Peter Blundell Jones , 英国著名的建筑历史学家、建筑评论家、建筑师、教授，于2016年8月19日去世。
众所周知，他的主要学术贡献来自于他对现代主义建筑少为人知的一支建筑师们的研究——Hans Scharoun、Hugo Häring、Gunnar Asplund、Gunter Behnisch and the Graz School。上世纪70年代末，英国社会呈现出既萧条又反叛的氛围，建筑师们没有什么实际的项目可做，而将大量的精力放在展览出版概念设计上。这个时候，他刚刚离开Boyarsky所领导的探寻先锋建筑的AA，潜心做采访、收集资料、各地走访、写评论文章，想解答建筑在社会中更广泛的意义，在人的活动中所产生的意义。
在剑桥教书多年后，他于1994年来到谢菲尔德大学，与几位教授一起，构建起谢大建筑学院令人怀念的辉煌时期。也是在谢大的这二十年里， 他一次又一次地拓展了探索建筑社会意义的领域 。他的研究涉足大量的西方人类学、社会学、城市史，并积极组织东西方建筑和礼仪的比较研究。去世前，曾发表过对中国内乡县衙门以及苏州耦园的研究，也与他的博士生一起写过关于风雨桥和侗寨的论文。 我作为他的博士生，跟在他身边学习了6年。他十分博学，与他畅谈是一件极其愉快而具有挑战性的事情。当他的第一个韩国学生跟他讲八卦的时候，他还只是对那些长长短短的横线很好奇。而几年之后，他已经开始讲授太极是如何组成古代中国人的世界观了。在他眼里，从星辰的运转到人种的迁徙，这一切都与建筑有着密不可分的联系。他对学生极其有耐心。有一次， 我 找到《大戴礼记》的法语版，兴冲冲拿给他，整整一下午，他居然认真地给我念了大半本，边念边教 我 法语。他是 我 见过的最具有文化包容心的人。曾有一段时间，因为英国签证政策收紧，很多中国学生遭遇了签证问题，他愤而给学校校长、当地议员写信，为学生呼吁。在贵州的深山侗寨里，厕所极其简陋，我们都提醒他小心，他开玩笑地说，他是男人，他只需要一面墙。在山村里，他从不介意遍地的家禽粪便，总是很怀念地说，他小时候就生活在类似的英国乡村里，这一切都让他感到熟悉。在小小的耦园里，他很兴奋地把各种可能的路径都一次次走遍，并举着相机录下来，回到英国后，这些资料变成了他给大一学生上的建筑历史课的素材。 大家都亲切地叫他PBJ，他是一位真正的学者，一个值得尊敬的人。
Peter Blundell Jones
在贵州侗寨，2014年©Bing Jiang
笔者（左一）与
Peter Blundell Jones夫妇
在北京天坛
©Anna
去年年底，《建筑创作》在制作2016年第1期 “时间与文化的逻辑建构——gmp 50周年纪念专辑” 时，鉴于他对德国现代建筑的研究，我有幸向他约到一篇评论文章。虽然当时正忙着出版自己的新书，但PBJ十分认真，将自己亲自拍摄的照片作为配图，并找来很多相关资料，善意提醒了这些资料的版权。杂志出版后，他拿到寄到的样刊十分高兴，经常拿出来示人。他是为学生高兴吧。 PBJ的评论文章—— 大型建筑的理性设计思路：gmp事务所作品 ，语言流畅自然，结尾观点犀利。黄华青的中文翻译，也为文章增色不少，带有译者自己谦和的态度，值得玩味。 《建筑创作》仅以此篇评论文章感谢并纪念这位了不起的学者，英文原版一同附上。 ——《建筑创作》编辑 ELcroquis建筑素描中文版副主编 姜冰
gmp事务所从汉堡起家。汉堡是德国北部最大的商贸城市，也是驶往美国的跨洋航线的始发大港。在建筑层面，这座城市尤令人印象深刻的是20世纪初伟大的城市规划师弗里茨·舒马赫的作品，他一直致力于推广理性的砖砌建筑[1]。在gmp的作品中，砖砌手法的使用并不突出，但却存在大量的理性主义痕迹。无论是基于正方形格网的克劳斯塔尔-采勒费尔德矿山文献馆，还是基于三角形和六边形格网的柏林-泰格尔机场, gmp的早期作品都展现了强有力的几何功底，他们将几何格网贯彻于从家具至总平面的各个层面，其中的程序性逻辑令人想起密斯和格罗皮乌斯等现代主义先行者。另一个可追溯至gmp合伙人学生时代的更直接的影响来自埃贡·艾尔曼的战后作品。这位密斯式建筑在战后德国的领军人物与塞普·鲁夫合作设计了1958年布鲁塞尔世博会德国馆，一座玻璃与钢的建筑，拥有通透的轻盈和极致的纯净，直到今天，它都比几乎其他任何建筑更能体现当时“德国经济奇迹”的开放性和精准效率，标志着摒弃当时政治和文化污染的崭新开始[2]。这座建筑亦秉承和宣扬了当时几乎成为现代主义者必修的标准化精神：即希望藉由亨利·福特的大规模生产方式，让所有人享受快捷、易建的建筑。
[1]弗里茨·舒马赫，《现代砖建筑精选》，卡尔维出版社，慕尼黑，1917年。
[2]彼得·布隆戴尔·琼斯，埃蒙·卡尼夫，《现代建筑案例研究，1945-1990》，建筑出版社，牛津，2007年。这座建筑是本书中其中一章的主要话题。
gmp began their practice in Hamburg, theleading merchant city of North Germany and the great port from which oceanliners departed for the United States. Architecturally the city is rememberedparticularly for the early 20th century work of Fritz Schumacher, agreat town planner and advocate of the rational use of brickwork[1]. With gmpthere is little brickwork in evidence, but plenty of rationalism. Their earlywork shows a strong geometric discipline, whether based on the square, as intheir Mining Archive at Clausthal-Zellerfeld, or on the triangle and hexagon asat Berlin-Tegel