和馬町/Martijn de Geus

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

1 序言

全球的城市發(fā)展皆容易產(chǎn)生出城市空隙——一類恰巧落在城市規(guī)劃和建筑設計的縫隙之間的場所。這類空間包括：兩棟樓宇之間的通道，高架路橋下方的空間，或是狹窄的、三角形的或是其他不規(guī)則形狀的地塊。鑒于它們這種顯然“難以使用”的特征，我們通常將這類空間稱作“城市空隙”。它們是剩余的、被忽略的、無價值的地塊，沒有任何潛力和特質(zhì)。

這類空間真的毫無價值嗎？

20 世紀中葉，阿爾多·凡·艾克竟能夠?qū)?shù)百處像這樣被忽視的空間轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橛幸饬x的場所?；趯Ψ病ぐ说陌⒛匪固氐び螛穲霰澈蟮脑O計進路的分析，本文試圖從中凝練某種設計策略，進而對當代城市設計、規(guī)劃和建筑實踐有所啟示。

凡·艾克的游樂場最初是建在臨時的或是棄用的空地上。最初它們可被視為一種試圖修正城市中游樂場地不均衡分布的應急措施，這些場地向所有市民開敞；但后來，這一項目的意義遠遠超出預期。這些看似簡單的游樂場，其基地選擇、設計和實施的背后所凝聚的設計策略，最終在荷蘭各地的城市設計及更新設計中得到應用。借助極小化的干預措施，那些原本一直無人問津的空地，被賦予了城市生活中的積極角色。

因此，本文呼吁人們通過采取創(chuàng)造性的、以人為本的、場所營造的策略，重現(xiàn)碎片化的消極空間中極小卻有意義的空間干預的重要價值。首先，文章回顧了這類空間的出現(xiàn)如何受到現(xiàn)代主義“功能城市”發(fā)展觀念的影響，以及隨后出現(xiàn)的城市規(guī)劃和建筑設計學科的分離，對此凡·艾克一直持反叛態(tài)度。其次，我們將阿姆斯特丹游樂場作為凡·艾克的替代性場所營造策略的典型案例。最后，本文提供了將其設計策略轉(zhuǎn)譯于當代城市發(fā)展及建筑設計的參考框架：即理解凡·艾克的“間隙性”。這種間隙性可以理解為一種干預“之間的”空間的策略——無論從字面意義還是比喻意義而言——同時也是在此類未定義空間中促進城市中的人際交互的一種策略。簡而言之，凡·艾克的間隙式策略可從4 個方面凝煉：開放性、間隙性、多中心性以及公眾參與。它是一種為特定場所和境遇設計的策略，一種為創(chuàng)造更多可能而非占據(jù)空間的設計。

2 作為叛逆的人文主義者的凡·艾克

自從1947 年加入國際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會（CIAM），凡·艾克就對時下流行的功能主義城市規(guī)劃和建筑設計持有異常批判的態(tài)度，他本人在言行兩方面皆致力于發(fā)展一種真正現(xiàn)代的、人性化的建筑。“由于沒能創(chuàng)造性地管理城市，沒能通過形態(tài)和細節(jié)設計來促進人性化，這已經(jīng)導致了大多數(shù)新城的噩夢。”凡·艾克在1962 年如此寫道，隱含指摘了現(xiàn)代主義城市規(guī)劃的失敗，這類規(guī)劃在他看來是將“功能城市”的訴求放在了人性動機和欲求的前面。

凡·艾克加入國際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會之時，該組織正處在勒·柯布西耶的領導下，以城市規(guī)劃為先，為戰(zhàn)后人口構(gòu)想了一個由高層建筑塑造的未來。1931 年和1933 年的國際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會大會持續(xù)倡導“功能城市”的理念，勒·柯布西耶緊接著發(fā)布“雅典憲章”，認為面對全球城市所遭遇的社會問題，最好的解決方式便是嚴格的功能分區(qū)，將人口分布至間隔寬遠的高層公寓樓中。凡·艾克當時在阿姆斯特丹城市規(guī)劃局工作的上司、也是時任國際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會主席凡·伊斯特倫，已將這種理念貫徹在戰(zhàn)后荷蘭重建的宏偉工程中。他采取了一條自上而下的“整體”規(guī)劃路徑，以最高效率容納“最大多數(shù)”。

