奥斯陆建筑三年展几天后就要开幕，本届展览的题目为“绿门之后——建筑以及对可持续的渴望”。Archdaily得到了与三年展策展方Rotor访谈的机会，他收集了超过600件展品，它们将传达全世界超过200个事务所、公司和绿色组织的可持续宣言。
The Oslo Architecture Triennale, will start in just a few days under the title “Behind the Green Door – Architecture and the desire for sustainability”. ArchDaily had the chance to talk withRotor, the curators of the Triennale, who have collected over 600 objects carrying claims of sustainability from over 200 architecture offices, companies and environmental organizations across the world.

首先，我们想知道：什么才算真正的“可持续”？请在休息后阅读完整访谈内容：
Archdaily：您在Rotor收集了超过600件展品能够在您的展览“绿门之后”表达对可持续概念的宣言。能否告诉我们怎样才算真正的可持续？
Maarten Gielen：我们用了一年多的时间寻找那些自称可持续的建筑。我们最终选择了超过200个项目的材料放入我们的展览。盖里设计的巴塞尔Novartis校园与美国陆军工程兵团设计的威斯巴登军用飞机场有什么共同之处？丹麦设计小组Vandkunsten的Tinggården共同住宅项目与BIG带有滑雪道的焚化炉有什么相似的地方？WemerSobek和Anna Heringer之间呢？它们并不说同样的语言，更是常常没有共同的视野。然而它们都被归为“可持续”
Lionel Devliege：在可持续这个标签的使用方式上是可以有所不同的。在一些项目中，它是一个驱动力，一个深思熟虑的企图去“拯救地球”。另一些项目则更投机取巧地运用这个标签。但是所有我们选择展出的作品作者都有一个共同点，那就是它们试图制定一个真诚的答案对如下问题试图给出一个真诚的答案：“在一个资源有限、超负荷运转的世界中，成为建筑师意味着什么？”
Most of all, we wanted to find out: what truly counts as “sustainable”? Read the complete interview after the break:
Archdaily:You at Rotor have collected over 600 objects that carry claims of sustainability for your exhibition “Behind the Green Door.” What have you learned about what counts as sustainable?
Maarten Gielen: We’ve spent over a year looking at architecture that calls itself sustainable. For the exhibition we ended up selecting materials related to over 200 projects. What does the Novartis Campus in Basel designed by Gehry have in common with the Wiesbaden Army Airfield designed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers? Are there similarities between the co-housing project Tinggården of the Danish group Vandkunstenand a design for an incinerator with ski slope by BIG? Between the work of Werner Sobek and Anna Heringer? They don’t share a formal language, there is often not even a common vision. And yet they’re all being referred to as ‘sustainable’.
Lionel Devliege: A difference can be made in the manner in which the label sustainable is being used. In some projects it is a driving force, a deliberate attempt to “save the planet”. Other projects use the notion more opportunistically. But what all the authors whose work we feature in the exhibition have in common is that they try to formulate a sincere answer to the question: “What does it mean to be an architect in a world of limited resources, a world that lives above its carrying capacity?”

AD：从您的角度来看，可持续这个概念，甚至在它刚出现时，是否曾有个一个明确的定义？您认为它今后会有吗？
LD：实施上每个人都会提到1987年的定义，由Brundtland Commission提出。它是一个美国团体，其任务是“在国家之间创造更多合作”，“定义长期环境议题的概念”。也就是说，该委员会的议程是制定一个能被竟可能多的政党接受的立场，超越意识形态、经济及其它分歧。如今我们可以说在这方面，这个委员会已有辉煌的成就，通过打造“可持续发展”概念并竟可能开放地定义它。
MG：我们在过去几十年所见到的是许许多多的尝试将“尊重未来的世代”这一抽象概念转化成真实情况下的导则。我们社会在寻找这些问题的答案：“什么样的喷镀材料最能迎合未来世代的需要？”你可以想象这样一个问题触及到巨大的利益：制造商、区域及其产业、建筑承包商协会及工人工会……。它迅速成为一个意识形态问题，其答案取决于一个人认为社会应如何组织。
AD: From your perspective, has the idea of sustainability, even at its inception, ever had a clear definition? Do you think it ever will?
LD: Virtually everyone refers to the 1987 definition put forward by the Brundtland Commission, a United Nations body that had as a mission to “create greater cooperation (…) between countries”, “to define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues” and to formulate “aspirational goals for the world community”. In other words, the agenda of the commission was to formulate a position that could be embraced by as many parties as possible, across ideological, economic and other divides. We can say today that in this the commission succeeded brilliantly by crafting the notion of ‘sustainable development’, and defining it as open as possible.
MG: What we have seen over the last few decades are attempts to translate the broad abstract notion “respect for future generations” into guidelines for concrete situations. Our society is looking for answers to questions such as: “what cladding material is the most respectful to future generation’s needs?”. You can imagine that a question like that touches upon enormous interests: of manufacturers, of regions and their industries, of associations of building contractors and workers, … It quickly becomes an ideological matter, answers depend of how one thinks society should be organised.

