和馬町/Martijn de Geus

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

1 序言

全球的城市發(fā)展皆容易產(chǎn)生出城市空隙——一類恰巧落在城市規(guī)劃和建筑設(shè)計(jì)的縫隙之間的場(chǎng)所。這類空間包括：兩棟樓宇之間的通道，高架路橋下方的空間，或是狹窄的、三角形的或是其他不規(guī)則形狀的地塊。鑒于它們這種顯然“難以使用”的特征，我們通常將這類空間稱作“城市空隙”。它們是剩余的、被忽略的、無(wú)價(jià)值的地塊，沒(méi)有任何潛力和特質(zhì)。

這類空間真的毫無(wú)價(jià)值嗎？

20 世紀(jì)中葉，阿爾多·凡·艾克竟能夠?qū)?shù)百處像這樣被忽視的空間轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橛幸饬x的場(chǎng)所?；趯?duì)凡·艾克的阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)背后的設(shè)計(jì)進(jìn)路的分析，本文試圖從中凝練某種設(shè)計(jì)策略，進(jìn)而對(duì)當(dāng)代城市設(shè)計(jì)、規(guī)劃和建筑實(shí)踐有所啟示。

凡·艾克的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)最初是建在臨時(shí)的或是棄用的空地上。最初它們可被視為一種試圖修正城市中游樂(lè)場(chǎng)地不均衡分布的應(yīng)急措施，這些場(chǎng)地向所有市民開(kāi)敞；但后來(lái)，這一項(xiàng)目的意義遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出預(yù)期。這些看似簡(jiǎn)單的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，其基地選擇、設(shè)計(jì)和實(shí)施的背后所凝聚的設(shè)計(jì)策略，最終在荷蘭各地的城市設(shè)計(jì)及更新設(shè)計(jì)中得到應(yīng)用。借助極小化的干預(yù)措施，那些原本一直無(wú)人問(wèn)津的空地，被賦予了城市生活中的積極角色。

因此，本文呼吁人們通過(guò)采取創(chuàng)造性的、以人為本的、場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造的策略，重現(xiàn)碎片化的消極空間中極小卻有意義的空間干預(yù)的重要價(jià)值。首先，文章回顧了這類空間的出現(xiàn)如何受到現(xiàn)代主義“功能城市”發(fā)展觀念的影響，以及隨后出現(xiàn)的城市規(guī)劃和建筑設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)科的分離，對(duì)此凡·艾克一直持反叛態(tài)度。其次，我們將阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)作為凡·艾克的替代性場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造策略的典型案例。最后，本文提供了將其設(shè)計(jì)策略轉(zhuǎn)譯于當(dāng)代城市發(fā)展及建筑設(shè)計(jì)的參考框架：即理解凡·艾克的“間隙性”。這種間隙性可以理解為一種干預(yù)“之間的”空間的策略——無(wú)論從字面意義還是比喻意義而言——同時(shí)也是在此類未定義空間中促進(jìn)城市中的人際交互的一種策略。簡(jiǎn)而言之，凡·艾克的間隙式策略可從4 個(gè)方面凝煉：開(kāi)放性、間隙性、多中心性以及公眾參與。它是一種為特定場(chǎng)所和境遇設(shè)計(jì)的策略，一種為創(chuàng)造更多可能而非占據(jù)空間的設(shè)計(jì)。

2 作為叛逆的人文主義者的凡·艾克

自從1947 年加入國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)（CIAM），凡·艾克就對(duì)時(shí)下流行的功能主義城市規(guī)劃和建筑設(shè)計(jì)持有異常批判的態(tài)度，他本人在言行兩方面皆致力于發(fā)展一種真正現(xiàn)代的、人性化的建筑。“由于沒(méi)能創(chuàng)造性地管理城市，沒(méi)能通過(guò)形態(tài)和細(xì)節(jié)設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)促進(jìn)人性化，這已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致了大多數(shù)新城的噩夢(mèng)?！狈病ぐ嗽?962 年如此寫(xiě)道，隱含指摘了現(xiàn)代主義城市規(guī)劃的失敗，這類規(guī)劃在他看來(lái)是將“功能城市”的訴求放在了人性動(dòng)機(jī)和欲求的前面。

凡·艾克加入國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)之時(shí)，該組織正處在勒·柯布西耶的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，以城市規(guī)劃為先，為戰(zhàn)后人口構(gòu)想了一個(gè)由高層建筑塑造的未來(lái)。1931 年和1933 年的國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)大會(huì)持續(xù)倡導(dǎo)“功能城市”的理念，勒·柯布西耶緊接著發(fā)布“雅典憲章”，認(rèn)為面對(duì)全球城市所遭遇的社會(huì)問(wèn)題，最好的解決方式便是嚴(yán)格的功能分區(qū)，將人口分布至間隔寬遠(yuǎn)的高層公寓樓中。凡·艾克當(dāng)時(shí)在阿姆斯特丹城市規(guī)劃局工作的上司、也是時(shí)任國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)主席凡·伊斯特倫，已將這種理念貫徹在戰(zhàn)后荷蘭重建的宏偉工程中。他采取了一條自上而下的“整體”規(guī)劃路徑，以最高效率容納“最大多數(shù)”。

重建和建造的需求非常巨大。然而，當(dāng)凡·艾克加入規(guī)劃部門(mén)之時(shí)，熱情已然消退，不滿之聲四起，建設(shè)進(jìn)展的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)只是通過(guò)計(jì)算新建筑的數(shù)量、體量、大小等“客觀事實(shí)”。凡·艾克剛從蘇黎世聯(lián)邦理工學(xué)院畢業(yè)的時(shí)候，他就曾加入抗議游行，要求減少壓迫性環(huán)境。他的觀點(diǎn)源于該時(shí)期蘇黎世異常激進(jìn)的社會(huì)環(huán)境。由于蘇黎世在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間保持中立，它成為“被放逐或自我放逐的學(xué)者、科學(xué)家和先鋒藝術(shù)家”的多重中心[1]。置身其中，凡·艾克發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)代藝術(shù)和科學(xué)的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)盡管有所不同，但根本上都和他一樣，正在“沖破理性主義的樊籬”。

還有像亨利·列斐伏爾這樣的思想家，抨擊了現(xiàn)代化進(jìn)程給傳統(tǒng)的、歷史承續(xù)的城市肌理施予的壓迫。列斐伏爾寫(xiě)道，他意識(shí)到20 世紀(jì)初正經(jīng)歷著前所未有的一種全新的、匿名的、貧瘠的、技術(shù)至上的空間類型的崛起。此外，在凡·艾克看來(lái)同樣值得擔(dān)憂的是，人居環(huán)境規(guī)劃被粗暴地分割為兩個(gè)學(xué)科——建筑設(shè)計(jì)和城市規(guī)劃，這展現(xiàn)了那個(gè)時(shí)代的決定論特征，他并不認(rèn)為有必要轉(zhuǎn)變?cè)O(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程的機(jī)制。

在這一系列思潮轉(zhuǎn)變的促使下，凡·艾克逐步發(fā)展出一套對(duì)抗現(xiàn)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重要概念框架，通過(guò)他的寫(xiě)作和實(shí)踐都有所表達(dá)。他的目標(biāo)是將國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)的那種自上而下的、功能主義的城市設(shè)計(jì)路徑，替代為一種“自下而上的”“接地氣的”“情境式的”的設(shè)計(jì)策略[2]。凡·艾克試圖發(fā)展一種建筑和城市的原創(chuàng)觀點(diǎn)，一種真正當(dāng)代的、人性化的建筑與城市理念，以對(duì)抗普遍流行的功能至上的規(guī)劃方法——后者在他看來(lái)不僅割裂了現(xiàn)存城市，而且生產(chǎn)出異化的新城。針對(duì)國(guó)際建協(xié)式城市規(guī)劃的第一個(gè)真正意義上的替代性、或至少說(shuō)是補(bǔ)充性的方案，就是凡·艾克的阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，“極小的、露天的構(gòu)筑物，填補(bǔ)了擁擠城市中的間隙”[3]。

