后疫情城市主義
——通過住宅附屬單元使郊區(qū)再生

佩爾-約翰·達(dá)爾/Per-Johan Dahl朱琳 譯/Translated by ZHU Lin

記憶與再生

欄目主持：阿爾伯托·博洛尼亞，米凱利·博尼諾，皮埃爾-阿蘭·克羅塞特

對(duì)于我們的“記憶與再生”專欄，住宅附屬單元似乎是一個(gè)意想不到的主題。它的發(fā)展通常與西方國家郊區(qū)住宅的擴(kuò)張有關(guān)，在這些地方，住宅規(guī)模的擴(kuò)大阻礙了對(duì)集體記憶或城市復(fù)興計(jì)劃共同利益的反思。此背景下，住宅附屬單元在強(qiáng)調(diào)如支持多代人的家庭生活等私人人領(lǐng)域方面發(fā)揮了作用。

佩爾-約翰·達(dá)爾的文章向我們展示了因疫情而加速變化的情況。在這種背景下，對(duì)社交距離的考慮和低密度城市生活的向往正重新展現(xiàn)出新的價(jià)值：它不僅僅是對(duì)私人居住領(lǐng)域品質(zhì)的提升，而且是一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，得以為新居民創(chuàng)造生活空間、疏解中心區(qū)域、梳理郊區(qū)的社會(huì)秩序，并創(chuàng)造新的共同利益。因此，在涌現(xiàn)出的新形勢(shì)下，住宅附屬單元得以催生一種新型城市復(fù)興普遍適用的戰(zhàn)略，用更復(fù)雜的形式闡明它們與現(xiàn)有房屋的關(guān)系，正如文章中的案例所顯示的那樣。（米凱利·博尼諾）

全球性的COVID-19 之戰(zhàn)催化了新一輪對(duì)城市形式的探索，這種形式需要能夠在未來的疫情傳播中提供更大的彈性。隨著“距離”成為健康和繁榮的新關(guān)鍵詞，緊湊型城市面臨著巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。低密度形態(tài)對(duì)于未來的城市化越來越重要，從而使人們重新對(duì)郊區(qū)產(chǎn)生了興趣。在19 世紀(jì)的歐洲，郊區(qū)被重新定義為對(duì)城市病的一種反擊，隨著二戰(zhàn)后美國的城市擴(kuò)張而繁榮。然而，由于其助長(zhǎng)了不可持續(xù)的生活方式和混亂擴(kuò)張的城市形態(tài)，自20 世紀(jì)末以來一直受到嚴(yán)厲地批判。批判的內(nèi)容包括對(duì)汽車的過度依賴、猖獗的消費(fèi)主義，以及對(duì)土地和自然資源的無情消耗。然而，由于疫情使分散式的城市重新顯現(xiàn)出其合理性，郊區(qū)可能擁有尚未開發(fā)的潛力，以推動(dòng)疫情后的可持續(xù)低密度城市主義。郊區(qū)的基石是獨(dú)戶住宅——這種建筑類型反映甚至孕育了郊區(qū)生活和形式的基本要素。通過轉(zhuǎn)變獨(dú)戶住宅的概念，建筑師可以為分散式城市注入新的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境結(jié)構(gòu)，從而用建筑重塑郊區(qū)，同時(shí)保持對(duì)地方記憶的回應(yīng)。郊區(qū)的特質(zhì)植根于對(duì)城市生活的排斥，低密度發(fā)展的如畫美學(xué)為大城市的生活方式提供了另一種選擇[1]。因此，郊區(qū)的可持續(xù)升級(jí)可能并不太依賴規(guī)劃策略，而是取決于如何在增加密度的同時(shí)保持視覺完整性，以及如何通過建筑表現(xiàn)這種轉(zhuǎn)變。

