卡洛·拉蒂/Carlo Ratti

母卓爾 譯/Translated by MU Zhuo'er

突如其來的技術飛躍所引發(fā)的突變總是將建筑史打斷。15 世紀中期的建筑以手工藝為基礎，在此背景下，阿爾伯蒂把數(shù)學方法運用到圖像表達中，從而開啟了文藝復興時期的古典主義：建筑開始注重精確性與繪圖表達，拋棄了工匠式的粗略建造。4 個世紀之后，布魯內爾、帕克斯頓爵士和埃菲爾用鋼鐵與玻璃設計出創(chuàng)新大膽的建筑結構，突破了建造的極限。技術的飛躍帶來了建筑與工程相結合的新美學。

在那之后的一代建筑師迎來了機械時代的巔峰，勒·柯布西耶把大規(guī)模生產的工具與形式運用到建筑中，并宣稱“住宅是居住的機器”。建筑不僅在設計與結構工程的角度得到了優(yōu)化，也在大規(guī)模生產與社會功能方面得到了提升。

技術的劇變推動著建筑的進步。勒·柯布西耶曾夢想城市“和諧地演變成為機械文明的象征”，而今天的文明已經從機械時代進入到信息時代。將物理世界的比特與虛擬世界的原子相結合的數(shù)字化革命有望給建成環(huán)境的設計、建造與運營帶來有史以來最徹底的顛覆性變革。正如機器曾帶來標準化與高產出一樣，數(shù)字化工具可以帶來活力、變化與快速響應能力?，F(xiàn)在我們面臨的問題是：數(shù)字時代的建筑將如何演變？

為應對這一問題，建筑師們最早嘗試從形式入手，為數(shù)字時代創(chuàng)造動態(tài)的建筑。一些建筑師創(chuàng)造出了具有獨特視覺特征的精妙建筑雕塑，例如，弗蘭克·蓋里設計的標志性建筑畢爾巴鄂古根海姆博物館，以及他遍布全球的其他類似項目。蓋里的作品開創(chuàng)了不規(guī)則有機建筑的新美學，通常被稱為“團狀”建筑。這種新的形式語言很大程度上依賴于參數(shù)化設計軟件來實現(xiàn)：建筑師用數(shù)字工具編寫建筑形式的內在邏輯，輸入一些數(shù)據（客觀環(huán)境因素、規(guī)劃條件、功能要求等），然后運行算法來協(xié)調各項條件，最終生成形式極其復雜的建筑形體。建筑師不再需要手動計算來解決各種復雜問題，而是用計算機來生成高度精確的結果。

參數(shù)化設計軟件開辟了一個新的領域，讓建筑師可以從根本上質疑一些傳統(tǒng)的建筑形式。建筑師們熱情而高效地探索可能性的邊界，他們認為在理性與有機的對立之下，非網格化的復雜形式能帶來更多的活力。早期的參數(shù)化建筑理論家開創(chuàng)了一種新的形式感知，旨在“最大限度地強調顯著的差異性”[1]。

備受矚目的2004 年威尼斯建筑雙年展以“變形”為主題，探討了“當代建筑在理論和實踐領域以及新技術運用方面正在發(fā)生的劇變”。展覽匯聚了參數(shù)化設計領域前沿的建筑師、學者、研究者和評論家。雖然展覽的敘事基調是個性差異與實驗嘗試，但如果帶著質疑的目光審視參展的項目，則會發(fā)現(xiàn)它們之間的差異性是非常膚淺的?！坝嬎銠C終于能夠實現(xiàn)各種不同的建筑形式，并且實現(xiàn)難度與從前的標準形式并無二致。然而，這些雕塑般的新形式非常相似，并沒有根本上的創(chuàng)新。這些建筑與結構往往具有感性的折疊、扭曲與彎曲的表面。整個展覽看起來更像一個國際電腦藝術節(jié)……可以說，雙年展體現(xiàn)出來的最重要問題是形式過剩。”在創(chuàng)新的幌子下，雙年展中出現(xiàn)了許多類似的對復雜幾何進行的可預測操作，卻并沒有激發(fā)對建筑真正有意義的動態(tài)性。

參數(shù)化工具賦予了建筑師前所未有的力量，使他們能夠利用算法生成空間，形成一種充滿活力的形式語言。然而，盡管自以“變形”為主題的威尼斯雙年展以來，參數(shù)化設計趨勢在不斷發(fā)展，建筑師卻很難找到有意義的數(shù)據來提供給算法設計過程。一個例子是日本的某個郵輪碼頭的設計，其概念源于傳統(tǒng)繪畫中波浪的幾何形狀，特別是“葛飾北齋的巨浪”。建筑師說，設計靈感來自于“本土畫家的一幅畫，我們在設計競賽階段沉迷于對它進行幾何操作和思考如何建造，當時一直在這幅畫上做文章”[2]。此外，在很多情況下，建筑師對參數(shù)化軟件的應用僅僅停留于建筑表皮的設計。算法可以對數(shù)以千計的元素進行計算，把原本標準化的墻體變得令人眼花繚亂。無論是由地理空間數(shù)據驅動還是由復雜的關聯(lián)矩陣驅動的參數(shù)化設計都可以創(chuàng)造出十分新穎的作品。