Airport. gmp apply geometric grids from the level of furnitureup to that of the site plan, with a procedural logic recalling modernistpioneers such as Mies and Gropius. A more immediate inspiration dating from thepartners’ student years was the post-war work of EgonEiermann, the leading architect of the Miesian direction in post-warGermany. With Sep Ruf he was responsible for theGerman Pavilion at the Brussels Exhibition of 1958, a steel and glass buildingof disarming lightness and extreme purity, which now recalls better than almostanything else the openness and precise efficiency of ‘theGerman economic miracle’, its clear new start abolishing the politicaland cultural pollution of the recent past[2]. Thatbuilding also celebrated the spirit of standardisation then almost compulsoryfor Modernists: the hope that by adopting the mass-production methods of Henry Ford, quicker and easier building would come toall.
[1]Fritz Schumacher, Das Wesen des NeuzeitlichenBacksteinbaues, Callwey, München 1917.
[2]This building is the subject of a whole chapter in Peter Blundell Jones and EamonnCanniffe Modern Architecture Through CaseStudies 1945-1990, Architectural Press. Oxford, 2007.
克劳斯塔尔-采勒费尔德矿山文献馆鸟瞰 Mining Archive at Clausthal-Zellerfeld
克劳斯塔尔-采勒费尔德矿山文献馆平面图 plan Mining Archive at Clausthal-Zellerfeld
克劳斯塔尔-采勒费尔德矿山文献馆立面 Mining Archive at Clausthal-Zellerfeld
2004年发行的Egon的邮票Egon_Eiermann Stamp_Germany_2004-WIKI
1958年布鲁塞尔世博会德国馆Germany PavilionExpo_Brüssel_1958
这些精密咬合的预制构件不仅仅是一种技术上或实用性的追求：它给人带来强烈的审美满足感，而随着建筑规模变大，建筑也愈发复杂，它还给人带来可靠的控制感。在20世纪六七十年代，柱网的使用对于建筑师还是一件“悬而未决”的选择。gmp的创始合伙人曼哈德·冯·格康和福尔克温·玛格，与奥斯瓦尔德·马蒂亚斯·翁格斯、阿尔多·罗西和克里尔兄弟是同代人，这几位建筑师都以各自不同的方式宣扬着网格作为规划工具的优势，并赋予它各种各样的思辨托辞。不过gmp似乎并不像他们那么理想主义。在2006年的一次访谈中，冯·格康否认gmp需要任何风格或标签，而是宣称一种“将设计尽量简化”的务实方法，“在无法抉择的时候，最简单的解决方案就是最优的解决方案”[1]。尽管他们的建筑中也可以看到明显的象征主义手法，比如巴登-施特本娱乐中心的波浪形屋顶似乎是在叙述着赌博的起起落落，矿山文献馆如同一本打开的书，而临港新城航海博物馆则像是一对风帆，但冯·格康并未将象征主义作为谈话的重点。冯·格康也未如扎哈·哈迪德等建筑师那样，以一种签名式的风格为事务所作品寻求可识别的统一性，相反，他将作品的多样性作为一个优点，以此彰显和强调他与每一个不同客户及环境对话的意愿，体现一种能够满足任何需求、值得称赞的灵活性。不出意料的是，他也提到时下对生态的关注以及紧跟信息时代的需要。这次的访谈是理性、合理而和谐的，但并未显露太多事务所的建筑立场，读起来反而像是与潜在客户的对话。对于想要更深入了解其作品的建筑评论家来说，这个访谈内容是不够的，而有必要以其他方式进行推导分析。
[1]《对话的重要性》，曼哈德·冯·格康与徐晓飞访谈，载于《纯粹卓越》，《建筑评论》对gmp事务所作品介绍的补充说明，2006年。
The neat interlockingof prefabricated parts was not just a technical andpragmatic thing: it exerted a great aesthetic satisfaction, and as buildingsbecame larger and more complex, it conferred a reassuring sense of control. Inthe 1960s and 70s use of the grid was generally ‘in the air’ for architects. Meinhardvon Gerkan and Volkwin Marg, founding partners of gmp, were contemporaries ofOswald Matthias Ungers, Aldo Rossi