西方大學(xué)建筑教育空間概述
——類型與室內(nèi)組織

和馬町

尚晉 譯

西方大學(xué)建筑教育空間概述
——類型與室內(nèi)組織

和馬町

尚晉 譯

教育空間在建筑領(lǐng)域中是一種特別的類型?？臻g在其中可以成為表達(dá)教育理念的手段之一。本文簡要概括了西方大學(xué)建筑教育空間的演變，并通過學(xué)校建筑的設(shè)計類型及其室內(nèi)組織表明建筑教學(xué)的思想。本文據(jù)此分為兩部分：首先回顧這種建筑類型的演變，概括西方世界建筑學(xué)校的設(shè)計史。然后按時間順序展示以自身建筑表達(dá)教育理念的學(xué)校類型，或是學(xué)校的建筑啟發(fā)了教育思想的案例。本文的出發(fā)點是唐納德·舍恩的理論：社會是一個持續(xù)變化的過程，而教學(xué)體系會反映出與之相關(guān)的變化。對西方大學(xué)建筑教育空間的概括表明，教學(xué)體系的演變是后續(xù)建筑理念和教學(xué)原則導(dǎo)致的。在這一過程中，新思想取代了舊教條。其次，在概述之后將簡要考查專門表達(dá)教學(xué)方法的空間思想的室內(nèi)元素，然后再通過選例進(jìn)行對比。最后，總結(jié)可以從中提煉的內(nèi)容。

建筑設(shè)計空間，建筑教育，教育設(shè)計，建筑類型，工作室設(shè)計，評圖空間

1 緒言

首先要說明的是，這樣一篇短文是不可能涵蓋完整的建筑教育空間設(shè)計史的。因為這個設(shè)計史跨越了數(shù)個世紀(jì)，并且其中的許多學(xué)校和建筑都有獨特的發(fā)展歷程。所以本文的意圖不在于完整的設(shè)計史，而是集中概括挑選出來的學(xué)校和相應(yīng)的教育建筑類型，專門論述它們的空間特征。出人意料的是，培養(yǎng)建筑師的空間設(shè)計并沒有深入的研究。關(guān)于建筑設(shè)計教育[1-2]以及培養(yǎng)建筑師的課程設(shè)置[3-4]的研究不勝枚舉，然而對于一個以“創(chuàng)造三維空間并將其用于相關(guān)的人類活動”[1]為首要目標(biāo)的學(xué)科來說，自身的學(xué)科應(yīng)有怎樣的空間竟沒有透徹的研究。這種學(xué)術(shù)資源的匱乏不能用缺少研究材料來解釋，事實上有大量專門為建筑教育設(shè)計的建筑。建筑師與其機(jī)構(gòu)共同努力創(chuàng)造了針對這些學(xué)校建筑教育理念的特殊建筑類型，或者反之從建筑上創(chuàng)造了新的理念。因此，本文將從選擇這些案例開始，并嘗試把各種探索納入一個對比研究中1）。然后從這種概括中提煉出關(guān)于建筑類型和空間組織的觀點。

2 研究方法

本文的研究方法是先對比分析案例研究，對建筑學(xué)校設(shè)計選例按時間順序進(jìn)行梳理。案例研究的方法源自社會科學(xué)領(lǐng)域[5]，并廣泛用于面向?qū)嵺`的領(lǐng)域，比如環(huán)境研究、建筑學(xué)和商業(yè)研究。案例研究對于特定對象的描述和分析尤為有效[6]，并能展開多方面的深入考察[7]。一般來說，案例研究的目的是通過分析一個或多個案例來研究復(fù)雜的現(xiàn)象。所以，案例研究一般被認(rèn)為是“一種宏觀現(xiàn)象的實例，一組類似實例的一部分”[7]。不過，憑借對一個具體案例的詳細(xì)考察很難證明該案例的結(jié)論與情況相似或相反的其他案例之間的關(guān)系。所以就本文而言更合適的方法是，在一個總體系中提供多種案例，然后再對同一起源的各種反應(yīng)進(jìn)行對比分析。雖然更多的案例可以帶來更全面的概括，但本文的研究所能挑選的案例數(shù)量有限，所以作者的選擇將限定在那些通過建筑明確表達(dá)教學(xué)理念，或是某個學(xué)校的建筑啟發(fā)了一種特定教學(xué)思想的案例。本文的另一個目的是從建筑學(xué)校的整個歷史中挑選案例。

3 建筑類型概況

按照唐納德·舍恩的理論[2]，社會處在持續(xù)變化的過程中，教學(xué)體系會反映與之有關(guān)的變化。本文的概括將分為4個不同的時期。在這些時期中，主流的建筑教學(xué)方法在宏觀的社會文化框架中形成，并體現(xiàn)為一種建筑類型和/或建筑教學(xué)體系。這4個框架和時期包括文藝復(fù)興、工業(yè)革命、1960年代后期和1990年代后期。在圖2的時間線中，概括的情況在時間線的圖示上與社會文化環(huán)境相對應(yīng)，每座學(xué)校的建筑形象都作了簡化和統(tǒng)一。圖1以軸測圖示的對比表現(xiàn)出各個學(xué)校的建筑類型。圖5是各所學(xué)校簡化的建筑類型圖示。

