“人类世”的颠覆式创新：重新认识风景园林的形式主义

撰文：（澳大利亚）苏安·维尔

翻译：张安

“人类世”的颠覆式创新：重新认识风景园林的形式主义

撰文：（澳大利亚）苏安·维尔

翻译：张安

1990年代后期和2000年代初期有一个有趣的现象，就是围绕风景园林学科及其学科覆盖范围的讨论再一次兴起（Corner， ed 1999；Berger， 2007； Waldheim， ed2006）。伴随着全球金融危机的出现及其后续的影响，人们开始讨论风景园林规划设计中的社会和政治议题，各执己见，不同甚至对立的观点层出不穷（Stohred， 2006； Fuad-Luke， 2009； Hester， 2010；Bell， Herlin& Stiles eds 2012）。关于风景园林学科，尤其是有关生态都市主义的讨论，正在逐渐挑战风景园林学科的内涵，丰富风景园林学科的语汇，并促使我们逐步考虑如何在以视觉和空间设计为主导的传统风景园林设计层面以外，引入已经初步形成、并将继续不断衍生的有关社会生态学、生物生态学层面的议题及其它相关考虑因素（Bowring and Swaffield， 2013； Girot， 2013； Waldheim， 2013）。对于景观而言，其本质是以过程为主导的，不断变化乃属常态。除此之外，公共空间的景观设计经常出现因应用实际而需要变更用途的情况，设计建议的用途往往与结果不同。尤其面对某些公共机构的客户时，他们为了平衡各方利益经常提出较为平常和四平八稳的设计要求，这自然会引发人们的争论甚至悖论，更遑论客户为增加设计的可预测性和规避设计风险所提出的某些要求。本文将探讨如何以“颠覆式创新”的模式或方法，研究和探索的风景园林的表现方式。作者期望可以将“颠覆式创新”这一关键概念，用于思考风景园林的未来和其他相关命题，并重新提出关于风景园林形式主义的辩论。

“颠覆式创新”一词，由克莱顿·克里斯滕森发明，用来描述一个产品或一种服务，从市场的最底端开始率先进行一次简单的变革，然后这改变会逐步升级直至取代市场上的其他竞争者（Christensen， 2011）。正如在出现苹果 iPod和iPhone之前，索尼公司的Walkman和手机产品曾主导市场。然而苹果公司的创新产品却迅速成为市场的主流，并动摇了其它产品的市场地位。风景园林师也曾经在改善环境、创造附加价值和设计创新方面有着辉煌的传统和历史，但是我们是否可以找出一种“颠覆式的创新”，将其应用于当前的工程项目之中？我们是否可以将创新的思想意识应用于未来的设计实践当中？

举例来说，和城市街道一样，公园和公共空间的设计都少不了要考虑雨洪利用和净化。排水渠和雨洪收集设施都是出于公众利益和卫生考虑的基础设施，因此以下这些案例都是同时将两种以上的考虑因素融合于设计当中，包括出于“爱护地球”的目的在建设过程中尽量减少制造和产生废物，营造有利健康的环境，以及出于美学考虑蓄集和利用雨洪资源［参考案例：哈尔滨群力雨洪公园，土人景观设计；新西兰惠灵顿的怀唐伊（Waitangi）公园，莱特及合伙人设计；澳大利亚悉尼的维多利亚公园，怡景师设计。］在城市设计中，既然水资源的合理利用可以同时为公共设施增添有形和无形价值，那么我们是否应该思考怎样进一步完善设计清单？现时的风景园林，其表现形式已经演变成为绿色基础设施，而不再局限于传统的18世纪公共空间概念了。除了添加了一些有现代感的审美考虑之外，这些项目与奥姆斯特德为波士顿设计的“后湾沼泽”并没有太多不同。尽管本人非常欣赏这些作品当中的部份，但仍不禁要问，我们可以怎样以“颠覆式创新”来超越奥姆斯特德的经典盖世之作？

