平台原创,影音文字图片的版权均为GARLIC所有,若您需要引用、转载,请来信告知,获取授权。未经GARLIC允许,不得盗用本站资源;不得复制或仿造本网站。如有侵权行为,必将追究法律责任。

The Figure

Charles Waldheim

John E. Irving Professor at Harvard Graduate School of Design

 Director of Office for Urbanization at GSD

Chair of the Department of Landscape Architecture(2009 – 2015)

Associate Dean of and Director of  Master of Landscape Architecture program at University of Toronto(2004-2009)

Recipient of the Rome Prize Fellowship 

Author, editor, or co-editor of numerous books 

Charles Waldheim

哈佛大学设计学院John E. Irving教授

哈佛大学设计学院都市工作室负责人

哈佛大学景观系前系主任(2009 – 2015)

多伦多大学设计学院前副院长及景观系负责人

(2004-2009)

罗马奖奖学金获奖者

编撰过多部景观与都市化相关著作

The Interview

Many people think that landscape architects’ jobs were to deal with trees, dirts, and residual space in the city. However, you have a different opinion. You argued for the landscape architect’s first commission as Olmsted and Vaux first did was not for designing a park, a pleasure ground, or a garden. But it was planning for the northern Manhattan. Landscape architect was originally conceived as professional responsible for designing the shape of the city, rather than exceptions to it. This argument brings about the question-what is the identity of our profession as landscape architecture? How do you define its role?

目前大众认为景观建筑师的主要职责是处理树木,挖土,以及设计城市剩余空间。而您有不同的观点,您认为景观建筑师的第一使命如OlmstedVaux所为,并非简单的设计公园、休闲场所以及花园,而是规划北曼哈顿。景观设计师应当被设想为一个关于设计城市形态的专业领域,而非仅仅是城市中的剩余空间。所以您认为什么才是景观设计师的职责所在?您怎么定义景观设计师的具体职责

I think it’s a crucial question. And I also believe that in the academy we are engaged in discourse –disciplinary formation, professional identity. I think these things consistently debated, hashed out over generations. So, I have been working last several years to write a history of the origin of the field that were true. It’s also, I think it’s useful to the role of the landscape architect working today as an urbanist.

我认为这是一个非常关键的问题。在学术领域,我们一直在探讨,包括学科建制,专业特色,这些问题被各个时期的设计师们不断论辩。所以,在过去的几年中,我在专注于编写关于正确的景观设计学科起源及发展史的书。待该书出版我相信有助于理解致力于解决城市问题的景观设计师的角色。

纽约中央公园 | © https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park

“In periods of economic disruption, periods of economic crisis, when those patterns of street production are disrupted,landscape is invoked or called upon often to ameliorate those conditions. In part, this is because of landscape is faster, cheaper, and more responsive, more flexible. But it is also true that landscape has been invoked because of its potential for addressing the societal and environmental challenges that come with economic disruption.”

“《景观都市主义》一书曾提及,在经济动荡,经济危机时期,固有的形成规律将被打破,这时景观将被召唤,或者调用,来改善这些情况。因为景观设计具备速度快,造价低,以及灵活且更具弹性的特点并且具有潜力解决经济动荡所带来的社会及环境的挑战。”

Your new book “landscape as urbanism” mentioned that It’s not a coincidence that landscape has just “emerged” in the last 10 to 15 years, but in fact there is structural relationship between transformations in the industrial economy and the spaces that they produce which has led landscape to be more relevant in contemporary cities. I am curious how that economic structure refines the focus, goals, and agenda for landscape as urbanism?

在您《景观都市主义》一书中提到在过去的数十年中景观设计的兴起并非巧合,而实质上是因工业经济的转型及它所产生的空间之间的决定性关系,使得景观设计对于当代城市而言尤为重要。那么经济结构是如何决定景观都市主义关注的焦点,目标以及进程的呢?

As you said the thesis of the new book is to argue for a structural relationship between landscape as a medium of design and the shape of the city in its economic transformations. So, we began by saying, clearly cities are the resultants of economic processes among other things; and that most often, when those processes are very stable over long periods of time, they produce an equivalence stability in spatial form. Most often that stability in spatial form has been registered in spatial terms through buildings, infrastructure and certain predictable patterns of growth. My argument in the book is that in periods of economic disruption, periods of economic crisis, when those patterns of street production are disrupted,landscape is invoked or called upon often to ameliorate those conditions.

