Alastair Parvin: Architecture for the people by the people

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: NAN-KUN WU 審譯者: William Choi

When we use the word "architect" or "designer,"

當我們說「建築師」 或是「設計師」時，

我們通常指的是一位專業人士，

what we usually mean is a professional,

someone who gets paid,

一位收取報酬的人士，

and we tend to assume that it's those professionals

我們也假設這些專業人士

who are going to be the ones to help us solve

能幫助我們解決

the really big, systemic design challenges that we face

我們所面對的非常重要 與系統設計上的挑戰

like climate change, urbanization and social inequality.

例如氣候變遷、都市化、 社會不公平等等。

That's our kind of working presumption.

這是對我們工作的推測。

And I think it's wrong, actually.

事實上，我覺得這是錯的。

In 2008, I was just about to graduate from architecture school

2008 年時，我正要從建築學院畢業

after several years, and go out and get a job,

幾年以後、出社會、找工作，

and this happened.

而這件事情發生了。

The economy ran out of jobs.

景氣不好，找不到工作。

And a couple of things struck me about this.

有些事情對我產生了衝擊。

One, don't listen to career advisers.

一，別相信就業指導員。

And two, actually this is a fascinating paradox for architecture,

二，對建築業來說，這是件矛盾的事，

which is that, as a society, we've never needed design thinking more,

這個社會從來不需要貼心的設計，

and yet architecture was literally becoming unemployed.

於是建築師們就這樣失業了。

It strikes me that we talk very deeply about design,

讓我驚訝的是我們深入地討論設計，

but actually there's an economics behind architecture

但事實上，建築學的背後是經濟學，

that we don't talk about, and I think we need to.

我們卻不討論，我認為我們應該來談談它。

And a good place to start is your own paycheck.

用你的薪水條出發是個不錯的選擇。

So, as a bottom-of-the-rung architecture graduate,

身為一個最底層的建築系畢業生，

I might expect to earn about 24,000 pounds.

我大概可以賺 24,000 英鎊，

That's about 36,000, 37,000 dollars.

大約就是 36,000、37,000 美金。

Now in terms of the whole world's population,

以全世界的人口來看，

that already puts me in the top 1.95 richest people,

這已經足以讓我成為最富有的前 1.95%，

which raises the question of, who is it I'm working for?

這引出了另外一個問題， 我究竟為誰工作？

The uncomfortable fact is that

不堪的事實是

actually almost everything that we call architecture today

實際上我們現今所謂的建築

is actually the business of designing

都是一門為全球人口中

for about the richest one percent of the world's population,

最富有的 1% 做設計的生意，

and it always has been.

一直以來都是如此。

The reason why we forgot that

我們忽略這一點的原因是因為，

is because the times in history when architecture

歷史上建築使社會轉型，事實上

did the most to transform society were those times

以不同理由，在那 1% 的人

when, actually, the one percent would build

為其他 99% 的人

on behalf of the 99 percent, for various different reasons,

建造建築物的時候，

whether that was through philanthropy in the 19th century,

不論是透過 19 世紀時的慈善事業、

communism in the early 20th,

20 世紀初的共產主義、

the welfare state, and most recently, of course,

福利國、以及現在的

through this inflated real estate bubble.

誇張的不動產泡沫，

And all of those booms, in their own various ways,

而這些不同面相的景氣繁榮，

have now kicked the bucket,

現在都已經不存在了，

and we're back in this situation

我們也回到了這情況，

where the smartest designers and architects in the world

就是這世上最聰明的設計師以及建築師

are only really able to work for one percent of the population.

能夠為那 1% 的人口工作。

Now it's not just that that's bad for democracy,

這不僅僅是對民主制度有害，

though I think it probably is,

緃使我認為會有這樣的情形，

it's actually not a very clever business strategy, actually.

事實上這也不是 非常明智的商業策略。

I think the challenge facing the next generation of architects

我認為下一代建築師面對的挑戰是

is, how are we going to turn our client

怎樣使客戶的數量

from the one percent to the 100 percent?