現(xiàn)在，發(fā)展勢頭蓋過物理空間的虛擬空間正在涌現(xiàn)出大量的數(shù)據，其中一些數(shù)據被建筑師用到程序腳本中，他們希望利用這些數(shù)據來“培育和發(fā)展新的建筑形式，以應對結構、氣候和功能等方面的一些限制因素。雖然這種做法帶來了十分有趣的形式結果，但它們也凸顯了概念與過程上的局限性：用于生成這類新建筑的設計工具可能是動態(tài)的，但生成的建筑本身卻依然是靜態(tài)的”[3]。在給定的條件下，建筑師可以生成無數(shù)的建筑形式方案，但這些十分復雜而又規(guī)模巨大的建筑方案卻并不一定是有意義或有生命的。“人們可以用算法生成類似自然的形式，但這些形式卻幾乎不具備任何生命本身的行為特性和可以適應環(huán)境的復雜性?！?/p>

算法生成的建筑是對高度復雜性的靜態(tài)可視化。在固定的實體空間中激發(fā)數(shù)字空間的流動性，也就是要把一個動態(tài)的過程凍結，正如在一個動態(tài)序列中按下暫停鍵以停留在單個幀一樣。即使是能量和活力的高潮，當它被靜態(tài)畫面捕捉時，也只能傳達出動態(tài)整體的一絲影子。

雖然我們可以計算出視覺復雜度，但除了外在吸引力以外，它還能帶來什么呢？人們真的喜歡視覺上復雜的東西嗎？數(shù)字時代已經讓我們的世界充滿無數(shù)的流動、層次和復雜性，而靈活可塑的建筑形式只會讓建成環(huán)境看起來更加混亂。數(shù)字工具可否真正與建筑整合，突破目前僅應用于飾面和增加光澤度的局面？如何整合數(shù)字設計系統(tǒng)來實現(xiàn)真正的動態(tài)建筑？“數(shù)字化不僅是在設計過程中使用計算機，也不是為了讓一件東西看起來很‘數(shù)字化’。它是一種日常狀態(tài)，就像接電話和聽MP3一樣簡單?！盵4]也就是說，數(shù)字時代的建筑應該成為人類生活中不可或缺的一部分。建筑不僅要看起來像一個活的有機體，它也應該如同一個活的生命系統(tǒng)運作著。

創(chuàng)造“活”建筑的最早曙光可以追溯到20 世紀中期的可移動建筑的實驗。當時，一批年輕的日本建筑師，即新陳代謝派，為戰(zhàn)后日本不斷增長的人口提出了有生命的建筑的構想。他們提出，可以通過社會的動態(tài)力量來塑造動態(tài)的建筑。新陳代謝派建筑師的作品通常模擬生物模型以實現(xiàn)動態(tài)性，例如，采用主干與分支的結構和細胞分化的巨型形態(tài)。建筑師會建立一個主程序（如同DNA），它可以根據一個結構模式系統(tǒng)不斷地自我衍生。

新陳代謝派建筑師的設計作品建成的很少，但有一個很重要的建成案例是黑川紀章設計的位于東京市中心的中銀膠囊塔，它被看作新陳代謝派的代表作。這座建筑有一個中心主軸，各個住宅膠囊與之連接組合。理論上講，膠囊的無限組合與連接方式可以形成大小不一的空間，滿足不同家庭、不同預算的需求，以及隨時間而變化的居住需要。然而，中銀膠囊塔的概念在實際中卻有很大的缺陷。這座建筑自1972 年建成以來，從沒有一個膠囊被移動或組合過i。20 世紀還有很多類似的可變建筑的嘗試：從里特維爾德的施羅德住宅到建筑電訊派的插件城市，它們要么未被推廣，要么未被建造。一個完全可變的建筑仍然依賴有想法的居住者才能實現(xiàn)它的可變性?？上г趯嶋H生活中，大部分可變建筑都喪失了可變的功能。

