關(guān)于工藝

by James von Klemperer

在建筑實(shí)踐中，KPF建筑事務(wù)所一直堅(jiān)信無論一項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)理念如何雄心勃勃，只有當(dāng)其創(chuàng)建者以謹(jǐn)慎的思維和嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)膽B(tài)度在項(xiàng)目后期實(shí)現(xiàn)其設(shè)計(jì)目的后才算成功。因此，只有偉大的創(chuàng)意是無意義的，除非其衍生出可支撐其起始論點(diǎn)的材料和細(xì)節(jié)。

在當(dāng)代大型建筑中，建筑項(xiàng)目往往面臨著理論目的和物理實(shí)現(xiàn)間的差距，且此差距正變得越來越大。進(jìn)度、預(yù)算和物流管理上的超常的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)性帶來了設(shè)計(jì)和施工間的分工。在傳統(tǒng)意義上，建筑師具有更廣的角色定位，即“全專業(yè)負(fù)責(zé)人”和“建筑監(jiān)督和檢查員”，而這一定位已經(jīng)讓位于勞動(dòng)分工。個(gè)體可以多年專注于像樓梯細(xì)節(jié)或鋼結(jié)構(gòu)施工圖紙之類的單一任務(wù)。

但我們可設(shè)想一下，對于更具綜合性或整體性的建筑應(yīng)該怎樣去實(shí)現(xiàn)呢？KPF的建筑師們強(qiáng)調(diào)保持設(shè)計(jì)概念和施工完成之間的連續(xù)性，將其放在優(yōu)先位置。個(gè)體在團(tuán)隊(duì)中發(fā)揮作用，團(tuán)隊(duì)負(fù)責(zé)建筑項(xiàng)目的整體展開，即從方案圖紙?jiān)O(shè)計(jì)到建筑投入使用。在整個(gè)過程中，“工藝”的概念將設(shè)計(jì)與實(shí)現(xiàn)進(jìn)行連接，突出生產(chǎn)技術(shù)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。傳統(tǒng)砌磚模式、木工細(xì)工邏輯及新型材料的現(xiàn)代工藝都影響著建筑理念。若要了解設(shè)計(jì)和建造之間的關(guān)系，我們可以看一下建筑師的角色（作為設(shè)計(jì)師、制造者和建造者）是怎樣隨時(shí)間演變的。避開對卷帙浩繁的建筑歷史的深入調(diào)查，我們可以看一下整個(gè)建筑史上的幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵時(shí)期和重要人物。

從十五世紀(jì)的意大利開始，透視繪圖讓建筑師擁有了空間構(gòu)思的新型工具，其中Fillippo Brunelleschi在某種程度上代表著理想化的“總建筑師”。雖然他最著名的是設(shè)計(jì)了佛羅倫薩的Duomo大教堂，但他職業(yè)生涯的起點(diǎn)是工匠。盡管他為洗禮堂銅門設(shè)計(jì)的作品輸給了Lorenzo Ghiberti，但緊接著他便成功承接了教堂穹頂?shù)脑O(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)。他的金屬工匠的技能也影響到了建筑作品的設(shè)計(jì)。

作為Duomo大教堂的建筑師，Brunelleschi對其每一建筑細(xì)節(jié)都進(jìn)行了深思。不僅設(shè)計(jì)了教堂的壓縮拋物線結(jié)構(gòu)和鏈形張力環(huán)，還為其設(shè)計(jì)了腳手架及可運(yùn)升砌體的新結(jié)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)?；趯ιa(chǎn)力的了解，他甚至對工人吃飯喝水的地點(diǎn)和時(shí)間也做了安排。他在這些角色上取得的成功讓這一建筑項(xiàng)目實(shí)現(xiàn)了非凡的工程成就，也讓他成為了現(xiàn)在的文藝復(fù)興代表人物。

