建筑學(xué)的整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)方法
——以以色列“馬阿甘·邁克爾集體農(nóng)莊”居住區(qū)為例

妮莉·波圖加里 (以色列)

陳瑾羲 閆少寧 [譯] 楊 滔 [校]

建筑學(xué)的整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)方法
——以以色列“馬阿甘·邁克爾集體農(nóng)莊”居住區(qū)為例

妮莉·波圖加里 (以色列)

陳瑾羲 閆少寧 [譯] 楊 滔 [校]

本文的目的是展現(xiàn)我對實踐中的整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)世界觀的獨特解釋。我將證明這種方法以及所采用的、與傳統(tǒng)截然不同的設(shè)計過程，是如何被應(yīng)用到我設(shè)計并建造的一個居住小區(qū)中，實現(xiàn)在以色列所謂“集體農(nóng)莊”的社會、經(jīng)濟和空間結(jié)構(gòu)中。

整體性；現(xiàn)象學(xué)；設(shè)計方法；模式語言；鄰里社區(qū)

妮莉·波圖加里（以色列貝扎雷藝術(shù)與設(shè)計學(xué)院）

Nili Portugali, Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, Jerusalem, Israel

[譯者] 陳瑾羲（清華大學(xué)） 閆少寧（北京林業(yè)大學(xué)）

[Translator] CHEN Jinxi, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China; YAN Shaoning, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China

[校對] 楊 滔（北京市建筑設(shè)計研究院有限公司）

[Proofreader] YANG Tao, Beijing Institute of Architectural Design Co. Ltd, Beijing, China

Received Date: September 19, 2015

基于我在以色列設(shè)計并建造的一個實際項目，本文試圖闡釋整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)的世界觀在實踐中的應(yīng)用。近年來，這種世界觀處于整個科學(xué)研究的前沿，涉及諸如宇宙學(xué)、神經(jīng)生物學(xué)、心理學(xué)、量子物理、腦科學(xué)等學(xué)科，并與近期的復(fù)雜學(xué)理論相關(guān)。同時，這種世界觀也與佛教觀息息相關(guān)，它們都與我的工作緊密相關(guān)。

本文將闡述該方法和我所遵循的設(shè)計過程（一種完全不同于傳統(tǒng)的設(shè)計過程）如何在設(shè)計的住宅區(qū)中得以運用，以及如何體現(xiàn)在“集體農(nóng)莊”概念（形成于20世紀(jì)早期的以色列）的社會、經(jīng)濟和物質(zhì)形態(tài)之中。在當(dāng)今非常嚴謹?shù)纳鐣W(xué)框架下，介紹這種全新的概念模型成為可能，這是由于“集體農(nóng)莊”在現(xiàn)實中發(fā)生了徹底的變化。這在21世紀(jì)已不可避免。

本文旨在針對有關(guān)普遍的公共性、挑戰(zhàn)21世紀(jì)建筑等中心議題，激發(fā)廣泛的公開討論：我們應(yīng)該如何改造現(xiàn)有城市或自然環(huán)境？當(dāng)我們在環(huán)境中建造全新的當(dāng)代建筑時以及盡可能地發(fā)揮當(dāng)代科技時代的潛能時，哪些方面我們必須尊重和保護。

圖1 / Figure 1

圖2 / Figure 2

圖3 / Figure 3

本文對一些諸如“品質(zhì)”或“采納保護環(huán)境的價值觀”等術(shù)語的定義，比通常的含義更為廣泛。這將在下文中進行討論。

1 自傳大事年表以及整體方法論的發(fā)展背景

我是一名在以色列從事建筑實踐超過40年的建筑師，不僅關(guān)注創(chuàng)作實踐，而且重視理論研究，并與整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)派的理念緊密聯(lián)系。

本節(jié)將闡述我從業(yè)過程中建筑學(xué)領(lǐng)域涌現(xiàn)的思潮，包括整體方法論的出現(xiàn)。這些思潮與我 “成長旅程”（journey）中的大事件有所聯(lián)系，對我的各類創(chuàng)意作品產(chǎn)生了重要影響，尤其是建筑設(shè)計作品。

這些認識源于多方面知識，包括正式的建筑學(xué)學(xué)習(xí)、教學(xué)及研究工作，對佛學(xué)的研究以及我成長的小鎮(zhèn)，即神秘的猶太之城薩法德（Safed）①。最后一項最為重要，因為我的家族自19世紀(jì)居住在這里已經(jīng)有7代，這里是我的血統(tǒng)和根（圖1、圖2）。

20世紀(jì)60年代末，作為海法（Haifa）以色列理工學(xué)院（Technion Institute of Technology, Israel）建筑學(xué)一年級的學(xué)生，我開始對有機建筑的本質(zhì)產(chǎn)生興趣。

當(dāng)時，我想了解：是什么隱藏在那些場所和建筑背后，而讓我們有了“家”的感覺；是什么讓它們變得如此美麗而富有靈性，促使我們一次一次回味無窮。只有了解這些建筑的創(chuàng)作過程，才會理解上述一切。

我的直覺是隱藏于這些場所和建筑背后的是事實、原因以及客觀真相。我想了解這一切，并在設(shè)計作品中進行演繹。

20世紀(jì)60年代中期是建筑學(xué)界的一個轉(zhuǎn)折點。當(dāng)時的感覺和共識是，機械的世界觀已經(jīng)破產(chǎn)，因為基于此世界觀的現(xiàn)代主義建筑并未就人與環(huán)境的關(guān)系給出合適的答案。例如，巴西的巴西利亞、印度的昌迪加爾、20世紀(jì)60年代末和70年代的英國米爾頓·凱恩斯（Milton Keynes）等衛(wèi)星城以及1967年戰(zhàn)后建成的以色列新住區(qū)，都是采用機械的方法論進行設(shè)計和建造。該方法論的建構(gòu)者之一是著名的建筑師勒·柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）。顯然，他對遵從此方法論而造成的災(zāi)難性后果負有責(zé)任。這些異化的場所明顯表現(xiàn)出缺乏有機的秩序。然而，現(xiàn)代建筑固有的內(nèi)在影響力，就如同當(dāng)代建筑所固有的一樣，均已獲得了強大的簇擁，以至于大多數(shù)人曾經(jīng)、并仍然畏懼表達自己的保留意見，更不會對此進行改變。

20世紀(jì)60年代末和70年代初，定量方法論成為科學(xué)界普遍的前沿，也成為了建筑學(xué)界關(guān)注的焦點，正如布羅德本特（Geoffrey Broadbent）的著作《建筑設(shè)計，建筑和人文科學(xué)》（Design in Architecture, Architecture and the Human Sciences, John Wiley & Sons 1973）所論述的那樣。依據(jù)這一理論，創(chuàng)作過程是定量規(guī)劃方法的產(chǎn)物，人與其所處的環(huán)境之間的復(fù)雜關(guān)系可由矩陣和公式來定義。我采用這種邏輯性和系統(tǒng)性的工作方式，界定和分離建筑項目中所需的不同元素，然后再組合成一個整體。這使得設(shè)計成果在傳統(tǒng)意義上是完整的、合理的和一致的。采用這種機械方法論設(shè)計的項目，雖然滿足了使用者的物質(zhì)和社會需求，但僅僅部分地解決了其情感和精神需求。換言之，這種方法不以創(chuàng)造具有靈魂的建筑為目的。

對現(xiàn)代主義的失望引發(fā)了對新方法的探尋。20世紀(jì)70年代初，我離開以色列理工學(xué)院，前往倫敦A.A建筑學(xué)院繼續(xù)求學(xué)。這所學(xué)校的建筑教學(xué)主題關(guān)注概念，這與當(dāng)時概念藝術(shù)蓬勃發(fā)展的前景是一致的。倫敦當(dāng)代藝術(shù)中心舉辦的“當(dāng)態(tài)度成為形式”（When Attitude Becomes Form）的展覽中首次提出概念藝術(shù)，這成為藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的里程碑（圖3）。當(dāng)時，在A.A建筑學(xué)院舉辦的各次討論中，人的環(huán)境被僅僅看成是科幻小說的隱喻。那些試圖去解釋人與場所之間 “情感與人”體驗關(guān)系的先鋒者被完全忽視，甚至受到貶低。

這種概念性方法的發(fā)展引發(fā)了一系列思潮的出現(xiàn)，每一種都試圖以自己的方式，尋找途經(jīng)走出現(xiàn)代建筑帶來的失望或絕望。在這些思潮中，倫敦的“建筑電訊派”（Archigram）（根據(jù)該理論，15年后其他人在巴黎建造了蓬皮杜藝術(shù)中心）、美國東海岸的“紐約五人組”為代表的“后現(xiàn)代主義”流派、堅持歷史的“新傳統(tǒng)”學(xué)派以及至今仍然活躍的“解構(gòu)主義”思潮。這些思潮雖然彼此不同，但有一個共同的基本觀點：建筑的背后沒有絕對真實，美和舒適是主觀感受，與風(fēng)格、潮流以及創(chuàng)造者的個人視角都相關(guān)。事實上，這種觀念否定了對“美的建筑”的任何客觀而公共的討論。這些思潮都沒有試圖去嚴肅地直面眼前危機，或為解決危機而做出改變。

1973年完成學(xué)業(yè)后，我接到的第一個項目是為作家大衛(wèi)·舒茨（David Schutz）在耶路撒冷設(shè)計住宅。設(shè)計地塊被石頭房屋所環(huán)繞，場地中央有棵檸檬樹。

