2011年12月3日 星期六

Design Tank -關於組織 (1)

關於我心目中的一個Design Tank...


首先,要認知到,這個團隊就是要顛覆那些我們都不喜歡的事情,就是要創新,就是要不一樣,所以不要拿任何既有的組織架構來套在這個團體身上。從工作模式一直到服務和產品本身,都是這樣。還要知道,所有的規畫都只是建立在對未來的想像上,所以永遠可以改變調整,也應該要不斷調整。還有,這個團隊所有特別的運作模式,絕對不光是讓工作環境變成一個happy land而已,而是非得用這樣的模式,才能讓這些聚在一起的人才真正發揮1+1>2的化學作用。

- flat structure  組織扁平化
  每個人的地位均等,精簡工作類型分部門,最小的層級區分,不限制個人能力。因為每個人都有各自專長與能耐。取而代之的是記錄每個人的能力項目,並定期更新追蹤(可作成自發性的能力更新或不具名評比更新,或安排"觀察者"記錄之,未定),做為結合專案小組的依據之一。每個成員皆有機會成為專案負責人,產生方式是透過自願,內部策略評比(內部小競圖模式),或指派。
- idea matters 想法優先
經驗是累積的,創意卻是無關輩份年紀的。必須排除成見,每個人都能平等提出想法,想法也是決定一個成員接下來負責的角色。前提是,每個人要認知到:在design tank 的每個人,都有各自最擅長的地方,也有各自想嘗試想學習的地方。每個人都是獨一無二的,每個人都需要其他人才能完成事情,每個人都需要從中獲得成就感,無論是把擅長的做得好或是學習到自己不擅長的。
- "T shaped" as requirement, not expectation  "T"型人是最低要求,不是期望
首先,你一定要有自己專精的長處;再來,你一定要有跨領域的企圖。你一定得不甘於被侷限在某種領域,一定得對其他領域具有好奇甚至征服慾;你一定得是某段時間某個組織下的反動者,你一定得曾經為了改變什麼而做了些什麼;最重要的,你必須非常享受這樣的過程。我們不要"一"型人(接觸廣但無專精通常具有嘴砲特質)也不要"I"型人(專精但眼界狹窄通常hard-working而無聊的人),是要"T"型人。
- everyone should has their own "business" 每個人都該有他的"外務"
要認知到Design Tank的每個成員都是極其有趣的,每個成員的生活都絕對不會也不容許只有工作上的事情,一定會有"外務",用來豐富自己的生命,也才有辦法一直為自己注入活力,發揮到工作上。我自己有外務,我想玩樂團,想創作,想搞有的沒的,而我絕對無法忍受跟生活只有工作的人共事,相信Design Tank裡的人也都是一樣。難道不怕影響工作?如果是連管理自己愛做的事情都辦不到,沒辦法享受自己的人,根本不會出現在Design Tank團隊裡。
- no overtime  絕不超時工作
加班是工作分配不好與人力調派出問題的現象。加班毀掉個人的生活並扼殺該有的創造力 熱情 與效率。不允許加班,並積極的執行。相對的,會提高工作時間內工作的密度與完成度。希望每個人是精神飽滿的進入崗位,充滿成就感下班,前往他在今天結束以前的其他安排。這樣的前提是工作本身吸引人,有挑戰性,有樂趣。
- Make high-turnover-rate a strength  善用"高流動率"
設計產業界有個現象,我也不知道是設計人天性的必然還是純粹一種產業文化,就是人員的超高流動率。流失熟悉團隊默契或執行經驗的人固然可惜,但應善用高汰換率,把它看做源源不絕的新血注入,視為打破盲點的機會,充分發揮它的優點。例如,設計一套idea產生機器,讓生猛活跳的新血注入,都能幫助Design Tank產生源源不絕的新想法。
- Internal sharing and call-out  內部分享與求助
當成員因專案而被畫分開來,彼此的交流與連繫會減少。當專案小組有階段性的成果,一定得內部分享交流,同時也累積整個團隊的見識廣度和資料庫。另外,也善用design tank所有人的能力,在適當的時機點對所有人call out,可以瞬間產生更多想法。
- Push individual's goal and value  重視每個人的獨立價值
要了解每個人都是獨立的個體,都有自我期許,都有自己喜好。必須提供機會了解每個成員對自己的目標設定,從中與整個團隊的目標做平衡,安排分工內容,並讓每個人有持續的成就感。只有當人因為誘因被拉出"舒適圈",但在適當的管理分配下不至於落入"恐慌圈",才能最有效的學習與成就,而且這些外部條件是會一變動的。
- Research and documentation  持續的研究與記錄歸檔
設計是一門做中學,學中做的專業。每一次的專案都會有相對應的前期研究和成果,以及設計執行過程中累積的豐富知識。必須重視這些知識的存檔記錄,方便類似案子的研究查詢,也方便累積成員各自以及整體團隊的經驗和技能。

- 持續更新


2011年11月24日 星期四

我也會寫愛情故事1

剛剛洗澡忽然有種領悟,為什麼"綠"跟"設計"小倆口在這幾年特別好?很明顯的,"綠"是每個人都慢慢發現自己其實才真正需要的那個人,積年累月的揮霍,幾乎把積蓄都輸到快脫褲子的時候,才發現一直忽略了"綠"的重要"綠"的美好,所以開始爭相獻媚,贏不贏得美人心倒是其次,至少自己"稍微"心安理得一些。而"設計"這個傢伙一直都很狡滑,誰不知道他一直都是出了名的浪蕩子,總是拿錢辦事,雖然有些才氣,做的也不壞,但總是讓人擺脫不掉對他那種"浪費"與"鋪張"的膚淺印象,還有偶爾高唱道義責任宏大願景時渾身不斷飄出的銅臭味...,他很聰明,他開始追求"綠",他希望這個樸實又珍貴的女孩能讓世人改變對他的觀感,他希望別人覺得他懂得真愛,至於他到底愛不愛"綠"呢?

2011年11月21日 星期一

[書記] Rework 工作大解放... 將來工作請別忘記...

摘自<Rework: 工作大解放>多篇文章標題
有些忘了確切意思,之後回來補


- Planning is Guessing
- Failure is NOT a rite of passage
- 外來資金 少碰為妙
- Scratch your own itch!
- Less is a good thing
- Decisions are progress
- 銷售副產品!
- Meetings are poison!
- "Good enough" is fine
- Your estimate sucks!
- 小決定>大決策
- Don't Copy!
- Say "No"!
- 培養觀察
- "分享"!! (名廚&食譜)
- Everything is Marketing!!
- 世界各地找人才
- Speed changes everything
- They are not 13!! (your employees)
- Send people home at FIVE!!
- "政策是對個人不良行為的集體懲罰"!





