第二十四届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛英译汉参考译文

英译汉：

It’s Time to Rethink ‘Temporary’

We tend to view architecture as permanent, as aspiring to the status of monuments. And that kind of architecture has its place. But so does architecture of a different sort.

For most of the first decade of the 2000s, architecture was about the statement building. Whether it was a controversial memorial or an impossibly luxurious condo tower, architecture’s raison d’être was to make a lasting impression. Architecture has always been synonymous with permanence, but should it be?

In the last few years, the opposite may be true. Architectural billings are at an all-time low. Major commissions are few and far between. The architecture that’s been making news is fast and fleeting: pop-up shops, food carts, marketplaces, performance spaces. And while many manifestations of the genre have jumped the shark (i.e., a Toys R Us pop-up shop), there is undeniable opportunity in the temporary: it is an apt response to a civilization in flux. And like many prevailing trends — collaborative consumption (a.k.a., “sharing”), community gardens, barter and trade — “temporary” is so retro that it’s become radical.

In November, I had the pleasure of moderating Motopia, a panel at University of Southern California’s School of Architecture, with Robert Kronenburg, an architect, professor at University of Liverpool and portable/temporary/mobile guru. Author of a shelf full of books on the topic, including “Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change,” “Portable Architecture: Design and Technology” and “Houses in Motion: The Genesis,” Kronenburg is a man obsessed.

Mobility has an innate potency, Kronenburg believes. Movable environments are more dynamic than static ones, so why should architecture be so static? The idea that perhaps all buildings shouldn’t aspire to permanence represents a huge shift for architecture. Without that burden, architects, designers, builders and developers can take advantage of and implement current technologies faster. Architecture could be reusable, recyclable and sustainable. Recast in this way, it could better solve seemingly unsolvable problems. And still succeed in creating a sense of place.

In his presentation, Kronenburg offered examples of how portable, temporary architecture has been used in every aspect of human activity, including health care (from Florence Nightingale’s redesigned hospitals to the Airstream trailers used as mobile medical clinics during the Kennedy Administration), housing (from yurts to tents to architect Shigeru Ban’s post-earthquake paper houses), culture and commerce (stage sets and Great Exhibition buildings, centuries-old Bouqinistes along the Seine, mobile food, art and music venues offering everything from the recording of stories to tasty crème brulees.)

Kronenburg made a compelling argument that the experimentation inherent in such structures challenges preconceived notions about what buildings can and should be. The strategy of temporality, he explained, “adapts to unpredictable demands, provides more for less, and encourages innovation.” And he stressed that it’s time for end-users, designers, architects, manufacturers and construction firms to rethink their attitude toward temporary, portable and mobile architecture.

This is as true for development and city planning as it is for architecture. City-making may have happened all at once at the desks of master planners like Daniel Burnham or Robert Moses, but that’s really not the way things happen today. No single master plan can anticipate the evolving and varied needs of an increasingly diverse population or achieve the resiliency, responsiveness and flexibility that shorter-term, experimental endeavors can. Which is not to say long-term planning doesn’t have its place. The two work well hand in hand. Mike Lydon, founding principal of The Street Plans Collaborative, argues for injecting spontaneity into urban development, and sees these temporary interventions (what he calls “tactical urbanism”) as short-term actions to effect long-term change.

Though there’s been tremendous media attention given to quick and cheap projects like San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks and New York’s “gutter cafes,” Lydon sees something bigger than fodder for the style section. “A lot of these things were not just fun and cool,” he says. “It was not just a bottom-up effort. It’s not D.I.Y. urbanism. It’s a continuum of ideas, techniques and tactics being employed at all different scales.”

“We’re seeing a lot of these things emerge for three reasons,” Lydon continues. “One, the economy. People have to be more creative about getting things done. Two, the Internet. Even four or five years ago we couldn’t share tactics and techniques via YouTube or Facebook. Something can happen randomly in Dallas and now we can hear about it right away. This is feeding into this idea of growth, of bi-coastal competition between New York and San Francisco, say, about who does the cooler, better things. And three, demographic shifts. Urban neighborhoods are gentrifying, changing. They’re bringing in people looking to improve neighborhoods themselves. People are smart and engaged and working a 40-hour week. But they have enough spare time to get involved and this seems like a natural step.”