傳統(tǒng)的設(shè)計過程是在辦公室紙上談兵，然后將設(shè)計應(yīng)用到場地中。但是，我試圖切身感受和體驗場地中發(fā)生的一切，此次設(shè)計的所有決策都是在現(xiàn)場進行的。我的第一個設(shè)計決定就是在原處保留檸檬樹，住宅圍繞著它建造。我多次前后走動，尋找“感覺正確”的住宅邊界，即住宅墻體的位置（圖4、圖5）。在這種情況下，房屋明確地從場地中生長出來，但仍然有一些重要的問題尚未解決：怎樣的法則或設(shè)計過程能夠確定房屋各部分之間的正確關(guān)系，從而使其成為一個整體？怎樣的“粘合劑”使得建筑具有統(tǒng)一感？換言之，建筑和諧的秘密是什么？

我嘗試去記錄并理解那些曾接觸過的場所，其中具有永恒而有機的可見結(jié)構(gòu)（圖6），然后將它們作為設(shè)計新項目的參照。但是，結(jié)果并不令人滿意。這使得我意識到：沒有場所是自我存在的，即沒有場所是獨立于其所在的特定現(xiàn)實而存在的；當(dāng)新設(shè)計的場地需要獲得那種場所品質(zhì)時，需要的不僅是參照一個現(xiàn)有的場所模型，而是深刻理解創(chuàng)作那樣場所的遺傳密碼（Genetic codes）及其設(shè)計過程。

20世紀(jì)70年代和80年代初，我在美國加州大學(xué)伯克利分校的“環(huán)境結(jié)構(gòu)研究中心”與克里斯托弗·亞歷山大（Christopher Alexander）一起工作。該研究機構(gòu)由亞歷山大在20世紀(jì)60年代中期創(chuàng)立，并發(fā)展至今。我對他的所有研究成果非常熟悉，并參與了以色列Shorashim互助村莊的規(guī)劃。這次理論和實踐的雙方面經(jīng)歷，讓我對建筑秩序的本質(zhì)和創(chuàng)作過程有了深刻而可行的認識。

亞歷山大在20世紀(jì)60年代中期所提出的觀點，與之前提到的那些思潮截然不同。這是一種因其獨特定義而得到大量設(shè)計反饋的方法論。其基本觀點是秩序和美是客觀屬性，存在于事物的結(jié)構(gòu)內(nèi)部之中，感受必須與事實相關(guān)且基于那些控制場所品質(zhì)和美的絕對準(zhǔn)則（第5節(jié)將會詳細論述）。

此后，我接觸到佛學(xué)理論的邏輯，了解了整體方法論的基礎(chǔ)，并嘗試在設(shè)計作品中將其付諸實施。

整體方法論（第3節(jié)將會詳細闡述）是一種廣泛而普遍的方法論，與機械世界觀相沖突，后者在西方世界的傳統(tǒng)中更為常見。

然而，當(dāng)我沿著自己的獨特道路探究時，獲得啟發(fā)并意識到，在這個人生旅途中，我自己就是各種問題的答案，這就在我的童年中，在祖母65年前建造的小旅館中（圖7），在薩法德老城一條小巷盡頭的小石頭房子中，也在整個小巷中。

這樣的經(jīng)歷極大地影響著我“感受”某個場所的方式以及定義“設(shè)計藝術(shù)”的洞察力。這些場所的形成，來自于我觀察祖母在小旅館的廚房里做飯，或來自于我用淺藍色涂料粉刷小巷的墻壁（圖8、圖9）。

我一直以為我對薩法德強烈的情感依賴源于主觀經(jīng)歷，但隨后我意識到，那些來自不同于我們的地域、文化和傳統(tǒng)的人也具有類似的體驗。這讓我明白一些更為本質(zhì)的東西在那里發(fā)生。正如后文中闡述的那樣，這對我們?nèi)祟愂瞧者m的。

2 建筑是為人設(shè)計的——建筑的現(xiàn)象學(xué)方法

依我所見，建筑學(xué)首要的和最重要的目的在于為人類營造人居環(huán)境。然而，現(xiàn)代社會已經(jīng)喪失了其核心價值——人，因此創(chuàng)造出來的環(huán)境導(dǎo)致人與場所的疏離感。

建筑影響著我們多年生活的物質(zhì)環(huán)境的命運以及我們本身的長期生活。因此，建筑的真正考驗是來自時間的考驗。美好的建筑讓人有“家”的感覺，我們總想回到那里，無論過去還是現(xiàn)在；它們擁有超越時間的品質(zhì)，觸動我們的心靈并有能力釋放我們的感覺。

盡管這種永恒特質(zhì)存在于不同地域的建筑中，根植于不同的文化和傳統(tǒng)中，但無論人們來自哪里或源于哪種文化，它們給人的體驗是類似和相通的（圖10～12）。

描述具有這種永恒特質(zhì)的建筑有很多種方式。賴特（Frank Lloyd Wright）稱他們“言辭不足以表達”。引用斯蒂芬·格拉伯（Stephen Grabow）的一句話：“有精神價值的建筑是內(nèi)在世界的圖示或是內(nèi)在靈魂的影像?！?/p>

這種體驗是人與社區(qū)鄰里之間的情感聯(lián)系，存在于人與環(huán)境之間各個層面的關(guān)系之中。在城市尺度上，這表現(xiàn)在建筑對公共空間體驗之中。在室內(nèi)空間，這表現(xiàn)在燈具、家具、門把手等使用者與場所之間最親密層級的細節(jié)體驗中。當(dāng)代建筑及概念藝術(shù)試圖將自身從情感世界中抽離開來，將設(shè)計過程只與概念和圖像所構(gòu)成的世界相聯(lián)系，因而形成了一種人與建筑之間合理的但卻缺乏情感的關(guān)系。本文在此闡述的基本觀點是，如果試圖改善環(huán)境的觀感，創(chuàng)造使人具有歸屬感并希望生活在其中的建筑和場所，當(dāng)務(wù)之急并非改變建筑的風(fēng)格、潮流或設(shè)計者的個人視角，而是應(yīng)采用一種全新的世界觀。現(xiàn)有思想和方法背后的那些世界觀正在威脅我們生存的物質(zhì)和人文環(huán)境。整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)思想將會使其做出改變。

3 兩種世界觀（整體方法論與機械方法論）之間——局部與整體的關(guān)系

這兩種不同的世界觀的區(qū)別是，一種是將人從環(huán)境中分離開來，而另一種世界觀認為人是其生存的物質(zhì)世界和自然的一部分。這彰顯了整體有機的思想體系與機械碎片化世界觀的差異。我的設(shè)計屬于前者。這是兩種不同的秩序體系。

圖4 / Figure 4

圖5 / Figure 5

圖6 / Figure 6

圖7 / Figure 7

圖8 / Figure 8

在西方傳統(tǒng)中，機械世界觀一直占據(jù)主導(dǎo)，并且構(gòu)成當(dāng)代建筑學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)。這使得建筑組成元素彼此分離，各個自主的碎片構(gòu)成了機械呆板的環(huán)境，正如我們所看到的諸如巴西的巴西利亞、印度的昌迪加爾、英格蘭的衛(wèi)星城那樣的空間?；蛘撸@也存在于1967年后耶路撒冷建成的新社區(qū)，那里的房屋與街道、街道與社區(qū)、社區(qū)與城市之間存在結(jié)構(gòu)性的脫節(jié)，令人產(chǎn)生冷漠感和疏離感。

建筑看起來像是一堆物品的隨機組合；街道像是一組房屋或房屋類型的隨機組合，甚至還只是工廠預(yù)制并運輸來的單元被強加在場地上，并未真正形成街道（圖13）；街道沒有形成社區(qū)；社區(qū)也沒有形成城市。

與這些建筑相反的案例是在傳統(tǒng)村落和城鎮(zhèn)中那些由不知名建筑師或非專業(yè)人群設(shè)計的建筑。設(shè)計者顯然考慮了我們自身，即那些常常在公共空間中漫步的行人。他們懂得所設(shè)計建筑擔(dān)負的責(zé)任，其中首要且最重要的就是街道的品質(zhì)及其邊界。他們知道，城市設(shè)計不是在一張1:1000的草圖上武斷地勾畫線條，而是要時刻設(shè)想1:1的比例，即人的尺度。這是一種沉浸于其中的體驗，正如眺及陽臺上的欄桿或窗戶上的鐵柵欄，或在房子的入口庭院中觀看果樹、嗅聞氣味（圖14）。

這種方法論并不被柯布西耶、奧斯卡·尼邁耶（Oscar Niemeyer）和世界上其他現(xiàn)代主義者所理解，因為他們是機械論思想體系的一部分。還有部分當(dāng)代建筑師同樣不理解這種方法論，他們有意識地認為，建筑不過是標(biāo)志物、環(huán)境裝置或煙花表演。上述這些人對我們所生活的物質(zhì)環(huán)境中比比皆是的災(zāi)難負有直接責(zé)任。

多年來，整體有機方法論已處于普遍科學(xué)思潮的前沿。社會物質(zhì)環(huán)境被視為一個系統(tǒng)或一個動態(tài)整體，其存在依賴于各部分之間恰當(dāng)且不斷變化的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系（圖15）。同時，各部分的產(chǎn)生和存在也取決于該部分和系統(tǒng)之間的互動聯(lián)系。

