,
Australia, Asia and Europe, when one sees a good building, one knows.
While in the US, if the design quality is sub-standard, and construction is
only ok, so what is the problem of architectural education?
I mentioned that there is a pedagogical model of going from theory

to practice, which you have to challenge otherwise you can’t get a
clear picture. If an architect is not a pseudo-scholar or pseudo-artist,
architecture must have its own core knowledge, which other disciplines
don’t share. 3 years ago, for the 1st year graduate study in MIT, students
were watching movies, reading novels and looking at paintings but not
working on buildings. Such approach refused to teach the foundations
of architecture in name of a narrow intellectualization. A 1st year
graduate student, who never studied architecture, is asked to watch a
movie and read a novel, and then to translate what’s in the movie and
novel into architecture. How could he/she know how to do it? Thus,
one urgent issue is to redefine the relationship between architectural
导言 19
practice and theory and reconfigure and redefine the core knowledge.
Now it is clear that many theories are metaphysical and have nothing
to do with contemporary issues, like climate change. It is very abstract
and very much in the ivory tower, so even if a building may relate to
theory, it may not relate to the world today. Theory generated buildings
may not have dealt with geopolitical issues, neither technological ones.
So, the first task is to change the practice-theory relationship and to
solve the issues of core and basic knowledge. The second one is to be
confronted with the reality. Architects who are influenced by Koolhaas
are likely interested in current issues like the urban, the technological,
the environmental, the cultural, etc., such as globalization. Now there
is a new architectural education model: contrary to the old top-down
model, the verticality in the new model disappears and it becomes a
horizontal circle, where the beginning and the end could be either the
same one, which is practice, or two different version of practice. The first
practice is the teaching and learning of architectural core knowledge,
including basic design skills, basic building issues, such as space, site,
material, structure, etc. as well as the tools developed in the past 20
years in the US, like computer and the deployment of geometry. It is thus
not exclusive but inclusive. An American graduate is much more skilled
on complex forms than a Chinese one. Another more fundamental issue
is the nature of architecture, which is the physicality of architecture:
architecture belongs to physical world, not to the abstract one. The
second practice is social practice and it is about how architecture
responds all kinds of contemporary issues: social, environmental, urban
and technological issues, such as computation, construction methods
and material, cultural issues, life styles and cultural changes as the
result of globalization. These questions are essential for setting up social
practice and the knowledge produced from social practice in turn feeds
back into the first practice. Thus it forms a circle. During the process, one
still can watch movies, look at paintings and read theories. There is the
difference between the internal and the external: from outside everything
can come in but in the end it should translate into building. Building is
the internal one. Now the circular model begins with building, and ends
with building too, while one can absorb anything in-between.
The biggest failure of American architectural education is the

component of engineering in curriculum is reduced too much and the
more famous the school is, the worse the condition is. If a practicing
architect never studies engineering, it is possible that he/she would
know less than his/her client and the construction team. Actually it has
happened already. Schools in Europe, like in Spain, Switzerland and
Germany, and in Japan, are doing very well in education of technology;
however, in China and the US, it is still very problematic. Graduates from
the US can talk, which is the outcome of their education but they cannot
compete with a graduate say from Leuven and St. Luka in Belgium.
There are still reasons that the undergraduate and graduate studies
together are 7 years in Europe; while in the US, it is about 3.5 years if
one only studies architecture in the graduate school. I think currently
ETH does the best job: the 1st year is called “architectural design”,
and the 2nd year is called “architectural design and technology”, etc.
Once one studies mechanical engineering, one can begin to think about
energy, pollution, and so on. In Switzerland, Germany, and Austria,
architecture and engineering are more synchronized.
Digital technology is more and more important in architectural education and

practice. What do you think of it?
Digital technology and technology in general are two different

concepts. There are a lot of engagements of technology in the US,
however, it is usually the industry, the practice, often the bigger firms. It
is because the exploration of technology requires staff organization and
resource management. One extreme example is ARUP, where there are
over 1000 staff in London alone and there is a department specialized in
façade technology, etc. In SOM, technology is also very important. How
schools prepare students well enough for the real practice? Bernard
Tschumi started a digital revolution at Columbia and it was more than
20 years ago but in that case digital technology was used primarily to
generate new architectural forms. The consequence of new technology
is supposed to be open, which is the idea of the generative process, but
if it produces always the same kind of results, the generative process
doesn’t really work. If whenever digital architecture is mentioned, one
can imagine how its outcome looks like, it is problematic. Although Blob
as a movement is history, the digital input in architecture is still that for
many architects. Technically, I don’t know that much about computer, I
know it can process a huge amount of information, which a human being
is not able to do. For example, for the urban research of Beijing, how
many layers of information could we have before? Now, we can have
over 150 layers easily, which is unthinkable without computer. Gehry
Technologies makes a set of construction documents as a 3D model,
and whenever a bit change is made, everything changes automatically.
This is Building Information Modeling (BIM). It is not so much about
architectural form. I think this is very positive, and there is also digital
fabrication.
Another interesting thing has to do with design in America. The

导言 21
British designer Terence Conran has brought modern design to the

marketplace after WWII and was eventually knighted. Conran has many
stores in Europe. When a New York branch of the Conran store was
first open few people would go there and it had to close down. Now
in the 21st Century, it has re-opened in the US and finally it has some
influence, which means design is not well appreciated in American
society. In the US, the successful example is Target store, where they
sell designs by famous designers, like Michael Graves, whose product
design is better than his buildings, of course from my point of view.
What do you think of a big amount of Chinese architecture students studying

overseas every year?
It is too early to judge what the influence of studying overseas is for

China. There are too many Chinese students studying in the US without
a clear purpose, which is not so helpful for building better buildings
in China. It has been only a little over a decade long for the recent
emergence of a new architecture in China, which looks very good,
because it has practically no precedents. New architecture in Taiwan
were started in 1980s by architects who were mostly educated overseas
but in the end did not really bring a breakthrough in Taiwan since the
design concepts are always from the outside and not much related to the
locale. It could be different in China because we have more opportunities
to practice. What is the best architectural education? It might be to
study in undergraduate programs in Europe, for practical training, and in
graduate programs in the US, for theoretical studies. Anyway, that’s the
ideal one.
22
美国哈佛大学
设计学院
http://gsd.harvard.edu
莫森•莫斯塔法维
普雷斯顿•斯科特•科恩
库塔斯•特则提斯
23
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Graduate School of Design
http://gsd.harvard.edu
Mohsen Mostafavi
Preston Scott Cohen
Kostas Terzidis
24 Harvard University, USA
莫森•莫斯塔法维
哈佛设计研究生院院长
莫森•莫斯塔法维，建筑师及教育家，曾担任康柰尔大学艺术规划学院院
长。在此之前他还曾担任伦敦建筑联盟学院主任。
他在AA建筑学院学习建筑，之后在埃塞克斯和剑桥大学研究有关反宗教
改革城市历史的课题。莫斯塔法维曾担任哈佛建筑设计研究生院院长（研究
生第一阶段课程）。他还曾任教于宾夕法尼亚大学、剑桥大学以及法兰克福
艺术学院。他的研究及设计项目曾在众多建筑杂志上发表，其中包括英国的
《建筑评论》，《 AA 档案》，西班牙的《建筑》，德国的《 Bauwelt 》，意
大利的《Casabella》, 以及《Daidalos》。他曾合著以下著作：《建筑与继
承（ 1982 ）》，《耽搁空间（ 1994 ）》（与霍玛 • 法贾迪合著），及《论风
化：时间中的建筑生命（ 1993 ）》（与大卫 • 勒瑟巴热合著），此书获得了
美国建筑师协会颁发的建筑理论创作奖。莫斯塔法维院长的近期著作包括：
《Approximations: The Architecture of Peter Märkli（2002）》；《表面建筑
（2002）》（与大卫•勒瑟巴热合著），此书荣获CICA Bruno Zevi图书奖；
《Logique Visuelle》（Idea Books,2003）; 《景观城市化：机器状景观的手
册（2004）》；及《作为空间概念的结构（2006）》。
美国哈佛大学 25
采访者：李骅
时间：2008年11月13日
地点：美国麻省剑桥哈佛大学研究生院院长办公室
感谢：丁力扬周炼
在您曾经主持过欧美顶级的建筑院校，包括AA和康奈尔，请问您心目中，当代建
筑教育最理想的状态是什么样的？建筑教育在各个大陆之间有什么差异？各个学校
的教学目标会不会随着不同学校多样的环境和传统而变化？
我在这些院校的经历都和它们各自的历史和所在的城市环境有关。比如
说，伦敦建筑联盟就有着很特别的历史，由于它不是一个纯粹意义的学校，而
更像是一个俱乐部，在其中，在事务所的工作的人们讨论在工作实践以外的话
题，所以就教育和实践的联系而言，历史对建筑联盟是很重要的，那里也一直
延续着作为一个“联盟”所需要保持的独特性，所以学校传播俱乐部的概念。另
外，伦敦这座城市的历史也对学校产生了很大的影响。
而康奈尔建筑学院就很不一样，因为它隶属于大学的系统，这所大学位于
纽约上州具体规划控制之下，在很多方面相对与外界隔离，这种隔离也催生了
一种师生对学校特殊专注。那里更像是一所修道院，每个人对学校都有信仰和
责任。当然我也帮助康奈尔创建了纽约市分校，就把纽约上州和纽约市联系了
起来。
哈佛有着完全不同的传统。哈佛的国际化是她的独特之处。事实上，我们
（GSD）处在一个很宽泛的研究性大学中，我们和其他院系合作。总之，每
个学校的历史我都可以讲出很多，例如，哈佛有着深厚的传统，格罗皮乌斯曾
在这里任教，约瑟夫•尤伊斯•塞尔特（Jose Luis Sert）曾在这里任教，现在我
们有雅克•赫尔佐格、皮埃尔•德莫隆、法希德•莫萨维、雷姆•库哈斯等人在这
里教学。所有这些景观师、建筑师、规划师和城市设计师都是GSD历史的一
部分，造就如此与众不同的地方。和康奈尔和AA相比较，GSD的教学重点是
研究生课程，就我个人而言，我和我的同事们所作的重要工作都是集中在研究
生这个层面上。
您刚刚提到在教育和实践之间的关系，所以您所期待的是试图提出从实践到学院的
概念？并把它们混合在一起吗？您能再讲讲当代建筑教育和实践之间的关系吗？
我并没有试图将实践带入学院教育，我们并不希望在学校里重复事务所里
发生的事情。也许我确实对这些方面的内容感兴趣，但同时也有必要认识到，
对我们来说，重复那些已经在过去五年、十年甚至十五年的实践中发生过事并
没有什么意义。所以，从这一角度来说，我们有必要持续性的，对处于不断变
化中的实践的本质保持敏感，但是在更多方面，我希望引导教学和实践之间的
联系逐渐超越当前的现实状态，在了解实践的现实状态的同时，预测未来将会
出现什么。我认为GSD的教育和课程更有针对性和预见性，对各个不同的设
计课程来说，重要的是更强的实验性，思考更多现实意义的内容，比如说在圆
桌讨论(round table discussion)进行的各种推测性的讨论，这种预见性的工作
无疑将会带来风险，而所谓的风险也正是创新中的组成部分。如果任何事都确
定无疑，也就不会产生任何创新。在学院的文化背景下进行教学的运转，对作
为院长的我个人来说，显然是相对容易控制的，我只需要提出观点——“冒险
何尝不可呢？”这样一来，你就会意识到应该去冒险，如果你回避，你就无法
成功，也什么都能作。我认为我们必须适当的支持人们去冒险，用恰当的方
式、针对相应的问题、在合适的环境中、利用合适的手段，进行特定的、经过
估量的、带有风险的尝试。我并不想把学院的教学向实践靠拢，相反我希望能
够调整我们所理解的实践概念，使得学校状态与实践区分开。
我感觉在GSD当前存在两方面话题，一是数字设计，一是可持续发展。请问您是
如何评价这两个方向在GSD的地位？
你的观察明显是正确的，但是我需要为你的观点进行一些补充。我们其
实对设计实践的技术应用更关注和感兴趣，不仅仅是数字化，还包括更为广泛
意义的技术。可持续性和生态便是这一宽泛话题的组成部分，我还要在其中加
入对政治图景概念的认知和强调。我认为这其中可持续性是一个非常重要的话
题，但是也只有在更广义的政治背景之下进行讨论才有意义。对于我们来说，
处于这样的背景下，强调能生成以新形式的产生为基础框架，可持续性也许能
够成为学院教育责任的一部分。
然而，为了更加有针对性的回答你的问题，对于可持续性设计发展的历史
来说，可见的是现阶段面对的基本上都是技术层面的问题。而一旦当可持续性
与某种特定的道德上的不平衡观念相关联的时候，在某种程度上便可能被理解
为可行的，并且通过技术，我们将会获得一种更为合适的结果。所以，设计的
品质也就退居次要的地位，而这些问题在设计层面却是与可持续性形成了同等
重要的关系。在下一期的«哈佛设计杂志(Harvard Design Magazine)»中，我
们将会更为涉及更为广泛的有关可持续性和愉悦感的问题，同时我们也会重构
可持续性这一概念，从更为开放的角度来思考可持续性。
解决可持续性的简单方法并非仅仅应用太阳能板，理想的状态关于建筑师
对设计负责的职业态度，以及从珍惜、利用有限资源的层面来观察设计，进而
创造出人们从没有见过的城市、景观、建筑。这也就是为什么我认为，可持续
性的问题不能仅仅从伪科学炫耀的角度进行。尽管具备了必需的数据和技术，
但对形式化想像的研究也同可持续性密切相关。
作为技术和设计实践的组成部分，计算机通过作为想像的动力来帮助我们
进行设计，理解数字化设计的先进之处也能够帮助我们从不同角度思考建筑。
这种工具式的技术帮助建筑师收集信息，参数化设计的发展和全新视觉形式的
概念经过再次的聚化，辅助我们从一个不同于以往的角度来思考数字化设计，
这也是我所感兴趣的。把计算机等同于效果图处理和获得一些漂亮建筑图的工
具的观点，对我而言是毫无意义的。重要的是计算机如何能够辅助我们思考或
者进行想像。所以从这一角度来说，在对数字化设计的理解和技术事实之间也
许存在一种关联，这种关联能够影响到我们对可持续性的思考。学校能够为学
生们提供这样的条件和状态。
这个学期有位教授的设计课上研究的是建筑学和工程学的关系、建筑学
和几何的关系，我对两个设计课程之间的转换保持着高度乐观的态度，这无疑
将会是十分有趣的。每当一位新教授来到学院中，由于他们带着各自的既有成
果，学生们在同教师进行交互时不得不重新调整，适应不同的背景知识，以制
作出这位教授所期待的设计作品。不希望受到设计课程限制的想法，以及希望
设计课程能够充分面对新观念开放起来的态度，更具有思辨的意义，对于整个
学院来说也是尤为重要的。我个人有意识的对这些方面的进行关注，同时思考
如何能将所有元素整合在一起，为学生们创造更加令人兴奋的学习和训练课
程。
您提到了来自于其他学科知识和方法，比如媒体和技术。当很多方面的东西碰撞到
一起的时候，你会不会觉得由于边界的模糊会使得定义建筑变得越来越困难了？
建筑理论写作的重要性是已经发生的讨论中关注的话题之一。比如，如果
对于象阿尔多•罗西这样处于二十世纪六、七十年代的建筑师们来说，建筑理
论中一个关键讨论是有关建筑的自治，从某个角度来说，由于对建筑的理解应
该作为历史学科的一部分，也就是说我们的责任是通过对其内在研究发展这个
学科。同时，我们还需要理解建筑学科在当代背景中的地位，换句话说，尽管
很难，但我还是建议我们要两者兼顾。我们需要面对你所说的“模糊”的状态。
“模糊”作为建筑学受时代影响的结果之一，既是积极的，也是消极的，由于“模
糊”能够被“稀释”和减弱，也就作出了正面的贡献。比如在哲学思想中，“弱”的
概念可以被理解为与力量无关的东西，而弱点也可能是一个强有力的工具。我
认为正是通过对之肯定的表态，来试图提升建筑学学科的连贯性——我们需要
扩展，比如说在和景观设计的关系的问题上，我们同样需要理解景观在整个世
界背景状态下的地位。我们认为景观作为一种方法，一门技术、工具和一段特
殊的历史——从文艺复兴到英国风景园林再到现代主义景观，我们需要理解景
观对于城市的重要性。对于规划来讲，这也模糊了景观作为一个学科同城市设
计的相互界限，我们必须要认真对待现状，重新考量学科本身的“自我”程度的
问题，因为只有这样能够帮助你发展你个人对规划，对城市设计包括景观设计
的理解，因为所有我们在进行的工作都是为了创造混合。事实上，正是混合才
能帮助理解我们所需要面对的初始状态。
当然也会有产生各种回应的可能。比如设计项目过程中，它仿佛是业已发
生的事件，这时，头脑里当然会产生由所看到的所引起的反应。你会自然而然
的根据不同情况作出决定，比如这样可行，那样不可行，自然你也就会这样而
非那样处理，在一种不同的背景下，这种游戏的概念是如何从你所经历的得到
收获，而哪怕你决定尝试，依然会面对新的困难，从而你将会作出进一步的反
应。这不仅仅只是一种永不会结束的持续性过程。我认为其中存在暂时的阶段
性时刻，这种停止的概念也就是实验、反应和重新开始的过程，这也是我所期
待强调的趋同的重要方向的一部分。如果你希望在学校中看到这种趋势的话，
那么学科边界逐渐模糊便不是那么简单的一件事，建筑学科的未来是走向实验
性，理解我们所面对的事实现状，了解这一学科提供知识及相关内容，以及并
置相关的这些状态都能创造出什么样的可能性，这也是为什么“想像”成为了这
样一种非常重要的东西，就是因为它不仅仅来自于技术层面、基于某种工具，
而是要求景观设计师、建筑师和规划师通过设计来共同提出建议和可能性，这
些工作只有最终对环境带来更好的效果，才能算得上有意义的。
今年（ 2008 年） GSD 录取了较多的中国学生，这是否意味着 GSD 开始对亚洲的快

速发展倾注更多的关注，特别是中国？GSD有没有计划进一步扩大在中国的活动
呢？
我们注意到了，无论是来自于中国还是亚洲其他国家的申请，它们的水
平一直在快速提升，从录取的人数上就可以反应出这种现状。也许在十年前，
情况还是完全不同的。中国内地学校和亚洲其他国家和地区的学校，比如新加
坡、香港和印度明显普遍性的变强，这些学校必将会获得更多的机会，亚洲的
学生能够有同美国更多的进行相互交流，特别是同哈佛大学。哈佛是一所非常
国际化的学校，并且将会继续发展。基本上每个学期，我们都会在设计课程中
资助学生到世界不同地方旅行和学习。这些区域将逐渐浓缩，直到某一些特定
地区成为我们的关注重点，中国就是这些国家地区中的重要一个。中国很多重
要城市的快速发展将会带来二级城市的发展。我们已经看到北京和上海取得的
巨大成就，我们可以从中学习到很多东西：因为我们可以从中国正在发生的事
情中进行学习，由于中国在做大量的工作，也同时也在冒险中面对挑战，其中
必然有些工作行得通，有的不行。由于你们在很多方面和很段时间内都付出了
努力和代价，所以我们应该从中得出经验。比如，从北京奥运会中，我们看到
了在伦敦奥运会中难以看到的高度的乐观状态和热情，而伦敦奥运会将会以更
加温和的方式来操作。我同样认为这将会是很有趣的对比。
我们可以从来自于类似中国这样的其他国家和地区获得收益。比如印度，
印度这个国家正在做完全不同的事情。比如说大尺度的设计（中国和印度都在
讨论的）就属于那种并不适合在欧洲的背景下进行探讨的话题。我觉得亚洲给
我们带来的是完全不同的一套机会，但是同时当我们处在学校这样一个场所
中，不得不将多方面内容相互交织的时候，我们必须意识到不能把自己置于与
正在发生的事情相对独立的位置上，比如，你当然有可能不认同现在迪拜所正
在发生的，但我们终究从中学到了很多，我们也一定要在中国问题上投入更多
经历来获得相关的经验。
所以，我们需要同正在发生的情况保持联系。最近，我们同中国很多学者
和机构保持着很好的联系，比如说北京大学的俞孔坚教授、清华大学等。我认
为在中国我们有必要开辟某种形式上的场所，这无疑更令人激动，对GSD来
说也是更为可靠的发展和合作模式。
Mohsen Mostafavi
the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Alexander and
Victoria Wiley Professor of Design
Mohsen Mostafavi, an architect and educator, peviously was the Gale

and Ira Drukier Dean of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning at
Cornell University and the Arthur L. and Isabel B. Wiesenberger Professor
in Architecture. Prior to that, he had been the Chairman of the Architectural
Association School of Architecture in London.
He studied architecture at the AA, and undertook research on counter-

reformation urban history at the Universities of Essex and Cambridge.
Previously he was Director of the Master of Architecture I Program at the
Harvard Graduate School of Design. Dean Mostafavi has also taught at
the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and the Frankfurt
Academy of Fine Arts (Staedelschule). His research and design projects
have been published in many journals, including The Architectural Review,
AAFiles, Arquitectura, Bauwelt, Casabella, Centre, and Daidalos. He is co-
author of Architecture and Continuity (1982); Delayed Space (with Homa
Fardjadi, Princeton Architectural Press, 1994) and of On Weathering: The
Life of Buildings in Time (with David Leatherbarrow, MIT, 1993) which
received the American Institute of Architects prize for writing on architectural
theory. Dean Mostafavi’s recent publications include: Approximations
(AA/MIT, 2002); Surface Architecture (MIT, 2002) which received the CICA
Bruno Zevi Book Award; Logique Visuelle (Idea Books, 2003), Landscape
Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape (AA Publications, 2004),
and Structure as Space, (AA Publications, 2006).
Interview by: Hua Li

Time: November 13, 2008
Location: Dean’s Office, GSD, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Credits: Liyang Ding, Lian Zhou
Having directed the top schools in North America and Europe, such as the
AA, Cornell, and the GSD, what are your ideals for contemporary architecture
education? Also, what are the differences and similarities between the continents?
Do educational goals evolve according to the varied circumstances and traditions of
different schools?
The experience of each of these schools is very much connected

to their histories and their locations. The AA, for example, didn’t really
start as a school; it was more like a club for people working in offices,
to discuss issues outside of the office. So the connection between
pedagogy and practice has always been a defining part of the school
and continues in the sense of membership in the AA as an association.
The fact that it is based in London also has had a significant impact on
the school.
Cornell is very different, because the architecture school exists in

the context of a university in a rural setting in upstate New York, and
is in many ways isolated. This isolation has been an important part of
the experience of the school; it brought a high level of commitment by
students and faculty to the institution. Yet with a New York City program,
there is now a link between upstate New York and New York City.
At Harvard we have a different tradition, again within the context

of the university. In many respects, right now the GSD is the most
international school, in terms of its programs, its outreach, and the kinds
of activities it has in different parts of the world. Here in Cambridge,
within a wider research university, we collaborate with other schools and
departments.
So I think you are right that each of these schools is influenced

by its location and particular history. For example, Gropius was here
at Harvard, Josep Lluis Sert was here, and now we have people like
Jacques Herzog, Rem Koolhaas, Rodolfo Machado, Pierre de Meuron,
Rafael Moneo, Toshiko Mori, Farshid Moussavi, Scott Cohen, Jorge
Silvetti, and Michael Van Valkenburgh, as well as many of the world’

s leading practitioners. All of these landscape architects, architects,
planners, and urban designers are part of a rich mix of faculty and
students. We are also incredibly fortunate to have the most brilliant
students at Harvard. Personally, I feel that given the kind of work I do
and that many of my colleagues do, for us to be able to work with some
of the world’s best graduate students is a very special opportunity.
You mentioned the relationship between education and practice; so your approach
is to bring concepts from practice to the school and mix them together? Can you
elaborate on the difference between education and practice in this contemporary
moment?
I am not really trying to bring practice to the school, because when

you say it like that, it almost means that what we want to do in the school
is whatever is being done in practice. It is true that I am interested in
knowing what kind of global issues we will most likely be addressing,
and we must understand that we can’t have curriculum and pedagogy
that is repeating something that has been done for five, ten, or fifteen
years. So on one level we need to constantly be aware of the way in
which the nature of practice is changing, but in some ways I want the
connection to go beyond contemporary practice. The idea is to know
what is happening with practice, and to anticipate what could happen
with practice in the future—not simply for us to prepare people to work in
contemporary practice now.
It is critical for the work of the various studios to be experimental,

speculative. That our projects and our pedagogy are more projective and
more anticipatory is vital, because we want to relate to practice in a way
that goes beyond what is happening today.
For example, a recent roundtable discussion on the theme of

conjecture was about how it is necessary to take risks; risk is a
component of innovation, and without risk it would be impossible to
innovate. We need to operate in the context of a school culture that
supports students in this, because it is easy for me as the dean to just
say, well, why don’t you take a risk? We have to support people, so that
in the appropriate way, with the right kind of questions, circumstances,
infrastructure, and support, they are encouraged to take certain
calculated risks. So I don’t want to make the school the same as
practice, but to prepare people for alternative forms of practice that are
quite different from some of the practices we have now.
There are two main developments happening at the GSD: one is computation and
the other is sustainable design. What is the role of these two distinct areas in the
evolution of the GSD?
I think you are right in your observation, but I would add this: we
are interested in issues connected to the implications of technology on
design practice—not only computation but technology more broadly.
Sustainability and ecology are part of a broader conversation. I would
also add the concept of political imagination. Because if we just mention
computation and sustainability, it seems as though there are only two
things of interest. Sustainability is very important, but it has to be placed
in the wider political context. It is the role and responsibility of the school
to produce the framework for alternative forms of imagination.
But to address your question specifically, about the relationship

of computation and sustainability: in the recent past, sustainability
has been treated in many respects as a technical issue connected
to a certain kind of moral imperative, with the belief that through
technology we can achieve it. The quality of design has been secondary.
The relationship of sustainability to pleasure and the relationship of
sustainability to leisure are becoming more critical topics. The next issue
of Harvard Design Magazine will cover sustainability and pleasure—to
try to deconstruct and unfold sustainability, to think of sustainability in
a more open way. If you are doing this kind of architecture, the idea is
to produce plants, cities, landscapes, and buildings that you have not
yet seen. That is why I think it would be wrong to think of sustainability
purely in a pseudoscientific fashion, even given advancing technology;
the technology must be paired with imagining alternative forms of
sustainability.
When it comes to computation, it is one of the ways you can think,

you can imagine, which has a direct impact on what you can do. It gives
you a mechanism for imagining; the advancement of computation offers
the possibility of considering architecture from different perspectives.
The evolution of parametric design, and the idea of new forms of
visualization—these things help us to think in a different way, which
is what interests me. For me, the idea of linking computers to design
is completely uninteresting if it has only to do with renderings, to just
get some pretty pictures of buildings. So there could be a link between
utilizing computation and technology in a different way because it could
have an impact on how you consider sustainability. It helps you with that
project of imagination. All of those things are part this infrastructure, and
in the school we think we can provide those conditions and situations.
In some studios this semester, students are learning about the

relationship of architecture and engineering, and the relationship of
architecture and geometry. I am highly optimistic about transferring
knowledge from one kind of studio to another, as students move through
their courses. When that happens, it becomes very interesting. When a
professor comes, they have their body of work, but the students have a
range of backgrounds and knowledge when they interact with the studio,
and they produce different work than maybe the professor is expecting.
The idea of not being bounded by studio walls or stylistic limits, but to
think about the studios as a way to advance new ideas and be more
speculative, is important to the school right now. I am very conscious
of how we can bring all elements together to make it exciting for the
students.
You mentioned that knowledge and skills come from other disciplines, such as media
and technology. So many things come together; do you think it is harder to define
architecture since the boundary is blurring?
In such discussions in the past, one of the things has been influential
is architectural writing. If you look at, for example, people like Aldo
Rossi in late 1960s and 1970s, one of the key topics was the autonomy
of architecture, because that is part of understanding architecture as
discipline. It is our responsibility to develop the discipline through an
understanding of its autonomy. So we could work on certain projects that
are intrinsic and specific to the discipline. More complicated, from my
perspective, is the idea that we need to continue the project of discipline
formation, discipline specialization, discipline development, and at the
same time understand such a project within the context of architecture
as situated. In other words, it is a difficult thing, but I am suggesting
that perhaps we need to do both. We need to deal with what you called
blurring. Blurring could be one of the effects that could be positive as
well as negative. Blurring could be diluting, weakening, but sometimes
this weakening can actually be a positive contribution. But nonetheless,
I am trying to promote that continuity of discipline by saying yes, we
need to extend, for example, the discipline of landscape, but we also
need to understand landscape within a broader context. We think about
landscape as method, as techniques, as tools, as a specific history, and
we also need to understand the importance of landscape to cities. In
relation to brownfield sites, to industrial landscapes, to planning—that
blurring of boundary between landscape as a discipline and urbanism
as a discipline has been important to me in rethinking the question of
autonomy. It can help you advance the field of planning or the field
of urbanism as well as the field of landscape, because what you are
doing is always trying to create a hybrid, and those hybrids help you
understand your original conditions.
A process of experimentation, reflection, and starting again is a

crucial part of the way that I would like to emphasize the convergence,
if you like, in the school, so the point is not simply blurring; the future of
disciplines is to experiment, to understand the conditions that are facing
us, and at the same time have the knowledge of what each discipline
has to offer. The juxtaposition of those situations produces alternative
possibilities. That is why the imagination becomes important, because
it is not simply based on techniques, not simply based on tools—rather
it requires that the landscape architect, the planner, and the architect,
through the design, come up with suggestions and possibilities that
make sense of circumstances, and one hopes, make things better.
This year the GSD has admitted a relatively large number of Chinese students. Does
this mean that the GSD will pay more attention to Asia’s rapid development, and
especially that of China? Would Harvard consider expanding its activities in China?
The caliber of applicants from China, and from Asia generally, is

rapidly improving, and that fact has been reflected in the acceptance of
candidates. Probably ten years ago, the situation was different. Schools
in China and other parts of Asia, like Singapore, Hong Kong, and India,
are generally getting stronger. Those schools get more opportunities
and more interesting people, and they develop more of a relationship
with the United States, and particularly with Harvard. Harvard has been
such an international school and will continue to expand and grow. As
you know, generally every semester we have a large number of studios
in which students travel to different parts of the world. In addition to
those sponsored studios, I think we should consider focusing on a few
areas in particular, to further the possibility for students to travel around
the world. There are certain places that offer special opportunities, and
China is certainly one of those places. The rapid expansion in major
cities will bring the evolution of secondary cities. We have seen huge
growth in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, but what is the relationship of
the developer in those big cities to smaller cities that are expanding as
well? We can learn a lot from what is happening in China; you are doing
so many things, and you are taking risks, and you are experimenting.
Some things are working; some are not. I think we should learn from
that kind of experience because you have made commitments that have
been, in many respects, inspirationally achieved in a very short period
of time. Take the Beijing Olympics, for example: you can see that such
a level of optimism and enthusiasm does not exist at the moment for the
London Olympics, which is much more modest when compared to what

China has done.
We can benefit from opportunities in places like China. We also

look at other places like India, which is doing different things under very
different circumstances—especially interesting in terms of large-scale
infrastructure. Those issues are not that easy to discuss in a European
context. I think Asia offers a different set of opportunities, in the same
way that the Gulf region, for example, offers different opportunities. We
have learned a lot from those circumstances, and we need to spend
more time in places like China to learn more.
So we will need to keep our relationship ongoing. Recently we have

had good connections with a lot of people in China, like Professor Yu
Kongjian, and universities like Tsinghua and others. I think that project
will keep going, so it is important to establish some sort of physical base
for the GSD in China.
普雷斯顿•斯科特•科恩
哈佛大学设计研究生院建筑系主任，Gerald M. McCue教授
斯科特•科恩教授辅导一年级的设计基础课，教授画法几何和拓扑几何设
计理论，高级建筑课程设计，和设计论文。2007年，科恩教授和张雷教授以
及南京大学合作了一个建筑课程设计，2009年，他将主持一个在上海的关注
建筑和城市形态的课程设计。
本科毕业于罗得岛设计学院，在哈佛大学获得建筑学硕士学位。
著作：
《排列画法几何(即将出版)》
《反对称和建筑的其他困境(2001年)》
采访者：丁峻峰
时间：2007年6月
地点：美国麻省剑桥斯科特科恩设计公司
感谢：鲍威，Andrew Tarcin
您能简单介绍你的方法：基于 17 世纪画法几何的研究，创立了应用斜体投型
的新的途径?
好，现在我看这些技术有用之处在于这么几个原因。借助于电脑，
十七世纪的技术可以被用来创造建筑学里，介于以下几种要素之间的特殊
类别链接：作用在材料上的那种再现力，结构的行为，以及实体空间和被
感知的比例空间，等等。
当前，我非常感兴趣的是建筑学的两种运动：一种是建构的力量，另
一种就是人穿行于空间中的运动。因为有了这些运动，建筑学才能具体对
其形式，构型和建造者，对那些居住在内，穿行其间的使用者，具有诱人
的吸引力。
（人）在建筑内的穿行，可以用一种几何形体的塑性特征来最好实
现。十七世纪投型几何学的本质特性就是能拉伸和压缩线，面的能力，
和同时其貌似和结构的力量有关，但是实际上是用于来雕画石头的（性
质）。我们发现：基于透视学原理的复杂的石头形状也同时和变形有联
系，极端的案例就是在一个特殊的视点被观察（物体），用透视学来扭曲
这一个物体。和投型几何学一起，建造，建构和感知都被无法分开地被捆
扎在一起。
从斜轴投型，我们可以进入到圆锥体和托普几何形体，到涉及到复杂
曲面的形体。曲线有助于建立在建筑内游走（的可能），有助于建立一个
能让使用者在其内布移动的空间。我现在感兴趣的是建构和游走空间以及
重新定义曲面的方式之间的关系。所有这些就是一个连续性研究的合成模
型。
最后，还有一个不一样得问题要解决，那就是（如何）使用几何体来
建立建筑同其基地之间的联系。比如，在高盛公司在纽约的一个项目中，
几何体用来制作一个基地的示意图，就仿佛它（几何体）是结构性力量的
基础，就仿佛是作用力的弯矩图。所以这（十七世纪画法几何）是关于经
验和建构，关于基地，让建筑和其基地融合到一起。这是一种拥有一类定
律的方法论。它（十七世纪画法几何）使得建筑学回归到定律性的基础，
其实这是种很激进的方法，因为现在的问题是：当今的建筑学缺乏一个
定律性的基础，因此而变成被自由设计了的一群群的怪姿势。今天的建筑
师按照他们的欲望来设计，任何形状，以任何形式排列，或者说建筑开
始成纯功能或者功利性（的活动）。为什么我要坚持回归建筑学的定律方
法？不是因为我是一名老师，同时又是一个很重要的（建筑学院）得建
筑系主任，主要原因是这么个事实：建筑学是一个社会性的实践和一个文
化的工程，真是如此建筑学不是一个个人主义的表现，不是一个艺术家的
行径-（那种）每个人都单独思考和工作（的方法）。现在，我不需要提
醒你说，建筑是一个比任何其他（行业）更社会化，更需要合作的实践。
但是，这都不算我的主要观点，我们不能老让每个人都任其所愿的原因
在于：如果我们聘任每个人，（建筑学)就仅仅是类型-他的类型，我的类
型，她的类型-没有人谈论任何其他人，或者说我们仅仅谈论关于实践问
题，但用的不是建筑的术语。我的兴趣是用几何体要来解决我对于建筑实
际建造的社会性的渴求，而不仅仅是口头说如何如何实践。
你觉得数字技术是如何推动和改进十七世纪画法几何？或者说，电子媒体在画
法几何里的关系里起了什么作用？
可以肯定得说，（数字技术的推进作用）在每个方面都根本。我是
说，数字技术给于（我们）那一种的塑性，一种自带参变量的状态。我现
在说的是关于，比如说，通过仅仅拉伸和压缩线和平面，通过非均匀放缩
比例而改变物体形状的可能性。计算机的本质在于它十分接近投型几何，
电脑是投型几何的基础，现在又是一种探索建筑学几何定律的核心方法。
所以现在，打个比方，我们能以一种以前做不到的方法来建立一个十七世
纪德萨格定理的模型。在过去，这（个模型）只能通过数字学来再现，漂
亮的是，现在，我们能够用一种以往不可能有的方式塑造并且再现这个模
型。这是一种改进，它让画法几何成为建筑学的一种正真可能性，不仅仅
是一种想法，还是一种形式。这是一种延迟效应。想象在十七世纪有一种
创新（的设计想法），一种重新思索建筑学的方法，但是没有人可以(把
这种创新)用到建筑学上，是因为没有一种技术可以来把（这种创新）转
化成体形。今天，我们可以做到，那样的话就像是建筑历史上的一种攀
升，这种攀升割裂了建筑学，过去的（建筑学）是一种关于非常复杂几何
体的想象，但缺乏具体踏实的实践作用，只有当到了20世纪，建筑意识形
态被改变的时候，让每个人都从旧次序里解放了出来，也就是只有到了新
的计算机技术到来的时候，才让我们能在社会艺术里来实践建筑学。
对我来说，这是对于很久以前就开始的东西的一种延续。其实那个时
候，发生在建筑学里的事件早已经比后来年代里发生的事件更现代了，
（这种状态）一直持续到电脑模型的诞生。我要谈及几个暗示，比如我在
罗马再观察的那个小礼拜堂，我的解释，如果放在十七世纪的建筑文化的
文脉里，那是不可能的。我的解释是一种20世纪后来的解释，是一个很奇
怪的小片，（这小片）有非常深奥的结构和非常历史性的外观。但是我的
论辩和图像和类型基本没有关系。那个时候，依据我研究分析所得，赋予
小教堂的几何形体的知识通常被用于制造小东西，雕琢小装饰，一般用在
象牙上，而不是用在石头上，那个时候（这件事情）简直就是个例外。这
种例外就是我们从来没有一种建筑的尺寸来制作（这样的几何体）。我们
可以说过去的象牙的雕刻就像是我们今天的三维打印机。现在，通过二十
世纪的解释和模型，我们可以领悟到了，这个小礼拜堂是多么奇怪的一个
案例，它可以展示一种在十七世纪没有被全部带到的，一种新的，具有将
来意义的建筑学的方向。我觉得很有意思。通过现代技术的镜头，小教堂
的形状结果呼应了20世纪的文化的条件。
我对于在历史条件里寻找形态很感兴趣，因为我想到当前所有表意的
东西，所有的困扰，迷失了建筑学的两个根本实体：一种社会实践和一个
历史进程。
你是如何结合你的设计理论到你的设计实践里的？
设计实践产生在很多的层面：规划层面，设计层面，如何把整个工程
和其基地联系起来的层面，最后，是通过让（建筑的）表面具有可建造
性和可建筑性，从而解决技术问题的层面。当我说可建筑性，我是假设建
筑的经济性，用平的材料，工厂制作和老的流行的实践。我讲的也就是，
大部分用以建筑比例的材料都是拉伸（的平面），而不是曲面，不是铸造
的，也不是铣削的。所以，如果你想以一种建筑比例来做这种复杂的面，
你必须理解如何用这种几何体把这些曲的形状转变成平直的形状。因为实
践的原因，我们需要这种定律，尤其在中国的经济情况下。在中国，很多
人不想要仅仅是功能性的形状，这些形状通常都是平直的，但同样，通常
也不能接受那些仅仅喜欢尝试用非常特殊和昂贵的方法来建造房子的建筑
师。所以，对我们这些喜欢在中国实践的人来讲，就不得不去学和教那些
可以被更多人采用的（设计）方法。如此说来，几何体直接关联着经济和
社会因素。
从建筑学研究生课程教学主管到建筑系主任，你是如何领导哈佛设计学院到一
个方向使得它在和其他学校比较的时候突颖而出，你能预测它的趋势和关键课
程设计和其他相关课程的设置？
我特别感兴趣扩大个人的全方位能力。这就意味着把精力集中在建筑
产品的根本性，决定性要素上，而把个人的兴趣摆在一边，这一点对于哈
佛来讲永远是很重要的。具体地，再说广义一些，我想哈佛（设计学院）
始终想把理论和实践结合到一起。和其他学校不同的地方是在于：哈佛致
力于建立一种介于学术思维的准则和高级建筑实践的形式之间的联系。学
院想审视实体世界，以便通过提升定律性准则来理论和重新塑造现有世
界。哈佛的不同是在于我们试图教导人们在更先进，又可能的层面上，技
术上讲也就是在设计的程序中，去对待建筑的前沿实践。哈佛的不同还在
于我们正试图用一种非寻常的，强化了的局限性方式来获取现实，于此同
时又激发出新的思维方式，从而灌输人们这样的关键性的思考，也就是不
鼓励人们仅仅对艺术家封闭的想象力感兴趣，（艺术家的）这种想象是不
成熟的也是不现实的。（我们）这样做的目的在于是要把学生带到和世界
的联系中去，引导一种通过建筑学来看实践世界的激发性的方法。不像封
闭艺术家，不像被理解为反社交化的天才，社会化了的哈佛教育擅长于
（教育）学生，让他们为将来要面对的实践和更大规模的观众群做好准
备。
你是否同意，数字化设计，电脑辅助设计和制造过程已经对于形成哈佛设计学
院的文化起了关键作用吗？
开始的时候，数字化设计确实在很多方面改变了人们对于形的思维模
式，是因为拥有了电脑模型，你就拥有了数码视觉和因此而来的数码触
觉。我所讲的数码触觉，说的是你能打碎它，能改变它，能自由地编辑
它。这就创造了一种前所未有的存介于物体和设计者之间的关系。你可以
从那样一种灵活性里学到那么多有关形和空间的知识，而且你不需要制作
实体模型。参拜实体模型是思考建筑学的一种非常静态的方式。在我的办
公室里我们不太用实体模型来形象化建筑，当然了我还是很高兴拥有实体
模型，但是我只是在很偶尔的时候，需要拿来给客户看看。我还是希望，
什么时候我能教我的客户来看电脑模型。
像SketchUp这样一些电脑软件很丑陋。但是这些软件让客户能读懂
计算机模型。不能轻视的是如今小孩们都在学用这样的软件。客户想看到
建筑是有这样一种数码的触觉。SketchUp对于他们来说是可触及的，因
为这个软件模拟了手绘的风格。建筑学必须是手绘是一种很久以来的神
话。其实徒手绘图是一种非常有效的，可用来诱惑或混淆客户的方法。实
体模型多多少少也是一样。(实体模型)也被一种神话包围着，实体模型具
有一种相联的可信度，而且(实体模型)也是很静态的东西。实际上，这些
软件和实体模型，对于我们今天如何处理建筑其实关系不大，建筑设计的
概念远远不是那种静态的（东西）。
现在，说道哈佛（设计学院）迄今为至做了什么，我觉得我们对于今
天建筑学的理解做的还是不够。哈佛还锁定在手绘和制作实体模型（的阶
段），比如，实际上（我们设立了）越来越多的机械和电子模型室专门用
来做实体模型用的，这是一种倒退。坦白来说，我的观点，用于制作三维
展示模型的技术越复杂，同静态的物体和图像那种退化的联系就越确定。
这是个悖论问题.
趋势又是其它的东西，是在学术文脉中协同电脑而产生的一些东西，
趋势可以让学生和年轻建筑师们在实际世界里生产出更多的产品，能够在
早期的职业实践中建造更好和更令人兴奋的新形体。所以我想，电子模型
室代表的是建立实体以制造真实物体的欲望。这是合成设计和建造想法的
一部分，不过用的是一种非常分裂的和艺术化的方式。我希望这些方式能
影响到大（尺度）的建筑，即使我（对这种影响）表示极大怀疑。去除设
计和建造之间差距的想法可以让设计回归到一种极原始状态，因为这与其
说是想法和动作的塑性，恒定性，还不如说是物质化。然而，趋势还关于
新现实，由于技术，这种现实在实践中以一种新的方式变得更固定和更具
即时可能性。在具更高复杂性的层面，趋势在建筑实践中以建筑的尺度在
现场起了作用。
我想这当中一个条件显示了，建筑学院正试图迎头赶上（建筑）实践
中的现实实体，但是同时，因为否认了潜在的多样化，关于设计，也走
入了一种更为原始的模式。我现在（的谈论）非常批判性。建立实体模型
就是体现了这一种趋势，试图回到实体，欲想和实际本体保持紧密接触。
然而这并不是一种物质实际，因为用三维打印机制作的模型是一种信物崇
拜，一种很快就过时的崇拜。因为在今天凭全世界大多数地区经济和建造
的条件，（在建筑实践）我们不能做出这种在学校里很流行，有这么多曲
线和连续性的建筑形体。只有家具和很特殊的小件可以用这种方法制作出
来，而且只有那些具有很高知名度和有很高的预算的建筑师，比如盖里，
他们才可能被委托来制作这样的曲面。
在我们的模型室里，最好的工具就是平床上的雷射切割机。这个机器
最直接地用一种实际代表建筑的尺度来表达建筑。如果建筑投机者用模
型室来制作一种家具的尺度，那就产生了一个归类的错误（也就是错误地
把家具归类到了建筑上）。这样的错误会导致对于建筑尺度的错误理解。
我想模型和动画是一种十分有利的工程描述的方法，尤其是景观工程的汇
报。当然，景观设计需要很灵活的方法来设计，所以（景观设计师）应该
在电脑上（工作）而不是去模型室（做模型），我想在这一方面，景观建
筑学比建筑学本身更具自由度。但是景观建筑师的问题是：他们和徒手绘
图之间没有止境的伤感的附寄关系。
我觉得迄今为止，在学院设计教室里出现的新的发展文化和显现
的趋势就是：哈佛设计学院近来强调用 CATIA, 和初现的对于 General
Components 还有Solidworks的兴趣。这些软件代表了设计的多样性，和
恒定可能性和多样性之间更少的交互。这样说来，我们真的就进入了另外
一个新的方向。问题是：图案制作的重要性是什么？是不是所有的当代建
筑学都应该是关于重复性和非重复性图案。坦诚来说，我也散布这种疾病
的一分子，因为我非常鼓励这样的曲面产品。通过制造一种系统来建筑
（这些曲面），都是关于制造有规则的重复性的图案。图案设计的兴趣已
经被染上了集体的兴趣色调，所以也就被传布到我上面提及的社会实践的
范畴。
这就把我带回到我先前说到，有关建构，（建筑内）游走，和基地，
但是我还没有提到-“类型”。建筑学不是关于图案，图案不以足够来生产和
叙述建筑学，也不能替代建筑的本质:关于几何形体和理论的问题。
你能说说关于形态和后图像学？
形态是很多东西。实际上，它涵盖了所有东西。形态是所有建筑化了
的东西的一个终极合成体。它需要对付的如何将都市形态作用到单体建
筑，结构技术，具体地点和时间，以及房间被成型的方法上。正如像罗宾
埃文斯所解释的那样：类型是整个建筑学。
今天，对于图案的兴趣是一种非常短暂的崇拜，尤其当作为决定建筑
成型的方法。另外说来，类型具有一种和文化，社会关系的联系；通过一
种非常深刻历史性的尺度，类型远远超越了图像生产本身。虽然织物纹路
和其他装饰的系统没有缺少它们自身历史性，但是在设计图案时候，这一
历史性尺度被迷失了。如今的问题是有特定兴趣的图案没有被社会化居住
安排所条件。这就是当前最大的建筑学数码文化的问题。更具挑战的是：
谁将回归到这个问题上来，那就是建筑是如何被塑造出来以回应，有时候
来改变，人们的生活方式。
被建筑化考虑了的社会关系，涉及到很多东西，不仅仅东西如何到一
起的方式。人要到这里还是到那里，走到这里还是那里，这个房间需要在
那个房间边上，那么我就可以和那个房间的人们说话，等等。社会化涉及
对于整个集合性社会和社会化自身的理解。建筑也得理解这个关系。建筑
自我规范，树立次序，也建立礼貌体系，一种安宁，美丽或者极强效率的
感觉。这就意味着有些建筑应该是很优雅的，另外一些则应该是谦逊的。
2007 年，你和南京大学张雷老师合作，在哈佛设计学院带了一个设计课，南
京大学又邀请你来设计仙林新校区的学生中心，最近你又在太原博物管设计竞
赛中胜出。是什么喜迎了您对于中国的问题的注意力，中国作为建筑的基地，
是在哪些地方吸引了您的兴趣？
作用在建筑学上的限定作用是一种创新的原动力，这一观点对于我来
说是十分重要。社会规律是一种限定，限制了个人。你不能为非所欲，因
为你得考虑法律，资源和关系。所以限定本身就是建筑学的社会化尺寸的
中心因素。建筑学不仅仅是形状和图案的艺术，图案很有趣，我爱图案，
是因为图案内在具有建立关键性限定属性，图案本质上是好的，但是问题
是它们常常是被毫无理由得堆撰在一起。
在中国，施工的经济性是个必须。这是任何有关在中国做项目的必答
题的一部分。设计和施工速度必然是建筑师（设计）方法的关键部分。
对于建筑师说来，这些是绝好的问题，因为这些问题迫使你从高度怪癖般
的趋势里走出来，去推进多样化设计的策略。举个例子，如果你要快速
设计，而且还要非常经济，你需要在最早的阶段就采用最先进的技术，
CATIA 就是来处理这些不同安排的一个例子，这些安排可以黏合经济限
制，这些安排就可以被迅速再构想出来的，混乱而且极具效率。我想设计
的节奏加上这种经济状态意味着建筑师必须在使用这样的参变量化的设计
工具时非常机敏迅速。给于这些限定，对于定律是有帮助的。这样的工作
方式其实没有告诉你有关类型的问题，而作为一个过程，我感觉在中国做
工程是非常令人激动，因为这意味着我将以一种非常戏剧化，不同的方法
来工作。（在中国做工程）是一种释放，就像画很粗糙的画，不是超级精
细的画，（这同在美国做工程）正相反。我得采用一种不同的设计途径以
或得我长期以来投注的那种精确性。在我做其他事情之前，我得考虑结构
范例。
这就引导到制造一个比以往更有塑性的建筑的想法，我还从来没有设
计过像在中国这样有塑性的房子。我们必须尝试所有（方法）以满足使
用廉价材料这一压倒性的限制。我对用便宜材料，用老的技术手法（做
建筑）非常感兴趣，这些材料和技术正是用来大规模制造当代中国（建
筑）。这意味着一种对待建筑学原始技术的高级态度。极具趣味的是用原
始的及其平实的，老的技术激发一种非常复杂，快速的设计进程，一种始
于概念设计的非常复杂的参变量的想法。据我观察：对于今天很多在设计
前沿的建筑师，物质上来讲是及其缺乏复杂性的。学生们也一十分原始的
方法使用着技术，使用模型工作室来修改他们对于形的盲目崇拜，同时幻
想自己也能享受像盖里和哈迪德那样的特殊待遇，包括给于高级的材料，
先进的机器人一般的施工。一般而言，设计初步是不需要很复杂的，虽然
设计初步对最终的成品有巨大影响力。即便今天，就如何发挥作用而言，
设计初步常常是所有设计阶段里最原始的时尚。在中国做设计，你必须发
明一种方法，这种方法从一开始就很清晰预测到这种经济性，它们基于施
工工业，路网设置，以及协助你的工匠们；你必须要让设计整体更加复
杂。最终，我们需要的是一种更灵活的过程，而越来越不像旧时的艺术家
般的，由建筑师控制一切的过程。相反，焦点变成：建筑师作为一个领导
人，去理解艺术般的讨价还价。通过授予建筑师一种新的方式来工作，中
国摆出了对于当代的建筑实践的一种挑战。
我想看看我们能不能对传统模式的中国建筑实践提出一种挑战，我相
信中国是个地方去做。中国比发达国家，比如美国，更令人兴奋，在美
国你有经济力量的痕迹，但是仅仅是一种非常有限而且有价的工程般的方
式。不像美国的这种原始的诱取方式，在中国做事是那么得新鲜。建筑师
仅仅坐下来，就通过一个简单的对话，你就获得了一个更大的项目。
你的极高声誉和对于建筑美学的敏锐极大帮助你在中国赢得项目，感谢你的时
间，并祝你有美好的一天。
Preston Scott Cohen

the Gerald M. McCue Professor in Architecture; Chair of the Department of
Architecture at Harvard Graduate School of Design
Scott Cohen is the coordinator of the first year design studios and
teaches the foundation course in projective and topological geometry,
advanced studios, and design thesis. In 2007, Cohen led a studio in
cooperation with Atelier Zhanglei and Nanjing University. In 2009, he will lead
a studio focused on architectural and urban form in Shanghai.
Selected Publications:
Permutations of Projective Geometry (forthcoming book)

Contested Symmetries and Other Predicaments in Architecture (2001)
Interview by: Junfeng (Jeff) Ding

Time: June, 2007
Location: Preston Scott Cohen, INC, Cambirdge, MA
Credits: Wei Bao, Andrew Tarcin
Can you briefly introduce your approach, which is based on the descriptive geometry
of the 17th century to create a novel application of oblique projections?
Well, right now I see those techniques as being useful for several
reasons. By means of the computer, the 17th century techniques can be
used to create exceptional types of connections in architecture between
the representation of forces that act on materials, the behavior of
structures, and the actual and perceived proportions of spaces, etc.
Presently, I am interested in two kinds of movement in architecture.

On the one hand the tectonic forces and on the other, the movement of
people through space. With these movements, architecture is capable
of attracting attention in very specific ways to its forms, the people that
shaped and built them and the occupants who inhabit and pass through
them.
Movement in architecture is best realized by a geometry of elastic

characteristics. The fundamental property of 17th century projective
geometry is the capacity to stretch and compress lines and planes and
while it would seem that this has to do with structural forces; in fact it
was used to draw stones. What we discover is that the complex stone
forms which were based on perspective properties are also related to
anamorphosis, the extreme case in which perspective is used to distort
an object when seen from a particular point of view. With Projective
Geometry, construction, tectonics and perception are inextricably tied
together.
From the oblique projections, we can proceed to conics and

topological geometry and to forms that involve complex curvatures.
Curvature helps to build the promenade, the space of movement for the
occupant. What is interesting to me now is the relationship between the
tectonic and the promenade and the means to redefine the curvatures.
All of this is a continuous investigation of modes of synthesis.
Finally, there is a different problem that has to do with using

geometry to establish connections between buildings and their sites,
for example, in the project for Goldman Sachs in New York, where
the geometry is used to make a diagram of the site as if it is a field of
structural forces, as if it is a moment diagram. So, it is about experience
and tectonics, about the site, and integrating the buildings with their
sites. It is a methodology that is about having a certain kind of discipline.
It restores the architecture to disciplinary grounding which is radical
since the problem today is that architecture doesn’t have any disciplinary
grounding and has become a bunch of gestures, freely designed.
Architects today design as they wish, any shapes, in any arrangement,
or the buildings become purely functional and expedient. Why do I insist
on a disciplinary way back to architecture? This is not only because
I am a teacher who is also the chair of an important department of
architecture, but is mainly owing to the fact that architecture is a social
practice, and a cultural project and as such is not a personal expression,
is not an artistic endeavor in which everyone thinks and works alone.
Now, I needn’t remind you that architecture is a practice that is more
social than ever, more collaborative. . But, this is not even the main
point. The reason we cannot always have everybody going their own
way is because, if we do, it is just style - his style, my style, her style
-and nobody is talking to anybody, or we are only talking about practical
matters but not in architectural terms. My interest in geometry has to do
with my desire for architecture as built to be social too, not just in terms
of how it is practiced.
Do you think that digital technology moves beyond or improves the system of 17th
century descriptive geometry? or, what is the position of the digital medium in
relation to descriptive geometry?
Definitely, in every way it is fundamental. I mean, it allows for that

elasticity which is a parametric condition, the parametric which is the
easy level. I am speaking now about the capacity to alter the shape of
things only by stretching and compressing lines and planes, by scaling
non-uniformly, for example. The fundamental reality of the computer is
that it is close to the projective geometry that is its basis and it is now the
central way of dealing with the exploration of the geometric discipline in
architecture. So, today, for example, we can build a model of Desargues
Theorem from the 17th century as a model in a way which could not be
done before. Previously, it was only able to be represented numerically.
The beauty, now, is that we can formalize what used to be only
numerical. That is an improvement. It makes the projective geometry
a real possibility in architecture, not only as thought, but also as form.
This is a delayed effect. Imaging it was an invention of the 17th century,

a way of rethinking architecture that no one could use for architecture
because there was no technology to convert it to form. Today we can
and therefore, it is like, in a way, a hick up in the history of architecture. A
hick up that ruptured the history of architecture that was a sophisticated
way of thinking about geometry but could not really have a profoundly
concrete effect until the ideology of architecture changed during the 20th
century, freeing everyone from the old orders. But, it wasn’t until the new
technology of the computer arrived that we would be able to practice it
as a social art.
To me, it is a continuation of something that began long ago. It was

already more modern back then, what happened to them that time,
than what was able to happen to architecture at a later time, up until
the advent of computational modeling. There were a few hints, like the
sacristy that I rediscovered in Rome, but the interpretation that I did
would not have been possible at the time of the 17th century architectural
culture of that context. This is a late 20th century interpretation, a very
strange piece of esoteric construction with an historical look to it. But
the image or style has little to do with my argument. At that time, the
knowledge of the geometry that gave form to that sacristy, which was
very exceptional then, as I have learned from the analysis, was usually
used to produce very small objects, carvings and very small ornaments.
Usually the ivory, not stone, is produced exceptions such as this. These
exceptions were never made at an architectural scale. We could say
that the ivory carvings were like three dimensional printing today. And
now, by means of a 20th century way of interpreting and modeling, we
can understand how the strange case of the sacristy can reveal the
possibility of a new, future direction for architecture that was not fully
brought about in the 17th century. I think this is very interesting. The
sacristy’s form, seen through the lenses of contemporary techniques,
ends up corresponding to a Twenty First Century cultural condition.
I am interested in finding a way of dealing with historical conditions

because I think all of the presentism, all the obsession about the present
today, is missing the fundamental reality of architecture, which are a
social practice and a historical process.
How do you marry the design disciplines with your practice?
The practicality comes in on many levels: the planning, the design,

relating the whole project to the site and, at the end, solving the
technical problems by making the surfaces buildable, constructible.
When I say constructible, I assume the economy of construction when

we are using flat materials, factory-made in the old fashioned reality.
I am talking about the majority of materials at the architectural scale，
which are extruded, not curved, not cast, not milled. So, if you want
to do those kinds of complex surfaces at the architectural scale, you
have to know how to use geometry to covert those curved forms to flat
forms. Therefore, this kind of discipline is needed for practical reasons,
especially in the economy of China. Many people in China don’t want
only functional forms which are always straight, and also can’t often
make use of the architects who are only interested in trying to use a very
special and expensive way of building. Therefore, those of us who are
interested in practicing in China are compelled to learn and to teach how
to work by means that can be used by more people. Geometry, in that
since, is directly related to matters of economy and society.
From the director for Master of Architecture to Chair of the Architecture

Department, how do you lead the GSD in a direction which distinguishes it from
other architecture schools? Can you forecast any trends for the GSD, its core
studios and related courses?
My particular interest involves the expansion of the repertoire. This

means to focus on the fundamental, formative aspects of architectural
production. But leaving aside personal interests, which is always
important to do at Harvard, in particular, and speaking now more
broadly, I think Harvard always tries to relate theory and practice. What
differentiates Harvard from other schools is that it strives to establish
the connection between academic speculation on the discipline and
advanced forms of practice in the profession. It wants to look at the
concrete world in order to theorize and reshape it by advancing the
disciplinary means. . Harvard is different because we are trying to
teach people to deal with confronting reality at a higher, possible level,
technologically in the design process. It is different because we are trying
to achieve this reality in an unusually intensified constraint based way, to
stimulate new ways of thinking but at the same time, to instill the critical
thinking that will not encourage people to become interested solely in
the artist’s private imagination which is immature and unrealistic. The
aim is to put students in a relationship with the world and to cause a very
stimulating way of looking at it through architecture. Unlike the private
artist, the genius who may be perceived to be anti-social, a socialized
Harvard education is good at preparing students for practice and the
larger audience.
How has Digital Design with CAD/CAM impacted or influenced the GSD Studio
Culture?
At the beginning it really did change people’s way of thinking about

form in many regards because of the ability to have a model which is
digitally visible and therefore tactile. When I say digitally tactile, I mean
you can break it, you can alter it, and you can modify it freely. This
creates an entirely new relationship between the object and designer
that never existed before. You can learn so much more about form and
space from that kind of flexibility and you don’t have to make a physical
model. To worship the physical model is a very static way of thinking
about architecture. We don’t use physical models in my office very much
and I don’t need a physical model to visualize architecture, even though
it is still such a pleasure to have it. I need to present one to the client,
occasionally. I still hope that in time we can teach the client to look at the
digital model.
Programs like SketchUp are very ugly. But they make the computer
model accessible to the client and it should not be overlooked that these
programs are today being learned by children. The client wants to see
that the architecture is tactile. SketchUp looks tactile to them because it
imitates sketching. Architecture as hand drawing is a long standing myth.
It is very effective to seduce or confuse the client with hand drawings.
The physical model is somewhat the same; there is a certain sort of myth
that surrounds it, an authenticity associated with it and it is a very static
thing. In actuality, it has little to do with how we deal with architecture
today, the conception of which is so much less static.
Now, as far as what has been done at Harvard, I don’t think we

have done enough to understand how we think about architecture today.
Harvard is still locked in hand drawing and in building physical models,
for example and in fact, is dedicating more and more machinery in
its digital shop to physical model making. This is a kind of regressive
element. Frankly, in my opinion, the more sophisticated the techniques
get for making three dimension presentation models, the more we are
able to affirm our regressive connection to the notion of static objects
and images. This is the paradox.
That trend is part of something else, something happening with the

computer in the academic context. It has to do with allowing students and
young architects to produce more in the real world, to be able to build
better and exciting new forms in practice, and earlier in their careers.
So, I think the digital shops represent the desire to build physical objects
and to make things real. It is part of the idea of synthesizing design and
construction but in a very isolated and artistic way which I hope can have
an effect on the larger project, even though I seriously doubt it. The idea
of removing the distance between construction allows design turn back
in to a regressive condition, because it is about physicalization instead
of elastic and constant dynamism of thought and actions. And yet, it is
also about the new reality, which in practice is more immanent and more
immediately possible in a new way, because of the technology. At a
higher level of complexity, it is worked out in the field, at the architectural
scale, in practice.
I think it is one of those conditions that shows how the school is

trying to catch up with reality in practice, but at the same time going
into more of a regressive mode regarding design because it denies
the potential of the dynamic. I am being very critical now. Building the
physical model represents the tendency, which tries to get back to the
object, with the desire to stay close to physical reality. It is not physical
reality, by the way, because models that are 3D printed represent
fetishes, fetishes that will soon be obsolete. We cannot build models with
the sorts of curvatures and continuities that are so popular in schools
today because of the economy and construction in most parts of the
world. Only furniture and special pieces can be built that way, and only
very high-profile architects who have extreme budgets, like Frank O.
Gehry are commissioned to build those curves.
The best tool that we have in our shop is the flat bed laser cutter. It
still represents architecture at its scale most directly. When architectural
speculation goes to the digital shop at the furniture scale, it is making a
category error. It is contributing to a misunderstanding of architectural
scale. I think modeling and animation are more useful for presentation,
especially for the landscape project presentation. Certainly, there is a
need for the landscape to be designed with more flexibility and to stay
in the computers rather than to move in to the shop. I think landscape
architecture is freer to be more advanced in this sense than architecture.
But, the problem with landscape architecture is the endlessly sentimental
attachment to freehand drawing.
I think the best new development of culture and emergent trends

in the studio right now by far at the GSD is the recent emphasis on
CATIA, and the emerging interest in Generative Components and
SoildWorks. These programs represent the dynamism of design, in
fewer permutations with constant possibility and variability. In that
regard, we really are going in a new direction. Pattern making is the new
architecture which is coming out of CATIA, General Components, and
SolidWorks. The question is: what is so important about pattern making?

Should all of contemporary architecture be about periodic and aperiodic
patterns? Admittedly, I am part of the spreading of this disease because
I am encouraging this kind of curvature production, and making a system
to build it that is all about making disciplined periodic patterns. The
interest in patterning has galvanized collective interest, and is therefore
conducive to the social dimension of the practice about which I spoke
earlier.
This brings me to another point. Earlier, I talked about the tectonic,

the promenade, and the site but I did not say anything about type.
Nothing is more important to me than the question of type. Architecture
is not about the pattern; pattern is not sufficient to produce or describe
architecture nor can it substitute for the fundamental questions about
architecture asked through geometry and theory.
Would you say something about the types and post patterns?
Type is many things. Indeed, it involves everything. Type is the

ultimate synthesis of all things that are architectural. It has to do with the
way the urban form acts on the building, the structural technology, the
culture of the particular place and time, the way rooms form a certain
style of living, as Robin Evans explained so well. Type is the whole of
architecture.
Today, the interest in pattern is a fleeting fetish, particularly as a
means for determining the way in which buildings get shaped. Type, on
the other hand, has a connection to culture, to social relationships; it
exceeds the pattern production by very profound historical dimensions.
This is missing in the design of patterns, though textiles and other
systems of ornament are not without their own historical lineages. The
problem today is that the particular patterns of interest have not been
conditioned by social arrangements of living. That is the biggest problem
of today’s culture of digital architecture. The more critical question
is, who will return to the question of the way buildings are shaped to
respond to and sometimes to change the way people live?
Social relationships, considered architecturally, involve many things,
not just the way things go together. People need be here or to be there,
walk there or there, this room needs to be next to the other room so that
I can speak to them, and so on. The social involves the understanding
of the whole of collective society and how it understands itself. Buildings
have to understand this as well. They discipline us, they establish order,
and they also establish decorum, a sense of well-being, beauty, or brute
efficiency. This means that some buildings should be elegant while
others should be unpretentious.
Srping 2007, You led a studio in cooperation with Atelier Zhanglei at GSD, and you
have been invited to design the Student Center for Nanjing University in Xianlin,
China, Recently you won the competition for the Taiyuan Art Museum in Taiyuan,
Chin. What attracted your attention to the issues in China, and which aspect of
China as a site for architecture captures your interests?
Constraints that act on architecture as a driving force for invention:

this is a very important idea for me. Social reality is a kind of constraint
that limits the individual. You can’t just do whatever you’d like because
you need to consider laws, resources and relationships. So the
constraints are very much the essence of the social dimension of
architecture. Architecture is not just the art of shapes and patterning.
Patterns are interesting to me, I love patterns because they have the
central questions of constraint built in, they have rules that regulate them
and in that sense represent the idea of a social framework. Patterns are
essentially good but the problem is that they are too often manipulated
for no particular reason.
In China, economical construction is required. This mandate must

be a part of any question asked about the work being done in China. The
speed of design and construction must be critical parts of the architect’
s approach. For the architect, these are fantastic problems because
they force you both to move away from the highly fetishistic tendencies,
and to advance the strategies of dynamic designing. For example, if
you have to design very quickly and very economically, you need the
highest levels of technology in the earliest phase of design. CATIA can
be used to instantiate the different arrangements and the arrangements
can adhere to the economic limits and can be rapidly reconceived,
varied tumultuously with great efficiency. I think the pace of design and
the economy of construction require architects to be very astute when
using parametric design tools. For the discipline, it helps to be given
these limits. Mind you, this way of working does not tell you very much
about the question of type, but as a process, I am really excited about
doing buildings in China because it means that I have to work in such
a dramatically different way. It is very liberative, just like doing a very
rough drawing, as opposed to one which is super refined. I must adopt a
different way of approaching the kind of precision that I have for so long
been invested in. I have to start with a consideration of the structural
paradigm before I can do anything.
This leads to the idea of making the building more elastic than ever
before. I’ve never done an elastic design the way I have for China!
We must try all of this with the overwhelming limitation of using cheap
materials. I am interested in using inexpensive materials, using old
fashioned technology of the sort with which contemporary China is
largely being built today. This will mean an advanced attitude towards
regressive technology in architecture. It is enormously interesting that
regressive and very plain old fashioned techniques can stimulate a very
sophisticated and quick design process, a sophisticated parametric way
of thinking from the conception of the project. I am observing that a lot
of architecture today, at the front end, is too unsophisticated materially.
Students are using technology in a regressive way, using the shop
to fix their fetishes to forms while imagining that they will enjoy the
privileges afforded by Gehry or Hadid including advanced materials and
advanced robotic construction. Generally, the beginning part of a design
is not necessarily very sophisticated, even though it greatly controls
the outcome. Even today, the beginning of design is often the most old
fashioned of all the phases, in terms of how it is conducted. Designing
in China you must invent ways of anticipating limitations very cleverly
from the beginning, based on the construction industry, the layout of the
roads, the kinds of craftsmanship you are working with, and you must be
more sophisticated about design as a whole. Ultimately, what is needed
is a more flexible process that is less about the old artistic tradition of
the architect who controls everything. Instead, the focus becomes the
idea of the architect as a leader who understands the art of negotiation.
China poses a challenge much more contemporary to the architectural
practice condition by mandating that architects work in a new way.
I want to find out if we can challenge the conventional modes of

architectural practice and I believe that China is the place to do it. It is
more exciting than in an advanced society like the United States where
you have traces of the force of economy, but only in a limited and value
engineering kind of way. Unlike the regressive ways of procuring projects
in the United States, it is so refreshing to work in China! Architects can
be awarded larger projects in China just by sitting down and having a
single conversation!
Your prestigious reputation and sensitivity of architecture aesthetic also tremendous

helps you won projects in China, I appreciate your time, and have a wonderful day!
库塔斯•特则提斯
哈佛大学设计研究生院副教授
本科毕业于希腊，从俄亥俄州立获得建筑学硕士，从密歇根大学获得博士
学位，曾就任与加州大学洛山矶分校。他的研究教学聚焦于界于艺术，建筑，
和计算机科学之间的创造性实践。作为一个注册建筑师和一个专业的计算机的
程序员,他是编写了很多有关制型，渐变，仿真视觉的计算机应用软件。他最
近的工作焦点是在发展计算法建筑学的理论和技术。
著作：
《复杂性(2008)》
《计算法建筑学 (2006年)》
《表达形态：一个为计算机设计的概念型的方法 (2003年）》
Harvard University, USA 55
采访者：丁峻峰卜骁骏
时间：2007年9月12日
地点：美国麻省剑桥哈佛设计学院特则提斯的办公室
感谢：Michael Wagenbach
让我们先从GSD在数字设计这一领域的视野开，然后我们可以谈一下你在
GSD 开了几年的这门很受欢迎的课 - “算法建筑”，最后我们希望了解你对中国
这一领域的看法。
对于整个 GSD 而言， GSD 并不是一个专注数字设计的学校，而是一

个传统意义上的保守的设计学 - 计算机在这里实际上就是Studio的辅助罢
了，更像是工具。
当我来到这里的时，在那一两年之内，有两件事慢慢的改变了这里的
老师的意见，最终通过院长，系主任 - Toshiko女士（注：前GSD建筑系
主任），和其他的一些人，我们在一起认为这里有些东西应该是更正式的
- 我的课一直在不停的探索 - 显然这里面有些不同的东西是超越了“工具性”
的 - 它是是有关你的思考方式的东西。于是渐渐的，从我的学生身上探索
就转变成了我的一个挑战，这也是被GSD的教师们所渐渐意识到的。有
些东西我们并不知道，你是一个专家所以你会试图探寻它到底是什么。于
是最初我所做的就是摒弃了所有的这些耗时的、并且有时甚至是误导学
生的软件，因为他们有时候显然更倾向于学习软件。这里面有一个本质的
不同就是把计算机当作是工具还是思考方法。所以我首先确立的就是以这
种workshop的方式来教学生软件。于是我们就从课上分开了这一部分媒
体的教学。
恩，原来来最初是这样的。
对，这些媒体课是我们要求学生一开始必须上的。
我原来以为开始一件事（在GSD推广数字设计）是非常难的，因为你要去说
服别人。
没错，这个学校现在还保留着过去的原则。第一个学期是手绘 - 在这
个时代已经是非常奇怪的事了，而过去不是，基本上就是学习怎么用手绘
制图。而同时，第一年的学生在Scott Cohen的课上要学习“投影几何” - 被
当作是一个计算机工具来掌握的。这里每个学生或多或少的学到了标准的
软件 - 这我们用的是Rhino - 软件并不重要 - 就像软件做投影算法一样去
练习。
我（的教学）在第二个学期，就是春季的学期参与进来，现在你已经
知道如何用手做设计，同时你也知道了怎么解决数学问题，现在你该如何
使用它们去做设计呢？我所做的是，首先请工业界的执业者在计划的时间
里来教学生一些软件，像Catia, FormZ, 3ds Max，等等几乎所有的软件。
我意识到最重要的意识是数学的逻辑的思考方法，实际上是通过计
算机。现在在这些媒体课中发生的改变是我们开始有了脚本的应用。脚
本的应用是和 Studio 相关联的，基本上就是编写程序，但是现在容易多
了，因为越来越与图形界面相关连。比方说，我可以在任何一个软件中
划一条线从A点到B点，你只需要点击Line这个按钮，然后输入OK，然后
你只需要在这里点第一次，在那里点第二次。如果你进入到脚本层级，你
会看见 L-I-N-E，作为一个字，它已经非常接近正常的语言了，之后便是
XYZ坐标而已。脚本的应用是和Studio相关联的，基本上就是编写程序，
但是现在容易多了，因为越来越与图形界面相关连。比方说，我可以在任
何一个软件中划一条线从 A点到B点，你只需要点击Line这个按钮，然后
输入OK，然后你只需要在这里点第一次，在那里点第二次。如果你进入
到脚本层级，你会看见 L-I-N-E，作为一个字，它已经非常接近正常的语
言了，之后便是XYZ坐标而已。所以这些坐标是一些特定的数字或是一些
从别的地方来的变量。但如果你再进一步，在你输入了OK之后，画了一
条线，它的端点自动地从一个随机的位置到另一个随机的位置，突然间你
会觉得失去了对最终结果的控制 - 这里面就是一种不同于软件或手绘决定
的思考方法 - 一种超越你的控制的东西。计算机被以一种更有效的方式使
用 - 我叫它超越、补充在你身上也许存在的极限，比方说我就不能随机的
做一些事，因为在做这件事的时刻是你自己的行为，所以已经不是随机的
了，但如果别人做的，那才叫做“对我而言的随机性”。那么，谁是这整个
背后的事情-那个看不见的合作伙伴？是计算机。所以，你获得了一种辩
证关系，在计算机和它所辅助的思考方式之间。这里其中重要的是我所考
虑的“随机性”问题，它是很有意思的一件事，而且还有很多哲学层面的应
用，这与理论的一面相关；接下去就是关于“复杂性”的理念，极端的复杂
性被产生出来 –– 它是这样的一种东西，我们虽然知道它是可以做到的，
但我们要做一辈子才做的出来，而计算机快得多。所以，现在我可以解决
复杂性的问题，这是过去在我们（设计者）这边的限制，一种有关能不能
做现在的这些东西的能力的限制，那曾经是一种挑战，你知道，是那些有
着巨大的复杂性的事情，已经不是就像做小房子一样的事情了。现在，
建筑师需要负责的已经是超级复杂的结构了。因此，在那个世界里他们所
做的事情是，他们看一个房子的平面，他们只是设计这个平面，具体地去
做设计，然后复制，这就是楼层，然后将这些堆在一起的楼层 - 也就是房
子 - 再复制，制造出成片的房子，这就是一种简单化的复杂，但这不是
真的复杂，这是简单。复杂性对于平面来说可能是更重要的，而不是在复
制方式上。因此，我们面临的挑战是如何看待复杂的真正意义。像如何
从关系中产生复杂性，比如功能划分的关系，或形式上的关系。所以，你
可以考虑的复杂性几乎涉及复杂性的本质，几乎就像生物的复杂性或自
然的复杂性。这里的复杂性就像是人类大脑的一个逻辑挑战，因为我们知
道，我们必须把2000个人放在一起，我们怎样才能做到这一点，我们不
知道。如果你是手工做，我们必须做一些局限于我们人类能力的事。什么
是我们人类的能力？显然我们可以拥有复杂的平面。但之后，我们应该涉
及进一步的复杂性，因为我们的对象的复杂性也变得进一步了。
对，在你的课上“算法建筑”您总是谈论我们一直都在向自然学习，我们无法跳
到自然外面的事实，现在你在谈论复杂性。你认为计算是唯一的途径或未来的
方式来处理、平衡人，人造物与自然之间的关系的吗？现在我们在建筑中做
了这么多曲线，因为我们的软件是如此先进，所以我们取得了一些方法来处理
以往的困难。如果你知道每一个在曲线上的点那我们就能够处理它们。这是
一个方面的问题，另一方面是有关装修的，你知道现在已经非常容易就能够产
生物体并随机分布，事实上我们好像回到了古典时代，这是非常奇怪的。对
此你有何看法？
关于你第一部分的问题，计算这不是一个真正的事物，它是产生一些
东西的过程。那么这里面就有一个将一件物体和它的视觉呈现相区别开来
的地方。例如，你使用“ 曲线“这个词。曲线，如果你想想，是具有视觉的
表现，看起来是弯曲的、延展的、柔软的。它更像是对于我们的眼睛的现
象学的某种呈现。但是，曲线背后的是数学结构，具有一定的复杂性，
计算机可以让你做复杂的曲线和实时地加以定制这些曲线。所以，看起来
对于你的眼睛是完全完美的。曲线的复杂性是需要你计算的，因为你已
经到了非用计算机不可的地步了 - 当然你可以用手做到这一点，但不会是
完美的。我将要谈的比这个要多一些。刚才说的还是在视觉呈现这个层面
上，就是形式美感层面。
接下来的是一个逻辑运算的层面，在这个层面上你可以阐明事实 - 我
们能够真正以美学结果的形式显示的方式来再现事实。但是，你有实际的
复杂性，是（刚才所讲的大量的）合乎逻辑的关系，如果你喜欢你可以让
这个复杂性变得非常的巨大，以至于超出了我们的简单的理解方式，因为
我们有自然带给我们的局限性。甚至你可以把问题分割成几块，但有些问
题是如此复杂，即使我们能做到，但还是要花很多时间。因此，这种复杂
性是一种自然化的事情，有时候他就是自然中发生着的事情，但是，这
种复杂性也存在于一定的计算方法。比如，如果你观察细胞的结构，生物
进程，或者你考虑自然，甚至社会现象，有很多不同级别的复杂性需要
加以模拟或使用某种方法复制。这种方便是计算。因此，这里的计算实际
上是一种达到目标的手段。它并不是目标本身。因此，我对你的问题的
回答是，你使用它作为一个你自己的能力补充来做一些超出你的能力的
事。
然后回到GSD的问题上来，我当时试图使这些学生敏感于这样的一个
事实，首先是它并不应该仅仅是趋向于应用的知识，别人准备好的工具，
就像你用的Rhino、3ds Max什么的。在现实中你基本上就是复制别人已
经定制好的的一套工具，你已经被假设一定会画一条线，有很多相当适
合用户方便使用的工具，并方便日后的重复性工作，因为你（使用者）
被动地做了一些你不曾做过的决定，这些决定已经在纸上，或是更重要的
从计算的层面加以固化在了脚本或编程当中。因此，我想再次使用这个比
喻，你被给予游泳的能力了，但你是在一个游泳池里，比方说现在还是一
个小游泳池。然后通过可以自己写脚本获得更多的自由，你现在是在一个
湖里游了，再后来你可以去海里，我们可以说你有了无限的自由，因为
你不再是限制在小游泳池里的了，所以你以为你是自由的，其实你不是。
一定的美学有可能是与特定的程序有关的，因为不同的软件工作的方
式都略有不同，这些不同的工作流程要求不同的思考形式，而这又决定了
独一无二的产品形式 - 不同的软件实际上形成了不同风格的决定。好像是
你一眼就能看出这一定是用Rhino做的，因为我看到了某些Rhino所特有
的东西，几乎像特定的软件的“怪癖”一样，实际上在某种程度上操纵了设
计。
我想摆脱这一点，这就是脚本，并在GSD，这是我想让他们做的-从
图案研究开始；我还是要说，这是非常复杂的事情，因为对于所有的学生
来说这是他们从来没有指望过的经验。这是好事，因为这是第一次他们接
近电脑，这不是在一种友好的可定制的方式，他们有时候只能过来找我。
但它更像是，“我需要知道的构成世界的原则、逻辑和数学的原则”，并通
过这些计算关系和要素我可以使用在不同的更意义的设计中。现在我游泳
在海洋里，所以我有更多能力做事情。一开始相当困难，但我认为我们看
见的结果是在能够看到很多学生正在非常有创意的使用它。
所以实际上，在你的书《计算法建筑学》你把这一过程称为计算机化而不是计
算。你是否认为这是一种数字化设计趋势？
我宁愿不要批判现在大家使用计算机工作的状况，但是上这门课我确
实直接批判了其他的学校的做法，因为我前面说过，当你有一个应用程序
做东西容易且快速，于是你就往往会沉浸其中，像一个喝醉酒的人。当你
非常熟悉了一个应用软件，你就会越来越多以同样的方式来工作。因此，
教师喜欢它，学生喜欢它，因为它更快完成所要的东西。但最终他们把它
当应用程序来使用了，而不是真的在计算东西，并没有真正在思维逻辑上
进行使用。他们并没有像计算机逻辑那样，去挑战通过操作逻辑关系而改
变数学离散的实体，他们只是在屏幕上移动鼠标，事先决定式的，用出售
给他们的这些程序所决定的方式来使用它们。这实际上是经济关系，你给
计算机输入一些东西然后你便轻易得到一些回报，但实际上这种过程中的
快感不是无偿的，我宁愿“计算化”。换句话说，大多数且显而易见的，计
算并不一定真的需要一台电脑，但是电脑化当然需要一台计算机，这是它
的定义。如果我们使用Rhino，可能有计算的过程，但没有太大的挑战。
为了这个计算的过程，您没必要一定使用一台计算机。你可以把很多数学
家做的东西用上并拿出结果。
当然，电脑将帮助它，但它并不是电脑本身。它是计算机作为一个合
乎逻辑的操纵装置，这跟以往的计算机的方式很不一样，这不是一个小方
块。但情况并非如此，这是我的区别。但问题是有很多人不知道它。很多
人认为电脑本身，电脑里有一块东西会变像魔术一样。问题关键是你的想
法，你是产生它的人。因此，在某种程度上，我们应该选择正确的方式来
做，而不是像收购了软件公司而已。虽然我们并不反对这些，但这将是其
他不同的目的。你仍然可以使用旧有的部分-整体的设计方法，你仍然可
以使带有计算方法的图表，然后使用电脑做的渲染等，我想，我们肯定是
做得很好了已经，没有疑问的。不要告诉我我手上的像素图像也是算法的
或是计算的，这不成立。没有计算过程可以定义产生它的进程，也许在渲
染或光能传递什么的最终结果中是有计算的，或像素本身是有计算过程的
脚本的，这是我的区别。
非常独特和有趣。显而易见，您有在数字化设计领域有非常特殊而且很强的背
景。你是如何教育你的学生把这些先进的方法应用到建筑的实践前沿。你对与
哈佛设计学院在这方米昂将来有什么期望?
我的观点来讲，我更喜欢用理想主义的方法。因为，比如电脑化逻辑
还有哲学实体，这些方法更具备理想主意的自然属性。这些东西都存在与
理想主义中，有时现实主义并不是这样的。
哈佛设计学院总感兴趣于成为世界第一的学校，给予与之匹配的世界
第一的学术课堂。其中之一，就是如果能让这些（理想化的）方法拥有在
实践世界中的可应用性。我的意思是：我写书的目的可以是一种哲学性的
阐述，或者仅仅是应用，或者是一种辩论，论文，或者其他的一些东西…
这些都是学术方面的。哈佛设计学院在理论和实践两领域都有很高的水
准，但是在实践方面我认为还没达到。实际上，让很多学生比如周旭还
有你们俩自己（在实践中）做很多的工作，那可能更好，因为这样才能
在实践中获得应用性 ,从而实际上在不久将来进一步发展推进（数字化设
计）。
说到计算机历史，计算机的使用，还有实际编程等一些其他的东西，
到把它（电子模型）实际建造出来。我可能自己不会去做，但是实际上这
并不关键，因为我教的这些人都是可以从事实践（建筑的）。如果那么说
的话，我更高兴看到这些（电子设计）的东西被应用到更大的尺度或者在
一些地方，比如说中国。计算机化的应用程序辅助设计可以让当地的工程
受益，因为对于中国来说，经常是高速发展的城市空间的设计而不是已经
成形的城市里单体的建筑本身。所以你得估量被计算机化的灵感所推进的
传统的设计进展，（工程会）做得一个比另一个更好，那样的话，我的这
门课就得到了证实。
我所尝试的一部分的仅仅被测试或则在实践中被确认，去看，如何在
实践的公司里我们如何将这过程自己和设计过程精密结合。我还未曾看
到真正整幢计算机化了的房子，也许北京奥运中心的游泳馆是一个。很少
的建筑触及到计算机化的过程，运用数学系统和结构。不是只有我落在其
后。有些工程可能会是，在我课堂里的一些学生，他们在Greg Lynn 或者
是Gehry的公司里的工作，他们可能会做这样（数字化）的项目。实际上
我已经看到了十分接近如我所想的一些东西。这需要时间。最终你们可能
成为明星建筑师，如果你确认是有被我这个人激发了灵感，那我就被证实
了。
正如你说的，我们试图在很多商业公司的实践中应用我们所学的自编程序，比
如SOM ，GP，结果是值得惊叹的。我们都希望，在哈佛设计学院的外部，在
实践世界里，有很多的资源存在，我们可以贡献和共享。建立这样的一个实践
的网络也许是个好的想法？
当然，我觉得这个国家就是基于一种联合，我们赢，（是因为）联
合。我们说网络可以把人联系在一起，你可以获得比单独一人多的灵感。
这更像一群人，或者（群体）会员资格，每个人可以帮助（群体里的）其
他人。基本类似于我们所说的开放性资源-你出产一定的东西，（群体）
其他个人都会开始往里添加东西，你得到的最终成品会比你单独一人，在
一段时间里做出的东西要好很多。所以我觉得那个开始工作了，再说，当
然，哈佛设计学院好在，再回到你前面的问题，就是在这里有很好的网络
人脉，校友，你也许会感到这样一种责任感，如果当你和一个两个（校
友）在一起的时候。所以一旦你上了我的课，你也许就说，因为我们有相
同的兴趣点，而且我们是来自于一个学校，为什么我们不聚在一起做些
事。设计学院的学生遍布全世界，现在他们在一个网络里工作，在某种程
度上，第二种层次的网络更容易发生，因为以前人们不知道彼此，那就很
难让他们有交流对话，（而现在你就可以）。你可以和设计学院的老师或
者学生联系，然后你们就开始被联系（到了网络），然后像一个整个单体
开始了自己工作了。在另外一个世界，就是独立工作-那也就是一种强制
力量。我可不想成为那样一个把我的权威强加到网络中去的人，因为那样
我就不会给那些人足够的自由去选择他们自己想做的事情。如果人们最终
做到了我说的那些，那才是最好的途径，验证了那些人才正真喜欢你的意
识形态，并不是你强制给他们的。
和你讨论哲学通常是很有趣的一件事情。你着迷于哲学的“无”，就如你知道
的，中国的道家学者强调的是“无中生有”。这是不是一些你在对于中国和亚洲
的感兴趣的东西?
古代的亚洲文化，特别是道教，在那段时间里，非常接近毕达哥拉斯
哲学，两者之间有一种很强的联系。“无”的观点很有趣，尤其对于我们希
腊人来说，因为希腊人很胆怯，对于 “ 无 ” 有着非常的畏惧，但是希腊人
视“无”为一种对于存在的拒绝。然而，中国人却把“无”看成为对于存在的
暗示和承认，道家实际理解了存在的意义，从老子到庄周 ,所有的道家学
者。他们利用这样的一种“空”，“无”作为强调存在的方式，来庆祝生活。
我很惊讶：古代希腊的哲学家，比如毕达哥拉斯和中国的道家几乎产生于
同一时代，是不是那时候他们彼此知道？
甚至那种二元性，关于两个实物，阴和阳，如果你看赫拉克利特，他
实际上是讲两个截然相反的事物，一个联系着另外一个，你需要两个事物
来理解（全局）…这些几乎（和中国的阴阳）是同一种的哲学，虽然年代
不一。所以这里一定有某种联系，也许是经由嘴到嘴（来传播的）。希腊
总是看着东方想寻找东西，因为那个时候，还没有欧洲，所以就看埃及，
波斯，他们都在我们的东方。中国同样，是往西看，通过印度，到波斯。
所以这里或许在两个国家存在某种联系。很有趣，因为，我发现了很多的
东西是相通的。
你需要“无”达到“有”，（同时）你需要“有”获得“无”。我们想有些东西
通过时间（的积累），已经被建立了假设，所以我们用不着再来质问它
了。比如，“无”是（已经）没有人来质问的东西，是被人已经假定好的东
西，这并不是一件容易的事情，因为你知道什么是“无”，你就知道什么是
“有”，我们花了很多的时间来理解什么是“有”，但是我们们从来不说“有”是
“无”的一种泛意延伸，社么意思，意思就是这两着是有联系的。我们只关
注了铜板的一面，如果你看看另一面，那里或许存在有更多的可能性，那
也就是“无”。
我用这种观点来解决电脑的程序，开始于“无”或者是否定，去看在数
学规则后面的逻辑将引导你到哪里。你并不期望什么东西，你引介负面的
东西，不是负面的，但是在语言学里面否定的结构。所以你有一些东西是
缺少的，也就是这些缺少的东西变为现实里面更重要的东西。
如果你把它作为一种的可能性，那么你就接受了 “ 无 ” 是来源与 “ 无 ”
（理论），所有的东西都是来源与其他的什么东西，所以也就有了东西的
连续性。没有什么东西来源于忧郁，来源于“无”，东西都是由其他的某种
东西塑造（转化）而来的。现实中，转化就是东西从一个形态转变为另外
一个，（这个过程）无禁无止。那就是这如何工作的。每次，当你没有这
些东西，是因为你现在还没有，如果你以前没有，是因为以前还不存在 ,
然而，它会从“无”中来，（这种的论断）将会和保守逻辑相互矛盾，我觉
得这是一种很有趣的争辩。
最后，你能不能说说你对于哈佛设计学院的中国学生的观察，如果这里有什么
你觉得和你对于中国文化的理解是相关联的。
我以前没有去过中国，但是去年我在中国呆了三个星期，不是，是总
共五个星期，在北京，上海，和香港，我去的时候，我有辆自行车，所以
我能在城市观光时间以外，想去哪就去哪，自行车好在是因为它有种介于
中间的速度，不是步行速度，也不是车的速度。创造你自己的速度。
当我在上海，我去了一些地方让你感觉完全是在中国，不是那些观光
62 美国哈佛大学
区域，而是城市的外缘，河的北面，港口，工业区。在北京，我一直向南
走，到了大概离天安门的大概20-30英里的地方。那些地方像是完全的郊
区，有趣看到这些。因为我最感兴趣的就是“无”。
现在我在读，学习这些汉字，我可以认识 500 个中文了，那非常有

趣，因为很多词是非常有“存在主义”，词是如何被北写到纸上的，是如何
发音的，非常特别，甚至整个表意文字的想法，象形，相反于文化，文化
是更基于语言学。
以我对于语言学有限的知识来看，是不是语言本身是一个重要的原
因。你们要识记那多的基于形状的字符，（要懂得）如何把词拼凑在一
起，还要具有一些很强视觉和清晰逻辑性的思维。所以你可以看出来中国
学生看东西有些不一样的地方。从我在中国的行程（观察到），中国一部
分的文化包含着对于事物的模棱两可的态度，我在（中国）的时候，我被
告知因为语言，和（语言）的结构，有时候不用动词，你把名词组合在一
起，组合到一起的名词就产生了意义。也就是说，（这样的组合）不会很
清晰告诉你想法，但是在名词的关系中你可以得到意测，这让语言变得模
棱两可。
这种含糊性带入了学生的作业，我看到很多中国学生（作品）很模棱
两可，就像很多不明确的名词的组合。你可以（把他们的作品）解释成A
或者B,两者都行。这是好事，因为有时候，这里有一些隐藏在某些在东西
后面的意思。你看到一些东西，你现在是理解它，过会儿，你说这里有更
多的什么东西是我第一次的时候没有悟到的。这基本就像语言本身，你看
到符号后来你发现它们的组合你根本没有想到过，或者从来不知道有这种
组合的存在，那就是一种建立于语言内部固有的含糊性。
汉字作为一种书写语言也是一样，被引用到日文，韩文，日本字都是
中文的边旁部守。这是为什么中文那么受欢迎，是因为在那部分的世界里
这样的文字，和人们的思维是最协调的。这对你们如何做设计有非常巨大
的影响，因为这些东西基本是一样的：应用的文字，思维的方式，做事的
方式，和你们如何一起做事的方式，和设计的方法。
我记得有个城市设计的学生，做了个非常简单的设计，超级简单，但
是非常有力。因为这里永远有很多含糊的东西的存在，虽然这些高层建筑
的形如此简单，当你第二次看到或者第二天看到的时候，这里有那么多的
东西是你第一次或者昨天的时候没有看到的。我不觉得这是一种意外，我
想他知道他在做什么，他知道他用的是一种的文化的工具。这样的事情一
次次得发生，周旭，骁骏还有你的部分作品，都有一些什么隐藏在后面的
东西，有时候我觉得像胶囊被包裹着的。所以我觉得这些东西很有力，汉
语作为一种文化通过学生带到了设计教室来了。
Kostas Terzidis
Associate Professor， Department of Architecture， (GSD) Graduate School
of Design, Harvard University.
Kostas Tersidis holds bachelor degree from Greece, a Masters of

Architecture from Ohio State University and a PhD in Architecture from the
University of Michigan. He was an assistant professor at UCLA for 10 years.
His research work focuses on creative experimentation within the threshold
between arts, architecture, and computer science. As a professional
computer programmer he is the author of many computer applications
on form-making, morphing, virtual reality, and self-organization. His later
research focus is developing the technology and theory for Algorithmic
Architecture.
Selected Pbulications:
Complexity (2008)
Algorithmic Architecture (2006)
Express Form: A Conceptual Approach to Computational Design (2003)
Interview by: Junfeng (Jeff) Ding and Xiaojun Bu

Time: September 12, 2007
Location: Kostas’s Office, GSD, Harvard University, Cambirdge, MA
Credits: Michael Wagenbach
Let us start with general outlook about GSD specifically in the digital design filed.
You can also speak about topics you engage in your popular course you teach at in
the GSD - Algorithmic Architecture. Also, I would like to hear your perspective on
China and how it relates to design.
Well about the GSD in general… the GSD is not a digital school but
more like a traditional, conservative school that actually uses computers
as a support for the studio – uses them more like a tool.
Since I came to the GSD two years ago, two kinds of changes have
become more evident to the faculty. Primarily through the chair, Toshiko
(Previous Chair of Architecture Department, GSD, Harvard University)
and several others at the time decided that there is something more
official for the computers roll in design that was seen in classes such
as the one I was teaching – it was obvious that there is something else
beyond the tool. Something that has to do with the way you are thinking.
That starts to become something that would be my challenge to extract
from the students. That was something that was recognized by the
faculty themselves but here is something we didn’t fully understand
ourselves and it became a challenge. You are the one who is suppose
to be the expert trying to find out what that thing really is. So the first
step that I took was to get rid of all these applications which were time-
consuming and, in a way, disorienting students because they were more
interested in learning FormZ, 3D Max and the differences between the
two and wanted to use the computer as a tool rather then incorporate
into the process of thinking. So what I did was to create a “workshop”
style course that did not focus on the programs themselves but rather
they were taking them through the GSD media courses.
Oh, that is the beginning.
Yeah, these media courses are one of the first required classes we
teach.
I was thinking there is a challenge to begin something new and to persuade others in
this movement.
Right. One of the things the school still maintains is the principle for
the past. The first semester is hand drawing, strange enough for today,
but not the past. Basically, you learn how to draw by hand and also there
is another class that we do in the first year in Scott Cohen’s class where
they learn projective geometry by using another tool – the computer.
This is where they learn, more or less, computer standards - we happen
to use Rhino but the specific application doesn’t matter.
I came in my second semester knowing that the students now know

how to design by hand and they also know a tool that can help solve
mathematic problems. My next step was to implement these to notions
together into a process of design. First, I ran workshops with people
from the architectural industry to teach students programs like FormZ,
3D Studio Max and Catia all in a set time.
I realized the most important notion was the mathematical logical

way of thinking, actually through the computers. The evolution through
these media explorations was that we moved into scripting which is
really what we were calling our workshop form of thought before.
Scripting is done in a way that associated it with studio work and

scripting is basically programming but it an easier format related to
graphic environments. For example, I can draw a line from point A to
point B and any application will do it. You just click on the Line icon
and you say OK. Here, I click one time, here I click second time. If you
examine the scripting inside, you use the word Line: L-I-N-E, as a word
which is more closely associated to a language and then you put the
XYZ coordinate.
So these XYZ coordinates are specific numbers or they are

computer variables coming from somewhere else. But if you take it
one step further and you just say OK, make me a line now that is from
a random position to another random position, then automatically and
suddenly you don’t have access and control to the final result. That is
a way of thinking very different from the original application-driven or
hand-drawing-driven - something that goes beyond your control. You
also use the computer in a way that is effective too. I call it to overpass,
to complement the limitation that you may have as a, for example, I can’
t do something randomly because the moment I do it by myself, it is not
random anymore but if somebody else does it for me then it is random
for me. So who is that entering thing? – that is the partner which is
the computer. So you gain a kind of dialectic relationship between you
and the computer. One thing that is important that I am looking into is
the idea of randomness which is interesting. And again, there is a lot
of philosophical application which I do with the theoretical side. Then
the idea of complexity, extreme complexity comes out and the sense
that you know something that we know how it can be done but it takes
forever to do it ourselves. The computer does it much faster. Now I
can address complexity, which is used to be limitation on my side. It is
something that has to do with the way things are done now, which is a
challenge you know. To have humongous complexity in things is not
uncommon anymore and making little houses is not the same because
architects are responsible for big humongous complex structures.
So that what they do instead, in a simple kind of world, is to design

the plan in a specific way and then make copies which are floors and
then take the whole stack which is the building and make stacks of
buildings to make this kind of simplistic complexity of facts because it is
not really complex, it is a simple thing. The complexity is more important
for the plan itself but not in the way of how you actually replicate that
thing. Now our challenge is to look at the complexity in a true sense.
How does the complexity emerge out of relationships, programmatically
if you like, or formal relationships. You look into the complexity that
pretty much addresses the truth of complexity, almost like biological
complexity or natural complexity. The relation is about the complexity as
a logical challenge of the human brain because we know that we have to
put 2,000 people in a structure and how can we do that. We don’t know.
If you do it manually, we have to do something that is limited to our
human ability.
What is our human ability? Well we can make a complex plan but
after that it is difficult to address complexity further because it becomes
progressively a notion we can not address.
In your course "Algorithmic Architecture" you always talk about the fact that we
all learn from nature and we cannot escape from it. Now are you talking about the
complexity? Do you think computation is the only way, or the future way, to deal with
or balance the relation between human, artificial and nature? Now, we are doing so
many curvatures everywhere in architecture and the reason is that the applications
are so advanced. We have achieved some method to deal with the difficulty that was
restrictive before. You know every dot is on the curve and we have been able to deal
with that. That is one way. Another way is like the decoration of objects. You know
it is so easy to generate things and run them randomly. The fact seems like we are
going back to the classic age, which seems to be a regressive path. What is your
opinion?
First part of your question. Computation is not really a thing; it is

a process to make something. Now there is distinction between the
visual appearance and something. For example, you use the word
curve. And the curve, if you think about it, is something that has a visual
manifestation. It looks like curve, it looks like a pliable, soft thing. It is
more like a phenomenon that appears to our eyes. But behind that
curve is also a mathematical structure that has certain complexity that
is involved within the computer and it allows you to do the complex
and real time computation to customize it so it looks exactly perfect
to our eyes. The complexity of the curve is something that you need
computation for because you get that part, of course you can do it by
hand, but that is not going to be perfect. I am talking a little bit further
than that. I mean there is the level of visual appearances of things which
is a formal aesthetic level.
Then you have a kind of logical computational level where you

actually articulate facts that would actually represent itself in the
formal manifestation of the aesthetic result. But then you have actual
complexity that is a logical argument that are done quantitatively if you
like, and are articulated in a way that is beyond our single minded way
of understanding them. There are also always natural limitations by the
human brain that cannot nesisarily be solved by adding more people to
the problem because you are still left with the same level of computation.
You can even split it into pieces but some problems are so
complicated it would take us a lot of time even though we could do
them. So that complexity, which is a naturalized thing, certain times it is
natural because a nature thing happens like that. But, that happens in a
certain computational way if you look into cellular structures, biological
processes,or you look into natural or even social phenomenon - there
are levels of complexity that need to be simulated or replicated using
some sort of methodology. That methodology is the computation. So the
computation is actually a means to reach a goal - it is not the goal itself.
So my response to your question is that you use it as a compliment to
your own ability to do something that is beyond your ability.
And then back to the GSD question. When I was trying to sensitize
those students, first of all, there is more than just application driven
things. Somebody already did all the tools for you and you just pick it
up. You use Rhino, 3D MAX whatever… In reality, basically you are
replicating a set of methods that somebody already has done for you.
They already have assumed that you are going to make a line and there
are many tools that they could create that would be convenient for you.
And, that convenience repeats later on because you are driven to make
decisions that you would not have made working by paper or more
importantly had it done by at a computational level just like scripting or
programming. So again, I use the analogy that you are almost given the
ability to swim but you are in a pool, lets say a small little pool and then
by being able to write your own script you get more freedom. You are
now swimming in a lake and later on you can go to the ocean. And lets
say you have infinite freedom because you are not constrained by the
little pool that you have been in so you think you are free. Actually you
are not.
Certain aethetics can become associated to specific programs and

this is partly due to the fact that these programs work in slightly different
ways. Different work flows within these programs require a different
formulation of thinking and thus, different programs lead to unique
methods to produce forms within each pieces of software. And different
software actually has you make stylistical decisions. OK, this must have
been done by Rhino because I see certain things that are stylistically
Rhino characteristics almost like mannerism to that particular software
that actually manipulates the way of designing.
I am trying to get rid of that and that is where scripting is and in the
GSD class, I am trying to have them work from patterns. Again, it is a
pretty complicated thing because for all the students it is something that
they never expect. And it is good because the first time that they get
closer to the computer and it is not in a friendly customizable way, they
like to come to me. But it is more like, I need to know the principles, the
logical and the mathematical principles that are composing the world
around me. Through those kinds of computational relationships and
elements I can articulate them into things that could be much more
useful. Now I am swimming in the ocean so I have more ability to do
things and it is hard yet at the beginning but I think the result we have
seen is that we see a lot of students using the software in very, very
creative ways.
In your book Algritnoanl Architecutre you address this process as computerization

instead of computation? Do you think that is a kind of trend in the field of digital
design?
I would rather not go into criticism of the current status of work

with the computer that are used, but by doing this class I am indirectly
criticizing the other schools because as I said earlier, when you have
an application that does things for you easily and quickly you tend to be
drawn toward them. As you become more familiar with a program, you
work more and more in these same methods.
So faculty and students like it because it gets things done faster.

