融入法演繹現代：張永和

邁克爾·貝爾 華楊 譯，司馬蕾 校

融入法演繹現代：張永和

邁克爾·貝爾 華楊 譯，司馬蕾 校

張永和作為建筑界代表之聲的出現是與全球城市的興起同步的。他和魯力佳打造的建筑實踐反映了全球背景并直觀地映射了他們的個人經歷。隨著新的全球經濟網絡改變了世界版圖的組成，他們最大程度地進行了實際的參與，并且詳細地揭示了使建筑偏心或離散的時空。如此的融入法表演基于故事之內，但并不過多表現劇本中虛構的人物。張永和的職業跨度從早期、存在主義的紙上建筑演變到一個塑造了包含校園、辦公園區和住宅在內的建筑實踐。日常性和全球性在他的個人視角下碰撞，在當代的臨界點上創新的張永和依舊保持了他早期的作品特色。

張永和，非常建筑，自主性，本土的，資本的靈活積累，城市化，建筑

說起張永和，不能不提及他的人生經歷。他的名字以及他和魯力佳的建筑實踐受到了廣泛的認可，無論是早期的嘗試還是如今在世界各地開展的實踐，他的項目以及對建筑的思考都廣為人知。我們很多人都知道他從中國旅美，足跡踏遍了美國的數個州，然后又返回中國的經歷。但這并不是他完整的人生歷程，因為他后來又重新回到了美國，并擔任了麻省理工學院建筑系的系主任。年輕的他在印第安納州讀過本科，隨后在加利福尼亞大學伯克利分校攻讀研究生，并成長為密歇根大學、哈佛大學、萊斯大學的教授，而在一段較長的時間里，他又以教授的身份重新回到伯克利，并對那里產生了深遠的影響。張永和對世界的認知可能是同時代的人中最為深刻的——因為他了解許多城市，并且深深地理解我們的世界在思想、政治和經濟上發生著的變革。他見多識廣，卻依然能不斷推陳出新，這也使人們對他的建筑作品給予嘉許。我記得他和力佳曾舉辦過一場時裝秀——在一個項目的推進過程中，他們暫停下來，試圖以服裝設計為媒介來闡釋建筑與城市。用這種通俗的方式來展現了他的現代作風：他活在當下，而這是他經過冷靜思考后的刻意選擇。

我和張永和于1984年相識在伯克利的環境設計學院。后來我們一起在建筑學院任教，晚些又一起去了休斯頓的萊斯大學。那時我所認識的張永和是一個天資卓越的“紙上建筑師”——在那個時代，彼得·埃森曼所提倡的捍衛建筑的“自治性”一度影響深遠，而源自建筑聯盟學院（AA）的影響則提供了另一種常常具有指示性和形象性的、卻仍然保持了抽象風格的建筑路徑。建筑圖紙的繪制方法至關重要，建筑師畫每一條線的方法與他的建筑設計呈現出的可能性密不可分。相比鋼筆畫，永和似乎更加喜歡用鉛筆來表達，他喜歡用陰影和輪廓（明暗）來作畫——漸變描繪得很準確，形態的輪廓也很清晰。他通常會畫在紙張或頁面的正中間，如果讓他畫一張自行車運動的示意圖，他也會用形狀和抽象圖形的方法來表達。他的畫會刻畫時間和動感，但只通過一種具有美感的圖象的形式來呈現，所見如同所想。