正如你所说,Landscape As Urbanism一书在讨论经济转型背景下,景观作为设计媒介与城市形态之间的结构关系。我们在书的开头就写到,比起其他而言,城市无疑是经济发展进程中的产物。大部分的情况下,经济的发展过程是非常稳定的,这样也造就了相对平衡稳定的空间形式。同样的,大部分情况下,这个稳定的空间形式成为了我们研究的术语,他们表现在建筑,基础设施和可以预测的增长规律中。而我在书里,则是认为在经济动荡,经济危机时期,这些固有的形成规律将被打破,这时景观将被召唤,或者调用,来改善这些情况。

Charles Waldheim的著作Landscape As Urbanism | © http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10694.html

In part, this is because of landscape is faster, cheaper, and more responsive, more flexible. But it is also true that landscape has been invoked because of its potential for addressing the societal and environmental challenges that come with economic disruption. So, my argument is that in the second half of the 19th century was the origin of the field, the claiming of the new profession.In the middle of the 20th century with the kind of development of mature Fordism, decentralization, and then more recently under the rubric of landscape urbanism in the last 15 years. These are three moments that landscape has been found useful to respond to economic transformations,but it disrupted patterns of spatial reproduction.

一部分原因在于景观设计具备速度快、造价低,以及灵活且更具弹性的特点。但同时也因为景观设计具有潜力解决经济动荡所带来的社会及环境的挑战。因此,我认为十九世纪下半叶是景观设计学兴起的时间;二十世纪中叶的发展伴随着福特主义兴盛,和地方分权;而近15年来是在“景观都市主义”的规程下。这是景观设计被认为具有应对经济结构变化的能力的三个时期,但它也打破了以往城市空间形态复制的模式。

You have mentioned in your early lectures being said that the most recently renewal of landscape architecture for contemporary urbanism has less to do with the application of ecology as tool for regional planning which were central to Ian McHarg’s agenda, rather they have more to do with changes in industry economy underpinning our work and the design culture. I am curious about what is the design culture that landscape architect can contribute specifically in our material world?

您在之前的演讲中提到,景观对于当代都市最近的更新与生态学作为区域规划工具的关系越来越小,而和涉及我们的工作与设计文化下工业经济的变革的关系越来越大。我很好奇什么是景观设计师应当贡献的设计文化呢?

Broadly speaking, in the middle second half of the 20th century, the project for regional planning, or ecological planning was quite strong. And I think that both McHarg, as he mentioned and his colleagues at Penn,but also Carl Steinitz at Harvard, were both working in different ways on kind of parallel projects in which the region was both the unit of ecological analysis. So, college was applying nature science in which the ecological region, or the watershed was the principal lens to the analysis. It was also the scale through which spatial intervention or spatial planning was meant to be applied. This of course depended upon over expected, as forms of regional or municipal governance at that scale.

So, what I say is that, both the development of GIS here at Harvard, or the work of Ian McHarg at Penn, these were radically successful projects that changed our field for the better, globally. And yet they reached a limit precisely because of the fact that we chose in the west, not to plan our cities at the regional scale. We seem not to build the political mechanisms, we seem not to build the regulatory mechanism. So, we get better ecological data that we never had. We get better tools for mapping that we never had. And in fact, the intellectual premises around regional planning persist with us today.  And yet it’s been through the ascendency of design culture in the last two decades, the landscape has been joining the renaissance, or the recovery. In part, it has to do with the fact that we decided to allow our cities to be much more an expression of private or neoliberal capital. And that regard designers brought together a combination of ecological literacy with the capacity to improve environmental conditions and to urbanize in certain ways. Most often that is not at the scale of a region.

广泛的说,在20世纪中叶,有很多强健的关于区域规划和生态规划的项目。我认为伊恩·麦克哈格,和他在宾大的同事们,包括哈佛的卡尔·斯坦尼兹,都在以不同的方式做相似并行的项目。这些项目中,生态分析的单位都是地区(或区域)。所以,学院应用了自然科学,其中生态区域和水流域是分析的基本视角。在这个尺度是非常适宜空间创造和空间规划的。当然这也取决于被寄予过度期望的区域政府。

所以,我想说的是,GIS在哈佛的发展,和麦克哈格在宾大的研究,都是在全球范围改变了我们的领域、使之更好的十分成功的项目。但是他们还是到达了一个瓶颈,主要因为在西方我们的城市不是在区域尺度规划的。我们似乎没有建立政治机制,我们似乎也没有建立监管机制,所以,我们得到了我们从未有过的更好的生态数据,我们也找到了最好的绘图的工具。

并且事实上,区域规划的知识理论前提今天依然在我们身边。然而,在过去的二十年中即便它一直贯穿在设计文化的优越中,但风景园林其实已经加入了复兴,或者恢复的行列。在某种程度上, 这与我们决定允许我们的城市更多地表达私人或新自由主义资本的事实有关。而且,设计师将生态认知与改善环境条件的能力结合起来,以某种方式进行城市化。大多数情况下,(这些项目)都已经不再是一个地区的规模了。

The smart of Ian McHarg’s land suitability analysis such as layered maps for Staten Island predicted precisely where the flooded area after hurricane Sandy. In United States, it seems they lack the political and economic conditions to be able to enact that kind of preventive planning. However, in China, given its top-down political structure, the decision makers now are having the strong aspiration to restore the deconstructed ecology on a great scale such as regional scale or even national scale to create ecological security planning for the country. My question is how we can use landscape as a tool to protect the ecological security? Why landscape architect is relevant?