At the end they do it as a use of application but in the reality, they
are not really computing things. They are not really using their minds
logically speaking. They are not challenging their discrete mathematical
entities that they manipulate through logical apparition which is what
computation is. They are just moving ther mouse in the screen like a
predetermined process that they are being given to them by the principle
that sold them these programs. There are actually economic relations.
You give me something and get something in return but in reality you
are paying the price of the sweetness that you get through this kind of
process - I would prefer this computerization. In other words, I would
say, obvious and apparent manifestation of that is the fact that to do
computation you don’t really need a computer but to do computerizing,
of course you need a computer. That is the definition. If we use Rhino,
there might be a computational process in there but not that much - take
the challenge. In order to have a computational process, you don’t have
a computer necessarily.
Of course, the computer will help it, but it is not the computer itself. It
is the computer as a logical manipulating device which has nothing to do
with the computer in the way it was used yesterday. It is not a little box;
that is not the case. That is my distinction. And the problem is that a lot of
people don’t know it. Many people think the computer itself, somewhere
inside the computer, some magic happens. It is in your mind. You are
the one who makes it. So in a way, we should be doing it right away
and not be bought out by the software companies - although there is
nothing against them. You can still make parti design you can still make
diagrams of things with truly computational methods and then use the
computerization to do the rendering etc., which I think we are very good
at. Don’t tell me the pixel base image that I have is also computational
or algorithmic. It is in no sense. There is no computational process
giving the process creating it. And maybe in the final result of rendering
techniques or radiocity, whatever it is, has computational aspirations or
the pixels have scripting that is the process of computation. That is my
distinction.
Very unique and interesting! Obviously, you have a very unique and strong
background in the digital design field. How do you educate your students to apply
these advanced approaches to architectural design in practice? What is your further
expectation from GSD of that?
From my point of view I am more like the idealistic kind of approach.

Because these things are more idealistic in nature, like computational
logical and philosophical kinds of entities, they have idealism in them;
sometime realism is not that way.
GSD is attempting to be the first school in the world to offer classes

of this nature. One of the things would be if those approaches can
actually have applicable, application in the real world. I write the book
for philosophical explanation, or just applications, or argument, thesis,
or something else… that would be more academic. Because GSD has
both a strong theoretical and a strong practical level, but I have not yet
to see these actually be put together. It is better, in fact, many students
here like Zhou (Zhou,Xu), and you did a lot of work which is very much
applicable in practice, so that actually could push that kind of thing
further in near future.
Talk about the computational history and the computerization and

actually doing scripting and something else and then have it built. I
may not do it by myself but that doesn’t really matter because I am
teaching to those who can actually do it. I would be happier to see these
things actually be applied on a bigger scale or in a place like China.
Application of computational process of design can benefit projects there
because to China’s rapid growth and development of a complete urban
spaces rather than just individual buildings in more developed cities.
So you have to evaluate traditional design development as pushed by
computational inspirations and see if one is better than the other, then
we have the proof on the class.
Some of there notions that I am exploring can really only be

tested or verified down the road to see if and how they may integrate
themselves into the design process within practicing firms. I haven’t seen
any truly computation building – maybe the Beijing Olympic Swimming
Center. Few buildings are touching this computational process, using
mathematical systems and structures - I am not the one behind that.
Some projects however, may have some students that were taking my
class, that now work in Greg Lynn’s office or in Gehry’s office. And in
fact, I see something that is close to what I was talking about in these
practices. This takes some time though and eventually you become a
star architect and you identify that you were inspired by this guy - I would
be justified.
Yes, as you mentioned we are trying to deploy the scripting ,that we learned, into
our practice in various commercial design offices, like SOM and GP, and the results
are astonishing. Somehow, we all wish that if, outside GSD in the practical world,
there were more available ways that we could all contribute to and share with.
Establishing a practicing network may be a good idea?
Of course, I mean this country is based on the united, we win, the

unity. We are talking about the network by connecting people together;
you get more than individual aspiration. It is more like a group of people
or membership in which people are helping each other. Almost like
what we refer to as open source - you are producing certain things and
everybody starts adding things onto it and then you get the product
which is much better than the one that is done by an individual. So I
think that starts to work, again of course, the good thing about GSD,
which brings us back to your question before, is that these are very
good network people, as alumni, you probably feel the obligation to be
with one another. And once you have taken my class, maybe you say,
well, why don’t we just get things together because we have a common
interest and we are from the same school. So this kind of thing, and a
lot of GSD people all around the world, is now working in a network in a
way that second level of networks are much easier to happen because
in the past people don’t know each other and it is hard for people to
communicate. You can contact the guy that is a GSD student or faculty
and then you start getting connected and the whole thing starts working
on its own. In other words, it is like something that works alone that
would be the force. I would not try to be the one that posts my authority
on the network of people because that would not give people the
freedom to choose what they want to do. If they choose at the end, to do
what I was saying, that is the best way of verifying your ideology being
that people really like it but not because you are posting it on them.
It is always interesting to talk about some philosophy topics with you. You have been
fascinating with the philosophy of “Nothingness”, as you knew, Tao Philosopher in
China emphasize that “something comes out of nothing”. Is this something you are
interested in when you look at Chinese and Asian culture?
The ancient Asian culture, especially the Taoism, that period of

time, is very close to ancient Pythagoreanism grophesvev and there is
a strong connection between the two. The idea of nothingness is very
interesting, especially for us, the Greeks because Greeks are very
fearful, very afraid of nothing, but they encounter the nothing as negation
of existence while the Chinese see nothing as the inability to recognize

the existing. You actually understand the meaning of existence, from
Laozhi to Chang Zhu, all those kinds of Tao Philosophers, because
they are using that emptiness, nothingness as the way of enforcing
the existing - to celebrate life. I was surprised that ancient Greek
Philosophers, the Pythagorean and Chinese Tao, happened almost at
the same time. Even if the duality, the two things, Ying and Yang, if you
look at Heraclitus, he actually talked about two opposite things, that one
connects to the other and you need two things to understand that there
are almost the same philosophy of the two different eras. Yeah, there
must be some connection you know, maybe through mouth to mouth,
the Greeks always look to the east for things that were there, because
back in that time, there were no Europeans, so they looked to Egypt and
Persia, which are East of us. And of course the Chinese look towards the
West, through India, towards Persia. So maybe that is the link between
those two worlds. Pretty interesting because I found a lot of things are
common.
You need nothing to get something and you need something to

get nothing. We assume that certain things through time have been
established so we don’t question them any more. For example, nothing
is the something that nobody questions, something that has been
assumed, it is not that easy because if you know what nothing is, you
would know what something is. We spent a lot of time understanding
what something is, but we never talked about the factor that they are
at expansive nothing, and what that means is there are connections
between the two. We only pay attention to one side of the coin; there
may be a lot of possibilities if you look at the other side of the coin which
is the nothingness.
I am also using that to explore the computer programs that start

with nothing or negations, to see where the logical negations within
the algorithm take you. Well, you don’t expect something; you are
introducing the negative, not negative but negational structures inside
of linguistic structure. So you have something that is missing and the
missing becomes more important in the present.
If you take that as a possibility, then you have to accept that nothing
comes from nothing, everything comes from something else, so there is
continuity to things. There is not something out of the blue, out of nothing
- they have to be from somewhere else. The reality is that everything
transforms things from one state to another state, into another state,
endlessly. That is how it works. Every time, if you don’t have something,
it is because you don’t have it yet. If it did not, it means that it did not
exist at all, and it will come out of nothing. That would be contradictory
on the logic of being conservation. I think it is an interesting argument.
Last but not the least, can you tell us about your observation about the Chinese
Students in GSD and if there is something that can be related to your understanding
of the country and the culture?
I had not been to China before, but last year I spent almost three
weeks, well, five weeks total in Shanghai, Beijing and HongKong, When
I went there, I had a bicycle, so I could go anywhere I wanted beyond
the tourism. A bicycle is good because it is the speed in between, you
are not a pedestrian, and you are not a car. You kind of make your own
pace.
When I was in Shanghai I went to areas that are completely

Chinese, nothing to do with any tourism, like out of the city, north of
the river, the port, and all industrial areas. In Beijing, I went all the way
South, like 20-30 miles south of Tiananmen Square, in the area like
completely suburbia - it is very interesting to see it. Most of my interests
are in the idea of nothing.
Now I am reading and learning all those Chinese characters and I

can distinguish 500 characters which is very interesting because a lot
of those are very existential the way they are placed on the paper, the
way they are pronounced - it is very unique. Even the whole idea of
ideograms, pictograph, as opposed to culture, which is more based on
phonetics.
From my limited knowledge about the language, it is the language

itself that is an important character. You have so many characters to
remember that based on shape, and how you put them together, it
is also something that has a strong visual and logical articulation of
thinking. You can see your Chinese students can see something a slice
difference between things. Again from my travel, part of the cultural also
involves the ambiguity about things. When I was there I was told that
because the way the language is, how it is constructed, there is not a
lack of verbs. Sometimes, it more like you combine together the nouns,
the combination of the nouns makes the meaning emerge, in the other
words. It does not explicitly tell you the thinking but you actually implicate
it through the relationship between the nouns that makes the language
ambiguous.
There is ambiguity that does come to student work. I see a lot

of Chinese students that have ambivalent, equivocal nouns; you
can interpret it as A or B, and both ways work. That is good because
sometimes there are hidden meanings behind something. You see
something, you understand it, yes I did, and later you say there is
something more which I did not see the first time because there is
something else. It is almost like the language, you see the symbols and
later you find the combination you never thought and you never knew
that existed. It is because the ambiguity built inside of the language
itself.
And the Chinese written language is the same, all used by Japanese
and Koreans. Kanji is all Chinese characters. There is a reason why it
is so popular, because the language is more harmonizing with the way
people think in that part of the world. That has a very strong influence in
the way you people design because it is the same thing. The language
you use, the way you think, the way you act, and the way you make
things together, and the way you design.
I remember there is an urban design student, who did a project -

very simple, extremely simple things but very powerful because there
is always ambiguity in those things which makes those forms like high-
rises so simple. When you see it twice or the next day, there are so
many things in it that you could not see the first time. And I don’t think
that is an accident. I think he knew what he was doing or he was using
the cultural tools. It happens over and over, Zhou Xu, Xiao Jun and
some of your work, there is some kind of hidden things in it but is has
been encapsulated somehow. So I think that is something very powerful.
Again the Chinese as a culture comes through the students in the studio.
76
美国纽约哥伦比亚大学
建筑、规划与保护研究生院
http://www.arch.columbia.edu
马克•威格利
肯尼斯•弗兰普顿
理查德•普朗茨
77
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Perservation
http://www.arch.columbia.edu
Mark Wigley
Kenneth Frampton
Richard Plunz
78 Columbia University, USA
马克•威格利
哥伦比亚大学建筑学院院长
马克•威格利是当今最重要的建筑理论和评论家之一。威格利在新西兰的
奥克兰大学取得他的建筑学学士学位和博士学位，并于1986年离开奥克兰任
职于普林斯顿大学。他在1987年至1999年间，任职普林斯顿大学建筑学院的
研究生部主任，并于2004年7月接替在哥伦比亚效力15年并且继续留任教职的
伯纳德•屈米，正式成为哥伦比亚大学建筑、规划和保护学院的院长。威格利
曾经作为客座馆长在纽约现代艺术博物馆、制图中心、蒙特利尔加拿大建筑中
心以及鹿特丹Witte de With博物馆筹备了许多大型展览。他曾经被授予一系列
荣誉，包括1989年芝加哥建筑与城市学院的居民奖；1990年建筑评论国际委
员会授予的建筑评论三年奖；1997年的格拉汉姆基金奖。威格利在2005年同
莱姆•库哈斯和欧•鲍曼一起创立了杂志《Volume》。每年秋季学期威格利会
开授面前全哥伦比亚建筑学院学生的研讨课“建筑理论的历史”。
美国哥伦比亚大学 79
采访者：贾枚袁路平
时间：2007年5月11日
地点：美国纽约哥伦比亚大学建筑学院院长办公室
哥伦比亚建筑学院去年刚刚度过她的125 周年纪念，您能否为我们简要介绍一
下她的历史，以及在这个发展过程中的里程碑和重要人物？
好，她是美国最古老的建筑学院之一，大概是有着第四悠久历史的学
院。当然学院是围绕着设计于 1911 年的全美最有名的建筑图书馆－－艾
佛里(Avery)图书馆建造的。所以我们有理由认为它是一座非常保守的、
传统的新古典主义建筑和档案。但是相对的，他又是一座最具实验性的学
院。也许最容易的理解哥伦比亚的方法是这样看：每个学校之所以不同在
于他们关注不同的时间点：一些学校对建筑当今的状态感兴趣，当今的行
业，当今的想法；有些学校对建筑五年前的状态更感兴趣，这将会有些无
聊；还有一些学校会对十年前的事情更感兴趣。而我们学校关注于未来的
十年，这就意味着我们学校是被问题所主导的，而不是答案。正因为我们
不确定答案是什么，所以每个学生必须承担起构想未来的责任，每个学生
必须成为一名老师。同时，老师也必须像个学生一样，重拾年轻的心态去
设想未来是什么样子。对于那些只考虑当前的学校，一切变得很简单，他
们只需要复制当前就可以了。他们当然有信心做到。如果你对五年前的职
业状况感兴趣，就会更无聊，但也会更确定。如果是十年之前，就会更加
地无聊，也会更加确定。所以事实是，像哥伦比亚一样的实验性学校是被
问题所主导的，而那些只着眼过去的学校是被答案所主导的。这就是最关
键的区别所在。所以作为一名学生，你很容易决定你要选择哪所学校：如
果你对问题感兴趣，你会选择去哥伦比亚，这意味着你选择了冒险，变得
更具实验性；如果你需要完全确定你自己在做什么，那么你应该去那些活
在“过去”的学校。学生们非常清楚地知道哪家学校更适合自己。
那您认为哥伦比亚最主要的性格和精神是什么？
哥伦比亚最主要的精神是实验性。我们不知道未来是什么样子，但我
们知道建筑师会有新的责任，所以哥伦比亚最关心的不是制造某种特殊
的建筑形或是某种新型的房子，我们想制造的是新的建筑师，我们在创造
全新的一类建筑师。正因为这是实验性的，所以我们会尝试许多不同的种
类，我们会尝试许多不同的试验。整个学院就像一个研究实验室一样在运
作，并试图为建筑师开启全新的未来。现在如果我们的试验取得成功，便
将成为其他学校的样本，这样最终即使那些无趣的学校也会使用同样的模
式和职业标准。所以说我们学校扮演了一种和职业实践之间前卫的联系。
非常有趣的是，学校教育的方向和职业实践的方向在过去是非常不同的。
我们作为“实验室”实际上是曾经承担很大风险的，我们更加的理想化，而
职业实践更加的实际并且和公司紧密相关。有趣的是现在一些职业设计公
司也是具有纯粹实验性的。这就在哥伦比亚这些最具实验性的设计课、课
程和最先进的职业事务所之前建立起了伟大的联系。现在的情况是，学生
们需要更职业化、更具实验性，他们可以同时实现这两方面。这就创造了
一股巨大的全新的力量。因此哥伦比亚的门槛正在变得更加高，因为学生
们全都想来这里。而在过去，只有那些真正疯狂的实验性的学生们来这
里。现在，即使你只想成为一名中坚的职业人员，你也会清楚你在哥伦
比亚所做的事情是直接通向那里的。所以很奇怪的是，即使我们放眼于十
年之后，我们在策略上某种程度地更接近于行业需求。我认为目前的情况
是，哥伦比亚正在变得更加的贴近行业需要，因为整个行业正在变得更具
实验性。而其他的学校实际上正在变得距离行业需要越来越远，尽管从前
人们认为你越乏味你就越职业。所以现在其他学校正在意识到自己处于这
种奇怪的处境，而我们正在享受一个美妙的时刻。
像您所说的，哥伦比亚如此的与众不同，而且我们知道在各个学校之间会有一
场关于教师资源的看不见的竞争，那么哥伦比亚是以什么样的标准来替换和争
取教师，确保每个学期能有最优秀的教师团队？
嗯，我们并没有为教师团队而竞争，一切都是为了学生。我们这里完
全不同。你可以作为世界著名的建筑师在哥伦比亚执教，但是如果你不经
常出现在这里，学生们便会更愿意为那些或多或少不知名的但却有很强想
法的人工作。在美国的其他学校，更多的情况是你越有名，你越不需要花
时间教书。但在我们这里，像伯纳德•屈米、肯尼斯•弗兰普敦、斯蒂芬•霍
尔一样的老师，没有比他们更有名的了，但是他们总是在这里，他们真真
正正地在教书。这就是最大的不同。这就意味着著名的建筑师在哥伦比亚
教书，他们会感到很紧张，因为他们要同其他人一起展示他们的作品。并
不是因为他们要同其他名声显赫的人一起展示作品，实际上更危险的是，
他们要将他们的作品展现给这些最年轻的、最尖锐地、最新鲜的头脑们。
当然，他们并不傻，他们会展示出最令人称奇的想法。所以去看看斯蒂
芬•霍尔和伯纳德•屈米，他们正在真正的竞争。当然年轻人比年长者更希
望事情变得有趣，所以设想当16 个非常有趣并且截然不同的实验摆在面
前，让学生去选择，会是怎样的局面？我们是唯一的学校，在这里越是有
名气的人，越会感觉到紧张。在其他的学校里，你越是有名气，你越会感
觉到舒服，你就越不需要出现在那里。因为你已经成为了招牌，你只需要
祝福你的学生们，仅此而已。
所以看上去你在试图制造一个战场。
是的，这是一个战场。让我们看看最后这个学期， 16 个不同的设计
课，他们都是那么出色，而且截然不同。是的，这是一种竞争。可是一旦
学生们选择了老师，所有的老师们便会互相帮助，所有的学生们也会互相
帮助。哥伦比亚最大的秘密就在于真正的老师正是学生们。学生们来到这
里是因为他们对未来感兴趣，他们对未知的东西感兴趣，他们对冒险充满
兴趣。老师们来这里同样也是因为他们对未来感兴趣，对未知感兴趣。所
以实际上学生们制造了整个全新的问题，这意味着老师也必须创造一个全
新的问题，他们促使彼此进入一个全新的领域。他们在学术上合作重新定
义了建筑师，这是绝对独一无二的。没有任何其他的学校做到这点。但是
在我们这里，这种情况无所不在，不只是在建筑专业的课堂上，它同样发
生在城市设计、建筑保护和房地产等专业。所以我们形成一个非常庞大的
研究智囊团。
那您准备怎样实现他？有什么策略吗？
嗯，一方面，如果老师不受欢迎，这就说明学生们并没有感觉到通
向未来世界的道路，那么这个老师将不会继续留在这里。所以问题在于
怎么样找到那些能够成为学生的老师。之所以伯纳德•屈米、肯尼思•弗兰
普敦、斯蒂芬•霍尔如此的伟大，是因为他们始终保持着年轻的状态，他
们始终为重新定义这个领域而奋斗。在我们学院有许许多多这样强大有
创造力的头脑。所以当我对一个老师说：“愿意来哥伦比亚教书吗？”他们
会说：“是的。”所以，我实际上并没有争夺。就像为一场宴会准备餐点一
样，你必须邀请不同性格的宴会宾客，否则的话宴会就会变得很无聊。合
适的混合会制造出奇妙的晚宴，食物也是一样，你要有多样性，并且让这
些多样性层级渐变，从而创造一个均衡的实验系统。但同时你必须确定每
一个学生和老师都被全力支持着迎向未来。因为这是一场冒险，当你不知
道未来是什么，你就不能够很有把握；因为你不是很有把握，你就需要周
围的同学们的支持，所以同学们便相互支持。老师们不知道会发生什么，
学生们也不知道会发生什么，但是明天（2007年5月12日）我们将会迎来
年终展览。你将会看到看上去每个人都准确地知道他们在做些什么，但其
实并不是这样。他们发现了这件作品，它是某种奇迹。
作为一个建筑评论家和理论家，同时作为这所学院的院长，你如何看待数字技
术在建筑上的应用？你一直在谈论未来，那么你相信建筑的未来是建立在电脑
运算技术上的吗？
我们的整个世界都是数字化的，房子也是数字化的，所以当然建筑的
未来也是数字化的。我们知道当然建筑很明显是数字化的，因为非常有趣
的是用于分析、设计、建模、渲染、制作、建造的软件正在变得或多或少
的雷同。所以第一次我们回归到了一种中古世纪的雄心，如果你能够用电
脑构思出来，你就能够建造出来。这是建筑环境真正的改变。但这仍不意
味着我们制造的建筑会在某种程度上数字化或是有什么不同，这是一个很
大的问题。
所以，我们两方面看，一方面，我们的世界是数字化的，所以理所当
然建筑也是数字化的，但是这个变化是一个深刻的改变还是微小的变化？
还并不明确。让我们从另一个方面来看，建筑师首要的角色之一，也许是
主要的角色就是在混沌和混乱的状态下，为事物提供顺序。对于遮蔽物最
简单的概念并不是任何针对敌人的实质掩体，它也是心理上的保护，是清
楚的秩序。所以建筑师的形象就是一个处于混乱中，却为事物组织出条
理的人。现在如果你去看看那些数字化建筑师在过去十年的作品，可以说
他们将目光投向了混沌和无法抵挡的数字化世界。他们甚至无法想象互联
网；他们甚至不能想象建筑工程的涵义已经不再是一叠图纸，而是基于数
据库的。但是我们最好的建筑师曾经试图在数字化阶段中想象一个清晰的
形式，所以我们可以说建筑师也曾经抵制数字化。换句话讲，那些我们用
电脑来定义最确切的建筑师也许影响了那些帮助我们抵制运算技术危险、
困惑和覆灭一面的建筑师。所以我认为很有可能由于我们学校是在如何设
计和思考建筑的数字化未来方面的先驱，使得我们现在太习惯于数字化设
计。这样我们也许会太安逸而最终不能承受冒险。
所以，我认为学院的下一步是重新让数字化变得危险起来。我们成功
地证明了你可以成为一名建筑师，这对建筑师来说是至关重要的。所以
这类建筑师能从数字化中生存下来，但我们关心的并不是是否能够生存下
来，而是这下一类建筑师的形态。所以我认为那将会有下一代即将到来的
建筑师：他们并不畏惧电脑，甚至十分大胆地使用电脑。他们是在iPod、
My Space、YouTube中生长的一代，电脑对他们来说甚至是不值一提的
事情。所以电脑已经不是一个物体或是思考机器，而更多地成为一种媒
介，一种我们交流的方式。我认为将会有下一代建筑师，他们是生存于数
字空间中的。他们也许会在那里发现危险，从而将建筑暴露于新的危机。
当下我们可以告诉大家的是，在电脑的帮助下我们减少了建筑的风险：我
们可以制造出一个奇异的形状但是并不会花更多的钱；我们可以制造出一
个奇异的形状而且我们知道他不会倒掉；我们可以制造出一个奇异的形状
而且我们知道它能防火；我们可以制造出一个奇异的形状并且我们能从他
的一头移动到另一头。换句话说，我们曾经使用电脑首要的用途是降低建
筑师的风险。仔细想想，这是很奇怪的事情。因为在我们看来，数字化建
筑师是前卫的、实验性的，哥伦比亚那些先驱们的数字化作品是实验性
的。所以我非常感兴趣的是另一代人，说：好！现在计算机让我们感到安
全，那么让我们来冒险！这种冒险将不是奇怪的形状，因为到目前为止，
数字化建筑师的主要论调还是我可以制造出一个新的形状。那么现在这些
也许已经是守旧的东西了。什么将是冒险？怎样寻求这种冒险？我认为这
是绝对至关重要的！当你爱上建筑的时候，你是爱上了神秘而非确定。如
果你想爱上确定，你就会成为一名律师。你之所以爱上那些房子，你是爱
上了那些房子的神秘感。所以未来数字化时代的教育问题是：什么将是这
种神秘感？什么是冒险？什么是混乱？什么是数字空间的危险所在？我认
为这些将会发生在那个领域，而且这些到目前为止更像是与我们的假设所
相对的。但我认为这将是我们的未来。
那你认为这种选择是出于市场的考虑呢还是学术的？
啊，很好的问题。我希望是从两个方面出发。市场与学术之间的互动
是诡异的。理论上学术是与市场分离的，理论上市场也不关心学术。
我记得你曾经说过：“哥伦比亚的教育不是为了让学生找到一份工作，而是让
他们找不到（工作）。”这听起来很有趣 … …
但是，你将得到一种全新的工作。事实上，这所学校的毕业生全部都
会立即被聘用。我的意思是说，这里的每个人都想成为职业的，每个人
都是职业的。但是想要成为全新的一种职业人员，你必须在学校的时候敢
于去冒险，丢弃那些关于职业的定义。所以，哥伦比亚的学生总是被聘用
的原因是建筑师们知道他们才是未来。所以事务所雇佣一些并不完全适合
行业模式的人。这里的许多学生是非常非常职业的，许多人都是在诸如欧
洲、中东经过培训的，他们经过了最高级别的职业训练。但是他们来到这
里，是因为他们需要变得更疯狂一点。所以他们并不是不职业，他们是想
要挑战并且提出关于职业的全新定义。当你在学校的时候，你必须设想我
怎样才能避免得到一份工作？当你避免得到一份工作，当你接受了冒险，
你就用全新的方式拥抱了建筑，你实际上也就变成令人非常兴奋地想雇佣
的对象。所以当你面对一名建筑师，你会说我并不是非常适合你们的模
式，但是我有另一个全新的模式。通常情况下，他会说：好的，我需要
你。他们同时也会雇用一些乏味的人。一个聪明的建筑师，会雇用哥伦比
亚的学生，因为他们需要巨大的刺激，他们需要公司里有人会创造未来。
他们会雇用一些其他学校的人，因为他们需要一些无聊但是从不问问题，
听吩咐照做的人。他们也会雇用一些无聊但是从来不会对工作图纸感到痛
苦的人。他们会制造一个范围。所以理想的公司是有2个哥伦比亚学生，
1个哈佛学生，1个耶鲁学生，1个普林斯顿学生，1个密歇根学生，组成
一个团队。但是如果拿掉这两个哥伦比亚学生，虽然你仍可以继续建造房
子，公司的创造性功能将会死亡。如果拿掉那个哈佛的学生，公司也许也
会死亡，因为你需要有人尽管不具实验性但是很值得信赖。你当然不希望
拿掉那个普林斯顿的学生，因为普林斯顿的学生会创造出新理论，而且很
能说，真得很擅长言辞。所以你需要将他们混合在一起。还是像一个宴会
一样，你需要混合。但是如果整个一所学校、每一个学生、每一个老师、
每一堂课都致力于根本的实验性，我们学校是独一无二的。没有任何其他
学校像我们一样，这也是为什么我们非常高兴地看到学生来到这里并且和
我们一起承担这个冒险。
如今，越来越多的中国学生来到哥伦比亚，去年清华大学建筑学院的院长朱文
一教授也访问了哥伦比亚，这是否意味着哥伦比亚和中国建筑学院之间的交流
会更多呢？
是的，完全正确。我们有许多从中国来的优秀学生，而我们也持续关
注中国。也许你知道，我们现在每年都会送学生去中国，今年夏天我们刚
刚有另一组学生去了中国，我们还设立了一个新的奖学金让学生去中国。
我们同中国的大学讨论关于建筑保护、城市设计以及建筑的议题，我们也
同在这里教书的马清运建立了伙伴关系，夏天我们会和他一起在中国工
作。我更愿意这样说，我认为也许你去问每一所好学校，都会同中国保持
着伙伴关系。这很好，因为中国是一个非常重要的，很有趣的，正在发生
伟大变化的国家。我想美国也仍然非常重要和有趣，所以它们之间理所当
然存在伙伴关系。但在我看来所有这些关系最终都变得无趣。最后，美国
人并没有从中国学到足够的东西，中国也同样没有学到足够的东西。我们
目前为止还没有找到一条根本上联系的方法。
我认为最好的方法是学生。当一个从中国来的学生花时间在美国学
习，当美国的学生花一段时间在中国的大学学习，这才是真正发生变化的
时候，这简直太棒了。如果只是两国的老师聚在一起，好，很好，但这并
不是未来的方向，这是目前的状况。我们正试图寻找让学生们花段时间去
中国投入工地，参与一个真正的工程。同样的，当你在中东工作，我们不
仅是想看看中东或是成为中东，我们是想在那里真正盖房子。所以现在我
们的设计课正在迪拜进行的实验是，我们要在那里盖我们设计的房子。对
于我来说，问题是我们与中国最根本的合作方式是什么？也许我应该听听
学生们告诉我应该做些什么。当然你们知道你们来自一所伟大的学校（清
华大学），非常优秀。这对我们来说非常好，因为你们来到这里，我们拥
有了你们的智慧。博士研究生也是同样，像朱涛，他从中国来也将回到中
国去，这是非常有意思的。
回到你关于学院和职业的问题，朱涛是一个非常有趣的例子，他是一
个学者，没有比博士研究生更高的学者了；但他同时又是一个实践建筑
师。他在这里做关于18世纪欧洲历史与理论的研究，他是关于 18世纪欧
洲的学者，他也同时在中国盖房子。这是全新的一类建筑师，他代表了全
新的一类，我非常感兴趣于这全新的一类建筑师。对我来讲，这全新的一
类建筑师有一点纽约，一点北京，一点上海，也有一点迪拜，我认为这全
新的全球化的一类建筑师是非常非常有趣的。
好的，这将是我们的最后一个问题。如果市场乃至整个世界都突然的发生变
化，哥伦比亚的策略变得非常的失败，所有的学生都面临失业，如果这些发生
了，我们是否有一些后备方案或是灵活的策略应对？因为您是院长，这个问题
我们没有别人可问。
过去的125年我们都没有失败，所以我也不认为我们将会失败。但你
定义失败的一种理解是所有的学生都面临失业。是的，当然，对于一所
职业学校来说这是一个重大失败，因为我们致力于职业需求和改变职业现
状。但这种情况几乎不会发生，因为为我们的老师，几乎所有的老师都是
纽约的执业者，所以在学校和行业间永远不会存在巨大的空隙。是会有一
些间隙，有间隙是好的，因为这个间隙是作为年轻人期冀更好的未来和作
为上了些年纪的人必须接受现状的区别。建筑师们需要抱着改变世界的希
望开始他们的职业生涯。如果你办一所学校仅仅是提供行业所需求的，就
好像建筑师仅仅给业主提供他们需要的东西一样，这是一个失败的建筑
师。我们敬仰的建筑师是不仅提供业主需要的，而是提供更多，并且创造
全新的客户。所以相较于向行业提供它们所需要的看上去很适合全世界
任何一家公司的学生，我们的学生不仅能够在公司出色的工作，而且还会
提供附加值。这是非常重要的。所以对于哥伦比亚的情况，我们提供直接
通向行业的道路，更重要的是额外的附加值。所以失败对我们来说并不是
学生找不到工作，他们通常都会有工作的，他们都是非常职业的。对我们
来说真正的失败将是我们无法传递这种附加值。我们只是成为为职业服务
的产业，如果我们仅仅是提供咖啡的服务产业，我们将会拖累整个行业，
因为我们欠建筑行业的并不是现在，而是未来。
这就又回到了你最初的问题，我们学校是致力于为建筑行业提供未来
的，如果我们仅仅提供“现在”，我们将面临死亡。建筑行业向任何其他种
类一样，只有通过变化才能生存下来。问题是作为未来建筑行业最多产的
建筑师来说，这些变化在哪里？所以我们应行业的需求提供未来，不论是
对学生来说，还是对老师来讲，这都是一个棒极了的机会。作为一所指引
未来的学校，他并不固守，他只创造新的问题，这简直太美妙了。如果你
为这些而感到紧张，你就必须去其他学校。在那里你要求“现在”，得到“现
在”。其实大部分学校都是给你“过去”的：他们给你老师那一代人占统治地
位的想法，如果老师那一代人是 40岁，你得到的就是10年前的想法；如
果占统治地位的老师50岁，你就得到20年前的想法。所以说大部分学校
都是生活在“过去”的。我们也有“过去”，我们有艾佛里（Avery）图书馆，
这是真正的“过去”，我们热爱“过去”；我们热爱“过去”因为我们是引领未来
的学生。
Mark Wigley
Dean, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP),
Columbia University in the City of New York.
Mark Wigley is one of the foremost architectural theorists and critics of

his generation. He received both his Bachelor of Architecture (1979) and
Ph.D. (1987) from the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He left Auckland
in 1986 and taught at Princeton University, from 1987 to 1999, serving also
as the director of Graduate Studies at Princeton’s School of Architecture.
Wigley has been named the dean of Columbia's Graduate School of
Architecture, Planning and Preservation since July 2004, succeeds Bernard
Tschumi, who served as dean for 15 years and who remains on Columbia's
faculty. Wigley has served as guest curator for widely attended exhibitions
at the Museum of Modern Art, New York; The Drawing Center, New York;
Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal; and Witte de With Museum,
Rotterdam. He was awarded the Resident Fellowship, Chicago Institute for
Architecture and Urbanism, 1989; International Committee of Architectural
Critics (C.I.C.A.) Triennial Award for Architectural Criticism, 1990; and
the Graham Foundation Grant, 1997. He also founded Volume Magazine
together with Rem Koolhaas and Ole Bouman in 2005. In each fall semester
Wigley teaches seminar “The History of Architectural Theory” in GSAPP.
Interview by: Mei Jia and Luping Yuan

Time: MAY 11th, 2007
Location: Dean’s office, GSAPP, Columbia University, New York, USA
GSAPP has just passed its 125 anniversary at the end of last year, can you give us a
brief introduction of its past?
Well, so it is one of the oldest architecture schools in the United

States. Maybe it is the forth oldest. And of course the school is
built around the Avery Library, the most famous architecture library
designed in 1911, so you would think it should be very conservative,
very traditional new classic school building and archive. But in the
opposite, it is the most experimental school. Maybe the easiest way
to understand Columbia is each school is different because it thinks of
different moment of time. Some schools are very interested in the state
of architecture today, state of profession, state of ideas. Some schools
are more interested in the state five years ago, so it will be a little bit
more boring. And some are more interested in ten years ago. We are
interested in ten years in the future, which means that this school is
dominated by questions, not by answers. Every student has to become a
teacher, because every student has to take the responsibility for thinking
about future, because we are not sure of the answer. And also we
teacher must be like a student, they must be young again imaging what
could be in the future. In the school that looks like it thinks only about
the present. It’s easy. They just reproduce the present. They have the
confidence. If you are interested in the state of profession five years ago,
you could be more boring, more sure. Ten year ago, even more boring,
even more sure. So what happens is, the very experimental school,
like Columbia, is dominated by questions, and the schools named in
the past are dominated by answers. This is the key difference. So if
you are a student, it’s easy to decide which school is right. If you are
interested in the questions, you go to Columbia, which means you take
a risk, becoming experimental. If you need to be absolutely sure what
you are doing, and then you should go to another school in the past. The
students know very precisely which school (to go).
What do you think is the main character and main spirit of Columbia?
Main spirit is experimental. Since we don't know what the future is,
and we know that the architect will have new responsibilities, the main
concern of Columbia is not to generate a particular style of architecture,
a certain kind of building, or even a new kind of building; what we want
to make is a new kind of architect. So we are inventing a new species of
architect. Because of the experimental, we taste many different species.
So we try many different experiments. The whole school works as a
research laboratory, which tries to open up new futures for the architect.
Now when our experiments are successful therein becomes the model
for other schools, then eventually even the boring schools are using the
same model and profession. So this school plays a kind of avant-garde
relationship to professional practice. What very very interesting is in the
pasts, the direction of the school and the direction of profession are very
different. We were the laboratory; we were really taking a great risk. And
we were more utopian and the profession is more realistic concerning in
the office. What interesting right now is some of the professional design
offices are radically experimental. It is a great connection between the
most experimental studios and classes here in Columbia and the most
advanced professional offices. So what’s happening now is because
students want to be professional and experimental, they can be both at
the same time. This has created a huge new energy. So for example,
Columbia is becoming very difficult to get in to now, because so many
students want to come here. In the past, it was the only the really crazy
experimental students. Now even if you are interested in being a kind
of hardcore professional, the things going on in Columbia are directly
connected to that. So it is strange, even though we are aiming for ten
years from now, we are somehow strangely closer to the profession. I
think what’s happening is that Columbia is getting closer and closer to
the profession, because the profession is becoming more experimental.
And the other school is actually going further and furthers away from
the profession, even though the old idea that if you are boring you are
professional. So the other schools are finding themselves in the strange
situation. And it’s a beautiful moment right now here.
Since Columbia is so distinguish, and we know that there is an invisible competition

between different architecture schools before each semester how to get the best
faculty. So what’s the standard of Columbia to shift the faculty and guarantee to get
them?
Well, we don't have to compete for faculty, all for students. It’
s different here. The difference is here the students will not accept
a teacher who is not a president. So you could be the world famous
architect become to teach in Columbia, but if you are not going to be
here very much, the students would be much rather work for the more or
less unknown person who has a strong idea. Where in the other schools
in United States, more and more, then the more famous you are, the
less you teach. Here you have teachers like Bernard Tschumi, Kenneth
Frampton and Steven Holl, who could not be more famous, but they are
always here, they really teach. So that’s different. That means when
famous architect teaches in Columbia, they are nervous. Because they
present their work along side, not because they present their work along
side to other famous people, even more danger, they present their work
along side to the youngest, sharpest, freshest minds. Of course they are
not stupid. So they make amazing ideas for the presentation. So listen
to Steven Holl and Bernard Tschumi, they really compete. And of course
the young people want to be more interesting than the old. So what
happened if you end up with 16 completely interesting and completely
different experiments, and the students choose. But it’s the only school,
the more famous you are, the more nervous you are. In every other
school, the more famous you are, the more comfortable you are, and the
less you need to be there. Because you are becoming a brand, and you
just have to bless the students, and so on.
So it’s like you are trying to create a battle field.
Yes, it is a battle field. Let’s see the final semester, there are
16 different studios, they are all good, all different. Yes, it’s a kind of
competition. But once the students choose their teacher, then all the
teachers are helping each other, then all the students are helping
each other. The great secrete of Columbia is the real teachers are the
students. The students are here because they are interested in the
future. They are interested in the unknown, the risk. The teachers are
here because they are interested in the future, the unknown. So what
happens is the student creates the whole new question, which means
the teacher has to create the whole new question, and they force each
other into a new territory. Literarily they collaborate on redefining the
architect. This is absolutely unique. There is no other school that does.
And here it happens everywhere. Not only every class in architecture,
but also happens in urban design, preservation, real estate, and so on.
So you have one very big research think tank.
So how can you achieve it? Any strategy?
Well, on the one hand, if the teacher is not popular, that is to say the
students don't feel that they are moving to the world of future, then the
teacher is gone. So the question is how to find those teachers who can
be students. What makes Bernard Tschumi, or Kenneth Frampton, or
Steven Holl to fantastically strong, is they remain always young; they are
always fighting for redefining the field. There are so many strong creative
minds in the school like this. So if I say to a teacher, “Would you like to
come to Columbia?” They’ll say, “Yes”. So I don't fight. Or a question
of just deciding like making a good meal for a dinner party, you have
to invite people have different personalities, otherwise it’s boring. Then
just the right combination makes for fantastic eat. Same with the food,
you have some variety; and just the variety in gradients, so to create
an ecology for experimentation. But also you have to make sure each
every student and each every teacher feels completely supported into
the future, because it really is a risk. If you don't know what the future
is, you cannot be sure. Since you cannot be sure, you need around you
colleagues’ support. So the students support each other. The teachers
don't know what’s happening; the students don't know what’s happening.
But then tomorrow we will have the end-of-year show. And you will see it
looks like everybody knows exactly what they are doing. But it’s not true.
They have discovered this work, something of a miracle.
As an architecture critic and a theorist, and as the dean of this school at the same
time, what’s your position about the digital application in architecture, because
you are talking about the future, do you believe that the future of architecture is
embedded in the computation technology?
Our entire world is digital, everything you know, the house is digital,
so of course the future of architecture is digital. We know of course it’
s obviously digital because what so interesting now is the software for
analyzing, for designing, for modeling, for rendering, for fabrication and
construction, and becoming more or less the same. So for the first time
we have a return to a kind of medieval ambition, that if you can think it
with a computer, you can build it. This is truly a change in the condition
of architecture. This still doesn't mean the architecture we produce will
be a certain stance digital or different. This is a big question.
So we have two sides, on one hand, our world is digital so of course

the architecture is digital, but is that change a deep change or small
change? This is not so clear. Let’s answer in another way. One of the
primary roles of the architect, perhaps the main role of the architect, is to
provide the things of order in the phase of chaos and confusion. The very
simple idea of a shelter is not any physical shelter from the enemy, it is
also a psychological shelter, and it’s also clarity in order. So the figure of
architect is the person who stands in the phase of chaos and produces
the things of order. Now if I look at the work of the digital architects of
the last ten years, it could say what they are looking into the digital world
which could be overwhelming and chaotic. They can’t even imagine

the internet; they can’t even imagine what means that the architecture
project is not a set of drawings but a database. But our best architects
have tried to imagine a clear form in the phase of digital. So what you
could say is architects have been resisting the digital. In another words,
those architects that we most closely identify with the computer might
affect the architects who are helping us resist the dangerous, confusing,
overwhelming aspects of computation. So I think it’s possible that we
are now so sophisticated in digital design, and of course this school
was the leader in this in how to design and to think the digital future of
architecture. We are now probably so comfortable that finally we cannot
take the risk.
So I think the next phase in the school like this is to make the
digital dangerous again. We have successfully shown that you could
be an architect. We have shown this crucial role for the architects. So
the species of the architects would survive the digital. But we are not
interested in the survival; we are interested in the next form of species,
so I think there would be another generation of architects that they
are coming now who are not afraid of the computer, who are even bold
with the computer they just use it. This is the generation of the iPod, My
Space, YouTube… this generation, for whom the computer is not even
a word that makes any sense. So the computer is not even an object or
thinking machine now, it is a kind of medium, it’s just the way which we
communicate. I think there will be another generation who would locate
within the digital space. They will perhaps find danger there and expose
architecture to new risks. In the moment, well we are able to say to our
community is, with the computer we can reduce the risk of architecture;
we can make a strange shape that will not cost more money, we can
make a strange shape and know that it will not fall down, we can make
strange shape and know that it will resist fire, we can make a strange
shape and know that we can move from one side to another. In another
words, the primary way which we have been using the computer have
been to lower the risk of the architect. In which it is strange if you think
about it. Because we think of the digital architect has been avant-garde,
has been experimental. We think of the digital work done by Columbia
avant-garde is experimental. So I am really interested in another
generation that now says OK, now that we can be safe with computer,
let’s be risky. The risk will not be a strange shape. Up till now, the
primary argument of the digital architect was I can make a shape that’
s new. Well, that’s now may be a conservative thing. What will be the
risk? In which way will the risky there? I think this is terribly important.
When you fall in love with architecture, you fall in love with mystery, not
a certainty. If you want to fall in love with a certainly, you will become
a lawyer. You fall in love with buildings, when you enjoy the mystery of
buildings. So the future question for education in digital age is what will
be the mystery, what will be risk, what will be the confusion, what will be
the danger of digital space. And I think in that territory that I guess will
happen. And this is more like the opposite of the assumption till now. But
I think this is where we will go.
Do you think this choice is a market driven or scholar?
Ah, good question. It would come from both. The interaction

between the market and scholar is tricky. In theory the scholar is
detached from the market, in theory the market doesn’t care about the
scholar.
I remember you have said that “The education of Columbia is not for a student to
get a job, but for not getting one.” That’s really interesting.
And you are getting a new kind of job. The truth is the graduates
of this school are all hired immediately. I mean everybody here want
to be professional, everybody is professional. But to be a new kind of
professional, you have to at school to take the risk of throwing away the
kind definition of profession. So that the reason of Columbia students are
always hired is because architects know that they are the future. So that
they hire somebody that doesn't exactly fit the model of the profession.
You know that many of the students here are super professional. Many,
for example, are train in Europe or in Saudi-Arabia. They are trained in
highest professional level, but they come to us because they want to be
a little bit more crazy. So it’s not they are unprofessional, they want to
challenge and come up with a new definition of profession. While you
are in school, you have to imagine how can I avoid getting a job? And by
avoiding getting a job, by taking the risk, you embrace architecture in a
new way, and then you could come actually very exciting for somebody
to hire. So when you come to an architect you would say I don't exactly
fit your model, but I have a whole other model. Usually the person says
OK, I want you. They also at the same hire somebody boring. So if you
are an intelligent architect, they will hire Columbia people, because
they want huge excitement, they want somebody in the office who can
generate the future. They hire a few people from other schools, because
they want somebody who is boring and will never ask any questions
and just do they were taught. They will hire a number that are so boring,
but they will do the working drawings without any pain. And they would
create let’s say a range. So an ideal office has 2 students from Columbia,
1 student from Harvard, 1 student from Yale, 1 student from Princeton,

1 student from Michigan, and together you have a team. But you take
the 2 Columbia students out, and the office’s creative sense dies. You
can keep making buildings. Now you could take out the Harvard people,
and maybe the office also dies, because you need somebody who is not
so experimental just reliable. You don't want to take out the Princeton
person, because the Princeton person is coming up with new theory,
and can talk, really talk well. So you mix. Again like a dinner party, you
need a mix. But to have an entire school, each every student, each
every teacher, each every class is devoted to radically experimental, this
is very unique. There is no other school like this, which is why we are so
happy with the students what come here that take this risk with us.
Right now, there are increasing Chinese students coming to Columbia, and last year
Prof. Wenyi Zhu, the Dean of School of Architecture of Tsinghua University visited
Columbia. Does it mean there will be more communications between Columbia and
Chinese architectural schools?
Yes, very much. We have many wonderful students from China here.
And we all are always there. You know we send now every year students
to China. And this summer we send another group of students to China.
We make a new fellowship for student go to china. We are talking with
universities about preservation, about urban design, about architecture.
We are also partners with Qingyun Ma, who was here also teaching
here. We worked with him in the summer in China. I would say this
though; I think probably every good school you talk to has a partnership
with China. That’s good, because China is a very important and very
interesting, and a country in great transition. And I think the United
States is still very important and interesting too. And of course they must
be this partnership. But it seems to me that all these partnerships in
the end, they are not so interesting. In the end, the people from United
States are not learning enough from China. In the end, China is not
learning enough. We have to find a more radically way of connecting.
I think the best way is the student. When a student comes from
China and spends time in an American university, when an American
student spends time in a Chinese university. This is when it really
changes. It’s fantastic. When the teachers get together, ok, it’s good,
but it’s not the future, it’s the present. We are trying to find a way while
students spend time in China working in a terminal site doing a real
project together on site. In the same way, when we are working in the
Middle East, we don't just want to look at the Middle East, or be the
Middle East, we want to actually make the buildings. So now our current
experiment is we are in Dubai and the design studio, we would make

the building that they design. The question for me is what would be the
most radical partnership with China. And maybe we should listen to the
students and tell us what it should be. But you know you come from a
great school, very good. That’s good for us, because you come here, we
get all these intelligence. Also PHD students, people like Tao Zhu, are
coming from China and going back. This is pretty interesting.
Tao is an interesting example, getting back to your academic and

professional, because he is a scholar, you cannot be more a scholar
than a PHD, but he is also practicing architect. He is making skyscrapers
in China. He is here doing 18th century European history and theory. He
is the scholar of 18th century Europe, and he is building in China at the
same time. This is a whole new species. He represents a new species.
And I am really interested in the new species. So for me, what if the new
species a little bit New York, a little bit Beijing, Shanghai, and a little bit
Dubai. This new global species, I think that's super interesting.
OK, This is our last question. What if the market, the whole world, is suddenly
changing and the Columbia strategy turns out to be a failure, and all students are
jobless, what if that happens? Is there any backup plan or a flexible movement
strategy to change? Because you are the dean, we have nobody else to ask this
question.
For 125 years we didn't fail, so I don't think we will fail. But you
are defining failure in one sense which is failure would be nobody of
graduates gets a gob. Yes, of course it is big failure because it is a
professional school we are for the profession, changing profession. But
it is almost impossible for this happen, because the teachers, almost all
the teacher, are professional in the New York City. So they never would
be this huge gap between the school and professions. The gap will be
there, the gap is good. Because the gap is the difference between being
a young person yearning for a better world, and being a little bit an old
person who has to accept the world as it is. And architects need to begin
their professional life in the hope that the world can change. If you make
a school that gives the profession exactly what they asked for, it will be
like an architect that gives the client exactly what the client asked for.
This is a bad architect. The architects that we admire are that architects
not only give the client what they want, but give more, and create a new
client. So rather than give the profession exactly what they want, that
means every student looking exactly perfect for every office around the
world, just put them in. They are all good working in the office, but they
also have this extra. That is the important thing. So what happened
to Columbia is we offer the direct connection to the profession, but

then is the extra. So failure for us is not a student don't get a job, they
will always get jobs. They are the profession. The failure will be that
we don't deliver this extra. We have just become a service industry to
the profession. And if we are simply the service industry providing the
coffee, we will have let down the profession, because what we owe to
the profession is not the present but is the future.
And that gets back to your very first question. This school is
dedicated to helping give the architectural profession its future. If we
give it its present, it would die. The architectural profession will survive,
like any other species, only through mutation. So the question is which
are the mutations, in the behavior of the architect that will be the most
productive for the professional architect in the future. So we are asked
by the profession to provide the future. For students and for teachers
this is a fantastic opportunity. One school, which must give the future,
you don't defend it you just create the question. This is fantastic. If you
are nervous about this, you must go to another school. And you ask for
the present, and you receive the present. In fact most of the schools give
you the pasts. They give you the dominate ideas of the generation of the
teachers. If the generation of teachers are 40, then you are getting the
ideas from 10 years ago, if the dominate teachers are in their 50s, you
are getting them from 20 years ago, so most schools are in their pasts.
We have the past, we have Avery Library, we have really the pasts, and
we love the pasts. But we love the pasts because we are the students of
the future.
肯尼斯•弗兰普敦
纽约哥伦比亚大学建筑规划与保护研究生学院威尔讲习教授
肯尼斯•弗兰普敦是当今世界上最著名的建筑评论家和史学家之一，他现
在是美国哥伦比亚大学建筑规划研究生院威尔讲席教授，从1972年起便在哥
大任教并于同年成为纽约建筑与城市研究所的成员（其他成员包括彼得•艾森
曼，曼费雷多•塔夫里以及雷姆•库哈斯）。在此之前，他曾作为一名建筑师在
伦敦AA（建筑协会）建筑学院接受培训，同时作为一名建筑师和建筑史家在
英格兰，以色列和美国工作。他是许多著名著作的作者，最有名的当属《现代
建筑：一部批判的历史》。弗兰普敦的位置试图捍卫一种地域批判主义的或者
瞬时的基于建筑实践自治的现代主义，这种建筑实践基于其自身的对形式与无
法被经济所取代的建构（文化）的关注。
采访者：袁陆平庄子玉
时间：2007年5月9日
地点：美国纽约哥伦比亚大学建筑学院412室
您是如此著名，以至于我们可以找到大量信息作为对肯尼•弗兰普顿的介绍。
但我想大多数人一定更有兴趣于肯尼您关于自己的工作和研究方向的定义的。
我觉得有些管与我的信息是重要的因为基本上我在伦敦 AA 学院接受
的建筑师教育。其后在来美国之前我在以色列，意大利和伦敦工作。我
觉得这是你们需要了解的。然后我开始在普林斯顿写作和教学，因为我
1965年的时候来到美国在普林斯顿教书。多年以后，我部分在伦敦部分
在普林斯顿教学，在来到哥大之前。
我曾说过，我在写作的经历之前在 1962 和 1965 年间，我有关于建

筑设计的全部经历。在这段时间，我为我将大量精力投入《 Modern
Pigeon》杂志的编写中。这也是我的信息的一部分。
另一件事情是，美国的60年代是有着更多开放和不循常事件的时代。
因此使得像我这样来自AA学校，没有正式学术背景的人可以在普林斯顿
开始教历史和理论，实际上基本教我自己走上教学的道路。我在来普林斯
顿之前告知普林斯顿我从未从任何学术机构获得过博士学位，除了一个荣
誉博士。这也是一方面关于我的信息。我认为这些背景对于我是谁和做什
么是十分重要的。我认为我的教学和写作基本上是从一个建筑师的角度进
行的。我认为我的写作和教学的相关素质强烈被我作为建筑师的背景所影
响。我依旧认为，过去的这一（经历）给了我的工作其特殊的特征。
你有觉得在理论和实践之间的鸿沟吗？
我认为所有的实践，归根结底，为理论提供（论证）前的依据。我认
为理论无法离开实践。因此我认为美国的建筑学术现在更多的看起来像一
种神秘的方向上，但在近来过去的时间由完全与实践无联系的学者和作家
掌控者理论言论已成为一种趋势。他们是一种理论交替的实践，这类实践
通常有一个人物主要活跃在理论为导向的学术前沿，这类人往往在大学系
统内而不是在各类建筑实践（事务所）。我觉得我应改给一个例子，但我
认为很多的比如解构主义的言论都已经不再流行了。这难道不是一种要将
建筑理论上升到以文化理论为基础，从而与相关实践相分离的企图吗？我
是这样认为的。这是作用于其自己的言论。这是一种通过基于著名文化理
论使这一些学术活动合理化的企图。德里达显然是一个例子，通过艾森曼
或者别人。在我看来这可以成为这类合理化的手段但并没有真正体现被称
为建筑的建筑的文化提要。
所以您一直是作为一个建筑师在进行写作和教学。
是的。一个很明显的例子是对有其自身起源的的建构文化的研究，我
的意思是它作为一种现象而不是一种风格与后现代主义相联系。实际上在
1983年我在批判地域主义方向上写作的时候，它也是一个建构文化研究
的一个起源。因为1983年的那片文章，我写了这些也许是某些关于建构
与建筑透视画法之间的对立，换句话说作为一个建筑，作为一种透视图像
和一种诗意构造之间的对立。我并不以那种方式明确表述。那与批判地域
主义的方向的内部是相违背的。同时我在起初的论证还有些僵硬的方向上
产生这样的意识，我已经回到了试图回望18，19和20世纪历史的关于诗
意营造的方向上，有关于此的部分也许简单化的思辨是也许建筑不是一个
自治的命题，这个命题其中的一点是建筑不像其他艺术命题一样，是被建
造出来的。他是一个建造性的结构。这是一类我试图进行论证的关于建筑
之所以叫做建筑的固有的方面。我同时在找寻如何将这些简单化的论题放
入建构文化研究这本书中，（在这本书中）我试图将其清晰化，我不奢望
将建筑简单化到什么都没有除了结构和构造--这也是完全不成立的。但我
原想这也是我依旧使用这个结果的一个方面，其应该是也应该来自传统建
筑，不仅是西方的也是全球范围的。
如您所说，现在是一个全球化的时代，您的的研究一部分着眼于与本土化。您
如何看待本土化的延续与文化融和在建筑上的体现的？
首先我认为本土化是一个托辞。这个名称与农业有关。在这种意义
上，本土建筑与农业相关联。建筑与农业在工业化时代以前是密切相关
的。因此我认为，一类对于本土化的理解--对定义的（理解）限制了走向
本土化。我认为，一个需要解决的问题相关一定数量需要谨慎对待。
一方面你可以说对现代化最大化的信任，是建筑行业在其他各种行业
之中需要在某种程度上面对的问题。也许一方面皆尽的方式是认知环境
的重要性，包括关于气候的整个问题，以及对能量保持，及可持续因素等
等。因为当你不仅关注技术问题同时关注文化问题时，你就能看到在前工
业化时期和工业化前期的本土或传统型式的建筑在环境问题上是十分有意
识的。许多这类特别的建筑文化涌现出来，同时最没有意识到的是其对气
候限制的限制的回应。其不同是你会发现在沙漠气候文化与炎热地区建筑
文化（的不同）。例如这是一类类似的证据，比如，在没有空调的时代。
同样也可以扩展的更远到空调的最大化--通过按装空气调节装置将建筑密
闭--这是一类与能量消耗相关同时也是文化层面（上的议题）。无论室外
是什么气候，人类的事务是无法改变内与外的关系的。
因此是否可以说，一类所谓高技建筑，在技术上是合理的，但却没有产生相应
的足够的文化上的回应？杨经文如何？
我认为杨经文是个奇怪的人物。他是个不错的人但（他的）建筑是混
乱的。不论这些周围的建筑有什么不同的建造原因，你无法认为它们在文
化上是合理的，它们只是疯狂的机器而已。但我认为一些人像托马斯•赫
尔佐格，他写了一本书关于建筑与技术的，他也在汉诺威贸易市场设计了
一幢10层的有两层玻璃建筑。目的是你可以打开内层，使空间自然通风。
而建筑依然由外层遮风蔽阳等等。但外层表皮的气体混合使其能进入两层
表皮之间。当然当你能够建造20层的时候，这只是一种可能性。
另一种可能性在诺曼 • 福斯特的法兰克福银行有所体现。他同样设计
了（香港）汇丰银行但以不同的方式去将高层建筑与城市基本肌理的尺度
相关，同时创造在外部空间，不仅是地面同样也在中间层的水平平台。我
认为这是福斯特在对结构方面对高层建筑进行调节的一种尝试。而赫尔佐
格通过对于建筑表皮的兴趣来处理高层建筑的问题。
但如果你看看他们正在建最高建筑的迪拜为例，这些建筑完全没有任
何文化特点。他们只是金钱机器，它这意味着他们所拥有的。
您已经告诉我们建筑是是一个文化议题，同时我们知道文化是在向前发展的，
您认为建筑因该怎样回应新文化呢？
这是个很有趣的问题。勒•柯布希耶曾作过一个很有趣的工
程，实际上柯布所有的高层项目，1922年的当代城（Une Ville
Contemporaine），拉德方斯，1937年的巴黎规划。在这些工程中他将建
筑或多或少设计成相同的高度，或相似的体块造型。从可能的技术角度和
对新的大量办公室的需要，这样的条件下，在晚期的中央化的资本主义城
市中，住宅建筑内密度非常高。这个模型与上述其他模型是紧密相关的，
他设计的这些项目在技术和经济可能性上没有任何的差别。但政治上的差
别是巨大的，因为我们在迪拜所看见的，我们在北京做所看见的，我们在
伦敦所看见的，我们在曼哈顿所看见的，也许已经很多年，每个开发商都
相信赌场。在高的建筑上赌钱是当下每个人想要的。不存在更大的工程，
在工程的这点上社会止步，这是一个政治问题。
中国的悖论在于，共产主义者要求经济（发展），但（他们）超级资
本主义。这里不完全一样，他们不可能使群体无关痛痒的去中心化。共产
党控制着快速发展的模型，与美国西部蛮荒的资本主义是一样的。没有区
别。最终是一个政治问题。如果我们讨论关于人们对文化需求的改变。我
们渴望的的同能使也是被社会所创造的是什么呢？所有的以后还广告什么
呢？每个人都想要好的生活和无尽的产品消费，以及在巴哈马的假期。谁
不想要这些东西呢？但这是不完全自然的，它们被一种方式在某种程度上
操纵着。它（这种方式）是那些热点因素之一。当然在这种现实面前，建
筑师在面临这种现实的时候什么才是一种合理的角度去理解呢？我们不能
拒绝他们吗？这是一个问题。但我觉得试图看见这种情况之下是什么是十
分重要的。因为否则，这是一个必要的过程。无论如何，人类种群需要进
步，但我觉得这是不清晰的。
所以也许您关于数码应用的观点，特别是哥大这种基于非自然诉求的以影像为
本的数码应用是不赞同的对吗？
是的，我的意思是这是一个媒体技术和诱人影像间的问题，在建筑学
院工作但同时也工作在这外面的社会，而年轻建筑师之间的竞争在某种程
度上取决于是否能创造出诱人的影像。因此，当然年轻建筑师们也将会明
白如果他们无法创造出诱人的影像，他们也将无法获得成功。这是其中的
玄机。
对于年轻建筑师以及面对迅速变化现实的年轻人来说，这是很难的。
而与此同时，媒体技术的力量不仅仅体现在建筑方面，而且(体现在)在每
个领域的渗透等等。如你所知，影像永远无法再现音乐会，你使用电视等
等…在这种情况下，学校的职责正是这个问题背后的关键。如果一个人依
旧认为大学是一个在社会最大化力量之外的独立体，这个社会同时又提出
这个问题----大学是否还像它曾经的那样，是一个能够给与思维空间的地
方？我的意思是我认为这是一个问题。我设想它是，但那正是这种情况，
在学校面对这种情况下所要承担的责任。
同时我认为显然电脑和数码技术在建筑产品等的创造上提供了超乎寻
常的便利。但这和使用数码是完全不同的，（设计）目的不是（使设计）
从数码中产生，以及某些种同时产生的自我生成的机器，而是从某种我们
确切应该怎样去做的人类的意图（中产生的）。我的意思是，托马斯•赫
尔佐戈使用数码意味着，关于服务于巨型结构和建筑微气候控制的数码反
馈等复杂形式的整体问题，这一切也是依赖于数码技术的。但这与数码技
术在简单的建筑师在综合图像方面的产品是完全不同的。我想这才是问题
所在。
接着我们所讨论的前卫研究，我们也听说您依然在续写你的作品《现代建筑：
一部批判的历史》。因此我们想知道这些我们之前所提到的前卫研究在您新版
的书中将会占有怎样一个位置？
是，这是很难的。泰晤士与哈德逊出版社请我新增一个章节作为这本
书的第四版。这本书成书于 1980年。第四版将会在今年八月完成，（第
一版的）27年以后，这将会是第四版。届时新的一章将会增加，这也是唯
一的改变，原有的文本将不会改变。
这次我所关注与正在编辑的这个章节叫做“全球化时代下建筑”。这个
题目基本上是不可能完成的，但我试着对过去的 20到25年作些许评估。
我所能做到的唯一选择便是发展出一些新的（建筑）分类。因为（涉及
到）是否我将这个建筑包括进去或排除在外，我怎样才能做出这个决定
呢？同时关于过去的25年，我能做出怎样的议题呢？好在像我所说的，我
发展出了新的分类方式，他们是地形学上的，形态学上的，物质性上的以
及可持续性上的分类，这之后还有两个很有特点的在最后，住宅学上的和
民用形式上的分类。因此总共为六个类别。
第一章极力试图提出关于分类的议题，特别在第一个层次上，以及这
些分类在当代（建筑）作品上的反映。同时，试图对这些作品的重要性做
出判断。因此在地形学（分类）的名称下，我试图领悟关于景观学组织各
方面的各种知识，同时我试图强调景观学作为一种与巨型都市相关的批判
文化的努力的重要性。基本上，这个议题提出巨型城市已经成为了一个历
史的现实存在，一个超越了任何专业所能控制（范围之外）的现实存在。
如果你想想规划专业作为例子，他也对巨型城市起不了太大的影响。
因此想法是一种对这类巨型城市现象的调解（又一次同样的概念），
通过地形学或景观学的途径，景观或建筑被用像处理某种景观的方式来对
待。这之后，在形态学（的章节），我试图转入葛瑞格•林恩，扎哈•哈迪
德，以及弗兰克•盖里等人的这一类现象。我把这个议题简明的放在了对
一个建筑很重要的强调上，如Foreign Office Architects的横滨游船码头。
因为在我的观点来看，这是一个形态学意义上的设计，但这是一个与结构
学观点非常吻合的形态学设计，这是一个产品同时又基于对都市重要性的
视角。
同时，它又是一种景观。因此，我是试图提出这种途径的重要性，同
时又阐述了我对盖里（设计）方式相当程度上的批判，这种方式是完全无
里头的与构造没有任何呼应的雕塑形式。我的意思是毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博
物馆的结构绝对是混乱的。它完全不成其为结构，仅仅是支撑起的表皮的
舢板而已。这有意思吗？不是吗？接下来关于物质性方面，是在近来在这
些方面的一些反映，几乎是对于建表皮的着重强调。我想我们可以做一个
讨论，关于赫尔佐戈与德梅隆将完全将其表达诉诸于表皮之上的讨论。我
的意思是赫尔佐戈德梅隆的建筑的主体空间完全没有意思，它们根本不称
其为空间，它们也对空间毫无兴趣。当然同时，当你考虑到当代建筑设计
的时候也许会有一些极端的例子，其实有一些积极的方面，但很明显还只
是一些现象而已。同时我们也必须在某种程度上意识到它，这是物质性上
的一个因素。
同时在可持续性的章节中，当然这是一个关于生态建筑文化潜力的文
化丰富性议题，比如格伦•莫曲特、托马斯•赫尔佐戈、伦佐•皮亚诺在一些
设计中的例子等等。同时在最后的两个小的有些有趣的方面，住宅学和公
众形式，议题基本停留在关于住宅学的居住结构在大的理念的问题上，及
其领域，同时这些也是留给公共研究机构的问题。公共建筑的表述，在我
的观点看来，是这个领域所保留了两个基础的方面，同时也是最难写的两
个部分。因为如果你期待一个明显的例子，让我们说，过去35年的居住结
构吧。
找一个好的例子不是太容易的。当然，你能够找出一个好的公共建
筑的例子来。这全部落在在了巴西建筑师保罗 • 门德斯 • 达 • 洛查（ Paulo
Mendes Da Rocha ）的作品上。因为我觉得像他的公共建筑，作为反
（市政）操作的代表是一个例外，这个代表从来未被实现。就是这样。
最后一个个人问题，您已经77 岁高龄，多数人这个年龄已经退休，而您依旧
工作在建筑理论领域的前沿。我们有一份数据显示您的年均出版数量依然在建
筑领域排名世界第二，我们也能看到在我们的研讨课上您活力充沛。背后是什
么原因（使您如此）？您对于意愿投身于建筑理论研究的年轻人有什么建议
吗？
我认为这是一个我怎样看待我的未来的问题。我认为我的确正在显示
一些征兆，来使我认识到在某些时刻我必须改变我的人生道路。因此，
比方说出版《建筑批判分析》这本书就是试着去记录这个现象。因为我将
来很可能会停下这件事。同时我只是想在公众领域留下一些纪录。这是其
一。因此比方说，我试着现在完成它，在写的这本书，其中有一系列冠
以现代模型运动（Modern Model Movement）的在马德里和瑞士的建筑
与学术旅行。我觉得为什么我做这些事情是我同样想留下这类的纪录。
因此我觉得我开始有这种观点，我必须做这些事情来慢慢改变我的生
活方式。例如，我同样本以为我不会再在《现代建筑，一部批判的历史》
中加一个章节。甚至数字上的突破，因为第三章节已经有7个小节，对于
完成这本书来说这应经太多了。在某个时刻不论如何我会停下来。每个人
在某些时刻都会停下来。因此我打算（继续）在下半学年教课，然后休息
一下。这之后我需要做的，假如我还活着的话。泰晤士哈德逊出版社的一
本关于（讨论）过去20年建筑的约稿，不仅仅是一个章节，而是一本书。
所以实际上秋季学期我将教授的研讨课上我会试着转到这个题目上来。因
为我得更经济的利用研讨课来出书，因为你们有很多的时间。这就是我如
何看待这个问题的。
Kenneth Frampton
Ware Professor of Architecture, Graduate School of Architecture Planning
and Preservation , Columbia University in New York City.
Kenneth Frampton is one of the most well-known architectural critics,

historians in the world. He is the Ware Professor of Architecture at the
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia
University，he taught in Columbia since 1972, and that same year he
became a fellow of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New
York (whose members also included Peter Eisenman, Manfredo Tafuri and
Rem Koolhaas). Before that he trained as an architect at the Architectural
Association School of Architecture, London, and has worked as an architect
and architectural historian and critic in England, Israel, and the United States.
He is the author of such distinguished books; the most famous famous one is
the Modern Architecture: a Critical History. Frampton's own position attempts
to defend a version of modernism that looks to either critical regionalism or
a 'momentary' understanding of the autonomy of architectural practice in
terms of its own concerns with form and tectonics which cannot be reduced
to economics.
Interview by: Luping Yuan and Ziyu Zhuang

Time: May 9, 2007
Location: Room 412, GSAPP, Columbia University, New York, USA
Since you are so famous, there are a huge number of resources we can find as
introduction of Kenneth Frampton. I think most people may be more interested in
how you give yourself a definition in terms of your occupation and your research
theme.
I think maybe something important is my own formation because

basically I was trained as an architect in the AA school in London. And
then I worked as an architect in Israel, Italy, and London before coming
to the United States. I think that’s the important thing you should know
about me. And then I began to teach and write in Princeton basically
because I came to the States to teach in Princeton University in 1965.
And for number years I was sort partly based in London and partly in
Princeton, before coming to Columbia obviously.
And as I said I had written experience before about all course spirit
in architecture design from 1962-1965. When I, obviously, wrote material
for that magazine, I was very much involved in editing that magazine
with Modern Pigeon over this period. That’s also part of my formation.
And the other thing has to be said is that in the mid 60’s in United
State the situation was much more in a certain scene open and informal.
So it’s possible for somebody like me who had no formal academic
training other than studying in the AA to begin to teach in Princeton,
history and theory, and in fact basically teaching myself to the pursuit
of teaching anyway. I had some formation before coming to Princeton I
never received a doctor from any institution other than an honoring one.
So that’s also an aspect of my formation. I think this background is the
key to what I am and what I do basically. I think that the way I teach and
also the way I write is basically from the position of an architect. I think
that the certain quality. that my writing has and also my teaching has. is
strongly influenced by my formation as an architect. I still think that past
one gives my work its peculiar character.
Do you feel the gap between theory and practice?
I think that all forms of practice, in the end, pre-suppose theory.

I don’t think you can have a theory without a practice. So I think that
one of the more arcane aspects of American architect academy looks
so much now but what has been in the recent past is the tendency of
certain intellectuals and writers to elaborate theoretical discourses which
not relate to practice at all. They are meta-theoretical practices which
almost have the character of being the activity which is primarily oriented
toward the academic advancement of these figures inside the university
system rather than being related to ultimately some kind of architectural
practice. I think I should give an example but I think that a lot of
discourses about deconstruction for example now no longer fashionable.
Wasn’t this attempt to elaborate architecture theory based on literary
theory and was very detached to any kind of coherent practice I think.
It was a discourse onto itself. It was the attempt to legitimize certain
academic activities through the prestige of literary theory. Derrida is
obviously an example, by Peter Eisenman for that matter among others.
It always seems to me to be a kind of legitimizing operation but not really
culturally address to the issue of architecture called architecture.
So you have been writing and teaching from an architect’s view.
Yeah. One obvious example is Study in Tectonic Culture which

has its origin really … I mean it is tight up with Post-Modernism as a
phenomenon not as a style. In fact when I was writing in 1983 Toward a
Critical Regionalism was the origin also of the study of tectonic culture,
because in that essay in 1983 I make these perhaps somewhat simplistic
opposition between tectonics and scenography, the architecture in
another word as a scenography image versus architecture as a kind
of poetic construction. I don’t quite formulate in that way. That the
opposition setup of inside Toward a Critical Regionalism. And because
I came to be aware that in the way that the original argument had a
certain rigidity, and I’ve been moved into the direction of trying to look
back at the history of the 18th, 19 th and 20 th century in terms of
poetic construction, part of maybe simple mind rationality about that
was if architecture is not autonomous discourse, that one of the thing
we can say about it is unlike the other artistic discourses built. This is
constructive construction. This is the kind I tried to make an argument
to inherent that aspect of the architecture called architecture. I can also
see how that putting those simplistic terms to some reductive in the
book Study of Tectonic Culture I tried to make it clear that I don’t wish
to reduce architecture to nothing but structure and construction -- it
doesn’t make any sense either. But I thought it was an aspect that I still
using that the consequence and should be and should from part of the
traditional architecture not only in the west but also worldwide.
Since today we are in a globalization era, and part of your study is focusing on
vernacular phenomenon. How do you think architecturally the contradiction between
the merging of different cultures and the keeping the local cultural character?
First thing I think the vernacular is a tricky thinking. The name

also suggests to link to agriculture. And vernacular building is the link
to agriculture in a way. There is a connection between building and
agriculture in some kind of pre-industrial world. So I think one has a
sort of understand vernacular – by definition limited one accesses to
vernacular. One question which has to do approaches with certain
amount of caution I think.
On the other side you can say that the maximizing the trust of
modernization is one of the challenges that architecture profession
among other professions has to somehow confront. Perhaps one of
the ways to approaching that is to recognize the importance of the
environment – including the whole question of climate and conservation
of energy and the issue of sustainability in fact. Because when you
look at the question not only technically but also culturally you can see
how the vernacular or the traditional forms of buildings were in the pre-
industrial period and even in the early industrial period very conscious
of the question of climate. A lot of specifically of this kind building
culture came out spontaneous but almost unconscious response to the
constraining of climate. The difference is one finds in building culture
coming from desert climate to building culture from hot land climate.
This is more sort of spontaneous evidence in that period when there
was no air-conditioning, for example. And one could also go far is to
say the maximization of air-conditioning – by putting the air-conditioning
fully seal the building -- is a kind of technological perversity in terms
of consumption of energy but also in cultural level. No matter what the
climate is outside, the human subject cannot modify the relationship
between inside and outside.
So does it mean some of so-called high-Tech buildings, even it’s technically

reasonable but still doesn’t make enough response culturally? How about Ken
Yeang?
Ken Yeang is a strange figure I think. He’s a good guy but the
buildings are chaotic. Whatever the reason for the different contractions
the buildings are surrounded by you can’t think them of being culturally
intelligent they just simply crazy machines, they are not really buildings.
But I think someone like Thomas Herzog who has written a book on
technology and architecture and who designed a ten-story building in
Hanover Trade Fair with two layers of glass. The purpose is to open the
inner layer, ventilate the space naturally. And the building is still shielded
from wind and sun and so on by the outer skin. But the outer skin is
mixed with the air to come into the layer between two skins. While you
could build that 20-story of course, that’s just one possibility.
And another possibility is shown a little bit I think by Norman Foster’

s Commerce Bank in Frankfurt. He did also in Shanghai Hong Kong
Bank but in different ways. To relate the high-rise building to the scale
of urban fabric general and to create horizontal terraces that reasserts a
kind of the external spaces at the medium level not only on the ground. I
think this is an attempt to mediate high-rise building on the part of Foster
in terms to structures. And on the part of Herzog in terms of the skin of
the building, they are interesting approaches to problems of the high-
rise.
But in general if you look at Dubai, for example where they build the
highest, these buildings have no cultural significance at all. They are just
money machines, what the meaning do they have?
You’ve told us several times that architecture is a cultural issue, and as we know the
culture is moving in advance. What is your opinion about how architecture can echo
correspondently to the new culture?
It’s very interesting, this question. There is a very interesting project

which is by Le Corbusier, actually all the Le Corbusier high-rise projects,
the new Ville Contemporary in 1922, the La Defense and then the plan
of Paris of 1937. These are the projects in which he showed high-rise
buildings all coming to the same height, and more or less, all having the
same mass form, from the point of view of technological possibilities
and also new needs for large amount of office space, of that matter,
in the residential buildings at a very high density, in the centralized
late capitalism city. The models of Le Corbusier’s above is a coherent
model, there is nothing discrepant between the projects he makes and
the technological and economical possibilities. But, the big difference
is politic, because what we see in Dubai, what we see in Beijing, what
we see in London, what we see here in Manhattan, and that might have
been for years, is that every developer believes in the casino. Gambling
money on building high buildings is now what everyone wants. There is
no bigger project. The society stops at this point with the project. It is a
political issue.
The paradox of china, the communist commands economy,

but super capitalism is not exactly the same as here. They can not
decentralize the committee without getting angers. The communist
party controls a mode of rapid developments, just the same way as the
wild western capitalism in the United States. There is no difference.
Finally it’s a political question. If we talk about people changing the
cultural desires, what we desired is also fabricated by the society. What’
s advertising all about after all? Everybody wants good life and endless
consumption of goods, and the holidays in Bahamas. Who doesn’t want
these things? But these desires are not entirely natural; they are sort of
manipulated in a way. It’s one of those hot facts. And of course in face
of this reality, what’s a reasonable position to assume in the face of this
reality for architects? Can’t we deny them? This is the problem. But it’
s important I think to try to see underneath what it is that next to this
condition. Because otherwise, this is necessarily progress. Somehow
other human species must always get better, but this is not clear, I think.
So maybe your opinion about the digital application in architecture design and
especially in Columbia which is from the image base that kind of unnatural desire is
not right in your opinion?
Yes, I mean that’s the level of the question of media and the
question of the seductive image, working inside of the school of
architecture, but also working, of course, outside there in the society and
to the extend that the professional competition between rising architects
depends on being able to produce the seductive images. Then, of
course, young architects would understand they have to be able to
produce the seductive images or they won’t succeed. This is the magic.
It’s difficult to the young architects and young people all together
in the face of the rapidly changing condition. And also, for example, the
force of the media, every considerable respect not only in the course
of architecture but in everything, and we are the image saturated really
etc.The image is never a present concern, for instance, you use the
television, etc. And what lies beneath the question is the issue of the
responsibility of the school, in relation to this circumstance. If one still
thinks that the university is a place of certain independence from the
maximizing forces in society which can be also made into the question –
is the university still as it was, a place, which is possible to think certain
space? I mean it’s a question I think. I suppose it is, but then that is the
case what is the responsibility of school of architecture in the face of this
circumstance.
And I think it is obvious that the computer and the digital give the
enormous advantages in every considerable respect technologically in

terms of architectural production, etc. But it’s the real difference between
using the digital. Well, the aim is not coming out of the digital as well as
it is some kind of spontaneously self-generating vehicle. But the aims
depend upon some kind of human conception of what is exactly one was
trying to do? I mean Thomas Herzog using digital means, and the whole
question of sophisticated forms feedback in servant mechanism, control
the climate of the building, etc., all of these also depend on the digital.
And the obvious advance for the production depends on the digital.
But there is the real difference between that and digital use for simply
synthesizing graphically the production of architect. I think the problem
was lying right there somehow.
From all this kind of frontier research we talked, we heard about that you are still
editing your book Modern Architecture: A Critical History. So we wonder how do
you think all these explorations we talked about before can be in which position of
your new book?
Well, it was very difficult. The publisher Thames and Hudson ask
me to add a chapter to make a fourth edition of that book. The book first
appeared in 1980. The fourth edition will appear in August this year, 27
years later, so it will be the fourth edition. And this time another chapter
was edited. That’s the only change. The basic text would not change.
And this time the chapter edited is called ”architecture in the

age of globalization”. It’s basically impossible of course, but it tries to
make some assessment of last 20-25 years. And the only way I could
approach that was to develop some kinds of taxonomy. Because why
should I include the building or exclude the building? how would I make
this decision? And what kind of argument can I make in relation to the
last 25 years? For the better for what I said, I develop the taxonomy
which is topography, morphology, materiality, sustainability, and then
the two strange ones at the end habitat and civic form. So it was six
categories all together.
And the first one topography is really trying to make an argument

that the category particularly in the first four, and the category reflects
the aspect of the contemporary productions and also tries to make a
judgment of the importance of these productions. So under the term
topography, I try to acknowledge all the aspects towards the organization
of the landscape, and I try to also emphasis the importance of landscape
as a kind of critical cultural effort in relation to the megalopolis. The
argument basically is that the megalopolis is already a historical reality
that is escaping completely the control of any profession. If you think of

the planning profession, for example, it doesn’t have much impact on
megalopolis either.
So the ideal was a kind of mediation (it’s same notion again) of the
phenomena of megalopolis through topography or through landscape,
either the quite landscape or buildings are handled like the kind of
landscape. And then under morphology I try to come to terms of all
these phenomena, including Greg Lynn, Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry,
etc. And then I make the argument simply put enormous emphasis on
one building which is the Yokohama Ship Terminal of the Foreign Office
Architects. Because in my opinion it is a morphological work, but it’
s a morphological work which is very coherent from the point of view
of the structure, its production and also from the point of view of urban
significance.
Also it’s a kind of landscape as well. So I try to make the argument

that the importance of the approach and also by implication then my
rather critical attitude toward of Gehry’s approach which is entirely
gratuitous sculptural form which don’t have any coherent structure. I
mean the structure of the Guggenheim Bilbao was absolute totally out
of mass. It’s not a structure at all; just junk basically holding up the sink.
Is that interesting, isn’t it? And then on the materiality, it’s a reflection on
the aspect of recent days, the enormous emphasis almost the skin of
the building. I think we can take a practice; the practices of Herzog & de
Meuron will be entire expression that is really owned in the surface.
I mean the internal space in the main of the buildings of Herzog &
de Meuron has no interesting at all; they are just simply not a space;
they are not interesting in that question. And of course there are
perhaps some extreme examples but you can find when you think the
contemporary production. This tendency to put enormous emphasis on
the surface of the building, I think this, even has positive dimensions but
it is just a phenomenon that is clearly there. And we have to recognize it
somehow. That’s one reason for materiality.
And then under sustainability of course this is a whole argument

about the cultural richness of the culture potential of sustainable building,
for example like Glenn Murcutt, Thomas Herzog, Renzo Piano in certain
works, and so on. And then on the last two, which is a little funny, “Habitat
and Civic Form,” the argument there is basically remain of the question
of residential fabric of habitation in the broad sense, and also there
remain the questions of public institution, the representation of public
building, in my opinion these two dimension remain fundamental to the

field, and there were most difficult section to write them, because if you
look for one really significant example, let’s say, residential fabric in the
last 35 years.
Not too easy to find a really good example. And of course you can
find a good example of public building. The whole thing ends with this
Brazilian architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha. Because I think the public
buildings of Paulo Medndes da Rocha are exceptional as a kind of
representation of against municipal potential, it never arrived. So that’s
how.
A personal question, you are 77 years old, most people retired in this age, but you
are still working on the frontier of architectural theory. We have a data thatyour
publication in architectural area per year is at top 2 position of the world, and
we can see in the seminar you are so dynamic. What’s the reason/power behind?
What’s your suggestion for the freshman who is going to dedicate for architectural
research?
I think it is a question about how do I see my future. I suppose I

do begin to show signs that is realizing I have to change my way of
life at some point. So for example, this idea of publishing this book of
Comparison of Critical Analysis is really to try to record this emphasis,
because of the notion of I’ll probably stop doing it. And I just want to
have this record in the public realm. That’s one thing. So for example I
try to finish now, which I have already written about this book, which is a
series of lectures that I gave during architecture academic tour in Madrid
and in Switzerland have a title in Modern Model Movement. And I think
why I am doing that is because I also want to have this kind of record.
So I think I am beginning to have this view that I have to make this

move to a kind of change slowly my way of life. For example, I also
think I would never write another chapter for Modern Architecture: A
Critical History. Even with number magic, because the 3rd edition of that
book now has seven chapters. So seven and three, that’s really a lot to
end it. So in some point I would stop any way. and every one stops at
some point. So I suppose I will teach in next academic year, and then
I’ll take a hyperpnea. What I will do after that, suppose I am still alive.
The commission by Thames and Hudson is to write a book about last
20 years, not just the chapter but the book. So actually the seminar I will
give in the fall will try to be on that topic. Because I think I have to also
be more economically using seminar to produce books, since there are
so much time available. That’s how I see it.
理查德•普朗茨
哥伦比亚大学建筑学院教授城市设计专业主任
理查德•普朗茨教授是享誉世界的住宅研究与城市设计专家, 自上世纪70年
代起便访问执教于伦塞纳工学院、宾州州立大学、鲁汶大学、都灵理工等学
校，1977-1980间担任哥伦比亚大学建筑学部主席一职。自1992年起普朗茨
教授开始担任哥大城市与建筑设计专业主任，在这期间他基于一系列的政府
与民间资助（包括Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, the New York
State Council on the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, and the J. M. Kaplan Fund）开展他在意大
利和土耳其在城市主义与建筑方面的研究；自1991年获颁美国建筑师协会的
Andrew J. Thomas大奖以来，他在住宅研究方面取得一系列重要突破，使其
在该领域蜚声海内外。作为哥伦比亚大学建筑学终身教授，普朗茨教授每年秋
季开设建筑专业设计课及住宅研究研讨课, 每年春季开设城市设计专业设计课
及相关城市研究项目课程。
采访者：贾枚庄子玉
时间：2007年5月18日
地点：美国纽约哥伦比亚大学建筑学院410室
我们想从哥大城市设计专业的名称开始我们的问题，为什么这个专业叫做“建
筑与城市设计硕士呢？”，我们很想知道您作为城市设计系主任对这个学科的
定位是什么样的？请您做一下简单介绍。
实际上取这个名字与我无关，但它准确地反映了我们这个专业的现
实，即这是一个基本上为建筑设计师而设置的城市设计专业。当然，人们
对于城市设计的范畴会有其他定义-比如基于工程学的城市设计，基于经
济学的，基于法学的，基于政治学的等等诸如此类。我们专业的目标是拓
展传统建筑学教育的范围至城市主义的领域，与此同时保持与职业建筑实
践的紧密相连。我们的课程设置是基于一个完整且高度协作的设计课序列
以及一些课程。这些课程直接与纽约和其他全球化城市所面临的发展现实
相关联。
作为一个城市设计系的学生，我很强烈的感到我们的课程设置的确很利于传授
学生很强的城市设计理念与技巧。但是一年学习下来，我同样感觉到三个学期
的课程在教学内容上似乎有某些雷同。我的意思是说，我们好像在三个不同的
地方做了三个相似的设计。您是否觉得我们的城市设计可以在教学方式上更趋
灵活？
你们可以看到，当我们试图去涵盖如此广泛的教育内涵的时候，三个
学期的课程是非常短暂的。所以我非常怀疑你所建议的 “灵活”。当然城市
设计专业并不一定适合所有人，选择是多种多样的。在哥大，学生可以选
择“高级建筑设计专业”，他们可以通过抽签选择“城市设计”工作室，以这
种灵活的选择来拓展他们本科阶段的所学。不论如何，我完全不同意“三
个学期在内容上是类似的”这种说法，他们是非常不同的，虽然在这个序
列中整体的教学目标是一致的。也许做这样类似的五六个设计都没关系，
直到某一个作品真正的成熟，或许这会用去你的余生。有人曾经说，小说
家无论有多少作品，他们终生都在不断写着同样一本书。让我们十年之后
再来看看，到那时你会怎么想！
是，我已经感觉到了这一年的学习对我观念的转变，我会看着将来的想法，也
许十年，也许更长。与此同时我也注意到，我们的教授和同学中有很多景观建
筑学背景的人，我的问题是，因为我们学院并没有设置景观系，您是否有打算
将哥大城市设计和景观设计领域更紧密联系起来，另外您对这个专业将来的设
计风格是如何打算的？
我们之前也有招收景观设计背景的学生，我们在每个学期都会有景观
设计师参与教学，原因很简单，景观建筑领域正在被“城市化”，它们与城
市设计学的关系比以往任何时候都更加紧密。这正是城市设计专业与“景
观设计”走得更近的原因。至于“风格”是一个我并不太感兴趣的词汇--以至
于我不太明白你的意思，但“景观设计”的考量，的确能够为城市设计工程
引入新标准。
基于您对哥大城市设计专业的认识，您认为这个专业在哥大建筑学院扮演着什
么样的角色？因为哥大建筑因其数位设计研究和理论研究著称于世，您认为
城市设计专业是如何与之相结合的？
城市设计专业相当程度地扩展了哥大建筑学院的教学与讨论的范畴，
从整体上来说，它很清晰的表述了自己相对其它专业在专业选择上的取向
性，特别是与“高级建筑设计”和“城市规划”专业相比。由于他处于其他几
个学科的领域交汇处，城市设计专业的学生可以理所当然的享受到最大程
度上的学习探索过程，及最大程度上的任选课的可调性和选择范围。如你
所知，我们的城市设计工作室和其它专业一样，也享受所有哥大建筑系的
数位设计教育资源。当然相对于一些建筑设计工作室，我们通过不同的手
段应用这些资源，但又有何妨？同时数位资源为城市设计工作室系列提供
了基础平台，你们从进入学校的第一天开始便是如此。
您同时担任建筑专业城市设计工作室的教职和城市设计专业的主任，我们很感
兴趣在您的眼中建筑专业的城市设计工作室和城市设计专业有何不同？
是的，我同时教授建筑学硕士和高级建筑设计硕士课程的“建筑”工作
室，所以我十分注重其中教学的不同之处。去年秋季我在建筑专业所教授
的设计课引入了我作为一个建筑师特别的兴趣点，所以这个设计课是我和
其他建筑专业的老师一起做。这个设计课是我与工程学院的第四次合作，
工程学的学生也参与其中，在包括对公共空间，城市微型基础设施，城市
自然环境，公共卫生等等研究中起到了很积极的作用。当然，这其中的某
些问题与城市设计专业有些许互通之处，这是绝对正常的。
据我所知您曾经是学院建筑部的主任，但从14 年前您开始接手城市设计专
业，是什么使您转变了自己的教学领域？我们也知道您是世界知名的住宅研
究专家，因此建筑与城市对您来说事一个什么样的平衡关系呢？
14年前，当时的哥大城市设计专业状况不佳。因此，当时的系主任，
伯纳德.屈米，请我着手改造城市设计专业，我们做到了，我们的教学团
队为此付出了很大的努力。当然我的兴趣点始终停留在城市化进程与住宅
上。我想我是理性地选择了城市设计专业，但我依然对许多研究有着浓厚
的兴趣，基于此，从1992年起我便推动专业重心方面的革新。这是势在
必行的，特别是这样一个集体性的学科，这种集体性来源于群策群力（教
师和学生们）而非某一个人。
在刚刚过去一学期中，城市设计专业作了很多与非正式住宅相关的工作。从您
作为一个住宅学专家的角度，您对非正式住房的定义是什么？进一步的，您认
为从城市设计的角度考虑，在对非正式住宅与普通住宅的处理上有何不同？纵
观您过去的研究活动从美国到厄瓜多尔，从欧洲到亚洲，您认为发达国家和发
展中国家在住宅方面最大的不同点是什么？在这背后什么是您最大的兴趣点？
“非正式住房”会有许多的定义，但我认为最基础的必定是住房产品的
经济学。“非正式”显然是“正式”之外的，是在既成的和强制性的官方银行
和建设规章之外的，同时在仅当考虑到正式部分的时候可以被视为一种非
法的存在。因此，如果我们在发展中经济方面开设设计课，比如上学期
的瓜尔基尔，非正式性是无法被忽略的--他是建筑环境产品中最大的一部
分，因此我们能够从诸如此类的业务中学到很多，包括潜在设计语言的转
换，转换平庸且低功能性的“官方”设计。我想你们班里的每一个人都怀着
极大的兴趣为厄瓜多尔贫穷的城市尽一份力，以塑造他们自己的环境，并
最终取得这些努力的成功，包括住宅-正如他的“非正式”。当然这个过程会
产生一些问题，特别是在大尺度不对称的增长与服务生态的冲突中，以及
诸如此类。但作为一个设计师，只要我们能够拥有一颗谦虚的心，去认识
和改进这其中巨大的能量及来自“非正式”的过程性。这是一个在台面上持
续了半个世纪或更长的讨论-但非正式的城市化仍在继续，基本未有我们
的参与。
在我们平日的工作室教学中，您总是强调小的设计而非大规模的建设和改造，
同时您对设计的判断从来不基于视觉和图面质量，这与许多建筑师是不同的；
因此您对一个好的建筑和城市设计的评判标准是什么？
是的，这是一个所谓“建筑设计与城市设计的竞争”，但是我不相信。
我在多年前写过，这是一个"scale canard"。如你所知，尺度(Scale)相对
独立于城市化的，我曾经说过公园的长椅可以是一个城市设计-这意味着
问题不是仅限于尺度，而是在各种尺度上的复杂性，包容性，以及文脉的
考虑。城市设计专业的其中一项任务，便是让设计者对这种议题更加敏
感，使得他们能够应用更多的技巧处理城市操作，而非直接的建筑上的手
段。因为城市设计本质上说是一项公共艺术，这种设计技能的扩展是极其
重要的。当然，图面质量也很重要，特别对于公众界面来说。我和我的下
一代建筑师是一样崇尚“图面质量”（阅读美学），或者更甚。但我对那类
以城市设计为名，但却缺乏（我们的特别技能所承担的）公众易读性的设
计不感兴趣。
我们发现在城市设计班级中，中国学生(大陆及港台地区)的比例十分可观，这
是为何？相比之下，很有意思的是，中国这两年的发展使其成为城市研究的热
点。但我们的工作室在近十年来却未作过相关的中国设计，这是为什么呢？
当然现在我们的中国学生比例越来越高，印度也是一样。这很正常，
中国正处于经济与城市的高速增长期。与10年前相比，甚至5年前，中国
有更多的资金让学生来海外学习。这个专业对于城市设计研究的兴趣点是
应该与理解城市设计独特的操作手法相关，并将其批判性的解读于中国和
其他地区。让我们不妨说，如果有机会在中国开展我们的工作室课程当然
是一个很好的选择！我们可以向中国学到很多。一个不争的事实便是世
界各地的全球化城市有很多值得互相学习的地方。但是纽约依然是我们首
要的都市实验室，这是理所应当的。同样，这不也正是你来此求学的原因
吗？
Richard Plunz
Professor of Architecture，Director, Urban Design Program Graduate School
of Architecture Planning and Preservation
Richard Plunz is world famous housing expert and urban designer.