1

在最近哥倫比亞大學舉行的一場活動里，由瑪爾塔·古特曼發起，在理查德·普倫茨，伯納德·屈米和肯尼斯·弗蘭姆普敦之間開展了一場討論，瑪爾塔·古特曼認為亨利·列斐伏爾的著作《空間的產生》對1980年代末的哥倫比亞大學的建筑思潮產生了深刻的影響。這本書在伯克利也同樣頗具影響力，但就算你沒有直接讀過這本著作，你也不得不承認今天的建筑師并沒有把列斐伏爾對于“日常生活”的社會學思想運用在他們的建筑實踐中。人類生產空間的實踐通常以最小化的方式或者在更大的權力結構的邊緣開展，這是一個涉及無數合法手續的行為，空間的生產塑造了經濟、城市以及更高層次的政治機制，但社會關系卻極少在這一過程中被考慮。如果有人對繪圖感興趣并把它當成一種個人行為，那作畫可以被看成一種保護了人身主權——也就是他們個人特點的社會聲明。但是把繪制建筑圖紙當成個人行為就會帶來沖突，而建筑師作為負責管理容納其他人的空間的人將承受這一沖突——怎樣讓建筑既能代表居住在建筑中的人，也代表建筑師自己呢？張永和一直游走在這個邊界上，我認為他也在不斷完善這條界線。歷經了適應新政治和新文化、經濟的考驗，他依然一直在尋找新的途徑來表現建筑的人文關懷，同時也沒有忘卻建筑內在的自主性。追求這種自主性需要排除當下、時間性、地區性以及建筑的使用者對建筑的影響。

在美國從一名學生成長為教授的15年時間里，張永和看上去似乎會一直都當一個“紙上建筑師”了。那時他對建筑領域的貢獻體現在一系列的建筑圖紙上，他用圖把建筑限定為一種能用于建造房屋，或是塑造思想、輔佐行為的社會工具。他也會試著把建造從建筑移除來看看它會變成什么樣。他的想法受到許多大師的影響，包括約翰·海杜克和馬西莫·斯科拉里，還有利伯烏斯·伍茲和雷蒙德·亞伯拉罕，以及后來出現的扎哈·哈迪德或雷姆·庫哈斯。這一代設計師并不著急尋求業主或者建造商的青睞，卻在如何設計和管理建筑細節方面精益求精。這些工作的背景不僅包括了列斐伏爾等人的思想，也受到了1980年代中期的國際建筑界已經開始對社會面臨的金融和資本的全球化浪潮有所意識的影響。這一時期，布雷頓森林體系終結后的新全球化經濟大約開始了13年或更長一點的時間，新的資金運作開始在國家間，或者更精確地說在城市間流動。總之，那時的世界，國家之間的界限開始不再那么清晰，經濟網絡最終把所有國家都聯系到了一起。建筑院校也不可避免地受到這一浪潮的影響。1987年，在耶魯大學建筑學院，地理學家及政治經濟學家戴維·哈維描述了一種城市規劃和建筑面臨的全新挑戰，關于如何在資本以一種新方式自由穿越國境的世界里營造地區性。這個世界上，資本與地區的相關性正越來越小、不再依賴地區；全球化經濟重新塑造了每個地區以及當地居民的日常體驗；產品和產地之間的聯系也越來越薄弱。

2

3

張永和此時剛剛離開學校，他的建筑實踐從行為到思想上都受到了當時這一革命的影響。他的建筑設計和實踐探求一種獨立于周邊的孤獨感，但這種個性化的抽離的姿態是被迫采取的，看上去有些不自然。新的全球經濟關系建立在物質、財富和就業的快速流轉之上，在此后被視為造成世界的嚴重不平等的驅動因素，但它同時其也使得城市生活成為人類發展的新動力。在過去的30年里，世界的城市化趨勢發展迅猛。

