邁克爾·毛贊訪談

王丹丹，柴金戈，邁克爾·毛贊 葉揚(yáng) 譯， 徐光 校

1. 王丹丹（WANG Dandan，以下簡(jiǎn)稱DW）：為什么您將書的標(biāo)題定為“拒絕再玩”（指邁克爾·毛贊的書《No More Play: Conversations on Urban Speculation in Los Angeles and Beyond》）？這句口號(hào)是提醒當(dāng)下的建筑師們重新思考建筑與城市嗎？還是說(shuō)，我們將城市理解為“不，繼續(xù)玩”，以此來(lái)鼓勵(lì)那些在圖形、策略等方面試驗(yàn)性的嘗試。

邁克爾·毛贊（Michael Maltzan，以下簡(jiǎn)稱MM）：我想這兩者都有。如此命名的原因，與洛杉磯關(guān)系密切。它是一個(gè)全球化的當(dāng)代城市，正處在真正的拐點(diǎn)上。洛杉磯無(wú)疑是不斷涌現(xiàn)的當(dāng)代城市范本中的一例，這種城市擁有難以置信的具有活力的場(chǎng)所。這些作為范本的城市，承受著許多壓力以及挑戰(zhàn)，并且，在大多數(shù)情況下，人們常認(rèn)為，這些新的城市與多數(shù)已定型的老城市相比，不那么嚴(yán)肅、過(guò)分俏皮、非常年輕，但這也是它們的特性。這本書的書名確實(shí)既是一個(gè)問(wèn)題，也是一種呼吁，希望能對(duì)這些城市進(jìn)行認(rèn)真評(píng)估，它們現(xiàn)在如何、未來(lái)會(huì)怎樣、建筑師要在這樣的世界里扮演什么角色。我認(rèn)為，書中一個(gè)重要的主題是思考建筑師該怎樣面對(duì)這些問(wèn)題。

2. DW：在本書里，關(guān)于洛杉磯，您提出了很多有趣的觀點(diǎn)。您說(shuō)洛杉磯不是個(gè)城市，只能被描述為“洛杉磯”。您能進(jìn)一步解釋一下這話的意思嗎？

MM：這種認(rèn)識(shí)是來(lái)自于書里的研究，以及與那些深入思考城市問(wèn)題的人進(jìn)行的對(duì)話，這些人不僅有城市主義者，還包括藝術(shù)家、文化學(xué)者、科學(xué)家、社會(huì)學(xué)家和歷史學(xué)家。對(duì)談中貫徹始終的一點(diǎn)是，沒有人認(rèn)為“城市”（City）這個(gè)詞適合洛杉磯。城市的概念，“城市”這個(gè)詞，是非常有歷史感的。我們形成了一個(gè)論點(diǎn)，即洛杉磯業(yè)已成型的規(guī)模已經(jīng)不能再輕易地用傳統(tǒng)的“城市”來(lái)定義了。城市的概念似乎表達(dá)的是一個(gè)確定的、可辨認(rèn)的、地方性的城市現(xiàn)象，具有可以理解的邊界。例如紐約，我想大多數(shù)人都有一個(gè)非常清晰的印象，知道那在說(shuō)什么。當(dāng)你談?wù)撀迳即墸憧梢哉f(shuō)它是一個(gè)巨大的地區(qū)，一個(gè)區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)體，一個(gè)城市化的大都市，或其他許多不同的事物，似乎都比說(shuō)它是個(gè)“城市”更恰當(dāng)。它沒有那種突出的特征。所以，我認(rèn)為，問(wèn)題之一，當(dāng)我們開始讀這本書，我的其中一個(gè)目標(biāo)是找出怎么稱呼它。我們笑稱它該被叫作“超大城邦”（Superbigatopolis）。洛杉磯不是唯一一個(gè)有這方面問(wèn)題的城市。許多城市都是這樣，在亞洲就出現(xiàn)了不少。這些城市都太大，太復(fù)雜，肩負(fù)著那么多不同的身份。我想，重要的是，該設(shè)想其他方式描述它們，而不是用典型的歷史性的字眼。

DW：的確，城市的邊界被模糊了。

MM：對(duì)，而且，這不僅是個(gè)語(yǔ)言學(xué)問(wèn)題，也不是個(gè)語(yǔ)義學(xué)問(wèn)題。我想，它其實(shí)涉及到我們?nèi)绾蜗驅(qū)Ψ矫枋鲞@種場(chǎng)所類型的現(xiàn)象特質(zhì)。如果我們想想未來(lái)，使用陳舊的語(yǔ)言完全無(wú)助于命名我們的場(chǎng)所。

3. 柴金戈（CHAI Jinge，以下簡(jiǎn)稱JC）：在“城市”這個(gè)論題之下，我想問(wèn)問(wèn)您怎么看“城市”（urbs）與“城邦”（polis）這兩個(gè)我從柯林·羅的文章里讀到的詞。我發(fā)現(xiàn)，您喜歡城市空間自下而上的微妙特質(zhì)，不喜歡“城邦”的那種自上而下、圖標(biāo)化、單一的形式。我認(rèn)為您是那種“城市”的建筑師，這樣理解對(duì)嗎？

MM：我是在郊區(qū)長(zhǎng)大的，水平、延綿、戰(zhàn)后的美國(guó)式城市郊區(qū)。從那里，我能想到的是“體驗(yàn)特質(zhì)”，場(chǎng)所的特質(zhì)。如果你真的要弄明白什么是一個(gè)地方的基本特點(diǎn)，你必須以它們自己的方式思考，而不是通過(guò)陳腐的觀念與手段。也就是說(shuō)，要靠其他方面的特征，如周圍環(huán)境、氛圍、事物之間的空間，而不只是形式本身。這非常重要，可能對(duì)研究更有用。思考具有共鳴的特點(diǎn)，非常適用于像洛杉磯這樣的地方。即便是“語(yǔ)境”這個(gè)詞，它本身及其與城市相關(guān)的學(xué)術(shù)用法都不怎么適用于像洛杉磯這樣的地方。這座城市的特點(diǎn)是缺乏一致性。如果沒有一致性，你怎么能談?wù)摗罢Z(yǔ)境”這樣的術(shù)語(yǔ)？這并不意味著一個(gè)洛杉磯這樣的城市沒有顯著的特點(diǎn)，但它們可能是抽象的、更分散、更微妙的概念；橫向水平的想法，或光的線性特征，或城市的節(jié)奏，這些在定義場(chǎng)所方面都很重要。所有這些，在我們理解并定義一個(gè)場(chǎng)所的過(guò)程中，有著重要的梯度關(guān)系。可能如果我們理解“特色”的意義，就能有一套新的方法用于這種場(chǎng)所。所以，我想這大概使我不是一個(gè)“城邦”派。