3.1 文藝復(fù)興

17世紀(jì)，法國政府首次將建筑學(xué)列入美術(shù)教育，支持學(xué)校培養(yǎng)藝術(shù)家。在過去，藝術(shù)與其他行業(yè)共用由社團(tuán)或行會提供的教育設(shè)施，施行在匠師的作坊或家中學(xué)徒的制度[8]?！罢降慕ㄖW(xué)校創(chuàng)立之后，面對當(dāng)時的價值體系和政府的需要，出現(xiàn)了唯一的教育模式”[1]。在當(dāng)時的文藝復(fù)興時期，這種教育模式被稱作“巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院體系”。奧默·埃金[10]認(rèn)為，巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院出自支持學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)的政府系統(tǒng)。它成立的目標(biāo)在于教育，而不是職業(yè)培訓(xùn)?？屏炙?指出，巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院體系與法國的特征和傳統(tǒng)相去甚遠(yuǎn)，在本質(zhì)上是意大利式的[10]。這是合理的，因為那是源自希臘和羅馬帝國的古典主義價值觀重生的時代，而將意大利作為建筑教育根源的觀點也通過建筑本身出現(xiàn)在當(dāng)代。巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院的建筑學(xué)院在一座專門為其設(shè)計的建筑中，它被稱作“研習(xí)宮”。這座建筑是費利克斯·迪邦設(shè)計的，以布拉曼特設(shè)計的意大利文藝復(fù)興宮殿、羅馬文書院宮為原型。這座建筑被設(shè)計為陳列展廳，即大門上寫的“研習(xí)博物館”。里面展示了建筑模型的鑄件、古董的復(fù)制品和學(xué)生的獲獎作品（圖3）。在迪邦原來的建筑中，這個展廳在一個露天庭院中[11]，后來增加了頂蓋，讓學(xué)生可以在里面觀察和臨摹這些復(fù)制品。巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院體系一直是主流的教育模式，而這些建筑表明建筑的價值就在于它們是研習(xí)典范的圣殿。世界各地的學(xué)校都從這一理念出發(fā)，采用了相似的建筑類型——先是在歐洲，19世紀(jì)末是在美國。

3.2 工業(yè)革命

在第一個時期之后，社會文化價值觀因工業(yè)革命帶來的技術(shù)進(jìn)步而改變，建筑教學(xué)也隨之一變。社會上的所有建筑和工序都采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的思想，涌現(xiàn)出大量工廠式的空間。新的材料使輕盈、通透、多用的建筑成為可能。這種發(fā)展只帶來了一種巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院之外的體系，并表達(dá)出新的價值體系——德國包豪斯[1]。用魏瑪包豪斯學(xué)校的設(shè)計者瓦爾特·格羅皮烏斯的話來說，“新建筑像甩開窗簾一樣推倒它的墻壁，讓清新的空氣和陽光充滿房間。它不再用沉重的基礎(chǔ)將房屋死死地固定在地上，而是讓它們輕輕地、穩(wěn)穩(wěn)地立在地面上；它的姿態(tài)沒有效顰的風(fēng)格，也沒有艷俗的裝飾，而是以簡潔明快的設(shè)計造型，讓每一處都自然地融入整體?！盵12]但走上這條道路的不只是歐洲，這一時期的很多重要建筑師都在兩戰(zhàn)期間前往美國，將包豪斯的思想傳播到世界的各個角落。比如，密斯·凡·德·羅的芝加哥伊利諾伊理工學(xué)院克朗樓就體現(xiàn)出格羅皮烏斯包豪斯通透輕盈的特征。密斯將克朗樓稱為“普適空間”，因為這個設(shè)計允許建筑改變功能，并且建筑的重點是周邊環(huán)境的持久。在它落成之際，密斯宣布“它是我們創(chuàng)造的最清晰的建筑，完美地體現(xiàn)了我們的理念”[13]（圖9）。在南美，在西方現(xiàn)代建筑的巨大影響下，“普適空間”的概念體現(xiàn)在巴西圣保羅建筑與城市學(xué)院的設(shè)計上。它的建筑師認(rèn)為，這所學(xué)院的設(shè)計理念是創(chuàng)造空間連續(xù)性。所以，建筑的6層都是通過坡道體系連接起來的，給人一個平面的感受并推崇連續(xù)的路線，從而提高了使用者同在一地、相互交流的程度。建筑沒有大門、樓梯或小空間，其用意在于創(chuàng)造讓人盡情施展的空間 （圖12）。

1 Introduction

First of all we should note that it is impossible in a brief article like this one to cover a complete history of the design of architectural education spaces, since this history stretches over several centuries and includes dozens of individual schools and structures with their own development and respective histories. Therefore this article does not attempt to provide such a complete history, but rather confines itself to a brief overview of selected schools and respective typologies of architectural educational, and specifically their spatial characteristics. The design of spaces in which architects are educated is surprisingly not very well studied. There is plenty of research on architectural design education[1-2], and on how to design a curriculum to teach architects[3-4], but for a discipline that has the primary concern "to produce three dimensional spaces and to accommodate related human activities"[1]it is indeed surprising to find very little coherent research regarding in what type of spaces this should happen for it's own discipline. And this lack of academic resources cannot be explained through a lack of available study material for instance, in fact there is a whole series of buildings specifically designed for architectural education in which the architect, together with the institute that it houses, has tried to create a very specific building type for the school's specific ideology regarding architectural education, or vice versa. This paper thus starts with a selection of these individual cases and should be read as an attempt to combine these various efforts into one comparative study1）. It is from this overview that this paper then has tried to distill a review of typologies and organization.

2 Methodology

The methodology for this paper follows the initial set up of a comparative case-study analysis, presenting a chronological overview of selected cases of designs of schools of architecture. The case-study method stems from the realm of the social sciences[5], is also widely used in practice-oriented fields such as environmental studies, architecture, and business studies. Case studies can be particularly helpful to refer to the description and analysis of a particular entity[6]and they can provide an in-depth multifaceted investigation[7]. Normally, the purpose of a case-study is to study a complex phenomena by means of making analysis of one or more cases. Hence, the case study is usually seen as "an instance of a broader phenomenon, as part of a larger set of parallel instances"[7]. However, with a detailed investigation of one particular case it can be hard to show how the conclusions of this case can be placed in reference to other cases with similar, or different conditions. It is therefore in the context of this paper, more suitable to provide a multitude of cases within one overall system and to then create a comparative analysis of different responses to the same starting point. Though more cases can thus give a more complete overview, there was a limit to the amount of cases that were able to be picked for the research in this paper, so the author limited the selection of cases to those that in themselves explicitly expressed a teaching ideology in their architecture, or, reversely, cases where the architecture of a particular school informed a particular idea on teaching. In addition, the aim was to select cases from the entire history of individual schools of architecture.

