俞孔坚：鏖战帝国建筑师娱乐场
admin
2006-11-21
来源：景观中国网
2006年10月8日，美国土地在线网站对“2006年美国景观设计师协会年会暨第43届国际景观设计师联盟世界大会”主旨报告人之一的俞孔坚教授进行了专访。访谈中，这位来自中国的景观设计师详述了在中国的城市化进程中，城市
2006年10月8日，美国土地在线网站对“2006年美国景观设计师协会年会暨第43届国际景观设计师联盟世界大会”主旨报告人之一的俞孔坚教授进行了专访。访谈中，这位来自中国的景观设计师详述了在中国的城市化进程中，城市决策者和西方的帝国建筑师们是如何一起在不知不觉间携手浪费掉中国的资源的。
问：从各种言论中了解到：中国迅猛的发展造就了中国“千城一面”的城市景观。您认为这种论调是否确切？在您看来这一现象的产生是因为中国缺少专业的职业设计师吗？或者是因为发展太过迅速以至于使设计的质量成为速度和效率的牺牲品？
俞：这个问题很复杂。首先，现在我国的城市的确开始变得千城一面。为什么？因为我们忽视了自然环境，忽视了文化遗产，我们毁坏了太多，我们破坏了我们日常生活的基础性的自然和社会结构，包括大量旧的城市民居。在被划定为历史文化保护区和文物的区域之外，所有的一切寻常的文化遗产消失不见了或面临着破坏。几百万平米的建筑和土地上的遗产毁之一旦的悲剧在每个城市中不断上演。一个城市之所以区别于其它城市，就在于其独有的自然景观和文化遗产。所以，当我们毁掉这些文化遗产和乡土景观的时候，当我们不懂得尊重自然的山形水系和植被的时候，我们的整个城市变得图有虚表，缺乏意义和特色。有时候，这些城市看上去更像是冒然出现在中国土地上的美国城市。
上海周围有7个卫星城，地方当局规划打造7个具有不同国家城市风貌卫星城——一个来自荷兰，一个来自德国，一个来美国，等等——如此这般，他们没有尊重土地自然格局和过程、没有尊重土地上的遗产、也没有尊重那些将要前往此地居住的人。所以说人地之间的联系、历史与现代之间的联系，完全消失了。这就是为什么我们会失去我们的文化身份的原因。
问：这种现象何以发生？
俞：首先，因为中国已经闭关锁国了很久，以至于1980代年改革开放的时候，所有的市长、专家都迫不及待地跑出去，去看那些美国的城市、欧洲的城市，去看凡尔赛、巴黎、柏林，他们想：“这些地方太漂亮了，太壮观了。”由此不难理解他们会想到：“我们也要建一个像美国、柏林或者是巴黎那样的城市”，这些人的心态就是这样的。我们不善分辨健康的城市形式，更不清楚对于中国而言宜居的城市是什么。
第二个原因，我们的决策体制里专家和公众参与的分量太小，市长（或更确切地说书记）可以随心所欲地干他所想的。市长做决定，市长做规划 ——而非设计师、城市规划师所能左右。而市长们说：“他们希望城市像他们所想的那样。
第三个原因在于这个职业本身。中国过去闭关锁国太久了，“现代主义”——这一概念及其理论——以及西方世界在“现代主义”实践中所犯的错误、过失并没有传播、影响到我们的国家。大学里相关教材过于陈旧以至于我们至今还热衷于谈论凡尔赛、圣彼得广场以及巴洛克式的景观。先进的专业教育，先进的理论体系刻不容缓。这也是为什么我们的专业在权大势大的市长面前“说不上话”的原因。声势甚弱，影响至微。
现在，我们试图向西方寻求帮助。如此多的建筑师，从美国、欧洲纷至沓来。库哈斯（Koolhaas）和赫尔佐格（Herzog）也在其中。于是，我们有了央视大楼，有了国家大剧院，还有了“鸟巢”——它们都是西方设计师设计的。的确，它们很耀眼、很壮观，而“巨大壮观”正是中国甲方接受这些设计的原因。中国甲方砸下如此多的钱，消耗掉如此多的钢筋和水泥，他们为的是什么？为的只是炫耀。这并不是设计师的问题，我们不能一味地责怪建筑师，我们中国的甲方自己必须首先承担责任。
问：但是那些外国设计师的确也利用了上述中国决策体系中和甲方自身目前存在的一些缺陷，是吗？
俞：是的，他们利用了他们的客户。客户希望建成世界上最大、最耀眼的建筑。于是，设计师们用这些耀眼的、壮观的建筑，迎合了中国客户的心理需求。
问：在您展示“鸟巢”照片的时候，人们一片愕然。“鸟巢”的图面效果很美。但是当它出现在现实生活中时，你就不得不考虑到其巨大的耗钢量，这位建筑师似乎把您的国家当作了一个娱乐场所，我这样说正确吗？
俞：再正确不过了。我从库哈斯的新书上摘的那张图显然给你留下了深刻的印象。事实上，他就是在以愚弄和娱乐的态度“玩建筑”。这类建筑是前所未闻的。中国俨然成为了这类建筑的试验场。图片如此有吸引力以至于中国的客户被完完全全地被迷惑了。但是，事实绝非我们看到的渲染图那样美丽——这涉及到维持的问题，高额的建设费用和巨大的浪费。采纳这种建筑的中国客户，无疑将背负起沉重的负担。
问：您的公司名叫“土人”，据我所知“土人”直译成英语的话就是“乡巴佬”。首先，这样翻译正确吗？另外，您为什么用这个词作为您的公司名呢？
