胡安·布斯蓋茲，葉揚/Joan Busquets, YE Yang

張裕翔 譯/Translated by ZHANG Yuxiang

胡安·布斯蓋茲訪談

Interview with Joan Busquets

胡安·布斯蓋茲，葉揚/Joan Busquets, YE Yang

張裕翔 譯/Translated by ZHANG Yuxiang

西班牙規(guī)劃師、建筑師胡安·布斯蓋茲在2009年與意大利建筑師斯特凡諾·博埃里、理查德·布爾德特、雅克·赫爾佐格及威廉·麥克多諾等人一起進行了米蘭世博園區(qū)概念性總體規(guī)劃的部分設計與討論，但由于米蘭世博會的組織方對會后利用的更多考慮，這一版方案并沒有完全實施。我們邀請布斯蓋茲教授回答了我們的問題，請他進一步解釋說明2009年概念性總體規(guī)劃與實施規(guī)劃之間的差異，以及其中反映的對城市、建筑的思考。

WA：您愿意給讀者們講講您是如何闡釋2015米蘭世博會主題的嗎？胡安·布斯蓋茲：“滋養(yǎng)地球”這一主題很具啟發(fā)性，也有著重要的意義。實際上，智慧地利用食物資源和理智地生產(chǎn)食物是一件很值得研究的事情。不僅如此，食物更是人類參與市民生活的重要元素，并對文化的多樣性具有深遠影響。參觀完米蘭世博會之后你會發(fā)現(xiàn)：原來食物除了養(yǎng)育著人們之外，還支撐著重要的社會活動；而且這一主題還可以繼續(xù)延伸到各個領域，為未來的世博會提供很好的素材。

WA：您參與了2009年2015米蘭世博會概念性總體規(guī)劃的編制，可以為我們介紹一下當年的設計過程以及與赫爾佐格及德梅隆等人的合作情況嗎？

布斯蓋茲：初期的設計策略部分是我和赫爾佐格、博埃里、布爾德特等人組成的小組一起完成的，非常有趣?；孛娣e雖然比較緊張，但位置很理想，位于城市和機場之間，緊挨著歐洲最大且最富盛名的米蘭市場。

我們也遇到了一些比較有挑戰(zhàn)性的問題，比如，如何設置場地入口、有沒有可能趁機帶動周圍地區(qū)的基礎設施建設、怎樣處理世博會與市場的關系等等。但是土地的所有權(quán)只有部分是公有的，其余一大部分還被掌握在私人業(yè)主手中，因此，“后世博”土地利用的方式和土地利用的強度就變得非常重要；而且世博會的舉辦所帶來的“附加值”如何造福本地社區(qū)也是我當時還沒有想清楚的問題；這正是引發(fā)了多次討論的爭議點，也是我后來放棄那么棒的初期想法的原因。

WA：兩個版本的規(guī)劃之間有哪些不同？

布斯蓋茲：關于最初的“星球植物園”的設想。這是一個很棒的想法，但是在21世紀世博會的生產(chǎn)流程下非常難以實現(xiàn)。當今的世博會總會著力展現(xiàn)不同文化之間的差異和不同國家管理體制的不同；而這一主題似乎在呼喚著一些更為精妙、可適性更強甚至有時是具有爭議性而又很生動、很有活力的東西。

所以，最主要的問題就變成了你該如何組織這塊世博會場地——它雖然很小，但也可能變得很有趣。我們通過確定每個展館的虛擬平面建立了一個緊湊的場地模型，模型中的展館都用一個狹窄的立面對著博覽會主軸線，內(nèi)部空間則延伸到后方，這就迫使建筑師們設計更具“城市模式”的建筑形，從而形成了一個個有趣街塊的高密度凝結(jié)體，最終，當你將這次世博與之前的世博會比較時，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)其獨特的創(chuàng)新性。另一方面，一些小的“飛地”和組團聚集起了統(tǒng)合不同議題的小展亭。主軸線上的公共空間應該超越米蘭城市中現(xiàn)有的城市化范式，甚至為后世博的城市發(fā)展提供很好的借鑒案例——雖然這件事仍在醞釀之中。不過，總平面可以被輕易變形或改造，比如貫通一些軸線與周圍空間之間的連接，讓場地成為一個真正的“城市地塊”，并迅速融入米蘭現(xiàn)有的城市肌理。

WA：是否可以說通過紀念性的建筑形式彰顯國家形象和資本的力量仍然在當今世博會建筑的設計中扮演著重要角色呢？

布斯蓋茲：我們可以說，一次世博會或一項世界范圍的大事件，比如奧運會、世界設計之都、文化論壇等等的關鍵問題就是如何為活動期間設計場地，更為活動后設計場地。我認為，“活動后”是首要的，“活動期間”是第二位的。因為最后留下的終究是城市，世博會將是一套城市發(fā)展的策略和構(gòu)想。例如，1992年的巴塞羅那和1998年的里斯本這些利用雙周期設計方式實現(xiàn)的世博會證實了這一思路的可行性和有效性。