3 A Concise Overview of Typologies

Following Donald Schon[2], who states that society is in a continuing process of transformation, and the learning systems respond to changes associated with this transformation, the review is grouped into four distinct periods, in which a prevailing architectural pedagogy resulted from a broader social-cultural framework that was translated into a type of architecture and/or architectural learning system. We identified four such frameworks and periods: the Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, Post 1960's and Post 1990's. In the accompanying timeline (Fig. 2), this overview is displayed against the social-cultural context in a graphic timeline, with simplified uniform images of each school's building. Fig. 1 shows the various schools' typologies in a diagrammatic axonometric comparison. Fig. 5 displays the simplified typological diagram for the various schools.

3.1 Renaissance

1 建筑學(xué)校選例軸測圖/Axonometric overview of selected schools of architecture（繪制/Image: 和馬町/ Martijn de Geus）

2 建筑教育的建筑類型史總覽/Historic overview of typologies of architecture education（繪制/Image: 和馬町/Martijn de Geus）

In the seventeenth century, the national government of France undertook for the first time to foster architecture as one of the fine arts by supporting schools for the education of artists. Formerly, the arts had shared with other trades those educational facilities provided by the corporations or guilds under the system of apprenticeships carried on in the workshops or homes of the master craftsmen themselves.[8]"With the establishment of formal architecture schools, there was only one model of education that emerged in response to the value system of the time and the needs of the government[1]. The time was the Renaissance, and the education model was called "Beaux-Arts". According to Omer Akin[9], the Ecole Des Beaux Arts emerged from a system of government which sponsored the academic institutions and was established as an educational program as opposed to a vocational program. Collins points out that the beaux-arts system in France, far from being characteristically and traditionally French, is essentially Italian.[10]This is understandable, as it was the time of rebirth of classical values originating from the Greek and Roman Empire, and this reference to Italy as the source for architectural education was also expressed in more contemporary references through the architecture itself. The school of architecture at the Ecole Des Beaux Arts was housed in a purposefully designed structure called "palais d'etudes". The building was designed by Félix Duban who modelled it after an Italian Renaissance Palace designed by Bramante, the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. The building was designed as a sort of gallery of objects, a Museum of Studies as written above the entrance door, to present castings of architectural patterns, copies of antiques and award-winning works of students (Fig. 3). In the original Duban building, this gallery was in an open courtyard[11], it was covered later, in which students could observe and draw these copies. The Beaux-arts system was long the dominant style of education, and the buildings represented the architectural values clearly as a palace for studying exemplary projects. Various other schools around the world, first in Europe, later around the late 19th century also in the United States, were started with this ideology and followed similar building typologies.

3.2 Industrial Revolution

Following the first period, architectural learning then adapted as social-cultural values changed in response to technological changes stemming from the Industrial Revolution. All structures and processes in society followed ideas of standardisation and factory-like spaces emerged in which new materials enabled light, open and flexible structures. Out of this revolution, only one alternative to the Beaux-Arts developed that embodied the changed value systems, the Bauhaus in Germany[1]. In the words of Walter Gropius, designer of the Bauhaus School in Weimar: "the New Architecture throws open its walls like curtains to admit a plenitude of fresh air, daylight and sunshine. Instead of anchoring buildings ponderously into the ground with massive foundations, it poises them lightly, yet firmly, upon the face of the earth; and bodies itself forth, not in stylistic imitation or ornamental frippery, but in those simple and sharply modelled designs in which every part merges naturally into the comprehensive volume of the whole."[12]Following the particular approach was not only limited to Europe though, as some of the key architects of this period moved to the United States during the times of the two World Wars and brought the modern Bauhaus ideas to the rest of the world. For instance with Mies van der Rohe's Crown Hall for the school of architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, which followed the open, light and airy characteristics of Gropius' Bauhaus. Mies called the Crown Hall a "universal space", because its design permits change in the function of the building while the architecture focuses on the permanence of the building's surroundings. Upon its opening, Mies van der Rohe declared it "the clearest structure we have done, the best to express our philosophy"[13](Fig. 9). In South America, heavily influenced by the modern Western architecture, the concept of "universal space" was also adhered to in the design of the 'Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism' in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Here the principle design of the school was, according to the architects, based on the idea of generating spatial continuity. Therefore, its six levels are linked by a system of ramps in an attempt to give the feeling of a single plane and favour continuous routes, increasing the degree of coexistence and interaction among those who use it. There are no entrance doors, stairs or small spaces, the intention being the generation of a space in where you can perform any activity that you need to (Fig. 12).

3.3 Post 1960's

The technological advancements stemming from the Industrial Revolution were put to use after the two World Wars following a time of rapid rebuilding and standardisation of building processes. It then took until the (late) 1960's that social values had changed again in such a way as to enforce a radical paradigm shift in architecture, defined by rich diversification based upon further socialcultural experiments, again in line with the spirit of the time. The 1968 destruction of the Pruitt–Igoe urban housing projects designed by Minoru Yamasaki signified a pivotal change in thinking about architecture, away from the anonymous factory, toward more diversified, socially oriented, experimental spatial typologies. This shift was started perhaps with the Yale School of Architecture, designed by Paul Rudolph. Finished in 1963, the architect seems to have anticipated the social-cultural change, since instead of clear, flexible open spaces, the building has quite a complex network of smaller, very particular spaces which are connected in labyrinthine ways (Fig. 16). According to Daga[14]the building turns into a story book, as you pass through varying volumes and spaces of different densities which take on different activities. These create private little pockets and small spaces for different programs. The TU Delft School of Architecture's new building of that time, Bouwkundeiby Broek-Bakema, also purposefully tried to break the all-is-possible-box structure. The architects literally divided the several components of an all-encompassing box up into public elements that could be regrouped along a central street and private study spaces into a slab hovering above the street (Fig. 4). The public elements included the canteen, model shop, drawing studios, etc. and were configured along a central street that resembled an actual outdoor street, with streetlights and informal seating places for exchange and interaction.

