迈克尔·贝尔 华杨 译，司马蕾 校

融入法演绎现代：张永和

迈克尔·贝尔 华杨 译，司马蕾 校

张永和作为建筑界代表之声的出现是与全球城市的兴起同步的。他和鲁力佳打造的建筑实践反映了全球背景并直观地映射了他们的个人经历。随着新的全球经济网络改变了世界版图的组成，他们最大程度地进行了实际的参与，并且详细地揭示了使建筑偏心或离散的时空。如此的融入法表演基于故事之内，但并不过多表现剧本中虚构的人物。张永和的职业跨度从早期、存在主义的纸上建筑演变到一个塑造了包含校园、办公园区和住宅在内的建筑实践。日常性和全球性在他的个人视角下碰撞，在当代的临界点上创新的张永和依旧保持了他早期的作品特色。

张永和，非常建筑，自主性，本土的，资本的灵活积累，城市化，建筑

说起张永和，不能不提及他的人生经历。他的名字以及他和鲁力佳的建筑实践受到了广泛的认可，无论是早期的尝试还是如今在世界各地开展的实践，他的项目以及对建筑的思考都广为人知。我们很多人都知道他从中国旅美，足迹踏遍了美国的数个州，然后又返回中国的经历。但这并不是他完整的人生历程，因为他后来又重新回到了美国，并担任了麻省理工学院建筑系的系主任。年轻的他在印第安纳州读过本科，随后在加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校攻读研究生，并成长为密歇根大学、哈佛大学、莱斯大学的教授，而在一段较长的时间里，他又以教授的身份重新回到伯克利，并对那里产生了深远的影响。张永和对世界的认知可能是同时代的人中最为深刻的——因为他了解许多城市，并且深深地理解我们的世界在思想、政治和经济上发生着的变革。他见多识广，却依然能不断推陈出新，这也使人们对他的建筑作品给予嘉许。我记得他和力佳曾举办过一场时装秀——在一个项目的推进过程中，他们暂停下来，试图以服装设计为媒介来阐释建筑与城市。用这种通俗的方式来展现了他的现代作风：他活在当下，而这是他经过冷静思考后的刻意选择。

我和张永和于1984年相识在伯克利的环境设计学院。后来我们一起在建筑学院任教，晚些又一起去了休斯顿的莱斯大学。那时我所认识的张永和是一个天资卓越的“纸上建筑师”——在那个时代，彼得·埃森曼所提倡的捍卫建筑的“自治性”一度影响深远，而源自建筑联盟学院（AA）的影响则提供了另一种常常具有指示性和形象性的、却仍然保持了抽象风格的建筑路径。建筑图纸的绘制方法至关重要，建筑师画每一条线的方法与他的建筑设计呈现出的可能性密不可分。相比钢笔画，永和似乎更加喜欢用铅笔来表达，他喜欢用阴影和轮廓（明暗）来作画——渐变描绘得很准确，形态的轮廓也很清晰。他通常会画在纸张或页面的正中间，如果让他画一张自行车运动的示意图，他也会用形状和抽象图形的方法来表达。他的画会刻画时间和动感，但只通过一种具有美感的图象的形式来呈现，所见如同所想。

1

在最近哥伦比亚大学举行的一场活动里，由玛尔塔·古特曼发起，在理查德·普伦茨，伯纳德·屈米和肯尼斯·弗兰姆普敦之间开展了一场讨论，玛尔塔·古特曼认为亨利·列斐伏尔的著作《空间的产生》对1980年代末的哥伦比亚大学的建筑思潮产生了深刻的影响。这本书在伯克利也同样颇具影响力，但就算你没有直接读过这本著作，你也不得不承认今天的建筑师并没有把列斐伏尔对于“日常生活”的社会学思想运用在他们的建筑实践中。人类生产空间的实践通常以最小化的方式或者在更大的权力结构的边缘开展，这是一个涉及无数合法手续的行为，空间的生产塑造了经济、城市以及更高层次的政治机制，但社会关系却极少在这一过程中被考虑。如果有人对绘图感兴趣并把它当成一种个人行为，那作画可以被看成一种保护了人身主权——也就是他们个人特点的社会声明。但是把绘制建筑图纸当成个人行为就会带来冲突，而建筑师作为负责管理容纳其他人的空间的人将承受这一冲突——怎样让建筑既能代表居住在建筑中的人，也代表建筑师自己呢？张永和一直游走在这个边界上，我认为他也在不断完善这条界线。历经了适应新政治和新文化、经济的考验，他依然一直在寻找新的途径来表现建筑的人文关怀，同时也没有忘却建筑内在的自主性。追求这种自主性需要排除当下、时间性、地区性以及建筑的使用者对建筑的影响。

