王丹丹，柴金戈，邁克爾·毛贊 葉揚 譯， 徐光 校

1. 王丹丹（WANG Dandan，以下簡稱DW）：為什么您將書的標題定為“拒絕再玩”（指邁克爾·毛贊的書《No More Play: Conversations on Urban Speculation in Los Angeles and Beyond》）？這句口號是提醒當下的建筑師們重新思考建筑與城市嗎？還是說，我們將城市理解為“不，繼續(xù)玩”，以此來鼓勵那些在圖形、策略等方面試驗性的嘗試。

邁克爾·毛贊（Michael Maltzan，以下簡稱MM）：我想這兩者都有。如此命名的原因，與洛杉磯關(guān)系密切。它是一個全球化的當代城市，正處在真正的拐點上。洛杉磯無疑是不斷涌現(xiàn)的當代城市范本中的一例，這種城市擁有難以置信的具有活力的場所。這些作為范本的城市，承受著許多壓力以及挑戰(zhàn)，并且，在大多數(shù)情況下，人們常認為，這些新的城市與多數(shù)已定型的老城市相比，不那么嚴肅、過分俏皮、非常年輕，但這也是它們的特性。這本書的書名確實既是一個問題，也是一種呼吁，希望能對這些城市進行認真評估，它們現(xiàn)在如何、未來會怎樣、建筑師要在這樣的世界里扮演什么角色。我認為，書中一個重要的主題是思考建筑師該怎樣面對這些問題。

2. DW：在本書里，關(guān)于洛杉磯，您提出了很多有趣的觀點。您說洛杉磯不是個城市，只能被描述為“洛杉磯”。您能進一步解釋一下這話的意思嗎？

MM：這種認識是來自于書里的研究，以及與那些深入思考城市問題的人進行的對話，這些人不僅有城市主義者，還包括藝術(shù)家、文化學(xué)者、科學(xué)家、社會學(xué)家和歷史學(xué)家。對談中貫徹始終的一點是，沒有人認為“城市”（City）這個詞適合洛杉磯。城市的概念，“城市”這個詞，是非常有歷史感的。我們形成了一個論點，即洛杉磯業(yè)已成型的規(guī)模已經(jīng)不能再輕易地用傳統(tǒng)的“城市”來定義了。城市的概念似乎表達的是一個確定的、可辨認的、地方性的城市現(xiàn)象，具有可以理解的邊界。例如紐約，我想大多數(shù)人都有一個非常清晰的印象，知道那在說什么。當你談?wù)撀迳即?，你可以說它是一個巨大的地區(qū)，一個區(qū)域經(jīng)濟體，一個城市化的大都市，或其他許多不同的事物，似乎都比說它是個“城市”更恰當。它沒有那種突出的特征。所以，我認為，問題之一，當我們開始讀這本書，我的其中一個目標是找出怎么稱呼它。我們笑稱它該被叫作“超大城邦”（Superbigatopolis）。洛杉磯不是唯一一個有這方面問題的城市。許多城市都是這樣，在亞洲就出現(xiàn)了不少。這些城市都太大，太復(fù)雜，肩負著那么多不同的身份。我想，重要的是，該設(shè)想其他方式描述它們，而不是用典型的歷史性的字眼。

DW：的確，城市的邊界被模糊了。

MM：對，而且，這不僅是個語言學(xué)問題，也不是個語義學(xué)問題。我想，它其實涉及到我們?nèi)绾蜗驅(qū)Ψ矫枋鲞@種場所類型的現(xiàn)象特質(zhì)。如果我們想想未來，使用陳舊的語言完全無助于命名我們的場所。

3. 柴金戈（CHAI Jinge，以下簡稱JC）：在“城市”這個論題之下，我想問問您怎么看“城市”（urbs）與“城邦”（polis）這兩個我從柯林·羅的文章里讀到的詞。我發(fā)現(xiàn)，您喜歡城市空間自下而上的微妙特質(zhì)，不喜歡“城邦”的那種自上而下、圖標化、單一的形式。我認為您是那種“城市”的建筑師，這樣理解對嗎？

MM：我是在郊區(qū)長大的，水平、延綿、戰(zhàn)后的美國式城市郊區(qū)。從那里，我能想到的是“體驗特質(zhì)”，場所的特質(zhì)。如果你真的要弄明白什么是一個地方的基本特點，你必須以它們自己的方式思考，而不是通過陳腐的觀念與手段。也就是說，要靠其他方面的特征，如周圍環(huán)境、氛圍、事物之間的空間，而不只是形式本身。這非常重要，可能對研究更有用。思考具有共鳴的特點，非常適用于像洛杉磯這樣的地方。即便是“語境”這個詞，它本身及其與城市相關(guān)的學(xué)術(shù)用法都不怎么適用于像洛杉磯這樣的地方。這座城市的特點是缺乏一致性。如果沒有一致性，你怎么能談?wù)摗罢Z境”這樣的術(shù)語？這并不意味著一個洛杉磯這樣的城市沒有顯著的特點，但它們可能是抽象的、更分散、更微妙的概念；橫向水平的想法，或光的線性特征，或城市的節(jié)奏，這些在定義場所方面都很重要。所有這些，在我們理解并定義一個場所的過程中，有著重要的梯度關(guān)系?？赡苋绻覀兝斫狻疤厣钡囊饬x，就能有一套新的方法用于這種場所。所以，我想這大概使我不是一個“城邦”派。

MM：我想建筑師常常只是以基本的職業(yè)習(xí)慣來做事，用這些手段和技術(shù)去表示我們做足了功課，我們做了分析。但是，如果這些表達不出更多的與你所設(shè)計的場所間接相關(guān)的信息，技術(shù)就變成了一種沒什么用的練習(xí)。我們正在談?wù)撊绾卧谖磥淼某鞘泄ぷ?，恰如我們在談?wù)撊绾卧诋斚碌某鞘泄ぷ?。我提倡一種不同的方法，一種更匹配于當代特質(zhì)和現(xiàn)實中不同類型城市的方法。

