|
|
实践中，Space for a Change The discovery of building as a new paradigm in our work happened at the same time as a change in the situation of the western city, which involved the extensive reformulation of the conditions affecting contemporary architecture as a whole: the gradual privatization of the public space of the city. Faced with a complete lack of public funds, cities and local authorities found themselves increasingly unable to play an active role in urban planning developments, and instead sold out to investors, who helped themselves to the biggest and best pieces of the city. It was a game whose end could be predicted: architecture would end up as infrastructure built to maximize the profits of a global economy. A mode of resistance to the instrumentalization of our profession lies in an architecture which regards itself as an agent of a new philosophy of urban planning. The impulse of architecture to play a role in urban planning is vital, because otherwise urban planning will no longer exist. The master plan is dead; this, as we know, has its advantages. The grid-patterned urban space of the 19th century only exists on paper; the actual dynamics of today's urban transformations have long prevailed over such instruments of order. Today, our urban interventions take place in an amorphous and imponderable space, comparable to chess figures moved across a horizontal screen with white noise. The grid of the chessboard has disappeared and along with it the clear rules determining how the figures on it are to be moved. Yet the figures have remained; a castle is still a castle. And its moves are still significant, even though the coordinates of its moves can no longer be determined as easily as they used to be. However, the more the background recedes, the more distinct the figures have to be. For, in view of the implosion of the old order, it is these figures which make a city. Their interrelations create force fields of great tension, and in doing so create space. This process is infinitely more complex than the ordained decision to lay down a plan and then fill it up, step by step, with architecture. Space is no longer pre-ordained (if it ever was). It comes into being as a result of the force fields which figures create together, forming the basis of a vigorous urbanity. This agenda has also left visible traces in our architecture, as a comparison of the Museum in Groningen (1993 – 94) and the UFA-Cinema Center in Dresden (1993 – 98) clearly illustrates. The Groningen Museum represents the final chapter of a phase of our work going back to the eighties which was characterized by the fractalization of objects. It was in Groningen that we were first able to realize on a large scale our conception of a space which exploded the prison of the functionalistic box into a thousand pieces. The UFA Cinema Center, on the other hand, is the first of several projects dedicated to the creation of public space through architecture. The definition of a building as an object is replaced by the idea of an urban transistor. By this we mean an architecture which is capable of amplifying the urban spaces adjoining it through its own transistor-like spatial organization. In the case of the UFA Cinema Center this concept resulted in architecture whose main element was not only its function as a cinema. Instead, we made use of its critical mass, giving it a spacious lobby and creating a roofed-in urban space for showing films. Moreover, the cinema volume has been raised and is transversed by a public passageway connecting two important city spaces. We believe that a vigorous urban architectural experience results when the qualities of space are linked, creating a rhythm of dynamism and concentration.。
相关讨论：
1. 各位同行在实际项目中有没有类似处理经验可以分享？遇到这类情况通常从哪些方向入手分析问题根源？ |
|
发表于 2026-5-25 16:09:20
关注公众号