佛教描述了相同的理論：任何存在的實體皆依賴于其他的因素和環(huán)境。這是對“緣起”的理解，即原因和條件是實現(xiàn)“空”（emptiness）的必要條件。這也是佛教哲學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)。在幾代人科學(xué)研究的基礎(chǔ)上，這種“微妙無?！鲍@得了科學(xué)的證實。

在任何一個有機系統(tǒng)中，當(dāng)每個元素具備獨特性并發(fā)揮作用時，它們總是作為其所從屬的更大實體中的一部分發(fā)揮作用的。基于此，我認為城市設(shè)計、建筑設(shè)計、室內(nèi)設(shè)計和景觀設(shè)計不是孤立的、彼此不相聯(lián)系的學(xué)科，而是一個連續(xù)而動態(tài)的系統(tǒng)過程。任何尺度上的任何設(shè)計細節(jié)，都源自其所從屬的更大整體，都試圖完善其整體并對其表征負責(zé)。無論在一棟建筑、一條街道、一個社區(qū)或一座城市中，這種內(nèi)在的整體性和統(tǒng)一性都構(gòu)成了總體感覺，最終都源于其各部分之間恰當(dāng)?shù)膬?nèi)在聯(lián)系。

這一觀點指引著我進行設(shè)計實踐。我在設(shè)計“集體農(nóng)莊”之初，首先考慮的就是開放空間系統(tǒng)，而非房屋本身。所有關(guān)于房屋選址、體量、高度和建材的決定，都源自公共景觀的場所精神，也就是它所從屬的更大系統(tǒng)，它必須對此整合、尊重和強化。

4 “集體農(nóng)莊”生活中結(jié)構(gòu)性改變需要全新的建造理念——從量的統(tǒng)一到質(zhì)的平等

眾所周知，“集體農(nóng)莊”的社會、經(jīng)濟和形態(tài)結(jié)構(gòu)形成于20世紀(jì)20年代初的以色列（圖16）。從一開始，其終極價值觀就是平等。然而，轉(zhuǎn)譯到社區(qū)生活領(lǐng)域中，則并非本質(zhì)意義上的機會平等，而是形式的統(tǒng)一。這種教條式的平等抹殺了自我認知和作為個體的獨特性，只將個人視作集體的一部分。

不過，近年來這種陳舊的平等觀念已在許多方面被重新定義。社會結(jié)構(gòu)回歸到核心家庭理念，即孩子在家庭中被撫養(yǎng)，而不再是在公有房子中養(yǎng)育，孩子也不再被視為整個社區(qū)的共同所有物。以前工資雖基于每個成員的能力，但還是按照需求進行分配；而現(xiàn)在分配標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也發(fā)生了變化，工資取決于成員的個人貢獻。

對于陳舊而簡單的平等觀念，“集體農(nóng)莊”的住房也許是最后的堡壘。在今天，這種觀念必須作出改變。根據(jù)平等觀念，房屋被要求形狀統(tǒng)一，作為靜態(tài)模型被武斷地放在建筑場地上。光線方向、面向特定方向景觀的視野角度等環(huán)境因素都被棄之不顧。其結(jié)果是所有的房子都是同樣的平面和立面。因此，住戶房子的窗戶碰巧對著果園的，就比那些面向奶牛棚的要強。

這種做法導(dǎo)致房子品質(zhì)的不平等，也造成了住戶之間機會的不平等。不僅如此，這種教條式做法的結(jié)果是，內(nèi)蓋夫（Negev）沙漠環(huán)境中的房子與加利利（Galilean）丘陵中的房子是完全一樣的。

我設(shè)計的“馬阿甘·邁克爾集體農(nóng)莊”住宅采用了完全不同的新模型。這一模型根據(jù)過去20年中以色列“集體農(nóng)莊”的實際變化做出了相應(yīng)的調(diào)整。

圖9 / Figure 9

圖10 / Figure 10

圖11 / Figure 11

圖12 / Figure 12

圖13 / Figure 13

圖14 / Figure 14

5 規(guī)劃過程

這種社區(qū)設(shè)計的方法就是房屋必須從其所建造的場地上自然生長出來，而不是強加在場地之上。

對場地做出規(guī)劃決策之前，需要對“集體農(nóng)莊”社區(qū)需求進行定性和定量的研究。此后，這些需求被轉(zhuǎn)譯成常規(guī)的“模式”列表。盡管這些“模式”很抽象，但它們具體界定了房屋的空間秩序。

從常規(guī)模式與實際場地的居住現(xiàn)實之間的深度互動中，可逐步提出場地設(shè)計和房屋布局方式；不同場地的實際情況各不相同。

5.1 住區(qū)的生成語言——一種模式語言

亞歷山大在《建筑的永恒之道》中指出，有機秩序的場所可能看似未經(jīng)規(guī)劃且無序，而實際上清晰地表達了深刻而復(fù)雜的秩序。這種秩序基于嚴格的法則，而這些法則一直決定著場所的品質(zhì)和美，并是其美好感受的源泉。換言之，某個場所中發(fā)生的事件模式與構(gòu)成該場所的物質(zhì)形態(tài)模式（術(shù)語是空間模式）之間存在著直接聯(lián)系。

此外，以色列薩法德的庭院里那些觸動我們的感受同樣可以在中國北京的胡同中體會到。當(dāng)我們在以色列薩法德的小巷中漫步時，那些打動我們的品質(zhì)同樣也能在意大利的錫耶納或是中國的麗江感受到（圖17、圖18）。

20世紀(jì)60年代中期，“環(huán)境結(jié)構(gòu)研究中心”開展了一項超過10年的經(jīng)驗研究，旨在對那些擁有共通事件模式和相似感覺的場所進行分析，以進一步歸納共同的元素。

其基本假設(shè)是，如同物質(zhì)由原子這種基本單元構(gòu)成，人造環(huán)境由被稱為模式的眾多原子構(gòu)成。每個模式都是一種結(jié)構(gòu)原型，并以各種方式不斷重復(fù)。雖然它的形式在不同地方表現(xiàn)不一，但其潛在結(jié)構(gòu)（即原型）是一樣的。

當(dāng)我們遇到一棵從未見過的非洲樹木時，仍然可以辨認出這是一棵樹。這是由于我們能識別的“樹”并非指其形式表象，而是其潛在結(jié)構(gòu)，即樹各個部分之間的關(guān)系。雖然形式的重復(fù)表征有無窮的多樣性，但是其關(guān)系的模式保持不變（圖19）。

《模式語言》中列出了250條模式。這些模式的重要性在于它們組成了一個系統(tǒng)，并形成了一套完整的語言體系。書中模式涵蓋內(nèi)容涉及城市、建筑單體，乃至構(gòu)造細節(jié)等多層尺度。該語言的每種模式由其他更小的模式構(gòu)成，且同時是更大模式的一部分。換句話說，每種模式都是關(guān)系的模式。語言由此衍生發(fā)展，其模式的等級秩序由語言本身的法則所決定。和在語言使用中賦予句子意義的法則類似，最終創(chuàng)造有意義的一座城市、一條街道或一幢房屋的法則被稱為句法。

環(huán)境由模式組成，它們能讓來自各種文化或地域的人群均能產(chǎn)生共通的舒適感，那么這些模式顯然跨越了文化邊界。因此，亞歷山大認為，在物質(zhì)空間中存在著模式，它們反映了架構(gòu)在我們腦海中與生俱來的模式。這與語言學(xué)家喬姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）的概念一致，在各種口語中被定義為語言的語言。

“集體農(nóng)莊”規(guī)劃過程的第一步是確定與該項目相關(guān)的空間模式。這些模式源于兩方面因素：一是“集體農(nóng)莊”的社會架構(gòu)及其面向地中海的地理位置；二是我們作為人類的普遍基本需求。例如，無論在老年中心還是幼兒園，無論在印度還是在以色列，自然采光對人們的身心健康都是不可或缺的。根據(jù)不同的場地條件，這些普遍的模式抽象而又具體地定義了房屋的空間秩序，于是各式各樣的房屋隨即產(chǎn)生，且共用一種建筑語言（圖20、圖21）。

例如：

——住區(qū)入口大門：住區(qū)設(shè)計前期的決策之一是進入場地的入口大門選址。大門的位置決定了新住區(qū)與已有“集體農(nóng)莊”能否融為一體。

——朝南的戶外空間：將建筑放置在與之配套的戶外活動空間的北側(cè)。保持戶外空間朝南向陽。永遠不要在房屋和戶外有陽光照射的空間之間留下大片的陰影。如果出現(xiàn)面向海的方向與向陽朝向發(fā)生沖突的情況，建筑位置需根據(jù)具體情況權(quán)衡確定（圖22）。

——建筑各部分采光 ：將建筑分解成多個部分，以適應(yīng)房屋中的各種生活活動。合理設(shè)計每一部分，使得所有房間都可以有自然采光。

——建筑入口過渡空間：在路徑或街道與入戶門之間設(shè)置過渡空間。通過改變方向或變化鋪裝等視覺改變方式將其突出（圖23）。

——建筑主入口：在基地中確定道路和建筑所在區(qū)域之后，下一步工作，或許是方案深化中最重要的步驟，就是為建筑主入口大門選擇合適的位置。將建筑的主入口放置在一個節(jié)點位置，使之在進入建筑的主要街道上就清晰可見。同時，入口被設(shè)計成大膽而易辨識的形狀，從建筑立面上凸顯出來（圖24）。