住宅附屬單元是具有這種潛力的一種新興建筑類型。作為對(duì)北美城市的文化重組和空間重組的非正式回應(yīng)，住宅附屬單元在1970 年代出現(xiàn)，并在21 世紀(jì)初獲得了學(xué)科基礎(chǔ)，當(dāng)時(shí)美國西部的幾個(gè)行政管轄區(qū)批準(zhǔn)了住宅附屬單元的發(fā)展。在北美確定了合法背景之后，住宅附屬單元被引入歐洲，在那里它重新建立了獨(dú)戶城市主義的概念。本文以凱文·戴利建筑事務(wù)所與加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的城市實(shí)驗(yàn)室（cityLAB-UCLA）合作的美國住宅附屬單元原型BIHOME 為研究對(duì)象，來推演建筑干預(yù)、郊區(qū)文化和地方記憶之間的交叉點(diǎn)。此后，文章將重點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移到歐洲背景下，探討兩個(gè)住宅附屬單元案例——瑞典smogstudio 事務(wù)所的Unit C 和意大利Elastico Farm 事務(wù)所的STONED。在這些案例中，創(chuàng)造性的住宅附屬單元設(shè)計(jì)被用來批判性地審視保護(hù)指南中的矛盾條款。這3 個(gè)項(xiàng)目的設(shè)計(jì)旨在與獨(dú)戶住宅地塊上（原有的）的主體建筑建立不同的聯(lián)系，它們共同預(yù)示著適用于郊區(qū)更新這一前提的一系列概念。

1 記憶與改變

通過住宅附屬單元為建筑增加密度意味著建筑形態(tài)上的變化。事實(shí)上，增加任何新的建筑形式和功能都會(huì)使住宅區(qū)的空間特征向未知的未來轉(zhuǎn)變。這個(gè)過程可能似乎顯而易見，因?yàn)椤鞍l(fā)展”在某種程度上總是會(huì)導(dǎo)致前所未有的變化。然而，多種事實(shí)表明住宅區(qū)的居民往往會(huì)反對(duì)不同于民用建筑傳統(tǒng)的密度和功能的可能性。

記憶意味著住宅附屬單元建筑概念的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵組成部分。盡管附屬組件總是要求“未充分利用的土地或結(jié)構(gòu)資源來劃分場(chǎng)地并確定建筑位置，[它]也在避免損害住宅區(qū)的特征”[2]。這種矛盾包含了住宅附屬單元建筑的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵概念，因?yàn)樗忍峁┝吮４娴胤接洃浀钠鯔C(jī)，也提供了通過建筑設(shè)計(jì)更新分散式城市的指令。

2 偽裝

住宅附屬單元建筑在美國郊區(qū)的出現(xiàn)是對(duì)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)需求和機(jī)會(huì)的回應(yīng)。由于獨(dú)戶住宅區(qū)劃禁止加建住宅單元，住宅附屬單元往往是在規(guī)劃專家的審查下非法建立的。它們通常建在獨(dú)戶住宅地塊的后院，將未被充分利用的土地轉(zhuǎn)化為空間，同時(shí)被掩護(hù)在主要建筑背后。雖然這一辯證關(guān)系——住宅附屬單元建筑從屬于住宅主體建筑——正是它的學(xué)科內(nèi)涵，但它也代表著應(yīng)對(duì)規(guī)劃監(jiān)管的一種戰(zhàn)術(shù)演習(xí)。當(dāng)附屬單元被主體建筑故意隱藏時(shí)，它也被隱藏在區(qū)劃?rùn)z查員的視線之外。如此，房主避免了受到違反規(guī)劃法規(guī)的制裁。在美國的建筑話語中，獨(dú)戶住宅成為住宅附屬單元建筑的偽裝。

住宅附屬單元將獨(dú)戶住宅從美國夢(mèng)的標(biāo)志轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榉欠ńㄖ膿跫啤Ｗ≌綄賳卧媒紖^(qū)地塊中最私密的部分進(jìn)行建造，而這部分往往是后院，它將居住的密度分散開，卻沒有在公共領(lǐng)域造成視覺影響。雖然這得益于規(guī)避區(qū)劃法律的努力，但它也激勵(lì)了對(duì)地方記憶的保護(hù)。增加的密度對(duì)社區(qū)來說基本上是不可見的，因此增加的住宅附屬單元不會(huì)影響社會(huì)文化活力和郊區(qū)公共空間的歷史意義。雖然偽裝的概念是為了保護(hù)地方的記憶，但它也為建筑實(shí)驗(yàn)和特異性的解決方案提供了空間。由于任何表達(dá)和審美追求都不在公眾的視野之中，它也將免于被公共審判。