重建和建造的需求非常巨大。然而，當凡·艾克加入規(guī)劃部門之時，熱情已然消退，不滿之聲四起，建設進展的衡量標準只是通過計算新建筑的數(shù)量、體量、大小等“客觀事實”。凡·艾克剛從蘇黎世聯(lián)邦理工學院畢業(yè)的時候，他就曾加入抗議游行，要求減少壓迫性環(huán)境。他的觀點源于該時期蘇黎世異常激進的社會環(huán)境。由于蘇黎世在戰(zhàn)爭期間保持中立，它成為“被放逐或自我放逐的學者、科學家和先鋒藝術家”的多重中心[1]。置身其中，凡·艾克發(fā)現(xiàn)當代藝術和科學的發(fā)展趨勢盡管有所不同，但根本上都和他一樣，正在“沖破理性主義的樊籬”。

還有像亨利·列斐伏爾這樣的思想家，抨擊了現(xiàn)代化進程給傳統(tǒng)的、歷史承續(xù)的城市肌理施予的壓迫。列斐伏爾寫道，他意識到20 世紀初正經(jīng)歷著前所未有的一種全新的、匿名的、貧瘠的、技術至上的空間類型的崛起。此外，在凡·艾克看來同樣值得擔憂的是，人居環(huán)境規(guī)劃被粗暴地分割為兩個學科——建筑設計和城市規(guī)劃，這展現(xiàn)了那個時代的決定論特征，他并不認為有必要轉(zhuǎn)變設計過程的機制。

在這一系列思潮轉(zhuǎn)變的促使下，凡·艾克逐步發(fā)展出一套對抗現(xiàn)行標準的重要概念框架，通過他的寫作和實踐都有所表達。他的目標是將國際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會的那種自上而下的、功能主義的城市設計路徑，替代為一種“自下而上的”“接地氣的”“情境式的”的設計策略[2]。凡·艾克試圖發(fā)展一種建筑和城市的原創(chuàng)觀點，一種真正當代的、人性化的建筑與城市理念，以對抗普遍流行的功能至上的規(guī)劃方法——后者在他看來不僅割裂了現(xiàn)存城市，而且生產(chǎn)出異化的新城。針對國際建協(xié)式城市規(guī)劃的第一個真正意義上的替代性、或至少說是補充性的方案，就是凡·艾克的阿姆斯特丹游樂場，“極小的、露天的構(gòu)筑物，填補了擁擠城市中的間隙”[3]。

1947-1978 年間，阿爾多·凡·艾克設計并建造了阿姆斯特丹的數(shù)百處兒童游樂場，可以從圖1這張地圖中總覽它們的位置分布。這些游樂場是臨時性的、簡單的，往往只在空地上進行最低限度的、最少的操作，只采用類似的基本設計元素，如圖2所示。這樣一種設計路徑背后的理念是，通過臨時性地占據(jù)這些場地，直至某個長時間的改造項目形成，為這些原本無人問津的場地賦予在城市生活中的積極角色。這種策略對于今天依然很有意義，正如恩尼亞和馬泰拉[5]所寫的那樣，即便極小化干預對當今建筑學而言并不具有顯著優(yōu)勢，但這類干預措施在今天的應用前景卻比過去更廣。他們提出，這類干預措施可躋身21 世紀最有啟發(fā)的設計策略之列。對凡·艾克游樂場的干預及其設計手法背后設計策略和過程的理解，可以看作是正在進行的且關乎當代建筑角色與目標的一個重要轉(zhuǎn)變。轉(zhuǎn)變過程中，建筑作為城市領域中的極小干預途徑，其作用越來越大。