He has taught at Rensselaer and the Pennsylvania State University and
has held visiting positions at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and the
Politecnico di Torino. He served as Chairman of the Division of Architecture
at Columbia between 1977-1980 and has been Director of the Urban Design
Program since 1992. He has conducted long-term research on architecture
and urbanism in Italy and Turkey as well as the United States and he has
received support from numerous sources including the Aga Khan Program
for Islamic Architecture, the New York State Council on the Arts, the National
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the
J. M. Kaplan Fund. In 1991 he received the Andrew J. Thomas Award from
the American Institute of Architects for his work in housing. As the professor
of architecture, he teaches for architectural studio and housing research
seminar in fall semester. He also teaches for urban design studio and relative
urban research in spring semester.
Interview by: Jia Mei and Ziyu Zhuang

Time: May 18, 2007
Location: Room 410, GSAPP, Columbia University, New York City, USA
From the title of the Urban Design degree, the “Master of Science in Architecture
and Urban Design", we are really interested in your definition of the program as
relating to the name. Following this question could you please briefly introduce the
program? How is the curriculum constructed?
Actually I had nothing to do with the name - but it does accurately

reflect the reality that it is an "urban design" program principally for
architectural designers. Of course, one can have other definitions of
the realm of "urban design" - for example, urban design for engineers,
for ecologists, for lawyers, for urban policy wonks, and the like. The
goal of our program is to expand the traditional realm of architectural
pedagogy to urbanism, while retaining the great relevance of
professional architectural training. The curriculum is an integrated and
highly collaborative design studio sequence correlated with classroom
coursework. It is directly engaged with developmental realities facing
New York and other global cities.
As a UD student, I have a strong feeling that our curriculum is very clear and
helpful to develop good skills and to learn how to operate different urban schemes,
but I also found that our three semesters are a kind of average in terms of teaching
contents, to make similar design three times in different places. Do you think it is the
requirement or it can be organized in a more flexible way?
Look, three semesters is a very short curriculum for the breadth of

material that we try to cover. So I am very skeptical about the "flexibility"
that you suggest. Of course the UD program is not for everyone,
and there are other options. At Columbia, students can opt for the
AAD program, and pick "urban" studios by lottery, with some kind of
phantasmagoric experience in extending their undergraduate education.
At any rate, I totally disagree that the three semesters are too similar in
terms of content. They are quite different, although there is the overall
goal of coherence within the sequence. Maybe it would not hurt to do
the "similar designs" four or five or six times - until one becomes really
accomplished? Or maybe for the rest of your life? Someone has said
that the novelist really keeps writing the same book for a lifetime - no
matter how many. Let's talk about this again in ten years, and see what
you think!
Well, I already feel the gradually changing of my ideal by this program. I’ll see.
Maybe ten years later, maybe longer. We notice there are also a lot of our professors
are landscape architects. Since we know GSAPP doesn’t have a landscape program,
do you intend to lead UD program more close to landscape design? What’s your
further view of this program in terms of design style?
We have had landscape architects as students in prior years. Some

time we have had landscape architects among each semester's faculty,
quite simply because the field of landscape architecture is "urbanizing,"
and it is far more relevant to urban design now than it once was. And
therefore in this sense the UD program has moved closer to "landscape
design.” ”Style" is a term that doesn't much interest me - so much so
that I don't really know what you mean. But certainly "landscape design"
considerations can bring additional criteria to bear on urban design
projects.
Following your view of UD program, what kind of role do you think the urban
design program plays within the GSAPP? Since GSAPP is well known with its digital
studies and theoretical research, how dose the urban design program incorporate
with this?
The Urban Design Program considerably expands the realm

of pedagogy and discourse within the GSAPP. It represents a clear
alternative to the other programs in general, and to the AAD and UP
programs in particular. Being situated as it is in the middle of everything
else that goes on here, UD students have a certain luxury of maximum
exposure, and of the possibility of taking elective courses of almost
infinite variety. As you know, our studios enjoy the same considerable
digital resources as all other studios. Of course we may deploy them
in diverse ways from some "architecture" studios, but so what? And
the digital resources provide a fundamental base for the Urban Design
studio sequence, starting from your first day of class.
You are the Director of the Urban Design Program, and you also teach the urban
design studio in architecture program. We interest that from your view what is the
difference between the urban design studio and your urban design program?
Yes, I teach an architecture studio in the M.Arch and AAD programs

- so I don't take your distinctions so casually. The studio I taught last
fall involved my own particular interests as architect, as do those taught

by others of the architecture faculty. My studio was the fourth that I
have done in collaboration with the School of Engineering. Engineering
students were involved, having a positive effect on the studio emphasis
having to do with public space, urban micro-infrastructure, urban nature,
and public health. Of course some of these issues overlap with my
Urban Design Studio, but that's entirely normal.
We know you were the Chairman of the Division of Architecture before, but since 14
years ago you took charge in the Urban Design Program. What makes you change
your teaching scheme? And you are also a top researcher of housing worldwide, so
what is the balance of architecture and urban design to Richard Plunz?
Back then, 14 years ago, the presence of the UD program in the

School had pretty much evaporated, so the Dean, Bernard Tschumi,
asked me to reinvent the program and that's what we did - with a very
dedicated faculty team. Of course I was always interested in urbanism
and housing, so I guess I was a logical choice to take this on. But I am
interested in many things, and certainly I have encouraged the evolution
of the program emphasis since 1992. That is the way it must be,
especially for a program that is collaborative - where ideas come from a
collective of students and faculty, rather than from a single individual.
During this past semester UD we did a lot of work related to informal housing. From
your point of view as a housing expert, what is your definition of informal housing?
Furthermore, what do you think the difference between informal and formal in
terms of urban design strategies? Through your research activities, from the U.S. to
Ecuador, from West Europe to Asia, what do you think is the most different between
developing countries and developed countries in terms of housing? What are your
most interesting issues behind, social and political factors, or others?
"Informal housing" can have many definitions, but I think the most
basic has to do with the economics of housing production. "Informal"
is obviously outside of the "formal," and outside of the established and
enforced official banking channels and building regulation. But as I have
often said, the informal phenomenon does not imply marginality. In many
developing economies it is the principal mode of housing production,
and can be considered illegitimate only in respect to the formal sector.
And so, of course if we do a studio in a developing economy, such as
Guayaquil this past semester, it would be irresponsible to ignore the
informal - it is the largest part of the production of the built environment.
And we can learn much from this kind of engagement, including the
potentials of alternate design languages - alternatives to the mediocrities
and dysfunctionalities of "official" design. I think everyone in your

class became enormously interested in the efforts of the urban poor in
Ecuador to fashion their own environments, and in the ultimate success
of these efforts, including the housing - "informal" as it is. Of course
this process produces problems, and in particular at the larger scale of
inappropriate growth, with attendant ecological conflicts and the like.
But as designers, if only we could have the humility to recognize and
enhance the enormous energy and know-how coming from the informal.
It is a discussion that has been on the table for a half-century or more -
but informal urbanization goes on, basically without us.
In studio teaching, you always suggest that students focus on small pieces of
interventions other than mass built, and your judgment of a work also doesn’t rely on
the graphic quality, which is quite different from many architects. So the question is
what’s your standard of a good urban/architectural design?
Yes, this is the "architecture vs. urban" design thing, I don't believe a
bit of it. It's the "scale canard" that I wrote about some time ago. Scale is
always independent of "urbanism," and as you know, I sometimes have
said that a park bench can be urban design - meaning that the question
is not one of scale but of complexity, of inclusiveness, of considerations
of context at all scales. And one mandate of the UD program is to make
the sensibility of this argument apparent to designers, such that they
can handle urban operations with more skill than straight architects.
Because Urban Design is fundamentally a public art, this expanded skill
set is extremely important. And of course "graphic quality" is extremely
important, especially for this public interface. I am as interested in
"graphic quality" (read aesthetics) as the next architect, and maybe more
so. But I am not interested in projects masquerading as urban design but
without the public legibility that our particular craft entails.
We find the proportion of Chinese (including from Mainland, Hong Kong and
Taiwan) is really high in UD program. Why? Comparatively, another interesting
thing is that China is a popular area in recent years for urban research. But UD
studio rarely took any Chinese issue in the past 10 years. What’s the reason ?
Sure there are more Chinese now - and more students from India
and elsewhere. This is normal. China is developing economically and
urbanizing enormously. Compared to 10 years ago - even five years
ago - there is much more money in China for study abroad. The interest
in studying urban design here should be related to understanding a
particular approach to urban design, and to interpret it critically for
application in China or elsewhere. Let's just say that if there appears
the right opportunity to do a studio in China, great! And we can learn

from China. It is true that global cities everywhere have much to teach
each other. But New York is our primary laboratory, and that's the way is
should be. Isn't that why you're here?
122
美国宾夕法尼亚大学
设计学院
http://www.design.upenn.edu
代特勒夫•默廷斯
大卫•勒瑟巴热
温卡•度别丹
123
University of Pennsylvania, USA

School of Design
http://www.design.upenn.edu
Detlef Mertins
David Leatherbarrow
Winka Dubbeldam
124 University of Pensylvania, USA
代特勒夫•默廷斯
建筑系建筑学教授及前系主任
默廷斯教授教授建筑历史理论课程，并且指导博士研究。1991-2003年多
伦多大学任教，曾经作为访问教授在哥伦比亚大学、哈佛大学、普林斯顿大
学和莱斯大学任教。2001-2003年任加拿大建筑研究中心主席，2003年获得
Alexander von Humboldt基金会和加拿大皇家Konrad Adenauer研究奖，1998
年获得加拿大建筑中心访问学者奖学金。著作包括Walter Curt Behrendt, The
Victory of the New Buidling Style, The Presence of Mies, and Metropolitan
Mutations: The Architecture of Emerging Public Spaces等。
默廷斯教授在学术期刊、建筑师作品集中发表有关于当代建筑的文章。
最近的文章包括古根汉姆博物馆的扎哈 • 哈迪德展览上的《 The Modernity
of Zaha Hadid 》，《 Grey Room 20 》中的 “Mies's Event Space” ， Lars
Spuuybroek的《NOX: Machining Architecture》中的“Bioconstructivism”，
Foreign Office Architects 的《 Phylogenesis: FOA's Ark 》中的 “Same
Difference”以及《SOM Journal 4》种的Natalie de Blois采访。他的研究集中
在现代主义建筑、艺术、哲学和城市历史和理论方面。
美国宾夕法尼亚大学 125
采访者：丁力扬
时间：2007年6月11日
地点：美国费城一酒吧
从2003 年开始，您已经担任宾大设计学院建筑系主任4 年了，那么您最早开始
工作时候是以什么样的想法指导建筑系的教学，另外您的原初想法在过去的这
几年中有没有什么变化？
我希望做的是在各方面扩展在宾大已经在进行的事情和状况，同时我
也努力能带来对研究的更多关注，尽管一直以来宾大已经发展出了特定
的进行研究的传统，但是现在来看有些过于集中。所以我们从课程安排方
面，在数学层面并在对学生进行基础性介绍的时候就引入了相应的内容。
比如一些数字化的工具，一些学校在第一学期并不介绍这些数字（软件）
工具，但是我们却那样做了。同时我们也有机会在基础教学课程中引入各
种设计模型，所以在很多方面我们首先在基础层面做好准备，然后在春季
学期、第二年以及其他课程中应用这些工具。我们还很有幸完成了教授的
引进工作，比如西塞尔•巴尔蒙德（Cecil Balmond）来担任实践型教授，
他本身就擅长使用来自于科学、数学和几何中的生长式模型进行设计。
这样我们就聚齐了一些出色的专业人士，他们共享相近的观念和相似
的方法，这些都为学校构建了特定的关键思考和工作方法。就像我们看到
阿里•阿西姆、温卡、西塞尔在做的工作，以及像大卫•鲁、恩里克•诺顿和
瑞特•罗素等等。他们所做的就在于创造一种关键的数学方法，也就是说
围绕着设计技术层面的数学方法。在一些方面，这些成就受到了来自于数
字化工具的影响，另外在很大程度上也依赖于这些数字化工具。所以，在
这种状况下我们会包括很多手工工作。我们依旧很重视模型的制作，我们
并不希望失去这些传统，包括模型和手工制图。但是，可及的技术同样创
造了它们功能范围内的“模型“，甚至比起数字工具还要强大。比如说编程
在我们的教学中也已经成为了重要的一部分。
另外，我还希望谈一谈有关于生态方面的关键方法。教授中有像威廉
姆•布赖汉姆（William Braham）的生态方面的研究，阿里•迈尔卡维（Ali
Malkawi）的技术方面等等，这些内容都是十分重要的。所以我认为我们
现在能够将建筑生态技术提升到一个新的高度，我们也开设了一些全新的
生态主导的设计课程。我们还会开设更多新的相关课程，比如瑞特•罗素
将会开始教授一门新的有关生态的选修课，还会有针对如何从生态角度来
处理城市问题的可能，这些不仅有关于自然生态系统，同样有关于人类建
构系统。我认为处在现在这段时期，生态系统对于建筑来说是非常重要
的，也许比其设计方面的工作更加重要。我们也已经开始在组织一些机构
来强化我们的工作，比如西塞尔负责的非线性组织系统，阿里•迈尔卡维
领导的TC Chen建筑模拟和能源研究中心就处于这方面研究的中心。所以
设计技术、生态，或者一些人所谓的可持续发展，我们更倾向于称之为生
态系统研究。这些都已经成为了当今主要的概念。同时，我认我们还引进
了一些内容到理论课程之中，以前在城市甚至政治角度的生态方面一直有
所欠缺。
这些都是和建筑学紧密相关的方面……
是的，它们都是相互关联的。你不能再不考虑城市的前提下研究建
筑，所以我们请马努尔•德兰达教授动态城市，我们还有像“非常城市”类似
这样的课程，托尼•阿特金斯教授传统的城市状态，温卡的设计课给你们
提供机会研究动态城市是如何运作的。同时，我还想提一下有关政治方面
的思考，尽管对我来说对这方面并不像从前那么感兴趣，但是我们也作了
很多工作。所以，比如我们曾经研究过竞选，相关的设计课在第一年中第
一次出现有关于政治视角的研究。维斯教授有关地理政治方面的城市骚动
相关的课程，这些建筑师大部分都来自欧洲。另外，我们还引进了有关种
族方面的课程，今年（2007）是第一年我们有查尔斯•达维斯教授这方面
的内容。所以我们知道建筑是一种很复杂的综合性学科，我们不仅希望建
立尽量完整的涵盖面，又不得不将这个学院控制好得以良好的运转，所以
同时还要有相对强调性的关注点，这就是要处理的状态。
这样我们就可以通过控制各种相关领域来平衡建筑的未来。
我认为作为建筑教育者有责任为学生们提供更为宽泛的视角来研究本
来宽泛复杂的建筑问题。同时，我们需要为学生们最大程度上提供与建筑
相关的技术和知识的来源，所以希望我们所能带来的供学生们选择的课程
范围足够广泛，以至于能够获得最宽泛的涉猎面。比如说，家具设计，我
们引入产品设计，但是我们的关注点还是在设计上，周边的摄取包括设计
中的技术，设计中的理论，这些都是技术层面是中关键不可缺少的部分。
我相信我们拥有相对深入的讨论课程、工作室这些同设计课紧密联系的
部分，包括数字建构、GC等等。所以很多我们正在做的工作都是实验性
的。我们希望学生们能够在进行实践的同时提升自身。如果我们已经达到
相对高的实验性程度，那么其他部分都会随着过程的进行跟上；当然学生
们也需要学习普遍意义的建筑实践知识。但是如果我们从实践的基础开
始，那就永远无法达到实验的高度了。
对我来说，我第一学期曾经在温卡的设计课中，那是一个典型的数字化的设计
课。但是第二学期我选了法贾迪的相对传统和具有理性思考特点的设计课。在
我自身上就出现了这样的冲突，你是怎么看这样的状态？
我认为这样是很好的，你可以获得更多的体验。对你来说，你可以吸
收你被包围的环境中的知识，同时建立自己的体系。我认为不存在某种单
一必须要掌握的终极设计手段，我所理想中的学校所拥有的是一种能够激
发多种不同设计方向的氛围。这需要确实的达到一定的深度。所以如果你
所在的是三年期的硕士学位，如果你感兴趣的是数字设计的话，你就有机
会了解到相当的深入程度。比如说， 2007年，在我们的第二年设计课程
中引入了一套整合性的设计课程，我们将整合机械引入数字化生成的模型
之中。我们很多的学生都有机会探索如何通过这样的方法来结合材料、制
造业、机械、建筑规范去进行设计来产生极大丰富化的建筑模型。
在设计课中，有没有社会状态的现象会参与其中？在特定的设计课
中，我们可以只关心技术方面的内容。当然其他方面也是同样重要的。在
学院的教学中，我觉得没有办法在一个设计课中同时考虑到各个方面。所
以在第二年的设计课中，我们确实希望能够集中注意力在技术层面的整合
和设计的深入发展上。
你刚才提到了非线性系统研究机构，我们这里有像西塞尔•巴尔蒙德、大卫•鲁
和温卡这样的教授，你认为（数字化和非线性设计）将会是建筑学的真实未来
么？
非线性系统机构是西塞尔的研究联盟。大卫 • 鲁是这个项目的负责人
和研究者之一。另外，我们学院里还有一些教授和他们一起工作，这些教
授们一起开会进行讨论，我们还有很多其他研究人员。你也了解，西塞尔
在学院的教学日程非常紧张，他还有很多课程和其他研究的任务。但是他
个人相对于这个研究组织来说是独立的，这也令我们能够在设计和科学研
究之间搭建起特殊的桥梁。所以不同的学年中，不同的设计课中，我们和
西塞尔一起在科学技术层面进行不同的研究计划。去年是与生物相关，前
年与数学和几何相关。而非线性研究组织是作为运转这些研究的载体，而
其他项目也同时是这个研究组织的载体。这也就是各个研究机构和设计课
程的任务。这样的结果是我们能够在设计技术领域拥有更为丰富的手段，
而在更高级的层面，我们还可以受益于各种来自于科学、物理学、机械技
术和生物的工具和模型。这样我们就能够从两个方面丰富我们的手段进而
获得更多的成果。在今年，生物格外受关注，所以我们特意搭建了联系生
物学院、机械学院和设计学院的相互交流。
那么前卫的建筑学距离有没有与建筑学本身距离越来越大的趋势？
不是的！我认为建筑学在某种程度上来说是一个充满 “ 好奇心 ” 的学
科。同时也非常的多样化。其实建筑和科学的关系本来就十分古老……在
二十世纪早期，功能对康德来说就是科学。后来，在战后时期，我们看到
了建筑学被其他前卫的科学所驱使着继续发展。最终能够将建筑和自然整
合在一起。这也就是所有这些过程所追求的最终目标。建筑可以说是更大
和更广层面的学科知识的一部分。
因此，我认为在与普遍意义的技术和生态相关的方面中建筑与之有直
接的联系，这些发展中的自然科学与建筑的关系会变得越紧密。同时，
我们并没有对当今微妙的建筑教育状态达到相对成熟的了解的状态。这样
的环境将会对建筑如何作用，我们并不了解同现有的生态系统交织中的建
筑行为的本质。我们只是希望继续走在这条道路上。你可以真实地看到存
在着这样一块可以立足的场地，但是很大一部分现在的建筑都是与我们所
在的场地相一致的。我不认为我们的立足同那些对如何在自然状态中包裹
建筑的人们，或者说关注自然是如何“建造”树木，是如何“建造”动物的人
们有很大的距离。两者之间相距并不遥远，而是十分相似的。我所交流的
研究生物的人们，他们研究癌症，但是他们从微观的角度研究乳腺癌，研
究肺癌。他们所感性的结构性问题也是我们从建筑角度所感兴趣的内容。
他们对建筑产生兴趣，因为他们认为建筑师具有从这些微观有机生物体身
上发现其行为特点的能力，而这种能力他们并不具备。他们能看到生物体
上的图案，而我们却很难发现。而我们拥有能够动态的建构相关模型的工
具，而他们却没有。所以，他们对我们的工作也很感兴趣。我认为这是我
们所能做出的贡献所在。他们同样能够提供帮助，使得我们对科学的兴趣
更加可读。这并不是一种次级因素，并不是说无法在建筑学院进行研究的
问题也就无法拿到别的学院进行研究和发展……
当我在法贾迪的设计课中，那是一个非常理性的气氛，而就在我们组的旁边就
是瑞特•罗素的设计课，他们在研究珊瑚，所以在两个工作室之间就营造出了
一种非常有趣的氛围……
是啊，你也真实地感受到了。我对建筑学院的第一条出发点就是这里
应该是一种场所。我很期待看到霍马的设计课会产生什么成果，因为我知
道每次她的设计课都会出现令人惊讶的成果。她是建筑领域一位非常特殊
的思想家。她肯定会把非常不同的事物连接到一起。这是她的初衷。
我对她将多样化的事物进行融合的做法很感兴趣……
没错，你们把两种或三种看上去没有联系的事物拿到一起，你们可以
创造联系，你们可以变得更加开放。每次她进行她的设计课尝试，其中
一种事物都是很建筑化的。比如说在你所在的设计课中，你们借鉴的是某
种地域建筑类型，在以前的设计课中，学生们还研究过五六十年代的建筑
原型。这带来学科交叉的机会，就好像为我们看待某些对象的视角加上了
特殊的透镜一般。所以这也是一种创造新知识创新性的极强的方法。这种
方法延展了建筑学科的范围。我这里并不是说霍马或者我们必须要研究科
学，西塞尔、瑞特他们是这么做的，别的人也可这样做。我所期望的是当
这些方面被结合到一起之后，将能够产生一种更加丰富的氛围帮助学生们
认识到建筑学是一门处于不断进化中的学科，而非静止不前的。
但是同时，我们也知道，宾大建筑系有着非常悠久的历史。路易•康和中国的
著名建筑教育家梁思成都曾经在这里学习。在那时也有对我们来说非常重要的
传统需要保持……
我个人更愿意把我们正在做的工作也看待成立时的一部分。我们是一
个以物质和材料为基础的学校。我们有传统课程制作实验性的结构模型来
检验张力，这是非常特别的实验性模型。同时，我认为我们和西塞尔合作
的研究也是在这样的传统范畴之内。彼得•麦凯利教授会对这个问题有更
有趣的见解。但是，我们毕竟有和工程师合作的传统。彼得是具有实验性
特点的教授，西塞尔也是一样。他们都是工程师。他们依旧在材料科学的
范畴内进行着研究，所以我不认为宾大失去了这方面的传统。我们确实变
得更加数字化，但是我们的关注点还是在制造方面。我们对数字化制造感
兴趣，我们关注数字化进程是如何影响整个工业生产的。你要知道，现在
数字化已经随处可见，不仅仅存在于抽象化的模型层面，其实已经进入了
工业化的历史之中。而建筑领域也同样被数字化侵入。材料化实践变得数
字化。这些对我们来说都具有挑战意义。
你个人的研究集中在密斯身上。你曾经提到密斯在长期以来被我们所误读。同
时也对他的作品和思想进行了重新地思考。
是的，我的写作中密斯当作一位有机主义建筑师来对待。这一态度也
让大多数人感到吃惊。他是如何成为带有机倾向的呢？他看上去像是一位
理性主义者，一位技术之上的建筑师，当然他是这样的。他在成为IIT的
建筑系负责人时就职演讲中，他最后提到，“我们的目标是培养有机主义
建筑师。”他用了这个词(organic)。你可能会想到也经常用到这个词的赖
特。密斯是赖特的狂热崇拜者。当密斯刚刚来到美国的时候，他曾经到塔
里埃森拜访赖特。他在塔里埃森一共带了四天，并且和赖特相处得很好。
赖特谈到密斯也把他当作自己的继承者。那么我们要如何研究密斯的这种
倾向？其中一个资料来源是他接触过的阅读，我们发现他阅读过大量的科
学书籍，主要集中在生物方面；他阅读物理，阅读天文学，也对宇宙学也
很感兴趣。他探索科学技术的途径和工程师不同。让我们来看一下工程师
是如何探索技术的。他们将自然看待成模型。比如说，设计飞机的工程师
会去研究鸟类和其翅膀的结构特点。所以工程师研究自然是由传统的，他
们去寻找和自然界状态和谐的效果。最优化原则、最高效原则、经济性要
求都来自于功能原理。汉尼斯•迈耶是我们能够联想到上世纪二十年代的
最理性的功能主义者，他曾经说“建筑就是生物”。汉尼斯和密斯所阅读时
同一些作者的著作。所以我对当前进入到科学领域中的设计师的兴趣和我
对密斯的兴趣都是相关的。同时在某些角度，当人们问我谁是今天的密斯
的时候，我认为是西塞尔•巴尔蒙德。因为他正在模拟科学。他所作的工
作可以被看待成一种非现行的系统而且是非线性的。密斯并不知道什么是
非线性系统，他也并不了解复杂性理论。
那时这些科学理论还没有被发现。所以他们所处的是不同的科学时代
环境。所以我把密斯放在他所能够接触到的科学领域的地位来对待，加入
了时代因素，思考他所在的技术时代的历史环境。在他所在的时代，建筑
当然也不会像现在这样复杂。我们如何能够帮助我们所在的时代的建筑进
行转换发展，进而进入下一个历史时期。我可能这样一来，我们对待建
筑的态度也就应该发生转变。但是我们一点要抓住我们这个时代的科学技
术，来做密斯在他所在的历史时期中做的工作。这个问题会引出很多讨论
关于如何提升密斯的态度，但是我所提到的开始阶段在思考的问题。
你也曾讨论过密斯建筑中的几何层面……
没错，密斯的建筑是比例体系。他这样做是为了延续古典建筑特别是
哥特建筑的传统比例体系。所以我们看待密斯的几何形也并非十分的独
特。这个问题上，我们可以特别关注一下一个特别的任务——安妮•廷。
安妮是同路易斯•康一起合作的一位结构工程师。事实上，她还是康的情
人之一。她在宾大的时候教授的就是有关几何的课程。她在彼得•麦克利
的指导下完成了一篇论文，题目有关于“联立随即性和斐波那契数列的比
例规则”的问题。巴克敏斯特•富勒是这篇论文的读者之一，在我们的档案
馆里也有她的作品。这是几何层面特殊的联系上世纪60 年代和今天的建
筑研究案例。从安妮•廷的作品中，我们可以看到这是一种生成几何的方
法。在历史上，建筑中的几何常常用某种形而上的方式来证实实体性的存
在和其形而上的特性。尽管在现代主义是随着笛卡尔主义的发展而开始
的，几何学又被重新验证成为一种普遍的工具。在西方建筑学中，这段历
史只是很小的一部分。在我教授的课程中，当我们研究这些前辈思想家和
建筑师的时候，特别是进入二十世纪，开始有一些建筑师们使用几何作为
一种有生成能力工具进行创作。在战后时期，一些象安妮•廷的人物又重
新开始这方面的研究。在二十世纪早期的建筑历史中这是非常有趣的，但
是像我所说的，这是其中很小的一部分。
您也写过有关于FOA 、扎哈•哈迪德、SO M 和NOX 这些事务所的文章，这些多

样化研究对象对您的讨论有什么各自的影响？
首先，SOM的采访在这些事务所中是可以被分离出来的。我对SOM
一位前任合伙人的采访还在进行中。 FOA的文章和NOX的文章有很多共
同之处，如果再把另一篇为荷兰杂志“Interact or Die”进行的采访“生物和
建筑在何处相遇？”放在一起看，就会发现会有更明显的联系。这篇采访
可以被看作是创建生物学和建筑学在二十世纪历史性交叉研究的起点。我
正在专注于这方面的研究，同时进行一些教学，并且逐渐把成果发表出
来。我还在完成一本有关于密斯的书。这就是大概我在进行的主要工作。
还有一个想法是有关于“生态结构主义”的想法也开始发表。
那么有关于扎哈的研究呢？
那是一个不同于其他的任务。现在她的作品已经开始有了很多新的探
索。但是我的文章还是主要有关于她的作品是如何从最初对马列维奇的兴
趣进化到现在的状态的。
由于我对生成模型的兴趣，如果我们来观察马列维奇的至上主义，那
其中就存在着生成的思想。在1815到1819他的第一创作阶段中，马列维
奇就是试图发展出一种全新的生成性的方法进行绘画，它从黑色的方块开
始，但是很快发展到了他有能力操作的完整性几何形体。他这样做的，他
所创造的方法也呈现出一种非常丰富的特点。所以我认为扎哈自己的兴趣
就在于生成性，我们可以在她的作品中看到这一点。她现在进行的创作是
在她以前没有能力控制的，她完成很多动态模型，在将他们电子化等等，
直到变得模糊和更加复杂。
我还提及一些有关于中国建筑界和宾大的关联的话题。梁思成、杨廷宝等一批
前辈以及马清运都是宾大的毕业生，梁很大程度上创建了中国现代建筑教育体
系……
梁所在的年代宾大采用的巴黎美术学院体系。那是一种同现今完全不
同的建筑体系，对中国的影响也很大，也帮助创建了很多中国建筑院校，
甚至影响到中国的现代建筑。你知道，我们曾经在这里举办过一个有关于
中国建筑和宾大的会议，那是我在这里任教的第一年。本来应该出一本
书，这方面的内容我们的教授托尼•阿特金斯更加了解。那次会议的主题
是“巴黎美术学院风格在中国”，集中讨论的是二十世纪早期的情况，也就
是巴黎美术学院风格下的宾大和中国。我们对当今状态下的中国很感兴
趣。我们也有由托尼指导的中国设计课。马清运也有他的设计课。我们和
清华也合作中的TC Chen中心。我们当然已经远离了巴黎美术学院体系，
学院在不停的发展变化。但是我们和中国毕竟有紧密的联系，这种联系也
处在变化中。
你是怎么认识马清运的？
我已经记不得第一次是在那里见到他的了，但是我们在上海、在纽约
和其他一些会议上遇到了很多次。他曾经在宾大学习，他后来也进行了一
些教学工作。我眼中的马更像一个很自然的人，我很喜欢他的作品。我想
他现在应该在南加州大学了，我希望有机会再和他交流。
你是怎么看这些中国建筑师在美国的状态，不仅是马还有张永和……
我认为这是已经非常奇妙的事情。你知道阿布 • 仁史在 UCLA 作系主

任。不仅仅是中国，整个亚洲都在和美国发生了越来越强的联系。另一方
面，我们在中国也有很多要做的工作。所以这可以说一种非常难得的机
会。两条不同道路进行交汇。中国遇到的挑战很大。我们也曾经经历过这
些挑战。能源、绿色建筑，这些话题逐渐在中国受到关注。我认为在中国
状态能够发展的更快。很多事在很短时间发生了变化。
我觉得事情变得太快也并非好事……
也许吧，但是我认为这个过程已经开始了，并且趋势也还不错。当然
可能还有别的方式可以完成这个过程，因为我对中国的建筑公司很有信
心，他们在美国也正在做一些项目。在一些领域，中国更适合作出创造性
的成果。如果真得如此，那将会对全世界特别是美国有相当的好处。所以
我认为来自中国的影响将会非常美妙，但是过程也需要方向上的改变。而
改变在美国进行更快一些。所以我们不希望中国发展的速度降下来，但也
要保证高速发展下尽量不以质量的牺牲作为代价，不以可持续性作为牺牲
的代价。在美国也是一样！
你对当今建筑教育的看法是怎么样的？
我认为建筑的未来将会面对更多的挑战。作为一门学科、一种教育，
我们要接受并处理好这些挑战。这些挑战有的是来源于技术，比如可持续
发展方面，也有来自城市方面的问题。这些挑战很大程度上都大于建筑自
身的问题，这就要求我们不断进行研究，同时进行实践。世界发展的很多
问题，人口问题、经济问题，在费城，我们的经济也要继续发展。美国和
其他国家并没有什么不同之处。经济发展终归是必需的。建筑作为一种工
具，在费城这样的城市中可以帮助当地经济得到发展，帮助当地的建设达
到相对更加先进的水平。建筑也是一种艺术，密斯希望赋予建筑以愉悦、
美、更多的特殊体验，还有更多的机会。我们如果只简单的关注技术和
生态的问题，就将会迷失掉这些需要。所以在短短三年的教育时间内，我
们如何才能涵盖所有这些方面和层面，这也是对我们的挑战。建筑在其本
质上同这些都有紧密地联系，所以是一个综合性极强的学科。如果能够将
各个方面都涉及到并且最终获得单一的作品，那将会使非常难得一件事。
我们不需要高昂的预算来完成这件特殊的工作，只需要拥有渴望和态度去
做就好了。我认为最终建筑要靠特殊的感受让人们感动，通过扩展人们预
先的期望，扩展人们日常的经验。这些都是非常重要的，有人认为建筑或
美或经济，或可持续或形式，我不这么认为。建筑没有二者选其一的情况
发生，而必须是极大扩展的。也许就像文丘里的观点，回到他的复杂而矛
盾的建筑，他并只对某种状态感兴趣，而是对所有思想都感兴趣。那才是
建筑。当然我们也不可能面面俱到，我们必须有选择性。但是建筑具有时
间性、场地性和参与性，包括使用者和业主等等。这些都是建筑特殊之
处。建筑和医学比较起来可以算是相对范围较小的行业。在美国也只有大
约十万建筑师，而且这些建筑师也只不过创造出我们所处的物理环境的一
部分而已。那么我们就更应该把这一小部分做的特殊，为了使用空间的人
们、业主和所在的场地做出更大的贡献，这些都不难理解。
谢谢！
Detlef Mertins
Professor and Chair, Department of Architecture
Teaches architectural history, theory and supervises doctoral research.

Taught at the University of Toronto (1991-2003) and as a visiting professor at
Columbia University, Harvard University, Princeton University and Rice University.
Held the Canada Research Chair in Architecture (2001-2003), the Konrad
Adenauer Research Prize of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and Royal
Canadian Society (2003), and a Visiting Scholar Fellowship at the Canadian
Centre for Architecture (1998). Books include the English edition of Walter Curt
Behrendt, The Victory of the New Building Style, The Presence of Mies, and
Metropolitan Mutations: The Architecture of Emerging Public Spaces.
Numerous essays in scholarly journals and anthologies, as well as critical

writings on contemporary architecture. Most recent essays include "The
Modernity of Zaha Hadid" in the exhibition catalogue Zaha Hadid (Guggenheim
Museum), "Mies's Event Space" in Grey Room 20, "Bioconstructivism" in Lars
Spuuybroek's NOX: Machining Architecture, "Same Difference" in Foreign Office
Architects' Phylogenesis: FOA's Ark, and "Interview with Natalie de Blois" in
SOM Journal 4. Research focuses on the history and theory of modernism in
architecture, art, philosophy, and urbanism.
Interview by: Liyang Ding

Time: June 11th, 2007
Location: A Bar in Downtown Philadelphia, PA, USA
My first question is about education. You have been working as the chair of
department of architecture for about 4 years since 2003. What is your initial idea to
direct the Department of Architecture at Penn?
In many ways what I was hoping to do is to extend things which

were already happening at Penn and at the same time to bring a bit
more of research focuses, which has already been developed at Penn
but too intensified so far. So we have, in terms of our curriculum, taken
things that have been going in math level and brought some of those
here in the introductory level. For instance, digital tools have not yet
been introduced in the first semester, but we did that. At the same
time we also use that as an opportunity to bring a great occupation to
generative designing models into foundational curriculums. So in many
ways we’ve done the foundation in our studios and then we work through
the implication of that for the spring semester and the second year and
the rest of the curriculum. We also have been very fortunate to made
new hires, we brought Cecil Balmond in, he is our practice professor
who is really regulated this idea of using general model from the science,
mathematics and geometry.
But there is whole constellation of people who has the similar

idea and similar approaches and that’s now form the certain critical
methods. To a few of works like from what Ali Rahim’s been doing,
Winka’s been doing to Cecil’s been doing, and people like David
Ruy, Enrique Norten and Rhett Russo. It is producing the new critical
maths, let’s say, around the topic of design techniques. In some ways
the influence caused by the digital tools but also in many ways quiet
depended by digital tools. So in many cases people are doing these
works by handwork as well. We still have a big emphasis on physical
model making as well. We don’t want to loose that, we still want to keep
the sketch as well. But the issue is the techniques that generate models
even more than digital tools. The scripting comes a big part of place as
well.
At the same time I try to talk about another critical map around the
issue of ecology. So there are people like William Braham, Ali Malkawi
as technology, other studio bringing foreign young teaching for ecologic

theory system. I guess now we are gaining more momentum and we
have a quite same level as the methods as the others we start to new
particular ecological architecture this year, we will be bringing more
courses and more teaching on ecology, Rhett Russo will be teaching a
course on ecology as well last year, how to analysis the urban situation
from the ecologic aspect, the focus on the natural system but also
human construction system. I think it is a particular moment which eco-
system approach is actually really important. And it is important and
more important, with the design opportunity as its form. We start to
research the units in both intensifying the work what we can do, Cecil
Balmond’s nonlinear system organization, Ali Malkawi’s TC Chen Center
for Building Simulation and Energy Studies are in this area, right? So
design techniques, ecology, some people says sustainable course, we
preferred the eco-system approaches. Those become major notes.
At the same time I think we have been introducing something into the
theory curriculum that we have been lacking for more emphasis on
urbanism, more emphasis on political issues as well.
Those are issues other than architecture field…
Well, they are very related, and you cannot deal with architecture
without thinking urbanism, so we got Manuel De Landa teaching the
course of Urban Dynamics. You have course of informal cities. Tony
Atkins is teaching traditional cities, and Winka’s studio provides the view
to stand out for the analyses how to dynamically operate, at the same
time, I should say there is some issue about politics. A little less I like so
far, but we are working into it. So we will have some studio to deal with
the elections which at last time elections became the first year studio,
political spectacle searching, Srdjan Jovanovic Weiss has taught a
course on turmoil about the geo-politics thought specially by architects
from Europe. And we introduce here architecture on race. This is the
first year we have Charles Davis teaching about race. So you know
architecture is such a synthetic issue that you want to have both a log of
coverage but you still need to make a school works properly, you need
certain and intense focuses and that is the game of the play.
You can balance you choose for the future but also control existing in other fields.
Right, I think we need to be educators who can bring the wider

orientation to the wild world of architecture to our students. At the same
time, we need to give them as many skills and knowledge that are
related to design as we can. And that’s sort of how it’s working, hopefully
the range of courses people can take is broad enough to provide big
orientation, like furniture, introducing product design, so we got a
broad range but at the same time our focus is on the design related
and technology piece in that, theory piece in that design is real vital in
the area of techniques. I think we got probably more really engaging
seminar, workshops that tie into the studios in digital fabrication,
generative component, etc. such this experimental knowledge. There
is a lot we were doing is experiment. We want the students to learn, on
one hand of course, they’ve been learning a lot of the practice but what
we are doing pushes themselves in their elevation. If we go to the level
of elevation of experimentation, the rest will follow; the normal of practice
will be learned. But if we look from the other way, we start from the
practices; we might never get the level of elevation of experimentation.
For myself, I was in the Winka studio for the first semester, It was a kind of extremely
digital studio. But in the second studio I choose Homa Farjadi, it is in other side of
traditional physical and reasonable thinking material. It is kind of conflict in myself,
how to keep the interest and how to think about this objects.
I think it is really good to be able to gain that range of experiences.

And for you now try to absorb what do you exposed to and establish your
own agenda. I don’t have a single design knowledge I have to learn, I
want to create a school there is stimulating environment for a number
of different directions. And yet it is not just the university; you also can
go into something depth. So you were in the only one year program,
but if you were in the three years program, and if you were interested
in the digital work you could really go into great detail. This year, for
instance, in our 2nd year studio we introduce a integrate design studio,
which we were addressing the integration engineering into models that
were digitally generated. A lot of our students have had opportunities
to explore how to do that, how to take an abstract model of a building
and then integrate it and develop it through a data counter with material,
fabrication, engineering, building codes to make a fully robust model for
architecture.
Is there any about phenomena of social conditions? In that particular studio, it is

really technical.
Of course all of the other issues are important. In school, I don’t

think you can do the entire thing all of once. So that second year studio
we really want to focus on technical integration and design development.
And you just mentioned about the non-linear-system-organization, we do have the

professor like Cecil Balmond, David Ruy, Winka Dubbeldam, etc. Do you think this
is the real future for architecture?
Well, the non-linear system organization is Cecil Balmond’s

research union. And David Ruy is the director and researcher. And
we have several faculties working with them; we have conference; we
have research fellows. It is tight for Cecil’s teaching agenda too: many
curriculums and many research studios. But Cecil is independent from
that, but it allows us to build connections between design and science.
So in each year, in different studios, we pursue different agenda in the
science. Last year, it was largely biology the year before was largely
mathematics and geometry. And the conferences are vehicle for that and
other projects are also vehicle for it. That’s the mission of it. It is to say
we could be much rich in our design technique, in the advanced level,
we can be rich by the models available in the science, physics, quantum
mechanics and biology. But we can perhaps richen that field in other two
ways. That was very warming this year, biology especially. Because the
links we made with the institute of medical and engineering.
do you think the advanced architecture mean leave architecture far way from human
people?
No, no, not at all. I think architecture is a curious field in that way.
The field is very diverse. The connections to science are very old. In
the early 20th century, functions are without science of Kant. Again
and again, in the post-war we’ve seen architecture being energized by
advanced sciences, and by desire ultimately re-integrated architecture in
nature. That’s it about. And how do we do it in the way taking all the best
technology we have of the…? Why we limit ourselves in the knowledge
we had in the old science, or old models of design, when we affect the
entrances to the understandings.
So I think there is a very simple direct connection can be made

these things which deal with general techniques and ecology, which is
also the science of nature which is increasingly for architecture to get
involve with. And we don’t have a very sophisticated understanding in
architectural education. How these circumstance gonna work, we don’
t understand our activities interweaving in the existing eco-system. We
need to stand in that way. You can say that is a terrace, but at a larger
part of architecture seen today, and as recognized as parallel. I don't
think it is long away from people who are interested in how packing
system in carping system in the world of nature phenomena or how
nature builds animals or how nature builds trees. It is a long way to that.
It is very similar. The people we met who are working in biology; they are
working on the microscopic level on breast cancer or lung cancer. There
is not a long way from them. They are interested in structures that we
understand as architecture. They are interested in architecture because
they believe that we’ve seen the behavior of microscopic organism that
they don’t have. We can see pattern but we don’t see it. We have tools
to model it dynamically that they don’t have. So they are very interested
in that. So I think there is contribution we can make. They in turn can
contribute to making our interests in science more readerous. I think
actually it’s not a secondary issue. In this area, it isn’t an area or focus
we cannot develop here but none of other schools can be developing.
Actually, I was in Homa’s studio, which was a very rational studio, but next to us, it
was the Rhett Russo’s Studio, they were studying the coral, between the studios, there
was a very interesting air there.
Yeah, you can see that. You know, I can say, my first point of
departure of the school of architecture is that it is a scene. I want to see,
you know, what Homa comes up with, because every time Homa does
her studio to me is an amazing studio. She is also a very extraordinary
thinker in our field. She will bring unusual things together, right? That’s
the proposition.
I am kind of interested in bring three different things into blend.
Exactly, you bring two or three things which are seemingly unrelated
together, you making new connections, you opening up, because every
time she does it, one of these things is every architectural. The last
studio, you did the vernacular building. Also in other case, you can do
works on the architects from 50s’ or 60s’. This is kind of interdisciplinary.
It is like bring something into the lens to look at. So that again is
extremely fresh to make new knowledge. It extends the horizon of
discipline. I don’t mean she or we have to look at science. Cecil and
Rhett, somebody else can do that, I think, hopefully, putting these
thing together can make a very rich environment for students to see
architecture as a discipline that is evolving.
In the history, Penn has a very long history. And there was Louis Kahn and Sicheng
Liang who studied and worked in Penn. At that time, the education cared a lot on the
traditional aspects just like materials and techtonics.
I would like to think that what we’re doing is part of history. We are
in a materially based school. We did experimental structure in tension,
to test them in failure, very unusual experimental models. And I think

that what we are doing with Cecil is in that tradition. Peter McCleary was
arguing with me about this issue. You know, we had have the history of
working with engineers in this school who is experimental in their field.
Peter’s been experimental. Cecil’s been experimental. But they are still
structure engineers. They are still working with material science and I
don’t think it’s gone. We become digital, but our focus is in fabrication.
We are interested in digital fabrication, how the digital is affecting the
entire industry production. It is in everything now. It is not just the matter
of modeling abstractly. It is now in the blood of all industry history. We
become more like that. Material practice becomes digital. That’s the
challenge.
And your studies and research is about Mies Van de Rohe. You mentioned that Mies
has been misinterpreted for long ago. You reinterpreted his works and thinking.
Yes. I’ve written Mies as an organic architect. That takes most

people by surprise. How is he organic? He looks like rationalist; he
looks like technologist, and of course he is. But, he says in his inaugural
speech when he is becoming the director of the architecture school of
IIT, the end of it is that “we want to train organic architects.” He used the
word. And you probably think about Frank Lyold Wright, who uses this
word a lot. He was an enthusiast fan of Wright. When he was young,
he goes to see him in Taliesin when he arrives in the United States. He
stays for four days and they get along really well. Frank Lyold Wright
introduces him basically as his ancestor. Ok, so let’s think about this.
How do you do that? One resource is to look at what he reads, and
turns out he read of a lot of science. He actually reads biology. He reads
physics. He reads astronomy, and he is interested in cosmology. And
he approaches technology, not exactly like that an engineer would, but
also think about how engineer approaches technology. Any of them
approaches as natural science, right? They look nature as models; let’
s say people who design airplane look at birds, their wing structures.
So it is a long history of engineers looking to nature, and trying to
achieve performances that are compatible to the performances in
nature. Principles of optimization, principles of efficiency, what our
economy needs are drawn with principles in functional theory. The
functionalist in1920s read biology. Hannes Meyer who is the most
rational functionalist you can think of in the 1920s, he writes a manifesto
that “building is biology.” Who is he reading? He is reading the same
people Mies was reading. So my interest in contemporary designers
who are looking at science is not unrelated at all to my interests to Mies.
And in some ways if somebody asked me who are the new Mies? Who
will be the contemporary version of Mies? One of my answers would be

somebody like Cecil Balmond because he is miming science. He is doing
now very deliberately in terms of non-linear system rather than linear
system. Mies doesn’t know about non-linear system, neither complexity
theory.
They didn’t exist in science. You had a different science. So I place

Mies in his contact of his science, thinking of his time, his historical
condition of techonology of his time. Mies’s attitude is how can
architecture be adequate to his time? How could we make architecture
that will affect to transform the times we are in, to move into the next
historical epoch? I am not sure we can quite think in the same way
anymore in that regard. But we would have to embrace the science of
our time, and have to embrace the technology of our time like what Mies
did in his own time. It would be a lot to explain how to update Mies. But
those are at least couple of them of the beginning point.
You also talk about the geometrical and scientific aspects of architecture by Mies.
Right, Mies’s building is proportional system. He did it in a way

that consisted with classical traditions that using gothic traditions and
proportional systems. So our turning to geometry is not that different.
And at that matter, you can look at a very interesting work that Anne
Tyng did here. Tyng was the structural engineer who worked with Louis
Kahn. And she is in fact one of Louis Kahn’s lovers also. And she taught
at Penn, on geometry. She did a dissertation under Peter McCleary on
“Simultaneous randomness and order the Fibonacci-divine proportion.”
Buckminster Fuller was one of the readers of the dissertation. And we
have the material of her work in our Archive. That was an isolated fact
for geometry to bridge the 60s with today. She was using the geometry
in a generative way. Very often, in the past, architects used geometry
more in a metaphysical way to affirm the existence of entities to affirm
the metaphysic of entities. Whereas the modern sensibility only begins
with Descartes, geometry is retested as a generative tool. It is a little
history of this; it is not a big part of history of western architecture. But
there is something that I teach in my inventory course where we look at
the precursors of general thinking, in the turn of century of 1900s, there
are architects who began to use geometry as a general tool, again, in
the post-war period, people like Anne Tyng doing here. So there is very
interesting earlier history as I say not big one, but a little part one.
You also write different articles about FOA and Zaha Hadid, SOM, NOX, so, what is
your intention for discussing these architects in such a diverse sense?
I think the SOM interview has been quite separated. It is ongoing. I

did four of them with SOM, with a former partner. It is a great experience
to do that. I’d like to say there are more commonalities between the
FOA article, the article I did for NOX. I just published an interview done
with a publication called Interact or Die, which is a Dutch publication.
It is all about biology. I did something called “Where Biology Meets
Architecture?” and if you put that with this two (FOA and NOX), they
work. That is a beginning to establish the research on the intersection of
biology and architecture historically in twentieth century. And yes, I am
working on that, I am teaching on that, and slowly publishing. I am still
working on the monograph about Mies, I am trying to finish that. That is
currently my central preoccupation. But there is other project called bio-
contrustionism is also now beginning to have some publication.
So Zaha is a quite different feature among them?
There was a different assignment. I think that now Zaha is working

as many ways. My essay was looking more at how her works evolve out
her initial interests of Malevich.
But also because I am working on generative models, if you looked

at Malevich’s Suprermatism, it’s a generative idea. In his first phase of
1815-1819, he was developing a new generative approach to painting,
begins with Black Square, but very quickly develops whole geometric
formal entities that he can manipulate. And he does then it can be a very
rich one. So already in that, I think Zaha’s own interests in generative,
you can find it there. Now she makes architectural which she was never
able to do, she does make a lot things with it and she makes dynamic
models, she digitize it, etc. she becomes blur and complex. Even
Malevich at the beginning he approach curve shapes.
I want to know something about the connection between China and Penn. Liang
Sicheng and Ma qingyun, you know Liang used to study at Penn, and actually set up
the former Chinese architectural education system, and MA also studied and taught
at Penn after Liang.
That was the Beaux-Arts system. It was a different system of

architecture. And it was very influential in China, helping form many
architecture schools there, and form even the modern architecture. You
know, we actually had a conference of here, my first year at Penn. It was
suppose to come up with a book.
The conference was called like Beaux-Arts in China. It was focus

on that initial period, the Beaux period. There is also a Phd student
we have. Did you meet her? She is working on modern architecture in
China. She knows a lot about it. I don’t know much about it. I have to say
that I am very interested in China at the contemporary situation. We did
have studio there ran by Tony Atkin. Qingyun Ma has a workshop for our
studio. We had the Chen center now in Beijing with Tsinghai University. I
don’t think there is a particular school of thought. We are not continuing
working on Beaux-Arts tradition. You know, our school has been evolved.
But the connection is there. But I think the characters are changing.
What do you think about the condition of Chinese architects in the United States, not
only Qingyun Ma but Yungho Chang.
I think that is a terrific thing that happened. And also Hitoshi Abe is
now chair of UCLA. Not only Chinese, but Asian, I think the connection
between the America and Asia needs to be stronger, and we need to
learn more what’s going on there. We, on the other hand, have to do
many things to offer in China. So it is a tremendous opportunity. Two
ways flow. The challenges in China are big. There are same challenges
we have in some ways. Energy, green architecture, etc. become topics
in China. I think they move faster in China. You can see this in the
last year. Things change. But I think it probably change more in China
because of the centralized government.
But I think changing too fast maybe not a good thing.
Maybe not, but I think the first several waves of organization have
already been happening. Now it’s correctly moved. I think that there
might be other way doing it. Hopefully, because I also confident of the
fact that now the Chinese construction company, they are now working
here in United States. I think the opportunity for innovation maybe
stronger in China in some areas. If that happened, it will be a very good
force to the rest of the world especially here in United States. So actually
I think the Chinese influence could be very beautiful in that way. But that
does require there will be changes direction in China. The changes in
United States are faster. In fact, it maybe not as fast as in China, but it is
trying to catch up. So we don’t want to become resultant the speed that
have in China. But on the other hand, we need to learn how to do things
here more quickly without sacrificing quality, nor sustainability, etc.. So in
that regard, our missions are the same in China same problems.
Here is the last question. Could you say anything about the department of
architecture?
Well, I think the future of architecture continue to have a lot

challenges. And we, as a profession and an education, are trying to
wrap up all those challenges. In some ways, those are challenges
dealing with technology, like the sustainability issues, and there are
also urban issues. There are things actually bigger than architecture
practice per se, that requires us to collaborate in research and practice,
the issues of the world, the population growth, shelter of organization,
about distribution well, and about global economy. We here need in
Philadelphia to grow our economy. We are not that different from other
countries. Economy growth is still in need. Architecture can be a tool in
a place like Philadelphia to help local economy to grow to participate in
that, to help local construction history which doesn’t exist, but to build in
an advanced level. Architecture is art that Mies wants to add pleasure,
to add beauty, extraordinary experience, and the opportunity. We will be
missed if we simply focus on technological and ecological issues. So
that’s part of our challenges. How to do all of that? How to do it in the
only three years education? We have to cover so many basis of how
to do that. Architecture by its nature connects to all of these things. It
is synthetic, however. That is a great attribute that it can draw all these
issues together to make it a singular work, to make an extraordinary
singular works. You don’t have to have a big budget to make an
extraordinary project. You have to have the desire and altitude to do it.
That’s ultimately I think how architecture can touch people by making
extraordinary experiences, by expending their horizon of their wiliness,
by expanding their horizon of everyday life. That is super important.
People believe that architecture is either about beauty or about
economy. It is either about sustainability or about form. I don’t believe in
that. It is not alternative thing about architecture, we want to be inclusive.
Maybe Robert Venturi had a good point, way back The Complexity and
Contradiction in Architecture, who is not interested in either thinking but
interested in both and thinking, inclusive, that is architecture. You can’
t always do everything of course. You have to be selective; you have to
choose. Or you can’t build any projects. But architecture is done that
way; it’s done building at that time; it’s very specific to the place; it’s very
specific to the people that involve, the clients. That’s the extraordinary
thing about architecture. Architecture is a small profession. It is not as
big as medicine. It is not big as engineering. It’s actually the numbers
important. There are only about 100,000 architects in United States.
We are not actually producing all the physical environment, but we are
producing subset of it. We try to make that subset special someway. To
have a contribution to the people who will use it, to their clients, and to
their location that special. So it is easily to be understood.
大卫•勒瑟巴热教授
建筑学教授;建筑研究生课程主席
大卫•勒瑟巴热博士教授建筑理论和设计课程，并指导博士项目。他曾经
在伦敦科技中心和剑桥大学教授理论和设计。1997-98年度获得加拿大建筑中
心访问学者奖。著作包括《地形的故事（Topological Stories）》、《非凡的
地面（Uncommon Ground）》、《建筑创新的根基（Roots of Architectural
Invention ）》、《风化（ On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time,
and Masterpieces of Architectural Drawing ）》，《表皮建筑（ Surface
Architecture）》等。他的研究方向集中在建筑理论和城市。
时间：2007年6月13日
地点：美国费城宾夕法尼亚大学设计学院勒瑟巴热教授办公室
几年前《对话》杂志曾经采访过我。那次采访涉及到了我在宾大建筑
学两个学位体系中的作用。我曾经做了六年的硕士学位的系主任。《对
话》杂志希望了解我在那段时期以及我为博士教学所做的工作。完成采访
之后，他们还向理查德•卫斯理（Richard Wesley）问了同样的问题，卫
斯理是在我之后的硕士学位系主任。
这是我从图书馆里找到的《宾大的痕迹（ P e n n in In k ）》。这里有一篇对你
当时出版的新书《风化（ O n W e a t h e rin g ）》的简要介绍，还有一些有关于您
是如何来到宾大的内容？文章中谈到你来从英国获得博士学位，还谈到了约
瑟夫•里克沃特，是他将你指引到了这里。
是的，曾经有两位教授指导过我的博士研究，一位是约瑟夫 • 里克沃
特，另一位是达利勃•维斯利。由于那时康已经去世了，我问约瑟夫，为
什么在他心目中宾大是一所好学校，因为我并不清楚在康去世之后的时期
中，宾大是否具有吸引力。约瑟夫说：“尽管路易•康去世了，一些新事物
也许能够出现。”
那么对你来说，康是不是决定来到这里的一个非常重要的人或者因素呢？
康是原因的一部分，而让我下决心来到宾大的主要原因是费城这座城
市。我现在依旧相信，处在于一种城市的环境中对研究建筑十分重要。我
也很喜欢我以前居住过的伦敦。我当时就认为如果来美国的话，就一定要
生活在一座伟大的城市里。因此我想来到宾大教书并且参与到创造全新时
代的过程应该是一件很美妙的经历。
另外，我在这里遇到的同事们对我来说也是非常重要的资源。当我第
一次来到宾大的时候，新一届的系主任刚刚上任，她就是阿黛尔•诺德 •桑
多斯（Adèle Naudé Santos），她是现在的麻省理工学院建筑学院的院
长。她具有非常创造性的头脑。在学院里，还有一位到宾大第三年的教
授，马尔•弗拉斯卡理（Marco Frascari），我很乐意和他一起交流合作。
还有理查德•卫斯里，他那时刚刚开始任课。所以我很高兴能够在宾大遇
到能够一起工作的同事和学者们。只有一个人的力量没有办法让一所学院
变强，只有当几个希望共事的人一起努力才有可能成功。
没错！这里是对你的著作《风化（ O n W e a t h e rin g ）》的介绍。你在书中讨论
的建筑和“自然”的关系，你写道：“自然侵蚀在建筑上留下了时间的痕迹。而建

筑物非永久性的结构可以和人在时间中的经验相类比。在每一时刻，从生命的
初期的婴儿时期、儿童时期和青年时期到所有其他不同阶段在一个人的生命中
的即时瞬间都有所体现，年龄在增长但是这些生命的不同阶段确是不曾改变和
依旧熟悉的，并且它们还处在不断的重新定义和调整过程中。没有一个人是没
有过去经验的，也没有人的过去经验能够从他（她）个人所在的文化传统和自
然世界的时间作用中抹去的。”您对比了人生和建筑。那么您的第一本书为什
么以及如何从这里展开的呢?
这本书是我和莫森•莫斯塔法维（Mohsen Mostafavi，现任哈佛设计
学院院长）合作的一本书，我们试图重新理解设计概念，当时我们感到如
果能够把设计结果，我这里指的建筑物，当作随着时间的流逝不断发展和
改变的事物的话，就类似于人类的生命，我们就能更好的理解建筑设计。
当你还是一个孩子的时候，你会拥有孩子特定的外表。你还是你，但是外
表却处在不断的变化过程之中，而不同时期的外表各有不同。当你年纪越
来越大，外表将会继续改变。我们试图把“风化”当作一种方法来弄清楚建
筑这方面的内容——也就是建筑随着时间持续发展变化——也就同一个人
的成长和成熟的过程产生了呼应关系。
这里你为什么选择“风化”和不是“气候”、“自然”这些词？
主要的原因是因为了解和思考这一话题的人不多（笑），同时我们还
感觉到我们能够讲述一些特别的内容，而非必须根据大量既有的讨论作为
基础。然而，其他词汇比如“环境”、“气候”或者“自然世界”都是相类似的。
我们希望能够找到更为确切的标题，也为了说明我们所写作的并不是哲学
层面的东西。我们希望描写更多的细节和设计结果。由于“风化”事实上是
有关于建筑细节的内容，所以在这里比较恰当。我们希望不仅能够提供一
些和概念同样重要的东西，而且包括设计的实践应用。
我认为你的著作的一个特点就是其中包含了很多实际建筑作为案例和
相关图片。在《风化》这本书面世 10 年之后，《表皮建筑（ S urface
A r c h it e c t u r e ）》同样有更多的建筑作品实例，是不是说你的研究对视觉为基
础的思考在逐渐加深？
可以这么说，表皮是可视的。建筑也是的。这本书（《表皮建筑》）
试图阐述造成建筑视觉表象形成的诸多原因，其中一部分有关于实践性
的，一部分是技术性的，还有与自然环境有关，当然也包括工业化方面的
因素。建筑的形式对每个人来说都有吸引力。而真正的问题是为什么不同
的建筑会有不同视觉表象，为什么建筑的表皮会呈现出各自相应的状态。
这本书的目的就在于试图搞清楚所有这些与建筑视觉表象有关的全部问
题。
那么你对建筑的视觉部分的兴趣又是处在什么样的程度上呢？
我们无法避免设计这一方面。但是建筑只有视觉效果并不够。所以我
们试图将视觉内容和建造的非视觉背景、环境以及超出建筑物以外的视觉
问题相互联系。我认为我们不得不接受这样的事实——设计过程中人们更
为关注建筑的视觉层面。但是这本书批评了认为视觉是建筑的全部内容的
观点。我们希望令建筑的表皮产生出“深度（厚度）”——不仅是语言上隐
喻层面的“深度”。而建筑的深度（厚度）就是其非视觉状态的结果。
这种表皮“深度化“的追求需要不同方面内容的参与。而其中有没有宾大所一直
传承的现象学角度的来源呢？
现象学作为哲学帮助我们搞清楚了建筑的视觉真实性的一部分内容。
很多从现象学中汲取营养的建筑师强调的是人的体验，特别是感知。当然
现象学也是我所考虑的一部分，但我们还想把建筑独立于个人性的感知体
验来进行解释，比如建筑是如何存在于自然环境之中的，或者如何作为一
种各种建构模式的结果而存在的。所有这些状态都并不是有关于感知或者
体验的特定问题。所以现象学是这些问题的一部分来源。
但是，你会不会认为建筑的视觉部分转化到图像的二维和固化层面会离设计师
的内在思想距离略远？
我承认很多历史学家和相当数量的设计师的头脑中对图像化的画面过
于专注。但是，如同我所提到的，我们的书试图批评的是这种专注，这包
括两方面内容。一方面，书中试图接受很多人关注这一问题，另一方面，
试图解释这一关注需要和很多其他内容相互联系，比如感知、建构和环境
问题等。
你的书带有一种诗般的感觉，你是否认为建筑学著作应该用这种方式来书写
呢？
我并不这么认为，但是我确实是以这种方式来写作的，也许来自于一
种思考习惯。我相信建筑学是非常复杂的学科。我希望通过研究和写作来
反映这种复杂性。我认为建筑师——优秀的建筑师——有能力同时思考几
个方面的问题。同样，优秀的建筑也要有体现相应多种状态的能力。如果
你可以在设计过程中思考建构，那你就是不错的建筑师。而如果你还能思
考建构对感知和体验的影响，那就是非常好了。如果你还能同时考虑到设
计、建构和感知这些方面同时还能设计它们受到自然环境影响的话，那就
更好了。所以有时在写作中，你会描述某种细部、平面或者一座建筑作品
的某一视角，而在描述中还要带有对建筑师需要有意识的保持关注的各个
方面之间关系的阐述。
另外，我看到在你的《地形的故事（ To p o l o g ic a l S t o ri e s ）》试图说明了这样
一个想法，也就是在建筑和景观之间并没有一个相对清晰的边界，在《表皮建
筑（ S u rfa c e A rc hite ctu r e ）》中，建筑既不是单独存在，也并没有被技术所主
导……
建筑学的问题带有奇妙的综合性。请允许我做一个比较。建筑并不类
似于算术，也不类似于平面几何学。建筑更类似于代数，在某一个简单
等式中存在着几项未知变量。优秀的建筑在同一时刻反映出对各个方面未
知变量的考虑。比如说，它们的内在等式的几项未知需要同所在景观环境
建立准确的相互关系。优秀的作品还需要具备对材料的良好使用的特点。
同时它还需要强调实际的应用。建筑是一种美妙而奇特的综合之物。正是
由于他们同时考虑的很多方面和问题，才使得建筑展现出如此难以置信的
丰富性。当建筑仅仅作为构筑物的时候，当建筑仅仅作为图片的时候，或
者当建筑仅仅解决实际功用的需要的时候，它们都不能称得上是优秀的建
筑。优秀的建筑应该包含全部这些因素的考虑，甚至同时包含更多。建筑
的代数般的复杂性还令其成为一种值得研究的奇妙对象，但是也同样让建
筑变得难以研究。
没错，我同样认为建筑应该同时具备所有这些优秀的品质，这些都是由理论研
究所引导而产生结论的么？但是，人们经常仅仅有能力在其各自不同兴趣的基
础上追求其中的某一方向，这也使得这样的设计和研究更为专注。
是的！
有关于宾大的建筑学教育，您刚才提到了曾经与理查德•卫斯理和马尔•弗拉斯
卡理一起共事过……？
弗拉斯卡理曾经在意大利学习，随后为卡罗 ▪ 斯卡帕工作过一段时
间。受到斯卡帕的影响，他对路易•康也产生了兴趣。所以弗拉斯卡理从
意大利来到了辛辛那提，然后来到了宾大，在宾大他获得了博士学位。之
后，他开始在宾大教书。所以当我 1984年从英国来到费城的时候，他已
经在这里生活学习了一段时间了。在同一年，卫斯理也开始在宾大的授
课。所以当时，理查德、马尔科和我同时在宾大教授设计和理论课程。
你能不能稍微介绍一下《风化》这本书的合作者，莫斯塔法维？
当然！莫斯塔法维出生在伊朗，也是在英国接受的教育，他当时就学
于英国建筑联盟（AA）。他当年的教授就是达利勃•维斯利。达利伯有个
学生叫丹尼尔•李伯斯金德。里伯斯金德是我在艾塞克斯大学时的本科教
师。当我完成了学业之后，里伯斯金德对我说，你为什么不跟随达利勃继
续学习呢？我说好啊。第二年我利用获得的富尔布赖特奖学金的机会来到
了伦敦。在达利勃的课上我遇到的第一个学生就是莫斯塔法维。我们从
1976年开始建立了很好的友谊，直到现在还经常联系。那一年也是我和
他在艾塞克斯大学进行博士学习的第一年。很短时间之后，他开始在AA
教书，之后又去了剑桥。我也曾经在剑桥教过书，这些相似的经历也使得
我们到现在保持着31年的友谊。当我1984年从英国来到费城的时候，当
时的系主任阿黛尔.诺德.桑多斯问我，“大卫，你希望能将谁也请到宾大来
和共事？”我告诉她，“我希望有两个人，那就是霍玛•法贾迪和莫森•莫斯
塔维法。”于是她就邀请了他们也到宾大教书。我和莫斯塔维法意识到既
然又重新一起工作，那么就可以一起进行写作了。我们合著的第一本书
就是《风化》，之后又一起写了《表皮建筑》。莫森后来离开宾大，去
了哈佛，然后再去了AA做了系主任。他离开AA之后又到康奈尔大学做了
院长，直到现在。我们一直是非常亲近的朋友，现在正在着手写一本新
书。
您和理查德•卫斯里和马尔•弗拉斯卡理一起建立了宾大建筑系的设计和理论课
程，您认为当时的传统和核心思想有没有保持到今天呢？
现在的传统并没有以前那么强了。
那么当时建筑教育的本质精神是什么呢？
事实上，这一话题包括很多方面的内容。其中一个想法是建筑系需要
有一位教授同时担任设计课和理论课的教学任务，这样就能避免理论和实
践之间经常会存在的距离感。我们当时有一套连续三个学期的课程计划。
在第一个学期中，理查德•卫斯里在作为设计课协调人的同时也教授理论
课程。第二学期中，我来负责协调设计课并且教授理论课程。第三学期弗
拉斯卡理也同样负责两方面课程。我们相互之间保持交流，一起讨论在不
同阶段应该在设计课和理论课上所需要教授的内容。我们试图在不同阶段
发展过程中保持一种递进的课程安排。我所教授的是有关城市的内容，有
关于城市是如何运转的，这是因为我相信建筑物是其所处环境的一部分。
所以思考建筑与城市之间关系的最好方法就是来思考城市的秩序。这些相
关内容就是我在理论课中所教授的——城市建筑的秩序，无论是过去还是
当今。弗拉斯卡理在他那一阶段中所感兴趣的是建构、细部方面的内容。
所以他的理论课程就不会在设计城市。他非常集中的关注细部和节点，利
用的就是从斯卡帕那里获得的方法。因此我们根据建筑学科的几个核心问
题整合形成了课程安排：设计、理论、绘图和技术。我们按照先后次序来
为学生们介绍这些方面的内容，整个过程是无法在短时间内完成的。为了
形成这套系统花费了我们几年的时间。这样安排课程的另外一个原因是在
不同的设计课程中，会有各自有关建筑设计的相关知识要贯穿整个学期，
而学生们一般无法有效的真正跟随这一过程。他们经常会不同学期用不同
的方法做出类似的作业来，这只不过是因为不同学期所要面对的是不同的
老师罢了。我们决定在每个学期一定保证要做不同的设计。在某些设计课
程中，有关于功用的要求就是显得非常重要。有时建构会相对关键，等
等。我们感觉在三个学期之后，学生们对这些有关于设计的非常核心的问
题有了广泛的接触。那时，我把这位问题称为设计的话题。在我的第一本
书《建筑创新的根基（Roots of Architectural Invention）》试图描写这些
线索引导下的建筑设计。那本书反映了当时我们在学校教授课程时的实际
状况。
（和硕士教育一样）博士课程也处在不断变化之中。就像我所说的，
我自从1984年开始就作为这所建筑学院的一员，当然在那之前这里的已
经有了其独特的传统。这种自从诞生就不断变化的现象是十分有趣的。你
知道宾大建筑系博士课程是全美国最早成立的博士学位么？
我记得是从1974 年开始的。那节课是在美术图书馆的稀有藏品室上的，而同
时我也在修温卡的设计课，那是一个数字化程度非常高的课程。所以我在那
一学期充分感受到了两门课的内容和上课地点之间的对比所产生的巨大张力。
你如何看待这种现象？
当我第一次来到宾大，大部分学生的热情都集中在历史和理论上，也
有一些人关注技术方面的知识。而今天情况不同了，技术、理论和历史
只不过是众多值得研究的话题中的几个。在学院里有人在关注景观设计；
有人在研究城市的运转；还有相当一部分人研究建筑的历史保护学科的话
题。所以尽管我个人的研究是有关于历史与理论。我们所有人都致力于关
注这个建成的世界，有人研究城市形式，景观造型，或者历史形式方面。
除了这些领域以外，我们还研究能够帮助理解并认识我们所生存的这个世
界的设计和观念问题。然而，对于这一问题的理解来自于不同方面，其中
一种方式是从历史的角度去思考的。我们所使用的概念、语汇和技术都并
不是我们的原创。所以，比如说要理解当今正在流行的数字化技术，就是
要思考其根源。这一趋势并不是凭空而来的。你可以通过观察其早期的一
些形式和产品来理解这种当代方法的某些可能性。这样的方法对于城市和
景观来说同样适用。所以宾大的博士学习有时是但并不总是历史性的。然
而，确是有关于已经经过设计的世界。这样一来，对于宾大博士研究最近
几年的最大特点就是所涉及的领域变得更宽，我认为这明显是好的趋势。
在我们的理论课上，您为学生列出了一系列需要学习的建筑师的单子，我当时
特别关注的是理查德 • 诺伊特拉（ R i c h a r d N e u tr a ）。我感觉上认为他是一位
重要时期的处在思潮转换过渡中的建筑师。您也在书中提到并且强调过他的作
品和思想。你对他在建筑历史上的地位是怎么看待的？
你提到的建筑师名单来自于建筑学写作中最重要的部分，从几世纪的
时代前直到几天。宾大的博士理论教学基本上一直是要求研究建筑学的学
者们应该了解这一领域的主要理论作品。在了解这些建筑师的关键思想和
问题之前首先要被引导了解建筑师们相关的知识。所以，我们的学生们通
过阅读建筑领域这些主要的理论著作，使他们达到对这一领域全面了解的
程度。这些作者都是谁。对于这一问题，其实还值得探讨，但是也有很多
认识是共性的。我们在过去很长时间内一直在调整这个名单，保证其处于
不断发展过程中。每一年，我都会教授不同作者的内容。对于特定的人群
和特定的时期来说，其中某些作者也许比其他人要相对更加重要一些。最
近一段时间，学生们对自然环境的兴趣逐年增大，所以可持续性以及生态
话题也成为了关注的一个方面。而理查德•诺伊特拉和这方面内容有一些
关系。直到今天，他在很大程度上还是经常会被忽略，尽管在他在所处时
代的重要性显而易见。而最近一段时间，人们又重新对他和同时代的其他
建筑师再次重视起来，这也是因为他们在二十世纪中叶时所提到过的一些
东西与当今人们头脑中的想法产生了共鸣——在自然环境中的建筑活动、
在景观中的建筑等等。另外一个我认为学生们最好能接触像诺伊特拉这样
的建筑师的文字是因为能够帮助他们搞清楚这些当代设计师们中知识的缺
乏，以及在环境的持续性发展问题上在建筑学中的地位。
是的，还有一些有关于技术和景观领域的话题也还没有受到应有的关注。
没错！
我认为，宾大的硕士设计课程仿佛过于关注数字化应用。我在温卡的设计课中
感觉有些迷茫，而在后来的霍玛的设计课中相对好一些，因为她的比较传统一
些。戴特勒夫也提到过这样的趋势，但是他也对学科之间的相互结合和影响的
态度更为感兴趣。您认为数字建筑是否将会是建筑发展的必然未来呢？
我认为在建筑概念的表达方式上出现了一些新方法。我们应该使用这
些方法是因为它们可以为我们带来前所未有的效果，比如穿越建筑空间、
模拟真实的建筑体验等等。另外模拟环境的温度变化体验的方法确实非常
奇妙。令我惊讶的是这些新手段所能展现出的能量。但是我不这么认为这
些新生事物会降低传统方式的重要性呢，因为新技术无法回答建筑设计和
认知过程中产生的全部问题。我不觉得建筑学在本质上是一种技术性的问
题。我认为对建筑来说，技术是比必须的，但并不足够。我认为在建筑学
中还存在认知和创新的其他模式和途径。而仅仅依赖技术就像在演奏吉他
的时候只弹拨一根琴弦。那样只能产生噪音，而无法演奏出音乐。
那么，这其中的问题在哪里呢？
这里有两部分原因：过于狭隘的切入点以及对单一的工作方向对于建
筑所有牵扯的方面是足够的信念。我不相信建筑学的问题能够被简化到可
以用任何某一种方式来表达。我也不认为这本质上是有关于图像表达的一
个问题。建筑作品（表达）有很多模式。比如，设计过程与业主和建筑师
之间的协作密切相关。建造过程与建筑商密不可分。而材料的选择则需要
必需的对既有环境的理解。这些实践都需要数字（计算机）技术的辅助，
但是其中任何方面都不能定义建筑的完整任务。所以我的态度是当今的建
筑教育一定要为学生们介绍数字技术的内容，但是他们要明白尽管这些技
术是必需的，然而对建筑教育来说并不充分。它们只不过是整体的一部
分，就像我刚才所说的，只不过是吉他上的一根琴弦。
如果我或者其他人希望翻译你的著作中的一本到中文的话，你会希望是哪一本
呢？
事实上，其中一本已经被翻译成中文了，《风化(On
Weathering)》。有人翻译了三本中的两本，但是一直没有被正式出版，
而是以复印版的方式流传，因为这本书是一本很薄的小册子。但是对于
我个人来说，赋予了最大程度的努力的应该是《非凡的地面(Uncommon
Ground)》这本书。最近，这本书正在被译成希腊语，我也和相关人士商
谈把它翻译成法语。其实，我的著作中的每一本都已经被译为了英语之外
的其他某种语言。《风化》就有日语版，以及将要出版的韩语版。《表皮
建筑》正在被翻译成西班牙语，等等。我认为其中难度最大也是最有价值
的应该是《非凡的地面》。
你和马清运是怎么认识的？
我教过他。他曾经在这里上学。他是一个非常活跃的学生，也是个很
有趣的人。他其实当年已经开始翻译《风化》……
你是如何看马清运到南加州大学做院长以及张永和到麻省理工担任系主任这样
的状态？
这是非常好的现象，非常棒。坦白地说，我对中国和中国学生以及建
筑的印象非常好。他们是那样的对知识如饥似渴，又对职业是那么充满这
激情。而当时中国的出版却相对有限。人们都对能够接触到新鲜事物显得
非常激动。当我在上海的时候，有好几百人来听我的讲座。当我打开第一
张幻灯片时，几乎所有人都拿出了手机拍照。从那开始的整个讲座过程，
人们不停的在拍我的每一张幻灯片，可能是因为他们从来没有见过这些图
片的缘故。那种热情是非常感染人的。我想中国的建筑师和学生如此的渴
望学习是一件非常好的事情。我的讲座是有关于景观的，也刚刚参观过苏
州园林，真的很棒。
是的。谢谢你接受我的采访。
David Leatherbarrow
Professor of Architecture and Chair, Graduate Group in Architecture
Teaches courses in architectural theory and design studios in the

graduate and undergraduate programs, supervises research, and directs
the Ph.D. program. Taught theory and design at the Polytechnic of Central
London and Cambridge University, England. In private practice with Lauren
Leatherbarrow. Recipient of the Visiting Scholar Fellowship from the
Canadian Center of Architecture (1997-98). Books include: Topographical
Stories, Surface Architecture, Uncommon Ground, Roots of Architectural
Invention, On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time, and Masterpieces of
Architectural Drawing.

Time: June 13, 2007
Location: Leatherbarrow's Office, Meyerson Hall, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Several years ago I was interviewed by Dialogue magazine. That

interview concerned my role in two of Penn’s architecture programs. I
had been Chairman of the Masters Program for six years. They wanted
to know what I did during that period and what I was trying to do with the
PhD program. After they interviewed me they asked the same questions
of Richard Wesley, who was Chairman of the Masters program after me.
The chair was me, then Richard, then Detlef.
In Penn in Ink, there is one brief introduction about your book On Weathering, at
that time why you came to Penn? You come from England. You got your PhD degree
there and then Joseph Rykwert, who introduced you to Penn…
Yes, two people directed my PhD studies. One was Joseph Rykwert,
the other was Dalibor Vesley.
I asked Jopseph when he first recommended Penn why he thought

it would be a good school, since Kahn had died. I didn’t know if anything
interesting was happening in the period after his death. Joseph said,
“well, some new things might begin.”
Do you think Kahn is a very important person for the reason why you came here?
Kahn was part of it, but the main reason for me coming here was
the city of Philadelphia. I believed then and still believe now that it is
very important to study architecture in an urban environment. I was
living in London and liked that city very much. I felt that if I were to come
to the US, I would want to live in a good city. I knew Penn was a great
university in a great city with a great tradition. So I thought it would good
to participate in building something new in this place.
But, the colleagues I met here were also important. When I first
came, there was a new chairman, Adèle Naudé Santos, who now is the
Dean at MIT. She is a wonderful person with a very creative mind. There
was a junior colleague named Marco Frascari, who I enjoyed meeting

and collaborating with. There was also Richard Wesley, who started at
that time. So it was delighted to find people that I thought I would like to
work with. No single individual can make a strong school; it takes several
who are willing to work together.
Alright. Here is an introduction of your book, On Weathering, and you wrote

about the relationship between the architecture and nature: “Weathering marks the
passage of time. The temporal structure of building can be compared to a person’
s experience of time. At every moment one’s life earlier times of infancy, childhood,
youth, and all other stages up to now are still present, increasing in number yet
unchanged and familiar, and subject to redefinition and appropriation. Never is
one’s past not present, nor is the individual’s past ever cut off from the tradition of
one’s culture and the time of natural world.” So you made a analogy of human and
architecture. What was the initial thinking of that in your first book?
It is a book that I co-authored with Mohsen Mostafavi. He and I

were basically trying to reconsider the concept of design. We felt that
design would be better understood if the outcome, I mean the building,
was understood as something that developed and changed over time,
just like the human person. When you were a child, you had a certain
appearance. Now it’s different. When you are old, it will be different
again. You are still the same person, but it (your appearance) is
continually changing. We tried to use “weathering” as a way of clarifying
this aspect of architecture – its continual development over time – which
is related to the way a person grows, develops and matures.
Why did you choose the word “weathering”, not “nature”, “climate”?
Mainly because not many people knew or thought much about it

(laugh), and we felt we could say something specific, and not to have
to work through a lot of pre-existing arguments. But other terms could
have been “environment”, “climate”, or “natural world”, all of which are
similar. We also wanted something really specific, so we didn’t seem to
be writing philosophy. We wanted to write about details, the objects of
design. Weatherings suited our purpose because they are really details
of buildings. We wanted something that is important as a concept but
also has practical implications for design.
I think one feature of your books is that they contain a lot of individual practical
instances and a lot of pictures. Around 10 years after On Weathering, the book
Surface Architecture also had many architecture works and there is kind of thinking
that Surface Architecture seems like a little bit being visually based?
Well, surfaces are visible. Architecture is too. The book tries to say
that there are many reasons for the building’s visible appearance. Some
are practical, some are technical, some have to do with the natural
environment, and still others with industrialization. Everyone is interested
in the way buildings look. The real question is why they look the way
they do, why surfaces appear as they do. The book attempts to clarify
all of the issues that bear upon the question of architecture’s visible
appearance.
Did you mean you are more interested into the visual part of architecture?
It can’t be avoided. But it is insufficient in itself. So we tried to

relate visibility to non-visible conditions of construction, also of the
environment, and of the views beyond the building. I think we have
to accept the fact that people in design care for the visual dimension
of architecture. But the book criticizes approaches that assume that
the visibility of the object is sufficient in itself. We wanted to see how
surfaces have depth – both literally and metaphorically. And architectural
depth is the result of non-visual conditions.
That means it needs different conditions to join together to make that appearance.
Does it mean you try to pursue the phenomenology aspect of architecture in that
way?
Well, phenomenology as a philosophy helps clarify some of

architecture’s visible realities. Many architects who draw upon that
philosophy address human experience, perception in particular. That
is part of our concern, but we also wanted to describe the building as
it exists outside an individual’s perception, how it exists in the world of
nature, for example, or as a result of various modes of construction.
Those conditions are not particularly problems of perception or of
experience. So phenomenology is part of it, but there is much more that
we saw as relevant to the question concerning the building of images.
But do you think the visual part is a bit far from the thinking of designers and
architects as flat and fixes image and pictures?
I think that many historians and considerable number of designers

are preoccupied with flat or pictorial images. But, as I’ve said, our book
tries to criticize that preoccupation. It is trying to do two things. It is trying
to accept the fact that this is a big concern for many people and it is
trying to say that one has to relate that concern to many other things, to
perception, construction, and environment, for example.
Your books have a sense of poetic, do you think architecture book should be written
in that way?
I don’t know if they should be, but that’s the way I attempt to write.
It may be a habit of thinking. I also believe that architecture is very

complex. I would like writing to acknowledge that complexity. I think
architects, good architects, are capable of thinking about several issues
at the same time. Likewise, good buildings are capable of addressing
several conditions, all at the same time. If you can think of construction
while you are designing, that is good. But if you can also think about the
way construction affects perception, that is very good. If you can then
think about the way the design, construction, and perception are affected
by the natural environment that is even better. So sometimes in writing
you can describe a detail or a plan or a view of a building, and try in your
description to show the relationships between the several conditions that
architects should keep on their minds.
In your new book Topological Stories, there is not a clear boundary between
architecture and landscape, in Surface Architecture, architecture is not independent
and also not dominated by the technology…
Architecture is wonderfully synthetic. Let me make a comparison.

Architecture is not like arithmetic, nor is it like plane geometry. It is more
like algebra, where there are several unknowns in a single equation.
Good buildings do several things all once. For example, they must
establish precise relationships with the surrounding landscape. The
work also needs to make good use of materials. And it needs to address
practical use. Buildings are beautifully and wonderfully integrative
things. They are incredibly rich because they refer to many things
simultaneously. That’s the real measure of success. When buildings are
only construction, when they are only images, or when they are only
practical solutions, they are not good buildings. Good buildings are all
those things and more at the same time. Its algebraic complexity also
makes architecture a wonderful subject to study. But it makes it difficult
too.
Exactly, I also think architecture should carry all these characters together, but also
being theoretically directed? But people only could pursue one direction based on
their own interest, make it more focusing.
Yes!
About the education of Penn, you mentioned you worked with Richard Wesley and
Marco Frascari?
Marco Frascari studied in Italy and then worked a little while with
Carlo Scarpa. And he was very interested in Louis Kahn, through Scarpa
mainly. So Frascari moved to Cincinnati from Italy and later came to
Penn, where he wrote his PhD. After his PhD he started teaching here.
So when I moved to Philadelphia in 1984 from England, Frascari was
already here. And in the very same year, Richard Wesley started. So
Richard, Marco and I all taught design and theory courses at Penn.
Could you say something about your co-author of the book On Weathering, Mohsen
Mostafavi?
Mohsen Mostafavi was born in Iran, educated in England, and

studied architecture at the Architecture Association. His professor
there was Dalibor Vesley. Dalibor Vesley had a student named Daniel
Libeskind. Libeskind was my professor in undergraduate architecture.
When I finished my studies, Libeskind said why don’t you go study
with Dalibor Vesley. I said OK. The next year I went off to London on
a Fulbright Scholarship. The first person I met in my class with Dalibor
Vesley was Mohsen Mostafavi. We made friends and have been in touch
with one other since 1976. That was also when I started my PhD studies
and he started his. Slightly later he started teaching at AA and later at
Cambridge. I also taught at Cambridge. So we became friends thirty-
one years ago. When I moved to Philadelphia in 1984, the chair, Adèle
Naudé Santos said, “David is there anyone you like to bring here to
teach with you?” I said, “yes two people, Homa Fajardi and her husband
Mohsen Mostafavi.” She invited them and both came to teach here.
Once we resumed teaching together we thought we could do some
writing together. The first book we wrote was On Weathering. After that
we wrote Surface Architecture. Mohsen left Penn to go to Harvard,
after that to AA, to be its Chairman. He then left AA to become Dean at
Cornell, where he is now. We are still very close friends. And we may
write another book together.
You and Richard Wesley and Marco Frascari set up the program of architecture with
studio and theory course, do you think the essence of that time education still being
kept currently at Penn?
It’s not as strong now as it was then.
Actually it had many aspects to it. One idea was that you could have
one professor teaching in both the studio and the classroom, avoiding
the typical distinction between theory and practice. We had a curriculum
in our professional program that consisted of three semesters. In the first
semester Richard Wesley taught the theory course and he coordinated
the studios. In the second semester I taught the theory course and
coordinated the studios. And the third semester Frascari taught the
theory course and in the studio. We talked with each other about what
should be taught in the courses at the first, second and third levels and
what should be taught in the studios. We tried to construct a curriculum
that would be incremental in its development. I’ve always taught about
cities, about the way they work, because I believe that buildings are part
of the world around them. The best way to think about that relationship
is to think about the order of the city. That was what I lectured about in
my theory course – “the Order of Urban Architecture, in the Past and
at Present”. Frascari, for his part, was very interested in construction,
in details. So his theory course didn’t look at the city because I’d ready
covered that. He looked much more closely at details and joints, in the
way Scarpa had taught him. So we built the curriculum that integrated
the discipline’s core subjects: studio, theory, drawing and technology. We
also introduced these subjects in a sequential way. That is something
that didn’t happen over night. It took us several years to establish
the program. The reason we started it is because many programs
introduced the design of buildings in each of the studios through all of
the semesters. And so students never really progressed very much.
They always did the same kind of thing just in the different way just
because it was the different teacher. We decided not to do the same
thing in each semester. In some studios the use-program was important.
Sometimes construction was important. And so on. We felt that after
three semesters students had a hit upon all of the things that very central
in design. At that time, I called these things the topics of design. My first
book, Roots of Architectural Invention, tried to describe architectural
design along these lines. That book was a reflection of the way we were
teaching at that time.
The PhD program has changed. As I said, I’ve been part of it since
1984, but it existed before then also. It is very interesting its development
since it was formed. Do you know the program is the very first in the US
PhD program in architecture?
We were taught in that Rare Book Room in Fine Arts Library. At the same time I
took the Winka’s studio, which is pretty digital. I felt a big tension between the two
courses, two places where I studied in. what do you think about the PhD program
and the professional program in the Meyerson Hall which are existing together,
since 1974?
Yes. When I first came, most students concentrated on history

and theory. Some studied technology. Nowadays things are different,
technology, theory, and history are only a few among many other
subjects of study. We have people looking at landscape architecture.
Others examine the ways cities work. And quite a few people are
concerned with historic preservation. So while my own work is in
history and theory, other colleagues look at other subjects. All of us
are committed to looking at the built world, but some concentrate on
its city form, others its landscape form, and others its historical form.
Regardless of the subject, though, we research design and ideas that
help us understand the world we’re presently in. But that understanding
comes in different ways, and one of these ways is historical. The
concepts we use, the vocabulary we use, and the techniques we use are
not only our invention. So one way to understand contemporary digital
techniques, for example, is to look at where they came from. They did
not come from nowhere. You can understand some of the possibilities
of the contemporary methods by looking at their earlier formation. The
same is true for cities and for landscape. So our PhD scholarship is
sometimes but not always historical. Yet, it is always about the world that
has been designed. So the biggest change that one can observe in the
past few years is the widening subject areas for PhD research, which I
think is a good thing.
In the theory course, there was a list of architects, and I specifically studied Richard
Neutra. I had a feeling that he was a transition person in the very significant
moment. And you mentioned and addressed him a lot in your books. What do you
think about his role in the architecture history?
What you are referring to is the list we have of the important writers
on architecture, from antiquity to the present. A basic premise of our
program has been that scholars who are researching in architecture
should know the primary literature of the field. They should be informed
about the architects before them and know their key ideas and key
questions. So our students read the main writings of the field that
make them literate and knowledgeable about this discipline. Who are
those authors? Well, there is probably room for debate, but probably
a great deal of consensus too. We’ve changed the list over the years.
It continually develops. Every year I’ve taught different authors.
Some authors have seemed more important than others given what
people were concerned with at a given time. Recently, students have
become interested in the natural environment, from the point of view
of sustainability and ecology. It turns out that Richard Neutra had

something to say about those issues. Until recently Neutra has been
largely ignored, despite his importance during his own life time. But
these days people are returning to him and to others of his generation
because what they said in the middle years of twentieth century seems
to anticipate some ideas that are on people’s minds today -- the building
in natural environment, the building in the landscape, and so on. One
reason I thought it would be good to have students to look at writer
like him was because it helps them clarify some questions that on the
minds of contemporary designers, ideas about the buildings’ role in the
sustainable environment.
Yes, there are also technique and landscape issues that many current architects don’t
really pay attention to at all.
Correct!
From my point of view, the Penn’s graduate studios are too much digital. I felt a bit
lost in Winka’s studio, but felt much better in Homa’s studio after that, because she
is more traditional. Detlef also addressed this tendency, but he is very interested
in the interdisciplinary altitude. Do you think the digital realm is the real future of
architecture field?
I think there are new methods of representing architectural ideas.

