王丹丹，柴金戈，迈克尔·毛赞 叶扬 译， 徐光 校

1. 王丹丹（WANG Dandan，以下简称DW）：为什么您将书的标题定为“拒绝再玩”（指迈克尔·毛赞的书《No More Play: Conversations on Urban Speculation in Los Angeles and Beyond》）？这句口号是提醒当下的建筑师们重新思考建筑与城市吗？还是说，我们将城市理解为“不，继续玩”，以此来鼓励那些在图形、策略等方面试验性的尝试。

迈克尔·毛赞（Michael Maltzan，以下简称MM）：我想这两者都有。如此命名的原因，与洛杉矶关系密切。它是一个全球化的当代城市，正处在真正的拐点上。洛杉矶无疑是不断涌现的当代城市范本中的一例，这种城市拥有难以置信的具有活力的场所。这些作为范本的城市，承受着许多压力以及挑战，并且，在大多数情况下，人们常认为，这些新的城市与多数已定型的老城市相比，不那么严肃、过分俏皮、非常年轻，但这也是它们的特性。这本书的书名确实既是一个问题，也是一种呼吁，希望能对这些城市进行认真评估，它们现在如何、未来会怎样、建筑师要在这样的世界里扮演什么角色。我认为，书中一个重要的主题是思考建筑师该怎样面对这些问题。

2. DW：在本书里，关于洛杉矶，您提出了很多有趣的观点。您说洛杉矶不是个城市，只能被描述为“洛杉矶”。您能进一步解释一下这话的意思吗？

MM：这种认识是来自于书里的研究，以及与那些深入思考城市问题的人进行的对话，这些人不仅有城市主义者，还包括艺术家、文化学者、科学家、社会学家和历史学家。对谈中贯彻始终的一点是，没有人认为“城市”（City）这个词适合洛杉矶。城市的概念，“城市”这个词，是非常有历史感的。我们形成了一个论点，即洛杉矶业已成型的规模已经不能再轻易地用传统的“城市”来定义了。城市的概念似乎表达的是一个确定的、可辨认的、地方性的城市现象，具有可以理解的边界。例如纽约，我想大多数人都有一个非常清晰的印象，知道那在说什么。当你谈论洛杉矶，你可以说它是一个巨大的地区，一个区域经济体，一个城市化的大都市，或其他许多不同的事物，似乎都比说它是个“城市”更恰当。它没有那种突出的特征。所以，我认为，问题之一，当我们开始读这本书，我的其中一个目标是找出怎么称呼它。我们笑称它该被叫作“超大城邦”（Superbigatopolis）。洛杉矶不是唯一一个有这方面问题的城市。许多城市都是这样，在亚洲就出现了不少。这些城市都太大，太复杂，肩负着那么多不同的身份。我想，重要的是，该设想其他方式描述它们，而不是用典型的历史性的字眼。

DW：的确，城市的边界被模糊了。

MM：对，而且，这不仅是个语言学问题，也不是个语义学问题。我想，它其实涉及到我们如何向对方描述这种场所类型的现象特质。如果我们想想未来，使用陈旧的语言完全无助于命名我们的场所。

3. 柴金戈（CHAI Jinge，以下简称JC）：在“城市”这个论题之下，我想问问您怎么看“城市”（urbs）与“城邦”（polis）这两个我从柯林·罗的文章里读到的词。我发现，您喜欢城市空间自下而上的微妙特质，不喜欢“城邦”的那种自上而下、图标化、单一的形式。我认为您是那种“城市”的建筑师，这样理解对吗？

MM：我是在郊区长大的，水平、延绵、战后的美国式城市郊区。从那里，我能想到的是“体验特质”，场所的特质。如果你真的要弄明白什么是一个地方的基本特点，你必须以它们自己的方式思考，而不是通过陈腐的观念与手段。也就是说，要靠其他方面的特征，如周围环境、氛围、事物之间的空间，而不只是形式本身。这非常重要，可能对研究更有用。思考具有共鸣的特点，非常适用于像洛杉矶这样的地方。即便是“语境”这个词，它本身及其与城市相关的学术用法都不怎么适用于像洛杉矶这样的地方。这座城市的特点是缺乏一致性。如果没有一致性，你怎么能谈论“语境”这样的术语？这并不意味着一个洛杉矶这样的城市没有显著的特点，但它们可能是抽象的、更分散、更微妙的概念；横向水平的想法，或光的线性特征，或城市的节奏，这些在定义场所方面都很重要。所有这些，在我们理解并定义一个场所的过程中，有着重要的梯度关系。可能如果我们理解“特色”的意义，就能有一套新的方法用于这种场所。所以，我想这大概使我不是一个“城邦”派。

MM：我想建筑师常常只是以基本的职业习惯来做事，用这些手段和技术去表示我们做足了功课，我们做了分析。但是，如果这些表达不出更多的与你所设计的场所间接相关的信息，技术就变成了一种没什么用的练习。我们正在谈论如何在未来的城市工作，恰如我们在谈论如何在当下的城市工作。我提倡一种不同的方法，一种更匹配于当代特质和现实中不同类型城市的方法。

JC：正是，像“时代精神”那样？

DW：我完全同意您的观点，洛杉矶缺乏一致性。我想起一些当代作品，设计者企图分析城市，从中很难得到有用的信息，只是一味地描网格——可是那只是在一块白板（Tabula-Rasa）上。