張永和和魯力佳于1995年從美國回到中國，他具有個人特點的繪圖方式也開始轉變為專業的設計和建筑實踐。張永和現在活躍在亞洲、歐洲和美國，他已經適應了運營設計事務所，甚至在最近開始實驗新的建造方法和技術。材料及其帶來的限制現在對于張永和的意義與過去畫圖的線條一樣重要。這看上去像是一個完全的蛻變，但如果你見過他在當初只能在紙上繪制建筑時對每根線條的準確性的追求，就會知道他并沒有變。我猜想，當人們提到張永和的時候都會從心底對他產生敬意，因為在這個瞬息萬變的全球化世界中他不僅隨之遷移——無論是字面上的，還是思想上的——同時甘愿當作一個參照者。他是種種事物的晴雨表，是自己作品的完全擁有者，是許多人使用的空間的建筑師，他的手法反映各種變化但并不強求變化。他依然現代，是一個立足存在主義、不情愿的作者：不去模擬自己對世界需求的信念，他有時更像一個融入派演員，允許世界將他帶入一個創造性的，與他自己和世界都不太一樣的角色。他的全球化生活經驗并沒有促使他產生直接應對現代發展出現危機的憂患或是動力，相反，他的作品通常會反映出時代的變化，而不是對其表達一個武斷的意見。我們認同他正是因為他的作品能讓我們反思，調動自己的想象力來理解當下的情況，思考解決方案。

在張永和的作品中可以看到這種融入法演技的痕跡。例如，騎車流線在建筑中進行空間切挖，盡管自行車并不允許進入。作為中國人，他重返祖國并建造了一座夯土建筑（幾乎是對傳統的致敬），但掰開呈現出三角狀布局，可能靈感來自于馬列維奇，也可能源自他對年輕的“紙上建筑師”扎哈·哈迪德的喜愛。但是他從不過多表明自己的好惡，這房子就作為一個證據擺在那里，讓我們自己判斷。比起他所了解的今天全球化文化產生的作品，張永和自己主持設計并認可的作品并不多（出于他知性的自尊）。他從不試圖隱藏自己的美國傳承，包括一系列已構成我們知識基礎一部分的歐洲影響；但他個人也尊重場所和時機，使他可以從事本土的工作。越自主的工作越能顯示出世界發生了多大的變化。這在上海的垂直玻璃宅項目中得以體現。這個在美國設計的紙上建筑，20年后在經濟大發展中實現。我們看到一人獨處在人群中；張永和的原始設計可能是受到了約翰·海杜克的“拒絕參與的居民”這個作品的影響。在這里，居民坐在黃浦江邊，懸浮（玻璃地面）于夜間江面上連排的船只（資本全球化的產物）和夢工廠的制片廠以及戴維·奇普菲爾德設計的博物館（文化全球化的產物）之間。在這一圖騰般的封閉的塔樓中呈現出現代的上海，而這一設計早在它被建成的25年前就誕生了。這里的新居民是一位穿越了時空而來的融入派演員。

最近，在上海的講座中，張永和提及了對于小型建筑的需求，或者說他認為需要對最小的建筑也給予足夠的關注。他也真誠地關注著正在重塑中國的一波波財富和發展。他無疑有能力設計非常大型的建筑，但在他離開在伯克利的（也包括在休斯頓、安阿伯等地的）個人制圖桌25年之后，他正在尋找一種方式，并不是為了撤退，而是要找回什么是最重要的。他不是個在建筑上多愁善感的人，但是我認為他對于分辨對錯的態度非常鮮明。他不是道德家，不熱衷于布道或給人灌輸思想。相反，他展示了一系列曾在學生時代給予他靈感的作品，那些作品往往僅源于一個很小的構思，但卻對建筑學發展產生了巨大的推動。講座中，西古德·萊弗倫茨被作為衡量的標準來介紹，我在房間的后排聆聽時（可能有超過1000人的聽眾）也被深深打動。他詳細介紹的一張圖片是一個一個著名的建筑細部：一塊玻璃超出了周圍的框架，與建筑的混凝土墻體處在了同一平面上，這就形成了玻璃和混凝土的組合平面，窗框圍不住窗子了。萊弗倫茨打破了建筑細部的規律和建筑構件的原有含義，讓重力的作用直接表現在建筑立面上。我相信張永和是希望能在當今創造出類似的結構，讓它既現代又符合當下中國的經濟情況和需求規模。我不確信這是不是能實現，但我知道這反映在了他從早期到現在的作品軌跡里，我所見證的他的這一歷程足以證明他是個堅定的人，會實驗他學過和接觸過的所有可能性來達到目標。他目前剛剛開始這種探索并在開展材料試驗，例如測試填充了混凝土的玻璃纖維結構的性能；但講座中極富感染力的是張永和對于更年輕一代建筑師的寄語和召喚。我想他應該是又想象自己回到了那年輕而充滿朝氣的時候，盡管他也自知現在已經是閱歷深厚的年紀了。現在距離他當年在伯克利的時光已非常久遠，但他依然能幽默而善意地回想起當時的每一天光陰。這些時光鑄就了當下的他，也讓他能把這份經歷作為禮物與別人分享。你能夠感受到（在現場的）人們明白他的分享是非常慷慨的，讓人每次都想從頭再聽。

