“城村架構(gòu)”中的一個(gè)磚墻原型
——林君翰先生訪談

范路

“城村架構(gòu)”中的一個(gè)磚墻原型
——林君翰先生訪談

范路

林君翰先生是香港大學(xué)建筑系的副教授和“城村架構(gòu)”（RUF）工作團(tuán)隊(duì)的創(chuàng)始人?！俺谴寮軜?gòu)”成立于2005年，是一個(gè)非盈利機(jī)構(gòu)。它以建筑項(xiàng)目、學(xué)術(shù)研究、展覽和寫作等方式，積極介入中國(guó)大陸的鄉(xiāng)村向城市轉(zhuǎn)變的過程。到目前為止，該機(jī)構(gòu)團(tuán)隊(duì)已經(jīng)在中國(guó)大陸完成了至少15個(gè)項(xiàng)目。這些項(xiàng)目位于大陸不同地區(qū)的鄉(xiāng)村，包括學(xué)校、社區(qū)中心、醫(yī)院、鄉(xiāng)村住宅、橋梁及增量規(guī)劃策略等（圖1、2）。

在這些項(xiàng)目中，坐落于陜西省石家村的“四季”住宅（2009-2012）格外引人注目。它獲得了2014年維納博艮磚筑獎(jiǎng)、2012年WA中國(guó)建筑獎(jiǎng)優(yōu)勝獎(jiǎng)和2012年《建筑評(píng)論》雜志住宅獎(jiǎng)。林君翰先生通過設(shè)計(jì)這座鄉(xiāng)村磚墻住宅，嘗試發(fā)展一種關(guān)于中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)合院住宅的可持續(xù)發(fā)展的現(xiàn)代原型。他還試圖通過使用當(dāng)?shù)匾延薪ㄖ牧虾凸ば?，來溝通傳統(tǒng)和現(xiàn)代。

本訪談旨在呈現(xiàn)石家村住宅中所運(yùn)用的創(chuàng)新性設(shè)計(jì)策略，以及建筑師對(duì)項(xiàng)目背后社會(huì)問題的批判性思考。

關(guān)于“城村架構(gòu)”和石家村

范路：您為何想要于2005年成立“城村架構(gòu)”？該組織的建筑學(xué)目標(biāo)又是什么？

林君翰：“城村架構(gòu)”是我和約書亞·鮑喬弗（Joshua Bolchover）一起成立的，目的是探究中國(guó)的城市化問題。我們認(rèn)為，城市化會(huì)導(dǎo)致積極或消極的后果，而城市化的過程對(duì)于決定結(jié)果非常重要。我們通過合作，試圖找到將學(xué)術(shù)研究與實(shí)際項(xiàng)目相結(jié)合的方式。我們的一個(gè)方法就是在項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行過程中開展研究。這不同于純粹的分析性研究，還是對(duì)建筑項(xiàng)目所產(chǎn)生影響的檢驗(yàn)。我們常常會(huì)想，對(duì)一個(gè)單獨(dú)的項(xiàng)目來說，它能否在鄉(xiāng)村或更大的尺度上解決更多的問題？

1 太平古橋修復(fù)工程，貴州，2007-2009/Taiping Bridge Renovation, Guizhou Province, 2007-2009

范路：在您看來，中國(guó)鄉(xiāng)村向城市轉(zhuǎn)變過程中的主要社會(huì)問題是什么？建筑又能以何種方式來應(yīng)對(duì)這些問題？

林君翰：在這一過程中有許多問題，也有許多可能。但我試圖關(guān)注解決建筑問題的能力。我認(rèn)為，從一種經(jīng)濟(jì)和生活方式向另一種的轉(zhuǎn)變是最大的挑戰(zhàn)。我經(jīng)?；叵肫鸶＝ㄍ翗堑臐u進(jìn)式發(fā)展變化。這種過程不需要建筑師，因?yàn)殡S著數(shù)百年的歲月，建筑創(chuàng)新自然而然地發(fā)生，產(chǎn)生了每一座土樓。而目前，建筑已成為了某種商品。我不認(rèn)為由承包商建造的通用型建筑（generic buildings），能很好地滿足當(dāng)下的需求或生活方式。居住在這些建筑中也并不令人激動(dòng)。我認(rèn)為自己的角色是建筑師，可以為大家提供其他的設(shè)計(jì)選擇。我并不提供單一或最終的解決方案，而是貢獻(xiàn)一些新思路。