在美国从一名学生成长为教授的15年时间里，张永和看上去似乎会一直都当一个“纸上建筑师”了。那时他对建筑领域的贡献体现在一系列的建筑图纸上，他用图把建筑限定为一种能用于建造房屋，或是塑造思想、辅佐行为的社会工具。他也会试着把建造从建筑移除来看看它会变成什么样。他的想法受到许多大师的影响，包括约翰·海杜克和马西莫·斯科拉里，还有利伯乌斯·伍兹和雷蒙德·亚伯拉罕，以及后来出现的扎哈·哈迪德或雷姆·库哈斯。这一代设计师并不着急寻求业主或者建造商的青睐，却在如何设计和管理建筑细节方面精益求精。这些工作的背景不仅包括了列斐伏尔等人的思想，也受到了1980年代中期的国际建筑界已经开始对社会面临的金融和资本的全球化浪潮有所意识的影响。这一时期，布雷顿森林体系终结后的新全球化经济大约开始了13年或更长一点的时间，新的资金运作开始在国家间，或者更精确地说在城市间流动。总之，那时的世界，国家之间的界限开始不再那么清晰，经济网络最终把所有国家都联系到了一起。建筑院校也不可避免地受到这一浪潮的影响。1987年，在耶鲁大学建筑学院，地理学家及政治经济学家戴维·哈维描述了一种城市规划和建筑面临的全新挑战，关于如何在资本以一种新方式自由穿越国境的世界里营造地区性。这个世界上，资本与地区的相关性正越来越小、不再依赖地区；全球化经济重新塑造了每个地区以及当地居民的日常体验；产品和产地之间的联系也越来越薄弱。

2

3

张永和此时刚刚离开学校，他的建筑实践从行为到思想上都受到了当时这一革命的影响。他的建筑设计和实践探求一种独立于周边的孤独感，但这种个性化的抽离的姿态是被迫采取的，看上去有些不自然。新的全球经济关系建立在物质、财富和就业的快速流转之上，在此后被视为造成世界的严重不平等的驱动因素，但它同时其也使得城市生活成为人类发展的新动力。在过去的30年里，世界的城市化趋势发展迅猛。

张永和和鲁力佳于1995年从美国回到中国，他具有个人特点的绘图方式也开始转变为专业的设计和建筑实践。张永和现在活跃在亚洲、欧洲和美国，他已经适应了运营设计事务所，甚至在最近开始实验新的建造方法和技术。材料及其带来的限制现在对于张永和的意义与过去画图的线条一样重要。这看上去像是一个完全的蜕变，但如果你见过他在当初只能在纸上绘制建筑时对每根线条的准确性的追求，就会知道他并没有变。我猜想，当人们提到张永和的时候都会从心底对他产生敬意，因为在这个瞬息万变的全球化世界中他不仅随之迁移——无论是字面上的，还是思想上的——同时甘愿当作一个参照者。他是种种事物的晴雨表，是自己作品的完全拥有者，是许多人使用的空间的建筑师，他的手法反映各种变化但并不强求变化。他依然现代，是一个立足存在主义、不情愿的作者：不去模拟自己对世界需求的信念，他有时更像一个融入派演员，允许世界将他带入一个创造性的，与他自己和世界都不太一样的角色。他的全球化生活经验并没有促使他产生直接应对现代发展出现危机的忧患或是动力，相反，他的作品通常会反映出时代的变化，而不是对其表达一个武断的意见。我们认同他正是因为他的作品能让我们反思，调动自己的想象力来理解当下的情况，思考解决方案。

