踅行在空間裡的社會貓

踅行在空間裡的社會貓
在建築空間裡思考，常太快跳接到美學，或只在乎視覺形式。 若是再多繞過社會空間，從個體或整體的生活體驗，切身地觀察「我-你-他」或「我-你-我們」或「我們-你們-他們」等種種關係，如此透過社會性觀察，再回到都市空間，也許才會碰觸更多人性面。 (人們說，貓是涼性的動物，總是以冷眼旁觀的姿態看世界，所以假設有那麼一隻具有涼涼的一雙社會眼的貓，不管瞭不了解地看著我們社會變化所逐漸改變的空間關係。)

Zygmunt Bauman在「液態之愛」(城邦出版)書裡擔心當代男女之間的「純粹關係」，他所謂的「純粹關係」的特色，是它能被任一方在任何特定時間任意終止，也就是沒有長遠承諾的關係，不再「山盟海誓」，所有關係若都屬「純粹」，就很難使信任生根開花。 人際間---在最根本與基礎的兩性之間---沒有穩固的「信任」關係，社會扭帶關係將會是多麼脆弱。(p. 48, 172)

上學期邀請高承恕老師來上一次課，他指出一項事實，在大陸一胎化政策下，中國即將邁向一個沒有親戚的社會。 家只是「父母-子女」的不斷垂直重複，家裡再也難得見到一群年輕的親人團聚，每個家庭養小孩的配備如娃娃車、玩具、還有童裝等都只用一回，這樣發展成三代同堂也不過七個人，還坐不滿一桌呢。 告別式更是淒涼，兒-媳或女-婿各站一邊，再加一個孫輩而已，儀式上最被尊崇的舅舅也必然缺席。

台灣人是否該更珍惜自己的親戚呢？ 因為很快地---可能不必等到再一代---一個沒有親戚的社會就成形了。 人際紐帶脆弱化，對血緣關係基礎的率性或任性，個人主義單向化意識的普及化。 一個普遍沒有親戚、1/3人口沒有後代的社會(城市)會是怎樣的狀況呢？ 公共性將嚴重失衡，親屬的單薄化也導向社會關係紐帶的單薄化？

甚麼是公共呢？ 我曾問學生，百貨公司是公共空間嗎？ 你在那裏可以自在地逛選、試穿、買或不買，隨心所欲。 有些學生答是，但真是嗎？ 假如你穿得很破爛，警衛會讓你進到百貨公司嗎？ 百貨公司其實不像廟口，它讓人在裡面自由自在是有條件的，基本條件是你看起來應有購買力，否則它不會歡迎你的。

我們的社會跟先進社會一樣地趨向對「多樣性增加」的畏懼感，也許稱作是「混雜恐慌症(mixophobia)」吧。 「街」正在城市中消失，「街」都正變成「路」，以前在街上長大的孩子，現在只敢養在樓上長大的孩子。

台中市愈來愈純，愈來愈同質化，不是嗎？ 譬如說，台中的小孩大多在爸媽的車上看世界而長大，然後在電視前面、在電腦螢幕前學習到他們想要的知識。 台北小孩至少在捷運車廂裡可看見很多種臉孔所組合出來的世界---本國的、外國的、老的、小的、男的、女的…或很帥、很美、很醜、很倔、很柔、很俗…等等很多種人。 很多人在車廂裡說話，但不太喧嚷，像是在倫敦巴黎紐約等地鐵車廂裡常很安靜，那是一種都會人世故的安靜，車廂裡充滿壓抑與冷漠。 但是台北捷運車廂像是都市裡的客廳，還沒聊完的話題仍在這裡繼續，或在這裡找到新的話題開始聊起，經常不乏人與人之間的關心---譬如讓座給老人或實際不太老的人。 在台北，捷運車廂裡的人形形色色，每個人彼此共享移動體驗，但每人的目的地不同，不像百貨公司裡的人群，目的就是購物休閒。