俞：“土人”有着多重含义。首先，在中文里“土人”是由两个字组成的：“土”的意思即是“泥土”、“土地”，“人”的意思即是普通的“人”。所以“土人”的意思其实是“土地”和“人”的结合。而一直以来我试图解决正是中国严酷的人、地关系紧张的问题。“土人”的第二层意思是：我1997年回国的时候，很多人都建议我给公司取个特别的美国名字，因为很多人都这样做了。他们会选择像是ABC或是CDE之类的名字。而我之所以执意选择“土人”作为公司名，是想告诉别人我们的公司是立足于本土和本地人的，因为“乡土”或“乡巴佬”意味着你更了解自己的土地和人民，也也更了解自己与土地间的关系。
问：我在《时代》亚洲版上读到过一篇关于您的文章，在那篇文章里您谈到：“中国必须发展一个新的本土化的系统，去理解人地关系的变化”。您是怎样定义“新乡土”的？
俞：当我们谈论“本土”的时候，很多人会想到“传统”；他们会想到传统的中国园林、传统的中国生活方式。但是那些都是过去的事情了，那种生活已经离我们远去了。今天我们谈论的中国古典园林，并不是真实的“乡土”。它是随着帝王的需要发展起来的，它是皇家和士大夫上层文化的游乐场。现如今，真实的“乡土”又被城市化进程破坏了。我们不能回到“旧本土”，我们更不能回到“旧传统”，因为我们面对着城市化进程，我们有13亿人口，我们需要一种解决当代人地关系的新方式。我所说的“乡土”是一种真实的人地关系，这意味着我们的建设是为当代人、现代人服务的，我们的建设是建立在现代的技术、现代的生活方式以及对于环境的现代理解上的。
基于新形势，我们必须建立新的人地关系，这意味着我们不能受怀旧的心理驱使，追回那过往的“桃花源。”想回到过去的想法太天真了。我们不能把自己的专业定位在“美化”上，这也是虚假的，是古典造园方式式的延伸。如今，在城市与土地间，在新的社区与土地间，在河溪与城市之间，真实而可信的关系被破坏了，被我们完全忽略了。这就是为什么我们不得不寻求新出路，第三种路径，那就：寻找一种真实的人地关系，这种真实的人地关系即是“新乡土”。“新乡土”是为普通民众服务的，而不是为市长服务的，“新乡土”是从自己的土地上“长”出来的，而不是从美国或者是欧洲那里搬过来的。来源与在此时此地，服务与当代中国——这就是“新乡土”。
问：这篇文章还提到了一种被您称为“反规划”的景观设计途径，您能解释一下这一途径吗？
俞：“反规划”就是反过来做规划。因为通常的城市规划总是在考虑建设些什么。在中国过去的20多年中，我们总是计划建设些什么，我们规划建设市政基础设施，我们规划城市，我们推进城市化进程，我们鼓励外来人口向城市流动——这就是“正规划”。现在，在这样一种进程中，我们完全忘记了土地，忘记了土地有其自身的生命系统。“反规划”或者是“负规划”，意指我们必须优先规划保护景观及其生态系统。这是一个不可建设的土地生命系统，是我们在规划中的首要考虑。所以这是一个逆向进程——就像照片，有底片和正片。我们试图建立的不仅仅是一个城市，我们必须首先保护好那些不可建设区，如此一来我们将用面积最小的土地和面积最小的生态基础设施保证最大化的城市发展——我们必须这样做。这即是景观引导城市发展，而不是像过去那样去发展城市，至少不像过去的中国过去二十多年的那种城市发展模式。
原文如下：
October 17, 2006
LAND Online
Kongjian Yu: Fighting the Emperor’s Playground
In a wide-ranging discussion, the landscape architect details how Chinese decision makers and Western architects are unwittingly collaborating to drain the country’s resources in the march toward urbanization
I have read accounts that say the rampant development in China has created a landscape where many of the cities simply begin to look the same. Do you think this is a fair statement, and do you think it results from a lack of professional designers in the country, or is growth happening so fast that speed and efficiency are trumping design?