而且还有更多问题。试想：一个建筑材料或一整幢建筑可以不顾建筑内部发生的事件而被是做可持续的吗？例如最近达拉斯的乔治•W•布什中心获得LEED白金认证，但同时主办了一个美国入侵伊拉克和阿富汗的展览。这能称作一幢可持续建筑吗？如果不能，那么这对那些想要建造可持续建筑的建筑师来说意味着什么？
LD：我们认为将问题保持部分开放的是最好的选择，对于它将不会有一个单一的含义。因此我们发现那些将可持续过于狭隘定义的范例最有问题，那些声称包含所有答案的范例。将可持续作为形容词意为：“这个物体为世界促成更多平衡；这在道德上是正确的”。而只要我们生活在一个不平衡的世界，所有这样的声明都将需讨论。
AD：您认为建筑师在不仅仅定义可持续而且将其用于实践方面扮演着怎样的角色？
LD：我们将建筑师视为社会中有用的指示器。将今日的建筑与20年前的建筑相比，建筑的变迁说明了我们对世界的共同理解方式的改变。
MG：但是建筑并不仅仅经受这些社会改变，它也可以控制或者至少影响它们。也许在可持续名下的住宅合约会吓退一部分人。他们也许会认为这样的建筑将不被建得舒适。因此当一个项目成功地组织空间，将舒适与密度结合，这就给世界提供了新的选择。建筑拥有能力展示那些过去仅仅是想法的可行性与吸引力。
And there’s many more questions. Imagine: can a building material or an entire building on itself be considered sustainable regardless of what happens inside of them? The recent George W. Bush Presidential Centre in Dallas is for instance Platinum LEED-certified, but at the same time hosts an exhibition that celebrates the American invasion of Irak and Afghanistan. Can this be called a sustainable building? If not, then what does this imply for architects that want to build sustainably?
LD: We think it is best to keep questions like these partially open, that there will never be an univocal answer. So it is the too narrowly defined models of sustainability that we find most problematic, the models that claim to have all the answers. To use the adjective sustainable is to say: “This object contributes to greater balance in the world; this is morally right”. And as long as we live in an unbalanced world, all such claims should be up for discussion.
AD: What role do you think architects will play in not just defining sustainability but also putting it into practice?
LD: We see architecture as a useful indicator of changes in our societies that are difficult to reveal otherwise. Compare the architecture of today with what was built as recently as twenty years ago. The changing architecture illustrates shifts in the way we collectively understand the world.
MG: But architecture does not only undergo these changes in society, it can also steer or at least influence them. Perhaps the idea of compact housing in the name of sustainability scares certain people. They might think it cannot be done in a comfortable way. So when a particular project succeeds in organising spaces in such a way that comfort and density are combined, it creates new options for the world. Architecture has the power to show the feasibility and desirability of what before was just an idea.

AD：可持续建筑是走向可持续社会的第一步吗？真正的可持续建筑将会是什么样？它会放弃舒适性吗？如果会，社会真的准备好面对它的宣言吗？
LD：可持续性的概念随着全球的观点逐步发展，正如你可能会从联合国那里期望。在很大程度上这也是一个社会公正问题：如何改善“发展中国家”的生活标准而不危害全人类的未来。有报导置疑我们处理“当下需求”的方式不会危害未来世代处理他们需要所需的能力。但是“需要”究竟是什么意思？
MG：挪威拥有繁荣的石油经济，是一个可以提出这个问题的有趣的地方。这就是为什么三年展开幕会议的议题为“未来的舒适”，并且专注于这些问题。
AD: Is sustainable architecture the first step towards building a sustainable society? What would truly sustainable architecture look like? Would it forsake comfort? If so, is society really as ready for it as it may claim?
LD: The notion of sustainability was developed with the a global, planetary outlook in mind, as you might expect from the UN. It was very much a question of social justice too: how to improve the living standards of the ‘developing countries’ without jeopardizing the future of all. The report asks that the way we deal with the ‘needs of the present’ does not jeopardize the capacity of future generations to deal with their needs. But what does this mean, “needs”?
MG: Norway, with its booming oil economy, is an interesting place to ask that question. That is why the opening conference of the Triennale is titled ‘The Future of Comfort’, and looks precisely at these questions.

     特别鸣谢翻译一组2号 翟亦沛 提供的翻译，译稿版权归译者所有，转载请注出明处。