JC：正是，像“時代精神”那樣？

DW：我完全同意您的觀點，洛杉磯缺乏一致性。我想起一些當代作品，設(shè)計者企圖分析城市，從中很難得到有用的信息，只是一味地描網(wǎng)格——可是那只是在一塊白板（Tabula-Rasa）上。

MM：對，我想這仍然是個重要的詞。我認為，不僅為城市，也為后代，為社會群體的延續(xù)，要是每代人都能夠在城市中發(fā)揮真正的作用，那么，城市就是最活躍、最可持續(xù)發(fā)展的，處在最好的時代。你可以看看已經(jīng)停滯的城市，比如威尼斯，絕對是個美麗的城市，但可以說，它在幾百年里沒有以任何方式發(fā)展。年輕人不在那里生活，他們都搬出去了，因為他們無法將自己與這座城市聯(lián)系起來。我認為，確保那些重要的地方、重要的城市的活躍性，是一件非常重要的事。

4. JC：中國一些城市的問題是，它們有它們的文脈，但與此同時，它們也往往正在破壞這種文脈。有時確實很難分辨不同的城市。如您書中所說，只有洛杉磯是洛杉磯，那么，我們能不能造句說“只有紐約是紐約”或“只有北京是北京”？大多數(shù)大城市，無論是在美國，還是在中國，正變得越來越像。您如何解讀這種情況呢？

MM：我認為，如何持續(xù)保持及培養(yǎng)自己的獨特性，是當代城市面臨的重大問題之一。在過去數(shù)年里，從城市主義、建筑、景觀角度都有過大量的對話。這已成為一個全球性的問題，并且以全球化的方式在不斷加強。你并不能在這個過程中獨善其身。我想，對所設(shè)計的場所而言，找到更恰切的設(shè)計方式是很重要的，要比立刻接受權(quán)威的可復(fù)制的模式更合適。

比如，我在東海岸受過非常典型的建筑教育，當我搬到洛杉磯，開始在這個城市工作，我很快意識到，像紐約、芝加哥、倫敦、巴黎這些城市的模式，并不是特別有用，反倒像墨西哥城那樣的更有意義。不是因為墨西哥城事事都好，而是因為，它在城市、規(guī)模、環(huán)境等問題上與洛杉磯有相同之處。所以，我認為，這本書的目標之一是說，所有國家全球化城市化的現(xiàn)實，是絕對存在的，但這并不代表所有城市都必須雷同。我認為，這只是意味著我們需要改變我們的方法、我們的技術(shù)，去挖得更深，找出這些新興城市中那些有用的、具有生產(chǎn)力的、可持續(xù)的特性。

5. DW：您說洛杉磯已經(jīng)等同于一個試驗場，在洛杉磯，建筑師既是試驗者也是科學(xué)家。我感興趣的是，您怎么看待您在這個建筑試驗場里所起的作用？您能給我們講些項目作例子嗎？

MM：我認為，洛杉磯這樣的城市是一個不可思議的新理念試驗場。它逐步形成了一種很實用的語境，能夠嘗試建筑、景觀和城市設(shè)計的新形式。但住在這里，我意識到，自己也成了試驗的一部分，也因為我認為與城市最好的相處之道是完全沉浸在其中，做一個積極的參與者。所以，如果這個城市是健康的，你起的作用也是健康的，我想，談到有關(guān)這個城市的事的時候，個人是不斷在參與者與支持者之間轉(zhuǎn)換的。我住在這里，有家庭，有孩子，作為我生活的一部分，我在以一種很明確的方式介入到城市之中。作為一名建筑師，作為一個城市主義者，我仍試圖在我們的作品中運用新形式，可能的話，運用新的拓撲關(guān)系，因為無論扮演什么樣的角色，建筑總是在為城市提供想法，也試著創(chuàng)造一些能夠用于其他地方的模式。如果你看看我們的住宅項目，在貧民區(qū)住宅信托基金（Skid Row Housing Trust）項目里，我們就是這么做的。這些項目對我而言非常有趣，因為它們有著相同的規(guī)模，大約各有80－120套，每個項目都有獨特之處。有時是特殊群體住在那里，有時項目位于特殊的地點，比如新卡弗公寓，旁邊就是公路。我認為，這些項目既是獨立的建筑，也差不多是一個城市的縮影，重現(xiàn)了這個城市中的許多動態(tài)關(guān)系。與此同時，我把所有這些分列的項目視為一個有著城市尺度的大項目。許多城市已經(jīng)把所有的希望寄托到規(guī)模巨大的大型項目上，認為它們能夠轉(zhuǎn)變和提升這些城市的水準，但你也可以通過不斷地一小部分一小部分來積累，創(chuàng)造出產(chǎn)生大變革的項目，這同樣是可以奏效的。

6. JC：動態(tài)是您作品的一個關(guān)鍵特點，比如，MoMA-QNS的動態(tài)標識或雷奧娜住宅交錯的體塊。這是如何在您的作品中形成的呢？

MM：動態(tài)，是洛杉磯式的當代城市的特征；動態(tài)是城市身份認同的一個方面?，F(xiàn)實是，我們有汽車、公路和郊區(qū)，本質(zhì)上，我們的城市是分散的、水平的，這意味著動態(tài)是這些地方發(fā)展的一個重要組成部分。思考動態(tài)是與建筑建立更具試驗性的關(guān)系的一種途徑。你可以以各種各樣的方式設(shè)計建筑。你可以制定一個規(guī)劃，為這個規(guī)劃設(shè)計幾個幾何體，用這種方式，建筑是可以這樣被理解的；你可以創(chuàng)建一種形式、一種獨特的標識化的形式，建筑也能以這種方式被理解。我的興趣在于，建筑在人進入它、穿過它、繞著它轉(zhuǎn)的時候是怎么表現(xiàn)自己的。我們的設(shè)計是在研究、試圖去解讀人們是如何使用、如何體驗建筑物。對我而言，這種方式的優(yōu)點在于，它使參與者與建筑之間形成了一種對話。所以，當你在建筑物周圍，它會給你運動的感覺，與你有所互動。我念書的時候，大概是剛開始接觸建筑的那段時間，你提到的柯林·羅以及許多建筑師正在用經(jīng)典的規(guī)劃手段重新思考城市，并將這種方式運用到當代城市環(huán)境中的新建筑上。問題是，對城市而言，這是一種抽象的工作方式。將城市置于二維空間，遙遠地俯瞰它，這是 “上帝視角”。這產(chǎn)生了一種非常抽象、分離、錯位的城市規(guī)劃方法。它與人們在當代城市中的體驗幾乎毫無關(guān)系。當時我受到了許多藝術(shù)家和雕塑家的影響，他們創(chuàng)造了大尺度的雕塑，目標是把觀眾置于與藝術(shù)、雕塑真正平等的位置上。他們所做的，是在思考人在空間和形式中的運動方式。