——專注的禪宗觀：如果室外的風(fēng)景特別美麗，建造一扇巨大的落地窗會對其造成破壞，這種做法只會讓風(fēng)景變成一張普通的壁紙。獨特的風(fēng)景應(yīng)采用景框的方式予以突出（圖25）。

圖15 / Figure 15

圖16 / Figure 16

圖17 / Figure 17

圖18 / Figure 18

圖19 / Figure 19

經(jīng)驗告訴我，安裝窗戶時，哪怕出現(xiàn)10cm的偏差，也會破壞它本來設(shè)計應(yīng)獲得的所有效果。因此，窗戶的精確位置只有在場地上才能確定。

5.2 在場地中規(guī)劃社區(qū)

“馬阿甘·邁克爾集體農(nóng)莊”坐落在一座山上，新社區(qū)位于其西側(cè)，面向大海（圖26）。

這里提出的規(guī)劃過程，與常規(guī)過程有著本質(zhì)區(qū)別。在常規(guī)規(guī)劃過程中，規(guī)劃方案是事先在辦公室中生成的，場地總平面和房屋形式也都是事先確定的，與場地的實際狀況毫無關(guān)聯(lián)。但是在我的設(shè)計中，規(guī)劃圖紙只不過是場地中規(guī)劃決策的翻錄。

事實上，由于場地的實際狀況各不相同，場地總平面圖和最終形成的住宅只是一個框架，用以平衡項目選定的抽象模式語言和真實場地的實際狀況。

“事物都有它們自然的和先天的存在方式……現(xiàn)實并不是思維的重新創(chuàng)造。因此，當(dāng)我們試圖探尋真實的意義，我們是在尋找現(xiàn)實，尋找事物真實存在的方式……”

當(dāng)我設(shè)定了項目的模式語言，之后的每一步規(guī)劃決策，包括房屋在地段中的選址、與道路相聯(lián)系的入口方向的確定，乃至每個窗戶的方位，都是在地段中的分區(qū)場地上確定的，并在場地中使用木樁進行標(biāo)記（圖27）。在實際場地中，不可預(yù)測的情況接連發(fā)生，這也成為設(shè)計創(chuàng)新的機遇。

規(guī)劃過程并非一個不斷疊加的過程，而是被視為一個分類提煉的過程。場地中所做的每個決定以及地面上的每個標(biāo)記，事實上都改變了場地的整體結(jié)構(gòu)。任何階段中場地所呈現(xiàn)的新的整體結(jié)構(gòu)，都成為下個決定的基礎(chǔ)。

場地上呈現(xiàn)的最終“布局”由測繪師記錄。根據(jù)我的經(jīng)驗，那些有時候在圖上看起來不規(guī)則和奇怪的決策標(biāo)示，常常源于場地現(xiàn)實，合情合理，反之亦然。紙上談兵的、在圖紙上看似完美的總平面圖，可能在實際場地中卻顯得莫名奇妙。因此，如果審視“木樁標(biāo)識的方案”時使人感到疑惑，設(shè)計改進的方法是在場地上再次進行檢查。最后的“木樁標(biāo)識的方案”是最終規(guī)劃設(shè)計方案的基礎(chǔ)。

在設(shè)計之初所作出的決定會影響更大尺度的問題。我們需要在整個設(shè)計過程的各個階段不斷進行驗證，并關(guān)注由最初決定而產(chǎn)生的其他決策。

我們在社區(qū)的中心規(guī)劃了一條主路，分別連接兩條道路：一條是濱水的景觀道路；另一條是連接 “集體農(nóng)莊”中心公共食堂和社區(qū)之間的道路。

這條道路的路線確定依據(jù)是，我希望人們在沿路各處都能看到水景（圖28～31）。

房屋以小型組團方式布局，共享一個開放空間。在集體農(nóng)莊的傳統(tǒng)模式中，所有的被稱為“草坪”的開放空間都是公用的，房屋任意地散布其間；而在新模式中，次級道路穿行于房屋之間，以這種不使用圍欄的非正式方式，劃定出每個家庭的“私人”區(qū)域（圖32）。這種“私人領(lǐng)域感”出人意料地創(chuàng)造出一種新的現(xiàn)實情境，即每個家庭都開始打理自己的花園。在傳統(tǒng)模式中，這種新的行為模式并不存在，因為建筑之間的開放空間被當(dāng)做所有人的共有財產(chǎn)進行使用和維護，事實上不屬于任何一個人。

場地中每座房屋的位置都是逐步確定的。設(shè)計要思考它們彼此的關(guān)系，確保每一個房屋都有面向水面的開敞視野，并能享受從海面吹來的微風(fēng)（圖33、圖34）。

為了確定每座房屋的高程，以便人們在露臺上就可以看到大海，我坐在一個起重機中，將自己升起到能看到海面的高度。這一高度被記錄下來，隨之確定了房屋的高程。

6 房屋的設(shè)計

圖20 / Figure 20

圖21 / Figure 21

圖22 / Figure 22

圖23 / Figure 23

圖24 / Figure 24

圖25 / Figure 25

圖26 / Figure 26

圖27 / Figure 27

圖28 ——31 / Figures 28-31

至此，場地設(shè)計已經(jīng)完成（圖35）。由于住區(qū)里每一棟房屋的選址既需考慮與道路的關(guān)系，也需兼顧與海的關(guān)系，因此不同類型的房屋平面被確定下來。在那些道路入口與海的朝向一致的地方，建筑采用A型平面（圖36）；在道路入口與海的朝向相反的地方，建筑采用B型平面（圖37(a)、圖37(b)）。

自行車是集體農(nóng)莊范圍內(nèi)被允許的唯一交通工具，因此每家門前都設(shè)有一個自行車架。緊靠入口的門邊設(shè)置了一處放泥靴子的地方，這是集體農(nóng)莊的一個明顯特征。

建筑墻壁都用淺藍色的涂料粉刷，輔之以當(dāng)?shù)氐纳皫r來塑造建筑細節(jié)。

7 美在細節(jié)——細節(jié)本身并非裝飾

一棟建筑整體上美好的秘密，在于它的空間秩序和細節(jié)本質(zhì)。我認為房屋的細節(jié)不是一堆設(shè)計元素的集合，而是源于秩序語言中的結(jié)構(gòu)性片段，也就是說，每個特定的細節(jié)都源自它所從屬的更大整體，并對整體有所貢獻，且試圖去提升整體品質(zhì)。

震教徒（Shakers）②是18世紀(jì)中期的一支宗教教派。當(dāng)時，他們創(chuàng)造了大量的實用性家具和餐具，認為整體感和美感皆為純粹功能主義的產(chǎn)物，沒有實際功能的美好形式是需要摒棄的。

然而那時，震教徒并沒有像現(xiàn)代主義者那樣，在詞語的狹隘意義上解釋“純粹功能主義”。對現(xiàn)代主義者而言，“形式追隨功能”在語義上僅僅與建筑的物質(zhì)形體相關(guān)；而震教徒則從更廣義的角度理解“純粹功能主義”，認為無論在公共開放空間中，還是在建筑室內(nèi)（圖38），其功能與物質(zhì)形態(tài)的體驗以及與精神的感受都是密切相關(guān)的。

8 現(xiàn)代科技與傳統(tǒng)的關(guān)系

在城市或自然環(huán)境中，保留某個地方的場所精神并不一定意味著其語言的盲目重復(fù)。一旦踏入場地中，我的核心問題是：什么是正確的建筑語言，它是否可以促使新設(shè)計的當(dāng)代住區(qū)與自然景觀進行對話？

環(huán)境中建筑強大的表現(xiàn)力，源自它屬于環(huán)境不可分割的一部分，而不是凌駕于環(huán)境之上的人為痕跡。

建筑物的立面和外形確定了公共開放空間的邊界，因此也決定了由其引發(fā)的感受。

集體農(nóng)莊的這些房屋和我設(shè)計的其他建筑很快引發(fā)了一些猜測。其中，有人懷疑這些房屋是否是那些場所中年代久遠的歷史建筑的“重建”。事實上，如果我設(shè)計的建筑讓人感覺它們在場地中存在已久，那么我會由衷地高興。毫無疑問，這種推測是基于我們的常識，即我們身邊的新建筑都凸顯于周圍環(huán)境，并且與環(huán)境格格不入。因此，人們以為當(dāng)一棟建筑以一種自然的方式與周圍環(huán)境有機地融為一體時，它不可能是一棟新建筑。

隨后，當(dāng)人們最終發(fā)現(xiàn)這是個新社區(qū)時，緊接的疑問是“它屬于什么風(fēng)格？這是否是試圖借用舊有建筑語言的新設(shè)計？”

我的回答是我并非試圖重現(xiàn)歷史，或懷舊式地追溯任何風(fēng)格，我所設(shè)計的建筑與歷史建筑之間的相似性與關(guān)聯(lián)性在于它們所營造的“家”一般的感覺與體驗，這源于我使用了相同的基本模式與設(shè)計過程。在過去，這些模式和設(shè)計過程是準(zhǔn)則，未來也將如此；無論在何種文化和傳統(tǒng)中，只要人們想賦予建筑以精神和靈魂，就會運用那些準(zhǔn)則。我堅定地認為20世紀(jì)30年代后期是“以色列建筑”的消亡期。隨著猶太裔建筑師從以色列避難移民到歐洲，歐洲建筑被引入以色列并試圖與本土的東方建筑相結(jié)合。這一階段被稱為“折衷時期”（圖39）。該時期一直持續(xù)到20世紀(jì)30年代，直到新的“國際風(fēng)格”取而代之。包豪斯所謂“新時尚”風(fēng)格被全盤引入以色列，并且與本土毫無聯(lián)系（圖40）。