Lydon isn’t advocating an end to planning but encourages more short-term doing, experimenting, testing (which can be a far more satisfying alternative to waiting for projects to pass). While this may not directly change existing codes or zoning regulations, that’s O.K. because, as Lydon explains, the practices employed “shine a direct light on old ways of thinking, old policies that are in place.”

The Dallas group Build a Better Block — which quickly leapt from a tiny grass-roots collective to an active partner in city endeavors — has demonstrated that when you expose weaknesses, change happens. If their temporary interventions violate existing codes, Build a Better Block just paints a sign informing passers-by of that fact. They have altered regulations in this fashion. Sometimes — not always — bureaucracy gets out of the way and allows for real change to happen.

Testing things out can also help developers chart the right course for their projects. Says Lydon, “A developer can really learn what’s working in the neighborhood from a marketplace perspective — it could really inform or change their plans. Hopefully they can ingratiate themselves with the neighborhood and build community. There is real potential if the developers are really looking to do that.”

And they are. Brooklyn’s De Kalb Market, for example, was supposed to be in place for just three years, but became a neighborhood center where there hadn’t been much of one before. “People gravitated towards it,” says Lydon. “People like going there. You run the risk of people lamenting the loss of that. The developer would be smart to integrate things like the community garden — [giving residents an] opportunity to keep growing food on the site. The radio station could get a permanent space. The beer garden could be kept.”

San Francisco’s PROXY project is similar. Retail, restaurants and cultural spaces housed within an artful configuration of shipping containers, designed by Envelope Architecture and Design, were given a five-year temporary home on government-owned vacant lots in the city’s Hayes Valley neighborhood while developers opted to sit tight during the recession. Affordable housing is promised for the site; the developers will now be able to create it in a neighborhood that has become increasingly vibrant and pedestrian-friendly.

On an even larger scale, the major developer Forest City has been testing these ideas of trial and error in the 5M Project in downtown San Francisco. While waiting out the downturn, the folks behind 5M have been beta-testing tenants and uses at their 5th & Mission location, which was (and still is) home to the San Francisco Chronicle and now also to organizations like TechShop, the co-working space HubSoma, the art gallery Intersection for the Arts, the tech company Square and a smattering of food carts to feed those hungry, hardworking tenants. A few years earlier, Forest City would have been more likely to throw up an office tower with some luxury condos on top and call it a day: according to a company vice president, Alexa Arena, the recession allowed Forest City to spend time “re-imagining places for our emerging economy and what kind of environment helps facilitate that.”

In “The Interventionist’s Toolkit,” the critic Mimi Zeiger wrote that the real success for D.I.Y. urbanist interventions won’t be based on any one project but will “happen when we can evaluate the movement based on outreach, economic impact, community empowerment, entrepreneurship, sustainability and design. We’re not quite there yet.”

She’s right. And one doesn’t have to search for examples of temporary projects that not only failed but did so catastrophically (see: Hurricane Katrina trailers, for example). A huge reason for tactical urbanism’s appeal relates to politics. As one practitioner put it, “We’re doing these things to combat the slowness of government.”

But all of this is more than a response to bureaucracy; at its best it’s a bold expression of unfettered thinking and creativity … and there’s certainly not enough of that going around these days. An embrace of the temporary and tactical may not be perfect, but it could be one of the strongest tools in the arsenal of city-building we’ve got.

恰逢其时：对“临时性”的再考量

我们往往会认为建筑物就该是永久性的，甚至希望达到与纪念碑相提并论的地位。此类建筑固然占有一席之地，但另一类建筑同样有其存在的价值。

在21世纪头十年的大部分时间里，建筑艺术就是要使建筑物起到某种昭示作用。无论是颇具争议的纪念碑，还是奢华程度令人难以想象的公寓大厦，建筑存在的理由就是要给人留下难以磨灭的印象。建筑从来就是“永久性”的同义词，但是，它果真应该是如此吗？