MM：对，我想这仍然是个重要的词。我认为，不仅为城市，也为后代，为社会群体的延续，要是每代人都能够在城市中发挥真正的作用，那么，城市就是最活跃、最可持续发展的，处在最好的时代。你可以看看已经停滞的城市，比如威尼斯，绝对是个美丽的城市，但可以说，它在几百年里没有以任何方式发展。年轻人不在那里生活，他们都搬出去了，因为他们无法将自己与这座城市联系起来。我认为，确保那些重要的地方、重要的城市的活跃性，是一件非常重要的事。

4. JC：中国一些城市的问题是，它们有它们的文脉，但与此同时，它们也往往正在破坏这种文脉。有时确实很难分辨不同的城市。如您书中所说，只有洛杉矶是洛杉矶，那么，我们能不能造句说“只有纽约是纽约”或“只有北京是北京”？大多数大城市，无论是在美国，还是在中国，正变得越来越像。您如何解读这种情况呢？

MM：我认为，如何持续保持及培养自己的独特性，是当代城市面临的重大问题之一。在过去数年里，从城市主义、建筑、景观角度都有过大量的对话。这已成为一个全球性的问题，并且以全球化的方式在不断加强。你并不能在这个过程中独善其身。我想，对所设计的场所而言，找到更恰切的设计方式是很重要的，要比立刻接受权威的可复制的模式更合适。

比如，我在东海岸受过非常典型的建筑教育，当我搬到洛杉矶，开始在这个城市工作，我很快意识到，像纽约、芝加哥、伦敦、巴黎这些城市的模式，并不是特别有用，反倒像墨西哥城那样的更有意义。不是因为墨西哥城事事都好，而是因为，它在城市、规模、环境等问题上与洛杉矶有相同之处。所以，我认为，这本书的目标之一是说，所有国家全球化城市化的现实，是绝对存在的，但这并不代表所有城市都必须雷同。我认为，这只是意味着我们需要改变我们的方法、我们的技术，去挖得更深，找出这些新兴城市中那些有用的、具有生产力的、可持续的特性。

5. DW：您说洛杉矶已经等同于一个试验场，在洛杉矶，建筑师既是试验者也是科学家。我感兴趣的是，您怎么看待您在这个建筑试验场里所起的作用？您能给我们讲些项目作例子吗？

MM：我认为，洛杉矶这样的城市是一个不可思议的新理念试验场。它逐步形成了一种很实用的语境，能够尝试建筑、景观和城市设计的新形式。但住在这里，我意识到，自己也成了试验的一部分，也因为我认为与城市最好的相处之道是完全沉浸在其中，做一个积极的参与者。所以，如果这个城市是健康的，你起的作用也是健康的，我想，谈到有关这个城市的事的时候，个人是不断在参与者与支持者之间转换的。我住在这里，有家庭，有孩子，作为我生活的一部分，我在以一种很明确的方式介入到城市之中。作为一名建筑师，作为一个城市主义者，我仍试图在我们的作品中运用新形式，可能的话，运用新的拓扑关系，因为无论扮演什么样的角色，建筑总是在为城市提供想法，也试着创造一些能够用于其他地方的模式。如果你看看我们的住宅项目，在贫民区住宅信托基金（Skid Row Housing Trust）项目里，我们就是这么做的。这些项目对我而言非常有趣，因为它们有着相同的规模，大约各有80－120套，每个项目都有独特之处。有时是特殊群体住在那里，有时项目位于特殊的地点，比如新卡弗公寓，旁边就是公路。我认为，这些项目既是独立的建筑，也差不多是一个城市的缩影，重现了这个城市中的许多动态关系。与此同时，我把所有这些分列的项目视为一个有着城市尺度的大项目。许多城市已经把所有的希望寄托到规模巨大的大型项目上，认为它们能够转变和提升这些城市的水准，但你也可以通过不断地一小部分一小部分来积累，创造出产生大变革的项目，这同样是可以奏效的。

6. JC：动态是您作品的一个关键特点，比如，MoMA-QNS的动态标识或雷奥娜住宅交错的体块。这是如何在您的作品中形成的呢？

MM：动态，是洛杉矶式的当代城市的特征；动态是城市身份认同的一个方面。现实是，我们有汽车、公路和郊区，本质上，我们的城市是分散的、水平的，这意味着动态是这些地方发展的一个重要组成部分。思考动态是与建筑建立更具试验性的关系的一种途径。你可以以各种各样的方式设计建筑。你可以制定一个规划，为这个规划设计几个几何体，用这种方式，建筑是可以这样被理解的；你可以创建一种形式、一种独特的标识化的形式，建筑也能以这种方式被理解。我的兴趣在于，建筑在人进入它、穿过它、绕着它转的时候是怎么表现自己的。我们的设计是在研究、试图去解读人们是如何使用、如何体验建筑物。对我而言，这种方式的优点在于，它使参与者与建筑之间形成了一种对话。所以，当你在建筑物周围，它会给你运动的感觉，与你有所互动。我念书的时候，大概是刚开始接触建筑的那段时间，你提到的柯林·罗以及许多建筑师正在用经典的规划手段重新思考城市，并将这种方式运用到当代城市环境中的新建筑上。问题是，对城市而言，这是一种抽象的工作方式。将城市置于二维空间，遥远地俯瞰它，这是 “上帝视角”。这产生了一种非常抽象、分离、错位的城市规划方法。它与人们在当代城市中的体验几乎毫无关系。当时我受到了许多艺术家和雕塑家的影响，他们创造了大尺度的雕塑，目标是把观众置于与艺术、雕塑真正平等的位置上。他们所做的，是在思考人在空间和形式中的运动方式。

