我們的建筑文化

卡斯·卡恩/Kees Kaan

戴安娜·貝福德 荷譯英/Translated from Dutch by Dianna Beaufort

尚晉 英譯中/Translated from English by SHANG Jin

作者單位：代爾夫特理工大學建筑學院，卡恩建筑事務所/Delft University of Technology's Faculty of Architecture,KAAN Architecten

建筑項目在歐洲所用的時間——從客戶與建筑師的最初接觸到竣工和入住——是很長的。這是一個緩慢的過程，比諸多重大社會變革都要遲緩，比技術革新更是緩慢得多。建筑不可能只在紙上完成，而是要建成，隨后建筑就會成為建筑世界的一部分。

建筑不只是使用者復雜功能的物質表現。在這里談及的“建筑”，我指的是在技術和專業知識的支持下，從理解設計，到把建筑物變成現實的全過程。好的設計會彌合復雜、具體的使用者需求與大眾利益之間的溝壑，滿足使用者的愿望和要求，并尊重當地的環境和文化。看似相互沖突的要素可以使建筑產生意外的特性。建筑只有在兼顧使用者及周邊環境時才是好的。僅僅集中在臨時性使用或針對特定時間的用途上，玩弄當代雜糅的建筑是荒唐的嘗試，這是沒有未來的。

荷蘭的文化對于發展常規建筑很理想。這里的文化共識沒有為天才天馬行空的創造力留出空間。房產開發的管理方式讓參與這一過程或與之間接相關的各方都有權爭取各自的利益或提出關注點。開發的過程已經演變成一種職業化的競技場。建筑師已經放棄了作為大匠的控制權，而且已不是決定建造方式的唯一權威，只是今天利益各方的專業顧問。設計是由顧問和客戶團隊引導的過程創造出來的，他們都對最終結果負有責任。建筑師的職責是激發靈感、敘事、進行概念化設想并做管理。

1 荷蘭最高法院草圖/Sketch, supreme court of the Netherlands（圖片來源/Source: KAAN Architecten）

量體裁衣是在同一理念上不斷積累的長久傳統。它可能發展演化，但絕不是突變。西服的造型可以變化，但其概念是不變的：由一系列準確的測量和正確的決策構成。做工的精準將決定造型和最終的質量。相似地，建筑也是一種造型千變萬化的量體裁衣：因地制宜。一種概念的發展和細化并走向成熟需要建筑師的博學和專注。建筑不是把最新的技巧塞滿屋子，而是通過智慧使之融合并經營出來的。一旦建筑師將自己從強制創新的高壓中解放出來，新的機遇就會出現，帶來變革的可能。

多年來，我逐漸明白荷蘭建筑師是在一種特定的職業化環境中實踐的。然而，這對建筑師的職責和國家的建筑發展也有深遠的影響。荷蘭有一種強大的空間規劃傳統：城市空間、基礎設施、建筑——一切都是規劃好的。我們的景觀是完全人工的，由人制造出來的，每一寸空間都要記錄、設計和分區。荷蘭水務局剛剛慶祝了200周年紀念，我們的《住房法》也有逾100年的歷史了。20世紀制定了一系列關于空間規劃的政策文件。荷蘭人認為由政府負責全國的設計是完全正常的，即使是在社會民主理念被拋棄40年之后。許多家不同類型的機構和公司都在致力于為荷蘭做設計。客戶都非常專業，而任務十分艱巨。最近的經濟崩潰的確對此造成了沖擊，卻沒有帶來任何重大變化。在荷蘭，建筑是一種大眾市場產品。

從1980年到2000年，當我開始做建筑師時發生了一次文化政治的重大轉折，很多職責從公共領域轉到了私人領域。這種轉折暗示著二戰后形成的社會模式轉向了更實用、也因此更商業化的模式：新自由主義模式。如今的情況已發展到將戰略決策交給市場的階段。“符合市場”的理念幾乎會在每場對話中出現。競爭力的發揮被視為實現歐洲夢的關鍵：成為世界上最具競爭力的知識經濟體。很明顯，這意味著長遠的思考和完備的規劃已然讓位于奇思妙想。