This question is very complicated. First, I agree that our cities are now becoming the same. Why? Because we neglected the natural environment, we neglected the cultural heritage, and we destroyed too much. We destroyed the everyday living structures, even people’s houses. Things have not been designated as historical sites, and they are all gone; they have all been destroyed. Millions of square meters have been destroyed in every city. And it is the natural landscape and the cultural heritage that make a city different from others. So, when we wiped out all of this cultural heritage and these vernacular landscapes, and when we didn’t respect the natural landforms, the natural water systems, the natural vegetation, the whole city became man-made with no meaning or form. Sometimes it looks like you’ve just dumped an American city in the middle of China.
In Shanghai, there are nine satellite towns, and in each town they want to build a town from nine countries—one from the Netherlands, one from Germany, one from South America, and so forth—so we just don’t respect the land or the heritage of the site or the people who are going to live here. So we totally lose the connection between the land and the people—between history and today’s development. And that’s why we lose our cultural identity.
Why has this happened?
First, because China has been locked off for so long that when it finally opened in the 1980s, all the mayors and professionals went to see American cities, to see European cities, to see Versailles, to see Paris, and Berlin, and they thought, “That’s beautiful, that’s magnificent.” So that’s why they think, “Now we want to build like Americans, like Berlin, like Paris.” That’s the mentality. We don’t know the form of a good city and what is a livable city for China. Also, the system for decisions allows the mayor to select what he wants. The mayor makes the decisions, the mayor makes the planning—not a designer or an urban planner. And they say they like the cities this way.
The third reason is about the profession itself. China has been closed for so many years, and modernism—the concept and theory—and the mistakes, the trials, and the errors of the Western world did not come to us. The textbooks are so old that we still talk about Versailles, St. Peters Plaza, and the baroque landscapes. The professional education badly needs to be advanced. That’s why the professional field is very weak in the face of the powerful mayors. We have a low voice.
Now, we try to go to the West for help. Now we get so many architects from America, from European countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. We get Koolhaas and Herzog. We get CCTV headquarters, the grand opera house, and the bird’s nest—they’re all designed by Westerners. OK, they are beautiful architecture, they are beautiful landscapes, but the client wants them because they are gigantic. They cost so much money, they consume so much steel and concrete, and for what? Just for show. Now, this is not the designers’ problem. I cannot blame the architects.
But are they taking advantage?
Yes, they are taking advantage of the client. The client wants the most beautiful, the biggest buildings in the world. That’s the client’s mentality, and the designers are just feeding the clients with all of these tempting beauties.
When you showed the image of the Beijing National Stadium, that’s where it hits home. You see the drawings and it’s striking. But when you see it in real life, and you consider how much goes into it, it’s like the architect is using your country as a playground?
That’s it exactly. You remember the image I took from Koolhaas’s new book. He is actually teasing about playing with these buildings. These kinds of buildings have never been built. China has become a testing ground for these types of buildings, and the images are so attractive that the Chinese client is drawn to them. But the reality is totally different—it’s a maintenance problem, the high cost of construction, and we will hardly use it. So all of these problems become a burden for the Chinese client.
Your firm is called Turenscape, and I understand that “turen” roughly translates to “country bumpkin” or “redneck” in American English. First, is that true, and second, why did you pick this as your firm name?