有陣子我常往台北跑，坐高鐵到台北再轉乘捷運，居然有種錯覺，覺得台中的都心其實在台北，因為我在台中從來沒機會看到那麼多不同的臉孔，那帶出都市的感覺，在台中雖然大樓愈來愈多，日常生活中卻少有熙熙攘攘的場合經驗。 說真的，在一個高度流動的時代，一個城市的最重要公共空間可能就在大眾運輸上。

台中市可能已經起步太晚。 二十年前我帶著一家人回國時經芝加哥停留數天，住在芝加哥大學招待所，每天坐巴士往返市中心時，全車乘客中就只我們一家人膚色最淺，因此吸引所有其它乘客的眼光，記得在橡樹園看完萊特作品，請教一位女大學生怎麼坐車回市中心，她回說不知道，她告訴我們她這輩子沒坐過巴士或捷運，她是白種人，對她而言，大眾運輸是給有色人種用的，她自己開汽車或坐家人開的汽車。 當時，這種特殊又真實無比的社會空間給我很大的衝擊。 這二十多年來，台中市民被迫(沒有選擇地)在市區開車活動，真希望台中市未來不會變成芝加哥。

台中市中心幾乎已死，但再來可能不再如此稱呼了，因合併後台中都的舊市中心可多了，豐原、東勢、大甲、霧峰都有舊市區，台中舊都心到底指的是哪裡呢？ 大甲最近不是比任何一個地方都還熱鬧滾滾？ 今天該怎麼來定義一個城市的核心呢？

我總覺得有種像貓一樣的動物，涼涼地瞪眼看著如此變化中的人的世界，悄悄地不發一聲，但似乎會心地知曉這一切…。

愛的房子

愛的房子

坐高鐵常會遇上意料不到的人。 那天在台北上車，跳上自由座車廂，找到位子坐下，一轉頭看見一張熟悉的笑臉---
「喲，阿久---是你啊」
「騾子，好久不見嘞，幹嘛，開會歐。」

阿久是家鄉M鎮上的老朋友，小學同學，國中也同學，高中雖分開念，但每次回家鄉都會找他，後來我們念上不同大學的同樣的系，他比我早出國念學位，之後他一直在南部一所國立大學誤人子弟，跟我又是同行，偶而在台北開會時碰面。 本來每年過年回老家總會見個面聊聊，這幾年各自奔波，連返鄉過年都少見面了。

「最近都在忙甚麼？」
「也沒有---」說沒有，但阿久的笑容明顯收了起來。
「我爸最近不好，---上周檢查出癌腫瘤，過幾天要住院治療。 其實他一年多前發現膽管長癌，就動過一次大刀。」
「阿伯噢---年紀很大囉」
「八十三歲了，他好像說過跟你爸一起讀公學校的。」

阿久老爸在我記憶裡壯壯的，蠻嚴肅的，跟我爸差不多，好像受日本教育出來的都是這樣。 他媽媽一向對我很好，我最喜歡他媽媽做的紅豆年糕，我們家就不會做，這是我以前每年過年都會去他家報到的原因之一。

「我媽今年也八十一了，兩年前腰椎兩節壓迫性骨折，穿鐵甲穿了半年。」
「我媽身體還好，不過一年多前也開白內障手術，兩眼輪流開。 她喜歡唱歌嘛，唱卡拉OK看得見字幕對她很重要。」
「多久回去看他們？」我問。
「一兩個禮拜吧，逮到時間就回去。 在天井跟媽媽一起摘菜成為我最好的休閒方式，跟媽媽在廚房忙也很棒。 你知道嗎？ 回老家陪爸媽，像是走入另一種時間裡，很單純很緩慢，天天一樣。 手機響起時，又把你抓回到我們自己的時間裡。 但譬如摘菜時，我會感覺到第三種時間，那種被減掉的時間，那種陪老人家陪一次算一次，或者陪一次就少一次的那種時間感。 感覺像沙漏不斷流漏掉的時間…我有些焦慮，但每次又從媽媽臉上平和的線條中找回到我要的平靜。」

