赫利大楼，一个Curtis B. Wayne称为“第四建筑”的案例。图片由Paul Grundy提供，bdonline.co.uk

当纽约建筑师Curtis B. Wayne 第一次说起“The Fourth Architecture”时，显然并不是为了交朋友——你不会对朋友写宣言。你因内识到紧急的状况而写宣言，因为正是时候。
作为一个从业已久的建筑师，电台主持以及库珀联盟学院和哈佛大学设计学院，他已经拥有许多朋友。他所感兴趣的是将建筑从当下的形式超越物质的正统中解救出来，或如他所说“人可以居住的雕塑”。“我们在这方面（造型超越物质，译者注）过于聪明了”，Wayne这样写道。
事实上，我可以更过分地说。从Wayne的脑子中最终闪现的小红书《事物运作的造型：第四建筑》来看，我可以肯定他一心想激怒别人。但并不是盲目的。
在Wayne的概念中，第一建筑是希腊化建筑，第二建筑是哥特建筑，而第三建筑是现代建筑——一直到现在包括当代、计算机形式实验的建筑。
要抵达第四建筑，正如Wayne会告诉你，建筑需要更少自满地向前否定以及更多地自我煎熬；以我们的水准更多地自我批判。
在书中，他引用了曾是他教授和导师的John Q. Hejduk的话，“建筑的基本议题是它是否触动精神。如果它不能触动精神，那就是一个房子。如果它触动精神，它才成为建筑。”
Wayne 争论道当下数字造形的现状和装饰是类似的，而且建筑需要回归到“运作的造型”——构成对真实的环境、经济、以及社会力量回应的造型。否则，正如Hejduk会宣称，这只是房子。
“建筑师是一个天生且合理的集成者，集成了艺术与技术吗？可以说我们经过训练——在其他所有专业之上——‘应当’是主要的建筑者，主要的集成者。但相反我们看到这个专业被标自我标榜的所谓可持续分裂；被纯粹形式入侵，由计算机一代促成的造形的复杂性所驱动；以及在城市化、社会功能方面的讨论被社会科学的‘软’专业所贬斥。即便如此，我们建筑师可以也应当将所有这些方面囊括到我们的实践中；我们必须如此，否则将会沦为装饰的制造者。”
Helicon Building, an example of what Curtis B. Wayne calls “The Fourth Architecture”. Image Courtesy of Paul Grundy, bdonline.co.uk
When New York City architect Curtis B. Wayne first started talking about “The Fourth Architecture,” it was clear he was not doing so to make friends. You do not write manifestos to make friends. You write them because of some perceived urgency, because the time is right.
As a long-standing practitioner, radio host, and graduate of Cooper Union and Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, he already has a lot of friends. What he’s interested in is saving architecture from the current orthodoxy of form-making over substance, or “sculpture you can live in.” “We are too wise for this,” writes Wayne.
In fact, I can go further.Judging from the little red book that has finally emerged from Wayne’s brain, appropriately titled, The Shape of Things that Work: The Fourth Architecture, I’m almost certain he set out to piss people off.But not without a purpose.
In Wayne’s conception, the First Architecture is the Hellenistic, the Second is the Gothic, and the Third is the modern – up to and including our contemporary, formal experimentation with software.
To get to the Fourth Architecture, as Wayne himself will tell you, architecture needs less self-congratulatory back slapping and more holding of feet to the fire, more self-criticism within our ranks.
In the book, he quotes his former professor and mentor, John Q. Hejduk: “The fundamental issue of architecture is that does it affect the spirit, or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t affect the spirit, it’s a building. If it affects the spirit, it’s architecture.”
Wayne argues that the present state of digital form-making is akin to mere decoration and that architecture needs to return to “shapes that work” – shapes that constitute responses to real environmental, economic, and social forces. Otherwise, as Hejduk would assert, it’s just building.
“Are architects the natural and logical integrators of the artistic with the technical? It can be argued that owing to our training we—above all other professions—“should” be the master builders, the master integrators. But instead we see the profession fractured by the self-identifying trends of so-called sustainability; the intrusion of pure form, driven by the complexities of shape-making made possible by computational generation; and the relegation of discussions of urbanism and social function to the “soft” professions of the social sciences. And yet, we architects can and should include all these aspects in our practice; we must, else we are merely makers of decoration.”