從那 1% 變成 100%，

And I want to offer three slightly counterintuitive ideas

我想分享三個有點違反直覺的方法

for how it might be done.

來做到這一點。

The first is, I think we need to question this idea

首先，我們應該要質疑建築

that architecture is about making buildings.

就是蓋房子這個論點。

Actually, a building is about the most expensive solution

實際上，一棟建築物是對幾乎所有問題

you can think of to almost any given problem.

你所能想到的最昂貴的解決方法

And fundamentally, design should be much, much more interested

基本上，設計應該要更致力於解決問題

in solving problems and creating new conditions.

及開創新的格局。

So here's a story.

有個故事是這麼說的。

The office was working with a school,

有間公司和一所學校合作，

and they had an old Victorian school building.

這所學校有幢維多利亞式的古舊建築。

And they said to the architects, "Look,

他們告訴建築師們：

our corridors are an absolute nightmare.

「瞧，我們的走廊真是個噩夢。

They're far too small. They get congested between classes.

它們太小了。課堂之間 上下課時都會大塞車。

There's bullying. We can't control them.

時常上演全武行。我們沒辦法控制。

So what we want you to do is re-plan our entire building,

所以我們希望你們 能重新規劃整個建築，

and we know it's going to cost several million pounds,

我們也知道這會花數百萬英鎊，

but we're reconciled to the fact."

但是我們已經達成協議了。」

And the team thought about this, and they went away,

建築團隊想了想，然後離開了。

and they said, "Actually, don't do that.

他們說：「其實不須要這麼做。

Instead, get rid of the school bell.

別用原來的鐘聲了。

And instead of having one school bell that goes off once,

不應該使用那隻響一次鐘聲的鐘，

have several smaller school bells that go off

以數隻較細的鐘代替那隻大鐘，

in different places and different times,

在不同時間不同地點響，

distribute the traffic through the corridors."

就可以把人流分配。」

It solves the same problem,

這樣就解決了同一個問題，

but instead of spending several million pounds,

但是卻只花了數百英鎊，

you spend several hundred pounds.

而非數百萬英鎊。

Now, it looks like you're doing yourself out of a job,

看起來你失去了一筆生意，

but you're not. You're actually making yourself more useful.

但是你沒有，事實上你 讓自己變得更有用了。

Architects are actually really, really good

建築師們其實非常非常擅長

at this kind of resourceful, strategic thinking.

做這種資源性、策略性的思考。

And the problem is that, like a lot of design professions,

問題出在於，如同許多設計師，

we got fixated on the idea of providing

我們被定型在

a particular kind of consumer product,

提供特定的產品給顧客，

and I don't think that needs to be the case anymore.

而我不認為應該要繼續這樣下去了。

The second idea worth questioning is this 20th-century thing

第二個值得質疑的點子 就是這個 20 世紀的問題，

that mass architecture is about big --

大規模的建築物

big buildings and big finance.

是奠基於巨大的建築物以及經濟體。

Actually, we've got ourselves locked into this

事實上，我們把自己限制

Industrial Era mindset which says that

在這個工業時代的心態裡面了，

the only people who can make cities are large organizations

認為只有為了我們而設立的大型組織

or corporations who build on our behalf,

或公司才能建造城市，

procuring whole neighborhoods

促使整個鄰近地區

in single, monolithic projects, and of course,

成為一個獨立個體，

form follows finance.

當然也造就了接下來的經濟發展，

So what you end up with are single, monolithic neighborhoods

結果就是變成以這種 一成不變的模型為藍本

based on this kind of one-size-fits-all model.

所形成的獨立個體，

And a lot of people can't even afford them.

而許多人根本無法負擔它們。

But what if, actually, it's possible now for cities

但是如果城市不單只是

to be made not just by the few with a lot

由富有的少數人形成的，

but also by the many with a bit?

同時也是由 不富有的多數人形成的呢？

And when they do, they bring with them

當他們能做到這點的時候，

a completely different set of values about the place that they want to live.

對所想要居住的環境 就會有完全不同的價值觀。

And it raises really interesting questions about,

這就牽涉到一些很有趣的問題了，

how will we plan cities? How will finance development?

