米凱利·博尼諾，馬塔·曼奇尼/Michele Bonino, Marta Mancini

鄧慧姝 譯/Translated by DENG Huishu

1 引言

盡管存在不同的本體論概念和文化視角，但人體在建筑和城市空間的概念中始終扮演著重要的角色?？臻g，反過來(lái)，應(yīng)對(duì)了人類的生理、心理和社會(huì)需求，塑造了居住和生活的方式。

1994年，社會(huì)學(xué)家理查德·塞尼特就現(xiàn)代建筑師和城市規(guī)劃專家的“職業(yè)失敗”展開了辯論。塞尼特批評(píng)他們?cè)絹?lái)越無(wú)法促進(jìn)身體的整體性感知，以及在當(dāng)代城市中具身空間體驗(yàn)的扁平化。盡管他的考慮基于西方背景，但今天的全球化動(dòng)態(tài)已經(jīng)在世界各地引發(fā)了類似的城市挑戰(zhàn)，導(dǎo)致人類身體和設(shè)計(jì)空間之間的分離狀況反復(fù)出現(xiàn)。

如何界定這種“分離”？如何從“分離”走向“高品質(zhì)”的生活空間？本文介紹了一些設(shè)計(jì)工具和實(shí)踐，作為策略和案例研究，以提出一種“通過”身體來(lái)看待設(shè)計(jì)空間的新方式。

本段簡(jiǎn)要介紹3年聯(lián)合研究的情況。2017年，意大利都靈理工大學(xué)和中國(guó)清華大學(xué)的學(xué)者團(tuán)隊(duì)合作建立了“人體與城市空間”的聯(lián)合研究項(xiàng)目。基于該項(xiàng)目產(chǎn)生的理論和設(shè)計(jì)成果，其研究目標(biāo)是在新興的城市人因工程學(xué)框架內(nèi)，定義以人為中心概念下的建筑和城市空間研究工具和設(shè)計(jì)方法。

2 身體和空間：一種“分離”的關(guān)系

縱觀歷史，人體的中心地位或多或少是明確的和直接的。在歐洲語(yǔ)境中，擬人主義和維特魯威美學(xué)將建筑美的概念塑造在均衡的人體比例上。文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期和后來(lái)的現(xiàn)代主義理論都借鑒了這些概念來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)理想化的身體模型，試圖定義一系列普遍適用于建筑的和諧尺寸[1-2]。在1960年代，這種想法受到了社會(huì)學(xué)研究和知覺研究[3-5]的挑戰(zhàn)，它流入了建筑和城市領(lǐng)域，并促進(jìn)了設(shè)計(jì)的轉(zhuǎn)變：從美學(xué)和功能轉(zhuǎn)向“集合感官、形式、身體和圖像的實(shí)踐”[6]。盡管有這種漸進(jìn)的變化，但理論思維轉(zhuǎn)化為建筑空間的過程仍然延遲了，現(xiàn)在的城市繼承了并在某些情況下仍在產(chǎn)生“分離的”空間：即與人體缺乏積極聯(lián)系的空間[7]。

這種“分離”的根源可以追溯到19世紀(jì)歐洲出現(xiàn)的早期工業(yè)化和相應(yīng)的城市化。盡管城市已經(jīng)存在，但這些進(jìn)程導(dǎo)致了對(duì)居住地區(qū)建筑形式的深刻重組。工廠成為新的城市有機(jī)體核心，生活的其他細(xì)節(jié)都服從于它[8]。城市變成了不健康的地方，河流變成了露天的下水道，工人階級(jí)的生活空間也缺乏有益健康的保證[9]。幾十年之后，工業(yè)化與城市動(dòng)態(tài)在不同的地緣政治背景下，在集中化與分散化、趨同與重新定位之間發(fā)展。它導(dǎo)致了現(xiàn)有城市空間的改造和新空間的產(chǎn)生，日益增強(qiáng)了城市與人體的分離: 即與人體尺度無(wú)關(guān)的空間，在這些空間中視覺刺激占主導(dǎo)地位，身體體驗(yàn)被扁平化（圖1）。

歷史學(xué)家和城市規(guī)劃學(xué)家多納泰拉·卡拉比在1979年觀察到，城市規(guī)劃作為一門學(xué)科（1859-1913）的早期方法是根據(jù)對(duì)“城市疾病”[10]的應(yīng)對(duì)而構(gòu)思產(chǎn)生的。它暗示了身體和城市疾病之間的隱喻對(duì)應(yīng)。此外，城市規(guī)劃學(xué)科的發(fā)展與公共衛(wèi)生體系的成熟有關(guān):兩者都旨在保持城市和人體的健康[9]。

