Image Courtesy of Keith Krumwiede

我们正接近“工作的尾声”。这将会如何改变我们的住房？
We Are Approaching "The End of Work." How Will This Change Our Housing?

由专筑网缕夕，韩平编译

这篇文章最初是由“建筑师报”在2017年4月刊发表的，他们的网站上也发布了，其标题为“ 随着美国梦而去世，我们必须重新思考我们的郊区，家园和社区 ”。它是系列报道的其中一篇，标记着 4月底奥兰多的AIA国家公约。

美国人通过工作来界定自己身份：它建立社会角色，也是我们所信仰的。美国梦是以个人成就为前提的，承诺我们的劳动将以物质形式得到回报。对许多人来说，我们成就梦想的必要条件，或者最具收藏价值的，就是独立的家庭住房。在我们所有的产品中，我们最依赖也代表我们的愿望和成就。

在我们共和国的整个历史中，这个想法从一开始就由托马斯•杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson），再由继承人帕拉迪奥（Palladio）以及美国乡村的理想之父传承——在自己梦想伊甸园中的独栋住房生活，一直是一代代美国人的梦想。因此，尽管它有可能对勒•柯布西耶说，在巴黎附近的上个世纪初，那些“房子是居住的机器”，但从我们的角度来看，在大西洋的这一边，并在20世纪的此时最好加上这句名言：“一座房子也是一个承载美国梦中的容器”。在这个历史时期，这个说法似乎完全不言而喻，但是我们的领导人仍然提醒我们——梦想。2002年，乔治•布什总统在亚特兰大圣保罗非洲卫理公会主教座谈会上，宣传了“社会所有权”的观点，他说：“我相信美国梦，拥有一座房子是那个梦想的一部分，仅仅如此。就在美国，如果你拥有自己的家园，你就在慢慢实现你的美国梦。”而在新世纪初，经济飙升，一个由华尔街精心制作的新金融结算中心，这里数百万木结构搭建起的的“梦想”在全国各地蔓延。

This article was originally published by The Architect's Newspaper in their April 2017 issue and on their website titled "As the American Dream dies, we must rethink our suburbs, homes, and communities." It is part of a series of articles that mark the AIA National Convention in Orlando that took place at the end of April.
Americans define themselves through work; it builds character, or so we believe. The American Dream is premised on individual achievement, with the promise that our labor will be rewarded and measured by the things we collect and consume. For many, the sine qua non of the dream, our greatest collectible, is the single-family house. Of all our products, it is the one we most rely upon to represent our aspirations and achievements.
Throughout the history of our republic, the idea—promoted from the beginning by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, heir to Palladio and father of the American suburban ideal—of living in a freestanding house in the middle of one’s own personal Eden has been the dream of generation after generation of Americans. So while it was possible for Le Corbusier to say, in Paris near the beginning of the last century, that “A house is a machine for living,” from our perspective, on this side of the Atlantic and on this side of the 20th century, it would be better to append that famous maxim: “A house is a machine for living the American Dream.” At this point in history, this statement seems entirely self-evident but still we are reminded by our leaders to get our piece of the dream. In promoting his vision of an “ownership society” in a speech at the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church in Atlanta in 2002, President George W. Bush said, “I do believe in the American Dream… Owning a home is a part of that dream; it just is. Right here in America, if you own your own home, you’re realizing the American Dream.” And during the early years of the new century, the economy soared as millions of wood-framed dreams sprang up across the country, enabled by an elaborate new financial calculus cooked up by Wall Street.

Image Courtesy of Keith Krumwiede

然而，魔术公式——将越来越大的房屋建筑和消费量进行改写，通过将我们的梦想捆绑在一起成为可交易单位——开始走向失败。梦想很快就成了一场噩梦。由于环保，经济和社会政治等因素，长久以来一直持续不断的郊区复制模式开始崩溃，很明显，是郊区的房子，并不是我们的成就，也不能掩盖了我们的妄想。据历史学家约翰•阿切尔（John Archer）说，“浪漫而又孤立制成的阿卡迪亚保护区中的个人（或核心家庭单位），就像是一个日益无法抗拒的故事。”

我们所有人孤立的秘密，都是我们自己主动和努力的推动，是这个故事的一部分。郊区和独立的单户住宅组合在一起，则加强了这个说法。他们努力孤立和分离我们，将我们脱离为个人，脱离任何更大的异质集体。死路是字面上和意义上道路的终点，一个系统的终点站。在四（或八，十六或三十二）个墙壁内安全地隔离自我，我们脱离了人群，通过一系列设备接触，与或多或少像我们一样的人接触。空间变得越来越少，我们混合的媒介越来越多，更多的障碍让我们变得更不像自己。而且随着房屋的尺寸越来越大，这种断开感就被放在房屋的墙壁内，每个居民都回到更加遥远的家庭世界。