我們要如何規劃城市？如何資助發展？

How will we sell design services?

我們要如何銷售設計服務？

What would it mean for democratic societies

民主社會給予人民

to offer their citizens a right to build?

建造權利的涵義為何？

And in a way it should be kind of obvious, right,

就某方面而言，在 21 世紀， 城市應該由人民來建造，

that in the 21st century, maybe cities can be developed by citizens.

這應該是顯而易見的。

And thirdly, we need to remember that,

第三，我們要記住，

from a strictly economic point of view,

單以經濟的觀點來看，

design shares a category with sex and care of the elderly --

設計就像性以及老人照護一樣－－

mostly it's done by amateurs.

大部分都是由外行人完成的，

And that's a good thing.

這是件好事。

Most of the work takes place outside of the monetary economy

大部分的工作是在稱為社會經濟

in what's called the social economy or the core economy,

或核心經濟的貨幣經濟之外完成的，

which is people doing it for themselves.

人們是為了自己而工作的。

And the problem is that, up until now,

問題在於，截至目前為止，

it was the monetary economy which had

所有公共建設以及工具

all the infrastructure and all the tools.

都掌握在貨幣經濟手裡。

So the challenge we face is, how are we going

所以我們面臨的挑戰是

to build the tools, the infrastructure and the institutions

我們要如何為建築的社會經濟

for architecture's social economy?

建造工具、公共建設、機構？

And that began with open-source software.

這就要從開放原始碼的軟體說起了。

And over the last few years, it's been moving

在過去幾年當中，

into the physical world with open-source hardware,

它漸漸轉移到了開放原始碼的硬體，

which are freely shared blueprints

也就是任何人都能夠下載

that anyone can download and make for themselves.

重製的免費分享藍圖。

And that's where 3D printing gets really, really interesting.

3D 列印也因此變得非常非常有趣。

Right? When suddenly you had a 3D printer

對嗎？當你突然有了一部 3D 印表機，

that was open-source, the parts for which

其原始碼是開放的，

could be made on another 3D printer.

你就可以用另外一部 3D 印表機來製作零件。

Or the same idea here, which is for a CNC machine,

對一部能夠裁切木夾板

which is like a large printer that can cut sheets of plywood.

的 CNC 也是同樣的道理。

What these technologies are doing is radically

這些技術從根本上降低了

lowering the thresholds of time and cost and skill.

時間、花費、技術的門檻，

They're challenging the idea that

它們挑戰了便宜貨必定

if you want something to be affordable it's got to be one-size-fits-all.

一成不變這個道理。

And they're distributing massively

它們正在讓十分複雜的技術

really complex manufacturing capabilities.

大規模普及化。

We're moving into this future where the factory is everywhere,

在未來，任何地方

and increasingly that means

都可以是一間工廠，

that the design team is everyone.

也意味著每個人都可以是設計團隊。

That really is an industrial revolution.

這簡直就是一場工業革命。

And when we think that the major ideological conflicts

思想上主要的衝突，

that we inherited were all based around this question

我們繼承的，在於誰應該

of who should control the means of production,

要控制生產的方法，

and these technologies are coming back with a solution:

而這些科技回答了解決方法：

actually, maybe no one. All of us.

事實上，也許沒有人。我們全都一樣。

And we were fascinated by

這些建築到底有何意義，

what that might mean for architecture.

我們對此相當著迷。

So about a year and a half ago,

因此大約一年半以前，

we started working on a project called WikiHouse,

我們著手進行一項

and WikiHouse is an open-source construction system.

名為 WikiHouse 的計畫，

WikiHouse 是一個開放式 的建造系統，

And the idea is to make it possible for anyone

它的理念就是任何人也可上網，

to go online, access a freely shared library

進入免費分享的 3D 模型資料庫，

of 3D models which they can download and adapt in,

並下載使用。

at the moment, SketchUp, because it's free, and it's easy to use,

現階段是 SketchUp，因為它是 免費，而且易於使用，

and almost at the click of a switch

幾乎只要按一下，

they can generate a set of cutting files

它們就能產生切割檔案，

which allow them, in effect,

讓它們可以使用 CNC 機

to print out the parts from a house using a CNC machine

印出一棟房子的零件，

and a standard sheet material like plywood.