17世紀(jì)威廉·哈維關(guān)于血液循環(huán)和呼吸的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)為理解人體提供了一種新的方式，而這反過來(lái)又影響了城市形態(tài)和功能的概念。開明的規(guī)劃者將生物概念與有關(guān)個(gè)人、商品和金錢流動(dòng)的資本主義思想相結(jié)合，試圖將城市塑造成一個(gè)人們可以自由穿行于城市動(dòng)脈[7]的場(chǎng)所。后來(lái)，現(xiàn)代主義又重申了類似的原則。勒·柯布西耶和CIAM在1933年的《雅典憲章》中提出了“功能城市”的理念，在生活、工作、休閑和交通這四大城市功能[11]的基礎(chǔ)上引入了城市標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和分區(qū)（圖2）。大多數(shù)歐洲國(guó)家的道路建設(shè)都是由公共資金資助的，這促進(jìn)了以汽車為中心的無(wú)障礙交通和交通工具的泛濫[9]。從基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施出發(fā)的城市空間使速度體驗(yàn)成為可能: 身體移動(dòng)不再有障礙，但也失去了與城市空間的物理接觸。功能性的城市規(guī)劃和公共衛(wèi)生一度促使了身體從抵抗和害怕與建筑空間進(jìn)行接觸性互動(dòng)中脫離出來(lái)，因?yàn)檫@些接觸被認(rèn)為是潛在的疾病原因。因此，建筑和城市環(huán)境日益加深了“感官剝奪”和“觸覺貧瘠”[7]（圖3）。

今天，快速的交通工具和技術(shù)設(shè)備過濾了人與建筑環(huán)境之間的接觸。然而，對(duì)身體作用的新關(guān)注，將人因工程學(xué)研究從建筑延伸到城市尺度，從功能主義性目的延伸到更綜合的目的，可能產(chǎn)生一種構(gòu)思和設(shè)計(jì)城市的新方式：從以人為中心的角度理解建筑和城市空間?？死锼沟倌取け劝睬械僭谄渲鳌犊臻g與項(xiàng)目之間的身體》（圖4）中指出：“城市項(xiàng)目一直關(guān)注的是身體，但總將身體置于其臨界邊界的邊緣……。如果設(shè)計(jì)就是設(shè)計(jì)身體和空間的關(guān)系，那么設(shè)計(jì)意味著什么？”[12]

3 移動(dòng)的身體：研究和工具

社會(huì)學(xué)家和城市學(xué)家提出的空間問題在建筑領(lǐng)域的現(xiàn)象學(xué)和知覺研究中得到了第一次回應(yīng)。施泰因·埃勒·拉斯姆森（《體驗(yàn)建筑》，1959）、諾伯格·舒爾茲（《場(chǎng)所精神：邁向建筑現(xiàn)象學(xué)》，1979；《居住的概念》，1985）的著作以及最近的彼得·卒姆托（《思考建筑》，1998；《建筑氛圍》，2006）的著作有助于培養(yǎng)對(duì)人體更全面的理解，增強(qiáng)其與空間的內(nèi)在關(guān)系（圖5-7）。

尤哈尼·帕拉斯瑪在《肌膚之目：建筑與感官》（1996）一書中指出：“建筑清楚地表達(dá)了我們?cè)谶@個(gè)世界上的體驗(yàn)，加強(qiáng)了我們的現(xiàn)實(shí)感和自我意識(shí)。（它）使我們從完整的具身化和精神實(shí)體的角度來(lái)體驗(yàn)自己”[13]。不過，他也認(rèn)為，視覺在西方世界的歷史突出性導(dǎo)致了身體與周圍的設(shè)計(jì)空間的距離。對(duì)非視覺感官的抑制產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)加深分離和異化的建筑環(huán)境，一個(gè)剝奪了感官品質(zhì)的建筑。相反，設(shè)計(jì)師應(yīng)該通過觸覺系統(tǒng)更好地將人體與空間結(jié)合起來(lái)。

人因工程學(xué)研究有助于對(duì)人體進(jìn)行測(cè)量，為建筑設(shè)計(jì)和產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)提供參考依據(jù)。然而，空間和功能圖示已經(jīng)形成了一個(gè)靜態(tài)的規(guī)范主體，一個(gè)不考慮空間創(chuàng)造性參與的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化度量模型。通常，人因工程學(xué)以幾何形式關(guān)注人體周圍的可居住空間，從而對(duì)它們之間的積極關(guān)系有更廣泛的理解。如何挑戰(zhàn)并豐富這一觀點(diǎn)？

盡管在文化、社會(huì)和個(gè)人方面存在差異，但人類通常共享相似的生理結(jié)構(gòu)。身體是與空間、建筑、城市和其他人進(jìn)行互動(dòng)的手段，它使運(yùn)動(dòng)成為可能，并塑造著我們對(duì)自身和周圍世界[14-16]的認(rèn)知。作為人類，我們通過對(duì)自己的具身化了解到占據(jù)空間是什么感覺，我們通過運(yùn)動(dòng)的方式來(lái)體驗(yàn)空間[17]。運(yùn)動(dòng)使主體在表面和物體之間建立深度關(guān)系，構(gòu)成空間的概念。