3.3 1960 年代后

在一段快速重建和建筑流程標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的時期之后，工業(yè)革命帶來的技術(shù)成就在兩戰(zhàn)之后應(yīng)用開來。到了1960年代（末），社會價值觀再次發(fā)生變化，迫使建筑的范式徹底轉(zhuǎn)變。其本質(zhì)是源于社會文化試驗發(fā)展的多元化，而這又是與時代的精神一致的。1968年，山崎實設(shè)計的普魯伊特-艾戈城市住宅樓被拆除，標(biāo)志著建筑思想的重大轉(zhuǎn)變：從毫無特征的工廠走向更多元、面向社會的試驗空間類型。這種轉(zhuǎn)變或許是從保羅·魯?shù)婪蛟O(shè)計、1963年建成的耶魯建筑學(xué)院開始的。這位建筑師似乎預(yù)見到了社會文化的變化，因為這座建筑不是清晰、多用的開放空間，而是以許多特殊的小空間組成的復(fù)雜網(wǎng)絡(luò)，并像迷宮般連接在一起（圖16）。達(dá)加[14]認(rèn)為，當(dāng)人穿過形狀不同、疏密有致、活動各異的空間時，建筑就成了一本故事書。這會形成私密的小空間，承載不同的功能。當(dāng)時的代爾夫特理工大學(xué)建筑樓Bouwkundei是Broek-Bakema建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計的，他們試圖以此打破萬能盒子的建筑模式。建筑師將一個通用方盒子的許多部位分成了若干公共空間，再沿中央大街和個人研習(xí)空間組合到大街上的板樓中（圖4）。這些公共空間包括食堂、模型室、制圖工作室等。它們沿著一條中央大街布置，一如真的室外街道，有紅綠燈和供人溝通交流的休閑座位。

3 巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院研習(xí)宮中庭/Beaux Arts Palais d'Etudes Centre Courtyard（圖片來源：http://www.grandemasse.org/?c=actu&p=ENSBAENSA_genese_evolution_enseignement_et_lieux_enseignement）

4 代爾夫特理工大學(xué)建筑樓概念草圖/TU Delft Bouwkunde concept sketch（繪制/Image: Broek-Bakema）

沿公共流線布置各個空間要素的相似手法被弗蘭克·勞埃德·賴特用在西塔里埃森建筑學(xué)校上，盡管其建筑表達(dá)和場地條件帶來了一種截然不同的建筑類型。賴特的學(xué)校構(gòu)成猶如一座草原小鎮(zhèn)，各種各樣的建筑要素創(chuàng)造出豐富多元的內(nèi)部空間，而與外部空間的緊密聯(lián)系營造出一種豐富的內(nèi)外溝通。這樣，建筑融入了景觀，而不是“固定在地上”（文藝復(fù)興）或者“輕輕地立在地面上”（包豪斯）。阿爾多·凡·艾克的孤兒院也從建筑類型上探討了建筑與景觀的這種關(guān)系。它是貝爾拉格建筑學(xué)院的所在地，并讓室內(nèi)空間成為一種連續(xù)的學(xué)習(xí)景觀2）。

3.4 1990 年代后

在過去的20～30年中，新的建筑學(xué)院如雨后春筍出現(xiàn)在世界各地。隨著社會價值體系的變化，建筑類型又一次發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)變?；蛟S可以說1960年代后的大量空間試驗形成了兩種主要的建筑類型：“混合體”與“盒中盒”?；旌象w類源于可持續(xù)發(fā)展的環(huán)境意識帶來的社會文化轉(zhuǎn)變。其出發(fā)點是再利用與再生，而不是新建。這種趨勢已經(jīng)體現(xiàn)在1990年創(chuàng)辦的貝爾拉格建筑學(xué)院上。這種再利用的思路也為原有建筑增添了元素，使它們適合建筑教育。盒中盒類或許源于快速變化的教育環(huán)境，同時技術(shù)帶來了建造與設(shè)計流程的變革，使未來的空間需求難以把握。由此產(chǎn)生的盒中盒類建筑區(qū)分了確定和不確定的元素，維續(xù)了設(shè)計的有效性。

混合體類建筑的例子是2008年代爾夫特理工大學(xué)的“BK城”。在上文提到的Broek-Bakema設(shè)計的建筑失火倒塌之后，學(xué)校決定對大學(xué)的一座老建筑進(jìn)行全面、快速的復(fù)興。出乎意料的是，在對原有建筑的再利用之外，學(xué)院要求建筑師團(tuán)隊提出擴(kuò)建和再利用的方案。建筑教育的特有空間放在新加了頂?shù)耐ピ褐?，而原建筑設(shè)置了靈活的桌臺、辦公室和工作室（圖8）。

5 建筑類型簡化圖示/Simplified typological scheme

OMA作的康奈爾大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院擴(kuò)建方案采用了相似的模式，用懸浮的方盒子這個新要素重新定義現(xiàn)有的傳統(tǒng)建筑類型。新的米爾斯坦連廊懸浮在半空中，將多座老建筑連接起來，并為學(xué)院增加了新的空間類型（圖10、11）。莫斯科的斯特列爾卡學(xué)院采用了一種更為分散的混合體模式，在空間布局上與賴特的“草原小鎮(zhèn)概念”相近：用松散的建筑元素創(chuàng)造出像游樂場一樣的城市環(huán)境，從而為學(xué)院和整個城市的環(huán)境服務(wù)。這樣它不僅激活了原有的建筑，更為周邊的戶外環(huán)境注入了生命（圖7）。

A similar idea of arranging individual spatial elements along public circulation was used by Frank Lloyd Wright in his Taliesin West School of Architecture, although the architecture expression and site conditions created a very different typology. Wright's school was grouped almost like a small prairie town, in which the various architectural elements created very diversified internal spaces, and the close connection with the outdoor space enabled a rich inside out dynamic. The building thus became part of the landscape, rather than "anchored into the ground" (Renaissance) or "lightly poised upon the earth" (Bauhaus). This relation of building to landscape was also typologically explored by Aldo van Eyck's Orphanage, home of the Berlage Institute, in which the building enables the interior spaces to become a continuous learning landscape2）.