范路：“城村架構(gòu)”中的15余個(gè)項(xiàng)目廣泛地分布在中國(guó)大陸地區(qū)——從西北的陜西省到南部的廣東省。這些項(xiàng)目有沒有什么共同之處？

林君翰：我感興趣的是這些項(xiàng)目及其場(chǎng)地的區(qū)別。我們嘗試通過項(xiàng)目來表達(dá)這些不同，即有能力進(jìn)行特定的回答和建造。當(dāng)然，在這些地區(qū)，會(huì)有一些共同的讓人苦惱的壓力和問題，但解決辦法必須來自于當(dāng)?shù)氐莫?dú)特之處。

范路：建造這些項(xiàng)目的資金均來自當(dāng)?shù)剜l(xiāng)村之外的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)。這對(duì)項(xiàng)目的設(shè)計(jì)創(chuàng)新是否有很大幫助？

林君翰：除了“四季”住宅，我們從來沒有過一個(gè)經(jīng)費(fèi)完全自足的項(xiàng)目。這也帶來了“四季”住宅項(xiàng)目的一個(gè)大問題。對(duì)此，我將在后面進(jìn)一步討論。而普遍規(guī)則是，我們的合作伙伴從來沒有為項(xiàng)目提供全部資助。很重要的一點(diǎn)是，每個(gè)項(xiàng)目的所有當(dāng)事方都參與投資。誠然，慈善機(jī)構(gòu)的參與，讓我們能夠探索一些可能性，一些沒有它們參與就無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的可能性。但通常的平衡點(diǎn)是，由當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)支付其力所能及的一部分，其他參與方支付另一部分。

2 桐江再用磚小學(xué)，江西，2009-2012/Tongjiang Recycled Brick School, Jiangxi Province, 2009-2012

范路：當(dāng)“四季”住宅項(xiàng)目計(jì)劃建造時(shí)，石家村最突出的社會(huì)問題是什么？

林君翰：我想再一次提到，我并不試圖解決社會(huì)問題。石家村當(dāng)時(shí)正處在從鄉(xiāng)村向城市轉(zhuǎn)變的過程中。許多舊的“傳統(tǒng)”住宅被拆除，代之以現(xiàn)代的“通用型”住宅。因此，我想要提供一些其他建議。我認(rèn)為某些傳統(tǒng)觀念依然有意義，依然能夠與新想法相結(jié)合，協(xié)同創(chuàng)造更好的住宅。

關(guān)于原型和磚墻

范路：您認(rèn)為“四季”住宅中哪些設(shè)計(jì)策略是最具創(chuàng)新性的？

林君翰：該住宅設(shè)計(jì)并不依賴任何“全新的”觀念，它只是整合各個(gè)局部。我試著將各個(gè)局部更為連貫地整合在一起。我認(rèn)為最后的成功在于該住宅適合石家村，它看上去屬于那里，但同時(shí)又引人注目。這也是我常常用來評(píng)價(jià)其他建筑影響力的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我尋找的是既異質(zhì)又熟悉的東西。

范路：人們可以在“四季”住宅中看到某種均質(zhì)性（homogeneity）。在石家村的傳統(tǒng)住宅中，庭院往往位于中心，其他室內(nèi)房間圍繞其布置。而在“四季”項(xiàng)目中，4個(gè)庭院和室內(nèi)房間并列排布，兩類空間都不占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位（圖3）。從建構(gòu)層面來看，混凝土框架、胡基磚填充墻、鏤空花磚墻3個(gè)層次清晰區(qū)分，分別發(fā)揮各自的作用（圖4）。最外層的鏤空花磚墻表皮呈現(xiàn)了勻質(zhì)的圖案肌理，而沒有反映內(nèi)部空間的不同。所以，是否可以把這種勻質(zhì)性看作是您設(shè)計(jì)中的現(xiàn)代主義成分？

3 傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)宅庭院的剖面透視/Sectional perspective of a typical village house courtyard

John Lin is an associate-professor and cofounder of the working group Rural Urban Framework (RUF) at the University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Architecture. Founded in 2005 as a non-profit organization, RUF is engaged in the rural-urban transformation of China through built projects, research, exhibitions and writing. It has built or is currently engaged in over 15 projects in various villages in China, which include schools, community centers, hospitals, village houses, bridges, and incremental planning strategies (fig.1, 2).