阿久說的他家天井也是我熟悉的，我們那一代小孩，鄰居每一家都進去玩過，每一家長得甚麼樣子都一清二楚。 他家天井不大，五、六坪而已，因為面東，早上充滿陽光，過了中午就涼快起來，我記得午睡過後到他家，他媽媽總是一盆盆地把水灑在天井地上，使地板盡快涼起來。

阿久他家客廳也是我熟到不行的地方，他家沒直接臨接馬路，要經過一條甬道進去。 我們以前玩捉迷藏遊戲，經常玩進甬道裡，有時還躲到他爸的代書桌下面藏起來，不過那可要在他爸不在家的時候。 那客廳也不大，入口處就是他爸工作地方，另一邊靠牆放幾張藤沙發，往天井那一邊是餐桌，在他爸工作位置後，有一木造樓梯往樓上。 那樓梯扶手下是小圓立柱，上下兩端較小、中間肚子部分較大的那種，樓梯前兩階是水泥砌的，在木造階級開始處立了一支木製方柱，接上往斜上去的木扶手。 方柱頂上是一顆十四面體的柱頭，小時候每次到他家我就喜歡那個多面體柱頭。 那塊木柱頭的光澤是那客廳裡顯得最神秘的焦點，像是他家的靈魂之眼。 我小時候常看著阿久的老祖父費力地一手掌抓著那柱頭上樓梯，也看過他阿婆同樣地抓著那柱頭上樓…

「是啊，我現在也同樣地看著我老爸抓著那柱頭上樓，他早晚都上樓點香。 我老媽也一樣地抓著它上樓，每天早上她在樓上神明前念經。 我兒子回來也喜歡抓著它上樓梯。」
「你不覺得這柱頭很有靈氣？」
「哈，好幾代的手澤…是啊…」

「欸，騾子，今天正好碰到你，我跟你說。 前些時我回去，心裡頭蠻煩躁的，因醫師剛跟我說我爸上次照的斷層掃描有些可疑地方。 那晚我跟爸媽一起吃過飯，洗好碗筷時走出廚房，我突然感到一股暖意，一下掃掉我的煩躁。 因為我突然意識到，我爸媽就這樣在這屋子裡住了六十年欸，這個家最多時住了十四口人，那時我叔叔全家也回來擠一起，還有其它時候也住過一些親戚。 但只我爸媽在這房裡生我們兄弟姊妹四人，只有我們是在這房子---就在客廳旁邊那間房裡出生的。 然後我們長大，我祖父在這家裡過世，然後我祖母也這樣過世，然後我爸媽變老，現只他倆住一起。 我想到，這個家的每個角落，每塊地坪，每個高差，我爸媽都走過摸過六十年了，天啊，我突然覺得這老房子多麼尊貴，它是一對夫妻以一生的所有時光『住』出來的。」

「是啊，我一直覺得你家本來就很有靈氣。 你記不記得我很喜歡待在你房間，高中後你不是有一間自己房間嗎？ 羨慕死我了，我一直要跟弟弟擠一間。」
「對，那時我房間看出去是一片水田，遠處是一片矮山，後面一排山脈裡，有一座雙鋒相連的山，我阿婆說那是筆架山，表示我們家會出讀書人。 但我最喜歡的是更後頭的那座大山。」
「我也還記得…」
「我查過地圖，確認過這山叫加里山，標高兩千多公尺，是那個方向最高大的山。 我中學時候常愛看這大山，它的山頂好平坦寬闊，然後以好緩好遠的伸展方式下降下來，我那時就想著以後我要像這座大山一樣…」
「甚麼一樣？ 你說要跟山一樣，甚麼意思？」
「欸，你不會懂的，我也說不清楚，我覺得那座山好偉大，它幾乎影響我一輩子…」
「真的？」
「但現在我房間後面沒有田了，都蓋滿了販仔屋。 在那後面還建了一棟高樓，根本看不到遠山了。」