and the Krier brothers, who in theirdifferent ways extolled the grid’s virtues as a planning discipline andprovided it with diverse intellectual alibis. But gmp seem less ideological than any of them. In an interview of 2006,von Gerkan denied the need for the firm to have a style or label, claiminginstead a pragmatic approach ‘to design things assimply as possible’ and that ‘in case of doubtthe simplest solution is also the best solution’[1].Although there has been some admitted adoption of overt symbolism, like thewavy roof of the Casino at Bad Steben supposedlyrepresenting the ups and downs of gambling, the Mining Archive being like anopen book, or the Lingang Maritime Museum like apair of sails, he did not choose to raise this as a significant issue. Andrather than seeking a legible unity across the firm’s work under one signature,as one might expect for example of Zaha Hadid, Von Gerkan claimed the work’svariety and diversity as a virtue, emphasising his willingness to undertake adialogue with each client and situation, to do whatever is necessary, acommendable flexibility. Unsurprisingly, he also voiced topical concerns forecology and the need to keep abreast of the information age. The interview issane, reasonable, sympathetic, but it gives little away about the firm’sarchitectural stance and reads rather as ifaimed at prospective clients. For the architectural critic seeking to get togrips with the work this is a bit frustrating, and necessitates deductions inother ways.
[1]The Importance of Dialogue,interview of Meinhard von Gerkan with Xu Xiaofei, included in Simply Extraordinary, supplement on thefirm’s work by The Architectural Review 2006.
临港新城中国航海博物馆概念草图Lingang Maritime Museum
临港新城中国航海博物馆鸟瞰图Lingang Maritime Museum
巴登-施特本娱乐中心草图Casino atBad Steben
巴登-施特本娱乐中心鸟瞰图Casino atBad Steben
除了前述的总体理性设计思路之外，gmp作品中另一个突出主题是对结构的表达，这在诸如2000年汉诺威世博会基督教馆这样的小型项目，以及莱比锡新会展中心这样的大型项目中都可以看到。在莱比锡项目中，gmp与伊恩·里奇合作设计了主展厅宏伟的玻璃幕墙和圆筒形拱顶，让人联想到诺曼·福斯特，但与其说是风格相似，不如说是在项目规模和设计方法上的相似。福斯特和gmp都已发展为超大型设计公司，必须与工程师和技术专家密切合作，才能设计像机场和交通枢纽这些前所未有的大型建筑。对于此类项目来说，大跨度的巨型结构不仅是必要的，而且几乎毫无悬念地成为视觉上的主角。这样的结构必须有高效能，并且包含技术难点，让建筑不仅稳固而且使建造便捷。因此，结构无疑成为了这类建筑最主要的特征之一。gmp设计的汉堡机场的大屋顶在概念上与福斯特的北京机场、理查德·罗杰斯的马德里机场都很相似，强调了这类建筑必须在视觉尺度上与最大型的飞机相衬，不仅是城市门户也是购物中心，其本身几乎相当于一座小城镇。gmp也设计了一些结构相对小巧的优雅作品，例如利米尼博览中心的展厅，使用了一种新式叠层结构屋顶，由沿着侧推力方向分布的交叉短木肋组成[1]。在这一案例中，这种屋顶的形式在地毯式的总平面上不断重复，在整体上形成稳定的韵律，其网格式的排列方式符合前述的理性主义原则，同时也便于扩建。在设计这类扩展式总平面时，gmp通常会以一种近乎古典的方式创造出一条主导中轴线，从而使一座独特的中心建筑将整个建筑群推向恰到好处的高潮。在利米尼项目中，这一中心建筑拥有穹顶形的叠层结构屋顶，而其下方的地板花纹让人想起米开朗琪罗[2]。而在莱比锡项目中，中心建筑则是一座通透的中央展厅，其轴线延伸至一片长水池。
[1]这一屋顶形式在早期现代主义运动中最为常见，如雨果·哈灵在加考农庄（1924-5）的粮仓中就已使用，它在功能上的合理性基础在于，由于不需要结构拉结，它能够创造出没有任何阻隔的储存空间。