在我看來，米蘭依然有時間實現(xiàn)這一點，并且越快越好。規(guī)劃布局、基礎設施和場地位置都容許他們立即作出相應調(diào)整，只要他們愿意認真研究一下現(xiàn)有的布局、妥善地處理土地所有權(quán)和未來的開發(fā)權(quán)問題，并且避免采取投機的行為。

在做世博會設計的時候，我們要一直提醒自己這些建筑設計出來就是要被拆掉的。當我們回顧2010上海世博的時候，我們可以意識到只有極少的建筑與場地不相協(xié)調(diào)，而真正重要的是規(guī)劃布局、基礎設施營造和后世博時期如何重新填充這座“城市”：這就又回到了我之前提到的雙周期設計上。

世博場地在發(fā)展中期產(chǎn)生的影響是驚人的。比如我們可以看里斯本世博會和它在城市東部的會場，那曾是一片廢棄的荒地，一度對城市居民毫無意義；而今，經(jīng)過世博會改造后，那兒已經(jīng)變成了都市中最受歡迎的區(qū)域。

換句話說，世博會上的建筑可以用“特殊”來形容。大部分建筑會被拆除或運輸?shù)胶苓h的別處，之后這片場地就又需要新的建筑類型填充進來。2002年的瑞士世博會是一個很好的例子：世博會上的所有東西都被移走并且以電子文檔、相片、視頻等形式被保存在了一個資料室中，作為后續(xù)研究的資料被予以保存。帶著這種理念，米蘭世博會為打造新型空間的“實驗”提供了非常獨特的機會；你可以實驗新型建筑和新的建造方式，因為這些實驗性空間都會在很短的時間內(nèi)被大量人群使用、體驗；并很快被回收或拆除。我們應該進一步探索這樣的可能性。

WA：您認為哪座展館充分地表達出了世博會的主題“滋養(yǎng)地球”？布斯蓋茲：關于展館對于“滋養(yǎng)地球”這一主題的發(fā)展當然有很多不同的嘗試，我就在此重點提幾個比較有趣的方案：

-法國館試著把農(nóng)業(yè)文化展現(xiàn)為建筑的主回路，用它把人們引入一個陳列著所有關于食物的展品的大廳之中。

-美國館用一條非常復雜的敘事線索來超越它們的快餐文化，展示了它們緊隨新潮流向新的全民飲食模式發(fā)展的進程。

-德國館展示了食品生產(chǎn)如何做到高度去中心化同時保證很高的品質(zhì)，很有教育意義。

WA：在世博會展館設計上是否出現(xiàn)了一些新的潮流？

布斯蓋茲：從建筑的角度看，之前提到的狹長平面的限制使得建筑師們做出了很多相比以往世博會常見的紀念碑模式更為智慧的建筑原型。舉例來說：

-巴林王國在展館中布置了一個狹長的序列性空間，讓人們聯(lián)想到傳統(tǒng)住房的庭園，并且將綠植融入了敘事過程中。

-奧地利館在線性平面里創(chuàng)造了一片“天然林地”，詮釋了如何讓我們的環(huán)境富有趣味又可持續(xù)。

-捷克共和國館十分有趣，敘事方式很新穎。

-英國為我們提供了一座置于新建的理性景觀中的精美的大型雕塑。

與世博會同時期進行的，還有一個米蘭三年展主辦的名為“藝術與食物”的展覽，展覽具有該組織一貫追求的很高的水準。也許類似展覽應該與世博會的日程聯(lián)系得更多一些，這樣它們就能得到更多的關注了?！?/p>

The Spanish architect and urban planner Joan Busquets participated in the design and discussion of the conceptual masterplan of Expo Milano 2015, together with Stefano Boeri, Richard Burdett, Jacques Herzog and William McDonough in 2009. However, this conceptual masterplan was not realized given considerations from the organizer for post-expo utilization issues. We have invited Prof. Busquets to answer some of our questions and to give further elaborations on the difference between the 2009 masterplan and the realized masterplan, with reflections in both urban and architectural aspects.

WA: Would you like to tell our readers how you interpreted the theme of Expo 2015?

Joan Busquets(JB): The theme "Feeding the Planet" was quite inspiring and crucial.

In fact good use of the food and rational way of producing make a lot of sense.

On the other side food is quite an essential part of civic life for human beings and responds in different ways to the most diverse cultures. After visiting the Expo in Milano you discover that food is not only something that feeds the planet but also a social activity; and this theme can be developed in many more orientations and future Expos will probably play with this.

WA: You took part in the conceptual masterplan of Expo 2015 in 2009, can you introduce the process of design and cooperation with Herzog and others?