「真的好久沒去你家了。」
「回來時有空就來坐吧。」
「哦，我知道了，你家就是那個叫Steven Holl來，打死他都設計不來的…」
「那晚我了解到假如雲上面有神明或天使的話，祂一定會特別關照我爸媽的，他們以六十年歲月把一個房子住成一個家…。 但現在…假如萬一…」

「歐，台中到了，我先下囉！」
阿久還未回過神來，他的眼神還留在車窗外好遠的地方…

Reconnecting Architecture: Documenting Practices of Hope

以下是孟買KRVIA建築學院預定在今年底推出的建築展覽活動構想, 現正與東海建築系商討合作, 他們也希望與亞洲其他國家進行合作। 經由東海的中介, 將與曼谷的朱拉隆功大學建築系一起建立跨國三校的共同設計教學計畫, 預計將配合此項年底活動同時進行। 請有興趣的老師,建築師朋友與同學們密切注意।

Proposition initiated by KRVIA, Mumbai, India, April 2011 >Reconnecting Architecture: Documenting Practices of Hope


"Reconnecting Architecture" is an exhibition of a compilation of architectural/urban practices from India as well as Asia। This exhibition curated by the Kamala Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture, Mumbai is being framed during a decisive time in India as well as Asia as this region marches towards becoming an economic powerhouse driven by globalization। However, faced with rising social tensions, rising food prices, depleting water resources, the question of our dependence on different types of energy generation sources (coal based or nuclear), threatened environmental systems, natural calamities and financial meltdowns, there seems to be a doubt on the project of rapid globalization. While the benefits of globalization are there for everyone to see and experience through the benefits of increased connectivity (in close proximity as well as remote) and seemingly easy access to knowledge across the globe, it is time for a critical re -thinking.


Central to this endeavour is the rethinking on the nature of urbanization that we are experiencing in our cities along with the nature of architectural and urban practices that they seem to generate। While I write being familiar to the context of India in specific, there are similarities in the urban transformation that the Asian region is experiencing. It is driven by high economic growth, reorganization of global capital flow from developed markets to these emerging markets, ever increasing informalization of manufacturing and services within these cities and the growth of huge private townships - Special Economic Zones - dedicated to manufacturing outside it. Similar developments can be seen across the region.


Specifically In the case of India the country had embarked on the project of globalization in 1991 when a cash strapped government invited private capital, both national and international, to be invested into the development of this region. Prior to it, the government played an important role in funding development and was the prime sponsor of architecture and other cultural practices within the country.


Through 1947 till the 1980’s Indian architectural practice was led to its zenith by the like of Achyut Kanvinde, Le Corbusier, Louis Khan, Charles Correa, B. V. Doshi, Laurie Baker, Joseph Allen Stein, Raj Rewal, Uttam Jain, to name a few. The contributions of these architects have been documented in the book “After the Masters” by Vikram Bhatt and Peter Scriver. Among these architects it was Charles Correa who won the Praemium Imperiale for Architecture from the Japan Art Association in1994 taking Indian architecture to the international platform. Through these architects and the government- by being the primary patron, a series of important educational campuses, libraries, governmental headquarters, museums and art galleries, industrial complexes and townships, exhibition pavilions, etc. were built. This was a period of a great deal of experimentation and the development of a vocabulary for Modern Indian Architecture. Through experiments in material technology, scale and built volume, relationship of built and un-built spaces, etc. architects gave the country a strong identity under an independent democratic government through its 40 years of existence. These architects subscribed to strict ethical and professional codes- seeing themselves a visionaries giving shape to a new nation.