與西方建筑理論不同的是，基于持久性和穩(wěn)定性[18]，本文提出通過一種對(duì)人體運(yùn)動(dòng)進(jìn)行考察的獨(dú)特的視覺方法來(lái)看待空間。身體運(yùn)動(dòng)分析圖可以作為研究現(xiàn)有空間和提取空間數(shù)據(jù)的操作工具。目的是研究人體空間相互作用的微妙的和潛在的動(dòng)態(tài)關(guān)系，并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為顯性知識(shí)。

圖8顯示了貫穿都靈理工大學(xué)-清華大學(xué)聯(lián)合研究項(xiàng)目的身體-空間關(guān)系概念的三維圖式。身體運(yùn)動(dòng)可以用速度來(lái)描述，換句話說(shuō)，是測(cè)量身體/物體位置變化率的矢量，是時(shí)間的函數(shù)。事實(shí)上，正如布魯諾·賽維所論證的那樣，時(shí)間是建筑的本質(zhì)，它使人能夠移動(dòng)，從而理解空間[19]。將時(shí)間、空間和作為第三個(gè)維度的“身體”系統(tǒng)化，旨在傳達(dá)人體運(yùn)動(dòng)的概念。它們共同構(gòu)建了人類的空間體驗(yàn)。進(jìn)而，通過這張三維圖的闡述，探討了構(gòu)成身體、空間和時(shí)間的子因素。它們分別被分解成身體感知的層次、空間交互的尺度、被測(cè)量或被個(gè)人感知的時(shí)間，并被詳細(xì)分析。

身體是運(yùn)動(dòng)和建筑理念之間的中介。身體-主體根據(jù)個(gè)人需要移動(dòng)，并在途中或多或少創(chuàng)造性地接觸一個(gè)空間?！翱臻g是運(yùn)動(dòng)的隱藏特征，運(yùn)動(dòng)是空間的可見部分?！盵20]通過將身體例舉為一個(gè)棍狀圖形，我們的目標(biāo)是建立一種具象的視覺語(yǔ)言，它可以作為一種工具來(lái)“解讀”人們通過設(shè)計(jì)空間的特征所建立的隱含動(dòng)態(tài)。

1960年代，編舞師魯?shù)婪颉だ嗑幾肓恕袄嘤涀V法”，這是最常用的動(dòng)作評(píng)分方法之一。他描繪了人體及其沿著6個(gè)軸和面的運(yùn)動(dòng)，這些軸和面被嵌入一個(gè)球體和一個(gè)立方體中，也就是所謂的“個(gè)人空間球”（kinesphere）：“身體周圍的球體，它的外圍可以被伸展的四肢輕易地從我們的支撐或站立的地方到達(dá)?！盵20]（圖9）這個(gè)身體模型成為一種清晰的象征性視覺語(yǔ)言的基礎(chǔ)，它允許記錄整個(gè)舞蹈動(dòng)作。然而，拉班記譜法關(guān)注的是身體部位的動(dòng)力學(xué)，而很少考慮它們的空間作用?？臻g被認(rèn)為是次要的空?qǐng)鑫枧_(tái)，直接與軀干的寬度和四肢的運(yùn)動(dòng)聯(lián)系在一起。因此，我們的想法是利用個(gè)人空間球的圖解表現(xiàn)方式，并通過對(duì)身體更全面的理解來(lái)重新闡述它，給它的物質(zhì)化增加知覺的維度。

重新詮釋的個(gè)人空間球不僅包含了身體的有形空間性，還包含了6個(gè)被選出的瞬時(shí)的感知層次。每一層次都以一種獨(dú)特的、系統(tǒng)的方式被處理和進(jìn)一步研究。從內(nèi)到外，它們對(duì)應(yīng)著：平衡，與身體姿勢(shì)有關(guān)；本體感覺或身體姿勢(shì)；動(dòng)覺，指在運(yùn)動(dòng)中思考；觸覺或觸感表面的知覺；聽覺；視覺。前4個(gè)共同構(gòu)成觸感系統(tǒng)。這種方法旨在解構(gòu)西方靜態(tài)的幾何概念，提出一種更全面的“通過”身體來(lái)詮釋空間的方式。

總之，運(yùn)動(dòng)分析圖和知覺體驗(yàn)圖有助于識(shí)別影響身體-空間關(guān)系的關(guān)鍵空間要素，并創(chuàng)造新的顯性知識(shí)。對(duì)身體運(yùn)動(dòng)表現(xiàn)的系統(tǒng)化和深入分析(這里僅作簡(jiǎn)要介紹)有可能支持空間設(shè)計(jì)向更以人為中心的概念發(fā)展，推動(dòng)傳統(tǒng)的人因工程學(xué)原則在多個(gè)尺度上對(duì)身體-空間關(guān)系的廣泛理解。

4 接觸身體：設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐

在為期3年的都靈理工大學(xué)-清華大學(xué)聯(lián)合研究項(xiàng)目中，理論思維與設(shè)計(jì)策略一起發(fā)展，最近的建筑項(xiàng)目是將研究工具轉(zhuǎn)化為設(shè)計(jì)策略的實(shí)踐機(jī)會(huì)。