MM：我想建筑師常常只是以基本的職業(yè)習(xí)慣來(lái)做事，用這些手段和技術(shù)去表示我們做足了功課，我們做了分析。但是，如果這些表達(dá)不出更多的與你所設(shè)計(jì)的場(chǎng)所間接相關(guān)的信息，技術(shù)就變成了一種沒什么用的練習(xí)。我們正在談?wù)撊绾卧谖磥?lái)的城市工作，恰如我們?cè)谡務(wù)撊绾卧诋?dāng)下的城市工作。我提倡一種不同的方法，一種更匹配于當(dāng)代特質(zhì)和現(xiàn)實(shí)中不同類型城市的方法。

JC：正是，像“時(shí)代精神”那樣？

DW：我完全同意您的觀點(diǎn)，洛杉磯缺乏一致性。我想起一些當(dāng)代作品，設(shè)計(jì)者企圖分析城市，從中很難得到有用的信息，只是一味地描網(wǎng)格——可是那只是在一塊白板（Tabula-Rasa）上。

MM：對(duì)，我想這仍然是個(gè)重要的詞。我認(rèn)為，不僅為城市，也為后代，為社會(huì)群體的延續(xù)，要是每代人都能夠在城市中發(fā)揮真正的作用，那么，城市就是最活躍、最可持續(xù)發(fā)展的，處在最好的時(shí)代。你可以看看已經(jīng)停滯的城市，比如威尼斯，絕對(duì)是個(gè)美麗的城市，但可以說(shuō)，它在幾百年里沒有以任何方式發(fā)展。年輕人不在那里生活，他們都搬出去了，因?yàn)樗麄儫o(wú)法將自己與這座城市聯(lián)系起來(lái)。我認(rèn)為，確保那些重要的地方、重要的城市的活躍性，是一件非常重要的事。

4. JC：中國(guó)一些城市的問(wèn)題是，它們有它們的文脈，但與此同時(shí)，它們也往往正在破壞這種文脈。有時(shí)確實(shí)很難分辨不同的城市。如您書中所說(shuō)，只有洛杉磯是洛杉磯，那么，我們能不能造句說(shuō)“只有紐約是紐約”或“只有北京是北京”？大多數(shù)大城市，無(wú)論是在美國(guó)，還是在中國(guó)，正變得越來(lái)越像。您如何解讀這種情況呢？

MM：我認(rèn)為，如何持續(xù)保持及培養(yǎng)自己的獨(dú)特性，是當(dāng)代城市面臨的重大問(wèn)題之一。在過(guò)去數(shù)年里，從城市主義、建筑、景觀角度都有過(guò)大量的對(duì)話。這已成為一個(gè)全球性的問(wèn)題，并且以全球化的方式在不斷加強(qiáng)。你并不能在這個(gè)過(guò)程中獨(dú)善其身。我想，對(duì)所設(shè)計(jì)的場(chǎng)所而言，找到更恰切的設(shè)計(jì)方式是很重要的，要比立刻接受權(quán)威的可復(fù)制的模式更合適。

比如，我在東海岸受過(guò)非常典型的建筑教育，當(dāng)我搬到洛杉磯，開始在這個(gè)城市工作，我很快意識(shí)到，像紐約、芝加哥、倫敦、巴黎這些城市的模式，并不是特別有用，反倒像墨西哥城那樣的更有意義。不是因?yàn)槟鞲绯鞘率露己?，而是因?yàn)?，它在城市、?guī)模、環(huán)境等問(wèn)題上與洛杉磯有相同之處。所以，我認(rèn)為，這本書的目標(biāo)之一是說(shuō)，所有國(guó)家全球化城市化的現(xiàn)實(shí)，是絕對(duì)存在的，但這并不代表所有城市都必須雷同。我認(rèn)為，這只是意味著我們需要改變我們的方法、我們的技術(shù)，去挖得更深，找出這些新興城市中那些有用的、具有生產(chǎn)力的、可持續(xù)的特性。

5. DW：您說(shuō)洛杉磯已經(jīng)等同于一個(gè)試驗(yàn)場(chǎng)，在洛杉磯，建筑師既是試驗(yàn)者也是科學(xué)家。我感興趣的是，您怎么看待您在這個(gè)建筑試驗(yàn)場(chǎng)里所起的作用？您能給我們講些項(xiàng)目作例子嗎？

MM：我認(rèn)為，洛杉磯這樣的城市是一個(gè)不可思議的新理念試驗(yàn)場(chǎng)。它逐步形成了一種很實(shí)用的語(yǔ)境，能夠嘗試建筑、景觀和城市設(shè)計(jì)的新形式。但住在這里，我意識(shí)到，自己也成了試驗(yàn)的一部分，也因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為與城市最好的相處之道是完全沉浸在其中，做一個(gè)積極的參與者。所以，如果這個(gè)城市是健康的，你起的作用也是健康的，我想，談到有關(guān)這個(gè)城市的事的時(shí)候，個(gè)人是不斷在參與者與支持者之間轉(zhuǎn)換的。我住在這里，有家庭，有孩子，作為我生活的一部分，我在以一種很明確的方式介入到城市之中。作為一名建筑師，作為一個(gè)城市主義者，我仍試圖在我們的作品中運(yùn)用新形式，可能的話，運(yùn)用新的拓?fù)潢P(guān)系，因?yàn)闊o(wú)論扮演什么樣的角色，建筑總是在為城市提供想法，也試著創(chuàng)造一些能夠用于其他地方的模式。如果你看看我們的住宅項(xiàng)目，在貧民區(qū)住宅信托基金（Skid Row Housing Trust）項(xiàng)目里，我們就是這么做的。這些項(xiàng)目對(duì)我而言非常有趣，因?yàn)樗鼈冇兄嗤囊?guī)模，大約各有80－120套，每個(gè)項(xiàng)目都有獨(dú)特之處。有時(shí)是特殊群體住在那里，有時(shí)項(xiàng)目位于特殊的地點(diǎn)，比如新卡弗公寓，旁邊就是公路。我認(rèn)為，這些項(xiàng)目既是獨(dú)立的建筑，也差不多是一個(gè)城市的縮影，重現(xiàn)了這個(gè)城市中的許多動(dòng)態(tài)關(guān)系。與此同時(shí)，我把所有這些分列的項(xiàng)目視為一個(gè)有著城市尺度的大項(xiàng)目。許多城市已經(jīng)把所有的希望寄托到規(guī)模巨大的大型項(xiàng)目上，認(rèn)為它們能夠轉(zhuǎn)變和提升這些城市的水準(zhǔn)，但你也可以通過(guò)不斷地一小部分一小部分來(lái)積累，創(chuàng)造出產(chǎn)生大變革的項(xiàng)目，這同樣是可以奏效的。

6. JC：動(dòng)態(tài)是您作品的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵特點(diǎn)，比如，MoMA-QNS的動(dòng)態(tài)標(biāo)識(shí)或雷奧娜住宅交錯(cuò)的體塊。這是如何在您的作品中形成的呢？