1947-1978 年間，阿爾多·凡·艾克設(shè)計(jì)并建造了阿姆斯特丹的數(shù)百處兒童游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，可以從圖1這張地圖中總覽它們的位置分布。這些游樂(lè)場(chǎng)是臨時(shí)性的、簡(jiǎn)單的，往往只在空地上進(jìn)行最低限度的、最少的操作，只采用類似的基本設(shè)計(jì)元素，如圖2所示。這樣一種設(shè)計(jì)路徑背后的理念是，通過(guò)臨時(shí)性地占據(jù)這些場(chǎng)地，直至某個(gè)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的改造項(xiàng)目形成，為這些原本無(wú)人問(wèn)津的場(chǎng)地賦予在城市生活中的積極角色。這種策略對(duì)于今天依然很有意義，正如恩尼亞和馬泰拉[5]所寫(xiě)的那樣，即便極小化干預(yù)對(duì)當(dāng)今建筑學(xué)而言并不具有顯著優(yōu)勢(shì)，但這類干預(yù)措施在今天的應(yīng)用前景卻比過(guò)去更廣。他們提出，這類干預(yù)措施可躋身21 世紀(jì)最有啟發(fā)的設(shè)計(jì)策略之列。對(duì)凡·艾克游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的干預(yù)及其設(shè)計(jì)手法背后設(shè)計(jì)策略和過(guò)程的理解，可以看作是正在進(jìn)行的且關(guān)乎當(dāng)代建筑角色與目標(biāo)的一個(gè)重要轉(zhuǎn)變。轉(zhuǎn)變過(guò)程中，建筑作為城市領(lǐng)域中的極小干預(yù)途徑，其作用越來(lái)越大。

3 作為整體性城市策略的凡·艾克游樂(lè)場(chǎng)

過(guò)去數(shù)十年間，建筑界對(duì)阿爾多·凡·艾克的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的興趣重燃，很多學(xué)者剖析了游樂(lè)場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)的不同層面、它們對(duì)城市肌理以及對(duì)兒童成長(zhǎng)的影響。例如，勒費(fèi)夫爾和德羅迪編輯出版了一本《游樂(lè)場(chǎng)與城市》的著作[4]；永格尼爾、惠特哈根和薩爾在《環(huán)境心理學(xué)學(xué)刊》 發(fā)表的論文[6]、惠特哈根和卡爾喬在《心理學(xué)前沿》發(fā)表的論文[7]等，都從心理學(xué)視角討論了凡·艾克游樂(lè)場(chǎng)中的“開(kāi)放玩?！崩砟睢⒚缹W(xué)價(jià)值、經(jīng)濟(jì)性和創(chuàng)造性；所羅門(mén)[8]則討論了玩耍本身的科學(xué)性，以及如何建造可以促進(jìn)兒童成長(zhǎng)的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)。此外，勒菲弗爾和多爾論述了如何將玩耍作為“自下而上城市”中的一種設(shè)計(jì)工具[9]。

如果對(duì)游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的具體設(shè)計(jì)和建筑方案感興趣，我會(huì)推薦讀者去閱讀上面提到的文獻(xiàn)。然而在這篇文章中，我們將阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)作為凡·艾克的替代性場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造策略的案例，而非聚焦于游樂(lè)場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)本身，或是將游樂(lè)場(chǎng)作為一種城市空間類型。這一思考建立在勒費(fèi)夫爾的觀點(diǎn)之上，即這些游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的設(shè)計(jì)和開(kāi)發(fā)背后的過(guò)程指向一種“徹底被忽視的城市設(shè)計(jì)工具，它能夠很大程度上幫助提升那些在今天經(jīng)常被疏離的內(nèi)城街區(qū)中的社區(qū)空間”[10]。在此過(guò)程中，本文旨在通過(guò)理解凡·艾克的“間隙性”，為當(dāng)代城市發(fā)展路徑提供一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)轉(zhuǎn)譯框架。

這種間隙性可以理解為一種面向城市空隙和剩余空間的設(shè)計(jì)策略，但凡·艾克的語(yǔ)言更適合被命名為一種為“之間的”空間的設(shè)計(jì)——無(wú)論從字面意義還是比喻意義而言。字面來(lái)看，它指向前文所提及的、因城市規(guī)劃與建筑設(shè)計(jì)的分離而出現(xiàn)的空隙空間；而在比喻層面，凡·艾克也從這些特定場(chǎng)所之中看到了一種潛力，它可以成為激發(fā)城市中的人際互動(dòng)的一種策略。這些空間介于家庭的私人領(lǐng)域以及城市的公共領(lǐng)域之間。下面我們將凡·艾克的間隙式策略拆解為4 個(gè)方面：開(kāi)放性、間隙性、多中心性以及公眾參與。這一切共同塑造了一套為場(chǎng)所和情境設(shè)計(jì)的策略，為更多可能而非占據(jù)空間而設(shè)計(jì)[11]。

3.1 開(kāi)放性：從封閉的游樂(lè)園到開(kāi)放的玩耍地

1 阿姆斯特丹736個(gè)游樂(lè)場(chǎng)位置示意，由阿爾多·凡·艾克在1947年至1978年間設(shè)計(jì)。地圖為弗蘭西斯·斯特盧瓦于1980年繪制/Location of 736 Amsterdam playgrounds designed by Aldo van Eyck between 1947 and 1978, map drawn up by Francis Strauven in 1980（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 參考文獻(xiàn)[13]/Ref [13]）

2 凡·艾克的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)所使用的各種沙坑和游戲元素圖錄/Catalogue of various sandpits and play elements to be used in van eyck's playgrounds（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 參考文獻(xiàn)[3]/Ref[3]）

1 Introduction

Urban development in cities around the world tends to produce urban voids, areas that fall between the cracks of the considered urban planning and subsequent architectural design.These spaces include corridors between two buildings, spaces underneath raised roads, junctions and overpasses; or narrow,triangular and otherwise irregularly shaped plots.Because of their apparent "un-usable" characteristics,we often refer to these as urban voids: leftover,neglected, worthless plots of land, devoid of potential and character.

Are they truly without value?

In the mid-20th century, Aldo van Eyck was able to turn hundreds of neglected spaces just like these into meaningful places.Analysing his design approach behind his Amsterdam Playgrounds, this text aims to distil a design strategy, that could be transposed to contemporary urban design, planning and architectural practice.

Van Eyck's playgrounds were initially built on temporary or unused plots of land.They could at first be seen as an emergency measure aimed to rectify the uneven distribution of play areas in the city, and these available to all its citizens, but they had a significance far beyond their original role.The design strategy behind the selection, design and execution of these simple playgrounds eventually became a strategy embedded in the design of urban design and regeneration all around the Netherlands.Through minimal interventions,an active role in city life was provided to places that otherwise would remain unused.

This text therefore should be seen as a plea for the importance and value of minimal, but meaningful interventions in these type of scattered negative spaces through creative, human-oriented, place making strategies.This text first provides an overview of how the appearance of these type of spaces resulted from the modernist "functional city" development ideology, and from its subsequent separation between the disciplines of urban planning and architectural design, which Van Eyck was rebelling against.Secondly, we take his Amsterdam Playgrounds as an example of van Eyck's alternative place making strategy, and thirdly, the text provides a framework for transposing his approach to contemporary urban development and architectural design: understanding Van Eyck's "Interstitiality".This interstitiality can be understood as a strategy regarding in-between spaces, literally and figuratively, as well as a strategy for these undefined spaces to encourage the interaction between people within the city.In short,Van Eyck's interstitial strategy can be characterised through four aspects: open-ness, interstitiality,polycentricity and citizen participation.It's a strategy of designing for place and occasion; designing for possibilities rather than for occupation.