They should be used because they can show things that we haven’
t seen before, moving through buildings, simulation of the ways they
change through experience, and so on. The representation of the
thermal behavior of environments is really wonderful. I’m fascinated
by what the new technique can show. Do new techniques reduce the
importance of older ones? I don’t think so. Can techniques answer all
of the concerns of architectural design and understanding? I don’t think
so. I don’t think architecture is primarily a matter of technique. I think
technique is necessary but insufficient. I think there are other modes of
understanding and invention. Relying on technique alone is like trying to
play a guitar with just one string. You can make noise, but you really can’
t make music.
So what is the problem here?
Well, it is two-part: the narrow focus and the faith that one avenue
of work is sufficient for all the concerns the building needs to address. I
don’t believe that’s the case. I don’t think architecture can be reduced to
any one mode of representation, nor do I think it’s essential a problem of
graphic representation. There are many other modalities of architectural

work. For example, design involves with collaboration with clients.
Construction involves with collaboration with builders. The choice of
materials involves with the understanding with the existing environment.
These practices are aided by digital technology, but neither it nor any
one of them can define the architectural task. So my view is that
educational programs must introduce digital techniques, but they need
to understand that while those techniques are necessary they are not
sufficient for architectural education. They’re simply part of the story, as I
said, one string on a guitar.
There is some other question which might be not that serious. If I or somebody
wanted to translate your book or one of your books in to Chinese, which one do you
prefer?
Well, in truth, one of them has already been translated, On

Weathering. In fact, two of three maybe were translated but not
published. They are being circulated in Xerox form. There were a couple
of times that people wanted to translate On Weathering, because it
is a very short book. But for me, the book I put my most effort into is
Uncommon Ground. Right now that book is being translated into Greek,
and I am talking with people about translating it into French. In fact, each
of my books has been translated into another language. On Weathering
is in Japanese, and now is being translated into Korean. Surface
Architecture is being translated into Spanish. And so on. I think the
most difficult and valuable book is Uncommon Ground.
How did you know Qingyun Ma?
I taught him. He was here. He is very lively, and a wonderful guy. He

was actually embarking with the translation of On Weathering. He was
going to do the translation himself.
What do you think of his arriving as the dean at USC and Yungho Chung as the chair
at MIT?
It is very good. It is great. To be honest with you, I was wonderfully

impressed by China and by Chinese students and architects. There is
such an eagerness to learn, a passion for the subject. There is such a
shortage of books. People are really excited to come upon new things.
When I gave a lecture in Shanghai, there were a couple of hundreds
of people there. When I put up my first slide almost every person in the
auditorium brought out their cell phones to take a picture. From then on,
during the whole lecture, people were taking photos of all of my slides,
because they had never seen those images before. This enthusiasm
was very attractive. I thought it was wonderful that these people wanted
to learn so badly. I was lecturing on landscape. I had just visited the
Suzhou gardens. They were really great.
I think it’s really good. Thank you for your time.
Great!
温卡•度别丹
建筑学实践教授
温卡在宾大教授建筑设计课程，并主持后职业学位。在这之前，温卡曾经
执教于在哥伦比亚大学和哈佛大学。Archi-Tectonics的项目包括住宅、商业，
包括虚拟和现实以及城市、建筑和装置设计。Archi-Tectonics发表了两本作品
集1996年的《Winka Dubbeldam, Architect》和2007年的《AT-Index》。
进行中的项目包括： Vestry 住宅楼，纽约的 LRH 综合楼， LOFT 大楼，

Duane Spa中心，荷兰的3000平方英尺住宅项目和纽约Chelsea的住宅项目。
温卡还获得过 2001 年的 Emerging Voice ， 2006 年的 IIDA/Metropolis Smart
Environments奖。最近Archi-Tectonics赢得了纽约Staten岛的Eco 景观和住宅
项目。
时间：2007年6月10日
地点：美国纽约Archi-Tectonics事务所
您现在担任着宾西法尼亚大学设计学院建筑系的后职业建筑硕士课程 [th e
P o st- P r o f e s sio n al p r o g r a m ( P P @ P D )] 的实践型教授 ( p r a ctic e p r o f e s s o r) 和负
责人。您认为在建筑系范围内来看，应该如何为这个学位课程定位，另外您对
如何运作又是如何思考的呢？
对于后职业硕士课程，我们强调的是在未来建筑是如何进化发展以及
数字领域是如何影响这种进化过程的问题。同时我认为重要的是要意识
到数字领域不再仅仅只是形式上的探索，而是有关于后现代建筑是如何与
理论、哲学和数字化生产所相关联。因此在研究、生产和设计之间形成了
一种直接的联系。尤其是当数字化世界和如此多的事物和层面相联系时更
是如此。如果数字化设计与我们的思想或者我们的概念化思想相关的话，
那么这一过程自身便会变得虚空，并且成为无聊的空壳、漂亮的效果图而
已，最终将一无是处、毫无价值可言。所以，对我来说，意义是非常重要
的。那也是为什么我们会在宾大设立后职业硕士课程，我们关注未来，关
注重要的“普遍性背景(common ground)”，而这样做的原因也在于我们的
同学们来自于不同的地区，不同的国家。我们的课程从理论化和哲学化的
阅读开始，这样我们就能够获得某种相近（普遍）的思考背景来进行我们
有关于建筑设计问题的讨论，这样的阅读就是我所创立的一个平台。我们
的研究以先格式化（pre-formative）的建筑而非形式化的建筑为基础。而
最终的结果也更靠近与工业化设计的智慧成果。
您的意思是“制造业”方面的成果 … …
是的，但是并不仅仅是制造业，比如说，当设计师们设计一个对象，
他们正在设计的包括某种特殊的具有较高水平性能的对象，这一过程呈
现出的是一种技术和使用的创新性的高度结合。无论他们设计的是一辆汽
车或者是一台照相机，这些都与人的身体有直接的关系。如今，我们所欠
缺的是建筑和人身体的关联。而传统的建筑于更关注与手工业和比例的尺
度系统。现在我们拥有了更加先进的技术，我们也就开始更加关注建筑是
如何和人体相关的。如何把建筑营造的更加舒适，更为有智慧，互动性更
强。同时我也在思考我们能够在此基础上我们的后职业硕士课程能试图做
些什么。
您在设计课中曾经提到过智慧化的工具，您是怎么看现在的电脑软件和其他制
造性机器比如 CNC ，3d 打印机这些工具的？
我意识到这一方面的状况，而这也许是为什么我在实践的同时也教书
的原因。当我们创建现在的公司，我们探索复杂化的形式。然而，如果你
把这种形式化的成果呈给业主或者建造商的时候，而最终能够把将其建成
为实物的机会几乎是“零”。唯一能够将其建成的可能的手段是当你要将整
个系统进行组织，并且这种过程需要在某种参数化的软件中进行。这也是
我们正在做的工作。我们对所有时刻所有状态负责，我们确定能够把所有
状态都在电脑中进行数字化和参数化，我们将组织的结果以电子邮件的形
式发给制造商、估价，再把价格发给业主和建造商。这就是能够实现我们
的建筑设计的唯一途径。
我参观了你在格林威治街（ G r e e n w i c h S t. ）上的建成项目，有一篇文章中提
到这个建筑几乎所有建筑材料都来自于世界上不同地方，其中一部分来自于香
港，还有一些来自于巴塞罗那……
这其实是为了让造价降低的做法，不是么？（笑）在能够获得最好的
技术水平的同时也试图获得较低的价格。所以，真如你所说的，建筑中弯
曲的玻璃来自于巴塞罗那，定制的突出窗框是在香港制造的，它们是在布
鲁克林(Brooklyn)焊接装配成为一体……
那室内的那种特殊木材呢？
你是指把楼的loft的室内么，沼木？沼木事实上是一种回收再利用的
木材，是那些在沼泽中找到的橡树木头。其所处的缺氧环境中为这种木材
带来了奇妙的淡黄色和黑色相间的图案，我们把这种木材应用到这个项目
的室内墙面上。
回到设计课程的话题，在你在宾大开设的秋季学期的设计课上，我曾经感到些
许的挫折感同时也会体会到兴奋的感觉，我们在设计课上所体验到的过程其实
产生了大量的设计机会而非另一种理性的过程。我在我们的设计课中学到了很
多东西。你是怎么看待这种在同一所学校而在不同设计课之间存在的差异的
呢？
你知道，在我们的后职业硕士课程中所蕴含的巨大机会便是同学们已
经具备了有关于建筑学中所必须要了解的理性和逻辑的部分知识的状态。
所以我也可以把更为超前的内容呈现给同学们。这也是教授后职业课程的
优势所在，因为一旦在技术层面感到足够的自信和自如的时候，我们就有
机会面对一些全新的东西。也是为什么在课程中你会感到惊诧与兴奋，而
你们也足够强可以处理这些新东西。我当然不会在三年的硕士课程的第一
年教授这些内容，但是对于经历了相当训练的同学们，能够意识到有更多
的可以尝试，有更多有趣的事情可以去探索是尤为重要的。我们可以把这
段时间的训练当作一扇门，一扇通向更多全新机会，至少是可以有机会处
理我们所在这段时间内面对事物的机会的大门，穿过这扇门，我们也可以
遇到很多志同道合的朋友。你已经看到了很多人都是在类似的道路和方向
上努力。也许称之为某种方法有些不太准确，但我们所面对的是有关于未
来的东西。
所以，比较起现状来说你更关注于未来？
可以这么说，所以作为一名学生我认为你必须要抱有这样的态度。
但是，建筑并不像其他科学技术一样变化更新的如此迅速，其它科技在5年的
时间内可能会发生很大的变化……
没错！但是我认为当今是对建筑进行变革的最好时机。与建筑相关的
制造业已经具备相应的条件，人们也做好了准备，而建筑在很多地方也处
于不同文化的最前沿。因此我认为建筑正因为是一种人造现实的综合体才
变得更加有趣，特别是社会的层面上更是如此。社会进化的非常快速，生
产过程正在不断加速，因此建筑师们也应该适应这种步伐，脚步应该更快
一些。我们正处在最好的时机之中。
在参观你的建成项目的时候，我个人感到你的思考也是出于前后来回扯动的过
程中，因为你同时也非常关注室内的效果，试图让室内空间营造得更加方便
和舒适。同时你也努力把建筑做得更加“绿色”，另外还试图获得更好的室外效
果。
我们在设计的时候是从内而外的。在Q塔楼项目中，我们应用一种比
例系统来组织开窗，为了让每一层的loft获得独特的开窗和不同视野的特
殊运算法则。这个时候室外效果正是室内的某种反应。
是的，你也在进行很多室内设计项目……
是的，我们同时在做建筑和室内设计的项目；就像所有年轻设计师开
始创业的时候的典型状态类似。
我还发现在你创立个人实践的开始阶段也进行过一些雕塑设计……
我最早学习的雕塑，现在我还认为能够在博物馆中创作20英尺高的混
凝土雕塑是多么的令人兴奋。因为对我们来说这也是有关于我们能够在建
筑领域做些什么的一种尝试。进行雕塑创作对我们来说是非常好的机会。
我希望能问一些其他方面的问题。你曾经在荷兰和美国学习建筑。你也为不同
的建筑师工作过，包括斯蒂文•霍尔、彼得•艾森曼、伯纳德•屈米。你为这些
不同建筑师工作的初衷是什么，又是什么让你选择这样一种次序的呢？或者
说，这是你试图形成你个人的职业的思路么？
我这个人喜欢为自己工作。但是我认为向其他拥有更多经验的设计师
学习也是非常重要的。因此，在荷兰的时候我曾经和库哈斯一起工作，等
来到美国之后，我为霍尔、屈米和艾森曼工作过。我认为对我而言，这其
实是一种类似于扫描的方式来了解和学习如何运作一种基于研究和理论的
建筑工作室。另外因为我来自于荷兰，荷兰有“建造”的传统，所以我热爱
真实的建造，那么和建造的直接连接对我来说是非常重要的。因此，我希
望能够从一开始就真正的参与到建造之中去。但是我也十分怀念荷兰传
统中富于智慧的这一部分。而我热爱美国的是其学术的这一方面的优势和
传统。我最初到哥伦比亚大学学习的时候，我对长时间在一间事务所工作
并不感兴趣。我只是希望能够了解不同的事物所。所以我为霍尔工作了半
年，为屈米工作了半年，为艾森曼工作了两年半——我尤其对他能够将理
论和实践如此奇妙的相结合十分感兴趣。为艾森曼工作非常有趣。后来我
在纽约得到了一个项目，也就自然的开始创建我自己的公司。
那么你认为你所经历的这一过程对于刚刚毕业的建筑学生们来说是不是正确
的——为一个著名的建筑师工作并且一直保持着面对能够开始个人事务所的特
殊机会的积极态度？
我认为去思考你在哪里工作以及这将会对你未来的实践有何种帮助非
常重要。我的意思是，不是要从你所工作的地方进行拷贝，而是去理解他
们所具备的什么样的思想和观点和他们如何将这些想法“物质化”到真实的
建筑中的。同时我这三位建筑师所给自采取的方法都是非常有趣的。他们
都是很好的导师和教授。能够和他们一起工作是非常好的经验。
这也是不是你总是选择为“明星建筑师”工作的原因？
也未必。其实，斯蒂文那时还有现在这么出名。那时是1990年左右，
他刚刚开始在国际上出名，刚从一个非常小的办公室搬到一个稍微大一些
办公室不久。当然，屈米曾经是哥大的院长。我觉得（选择为他们工作）
主要的原因是我并不想为建筑师“工作”。我希望能够从他们身上学到些什
么。我并不是为了挣钱。其实那时候我非常的穷，但是我并不特别在意，
因为我时刻我都在学东西。那是一个学习的过程，而不只只是一个工作而
已。
当然！你不仅仅是在不停实践中，而是在不同的学校教书。你曾经在哈佛、哥
大和宾大教学。你如何看待这些学校之间的差别？
其中最基本的差异在于哥大更加国际化。这所学校非常著名，且位于
纽约这样的城市。对哥大来说，好处正因为其地理上的中心性和所带来的
名气使得每个人都会参观这所学校。宾大除了不够国际化之外和哥大非常
相似，两所学校的教学哲学和原则很相近。不过这是五年前的状态，现在
我觉得宾大在建筑学中编程(scripting)和更高级技术层面变得更强了。另
外，宾大在其所希望实践的领域中变得更为专注和准确。哈佛一直以来都
是相对传统的学校，同样国际化，但是更加商业化。如果你希望能够以后
进入大公司工作的话那就一定要争取去哈佛。但是那里并不是如同宾大和
哥大那么前卫和更具有创新性。无论如何，能够在不同学校教书都是非常
有趣的经历。
我对建筑理论也十分感兴趣。你指导我们阅读德勒兹（ G ill e s D e l e u z e ）写的
一些有趣并且重要的阅读材料。而这些与建筑相关的哲学理论是如何参与到你
个人的实践之中的？
我曾经读过一些有关于数学的哲学著作，我也真正研究过数学。我们
的事物所同麻省理工的媒体实验室(media lab)有着非常紧密的合作。我喜
欢胡塞尔的著作，他曾经在 1937年写过一本书《几何的起源》。那其实
是一篇非常短小的文章，这本书是由德里达作序，这篇序言反而是胡塞尔
的文章长度的三倍。普遍意义的几何式有关于绝对体量，而数学是有关于
相对数量。比如，假设你有一个三角形，三角形的三个内角之和在普遍意
义的几何中永远是180度。而如果你将这个三角形投射到一个球面上，在
这一刻，内角之和就大于180度。三角形可能是中空的，而内角之和也可
能少雨180度。所以在数学中，人们首先要搞清除所研究的对象的状态。
胡塞尔谈到的几何形式接近于完美的平滑的形状，他所谈论的状态对于其
他条件来说总是最原初的。
这也是我们在过去的四到五年中一直在做的事。我们的想法是如果你
进行了创新，比如说某种充满智慧的形式，首先这种形式是在特定的性
能研究的背景下形成的，其次这样做的结果一般来说都会呈现出一种有机
的形式，而不是像工业设计所常常产生的结果那样。同时，我们还对创造
走廊和房间内部环境的传统方法进行批判，我们认为这些有机形式能够最
终替代走廊这样的传统空间元素，进而在不同空间之间创造更加高效的关
系。我认为建筑学中最有趣的就是建筑永远不仅仅只有一种层面，而是总
是多层面的。所以对我们而言，这些都是我们一直在进行探索的内容。
我们和普林斯顿大学出版社一起合作刚刚出版了一本新书《AT-Index
（2007）》这本书包括三个层面的研究。我们从“界面（interfaces）”开
始，对我们来说也就是城市环境或者城市的数据是如何影响建筑学的。
然后，我们继续研究了表皮和所谓的带有智慧的表皮——2 ½ 维度——是
指一种包裹（encapsule）空间的表皮。接下来，我们转向能够产生电枢
（armature）的第三和第四维度的内容。这些不同层面的维度之间并没有
明显的分隔，在某种程度上它们之间是相互叠加，并且彼此互补。
你刚才提到了你们刚刚出版了新书《 AT-In d e x 》。你还曾经出版过一本书名叫
《 C o n - Te x - T u r e 》。这些书名都是怎么来的？同时，你的事务所的名字 A r c hi-
Te cto nic s 有什么典故呢？
我们的事务所的名字“Archi-Tectonics”的意思是“建筑学的科学”。对我
们而言，最重要的是事务所的名字包含了所有人，因为我认为建筑创作是
以团队来进行的。我并不认为只有一个人能够完成所有工作，而是整个事
务所的同事们一起完成。所以这也是这本书在一开始我们就把在过去10年
中所有参与到其中的人员的姓名进行了开列。他们构建了所有的作品。因
为对我来说，我喜欢建筑是一种团队合作的真实情况。
出版于第一本书《Con-Tex-Ture》是某种开端，也是我们将建筑层面
化的开始。这本书的概念实际上来源于我 1994年在洛杉矶进行的一次个
人展览。那是我第一次个展，那时我刚刚创立了事务所。在那次展览中，
我们设计了一组数字打印的带状展览媒介，这种方式也代表了对我们来说
建筑就是一种集思考、绘图、模型制作和电脑制模多层面内容于一身的活
动的概念。和传统展览模式不同的是，我们把所有带状媒介相互交织，而
这些2英尺高75英尺长的带子将整个展厅的墙面包裹起来。后来我们将带
子缩小折叠放进了刻有最终成果的CD盒中。
我把折叠好的成果发给了我在荷兰出版社（010出版公司）的朋友。
他马上回复说他们希望在此基础之上出一本书。所以很有趣的是，我通过
一次个人展览和一本书开始了自己的实践。后来我们完成了四个竞赛、一
个曼哈顿的项目和一些在荷兰的项目。所以说从一开始，我们就留下了我
们的想法。
第二本书《AT-Index》，我希望当我们真正完成一些建筑之后再出这
第二本书。所以当我们建成了两三座房子之后，我便决定要准备第二本
书。这本书是有关于Archi-Tectonics事务所最近10年的工作。我希望形成
一种目录（index）似的东西，因为我认为我们的工作明显是有关于三个
层面的内容，这样做对所有项目来说也可以形成一套清晰的整体观点，也
更类似是专业百科全书。
我在你在网上的某个版本的简历中发现你曾经赢得过一次资助你到中国旅游的
奖学金？
对，我赢得了哥伦比亚大学凯恩奖学金（Kinne Fellowship），资助
我重走丝绸之路，从中国到撒马尔汗（Samarkand）。
你是如何看待西方建筑师现在在中国进行的实践的？
那真的是非常的可怕，不是么？我们曾经被问起有没有兴趣在北京设
计一个巨大的项目。他们给我发电子邮件说我们看到了你的格林威治的房
子，我们想请你设计一个大的像一座城市一样的项目。我给他们会电子邮
件说你们是指格林威治镇？他们回答说，我们不是说格林威治镇，而是你
的建筑！！其实那是一次香港某开发商举办的竞赛的一部分。我们进行了
一些深入的设计，但是后来不知什么原因，把项目交给我们做的那个人被
解雇了。这个设计也就没有继续下去。所以，说实话，我对中国的看法不
是那么好。
但是对莱姆和扎哈就不一样了，他们的状况要好一些，这也是因为他
们更有名，同时也就能够获得对项目更大程度的控制。我知道中国现在正
在进行很多非常大的项目，但是我对小尺度的精巧项目感兴趣。在一个概
念的控制下，创造整个邻里街区对我来说是非常的可怕。所以，我同意在
中国正在发生着非常令人兴奋的事情，但是我却希望等待获得更适合我的
机会。
我很喜欢香港。我还没有去过北京和上海。我对丝绸之路的迷恋让获
得了凯恩奖学金，因为我一直相信丝绸之路的伟大和奇妙，她将中国，通
过乌兹别克斯坦，一直连接到了威尼斯，在这条路线上诞生了很多科学机
构，比如第一所天文学院，第一所数学学院。那是第一次也可能是最后一
次将东方和西方真正的完美的结合在一起。这是一种多么美好的想法啊。
我现在仍然计划重新走一遍丝绸之路。那将会是一次非常漫长的旅行，但
是绝对值得去尝试。
非常感谢接受采访。
不用客气。
Winka Dubbeldam
Practice Professor of Architecture
Professor of Practice at University of Pennsylvania, teaches advanced

architectural design studios and is Director of the Post-Professional Program.
Previously taught at Columbia University & Harvard University. Archi-
Tectonics' work ranges from residential to commercial, from real to virtual and
is realized in urban designs, architectures, and installations. Publications:
along with the two Monographs, Winka Dubbeldam, Architect, and AT-INdex,
the work has been published in a large number of International Periodicals.
Current projects under construction are: the 9-story residential Vestry

building, the LRH mixed-use Building in NYC, the 15-story American Loft
tower, the 10,000sf Duane Spa, a 3000 sf residence in Holland, and a
townhouse in Chelsea, NY, for a fashion designer. Winka received the
“Emerging Voice” award [2001], and was the award winner in the IIDA/
Metropolis Smart Environments Award [2006]. Archi-Tectonics recently won
the Staten Island Proposal for an Eco Landscape and Housing scheme.

Time: June 10, 2007
Location: Archi-Tectonics office, New York, USA
You are the practice professor and director of the Post-Professional program
[PP@PD] in department of architecture of PennDesign. What role does the Post-
Professional program play within the range of department of architecture, and what
is your idea to operate it?
At a post-graduate level we focus on how architecture is going

to evolve in the future, how the digital realm can influence it. Also I
think it is very important to realize that the digital realm in design is no
longer a purely formal investigation, but how post-modern architecture
connects to theory, philosophy and digital production. So, there is a
direct link between research, production and then design. Especially,
since the digital world is connected to so many things. If digital design
is not connected to our thinking or our conceptual thinking, I think the
process will void itself out, and turns out just empty shells, beautiful
renderings, and ultimately means nothing. So, for me, meaning is very
important. That’s why when I set up the Post-Professional program, we
focused on the future, a great ‘common ground’, also because students
come from different areas, different countries. We start with theoretical
/ philosophical readings, so that we all have a similar ground to discuss
architectural design issues, so I create a platform from where we start.
The research is based on the study of per-formative architectures rather
than formal. The outcome is then closer to the intelligence of industrial
design.
You mean “manufacturing” aspect…
Yes, but not just manufacturing, for example, when designers are
designing an object, the highly specific performance of the objects they
designing, whether it is a car or a sneaker or a camera, it is very intense
combination of technology and the innovation of use, which of course
directly interacts with the human body. Currently we lack the connection
to the human body in architecture. Traditionally one was concerned
about craftsmanship, and proportional systems. These days as we are
more technologically advanced, we can start to think how architecture
relates to human body much more, and how to make architecture more
comfortable, more intelligent and more interactive. And I think that’s what
we’re trying to do in Post-Professional program.
And you mentioned about the intelligent tools, what do you think the current software
and other manufacturing machines like CNC, 3d printer, etc.?
Well, you know, I realized one thing and it is probably why I’m
teaching. When we started our firm, we investigated complex form.
However, if you proposed this to a client or a contractor, the chances
are almost “zero” to get it built; ‘too expensive’, ‘unbuildable’, is what
you get. The only way one could get this built, it’s when you take the
responsibility to actually get it organized in a parametric software
program. This is exactly what we do. We take charge at all the moments,
we make sure to organize everything in the computer digitally and
parametrically, we email it to manufacturers, get pricing, and give these
prices to the clients and contractors. This is the only way to get it built.
I have visited your built project on the Greenwich St, and an essay said almost every
piece of the architecture elements came from different parts of the world, some were
from Hong Kong, and some were Barcelona…
Oh, that’s the way to get it cheap, the way to get the best technology
and also cheap, right? So, yes, the bent glass was from Barcelona; the
custom-extruded mullions were made in Hong Kong and the whole thing
was panelized in Brooklyn…
The loft on the 8th floor, the bogwood? Bogwood is actually recycled
wood, oak trees found in a swamp. The lack of oxygen gives it a great
blond & black pattern, which we used for the interior spine walls for that
project.
In our fall studio, I was always feeling a bit frustrated but also excited, that our
process produced a lot of possibilities rather than another kind of process which is
just rational and reasonable. I did learn a lot in our studio. What do you think about
this kind of difference between studios?
Well, you know, of course the big opportunity of the Post-

Professional program is that the students already know all the rational
and logical things which you have to know. So I can present all the more
advanced knowledge to the students. This is also why it’s good to do
a Post-Professional program, because this is when people are already
technologically good enough to feel confident and comfortable enough
to look at these things. So, it looks a bit scary and exciting, but also you
guys are strong enough to actually being able to deal with that. I would
never teach this in a first year’s studio, but for the post-grad students it
is important to realize that there is a lot more to do, a lot of interesting
thing to investigate. It is maybe a door, a door to new opportunities and
at least they have the chance to figure this stuff out, to meet people who
are working in the same way. You’ve seen so many people working in
that way. That’s actually too much like a method, but definitely something
about future.
So, you care more for the future than for the existing situation?
Yes, as a student I think you have to. Later in the ’real world’ it would
easily take five years before it gets built. If we were thinking only about
now, we would five years behind in development once it gets built.
But, architecture doesn’t move that fast as other technology is. 5 years later, it would
be changed a lot…
That’s true. But right now, I think it is really good timing to change
things. The manufacturing is ready, the people are ready, and the
architecture stands far front in the culture of many countries. And, I think
architecture is interesting since it is an integral part of artificial reality,
especially in the aspect of the society. Society evolves very quickly,
production processes are speeding up, so architects should get ready to
move a little faster. Right now the timing is right.
Personally, when I was looking through your built projects, I felt you always go
forward and backward a bit with your ideas since you also think about the interior of
your building, and try to make the space more comfortable and convenient. And you
also tried to make your buildings much “greener”, you also made it obtains good
views.
We design buildings from the inside out, yes! In the Q-tower we

organized the windows according to a proportional system, an algorithm
which makes each loft special with different window openings and
different views. The outside should be the reflection of the inside.
And also some sculpture at the beginning phrase of your office practice…
I studied sculpture originally, and it is still always amazing to build 20

feet high concrete sculpture in a museum. Because for us it is also a test
about what can do as architecture. It is a great opportunity.
I want to ask some other questions about you. You studied in Holland and United
States. You also worked for different firms, like Steven Holl Architects, Peter
Eisenmen, Bernard Tschumi. What is your original idea for working for these offices
in a sequential way? Or what is the idea of building up your own career?
Well, I am a person who do like to work for myself. But I think it is

really important to learn from people who have more experience. So, in
Holland I worked with Rem Koolhaas, and when I came here, I worked
for Steven Holl, Bernard Tschumi and Peter Eiseman. I think for me it’
s like a scan or a way to study how to operate a studio which is more
based on research and theory. For me it is also really important to
directly connect to construction because being Dutch, I love construction.
So I always built things from the very beginning. But I guess what I
missed in Holland was the intellectual side. What I really like America is
the academic side. I initially came here to study at Columbia and was
not really interested in working long time in one office. I just wanted to
see different offices. So I worked half a year for Steven, half a year for
Tschumi and two and a half years for Peter Eisenmen, because I was
intrigued by the way which he combines theory and practice. It was very
interesting to work for him. And then I got a project in NYC and I started
my own office.
Do you think this is the right process for new graduates to follow like working for a
famous architect and then waiting for the very opportunity to begin own business?
I think it is important to think where you are working, and how

it helps you in the future. It’s not about copying from them but to
understand what kind of thinking or ideas they have and how they
materialize them into buildings. And I have to say all three were very,
very interesting. They are all great mentors and teachers. So it was great
to work for them.
But why did you always choose these star-architects?
Oh, it depends. You know, Steven was not yet that famous when I
was working for him. It was 1990 when he was just starting to be known
internationally. He just moved from a tiny office to a bigger one. Tschumi,
of course, was already the dean of Columbia. Hmm, I think the reason
was that I didn’t want to work for architects. I want to learn from them. I
wasn’t doing that for money. You will be poor, but I didn’t care because I
really wanted to learn. It was a study, not a job.
Sure. You are not only practicing, but also teaching in different universities. You
taught in Harvard, Columbia and Penn. What do you think the difference?
Well, the basic difference is that Columbia is more international.

It is well-known all over the world and in New York. The good thing
for Columbia is that everyone will visit that school because it is so
centrally located and thus famous. Penn is the same as Columbia but
less international. But the principle and the philosophy are the same as
Columbia. That was the situation around five years ago. Now, at this
moment I think Penn is stronger in the field of scripting and advanced
technology. And it’s more focused and more precise in what it wants to
do. Harvard is always the really good traditional architecture school, also
internationally well known and business oriented. People who want to
work in a big office will definitely go to Harvard. But it’s less advanced
and innovative. It was very interesting experience in teaching in different
schools.
I am interested in the architecture theory. You let us read some interesting and
important readings by Gilles Deleuze. How is your own practice involved with
theory?
Well, I read a lot of mathematical philosophy and also study

mathematics. We also work a lot with MIT media lab. I like Edmund
Husserl, who wrote the Origin of Geometry at 1937. It is a little essay
that has an introduction by Derrida which is three times longer than the
text by Husserl. Geometry, in common sense, is about absolute values,
but mathematics is about relative values. For example, if you have a
triangle, you add up all the three angles, it would be always 180 degrees
in geometry. In mathematics that triangle could be projected onto a
round surface, and at that moment, it will be more than 180 degrees.
And it could be hollow, and it would be less. So in mathematics, people
always have to figure out the state of things. Edmund Husserl talks
about the shapes which approaching a perfect smooth shape, and are
also generative of other conditions.
This is something we were working on in the last four or five years.

The idea is if you create something, which called an intelligent form, first
of all it is created after a performance study, and 2nd it often results in
an organic shape, not unlike industrial design. So at the same time, we
critique the traditional way of making domestic environments of hallways
and rooms, we look at this organic shape to eliminate the hallway to
create efficient relationship between spaces. I think the most interesting
thing of architecture is that it is never only one layer. It is always multiple
layers. So for us, that is what we’ve been researching.
The book which just published by Princeton Press, AT-INdex (2007)

is about the three layers of research. We started from interfaces, which
for us is urban environment or how urban data influences architecture.
And then we worked on surfaces and intelligent surfaces, the 2 ½
dimension, which means a surface which can start to encapsule space.
From that, we moved to the 3rd and 4th dimension which generate ‘the
armature’. It’s not like a separation between these researches, but it is
more like overlapping and informing each other.
You just mentioned that you published a new book AT-INdex. You also published a
book named Con-Tex-Ture. How come the names of the books and your office, Archi-
Tectonics? How did you organize them?
The name of our firm, Archi-Tectonics, means ‘the science of

architecture’. And for me, it is very important that the name of office
includes everyone, because I think architecture works like a team. I am
not the only one who makes the work. The whole office makes the work.
So this is why the book, at the start, we list all the names of everyone
who worked here over the last 10 years. They frame the work because
for me it is very important, and it is a very big part of what we do. And I
like the fact that architecture is a team work.
The first book Con-Tex-Ture (1996) was the beginning and kind of
the beginning of layering architecture. The concept of that book actually
came from a solo exhibit I did in LA in 1994. It was my first solo exhibit
which was quite amazing because I started the office that year. The
exhibit was designed in one digitally printed strip, which represents the
idea that architecture is a layering of thinking, drawing, model making
and computer modeling. So instead of making a traditional exhibit, we
made a strip which all these layers were interwoven and that strip was 2
feet high by 75 feet long, it wrapped the walls of the gallery. That same
strip we reduced in size and folded it up in a CD box.
I sent the folded catalogue to my friend who is a publisher in

Holland, 010 Publishers. He immediately wanted to make a book out
of it. So it is kind of strange that I started the office with a solo exhibit
and a book. And I had done four competitions one project in Manhattan
and built some things in Holland. So that was really the marking of the
beginning.
For the second book, AT-Index, I wanted to wait till we had done
some buildings. So when we had two or three buildings I decided to
do the second book. This book is about the works of Archi-Tectonics of
the last ten years. I wanted it to be an index because I think the work is
about three levels of research and a clear overview of all projects, more
like an encyclopedia.
I found something from one resume of yours. You had won a scholarship which
supported you for a trip to China?
Yes I got the Kinne Fellowship of Columbia University to travel the

Silk Road through China to Samarkand.
What do you think about the western architectural practice in China?
It’s kind of scary, isn’t it? We were asked once to do a huge project
in Beijing. They emailed me and said we saw your Greenwich building,
and we want you to design a project which is like a city. I emailed back
and asked whether they meant Greenwich Village? They answered that
they did not mean Greenwich Village but our building!!! It was part of
small competition for a Hong Kong developer. We developed the project
further, but for some reason the person who gave us the project was
fired. The project disappeared. So my opinion about China is not that
good.
But for Rem or Zaha is much better, because they are more famous
and thus have more control of the project. I still think that China is doing
very big projects, but I am more interested in smaller more precise
projects. To do a whole neighborhood with one concept is kind of scary
to me. So I think it is very exciting what’s going on in China, but I rather
wait till the right opportunity comes along.
I love Hong Kong. I’ve never been to Beijing or Shanghai which I

hope to do this year. My fascination led me to ask for the Kinne, I always
thought that the Silk Road is amazing; it leads from China all the way
through Uzbekistan to Venice. There are amazing scientific institutes on
the way, like the first astronomy institute, the first mathematical institute.
It was the first time and probably the last time that east and west were
perfectly mixed. It’s a very, very beautiful thought. I am still planning to
travel the Silk Road. It will be a very, very long trip, but is so worthy to do
it.
Thank you very much.
you are very welcome!

180
美国加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校
环境设计学院
http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu
雷妮•周
尼古拉斯•蒙昭
拉维•朝克
181
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

College of Environmental Design
http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu
Renee Y. Chow
Nicholas de Monchaux
Raveevarn Choksombatchai
182 University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
雷妮•周
建筑学和城市设计教授; 建筑硕士生指导主任
雷妮•周1993年加入建筑系，主教设计工作室和研讨会。她的研究关注建
筑和地域的交叉。当代设计的一个问题就是如何把一个城市的结构和景观与单
独的建筑结合起来，怎么让他们互相影响。在我们城市中由各个部分组成，如
高速公路和街道，公园和建筑。而我们当下的建筑文化中，太多关注和致力于
把建筑自治化，把它从所在的环境中脱离开。
周教授还是Urbis工作室的负责人，与合伙人汤玛斯•切斯顿致力于建筑和
城市设计的实。项目包括单体住宅和多单元集合住宅，教育建筑和商业建筑，
以及城市和社区详细发展计划和研究。
美国加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校 183
采访者：王青
时间：2008年2月10日
地点：美国旧金山Studio Urbis事务所
谢谢你抽空接受这次采访。众所周知，在你的书《市郊空间（ Suburban
Space ）》中，你例举了很多关于什么是好的居住空间的例子。请你谈一谈为
什么你选择市郊空间作为你的主题而不是像纽约一样大都市？换句话说，为什
么你选择低密度区域而不是高密度地区作为你的研究呢？
我所关心的是我们建造空间中正在失去的连续性和可读性，这包括市
郊和城市。这本书的基础是关于怎么看待和设计房子和独一无二的居住模
式的连续性。市郊的研究其实是为了一个更大的关于当代环境设计实践案
例的研究。在美国，分离式的单一的家庭住宅是主要的住宅类型。很少有
建筑师愿意涉足。在书中，我也说明了关于这方面的原因。
我使用“市郊”这个语汇作为一个关于分离式的单一家庭住宅社区的快
速定义。虽然，这个词汇也可以被用来描述在市中心之外的地理概念或是
相对低密度的建造环境。但这个关于分离式住宅建造的物理环境的定义是
这本书的关键。
是的，在美国，单一家庭分离式可能是住宅区的标准形式。但在中国的城市，
因为人口原因，中密度或甚至高密度住宅是住宅区的常见房屋形式。
我的下一本书就是关于这个话题。现在，我在写关于都市建筑，关于
城市可读性和连续性的策略以及分裂城市结构的力量。我会使用一些中国
城市作为例子。在我的设计工作室和办公室的项目中，我正在探索高层和
中层混合住宅的潜力。我认为中层住宅提供了住宅设计革新的机会。我认
识到其中的困难。发展商认为其中显性和隐形的成本远大于高层住宅。技
术上，房子相互倚靠增加了复杂度。但另一方面，他们提供了可行走的和
连续的城市。如果你可以在一定程度上混合中层建筑和高层建筑而不是把
高层建筑造在空地上，我认为我们可以得到更好的城市。我的下一本书会
关注中国当代都市实践和用中层住宅都市主义来进行的可持续的中国空间
的实践。
那非常有意思。你说了很多关于住宅。看起来，这是你所感兴趣的话题。为什
么？为什么你选择住宅作为你研究的方向呢？
我对所有的建筑类型都感兴趣以及他们是怎么组织起一个好的城市肌
理的。我选择了住宅和房屋，部分是因为人们常常不认为他们是城市的一
部分。事实上，城市的绝大部分是住宅。我认为好的住宅设计是好的城市
设计。住宅肌理和城市的形式是绝大多数人们看不到的互相作用。最终，
我并不是真正作住宅设计的研究。我们都知道好的城市肌理是随时间而改
变的。所以，每个城市怎么样改变是更有意思和更重要的话题。容积率不
是在规划中由于用地性质而决定的，而是在城市形式之中的。我更感兴趣
的是这个是怎么被研究的，被教的，被设计的。
在你的谈话中，有提到过城市肌理作为一个城市最为基础的组织形式。对比之
下，标志性建筑最近被越来越多的引入到公共视线中。你对这个现象是怎么看
的？
我认为有些问题可以同时在当代城市市郊以及在城市中找到。如果你
看这些城市，我们发现有着同样的缺乏连续性和身份鉴别性以及被浪费
的狭小空间。城市在越来越多的地方越来越相似。一些地方独一无二的特
色和文化看来正在消失。一个显著的建筑紧挨着另一个显著的建筑，但却
没有一个考虑到另外一个更大的概念，整个城市在这些建筑之间的空间没
有被定义。所以这些空间隔开了城市的每个碎片。我们已经失去了，或不
再寻找在我们城市中建筑的能力。在中国，你看到所有的这一切都在以一
个难以置信的速度快速的发生。如果你看今天的专业杂志，上面写的全是
关于明星建筑师。在教育上，学生在学习如何成为那样的明星建筑师，整
天主要谈论的是他们的概念和他们的创造而无视背景和文脉。对我来说，
标志性建筑不是一个问题或是挑战，而是关于他们是否对一个更好的城市
有帮助。浦东从外滩上看上去非常美丽。他是上海对过于几十年发展的一
个展示。但如果试图在浦东行走，却没有任何体验。你只能坐在车里看城
市。直到你走入建筑中，你才知道你在哪里。在另一方面，我们知道许多
城市的例子。他们既有标志性建筑又有不同街区，不同地区的感受。我认
为城市设计应该了解标志性建筑作为一个地区标志的益处。这些建筑怎么
样参与到当地的区域。标志性并不必需等同于孤立。
这就像建立起一个边界，然后一直关注里面所发生，而忽略外面。
是的。举个例子，我常常看到把红线看作项目的边界来解决设计而不
关心边界之外。交通规划者把高速公路看作边界。高速公路在城市中穿越
而不关心在公路两边或地下的城市。城市设计师做了些非常好的街道剖面
图，但他们总是在建筑的立面处停下了。在另一个区域里面所发生的会影
响街道的质量。如果你用巴黎的庭院模式来学习城市，你的公共空间的剖
面必须包含街道，房子，庭院和多重立面。这不再是个简单的内部空间和
外部空间的图解。我们每个项目总有一个边界，但设计不需要边界。这可
以被看做城市的延伸。
我们可不可以说应该建立标志性社区或标志性城市而不是标志性建筑？
我认为我们需要可识别的，有区别的，独一无二的城市。城市间的不
同是在于文化、气候、景观和资源。当代全球实践变得单一化。我们输出
我们的设计而不考虑在结果上把这个城市看起来和感觉上更相似。我认为
我们需要贯彻新的实践来强调城市间的不同。如果你认为一个标志性城市
是独一无二的可识别的，那我会同意你说的。城市既是为了那些偶尔拜访
的人们，也是为了那些每天居住在那里的人们。一个城市的体验是由通过
城市的方式和从哪里移动到哪里来决定的。好的城市有标志性建筑作为城
市的象征也为导航作为地标。但如果你有一群紧挨着的塔楼，你就不再能
把标志作为日常的体验了。所有我们的城市都被这些相似的标志性建筑填
满了，这使得他们更为相似。
如果你有太多的标志性建筑，那所有的地方都变成了新的地标。
太多不是一个我愿意说的方式。但我认为我们需要重新发现和创新关
于组织，结构和联系项目的方法。他们可以从很多不同的角度来服务城
市，而不是从远处，河的另一边。每个城市可以做的不一样。每个城市应
该有他自己的身份。
你对中国的房地产发展是怎么看的？
所有的一切都是为了更好。但标准定的非常低。由于过分拥挤，缺少
维护，缺失基础设施的更新，许多我研究的住宅只能提供次级的居住环
境。在里弄和胡同里，有些非常有肌理的社区正在新住宅下消失。我并没
有那种浪漫的愿望说，人们应该继续居住在旧的里弄和胡同的环境里。有
必要提高更好的居住条件。我认为那是人们需要的，也是人们正在获得
的。你可以看到这个喜悦的进步。
但是标准定的太低，许多新的住宅变的更好，但还是少数。问题是，
现在的中国是造的更多，难道不应该得到更多么？在大城市里的住宅发展
现在所提供的非常基础。有没有另一种不同的中国空间可以被带入？如果
中国不得不造的更密集，难道不也应该得到更丰富的个人、集体和公共空
间么？
传统的住宅庭院的模式和二十世纪早期的发展，如里弄，可以成为新
的住宅发展的启发。在西方的私有空间和公共空间中丧失了这种个人空间
和集体空间的丰富变化。这种西方对空间的理解像补丁一样打在中国城市
中，通过代替而不是逐渐改变中国住宅模式去符合新的基础建设和新的生
活方式。
我认为中国当代住宅发展的另一个问题是，大量的车辆和地面空间交
流的丧失。在历史上，中国有非常巨大的街区尺度。在引进了汽车之后，
大尺度街区有着和美国超大尺度街区同样的麻烦――增加的车辆拥挤。中
国似乎还在持续加宽他们的道理和保持非常深的红线退让来为未来的道路
做准备。曾经，道路是城市场所汇集的连接处，而现在是屏障，车流分割
城市肌理。在高层住宅楼的地下层，现在是庞大的海洋般的停车场。
确实如此。还有个问题关于中国的人口。如果我们试图发展中层建筑，能够解
决人口居住问题么？
我们正在做些计算工作。我的办公室，Urbis工作室在青浦朱家角外
做了一个竞赛。我们的提案是中层建筑，主要是四层至六层，结合高层
建筑连接三层高的中层建筑。我们还用了新的基础设计，如把停车场和
服务空间集中在一条轴上来支持高层建筑。以此来产生一个不同密度的
混合。我们正在计算，看是否我们能得到和一些中国的高层建筑同样或
接近的密度。你常可以听到的类似的例子是，如果你把高层建筑放倒，
把公共空间标准的环绕在住宅周围，你可以用精心设计过的低层和中层
建筑得到同样的密度。
有些人可能感到困惑，你的研究更像是城市设计和城市规划。你能谈一下，你
的研究和他们之间的区别么？
我之前有说过，住宅设计就是城市的设计。这不同于以往一般的规
划。以往的规划是先规划道路，把土地细分成发展用地块，然后在放置
房屋在用地上。这种等级很简单，但导致在每个场地上都向内关注，这
就是我们刚才谈论的分裂。在我的研究里，每个住宅、每个单元和整个
设计都有互惠的关系。设计关系在等级上是向上的，同时也是向下的。
非常清楚和直接的回答。（笑）
我对这个问题也考虑了很久了。（笑）
你是怎么看待伯克利的建筑教育？和东部的学校有什么不同？
我认为绝大多数的学校正变的更相似了。部分原因是学校的个性是
由一群人在某一个特定的时刻共同决定的。如果你看伯克利，你会发现
教员们都是在全球接受教育和训练，并把它们带回伯克利。在这个意义
上，我们的教员的背景和其他建筑学院是十分相似的。
有说法说，学校是由他所在的制度决定的，整个学院的制度决定了
知识背景。加州和加州大学的特点长期以来被看作强烈的个人主义和我
们所居住的大的环境。在历史上，你可以看到在政治和经济上的贡献。
我认为使得伯克利教育不同之处是人们在建筑上追求他们兴趣的多样
性。但是，我们都对城市景观的复杂性感兴趣。我们都生活在其中，以
及我们生活的方式。我们用不同的方式来描述他。就像你和这里的其他
教师交谈，我认为你会发现这是我们都有的一些想法。学校还对为了更
好的环境的批评设计策略感兴趣。这是关于一生实践的建筑，是可以随
着实践而成长和改变的。学生在每个学院和教育与个性的养成有着同样
重要的位置。在Berkeley，我们有学生本科在全美其他学校取得学位，
也有在欧洲和亚洲接受教育。这种多样性给我们的学校带来了宽度和广
度。
我认为多样性使得伯克利成为一所不同的学校。我们有更多的学生来自亚洲。
我们同他们有着更多的交流。
我这学期的研讨会正是关于这个。我有学生是从韩国，中国，台湾，
印度和一些南美来的，也包括美国学生。我肯定漏了一些地方。这是一
个非常好的团体，因为每个人生活在不同的地方，我们比较不同人感受城
市的不同方式。就像你所在的研讨会的那个学期一样，我们在寻找一种在
住宅设计和城市设计中的互惠平衡。但是，今年我们只研究四个城市：北
京、纽约、阿姆斯特丹和巴塞罗那。
你对建筑教育的未来是怎么看的？是变得和其他专业，如电脑、生物、城市规
划、景观更整合，还是更独立？
是也不是。都是。建筑是个复杂的混合在其他环境系统中，如生物、
城市规划、景观就是整合的一部分。电脑技术，在另一方面，在我看来，
是有点不同的。我认为电脑是个工具，而不是一个环境系统。作为一个工
具，它一定是更整合入设计实践中的。我看到一个变化，我认为这是一个
良好的变化，就是从完全的为了数码而数码的形式到提出怎么使用我们的
工具提高我们环境质量这个问题。我们教员对整个更大的前景的兴趣是对
这个整合有个巨大的推动。你也可以在一些东部学校看到这个变化。你可
以把你的问题再提一下么？
你认为什么是建筑教育的未来？他会变得和其他专业，如电脑，生物，城市设
计，景观更整合还是更独立？
谢谢。是的，在建筑中会有更整合的变化。但是，我把建筑看作一个
学科。它拥有它自己知识基础的原则和技术。设计师需要知道设计环境的
形式。你不能在其他专业中学习这些。当然，我们向学校其他学科学习，
但我不认为我们屈从于其他学科。所以，答案既是肯定也是否定。建筑教
育既会变得更整合，也会保持独立。
可能，那就是建筑学科有别于其他专业的独一无二的个性。
是的，我们的专业是做在环境中的形式和关于它怎么被其他人接受和
使用。这不同于其他学科，对么？
是的。
把专业性这个问题推的更深点，我们看一下你提到的生物学。生物学
可以帮助我们理解对于系统的关系。我们可以在一定程度上用它作为类
比。就像身体，物理环境有他一套系统，生态系统，整合在一起组成了一
个整体。
那取决于你怎么从其他学科中学习，然后引入建筑学科。
类比的危险性在于你在使用的时候，它非常文字化。身体的系统不能
直接等同于我们研究的。像血液循环系统不能物理的等同于一个环境系
统。但学习其他专业帮助我们去认识我们自己的各个方面。但他的形式会
很不同。那就是我们的学科。
Renee Y. Chow
the Eva Li Chair in Design Ethics and Chair of Graduate Advisors for the
M.Arch Program
Renee Chow joined the faculty in the Department of Architecture in

1993 and currently teaches design studios and seminars. Her work focuses
on the intersection between architecture and its locale. One problem for
contemporary design is to link the structure of the city and landscape with its
individual pieces—to design how each affects and is affected by the other. In
making pieces of our cities—highways and streets, parks and buildings—our
current architectural culture too often strives for a degree of formal autonomy
from surrounding circumstances.
Professor Chow is also principal of Studio Urbis, an architecture and

urban design practice formed in collaboration with her partner, Thomas
Chastain. Projects include single and multi-family residences, institutional
and commercial projects as well as urban and community specific
development plans and studies.
Interview by: Steven Wang

Time: February 10th, 2008
Location: Studio Urbis’s office, San Francisco, CA, USA
We all know in your book Suburban Space, in which you give a lot examples and
cases about your opinion about what a good dwelling space should be. Could you
talk more about why you choose suburban space not metropolitan cities like New
York City as your book’s topic? In other words, why do you choose low-dense area
rather than high-dense area as your research?
My concern is for the loss of continuity and legibility of our built

places – both suburban and urban. The premise of the book is about
how to see and design continuity between buildings and the unique
characteristics of dwelling fabrics. The suburban issue is really a case
study for a much larger concern about contemporary environmental
design practices. Also, in the United States, single-family detached
houses are the dominant housing choice, yet architects rarely venture
there for reasons that I discuss in the book.
I use the term suburb as a shorthand to describe neighborhoods

of single-family detached houses. Although the term can also be used
to describe geographic positions outside city centers or relatively
low-density built environments, a physical definition of settings of
detached houses is key for the book. To learn about the suburbs and
their potential, I looked for case studies that go beyond conventional
subdivisions to case studies that can be found in city centers, outer city
rings and rural settings. What is interesting about this definition is that
you can find single-family detached houses in cities like Charleston,
South Carolina or San Francisco, California. These single-family homes
are very different than homes built today. So by comparing these two
kinds, we see that the loss of continuity in our suburbs comes from a
variety of sources: a primary one is the move to value the design of
the house or any building as an object, unconcerned about the larger
context. In the book, I write about a way to design that values both the
house and the neighborhood, the figure and the field.
Yes. In America, single-family detached house might be the prototype of residential

area. But in cities like in China, the mid-rise or even high-rise building is the typical
building form for residential area due to the population.
My next book is on just that topic. Right now, I am writing about

city building – about strategies for legibility and continuity in cities as
well as on the forces that cause splintering of the urban fabric. I will
use some Chinese examples as case studies. In my design studios
and work in the office we are exploring the potential of mixing mid- and
high-rise construction. I think the mid-rise provides real opportunities for
innovation in residential design. I understand the difficulties. Developers
see the soft and hard costs as greater than a high-rise. The technical
issues of building adjacent to other building add to the complication. On
the other hand, they provide more walkable and continuous cities. If you
can get some combination of mid-rise and high-rise buildings rather than
all high-rises sitting in empty fields, I think we can get better cities. So
the next book will look at contemporary urban practice in China and the
potential for sustaining Chinese spatial practices with mid-rise urbanism.
That is interesting. You talked a lot about residential buildings. It seems that is what
you are interested in. Why do you think residential buildings are so interesting and
why do you choose it as your research direction?
I am interested in all kinds of building programs and how these uses

are woven into a good urban fabric. I chose to work with housing or a
residential program in part because people tend to see this as something
separated from cities. In fact, a majority of a city is residential and I think
good housing design is good city design. There is a reciprocity between
the residential fabric and form of the city that most people don’t see.
Ultimately, I am not really researching housing design -- we know a
good city fabric changes use over time. So how each city holds change
is more interesting and important. This capacity is not achieved by
programming land uses in master plans but imbedded in the form of the
city. I am more interested in how that is researched, how that is taught,
and how that is designed.
In your talking, you mentioned urban fabric as a fundamental organization of the

city. By contraries, iconic buildings recently have been more and more brought into
public sight. What do you think about this phenomenon?
I believe that some of the problems of contemporary suburbs are

also found in cities throughout the world. If you look at cities, we find the
same loss of continuity and identity, waste of interstitial spaces. Cities
everywhere look more and more alike, the unique characteristics of each
place and culture seem to be disappearing. One spectacular building is
placed next to another but neither is concerned with the other nor with
building the larger city. The spaces between these buildings are not
defined. All of this separates each piece of the city from the next. We
have lost or no longer look for practices that build legibility in our cities.
In China, you see all of this emerging in an incredibly accelerated pace.
If you look at the profession today, the magazines are all about the
star architects. In education, students are learning how to be that star
architect – talking about mostly about their concepts and their creations
without regard to the context.
For me, it is not the iconic building that is the problem or the
challenge, but do they add up to a better city? Pudong looks great from
the Bund, and it is a showcase for progress in Shanghai in the last few
decades. But try to walk through the streets of Pudong -- it is a non-
experience. You can only move about by car. You could be anywhere or
nowhere until you get inside one of the buildings.
On the other hand, we know a lot of examples of cities that both

have iconic buildings and a sense of different districts, different areas
and neighborhoods. I think urban design benefits from knowing how
iconic buildings serve as markers for a region, and how they can
participate in the local, immediate, near city. Iconic does not have to
equate to isolated.
It is like set up the boundary and always focuses on what ever happens inside.
Exactly. For instance, too often we see the lot lines as the boundary
of our project and resolve our project without regard to what sits beyond
the perimeter. Transportation planners see their boundary as highways
design and highways go flying through cities without regard to what
happens on either side or underneath. Urban designer do these wonderful
street sections, but they always stop right at the façade of the building.
What happens inside, in the next zone, influences the quality of the
street. If you study cities with courtyard patterns like Paris, your public
section needs to include the street, the building, and the courtyard, with
multiple facades. It’s not a simple inside-outside diagram anymore. We
always have a boundary for every project, but the design does not need
to be bounded – it can still make and extend conditions of the city.
Can we say that instead of iconic building, we try to build iconic community or
iconic city?
I think we need identifiable, distinct, and unique cities. Cities

are different from each other based on culture, climate, landscape
and material resources. Contemporary global practice has tended to

homogenize, we export our practices without regard to place with the
result that we are making cities look and feel more alike. I think we need
to implement new practices that accentuate the differences between
cities. If you mean that an iconic city is uniquely recognizable, then I
would agree with what you are proposing. Cities are both for people
who visit them and for people who live in them from day to day. A city is
experienced by how you move through it, where you move to and from.
Good cities have iconic buildings that are symbols of the city and also
serve as landmarks with which to navigate. But if you have whole bunch
of towers all next to others, you no longer can use the icon as part of
the daily experience. And, all our cities are becoming filled with similarly
iconic buildings, making them more alike.
If you have too many iconic buildings, then everywhere becomes new landmarks.
Too many is not a way that I would describe it. But I think we need
to rediscover as well as innovate about ways to organize, structure and
relate projects so that they work for the city from many points of view,
not just from far away, across the river. Every city can do it differently.
Each city should have its own identity.
What do you think about the residential development in China?
It is all for the better. But the standard started very low. Due to
overcrowding, lack of maintenance, and lack of infrastructural upgrades
in the existing housing stock, much of the housing fabrics I have
researched are provide sub-standard living conditions. While I believe
that some of the rich patterns of neighboring found in the hutong, lilong
and other courtyard housing are disappearing in the new housing, I have
no romantic desire to say that people should just keep living in old lilong
or hutong conditions. There is a need to upgrade for better quality of life.
I think that is certainly what people want, and this is what people are
getting. You can see delight in the progress.
But, since the standard started so low, much of the new housing
is better but still minimal. The question now is as China builds more,
shouldn‘t it get more? While residential development in major cities
are now providing the basics, are there other kinds of spaces that
are distinctly Chinese that can be introduced. If China has to build
more densely, shouldn’t it also get more wealth in range of individual,
collective and public spaces?
Traditional residential courtyard patterns and early 20th century

developments like the lilong have lessons for new housing. There
is a variety of individual and collective space that is being lost to a
Western pattern of private and public residential spaces. This western
understanding of space is being patched into Chinese cities, substituting
rather than transforming Chinese residential patterns to hold new
infrastructure and new ways of living.
The other difficulty I see in contemporary Chinese residential

development is the domination of the car and the loss of community at
the ground level. Historically, China has always had very large blocks.
With the introduction of the automobile, the super-blocks suffer the
same fate as super-blocks in the US – increased traffic congestion.
China seems to be continually widening their roads and maintaining very
deep setbacks for future roads. Streets that were once the seams and
gathering places of the city are now barriers, rivers of cars and buses
that splinter the urban fabric. And at the base of the high-rise residential
towers, there are vast seas of parking.
There is still another question for China about the high population: if we try to
develop more mid-rise buildings, can they solve the population problem?
We are doing the calculations on that right now. My office, Studio

URBIS, did a competition for a new canal town outside Zhujiajiao,
in Qingpu. What we proposed is a mid-rise development that is
predominantly four to six story walk-ups with high-rise buildings that are
connected to the mid-rise development on a common level at the third
story. We also introduced a new infrastructural parking and service spine
to support high-rise development resulting in a combination of the two
densities. We are in the process right now of calculating the numbers
to see if we can obtain the same or similar density to some of the high-
rise projects in China. The analogy you often hear is that if you take the
high-rise and lay it on its side, given all the open space that typically
surrounds residential towers, you can achieve the same density with well
designed low- and mid-rise development.
Some people might confuse that your research is more like urban design and city
planning. Could you talk more about what is the difference between your research
and these two majors?
I said earlier that housing design is city design. This differs from the
normal hierarchy in planning that lays out the streets, then subdivides
land into development parcels and then places buildings on the lots.
This hierarchy is simple but leads to an inward focus on each site –

the splintering we have been talking about. In my research, there is a
reciprocity between the design of any building, any unit, and the larger
whole. Design relations move up the hierarchy as well as down.
Very clear and straight-forward answer. What do you think the architectural
education in Berkeley? How is it different as other schools, as in the East coast?
I think most schools now are becoming more alike. In part, the
character of each school is formed by the collection of people who are
collaborating at a particular moment. If you look at Berkeley, you have a
faculty that is educated and trained from institutions throughout the world
and they bring these resources to Berkeley. In this sense, our faculty has
backgrounds that are very similar to other schools of architecture.
That said, schools are also shaped by the institutions they are in
– these make up an intellectual context. California and the University
of California have long been characterized by strong individualism and
concern for the larger landscape that we inhabit. You’ll see this in the
history, in the policies, in the economics of the state. I think the thing that
makes a Berkeley education unique is the diversity of ways that people
pursue their interests in architecture. Yet, we all share an interest in
the complexity of the urban landscape in which we live and the ways in
which we inhabit these environs. We all use different ways to describe
this. As you talk to other faculty here, I think you will find these are
concerns in which we all share. The school is also interested in critical
design strategies for a better environment. It’s about education for a life-
time of practice that can grow and change with the times.
The students are an equally important part to the character of each

institution and its education. At Berkeley, we have students who received
their undergraduate education from schools throughout the country as
well as students educated in Europe and Asia. That kind of diversity
brings breadth and depth to our department.
I really think that diversity makes Berkeley as a unique school. We got more people
from Asia. We had more communication between them.
My seminar this semester is exactly like this. I have students from

Korea, China, Taiwan, India, and South America as well as throughout
the United States. I’m sure I’m missing some place. It is a great group
because everybody has lived in different places and we compare ways
in which people perceive life in cities. Just like the seminar that you
were in last semester we are looking at the reciprocity between dwelling

design and city design. But, this year we are only looking at four: Beijing,
New York, Amsterdam and Barcelona.
What do you think about the future of architectural education? Is it becoming more
integrated by other majors like computer science, biology, urban design, landscape
or more independent?
Yes and no. Both. Architecture is complexly woven into many other
systems in the environment – thus biology, urban design, landscape
are part of this integration. Computer science, on the other hand, is
a bit different from my point of view. I see computation as a tool, not
an environmental system. As a tool, it is certainly more integrated into
practice. I see a shift. I think it is a healthy shift away from the purely
digital form for digital form’s sake to more questions about how we can
improve the quality of the environment and use our tools toward that
end. The interest of our faculty in the larger landscape is a big shift in
integration. You can see this shift in several East Coast schools as well.
There is a shift toward integration in architecture. And still no, I see

architecture as a discipline. It has its own knowledge-based principles
and skills that designers need to know to design environmental forms.
You cannot learn this discipline in any other major. While we learn from
other disciplines, I don’t think we are subservient or within another
discipline. So yes and no, architectural education will both be more
integrated yet always independent.
Maybe that is the unique characteristic of architecture comparing with other

disciplines.
Yes, we do have a discipline that has to do with forms in

environment and how it is read and used by other people that is unlike
any other discipline. Right?
To push the disciplinary nature a bit further, let’s look at biology that
you mentioned. Biology may help us to understand something about the
relation of systems. We can use it as an analogy in some way. Like the
body, the physical environment has a set of systems – an ecology -- that
come together to make a whole,
That really depends on how you borrow from other discipline into architecture.
The danger of any analogy is how literal it is you make it. The
systems of the body are not directly equivalent to what we do -- like the
blood system does not have physical equivalent as an environmental
system. But the study of another discipline helps us to recognize aspects
within our own. But the form of it will be very different -- that is our
discipline.
尼古拉斯•蒙昭访谈
建筑系助理教授
尼古拉斯 • 蒙昭关注组织性思考和环境之间的设计实践和研究。他的多
学科的关于城市，网络和物体的设计工作和文章在无数论文，讲座和论坛
被介绍。他是即将面世的新书《宇航服：关于技术、复杂性和设计的 21 篇
（Spacesuit: 21 essays on Technology, Complexity, and Design）》的作者
他的设计和文章被发表在《ArtNews》, 《306090》, 《纽约时代周刊》,

and 《纽约时代周刊杂志》。他获得了格兰汉姆基金会艺术研究方面和麦克
当 • 科鲁尼的资助。他还获得了多个不同学科的职位： 2002 和 2003 ，他在
Santa Fe Institute做访问学者；2003，他合作建立了景观建筑基金会的主要
论坛“景观的极限”； 2005至2006，他在美国史密斯森机构国家空间美术馆获
得丹尼和佛罗伦斯古根汉姆学者。
最近研究威尼斯湿地的生态和建造形态，在《 Samples, Scenarios,

Catalysts: Towards an Ecology of Strangers (2005)》出版，同时在弗吉尼亚
大学完成了2004威尼斯研究工作室。
采访者：王青
地点：美国加州奥克兰的一个咖啡馆
谢谢你的时间。你有很强的建筑历史和理论背景，你认为这对建筑教育很重要
么？作为一个设计师（你可能不同意），建筑师的角色有一个比其他设计师更
长的历史。但今天，当年轻学生在学校的时候，他们更少的学习传统历史也更
少关心这个。你认为这个应该被改变么？你认为在建筑教育中，历史和理论学
习有多重要？
我的基本经验是一个设计师。但我认为，特别是本科在耶鲁，研究生
在普林斯顿的学习，在这两个地方，他们总在强调把设计放在一个历史和
理论的背景下。所以，虽然我并不是个理论家。但是我相信设计并不和其
他创造性的活动所分离。
当我被伯克利去年录用的时候，我在伯克利的职位的名称是教 “ 在城
市文脉中的设计”。对我来说，城市文脉是一个定位一整套系统的重要方
法，如历史、自然、文化和技术。在这之中，设计师和被设计的物件互相
运作。
关于城市文脉，你是怎么看待现在关于数码建筑设计的新的趋势？他们似乎注
重形式比思考城市文脉更多。
首先，用电脑进行设计的概念并不新。用电脑来做决定的概念可以追
溯到在二次大战期间的研究。用电脑和机械来操作数字作为设计决定过程
附加物的概念甚至更早。在我将要出版的书中，我谈了在二十世纪六十年
代末，电脑和编程者如何从NASA搬到城市住宅部作为“运作上的突破”来
把数码设计方法运用到建造系统和公共建筑的选址上的。
另一个和伯克利历史有关的有意思的事情是克里斯托弗 • 亚历山大的
演讲。在1954年CIAM的最后一次会议上，他说：“电脑永远不会在建筑上
使用，因为他们只适合代替成千上万的文职人员。这暗示，对建筑来说，
有千上万的文职人员并不是个问题。然而我们意识到，这显然是不对的。
所以，最新的数码制作的形式是令人着迷的。一些令人激动的作品正从许
多学校诞生。
我星期一给葛瑞格 • 林恩的讲座作了介绍，这个介绍是出于对建筑和
伯克利的新媒体课程方面的考虑。在这个背景下，我说道：这是他用他
独特的机器的语言来做他的建筑实践。这不是二十世纪传统的机器语言，
而是一种计算机可以实现的有机的、无缝的、瀑布般表皮的形式。从这思
考开，我的一个同事波•斯如兹，在斯密斯森做电脑方面的策展人。他研
究了当今电脑处理部件的安排拥有和十九世纪九十年代在办公室里安排的
男性会计师和女性电脑打字员一样多的数量，但从事的是数学家和工程师
的工作。这个的历史意义也同其他我们今晚听到的一样，我会强调有机的
形体在葛瑞格•.林恩的形式中显现了最为美丽、动态的影子，在一定感知
中，这些存在于机器自身之中。
我同意设计部分的论述。在理想化上，建筑设计的逻辑也应该是可行的。对于
房子来说，我们都知道有机形体用传统的方式是非常难以建造的。你对这个在
电脑中设计和现场建造之间的差异是怎么看的？
这是在数码设计中内置的一个系统。这就是为什么像卡地亚这样的软
件那么重要。因为作为一个软件，它不光只是做形态，而且可以在整个建
筑供应链中制造和允许对有机形体的制造优化。作为建筑教育者，我们需
要把建筑师制作房子数据而不是蓝图的概念推广出去。建筑师通过数据来
参与工程从概念化的形式到幕墙焊接位置的安排。
回到城市文脉，在你的一个课程中，你给了一个很特殊的议题是关于城市和文
字的。那是一个很成功和吸引人的讨论会。你能再介绍一点背景关于这两个方
面是怎样联系起来的？换句话说，什么样的理论基础使你产生这个特别的议
题？
你提到的课程是一个关于城市未来的课。在未来30年里，超过2/3的
世界人口会在城市里。这将是的巨大的地理人口的变化。谈论这些转变，
我的争论是我们甚至都不知道我们该用什么词汇来表述。词汇从来不是准
确的表达我们要它们表达的。它们有着整个之间的联系。我不是第一个说
从一个语言转换到另一个语言的过程就像从图纸转换成房子的人。当我们
用旧的词汇谈论些新的东西，我们把先入为主关于它的假设也带入了。我
们谈论单词“城市”暗示着某种单一性。城市伴随着英文单词“城市”联系着
欧洲城市的原型，一个单一石膏浇铸的杆子syntorian。
城市这个词在英文中的意思不联系到人口的概念。但由于某些传统的
用法，他有了这个概念，如在大多数发展中国家如中国、印度。相比较
下，我们把城市景观和美国的洛杉矶比较，城市概念是关于对付疯狂的城
市化和建筑在城市中的角色。
你提到了中国的城市发展。在近20 年中，中国在许多方面高速增长，如经
济，政治。建筑也被这个增长所刺激。几乎在中国的所有城市成为一个大工
地。城市在一个短时间内被建造和重建许多次。所有的城市理论在这种高速变
化面前都成为过时了。你是怎么看的？
“过时”是个有意思的说法。这更让我坚信一个坚实的历史知识结构对
待变化的重要性。我会说例如一个 1985年的城市理论是完全过时的，一
个1945年的理论可能不是那么过时。在你自己的文化或专业领域之外寻
找新的范例总是有一定好处的。另一个例子是，在我来伯克利之前，我在
弗吉尼亚大学教建筑和景观联合课程很多年， 2003年帮助景观建筑基金
会和美国景观协会(ASLA)建立了关于文化、技术和景观的会议。一个例
子说到当城市像杂草一样的生长的时候，你应该像花园一样看待他们。当
你不能控制一些东西的生长和建造的时候，或许你应该对部分施肥给与营
养对另一部分压制而不去改变自然的生态。希望种植一些更文明、更有
用、更可读的，而不是大片的杂早。这可能是对当今城市设计师角色的一
个很好的比喻，不是直接改变而是学会适应它。
这更像是一种动态的学习和做事的方法。让我们来讨论一下你的书。祝贺你
最近新出版的书《宇航服：关于技术、复杂性和设计的 2 1 篇（ S p a c e s u it: 2 1
e s s a y s o n Te c h n olo g y, C o m ple xity, a n d D e sig n ）》。我发现很有意思的是，
在 D ille r + S c o fidio 的书《肉（ Fle s h ）》中的有些章节，他们也谈到了宇航服。
是什么促使你写一本基于宇航服研究的建筑设计书？
这个话题最早回到我在Diller+Scofidio工作室工作的时候。当时，我
对当时一直在讨论的身体和技术对当代的改变这个话题很感兴趣。联系
到你提到的《肉（ Flesh ）》，理论家乔治 • 特所得在前言中提到我们的
身体因当代技术而不统一和不同。这就是让我投入到工作中去的原因。
在2003我为在Santa Fe学院的一个讲座重新开始了这个研究。在这情况
下，我开始对讲述阿波罗宇航服的故事和作为组织化生产就特别感兴趣
了。衣服是由胸衣制造商手工缝制而不是由技术公司的机器制造。这和我
们前半段的讨论非常有关系。建筑师一直把硬质的美丽情况极端化。举个
例子麦克•索克称这些从未去过外太空的军事工业化的样品宇航服的其中
一件是“他见过最美丽的设计”。凑巧Diller＋Scofidio也在他们的文章中有
所提及到。
真正的保护尼尔•阿姆斯特朗上到月球的宇航服是由21层不同的织物
组合成的。任何一种织物都不是为去月球而设计的，就像我说的，他们是
由带发网的女工用手缝制起来的。把很多层适合的定制优化而不是精心设
计，在技术上来说是很复杂同时也很综合的。
很明显，这和我们思考城市有很多相似的地方。不过最后，变成有很
多直接的管理人员连接这两个故事，比如说，许多同样的人参与到军事工
业系统宇航服设计中，到了二十世纪六十年代作为城市更新项目的咨询。
常常有争论到，摧毁和重建城市就像把人类送上月球，这是一个系统问
题，是可以被用同种方式来描述的。当然这并不是这样的。事实上，城市
就像人体和自然系统一样有个擅于适应和基本混乱的核心。一个干净的解
决方案是不能在城市环境下起作用的。
这很有意思。你是怎么看待伯克利的建筑教育的？和东部学校有什么不一样。
我只能从我的经验来说。我本科是在耶鲁硕士是在普林斯顿。普林斯
顿在那个时候，是正变得很纽约化的学校。我还花了几年在伦敦，为麦
克•霍普斯金事务所工作。我认为，在某些方面伯克利的建筑反映了欧洲
模式、东部模式和西部模式。比如，我们有大量的本科建筑生，没有欧洲
几千个那么多，但也有几百个。有这么一个庞大的伯克利的本科生，就有
了一个完全不同的学习和教书的模式。我们的本科课程，相反的，更像传
统的美国模式。在美国建筑教育模式下，我们的学校不在技术学院里面，
不像欧洲和有些亚洲的学校。相反，我们最有声望的学校是在研究大学里
面的。作为一个世界级的研究院，伯克利必然是这种模式的。所以研究型
设计的概念比世界其他地方更容易被完成。这是这个国家关于建筑教育中
最邻人激动的事情。那也是为什么我在这里作为教授教书，因为这有非常
丰富的灵感。当然，东部学校在很多地方也很有意思。
东部学校和这里的体验有所不同。那些学校是整个地理网络的一部
分，从费城到波士顿。有着一个巨大的交换想法和人口的网络。这是非
常好的，但也有缺点。它给建筑带来了一定的混合的力量。但在一定情
况下，他有着学术流行的问题。我喜欢的当•所肯，一位麻省理工杰出的
社会学家的讲话中提到：“一个大家都熟知的概念是没有价值的。”有些时
候，在东部，所有的人都会都同意什么是好的，而世界却正走向其他方
向。而在超级大都市之外的弗吉尼亚、南加州建筑学院、加州大学洛杉矶
分校和伯克利可以随着时间注入一些新的东西。当然，这些学校有些时候
更困难让自己曝光，但他们可以把概念变成更为激进，从而从更本上改革
一些市场化的概念。
最后一个问题，你认为未来的建筑教育是怎么样的？是会变的和其他学科更整
合，如电脑、生物、城市设计、景观设计，或是更独立于其他学科？
我不得不说都是。真的，我们作为专业人员可以做两件事情。第一，
继续在建造上成为专家，在建造的最前沿理解和在城市设计和景观设计
中有所作为，因为这真是我们该作的。但我们也需要发展一种声音来打破
这种非常孤立隔绝的建筑文化。不是为其他专业说话，而是把我们所做的
翻译到政治和策略领域使得理论对其他人来说更可读。因为我们一直对我
们的物理景观和人在物理和虚拟的空间中的问题思考了很多。有些时候，
谈论空间的时候，语言没有办法被替换。但在这个革命性变化的时刻，传
统的建筑实践中决定被自上而下也自下而上会巨大地影响到我们居住的环
境。那是我们建筑师永远的职责。
谢谢你的采访时间。也谢谢你挑了这个美丽的地方进行了整个下午的平和而广
博的谈话。谢谢。
不客气。
Nicholas de Monchaux
Assistant Professor of Architecture
Nicholas de Monchaux focuses his design practice and research on the

intersection between organizational thinking and the built environment. His
interdisciplinary design work and writings on cities, networks, and objects
have been the subject of numerous articles, invited lectures, and symposia.
He is the author of the forthcoming Spacesuit: 21 essays on Technology,
Complexity, and Design (Princeton Architectural Press).
His design work and writing have been published in ArtNews, 306090,
the New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine, and have been
supported by the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine
Arts and the Macdowell Colony. He has recently held several distinguished
interdisciplinary positions; in 2002 and 2003 he was a visiting researcher
at the Santa Fe Institute, in 2003 a co-organizer of a major symposium
of the Landscape Architecture Foundation, "Limits of Landscape," and
in 2005-2006, he was Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Fellow at the
Smithsonian Institution, National Air and Space Museum.
Recent work on the ecology and built form of the Venetian lagoon
resulted in the publication Samples, Scenarios, Catalysts: Towards an
Ecology of Strangers (2005), completed with the 2004 Venice Research
Studio of the University of Virginia.

Location: a café in Oakland, CA, USA
Thank you for your time. As we know, you have a strong background in architectural
history and theory. Do you think that is important for architectural education?
As a designer (you may or may not agree), the role of the architect has a longer
history than others. But today, young students learn less traditional history or care
less about it when they are in school. Do you think this should be changed? How
important you think history and theory studies are in architecture education?
My fundamental experience is a designer. But I think especially

coming from the schools I attended Yale as undergraduate and Princeton
as a graduate student – there was always an emphasis in both places
from intellectually demanding instructors on placing design work in a
historic and theoretical context. So, while I am not a theorist per se, I am
someone who believes in design, as something not isolated from other
intellectual creative activities.
The title of my position here at Berkeley, when I was hired last year,
was to teach “Design in the Urban Context.” To me, the urban context is
an important way to characterize a whole variety of systems – historical,
natural, cultural and technological – in which the designer, and designed
object, operates.
About urban context, what do you think about the recent new trends in digital
architectural design? It seems that they play with the forms much more than thinking
about urban context.
First of all, the notion of using computer to do a design work is not

actually that new. The notion of using computer to make a decision goes
back to research during the Second World War. The notion of using of
computer and machines that operates with numbers as an adjunction
decision-making process even further. In my forthcoming book, I talk
about how computers and programmers from NASA were moved to the
department of Housing and Urban Development as part of “Operation
Breakthrough” in the late 1960s, to apply digital design methods to
building systems and sitting in public housing.
Another interesting part of this history related to Berkeley is

Christopher Alexander’s statement at the last CIAM conference in 1954
that “Computers will never be used in architecture as they are only
appropriate to replace thousands of clerks; the implication being that
there are no problems in architecture for which thousands of clerks are
useful. We are learning that this is clearly not the case. So the latest
round of digital form-making is fascinating, and some really exciting work
comes out of many schools at the moment.
I gave an introduction to lecture about Greg Lynn on Monday with

context of architecture goal also context of program of new media here
in Berkeley, as well as our architecture lecture series. And in that context
I mentioned the following; it is with the language of machines that Lynn
has become particularly articulate in his architectural practice, it is not
a traditional machine language as presented in the heart of the 20th
century, but rather an organic, seamless, skin-like cascade of form that
digital media can make possible. And from there I speculated; As one of
my colleagues at the Smithsonian, Curator of Computing Paul Cerruzi
has researched, the arrangement of the processing parts of today’
s computers owes as much to the architectural arrangement of male
accountants and female computers in the offices of the 1890s, as to the
work of mathematicians and engineers; in this historical sense, as well
as the many others we will hear tonight, I would argue that the organic
forms that appear as the most beautiful, animate ghosts in the work of
Greg Lynn Form, are in some sense those that inhabit the machine itself.
I agree with the design part. Ideally, the logic of architectural design also should be
feasible. For the building itself, as we know that organic shape is very hard to build
up in a traditional way. How do you think about this gap between the design in the
computer and building on the site?
Well, again, it goes to the systems that are becoming embedded

in a digital design process. This is why software like Catia is so
important, because as a piece of software, it is not just dedicated to
form making, but also to manufacturing and allowing the optimization
of the manufacturing of organic shapes in the whole supply chain of
the architectural process. As architectural educators, we need to bring
forward the idea of the building data set not a set of blue prints produced
by architects and handed off, but as a database in which the architects
engage with construction from the conceptual form to the positioning of
welds to the arrangement of cladding.
Back to the urban context, in one of your classes you gave a special topic about
urban and words. That is a pretty successful and intriguing seminar. Could you give
more background of how these two things have been associated? In other words,
what kind of theoretical foundation makes you come up with this special topic?
The class you mention is a seminar about the future of the cities.
More than 2/3 of the world populations will be in cities within the next 30
years, which is a sea change of geological proportion. In talking about
this transition, my argument is that we even didn’t know the vocabulary
we should be using. Words never mean exactly what we mean them to;
they carry with them with the whole basket of associations. I am not the
first to say there is a similarity between the processes of translation from
one language to another and the process of transition from drawing to
building. When we talk about something new with old words, we carry
with the whole set of assumption about it. We talk about the word cities
imply the kind of the singularity. The city carries the word city in English
carries old association from foundation of cities in Europe which is single
rod cast plaster Syntorian. The word of center of the city rimed in English
is not related the idea of population, but still because of that traditional
usage it has the notion we have tried to do where is if we look at the
urban landscape it is happening in China in India, in most developing
worlds, comparing to our country, LA, the notion of that we dealing
with mad urbanization the role of building being in the city. It changed
automatically the way I think about placing an object in that context. In
that case, the course you mentioned, attempted to use some of the tools
of phrases and words popped up from books to isolate the vocabulary to
talk about change.
You mentioned the city development in China. In recent 20 years, China has been
under a boom in many fields: as economy, politics, etc. Architecture is stimulated by
this growing. Almost all the cities in China become big construction zones. Cities
have been built and rebuilt in so many times in such a short time. It seems all the
urban theories are out of date in front of this accelerating and dramatic change.
What do you think of this?
The phrase “out of date” is interesting in itself. It implies – correctly

I believe – that a robust knowledge of history is important in dealing
with change. I would argue that for instance while an urban theory from
1985 might be completely “out of date,” One from 1945 might be less.
There are always advantages to looking for new paradigms, outside of
your own cultural or professional context. As another example, I taught
in a joint Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the
University of Virginia for several years before I came to Berkeley, and
helped organize a conference on culture, technology, and landscape
for the Landscape Architecture Foundation and the ASLA in 2003.

Paradigms from that context might suggest that when cities grow like
weeds, maybe you treat them like gardens; or when you cannot control
the fact that something is growing and building, but you can maybe
fertilize some parts and suppress others without changing the nature of
organism itself. Hopefully, cultivated something slightly more civilized,
more usable, more legible, then just a massive of weeds. That might be
a good metaphor for role of urban designers in present in terms of just
not directly change but learning to live with it.
It is kind of dynamic way to studying and doing. Let’s talk about your work.
Congratulations for your recent published book, Spacesuit: 21 essays on Technology,
Complexity, and Design. It is interesting that I also found Diller + Scofidio’s book
Flesh. In some chapters, they also talked about spacesuit. What triggered you to
make an architectural or design essay based on studying of spacesuit?
The original project goes back to the time when I was very
involved in the Diller + Scofidio Studio. I was interested in the body and
technology related to the larger issues of contemporary change we have
been discussing; related to your mention of “Flesh,” what George Teyssot
calls in his preface to the book, the parallel threads of incorporation
and disembodiment of our bodies by contemporary technology. That is
certainly what led me into the work. Then I revisited the project in 2003
for a lecture at Santa Fe Institute. In that context I became particularly
interested in telling the story of the Apollo suit – hand-stitched by a bra
manufacturer instead of machined by a technology company – as a case
study in organization as well. And this relates very much to the first half
of our discussion.
Architects have consistently idealized hard, beautiful solutions to

extreme situations. Michael Sorkin for instance, called one of these
military-industrial spacesuits, a hard prototype that never went into space
“the most beautiful designed object he has ever seen” – incidentally in an
article mentioning Diller and Scofidio as well. The actual spacesuit that
protected Neil Armstrong on the moon is 21 multi-layers assembled in
different fabrics. None of those fabrics was designed to go to the moon,
and, as I say, they were hand-stitched together by ladies in hairnets. It is
complicated but also complex in the technical sense being adapted multi
layered temporary custom fit optimization instead of deliberate designed
object.
So obviously there are some conceptual parallels to how we think

about cities; but it turns out there are a lot direct institutional person links
between two stories. For instance, many of the same characters involved
in both the development of military-industrial systems in general, and
even “hard” spacesuits in particular, were by the late 1960s consulting
on projects of urban renewal, the demolition and reconstruction of cities,
with the argument that, like sending a man to the moon, it was a “systems”
problem, that could be described in the same way. And of course this
was not the case; in fact, cities, like the body and natural systems in
genera, have an adaptive, adoptive and fundamentally messy paradigm
at their core; a “clean” solution is one that will never work in an urban
context.
That is interesting. So what do you think about the architectural education in

Berkeley? How is it different as other schools, as schools in East Coast?
Well, I can only speak from my own experience; I was an

undergraduate at Yale and a graduate student at Princeton, which was
very much becoming a New York school at the time. But I also spent
formative years of my architectural career in London, (working for
Micheal Hopkins amongst others.) In some ways, I think, the education
in Berkeley mirrors the European model as much as it does the East
Coast model, as much as it does the West Coast model. For instance,
we have large undergraduate students in architecture, not thousands
of students as in some European school, but hundreds of students.
With such a massive intellectual ecology as Berkeley’s undergraduate
population, you get a very different paradigm of learning and teaching.
Our graduate program, by contrast, more mirrors traditional American
models. In the American model of architectural education, our schools
are located not in technical universities like in Europe or even much
of Asia. Instead, our most prestigious schools are located in research
universities. As a world-class research institution, Berkeley definitely is
part of this model, and so the notion of research in design is much more
easily accomplished here than elsewhere around the world. That is the
most exciting thing about architectural education in this country, and
that is why I stayed in school as a professor, because it is a very rich
inspiration. East Coast is interested in couples of ways.
There are also contrasts between the East Coast schools and our
experience here. Those schools are part of a network, a geographical
network that stretches from Philadelphia to Boston with a big exchange
of ideas and populations. This is great, but has drawbacks as well. It
brings a kind of hybrid vigor to the architectural scene, but in certain
circumstance, it has the problems of intellectual fashion that is reflected
this statement that I like from Don Schön who was a distinguished
sociologist of architecture at MIT, which is that “an idea in common

conversancy is no longer worth having.” Sometimes in the East you
have everyone agreeing on what is cool, and the world is actually
going somewhere else. So it can fall to schools outside that massive
metropolis in the Northeast – Sci-Arc, UCLA, and Berkeley, Virginia etc.
– to inject something new from time to time. These schools struggle
more to get exposure but they can assemble notions sometimes more
radical that can revolutionize what is fundamentally a marketplace of
ideas.
Last question, what do you think about the future of architectural education? Is it
becoming more integrated by other majors like computer science, biology, urban
design, landscape or more independent of other disciplines?
We have to say yes to both!
Really, we can only survive as a professional by doing two things,

first, by continuing to develop our expertise in building, to stay in
the frontier of construction and understanding and acting in urban
landscapes, because that is what we do. But also, we need to develop
voice to break down a very insulated architectural culture. Not so much
to speak other languages for their own sake, but translate what we do
into languages of policy, strategy as well as theory legible to others.
Because we do a lot of thinking about the physical landscape and about
the body in physical and virtual space increasingly. There is no substitute
sometimes for language that nobody else can understand in terms
of talking about space. But in this moment of revolutionary change,
decisions are being made upstream and downstream of traditional
architectural practice that will have massive impacts on the environments
we all inhabit. And that is what we architects always belong.
Thanks for your time of interview and picking this nice place for the peaceful and
informative talk in the entire afternoon. Thank you.
拉维•朝克
建筑系副教授
朝克是前Loom工作室创始人之一。 2005年一月，拉维开始了独立实践工
作室 VeeV，位于旧金山，继承了Loom的特点，但更多的进行多领域的设计
试验和研究。
拉维对材料表现的可能性进行更为深入的探索。她还对媒体特质改变的探
索和用电影和视频技术来研究感兴趣。她在城市框架下继续探索一些关于建
筑，景观和空间的项目。她的一些被人所认识的项目有：女性选举纪念；在
泰国的展开建筑；在旧金山的49格雷斯街混合使用建筑；液化-在纽约库博.黑
维特美术馆三年展装置；在旧金山金门公园艾滋病纪念，赢得了2005国际竞
赛。
采访者：王青
时间：2008年2月10日
地点：美国旧金山的一架意大利咖啡馆
谢谢在百忙之中做这个采访。据我所知，你对多学科之间的建筑试验比较感兴
趣。是什么使得你选择这个研究方向的呢？这些研究的背景是怎么样的？
对于多学科的探索，我必须说，在我早年硕士学习期间作为一个设计
师的时候就已经开始了。很神奇，我一直想象设计实践在本质上是合作和
跨学科的。我和我的前合伙人开始了我们的实践，开了一个Loom的工作
室。这个名字就暗示了概念、知识、方法和技术之间和交织。当我们的文
化变的更为复杂的时候，建筑作为一个事业被新的要求和关系所挑战。就
像一直被认为的那样，建筑学科像其他学科一样需要向外延伸与其他学科
共享和交换知识，以应付日益复杂的状况。所有的合作不再是一种愿望，
而是一种在建筑实践中不可避免的核心组成部分。最终，在设计过程中开
始就和各种各样的学科合作使得设计结果更为多产更有成果。设计研究成
为了建筑学科和实践的一部分。
听上去这像是所有不同的学科正变的比以前有更多的联系和关联。
是的，在一定程度上，（这个可能说的太远了），这是一个关于如建
筑、城市设计和景观，这些学科之间的清晰的学科划分的问题。我们很
有信心的希望有一个整体的思考和意识形态。我们努力或立志成为一个对
都市主义和建筑有着相同的成熟的感受、情感和审美的建筑师，城市设计
师或一个景观设计师。这些学科划分建立了这些并不必须的和非国际的领
域。当我在读研究生的时候，我对探索学科之间的界限很有兴趣。在我建
筑的背景下，我在哈佛设计学院同时学习景观和建筑课程。在伯克利，除
了教建筑设计之外，我还在建筑学院里提供关于城市问题的硕士讨论会和
课程。这个讨论会“隐藏的城市”通过基于时间方式的图解和关于表现的意
义来探索不同的城市理论。媒体是课程中最为关键的一部分。我们事实上
探索了电影模型和电影工具，举例来说：视频。我们在一种方式下用这个
媒体，他可以精确的计算和定义时间和空间的关系。我开始思考在美国学
院里教授城市设计学科。这个学科相对年轻。我认为当在欧洲都市主义作
为建筑学院整体中的一部分的时候，它在美国第一次被建立起来。这个显
著的区分似乎显现了一种在美国的逻辑：大多数美国人不居住在我们传统
意义上认为的城市中。美国是相对年轻的城市。绝大多数在美国的城市发
展是呈水平方向的增长。城市扩张是一种更为常见的都市主义。事实证
明，建筑和都市主义在美国不是作为一个整体系统随着时间一步步发展起
来的。这和亚洲和欧洲的城市不同，在那里，建筑一直被看作城市形式和
都市主义不可分割的一部分。
不管怎么样，因为亚洲和美国的都市主义本质上的巨大区别，我开始
质问学科的划分。这种美国式划分被许多亚洲国家采用作为一种高等教
育系统的标准。我想知道是否这种分割式的划分持续的形成了学科间的裂
缝。每个发展出各自的方法论，独立的讨论语言，因此更少的交叉，更难
融入和更难以一种多产的方式来分享谈话。学科应该怎么教才能融入整合
的论题和合作。在许多设计学院里，这就像用不同的语言来在建筑、景观
和城市设计专业中交谈。许多教书的建筑师已经从事都市主义的问题研
究，在设计工作室和专业实践中探索这个问题。我真的希望亚洲的大学将
找到一个独特的方式来从事和定义这个更符合他们有机本质的都市生存形
态的学科。
不管怎么样，对我来说。当我们合并了景观和建筑，我们从而有了可
以定义都市形式和都市网络系统的可能性。我的许多讨论会和设计课程是
围绕着关于城市基础设施和质问现有的和已有的城市形态来寻找一种新的
形式。
在你的研究中，你研究了大量的关于电影、媒体艺术、表演，甚至时装的材
料。你对这些不同门类的学科来帮助你发展自己的建筑设计是怎么看的？
我想这是因为我真的对其他门类的创造性工作感兴趣。我对调查个体
和整体之间在意识形态，工具，技术，方法和美学上的异同感兴趣。我
试图让人更多的在这些事物的边缘感到习惯。看上去我找到了一条聪明的
道路来找到自己，重新发现自己。最终，我不在意我如何被人们定义我自
己在哪个学科或是种类的工作。有人曾经说过，创造和原创不是发明一个
之前没有过的全新的，而是发现一个在现有事物中的一种前人没有发现过
的全新的关系。在所有这些创造性的工作中，我寻找相似性和不同性，从
不寻找一种普遍性，总是探索特别的或是特殊的。举例来说，在电影中，
我的工作关注在媒体和材料制造的关键技术上。每个电影摄制者有不同方
式来用摄像机、站位和剪辑技术，等等。通过每个电影导演，我能区分不
同的在空间顺序中精确计算时间的方法，和建筑设计过程中的方法很相
似。对我来说，这个精确观察的关键是对复杂的敏感性和对细节准确性的
把握，就像服装设计，特殊的图案，褶皱和缝合。这种成熟的敏感性在所
有好的作品中都有体现，无论我们看什么学科或是什么门类。在这个意义
上，我在寻找这种共同的敏感性。
让我们转移到亚洲背景上。你来自泰国曼谷。我们都知道亚洲在国际舞台上越
来越重要。亚洲国家的发展正以一个难以置信的速度成长。所有的亚洲国家都
在很多领域高速发展，如经济、政治等。几乎所有的中国城市变成一个大的工
地。城市在短时间内被建造和重建许多次。我认为在你的国家，泰国也可能有
相同的情况。看起来，所有的城市理论在这种剧变中变的过时了。你怎么认
为？
事物总有两个方面。一方面，这些快速发展带来了乐观和兴奋的感
受。另一方面，这样的高速都市主义在质问基础设施和资源的极限和外
延。我非常希望这种正在出现的现象可以有他自己的方式稳定下来。阻止
这个过程是不可能也似乎违反自然的。我所说的是对城市这么台机器来
说，这是一个自然过程。有时，这个自然过程为了进化或是重生的需要而
把事情变的糟糕。这个都市主义线性的本质为城市设计师和建筑师提供了
很好的机会去倡导复杂的网络系统来挑战现有的类型而直接对应环境变
化。在这学期的研究生设计课上, 我们为在曼谷中心区域的场地试验这样
一个新的都市形态。我在春假的时候带了一组学生去了那儿。
你能谈谈更多的关于伯克利的教育么？你是怎么认为伯克利的建筑教育？它和
其他学校，如东部的学校有何不同？
与其直接回答你的问题，我不得不说要理解伯克利的现在，我们必须
回头看看过去。当我第一次作为设计老师到这儿的时候，我从东部学校过
来，花了很长时间努力明白伯克利是怎么样的一个设计学校。
今天，在越来越整合的教育学中，协作将会是一个非常激进的愿望。
在我看来，我们可以建立一个非常专业化的思想体系，但我们还需要有宽
广洞察力的人有能力用全球视角来进行更广泛的思考。
我原本打算问你最后一个问题关于建筑教育的未来。但你已经在之前提到了。
非常感谢今天的采访。
很高兴接受这次采访。我和另一个同事马克 • 安德森在另一天有过一
个谈话。他说的非常好，我想在这引用他的话：思考雄心是一种非常煽动
性的思考。这是真的，现在这个雄心就是整合。
Raveevarn Choksombatchai
Associate Professor of Architecture
Raveevarn is Associate Professor of Architecture at Berkeley and

a former partner of Loom co-founded with Ralph Nelson in 1993. Also,
In January 2005, Raveevarn re-invented a new independent practice.
VeeV, based in San Francisco, shares many of Loom's ambitions but is a
collaborative design/research practice that moves further into the realm of
experiments and design investigation.
Raveevarn is moving to a deeper exploration that challenges the

limitations of performative possibilities of materials. She is also interested in
exploring the changing nature of media and its effect upon design through
filmic techniques and video investigations. She continues to explore more
formal ideas of architecture, landscape, and space with projects mostly in
urban context. Some of her most recognized work includes the Woman
Suffrage Memorial; Unfolding House in Bangkok; 49 Grace Street Mixed-
Used building in San Francisco; Liquescence, an installation as part of the
first Design Triennial at the Cooper Hewitt Museum, New York City; and the
design for the AIDS memorial in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, which
won an international design competition in 2005.