MM：動(dòng)態(tài)，是洛杉磯式的當(dāng)代城市的特征；動(dòng)態(tài)是城市身份認(rèn)同的一個(gè)方面?，F(xiàn)實(shí)是，我們有汽車、公路和郊區(qū)，本質(zhì)上，我們的城市是分散的、水平的，這意味著動(dòng)態(tài)是這些地方發(fā)展的一個(gè)重要組成部分。思考動(dòng)態(tài)是與建筑建立更具試驗(yàn)性的關(guān)系的一種途徑。你可以以各種各樣的方式設(shè)計(jì)建筑。你可以制定一個(gè)規(guī)劃，為這個(gè)規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)幾個(gè)幾何體，用這種方式，建筑是可以這樣被理解的；你可以創(chuàng)建一種形式、一種獨(dú)特的標(biāo)識(shí)化的形式，建筑也能以這種方式被理解。我的興趣在于，建筑在人進(jìn)入它、穿過(guò)它、繞著它轉(zhuǎn)的時(shí)候是怎么表現(xiàn)自己的。我們的設(shè)計(jì)是在研究、試圖去解讀人們是如何使用、如何體驗(yàn)建筑物。對(duì)我而言，這種方式的優(yōu)點(diǎn)在于，它使參與者與建筑之間形成了一種對(duì)話。所以，當(dāng)你在建筑物周圍，它會(huì)給你運(yùn)動(dòng)的感覺，與你有所互動(dòng)。我念書的時(shí)候，大概是剛開始接觸建筑的那段時(shí)間，你提到的柯林·羅以及許多建筑師正在用經(jīng)典的規(guī)劃手段重新思考城市，并將這種方式運(yùn)用到當(dāng)代城市環(huán)境中的新建筑上。問(wèn)題是，對(duì)城市而言，這是一種抽象的工作方式。將城市置于二維空間，遙遠(yuǎn)地俯瞰它，這是 “上帝視角”。這產(chǎn)生了一種非常抽象、分離、錯(cuò)位的城市規(guī)劃方法。它與人們?cè)诋?dāng)代城市中的體驗(yàn)幾乎毫無(wú)關(guān)系。當(dāng)時(shí)我受到了許多藝術(shù)家和雕塑家的影響，他們創(chuàng)造了大尺度的雕塑，目標(biāo)是把觀眾置于與藝術(shù)、雕塑真正平等的位置上。他們所做的，是在思考人在空間和形式中的運(yùn)動(dòng)方式。

JC：像理查德·塞納？

MM：正是塞納那樣的。當(dāng)你在雕塑中徘徊的時(shí)候，能看到所有空間以截然不同的方式圍繞著空間。塞納的雕塑像一個(gè)媒介，或許應(yīng)當(dāng)說(shuō)是一個(gè)晴雨表，它能夠計(jì)量它與周圍城市包容性語(yǔ)境的關(guān)系。從某種意義上說(shuō)，一個(gè)單獨(dú)的體塊就能展現(xiàn)出整個(gè)城市的多樣性，濃縮所有的建筑風(fēng)格和歷史，與其他部分形成一種群舞。我興奮不已，因?yàn)檫@很明確，很清晰，它能促進(jìn)你的體驗(yàn)。從那時(shí)起，在城市中進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)的理念、對(duì)建筑以及設(shè)計(jì)建筑的思考，都變得與人的運(yùn)動(dòng)、體驗(yàn)相關(guān)，這成了我做設(shè)計(jì)的基本工作方法。

7. JC：我們能在您的許多項(xiàng)目里找到大量不同的“圖案”，比如，雷奧娜住宅項(xiàng)目，我們能看出您很喜歡它們，因?yàn)槟岩恍颖痉旁谀霓k公室外面。您認(rèn)為它們是種裝飾么？如果它們具有功能，是怎樣的功能？

MM：在現(xiàn)代意義，圖形樣式的確有裝飾性的功能。歷史上，裝飾創(chuàng)造了立面上的浮雕，這是種雕塑技術(shù)，但我使用圖樣作為創(chuàng)造建筑體驗(yàn)的圖景。你提到那些放在辦公區(qū)的樣本就是個(gè)很好的例子。它是一種穿孔的平板表面。你可以看到，在穿孔的表面下面有鏡子。我們本來(lái)設(shè)計(jì)這棟建筑有著很高大平坦的墻，我想看看是否能在平墻上創(chuàng)建出具有雕塑般動(dòng)感的效果。當(dāng)你沿著那堵墻，穿孔板背后的鏡子反射著樹木、草地、天空和你。你看到自己的影像被扭曲，被一種難以置信的云紋所代替。這完全是光學(xué)、動(dòng)感和運(yùn)動(dòng)產(chǎn)生的。建筑的形式似乎在呼吸、轉(zhuǎn)變，與人互動(dòng)。圖形樣式對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)并不是幾何圖而已，重點(diǎn)是，用它來(lái)創(chuàng)造建筑體驗(yàn)。

8.DW：比起您的私人住宅、文化建筑和展覽項(xiàng)目，彩虹公寓、新卡弗公寓及在建的星公寓，這3個(gè)項(xiàng)目看上去很獨(dú)特，因?yàn)樗鼈兪菫槌鞘械臒o(wú)家可歸者設(shè)計(jì)的。這些項(xiàng)目最大的挑戰(zhàn)是什么？您如何在您的設(shè)計(jì)中保持批判性，同時(shí)合理地控制預(yù)算？

MM：我致力于多種多樣的建筑項(xiàng)目，它們有著不同的用途。我的興趣是探索發(fā)現(xiàn)建筑的靈活性。我認(rèn)為，關(guān)于建筑如何發(fā)揮作用，以及從那些最富有的客戶到經(jīng)常被我們文化遺忘的人手中承接多種類型的項(xiàng)目是何等重要，早期現(xiàn)代主義者為我們做了很好的榜樣。我們城市的目標(biāo)是展現(xiàn)所有這些項(xiàng)目的多樣性，使之形成一種良性的充滿生機(jī)的城市文化。你不能讓建筑只為了某一類人設(shè)計(jì)，不管是窮人還是富人或是中產(chǎn)階級(jí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)為不斷地培養(yǎng)更加具有活力的文化和城市而努力。我想，很明顯，為無(wú)家可歸者提供服務(wù)的項(xiàng)目往往更艱難，財(cái)政預(yù)算更為緊張。它們通常處于城市最有挑戰(zhàn)性的部分，比如新卡弗公寓，緊挨著公路，要求我們認(rèn)真考慮建筑聲學(xué)里的噪音問(wèn)題。場(chǎng)地或功能越具有挑戰(zhàn)性，建筑智能就發(fā)揮了越大的作用。解決了一系列有難度的、彼此矛盾的要求之后，找到一種方式形成綜合、完整的理念，那么，建筑就處在最佳狀態(tài)，是可以理解并且非常怡人的。如此這般，即使這些項(xiàng)目如此具有挑戰(zhàn)性，也無(wú)論什么人住在那里，無(wú)論有什么樣的預(yù)算、施工進(jìn)度或場(chǎng)地的限制，建筑還是能表現(xiàn)出最適用、最有力量的狀態(tài)。