麦克哈格的机智在于土地可持续性分析,比如对于斯塔滕岛洪涝地区的精准预测地图。在美国,对于预防性规划似乎缺少必要的政治经济条件。然而基于中国的自上而下的政治结构,决策者非常渴望在区域尺度下、甚至全国范围内修复被破坏的生态环境。我的问题是我们怎样利用景观作为保护生态安全的工具?为什么景观设计师是相关的角色?

Well I think you’re correct. I think you’re right to point to Staten Island and the work of Ian Mcharg and a range of others working with Wallace Roberts & Todd. In that context, this is a good example of the fact that, the science is quite well known. The reality is in this country there is a venture right of return. That’s very difficult for any public official and the public is either elected or appointed for them to prevent people from returning to their communities after disaster. Even when we know, they are precisely in the wrong place, let’s say scientifically. As you say it’s true that in the political economy in East Asia is certainly in the Mainland China. There are different contexts. And so for example that Yu Kongjian of Turenscape. He did his doctoral work here at Harvard working with scientists. He’s now bringing back in proposals to the national level federal level in China that idea of the ecological security plan, which I don’t know about its potential or where it is politically in terms of its adoption. But I find it on the one hand heartening to think that it might be possible to plan a continental scale or on a national scale and certainly not political context. There might be the possibility for that kind of project. At the same moment, I find it also, ironic. It’s ironic that somehow you know this was a knowledge transfer from a research university here at Harvard, people like Richard Forman who were working for many decades producing knowledge. The third term in Kongjian Yu is dealing with decision making game theory and so a combination of landscape ecology, mapping and planning with game theory could somehow impact Chinese planning. I find it really fascinating.

你说得对。你对于麦克哈格和WRT对斯塔滕岛的工作的例子看法是正确的。在那样的背景下,这是一个极好的例子,也是基于我们对科学有很好的认知。实际上,在美国这个国家,你有冒险回到原属地的权利。对于竞选或者指派的官员,阻止人们灾后返回家园是非常困难的。即使我们通过科学推测知道,他们明确地在危险的区域。就像你说的,东亚的政治经济中心确实在中国大陆,其环境与美国是不同的。我们以土人景观的俞孔坚举例。他在哈佛完成了博士学位。现在则将他的生态安全规划构想带回国内向中国的政治阶级宣传,虽然我不清楚其在政治应用方面的潜力。

一方面我认为能够从洲际尺度、国家尺度规划非常激励人心,你真的能让这种规模的项目变成可能。但同一时间,也有些讽刺。你知道这些知识是从哈佛这样一所研究性大学传播出去的。像Richard Forman这样的学者在这里耕耘了几十年,而第三代的学者,像俞孔坚,却用他的“博弈理论”,就是结合了景观生态学、地图测绘、规划和他的博弈理论一起,影响了中国的规划。这真是很有趣。

Ian McHarg, Staten Island study | © http://roopurbandesignseminar.blogspot.com/2016/10/design-nature-and-influence-ian-mcharg.html

In LAF’s declaration this spring, you argued that landscape architecture as a profession has experienced three important moments. The first moment was Olmsted and Vaux invented the field itself. The second moment was the in 1960s with the declaration of Ian McHarg and his colleagues’ works at Penn and Carl Steinitz’s works at Harvard GSD around regional ecological planning. And the third moment happened in the last two decades during which country transformed to new industrial economy. I am curious about what’s the next moment will be given the contemporary urbanism trend in a global context?

今年夏天的景观基金会的宣言中,你声明了景观领域有三个重要的里程碑。第一是当奥姆斯特德和沃克斯建立这个领域之时;第二是在1960年宾大的麦克哈格及其哈佛同事卡尔·史坦尼斯关于区域生态规划的宣言;第三则是过去二十年来,国家不断向新工业经济转型。我很好奇,全球范围的当代城市化潮流的下一个里程碑是什么呢?