2019年深圳城市建筑雙城雙年展關(guān)注“城市之眼”的主題[21]。策展人旨在探討在新科技的推動(dòng)下，城市關(guān)系如何從人與人之間的關(guān)系演變?yōu)槿伺c城市之間的關(guān)系；即一個(gè)現(xiàn)在能夠“看”、感知并因此能夠互動(dòng)的城市。

展出的項(xiàng)目主要致力于人們與城市空間建立的視覺關(guān)系，這受到了面部識(shí)別等新技術(shù)的青睞。然而，一些裝置也考慮了其他的感覺。臨時(shí)裝置“城市肌膚”是都靈理工大學(xué)-清華大學(xué)合作的成果（圖10）。該裝置詳細(xì)闡述了帕拉斯瑪?shù)摹凹∧w之目”概念，其由182個(gè)傳感器覆蓋，可以記錄游客身體對(duì)裝置進(jìn)行物理接觸的次數(shù)[22]。這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的目的是研究什么樣的城市空間類型更能吸引身體與之互動(dòng)。空間和表面的不同結(jié)構(gòu)提供了探索和挑戰(zhàn)身體意識(shí)和物理能力的可能性。裝置作品將“城市之眼”的主題詮釋為城市空間獲得觸覺能力、變得敏感和善于接受信息的可能性。通過觸摸量的記錄來(lái)揭示空間與人體的接觸，并對(duì)其進(jìn)行實(shí)時(shí)顯示，旨在解決新興領(lǐng)域“城市人因工程學(xué)”的主要問題之一：哪種類型的城市空間更受青睞，與人體的接觸更多？

深圳雙年展讓我們有機(jī)會(huì)從設(shè)計(jì)的角度來(lái)思考城市人因工程學(xué)的一些主要原則?！俺鞘兄邸彪p年展傳統(tǒng)上致力于優(yōu)化室內(nèi)空間或家具，這是第一次有機(jī)會(huì)將人因工程學(xué)原則“釋放”到更廣泛的城市公共規(guī)模。在上述理論闡述的基礎(chǔ)上，通過對(duì)現(xiàn)有實(shí)際案例的研究，導(dǎo)出了城市人因工程學(xué)作為以人為中心的空間概念建立的4個(gè)主要原則：

室內(nèi)/室外：城市人因工程學(xué)旨在關(guān)注人體的能力，直覺地創(chuàng)造對(duì)功能的解釋和對(duì)空間限制因素的解決方案，創(chuàng)造性地協(xié)調(diào)內(nèi)部和外部空間。人體的這些特性對(duì)于將人因工程學(xué)釋放到外部空間是至關(guān)重要的。遵循這一概念，在對(duì)都靈附近的一些谷倉(cāng)的改造（2012）中，MARC工作室設(shè)計(jì)了現(xiàn)存建筑的剖面，讓日常的身體活動(dòng)（如坐、運(yùn)動(dòng)、工作）發(fā)生在內(nèi)外之間的界限上，模糊了邊界（圖11）。

人工/自然：與傳統(tǒng)的人因工程學(xué)相比，城市人因工程學(xué)可以從自然的形態(tài)中學(xué)習(xí)到很多東西，典型的是使外形和材料有機(jī)地適應(yīng)人體的節(jié)奏和需要。在這方面，在都靈的多拉公園項(xiàng)目（2007-2011）中，彼得·拉茨描述了工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)的人工元素和新的自然元素之間強(qiáng)烈的互動(dòng)方式，使舊工廠的空間高度人性化（圖12）。

個(gè)人/集體：如果說(shuō)傳統(tǒng)的人因工程學(xué)主要是關(guān)于個(gè)人身體的問題，那么城市人因工程學(xué)首先是關(guān)于許多身體之間的關(guān)系（身體的、視覺的、心理的），即市民的身體。由Heatherwick Studio 在紐約設(shè)計(jì)的“Vessel”項(xiàng)目（2019），是在45m高的開放空間中最大化人的視覺和身體關(guān)系的例子，促進(jìn)了對(duì)城市空間的身體探索（圖13）。

形狀/空間：身體與城市的關(guān)系并不僅僅通過表面和材料的接觸，而是通過一種更復(fù)雜的關(guān)系。與傳統(tǒng)人因工程學(xué)相比，城市人因工程學(xué)的目標(biāo)是更加關(guān)注空間的概念。作為參考，藤本壯介在其為東京NA住宅（2015）設(shè)計(jì)的項(xiàng)目中，創(chuàng)造了身體與空間關(guān)系的宣言，其在不同高度布置了21個(gè)平臺(tái)，并向城市開放（圖14）。

在過去的3年里，我們作為都靈理工大學(xué)中國(guó)室研究中心（China Room Research Center）的成員，受清華大學(xué)的邀請(qǐng)，為北京2022冬奧會(huì)首鋼滑雪大跳臺(tái)場(chǎng)館區(qū)域的舊制氧廠進(jìn)行了合作改造[23]。由于設(shè)計(jì)主題涉及體育運(yùn)動(dòng)，并需要將巨大的工業(yè)建筑調(diào)整為符合人體尺度的結(jié)構(gòu)，我們有機(jī)會(huì)對(duì)上面討論的一些原則進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)。