我會(huì)說(shuō)，我們認(rèn)為我們所有的項(xiàng)目有同樣的亮點(diǎn)。它們都是“建筑”。我認(rèn)為，這基本上就是這個(gè)事務(wù)所的文化。我們身心愉悅地工作，大小尺度的建筑、中國(guó)的橋梁、 東海岸的博物館、歐洲的景觀工程、其他城市的大別墅或公寓，它們都與我們有關(guān)。它們都源于同一種建筑設(shè)計(jì)的方法。

JC：這么說(shuō)，預(yù)算只是眾多挑戰(zhàn)之一。

MM：我認(rèn)為它只是挑戰(zhàn)之一。我們?cè)谶@個(gè)事務(wù)所里學(xué)到的東西，其中之一是思考什么才是建筑最基本的部分，什么才是絕對(duì)的必要，什么是你可以壓縮的，由此設(shè)計(jì)建造出的建筑，仍然能夠成立，并且具有力量。 要懂得哪里是底線，低于這個(gè)水平，你的建筑就迷失了。我也可以說(shuō)，在我的整個(gè)建筑生涯里，從未遇到過(guò)預(yù)算不成問(wèn)題的項(xiàng)目，只是程度不同而已。因?yàn)檎{(diào)節(jié)預(yù)算和設(shè)計(jì)的雄心是平衡形式與空間設(shè)計(jì)的決策性問(wèn)題。

9. JC：對(duì)于城市擴(kuò)張您怎么看？洛杉磯總是被批評(píng)為城市擴(kuò)張的怪物，一個(gè)臭名昭著的CO2發(fā)射器。

MM：我認(rèn)為，這就是現(xiàn)實(shí)。但我也在思考，城市擴(kuò)張、一個(gè)城市持續(xù)擴(kuò)張的能力，保持自身形態(tài)可能是一個(gè)神話。有一點(diǎn)是，一個(gè)城市發(fā)展得太過(guò)分，就不再是原本那個(gè)城市了。它可能成為了一個(gè)不同的地區(qū)。如果你看看北美東海岸，波士頓、紐約、華盛頓特區(qū)、費(fèi)城，整個(gè)東海岸像一個(gè)城市。它們有各自的特色和區(qū)劃，但它們都成為了大城市。整個(gè)東部海岸都在擴(kuò)張。洛杉磯當(dāng)然也是一個(gè)擴(kuò)張的城市。直到現(xiàn)在，洛杉磯仍然繼續(xù)向更遠(yuǎn)的地方擴(kuò)張。但是，我認(rèn)為它最終形成的邊界，不是一個(gè)物理性的邊界，更是心理極限，超過(guò)那個(gè)界限，這兒就不再是在洛杉磯。無(wú)盡的擴(kuò)張是洛杉磯的特點(diǎn)和神話。在不斷轉(zhuǎn)變的環(huán)境里，如何不斷地想出新的建筑和發(fā)展模式是個(gè)有趣的新問(wèn)題。

10. DW：下一個(gè)問(wèn)題是關(guān)于建筑全球化?，F(xiàn)在建筑師們都在全世界做項(xiàng)目、參加競(jìng)賽。雖然我知道您也參與國(guó)際項(xiàng)目或競(jìng)賽，但是您的研究和項(xiàng)目大多數(shù)還是植根于洛杉磯的。您是否認(rèn)為建筑師應(yīng)該更具“地方性”？也許他們?cè)搹淖约旱某鞘?、文化開始？

MM：我對(duì)其他的建筑師應(yīng)該做什么或不該做什么沒有什么想法。對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，洛杉磯已經(jīng)是一個(gè)非常適合工作的地方了。這里能夠在一種富于挑戰(zhàn)并與世界其他城市密切相關(guān)的環(huán)境里設(shè)計(jì)建筑與景觀。如果這里是個(gè)跟全球化的世界沒有特別緊密關(guān)系的小城市，對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，意義可能就會(huì)不同。我認(rèn)為，更重要的是你很明確是什么令你的作品有獨(dú)到之處。在建筑上有想法，知道在建筑與城市的更大范疇的對(duì)話中，什么使建筑顯得適用并不凡俗，那么，建筑師必須把自己的聲音和觀點(diǎn)表達(dá)出來(lái)，并與其他周遭的建筑師有所區(qū)別。否則，你無(wú)法真正地推進(jìn)建筑與城市的對(duì)話。在一個(gè)特定語(yǔ)境里工作，或者與特定的人一起工作，或者接受某種特定的教育，都能讓信念變得更堅(jiān)定。我不確定信念的源泉是不是這么重要。我感興趣的是，一個(gè)提供了多元的意見和方法的環(huán)境，能夠促使你改進(jìn)和理解自己的方法和作品。在這方面，我覺得洛杉磯給我提供了一個(gè)空間，能夠不斷地發(fā)展我自己對(duì)建筑的想法，發(fā)出我的聲音。

JC：建筑師的民主？

MM：是的。

11. JC：在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)不景氣的時(shí)代，中國(guó)仍將是世界上最大的建筑工地，對(duì)建筑師而言是一個(gè)大試驗(yàn)場(chǎng)。在您的書中，您也將洛杉磯定義為一個(gè)試驗(yàn)場(chǎng)，您認(rèn)為，這兩種城市之間有什么樣的共同點(diǎn)和差異呢？就目前而言，您有計(jì)劃參加那些在中國(guó)進(jìn)行的設(shè)計(jì)試驗(yàn)嗎？

MM：我喜歡在中國(guó)工作，由于我們?cè)诮鹑A的微型書店項(xiàng)目，我在那里工作過(guò)。我們?cè)鴧⒓恿松钲谖膶W(xué)與藝術(shù)博物館的設(shè)計(jì)競(jìng)賽，不過(guò)沒獲勝，但我對(duì)這個(gè)競(jìng)賽項(xiàng)目很感興趣。目前，我們還有項(xiàng)目在成都，包括規(guī)劃和一系列河流、湖泊上的橋梁設(shè)計(jì)，其中的一座橋正在建設(shè)，第二座即將開工，我們也在為第三座橋的設(shè)計(jì)收尾。所以，我們現(xiàn)在是在參與中國(guó)的建設(shè)，涉足了很多類型獨(dú)特的項(xiàng)目。中國(guó)文化很迷人，但我覺得洛杉磯和中國(guó)我們工作過(guò)的許多城市都有相似性，也有差異。我對(duì)它們都很感興趣。將這二者聯(lián)系起來(lái)的一點(diǎn)是，中國(guó)的城市，像洛杉磯一樣，都正處在歷史的決定性時(shí)刻。在許多城市的建設(shè)中，它們正強(qiáng)烈地想要建造屬于自己的未來(lái)。洛杉磯正面臨相同的局面，處在重塑自我的位置。我們處在洛杉磯要面向未來(lái)的時(shí)段。我很興奮能有機(jī)會(huì)在中國(guó)工作，他們面臨的是一種相似的處境。他們?cè)谠O(shè)想未來(lái)，在用巨大的能量、無(wú)窮的許諾、強(qiáng)烈的樂觀精神來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)，無(wú)所畏懼，在任何大擴(kuò)張的時(shí)期，你既能犯些貽害未來(lái)的錯(cuò)誤，也能做些睿智和有用的改變，成為未來(lái)的一部分。對(duì)于建筑師來(lái)說(shuō)，那里是難以置信的地方。

