Alejandro Aravena: My architectural philosophy? Bring the community into the process

譯者: Harry Chen 審譯者: Katherine To

If there's any power in design,

如果在設計裡有任何力量的話，

that's the power of synthesis.

就是「綜效力」。

The more complex the problem,

難題越是複雜，

the more the need for simplicity.

就越需要簡單來看。

So allow me to share three cases

請讓我分享三個案例，

where we tried to apply

其中我們試著運用

design's power of synthesis.

設計的綜效力。

Let's start with the global challenge of urbanization.

讓我們先從全球的 都市化挑戰講起，

It's a fact that people are moving towards cities.

人們正不斷地湧進 都市是事實，

and even if counterintuitive, it's good news.

即便是跟直覺相違背， 這是個好消息。

Evidence shows that people are better off in cities.

有證據說大家在城市裡 是比較好過日子的，

But there's a problem that I would call

不過會有一個我管它叫 「3S威脅」的麻煩：

the "3S" menace:

The scale, speed, and scarcity of means

「規模(scale)、速度(speed)、 資金的短缺(scarcity)」，

with which we will have to respond to this phenomenon

我們必須處理這些威脅，

has no precedence in history.

這種前所未見的現象。

For you to have an idea,

為了讓你有個概念，

out of the three billion people living in cities today,

今天有著超過30億以上的 人口住在城市裡面，

one billion are under the line of poverty.

其中10億人處於貧窮線 之下的生活水準；

By 2030, out of the five billion people

等到了2030年， 將有超過50億的人口

that will be living in cities,

住在城市裡面，

two billion are going to be under the line of poverty.

其中有20億人處於貧窮線 之下的生活水準。

That means that we will have to build

這代表我們將得要

每個星期建造

a one million-person city per week

一座百萬人口的城市、

每個房子要花1萬美金，

with 10,000 dollars per family

during the next 15 years.

在接下來的15年裡面。

A one million-person city per week

「每週產生一座有百萬人口的城市、

with 10,000 dollars per family.

每個房子要花1萬美金」，

If we don't solve this equation,

如果我們不能解答這個公式，

it is not that people will stop coming to cities.

大家並非就停止 進到城市來，

They will come anyhow,

不論如何他們還是 會來到，

but they will live in slums, favelas

而他們將會住在市中心 或城市外緣的貧民窟裡，

and informal settlements.

以及不合適的居地。

So what to do? Well, an answer may come

那要怎麼辦呢？

from favelas and slums themselves.

有一個來自這些貧民窟 本身的答案，

A clue could be in this question we were asked

這個問題的線索 可能就在

10 years ago.

我們十年前被要求 做的事情，

We were asked to accommodate 100 families

我們被要求安置 100個家庭，

that had been occupying illegally

這些家庭一直以來 非法霸佔在

half a hectare in the center

智利北方的伊基克市

of the city of Iquique in the north of Chile

市中心半公頃的土地。

using a $10,000 subsidy

利用每個家庭10,000 美金的補助，

with which we had to buy the land,

我們得要買土地、

provide the infrastructure,

提供基礎建設、

and build the houses that, in the best of the cases,

還有建造房子，

would be of around 40 square meters.

最理想的狀況 大概是40平方米大。

And by the way, they said,

順便一提，

他們告訴我們土地的 取得成本，

the cost of the land,

because it's in the center of the city,

因為是市中心，

is three times more

要比社會住宅 通常所能承擔的

than what social housing can normally afford.

要多出三倍；

Due to the difficulty of the question,

因為問題的棘手性，

we decided to include the families

我們決定在瞭解 各種限制的過程中

in the process of understanding the constraints,

將家戶們納進來參與，

and we started a participatory design process,

我們啟動了 參與式的設計過程，

and testing what was available there in the market.

而且檢驗了在市場上 所能買到的房子，

Detached houses,

「獨棟房子」

30 families could be accommodated.

可以容納30個家庭；

Row houses, 60 families.

「排屋」能容納60個家庭，

["100 families"] The only way to accommodate all of them

(那100個家庭呢？) 唯一可以容納他們的辦法

was by building in height,

就是透過往上加蓋，

and they threatened us

他們威脅我們 將要進行絕食，

to go on a hunger strike

if we even dared to offer this

如果我們膽敢提出

as a solution,

這個當解決方案，

because they could not make the tiny apartments

因為他們沒辦法 使窄小的公寓變大，

expand.