2 Van Eyck as Humanist Rebel

Ever since joining the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) in 1947, van Eyck took an uncommonly critical attitude towards the prevailing functionalism in urban planning and architecture, and dedicated himself in word and deed to developing an authentically modern and humane architecture."Failure to govern multiplicity creatively, to humanize numbers by means of articulation and configuration, has led to the curse of most new towns", writes van Eyck in 1962,alluding to his conception of the failure of modernist town planning, that had in his eyes put "the functional city" ahead of human motives and desires.

Under Le Corbusier's leading, CIAM at the time of Van Eyck's joining prioritised urban planning envisioning a high rise future for a postwar population.Following CIAM meetings in 1931 and 1933 that called for a "Functional City",Le Corbusier had released the Athens Charter in which he described that the social problems faced by cities around the world could best be resolved by strict functional segregation, and by distributing the population into tall apartment blocks at widely spaced intervals.Van Eyck's boss at the Amsterdam Town Planning Department where van Eyck was working at that time, and CIAM Chairman at the time, Van Eesteren, had already integrated this approach in his colossal task of reconstructing the Netherlands after the war.He applied a top-down"total" planned approach to house "the largest number" most efficiently.

The drive to reconstruct and construct was massive.However, by the time that Van Eyck joined the Planning Department, enthusiasm had much waned and there were signs of discontent, given that progress was now measured by counting "objective facts" like number, volume, and size of new buildings.Fresh out of university, after having finished his studies at the ETH in Zurich, Van Eyck joined the growing protest in search of less oppressive environments.His opinions emerged out of the exceedingly stimulating environment of Zurich at that time.Zurich was a city that had been neutral during the war, and that had become a multilayered hub of "exiled or self-exiled intellectuals,scientists, avant-garde artists"[1].Amongst them, Van Eyck considered the trends in the contemporary arts and sciences and found that, despite their differences,what they had in common was that, like himself, they were "bursting the barriers of rationalism".

Others, like Henri Lefebvre, wrote about the pressures that were brought to bear upon traditional,historically inherited urban fabric in the process of this modernisation.Lefebvre wrote how he found that the early twentieth century saw an unprecedented rise of a new, anonymous, sterile, technocratic type of space.In addition, van Eyck was concerned how in his eyes the mere fact that habitat planning was arbitrarily split into two disciplines – architecture and urbanism– demonstrated the determinist quality of the times,which disregarded the necessity of transforming the mechanism of the design process.

Following in the wake of these changes, van Eyck developed over time a significant conceptual framework against the prevailing status quo, that was expressed both in writing and in practice.He aimed to turn the top-down, functional CIAM approach to urbanism into a "ground-up", "dirty real", "situational" approach[2].Van Eyck aimed to develop an original view of architecture and the city, a truly contemporary and human concept of architecture and urbanism in contrast to the prevailing technocratic planning that in his eyes tended to disintegrate existing cities while producing alienating new towns.The first real alternative, or at least complement, to this CIAM-style urban planning,was van Eyck's Amsterdam Playgrounds, "small roofless minimal structures occupying crowded interstitial urban voids"[3].

Between 1947 and 1978, Aldo van Eyck designed and built hundreds of children playgrounds in the city of Amsterdam[4], see the map in Fig.1 for an overview of their locations.These playgrounds were temporary and simple and involved only a few, minimum operations over vacant lots, with similar basic design elements,such as those found in Fig.2.The idea behind such an approach was sometimes to occupy these lots until a lasting transformation could be performed,and therefore providing an active role in city life was provided to places that otherwise would remain unused.This strategy remains relevant today, as Enia and Martella[5]write that even if minimal interventions are not a prerogative of present-day architecture, these interventions are implemented more often today than in the past.They argue that these interventions in fact can be placed among the most relevant design strategies of the 21st century.Understanding the design strategy and process behind van Eyck's playground interventions and its design ideology can be seen as part of this important, ongoing shift in design strategies, in which there is an increasing role for architecture as minimal interventions in the urban realm.

3 阿姆斯特丹會(huì)員制游樂(lè)公園，圖為位于荷蘭某街區(qū)的俱樂(lè)部/Amsterdam members-only play garden, image shows clubhouse at the fahrenheitstraat

4 阿姆斯特丹會(huì)員制游樂(lè)公園左側(cè)，柵欄將游樂(lè)公園和俱樂(lè)部間隔開(kāi)/Amsterdam members-only fenced off play garden with the clubhouse from figure 1 on the left（3.4圖片來(lái)源/Sources: 參考文獻(xiàn)[18]/Ref[18]）

5 凡·艾克在CIAM第十次會(huì)議演講時(shí)的幾張幻燈片，杜布羅夫尼克，1956/Everal slides from van eyck's presentation at CIAM X, dubrovnic, 1956（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 參考文獻(xiàn)[13]/Ref[13]）

盡管凡·艾克讓阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)蜚聲全球，但兒童室外玩耍場(chǎng)地的重要性在阿姆斯特丹早已得到公認(rèn)，這延續(xù)了長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)荷蘭的一個(gè)傳統(tǒng)，即將玩耍作為兒童城市生活的一部分。玩耍最初發(fā)生在城市的開(kāi)放街道和廣場(chǎng)，但隨著城市發(fā)展，至19世紀(jì)末的阿姆斯特丹，關(guān)于兒童玩耍場(chǎng)地環(huán)境過(guò)差的怨聲四起，這激發(fā)上流階層在1880 年建造了城市中的第一處私人游樂(lè)場(chǎng)。隨后，在荷蘭掀起了一場(chǎng)關(guān)于兒童游樂(lè)公園的大規(guī)模運(yùn)動(dòng)，該運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起人是尤爾克·楊斯·克拉倫，他最初試圖在自己居住的街區(qū)中建立一座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，后來(lái)推動(dòng)了一個(gè)游樂(lè)場(chǎng)共同體的成立。該組織成立于1917 年，名為“阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)公園協(xié)會(huì)”；1937 年又發(fā)展為“阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)公園集團(tuán)”。請(qǐng)注意，這里使用的“游樂(lè)公園”（荷蘭語(yǔ)“speeltuin”）一詞是比通常使用的“游樂(lè)場(chǎng)”更準(zhǔn)確的翻譯。游樂(lè)公園指向一類后花園，它們藏在面向街道的俱樂(lè)部會(huì)所背后，有欄桿圍合，由協(xié)會(huì)指派的管理員看管，只有協(xié)會(huì)會(huì)員的子女方可入內(nèi)。由于家長(zhǎng)必須是會(huì)員，且位置選擇具有隨機(jī)性，導(dǎo)致這些游樂(lè)公園在城市中的分布很散，且只能服務(wù)阿姆斯特丹極小部分的兒童群體，實(shí)質(zhì)上“被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)奢侈品”[12]。到了1940 年代，阿姆斯特丹已擁有一定程度的私人游樂(lè)場(chǎng)傳統(tǒng)，這樣的例子可參見(jiàn)圖3、4。

真正為凡·艾克的介入鋪平道路的，是1947年由雅科芭·穆?tīng)柕掳l(fā)起的一項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)——她是阿姆斯特丹城市規(guī)劃局公共項(xiàng)目部的副手，這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)試圖修正游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的不均衡布局，讓它們面向所有市民開(kāi)放；除會(huì)員制的游樂(lè)花園之外，至少在每個(gè)街區(qū)設(shè)置一處“開(kāi)放”游樂(lè)場(chǎng)。這些新建的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)將交由大眾來(lái)監(jiān)督管轄，此后也將由大眾自下而上發(fā)起，這將在關(guān)于公眾參與的第三部分闡明。這些新游樂(lè)場(chǎng)地的開(kāi)放特質(zhì)——沒(méi)有圍墻的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，由周邊社區(qū)松散地管理和監(jiān)督——讓它們得以成為一類“之間”的城市空間，可視為對(duì)介于私人的家和公共的城之間的一類城市領(lǐng)域的探索，凡·艾克將因此聞名。出于這樣的動(dòng)議，阿爾多·凡·艾克選擇不再使用“游樂(lè)公園”（荷蘭語(yǔ)speeltuin）一詞，轉(zhuǎn)而將這種游樂(lè)場(chǎng)地的新類型稱作“游樂(lè)場(chǎng)”（荷蘭語(yǔ)speelplaats），這在荷蘭語(yǔ)中有極大的區(qū)別，隱含指向了凡·艾克的場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造策略。