这种退出的社会和政治后果在民间社会的恶化和民间话语的侵蚀中日益明显。我们彼此之间的生活越来越少，我们有能力相互见面的人就是共同的梦想和奋斗的人，我们越有可能看到另一个，不同于我们，我们害怕和妖魔化。根据“ 华盛顿邮报”，我们郊区，小城市和农村地区，上个选举中的证据显而易见，根据“ 华盛顿邮报”，唐纳德•特朗普（Donald Trump）的反仇活动总数达到最多  。随着我们的房屋扩张，随着我们之间的距离的增加，我们投票更多地是以更大的集体利益为代价，以保护我们自己的利益（和我们所看到的像我们一样的利益）。

但分离的房子，是产生社会分离的美国梦的先决条件吗？是否有可能想象其他未来的梦想，例如，其他未来的住房？如果个人幸福不再与劳动成果产生的经济成功息息相关，那么会发生什么呢？这些是我们要好好地考虑的问题。工作机会正在减少。虽然目前我们大多数人仍然需要——甚至可能想要出售我们的劳动力，但越来越清楚的是，每一天只有更少的买家。因此，我们的工作关系，我们的住所，我们的美国梦，我们对政治的态度，都正在发生变化。

根据网络理论家Geert Lovink和政治活动家Franco Berardi的说法，资本主义的承诺是“充分就业，但原来是一个反乌托邦：对大家来说根本没有足够的工作...零工作是社会发展趋势，我们应该做好准备去面对它，如果社会期望的变化不是那么糟糕，如果我们接受我们将会减少工作的前景，那我们将有时间思考生活、艺术、教育、幸福、爱情，而不只是关于利润和增长。“我们当前的世界是建立在盈利和增长的基础之上的。我们的城市主义以及建造这个城市的基础设施和建筑，包括数以千万计的家庭遍布入目所视之处，是数百年历史的经济体系的结果。而且该系统一直试图将劳动和生产场所与居住地区隔离开来。在郊区社区的单身住宅，有着拥挤的通勤路线，然而它是资本主义制度的产物，我们每天都会在劳动市场出售我们的劳动力，随着夜幕降临，补充我们的精力和拾回我们的自我。

But then the magic formulas—which scripted the construction and consumption of ever-larger houses in ever increasing numbers by bundling our dreams together into tradeable units—began to fail. The dream quickly became a nightmare. As the legitimating environmental, economic, and socio-political narratives that for so long sustained the endless reproduction of suburbia began to collapse, it became clear that the suburban house, rather than the manifesting of our achievements, masked our delusions. According to the historian John Archer, “the romanticized isolation of the individual (or nuclear family unit) in a manufactured Arcadian preserve is an increasingly untenable fiction.”
The myth that we all stand alone, propelled by our own initiative and hard work is part of that fiction. Suburbs, and the detached single-family houses of which they are comprised, reinforce it. They work to isolate and separate us, to dislocate us as individuals, detached from any larger heterogeneous collective body. The common cul-de-sac is, both literally and symbolically, the end of the road, a terminus in a system. Safely sequestered within its four (or eight, or sixteen, or thirty-two) walls, we stand apart from the crowd, reaching out through an array of devices to make contact with those who are, more or less, just like us. Space becomes less a medium in which we mix and more a barrier that insulates us from those unlike ourselves. And as houses balloon in size, this sense of disconnection is amplified within the walls of the house itself, with each inhabitant withdrawing to ever more far-flung and insular domestic realms.
The social and political consequences of this withdrawal are increasingly obvious in the deterioration of a civil society and the erosion of civil discourse. The further we live from each other, the less we are capable of seeing each other as people with shared dreams and struggles and the more likely we are to see an other, unlike us, whom we fear and demonize. The evidence of this is clear in the last election, in which President Donald Trump’s campaign of xenophobia claimed the most votes, according to the Washington Post, in our suburbs, small cities, and rural areas. As our houses spread out—as the distance between us increases—we vote more myopically to protect our own perceived interests (and the interests of those we see as like us) at the expense of what is arguably the greater collective good.
But is the detached house, with its resulting social detachment, a prerequisite of the American Dream? Is it possible to imagine other futures for the dream and, consequently, other futures for dwelling? What would happen if personal happiness were no longer so closely tied to economic success derived from the fruits of one’s labor? These are questions we would do well to consider. Jobs are disappearing. And while presently most of us still need—and may even want—to sell our labor, it is becoming clearer that with each passing day there will only be fewer buyers. Our relationship to work, and therefore to the American Dream, and therefore to our manner of dwelling, and therefore to politics, is changing.
According to the network theorist Geert Lovink and the political activist Franco Berardi, the capitalist promise of “full employment turned out to be a dystopia: there is simply not enough work for everyone... Zero work is the tendency, and we should get prepared for it, which is not so bad if social expectations change, and if we accept the prospect that we’ll work less and we’ll have time to think about life, art, education, pleasure, love, and what have you rather than solely about profit and growth.” Our current world is built on a foundation of profit and growth. Our urbanism—and the infrastructure and architecture with which it is constructed, including the tens of millions of homes spread thin across the landscape—is the result of a centuries-old economic system. And that system has consistently sought to segregate sites of labor and production from sites of dwelling. The single-family house in a suburban bedroom community along a congested commuter route is the product of a capitalist system in which we head out each day to sell our labor in an indifferent market, returning as night falls to replenish our energies and reclaim our identity.