JC：所以，每個(gè)城市都是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的嗎？

MM：我認(rèn)為是這樣，至少我希望如此。我不知道你是不是像我那樣飛來(lái)飛去，不過(guò)，最糟糕的是所有的機(jī)場(chǎng)都完全相同。在大多數(shù)城市里，城門都是這個(gè)城市的入口。宣告這里是城市的門檻，用裝飾手法講述這里的文化。機(jī)場(chǎng)就是這種大門，各地的機(jī)場(chǎng)似乎已經(jīng)變得越來(lái)越像。我認(rèn)為，機(jī)場(chǎng)是非常重要的建筑類型，特別是新興城市的機(jī)場(chǎng)，因?yàn)樗鼈円磉_(dá)人們對(duì)一個(gè)城市的期許。這就是為什么當(dāng)人們問(wèn)我想做什么樣的項(xiàng)目的時(shí)候，我一直在說(shuō)，我想做但還沒做的就是機(jī)場(chǎng)。有一天我要做一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的機(jī)場(chǎng)！

12. DW：您在文章中寫道，今日的洛杉磯建筑師和規(guī)劃師應(yīng)該創(chuàng)造能夠代表這個(gè)城市及其文化的形式，而不是引入其他城市形態(tài)。然而，在中國(guó)，情況是“相反的”。目前，中國(guó)對(duì)世界各地的建筑師而言是一個(gè)試驗(yàn)場(chǎng)，我們正在輸入各種城市形態(tài)。對(duì)這種現(xiàn)象，您有什么看法呢？

MM：理論上說(shuō)，中國(guó)是很吸引人的，因?yàn)榇蟛糠之?dāng)代有關(guān)建筑的思考都能在那里找機(jī)會(huì)建成。從這個(gè)意義上講，中國(guó)也許將成為世界上最好的最大的最引人注目的建筑博物館。這并不是件壞事，因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為，許多跨越歷史、重要而強(qiáng)大的文化都在從其他地方引進(jìn)最好的建筑和構(gòu)筑物。在歐洲的17－18世紀(jì)，一個(gè)國(guó)家或一個(gè)王國(guó)經(jīng)常從其他國(guó)家引進(jìn)藝術(shù)家、音樂家和作曲家。所以，我不認(rèn)為我們現(xiàn)在所看到的是一種新現(xiàn)象。但它具有一定規(guī)模，而且被壓縮在這樣一個(gè)時(shí)期里，這才讓它顯得特別。我認(rèn)為，由于中國(guó)目前超常規(guī)發(fā)展，不同的區(qū)域、城市、鄰里、政府、選區(qū)、社區(qū)，需要越來(lái)越多地表現(xiàn)出人們對(duì)獨(dú)特城市的雄心，找到某種方式來(lái)表現(xiàn)這些設(shè)想。我想，這種方式會(huì)令設(shè)計(jì)工作變得更有深度和廣度；一旦建成開放，建筑就不會(huì)消失或完全沒用。對(duì)我而言，這是最大的挑戰(zhàn)。建造一個(gè)音樂廳或博物館，如果對(duì)以后這些新空間該怎樣安排功能、如何利用沒有深刻了解，最終，長(zhǎng)期使用的結(jié)果是從根本上破壞建筑的效用。我不認(rèn)為，建筑或者風(fēng)格或者外國(guó)建筑師的引進(jìn)對(duì)中國(guó)而言是個(gè)問(wèn)題。我覺得問(wèn)題是“建筑在它們被建成時(shí)也就獲得了生命”。如果它們有生命，那么，各種各樣建筑學(xué)上的見解、建筑設(shè)計(jì)上的抱負(fù)及建筑利用帶來(lái)的復(fù)雜結(jié)果，會(huì)令整個(gè)國(guó)家和建筑界都有非常豐富的體驗(yàn)。

13. JC：當(dāng)您1995年創(chuàng)建邁克爾·毛贊建筑事務(wù)所時(shí)，什么是您最初的“大構(gòu)想”？您希望達(dá)到的目標(biāo)是什么？現(xiàn)在，您的事務(wù)所已經(jīng)運(yùn)營(yíng)了16年，您對(duì)未來(lái)有怎樣的計(jì)劃？

MM：我成立事務(wù)所最初的野心像其他許多建筑師一樣，很天真。也就是開始我自己的事業(yè)，做能發(fā)出自己聲音的建筑，做些什么來(lái)展現(xiàn)你所認(rèn)同的建筑、城市和景觀。我沒想過(guò)這會(huì)有多難，也沒想過(guò)別人怎樣。我想，最重要的是以極大的純真和樂觀投入其中。我們很幸運(yùn)。對(duì)我個(gè)人而言，公司的業(yè)績(jī)是最大的回報(bào)，對(duì)于我們的建筑在文化中所能發(fā)揮的作用，我們已經(jīng)越來(lái)越接近我的抱負(fù)。不過(guò)，我覺得我們尚未達(dá)到目標(biāo)。仍然有很多建筑、很多設(shè)計(jì)，是我們?cè)敢馊プ?，并且渴望去嘗試的。我希望我永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)感到徹底達(dá)到了最終的有限目標(biāo)。我認(rèn)為，建筑師們都很焦慮，并且不斷批判他們之前做的設(shè)計(jì)，總想下一個(gè)做得更好。所以，未來(lái)對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，希望繼續(xù)問(wèn)些有意義的問(wèn)題，做令人興奮的項(xiàng)目，發(fā)掘那些問(wèn)題里真正重要的東西。我愿意在中國(guó)做更多的工作，因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為在那里的設(shè)計(jì)是真正有都市尺度的設(shè)計(jì)。那些項(xiàng)目與我曾經(jīng)試圖在建筑和景觀的設(shè)計(jì)中以及在寫作中表達(dá)的東西有很密切的關(guān)系。我想在中國(guó)繼續(xù)發(fā)展我們的工作，繼續(xù)思考城市問(wèn)題，幫助我思考當(dāng)代城市發(fā)展。到目前為止，一切都好。

JC & DW：我們非常期待看到您的新作。

MM：我也是，咱們都是這樣！

14. JC & DW：您是否相信建筑能夠改變世界？

MM：我相信。我一直懷有這種信念。我想對(duì)于建筑師來(lái)說(shuō)，這是理所應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)模獔?jiān)持這種信念，寄望于此，并且有這種雄心。我從未看到過(guò)任何事能比建筑更有實(shí)際意義，只有建筑是在真實(shí)的場(chǎng)所為了真實(shí)的主題而做，并能產(chǎn)生重大的積極的變化。這是建筑獨(dú)有的功能。我認(rèn)為，用建筑來(lái)看待我們的生活和周圍的世界，是一種更為樂觀的方式，也是更積極的視角。在這方面，它確實(shí)能發(fā)揮重大作用?！?/p>

1. DW: Why is your book titled "No More Play"?Is that a slogan to warn current architects to rethink the relationship between architecture and the city,or can we understand the city as "no, more play",to encourage more experimentation with pattern,policies, etc.