3.2 間隙性：激活縫隙中的城市剩余空間

讓這類新型游樂(lè)場(chǎng)地與眾不同的第二個(gè)特征是，它們并不是在街區(qū)尺度自上而下設(shè)計(jì)的，而是自下而上的，是在人口致密的城市中發(fā)現(xiàn)的剩余的、間隙的空間尺度層面完成的。這在一定程度上是出于這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即規(guī)劃部門(mén)希望讓每個(gè)街區(qū)都擁有屬于自己的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，故而經(jīng)常有城市中心的空地被（臨時(shí)地）改造為游樂(lè)場(chǎng)地。因此，游樂(lè)場(chǎng)不再只出現(xiàn)在光鮮的公園，或是制定的場(chǎng)地，也可出現(xiàn)在住宅樓之間、功能改變的停車(chē)場(chǎng)上，或是曾作為垃圾收集處的廢棄場(chǎng)地。讓凡·艾克自豪的是，他開(kāi)啟了一條更加“情境主義的”“自下而上”的城市設(shè)計(jì)路徑，這條路徑是對(duì)于在他看來(lái)功能城市規(guī)劃已經(jīng)失效的城市區(qū)域的回應(yīng)。正如他1956 年在國(guó)際建協(xié)杜布羅夫尼克第十次會(huì)議中所指出的：“在由道路工程和拆除工人導(dǎo)致的不計(jì)其數(shù)的、無(wú)固定形狀的孤島上，在空閑的場(chǎng)地上，在比公共水景更適合兒童活動(dòng)的場(chǎng)地上，我們迄今為止已在城市中找到了70 處這樣的場(chǎng)地，用于建造游樂(lè)場(chǎng)”[13]。他在國(guó)際建協(xié)會(huì)議上播放的幾頁(yè)幻燈片，展示了其場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造策略的幾個(gè)早期案例，如圖5、6 所示。不過(guò)，有一部分的剩余空間實(shí)際上并不是由失職的城市規(guī)劃造成的，而是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間對(duì)阿姆斯特丹城市內(nèi)外的轟炸所致，如圖7-11 所示。無(wú)論這些空地的實(shí)際形成原因?yàn)楹危@些由陳舊的墻體和殘破的建筑所圍合的場(chǎng)地，成為他的所有游樂(lè)場(chǎng)中最廣為人知的案例[14]。實(shí)際上，這是一個(gè)頗具英雄主義色彩的社區(qū)故事，一處被轟炸或廢棄的場(chǎng)地被賦予新生，成為一處公共游樂(lè)場(chǎng)。

3.3 參與性：地段考察的市民參與

如前所述，雅科芭·穆?tīng)柕隆?dāng)時(shí)在科尼利斯·凡·伊斯特倫領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的阿姆斯特丹城市規(guī)劃局工作——發(fā)起了開(kāi)放式游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的動(dòng)議，促使凡·艾克參與到貝特曼廣場(chǎng)的第一個(gè)游樂(lè)場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)項(xiàng)目中。盡管最初它在一定程度上被作為一項(xiàng)修正游樂(lè)公園的不均衡布局的策略，并且促進(jìn)游樂(lè)場(chǎng)所向所有市民開(kāi)放，但它同時(shí)也是公眾參與的產(chǎn)物，尤其是參與到為這類干預(yù)措施尋找合適場(chǎng)地的調(diào)研中。穆?tīng)柕侣氏仍谒约壕幼〉慕謪^(qū)中找到了一個(gè)可能的場(chǎng)地，因?yàn)樗缫炎⒁獾浇謪^(qū)中的孩子無(wú)處可玩耍。在她那位26 歲的助手阿爾多·凡·艾克建成這座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)大約一個(gè)月之后，一位住在幾個(gè)街區(qū)之外的女性看到這處新的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)所，她于是寫(xiě)信給公共項(xiàng)目部，請(qǐng)求在她的街區(qū)也建造一處。自此，游樂(lè)場(chǎng)就如星火燎原，最初是在歷史城市中心，后來(lái)從1950 年代開(kāi)始，逐步蔓延到城市西部的新區(qū)[10]。

6 道路交叉口旁剩余三角形游樂(lè)場(chǎng)平面/Plan situation drawing of playground on leftover triangular space next to road intersection（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 阿姆斯特丹凡·艾克城市檔案館線上文件/Aldo van Eyck Archive in the Amsterdam City Archive, sourced online via http://www.play-scapes.com/playhistory/mid-century-modern/aldo-van-eycks-playgroundplans/）

3 Understanding van Eyck's Playgrounds as Integral Urban Strategy

Over the last decades, there is a renewed interest in the playgrounds of Aldo van Eyck, with many scholars dissecting different aspects of their designs, the effect they have on the city fabric, and on the development of children.For instance, Lefaivre and de Roode[4]who edited a publication regarding "the playgrounds and the city", Jongeneel, Withagen and Zaal[6]in the

Journal of Environmental Psychology and Withagen and Caljouw[7]in Frontiers of Psychology, both from a psychological point of view, regarding aspects of"open play", aesthetics, affordances, and creativity of his playgrounds, or Solomon[8]regarding the science of play itself and how to build playgrounds that enhance children's development.In addition, Lefaivre and D?ll[9]focused on how to consider play as a design tool in a"Ground Up City".

For those interested in the particular design and architectural solutions of these playgrounds,I would recommend to read up on the sources mentioned here.For this text though, we understand the Amsterdam playgrounds as an example of van Eyck's alternative place making strategy, rather than focussing on the design of the playgrounds themselves, or the relevance that playgrounds as a typology have in cities.This builds on Lefaivre's suggestion that the process behind the design and development of these playgrounds yield a potent "totally ignored, urban design tool that has great relevance for the enhancement of community in the often alienated inner-city neighbourhoods of today"[10].In doing so, the text aims to provide a framework for transposing van Eyck's approach to contemporary urban development, through understanding van Eyck's "Interstitiality".

This interstitiality can be understood as a strategy regarding urban voids and leftover spaces, but in Van Eyck's own terms would more appropriately be named as designing for in-between spaces, literally and figuratively.Literally, this refers to void spaces that arise as a result of the separation between urban planning and architectural design,as mentioned earlier, but figuratively, Van Eyck also saw potential in these particular places as a strategy to encourage the interaction between people within the city.Places in between the private realm of the home, and the collective realm of the city.In the following section, we break down van Eyck's interstitial strategy through four aspects:open-ness, interstitiality, polycentricity and citizen participation.All together enabling a strategy of designing for place and occasion, designing for possibilities rather than for occupation[11].

3.1 Openness: From Closed Play Gardens to Open Play Places

Though van Eyck made Amsterdam's playgrounds famous around the world, the importance of areas for children to play outdoors in the city was already well established, and followed in a long Dutch tradition of celebrating play as a part of the urban life of children.Originally occurring in the open streets and plazas of cities, through increasing urban development, many complaints arose regarding poor playing conditions for children in Amsterdam at the end of the 19th Century,sparking upper-class citizens to create the first private playground in the city in 1880.A larger movement in the Netherlands regarding play gardens subsequently formed, an initiative founded by Uilke Jans Klaren,as his efforts in creating a playground in his own neighbourhood, eventually gave rise to establishing a playground collective.Founded in 1917, it was called the "Bond van Amsterdamse Speeltuinverenigingen"(Bond of Amsterdam Play Garden Associations), from which in 1937 the "the Amsterdams Speeltuinen Verbond" (Amsterdam Cooperation for Play Gardens)was formed.Please note how the word "play gardens" (from the Dutch word "speeltuin") is a more accurate translation than the commonly used word"playground".These play gardens resembled backyard gardens, behind street-facing clubhouses, and were fenced plots supervised by keepers belonging to the association, and exclusively accessible for the children of the association's members.The fact that you had to be a member, combined with their arbitrary placement,making them placed scattered around the city, made that these play gardens only served a limited segment of Amsterdam's children's population, and were indeed"considered a luxury"[12].By the 1940s, Amsterdam had a considerable tradition of such private playgrounds, an example can be seen in Fig.3, 4.