Image Courtesy of Keith Krumwiede

随着世界越来越自动化，劳动力市场锐减，我们需要开始考虑这一工作趋势的后果和好处，或者更直白地说，就是赚取更少的工资。即使现在我们可以看到正在发生转变。近期工作与生活差异的崩溃，既是我们所知道的正在重塑工作的根本经济和技术变革的一个症结，也是一种指向其他住房方式的标志。出于必要性，在许多情况下，人们开始尝试其他生活方式，共同组建新类型的共同生活工作的家庭。随着零工作趋势的增加，我们都需要重新思考我们的生活方式。因为如果我们把经典的工作定义从方程中拿出来，城市的整个架构，同时是我们的生活，都将瓦解。

这个概率性已经引导着经济学家，技术专家和政治科学家，但遗憾的是，左派或右派的政治家很少会推测未来社会的结构。一个关键的问题是人们如何在没有工作的情况下维持自己。科威特领导人如Elon Musk  （或希腊经济学家和政治家Yanis Varoufakis建议的普遍基本股利）将重新呼吁有普遍的基本收入；比尔•盖茨甚至建议我们对机器人征收所得税。无论如何，这是一个新的经济模式——必然伴随着一个新的政治秩序，我们摆脱了为了生存而出售我们的劳动的义务，这就要求我们考虑人类生产力的其他概念，其他的人类社会的模式，当然还有的是其他生活方式。

在这样的未来，美国梦如目前所定义的，将无济于事。但是，在未来人类少工作劳动的世界里，我们如何组织我们的生活？我们该怎么办？我们如何生活？历史学家詹姆斯•利文斯顿在他的作品 “ Fuck Work ”中提出过这样的观点，当时他问“人类的自由特权如何变成所有人的生命权时，人类的本性会如何变化？”作为建筑师，寻求前进的道路，我们可能会问利文斯顿的一个不同版本的问题：人类栖息地如何改变，休闲的特权如何成为所有人的生命权？

As the market for labor decreases in an increasingly automated world, we need to begin thinking about the consequences and benefits of a future without work, or, more accurately, with far less wage-earning work. Even now we can see that a shift is occurring. The recent collapse of the distinction between places of work and living is both a symptom of the underlying economic and technological transformations that are reshaping work as we know it and a sign that points toward other ways of dwelling. Out of necessity, and, in many cases, desire, people are beginning to experiment with other ways of living, coming together to form new (or new again) types of shared live-work households. And as the tendency toward zero work increases, we will all need to rethink the way we live. Because if we take the classical definition of work out of the equation, the whole structure of our cities, as well as our manner of living, makes a lot less sense.
Already, this probability is leading economists, technologists, and political scientists—but sadly few politicians on either the left or the right—to speculate on the structure of society in the future. A key question is how people will sustain themselves without jobs. There are renewed calls for a universal basic income by tech leaders like Elon Musk (or a universal basic dividend suggested by Greek economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis); Bill Gates has even suggested that we have an income tax on robots. In any case, a new economic model—which will, necessarily, be accompanied by a new political order—in which we are freed from the obligation to sell our labor in order to survive will require that we consider other conceptions of human productivity, other forms of human association, and of course other ways of living.
In such a future, the American Dream, as it is currently defined, would have no utility. But how would we organize our lives in a world where we work less? What would we do? How would we live? In his essay “Fuck Work,” the historian James Livingston points toward an answer when he asks, “How would human nature change as the aristocratic privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of all?” As architects, seeking a way forward, we might ask a different version of Livingston’s question: How would human habitats change, as the privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of all?