It is impossible to think of Yung Ho Chang without imagining his path. When his name comes up and his practice with LU Lijia many often smile because we know both the projects, indeed meditations, of his earliest work and his now global practice. I think many of us imagine his path from China to the United States (to many states inside the United States) and then back to China. Yet, that of course is not the full story, because Yung Ho also returned to the U.S. anew to serve as the head of the Department of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Working in Indiana as a young student, later a graduate student at Berkeley and then professor at the University of Michigan, Harvard and Rice and in particular a significant period of time with a profound effect at Berkeley again as a professor. Yung Ho Chang knows the world as perhaps only a deeply contemporary person can - as a citizen really of a network of cities and deep changes in our world intellectually,politically, and economically. This makes people smile when his works of architecture come up because he has seen so much, but nonetheless seems to be emerging in new ways again and again.I am reminded of a fashion show of his and Lijia's clothing - well into a mature practice of architecture Yung Ho and Lijia paused to try to speak of architecture and cities through the medium of clothing design. He is modern in the most colloquial sense: he is of the now and calmly determined to stay that way.

I must admit that I have known Yung Ho Chang since 1984 when we met at Berkeley at the College of Environmental Design. We then taught together in the Department of Architecture and subsequently at Rice University in Houston. The Yung Ho I met then was an exquisitely talented "paper architect" - this was a time when Peter Eisenman's focus on architecture's"autonomy" held a deep sway, but also when the Architectural Association seemed to offer a path into a figural and often referential yet still abstract architecture. Drawing mattered immensely and how one drew a line was inseparable from what was possible in architectural design. Yung Ho drew in graphite it seemed far more often than ink and he employed shadow and contour (chiaroscuro) in ways that were precise in gradient but also had a firm final delineation of form. More so his drawings were composed and centered on paper/page - even if he drew the diagram of a bicycle's motion this was registered as form and a quasi-object. Time was described, motion invoked. But the drawing offered this instead as a kind of aesthetic image to think though as much as see.

At a recent event at Columbia the discussion between Richard Plunz, Bernard Tschumi and Kenneth Frampton was guided by Marta Gutman who claimed Henri Lefebvre's book "The Production of Space" had held a strong inf l uence over late 1980's architectural thought at Columbia. The book was also influential at Berkeley and even if one did not have direct exposure to it you would be hard pressed to fi nd architects today who have not admitted a great deal of the sociology of Lefebvre's "everyday" into their work. A practice of human action as the making space in the smallest of ways or at the margins of larger power structures; a way to recognize as legitimate countless actions and social relations often barely acknowledged in the practices that shape economies,cities and our larger political mechanisms. If one were interested in drawing as a private action this indeed might be a social statement of a person protecting their sovereignty - their identity. But to draw architecture as a private action creates a conflict; the architect as the administrator of the space of others bears a conflict - how can the people who reside in architecture be (pre) represented and then represent themselves? Yung Ho Chang has always lived on this border and I think is continually refining its edge. Having migrated so boldly through tough new political, cultural economies he keeps finding new ways to reveal what is human in architecture without losing the sense of architecture as something indeed autonomous. Something apart from the moment, the time, the place or from the people who will use it.

