胡安·布斯盖兹访谈

胡安·布斯盖兹，叶扬/Joan Busquets, YE Yang

张裕翔 译/Translated by ZHANG Yuxiang

胡安·布斯盖兹访谈

Interview with Joan Busquets

胡安·布斯盖兹，叶扬/Joan Busquets, YE Yang

张裕翔 译/Translated by ZHANG Yuxiang

西班牙规划师、建筑师胡安·布斯盖兹在2009年与意大利建筑师斯特凡诺·博埃里、理查德·布尔德特、雅克·赫尔佐格及威廉·麦克多诺等人一起进行了米兰世博园区概念性总体规划的部分设计与讨论，但由于米兰世博会的组织方对会后利用的更多考虑，这一版方案并没有完全实施。我们邀请布斯盖兹教授回答了我们的问题，请他进一步解释说明2009年概念性总体规划与实施规划之间的差异，以及其中反映的对城市、建筑的思考。

WA：您愿意给读者们讲讲您是如何阐释2015米兰世博会主题的吗？胡安·布斯盖兹：“滋养地球”这一主题很具启发性，也有着重要的意义。实际上，智慧地利用食物资源和理智地生产食物是一件很值得研究的事情。不仅如此，食物更是人类参与市民生活的重要元素，并对文化的多样性具有深远影响。参观完米兰世博会之后你会发现：原来食物除了养育着人们之外，还支撑着重要的社会活动；而且这一主题还可以继续延伸到各个领域，为未来的世博会提供很好的素材。

WA：您参与了2009年2015米兰世博会概念性总体规划的编制，可以为我们介绍一下当年的设计过程以及与赫尔佐格及德梅隆等人的合作情况吗？

布斯盖兹：初期的设计策略部分是我和赫尔佐格、博埃里、布尔德特等人组成的小组一起完成的，非常有趣。基地面积虽然比较紧张，但位置很理想，位于城市和机场之间，紧挨着欧洲最大且最富盛名的米兰市场。

我们也遇到了一些比较有挑战性的问题，比如，如何设置场地入口、有没有可能趁机带动周围地区的基础设施建设、怎样处理世博会与市场的关系等等。但是土地的所有权只有部分是公有的，其余一大部分还被掌握在私人业主手中，因此，“后世博”土地利用的方式和土地利用的强度就变得非常重要；而且世博会的举办所带来的“附加值”如何造福本地社区也是我当时还没有想清楚的问题；这正是引发了多次讨论的争议点，也是我后来放弃那么棒的初期想法的原因。

WA：两个版本的规划之间有哪些不同？

布斯盖兹：关于最初的“星球植物园”的设想。这是一个很棒的想法，但是在21世纪世博会的生产流程下非常难以实现。当今的世博会总会着力展现不同文化之间的差异和不同国家管理体制的不同；而这一主题似乎在呼唤着一些更为精妙、可适性更强甚至有时是具有争议性而又很生动、很有活力的东西。

所以，最主要的问题就变成了你该如何组织这块世博会场地——它虽然很小，但也可能变得很有趣。我们通过确定每个展馆的虚拟平面建立了一个紧凑的场地模型，模型中的展馆都用一个狭窄的立面对着博览会主轴线，内部空间则延伸到后方，这就迫使建筑师们设计更具“城市模式”的建筑形，从而形成了一个个有趣街块的高密度凝结体，最终，当你将这次世博与之前的世博会比较时，就会发现其独特的创新性。另一方面，一些小的“飞地”和组团聚集起了统合不同议题的小展亭。主轴线上的公共空间应该超越米兰城市中现有的城市化范式，甚至为后世博的城市发展提供很好的借鉴案例——虽然这件事仍在酝酿之中。不过，总平面可以被轻易变形或改造，比如贯通一些轴线与周围空间之间的连接，让场地成为一个真正的“城市地块”，并迅速融入米兰现有的城市肌理。

WA：是否可以说通过纪念性的建筑形式彰显国家形象和资本的力量仍然在当今世博会建筑的设计中扮演着重要角色呢？

布斯盖兹：我们可以说，一次世博会或一项世界范围的大事件，比如奥运会、世界设计之都、文化论坛等等的关键问题就是如何为活动期间设计场地，更为活动后设计场地。我认为，“活动后”是首要的，“活动期间”是第二位的。因为最后留下的终究是城市，世博会将是一套城市发展的策略和构想。例如，1992年的巴塞罗那和1998年的里斯本这些利用双周期设计方式实现的世博会证实了这一思路的可行性和有效性。