從本土產(chǎn)生的折衷主義建筑與全盤引入的“國際風(fēng)格”建筑之間的差別，不能被簡單地解釋為一種接納或是拒絕的形態(tài)語言。這是兩種不同的世界觀。換句話說，從折衷主義轉(zhuǎn)換到“國際風(fēng)格”，盡管建筑在形式上確實不同，但并不只是從一種風(fēng)格體系轉(zhuǎn)換到另一種。對于這兩種不同風(fēng)格建筑之間的差異，這種簡單的區(qū)分是不公正的。在折衷時期，建筑師對于門廳、拱門、柱頭或是建筑前廊等元素的處理無關(guān)風(fēng)格，只是空間模式的使用。他們深刻地認識到建筑和諧的基本原理，即永恒而跨文化的空間模式。這種空間模式存在于任何美好而舒適的建筑之中，并超越風(fēng)格。

顯然，門廳、拱門、柱頭、拱廊或穹頂?shù)瓤臻g模式在各個時期的建筑中均可以看到。例如，19世紀(jì)末和20世紀(jì)初美國建筑師賴特（Frank Lloyd Wright）設(shè)計的美麗建筑、14世紀(jì)和15世紀(jì)奧斯曼帝國時期的亞洲清真寺以及20世紀(jì)早期以色列建筑師布勞沃德（Alexander Browald）設(shè)計的科學(xué)博物館，等等（圖41～43）。

這些模式被現(xiàn)代主義者有意忽略，導(dǎo)致了場所中缺乏情感和意義。

圖32 / Figure 32

圖33 / Figure 33

圖34 / Figure 34

圖35 / Figure 35

圖36 / Figure 36

建筑和藝術(shù)的認同感缺失是一個全球性的現(xiàn)象。北京、紐約、巴塞羅那和以色列特拉維夫所建造的現(xiàn)代建筑毫無差別。同樣，畢爾巴鄂的古根海姆博物館顯然不是從西班牙的現(xiàn)實中生長出來的，而是追隨潮流的舶來品；迪拜的帆船酒店也是如此。當(dāng)然，這只是一部分例子。

世界各地都存在著那些獨特而永恒的建筑。它們無關(guān)鄉(xiāng)愁，而是提醒我們，這個世界上存在一種不一樣的建筑，值得我們不斷關(guān)注。特別是在建筑時尚不斷隨意變化的今天，這更值得重視。

建造具有永恒價值的建筑方法絕不是某些人提倡的那種反當(dāng)代建筑運動。歷史對美的解釋并不唯一。相反，我們應(yīng)充分發(fā)揮現(xiàn)代科技社會的潛力，將科技視為一種工具而非目標(biāo)或價值本身，創(chuàng)造以人為本的友好環(huán)境，以滿足全體人類的基本需求。這才是真實有益的嘗試。特別是當(dāng)我們的時代提供了無限的可能選擇時，科技必須以可控的、以價值觀和道德觀為導(dǎo)向的方式付諸應(yīng)用，以設(shè)計我們賴以生存的物質(zhì)環(huán)境。

此外，“可持續(xù)發(fā)展”“綠色建筑”“生態(tài)環(huán)境”等當(dāng)前人們習(xí)以為常的“標(biāo)簽”，都不再僅僅是節(jié)約能源、水、電、回收材料一系列教條準(zhǔn)則。本文無意貶低它們的重要性，而是驚奇地發(fā)現(xiàn)，所有這些標(biāo)簽都沒有關(guān)注本應(yīng)被視為核心的環(huán)境因素，即人。這使得建筑看起來像一臺機器（至少表面如此），脫離了它們所處的空間環(huán)境，也對使用者也極不友善。

環(huán)境是為人設(shè)計的，可持續(xù)發(fā)展必須回歸到人類身心的基本訴求。對于人類有益的，也必然對環(huán)境有益。過去，人類掌控的設(shè)計過程的準(zhǔn)則來源于日常生活。例如，采用厚的外墻，使房屋保溫隔熱，減少供暖和空調(diào)的需求和花費；根據(jù)風(fēng)、光，以及利用陽臺為建筑散熱等因素，將窗設(shè)置在準(zhǔn)確的位置。這些工作的完成不需要任何口號，因為建筑師所關(guān)注的全部就是人的體驗，建筑正是為此而建造。

本文闡述了對于人類具有普適性的空間模式以及跨越文化、使人類和諧關(guān)聯(lián)的空間準(zhǔn)則。文中展現(xiàn)的規(guī)劃設(shè)計過程從結(jié)構(gòu)上對應(yīng)了其文化、社會受眾群體的身份以及每塊設(shè)計場地的獨特性?，F(xiàn)行的設(shè)計概念與方法對我們賴以生存的人類環(huán)境已造成真正威脅。我希望建筑學(xué)的整體現(xiàn)象學(xué)方法對于這一情況的改變有所貢獻。

圖37 (a) / Figure 37(a)

圖37 (b) / Figure 37(b)

圖38 / Figure 38

圖39 / Figure 39

圖40 / Figure 40

圖41 / Figure 41

圖42 / Figure 42

圖43 / Figure 43

ORIGINAL TEXTS

The aim of this essay is to present my particular interpretation of the holistic-phenomenological worldview in practice, in one selected project I designed and built in Israel. A worldview which stands in recent years at the forefront of the scientific discourse as a whole in disciplines like cosmology, neurobiology, psychology, particle physics and brain sciences, and is linked to recent theories of complexity. As well in convergence with the fundamentals of Buddhist science, the two worlds my work is associated with.

I will demonstrated how this approach, as well as the planning process I follow —— a process fundamentally different from conventional ones ——were implemented in a residential neighborhood I designed in the social, economic and physical structure of the collective known as a “kibbutz”(founded in Israel in the early 20th century). The introduction of a conceptually new model in a very rigid social framework became possible now, as a result of an overall change in the reality of the“kibbutz” communities, a change that was inevitable in the 21st century.

The aim of this essay is to raise broad public discussion regarding central debates concerning the general public and to challenge 21st-century architecture, as to how we should intervene within an existing environment whether urban or natural landscape which we must respect and preserve ——when integrating within it a new contemporary buildings, using the full potential inherited in the modern technological age in which we live.

The definitions given by me in this essay for terms such as “quality” or “assimilation of values for preserving the environment” have a broader meaning than the commonly used ones, as will be discussed in later chapters.

1 Biographical Milestones and the Background for the Growth of the Holistic Approach

I am a practicing architect working in Israel for more than 40 years. My work focuses on both practice and theory, and is tightly connected to the Phenomenological-Holistic School of Thought.

In this chapter I shall present the streams of thought that were evolving in architecture at thetime, including the emergence of the holistic approach. I shall do so by presenting their linkage to the milestones in my “journey” which have most influenced my work in the various creative fields I have been engaged with in general, and in architecture in particular.

These include the various sources of knowledge I have been exposed to during my formal architectural studies; teaching & research work; studies of Buddhism; and most important of all - the place I grew up in, the Cabalist city of Safed,①my heritage and my roots as a seventh generation descendant of a family that has lived in the place since the 19th century (Figure 1, Figure 2).

My curiosity about what lies at the foundation of organic architecture started with my first year as a student of architecture (Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel) at the end of the 1960s.

I wanted to understand what lay behind those places and buildings that make us feel “at home”, what powered them with so much beauty and soul that make us return to them again and again. I needed to understand the processes by which these buildings were created.

My intuitive feeling was that what lies behind those places and buildings were facts, reasons and objective truth, I wanted to understand and act upon it in my design work.

The mid 1960s were a breaking point in the world of architecture. There was a feeling and consensus that the mechanistic worldview, upon which modern architecture was based on, had gone bankrupt as it did not give any decent answer to the human relationship between man and environment. Places like Brasilia in Brazil, Chandigarh in India, the satellite towns such as Milton Keynes that were built in England during the late 1960s and the 1970s, the new neighborhoods built in Jerusalem post 1967 war were all designed and built adopting the mechanistic approach. One of its founders, apparently responsible for the disastrous outcome that followed from it, was the famous architect Le Corbusier. These alienated places were a clear expression of the lack of an organic order. However the forces that were inherent in modern architecture, like the ones inherent in contemporary architecture, have gained such a strong foothold, that many were afraid (and still are) to express their reservations, and all the more so, to make a change.

The late 1960s and early 1970s brought to the forefront of science in general and architecture in particular the quantitative methodological approach, as presented in Geoffrey Broadbent’s book, Design in Architecture, Architecture and the Human Sciences (John Wiley & Sons 1973). According to this theory, the creative process is a product of quantitative planning methods, where complex relationships between man and his environment are defined by matrixes and formulas. I adopted this logical and systematic working process, which enabled me to identify and separate the various elements of a building required by the program and combine them to a whole. This resulted in plans that at the conventional level were indeed neat, reasoned and coherent. The projects that grew out of this mechanistic methodology met the physical and social needs of their users, but only partially answered their emotional and spiritual needs. In other words, this methodology was not aimed to create buildings with a soul.