2011年11月13日 星期日

2011設計跨界分享會 後記1



Tim Brown (CEO of IDEO) 在TED 09年 的演講上提到:


 "...eventually it occurred to me that maybe what passed for design wasn't all that important -- making things more attractive, making them a bit easier to use, making them more marketable. By focusing on a design, maybe just a single product, I was being incremental and not having much of an impact.
But I think this small view of design is a relatively recent phenomena, and in fact really emerged in the latter half of the Twentieth Century as design became a tool of consumerism. So when we talk about design today, and particularly when we read about it in the popular press, we're often talking about products like these. Amusing? Yes. Desirable? Maybe. Important? Not so very.
But this wasn't always the way ("But design used to be big"). And I'd like to suggest that if we take a different view of design, and focus less on the object and more on design thinking as an approach, that we actually might see the result in a bigger impact. "
 
" ...但最後我認為,也許以往設計的著眼點 並不真的那麼重要 -- 讓東西更吸引人, 讓它們更好用, 讓它們更好賣。 只聚焦在設計本身, 或只是單一產品, 我當時的循序漸進 並沒有太大的影響力。
但我認為這種小格局的設計是近年來的現象, 而事實上這種現象真正的發展是在 20 世紀後半時期,當設計變成消費主義的工具。 現在當我們談到設計, 特別是當我們在媒體上讀到的,常常指的像是這樣的產品:賞心悅目?是的。想要買嗎?可能吧。 很重要嗎?不見得。
但事情並不是一直都這樣 ("設計曾經是大的")。 所以我要建議用一種 不同的方式來看設計, 而不要太聚焦在物件本身 以更多的設計思考為途徑,我們就會看到影響更深遠的結果。..."


放眼設計相關行業,現代人眼中的設計確實僅成為商業行為的工具。在以前,設計=創造+改變,現在設計=美術工藝+創意(連創意一詞都小格局化)。並不是要去講究字面上的意義, 而是在越來越多"設計"被討論、越來越多人從設計學系畢業的今天,卻沒有更多真正宏觀的思考或深刻的洞見。展覽越辦越多,卻越來越像參加美術工藝品派對,既不如純粹藝術般陶冶性情,也鮮少讓你對生活有新的憧憬或期待 (主打"創意"卻總是看到拷貝別人的影子這種事就更不用提了)。


我是學建築的,聽到Tim Brown這樣對工業設計的反省,我卻感同身受。絕大多數建築設計不也是這樣嗎?漂亮嗎?還不錯。需要嗎?還好(多半是付不起)。重要嗎?我還真的看不出來。


建築設計在現代其實跟產品設計沒什麼兩樣,就是著眼在單一個物件上。雖然建築從古典時期就是在討論"美",但至少那時候各地有各地比較一致的討論基礎,精心講究的成果是具體的城市風情,百年後的現代每個建築師有自己的美學觀點,而城市卻沒有自己的樣貌,"美感"成了設計師各自表述的高調。話又說回來,美感美學什麼的,難道不是所有該被稱為"作品"的最低要求嗎?,偏偏很多建築設計就只是停留在這個基本層次。當工業設計開始反省設計格局的狹隘化,建築設計什麼時候會開始檢討?


那什麼叫大?我認為能夠宏觀且多角度的思考問題,提出洞見並確實發揮影響力的東西才叫"大",也應該是設計師自許的目標。我一直覺得,二十一世紀是設計師的世紀,而這種設計師是具備整合能力的人才而不是美術人員更不是藝術家(抱歉,不是對此二者有貶意,而是在社會角色上應該被分清楚)。現有的設計專業學門裡面,建築人應該有比別的專業更適合跨領域整合的條件優勢,因為我們的訓練讓我們習慣遊走於不同尺度之間、具象與抽象之間、涉獵文化、經濟、政治、環境、科技等面相,並且習慣承認自己對人性對社會對文明發展的無知以至於可以夠謙卑的面對問題。也許建築背景的設計人適合在已經發生的設計潮流裡扮演"接合劑"的角色,或甚至謙卑但宏觀的"領航人"。


先跳出你那狹小的框框吧,我親愛的建築人





















2011年11月6日 星期日

從台灣到中國再到世界的建築行動家

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9_pR8NepgQ


謝英俊建築師。


回想謝英俊建築師當年在成大建築系綠台上的演講與對話,是少數我到現在都還印象深刻的一場演講。我一直不太喜歡太過社會主義的建築論調,因為我自覺無法勝任這種情操之外,更因為99%都是假的,什麼關懷人關懷土地從下而上-永遠是說得最好聽,可以唬得了一般大眾,唬不了自己的良心;而謝建築師的行動大概是那1%。而他最近榮獲Curry Stone Design Grand Prize 2011 人道設計首獎,更表示他的想法與作為被世界注意及肯定。但請不要誤會,這個肯定代表的是一個思維的開始,開始有人真的嘗試著將建築設計落實到金字塔的底層,開始有人不再用嘴巴講腦袋想,真的付諸行動真的走進勞動過程,儘管我們知道過程有太多辛苦,但距離數年前那場演講到現在,我想謝建築師的行動成功的激起了更大的漣漪。
謝建築師與其他"類似"行為的建築師不同在於他真正思考的是從居住者由下而上的"執行方式"而不是由上而下的設計導向。現代建築界(學界居多)對於第三世界或災後重建的建築模式有很多討論,但多數都還是以設計規劃師的角度出發,個人覺得真是夠了,沒有真正由下而上的建築行為,"社會性"永遠是空談。


再一次對謝英俊建築師表示敬佩之意,也期待這位來自台灣的鬥士能感染更世界更多角落的建築行動家。

2011年10月17日 星期一

When the great ones look back...

When the great ones look back, 
is when there is a way.




「 真的要對眾人有所貢獻的話,不是拉著眾人的手、吆喝著大家前進,而是竭盡所能的衝上那個山頭,然後告訴他們,那裡有光 


" It's not trying to push everyone forward can you truly help the crowd, but to run as desperately as you can to the top of the hill, and say: there is the light! "