[2]译者注：指米开朗琪罗设计的罗马卡比托广场（Piazza del Campidoglio），亦称市政厅广场，建于1538～1655年，其广场铺地以不同颜色的大理石铺成椭圆形的精美纹案，形成强烈的向心性，是文艺复兴时期最杰出的广场设计之一。GMP在此设计的铺地借用了这一图案灵感。
Aside from the general rationality ofapproach already mentioned, an obvious outstanding theme in gmp’s work is theexpression of structure, which is visible both in small-scale projects like theHanover Christ Pavilion of 2000 and in larger ones like the Leipzig Trade Fair.The great glass-skinned and barrel-vaulted main hall designed for Leipzig incollaboration with Ian Ritchie is reminiscent ofNorman Foster, but this may be less an echo of style than of the scale andmethodology of their projects. Both Foster and gmp have become enormous firmsobliged to work closely with engineers and technologists in order to undertakesome of the largest buildings ever built, such as airports and transportinterchanges. For such projects wide-span large scale structures are not onlyneeded, but tend to become visually dominant, almost by default. They must workefficiently and often involve technical headstandsboth to stand firm and to allow a smooth process of construction, so it ishardly surprising that they bestow so much identity on the building. gmp’s great roofs at Hamburgairport are also conceptually similar to those of Foster at Beijing or RichardRogers at Madrid, underlining the way that such buildings must compete in scalevisually with the largest aircraft, not only becoming city gateways but alsoshopping centres, almost small towns on their own right. gmp have also made elegant work of relatively smaller structures,such as the halls of the Rimini Trade Fair, using an updated version of thelamella roof, a form with intersecting short timbers which follow the line ofthrust[1]. In thatexample they are repeated across the carpet-like site plan giving a steadyrhythm to the whole, being laid out on a grid which conforms to theaforementioned rationality and also allows for easy expansion. When laying outsuch expansive general plans, gmp tend to create a defining central axis in analmost classical manner which brings the whole institution to a fitting climaxdominated by a special central building. At Rimini it is a circular domedversion of the lamella roof with a floor pattern beneath it recallingMichelangelo. At Leipzig it is the glazed central hall extended by a long poolof water.
[1]Thisroof form is most familiar in the early Modern Movement for having been used byHugo Häring for the barn at his Garkau farm of 1924-5, justified functionallyon the basis that lacking a need for ties, it offered the most unobstructedstorage space.