我們的設(shè)計(jì)理念是開放原有的工業(yè)建筑，使其能夠向公眾滲透。首層成為整個(gè)項(xiàng)目的關(guān)鍵空間：一個(gè)有頂?shù)倪\(yùn)動(dòng)場(chǎng)，聚集人群并使公眾參與體育活動(dòng)和戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)（圖15）。首層的設(shè)計(jì)將“人”置于建筑話語(yǔ)的核心，克服了對(duì)空間的幾何性理解，為使用者提供了與城市空間的多重潛在互動(dòng)關(guān)系。人們?cè)谑覂?nèi)和室外（在屋頂下卻是戶外的）、自然和人工（在工廠僅離水域幾米遠(yuǎn)）、個(gè)人和集體（在小而“家庭式”的空間中卻流暢地相互連接）之間找到了自己的位置。他們體驗(yàn)運(yùn)動(dòng)場(chǎng)柔軟的曲面，同時(shí)感受沉浸式的空間維度（圖16）。人們的存在激活了漂浮體量下的區(qū)域，與這個(gè)空間的“游戲性”保持一致。通過這種方式，改造后的建筑成為身體-空間創(chuàng)造性接觸的載體，激發(fā)了互動(dòng)和愉悅，嵌入了城市人因工程學(xué)旨在促進(jìn)和培育高品質(zhì)生活的關(guān)鍵特征。□

1 意大利都靈菲亞特林格托工廠的衛(wèi)星圖像，突出了工業(yè)廠房在城市肌理中的比例失調(diào)/Satellite image of FIAT Lingotto,Turin, Italy. Highlight of industrial plant"s out-of-scale proportions within the urban fabric （圖片來(lái)源：Google Maps）

1 Background

Despite different ontological notions and cultural perspectives, the human body has always played an essential role in the conception of architectural and urban spaces. Space, in turn, has dealt with human physical, psychological, social needs, shaped to dwell and to be lived in.

In 1994 sociologist Richard Sennett debated about the "professional failure" of modern architects and urbanists. He criticised them for being increasingly unable to foster bodily sensory holism and for flattening embodied spatial experiences in contemporary cities. Although his considerations referred to the Western context, today"s global dynamics have led to similar urban challenges all over the world, causing a recurring condition of detachment between human bodies and designed spaces.

How to frame this "detachment"? How to evolve from "detached" towards "high-quality" living spaces? A number of design tools and practices are here presented as strategies and case studies,proposing a new way of looking at designed space"through" the body.

The following text proposes a synthetic outline of the main topics investigated throughout a threeyear academic research. In 2017 a team of scholars from Politecnico di Torino (including the authors of this paper) and Tsinghua University collaborated to set up the Joint Research Project "Human body and urban space". Among the theoretical and design outcomes that have originated from the project,the objective has been to define tools and design approaches towards a human-centred conception of architectural and urban space, within the emerging frame of Urban Ergonomics.

2 Body & Space: A "Detached" Relationship

Throughout history, the centrality of the human body has been more or less explicit, more or less direct. In the European context, anthropomorphism and Vitruvian aesthetics moulded the concept of architectural beauty on the proportional balance of the human body. Renaissance and, later, modernist theories drew on these notions to implement an idealised bodily model that attempted to define a range of harmonious measurements, universally applicable to architecture[1-2]. In the 1960s, this thinking was challenged by social and sensory studies[3-5]that flowed into architecture and urban disciplines and fostered a transition in design: from aesthetics and functionality towards "practices that assemble senses, forms, bodies and images."[6]Despite this gradual change, theoretical thinking has delayed to translate into built space and nowadays cities inherit and, in some cases still produce, "detached" spaces: spaces that lack of active connection with the human body[7].

The roots of this "detachment" can be traced back to early industrialisation and related urbanisation that first took place in Europe in the 19thcentury. Although cities already existed, these processes led to a deep restructuring of the way built-up areas where lived. "The factory became the nucleus of the new urban organism. Every other detail of life was subordinate to it."[8]Cities turned into unhealthy places, where rivers became openair sewers and the living spaces of the working class did not guarantee salubrity[9]. A few decades apart, industrialisation evolved along with urban dynamics in different geopolitical contexts, between centralisation and decentralisation, convergence and relocation. It led to the transformation of existing urban spaces and the production of new ones, increasingly enhancing the detachment from human bodies: spaces with no relation to human scale, where the visual stimuli dominated, flattening encompassing body experiences (Fig. 1).

Historian and urbanist Donatella Calabi observed in 1979 that the early approach to urban planning as a discipline (1859-1913) was conceived in terms of response to the "sickness of the city"[10].It implied a metaphorical correspondence between body and urban illness. Moreover, the developing discipline of urban planning was associated with the maturation of public health: both aimed to maintain healthyurbanandhumanbodies[9].