雖然可變建筑并不一定能讓人們積極參與其中，但它的出現(xiàn)至少讓數(shù)字科技重新進入了建筑領域，從而有助于實現(xiàn)人類與建成環(huán)境之間更加細膩、便捷和積極響應的互動。在建筑學科之外，前沿計算機科學家和數(shù)學家早在20 世紀中葉就開始探索控制論。這門新興學科以網絡為研究目標，尤其關注系統(tǒng)中相互依賴的行動者之間的溝通與聯(lián)系。致力于在建筑師中推廣控制論的學者戈登·帕斯克認為，控制論研究的是“系統(tǒng)如何自我調節(jié)、自我繁殖、進化和學習，其重點在于系統(tǒng)是如何自我組織的?！边@一概念框架也可以運用于建筑領域?？刂普摽梢杂米饕环N實用的設計策略，用于協(xié)調一系列相互關聯(lián)的因素，讓它們作為一個動態(tài)系統(tǒng)共同發(fā)揮作用?！霸O計總是沒有明確的目標，‘控制者’也不再像這個名稱所暗示的那樣，是一個專制的機構。相反，控制者是由催化劑、支持者、記憶和仲裁者組成的一種獨特的混合體。我相信這些都是設計師應該嵌入他設計的系統(tǒng)（控制系統(tǒng)）中的特性?！币簿褪钦f，建筑師應該擔當動態(tài)變量的編排者，而不應該撰寫一個確定的最終結果。

大約在同一時期，建筑學科內的一些前沿建筑師開始大力推廣交互的概念。建筑逐漸變得聲色并茂、時髦有趣，并不斷進化發(fā)展。在他們看來，建筑是容納行為和互動發(fā)生的場所，是可以激發(fā)事件與交流、讓人愉悅的動態(tài)場景。既是建筑師又是先鋒藝術家的塞德里克·普萊斯的作品“發(fā)生器項目”就是展現(xiàn)這種新態(tài)度的代表作。這個未建成的項目本來被設想為一座休養(yǎng)與活動中心，它是由150 個預制立方體組成的系統(tǒng)，每個立方體邊長365.76cm（12ft），可以移動和重組——就像中銀膠囊塔的膠囊一樣。但關鍵在于，這些立方體會以動態(tài)的方式進行交互。項目中有一個早期的軟件系統(tǒng)用于監(jiān)測建筑的活動，一旦建筑長時間保持靜止，軟件就會自動執(zhí)行“無聊程序”，重組自身的結構并煽動（或干擾）用戶令其活動起來。為了增強建筑中人的體驗，建筑自身扮演了一個積極挑釁者的角色。該項目是一個促進對話與相互響應的系統(tǒng)，是對新陳代謝派所宣揚的“用戶-變化-建筑”的線性觀念的一種超越。這個作品在很多方面都體現(xiàn)了控制論思想在建筑領域的應用：它創(chuàng)造了一個對于輸入和行為能動態(tài)地作出自組織響應的系統(tǒng)。

如果說第一次工業(yè)革命的重點在于為特定的任務創(chuàng)造優(yōu)化的機器，那么相比之下，控制論關注的是一種新的（也許是非機械的）“機器”，它自身就可以適應不斷發(fā)展的功能需求。“我們關注類腦人造物，關注進化、成長和發(fā)展，也關注思考和認識世界的過程。頭戴應用科學之冠，我們的使命是創(chuàng)造……新的工業(yè)革命的工具——能夠自己制定計劃的控制機制”[5]。應用到建筑學領域，控制論意味著建筑作為適應性學習的主體，可以不斷與用戶進行對話。

與最近流行的以形式為重點的所謂動態(tài)建筑相比，“活”的網絡化建筑是截然不同的嘗試，它可能會照亮另一條前進的道路?！敖裉欤S多建筑師已經拋棄了曾風靡20 世紀末的一些概念，例如速度、去物質化、小型化，以及用浪漫而夸張的形式來表達復雜性的做法。畢竟，復雜性也是有極限的，超過這個極限……復雜性就會適得其反”[6]。與其用數(shù)字工具來針對視覺感受計算復雜性，交互空間可以用數(shù)字工具來激發(fā)一種新的復雜性：體驗的復雜性。從精心設計的建筑轉向動態(tài)的建筑，需要建筑作為（而不是看起來是）“活”的有機體來運行。

計算的用途將不會局限于根據參數(shù)來生成復雜的形狀，計算將成為建筑的一個組成部分，按預設程序與用戶互動。建筑的這種界面功能運用的是嵌入式技術，而不是生成性技術。除了設計平面和剖面以外，未來的建筑師將可以根據一系列動態(tài)的體驗和功能要求，自由地設計一個由相互關聯(lián)的傳感器、操作和動作組成的系統(tǒng)，這樣的循環(huán)將給建筑帶來生命。以通信和學習系統(tǒng)為基礎的傳感器網絡可以將建筑轉變?yōu)橹悄艽恚軌驈挠脩羯砩蠈W習并與之共同生活。當建筑把人類、環(huán)境、基礎設施和個人設備整合到一起時，動態(tài)空間的夢想就終于可以實現(xiàn)了。