在张永和的作品中可以看到这种融入法演技的痕迹。例如，骑车流线在建筑中进行空间切挖，尽管自行车并不允许进入。作为中国人，他重返祖国并建造了一座夯土建筑（几乎是对传统的致敬），但掰开呈现出三角状布局，可能灵感来自于马列维奇，也可能源自他对年轻的“纸上建筑师”扎哈·哈迪德的喜爱。但是他从不过多表明自己的好恶，这房子就作为一个证据摆在那里，让我们自己判断。比起他所了解的今天全球化文化产生的作品，张永和自己主持设计并认可的作品并不多（出于他知性的自尊）。他从不试图隐藏自己的美国传承，包括一系列已构成我们知识基础一部分的欧洲影响；但他个人也尊重场所和时机，使他可以从事本土的工作。越自主的工作越能显示出世界发生了多大的变化。这在上海的垂直玻璃宅项目中得以体现。这个在美国设计的纸上建筑，20年后在经济大发展中实现。我们看到一人独处在人群中；张永和的原始设计可能是受到了约翰·海杜克的“拒绝参与的居民”这个作品的影响。在这里，居民坐在黄浦江边，悬浮（玻璃地面）于夜间江面上连排的船只（资本全球化的产物）和梦工厂的制片厂以及戴维·奇普菲尔德设计的博物馆（文化全球化的产物）之间。在这一图腾般的封闭的塔楼中呈现出现代的上海，而这一设计早在它被建成的25年前就诞生了。这里的新居民是一位穿越了时空而来的融入派演员。

最近，在上海的讲座中，张永和提及了对于小型建筑的需求，或者说他认为需要对最小的建筑也给予足够的关注。他也真诚地关注着正在重塑中国的一波波财富和发展。他无疑有能力设计非常大型的建筑，但在他离开在伯克利的（也包括在休斯顿、安阿伯等地的）个人制图桌25年之后，他正在寻找一种方式，并不是为了撤退，而是要找回什么是最重要的。他不是个在建筑上多愁善感的人，但是我认为他对于分辨对错的态度非常鲜明。他不是道德家，不热衷于布道或给人灌输思想。相反，他展示了一系列曾在学生时代给予他灵感的作品，那些作品往往仅源于一个很小的构思，但却对建筑学发展产生了巨大的推动。讲座中，西古德·莱弗伦茨被作为衡量的标准来介绍，我在房间的后排聆听时（可能有超过1000人的听众）也被深深打动。他详细介绍的一张图片是一个一个著名的建筑细部：一块玻璃超出了周围的框架，与建筑的混凝土墙体处在了同一平面上，这就形成了玻璃和混凝土的组合平面，窗框围不住窗子了。莱弗伦茨打破了建筑细部的规律和建筑构件的原有含义，让重力的作用直接表现在建筑立面上。我相信张永和是希望能在当今创造出类似的结构，让它既现代又符合当下中国的经济情况和需求规模。我不确信这是不是能实现，但我知道这反映在了他从早期到现在的作品轨迹里，我所见证的他的这一历程足以证明他是个坚定的人，会实验他学过和接触过的所有可能性来达到目标。他目前刚刚开始这种探索并在开展材料试验，例如测试填充了混凝土的玻璃纤维结构的性能；但讲座中极富感染力的是张永和对于更年轻一代建筑师的寄语和召唤。我想他应该是又想象自己回到了那年轻而充满朝气的时候，尽管他也自知现在已经是阅历深厚的年纪了。现在距离他当年在伯克利的时光已非常久远，但他依然能幽默而善意地回想起当时的每一天光阴。这些时光铸就了当下的他，也让他能把这份经历作为礼物与别人分享。你能够感受到（在现场的）人们明白他的分享是非常慷慨的，让人每次都想从头再听。

It is impossible to think of Yung Ho Chang without imagining his path. When his name comes up and his practice with LU Lijia many often smile because we know both the projects, indeed meditations, of his earliest work and his now global practice. I think many of us imagine his path from China to the United States (to many states inside the United States) and then back to China. Yet, that of course is not the full story, because Yung Ho also returned to the U.S. anew to serve as the head of the Department of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Working in Indiana as a young student, later a graduate student at Berkeley and then professor at the University of Michigan, Harvard and Rice and in particular a significant period of time with a profound effect at Berkeley again as a professor. Yung Ho Chang knows the world as perhaps only a deeply contemporary person can - as a citizen really of a network of cities and deep changes in our world intellectually,politically, and economically. This makes people smile when his works of architecture come up because he has seen so much, but nonetheless seems to be emerging in new ways again and again.I am reminded of a fashion show of his and Lijia's clothing - well into a mature practice of architecture Yung Ho and Lijia paused to try to speak of architecture and cities through the medium of clothing design. He is modern in the most colloquial sense: he is of the now and calmly determined to stay that way.

