IN 1977 the state of New York hired Milton Glaser, a graphic designer, to help improve its image. Undoubtedly, it needed a lift. Wealth had been escaping New York City for years. Manufacturing had fled to cheaper sites and crime had filled the gaps. Mr Glaser’s simple I ♥ NY logo marked the beginning of an economic and social revival so dramatic that Ed Koch, the mayor, was able to declare: “We’re not catering to the poor any more…there are four other boroughs they can live in. They don’t have to live in Manhattan.”

1977年，纽约州政府聘用图像设计师梅顿·戈拉瑟（Milton Glaser）来提升城市形象。毫无疑问，纽约州确实需要这么做。多年来，纽约市经济一直下滑。制造业纷纷搬迁成本更低的地方，而犯罪案件此起彼伏。戈拉瑟设计的I ♥ NY标识则标志着纽约经济社会复兴的开始，它就像一剂强心针，给重燃希望的美国人带来巨大变化，以致时任市长埃德·科克（Ed Koch）这样宣布道：“纽约将不再迎合穷人，他们可以去其它四个区，不一定非得住在曼哈顿。”

“The Age of Spectacle” by Tom Dyckhoff, a British architecture critic, is the story of the transformation of cities from the dense manufacturing hubs of the early 20th century to the consumerist meccas they are today. He begins with Jane Jacobs and Ruth Glass, two social scientists who spotted that middle-class youngsters in 1960s London were refusing to move to the suburbs as their parents had done. This was driven both by the “stifling conformism” of life on the outskirts, and, according to Raphael Samuel, a historian, by a love of “values inherent to the dense, historic city, whether its aesthetic form, its layers of history, its ability to somehow encourage neighbourliness or its sheer excitement.” Mr Dyckhoff notes the casual manner in which Ms Glass defines this behaviour as “gentrification”, identifying a movement which he believes became “the most significant force in Western cities in the second half of the 20th century”.

英国建筑评论家汤姆·狄河甫（ Tom Dyckhoff）的《奇观时代》（The Age of Spectacle）一书讲的就是一些城市转型的内容。这些城市从20世纪早期的制造业中心转变为今天的消费者天堂。书的开始就讲了简·雅各布斯（Jane Jacobs）和卢斯·格拉斯（Ruth Glass）这两位社会科学家的发现：20世纪60年代伦敦的中产阶级年轻人不愿意像他们父母那样搬到郊区居住。原因是他们抗拒郊区“令人压抑，一潭死水般的”生活，以及如历史学家拉斐尔·塞缪尔（Raphael Samuel）所言，出于对“人口稠密的历史名城固有价值观的喜爱，无论是城市美学、历史厚重感、睦邻友好精神还是城市中纯粹的新鲜刺激”。狄河甫特别提到，格拉斯称为“中产阶级化”的散漫行为代表一种运动，并认为这一运动“是20世纪下半叶推动西方国家城市振兴的最重要的动力。”

Gentrification might have proved a passing fad, had it not been for favourable government policy and economic trends. The author identifies the role of restoration grants and right-to-buy schemes in cementing the movement. But he is also good at deconstructing the myths that surround gentrification: “Nothing did the job better of simultaneously rooting you, distinguishing you, emancipating you, investing your money in something safe, but risky enough to stimulate dinner-party conversation—and displaying it for all the world to see—than buying a shabby little warehouse or townhouse downtown, and getting the builders in.” From this point onwards, housing was given a wider purpose than providing shelter; it had to reflect its owners’ identity and make them money.