库珀联盟学院新教学楼，图片由Flickr用户Brandon Thomas提供

那么“第四建筑”又是什么？首先，让我们先看看它不是什么。比如被异形化设计的库珀联盟学院新教学楼。Wayne称它为“失败的典范”，因为它本应电脑控制的环绕签名屏系统不能运作，因此仅仅沦为人工操作的装饰，一个静态的立面。
对于Wayne来说，建筑的造形优先于功能与运行时，并不是真正的建筑。这个异形的案例就很有意思，因为它的好意图最终失败了。这座建筑渴望成为第四建筑，但它没有达到。
“具有功能的形式与美的集成即是美，这个定义既模糊又肯定，”Wayne说道。这也许就是为什么成功的第四建筑案例并不多。但回想起来，他依然能举出一些描绘他观点的案例：George Fred Keck的水晶屋，RMJM的葛兰素惠康大楼以及Sheppard Robson Architects的赫利大楼。
Cooper Union. Image © Flickr User Brandon Thomas
What then counts as Fourth Architecture? To begin with, it helps to look at what it is NOT. For exmaple, the Morphosis-designed New Academic Building for Cooper Union. Wayne calls it “an exemplary failure” because its signature enveloping screen system, designed to be computer-operable, does not work, and has thus been reduced to mere manually-operated decoration, a static facade.
For Wayne, true architecture is missing when form-making takes precedence over function and performance. The Morphosis case is an interesting one because it is an example of good intentions that ultimately failed. The building desperately wanted to be part of the Fourth Architecture, but fell short.
“The integration of functional form with the beautiful is as elusive as a conclusive definition of beauty itself,” says Wayne. This may be why there are so few examples of successful Fourth Architecture candidates. But looking back in time, he finds a few to illustrate his point: George Fred Keck’s Crystal House, RMJM’s Glaxo-Wellcome building, and the Helicon Building by Sheppard Robson Architects.

George Fred Keck，水晶屋，1933-34。图片由Robert Medina拍摄，芝加哥历史博物馆提供

Wayne 也关注一种称为HeliOptix整合集中太阳能立面，由建筑科学与生态中心开发，最近被SHoP Architects应用于纽约时装技术学院的建筑方案提议。Wayne 将这定义为一面由它的功能意图所决定的墙，正如他之前强调的，一面运作的墙。
因此，第四建筑将建筑的功能回应传达给环境与人类需求，并没有将风格视作一个驱动因素——它是“去风格化的”。虽然可以说这本身亦构成一种风格，但这不是追求风格而得到的风格，而是作为众多优先因素集成的结果。
Wayne先生的小红书清晰地提炼了一些与当下设计实践对立的重要设计议题。即使他能够利用脚本、计算、参数或单纯的推拉和其他插件去创造几乎任何形态，但他任在争议一个理由，为了“运作的形态”，对有意义的建筑形态的回归。
如果事实就是这样，我们会有什么损失吗？在这后参数化时代，我们一定会获得什么吗？或也许这正是参数化注意的最大潜力——而近几年我们所见到的各种异型仅仅是通向一片新天地的第一阶段，通向第四建筑。让我们共同期待。
George Fred Keck, Crystal House, 1933-34. . Image Courtesy of Robert Medina, Chicago HistoryMuseum
Wayne also looks at something called theHeliOptixIntegrated Concentrating Solar Facade, developed by the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology and currently part of a proposed design by SHoP Architects for New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology. Wayne defines this as a wall determined by its intended function, a wall that works, as he would stress. The wall is comprised of pyramidal water-cooled modules that rotate and track the sun. Lenses concentrate sunlight onto photovoltaic cells.
The Fourth Architecture, then, that which expresses functional responses to the environment and human needs, doesn’t position style as a driving element – it is “style-less.” Though it could be argued this constitutes a style in its own right, it is style not for style’s sake, but as the result of integrated priorities.
Mr. Wayne’s little red book neatly crystallizes some of the major design issues confronting practice today. With the ability to make almost any shape or form through scripting, computation, parametrics, or simply push-me-pull-me and other plug-ins, he is arguing for a reason, for “shapes that work,” a return to architectural forms that have a purpose.
If this were the case, would we lose anything? What would we stand to gain in this post-parametric world? Or perhaps this is the highest potential for parametricism – and the form-making we have been seeing over the last few years is merely the first phase toward something new, toward The Fourth Architecture. Let’s hope so.

HeliOptix，图片由西雅图日报提供，美联社记者Kevin Rivoli拍摄

Guy Horton是一个在洛杉矶工作的作家。除了撰写“指示器”之外，他也常给The Architect’s Newspaper, Metropolis Magazine, The Atlantic Cities 以及 The huffington Post撰稿。他也为Architectural Record, GOOD Magezine, 以及Architect Magazine写过文章。他也是DnA: Design $ Architecture 节目的客座主持，您在洛杉矶外可以通过89.9FM KCRW收听他的节目。Guy的Twitter: @GuyHorton
HeliOptix. Image Courtesy of Seattle Times, Kevin Rivoli AP
Guy Horton is a writer based in Los Angeles. In addition to authoring “The Indicator”, he is a frequent contributor to The Architect’s Newspaper, Metropolis Magazine, The Atlantic Cities, and The Huffington Post. He has also written for Architectural Record, GOOD Magazine, and Architect Magazine. You can hear Guy on the radio and podcast as guest host for the show DnA: Design & Architecture on 89.9 FM KCRW out of Los Angeles. Follow Guy on Twitter @GuyHorton.

译者注：
1.        The Indicator. 这是Archdaily的一个专题栏目