There are two ways to think about this. On the one hand as I said I believe that landscape is most relevant in periods of economic transformation, economic crisis. And I think that in some ways we’re still in a moment of economic uncertainty economic crisis today. We’ll see how the next decades play out. Another way of understanding this has to do with what are other design disciplines are engaged in, architecture, urban design and planning. And so, I think in both cases I would say that the present moment, the landscape urbanism moment we’re still in the midst of what I would characterize as a kind of mature phase, of an operational phase. But at the same moment I think that an interesting landscape urbanism is being rapidly absorbed into normative practice in architecture and design and urban planning. For me what I see right now is a continuity of these present conditions. We see industry moving a kind of mobility industry around the globe with labor rates and environmental conditions dictating where capital flows will go. So industry will continue to move.My suspicion is that industry will continue to move toward places cheaper and more flexible labor relations.And as that happens I think that we’ll find sites that are left in the wake of a certain formof industry that need to be mediated, that need to be re-urbanized in a different way.At the same moment in the West living in the city is still considered increasingly to be desirableand it will continue to be associated with being a luxury goodas Bloomberg said about living and working in Manhattan a few years ago.In that context, what we’ll continue to see are sites of former industrial activity being convertedfor new forms of urbanization.And most often in a way in which the role of landscape architects I think will continue to be quite relevant for many years.

我认为有两种角度来考虑这个问题。一方面来说,我相信景观跟经济转型、经济危机密切相关。并且我相信某种程度上,我们仍然处在一个经济不稳定的时代中。我们将见证未来几十年会怎么变化。另一方面,要理解这个问题,必须了解其他领域在聚焦于什么,像是建筑、城市设计、规划领域。所以我认为两方面来说,景观都市主义的现阶段,我们仍处于我所定义的成熟阶段之前,是一个运作中的阶段。

但与此同时,我认为一种有趣的景观都市主义正在被建筑、城市设计的标准化实践快速吸收。我现在看到的还是现状的延续。我们看到基于劳动力和环境质量的工业全球化移动,暗示了资本流向。所以工业会继续移动。我的猜测是工业会继续向有低成本、灵活关系的劳动力资源的地方移动。进而我们将发现具有某种形式工业残留的场地,需要被净化并以其他方式重塑。与此同时,在西方世界,居住于城市的意愿被认为在增长,并且是一种奢侈,就像布鲁伯格几年前描述的在曼哈顿的工作与生活。在这一背景下,我们将看到更多后工业场地被转换成新的城市化形式,而景观设计师的角色也会在很多年内越来越多的也与之密切相关。

There have been many researches going on around landscape as urbanism at GSD which related to the large territorial impacts such as resource extraction, energy production, logistics, material flows, and etc. Those topics seem for me are new ways of understanding our living environment by understanding those invisible flows at first and then people are trying to find the strategic position to intervene. Why is it important to understand the contemporary urbanism in that way? What are the advantages of it compared with the traditional understanding of living environment and what are the interesting findings there?

有很多哈佛的景观都市主义方向的研究都与巨大的土地有关,比如资源挖掘、能源生产、物流后勤等等。这些议题对我来说,通过理解隐形的流动,是理解我们生存环境的新形式,进而人们试图寻找策略性的解决方式。为什么要以这种方式来理解当代都市呢?这种方式与传统的对环境的理解相比有什么优势?

networked corridors in Boston, projected by Allison Dailey, Harvard GSD student. | © https://scenariojournal.com/lu-landscape-urbanism-now/

Situated historically, for my generation of urbanists trained as architects looked as urbanists,we weren’t given very good tools with respect to history and theory, and we were given very good tools with respect to the shape of the tradition city, or the core of the center. But most often, we tended to not be as acutely aware of all of the externalities of both natural resources, infrastructural, economics, all of the flows that underpin and enable urbanization. I recall reading in 1990’s, two articles, one by Alex Wall and Susan Snyder, and one by Alexander Lepore, each one of them pointing to logistics and landscape in the 90’s as relevant. I remember that Alex Wall and Susan Snyder did this amazing diagram of Manhattan as kind of venue for consumption and destination.  And they also mapped in the same scale all of the back of houses, all the ports, all the infrastructure, and in New Jersey, all of the backstage material required to enable that kind of consumption and destination experience. And I found that really quite important as a breakthrough. I think many people have found this line of inquiry productive, not that to suggest the structural focus will replace of the city, but it’s the relationship, it’s the dialect, it’s the tension between those things. Many of my colleagues here would image that Manhattan is the most sustainable urban form that we have, and that may be true, until you want milk. And milk complicates the matrix immediately. So in that relationship, a part of what I found productive here is to think about our interests, our history of urban design, planning, looking at the city as a side piece or as destination, and looking at that in relationship to the global network, global resources, global flows that enable the urbanization. Of course, the work of some colleagues here are quite central to that.