JC：像理查德·塞納？

MM：正是塞納那樣的。當你在雕塑中徘徊的時候，能看到所有空間以截然不同的方式圍繞著空間。塞納的雕塑像一個媒介，或許應(yīng)當說是一個晴雨表，它能夠計量它與周圍城市包容性語境的關(guān)系。從某種意義上說，一個單獨的體塊就能展現(xiàn)出整個城市的多樣性，濃縮所有的建筑風(fēng)格和歷史，與其他部分形成一種群舞。我興奮不已，因為這很明確，很清晰，它能促進你的體驗。從那時起，在城市中進行設(shè)計的理念、對建筑以及設(shè)計建筑的思考，都變得與人的運動、體驗相關(guān)，這成了我做設(shè)計的基本工作方法。

7. JC：我們能在您的許多項目里找到大量不同的“圖案”，比如，雷奧娜住宅項目，我們能看出您很喜歡它們，因為您把一些樣本放在您的辦公室外面。您認為它們是種裝飾么？如果它們具有功能，是怎樣的功能？

MM：在現(xiàn)代意義，圖形樣式的確有裝飾性的功能。歷史上，裝飾創(chuàng)造了立面上的浮雕，這是種雕塑技術(shù)，但我使用圖樣作為創(chuàng)造建筑體驗的圖景。你提到那些放在辦公區(qū)的樣本就是個很好的例子。它是一種穿孔的平板表面。你可以看到，在穿孔的表面下面有鏡子。我們本來設(shè)計這棟建筑有著很高大平坦的墻，我想看看是否能在平墻上創(chuàng)建出具有雕塑般動感的效果。當你沿著那堵墻，穿孔板背后的鏡子反射著樹木、草地、天空和你。你看到自己的影像被扭曲，被一種難以置信的云紋所代替。這完全是光學(xué)、動感和運動產(chǎn)生的。建筑的形式似乎在呼吸、轉(zhuǎn)變，與人互動。圖形樣式對我來說并不是幾何圖而已，重點是，用它來創(chuàng)造建筑體驗。

8.DW：比起您的私人住宅、文化建筑和展覽項目，彩虹公寓、新卡弗公寓及在建的星公寓，這3個項目看上去很獨特，因為它們是為城市的無家可歸者設(shè)計的。這些項目最大的挑戰(zhàn)是什么？您如何在您的設(shè)計中保持批判性，同時合理地控制預(yù)算？

MM：我致力于多種多樣的建筑項目，它們有著不同的用途。我的興趣是探索發(fā)現(xiàn)建筑的靈活性。我認為，關(guān)于建筑如何發(fā)揮作用，以及從那些最富有的客戶到經(jīng)常被我們文化遺忘的人手中承接多種類型的項目是何等重要，早期現(xiàn)代主義者為我們做了很好的榜樣。我們城市的目標是展現(xiàn)所有這些項目的多樣性，使之形成一種良性的充滿生機的城市文化。你不能讓建筑只為了某一類人設(shè)計，不管是窮人還是富人或是中產(chǎn)階級，應(yīng)當為不斷地培養(yǎng)更加具有活力的文化和城市而努力。我想，很明顯，為無家可歸者提供服務(wù)的項目往往更艱難，財政預(yù)算更為緊張。它們通常處于城市最有挑戰(zhàn)性的部分，比如新卡弗公寓，緊挨著公路，要求我們認真考慮建筑聲學(xué)里的噪音問題。場地或功能越具有挑戰(zhàn)性，建筑智能就發(fā)揮了越大的作用。解決了一系列有難度的、彼此矛盾的要求之后，找到一種方式形成綜合、完整的理念，那么，建筑就處在最佳狀態(tài)，是可以理解并且非常怡人的。如此這般，即使這些項目如此具有挑戰(zhàn)性，也無論什么人住在那里，無論有什么樣的預(yù)算、施工進度或場地的限制，建筑還是能表現(xiàn)出最適用、最有力量的狀態(tài)。

我會說，我們認為我們所有的項目有同樣的亮點。它們都是“建筑”。我認為，這基本上就是這個事務(wù)所的文化。我們身心愉悅地工作，大小尺度的建筑、中國的橋梁、 東海岸的博物館、歐洲的景觀工程、其他城市的大別墅或公寓，它們都與我們有關(guān)。它們都源于同一種建筑設(shè)計的方法。

JC：這么說，預(yù)算只是眾多挑戰(zhàn)之一。

MM：我認為它只是挑戰(zhàn)之一。我們在這個事務(wù)所里學(xué)到的東西，其中之一是思考什么才是建筑最基本的部分，什么才是絕對的必要，什么是你可以壓縮的，由此設(shè)計建造出的建筑，仍然能夠成立，并且具有力量。 要懂得哪里是底線，低于這個水平，你的建筑就迷失了。我也可以說，在我的整個建筑生涯里，從未遇到過預(yù)算不成問題的項目，只是程度不同而已。因為調(diào)節(jié)預(yù)算和設(shè)計的雄心是平衡形式與空間設(shè)計的決策性問題。