MM: I think it's both. The reason for the title,especially about a city like Los Angeles, is that contemporary cities globally are at a real turning point. Los Angeles is absolutely one of the models of that kind of continually emerging, contemporary city,and this kind of city is an incredible dynamic place.These model cities have a lot of pressures, they have a lot of challenges, and, in many cases, these newer cities, are often thought of in contrast with more established older cities as not serious, overly playful,and very young, but that is also one of their qualities.The title of the book is really both a question and a call for a very serious evaluation of where these cities are right now, what they'll look like in the future,and what role architects will play in that world. I think one of the key issues in the book considers how architects will approach that question.

2. DW: So, in this book, you made some interesting argument about los Angeles. You said LA is not a city, it could be only be described as LosAngeles. Can you explain more about what you mean?

MM: It really came from a lot of the research in the book and from talking to a lot of people,who have thought deeply about the city; not just urbanists, but also artists, cultural writers,scientists, sociologists, and historians. One of the most consistent parts of those conversations was that nobody thought the term "city" seemed to fit Los Angeles. The idea of the city, and the word "city", is a very historical one. But you can make an argument that Los Angeles has grown to a scale where it no longer is easily defined by the traditional term "city". The idea of city seems to suggest a defined, recognizable, localized, urban phenomenon, with understandable boundaries.When you say New York City, I think most people have an incredibly clear view of what that is.When you talk about Los Angeles, you can say it's a huge region, it's a regional economy, it's an urban metropolis, you can call it many different things that seem more appropriate than saying it is a city.It doesn't have that kind of singularity. So I think one of the challenges, and when we started the book,one of my goals, was to figure out what to call it.We joke that it should be called "Superbigatopolis".Los Angeles is not the only city with this identity challenge. Many cities are like that, many are emerging in Asia. These cities are so large, so complex, with so many different identities within them that I think it's important to try to imagine what other way we might describe it, as opposed to using typical historical terms.

DW: Exactly, like blur the boundary of cities.

MM: Exactly. And it's not just a linguistic question, it's not a semantic question. I think it's actually about how we talk to each other about the phenomenon of these kinds of places. If we are thinking about the future, it is not very helpful naming our places using the language of the past.

3. JC: In terms of city I'd like to ask you about"urbs" and "polis", which I learned from Colin Rowe's writing. I found you love the bottom-up, subtle characteristics of an urban place, instead of the top-down, iconic, singular forms of "polis", or city.And I think you are kind of an "urb" architect, is that right?

1 邁克爾·毛贊事務(wù)所內(nèi)部/Office of Michael Maltzan Architecture

MM: I grew up in a suburb, a very horizontal,continuous, post-war suburb. The thing I remember from that place were the "experiential qualities"the quality of the place. If you are really going to understand what is fundamental to any place,you have to think about them on their own terms,not through outdated ideas and tools. And that means that other types of characteristics, like the ambient, like the atmosphere, like the space between things, not just the forms themselves,are just as important and maybe even more useful to study. It is those other characteristics that have real resonance and are very applicable to a place like Los Angeles. Even the term "context",and its academic use in thinking about making relationships with a city, is not so useful for a place like Los Angeles. The city is defined by its lack of consistency. If you don't have consistency, how can you talk about terms like context? It doesn't mean that a city like Los Angeles, doesn't have observable characteristics, but maybe they are more abstract,more ambient, more subtle; the idea of the horizontal, or the linear quality of the light, or the pace of the city are just as important in defining a place. All of these things are important gradients in the way that we understand a place and the way we define it. Potentially, if we understand the concept of "characteristics", it gives us a new set of tools when we are working in places like this. So I guess that makes me not a 'polis'.

DW: Actually I totally agree with you, LA is lacking consistency. I think of some contemporarywork where designers are still trying to analyze the city, but you can't get any useful information, just by tracing the grid; it's Tabula Rasa.

MM: I think very often architects approach things merely at the level of being good professionals, we use these tools and techniques to say that we've done our homework, we did the analysis. But if it doesn't tell you anything more consequential about the place that you are working and it ends up being a not particularly useful exercise in technique. We are talking about how we approach working in cities in the future, as much as we are talking about how we approach working in the cities now. I'm advocating for a different kind of approach, one aligned with the contemporary qualities and realities of these different types of cities.

JC: Yes exactly, like Zeitgeist?

MM: Exactly, and I think that's still an important term. I think that not just for cities, but for generations, for success of groups of people,I think that cities are the most dynamic and the most sustainable, and at their best, when each new generation has a real role in adding to the city. You can look at a city that has stopped, like Venice,absolutely a beautiful city, but arguably has not developed in any way for hundreds of years. Young people don't stay there, they move away, because there is no way to express their connection to the city, and I think that's an important fact, in keeping any particular place, particular city alive.

4. JC: The problem for some Chinese cities is that they have their context, but at the same time,they are destroying the context. Sometimes it's hard to identify the city. If, like what you said in the book, that only Los Angeles is Los Angeles, can we come up with sentences like "only New York is New York", or "only Beijing is Beijing" ? How can you explain the fact that most large cities in the States,or in China, are getting more and more similar.

MM: I think that is one of the most important challenges for contemporary cities, is to continue to maintain and foster their identity. There has been over the last number of years, a great deal of conversation about the way in which urbanism,architecture, and landscape, have become a global discipline, and that they are strengthening in their global approaches. And it's not that you can isolate yourself from the rest of what's going on in the world.But I think it is important to look at approaches that are more appropriate to the place that you are working than to immediately accept the canonical, as replicable model for these new places.

For instance, when I arrived in Los Angeles after school on the East Coast, and a very classical

education, and starting to work in the city, I began to realize very quickly that cities like New York, or Chicago, or London, or Paris, were not particularly useful models, but cities like Mexico City were. Not because Mexico City is doing everything correctly,but because, the urban issues, the scales of the problems, the question of the environment were similar. So I think one of the goals of the book is to say that there is absolutely a reality to the globalization of urbanism in all countries, but that doesn't mean that you completely homogenize all cities so that they look the same. I think it just means that we need to change our approach,our techniques, to look more deeply at what characteristics might be useful and productive, and sustainable, in these newer cities.

5. DW: You said LA has been equated to a laboratory and in LA the architect is both the experiment and the scientist. I am interested in what you see your contributions are in this architectural laboratory? Can you give us some projects as examples?

