我们的建筑文化

卡斯·卡恩/Kees Kaan

戴安娜·贝福德 荷译英/Translated from Dutch by Dianna Beaufort

尚晋 英译中/Translated from English by SHANG Jin

作者单位：代尔夫特理工大学建筑学院，卡恩建筑事务所/Delft University of Technology's Faculty of Architecture,KAAN Architecten

建筑项目在欧洲所用的时间——从客户与建筑师的最初接触到竣工和入住——是很长的。这是一个缓慢的过程，比诸多重大社会变革都要迟缓，比技术革新更是缓慢得多。建筑不可能只在纸上完成，而是要建成，随后建筑就会成为建筑世界的一部分。

建筑不只是使用者复杂功能的物质表现。在这里谈及的“建筑”，我指的是在技术和专业知识的支持下，从理解设计，到把建筑物变成现实的全过程。好的设计会弥合复杂、具体的使用者需求与大众利益之间的沟壑，满足使用者的愿望和要求，并尊重当地的环境和文化。看似相互冲突的要素可以使建筑产生意外的特性。建筑只有在兼顾使用者及周边环境时才是好的。仅仅集中在临时性使用或针对特定时间的用途上，玩弄当代杂糅的建筑是荒唐的尝试，这是没有未来的。

荷兰的文化对于发展常规建筑很理想。这里的文化共识没有为天才天马行空的创造力留出空间。房产开发的管理方式让参与这一过程或与之间接相关的各方都有权争取各自的利益或提出关注点。开发的过程已经演变成一种职业化的竞技场。建筑师已经放弃了作为大匠的控制权，而且已不是决定建造方式的唯一权威，只是今天利益各方的专业顾问。设计是由顾问和客户团队引导的过程创造出来的，他们都对最终结果负有责任。建筑师的职责是激发灵感、叙事、进行概念化设想并做管理。

1 荷兰最高法院草图/Sketch, supreme court of the Netherlands（图片来源/Source: KAAN Architecten）

量体裁衣是在同一理念上不断积累的长久传统。它可能发展演化，但绝不是突变。西服的造型可以变化，但其概念是不变的：由一系列准确的测量和正确的决策构成。做工的精准将决定造型和最终的质量。相似地，建筑也是一种造型千变万化的量体裁衣：因地制宜。一种概念的发展和细化并走向成熟需要建筑师的博学和专注。建筑不是把最新的技巧塞满屋子，而是通过智慧使之融合并经营出来的。一旦建筑师将自己从强制创新的高压中解放出来，新的机遇就会出现，带来变革的可能。

多年来，我逐渐明白荷兰建筑师是在一种特定的职业化环境中实践的。然而，这对建筑师的职责和国家的建筑发展也有深远的影响。荷兰有一种强大的空间规划传统：城市空间、基础设施、建筑——一切都是规划好的。我们的景观是完全人工的，由人制造出来的，每一寸空间都要记录、设计和分区。荷兰水务局刚刚庆祝了200周年纪念，我们的《住房法》也有逾100年的历史了。20世纪制定了一系列关于空间规划的政策文件。荷兰人认为由政府负责全国的设计是完全正常的，即使是在社会民主理念被抛弃40年之后。许多家不同类型的机构和公司都在致力于为荷兰做设计。客户都非常专业，而任务十分艰巨。最近的经济崩溃的确对此造成了冲击，却没有带来任何重大变化。在荷兰，建筑是一种大众市场产品。

从1980年到2000年，当我开始做建筑师时发生了一次文化政治的重大转折，很多职责从公共领域转到了私人领域。这种转折暗示着二战后形成的社会模式转向了更实用、也因此更商业化的模式：新自由主义模式。如今的情况已发展到将战略决策交给市场的阶段。“符合市场”的理念几乎会在每场对话中出现。竞争力的发挥被视为实现欧洲梦的关键：成为世界上最具竞争力的知识经济体。很明显，这意味着长远的思考和完备的规划已然让位于奇思妙想。

我们的文化共识和建筑服务的大规模职业化同实用性和对市场作用的把控结合在一起，形成了一种有趣的混合状态。在世纪末的经济繁荣期，荷兰成了设计师和建筑师的天堂，吸引着国际上的关注。这种大肆宣传是好的营销，而建筑师成了概念营造者和沟通专家。在当时，概念比建筑更重要，而超现代主义达到了巅峰。

建造

我的个人观点是建筑存在于建造过程本身，这使我免于盲从于这种发展的浪潮（包括超现代主义）。我们倾向于在变化的环境中寻找机会，与欧洲的传统建立连接——不是因为保守，而是出于一个信念：高品质的建筑源于这种相互作用。每个委托项目都会要求建筑师创作满足市场需求的建筑，同时为解决文化社会变革带来的问题创造机会。

我和之前的合伙人菲利克斯·克劳斯在作为青年建筑师时，获得了许多设计建筑和进行主题创作的机会。我们有幸能为每个项目选择一个与之相关的特定主题：每座建筑一个主题或创意。每个项目都以一种开放的思维去面对，没有暗藏任何先入为主的建筑野心，并对项目的本质进行研究，看我们能否发掘出隐藏在项目中的建筑潜力。

任何建筑项目都不可避免地经历漫长而艰难的过程。这不再是业主与建造者之间的简单沟通。我更愿意说它是一种完全不可预见的现象：一个充斥着多个玩家和众多利益，甚至相互冲突利益的竞技场。建筑项目委托的职业化被业主抽象为一种特殊形式，让管理者接受一系列任务委托，然后在欧洲诸多项目漫长的时间框架中来回往复。委托人不再是一种明确的实体。建筑师不能让自己与项目有过于亲近的关系。建造者和业主都从舞台上消失了，被一群蝇营狗苟的人取而代之。对项目的主宰感或创意的主导力已不复存在。项目属于每个人，也不属于任何人——这取决于争论的成功与否。

设计

我对这些状况的自然反应是寻找任务的本质，并尝试以清晰、单纯的建筑概念去把握它，而不是妥协。这个概念成了项目背后的驱动力，而不是建筑师。它能被所有人理解，或是赞同或是厌恶。这个概念是以一种带有强烈意象的可识别形式来表达的，它是探索普遍性和共同价值的直接逻辑产物，也是对特定问题的一种可持续的解决方法。

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

这就是设计开始的地方。□

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

4 荷兰最高法院，施工中，2014/Supreme court of the Netherlands, under construction, 2014（2-4摄影/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. □