Location: an Italian Café in San Francisco, CA, USA
Thank you for this interview in such a busy time. As I know, you are interested in
multidisciplinary experimentation of architecture. What makes you think that should
be the research direction? What is the background of this research?
The issue of interdisciplinary for me has always been, I have to

say it, in my earlier year as a designer since I was doing my graduate
studies. Amazingly, I have always imagined the practice that is
collaborative and interdisciplinary in nature. I started with my former
partner a practice Loom Studio; its name suggests interweaving of
ideas, knowledge, methods and techniques. As our culture has becomes
increasingly complex, architecture as an enterprise has been challenged
with new set of inquiries and relationships. As it is, architecture discipline,
like other disciplines needs to reach out to others to share and exchange
knowledge in order to cope with this emerging complexity. All kinds of
collaboration are no longer desire but inevitable and essential part of
architectural practice. Ultimately, it is much more productive and much
more fertile to engage with all sorts of interdisciplinary collaboration from
the beginning of design process. Design research has become integral
part of architecture discipline and practice.
It is like all different kinds of disciplines become more related and linked together
than before.
Yes it is. In a certain way, (this might jump too quickly but,) there
has been a question raised in regards to a clear academic or disciplinary
division among architecture, urban design and landscape architecture.
While in its ambition, we hope so much that there is an integrated
thinking and ideology, We strive or aspire to produce an architect, an
urban designer, or a landscape architect who has a developed a matured
sensibility, aesthetic, and empathy towards architecture as much as the
sensitivity towards urbanism. These divisions have created unnecessary
and un-intentional territories. When I came to the Graduate School,
I was interested in exploring the boundary between the disciplines.
With my background in architecture, I attended both the Landscape
Architecture as well as Architecture Program while studying at the GSD.
At Berkeley, besides teaching architectural design, I have developed a

graduate seminar/workshop in urban issues specifically offered within
the Department of Architecture. This seminar “Hidden Cities” probes into
different urban theories while exploring time-based methods of mapping
and means of representation. Media is one of the most essential parts of
the course. We are actually exploring a cinematic model and cinematic
tools - video for examples, we use the media in such a way that they
precisely calculate and define the relationship between time and space.
I have begun to think about urban design discipline as it is taught in
American Academy. The discipline that is relatively young, I believe, was
first established in the United States, while Urbanism is taught in Europe
within the Architecture Department as integrated discipline. This clear
separation seems to hold some sort of logic in the US where majority
of population do not live in a city, at least what we understand as a city,
an urbanism in a traditional sense. The US is relatively a young country.
Most of the urban developments in the states have grown horizontally
and urban sprawls seem more common as a new form of urbanism.
Evidently, architecture and urbanism in the States are not organically
developed hand in hand as one integrated system over time, as opposed
to Cities in Asia and Europe where architecture has always been an
inseparable part of urbanism and urban form.
Anyway, because of such distinctive nature of urbanism in the

States and in Asia, I began to question disciplinary division (architecture,
landscape architecture, urban planning, and urban design) that many
Asian countries have adopted from the States as a standardized
system of higher education. I wonder if these discreet divisions have
gradually created rifts among disciplines. Each has developed its
own methodology, language of discussion independently, therefore
less overlapping and difficult to lend empathy and share discourse in
productive ways. How could discipline be taught so that it engages
integrated discourse and collaborations? In many design schools, it is
like speaking in different language between architecture, landscape
architecture, urban planning, and urban design. Many architects who
teach have been engaged in the issue of urbanism and have explored
it in the design studios and in professional practice. I really do hope
that Universities in Asia will find a unique way to engage and define the
disciplines that are much more suited to the organic nature of their living
urban morphology.
Anyway, for me, there are exuberant potentials when we conflate

landscape and architecture in such a way that we begin to define the
possibilities of system of urban network and urban forms. Many of my
seminars/workshops and design studios are pedagogically structured

around the questions of urban infrastructure, challenging existing and
pre-conditioned urban typology in search of new urban morphology.
In your research, you studied a large amount of materials in the range of films,
media art, performance and even fashion. What do you think about those different
categories in terms of helping you to develop your own way in architectural design?
I guess it is because I am truly interested in these other genre of

creative work. I am very keen to investigate differences and shared
ideology, tools, techniques, and methodology, aesthetics as well as
specific/general characteristics. I tend to navigate more comfortably
along the margin of all these disciplines. It seems to be an intellectual
path I have been pursuing and ways for me to reinvent myself.
Ultimately, I am not so concern with how I am identified or which
discipline or genre of work I am identified with. Someone once said
being creative and original is not about inventing a brand new, never
existed before, but it is about discovering a new set of relationships in
existing objects that nobody else has ever found. Among all of these
forms of creative work, I look for the differences and similarities, and
never look for something generic, and always explore the specific and
the particular. For example, in film, I have been focusing my study on
media and critical technique of material production. Each filmmaker
has different approach to camera, its positions, editing technique, etc.
Through each film director, I was able to identify distinct method of
precise calculation of time within spatial sequences, not so unlike the set
of operations used in architectural design process. For me, the key to
this acute observation is sensibility to intricacy and precision to details,
like in clothing design, for example, the specificity of pattern, the drape,
the stitch, etc. This developed sensibility embedded in all the best work
no matter what discipline and/or genre we look at. In that sense, I am
looking for the shared sensibility.
Let’s move to Asian background. You came from Bangkok, Thailand. We both know
Asia becomes more and more important in international stage. The development in
Asian countries is growing in an unbelievable speed. All the Asian countries have
been under a boom in many fields: as economy, politics, etc. Almost all the cities in
China become big construction zones. Cities have been built and rebuilt in so many
times in such a short time. I think there might be the similar situation in your country
Thailand. It seems all the urban theories are out of date in front of this accelerating
and dramatic change. What do you think of this?
There are always two sides of the same coin. On one hand, these
rapid developments bring with it the sense of excitement and optimism.

On the other, this accelerated speed of urbanism challenges the limit
and extent of infrastructures and resources. I am very hopeful that this
emerging phenomenon has its way to reach its stability. To resist this
process seems impossible and un-natural. What I am also saying is
that it is a natural process of a city machine. Sometimes it takes things
to go wrong for any evolutions or re-invention to occur. This fluid nature
of such urbanism offers a great opportunity for urban designers and
architects to advocate intricate system of network development that
challenges existing typology and respond more directly to environmental
changes. In my graduate studio this semester (Spring 2008), we explore
this specific issue in search of new urban morphology for a site in central
Bangkok. I am taking a group of students over there during this Spring
Break.
Could you also talk some about education in Berkeley? What do you think the
architectural education in Berkeley? How is it different as other schools, as schools
in East Coast?
Instead of answering your question directly, I will have to say that to

understand Berkeley at the present we have to look back at key moment
of the past. When I first arrived as a design faculty, I came from the East
Coast schools and was struggling to figure out what the design school
at Berkeley is about for a long time. As you may recall our discussion
about disciplinary divisions, the artificial divisions were also taken place
within the architecture department at Berkeley. I believe it was in the
60’s, the vision of dividing architecture discipline into sub-divisions of
discreet parts: building science, social science, etc. It was a radical
idea then that one imagined under the Department of Architecture,
we could gather together people with very different expertise to build
an ideal research institution. Slowly these divisions have become
more compartmentalized rather than working together to develop
common goal of collaboration, an integrated empathy and vision toward
architectural design. Architecture Department at Berkeley, as a result,
comprises different sub-divisions with each own approaches, ideologies,
as well as strengths and weaknesses. Ironically, the diversity within the
Department has been perceived as one of the unique characteristics
that attract many Master’s and PhD candidates. Students who choose to
come to Berkeley will be at great advantage if they know what they want
and know how to navigate through this fluid pedagogical structure. There
is no single clear sense of direction, which I find at times frustrating,
and sometimes appreciative for the sense of intellectual freedom. We
seem to be in the state of becoming struggling to redefine ourselves, to
build from our differences, searching for a sense of unity, to be unique

and better. I guess these struggles are good, reminding us not to be too
complaisant.
Today, collaboration of a much more integrated pedagogy would be

a radical ambition. In my opinion, we can produce a specialized thinking
very well, but we also need people who have insights for broader visions
and be able to think more comprehensive whole with a sensibility of
global perspective.
I was trying to ask you the last question about your opinion of future education of
architecture. But you have already answered me. So thank you for today’s interview.
Of course, it’s a great pleasure. I had a conversation another day

with one of my colleagues, Mark Anderson. I’d like to quote him here
since he said it so perfectly: “…thinking of ambition is a very provocative
thinking. It is true….now it is about integration”.
220
美国纽黑文市耶鲁大学
建筑学院
http://www.architecture.yale.edu
彼得•埃森曼
弗兰克•盖里
221
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

School of Architecture
http://www.architecture.yale.edu
Peter Eisenman
Frank Gehry
222 Yale University, USA
彼得•埃森曼
路易•康建筑设计访问教授
彼得 • 艾森曼教授是世界著名的学者和建筑师。作为艾森曼工作室主持
人，他主持设计了大量的建筑和都市设计项目，教育机构的革新课题和一系列
私人住宅研究。他设计的项目包括柏林犹太人大屠杀纪念馆、西班牙圣地亚
哥-德孔波斯特拉的加利西亚文化城的六栋建筑、和阿利桑那红雀队体育馆，
该项目已在2006年投入使用。
彼得 • 艾森曼教授还活跃在教学和理论研究领域。 1976 至 1982 年，他

创立了建筑与都市研究所（IAUS，the Institute for Architecture and Urban
Studies），一个建筑思想的宝库。他还是纽约库珀联盟的第一位“杰出建筑教
授”。作为耶鲁建筑学院的路易•康教授，他在在每年秋季执教艾森曼设计工作
室和“视觉研究”课程；每年春季，他在耶鲁教授“图解研究”课程。
他的出版物包括：《彼得•艾森曼-- 卡纸房子(1987）》；1999年《彼得•
艾森曼-- 图解日志(1999)》；《模糊地带：对间隙的研究(1988)》；《彼得•
艾森曼--朱塞普•特拉尼：转变，分解，批判(2003)》；《由内而外(2004)》，
等。
美国耶鲁大学 223
采访者：陆轶辰
时间：2007年4月15日
地点：美国纽黑文市耶鲁大学建筑学院埃森曼办公室
3 年制的建筑硕士课程第 1 年，您开设的“ 视觉研究” 课程是教授如何运用形式分
析的方法对建筑客体进行观察和思考；第 2 年，您开设了“ 图解分析” 课程；第 3
年您在耶鲁执教彼得•艾森曼工作室。您是如何用“图解分析”这门课去衔接第1
和第3年课程的？
这正是我们在第二年的课程中想要尝试的。首先，我们这个实验是尝
试通过学习建筑史去了解一个好的平面、剖面、建筑的产生的因素。如果
你只是从当代的角度出发，那么你构想的建筑一定是落伍的。你接着可能
会问，那么建筑的共同之处是什么？我称此为建筑一致性（ persistence
of architecture）。建筑一致性的体现之一是物体与场地之间的联系。对
此我们所能做很多尝试，比如：可以让物体更明确或者让场地更隐晦；可
以把物体和场地融合为一；可以让物体消逝无踪，也可以让场地不知去
向；你可以让建筑“离开”场地或者植入场地之下----你可以利用各种方法创
造各种可能性。我所想教授的就是这些本质的东西，那些无论在中国、欧
洲或者其它地方都是一致的东西--建筑终究要和场地产生联系。在中国建
筑理念中，建筑与环境景观的联系与西方的截然不同；而在日本的观念
中，以数寄屋（Sukiya）为例，是由日本观念 “间”（Ma）与“奥”（Oku）
转变而来的，意味着“无”----就概念而言，这个也难为西方建筑界所理解。
观念间总是有异同，甚至中国与日本的建筑理念上也存在差异。所以我试
图去做的是让中国、美国、非洲或来自其他文化的学生去领悟西方建筑中
的一致性。换句话说，如果我们试图改变一些本土文化中的东西，我们如
何运用对自身文化的了解，进行各种尝试，并让这些东西为他人所了解？
这个就是我们在第2年将要做的。为学生的独立设计作准备，并找到这些
我称之为共同要素（common elements）的东西。
您的意思是我们可以尝试找到这些共同点并将之运用在中国的当代建筑中？
没错，（学会这些方法）之后你所要做的就是去探询那些共同要素，
比如景观、桥、水、枯（湿）山水的意义，还有所有这些事物整体的意
义。这些一致的、共同的元素在中国建筑中存在着。那么，你如何让这些
中国文化中的元素重新焕发生机，而不是仅仅抄袭西方、或者复制传统形
式？你如何更新、转化这些元素，让它们更为当代所了解？虽然我不了解
中国建筑，也没法教授中国建筑学，但我可以教西方的建筑学和西方建筑
学中特定的知识，那些可以被中国、日本和其它地方所借鉴的知识----这
是我认为建筑一致性的意义所在。
我觉得我们“图解分析”课中每一堂课课题的设置很有新意。比如：新的部分
/ 整体联系(ne w part-to-w hole relationship) 、弦外之音（ S prezzatura ）、向量
/ 标量（ Victoral/S calar ）、向心/ 离心（ C entripetal/C entrifugal ）、表层/ 深度
( S urfa c e/d e pth) 、列岛（ A rc hip ela g o ）。所有的这些定义都只能用抽象思维
去感知，甚至有些很难用语言表达。您认为建筑是可以基于智力操作的层面上
去阅读和感知的么？
首先，杰夫•肯尼斯（Jeff Kipnis）讨论过有关学术批判的几个层面，
包括：智力精神层面和物质的现象逻辑层面。一个人不可能做所有的事，
好比一个人不能爱好所有的事物一样。我更感兴趣去教授我的长处----概
念性思考领域是我所擅长的。我的意识就是我的世界；我相信理念自身始
终就以物质状态存在着；理念是人类永久的课题。没有了理念，那些事物
对我毫无意义，物质世界没有任何意义。一些人喜欢拿物质说事。问我：
你能把这个灯泡换了么？有一些人懂得如何站到这个椅子上，又如何打开
这个、打开那个，然后换上灯泡。但我会把这个事情弄糟，因为我不懂这
个，不擅长这个。我的智力和头脑很好使，而不是我的手。我一旦想把什
么给拧进木头里去，要么木头裂开，要么螺丝刀断掉。我不擅长物理的
行为，像把这些盒子摞在一起什么的，我必须找人帮我做这些事情--某些
人总是擅长某些特定的事情。我只教我擅长的--教育总是从自身的情况出
发，而不是勉力而为之。耶鲁建筑学院规模够大去包容许多不同的声音，
让这里变成一个非常有意思的地方。普林斯顿想要容纳（这些声音），规
模小了一些。
换句话说，物质行为的结果来自于您的形式分析，来自于您的意识？
对，来自于我的意识。
您觉得图解已经成为一个废弃的陈词滥调了么？为什么？您认为什么将取代它
呢？
（笑）图解已经是一个陈词滥调了。我暂且不知道什么将取代图解，
但我正在设法去了解。我来告诉你我是如何做的。下一个秋季的学期（彼
得•艾森曼工作室）我将教授有关局部图形（partial figure）的概念。换一
句话说，不是一个完整的“图形”。（将一本书和一瓶水放置于桌上）比如
这是一个现象--一个完整的图形，而这是一个图解。（指着水瓶和水）在
两者之间的这个一个概念，现在我认为，是陈词滥调。这个是现象逻辑
（phenomenal logical），也是陈词滥调。而我所要讨论的一系列新概念
中，有关这一部分的可以被称之为局部图形。它不是一个完整的“图形”，
也不是一个图解。它是某种介于两者之间的存在。这个就是我将在我的工
作室里研究的--一个新的概念。我现在还不知道它确切的样子。
在您的课里您强调两种重要的趋势。其中之一是局部图形，另外一个是缄默
之形（ m ute for m ），后者也可以被称为弦外之音（注： S prezzature, 意大利
语。指轻描淡写、看似不经意的行为背后有着有意识的隐晦意义）. 您能详细
斯阐述一下么？
没错。这两个词都不是生搬硬套去理解的。弦外之音意味着那些只有
知音才能明白的部分。以说中国话为例：大部分的中国人说国语，广东话
是其中一个分支。国语更复杂且意义更深邃，对那些说广东话的人可能很
难完全理解。对我来说弦外之音就是那部分微妙之处。相比广东话而言，
国语中有更多的词汇，要熟练地掌握它并运用自如非常不易。我想从中国
学生身上了解的是，相类似地，在中国建筑中掌握之后就可以融会贯通的
精髓是什么？换句话说，弦外之音这个词中难以言传的妙意在意大利语
中已经体现到了极致----在中国、日本或者美国（文化中）可否也存在这
样精微的部分呢？我们当代（文化）是不是也能企及那份圆滑而微妙的
层次呢？那是一个课题，也是我教课的原因。因为我想听到我的学生说
“好的，告诉我它为何可行”。我并不知道那是否可行。但我想只要坚持思
考，就应该可以找到答案。让我们拭目以待。
某种程度上，国语和意大利语有类似之处。一个沉默寡言的“面具”背后总是遮
掩着一些的有意识的努力。
正确。它们有着言外之意。我们是不是可以建造一栋有言外之意的建
筑？这个一个有意思的理念。如果你问我，如何去做？这个就是我所要教
的。我尝试着和学生一起去实践它。
与那些拥有言外之意的建筑相比，一些当代建筑把建筑当成了一个图解在建
造，比如大都会建筑事务所 (O M A) 的西雅图图书馆和 U N 工作室的梅塞德斯奔
驰博物馆。您如何看待这个现象。
非常正确。我认为这个就是图解的症结所在。有关图解的理念最初是
来自美国哲学家查尔斯•桑德斯•皮尔士（注：Charles Sanders Peirce。
美国科学家、哲学家，创建了作为符号学分支的逻辑学），他认为图解不
是一个图标，而应该被看作一个物体。之后，图解变得更加微妙，成为一
个索引或者一个符号，但这并不意味着一个约定俗成的观念。而现在图解
变得更像一个图标。图解成为了图标，一旦这个事件发生了，图解的意义
就消亡了。我们就需要向前看。事已至此，我反对这个现象。
那您认为下一步是什么呢？是否动态的电脑分析会最终取代静态的形式分析和
图解分析？您如何看待数码建筑？您认为电脑分析有它自己的内在逻辑结构
么？比如说一个全新的部分与整体的联系？
在课里，我们在讨论有关格雷戈•林恩(Greg Lynn)。我认为格雷戈•林
恩的建筑正接近突破的边缘—能从数据里生成一个概念建筑，能够从数码
里生成一个拥有弦外之音的物体。我认为这些都是可能的。我是不是会
那么做？不会。但我认为那些突破是可能的。
电脑的十进制算法本身就是有自己的内在的一致性。但我们得去找到
那些一致性的意义所在。我们需要创造我们自己的算法去生成建筑，因为
玛雅和犀牛本身不能生成任何建筑本体。它们一无所知。在建筑方面，它
们是非智能的。在十进制算法中，还没有建立那样的规则，说：这个（方
法）是可以生成新的部分与整体的联系，所以这就是我们需要去做的。这
个很难，而我们只处在了解如何去做的起步阶段而已。
在课程中，您把雅各布 • 桑索维诺（注： S a n s o vin o J a c o p o 。佛洛伦萨文艺复
兴时期雕塑家和建筑师）和斯卡莫奇（注： Vin c e n z o S c a m o z zi ，文艺复兴
时期建筑师和神学家, 帕拉迪奥的学生）拿来作比较。他们都是规则的破坏
者。然而，通过 “ 精读（ clo s e r e a din g ） ” ，您定义前者的建筑有弦外之音而后
者的建筑却流于风格主义的范畴。您能解释一下“精读”的意义么？
有关“精读”。首先，我不能仅仅就这个问题来回答。这几乎是一个论
文了。“细致阅读”意味着一种能够辨别斯卡莫奇的风格主义建筑和桑索维
诺有弦外之音的建筑之间异同的能力。虽然看起来相似，但两者截然不
同。我认为很重要的一点就是你们要意识到我最想教会你们的就是如何去
细致阅读。换句话说，我认为“细致阅读”意味着您能够在一个表象中读出
不同来。你不必从两个不同的事物中辨别什么，那只是物质层面上的阅
读。但是当你往深处挖掘，例如：在两片纸张中去发现不同之处，就非常
难了。作为一个建筑师，你需要有这样细致辨别的能力。比如说，为什
么我要提到斯卡莫奇？因为他是最接近于桑索维诺的。如果你用罗曼诺
（Giulio Romano）或者其他什么人和桑索维诺比较，那很简单，没有任
何难点。就像区分巧克力冰激淋和香草冰激淋一样简单，但如果你向区分
桑索维诺和斯卡莫奇，就需要有能区分法国香草冰激淋和中国香草冰激
淋的味觉了。你需要品出其中的滋味来，就像品尝美酒一样地精微。你需
要一个辨别建筑微妙异同的意识，就像品酒师品红酒或者葡萄酒一样。或
者说如同一个美食家品菜一样。我想教你们的，想从教学中同样学到的就
是如何去精微地品建筑，并分析建筑异同。不仅仅是简单地分析优劣，而
是辨别微妙的区别。我认为这个是建筑教育的一部分。我不能把桑索维诺
与斯卡莫奇之间的不同画给你看，但我可以用一篇论文来详述之。嗨，我
真没准哪天就写一篇出来。我觉得这还蛮重要的。为什么我欣赏桑索维诺
甚于斯卡莫奇？因为桑索维诺是更加观念的建筑师，而斯卡莫奇是更现
象逻辑的建筑师。他们看起来几乎一样，但事实上完全不同。你的问题非
常棒!
我是否可以这样总结，“精读”是在纷繁杂乱的建筑先例中读出微妙之处的一种
方法？
是的，有关（建筑之）微妙之处，但我认为它仍能被理解为一种差
异。它可以是非常微妙的。或者，可以这样说，“细致阅读”试图去定义不
明显的差异。
如何成为一个精读者呢？
你得尝试着去做。试着去观察一个事物，并学会如何去观察。首先，
你得想成为一个建筑的细致阅读者。如果你有这个愿望，你需要找到一个
能品建筑的大师，向他请教, 然后学习。我师从柯林•罗（Colin Rowe），
花了一年时间在欧洲，整天都和他一起，聆听教诲，考察建筑，阅读书
籍，探询理念，才真正学会如何细致阅读。在之前，我有眼如盲，但跟随
着柯林•罗学习后，我眼前一片豁然开朗。当然，你越懂得如何去“看”，你
所见的就越小（注：指更细节）。不再是一味地瞎叫唤什么“看那个多漂
亮！”—因为没有什么再是漂亮的，事物在眼前只是呈现出一系列（建筑
语言的）精微之处而已。
从 “ 纽约五 ” 到建筑与都市研究所（注： I A U S ， t h e I n s tit u t e f o r A r c h it e c t u r e
a n d U rb a n Stu die s ）；从实践建筑师到建筑学教授；从后现代主义到解构主
义建筑；从纸板建筑（ C a r d b o a r d a r c h it e c t u r e ）到图解 … … 下一个您所关注
的课题是什么？
我也不确定下一步是什么。我有很多的理念。不如你问我，如果我有
机会在中国实践会做些什么？我可能做同样的事情，分析场地，研究历
史，探知风俗，品辨中国思想中精微的部分。基于这一切才有可能会产生
一个不同的建筑。我仍然会用和我在意大利庞培、阿利桑那、西班牙那里
做建筑一样的方式来做。我还会做原来的彼得•艾森曼，但建筑看起来会
有所不同。因为环境变成了中国，结果也不同。工作方法、过程和策略都
是一致的。我会使用我已用过的策略，我会尝试用图解. 你知道我在广州
设计的那个博物馆，我使用了中国的图解。你见过那个方案么？
您是指以易经作为图解的广州的广东博物馆？
是的。易经很有意思，可以用很多不同的方法粘连。下次我带给你
看。那是一个非常有意思的项目，和我之前的任何一个项目都不同。如果
你明白中国人的思想，你会明白它。它发表在新书《彼得•艾森曼----佯攻
（Peter Eisenman Feints）》里。
太棒了。接下来让我们来谈一下您近来的项目吧？
首先，我们完成了阿利桑那的红雀体育馆（the Cardinal Stadium），

也许我们还会参与另外一个体育馆的设计。我给你举个例子，你设计一个
体育馆，其他人设计另一个。那么我对体育馆有什么其它的理念么，体育
馆必须是这个样子的么？（体育场馆）必须需要一个运动场么？你问你自
己：我能做什么呢？对我来说，设计另外的一个体育场馆不是一个有意思
的项目，因为对于体育场馆来说我没有其他的什么新的观念。这个是你要
面对的问题。我们还正在设计西班牙圣地亚哥的六栋建筑--加利西亚文化
城的主要组成部分，包括了一个歌剧院，两个博物馆，两个图书馆和服务
中心。这是一个有意思的项目，其中的四个已经差不多完成了，还有两个
刚开始。我们还在特纳里夫设计一个住宅项目；另外，我们将在波多黎各
设计一个水族馆和一个办公与宾馆的综合项目；在意大利庞培还有两个火
车站需要设计。所以我们有大约8个项目正在进行中。此外，我有一本有
关新近的项目的意大利文新专辑在10月即将出版。
Peter Eisenman
The Louis I. Kahn Visiting Professorship of Architectural Design
Professor Peter Eisenman is an internationally recognized architect

and educator. The principal of Eisenman Architects, he has designed large-
scale housing and urban design projects, innovative facilities for educational
institutions, and a series of inventive private houses. His projects include
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, the six-building City of
Culture of Galicia in Santiago de Compostela in Spain, and a stadium for the
NFL Arizona Cardinals, which opened in 2006.
Peter Eisenman's activities have always included teaching and writing.

In 1976 he founded the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS),
a think tank reserved for architecture, which he directed until 1982. He has
also been the first 'Distinguished Professor of Architecture' at the Cooper
Union in New York. As Luis Khan Professor at Yale School of Architecture, he
teaches for Advanced Architectural Studio and 'Visual Study' seminar in each
fall semester. He also teaches for “Diagrammatic Analysis” seminar in each
spring semester.
His many books include: Houses of Cards (1987); Diagram Diaries

(1999); Blurred Zones: Investigations of the Interstitial: Eisenman Architects
1988-1998; Peter Eisenman, Giuseppe Terragni: Transformations,
Decompositions, Critiques (2003); Peter Eisenman, Eisenman Inside Out.
Selected Writings 1963-1988 (2004), etc.
Interview by: Yichen Lu

Time: April 15, 2007
Location: The Office of Peter Eisenman, Yale School of Architecture, New
Haven, CT, USA
The “Visual Study” course, you give in the first year of M. Arch I., aims at teaching
us how to see and to think the object of architecture by formal analysis. You open
“Diagrammatic Analysis” for the second year and teach your own studio for the
third year. My question is how you apply “Diagrammatic Analysis” to bridge our
study in the first and third year?
Oh, we are trying to learn how to do that in the second year of class.
No 1, the whole idea of the experiment we are working on is trying to
understand how you take historical learning to see what makes a good
plan, what makes a good section, and what makes architecture. And, it
will be totally out of date if you just bring it to the present track. Then you
have to say what are the things in common to all of the buildings we look
at-the thing I’ll call persistence of architecture. One of the persistencies
of architecture is relationship of the object to the site. And then you say
okay, so what can you do with object building to site? You can make
the object more pronounced or you can make the site less pronounced.
You can make them try to be the same thing -- the object and the site
the same thing. You can make the object disappear; you can make the
site disappear; you can make the building off the site; under the site-you
can make all kinds of different things, right? There are different ways. So
what I’m trying to do, for each of these common features, whether they
are Chinese, European or Eskimo, they are the same. You still have the
building on the site. Chinese idea, for example, of landscape in relation
to building is different from the Western. Japanese idea of, let’s say
Sukiya, is the relationship of transition to Japanese idea, the idea of Ma
and Oku, which is no place. It’s conceptually not able to be understood
in Western architecture. I mean it’s something different. The Chinese is
different from the Japanese. So what I’m trying to do is to have Chinese
students or American students or African students whoever understand
what are the persistencies in Western architecture. In other words, what
are the things that we know to be in our culture and how, if we want to
change them, do we experiment with making them more open? So that’
s what the second year is about, preparing people to their going design
and things using these, that I call common elements. That’s something
that I think is what I believe important for a student to learn how to do.
You mean that we could try to find these persistencies of architecture and then apply
it into Chinese contemporary architecture?
You can absolutely use it in China because then what you would do
is to find out those common elements, like landscape, in China, like what
means bridge, what means water, what means dry landscape, water
landscape, and what means all of these kinds of things -- the whole
question in China about setting the difference symbolic ideas, right?
There are these persistencies, common things in China. So how would
you make the cultural things of China active today, not just copying the
West, or copying ancient tradition? How could you make these things
new, different or more open to understanding today? That’s what I’m
trying to say. So, I can’t teach Chinese architecture because I don’t know
Chinese architecture. But I can teach Western and certain things of
Western architecture that can be used as examples for China, for Japan,
and for anywhere. That’s my idea.
I found it interesting we defined the catalogs in this course, taking new part-to-whole
relationship, Sprezzatura, Victoral/ Scalar, Centripetal/ Centrifugal, Surface/ depth,
and Archipelago for example. All of them were perceived only with the mind. Do you
think Architecture could be read and understood in the manner of mental operation?
First of all, Jeff Kipnis talked about three meta-critical aspects. One,
the conceptual of the mental; two, the phenomenal logical of physical,
which is really the performance of where the relationship of the human
movement that becomes important. You can’t be everything. I like vanilla
ice cream and you like chocolate ice cream. I like blond girls; you like
dark hair girls. I like detective novels and you like history novels. You
can’t like everything. What I’m more interested in is teaching only from
my strength. My strength is the mental of conceptual. My sense is my
world; I believe the idea is that it’ll always be the physical; it’ll always be
the human subject. Without that idea, the thing doesn’t mean anything
to me. That doesn’t mean that the physical doesn’t mean something.
Some people just like physical. Like if you say to me, could you change
the light bulb here? Some people have the sense of how to stand on
this chair to open that to change the light bulb here, right? I will break
this because I have no sense of how to do that. I’m just not good at
that. I’m good with my mind, not my hands. If I screw something into the
wood, the wood cracks. If I do it, the screw breaks. I mean I’m not good
in the physical, like putting this box together. I couldn’t know how to put
the box together. I have to get somebody to make the box. So, some
people are good at certain things. That’s why I teach from my strength. I
think teachers have to teach from who they are, not from what they can’
t do. The nice thing about Yale, I think, is it’s big enough to have many
different voices here. And I think it’s what makes it a very interesting
place. I think Princeton is too small for that.
Therefore, in other words, the physical result is from your form analysis, from your
mind?
From my mind, correct.
Another question is about Diagram. Do you think that diagram has become obsolete
cliché? And why? If so, what has replaced it?
Well, (Laughing) I think diagram has become a cliché. I don’t

know what has replaced it yet but I’m working on it. I’ll tell you what I’m
working on. What I’m going to be teaching next fall is this idea of partial
figure. In other words, not a whole figure, this is a phenomenon. (Place
a bottle of water and a book on the table) A whole figure, let’s say, there
is a diagram. And this is a diagram, okay? (Pointing to the bottle and
the book) Between this and this, this is conceptual, this is now, I think,
cliché. This is phenomenal logical, it’s also a cliché. So part of what I’m
talking now about the new idea is called part figure. That it’s not a whole
figure, and not a diagram. It’s something between. This is what we are
going to work on in my studio. A new idea, I don’t know what it looks like.
In your seminar you talked about a lot that two directions are really important. One
is partial figure, and the other is “mute form” which could be called Sprezzature.
Could you please make it more specific?
Yes, both, which are also not stressing meanings. Sprezzatura

means something only for those who know. In other words, it’s like
Mandarin. Chinese is supposed to be Mandarin Chinese. Cantonese is
always separate. Therefore, when you are, let’s say, writing Mandarin, it’
s much more complex and meanings are more difficult that somebody
who speaks Cantonese may not understand. For me, Sprezzatura is
that, the subtlety. Because there are many more characters in Mandarin
than in Cantonese, right? And to know this, to be a master of Mandarin
and to use it, is very difficult. I want to know for the Chinese students
here, what is the master of the analogous condition in architecture
for China. In other words, can it be because that sophistication is so
sophisticated and the Sprezzatura is very sophisticated in Italian? Can
we have either in China, Japan or the United States? Can we have that
level of subtlety of sophistication in the world today? That’s a question.

That’s why I teach, because I want my students to say “okay, show me
how it's possible.” I don’t know if it’s possible. I think so. If I can think
about it, it means it’s possible. So, we’ll see.
To some extent, Mandarin is sort of similar to Italian. They always have conscious
effort behind what they appear to be… a mask of apparent reticence and
nonchalance.
Exactly. They have the meaning behind. Can we make architecture

with a meaning behind? That’s an interesting idea. For me, if you say to
me, how do we do that? That’s what I’m teaching. I’m trying to learn how
we do that.
Comparing with the Sprezzature architecture, some contemporary architecture is

putting the building on the diagram, for example, OMA’s the Seattle Public Library
and UN Studio’s Mercedes Benz Museum. What do you think of those buildings?
Yes. Well, I think that is what the problem with the diagram.
Originally the first idea diagram was from this man Charles Sanders
Peirce, an American philosopher who said the diagram wasn’t icon that
it should looked at. It’s object. And then it became more subtle to be
an index or a symbol but it didn’t seem to become a convention. Now it
becomes more like an icon. The diagram is the icon. So I think once that
happens, the diagram is dead. And then we have to move on. This is
what’s happening. I’m against that.
What’s the next step? Will statically formal analysis and diagrammatic analysis be
replaced by dynamic computer analysis? How do you think of digital architecture?
Do you think the computer analysis have its own internal structure? Such as a new
part-to-whole relationship?
You know we are talking with Greg Lynn. I think that Greg Lynn is
on the edge of being able to make a conceptual architecture from the
digital, and be able to make a Sprezzatura from the digital. So I think yes
it’s possible. Will I be able to do that? No. But I think it’s possible to do
that.
Each computer algorism has its own internal consistency. So

we have to find out what those things are. And we have to make our
own algorisms to make it architecture because Maya or Rhino don’
t produce architecture. They don’t know anything. They are dumb
about architecture. Nothing in the algorism says this has to do with
architectural part-to-whole, so we have to. It’s very difficult, I think. We

are just on the early edge of stages of understanding how to do that.
In class, you compared Sansovino with Scamozzi. They are both rule breakers.
However, through close reading, your definition of the former is a Sprezzatura while
the latter is a mannerist. Could you please explain in detail what close reading
means?
Oh close reading, first of all, I can not answer just this question. You
know that’s an article. Close reading means to be able to understand
what the difference between a mannerist building by Scamozzi and
Sprezzatura by Sansovino. Because they look the same but they are
very different. And to me that’s really important to learn what I’m trying to
teach you all is how to close read. In other words, because I think close
reading means that you can read the difference between A. I mean you
don’t have to close read between this and this, that’s a matter reading.
But when you get down, what is the difference between this piece of
paper and some other pieces of paper, and then it gets more difficult. So
to be an architect, you have to be able to close read. And for example,
why I say Scamozzi? Because he’s the closest to Sansovino. It’s very
easy. If you take manners of Romano or somebody to Sansovino, there’
s no problem reading. This is chocolate ice cream and that is vanilla
ice cream. But if you get Sansovino and Scamozzi, like one is French
vanilla and one is Chinese vanilla ice cream. You have to say what is
the difference, like the difference between a good sake or a good wine?
You have to have very subtle sense that’s why experts, like wine tasters,
know good wine and good vintage, etc. A good sushi, let’s say, a good
whatever. And so, we are trying to learn, trying to teach architecture the
same thing -- to be able to close read, to be able to know the difference.
Not that the one is better than the other, but that to be able to know the
difference. And I think that’s part of the education about. I wouldn’t be
able to draw for you the difference between Sansovino and Scamozzi. I
mean, if you say in an article on the difference between Scamozzi and
Sansovino, I could do it. It’s not easy to do but you know, I can write a
paper on it. This would be really something I will do someday. Because
I think it’s important to show what the difference is. Because I think now
you can say to me, why do you like Sansovino more than Scamozzi?
Because Sansovino is more conceptual architect and Scamozzi is more
phenomenal logical architect. They look the same but they are actually
very different. That’s really a good question!
Can I understand "close reading" as the way to understand the nuance difference
between varied architecture precedents?
Well, it’s nuance. But I think it’s still understood as difference. It

could be nuance. Or let’s say close reading tries to define not obvious
difference, difference which is not obvious.
How does one become an active close reader?
You have to work. I mean, just looking at things, looking and

learning how to see. I believe that’s why I teach how to see because I
think it’s important to do that. First of all, you have to want to become a
close reader. If you have the desire, and you go to a master, who is a
close reader, and you say ‘teach me all you know about close reading.’
And then you learn. That is the way I learn how to close read. I went with
Colin Rowe, spent the years with Colin Rowe in Europe day and night,
listening, looking at the books, looking at the buildings, and looking at
the ideas. I learnt how to close read. With my eyes, I could see nothing
when I started but after working with him, I could see a lot. But of course,
the more you learn to see the less you can see. Just dumping like “oh
that’s pretty” because nothing any more is pretty, or a bunch of nuances.
So you learn the more you close read the further way you can come
from other things.
From New York Five to the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS)
in New York; from a practice architect to a professor, from Postmodernism to
Deconstruction, from Cardboard Architecture to Diagram, what will be the next
architecture topic you are interested in?
I really don’t know. I had a lot of ideas. In other words, if you said
to me if I want to do a building in China, what would you do? I would
probably do the same thing since I would study the site, I would study
the history, I would study the custom, and I would study the nuance of
Chinese thought. And it may produce a different building, right? But I
would still use the same process as what I use if I’m working in Italy,
like in Pompeii, working in Arizona, working in Spain. I would still be
doing Peter Eisenman but it would look different. If I did a building in
China it would look different. I would be using old strategies that I used.
I would be attempt to diagram. You know I did this museum project in
Guangzhou, I guess, and I used Chinese diagram. Did you see the
project I did?
You mean Guangdong Museum in Guangzhou? The diagram of I Ching?
Yeah, I Ching is really interesting, and they attached in different

ways. I should show you sometime, it’s a really interesting project,
really unlike any other of my project. If you understand Chinese thought

you would understand this project. It is published in the book Peter
Eisenman Feints.
Sounds exciting! Why not we talk more about your recent projects?
Well, first of all, we finished the Cardinal Stadium in Arizona and

maybe we’ll work on another stadium… Ok, I give you the example,
no problem, you do a stadium, right? And somebody is doing another
stadium. What other ideas do I have for stadium, in other words, stadium
has to be like this? Has to have a field? So you say to yourself: what
can I do? So to me, doing another stadium is not an interesting project
because I don’t have other idea for stadium. This is the problem that
you faced, but we are doing six buildings in Santiago, Spain. Major
components of the City of Culture of Galicia are an opera house, two
museums, two libraries, and a Services center. This is an interesting
project. Four buildings are almost finished, two are just started. Then we
are going to work on the housing project in Tenerife, then we’ll work on a
new aquarium in Puerto Rico, and we’ll do an office hotel condominium
in Puerto Rico, two railway stations in Pompeii, Italy. So we have about
eight projects that we are working on. And there is another book coming
out, a monographic book in Italian, in October, a big book of the latest
projects.
弗兰克•盖里
建筑学院任夏洛特•达文波特教席和路易•康建筑设计访问教授
弗兰克•盖里教授是1989年的普利兹克建筑奖得主。1962年，他以洛杉矶
为基地创办了弗兰克•盖里事务所 (Frank O. Gehry & Associates)，并自2002
年建立了盖里及其合伙人事务所（ Gehry Partners,LLP）。作为解构主义建
筑的旗帜性人物，盖里在从业四十多年以来，在世界各地参与了大量的建筑
项目。他的建筑作品，包括他在加州的自宅，已经成为了旅游胜地。他的建
筑超越了自身的价值，许多的博物馆、公司和客户以拥有盖里标志性的建筑
为荣。他最著名的作品包括：毕尔巴鄂的古根海姆艺术博物馆（Guggenheim
Museum），洛杉矶的沃特•迪斯尼音乐厅（Walt Disney Concert Hall），西
雅图的音乐体验中心（Experience Music Project），明尼阿波利斯的魏斯曼
博物馆（Weisman Art Museum），柏林DZ银行大楼（DZ Bank Building），
圣塔莫尼卡自宅等。
盖里另外为人所知的就是在他羽翼下的圣塔莫尼卡学派---- 这个源于洛杉
矶地区的群体产生了许多最有影响力的后现代建筑师，包括恩里克•欧文•莫斯
（Eric Owen Moss）和另一位普利兹克得主摩弗西斯事务所的创办人汤姆•梅
恩（Thom Mayne），以及南加州建筑学院、加州大学洛杉矶分校等前卫建筑
学校。
采访者：陆轶辰
时间：2009年1月30日
地点：美国洛杉矶盖里及其合伙人事务所(Gehry Partners, LLP)
盖里在耶鲁的设计课题是在地处纽约的林肯中心（ Lin c oln C e nter ）设计一个

音乐厅来取代原有的埃弗丽费雪音乐厅（ A v e r y F is h e r ）。作为课题研究的内
容之一，我们考察了阿姆斯特丹音乐厅（ C o n c e rtg e b o u w ）、柏林爱乐音乐厅
（ B e rli n P h il h a r m o n ic ）、波士顿交响乐厅（ B o s t o n S y m p h o n y H a ll) 、纽约
埃弗丽费雪音乐厅、洛杉矶迪斯尼音乐厅（ D is n e y C o n c e rt H all ）和巴德学院
( B a r d C olle g e ) 的理查德费雪表演艺术中心（ th e R ic h a r d B . Fis h e r C e nte r fo r
t h e P e rf o r m in g A rts ）。有幸与您和其他的音乐家一起考察并聆听音乐会是一
个非常难得的经历。通过这次考察，您想给我们传达什么样的信息？您为什么
选择古典音乐厅的设计作为我们设计课的课题？
（与建筑相比）音乐是另一场游戏。如果想设计一个成功的音乐厅，
你必须实地考察大量的音乐厅；聆听大量的音乐；与音乐家们建立友谊；
甚至通过欣赏古典油画作品来寻找灵感。相比其他类型的音乐厅，古典音
乐厅是最不易（设计）的 — 这也是我把古典音乐厅作为工作室课题的原
因。当我们出席柏林爱乐音乐厅时，我让你留意观察你周遭的，在大厅
里、音乐厅中的人群。这种身临其境的感受会给你带来一种责任感—去关
注谁将会使用它，并尊重使用者的感受。
那真是不可思议的经历。当我们白天去参观音乐厅预演时，我感觉大厅空间过
大并有过度设计之嫌。但入夜后，整个音乐厅瞬间被注入了魔力！
对我来说，它源于一种认同人类价值的责任感。源于与社会大众与其
他事物的联系。你需要长时间的学习直到你能够把握它。它来自于你向身
边的事物学习；来自于了解文化中发生了什么，世界上又发生了什么。这
是一个大的意象，没有一个现存的规则。如果你观察我们身处的世界，想
一想所有的这些建筑师和才智之士聚集在一起年复一年去创造这些巨大的
奇思妙想。无论在哪个年代，它总是存在着。甚至与我还是弱冠之年时一
样没变。我们就这样胡乱摸索着推进着-- 无论你信不信，这些推进又让我
们产生灵感和理念。就好比我一直对建筑中的动态感兴趣。天知道有谁在
乎一个房子看起来动还是不动？但或许别人不在乎，这个课题却深深吸引
着我。也许（建筑之动态）来自于我们身处的快速发展的社会和世界，而
我试图与其建立某种联系—所以你得去细心观察、专心聆听、了解来龙去
脉，然后运用它，通过它来表达你的感受。
您能再详细说说，比如以您的迪斯尼音乐厅作为一个例子？
音乐厅里的直观感受扮演了关键的角色，它通过循序渐进的方法缔
造决定性洞察力的第一步。起初，我和欧内斯特•富兰士曼（注：Ernest
Fleischman，洛城爱乐前任指挥）一起造访了大量的音乐厅。我们首先访
问的就是柏林爱乐音乐厅，它差不多是富兰士曼心目中音乐厅的范本. 我
采用了这个理念并将之作为向声效专家提议的一个出发点。而我个人钟爱
的是阿姆斯特丹音乐厅. 尽管如此，随着我见到更多的音乐厅，我愈发意
识到每个音乐厅都有其优缺点，没有一个是尽善尽美的。像阿姆斯特丹音
乐厅这样的音乐厅已经存在了很多年，如此多的著名音乐家曾在此执棒，
以至于人们不再去评论它的缺点和不妥之处。波士顿交响乐厅也同样如
此。我的意思是，它的音乐厅并不是完美无缺的，事实上它还有着相当多
的问题，但是它已经被使用了那么多年以至摇身一变成为了伟大的美国音
乐厅的象征。
调查了声学先例后，我们花了相当多的时间作研究。之后我们建造了
一个 1:10 的模型，在模型中我们安插了所有的交响乐的部件并且检验它
们，用来观测并读取空间。简而言之，（我们的工作方法）是一个给予和
反馈的关系，是一个在现实和模型之间，音乐世界和我所提供的建筑专业
技能之间的连续的转换。
迪斯尼音乐厅真是蛮够劲儿的。
正是如此，没错！
中国的建筑学生往往是理科背景居多，而在美国，建筑专业和设计、艺术类走
得更近。甚至耶鲁建筑学院在1919 年刚创立的时候还只是美术学院中的一部
分。虽然后来独立了出来，但至今系馆的还被称为A&A 大楼(注：耶鲁艺术与
建筑大楼， Yale A rt a n d A r c hit e ct u r e B uildin g 上世纪 5 0 年代由保罗 • 鲁道夫设
计 ). 您怎么看？要成为一个建筑师需要什么样的特质呢 ?
我认为成为一个建筑师有很多不同的途径，数学当然是其中重要的一
环。但是建筑学中还存在很多不同的领域。美国的建筑院校有培养某一
类型的建筑师--明星建筑师的趋势。但我们需要来自不同研究方向的各种
建筑师的支持。（要成为一个建筑师）首先，你要热爱建筑学--热爱它胜
于一切并且你乐意成为它的一部分；然后你找到适合你的定位用你自己的
方法去操作。也许这个方法和我的不尽相同；也许从城市或住宅的研究入
手；也许把材料研究作为切入点；也许将平面设计应用在建筑学中；也许
尝试建筑表现。你看，我可以列举如此多的方向，建筑学是一个多么兼容
并蓄的学科。
我觉得耶鲁建筑学院的优势是在于你可以在这里听到很多不同的 “ 声
音”。你们有扎哈•哈迪德 (Zaha Hadid), 理查德•罗杰斯(Richard Rogers),
罗伯特• 斯特恩（Robert A.M. Stern),和理查德•迈耶 (Richard Meier)作老
师。你们有彼得•艾森曼 (Peter Eisenman)，格雷戈•林恩(Greg Lynn)还
有我。我们都是非常不一样的建筑师。比如我个人很希望我的学生去发展
属于你自己的设计语言。（在这里）你不需要勉强自己追随艾森曼或者
莱昂•克里尔（Leon Krier）的规则亦步亦趋。一旦不去跟着这些已有的规
则，就有可能创造出一种非常个人化的建筑学，我认为这样的建筑学更
棒-- 更接近于建筑的本质，更贴近个人对时代和社会的感受。
这就是为什么我选择您和彼得•埃森曼来进行这两个访谈。您二位是如此的不
同。彼得相信建筑设计是一个智力问题，所以他从来不去场地。而您主张同时
我们也要学会如何建造。
你必须那么做。你年轻才起步，你需要通过盖东西来尝试各种的可能
性。需要去学习如何建造，这并不容易。很多建筑师不去操那份心--在懂
得如何建造之前，他们直接就把他们的设计给理论化了。但房子有它自己
的规则，建筑工业有它自己的体系。为了能驾驭它，你非得去学习-- 因为
你正在制造一个三维的实物。它需要花时间去尝试。
自我在您公司（ G e h r y P a rt n e r s , L L P ）工作以来，我很感兴趣您这儿的的工
作方法。我总结了其中三个“自相矛盾”之处。
你说说看。
首先，在您的设计方法中同时强调看似不经意的细部和极其精确的工作过程。
彼得 • 施杰尔达（ P e t e r S c hjeld a hl ）在《弗利兹（注： F rie z e ，英国艺术杂
志）》上是这样形容您的建筑的—— “盖里对并不完美的人性之热爱其实正是
对完美的推崇”。
这恰恰是我一直在做的。我也一直受到不公正的比较—他们拿我和那
些用石头和玻璃去建造“完美”建筑细部的建筑师相比。我可能花了相同的
时间做建筑，但我故意让我的建筑看似更随意。我试图把“细节”从神坛上
拉下来—不用为之大惊小怪而过份设计它。
我成长在一个充斥着密斯和贝聿铭式细节的年代，理查德 • 迈耶的作
品也由此派生出来。现在伦佐•皮亚诺（Renzo Piano）也在那样做。他们
的建筑都以“细节”见长—通过技术来完成这些完美的细部。客户需要完美
的精致转角细部，富人们都盛邀这些建筑师把他们的家设计成那样。他们
需要那些“细节”来自我标榜。而我做的却恰恰相反。阿尔托的细节体现出
令人难以置信的美感，但它们是实实在在的，不做作（的细节）。这就是
我认为的细节之间的差异。（这些细节）不是近年来在美国那些富人所推
崇的极其琐碎的小细部。我觉得这种丰富程度的细部在当时的维也纳是完
全合理的。在我们今天生活的世界中它并不合适，但仍有市场。
科特 • 福斯特（ K u rt F o s t e r ）曾经跟我提到格雷夫斯的上海外滩三号。它说那
个建筑是建给那些先富起来的人的。
这是一种通过讲究的细部、奇特材料和尽善尽美来炫富的潮流。我不
知是否人们真的以那样的方式生活着。在我年轻的时候，当我观摩密斯的
范斯沃斯住宅，我常说，它是如此之美但生活在其中又是多么束手束脚--
反正我是不能住在里面。我知道彼得•鲍伦博（注：Peter Palumbo，地产
商和收藏家，曾任英国艺术委员会主席， 1972年将范斯沃斯购置名下）
把它买了下来。但我不知道他是否真的住在里面。
我听说他应该就住在里面。
好，假设他随手把外衣搁在茶几上，那看起来多不“完美”。他应该把
衣服挂在衣柜里--如果你居住在完美无缺（的环境）中，你的生活方式也
应该是完美无缺的才行。你是生活在那样的环境里么？
（笑）当然不，弗兰克. 其次，我注意到您总是通过极其微妙的表达去创造积
极的造型。您能描述一下您的设计过程中的主要步骤，从草图阶段到最后的模
型？你是如何找到这些形式的？
慢慢地去发现，正如我所说的，同时对历史的研究也很必要。你发展
一个基本的信息，体察你身边事物，学习它们，吸收它们。人总是最重要
的。到了最后，（建筑）总是事关人性，总是事关如何与人合作，如何转
译人的愿望和希冀。它来自于直觉。有时候很难去解释为什么这样做，为
什么把东西掰成弧线。它是一个思考和理念的演变。整个过程就好像小猫
玩弄一个线团—一直推着转来转去，然后线团从桌上落下，在空间中留下
一个完美的弧线。这些理念不易描述，但事后却很容易解释—譬如动感，
某种材料，建造，样式或者形态，都很容易说明。本质上，我尝试通过造
房子和空间来鼓舞人，感动人，与人们互动--不单是互动，而且是积极的
互动。理想的状态是建造一个人们乐于留连的场所。让我兴奋的是业主和
建筑师都还乐意把我当朋友帮助我实现这些建筑。
就像我们所作做的，当你由思考而创造出一个事物后，你甚至不确切
地明白它为何而产生—这令人惶恐不已。我质疑，它从何而来？当你年龄
增加，你会越来越相信你的直觉，而不是反复推敲琢磨。
最后，我觉得您总是利用电脑而不依靠电脑，即使您有着相比其他建筑师（比
如扎哈和伊东丰雄）更强大的电脑技术支持。您能谈谈这些新技术和电脑技
术是如何介入您的工作的？
我竭尽所能从最初的理念和草图中获得能量，并将之赋予最终的建筑
成品。至今我对电脑图还是深恶痛绝。然而，因为我深深地介入着建筑造
型的问题，很难向承包商和施工方精确地描述我的设计。于是我通过IBM
与制造幻影飞机（ Mirage ）的法国达索飞机公司取得了联系，获得了一
个迂回的方法。我们用他们所拥有的CATIA的软件来描述钢结构和曲线结
构，让建造者们能够清晰地了解我们的设计。这样，我们非常成功地就扭
转了（和建造者之间的）局面。
换一句话说，大多数的建筑师和承包商打从业伊始就互相进行着一场
你死我活的战斗。承包商考虑的是造价，怕多花钱；而建筑师总是赶着
把他们的梦想实现；所以两方开始掐架。而我发现，（CATIA）这个小玩
意儿可以让建筑师转瞬成为一个建造专家，一个可以胜任工程指导的领导
者，而承包商也喜欢它—他们宁愿只承担自己的那部分工作，而让那些构
想者来掌控整个过程。所以通过我所发现的这个技术，在我们所有的项目
中，各方之间的合作取得了积极和有效的改善。
正如您在《盖里如是说》最后所说的“电脑只是一个捕捉曲线的工具，而不是
一个创造曲线的搭档”？
你说得对。很明显，如果没有 C AT I A 或者 G T 软件 ( 注 : G e h r y
Technology, 盖里为自己的公司量身订造的一个软件)，我们不可能建造那
些建筑。然而，我们不用它来做设计，只用它来根据建筑实施阶段和场地
建造阶段来定义建筑。通过这个方法，建造者们可以有的放矢地工作。作
为一个非常精确的软件，GT的精确度给了我们在一个普通的造价标准下
建造一个复杂和高表现的建筑的可能性。
现在快速发展的中国建筑市场所经历在某种程度上可能与美国曾经的记忆有相
似之处，您可以从您的50 多年的从业经历来谈谈对建筑社会性的看法么? 您觉
得建筑设计是一个完全的服务性行业么？
一开始，建筑的社会性就是我所关心的话题。我来自一个加拿大一个
自由主义的左翼家庭。在那个年代，建筑学看起来犹如一副万能药。你可
以为穷人盖广厦千万间，为未来的城市设计宏伟蓝图。这个最初的想法在
我的学习生涯中一直持续着。
当离开学校后，（怀着这个理想）我一头撞在南墙上。它根本不存
在，你也无法去实现它。在美国，没有为社会盖房子的业主。没有这样的
机制，什么都没有。城市设计？忘了它吧。那只是官僚政治的废语连篇。
怀着理念你什么都做不了，而这时设计房地产或政治性项目成为了唯一的
出路。
我曾那样说“我不乐意为富人设计房子”，事实上我在学校的时候总是
那样说—“我就是不做”。但之后我开始去找寻在形式中、空间中让我兴奋
的东西，尝试着构思些什么并看着它们被盖出来。我试着了解整个建造的
过程，熟悉和建造者们打交道。这些事物有自己的能量，是一种智力游
戏-- 如何推动团队的工作。我觉得就像电影导演一样。令人兴奋的是一旦
你达到了我现在的水准，就会有更大的自由度。
我不勉强自己去获得太多的项目，但我承担足够多的，当我设计它们
的时候，通常业主都会想要我做的建筑并且怂恿我去探索 — 这很令人兴
奋。恰当此时，建筑的社会性打开后门又悄悄地溜了回来。最终你获得了
属于你自己的力量来为社会作贡献，虽然不是全球性的，但它实实在在地
发生在自己的周围。这令人愉悦地体现了（社会性）。你由此获得了一些
话语权并不断创造着。
您的转折点是什么？
之前我一直把自己定位成一个从事商业服务的建筑师，当我在设计圣
塔莫尼卡广场（Santa Monica Place）的时候，没有什么设计自由。直到
七十年代后期我建造我的自宅，那是我第一次拥有真正的设计自由—即便
我们只有大约4、5万美元捉襟见肘的预算—从那一刻起，我终于能够做我
真正想做的--去探索，去把玩，去建造。（这时候）我意识到我再也不能
回头了。
这样看来您一定是位冒险家。
是的。它与赚钱无关。只要坚持下去，随着时间的推移，你会变得更
有自信。
Frank O. Gehry
the Charlotte Davenport Professorship and the Louis I. Kahn Visiting
Professorship
Professor Frank O. Gehry is a Pritzker Prize-winning architect based in

Los Angeles. He established his own company, Frank O. Gehry & Associates,
in 1962 and established its successor, Gehry Partners, in 2002. Well-known
as the key leader of DeCon (Deconstruction Architecture), he has built an
architectural career that has spanned four decades and produced public
and private buildings around the world. His buildings, including his private
residence, have become tourism attractions. Many museums, companies,
and cities seek Gehry's services as a badge of distinction, beyond the
product he delivers. His best-known works include Guggenheim Museum
in Bilbao, Spain, Walt Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles,
Experience Music Project in Seattle, Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis,
DZ Bank Building in Berlin, and his private residence in Santa Monica,
California, etc..
Another well known fact of Gehry's is his impact on the formation of
the "Santa Monica School" of architecture. This designation stems from the
Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern
architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss
and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of mOrphosis, as well as the avant-
garde schools of Sci-Arc and UCLA.
Interview by: Yichen Lu

Time: January 30, 2009
Location: Gehry Partners, LLP, Los Angeles, USA
Our studio project in Yale was to design a Concert Hall for Lincoln Center to replace
Avery Fisher Hall. As part of the research we were taken to visit the Concertgebouw
Amsterdam, Berlin Philharmonic in Berlin, Symphony Hall in Boston, Avery Fisher
Hall in New York, Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, and the Richard B. Fisher
Center for the Performing Arts at Bard College. It was a great experience to visit
them and attend concerts with you and other musicians. Through these trips, what
specific information did you want to convey to us? Why did you choose the design of
a classical concert hall to be the single purpose program of the studio?
Music was another game. If you want to design a great concert

hall, you must go to a lot of concerts and listen to a lot of stuffs, count
musicians as your friends, look to classical painting very much for
inspiration as well. I did pick classical music hall as the subject, knowing
that the classical music element was the most difficult thing to achieve
compared with other types of concert hall. When we were in Berlin
Philharmonic, I asked you to observe the people in the lobby, in the
concert hall and next to you. That actually gives you an insight to a
sense of responsibility about who is going to use it, and respect for that.
It’s a magical thing. When we were there for the rehearsal during the daytime, I felt
the lobby space is somehow over-designed and a way too large. But when it comes
the night it became a magic!
For me it grows out of a sense of responsibility, sense of values,

human values. The importance of relating to the community and all of
those things...You study a long time till you can do it. But it's from looking
around you, it's from understanding what's happening in the culture,
what's happening in the world. It's a really big picture. because there
are no real rules. If you look at the world around us, and you think of
all these adult and intelligent people who have gathered together over
the years to create the biggest mess. It always looks like that, whatever
period. It looked like that when I was a kid, it looks like that now. And yet,
somehow we muddle forward and make things. So out of that comes
inspiration, believe it or not, and leads to ideas. For instance, I've been
interested in the sense of movement in architecture. Well, who cares
whether a building looks like it's moving or not? Maybe they shouldn't,
but that's something that interested me. Maybe it comes from the fast
society, the fast world around me, that I'm trying to make some kind of
connection to. So I think you've just got to keep your eyes open, keep
your ears open and understand what's going on. And then play with it,
and move with it, and make your expression grow from that.
Could you please make it more specific, like taking your Disney Concert Hall as an
example?
An essential role was played by the direct experience in the halls,

which has become prototypes of a progressive approach to the definitive
intuition. At the beginning, Ernest Fleischman and I visited many concert
halls. The first one we visited was in Berlin Philharmonic, which was a
sort of model of Fleischman. I took this idea and I used it as a starting
point to propose to our acoustic consultant. My personal favorite was the
Concertgebouw. Still, the more I see, the more I realize that no concert
hall is perfect and that each one has its strong points and weaknesses.
There are some, like Concertgebouw, that have been standing for many
years and so many conductors have worked inside them that you no
longer hear people talking about the weaknesses and the compromises
that have to be made to work in it. The same goes for the Boston
Symphony Hall. What I mean to say is that the auditorium isn’t perfect, in
fact it has quite a few problems, but it has been used for so many years
now that it has become a symbol for great American concert halls.
After the research of acoustic precedent, we spent a lot of time

studying. Then we built a 1:10 scale model in which we could insert all
the components of the philharmonic to test them out, to understand the
space and make observations about it. In short, it was a give and take
relationship, a continuous exchange between reality and model, between
the music community and the architectonic capacity and skill that I tried
to contribute.
Disney Hall created quite a stir.
It did, yeah!
It’s a quite interesting fact that Architecture students in China concentrate more
on Mathematics or Physics while Architecture education in America stays closer
with Art and Design. Even at very beginning, Yale School of Architecture was
established in the School of Fine Arts in 1916. Although it became an independent
school afterwards, the school building is still called A&A (Yale Art and Architecture
Building) today. What is your view on this? What types of personality or

characteristics do you think an architect needs to have?
I think there are a lot of ways to be an architect, and math is

certainly an important part of it. But there are a lot of different areas in
architecture, and American schools have a tendency to develop a certain
type of architect—the star architects. All of us need a lot of help from a
lot of different kinds of people. First of all, you have to love architecture.
If you love it more than anything and you want to be part of it, then you
find your particular niche or your way of dealing with it. It may not be the
same way I deal with it, it may be working with research in planning and
housing. It may develop into materials research. It may be in graphics
as it applies to architecture. It may be in the presentation of architecture.
There are so many parts I can enumerate, but I think it's a broader field.
What I believe the good thing at Yale is that you could get a bunch
of different voices in the school. You have Zaha, Rogers, Bob Stern and
Richard Meier. You have Peter, Greg and me here. All of us are different.
The example I hope I set for students is that it’s possible to develop your
own language. You don’t have to learn Peter Eisenman’s rules and you
don’t have to listen to Leon Krier’s rules. If you didn’t listen to a lot of
rules, it’s possible to make architecture personal and I think that makes
better architecture. In that way, it’s closer to the bone, closer to the
feelings of the individual, responding to their time and place.
This is why I chose to have interviews with both Peter and you. You are so different
from each other. Peter never goes to the site and he believes that architecture design
can be done mentally. While you insist that we also need to know how to build.
You have to. When you are young and you are starting out you need
to build things and try things. You need to learn to build. And it’s hard. A
lot of people don’t bother to learn that. They go right into theorizing their
design before knowing how to build. Building is its own discipline. The
building industry has its own mechanisms and you have to learn it in
order to manipulate it because you’re making a three dimensional object.
It takes time to try things.
Since I started working for Gehry Partners, LLP, I’m attracted by the way people
here work. I discovered three controversial points.
Go ahead.
First, your design methodology emphasizes casual details and extremely precise
working process at the same time. Peter Schjeldahl wrote something about your
architecture in Frieze magazine. He said ‘To advertise perfection is beneath Gehry’s
love of imperfect humanity.’
That’s exactly what I’ve been doing, you know, and I’ve been getting
a bum rap compared to other architects who do the perfect detail, the
perfect joint between the stone and glass. I probably spend as much
time doing that, but I keep it much more casual. I have been trying to de-
deify the detail. That means that you don’t fuss it.
I grew up with the detailing of I.M. Pei and Mies van der Rohe, and
I found this more in the derivative work of Richard Meier. Today Renzo
Piano does it. They all detail. It’s a kind of craftsmanship, making these
beautiful details. Clients require refined corner details with perfection,
and rich guys all gravitate to those architects that do this in their houses.
They need that to make them feel good. That’s the opposite of what I do.
So, Aalto’s detailing was incredibly beautiful, but it was matter of fact, it
wasn’t contrived. That was the difference for me. It’s not that fussy kind
of detailing that came about with the riches of the last years in America.
I think the richness of that detail made sense in Vienna at the time it
was done. In the world in which we live today it doesn’t make sense but
some people seem to need it.
Kurt Foster once told me something about the Michael Graves’ Three On The Bund
at Shanghai. He pointed out that the project is for the people who became rich the
first.
There is a tendency to parade one’s wealth by having fussy details,

exotic materials and perfection. I don’t know if people really live in that
way. From day one, when I saw the Farnsworth House by Mies van der
Rohe as a kid, I used to talk about it and say how beautiful it was but
how difficult it would be as a place to live in. I wouldn’t be able to live
there. I know that Peter Palumbo bought it. I don’t know if he ever tried
to live there himself.
He’s there now.
Well, if he were to put his clothes over the coffee table, it wouldn’
t look good. He should hang them in the closet. If you live in perfection,
you have to act perfectly. Do you live in perfection?
(laugh) absolutely not, Frank. Second, I found you desire to achieve positive form
but through very subtle expression. Could you please describe the main steps of the
architecture process, from the preliminary sketches to the final model? How did you
find these forms?
Slowly, by doing the things I've already said, not the least of which
is studying history. You develop a base of information. You look at what's
around you, you take things in, you absorb. I think the most important
thing is the people. Finally, it's a human thing. It's how you interact with
people and how you interpret their wishes and yearnings. It's intuitive.
It's very difficult to explain why you do things, why you curve something.
It becomes an evolution of thought and ideas. I feel like the picture of
the cat pushing the ball of string. You just keep pushing it and it moves
around. Then it falls off the table and creates this beautiful line in space.
These ideas are not easy to describe. They're easy to rationalize after
the fact, like the sense of movement is easy to rationalize, or certain
materials, or certain constructs, and shapes, and forms. But basically, I
am trying to make buildings and spaces that will inspire people, that will
move people, that will get a reaction. Not just to get a reaction, but to get
a positive reaction, hopefully, a place that they like to be in. My greatest
thrill is to still be friends with the clients and people that helped me make
these buildings.
When you create stuff out of your head, like we all do, and you don’
t know exactly why it’s there after you’ve created it- it’s scary. I wonder,
where did this come from? As you get older, you more and more trust
you intuition, rather than second-guess yourself.
Last but not the least, I want to say you are the type of people who take advantage
of computer but not depend on it, even though you have the strongest computer
technology support compared with other architects like Zaha or Isozaki. Have new
technologies and computers affected your work, and how?
I try very hard to get the energy of the idea, the first idea, the
drawing, and that character to the finished building. And I hate all the
computer images that I've been confronted with, from the beginning until
today. However, since I've gotten involved with buildings that have shape
to them, that are very difficult to describe to a contractor, to a builder, I've
made a relationship by some circuitous route, through IBM, to the people
in France that make the Mirage airplane, Dassault. And they have a
software, or a program, CATIA, for making airplanes, that allowed us to
describe steel structures and curved structures in a way that demystified
them for the builder, so that they weren't afraid and didn't superimpose
fear costs on the project. We've been very successful in that, and I think
it's turned the tide.
In other words, most architects and contractors are in mortal battle

from the day they start. The contractor is scared of the costs and losing
money, and the architect is pushing to get his or her dream to fruition,
and they're in conflict. And I found, through this funny gadget, that the
architect can become the master builder, can become the leader, can
direct the project, and the contractor likes it. They would rather be the
child in the equation than the parent. They'd rather have the conceiver
take a parental role. So it's through this technology that I've found,
in all of us projects now, that it's been very possible to change that
relationship, in a positive way, for everybody.
Like you wrote at the end of Gehry Talks, ‘the computer is a tool, not a partner, an
instrument for catching the curve, not for inventing it’?
You got it! Clearly, we would not have been able to building this
building without CATIA or GT software. However, we didn’t use them
to design, but only to define the building according to the needs of the
building industry in the executive phase and in the work site. In this way,
the constructors always knew where to work and what the restrictions
were. GT is a very precise software and this precision allowed us to
construct a building with this appearance and complexity, at a budget
that was normal by most standards.
China’s architecture market today is in fast development. To some extent, it mimics

the U.S. market in the past. Could you talk about the social meaning of architecture
with your 50 year experience? Do you think architecture design is a complete service
business?
What got me excited in the beginning were the social issues. I come
from a very lefty liberal family in Canada, and architecture looked like
it was the panacea. You could make housing for the poor and make
wonderful cities, city planning in the future and so on. That was the initial
turn-on. That lasted me all the way through school, actually.
When I got out of school I hit the brick wall. You can't do any of that.
It doesn't exist. You can't do it. There are no clients for social housing in
America. There is no program, no nothing. City planning? Forget it. It's
a kind of bureaucratic nonsense. It has nothing to do with ideas. It only
has to do with real estate and politics.
I used to say, "I don't want to do houses for rich people." I always
said that through school. "I'm just not going to do that." But I started to
find some excitement in the forms, the spaces, being able to conceive of
something and then see it built. The process of building, the working with
the craftsmen -- or lack of craftsmen is more likely -- but trying to. It is an
energy, and it is a mind game too, trying to get these people motivated.
I guess it's like directing a movie. But it's really exciting when you get to
the level I am at now, where I have a lot of freedom.
I don't get a lot of projects, but I get enough, and when I do get
them, usually people want what I am doing and egg me on to explore
things, and that's exciting. Then the social thing comes to the back door.
At the end, you get some power because of the work to then address the
social issues, not in a global sense, but in your own environment, your
own immediacy. So that is gratifying. It did come. You do get a little bit of
power to say things and do things.
What was the turn-on for you?
Up until the point where I did my house, which was in the late '70s,
most of the work -- up until that point I think, I thought of myself as an
architect, as a service business. I was working on Santa Monica Place.
But I hadn't had much freedom to really do things, and for the first time --
even though it wasn't a lot of money, we only had a budget of like forty,
fifty thousand dollars -- I was able to do what I wanted, exactly what I
wanted, and explore and play and do things, and I realized that I couldn't
go back after that.
After all, you have to be a big risk-taker, aren’t you?
Yeah. It's not about making money. I think you stick your neck out a
lot, but over time, you feel more confident.
252
英国伦敦建筑联盟
建筑学院
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/
布莱特•斯蒂勒
迈克尔•维斯托克
雨果•辛斯利
253
The Architectural Association, London, UK

School of Architectural
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/
Brett Steele
Michael Weinstock
Hugo Hinsley
254 The Architectural Association, UK
布莱特•斯蒂勒
建筑联盟学院院长，建筑联盟出版社主任
斯蒂勒创立了AA设计研究实验室（AA DRL Design Research Lab）

一个AA独创的以团队合作、网络技术为基础建筑学硕士课程，并曾出任
DRL负责人。他也是伦敦的建筑事务所DAL,desArchiLab的合伙人之一，教
学、讲演的足迹遍及全球。他关注的问题包括当代建筑与城市，建筑文化，
以及新媒体、网络技术下的分布式设计、通讯系统对当今的建筑学教育所
产生的影响。他是《Negotiate My Boundary》（2002)，《Corporate
Fields》（2002) ，《D[R]L Research 》（2005)和《Supercritical》（2008
年）等书的主编，同时担任AA丛书的编辑，编有《当代建筑中的批判性思
考》（Critical Thinking in Contemporary Architecture）和《AA 议程》
（AA Agendas）系列。斯蒂勒的文章、访谈与讲座内容发表在《Arch+》,
《AD》, 《Architectural Review》, 《A+U》, 《Archis》, 《AA Files》,
《Harvard Design Magazine》, 《The Architects Journal》, 《Hunch》,
《World Architecture》, 《Log》, 《Japan Architect》, 《Icon
Magazine》, 《Daidalos》等多本期刊上，并曾接受CNN和BBC的访问。
英国建筑联盟 255
采访者：王飞
时间：2009年6月
地点：英国伦敦建筑联盟院长办公室
感谢：周渐佳
您如何展望建筑联盟学院（以下简称AA）以往的、现行的模式，将来的模式又会
是怎样？
AA采用的模式能将我们与其他建筑院校加以区分。我要强调的是两点。
谈及学院课程和教学的设置，最有趣的是我们并没有任何固定的建筑学课程，
所以我们的做法是无论学院聘用的教员教授什么，它们都应当是建筑教学所必
须的内容。相对应的，AA中设有的30个不同的教学平台阐释了上述的理念。
无论是本科生还是研究生的课程，每一个单元（unit）都是一个自足的小世
界。对于如何改变未来的建筑，它们怀有抱负，并为之规划各自的议程。我们
的学生往来于课程之间的同时也在做着决定。所以这是我们教学模式的特点之
一。我想强调的另一个部分是AA越来越全球化，事实是整个AA的定义不仅包
含学院中的700人，还囊括了遍布世界各地的3000余名会员（members），
他们并没有就读于AA，可他们同样参与到学院的对话、讨论与辩论之中。而
其中的秘诀是这所学校本身是一个联盟，比起培养建筑师，在这里培养建筑思
想的听众更是我们的兴趣所在。大多数建筑院校试图生产建筑师；我们同样能
够做到。但是我认为正在做的和之所以这么去做的关键在于我们不断地为那些
建筑师建立听众群，也是在这种背景下建筑师才有可能在将来检验、表达自己
的想法并且加以交流。
相比于公立的大学体制，您认为AA作为一座私立的学院机构具备怎样的优势和略
势？
我认为这其中没有略势，只有绝对的优势。而这种优势也非常简单：我
们有着很大的灵活性，因为没有向更高一级学院汇报的需要，在任何时候应当
做什么都是由我们自己决定的，并且会朝着这个目标前进。除了灵活性之外，
我们有能力很快转变——一些我们认为有趣的事会以建筑项目的方式被很快地
带入教学之中，不加迟疑。最后一点是我们完全是独立的。这种独立意味着现
在教员们有机会去检验他们的想法——如何以一种新的方式去操作和组织教
学，并且从中汲取经验。所以AA的独立可能是学院中的每个人最为珍视的东
西了。
您如何看待AA在建筑学科和行业领域做出的贡献？
简单来说，AA所做出的贡献是培养能够不断进取并且引领专业方向的人
群，众所周知, 这是我们在过去的几十年中坚持做的事，也的确是看待AA所做
贡献的一种方式。但我认为在当下建筑文化蔓延全球的情境下，在建筑行业经
历了一个世纪的职业化并以改善世界为宗旨时，AA这样的场所所能做的最为
突出的贡献是成为事务所与实践之外的另一个文化中心，那些会员、听众可以
重新回到这里参与那些有关建筑未来的讨论与辩论之中。我认为这是其他建筑
学院需要采纳的更为行之有效的模式。很幸运地，在AA我们已经这么去做并
且做到了极致，站到了改变建筑文化的阵线前沿。而我也的确将其视作为我们
在将来所要面临的巨大挑战。在我看来建筑教育应当摆脱职业性的培训模式，
这种模式仅仅是将建筑师训练地职业化，同时我也理解现在正有成千上万的学
校在这么做。局面已然如此。除了上述的这些，教育的进一步价值也应当被挖
掘，我们有能力将人们汇聚在这样一个环境中讨论，辩论同时交换彼此的想
法。在AA这点尤为显著，因为学院的组成非常国际化，有90%的学生来自其
他国家，在我们排名前三、前四的生源国之中，中国也在列。在现在这样一所
学校内，这是很有趣的现象。很明显，在应对挑战的同时也并存着潜力——人
们济济一堂，交流思想，过后以独特的方式激发出新的事物。这正是我所认为
的AA未来贡献的所在。
您如何看待当代的建筑教育，尤其是它与实践，理论，技术，伦理等之间的关系？
我能给出的答案非常简要。我们的工作并不是去理解这种职业性并满足需
求。一所好的建筑院校应当改变这个行业的职业观念——你如何以建筑师的身
份去工作？如同其他学校的一样，我们之所以这么做的原因在于建筑师工作和
学习的方式已经发生了重大的转变。随着新型媒体交流技术和新型全球化实践
的展开，每一天在这样的建筑里我们都在进行着更为深刻的变革与探索，立志
培养这样的人——当他们离开学校投身工作时，他们都会以一种全新的方式思
考、行动。我认为最好的事实是我们的学生已经在绝对地改变建筑事务所现行
的形式了。
您如何看待AA与美国建筑教育体制的联系？因为一些美国建筑学院都从AA借鉴了
教育模式，而AA的前几任院长都担任着美国建筑院校院长的职务，而且你也来自
美国。
我觉得这很棒。我有很多很多朋友，他们以前在AA就读或工作，现在
也像我一样执掌某个学校。这也令我想到AA这样一所学校要做的并不是单
纯地培养建筑师，更是培养未来的建筑教育者。伦敦大学巴特列建筑学院
（Bartlett, UCL）的院长，伦敦城市大学（London Metropolitan）的院长，
东伦敦大学（East London University）的院长，伦敦皇家艺术学院（Royal
College of Art）的院长都是AA的毕业生，他们都在AA获取了灵感与想法，并
将之融入了各自的领域。这决不是对AA全然的复制，而是用这些想法创造了
属于他们的独特世界，他们做到了，做得相当出色。这里培养新的教育家也是
很重要的部分，所以能在这样的学院里工作教学是我莫大的荣幸。与其说一所
好的建筑院校应当看重实际项目，我们更关注教育过程中建筑知识是如何被习
得的。我曾不止一次地发现这种奇怪的现象——许多建筑师认为自己的作为与
建筑教育并无任何关联。而从AA走出来的学生想法恰恰相反。以往学校与事
务所的模式之间存在脱节，但二十世纪以来两者之间的联系愈发紧密。
发起 “ 设计研究实验室 ” （ D e sig n R e s e arc h L a b, 以下简称 D R L ）的初衷是什
么？您如何定义“作为研究的设计”？
1996年，当我和帕特里克•舒马赫一同建立了这个实验室。将其命名为
“设计研究实验室”（Design Research Lab）主要有三个原因，而这个名字
中的每一个词就代表了一个原因。我们希望“设计”(Design)是第一位的，因
为在1996年的AA，“设计”仍然是个晦明不定，略带着挑衅意味的词。当时
很多人都在谈论设计，而我们觉得直接提出这个话题很有价值，因为最基本的
观念输入都仰赖于此，而设计文化是重新看待我们所处世界的一种方式。采
用“研究”（Research）这个词是因为我认为设计教学中最有意思的部分在
于沟通的方式方法，这与研究项目的定义是一致的。“设计研究”（Design
Research）是一种能和广大受众交流的设计方法，这就是“设计”与“设计
研究”的差异所在。如果能用研究的方式交流，那么你的想法就和他人一同分
享。我们决定称其为“实验室”（Lab）而不是“工作室”（Studio）是为了
以示区别。我们设立DRL的时候是1996年，这已经是很久以前的事了，当时
的世界是由微软95操作系统驱动的，这也是最后一代无法建立电脑间联系的
系统，可以说是个完全自足的世界。但是我们知道改变迫在眉睫，这个世界最
终会联系在一起。而我的兴趣在于建筑院校内既有的设计工作室模式也会发生
急剧的改变，因为突然我们能联网工作，因为所用的工具要求我们做出这种改
变。人们至今仍津津乐道的网络技术兴起自90年代，这与成立DRL的时期恰
恰重叠，我们希望做的正是用媒体的方法来指导这种试验。课程设置的考量之
一是意欲建立这样的思想——AA的研究生设计教学可以是一种全新的模式。
我们借助身边的交流媒介，诸如网络，软件，设计工具进行教学，学生们也必
须以三到四人共同协作的团队方式完成作业而不是孤军作战，教师们也是如
此，所以整个运作模式都是合作化的。这也是我们青睐试验的原因。至于其他
的设想，我们从AA自身获益良多，比如时长一年的设计任务，或者在一个项
目中实现所有知识的环环相扣，这多数取自于AA的经验。
DRL历时十年经历了怎样的进化？
去年的十周年纪念是个很大的派对盛典，它见证了我们学生的成长——在
经历了十分有意思的设计工作室阶段后，进入行业参与建造名满世界的伟大建
筑，比如北京国家体育场，西雅图图书馆和波尔图音乐厅等等。这是庆祝的绝
好机会，也是在展览期间建造的展厅项目的一个组成部分。但是我给DRL提出
的教案是他们必须不断前进并且从根本上重新创造自己，我认为这是有意思的
设计工作室应当做的，也是DRL正在经历的。所以我这样激励他们：“看，新
的一代正在新的地方教授，指导，组织设计工作室，你们的工作是将传统观念
置于一边，去创造属于自己的世界。”这是教案的关键所在。我坚信自我重新
创造对我们至关重要。
A A 已经连续三年在上海开设暑期研修班（ A A S h a n g h ai S u m m e r S c h o ol ），您如
何看待AA与中国的关系？而在每年的暑期研修班以全球化的态势涌现时，其中有
了越来越多中国大陆学生的身影，您如何看待这个现象?
我们每年夏天在上海都开设有暑期研修班，至今已有两三届。今年八月我
将前往北京参加一个重大活动，届时我们将宣布于2010年二月成立新的北京
冬季研修班（AA Beijing Winter School）。我们和当今世界上的许多人一样做
着同样的事，这很自然，因为在中国正发生着不可思议的事情，难以置信也出
人意料。对于我而言，中国最显著的特点在于它所需要应对的挑战。在欧洲这
样完成度很高的地方，“挑战”的步伐已经明显放缓，无论从欧洲语境的哪个
层面去理解，在中国事物发生的速度之快都令人咋舌，这也带来了问题与挑战
伴随着潜力而来的现实，这些问题必须得到协调。同时我也认为只有在这些问
题下工作才是学习的唯一途径。另一方面，中国有趣的经历正是全球化现象的
一个缩影，因为许多事件是在知识，专业，经验大量涌入的情况下发生的，并
以一种动态的面貌呈现在我们面前，我认为这很有趣。拿北京奥运会来举例，
它的非凡之处在于大半个欧洲都被带入到体育场、游泳馆的建设之中。这种在
中国本土发生的远距离协商是很有趣的情况，并且与欧洲的处境大相径庭——
欧洲大多是由欧洲人建造的，而现今的中国在很大程度上也正由欧洲人建造，
这是个很奇特的现象。虽然不是那么肯定，但我以为每一个身在其中的人之
于正在发生的事件都是非常重要的因素。AA的一些老师这在中国营建大型项
目。像担任diploma课程（本科第4，5年）教师的克里斯•李（Chris Lee）
就在北京成立了事务所，执教景观城市化课程（Landscape Urbanism）的帕
拉斯马工作室（Plasma Studio）正在设计中国南方的一个大型的景观城市项
目，DRL负责人(DRL Director)舒马赫与扎哈的事务所在广州和北京的项目也
在建造之中。所以AA与中国之间有很多专业上的联系，但我对教学实验室和
中国正面临的挑战同样感兴趣。
谈到AA, 我想强调的是我们并不仅仅是以多样性著称的院校中的一员，而
且我们的学院是建立在思想的多样化上的。比如我们在学院中拥有30个各自
为政的教学单元或教学课程。教师们必须以自己的想法，课程安排吸引学生。
这么做了，他们才能留下；如果不这么做，就只有离开。所以思想必须经过争
鸣，经过激辨，得以陈述并且有足够的吸引力。而我们的学生知道自己在做什
么，也能够判断什么是有趣的，什么不是。所以这是一种反馈的机制。在这样
一所学校内，我出任院长一职是因为学生们和教师们民主投票的结果，这样一
种自下而上的模式，从某种程度上来说令人吃惊。可是你能对这一点抱有绝对
的信心，因为学院完全依靠自身决定战略定位的大方向，教学方法就是这种民
主模式最为直观的体现。这讲的虽然是学校的组织方法，但我仍想在访谈中加
以强调，而不是简单地说我们是很有意思的学校，和其他有意思的学校并无二
致。我们期望交流的并不是多样化的形式，而是即便在同一个学院里，如何使
思想的交流得以发生。我认为尤其是身处在全球建筑知识日益扁平化的时代，
在个体趋于相同的情况下，真正的挑战来自于不同的思想，不同的思考方式，
而应对这样的挑战绝非易事。我的意思是是我们必须与此抗争。但中国的困惑
是文化上的羁绊究竟是来自于城市中的建筑，还是来自于寄居在建筑中的组织
机构，这是我们在中国可以视为“纪念物”的东西。我觉得这很迷人，当然也
超乎寻常。
Brett Steele
Director of the Architectural Association School of Architecture and AA
Publications
Brett Steele is the founder and former Director of the AADRL Design
Research Lab, the innovative team- and network-based M.Arch programme
at the Architectural Association. He is a Partner of DAL, desArchLab, an
architectural office in London, and has taught and lectured at schools
throughout the world. His interests include contemporary architecture
and cities, architectural culture, and the impact of new media and today’
s network-based distributed design and communication systems on
architectural education. He is the editor of Negotiate My Boundary (London
2002), Corporate Fields (London 2005), D[R]L Research (Beijing 2005),
and Supercritical (2008). He is Series Editor of AA Words: Critical Thinking
in Contemporary Architecture, and the AA Agendas Series. Brett’s articles,
interviews & lectures have appeared in Arch+, AD, Architectural Review,
A+U, Archis, AA Files, Harvard Design Magazine, The Architects Journal,
Hunch, World Architecture, Log, Japan Architect, Icon Magazine, Daidalos
and other journals; on CNN and the BBC and in other media.

Time: June, 2009
Location: Director’s Office, the AA, London, UK
Credits: Lianjia Zhou
What do you envision the AA model was, is and will be?
The AA model could distinguish us from other schools. I would like

to emphasize two things. In terms of our coursework and teaching, the
most interesting thing is that we have no fixed curricula of architecture,
so what we do is whatever the people teach for us are things should be
done to teach architecture, and there are 30 different platforms in the
AA to define that, each undergraduate unit or each graduate program is
a self-contained world to define their own agenda in ambitions for how
to change architecture for the future. Our students move between those
and they decide. So that’s one feature of the teaching model. The other
part that I emphasize is more global, the entire AA, and that is the fact
the Architecture Association includes both the school of 700 people, and
worldwide membership of 3000 who aren’t enrolled in the school but
join the AA to become part of the conversation, discussion and debate.
And the secret of all is that the school is an association where we direct
our interest to making our “audience” for architectural ideas more than
architects. Most schools try to produce architects; we do that like other
schools but I think the secret for how we do it as well as what we do is
that we continually build up audiences for those architects to be testing
ideas, presenting ideas and communicating in the future.
As a private institution, rather than in a public university system, what do you think
of the advantages and disadvantages of the AA?
I think there are no disadvantages. I think there are entirely

advantages. And the advantages are very simple: we have huge
flexibility because we have no larger institution to report to; we define
what we should be doing at any one time and we go forward with that.
In addition to flexibility, we have the ability to make the changes very
quickly, so when we think there is something interesting going on,
with some kind of architecture projects, we bring it in very quickly, no
complication. And the last thing is we are completely independent,
and independence today lets one test ideas the way one operates and
organizes how we teach and learn in new ways and learn from that
experience. The independence of the AA is probably the one thing that
everybody here values more than anything in the institution.
What do you think of the AA’s contribution to architecture as discipline and

profession?
The easy answer for the contribution is we create people who go

forward and lead the profession throughout their life and something
what we have been doing for many many decades, as everyone knows,
that would be one way to think of the AA’s contribution. But I think
today and with the architecture culture where it is worldwide, I think our
greatest contribution will be after a century of architecture becoming
professionalized, with that project now in place for better a world, the
great contribution of the place like AA can make is to become a culture
of center outside of offices and practice, for people to come back and
these audience members participate in discussions and debates about
the future of architecture. I think that is the one thing that all schools
need to adopt as a model of how to organize themselves. The fortunate
thing about the AA is we do that already and we do it to such an extreme
degree that I think we are the forefront to change the architecture culture.
And I really do think that is our great kind of challenge for the future. I
think schools need get outside of the vocational training model but they
simply prepare architects to become professional and understand that
there are thousands and thousands of schools worldwide to do that
today. That is already in place. What we need to do is to add value why
in addition to that in our ability to bring people together where is a place
like this can do for discussion, debate and exchange. At the AA that is
very extreme because we are so international and 90% of our students
are foreigners, China is one of the top 3 or 4 providers of students, in a
school like this today, in an interesting way. And well, that present great
challenges, and obviously the potential there is that we can bring people
together, ideas can get exchange, people go back and something new
happens, in strange ways, that is what I think the future contribution lies.
How do you envision architectural education in contemporary, in relation to

practice, theory, technology, ethics, etc?
My only answer there will be very short. I think our job isn’t to
understand the profession and to provide the demand. A good school is
to change the profession conception about how you work as an architect.
The reason we can do that as well as we are as other schools do today
is because the way architects work and learn is changing dramatically
right now. With new media communication technology and new kinds of
global practice, we get to experiment what that much more deeply every
single day in the building like this and in the fact prepare people as they
leave to think and work in an entirely different way when they get into
offices. I think the greatest fact is what our students have is to absolutely
transform the office’s existing form.
What do you think of connection between the AA and the US system, because some
American schools have some model from the AA and the former Chairs of the AA are
deans of major American architectural schools and you are from the US too?
I think it is a pretty great thing. I have many many friends who are
used to teach or study outside here of the AA who are now, like me
running schools. I think all that reminds us it that in a place like the
AA school, we aren’t just preparing architects, but we are preparing
future architectural educators. The deans of the Bartlett (UCL), London
Metropolitan, East London, RCA (Royal College of Art) in London are all
the AA graduates, who take ideas and thinking from here and go out in
their own worlds, not to copy the AA at all but to create their interesting
worlds of their own which they have done very successfully. I think this
is real a privilege to be able to work and teach in the place where it
does that as a part of the project. I think other than to say what is the
thing that reminds us the fact that a good school is not just thinking
about the projection, but about architectural learning that takes place
in education. Over and over again that I found the most amazing is
how many architects really think they don’t need any connection along
to architectural education. People who come out of here tend to think
reverse. That is the difference between schools and offices in the way
they used to be, certainly with the 20th century when there was a deep
connection between them two.
What was the intention to launch Design Research Lab (DRL)? What is your
definition of “Design as Research”?
When I founded the lab with Patrik Schumacher in 1996, we

decided to name it as “Design Research Lab” for three reasons and
each word in that name is one of the reasons. We wanted “design” to
be the first word because at the time of 1996 in the AA, “design” was
still a very ambiguous and slightly provocative term and there was a
lot of people at that time talking about design, and we thought it would
be good to just put that up front because that was primary inputs lies
and the way of design culture can rethink the world we are now. We
used the word “research” because the most interesting kind of design
learning I find are the forms that can be communicated and meet the
definition of a research project. “Design Research” is design work that
can be communicated to large audiences. That is the difference between
“design” and “design research”. If you can communicate your idea as
the former research then that can be shared with other people. And
we decided to call the “lab” instead of the “studio” just to be different.
We started to work on the DRL in 1996, which was so long ago that
the world was still run by Windows 95 Operating Software which was
the last operating system that couldn’t connect to other computers, so
completely self-contained. We knew that it was about to change and the
world will get connected together. And my interest is especially what the
fact that the design studio as we know it in architectural school is about
to change dramatically, because suddenly people can start working
together, and the very tool that they use will demand that. So that grows
the network technology that everybody talks about now from 1990’
s really coincided with the period of founding the DRL and that is what
we wanted to do to experiment with the media way, so we designed
the course, the one brief to establish the deliberate of the AA could
be an entirely new kind of graduate design studio. We looked around
communication media like network space, software, design tool, and
students would only work in team that of three or four people instead of
on their own, and teachers also would only work in groups, so the entire
model becomes collaborative. And that is why we are interested in the
experimenting way. The rest of the assumption is we think we really
learn from the AA itself, the idea of a year-long project, everything being
connected together in the form of the project, but most kind of things
were part of our AA experience.
What is the evolution of DRL after a 10-year period?
The ten-year party last year was a pretty big party and celebration
that was record of people who did amazingly interesting things in the
studio and then went out and built some of the world great buildings like
Beijing Stadium, Seattle Library, Casa da Musica, etc. It was a great
opportunity to celebrate that, which was part of the pavilion project we
built during the exhibition. But the brief that I have given to DRL now is
to just go ahead and fundamentally reinvent themselves, that is what I
think interesting studios do, so that is the process that they are working
on now. So I challenge them by saying: “look, with the new generation
and place teaching, directing, organizing a studio, your job now is to set
that legacy aside and to make it your own world.” That is the very brief. I
believe in reinvention which is really big for us.
What do you think of the relationship between the AA and China, since there is a
Shanghai Summer School for 3 years, among many merging global summer schools
and there are more and more students form mainland China every year?
We have a summer school in China now that runs in Shanghai

every summer, we have done 2 or 3 of those. I am going over in
August this year for a big event in Beijing where we will announce
a new Beijing Winter School, which will begin in February 2010. Of
course we are doing now like many people on the world today because
incredibly interesting things are happening in China, incredibly strange,
unexpected things. The feature is that, for me, standout most about
China, the challenges are something than a place like Europe where is
obviously de-speeded with which things were done. It is simply amazing
by any understanding from the European context how quickly things can
happen in China, which introduces us as wholly range of both potential
but also problems and challenges which have to be negotiated, and I
think the only way to do that is to learn directly by working with those.
And on the other side, I think the experience of China is interesting as
a global phenomena in part because as many things are happening but
with the great deal of imported knowledge, expertise, experience, and
that introduces us as a own kind of dynamic but I found very interesting.
If one looks the experience of building the Olympic for example, it is still
remarkable that for the most part of European are brought in to build
things like stadiums, swimming pools, etc. And that kind of negotiation
of distance experience in the local setting in China is a very interesting
condition, and certainly very different from the situation of Europe where
the Europeans are largely building the Europe, but in fact the Europeans
are largely building China that I found a very peculiar phenomenon.
Not entirely certified, but I think for everyone involved is certainly a
striking feature of what is happening. We have several tutors of the AA
who are building large projects in China right now. You know young
teachers like Chris Lee (diploma tutor) who has an office in Beijing,
Plasma Studio (Landscape Urbanism tutor) doing a major landscape
city project in Southern China, Patrik (DRL director) and Zaha’s office
building in Guangzhou and Beijing all over the place. So there are a
lot of professional connections, but I am interested in also the learning
laboratory, the challenges that China is on.
To talk about the AA, the point I would make is that we are not just
one of the many schools of diversity, what I really want to emphasize
is that we are the school model on the idea of diversity. So we have,
for example, in the AA school 30 entirely independent, separate units
or programs. They have to attract their own students with their own
ideas, their own agendas. If they do, they remain; if they don’t, they
have to leave. So ideas have to be argued, debated, positioned and
attract interest. And our students know what they are doing, and they
know what is interesting and what is not. So that is a kind of feedback
mechanism. At a school like this, I directed the AA because the students
and staff elected me to do that, which is the most bottom-up model
mechanism, striking, at some level. But this is also one that you can
have incredible confidence in because the school makes the large
strategic positions on its own, to a very straight forward model of the
democracy which is the pedagogy, I mean, that is the organization of the
school, but I would want to emphasize in the interview, not the fact that
we are the interesting school as the other interesting schools are. I think
that is not the form of diversity that you are to communicate. What is to
communicate ideas is how that can happen even in one institution, which
I would argue in the age of global knowledge of architecture is becoming
flatter and flatter and everything becomes the same, and that is the real
challenge with different ideas, different forms of thinking, and that is not
easy. I mean we are all struggling with that today. But the confusion in
China will be whether it is the culture legacy are buildings fit in the city or
the organizational structures within those buildings, those are the things
we would like to treat like monuments in China. I find that is fascinating
and definitely bizarre.
Hugo Hinsley
Co-Director of Housing & Urbanism Programme
A founding member of the Housing & Urbanism Programme in 1974,

he is an architect with experience in housing, community buildings and
urban development projects. He works mainly in London, and he has been
a consultant to many projects in Europe, Australia and the USA. He is a
member of the research committee of Europan, the international design
competition, and has taught, lectured and published internationally. He was
the Chettle Fellow at the University of Sydney in 1996. Recent research
has been on London 's design and planning, particularly on the cases of
Docklands and Spitalfields; on urban development and policy in European
cities; and on housing and urban density.