正如移動網絡依賴無處不在的傳感器（如眾包地圖和坑洞檢測）一樣，建筑也可以更好地利用穿行其中的人流。我們將從“生活在家里”轉變?yōu)椤芭c家一起生活”。建筑將成為一種界面，在虛擬環(huán)境和物理環(huán)境中都扮演著積極的角色?！拔覀兊哪繕耸潜M可能地促進從快到慢、從虛擬到物理、從大腦到感官、從自動到手動、從動態(tài)到靜態(tài)、從大眾到小眾、從全球到本地、從有機到無機、從專有到通用的無縫過渡，這只是其中的一些較為極端的變化”[6]。通過整合數(shù)字元素，建成環(huán)境將成為一種實現(xiàn)空間控制論的界面，把迥異卻共存的虛擬世界與物理世界連接在一起。

建成環(huán)境正在變成物理世界的用于居住的互聯(lián)網，它是一個赫茲空間——一個與數(shù)字設備密不可分的空間?！昂掌澘臻g是一種連接物體、發(fā)送信息和內容的方式。但建筑是一種可以居住、享受和探索的環(huán)境”[7]。在新的交互式數(shù)字化建筑中，細節(jié)、動態(tài)和復雜性（曾經是參數(shù)化設計的野心所在）是可以體驗的設計結果，而不是設計的出發(fā)點。交互為建筑注入了生命——建筑的震撼力和活力體現(xiàn)在時間維度上，而不是其外部視覺特征上。

正如智能手機是通往更大系統(tǒng)的門戶一樣，建筑的角色可以是介于日常的、人類尺度的功能和巨大的、人性尺度的網絡之間的調解者?！皫浊陙恚ㄖ焸円恢标P注著以皮膚為界限的身體及其直接接觸的環(huán)境……現(xiàn)在，他們必須考慮電子增強的、可重構的、虛擬的身體，這種身體可以在遠端進行感知和行動，但也仍然部分地生活在周圍的環(huán)境中”[8]。前數(shù)字化時代的人類生活于直接接觸的物理環(huán)境中，但今天的人類已成為以智能手機為仿生手的賽博格，以截然不同的方式居住在空間里。當我們在物理環(huán)境與虛擬環(huán)境之間切換時，尺度和環(huán)境都變得模糊了。有時一個房間里明明只站著自己和其他3 個人，但在數(shù)字—空間網絡的幫助下，這個房間里可能同時還有隔壁餐廳的兩個好友，或僅在一個街區(qū)之外的暗戀對象。盡管人和物理空間仍然是我們關注的重點，但人類所生活的虛擬空間的界限已不可避免地向外擴展，而建筑必須能夠容納這種虛擬空間的廣度，無論它如何變化。與此同時，建筑必須仍然關乎人類本身。這是皮康提出的問題。

建筑師應該如何應對這個似乎充斥著活力和表現(xiàn)力的電子信息時代？與機械化早期階段的現(xiàn)代建筑所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)相比，數(shù)字時代的到來對建筑設計而言是一個更大的挑戰(zhàn)。也許這是歷史上第一次，建筑必須面對非建構的現(xiàn)實。在這樣的情況下，建筑師如何才能與構成數(shù)字世界骨肉的無形的信息流保持步調一致？

建筑的創(chuàng)作過程可以成為一個迭代鏈條，而不是一個完全線性的過程。現(xiàn)在，建筑設計、文檔編制、施工和居住構成了建筑生命周期中的不同階段，每個階段都由不同的專業(yè)人員使用不同的工具來完成。隨著建筑生產鏈的每一步都過渡到數(shù)字系統(tǒng)，整個過程將合為一體。通過精簡信息，使不同階段互通，構建一個協(xié)作的反饋系統(tǒng)，并最終實現(xiàn)全面協(xié)同，建筑的全過程將逐步得到整合。這個方向已經有了初步嘗試，例如，在某些項目中，特制的智能手機應用可以用來組織具有數(shù)以萬計獨特組件的復雜外墻的制造、運輸和安裝；還有一些項目讓居民參與到設計、施工和運營的所有階段，把建筑的開發(fā)和居住結合為一體。人體互聯(lián)網和有生命的建筑將是共生的。

“所有的進化都是共同進化：單個物種及其生存的環(huán)境在平行的路徑發(fā)展進化，不斷交換信息”[3]。思想、身體、人口和環(huán)境之間曾有的明確界限現(xiàn)在變得模糊，“被更復雜和非線性的城市發(fā)展模式所取代，以應對新信息技術的傳播”[9]。我們所做的每一個選擇都會在數(shù)字空間中產生影響，它們反過來又塑造我們的物理環(huán)境?；谫惒└駹顟B(tài)的人體互聯(lián)網最終可能會讓建筑環(huán)境成為一個社會過程和關系過程。