在历史的洪流中,我这一代城市规划师诞生于建筑师的训练中,我们没有被给予与很好的历史和理论工具,但我们被赋予了了解传统城市的形态、或者城市中心相关的很好的工具。大部分的情况下,我们对于外界自然资源、基础设施、经济和其他掩藏在城市化之下的流程,总是认知不够精确。我还记得我读到艾利克斯·沃尔和苏珊·斯奈德,还有亚历山大·乐珀尔的两篇文章,他们都指向了景观和逻辑在九十年代的关系。艾利克斯·沃尔和苏珊·斯奈德绘制了曼哈顿的地图,将其作为消耗与归属的舞台。他们也在同一尺度上绘制了所有房子的背面,包括所有的码头、基础设施、和新泽西支撑曼哈顿的物质储备。我认为这是一个重大突破。

很多人已经发现了生产力的线索,不是去建议生产设施应该取代城市,而是一种关系,是一种对话,是这些事物之间的张力。我的很多同事把曼哈顿想象成现存的最可持续的城市形态。这可能是真的,但直到你需要“牛奶”。 “牛奶” 让这个矩阵马上变得复杂起来。所以在这种关系中,我认为有效率的方法是思考我们在城市设计规划中的兴趣点、城市设计的历史,把城市看做目的地的一部分,而且把这种关系放在全球的城市化网络、资源与进程中。当然,这也是我们研究工作的核心。

You have very strong proposition about what landscape architect can do in the context of extended urban field, such as reordering both economical, ecological, social, and cultural inputs. The landscape architects are actually acting as the urbanist of our age. In this regard, how do you see the role of landscape architect in relationship to urban designer, planners, architects, economist, policy makers in order to shape the form of the city?

您对于景观在城市领域所能有着坚定的立场,比如重整经济、生态、社会和文化输入。景观设计师实际上扮演了城市化推动者的角色。基于此,您怎么看待在城市塑造过程中,景观设计师与城市设计师、规划师、建筑师、经济学人和决策者的关系?

GSD Landscape Architecture Studio led by Charles Waldheim: Sea Rise and Sun Set: Modeling Urban Morphologies for Resilience in Miami Beach | © Boxia Wang

I mean, my experience has been trained as an architect working on cities and becoming aware at some point through graduate school in the late 80s, early 90s and beginning my academic career,

it was clear to me that the debates about the American city would play out in the landscape as much as in any other topic. And at the same moment for me it was curious to find landscape as a field that was relatively defensive. It was in the shadows and a bit insecure about its relationship to architecture and urban planning. And while I have great respect and empathy for that history I understand it. It always struck me as a part of landscape’s strength that access to this material in a certain way. And so part of my work has been to reframe the history of landscape in such a way. I do believe that when it was conceived in the 19th century, it was a discipline and a professional responsible the shape of the city (period). It was meant to be the urban discipline. And in fact it was so successful at that. But the 1920s and 30s that it spun off a new discipline of city or town planning and that of course took from us all of our urban content. And it left us with the trivial, the static, the decorative, the plant material, the soil, the things you reference which were not particularly relevant to many of the challenges we do facing urbanisticlly. And so in that context the part of my work is to go back to the origin and say “Well, Hold on. How did we get here.” And in fact there’s a much more durable, more important history I believe in its origin. It needs to be told.

我的教育背景和经验是研究城市的建筑师,在我看来在八十年代末到九十年代早期在我上研究生院的和刚开始我的工作生涯时,我突然明确的意识到美国的城市在景观界的讨论绝不比任何一个其他领域的少。但同时,我也惊奇地发现景观领域其实是相对排外的。它仍处在对于建筑与规划的阴影中,并对于他们之间的关系的处理感到不安。我能够了解这一点是因为我对于历史的尊敬和共鸣。

它的这一方面总是在警醒我让我对这些材料多做研究,所以我的一部分工作就是以这种方式来重塑景观的历史。我相信如果景观都市主义在19世纪被认知并接受的话,它会成为一个肩负塑造城市形态的学科和专业。它也一定是一个非常 “城市” 的学科。事实上它也非常成功。但在19世纪20到30年代,城镇规划作为一个新的学科从中剥离开来。它带走了我们所有的与城市相关的内容,并给我们留下了琐碎的、静态的、装饰性的事物,植物材料,土壤,和很多跟当代城市化进程中的挑战并不是特别相关的事情。所以,我工作的一部分是回到景观的起源,说 “等等,我们是怎么到这一步的” 。而实际上,在它的源头有很多更持久、更重要的历史。它们需要被讲述。

GSD Landscape Architecture Studio led by Charles Waldheim: Sea Rise and Sun Set: Modeling Urban Morphologies for Resilience in Miami Beach | © Jessie Yang

Rem Koolhaas has once said that architecture is a way of expression of political ideology. Then what about landscape architecture? How can landscape architecture get more political influence?