So the conclusion with the families —

所以和家戶們一起 做出的結論，

and this is important, not our conclusion —

不是我們的結論， 這很重要，

with the families, was that we had a problem.

和家戶們的結論 就是我們有麻煩了，

We had to innovate.

我們必須要創新。

So what did we do?

結果我們做了什麼呢？

Well, a middle-class family

好吧，一個中等的家庭，

lives reasonably well

住得相當不賴，

in around 80 square meters,

大概要80平方米上下；

but when there's no money,

可是當錢不夠時，

what the market does

市場就把房子的大小，

is to reduce the size of the house

to 40 square meters.

降為40平方米大，

What we said was,

我們講的就是，

what if,

這樣如何呢？

instead of thinking of 40 square meters

與其把40平方米

as a small house,

認為是小房子，

why don't we consider it

我們何不改想成是 半間的好房子呢？

half of a good one?

When you rephrase the problem

當你把問題換個說法，

as half of a good house

把小房子說成是 半間房子，

instead of a small one,

the key question is, which half do we do?

關鍵的問題來了： 我們該蓋哪半間？

And we thought we had to do with public money

而我們認為該用公款蓋的，

the half that families won't be able to do individually.

是家戶不能獨自建造 的那半間，

We identified five design conditions

我們區分出了五項條件，

that belonged to the hard half of a house,

屬於房子比較 難蓋的那半間，

and we went back to the families to do two things:

然後我們回頭找家戶們 做兩件事情：

join forces and split tasks.

「一起出力和分散任務」。

Our design was something in between

我們的設計是某種

a building and a house.

介於於建築物和房子 之間的作品，

As a building, it could pay

以建築物來說它可以買到

for expensive, well-located land,

昂貴的、好位置的土地；

and as a house, it could expand.

而以房子來講它要能擴建，

If, in the process of not being expelled

假使你得到了一間房子，

to the periphery while getting a house,

不想要在居住過程中被 擠到了房子邊緣，

families kept their network and their jobs,

家戶們還能保有他們的 人際網絡和工作，

we knew that the expansion would begin right away.

我們知道擴建要 立刻啟動。

So we went from this initial social housing

所以我們從這些基本的 社會住宅，

to a middle-class unit achieved by families themselves

轉變成由家戶們自己 只花幾個禮拜

within a couple of weeks.

就蓋好的中等住宅。

This was our first project

那就是我們10年前

in Iquique 10 years ago.

在伊基克的第一個案子。

This is our last project in Chile.

這個則是我們在智利 最新的案子，

Different designs, same principle:

不一樣的設計，一樣的原則，

You provide the frame,

你提供房子的結構，

and from then on, families take over.

此後讓家戶們來負責。

So the purpose of design,

所以設計的目的、

trying to understand and trying to give an answer

試著瞭解和給「3S威脅」 一個答案，

to the "3S" menace,

scale, speed, and scarcity,

3S威脅：規模、速度和 資金的短缺，

is to channel people's own building capacity.

就是導入民眾自己的建造力，

We won't solve the one million people per week equation

除非是我們運用民眾 自己力量來建造，

unless we use people's own power for building.

否則我們將無法滿足每個禮拜 100萬人口的公式。

So, with the right design,

所以有了正確的設計，

slums and favelas may not be the problem

市中心和城市外圍的貧民窟 也許將不再是問題，

but actually the only possible solution.

事實上還是唯一可行 的解決辦法。

The second case is how design can contribute

第二個案例是如何讓設計 可以增進永續性，

to sustainability.

In 2012, we entered the competition

在2012年時我們參加了

for the Angelini Innovation Center,

Angelini集團的 UC創新中心的競標，

and the aim was to build

目的是要打造出

the right environment for knowledge creation.

知識創造的合適的環境，

It is accepted that for such an aim,

為了這目標：「知識創造」，

knowledge creation,

interaction among people, face-to-face contact,

人們彼此間的互動、 面對面接觸，

it's important, and we agreed on that.

被公認是很重要的！ 而我們也同意。

But for us, the question of the right environment

但是對我們來說 「合適的環境」

was a very literal question.