2 勒·柯布西耶與“模量”，在他位于法國(guó)巴黎Sèvres街35號(hào)的辦公室，1959年/Le Corbusier and the "Modulor" in his office, 35 Rue de Sèvres, Paris, France, 1959（?Rene BURRI）

William Harvey"s discoveries in the 17thcentury about blood circulation and respiration provided a new way of understanding the body that, in turn, influenced the conception of urban form and functioning. Enlightened planners coupled such biological notions with capitalistic ideas concerning the movement of individuals, goods and money, and sought to shape the urban as a place where people could move freely through the city"s arteries[7].Later on, Modernism reclaimed similar principles.TheAthens Charter(1933) by Le Corbusier and CIAM advocated the idea of the Functional City,introducing urban standards and zoning, based on living, working, recreational functions and circulation[11](Fig. 2). Road building was publicly financed in most European countries, promoting car-centred accessibility and the overflow of bodies in motion[9]. Infrastructural urban spaces made the experience of speed possible: bodies moving with no obstruction, but also, with no physical engagement.Functional urban planning and public health boosted, at once, the body"s freedom from physical resistance and fear of touching-interacting with architectural space, as a potential cause of disease.Consequently, buildings and urban environments increasingly deepened "sensory deprivation" and"tactile sterility"[7](Fig. 3).

To d ay, fast means o f trans p or t and technological devices filter the engagement between people and the built environment. Yet,new emerging attention to the role of the body,extending ergonomic studies from architectural to urban scale, from functionalist purposes to more integrated ones, could lead to an original way of conceiving and designing the city: a human-centred understanding of architectural and urban space.In the bookCorpi tra spazio e progetto(Bodies between Space and Project), Cristina Bianchetti observed: "The urban project has always been concerned with bodies, but has kept the body at the edge of its critical perimeter […]. What does it mean to design, if design is to design the relationship between body and space?"[12](Fig. 4)

3 理查德·森內(nèi)特,《肉體與石頭：西方文明中的身體與城市》，1994年；詳見參考文獻(xiàn)[7]/Richard SENNETT, Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization, 1994.See to Reference[7]

4 克里斯蒂娜·比安切蒂，《空間與工程之間的身體》，2020年；詳見參考文獻(xiàn)[12]/Cristina BIANCHETTI, Corpi tra spazio e progetto, 2020. See to Reference[12]

5 諾伯格·舒爾茨，《居住的概念: 通往具象建筑的道路》，1985年/Christian NORBERG-SCHULZ, The Concept of Dwelling:On the Way to Figurative Architecture, Rizzoli, 1985

7 尤哈尼·帕拉斯瑪，《皮膚之眼：建筑與感官》， 2005年；詳見參考文獻(xiàn)[13]/Juhani PALLASMA, The Eyes of The Skin:Architecture and The Senses, 2005. See to Reference[13]

3 The Moving Body: Research and Tools

Spatial questions raised by sociologists and urbanists have found a first respond in phenomenological and sensory studies carried out in the field of architecture. The work of Steen Eiler Rasmussen (Experiencing Architecture,1959), Christian Norberg-Schulz (Genius Loci,Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture,1979;The Concept of Dwelling, 1985) and, more recently, Peter Zumthor (Thinking Architecture,1998;Atmospheres: Architectural Environments,Surrounding Objects, 2006) have contributed to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the human body and enhance its intrinsic relationship with space. (Fig. 5-7)

8 人體運(yùn)動(dòng)維度圖/Diagram of bodily movement dimensions（繪制：Marta MANCINI）

Drawing on existentialist and phenomenological thinking, Juhani Pallasmaa inThe Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses(1996) claimed:"Architecture articulates the experience of our beingin-the-world and strengthen our sense of reality and self. (It) makes us experience ourselves as complete embodied and spiritual essence."[13]Nevertheless, he also argued that the historical prominence of sight in the western world has caused the distancing of the body from the surrounding designed space. The suppression of non-visual senses has generated a built environment that deepens detachment and alienation, an architecture deprived of sensory qualities. Designers, instead, would better integrate the body in space by addressing its haptic system.

Ergonomics studies have contributed to measure the body and make it a reference for architectural and product design. However,dimensional and functional diagrams have codified a static normative body, a model of standardised measures that does not consider any creative engagement with space. Typically, ergonomics focuses on the immediate habitable space around the body in geometrical terms, leaving behind a wider understanding of their active relationship.How to challenge and enrich this viewpoint?

Despite cultural, social and personal differences,human beings generally share a similar biological structure. The body is the means of action and interaction with space, with architecture, with the city, with others. It enables movement and shapes the resulting cognition of ourselves and the surrounding world[14-16]. We, as human beings, know what it feels like to occupy space by virtue of our own embodiment and we make the experience of space motorically[17]. Movement allows the subject to establish depth relations among surfaces and objects, constituting the notion of space.

Differently from Western architectural theory, based on permanence and stability[18],the proposition is to elaborate an original visual method to look at space through the investigation of moving bodies. Diagrams of bodily movement can be employed as operative tools for studying existing spaces and extracting spatial data. The aim is to investigate the subtle and implicit dynamics of body-space interaction and turned them into explicit knowledge.