3 作為整體性城市策略的凡·艾克游樂場

過去數(shù)十年間，建筑界對阿爾多·凡·艾克的游樂場的興趣重燃，很多學者剖析了游樂場設計的不同層面、它們對城市肌理以及對兒童成長的影響。例如，勒費夫爾和德羅迪編輯出版了一本《游樂場與城市》的著作[4]；永格尼爾、惠特哈根和薩爾在《環(huán)境心理學學刊》 發(fā)表的論文[6]、惠特哈根和卡爾喬在《心理學前沿》發(fā)表的論文[7]等，都從心理學視角討論了凡·艾克游樂場中的“開放玩?！崩砟?、美學價值、經(jīng)濟性和創(chuàng)造性；所羅門[8]則討論了玩耍本身的科學性，以及如何建造可以促進兒童成長的游樂場。此外，勒菲弗爾和多爾論述了如何將玩耍作為“自下而上城市”中的一種設計工具[9]。

如果對游樂場的具體設計和建筑方案感興趣，我會推薦讀者去閱讀上面提到的文獻。然而在這篇文章中，我們將阿姆斯特丹游樂場作為凡·艾克的替代性場所營造策略的案例，而非聚焦于游樂場設計本身，或是將游樂場作為一種城市空間類型。這一思考建立在勒費夫爾的觀點之上，即這些游樂場的設計和開發(fā)背后的過程指向一種“徹底被忽視的城市設計工具，它能夠很大程度上幫助提升那些在今天經(jīng)常被疏離的內(nèi)城街區(qū)中的社區(qū)空間”[10]。在此過程中，本文旨在通過理解凡·艾克的“間隙性”，為當代城市發(fā)展路徑提供一個設計轉(zhuǎn)譯框架。

這種間隙性可以理解為一種面向城市空隙和剩余空間的設計策略，但凡·艾克的語言更適合被命名為一種為“之間的”空間的設計——無論從字面意義還是比喻意義而言。字面來看，它指向前文所提及的、因城市規(guī)劃與建筑設計的分離而出現(xiàn)的空隙空間；而在比喻層面，凡·艾克也從這些特定場所之中看到了一種潛力，它可以成為激發(fā)城市中的人際互動的一種策略。這些空間介于家庭的私人領域以及城市的公共領域之間。下面我們將凡·艾克的間隙式策略拆解為4 個方面：開放性、間隙性、多中心性以及公眾參與。這一切共同塑造了一套為場所和情境設計的策略，為更多可能而非占據(jù)空間而設計[11]。

3.1 開放性：從封閉的游樂園到開放的玩耍地

1 阿姆斯特丹736個游樂場位置示意，由阿爾多·凡·艾克在1947年至1978年間設計。地圖為弗蘭西斯·斯特盧瓦于1980年繪制/Location of 736 Amsterdam playgrounds designed by Aldo van Eyck between 1947 and 1978, map drawn up by Francis Strauven in 1980（圖片來源/Source: 參考文獻[13]/Ref [13]）

2 凡·艾克的游樂場所使用的各種沙坑和游戲元素圖錄/Catalogue of various sandpits and play elements to be used in van eyck's playgrounds（圖片來源/Source: 參考文獻[3]/Ref[3]）

1 Introduction

Urban development in cities around the world tends to produce urban voids, areas that fall between the cracks of the considered urban planning and subsequent architectural design.These spaces include corridors between two buildings, spaces underneath raised roads, junctions and overpasses; or narrow,triangular and otherwise irregularly shaped plots.Because of their apparent "un-usable" characteristics,we often refer to these as urban voids: leftover,neglected, worthless plots of land, devoid of potential and character.

Are they truly without value?

In the mid-20th century, Aldo van Eyck was able to turn hundreds of neglected spaces just like these into meaningful places.Analysing his design approach behind his Amsterdam Playgrounds, this text aims to distil a design strategy, that could be transposed to contemporary urban design, planning and architectural practice.

Van Eyck's playgrounds were initially built on temporary or unused plots of land.They could at first be seen as an emergency measure aimed to rectify the uneven distribution of play areas in the city, and these available to all its citizens, but they had a significance far beyond their original role.The design strategy behind the selection, design and execution of these simple playgrounds eventually became a strategy embedded in the design of urban design and regeneration all around the Netherlands.Through minimal interventions,an active role in city life was provided to places that otherwise would remain unused.