莱比锡新会展中心屋面 Leipzig Trade Fair roof
利米尼博览中心叠层结构屋顶 Rimini Trade Fair lamella roof KF387-005
利米尼博览中心叠层结构屋顶Rimini Trade Fair lamella roof KF387-006
利米尼博览中心平面Rimini Trade FairPlan
在临港新城航海博物馆中，整个建筑群围绕一对白色曲面的核心建筑展开，显然可以看作巨大的风帆。它难免会让人想到悉尼歌剧院的屋顶薄壳，但这并不是gmp与约翰·伍重的唯一相似点。建筑外部的大台阶也让人想起伍重对平台的痴迷，是源于中美洲神庙遗址的灵感[1]。gmp的多个项目在概念上都与伍重1976年设计的巴格斯瓦尔德教堂很相似，当然这也可能只是巧合[2]。这座教堂极致地彰显了这位现代主义大师看似呆板的矩形平面和反差极大的戏剧性剖面的强烈对比。你从平面上得不到任何信息，但是在剖面上却可以看到起伏的曲面，以一种出乎意料、令人着迷的方式折射着自然光线，而侧廊屋顶的处理方式则与中厅相反。这一令人惊叹的设计从室外是体察不到的，从外部看来就像是一座工业仓库，这种反差也让人在步入室内之后更加惊喜。gmp与伍重作品的这一共性在巴登-施特本娱乐中心就开始了，这座建筑以一系列矩形体块并置，由错落的波浪形屋顶点缀。而在河内国家会议中心，这一特点更加突出地体现在三列平行的体量中，并再次使用了波浪形屋顶，而这次在形式和意图上更加接近伍重的教堂。在重庆大剧院中可以再次看到这一特色的强化，只不过这座建筑是由一系列沿着平面的切片组成。就像在伍重的教堂中那样，这些建筑的独特剖面并不仅仅是装饰或雕塑性的添彩，而是整座建筑的核心和精髓所在。它不仅赋予建筑令人振奋的外部形式，也使其获得内在的空间秩序。
[1]伍重曾发表一篇长文《平台》，载于《十二宫》，1964年第10期，这是那个年代的一本年度建筑期刊。
[2]对于伍重来说，平面和剖面的极致对比无疑是刻意为之：对gmp来说，继承而来的理性主义统治了平面，而“非理性”的剖面则缓和甚至可谓拯救了这一平面。
At Lingang Maritime Museum the wholecomplex centres on the climax of a pair of white curved forms which, appropriatelyenough, are intended to be read as great sails. These inevitably recall theroof shells of Sydney Opera House, and this is not the only parallel with thework of Jørn Utzon, for there are also great flights of external steps whichrecall his obsession with platforms, inspired by ruined temples in CentralAmerica[1]. SeveralGMP projects are conceptually similar to Utzon’s Bagsvaerd Church of 1976,although this may be sheer coincidence[2]. Thischurch was the extreme example by a modernist master of an utterly dumbrectangular plan mitigated by a dramatic section. You would guess nothing fromthe plan, but the section involves soaring curved planes which reflect daylightin surprising and inspiring ways, and the treatment of the side aisles contrasts[hh1] with that of the nave. This marvel is concealed from the outside,which looks almost like an industrial silo, making it all the more of asurprise on entry. The parallel between this aspect of Utzon’s work and gmpbegins at the Bad Steben Casino, where a series of rectangles slide past eachother, enlivened by wave-like roofs out of step with each other. It occurs instronger form with the Hanoi Convention Centre in three parallel bodies, againwith wavy roofs, though this time much closer in form and intention to Utzon’schurch. It can be found yet again at the theatre in Chongqing, this time withmultiple slices through the plan. As with the Utzon church, the enliveningsections in all these buildings are not just decoration or sculptural additionsbut the whole essence, giving each both an exciting external profile and an internalsense of hierarchy.
[1]Utzonpublished a long article on ‘Platforms’ in Zodiac no.10 of 1964, an annualarchitectural journal of that era.
[2]WithUtzon this extreme contrast between plan and section was undoubtedlydeliberate: with gmp there is an inherited rationality dominating the planwhich is relieved, or one could even say saved, by an ‘irrational’ section.
Bagsvard-Church 转自灵感日报 httpwww.ideamsg.com201411bagsvard-church
Bagsvard-Church
Bagsvard-Church
30 Bagsvard-Church剖面
BagsvardChurch剖面分析来自httpissuu.comestebn.didodocsla_nube_bagsvaerd1
BagsvardChurch平面图来自httpissuu.comeditionblondaldocsjorn_utzon_logbook_bagsvaerd1
河内国家会议中心草图NationalConferenceCentreSketch
河内国家会议中心NationalConferenceCentre
和伍重的比较能够揭示gmp的优势和弱点。相比gmp设计并成功实现的机场、体育场和交通枢纽来说，1957年设计的悉尼歌剧院在今天看来似乎相对普通了一些。然而在其建造年代，它几乎超出了伍重和奥雅纳公司工程设计的能力，使得项目造价大大超出预算，令客户几乎崩溃[1]。不过，伍重的艺术水准仍然保持在很高的水平，即便是巴格斯瓦尔德教堂这样在地段和用途上都非常低调的建筑也是如此。gmp是否做出了能与之匹敌的项目呢？时间会给我们答案，但至少目前还没有最突出的候选者。他们的注意力很难像伍重那样集中，因为如今建筑师的工作方式已然改变，他们不得不在更短的时间内完成更多的工作。40年前，大多数的建筑师事务所都很小，柯布西耶甚至要雇佣没有工资的实习生。
[1]安妮·沃特森编，《建造杰作：悉尼歌剧院》，悉尼鲍尔豪斯出版社，伦敦伦德·亨弗利出版社，2006年。
Comparison with Utzon reveals both thestrength and the weakness of gmp. In comparison with the airports, stadia, andtransport interchanges undertaken and successfully achieved by them, the SydneyOpera House designed 1957 would today seem a relatively modest project. But atthe time of construction it overstretched both Utzon and the engineeringcapability of Arups, causing cost overruns and afailure of nerve by the client[1].Nonetheless, Utzon’s artistic calibre remains high, even in relation to abuilding as modest in its site and purpose as the Bagsvaerd Church. Have gmpyet done anything that measures up to that? Time will tell, but there is as yetno obvious candidate. Their attention has scarcely been so focused as that ofUtzon, for the way architects work has changed and they have had much more todo in less time. Forty years ago most architectural practices were tiny, and LeCorbusier had even employed unpaid interns.