JC：像理查德·塞纳？

MM：正是塞纳那样的。当你在雕塑中徘徊的时候，能看到所有空间以截然不同的方式围绕着空间。塞纳的雕塑像一个媒介，或许应当说是一个晴雨表，它能够计量它与周围城市包容性语境的关系。从某种意义上说，一个单独的体块就能展现出整个城市的多样性，浓缩所有的建筑风格和历史，与其他部分形成一种群舞。我兴奋不已，因为这很明确，很清晰，它能促进你的体验。从那时起，在城市中进行设计的理念、对建筑以及设计建筑的思考，都变得与人的运动、体验相关，这成了我做设计的基本工作方法。

7. JC：我们能在您的许多项目里找到大量不同的“图案”，比如，雷奥娜住宅项目，我们能看出您很喜欢它们，因为您把一些样本放在您的办公室外面。您认为它们是种装饰么？如果它们具有功能，是怎样的功能？

MM：在现代意义，图形样式的确有装饰性的功能。历史上，装饰创造了立面上的浮雕，这是种雕塑技术，但我使用图样作为创造建筑体验的图景。你提到那些放在办公区的样本就是个很好的例子。它是一种穿孔的平板表面。你可以看到，在穿孔的表面下面有镜子。我们本来设计这栋建筑有着很高大平坦的墙，我想看看是否能在平墙上创建出具有雕塑般动感的效果。当你沿着那堵墙，穿孔板背后的镜子反射着树木、草地、天空和你。你看到自己的影像被扭曲，被一种难以置信的云纹所代替。这完全是光学、动感和运动产生的。建筑的形式似乎在呼吸、转变，与人互动。图形样式对我来说并不是几何图而已，重点是，用它来创造建筑体验。

8.DW：比起您的私人住宅、文化建筑和展览项目，彩虹公寓、新卡弗公寓及在建的星公寓，这3个项目看上去很独特，因为它们是为城市的无家可归者设计的。这些项目最大的挑战是什么？您如何在您的设计中保持批判性，同时合理地控制预算？

MM：我致力于多种多样的建筑项目，它们有着不同的用途。我的兴趣是探索发现建筑的灵活性。我认为，关于建筑如何发挥作用，以及从那些最富有的客户到经常被我们文化遗忘的人手中承接多种类型的项目是何等重要，早期现代主义者为我们做了很好的榜样。我们城市的目标是展现所有这些项目的多样性，使之形成一种良性的充满生机的城市文化。你不能让建筑只为了某一类人设计，不管是穷人还是富人或是中产阶级，应当为不断地培养更加具有活力的文化和城市而努力。我想，很明显，为无家可归者提供服务的项目往往更艰难，财政预算更为紧张。它们通常处于城市最有挑战性的部分，比如新卡弗公寓，紧挨着公路，要求我们认真考虑建筑声学里的噪音问题。场地或功能越具有挑战性，建筑智能就发挥了越大的作用。解决了一系列有难度的、彼此矛盾的要求之后，找到一种方式形成综合、完整的理念，那么，建筑就处在最佳状态，是可以理解并且非常怡人的。如此这般，即使这些项目如此具有挑战性，也无论什么人住在那里，无论有什么样的预算、施工进度或场地的限制，建筑还是能表现出最适用、最有力量的状态。

我会说，我们认为我们所有的项目有同样的亮点。它们都是“建筑”。我认为，这基本上就是这个事务所的文化。我们身心愉悦地工作，大小尺度的建筑、中国的桥梁、 东海岸的博物馆、欧洲的景观工程、其他城市的大别墅或公寓，它们都与我们有关。它们都源于同一种建筑设计的方法。

JC：这么说，预算只是众多挑战之一。

MM：我认为它只是挑战之一。我们在这个事务所里学到的东西，其中之一是思考什么才是建筑最基本的部分，什么才是绝对的必要，什么是你可以压缩的，由此设计建造出的建筑，仍然能够成立，并且具有力量。 要懂得哪里是底线，低于这个水平，你的建筑就迷失了。我也可以说，在我的整个建筑生涯里，从未遇到过预算不成问题的项目，只是程度不同而已。因为调节预算和设计的雄心是平衡形式与空间设计的决策性问题。

9. JC：对于城市扩张您怎么看？洛杉矶总是被批评为城市扩张的怪物，一个臭名昭著的CO2发射器。

MM：我认为，这就是现实。但我也在思考，城市扩张、一个城市持续扩张的能力，保持自身形态可能是一个神话。有一点是，一个城市发展得太过分，就不再是原本那个城市了。它可能成为了一个不同的地区。如果你看看北美东海岸，波士顿、纽约、华盛顿特区、费城，整个东海岸像一个城市。它们有各自的特色和区划，但它们都成为了大城市。整个东部海岸都在扩张。洛杉矶当然也是一个扩张的城市。直到现在，洛杉矶仍然继续向更远的地方扩张。但是，我认为它最终形成的边界，不是一个物理性的边界，更是心理极限，超过那个界限，这儿就不再是在洛杉矶。无尽的扩张是洛杉矶的特点和神话。在不断转变的环境里，如何不断地想出新的建筑和发展模式是个有趣的新问题。