倘若城市中产阶级化没有成为政府所青睐的政策和经济发展趋势，那么它最终可能只是一个流星一闪而过。狄河甫明白恢复补助金和”购房权”计划在促进这种进步中的重要性；同时他也很好地打破有关城市中产阶级化的谜团：“与在乡下购买一个破旧的小仓库或连栋房屋，然后重新装修相比，再没有什么更好的途径能同时增加你的资本, 突显你的身份，解放你的手脚，进行安全的投资，但是，这种投资的未来力量却足以震撼晚宴对话，甚至足以影响世界。”自那以后，房产有了更广泛的用途，不仅仅是栖息的场所，更要彰显出主人的身份，能进行投资并有所回报。

As cities began to compete more aggressively for investment and employment, they were forced to distinguish themselves. This, according to Mr Dyckhoff, was what lay behind the wave of grandiosity in public architecture, his age of spectacle. But it is also here that his argument loses focus. He marvels at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao designed by Frank Gehry, puzzles at Zaha Hadid’s MAXXI gallery in Rome and is alienated by Rem Koolhaas’s CCTV building in Beijing. It is not clear if he believes that the movement to create eye-popping buildings in public spaces is a good thing, or if it depends on the architectural merit of each construction. He is wearied by contemporary bridges that insist on the function of crossing becoming an experience. “No bridge can sit there quietly, keeping itself to itself. It has to be interesting.” Mr Dyckhoff seems to be afflicted by what Mr Koolhaas calls the “Dubai icon paradox”: “When everything looks so wildly different, it ends up looking all the same.”

随着城市之间关于投资和就业的竞争愈加激烈，城市不得不另辟蹊径使自己更具特色。用狄河甫的话来说，这就是他所处时代的“奇观时代”里的公共建筑建得如此富丽堂皇的原因。不过，也正因为如此，狄河甫的观点失去了焦点。他对弗兰克·盖里（Frank Gehry）为毕尔巴赫的古根海姆博物馆的设计大为惊叹，对扎哈·哈迪德（Zaha Hadid）为罗马的MAXXI 画廊设计感到疑惑，而且他的设计理念与雷姆·库哈斯（ Rem Koolhaas）为中国设计的中央电视台的造型理念更是背道而驰。我们并不清楚狄和甫是否认为在公共场所建这些夺人眼球的建筑很好，或者在设计时是否参考每幢建筑的建筑优势。现在人们对桥的固有观念仍是其通行功能，狄河甫对此十分反感。”没有一座桥只充当跨河的功能，安安静静地立在那里，我们必须要使它有趣起来。“狄河甫似乎对库哈斯口中的“迪拜标志悖论”很是苦恼，“迪拜标志悖论”表明：当一切事物都彼此截然不同时，终极趋势将是一切都会趋同。

He has a sharper vision of where architecture is heading. He notes the challenge of working with heavy, permanent materials in a digital age defined by speed and agility. In response, architecture has gone on “a crash diet, losing kilograms, countless tonnes”; interiors have been stripped back in order to cater to every potential occupant; a building’s skin has become more important than ever. In Munich Mr Dyckhoff visits Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron’s football stadium. Clad in partly translucent plastic blisters embedded with strips of light, “the entire façade glow[s] like a low-resolution TV set, bearing the team colours.” Here he sees a building that transcends its weightiness to communicate to its users, and finally finds a thrill in the experience.

狄河甫对建筑的发展方向有着更敏锐的眼光。他指出，在速度和敏捷度定义下的数字时代中，使用沉重的耐久性材料会带来很大的挑战。因此，建筑物已在大量“节食”和“瘦身”。为了迎合每一个潜在的住户，室内设计被剥离了，建筑物的外在“皮肤”变得比以往任何时候都更重要。在慕尼黑，狄和浦参观了雅克·赫尔佐格（Jacques Herzog ）和皮埃尔·德默隆(Pierre de Meuron)共同设计的安联球场。球场外墙体由部分半透明的塑料水膜包裹，水膜里嵌入灯管，“当整个球场发出奇异的灯光时，就像一个低分辨率的电视，灯光颜色的变化对应的就是球场里球队的比赛情况。”在这里, 他看到一幢超越了本身功能，能与体验者真正产生交流的建筑，并从中得出了激动人心的经验。

编译：张玺元

审校：于佳惠

编辑：翻吧君

来源：经济学人