I must admit that I have known Yung Ho Chang since 1984 when we met at Berkeley at the College of Environmental Design. We then taught together in the Department of Architecture and subsequently at Rice University in Houston. The Yung Ho I met then was an exquisitely talented "paper architect" - this was a time when Peter Eisenman's focus on architecture's"autonomy" held a deep sway, but also when the Architectural Association seemed to offer a path into a figural and often referential yet still abstract architecture. Drawing mattered immensely and how one drew a line was inseparable from what was possible in architectural design. Yung Ho drew in graphite it seemed far more often than ink and he employed shadow and contour (chiaroscuro) in ways that were precise in gradient but also had a firm final delineation of form. More so his drawings were composed and centered on paper/page - even if he drew the diagram of a bicycle's motion this was registered as form and a quasi-object. Time was described, motion invoked. But the drawing offered this instead as a kind of aesthetic image to think though as much as see.

At a recent event at Columbia the discussion between Richard Plunz, Bernard Tschumi and Kenneth Frampton was guided by Marta Gutman who claimed Henri Lefebvre's book "The Production of Space" had held a strong inf l uence over late 1980's architectural thought at Columbia. The book was also influential at Berkeley and even if one did not have direct exposure to it you would be hard pressed to fi nd architects today who have not admitted a great deal of the sociology of Lefebvre's "everyday" into their work. A practice of human action as the making space in the smallest of ways or at the margins of larger power structures; a way to recognize as legitimate countless actions and social relations often barely acknowledged in the practices that shape economies,cities and our larger political mechanisms. If one were interested in drawing as a private action this indeed might be a social statement of a person protecting their sovereignty - their identity. But to draw architecture as a private action creates a conflict; the architect as the administrator of the space of others bears a conflict - how can the people who reside in architecture be (pre) represented and then represent themselves? Yung Ho Chang has always lived on this border and I think is continually refining its edge. Having migrated so boldly through tough new political, cultural economies he keeps finding new ways to reveal what is human in architecture without losing the sense of architecture as something indeed autonomous. Something apart from the moment, the time, the place or from the people who will use it.

During the course of 15 years in the United States as a student and then professor it seemed that Yung Ho Chang would remain a"paper architect". To offer a contribution to the field through a practice of drawing that refined architecture's edge as a social instrument to be used at a later date in construction or to shape thought and then action. To in effect remove it from construction to test what it might become.He had mentors in this decision. John Hejduk and Massimo Scolari but also Lebbeus Woods and Raimund Abraham and indeed a then emerging Zaha Hadid or Rem Koolhaas. A generation for whom clients and contractors were not urgently sought but who nonetheless were deeply precise in how they drew and managed what were explicit details of construction. This work has to be seen in the context of not just someone like Lefebvre but a critically important realization that the mid 1980's international intellectual context in architecture was now facing a newly global network of finance and money. It was only thirteen or more years into the onset of a post Bretton-Woods global economy and a new liquidity of financial flow between nations and more precisely between cities. In short it was a world where the boundaries between nations were not as critical as the financial networks that were to inevitably interlink them.This work was not far from architecture schools: At the Yale University School of Architecture in 1987 geographer/political economist, David Harvey described a new challenge to urban planning and architecture; the constitution of place in a world where capital flowed in a new paradigm across national borders. Where money was increasingly less dependent on place or less anchored to it and where global fi nance was reshaping local territory and the everyday experience of others wise local citizens. Where production and place had increasingly tenuous links.1）Yung Ho Chang was barely out of school at this time and his practice followed this evolution in literal and intellectual ways. A posture of architectural design and practice that sought a solitude of near but private disengagement was under duress and seen as less tenable. New global economic relations based in the rapid transfer of products and wealth and jobs have since been clearly seen as a driver of deep inequality in the world but they have also made urban life the new denominator of development.The world became wildly more urban in this past 30 years.

Yung Ho Chang and Lijia moved from the United States home to China in 1995 and what had been a private practice of drawing became a professional practice of design and building.Now active in Asia, Europe and the United States,Chang adapted to running an office and indeed, as of late, to experimenting in new building means and techniques. Material and its limits are now in effect as important to Chang as the drawn line used to be. It is a complete metamorphosis on one hand but perhaps not so if one realized how precisely he made even a line when that was all he could make. Yet I would venture that people smile when Yung Ho's name comes up because they are privately in awe of how he not only migrated(literally and intellectually) the deep upheaval of our newly global world but by how he seems to be willing to be a measure of it. He is a barometer of sorts and while he is the clear author of his works and indeed the architect of spaces for many he is also a kind of instrument that reveals change rather than imposes it. He is still modern in that he is an existential and reluctant author; rather than simulate what he believes the world needs, he is at times a kind of method actor who has allowed the world to invoke in him a creative character a step away from himself and the world. His global experience is not one that has instigated in him a direct concern or agency to address head on the crisis of modern development; instead his work often reveals change rather than forces a statement upon it. We smile because he enables us to complete the loop and forecast our own imaginary condition and perhaps solution.