這種三位一體的設(shè)計(jì)——在郊區(qū)后院空間分散建筑密度，與規(guī)劃和建筑法規(guī)迂回，以及從郊區(qū)公共空間消解視覺影響——已經(jīng)被加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的智囊團(tuán)城市實(shí)驗(yàn)室（cityLAB）在關(guān)于住宅附屬單元建筑的各種研究項(xiàng)目中得到了進(jìn)一步的發(fā)展。這些研究結(jié)果在第12 屆威尼斯國際建筑雙年展上展出，在2015 年通過住宅附屬單元原型BIHOME 成為一個(gè)應(yīng)用研究項(xiàng)目。該項(xiàng)目與位于圣莫尼卡的凱文·戴利建筑事務(wù)所合作設(shè)計(jì)，并由加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的學(xué)生在理查德·邁爾設(shè)計(jì)的洛杉磯布羅德藝術(shù)中心的二樓院子里搭建，項(xiàng)目組事實(shí)上利用了這一隱蔽空間的特點(diǎn)，以展示住宅附屬單元為房主提供的機(jī)會(huì)，“使他們自己的家更加靈活和經(jīng)濟(jì)，[而同時(shí)]美國廣受喜愛的花園郊區(qū)的外觀和感覺保持不變”[3]。

這個(gè)46m2（500ft2）的單元是為了能夠以最靈活的方式占用場(chǎng)地而設(shè)計(jì)的。它由一個(gè)高低起伏的鋼管框架組成，并由2 層半透明的ETFE 膜包覆，兩層膜中間真空密封著紙筒做成的蜂窩狀結(jié)構(gòu)——這個(gè)復(fù)雜而輕便的單元易于組裝、拆卸和回收。一面鏤空的木墻嵌入其中，以抵御風(fēng)和地震活動(dòng)的橫向力量。

靈活的結(jié)構(gòu)和復(fù)合的表皮相結(jié)合，引領(lǐng)了BIHOME 的變革性美學(xué)。作為一種白色的半透明建筑形式，其表皮被設(shè)計(jì)為生物多樣性的組成部分，上面的圖案為“蝙蝠、鳥類和蟲子提供了空隙”[4]。人們很容易想象，在洛杉磯廣闊的郊區(qū)景觀中，一系列BIHOME 單元隱藏在獨(dú)戶住宅的后面，每一個(gè)單元都被泥土和植物覆蓋，昆蟲和其他飛行動(dòng)物的殘骸為偽飾建筑本體的植物群和泥土增加營養(yǎng)。BIHOME 在美學(xué)上與洛杉磯郁郁蔥蔥的花園相互融合，它記錄了美國郊區(qū)的雙重偽裝。

3 削弱

洛杉磯的“偽裝”概念支持特異性的解決方案和實(shí)驗(yàn)，而歐洲的建筑保護(hù)方法往往會(huì)阻礙那些用未來的變化來削弱歷史保護(hù)的概念的探尋。不過，當(dāng)通過設(shè)計(jì)感性進(jìn)行探索時(shí)，歷史保護(hù)的指導(dǎo)方針可能會(huì)鼓勵(lì)通過住宅附屬單元建筑增加當(dāng)代性而不損害地方記憶。

兩個(gè)歐洲的住宅附屬單元項(xiàng)目可以共同看作對(duì)建筑保護(hù)立法的城市規(guī)劃過程的批判性探詢。它們是瑞典漁村洛阿的smogstudio 設(shè)計(jì)的Unit C，以及意大利圣基里諾歷史中心的Elastico Farm 設(shè)計(jì)的STONED。這兩個(gè)項(xiàng)目都受到嚴(yán)格的歷史保護(hù)準(zhǔn)則的限制。兩組建筑師決心探索創(chuàng)新的設(shè)計(jì)方案，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了城市法規(guī)中的一個(gè)悖論，可以用來削弱法規(guī)的阻礙。