在过去的几年中，实际情形也许恰恰相反。建筑业的经济效益可以说是空气的不景气，承担大型建筑项目的机会寥寥无几，而那些备受媒体瞩目的建筑也是来去匆匆，像游击商店、食品车、市场、演出场地等。虽然许多此类风格的建筑早已成明日黄花（如玩具“反”斗游击店），但临时性建筑的机遇是不可否认的：这是对日新月异的文明现象的恰当回应。就如同合作消费（或“分享制”）、社区田园、易物交易等许多流行的做法那样，“临时性”建筑如此趋于回归，俨然非同一般，令人刮目相看。

我有幸在11月份同罗伯特·克罗能伯格（Robert Kronenburg）一道主持了南加州大学建筑学院的“移动乌托邦”小型研讨会。克罗能伯格是一名建筑师，利物浦大学的教授，是研究便携式、临时性、移动型建筑的权威人士。他在该领域著作等身，其中有《变通性：应对变化的建筑风格》，《便携式建筑：设计与技术》，《移动房屋的起源》，可谓浸淫其中。

克罗能伯格认为，可移动性有一种内在的生发力。既然可移动的环境要比静止的更具有活力，为什么建筑物就非得静止不动呢？或许并非所有的建筑物都应追求永恒，这一观点标志着建筑设计的巨大转变。摆脱了传统的束缚，建筑师、设计师、建造者和开发商就能更快地利用当前新技术之长，并付诸实施。建筑是可再利用，可循环，可持续的。以此方式重新定位和着手，一些看似解决不了的问题就可能迎刃而解，这样的建筑物仍能给人们带来身临实地的感觉。

克罗能伯格发言时举例说明了便携式、临时性的建筑早已运用于人类活动的各个方面，包括医疗（从弗罗伦斯·南丁格尔重新设计的医院到肯尼迪执政期间被用作流动医疗诊所的“清风”拖挂房车等）、住房（从蒙古包到帐篷，再到建筑师坂茂设计的震后纸板房），还有文化与商业（如各种舞台布景、万国工业博览会的各种建筑、塞纳河畔的那些百年流动旧书摊、移动餐饮店、艺术与音乐场所，这些场所提供各种商品，从录音故事到可口的焦糖奶油布丁，一应俱全）。

克罗能伯格认为，以上这些带有实验性的建筑结构，挑战了关于建筑物可以是什么、应该是什么等一些先入为主的观念，这种说法令人折服。他解释说，“临时性”作为一种策略，“不仅适应了人们不可预测的需求，而且经济实惠，并鼓励创新。”他还强调，建筑物的用户、设计师、建筑师、制造商和建筑公司该重新审视对临时性、便捷式和可移动建筑的态度了。

建筑尚且如此，开发与城市规划也是同样道理。城市的建造蓝图可能曾由丹尼尔·伯纳姆或罗伯特·摩西这样的总体规划师们在办公桌上一气呵成，但如今的情形已全然不同。当今的人口构成越来越多样化，需求也不断变化，没有一个总体规划既可预测种种不同的需求，同时做到游刃有余、更具应对力和灵活性，但尝试短期的和实验性建筑项目却可以做到这一点。这并不是说长期规划没有立足之地，两者是相辅相成的。街道规划协会的创始人迈克·莱登主张将自发性元素融入城市开发中，认为这些临时性介入（他称之“应变性城市主义”）虽然是短期行为，却足以引起长远变化。

尽管媒体对快捷而廉价的项目给与了极大的关注，如旧金山市的“街地园景工程”和纽约市的“游击咖啡馆”，但莱登所看到的不仅仅是那些满足时尚栏目的东西。他说，“许多这样的建筑不只是为了好玩和耍酷，不只是一个发自社会基层的尝试，也不是自助化（D. I. Y）城市主义，而是一个理念、技术和应变妙术的统一体，应用于所有各种不同规模建筑项目。”

莱登继续指出，“诸多此类建筑的出现有三个原因。首先是经济不景气，这就要求人们做事情比以前更具有创造性。其次是互联网的发展。就在四、五年前，我们还不能通过视频分享网站（YouTube）或者交友网站（Facebook）来分享妙术和技术，而现在，即使是远在达拉斯发生的任何一件事，我们都可以立刻知晓。这催生了发展的理念，也滋育了纽约和旧金山两岸竞争的理念，比如说，谁做得更好更酷。再次是人口结构方面的变化。城市社区的富裕人口比例正在提高，社区也在不断发生变化，吸引着试图通过自身努力去改善社区的人们来居住。他们聪明能干，做事专注，每周工作40小时，但仍然有足够的空闲时间去参与，他们自然会这样去做。

