that's the power of synthesis.

就是「綜效力」。

The more complex the problem,

難題越是複雜，

the more the need for simplicity.

就越需要簡單來看。

So allow me to share three cases

請讓我分享三個案例，

where we tried to apply

其中我們試著運用

design's power of synthesis.

設計的綜效力。

Let's start with the global challenge of urbanization.

讓我們先從全球的 都市化挑戰講起，

It's a fact that people are moving towards cities.

人們正不斷地湧進 都市是事實，

and even if counterintuitive, it's good news.

即便是跟直覺相違背， 這是個好消息。

Evidence shows that people are better off in cities.

有證據說大家在城市裡 是比較好過日子的，

But there's a problem that I would call

不過會有一個我管它叫 「3S威脅」的麻煩：

the "3S" menace:

「規模(scale)、速度(speed)、 資金的短缺(scarcity)」，

The scale, speed, and scarcity of means

我們必須處理這些威脅，

with which we will have to respond to this phenomenon

這種前所未見的現象。

has no precedence in history.

為了讓你有個概念，

For you to have an idea,

今天有著超過30億以上的 人口住在城市裡面，

out of the three billion people living in cities today,

其中10億人處於貧窮線 之下的生活水準；

one billion are under the line of poverty.

等到了2030年， 將有超過50億的人口

By 2030, out of the five billion people

住在城市裡面，

that will be living in cities,

其中有20億人處於貧窮線 之下的生活水準。

two billion are going to be under the line of poverty.

這代表我們將得要

That means that we will have to build

每個星期建造

a one million-person city per week

一座百萬人口的城市、

with 10,000 dollars per family

每個房子要花1萬美金，

during the next 15 years.

在接下來的15年裡面。

A one million-person city per week

「每週產生一座有百萬人口的城市、

with 10,000 dollars per family.

每個房子要花1萬美金」，

If we don't solve this equation,

如果我們不能解答這個公式，

it is not that people will stop coming to cities.

大家並非就停止 進到城市來，

They will come anyhow,

不論如何他們還是 會來到，

but they will live in slums, favelas

而他們將會住在市中心 或城市外緣的貧民窟裡，

and informal settlements.

以及不合適的居地。

So what to do? Well, an answer may come

那要怎麼辦呢？

from favelas and slums themselves.

有一個來自這些貧民窟 本身的答案，

A clue could be in this question we were asked

這個問題的線索 可能就在

10 years ago.

我們十年前被要求 做的事情，

We were asked to accommodate 100 families

我們被要求安置 100個家庭，

that had been occupying illegally

這些家庭一直以來 非法霸佔在

half a hectare in the center

智利北方的伊基克市

of the city of Iquique in the north of Chile

市中心半公頃的土地。

using a $10,000 subsidy

利用每個家庭10,000 美金的補助，

with which we had to buy the land,

我們得要買土地、

provide the infrastructure,

提供基礎建設、

and build the houses that, in the best of the cases,

還有建造房子，

would be of around 40 square meters.

最理想的狀況 大概是40平方米大。

And by the way, they said,

順便一提，

the cost of the land,

他們告訴我們土地的 取得成本，

because it's in the center of the city,

因為是市中心，

is three times more

要比社會住宅 通常所能承擔的

than what social housing can normally afford.

要多出三倍；

Due to the difficulty of the question,

因為問題的棘手性，

we decided to include the families

我們決定在瞭解 各種限制的過程中

in the process of understanding the constraints,

將家戶們納進來參與，

and we started a participatory design process,

我們啟動了 參與式的設計過程，

and testing what was available there in the market.

而且檢驗了在市場上 所能買到的房子，

Detached houses,

「獨棟房子」

30 families could be accommodated.

可以容納30個家庭；

Row houses, 60 families.

「排屋」能容納60個家庭，

["100 families"] The only way to accommodate all of them

(那100個家庭呢？) 唯一可以容納他們的辦法

was by building in height,

就是透過往上加蓋，

and they threatened us

他們威脅我們 將要進行絕食，

to go on a hunger strike

如果我們膽敢提出

if we even dared to offer this

這個當解決方案，

as a solution,

因為他們沒辦法 使窄小的公寓變大，

because they could not make the tiny apartments

所以和家戶們一起 做出的結論，

expand.