Fillippo Brunelleschi為理念與實(shí)踐的融合做出了很好的示范，他是早期“總建筑師”的典范，但在后來的實(shí)踐中卻一直在兩者的“融合”和“分裂”間來回?fù)u擺。需要注意的是，隨著多次工業(yè)革命的發(fā)生，機(jī)械化逐漸增強(qiáng)，這對人文主義的方法原則提出了挑戰(zhàn)。

從十九世紀(jì)初開始，越來越多的歐洲工廠建立了生產(chǎn)效率新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。隨著此類工程和工業(yè)的進(jìn)步和發(fā)展，形成了新的社會(huì)秩序，也帶來了巨大的機(jī)遇和挑戰(zhàn)。工藝和機(jī)械之間的固有沖突形成了建筑理論家和實(shí)踐者所面對的根本問題。

John Ruskin、A.W.N. Pugin和William Morris等理論家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了英國手工藝運(yùn)動(dòng)，批判了工業(yè)時(shí)代與傳統(tǒng)工藝的脫節(jié)。他們贊揚(yáng)由建筑師最大程度上參與設(shè)計(jì)的本土物質(zhì)文化。理想的“工匠-設(shè)計(jì)師”可將裝飾織物、家具和燈光的設(shè)計(jì)與制備工藝結(jié)合起來，努力營造出一個(gè)更有意義的生活環(huán)境。

二十世紀(jì)初期，幾位德國哲學(xué)家和德意志工藝聯(lián)盟成員提出設(shè)計(jì)應(yīng)當(dāng)在工業(yè)過程中擁有自己的角色。AEG渦輪機(jī)廠（1909）便是歷史上的一個(gè)重要例子，它表明工業(yè)可以同時(shí)具有趣味性和美感。AEG燈泡等很多工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)也成為此手工藝運(yùn)動(dòng)的最好說明。在此之后，包豪斯建筑學(xué)派對藝術(shù)與工業(yè)的此類結(jié)合所產(chǎn)生的部分偉大成果進(jìn)行了概括。此學(xué)派的創(chuàng)始人兼名譽(yù)領(lǐng)袖Walter Gropius對以建筑作為主要學(xué)課的總體藝術(shù)或“整體藝術(shù)”進(jìn)行了贊揚(yáng)。被描述為輪狀圖表的包豪斯課程和課程作業(yè)，融合了繪畫等形式研究領(lǐng)域，同時(shí)也對材料和建筑科學(xué)進(jìn)行了探索。這種工藝方法影響了當(dāng)時(shí)的很多著名的建筑，強(qiáng)化了建筑行業(yè)的現(xiàn)代化概念。

在哈佛大學(xué)工作的Gropius不僅設(shè)計(jì)了其宿舍，還設(shè)計(jì)了宿舍中的椅子、地毯和燈具。他推崇這種方法，并在課堂上強(qiáng)調(diào)建筑師應(yīng)對影響日常生活的所有物品進(jìn)行考慮，展現(xiàn)他們的勞動(dòng)成果。同時(shí)，現(xiàn)代建筑對抽象的偏好也繼續(xù)引起許多負(fù)面反應(yīng)。嚴(yán)肅的棱角空間通常更強(qiáng)調(diào)效率和秩序感，而不是舒適性和熟悉感。法國電影制片人Jacques Tati在《玩樂時(shí)間》（1967年）中敘述了一個(gè)關(guān)于失落主人公的警世故事，這位主人公被淹沒在高樓大廈和狹窄隔間的海洋中，試圖在一個(gè)沒有人情味的現(xiàn)代世界中存活下來。在建筑行業(yè)中一直存在著這樣的拉鋸，上個(gè)世紀(jì)積累下的現(xiàn)代建筑便是最好的證明。