There are many meanings. First of all, “turen” is two characters in Chinese: “Tu” means earth, the land, and “ren” means people. So it’s really a combination of the land and the people. And that’s what I am going to deal with—the land and the people. The second meaning is because when I went back to China in 1997 from the States, many people expected me to choose a fancy American name, and that’s what many people do. Many people will choose a name like ABC, or CDE, or something like that. I deliberately chose my name to signal that my company is native, it’s local people, because native means you know the land and the people. You know more than anyone else about your own land and your own relationship with the land.
I read an article in Time Asia, where you say that China needs to “develop a new system, a new vernacular, to express the changing relationship between land and people.” How would you like to see that new vernacular defined?
When we talk about “vernacular” people always think of “traditional”; they think of traditional Chinese gardens, the traditional way Chinese people live. But that’s past, that’s gone. Today I talked about the classical Chinese garden, which is not vernacular. It was developed for the emperors, as the emperors’ playground. And the real vernacular today is being destroyed by urbanization. We cannot go back to the old vernacular. We cannot go back to the traditional vernacular, because we are being urbanized. With 1.3 billion people being moved to the city, we need another way of dealing with the relationship between the land and the people. What I mean by vernacular is the authentic relationship between the land and people, which means we must build for the contemporary people, for the modern people, and based on modern technology, living style, and a modern understanding of the environment.
Based on this new situation, we have to build a new relationship with the land, which means we’re not going to go back to the nostalgic past—the land of peach blossoms. It’s naive to try to go back there. And we certainly cannot go to this beautification model, which is also artificial, and is an extension of the classical gardening approach. Right now there is no authentic relationship between the city and the land, between the new world community and the land, and between the streams and the rivers and the cities. We totally ignore that. That’s why we have to follow the third road, which is to find an authentic relationship between land and people, and that’s the new vernacular. It will be for the common people, not for the mayors, and from the land, not from America or from Europe. From China’s land for Chinese people at this time—that’s the new vernacular.
That article also noted an approach to landscape architecture you call “anti-planning.” Can you explain that philosophy?
Anti-planning is what I would say is negative planning, because in planning, you usually want to build something. In China for the past 20 years we always plan to build something, we plan the infrastructure, we plan the city, we promote the urbanization process, we invite outside people to move into the city—that’s positive planning. Now, in this process we totally forget the land. We totally forget that the land has its own living systems. Now, negative planning, or anti-planning, means that we have to build this landscape or living system first. It’s an unbuildable land system, and we have to plan this first. So it’s a negative process—like photo images, you have negative and positive. Instead of trying to just build cities, we have to protect the unbuildable area first, so we use minimal land and minimal ecological infrastructure to allow maximum urban development—not the other way around. This is landscape leading the way of urban development, which is not the way it’s been in the past—not in China, at least.