Figure. 8 shows a three-dimensional schema regarding the conception of body-space relationship developed throughout the PoliTo-Tsinghua Joint Research Project by Marta Mancini. Body movement can be described in terms of velocity or, in other words, the vector quantity that measures the rate of change of a body/object position, and is the function of time. In fact, time, as argued by Bruno Zevi, is the essence of architecture that enables movement and,thus, spatial apprehension[19]. The systematisation of time and space with "body", as a third dimension,aims to convey the notion of bodily movement. All together, they contribute to building up human"s spatial experience. Furthermore, through the elaboration of this three-dimensional diagram, the sub-factors that constitute body, space and time, are explored. They are broken down respectively into layers of bodily perception, into scales of interaction with space, into measured or individually perceived time and analysed in detail.

The body is the means of mediation between the idea of movement and architecture. The bodysubject moves according to personal necessities and meets on his way a space by which is, more or less creatively, engaged. "Space is a hidden feature of movement and movement is a visible aspect of space."[20]By exemplifying the body into a stick figure, the goal is to codify a representational visual language that could serve as a tool to "read" the implicit dynamics that people establish with the features of a designed space.

In the 1960s choreographer Rudolf Laban codified the Labanotation, one of the most employed methods to score movement. He depicted the body and its movements along six axes and planes,inscribed within a sphere and a cube, the so-calledkinesphere: the "sphere around the body whose periphery can be easily reached by extended limbs from that place which is our support or stance."(Fig. 9)[20]This body-model became the base of an articulate symbolic visual language that allow to record entire choreographies. Yet, the Labanotation focuses on the dynamics of body parts with little regard for their spatial action. Space is conceived as an empty stage of secondary importance, directlybound to the width of trunk and limbs" movements.For this reason, the idea is to make use of the schematic representation of thekinesphereand re-elaborate it through a more comprehensive understanding of the body, adding the perceptual dimension to its physicality.

9 魯?shù)婪颉だ?，“個(gè)人空間球”，1966年/Rudolf LABAN,Kinesphere, 1966（圖片來(lái)源：Rudolf Laban）

10 張利，鄧慧姝，馬塔·曼奇尼，“城市肌膚”，UABB 2019深圳城市建筑雙年展/ZHANG Li, DENG Huishu, Marta MANCINI, Urban Skin, UABB - 2019 Bi-City Shenzhen Biennale of UrbanismArchitecture, Shenzhen.（?Dalila TONDO）

11 MARC，谷倉(cāng)改造，馬特伊，意大利，2012年/MARC,Renovation of a barn, Mathi, Italy, 2012（圖片來(lái)源：MARC）

12 Latz + Partner Landschaftsarchitekten, 多拉公園項(xiàng)目，都靈，意大利，2011年/Latz + Partner Landschaftsarchitekten,Parco Dora project, Turin, Italy, 2011 （?Ornella ORLANDINI）

The reinterpretedkinesphereincorporates not only the tangible spatiality of the body but also six elected ephemeral perceptual layers. Each layer is tackled and further studied both singularly and in a systematic way. From the inner to the outer, they correspond to: balance, linked to body posture;proprioception or body gesture; kinaesthesia intended as thinking in movement; touch or tactile superficial perception; hearing; sight. The first four together constitute the haptic system. This approach aims to deconstruct the static geometrical western notions, advancing a more comprehensive way of interpreting designed space "through" the body.

In conclusion, diagrams of movement and perceptual experience may help to identify key spatial elements influencing the body-space relationship and create new explicit knowledge.The systematisation and the in-depth analysis of bodily movement representation (here only briefly introduced) has the potential to support spatial design towards a more human-centred conception,pushing traditional Ergonomics principles towards an extensive understanding of the body-space relationship, at multiple scales.

4 Engaging the Body: Design Practices

Throughout the three-year PoliTo-Tsinghua Joint Research Project, theoretical thinking has been developed along with design solutions. The notions introduced in the previous two sections of the article, for instance, concerning body-space relationship historical frame and research tools, are the reworking of parts of Ph.D. candidate Marta Mancini"s doctoral work. Following the principles at the base of this academic study, recent projects have been the actual chance to translate research tools into design strategies.

The 2019 edition of the Bi-City Shenzhen Biennale of UrbanismArchitecture was dedicated to the "Eyes of the City"[21]. Through this topic,the curators aimed to investigate how, thanks to new technologies, urban relations can evolve from people-to-people to people-to-city; a city that is now able to "see", perceive and, therefore, interact.