3.4 Post 1990's

In the past two to three decades there has been a global increase in the building of new schools of architecture and again a shift in typologies following changing social value systems. Or perhaps we can say that it seems the wide-ranging spatial experiments of the post-1960's have resulted in two dominant typologies; the "patchwork" and the 'box-in-box'. The patchwork type stems from the social-cultural shift following sustainable environmental awareness. The starting point is to re-use and re-generate rather than build new, a trend already expressed by the Berlage Institute in 1990. A part of this re-use strategy is also adding elements to existing buildings that make them suitable for architectural education. The box-in-box type perhaps finds its origin in an increasingly rapidly changing educational environment, with technology leading a change in the process of building and design, in which future spatial requirements are not clear. The resulting "box-inbox" typology splits itself between certain and un-certain elements and thus maintaining efficient planning.

Examples of the Patchwork typology typology included TU Delft's 2008 "BK City", in which the school decided to opt for an extensive, and swiftly executed regeneration of a former university building rather then building a completely new one, following the sudden fire and collapse of the Broek-Bakema designed building mentioned earlier. What is surprising in addition to reusing an existing building, is that the school asked a team of architects to come up with a strategy to add and re-use. Specific architectural education spaces were housed in newly covered courtyards, and the existing structure was to house the more flexible desks, offices and studios. See Fig. 8 for an impression of the model shop, housed in a newly covered former courtyard.

Cornell University's School of Architecture extension by OMA follows a similar model, in which one new element, a floating box, radically redefines the existing traditional typology. The new, floating, Milstein Hall connects several much older structures and at the same time adds new spatial typologies to the school (Fig. 10, 11). The Strelka Institute in Moscow, Russia uses a more scattered patchwork strategy, similar in spatial arrangement to Frank Lloyd Wrights "prairie town idea", in which loosely placed architectural elements create an almost playground like urban environment that serves both the school and the wider urban context. It thus not only regenerates the existing buildings, but becomes a catalyst for the surrounding exterior area as well (Fig. 7).

6 室內(nèi)空間組織原則總覽/Overview of interior organizational principles4）（5.6圖片來源/Sources: 和馬町/Martijn de Geus）

最后是兩個“盒中盒”類建筑的例子。一個是伯納德·屈米設(shè)計的巴黎馬爾納·拉瓦萊學(xué)院。建筑師認(rèn)為，這所學(xué)院的設(shè)計“前提是存在事件的‘建筑-生成因素’，它會加速或強(qiáng)化發(fā)展過程中的已有文化社會變化?！彼诳臻g上轉(zhuǎn)化為一種中心空間，成為在精雕細(xì)刻的“方盒子”中承載主要公共功能的社會環(huán)境，而周圍是在中庭邊緣更“私密”的部分。

第二個例子是JWA/NADAAA設(shè)計的墨爾本大學(xué)設(shè)計學(xué)院（MSD），它們采用了同樣的空間方案。設(shè)計包括了中央的工作室大廳，周圍是工作室和辦公室空間。大廳里懸掛的造型空間之中是會議室。工作室大廳是一個多功用的大空間，“可在一天之中隨意使用”[15]。這個設(shè)計另一個值得注意的地方是中庭的邊緣在公共與個人空間之間創(chuàng)造出了可用的緩沖帶（圖13）。

4 室內(nèi)空間組織表達(dá)的教學(xué)理念

在為建筑教育設(shè)計的建筑類型之外，教學(xué)方法也在很大程度上依賴室內(nèi)空間的組織。建筑教育有各種特定的教學(xué)空間組成部分，它們可以根據(jù)主流的教學(xué)理念進(jìn)行不同的設(shè)計和闡釋。雖然下文列出的內(nèi)容并不完整，并且一所學(xué)校通常不需要（所有）這些組成部分，但在建筑教育的總體類型設(shè)計中，它確實有助于理解某些特定的空間屬性。因此，下面從前文提到的學(xué)校中選出了3種基本的空間要素實例，進(jìn)行圖像比較（圖6）。

4.1 學(xué)生的排布

7 斯特列爾卡建筑學(xué)院公共論壇/Strelka public forum（圖片來 源/Source: 斯特列爾卡設(shè)計學(xué)院/Strelka）

為了畫圖，不論是用筆記本電腦、臺式機(jī)還是草圖工具和繪圖紙，學(xué)生都需要一個平面來工作。最常見的形式是桌子，這乍看起來是設(shè)計學(xué)校必備的。不過，桌子的類型和布局將在很大程度上影響或體現(xiàn)教學(xué)的理念。比如，桌子的大小能否用來畫表現(xiàn)圖、做建筑模型，還是只能放下一個筆記本電腦；這會決定學(xué)生們是否愿意用模型室來開展小組合作，還是待在自己的桌子上。另外，每張桌子是否背對背（如哈佛的岡德樓）、相互獨立，還是分組集中（耶魯）；或者采用開放平面的辦公室風(fēng)格（康奈爾，圖10），在讀期間分配給個人（如哈佛研究生院，圖15），每天更換安排（代爾夫特理工大學(xué)）還是隨意使用（斯特列爾卡），都會影響教學(xué)的可能性。它將決定學(xué)生是愿意交流還是獨自安坐。

4.2 流線

所有的學(xué)校都需要組織流線，就像需要桌子一樣。而正如桌子能表達(dá)理念，流線也會影響各種創(chuàng)意學(xué)科的教育空間。特別是學(xué)生或小組之間的流線，或者學(xué)校公共部分（如講堂或模型室）與個人工作區(qū)之間的流線。以流線作為建筑語匯表達(dá)教學(xué)體系的途徑很多。水平流線可以成為自由交流和會面的場所（如墨爾本大學(xué)設(shè)計學(xué)院，圖13）。垂直交通可以設(shè)計成相互連通的街道，而不用電梯（如圣保羅的FAU，圖12）?；蛘呖梢杂枚询B元素作為落臺，讓學(xué)生站起身就能看見其他人的工作進(jìn)展，同時保持自己的私密性（哈佛大學(xué)設(shè)計研究生院，圖15）。