在當(dāng)今的中國，我們也遭遇了類似的辨證邏輯。直到20世紀(jì)30年代，中國的很多岌岌可危的歷史建筑也沒有得到足夠的重視。很多重要的歷史遺跡被遺棄，默默凋零。梁思成和林徽因改變了這種狀態(tài)，開始對此類結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行記錄，并倡導(dǎo)對它們進(jìn)行保護(hù)。在美國學(xué)完藝術(shù)和建筑后，回到北京，他們作為世俗知識(shí)分子的典范，本可以對傳統(tǒng)進(jìn)行批評(píng)或甚至直接拒絕傳統(tǒng)。但是在現(xiàn)代化元素越來越多的時(shí)代中，他們作為設(shè)計(jì)師捍衛(wèi)了傳統(tǒng)建筑的內(nèi)在價(jià)值，特別是木構(gòu)寺廟建筑。他們的征程和記錄工作至今依然鼓舞人心。

這些案例提醒我們思考我們?yōu)槭裁磳W(xué)習(xí)和實(shí)踐建筑學(xué)。我們的工作是理解特定的物理和文化背景基因，并將這些基因與整體設(shè)計(jì)相融合。例如，KPF在上海新天地設(shè)計(jì)的安達(dá)仕酒店和朗廷酒店。正面是具有歷史意義的城市景觀，而從背面看，兩棟建筑的石材外立面則讓人想起傳統(tǒng)的屏風(fēng)。設(shè)計(jì)充分考慮體量、材料和環(huán)境的相互作用，打造引人入勝的視覺對話，有助于鄰里空間的城市場所營造。

KPF盡可能的充分利用各種材料，包括陶土、石材、玻璃、金屬和木材，用現(xiàn)代工藝重新詮釋傳統(tǒng)做法。在各項(xiàng)目中，KPF進(jìn)行了深入多樣的材料研究和探索，包括香港藍(lán)塘道住宅項(xiàng)目中人居尺度上的工藝青銅門細(xì)節(jié)以及紐約范德比爾特一號(hào)項(xiàng)目塔樓外立面帶有凹槽的陶土層間板。

KPF對工藝的注重體現(xiàn)在事務(wù)所積極擁抱未來的工藝工法。計(jì)算機(jī)腳本設(shè)計(jì)、3D打印和數(shù)字建模已經(jīng)將建筑推向了一個(gè)非凡的新時(shí)代，但我們作為建筑師的責(zé)任依然沒有改變。數(shù)字化設(shè)計(jì)技術(shù)不僅可用于最大化采光、結(jié)構(gòu)效率和功能可達(dá)性，也構(gòu)成了一種賦予建筑美感和意義的新工藝。

計(jì)算機(jī)腳本設(shè)計(jì)可以幫助我們創(chuàng)建及實(shí)施建筑理念。在KPF，我們使用專有的算法腳本來拉近與工藝的距離，而不是與建造過程產(chǎn)生隔離。為了打造活力閃耀的立面，KPF團(tuán)隊(duì)?wèi)?yīng)用了一套全新的數(shù)學(xué)系統(tǒng)，使用Grasshopper程序以最佳角度組合帶涂層鋁制單位組件，以提高反射率。紐約市杰克遜廣場一號(hào)采用的如波浪般的竹制室內(nèi)墻面如果沒有對模型進(jìn)行數(shù)字化操作和測試的能力，沒有程序化數(shù)控加工技術(shù)控制精度，這項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)。

我們對新技術(shù)的探索及應(yīng)用始于我們的工作室。3D打印的興起將材料、數(shù)字技術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)相結(jié)合，使我們的設(shè)計(jì)師能夠快速、精確地建立復(fù)雜的實(shí)體模型。基于包豪斯精神，我們認(rèn)為，從部分縱觀整體的設(shè)計(jì)洞察力以及遵循物理空間自然規(guī)則的設(shè)計(jì)能力對于建筑師與其作品之間的關(guān)系是至關(guān)重要的。

作為一家國際知名的公司，KPF打造的一些世界最高建筑和綜合體項(xiàng)目得到廣泛認(rèn)可。項(xiàng)目成就通過許多人的共同努力得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。我們所運(yùn)用方法的核心仍在于設(shè)計(jì)師與材料和施工方法的基本關(guān)系。展望未來，我們對公司提出的技術(shù)舉措感到興奮，例如公司組建了一支開發(fā)創(chuàng)新專有數(shù)字設(shè)計(jì)工具的內(nèi)部團(tuán)隊(duì)，KPF城市界面團(tuán)隊(duì)(KPFui)。這項(xiàng)技術(shù)工具不僅有利于優(yōu)化城市設(shè)計(jì)中的流動(dòng)性、能效和其他效率，還可以實(shí)現(xiàn)城市體驗(yàn)中的親密感。