2011年10月11日 星期二

"Stay hungry, stay foolish" from Whole Earth Catalog





好可惜,Jobs一輩子就只有那麼一場公開演講流傳在地球上。




不過我在猜他應該也是想:我講一次,全世界都會傳頌著,何必講第二次...。


因為別的因緣際會,我稍微了解一點Jobs在演講中提到的那本雜誌-Whole Earth Catalog,也就是Jobs引用"Stay hungry, stay foolish"這句話的原出處。如果不是特別去查,可能要Jobs那一輩的美國人才會知道這本雜誌在幹嘛。
World Earth Catalog(以下簡稱WEC)其實是美國七零年代出現的,它的本質就是一本巨型廣告集合體,裡面有莫名其妙的廣告,你可以買一小塊版面廣告任何東西。我在圖書館翻過一本,其實沒有想像的有趣(資訊爆炸年代的我們當然不覺得有趣),裡面全是黑白文字與小插圖,感覺亂亂的,你也不知道下一頁會翻到什麼怪東西(我們一天光在youtube上看到的怪東西可能就比它整本多)。但這樣的一本雜誌出現在什麼樣的時空背景?那是一個資訊交流遠不及現代的年代。WEC被譽為網際網路World Wide Web的前身,甚至有人說它是那個年代的wikipedia,它在資訊革命裡的確有很重要的地位。
有很多人在說"Stay hungry, stay foolish"中文翻譯成 "求知若飢,虛心若愚" 不恰當,講句公道話,若是翻譯原本WEC的意思,確實相去不遠,因為WEC並不利用版面廣告自己的東西,純粹的挑選各地投來的稿件,謙虛求變的心態的確滿符合"求知若飢,虛心若愚"。但是從Jobs嘴裡講出來,那就不是這個意思了。我想這句中文翻譯與Jobs本人的貢獻,應該很快會被用在學校的教材裡鼓勵學生學習...錯了!就像WEC一樣,他們講的那飢渴根本不是學校能提供你的,否則不會弄個全求索引來滿足好奇心,也不會從大學輟學(你的老師要是用這句格言來要你用功,你就翹課給他看!),那種飢渴是自己得想辦法滿足的個人欲望,可能是名可能是利可能是任何東西,當然,知識反正是會得到的副產品,財富也是。第二句的那個"虛心"也翻得太中華文化,要是Jobs是個虛心若愚的人,怎麼會有讓世人又恨又愛的光芒?
如果要揣測為什麼Jobs引用的是WEC的最終刊文字,或是要推想他們兩者之間的共通性...大概就是勇敢追求以滿足自己對世界的好奇心(欲望)吧。
同一句話不同人說就有不同的涵意,前者可能是前瞻的智者,後者是個桀傲不遜的狂人,兩個都不是這個世界的乖寶寶。

2011年9月25日 星期日

這個世界應該要謝謝蘋果 Thanks to Apple, the world appreciates design more

Thanks to Apple, the world appreciates design more,
這個世界應該要謝謝蘋果


那種感覺滿奇妙的。當全台灣沒幾個人在用Apple的時候,我是一個年少又激進的"蘋果教徒";但是當全世界的人都開始用蘋果的產品,在頌揚蘋果的時候,我身邊一件他們的產品也沒有,倒像個旁觀者。但我由衷的想感謝他們,全世界都應該好好謝謝他們...


你隨便走進一間書店,都會看到好多關於蘋果的書,關於蘋果的理念,關於賈伯斯的傳奇,甚至振振有詞的分析評論。我只能說這些人就像新聞媒體,哪裡有題材就哪裡跟。倒果為因大概是讀這些東西的共通感受。每個年代裡出頭的出頭,都是時勢造英雄,拿以前的英雄模式套用到將來,大概只會變狗熊。我會說,剛好這個世界大家生活比較安定了,科技普及了,開始講究生活,欣賞設計多了,所以蘋果紅了。我是什麼來頭? 書店網路上寫蘋果的人這麼多,還差我一個?  我什麼咖也不是,也不是在資訊相關產業,就只是真真實實的"和蘋果一起長大",我第一台電腦就是Macintosh,看著它叫好不叫座,看著賈伯斯離開蘋果,看著蘋果快倒快倒,再看到賈伯斯回去,以及之後大家都知道的故事。有很多感情參雜,與蘋果的經驗與感想我可以寫厚厚一本書吧 (不過沒有人會想看就是)。我想,要客觀理性的去描述分析或諂媚一個你二三十歲甚至更老才接觸的品牌很容易(雖然也很無聊),但你沒辦法不帶感情的去寫一個你從小的記憶,特別當你在那個年紀裡不懂什麼是品牌什麼是市場,只接觸一件東西,習慣以後碰觸更多了東西卻開始覺得不適應,覺得別的東西很爛很笨很醜,還每每跟最好的死黨朋友爭論它的好爭論到翻臉,後來因為所在的整個環境都那麼不重視設計不重視體驗,被迫隨波逐流,用著他們的方法,但沒有人懂你為什麼一天到頭在幹譙,你成了一個憤怒青年...最後你看到當初那種驅使你憤世的原因變成世界的主流,你才理解當初對體驗的吹毛求疵不是病,為美感而妥協效率的確是一種情趣,然後你終於在你人生二十七個年頭裡,第一次提筆寫了關於這個老朋友的文章。你可以說這段心路歷程只是源於一種"鄉愁",但現在它在整個世界的影響力證明那樣一種"鄉愁"的確是一個值得大家追求的"風景"。


大家都知道iPad, iPhone, iPod,在大家都i來i去的時候但有多少人知道這個"i"當初的意思是internet以及使用者-"我"的延伸解釋?大家愛用Mac,但有多少人知道當初繫緊每個蘋果教徒的其實是他的作業系統設計?在絕大多數人都使用Windows長大的台灣,很少人能理解為什麼人會對電腦有感情。就像我從小不能理解為什麼電腦需要"學",為什麼要"輸入指令" (小時候還需要學DOS),為什麼明明後來微軟抄襲Mac做出了視覺化作業系統還要保有輸入指令輸入路徑這種鳥介面?為什麼我檔案不能像真的東西一樣放到哪就在哪,還要擔心"找不到路徑"?為什麼我不要一個東西的時候不能把它丟到垃圾桶就好,還要"移除"程式,那垃圾桶是拿來幹嘛?當Windows當機出現嚇死一般大眾的"blue screen"的時候,蘋果秀出的是一顆炸彈或一張哭臉的電腦圖示。Mac OS從來不秀給使用者看的"純文字指令介面"這種小底褲,Windows卻總是愛秀給大家看,殊不知嚇跑了多少人。要抱怨我真的抱怨不完,還會越講越生氣。但我其實也用PC十多年了,要說有多痛苦也還好,可能就像一般人一樣習慣了,也就不太挑,免得搞得自己更痛苦。但還好我有Mac的經驗,知道還有另外一種世界存在。要簡單的描述PC,就想想Word軟體裡面曾經出現過的"小幫手"就好了....對,那個長眼睛又惱人的迴紋針...這就是很多科技產品的思考邏輯-讓你困惑又越幫越忙。