10. DW：下一个问题是关于建筑全球化。现在建筑师们都在全世界做项目、参加竞赛。虽然我知道您也参与国际项目或竞赛，但是您的研究和项目大多数还是植根于洛杉矶的。您是否认为建筑师应该更具“地方性”？也许他们该从自己的城市、文化开始？

MM：我对其他的建筑师应该做什么或不该做什么没有什么想法。对我来说，洛杉矶已经是一个非常适合工作的地方了。这里能够在一种富于挑战并与世界其他城市密切相关的环境里设计建筑与景观。如果这里是个跟全球化的世界没有特别紧密关系的小城市，对我来说，意义可能就会不同。我认为，更重要的是你很明确是什么令你的作品有独到之处。在建筑上有想法，知道在建筑与城市的更大范畴的对话中，什么使建筑显得适用并不凡俗，那么，建筑师必须把自己的声音和观点表达出来，并与其他周遭的建筑师有所区别。否则，你无法真正地推进建筑与城市的对话。在一个特定语境里工作，或者与特定的人一起工作，或者接受某种特定的教育，都能让信念变得更坚定。我不确定信念的源泉是不是这么重要。我感兴趣的是，一个提供了多元的意见和方法的环境，能够促使你改进和理解自己的方法和作品。在这方面，我觉得洛杉矶给我提供了一个空间，能够不断地发展我自己对建筑的想法，发出我的声音。

JC：建筑师的民主？

MM：是的。

11. JC：在全球经济不景气的时代，中国仍将是世界上最大的建筑工地，对建筑师而言是一个大试验场。在您的书中，您也将洛杉矶定义为一个试验场，您认为，这两种城市之间有什么样的共同点和差异呢？就目前而言，您有计划参加那些在中国进行的设计试验吗？

MM：我喜欢在中国工作，由于我们在金华的微型书店项目，我在那里工作过。我们曾参加了深圳文学与艺术博物馆的设计竞赛，不过没获胜，但我对这个竞赛项目很感兴趣。目前，我们还有项目在成都，包括规划和一系列河流、湖泊上的桥梁设计，其中的一座桥正在建设，第二座即将开工，我们也在为第三座桥的设计收尾。所以，我们现在是在参与中国的建设，涉足了很多类型独特的项目。中国文化很迷人，但我觉得洛杉矶和中国我们工作过的许多城市都有相似性，也有差异。我对它们都很感兴趣。将这二者联系起来的一点是，中国的城市，像洛杉矶一样，都正处在历史的决定性时刻。在许多城市的建设中，它们正强烈地想要建造属于自己的未来。洛杉矶正面临相同的局面，处在重塑自我的位置。我们处在洛杉矶要面向未来的时段。我很兴奋能有机会在中国工作，他们面临的是一种相似的处境。他们在设想未来，在用巨大的能量、无穷的许诺、强烈的乐观精神来实现，无所畏惧，在任何大扩张的时期，你既能犯些贻害未来的错误，也能做些睿智和有用的改变，成为未来的一部分。对于建筑师来说，那里是难以置信的地方。

JC：所以，每个城市都是独一无二的吗？

MM：我认为是这样，至少我希望如此。我不知道你是不是像我那样飞来飞去，不过，最糟糕的是所有的机场都完全相同。在大多数城市里，城门都是这个城市的入口。宣告这里是城市的门槛，用装饰手法讲述这里的文化。机场就是这种大门，各地的机场似乎已经变得越来越像。我认为，机场是非常重要的建筑类型，特别是新兴城市的机场，因为它们要表达人们对一个城市的期许。这就是为什么当人们问我想做什么样的项目的时候，我一直在说，我想做但还没做的就是机场。有一天我要做一个优秀的机场！

12. DW：您在文章中写道，今日的洛杉矶建筑师和规划师应该创造能够代表这个城市及其文化的形式，而不是引入其他城市形态。然而，在中国，情况是“相反的”。目前，中国对世界各地的建筑师而言是一个试验场，我们正在输入各种城市形态。对这种现象，您有什么看法呢？

MM：理论上说，中国是很吸引人的，因为大部分当代有关建筑的思考都能在那里找机会建成。从这个意义上讲，中国也许将成为世界上最好的最大的最引人注目的建筑博物馆。这并不是件坏事，因为我认为，许多跨越历史、重要而强大的文化都在从其他地方引进最好的建筑和构筑物。在欧洲的17－18世纪，一个国家或一个王国经常从其他国家引进艺术家、音乐家和作曲家。所以，我不认为我们现在所看到的是一种新现象。但它具有一定规模，而且被压缩在这样一个时期里，这才让它显得特别。我认为，由于中国目前超常规发展，不同的区域、城市、邻里、政府、选区、社区，需要越来越多地表现出人们对独特城市的雄心，找到某种方式来表现这些设想。我想，这种方式会令设计工作变得更有深度和广度；一旦建成开放，建筑就不会消失或完全没用。对我而言，这是最大的挑战。建造一个音乐厅或博物馆，如果对以后这些新空间该怎样安排功能、如何利用没有深刻了解，最终，长期使用的结果是从根本上破坏建筑的效用。我不认为，建筑或者风格或者外国建筑师的引进对中国而言是个问题。我觉得问题是“建筑在它们被建成时也就获得了生命”。如果它们有生命，那么，各种各样建筑学上的见解、建筑设计上的抱负及建筑利用带来的复杂结果，会令整个国家和建筑界都有非常丰富的体验。

13. JC：当您1995年创建迈克尔·毛赞建筑事务所时，什么是您最初的“大构想”？您希望达到的目标是什么？现在，您的事务所已经运营了16年，您对未来有怎样的计划？

MM：我成立事务所最初的野心像其他许多建筑师一样，很天真。也就是开始我自己的事业，做能发出自己声音的建筑，做些什么来展现你所认同的建筑、城市和景观。我没想过这会有多难，也没想过别人怎样。我想，最重要的是以极大的纯真和乐观投入其中。我们很幸运。对我个人而言，公司的业绩是最大的回报，对于我们的建筑在文化中所能发挥的作用，我们已经越来越接近我的抱负。不过，我觉得我们尚未达到目标。仍然有很多建筑、很多设计，是我们愿意去做，并且渴望去尝试的。我希望我永远不会感到彻底达到了最终的有限目标。我认为，建筑师们都很焦虑，并且不断批判他们之前做的设计，总想下一个做得更好。所以，未来对我来说，希望继续问些有意义的问题，做令人兴奋的项目，发掘那些问题里真正重要的东西。我愿意在中国做更多的工作，因为我认为在那里的设计是真正有都市尺度的设计。那些项目与我曾经试图在建筑和景观的设计中以及在写作中表达的东西有很密切的关系。我想在中国继续发展我们的工作，继续思考城市问题，帮助我思考当代城市发展。到目前为止，一切都好。