The Disappointment of the modernism led to a search for new ways. In the early 1970s I left the Technion and moved to London to continue my studies at the A.A. School of Architecture. I found a school where the main theme in teaching architecture was conceptual. This was in line with conceptual art starting to flourish at that time, first exposed in an exhibition named “When Attitude Becomes Form”, held at the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts) gallery in London. It became a landmark in the art world (Figure 3). In discussions held at the time in the A.A school, man’s environment was conceived as a mere metaphor for science fiction, completely ignoring and even belittling anyone who tried to speak about the emotional - human experiential relation between man and place.

This conceptual approach developed, and led later on to the emergence of new movements, each one attempting in its own way to find a solution and a way out of the disappointment and despair brought on by modern architecture. Among them, the “Archigram” in London (based on their theory 15 years later the Pompidou Center was designed by others in Paris), the “Post modernistic” stream—— the “New York Five” on the east coast of the U.S, the “New Tradition” clinging to the past and the “Deconstruction” stream still starring today. These movements, although different from each other, have one thing in common and that is their basic assumption that there is no absolute truth behind architecture and that beauty and comfort are subjective concepts that have to do with style, fashion and the personal vision of the creator. In fact this assumption denied any objective public discussion on the definition of beautiful architecture. Not one of these movements attempted to seriously confront the crisis at hand or make changes in order to resolve it.

In 1973 completing my studies, my first commission was planning the house of the writer David Shutz in Jerusalem. Stone buildings surrounded the site and in the center was a lemon tree.

Unlike the conventional planning process which took place on the board in the office and then transferred to the site, here all planning decisions were taken by me on the site itself. Trying to feel and experience physically what had happened there. The first planning decision I made was to leave the lemon tree in its place and design the house around it. I walked back and forth; I was looking for the boundaries of the patio that would “feel right” ——the actual place on which the walls of the building would be erected (Figure 4, Figure 5). But even in this case, where the house clearly grew out of the reality of its site, there were some critical questions that still remained open:

—— What are the rules and processes that determine the right relationship between the parts of the building in order to create a whole?

—— What is the glue that creates the feeling of unity in a building? In other words, what is the secret of harmony in architecture?

I tried to record and understand the visible structures of those timeless organic places I came across to (Figure 6), using them as a model for the new projects I designed. The unsatisfactory outcome made me understand that no place is self-existent, independent of the unique reality to which it belongs, and that planning a new place with that desired quality, involves not just an application of an existing model, but a deep understanding of the Genetic codes and the processes that lead to its creation.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s I worked with Christopher Alexander at the “Center for Environmental Structure” in Berkeley (a researchinstitute Alexander founded in the mid 1960s and directed since). I became closely familiar with all his research work and participated in the planning of The Cooperative village “Shorashim” in Israel. This experience both in theory and in practice made me understand in a profound and implementable way, the nature of order in architecture and the operational process leading to its creation.

The assumptions put forward by Alexander as early as the mid 1960s were essentially different from those of the movements mentioned before. This was an approach that by its very definition created a lot of reaction. Alexander’s basic assumption was that order and beauty are an objective matter inherent in the structure itself, and that feelings have to do with facts, based on absolute rules that have always determined the quality and beauty of a place (as discussed in details in Chapter 5).

The exposure to the Buddhism logic at a later stage made me understand the foundations of the holistic approach I adopted, trying to implement in the buildings I designed.

The holistic approach (discussed in details in Chapter 3) is a broad and universal approach and is at conflict with the mechanistic worldview ——traditionally more common in the Western world.

However, as I made my way along these paths that marked and enlightened me, I realized that in this journey I was, and the answers to these questions I already had been exposed to. There in my childhood, at my grandmother’s Hotel (Figure 7) she founded 65 years ago in a small stone building at the end of an alley in the old city of Safed and at its alleys as a whole.

This experience had the greatest impact on my understanding how a place should “feel”, and the insight of what is that “Art of making” which creates these places. I got from watching my grandmother preparing the food in her kitchen at her hotel (Figure 8), or whitewashing the walls of the alley in light blue (Figure 9).

I always assumed that my strong emotional attachment to Safed was generated from a subjective experience. But then I realized that other people, who came there from places; cultures and traditions different from mine, had nonetheless a similar experience. That made me understand that something much more basic is happening there —— common to us all as human beings (as discussed in details in later chapters).

2 Architecture is Made for People–Phenomenological Approach to Architecture The purpose of architecture as I see it is first and foremost to create a human environment for human beings. Nevertheless, modern society has lost site of the central value, the human being, and created an environment in which there is a feeling of alienation between man and place.

Buildings affect our lives and the fate of the physical environment in which we live over the course of many years, and therefore their real test is the test of time. The fine old buildings where man feels "at home", the ones we always want to return to (from the past and the present) are thus endowed with a timeless relevance and are the ones that touch our hearts and have the power to release feelings.

Although this timeless quality exists in buildings in different places, rooted in different cultures and traditions, the experience they generate is similar and common to all people, no matter where or from what culture they come from (Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12).

There are different ways to describe buildings that have this timeless quality. Frank Lloyd Wright called them “the ones which take you beyond words”. Quoted by Stephen Grabow: “The buildings that have a spiritual value are a diagram of the inner universe, or the picture of the inner soul”.

The experiential-emotional relationship between people and the community neighborhood —— occurs at all levels of the relationship that exists between man and environment. Manifested at the urban scale, meaning the way the building contributes to the experience taking place in the public space, in the interior spaces of the building and down to smallest details such as light fixtures; furniture; door handle—— the most intimate level between user and place. Contemporary architecture as well as conceptual art sought to dissociate themselves from the world of emotions, and connect the design process to the world of ideas and images, accordingly creating a rational relation between building and man devoid of any emotion. The basic assumption presented here, is that in order to change the feeling of the environment and create places and buildings that we

really feel part of and want to live in, what is needed, is not a change of style, fashion or personal vision of the creator, but an adaptation of a new worldview. A holistic-phenomenological worldview that will transform the ones underlying current thought and approaches which are an existential threat, to the physical and human environment in which we live.

3 Between Two Worldviews —— The Holistic Approach vs. the Mechanistic Approach ——The Relationship between the Parts and the Whole

The difference between the worldview which resulted in dissociating man from his environment and the worldview that considers man to be part of the physical world he lives in (as well as part of nature), emphasizes the difference between the holistic organic school of thought to which my own work belongs to, and the mechanistic-fragmentary worldview. These are two different set of orders.

The mechanistic worldview dominant traditionally in Western thinking and underlying contemporary architecture as a whole separates elements, consequently creating a mechanically-ordered environment of autonomous fragments, the result of which we witness in places like Brasilia in Brazil, Chandigarh in India, the satellite towns in England, or for that matter, the new neighborhoods built in Jerusalem after 1967, where the structured disconnection between the house and the street, the street and the neighborhood, the neighborhood and the city arouses a feeling of detachment and alienation.

The house appears to be a random collection of objects; the street appears to be a random collection (catalogue) of buildings that do not create together a street, often even prefabricated transported units made in a factory and superimposed on the site (Figure 13); the streets do not form together a neighborhood; and the neighborhoods do not create a city.

As opposed to these buildings were the ones designed in traditional villages and cities where by the “unknown” architects or people that what they had in mind was obviously us, the pedestrians strolling in the public spaces. They understood that the responsibility placed on the buildings they designed was the first and foremost to the quality ofthe street, the boundaries of which they define. They understood that urban design does not start and ends by doing arbitrary sketches on a scale of 1:1000 but with being constantly aware of the scale 1:1 of the human being. An experience generated by the sight of the railings of the balcony, the iron bar on a window, and the smell and sight of fruit trees at the entrance courtyards of the houses (Figure 14).

This approach was not understood by Le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer and other modernists around the world who were part of the mechanistic school of thought or contemporaries who consciously consider architecture to be no more than icons, environmental installations and fireworks, directly responsible for the disasters we are witnessing in the physical environmental in which we live.

The holistic-organic approach that has been for many years at the forefront of the scientific thought in general, regards the socio-physical environment as a system or a dynamic whole, the existence of which depends on the proper, ever-changing interrelations between the parts (Figure 15). Moreover, the creation and existence of each part depends on the interrelations between that part and the system.

The Buddhist science claims in general, that any entity comes into existence in dependence on other factors and conditions.

That understanding of “dependent arising”, cause and condition, is the condition for the realization of emptiness, which is the foundation of all Buddhist philosophy.

This kind of “subtle impermanence” is confirmed by scientific findings in disciplines that are the result of generations of scientific investigations.

In any organic system while each element has its own uniqueness and power, it always acts as part of a larger entity to which it belongs and which it complements. Having adopted this concept, I regard urban design, architecture, interior design and landscape design not as independent disciplines removed from each other, but as one continuous and dynamic system. Every design detail, at any level of scale, is derived from the larger whole to which it belongs, which it seeks to enhance and for whose existence it is responsible. The overall feeling of inner wholeness and unity whether in a building, a street, a neighborhood or a city, eventually evolves from the proper interrelations between its parts.

This notion led me, at the time I started to design the neighborhood in the “Kibbutz” to think first about the open spaces and not the houses themselves. All decisions regarding the location and the volume of the houses, their height and the material used for its construction were derived from the spirit of the open landscape, meaning from the larger system it was responsible for, had to be integrated with, respect and enhance.

4 Structural Changes in “Kibbutz” Life Require a New Concept of Housing ——from Quantitative Uniformity to Qualitative Equality

The social, economic and physical structure of the collective known as a “kibbutz” was founded in Israel in the early 20th century (Figure 16). Its uppermost value since its very beginning was equality, translated in most realms of community life not as equality of opportunities, in its qualitative sense, but rather in its quantitative sense, as formal uniformity. This dogmatic equality obliterated the self-identity and uniqueness of the individual and saw him only as part of the collective.