莱登并不是主张终止城市规划，而是鼓励更多的短期操作、实验和尝试（这远比坐等项目获得批准更令人满足）。虽然这也许不能直接改变现行规范或城市分区法规，但是没有关系，因为就像莱登解释的那样，“新的做法把至今仍盛行的陈旧的思维方式和过时的政策置于人们的审视之下”。

在达拉斯有个名为“打造理想街区”（BBB）的团体，它从一个很小的草根组织一跃而成为城市建设的积极参与者。它告诉了人们，当你去暴露弱点时，改变也就随之发生。加入临时性建筑的介入打破了现行规范，BBB就会在建筑物上做出标示，让路人注意到这一事实。他们就是以这样的方式来改变法规的。有些时候政府的清规戒律会让路，允许真正的改变得以发生，尽管并不总是如此。

充分地加以检验也可以帮助城市开发者为项目做出正确的规划。莱登说：“开发者能够从市场运行的角度真正了解到什么才是在社区中可行的，这有助于计划的形成，甚至是改变他们的计划。他们有希望博得当地居民的好感并打造好社区。如果开发商们有意为之，潜力的确很大。”

开发商们确实想要这样做。例如，布鲁克林的笛卡尔市场，原计划三年后就要拆除的，后来却成了社区中心，而原本那里根本就没有类似像样的场所。据莱登说，“人们都被吸引过去了，大家喜欢去那儿，如果把它拆除了，人们可能会抱怨。所以，如果开发商聪明的话，他们就会融进社区的各种元素，如社区田园，使当地居民有机会继续在那里种植农作物。广播站就能有固定的地方，露天啤酒园也可以保留下来。”

旧金山的PROXY项目与此类似。围护结构建筑设计公司（Envelope A+D）在旧金山海耶斯谷社区的一块政府所有的闲置土地上设计出了极具艺术品位的集装箱组合，作为零售店、餐饮和文化场所之用，使用期限是五年。这段时间正值经济萧条，开发商选择了静观的策略。现在这些土地被承诺用来建设廉价房；在这样一个越来越充满活力和方便步行的街区，开发商能够进行开发建设了。

重量级城市开发商“森林城市”（Forest City）一直以更大的规模，利用在旧金山商业中心区实施的5M项目作试探性尝试。在等待经济下行趋势好转的时期内，5M项目的策划者一直在第五街和米申大街的交叉地区做检验，以掌握承租人的情况和房屋的使用情况。这个地区曾经是（现在仍然是）《旧金山记事报》总部所在地，现在还聚集了很多机构组织、像实行会员制的技术工作坊Techshop、协同创作空间HubSoma、十字路口艺术会馆Intersection for the Arts、街心科技公司Square，以及少量食品售货车，为那些辛勤工作、需找地方填饱肚子的承租人提供餐饮。如果在几年前，“森林公司”完全有可能会快速盖起一座顶层带豪华公寓套间的写字楼，然后就万事大吉了。公司的一位副总裁亚历克撒·阿里纳说，经济衰退使“森林城市”公司有时间“为我们复苏中的经济重新设想建设空间，设想有助于促进经济发展的最佳环境”。

评论家米米·蔡格在《干预主义者百宝箱》一文中写道，自助式城市建设干预行动是否真正成功，不会取决于任何一个单独的项目。“除非我们从以下方面加以评价，这些因素包括社区扩展、经济影响、社区赋权、开创精神、可持续性和设计理念。目前我们还有距离。”

蔡格说得没错。失败的、甚至灾难性的临时建筑的例子俯拾皆是（比如卡特琳娜飓风之后修剪的活动房）。事实上，灵活应变地奉行城市主义的主张之所以有吸引力，其很大一部分原因与政治目的有关，正如一位践行者所说：“我们采取这些行动就是为了和政府的拖沓作风相抗衡。”

然而，所有这一切并不只是要对官僚政府作出反应；最佳的实践是能够体现自由思维和创意的大胆表达，……而如今显然还不够。追求临时性、应变性，也许并非万全之策，但是在我们城市建设的锦囊中，它仍不失为最有效的妙策之一。