JC & DW：我们非常期待看到您的新作。

MM：我也是，咱们都是这样！

14. JC & DW：您是否相信建筑能够改变世界？

MM：我相信。我一直怀有这种信念。我想对于建筑师来说，这是理所应当的，要坚持这种信念，寄望于此，并且有这种雄心。我从未看到过任何事能比建筑更有实际意义，只有建筑是在真实的场所为了真实的主题而做，并能产生重大的积极的变化。这是建筑独有的功能。我认为，用建筑来看待我们的生活和周围的世界，是一种更为乐观的方式，也是更积极的视角。在这方面，它确实能发挥重大作用。□

1. DW: Why is your book titled "No More Play"?Is that a slogan to warn current architects to rethink the relationship between architecture and the city,or can we understand the city as "no, more play",to encourage more experimentation with pattern,policies, etc.

MM: I think it's both. The reason for the title,especially about a city like Los Angeles, is that contemporary cities globally are at a real turning point. Los Angeles is absolutely one of the models of that kind of continually emerging, contemporary city,and this kind of city is an incredible dynamic place.These model cities have a lot of pressures, they have a lot of challenges, and, in many cases, these newer cities, are often thought of in contrast with more established older cities as not serious, overly playful,and very young, but that is also one of their qualities.The title of the book is really both a question and a call for a very serious evaluation of where these cities are right now, what they'll look like in the future,and what role architects will play in that world. I think one of the key issues in the book considers how architects will approach that question.

2. DW: So, in this book, you made some interesting argument about los Angeles. You said LA is not a city, it could be only be described as LosAngeles. Can you explain more about what you mean?

MM: It really came from a lot of the research in the book and from talking to a lot of people,who have thought deeply about the city; not just urbanists, but also artists, cultural writers,scientists, sociologists, and historians. One of the most consistent parts of those conversations was that nobody thought the term "city" seemed to fit Los Angeles. The idea of the city, and the word "city", is a very historical one. But you can make an argument that Los Angeles has grown to a scale where it no longer is easily defined by the traditional term "city". The idea of city seems to suggest a defined, recognizable, localized, urban phenomenon, with understandable boundaries.When you say New York City, I think most people have an incredibly clear view of what that is.When you talk about Los Angeles, you can say it's a huge region, it's a regional economy, it's an urban metropolis, you can call it many different things that seem more appropriate than saying it is a city.It doesn't have that kind of singularity. So I think one of the challenges, and when we started the book,one of my goals, was to figure out what to call it.We joke that it should be called "Superbigatopolis".Los Angeles is not the only city with this identity challenge. Many cities are like that, many are emerging in Asia. These cities are so large, so complex, with so many different identities within them that I think it's important to try to imagine what other way we might describe it, as opposed to using typical historical terms.

DW: Exactly, like blur the boundary of cities.

MM: Exactly. And it's not just a linguistic question, it's not a semantic question. I think it's actually about how we talk to each other about the phenomenon of these kinds of places. If we are thinking about the future, it is not very helpful naming our places using the language of the past.

3. JC: In terms of city I'd like to ask you about"urbs" and "polis", which I learned from Colin Rowe's writing. I found you love the bottom-up, subtle characteristics of an urban place, instead of the top-down, iconic, singular forms of "polis", or city.And I think you are kind of an "urb" architect, is that right?

1 迈克尔·毛赞事务所内部/Office of Michael Maltzan Architecture

MM: I grew up in a suburb, a very horizontal,continuous, post-war suburb. The thing I remember from that place were the "experiential qualities"the quality of the place. If you are really going to understand what is fundamental to any place,you have to think about them on their own terms,not through outdated ideas and tools. And that means that other types of characteristics, like the ambient, like the atmosphere, like the space between things, not just the forms themselves,are just as important and maybe even more useful to study. It is those other characteristics that have real resonance and are very applicable to a place like Los Angeles. Even the term "context",and its academic use in thinking about making relationships with a city, is not so useful for a place like Los Angeles. The city is defined by its lack of consistency. If you don't have consistency, how can you talk about terms like context? It doesn't mean that a city like Los Angeles, doesn't have observable characteristics, but maybe they are more abstract,more ambient, more subtle; the idea of the horizontal, or the linear quality of the light, or the pace of the city are just as important in defining a place. All of these things are important gradients in the way that we understand a place and the way we define it. Potentially, if we understand the concept of "characteristics", it gives us a new set of tools when we are working in places like this. So I guess that makes me not a 'polis'.

DW: Actually I totally agree with you, LA is lacking consistency. I think of some contemporarywork where designers are still trying to analyze the city, but you can't get any useful information, just by tracing the grid; it's Tabula Rasa.

MM: I think very often architects approach things merely at the level of being good professionals, we use these tools and techniques to say that we've done our homework, we did the analysis. But if it doesn't tell you anything more consequential about the place that you are working and it ends up being a not particularly useful exercise in technique. We are talking about how we approach working in cities in the future, as much as we are talking about how we approach working in the cities now. I'm advocating for a different kind of approach, one aligned with the contemporary qualities and realities of these different types of cities.