2014年9月，当佩里·李斯林在巴塞罗那举行的欧洲风景园林双年展上介绍由TCL和WA设计的新西兰奥克兰海滨公园时，提到如何在公共空间领域创造性地制造和利用冲突，促进新的生态机制形成。他认为该奥克兰海滨港湾的景观形成过程是具有多重性和复杂性的；当这些包括渔港、豪华游艇修理厂、食用油脂和化工产品货仓等在内的各不相同的元素，与公共空间的设计内容包括海滨长廊、零售店铺、草地休息区等交织在一起时，既满足了户外活动的要求，也起到了利用生态草沟和城市河口有效地收集和洁净雨水的目的。这是一个具合理性的例子，将不同类型的功能空间交叉、重迭，或设置无明显界别的空间，类似伯纳德·屈米（Bernard Tschumi）在设计巴黎拉维莱特公园时的手法。虽然如此，奥克兰海滨在视觉和空间构成上的表现方法，却是更多依赖平面构成、图案、重复等手法，以及采用容易维护的材料等等。既然这一案例所采取的设计方法与其它21世纪的公共空间一样，都是对现有条件和材料的重新利用、循环再用、改变功能，因此从美学角度来说也很难再有创新。既然如此，我们又如何可以在风景园林的视觉和空间构成上进行“颠覆式的创新”？

不仅如此，由于我们生活在一个讲求量化的年代，衡量一个风景园林项目时，通常是考察和衡量其为公众带来的价值包括生态价值。在澳大利亚，这种讨论已经不限于城市设计中水资源的合理利用，人们转而探讨碳减排和碳封存，以及碳中和对环境生态系统的作用。我们承认全球暖化，重新思考城市森林战略，包括种植行道树和公园树木等，并选择可以适应温度上升3℃-5℃的树种，以期缓解城市热岛效应。在未来可能受到海平面上升影响的地区，避免进行建造活动，并以适应潮汐变化的生境为公众提供一个欣赏大自然的场所，同时也减少海平面上升对公众造成的危险和财产损失。尽管如此，我仍然不认为这些方法可以带领我们的风景园林行业进入一个创新的领域。我相信在面对挑战时，我们或许可以实现“颠覆式创新”，找到创新的风景园林的生成方法和表现形式，然而我们可能仍旧力不从心，在重塑美学观上难免要重蹈现代主义和后现代主义的覆辙。事实上，在这一点上仍然是“形式追随功能”，所以我热切期待在我们在审美观上可以有一个重大的转变。

如今我们生活在“人类世”，这是源自地质学的关于纪元的学术名词，指人类活动对全球环境和地球生态系统已经造成了深远的影响。我相信风景园林也已经转变，融入整个环境生态系统之内，而不只是简单改变了它们。这是通过对风景园林永无穷尽的自然本质的保护、欣赏和体验，以及不断更新实现的。风景园林已经逐步发展成为一个综合社会、文化、生态等多层面的复杂组合。然而我们似乎过于强调从设计师和学者角度看到的风景园林的表现形式和形成过程，至于风景园林的形式和空间质量，无论是学界还是业界，至今也未能出现令人瞩目的、可以引发创新的争辩。至于“图画式”和“布景式”风景园林在空间构成上的价值，已经在我们的讨论中被一早摈弃了，我们也不再讨论再造一个丛林，还是在人工生态体系上迭加一个几何构图，哪一种方式的美学价值更高这样流于说教性质的问题。然而所有的设计师们仍然清楚，我们的工作始终也离不开形式和空间的创造。无论是参数化，还是采用传统的平面和透视方法，也无论是边界式、几何构成式、瞬时式、渐进式、有机整体式，还是暗喻修辞式景观，无论是哪一种类型或形式，都有必要做出改变。在过去的几十年间，关于风景园林的审美标准和美学观点也顺应着可持续发展、社会整合，以及风景园林形成过程的变化而相应做出改变，不再过于追求构图上的意义，也不会为追求装饰效果而浪费金钱。

中国和澳大利亚都面临着采矿、农业和快速城镇化带来的冲击。重新思考后工业时代的风景园林，提出关于农业转型的方案，以及多种类型的城镇化发展方向，尽管这些都是可以推动风景园林行业发展的议题，但我们仍然必须展开关于风景园林美学和空间形式及质量的公开辩论。虽然我提出的对形式和空间的重视可能会被忽略，或被认为过于表面化和追赶潮流。也可能有人会认为，既然风景园林的表现形式有其自身的组织系统，那么一个设计师的角色就应当是仅仅制订一个框架，随着时间变化空间也会自然调整和改变。这完全会让人联想起现代主义的风景园林论题，至今在追求几何构图方面仍然在发挥着影响。当我向学界和业界同仁查询，有没有哪一个风景园林作品具备“颠覆式创新”的属性，我们绞尽脑汁也无法从已知或已了解的作品当中，搜出一个极具创新的、不同于传统大师作品的、具有划时代意义的设计。因此这篇文章除了赞赏风景园林行业的某些转变之外，也强调关于风景园林设计在美学和空间构成方面，仍然需要批判性的讨论和反思。

