Skip to content

建筑不止于此



我们翻译这篇文章的理由


审视我们习以为常的建筑与生活环境,在列斐伏尔的城市革命中,构想我们接近城市的权利。

——王宇琪


👇


残酷建筑


作者:Laith Kharus Whitwham

译者:何翔宇&李蕾

校对:王宇琪

编辑:张煜成


THE ARCHITECTURE OF CRUELTY

残酷建筑


Architecture and the built environment frame almost every aspect of life in the city. We not only live and work in these buildings, streets, public spaces but create, raise families and engage in the social activities that give meaning to our lives. Yet most of us take the built form for granted, viewing it simply as the infrastructure that provides a place for these activities to occur.

建筑和环境构筑成了城市生活的方方面面。我们不仅在这些建筑、街道、公共场所中生活和工作,更在其中建立、抚育家庭,参与为我们的生活赋予意义的社会活动。然而,我们大多数人都将城市的建成形态视为理所当然,简单地将其看作为上述活动提供场所的基础设施。


However, architecture can and does manipulate our thoughts, feelings and even our movement. Monumental buildings are erected by rulers to inspire awe and devotion (two striking examples being the parliamentary houses of Bangladesh and Romania), while the winding layouts of supermarkets are designed to keep customers within their walls for as long as possible.

但是,建筑的确可以并正在操纵我们的思想、感受甚至行为。统治者竖立纪念性建筑,以激发敬畏之心与奉献精神(两个突出的例子是孟加拉国和罗马尼亚的国会大厦),而超市的蜿蜒布局则旨在将顾客尽可能久地留在其中。


Our tendency to view our built environment as simply ‘being there’ means its ability to manipulate is something that we rarely notice, let alone challenge, which makes architectural design a uniquely powerful tool of governance and control. Unlike unpopular policies or violent police action, the way it acts on the public often draws little scrutiny.

我们将建筑环境视为一种单纯“在那里”的倾向,意味着人们鲜能意识到它的操纵能力,更不用说挑战它了,这使建筑设计成为一种独特而强大的治理和控制工具。与不受欢迎的政策或暴力的警察行动不同,它对公众产生影响的方式通常很少受到审视。


As the process of building requires immense physical and capital resources and the authority to use them, the coercive, unmediated power of architecture rests almost solely in the hands of a wealthy minority and the state. With two-thirds of the world’s population set to live in cities and urban areas by 2050, it’s become more important than ever to question how they are using this power.

由于建设过程需要巨大的物质和资本资源以及使用这些资源的权限,强制性的、无需中间过程的建筑权力几乎完全掌握在少数富人和国家手中。到2050年,全球三分之二的人口将定居在城市和市区,因此质疑这种权力如何被使用变得越来越重要。


Over the past 75 years, this power has increasingly manifested in the form of ‘hostile architecture’, an urban planning trend that uses design to control human behaviour. By altering buildings and public spaces, those in control of urban environments ‘design out’ uses and users they deem illegitimate by making it physically impossible for them to exist in a given place.

在过去的75年中,这种权力越来越多地以“敌对建筑”的形式体现出来,这种城市规划趋势利用设计来控制人类行为。通过改变建筑物和公共空间,那些控制城市环境的人会“设计”其用途,并且在物理上设置无法生存的空间来定义非法人群。


Considered by many urbanists as the ‘classic’ example of hostile architecture, the mid-20th century redevelopment of New York City saw the exclusion of poor, majority black and Hispanic communities from civic life. Chief architect Robert Moses, a vocal racist, built low bridges over the Long Island Parkway to prevent people from poorer black neighbourhoods from travelling by bus to the newly built beaches. He also placed most public parks and swimming pools as far from black and Hispanic communities as possible, and redirected the city’s busiest roads through poorer areas, leaving rich neighbourhoods untouched by traffic.

许多城市主义者将纽约市20世纪中叶的重建计划视为敌对建筑的“典范”,其将贫穷的、黑人和拉美裔为主的社区排除在公民生活之外。总建筑师罗伯特·摩西(Robert Moses)是有名的种族主义者,他在长岛公园大道上修建矮桥,阻碍来自较贫穷黑人社区的人们乘公共汽车前往新建的海滩。他还将大多数公园和游泳池放置在尽可能远离黑人和拉美裔社区的地方,并且将城市最繁忙的道路改道穿过较贫困的地区,使富裕的社区不受交通的影响。


In recent years, perhaps the best-known example of hostile design is the use of anti-homeless spikes on pavements and benches in public spaces, specifically designed to stop people bedding down. Visit any shopping or financial district around the world and you’ll see these devices in abundance. Elsewhere, water sprinklers were installed to douse rough sleepers at a San Francisco cathedral (hastily removed after media exposure), as well as in government buildings in China.

近年来,敌意设计的最著名例子也许是公共场所人行道和长凳上的防流浪者尖刺,专门阻止人们躺下。参观世界各地的购物或金融区,您会发现很多这样的设置。在其它地方,旧金山大教堂安装了洒水装置(在媒体曝光后迅速拆除)来驱赶流浪者,中国的政府大楼同样如此。


Advocates of these strategies speak of their ability to alleviate social problems through environmental design, pointing to crime and rough-sleeping reduction figures. They often use the term ‘defensive architecture’, which tells you everything about the way those in control of resources view the poorest and most vulnerable.