JC: Yes exactly, like Zeitgeist?

MM: Exactly, and I think that's still an important term. I think that not just for cities, but for generations, for success of groups of people,I think that cities are the most dynamic and the most sustainable, and at their best, when each new generation has a real role in adding to the city. You can look at a city that has stopped, like Venice,absolutely a beautiful city, but arguably has not developed in any way for hundreds of years. Young people don't stay there, they move away, because there is no way to express their connection to the city, and I think that's an important fact, in keeping any particular place, particular city alive.

4. JC: The problem for some Chinese cities is that they have their context, but at the same time,they are destroying the context. Sometimes it's hard to identify the city. If, like what you said in the book, that only Los Angeles is Los Angeles, can we come up with sentences like "only New York is New York", or "only Beijing is Beijing" ? How can you explain the fact that most large cities in the States,or in China, are getting more and more similar.

MM: I think that is one of the most important challenges for contemporary cities, is to continue to maintain and foster their identity. There has been over the last number of years, a great deal of conversation about the way in which urbanism,architecture, and landscape, have become a global discipline, and that they are strengthening in their global approaches. And it's not that you can isolate yourself from the rest of what's going on in the world.But I think it is important to look at approaches that are more appropriate to the place that you are working than to immediately accept the canonical, as replicable model for these new places.

For instance, when I arrived in Los Angeles after school on the East Coast, and a very classical

education, and starting to work in the city, I began to realize very quickly that cities like New York, or Chicago, or London, or Paris, were not particularly useful models, but cities like Mexico City were. Not because Mexico City is doing everything correctly,but because, the urban issues, the scales of the problems, the question of the environment were similar. So I think one of the goals of the book is to say that there is absolutely a reality to the globalization of urbanism in all countries, but that doesn't mean that you completely homogenize all cities so that they look the same. I think it just means that we need to change our approach,our techniques, to look more deeply at what characteristics might be useful and productive, and sustainable, in these newer cities.

5. DW: You said LA has been equated to a laboratory and in LA the architect is both the experiment and the scientist. I am interested in what you see your contributions are in this architectural laboratory? Can you give us some projects as examples?

MM: I think a city like Los Angeles is an incredible laboratory for new ideas. It continues to evolve as a very useful context for trying out new forms in architecture, landscape and urbanism.But in living here, I realize I am also a part of the experiments, too, because I think the best relationship or role you can play in the city is to be completely immersed in that city, to be a very active participant in the city. So if the city is healthy, your role in that is a healthy role; I think you constantly move between participant and advocate, to say something about the city. I live here, I have a family, I have kids, I participate in a very real way in the city as one part of my life.As an architect, as an urbanist, I have continued to try to press in our work new forms, potentially new typologies, for what kind of role architecture has in making an idea about the city, as well as trying to invent models that could be useful in other places as well. If you look at the housing projects we've been doing for the Skid Row Housing Trust, those projects are interesting to me because they are all about the same scale, maybe 80-120 units, and each project has a unique challenge. In some cases, it's a specific demographic of people who live there, other times it's a very unique site, like the New Carver Apartments which is right next to the highway. I think of those projects as individual buildings but also as ones that try to be almost a microcosm of the city and reproduce a lot of the same dynamic and relationships that you see in the city. At the same time I think of all those separate projects as one large project at the scale of urbanism. Many cities have placed all their hope in huge mega scale projects, and they can be transformative and very productive in the cities, but you can also create very large transformative projects by the steady accumulation of a series of smaller incremental parts, and be just as successful.

6. JC: Movement is a key characteristic of your work, for example, the dynamic logo of MoMAQNS or the staggered massing of the Leona Drive Residence. How this has evolved in your work?

MM: Movement characterizes contemporary cities like Los Angeles; movement is a part of the very identity of the of city. The reality that we have cars, highways, and suburbs, essentially a dispersed horizontal city, means movement is an important part of the way that these places were developed.Thinking about movement is a way of creating a more experiential relationship with architecture.You can design architecture in different ways. You can make a plan, and create geometric order to that plan, and the building is understood in that way. You can create a form, a singular iconic form,and the building could be understood in that way. I am interested in buildings revealing themselves to you as you move in, through and around them. The building design is developed in an effort to try tounderstand how somebody would use and experience the building. The benefit in that approach for me is that it puts the participant and the building into a conversation. So as you move around the building, it gives you the impression of moving and responding and relating to you. When I was in school, around the time I was starting architecture, Collin Rowe who you mentioned, and a lot of architects were interested in rethinking the city using classical planning techniques, and importing that to new work in contemporary urban situations. The problem with that was it's an abstract way of working in the city.It was a God-eyes view, distant, looking down at the city in two dimensions. And that leads to planning the city in a very abstract, disassociated, dislocated way. But that view has very little to do with the way that people experience the contemporary city. I was influenced by a number of artists and sculptors at the time who were creating large scale sculptures,and whose goal was to put the viewer, back into a real equation with the art, with the sculpture. They did that by thinking about the way you would move in and around space and form.

JC: Like Richard Serra?

MM: Exactly like Serra. You saw all of the spaces surrounding spaces the piece in a very different way as you moved around the sculpture.Serra's sculpture acted like a intermediary, or almost a barometer for the city around it, gauging its relationship to its context it is very inclusive.Somehow one singular piece seemed to represent the whole diversity of the city, melding all of those architectural styles and histories, into a choreographic dance with each other. And I was excited by that because it was clear and it was so conscious, it was a provocateur of your experience.Since then, that idea of working in the city, thinking about architecture, and designing architecture in relationship to one's movement, one's experience of a building, has been fundamental to the way of I approach all other work.