This text therefore should be seen as a plea for the importance and value of minimal, but meaningful interventions in these type of scattered negative spaces through creative, human-oriented, place making strategies.This text first provides an overview of how the appearance of these type of spaces resulted from the modernist "functional city" development ideology, and from its subsequent separation between the disciplines of urban planning and architectural design, which Van Eyck was rebelling against.Secondly, we take his Amsterdam Playgrounds as an example of van Eyck's alternative place making strategy, and thirdly, the text provides a framework for transposing his approach to contemporary urban development and architectural design: understanding Van Eyck's "Interstitiality".This interstitiality can be understood as a strategy regarding in-between spaces, literally and figuratively, as well as a strategy for these undefined spaces to encourage the interaction between people within the city.In short,Van Eyck's interstitial strategy can be characterised through four aspects: open-ness, interstitiality,polycentricity and citizen participation.It's a strategy of designing for place and occasion; designing for possibilities rather than for occupation.

2 Van Eyck as Humanist Rebel

Ever since joining the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) in 1947, van Eyck took an uncommonly critical attitude towards the prevailing functionalism in urban planning and architecture, and dedicated himself in word and deed to developing an authentically modern and humane architecture."Failure to govern multiplicity creatively, to humanize numbers by means of articulation and configuration, has led to the curse of most new towns", writes van Eyck in 1962,alluding to his conception of the failure of modernist town planning, that had in his eyes put "the functional city" ahead of human motives and desires.

Under Le Corbusier's leading, CIAM at the time of Van Eyck's joining prioritised urban planning envisioning a high rise future for a postwar population.Following CIAM meetings in 1931 and 1933 that called for a "Functional City",Le Corbusier had released the Athens Charter in which he described that the social problems faced by cities around the world could best be resolved by strict functional segregation, and by distributing the population into tall apartment blocks at widely spaced intervals.Van Eyck's boss at the Amsterdam Town Planning Department where van Eyck was working at that time, and CIAM Chairman at the time, Van Eesteren, had already integrated this approach in his colossal task of reconstructing the Netherlands after the war.He applied a top-down"total" planned approach to house "the largest number" most efficiently.

The drive to reconstruct and construct was massive.However, by the time that Van Eyck joined the Planning Department, enthusiasm had much waned and there were signs of discontent, given that progress was now measured by counting "objective facts" like number, volume, and size of new buildings.Fresh out of university, after having finished his studies at the ETH in Zurich, Van Eyck joined the growing protest in search of less oppressive environments.His opinions emerged out of the exceedingly stimulating environment of Zurich at that time.Zurich was a city that had been neutral during the war, and that had become a multilayered hub of "exiled or self-exiled intellectuals,scientists, avant-garde artists"[1].Amongst them, Van Eyck considered the trends in the contemporary arts and sciences and found that, despite their differences,what they had in common was that, like himself, they were "bursting the barriers of rationalism".

Others, like Henri Lefebvre, wrote about the pressures that were brought to bear upon traditional,historically inherited urban fabric in the process of this modernisation.Lefebvre wrote how he found that the early twentieth century saw an unprecedented rise of a new, anonymous, sterile, technocratic type of space.In addition, van Eyck was concerned how in his eyes the mere fact that habitat planning was arbitrarily split into two disciplines – architecture and urbanism– demonstrated the determinist quality of the times,which disregarded the necessity of transforming the mechanism of the design process.

Following in the wake of these changes, van Eyck developed over time a significant conceptual framework against the prevailing status quo, that was expressed both in writing and in practice.He aimed to turn the top-down, functional CIAM approach to urbanism into a "ground-up", "dirty real", "situational" approach[2].Van Eyck aimed to develop an original view of architecture and the city, a truly contemporary and human concept of architecture and urbanism in contrast to the prevailing technocratic planning that in his eyes tended to disintegrate existing cities while producing alienating new towns.The first real alternative, or at least complement, to this CIAM-style urban planning,was van Eyck's Amsterdam Playgrounds, "small roofless minimal structures occupying crowded interstitial urban voids"[3].