During the course of 15 years in the United States as a student and then professor it seemed that Yung Ho Chang would remain a"paper architect". To offer a contribution to the field through a practice of drawing that refined architecture's edge as a social instrument to be used at a later date in construction or to shape thought and then action. To in effect remove it from construction to test what it might become.He had mentors in this decision. John Hejduk and Massimo Scolari but also Lebbeus Woods and Raimund Abraham and indeed a then emerging Zaha Hadid or Rem Koolhaas. A generation for whom clients and contractors were not urgently sought but who nonetheless were deeply precise in how they drew and managed what were explicit details of construction. This work has to be seen in the context of not just someone like Lefebvre but a critically important realization that the mid 1980's international intellectual context in architecture was now facing a newly global network of finance and money. It was only thirteen or more years into the onset of a post Bretton-Woods global economy and a new liquidity of financial flow between nations and more precisely between cities. In short it was a world where the boundaries between nations were not as critical as the financial networks that were to inevitably interlink them.This work was not far from architecture schools: At the Yale University School of Architecture in 1987 geographer/political economist, David Harvey described a new challenge to urban planning and architecture; the constitution of place in a world where capital flowed in a new paradigm across national borders. Where money was increasingly less dependent on place or less anchored to it and where global fi nance was reshaping local territory and the everyday experience of others wise local citizens. Where production and place had increasingly tenuous links.1）Yung Ho Chang was barely out of school at this time and his practice followed this evolution in literal and intellectual ways. A posture of architectural design and practice that sought a solitude of near but private disengagement was under duress and seen as less tenable. New global economic relations based in the rapid transfer of products and wealth and jobs have since been clearly seen as a driver of deep inequality in the world but they have also made urban life the new denominator of development.The world became wildly more urban in this past 30 years.

Yung Ho Chang and Lijia moved from the United States home to China in 1995 and what had been a private practice of drawing became a professional practice of design and building.Now active in Asia, Europe and the United States,Chang adapted to running an office and indeed, as of late, to experimenting in new building means and techniques. Material and its limits are now in effect as important to Chang as the drawn line used to be. It is a complete metamorphosis on one hand but perhaps not so if one realized how precisely he made even a line when that was all he could make. Yet I would venture that people smile when Yung Ho's name comes up because they are privately in awe of how he not only migrated(literally and intellectually) the deep upheaval of our newly global world but by how he seems to be willing to be a measure of it. He is a barometer of sorts and while he is the clear author of his works and indeed the architect of spaces for many he is also a kind of instrument that reveals change rather than imposes it. He is still modern in that he is an existential and reluctant author; rather than simulate what he believes the world needs, he is at times a kind of method actor who has allowed the world to invoke in him a creative character a step away from himself and the world. His global experience is not one that has instigated in him a direct concern or agency to address head on the crisis of modern development; instead his work often reveals change rather than forces a statement upon it. We smile because he enables us to complete the loop and forecast our own imaginary condition and perhaps solution.

在伯克利，兩位教授對張永和和我的影響非常深遠。一位是斯坦利·塞托維茨，他從南非來到北加州，帶來了他對場所和地域最深切的尊重，同時也展現出對那些顯示出自身力量和能力的無名建筑的充分敬意。這樣的作品是一份禮物，給我們帶來超越效率的更多內涵。另一位與張永和有緣相遇的教授是拉爾斯·萊勒普。萊勒普喜歡對于地方性和時間性進行不懈的探究，也同樣關注建筑的社會包容性，他反復測試設計的主體性和自主性的邊界，他的工作體現出對場地中的每個人、至今為止的每一天的關懷。我猜測如果沒有他的思想帶來的對地方性和無地方性的糾葛，永和不會成為如此徹底的現代主義者。我也認為伯克利是個獨特的治學之地，對地方性和人本身的強烈關注幾乎成了學校的使命，也讓學校的教師們參與到了對受到了當時新興經濟的催化的地域改變的第一線。張永和過去不曾、今天也仍然沒有忘卻這些。伯克利對地區性和建筑的社會屬性的關注的核心是一個強大的愿景：當我們發現了世界上現存需求的局限性，又想對它進行擴展時，應該讓建筑理想成為其中的一股人性化的力量。張的作品顯示出他在反復實驗他的想法時的耐心，通過種種實驗，他也讓我們從他的作品中受到啟發，讓他的發現得以廣為傳播。伯克利的生活是他的人生中一段長久而重要的時期，我相信在北京大學和同濟大學工作的時期也給他帶來了同樣深刻而寶貴的經歷。

