Ole Scheeren （奥雷·舍人）
Büro Ole Scheeren 创办人
蜚声国际的 Ole Scheeren 是德国建筑界的神童。39岁时，他已经设计了数个前卫且振奋人心的建筑。作品包括：
Ole Scheeren 自1995年起便在著名的荷兰大都会建筑事务所（OMA）担任建筑师，主管OMA在亚洲的项目。作为主管合伙人，他主导并成功完成了OMA中国中央电视台（CCTV）和电视文化中心(TVCC)项目。
2010年他离开效力15年的OMA，创立了 Büro Ole Scheeren 建筑事务所，并先后在伦敦、香港和北京成立了办公室。
现时 Ole Scheeren 正参与深圳新市中心的开发项目，同时亦担任香港大学的客座教授。
本文推荐观看的视频是 Ole Scheeren 的一次TED演讲，其中介绍了他的5个建筑项目。
过去的几个世纪，建筑界被一条著名的魔咒–「形式追随功能」所禁锢，这个理论一度成为当代最伟大的宣言，同时又是个危险的紧箍咒，因为它虽让建筑摆脱了装饰的束缚，但同时也宣判建筑走向了功利且倍受约束的终点。当然，建筑与功能有关，但这让我想起了Bernard Tschumi（伯纳德-屈米，著名建筑评论家、设计师）对这句话的改写，并提出一个我完全不同的见解–form follows fiction「形式追随故事」。我们可以这样想：如果建筑设计与建筑物是一个空间的故事，有关居住在那裡的人的故事，有关在里面工作的人的故事，那么我们就可以想像建筑物创造出来的经历。
For much of the past century, architecturewas under the spell of a famous doctrine. “Form follows function” hadbecome modernity’s ambitious manifesto and detrimental straitjacket, as itliberated architecture from the decorative, but condemned it to utilitarianrigor and restrained purpose. Of course, architecture is about function, but Iwant to remember a rewriting of this phrase by Bernard Tschumi, and I want topropose a completely different quality. If form follows fiction, we could thinkof architecture and buildings as a space of stories — stories of the peoplethat live there, of the people that work in these buildings. And we could startto imagine the experiences our buildings create.
In this sense, I’m interested in fiction not as the implausible but asthe real, as the reality of what architecture means for the people that live init and with it. Our buildings are prototypes, ideas for how the space of livingor how the space of working could be different, and what a space of culture ora space of media could look like today.
Our buildings are real; they’re being built. They’re an explicitengagement in physical reality and conceptual possibility. I think of ourarchitecture as organizational structures. At their core is indeed structuralthinking, like a system: How can we arrange things in both a functional andexperiential way How can we createstructures that generate a series of relationships and narratives And how can fictive stories of theinhabitants and users of our buildings script the architecture, while thearchitecture scripts those stories at the same time?
And here comes the second term into play,what I call “narrative hybrids” — structures of multiplesimultaneous stories that unfold throughout the buildings we create. So wecould think of architecture as complex systems of relationships, both in aprogrammatic and functional way and in an experiential and emotive or socialway.
This is the headquarters forChina’snational broadcaster, which I designed together with Rem Koolhaas at OMA. WhenI first arrived in Beijingin 2002, the city planners showed us this image: a forest of several hundredskyscrapers to emerge in the central business district, except at that time,only a handful of them existed. So we had to design in a context that we knewalmost nothing about, except one thing: it would all be about verticality.
Of course, the skyscraper is vertical – it’s a profoundly hierarchicalstructure, the top always the best, the bottom the worst, and the taller youare, the better, so it seems. And we wanted to ask ourselves, could a buildingbe about a completely different quality Could it undo this hierarchy, and could it be about a system that ismore about collaboration, rather than isolation.
Our idea was to bring all aspects oftelevision-making into one single structure: news, program production,broadcasting, research and training, administration — all into a circuit ofinterconnected activities where people would meet in a process of exchange andcollaboration.
I still very much like this image. It reminds one of biology classes, ifyou remember the human body with all its organs and circulatory systems, likeat school. And suddenly you think of architecture no longer as built substance,but as an organism, as a life form.
And as you start to dissect thisorganism, you can identify a series of primary technical clusters – programproduction, broadcasting center and news. Those are tightly intertwined withsocial clusters: meeting rooms, canteens, chat areas – informal spaces forpeople to meet and exchange. So the organizational structure of this buildingwas a hybrid between the technical and the social, the human and theperformative. And of course, we used the loop of the building as a circulatorysystem, to thread everything together and to allow both visitors and staff toexperience all these different functions in a great unity.