What paved the way for van Eyck's involvement was a move in 1947 by Jakoba Mulder, second in charge of the Public Works Department at the Amsterdam Town Planning Department, to rectify this uneven distribution and to make play areas available to all its citizens, by installing at least one "open" playground in every neighbourhood, in addition to the members-only play gardens.These new playgrounds would be entrusted to the supervision of the general public, and would later also be initiated bottom-up by the general public, as will be explained in Point 3 regarding citizen participation.The open character of these new play areas, in which a non-fenced play area would be loosely governed and supervised by the surrounding community, made it possible for the playground to work as the type of urban in-between space that van Eyck was to become known for, as the exploration of an urban realm that would fit between the private realm of the home and the collective realm of the city.For this initiative Aldo van Eyck also chose not to continue to use the name"play garden" (Dutch: speeltuin), but instead described these new types of playgrounds as "play places" (Dutch:speelplaats), in Dutch a significant difference, alluding to van Eyck's strategy of place making.

3.2 Interstitiality: Regenerating Interstitial Urban Leftover Spaces

A second aspect that made these new play places so different, was that they were not conceived topdown on the scale of the neighbourhood or block,but bottom-up, on the scale of left-over, interstitial spaces that were found inside the densely populated city.This was partially due to the fact that the department wanted to give every neighbourhood its own playground, so they often turned vacant lots in the city centre into (temporary) play areas.As such, they did not just appear in fancy parks, or in designated play areas, but also in between housing blocks, on converted parking lots, and abandoned derelict plots previously used as garbage dumps.Van Eyck was proud to have started a more "situationist", "ground up" approach to urban design as a statement to those areas where he thought the functional city planning was failing, as he reported to the CIAM X meeting in Dubrovnik in 1956 that: "on innumerable formless islands left over by the road engineer and demolition worker, on empty plots,on places better suited to the child than the public watering place, 70 places have been identified in this city so far for the making of play places"[13].Several slides of his CIAM presentation showing the earliest examples of his space place making strategy can be seen in Fig.5, 6.However, some of these leftover spaces were in fact not caused by bad urban planning, but were in fact war-torn, bomb damaged sites in and around Amsterdam, as seen in Fig.7-11.Regardless of the exact reason behind their voidness, hemmed in by old walls and ramshackle buildings, these have come to be the best known amongst all his playgrounds[14].Indeed,it was quite the heroic community story, a bombed or abandoned lot, that was induced with new life as a public play area.

3.3 Participation: Citizen Participation in Location Scouting

7 置入建筑夾縫間的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)前后，迪克斯特勒特，1954/Before and after view of playground inserted into empty plot between buildings at dijkstraat, 1954（圖片來(lái)源/Source:阿姆斯特丹凡·艾克城市檔案館線上文件/Aldo van eyck archive in the amsterdam city archive, https://www.archined.nl/2002/06/de-speelplaatsen-van-aldo-van-eyck/）

8 迪克斯特勒特游樂(lè)場(chǎng)平面/Plan drawing of playground at dijkstraat, as shown in figure 7（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 3https://i2.wp.com/artbooks.yupnet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2015/01/Picture-13.png）

9 游樂(lè)場(chǎng)置入被戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)轟炸的棄置空間前后，澤迪克，1955/Before and after view of playground inserted into war bombed derelict plot at zeedijk, 1955

就這樣，每座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)并不來(lái)自任何城市規(guī)劃的既定任務(wù)，而是源自當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)直接而具體的需求。阿姆斯特丹會(huì)將游樂(lè)場(chǎng)植入每一處其市民認(rèn)為有必要的地方。如莉安娜·勒費(fèi)夫爾所言，凡·艾克曾推薦她去重訪市政檔案館，“檔案館中藏有190 封市民信件，都是手寫(xiě)的；如果某些信件的字跡難以辨識(shí)，公共項(xiàng)目部會(huì)將其轉(zhuǎn)譯為職業(yè)化的打印體，便于相關(guān)公務(wù)員閱讀?！蓖ㄟ^(guò)一個(gè)高度系統(tǒng)化的流程，每封寄往公共項(xiàng)目部的信件都會(huì)導(dǎo)向一系列給寄信者本人的復(fù)函、過(guò)程備忘錄、設(shè)計(jì)草圖和平面、立場(chǎng)報(bào)告以及政策提案。每一個(gè)游樂(lè)場(chǎng)都是定制的產(chǎn)物，是對(duì)一個(gè)或一群特定市民的某個(gè)特定需求的回應(yīng)，是對(duì)某個(gè)被認(rèn)為具有建造游樂(lè)場(chǎng)潛質(zhì)的特定場(chǎng)地的回應(yīng)。這樣一種將市民納入此般尺度的自下而上城市更新之中的系統(tǒng)化組織，代表了一個(gè)在城市層面的參與性政治及民主行動(dòng)的獨(dú)有案例，形成了一份“15m 長(zhǎng)的檔案”[10]。

據(jù)勒費(fèi)夫爾所言[2]，隨著這一進(jìn)程的成功，凡·伊斯特倫“盡管并未放棄自上而下的規(guī)劃理念”，但也開(kāi)始“學(xué)習(xí)”這些在現(xiàn)存城市肌理中剩余的、間隙的場(chǎng)所的獨(dú)特性和異規(guī)性，并試著在工作中納入、而非無(wú)視它們。

3.4 多中心性：創(chuàng)造場(chǎng)所的網(wǎng)絡(luò)

凡·艾克的間隙性策略的最后一個(gè)層次，也不是一開(kāi)始便計(jì)劃好的，而是源于借助高效而有效的設(shè)計(jì)策略管理項(xiàng)目選址的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)過(guò)程。鑒于這類開(kāi)放游樂(lè)場(chǎng)地的間隙性和廣闊分布的特質(zhì)，游樂(lè)場(chǎng)成了一個(gè)多中心網(wǎng)絡(luò)。它幾乎獨(dú)自形成了一個(gè)城市片層，充滿童真，持續(xù)變化又可變，整齊地編織在功能城市的粗放肌理之中。

1947 年，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目剛剛開(kāi)啟時(shí)，城市中只有不到30 處游樂(lè)公園，這一數(shù)字自從1929 年以來(lái)并未增長(zhǎng)；隨著凡·伊斯特倫在城市規(guī)劃局走馬上任，他下令繪制了一系列城市地圖，詳細(xì)編目城市（公共）設(shè)施的供給和分布。從這些地圖中，可以令人震驚地看到，雖然兒童游樂(lè)場(chǎng)已是凡·伊斯特倫關(guān)心的五大主要事業(yè)之一，但當(dāng)時(shí)的阿姆斯特丹幾乎沒(méi)有什么服務(wù)兒童的此類設(shè)施。到了1968 年，這種情況大為改觀。阿姆斯特丹已經(jīng)擁有超過(guò)1000座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)，這就意味著，從1947 年開(kāi)始，平均每年就要設(shè)計(jì)并建造不少于50 座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)[10]。每座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)都是由凡·伊斯特倫和他的助手雅科芭·穆?tīng)柕掠H自過(guò)問(wèn)，由阿爾多·凡·艾克設(shè)計(jì)。經(jīng)過(guò)逾20年的建造，戰(zhàn)后的阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)成了一個(gè)值得銘記的成功故事，它創(chuàng)造了一張多中心的、扎根社區(qū)的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)之網(wǎng)。它如同一片游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的星云，嵌入至該時(shí)期在城市中成長(zhǎng)起來(lái)的兒童的集體記憶中。而在此后的整個(gè)荷蘭，由于凡·艾克在游樂(lè)場(chǎng)中使用的設(shè)計(jì)工具以及這種自下而上的、間隙式的設(shè)計(jì)策略都極具影響力，它們也在其他城市的市政項(xiàng)目部門(mén)得到廣泛復(fù)制。