The late 1990’s and early 2000’s marked an interesting resurgence of discourse around landscapes and their operations （Corner， ed 1999；Berger， 2007； Waldheim， ed 2006）. Following on and concurrent with the global financial crisis， counter debates arose regarding socially or politically engaged design agendas. （Stohred，2006； Fuad-Luke， 2009； Hester， 2010； Bell，Herlin& Stiles eds 2012） Discussions in landscape architecture， particularly Ecological Urbanism，evolved further to challenge our profession’s need to consider broader landscape performativity which now includes constructed and yet open social and biological ecologies over visual or spatial compositional landscapes. （Bowring and Swaffield，2013； Girot， 2013； Waldheim， 2013）. Landscape， by its very nature， is process driven and in a constant state of becoming. Additionally， designed public landscapes are often appropriated in various ways，programming public space is often suggestive of use but often is also open-ended. Polemics and paradoxes arise when clients， usually public bodies，produce briefs which call for statsis or stability， let alone landscape predictability and risk abatement. The following essay examines how disruptive innovation is a mode or means by which we can examine and explore landscape performativity. It seeks to unashamedly appropriate this key concept from another context and apply it to other ways of thinking about current and future landscape propositions and ultimately the essay calls for a re-invigoration of debates regarding landscape formalism.

Disruptive innovation， a phrase devised by Clayton Christensen， describes a “process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentless moves up market， eventually displacing established competitors.” （Christensen， 2011） A fairly well known example of this in product design includes Apple IPODs and IPhones，Sony Walkmans and cell phones were after all commonplace before the Apple revolution， but they were able to disruptively innovate to such an extent that they are now the empire that others are toppling. Landscape Architects have a fantastic legacy and history of modifying landscapes， value adding and innovating but how have we disruptively innovated in our current projects and how can this ideology extend our future practices？

For example， public parks and open spaces are now commonly cross-programed with water catchment and cleansing regimes， as are many urban streets. Water drainage and storage are both performative operations and civic minded，thereby saving the planet by being less wasteful and caring for the health of our environment， while retaining water as an aesthetic feature of many of these projects. （See for example， Turenscape’s Qunli Storm Water Park， Haerbin City， China；Wraight + Associates’ Waitangi Park， Wellington，NZ； Hassell’s Victoria Park， Sydney Australia， etc.）While Water Sensitive Urban Design （WSUD）adds both intangible and tangible value to public amenities， how might our design agendas go further？ Landscape performativity in this context is construed as both green infrastructure with traditional 19th century notions of public space. This is much the same as what Olmstead was designing in the Boston’s Back Bay Fens albeit packaged within a more contemporary somewhat modernist aesthetic. While I very much appreciate a number of these projects， I am interested in how have we might have disruptively innovated beyond Olmstead’s canonical works？

Perry Lethleanwhen presenting TCL’s and WA’s Auckland Waterfront design at the European Landscape Biennale in Barcelona in September 2014， spoke about encouraging productive friction and constructed ecologies in public spaces. He discussed the landscape operations of this designed waterfront harbor as multiple and complex； a fishing port， a luxury yacht refurbishment site，storage for mass quantities of cooking oils and petrochemicals intertwined with public space programs of promenading， retail， lounging in the grass， holding outdoor events all while harvesting and cleansing water through bio-swales and an urban estuary. This is a reasonable example of disruptive innovation akin to Bernard Tschumi’s notions of cross and disprogramming tested in Paris’s Parc de la Villette （1982）. Yet the formal expression of the Auckland Waterfront and its visual and spatial composition relies on planametric techniques of pattern， repetition， and well-healed material selections. While its design like many 21stcentury public spaces reutilizes， recycles，and re-purposes many of existing conditions and materials， the aesthetic is hardly new. The question then follows how might we disruptively innovate visual and spatial compositions in landscape architecture？

Further， we live in a decade obsessed with metrics， in order to justify landscape architectural projects； we substantiate their public benefit by measuring and quantifying their ability to cleanse our planet. In Australia this debate has moved well beyond WSUD into carbon abatement andsequestration， we quantify our carbon offsets as a part of Ecosystem Services. We now acknowledge rising temperatures and rethink our urban forestry strategies， for example street trees and trees in parks， towards species selections which can both adapt to predicted temperature rises of 3 -5 degrees Celsius while mitigating urban heat island effects. We constrain future constructions in areas where predicted sea level risewill cause rampant loss of property， proposing instead public landscapes of tidal inundation celebrating flux while ameliorating public risk. Yet I cannot help but wonder if these tactics， while admirable， will force our design work into innovative new territories. I believe that through these challenges we might disruptively innovate landscape operations and performativity but again we might fail to reinvent modernist and postmodernist aesthetic sensibilities. Form is indeed subservient to function in this scenario and I await eagerly a major paradigm shift in our aesthetic predilections.