將數(shù)字系統(tǒng)充分整合到建筑中的最重要意義是讓技術和建筑環(huán)境重新聚焦于人類本身。在動態(tài)交互的空間中，一個有生命的控制論程序可以把建筑變成身體的延伸——正是賽博格的“工具”使環(huán)境能夠作出響應。增強現(xiàn)實的“活”建筑是一種大型硬件，它由數(shù)字—物理賽博格創(chuàng)造、插入并與之交互?！盎睢苯ㄖ葹樯峁┉h(huán)境支持，又是社會的催化劑，還給人們提供動態(tài)的體驗。當預設的數(shù)字系統(tǒng)與人類生物學完美整合時，仿生設備可通過實時信息流與數(shù)字化增強環(huán)境對接。空間互聯(lián)網和人體互聯(lián)網相互促進、共同創(chuàng)造、互為接口。最終，技術退居幕后，而交互被帶到了臺前。建筑無需是華麗而震撼的，它可以很簡單，但更重要的是它是一個有活力的整體。

數(shù)字網絡以及其他自下而上的進程，最終可能實現(xiàn)建筑的開源化。開源建筑有賴于所有相關方參與到設計過程中。歷史上的建筑（例如，哥特式大教堂）往往是本地社區(qū)自發(fā)建造的。在這個意義上，開源建筑實際上是對過去漫長的建造方式、匿名化和本土化的生產方式的再發(fā)明。帕爾文認為，在未來我們可能會將單一的、自上而下的、金融資本化的、一刀切的建筑生產模式視為人類工業(yè)發(fā)展中的一個尷尬的、青春期的曇花一現(xiàn)。大眾利用自己的社會與金融資本來自下而上地建造因地制宜、可復制的類型建筑，是舊時代的傳統(tǒng)，在這種理念下，建筑技術發(fā)展到了開源建筑之前時代的工業(yè)化“蓋谷倉”的方式。很多人把開源建筑看作是一種創(chuàng)新，但它實際上只是過去的建筑傳統(tǒng)在互聯(lián)網時代的重生。

雖然挑戰(zhàn)迫在眉睫，但我們目標明確，并已經擁有實現(xiàn)目標的技術。那么，我們的任務是思考“未來的傳統(tǒng)建筑”對經濟發(fā)展、社會公正、資源稀缺、勞動力經濟、規(guī)劃系統(tǒng)和專業(yè)人員的角色的潛在影響。數(shù)字時代的建筑領域不能閉門造車——有很多人已準備好以自下而上的方式在這個領域深耕。□（本文改編自已發(fā)表著作：“Living Architecture”The City of Tomorrow，詳見參考文獻[10]）

The history of architecture has been punctuated by sudden transformations sparked by sudden technological leaps.During the mid-1400s,into the context of a craft-based architectural tradition,Leon Battista Alberti introduced a mathematical approach to graphic representation.In so doing,he paved the way for Renaissance classicism:architecture focused on precision and representation through drafting rather than approximate construction by artisans.Four centuries later,steel and glass enabled engineers like Isambard Kingdom Brunel,Sir Joseph Paxton,and Gustav Eiffel designed daring and innovative structures that shattered the limits of what could be constructed.Soaring feats of technological prowess became a new aesthetic at the nexus of architecture and engineering.

A generation later,at the crest of the mechanical era,Le Corbusier appropriated the tools and forms of mass production,and concluded that the house is a machine for living in.Architecture was optimized not only from the standpoints of design and structural engineering but also from the viewpoints of mass production and social function.

Technological upheavals are the lurching steps of architectural progress,its driving force.Le Corbusier dreamt of"realis[ing],harmonically,the city that is an expression of our machinist civilisation." Yet our civilisation today has transitioned from mechanization to computation.The digital revolution-the convergence of bits and atoms-is poised to be the most radically disruptive change that has ever recast the design,construction,and operation of our built environment.Just as machines brought standardization and high output,digital tools can bring dynamism,variation,and responsiveness.The question now becomes,how will architecture evolve in the digital era?

Initial attempts to address this question-to create dynamic architecture for the digital age-have been form-based.Designers have created evocative architectural sculptures that shout distinctive visual identities:Frank Gehry's iconic Guggenheim Museum Bilbao,for example,and the similar projects he has scattered around the world.These have ushered in a new aesthetic regime of irregular and organic buildings,often called "blobby" architecture.This new formal language was enabled in large part by parametric design software:digital tools that allow the architect to script an internal logic,input data values (objective contextual factors,zoning,or functionality requirements),and run an algorithm to negotiate those constraints and produce formal,often extraordinarily complex artifacts.Rather than detailing intricate specificities by hand,the architect writes parameters,and the computer churns out highly elaborate results.