不是我們的結論， 這很重要，

So the conclusion with the families —

和家戶們的結論 就是我們有麻煩了，

and this is important, not our conclusion —

我們必須要創新。

with the families, was that we had a problem.

結果我們做了什麼呢？

We had to innovate.

好吧，一個中等的家庭，

So what did we do?

住得相當不賴，

Well, a middle-class family

大概要80平方米上下；

lives reasonably well

可是當錢不夠時，

in around 80 square meters,

市場就把房子的大小，

but when there's no money,

降為40平方米大，

what the market does

我們講的就是，

is to reduce the size of the house

這樣如何呢？

to 40 square meters.

與其把40平方米

What we said was,

認為是小房子，

what if,

我們何不改想成是 半間的好房子呢？

instead of thinking of 40 square meters

當你把問題換個說法，

as a small house,

把小房子說成是 半間房子，

why don't we consider it

關鍵的問題來了： 我們該蓋哪半間？

half of a good one?

而我們認為該用公款蓋的，

When you rephrase the problem

是家戶不能獨自建造 的那半間，

as half of a good house

我們區分出了五項條件，

instead of a small one,

屬於房子比較 難蓋的那半間，

the key question is, which half do we do?

然後我們回頭找家戶們 做兩件事情：

And we thought we had to do with public money

「一起出力和分散任務」。

the half that families won't be able to do individually.

我們的設計是某種

We identified five design conditions

介於於建築物和房子 之間的作品，

that belonged to the hard half of a house,

以建築物來說它可以買到

and we went back to the families to do two things:

昂貴的、好位置的土地；

join forces and split tasks.

而以房子來講它要能擴建，

Our design was something in between

假使你得到了一間房子，

a building and a house.

不想要在居住過程中被 擠到了房子邊緣，

As a building, it could pay

家戶們還能保有他們的 人際網絡和工作，

for expensive, well-located land,

我們知道擴建要 立刻啟動。

and as a house, it could expand.

所以我們從這些基本的 社會住宅，

If, in the process of not being expelled

轉變成由家戶們自己 只花幾個禮拜

to the periphery while getting a house,

就蓋好的中等住宅。

families kept their network and their jobs,

那就是我們10年前

we knew that the expansion would begin right away.

在伊基克的第一個案子。

So we went from this initial social housing

這個則是我們在智利 最新的案子，

to a middle-class unit achieved by families themselves

不一樣的設計，一樣的原則，

within a couple of weeks.

你提供房子的結構，

This was our first project

此後讓家戶們來負責。

in Iquique 10 years ago.

所以設計的目的、

This is our last project in Chile.

試著瞭解和給「3S威脅」 一個答案，

Different designs, same principle:

3S威脅：規模、速度和 資金的短缺，

You provide the frame,

就是導入民眾自己的建造力，

and from then on, families take over.

除非是我們運用民眾 自己力量來建造，

So the purpose of design,

否則我們將無法滿足每個禮拜 100萬人口的公式。

trying to understand and trying to give an answer

所以有了正確的設計，

to the "3S" menace,

市中心和城市外圍的貧民窟 也許將不再是問題，

scale, speed, and scarcity,

事實上還是唯一可行 的解決辦法。

is to channel people's own building capacity.

第二個案例是如何讓設計 可以增進永續性，

We won't solve the one million people per week equation

在2012年時我們參加了

unless we use people's own power for building.

Angelini集團的 UC創新中心的競標，

So, with the right design,

目的是要打造出

slums and favelas may not be the problem

知識創造的合適的環境，

but actually the only possible solution.

為了這目標：「知識創造」，

The second case is how design can contribute

人們彼此間的互動、 面對面接觸，

to sustainability.

被公認是很重要的！ 而我們也同意。

In 2012, we entered the competition

但是對我們來說 「合適的環境」

for the Angelini Innovation Center,

是非常字面的問題；

and the aim was to build

我們需要一個工作空間，

the right environment for knowledge creation.

有著合適的燈光、 合適的溫度、

It is accepted that for such an aim,

合適的空氣等等，

knowledge creation,

所以我們問自己，

interaction among people, face-to-face contact,

傳統的辦公室建築是否

it's important, and we agreed on that.

在這方面對我們有幫助？

But for us, the question of the right environment

那麼一般來說傳統建築 看起來像什麼？

was a very literal question.

它是一個樓層的合體，

We wanted to have a working space

每一層樓之上還有一層樓，

with the right light, with the right temperature,

在中央是核心，

with the right air.

