Back to basics

在這個時代，我們作為建築師的使命是什麼？

What is our job as architect in this era? 

基於當下的隔離要求，很直接的可以想像到：設計宜人的居家環境以讓人們更可以忍受長期的居家隔離。

With the current isolation requirements, it is straight forward that our job is to make isolating at home more tolerable by creating pleasant home environments. 

從這裡分岔出去思考，現在其實是一個絕好的自我反思時機。過去的10年充斥著 明星建築師，時尚趨勢，上鏡的設計 等等間的辯論⋯建築師們被 標誌性設計，個人風格設定，可銷售性 的需求撕裂⋯ 建築師的角色甚至經常性的被人們與 室內設計師，空間造型師，裝修師傅，繪圖員及3D模型製作者 混淆。

現在正是可以退去這些雜音，專注於老實說真正重要的事 - 空間 與 人類 的相互作用。

Branching off this, now is a good time for self reflection. Past decade has been debates circling between starchitects, fashionable trends, photogenic design etc... architects are torn between requirements of statement-making, signature-establishment, marketability... an architect’s role is often confused with that of interior designer, space stylist, builder, drafter and 3D modeler. 

Now is the time to shed the noise, and concentrate on what honestly really matters - space and human interaction. 

無論如何，我們已經裝修了好一段時間了，而因為COVID19的關係工程進度延遲下來完成日未知。但是，我們（慢慢的）在後院裡做了一些進展,還把客廳變成了一個室內叢林。

Anyway, so we have been renovating for a while now, and with the slowing down due to COVID19 the construction work is dragging on. However, we managed to make some progress (slowly) in the garden, and have turned the living room into a indoor jungle. 

我很高興我所在的空間是一個 有能力在這個瘋狂的時候仍然帶給我愉悅 的空間，就算它仍然在施工中。

I am glad that the space I am in is one that is capable of giving me joy amongst the chaos，even in construction. 

public.jpeg

Common Sense

“常識”從來都不應該被視為理所當然。它是經年累月沈積下來的信仰與習慣，但它也可以是非常個人及自我中心的。

每次當認識一位新的客戶時，就是重新檢討何謂常識的最好時機；尤其當客戶不是個人單位－一對夫婦，一個公司，一個組織機構，等等。很有可能在一位“客戶”當中已經存在了數套不同的常識，而它們都不是絕對的。

接著設計案的性質也需要注目。它是私人用途（例如住宅），商業用途（例如餐廳），公共用途（例如大學）？使用者可以是特定少數，不特定多數，或介於兩者之間的任何一點。

很多時候設計案停擺的原因，在於參與的（很多很多）人不能夠達到共識。如同生活中許多事情，最小的第一步大概是開始接受 每個人都有著跟你稍微不同版本的常識 的事實，並且準備好出發去尋找 大家不同常識版本中重疊的“常識分母”。

無論我們的常識是多麼不同，這些常識間必定或多或少有共通的分母。最終決定的是你，願意付出多少努力去尋找這個分母呢。

“Common sense” should never be taken for granted. It is the product of beliefs and habits formed over prolonged period of time, but it can be something very individualist and egocentric.

Every time when meeting a new client, it is the time to reassess what is common sense; even more so when the client is not singular - a couple, a company, an organisation, etc. It is highly likely that within the “client” there exists several sets of common sense, and none of them are absolute.

Then the nature of the project comes into play. Is it for private use (eg. house), commercial use (eg. restaurant), public use (eg. university)? The users can be specific small number, non-specific large number, or anything in between.

A lot of the time projects go on hold, because the common sense can not be shared amongst the (many many) people involved. Same as a lot of other things in life, the first baby step is probably to start recognising that everybody owns a slightly different version of common sense to that of yours, and be ready to seek out the “common sense denominator”, where the various versions of common sense overlap.