9. JC：對于城市擴張您怎么看？洛杉磯總是被批評為城市擴張的怪物，一個臭名昭著的CO2發(fā)射器。

MM：我認為，這就是現(xiàn)實。但我也在思考，城市擴張、一個城市持續(xù)擴張的能力，保持自身形態(tài)可能是一個神話。有一點是，一個城市發(fā)展得太過分，就不再是原本那個城市了。它可能成為了一個不同的地區(qū)。如果你看看北美東海岸，波士頓、紐約、華盛頓特區(qū)、費城，整個東海岸像一個城市。它們有各自的特色和區(qū)劃，但它們都成為了大城市。整個東部海岸都在擴張。洛杉磯當然也是一個擴張的城市。直到現(xiàn)在，洛杉磯仍然繼續(xù)向更遠的地方擴張。但是，我認為它最終形成的邊界，不是一個物理性的邊界，更是心理極限，超過那個界限，這兒就不再是在洛杉磯。無盡的擴張是洛杉磯的特點和神話。在不斷轉(zhuǎn)變的環(huán)境里，如何不斷地想出新的建筑和發(fā)展模式是個有趣的新問題。

10. DW：下一個問題是關(guān)于建筑全球化?，F(xiàn)在建筑師們都在全世界做項目、參加競賽。雖然我知道您也參與國際項目或競賽，但是您的研究和項目大多數(shù)還是植根于洛杉磯的。您是否認為建筑師應(yīng)該更具“地方性”？也許他們該從自己的城市、文化開始？

MM：我對其他的建筑師應(yīng)該做什么或不該做什么沒有什么想法。對我來說，洛杉磯已經(jīng)是一個非常適合工作的地方了。這里能夠在一種富于挑戰(zhàn)并與世界其他城市密切相關(guān)的環(huán)境里設(shè)計建筑與景觀。如果這里是個跟全球化的世界沒有特別緊密關(guān)系的小城市，對我來說，意義可能就會不同。我認為，更重要的是你很明確是什么令你的作品有獨到之處。在建筑上有想法，知道在建筑與城市的更大范疇的對話中，什么使建筑顯得適用并不凡俗，那么，建筑師必須把自己的聲音和觀點表達出來，并與其他周遭的建筑師有所區(qū)別。否則，你無法真正地推進建筑與城市的對話。在一個特定語境里工作，或者與特定的人一起工作，或者接受某種特定的教育，都能讓信念變得更堅定。我不確定信念的源泉是不是這么重要。我感興趣的是，一個提供了多元的意見和方法的環(huán)境，能夠促使你改進和理解自己的方法和作品。在這方面，我覺得洛杉磯給我提供了一個空間，能夠不斷地發(fā)展我自己對建筑的想法，發(fā)出我的聲音。

JC：建筑師的民主？

MM：是的。

11. JC：在全球經(jīng)濟不景氣的時代，中國仍將是世界上最大的建筑工地，對建筑師而言是一個大試驗場。在您的書中，您也將洛杉磯定義為一個試驗場，您認為，這兩種城市之間有什么樣的共同點和差異呢？就目前而言，您有計劃參加那些在中國進行的設(shè)計試驗嗎？

MM：我喜歡在中國工作，由于我們在金華的微型書店項目，我在那里工作過。我們曾參加了深圳文學(xué)與藝術(shù)博物館的設(shè)計競賽，不過沒獲勝，但我對這個競賽項目很感興趣。目前，我們還有項目在成都，包括規(guī)劃和一系列河流、湖泊上的橋梁設(shè)計，其中的一座橋正在建設(shè)，第二座即將開工，我們也在為第三座橋的設(shè)計收尾。所以，我們現(xiàn)在是在參與中國的建設(shè)，涉足了很多類型獨特的項目。中國文化很迷人，但我覺得洛杉磯和中國我們工作過的許多城市都有相似性，也有差異。我對它們都很感興趣。將這二者聯(lián)系起來的一點是，中國的城市，像洛杉磯一樣，都正處在歷史的決定性時刻。在許多城市的建設(shè)中，它們正強烈地想要建造屬于自己的未來。洛杉磯正面臨相同的局面，處在重塑自我的位置。我們處在洛杉磯要面向未來的時段。我很興奮能有機會在中國工作，他們面臨的是一種相似的處境。他們在設(shè)想未來，在用巨大的能量、無窮的許諾、強烈的樂觀精神來實現(xiàn)，無所畏懼，在任何大擴張的時期，你既能犯些貽害未來的錯誤，也能做些睿智和有用的改變，成為未來的一部分。對于建筑師來說，那里是難以置信的地方。

JC：所以，每個城市都是獨一無二的嗎？

MM：我認為是這樣，至少我希望如此。我不知道你是不是像我那樣飛來飛去，不過，最糟糕的是所有的機場都完全相同。在大多數(shù)城市里，城門都是這個城市的入口。宣告這里是城市的門檻，用裝飾手法講述這里的文化。機場就是這種大門，各地的機場似乎已經(jīng)變得越來越像。我認為，機場是非常重要的建筑類型，特別是新興城市的機場，因為它們要表達人們對一個城市的期許。這就是為什么當人們問我想做什么樣的項目的時候，我一直在說，我想做但還沒做的就是機場。有一天我要做一個優(yōu)秀的機場！

12. DW：您在文章中寫道，今日的洛杉磯建筑師和規(guī)劃師應(yīng)該創(chuàng)造能夠代表這個城市及其文化的形式，而不是引入其他城市形態(tài)。然而，在中國，情況是“相反的”。目前，中國對世界各地的建筑師而言是一個試驗場，我們正在輸入各種城市形態(tài)。對這種現(xiàn)象，您有什么看法呢？