有著升降梯、樓梯、水管、 線路等等一切，

So we asked ourselves:

然後外面披著玻璃的表皮，

Does the typical office building

因為直射的太陽光波，

help us in that sense?

在裡面製造了很大的 溫室效應，

Well, how does that building look, typically?

除此之外讓我們假設：

It's a collection of floors,

有個傢伙在第七樓工作，

one on top of each other,

每一天都會經過第三樓，

with a core in the center

但是卻完全不曉得 那層樓的人

with elevators, stairs, pipes, wires, everything,

正在做些什麼事，

and then a glass skin on the outside

所以我們想要把玻璃 表皮給內外翻轉過來，

that, due to direct sun radiation,

我們做的事就是：

creates a huge greenhouse effect inside.

來做個開放式的中庭吧！

In addition to that, let's say a guy

一個中空的核心，

working on the seventh floor

一樣的樓層合體，

goes every single day through the third floor,

在邊緣有牆壁、有雜物，

but has no idea what the guy on that floor

如此一來當陽光照到，

is working on.

那就不是直接照射玻璃， 而是一片牆，

So we thought, well, maybe we have to turn this scheme

當樓層裡面有著一個 開放的中庭，

inside out.

你就能從大樓裡面看到 其他人正在幹什麼，

And what we did was,

你有一個比較好的方法 來控制光線，

let's have an open atrium,

當你在外圍設置了 雜物、牆壁，

a hollowed core,

你可以避開直射的太陽光波；

the same collection of floors,

你也能打開窗戶，

but have the walls and the mass in the perimeter,

讓樓層內彼此通風，

so that when the sun hits,

我們就是使這些開放空間，

it's not impacting directly glass, but a wall.

這麼大規模的空間，

When you have an open atrium inside,

可以當作是空中廣場、 戶外空間，

you are able to see what others are doing

從上到下貫通整間大樓。

from within the building, and you have

這些都不是太尖端的科學，

a better way to control light,

你不需要做精密的演算，

and when you place the mass and the walls

這跟科技沒啥關係，

in the perimeter,

這就只是很古老、原始的 基本常識，

then you are preventing direct sun radiation.

透過利用這些基本常識，

You may also open those windows

我們從每年每平方米

and get cross-ventilation.

要12萬瓦特的電力；

We just made those openings

那是傳統上讓玻璃塔降溫

of such a scale that they could work

電力的消耗量，

as elevated squares,

變成每年每平方米 4萬瓦特。

outdoor spaces throughout

因此用了正確的設計，

the entire height of the building.

永續性不過就是

None of this is rocket science.

嚴謹的運用常識。

You don't require sophisticated programming.

最後一個我想要分享的案例，

It's not about technology.

是設計如何能提出

This is just archaic, primitive common sense,

更完整的答案來 對抗自然災害。

and by using common sense,

你們可能知道在 2010年智利被

we went from 120 kilowatts

芮氏8.8級的地震 以及海嘯侵襲，

per square meter per year,

而我們被找去

which is the typical energy consumption

做智利南部的 「孔斯蒂圖西翁」的重建，

for cooling a glass tower,

我們被限制了要在100天內， 也就是3個月內，

to 40 kilowatts per square meter per year.

設計出幾乎每一樣東西，

So with the right design,

從公共建築到公共空間，

sustainability is nothing but the rigorous use

街道網絡、運輸系統和房子，

of common sense.

最重要的是如何 保護該城市

Last case I would like to share is how design

面對未來的海嘯。

can provide more comprehensive answers

這在智利的城市設計上 來說是首見的，

against natural disasters.

而且有好幾個可行辦法 馬上就能想到，

You may know that Chile, in 2010,

第一、禁止在震央區蓋房子，

was hit by an 8.8 Richter scale

3,000萬美金主要是花在 徵收土地上，

earthquake and tsunami,

這正是日本今天在 討論的東西，

and we were called to work

如果有像日本那樣 守紀律的人民，

in the reconstruction of the Constitución,

這或許就行得通；

in the southern part of the country.

不過我們都清楚在智利

We were given 100 days, three months,

這塊地到頭來將會 被人非法佔據，

to design almost everything,

所以這個方案既不實際 、也不受歡迎。

from public buildings to public space,

第二個方案、 建造高大的牆壁。

street grid, transportation, housing,

厚實的基礎建設阻擋 浪潮的能量，

and mainly how to protect the city

這個方案可輕易地由 大建設公司來進行遊說，

against future tsunamis.