With 473,000 square meters, it is one ofthe largest buildings ever built in the world. It has a population of over10,000 people, and of course, this is a scale that exceeds the comprehension ofmany things and the scale of typical architecture. So we stopped work for awhile and sat down and cut 10,000 little sticks and glued them onto a model,just simply to confront ourselves with what that quantity actually meant.
But of course, it’s not a number, it is thepeople, it is a community that inhabits the building, and in order to bothcomprehend this, but also script this architecture, we identified fivecharacters, hypothetical characters, and we followed them throughout their dayin a life in this building, thought of where they would meet, what they wouldexperience. So it was a way to script and design the building, but of course,also to communicate its experiences.
This is the main broadcast control room, atechnical installation so large, it can broadcast over 200 channelssimultaneously.
And this is how the building stands in Beijing today. Its firstbroadcast live was the London Olympics 2012, after it had been completed fromthe outside for the Beijing Olympics. And you can see at the very tip of this75-meter cantilever, those three little circles. And they’re indeed part of apublic loop that goes through the building. They’re a piece of glass that youcan stand on and watch the city pass by below you in slow motion.
The building has become part of everydaylife in Beijing.It is there. It has also become a very popular backdrop for weddingphotography.
But its most important moment is maybe sillthis one. “That’s Beijing”is similar to “Time Out,” a magazine that broadcasts what ishappening in town during the week, and suddenly you see the building portrayedno longer as physical matter, but actually as an urban actor, as part of aseries of personas that define the life of the city. So architecture suddenlyassumes the quality of a player, of something that writes stories and performsstories. And I think that could be one of its primary meanings that we believein.
But of course, there’s another story to this building. It is the story of the people that made it – 400 engineers and architects that I was guiding over almost a decade of collaborative work that we spent together in scripting this building, in imagining its reality and ultimately getting it built in China.
This is a residential development inSingapore,large scale. If we look at Singapore like most of Asia and more and more of theworld, of course, it is dominated by the tower, a typology that indeed createsmore isolation than connectedness, and I wanted to ask, how could we thinkabout living, not only in terms of the privacy and individuality of ourselvesand our apartment, but in an idea of a collective How could we think about creating a communalenvironment in which sharing things was as great as having your own.
The typical answer to the question — wehad to design 1,040 apartments — would have looked like this: 24-story heightlimit given by the planning authorities, 12 towers with nothing but residual inbetween — a very tight system that, although the tower isolates you, itdoesn’t even give you privacy, because you’re so close to the next one, that itis very questionable what the qualities of this would be.
So I proposed to topple the towers, throwthe vertical into the horizontal and stack them up, and what looks a bit randomfrom the side, if you look from the viewpoint of the helicopter, you can seeits organizational structure is actually a hexagonal grid, in which thesehorizontal building blocks are stacked up to create huge outdoor courtyards -central spaces for the community, programmed with a variety of amenities andfunctions.
你可以看到这些庭院空间并非是封闭不透气的空间，它们是开放的、通透的、互相连结的，我们称呼这个项目是 ” 编织 ” ，像是我们人类与空间彼此的交错编织一样。我们设计的每样细节，都与「把空间赋予生命并还给社区居民」有关。事实上，这个系统可以在我们布局主要的公共空间时，让它层层堆叠出越来越多的个人与私密空间。我们展开的是一种介于总体与个人之间的设计概念。
And you see that these courtyards are nothermetically sealed spaces. They’re open, permeable; they’re interconnected. Wecalled the project “The Interlace,” thinking that we interlace andinterconnect the human beings and the spaces alike. And the detailed quality ofeverything we designed was about animating the space and giving the space tothe inhabitants. And, in fact, it was a system where we would layer primarilycommunal spaces, stacked to more and more individual and private spaces. So wewould open up a spectrum between the collective and the individual.
A little piece of math: if we count all thegreen that we left on the ground, minus the footprint of the buildings, and wewould add back the green of all the terraces, we have 112 percent green space,so more nature than not having built a building.
And of course this little piece of mathshows you that we are multiplying the space available to those who live there.This is, in fact, the 13th floor of one of these terraces. So you see new datumplanes, new grounds planes for social activity.
We paid a lot of attention tosustainability. In the tropics, the sun is the most important thing to payattention to, and, in fact, it is seeking protection from the sun. We firstproved that all apartments would have sufficient daylight through the year. Wethen went on to optimize the glazing of the facades to minimize the energyconsumption of the building.