Rem Koolhaas曾经说过,建筑是政治意识形态的表现方式。那么景观呢?如何让景观建筑学更具政治影响力?

I think that by definition, landscape architecture as all the other disciplines in the design school are inherently about power relationships, right?We are inevitably in the expression of space, articulation of material, time, and place. we are about the expression of space as an instrument of power, of course. Our work is always implicated in that. And another way of saying that is there is no value free, or powerless, or power-neutral expression of space. So, in that regard our work has always been political. And it requires we ask questions about by whom, for whom–for whom we are designing, by whom we get the agency to design.

There was this exhibition at the museum of Modern Art called Groundswell a couple weeks ago, which gather together a decade or two, of most recent landscape practice, in which landscape urbanism was referenced as one of the dominant, or the major threads. And to that exhibition opening, Peter Reed, the curator of the Museum of Modern Art, invited David Harvey, to give the keynote address. And many of my colleagues were puzzled to wonder why would the Museum of Modern Art gather landscape architects and all these great works and then invite David Harvey, right? to deliver the keynote address. To me the answer is quite clear, is that David Harvey could answer the questionabout what is the relation of power to this work, who is this work being built for, by whom.And in that regard, I feel that on the one hand is that there is no possibility of design without power relationships, and of course cities are the manifestation of this power relationship in spatial terms. At the same moment, I do believe that design culture can speak to its own formation and its own atomic, let’s say. And needs to form its own cultural project as a long going.In that regard, I’m not so compelled by arguments for any of the design disciplines to become more politically engaged for two reasons.

我认为从定义的角度而言,景观建筑如同设计学院的其他学科,从内在而言与权力关系有着天然的密不可分的关系。同意吗?我们不可避免地表现在空间、材料、时间及场所精神的表达上(表现权力)。空间形式本身也是权力展现的手段,我们的工作总是对此有所暗示。另一种说法也可以是:空间形式不可能做到“无权”,绝对价值中立,或是权力中立。从这个角度上而言,我们的工作总是多少涉及政治因素。并且总要求我们自问,为谁而设计,由谁得到设计的需求。

 

几个星期前在纽约的当代艺术中心有一个展览,叫做Groundswell,展览内容涵盖了近一二十年以来的景观实践项目,在其中景观都市主义属于核心内容之一,或者说作为重要的线索。在开幕仪式上,当代艺术中心的馆长Peter Reed邀请了David Harvey致主题演讲。当时我许多同事对此表示不能理解,为什么当代艺术中心在召集景观师和这些伟大的作品的同时邀请David Harvey致以演讲。对我而言理由是显而易见的,因为David Harvey能够回答项目与权力之间的关系,项目为谁而建,项目由谁而建。从这一层面而言,我认为一方面是设计本身不可能不与权力挂钩,城市则作为权力关系的主要的空间表现形式。与此同时,我坚持相信设计文化可以证明其本身的形式和结构,并且就长远考虑需要就此形成它独有的文化项目。因此我并不为设计学科应更具政治因素的言论所动,这包括以下两点原因。

Groundswell: Constructing and Contemporary Landscape | © https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/117 

One because I do believe the work we do in spatially is the expression of our power already and to do so as lobbyists to a political problems are probably less effective. And secondly, because ultimately, the form of lobbying to argue for the import of one’s field or one’s work tends to I think to mistake where the true value or critical impact of our work might be. And I have always been the proponent of this field and mostly proponent arguing that we shouldn’t be arguing for a greater influence that work can deliver. I believe that our work is now more relevant than it has been in my lifetime. But not because we’ve lobbied for political influence. It is because of the capacity that we have for making changes or what we bring to the table as a field. That alone will be what our work will be about and I think in that regard the work is of course inherently political. And in that sense, I would have argued for a pluralization of our field. One of the challenges we faced in our field has been… cause, we are relatively modest in size and also relatively homogenous in our ideology formation, in our discipline formation, in our institutional formation. I’m very pleased to see this field grow quite a lot right now because I believe we can see the pluralization of positions within the field. And I think that need a lot of obligation to maintain and develop, but discourse which is plural, and not always so “polite”.