因為這代表了4,200萬 美金的合約，

This was new in Chilean urban design,

而且也是政治上比較 受喜愛的，

and there were in the air a couple of alternatives.

因為它不需要徵收土地。

First one:

但是日本證實了企圖阻擋

Forbid installation on ground zero.

大自然的力量是無效的，

Thirty million dollars spent mainly

所以這個方案是 不負責任的作為。

in land expropriation.

在蓋房子的過程中，

This is exactly what's being discussed in Japan nowadays,

必須將社群涵蓋進來，

and if you have a disciplined population

以找出解決方案，

like the Japanese, this may work,

因而我們啟動了 參與式設計步驟。

but we know that in Chile,

(影片-西班牙語)廣播器： 哪一種城市是你所要的？

this land is going to be occupied illegally anyhow,

為「孔斯蒂圖西翁」來投票吧！

so this alternative was unrealistic and undesirable.

來Open House表達你的意見吧！

Second alternative: build a big wall,

來參與吧！

heavy infrastructure to resist

漁夫：我是個漁夫，

the energy of the waves.

有25個漁夫在我手下工作，

This alternative was conveniently lobbied

我應該把他們擺在那兒呢？ 森林裡嗎？

by big building companies,

男士：為什麼我們不能有個 混凝土的護堤呢？

because it meant 42 million dollars in contracts,

當然了，是完善的護堤。

and was also politically preferred,

男士2號：我是世居在 「孔斯蒂圖西翁」的人，

because it required no land expropriation.

而你們來這裡是要跟我說 我不能繼續居住在這裡了嗎？

But Japan proved that trying to resist

我整個家庭都住在這裡、

the force of nature is useless.

我在這裡撫育我的子女長大、

So this alternative was irresponsible.

而我的子女們將來也會 在這裡撫育他們的小孩、

As in the housing process,

我的孫子以及其他每個人 也會這樣做，

we had to include the community

可是為什麼你要強逼我呢？

in the way of finding a solution for this,

你們！就是你們強逼我！

and we started a participatory design process.

在危險區我不准蓋東西，

(Video) [In Spanish] Loudspeaker: What kind of city do you want?

他就是這樣講。

Vote for Constitución.

男士3號： 不..不..不！(握緊拳頭)

Go to the Open House and express your options.

亞歷山大．阿拉維那： 我不曉得你們是否

Participate!

看得懂字幕，

Fisherman: I am a fisherman.

但是你們可以從 肢體語言分辨出來，

Twenty-five fishermen work for me.

參與式設計

Where should I take them? To the forest?

並非是嘻皮的、浪漫的，

Man: So why can't we have a concrete defense?

像是：「關於城市的未來， 讓我們一起來想像吧！」

Done well, of course.

諸如此類的。

Man 2: I am the history of Constitución.

事實上它是...　（掌聲）

And you come here to tell me that I cannot keep on living here?

它並不是真的要和家戶們

My whole family has lived here,

試著找出正確的答案，

I raised my children here,

它主要是想準確辨別出

and my children will also raise their children here.

什麼才是對的問題，

and my grandchildren and everyone else will.

沒有什麼比好好回答了 一個錯誤的問題

But why are you imposing this on me?

還要再糟糕的事情，

You! You are imposing this on me!

所以經過這個步驟之後 就很清楚的，

In danger zone I am not authorized to build.

因為氣氛太緊張了，

He himself is saying that.

我們在這邊放棄了、 閃人了，

Man 3: No, no, no, Nieves...

或者是我們進一步問道，

Alejandro Aravena: I don't know if you were able

「還有什麼事情困擾 著你們嗎？」、

to read the subtitles, but you can tell

「你們還有其他問題嗎？」、

from the body language

「你們要我們現在就來負責，

that participatory design

城市會從傷痕中重新考慮？」

is not a hippie, romantic,

他們說：聽著保護城市應付 未來的海嘯是好事，

let's-all-dream-together-about- the-future-of-the-city

我們真的很感激，

kind of thing.

不過，什麼！下一個海嘯 是發生在20年之後嗎？

It is actually — (Applause)

但是每一年我們都會

It is actually not even with the families