我想要說,蘋果在這個"設計氾濫"的亂世給予了"設計"一個比較值得參考的價值觀,這個價值觀是很入世而且完整的。若不去討論它的精緻美感或甚至潔癖與偏執,他展現了我心目中"設計"的最高價值-簡單。簡單-有很多方式,在蘋果身上是對使用體驗的講究和全面性的整合。蘋果與其他濫用設計的企業不同在於"簡單"優先於所有目的,所有的設計"動作"只是讓成品更一致更簡單完整,打從第一台蘋果電腦開始,便是這樣的目標在驅使著開發設計。Mies Van Der Rohe說"Less is more"-少即是多,"少"是刻意而為的,"多"則在於保留給使用的人自行衍生發展。只是在這個已經感官刺激雜七雜八的年代,"少"更具備了一種出世的美感。我說蘋果很入世,因為他搞懂人性,才能打進市場甚至創造市場,然後在你欣賞它的產品的同時,它的美感體驗又讓你瞬間覺得自己的精神層次提升了不少。在"極簡"只流於平面, 工藝設計表像的現今,能真的貫徹到軟體與服務鍊的簡單化,才能真正脫穎而出。


在蘋果以前,有多少成功的例子能讓設計師自信的說"設計"的確該優先於其他考量,甚至優先於所有市調分析決定的商業策略,並且能創造真正指數成長的利益價值?我在這邊指的"設計"不光只是看得到的硬體與軟體,而是用來連貫整個企業與服務的思考邏輯。在蘋果紅了以前,設計師可能要費盡力氣說服別人相信為什麼要簡化,為什麼要專注在一件事就好,為什麼要從人性重新思考,為什麼設計概念需要貫徹,為什麼視覺效果或觸感會這麼重要,為什麼功能效能不再是大家在乎的...蘋果紅了以後,你只需要說:因為像蘋果一樣....。學設計的學生也可以省去分析了解其它太多的案例,只要搞懂蘋果一家從產品設計 軟體設計  服務設計與銷售策略一連串的邏輯就好,而且它是少數設計導向而且真正成功的。


蘋果紅了之後,這個世界好像也開始懂得欣賞設計多一點了。於是設計的重要性也提升一點點了。


世界一直在變,像是上上個世紀"科學"開始蓬勃發展的時候,"科學"好像很難懂又很了不起,但當科學的精神漸漸滲入各行各業裡面變成基本態度的時候,在也很少人特別把"科學"掛在嘴邊了;就像現在,"設計"一詞極度氾濫,我想,可能不出十年,再也不會有人特別強調它了,他將變成另一個基本常識,另一個理所當然的思考與做事方式。"設計"真的沒什麼了不起,就像科學不過就是"把事情做對",設計就是"把事情做好",如此而已。


雖然賈伯斯是我從小的偶像,也是蘋果的靈魂,但我不會說這個世界應該要謝謝賈伯斯,要說的話,也應該是這麼說:
謝謝賈伯斯,讓這個世界能多體諒一點設計師的偏執。

2011年8月4日 星期四

The New Real: 擴增城市

當今的網路發展持續下去,我們能夠預見一個未來。那個未來裡,人跟網路是永遠連結著的,透過遠比現在更快、更穩定、更普及的方式連結著。有人說是靠著腦內種植晶片,有的說是靠著突破性的生物技術,總而言之,人類打從一出生,就連結著網際網路,一直到去世。網際網路有個新名字,叫做CI-集體智能。每個人與CI的連結,徹底改變了人類的貿易、政治、以及社會結構。在那個未來裡,人們生活的世界是真實環境與擴增實境的混合,是物理性環境跟資訊交流的重疊。在這樣的世界裡,建築的價值…你說他喪失了也好,你說他昇華了也好…

[CI]

Collective Intelligence-集體智能。像Wikipedia一樣,每個與網路連結的人貢獻自己的智慧,再經過所有人的不斷修改,CI是個不斷自我優化的集合體,是權力下放的真正民主,他既取代了教育,也取代了政府,取代了市場經濟,又同時是每個人的基本權利,如同活著的權利。而每個人對CI上傳與下載資訊的「量」和「速度」,是新世界的貨幣基準。

[一個建築]
什麼叫建築?不再有人這麼稱呼他了,他跟水系統、道路系統、能源系統、還有資訊傳遞系統一樣,人們統稱為基礎建設,是乘載一切人類活動的基底當中的一項。有其必要,但是你看不到-至少你永遠看不到他赤裸裸的樣子。建築成了背景-用來投射所有材質、顏色、景象、資訊和欲望的背景。和下水道的預鑄水泥管一樣,也和鋪滿道路的柏油材料一樣,建築剩下一種材料,一種可以被大量、快速製造又快速組裝的材料,甚至可以自行移動延展,極簡而必要的存在-成為你行走的地面、遮風避雨的屋頂、迫使你轉向的牆面。他變得很單調,但是很有效率,好比你不會抱怨全世界的柏油路都長一個樣,而會讚嘆路面上五顏六色的跑車,成就著五花八門的生活一樣。建築,僅僅是用來投射資訊和欲望的背景。

[一個城市]
擴增實境充斥的城市-姑且稱為擴增城市,和傳統城市一樣,有核心也有邊緣。如果你了解華爾街各家公司盡可能的靠近data center 是為了爭取比別人快那零點零零幾秒的市場資訊,那麼你也可以了解在這個擴增城市裡,富有,是指離得CI Center越近的核心,貧窮,是離得越遠的邊緣區域。CI的核心區域,是個資訊爆炸的地段,每一分每一秒都在發生不同的事,市容也在每分每秒改變,所有的活動、交易、娛樂都在這個地方。曾經聽說過有人在這邊因為意外而「斷了線」,斷了與CI的連結,目睹了裸露的城市-白茫茫的一片,沒有「建築」,只有飛來飛去、快速移動著的平板,上頭的人,也是赤裸裸的白…。他們說,當這些人目睹到了城市裸體,都立刻喪失了心智…。而又因為CI Center僅僅是人們聚集密度最高的區域,這個擴增城市可以游移,在衝撞舊世界或衝撞另一個擴增城市的邊緣上,發生侵蝕…

[侵蝕]
稱得上古蹟的老房子,終究承受不了時間的侵蝕,人們勉強把他凍結在時空裡而慢慢忘記了靜止的意義,成了新世界的絆腳石;稱不上老房子的半調子,終究抗拒不了資訊的侵蝕,有的被拆了牆,用新材料填裝,被批妝上層層的訊息脂粉,他們稱之為「進化」。

[城市之間]
新世界有好多個擴增城市,他們在舊城市的邊緣誕生。誰說破壞容易建設難?要在空曠一片的地方建立全新的CI城市,遠比改造舊城市來的容易太多了。某些舊城市被刻意凍結以便研究或參觀,有些被遺棄,有些則是被那些「自我放逐」、甘願放棄「資訊」這個基本人權的「逃離者」們視為最後的淨土,他們把氣味、觸感、顏色等等永遠一成不便的東西都當成了寶…。站在CI核心向遠處望,在目眩神迷的城市景色末端,看到了好幾個世紀前的時代符號-巴黎鐵塔,那是被CI列定為歷史保留區的地方。另一頭,一位逃離者站在舊世界的鐵塔上向這邊望,望著白茫茫的一片,望著這個什麼都不是的地方…。





[GSD project] The New Real - The World of Augmented Reality

The New Real - The World of Augmented Reality

Harvard GSD 2011 : 3421 New Geographies: Imagining a City-World Beyond Cosmopolis
Instructor: A. Hashim Sarkis
Project members: Nicholas Croft, Aneesha Dharwadker, Mariusz Klemens, Yu-Ta Lin, Elizabeth MacWillie, William Quattlebaum, Trude Renwick, Mary Grace Verges, Clementina Vinals.
Thesis revised: Nicholas Croft

Architecture is either a background for augmented reality or a preserved, pre-augmentation, artifact; the current fabric of the built world exists, but within emergent regions driven by Collective Intelligence (CI), architecture transforms into a tectonically uniform version of itself.  It is in these regions that design acquires meaning through non-material imagery.