Among these projects, The House for All Seasons in Shijia Village, Shaanxi Province is a compelling one. It was awarded the Wienerberger Brick Award 2014, WA Chinese Architecture Award 2012, and Architectural Review's House Award 2012. Through the design of this brick-wall rural house, Professor John Lin attempts to develop a modern and sustainable prototype of a traditional Chinese courtyard house, and to bridge the gap between the traditional and the modern by using the existing knowledge of local materials and processes.

Thus, this interview aims to present the innovative design strategy of Shijia Village House and the critical thinking of social background behind the project.

On Rural Urban Framework and Shijia Village

FAN Lu: Why did you want to set up RUF in 2005? And what is the architectural objective for this organization?

4“四季”住宅，混凝土框架、胡基磚填充墻、鏤空花磚墻3個(gè)建構(gòu)層次/The House for All Seasons, three tectonic layers - concrete framework, mud brick infill wall and porous brick screen

John Lin: Together with Joshua Bolchover, we wanted to investigate the issue of urbanization in China. We believe that urbanization can lead to positive or negative results and the process of urbanization is very important in determining the outcome. Through our collaboration we tried to find ways to combine research and projects. One of our approaches is to conduct research through the process of doing projects. This level of engagement is different than pure analytical research. Also it's a way of testing the repercussions of an architectural project. Is it possible for a single project to address much larger issues at the scale of the village and beyond?

FAN Lu: In your opinion, what are the main social problems during the process of rural-urban transformation of China and how can architecture respond to those problems?

John Lin: There are many problems and many potentials. But I try to focus on the ability of architecture to address architectural problems. I think the drastic change from one economy and lifestyle to another is the biggest challenge. I often recall the gradual development which can be seen in the tulous. This process didn't need architects because innovation developed naturally over hundreds of years, with the subsequent building of each tulou. Currently, building has become a commodity. I don't think these generic buildings built by contractors respond very well to current requirements or lifestyles, they certainly aren't very inspiring for living in. I see my role as an architect to help offer other options. Not a single or final solution, but to simply contribute through new ideas.

FAN Lu: The locations of over 15 projects in RUF are quite widespread in China - from Shaanxi Province in the Northwest to Guangdong Province in the South. Is there anything these projects share?

John Lin: I am interested in the differences between these projects and sites. This is what we try to manifest through our projects. The ability to respond and build specifically. Of course there are common forces and problems which are afflicting all these areas, but the solution must come from the local, unique and specific qualities of these areas.

FAN Lu: The costs of these projects are all from charity organizations outside of local villages. Did design innovation benefit a lot form this situation?

John Lin: We never do a project which is entirely self-funded. Except for this house. Which is the biggest problem with the house project. I can discuss this later. But as a general rule, our partners never provide the entirety of funds. It is important that all parties are invested in each project. Of course the involvement of a charity allows us to pursue possibilities which wouldn't be possible otherwise. The usual balance is to fund a project that would eventually be within reach of the local community to support on their own.

FAN Lu: What were the prominent social issues in Shijia Village when your project was planned to be built?

John Lin: Again, I don't try to solve social problems. But the village was in a process of transformation. There were many houses being torn down-the old "traditional" house for a modern "generic" house. I wanted to offer other suggestions. I thought some traditional ideas still made sense alongside newer ideas to create greater synergy between the parts of the house.

On Prototype and Brick Wall

FAN Lu: What do you think is the most innovative aspect of design strategy for The House for All Seasons?

John Lin: The house does not rely on any "brand new" idea. Only integration of the parts. I tried to put the parts together in a more coherent way. I think the success ultimately is that the house "fits" in the village, it seems to belong there, but also stands out. I generally use this criteria to judge the impact of any architectural project. I look for something which is both foreign and familiar at the same time.