在伯克利，两位教授对张永和和我的影响非常深远。一位是斯坦利·塞托维茨，他从南非来到北加州，带来了他对场所和地域最深切的尊重，同时也展现出对那些显示出自身力量和能力的无名建筑的充分敬意。这样的作品是一份礼物，给我们带来超越效率的更多内涵。另一位与张永和有缘相遇的教授是拉尔斯·莱勒普。莱勒普喜欢对于地方性和时间性进行不懈的探究，也同样关注建筑的社会包容性，他反复测试设计的主体性和自主性的边界，他的工作体现出对场地中的每个人、至今为止的每一天的关怀。我猜测如果没有他的思想带来的对地方性和无地方性的纠葛，永和不会成为如此彻底的现代主义者。我也认为伯克利是个独特的治学之地，对地方性和人本身的强烈关注几乎成了学校的使命，也让学校的教师们参与到了对受到了当时新兴经济的催化的地域改变的第一线。张永和过去不曾、今天也仍然没有忘却这些。伯克利对地区性和建筑的社会属性的关注的核心是一个强大的愿景：当我们发现了世界上现存需求的局限性，又想对它进行扩展时，应该让建筑理想成为其中的一股人性化的力量。张的作品显示出他在反复实验他的想法时的耐心，通过种种实验，他也让我们从他的作品中受到启发，让他的发现得以广为传播。伯克利的生活是他的人生中一段长久而重要的时期，我相信在北京大学和同济大学工作的时期也给他带来了同样深刻而宝贵的经历。

4

5

和张永和一样有声望的当代建筑师随着项目和业主在不同的地方来去，而张永和本人在思想和社会两地不断往返。他去过的地方、与他共同工作和分享过理念的人回馈了他的慷慨。同时他有助于他看过、经历过的世界，他的思考为我们所共享，并使得共同的思想得以出现并在建筑中实现。他取得的成果鼓舞人心，这恰恰就是我们集体自我的缩影。□（致谢：非常感谢哥伦比亚大学建筑与规划研究生院副教授查尔斯·艾尔德雷德对本文提出的编辑意见及指导。）

注释/Note:

1）作为“在区域城市中发展美国城市、社会和建筑”会议的一部分，戴维·哈维曾于1987年在耶鲁建筑学院做了演讲；演讲的内容之后发表在了院刊上。/David Harvey delivered his lecture at the Yale School of Architecture as part of the conference "Developing the American City, Society and Architecture in the Regional City" in February, 1987. He later published the lecture in the school's journal. 参阅/See: Harvey, David. "Flexible Accumulation through Urbanization Ref l ections on 'Post-Modernism' in the American City." Perspecta 26 (1990):251-72. doi:10.2307/1567167.

You can see the method actor in Chang's work. The bicyclist whose motion carves space inside a building when they were not supposed to be there. The son of China comes home and constructs a rammed earth structure (almost as an homage) but one that is pinched into a triangular shape - perhaps from Malevich? Or a transmission reflecting his affection for a young then paper architect Zaha Hadid. But he never labors the declaration and indeed it is offered almost as simple evidence for us to judge. It is not so much work that is designed and then approved by Chang's own supervision (an intellectual ego)as work that Chang knows is of our now global culture. He does nothing to hide his lineage in the U.S. studying an array of European inf l uences that have often constituted our knowledge base; but he also has a private respect for place and time that allows him to work with a vernacular. The work in its near autonomy reveals how much the world has changed. This shows in the Glass House in Shanghai; a work designed in the United States as paper architecture is realized 20 years later in the midst of an economic explosion. We see a person alone in a crowd; John Hedjuk's "inhabitant who refused to participate" is perhaps an influence in the original project by Chang. Here that inhabitant sits on the edge of the Huangpu River; floorless(glass floor) between a constant line of ships on the evening river (global capital) and a DreamWorks Studios and a David Chipperfield Museum (global culture). Modern Shanghai revealed in the totemic and blind tower that has survived 25 years before it was born. The new inhabitant is now a method actor transposed in time and place.