问：从各种言论中了解到：中国迅猛的发展造就了中国“千城一面”的城市景观。您认为这种论调是否确切？在您看来这一现象的产生是因为中国缺少专业的职业设计师吗？或者是因为发展太过迅速以至于使设计的质量成为速度和效率的牺牲品？
俞：这个问题很复杂。首先，现在我国的城市的确开始变得千城一面。为什么？因为我们忽视了自然环境，忽视了文化遗产，我们毁坏了太多，我们破坏了我们日常生活的基础性的自然和社会结构，包括大量旧的城市民居。在被划定为历史文化保护区和文物的区域之外，所有的一切寻常的文化遗产消失不见了或面临着破坏。几百万平米的建筑和土地上的遗产毁之一旦的悲剧在每个城市中不断上演。一个城市之所以区别于其它城市，就在于其独有的自然景观和文化遗产。所以，当我们毁掉这些文化遗产和乡土景观的时候，当我们不懂得尊重自然的山形水系和植被的时候，我们的整个城市变得图有虚表，缺乏意义和特色。有时候，这些城市看上去更像是冒然出现在中国土地上的美国城市。
上海周围有7个卫星城，地方当局规划打造7个具有不同国家城市风貌卫星城——一个来自荷兰，一个来自德国，一个来美国，等等——如此这般，他们没有尊重土地自然格局和过程、没有尊重土地上的遗产、也没有尊重那些将要前往此地居住的人。所以说人地之间的联系、历史与现代之间的联系，完全消失了。这就是为什么我们会失去我们的文化身份的原因。
问：这种现象何以发生？
俞：首先，因为中国已经闭关锁国了很久，以至于1980代年改革开放的时候，所有的市长、专家都迫不及待地跑出去，去看那些美国的城市、欧洲的城市，去看凡尔赛、巴黎、柏林，他们想：“这些地方太漂亮了，太壮观了。”由此不难理解他们会想到：“我们也要建一个像美国、柏林或者是巴黎那样的城市”，这些人的心态就是这样的。我们不善分辨健康的城市形式，更不清楚对于中国而言宜居的城市是什么。
第二个原因，我们的决策体制里专家和公众参与的分量太小，市长（或更确切地说书记）可以随心所欲地干他所想的。市长做决定，市长做规划 ——而非设计师、城市规划师所能左右。而市长们说：“他们希望城市像他们所想的那样。
第三个原因在于这个职业本身。中国过去闭关锁国太久了，“现代主义”——这一概念及其理论——以及西方世界在“现代主义”实践中所犯的错误、过失并没有传播、影响到我们的国家。大学里相关教材过于陈旧以至于我们至今还热衷于谈论凡尔赛、圣彼得广场以及巴洛克式的景观。先进的专业教育，先进的理论体系刻不容缓。这也是为什么我们的专业在权大势大的市长面前“说不上话”的原因。声势甚弱，影响至微。
现在，我们试图向西方寻求帮助。如此多的建筑师，从美国、欧洲纷至沓来。库哈斯（Koolhaas）和赫尔佐格（Herzog）也在其中。于是，我们有了央视大楼，有了国家大剧院，还有了“鸟巢”——它们都是西方设计师设计的。的确，它们很耀眼、很壮观，而“巨大壮观”正是中国甲方接受这些设计的原因。中国甲方砸下如此多的钱，消耗掉如此多的钢筋和水泥，他们为的是什么？为的只是炫耀。这并不是设计师的问题，我们不能一味地责怪建筑师，我们中国的甲方自己必须首先承担责任。
问：但是那些外国设计师的确也利用了上述中国决策体系中和甲方自身目前存在的一些缺陷，是吗？
俞：是的，他们利用了他们的客户。客户希望建成世界上最大、最耀眼的建筑。于是，设计师们用这些耀眼的、壮观的建筑，迎合了中国客户的心理需求。
问：在您展示“鸟巢”照片的时候，人们一片愕然。“鸟巢”的图面效果很美。但是当它出现在现实生活中时，你就不得不考虑到其巨大的耗钢量，这位建筑师似乎把您的国家当作了一个娱乐场所，我这样说正确吗？
俞：再正确不过了。我从库哈斯的新书上摘的那张图显然给你留下了深刻的印象。事实上，他就是在以愚弄和娱乐的态度“玩建筑”。这类建筑是前所未闻的。中国俨然成为了这类建筑的试验场。图片如此有吸引力以至于中国的客户被完完全全地被迷惑了。但是，事实绝非我们看到的渲染图那样美丽——这涉及到维持的问题，高额的建设费用和巨大的浪费。采纳这种建筑的中国客户，无疑将背负起沉重的负担。
问：您的公司名叫“土人”，据我所知“土人”直译成英语的话就是“乡巴佬”。首先，这样翻译正确吗？另外，您为什么用这个词作为您的公司名呢？
俞：“土人”有着多重含义。首先，在中文里“土人”是由两个字组成的：“土”的意思即是“泥土”、“土地”，“人”的意思即是普通的“人”。所以“土人”的意思其实是“土地”和“人”的结合。而一直以来我试图解决正是中国严酷的人、地关系紧张的问题。“土人”的第二层意思是：我1997年回国的时候，很多人都建议我给公司取个特别的美国名字，因为很多人都这样做了。他们会选择像是ABC或是CDE之类的名字。而我之所以执意选择“土人”作为公司名，是想告诉别人我们的公司是立足于本土和本地人的，因为“乡土”或“乡巴佬”意味着你更了解自己的土地和人民，也也更了解自己与土地间的关系。
问：我在《时代》亚洲版上读到过一篇关于您的文章，在那篇文章里您谈到：“中国必须发展一个新的本土化的系统，去理解人地关系的变化”。您是怎样定义“新乡土”的？
俞：当我们谈论“本土”的时候，很多人会想到“传统”；他们会想到传统的中国园林、传统的中国生活方式。但是那些都是过去的事情了，那种生活已经离我们远去了。今天我们谈论的中国古典园林，并不是真实的“乡土”。它是随着帝王的需要发展起来的，它是皇家和士大夫上层文化的游乐场。现如今，真实的“乡土”又被城市化进程破坏了。我们不能回到“旧本土”，我们更不能回到“旧传统”，因为我们面对着城市化进程，我们有13亿人口，我们需要一种解决当代人地关系的新方式。我所说的“乡土”是一种真实的人地关系，这意味着我们的建设是为当代人、现代人服务的，我们的建设是建立在现代的技术、现代的生活方式以及对于环境的现代理解上的。
基于新形势，我们必须建立新的人地关系，这意味着我们不能受怀旧的心理驱使，追回那过往的“桃花源。”想回到过去的想法太天真了。我们不能把自己的专业定位在“美化”上，这也是虚假的，是古典造园方式式的延伸。如今，在城市与土地间，在新的社区与土地间，在河溪与城市之间，真实而可信的关系被破坏了，被我们完全忽略了。这就是为什么我们不得不寻求新出路，第三种路径，那就：寻找一种真实的人地关系，这种真实的人地关系即是“新乡土”。“新乡土”是为普通民众服务的，而不是为市长服务的，“新乡土”是从自己的土地上“长”出来的，而不是从美国或者是欧洲那里搬过来的。来源与在此时此地，服务与当代中国——这就是“新乡土”。
问：这篇文章还提到了一种被您称为“反规划”的景观设计途径，您能解释一下这一途径吗？