其一,是因为我相信我们在空间塑造工作本身已经是一种权力的表达了,而通过游说的方式去参与政治活动反而可能更加低效。其二,为某一行业及其工作的重要性进行游说的行为最终会导致大众对该行业的真实价值及核心影响力产生误解。一直以来我都是景观行业的忠实拥护者,大多数支持者都认为不应为景观学争取超过其工作本身所具备的影响力。我相信如今景观设计已具备比我所经历的所有时期更重大的影响力。但并不是因为我们因游说而取得了更大政治影响力,而是因为景观设计作为一个行业所能带来的真实的改变。如果这是行业未来发展的方向,其本质确实具有政治影响力。在这个意义上我会主张景观学科的多元化发展。景观学科所面临的一个挑战在于在规模上相对小,以及在意识形态、学科组成和学制上相对单一。我对于如今行业规模在逐步扩大的现象感到非常欣慰,因为我相信在我们能够看到行业内不同职位的多元化发展。这需要许多的人的持续努力与发展,当然争论总是多元的,而且并不一定那么“客气”。

How do you see the new technology such as VR, AR, self-driving car, sensing technology, and computational simulations will change the way how we interpret landscape, infrastructure, and material world?

你是怎么看待像VR\AR、无人驾驶车辆、感应科技和电脑模拟这些新技术将会改变我们阐释景观、基础设施和物质世界的方式?

My general philosophy on this is that only very rarely does change happen based ona discipline or a profession or a design school deciding “we can change the world”,the change happens in the world. It happens in real time socially, culturally, economically, technologically.Design practices and broad publics respond almost immediately.In the academy, we have the luxury of some distance and a part of our responsibility I believe is to try to make sense of the recent past trying to articulate what’s just happened.And then to refashion our tools in respect to that change.Having said that, I think these technological changes that you refer to will continue to take place.I think that we will be unlikely in our field to anticipate them.I think as they appear they will be unrecognizable.And as they see in the immediate past they might become clearer to us.And so I think our footing will most often be reactive to.The flip side of that is that most often people don’t ask us our opinion in this field as it should be.And at the same moment I do believe that means that our footing needs to be quite nimble,attentive looking at the changes that are happening and developing in response to them.In that regard, I would say that of course technical economic cultural social transformations are happening all the time.And I would encourage my colleagues and our students, our faculty to remain vigilant in anticipating and responding to those changes relative to technology within our field. I think our field has had a history of being rather too pessimistic, not nearly open minded enough and very conservative with respect to our tools our professional and technical tools within our field.

So in that sense of technology I’ve been a part here, our role in school has been to try and bring topics of digital media fabrication into landscape pedagogy. I’ve been slightly shocked to find our discipline our field to be remarkably resistant to these tools. And in a way the academy is maybe the worst offender whereas in practice, of course practice, is rapidly digitizing has been for some time now. In the academy that I find most often in landscape pedagogy the kind of resistance to these toolsoften because there’s this kind of false equivalence I find between the medium we work with being soft and fuzzy and the desire for soft and fuzzy tools of analysis and representation intervention.I find that false equivalence really counterproductive. There’s also too often a kind of latent transcendentalism, a kind of conflation of you know transcendentalist philosophy into a kind of fuzziness of tools and ends. In that regard I think what we are trying to do in the GSD for the last several years is to bring the most relevant and useful tools to bear on the kinds of challenges we faced.

我的基本哲学是只有在非常少数的情况下,改变是一个学科或者一个专业决定 “我们要改变世界” 而产生的改变,改变就是无时无刻不在发生的。改变在真实世界的社会、人文、经济和技术各个层面发生。设计时间和广泛大众的回应是即时的。在学术界,我们拥有距离的奢侈,我们的部分职责就是试图阐释刚刚发生的一切。然后基于改变,让我们的工具紧跟潮流。据此,我认为你所提到的这些技术变化将会继续发生。在我们领域,我们不太可能预期这些变化,而且他们似乎是无法辨认的,但他们一旦成为过去时的时候会变得更清晰,所以我认为我们的立足点往往是反应的。

另一方面,人们通常不会在这个领域询问我们的意见,虽然理论上应该这样。同时,我相信这意味着我们的征途需要敏捷、全神贯注地留意周遭发生的变化,并发展期应对方式。基于此,我会说技术、经济、文化和社会变革是无时无刻不在发生的。我会鼓励我的同事和学生保持警惕,预测并且回应我们领域的技术革新。我认为我们领域在工具和技术层面的历史太过消极保守,思维不够开阔。

所以对于技术,我在学校中的角色是试图为景观教育带来数字媒体方面的议题。对于我们学科执着的抵御这些工具我是非常吃惊的。某种程度来说,学术界(在技术革新上)是最坏的罪犯,因为实践圈已经快速数字化了。在学术界,尤其是景观教育中,我发觉对于这些工具的抵抗通常来自于一种虚假的平衡—因为我们专业所用的媒介是软质和模糊的,所以对于分析和表达的创造也需要柔软和模糊的工具。我觉得这种虚假的平衡适得其反。还有一种潜在的超验主义,也是一种混合,将超验主义哲学理解成一种模糊的工具和目的。基于此,我认为近几年我们试图在哈佛所做的,就是引入最相关、最有用的工具,来应对我们所面临的挑战。

What’s the new staff going on in your new research office at Harvard GSD- Office For Urbanization, what’s the interesting research happening there? Have you done any researches about urban forms, sustainability, landscape impact and design professions in general?