KPF’s practice is rooted in the conviction that an ambitious design concept is successful only when its underlying intentions are thoughtfully and rigorously developed into the later stages of a project. Ultimately, a great idea is worthless unless it is embodied in materials and details that properly support its original thesis.

Too often, the execution of contemporary, large-scale architecture suffers from a widening gap between theoretical intention and physical realization. The formidable rigors of managing schedules, budgets, and logistics can result in a division of labor between design and construction, eliminating the traditional, broader role of the architect as “master of all trades” and “clerk of the works.” A given individual can work for years on such focused tasks as stair details or steel shop drawings. How then can we hope to further the goals of a more integrated or even holistic architecture?

At KPF, architects prioritize continuity between conception and completion.Individuals operate in teams responsible for the entirety of the project’s lifespan,from schematic drawings to the building’s opening. Throughout this process, the notion of “craft” links the design to its realization, making a virtue of the techniques of production. The patterns of traditional bricklaying, the logic of wood joinery, and the modern technologies of newly invented materials all inform the building concept.

To understand the relationship between designing and making, it helps to ask how the role of the architect — as designer, maker, and builder — has evolved over time.Without delving into an exhaustive survey of architectural history, it is worth considering a few significant moments and figures throughout the history of architecture.

Beginning in fifteenth century Italy, perspective drawing gave architects new tools with which to conceive of space, with Fillippo Brunelleschi representing a certain ideal of the “total architect.” Although he is most famous for designing the Duomo in Florence, he started his life as a craftsman. While his competition entry for the baptistery’s bronze doors lost out to Lorenzo Ghiberti’s, he followed by successfully securing the cathedral dome’s commission. His technical talents as a metalsmith informed his work at the scale of architecture.

As the Duomo’s architect, Brunelleschi thought about every piece of its complex puzzle. He designed not only its structure of compressive parabolas and chain tension rings, but also its scaffolding and a new system for hoisting masonry up the site. Based on his understanding productivity, he even prescribed what and when the workers should eat and drink. His success in such varied roles contributed to the project’s enormous engineering feats and gave him the stature of what we now call a Renaissance man.

Whereas Fillippo Brunelleschi provides us with an example of integrating the conceptual with the practical — an early example of the “total architect” — later periods experienced a continuous series of pendulum swings between “integrated”and “separated” practice. Notably, the increased mechanization that accompanied multiple industrial revolutions posed challenges to the tenets of a humanist approach.

From the early nineteenth century onwards, European factories established new standards of production efficiency. As advances in engineering and industry grew,new social orders arose, introducing tremendous opportunities and challenges. The inherent conflicts between craft and the machine raised fundamental questions for both theorists and practitioners of architecture.

Theorists such as John Ruskin, A.W.N. Pugin, and William Morris championed the English Arts & Crafts movement and critiqued the detachedness of the industrial age from traditional craftsmanship. They praised vernacular, material culture,made possible by the architect engaging in design to its fullest extent. The ideal“craftsman-designer” would link the design of fabric, furniture and lighting with the process of fabrication to make a more meaningful living environment.

In the early twentieth century, several German philosophers, and the members of the Deutscher Werkbund, proposed that design embrace its role in the industrial process. The AEG Turbine Factory (1909) is a prime historical example,demonstrating that industry could be at once interesting and beautiful. Examples of industrial design such as the AEG lightbulb illustrate this movement.