MM：理論上說，中國是很吸引人的，因為大部分當代有關(guān)建筑的思考都能在那里找機會建成。從這個意義上講，中國也許將成為世界上最好的最大的最引人注目的建筑博物館。這并不是件壞事，因為我認為，許多跨越歷史、重要而強大的文化都在從其他地方引進最好的建筑和構(gòu)筑物。在歐洲的17－18世紀，一個國家或一個王國經(jīng)常從其他國家引進藝術(shù)家、音樂家和作曲家。所以，我不認為我們現(xiàn)在所看到的是一種新現(xiàn)象。但它具有一定規(guī)模，而且被壓縮在這樣一個時期里，這才讓它顯得特別。我認為，由于中國目前超常規(guī)發(fā)展，不同的區(qū)域、城市、鄰里、政府、選區(qū)、社區(qū)，需要越來越多地表現(xiàn)出人們對獨特城市的雄心，找到某種方式來表現(xiàn)這些設(shè)想。我想，這種方式會令設(shè)計工作變得更有深度和廣度；一旦建成開放，建筑就不會消失或完全沒用。對我而言，這是最大的挑戰(zhàn)。建造一個音樂廳或博物館，如果對以后這些新空間該怎樣安排功能、如何利用沒有深刻了解，最終，長期使用的結(jié)果是從根本上破壞建筑的效用。我不認為，建筑或者風(fēng)格或者外國建筑師的引進對中國而言是個問題。我覺得問題是“建筑在它們被建成時也就獲得了生命”。如果它們有生命，那么，各種各樣建筑學(xué)上的見解、建筑設(shè)計上的抱負及建筑利用帶來的復(fù)雜結(jié)果，會令整個國家和建筑界都有非常豐富的體驗。

13. JC：當您1995年創(chuàng)建邁克爾·毛贊建筑事務(wù)所時，什么是您最初的“大構(gòu)想”？您希望達到的目標是什么？現(xiàn)在，您的事務(wù)所已經(jīng)運營了16年，您對未來有怎樣的計劃？

MM：我成立事務(wù)所最初的野心像其他許多建筑師一樣，很天真。也就是開始我自己的事業(yè)，做能發(fā)出自己聲音的建筑，做些什么來展現(xiàn)你所認同的建筑、城市和景觀。我沒想過這會有多難，也沒想過別人怎樣。我想，最重要的是以極大的純真和樂觀投入其中。我們很幸運。對我個人而言，公司的業(yè)績是最大的回報，對于我們的建筑在文化中所能發(fā)揮的作用，我們已經(jīng)越來越接近我的抱負。不過，我覺得我們尚未達到目標。仍然有很多建筑、很多設(shè)計，是我們愿意去做，并且渴望去嘗試的。我希望我永遠不會感到徹底達到了最終的有限目標。我認為，建筑師們都很焦慮，并且不斷批判他們之前做的設(shè)計，總想下一個做得更好。所以，未來對我來說，希望繼續(xù)問些有意義的問題，做令人興奮的項目，發(fā)掘那些問題里真正重要的東西。我愿意在中國做更多的工作，因為我認為在那里的設(shè)計是真正有都市尺度的設(shè)計。那些項目與我曾經(jīng)試圖在建筑和景觀的設(shè)計中以及在寫作中表達的東西有很密切的關(guān)系。我想在中國繼續(xù)發(fā)展我們的工作，繼續(xù)思考城市問題，幫助我思考當代城市發(fā)展。到目前為止，一切都好。

JC & DW：我們非常期待看到您的新作。

MM：我也是，咱們都是這樣！

14. JC & DW：您是否相信建筑能夠改變世界？

MM：我相信。我一直懷有這種信念。我想對于建筑師來說，這是理所應(yīng)當?shù)?，要堅持這種信念，寄望于此，并且有這種雄心。我從未看到過任何事能比建筑更有實際意義，只有建筑是在真實的場所為了真實的主題而做，并能產(chǎn)生重大的積極的變化。這是建筑獨有的功能。我認為，用建筑來看待我們的生活和周圍的世界，是一種更為樂觀的方式，也是更積極的視角。在這方面，它確實能發(fā)揮重大作用?！?/p>

1. DW: Why is your book titled "No More Play"?Is that a slogan to warn current architects to rethink the relationship between architecture and the city,or can we understand the city as "no, more play",to encourage more experimentation with pattern,policies, etc.

MM: I think it's both. The reason for the title,especially about a city like Los Angeles, is that contemporary cities globally are at a real turning point. Los Angeles is absolutely one of the models of that kind of continually emerging, contemporary city,and this kind of city is an incredible dynamic place.These model cities have a lot of pressures, they have a lot of challenges, and, in many cases, these newer cities, are often thought of in contrast with more established older cities as not serious, overly playful,and very young, but that is also one of their qualities.The title of the book is really both a question and a call for a very serious evaluation of where these cities are right now, what they'll look like in the future,and what role architects will play in that world. I think one of the key issues in the book considers how architects will approach that question.

2. DW: So, in this book, you made some interesting argument about los Angeles. You said LA is not a city, it could be only be described as LosAngeles. Can you explain more about what you mean?

MM: It really came from a lot of the research in the book and from talking to a lot of people,who have thought deeply about the city; not just urbanists, but also artists, cultural writers,scientists, sociologists, and historians. One of the most consistent parts of those conversations was that nobody thought the term "city" seemed to fit Los Angeles. The idea of the city, and the word "city", is a very historical one. But you can make an argument that Los Angeles has grown to a scale where it no longer is easily defined by the traditional term "city". The idea of city seems to suggest a defined, recognizable, localized, urban phenomenon, with understandable boundaries.When you say New York City, I think most people have an incredibly clear view of what that is.When you talk about Los Angeles, you can say it's a huge region, it's a regional economy, it's an urban metropolis, you can call it many different things that seem more appropriate than saying it is a city.It doesn't have that kind of singularity. So I think one of the challenges, and when we started the book,one of my goals, was to figure out what to call it.We joke that it should be called "Superbigatopolis".Los Angeles is not the only city with this identity challenge. Many cities are like that, many are emerging in Asia. These cities are so large, so complex, with so many different identities within them that I think it's important to try to imagine what other way we might describe it, as opposed to using typical historical terms.

DW: Exactly, like blur the boundary of cities.

MM: Exactly. And it's not just a linguistic question, it's not a semantic question. I think it's actually about how we talk to each other about the phenomenon of these kinds of places. If we are thinking about the future, it is not very helpful naming our places using the language of the past.

3. JC: In terms of city I'd like to ask you about"urbs" and "polis", which I learned from Colin Rowe's writing. I found you love the bottom-up, subtle characteristics of an urban place, instead of the top-down, iconic, singular forms of "polis", or city.And I think you are kind of an "urb" architect, is that right?