[1]AnneWatson, ed. Building a masterpiece: theSydney Opera House, Powerhouse Sydney and Lund Humphries London 2006.
在那个年代，我们还会争论，一个建筑师事务所在超过20人时是否就会因为规模过大而丧失建筑作品的统一性。而如今，已有不少规模数百人的大型建筑事务所。若不具备坚实的专业专家人脉、强大的保险保障甚至是独立的公关部门，事务所就没有竞争力，很难存活。建筑市场走向国际化，因此实现大型项目需要多个分公司的合作：如gmp拥有13个分公司，员工逾500人[1]。在这个日新月异的时代，建筑的技巧已不仅在于初始设计的创意，更关键的是让整个项目顺利建成的管理能力，包括应对延工逾期、艰深的技术问题、意外突发情况、经济危机或是政客的朝三暮四。gmp在应对柏林中央火车站背后极端复杂的情况的同时，确保车站顺畅运行，这样的能力令人敬佩[2]。当然也有个别项目在工程的最后阶段下马，遗憾地成为作品列表上的墓碑；还有时一个突然而来的指令就将原先的政府办公楼临时改建为医院，也实在让人同情。在全球范围内，gmp在盈利、声望和项目数量上所取得的成功是毋庸置疑的。如果说最难设计的是最大型的建筑，那么他们恰恰选择了这一挑战。
[1] gmp官网，项目列表。
[2]克里斯蒂安·布伦森，《隧道的风景》，《建筑评论》，2006年7月，52-59页。
We used then to debate about whether a firmthat grew to over twenty was too large to retain its architectural integrity.Now we have big archibusiness with casts of hundreds. Firms without substantialexpert connections, heavy insurance cover, and even their own PR section,cannot compete. The market has become international, so to execute largeprojects requires multiple branches: thirteen in gmp’s case, with a staff ofover 500[1]. In thischanged world the skill lies not so much in the brilliance of the initialdesign as in managing to carry the whole project through, in dealing withdelays, technical issues, unforeseen conditions, economic storms, or changes ofmind by politicians. Reading about the intense complications of buildingBerlin’s main station while keeping the trains going can only elicit admiration[2], andcertain projects lost at a late stage stand like tombstones in the work list,while a sudden unexpected command to turn what had been built as governmentoffices into a hospital just earns one’s sympathy. Of gmp’s worldly success inmoney, fame and obtaining jobs there can be no doubt. If theirs is a difficultscale at which to work, it is the very largest, and they chose it.
[1] gmp official website, Practice Profile.
[2] Christian Brensing, TunnelVision, The Architectural Review July 2006, pp. 52-59.
悉尼歌剧院屋顶sydney opera house roof httpwww.greatbuildings.comcgi-bingbc-drawing.cgiSydney_Opera.htmlSydney_Opera_Axon.jpg
悉尼歌剧院sydneyOperaHouse来自httpwww.greatbuildings.comcgi-bingbc-drawing.cgiSydney_Opera.htmlSydney_Opera_Axon
AC《建筑创作》2016年第1期总第188期
官方淘宝店现已发售，购买请复制以下链接至浏览器
http://t.cn/Rqg0Kpi
官方微店现已发售，购买请点击“阅读原文”
▍ AC建筑创作，微信号：archicreation
值班AC君：Tommy
▼AC最新刊▼
最新刊丨珠海横琴国际网球中心
▼AC在关注▼
你所不知道的扎哈·哈迪德丨来自前线的报告
策展人速成手册 | 威尼斯双年展 大师们都做了啥