In recent years, however, this old conception of equality has been redefined in many respects. The social structure reverted back to the nuclear family, with children raised at home and no longer in a communal house where they were regarded as the possession of the community as a whole. Wages, previously based on the notion that every member contributed according to his or her own ability, but was supported according to his or her needs, have now become differential, based on one’s contribution.

Housing in the “kibbutz” is perhaps the last fortress of the old and simplistic conception of equality, a conception that now more than ever can change. According to this conception, houses are regarded as static models of predetermined uniform shape, arbitrarily positioned on the building site. Environmental factors, such as the direction of light or the angle open to the view on any specific plot, are disregarded, and the result is that all houses have an identical plan, including the same elevations. Thus a tenant whose window happens to face the orchard has the advantage on the one whose window faces the cow shed.

This approach created a qualitative inequality between the houses and inequality of opportunities among the tenants. Moreover, the outcome of this dogmatic approach was that houses built in the desert environment of the Negev district or the hilly Galilean environments were exactly the same.

The new model introduced by me in the design of the new houses in “kibbutz” “Maagan Michael”was fundamentally different. Adapted to the overall change in the reality of the “Kibbutz” communities in Israel in the last two decades.

5 The Planning Process Itself

The approach underlying the design of the neighborhood was that a building must grow naturally from the site on which it is built, and not force itself upon it.

The process by which the planning decisions were taken on the site was preceded by a study of both the quantitative and qualitative needs specified by the community of the “Kibbutz”. These needs were translated into a list of common “patterns”, which abstractly but specifically defined the spatial order of the houses.

The site plan and the layout of the houses developed gradually from the deep interaction between those common patterns and the living reality of the actual site, a reality that differed from site to site.

5.1 The Generative Language of the Neighborhood—— a Pattern Language

In his book The Timeless Way of Building Alexander states that all places of organic order that may seem unplanned and disorderly are actually a clear expression of order on a deep and complex level. This order is based on absolute rules that have always determined the quality and beauty of a place and is the source of the good feeling in it. In other words, there is a direct connection between the pattern of events that occur in a place and the physical patterns —— patterns of space in his terminology —— that constitute it.

More over what stirs in us emotionally in the courtyard in Safed can stir in us at the Hutton’s in Beijing. The quality that stirs in us as we walk an alley in Safed, Israel, can stir in us in Siena, Italy or in Lijiang, China (Figure 17, Figure 18).

An empirical research conducted in the mid 1960sfor over a decade at “The Center for Environmental Structure”, aimed to analyze all those places that share a common pattern of events and feel similar, in order to identify the common element.

Their basic assumption was that just as every substance has a basic component called an atom, the man-made environment consists of “atoms” which he called patterns. Each pattern is an archetype of a structure that repeats itself in an infinite variety, and although its form varies from place to place, there is an underlying structure —— the archetype which remains the same.

So when we come across an African tree we have never seen before, we do recognize it as a “tree”. The reason for that is that the entity we identify as a “tree” is not the visible form, but the underlying structure, the relationship between the parts of a tree. And although form repeats itself in an infinite variety, the pattern of relationship remains the same (Figure 19).

The importance of these patterns, 250 in number as listed in A Pattern Language, lies in the fact that they constitute a system which generates an entire language. It includes patterns from the city scale level to that of individual buildings and construction details. Each pattern in the language consists of other smaller patterns and is at the same time part of a larger pattern. In other words, each pattern is a pattern of relationships. The language is a generative one and the hierarchical order of the patterns it consists of, is determined by the rules of the language itself. What ultimately creates a meaningful city, a street or a house, is similar to what gives meaning to a sentence in the spoken language, which is the syntax.

Since the environment consists of patterns that produce the feeling of comfort we all share no matter what culture or place we come from, which apparently defies cross-cultural boundaries, Alexander’s assumption is, that in the physical space, there are patterns that reflect an innate pattern structured in our brain, same as the notion of the linguist Noam Chomsky, in the various spoken languages defined as the language of languages.

The first step in the planning process in the “Kibbutz”was to determine the patterns of space that were relevant to the project, patterns that grew out both of the social structure of the “Kibbutz”, the geographic location facing the Mediterranean sea, and ones stemming from the basic needs common to us as human beings (daylight is essential for the mental and physical wellbeing whether in a senior citizen’s center or in a kindergarten, whether in India or in Israel). When this list of common patterns abstractly but specifically defined the spatial order of the houses, were used in different site conditions, a variety of houses emerged, sharing one architectural language (Figure 20, Figure 21).

As for example:

—— Entrance “Gate”: One of the first decisions concerning the neighborhood involves the location of the Entrance “Gate” to the site. This location determines the relationship between the new neighborhood and the “Kibbutz” as a whole.

—— South Facing Outdoors: “Place the building to the north of the outdoor spaces that go with them. And keep the outdoor spaces to the south (Sun). Never leave a deep band of shade between the building and the sunny part of the outdoors.” If there was a conflict between the preferable direction of the sea and the direction of the sun, the priorities were weighed on a case-by-case basis (Figure 22).—— Wings of Light: “Arrange the house so it breaks down into wings that correspond to the natural activities within the building. Make each wing so that natural daylight will cover all areas of the house.”

—— Entrance Transition: “Make a transition space between the path (street) and the front door. Mark it with a change of direction, a change of surface…and above all a change of view ( Figure 23).”

—— Main Entrance Door: Once the location of the paths and the built-up areas on the site were marked on the ground, the next search, perhaps the most important one in the evolution of the plan, was for the proper location of the entrance door. “Place the main entrance of the building at a point where it can be seen immediately from the main avenues of approach and give it a bold, visible shape which stands out in front of the house” (Figure 24).

—— Focused “Zen” View: “Where there are particularly beautiful views, do not destroy them by building one large picture window that turns the view into nondescript wallpaper. Special views should be framed and thereby intensified” (Figure 25).

As experience has shown me that placing the window in a deviation of even 10 cm can violate all it is meant to achieve, the precise location of the window can be ascertained only by being on the site itself.

5.2 Planning the Neighborhood on the Site

“Kibbutz” “Ma’agan Michael” is situated on a hill, with the new neighborhood on the western side that faces the sea (Figure 26).

The planning process proposed here was fundamentally different from the common planning processes. Unlike the common planning processes, where planning first takes place in the office and the site plan and the form of the houses is predetermined with no relation to the reality of the site, here the drawings are merely recordings of the planning decisions taken on the site itself.

The plan of the site and the houses that were finally created were actually a structure of balance between the abstract pattern language chosen for the project and the living reality of the actual site, a reality that differs from site to site.

“Things have a natural and innate mode of existence…. Reality is not something that the mind has fabricated anew. Therefore, when we search for the meaning of truth, we are searching for reality, for the way things actually exist….”

Once I set the list of patterns for the project, each planning decision, from the positioning of the house on the site, through the determination of the direction of its entrance in relation to the path, and unto the location of each window, was taken on the site of each plot, literally marked on the site with wooden stakes (Figure 27).

The unpredictable conditions that were continuously developing on the actual site, created openings for new things .

The planning process is not conceived as an additive, but rather as a differentiating one. Each decision taken on the site and marked on the ground actually changed the configuration of the site as a whole. The new whole fully visualized on the site at any stage, formed the basis for the next decision.

The final “l(fā)ayout” that emerged on the site was recorded by a surveyor. Experience has taught me that decisions which may sometimes appear irregular and strange on paper, often make sense in reality (where it comes from), and vice versa. A plan that appears perfect on paper (where it was created) may seemsenseless on the site. So, if when looking at the “stakes plan” doubts arise, the correction is checked again on the site itself. The final “stakes plan” forms the basis for the final plan.

Decisions are first made on issues that affect the larger scale we have to confront at any given moment along the process, moving to other decisions generated from them.

At the center of the neighborhood, a path was planned connecting the promenade that runs along the water and the path that runs from the communal dining hall at the heart of the kibbutz to the neighborhood.

What dictated the course of the path was my wish to see the water from every spot along the path (In sequence left to right Figure 28 - Figure 31).

The houses were arranged in small clusters, sharing a communal open space. Unlike the traditional pattern in the kibbutz, where all open spaces, called“the lawn”, are communal and the buildings are dispersed arbitrarily in between, here the secondary paths running between the houses defined in a nonformal way, with no fences, the “private” zone of each family (Figure 32). This sense of “private territory” unexpectedly created a new reality in which each family started to grow its own garden. This new pattern of behavior could not have developed in the traditional model, where the open spaces in between the houses were planned as a property used and maintained by everyone, and therefore of no one.

The position of each house on the site was done in a piecemeal process, in relation to the others so as to ensure that each one has an open view to the water and can enjoy the breeze coming from the sea (Figure 33, Figure 34).

To determine the level of each house so that one could see the sea while sitting on the terrace, I used a crane to lift me up to where I could see the sea. This height was measured and the level of the house was determined.

6 The Design of the Houses

At this stage the site plan was completed (Figure 35). The location of each house in the neighborhood in relation to the paths and its position in relation to the sea produced different types of house plans. On plots where the entrance from the path was in the same direction as the sea view, type A plan emerged (Figure 36). On plots where the entrance was from the opposite direction of the sea view, type B plan developed (Figure 37).

In front of each house there is a bicycle rack (the only means of transport allowed within the boundaries of the kibbutz). Next to the entrance door a place for muddy boots was allocated, a prominent symbol of the kibbutz.