Parametric software opened a new arena where designers could radically question inherited formal assumptions about architecture.They explored the boundaries of possibility eagerly and productively,assuming that-given an opposition between rational and organic-non-gridded and complex forms have a more vibrant quality.Early theorists of parametric architecture characterised a new sensibility that aimed for "maximal emphasis on conspicuous differentiation"[1].

The highly visible 2004 Venice Biennale of Architecture,titled Metamorph,explored the "fundamental changes under way in contemporary architecture,both in the theoretical and practical design field,and in the use of new building technologies." The event brought together architects,academics,researchers,and critics at the forefront of computational design.Individualism and experimentation defined the collective rhetoric,but a more cynical view of the menagerie of projects found the differentiation to be superficial."The computer has finally made possible forms that are different,at the same cost as the standard forms of old.A newness of very similar forms though,more sculptural than radical,buildings and structures with sensual folded,twisted and curving surfaces.It looks more like an international computer art festival…and the most important theme to come out of the biennale was the question of redundancy." Under the guise of novelty,the common denominator that emerged was predictable manipulations of complex geometry rather than meaningful dynamism.

Parametric tools have granted architects an unprecedented power to generate space using algorithmic functions and to appropriate a rhetoric of vibrancy.As the trend has developed since Metamorph,however,architects have been hard pressed to find meaningful data to feed into algorithmic design processes.A cruise ship terminal in Japan,for example,was informed by the geometry of waves in traditional paintings,specifically "the Hokusai Wave." The designers were inspired by "a drawing from a local painter that we had been toying with while we indulged in geometric manipulations and construction hypotheses during the design phase of the competition entry"[2].Furthermore,the application of parametric software,in many cases,goes no deeper than the skin of a building.Algorithms can compute thousands of unique elements to compose a dazzling facade on an otherwise standard structure.Parametric design promises a certain novelty,whether it is driven by geospatial data or by complex matrices of associations.

The virtual dimension that now blankets physical space is burgeoning with data,some of it appropriated by designers to plug into scripts as they seek "to grow or evolve new formal configurations in response to specific forces and constraints:structural,climatic,or programmatic.While this has produced compelling formal results,there are conceptual and procedural limits.The design techniques used to generate these new buildings may be dynamic,but the buildings themselves are static"[3].Architects can generate an almost infinite number of formal solutions in a given situation,but complexity and magnitude are not inherently meaningful or living."The forms generated may resemble nature,but they retain little of the performative or adaptive complexity of life itself."

Algorithmically generated architecture is a static visualiation of larger complexities.To evoke the fluidity of digital space in an inert physical object is to freeze a dynamic process,as if pressing Pause to find a single frame in an action sequence.Even the climax of energy and vibrancy,caught in a still frame,will convey only a shadow of the dynamic whole.

Visual complexity can be computed,but can it deliver anything more than curb appeal? And is that even desirable?The digital age has already suffused our world with innumerable flows and layers and intricacies,and formal plasticity only adds visual chaos to the ambient complexity.Could digital tools be integrated with architecture,beyond veneer or gloss? How,then,to integrate digital systems to achieve true dynamism?"Being digital is not primarily about using a computer in the design process,nor about making this use visually conspicuous.It is an everyday state that goes in hand with gestures as simple as being called on a cell phone or listening to an mp3 player"[4].That is,architecture should become an integral and responsive part of human life.Architecture must do more than just look like a living organism:it should perform as a living system.

The earliest glimmers of this possibility date back to experimentation with moveable structures in the midtwentieth century.A group of young Japanese designers,the Metabolists,imagined living architecture for the growing population of postwar Japan.Buildings,they proposed,could be shaped dynamically by the pushes and pulls of sociodynamic forces.Metabolist structures used biological models,attempting dynamism through,for example,spine-and-branch arrangements or cellularly subdivided megaforms.The architect would establish a master program (or "DNA") that could propagate itself according to a patterned structural system.

Few of their structures were ever built.One notable exception-Kisho Kurokawa's Nakagin Capsule Tower,located in central Tokyo-is a paradigmatic example of Metabolist theory.It is conceived as a central spine,onto which individual housing pods can be attached and rearranged.In theory,infinite combinations of pods and connections between them allow residents to create larger or smaller spaces in response to different families,budgets,or changes in housing demand over time.Yet the Capsule Tower reveals a deep conceptual flaw:since the building's completion in 1972,not a single pod has been shifted or combined.The twentieth century is dotted with similar attempts at mutable architecture-from Gerrit Rietveld's Schr?der House to Archigram's Plug-In City-but they invariably fall into stasis or remain unbuilt.An entirely flexible structure still requires inspired occupants to take agency.In practice,mutable buildings go largely unchanged.