MM: I think a city like Los Angeles is an incredible laboratory for new ideas. It continues to evolve as a very useful context for trying out new forms in architecture, landscape and urbanism.But in living here, I realize I am also a part of the experiments, too, because I think the best relationship or role you can play in the city is to be completely immersed in that city, to be a very active participant in the city. So if the city is healthy, your role in that is a healthy role; I think you constantly move between participant and advocate, to say something about the city. I live here, I have a family, I have kids, I participate in a very real way in the city as one part of my life.As an architect, as an urbanist, I have continued to try to press in our work new forms, potentially new typologies, for what kind of role architecture has in making an idea about the city, as well as trying to invent models that could be useful in other places as well. If you look at the housing projects we've been doing for the Skid Row Housing Trust, those projects are interesting to me because they are all about the same scale, maybe 80-120 units, and each project has a unique challenge. In some cases, it's a specific demographic of people who live there, other times it's a very unique site, like the New Carver Apartments which is right next to the highway. I think of those projects as individual buildings but also as ones that try to be almost a microcosm of the city and reproduce a lot of the same dynamic and relationships that you see in the city. At the same time I think of all those separate projects as one large project at the scale of urbanism. Many cities have placed all their hope in huge mega scale projects, and they can be transformative and very productive in the cities, but you can also create very large transformative projects by the steady accumulation of a series of smaller incremental parts, and be just as successful.

6. JC: Movement is a key characteristic of your work, for example, the dynamic logo of MoMAQNS or the staggered massing of the Leona Drive Residence. How this has evolved in your work?

MM: Movement characterizes contemporary cities like Los Angeles; movement is a part of the very identity of the of city. The reality that we have cars, highways, and suburbs, essentially a dispersed horizontal city, means movement is an important part of the way that these places were developed.Thinking about movement is a way of creating a more experiential relationship with architecture.You can design architecture in different ways. You can make a plan, and create geometric order to that plan, and the building is understood in that way. You can create a form, a singular iconic form,and the building could be understood in that way. I am interested in buildings revealing themselves to you as you move in, through and around them. The building design is developed in an effort to try tounderstand how somebody would use and experience the building. The benefit in that approach for me is that it puts the participant and the building into a conversation. So as you move around the building, it gives you the impression of moving and responding and relating to you. When I was in school, around the time I was starting architecture, Collin Rowe who you mentioned, and a lot of architects were interested in rethinking the city using classical planning techniques, and importing that to new work in contemporary urban situations. The problem with that was it's an abstract way of working in the city.It was a God-eyes view, distant, looking down at the city in two dimensions. And that leads to planning the city in a very abstract, disassociated, dislocated way. But that view has very little to do with the way that people experience the contemporary city. I was influenced by a number of artists and sculptors at the time who were creating large scale sculptures,and whose goal was to put the viewer, back into a real equation with the art, with the sculpture. They did that by thinking about the way you would move in and around space and form.

JC: Like Richard Serra?

MM: Exactly like Serra. You saw all of the spaces surrounding spaces the piece in a very different way as you moved around the sculpture.Serra's sculpture acted like a intermediary, or almost a barometer for the city around it, gauging its relationship to its context it is very inclusive.Somehow one singular piece seemed to represent the whole diversity of the city, melding all of those architectural styles and histories, into a choreographic dance with each other. And I was excited by that because it was clear and it was so conscious, it was a provocateur of your experience.Since then, that idea of working in the city, thinking about architecture, and designing architecture in relationship to one's movement, one's experience of a building, has been fundamental to the way of I approach all other work.

7. JC: We can find a lot of different "patterns"in some of your projects, like the Leona Drive Residence project, and we can see you love them,since you put some samples of them outside of your office. Do you think they are kind of ornament? And if they have functions, what are their functions?

MM: In a contemporary sense, pattern does have an ornamental function. Ornament historically created relief in a facade, it is a sculptural technique more than anything but I use pattern as a way of creating experiences. The mock-ups you mentioned here at the office area a good example.It is of a perforated flat skin. You can see through the perforations of that skin that there is a mirror behind it. We were designing a building with a big, flat plain wall and I wanted to see if it was possible to create a sense of sculptural movement in that flat wall as you move around it. As you walk along that wall, the mirror behind the perforated screen reflects the trees, the grass, the sky and you as well. You see yourself pixilated within that facade and there is this incredible moiré pattern that occurs. It is completely optical and dynamic and moving. The form of the building seems to be breathing, shifting, and alive with you. Pattern isn't for me about the geometries of the pattern. It is more about creating experience.

8. DW: Compare to your private houses, culture and exhibition projects, Rainbow Apartments,New Carver Apartments, and the on-going Star Apartments projects are very unique, because they are for formerly homeless people. What is the biggest challenge for the projects? How did you keep critical in your design while controling the building budget reasonably?

2 邁克爾·毛贊事務(wù)所內(nèi)部/Office of Michael Maltzan Architecture

MM: I have a real commitment to a wide range of architectural projects and programs. My interestis to continue to explore how elastic architecture can be. I think the early modernists gave us an example of how architecture could be useful and important in taking on a wide range of project types, from those for the very wealthiest clients to those who are very often forgotten segments of our culture. Our urban goal is to show that all of these projects are absolutely essential in their diversity and contribute to a very healthy and vibrant urban culture. You can't have architecture just exist for one segment of the population, either the poor or the wealthy or the middle-class, and expect that you are going to help to continue to foster a more dynamic culture and city. I think obviously,the projects for the homeless, tend to have much tougher, much tighter financial budgets. They are often in parts of the city which are challenging, like the New Carver Apartments which is right next to the highway and required us to carefully consider the intense noise in the building acoustics. The more challenging the site or program, I think you see the intelligence of architecture being particularly useful. Architecture is at its best when it takes a series of very difficult, often competing challenges,and finds a way of making a synthetic and complete idea, one that is understandable and beautiful for people. In that case, because those projects are so challenging, whether in terms of the people who would live there, the budgets, the construction schedules, or the limits of the sites, architecture is able to be at its most useful and most powerful.

I will say that we view all of our projects in the same light. They are all "architecture". I think that is very much about the culture of this office. That we feel comfortable doing, large and small scales of buildings, bridges in China, museums on the East Coast, landscape projects in Europe, big houses and apartment buildings in other cities; they are all related to us. They all come from a single way of approaching architecture.

JC: So budgets are just one of the challenges.

MM: I think it is one of the challenges. One of the things we learned here at the office was to ask what is the most fundamental parts of the architecture, what is absolutely essential, what can you boil it down to, and still produce something where architecture is present and powerful. To understand where the line is that if you fall below you know you've lost your architecture. And I can also say that I have never worked on a project in my entire architecture career where budget wasn't a challenge at some level because the reconciliation of a budge and a project's ambition is an equal design decision to form and space.

9. JC: What do you think of Urban Sprawl?Since L.A. is always criticized as an urban scrawl monster, a notorious carbon dioxide emitter.

MM: I think it is a reality. But I also think that urban sprawl, and the ability for a city to continue sprawl, and maintain itself is probably a myth. There is a point beyond which a city grows so much, it is no longer necessarily that city any more. It might be a different region. If you look at the east coast of North America, from Boston,New York, D.C., Philadelphia, you see that the entire east coast as one city. They have distinct identities and regions, but there is a point where it all becomes one big city. The entire east coast is sprawl. Los Angeles is of course also a sprawl city.Up until now, Los Angeles has been able to expand by continuing to push its boundaries further and further out. But I think that perimeter has finally been reached, not as a physical boundary but more a psychological limit, beyond which you are no longer in Los Angeles. The ability the endlessly expand is a part of Los Angeles' identity and myth. It's an interesting new question for how you continue to think about inventing new buildingsand development models in that shifting context.