Time: June, 2009
Location: Hinsley’s Office, the AA, London, UK
Credits: Lian Zhou
How many years you have been in AA?
For many years. I started teaching in the year of with the formation
of the new graduate school in 1974.
What do you think about the change and the evolution over the thirty years?
It’s been a period of very great change. That’s also within the history
of the School. It’s been a marvelous school with changes, the cycle of
new ideas and methods of teaching. When I came in 1974, I was invited
by Alvin Boyarsky, who was the chairman, when there was a new model.
A big change just happened. The school was almost closed, the year
before there were a financial crisis and an interesting political crisis, with
the counsel saying that the only future for the AA was to become part of
London. That was the fundamental point of change. The school wanted
to be independent and to continue to explore the idea of unit model
which was unique for the AA and went back to the 1960s. We developed
a new structure with the chairman, the forum and the meeting all the
representative of all the students. That was very radical and very exciting
place to come to. And in the time since then for more than 30 years,
there have been many cycles of change. There was a very intensive
period in the mid 1970s to 1980s, by many very bright young people
who were captured by the school, like Rem Koolhaas, Bernard Tschumi
as young teachers with new ideas, arguing with Libeskind. It was a very
explosive and very good period of development. That also reinforced the
unit model as a really strong model for completely different ideas, which
is not standard model of education. I think in the late 1970s through the
1980s, it was also a calm period of consolidation, when some the units
were continuing and other young people were coming, like Zaha Hadid,
the younger generation with new agendas. They used the unit system
as research base, pushing different ideas. The AA also was affected by
international changes going on, because it’s an international school.
When it became very international?
It’s always been more international than the English university

schools, partly because its structure is an association and is based on
membership, with members all over the world. It is always attractive
to many interesting people all over the world. But the real shift came
in the late 70s and 80s, partly attracting more bright young teachers
from all over the world and more international students coming in.
That made it more complicated by the British government to change
the attitude for the AA in the 1980s, when the Liberal government who
intended to cut the grants to all students in UK, and eventually was
forced to return grants in some of the big universities, but kept the AA
out because it was not a university. So that made it much difficult to the
English students who could not afford to come to the AA because it lost
the governmental sponsorship. We had to fight with the government to
get support to the school. So that was the political reason to push the
AA to be more international. I think there are great advantages of being
very international, with 60 different nationalities of 600 students. It’s
part of the educational concept that students don’t learn by sitting down
and being taught by somebody else of what to think, but they learn by
collaboration and experiment. To do that internationally, in one way it’s
difficult because you get much diversity and can get complete confusion;
on the other hand, the potential for cross-over, testing and experiment
between the people working together on the same problem, but coming
from different educational backgrounds. It has very rich potential. So we
don’t say that we only reach out international students, but we are known
as the most international school in the world, and in the way we enjoy
that situation. But we have increasingly attracted more British students
using the scholarship programs.
What‘s the percentage of bring British students?
Roughly 10%, quite low.
We could say that the AA is the most diverse architectural school in the world.
What bring the schools together since it’s so diverse and so different between units,
between different programs, in the AA?
It’s a very interesting question because there is nothing structurally,

formally and legally to guarantee the model would work, unlike many
formal universities which have rigid hierarchy and so on, so what makes
it work with this diversity? I think it’s something less visible. It’s the
culture of the education and the wish from the teachers and the students
who participate in that sort of culture of education. People who come to

the AA already have the expectation that it would be a bit different. But
they also come with the understanding that it only works because they
are going to commit, and it doesn’t work if they come and sit there and
hope somebody would just do something to them. So that’s always in
the air. Of course, in the main educational activities in the school it is to
continue to refresh and create that culture. So the school is not a didactic
place that tells you what to do. It is a place that exposes to every student
with wide range of discussion, contradiction, debate and every different
sort of media, personalities and disciplines. Out of reach the students
are guided to make their own education. So it’s a high risk model that is
without any clear rules. But it is the model that allows that diversity to be
exactly the value of the school rather than the conformity of the singular
national group or single type of student or teacher. It’s the most difficult
to put your finger on if we want to recreate the AA somewhere else, what
would be the model? That would become impossible. It’s the model
that is a sort of self-generating culture that has memento for 150 years,
and has clear capacity to rethink itself over time. So transforming it into
a formal university educational system is extremely difficult because
immediately it prevents that flexibility. So it interests people the most
about the school when they come from the outside to look at it: how does
it work? what is the model? I think it’s the culture of the education. The
education is an experiment. It’s not a singular model. There is no correct
curriculum; there is no correct set of knowledge. But what the students
must learn is to test and understand ideas, but not to correct ideas;
you have to learn to argue; you have to learn to present your ideas and
learn from failure. We also hope students not just to learn the set of
skills, but also position themselves politically and socially so they also
have to have some ethical relationship with their work and they should
have critical view of their place within the society, more than just training
them to be good technicians. And increasingly for the architects around
the world because there are so many good technicians who can do the
building stuff very well, even much better than we can. If the architects
position themselves simply as good technicians, then creativity will just
disappear. So one of the courses I teach is called “Future Practice.” One
of the most important issues is for them to realize that the architects is
not just the “problem-solver,” so that the client comes to say this is the
problem and wants you to fix it. The architect is actually a “problem-
formulator,” so when the client comes he says, “Wait, let’s think about
that. So what do you want? There might be many different ways that we
can rethink that problem.” And then we can move to solving the problem.
So that’s what the client is not buying something that you can do the
perfect façade or the water proving, but buying that you can take that
problem and think it in differently and come out with different spatial and
technical ideas and then let it happen. And if we can hang on to that,
and add the value through creativity and through critical mind, then the
architect would continue to offer. But that’s quite difficult to students.
Five years of education is not very long for a formal education in which it’
s taking a lot of technical stuff but also to develop that critical thinking in
a really good way. But that’s what we try to do.
Before I asked this, you have already touched my following question. What the AA
has contributed to architecture as discipline and profession, besides it produced
many star-architects?
It’s the most famous for the AA that many famous architects came
from here. That’s very good, but the other 90% of the students go out
be a future architect, not many of them can be star-architects. It is very
interested to start a point of view that we are not trying to train architects
but trying to make people with certain skills of architecture, who are
critical thinkers, highly skilled in order to be able to go into many different
fields. So the product of the AA is not necessarily an architect. We are
fine with that. We’re not very interested in having a training program for
architects. I think that is the most of them end up to the world, to be the
next Foster, the next Koolhaas, but they will be very useful people in
whatever field they are moving in which probably be connected in some
way with designs, creativity and production of space. That’s not formally
in the old set of what the architects should be, but something more
critical, more different. We don’t do exact follow up with the students,
but they certainly end up doing very strange things, film making, theatre,
furniture, but then we made some development programs, political
advice. Some graduate students don’t all go back to the design offices,
some of who are working as advices to administers of developments
in different countries, on the spatial implications about development,
and in the financial market, in the property development board and
so on. Some are starting to work with city government with concept in
restructuring the information technology. The result of their work might
be policies about introducing information technology into city rather than
designing a building. It is very very diverse. That is great and is what we
are interested in.
How do you regenerating the AA model to schools in other countries. If we look at

SCRArc and Rural studio, they both came from the root of the AA. What do you think
the AA model affects other architectural programs?
We thought we had a lot of effects or influence on architectural

education, especially since the 1960s, but even before as a different

model. One thing that has been interested in many schools in the Europe
and less so in the America, is the potential of the unit system against the
year-based structure, the structure of forming small groups of the cross-
over between different years, working intensively with the studio teachers
over the period of the whole year to develop something original. That
has been translated in many university schools. It is certainly shaken
up the older system which is year-based studio education, probably in
quite a healthy way. But it’s a tricky thing to use and it does not always
mean you will get interesting education. One of the difficulties is to
translate that unit model into university structures that the unit model in
the AA is based on absolute autonomy of each unit. If the unit proposal
is accepted, and the unit is offered, and the students are enjoying that
unit, and they form the unit and they are autonomous. Nobody is going
to interfere with them and try to shift to different direction. They have the
whole year to do their research. At the end of that research is accessed
by many other people, in the school or outside of the school on the
terms they set. If somebody says that I don’t agree with the unit ideas,
ok, that’s what you say what you’re trying to do, so let’s look at what
you’re doing. And that’s the tremendous privilege to both the students
and the teachers. They have incredible freedom. It’s very difficult to do
that in the university structure which is much more hierarchical, with
a lot of balances, committees, a lot of different ways of grading. But
there is no grading here, only pass or fail. It’s impossible in most of the
universities, where you have to have a very strict grading system and
everyone is worried about the percentage up or down, which interferes
the freedom. So I think translating the model is difficult. SCRArc of
course was set as a new institution, independent school, in a way as
the criticism of UCLA, and also very much followed the ideas of the AA
which has been quite successful, within the American system. I think
within any country, you can’t have many sorts of AA model because it is
not going to be attractive and suitable for the majority of the students.
Maybe it’s too risky and puts more responsibility on the students. In the
UK, AA is the only place. It has the structural problem to establish it.
The idea that comes out of the educational model of the AA has been
translated into other places. And of course a lot of intellectual work and
new concepts, the critiques and the initiated from the AA are quickly
spread to other schools. It’s part of the continuing culture of education.
We are not interested in closing the door or having protected world that
only our students can be involved in debates. The other principle of the
AA is the open-door association, and many lectures, events, exhibitions
and debates and so on are open people who have nothing to do with the
AA. It’s a place that people come, argue and discuss. That’s mostly the
heart and the idea of it. It’s also a social place, as you’ve seen, the bar
and the member’s room. It actually is not just a place you get a drink, but
it’s place where people talk and argue, and students are working. That’
s also a part of the culture of the school which is spatially compressed,
and it is also more connected to the real world, rather than the isolated
institution where you go through a door and security, but here you are in
the bar, where anybody can walk in and have a little cup of coffee. But
many universities are trying to avoid doing that, but there are always
difficulties of security control of how you do it, etc.
Recent years, the AA has more and more contacts with China, for example, studios in
Shanghai for 3 years, and your program (Housing & Urbanism) brings students to
china, and of course other countries. China is getting more and more attention to all
over the world. And what do you think of the relationship between the AA and China.
Of course, there are more and more Chinese students, from Mainland, Hong Kong,
Taiwan and the Asian community here is quite large. What do you think of that?
Yes, it’s been a very interesting period of last 15 years and It’s
been a big change. About 15 years ago, having a Chinese student from
the mainland China was very rare, almost impossible. Most of them
either from Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or were American Chinese. It very
depends on the economic situation. The Korean or Japanese stopped
coming during the economic crisis. That always has that connection. The
interesting of the Chinese case is the opening up of China about over 20
years ago, for people who were interested in the architecture is a part of
the culture and the society and it connects to the whole idea of the city
and urban formation and the rethinking of space within society. To have a
chance to work with a culture that is going through such an extraordinary
explosion, both physical and also social and cultural explosion, is a
fantastic experience to be able to work with people who is engaging
with that. And it’s very attractive to AA people who want to be more
connected and involved in what is happening in China and who try to
understand a bit of what is going on there. I think after 3 years of working
there, I am probably less sure that I can begin to understand what really
was happening in China, although I have a lot more knowledge and
information. Yet it’s quite fascinating and quite confusing. Spatially it’s
amazing as well. We’re working on mainly in Shanghai and some work
in Beijing. The energy of production and changing the urban condition is
much more amazing than anywhere else in the world, which immediately
raises a serious questions for the architects in terms of what the
responsibility and what way you can influence those changes. It’s almost
impossible to keep up with it so fast and powerful driven by economical
and political changes. In a way, the architects are excluded from that. It
becomes very interesting to work with the schools of architecture. We

have worked with Tongji University, a little bit with Fudan University and
mostly we just exchange the ideas through projects and understand
what a university should be doing with the younger faculty and some of
them are older ones, to increase questions about what is the function
of the university, shifting away from the technical training, as being the
only thing a university does, towards what is very interested for the AA, a
very different way of thinking of what education is, not just the technical
training. The most Chinese students we worked with, especially during
the first year when we worked there, are very skilled, but they seldom
allow themselves or being challenged to think critically about what they
are going to do with their skills. So they couldn’t address the problem
and come up with some different ideas. You should tell them what the
problem was then they did it very well. That is very interesting and we
had good discussions around that. It’s very difficult for us to deal with
universities like Tongji which has huge organization and they are not
going to change into something else quickly. And it would be wrong for
them to do that. But that’s the other element of the fascination of working
in China where things are changing so powerfully, where the whole new
generation, young Chinese students who often have had experience
outside of China, come back China. And the cultural and political shifts
are very strong. At the same time, the actual built environment coming
up around you is disaster. So, how do you then start to engage in the
criticism of that and see if it’s possible to slow it down and do something
differently, which is a very interesting question. So it’s not surprising that
the AA is growing to work closely with China as it became accessible,
because before it was impossible. Now with my group working in
Vietnam, and until few years ago it was pretty impossible to work with
Vietnamese institutions. Now that’s encouraged. And it’s very much
the same question that how do you open up and engage about the
education. And again the younger faculty are really interested in and
want it to change and then you hit the level. Certainly in Vietnam it’s a
very fixed model, very strict level and hierarchy and extremely difficult for
the younger ones to introduce new ideas. Something like intensive two-
week workshop, tolerated by the higher level because they don’t know
what is really going on, is prestige to have the AA then in terms of the
younger faculty and the youngest students there. It’s a very alternative
learning experience which changes the way they would think. Obviously
in longer term you can develop that the longer discussion all way through
the university but we’ll see if that’s possible when we are engaging, with
the British counsel and other institutions that are very interested in and
trying to find ways of having conversation across into Vietnam to open
up debate which is happening, but is a very slow process. So it’s not
accidental that the shift of China, 15 years ago for the first time some
Chinese students came in, being completely shocked, and amazed
about what they found in the Europe, and for the first time to have such
new experience. What the most important is the feedback. Not just
they disappeared in the Europe and the U.S., but they maintain going
back and forth, like you. And that’s really important. And it’s a wonderful
position to you and really in the students you worked with and the
institution you work with. It’s increasingly so called globalization which
is such a strange and myth. But it’s politically possible for you to work
in the way that you do and practical for you to have conversation with
Chinese universities which was impossible 10 years ago. That’s great.
That in a way that education is about how do you open up and how do
you to open up, not how you tell people what to do.
As for the Housing & Urbanism program, it is one of the earliest graduate programs
here. Across the whole North America, as I know, there are at least three Schools
which teach housing as a particular agenda: one is McGill University, where there
have 3 1-year long graduate programs: minimum housing, affordable homes and
domestic environment (now changed into Cultural Landscape), and Harvard GSD
and Columbia University, where housing design studios are taught thought the
second year. What do you think about the difference and why housing is important, in
your point of view, and housing with urbanism is another important issue compared
to other schools?
It grew up into a British political situation in the 1970s, across the

world, not just in the UK. It was not accidental when the AA was re-
starting a new graduate school, and two subjects were chosen, hot
subjects in the 70s. One subject was energy, when we were in the thirst
of the petrol crisis and energy crisis, with the lights going off, 3 days per
week; the other was the question of the housing as a much stronger
realization of the failure of the housing crisis in the developing world,
over Latin America, Asia, India, which was the increasingly political issue
discussed in Europe and the America that what we could do to help
it. That became a topic, but also in West European countries, through
the moment of the debates about looking back on the very state of the
coming of housing in the previous 50 years. In UK there was a very
strong housing program, counsel housing which is the most political
engagement of states of production in design, management. And then
what happened in the 1970s was the shifting of the political ideas, that
maybe it’s not producing so much of housing, and may be we shall go
back to marketing, combined with the worries of the cost of the states
of producing so much of housing. One third of the English housing was
social rental housing, so it was a huge amount. But the cost of it will not
be affordable in the future. So housing is a very critical issue politically.

It is a critical issue in design terms because the older model of the
modernist’s housing projects of the 1950s and 1960s were questions,
big failures when there were big system building failures, and so on. So
more people thought more about housing as an architectural problem,
but also as a cultural problem, and economic and political problem
have to be rethought. So it wasn’t accidental that energy and housing
as staring graduate programs. As we developed the housing program,
we always developed it not focusing just on advanced capitalized
countries, but parallel with all the time emerging economy of the Latin
America, Africa, Asia and so on, so housing is not seen as a product
just within Western countries, but with a strong debate on economic
education of housing, a lot of design debates going on. Within the first
10 years, it was very clear that we were not really talking about housing
as a product, but housing as a major part of urban condition. So we
changed the title of the graduate program from Housing into Housing &
Urbanism. The other program was Energy program, and now is called
Sustainable Environmental Design. Housing and Urbanism is a bigger
agenda. So housing then has become reflected upon as a major part
over the built fabric of the city, but also the idea of the city throughout
the Britain, now the big discussion about what is the future domestic
condition. People don’t believe in little houses as nuclear families. It has
continued to built 3-bedroom semi-detached houses, and now it gets
one of them, because the whole demographic change is going on, and
the cultural change is going on to very different sort of demand. How
do the architects respond to that is by rethinking the domestic space in
mix-used ways. You might have housing mixed with work spaces; you
might have housing in different formulations; with a lot of apartments
and different shared spaces; and a collective co-op way of working and
so on. So that’s very interesting when we’re moving away from clarity
of what we know housing is then just design it, but exactly what is the
rules of domestic space in shifting knowledge not the same as what it
was. For the students, it has become very interesting to connect with
debates around innovation, the impacts of new technology, the changing
ideas of formation of the city, the space for both social and economic
development and desperate needs for every city to be an acknowledge
based economy. But what does that mean? It reflects on housing; it
reflects on how people would live; how flexible they can live; how close
to where they work; how they can be more creative and generative
situation rather than stuck out in some suburb and standard house type
and then traveling to some offices for 2 hours every day, so it becomes
a very rich period. That’s how it got started and then it goes on and on.
There is no end to it.
In AA it’s quite interesting that it attracts students from all over the world and has
many global summer schools to reach out as well, and also brings teachers from all
over the world to have very interesting debates on education and to give feedback. It’
s been an incredible experience for me here. Thank you so much!
298
加拿大魁北克省蒙特利尔市麦吉尔大学
建筑学院
http://www.mcgill.ca/architecture
阿尔贝多•贝雷斯-戈麦斯
里卡多•卡斯多
299
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

http://www.mcgill.ca/architecture
Alberto Pérez-Gómez
Ricardo Casto
300 McGill University, Canada
阿尔贝多•贝雷斯-戈麦斯
建筑历史理论教授
贝雷斯-戈麦斯博士（英国Essex University博士，艺术史硕士）曾任教于
伦敦建筑联盟、雪城大学、休斯顿大学等，曾任加拿大卡罗顿大学建筑学院院
长，1987年起任麦吉尔大学建筑学院历史理论课程主任，教授建筑历史理论
课程及研究生毕业设计。主要著作包括：《为爱而建：伦理与美学之后的建筑
渴望（Built Upon Love, Architectural Longing after Ethics and Aesthetics，
2006）》、《建筑再现与透视铰链（Architectural Representation and The
Perspective Hinge， 1997）》、《建筑与现代科学的危机（Architecture and
the Crisis of Modern Science, 1983）》以及其他近百篇文章。
加拿大麦吉尔大学 301
采访者：王飞
时间：2007年2月23日
地点：加拿大蒙特利尔老城贝雷斯-戈麦斯教授家中的客厅
非常感谢你接受采访。第一个问题是：在《剑桥建筑期刊（ Scroop, the
C a m b rid g e A rc hite ctu r e J o u r n al ）》中，您撰写了短文《建筑教育中的伦理和
诗意（ E thic s a n d P o etic s in A rc hite ctu r e E d u c atio n ） , 2 0 0 4 》，那么你认为
当代建筑教育最大的问题是什么？
这是一个很大的话题，有很多问题，我只能给一些简单陈述，特別是
当西方的模式被简单地想当然的时候。建筑教育着迷于再生产的实践而
忽视了文化和伦理方面的问题。而且，建筑教育在十九世纪初期走向了极
化，或者艺术或者科学。这个模式首先出现於大革命后的法国，结果影响
到了全世界。所以建筑作为在艺术与科学之间的二选一，这是很有问题
的。自从这个特定历史条件的产物按照常规发展，这两种对于建筑的认识
（美学或者工程学）都很短浅。
我认为，自从现代性的初期，我们可能错过了概念化的可能性。在我
的最近的书《为爱而建（Built upon Love），2006》中，我提到了查尔
斯-弗朗索瓦•维艾（Charles-Francois Viel，十九世纪的法国作家），他
从一个很不同的角度理解建筑教育与人文（法语：Lettres），当时建筑教
育只在巴黎美术学院或者巴黎技术学院展开。在此之前，我们要知道，建
筑从来不是在学校里教的，而是学徒制。建筑师的教育并不是美术学院主
导的空洞的形式主义，也不是科学主导的理性规划。维艾的洞察力值得再
从新研究：建筑更好的是站在人文的视角之上，因为它的有意义展开基于
历史；建筑扎根的秩序是更广阔的人类科学的方面。当今世界有少数建筑
系认识到这个问题。
我认为，将建筑放在这个背景下可能会有所改进。至少我们可以想像
建筑实践，和艺术家的实践是同源的，可能扎根于合适的语言，这样建筑
的生产就可能在诗意与伦理的尺度中往复。
您能再给我们一些背景吗？
如果建筑的非历史性的本质存在的话，这是不可能简单地从客观化的
建筑、理论或者图纸中简化出来。建筑的真实性是无限地更复杂，随着
历史和文化漂流，也保留着一致；比较人类的状况，一直要求我们提出相
同的基本问题与被语言所开放的超然的可能性和凡人性，同时期望无限多
样的答案，适合于特定的时间和空间。建筑拥有它自身“话语的宇宙”，这
么多世纪好像能够提供人文而远非对功能必需性的科技性的解决方式。我
的工作的前提是“作为建筑”，建筑交流认知我们自己作为完整性的可能，
去诗意地栖居在地球上，因此而成为完整的人类：建筑的产物是多样的，
如：古典的古董和日晷的daidala，维特鲁威的machinae和建筑，巴洛克
的园林和短暂的建筑，建成或者未建的现代“抵抗性的建筑”如勒柯布西耶
的La Tourette修道院，高迪的Batlo公寓，海杜克的“面具”。这些“认知”不
是简单的语言学的（像语义上a=b的等量），它产生在经验和象在诗中一
样，它的“意义”不是从诗的体验中分离的；像一个“色情的”行为，它浮游
在任何减少的解释，淹没了观者和参与者的关系，以及有能力改变一个人
的生命。所以，盛行和流行的当代欲望去限制我们关于最初语言合宜性以
调整我们作为建筑师的行为的规则的认识论基础，但是永远不能装作“简
化”和“控制”它的意义。问题是去命名这种能帮助我们更好的阐述我们的建
造环境的设计可以在科技的社会中玩的地方的话语。
实际上，挣扎了两百多年的建筑手法话语实验的可能性之后（也就是
杜杭的模型之后），其实并不难得到这样的结论：激进的可能性应当重新
被思考。风格或者时尚的辩证的永久性是没有感觉的，就像建筑只能提供
材料的舒适和庇护。而且，多样性和多元化并不足以作为片面和部分的答
案的措辞。建筑师首要的责任是能够表达他 /她的立场，这里和现在，而
不是在发展的知识或者解构的策略的借口下延迟的答案。
第一步是获得一些话语的角色的清晰，理解实践在传统上是基于学徒
制的。在数码时代通常的（错误的）假设是意义是简单地等同于“信息”的
交流，这使得这个讨论更加紧迫。一个项目的实现明显地需要不同的专门
知识。但是我们有可能概念化吗？什么是建筑话语的精髓？是一种能导致
在建筑作品的实现中工作必要知识的等级的话语的模式？
自从作为维特鲁威的《建筑十书》的反映的我们传统初期，很有可
能将特定必要知识传递给建筑师，如 techne （一种稳定的话语），着重
于mathemata，这些都有可能通过“科学的”著作被传递。然而，传统的理
论一直承认意义和合宜性的紧要问题不可能被简化为清晰阐述的同样水
平。合宜性(decorum)曾一直被理解为和“历史”有关，对建筑师的能力去
理解与通过讲故事阐述的先例相关的手头的工作，在前--现代时期同样定
位与神话性的先例。甚至当面对比例、规则化的摘要和可转移的mathesis
（mathesis作为一种在人的工作和可辨识的宇宙之间的认识论的桥接）的
重要的方面时，实践建筑师曾一直“调整”相对与基地和特定任务的工作的
尺度，在操作的“厚重的现在”之中，而非将他的实践受制于理论的命令之
下。
今天，我们更好地理解工具和规定只是建筑话语的一部分，而不能认
为是潜在它们提出或者帮助实现的操作的意义性。我们能够认识到，这个
词，通过原始的讲故事的能力，阐述意义的可能性，它以“体验空间”（一
个宇宙观和历史的世界，可以是建筑师的文化遗产）和“期望的视野”（也
就是一个靠建筑师以更好的未来想像日常产品而构筑的pro-ject）命名意
图。尽管不确定性伴随着建筑作品，也占据了公共领域的一个地点（无论
我们的意图如何，我们永远不能真正地和精确地预测一个建筑的社会意义
和感知的价值），这个词必须帮助我们阐述我们意义的意图。实际上，不
管在非工具性的语言和建造之间有着不可避免的不透明性，现象学的赌注
是在思考本身和建筑师的行为和活动（人类活动的过程和产物）之间的连
贯性应当被抓住和挖掘。为了合适的活动，我们必须学习说合适的语言，
一个明显的需要是教授和实践建筑。在这个行业中我们所想当然的片段性
和工具性必须重新批判的审视。
建筑的问题不仅仅是 “美学的”或者“技术的”（技术仅仅在启蒙运动之
后成为唯一的和自治的价值），而最初是伦理的。建筑实践必须由一般产
品作为保存在人类寻找稳定和自知之宗的政治维度的认识所引导。不管
是否被科技、政治或者形式要求所驱使，或者效仿科学的模型的欲望，
工具化的理论永远也不能够说明这个维度。什么样的语言能够假定为最
初的宏观话语？我建议解决方式可能在最近的解释学的存在论中找到，
特别是像汉斯-乔治•咖达玛（Hans-Georg Gadamer），保罗•瑞克（Paul
Ricoeur）和吉尼•凡提莫（Gianni Vattimo）的哲学家们的作品之中。我
提出建筑理论是结束雪，理解为投射在关键的存在论的见识的语言之中，
呈现在梅洛庞帝的晚期哲学之中。
为什么诗意和伦理很重要？我们如何才能达到？简单地说。
这是我的最近的书《为爱而建：伦理和美学之后的建筑渴望》的话
题。这没有一个简单的答案，但可以坚持建筑必须通过建成的环境同时找
寻社会的日常产品与使生活更有意义。建筑当然必须满足功能的要求但是
很重要的是也要提供限制，允许人文在世界找到自己的位置，以便个人能
感到作大整体的一部分。这可能大范围地定义为精神上的尺度（但和宗教
无关），但允许人们能在世界上感受到家。
与动物不同，我们需要接入建筑而改变自然，以能够生存，但是同时
我们建造的建筑应当允许我们认识到我们是凡人。这就是我讲的诗意的建
筑。伦理的问题在我们这个我们这个复杂社世界上也很重要。建筑师必须
能够清晰地表明政治立场以调整他 /她在实践中的目的。我们对我们所建
也有责任，也必须判断是否特定的委托真的是为了建成日常用品。这个判
断时能建筑师拥有深奥的历史和人文知识成为必需。在我的上一本书中，
我尝试表明历史在最好的作品和理论中如何在这两个尺度（伦理和美学）
中合二为一。
那么，如果才能达到呢？为什么历史理论对建筑师如此重要？
通过距离性(distanciation)和合宜性(appropriation)的动态，解释学导
向自我理解。获得理解的过程的问题是精确地对应距离的研究的主题（比
如，我们建筑传统的文字和制品），我们可以从其中找到对于现在的可能
性。虽然可以肯定“作品的世界”的重--建用不可能是绝对的肯定性，我们
也不可避免的是21世纪初的人；赌注是这个努力，与我们自身偏见的自觉
相结合，将等于“视野的融合(a fusion of horizons)”。我们不能简单地认为
维特鲁威的“比率”作为20世纪末期的意义。这是对建筑理论的解构“精读”
和更传统的分析态度的两者的限制。我们解释的努力是有意义的，这个能
力去解释实际上是我们的天资，一种历史给予我们的天赋，一种真正地现
代/后现代的能力。我们问题的自知，也就是作品“面前”的世界，要求我们
建立一个情节，把我们的洞察力带入到我们现在的行为，以便承载未来。
正如汉娜•艾仁特（Hanna Arendt）指出，我们必须认识到历史是巨大的
宝藏，极少触及，去构筑居住传统的缺席中未来。在解释学中，真实是解
释，永远是揭示与掩饰，从来不是安置绝对和客观性。另一方面，解释学
说明改变、生长和可能的进化。有一些“东西”我们和旧石器时代的祖先分
享，即使不是“唯一”的能力去性爱、语言和我们对死亡的认知。改变答案
到“自我相同”的问题揭示了一个进步的差异，我们(和Eric Vöglin一起)可以
称作历史中的秩序，一个在神话和艺术中从来没有全面和最终阐明的而必
须永远重新表明的历史（在我们自身的时代中要求一种非神话的假定基于
社会学、人类学、生物学等等的科学“解答”）。解释学因此否认绝望的虚
无主义(或者犬儒的超道德的态度)，这可能导致我们文化遗产的同质化，
允许伦理性实践的可能，同时全面认识到后工业消费社会的“危险”。
历史和理论首先应当被重新定义。这些秩序不是我们认为的工具性的
应用。真历史是批判的解释学。它不是一个简单的以前建筑或者形式的目
录。它是主动的解读，也就是从居住传统到指导实践的构筑。建筑师提出
相关的问题，关于在传统中有意义的先例以找到自身合宜的方式，以期待
和提出真正地创新的诗意的视野。这是一种话语，文字允许一种合宜的行
为。理论不是一种设计的方法。它在哲学传统中有自身的根基，虽然要求
建筑同样的问题，但哲学要求的更加广泛。
麦吉尔的历史理论专业的特色是什么？和其他的学校有和不同？
对我们来说，理论的话语不是从科学中推理而来，不管人文科学还是
物理科学，而是从建筑传统中而来的。我们从开始就识别关键的问题然后
找寻我们的文化遗产中进行教育。这是我们所学习的欧洲大陆(不包括英
国)哲学，象海德格尔、梅洛庞帝、嘎达玛、瑞科等等。我们用这个框架
发展以命名建筑师的意向，建筑师如何在不同的文化背景中工作地有意
义。从这就引发了自知。自知对伦理的行为很关键，但不能从反省（也就
是只考虑自己的工作）中找到。我尝试在麦吉尔发展的这种态度是着重重
要的模型，虽然很遥远但是他们的共鸣对我们当代的问题很有意义。
最后一个问题是，您理想的建筑教育系统是什么？
这又是一个很大的问题。我只能给你一些简要的解答。
对于设计，我认为很重要的是教育的过程强调在制作中发现、探索。
这是学生到学校里而成为规划者的短路。所以我认为这是一个方面。对我
而言，设计方案必须正确地被教授书写，而不是简单地理解为一系列的要
求需要被满足。最恰当的方式是设计的功能应当有批判性，问题要有批判
性。总的来说，建筑学院并没有这样，只有一些如此。练习应当是关于成
果的，应当象一个建筑的幻影，无论如何一个荒谬的期望，以及更多的是
关于过程，允许年轻建筑师成为学生去认识到那些在过程的惊人发现。
技术方面应当被批判的达到。如果你给它首位，技术可能会独裁其他
所有的方面。这是一个问题。例如，天真地使用CAD 导致了对想像的残
害。CAD简单地控制了设计，但真正的选择却很少呈现出来。最重要的是
电脑程序加强了屏幕上再现的几何空间和建筑师设计的居住空间相等同的
信仰。这是很可怕的谬误。我们确实住在 “3维”之中，居住的空间是嗅觉
的、听觉的和触觉的，通过我们身体的感知通过触觉和外围视觉而给定。
简化为一张“图片”，尽管很深奥，却永远是有问题的，特别是没有批判认
知的时候。技术是到达结果的一个手段而已，这个结果是应当被讨论的。
所有有历史和价值的事物都应当有所传达。
最后，我认为，建筑教育中一个强有力的必需的方面是历史和人文
的。大多数的建筑专业技术课程占据了太多的比例和学生的时间，这对历
史和哲学是有害的。建筑既非美术也非工程。建筑本质上是人文，对所有
现存的人类文化有所责任。
谢谢。
Alberto Pérez-Gómez
Saidye Rosner Bronfman Professor of History and Theory of Architecture
Alberto Pérez-Gómez (Phd, MA, in Essex University) has taught in

Architectural Association London, Seracuse University, University of Huston,
and was the director of Carleton University, Ottawa, and became head of
History and Theory program at McGill University, Montreal, Canada since
1987. He teaches history and theory courses and thesis design studios. His
publications include: Built Upon Love, Architectural Longing after Ethics and
Aesthetics (2006), Architectural Representation and The Perspective Hinge
(1997), Anamorphosis: An Annotated Bibliography with Special Reference
to Architectural Representation (1995), Architecture, Ethics and Technology
(1994), Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science (1983) and other
almost 100 essays.

Time：February 23, 2007
Location：The living room of Perez-Gomez’s, Old Montreal, Montreal,
Canada
Thanks for accepting the interview. My first question is: in Scroop, the Cambridge
Architecture Journal, you wrote an essay entitled “Ethics and Poetics in Architecture
Education”, so what do you think is the biggest problem in contemporary
architecture education?
There are many problems, some very serious, particularly when the
Western models are simply taken for granted. Architectural education
is obsessed with having to reproduce practice and thus ignores cultural
issues which are very diverse around the world. In addition, European
architectural education has been polarized between art and science
since the beginning of the 19th century. This pattern, first emerging in
post-revolutionary France, was exported to the rest of the world. So
architecture is placed in one or another camp, and this is problematic.
Both the notion of architecture as being one of the fine arts, and that
of architecture as a sort of subset of engineering are problematic. The
lineage of both notions is a historically given condition that in my opinion
has run its course.
I think that perhaps we have missed a possibility conceptualized

by modernity from the beginning. In Built upon Love, my most recent
book, I speak about the insight of Charles-Francois Viel, the French
writer in the early 19th century, who understood a different path for
architectural education within the humanities, (fr. Lettres), at the moment
when architecture was being taught either at the Ecole des Beaux-
Arts or the Ecole Polytechnique. Prior to that time, we must remember,
architecture was not even a school subject. Learning to be an architect
was mostly a question of apprenticeship. Architecture is not generated
by either aesthetic intuitions leading to empty formalism, nor by scientific
determinism resulting in rational planning. Viel’s insight is worth
revisiting: architecture sits better in the humanities, since its meaningful
deployment is founded upon history; the disciplines that ground
architecture are the broader aspects of human science. There are very
few architecture programs in the world that understand this issue.
In my opinion, placing architecture in this context would already

lead to an improvement. At least one could imagine that the practice of

architecture, which is indeed kindred to the practice of the artists, could
be grounded in an appropriate language, so that it might reconcile poetic
and ethic imperatives in the production of architecture.
Why are poetics and ethics important, and how can we achieve that, briefly?
This is the subject of my recent book entitled Built upon Love:

Architectural Longing after Ethics and Aesthetics. There is no short
answer, except to insist that architecture must both seek the common
good of societies and make life appear as meaningful through the built
environments that it produces. It is not enough for it to be “sustainable,”
efficient, practical or well detailed. Architecture must of course fulfill
programmatic requirements but it is important that it reveal human
limits, allowing humanity to find, through action, its place in the world, so
that individuals may feel as part of larger totality. This could be broadly
defined as its spiritual dimension (having nothing to do with religion), but
allowing humans to feel at home in the world.
Unlike animals, we need to engage architecture to change nature

and be able to survive, but at the same time the architecture we
build should allow us to recognize ourselves as mortal. This is what I
mean by poetic architecture. The question of ethics is also crucial in a
complex world such as ours. The architect must be able to articulate a
political position to modulate his/her intention in practice. We have the
responsibility for what we build, and must judge if certain commissions,
for example, are really contributing to the common good. This judgment
necessitates that architects have a profound knowledge of history and
this humanities. In my last book, I try to demonstrate how in history these
two dimensions come together in the best works and theories.
So, how can we achieve that, through ethics and critical hermeneutics? Why do you
think history and theory are important for architects?
Through a dynamic of distanciation and appropriation, hermeneutics

leads to self-understanding. The issue in the process of acquiring
understanding is that it is precisely due to our distance from the subject
of study, i.e., the texts and artifacts of our architectural tradition, that
we can find possibilities for the present. While it is true that our re-
construction of the "world of the work" is never endowed with absolute
certainty, that we cannot avoid being early 21th century men and women;
the wager is that this effort, coupled with a self-consciousness about our
own prejudices, will amount to a fusion of horizons. We cannot simply
read "ratio" in Vitruvius as meaning late 20th century reason. This is the
limitation of both deconstructive "close readings" and more traditional
analytical attitudes in architectural theory. Our effort of interpretation is
meaningful, this capacity to interpret is in fact our endowment, a gift that
comes to us from having fallen into history, a truly modern/postmodern
faculty. The self-awareness of our questions, the world "in front" of the
work, mandates that we construct a plot and bring our insight to bear
on present actions, to bear on the future. As Hanna Arendt has pointed
out, we must recognize history as a vast treasure, barely touched, to
construct a future in the absence of living traditions. In hermeneutics
truth is interpretation, always a revealing-concealing, never posited
absolutely and objectively. On the other hand, hermeneutics accounts
for change, growth, and perhaps even evolution. There is "something"
we share with our Paleolithic ancestors, even if it is "only" the capacity
for sexual love, language, and our awareness of mortality. Changing
answers to the self-same questions reveal a progressive differentiation
that we may call, with Eric Vöglin, the order in history, one that is
never fully and finally clarified and must always be re-articulated
in the language of myth and art (and in our own times demands a
demystification of the scientistic "answers" supposedly provided by
sociology, anthropology, biology, etc.). Hermeneutics thus denies a
nihilism of despair (or a cynical, amoral attitude) that might emerge as a
result of the homogenization of our cultural inheritance, allowing for the
possibility of an ethical practice while fully acknowledging the "dangers"
of late-industrial consumer society.
History and theory first need to be redefined. These disciplines are

not what they have been taken to be in view of instrumental applications.
Genuine history is critical hermeneutics. It is not a simple catalogue of
past buildings or styles. It is active interpretation, the constitution of living
traditions to guide practice. The architect asks relevant questions about
the meaningful precedents in his/her tradition to find appropriate ways,
to look forward and propose truly innovative visions for poetic habitation.
It is discourse, the words that allow for an appropriate action. Theory is
not some sort of methodology for design. It has its roots in philosophical
traditions and asks for architecture the same questions that philosophy
asks in a more general way.
What is the specialty of architectural history and theory program in McGill and
what’s the difference with other schools?
For us this theoretical discourse is not extrapolating from the

sciences, whether the human sciences or physical sciences, but is
generated by looking at the traditions of architecture. We start from

identifying the crucial questions and then look for teachings in our
inheritance. Our point of departure is European Continent Philosophy,
thinkers like Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Ricoeur, etc. We use
this framework to unpack what architects have intended, how architects’
work answered meaningfully crucial human questions in different cultural
contexts. And from this arises self-understanding. Self-understanding
is crucial to act ethically and cannot be found through introspection,
meditating on one’s own work for example. The attitude I try to develop
at McGill is rather to look at important historical models that may be
distant, yet significant in their resonance with our pressing contemporary
questions.
Here is a final question: what is your ideal architecture education system?
Well, you know, this is also a very big question. I can only sketch a
few general outlines.
Concerning design, I think it is very important to try to educate in

the process, emphasizing discovery through making. This is to short-
circuit the tendency that students bring into school to become planners.
So I think that’s one aspect. For me, design projects have to properly
written by the professor, not simply understood as a list of requirements
to be solved. The very way that a program in design is written is critical;
the questions are critical. Generally architecture schools don’t see it that
way, but some do. The exercises should not be about outcome, which
would be like a simulation of practice, which is of course a ridiculous
expectation. They should focus on process; allowing young architecture
students to learn to recognize those amazing moments revealed in the
process itself.
The technical component should be approached critically. If you give

it primacy, it tends to dictate everything else. This is a problem. Using
CAD naively, for example, tends to be detrimental to the imagination.
CAD simply dominates the design, and less real options become
present. Most importantly, computer programs reinforce the belief that
the geometrical space of representation in the screen is identical to
the lived spaces proposed by the architect in his or her work. This is a
terrible fallacy. We do not live in “3-D”, lived space is olfactory, acoustic
and tactile, given through our whole bodily consciousness through touch
and peripheral vision. To reduce it to a “picture”, however sophisticated,
will always be problematic, particularly without critical awareness.
Technique is a means to an end, and it is the ends that must be
discussed. Everything that has a history and values should be conveyed.

Last but not least I would argue that architectural education must have a
strong mandatory component drawn from history and the humanities. In
most architecture programs technical information takes an inordinately
high portion of the student’s time, to the detriment of history and
philosophy. Architecture is neither fine art nor engineering discipline. It is
essentially a humanistic discipline, responsible for the survival of human
culture.
Thank you.
You are very welcome.

里卡多•卡斯多
建筑学院副院长和副教授
里卡多•卡斯特罗教授设计和建筑历史、理论、写作课。曾任教于哥伦比
亚洛桑蒂斯大学、美国俄勒冈大学、堪萨斯州立大学及加拿大魁北克拉瓦尔大
学。
著作：
《Salmona》（1998）
采访者：周炼
地点：加拿大蒙特利尔麦吉尔大学建筑学院卡斯多教授的办公室
感谢：王飞
为什么说历史在建筑学教育中很重要，特别是在这个巨变的时代，学生们往往
倾向于崭新和现代的事物？
我想这是一个非常重要的问题。或许这个问题已经多次被提及，但对
它的回应时常是负面的。事实上，我欣赏现代主义风格，比如说包豪斯
建筑，但我不认为他们把历史排除在建筑课程之外是正确的做法；这是历
史被排挤于建筑教育活动之外的一个很典型的例子。那么，为什么说历史
在建筑课程中非常重要呢？我可以说，历史在任何一个专业的课程里都重
要，因为我们要理解过去才能继续我们将来要做的事情。我们不能忘记过
去。看待历史是一种理解，不一定是学习过去所发生的事实，也就是说，
我们不一定要把过去发生的事情应用于将来。
虽然格罗皮乌斯（ 20 世纪著名的现代建筑师之一）是包豪斯的创建
者并开创了此学院的现代教学理念，但他对历史有很深的理解。密斯 •
凡•德罗也是如此。赖特，路易•康和柯布西耶也不例外。他们都对历史非
常感兴趣。他们中的几位曾经游历欧洲，中东和远东，通过理解和感受
历史学到了很多东西。我时常会引用著名意大利哲学家伯纳德托•克洛斯
（Benedetto Croce）的话：“所有历史都是当代史。”事实就是这样。这
“所有的历史”是什么意思呢？我的理解是：无论你到世界上的任何一个地
方，亲身感受到的任何一个历史建筑都是经历了几代人的时间而留存至今
的。所以，它们都是历史的一部分。但是也有一些建筑，它们曾经在历史
中消失但成为了一个范例。例如密斯设计的巴塞罗那德国馆，它曾经在历
史上消失了很长一段时间；它在 1929世界博览会后被拆除了，但这座建
筑物继续存在于人们的想像和脑海里，保存在影像之中；之后成为了学生
们学习的典范。我学习这座建筑的时候它已经不存在了。现存的那座建筑
是在八十年代重建的。这个例子很好地说明了历史在建筑学教育和建筑创
作中是何等重要。
您在希腊和意大利都有暑期课程。您觉得它们都给学生们以及建筑学教育都带
来了什么样的启示呢？
这些课程称为 “ 体验课程 ” 。你到达在课堂里讲述过的建筑所在的地

方，观察、触摸并全身心地去感受。我们利用的是建筑的实体。我们到达
那里；穿梭于其中，可以在没有教科书以及任何图像辅助设施的情况下描
述和理解空间。建筑环境本身就是教科书和指引。这点对我来说是最根本
的。我不认为建筑教育只局限在教室里。人们应该去亲身感受它们，因为
建筑本身就是一种体验。这也是21世纪的一个问题。人们经常在建筑设计
和建造的过程中缺乏一种意识：建筑能够在模拟人类感官上发挥非常重要
的作用。
您认为如伊塔洛 • 卡尔维诺（ It a l o C a lvi n o ）和罗兰 • 巴特（ R o l a n d B a rt h e s ）
的文学作品对于建筑师以及建筑教育有什么意义？
另一些方面我个人经常涉及而又比较感兴趣的是：文学和哲学在建
筑思考过程中占有很重要的位置，当然这只是从我个人的喜好和视角出
发的。我对文学作品情有独钟。Roland Barthes 就是我最喜爱的作家之
一。他的思维清晰，是一位 “ 构筑家 ” ，不单单是在语言，而且在很多其
它方面。他能够概括地分析文化。他在自己的作品中常谈到日本文化；
Barthes还从很多不同的视角描述历史时刻和事件。我认为通过他的这些
理解和分析令历史更有力度更精彩了。还有一些卡尔维诺的小说作品，我
们把他的著作之一《看不见的城市（Invisible Cities）》作为教材。这本
书也被许多其他建筑学院使用。他描写了一个从30多个不同视角下的威尼
斯。这座城市在每个人的眼睛里呈现出不同的面貌。我觉得这十分有趣，
因为在某种意义上，他说明了建筑不是 “ 单一感受 ” 的建筑，而是 “ 多重感
受”的。它取决于一定数量的人；每个人对同一个城市或地点会有不同的
感受，那些体验同时也受到那个特定城市或地点的影响，这取决于当地的
气候状况，取决于不同的人所看到的以及他们的情绪，还有当时的天气状
况。我认为在建筑创作的过程中，考虑到所有这些方面是很重要的。
为什么在您看来神话对建筑教育很重要？
我对希腊神话特别着迷，当然我对其它神话也很感兴趣，比如说罗
马、前哥伦比亚和远东神话等等。就像巴特说的，神话是语言的另一个层
次，而且超越了语言一般精神层面的深度。在某种意义上，它是一种理
解。对我来说，神话是对历史的一种独特的诠释。神话也是对整个宇宙，
失去历史性自我意识的整个世界是我们所在的西方世界。神话把个人从属
于整个世界内的一种思考。这种思想存在于希腊，中国和前哥伦比亚的文
化当中。甚至在亚利桑那，当你与一位纳瓦霍人（Navaho）交谈时，他
会告诉你一个神话视角的宇宙（观）。对于我来说，神话是一种对历史事
件的总结。我想伊利亚特和奥德赛基本上也上在神话的基础上写成的。
神话学也是有许多历史根源的，并且已经成为了一种永恒的文学体裁。它
让我们了解到人类是怎样理解历史事件的。
什么是建筑摄影？当然，任何人都能拍照片。摄影，写作和设计之间的关系是
什么？
我自己已经涉及摄影很久了。我认为照相就有许多方式：一种就是单
单地按下快门，拍摄一般的生活照；另一种是在拍照的时候加入自己的评
判。换句话说，就是（主动地）寻找并强调一个主题，并把你观察到的事
物有系统地组织建立起来。这样，一张张的影像就成为了一种叙述。这就
是我所说的评论性摄影，并且我建议人们在旅行和探索某个地方时用这样
的方式去做。摄影拥有一种力量，如果你用评论性摄影，它就成为了一种
捕捉事物的方式。就这一点我认为，如果在摄影中加入评判，在某种程度
上它可以和绘画相等同。绘画也是很重要的。它是一种传统的捕捉景物的
方法。这也是很多20世纪的建筑师，例如科布和路易•康所采用的方式。
他们周游欧洲和北非并用绘画来表现他们在那里所观察到的事物。当然，
他们也用照片，但主要还是用绘画的方式。通过绘画你能够捕捉到很多精
华的部分。我认为单单在按下快门的过程中是很难捕捉到这些部分的。或
许在拍照时加入评论时，或以主观的视角介入其过程中的时候，摄影的这
种行为才能和绘画相提并论。为什么说它们两者都重要呢？因为这两种方
式能让你亲临其中，帮助你亲身地去体验。现在，我也开始接触和使用摄
像。如今它已经成为了一种使用和携带更为简便的方式。我这里说的简便
不是指拍照和摄像设备的轻便、以及影像可以很方便地被整理和编辑，而
是指影片给予了另一个空间：第四空间，也就是运动与时间。也就是，当
你去感受一座建筑的时候，你不单单是在了解一些数据上的东西，而且还
亲身感受到它所在的环境形态。建筑是一个整体性的东西，包括了地形，
构筑物，还有大自然。你必须去感受它们，用双脚走进它们、穿梭于其
中。（摄影，绘画，摄像）哪种方式最好呢？我想，到现在为止最能在一
定程度上捕捉到那些体验经历的就是摄像了。当然这也不是绝对的。就像
之前提到过的，只有你在过程中加入你自己的评判，才能捕捉到那些精华
的部分。这才是最重要的。
如果可以的话，我们还可以把音乐，电影还有其它的方式结合在一起，是吗？
当然，这是非常有趣的一件事。音乐是另一个全新的空间领域。我们
还可以加入嗅觉。当你拍摄一部影片的时候，你加入音乐，甚至自己创作
音乐。然后我们还可以加入嗅觉和味觉的元素。现在差的只是触觉的效果
了。当然，这是很困难的。然而，我们不是务必需要模拟，而是需要去捕
捉，在这里我是指要把我们所感受到的传递给他人。但也不是说，我们需
要模拟一个完全相同的环境来，而是要捕捉到那些事物的诗意内涵部分并
将它们表现出来。音乐可以把感受和情绪确切地营造出来，并有助于创作
出形象生动的影像。音乐这个新的空间最终能更加接近人们对建筑的亲身
感受。
在不久的将来我们可能会发明一种能够感应所有包括触觉和嗅觉的仪器，我想
这是可能的。
现在已经有许多模拟科技了。这是很有趣的事。不过另一方面，如果
说要用这些技术取代所有的东西，这就让我十分担忧。我可以举一个例
子：像现在这样，你坐在这个长桌子的一边，我们会在相距只有5米的地
方用电脑屏幕和手机做这个采访，而不是直接对话。我曾经看到过这样的
情况，人们在相距不到20米的地方用手机对话。这对我来说是十分荒唐的
事！
相对于其它建筑学院，麦吉尔有什么特别之处，是有关学院文化、地理位置、
图书馆设置等方面吗？特别是在新院长上任后，又会向哪些方面发展？
我已经在这里工作了二十五年了。这段时间是我生活中最美好的一段
经历之一。我认为麦吉尔建筑学院的其中一个特点是，它是由一个小规模
的群体组成的。我想，相对于其它大学来说，麦吉尔不仅在北美，甚至在
全世界也算是最小的建筑学院之一。比如在意大利，一些建筑学院就有大
约10000名学生；在南美的一些建筑学院的学生数量也很大。但在这里，
所有不同水平的课程加在一起也只是大概300名学生，也就是说包括了从
本科一年级到博士的所有学生。这样非常好，因为这就组成了一个社区。
你能与大多数人进行真正的交谈，你知道大部分学生的名字，你也对你的
同事们都比较了解。这些条件令这里拥有了一个很好的学习氛围。
新院长迈克•吉姆初德（Michael Jemtrud）非常有决心在学院里做一
些改变并注入一些崭新的内容。我认为这是非常必要的。他虽然在这个学
期才刚上任，但我们都期望着学院未来的发展。发展的主旨不光是让整个
教学计划更强和更有效率，而是变得更加丰富和具有吸引力。这是非常关
键的。我相信教育应该是吸引人的，（建筑）教育不应该是一部机器。而
是，你学习建筑，你感受它，并在一个鼓励的氛围里去享受和学习。目前
为止就我所看到的一些未来计划和建议来看，学院正朝着这个方向发展。
对这一点我是非常乐观的，不单是本科的教育计划，而是包括所有研究院
的教学课程.。
在北美，只有很少的几家建筑学院要求本科的毕业论文/设计了。在这个问题
上，麦吉尔持什么样的态度？
“thesis（毕业论文/设计）”这个词，按我的理解，它的含义是确立一
个自己的立场。在学术界里它涉及论文的写作。这个大大、厚厚的文本我
们称作毕业论文、博士论文或者其它更高水平的学术论文。我们这里的学
士毕业论文基本上是一个设计。你树立一个自己的立场，然后做一个历时
比较长的设计。你确立一个命题并把它发展成为一个设计成果。它涉及的
是有关环境、建筑、城市的内容或者是场地以及场地的设计建造过程。从
这一点来看，我们和很多其它学院没什么不同。他们一般是再用一个学期
做一个叫做终极设计的东西，或者叫最终设计，或结业设计。无论名称是
什么，最后的成果基本上是一样的：它是一项设计，一项建筑设计。我记
得当我读研究生的时候，必须得完成一篇论文。如果跟现在的标准相比其
实没什么不同，就是做一份150页的，涉及某个主题的论文，它涉及一些
设计的内容，但大部分是属于研究的工作。我想我们这里的要求，也涉及
研究。学生们经过一到两个学期的研究，分析，这是很重要的，课程最后
要求的是一项设计成果。
我常想到我的老师罗伯特•哈里斯（Robert Harris）常提到的一个理
念：分析综合模式的思想。它是一个经研究而得到的分析；一个被综合了
的（建筑）形态。也就是说怎样把研究注入到设计中去。他曾做了一个很
奇妙的分析图，显示了在设计的最初，你做了很多相关的研究工作，但这
个过程中你已经对建筑的形体有了一个潜构思。比如说，你要为一座城市
设计一个博物馆。理所当然，你开始会做一些有关博物馆的研究。但你已
经了解的是它所在的场地。你已经能构思将来在这块场地上的这个建筑物
会是什么样子。每个建筑师都会马上这么做。他们当时会想到：“噢，我
好像能想像到这里以后会是什么样子。”但是随着时间的推移，分析会慢
慢隐去。你会先研究当地的气候状况，场地的地形，历史以及影响这个项
目的因素。这样，设计的内容开始充实起来。而后，正式的设计过程开始
越加紧凑。到最后，项目的成果是一个形象的实体，研究的成分却已经很
少了。但是，它们两者（研究和设计）是永远结合在一起的，一直会是。
我想你一定有很多中国学生，我是指那些懂得中文和了解中国文化的学生，不
一定是来自中国本土。那么，你是怎么理解中国的呢？
多年来我一直对中国非常感兴趣，在读研究生的时候，我修过一些有
关中国和日本园林的课程。非常幸运，我当时就读的俄勒冈州大学与中
国、日本和远东国家有很紧密的联系。我有一个座右铭，就是在教授建筑
历史的时候，我希望讲述我已经去过和亲身体验过的地方。这样，我就会
对它们了解得更多。这是最根本的。没有到过中国另我很沮丧，或许我能
在今年达成这个心愿。不过我认为我们学院可以开设一个有关中国和日本
建筑的课程，这是很必要的。也可以结合艺术、建筑、文学或者一些其它
方面的专题。
相对于中国现代建筑，您更偏向于中国传统建筑吗？
不是。也算是，我是说，我对历史感兴趣，当然也包括中国和日本的
传统文化。但我也对在二战后的日本和毛泽东之后的中国发生的很多现象
很好奇，因为那些年代发生了许多巨变。我对中国的现状非常忧虑，因为
我看到它发展地太迅速了，历史是重复出现的。西方历史上所犯的一些错
误正在中国重演。在我的祖国我也经历过类似的状况。当我年轻的时候曾
看到从乡村来的居民是如何在高层住宅里生活的。那些人们被迫改变了自
己原有的生活方式，同时，他们也在用一种不同的，特殊的方式使用那些
建筑空间。我还看到了建筑环境如何不恰当地回应人们真正的需求。我估
计中国现在也有类似的情况。但这只是一种评论。我想我们能做的是多加
思考，与其他人谈论并让他们意识到这个问题。但如今中国正在发生一些
变化：工业化、污染问题，以及交通模式的改变。现在每个人都想拥有一
辆汽车。
我不知道问题的答案。但我相信在中国，一些积极正面的改变正在发
生。拉美国家里也发生过类似的情况。当你在观察一些拉美国家的时候，
你会发现它们有很多问题。而再看看另一些那里的城市，比如哥伦比亚的
首都波哥大（Bogotá），你也能看到很多宜人且有效的城市环境以及回
应城市环境所采取的适当的态度。基本上，这是一种抵制科技的立场，不
是针对科技本身，而是抵制那些不加思考的，缺乏判断的科技运用；和抵
制那些纯粹为了商业利益的、简单的科技运用。
作为一个好的建筑教师，你认为有哪些重要的方面需要传授给学生呢？
首先，非常感谢你把我看作一个好的建筑学老师！我会把这些方面归
纳成三个原则：
第一点是激情。如果你对某件事充满激情，你就能完成它。比如说，
有些人想成为宇航员到外星球去，他们做到了。我也看到斗牛士是怎样
完成他们的心愿的。尽管许多人都说他们是疯子，但我觉得他们是对自己
的梦想充满激情，并暗暗地对自己说：“我一定要做到。”你对某件事充满
激情，努力去做，并享受其过程直到最后。激情，这是第一点。
第二个原则是道德观。我的祖父过去常说，一个人不能做伤害他人或
伤害自己的事。我认为这是非常正确的。他还说到，不要做有反品德的
事。当然，他当时生活在20世纪初。在那个年代，有关品德的观念尤其重
要。有趣的是，当今，品味的意义或许是指一种公众认可的，并对人们有
特殊价值的常理。这点非常重要。这是有关道德的原则。
第三点我觉得对建筑学生们非常重要的是手工艺制作。说到这个词，
要稍稍转一个弯。因为“制作（poesis）”在希腊语中是诗（poetry）的意
思。诗就是制作。如果你把一件东西做好了，你就是诗人，就是一个工
匠。你也可以是一个运用词汇的工匠；可以成为一个优秀的诗人，好的作
家；你也可以是一个建造房屋的工匠；你可以是许多事物的工匠。这就是
我希望传达给学生们的我认为比较重要的三点原则。
在当今飞速变化的时代中，人们很难找到自己真正的激情所在。我想在中国这
是个大问题。
在中国？我想是全世界。拉丁美洲和这里（加拿大）都有。不过，就
规模来说，现在中国面临的问题是以往任何国家从未经历过的。那我们怎
么解决它呢？还是用我们（西方国家）当时在六七十年代采取过的相同方
法吗？这是一种非常困难的处境。拉丁美洲曾出现过类似的问题，也是因
为人口众多的原因。不过我有信心（问题有可能得到解决）。拿我的故乡
波哥大来说吧，十年前它还是一个最糟糕的城市之一。后来恶劣的状况迅
速地被改善了。这说明，即便是在像在拉美那样比较大的地域里，问题还
是能够被解决的。这是有可能的。
我感到好奇的是，当时波哥大的变化是何时和怎样发生的呢？
这个变化发生在四轮任职之前。当时有一位很有远见的市长，他主
张要建造一个适合人居住的城市。他组建了一个负责城市改建的工作
组。其间他主持建设了供所有居民都能使用的公园，自行车道，托儿
所，许多学校和图书馆。他把波哥大改造成了一个更适合步行的城市，
而不是向汽车让步，建造更多的道路和沥青机动车道。他还设立了一个
很有效的交通系统。但可惜，人口还是很多，而且他们中的很多人都拥
有汽车。他们也没有意识到，或者根本不想去考虑到过多的车辆会给社
会带来什么样的影响。他们会说：“我一定要有辆车。我是一个人，我有
权力拥有汽车。”这一点还是让人觉得有些沮丧。
或许这就是他们的热情所在吧。
这不是热情，而是一种缺乏伦理道德观念的生活态度，是做事情不顾
及后果的行为。如果每个人都认为，如果我每天开车，就会增加更多的
污染，还会带来很多其它的问题。这样的话，或许现在的许多问题也就不
会出现了。所以，关键又回到每个个体的问题上了。我们必须要确立一种
批判的立场，并负有道德观或者说负有责任感。我们必须想到我们是生活
在千万人中的一员。我们对所有其他人都负有责任。除非你想当罗宾逊，
过着“国王”般的孤岛生活。不过，那你可得自己动手做所有的东西了。我
想，在中国有更多的准则，而且这些传统的道德准则已经存在了好几千年
了。
但现在我们正努力废弃这些准则。不过，另一方面，我想许多事情正在改变，
变得更好。
这可能是一个顶峰时期。当事态到达了峰点，人们就会意识到问题所
在了。但愿我们的下一代能更好地享受地球。
Ricardo L. Castro
Associate Director and Associate Professor of the School of Architecture
Ricardo L. Castro teaches design, thesis, hsitory, theory and critical

writing. He has also taught at the Universidad de Los Andes in Bogotá,
Colombia, the University of Oregon, Kansas State University and the
University of Laval in Quebec City.
Selected Publication:
Salmona (1998)
Interview by: Zhou Lian

Time: March 5, 2008
Location: Professor Castro’s office, School of Architecture, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada
Credits: Fei Wang
Why is history important in architectural education, especially in this era of great

transformation when student preference is often for new, modern and bold?
I think this is a very important question. Perhaps it has been asked

many times and led to responses and action that have not always been
positive. I admire the Modern Movement the Bauhaus, but I found, for
example, that their willingness to reject history from the curricula was
not the right one. This is an excellent example of history removed from
the educational activities of the students in architecture. Well, why is
history important in the curriculum of architecture? I would say in the
curriculum of any profession, it is because we have to understand the
past so we can proceed into the future. We cannot forget the past. But I
think looking at history is also a way of understanding, not necessarily of
learning how things happened in the past. This understanding may then
be applied to the future.
I think that one of the great 20th century architects, Walter Gropius,
despite the fact that he was the founder of the Bauhaus and molded
the ideals of that institution, knew history intimately. Mies van der
Rohe did as well, and so did Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn and Le
Corbusier. They are people who were very interested in history. Some
of them took grand tours of Europe, the Middle East and the Far East,
and learned a great deal by experiencing history. I always use a motto
from a great Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce, who said, “All history
is contemporary history.” And that is quite true. “All history”, I mean, if
you go and visit any place in the world, you experience extant buildings
from previous generations. Well, these buildings have come through
time to the present. So they are all part of the history. Also there are
few buildings which having been absent from history for a while, having
become paradigms. Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion, for
example, was completely absent for a long period. It was destroyed
and was taken apart after the Fair in 1929. But the building continued to
exist in the mind and the imagination, in the photographs, and became
a paradigm for the students of architecture. I studied the building at the

time it did not exist; it was rebuilt in the 80s. It is a good example of how
history plays such an important role in the teaching and in the making of
architecture.
You are also the director of the courses in Greece and Italy in the summer. What do
you think they bring to architectural education and to the students?
These courses I call lived-in courses. You go and touch, see, feel,
and truly experience the building you were taught about in the lectures.
We use the building; we go to the places; we walk through them. We
describe; we understand what spatially happens without the need of
visual aids, blackboards, or textbooks. The place itself becomes a
textbook, an instruction. For me, it is fundamental. I do not believe in
architecture that is taught only in classes. You have to experience it,
because architecture is about experience. And that is the problem in
the 21st century. Many buildings are built and designed without any
awareness that architecture can play a fundamental role in stimulating
all the sensory experiences.
What do you think of the literary works by Italo Calvino and Roland Barthes for
architects and architectural education?
The other aspects that I have been involved and very interested in
is, of course, a particular or personal view that literature and philosophy
play a very important part in thinking about architecture. I am particularly
interested in literature. Of course Roland Barthes is one of my favorite
authors. He is a structuralist; he is a man who thought very clearly, not
only about language, but also about many other things. He was able
to talk about culture in general. He spoke about Japanese culture in
his books; he described many historical moments and events in his
different narratives, which I think made history more powerful and
wonderful through his experience. There is also the reading of people’
s stories written by Italo Calvino. We have used one of his books,
Invisible Cities, which has been used in many schools of architecture.
He provided a view of Venice in at least 30 different perspectives.
And the city disappears and changes to many different eyes. I think
it is very interesting, because in a way, he talks about the fact that
architecture is not about one experience but about multiple experiences.
These experiences depend on the number of people. Each person will
experience a city or place in a very different way and may be affected
by that place or city according to the condition of the climate, what he or
she sees, type of day, etc.. All of these factors, I think, are very important
to bear in mind when making architecture.
Why is mythology so important?
I am fascinated by Greek mythology, and all mythologies, such

as Roman mythology, pre-Colombian mythology, and Far-Eastern
mythologies. As Barthes said that myth is another level of language
that has gone beyond its mental level, in a certain degree, it’s a way of
understanding. For me, it provides a different view of mythology. It is
a way of understanding of the Cosmos, the whole world without being
historically self-conscious in the way we are in the Western world.
Mythology is a way of thinking of positioning yourself within the world
in a certain way. That’s what happened to the Greeks, to the Chinese,
and to the pre-Colombian people. Even in Arizona, when you go and
talk to a Navajo, he will talk about the cosmos from a mythological point
of view. For me, it has the same force in any other historical accounts,
even more, because it’s a summary of many historical accounts. I think
the Iliad and Odyssey seemed to be based on mythology. But mythology
has a lot of roots in historical accounts. It has become a timeless piece
of literature that provides understanding for us with a basis in history.
What is architectural photography? Of course everyone can take pictures. What is

the relationship between photography, writing and design?
I have been involved in photography most of my life. I think there

are many different ways of taking pictures. It is one thing is to take a
simple snapshot and another to act critically when you take pictures,
in other words: looking for something, focusing on a theme, organizing
and composing in a systematic and consistent way. So you create a
narrative through images. This is what I would call critical photography,
which I advocate when you go on a trip or exploration. Photography has
power. It is a way of capturing what is there if you do it critically. If you
photograph in a critical way, the photographs would be similar or equal
to drawings. It is very important to draw as well. Drawing is the traditional
system of capturing a place. This is basically, what architects such as
Le Corbusier and Louis Kahn did in the 20th century, visiting places in
Europe and North Africa, and basically capturing these places through
drawings and also through photography, but mainly through drawings.
Of course through drawing, you are able to capture the essence that
is not so easy to capture when you take a snapshot. Maybe when you
take a photo critically, or when you position yourself in relation with the
subject matter, the act of taking photographs is very similar, to a certain
degree to the act of making drawings. Why are these two important?
It is because photography and drawing would put you in the place,

and would help you to experience that place. Now, I am also working
with video. Currently, video is not only easy to use but can produce a
finished products very quickly. It also contains a new dimension- the
fourth dimension which is movement and time. In other words, when
you are experiencing architecture, you’re not only studying buildings
statically, but you are studying places, or topographies. It is because
architecture is a combination of elements which includes topography,
the built and nature. You have to experience them by walking, by moving
through them. What is the best? Now, the possible method we can use
to capture these experiences is film or video. Although it does not do it
thoroughly, again, if you do it critically, you can capture the essence of
what you experience. That is the most important aspect.
If possible, can we use all these media such as music, movie, etc. all together?
Of course, that is very interesting. Music is a whole new dimension

as well. We should also talk about smells. So you make the movie; you
play the music; you even compose the music. And then you create the
smells and you could create the taste, and the last thing that is lacking
would be the texture or haptic experience. How do you recreate that?
That is very difficult, of course. This is not to say that we are going to
recreate the place totally in a simulacrum or a simulated environment,
but try to capture its poetic essences and bring them to the surface.
Music allows you to create a mood definitively that helps build moving
images or static images. That is a new dimension that gets closer and
closer to what the experience of architecture might be by the end.
I’m wondering if as technology advances, we can create a machine that is able to

capture all the senses such as smells or the sense of touch. I think it is possible.
Currently there are already a lot of simulating technologies. That is

quite interesting. But it would worry me a lot if you say we are going to
replace everything with these technologies. However, to replace current
methodologies with new technologies would be disconcerting. Here is
an example: you are seated at the end of this long table and instead of
talking to me directly, you would use your cell phone. We would do this
interview five meters away, by talking in our cells, or using a monitor,
as it happens in some cases. I’ve seen this happen: people talk to each
other through a phone though they are not farther away than 20 meters
which seems to me ridiculous. I do not think that is the way I envision the
use of media for learning about architecture and history. I think we have
to be very careful about using our technologies. I am fond of technology,
but on the other hand, technology has to be handled with care and
critically.
What is the specialty of the School of Architecture at McGill, compared to other

schools? Is it related to the culture, location, library, etc.? Where will we go,
especially when we just had a new director appointed?
I have been here for 25 years and this has been one of the most
wonderful experiences in my life. I think that the McGill`s School of
Architecture is like a small community. I think it is one of the smallest
schools of architecture, not in North America, but in the world, compared
to other universities. For instance, in some universities in Italy, there are
about 10,000 students. Or in Latin America, many universities have very
large numbers of students in the schools of architecture. Here we have
a rather small program, 300 students, from the PHD to first year which
makes it a wonderful small community. You talk to people; you know the
names of most of the students; you know your colleagues rather well.
And that makes a very important ambiance in which to learn.
The new director Michael Jemtrud is very determined to make

some changes and add to the program, which I think is necessary. He
just started his first term of directorship. But I think it’s going to be very
interesting to see what is going to happen because the idea is not to
stream the program to make it more efficient, but rather, to make it more
fulfilling and alluring. I think that is very significant. I believe the role of
education should be an alluring preposition. Education is not a machine,
but rather, as you go to architecture, you go to experience, to enjoy and
to learn in a supportive environment. I think all the proposals I have seen
and what I am aware of right now are heading in that direction. I am very
positive about what is going to happen in the future, not only at the level
of the undergraduate but also the professional and the post-professional
programs.
In North America, only few architecture schools still require a thesis in the
professional degree. What is McGill’s position in this regard?
The word “thesis” in a way, as I understand it, means to take a

position, which in academia involves the production of a document. It
is a large document that we call the thesis or the dissertation in PHD or
other higher levels. Our professional thesis has been a project. It is a
longer project. You address an issue and then develop a project dealing
with architecture, with cities, with places and place making. In this regard
we are not that different from other schools. In other schools there is an
extra semester called a terminal project, final project, or diploma project.

In the end, the outcome is the same. It is an architectural project. The
students are going to go through one or two semesters of research. This
is very important. And in the end the program is going to be developed
into the design. One of my teachers, Robert Harris, used to talk about
the idea of the analysis synthesis model- a synthesis analysis of how
you put research into the design form. He developed a wonderful graph.
It shows that at the beginning of any projects you start doing a lot of
analysis, but already have preconception about the form. For example,
you are going to design a museum for a city. Of course you have to do
a lot of research about museums, but you already know where is the
site, so you begin to imagine the form that is going to be in that site.
Every architect would do that right away. Something comes into your
mind, say: “Oh! I imagine that something could happen there.” But as
the time goes, the analysis starts to diminish. You research the climate,
the topography, the history, and all the facts that are going to affect the
project. It starts to be more complete, and then, the formal development
is going to be more intense. So in the end, what you have is form, and
less analysis. But these two will always be combined.
I think you have many Chinese students. How do you know about China?
I have been very interested in China, for many years. When I was
a graduate student I took some courses about Japanese and Chinese
gardens. I was very fortunate to be at the University of Oregon which
has very close links with both China and Japan and the Far East. I was
able to fulfill my first dream which was to visit Japan, about three years
ago. I haven’t yet fulfilled my second dream which is to go to China. One
of my mottos has been that when I teach history, I like to teach about
what I have seen and experienced. If I have visited and experienced
the place, maybe I would have a deeper understanding of it. That is
fundamental and that is my frustration about China. But I think there
could be a course in the history of Chinese and Japanese architecture
in our School. Definitely yes, or it could be a combined: art, architecture,
literature and all the other cultural features.
So, you prefer traditional Chinese architecture more than contemporary Chinese
architecture?
No! Yes, I mean, I am interested in history, so of course, traditional

Chinese and traditional Japanese culture. But I am also fascinated
about the phenomenon or phenomena of fascination that occurred in
Japan after the Second World War and in China after Chairman Mao
disappeared. There have been incredible transformations. I am very

worried about what is happening in China right now because I am sorry
to see that things are happening very rapidly, again history repeats
itself. Some of the mistakes that happened in the Western world are
now happening in China. I am talking about things that I saw happening
in my own native country, in Colombia. When I was young I saw how
high-rises were used for people who came from the countryside. People
were forced to change their way of life and at the same time the high-
rises were used in a totally different way. And I saw how inadequate the
architectural environment response was to the needs of the people. I
think that this is happening in China. Of course, this is a critique. I think
what we can do is to reflect on the situation and talk to people and make
them aware. But I think there are several things happening in China:
industrialization, pollution, and the change of the mode of transportation.
China had one of the most effective means of transportation, one of the
most supportive or sustainable mode of transportation. Now everybody
wants a car. I don’t have the answers. I am pretty sure there are some
actions that have been taken. The same thing has happened in Latin
America. When you look at some of the contemporary Latin American
cities, there are many problems. However, when you go to certain
Latin American cities, like Bogotá, you find incredible environmental
responses and positive attitudes towards sustainable developments
that are work well and providing a healthy environment. Basically, it
is a position that is against technology, not technology per se, but the
incorrect use of technology; against technology which is used in a way
simply for its commercial value. In that sense, I think one has to create
architectural resistance.
Being a good teacher of architecture, what is significantly important for you to

transmit to the students?
First, thank you for considering me as a good teacher of architecture!

I can summarize them in three different things, three different principles
for me:
The first thing is Passion. If you are passionate about anything, you
will do it. For example, some people want to be astronauts and go to
the stars, and they managed it! I have seen bull fighters become bull
fighters. People say they are crazy, but I say, they are passionate about
something that occurred to them when they were very young and said “I
have to do this!” You are passionate about something and you do it and
enjoy it till the end. That is the first quality.
The second thing is Ethics. My grandfather used to say something

that I think it is quite true. He said that one should not do anything that
would go against others, or yourself; the third thing he used to say was
no to do anything against good taste. Of course, this is someone who
is speaking in the first half the 20th century, at the time when the idea
of taste at certain propriety was very important. But it is still surprising
today that the good taste would probably be equivalent to the common
sense of a community appreciate something in particular. That’s very
important. And that’s the ethics part.
And the third part that is very important to the students of

architecture is the deep involvement with the idea of Craftsmanship.
When I say “making” that brings us to a round trip because making in
Greek is poesis. Poesis is poetry. Poetry is making. If you make things
well, you are a poet, and you are a craftsman. You can be a craftsman of
words; you can be a good poet, a good writer; you can be a craftsman of
a building; you can be a craftsman of many things. I guess these three
very simple ideas are what I try to transmit to my students.
In the era when things are changing so fast that people find it difficult to hold on to
their real passion. I think that is a big problem in China now.
In China? I think in the whole world. It goes on Latin America, and

goes on here. The problem in China is different probably because it has
not happened anywhere else in terms of this magnitude. So how do we
resolve that problem? Are we resolving it using the same approaches
that we used in the 60s and the 70s? It’s a very tough position. In the
past, Latin America faced similar issues because of the vast number of
people. But I have confidence, for example in Colombia, my own native
land- in Bogotá which was consuming itself, only 10 years ago it was
becoming a terrible city. And then, it changed radically and positively.
Positive change is possible even in a large region like South America.
I’m curious about when and how did the change happened in Bogota?
The changes happened four terms ago when a mayor with foresight
came into power. He said he was going to make a city that was livable.
He created a studio involved in the rebuilding of the city. He created
parks; bicycle roads, nurseries and many schools and libraries. Also
instead of making more asphalt roads, he improved the city and made
it more walkable, or more pedestrian oriented without giving many
concessions to the car. He created a new system of transportation that
was very efficient. But there are still a large number of people and they
all have cars. People were not aware of their responsibilities to the
environment or they did not want to be aware. They just said that: “I
have to have my car. I am a person. I am an individual that has the right
to have a car.” That is one of the sad parts,
Maybe that’s their passion.
That is not a passion but an attitude. They are not considering

what the ethical ramifications are. If I use a car every day, I create
more pollution and more problems. If everybody would think that way,
we would not have the problems we have today. So, things go back to
every individual. You have to take a stand and to be critical, and ethical
in that sense, or responsible. You have to think that we live among
thousands of people; we have to responsible to thousands. If you want
to be Robinson Crusoe, you go to an island and you become the king.
But then you have to make your own things. I think, though, in China,
there is more discipline. And there, traditional disciplines have existed for
thousands of years.
But now we are trying to abandon this discipline. On the other hand, I think things
are changing and getting better.
But maybe, it is the peak of things. When there is a crisis situation

people might finally realize the negative consequences to what they
have done. Hopefully, our next generations will be able to enjoy the
earth.
330
加拿大渥太华市卡罗顿大学
建筑学院
http://www.arch.carleton.ca
马尔•弗拉斯卡理
331
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

http://www.arch.carleton.ca
Marco Frascari
332 Carleton University, Canada
马尔•弗拉斯卡理
建筑与城市学院院长和教授
马尔•弗拉斯卡理博士是著名意大利建筑师和理论家，师从于卡洛•斯卡
帕并一起多年在威尼托地区从事实践和教学。曾担任宾夕法尼亚大学建筑博
士主任，弗吉尼亚理工华盛顿亚历山大建筑中心教授，2005年起任加拿大卡
罗顿大学建筑学院院长。主要著作包括：《从模型到图纸（From Models to
Drawing, 2007）》、《建筑怪兽（Monsters of Architecture, 1991）》、文章
"讲故事的细部（The Tell-the-Tale-Detail）" (1981)以及其他百余篇文章。
加拿大卡罗顿大学 333
采访者：王飞
时间：2007年2月12日
地点：加拿大卡罗顿大学建筑学院院长办公室
从我的个人的经历而言，弗吉尼亚理工大学亚历山大 -- 华盛顿建筑中心在美国
的建筑院校中比较独特的，特别是对于建筑画图与再现的训练。这种独特的画
图，制作和再现对这个建筑中心是非常重要的，所以，我的第一个问题是，在
建筑教育中和对于建筑师，图纸和再现的位置是什么？
图纸和再现是制作建筑的基本元素，特别是图纸。对于现在建筑职业
而言，建筑再现被完全误解为照相渲染，尽管我们理解照相术要比图纸要
更多、深。科学地来说，我们理解图纸远比图片要深，但是职业仅仅需要
呈现相片化的图像。所以，我认为对图纸的探索是很主要的。而且，图纸
也是一个聪明的过程中的建筑的真实隐蔽。只有通过图纸，你才能画出你
在图纸中所找寻的智力的框架。否则，很浪费时间。图纸可以是一个很快
的程序。
很多情况下，我可以看到画图的教育是一个“懂得如何作”的[技术]程序。
是的。
那么，问题是什么？
问题是图纸本身成为一种“知道”的方式。很难理解图纸不是通过看穿
一个物体而对此物体的再现。当然，这是一个学习画图的方式，但是一种
真正的头脑中的建造，在其中你不得不走过而理解如何制作东西。还有，
建筑图纸与所谓的“艺术图纸”是很不同的。最初的时候曾经是相同的，几
千年之后它们就分离了。
杜杭 (J- L D u r a n d ) 之后？
杜杭之后，（与之前的图纸相比）建筑图纸成为了其他的东西，[一
直影响至今]。真正的建筑图纸的质量不得不重新被发掘。这就是为什么
我讲了很多关于通感(synaethesia)。随着一条在纸上的线条，意义的传达
是通过使用和展现出来材料而表达的。这不是笛卡尔的理解，也就是图纸
不管是什么，只是图纸本身，而没有其它的意义。其实，墨笔画出的线和
打印出来的线是完全不同的。不是同一种事物。尽管在纸上，线条意味着
墙，但是我从不同的方向画线，我表达的是不同的墙。这是应该教给学生
的。
当然。你曾经说过建筑师使得可见的不可见，不可见的可见，不可触摸的可以
触摸。你能解释一下吗？
好的。在一个建筑中，有很多不可见的事物，但是建筑图纸是的它们
可见，是的不可触摸的能够触摸的到。比如我设计一座教堂，我必须使得
上帝的存在能够在这个建筑中被感知的到。问题是上帝是不可触摸的。所
以，当我在纸上工作，我不得不使得不可见的质量显现基本出来。然后，
建筑讲被理解为如何在我的要求的关系中去建造。当然，建筑图纸有可能
从我们称作CAD和其他的方式中完全改变掉。这就是为什么要强调手工
的图纸。但是，还有一个问题是混合的再现(hybrid representation)不能
之用一种技术，而应当是多重的。它们应当都在一起。我最好学生是手工
画图，然后扫描，然后继续在打印出来的图纸上继续手工绘制，然后再扫
描，再打印出来，继续在上面绘制，…. 因为电脑简化了很多过程，但电
脑可以直接用来作为一种互动的工具，而不是对原始建筑的模仿。
建筑和图纸之间是有分离的，图纸和建造也有。当您 1980年代初期在写《讲
故事的细部 ( T h e Tell-th e - Tale D etail) 》时是什么情况？
状况基于我们每次应该被询问的。现实不是对各种不同的社会的浪费
时间，因为每次你考虑细部，意义是不同的，有一种新的可能性。
在《建筑理论评论》期刊中对您的采访，您提到当年在宾夕法尼亚教书的时
候，学校没有细部设计课只有结构课。
当时只有图纸空间，你可以画任何你想要的空间，但是你不可能达到
它。因为空间是由边界所界定的，在一个房间中，如果我改变了地面和墙
的连接，我可以完全改变不同的空间。这就是这个游戏的一部分。你可以
有不同的空间(space)，然后你有不同的场所(place)。建筑是占据“场所”
(take “place”，引申为“发生”)的而不是占据“空间”(take “space”)。
当我若干年前开始翻译你的这篇文章的时候，“建构”这个词是在中国是一个
很时尚的术语。后来兴趣点在一两年内很快的转移到其他词，现在到了“后批
评”。你能说说建构这个词吗？你使用了“细部”而不是“建构”。
因为[相比较“细部”] 建构出现地很晚，和19世纪的森普尔(Gottfried
Semper)有关。术语上意味着结构。曾经是一个很时尚的词。新词比如
“后批评”是借用建筑之外的术语来思考建筑本身的理论。对我来说是浪费
时间。这不是一个很聪明的操作，而是借用其他的术语来试验是否适合建
筑。这就是问题。我倾向“建构”这个词，它和建造建筑有直接的关系。
在您的写作中，我发现有一系列相近的词，比如故事，奇迹，惊奇等等，还有
魔术，想像等等。他们都有关系，似乎对您也很重要。您能解释一下吗？
他们曾经用于人类对于建筑的思考。我认为建筑应当使得人们开心。
这是基本的问题。当然，建筑规范仅仅只能使用与物质上的问题而建筑更
关注心理的问题。因为好建筑使得你想去玩味。有时一个建筑很差但是你
不关心，比如一个很难看的建筑却可能使得你很开心。使得人们开心的就
是奇迹（wonder），它是首要的心理活动。如果我们没有它，我们就不
是人类。没有wonder就没有发现，没有wonder就没有只是，所以它是建
筑的基本元素。Thauma是一个希腊词，Thauma和magic都和wonder或
者marvel有关。它们都作为术语而被使用过。他们与视觉有关，但同时比
主观与客观之间的两重关系的理解的视觉的纯表面要丰富很多。发现主客
观之间的关系就是理解彼此。
你认为当代建筑教育中我们失去了想像吗？
我们没有完全丧失。想像是一个很学科的问题。之前，我们可能说概
念想法来自空白。当然不是。它需要在想法的新的深度上学科的思考的一
个很长的过程，思考的过程，是被手作出的。想法并不仅仅是依靠大脑，
而是手和脑的互动。
你曾经有一个关于烹饪和建筑的比喻，我们可以讲其推进到烹饪与建筑教育的
类比。
教育是一种烹饪，可以追溯到法国的哲学家。曾经风靡一时。
你认为一个好的厨师从不被菜谱所限制吗？
从不。
所以我们可以再有一个菜谱和建筑法规的规范的类比，对吗？
是的。你有一个建筑规范，当然你必须遵从它们。但是同时，你知道
如何去改进他们之间的关系。建筑规范要被看多不是做事的方式，而是放
置的方式。
你必须要聪明。
是的，你应当狡猾、机灵。正确的词是狡猾，不是聪明。你必须狡猾
也必须准确。你不可能制作东西只遵从规范。有可能我遵从了规范却产生
了很危险的结果。办公室的很傻的人们却要证明这个问题，但确实是遵从
了规范。比如在一个完全合乎规范的建筑总，人们有可能摔断了腿。古时
的人们造建筑是没有规范的。
是依赖于不同的文化？
当然。比如，如果当时有了规范，威尼斯是不可能出现的。
当然。
完全是不可建的。现在如果我只遵从规范，我是不能工作的。
您认为历史理论对建筑师有什么用处？您是一个建筑师，同时也是一个历史学
家和理论家。
我同意建筑师应当作什么，与历史理论玩。建筑是一个聪明的操作，
并不是简单的事物。当然有很多建筑是基于复制的，这样就是不明智的。
一般的真正的建筑基于明智的操作，当你看一个空间，在历史理论的操
作之外，然后你随从它。这就是我们所谓的“操作的历史”或者“操作的批
评”。我认为这是历史的知识。这样，我讲历史理论作为建筑的操作的工
具。
不是仪器的工具。
对的。不是仪器的工具。他们允许我去操作。当然不是风格的历史，
而是一直是历史的科技。微观历史。所以历史对于建筑师来说是微观历
史，而不是大……
宏观……
不是宏观历史。
最后一个问题。您理想的建筑教育系统是什么？
当然，图纸是基本的元素。必须有历史理论课程。技术应当作为历史
来教授，而不是作为科学的过程。我认为很重要的是要阅读建筑之外的所
有事物。当今建筑师读的太少了。这是一个问题。这意味着去发展一种相
等的态度，去理解阅读神话你可能学到更多关于建筑的东西。
非常感谢！
不客气。
Marco Frascari
Director and Professor of School of Architecture and Urbanism
Dr. Marco Frascari is an Italian architect and architectural theorist

born under the shadow of the dome of Sant Andrea in Mantova, in 1945.
He studied with Carlo Scarpa at IUAV and worked and taught with Scapa
since then. He was head of PhD program of architecture in University of
Pennsylvania, and was G.T. Ward professor at Washington-Alexandria
Architecture Center of Virginia Tech, and became the director of School of
Architecture of Carleton University since 2005. He has taught in Harvard, AA,
Columbia, Nottingham University, etc. His publications include: From Models
to Drawing (2007), Implementing Architecture: Exposing the Paradigm
Surrounding the Implements and the Implementation of Architecture, co-ed.
With Rob Miller (1998), Monsters of Architecture (1991), "The Tell-the-Tale-
Detail" (1981), etc.

Time: February 12, 2007
Location: Director’s office at School of Architecture
From my personal experience, WAAC (Washington-Alexandria Architecture Center,

Virginia Tech) is very unique among the American schools, especially the training on
drawing and representation. The unique drawings, making and representation are
very crucial for the school. So, what is the position of drawing and representation
for architectural education, and also for architects?
Drawing and representation are fundamental elements of making

architecture, especially drawing. Especially the profession now, the
misunderstanding is completely of what is representation work by
photographic rendering, although it’s been demonstrated that we
understand photography less than drawing. Scientifically, it’s been
demonstrated that we understand line drawings more than pictures,
but the profession only presents photographic pictures. So, I think
the discovery of drawings is central. And also drawings are the true
concealing of the building in an intellectual procedure. Only though
drawing, you can draw the intellectual framework that you are seeking
in the drawing. Otherwise, it wastes too much time. Drawing can be a
much faster procedure.
From many situations, I can see that teaching drawing is a procedure of know-how.
Yes.
So, the problem is …
The problem is the drawing itself becomes the way of knowing. It is

very difficult to understand drawing is not the representation of an object
by looking through it. Of course, it’s a way of learning to draw, but it’
s a true mental construction that you have to go through to understand
how to make something. And there is a big difference between the
architectural drawing and so-called artistic drawing. The beginning was
the same¸ it’s a long for the separation.
After Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand?

After Durand, architectural drawing became something else. It has

to be discovered again for the quality of the true architectural drawing.
That’s why I talked a lot about synaesthesia. With the line on paper, it is
the meaning through the materiality that has been used to perform there.
It is not the Cartesian understanding that the drawing is no matter what
it is, but always drawing itself. The line down in ink and the line down in
file are totally different. It is not the same thing. Although on the paper,
they mean envelope of the wall, if I draw one in one way and one in the
other way, I have different walls. That’s should be taught.
Of course. You have a say that architects make visible what it is invisible, invisible
what it is visible and tangible what it is intangible. Can you elaborate more?
Yes. In the building, there are a lot of invisible things but the
architectural drawings will make them visible and make tangible what it
is intangible. If I design a church, I have to make the tangible presence
of god, in the building. The problem is that god is intangible by the
commission. So, when I am working on the paper, I have to make the
intangible quality appear basically. Then the building will understand
how to do the construction in the relationship to my quest. Of course, it
could change completely through architectural drawing from a different
way what we call CAD, and everything else. That’s why they have
the stress on hand-made drawing. But, there is the question of hybrid
representation that cannot be only one technique but multiple of them.
They are all together. The best student for me is that you draw by hand,
then you scan it, then you work on the computer, you print it and you
work on top of it, then you rescan it, and then you keep going. Because
the computer simplifies a lot of process, it can be used as an interactive
tool directly, rather than imitation of original architecture.
There is a separation between architecture and drawing, and also drawing and
construction. What was the situation when you wrote “The Tell-the-Tale Detail”?
The situation was depending what shall and should be questioned

every time. The reality is not the waste of time for different societies,
because every time you think of detail, there is a changing meaning, and
there is new possibility.
During the interview in Architectural Theory Review, you mentioned that when you
were teaching in University of Pennsylvania, there were construction courses but
was no detail design course and you wrote the essay.
There was only drawing space, and you could draw as much space
as you want but you cannot achieve it. Because the space is defined by
edges, in the room if I change the connection between the floor and the
wall, I can change totally different space. That’s part of the game. You
have different spaces then you have different places. The architecture
takes “place” not take “space”.
When I started to translate your essay in China a couple of year ago, the term
“tectonics” was a fashionable one. Then the interests switched to other term very
fast in a year and but we talk about “post-criticism” a lot. Can you talk more about
tectonics? You use the term “detail” but not tectonics directly.
Because it came later, and with the relationship to Semper. The

terminology means structure. It was a fashionable word. The new terms
like “post-critical”, they are the terminologies borrowed from outside
architecture, to think architecture having its own theory, where a lot of
people can draw from. It seems to me it’s the waste of time. It is not an
intellectual operation, and it is just borrowing terminology and trying to
use it to see if it fits architecture or not. That is the problem. I prefer the
word “tectonic”, which has the direct relation to making of the building.
Among you writings, I found there are a few group of words, such as tale, wonder
and marvel in the same one and Thaumas, magic and imagination in another, etc.
They seem close to each and crucial for you. Can you talk about it?
These were used in human thinking, which are to be used when

you are dealing with architecture. I think buildings have to make people
happy. That is the fundamental issue. Surely, building codes are only
working on physical issue while architecture is worried about mental
issue. Because building makes you to play as it is a good architecture.
And there is a building really bad and you are not aware, for instance,
there is a building with a horrible looking, but it can make you happy.
Something making people happy is wonder, which is the 1st mental
activity. If we don’t have that, we are not human. There is no discovery
without wonder, no knowledge without wonder, so it is fundamental
element of architecture. Thaumas is a Greek word, and Thaumas and
magic are all related to wonder, or marvel. They are all the terminology
to be used. They are to do with visuality, but the same time it is much
richer than the pure surface of vision of the understanding of the double
relationship between the object and the subject. To discovery the relation
between the object and the subject is to understand each other.
Do you think in my contemporary architectural education we lost imagination?

We didn’t totally lose it. Imagination is very disciplinary issue.

Before, we could say the idea comes that [from nothing]. Of course not.
It requires a very long process of the disciplinary thinking on the new
depth of idea, the meditation process, which is done by hand. It is not
only the meditation by mind, but the interaction between hand and mind.
You have a good analogy between cooking and architecture, and we push it further
to the relationship to architectural education.
Education is a kind of cooking, it goes back the French philosopher.

He was fashionable for a while. He wrote a book on how to achieve
culture through cooking. You have to cook an idea. The mind of cook is
the mind to bring things together that is not necessary happened later,
or to transform things in a different way to keep all the relationship. My
favorite one is recipe in the military area, there was a standard dish, with
sliced melon; you squish them; it’s very good. With fresh fruits and some
meat, pork, very simple. What he invented is a fantastic transformation,
which is the similar process happened in architecture. Basically, it is
same stuff but it’s been completely changed, technologically, from my
point of view, it is equal to what Scarpa did with stucco lustro wonderful
finishing in the building. What he took is old technique, which was used
to make fake marble, to imitate marble to make new surface and new
color. It is almost the same thing that it is one of the best plasters, but
they don’t look like fake marble; they look fantastic. Not the melon with
the prosciutto. It is good but boring, the other one is the melon soup with
the shaving prosciutto. It is fantastic.
Do you think a good cook/chef never follows or is restricted by recipe?
Never.
So it could be the analogy of the building code.
Yes. You have a building code; of course you have to respect the
rules. But at the same time, you know how improve the change the
relationship between them. Building code has to be taken not the way to
do things, but the way to place with it.
You have to be smart.
Yes, you have to be cunning. The right word is cunning, not smart.
You have to be cunning and you have to be accurate. You could not
make things by following the code. I can do things following the things
to be very dangerous. And the stupid people in the office they have to
prove the problem, because it follows the code. But people can break
the legs in building designed by code, which can be dangerous. In past
people designed things not following the code.
It depends on different cultures.
Of course. For instance, if I had the code, I could not build Venice.
Of course.
Completed unbuiltable. Now if I don’t follow the code, I cannot go on

the work.
What do you think of history and theory for architect? You are architect and also a
historian and theorist.
I agree with what an architect has to do, playing with history and
theory. Architecture is an intellectual operation; it’s not simple. It is the
problem of intellect very well. Surely there are a bunch of architecture
based on copy, which are not intellectual. The normal true architecture
based on intellectual operation when you look at the space, out of
dialogue with history and theory of operation, and then you follow. So it’
s what we call “operati history” or “operati criticism”. I think that is the
historical knowledge. In that sense, I’m always looking at history and
theory as operative tools for architecture.
Not instrumental tools.
No, not instrumental tools. They allow me to operate. Of course it’s

not history of style, rather always technology of history. Micro-history. so
the history for architect is micro-history, not big..
Macro-?
Macro-history.
Final question is what’s your ideal architectural education system, now?
Surely, drawing is the fundamental element. It has to be history and

theory courses. Technology should be taught as history, not a scientific
procedure. What I think is very important is to read everything else
but architecture. Architects don’t read enough now. That’s one of the
problems, which means to develop an equal attitude, to understand even

reading mystery you can learn a lot about architecture.
Thank you very much!
You are welcome.