林君翰：我不清楚。不過我在盡力表達(dá)現(xiàn)代主義的“精神”，而非其歷史定義。這種精神在今天仍然有意義，例如對(duì)于材料和技術(shù)的意識(shí)，渴望以恰當(dāng)方式使用材料和技術(shù)，在建筑中清晰表達(dá)形式、功能及相關(guān)的空間序列等。但最終，我們必須小心，避免對(duì)此進(jìn)行過多的分析。我同意你提到的一點(diǎn)，選擇4個(gè)小的相互協(xié)調(diào)的庭院，是不同于設(shè)置一個(gè)大庭院的。當(dāng)時(shí)我是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)合院住宅庭院的完全內(nèi)向性的體驗(yàn)感興趣。而在“四季”住宅設(shè)計(jì)中，我間隔地設(shè)置了4個(gè)小庭院，覺得這樣可以擴(kuò)展、多樣化原有的體驗(yàn)，并能夠讓住宅的“內(nèi)部更大”。當(dāng)人們依次感受這4個(gè)院子，會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)我為它們賦予了不同的性格。其中一個(gè)院子還直接與屋頂相連。我認(rèn)為這是對(duì)合院住宅觀念的形式探索。當(dāng)然，作為一名建筑師，我有義務(wù)去試著超越我已經(jīng)知道的東西。然而，我強(qiáng)烈地覺得，盡管我們必須利用空間和結(jié)構(gòu)的形式觀念，但還應(yīng)該讓建筑保持某種基本自由，讓住宅中的人自在生活、成長(zhǎng)。建筑不應(yīng)該控制所有的事。

范路： 在 “城村架構(gòu)”的許多項(xiàng)目中，也包括在“四季”住宅中，都設(shè)計(jì)有連接地面的屋頂平臺(tái)（圖5-7）。你們?yōu)楹纹眠@種設(shè)計(jì)手段？

林君翰：我想這是我們的興趣使然。一方面，我們對(duì)連接地面或場(chǎng)地感興趣。我們想要讓建筑與地面發(fā)生聯(lián)系，以產(chǎn)生圍繞建筑的連續(xù)空間。另一方面，我們?cè)噲D讓每個(gè)空間都具有功能，而屋頂總是能提供活動(dòng)場(chǎng)地及最佳視角。我想我們總會(huì)有一些更愛使用的設(shè)計(jì)手段。

范路：您將“四季”住宅看作一個(gè)建筑原型。原型應(yīng)該具有某些普遍性的價(jià)值。那么對(duì)石家村的其他項(xiàng)目來說，它們能夠從“四季”住宅那里獲得什么樣的參考？

林君翰：我認(rèn)為“四季”住宅作為一個(gè)原型，表明了一些可以被用來進(jìn)行組合的觀念。但這并不意味著它可以被不斷地或重復(fù)地建造。我也不認(rèn)為這樣會(huì)產(chǎn)生一個(gè)真正偉大的鄉(xiāng)村。鄉(xiāng)村的品質(zhì)在于每座住宅會(huì)有不同的形式與造型，會(huì)有各種獨(dú)特的影響。鄉(xiāng)村的形態(tài)是由集體共同創(chuàng)造的。只是到了現(xiàn)代建筑時(shí)期，才出現(xiàn)了商品化和千篇一律的問題。我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)“四季”住宅，是希望它能影響住宅創(chuàng)新的過程，而非取代這一過程。

范路：“四季”住宅的單位造價(jià)約是855Rmb/m2。石家村同時(shí)期建造的其他住宅的平均單位造價(jià)是多少？是否造價(jià)成本會(huì)限制其他住宅參考你們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)的原型？

林君翰：“四季”住宅的造價(jià)與其他住宅相似。這也是它能夠產(chǎn)生影響的必由之路。

范路：看項(xiàng)目的總平面圖會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，“四季”住宅孤獨(dú)地矗立在開闊的農(nóng)田中，而距其不遠(yuǎn)處的許多住宅則緊湊地聚集在一起（圖8）。在“四季”項(xiàng)目中，鏤空花磚墻的外皮形成了引人注目的建筑立面，并讓內(nèi)部使用者能透過它看到四周的農(nóng)田。而對(duì)其他住宅來說，最外層的墻體為實(shí)墻，僅起到圍合內(nèi)部空間并分隔相鄰住宅的作用。