凡·艾克的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)除了對(duì)阿姆斯特丹以及荷蘭其它地區(qū)的社會(huì)生活產(chǎn)生影響之外，也對(duì)建筑學(xué)和城市設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)科的發(fā)展具有深遠(yuǎn)意義。它推動(dòng)了建筑學(xué)的多項(xiàng)重要進(jìn)展——“社區(qū)”和“對(duì)話”的建筑，人性的建筑，“之間的領(lǐng)域”的形式塑造等，以作為對(duì)于國(guó)際建協(xié)抽象的功能主義規(guī)劃的替代選擇。由此勒費(fèi)夫爾認(rèn)為，它們不僅是游樂(lè)場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)的新類型，更代表了二戰(zhàn)后面向公共空間和城市設(shè)計(jì)的一條新路徑[10]。

4 走向功能城市中的間隙性

順著這一游樂(lè)場(chǎng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的自下而上的有機(jī)過(guò)程，凡·伊斯特倫將前面提到的那些在阿姆斯特丹傳統(tǒng)城市肌理中涌現(xiàn)的特征，整合到他在西阿姆斯特丹戰(zhàn)后新建街區(qū)的設(shè)計(jì)策略中：包括斯勞特戴克、斯洛特梅爾、格茲維爾德。凡·艾克的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)策略也不再僅用于填充歷史城市中心的空隙場(chǎng)地，而應(yīng)用到更多經(jīng)過(guò)功能主義規(guī)劃的新城之中。事實(shí)上，游樂(lè)場(chǎng)成為了凡·伊斯特倫西阿姆斯特丹新城鎮(zhèn)政策的一個(gè)組成部分，在首先測(cè)試游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的社區(qū)中，人們目睹了這些變化，亦是人們對(duì)生活質(zhì)量改善的認(rèn)可。

此外，在新城規(guī)劃政策中落實(shí)的不僅是空間效果。不同于在其早期設(shè)計(jì)中采取的純粹功能主義的、效率優(yōu)先的、自上而下的公共服務(wù)設(shè)施規(guī)劃和分布，在凡·伊斯特倫的檔案記錄中，他不僅宣稱自己將游樂(lè)場(chǎng)作為斯洛特梅爾規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)的重要部分，而且還特別提到，游樂(lè)場(chǎng)必須是“從使用者層面要求的對(duì)象”；到那個(gè)時(shí)候，新城中每個(gè)提出需求的街區(qū)都會(huì)得到一座游樂(lè)場(chǎng)。這不僅讓我們理解了設(shè)施和空間本身的重要性，還應(yīng)認(rèn)識(shí)到恰當(dāng)?shù)倪x址以及公眾參與的重要性。由此，它結(jié)合了游樂(lè)場(chǎng)的開(kāi)放性、它的間隙式布局策略、它的公眾參與設(shè)計(jì)策略，并最終導(dǎo)向了一個(gè)間隙性游樂(lè)空間的多中心網(wǎng)絡(luò)。

As mentioned, Jacoba Mulder, who worked under Cornelis van Eesteren at the Amsterdam Town Planning Department, initiated the open playground initiative, leading to van Eyck's first playground design for the Bertelmanplein.Though it was in part meant as a strategy to rectify the uneven distribution of play gardens, and to make play areas available to all its citizens, it was simultaneously a result of citizen participation in the scouting of appropriate locations for these interventions.Mulder herself was the first to start to identify a possible location in her neighbourhood, as she had noticed that the children in her neighbourhood had nowhere to play.A month or so after her 26-year old assistant Aldo van Eyck had completed the playground, a woman living a few blocks away saw the new play space and wrote to the Public Works department requesting one for her area.From that moment on, they spread like wildfire, first through the historical centre, then, in the course of the 1950s,to the new districts to the west of the city[10].

As such, each playground was not conceived within a master plan assignment, but rather resulted from a direct and specific need and request of a local community.The city embedded playgrounds where the people of Amsterdam felt they should be placed.As Liane Lefaivre reports, after van Eyck recommended her to go revisit the municipal archives, "The archive holds 190 letters by citizens.All were written by hand.And when the letter was difficult to read, the public works department had them typed out professionally, so that the relevant civil servants could read them".In a very systematic process, each letter sent to the departments lead to the production of return correspondence with the initial sender, internal memos, of drawings and plans, of position papers and of policy proposals.Each one was made to order, in response to a specific request by a specific citizen or group of citizens for a specific site that had been identified as the potential location for a playground.This systematic organisation of citizen participation in bottom-up urban regeneration at this scale represents a unique example of participatory politics and democracy in action at the urban level,making up a "fifteen – metre long archive"[10].

Following the success of this process, according to Lefaivre[2], van Eesteren, "without abandoning the idea of top-down planning", began to "learn" from the particularities and irregularities of these left-over,interstitial places in the existing fabric of the city and to work with them rather than to overlook them.

3.4 Polycentricity: Creating a Network of Places

The last aspect of van Eyck's interstitial strategy was again not so much an initially planned effort, but a result of the rigorous process of managing location scouting through efficient and effective design strategies.Because of the interstitial and wide-spread nature of the open play places, the playgrounds became part of a polycentric network.It almost became its own layer in the city, playful, continually changing and changeable, which was neatly intertwined in the rough fabric of the functional city.

In 1947, at the start of this process, there were fewer than 30 play gardens in the city, which had not increased from 1929, when van Eesteren, the erstwhile new director of the Municipal Department of Public Works, commissioned a series of city maps that took inventory of the availability and distribution of (public)services.From these maps it's striking to see that even though playgrounds for children were already one of the five main concerns of van Eesteren, there were hardly any services for children available at that time yet.By 1968, the situation was radically different.Amsterdam now had over 1000 playgrounds, which means no fewer than 50 playgrounds were designed and produced every year from 1947 onward[10].Each playground was individually dealt with by van Eesteren and his associate Jacoba Mulder, each was designed by Aldo van Eyck.Built up over a period of just over 20 years, the postwar Amsterdam playgrounds were a remarkable success story that created a polycentric network of community based play areas.A galaxy of playgrounds, that embedded the playground into the collective memory of children growing up in the city at that time.The network of places went further than just Amsterdam, and had a strong influence in the Netherlands at large from there on, as both the Van Eyck-designed equipment of his Amsterdam playgrounds as well as their bottom-up,interstitial design strategy were widely copied in other municipalities and public works departments.

Besides the impact that van Eyck's playgrounds had on the social life in Amsterdam, and the rest of the Netherlands, they were also of great significance for the development of the discipline of architecture and urban design.It was here that the major breakthroughs of an architecture of "community" and "dialogue" and of the human and formal building of the "realm of the inbetween" as an alternative to CIAM functional abstract planning took place.As such, Lefaivre[10]argues that they were the first examples not only of a new type of playground design, but also, in general, of a new, post-WWII approach to public space and urban design.

4 Towards Interstitiality Within the Functional City

Following the bottom-up, organic process of this emerging network of playgrounds, van Eesteren took the above-mentioned features that had initially emerged ad-hoc in the traditional fabric of Amsterdam and incorporated them as design strategy in his designs for new post-war neighbourhoods of West-Amsterdam: in Sloterdijk, Slotermeer and Geuzeveld.Van Eyck's playground strategies were thus no longer limited to infill sites in the historic city centre, but spread into the functionally planned new towns.The fact that the playgrounds became an integral part of van Eesteren's policy for the new towns of West Amsterdam can be regarded as an acknowledgement of the improvement in quality of life that was witnessed in the neighbourhoods where they had been tested first.