13 Heatherwick工作室，Vessel，美國(guó)紐約，2013年/Heatherwick Studio, Vessel, New York, USA, 2013（?Timothy A. CLARY/AFP - Getty Images）

14 藤本壯介建筑事務(wù)所，NA House，東京，日本，2010年/Sou Fujimoto Architects, NA House, Tokyo, Japan, 2010（?IWANNAHPIERI）

The projects on display were largely dedicated to the visual relationship that people establish with the spaces of the city, favoured by innovations such as facial recognition. Nevertheless, some installations also considered other senses. The temporary installation "Urban Skin" was a result of PoliTo-Tsinghua collaboration (Fig. 10). Elaborating on Pallasmaa"s "Eyes of the Skin" concept, the installation was covered by 182 sensors that could record the number of physical touches by visitors"body[22]. The goal of such an experiment was to investigate what typologies of urban space mostly engaged the human body. Different configurations of spaces and surfaces offered the possibility of exploring and challenging bodily awareness and physical abilities. The installation interpreted the theme of "Eyes of the City" as the possibility of the urban space to gain a haptic capability, to become sensible and receptive. The engagements with the human body were revealed through the record of the number of touches and displayed in real-time,aiming to address one of the main questions of the emerging field of "Urban Ergonomics": which type of urban space is more preferred and engages the human body the most?

The opportunity of the Shenzhen Biennale allowed to think, in terms of design, about some of the main principles of Urban Ergonomics.Being Ergonomics traditionally dedicated to the optimisation of interior spaces or furnishings, the"Eyes of the City" Biennale has been a first chance to "set free" Ergonomics principles into a wider urban public scale. Based on the above-mentioned theoretical elaborations and the study of existing real cases, four main principles towards the establishment of Urban Ergonomics, as a humancentred conception of space, have been derived.

Interior/Exterior.Urban Ergonomics intends to focus on the ability of the human body, instinctively inventive in the interpretation of functions and in the solutions of spatial constraints, to creatively mediate between internal and external spaces. These qualities of the human body are crucial for freeing Ergonomics towards public space. Following this concept, in the renovation of some barns near Turin(2012), studio MARC structured the section of the existing building to let daily bodily actions (such as sitting, playing sports, working) taking place on the threshold between inside and outside, blurring the borders (Fig. 11).

Artificial/Natural.Compared to traditional Ergonomics, indeed not concerned with the design of outer space, Urban Ergonomics can learna lot from the conformation of nature, which typically presents profiles and materials that are organically well adapted to the rhythms and needs of the human body. In this regard, in the project of Parco Dora (2007-2011) in Turin, Peter Latz outlined drastic approaches between the artificial elements of the industrial legacy and new natural elements, highly humanising the space of the former factory (Fig. 12).

15 意大利都靈理工大學(xué)中國(guó)室研究中心，制氧廠剖面，北京首鋼2022年冬奧會(huì)滑雪大跳臺(tái)場(chǎng)館/Politecnico di Torino-China Room (Italy), Section of Oxygen Factory in Shougang,Big Air Venue, Winter Olympic Games Beijing 2022

16 意大利都靈理工大學(xué)中國(guó)室研究中心，制氧廠軸測(cè)，北京首鋼/Politecnico di Torino-China Room, Axonometry- Oxygen Factory, Shougang, Beijing（15.16圖片來(lái)源：Politecnico di Torino-China Room）

Individual/Collective.If traditional Ergonomics was mostly a matter of the individual body, Urban Ergonomics above all concerns the relationship(physical, visual, psychological) among many bodies: those of citizens. The project of the Vessel(2019) in New York, by Heatherwick Studio, is an example of the maximisation of visual and physical relationships between people in a 45-metre-high open space, promoting the bodily exploration of urban space (Fig. 13).

Shape/Space.The body does not relate to the city only through the touch of its surfaces and materials but through a more complex relationship.Compared to traditional Ergonomics, Urban Ergonomics aims to invest importantly in the notion of space. As a reference, in his project for the NA house in Tokyo (2015), Sou Fujimoto created a manifesto of the body"s relationship with space,arranging 21 platforms at different heights and openly exposed to the city (Fig. 14).

In the past three years, as members of the China Room Research Center at Politecnico di Torino, we were invited by Tsinghua University to collaborate for the renovation of the former Oxygen Factory in Shougang, Big Air Venue, for the XXIV Olympic Winter Games, Beijing 2022[23]. Thanks to a design theme involving sport and the need to resize a huge industrial building to a human scale structure, we had the opportunity to experiment with some of the principles discussed above.

Our design priority was to open the original industrial building and make it permeable to the public. The ground floor became the key-space of the whole project: a roofed playground that gathers and engages the public in physical activities and open-air sports (Fig. 15). The design of the ground floor places"people" at the core of the architectural discourse,overcoming the geometrical understanding of space and providing users with multiple potential relations with urban space. People find themselves in between interior and exterior (under a roof yet open air),natural and artificial (in a factory yet a few metres away from water), individual and collective (in small and "domestic" spaces yet fluently connected to each other). They experience the soft curved surfaces of the playground, yet feeling within an immersive spatial dimension (Fig. 16). The presence of people is what activates the area under the suspended volume and gives consistency to the "playful" nature of this space. In this way, the renovated building becomes the vehicle of body-space creative engagement,stimulating interaction and enjoyment, embedding the key characteristics of the high-quality living that Urban Ergonomics aims to promote and foster.□