4

5

和張永和一樣有聲望的當代建筑師隨著項目和業主在不同的地方來去，而張永和本人在思想和社會兩地不斷往返。他去過的地方、與他共同工作和分享過理念的人回饋了他的慷慨。同時他有助于他看過、經歷過的世界，他的思考為我們所共享，并使得共同的思想得以出現并在建筑中實現。他取得的成果鼓舞人心，這恰恰就是我們集體自我的縮影。□（致謝：非常感謝哥倫比亞大學建筑與規劃研究生院副教授查爾斯·艾爾德雷德對本文提出的編輯意見及指導。）

注釋/Note:

1）作為“在區域城市中發展美國城市、社會和建筑”會議的一部分，戴維·哈維曾于1987年在耶魯建筑學院做了演講；演講的內容之后發表在了院刊上。/David Harvey delivered his lecture at the Yale School of Architecture as part of the conference "Developing the American City, Society and Architecture in the Regional City" in February, 1987. He later published the lecture in the school's journal. 參閱/See: Harvey, David. "Flexible Accumulation through Urbanization Ref l ections on 'Post-Modernism' in the American City." Perspecta 26 (1990):251-72. doi:10.2307/1567167.

You can see the method actor in Chang's work. The bicyclist whose motion carves space inside a building when they were not supposed to be there. The son of China comes home and constructs a rammed earth structure (almost as an homage) but one that is pinched into a triangular shape - perhaps from Malevich? Or a transmission reflecting his affection for a young then paper architect Zaha Hadid. But he never labors the declaration and indeed it is offered almost as simple evidence for us to judge. It is not so much work that is designed and then approved by Chang's own supervision (an intellectual ego)as work that Chang knows is of our now global culture. He does nothing to hide his lineage in the U.S. studying an array of European inf l uences that have often constituted our knowledge base; but he also has a private respect for place and time that allows him to work with a vernacular. The work in its near autonomy reveals how much the world has changed. This shows in the Glass House in Shanghai; a work designed in the United States as paper architecture is realized 20 years later in the midst of an economic explosion. We see a person alone in a crowd; John Hedjuk's "inhabitant who refused to participate" is perhaps an influence in the original project by Chang. Here that inhabitant sits on the edge of the Huangpu River; floorless(glass floor) between a constant line of ships on the evening river (global capital) and a DreamWorks Studios and a David Chipperfield Museum (global culture). Modern Shanghai revealed in the totemic and blind tower that has survived 25 years before it was born. The new inhabitant is now a method actor transposed in time and place.

