长谷川豪对谈:时间中的建筑

THE BUILDING IN TIME

在台北新福市场改造中,你提到20世纪是以制造的逻辑为特征,21世纪需要一个基于环境的建筑学。具体是什么意思?

在经济的驱动下,20世纪是生产的时代。作为经济的产物和象征,建筑是经济发展的一部分。近年来,生态和可持续性的问题带来了更高的环境意识——而且,大多数关于生态或建筑可持续性的讨论都是教条的,仍然具有上个世纪生产逻辑的特征。最近的转变是一个很好的机会。但要想有效,我们必须从历史、社会、文化、自然等各个方面考虑环境的概念。这种全方位的理解将使建筑在塑造建筑环境中再次占据主导地位。这就是我们对新福市场的改造,我们试图给旧建筑赋予当代意义,并以此连接过去、现在和未来。

日本建筑的寿命很短,这一点对欧洲人来说很引人注目,而且似乎与我们目前的讨论有些矛盾。

我知道,但我没有放弃建筑永恒的梦想。我总是试图相信我的建筑将屹立数百年。然而,撇开个人意愿不谈,一般来说,房子或建筑物总是过去和未来之间的一个中继。显然,建筑的延续在日本的时间比在欧洲短,但它仍然存在,我们必须考虑,我们必须考虑如何制定它。

但是,如何在规划100年的同时兼顾特定的生活方式,就像你在共同社(Kyodo)的房子里所做的那样,那里的整个一楼都是为了展示你的客户对漫画的热情?

我怀疑标准化的房子没有那么多的约束力。如果我们考虑到标准本身总是随着时间的推移而变化,这似乎更正确。相反,有一些非常具体的解决方案是持久的。例如,赖特住宅的低矮天花板,几乎是标准的,至今仍备受赞赏。我感兴趣的是通过一个客户非常具体的要求,给出一个能够同时适应其他居民的回应。因此,我们面临的挑战是通过一个非常具体的空间解决方案来提出一个通用的解决方案。既然我们可以同时拥有普遍性和个体性,为什么我们要在二者之间选择呢?

我不怀疑。但是有一些不同的时间因素在利害关系中:建筑的时间和客户的特定需求的短得多的时间,比如你在樱岛的姐姐的房子的大工作台。

我姐姐是个老师,需要很多地方放她的零碎东西。于是我提议用一张大桌子,让她和我的两个外甥在一个角落里工作。前一段时间,我姐姐打电话告诉我,她退休后可能会把这个有大桌子的地方改造成一个社区空间,供邻居的孩子们使用。我很惊讶,因为说实话,我从来没有想过这样一个创新的解释。事实上,即使是一个非常具体的解决方案,如果经过深思熟虑,也会对未来产生未知的潜力。一些空间甚至可以激发居民的想象力。如果坚持强迫性的标准,这是不可能的。这似乎是一种矛盾,但这正是我在寻找的:一个具有典型品质的原型。

在一篇文章中,你甚至认为同一个人对同一栋建筑的感知可能会随着时间或不同的观点而改变。

是的。这是一种美好的体验,随着时间的推移,人们对空间的感受也会不同。不知何故,空间与我们同在。

不像在一个家庭的房子里,一个人可以与一个特定的客户打交道,在出租的大楼里就不是这样了……

租房的好处和乐趣在于有可能进行选择、比较,甚至是改变。我相信选择的可能性对设计有很大的潜力。许多建筑师低估了出租公寓和出售公寓之间的差别。

这就是为什么你在冈手町的公寓里每层都要改变楼层布局的原因吗?没有一间公寓是一样的。

是的,Nerima的公寓也是如此,有各种各样的阳台。每个公寓都是不同的,这个模式非常成功。一周内所有的公寓都租出去了。但在Nerima,公寓只是通过一条简单的走廊相连,而在冈手町,我尝试强调公共的室内空间。这是所有必要的,因为附近是嘈杂和不安全的。过渡空间的衔接成为项目的主要主题。

In relation to the Renovation of the Shin-Fu Market in Taipei, you argued that while the 20th century was characterized by a logic of production, the 21st century would require an environment-based approach to architecture. What did you mean by this?

Economy driven, the 20th century was the era of production. Being a product and a symbol of this economy, architecture was part of this development. In recent years, questions of ecology and sustainability have brought a higher awareness of the environment— also most of the discussions on ecology or sustainability in architecture are dogmatic and still very much characterized by the productive logic of the last century. This recent shift is a great opportunity. But to be effective we must think the concept of environment in all its dimensions: historical, social, cultural, natural, etc. This all-encompassing understanding would allow architecture to take again a leading position in shaping the built environment. This is how we approached the renovation of the Shin-Fu Market, where we tried to give a contemporary signification to an old structure and by this to connect past, present and future.

What is striking for a European, and seems somehow in contradiction with the discussion we have had so far, is the short life span of Japanese buildings.

I know that, but I haven’t given up on the dream of eternity. I always try to believe that my buildings will stand for hundreds of years. Nevertheless, independent of personal wishes, a house or a building in general is always a relay between the past and the future. Obviously the duration of this relay is shorter in Japan than it is in Europe, but it still exists and has to be taken into account, and we have to think of how to formulate it.

But how to plan for one hundred years and at the same time take in account specific lifestyles, as you do for instance in your House in Kyodo, where the entire ground floor is dedicated to your client’s passion for mangas?

I doubt that standardized houses are not as much binding. This seems even more true if we take in account that the idea of a standard itself is always changing over time. On the contrary, there are some very specific solutions that endure. For instance the low ceilings of Frank Lloyd Wright houses, which are all but standard, are still very much appreciated. What I am interested in is to give through a very specific demand of a client, a response that could suit other inhabitants. The challenge therefore is to propose through a very specific spatial solution a universal one. Why should we choose between universality and individuality, if we can have both?

I don’t doubt. But there are different temporalities at stake: the temporality of the building and the much shorter time of the client’s specific needs, like the large working table that fills up the courtyard of your sister’s House in Sakuradai.

My sister is a teacher and needs a lot of space for her odds and ends. Thus I proposed this immense table on which she and my nephews can work, each in a corner. Sometime ago my sister called and told me that she may, when retired, transform this space with its huge table into a community space for the kids of the neighborhood. I was surprised, as honestly I had never thought about such an innovative interpretation. Indeed even a very specific solution holds an unknown potential for the future if it’s thought through. Some spaces can even stimulate the imagination of the inhabitants. This would not be possible by sticking to obsessive standards. It might seem a contradiction but that’s what I am looking for: a prototype with archetypical qualities.

In an essay you even argue that the perception of one and the same building by the same person may change through time or through different viewpoints.

Yes. It’s a beautiful experience, that space can be felt differently through time. Space is somehow living with us.

Unlike in a one-family house, where one can engage with a specific client, in a rental building this is not the case…

The advantage and somehow also the pleasure of renting is the possibility of choice, comparison, and even change. I am convinced that the possibility of choice has a great potential for design. Many architects underestimate the differences between an apartment for rent and one for sale.

Is this why you varied the floors plans from floor to floor in your Apartments in Okachimachi? There no apartment is the same.

Yes, and this is also true for the Apartments in Nerima, with its various balconies. Every apartment is different, a model that was very successful. In one week all the apartments were rented. But whereas in Nerima the apartments are just connected with a simple corridor, I tried in Okachimachi to emphasize the common interior spaces. This was all the more necessary because the neighborhood is noisy and unsafe. The articulation of this transitional space became the main topic of the project.

目录