Later on, the Bauhaus epitomized some of the greatest outcomes of this marriage between art and industry. Walter Gropius, the school’s founder and historical figurehead,praised the total work of art — or “Gesamtkunstwerk”— for including architecture as a master discipline. The Bauhaus curriculum and coursework, depicted as a wheel-like diagram, incorporates formal studies such as painting while also exploring materials and building science. This approach to industrial craft influenced notable buildings of the day, reinforcing a modern notion of the architectural profession.

Working at Harvard University, Gropius not only designed the dormitory itself, but also its chairs, carpets and light fixtures. Emphasizing this approach, he taught that architects should consider every physical object that influences our daily lives,displaying the fruits of their labor. At the same time, modern architecture’s penchant for abstraction continued to evoke some negative reactions. Harsh, angular spaces often prioritized efficiency and order over comfort and familiarity. In Playtime (1967),French filmmaker Jacques Tati told a cautionary tale of a lost hero, engulfed in a sea of towering office buildings and tight cubicles, attempting to navigate a modern world devoid of human touch. This push and pull is ever-present in the profession,with a century of modern buildings serving as primary evidence.

In today’s China, we encounter similar dialectics. Until the 1930s, much of the country’s crumbling, historical architecture had not received significant attention.Many important monuments were abandoned and in disrepair. Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin altered that course, beginning to document such structures and advocate for their preservation. Having studied art and architecture in the United States then moving to Beijing, they were examples of the sort of worldly intellectuals who might critique or outright reject tradition. Yet as designers in an increasingly modern age,they defended the inherent value of ancient buildings, especially wooden temples.Their expeditions and efforts of documentation remain inspirational to this day.

Such examples remind us why we study and practice architecture. Our job is to understand and integrate the DNA of a given physical and cultural context into holistic design. For example, consider KPF’s design for the Andaz and Langham Hotels in the Xintiandi neighborhood of Shanghai. In the foreground, you see an historic cityscape.In the background, two stone facades evoke traditional screens. The design is an interplay of scale, material, and context. These relationships create a compelling visual dialogue and contribute to the neighborhood’s urban placemaking.

KPF strives to make use of a variety of materials such as terracotta, stone, glass,metal, and wood to reinterpret traditional methods with a contemporary hand. Our material exploration ranges from human-scale details in the artisanal bronze gates in the Blue Pool Road residences in Hong Kong, to the fluted terracotta spandrels that climb the towering facades of One Vanderbilt in New York City.

KPF’s focus on making exemplifies the way our studio has embraced the future of craft. Computer scripting, 3D printing, and digital modeling have propelled architecture into a remarkable new era, but as architects, our responsibilities are unchanged. Digital design techniques, which can be used to maximize daylight,structural efficiency, and functional accessibility can also constitute a kind of craft that imbues buildings with beauty and meaning.

Computer scripting can aid in the invention of architectural ideas and their execution.At KPF, we employ algorithms and proprietary scripts to bring us closer to our craft rather than isolating us from the building process. To create a dynamic, shimmering facade for Michael Kors, the KPF team used a novel mathematical system using the Grasshopper program to compose coated aluminum shingles at optimal angles for light reflectivity. The undulating bamboo interiors of One Jackson Square in New York City would not have been possible without the ability to manipulate and test a model digitally, and fabricated it through the precision of programmed CNC milling.

Our application of new technologies begins in the studio. Connecting material and digital craft, the rise of 3D printing has enabled our designers to create intricate physical models with speed and precision. Following in the spirit of the Bauhaus,we believe that understanding a design from the part to the whole and the ability to keep design grounded in the physical world is essential to the relationship between architects and their craft.

An international firm, KPF is most recognized for building some of the world’s tallest towers and complex mixed-use projects. Such feats of labor, engineering, and finance are achieved through the collaborative effort of many individuals. However,the core of our methodology remains rooted in the designer’s basic relationship to material and the methods of construction. Looking forward, we remain excited by technological initiatives at the firm such as KPF Urban Interface (KPFui), an internal team developing an innovative, proprietary set of digital design tools. This can result not only in the optimization of mobility, energy, and other efficiencies, it can also allow us to achieve an intimate sense of place in our urban experience.