在我看来，米兰依然有时间实现这一点，并且越快越好。规划布局、基础设施和场地位置都容许他们立即作出相应调整，只要他们愿意认真研究一下现有的布局、妥善地处理土地所有权和未来的开发权问题，并且避免采取投机的行为。

在做世博会设计的时候，我们要一直提醒自己这些建筑设计出来就是要被拆掉的。当我们回顾2010上海世博的时候，我们可以意识到只有极少的建筑与场地不相协调，而真正重要的是规划布局、基础设施营造和后世博时期如何重新填充这座“城市”：这就又回到了我之前提到的双周期设计上。

世博场地在发展中期产生的影响是惊人的。比如我们可以看里斯本世博会和它在城市东部的会场，那曾是一片废弃的荒地，一度对城市居民毫无意义；而今，经过世博会改造后，那儿已经变成了都市中最受欢迎的区域。

换句话说，世博会上的建筑可以用“特殊”来形容。大部分建筑会被拆除或运输到很远的别处，之后这片场地就又需要新的建筑类型填充进来。2002年的瑞士世博会是一个很好的例子：世博会上的所有东西都被移走并且以电子文档、相片、视频等形式被保存在了一个资料室中，作为后续研究的资料被予以保存。带着这种理念，米兰世博会为打造新型空间的“实验”提供了非常独特的机会；你可以实验新型建筑和新的建造方式，因为这些实验性空间都会在很短的时间内被大量人群使用、体验；并很快被回收或拆除。我们应该进一步探索这样的可能性。

WA：您认为哪座展馆充分地表达出了世博会的主题“滋养地球”？布斯盖兹：关于展馆对于“滋养地球”这一主题的发展当然有很多不同的尝试，我就在此重点提几个比较有趣的方案：

-法国馆试着把农业文化展现为建筑的主回路，用它把人们引入一个陈列着所有关于食物的展品的大厅之中。

-美国馆用一条非常复杂的叙事线索来超越它们的快餐文化，展示了它们紧随新潮流向新的全民饮食模式发展的进程。

-德国馆展示了食品生产如何做到高度去中心化同时保证很高的品质，很有教育意义。

WA：在世博会展馆设计上是否出现了一些新的潮流？

布斯盖兹：从建筑的角度看，之前提到的狭长平面的限制使得建筑师们做出了很多相比以往世博会常见的纪念碑模式更为智慧的建筑原型。举例来说：

-巴林王国在展馆中布置了一个狭长的序列性空间，让人们联想到传统住房的庭园，并且将绿植融入了叙事过程中。

-奥地利馆在线性平面里创造了一片“天然林地”，诠释了如何让我们的环境富有趣味又可持续。

-捷克共和国馆十分有趣，叙事方式很新颖。

-英国为我们提供了一座置于新建的理性景观中的精美的大型雕塑。

与世博会同时期进行的，还有一个米兰三年展主办的名为“艺术与食物”的展览，展览具有该组织一贯追求的很高的水准。也许类似展览应该与世博会的日程联系得更多一些，这样它们就能得到更多的关注了。□

The Spanish architect and urban planner Joan Busquets participated in the design and discussion of the conceptual masterplan of Expo Milano 2015, together with Stefano Boeri, Richard Burdett, Jacques Herzog and William McDonough in 2009. However, this conceptual masterplan was not realized given considerations from the organizer for post-expo utilization issues. We have invited Prof. Busquets to answer some of our questions and to give further elaborations on the difference between the 2009 masterplan and the realized masterplan, with reflections in both urban and architectural aspects.

WA: Would you like to tell our readers how you interpreted the theme of Expo 2015?

Joan Busquets(JB): The theme "Feeding the Planet" was quite inspiring and crucial.

In fact good use of the food and rational way of producing make a lot of sense.

On the other side food is quite an essential part of civic life for human beings and responds in different ways to the most diverse cultures. After visiting the Expo in Milano you discover that food is not only something that feeds the planet but also a social activity; and this theme can be developed in many more orientations and future Expos will probably play with this.

WA: You took part in the conceptual masterplan of Expo 2015 in 2009, can you introduce the process of design and cooperation with Herzog and others?

JB: Initial design strategy done with a group with Herzog, Boeri, Burdett and others was quite interesting. Site was quite compact but well located between the city and the airport and next to Milano Fair, which is one of the biggest and most successful in Europe.

There were some challenging issues like the access to the site, the possibility of improving surrounding infrastructures, its relation with the Fair, etc., to be addressed. But ownership was only partially public and a great deal was still in private hands, therefore the "after expo" uses and its type and intensity was very important; also how the "surplus value" going to be created by the Expo event can be shared by the community was not clear to me; it was cause for many discussions and also the reason why I had quitted so fascinating initiative.