是非常字面的問題；

We wanted to have a working space

我們需要一個工作空間，

with the right light, with the right temperature,

有著合適的燈光、 合適的溫度、

with the right air.

合適的空氣等等，

So we asked ourselves:

所以我們問自己，

Does the typical office building

傳統的辦公室建築是否

help us in that sense?

在這方面對我們有幫助？

Well, how does that building look, typically?

那麼一般來說傳統建築 看起來像什麼？

It's a collection of floors,

它是一個樓層的合體，

one on top of each other,

每一層樓之上還有一層樓，

with a core in the center

在中央是核心，

with elevators, stairs, pipes, wires, everything,

有著升降梯、樓梯、水管、 線路等等一切，

and then a glass skin on the outside

然後外面披著玻璃的表皮，

that, due to direct sun radiation,

因為直射的太陽光波，

creates a huge greenhouse effect inside.

在裡面製造了很大的 溫室效應，

In addition to that, let's say a guy

除此之外讓我們假設：

working on the seventh floor

有個傢伙在第七樓工作，

goes every single day through the third floor,

每一天都會經過第三樓，

but has no idea what the guy on that floor

但是卻完全不曉得 那層樓的人

is working on.

正在做些什麼事，

So we thought, well, maybe we have to turn this scheme

所以我們想要把玻璃 表皮給內外翻轉過來，

inside out.

And what we did was,

我們做的事就是：

let's have an open atrium,

來做個開放式的中庭吧！

a hollowed core,

一個中空的核心，

the same collection of floors,

一樣的樓層合體，

but have the walls and the mass in the perimeter,

在邊緣有牆壁、有雜物，

so that when the sun hits,

如此一來當陽光照到，

it's not impacting directly glass, but a wall.

那就不是直接照射玻璃， 而是一片牆，

When you have an open atrium inside,

當樓層裡面有著一個 開放的中庭，

you are able to see what others are doing

你就能從大樓裡面看到 其他人正在幹什麼，

from within the building, and you have

a better way to control light,

你有一個比較好的方法 來控制光線，

and when you place the mass and the walls

當你在外圍設置了 雜物、牆壁，

in the perimeter,

then you are preventing direct sun radiation.

你可以避開直射的太陽光波；

You may also open those windows

你也能打開窗戶，

and get cross-ventilation.

讓樓層內彼此通風，

We just made those openings

我們就是使這些開放空間，

of such a scale that they could work

這麼大規模的空間，

as elevated squares,

可以當作是空中廣場、 戶外空間，

outdoor spaces throughout

從上到下貫通整間大樓。

the entire height of the building.

這些都不是太尖端的科學，

None of this is rocket science.

You don't require sophisticated programming.

你不需要做精密的演算，

It's not about technology.

這跟科技沒啥關係，

This is just archaic, primitive common sense,

這就只是很古老、原始的 基本常識，

and by using common sense,

透過利用這些基本常識，

we went from 120 kilowatts

我們從每年每平方米

per square meter per year,

要12萬瓦特的電力；

which is the typical energy consumption

那是傳統上讓玻璃塔降溫

for cooling a glass tower,

電力的消耗量，

to 40 kilowatts per square meter per year.

變成每年每平方米 4萬瓦特。

So with the right design,

因此用了正確的設計，

sustainability is nothing but the rigorous use

永續性不過就是

of common sense.

嚴謹的運用常識。

Last case I would like to share is how design

最後一個我想要分享的案例，

can provide more comprehensive answers

是設計如何能提出

against natural disasters.

更完整的答案來 對抗自然災害。

You may know that Chile, in 2010,

你們可能知道在 2010年智利被

was hit by an 8.8 Richter scale

芮氏8.8級的地震 以及海嘯侵襲，

earthquake and tsunami,

and we were called to work

而我們被找去

in the reconstruction of the Constitución,

做智利南部的 「孔斯蒂圖西翁」的重建，

in the southern part of the country.

We were given 100 days, three months,

我們被限制了要在100天內， 也就是3個月內，

to design almost everything,

設計出幾乎每一樣東西，

from public buildings to public space,

從公共建築到公共空間，

street grid, transportation, housing,

街道網絡、運輸系統和房子，

and mainly how to protect the city

最重要的是如何 保護該城市

against future tsunamis.