在洛阿，這個(gè)悖論指的是城市保護(hù)計(jì)劃中構(gòu)造與風(fēng)格之間的關(guān)系。雖然保護(hù)計(jì)劃要求所有新的建筑設(shè)計(jì)服從當(dāng)?shù)貪O民房屋的構(gòu)造，但其劃定的作為保護(hù)對(duì)象的建筑存量，仍然包括了少量的與當(dāng)?shù)氐臉?gòu)造傳統(tǒng)沒有任何聯(lián)系的新古典主義別墅[5]。因此，保護(hù)計(jì)劃強(qiáng)加的保護(hù)法規(guī)最終會(huì)損害新古典主義建筑的歷史意義。這種矛盾成為smogstudio 削弱保護(hù)意圖的契機(jī)，并提供了一個(gè)空間，通過對(duì)建筑形式和地塊劃分的當(dāng)代處理方式來詮釋傳統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)的建筑品質(zhì)。

圣基里諾的悖論也產(chǎn)生于規(guī)則中對(duì)于設(shè)計(jì)構(gòu)造的規(guī)范。與Unit C 相反的是，STONED 是由既有谷倉翻新而來。雖然圣基里諾歷史中心的保護(hù)法規(guī)要求所有的建筑翻新都要用石材，但地震法規(guī)卻禁止在結(jié)構(gòu)構(gòu)件中使用石材，因?yàn)椤霸诘卣鸹钴S地區(qū)，石頭是最不安全的材料”[6]。因此，保護(hù)法規(guī)改變了石頭的歷史意義，它不再是一個(gè)砌筑的概念而成為了風(fēng)格練習(xí)。當(dāng)抽離了學(xué)科內(nèi)涵后，石材成了Elastico Farm 事務(wù)所創(chuàng)造性地削弱當(dāng)代建筑中構(gòu)造傳統(tǒng)的契機(jī)。通過混凝土、石材和玻璃、電焊金屬網(wǎng)等透光材料的非常規(guī)組合，建筑師們利用圖案、銹跡和色彩等改善了砌體建筑中結(jié)構(gòu)和細(xì)節(jié)之間的美學(xué)關(guān)系。

4 結(jié)論

分散式的城市為抵抗當(dāng)前和未來的疫情提供了契機(jī)。然而，郊區(qū)空間的社會(huì)文化活力和歷史意義往往匯聚在一起，阻礙了改善環(huán)境的努力，這些弊病是由郊區(qū)概念本身驅(qū)使的，如汽車依賴性、社會(huì)同質(zhì)性、種族隔離和消費(fèi)主義行為。我們需要通過保留地方記憶來引入變化。住宅附屬單元建筑提供了這樣一種方法，通過手段高明的設(shè)計(jì)，建筑師可以利用住宅附屬單元作為特洛伊木馬來實(shí)施變革，同時(shí)掩蓋其化身的失憶。為了成功完成這樣的任務(wù)，需要有概念性的框架來處理郊區(qū)發(fā)展中的社會(huì)政治和文化的復(fù)雜性。本文將“偽裝”和“削弱”作為兩個(gè)概念框架，它們?cè)谕ㄟ^設(shè)計(jì)手段來更新分散式城市時(shí)是可行的。這兩個(gè)概念批判了城市規(guī)劃的一些法規(guī)——這些法規(guī)仍然在限制建筑學(xué)探索其他解決方案的能力。借助于建筑學(xué)的學(xué)科前提來強(qiáng)化郊區(qū)的記憶，住宅附屬單元成為可持續(xù)低密度的先驅(qū)。

1 凱文·戴利建筑事務(wù)所+加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校城市實(shí)驗(yàn)室，BIHOME，布羅德藝術(shù)中心二樓庭院的住宅附屬單元,美國洛杉磯，2015/Kevin Daly Architects+cityLAB-UCLA,BIHOME,the ADU at the second-floor courtyard of the Broad Art Center,Los Angeles,USA,2015

2 凱文·戴利建筑事務(wù)所+加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校城市實(shí)驗(yàn)室，BIHOME，真空密封的聚四氟乙烯膜包覆的蜂窩狀結(jié)構(gòu)形成的圖案和光影，美國洛杉磯，2015/Kevin Daly Architects,cityLAB-UCLA,BIHOME,pattern and light composed by the vacuum-sealed ETFE around a honeycomb structure,Los Angeles,USA,2015

3 smogstudio建筑事務(wù)所，Unit C，室內(nèi)空間序列，瑞典洛阿，2017/smogstudio,Unit C,interior spatial sequence,R??,Sweden,2017