But most importantly, we could prove thatthrough the geometry of the building design, the building itself would providesufficient shading to the courtyards so that those would be usable throughoutthe entire year. We further placed water bodies along the prevailing windcorridors, so that evaporative cooling would create microclimates that, again,would enhance the quality of those spaces available for the inhabitants. And itwas the idea of creating this variety of choices, of freedom to think where youwould want to be, where you would want to escape, maybe, within the owncomplexity of the complex in which you live.
从亚洲来到欧洲：一栋座落在德国柏林的媒体公司，正从传统印刷媒体转型到数字媒体。公司的执行长问了一个很中肯的问题：“为什么现今每个人仍希望到办公室上班，即使他们可以在任何地方办公？一个公司的数字形象定位要如何在建筑物上体现出来？”。我们创作的不只是一个物体，我们还在物体的中心创造了一个大空间，一个有关于共同合作、一起团结奋斗的空间。沟通、互动是空间的核心思想，它会自己浮上来，像是我们所说的” 合作云 “，它就在建物中间，被一个标准模组的办公室所围绕包裹著。从你的办公桌，只要走几步，你就可以到核心空间里的合作云来共同体验。
But coming from Asia to Europe: a buildingfor a German media company based in Berlin,transitioning from the traditional print media to the digital media. And itsCEO asked a few very pertinent questions: Why would anyone today still want togo to the office, because you can actually work anywhere And how could a digital identity of a companybe embodied in a building We created notonly an object, but at the center of this object we created a giant space, andthis space was about the experience of a collective, the experience ofcollaboration and of togetherness. Communication, interaction as the center ofa space that in itself would float, like what we call the collaborative cloud,in the middle of the building, surrounded by an envelope of standard modularoffices. So with only a few steps from your quiet work desk, you couldparticipate in the giant collective experience of the central space.
Finally, we come to London, a project commissioned by the LondonLegacy Development Corporation of the Mayor of London. We were asked toundertake a study and investigate the potential of a site out in Stratford in the OlympicPark. In the 19th century, Prince Albert had created Albertopolis. And Boris Johnsonthought of creating Olympicopolis.
The idea was to bring together some ofBritain’sgreatest institutions, some international ones, and to create a new system ofsynergies. Prince Albert,as yet, created Albertopolis in the 19th century, thought of showcasing allachievements of mankind, bringing arts and science closer together. And hebuilt Exhibition Road,a linear sequence of those institutions.
But of course, today’s society has moved onfrom there. We no longer live in a world in which everything is as clearlydelineated or separated from each other. We live in a world in which boundariesstart to blur between the different domains, and in which collaboration andinteraction becomes far more important than keeping separations. So we wantedto think of a giant culture machine, a building that would orchestrate andanimate the various domains, but allow them to interact and collaborate.
At the base of it is a very simple module,a ring module. It can function as a double-loaded corridor, has daylight, hasventilation. It can be glazed over and turned into a giant exhibitionalperformance space.
These modules were stacked together withthe idea that almost any function could, over time, occupy any of thesemodules. So institutions could shrink or contract, as, of course, the future ofculture is, in a way, the most uncertain of all.
This is how the building sits, adjacent tothe Aquatics Centre, opposite the Olympic Stadium. And you can see how itscantilevering volumes project out and engage the public space and how itscourtyards animate the public inside.
The idea was to create a complex system inwhich institutional entities could maintain their own identity, in which theywould not be subsumed in a singular volume.
Here’s a scale comparison to the CentrePompidou in Paris.It both shows the enormous scale and potential of theproject, but also the difference: here, it is a multiplicity of a heterogeneousstructure, in which different entities can interact without losing their ownidentity.
And it was this thought: to create anorganizational structure that would allow for multiple narratives to bescripted – for those in the educational parts that create and think culture;for those that present the visual arts, the dance; and for the public to beadmitted into all of this with a series of possible trajectories, to scripttheir own reading of these narratives and their own experience.
And I want to end on a project that is very small, in a way, verydifferent: a floating cinema in the ocean of Thailand.
And I want to end on a project that is verysmall, in a way, very different: a floating cinema in the ocean of Thailand.Friends of mine had founded a film festival, and I thought, if we think of thestories and narratives of movies, we should also think of the narratives of thepeople that watch them. So I designed a small modular floating platform, basedon the techniques of local fishermen, how they built their lobster and fishfarms. We collaborated with the local community and built, out of recycledmaterials of their own, this fantastical floating platform that gently moved inthe ocean as we watched films from the British film archive,  “Alicein Wonderland,” for example. The most primordial experiences of theaudience merged with the stories of the movies.
So I believe that architecture exceeds thedomain of physical matter, of the built environment, but is really about how wewant to live our lives, how we script our own stories and those of others.