344
荷兰鹿特丹贝尔拉格学院
http://www.berlage-institute.nl
韦德然•弥弥卡
彼得•初莫
皮尔•维托瑞•奥热理
345
The Berlage Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.berlage-institute.nl
Vedran Mimica
Peter Trummer
Pier Vittorio Aureli
346 The Berlage Institute, The Netherlands
韦德然•弥弥卡
贝尔拉格建筑学院院长
韦德然•弥弥卡负责组织及完善研究课程。在进入贝尔拉格研究院之前他
曾在克罗地亚萨格勒布大学担任讲师并于荷兰代尔夫特理工学院担任研究工
作。他曾在国际多所建筑学院教授设计及研究生课程并在克罗地亚萨格勒布大
学组建了一系列的年度国际设计讨论会。他勤于建筑及建筑教育的写作。他带
领团队参加了2007年鹿特丹建筑双年展。
荷兰贝尔拉格学院 347
采访者：钱诗韵吴中平
时间：2007年2月10日
地点：荷兰鹿特丹贝尔拉格建筑学院
感谢：周炼
贝尔拉格学院从12 年前起就一直在建筑教育中起着先锋作用。你能向我们介
绍一下贝尔拉格学院的诞生吗？作为一个研究机构，她成立的目的是什么？
贝尔拉格学院的创立，很大程度上源于荷兰建筑师、代尔夫特理工大
学建筑系教授赫曼•赫次博格的努力。他是始作俑者里的核心力量，提出
通过建立一种相对于学校来说更倾向于研究性质的机构，把国际学生、更
是国际范围的建筑讨论引到荷兰。所以会形成这样一种特殊的场所，一种
以“研究生”阶段或者说达到一定专业水准的建筑师教育为主，结合举办相
关展览、论坛、大师班等活动，使外界与贝尔拉格的学生共同参与。
上世纪八九十年代赫次博格在代尔夫特理工大学任教的时候曾经有过
一种叫INDESEM(国际设计研讨会)的尝试，实际上是由学生会自主举办
的。我当时正好师从赫次博格读研究生，辅助他筹办了第一界国际设计
研讨会，而举办那次研讨会的契机，正是为了纪念阿尔多•凡•埃克被迫退
休，他那时六十五周岁了。国际设计研讨会当时邀请了来自当时俄国、苏
联、美国、意大利、西班牙和东欧的许多建筑师和国际学生，并且取得了
出人意料的成功。而后来在1986、1987、1988年和我组织的1989年南斯
拉夫SPLIT那场研讨会的圆满结果使赫曼确信，这种由国际教授和国际学
生组成的短期强化教育带来的效果实质上比传统的代尔夫特理工大学研究
生教育模式要出色得多。国际设计研讨会因此可以说是赫曼建立一种两年
的国际培训课程想法的雏形。
当时一个叫Melian Iselin的荷兰建筑师也起了很大作用，八十年代后
期她在纽约哥伦比亚大学学习，师从肯尼斯•弗兰普敦。她作为主要负责
人，参与了很多政策的制订，可能其中最重要的一次就是向荷兰议会提出
“建筑政策协议 (Architectuur nota) ”、将建筑对于这个国家的重要意义提
到了相当高度，而这个提议，得到了荷兰文化教育部长Hedy D’Ancona的
支持，并被议会最终采纳了。所以贝尔拉格学院，实际上和荷兰建筑协会
(NAI)、以及其他各种基金一起，属于荷兰政策的一部分，最早由学生发
起，然后在议会和文化部的支持下被正式建立起来的。
创建动机是多方面的。一个是赫次博格认为非常重要的目的是对教
育原理提出质疑，他已不再相信传统教育，“我们能不能建立一种新的教
学方式呢？ ” 他也不相信教学本身。他一直引用第一代贝尔拉格学生的
话――“我们不要被‘教’，但我们要‘学’”。相比“教”，他始终更相信“学”，他
认为这里是学习的地方而不是施教的场所。
第二个建立目的是在荷兰建立一个国际性的建筑研讨平台。他会
请来奥利 • 波嘎斯（ Oriol Bohigas ）、迦卡罗 • 德 • 卡洛（ Giancarlo de
Carlo）、亨利•希瑞尼（Henry Ciriani）、肯尼斯•弗兰普敦、尤哈尼•帕
拉斯玛（Juhani Pallasmaa），基本上他那一代一些要么不会来荷兰或者
即使来了也只是给个讲座的学者，来这里参加课程设计，研讨会，参与学
生讨论等等。我们很快就参与到之前不曾试过的有趣的设计里去了。这样
就很有效的把最新的思路引入到荷兰的建筑讨论了。
另外赫次博格是个蒙台梭利主义者，他信奉蒙台梭利对于“共同体”、
“家庭”和一种自由的观念。当阿尔多•凡•埃克的孤儿院不再需要提供给儿
童和教职工、即将被投放市场的时候，它便成了贝尔拉格学院的理想家
园。所以拯救孤儿院建筑，也是目的之一。实际上当场赫次博格一方面在
着手建校事宜，同时他还给全世界最著名的两百位建筑师发送明信片，并
请他们将明信片寄回阿姆斯特但政府，请求把孤儿院建筑留给文化机构而
不要改成办公楼。
赫次博格既然已经不再对传统建筑教育抱有希望，为什么没有建立从本科教育
起步的学院还是选择了研究生后阶段教育呢？
他在代尔夫特带一年级学位课程（diploma）共450到500名学生，假
如要自己组织那样的规模的话，当时的操作系统是不支持的。大学初等建
筑教育是由国家政府控制的，而研究生后阶段的国际教育模式已经普遍存
在了，比如伦敦建筑联盟(AA)，显然是一个特殊的学校，比如斯密斯•史
路德（Smithson Schule）在法兰克福的项目等。他当时还不能建立从一
年级开始的教学，直到七十年以后博罗尼亚声明的出台、使欧洲学校师生
间的交流可能大大提高了，虽然现在仍不普遍但已经改善很多了。但贝尔
拉格的跨国学习模式已经影响到了欧美学校的一些做法，你可以生活在一
地，学习在另一地，在本科阶段就实现了自主灵活性。
贝尔拉格学院是一所规模非常小的独立院校，它是怎样运作的？是否存在一种
综合体？
我认为它的运作机制比综合性大学要好，因为综合性大学――无论世
界各地的大学――都很官僚主义。他们通常隶属于传统的阶级体制下，办
事效率不会很高。而贝尔拉格只雇用 3到4人，学生数量由一开始的16个
到后来的60个，可以说最大可能的限制了官僚主义和阶级化矛盾的发生几
率，这是对于一所学院的发展至关重要的。
贝尔拉格的混杂性体现在它既不是学校，也不是研究院，亦不是事务
所，学生也不被当作是“学生”或者“员工”，而是“参与者”的身份。我们所说
的混杂性是指这里的实质，然而谈到政府和官僚主义就很难了。但是混杂
性确是降低官僚主义和某些阶级限制的基础，这对于贝尔拉格很重要。它
开创了一种新的机构体制，既是公立的，又可以说是私立的，这在荷兰已
经不算十分特殊了，许多文化教育结构都是以公私合伙的形式存在的。贝
尔拉格从来不属于任何教育机构，总是介于公立与私立之间，它受文化部
资助、却不属文化教育部管辖，主要是这点构成了混杂性。所以我们完全
自由自主的设置课程结构，所谓的“考核”方式，研究内容等等。我们所要
协调的不是教育部而是和院长和审议团，而审议团又总是支持院长的，所
以在这个意义上，运作得很好。
如果将贝尔拉格跟类似性质得机构相比，它的特殊性又在哪呢？
其中一点我们刚刚谈到了，另一点在于它的刷新速度，或者说与时俱
进的能力。几乎每过 2 到 3 年贝尔拉格就会改变课程结构或研究动向。不
断革新的作法早在建校伊始就已经贯彻了，赫次博格提出说他不会在贝尔
拉格呆超过5年的时间，他必须退位。这确实是前无古人的：有人创立了
那么一个场所，花了精力培养、给予它一定的操作原则，却要在5年后离
开。后来当威尔•阿列茨（Wiel Arets）来接替院长位置的时候，赫次博格
第一句话是，“威尔, 你该开始犯愁了。”然后他直接说，“威尔, 你5年后也
得走。”那就是贝尔拉格最早的DNA：变革。
其次，也是重要的一点，不论赫次博格、威尔•阿列茨或阿拉翰德•扎
埃拉•波罗（Zaera-Polo），从来没有一位历届院长把贝尔拉格变成他们
自己的学院。他们不会直接把自己的建筑观或兴趣所向和学院的研究内容
挂钩起来，他们自己不教书。赫次博格从来没有带过课程设计，他会请来
各色各样的人来带课，他会支持并且信任这些人，作为一个老师，也许和
他们持类似观点但不会亲身参与。当然威尔•阿列茨也是一样。他们不会
说，这是一个“赫次博格研究生课程”。假如你和海杜克等人的做法相比的
话，这也确是不同寻常的。有意思的是大家也都明白这边承载着一种平台
的职能，人来人往，各显神通。
赫次博格说过一句超级独特的话， “ 没有哪个人可以在贝尔拉格做一
个终生的专职教授。”这又是另一点了。没有哪个人在贝尔拉格有一年以
上的合约，绝大多数甚至可以说是全部的老师都是客座教授。赫次博格也
曾解释过其中道理，“假如你教十年书或者你做终身教授，你很容易就会
懈怠、失去真正的战斗力了。”
贝尔拉格的课程是怎样设置的？为什么要这样设置？
课程设置显然是学院最基本的操作结构，尤其是之前的教育倾向大于
如今偏向研究的年代。整个课程结构是经过仔细推敲的并且不断的在更新
中，再次要提到赫次博格的想法：课程设置必须能引领年轻建筑师从这两
年时间里获得不同的经历，使他们有能力应对瞬息万变的时代变化。他认
为作为一个年轻建筑师你要能够同时承担不同的任务。比如你在学习一个
理论，同时你参加了诸如大师班之类的短期任务，你也在做长期的课程设
计，你或者还在做更长的、为期一年的毕业设计。你要能够汇报，有能力
完成研究任务，有出色的设计能力……。他试图培养一群非常能够在不同
条件、不同文化背景、不同性质工作中都能胜任的出色建筑师。
我们期待的是，从贝尔拉格毕业后，你会是优秀的研究工作者，你可
以统领一个复杂的机构，你可以参与教学或学术工作，你可以自己开事务
所，你可以加入别的公司…… 一个充满多种潜能的家伙。这是原先就有
的意愿，整个课程安排就是朝这样的方向设置的，到威尔•阿列茨或阿拉
翰德•扎埃拉•波罗时代也没有太多改变。阿列茨对两年级的课程作了一些
改动，将研究重点更多放在了个人毕业设计上，而波罗把两年级的项目更
看作是一个与现实相关的集体作业。尽管如此，他们俩都认为学生在两年
的学习以后应该能够适应不同的要求。
你认为什么是“贝尔拉格精神”？
我更愿意称之为 “贝尔拉格智慧 ”。我觉得“智慧”是学生和导师共同努

力的结果，它不属于什么杰出院长或者杰出学者、明星建筑师、天才学
生，它来自集体智慧的积累。
这种“智慧”是怎样形成的？在过去的 “三代精神”里，三任院长并不曾
主宰意识形态上的定位，而更多的都把努力放在创造一种能够容纳各种不
同意见、有时甚至完全相抵触的建筑观。不同的研究方向可以共同出现
在课程设计里，这点在阿列茨的年代尤为突出。如艾利亚• 曾里斯（ Elia
Zenglis）, 威尼•玛斯（Winy Maas）, 巴特•鲁兹玛（Bart Lootsma）等
人，都是风格迥异的。一方面这些差异也给贝尔拉格的第二个时代带来了
一场非常有趣的建筑思潮。鲁兹玛关注的是个人化和社会学方面的理论；
Buns hauten倾向于讨论“城市展览”，一种新型可变的城市规划模式；威
尼•玛斯着手以数据量化为基础的研究，讨论真实数据与城市环境之间的
关系；曾里斯更是把建筑看作文化和知识分子的重要学科。这些思潮的参
与，再加上阿拉翰德•扎埃拉•波罗后来引进与现实世界的关系，要求学院
的研究项目大多要来自现实中的紧要问题、或一些只有通过探讨现实世界
才能被理解的热点问题，综合起来构成了我所说的“贝尔拉格智慧”。从源
头上它就是多维的。当然，你也可以说这是“贝尔拉格精神”。
她如何与建筑实践结合？如何与荷兰的著名建筑事务所合作？
实际上，赫曼 • 赫次博格说过他不希望看到贝尔拉格的毕业生为雷
姆，哈迪德等大师工作，他们应该成为独立的思考者，发展自己的方向。
在建筑实践上，我们的毕业生有许多成功的例子。例如 Branimir Medić
和Pero Puljiz是Architecture Cie的合伙人，Vasa J. Perovic获2007年密
斯.凡.德罗特别提名奖。还有许多独立的建筑师。许多人在荷兰及世界各
地表现得非常出色。贝尔拉格建立之初，直到阿雷兹时期，我们的设计与
研究并不直接介入实践，而是为实践提供人才。
我们与荷兰的著名建筑事务所有着良好的合作关系，与雷姆 • 库哈
斯，本•凡•贝克尔（Ben van Berkel）和威尼•玛斯等有直接的联系。许多
学生毕业后直接进入他们的事务所并有良好的表现。特别是许多亚洲学生
希望通过进入这些荷兰的著名事务所从事实际的设计工作而延续和积累更
多的的欧洲经验。当 OMA以及其他事务所向亚洲发展时，这些亚洲学生
变得很受欢迎并主要集中在亚洲的案子，例如中国的CCTV项目。贝尔拉
格多元文化的环境使这些学生具有很强的适应性，能适应这些事务所在亚
洲的发展。
但我想，在过去5年里，更有趣的问题不是贝尔拉格如何介入建筑实
践而是如何介入建筑现实。自从 2002年阿拉翰德成为院长以来，他强调
学术和教育机构应该更多地介入现实。此后，我们进行了一系列成功的
研究项目：由艾利亚 • 曾里斯开始，之后由 Pier Vittotior Aureli 继续发展
的首都城市的研究，包括了地拉那、布鲁塞尔、莫斯科和巴西利亚；由
Bernard Cache和Peter Trummer建立的联动设计。这两个方向与威尼•玛
斯发展的软件都市主义代表了3种密切联系现实的方式。
能谈谈历任院长的特点和对贝尔拉格的贡献吗？
赫曼•赫次博格作为创始人，建立了非常明智的原则，威尔•阿列茨和
阿拉翰德•扎埃拉•波罗遵循着这些原则。历任院长通过邀请不同的学者来
任教和推动不同的议题给贝尔拉格来到了不同的特色。赫次博格一直推动
人文主义，关注使用者，并将社会议题纳入城市和建筑设计中。阿列茨则
认为建筑师作为独立的个体，应该建立自己独立的议题。扎埃拉•波罗则
更多地强调建筑设计是一种集体的努力，是一种对现实的介入。这些不同
的特点对贝尔拉格是非常有益的。
请介绍一下博士课程的运作。
我们和代尔夫特理工大学建筑学系联合建立了博士课程。我们认为它
会在将来发挥更重要的作用。我们认为许多贝尔拉格的毕业生应该参与这
个课程。
我们认为博士课程应该改变它传统的角色，我们把它叫做实效性的研
究。它不仅仅讨论历史性和理论性的课题，而且应该以关注现实的态度介
入设计，介入生产。这又是一个混和物。我们将把更多的精力放在这个课
程的建设上，而且它也将与硕士课程建立更直接的联系。
对于中国的快速发展，贝尔拉格的立场是什么？贝尔拉格的许多关于中国的研
究课题是如何进行的？
我们与中国建立的联系最有意思的地方在于：我们在近年来开设了一
系列以中国为主题的大师课与设计课程。例如Yushi Uehara 指导的“城
中村”研究，在上海与马清运合作的大师课，尼古拉斯指导的城市能源研
究，以及由彼得指导的联动设计。显然，我们关注中国并不是因为相信
中国将成为一个新的令人震惊的地方，而是因为相信中国将成为世界其他
国家发展的范例，至少其他国家必须与中国就可持续发展、城市发展等问
题协商。
因此，我们对中国问题的立场是：我们迫切需要研究的不仅仅是现在
正在涌现的现象，而且是这些现象背后的历史背景和变化的过程；之后，
我们将针对非常具体的问题进行研究和设计。例如，“城中村”课题试图弄
清一个国家中的两种体系是如何运作的，它的特别之处在哪里；现在的联
动设计课题将面对中国的可持续发展问题、住宅市场化问题和城市问题提
出新的一套解决方式，提出新的住宅类型。
对中国学生有什么建议？
我们作为一个建立在西欧的以英语教学的国际学院，自然以欧洲文化
为基础。这是我们的文化背景。不仅仅中国学生，而是亚洲学生都来自与
之完全不同文化背景的国家。就像我们无法完全理解明朝和清朝的区别一
样，中国学生也可能很难理解意大利文艺复兴风格和矫饰派之间的区别。
因此，我们这里形成了很有意思的状况：一方面，学生需要学会如何成
为一个全球化的参与者，学会如何理解不同的文化；另一方面，学生需
要理解欧洲的文化。因此，我们邀请了Lieven De Cauter、Roemer van
Toorn、Thomas A. P. van Leeuwen开设了一系列关于欧洲文化的课程。
第二个建议是中国学生应该学会如何表达自己。表达的技巧包括提出
怎样的议题以及如何介绍，如何答辩。提出议题、辩护议题、阐明议题，
最终说服对方是学生表现中非常关键的因素。
另一个建议是我们非常希望中国学生能回到中国发展，而不是为雷
姆•库哈斯或其他国际化的事务所工作。因为不仅仅是在数量方面而且是
在意识形态方面、生活方式方面，我们认为中国的城市化在21 世纪将有
历史性的重要意义。在这个过程中，我们认为我们的毕业生应该积极地介
入。
那么，关键的问题将是：贝尔拉格的经历如何使我们的毕业生成为中
国真正的操作者、真正的调节者和真正的表演者？我们将在未来回答这个
问题。现在，我们正在尝试在北京建立清华－－贝尔拉格学院。我们非常
希望通过具体的中国城市化研究课题，与中国文化和中国年轻的学生建立
联系，而这个课题将是21世纪的主要议题。
我想贝尔拉格一个很特别的地方在于：它不仅仅欢迎来自世界各地的学生，而
且欢迎来自不同专业的学生。你是怎么看的？
我们吸收的学生不仅仅局限在建筑学，而且包括景观设计、室内设计
和摄影等等文化领域。这种在研究小组中让不同特点的学生一起工作的做
法，有很大的潜力。你们的目标不是作为独立的个体努力证明自己是最棒
的，而是要作为独立的个体在一个团队中工作。你们有不同的知识、不同
的专业和不同的文化背景。这种工作方式是未来全球化的趋势。这种工作
方式不仅仅存在于全球化的机构，而且也将越来越多地存在于地方化的机
构中。你们将来都要面对这样的情况。这种多元国家、多元学科的合作非
常重要。
Vedran Mimica
Director of the Berlage Institute
Vedran Mimica is responsible for composing and implementing the

research program, in concordance with the Research Board. Educated as an
architect, he was a lecturer at the Faculty of Architecture at the University of
Zagreb and a postgraduate researcher at the Delft University of Technology
prior to joining the Institute. He has supervised and taught numerous design
studios, seminars, master classes at the Institute and numerous international
venues. He initiates and organizes a series of annual International Design
Seminars in Zagreb, Croatia. He is an active writer on architecture and
architectural education. He led the curatorial team for the International
Architecture Biennale Rotterdam 2007.
Interview by: Shiyun Qian and Zhongping Wu

Time: June 4, 2007
Location: Berlage Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Credits: Lian Zhou
The Berlage Institute has been doing its leading performance in architecture
education since 12 years ago. Could you tell us first something about the birth of the
Berlage? What’s the purpose of establishing such a research institute?
The origination of Berlage is very much linked with the work of Dutch
architect and professor at Delft University of Technology Architecture
Faculty Herman Hertzberger. He was behind the idea, he was the main
spirit, leader, or kind of brain beyond and behind the initiative to bring not
only international students to the Netherlands, but international debate
in the Netherlands through establishing something, which would be not
really a school, but an institute. So the place where education will take
place, on a postgraduate level, or on a professional level, but as well
as exhibitions, debates, masterclasses, would evolve other people with
Berlage students.
It was very interesting time in mid-80’s and beginning of 90’s,

when Hertzberger actually through his work as professor in TU Delft,
established a format which is called INDESEM – International Design
Seminar – organized with a group of students in TU Delft, a student
association actually. So INDESEM is organized by students rather
than the university or the faculty. I was kind of privileged to study with
Hertzberger in TU Delft during the mid-80’s in my postgraduate course,
to help him by doing the first INDESEM in 1985, which was dedicated
to Aldo van Eyck, because Aldo van Eyck was then forced to retire –
he became then 65 years old. INDESEM invited many architects and
specially many different students from – at that time – Russia, Soviet
Union, US, Italy, Spain and Eastern Europe. That was an incredibly
successful event. And Herman after repeating the event at 1986,
1987, 1988 – I actually organized the event in Split, Yugoslavia at that
time – 1989, Herman came to the idea that compressed education
with international teachers and international students can produce
fundamentally different results than those traditional educational
performance in Delft. So INDESEM was kind of trigger for Hertzberger
to begin in belief that something like two-year course international will be
possible.
He was helped immensely, by Melian Iselin, a Dutch architect, who

studied in the late 80’s in Columbia University in New York with Kenneth
Frampton. She was engaged very much in writing the policy and working
as a course director. Finally and most importantly, she was supported by
Hedy D’Ancona, the minister of Culture. So she actually proposed to the
Dutch Parliament the Memorandum on Architectural Policy (Architectuur
nota), that Architecture is important for the country. The parliament
adopted her policy. So Berlage Institute is a part, together with NAI
(Netherland Architecture Institute) and with other various funds, of the
Dutch Governmental policy. So it started like a student initiative, being
embraced by the parliament, the minister of Culture, and then being
established as an institution.
The purpose was multi-layered. One purpose was to question,

which for Hertzberger very important, the principles of education. He
didn’t believe any more in traditional education. Could we start establish
a new way of teaching? And he never believed in teaching. He was
often quoting the first generation of Berlage people “we don’t want to
be taught, but we want to learn”. So he always believes in learning than
teaching. People came here to learn.
And second purpose was to establish in the Netherlands an

international platform for debate. He would invite Oriol Bohigas,
Giancarlo de Carlo, Henry Ciriani, Kenneth Frampton, Juhani Pallasmaa,
basically his generation of thinkers which will perhaps otherwise not
really come to the Netherlands or if they would come, they would come
for a day, or for a lecture. Now they would come to the Berlage for
studios, seminars, debates with students. We would immediately be
engaged in designs of some interesting issues in the Netherlands. So
bringing such thinkers from Europe is very useful for the debate in the
Netherlands.
And finally Hertzberger as a kind of Montessori thinker, he always

believed in this Montessori idea of community, of family, and a kind of
freedom. And then the orphanage of Aldo van Eyck being abandoned
by the children and staff and being open to the market’s declaration
became an ideal space to host the Berlage Institute. So the purpose was
partly to save the orphanage. Actually parallel to the establishment of the
Berlage, Hertzberger has been sending postcards to 200 most famous
architects in the world, asking them to return the postcards to the City
of Amsterdam Government, to save the orphanage for the cultural
purposes rather than to build it as some office spaces.
So why did Hertzberger pick up a postgraduate research education instead of an

undergraduate one, as he no longer believed in traditional educational system?
As he has been teaching in Delft the first years and the diploma,
working with almost 450 to 500 students, which he couldn’t, at that
time, organize something like that logistically and legally in Europe.
The primary education on a university level in architecture was run
by the national government. And the postgraduate was already there,
obviously AA in London as a special school, and some programs by
Smithson Schule in Frankfurt, Barcelona, have been already shaping
as international places. So he couldn’t simply start with the first year on
a university level, because that was then, and is still now but less, with
Bologna declaration that support great mobility of staffs and students
among European schools. But that’s the situation now, 70 years
after. But Berlage’s multi-national environment has been anticipating
something which is now actually happening in Europe or in US, where
you study somewhere which you don’t necessarily live, so that mobility
is inherent in university level of education.
How does it work as a small and independent institute? Is it a hybrid institution?
I would say it works good, much better than, if you compare that,
university, because university, or universities, all over the world, are
very bureaucratic. They usually are not able to be very fast in making
decisions. They are run usually by very traditional and hierarchical
premises. And the Berlage, employing basically 3 to 4 people, having
from 16 in the beginning to 60 maximum students has been able to
reduce the hierarchical issues and bureaucratic issues to the minimum.
That’s super important.
The performance of the place was obviously hybrid in terms that it

was neither school, neither research institute, nor practice, that students
being neither students but been called participants, so neither employees
in office. Hybridity we argued as virtual quality of the place however it is
difficult when you talk with government or with bureaucracy. But hybridity
is fundamental to the reduce bureaucracy and determinism of certain
hierarchies. That’s very important for the Berlage. It started a new model
of institution. It’s public and private as well, which is not very unique in
the Netherlands, since private - public partnerships have been a lot in
many cultural and educational institutions to be a basis of performance.
So the Berlage never really belongs to any educational establishment,
it’s always between public and private. That’s the main hybridity. The
Berlage, being subsidized by the Ministry of Culture, is independent from
the Ministry of Education. So we’ve been, by that independence, able
to set up the curriculum structure, the “exam” structure, the research
content…completely independently. It’s not a negotiation between the
Ministry of Education, but a negotiation between the dean the board.
The board is always supporting the dean. So in that sense, it works very
well.
Why is it unique, if you compare the Berlage to the other similar institutions?
It is unique for what I already said, but another uniqueness of the

Berlage is the speed of change, or possibility to adapt. The Berlage
would change its curriculum structure or the research or education
performance almost every 2 or 3 years. One aspect in implementing the
change was implemented from the very beginning, when Hertzberger
said, that he should not be 5 years longer as dean at the Berlage, he
must go. That’s quite unique. Somebody who established a place,
saying that the place has to perform on certain principles, was basically
leaving after 5 years. And when Wiel Arets came as a new dean, firstly
Hertzberger talked to him, “Wiel, you should be worried about your
success.” And he said indirectly, “Wiel, you have to leave after 5 years
as well.” That was already very first DNA of the Berlage: change.
Second one, also very important, neither Arets nor Zaera-Polo,

never established Berlage as Hertzberger’s school or Arets’s school.
They didn’t link the performance of the school or the concept of the
school with their architectural performance or education. They didn’t
teach at the school. Hertzberger never taught the studio. He would invite
different people, and he would support people; he would trust people; he
would maybe share some ideas as a teacher. This is what Arets would
do of course. But they would not say: this is a Hertzberger postgraduate
course. That was unique as well, if you compare to Hejduk or whatever.
It’s very interesting that people do understand that here we have a place
as a platform, which is interesting because different people are coming,
and sdifferent people are teaching.
And what he said is super unique, “no one can become a full time
professor at the Berlage for life.” That’s another uniqueness. No one
was there with contract longer for one year. And most, almost all of the
teachers have been guest teachers. That’s very crucial because of what
Hertzberger said, “if you teach 10 years or if you’re professor for life,
you’ll immediately become lazy and not really operational.”
How’s the curriculum structured and what’s the intensions of doing so?
Curriculum is obviously the basic operational structure of the

institute, or it was previously when the institute was still more educational
place than research place nowadays. The curriculum structure we very
carefully developed and changed according to again, what Hertzberger
would argue, are the different experiences through which young
architects should go through within the two year period in order to be
able to deal with the modern growth. He was arguing that you have to
be able as young architect to perform different task simultaneously. So
you’re dealing with a theory; you’re dealing with short assignments like
masterclass; you’re dealing with a longer assignments as studios; you’
re dealing with long assignments as one–year thesis work. You have to
be able to present; you have to be able to perform a research; you have
to be very good in design… He was trying to produce a series of very
performative architects that will be able to perform in different conditions
and cultures, different activities within architecture as a discipline.
The assumption is, after graduation from the Berlage, you would
be a very good researcher; you could run a complicated institution; you
could engage in teaching or academic work; you could open your office,
or you could work for somebody… a kind of multi-potential creation.
That’s from the beginning the idea. Therefore, the curriculum structure
has to be geared towards such experiences in order to enable people
to perform after graduation. It didn’t change much with Wiel Arets and
Alejandro Zaera-Polo. Arets was changing it more towards emphasis
on the individual thesis that second year program has to be dedicated
to the individual thesis while Polo was more talking about the second
year program as a collective thesis linked with certain realities. But both
of the two deans would have the same belief that architects leaving the
Berlage after the two years would be able for multiple performances.
What do you think is the Berlagian Spirit?
I was always calling it the Berlagian Intelligence rather than Spirit.

For me, the intelligence is produced as a result of the communal efforts
of students and tutors. It’s not intelligence of crackerjack dean or
crackerjack thinker or a star architect or a genius student, but a collective
accumulation of intelligence.
How is this intelligence created? In “three spirits” of the institution,

which was not dominated by some dominant ideological position, but has
been rather creating an environment in which different voices, sometimes
even radically different voices specially during the Arets’s years, would
teach the studio and the thesis. People as Elia Zenglis, Winy Maas, Bart
Lootsma etc. are very different characters. Particularly, those differences
gave to the Berlage in the second period a very interesting layering of
various investigations. Lootsma went more into individualization and
social theories; Buns Hauten discussed more within the urban gallery,
a kind of new methodology of alternative urban planning; Winy Maas
established research on datascapes, discussing the relation between the
real data and urban environment; and Zenglis being in more pursuit of
architecture as a cultural and intellectual discipline primary discourse. All
those layers, together with what Alejandro Zaera-Polo then introduced
as a relation with reality, that most of the works at the institute has to
come from urgencies or from some hot issues that could be understood
through researching the real world, contributed to what I call the
Berlagian Intelligence. It’s plural in terms of origination. One could make
that spirit of the place as well.
How is it engaged in architectural practices, like Co-operations with successful

Dutch offices?
Actually Herman Hertzberger said he would not like to see the

Berlage graduate to work for Rem, Zaha or anybody else. The berlage
graduates should be a kind of independent thinkers and they could
develop themselves. If you look at the our alumni, you can find some
incredible successful practitioners, such as Branimir Medić and Pero
Puljiz, the partner of Architecture Cie, and Vasa J. Perovic earned the
studio special mention at the 2007 Mies van der Rohe Awards, and
some other independent architects. Many of them perform very well in
architecture practice in the Netherlands and world wide. At the beginning
and during Arets period, the Berlage was not really engaging in the
research or design relating to the reality. It is more providing the people
for the different practice.
The co-operation with the Dutch office is super good. We have

very direct communication with Rem, Ben van Berkel , Winy and so on.
Many of our graduates were absorbed immediately by these offices and
were appreciated in them. Especially many Asian people somehow like
to continue their European experience through engagement of leading
Dutch architecture offices in order to substantiate their experiences with
more pragmatic work in office. Especially when OMA open toward China
or other offices open toward Asia, they were welcomed in these offices,
and working on major competitions, such as CCTV in China. Being
already trained in the multi-culture environment in Berlage, they were
able to engage with the issues which were in front of these offices when
they would go in operation in China.
But I think the more interesting question might be how the Berlage
relates not to the architecture practice but the architecture reality during
last five years. Since Alejandroe become the dean in 2002, he argued
that the academia or the education institution should really engage the
reality. Then we start very successful programs on capital city which
is initially with Elia Zenghelis and then were developed further by Pier
Vittotior Aureli in Tirana, Brussels, Moscow and now Brasilia. And
we also developed with Bernard Cache and Peter Trummer the very
interesting research-Associate Design. These two parallel with other
studios such as development of software urbanism by Winy Maas
present three kinds of relation to reality.
Could you tell us something about all the past deans and their main contributions?
Herman Hertzberger as the founder set up the incredible intelligent

principle of Berlage Institute which Wiel Arets and Alejandro Zaera-Polo
followed. Each dean put different characters to the Berlage by inviting
different people to teach and by promoting different issues. Hertzberger
always promoted the issue of human condition, concentration on the
user and city which he put social aspect in front of architecture. Arets
would engage in the belief of architect as Individual who should establish
individual agenda by working with different professors. And Zaera-Polo
would more promote the architecture activity as collective effort based
on reality issue. These three different contributions to the Berlage are
very interesting.
What about the co-operation of the post-graduate program and the PhD program?
How does it work?
We established the PhD program in conjunction with the Faculty of

Architecture of Delft University of Technology. Now we think the PhD
program should become very important. We believe many Berlage
alumnus should engage the PhD program.
We think the PhD program should change its conventional

character. We call it pragmatic research. It should not only discuss about
historical or theoretical issue, but also engage with production, design
and connective pragmatic attitude toward discourse. It is again a hybrid.
We will put a lot of efforts to establish this performing program. And PhD
program will more influence master program.
What’s the Berlage position of booming-China? How are many studios on Chinese
projects going on?
What the most interesting relation with china is that we started

masterclasses and studios about China, Such as Village in City studio
with Yushi Uehara, masterclass in Shanghai with Qingyun Ma, Energy
City studio with Nicolas and Associative Design studio with Peter.
Obviously we are interested in Chinese issue not because we believe it
is a new starter of world, but because we believe the new world which
China is creating will be paradigmatic for the rest part of world soon. At
least the rest of world will need to negotiate with China on many issues,
in terms of sustainability, urban growth and so on.
So in that sense, our position is looking into China with eagerness to

learn not only what is happening now but also historical shift in Chinese
history in order to understand what is happening now. Then we try to
make extremely precise research in China. For example, Village in City
studio tries to understand how one country with two systems is operating
and how unique it is. And now in Associative Design studio we try to
develop certain housing typologies and configuration in order to provide
alternative in sustainability issue, production of market and urban issue
in China.
What’s your critiques and advices to Chinese students?
It is always interesting that when we establish the international

institute in Western Europe in English, we inevitably base on European
culture. It’s a certain culture setting. Asian students, not only Chinese
students, are coming with completely different culture background. As
we do not really know the difference between Ming and Qing Dynasty,
and you might not really know the difference between Renaissance and
Manierism in Italy. So here we have very interesting situation. In one
way you need to learn to become global player who do really understand
different culture, in another way you need to understand the European
culture. That is why we invite Lieven De Cauter, Roemer van Toorn
Thomas A. P. van Leeuwen to bring you closer to logic of European
culture.
Second advice is to increase the skill how you talk, how you
argue and what you present. It is the skill which we want to cultivate
a lot. Presenting an argument, defending an argument, illustrating an
argument and automatically convincing somebody are critical to the
performance of the student.
Then another advice is that we really want to see the Chinese

students to perform in china but not to work for Rem or other global
office. Because we think Chinese urbanization will be historically
important process in 21st century, not only in terms of number, but also
in terms of ideology, lifestyle and so on. In such process, we think our
alumnus should engage.
Then the critical question will be how far the Berlage experience
might enable our alumnus to become the real operator, real moderator
and real performer in China. This question we should answer in the
future. And now we are working on the project that we try to found the
Qinghua-Berlage institute in Bejing. We really like the fundamental
relation with Chinese culture and Chinese young students for precise
project about urbanization in China which is the major issue in 21st
century.
I think it is also very unique that the Berlage Institute always welcomes the students
not only from different countries but also different disciplines. How do you think of
it?
We would invite the students not only including architecture, but

also landscape, interior design and photography in culture field. This
kind of overlapping different characters in the studio is very potential in
collective work. You are not the architects who are fighting to introduce
your individual idea as the best, but you are the individuals working in a
team with different knowledge, different discipline, and different culture
background. This is pretty much the future of globalized world. Such kind
of character not only will be in the global cooperation institution, but also
will become more and more the performance of local offices in the world
cities which 80% of our students are coming from. In that sense, this
multi-national and multi-disciplinary is very important.
彼得•初莫
贝尔拉格学院关联式设计研究课题主导师
彼得 • 初莫 , 奥地利建筑师，学者。曾于 UN-Studio 任建筑师， Offshore

Architects创立人之一。2004年起开始指导“关联式设计”系列课题研究。2005
年任教于德国纽仑堡学院。他在国际上讲座、授教、发表文章，包括贝尔拉格
学院、鹿特丹建筑学院、伦敦AA学院和休斯顿莱斯大学。
采访者：钱诗韵
时间：2007年5月15日
地点：荷兰贝尔拉格学院
请先介绍一下关联式设计研究的想法和课题展望。
关联式设计是一个采用计算机生成技术来进行建筑城市问题实践的研
究项目。概括说来这是一种参数设计，用可量化的参数系统来控制不可量
的参数变化。关联式模型的建立基于关联性几何体。以关联性几何体来描
述定义各个集合体之间的关系，从他们互相制约、紧密联系的互动关系架
构设计对象。
我们课题组想做的是把这种关联式设计技术应用到城市本身问题的研
究中去，尤其是对于住宅问题的考查。研究结果会是一套由单个住宅单元
设计繁衍变化而成的新型社区组团模型。
关联式设计的研究是以怎样的建筑学知识为背景的？采取的是什么方法论？
关联式设计的观点是将建筑理解为一种以 “术”(希腊语techne)为统领
的物质化生产，也就是说，这是一种从实际出发、有的放矢的理性态度。
建筑学上发展出的、把事物的本质从具体的存在中抽离出来并概括为
抽象形式的方法，实际上已经将现实默认为“实质”的一部分，并由此展开
一系列类型学以及各种类型演变应用的探索。
而建筑学以外的一些学科对本质化却提出了不同的见解，相对于抽象
出单一的型，他们认同的是：“多样性”。从几何学、数学,生物学到哲学，
“多样性”的想法无非是对相同现实采取不同的认知态度，并非无中生有或
者什么新兴产物，却代表了与之前“本质化”思考截然相反的立场。如德勒
兹所说，“多样性不去指定一种个体与群体的特定组合，而是给予那些无
需任何统一去形成系统的群体一种组织方式。”“多样性”的观点表述了对于
分门别类或者说“类型”观点的对立，其实在更深层次上是对引发表面变化
形式结果的内部过程的关注。
关联式设计的目的，就是引入“多样性”的理论观点，结合几何学关系
技术设计可被实际开发应用的建筑项目。这种方法论与现有的总体规划完
全对立，因为它本身不是一个从抽象到现实的具化，而是从现实出发，逐
步发展出一套单元架构基础，然后生成整个总体的过程。
“多样性”的概念牵涉到了类型、变化、差异等等的概念，你是怎么理解这些概
念之间的关联性的？
建筑学把类型学理论当作一个容纳差异和参与现实实践的手段，所有
的“建筑类型”都通过描述其实质定义特征，除却这些关键特征以后就“山不
是山，水不是水”了。类型逻辑思维的问题，在于否定了形态发生过程，
只定义了无休止的分类却把之前的整个发生过程给忽略了。
所以我更关心的是什么导致了变化的发生，是什么定义了其中的差
异。任何一种处理关联性设计的软件都可以用来生成无限变化，对于我们
软件就是用来探寻不同层次的“不同”。以住宅为例，我们感兴趣的不再是
那些可以是或者那些是适合某类特定人群的“最佳”或者“最优化”平面，而
是这些平面之间的共同点和它们究竟区别在哪。
与其他类似的生成设计方法、比如AA 学院的形态生成研究的区别是什么？
如今几乎各大学术院校都有涉及计算机技术设计领域的课程，我们可
以从中看到两点趋势：一种是比较接近实际生产制造的，致力于探索设计
与电脑数值控制制造技术(computer numerical control)的关系；另一种主
要从编程出发，拓展工具本身可带来的变化可能。目前大多数的研究都属
于后者，而我在贝尔拉格的实践把关联性设计的应用范围拓展到了各种尺
度上，更重要的是，那些能够引发变化的因素：生态、政策、经济等相关
的统领因素都被作为参数的一部分融入了设计当中。整个设计是个繁殖生
长的过程，在每个尺度层面上：从最小的制造环节，到住宅单元、住宅环
境、乃至整个住宅小区都考虑到了使用功能、经济因素、自然环境、社会
人文、建筑结构等制约条件。
最接近于我的研究方向的也许是迈克•亨叟尔（Michael Hensel）和阿
齐母•门戈斯(Archim Menges)在AA带领的形态生成系列课题了。我们都
以探索建筑的表述潜力为追求，也都各自用了形态生成软件来处理建筑设
计与环境的关系。
继马德里的住宅项目之后，为什么这次选了中国、特别是上海的地域建筑作研
究对象？怎样理解“合成地域性”？
这次选中国为应用对象是出于两方面的考虑。首先，几近退出历史、
或者只是在历史理论里出现的中国传统木构建筑从它的悠久历史长河里发
展了一套关联性生产模式，无论是院落住宅还是寺庙建筑都是出于同一套
结构体系，应用的是同一种传统建构技术。“营造法式”的绝妙之处，实际
上在于它只应用了一个简单的几何体系，通过控制木柱的直径、数量就可
以千变万化，制造出适应特定气候条件、功能要求和人文需要的建筑来。
而随着十九世纪末中国社会结构的巨大变革，当代中国政治经济环境里生
产的新建筑或多或少已经丧失了传统建筑的精神，取而代之的是从西方进
口的标准化建造方法。于是就有了第二个研究动机。中国建筑营造技术中
用同一套建造体系和技术来完成完全不同类型建筑的丰富性似乎已经消失
了。取而代之的从西方引进的建造方法，目前中国房产市场上所有的住宅
设计类型，都是西方进口的，相比下传统住宅不仅完全丧失了中国式居住
的精神，其丰富性和复杂性也大大降低了。所以我们感兴趣的是，如何可
以学习中国现有的文化遗产――以既不是怀旧、也不是嫁接――而是用前
瞻性的态度对待传统，看在已有的社会环境和技术限制下我们能用新的手
段做出怎样的住宅社区，对住宅发展上能做到多少突破和超越。朱家角水
乡有独特的历史文化背景，又地处长江三角洲的经济龙头上海，选题上没
有比这里的状况更适合做关联式住宅设计的试验了。
请谈一下关联式设计系列的研究成果和其中遇到的问题。
关联式设计研究进行到今年已经是第三年了，可以说进展相当顺利。
之前的研究成果不仅在学术界引起了相当关注，而且我们的客户――那些
城市的政府部门和文化机构也表示了认同，因为关联式设计激发了我们怎
样处理城市环境和建筑在其中发挥作用角色的探讨。这个课题实际上才刚
刚起步，就已经被邀请参加了 2006年威尼斯双年展，设计成果也已经刊
登在各类相关刊物上了。当然我更希望有一天可以实现其中的一些项目，
让人们去体验这样的城市环境可以给我们的都市生活带来什么。
我也很为我的学生们自豪，他们都在享有国际声誉的建筑事务所如诺
曼•福斯特事务所、UN Studio、FOA等获得了职位，或者开办自己的公
司，而且都非常善于评判。这意味着我们课题组的每位成员在学习共通的
方法以外，都可能要在项目中发展属于他们自己的评判标准。我希望今后
几年里我们可以拓展我们的团体，与Arup之类的实践公司合作，以细化和
强化我们的研究。
谢谢。
不客气。
Peter Trummer
Head of the Associative Design Research Program
Peter Trummer is an architect and researcher. He is a former project

architect at UN Studio; he cofounded Offshore Architects before establishing
his own practice in 2004. He internationally lectures and publishes. In 2005
he was guest professor at the Academy in Nürnberg, Germany. He lectures,
teaches and publishes internationally, including at the Berlage Institute
and the Academy of Architecture in Rotterdam, the AA in London and Rice
University in Houston.
Interview by: Shiyun Qian

Time：May 15, 2007
Location：Berlage Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Could you introduce first the idea of the Associative Design and the scope of the
studio?
Associative design is a research program to produce disciplinary

knowledge of new computational techniques in the domain of urban
structures. It is, in general, a parametric design technique using metric
parameters to create an infinite number of variations. It is a technique
based on associative geometry. Such geometries describe the
relationships between various assemblies and constitute a design object
as a mutually linked geometrical construction.
The research studio applies the technique of associativity to

immanent concerns of our cities and specifically to the ones of housing.
The outcome of the research is the design of a population of a housing
units that form together new neighbourhood models.
What kind of knowledge does the research produce? What kind of methodology is
adapted?
The research on associative design considers architecture as a

material practice with its own production of effects and can be defined
by the Greek word techne, that is to say a practical rationality governed
by a conscious goal. Within the history of architecture, our discipline
developed knowledge through forms of abstractions that are tools to
separate the essential from the concrete. This architectural tool has been
used by the discipline to accommodate reality as a form of essentialism,
the idea of typological thinking and its various applications of types.
Other disciplines developed within their discourse an alternative to

essentialism, which can be defined as “multiplicities.” From geometry
to mathematics, from biology to philosophy, the concept of multiplicity
is not a new thing, or something that did not exist before; it is simply a
different way of looking at the same reality. The definition of a multiplicity
is in absolute opposition to what has been defined earlier as essentialist
thinking. In the words of Deleuze, “Multiplicities must not designate
a combination of the many and the one, but is rather an organization

belonging to the many as such, which has no need whatsoever of unity
in order to form a system.”
Multiplicity is not only an opposition to categorization or to the idea

of types, it is rather fundamentally related to the processes that drive the
appearance of the variety of forms within our world.
The aim of associative design is to engage into the theory of

multiplicity and uses the technique of associative geometry to produce
knowledge in architectural design that is applicable in practice. That is a
methodology in total opposition to master planning because it’s not from
the abstract to the real, but rather it starts with the real and builds up
unit-based structure in order to create a bigger whole.
Multiplicity is something about types, variations, differences etc., how do you

understand them in associativity?
To accommodate diversity and to be able to practice within the

real, the discipline of architecture instrumentalized the idea of types.
All typologies describe the essence of the object in order to explain
its identity. Without these fundamental features an object would not
be what it is. The problem of typological thinking is that it denies any
morphogenetic process. It defines timeless categories than undergoing
the process that made its appearance possible within our world. In
opposition to that we are faced today with the fact of what should drive
the diversity of variations and what is it that defines its difference. Since
the design with any kind of associative software enables us to produce
endless variations our task as researcher is to identify is degrees of
differences. So in terms of housing for example it is not interesting
anymore what could be or is the best or optimal housing type for a
particular group of individuals of families but rather what too they have in
common and by want mean they differ.
What are the differences with other generative design approaches like the AA school’
s morphogenetic research?
In the mean time nearly all academic institutions offer educational

programs dedicated to the field of new computational techniques.
There are in principle two tendencies we can identify: one is close to
the world of manufacturing process and offers programs that explore
the possibilities of design and CNC (computer numerical control)
manufacturing. The second programs are mainly from finding design
program that expand the formal variety of the tool itself. While most
of the current research in the field of architecture favors this kind of
application. My research at the Berlage Institute applies associative
design not only to all scales of a design process but even more important
engages it in the field of architecture with its very specific regimes on
sustainability, policies, economics and power that govern the real.
The closest relationship of my research unit is probably the AA

research on morpho-genetics run by Michael Hensel and Archim
Menges. What we have in common is the desire of the performative
potential of architectural design and the specific use of generative
software to accommodate the relationship between the architectural
object and its environment.
What’s the reason for choosing China, especially Shanghai vernacular, after the
neighbourhood project in Madrid? What do you mean by synthetic vernacular?
The reason to apply this research to the Chinese content is two-

fold. Firstly, nearly forgotten or at least only remembered in history
books, Chinese culture has developed over centuries an associative
process in which the traditional building techniques are applied on the
design of their wooden structure buildings like courtyard houses and
temples. The intelligence of Ying zao fa shi was actually the application
of a geometrical system based on the diameter of a wood column
that allowed builders to produce endless variations to specify climatic,
programmatic and social demands. But with the transformation of the
economic circumstances and political changes at the end of the 19th
century, all the knowledge more or less disappeared and become
replaced by imported means of standardized building techniques.
The second research is a consequence of the first. All the knowledge

and techniques to produce diversity in vernacular architecture seemed
to have not existed when it comes to the contemporary housing market
in China. All typologies built at the moment are Western imports that
more or less have failed to perform its promise. What interests us is to
learn from the cultural heritage, not as nostalgia or as a translation of
it, but in which extent we can transgress and evolve to new housing
neighbourhoods that are informed but the local ecologies and are
specific to the environment they are embedded in. There can nor be a
better place to test the means of associative design and its emerging
geometries.
What are the achievements and feedbacks from previous research experiences?
After running the program now for the third year, meaning that
it actually is in constant progression, we achieved that the results
of associative design research become not only taken serious in an
academic world but especially have been appreciated by governments
of cities and cultural institution in order to produce an debate on the
way we deal with our urban environment and the role of the discipline in
architecture. For the actually very young research program we become
invited to the exhibited the work at the Venice biennale in 2006 and
where published in various magazine related to the event. Of course
I hope that once we can build one of our proposals to allow people to
experience what kind of effect such urban environments which can have
for our city life.
I am proud that many of my students got not only jobs in

internationally renowned offices, like Norma Foster and Partners, UN
Studio, FOA or opened there own company, but that they became critical
experts. This means that any participant of the research studio might
learn a common methodology but develop their individual criterion for a
project. I hope that in the coming years we will expand our network by
collaborating with more companies like Ove Arup in an attempt that the
research can become more specific and focused.
皮尔•维托瑞•奥热理
皮尔•维托瑞•奥热理是建筑师和教育家。他获威尼斯建筑学院城市规划博
士学位，贝尔拉格学院硕士学位，贝尔拉格学院与代尔夫特理工大学联合博士
学位。他现任教于贝尔拉格学院，负责城市研究课题。他是伦敦建筑联盟、纽
约哥伦比亚大学和代尔夫特理工大学的客座教授。奥热理在世界各地演讲和
发表文章，他的新书《一个绝对建筑的可能性：研究由柏拉蒙特到密斯，通
过建筑形式表征城市》即将于2009年春由MIT出版社作为系列建筑丛书出版。
他与马蒂诺•塔塔拉（Martino Tattara ）建立了Dogma工作室，重点研究城市
课题。最近，Dogma赢得韩国50万人口规模新行政中心城市的国际竞赛一等
奖，2006年他们因最突出建筑实践而获Iakov Chernikhov奖。
采访者：吴中平
时间：2007年2月10日
地点：荷兰鹿特丹贝尔拉格建筑学院
作为一个建筑师，你面对现实的立场是什么？在许多的讨论中，人们经常问
你对“现实”的态度，那么，我们的方案与“现实”的关系是怎么样的？
在当前市场主导的自由主义形式下，我十分怀疑资本主义的可持续
性。所以，作为建筑师，我面对“现实”的立场无疑是批判性的。我正在努
力的是如何重新定义城市的概念，这个概念与资本主义定义的城市完全不
同。
当人们问我对于 “ 现实 ” 的态度的时候，我觉得他们是在问我对于 “ 市
场 ” 的态度。那么，尽管市场的现实是真实的，但我依然相信我们的憧
憬、梦想、志向，而且他们应该比市场本身更加真实。
为什么你认为建筑师的角色在21 世纪会非常重要？建筑师可以如何改变社
会，而不是仅仅被全球化和市场的逻辑所驱使？
相信所谓的“市场逻辑”是一种很典型的普遍的思维方式，这种错误的
意识迷惑了我们对现实的判断和理解。这种市场逻辑的最终目标是一种世
界性的政治工程，它基于全球性整合和经济性集聚。我要对这种工程说
不。我坚信，在将来，缺乏社会公正和全球变暖问题－－这两个资本主义
不可持续发展的最明显的征兆－－将迫使政治家改变他们对待资本主义的
那种认同态度。在这种即将来临的设想下，城市必将改变，而建筑师将
被要求重新设计城市，而不只是像现在这样为PRADA设计店面。（笔者
注：OMA为PRADA设计了一系列的旗舰店，这成为了明星建筑师与奢侈
品牌合作的典范，也是建筑师被市场逻辑驱使的典型案例。）
你为什么要研究首都城市这个课题？
(注：皮尔•维托瑞•奥热理是贝尔拉格学院为期5 年的首都城市研究课题的主持
人。这个课题目的在于通过巨大尺度的争议性的都市方案，重点研究建筑形
式、政治理论与城市历史的关系，重新定义城市为一个政治性的制度。)
在全球化网络和其他都市化的形式的强大势力下，首都作为政治性的
象征，仍然有其独特性。首都结合了地缘政治学的力量和“真实”的城市的
物质性力量。
对于我们的研究，“城市”、“政治” 和“形式”是非常重要的概念。你怎样去定义

它们？
我主张“形式的概念”和“政治的概念”是建筑的两个理论的起始点。如
果说政治行动的本质是试图界定个体间共存的形式，我们可以说建筑的形
式－－通过制定模式、构筑框架、表征空间的共存－－不可避免地意味
着一种政治的图景。即使没有政治性的建筑，但肯定有一种政治性的方式
去创造、阅读建筑的形式。
我们通过什么手段来建立这样的议题? 你为什么认为文字与图像同样重要？
我深深地相信：要建立这样的立场，建筑本身的形式和视觉形象的生
成是非常本质的手段。写作对于一个建筑师来说十分的重要。阿尔多•罗
西曾经对我说过如果你想成为建设者，你必须建造；但如果你想成为建筑
师，你必须写作，意味着你必须为建筑学建立理论。
研究小组的架构是怎么样的？你是如何与学生一起工作的？
我认为当今的建筑教育的一个严重的问题是对学生的培养都基于一个
理念：天才独立完成自己的杰作。建筑明星在学校中越来越强的影响充
分反应了这一点。这就象我们在培养迷你的建筑明星而不是建筑师。建筑
师只有通过合作才能起作用。在我的研究小组中，学生们共同研究一个课
题。这意味着这个课题不是简单的设计训练而是一种政治性和文化性探索
的形式，就象建筑本身一样。
你如何看待当今中国的状态，特别是急速发展的都市化进程？你觉得这是一
种独特的现象还是普遍的现象？
我觉得中国现在处于一种严重的迷失状态，因为急速发展的都市化并
不没有相应的政治乃至人权等领域的发展与支持。同时不可忽视的是，在
国外对中国实际情况的介绍也缺乏透明性。我个人并不认同西方建筑师对
中国所做的研究，因为大多数情况下除了无知的狂热外，它们一无是处。
你认为中国最急迫解决的问题是什么？
政治。
你如何看待在当前状态下中国建筑师的角色？为什么你认为中国建筑师不应该
只是照搬西方的模式，而应该走自己的路？
我强烈希望中国建筑师不要再照搬西方的陈词滥调了。
你对贝尔拉格学院的中国学生有什么建议吗？你希望他们在中国有怎样的表
现？
我对中国学生有很好的印象。我喜欢他们的幽默感，他们既对现实充
满怀疑又对生活充满热爱的态度让我着迷。但我真的认为他们政治上觉醒
的时候到了。我希望新一代不但在设计作品上，而且在政治理想上更大胆
些。
Pier Vittorio Aureli

Unit Professor
Pier Vittorio Aureli is an architect and educator. After graduating cum

laude form the Istituto di Architettura di Venezia, Aureli obtained a doctorate
in urban planning, a master’s degree at the Berlage Institute, and a PhD
at the Berlage Institute/Delft University of Technology. Aureli teaches at
the Berlage Institute – where he is Unit Professor and responsible for the
“research on the city” program. Currently he is visiting Professor at the
Architectural Association in London, Columbia University in New York, and
Delft University of Technology. Aureli has lectured and published worldwide
and his forthcoming book, The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture: A
Study on the Representation of the City through Architectural Form From
Bramante to Mies, will be published by The MIT Press in spring 2009 as
part of the Writing Architecture Series. Together with Martino Tattara is the
cofounder of Dogma, an architectural collective centered on the project of the
city. Very recently Dogma won the first prize in the international competition
for the new Administrative City for 500.000 inhabitants in the Republic of
South Korea, and in 2006 received the Iakov Chernikhov Prize for the best
emerging architectural practice.
Interview by: Zhongping Wu

Time: Feburary 4, 2007
Location: The Berlage Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
What is your position as an architect to reality? In a lot of debates, people always

ask your attitude to “reality”, so how do you consider the relationship between our
project and “reality"?
I'm definitely skeptical about the fact that Capitalism, in the current
form of free market liberalism, is sustainable. Therefore my position as
an architect towards "reality" is definitely critical and my current struggle
is how we can re-define a notion of city that is alternative to the one of
proposed by Capitalism.
When people ask me about "reality" I have the sense that they are
asking me about the reality of "market”. Well, I believe that our visions,
dreams and aspirations notwithstanding the reality of the market is
"real", and they must be real even than the market itself.
Why do you think the role of architect can be very important in the 21st Century?
How can the architects change the society, not just be driven by the globalization
and market logic?
To believe that so called "market logic" is an outstanding for of

ideology in the classic sense of the world: false consciousness that
mystify our sense and perception of the real. The very end of this
market logic lies a political project of the world based on the idea of
global integration and economic concentration. To this project I say no.
But I strongly believe that in the future the combination of lack of social
justice, and global warming - the two most evident signs of capitalism
unsustainability - will force politicians to change their benevolent attitude
toward capitalism. In this forthcoming scenario cities will have to change,
and architects will be asked to design cities again, and not only some
shops for Prada.
(Note: OMA designed a series of flagship shops for Prada. It

became the paragon that the ”super star” architect cooperate with luxury
brand. It is the typical case to show that the architect is driven by the
market logic.)
Why do you choose Capital Cities?
Because Capital Cities are exceptional places of political

representation notwithstanding the power of global networks and other
forms of urbanization. Capital Cities combine the power of geopolitics
with the actual physical power of a "real" city.
(note: Pier Vittorio Aureli is head of the Capital Cities Research

Program in the Berlage Institute for 5 years. This program aims to
redefine the idea of the city as a political institution by focusing on the
relations between architectural form, political theory and urban history by
means of large-scale polemical urban projects.)
“City”, “Political” and “Form” are very important concepts in our work. How do
you define them?
The concept of the “formal” and the concept of the “political” are
architecture’s double theoretical ground zero. If the essence of political
action may be said to be the attempt to define a form of coexistence
among individuals, we may say that architectural form－by means
of patterning, framing, and representing the space of coexistence－
inevitably implies a political vision.
Thus even if there is no political architecture, there is certainly a

political way of making and reading architectural form.
What kind of tools can we build up the argument? Why do you think the text is as
important as the drawing?
I deeply believe that architecture itself in the form of its project and
picture-making process is a very fundamental tool to argue for such a
position. To write for an architect is terribly important. Aldo Rossi once
told me that if you want to be a builder you have to build, but if you want
to be an architect you have to write a book, meaning you have to build a
theory for architecture.
How is the studio structured? How do you work with the students?
I think that a serious problem in architectural education today is the

training of students based on the idea of the individual genius working
on his own masterpiece. This reflect more and more the influence of the
"archistar'" in schools. It is like we are training a mini-archistar instead of
an architect.
Architects work only by collaboration. In my studios, students work

together on one project, which means that the project is not simply a
design exercise but a form of political and cultural inquiry by means of
architecture itself.
How do you see the situation in China nowadays, especially the booming
urbanization? Do you think it’s unique or normal?
I think that China is in a serious problematic situation because

the booming urbanization is not follow-up by other developments in
the field of politics and human rights. There is also a considerable
lack of transparency in the way Chinese reality is represented abroad.
Personally I don't take seriously the researches done by Western
architects on china because most of the time it is juts naive enthusiasm
and nothing else.
What is the urgent problem of china?
Politics.
How do you consider the role of Chinese architects in current situation? Why do you
think Chinese architects should not just follow the Western approach, but should find
our own way out?
I strongly hope that Chinese architects will stop this silly import of
Western cliché in their country.
Do you have any advice to the Chinese students in the Berlage Institute? What do
you expect them to perform in China?
I have a good experience with Chinese students. I like their sense

of humor, and I'm fascinated by their mixture of skepticism towards
the reality of the profession and enthusiasm towards life. But I really
think that the time for them to politically wake up has come. I hope
that the next generation will be more daring not only in terms of design
production, but also in terms of political vision.
382
荷兰代尔夫特理工大学
建筑系
http://www.bk.tudelft.nl
斯蒂芬•瑞德
伯纳德•卢本
翰•梅耶
383
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Faculty of Architecture
http://www.bk.tudelft.nl
Stephen Read
Bernard Leupen
Han Meyer
384 Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
斯蒂芬•瑞德
建筑学院副教授
瑞德博士是一个城市学家并在荷兰代尔夫特理工大学建筑学院担任教授。
他曾在南非和伦敦做建筑师，后在代尔夫特理工大学获得城市形态学博士学
位。之后，他在伦敦大学学院的巴特利特学院的空间句法实验室做研究员，并
于2002年在代尔夫特理工大学建筑学院开创了空间实验室工作组。他也是一
位多产的作家，其作品包括有关城市形态和转化的学术文章以及编辑的图书
出版物，包括无形的可视化：走向城市空间（ 2006年）和未来城市（ 2005
年）。斯蒂芬博士是一位有浪漫气质的哲学家型学者，也是一个良师益友。大
部分城市和建筑专业的学生是通过选修斯蒂芬博士所开设的设计课与他接触，
他也会做一些全系性的公共讲座。在每周的设计课上，他往往与学生进行深刻
的哲学思想交流，并能够用简单易懂的隐喻和概念来启发和引导学生去观察城
市和发现问题。
荷兰代尔夫特理工大学 385
采访者：孙萌
时间： 2008年7月
地点：美国芝加哥美国规划师协会与欧洲规划院校协会联合大会现场
首先请您介绍一下“空间实验室”的历史及研究重点。
“空间实验室”的想法是提供一种语境来研究城市形态。我们试图通过
城市形态来探究城市。这并不意味着社会经济文化等因素不相关，它们是
重要的，但一切都可以通过城市形态表现出来。“空间实验室”的研究属于
城市形态学的范畴，我们的研究延伸并超出了传统的城市形态学。形态这
个概念是非常有趣和复杂的。我们试图不仅从建筑角度，而且从一种生长
方式的角度了解形态。例如，生物学中形态是一个非常有趣的主题，其中
的概念超越了纯粹的形态而是将形态融入事物发展的进程。
我曾经读过您关于城市作为机器以及城市中的运动等文章，这些是否是“空间
实验室”的一个方向呢？
我们对运动非常感兴趣。运动不仅指方向，它为了解城市提供了很多
信息，也在一定意义上创造了城市形态。城市的物理形态在很大程度上受
到城市动态“流”的影响。因此，“流动”是认识城市形态的最直接的方面，
当然还有其他形态的城市运动形态方面。
您怎么定义“运动”？
运动是指流动的人，车和事物... ...它关注城市基础设施在城市规划塑
造城市中的作用。“空间实验室”的研究已经把城市基础设施的概念提升到
到另一个水平。城市基础设施或城市内部结构的概念对于我们而言已经超
出基础设施本身作为一个原始的规划工具的范畴。因为利用城市基础设施
作为研究可以实现城市中的许多其他事情。基础设施可以通过各种方式来
塑造城市。
经过规划的与未经过规划的城市运动有区别么？
这二者难以区分。很多运动一直是被某种规划所控制的。比如一个城
市大型基础设施的规划和建设，比如高速路，立交桥对于这个城市在道
路交通基础上的生长有至关重要的决定作用。大型基础设施需要大量的资
金势必要求某种规划。也许100年前道路可以有机地产生;但现在，道路的
增长与规划直接相关。但是，设计师规划设计了基础设施并不意味着他们
知道使用者会如何实际的使用这些基础设施。使用者会创造出许多的意想
不到的可能性。
在你的论著中，你提出了“厚的城市空间”的概念，这个概念与基础设施有关
么？
“厚的城市空间”的概念指的是尺度、比例、等级的想法。运动和城市
的进程并不都发生在一个级别。人们不能对着一张地图说： “我们可以看
到整个城市。”虽然你可以看到整个城市的地理范围，不同的东西出现在
不同尺度。当你把地图放大，你会发现另一层活动（进程）正在进行。当
你再次放大，新的活动（进程）会从前一层中逐渐呈现出来。当你不断的
放大地图时，这一进程不断继续。“空间实验室”的核心研究方法是用尺度
和等级的方法来分析城市。不同层次，不同规模的城市进程互相影响，因
此，如果想看到整个城市，你必须在不同的层次中审视它，这样，你得到
了城市的深度。要真正了解一个城市，我们需要不同层次和尺度的地图，
一个叠在另一个的上面。
我们如何知道地图的哪些部分应该放大呢？以及停留在哪个尺度呢？
它似乎很抽象，但是当你这样做，层次就会自动展现出来，你自然而
然就找到了。这很难有一个理论回答，因为“空间实验室”的研究大都不是
停留在抽象的理论层面，而是实地的观察，绘制地图和理解城市。城市
本身是非常重要的城市知识来源。一个人可以进入图书或者城市去获得城
市的知识。我们主张实证的过程，并对抽象的理论抱有怀疑态度。
在一定的尺度和层次，城市的实践和进程被聚焦了。例如，社区尺度
是城市进程的一种聚焦层次，在这个层次，我们所有日常生活熟悉的事情
都展现出来---街道，街区，主要干道和后巷街道... ...另一种聚焦的尺度是
城市作为一个整体在城市的某些地区形成了城市中心，然后这些部分开始
城市形成不同的感觉，这些不同的感觉开始创建不同的城市身份。城市是
人类的构建的结构，这个结构不是主观性的，而是客观性的。而我们不能
把主客体彼此分开，因为城市是人类的产物，甚至很多时候是在我们不知
情的情况下生产的。我们可以在某些层次和尺度上认识城市，并在这些层
次和尺度之间，我们失去了焦点。我们的行为和对世界的理解也是基于某
些尺度和层次的。例如，在写信的时候，你写的地址包括几行文字，而不
同尺度的文字中间的层次是不存在的。我们写收信人的名字和门牌号码，
但你不会写一些东西在收信人和门牌号码之间。同样的，门牌号码属于街
道，而街道与门牌号码之间的层次也是不存在的。然后地址走向更大的尺
度，街道、城市、国家。因为人类通过这样一个系统来构建和认知世界，
所有这些事情都是构建出来的。他们不仅是被社会构建出来，也是物质
形态上的构建，所有东西都有形态。因此，房子不仅仅是一个社会构建，
也是一个用砖头和水构建的建筑，街道这个概念也是一样。所有这些事情
都已经被建造了。它们是人类的建造而不仅是社会建造的结果，因此，所
有事情都有形态。当你把所有这些东西在一起，你开始得到分层的城市。
这意味着在任何一个层，你不能获得其他层的信息。例如，一个城市的地
图包括城市街道，但不能具体到建筑物的层面；一个具体建筑的平面图不
能反映和包括街道的层面。因此，所有一切的进程，我们不能只看一个层
面，我们必须同时考虑所有的层面。这是研究城市的困难所在。由于我
们研究城市形态，我们必须捕捉大量的城市进程。
哪些理论和理论家是“空间实验室”研究方法的指导？
虽然许多研究都在关注城市形态和基础设施，但没有很多研究致力于
二者的联系。很多其他作者的论著虽然不能直接运用到“空间实验室”的研
究，但他们的想法是非常丰富有趣以及有教益指示的。简•雅各布斯也许
是我让学生读的第一人。简•雅各布斯是非常重要的，因为她认识到城市
是动态的，复杂的，但这些复杂性不是无序的，而是有序的。秩序出现
于复杂的城市进程中，城市进程汇集于城市的运动。所有城市的其他方面
都会体现在城市的运动方面。相对于新的地理学论著，我自己倾向于阅
读老的地理学者的文章，因为他们的想法似乎更有趣。例如，让•戈特曼
在20世纪60年代第一个提出了特大城市的想法。亨利•列斐伏尔是非常重
要的作者，因为他对城市的形态有很多深刻的理解。然而，他的文字很难
读懂，因为他是与已经有知识背景的人对话。对于知识背景，我指的是这
些人已经读过并完全理解了马克思、海德格尔、黑格尔的哲学。如果能
理解这些人，一个人可以完全没有问题的理解亨利•列斐伏尔。我本人读
了很多海德格尔的著作，我对海德格尔的理解也加深了我对列斐伏尔的理
解。
“空间实验室”的书单还包含其他作者么？
爱德华•索雅的《后-大都市》涉及许多普通的城市意向，非常有趣。
他的《第三类空间》一书是对亨利•列斐伏尔非常有趣的评论并帮助我们
理解当代的城市。路易斯•芒福德，芝加哥学派的社会学理论，这些早期
文献是非常有趣的，不是因为我同意他们的观点，而是他们的空间思想是
明确的。还有一位法国地理学家莱库鲁斯，即使现在读他的作品，你都会
发现他有非常复杂的空间想法，这个是与现在主流的“中心位置理论”不同
的。所有的阅读材料都会帮助我们对空间有更多的理解，但更重要的是看
空间本身。理论与实践在研究中都很重要，我们必须兼顾二者，缺一不
可。对空间的理解不能光停留在抽象层面。空间是由我们生活在世界上的
方式所建造的产品。我们必须去看世界才能真正理解这些空间是如何被生
产出来的。
对于建筑和城市专业的学生来说，“空间实验室”的主要研究方法是什么？
主要方法是设计从研究中产生的过程。这个“设计的研究”的想法在建
筑界也非常流行。建筑师必须要了解被设计的建筑中的进程才能设计出好
的建筑。设计好看的建筑也许符合一些人的审美要求，但不是我们研究
的兴趣点。在“空间实验室”学生们必须要花费与设计相同多的时间进行研
究，或者花比设计更多的时间进行研究。当你做了足够的研究时，问题的
逻辑和解决方法会自己显现出来。然后，你开始认识到，研究本身成为一
种设计。我所指的研究主要是实证研究，即实地调研，走出去，观察，绘
制和记录社会生活，然后把信息和资料进行再现，把信息视觉化的表现在
地图上的这一过程。生产的图像成为进一步研究的材料，然后再调研，再
分析，直到得到你想要的东西。
对于信息的再现在实证研究中有多重要的作用呢？
再现是对实地调研资料很重要的一种文件记录。如果你不能把信息用
视觉的方式表现出来，这些信息没有任何意义。你必须使这些信息具有意
义。因此我们一直把收集资料和制造图像同步进行。一个收集过程之后就
是一个视觉再现的过程。然后你观察这些视觉结果，产生更多的问题，然
后进行下一轮实地考察。
实地调研包括很多数据和信息，我应该选择什么内容进行再现呢？
当你开始研究过程后，这些问题就会变得很简单。当你从一个纯理论
层面出发，你不会提出任何问题。只有当你已经在研究中，你就会提出问
题了。所以第一步不是提问题，而是开始研究。我们通常要求学生做的是
从绘制城市的基础设施开始，不是城市的一部分，而是整个城市，即使你
研究的是小规模的社区。绘制的范围从城市地图的边缘到边缘，然后再延
伸一点。
城市的边缘是什么？
我们要求学生绘制其他尺度的地图而显示城市所在的背景，包括城市
网络以及区域城市组团等。你已经开始在不同尺度和层次中工作，城市
的边缘将在其他不同尺度的图纸上体现。城市是一个复杂体，当你在区域
和国家尺度和层面时，你会发现更多的复杂性和不同的子层。因此，仅仅
是绘制城市的基础设施作为绘制的开始（这些绘制是以反映城市运动为目
的，运动和流动是你绘制的内容），你就会惊讶的发现这些视觉的再现会
带给你多少有趣的见解和问题，然后你带着问题去做进一步的研究。
研究的最后目的是什么呢？
我们有各种各样的目的。最终目标可以是很大的概念，如可持续性发
展或社会正义。当你设计一个社区，对他从大尺度到小尺度进行研究，
你在不断的寻找设计的意义和需要解决的问题。你不能只是告诉自己，
“好，我要设计一个漂亮的地方。”我们不要求设计漂亮的地方，而必须为
你的设计找出原因。而这些大的词汇可以作为设计和问题的指导。这些
“大词”是显而易见的。当你设计一个社区，你的目标肯定不是要设计一个
社区使女性在夜里走路很害怕。你要做的是如何做一个好的设计使女性
在夜里出行有舒适安全的环境。你要不断尝试和寻找“好”的设计。而如果
你不亲自去观察和了解这个具体的地方，你不会知道对于这个特定的地
方“好”的意义是什么。你必须找出在这个具体地点“好”的含义以及如何实
施“好”的措施。“好”的具体含义取决于你的工作环境。在一个高档郊区，
“好”可能意味着孩子们可以安全步行到学校，而不用穿越高速路。在一个
贫民窟，“好”的意义可能是提高人民收入和生活质量。
在足够的研究后，我们应该有什么样的设计策略呢？
设计在研究后就能自然产生了。连接不同的东西有不同的方法。比
如，我们关注一个链接一个居住区居民与工作的解决方法。在研究中你发
现这些人群有一定的特点，比如贫困问题。因此你提出问题，如何能减轻
贫困？解决方法之一是在居民区旁边建一个工厂，这样每个人都有工作，
但是现实可能不允许这个做法。然后你就要看看另一个问题，尝试解决
他。这些方法是不可能在理论中得到解决的。
从我自己的研究生课题经验来看，在研究之后很难找出一个具体的设计或解决
方法。
我们强调研究的延伸。每一次你从研究中提出的问题都会使你更接近
你最终要解决的问题。但是最终，你还是要关注形态这个问题，并且同
时不能失去对社会、经济和文化层面的联系。形态和社会、经济、文化之
间没有矛盾，他们都是进程的一部分。对于“空间实验室”来说，所不同的
是，这些社会，经济和文化不是抽象的写在书本上的，而是与城市形态紧
密的结合在一起的。但是你必须经历研究和绘图再现的过程才能得到他
们。
代尔夫特建筑学院的设计学院的博士课程都做些什么呢？
代尔夫特理工大学建筑系的国际硕士课程是两年的计划。在第一年，
学生会广泛的学习多方面的知识。第二年是一年时间的毕业设计工作室课
程，学生可以根据自己的兴趣和专业自由选择。“空间实验室”是其中一个
工作组。博士是做更多的研究！研究是无止境的。年轻人常常认为研究是
有一个结束的，当你变老之后你会发现这不是真的。
与其他建筑院系相比，代尔夫特建筑系的优势是什么？您为什么选择在代尔夫
特当老师？
因为他们给我机会做我想做的事情。我曾在英国伦敦大学学院做过一
阵子研究，他们在做与“空间句法”相关的空间研究。我可以想像回到伦敦
大学学院，我们的研究也受到了他们的影响，当然也有不同。做为学生，
代尔夫特是一个很大的大学，建筑系有三千名学生，这个数字在欧洲来说
已经很大了，也许在中国不是。建筑学院里有很多事情发生，“空间实验
室”仅仅是所有这一切中的一小部分。每年在“空间实验室”做毕业设计的学
生人数都不同，通常有20 -25人左右。教师团队有我本人，亚历克斯和其
他研究小组的老师。我们与其他研究小组有密切的合作，我们也带其他实
验室的设计课包括建筑和城市。
“空间实验室”最大的特色是什么？
我们把“运动”和“空间”放在第一位。这是一个非常受列斐伏尔影响的
想法。有很多人在解读和尝试他的想法，但是大多数人处在文化层面，把
城市作为文化和社会的产品。而我们试图用一个非常物质的方式来理解城
市，思考如何设计以及如何构筑。
请你给未来的中国留学生提一些建议，他们应该做好哪些方面的准备？
获得良好的教育和好成绩以及学好英语，这是非常重要的。学生要充
满了的热情，愿意努力工作。当然所有的中国学生都在这样做。我们很喜
欢中国学生，我们欢迎中国学生。大部分中国学生都是最好的学生，他们
努力工作，并且都非常有趣。
欧洲，美国以及亚洲城市呈现了不同的城市和发展模型，人们的出行方式和居
住方式都不同，这些不同的模型在“空间实验室”的研究中有所体现么？
是这样的，有很多的体现。欧洲城市的形态往往被形容为“多中心”---
很多城市中心，并且互相距离很近。在欧洲，城市问题体现为流动性和可
持续性。比如温室效应，有太多的人和车在“多中心”的城市运动。“空间实
验室”以城市形态的视角来看待这个问题。如果改变这种城市形态对于问
题的解决有什么意义呢？比如，减少对汽车的依赖和改善运输其实就是另
一种基础设施的形态。我们一直以来都在尝试关心欧洲城市的城市问题，
在现阶段所体现的是环境问题。当我们研究中国城市时，问题将有所不
同。
您对中国城市的印象是什么？中国城市的问题是什么？
中国的城市问题是与城市化有关的。中国的极少数城市在进行很强烈
的增长。总的来说，大城市快速生长而变得更加大，而小城市则没有那么
多快速的增长。这与中国的城市农村城市化的进程有关。而现在中国有两
种城市化： 1）城市农村城市化，即人们正在从农村涌向城市； 2)人们从
省级城市向大城市或特大城市流动，这个城市化的进程也是非常强烈的。
对我来说，问题是我们不愿意看到中国最终只有一个或两个城市，而是如
何重新评估小城市的价值。今天很多人都在谈论北京和上海，他们已经在
自己的轨道上了，而真正存在问题的是小城市。我们能为它们做些什么，
为人们的工作和生活创造良好的环境？我来自南非，而不是欧洲，但欧洲
模式对我影响很大，我认为欧洲的城市能够教会我们一些东西。那就是是
如何使城市化分散，使城市化不仅通过几个大城市，而且也通过一系列的
中小型城市来呈现，包括大城市，但也有较小的城市和非常小的城市，每
个城市都提供不同的体验。提供一系列城市的范围。而现在亚洲城市的倾
向是刚好相反的，所以我想亚洲城市的问题是如何逆转这种趋势，并开始
重新更多的评估小城市的价值。
你怎么看待中国很多中小城市在建设相似的城市空间和风貌，比如大型高速
路，巨大的政府广场和办公大楼等？
一部分原因是因为设计者采取了抽象的概念没有对特定地区做针对性
的研究。只是套用一个抽象的概念或想法，比如勒柯布西耶，然后把这些
想法套用在任何地方，而没
有想到不同的地方有不同的问题，需要不同的解决办法来处理。因此
设计者只是从书本和理论中拿出了概念和想法，而没有阅读城市，他们在
阅读书本。“空间实验室”的贡献在于教学生如何通过观察和研究具体的地
方去认识该地方的意义和价值，并且开始从不同层次了解城市。在不忘记
理论普遍性的基础上，强调设计想法的实践性和具体性，这个想法必须从
抽象的理论中走向具体的城市实践，从一般规律到特殊场所。你不能用一
个普遍性的概念实施在一个特定的地点，否则设计师将会摧毁那个具体的
场所。
“ 空间实验室 ”2008 年正在进行的研究项目是什么？
我们在思考生长和发展作为城市的演变方式，城市是如何随着时间的
推移而发展的，我们如何看待当代城市的发展？空间实验室有两个有趣的
方向，其一是对于城市进化和演变的理论思考，其二是发展和城市化作为
一种发展影响力的思考。对于今天和未来的城市，什么是好的城市形态？
如何在世界不同的地方做到这一点，比如在中国，非洲或者南美？我们如
何把城市化思考为一种进程而不只是一个城市的形态。城市正在被城市
化。我们如何认识这个过程，如何实施？我们目前的项目是亚历克斯老师
指导的苏里兰热带雨林的城市化进程项目。也许你会有点惊讶，但是这是
正在发生的事实。热带雨林正在被开发。也许不是以城市的形式存在，但
是它是一个过程，人们开始接管以前野生的土地，你如何从一个消极影响
的观点阻止这个过程？你开始思考是否有另一种积极的热带雨林的城市化
进程？这个是很难想象的。因为我们所受的教育告诉我们城市是环境的问
题而不是解决方法。但是我们已经知道城市在一定程度上是在解决环境问
题。城市解决了各种问题，比如密度，年龄等。城市开始把人和自然结
合起来。我们要做的是为苏里兰政府提出建议如何能在满足国家发展、人
民利益的前提下而不破坏自然？如何发展人与自然的边界？自然本身就是
非常有趣的。另一个方面，对于城市进化和演变的思考也是“空间实验室”
的重要组成部分。这就是为什么我对旧的城市地理学理论感兴趣，因为那
些前人对城市的起源理解的更清晰。我们试图把城市化作为一种积极的影
响带到世界从现在到未来的发展中。我们必须接受一个事实，即目前世
界是城市化的。到2008年，我们生活的世界上50 ％的人口是城市居民。
据预测，到下个世纪末， 8 0％的世界人口将在生活在城市。所以，我们
生活在一个城市化的世界，对我们来说真正的问题是“我们如何对待城市
化的世界？ ”我们不能说“我们不想城市化的世界”，因为这个进程正在进
行，我们只有剩余很短的一百年时间来确定未来城市化的形式。到下一世
纪，世界人口预计将有所下降。我们正处在一个非常关键的历史时刻，在
未来的一百年，我们将形成未来人类在世界上栖居的城市形态。
未来城市的形态是指什么？
形态有各种形式。例如，城市是一个形式。我们脑中有一个城市的概
念---比如，一个中心和从中心由梯度向边缘分散，然后消失于农村。从农
村到城市，再到农村这种变化是一种形态。而这种形态在世界的大部分
地区已经消失。它不存在于荷兰，在美国，也许存在着非常偏远的东欧地
区，也许存在于非洲。世界上只有极少数地方还存在这样的城市与农村的
关系。这是一种传统的城市格局，或许你会在意大利和法国南部某些区域
发现，当然不是旅游区的前提下。另一种形态是让•戈特曼提出的特大城
市，例如他指出，城市不是一个城市而是特大城市，有很多事情发生在城
市中，也发生在城市之间。我给你列出一些城市形态的概念：城市、大都
市、特大城市、社区、街道和房子。所有这些都是形态，它们都具有一
定的形状，我们选择这种看法，即这些形态的形成受到城市中运动的影
响。这是我们的看法！你可以选择从相反的观点看待同一个问题，即环境
形态影响人的行为和运动，但“空间实验室”选择采取这一种观点，因为这
是一个对于观察城市非常有效的方式，我们可以通过这个方法发展出非常
有趣的概念。您当然可以尝试其他方法，但大家都在用同样的方法，这不
是很有趣吗！
您如何看待建筑和建筑师在这个城市化进程中的角色和作用。
在一定程度上，建筑和建筑师要发挥作用，必须开始思考城市问题，
把建筑放到城市的语境中。我们正在思考城市与自然的关系，什么是好
的人与自然界面和边界？荷兰是一个百分之百城市化的国家。你可能认为
Polder是自然的，但是它不是，他都是技术的结果，但是Polder是非常适
宜居住的环境。我们认为，这是可以做到的。所以我们不仅为荷兰提供
方法，也为世界其他地区提出建议。一百年后，世界上所有的自然都将在
人类的控制之下。这并不意味着我们只想要城市，那会完全销毁了自然环
境，我们是不想看到的。我们应该如何准备使100年后的情憬成为可能？
建筑师如果要在这个过程中扮演一个角色的话，建筑必须使自己适合这个
远景。一个建筑师不能只会说：“我是一名建筑师，我只想设计很炫的大
厦.”也许这些高楼在一些地方是可以被接受的，但是如果你没有把合适的
建筑放在合适的地方，你就不是这个进程的一部分。在这个关键性的历史
时刻，建筑与城市应该走到一起了。
2008 年5 月13 日，代尔夫特理工大学建筑系系馆被一场意外的大火烧成了灰
烬。未来的恢复建设是什么？
首先是将整个建筑完全销毁，然后建一个新楼。在今年秋季将有一个
国际设计竞赛。现在课程在操场上的四个大帐篷里进行。这也许是另一种
城市形态吧。
Stephen Read
Associate Professor of Chair of Urban Management and Renewal
Dr Stephen Read is an urbanist and professor at the Faculty of

Architecture, Delft University of Technology. He worked as an architect
in South Africa and London before moving to the Netherlands where he
completed a PhD in urban morphology in Delft. He then spent some time on
a fellowship at Space Syntax Laboratory, The Bartlett, UCL, and started the
Spacelab research Laboratory of the Contemporary City at Delft in 2002. He
is an author of numerous papers on urban formation and transformation and
an editor of book publications, includes Visualizing the Invisible: Towards an
Urban Space (2006) and Future City (2005). He is a romantic philosopher-
scholar and a kind and patient mentor for students. Most architecture
and urban students have contact with him by taking his design studio. He
sometimes talks in public lectures too. Through regular meetings, Stephen
often shares with students about profound philosophical ideas by using
simple metaphors and concepts.
Interview by: Meng Sun

Time: July, 2008
Place: 2008 ACSP-AESOP Joint Congress, Chicago, USA
Can you introduce the history and research focus of Space Lab?
The idea behind Space Lab is to put together a context in which

we can do particular research that deals with “urban form”. We try
to approach the city through form. This doesn’t mean the social,
economical aspects are not relevant, which are important, but everything
starts to converge into form. Space Lab’s research belongs to the
category of urban morphology and extends beyond the traditional urban
morphology. The concept of form is quite interesting and complex. We
want to apply to understand form not only in architectural sense but also
the form as a way of growth. For example, in biology, morphology is a
very interesting subject in which the concept of form goes beyond just
the shape of things into the process of the things as well.
I have read your paper on urban as machine and the movement in the cities. Is this
one of Space Lab’s directions?
We are very interested in movement. Movement not only means

direction; it seems to be very informative for the city. They produce
form in a certain sense. The physical shapes of the city are very much
influenced by the dynamics in the city which is moving. The “moving” is
the most straight forward level of thinking of the form in the city along
with other forms of movements with morphological aspects.
How do you define movement?
“Movement” means flows of people, cars, and articles…… It brings

the concerns on the role of infrastructure in urban planning in shaping
cities. Space Lab’s research has taken the idea of infrastructure into
another level. The notion of infrastructure grows beyond the idea of
providing access to the infrastructure itself as a primal planning tool,
because by using infrastructure, one can achieve many other things in
the city. Infrastructure can shape the city in various ways.
Is there a distinction between planned and unplanned movements in the city?

It is quite difficult to distinguish those two. A lot of movement has

always been planned in a certain way. When big infrastructures are built,
they are incredibly important for the way that cities grow beyond. It is
very difficult to put in infrastructure without certain kind of planning. Big
infrastructure costs money and requires certain kind of planning. Maybe
a hundred years ago roads grew on their own, but nowadays, roads
grow with planning. But planner have planned layers of infrastructure
don’t mean they know how people actually use the infrastructure. People
create many possibilities.
You have talked the concept of “thick urban space” in your paper as well, does this
concept relates to the above infrastructure?
The “thick urban space” talks about the idea of scale. Movements
and urban processes don’t all happen in one level. One can’t take one
map and say “we can see the whole city here”. Although you can see the
whole city in its geographical extends, different things appear at different
scales. As you zoom in, you will find another set of processes going on.
As you zoom in again, new processes emerge from the previous level
you just zoomed in from. This process continues on and on. The scale
issue is the key tool in Space Lab’s research. Different levels, different
scales of processes affect each other, so that if you want to see the
whole city, you have to see it in layers. Then you get a depth in the city.
In order to understand a city, one needs several layers of maps, one on
the top of the other.
How can researcher know where to zoom in to, and which scale to zoom in?
It seems very abstract, but when you do it, the layers appear
automatically; you just find it. It is hard to have a theoretical answer
because very much of the research in Space Lab is not at the theoretical
abstract level but about observations, mapping and looking at the
city. The city itself is very important source of knowledge about cities.
One can get to the books or get to the city to get knowledge about the
city. We advocate very empirical process and are skeptical about the
abstractness of theories.
At certain scales, practices come into focuses. For example, one

of the scales that city comes into focus will be the neighborhood scale
where you recognize all the familiar things to do in daily life--- streets,
blocks, high streets and back streets……Another scale might be the
city as a whole where certain parts of the city becomes centralized, and
then the city starts to form different senses, and then those different
senses themselves start to create different identities. The reality is a

human structure which is not about subjectivity but objectivity. One can’
t separate one another because the city is a human product even we
produce them unknowingly. We can recognize it at certain scales, and
in between those scales, things go out of focus. We act and understand
in the world in certain scales. For example, when you write a letter, you
write an address. The address doesn’t have things in between the lines,
just lines. Your friend, house he lives in, but you can’t write something in
between your friends and the house your friend lives. There is nothing
in between the street and the house. After the street, you have the
neighborhood, the city, and the nation. That has to do with the way we
made the world. All these things are constructions. They are not just
socially constructed; a house is more than a social construction. The
house is a construction with bricks and water as well, and so as the
streets. All these things are already been made. They become a human
construction not only social construction, therefore these things have
form as well. When you put all those things together, you start to get
the layering of the city. That means at any one layer, you are not taking
other levels. For example, when you see the city, a map of streets, you
are not taking the house level; a plan of a house does not take the street
level. In order to understand how all of this works, you can’t just look at
one level, but you have to look at all the time between levels. This is the
difficulty about urbanism. Because we deal with urban form, we capture
a lot of the processes of urbanism.
What kind of theories does Space Lab use in research practices?
Although there are many researches on urban morphology and

infrastructure, there hasn’t been a great deal which links the two things.
We read a lot other author’s work which may not directly link to Space
Lab’s research but their ideas are very informative and interesting to
come to the subject. Jane Jacobs perhaps is the first person I ask
students to read. Jane Jacobs is very important because she understood
that the city is dynamic, and the city is complex, but the complexity is not
disordered but ordered. Order emerges in complex processes, while the
processes converge around movements. All the other aspects of the city
refer to the movement aspect of the city.
In my own readings, I tend to read the old geographers more than

the new ones because their idea seems more interesting. For example,
Jean Gottmann is the first one comes with the mega city idea in the
1960s. Henri Lefebvre is very important author who understood a lot
of the form of the city. However, he is very difficult to read because
he always speaks to the people who already have the background.

For the background I mean he is speaking to people who have read
Marx, Heidegger and Hegel and understand them perfectly. If one can
understand those people, one can understand Lefebvre with no problem.
I myself have done a lot work on Heidegger. Since I understand
Heidegger much better, I understand Lefebvre much better.
What other authors in the reading list of Space Lab?
Edward Soja’s Post-metropolis touches upon much ordinary urban

stuff which is very interesting. His Third Space makes very interesting
comments on Lefebvre and understanding the contemporary cities.
Lewis Mumford, the Chicago school, those early literatures are very
interesting not because I agree with them, but their spatial idea is
clearer. This old French geographer Recluse, even when you write him
now, he has a very sophisticated spatial ideas which are not “central
place theory” .
All the reading materials help you understand the space further,
but more important is to look at real spaces. Ideas and realties are
both important in research, one need to work between one and the
other. Space is not something one can treat in the abstract. Spaces are
constructions. Spaces are produced by the way we live in the world. You
have to look at the world in order to understand how those spaces are
being produced.
What’s the main methodology of mapping in Space Lab for both urbanism and
architecture students?
It is about design by research. The idea of research becomes very

popular and well known in architecture. You have to know a lot about
the processes that are going on in the building you are going to. The
pretty of the building is good for some people, but not for our interests.
Students have to do as much as research as design, or maybe more
research than design. When you have done enough research, things
start to slip into order through research itself. Then you start to realize
that the research itself becomes a kind of design. By the research I
mean mostly empirical research--- going out, looking at things, mapping
things, producing, and then representation of that process. Producing
images then become material for further researches until you get the
product that you are looking for.
What’s the importance of the representation of the empirical research?

They are important documentation of the empirical researches. The

information doesn’t mean anything until you put the information into
visualization. You have to make it mean something. So we are producing
images all the time out of the materials that we collect. A collecting
process is followed by a visualization process. Then you look at that
result, which produces more questions, which needs to be researched
further.
What contents should I choose to map?
When you start a research, these questions all become easy. When
you try to start from a pure theoretical level, there are no questions to
ask. You only begin to have questions to ask when you already in the
research. You have to get into it first. What we usually ask students to do
is to start mapping the infrastructure of the city, not a part of the city, but
the entire city, even your research is about a small scale neighborhood.
Map from the edge to edge and then a little bit further.
What’s the edge of the city?
We ask student to make another drawing to show the city in context.

So you start to work in different scales. So the edge will be taken by
other drawings in different scales. Urban is a complexity. When you
come to regional and national scale, you can find much complexity and
many different sub-layers. To start with, map the infrastructure, You will
be very surprised at how much just that visualization of the city in terms
of the movement (that is what you are mapping), how many interesting
insights and questions are raised, then you go your research further.
What do you expect the final product from the research?
We have all kinds of aims as well. Final product is like big result
such as sustainability or social justice. Those are kinds of big words that
guide you questioning. When you design a neighborhood, look at it from
a large scale to a small scale. What you are looking at the neighborhood
has to be something, and you can’t just ask yourself “well, I am going to
design a pretty place”. We don’t ask to design pretty place. There have
to be some reasons for what you are doing there.
Those big words are obvious. When you design a neighborhood,

you are not trying to design a neighborhood which is horrible for women
to walk in the night; that’s not your objective. You try to make it nice for
women to walk in the night. All the time you are trying to do something
good. You don’t know unless you look at specific places, what does good
mean? You have to find out the meaning of good in the specific place
and how do we implement good. Good has specific meanings depending
on the context you are working. In a high class suburban, good might
means children have safe place to walk to school, they don’t have to go
across the high way. In a slum, a good may have to do with enabling
people and to earn a life.
What design strategies are implemented after research?
Design arises after the research. There are different ways of

connecting different things with other different things. For example, an
informal settlement to connecting people with work. In the research, you
discover that people have certain characters, like poverty. That raises
questions? How can we alleviate poverty? One of them would be to build
a factory next to the settlement. Everybody has work, but that might not
be possible to do. So then you look at another problem that you raised in
your research. This is something can’t be solved in a theoretical way.
From my own master project experience, it seems hard to find a concrete design
solution after my research?
We emphasize to extend the research. Every time, you come with

questions from research, that questions come closer to the issue you
want to deal with. Eventually you still talk about form, and without losing
the social and cultural at the same time. That’s just part of the process.
There is no contradiction, no separation between form and society or
economy or culture. What’s different is, for Space Lab, these are not
abstract written in books; they are about particular society, economy and
cultures, which start to be integral with the city forms around them. But
you have to go through the research and mapping process, in order to
get them.
How do maser program and PhdD program set in the DSD (Delft School of Design)?
Master program in architecture school of TuDelft is a two year

program. In the first year, there is whole a lot general stuff taught. The
second year is a yearlong graduation studio which you can choose your
specialization and interests. PhD work just goes a little further which
means more research. There is no end of the research. It’s very common
for young people to think there is an end to the research. This is not true
when you get older.
Compared with other schools, what are the advantages of Delft? Why you choose
TuDelft?
Because they give me opportunities of what I want to do. I have

been in UCL (University College London) for a while; they are involved
with space syntax group dealing with similar kinds of issues. I can
imagine going back to UCL, because we are also very influenced by all
their researches. For students, Delft is a very big university with 3000
students, in European terms, maybe not in China. There is a lot going
on, Space Lab is just one small part of all of that. Student number in
Space Lab differs each year.
Normally there are 20 –25 students taught by myself, Ir. Alex.G.