It was through the late 1980’s and the 1990’s that the government took a backstage in sponsoring architecture and private corporations and other entities took over as the primary clientele for architecture. The nature of architectural programs transformed with this shift. Architectural program from the 1990’s till today are characterised by an unending list of mega gated townships, exclusive malls and shopping complexes; sprawling commercial and office districts/ zones/ campuses; as well as buildings owned by single corporate entities, luxurious private healthcare institutions which emulate five star hotels; Disneyland like water parks and theme parks; blatant and insensitive redevelopment of historic areas and informal settlements, etc. Driven by the mathematics of profit and the unrelenting greed to multiply it further, these transformations are creating an urban form never before experienced in the history of our cities. This also seems to be true for cities in the Asian context. It has led to creating a make-believe world - an architecture of perpetual celebration, where few can participate- a few who can speculate and participate in the new financial citizenship that globalization has brought along. To drive home the exclusionary and speculative nature of these developments in the region the example of the Dubai real estate market during the height of the financial meltdown can be enumerated. Millions of square feet of spectacular and exclusive townships ex- The Palm, built by reclaiming the sea lay empty, desolate and dead for lack of buyers.


Due to these developments notions of the public realm; affordable housing; and environmental resources like water, food and energy; have undergone significant transformations along with the form of urbanization. The public realm is to be found more internalized in the confines of the mall; affordable housing as defined by the market would be completely unaffordable to the maximum amount of people; a clean environment is now considered a premium within exclusive and beautiful housing environments; clean water can only be available in PET bottles, food is increasingly being controlled by few large shopping chains, energy is privatised and is now ever more scare and costly.


It is in this that the role of architect has to be questioned. The architect now is seen as a mere service provider who is adept in maximizing financial returns for her/his corporate clients. Within these limited boundaries she/he has to manipulate forms to create “the spectacle”. It is an architecture of the skin as other parameters seem to be undefined. There is a great deal of interest among architects- both international as well as local to participate in shaping the tremendous changes that the Asian region is experiencing. While there are some practices which unquestioningly engage with the forces of global capital there are others who are looking to evolve critical ways of evolving alternative solutions. The latter group though small is often lost in the mainstream discourse of architecture and urban planning. Yet, often they seem to be most able to resolve the conflicts that emerge when the forces of globalisation hit the ground reality of communities and local environmental systems. This group is composed of academia, few collaborative practices, certain governmental and non-governmental organizations and conscious private practices. It is these types of practices, which though not always initiated by architects/planners, seem to provide alternatives to the issues that confront us.


These are the practices that the KRVIA is undertaking to document. These are practices which reconnect architecture to its need to address basic human values. Inspired by the exhibition “An Architecture of Consequence” organized by the Netherland Institute of Architecture the effort is to archive practices in India and certain countries in Asia where the KRVIA have been able to initiate collaborations namely in Taiwan, China, South Korea and Thailand. We have suggested certain themes, that we need to address and which are of prime concern due to the rapid growth and development that these contexts are experiencing. The themes are:


Reclaiming the Public Realm – It is to document projects and practices which aim to reclaim and redefine public spaces in the contemporary context. Numerous of these projects have been initiated by resident groups, community based organizations as well as individual practices.


Protecting Environmental Assets – These are projects which have been initiated either to rejuvenate or protect the natural environment, sometimes to establish a positive relationship with its immediate built environment or sometimes to increase biodiversity or to restore the ecological health of a place.


Conserving resources (Energy, Food, Water, Buildings) – These are projects that have made an attempt to conserve these resources like water, energy, old buildings as an integrated part of the built environment. There could also be projects to introduce the notion of farming and agriculture within the urban milieu.


Providing Affordable Living Environment – These would constitute projects which would help in improving living environments inhabited by the urban poor. They could also be green field projects which have been able to deliver affordable living environments to the urban poor at a reasonable price. Most of such projects would be set off by community based organizations or are government initiatives.


The archiving would be in the form of an exhibition/publication. This would be a part of the Kamala Raheja Lecture Series to be held in the month of December, 2011. Additionally it maybe a website which would assist in archiving such practices through the Asian context.

KRVIA's Website: http://www.krvia.ac.in