Augmented regions are fluid in nature—perpetually redefining themselves and their boundaries as a result of a complex collective-CI feedback loop—yet at any given moment, clearly defined boundaries demarcate the influence of the augmented world on the physical one.Collective Intelligence, as an advanced stage in the evolution of the Internet, controls the technologies of augmented reality, facilitates algorithmic forms of governance based on collective input, and aids in the increasingly efficient cycling of data.

Certain aspects of the world become virtual, while others remain physical. The transportation of people and goods occurs in real space, while events like voting, banking, shopping, and so forth, are anchored in the virtual realm. The processes through which humans go to acquire goods and services no longer require individual spatial displacement. The world undergoes physical spatial compression, but a virtual expansion occurs through user experiences. Through the digital augmentation of space, inhabitants can experience infinite depth.

The individual’s interaction with the world occurs through a personal interface, which allows the user to make choices about the visual composition of his or her environment. Connection to augmented reality is a choice, not an obligation – but it determines the ability of the user to access information and gain knowledge. As a result, physical proximity to CI centers allows for a faster exchange of information. Public spaces become “servers,” where individuals can collectively plug in to the increasing mass of data. The economy is thus run on memory – both the memory of the individual, and his or her ownership of digital space. Bytes become currency, and are incorporated into the public sphere, giving more power to classes without access to physical wealth. Corporations collaborate with the CI to govern the physical realm, providing generic hardware for servers, bandwidth, interfaces, and architecture. The differentiation of these objects occurs virtually, based solely on the choices of the user. 


Infrastructure
Interreigionality




New Geographies
Mega-Form
Main Images

2011年6月10日 星期五

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding (4): thoughts on the Culture

The Culture of an Interdisciplinary, Architectural-Based Design Tank
What are the principles to maintain a firm’s creativity and energy? What kind of environment and structure is needed? Here are some key points of two different innovative firms:
IDEO (interdisciplinary design, USA)
Brain Store (idea factory, Switzerland)
-       Idea-friendly
-       No Boss’ boss
-       Work with “friends”
-       Characterize each member for further placement
-       Brainstorming as routine

Source: Janet Wiscombe, “The Innovation Factory”, Workforce Management Online, Jan. 2007
-       Idea Machine - produce ideas industrially
-       Insiders + Outsiders
-       Idea management > generating
-       Idea-friendly


Source: Nadja Schnetzler, “The Idea Machine”, 2005


I think the ways approaching design are fundamentally the same, and being interdisciplinary is not a trend, it is the nature (and a mission) of design profession. I would like to compare my thoughts on an architectural firm to the two above and try to conclude the essences of design firms that should be applied as well to architectural profession. I think what a typical architecture firm lacks of is an inspiring working environment, a creative and flexible labor structure, and an efficient way of producing ideas. And these elements are even crucial to a detached design group.

Structure
The design tank should consist of several sectors: Architecture/Planning, Interior Design, Product Design, Commercial Design, and Market teams. Each member in the firm has the chance to be the Project Manager according to his/her capability or profession and the project type. Also, outsiders- including interns, partners, and clients, will be part of the team during the stages of concept development. The firm is adaptive to continuous changing of labor flows and its recruitment will refresh and energize the firm itself constantly. 
Environment
The office environment is crucial to the firm. As same as its labor structure, its space remains open and flexible for its continuous changes of arrangement. Also, recreational elements and plants are considered as important as any other furniture. All furniture are mobile, and should be able to be moved easily since an individual may be part of several projects at a time, he/she would constantly move the working place between groups. There would be no fixed partition but flexible ones that could be easily and interestingly set up for meetings or other activities.   



2011年5月14日 星期六

GSD Taiwan


(Resource: Harvard GSD 2011 Brochure)
過去十年,GSD總共有72位來自台灣的校友,平均每年7.2個,其實很多。這兩年台灣學生少很多,然後大陸學生暴增,韓國略比之前少一點點。當然只拿GSD一所學校來看根本不夠當做什麼指標,也沒有說一定要出國念書,就算出國念書也沒有一定要來美國。只是看到這個再想想現在的狀況,有點點小感慨小寂寞,台灣其實很強,比我當初以為的強,也要繼續強下去。
我還記得小時候學地理,老師指著一些課本上的圖片說:其實台灣沒有這麼大,所以開始腦袋烙印著"台灣很小",於是在每次畫地圖的時後失去尺度感,慢慢的把自己的土地越畫越小,遠比她真正的大小還小。這是一種自卑吧,然後在內心的自卑和面對外人的自我強調之間反覆衝撞,就像在國際情勢上的政治地位一樣。

學過建築,並不代表就能在地圖上正確畫出台灣的尺度。我到現在還是有時候太大有時候太小。

總之台灣加油。總是離家了才會想家,透過別人的眼睛才看到自己的優點,台灣還有好多強項講不完,大家不要被唱衰自己的媒體教壞,被政客操弄,被那些妄自菲薄的人干擾。勇敢走自己的路,台灣的輪廓才會更明顯。我愛台灣,月底見!

2011年4月13日 星期三

2011年4月4日 星期一

一年小記

- 下次回到GSD 要好好善用LRC (Language Resource Center) 不然英文這麼爛要怎麼辦  有想法表達不出 有知識吸收不了  寫文章詞不達意....
- 對於將來有很多想像 但更體會到只說沒做 什麼都沒意義。乾脆少逞口舌之快 等做了 做出了個程度 驗證&修正過後再來提出分享  也比較有建設性
- 可惜下學年不在  不過回來的時候要繼續想辦法拉Geoffrey West來Harvard給個演講,來給個mind-blowing lecture!
- 一年其實可以做滿多事  整個世界給你飛 這次沒有藉口了
- 如果知識=力量  那他違反能量守恆  因為我想把我這一年學到的盡量分享出去 然後造成集體能量提升
- 畢業了 工作一陣子 能量下降 又來到學校 感覺又能量充足  現在這種感覺才是現實吧  不管在哪 應該都要保持這種狀態
- 學越多越覺得很多不懂  所以虛懷若谷的人才值得尊敬
- 剛來的時候偶而覺得有點overated  但現在開始感覺有些東西在發酵了  有些很深的影響開始根深蒂固 切記謙虛  任何事情
- 這次沒修到  下次要去MIT修課  積極一點  認識一些怪胎
- 罩子放亮點 一年前踏進來  我問我自己準備好了沒  一年後 再踏進來的時候我要問:GSD, 你準備好了沒!!