7. JC: We can find a lot of different "patterns"in some of your projects, like the Leona Drive Residence project, and we can see you love them,since you put some samples of them outside of your office. Do you think they are kind of ornament? And if they have functions, what are their functions?

MM: In a contemporary sense, pattern does have an ornamental function. Ornament historically created relief in a facade, it is a sculptural technique more than anything but I use pattern as a way of creating experiences. The mock-ups you mentioned here at the office area a good example.It is of a perforated flat skin. You can see through the perforations of that skin that there is a mirror behind it. We were designing a building with a big, flat plain wall and I wanted to see if it was possible to create a sense of sculptural movement in that flat wall as you move around it. As you walk along that wall, the mirror behind the perforated screen reflects the trees, the grass, the sky and you as well. You see yourself pixilated within that facade and there is this incredible moiré pattern that occurs. It is completely optical and dynamic and moving. The form of the building seems to be breathing, shifting, and alive with you. Pattern isn't for me about the geometries of the pattern. It is more about creating experience.

8. DW: Compare to your private houses, culture and exhibition projects, Rainbow Apartments,New Carver Apartments, and the on-going Star Apartments projects are very unique, because they are for formerly homeless people. What is the biggest challenge for the projects? How did you keep critical in your design while controling the building budget reasonably?

2 迈克尔·毛赞事务所内部/Office of Michael Maltzan Architecture

MM: I have a real commitment to a wide range of architectural projects and programs. My interestis to continue to explore how elastic architecture can be. I think the early modernists gave us an example of how architecture could be useful and important in taking on a wide range of project types, from those for the very wealthiest clients to those who are very often forgotten segments of our culture. Our urban goal is to show that all of these projects are absolutely essential in their diversity and contribute to a very healthy and vibrant urban culture. You can't have architecture just exist for one segment of the population, either the poor or the wealthy or the middle-class, and expect that you are going to help to continue to foster a more dynamic culture and city. I think obviously,the projects for the homeless, tend to have much tougher, much tighter financial budgets. They are often in parts of the city which are challenging, like the New Carver Apartments which is right next to the highway and required us to carefully consider the intense noise in the building acoustics. The more challenging the site or program, I think you see the intelligence of architecture being particularly useful. Architecture is at its best when it takes a series of very difficult, often competing challenges,and finds a way of making a synthetic and complete idea, one that is understandable and beautiful for people. In that case, because those projects are so challenging, whether in terms of the people who would live there, the budgets, the construction schedules, or the limits of the sites, architecture is able to be at its most useful and most powerful.

I will say that we view all of our projects in the same light. They are all "architecture". I think that is very much about the culture of this office. That we feel comfortable doing, large and small scales of buildings, bridges in China, museums on the East Coast, landscape projects in Europe, big houses and apartment buildings in other cities; they are all related to us. They all come from a single way of approaching architecture.

JC: So budgets are just one of the challenges.

MM: I think it is one of the challenges. One of the things we learned here at the office was to ask what is the most fundamental parts of the architecture, what is absolutely essential, what can you boil it down to, and still produce something where architecture is present and powerful. To understand where the line is that if you fall below you know you've lost your architecture. And I can also say that I have never worked on a project in my entire architecture career where budget wasn't a challenge at some level because the reconciliation of a budge and a project's ambition is an equal design decision to form and space.

9. JC: What do you think of Urban Sprawl?Since L.A. is always criticized as an urban scrawl monster, a notorious carbon dioxide emitter.

MM: I think it is a reality. But I also think that urban sprawl, and the ability for a city to continue sprawl, and maintain itself is probably a myth. There is a point beyond which a city grows so much, it is no longer necessarily that city any more. It might be a different region. If you look at the east coast of North America, from Boston,New York, D.C., Philadelphia, you see that the entire east coast as one city. They have distinct identities and regions, but there is a point where it all becomes one big city. The entire east coast is sprawl. Los Angeles is of course also a sprawl city.Up until now, Los Angeles has been able to expand by continuing to push its boundaries further and further out. But I think that perimeter has finally been reached, not as a physical boundary but more a psychological limit, beyond which you are no longer in Los Angeles. The ability the endlessly expand is a part of Los Angeles' identity and myth. It's an interesting new question for how you continue to think about inventing new buildingsand development models in that shifting context.

10. DW: The next question is about the architecture globalization. Architects nowadays are doing projects and competitions all over the world.Though I know you do a lot of international projects or competitions, most of your research and projects are still based on L.A. Do you think architects should be more "local" ? Maybe they should start from their own city and culture before pursue their cosmopolitan ambition?

MM: I don't know that I have a strong sense of what other architects should do or not do. For me, Los Angeles has been an incredibly useful place to work from. It's a place to build buildings and landscape in a context that is very challenging and relevant to cities around the world. It probably would be much more difficult for me if I was in a smaller regional city that didn't have a strong connection to that global world you just described.I think it's more important to understand what you believe in and what makes your work unique. Having an opinion about architecture, and knowing what makes architecture useful and significant in a larger conversation about architecture and cities, only happens when an architect has his or her own voice and has an opinion that is different or distinct from other architects working around him. Otherwise,you are not really going to move the conversation very far forward. That conviction can develop from doing work in a particular context, or by working with a particular person, or from a particular type of education or school. I'm not sure its source matters so much. I'm more interested in a context that provides a diversity of opinions and approaches against which you can test and understand your own approach and work. In that way I think Los Angeles has provided me with a place to develop my own voice, and my own opinion of what I think architecture can be.