Image Courtesy of Keith Krumwiede

由于我们的住宅必须被理解为独立的城堡，作为减少孤立的社会现象，我们代表个人主义和确保我们的市场股份，可以设想将住宅界定为一个相互合作、互动、民间话语。我们有反历史的住房，为我们思考其他可能的国内项目提供了指导。1886年，在Guise建造社会宫的法国实业家让•巴蒂斯特•戈丁（Jean-Baptiste Godin）写道：“为了团结一致的目的和兴趣建立起来，像人民一样的家园相互接近，坚定地站在一起，形成了一个大组团，其中建筑师艺术的所有资源有助于最好地回答家庭和个人的需求。

当然美国梦不能一夜之间改变。它的一些方面深深地嵌入到我们的集体意识中。其核心是关于安全、舒适和熟悉的梦想，就像愿望、成就和地位一样。关于我们生活方式的任何新想法，如果要将我们从我们长期习惯的连接中脱离到单栋独立的房子，必须伴随着新的建筑模型，并通过引人注目的新叙述来呈现，这些新叙述在新的模式中将目前的需求和愿望展现出来，使集体生活的房子更加可取。

这可能似乎是乌托邦的另一个呼唤，因此被批评为脱离现实世界。不是这样的。正如刘易斯•马福德（Lewis Mumford）所说：“建筑的前景与社会的前景并没有分开。如果人类被创造出来，就像传说中的神像一样，那么他的建筑就是以他自己的思想和制度的形象完成的。“我们周围的现实世界正很快地变化；同时我们也坚持越来越过时的梦想。未来，如果我们希望不仅要生存，而且要蓬勃发展，我们将需要改变主意，重新考虑我们的制度。我们必须优先考虑社区，因为我们目前优先考虑个人特征。我们必须决定一起生活，并且我们需要新的梦想。

基思•克鲁姆维德（Keith Krumwiede）是“ 另一个美国地图集：建筑小说 ”（Park Books，2017）的作者。

Liberated from the idea that our dwellings must be understood as freestanding castles, as isolated retreats from society through which we represent our individualism and secure our market share, we could instead conceive of assemblages of dwellings that collectively define a domain of mutual cooperation, interaction and civil discourse. We have counter-histories of dwelling that offer us guidance in thinking about other possible domestic orders. In 1886, Jean-Baptiste Godin, the French industrialist who built the Social Palace at Guise, wrote that when “constructed with a view to unity of purpose and interests, the homes, like the people, approach each other, stand solidly together, and form a vast pile in which all the resources of the builder’s art contribute to best answer the needs of families and individuals.” And following this, we might allow ourselves to imagine—as a way of shaking off the dust of the 20th century—living in what the social reformer Robert Owen described as a “magnificent palace, containing within itself the advantages of a metropolis, a university, and a country residence, without any of their disadvantages, …placing within the reach of its inhabitants… arrangements far superior to any now known … [nor] yet possessed by the most favored individuals in any age or country.”
Of course, the American Dream can’t be transformed overnight. There are aspects of it that are deeply embedded in our collective consciousness. At its core, the dream is about security, comfort, and familiarity, as much as it is about aspiration, accomplishment, and status. Any new ideas about the way we live, if they are to dislodge us from our long-habituated connection to the single-family detached house, must be accompanied by new architectural models and delivered through compelling new narratives that situate the needs and desires currently manifest in the house within new patterns that make collective life more desirable.
This may seem to be yet another call for a utopia, and therefore criticized as being divorced from the pressing concerns of the real world. It is not. For as Lewis Mumford said, “the prospects of architecture are not divorced from the prospects of the community. If man is created, as the legends say, in the image of the gods, his buildings are done in the image of his own mind and institutions.” The real world is changing rapidly all around us; meanwhile we cling to increasingly outmoded dreams. In the future, if we hope not only to survive but also to thrive, we’ll need to change our minds and rethink our institutions. We’ll have to prioritize community as much as we currently prioritize individuality. We’ll have to decide to live together. We’ll need new dreams.
Keith Krumwiede is the author of "Atlas of Another America: An Architectural Fiction" (Park Books, 2017).


出处：本文译自www.archdaily.com/，转载请注明出处。