面對未來的海嘯。

This was new in Chilean urban design,

這在智利的城市設計上 來說是首見的，

and there were in the air a couple of alternatives.

而且有好幾個可行辦法 馬上就能想到，

First one:

第一、禁止在震央區蓋房子，

Forbid installation on ground zero.

Thirty million dollars spent mainly

3,000萬美金主要是花在 徵收土地上，

in land expropriation.

This is exactly what's being discussed in Japan nowadays,

這正是日本今天在 討論的東西，

and if you have a disciplined population

如果有像日本那樣 守紀律的人民，

like the Japanese, this may work,

這或許就行得通；

but we know that in Chile,

不過我們都清楚在智利

this land is going to be occupied illegally anyhow,

這塊地到頭來將會 被人非法佔據，

so this alternative was unrealistic and undesirable.

所以這個方案既不實際 、也不受歡迎。

Second alternative: build a big wall,

第二個方案、 建造高大的牆壁。

heavy infrastructure to resist

厚實的基礎建設阻擋 浪潮的能量，

the energy of the waves.

This alternative was conveniently lobbied

這個方案可輕易地由 大建設公司來進行遊說，

by big building companies,

because it meant 42 million dollars in contracts,

因為這代表了4,200萬 美金的合約，

and was also politically preferred,

而且也是政治上比較 受喜愛的，

because it required no land expropriation.

因為它不需要徵收土地。

But Japan proved that trying to resist

但是日本證實了企圖阻擋

the force of nature is useless.

大自然的力量是無效的，

So this alternative was irresponsible.

所以這個方案是 不負責任的作為。

As in the housing process,

在蓋房子的過程中，

we had to include the community

必須將社群涵蓋進來，

in the way of finding a solution for this,

以找出解決方案，

and we started a participatory design process.

因而我們啟動了 參與式設計步驟。

(Video) [In Spanish] Loudspeaker: What kind of city do you want?

(影片-西班牙語)廣播器： 哪一種城市是你所要的？

Vote for Constitución.

為「孔斯蒂圖西翁」來投票吧！

Go to the Open House and express your options.

來Open House表達你的意見吧！

Participate!

來參與吧！

Fisherman: I am a fisherman.

漁夫：我是個漁夫，

Twenty-five fishermen work for me.

有25個漁夫在我手下工作，

Where should I take them? To the forest?

我應該把他們擺在那兒呢？ 森林裡嗎？

Man: So why can't we have a concrete defense?

男士：為什麼我們不能有個 混凝土的護堤呢？

Done well, of course.

當然了，是完善的護堤。

Man 2: I am the history of Constitución.

男士2號：我是世居在 「孔斯蒂圖西翁」的人，

And you come here to tell me that I cannot keep on living here?

而你們來這裡是要跟我說 我不能繼續居住在這裡了嗎？

My whole family has lived here,

我整個家庭都住在這裡、

I raised my children here,

我在這裡撫育我的子女長大、

and my children will also raise their children here.

而我的子女們將來也會 在這裡撫育他們的小孩、

and my grandchildren and everyone else will.

我的孫子以及其他每個人 也會這樣做，

But why are you imposing this on me?

可是為什麼你要強逼我呢？

You! You are imposing this on me!

你們！就是你們強逼我！

In danger zone I am not authorized to build.

在危險區我不准蓋東西，

He himself is saying that.

他就是這樣講。

Man 3: No, no, no, Nieves...

男士3號： 不..不..不！(握緊拳頭)

Alejandro Aravena: I don't know if you were able

亞歷山大．阿拉維那： 我不曉得你們是否

to read the subtitles, but you can tell

看得懂字幕，

from the body language

但是你們可以從 肢體語言分辨出來，

that participatory design

參與式設計

is not a hippie, romantic,

並非是嘻皮的、浪漫的，

let's-all-dream-together-about- the-future-of-the-city

像是：「關於城市的未來， 讓我們一起來想像吧！」

kind of thing.

諸如此類的。

It is actually — (Applause)

事實上它是...　（掌聲）

It is actually not even with the families

它並不是真的要和家戶們

trying to find the right answer.

試著找出正確的答案，

It is mainly trying to identify with precision

它主要是想準確辨別出

what is the right question.

什麼才是對的問題，

There is nothing worse than answering well

沒有什麼比好好回答了 一個錯誤的問題

the wrong question.