4 smogstudio建筑事務(wù)所，Unit C，瀝青紙覆層代表了對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)貪O民小屋建筑傳統(tǒng)的美學(xué)借鑒，瑞典洛阿，2017/smogstudio,Unit C,the tar paper cladding denotes aesthetic references to the local building tradition of fisherman's cabin,R??,Sweden,2017

5 smogstudio建筑事務(wù)所，Unit C，平面，瑞典洛阿，2017/smogstudio,Unit C,the plan drawing,R??,Sweden,2017

6 smogstudio建筑事務(wù)所，Unit C，拓?fù)鋵W(xué)的結(jié)構(gòu)概念包含了板、墻和表皮，瑞典洛阿，2017/smogstudio,Unit C,the structural concept in topology conflates slab,wall,and skin,R??,Sweden,2017

7 Elastico Farm事務(wù)所，STONED住宅2，混凝土、石頭、玻璃和電焊金屬網(wǎng)的組合，意大利圣基里諾，2018/Elastico Farm,STONED House 2,combinations of concrete,stone,glass,and electro-welded metal net,San Quirino,Italy,2018

8 Elastico Farm事務(wù)所，STONED住宅2，該設(shè)計(jì)致敬了當(dāng)?shù)卮u石建筑的傳統(tǒng)，意大利圣基里諾，2018/Elastico Farm,STONED House 2,the design acknowledges the local tradition of masonry construction,San Quirino,Italy,2018

9-13 Elastico Farm事務(wù)所，STONED住宅，包括地塊北部的住宅附屬單元在內(nèi)的住宅平面，意大利圣基里諾，2018/Elastico Farm,STONED,plan drawing of STONED with the ADU located at the northern part of the plot,San Quirino,Italy,2018（9-13圖片來源/Sources:?ELASTICOSPA+3）

Memory and Regeneration

Column Editors:Alberto Bologna,Michele Bonino,Pierre-Alain Croset

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) architecture might seem an unexpected theme for our "Memory and Regeneration" column.Its diffusion is typically associated with the sprawl of residential edification in Western countries' suburban areas,where the prevalence of domestic dimension has hampered to inspire reflections on collective memory or the common interest of urban regeneration initiatives.In this context,the ADUs played a role in emphasising such a private realm– for example,supporting the multigenerational life of the family.

Per-Johan Dahl's essay shows us how things are changing,accelerated by the pandemic.The impulse to social distance and a less dense urban life are relaunching new values for this kind of context:not just an exaltation of the private dimension but an opportunity to create living spaces for new dwellers,decongesting central areas,articulating the social order of suburbia,creating new collective interests.Within this emerging situation,ADUs can therefore encourage a new widespread strategy of urban regeneration,articulating their relationship with the existing houses in more sophisticated forms,as shown by the cases illustrated below.□(Michele Bonino)

The global COVID-19 battle catalyses new inquiries into urban form that is capable of accommodating greater resilience in future pandemics.As "distance" becomes the new keyword for health and prosperity,the compact city faces enormous challenges.Low-density morphologies are becoming increasingly relevant for future urbanisation,thus bringing renewed interest in suburbia.Reinvented in Europe during the 1800s as a counterforce to urban blight,suburbia flourished with the post-World War II expansion of American cities.However,due to its fostering of unsustainable lifestyles and sprawling urban form,since the late twentieth century,it has been harshly disparaged.Criticisms include car dependency,rampant consumerism,and ruthless consumption of land and natural resources.And yet,as the coronavirus pandemic renews the relevance of distributed cities,suburbia may hold unexplored potentials feasible to propel a post-pandemic urbanism of sustainable lowdensity.The cornerstone of suburbia is the singlefamily residential house– an architectural typology that mirrors,and even nurtures,the fundamentals of suburban life and form.By transforming the concept of the single-family house,architects can inject new socio-economic and environmental configurations into the distributed city,thus regenerating suburbia through architecture while remaining responsive to the memory of place.The suburban identity is rooted in a repulsion of urban life,where the picturesque aesthetics of low-density development has provided alternative lifestyles to those of the great city[1].A sustainable upgrading of suburbia may thus not depend so much on planning strategies,but rather on concepts of how to maintain the visual integrity while still increasing density,and how to represent such transformation through architecture.