In addition, it was not merely the spatial effect that was implemented in the new town policy.As, unlike Van Eesteren's earlier approach to a purely functional,efficient top-down planning and distribution of public services, there is a memo in the van Eesteren archive in which he not only declares that he is making the playgrounds an integral part of his design for Slotermeer, but specifying that they must be "the object of request on the part of the users", and by that time every block in the new towns that wanted a playground was granted one[10].Herewith not only understanding the importance of the service and space itself, but also the process of the right location and citizen participation.It thus integrated the open-ness of the playgrounds, with its interstitial distribution strategy,and citizen participation as a design strategy that leads to a polycentric network of interstitial play spaces.

For van Eyck the playground design became a manifestation of both architectural and intellectual observations.They provided a strategy for dealing with what he felt were the flaws of top-down modernist town planning, while at the same time enabling explorations into a new type of architecture.One that was not about defining boundaries, and enclosed spaces, but one that was about making places and allowing occasions to occur.A strategy that designed for possibilities rather than for occupation."Space in the image of man is place,and time in the image of man is occasion.Split apart by the schizophrenic mechanism of deterministic one-track thinking, time and space remain frozen abstractions…Place and occasion constitute each other's realisation in human terms: since man is both the subject and object of architecture, it follows that its primary job is to provide the former for the sake of the latter.Since,furthermore, place and occasion imply participation in what exists, lack of place - and thus lack of occasion –will cause loss of identity, isolation and frustration"[11].

10 澤迪克游樂(lè)場(chǎng)照片/Colour photo for playground at zeedijk（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 凡·艾克基金會(huì)線上文件/Van Eyck Foundation, http://vaneyckfoundation.nl/2018/11/23/theamsterdam-playgrounds-1947-78/）

12 由凡·艾克和博世設(shè)計(jì)的新五角樓，1983/Het pentagon -nieuwmarkt by van eyck and bosch, 1983（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 荷蘭建筑學(xué)會(huì)/NAI, Netherlands Architecture Institute, http://schatkamer.nai.nl/nl/projecten/woningbouwcomplex-sint-antoniesbreestraat-pentagon）

11 澤迪克游樂(lè)場(chǎng)平面/Plan for playground at zeedijk of figure 9（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 阿姆斯特丹凡·艾克城市檔案館線上文件/Aldo van Eyck Archive in the Amsterdam City Archive,https://www.archined.nl/2002/06/de-speelplaatsen-vanaldo-van-eyck/）

13 由凡·艾克和博世設(shè)計(jì)的城市立面填充項(xiàng)目/Urban infill project, hubertushuis by van eyck and bosch, 1984（圖片來(lái)源/Source: 凡·艾克基金會(huì)線上文件/Van Eyck Foundation,http://vaneyckfoundation.nl/2018/11/21/hubertushuisamsterdam/）

對(duì)于凡·艾克而言，游樂(lè)場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)成了他的建筑學(xué)及智識(shí)觀察的體現(xiàn)。它們提供了一種策略來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)他眼中自上而下的現(xiàn)代主義城市規(guī)劃的缺陷，同時(shí)促進(jìn)一類新建筑類型的探索。這類建筑并不關(guān)于限定邊界或圍合空間，而是關(guān)乎塑造場(chǎng)所，讓不同的情境在此發(fā)生。這是一個(gè)為了創(chuàng)造可能而非占據(jù)空間的策略?！霸谌说挠成湎?，空間成為地方，時(shí)間成為境遇。由于被確定性的單軌思維的精神分裂機(jī)制所撕裂，時(shí)間和空間一直是冰封的抽象物……場(chǎng)所和境遇在人的意義層面是相互成就的：因?yàn)槿送瑫r(shí)是建筑的主體和客體，這就意味著，建筑的主要職責(zé)就是為了境遇而提供場(chǎng)所。此外，場(chǎng)所和境遇意味著參與其中，而缺乏場(chǎng)所感——由此也缺乏境遇感——將會(huì)導(dǎo)致身份感的喪失，導(dǎo)致孤立和沮喪”[11]。

這樣一種間隙式的設(shè)計(jì)策略，結(jié)合城市認(rèn)同以及場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造的理念，對(duì)荷蘭的城市發(fā)展、以及凡·艾克之后的建筑師都具有持續(xù)性的影響。阿爾多·凡·艾克的“結(jié)構(gòu)主義”建筑哲學(xué)啟發(fā)了包括尤普·凡·斯蒂格特、赫曼·赫茲伯格在內(nèi)的建筑師。最終，推動(dòng)了一種全新的城市發(fā)展模型的出現(xiàn)——“為社區(qū)的設(shè)計(jì)”——用城市社區(qū)中小規(guī)模的參與式項(xiàng)目，取代大規(guī)模的現(xiàn)代主義式干預(yù)。其中最早的、也是最具代表性的項(xiàng)目之一，是阿姆斯特丹新市場(chǎng)區(qū)域的再開(kāi)發(fā)，由蒂奧·博世和阿爾多·凡·艾克設(shè)計(jì)。在這個(gè)項(xiàng)目中，凡·艾克關(guān)于間隙空間、無(wú)等級(jí)式構(gòu)成和參與式設(shè)計(jì)的理念，導(dǎo)向了一種可以輕松融入街區(qū)現(xiàn)存肌理的建筑。這座建筑被稱作“五角樓”，得名于它的5 條城市界面，是一個(gè)更接近建筑尺度的城市改造項(xiàng)目。它填充了一塊開(kāi)放場(chǎng)地，可以反過(guò)來(lái)回饋城市以居住、商店、辦公和小商業(yè)等功能空間（圖12）。另一個(gè)應(yīng)用了凡·艾克的間隙式設(shè)計(jì)策略的典型案例，是圖13 所示的建筑項(xiàng)目，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目是阿姆斯特丹的胡貝圖斯社區(qū)的“母親住宅”。該項(xiàng)目位于一塊城市空隙場(chǎng)地，地段上原有一座猶太教堂和學(xué)校，但在二戰(zhàn)后被棄用了。項(xiàng)目于1983 年建成，它填充了一處19 世紀(jì)街道立面的縫隙，因此需要在建筑高度、垂直布局以及基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)上契合現(xiàn)存的立面墻體；但它顯然也因其大膽的用色以及所謂采光井和交通“樞紐”的設(shè)計(jì)而易于辨識(shí)，它成了一處在街道側(cè)和內(nèi)部花園之間充滿親和力的間隙空間。凡·艾克的加建也幫助整合并翻修了兩旁現(xiàn)存的歷史建筑。

5 結(jié)論：以極小干預(yù)重估城市空隙

正如我們?cè)谖恼麻_(kāi)頭提到的，在凡·艾克看來(lái)，現(xiàn)代城市的“科學(xué)規(guī)劃過(guò)程”直接導(dǎo)致了他在當(dāng)代城市中發(fā)現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題，例如身份缺失、職住分離、城市設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程的整體產(chǎn)業(yè)化等。凡·艾克并未順從這些潮流，而是認(rèn)為建筑師應(yīng)對(duì)此保持批判，由此開(kāi)啟了對(duì)城市本質(zhì)的反思，在其中首要考量“城市究竟要為人性的動(dòng)機(jī)和欲望提供什么”[11]。

從這一視角出發(fā)，本文在開(kāi)頭討論了城市剩余空間的價(jià)值缺失——無(wú)論是現(xiàn)代城市開(kāi)發(fā)的直接后果還是其他原因?qū)е?，進(jìn)而呈現(xiàn)了阿爾多·凡·艾克將數(shù)百處被忽視的剩余空間轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐饬x場(chǎng)所的過(guò)程?；趯?duì)凡·艾克在阿姆斯特丹游樂(lè)場(chǎng)背后的設(shè)計(jì)策略的分析，本文展示了從數(shù)百個(gè)面向同一設(shè)計(jì)問(wèn)題的反復(fù)實(shí)踐中，如何生發(fā)出一種獨(dú)特的設(shè)計(jì)策略——將間隙性與公共參與、開(kāi)放性相融合，以建立一張多中心的社區(qū)場(chǎng)所網(wǎng)絡(luò)。