Between 1947 and 1978, Aldo van Eyck designed and built hundreds of children playgrounds in the city of Amsterdam[4], see the map in Fig.1 for an overview of their locations.These playgrounds were temporary and simple and involved only a few, minimum operations over vacant lots, with similar basic design elements,such as those found in Fig.2.The idea behind such an approach was sometimes to occupy these lots until a lasting transformation could be performed,and therefore providing an active role in city life was provided to places that otherwise would remain unused.This strategy remains relevant today, as Enia and Martella[5]write that even if minimal interventions are not a prerogative of present-day architecture, these interventions are implemented more often today than in the past.They argue that these interventions in fact can be placed among the most relevant design strategies of the 21st century.Understanding the design strategy and process behind van Eyck's playground interventions and its design ideology can be seen as part of this important, ongoing shift in design strategies, in which there is an increasing role for architecture as minimal interventions in the urban realm.

3 阿姆斯特丹會員制游樂公園，圖為位于荷蘭某街區(qū)的俱樂部/Amsterdam members-only play garden, image shows clubhouse at the fahrenheitstraat

4 阿姆斯特丹會員制游樂公園左側(cè)，柵欄將游樂公園和俱樂部間隔開/Amsterdam members-only fenced off play garden with the clubhouse from figure 1 on the left（3.4圖片來源/Sources: 參考文獻[18]/Ref[18]）

5 凡·艾克在CIAM第十次會議演講時的幾張幻燈片，杜布羅夫尼克，1956/Everal slides from van eyck's presentation at CIAM X, dubrovnic, 1956（圖片來源/Source: 參考文獻[13]/Ref[13]）

盡管凡·艾克讓阿姆斯特丹游樂場蜚聲全球，但兒童室外玩耍場地的重要性在阿姆斯特丹早已得到公認，這延續(xù)了長期以來荷蘭的一個傳統(tǒng)，即將玩耍作為兒童城市生活的一部分。玩耍最初發(fā)生在城市的開放街道和廣場，但隨著城市發(fā)展，至19世紀末的阿姆斯特丹，關于兒童玩耍場地環(huán)境過差的怨聲四起，這激發(fā)上流階層在1880 年建造了城市中的第一處私人游樂場。隨后，在荷蘭掀起了一場關于兒童游樂公園的大規(guī)模運動，該運動的發(fā)起人是尤爾克·楊斯·克拉倫，他最初試圖在自己居住的街區(qū)中建立一座游樂場，后來推動了一個游樂場共同體的成立。該組織成立于1917 年，名為“阿姆斯特丹游樂公園協(xié)會”；1937 年又發(fā)展為“阿姆斯特丹游樂公園集團”。請注意，這里使用的“游樂公園”（荷蘭語“speeltuin”）一詞是比通常使用的“游樂場”更準確的翻譯。游樂公園指向一類后花園，它們藏在面向街道的俱樂部會所背后，有欄桿圍合，由協(xié)會指派的管理員看管，只有協(xié)會會員的子女方可入內(nèi)。由于家長必須是會員，且位置選擇具有隨機性，導致這些游樂公園在城市中的分布很散，且只能服務阿姆斯特丹極小部分的兒童群體，實質(zhì)上“被認為是一個奢侈品”[12]。到了1940 年代，阿姆斯特丹已擁有一定程度的私人游樂場傳統(tǒng)，這樣的例子可參見圖3、4。

真正為凡·艾克的介入鋪平道路的，是1947年由雅科芭·穆爾德發(fā)起的一項運動——她是阿姆斯特丹城市規(guī)劃局公共項目部的副手，這項運動試圖修正游樂場的不均衡布局，讓它們面向所有市民開放；除會員制的游樂花園之外，至少在每個街區(qū)設置一處“開放”游樂場。這些新建的游樂場將交由大眾來監(jiān)督管轄，此后也將由大眾自下而上發(fā)起，這將在關于公眾參與的第三部分闡明。這些新游樂場地的開放特質(zhì)——沒有圍墻的游樂場，由周邊社區(qū)松散地管理和監(jiān)督——讓它們得以成為一類“之間”的城市空間，可視為對介于私人的家和公共的城之間的一類城市領域的探索，凡·艾克將因此聞名。出于這樣的動議，阿爾多·凡·艾克選擇不再使用“游樂公園”（荷蘭語speeltuin）一詞，轉(zhuǎn)而將這種游樂場地的新類型稱作“游樂場”（荷蘭語speelplaats），這在荷蘭語中有極大的區(qū)別，隱含指向了凡·艾克的場所營造策略。