1 邁克爾·毛贊事務(wù)所內(nèi)部/Office of Michael Maltzan Architecture

MM: I grew up in a suburb, a very horizontal,continuous, post-war suburb. The thing I remember from that place were the "experiential qualities"the quality of the place. If you are really going to understand what is fundamental to any place,you have to think about them on their own terms,not through outdated ideas and tools. And that means that other types of characteristics, like the ambient, like the atmosphere, like the space between things, not just the forms themselves,are just as important and maybe even more useful to study. It is those other characteristics that have real resonance and are very applicable to a place like Los Angeles. Even the term "context",and its academic use in thinking about making relationships with a city, is not so useful for a place like Los Angeles. The city is defined by its lack of consistency. If you don't have consistency, how can you talk about terms like context? It doesn't mean that a city like Los Angeles, doesn't have observable characteristics, but maybe they are more abstract,more ambient, more subtle; the idea of the horizontal, or the linear quality of the light, or the pace of the city are just as important in defining a place. All of these things are important gradients in the way that we understand a place and the way we define it. Potentially, if we understand the concept of "characteristics", it gives us a new set of tools when we are working in places like this. So I guess that makes me not a 'polis'.

DW: Actually I totally agree with you, LA is lacking consistency. I think of some contemporarywork where designers are still trying to analyze the city, but you can't get any useful information, just by tracing the grid; it's Tabula Rasa.

MM: I think very often architects approach things merely at the level of being good professionals, we use these tools and techniques to say that we've done our homework, we did the analysis. But if it doesn't tell you anything more consequential about the place that you are working and it ends up being a not particularly useful exercise in technique. We are talking about how we approach working in cities in the future, as much as we are talking about how we approach working in the cities now. I'm advocating for a different kind of approach, one aligned with the contemporary qualities and realities of these different types of cities.

JC: Yes exactly, like Zeitgeist?

MM: Exactly, and I think that's still an important term. I think that not just for cities, but for generations, for success of groups of people,I think that cities are the most dynamic and the most sustainable, and at their best, when each new generation has a real role in adding to the city. You can look at a city that has stopped, like Venice,absolutely a beautiful city, but arguably has not developed in any way for hundreds of years. Young people don't stay there, they move away, because there is no way to express their connection to the city, and I think that's an important fact, in keeping any particular place, particular city alive.

4. JC: The problem for some Chinese cities is that they have their context, but at the same time,they are destroying the context. Sometimes it's hard to identify the city. If, like what you said in the book, that only Los Angeles is Los Angeles, can we come up with sentences like "only New York is New York", or "only Beijing is Beijing" ? How can you explain the fact that most large cities in the States,or in China, are getting more and more similar.

MM: I think that is one of the most important challenges for contemporary cities, is to continue to maintain and foster their identity. There has been over the last number of years, a great deal of conversation about the way in which urbanism,architecture, and landscape, have become a global discipline, and that they are strengthening in their global approaches. And it's not that you can isolate yourself from the rest of what's going on in the world.But I think it is important to look at approaches that are more appropriate to the place that you are working than to immediately accept the canonical, as replicable model for these new places.

For instance, when I arrived in Los Angeles after school on the East Coast, and a very classical

education, and starting to work in the city, I began to realize very quickly that cities like New York, or Chicago, or London, or Paris, were not particularly useful models, but cities like Mexico City were. Not because Mexico City is doing everything correctly,but because, the urban issues, the scales of the problems, the question of the environment were similar. So I think one of the goals of the book is to say that there is absolutely a reality to the globalization of urbanism in all countries, but that doesn't mean that you completely homogenize all cities so that they look the same. I think it just means that we need to change our approach,our techniques, to look more deeply at what characteristics might be useful and productive, and sustainable, in these newer cities.

5. DW: You said LA has been equated to a laboratory and in LA the architect is both the experiment and the scientist. I am interested in what you see your contributions are in this architectural laboratory? Can you give us some projects as examples?

MM: I think a city like Los Angeles is an incredible laboratory for new ideas. It continues to evolve as a very useful context for trying out new forms in architecture, landscape and urbanism.But in living here, I realize I am also a part of the experiments, too, because I think the best relationship or role you can play in the city is to be completely immersed in that city, to be a very active participant in the city. So if the city is healthy, your role in that is a healthy role; I think you constantly move between participant and advocate, to say something about the city. I live here, I have a family, I have kids, I participate in a very real way in the city as one part of my life.As an architect, as an urbanist, I have continued to try to press in our work new forms, potentially new typologies, for what kind of role architecture has in making an idea about the city, as well as trying to invent models that could be useful in other places as well. If you look at the housing projects we've been doing for the Skid Row Housing Trust, those projects are interesting to me because they are all about the same scale, maybe 80-120 units, and each project has a unique challenge. In some cases, it's a specific demographic of people who live there, other times it's a very unique site, like the New Carver Apartments which is right next to the highway. I think of those projects as individual buildings but also as ones that try to be almost a microcosm of the city and reproduce a lot of the same dynamic and relationships that you see in the city. At the same time I think of all those separate projects as one large project at the scale of urbanism. Many cities have placed all their hope in huge mega scale projects, and they can be transformative and very productive in the cities, but you can also create very large transformative projects by the steady accumulation of a series of smaller incremental parts, and be just as successful.

6. JC: Movement is a key characteristic of your work, for example, the dynamic logo of MoMAQNS or the staggered massing of the Leona Drive Residence. How this has evolved in your work?

MM: Movement characterizes contemporary cities like Los Angeles; movement is a part of the very identity of the of city. The reality that we have cars, highways, and suburbs, essentially a dispersed horizontal city, means movement is an important part of the way that these places were developed.Thinking about movement is a way of creating a more experiential relationship with architecture.You can design architecture in different ways. You can make a plan, and create geometric order to that plan, and the building is understood in that way. You can create a form, a singular iconic form,and the building could be understood in that way. I am interested in buildings revealing themselves to you as you move in, through and around them. The building design is developed in an effort to try tounderstand how somebody would use and experience the building. The benefit in that approach for me is that it puts the participant and the building into a conversation. So as you move around the building, it gives you the impression of moving and responding and relating to you. When I was in school, around the time I was starting architecture, Collin Rowe who you mentioned, and a lot of architects were interested in rethinking the city using classical planning techniques, and importing that to new work in contemporary urban situations. The problem with that was it's an abstract way of working in the city.It was a God-eyes view, distant, looking down at the city in two dimensions. And that leads to planning the city in a very abstract, disassociated, dislocated way. But that view has very little to do with the way that people experience the contemporary city. I was influenced by a number of artists and sculptors at the time who were creating large scale sculptures,and whose goal was to put the viewer, back into a real equation with the art, with the sculpture. They did that by thinking about the way you would move in and around space and form.