以及標準板材，例如夾板，

And the parts are all numbered,

所有的零件都會編號，

and basically what you end up with is a really big IKEA kit.

而基本上你最後得到的就是一組 超大的 IKEA 套件。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And it goes together without any bolts.

你不需要螺栓就能夠組裝它們，

It uses wedge and peg connections.

它們利用楔形頭以及木釘來連接，

And even the mallets to make it

即使是用來建造的木槌，

can be provided on the cutting sheets as well.

也可以用切割檔案印出來。

And a team of about two or three people,

一個兩到三個人的小組

working together, can build this.

合作就可以完成。

They don't need any traditional construction skills.

他們不需要任何傳統的建造技術，

They don't need a huge array of power tools or anything like that,

他們不需要一系列重機械等的工具，

and they can build a small house of about this size

就大約一天內

in about a day.

建造一棟像這樣大小的房子。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

And what you end up with is just the basic chassis of a house

你最後得到的會是房子的骨架，

onto which you can then apply systems like windows

之後你可以裝上窗戶、

and cladding and insulation and services

外壁、絕緣材料、用具等等

based on what's cheap and what's available.

都根據成本和有什麼可用來決定。

Of course, the house is never finished.

當然，這棟房子還沒有完成。

We're shifting our heads here, so the house is not a finished product.

我們才剛開始轉變，所以這棟房子 還不是一件完成品。

With the CNC machine, you can make new parts for it

有了 CNC，你就可以幫它製作新零件

over its life or even use it to make the house next door.

或甚至用它來建造隔壁的房子。

So we can begin to see the seed of a completely open-source,

我們可以預見一個完整的開放來源系統，

citizen-led urban development model, potentially.

市民引領的潛在城市發展模型。

And we and others have built a few prototypes around the world now,

我們和其他人已經在世界各地 建立了一些雛形，

and some really interesting lessons here.

也有了一些有趣的教訓。

One of them is that it's always incredibly sociable.

其中一個總是善於交際，使人難以置信的。

People get confused between construction work and having fun.

人們在建造工程和 娛樂之間常感到迷惑。

But the principles of openness go right down

但是開放式的原則就能夠

into the really mundane, physical details.

從實際的世俗的角度切入。

Like, never designing a piece that can't be lifted up.

例如，絕對不要設計一個抬不起來的零件。

Or, when you're designing a piece,

或是當你在設計零件的時候，

make sure you either can't put it in the wrong way round,

確保你之後不會把它裝反，

or, if you do, it doesn't matter, because it's symmetrical.

或是即使裝反了也無所謂， 因為它是對稱的。

Probably the principal which runs deepest with us

或許我們執行得最為徹底的原則，

is the principal set out by Linus Torvalds,

就是 Linus Torvalds 所提出的，

the open-source pioneer,

他是開放式資源的領航者，

which was that idea of, "Be lazy like a fox."

「要像狐狸一樣懶」也是他的主意，

Don't reinvent the wheel every time.

不必每次都重新發明輪子。

Take what already works, and adapt it for your own needs.

根據你的需求，拿現有的東西來用。

Contrary to almost everything that you might get taught

和幾乎所有你從建築系 學到的東西相反，

at an architecture school, copying is good.

抄襲是件好事，

Which is appropriate, because actually,

這是適當的，因為事實上

this approach is not innovative.

這並不是創新，

It's actually how we built buildings

這只是我們

for hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution

在工業革命之前數百年來

in these sorts of community barn-raisings.

眾人合力蓋穀倉的方法而已。

The only difference between traditional

鄉土式建築和開放資源式建築

vernacular architecture and open-source architecture

兩者的差異

might be a web connection,

或許只在於網路連接，

but it's a really, really big difference.