我們的文化共識和建筑服務的大規模職業化同實用性和對市場作用的把控結合在一起，形成了一種有趣的混合狀態。在世紀末的經濟繁榮期，荷蘭成了設計師和建筑師的天堂，吸引著國際上的關注。這種大肆宣傳是好的營銷，而建筑師成了概念營造者和溝通專家。在當時，概念比建筑更重要，而超現代主義達到了巔峰。

建造

我的個人觀點是建筑存在于建造過程本身，這使我免于盲從于這種發展的浪潮（包括超現代主義）。我們傾向于在變化的環境中尋找機會，與歐洲的傳統建立連接——不是因為保守，而是出于一個信念：高品質的建筑源于這種相互作用。每個委托項目都會要求建筑師創作滿足市場需求的建筑，同時為解決文化社會變革帶來的問題創造機會。

我和之前的合伙人菲利克斯·克勞斯在作為青年建筑師時，獲得了許多設計建筑和進行主題創作的機會。我們有幸能為每個項目選擇一個與之相關的特定主題：每座建筑一個主題或創意。每個項目都以一種開放的思維去面對，沒有暗藏任何先入為主的建筑野心，并對項目的本質進行研究，看我們能否發掘出隱藏在項目中的建筑潛力。

任何建筑項目都不可避免地經歷漫長而艱難的過程。這不再是業主與建造者之間的簡單溝通。我更愿意說它是一種完全不可預見的現象：一個充斥著多個玩家和眾多利益，甚至相互沖突利益的競技場。建筑項目委托的職業化被業主抽象為一種特殊形式，讓管理者接受一系列任務委托，然后在歐洲諸多項目漫長的時間框架中來回往復。委托人不再是一種明確的實體。建筑師不能讓自己與項目有過于親近的關系。建造者和業主都從舞臺上消失了，被一群蠅營狗茍的人取而代之。對項目的主宰感或創意的主導力已不復存在。項目屬于每個人，也不屬于任何人——這取決于爭論的成功與否。

設計

我對這些狀況的自然反應是尋找任務的本質，并嘗試以清晰、單純的建筑概念去把握它，而不是妥協。這個概念成了項目背后的驅動力，而不是建筑師。它能被所有人理解，或是贊同或是厭惡。這個概念是以一種帶有強烈意象的可識別形式來表達的，它是探索普遍性和共同價值的直接邏輯產物，也是對特定問題的一種可持續的解決方法。

2 荷蘭最高法院，施工中，2014/Supreme court of the Netherlands, under construction, 2014（2-4攝影/Photos: Dominique Panhuysen）

這就是設計開始的地方。□

The amount of time a building project takes in Europe – from first contact between client and architect to completion and delivery – is long. Architecture is a slow process, slower than many major social changes and even slower than technological changes. Architecture can't be made on paper, you have to build. Buildings may, in turn,become part of the world of architecture.

Architecture cannot simply be a material manifestation of a complex user programme. When I say "architecture", I mean the thing that results from skills and expertise, from understanding design and how to bring buildings to fruition. Good design bridges the gap between complex, specific user needs and the interests of the general public, it allows users'desires and requirements to be met while respecting the local environment and culture. Elements that may seem conflicting can be turned into features that add unexpected quality. A building is only good when it works well for both users and its surroundings.Architecture that merely focuses on temporary use or a time-specific programme and flirts with contemporary concoctions is an exercise in folly; it has no future.

The Netherlands has an ideal culture for conventional architecture. The cultural consensus here leaves no room for the unbridled creativity of a genius. Property development has been regulated in such a way that all parties involved or tangential to the process have a right to voice their interests or concerns. The development process has evolved into a very professional arena. Architects have relinquished control as master builders and are not the sole authority on how to build, but are now professional advisors in teams of interested parties.The design is the result of a process navigated by a team of consultants and the client, all of whom are responsible for the final outcome. The role of the architect is one of inspiration, storytelling,conception and management.

Bespoke tailoring is an enduring tradition that always builds on the same idea. It may change and evolve, but never radically. The idea of a suit is constant, but the shapes can change. The real goal is a correct series of measurements and decisions. The precision with which these are executed determines the shape and final quality. Similarly, architecture is a concept of tailoring that can take on an infinite number of shapes. The development and detailing of a concept, and bringing it to maturity, demands a heigh level of knowledge and concentration from an architect. Architecture is made not by stuffing buildings full of the latest fascinating technologies,but by inserting and managing them intelligently.Once architects free themselves from the tyranny of forced innovation, new opportunities arise and evolution is made possible.