The Accessory Dwelling Unit– abbreviated ADU–encompasses an emergent building type with such potential.Surfacing in the 1970s as an informal response to the cultural and spatial restructurings of North American cities,the ADU gained disciplinary grounds in the early twenty-first century when several zoning jurisdictions in the American West were amended to approve ADU development.After establishing a legal context in North America,the ADU then migrated to Europe,where it has served to reconceptualise aspects of single-family urbanism.This article takes the American ADU prototype BIHOME by Kevin Daly Architects/cityLAB-UCLA as an object of study to extrapolate intersections between architectural interventions,suburban culture,and the memory of place.Then,shifting focus to a European context,the article will explore two ADUs– Unit C in Sweden by smogstudio,and STONED in Italy by Elastico Farm– where creative ADU designs were used to critically review paradoxical conditions in preservation guidelines.Designed for establishing different connections with the main building on a single-family plot,the three projects combine to extrapolate a series of concepts feasible to use when updating the premise of suburbia.

1 Memory and Change

The adding of density through ADU architecture implies morphological change.Indeed,any addition of new building form and programme will propel a process wherein the spatial characteristics in the residential district transform toward an unknown future.This procedure may sound obvious,as the concept of development to some degree always constitutes unprecedented change.However,multiple occasions demonstrate that inhabitants in residential districts often object to prospects in density and programme that differ from the conventions in domestic architecture.

Aspects of memory imply a key component for the concept of ADU architecture.While an accessory unit always claims "underutilised resources of land or structure to demarcate site,and thus situate construction,[it]avoids compromising the character of the residential neighborhood"[2].This contradiction encompasses a key concept for ADU architecture,as it provides both the incentive to preserve the memory of place,and the instruction to regenerate the distributed city through architectural design.

2 Camouflage

ADU architecture emerged in the suburbanU.S.in response to socio-economic needs and opportunities.As single-family residential zoning prohibited the second unit,ADUs were often erected illegally and under the radar of planning expertise.Often built at the backyards of single-family residential plots,they converted underutilised land into space while,at the same time,taking cover behind the main building.While this dialectical relationship,to be subordinated to the main building,implies a disciplinary connotation of ADU architecture,it also denotes a tactical manoeuvre with regards to planning regulation.When the accessory unit was deliberately hidden by the main building,it was also hidden from the gaze of zoning inspectors.Thus the homeowner circumvented sanctions for violating planning legislation.Within the American discourse,the single-family house became the camouflage of ADU architecture.

The ADU transforms the single-family house,from the signifier of the American Dream,to a decoy for unlawful construction.Using the most private part of the suburban plot for construction,which tends to be the backyard,the ADU distributes density without creating visual impact in the public domain.While this benefit arises from the effort to sidestep zoning laws,it also serves as an incentive for preserving the memory of place.The added density will basically not be visible for the community,thus the added ADU will not affect the socio-cultural dynamics and historical significance of suburban public space.While the concept of camouflage serves to preserve the memory of place,it also unfolds a space for architectural experimentation and idiosyncratic solutions.As any expression and aesthetic endeavour will be protected from public reviews,it will also be spared from communal judgment.

This trinity of design– the distribution of densities in suburban backyards,the negotiation with planning and building legislation,and the withdrawing of visual impact from the suburban public space– has been nurtured by the UCLA thinktank cityLAB in various research projects on ADU architecture.The findings,which were displayed at the 12th International Venice Architecture Biennale,became an applied research project in 2015 through the ADU prototype BIHOME.Designed in collaboration with the Santa Monica based architecture firm Kevin Daly Architects,and erected by UCLA students at the second-floor courtyard of the Richard Meier designed Broad Art Centre in Los Angeles,the project team literally drew on the features of hidden space to demonstrate that the ADU provides an opportunity for homeowners to"make their own homes more flexible and affordable[while]the look and feel of America's beloved garden suburbs stay the same"[3].

The 46 square-metre unit (500 square feet)has been designed for maximum flexibility in site occupancy.Composed of an undulated steel pipe frame,and clad with two translucent layers of ETFE,vacuum-sealed around a honeycomb formation of paper cylinders,the sophisticated and lightweight unit is easy to assemble,disassemble,and recycle.A sheer wall of timber has been inserted to resist the lateral forces of wind and seismic activities.