但真的是一個很大很大的差異。

We shared the whole of WikiHouse

我們在創作共用授權 (Creative Commons License) 下

under a Creative Commons license,

分享整個 WikiHouse，

and now what's just beginning to happen

現在才剛剛開始發生，

is that groups around the world are beginning to take it

世界各地的團體開始

and use it and hack it and tinker with it, and it's amazing.

接受它、使用它、恣意地運用它， 這是驚人的。

There's a cool group over in Christchurch in New Zealand

在紐西蘭基督城 (Christchurch) 有個 很酷的團體，

looking at post-earthquake development housing,

正在研究地震災後重建，

and thanks to the TED city Prize,

透過 TED city Prize，

we're working with an awesome group in one of Rio's favelas

我們正和一個團體合作， 他們位於里約熱內盧的

to set up a kind of community factory

其中一個貧民區內，建立社區工廠

and micro-university.

及小型大學，他們真棒。

These are very, very small beginnings,

這些都是很小很小的開始，

and actually there's more people in the last week

事實上前一個禮拜有更多人聯絡上了

who have got in touch and they're not even on this map.

而他們還不在這張地圖上，

I hope next time you see it, you won't even be able to see the map.

我希望你們下次看到時， 根本就看不到地圖了。

We're aware that WikiHouse is a very, very small answer,

我們發現 WikiHouse 是 一個很小很小的答案，

but it's a small answer to a really, really big question,

但是它卻足以解釋 一個很大很大的問題，

which is that globally, right now, the fastest-growing cities

也就是現在全球發展最快的城市，

are not skyscraper cities.

並不是充滿了高樓大廈的城市。

They're self-made cities in one form or another.

它們是某種形式的自製城市。

If we're talking about the 21st-century city,

如果我們談論到 21 世紀的城市，

these are the guys who are going to be making it.

他們就是將建造它們的人。

You know, like it or not, welcome to the world's biggest design team.

這麼說吧，不論你喜不喜歡， 迎接世界上最大的設計團隊吧。

So if we're serious about problems

所以如果我們很認真地看待

like climate change, urbanization and health,

如氣候變遷、都市化、健康之類的問題，

actually, our existing development models aren't going to do it.

我們現存的發展模型根本 不足以解決它們，

As I think Robert Neuwirth said, there isn't a bank

正如 Robert Neuwirth 說：

or a corporation or a government or an NGO

如果我們只把市民當作 消費者來看待的話，

who's going to be able to do it

沒有任何一家銀行、政府、

if we treat citizens only as consumers.

非政府組織能夠做得到。

How extraordinary would it be, though, if collectively

希望我們能共同想出解決的方法，

we were to develop solutions not just to the problem

而不僅是解決當前的結構問題，

of structure that we've been working on,

這可是非凡成就，

but to infrastructure problems like solar-powered air conditioning,

同時能夠解決一些基礎建設問題 像太陽能空調、

off-grid energy, off-grid sanitation --

獨立能源、獨立衛生系統 -

low-cost, open-source, high-performance solutions

價格低廉、開放式資源、 高效能的解決方案，

that anyone can very, very easily make,

讓每個人都能輕易製作，

and to put them all into a commons

並讓它們公有化，

where they're owned by everyone and they're accessible by everyone?

使每個人擁有並使用，

A kind of Wikipedia for stuff?

就像一種實體的 Wikipedia 嗎？

And once something's in the commons,

一旦有東西出現在公有範圍內，

it will always be there.

它就會永遠在那裏。

How much would that change the rules?

這將會改變多少的既有定律？

And I think the technology's on our side.

我認為科技站在我們這邊的，

If design's great project in the 20th century

如果在 20 世紀，設計的偉大工程

was the democratization of consumption --

是消費民主化 -

that was Henry Ford, Levittown, Coca-Cola, IKEA —

像是 Henry Ford、Levittown、 Coca-cola、IKEA -

I think design's great project in the 21st century

我認為 21 世紀的偉大工程設計

is the democratization of production.

就是生產的民主化，

And when it comes to architecture in cities,

對於城市裡面的建築來說，

that really matters.

這真的很重要。

Thank you very much.

謝謝。

(Applause)

(掌聲)