Flexible structures may not spark active participation,but it is here that digital technologies reenter the playing field,enabling a more gentle,intuitive,and responsive interaction between humans and the built environment.Far outside the discipline of architecture,pioneering computer scientists and mathematicians of the mid-twentieth century started developing a theory of cybernetics.The emergent discipline sought to explore networks,focusing on communication and connections between interdependent actors in a system.Cybernetics,according to Gordon Pask,the academic responsible for popularising it among architects,is "how systems regulate themselves,reproduce themselves,evolve and learn.Its high spot is the question of how they organise themselves." This conceptual framework could be productively applied to architecture.As a practical design strategy,cybernetics is about negotiating a set of interrelated factors such that they function as a dynamic system."The design goal is nearly always underspecified and the 'controller' is no longer the authoritarian apparatus which this purely technical name commonly brings to mind.In contrast the controller is an odd mixture of catalyst,crutch,memory and arbiter.These,I believe…are the qualities [the designer] should embed in the systems (control systems) which he designs." The architect becomes a choreographer of dynamic and adaptive forces rather than scripting outcomes in a deterministic way.

Around the same time,architects at the fringe of the discipline took the idea of interactivity and sensationalised it.Architecture became loud,fun,hip,and constantly evolving.Buildings were thought of as venues for action and interaction,as dynamic scenes that could incite events and connections and evoke delight.The Generator Project,by the architect-provocateur Cedric Price,was a clear exemplar of this new attitude.An unbuilt concept for a retreat and activity center,the project consisted of a system of 150 prefabricated cubes,each twelve feet on a side,that could be shifted and reconfigured-much like the pods in the Nakagin Capsule Towerbut,crucially,would also interact in a dynamic way.A primitive digital software detected inactivity,and if the building remained static for too long,the software automatically executed "The Boredom Program" to reconfigure its own structure and incite(or perturb) users.The architecture itself took an active role as provocateur,with the aim of enhancing human experience.This was a system for dialogue and mutual reaction,beyond the Metabolists' linear user-changes-building idea.In many ways,this work was an application of cybernetic ideas to the field of architecture:it created systems that would dynamically selforganize in response to inputs and actions.

If the first industrial revolution was concerned with creating machines optimised for a specific task,cybernetics,in contrast,was concerned with a new kind of (perhaps nonmechanical) "machine" that could satisfy an evolving program."We are concerned with brain-like artifacts,with evolution,growth and development;with the process of thinking and getting to know about the world.Wearing the hat of applied science,we aim to create…the instruments of a new industrial revolution-control mechanisms that lay their own plans"[5].Translated into architecture,cybernetics means buildings that function as adaptive learning entities living in a kind of dialogue with their inhabitants.

Active and networked architecture is starkly opposed to recent form-focused attempts at dynamism and may illuminate an alternative path forward."Today,many designers have turned several late twentieth-century infatuations on their heads,for instance with speed,dematerialization,miniaturization,and a romantic and exaggerated formal expression of complexity.After all,there is a limit beyond which…complexity simply becomes too overwhelming"[6].Rather than using digital tools to mathematically calculate complexity for the visual sense,interactive spaces can use digital tools to generate a new form of complexity:experiential complexity.A shift away from elaborate structures and toward structural dynamics entails buildings that perform as (rather than appear to be) living organisms.

Computation will not be used only to define intricate shapes according to parameters but will also become an integral part of the building,interacting with users according to a program.This interface functionality points to embedded rather than generative technology.In addition to plans and sections,architects in this future will be free to specify a system of interrelated sensors,operations,and actions-loops that bring architecture to life,based on a dynamic set of experiential and functional requirements.Grounded in communication and learning systems,sensor networks can transform buildings into intelligent agents with the capacity to learn from and coexist with their occupants.The dream of dynamic spaces can finally be fulfilled as buildings weave together humans,environment,infrastructure,and personal devices.

Just as mobility networks are taking advantage of ubiquitous sensors (as with crowdsourced maps or pothole detection),so too will buildings take advantage of the human flows running through them.We will shift from living in a home to living with a home.Architecture becomes a form of interface,playing an active role in the human environment,both digital and physical."The goal is to facilitate as seamless a movement as possible from fast to slow,virtual to physical,cerebral to sensual,automatic to manual,dynamic to static,mass to niche,global to local,organic to inorganic,and proprietary to common,to mention just a few extreme couplings"[6].Integrating digital elements will allow the built environment to become a connective tissue between the distinct but coexisting realities of bits and atoms-an interface that enables spatial cybernetics.

The built environment is becoming a physically habitable Internet,a Hertzian space-one that is inextricably intermeshed with digital devices."Hertzian space is…a way of linking things,of sending information and content,etc.But [architecture] is an environment that can be inhabited,enjoyed,and explored"[7].In the newly interactive,digitally laced architecture,detail and dynamism and complexity (formerly the ambition of parametric scripting) are the experiential consequence of design,not the justification.Architecture takes on life through response-it becomes shocking or vibrant in time rather than in its external visual character.