JC: Like Richard Serra?

MM: Exactly like Serra. You saw all of the spaces surrounding spaces the piece in a very different way as you moved around the sculpture.Serra's sculpture acted like a intermediary, or almost a barometer for the city around it, gauging its relationship to its context it is very inclusive.Somehow one singular piece seemed to represent the whole diversity of the city, melding all of those architectural styles and histories, into a choreographic dance with each other. And I was excited by that because it was clear and it was so conscious, it was a provocateur of your experience.Since then, that idea of working in the city, thinking about architecture, and designing architecture in relationship to one's movement, one's experience of a building, has been fundamental to the way of I approach all other work.

7. JC: We can find a lot of different "patterns"in some of your projects, like the Leona Drive Residence project, and we can see you love them,since you put some samples of them outside of your office. Do you think they are kind of ornament? And if they have functions, what are their functions?

MM: In a contemporary sense, pattern does have an ornamental function. Ornament historically created relief in a facade, it is a sculptural technique more than anything but I use pattern as a way of creating experiences. The mock-ups you mentioned here at the office area a good example.It is of a perforated flat skin. You can see through the perforations of that skin that there is a mirror behind it. We were designing a building with a big, flat plain wall and I wanted to see if it was possible to create a sense of sculptural movement in that flat wall as you move around it. As you walk along that wall, the mirror behind the perforated screen reflects the trees, the grass, the sky and you as well. You see yourself pixilated within that facade and there is this incredible moiré pattern that occurs. It is completely optical and dynamic and moving. The form of the building seems to be breathing, shifting, and alive with you. Pattern isn't for me about the geometries of the pattern. It is more about creating experience.

8. DW: Compare to your private houses, culture and exhibition projects, Rainbow Apartments,New Carver Apartments, and the on-going Star Apartments projects are very unique, because they are for formerly homeless people. What is the biggest challenge for the projects? How did you keep critical in your design while controling the building budget reasonably?

2 邁克爾·毛贊事務(wù)所內(nèi)部/Office of Michael Maltzan Architecture

MM: I have a real commitment to a wide range of architectural projects and programs. My interestis to continue to explore how elastic architecture can be. I think the early modernists gave us an example of how architecture could be useful and important in taking on a wide range of project types, from those for the very wealthiest clients to those who are very often forgotten segments of our culture. Our urban goal is to show that all of these projects are absolutely essential in their diversity and contribute to a very healthy and vibrant urban culture. You can't have architecture just exist for one segment of the population, either the poor or the wealthy or the middle-class, and expect that you are going to help to continue to foster a more dynamic culture and city. I think obviously,the projects for the homeless, tend to have much tougher, much tighter financial budgets. They are often in parts of the city which are challenging, like the New Carver Apartments which is right next to the highway and required us to carefully consider the intense noise in the building acoustics. The more challenging the site or program, I think you see the intelligence of architecture being particularly useful. Architecture is at its best when it takes a series of very difficult, often competing challenges,and finds a way of making a synthetic and complete idea, one that is understandable and beautiful for people. In that case, because those projects are so challenging, whether in terms of the people who would live there, the budgets, the construction schedules, or the limits of the sites, architecture is able to be at its most useful and most powerful.

I will say that we view all of our projects in the same light. They are all "architecture". I think that is very much about the culture of this office. That we feel comfortable doing, large and small scales of buildings, bridges in China, museums on the East Coast, landscape projects in Europe, big houses and apartment buildings in other cities; they are all related to us. They all come from a single way of approaching architecture.

JC: So budgets are just one of the challenges.

MM: I think it is one of the challenges. One of the things we learned here at the office was to ask what is the most fundamental parts of the architecture, what is absolutely essential, what can you boil it down to, and still produce something where architecture is present and powerful. To understand where the line is that if you fall below you know you've lost your architecture. And I can also say that I have never worked on a project in my entire architecture career where budget wasn't a challenge at some level because the reconciliation of a budge and a project's ambition is an equal design decision to form and space.

9. JC: What do you think of Urban Sprawl?Since L.A. is always criticized as an urban scrawl monster, a notorious carbon dioxide emitter.

MM: I think it is a reality. But I also think that urban sprawl, and the ability for a city to continue sprawl, and maintain itself is probably a myth. There is a point beyond which a city grows so much, it is no longer necessarily that city any more. It might be a different region. If you look at the east coast of North America, from Boston,New York, D.C., Philadelphia, you see that the entire east coast as one city. They have distinct identities and regions, but there is a point where it all becomes one big city. The entire east coast is sprawl. Los Angeles is of course also a sprawl city.Up until now, Los Angeles has been able to expand by continuing to push its boundaries further and further out. But I think that perimeter has finally been reached, not as a physical boundary but more a psychological limit, beyond which you are no longer in Los Angeles. The ability the endlessly expand is a part of Los Angeles' identity and myth. It's an interesting new question for how you continue to think about inventing new buildingsand development models in that shifting context.

10. DW: The next question is about the architecture globalization. Architects nowadays are doing projects and competitions all over the world.Though I know you do a lot of international projects or competitions, most of your research and projects are still based on L.A. Do you think architects should be more "local" ? Maybe they should start from their own city and culture before pursue their cosmopolitan ambition?