No matter how different our common sense are, there is ought to be a common denominator. It is about how much effort one is willing to invest in finding it.

asking the wrong question

造訪 Oscar Niemeyer 在巴西的作品，簡直像是造訪另一個星球。

“紀念碑性”被提升到了另一個境界 － 他的建築裡包含了無窮的想像，歡快，及力量。

但是卻是在造訪了他較不為人知的Brasilia大學內的 ICC教棟，與美好的 Palacio do Itamaraty 後，我腦中才開始了自我問答。

我的認知中，建築的目的有兩個極端 － 一端是為了人類的舒適，另一端是為了發表一種宣言，即“紀念碑性”。Niemeyer著名的作品多為紀念碑性的那端，例如：Niteroi, Congresso Nacional, Museu Nacional Honestino Guimaraes。它們絕對的是一種宣言，並有著創造歷史的角色；我不得不對 Niemeyer的才華折服。但是這些並不是令人能夠舒適的逗留的建築物，簡單來說人們的舒適與否並不是這些建築物的設計重點。

Visiting Oscar Niemeyer’s work at Brazil was like visiting another planet.

Monumentality was taken to another level - the imagination, cheerfulness, and power of his architecture.

But what really started the mental debate in me was after visiting his relatively little known ICC at University of Brasilia, then the fabulous Palacio do Itamaraty.

In my mind, purpose of architecture has 2 extremes - on one end is for human comfort, on the other end is for statement making, the monumentality. Niemeyer’s famous woks are mostly the statement making end of spectrum: Niteroi, Congresso Nacional, Museu Nacional Honestino Guimaraes are good examples. They are definitely statement - and history - making, and I can not but wonder about the brilliance of Niemeyer’s mind. However these are not comfortable buildings to be within, simply because human comfort was not the point of these buildings.

我幾乎要斷定這是 Niemeyer 一貫的建築手法了，直到 ICC 告訴我不同的事實。ICC 相反的是以人們如何使用空間，以及自然如何與建築融合為中心的作品 － 而不是幾何圖像或形體。建築元素甚至可以被無視，因為逗留在 ICC 的感官經歷才是讓人印象深刻的設計要點。然後是 Palacio do Itamaraty，完美的平衡了兩個極端。它一方面達成不容置疑的紀念碑性，同時環境又是如此怡人的讓我不捨得離開，能待多久就想待多久。

這讓我質疑，在1970年到達了Palacio do Itamaraty的境界（兩個極端間的完美平衡）後，為什麼 Niemeyer 會走上一條設計道路將他帶領到1996年的 Niteroi－重量級的紀念碑性與輕量級的舒適性，即”不平衡“？

I was convinced that this is how Niemeyer approached architecture, until ICC told me otherwise. ICC was really more about the way people occupy the space, and the integration of nature - not so much about geometry and form. In a way the architectural elements can be ignored as the sensual experience of being there is (designed to be) so much more impressive. Then there is Palacio do Itamaraty, striking the perfect balance between the 2 extremes; whilst it was doubtlessly monumental, being there was so pleasant that I would have loved to stay there, in the building, for as long as I could.
It made me wonder, having achieved Palacio do Itamaraty (perfect balance between the 2 extremes) in 1970, why would Niemeyer then went on the path leading to Niteroi in 1996, which is heavily monumental but light on human comfort, i.e, unbalanced?

我發現我問錯問題了，難怪得不到答案。問題跟建築無關 － 何謂建築？我們建築師應該設計的是甚麼樣的建築？我們該以甚麼手法進行建築設計？..這些我們慣常問自己的問題。

問題應該是：“甚麼東西是只有 Oscar Niemeyer 才能夠為這個世界創造的？” － 不是“一位建築師”，而是“Oscar Niemeyer”。Palacio do Itamaraty 令人贊歎，但是 Niteroi 是完完全全的 Niemeyer。這才是這個世界想從他那裡得到的創造，而他心裡也明明白白。有時候重點不是在於一個人想給予的是什麼，而是在於周遭想從這個人那得到什麼。

你是不是也對自己問錯問題了呢？你知道什麼是唯有你才能為這個世界創造的嗎？

I realised I was asking the wrong question, no wonder I was not getting the answer. The question is not about “architecture” - What is architecture? What architecture should us architects design? How should we approach architecture? ..the questions we ask ourselves all the time.

The question is “What is it that only Oscar Niemeyer can bring to this world?” - not “an architect”, but “Oscar Niemeyer”. Palacio do Itamaraty is hands down amazing, but Niteroi is undeniably Niemeyer. And that is what the world wanted from him - which he knew. Sometimes it is not about what one wants to offer, but about what the world wants from him/ her.

So, have you been asking yourself the wrong question? Do you know what is it that only you can bring to this world?