俞：“反规划”就是反过来做规划。因为通常的城市规划总是在考虑建设些什么。在中国过去的20多年中，我们总是计划建设些什么，我们规划建设市政基础设施，我们规划城市，我们推进城市化进程，我们鼓励外来人口向城市流动——这就是“正规划”。现在，在这样一种进程中，我们完全忘记了土地，忘记了土地有其自身的生命系统。“反规划”或者是“负规划”，意指我们必须优先规划保护景观及其生态系统。这是一个不可建设的土地生命系统，是我们在规划中的首要考虑。所以这是一个逆向进程——就像照片，有底片和正片。我们试图建立的不仅仅是一个城市，我们必须首先保护好那些不可建设区，如此一来我们将用面积最小的土地和面积最小的生态基础设施保证最大化的城市发展——我们必须这样做。这即是景观引导城市发展，而不是像过去那样去发展城市，至少不像过去的中国过去二十多年的那种城市发展模式。
原文如下：
October 17, 2006
LAND Online
Kongjian Yu: Fighting the Emperor’s Playground
In a wide-ranging discussion, the landscape architect details how Chinese decision makers and Western architects are unwittingly collaborating to drain the country’s resources in the march toward urbanization
I have read accounts that say the rampant development in China has created a landscape where many of the cities simply begin to look the same. Do you think this is a fair statement, and do you think it results from a lack of professional designers in the country, or is growth happening so fast that speed and efficiency are trumping design?
This question is very complicated. First, I agree that our cities are now becoming the same. Why? Because we neglected the natural environment, we neglected the cultural heritage, and we destroyed too much. We destroyed the everyday living structures, even people’s houses. Things have not been designated as historical sites, and they are all gone; they have all been destroyed. Millions of square meters have been destroyed in every city. And it is the natural landscape and the cultural heritage that make a city different from others. So, when we wiped out all of this cultural heritage and these vernacular landscapes, and when we didn’t respect the natural landforms, the natural water systems, the natural vegetation, the whole city became man-made with no meaning or form. Sometimes it looks like you’ve just dumped an American city in the middle of China.
In Shanghai, there are nine satellite towns, and in each town they want to build a town from nine countries—one from the Netherlands, one from Germany, one from South America, and so forth—so we just don’t respect the land or the heritage of the site or the people who are going to live here. So we totally lose the connection between the land and the people—between history and today’s development. And that’s why we lose our cultural identity.
Why has this happened?
First, because China has been locked off for so long that when it finally opened in the 1980s, all the mayors and professionals went to see American cities, to see European cities, to see Versailles, to see Paris, and Berlin, and they thought, “That’s beautiful, that’s magnificent.” So that’s why they think, “Now we want to build like Americans, like Berlin, like Paris.” That’s the mentality. We don’t know the form of a good city and what is a livable city for China. Also, the system for decisions allows the mayor to select what he wants. The mayor makes the decisions, the mayor makes the planning—not a designer or an urban planner. And they say they like the cities this way.
The third reason is about the profession itself. China has been closed for so many years, and modernism—the concept and theory—and the mistakes, the trials, and the errors of the Western world did not come to us. The textbooks are so old that we still talk about Versailles, St. Peters Plaza, and the baroque landscapes. The professional education badly needs to be advanced. That’s why the professional field is very weak in the face of the powerful mayors. We have a low voice.
