无论评论如何，一个好的设计作品确实具有经济价值
Good Design Does Have Economic Value—No Matter What Critics of Contemporary Architecture Say

由专筑网李韧，韩平编译

本文最初发表于Common Edge，标题为“当代建筑评论家常常忽视的元素：设计的价值”

“当代建筑能够清晰展现其标志性特点的原因是因为其设计策略和审美质量能够为业主带来利润。”这种说法来源于文章“品位的核心并不在于建筑中的政治原则”，该文章在几周之前发表于Common Edge（同时也发表于ArchDaily，名为“当代建筑的审美疲劳在于经济学，并非建筑师”）。 Marianela D’Aprile在10月发表于Current Affairs的一篇文章“你为什么讨厌现代建筑”中也表明了对于当代设计行业的厌恶。

这两篇文章让我十分疑惑。Rennix和 Robinson曾经宣称：“好建筑都将与环境相融合。”但他们所赞赏的诸如伦敦圣保罗教堂和阿尔罕布拉宫等建筑则突出于环境。而D’Aprile认为作者的使用并不恰当，其自身的语言描述也显得过于含糊，因为建筑师们总是使用诸如“标志性”、“无处不在”等词汇（如果是为了表达建筑的独特性，“标志性”这样的词语其实完全无法表达建筑的特色，每个建筑都能具有标志性，因此这样的说法毫无重点）。她将建筑定义为“在现实世界经过设计的建筑作品”，那么依据这个说法，难道是有一些建筑并不是建在“现实世界”吗？难道未实现的设计作品都属于建筑之外的东西吗？

然而，我最关心的是D’Aprile的基本观点：如果说当代建筑中存在着问题，“那其问题的根源一定不在于审美，而是其经济性质。”她解释说，除了那些能够带来高额利润与当地知名度的国内外知名建筑事务所，整个社会对于整体的设计质量并不重视。然而，建筑环境的价值至少占据了每年国内整体GDP的40%，因此D’Aprile不断强调“建筑并不适合以商品的方式成为现代社会的经济结构”，具体来说，虽然大部分开发商都会寻求知名建筑师来设计建筑作品，从而获得高昂的销售价格，因此，一些高校和机构同样也会雇佣这些建筑师，很大程度上是因为他们的名气能够提升与促进类似博物馆或者其他大型文化建筑的知名度，这样才会有投资商愿意进行投资。无论这样的说法是否对公众具有一定导向性，但我们可以明确地知道，这些客户的最初动机都是获得高额利润。

即使我们承认建筑的主要驱动因素是当地的经济发展，但是在表达出“好的设计并不能由于其审美因素而带来经济价值”这样的论点时，D’Aprile忽略了一个重要因素，因为除了一些特殊情况，建筑师的名气确实能够吸引公众的注意。她坚持认为，建筑的享受和体验没有内在价值，因为 “感受不值钱”。

人们越来越忽视关于建筑经济效益的证据。整座建筑的造价昂贵，但最初的投资成本只占总投资的5-10%，而高性能的设计能够减少不必要的花费，并且创造更加丰厚的经济回报，甚至能够减少一半以上的运营成本，有效提升商业价值、租金、出租率，以及整体产业价值。研究表明，建筑能耗每减少10%，其整体市场价值就能够提升1%。世界绿色建筑委员会宣称，在全球范围内，如果大力提升建筑的能源效率，那么每年可节约近5000亿美元的投入资金。这绝大部分与材料、设计策略、能源系统有关，并非简单地对建筑的尺寸和外观进行调整。因此，最初的设计策略是一座建筑的决定因素，设计是关键。

另外，在以劳动力为主要驱动因素的各个组织中，基础设施所占的年度运营成本不到10%，其余的90%的成本投入都在于人力资源之中，因此大部分的资金投资应该用于解决建筑对于人们的影响。大量研究表明，自然采光良好、自然通风流畅，以及与室外空间的联系密切的办公场所能够对员工们的身体和精神状况产生极大的正面影响，从而大大提高生产率、降低缺勤旷工率，并且也让企业对员工持续地具有吸引力。科学计算证明，一个公司的潜在收益至少为每平方英尺3美元，或者是每名员工3000美元。调查表明，93%的有着高效办公空间的公司对于人才来说有着很强烈的吸引力，其中81%的公司数据显示，这些公司的员工有着很高的留任率。对于一家1000人的公司来说，只要把留任率提升5%，该公司的年产值就有可能超过500万美元。

这些优势绝非单纯的光线、空气质量与景观条件都能比拟。正如我在2012年出版的书《The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design》里说明，在过去几十年里，环境心理学、生物学、神经科学给我们带来了诸多启示，例如那些形式、空间、色彩、肌理对于人类的影响，然而这些是每个建筑师必须要掌握的基本概念。例如，在同等模式下，通过景观视野的开放，人们的压力可以减少至少60%。通过减少舒缓压力以及治疗疾病的各项费用，单单这一项在美国所减少的经济价值就能达到将近2000亿美元。因为如果整个建筑的环境形态不只是单纯地为了美观，而充分结合了多种因素，那这样对人们将大大有益。

一切的经济收益都来源于设计策略，优秀的策略能够帮助提升人们的使用体验，那这便是D’Aprile所说的赚不到钱的“感受”，这样的策略同样也能够增强建筑的社会和环境影响。因此，审美与感官体验对于建筑来说极具潜在价值。