您的哈佛设计学院的新的研究工作室在做什么有趣的事情呢?您是否做了关于城市形态、可持续性、景观影响力和设计领域的研究呢?

So the mandate for the office for Urbanization comes out of schools research advances and initiatives over the last several years. We’re doing more research as a school. So in addition to individual faculty of the GSD, maintaining their longstanding reputation through individual research, we’re building institutional capacity. The Office for urbanization is one element in a broader array of centers, labs and researchers. Our mandate to develop applied design research projects for questions of contemporary city. In this regard, primary agenda is to bring the landscape urbanism agenda and the ecological urbanism agenda in some ways back to questions of urban form. From the beginning, landscape urbanism has been committed to questions of urban form in relationship to its economic and ecological performances. At its height, the landscape urbanist agenda has been fully matured into a development of urban districts, urban form, from architecture and its performance all the way through landscape ecology and it’s performance. Having said that, both professionally and pedagogically we’ve been more successful in developing strategies of landscape ecology, landscape infrastructure and dealing with landscape systems. And my goal is to maintain and to build capacity through the offs of-urbanization to always connect that back to questions of urban form.

都市工作室是在学校研究和基金的支持下,近年来成立的。我们以学院的形式做了很多研究。所以这些研究是附加于GSD的教职工自己的研究之外的,因为我们希望保留他们的研究的持久名誉。我们的研究相当于增大了机构的能力。我们都市工作室是更多更广泛的中心、实验室和研究人员中的一环。我们的使命是为当代城市发展中产生的问题的设计可行的研究项目。据此,首要议题是以某种方式把景观都市主义议题和生态都市主义议题带到城市形态当中去。一开始,景观都市主义一直在探索经济、生态表现与城市形态的关系。在这个高度,景观都市人的议题渐渐发展成熟为都市区域发展、城市形态、尺度从建筑及其表现、一直到景观生态学及其表现。因此,无论是专业角度还是教育角度,我们已经在景观生态学、景观基础设施和景观系统的策略发展方面很成功了。我的目标是保持并且建造都市化的容纳性与城市形态的关系。

The poster of Office for Urbanization and inaugural conference,”heliomorphism”, Charles Waldheim | © hhttp://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2016/09/archinect-talks-with-charles-waldheim-about-office-for-urbanization-and-inaugural-conference-heliomorphism/

We held a launch event about three weeks ago so we just started, that with fringe on the topic of Heliomorphism, which is a solar performance in urban form. We brought three keynote speakers Thom Mayne from Morphosis, Jeanne Gang from Jeanne Architects and IñakiÁbalos from Ábalos+Sentkiewicz.. And each of those three architects are doing projects recently around urban form and solar performance. We brought a dozen GSD faculty, a dozen GSD doctoral students to address these topics because I’m confident that the Heliomorphic question that is a topic will be able to bring an ecological position but more directly back to questions of urban form. So if landscape urbanism has been for the last 15 years interested in understanding hydrology ecological systems and species and engineering up to urban form, the Heliomorphic looks to the sky drives engineer or drives urban form from a different perspective.

我们三周前举行了这个工作室的启动仪式,所以我们刚开始起步。启动仪式是关于Heliomorphism的研究,是太阳能在城市形态中的表现。我们请来了三位主讲,汤姆·梅恩,詹妮·冈,和以纳吉·阿巴罗。每位建筑师最近都在做关于太阳能和城市形态的项目。我们也请来了许多哈佛的教师、博士生来强调这些议题。我相信Heliomorphism是一个能够将生态角度直接映射到城市形态中的议题。所以如果景观都市主义在过去15年都对理解水文生态系统、物种、和城市形态的工程学感兴趣的话,Heliomorphic则是看得更远,从一个不同的角度驱动城市形态的发展。

The GARLICer

Interview

Zhangkan Zhou
Siyang Jing
Xiaoye Xing

Editor

Transcription: Xiaoye, Zhexuan
Translation: Xiaoye
Proofreader: Yiwei
Video: Xiaoye
Editor: Xiaoqin, Yueming

Join the discussion 18 Comments

Leave a Reply