林君翰：典型的情況是，住宅并不孤立在場(chǎng)地中。但我們得到的“四季”項(xiàng)目的建設(shè)用地便獨(dú)立在農(nóng)田中。因此，我們?cè)谠擁?xiàng)目設(shè)計(jì)中，不得不找一個(gè)平衡點(diǎn)。讓“四季”住宅既能表現(xiàn)場(chǎng)地的特殊性，又可以成為一個(gè)建筑原型，能夠在許多不同地段上被采用。我認(rèn)為這座住宅很容易就可以有簡(jiǎn)單的實(shí)墻外皮。

范路：我們觀察“四季”項(xiàng)目的一些照片就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，發(fā)生在其室內(nèi)的是公共活動(dòng)（圖9）。所以我們是否可以認(rèn)為，該項(xiàng)目更多是用作社區(qū)中心而非居住住宅？

林君翰：這就涉及到我之前討論過的投資模式和項(xiàng)目性質(zhì)。我認(rèn)為該項(xiàng)目的最大挑戰(zhàn)是：我們按照設(shè)想建造了一座住宅，然后把它“交給”一個(gè)有需要的家庭，但在經(jīng)歷了長(zhǎng)期的咨詢之后，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)根本沒辦法選擇一個(gè)家庭并真實(shí)評(píng)價(jià)其資格。這其中有許多復(fù)雜的政治情況，而我們則被迫去選擇家庭。當(dāng)我們最終對(duì)這一過程失去了信心，我們便決定讓合作慈善機(jī)構(gòu)陜西婦聯(lián)來主導(dǎo)此事。之后，他們有了一些想法，將該建筑用作為需要幫助婦女的臨時(shí)住宅和由他們成立的草編合作社的活動(dòng)基地。這對(duì)一所住宅來說是個(gè)有意思的變化，它同時(shí)包括了家庭使用和公共活動(dòng)的內(nèi)容。個(gè)人認(rèn)為，任何建筑項(xiàng)目最終被社區(qū)完全接受采用，是非常重要的。在此之后，建筑項(xiàng)目就有了它自己的生命。而目前，我正在進(jìn)行另一個(gè)項(xiàng)目，在四川重建20座住宅。那里的家庭會(huì)支付自己住宅建造的大部分費(fèi)用。這也是非常復(fù)雜的政治過程的結(jié)果，給設(shè)計(jì)帶來了緊迫性和更大的阻力，但也為設(shè)計(jì)增加了新的特征。我認(rèn)為在實(shí)現(xiàn)有意義項(xiàng)目的過程中，這些限制條件最終是很重要的。

建筑師常常會(huì)認(rèn)為，如果預(yù)算更充?；驑I(yè)主更為“思想開放”，那建筑構(gòu)想就能更好地實(shí)現(xiàn)。我覺得必須非常小心這一誘人的想法。因?yàn)槌３Ｊ琼?xiàng)目中的約束和限制，讓我們產(chǎn)生了最好的設(shè)計(jì)能力和必要的建筑解決辦法。這是我個(gè)人在鄉(xiāng)村和邊遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)工作的發(fā)現(xiàn)和收獲。限制與創(chuàng)新，本質(zhì)上是不可分的。

5 琴模村小學(xué)，廣東，2006-2008/Qinmo Village Primary School, Guangdong Province, 2006-2008

6 木蘭小學(xué)，廣東，2010-2012/Mulan Primary School, Guangdong Province, 2010-2012

7 “四季”住宅，屋頂平臺(tái)景觀/The House for All Seasons, roof terrace view

8 “四季”住宅，住宅孤立在開闊的農(nóng)田中, 鏤空花磚墻形成外立面/The House for All Seasons, the house isolated in the open farmland with porous brick-wall envelope serving as facades

9 “四季”住宅，室內(nèi)的公共活動(dòng)/ The House for All Seasons, public activities in an interior room

FAN Lu: A sort of homogeneity could be discerned in your Shijia Village project. In traditional housing in Shijia Village, courtyards are always placed in the center and surrounded by other interior rooms. While in your project, four courtyards and interior rooms are juxtaposed, and neither side takes the dominant position (fig.3). In tectonic aspect, three layers - concrete framework, mud brick infill wall and porous brick screen - are clarified and act as their roles respectively (fig.4). And in outermost envelope, the porous brick wall presents the same pattern all over without uncovering different spaces behind. So could this homogeneity be regarded as a modernism in your design?