4.3 評圖空間

建筑教育特有的是評圖空間：學(xué)生將作業(yè)掛起來，向設(shè)計評委展示。針對評圖設(shè)計的空間一般分為兩類：專用評圖空間或多用評圖空間。在耶魯，評圖空間是多用的，它被稱為評圖大廳，在樓層中央為雙層高。大廳四面敞開，與擺滿學(xué)生繪圖桌的工作室空間相通。在不評圖時它也可以用于其他公共活動。工作室空間是圍繞這個中央評圖空間布置的，并與工作室空間的上部夾層相連（圖16剖面）。這些上部空間成了“俯瞰下方的空中樓層，讓人們可以聚會也可以獨處；分而不離”[14]。不過在塔里埃森，評圖空間的位置大不相同，沒有端放在注意力的焦點上；而是一個獨立的部分，有沙發(fā)和躺椅，營造出一種更輕松的展示環(huán)境（圖14）。

5 結(jié)語

本文首先嘗試為對比建筑教育的各類空間確定基礎(chǔ)，但沒有對其設(shè)計意圖的成功實現(xiàn)作深入的總結(jié)，也不對其利用作主觀評價。事實上，盡管從前文的概括中不能直接看出，但如果將表1與2017年QS世界前100所建筑學(xué)院的排名進(jìn)行對比就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，并不是所有的頂級西方建筑學(xué)校（包括MIT、劍橋和蘇黎世理工學(xué)院）都有專門針對各自教學(xué)類型設(shè)計的建筑。因此，這種聯(lián)系對于根據(jù)理念提高教育的質(zhì)量是否必要，是可以討論的。因為排名第一的建筑學(xué)院3）、麻省理工大學(xué)就在一座“萬神廟風(fēng)格”的建筑里。從建筑類型的保守性來看，這與前瞻性的教學(xué)理念是背道而馳的。不過，排名前10的西方學(xué)校大多數(shù)都有表達(dá)其教學(xué)理念或與之相適應(yīng)的建筑，包括代爾夫特理工大學(xué)、哈佛研究生院、加州大學(xué)伯克利分校和巴特萊特建筑學(xué)院。第二，對于有專門為其教學(xué)類型設(shè)計建筑的學(xué)校，似乎在學(xué)校的教學(xué)方法與教育空間的設(shè)計和使用之間的確存在一種密切的聯(lián)系。第三，在總體類型中有各種各樣的室內(nèi)組織特征，在建筑類型之外表達(dá)出學(xué)校教學(xué)特色。第四，我們可以從歷史概括中看到特定的基本類型。其中有兩種是當(dāng)代的主流之選：“盒中盒”與可持續(xù)的“混合體”再生策略。

8 代爾夫特理工“BK城”模型室/TU Delft "BK City" model shop

9 伊利諾伊理工學(xué)院克朗樓工作室內(nèi)部/ITT Crown Hall studio interior（圖片來源/Source: Becca Waterloo: https://bwaterloo.wordpress.com/）

最后，張利教授在關(guān)于設(shè)計教學(xué)空間教學(xué)方法的文章中指出，設(shè)計教學(xué)的空間對建立我們的建筑價值觀有舉足輕重的影響[16]。本文希望證明建筑教育空間的設(shè)計能夠并且已經(jīng)表達(dá)出了一種思想或與建筑教育有關(guān)的價值觀。所以，如果說建筑教育的空間在歷史上體現(xiàn)出了社會文化的時代精神及其在特定空間類型上的表達(dá)，那么我們作為建筑師和教育家就應(yīng)該捫心自問：最適合表達(dá)當(dāng)代時代精神及其建筑教育觀點的空間是什么？在將這個問題作為建筑師品味或理念的個人表達(dá)之外，或許本文可以作為在建筑教育空間類型演變的宏觀過程中探討這一問題的一個起點?！?/p>

Lastly, two examples of the 'box-in'box typology. Firstly, the Marne La Vallee school in Paris, France by Bernard Tschumi. According to the architect, the design of the school "begins from the thesis that there are 'buildinggenerators' of events which (…) accelerate or intensify a cultural and social transformation that is already in progress." Spatially this translates to a central space as a social environment that houses the main public programs in sculpted "boxes", surrounded by more "private" components around the atrium's edge.

The second example, Melbourne University's School of Design (MSD), designed by JWA/ NADAA, follows this same spatial strategy. The design comprises of a central Studio Hall, surrounded by studio and office spaces, with meeting rooms inside a sculptural volume floating in the hall. The Studio Hall itself is a large flexible space that "provides for informal occupation over all times of the day"[15]. Notable in this design is also how the edge of the atrium provides an inhabitable buffer between the public and the private spaces (Fig. 13).

4 Teaching Ideology Expressed Through Interior Organization

In addition to the architectural typology of the buildings designed for architectural education, the teaching pedagogy is also heavily relying on the interior organization. There are various specific didactic spatial components for architectural education, and these can be designed and interpreted differently according to a prevailing teaching ideology. Although the following list is not complete, and a school arguably does not need (all of) the listed components below, it does help us understand some specific spatial characteristics considered within the overall typological design for architectural education. Thus below are three basic examples of spatial elements picked from the before-mentioned schools, they are also graphically put together for comparison in Fig. 6.

4.1 Student Arrangement

In order to draw, whether it's on a laptop, fixed computer or sketch roll and paper, a student needs a flat surfaces to work on. This is most often in the form of a desk, which initially seems an arbitrary element in the design of schools, however, the type of desk and its arrangement can heavily influence or communicate the educational ideology. For instance, whether the size of a desk allows for drawing presentation drawings, or building models, or only has room for a laptop determines whether students are encouraged to use a model shop for group work, or instead remain fixed to their own desks. Or whether the desks are individually placed back to back (eg. Harvard's Gund Hall, Fig. 15), separated, or grouped together in small groups (Yale) or in an open plan office style (Cornell, Fig. 10), or perhaps assigned to a person throughout for the duration of the program (Harvard GSD), or flexibly defined on a day to day basis (TU Delft), or informally occupied (Strelka) all influence the teaching possibilities. It determines whether a student is encouraged to interact, or to stay put.