MM: I don't know that I have a strong sense of what other architects should do or not do. For me, Los Angeles has been an incredibly useful place to work from. It's a place to build buildings and landscape in a context that is very challenging and relevant to cities around the world. It probably would be much more difficult for me if I was in a smaller regional city that didn't have a strong connection to that global world you just described.I think it's more important to understand what you believe in and what makes your work unique. Having an opinion about architecture, and knowing what makes architecture useful and significant in a larger conversation about architecture and cities, only happens when an architect has his or her own voice and has an opinion that is different or distinct from other architects working around him. Otherwise,you are not really going to move the conversation very far forward. That conviction can develop from doing work in a particular context, or by working with a particular person, or from a particular type of education or school. I'm not sure its source matters so much. I'm more interested in a context that provides a diversity of opinions and approaches against which you can test and understand your own approach and work. In that way I think Los Angeles has provided me with a place to develop my own voice, and my own opinion of what I think architecture can be.

JC: Democracy of architects?

MM: Yes.

11. JC: In this era of global economic recession,China is still the biggest construction site in the world and is considered an experimental ground for architects. In your book, you also define Los Angeles as a laboratory, what do you think are similarities and differences between the two? Do you have any plan to participate in those experiments happening in China, so far?

MM: I like working in China, and have since we worked on the small pavilion project in Jinhua. We were involved in a competition for the Literature and Art Museum building in Shenzhen, which we didn't win, but I was very interested in the building that we developed for that competition.Currently we're doing work in Chengdu, both planning work and also a series of bridges across the river and lakes; one of these bridges is already in construction, a second one is about to starting construction, and we are finishing the design of a third bridge. So we've stayed involved there, with very specific types of projects. I think that the Chinese culture is fascinating, and I think there are both important similarities and also very important differences between a place like Los Angeles and many of the Chinese cities we are working in. I'm interested in both. One of the things that connect those two places is that the Chinese city, like Los Angeles, is at a defining moment in its history. In many of those cities that are building so intensively they are literally building their futures. LA is at a similar threshold, where it is reinventing itself. We are in a period of time when LA is also transforming once again into what it will be in the future. And the thing that has excited me most about the places that we have had an opportunity to work in in China, is that they are confronting a very similar thing. They are inventing who they will be in the future, and with that that comes an enormous amount of energy, enormous amounts of promise,enormous optimism, and enormous challenge,because at any moment of great expansion, you can either make the most profound mistakes that will be permanent parts of your future or you can make smart and useful changes that will be part of that future. That's an incredible place to be as architects.

JC: So, every city is unique?

MM: I think it is or at least I hope so. I don't know if you fly a lot, which I do, but the worst thing is that all of the airports are becoming exactly the same. The form of the city gate was, in most cities the introduction of the city. It announced the city threshold, very often it was decorated in a way that told you a great deal about the culture. Airports have become those gateways and each airport seems to have become more and more like all the other airports. I think airports are one of the really important typologies, especially for emerging cities,because they set people's expectations of that city.That's why I keep saying when people always ask me what the one project that I haven't done but wouldlike to do is, I say an airport. And some day I’m going to make a good airport!

12. DW: In your writings you said that today's L.A. architects and planners should produce forms that represent this city and its culture, as opposed to importing other urban forms. In China, however,the situation is "opposite". Currently, China is a laboratory for architects all over the world; we are importing all kinds of urban forms. What's your observation on this phenomenon?

MM: Abstractly it is fascinating, because much of the most contemporary thinking about architecture is getting the opportunity to be built in China. So in that sense, China is going to become perhaps the best, largest, and most compelling architecture museum in the world.And that is not necessarily a bad thing because I think many important and powerful cultures over history have imported the best of architecture and building from other places. In Europe, in the seventeenth to eighteenth century, very often a country or a king of monarchy would import artists,musicians and composers from other countries. So I don't think this is necessarily a new phenomenon that we are seeing. But it is happening on a scale and in such a compressed period of time. That is the part that does make it unique. I do think that as this extraordinary development in China continues, each of those different regions, cities,neighborhoods, governments, constituencies,communities, will need to be more and more vocal about ambitions they have for their particular city and find a way to express that. I think in that way the work becomes that much deeper and much richer; it doesn't become something that disappears or is un-useful the day after it has been opened. To me that is the biggest challenge. To build a concert hall or museum without a deep understanding of how these new spaces are going to be programmed or useful in the future, ultimately undermines architecture's validity in the long run. I don't think it is a question of the architecture or the styles,or the importation of foreign architects to China.I think the question is "are the buildings going to have real life after they've finish construction".And if they do, then the complexity that comes from the different architectural voices and the architecture's ambition and its use, will make for a very rich experience for the county and for architecture as a whole.

13. JC: When you established Michael Maltzan Architecture in1995, what was the original "big idea" for you? Do you think you have achieved that goal? Now that your office is approaching 16 years of being in business, what are your plans for the future?

MM: My original ambition for the office was like a lot of architects, a naive one. It was to start doing my own work, to make architecture where you could find your own voice, to make something that represented what you believed about architecture, the city and landscape. I didn't realize how hard that was going to be; I don't think anybody ever does. I think it is important to go into these things with a great amount of naiveté and optimism. We have been very fortunate.For me personally, the firm's achievements are most rewarding as we get closer and closer to my ambition for what architecture's role in culture can be. I don't think we are there yet. We still have a lot of buildings, a lot of designs, that we would like to do, and are excited to try. I hope I never feel that I have fully achieved some final, finite goal. I think architects are restless and constantly critical of the things they've made, and they want to make the next one even better. So the future for me, is hopefully to continue to ask real questions and do exciting projects that explore what is important in those questions. I would love to do more work in China because I think the scale of work happening there is at the scale of urban design. Those types of projects relate strongly to much of the work I have been trying to do in the architecture of individual buildings and landscape,but also in writing. I would like to continue to see our work develop here, to continue to evolve our thinking about the city, to help the idea of the contemporary city evolve. So far so good.

JC & DW: and we are expecting your new works.

MM: Me too, the three of us!

14. JC & DW: Do you believe architecture can change the world?

MM: I do. I still do. I think it is incumbent on architects to continue to believe that, hope for that, and to have ambition for that. I have never seen anything be more consequential in making significant, progressive change for real issues in real places than architecture. It has a very unique capacity. I think architecture can be a model for a more optimistic and more progressive way of looking at our lives and the world around us. It really is extremely capable in that way. □