As we are living in the Anthropocene， a geologic chronological term for the proposed epoch that began when human activities had a significant global impact on the Earth's ecosystems，I believe that landscape architecture has indeed evolved to engage with these conditions rather than ameliorate them.

This has been facilitated through a renewal of appreciation and engagement with the open-ended nature of landscape； its complex social， cultural and biological ecologies. Yet we seemed to have privileged our designerly and scholarly concerns towards performative and operative landscapes. Very little notable scholarship or professional debate has reinvigorated debates over the formal and spatial qualities of our designed landscape. We have summarily dismissed all debates over the value of compositional strategies employed in the picturesque and sceneographic， or the didactic nature of recreating a bush aesthetic versus a geometric concern for our constructed ecologies. Yet all designers know that ultimately we are struggling with making form and making space. Whether it be parametrically， or through conventional plan and perspectival compositions，we need to make moves be they lateral， geometric，ephemeral， emergent， organic， metaphoric， etc. Beauty and aesthetics are relegated to sustainability，social inclusion and landscape process as an overreaction perhaps to the overly compositional and wasteful decorative landscapes of previous decades.

Both China and Australia are nations of mining， agriculture and rapid urbanization. Our profession has pushed the boundaries in some instances in terms of re-thinking of post-industrial landscapes， proposing agricultural transformation as well as re-inventing various forms urbanism but we have yet to debate openly aesthetic and formal qualities of our constructions. Some may dismiss my focus on form and space as superficial or simply a lack of interest in anything but stylistic endeavors. Others may argue that performative landscapes have their own self-organizing systems and that a designer role is to make frameworks which are open to spatial appropriation and change. This is entirely reminiscent of Modernist landscape propositions which still had formal ramifications and highly geometricized results. Yet，when I ask noted and learned academic colleagues and practitioners about contemporary works which disruptively innovate landscape architecture’s formal cannons， we struggle to name one project which clearly demonstrates a break from what we already know well and what we have already seen. So while this essay indeed celebrates the profession’s transformation in some respects， it is also a direct call for critical debate and reflection about design aesthetics and spatial composition.

［1］Berger， A （2007） Drosscape： Wasting Land in Urban America［M］. Princeton， NJ： Princeton University Press.

［2］Bell， S. Herlin， I， & Stiles， R editors （2012） Exploring the Boundaries of Landscape Architecture［M］. London：Routledge.

［3］Bowring， J and Swaffield， S （2013） Shifting Landscapes in-between Times［J］.Harvard Design Magazine 36， pp 96-104.

［4］Corner， J editor （1999） Recovering Landscape： Essay in Contemporary Landscape Architecture［M］.Princeton， NJ：Princeton University Press.

［5］Christensen， C & Irving， H （2011） The Innovative University： Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out［M］.San Francisco ： Jossey-Bass.

［6］Fuad-Luke， A （2009） Design Activism： Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World［M］.London： Earthscan Routledge.

［7］Girot， C （2013） Immanent Landscape［J］.Harvard Design Magazine no 36，pp 6-16.

［8］Hester， R （2010） Design for Ecological Democracy［M］. Cambridge， MA： MIT Press.

［9］Stohr， K editor （2006） Design Like You Give Damn：Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises［M］.New York： Architecture for Humanity.

［10］Waldheim， C editor （2006） The Landscape Urbanism Reader［M］.Princeton， NJ： Princeton University Press.

［11］Waldheim， C （2013） Landscape as Architecture［J］. Harvard Design Magazine 36，pp 17-20.

Disruptive Innovation in the Anthropocene Age： A Call for the Re-invention of Landscape Formalism

Text by： SueAnne WARE （AUSTRALIA）
Translation： ZHANG An

苏安·维尔/女/澳大利亚纽卡斯尔大学建筑学院院长和教授

译者简介：

张安/女/香港大学风景园林学博士/本刊特约编辑

Biography：

SueAnne WARE is the Head and Professor of School of Architecture and Built Environment， University of Newcastle，Australia.

About the Translator：

Ms ZHANG An holds a PhD in Landscape Architecture from the University of Hong Kong and she is also a Contributing Editor of Landscape Architecture Journal （China）.