2011年3月30日 星期三

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding (3)

Strategic Planning Approaches for Design Firms –
The Necessity and Feasibility of Detaching Design Sectors from Traditional Architecture Firms


Roy-Lin MAUD 2012
GSD 7440 Leading the Design Firm
Instructors: Brian Kenet and Richard Jennings



Design is not invention, though it needs certain degree of creativity. Design is the profession based on the knowledge of certain field, triggered by the needs, practiced boldly but carefully to create the better products. Architecture is of course one of the design profession in the larger design realm, but it is perhaps one of the only few that still being practiced in an outdated way. The way an architectural project is constructed and delivered became more complicated and needs even more collaborations or clear labor divisions to meet diverse market needs, just like any other types of design profession. What if we can separate design sector from inside of a single firm and detach it from the mission of construction document production, which costs most of the time and labor of a traditional firm?


The burden for a design sector
One of the most significant characteristic of architectural design is the long lifetime of each project. From the development of SD, DD, to CD and even construction oversight, the firm/architect need continuous participation. Especially during the stage of CD (construction document), the firm has to devote most of the labor and time to the project. During this period, smaller firms usually fall into the situation of purely robotic production, the passion and creativity of design slow down and die. And this is the longest period of every project. If we look at the division of big firms, design sector and construction documents production are usually separated in order to meet efficiency (they have people really good and experienced in CD). But for smaller firms, which consist 96% of all members, the designers are also responsible of CD and this cause somewhat misplace of the labor and lack of efficiency.  If we consider a design firm only responsible for SD and DD, and leave the works of CD to other group specialized and only for such production, and restructure what used to be done vertically within a firm horizontally with other corporations or architect firms, the design firm would have more space and be more free and productive.


Marketing and Branding
In my opinion, architecture becomes more similar to industrial and commercial products which tend to have shorter lifetime in order to meet the market needs of diversity, flexibility, and alternative. Under this notion, we need to rethink the position of architecture and also the way of designing it. We should consider buildings as scale-up industrial products which work functionally, beautifully, and most importantly, to carry a consistent identity, which is in other word: branding – the added value beyond the product itself. The identity of the author, meaning the architecture design firms, helps the firm to build public impression and also differentiation among its competitors in the market. Or, from the aspect of client, the architecture product can help building their identity, which can support their business strategies. To achieve a successful architectural branding, the design firm also needs the ability of marketing. By having the skill of real estate marketing and making strategies in short-term, mid-term, and long-term, the firm can create maximum benefit and continuous fame both for the clients and the firm itself through every project.


Interdisciplinary Design 
In order to make successful brand, the design firm also need other design skills such as graphic design, advertising, interior design and industrial design for installations and furniture. These what used to be outsourced to other small design firms now could be integrated into the new type of architectural design firm since it’s been detached from CD and other workload and have more space and time for other design professions. The Interdisciplinary ability is the key of creating a strong brand and being more competitive in the market. The product of the firm should be more than a single building but includes the market strategies, advertising, and interior items as a holistic design package. Besides, the interdisciplinary ability allows the firm to take commissions other than architecture when the building market goes down, in other words, to be more flexible in the larger design market.


Collaboration and network
Once the design sector becomes independent, it needs to create horizontal collaboration network. Within this network are the architects, who is legally responsible for the construction project; the CD professions, which could be a specialized professional team or the CD sectors inside of other architecture firms. Since the new type of design firm does the very front-end works, it automatically becomes the window between architects and clients. The clients only contact the design firm and the firm is responsible for finding its own collaborators. For the clients, it would be much easier to face a single and simple window which understand his/her needs and could provide strong market and branding strategies. As for the architects or other architecture firms in the collaborative network, the design firm could guarantee the amount of commissions through its marketing skill so that the architect and collaborative firms don’t need to worry about the 6-months out of business and marketing clients on their own. Also, the design firm only charges about 35% (average portion of fees for stage SD&DD) fee of the total of each project which means the architect and the other firm can still earn the most from each project. In order to compensate this, the design firm needs to be really good at marketing clients and the shorter lifetime of each project (reduced the parts after CD stage) can support this strategy by allowing more projects happen at the same time.
Under this collaborative structure, each member may be part of other networks as well. As a result, the relationship between design firm and it partners may be unstable and fragile. The challenge of this collaboration is that the design firm needs to develop its strong and reliable network that consists of many different characters, which is not easy and needs constantly regulation and maintenance.


References:
1. Nadja Schnetzler, The Idea Machine, 2005
2. AIA, Educating the Client, 2006

2011年3月8日 星期二

Portfolio 2011


http://www.flickr.com/photos/roy_lin/5509771705/in/set-72157626225639526/lightbox/

Titled If City Is Generic. Nothing really about generic city actually...But perhaps that's my point of view. This one includes the work from last semester in the Elements Studio and the competition I did with Hsieh Chin-Nan. Still too many pages. I think I'm getting tired of looking back on my previous works.... 

2011年2月24日 星期四

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding (2)

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding (2):

Set free the design sector
解放設計團隊


In the traditional architecture firm, the design sector is only a part of the whole group, and they are usaually responsible for the construction ducuments as well, which spends most of their time and energy. And because the lifetime of a single project usaully takes months to years, it's almost impossible and relatively unimportant to keep this "design brain" fresh and active, not to mention trying to do "interdisciplinary design". Such words you architectural designer always hear from others: "Don't waste too much time on this, we still have lots more to do" or "Boring? Finish these documents ASAP and you can have fun with the next one (even we don't have a damn clue where the next one is gonna be...)"
傳統建築事務所裡,設計只是一小部分,在小型事務所裡設計部門的人更需要三頭六臂很強的能力,這裡頭的設計師要有點設計sense(有點就好了),會畫施工圖,最好真的有些經驗真的懂施工(不然PM很辛苦)。每個建築案子的期程,動不動用年來算,這當中設計師需要跟著(PM拉著下面一個畫圖小弟)從頭到尾,從SD到CD,搞不好還要被抓到山上去監工(?),哪裡還跟你談創意談設計的熱誠呢?跨領域啊?你是神經病嘛?"設計"沒這麼重要了,而你總會聽到別人跟你說:"別在這裡想太多,我們還有很多事要做" 或是"忍一忍吧,趕快把施工圖畫完就可以做別的設計啦"就算下個"有趣的"設計在哪裡連個影子都看不到...