In a recent lecture in Shanghai I listened as Chang spoke of the need for small architecture or a need to care about even the smallest of works. He was sincerely concerned about the waves of wealth and development that were reshaping China. As someone capable of immense works of architecture and only 25 years past his private drafting table in Berkeley (and Houston, and Ann Arbor and…)he was seeking a way to not retreat but to recall what was at stake. He is not sentimental about architecture but he is in fact quite tough I think in caring about right and wrong. But he is also not a moralist who would preach or impose either. Instead he showed a lineage of works that had inspired him as a student and works that carried in the smallest of decisions a significant architectural thrust.Sigurd Lewerentz was a touchstone in this lecture and as I listened in the back of the room (perhaps 1000 people attended) I was both impressed and concerned. The image he focused on was of a famous architectural detail; a plate of glass that overruns the boundary of its frame and in effect becomes coplanar with the concrete wall of the building. It is a glass and concrete planar composition; a window that fails to stay inside its frame. Lewerentz broke the rules of architectural detail and signification of part to purpose but allowed gravity to be revealed.Chang I think was hoping for an equivalent structure today; one that could be modern and up to the economy and demands of scale that China is currently made of. I was not sure this was possible but I knew it reflected a path from his earliest work to the moment and that I was witnessing a very strong person who was willing to test everything he had learned and been exposed to. He has just begun work of this type in his material experiments such as concrete filled fiberglass structures; but it was the voice and the call to a younger generation in the lecture hall that was deeply impressive. He reimagined himself, I think, as young and emerging,even as he knew he had seen much already. He was so far from his days at Berkeley but also with humor and kindness still so aware of every one of those days - that allowed him to be of the now but also to of f er his experience as a gift to others. You could feel (in the room) the way people understood the generosity of this and you could only hope that he was just beginning again.

At Berkeley two professor had an immense inf l uence on Yung Ho and myself. One was Stanley Saitowitz, who had come from South Africa to Northern California and brought with him the deepest regard for place and geography but also a reverence for an authorless work that revealed its own power and capacity. Such a work was a gift in that it exceeds efficiency and offers more. The other professor whose orbit Chang encountered was Lars Lerup. Lerup, far more uneasy about place and time and more so about the social capacity of architecture nonetheless did more to test a line between agency and autonomy in design that most anyone in the field - and to this day is at the core of his work.I doubt Yung Ho would have emerged as so fully modern without this tug of war between place and place-less-ness. I also believe that Berkeley was a unique zone of enquiry where a concern for the immediacy of place and person - almost endemic the school's mission - also allowed its faculty a front line means to take part in the revisions of territory that the then emerging economy instigated. None of this was or is lost on Chang today. At the core of Berkeley's concern for place and the social nature of architecture was a tough realization: an architectural aspiration to be a humanizing force in the world demands that we find its limits even as we seek to then expand them. There is a quality of patience in Chang's work that allows him to test and re-test ideas and in doing so he in effect makes it possible of us to work from his work and to multiply what he has discovered. Berkeley is a long way past in Chang's day to day life but I would be sure that his connections to Peking University and to Tongji University have similar depth and bear similar gifts.

Contemporary architects of Yung Ho Chang's stature move from place to place for projects and clients. But Yung Ho Chang has and continues to move from intellectual and social places again and again. His generosity is returned by these places and the people he works with and shares ideas with. He is conductive of the world he has seen and experienced and bears ideas that we all share; allowing something collective to gain presence and become real in architecture. It is a deeply inspiring body of work that is in effect a sign of our collective selves.□ (Special thanks to Charles Eldred, Associate Professor of Architecture, adjunct, Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture and Planning for editorial advice and direction.)

Method Acting the Modern: Yung Ho Chang

Michael Bell Translated by HUA Yang, Proofread by SIMA Lei

Yung Ho Chang's emergence as a voice in architecture was concurrent with the emergence of the newly global city. Chang and LU Lijia shaped a practice that reflects this global context as well as the immediacy of their own experience. As a newly global financial network altered the make up of territory worldwide Chang and LU have in effect participated at the highest levels yet also revealed details of place and time that place architecture off center or apart. A kind of method acting that is based in the story but does little to represent the fictional character of the script. Chang's career spans that of an early and existential paper architecture and a practice that shapes entire campuses, office parks and housing.The everyday and the global meet in the perception of a single person and Chang in effect sustains his earliest work even as he innovates at contemporary thresholds.

Yung Ho Chang, FCJZ, autonomy, vernacular,fl exible accumulation of capital, urbanism, architecture

哥倫比亞大學/Columbia University

2017-09-23