Vollebregt, and other teachers in the team. We also cooperate with
other research teams. We teach other labs as well in architecture and
urbanism.
What is the distinguished feature of space lab?
Putting movement first, putting space first. The idea is very

Lefebvian idea, there are many people dealing with it, most of the people
are dealing with it in cultural level, thinking the city as a cultural and
social construct. But we try to deal with it to think about city into a very
material way, and think about design as well and how to make things.
How do you expect Chinese students to prepare for the study in Space Lab?
Getting good education and high marks and learn good English,
which is very important. Come here with a great deal with enthusiasm,
willingness to work hard. All the Chinese students do that. We like
Chinese students; we want Chinese students. Most of them are best
students; they work hard and they are very interesting.
The European, American and Asian cities present different models in people’s
movement and living, how do those models apply to Space Lab’s research?
Very much so. European city form is often characterized as “Poly-

centricity” --- a lot of centers all close by each other. In Europe, the
problems turn to the issue of mobility and sustainability. The green house
gases effect, too many people and too many cars moving around the
poly-centric city. Space lab is looking at this issue from the perspective
of urban form. What does it mean to change that form. For example, to
reduce the reliance on the motorcar and improve the transport which is
just another form of infrastructure. We always try to look at the particular

issues addressed in European cities which are environmental in our
case. When you look at Chinese cities, the problem would be different.
Tell your impression on contemporary Chinese cities? What’s the urban problem in
China?
The problem in China has to do with urbanization. There is very

strong increase of very small number of cities. Generally, big cities are
just getting bigger very fast, while smaller cities are not so much getting
bigger anymore. That has to do with the past, rural urban urbanization.
There are two kinds of urbanization now: 1) urban rural urbanization, that
people moving off the land into cities, 2) people move from provincial
cities to big cities, that is urbanization happening very strongly as well.
For me the question is you don’t want China eventually just have one
or two cities, how to revalue the smaller cities. Beijing and shanghai
as many people talked about today are already on their track, and the
problems are really in the smaller cities, what can we do for them in
order to make them good environment for people to work and to live?
I am from South Africa, not European, but I am very influenced by the
European model. I do think the European cities have something to teach
us. That is how to distribute urbanism not just by having it in one big city,
but by having a range of cities, include big cities, but also smaller cities
but also very smaller cities which all have something to offer. That’s a
very wide range of cities. The tendency of Asia is exactly the opposite of
that, so I think the problem in Asia is how to turn that trend around, and
start to revalue the smaller cities much more.
How do you think smaller cities in China are building homogenized places like big
infrastructure, big Public Square, big governmental buildings?
Some problems of that are due to taking the abstract idea without
doing research about the particular place that you are in, just take idea
in an abstract way, like Le Corbusier for example, and just put these idea
wherever, without thinking how different places facing different problems,
and requires different solutions to deal with. So instead of everybody
taking the idea out of the books, they are not reading the cities, but
they are reading the books. Space Lab can contribute to by teaching
students how to value the particular places by looking at that, and start
to understand the city at that level, not forgetting the theory of course,
but always understanding that in order to implement a idea, the idea has
to move from the general to the particular. You can’t take the generalized
idea and put into a particular place, otherwise, you destroy the particular
place.
What’s the current research agenda in Space Lab?
Thinking about developments as urban evolution; how cities grow

over time; how we can imagine city’s growing today. Development
and urban as a way of influence the development is a new interesting
direction for Space Lab along with theoretical thinking of urban evolution.
What is the good urban form for today and for the future? How do we do
that in different places in China, Africa, and South American for example?
How do we think about urbanization, not just cities, but the process?
Cities are becoming urban. How should we think about that and how
should we implement that? Our current project is in Suriname leaded
by Alex; we look at the process of urbanization in tropical rain forest.
That’s what is happening there. The rain forest has been explored. You
don’t think it is being cities, but it is a process that people start to take
over what was wild land, how do you stop that process from being a
negative perspective? How do you start to think a positive urbanization
of the tropical rain forest? That’s difficult to think about because we are
so trained to think the city is the problem to the environment and not
the solution. But we know already that the city is partly a solution to the
environmental problems, because the city solves all kinds of problems,
such as density, ages. The cities start to incorporate both nature and
the man. How does Suriname’s government try to develop the country,
for the needs to development the country for the sake of people but not
destroying the nature? How do you develop this kind of edges between
the manmade and the nature? The nature itself is very interesting.
The theoretical thinking of urban evolution is very important in Space

Lab too. That’s why I am interested in old urban theories, because they
understood the urban origin much clearly.
We try to bring the urban as a positive effect into the way that the
world is developed from now to the future. We have to accept the fact
that the world is now urban. We live in a world that 50% population is
urban .It is projected that by the end of next 100 years – 80% world
population will be urbanized by the end of the century. So we live in an
urban world, and the real problem for us to address now is “how we
make that urban world?” we can’t say anymore we don’t want urban
world, because the process is underway, and we have short time left to
determine what the form of that urbanization going to be. By the end of
next century, the world population is projected to be declined. We are in
a very critical historical moment that we will be forming the world for the
rest of man-kind inhabitation in this world in the next hundred years.
What do you mean by the form in the future?
There are various ways of forms. For example, a city is a form. We

have an idea that what is that form is --- A center and gradients towards
the edge, dissolving itself into the countryside. Countryside --- city ---
countryside again. That’s a form which no longer exists anymore in
most part of the world. It doesn’t exist in Holland, in the US, maybe exist
in very remote part of Eastern Europe, few part of Africa maybe. Very
few of the parts around the world have this kind of city and countryside
relationships. It is kind of traditional urban patterns still find in Italy and
south France, for example, which area not tourists places. Another
form would be mega metropolis with Jean Gottmann, for example, ---
the city is not a city but a mega city, and a whole lot of stuffs happening
in between the city as well. I give you a list of concept of forms: city,
megalopolis, mega city, neighborhood, streets, and house. All of these
are forms; they all have certain shapes; we take that view that they are
shaped by the movement. This is our view! You can see it in the opposite
way, that the build environment shapes people’s movement. You can see
the opposite way, but we choose to take this view. Because it is a very
productive way of seeing things, seeing it in that way, we can develop
concepts which are very interesting. You can try to think the other way,
but everybody is doing that, it is not very interesting!
What do you think architecture and architects play a role in this process?
To some extent, in order for architecture plays a role, architecture

has to start to urban as well, to think itself in an urban context. We try to
think urban now in its relation to nature, what’s a good way of creating
an interface between man and nature. Holland is a 100% urbanized
country. You might think the polders are nature, but the polders are
not nature, all of it is technology, but it is very livable environment. We
believe it is possible to do this. So we look at the ways not for Holland,
but for the rest of the world. Within 100 years, the whole worlds, even
the natural parts will be under human control. That doesn’t mean we
only want urban, but that will be a completed destroyed environment
which we don’t want. How do you come to a stage in 100 years where
all that will be feasible? In order for architecture to be relevant to all
those, architecture has to fit itself into that vision as well. It is not good to
say that “I am an architect. I just want to build big fancy towers.” Maybe
fancy towers are ok in certain places, but if you don’t put the fancy tower
into the right places where it should be, you are not part of this process.
It is really important for architecture and urbanism coming together.
On 13 May 2008, the Faculty of Architecture of the Delft University of Technology

(TU Delft) was unexpectedly reduced to ashes by a devastating fire. What’s the future
for the burn down building?
First it will come down completely, demolish, and build another one.
There is an international competition in the coming fall!! Classes are
happening in four big tents. A camp on sports field! It works as another
form…..
伯纳德•卢本
伯纳德•卢本教授在荷兰代尔夫特大学建筑系获得科学博士学位，现任该
系房屋设计方向副教授。他的研究包括两个领域：一是建筑的基本架构，比如
组成，概念，类型和构造。这方面发表的出版物有《设计和分析》和最近的一
本书房屋设计手册。该书的英文版将于2010年由NAI（荷兰建筑协会）出版。
他另一方面的兴趣是有关建筑和人的互动关系，以及相对静态的房屋和不断变
化的功能之间的关系。这一类研究的出版物有《基于时间的建筑》一书以及一
个国际性的杂志《基于时间的建筑》。
采访者：袁朵孙萌
时间：2008年6月25日
地点：荷兰代尔夫特理工大学临时建筑系馆
与荷兰的另一所著名建筑学校贝尔拉格或欧洲的其他建筑系相比，代尔夫特建
筑系最有特色的传统是什么？
直到上个世纪 60 年代末，代尔夫特在相当程度上还是以传统为导向
的。它在70年代和80年代有一个转变而倾向于十人论坛小组（Team 10
Forum group），比如赫尔曼•赫兹伯格（Herman Hertzberger）和和阿
尔多•凡•艾克（Aldo van Eyck）等重要教授都是那个时候的人物。之后客
座教授雷姆•库哈斯（Rem Koolhaas）于 1988-1990年访问了代尔夫特，
他的有关现代性和城市的视野在代尔夫特变得越来越重要。基本上代尔夫
特建筑系没有专注于任何风格或理论。在原则上大部分教师会尝试启发学
生自己的创造性，而不会把一种建筑形式强加于学生，比如伦敦的AA学
校是这种方式。但是这也并非每个人都必须这样，代尔夫特这么大，很难
说哪些是典型的。也许最典型的是代尔夫特的设计课仍然保持了一定的
“形式追随功能”的概念。但是一些教师在强调形式的同时，也强调功能的
计划和程序的重要性。
一些建筑系比较强调在建筑设计中计算机软件的辅助作用，也有学校强调手工
模型或理论对设计的影响。代尔夫特建筑教育重视哪个方面呢？
因为代尔夫特的建筑系涉及的方面很广，以上几个方面都很重要。代
尔夫特有很多很先进的设施。我们有一个很好的模型室，学生们做很多
模型，也许大部分学生在设计过程中使用模型推敲的程度还不够。另一方
面，我们也有大量三维建模辅助设计的资源，包括激光切割机、三维模型
打印机。不是每个教师都会强调这些设施的使用，只有一些特别的课程研
究组比如超级物体（Hyperbody）经常使用三维建模方式。除了这些，传
统经典的手绘课程仍然是本科生的必修课。
代尔夫特的建筑教育有很强的西方哲学和现代与后现代建筑理论传统。很多国
际学生在上过一些理论讨论课收获颇丰，比如“绘制与媒体”或者“美与崇高”。
这些课程能够激发学生对建筑哲学层面的思考。
这是一个很有意思也很难回答的问题，我不知道所有这些临时的课程
（因为开课老师经常更换，内容也会不同），但是我可以说一下我自己对
这个问题的理解。总的来说我认为学生应该对建筑理论有基本的认识。这
里有一种误解，即对建筑理论和对于建筑批判性思考的混淆，很多建筑师
正在做的事情是建筑评论或建筑批评，而不是建筑理论。
代尔夫特的建筑教育特色的是“通过研究来设计”的方法。我的理解是通过研究
和绘图，图解而导出一个建筑概念，是十分理性的推导过程。您能进一步解释
一下这种研究和设计方法么？
这种方法就是一般所谓的“设计分析法”，他在代尔夫特的建筑教育中
有重要的位置。通过对于现有设计以及这些设计的背景的分析和学习就是
这个方法的一部分。所有这些方法都基于绘图的技术，在这个绘制信息和
再表现信息的过程中，精炼和归纳，转换以及提取发挥着重要的作用。因
此，分析可以通过对于现有设计在一两个方面的各种精炼和归纳，比如形
态学，构造或者计划功能而提出。这些方法也可以被用到设计过程中对于
计划功能，以及对于可能空间构造概念的归纳。同时，把功能数据转化成
各种视觉再表现形式，然后导出可能的设计构造和空间形式是经常使用的
方法。你可以在很多OMA和MVRDV事务所的设计中找到这些方法和技术
的应用。
建筑硕士的主要方向有哪些？
建筑硕士的学生在选择毕业设计时有以下九个方向：建筑与现代性：
住宅；建筑与现代性：公共建筑； MIT （再生与修复、修改、调节、转
换）；荷兰城市的混合（杂交型）建筑；室内、建筑与城市（建筑是城
市的室内）；超级物体：非标准和互动建筑；建筑实体化；建筑工程
学（建筑技术系开设）；未来城市（代尔夫特建筑系博士研究院DSD 开
设）。
您能介绍一下建筑系的组织结构么？各个分支的不同研究方向是什么？
建筑系的结构一直都在变化。建筑系由许多不同的教席组成。大体上
来说他们分成三个大类：主要教席，灵活教席和实践教席。这些教席主
要是在为争得国际性的认可和要求而努力。他们的任务是动态的不断变化
的，主动的以及创新的，包括培养专业人才，引导基础和专业研究，对教
学和研究的结果进行评估。现阶段一切都在变化，但是官方的说法，我们
有三个部门和六个教席。
主要教席由三个分支组成：
第一个是建筑类型学。负责人是凡•杜恩教授（L.van duin）。主要研
究课题是在技术和社会背景下，建筑的形式、构造和功能之间的关系。这
个分支的教学关注于建筑设计、项目的要求和规定、建筑类型学、设计方
法的发展。
第二个是建筑构成。负责人是巴比教授（S.U.Barbieri）。主要研究
课题是设计构造及其建筑和构造上的结果。其教学关注于建筑设计，建筑
构成，建筑理论。
第三个是建筑实体化。其研究的关键课题是建筑部分的实体化和细部
之间的关系，并把它们结合成一个整体归纳问题的方式。其教学关注于建
筑设计，空间设计的具体化，包括单体建筑局部节点构造的选择，建筑结
构评估，和根据现行的政策和规范对建筑实体化的性能描述。
除了建筑系的三个主要教席，另外还有和三个灵活教席或实践教席：
第一个是住宅分支，负责人是凡•伽梅仁教授（D. van Garmeren ）。

对于先前案例的分析评估和设计过程是为了发展未来的住宅设计方法。其
教学关注于住宅和其细部的设计，住宅的建筑样式，对于住宅需求的新发
展。
第二个是再生分支，负责人是肯恩教授（J.M.J Coenen）。其教学
和研究解决具有文化历史价值的建筑的新变化，关注于建筑的复原和再
生，建筑伦理和历史性的修复研究，对于保留下来的建筑形式和纪念性建
筑的和历史性建筑的发展和变革之间的关系，新建筑的技术所涉及的旧材
料和技术的应用还包括建筑物理学和安装。
第三个是室内分支，负责人是弗莱顿教授（T.Fretton）。其主要研究
课题是建筑设计和建筑内部视觉的联系，视觉文化作为一种社会现象如
何对建筑设计进行影响。其教学和研究主要解决建筑内部设计，建筑的完
成和装饰，建筑概念和细节之间的关系。但是现在这个室内分支不再是建
筑系的一部分。温妮•马斯（Winny Mas）是建筑实践教席的主席，现在
实践教席组织了一个专题研究小组。室内分支现在在与阿瑞•古瓦夫兰地
（A.D.Graafland）负责的代尔夫特设计学院 (DSD)即博士研究院合作组
织研究小组，他们同时还有针对博士生特定的项目和训练。
每个教席的设计的过程和日程是什么？
我们可以以住宅分支的毕业设计为例。建筑研究生的第二年包括第三
和第四学期，其内容是硕士毕业设计“建筑和现代性”。第三个学期是用来
计划和必要的初步研究和了解毕业设计课题。第四学期，学生们专注于各
自的课题。“建筑和现代性”硕士学位，其住宅方向包括两个研究组：新概
念和居住环境。学习包括两个部分：研究方法的指导和设计实践。学生们
根据他们的设计题目通过研究或者是初步设计为他们的毕业课题做准备。
研究包括最初的历史框架、理论的概念性框架、项目、基地、背景的调
查。这个研究是设计的最基本的出发点。在这个研究的基础上，第二部分
是设计实践，学生们将在毕业导师的指导下开始最初的设计。在第四个学
期，学生将细化初步设计，在这个阶段，也将有建筑技术的指导。
建筑课程与规划课程有什么联系呢？
现在其实在两个系之间没有太多的联系。。在原先的系统中，学生的
毕业设计必须有从规划或者从材料或者两者都有的老师，但现在我们只
需要两个老师。只有一些课程，超级建筑（hyper building ）有些规划方
面的讲座。是的，大家都正在抱怨这个，现在这个成为了一个大问题。一
方面，去年所有的建筑讨论都开始谈论规划但这并不是我在这里所说的规
划。这是个比较国际的问题。传统的规划系可能会有像城市物体（Urban
Body）那样的人做他们自己的方向等等。实际上他们是在运用建筑的概
念并把它加于规划上。但是那并不是规划，运用那样的概念并不能构筑和
发展一个城市。我们正在尝试在第二学期和规划部门合作，但是由于一些
技术问题，现在还没有实现。对于我们来说，第二学期的课程是自选课但
是仍旧有许多的必修课。学生可以选择规划课程但是仍旧有12学分的设计
课程。我们希望将来情况可以改善。
在荷兰仅有几所建筑系的毕业生可以在拿到学位后直接申请荷兰注册建筑师或
者规划师的头衔，代尔夫特是其中之一。这和代尔夫特有高质量的建筑教育和
国际声誉有关。请您介绍一下代尔夫特在建筑教育上是如何培养其学生成为合
格的荷兰注册建筑师的？
是的，我们是其中之一，另外一所是爱因霍芬科技大学建筑系。除了
这些高校，我们还有一个专科学校网络。在专业建筑技术高级学校毕业
后，我们还有一个半工半职的大学教育系统，即建筑专科学校(Academe
voor bouwkunst) 。这个是一个四年的课程，你必须在一个建筑公司工
作，并同时完成这个教育。代尔夫特本身并不是专门培养职业建筑师的机
构，我们是大学，也是研究机构。但是因为代尔夫特给学生提供了一个广
泛的学习环境和平台，其硕士研究生已经具备了足够成为职业建筑师的资
历。
有多少百分比的荷兰建筑师是代尔夫特培养的？
我不知道确切的数字。原则上代尔夫特每年有200到250人作为建筑
师毕业。爱因霍芬科技大学建筑系每年有100人毕业，另外的建筑专科学
校有50人毕业。荷兰有一套非常严格的毕业审查制度，以保证毕业生的质
量，硕士毕业生也在这个系统的审查之列。
从什么时候开始代尔夫特建筑系开始接纳国际学生和进行英文教学？
我认为国际课程从 80 年代末就开始了，尤其是在欧洲范围。最初的
国际课程包括两个教授，一个来自代尔夫特，一个来自其他国家的其他学
校。稍后，90年代初，我们有负责整个欧洲交流的办公室，并且设立了负
责交流的委员会包括美国和日本的大学。从那时开始， 1994年，代尔夫
特迎来了第一次大规模的国际学生。当时我任教的一个住宅的国际课程，
共45个学生其中一半是国际学生。后来我还组织了一个大的讨论会，大概
有 60 个学生，其中有一半都是国际学生，我们出去调研了参观了一周，
这是一种非常好的教学形式。实际上那个组是用英文教学的。大体上，当
我们以一个小组一起做汇报的时候，我们都用英语。我们把那个叫做所
谓的意如阿斯密斯（Erasmus ）英文。这是基于意如阿斯密斯欧洲项目
（欧洲区域大学生交换计划），很多项目的学生都从意大利和西班牙来。
1998年，我们用英文开始做讲座。在那个时候，我们给国际学生特别的
课程。这些课程都包括研究生一年级和二年级和毕业项目。我们同时还组
成特别的小组给国际学生。通常，我们都会提议应该让所有的学生在一
起。到现在，我们所有的正式的研究生课程都用英文作为教学语言。
很多学生发现建筑教育和实践之间的差别，需要一段时间去适应。请您给未来
中国的学生在学习和工作上提出一些建议。
我前面已经提到，代尔夫特的建筑硕士教育足够使学生成为合格的实
践建筑师。但是学生在毕业后甚至读书时尽早的接触实践工作也十分重
要。我们不会教学生如何管理一个建筑公司或者具体的建筑规范，而且必
然不是中国的建筑规范。但是代尔夫特的建筑教育使学生具备足够的建
筑，结构以及建设过程全方位的知识，他们将会在不久的实践中遇到这些
问题，而继续积累自己的知识。这并不是说建筑教育与实践的接轨会很困
难。荷兰的建筑教育系统，由于其半工半读的特点，更加适合对建筑师实
践技术的培养。而相比于其他国外的教育系统，代尔夫特的学生在建筑技
术方面能够得到更系统，更高质量的训练。一些国际学生所选择的设计课
并不是建筑专业的核心课程。如果你选择的设计课重点是城市设计和城市
规划的话，你必定会失去学习代尔夫特更加核心的建筑工程知识的机会。
您的著作《设计和分析》这本书已经翻译成了中文，并且这本书也是住宅部门
书单中的一本推荐文献。您可否介绍一下这本书？
这本书通常是在建筑教育第一年的时候所用，但是并不是所有的章节
都用。关于基地分析或者是项目分析这本书是比较有用的。比如，如果
学生将要设计一个学校，他们可以研究现在的学校是怎么组织的，学校建
筑是如何设计的。那么学生就需要许多工具来分析所有的建筑或者所有的
项目，而这本书就成了了这样一本分析手册，对于初学建筑的学生非常适
合。
从住宅方面，我们现在也在编辑一本新书，关于住宅设计的手册。这
本书将从最普通的开始叙述住宅设计，住宅现象，社会逻辑学科，哲学学
科。然后一章将叙述类型学将特别解释我们怎样理解在设计过程中作为工
具的类型学，而不仅是将所有的东西放入盒中。第三部分是空间组织。第
四部分是住宅设计中的建筑构造。最后一部分是如果你要在某地建一个新
的房屋项目，你必须先分析基地和背景，比如文化，气候情况。然后是环
境下的物质背景,比如周围的建筑是什么样的，城市的形态，周围环境的
类型（城市、景观）。这部分将会叙述几种绘制背景的方法，和数据的绘
制方法。这章的第二部分是限制。比如，学生做关于住宅的作业，需要认
识到城市的限制可能是不同的。这是一种限制。另一种限制是已经存在的
城市方案。建筑可能有之前的形体。我们也在这章描述可能呈现的不同的
方案。这部书现在是荷兰文的。我们打算在九月份最后一章有英文版。这
本书的名字翻译成英文将是“住宅设计-手册”。两年内，我们希望可以有整
个书的英文版但是现在只有一章，为了将要到来的新的国际学生。
您可否介绍一下您的研究兴趣？
我的观点是你可以在建筑上做一些事情，使建筑不仅仅是一个玻璃盒
子或者一个项目的答案。比如你可以做出一种空间和一个非常灵巧的空间
结构，你可以用多种的方式并提供某种自由。这个概念是我在这里称作
“框架”，这个框架提供给最初的自由空间，在框架中可以做不同的事情，
可以有不同的变化，而这种变化与时间有关。我们称之为基于时间的建
筑，这个成了我们研究的课题：《基于时间的建筑》一书。该书力图回答
一个问题”建筑在完成后怎样接受时间上的改变？” 我的兴趣是事物的停留
和事物的改变，讨论已存在的事物，现存的建筑和现代的改变之间的关
系。如果只有现代性，那么将是非常的无聊，如果只有传统，同样无聊。
城市是时间过程的记录通过新旧在一起。今天的新就是明天的旧，我可以
把城市看做是一部电影。另外，我们正在做一个全新的国际杂志《基于时
间的建筑》，每一期都有一个主题并且与基于时间的建筑有关，这本期刊
是一年四期。第一期是关于丹麦的住宅。我们现在完成第二期，第二期内
容将关注住房和自由的平面。我们现在于鹿特丹的DKV architects公司合
作。第三期内容将是居住和工作。第四期将是关于德国的项目。我们现在
正在做一期关于中国的，2009年春季出版。
就您现在编辑的《基于时间的建筑》中国篇“中国的新建筑与传统”这一期的建
筑作品，您怎么看待现在中国建筑的现状和趋势，以及中国的一批年轻建筑师
呢？
总的来说，就我所看到的文章和杂志中刊登的中国建筑，有很多抄袭
和狂妄自大的作品。但是我必须说，从我所编辑的《基于时间的建筑》杂
志中，我所选取的建筑方案都是很有原创性和本土性的。从我看到的照
片，这些建筑都很漂亮，很美丽，而且设计的很好。
Bernard Leupen
Bernard Leupen is a doctor of science in Delft, working in Delft as an
associated professor in the field of housing design. He has two focuses; at
one side he is interested in basic aspects of architecture like composition,
concepts, typology and tectonics. This focus leads to publications like Design
and Analisys (010 Publishers) and the recent book Het ontwerpen van
woningen, een handboek (Housing design, a manual). The English version
will publish in 2010 NAI Publishers. At the other hand he is interested in the
processes between buildings and people, between the static house and
the changing in use. This kind of studies results in the book Time-based
Architecture (010 Publishers 2005) and the Journal Time-based Architecture
International (The Urban International Press, Gateshead, Great Britain). In
his thesis The Frame and the Generic Space (010 Publishers 2002) both
lines came together.
Interview by: Duo Yuan and Meng Sun

Time: July 25, 2008
Location: School of Architecture, TUDelft
Comparing to the Berlarge and other European architecture institutions, what is

Delft's most distinguished architecture tradition?
Until the late sixties Delft was rather traditional orientated. In the
seventies and eighties there was a shift to adepts of Team 10 Forum
group. People like Herman Hertzberger and Aldo van Eyck were the
important professors at that time. After that the guest professorship of
Rem Koolhaas (1988-1990) visited Delft. His vision on modernity and
the city became more and more important.
Basically the architecture department of Delft is not dedicated to

any style or theory. In principle most of the teachers try to get out of
the student what is in him or her. They do not press you to work in a
certain style, like the AA school in London. But this does not count
for everybody. Since Delft is so big, it is difficult to say what is typical.
Maybe one of the most typical things of the Delft design classes is still
a certain remain of the “Form Follows Function” concept. In spite of the
fact that some teachers try to emphasize on form still the program is
very important.
Some architecture schools emphasis digital soft ware in architectural design or

model making by hand, others focuses on theory critics. What does Delft emphasize
in its architecture education?
Since Delft is rather broad, all is true and for all those aspects.
There are a lot of facilities. There is a good model workshop and people
do a lot of model making. Maybe most of the students do not use
enough models during the design process. At the other hand, there are
a lot of facilities for developing 3D computer models. We also have laser
cutters and 3D plotters. Not every teacher is even emphasising on these
facilities and only in certain ateliers like Hyperbody 3D modelling is very
important. Next to this, still the classical hand drawing seminars are
there and obliged for all bachelor students.
Delft has a very strong philosophy and theory tradition. Many students found it is
very useful to take seminars such as "drawing and media" or "beauty and sublime",
and other contemporary architectural theories. They are quite good class for
architectural thinking.
This is an interesting and also difficult question. I do not know all

these temporal courses. But I can give you my own meaning on this
subject. In general I think students should have knowledge of basic
architectural theory. There is a misunderstanding between architectural
theory and the critical consideration on architecture and what architects
are doing also called Architectural Critics.
Delft is famous for "design by research" approach. My understanding is to derive

architectural idea through research and diagramming. Can you explain more about
"diagram" as a research method?
The method in general called “Design Analysis” has an important

place in the Delft education. Learning via analysing existing designs and
analysing the context are part of those. All these methods are based on
drawing techniques in which reduction, transformation and extraction
plays an important role. So by making all kinds of reductions of existing
designs of sites on one or two aspects like morphology, tectonics or
programmatic aspects analysis could be made. These methods could
be also used in the design process by making reduction schemes of
the program, of the concept or of a possible spatial configuration. Also
transforming programmatic data in all kinds of visual representations to
generate possible configurations for the design is often used. A lot of
these techniques you will find in the work of OMA or MVRDV.
What’s the program in general in master of architecture?
Within the MSc Architecture (Master of Science in architecture) track

you can choose from nine specialisations: Architecture and Modernity:
Dwelling; Architecture and Modernity: Public Building; ®MIT (Restoration,
Modification, Intervention, Transformation) ; Hybrid Building for the
Dutch City; Interiors, Buildings and Cities; Hyperbody: Non-standard and
Interactive Architecture; Materialisation; Architectural Engineering (offerd
by the Building Technology department); DSD - Future Cities (offered by
the Delft School of Design).
Could you introduce the organization structure of department of architecture?
The structure is changing now. The department of Architecture

works with a number of different kinds of chairs. In principle, there are
three categories: key chairs, flexible chairs and practical chairs. These
chairs strive for international recognition and appeal. Their tasks are
performed in a dynamic, proactive and innovative way by preparing
students for the professional world of work, conducting fundamental and
applied research, valorizing the results of education and research. At the
moment everything is changing and quite unsure, but officially we have
these three so-called sections and six chairs.
The key chairs composed of three branches:
First is Typology of buildings, L.van duin is the responsible professor

of this chair. The key question is the way in which form, construction
and function of buildings related to each other in their technological
and social context. Education and design concentrate on designing
buildings, programmes of demands and requirements and the typology
of buildings, developing design methods.
Second is Architectural composition, professor S.U.Barbieri

response for that. The key question is the structure of a design and
its architectural and tectonic result. Education and research focus on
designing buildings, the composition of buildings, theoretical architectural
views.
Third is Materialization of buildings. The key research task of this

chair is the materialization of building parts and the way details are
mutually tuned to each other to make it into a unity that can be put out
for tenders. Education and research focus on designing buildings, the
materialization of spatial design which includes the materialization of
building parts with suitable details, the assessments of the performance
of constructive systems that are offered and the performance description
of the materialization of buildings according to prevailing laws and
standards.
So there are three main chairs and there are three so-called aspect
chairs or flexible chair:
First is Dwellings and D. van Garmeren is the responsible professor.

The analysis and evaluation of precedents and design processes are
aimed at developing design methods for dwellings of the future. Education
and research focus on designing dwelling and subdivisions, architecture
of dwellings, new developments in the production of the demand for
dwellings.
Second is Restoration. J.M.J Coenen is the responsible professor.

Education and research deal with interventions in buildings of cultural
and historical value focusing on restoration design, restoration ethics
and historical architecture research, interaction between forms that are
handed down, new interventions and the transformation of monuments
and historic buildings, the application of new building technologies
related to old materials and techniques which includes building physics
and installations.
The third is Interiors. T.Fretton is the responsible professor. The

key question is the way architectural design and visual aspects of
interiors are related – the visual culture – in which social phenomena
play a part. Education and research deal with designing architectural
interiors, integrating the finishing and furnishing of buildings, the link
between concept and detail. But at the moment actually they are not any
more part of architectural sides. The chair of winny mas was so-called
practical architecture chairs. Interior was combined with the chair of
A.D.Graafland, he is the man of Delft School of Design (DSD). They also
have kind of programme and exercise for PHD students.
What is the design process in the chairs?
We could take the graduation project in dwelling as an example.
The third (MSc3) and fourth (MSc4) semesters (the second year)
are utilized for graduating in the Master’s degree ”Architecture and
Modernity”. The MSc3 is used for undertaking the necessary preliminary
research and for elaborating the final (graduation) assignment, while in
the MSc4, the student works on their own assignments.
The Master’s degree programme ‘Architecture and Modernity’

for the dwelling-section includes two Labs: New Concepts and
Living Environments. The Lab comprises two steps: the tutorial on
research methods and the design exercise. In the MSc3, students
prepare themselves for their specific graduation assignments by
means of a design exercise, by doing research and by making an
initial design. The research during this exercise includes the required
preliminaryinvestigation into the historical framework, the theoretical
conceptual framework, the programme, location and context. This
research produces the points of departure for the design, the programme
and a preferred location. On the basis of this research, in the second
part of the exercise, the student works on an initiating design, under
the guidance of the principal graduation counsellor. In the MSc4,
students substantiate their own design, the composition of the studio

remains the same. During this period, guidance is also given by building
technologists.
What is the relation between architecture and urbanism program?
At this moment, actually there is not much relation between the two
departments. People are complaining about that. In the old system as
I told before, when the students did the final project, they had to have
someone from urbanism or someone from material or maybe both.
And now we only need two teachers. So in some of the programs, for
instance the program for hyper building, there are some lectures from
urbanism. Yes, there becomes a bigger problem. On the one side, last
year every architecture debate started with talking about urbanism but
not in the way I talking here about urbanism. That is more international
problem. The classical departments of urbanism may get all kinds of
people like the people in Urban Body and so on having their own sorts.
Actually they are using concepts of architecture and add it to urbanism.
But that is not urbanism. We can not build a city and develop a city using
that kind of concept.
At the moment if you looked at our own program, we are trying to do

something together with the urbanism in the Master two. For the several
technical reasons, it doesn’t work yet. For us, the program in Master
two is the free choice but there are still lots of obliged assignments.
The students could select the urbanism program but there still must
be 12 points for design assignment. We offer the assignments for that
and some urbanism programs have the assignment for that, Building
Technology also has some assignments for that. We hope in the future
the situation will be better.
Delft is one of the architecture institutions in the Netherlands in which graduate

students can automatically apply the "Dutch registered architect or town planner"
title after graduation. This shows Delft's high reputation and high quality of
architecture education. How does Delft's class composition in preparing its graduate
students to qualified Dutch architects?
Yes, we are one of them. Next to Delft there is also an architectural

school at the Technical university of Eindhoven. Beside that we have a
network of so called academies. After a bachelor on a high school for
building technology there is a part-time education system: the Academy
of Architecture (Academe voor bouwkunst). This course is four years
and you should do this besides a job in an architectural firm. Delft in a
way is not specifically preparing on the practice of being an architect.

We are a university, not a professional training. But since Delft gives the
students a wide background in general, graduated are enough equipped
to practise as an Architect.
How much percentage of Dutch architects have graduated from TU Delft?
I do not know precisely. In principle about 200 to 250 a year

graduated as an architect from Delft. In the Technical University of
Eindhoven that will be about 100 and from the Academy's together it will
be 50. There is a heavy peer review system for the education system
called certification. Graduate students are incorporated in this system.
Since when does TU Delft start to admit international students and English language
teaching?
The international program started already at the end of late 1980s

especially within Europe. At first, the program started as a committee
which was composed of two professors, one from here and one from
other school. And later on, in earlier 1990s, we had offices started big
network all of Europe and also starting to make the committees with the
universities in US and Japan. From then on, in 1994, the first big way for
international students came to Delft. I knew that because I was asked
to do one assignment for dwelling. At that moment, we had 45 students
and half of them are foreign students. Later on I also did a big workshop
about 60 students and half of them are foreign students and we went
outside for one week. The education in such of group is actually English.
In principle, when we sit together with a group and do the presentation,
we also use English. And we called so-called Erasmus English. It is
based on the European Erasmus program (European Region Action
Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), most of students came
from that program are Italian or Spanish. From that time I started doing
my lectures in English. At first we did like this; we had special courses
for the foreign students. These courses were included of Master one and
two and graduation program. We also had special groups for the foreign
students. Normally we are always arguing that it should be better to
have the students all together. By now, officially all the master programs
are using English as their teaching language.
Many students found the difference between architectural education and

architectural practice. What kind of suggestions do you give to Chinese students for
their future career?
Delft gives the students a wide background in general, so graduated

are enough equipped to practise as an Architect. It is important for
students to go into practise as soon as possible. We do not teach
students about the management of a firm or detailed building regulations
and certainly not about Chinese building regulations, but students are
enough equipped with knowledge about architecture, the structure of
buildings and building processes to find their way soon in practise.
That will not say that the switch to practise will be still hard. The Dutch
Academy system is, due to the fact that you are doing your study
beside your work in an architectural firm, more appropriate to skill you
for practice. Comparing to a lot of foreign education systems, students
in Delft get a lot on building technology to be better equipped. Some
international students went to these design classes beside the core of
architecture. If you go to design classes which is emphasising on Urban
Design and Urban planning, you will miss the more hardcore Delft
engineering knowledge.
Your book Design and Analysis has already translated into Chinese and it is also
one of recommended literatures in the book lists of Dwelling. Could you introduce
something about this book?
This book is always used in the first year study but not all the
chapters are used. For analyzing on the site or on the program, this
book is useful. For instance, if the students will design a school, they
could do research on what is school today or do research on what kinds
of schools are built today. Then the students need a lot of equipments to
make analysis on all the buildings or all the projects. Then this book is
very handy to describe how to do.
For the dwelling specific, we are also working on a new book. This
book should be a handbook on the dwelling design. This book will start
on the general texts on the dwelling design, the phenomena of dwelling,
social-logical science, philosophy science. Then there is a chapter on
typology and specifically we explained there what we understood on the
typology as an instrument in the design process but not just something
to put everything in the box. The third part is organizing of space. The
fourth is on building tectonics which focuses on the dwelling design. The
last part is if you have to build a housing project somewhere, you must
do first analysis of the site and the context, such as cultural context,
climates. Then the physically context which is underneath context,
such as what kind of buildings are around, what is the morphology of
the city, what is the typology of the tissue (the city around you). This
part will describe several ways of mapping the contexts. We will also
describe the data mapping. The second part of this context story is
about constraint. For instance, the students are doing the assignments
on dwelling and the urban constraint would be different. That is one kind
of constraint. The other kind of constraint is that the urban scheme has
already existed. The buildings then should have the precise shapes. We
also describe in this chapter the different kind of ways the plan could be
shown. The book now is in Dutch. We intend to have an English version
of last chapter in September. The name of the book translated into
English will be ”The Design of Dwelling -- the handbook”. In two years,
we hope we could make an English version of whole book but now is
just one chapter for the new coming international students.
Could you introduce your own research interests?
In my opinion, you should do something in architecture which makes

possible that the building is not only a kind of glass box specific program.
But the building is more than an answer on the specific program. You
could do that by making a kind of space and a very clever structure
of the spaces. You could do that in many kinds of ways but it should
provide some kinds of freedom. The idea here is that it should be what I
called ”Frame” which provides the freedom for the generic space which
could do different things and where the change could take pose. The
change has to do with the time. The idea of what we called time-based
architecture which became the theme in our research. We had this book
Time-based Architecture. In this book, it is all about the projects in one
or the other way give the answer to the question from “if the building is
finished, how should it adopt the changes in times?“ Now, we are also
working on a journal TBA (Time-Based Architecture international). The
first issue is about Demark dwelling. We are working the second issue.
The second issue will focus on housing and flexible floor plans. We are
working with an office from Rotterdam, DKV architects. The third issue
will be on living and working. The fourth issue will be about projects in
Germany. Afterwards, we are talking about one issue on China. Each
issue has a theme and relate to the time-based architecture. The journal
is four times a year.
My fascination is that something is staying and something is

changing. The relation between what is already there, the context of the
existing buildings, and changed the modernity. If there is only modernity
which is boring and if there is only tradition which is also boring, the city
is recording the process of time by putting new and old next to each
other. What is new today which is old tomorrow. We could read the city
as a film.
As you are editing the issue on "Chinese New Architecture and Tradition" for
the Time-based Architecture magazine. How do you think about current Chinese
architecture trend and the emerging Chinese young architects?
A lot of copying and megalomania projects I have seen in general in

the literature. Looking to the projects we selected, I must say that these
projects are very authentic, original, and beautiful, as far I could see
from the pictures also very well done.
翰•麦耶
城市研究教授
翰•麦耶教授来自荷兰第二大城市鹿特丹。自20世纪80年代初，他开始担
任诸多荷兰和国际城市更新和交通项目的项目领队和经理。1990年他回到代
尔夫特理工大学成为副教授，2001年成为正教授。他于1997年完成了博士论
文《城市与港口－港口城市的更新》。他曾经，并目前仍是多个组织项目和竞
赛的主席，董事，顾问和评委，其中包括鹿特丹艺术协会建筑部门，鹿特丹欧
洲文化首都项目，欧罗巴国际设计竞赛。翰教授自2001至2008年担任代尔夫
特理工大学建筑系城市规划学院的主任。他至今仍是”城市设计－理论和方法”
部门的主席。目前他主要致力于城市规划学院国际硕士课程的教学和组织，同
时也领导他自己部门的学术研究工作。
采访者：周静
时间：2008年5月20日
地点：荷兰代尔夫特理工大学奥拉会议中心
代尔夫特理工大学建筑系城市规划学院的结构组织是什么样的？
代尔夫特理工大学的建筑系下有四个学院，它们是建筑学院，城市学
院，房地产住房学院，建筑技术学院。城市学院本身下有四个分部，它们
是城市设计，空间规划和策略，景观建筑和环境设计及可持续发展。每个
分部又有二到三个组组成。
城市设计分部，也就是我所在的分部，有三个组。一个是总领组叫
做“城市构成”。但是我对这个名字还是很满意，因为它可能会引起不少混
淆。这个组主要是关于城市设计的理论和方法论研究。目前我是这个组的
主导教授。第二个组叫做“城市设计”，主要关注城市公共空间的设计和建
筑设计的关系。这个组的主导教授是汉口•贝克凌先生。第三个组着重研
究“大都市和区域设计”。这个组刚刚迎来一位新的教授，叫做毛利斯•德•
厚合先生。在这三个组里，“城市构成”是这个分部的核心。另两个组可以
叫做“方面”组。
在空间规划和策略分部也有三个组。这个分部的核心教授是文森特 •
纳丁先生，他是从2008年初刚被从英国聘请来的新教授。他的组就叫做
“ 空间规划和策略 ” 。 “ 大都市和区域设计 ” 组（原在 “ 城市设计 ” 分部下，编
注）前任教授佑斯•斯海纳先生目前作为兼职教授在这个分部辅助新教授
的工作，他的组旨在加紧这个分部的研究和专业实践的结合。我们还会迎
来第三位新教授－维尔•宋纳非尔德先生，他将领衔“区域发展”组。宋纳非
尔德先生长于研究，他与代尔夫特另一个城市研究机构OTB有紧密联系。
这个分部的核心组主要关心设计议题，另两个组关注区域规划和设计的项
目发展和过程设计方面的研究。
景观建筑分部的核心组就叫做 “ 景观建筑 ” ，负责的教授是克雷曼斯 •

斯德恩波恩先生。另一个组着重关注景观文化历史的研究，主导教授是艾
瑞克• 劳特先生。环境设计和可持续发展分部的主导教授是特艾克 •德•杨
先生。第二个组由克斯•岛夫斯登领导，旨在将研究联系实践。
每个分部的人员组成基本结构是什么样的？
“城市设计”和“空间规划及策略 ”是两个大的分部； “景观建筑”和“环境

设计及可持续发展 ” 是相对小的分部。我们城市学院总共有约 120 教职员
工。但不都是全职职位，不少人是非全职。如果不考虑学生助理和秘书，
我们大概有100左右研究和教职人员。其中全职的职位有大概65个。
代尔夫特理工大学的建筑系是荷兰规模最大的，在欧洲范围内也属于规模头几
名的。对此您如何评价？
的确，代尔夫特建筑系是荷兰最大也是最重要的建筑和城市教育基
地。总共有学生三千余人。在荷兰爱因霍芬大学有另一个建筑和城市教学
科研学院。但它的规模小的多，年轻很多，它成立于 20世纪60年代。代
尔夫特理工大学在19世纪40年代成立时原本是一个科技学院。20世纪初
发生了两件主要的事件。此科技学院获得了科学机构的地位。第二，原本
此科技学院只有一个教学项目，但自20世纪初，建筑学院分离出来，成立
了独立的学院。在此之前，建筑学属于荷兰工程师教学项目的一部分；而
且大部分的建筑学教学都是土木工程课程。实际上，代尔夫特科技学院
在成立之初就主要是一个土木工程学院，同时包含一小部分建筑学，自然
科学等其它学科。20世纪初，建筑学的重要性增加很多，特殊的技能需要
被培养。
当我们回顾荷兰城市发展过程会发现两个非常大的建设高潮。一个发
生在17世纪，也被叫做“黄金年代”，当时小城市增长很快。但这段时期之
后的将近两世纪的时间内城市发展变缓甚至出现缩减。始于19 世纪的工
业革命以及欧洲城市摆脱了维持城市防御系统（包括城墙护城河等）的必
须，这两个因素使得城市得以拆除限制大规模扩张。这个时期其它类城市
活动也异常丰富，大量农业人口迁移到城市。因此对建筑的需求也是巨
大的，专业人才的需要成为热门，促成了专业院校的成立。实际上，代尔
夫特建筑学院的名字的荷兰语含义和英文里的建筑设计是很有不同的。
Bouwkunde是建筑科学的意思。在荷兰，我们也以此区别其它院校，比
如建筑艺术学院，在荷兰语中是Bouwkunst。
想成为荷兰认可的建筑师，你需要注册。有两种方式。第一，学生参
加预备技术学校，之后进入建筑艺术学院学习。或者学生参加普通高中
然后进入大学参加建筑科学和技术课程。两种学历均被认可当学生完成学
业。但两个过程的重点不同。建筑艺术学院更强调将你学到的技巧和知识
用于专业实践。而科技大学里的建筑系试图将实践和科学革新以及研究结
合。
城市专业硕士学位使你成为合格的城市设计师和规划师，你也将具备
系统化和批判性的独立的处理更复杂问题的能力。主宰这个领域的机构包
括私人城市设计规划咨询公司，地方政府的城市规划部门，以及省级或国
家的区域规划部门。作为城市设计师和规划师，你可以选择在私人公司或
国家部门工作。
从何时起城市学在荷兰成为一个专业学科？
这是个有意思的问题。在 19 世纪的进程，以及 20 世纪初期，城市学

越来越发展成为独立的学科。在荷兰大多数的市政府，城市学是公共服务
部门的一部分。大部分做城市计划的人都是土木工程师。当代尔夫特建筑
科学学院成立的时候，城市学科也被考虑在内。城市学被认为是对建筑师
教育的不可缺少的一部分。在20世纪二三十年代，荷兰地方市政府开始成
立单独的城市规划部门。二次世界大战以后，也就是 20世纪40年代后半
期，代尔夫特建筑科学学院也决定开设独立的城市设计和规划课程，与建
筑课程并列。
您认为欧洲的城市规划教育和北美的区别是什么？
城市规划与其它公共项目规划的紧密联系是欧洲长期以来的传统，尤
其是荷兰对水治理的需要。实际上可以说从 15，16世纪开始，土木工程
类型的城市规划在荷兰已经出现。自 19，20世纪，城市规划的意义扩展
为创造经济社会上运行良好的城市。尤其是19世纪，很多荷兰城市面临经
济停顿以及社会问题，比如大规模的流行病爆发。因此很多人非常在意城
市的组织是否得当的问题。城市学也因此成为公众认可的重要学科。这个
时期产生了很多城市规划的专业实践。基本上荷兰每个大城市都建立了相
当大规模的城市规划部门，同时也产生了很多私人的城市设计和规划咨询
公司。从大量的工程实践中，学生们可以看到城市学是一项他们可以选择
的硕士学位学习对象。
在荷兰城市规划是一个强项是一个传统。城市发展和管理的方式和美国的自由
市场导向方式大不相同。请问您对此的理解？
我希望我们可以保持这个传统。城市学在荷兰偏向工程学而非社会科
学，它的发展和荷兰城市和景观发展历史紧密相连。荷兰的土地资源稀
缺，而且时常受到水灾的威胁。所以作为“低地国家”荷兰的城市被系统的
保护起来，土地资源被珍惜和有创造性的利用。代尔夫特理工大学城市学
科重视强调在所有适度上城市化的进程在城市设计，景观建筑以及空间规
划方面的变化。我们学校的城市学课程非常强调在技术以及空间层面上城
市地区的机遇和局限，以及各种社会进程对城市用地变化的印象。
实际上，我们要认识到目前荷兰社会正面临重大变化。城市学，城市
设计，城市规划尤其在 20 世纪和公共部门紧密相连。也就是说城市规划
是一项公共工程。我们目前面对的发展状况是很多城市发展的责任都被市
场接管。同时，个人化也是一个明显的现象。很多西方人不愿意按照公共
部门安排的程序以集体的方式做每件事情。他们更加强调自己的独立性和
个体世界。所以对我们城市学科来说，很重要的是需要展望预期这种发展
趋势，而不是惯性的认为城市规划和设计仍然可以维持为公共工程，或只
关乎公共利益的元素。不光是在城市规划和城市设计领域，在房地产开发
和住房学院，学者的研究兴趣也越来越多的集中在探索新的多方合作模式
上。
代尔夫特理工大学城市学院的每个分部和小组的主要活动是什么？它们是偏重
研究、理论、设计实践还是教学？
每个教学组都尽量将教学结合研究，设计结合研究。城市学研究生课
程一共两年时间分为四个学期。第一学年着重提供那些作为城市学者必备
的分学科知道，比如：城市历史、城市区域研究和设计、空间规划、景观
建筑、设计和规划技巧和方法论。每个课程都清晰明显的强调以社会学和
科学方法讨论城市学在未来的发展和定位。第二年专注于毕业设计。方向
和题目的选择和学生所在的教学组的研究内容紧密相关。一般来说教学组
的研究兴趣都强调研究性设计，比如设计研究、设计评估等。我们试图体
现设计不光是一种艺术，更是将它放在一个科学的背景下看待。对城市设
计做科学分析，以设计作为研究的手段都是可能的，比如，我们可以考察
不同的空间可能性和构成。我们尽量将我们从事的重要的研究议题和教学
结合，尤其是硕士课程，研究和设计是结合的。
针对国际学生的课程是如何设计的？
那个时候我是硕士课程的项目负责人，所以我和一组同事一起是这个
课程设置的主要的设计者。之后这个课程设置又有过两次小调整。目前我
们面临的问题是使课程设置更加灵活，使学生在建筑学，城市学和房地产
住房三个领域有更多的课程选择自由。
在本科－硕士分立系统应用之前，我们建筑系的课程设置是相当灵活
的。学习城市学的学生很容易到建筑学或其它领域选修课程。在这种分立
学位的系统引入以后，几种硕士课程照自己的方式发展。所以一共贯通总
体的结构不再存在，尤其是对硕士课程里的选修课的影响较大。由于每种
硕士课程都是不同的，学生很难在之间做一些交换串联。我认为能在学习
城市学的同时增加一些其它学科的知识对学生是重要和有趣的。
对于两年的国际学生硕士课程来说，改革的方向是保留现有的总体框
架。第一年仍根据我们学院四个分部的设置，开设包含对于不同城市问
题，项目和学科的介绍性可课程。第二年仍是毕业设计年。学生将选择性
的参加到以当前各种不同的具体城市议题为科学研究对象的设计研究室
里。学生也会参与到系级别的研究项目中来。所以课程设置灵活性的增加
主要体现在第一年的选修课上。
2004 年的时候国际学生通过建筑系网站主要得到关于“ 城市更新和管理” 教学组
的介绍。根据目前硕士课程设置的变化，在不久的将来会有更多的教学组向国
际学生开放么？
是的，关于具体内容，我们已经决定的是将来的教学重点要更强调城
市学中的设计问题。目前对城市更新和管理的强调有些过多。实际上，我
们要将重点重置在设计上，因为这是城市学的主要关注点之一。未来的学
生将会参与到更多的设计课程中来。
我注意到近来对国际硕士课程的质量控制变得更加严格。对不同教学阶段都对
学生有更严格的要求。学生需要比以前付出更多的努力以求高分。这也这次教
学改革所期望的目标之一么？
是的，我们的考虑是如何将有着不同研究重点的不同的教学组对待学
生的评价标准整合得更统一。对学生来讲，他们也需要更清晰的了解我们
对他们学习研究的准确要求。
我也注意到今年对学生作业的评价工作是由来自不同教学组的老师合作完成。
以前的情况是每一组的学生作业只由这个组里的老师评定。这是不是课程设置
的新变化呢？
这个要看情况，在第二年毕业设计年，学生有义务为自己的毕业设计
选择三个指导老师。只有第一个导师需要直接从其参与的教学组里选择。
其它两位完全由学生自由决定，他们可以选择城市学院甚至建筑系里任何
不同方向的导师。
您提到了将要修复设计在硕士教学课程中的重要地位，请您更详细的谈谈这个
目标如何实现？而且这个变化将如何影响国际硕士学生？
这个变化主要会发生的第一学年，更多的关注重要的小尺度的设计议
题，因为我们发现目前第一年的重点过于集中在区域规划上。而大多数的
城市设计和专业实践都发生在小尺度，比如城市组织的构成，城市系统的
形态，街区和道路系统等。我们希望学生更多关注这些方面。
我们将邀请更多的国际学生参加以小尺度城市设计为重点的教学组。
我们期待在未来几年每个教学组和毕业设计组为学生制定好更清晰的设计
问题和题目。目前我们主要有三个毕业设计组对国际学生开放。一个叫做
“城市景观”，非常偏重城市形态和景观形态的关系的研究。第二个组叫做
“城市更新”，这个组的兴趣点是业已存在的城市结构出现的问题以及如何
对它们进行重组。第三个组叫做“复杂城市”组，它的研究议题是国际层面
上的社会经济变化如何影响城市发展，以及如何用空间规划和设计的手段
应对这些新变化。
三个毕业设计组和四个教学分部和分组的关系是什么样的？
这三个毕业设计组是交叉学科的。每个组的导师都是来自不同教学分
组的混合。如上所述，学生亦有自由选择自己的毕设导师。
毕业设计组是一个学科合作的融合。比如，“城市景观”组强调城市设
计和景观设计的组合。另两个组着重城市规划和策略，他们可以与任何教
学分组组合。环境设计教学分组可以融入任何毕业设计组，尽管目前它本
来没有自身的毕设组，也许将来会有。
很重要要提到我们现在正筹备一项认证，这个认证可以使从我们学院
毕业的学生注册为景观建筑师。在荷兰系统里，学生毕业后可注册为建筑
师，规划师，景观建筑师和室内设计师。这四个头衔是受法律保护的。当
你在代尔夫特理工大学城市学院完成学业以后，可以注册成为荷兰认可的
规划师头衔。但目前想获得景观规划师头衔，学生只能通过完成荷兰瓦格
宁根大学的特殊景观设计课程。瓦格宁根大学是偏重农业的学校。我们现
在有这个计划也在筹备使代尔夫特理工大学城市学院提供一个特殊的景观
教学课程，使得有兴趣的学生最终有机会从我们学院得到景观建筑师的头
衔。这个项目将在明年发展。
当学生进入某一个具体的毕设组，每个组会安排一些关于组里学科研究的介绍
性课程。请问会不会有关于毕业设计题目的指导和建议？还是学生可以根据自
己的兴趣完全自由的选择自己的毕设题目。
是的。“城市景观”组主要有两个研究主题，一个是理论方向，比如我
们的教材是《城市景观读本》，这本教材描述了景观规划和设计如何日益
成为城市和大都市空间构成的重要部分。第二个主题是基于荷兰本土情
况的，是关于荷兰三角洲的研究议题。荷兰有非常特殊的景观，在三角洲
地区任何事情都是和水管理有关系的。目前鉴于全球气候变化的关注日趋
增加，这个研究议题也变成更加重要。我认为在国际层面上这个题目也是
相关的，因为世界上很多人口密集的城市区域都是在三角洲地区建设的，
比如亚洲和美国的一些城市群。我们目前正在和威尼斯大学联合研究这个
议题。
“城市更新”组也有两个主要研究题目。一个主要关注西欧城市战后住
宅的，不过越来越扩展到东欧和亚洲城市。这是一个很需要关注的题目，
比如，这些住宅的未来是什么样的，它们的建筑质量较差，住房类型过
小，城市结构的设计也不到位。第二个题目是城市中心的更新。很多城市
都努力应对城市中心业已出现的问题，希望能够提高中心区的意义。目前
城市面临的机遇是密化城市中心和提高中心区公共空间的质量。
“复杂城市”组主要关注全球层面社会经济的变化对城市发展的影响，
尤其是减少城市贫困的方法。近期这个组对“自组织”理论和“自下而上”规
划方法研究兴趣逐渐增加，一些研究人员正从事这方面的研究。就这个题
目针对第三世界国家的情况的研讨会和其它方式的学术活动已经举办过一
些。目标是找到大都市居住者参与城市规划建设的合作方式，同时这个题
目也越来越和发达国家相关，比如荷兰城市规划作为公共事务由公共机构
制定是有很长传统的，目前我们越来越关注社会个体的需要。比如，目前
的一个城市政策就是允许人们建自己的房子，比如荷兰新城奥米尔。个性
化是个全球化的现象。我们也需要关注如何为人们开办经营自己的公司创
造条件，换句话说，增加城市的经济性。
系里博士生的研究是如何组织和进行的？
“代尔夫特设计学院”（DSD）是建筑系的博士生学院。DSD 有自己的
博士项目，同时作为一个提供给所有博士的交流平台。DSD主要的两个博
士方向是建筑学和城市学，它们都和一个共通的研究题目有关，也就是在
学术背景和专业实践下建筑学知识与各种社会系统和历史基因的“关系”。
研究的重心在二十和二十一世纪。为了解释现代主义和后现代注意在
建筑和城市学领域的延伸，我们的研究是十分必要的。“后现代主义”这个
词代表着当今社会文化系统的状况。“建筑”和 “城市”两个词都是对这个状
态象征性和物质性的表达。建筑学和城市学中历史科学，社会科学和专业
实践之间的关系在当代社会中应该被重点强调。
2008年DSD给其博士项目和平台增加了一个硕士课程。这个硕士项
目的独特之处是学生可以被授予建筑或城市学位，我们系的其它类教学项
目都做不到这一点。这个硕士项目的核心教授是阿里• 贺拉夫兰德,目前又
新增加了荷兰MVRDV事务所主要创立者之一的温迪•马斯教授领导的一个
建筑规划教学组。他们二人各自领导两个不同的设计/研究领域－“城市不
对称”和“为什么工厂”。这两个组又和一个理论组“建筑思考”平行和衔接。
参与硕士项目的各方都同等有义务参加DSD的博士项目和平台的发展和建
设。
您认为代尔夫特建筑系未来的发展方向是什么？您认为什么是该保持的特别之
处，那方面最需要提高？
我认为总重要的是我们学院需要找到荷兰和国际影响力量的平衡。如
果只注重荷兰传统，我们的教学研究不会有丰富成果，因为我们的国家越
来越成为国际化发展的一部分。但如果我们放弃自己的传统，只邀请外国
教授到我们学院，也不会产生丰硕的教学研究成果。我们目前仍有邀请一
些新教授到我们学院的机会。我们要掌握好地方性的和全球性的影响力的
关系。我认为这对国际学生也很重要。
Han Meyer
Full Professor of Chair of Urban Compositions
Professor Han Meyer comes from Rotterdam-the 2nd largest city

in the Netherlands. Since early 1980 he began to be the project leader
and coordinator for various Dutch and international urban renewal and
transportation projects. He returned to university as an associate professor
in 1990, and became a full professor in 2001. He finished his PhD research
titled City and Port-transformations of Portcities in 1997. He has been and is
chairman, member and jury of many (inter)national organizations, projects
and competitions, including the section of Architecture of Rotterdam Art
Foundation, Rotterdam European Cultural Capital project, and Europan
international design competition. Han Meyer has been the chairman of
Department of Urbanism in TU Delft from 2001-2008, and he continues
to be the chairman of Urban Design-Theory and Method. Now he mainly
devotes to the education and organization of international Master Program in
Urbanism in TU Delft, as well as leading researches in his chair.
Interview by: Jing Zhou

Time: May 20, 2008
Place: AULA congress center in TU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands
What is the organization and structure of the department of urbanism in the Faculty
of Architecture in TU Delft?
In the Technical University of Delft, there is the faculty of

Architecture, which has four departments. They are architecture,
urbanism, real estate housing and building technology. And urbanism
itself has four sections. There is the section of Urban Design; section of
Spatial Planning and Strategy; the section of Landscape Architecture;
and the section of Environmental Design and Sustainability. Each section
is composed by two or three chairs.
In the section of urban design where I am also in, there are three
chairs. One general chair which is called Urban Composition, but I’m
not happy with that, because it can cause a lot of confusion. It is mainly
about theoretical and methodological aspect of urban design. I am the
central professor at the moment. The second chair is Urban Design,
especially focused on the relation with architecture and the design of
public space, whose leading professor is Henco Bekkering. The third
one is with special focus on Metropolitan and Regional Design. This
chair is welcoming a brand-new professor who has just started; his name
is Maurits de Hoog. Among the three, the Urban Composition chair is
supposed to be the central chair of the section. The other two are so
called ”aspect” chairs.
In the section of Spatial Planning and Strategy, there are also three
chairs. The professor holding the central chair in this section is Mr.
Vincent Nadin, who is also new, starting from the beginning of 2008.
The former professor from Metropolitan and Regional Design, Mr. Joost
Schrijnen is now functioning as a part-time supporting professor in this
section with special relation with professional practices. There is also
a third brand-new professor- Wil Zonneveld, who is just appointed with
the chair which is called Regional Development. This professor is with
special focus on research, related to another urban research institute in
Delft University OTB. The central chair is supposed to focus on design
questions, and the other ones are supposed to do research on the
programmatic and process aspects of regional planning and design.
In the section of Landscape Architecture which has a central

chair Landscape Architecture. The responsible professor is Clemens
Steenbergen. The second chair has special attention to the Cultural
History of the Landscape, with Professor Eric Luiten. The central chair of
the fourth section-Environmental Design and Sustainability is leading by
Professor Taeke de Jong. Another chair with Professor Kees Duijvestein
has special relation with professional practices.
What is basic personnel composition of the sections?
The Urban Design and Spatial Planning and Strategy are the two
big sections; and Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design
and Sustainability are the two small ones. In total there are more or
less 120 people within our department. Not all full time, but many part-
times. If you do not take into account the students assistants and
secretaries, there are more or less 100 people in teaching and research.
If considering the full-time positions, there are about 65.
The Faculty of Architecture in Technical University of Delft is the largest in the

Netherlands, and among the biggest even in Europe. Can you give more comments
on that?
Yes, our faculty is the biggest and most important architectural

and urbanism school in the Netherlands. There are more than 3000
students. There is one other scientific education school in architectural
and urbanism is in the University of Eindhoven. This school is far smaller
and also younger, which has been founded in 1960s. Delft University
which was originally a technical school was founded in the 1840s. In
the beginning of the 20th century two important things happened. The
school changed the status to a scientific institute. And secondly, it was
originally one school with one program. Since the beginning of the 20th
century, there was the separate school for architecture, that is to say,
the faculty of architecture was founded. Before that, architecture was
part of the program for the Dutch engineers; and most of the programs
were civil engineering. As a matter of fact, in the beginning, the school
was a big school for civil engineering, with a small part of architecture
and natural sciences and so on. In the beginning of the 20th century,
architecture became so important that special techniques were required.
When you look to the development of Dutch cities, there were two
very big building explosions. One was in the 17th century, which is
called ”golden age”, when the small cities were growing fast. But after
the ”golden age”, there was a period of more than two centuries with
slow urban development and even shrinking. In the 19th century, with
the industrialization and with the end of the obligation that the cities had
to maintain its own defense system, the cities were able to expand by
tearing down the defense walls. And there were enormous explosion
of activities in the period, people from the agricultural land coming into
the cities. So there were enormous needs for new building construction,
and enormous needs for people who are specialized in it, which resulted
in the specialized school in building. As a matter of fact, there is an
important difference in the name of our faculty, which is Bouwkunde.
It doesn’t translate into architecture in English but building science. In
Holland, we also have the difference between the university and other
buildings and architectural schools, for example, Academy of Bouwkunst,
which means building art.
When you want to become an architect in Holland, you need

to register to be an architect. You can follow two ways. First way is
that one attends a preparing technical high school, and then follows
the Academy of Building Art. Or one can go to a normal high school
and go to a university and follow the courses of building science and
technology. And both can be acknowledged as architects after they finish
the study. There are different emphases. The academy of building art
is more emphasizing the possibility of practicing what you’ve learned
in professional practices, while the technical university is aiming to
combine the practice with scientific innovations and research.
A master in Urbanism provides you with the qualification of urban

designer and planner, and the capabilities to approach even complex
urban issues independently, critically and systematically. The field
is dominated by private urban design and planning consultancies,
local government urban planning departments, and regional planning
departments of provinces or states. As urban designer and planner
you may also choose to work in other public or private domains, for
organizations as disparate as architectural firms, project developers and
national ministries.
When did Urbanism become a profession in the Netherlands?
That’s an interesting question. In the course of the end of the 19th

century, and the beginning of the 20th century, urbanism was developing
itself more and more to be an autonomous discipline. In most of the
municipalities, urbanism was part of the department of public works. And
most of the people who made urban plan were civil engineers. When
the faculty of building science in Delft University was established, it also
decided to take care for Urbanism, urban design and so on. Urbanism
was treated as an integral part of education to architects. In the 1920s
and 1930s, separate department for urban planning was founded in the
local municipalities. Special organization for urban planning and design
were also founded. After the WWII, in the 1940s, the Faculty of Building
Science in Delft University decided also to start separate course for
urban design and urban planning, next to the course for architects.
What do you think is the difference between urban planning in Europe and North
America?
It has been a long tradition in Europe that the need for urban
planning is closely related to other kinds of collective planning, because
of the water management problem in Holland. You can say, as a matter
of fact, already from the 15th and 16th centuries, this way of urban
planning in Holland, which was a task of general civil engineering came
up. In the 19th and 20th centuries, it was combined also with the aim of
creating cities which should function in the economical and social way
fairly well. In especially the 19th century, a lot of Dutch cities were facing
big problem that economic development couldn’t take place very well,
but there were a lot of social problem of health, with big epidemics. So
there was very a big concern for a lot of people that the arrangement
of the city should be managed very well. This resulted in the public
acceptance that urbanism is something important. And it also resulted
also in a large amount of professional practices. Every big city has a
rather large department of urban planning. There were a lot of private
consultant firms concerning urban design and urban planning. Through
the amount of works, students could see that urbanism is a subject they
can choose for a master course.
Urban Planning is strength and tradition in Dutch context. It is quite the opposite of
the American way of urban development, which is more free-market oriented. What’s
your interpretation of that?
Well, I hope we can maintain this strong tradition. Urbanism in the

Netherlands is engineering rather than a social discipline and has a
unique pedigree due to the history of Dutch towns and landscapes. Here
land was always scarce and indeed, always threatened by the water. So
the ”low countries” have been systematically protected and developed
since long before the Middle Ages. In this way the Netherlands built
up a unique tradition of urban development in which the limited and
waterlogged land area had to be protected and used sparingly and

creatively. TU Delft’s Urbanism track addresses the changes in urban
design, landscape architecture and spatial planning this process of
urbanization requires at all scales. This master’s track gives extensive
attention to the many technical and spatial opportunities and restrictions
in urban areas, as well as all the social processes of change impacting
the use of land.
As a matter of fact, we have to say that we are now facing big

changes in society. Urbanism, urban design and urban planning
especially in the 20th century are being linked very much with public
authorities. So it is very much a public thing to work on urbanism.
And now we are facing development that a lot of responsibilities have
been taken over by private market. And also we are facing process
of individualization. A lot of people do not like to do anymore anything
that is set up by public authorities and to do it collectively. They like to
put more emphasis on their independency and individual world. It is
important for our discipline to anticipate this development, not just go on
with the thinking that we can maintain that urbanism is only something of
public authority, and only something with collective values and element.
Not only in the discipline of urban planning and urban design, a lot of
research attention in the Department of Real Estate Development is also
emphasizing the roles of different actors very much. They are looking for
a new type of collaborative relation.
What are the main activities of each section and each chair? Are they research-
oriented, theory-oriented, design practice-oriented or teaching-oriented?
All chairs try to combine as much as possible teaching and research,

as well as design and research. The Master’s course is subdivided into
four semesters and lasts two year in total. The first year focuses on the
most important sub-disciplines an urbanist has to master: urban history,
urban and regional analysis and design, spatial planning, landscape
architecture, design and planning techniques, and methodology. All
explicitly address societal and scientific approaches to and debate
on our future role in the urbanization process. The second year of
the program focuses on the final project. This is closely related to the
research of academic staff of the department of Urbanism and the Delft
School of Design. Emphasis is laid on design-oriented research, such as
study by design and evaluations of designs. We try to consider design
not only as an art which is also an important element of design, but we
try also to do it in a scientific context. It is possible to make scientific
analysis of urban designs, and also possible to try to use design as a
way to do research, for instance, to investigate different possibilities and

spatial compositions. And we try also to put forward important issues
which we are involved with in the research in the educational program,
especially in the master program. There research and design have been
combined.
How is the international master program formulated?
In that time, I was the coordinator of the master program, so I was

together with a group of people helping me as the main designer of the
program. Afterwards, the program changed two times a little bit. And now
we are facing the need to change the program to enable the students to
be more flexible between urbanism, architecture and real estate housing
and so on.
Originally before the Bachelor-Master structure, there was a very

flexible situation in the education system in our faculty. It was very easy
for students who studied Urbanism to study part of Architecture or other
fields. With the introduction of the Bachelor-Master structure, the several
master courses developed all in their own ways. So there was not
anymore an overall structure, especially for instance the way how the
free choice courses are integrated in the master course. Because every
master course is different, it is difficult for students to switch a little bit
from one another. I think it is important and interesting for students when
you study urbanism also to be able to do something about architecture,
real estate housing for instance.
So specially speaking of the two-year international program, what

will be maintained in the program is the general structure. The first year
include the courses that are to introduce and let student get familiar
with the general topics, programs and disciplines of the four sections in
the department of urbanism in our faculty. And the second year is the
graduation year. There you will be involved in studio which is focused
on special theme and topic which are relevant for present-day urban
practices which need more scientific elaborations. Students will be
involved also in the research topics in the department. So the flexibility
in terms of free-choice courses is meant especially for the first year.
In 2004, international students were mainly informed from the website of the faculty
about the Chair of Urban Renewal and Management. Are other chairs planning
to be more open to the international students in the near future according to the
program change this time?
Yes, concerning the contents, what we decided already is that the

emphasis should be much more on the design question of urbanism. It is
now too much focused on the management and the process of renewal
questions. As a matter of fact, we should repair the emphasis on design,
because that is the one of the main concerns of urbanism in general.
The future students will be able to participate in the design-oriented
course more.
I notice that the quality control of the international master program is increasing
lately. There are more strict requirements in different phase of education posed
to students. They have to work harder than before to get high marks. Is that the
expected result from the change of program this time?
Yes, our consideration was that there should be more uniformity in

how the different chairs and different issues are taken care of students.
And also for the students, there is the need to create more clarity that
what exactly is expected from their study.
I also notice that since the work of students is evaluated by teachers crossing the
chairs this year. But in the former situation, the work of students of a specific studio
is also checked by the tutors within the studio. Is that also a new change in the
organization?
Well, that depends. In the graduation year, the students will have
the obligation to take three different tutors for their graduation projects.
Only the first one should be directly chosen from the studio the student
involves in. for the other two, it is free to choose from other completely
different teachers from different chairs available in the department and
even the faculty.
You mentioned that you are going to repair the design part of the master program,
can you elaborate that how are you planning to do this? And how is this change
going to affect the international master students?
They will be confronted with the first year, which will be concentrated
on important design questions, and also on a lower scale, because it
was found out that in the first year, there is too much attention on the
regional scale. And most of the urban design work and professional
practice and so on is on the lower scale, for instance, the composition
of the urban fabrics, the morphology of urban system, block and street
system and so on. We think it is very important that students focus very
much on that point.
We will invite more international students to participate in the

chairs and studios which specialize in lower scale urban design. We
are expecting that each studio will prepare clearer questions and topics
for students in the coming years. Now we have three major graduation
studios open for international students for their graduation projects. One
is Urban Landscape which is very much focused on the relation between
the landscape pattern and urban pattern. The second one is focusing
on Urban Regeneration, which is interested in the problems of existing
cities where the urban fabrics is not functioning very well and should be
restructured. The third one is Complex City studio where the question to
be studied is how the economic and social developments and changes
on the international level is affecting the city, and how you can deal with
the new issues in terms of design and planning.
How are these three graduation studios related to the four sections and the sub-
chairs within the sections?
These three studios are inter-disciplinary. The tutors for each studio
are a combination of different chairs. And as explained before, the
students also have the freedom to choose their own graduation mentors.
The studio is a collaborative combination. For example, the Urban

Landscape studio emphases on urban design and landscape design.
The other two studios emphases on urban planning and strategy, they
can include combination with every chair. Environmental Design Chair is
cross every graduation studio, though there is not a specific graduation
studio for this chair, but perhaps in the future.
It is also important to mention that there is now preparation that it is

possible that when you finish your study here you can get registered as
Landscape Architect. In the Dutch system, after graduation you are able
to register as architect, urbanist, landscape architect or interior architect.
These four titles are officially protected. You can register yourself as an
urbanist after you finish the master program in Urbanism in TU Delft.
It is now only possible to register as a landscape architect when you
graduate from the special landscape course in Wageningen University
which is an agriculture university in the Netherlands. And now there are
this plan and preparation to adapt the program of urbanism in TU Delft
to make possible that some people who are interested in it can follow
a special course concerning landscape architecture, and finally get the
title. And this will be developed in the next year.
When entering into a specific graduation studio, students will be offered several
introductory courses to get familiar with the studio disciplines. Are there also
instructions or suggestion topics for students to work on as graduation projects? Or
students need to choose their projects by their own interests?
Yes, the Urban Landscape studio is focusing on two themes, one

is more theoretical aspect, and for example they need to study on an
important book called ‘Urban Landscape Reader’, which describe the
increasing importance of landscape structure in the spatial configuration
in the city as well as metropolitan region. Second theme is more Dutch
local context oriented, which is interested in the issues in the Dutch Delta
condition. Holland has a very specific landscape, in the Delta Region
everything has to do with water management. And now especially
because of the climate change, this theme become especially important,
which I think is relevant in the international level, because a lot of dense
urban areas in the world are developed in Delta Region, for example,
some Asian and American city clusters. We are working together now
with Venice University on this theme.
In the Urban Regeneration studio, there are two important themes.

One is focused largely Western European countries, but now more
and more Eastern European and Asian cities, which is called ”post-
war” housing stock. It is a very important topic to pay attention to, for
example, the question is what do we think is the future of the housing
stock, because a lot of such building blocks were built in poor condition,
the housing typologies were too small, and the urban composition is
poor. And the second is the redevelopment of city centers. A lot of cities
are struggling with the problem that how to improve the meaning of the
center of the city. They are facing the opportunity to densify center and
improve the quality of public space in the center.
The studio of Complex City is paying attention on general social

economic changes that are affecting urban development all over the
world, especially the way to reduce urban poverty. And recently the
research interests on Self-organization and Bottom-up planning method
are increasing in this studio. Now several researchers now are working
on this topic. There are various seminars, symposium and other form
activities especially focused on cities in developing countries. It is aimed
to find ways to develop the cities with the participation of the people
living in the metropolitan area, and it becomes more and more relevant
for the developed country, like the Netherlands which has a long tradition
of planning by the public authorities, and there is increasing need to
paying attention to what people themselves want. For instance, one of
the urban initiatives is to allow people to build them own houses, which
is what happens in the Dutch new city Almere. The individualization is

a phenomenon that takes place all over the world. It is also relevant to
how to create conditions for people to start their own companies in the
city, in other words, to increase the economy of the city.
How about the PhD research in the faculty?
The Delft School of Design (DSD) is a PhD School at the faculty

of Architecture. The DSD runs a PhD program and is a platform for
discussion. Two research programs - Architecture and Urbanism - are
related to one common research object. The common research object is
the "condition" of architectural knowledge in the academic context and
in professional practice, in relation to the various social (sub) systems in
their historical genesis.
The research field's centre of gravity is in the twentieth and twenty-

first centuries. In order to explain the genesis of modernism and
postmodernism occasional extensions of this field of research will be
necessary. The term postmodernism refers to the present "condition" of
our cultural and social systems. The terms architecture and city are both
symbolic expression and the physical manifestation of this "condition".
The relation between the historical sciences, the social sciences and the
projective practices of architecture and urbanism are to be re-addressed
in our contemporary society.
In 2008 the DSD added a Masters curriculum to its PhD platform

& program. The DSD Master program is unique at the Faculty of
Architecture in that it is the only such program that has been approved
to offer either a Master degree in Architecture or a Master Degree in
Urbanism. The DSD Master Program is held not only under the Chair
of Arie Graafland, but with a newly installed Chair of Architecture and
Urbanism under the professorship of Winy Maas, founding principle of
the internationally renowned architecture firm MVRDV. Graafland and
Maas direct two distinct design/research tracts – “Urban Asymmetries”
and “The Why Factory”, respectively. These studios also run parallel
with, or are inter-connected by, a theory curriculum – “Architecture
Thinking”. All parties involved in teaching the Master level courses are
equally engaged and/or responsible for select programs developed
within the DSD PhD Program & Platform.
What do you think is the future perspective of the faculty of Architecture? What do
you think is the special value that should be maintained and the aspect that needs to
be improved the most?
I think the most important thing is that they should create good
balance between the Dutch and International influences on urban
design and planning. It would not be fruitful to pay attention only
on the Dutch tradition, because we are more and more part of the
international development. It would also be not fruitful to introduce only
foreign professors to our department, to abandon completely our own
tradition. We are now having several possibilities to attract professors.
We are looking for balance between local and global influences on our
department. I believe it is also very important for international students.
444 Post-script
后记
在教育之前评价教育
读了本书的手稿，对我而言这本书的目的在于提供有意义的但却未曾有过
的洞见，有几点思考值得提出。
首先，读者对象很大一部分是基于在书页之间找寻并设计自己的教育远景
中国学生，他们是透过一层距离进行阅读。也就是说，大部分欧美建筑学院的
教育目的与亚洲相差甚远。当然，由于持续增长的交流项目使得更多地与多元
文化相接触，我们也更多的关注，在很多方面与其他政治、社会和意识形态的
力场相接触。然而，日常的“实践”是不同的秩序。例如中国的住宅就尺度、
生活方式和与居住敏感性紧密相连的文化建构的价值而言，与西方相比是很不
一样的。社会经济的影响与西方相比对“需求”有着多样的理解。
职业实践的层面上，实践建筑师要求去服务于中国无限增长的开发和人口
要比其他任何国家都要高许多。所以从需求的角度而言，建筑师的工作相比较
西方更加稳定。学生和职业之间的分界是微乎其微的。这样，成为熟练而有经
验的建筑师越来越容易。这种现象的暗示从建筑产品转向了更为技术化的解决
问题为本的实践，而没有更多的时间去关注建筑的其他方面。建筑从签合同到
建成的速度越来越快，这使得更少的时间去简单地“考虑清楚”。在这种意义
上，建筑产品潜在地成为一个公式，可以很快应用，但是与环境、社会结构和
微差的环境状况没有太多关联。甚至于在职业产品的层面，许可和施工要求的
文件使得对技能过度专注而影响了建筑教育。平立剖和效果图提供了由政府要
求的固定的建筑的“图像”，这既是职业的要求标准也是建筑教育的要求。这
些要求在每一个国家都很基本，但是在建筑教育中所获得技能的速度，设计产
品的速度，一个接一个项目的速度，都潜在地消除了在设计中细心和批判的思
考。这样，在中西之间不同的职业实践的建筑培训需要被讨论。教育和实践之
间的亲密关系应当被定位和调节，应当与建筑作为产品的原位性相对抗。
现在的问题是，有了这么多差异我们通过什么去评价、选择和申请学校？
如何为了自己的教育而权衡一个特定的学校和一种思潮的学派的适合性？什么
才有意义？正如很多采访所提出的，这种慎重恰恰是适合性的问题，与个人的
实践和文化特定性和地域的资源性相互参照。这样，建筑教育定位就基于个人
的渴望和对“实践”的定义。
读者读完本书可能有个这样的结论，本书不是一个手册去期待是否应该出
国留学，而是试图思考对建筑教育的选择不仅仅只是建构了个人的未来而应当
后记 445
是一个更大问题：在未来的几十年如果影响实践。“我在获得了名校的学位之
后应该回国吗？”或者“我希望在全球实践吗？”“全球性的实践意味着什
么？”这些思考不是一个解决问题的方式，而是召唤建筑教育如何训练学生去
更有效的应对各种将来的但却未曾有过的挑战。总结一下讨论，我想引用张永
和的采访，“建筑不仅仅只是市场经济的一部分，而是作为一个文化现象和技
术现象。”这样，在我们快速变更的世界里的这些问题不需要那些保守或者极
端的的应对，而需要对我们日常行为复杂性提高质量的反馈。所以我提出一种
否认，也就是，曾在西方受过教育并不意味着一定会有创新的建筑实践或者更
重要是的是展示“更好”判断。假如，结果是简单的建筑形式引进到中国以及
合同出口到西方，那么什么是城市转型的文化产品或者自然形态？众多为了奥
运会而建的著名建筑也许暗示了中国的城市转型和建筑产品，我们应当注意它
们大多是政府资助的项目。所以这些大事件结束之后，关注点应当转向这些标
志物所在城市的其他部分，它们才是日常生活的实践所有意义的地方。
伍紫欣
2009年3月
安娜堡
446 Post-script
Post-script
Judging education before the education
Upon reading through the manuscript that makes up this collection,

it occurred to me that the aims of this work, while proving significant in
providing insights otherwise not readily available, a few notes are worth
considering.
Firstly, the intended audience, prospective Chinese students seeking

to design their own education based on the philosophy of these pages, are
reading from a distance. That is, the pedagogical aims of most American and
European institutions are developed to address issues that are quite different
than those in Asia. Certainly with the ever-expanding exchange programs to
expose one to diverse cultures, we are becoming more aware and in some
ways, more acculturated to other political, social, and ideological forces in
our society. However, the everyday “practice” is of a different order. Take
for instance the issue of housing as comparatively different models in terms
of scale, ways of inhabitation, and culturally constructed values attached to
sensibilities of dwelling. The socio-economic forces are not the same as are
the varied spectrum of “needs” associated with demographic makeup.
On the level of professional practice, the demand for practicing

architects to service China’s expansive territories and population is much
higher than other countries. So from the standpoint of demand, jobs are
more readily available. The separation between being a student and a
professional is minute due to this demand. Hence, the space between
becoming a seasoned architect with experience gained over time to realizing
a design is ever reduced. The implication of this phenomenon shifts the
building production to a more technical solution-based practice, leaving little
time for other aspects of architectural investigation. Compound the speed of
this process with the contracted time to realize a building, the accelerated
pace leaves little time for simply “thinking through.” Building production in
this sense potentially becomes a formula, one that is applied without much
reverence to context, social structures, and responsiveness to nuanced
environmental conditions. Even at the level of professional production,
compulsory documents required for permits and construction may define
the focus of skills necessary to impart in an education. The plans, sections,
后记 447
elevations and renderings that provide definitive “images” of the building as

required by governmental agencies formulate not only institutional standards
but pedagogical imperatives. These requirements are fundamental in every
country, but the speed by which one acquires skills in education, the speed
of design production, the speed by which one project follows another,
potentially eliminates the space that enables one to carefully and critically
think through the design. As such, the difference in architectural training
for professional practice between China and other countries needs to be
addressed. The intimate relationship between education and practice should
be evaluated and tempered against a broader set of issues that go into
architectural production in situ.
The question one may ask in light of all these differences is through
what means then is one to judge which school to apply for or select? How
does one weight the appropriateness of a particular school or a school of
thought for their own education? What makes sense? As indicated by a
number of individuals interviewed, this deliberation is precisely the question
of appropriateness in reference to one’s own practice with cultural specificity
and regional resourcefulness. In this sense, it is to situate an education
based on one’s aspirations and where “practice” is to be played out.
As one may conclude after reading this volume, this is not a manual of
what to expect if one were to study abroad, but attempts to speculate on the
implication that the choice of education does not only shape one’s future
but a larger question of how will it impact the practice of it in the ensuing
decades. “Do I plan to return to China to establish a practice after earning
a Masters degree from a renowned university?” Or “do I want to practice
globally?” “What does it mean to practice globally?” The questions may not
be a means to an end problem of what does it take to get there, wherever
there is, but what one calls for in an architectural education that trains one
to deal effectively with the challenges to surface in the coming years that we
have never encountered before. So to bookend this discussion, I would like
to reiterate a point made by Yung Ho Chang in his interview, that “architecture
is not just part of the market but it is also a cultural and technological
448 Post-script
phenomenon.” As such, the questions that arise out of our rapidly changing
world demand responses that are not necessarily reactionary or polarized,
but responses that qualify the complexity of our daily activities. So I suppose
a disclaimer has to be stated, that just because one is trained in the West,
it does not guarantee innovative architectural practices or more importantly,
exhibit “better” judgment. If the result is simply the importation of architectural
forms to China and exportation of contracts, what is called for in cultural
production or the natural morphology of urban transformation? While the
many celebrated buildings produced for the recent Olympics may indicate the
progressive might of China towards urban transformation and architectural
production, it should be reminded that they were done at a government-
sponsored level. So as the excitement of the events weans off, the shift in
attention towards the rest of the city that these landmarks sit within deserves
some consideration. The rest of the city is where the practice of everyday life
is played out.
Tsz Yan Ng
March 2009
Ann Arbor, Michigan
后记 449
450 Contributors
作者简介
卜骁骏获得美国哈佛大学设计学院建筑学硕士学位、北京清华大学建筑学
学士、硕士学位。曾就职于北京标准营造建筑事务所，现任职纽约 SOM建筑
事务所。
丁峻峰本科毕业于东南大学，峻峰获得美国爱荷华大学建筑学，以及哈佛
大学设计学双硕士。峻峰曾在HLW,RMJM Hillier等多家设计事务所从事多年建
筑实践，现任Geottsch Partners资深建筑设计师的他，通过世界化的建筑实
践，致力与将当代先进电脑媒体技术引用在建筑前沿 .他赢得很多国际竞赛，
也十分关注学术前沿，曾被邀在不同学校：比如哈佛，麻省理工，伊利诺伊
理工学院，以及爱荷华州立大学评图。
丁力扬现为landTHING建筑事务所合伙人，获得美国宾夕法尼亚大学建筑
学硕士，天津大学建筑学硕士以及西安交通大学建筑专业学士。
贾枚现工作于美国纽约SOM事务所。获得清华大学建筑学士和美国哥伦
比亚大学建筑硕士。
李骅就读于美国哈佛大学设计学院建筑学硕士课程，毕业于深圳大学。曾
工作于上海马达思班设计师事务所。
陆轶辰本科毕业于清华大学，后工作于建设部设计院、非常建筑。于耶
鲁大学获得建筑学硕士学位。曾获得1999年日本文部省平山郁夫奖学金一等
奖，2007年耶鲁大学罗伯特•艾伦•瓦德优秀设计奖学金。作品“曼哈顿无平面
建筑”获2006年日本新建筑国际住宅设计竞技大奖一等奖第一名，作品“纽约埃
弗丽费雪音乐厅”设计获2008年耶鲁大学弗兰克•盖里工作室弗莱德曼设计大奖
提名。并于2008年收让•努埃尔邀请，赴巴黎与其共同参与瑞士斯德哥尔摩城
市中心交通枢纽设计竞赛。在美期间曾于渐近线、摩弗西斯任职；现于洛杉矶
弗兰克•盖里及其合伙人事务所任项目建筑师。
钱诗韵现于荷兰大都会建筑事务所工作。毕业于荷兰贝尔拉格建筑学院硕
士，同济大学艺术设计专业学士。
孙萌现就读于美国伊利诺大学芝加哥分校城市与公共政策学院攻读城市规
划博士学位。获得荷兰代尔夫特理工大学建筑系城市设计硕士，清华大学建筑
学学士。她是荷兰注册规划师，英国杂志《基于时间的建筑(2009春季中国专
辑)》共同编辑，并在中国，荷兰，及美国参与建筑和城市设计实践。其博士
论文是有关北京艺术区的发展和设计。
作者简介 451
王飞现任教于美国密歇根大学建筑系，曾任教于北卡州立大学建筑学院。
获得加拿大麦吉尔大学建筑历史理论硕士，美国弗吉尼亚理工华盛顿亚历山大
建筑中心建筑学硕士和上海同济大学建筑学学士。曾在上海、亚历山大和普
林斯顿从事建筑实践，设计和研究作品展览于美国、加拿大、德国和中国。
他曾被邀请到中国各个建筑院校、美国北卡大学夏洛蒂分校、罗德岛设计学
院、密歇根大学和辛辛那提美术馆进行讲座。也曾被邀请到麦吉尔大学、罗
德岛设计学院、美国天主大学、弗吉尼亚理工大学、东南大学进行评图。他
专注于写作，最近曾发表于《时代建筑》、《 Domus 》、《城市建筑》和
《Thresholds (the MIT Press)》。
王青获得加州大学伯克利分校建筑学硕士，在纽约的埃森曼建筑事务所和
马达思班建筑事务所洛杉矶办公室从事建筑实践。设计赢得多次竞赛，作品还
被专业建筑杂志GA刊登。研究致力于最新网络科技在物质上和意识形态上对
社会和建筑的影响。
吴中平获得华南理工大学硕士，荷兰贝尔拉格硕士。曾任职于英国福斯特
建筑事务所，现任职于华南理工大学建筑设计研究院。
袁朵现于清华大学建筑设计研究院工作。获得荷兰代尔夫特大学规划系硕
士，深圳大学建筑与土木工程学院建筑学士。
袁路平现工作于美国纽约SOM事务所。获得清华大学建筑学士和美国哥
伦比亚大学建筑硕士。
周静本科毕业于天津大学建筑系。她在获得荷兰理工大学建筑系规划专业
优秀毕业生后，继续留校攻读城市规划博士，并担任硕士课程指导老师。她多
次参与并协助组织国际会议，在国内外刊物上发表文章。同时她还是荷兰国际
新城协会的核心研究员之一。
周炼现任职于加拿大蒙特利尔Fournier Gersovitz Moss建筑事务所。她获
得加拿大麦吉尔大学建筑学硕士以及广州大学建筑学工学学士。她曾在广州莫
伯治建筑师事务所从事建筑实践。
庄子玉现工作于美国纽约西萨•佩里事务所。获得美国哥伦比亚大学建筑
与城市设计硕士和英国格林威治大学与河北工业大学工程学和建筑学双学士。
曾在哥伦比亚大学、帕森设计学院与香港大学做评图嘉宾。
A n d r e w Ta r c i n 在保尔州立大学获得了建筑学本科学位，他在
452 Contributors
Perkins+Will以及WDG工作过，现在是GP的一名建筑师。他参与了多方面的
建筑实践，曾在欧洲学习，参与建筑学建造工程。他在将施工过程带入建筑
学设计的兴趣让他能在JAE上发表文章，并且或得了Menorah Wreath钢材设
计竞赛中一等奖，和CSI 学生竞赛一等奖。
Michael Wagenbach获得科罗拉多大学工程设计学本科学位，并或得毕
业荣誉，他在密歇根大学建筑系或得了硕士学位。Mike担任密歇根大学学生
毕业指导员，以及科罗拉多大学高级设计课程的指导教师。他在学术生涯让他
有机会去到其他四大洲的不同地方，比如东京、布宜诺斯艾利斯、芝加哥以及
哥本哈根去学习建筑和设计。Mike现是GP芝加哥办公室的设计师。
作者简介 453
Contributors
Xiaojun Bu received M.Arch. II degree from Harvard Design School

and B.Arch, M.Arch. degrees from Tsinghua University. He has worked for
Standardarchitecture. He is currently working in SOM New York.
Junfeng (Jeff) Ding received his B.Arch. from South-East University

in China, M.Arch. from Iowa State University, and M.Des from the Graduate
School of Design, Harvard University. Jeff has been worked for the firms
HLW and Hiller and is currently an associate at Goettsch Partners. He has
an ambitious focus on implementing advanced digital design technology to
architecture frontier through his global architectural practice. He has won
competitions world-wide and has remained close to academia, invited to
architecture reviews at schools such as Harvard, MIT, IIT and Iowa State
University.
Mei Jia receives M.S. in Architecture and Urban Design from Columbia
University and B.Arch. from Tsinghua University.
Hua Li currently is studying in Harvard Graduate School of Design

March II Program. he received his Bachelor of Architecture degree from
Shenzhen University with an outstanding graduate award and worked as a
project designer in MADA spam in Shanghai.
Yichen Lu Yichen Lu received his B.A. from Tsinghua University

in China, and his M.Arch.I from Yale School of Architecture, U.S.A. He
has worked as a design architect in CAGR (China Architecture Design &
Research Group) and Atelier FCJZ. Lu won 1st Prize of Ikuo Hirayama
Scholarship sponsored by Japan Ministry of Education in 1999, and the
2007 Robert Allen Ward Scholarship Award at Yale School of Architecture.
His project, “Planless House at Manhattan” was awarded the 1st Prize of
the 2006 International SHINKENCHIKU Residential Design Competition.
He also received the 2008 H.I. Feldman Prize Nominee for the project “the
momentum- Avery Fisher Hall for Lincoln Center” which he completed in
Frank O. Gehry Advanced Studio at Yale School of Architecture. In 2008,
he was invited by Jean Nouvel to participate in Slussen urban design
competition for the City of Stockholm. Yichen Lu has worked for world
famous architecture firms including Asymptote, Morphosis and he is currently
a project architect at Gehry Partners, LLP.
454 Contributors
Shiyun Qian is currently working at OMA (the Office for Metropolitan

Architecture). She receives Master of Architecture in Excellence, from the
Berlage Institute, Rotterdam, and Bachelor of Art and Design, from Tongji
University, Shanghai.
Meng Sun is a PhD candidate in urban planning in University of Illinois

at Chicago, and receives a master of science in urbanism from TUDelft
(the Netherlands), and a bachelor of architecture from Tsinghua University
(Beijing, China). She is a registered Dutch town planner, a coeditor of Time-
Based Architecture magazine (China issue spring 2009 UK based) and has
practiced architecture and urban design in China, the Netherlands, and
the USA. Currently she is working on her dissertation about Art Districts in
Beijing.
Andrew Tarcin received his B.Arch. from Ball State University in

Indiana. Currently, he works as a graduate architect at Goettsch Partner
and has worked at Perkins + Will and WDG Architecture. Involved in many
aspects of architecture, he has studied abroad in Europe, participated in the
ACE (Architecture Construction Engineering), program mentoring high school
students interested in architecture, construction, and engineering, actively
been editor in architectural publications, and entered numerous design
competitions. His interests in carrying design ideas through the construction
process have led him to be published in JAE Magazine for design-build
projects, first place in the Steelcase Menorah Wreath Design Competition,
and first place in the CSI Student competition.
Michael Wagenbach received his Bachelor of Environmental Design

with honors from the University of Colorado and his Master of Architecture
from the University of Michigan Taubman Collage of Architecture. Mike
was also a graduate student instructor at the University of Michigan and
senior level design studio teaching assistant at the University of Colorado
and has also been a guest architectural critic at both of these universities.
His educational pursuits in architecture have taken him to four different
continents to locations such as Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Chicago and
Copenhagen to study architecture and design. Mike now practices as a
designer at the Goettsch Partners Chicago office.
作者简介 455
Fei Wang is currently teaching at University of Michigan, and has taught

at School of Architecture, North Carolina State University, and receives a
B.Arch. (Tongji), M.Arch. (VTech, WAAC), and M.Arch. in History and Theory
(McGill). He has practiced architecture in China and USA, and his design and
research projects have been exhibited in China, Germany, the United States
and Canada, including Shanghai Art Museum, Universität der Künste Berlin,
Aedes Galerie Berlin, University of Michigan, McGill University and NCSU.
He has lectured at all major Chinese and American architecture schools and
art institutions, including University of North Carolina, Charlotte, The Rhode
Island School of Design, University of Michigan and Cincinnati Art Museum.
He was invited to reviews at many American and Canadian architecture
schools. His writings and translations appear in Time+Architecture
(Shanghai), Domus (Beijing), Urbanism Architecture (Ha'erbin), Thresholds
(the MIT Press), etc.
Steven Wang graduated from University of California at Berkeley

with M.Arch. He has worked for several famous architecture firms,
including Peter Eisenman Office in NYC and MADA s.p.a.m. Los Angles
Office. His designs won multiple competitions in various scale from train
station to bridges concept design, some of which have been published on
professional magazines, including GA. His research interest focuses on
latest Internet Technology on social influence and architecture physically and
metaphysically.
Zhongping Wu received M.Arch. from South China University of

Technology, Guangzhou, China and M.Arch. from Berlage Institute,
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He has worked in Foster & Partners Ltd, and
currently is working in Architecture Design and Research Institute of South
China University of Technology.
Duo Yuan currently is working at Architectural Design and Research

Institute of Tsinghua University. She receives Master of Urbanism from TU-
delft University, and Bachelor of Architecture , from Shenzhen University.
Luping Yuan receives M.S. in Architecture from Columbia University

and B.Arch. from Tsinghua University.
456 Contributors
Jing Zhou received Bachelor of Architecture and Urban Planning from

Tianjin University. After graduated with Master degree in Urbanism as Cum
Laude from Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands, she continues
with doctoral research and at the same time tutors master courses. She
participates and assists in organizing several international conferences;
publishes articles in domestic and international magazines. She is also one
of the main researchers in International New Town Institute in Almere, the
Netherlands.
Lian Zhou is working in Fournier Gersovitz Moss & Associés

Architectes, Montréal. She obtained M.Arch from McGill University and
M.Eng. in Architect from Guangzhou University. She has practice architecture
in Guangzhou for 6 years before moving to Montréal.
Ziyu Zhuang is currently working at Cesar Pelli & Associates in

New York City. Zhuang received M.S. in Architecture and Urban Design
from Columbia University and B.Arch. and B.Eng. from The University of
Greenwich and Hebei University of Technology. He serves as guest critic
at Columbia University, Parsons School of Design and University of Hong
Kong.
作者简介 457

欧美建筑院校访谈

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

欧美建筑院校访谈

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

欧美建筑院校访谈

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

美国哈佛大学 Harvard University

美国麻省理工 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

加拿大麦吉尔大学 McGill University

Edited by Fei Wang and Junfeng (Jeff) Ding

作者简介 398 Contributors

导叙访谈 008 Introductory Interview

美国哈佛大学 022 Harvard University, USA

美国哥伦比亚大学 076 Columbia University, USA

美国宾夕法尼亚大学 122 University of Pennsylvania, USA

美国加州大学伯克利分校 180 University of California, Berkeley

美国耶鲁大学 220 Yale University, USA

英国建筑联盟 The Architectural Association, UK

英国伦敦大学 University College London, UK

加拿大麦吉尔大学 252 McGill University, Canada

加拿大卡罗顿大学 284 Carleton University, Canada

荷兰贝尔拉格学院 298 Berlage Institute, The Netherlands

荷兰代尔夫特理工 336 TU Delft, The Netherlands

作者简介 398 Contributors

An international education prerogative for Chinese architecture students

This book is comprised of a series of interviews with representatives

Some individuals interviewed include practicing architects with high

We, as editors, have been studying, practicing and educating abroad

These experiences have helped us curate direct dialogue with

This collection will offer Chinese readers a great opportunity to

Fei Wang and Junfeng (Jeff) Ding

1997 年出版《非常建筑》作品专集， 2000 年出版《张永和 / 非常建筑工

1980 年代以后，美国有了一个 “ 建筑师老师( architect teacher ) ” 的

设计在美国也值得提一下。有一个英国人叫特伦斯 • 考伦( Terence

Yung Ho Chang is currently the Chair of Architecture at MIT, from

Interview by: Fei Wang

Before answering this question, I have to clarify some related

In terms of European architectural schools, I’m more familiar with

yet today Modernist architecture is still struggling. Currently, in Boston,

design and the society. What is architect’s social responsibility? By now,

Since 1980s, there was a new type of architect in the US called

In the past four or five decades, architectural education in America

I mentioned that there is a pedagogical model of going from theory

The biggest failure of American architectural education is the

Digital technology is more and more important in architectural education and

Digital technology and technology in general are two different

Another interesting thing has to do with design in America. The

British designer Terence Conran has brought modern design to the

What do you think of a big amount of Chinese architecture students studying

It is too early to judge what the influence of studying overseas is for

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

今 年 （ 2008 年 ） GSD 录 取 了 较 多 的 中 国 学 生 ， 这 是 否 意 味 着 GSD 开 始 对 亚 洲 的 快

Mohsen Mostafavi, an architect and educator, peviously was the Gale

He studied architecture at the AA, and undertook research on counter-

Interview by: Hua Li

The experience of each of these schools is very much connected

Cornell is very different, because the architecture school exists in

At Harvard we have a different tradition, again within the context

So I think you are right that each of these schools is influenced

Silvetti, and Michael Van Valkenburgh, as well as many of the world’

I am not really trying to bring practice to the school, because when

It is critical for the work of the various studios to be experimental,

For example, a recent roundtable discussion on the theme of

But to address your question specifically, about the relationship

When it comes to computation, it is one of the ways you can think,

今年（ 2008 年） GSD 录取了较多的中国学生，这是否意味着 GSD 开始对亚洲的快