As everyone know, architect is not the one producing all the design. It's the project manager and the design team under him doing those tasks. After the team came up with a great idea during schematic design(SD), they begin to work on design development(DD), and, if in a small firm, very likely to be led directly to construction ducuments(CD). Here comes the problem, usaully in small firms, you don't often get good desginers who can at the same time be efficient document producers. As a result, the innovation dies down, atmosphere turns gloomy, and the firm has no more space for new project. Why not take the design sector out of a single firm? Leave other tasts to someone else better.

當然建築師並不是真正做設計的人(會啦,但一部分而已),而是PM帶著設計師做出來的。這些人想出了很棒的idea,然後進到DD,熱情開始慢慢下降,到了CD急速冷卻(熱愛設計的人又熱愛施工圖大概是21世紀最夯的新人類吧),然後一個小事務所因為人力集中到生產施工文件而無法注入新活力...。為何不把設計跟施工文件甚至監工分工開來呢?讓適合不同工作的人放在不同位置(事務所需要到一定規模才有辦法在內部做到這種清楚的畫分,中小事務所需要的是實習生超人)


Here's the change, conceptually, the design team got out of single firm (burden) and become able to work with many other firms freely. What this design team actually become is a window between clients and architects. They now offer architectural designs to more clients, all the way from planning to DD, and hand in the pakages to architect firms for CD and further tasts. But this is not good enough. This design team need to offer holistic front-end strategy, which includes "branding" for the whole product line. Moreover, they need to have marketing skills, and interdisciplinary design abilities of all co-pruducts comes along with the architecture product.
這個設計團隊不在受限於單一公司之後,可以與非常多小事務所合作,並做為銜接業主與建築師之間的窗口。從SD設計一直到DD,然後再將整個設計pakage移交給建築師進行CD和之後施工相關工作。這個團隊具備品牌行銷能力,具備跨領域設計能力,還有該建築產品有關的其他產品設計能力。


But who's gonna be the client? what kind of project?
What the hell is architectural branding? Branding for whom?
And an architect wight ask with scorn: "Wait a minute, why do you think I would work with you??"
但是誰是業主?做什麼樣的建築類型?
建築+品牌有沒有搞頭?幫誰做品牌?
建築師也會問阿:奇怪捏~憑什麼我要跟你合作?


to be continued...

待續.


2011年2月18日 星期五

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding : some thoughts (1)





If everything to make a better life is called design, design is everywhere. And yes, it is everywhere. If we draw a chart with Temporality in the x-axis and Superficiality in the y-axis, then all different types of design industry fall into the diagram and become easier to compair the different characteristics among them (p.s. this is purly personal perspective, no scientific statics supported...). Saying that Superficiality means how much do end users know about/pay attention to the product and Temporality means the lifetime of the product, we can see graphic design and many others fall to the top-right while infrastructure falls to the buttom- left. The truth is those on the top-right had been integrated more or less for a very long time. Comparably new business like Branding, is one stream that coordinates graphics, advertising, industrial designs, etc. and marketing/strategies. Funny thing is that, as "interdisciplinary" as branding companies are, they haven't really touched the field of architecture, even they sometimes do interior designs and the boundary between the both had became weaker and weaker.... But does architecture have no need of branding at all? Is brand something one architect may eventually have but can't pursue by means? What if architecture becomes more and more like industrial products? Why are we eager to sell our products but tend to refuse to think ourselves as businessmen? What if we can do branding for our architectural works? It's not something new, it happened quite often, intentionally or not. But we architects weren't really aware of it's importance(or we think it's good-design that only matters), and we never really push it in a more interdisciplinary way. In other words, we don't really "sell" our products.


To be continued...


如果我們用"使用者意識到或瞭解產品的程度"作為縱軸,"產品平均壽命"作橫軸,我們可以比較容易看出市場上五花八門的設計行業不同的屬性跟取向,這兩項也是我覺得用來劃分設計領域比較有意義的指標(ps. 沒有經過任何統計數字,純粹不嚴謹的個人觀察)。"品牌"這個相對較新的行業是跨領域設計其中一種多半從平面設計起家,除了具備行銷, 市場, 經濟的專業外,跨及廣告產品, 工業設計,甚至室內設計。但有趣的是似乎沒有人真正碰觸到建築設計,也許是因為建築需要太多專業知識,也許因為已經有太多建築設計師,又或許根本建築設計不是他們在考量整體品牌形象時會考量的東西。室內設計與建築設計界線越來越模糊,工業設計尺度大了,也可以定義為建築,凡是可以裝著人的,我們都可以叫建築,來自四面八方的人都開始思考起空間容器,手開始伸探到建築師的口袋裡,建築師們的手放在哪裡? 我們受的訓練優勢在哪裡,我們可以跨得出去嗎? 難到建築設計品牌化只能是大師的專利,可遇不可求?如果建築早就開始商品化呢?如果市場上需要越來越多壽命短而精采的建築"商品"呢?難道一間成功的精品旅館,不需要跨及建築外觀到廣告手冊的整體行銷嗎?為什麼建設公司比總是建築師還在意行銷,我們嫌它們醜卻又畫地自限呢? 難道自詡為設計師,就不能同時是商人嗎? 


新型態的設計團隊,待續。

2011年2月3日 星期四

Isn't It remarkable? I'm terrified!!