Just as smartphones are a portal to larger systems,architecture can function as a mediator between daily,humanscale functions and vast,humanity-scale networks."For millennia architects have been concerned with the skin-bounded body and its immediate sensory environment…Now they must contemplate electronically augmented,reconfigurable,virtual bodies that can sense and act at a distance but that also remain partially anchored in their immediate surroundings"[8].Predigital humans navigated their immediate physical surroundings,but today's cyborg (with prosthetic smartphone) inhabits space in profoundly different ways.Scales and contexts are blurred as we slip elastically between them.At any given moment,we may be standing in a room with three other people,but now the digital-spatial network can also reveal two close friends in a restaurant next door or a potential love interest only a block away.People and physical space are still a central anchor,but the upper and lower bounds of human reality have exploded outward,and architecture must encompass this breadth of spaces-in all of their active dynamics-while still relating to humans.Picon sets forth the question.

How should the designer cope with an electronic and informational reality that seems to possess a dynamism and an expressive quality? The advent of the digital represents an even greater challenge for design than what the early stages of mechanisation had meant for modern architecture.For the first time perhaps,architecture has to confront itself with a profoundly non-tectonic reality.Given these premises,how can the designer be in deep accordance with the invisible flows of information that constitute the bones and flesh of the digital world.

The very process of creating architecture could become an iterative chain rather than a directly linear process.Today,design,documentation,construction,and inhabitation are distinct phases in the life of a building,each carried out by a different specialist using different tools.As each step of the architectural production chain transitions to digital systems,the whole process will be unified.Integration will happen incrementally,by streamlining information,enabling the different phases to inform one another,structuring a codependent feedback system and,ultimately,a full merger.Initial steps have been taken in this direction-for example,with project-specific smartphone apps that organise the fabrication,shipping,and installation of complex facades with tens of thousands of unique components.Implicating inhabitants in all stages of the design,construction,and operation chain will graft the development and inhabitation of architecture together into a single experience.The Internet of Bodies and active architecture will be symbiotic.

"All evolution is co-evolution;individual species and their environments change and evolve on parallel courses,constantly exchanging information"[3].What was formerly defined by a clear separation between mind,body,population,and environment is now entangled,"supplanted by a more complex and non-linear pattern of urban development in response to the spread of new information technologies"[9].Each choice we make has ramifications in digital space that,in turn,shape our physical environment.The Internet of Bodies,grounded in our cyborg condition,may ultimately realise the concept of the built environment as a social and relational process.

The most important implication of radically integrating digital systems into architecture will be to refocus technology and the built environment on humans.A living,cybernetic program in spaces of dynamic interaction will make architecture more like an extension of the body-and it is cyborg "tools" that enable the environment to respond.Augmented or "living"architecture is the large-scale hardware that digital-physical cyborgs create,plug into,and interact with.Active buildings are at once an environmental life support,a social catalyst,and a dynamic set of experiences.While congenital digital systems integrate seamlessly with human biology,the same prosthetic devices interface with the digitally augmented environment through real-time information flows.The Internet of spaces and the Internet of Bodies enable and co-create each other-each is the interface to the other.Ultimately,technology recedes into the background,and interaction is brought to the fore.Buildings can be simple-rather than voluptuous and shocking but even more integrally vibrant and living.

The result of digital networks,and more bottomup processes,can ultimately lead to what we can call open source architecture.Open source architecture relies on all interested parties being involved in the design process.In the past (for instance,in the case of Gothic cathedrals) this emerged naturally in local communities.In this sense,open source architecture is really a re-visitation of a timeless way of building,of forms of production that yielded anonymous or vernacular architecture.Parvin speculated that in the future we may look back on the monolithic,top-down,financiallycapitalized,one size-fits-all models of architectural production as an awkward,adolescent blip in mankind's industrial development.The idea of bottom-up,locally-adapted,copied typologies,produced by citisens using their social capital as well as their financial capital,is the opposite of new.In many ways it is bringing technology to pre-open source industrial "barnraising" approaches.Open source architecture is presented as an innovation,but it is really just the vernacular with an Internet connection.

The challenge is looming,goals are clear and technologies for achieving them exist.The task,then,is to reflect on the potential implications that "future vernacular" will have on economic development,social justice,resource scarcity,labor economies,planning systems,and the role of professionals.The discipline cannot remain hermetically sealed forever– there is a critical mass of people,ready and willing to work in a bottom-up way.□（This text is an adaptation of the following publication:"Living Architecture" The City of Tomorrow,See Reference[10].）

編者注/Editor's Note

i 部分已拆，有新變化，詳見2021/07，p7簡訊。