In a recent lecture in Shanghai I listened as Chang spoke of the need for small architecture or a need to care about even the smallest of works. He was sincerely concerned about the waves of wealth and development that were reshaping China. As someone capable of immense works of architecture and only 25 years past his private drafting table in Berkeley (and Houston, and Ann Arbor and…)he was seeking a way to not retreat but to recall what was at stake. He is not sentimental about architecture but he is in fact quite tough I think in caring about right and wrong. But he is also not a moralist who would preach or impose either. Instead he showed a lineage of works that had inspired him as a student and works that carried in the smallest of decisions a significant architectural thrust.Sigurd Lewerentz was a touchstone in this lecture and as I listened in the back of the room (perhaps 1000 people attended) I was both impressed and concerned. The image he focused on was of a famous architectural detail; a plate of glass that overruns the boundary of its frame and in effect becomes coplanar with the concrete wall of the building. It is a glass and concrete planar composition; a window that fails to stay inside its frame. Lewerentz broke the rules of architectural detail and signification of part to purpose but allowed gravity to be revealed.Chang I think was hoping for an equivalent structure today; one that could be modern and up to the economy and demands of scale that China is currently made of. I was not sure this was possible but I knew it reflected a path from his earliest work to the moment and that I was witnessing a very strong person who was willing to test everything he had learned and been exposed to. He has just begun work of this type in his material experiments such as concrete filled fiberglass structures; but it was the voice and the call to a younger generation in the lecture hall that was deeply impressive. He reimagined himself, I think, as young and emerging,even as he knew he had seen much already. He was so far from his days at Berkeley but also with humor and kindness still so aware of every one of those days - that allowed him to be of the now but also to of f er his experience as a gift to others. You could feel (in the room) the way people understood the generosity of this and you could only hope that he was just beginning again.

At Berkeley two professor had an immense inf l uence on Yung Ho and myself. One was Stanley Saitowitz, who had come from South Africa to Northern California and brought with him the deepest regard for place and geography but also a reverence for an authorless work that revealed its own power and capacity. Such a work was a gift in that it exceeds efficiency and offers more. The other professor whose orbit Chang encountered was Lars Lerup. Lerup, far more uneasy about place and time and more so about the social capacity of architecture nonetheless did more to test a line between agency and autonomy in design that most anyone in the field - and to this day is at the core of his work.I doubt Yung Ho would have emerged as so fully modern without this tug of war between place and place-less-ness. I also believe that Berkeley was a unique zone of enquiry where a concern for the immediacy of place and person - almost endemic the school's mission - also allowed its faculty a front line means to take part in the revisions of territory that the then emerging economy instigated. None of this was or is lost on Chang today. At the core of Berkeley's concern for place and the social nature of architecture was a tough realization: an architectural aspiration to be a humanizing force in the world demands that we find its limits even as we seek to then expand them. There is a quality of patience in Chang's work that allows him to test and re-test ideas and in doing so he in effect makes it possible of us to work from his work and to multiply what he has discovered. Berkeley is a long way past in Chang's day to day life but I would be sure that his connections to Peking University and to Tongji University have similar depth and bear similar gifts.

Contemporary architects of Yung Ho Chang's stature move from place to place for projects and clients. But Yung Ho Chang has and continues to move from intellectual and social places again and again. His generosity is returned by these places and the people he works with and shares ideas with. He is conductive of the world he has seen and experienced and bears ideas that we all share; allowing something collective to gain presence and become real in architecture. It is a deeply inspiring body of work that is in effect a sign of our collective selves.□ (Special thanks to Charles Eldred, Associate Professor of Architecture, adjunct, Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture and Planning for editorial advice and direction.)

Method Acting the Modern: Yung Ho Chang

Michael Bell Translated by HUA Yang, Proofread by SIMA Lei

Yung Ho Chang's emergence as a voice in architecture was concurrent with the emergence of the newly global city. Chang and LU Lijia shaped a practice that reflects this global context as well as the immediacy of their own experience. As a newly global financial network altered the make up of territory worldwide Chang and LU have in effect participated at the highest levels yet also revealed details of place and time that place architecture off center or apart. A kind of method acting that is based in the story but does little to represent the fictional character of the script. Chang's career spans that of an early and existential paper architecture and a practice that shapes entire campuses, office parks and housing.The everyday and the global meet in the perception of a single person and Chang in effect sustains his earliest work even as he innovates at contemporary thresholds.

Yung Ho Chang, FCJZ, autonomy, vernacular,fl exible accumulation of capital, urbanism, architecture

哥伦比亚大学/Columbia University

2017-09-23