因此，如果建筑师和设计师并为经过充分的训练，那么他们对于设计行为所产生的后果并没有多少概念。如果正如D’Aprile、 Rennix和Robinson所认为的那样，当代建筑面临着某些危机，那这不仅仅是因为建筑外观过于“丑陋”，也不仅仅是因为现代建筑与当代社会的不相容，而是因为建筑师并没有很好地把握二者之间的关系，人们通常认为好的设计只是锦上添花而已。如果我们愿意重新思考设计的目的与方法，那么美学的社会、经济，以及环境价值将会大大超出我们的想象，甚至让整个行业产生质的飞跃。

This article was originally published by Common Edge as "What Critics of Contemporary Architecture Are Missing: The Value of Design."
“The reason that highly designed contemporary architecture almost exclusively manifests in iconic structures is that it’s the only way that investing in design and aesthetic quality can turn a profit.” This is the central assertion of “The Politics of Architecture Are Not a Matter of Taste,” published in Common Edge a couple of weeks ago (and republished as “Hate Contemporary Architecture? Blame Economics, Not Architects” on ArchDaily). Marianela D’Aprile’s impassioned essay takes issue with a Current Affairs piece from October, “Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture,” in which the authors, staff writers Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson, hate on the current state of the design industry.
Both articles confuse me. “Good buildings recede seamlessly into their surroundings,” Rennix and Robinson claim, but the buildings they praise—figural structures such as London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Moorish palace of The Alhambra—stand out prominently. D’Aprile criticizes the authors’ imprecise use of terminology, but, as the opening passage above shows, her own language can be vague, relying on words such as iconic, ubiquitous shorthand among architects. (If it’s intended to convey “distinctive,” the irony is that most buildings described with that term have a similar sculptural character, so in our mind’s eye they all sort of blend together—the opposite of distinction.) She defines architecture as “buildings that have been designed for construction in the physical world.” Aren’t all buildings constructed “in the physical world”? And are all unrealized designs necessarily relegated to something other than architecture?
Nevertheless, I’m mostly concerned with D’Aprile’s basic argument: If there’s a problem with contemporary architecture, “the problem is actually not aesthetic. It is, fundamentally, a problem of economics.” Capitalism doesn’t accommodate architecture well, she explains, because society doesn’t value design much, except when famous architects generate marketing buzz for developers to turn a profit. Yet, since the value of the built environment accounts for some 40% of global GDP every year, it’s preposterous for D’Aprile to maintain that “architecture... does not fit as a commodity into capitalist economic structures.” More specifically, while some developers do seek out renowned designers to command higher sales prices, many universities and other institutions hire the same architects, largely because their name recognition can kickstart fundraising for a museum or other marquee structure that otherwise might not get built. Misguided or not, these clients’ motivation isn’t greed—it’s survival.
Even if we concede that architecture is driven primarily by economics, D’Aprile misses the mark when she claims that good design can’t create value through aesthetics, other than in those rarefied cases where the architect’s fame draws attention. The enjoyment and experience of buildings have no inherent value, because, she insists, “there is no ‘feeling’ that makes a developer money.”
This ignores a growing wealth of evidence about the economic benefits of buildings. As expensive as they are to build, the initial costs can account for as little as 5-10% of what an owner will pay over the lifetime of a building, and high-performance design actually can cost less while creating a significantly higher return on investment, cutting operating costs by up to half and increasing sales, rents, occupancy rates, and property value. Research shows that every 10% reduction in a building’s energy consumption can yield an additional 1% rise in market value. Applied globally, best practices in energy efficiency could save nearly $500 billion annually, according to the World Green Building Council. The vast majority of these gains come not from the choice of materials, methods, and systems, but from simply sizing and shaping buildings intelligently. The earliest design decisions can determine up to 90% of the eventual impact of a building. Design is the key.
Moreover, in a workforce-driven organization, facilities accounts for less than 10% of annual operating costs, the other 90% or more coming from human resources, so the real money is in how buildings affect people. Abundant research demonstrates that designing a workspace with good daylight, fresh air, and connection to the outdoors can significantly improve the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of workers, resulting in higher productivity, lower absenteeism, and better staff attraction and retention. Various studies quantify the potential gains as more than $3 per square foot or $3,000 per employee. Surveys show that 93% of companies with high-performance workplaces report a greater ability to attract talent, and 81% report greater employee retention. For a 1,000-person company, a 5% improvement in retention alone could easily be worth over $5 million per year.
These benefits extend beyond the quality of light, air, and views. As I show in my 2012 book, The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design, over the past couple of decades a growing number of revelations in environmental psychology, sociobiology, and neuroscience have given us more clarity about the effects of form, space, pattern, color, and texture—the designer’s basic toolkit. For example, certain patterns can lower stress by as much as 60%, just by being in our field of vision. By alleviating stress-related ailments and their associated healthcare costs, the economic value could be nearly $200 billion a year in the US alone. Imagine if the entire built environment were shaped not just to look good but to be good for us.
All of these financial benefits rely on design strategies that improve the experience of people in and around buildings—ie, their “feeling,” the very thing D’Aprile says can’t make money. And the same strategies also enhance the social and environmental impact of buildings through better wellness and conservation. Aesthetic or sensory experience is arguably the most potentially valuable aspect of buildings.  
By and large, architects and designers are not sufficiently trained to understand the impact of their actions. If there is a “crisis” in contemporary architecture, as D’Aprile and Rennix and Robinson suggest, it is not merely that too many buildings are “ugly” or that architecture and capitalism don’t mix—it’s that architects fail to grasp the relationships between those things. We think of design as the icing, not the cake. Fully unpacking the social, economic, and environmental value of aesthetics could revolutionize our profession, if we’re willing to rethink the purpose and practice of design.


出处：本文译自www.archdaily.com/，转载请注明出处。