還要再糟糕的事情，

So it was pretty obvious after this process

所以經過這個步驟之後 就很清楚的，

that, well, we chicken out here

因為氣氛太緊張了，

and go away because it's too tense,

我們在這邊放棄了、 閃人了，

or we go even further in asking,

或者是我們進一步問道，

what else is bothering you?

「還有什麼事情困擾 著你們嗎？」、

What other problems do you have

「你們還有其他問題嗎？」、

and you want us to take care of now that the city

「你們要我們現在就來負責，

will have to be rethought from scratch?

城市會從傷痕中重新考慮？」

And what they said was,

他們說：聽著保護城市應付 未來的海嘯是好事，

look, fine to protect the city against future tsunamis,

we really appreciate, but the next one is going to come in, what, 20 years?

我們真的很感激，

不過，什麼！下一個海嘯 是發生在20年之後嗎？

But every single year, we have problems

但是每一年我們都會

of flooding due to rain.

因為下雨產生淹水的麻煩，

In addition, we are in the middle

還有我們位在國家 森林地區的中央，

of the forest region of the country,

and our public space sucks.

而且我們的公共空間 爛透了，

It's poor and it's scarce.

既差勁又很稀少，

And the origin of the city, our identity,

而且城市的起源、 我們的特色，

is not really connected to the buildings that fell,

並不是真的與倒塌了的 建築物有關聯，

it is connected to the river,

而是跟河川有關，

but the river cannot be accessed publicly,

但是河川並不能 開放給大家使用的，

because its shores are privately owned.

因為它的河岸是 私人持有的，

So we thought that we had to produce a third alternative,

所以我們認為我們得要 提出第三個方案，

and our approach was against geographical threats,

我們的辦法是： 對付地理的威脅，

have geographical answers.

會有地理的答案，

What if, in between the city

這樣如何呢？

在城市和大海中間

and the sea

我們有著一個森林的話，

we have a forest,

a forest that doesn't try to resist

森林並不會阻擋大自然 的能量，

the energy of nature,

but dissipates it by introducing friction?

但是會產生分化來 逐漸消耗它，

A forest that may be able to laminate the water

森林也許能夠壓薄水量，

and prevent the flooding?

而避免淹水，

That may pay the historical debt of public space,

那也許得用公共空間的 歷史性包袱作為代價，

and that may provide, finally,

最終可能會開放給

democratic access to the river.

所有人來使用河川，

So as a conclusion of the participatory design,

因此作為參與式設計 的結論，

the alternative was validated politically and socially,

解決方案在政治上 還有社會上被認可，

but there was still the problem of the cost:

但是仍然有成本上的問題：

48 million dollars.

4,800萬美金。

So what we did was a survey

所以我們在公共投資 系統裡面

in the public investment system,

做過一個調查，

and found out that there were three ministries

然後在完全相同的地點

with three projects in the exact same place,

找到了3個部會的3個計畫，

not knowing of the existence of the other projects.

彼此不知道對方 計畫的存在，

The sum of them: 52 million dollars.

它們合計是5千2百萬美金。

So design's power of synthesis

所以設計力量的綜效

is trying to make a more efficient use

是想要讓城市裡少到 不行的資源

of the scarcest resource in cities,

做出更有效的利用，

which is not money but coordination.

此資源指的並不是金錢 而是協調。

By doing so, we were able to save

透過這樣做我們可以 節省400萬美元，

four million dollars, and that is why the forest

這就是今天森林

is today under construction.

已經在造林的原因。

(Applause)

(鼓掌！)

So be it the force of self construction,

所以當成它是自蓋建築的力量、

the force of common sense,

基本常識的力量、

or the force of nature, all these forces

或者是大自然的力量也行，

need to be translated into form,

所有這些力量需要 轉換成形式，

and what that form is modeling and shaping

用這形式打造出模型或外觀的

is not cement, bricks, or wood.

並不是水泥、磚頭 或是木料，

It is life itself.

而是生命的真義！

Design's power of synthesis

設計的綜效力

is just an attempt to put

就只是一種企圖心，

at the innermost core of architecture

要把生命的力量放進

the force of life.

建築的靈魂裡面，

Thank you so much.

非常謝謝大家！

(Applause)

(掌聲...)