The flexible structure and the composite cladding combine to usher in the transformative aesthetics of BIHOME.Composed as a whitish translucent building form,the cladding has been designed as a biodiversity component,where the patterned skin provides "cavities for bats,birds,and bugs"[4].One can easily imagine a series of BIHOME units hidden behind single-family homes in Los Angeles' vast suburban landscape,each one covered by dirt and plants,the debris from insects and other flying animals adding nutrition to the flora and mud that camouflage the edifice.Designed to aesthetically merge with the lush gardens of Los Angeles,the BIHOME records a double camouflage in suburban America.

14 Elastico Farm事務(wù)所，STONED住宅2，室內(nèi)空間中的木制細(xì)部和表面，意大利圣基里諾，2018/Elastico Farm,STONED House 2,interior space with wooden details and surfaces,San Quirino,Italy,2018

15 Elastico Farm事務(wù)所，STONED住宅2，創(chuàng)造性的磚石結(jié)構(gòu)建立起住宅附屬單元和住宅主體之間的美學(xué)聯(lián)系，意大利圣基里諾，2018/Elastico Farm,STONED House 2,creative masonry generates aesthetic references between the ADU and the main house,San Quirino,Italy,2018

3 Mitigate

While the camouflage concept in Los Angeles supports idiosyncratic solutions and experiments,the European approach to building conservation tends to obstruct investigations into concepts of how to mitigate historical preservation with aspects of future change.When explored through design sensibility,however,the guidelines for historical preservation may hold incentives for adding contemporaneity through ADU architecture without compromising the memory of place.

Two European ADUs combine to serve as a critical inquiry into the city planning processes that legislate the conservation of buildings.These are Unit C by smogstudio at the fisherman's village R?? in Sweden,and STONED by Elastico Farm at the historic centre of San Quirino in Italy.Each was constrained by strict guidelines for historical preservation.Determined to explore innovative design solutions,both architects identified a paradox in the City's regulation feasible to use for mitigating the objectives of code.

In R??,the paradox referred to relationships between tectonics and style in the City's conservation programme.While the conservation programme required all new building designs to obey the tectonics of the local fisherman's house,the delineated building stock,which remained the object of conservation,included a small number of neoclassical villas with no disciplinary connection to local tectonics[5].Thus,the conservation programme imposed preservation codes that eventually would harm the historical significance of neoclassical architecture.This paradox became the incentive for smogstudio to mitigate the intent of preservation,and provided a space to interpret the architectural qualities of traditional designs through a contemporary approach on building form and plot distribution.

The paradox in San Quirino also arose from rules that regulate tectonics in design.Contrary to Unit C,which was a new addition,STONED was received from the refurbishment of an existing house,which previously had served as a barn.While the preservation code at San Quirino's historic centre required stone material for all building renovations,the seismic code prohibited stone in structural elements because "it is the most unsafe material to use in the seismically active area"[6].Thus,the preservation code shifted the historical significance of stone from a masonry concept to a stylistic exercise.When drained of disciplinary connotation,the stone material became an incentive for Elastico Farm to creatively mitigate the tradition of tectonics in contemporary architecture.Through unconventional combinations of concrete,stone,and see-through materials such as glass and electrowelded metal net,the architects drew on aspects of pattern,patina,and colour to upgrade aesthetic relationships between structure and detail in masonry architecture.

4 Conclusions

The distributed city may provide incentives for battling the current and future pandemics.However,the socio-cultural dynamics and historical significance of suburban space often converge to hamper efforts to upgrade the environmental ills that are propelled through the concept of suburbia itself,such as car dependency,social homogeneity,racial segregation,and consumerist behaviour.Methods are needed to insert change by preserving the memory of place.ADU architecture offers such a method.Through tactical designs,architects can utilise the ADU as a Trojan Horse to implement transformation while masking its avatar amnesia.To succeed at such a mission,conceptual frameworks to tangle the socio-political and cultural complexities in suburban development are needed.This article has framed "camouflage" and "mitigate"as two concepts feasible to use when regenerating the distributed city through design.Both concepts postulate a critique on the legislation in urban planning that continues to obstruct architecture's ability to explore alternative solutions.Drawing on the disciplinary premises of architecture to intensify the memory of suburbia,the ADU becomes the harbinger of sustainable low density.