4.2 Circulation

All schools also need circulation, like they all need desks. In the same way that a desk communicates a philosophy, so does the circulation influence spaces for education of creative disciplines. In particular the circulation between one student, or groups of students. Or the circulation between public parts of the school, like lecture halls or model shops, and private working areas. There are various way the learning system can be expressed in the way the circulation is part of the architectural expression. Perhaps the horizontal circulation becomes a place for informal exchange and meetings (like at the Melbourne School of Design, Fig. 13), or the vertical circulation is designed as a connecting, continuous street instead of using elevators (like at Sao Paulo's FAU, Fig. 12). Or, you can use the stacking of elements as a stepped terrace so that students can look out onto each other's work in progress if they stand up, while still maintaining their individual privacy (Harvard GSD, Fig. 15).

4.3 Critic Space

Very specific for architectural education are the critic or review spaces, in which students pin up and present their works in front of a design jury. Designs for these reviews broadly fall into two categories; designated review space, or flexible review spaces. In Yale, the crit space is a flexible space conceived as a double height volume in the centre of the floor, called the review hall. It is open from all sides and pours out in the studio spaces with student desks, which can be used for other public activities when there are no reviews taking place. The studio spaces are actually arranged around this central review space and are connected to the upper mezzanine of studio spaces, clearly represented in the section in Fig. 16. These upper spaces become "overlooking, floating slabs which give an opportunity to be together, yet separate; involved yet detached"[14]. In Taliesin however, the review space is very differently situated, not very formal in the centre of the attention, but in a separated section, with sofas and lounge chairs that allow for a more informal presentation environment (Fig. 14).

5 Conclusion

This article has tried foremost to find a base to compare the several types of spaces for architectural education, and should not be seen as an in-depth conclusion about the success of their intentions, or a subjective valuation of their appropriation. In fact, though not directly clear from the previous overview, if we compare attached Table 1 to the 2017 QS raking of top hundred schools of architecture in the world, not all the top-ranked Western architectural schools (including MIT, Cambridge or ETH Zurich) have buildings designed specifically for their respective teaching typology. Whether such a link is necessary to foster the quality of education in line with the ideology is thus debatable, as the school of architecture ranked 1st in the ranks , the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is housed in a "Pantheon style" building which in its typological conservatism couldn't be more opposite with their forward oriented teaching philosophy. However, of the top ten ranked western schools, most of them have buildings that express, or are made to fit for their teaching ideology, including TU Delft, Harvard GSD, UC Berkeley, Bartlett. Secondly, for the ones that do have buildings designed specifically for their respective teaching typology, there indeed seems to be a strong connection to the pedagogy of the school and the use and design of the educational spaces. Thirdly, within the over-arching typology there is a palette of interior organizational characteristics that in addition to the typology of the architecture express the teaching character of the school. Fourthly, we can identify specific base typologies in the historic overview, of which two seem to be the most dominant contemporary choices: the "box in box" and the sustainable "patchwork" regeneration strategy.

11 新的米爾斯坦樓與兩座原有建筑的組合方式/How the new Milstein Hall is integrating two existing structures（圖片來源/Source: OMA www.oma.eu）

10 康奈爾大學(xué)米爾斯坦樓室內(nèi)鳥瞰/Aerial interior photograph of Milstein Hall, Cornell University （圖片來源/Source: Brett Beyer: http://brettbeyerphotography.com/）

表1 選例年表 /Table 1 Historic Overview of Selected Cases

12 圣保羅大學(xué)建筑與城市學(xué)院：沒有大門、樓梯或小空間，各層由坡道相連/Architecture and Urbanism College, University of S?o Paulo, there are no entrance doors, stairs or small spaces, with ramps connecting the floors（圖片來源/Source: flickr FADB. 授權(quán)許可creative commons）

13 墨爾本設(shè)計學(xué)院剖透視/Perspective section of Melbourne School of Design （圖片來源/Source: http://www.archdaily. com/622708/melbourne-school-of-design-university-of- melbourne-john-wardle-architects-nadaaa）

14 塔里埃森建筑學(xué)校“起居室式”評圖空間/Taliesin School of Architecture, "living room like" crit space （圖片來源/Source: www.inhabitat.com）

15 哈佛研究生院帶個人用桌的平臺/The trays with private desks at Harvard GSD（圖片來源/Source: www.gsd.harvard.edu/）

編注/Editor's Note

i 荷蘭語"Bouwkunde"譯為建筑，縮寫為BK/Word "Bouwkunde"(Dutch) means architecture, abbreviated as BK.

注釋/Notes

1）本研究出自作者參加的代爾夫特新建筑學(xué)院設(shè)計競賽。競賽的起因是2008年Broek-Bakema建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計的建筑失火倒塌。建筑師很少有機(jī)會能對與自身實踐發(fā)展緊密相關(guān)的當(dāng)代建筑類型進(jìn)行徹底的反思。當(dāng)時作者的團(tuán)隊全力以赴，首先對建筑教育設(shè)計的主流觀點進(jìn)行了概括。見參考文獻(xiàn)[24] /The original base for this research came about when the author entered the design competition for Delft University's new school of architecture, following the 2008 fire that let to the collapse of the Broek-Bakema designed building. Not often are architects confronted with an opportunity to radically rethink a contemporary typology so relevant to the progress of their own practice. Our team just then took a serious stance to first of all create an overview of what the prevailing view on design for architectural education. See: Reference [24].