盡管凡·艾克的游樂(lè)場(chǎng)最初是建在臨時(shí)的、棄用的空地上，但它的意義卻遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了最初的定位，它是一個(gè)應(yīng)對(duì)時(shí)代需求的創(chuàng)造性城市解決方案，并最終成為一種在荷蘭各地的新城區(qū)域設(shè)計(jì)中廣泛應(yīng)用的設(shè)計(jì)策略。這后來(lái)進(jìn)一步發(fā)展為一種廣泛意義上的城市設(shè)計(jì)、規(guī)劃和建筑實(shí)踐路徑，尤其與城市更新及復(fù)興相關(guān)，也對(duì)荷蘭的城市發(fā)展實(shí)踐產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)影響。此外，凡·艾克還引入了很多我們?nèi)缃窳?xí)以為常的建筑思想觀念，如身份、之間、互惠、場(chǎng)所和境遇等，它超越了功能城市，打開(kāi)了面向建成環(huán)境潛在特質(zhì)的全新的結(jié)構(gòu)化視角。

放在當(dāng)代建筑實(shí)踐的視野下，我們可以看到，對(duì)于城市空隙體系的認(rèn)知正在發(fā)生類似的變化。根據(jù)金建佑[15]的說(shuō)法，當(dāng)代城市是一個(gè)過(guò)度膨脹的有機(jī)體，它需要消減而非增加元素。無(wú)論其現(xiàn)存狀態(tài)和空間品質(zhì)如何，城市空隙都在城市作為一個(gè)整體的平衡和穩(wěn)定層面扮演著重要角色。在過(guò)去一個(gè)世紀(jì)，這些空隙主要被視為可建造的場(chǎng)所。如今，它們往往被作為城市的構(gòu)成要素，就因?yàn)樗鼈兊目瞻锥l(fā)揮著特定的功用。從本文的分析中不難看到，借助極小的干預(yù)，那些原本可能閑置的場(chǎng)地就可以被賦予在城市生活中的積極作用。

總結(jié)而言，凡·艾克的設(shè)計(jì)策略是關(guān)于節(jié)制的，關(guān)于少做的，關(guān)于回饋的。它是一種為場(chǎng)所和境遇設(shè)計(jì)的策略，一種創(chuàng)造可能而非簡(jiǎn)單占據(jù)的策略。這樣一種“幾乎什么也不做”的策略，可從多方面來(lái)解釋。在恩尼亞和馬泰拉[5]看來(lái)，它可以意味著對(duì)不積極的偏好，因此根本無(wú)需對(duì)場(chǎng)地做任何改變；或是設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)臨時(shí)性項(xiàng)目，只在一段有限的時(shí)間內(nèi)占據(jù)空間；或是采取某種極其微小卻是永久性的干預(yù)手段。根據(jù)所處的境況，這樣一條路徑有利于保護(hù)場(chǎng)所，有利于找回或重新激活場(chǎng)所中的潛在品質(zhì)。這種策略不僅可以應(yīng)用于某個(gè)特定場(chǎng)所的單一干預(yù)，也可以體現(xiàn)在多個(gè)不同場(chǎng)所共同作用的系列工程之中。

通過(guò)理解凡·艾克的間隙式設(shè)計(jì)策略的過(guò)程和成效，筆者希望本文的發(fā)現(xiàn)能夠呼吁人們采取創(chuàng)造性的、以人為本的、場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造的策略，以重新凸顯碎片化的剩余空間中極小卻有意義的干預(yù)手段的重要價(jià)值。□

This strategy of interstitial design, combined with the notion of urban identity and place making had a lasting effect on urban development in the Netherlands, and on generations of architects following van Eyck.The "structuralist" architectural philosophy of Aldo van Eyck inspired architects such as Joop van Stigt and Herman Hertzberger.And eventually, a whole new model for urban development emerged – "bouwen voor de buurt"(building for the neighbourhood) – that was to replace large-scale modernist interventions with small scale participative projects in urban neighbourhoods.One of the first and most symbolic of these projects was the redevelopment of the Nieuwmarkt in Amsterdam,by Theo Bosch and Aldo van Eyck.Here, van Eyck's ideas on interstitial space, non-hierarchical composition,and participatory planning led to an architecture that could easily mold into the existing tissue of the neighbourhood.Known as the Pentagon, named after the five-sides of the plot facing the city, the project is an urban intervention of a more architectural scale,that filled in an open area, and could give something back to the city by combining residential, shops, office space and small businesses, see Fig.12.Another great example of van Eyck's interstitial strategy applied in later architectural practices can be seen in Fig.13, in his project for the Mothers' House for the Hubertus Society, also in Amsterdam.The project was located at the urban void site of a former synagogue and school that had become dilapidated and out of use following WWII.The project, completed in 1983, comprised the infilling of a gap in the nineteenth-century street fa?ade, and as such conforms to the existing fa?ade wall as regards building height, vertical layout and understructure, but is also clearly distinguished by the striking use of colour, and the so-called light well and circulation "joint", executed as an inviting in-between space between the street side and the inner garden.Van Eyck's new infill also worked to integrate and renovate the two existing adjacent historic buildings

5 Conclusion: Reappraising the Urban Void Through Minimal Intervention

As we noted at the beginning of the article, for van Eyck the "scientific planning process" of modern cities directly lead to the problems that he observed in contemporary cities, such as a loss of human identity, segregation of work and dwelling, and the industrialisation of the urban design process in general.Instead of complying with these trends, he felt that architects should be critical towards them and he started a reflection on the nature of the city that considered foremost "what a city really has to provide for in terms of human motives and desires"[11].

From this perspective, the text started with questioning the value of urban leftover spaces,whether a direct result of modern urban development or otherwise, and described a process through which Aldo van Eyck was able to turn hundreds of neglected leftover spaces into meaningful places.By way of analysing van Eyck's design approach behind the Amsterdam Playgrounds, this text has shown how from a series of hundreds of iterations of the same design problem, a distinct design strategy arose, that combined interstitiality with citizen participation and open-ness to establish a polycentric network of community places.

Though van Eyck's playgrounds were initially built on temporary or unused plots of land, they had a significance far beyond their original role as a creative urban solution in a time of need, and eventually became a strategy embedded in the design of new towns and urban areas all around the Netherlands.This later evolved further into a general approach to urban design,planning and architectural practices, especially related to urban renewal and regeneration, that heavily influenced the general practice of urban development in the Netherlands.In addition, van Eyck eventually introduced many new notions into architectural thinking that we take for granted today, such as identity, the in-between,reciprocity, and place and occasion, opening up new structural insights into the potential qualities of the built environment, beyond the functional city.

Transposed to contemporary practice, we find that the perception of the system of urban voids is also undergoing a similar change.According to Kim Gunwoo[15]contemporary cities are hypertrophic organisms that require elimination rather than the addition of elements.Regardless of their condition and spatial quality, urban voids currently play an important role in balancing and stabilising the city as a whole.In the last century, these voids were mainly regarded as places to build.Today, these voids are often treated as constitutive elements of the city and essential for precise functioning because they are empty.From our analysis, we have indeed seen how through minimal interventions, an active role in city life can be provided to places that otherwise would remain unused.

Altogether, Van Eyck's design strategy has been one of restraint.Of doing less, of giving back.It's a strategy of designing for place and occasion; designing for possibilities rather than for occupation.This strategy of "almost doing nothing" can be explained in many ways.According to Enia and Martella[5]it can mean opting for inaction and thus not modifying a place at all; or designing a temporary project intended to occupy it only for a limited period of time; or also carrying out a particularly small but permanent intervention.Depending on the circumstances, it is an approach that could help to protect a place, to reclaim it or to reactivate certain latent qualities.This strategy can be implemented both through a single intervention on a specific place, or through a network of coordinated projects in different locations.

Through understanding the process and effect of Van Eyck's Interstitial design strategy, the author hopes that the findings in this text can be understood as a plea for the importance and value of minimal, but meaningful interventions in scattered leftover spaces through creative, human-oriented,place making strategies.□