支持者们认为这些策划可以通过环境设计来缓解社会问题,并且降低犯罪率、减少街头露宿者。他们经常使用的短语“防御式建筑(defensive architecture)”,暗示着那些掌控资源的人如何看待社会底层的穷困之人。


But there is not one instance in which the designing out of social ailments actively solves a problem; it is instead content to rid the urban landscape of the ‘scourge of the impoverished’ by simply displacing them to another location. 

但是并没有任何一个例子表明,这些用以摆脱社会轻症的设计能够有效地解决问题。相反,它只是通过简单地将他们转移到另外一个地方,从而满足使城市景观摆脱“穷困的祸害”的幻想。


The overall consequence of these manoeuvres is the rapid privatization of cities and urban areas. Not the kind of privatization that sees public assets transferred into private ownership (though this is happening to public spaces the world over), but of a social kind, by which the city becomes redefined as a realm that serves the demands of a specific substratum of society. When the rich and powerful claim the urban environment for themselves, it should come as no surprise that the poorest and most vulnerable members of society are forced out of the metropolis: those that don’t serve the interests of capital, wealth-accumulation and hyperconsumption.

这些做法带来的总体恶果就是城市以及城市地区的迅速私有化。这不同于那种将公共资产转为私人所有的私有化概念(尽管这种情况正在世界各地的公共空间蔓延),而是一种社会性的私有化,城市由此被重新定义为一个满足社会特定基层需求的领域。当家财万贯和有权有势的人宣称城市“所有权”的时候,社会底层的贫苦人民——那些无法服务于资本扩张、财富增长和过度消费的人民——被驱逐出大都市也就不足为奇了。 


REDEFINING THE CITY

重新定义城市


But these clandestine forces of urban exclusion can be combated. Across the world, vigilant communities have successfully fought for the removal of anti-homeless spikes and sprinkler systems by voicing their objections. So write to your local government representative, tweet, shout about it.

但是这些城市驱逐的暗潮涌动是可以被抑制的。以全世界来看,一些警醒的社区已经通过表达他们的反对意见成功地拆除了防流浪者的钉刺以及洒水系统。所以,请写信给当地政府代表,发送推特并且大声疾呼。


Beyond this, what is really needed is systemic change in the way we construct the urban environment that redefines the city for all. Though the power of private capital may seem insurmountable, urban initiatives are successfully doing this around the world.

除此之外,真正需要的是系统性地改革我们构建环境的方式,重新定义所有人的城市。尽管私有资本的力量似乎难以逾越,但是世界各地的城市倡议者们都在成功地践行这一点。


In Barcelona, the so-called Superblock Model, which emphasizes bottom-up participation in the planning process, has been redistributing public space for pedestrians and reintroducing the public realm as a place for games, social interaction and community gardening.

在巴塞罗那,就存在所谓的超级块模型(Superblock Model),它强调在规划过程中自下而上的参与,重新分配供行人使用的公共空间,同时将公共领域重新引入,作为游戏、社交和社区园艺的场所。


In Kenya, a Public Space Project in Kibera, an informal settlement of around a million people in the capital Nairobi, is building community cohesion by creating ‘productive public spaces’, including small bridges, playgrounds and vegetable gardens. Locals can also attend free educational programmes covering land and tenancy rights.

在肯尼亚的基贝拉,一个位于首都内罗毕、拥有大约一百万人口的非正式定居点,一项公共空间项目正在通过创建“有生产力的公共空间”来建设社区凝聚力,项目囊括了小桥、操场和菜园。市民也可以参与有关土地和租赁权的免费教育课程。


Making waves just a few miles away from where I’m writing this article, the East London community regeneration group Clear Village has recently helped residents near the Down Lane Park development secure over £200,000 ($256,000) of funding to make local alleyways safer.

就在距离我写这篇文章的地方几英里以外,东伦敦社区重建组织Clear Village最近帮助Down Lane公园开发项目附近的居民获得了超过20万英镑(约25.6万美金)的资金,用以保证当地小巷更加安全。


Architecture can be a catalyst for community cohesion and the alleviation of poverty. If we challenge the motives of urban design, we can and will ensure that the city becomes an inclusive place for all.

建筑既是社区凝聚力的催化剂,也是贫困的缓和剂。如果我们勇于质疑城市设计的动机,我们可以也必将让城市成为所有人的容身之处。


👇


点评


🍺张煜成

作为人类文明重要的承载形式之一,建筑的内涵不止于钢筋水泥砖瓦的堆砌,其形成本身是一个熵减的过程,所以能化腐朽为神奇,也可以指鹿为马。从美国总统山到南京大屠杀纪念馆,建筑代表了纪念的仪式感;从CBD的写字楼到天桥下的早餐铺,建筑记载了我们生活的记忆;从切尔诺贝利核电站到柏林墙,建筑留下历史的痕迹和反思。建筑缔造者与利益相关方通过各式各样的设计,用材料和空间,向世界表达自己的价值观,不论对错。                                 




  • 本文原载于 New Internationalist

  • 原文链接:https://newint.org/features/2019/06/19/grand-designs

  • 封面来源:Richard Rummell:Future New York, 1911


一、了解取经号 | 我们是谁,在做什么,如何加入
二、学习贴士 | 如何打印输出PDF如何使用微信读书订阅取经号
三、翻译服务 | 咨询邮箱:[email protected]
四、社交媒体 | 微信公众号:取经号;微博:取经号JTW
五、译文归档 | 访问网站:qujinghao.com
六、学习社群 | 翻译社(暂停中)

添加伍豪微信,防止走丢



Comments are closed.