WA：What were the different points between two version of masterplan?

JB: Regarding initial ideas for a "planetary botanical garden" which was a brilliant idea but very difficult to manage according to the production process of an Expo in the XXI century. An Expo today always shows the contrast between different cultures and administrative structures from the countries; the it seems asking for something more articulated and adaptable, sometimes partially contradictory, but finally also quite vivid and dynamic.

Then main question is how you can organize the Expo site understanding that is a relatively small, but it can be quite challenging. The idea of creating a quite compact model by defining "virtual plots" for pavilions with narrow façade to the main axis, and deeper space; forced architects to produce a more "urban type" of morphology resulting in a quite intense conglomerate of interesting blocks, producing in the end a quite innovative Expo, when you compare with already executed Expos. On the other side some "enclaves" or clusters were aggregating smaller pavilions according different topics. Public space in the main axis perhaps should go beyond the normal urbanization standards that had been used in Milano and even they can provide a good strategy for the after-expo development, which seems still to be pending. Nevertheless general layout can be easily transformed and rebuilt, by opening up connections of some axis with surrounding context and making the site a real "urban piece" and becoming quite soon an urban fabric in Milano.

WA: So could it be regarded that expressing national image and power of capital through monumental forms is still an important role for architecture in Expo nowadays?

JB: We can say that a key question for an Expo or a Worldwide event like: Olympics, Design Capital, Forum of Cultures, etc. is to be able to design the site for the event but also for the afterwards. I would say better the "after" first and the "event" second, because in the end is the City the one that is going to remain; the Expo will be an strategy for development.

This is what probably what some old experiences like Barcelona in 1992 and Lisbon in 1998, following a double-cycle design process, had proved to be possible and effective.

It seems to me Milano still has time to do it, and the sooner better will be; but the layout, the infrastructures, the location allows them to do it immediately, if they play with the layout already in place and dealing properly with the ownership and the rights of further development of the site, avoiding a speculative action.

When designing an Expo in general, we have to keep in mind that they are made to be dismantled. When we see the experience of Shanghai 2010 we can acknowledge that only a few buildings stand out of the site and what is important is the location, the infrastructures and the process of filling in the "city" after the expo: this recalls for the double cycle design I was referring before.

The impact of the Expo sites in the midterm can be excellent. For instance if we consider Lisbon and its site on the eastern part of the city, where land was fully derelict and without any meaning for the citizens, today had been converted into the most appreciated place in that metropolis.

On the other side architecture in Expo should be considered "special", most of the buildings will be demolished or transferred to somewhere far away, then this condition is asking for a new sort of buildings. In this respect the 2002 Swiss Expo is a good reference: everything there had been taken away and everything of the Expo is recorded in digital, photo, videos, etc. and kept in one archive room for future research. With this principle in mind, Expo offers very special opportunity to "experiment" with new type of spaces; you can test innovative architecture and new forms of construction, because those all are going to be used and experienced by many people in a short period of time; but recycled or demolished. We should consider this possibility further.

WA: Which pavilion, in your opinion, gives a full expression on the theme of Expo –Feeding the Planet?

JB: Regarding pavilions developing the theme, "Feeding the planet", there were of course many attempts for it, I would like to stress a few interesting insights like:

-France trying to present the agriculture as main circuit before entering into a large hall where everything regarding the food was shown to the visitor.

-US developing a quite sophisticated narrative to overcome the idea of the fast-food, and showing the evolution towards new forms of feeding their population with new trends.

-Germany showing how production can be highly decentralized and refined in the process. Presented also quite pedagogical manner.

WA: Is there any new architectural trends could be found in Expo Pavilion designs?

JB: From architectural point of view, the idea of narrow plots mentioned before invites architects to react with quite intelligent prototypes away from the monumental patterns quite common in the Expos. For example:

-Bahrain was deploying a nice long pavilion with a sequence of spaces that were recalling the courts of traditional housing and allowing vegetation to join the narrative.

-Austria creating within the linear plot a piece of "natural woodlands" explaining how our environment can be interesting and sustainable.

- Czech Republic was quite interesting and the narrative quite innovative.

-Britain was offering a very nice large sculpture well placed into a newly created rational landscape.

Triennale de Milano was in parallel developing and extraordinary exhibit "Art & Food" which corresponds to the importance of this institution. Perhaps exhibit should be better related to the itinerary of the Expo to make more popular its presence.□