John Lin: I don't know. Rather than conveying the historic definition of modernism. I try my best to convey the "spirit" of modernism. This is still relevant today. A consciousness of material and technology and the desire to use these in appropriate ways. Also trying through architecture to convey a clarity of form and function linked through spatial sequence. But ultimately we have to be careful not to analyze it too much. I agree that there is a difference of choice to have a single large courtyard versus small integrated courtyards. I suppose I was interested in the traditional idea of a courtyard house, which is an entirely introverted experience. By interspacing the courtyards throughout I felt the experiences could be extended, and diversified and the house would be "larger on the inside". One discovers the courtyards, I gave characteristics to each one, and one of the courtyards is a direct link to the roof. I suppose on a formal level this was my experimentation with the idea of a courtyard house. And of course as an architect, I'm obligated to try and go beyond what I know.

However, I feel very strongly that even though we need to utilize formal ideas concerning the space and structure, there should remain a fundamental freedom about how one lives and grows within the house itself. Architecture shouldn't control everything.

FAN Lu: In many RUF projects including the House for All Seasons, roof terraces that connect the ground could be found (fig.5-7). Why do you prefer to this strategy?

John Lin: I think this happens as a result of our interests. On one hand, we are very interested in the connection to the ground. Or site. We want our projects to work with the ground and therefore form a continuum with the space surrounding a building. On the other hand, we try to make every space functional, therefore the roof always presents the possibility for activity and the best views. I guess we have some tools we like using more than others.

FAN Lu: You regard the House for All Seasons as a prototype, which should have some general significance. So to what aspects of the house could be referenced by other projects in Shijia Village?

John Lin: As a prototype, I mean that it demonstrates some ideas which can be combined together. However I don't mean that it should be built endlessly or repetitiously. I don't think this could make a really great village either. The quality of the villages are that there is individual impact on the form and shape of each family house. The village takes its shape collectively. Its only when we get to modern architecture that commodification and monotony becomes an issue. We planned this house to have an impact on the process of house renovation, NOT to replace it.

FAN Lu: The unit cost for the House for All Season is about 855 RMB/sqm. What is the average unit cost for other contemporary houses built in Shijia Village? Will cost be a limitation that makes the prototype difficult to be referred to in the village?

John Lin: The house is similar in cost to other houses. That's the only way it can work.

FAN Lu: In the site location plan, your project is isolated in the open farmland, while many houses nearby gather together compactly (fig.8). In your project, the porous brick-wall envelope serves as attractive facades and allows people inside to look through into farmland. But for houses nearby, outermost solid walls only enclose their interior spaces and separate one house from another.

John Lin: Although the typical condition is a house that does not stand alone, this is the site we were given. We had to make a balance between designing a house which addressed the specific site meanwhile as a prototype which could be adopted for many different sites. I think the house could easily have a simple solid wall.

FAN Lu: Furthermore, many photos show that a lot of public activities were taking place in interior rooms (fig.9). So can we think that the project function actually more as a community center than a domestic house?

John Lin: This regards the funding model and the project nature which I discussed earlier. I think the biggest challenge with the project was our idea to build a house and then "give" it over to a family in need. After a long process of consultation, we discovered that there was no way to select a family and truly assess their qualification to live in the house. There were too many political entanglements and we were pushed to select certain families. When we lost faith in this process, we decided to allow our partner charity the Shaanxi Women's Federation to manage it. They had some ideas to use it as a temporary house for women in need and also as a base for the straw weaving cooperative that they set up. This was an interesting development for a house to be both a domestic program and a public program. I personally think its important for any architectural project to be eventually adopted completely by the community. It has a life of its own after that. However I am currently working on a reconstruction for 20 houses in Sichuan. The families are paying the majority of the cost for their own house. Its an extremely complicated political process as a result of this. This adds an edge to the project, an urgency and a greater resistance to the design. I think ultimately these constraints are important in realizing meaningful projects.

Often as architects we feel that if the budget was expanded or if our client was more "open minded" our architectural visions could be better realized. I think we have to be careful of this seductive idea. Its often the constraints and limitations that bring out the best of our design ability and the necessity for architectural solutions.This has been one personal discovery while working in rural, remote areas: The inseparable nature of creativity and constraint.

A Brick-wall Prototype in Rural Urban Framework (RUF): An Interview with John Lin

FAN Lu

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院

2014-06-20