題外話,也是開場白
我剛開始來到Harvard上課,在許多衝擊的其中一項,就是老師很常用youtube影片當課堂中的reference,課堂的reading assignment也直接給你一個網址而已。剛開始很訝異,我以為老師會花很多時間把教材準備好,包裝好,整合在一起交給學生,像這樣中途離開full screen 的powerpoint,開個網頁,連上youtube影片,看起來好像很不專業,因為小學生都會,因為你跟我在打混摸魚 讀書不讀書上網看電視的時候都會。但我後來明白,資訊太快了,太多了,也很多都幫你準備得好好的。Google幫你做好了最好用的瀏覽器(?),Youtube幫你做好了最容易的播放器,甚至字幕都準備好了,全螢幕播放也舒舒服服的,廣大網路用戶交換著最新的資訊,要講求效率,還需要自己辛苦作講義嗎?不如多話時間去找更多有用的新資訊。
我要說的是,以前念書規念書,逛網路是一種罪,是不務正業,對的,會分心,如果你不知道你在幹嘛的話。但現在網路太多東西太健全太方便太新太快也太多一流的服務,做個作業要上網路,查資料要上網路,甚至連跟教授meeting也要用skype阿(?!)。這麼多人跟飛的一樣,趕快跑起來阿,在那邊管你鞋帶那個結繫緊繫漂亮了幹嘛,你知道你需要的可能是一雙翅膀嗎?
這幾天我看到了一個快嚇死我的新聞,但也不是新聞了,以網路資訊更新的標準來看,我已經落後太久了。那是Geoffrey West,一位物理學教授的研究成果,內容很龐大,但簡單來說有幾項概念:
所有生物,其新陳代謝與體積有固定的數學關係,就是一套公式,從小老鼠到鯨魚都通用。這部分不是新發現,但是可怕的是這種關係,甚至可以放大到人造物上面,甚至是城市。以前常常聽說把建築把都市看作生命體,但只停留在一種譬喻,講穿了就是賣弄說嘴的狗屁,對於都市對於社會文明,我們束手無策,這巨大一塊是科學一直沒有碰觸也不知如何切入的領域。Geoffrey West透過蒐集全球個城市的資料,包括電力,瓦斯,水系統...等等,跟人口的比較,發現跟動物一樣,都符合同一個方程式;更嚇人的是,當他把都市的創造力-專利數,研究數..等等一起加進來分析,發現了另一個關係,而這樣的新的方程式,是所有古今中外城市皆通用的。簡單來說,給你一個城市的人口密度,我就可以告訴你大概需要多少的電纜下水道加油站,或甚至這個城市的人有多少創造力多少犯罪率 ...,Geoffrey West聲稱它可以告訴你超過八九成關於地球上任何一個城市的詳細資料,即便是他從來沒去過的城市。有沒有嚇死你?嚇死我了。這項是告訴你一個屬於都市設計的F=ma一樣,馬上你可以丟掉一些不可能的妄想了,甚至也告訴你,也不用想要怎麼設計都市了,因為所有有設計跟沒設計的文明發展都落到這個方程式裡面,設計跟不設計沒多大差別(是嗎?)
當然有設計規劃過的城市可能比較舒服,但是很可能不會比較繁榮,因為繁不繁榮背後是有一個巨大而且複雜的引擎-或通則在運作。我覺得在談永續城市的人都應該看看這份研究,不要再用n百年前的方式談永續烏托邦了,也不要再拿永續一詞來掩飾你的利益薰心了,不要再封閉在那個建築和都市美學的鄉愁裡了,跟世界接軌吧,跟其他領域接軌吧。建築師自以為什麼都要懂,卻避著眼睛摀著耳朵端詳著自己美美的圖。從看看TED系列演講開始吧,先惡補一下你錯過的半個世紀。


關於Geoffrey West教授,我懶得附連結了,自己去查!

2011年1月1日 星期六

HELL and HEAVEN


This is a theme shot of my design project of Urban Design Elements Studio. The argument was that, in order to bring life (here means the flow of people and capital) back to Queens's sunnyside yard neighborhood, we (me and my partner Wu Zhou) consolidated all the passive post-industrial programs(mainly warehouses) which previously occupied the neighbor lands into one centralized place above Sunnyside Yard- a giant train yard which served as a transportation node between east-coast and Long Island region, great importance to the large region but no direct benefits to its surroundings. By centralized all those dirty, passive, ugly, noisy yet must-exist stuffs into one place, we then release those occupied lands for better use. In other words, to create a consolidated HELL and leave the development of HEAVEN to the market. 
Where there is civilization, there is waste. Hell and Heaven should be considered as one. Whether or not they should be put together is debatable, but needless to say, we shall no longer try to disguise the bad but to reveal it, as part of the system. It's been too long we only focus on creating a heaven without acknowledging a GREAT HEAVEN comes along with a GREAT HELL.


把所有髒東西都收起來吧,設計一個很棒的收納櫃給他們,反正大家都爭破頭的要設計漂亮乾淨的東西,就讓他們去負責童話世界,我們來做地獄。還有,地獄就是地獄,不要想在地獄裡搞個清幽的小咖啡館,還想種些花花草草,地獄的美感不是這種媚俗的東西。地獄得不三不四,你的童話世界裡就會看到果皮垃圾還有躲在佈景後面腐爛的老鼠。還有,把髒東西丟到城市外圍是愚蠢的想法,因為城市永遠沒有外圍,總有天某人會在垃圾場旁邊蓋一連串豪華的新大樓,到時候你就真的是在地獄旁邊喝你的五味雜陳劣等咖啡。

Generic City – Extremely Large & Extremely Small

- Introduction
Enlightened by Rem Koolhaas’s “Generic City,” I’d like to borrow his idea as a departure of my own thoughts. What “Generic City” means, in my opinion, is neither about a prediction nor a metaphor for the future, but an emphasis of the present situation. Generic or not, only relies on the scope we look at our city. To me, the way we should look at the cities is no longer through different scales but either scale of extremely large, or extremely small.  


- Diversity 


No place is generic yet everything looks gray. When a city is divided into pieces and each piece becomes so rich in its own content without interrelations, this is the generic city- the city without a color in large. This is many of our cities today, and I would add, especially in Asian modern cities. We've been eager for the city’s diversity, but afraid of losing its own characteristic. Isn't that ironic in a sense? Take China for instance, rapid-growing cities often suffer under criticisms of deconstruction and massive development that lead to the city's no-roots, no-history, no-culture and losing control. We need to face the fact that these cities born with missions, like all cities do. They grow fast, change fast, people come and leave. These are the cities of capital flow, come with it and die with it. No pity, they are so rich in their own “fuck context”. What are good cities in essence anyway? 

- Cities with color
On the contrary, many cities in Europe, which some may call the “frozen” cities are indeed with their own colors. It’s really good to walk in a city with clear characteristic. These cities were in many ways successful therefore they have to be preserved somehow. Too good and too bad once a city becomes simply an ornament or monument. 

The United States is another kind of generic city. One of the few nations with vast territory and short history. The US suffered city sprawl and urban dreams became mystery. What we have to acknowledge is that the sprawls ARE the real cities and they have their unique colors which the previous central ones don’t offer their residents. 


- The Extremely Large and Small/ the Limits and Rules/Generic and Diverse
What are the essences of urban life? When cities become uncertain and unclear, what is left for us to seize on? I would argue that it is the essence of how buildings are built; how they serve people’s needs; and under what circumstance they become meaningful, functional, or even dissolveable; and why this door fits mine not next door. This essence, from extremely localized point of view, of all the origins of architecture/ living/ function, I call it the Extremely Small.
On the other hand, once we understand the fundamental rules of the formation of a city, we no longer need masterplans and are able to set all constructions free from presumptions, just like some economists believe in free market. What we need to know is the “limits” of cities, which are in fact possible to predict and control. Cities may be just like fungus that grow and consume everywhere with nutrition. And the edge of this nutrition- the natural resources and geographical limitations- will be the boundary of cities. This is the scale of  Extremely Large.

( final assignment for Urban Design Pro-seminar, GSD 2010, Fall )