Over the years it has become clear to me that architects in the Netherlands operate in a particularly professionalized context. However,this also has far-reaching consequences for the role of architects and the development of architecture in this country. There is a strong spatial planning tradition: urban space, infrastructure, buildings –everything is planned. Our landscape is entirely artificial, man-made, with every inch of space documented, designed and zoned. Rijkswaterstaat,the Dutch agency for water management, recently celebrated 200 years and ourHousing Lawsare also more than a century old. The 20th century produced a series of policy documents on spatial planning.The Dutch finds it completely normal for the government to be responsible for the design of the whole country, even 40 years after social-democratic ideals were stripped down. A conglomeration of institutions and companies are dedicated to the design of the Netherlands. The clients are very professional and the job is big. The most recent economic crash did put a dent in this, but it hasn't led to any major changes. In the Netherlands,architecture is a mass-market product.

3 荷蘭最高法院，施工中，2014/Supreme court of the Netherlands, under construction, 2014（2-4攝影/Photos: Dominique Panhuysen）

4 荷蘭最高法院，施工中，2014/Supreme court of the Netherlands, under construction, 2014（2-4攝影/Photos: Dominique Panhuysen）

Between 1980 and 2000, when I was starting out as an architect, a significant cultural and political shift occurred in which responsibilities and initiatives moved away from the public sector into the private realm. Implicit in this shift was the departure from the post-war social model developed after WWII, towards a more pragmatic and consequently more commercial model: the neoliberal model. The situation has now developed to the point of strategic decisions being left to the market. The notion of "market conformity"is mentioned in almost every conversation. The working of competitive forces is seen as essential to the realization of the European dream: becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. Evidently, long-term thinking and planning have made way for the hegemony of whimsy.

The combination of our cultural consensus and the large-scale professionalization of architectural services with its pragmatism and grasp of market forces produced an interesting mix. During the economic boom at the end of the century, the Netherlands became a paradise for designers and architects, attracting international attention. The hype was good marketing and the architect became a conceptualist and communications specialist.Concepts were more important than buildings.Supermodernism was at its peak.

Building

My personal conviction that architecture is to be found in the building process itself kept me from fully riding the waves of this development(including supermodernism). We tended to look for opportunities, within the changing context, to establish connections with European traditions, not out of conservatism but based on the belief that quality architecture results from this interaction.Every commission asks the architect to make a building that meets the needs of the market, but also provides opportunities to resolve issues brought to be by cultural and social changes.

We, my former partner Felix Claus and I, were given a lot of opportunities as young architects to design buildings and work thematically. We were lucky enough to be able to choose a specific, relevant theme for every project: a single theme or idea for every building. Each project was approached with an open mind, without preconceived notions about any architectural ambitions that may have been inherent in the commission. The essence of the project itself was studied to see whether we could unearth the architectural potential hidden within the project.

A long and difficult process is innate to any building project. It's no longer a simple case of a conversation between a patron and a builder. I would sooner say it's a totally unpredictable phenomenon,a playing field with multiple players and many, even conflicting, interests. The professionalization of commissioning buildings has been abstracted by the patron to a form in which managers have been delegated a series of tasks, and they come and go within the extensive timeframes of projects in Europe.The commissioner is no longer a clear entity. The architect cannot allow himself to feel too personally connected to the project. Both the builder and patron have disappeared from the stage, being replaced by incestuous coalitions of a range of characters. The sense of ownership over a project or idea leadership is gone. The project belongs to everyone and no one,depending on the achieved success.

Designing

My natural response to these situations is to look for the essence of the task and to try to capture it without compromise, in a clear and simple architectural idea. This idea, not the architect, becomes the driving force behind the project. It can be understood by all and will be either embraced or loathed. The idea is expressed in a recognizable form with strong imagery and it is a direct and logical outcome of the search for universality and shared values, but it is also a sustainable solution to a specific question.

This is where designing begins. □