The walls are all whitewashed light blue, complemented by regionally quarried sandstone characterizing the construction details.

7 The Beauty Is in the Detail —— the Detail Is not an Ornamental for Its Own Sake

The secret concealed within the beauty of a building as a whole lies in its spatial order and in the nature of its details. I do not perceive the details of a building as a collection of designed elements but as a structural segment derived from a hierarchical language in which each specific detail is derived from the larger whole to which it belongs, for whose existence it is responsible, and which it seeks to enhance.

The Shakers, a religious sect that created an abundance of useful furniture and utensils in the mid-eighteenth century, noted that the wholeness and beauty of form are products of pure functionalism, and that there is no room for beautiful forms that do not flow from a functional need.

At the same time however, the Shakers did not interpret the term “pure functionalism” in the narrow sense of the word as did the modernists, for whom the expression “form follows function” was semantically connected only to the physical body of the building. They understood it in the broad sense, connecting it both to the physical and spiritual experience one feels whether in a public open space or inside a building (Figure 38).

8 The Relationship between Modern Technology and Tradition

Preserving the spirit of a place (urban or natural) does not necessarily mean a fanatic repetition of its language. The key question I asked myself while standing on the site was what would be the right language that would create a dialogue between the new contemporary neighborhood I designed and the natural landscape.

The powerful presence of the building in the environment emanates from it being an integral part of it, and not from the efforts to be distinguished.

The dimensions and fa?ade of the building define the boundaries of the public open space, and therefore determine the feeling it inspires.

One of the assumptions that immediately arises regarding the houses (as well as with other buildings I design), whether they are “reconstruction” of buildings of the past that had stood there much before. The fact that it feels as if it has been on the site forever, makes me feel good. This assumption is based without any doubt, on the new buildings we see around us that “bark” at their surroundings and being alien to it. Consequently people assume that a building that is organically integrated in a natural way with its surroundings cannot possibly be a new building.

Furthermore, when finally discover that the neighborhood is in fact new one, the next immediate questions I am asked in reaction is “to what style does it belong? Is it a new design that tries to reconstruct an architectural language from the past?”My answer to that is that I do not attempt to reconstruct the past or to nostalgically trace any style. The similarity and the association created between the buildings I design and those we know from the past, and the similar experience and feeling of “a home” they create, originate in my use of the same fundamental patterns and design processes that were the guidelines in the past, and will continue to be so in the future, in any culture and tradition, where people aspire to give a building spirit and soul. I would confidently argue that late 1930s was the end of identified “Israeli architecture”, when European architecture was brought to Israel, carried out by Jewish refugee architects who immigrated to Israel from Europe, trying to become integrated with the local oriental architecture —— thus named the“Eclectic period”(Figure 39). This lasted until the 1930s when the new “International Style” took over, the Bauhaus, a style that was the “dernier cri”, that was imported to Israel as a package deal in no way related to the place (Figure 40).

The difference between the imports of an International style as opposed to the emergence of the Eclectic architecture from within the place, cannot be explained in the common simplistic way as an adaptation or the rejection of a formallanguage. These are two different worldviews. In other words, the transition from Eclectic architecture to “International Style”, which truly appears different in form, is not a shift from one stylistic principle to another. Such a distinction does an injustice to the difference existing between these two styles of architecture. The use of patterns such as entrance hall, arches, column capitals, or an arcade at the front of a building by architects in the Eclectic period, was not a matter of style. They understood in a most profound way what are the fundamentals of harmony in architecture —— the timeless crosscultural patterns which underline the beauty and comfort in any building that transcends styles.

Evidently these patterns such as entrance hall, arch, a capital in the column, arcade or a dome, can be found in buildings of all periods: in the beautiful buildings designed by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright during the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States; in the mosques built in the Ottoman period in the 14th and 15th centuries in Asia and in the Science Museum designed by architect Alexander Browald during early 20th century in Israel ( Figure 41, Figure 42, Figure 43). These patterns were on purpose ignored by the modernists, resulted in places devoid of any emotions and meaning.

The loss of a sense of identity in architecture and art is a worldwide phenomenon. There is no difference between contemporary buildings built in Beijing, New York, Barcelona or Tel Aviv. The same provinciality which led to the creation of the superimposed Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao which was certainly not generated by a Spanish reality, or to the Burj Al Arab Hotel in Dubai. This of course is only a partial list.

The unique timeless architecture worldwide is not a matter of nostalgia, but a reminder that there is a different kind of architecture we must pay attention to over and over again. Especially at a time when buildings are created according to ever changing and arbitrary fashions.

The architectural approach which aims at fulfilling timeless values is by no means a reaction against the contemporary movement as one might think. The past has no monopoly on beauty. On the contrary, it is a genuine attempt to fully use the potential inherited in modern technological society available today, not as an aim or a value in itself, but as a tool to create a human and friendly environment that will satisfy the basic needs common to all of us as human beings. Especially at a time where unlimited possibilities are open to us, technology should be used in a controlled, value-oriented and moral way when approaching the design of the physical environment in which we live.

Moreover, the “trademarks” we have become accustomed to and which are currently used as“sustainable development”, “green building”,“ecological environment” and the likes, are no more than a list of dogmatic rules that refer to the saving of energy, water and electricity and the recycling of materials. Without reducing their importance, surprisingly there is no reference at all in the list to what should be considered as the central environmental resource —— the human being. This results in buildings that look like machines (to say the least), and which are alienated to their physical environment and far from being friendly to their users.

“Sustainable development” must call for the basic needs (body and soul) of the human being for whom the environment is being built. What is good for the human being will necessarily be good for the environment. In the past, the rule of thumb dictated design processes generated from the daily experience. For example the use of thick walls to isolate houses from heat and cold reduced the need (and cost) of heating and air-conditioning; so did the attention put on the exact location of windows in relation to wind and light and the use of wind balconies to cool down the house. The work was done without slogans, because what filled the architect’s vision was the human experience for which the building was made for.

I hope that by presenting an approach which tries both to identify the patterns (needs) common to us all as human beings, codes that cross cultures and link us together in harmony, and by applying a planning process which structurally responds to the identity of each cultural and social group we build for, and to the uniqueness of each site, I will contribute something towards replacing current conceptions and approaches that forms a real threat to the physical and human environment we live in.

注釋

Notes

① 薩法德城，早在第二神廟時期有數(shù)萬猶太人因害怕宗教裁決從西班牙和葡萄牙逃入，在16世紀(jì)成為以色列猶太社區(qū)最重要的精神中心。很多居住在那里的猶太人都是宗教法規(guī)和猶太哲學(xué)的學(xué)者和神秘主義者，包括拉比·比約·哈伊（Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai），他被認為是《光明篇》（Zohar）的作者，《光明篇》是猶太哲學(xué)最重要的文本之一；還有拉比·約瑟夫·卡羅，《律法》（Shulchan Aruch）的作者。

The city of Safed, dated to the period of the second temple and haven to thousands of Jews who fled from Spain and Portugal in fear of the Inquisition, became in the 16th century the most important spiritual center of the Jewish community of Israel. Many of the Jews who settled there were prominent mysticists and scholars of religious law and Kabala, including Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, who is thought to be the author of the Zohar, one of the most important Kabalistic texts, and Rabbi Joseph Karo, author of Shulchan Aruch (code of laws).

② 基督再現(xiàn)信徒聯(lián)合會（United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing），1774年由安·李（Ann Lee，1736——1784年）建立，現(xiàn)已基本消亡。震教徒的贊美詩、靈歌、舞蹈等祈禱音樂非常著名?！g者注

[1] Christopher A, Sara I, Murray S. A pattern language [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

[2] Christopher A. The timeless way of building [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

[3] Stephen G, Christopher A. The search for a new paradigm in architecture [M]. Boston: Oriel Press, 1983.

[4] Portugali N. The act of creation and the spirit of a place: a holistic-phenomenological approach to architecture [M]. Stuttgart / London: Edition Axel Menges, 2006.

[5] Portugali N. A holistic approach to architecture: the Felicja Blumenthal music center and library, Tel Aviv [M]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved Publishers Ltd, 2011.

攝影 / Photography：Amit Geron, Nili Portugali文字輸入 / Computer work：Lili Leikind

水彩插圖 / Watercolor painting：Gleb Shebaleb

A Holistic-Phenomenological Approach to Architecture A Case Study: Residential neighborhood, “Kibbutz Ma’agan Michael”, Israel

Nili Portugali

Translated by CHEN Jinxi, YAN Shaoning; Proofread by YANG Tao

The aim of this essay is to present my particular interpretation of the holistic-phenomenological worldview in practice. I will demonstrated how this approach, as well as the planning process I follow —— a process fundamentally different from conventional ones —— were implemented in a residential neighborhood I designed and built in the social, economic and physical structure of the collective known in Israel as a “kibbutz”.

Holistic; Phenomenology; Design methodology; Pattern language; Community neighborhood

2015年9月19日

希望能引起一場廣泛而公共的對21世紀(jì)建筑的討論和挑戰(zhàn)，我們應(yīng)該如何以一種道德和人道的方式介入我們必須尊重和保護的現(xiàn)有環(huán)境，并將新的現(xiàn)代建筑融入其中。

Hopefully raising a broad public discussion and a challenge to 21st-century architecture, as to how we should intervene in a moral and human way within an existing environment which we must respect and preserve —— when integrating within it new contemporary buildings.