JC: Democracy of architects?

MM: Yes.

11. JC: In this era of global economic recession,China is still the biggest construction site in the world and is considered an experimental ground for architects. In your book, you also define Los Angeles as a laboratory, what do you think are similarities and differences between the two? Do you have any plan to participate in those experiments happening in China, so far?

MM: I like working in China, and have since we worked on the small pavilion project in Jinhua. We were involved in a competition for the Literature and Art Museum building in Shenzhen, which we didn't win, but I was very interested in the building that we developed for that competition.Currently we're doing work in Chengdu, both planning work and also a series of bridges across the river and lakes; one of these bridges is already in construction, a second one is about to starting construction, and we are finishing the design of a third bridge. So we've stayed involved there, with very specific types of projects. I think that the Chinese culture is fascinating, and I think there are both important similarities and also very important differences between a place like Los Angeles and many of the Chinese cities we are working in. I'm interested in both. One of the things that connect those two places is that the Chinese city, like Los Angeles, is at a defining moment in its history. In many of those cities that are building so intensively they are literally building their futures. LA is at a similar threshold, where it is reinventing itself. We are in a period of time when LA is also transforming once again into what it will be in the future. And the thing that has excited me most about the places that we have had an opportunity to work in in China, is that they are confronting a very similar thing. They are inventing who they will be in the future, and with that that comes an enormous amount of energy, enormous amounts of promise,enormous optimism, and enormous challenge,because at any moment of great expansion, you can either make the most profound mistakes that will be permanent parts of your future or you can make smart and useful changes that will be part of that future. That's an incredible place to be as architects.

JC: So, every city is unique?

MM: I think it is or at least I hope so. I don't know if you fly a lot, which I do, but the worst thing is that all of the airports are becoming exactly the same. The form of the city gate was, in most cities the introduction of the city. It announced the city threshold, very often it was decorated in a way that told you a great deal about the culture. Airports have become those gateways and each airport seems to have become more and more like all the other airports. I think airports are one of the really important typologies, especially for emerging cities,because they set people's expectations of that city.That's why I keep saying when people always ask me what the one project that I haven't done but wouldlike to do is, I say an airport. And some day I’m going to make a good airport!

12. DW: In your writings you said that today's L.A. architects and planners should produce forms that represent this city and its culture, as opposed to importing other urban forms. In China, however,the situation is "opposite". Currently, China is a laboratory for architects all over the world; we are importing all kinds of urban forms. What's your observation on this phenomenon?

MM: Abstractly it is fascinating, because much of the most contemporary thinking about architecture is getting the opportunity to be built in China. So in that sense, China is going to become perhaps the best, largest, and most compelling architecture museum in the world.And that is not necessarily a bad thing because I think many important and powerful cultures over history have imported the best of architecture and building from other places. In Europe, in the seventeenth to eighteenth century, very often a country or a king of monarchy would import artists,musicians and composers from other countries. So I don't think this is necessarily a new phenomenon that we are seeing. But it is happening on a scale and in such a compressed period of time. That is the part that does make it unique. I do think that as this extraordinary development in China continues, each of those different regions, cities,neighborhoods, governments, constituencies,communities, will need to be more and more vocal about ambitions they have for their particular city and find a way to express that. I think in that way the work becomes that much deeper and much richer; it doesn't become something that disappears or is un-useful the day after it has been opened. To me that is the biggest challenge. To build a concert hall or museum without a deep understanding of how these new spaces are going to be programmed or useful in the future, ultimately undermines architecture's validity in the long run. I don't think it is a question of the architecture or the styles,or the importation of foreign architects to China.I think the question is "are the buildings going to have real life after they've finish construction".And if they do, then the complexity that comes from the different architectural voices and the architecture's ambition and its use, will make for a very rich experience for the county and for architecture as a whole.

13. JC: When you established Michael Maltzan Architecture in1995, what was the original "big idea" for you? Do you think you have achieved that goal? Now that your office is approaching 16 years of being in business, what are your plans for the future?

MM: My original ambition for the office was like a lot of architects, a naive one. It was to start doing my own work, to make architecture where you could find your own voice, to make something that represented what you believed about architecture, the city and landscape. I didn't realize how hard that was going to be; I don't think anybody ever does. I think it is important to go into these things with a great amount of naiveté and optimism. We have been very fortunate.For me personally, the firm's achievements are most rewarding as we get closer and closer to my ambition for what architecture's role in culture can be. I don't think we are there yet. We still have a lot of buildings, a lot of designs, that we would like to do, and are excited to try. I hope I never feel that I have fully achieved some final, finite goal. I think architects are restless and constantly critical of the things they've made, and they want to make the next one even better. So the future for me, is hopefully to continue to ask real questions and do exciting projects that explore what is important in those questions. I would love to do more work in China because I think the scale of work happening there is at the scale of urban design. Those types of projects relate strongly to much of the work I have been trying to do in the architecture of individual buildings and landscape,but also in writing. I would like to continue to see our work develop here, to continue to evolve our thinking about the city, to help the idea of the contemporary city evolve. So far so good.

JC & DW: and we are expecting your new works.

MM: Me too, the three of us!

14. JC & DW: Do you believe architecture can change the world?

MM: I do. I still do. I think it is incumbent on architects to continue to believe that, hope for that, and to have ambition for that. I have never seen anything be more consequential in making significant, progressive change for real issues in real places than architecture. It has a very unique capacity. I think architecture can be a model for a more optimistic and more progressive way of looking at our lives and the world around us. It really is extremely capable in that way. □