2）貝爾拉格建筑學(xué)院在這個綜述中略有奇怪，因為它所在的建筑并非專門為這個學(xué)院而設(shè)計，建筑學(xué)院是在1990年成立時搬到這里的。不過，貝爾拉格建筑學(xué)院的創(chuàng)始人赫爾曼·赫茨貝格與原建筑的設(shè)計師阿爾多·凡·艾克之間的關(guān)系在理念上是有所重疊的。赫茨貝格利用這種建筑類型作為實現(xiàn)某種建筑教育的工具。所以在這里加以闡述。/The Berlage is a slightly odd school in this overview, since it was not housed in a building specifically designed for the school, but only moved there in 1990, when it was founded. However, the relation between the founder of the Berlage, Herman Hertzberger and Aldo

Lastly, in his article on the pedagogic aspect of design teaching spaces[16], ZHANG states that spaces for design teaching have fundamental impacts in the setting up of our values towards architecture. With this paper, the author hopes to have shown that indeed the design of spaces for architectural education can and has been a translation of an idea, or values regarding architectural education. Thus if the spaces of architectural education have historically embodied the social-cultural Zeitgeist and its expression in a particular spatial typology, we as architects and educators should ask ourselves the question of what should be the most appropriate space for expressing the contemporary Zeitgeist and its views on architectural education? And rather than this question being an expression of an individual architect's taste or ideology, perhaps this paper can be a starting point to explore this question within a broader context of the typological evolution of spaces for architectural education.□van Eyck, designer of the original structure, is one of overlapping ideologies. And Hertzberger utilised the architecture typology as a tool to enable a certain type of architectural education. It is thus included here.

3）The QS ranking can be found online at: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/architecture

4）感謝西蒙·亨斯特拉協(xié)助繪制了圖1、4、5和6/Thanks to Simon Henstra in assisting in making the diagrams 1, 4, 5 and 6.

16 耶魯建筑學(xué)院魯?shù)婪驑恰Ｆ拭骘@示出中央評圖空間，周圍是工作室/Yale School of Architecture, Rudolph Hall. Section shows central crit space, with studios situated around it（圖片來源：參考文獻(xiàn)[17]）

/References

[1] Salama, Ashraf. New trends in architectural education: Designing the design studio. Arti-arch, 1995.[2] Schon, Donald A. Beyond the stable state: Public and private learning in a changing society. Maurice Temple Smith Ltd. 1971.

[3] Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 010 Publishers, 2001.

[4] Alexander, Christopher (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press.[5] Johansson, R. Case study methodology. Methodologies in Housing Research, Stockholm, 2003. [6] Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related-disciplines. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

[7] Feigin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

[8] Cret, Paul P. The Ecole Des Beaux-Arts and Architectural Education. Journal of the American Society of Architectural Historians 1, no. 2 (1941): 3-15.

[9] Akin, Omer. "Role models in architectural education," in The Role of the Architect in Society, ed. by P. Burgess, Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Architecture, 1983: 9-13.

[10] Collins. Architectural Criteria & French Traditions. 1966.

[11] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_des_études

[12] Gropius, Walter. The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. MIT Press, 1965.

[13] Thompson, Eric D. National Historic Landmark Nomination: S.R. Crown Hall, National Park Service. 2000.

[14] Daga, Anuj. The Paul Rudolph Hall. 2012./https://yalestories.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/the-paulrudolph-hall/

[15] JWA/ NADAA. Melbourne School of Design University of Melbourne. Archdaily. 2015. Accessed via: http://www.archdaily.com/622708/melbourneschool-of-design-university-of-melbourne-johnwardle-architects-nadaaa

[16] Zhang, Li. Pedagogical Positions of Design Teaching Spaces. World Architecture. 2017. July Issue: 8-9.

[17] Lewis, Paul, Tsurumaki, Marc and Lewis, David J. The Manual of Section. Princeton Architectural Press. 2008.

[18] Van der Voordt, Theo & Zijlstra, Hielkje & Dobbelsteen, Andy & Dorst, M. Integrale plananalyse van gebouwen. Doel, methoden en analysekader. 2007.

[19] Weismehl, Leonard A. Changes in French Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education Vol. 21 , Iss. 3, 1967.

[20] Foster, James. T. Moscow's Strelka Institute and the HSE Graduate School of Urbanism Launch a New Course in Advanced Urban Design. 2016. [18] http://www.archdaily.com/783143/moscows-strelkainstitute-and-the-hse-graduate-school-of-urbanismcreate-a-new-course-in-advanced-urban-design

[21] Cour vitrée du Palais des études où se situait le Musée des Antiques - 1937 Photographie de Georges GliDFARB (Atelier libre d'Architecture EXPERT). Accessed via: http://www.grandemasse.org/?c=actu&p=ENSBA-ENSA_genese_evolution_enseignement_et_lieux_enseignementhttps://www.beauxartsparis.fr/fr/locations-d-espaces

[22] http://www.tschumi.com/projects/15/#

[23]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlage_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_Association_School_of_Architecture

[24] Koehler, Marc and De Geus, Martijn. Ego-Eco System. 2008. Accessed via: https://www.archined.nl/2009/03/building-for-bouwkunde-the-nomineesthe-winners

[25] https://arch.iit.edu/about/history

[26] http://www.eekhoutbouw.nl/expertise/bedrijfsruimten/tu-delft-bouwkunde-delft/

[27] https://aap.cornell.edu/about/campusesfacilities/ithaca/milstein-hall/studio-overhead

Review of Spaces for Architectural Education in Western Universities: Typologies and Interior Organization

Martijn de Geus

Translated by SHANG Jin

This paper combines an overview of the development of spaces for architectural education in Western universities in which a certain idea on teaching architecture is explicitly expressed in the design typology of the school's architecture and its interior organization. This paper will therefore work in two parts. First of all a review of the typological evolution, as a history of the design of schools of architecture in the Western world. This will be done by presenting a chronological overview of selected typologies of schools that explicitly express(ed) teaching ideology in their architecture, or, reversely, cases where the architecture of a particular school informed an idea on teaching. The paper's starting point follows Donald Schon's theory, who states that society is in a continuing process of transformation, and that learning systems respond to changes associated with this transformation. The presented review of spaces for architectural education in western universities shows that the evolution of learning systems are the result of subsequent architectural ideologies and didactic principles in which new dogma's replace old ones. Secondly, after the macro overview, we will briefly consider specific interior elements that particularly express a spatial idea on didactics or pedagogy, and again present a selection of examples for comparison.Lastly, after this overview in two parts, a brief conclusion reflects on what we can distill from these two overviews.

architectural design spaces, architecture education, education design, typologies, studio design, review space

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院

2017-07-27