Now, we try to go to the West for help. Now we get so many architects from America, from European countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. We get Koolhaas and Herzog. We get CCTV headquarters, the grand opera house, and the bird’s nest—they’re all designed by Westerners. OK, they are beautiful architecture, they are beautiful landscapes, but the client wants them because they are gigantic. They cost so much money, they consume so much steel and concrete, and for what? Just for show. Now, this is not the designers’ problem. I cannot blame the architects.
But are they taking advantage?
Yes, they are taking advantage of the client. The client wants the most beautiful, the biggest buildings in the world. That’s the client’s mentality, and the designers are just feeding the clients with all of these tempting beauties.
When you showed the image of the Beijing National Stadium, that’s where it hits home. You see the drawings and it’s striking. But when you see it in real life, and you consider how much goes into it, it’s like the architect is using your country as a playground?
That’s it exactly. You remember the image I took from Koolhaas’s new book. He is actually teasing about playing with these buildings. These kinds of buildings have never been built. China has become a testing ground for these types of buildings, and the images are so attractive that the Chinese client is drawn to them. But the reality is totally different—it’s a maintenance problem, the high cost of construction, and we will hardly use it. So all of these problems become a burden for the Chinese client.
Your firm is called Turenscape, and I understand that “turen” roughly translates to “country bumpkin” or “redneck” in American English. First, is that true, and second, why did you pick this as your firm name?
There are many meanings. First of all, “turen” is two characters in Chinese: “Tu” means earth, the land, and “ren” means people. So it’s really a combination of the land and the people. And that’s what I am going to deal with—the land and the people. The second meaning is because when I went back to China in 1997 from the States, many people expected me to choose a fancy American name, and that’s what many people do. Many people will choose a name like ABC, or CDE, or something like that. I deliberately chose my name to signal that my company is native, it’s local people, because native means you know the land and the people. You know more than anyone else about your own land and your own relationship with the land.
I read an article in Time Asia, where you say that China needs to “develop a new system, a new vernacular, to express the changing relationship between land and people.” How would you like to see that new vernacular defined?
When we talk about “vernacular” people always think of “traditional”; they think of traditional Chinese gardens, the traditional way Chinese people live. But that’s past, that’s gone. Today I talked about the classical Chinese garden, which is not vernacular. It was developed for the emperors, as the emperors’ playground. And the real vernacular today is being destroyed by urbanization. We cannot go back to the old vernacular. We cannot go back to the traditional vernacular, because we are being urbanized. With 1.3 billion people being moved to the city, we need another way of dealing with the relationship between the land and the people. What I mean by vernacular is the authentic relationship between the land and people, which means we must build for the contemporary people, for the modern people, and based on modern technology, living style, and a modern understanding of the environment.
Based on this new situation, we have to build a new relationship with the land, which means we’re not going to go back to the nostalgic past—the land of peach blossoms. It’s naive to try to go back there. And we certainly cannot go to this beautification model, which is also artificial, and is an extension of the classical gardening approach. Right now there is no authentic relationship between the city and the land, between the new world community and the land, and between the streams and the rivers and the cities. We totally ignore that. That’s why we have to follow the third road, which is to find an authentic relationship between land and people, and that’s the new vernacular. It will be for the common people, not for the mayors, and from the land, not from America or from Europe. From China’s land for Chinese people at this time—that’s the new vernacular.
That article also noted an approach to landscape architecture you call “anti-planning.” Can you explain that philosophy?
Anti-planning is what I would say is negative planning, because in planning, you usually want to build something. In China for the past 20 years we always plan to build something, we plan the infrastructure, we plan the city, we promote the urbanization process, we invite outside people to move into the city—that’s positive planning. Now, in this process we totally forget the land. We totally forget that the land has its own living systems. Now, negative planning, or anti-planning, means that we have to build this landscape or living system first. It’s an unbuildable land system, and we have to plan this first. So it’s a negative process—like photo images, you have negative and positive. Instead of trying to just build cities, we have to protect the unbuildable area first, so we use minimal land and minimal ecological infrastructure to allow maximum urban development—not the other way around. This is landscape leading the way of urban development, which is not the way it’s been in the past—not in China, at least.
发表评论
您好，登录后才可以评论哦！