10. DW: The next question is about the architecture globalization. Architects nowadays are doing projects and competitions all over the world.Though I know you do a lot of international projects or competitions, most of your research and projects are still based on L.A. Do you think architects should be more "local" ? Maybe they should start from their own city and culture before pursue their cosmopolitan ambition?

MM: I don't know that I have a strong sense of what other architects should do or not do. For me, Los Angeles has been an incredibly useful place to work from. It's a place to build buildings and landscape in a context that is very challenging and relevant to cities around the world. It probably would be much more difficult for me if I was in a smaller regional city that didn't have a strong connection to that global world you just described.I think it's more important to understand what you believe in and what makes your work unique. Having an opinion about architecture, and knowing what makes architecture useful and significant in a larger conversation about architecture and cities, only happens when an architect has his or her own voice and has an opinion that is different or distinct from other architects working around him. Otherwise,you are not really going to move the conversation very far forward. That conviction can develop from doing work in a particular context, or by working with a particular person, or from a particular type of education or school. I'm not sure its source matters so much. I'm more interested in a context that provides a diversity of opinions and approaches against which you can test and understand your own approach and work. In that way I think Los Angeles has provided me with a place to develop my own voice, and my own opinion of what I think architecture can be.

JC: Democracy of architects?

MM: Yes.

11. JC: In this era of global economic recession,China is still the biggest construction site in the world and is considered an experimental ground for architects. In your book, you also define Los Angeles as a laboratory, what do you think are similarities and differences between the two? Do you have any plan to participate in those experiments happening in China, so far?

MM: I like working in China, and have since we worked on the small pavilion project in Jinhua. We were involved in a competition for the Literature and Art Museum building in Shenzhen, which we didn't win, but I was very interested in the building that we developed for that competition.Currently we're doing work in Chengdu, both planning work and also a series of bridges across the river and lakes; one of these bridges is already in construction, a second one is about to starting construction, and we are finishing the design of a third bridge. So we've stayed involved there, with very specific types of projects. I think that the Chinese culture is fascinating, and I think there are both important similarities and also very important differences between a place like Los Angeles and many of the Chinese cities we are working in. I'm interested in both. One of the things that connect those two places is that the Chinese city, like Los Angeles, is at a defining moment in its history. In many of those cities that are building so intensively they are literally building their futures. LA is at a similar threshold, where it is reinventing itself. We are in a period of time when LA is also transforming once again into what it will be in the future. And the thing that has excited me most about the places that we have had an opportunity to work in in China, is that they are confronting a very similar thing. They are inventing who they will be in the future, and with that that comes an enormous amount of energy, enormous amounts of promise,enormous optimism, and enormous challenge,because at any moment of great expansion, you can either make the most profound mistakes that will be permanent parts of your future or you can make smart and useful changes that will be part of that future. That's an incredible place to be as architects.

JC: So, every city is unique?

MM: I think it is or at least I hope so. I don't know if you fly a lot, which I do, but the worst thing is that all of the airports are becoming exactly the same. The form of the city gate was, in most cities the introduction of the city. It announced the city threshold, very often it was decorated in a way that told you a great deal about the culture. Airports have become those gateways and each airport seems to have become more and more like all the other airports. I think airports are one of the really important typologies, especially for emerging cities,because they set people's expectations of that city.That's why I keep saying when people always ask me what the one project that I haven't done but wouldlike to do is, I say an airport. And some day I’m going to make a good airport!

12. DW: In your writings you said that today's L.A. architects and planners should produce forms that represent this city and its culture, as opposed to importing other urban forms. In China, however,the situation is "opposite". Currently, China is a laboratory for architects all over the world; we are importing all kinds of urban forms. What's your observation on this phenomenon?

MM: Abstractly it is fascinating, because much of the most contemporary thinking about architecture is getting the opportunity to be built in China. So in that sense, China is going to become perhaps the best, largest, and most compelling architecture museum in the world.And that is not necessarily a bad thing because I think many important and powerful cultures over history have imported the best of architecture and building from other places. In Europe, in the seventeenth to eighteenth century, very often a country or a king of monarchy would import artists,musicians and composers from other countries. So I don't think this is necessarily a new phenomenon that we are seeing. But it is happening on a scale and in such a compressed period of time. That is the part that does make it unique. I do think that as this extraordinary development in China continues, each of those different regions, cities,neighborhoods, governments, constituencies,communities, will need to be more and more vocal about ambitions they have for their particular city and find a way to express that. I think in that way the work becomes that much deeper and much richer; it doesn't become something that disappears or is un-useful the day after it has been opened. To me that is the biggest challenge. To build a concert hall or museum without a deep understanding of how these new spaces are going to be programmed or useful in the future, ultimately undermines architecture's validity in the long run. I don't think it is a question of the architecture or the styles,or the importation of foreign architects to China.I think the question is "are the buildings going to have real life after they've finish construction".And if they do, then the complexity that comes from the different architectural voices and the architecture's ambition and its use, will make for a very rich experience for the county and for architecture as a whole.

13. JC: When you established Michael Maltzan Architecture in1995, what was the original "big idea" for you? Do you think you have achieved that goal? Now that your office is approaching 16 years of being in business, what are your plans for the future?

MM: My original ambition for the office was like a lot of architects, a naive one. It was to start doing my own work, to make architecture where you could find your own voice, to make something that represented what you believed about architecture, the city and landscape. I didn't realize how hard that was going to be; I don't think anybody ever does. I think it is important to go into these things with a great amount of naiveté and optimism. We have been very fortunate.For me personally, the firm's achievements are most rewarding as we get closer and closer to my ambition for what architecture's role in culture can be. I don't think we are there yet. We still have a lot of buildings, a lot of designs, that we would like to do, and are excited to try. I hope I never feel that I have fully achieved some final, finite goal. I think architects are restless and constantly critical of the things they've made, and they want to make the next one even better. So the future for me, is hopefully to continue to ask real questions and do exciting projects that explore what is important in those questions. I would love to do more work in China because I think the scale of work happening there is at the scale of urban design. Those types of projects relate strongly to much of the work I have been trying to do in the architecture of individual buildings and landscape,but also in writing. I would like to continue to see our work develop here, to continue to evolve our thinking about the city, to help the idea of the contemporary city evolve. So far so good.

JC & DW: and we are expecting your new works.

MM: Me too, the three of us!

14. JC & DW: Do you believe architecture can change the world?

MM: I do. I still do. I think it is incumbent on architects to continue to believe that, hope for that, and to have ambition for that. I have never seen anything be more consequential in making significant, progressive change for real issues in real places than architecture. It has a very unique capacity. I think architecture can be a model for a more optimistic and more progressive way of looking at our lives and the world around us. It really is extremely capable in that way. □