JB: Initial design strategy done with a group with Herzog, Boeri, Burdett and others was quite interesting. Site was quite compact but well located between the city and the airport and next to Milano Fair, which is one of the biggest and most successful in Europe.

There were some challenging issues like the access to the site, the possibility of improving surrounding infrastructures, its relation with the Fair, etc., to be addressed. But ownership was only partially public and a great deal was still in private hands, therefore the "after expo" uses and its type and intensity was very important; also how the "surplus value" going to be created by the Expo event can be shared by the community was not clear to me; it was cause for many discussions and also the reason why I had quitted so fascinating initiative.

WA：What were the different points between two version of masterplan?

JB: Regarding initial ideas for a "planetary botanical garden" which was a brilliant idea but very difficult to manage according to the production process of an Expo in the XXI century. An Expo today always shows the contrast between different cultures and administrative structures from the countries; the it seems asking for something more articulated and adaptable, sometimes partially contradictory, but finally also quite vivid and dynamic.

Then main question is how you can organize the Expo site understanding that is a relatively small, but it can be quite challenging. The idea of creating a quite compact model by defining "virtual plots" for pavilions with narrow fa?ade to the main axis, and deeper space; forced architects to produce a more "urban type" of morphology resulting in a quite intense conglomerate of interesting blocks, producing in the end a quite innovative Expo, when you compare with already executed Expos. On the other side some "enclaves" or clusters were aggregating smaller pavilions according different topics. Public space in the main axis perhaps should go beyond the normal urbanization standards that had been used in Milano and even they can provide a good strategy for the after-expo development, which seems still to be pending. Nevertheless general layout can be easily transformed and rebuilt, by opening up connections of some axis with surrounding context and making the site a real "urban piece" and becoming quite soon an urban fabric in Milano.

WA: So could it be regarded that expressing national image and power of capital through monumental forms is still an important role for architecture in Expo nowadays?

JB: We can say that a key question for an Expo or a Worldwide event like: Olympics, Design Capital, Forum of Cultures, etc. is to be able to design the site for the event but also for the afterwards. I would say better the "after" first and the "event" second, because in the end is the City the one that is going to remain; the Expo will be an strategy for development.

This is what probably what some old experiences like Barcelona in 1992 and Lisbon in 1998, following a double-cycle design process, had proved to be possible and effective.

It seems to me Milano still has time to do it, and the sooner better will be; but the layout, the infrastructures, the location allows them to do it immediately, if they play with the layout already in place and dealing properly with the ownership and the rights of further development of the site, avoiding a speculative action.

When designing an Expo in general, we have to keep in mind that they are made to be dismantled. When we see the experience of Shanghai 2010 we can acknowledge that only a few buildings stand out of the site and what is important is the location, the infrastructures and the process of filling in the "city" after the expo: this recalls for the double cycle design I was referring before.

The impact of the Expo sites in the midterm can be excellent. For instance if we consider Lisbon and its site on the eastern part of the city, where land was fully derelict and without any meaning for the citizens, today had been converted into the most appreciated place in that metropolis.

On the other side architecture in Expo should be considered "special", most of the buildings will be demolished or transferred to somewhere far away, then this condition is asking for a new sort of buildings. In this respect the 2002 Swiss Expo is a good reference: everything there had been taken away and everything of the Expo is recorded in digital, photo, videos, etc. and kept in one archive room for future research. With this principle in mind, Expo offers very special opportunity to "experiment" with new type of spaces; you can test innovative architecture and new forms of construction, because those all are going to be used and experienced by many people in a short period of time; but recycled or demolished. We should consider this possibility further.

WA: Which pavilion, in your opinion, gives a full expression on the theme of Expo –Feeding the Planet?

JB: Regarding pavilions developing the theme, "Feeding the planet", there were of course many attempts for it, I would like to stress a few interesting insights like:

-France trying to present the agriculture as main circuit before entering into a large hall where everything regarding the food was shown to the visitor.

-US developing a quite sophisticated narrative to overcome the idea of the fast-food, and showing the evolution towards new forms of feeding their population with new trends.

-Germany showing how production can be highly decentralized and refined in the process. Presented also quite pedagogical manner.

WA: Is there any new architectural trends could be found in Expo Pavilion designs?

JB: From architectural point of view, the idea of narrow plots mentioned before invites architects to react with quite intelligent prototypes away from the monumental patterns quite common in the Expos. For example:

-Bahrain was deploying a nice long pavilion with a sequence of spaces that were recalling the courts of traditional housing and allowing vegetation to join the narrative.

-Austria creating within the linear plot a piece of "natural woodlands" explaining how our environment can be interesting and sustainable.

- Czech Republic was quite interesting and the narrative quite innovative.

-Britain was offering a very nice large sculpture well placed into a newly created rational landscape.

Triennale de Milano was in parallel developing and extraordinary exhibit "Art & Food" which corresponds to the importance of this institution. Perhaps exhibit should be better related to the itinerary of the Expo to make more popular its presence.□