3.2 間隙性：激活縫隙中的城市剩余空間

讓這類新型游樂場地與眾不同的第二個特征是，它們并不是在街區(qū)尺度自上而下設計的，而是自下而上的，是在人口致密的城市中發(fā)現(xiàn)的剩余的、間隙的空間尺度層面完成的。這在一定程度上是出于這樣一個事實，即規(guī)劃部門希望讓每個街區(qū)都擁有屬于自己的游樂場，故而經(jīng)常有城市中心的空地被（臨時地）改造為游樂場地。因此，游樂場不再只出現(xiàn)在光鮮的公園，或是制定的場地，也可出現(xiàn)在住宅樓之間、功能改變的停車場上，或是曾作為垃圾收集處的廢棄場地。讓凡·艾克自豪的是，他開啟了一條更加“情境主義的”“自下而上”的城市設計路徑，這條路徑是對于在他看來功能城市規(guī)劃已經(jīng)失效的城市區(qū)域的回應。正如他1956 年在國際建協(xié)杜布羅夫尼克第十次會議中所指出的：“在由道路工程和拆除工人導致的不計其數(shù)的、無固定形狀的孤島上，在空閑的場地上，在比公共水景更適合兒童活動的場地上，我們迄今為止已在城市中找到了70 處這樣的場地，用于建造游樂場”[13]。他在國際建協(xié)會議上播放的幾頁幻燈片，展示了其場所營造策略的幾個早期案例，如圖5、6 所示。不過，有一部分的剩余空間實際上并不是由失職的城市規(guī)劃造成的，而是戰(zhàn)爭期間對阿姆斯特丹城市內(nèi)外的轟炸所致，如圖7-11 所示。無論這些空地的實際形成原因為何，這些由陳舊的墻體和殘破的建筑所圍合的場地，成為他的所有游樂場中最廣為人知的案例[14]。實際上，這是一個頗具英雄主義色彩的社區(qū)故事，一處被轟炸或廢棄的場地被賦予新生，成為一處公共游樂場。

3.3 參與性：地段考察的市民參與

如前所述，雅科芭·穆爾德——當時在科尼利斯·凡·伊斯特倫領導的阿姆斯特丹城市規(guī)劃局工作——發(fā)起了開放式游樂場的動議，促使凡·艾克參與到貝特曼廣場的第一個游樂場設計項目中。盡管最初它在一定程度上被作為一項修正游樂公園的不均衡布局的策略，并且促進游樂場所向所有市民開放，但它同時也是公眾參與的產(chǎn)物，尤其是參與到為這類干預措施尋找合適場地的調(diào)研中。穆爾德率先在她自己居住的街區(qū)中找到了一個可能的場地，因為她早已注意到街區(qū)中的孩子無處可玩耍。在她那位26 歲的助手阿爾多·凡·艾克建成這座游樂場大約一個月之后，一位住在幾個街區(qū)之外的女性看到這處新的游樂場所，她于是寫信給公共項目部，請求在她的街區(qū)也建造一處。自此，游樂場就如星火燎原，最初是在歷史城市中心，后來從1950 年代開始，逐步蔓延到城市西部的新區(qū)[10]。

6 道路交叉口旁剩余三角形游樂場平面/Plan situation drawing of playground on leftover triangular space next to road intersection（圖片來源/Source: 阿姆斯特丹凡·艾克城市檔案館線上文件/Aldo van Eyck Archive in the Amsterdam City Archive, sourced online via http://www.play-scapes.com/playhistory/mid-century-modern/aldo-van-eycks-playgroundplans/）

3 Understanding van Eyck's Playgrounds as Integral Urban Strategy

Over the last decades, there is a renewed interest in the playgrounds of Aldo van Eyck, with many scholars dissecting different aspects of their designs, the effect they have on the city fabric, and on the development of children.For instance, Lefaivre and de Roode[4]who edited a publication regarding "the playgrounds and the city", Jongeneel, Withagen and Zaal[6]in the

Journal of Environmental Psychology and Withagen and Caljouw[7]in Frontiers of Psychology, both from a psychological point of view, regarding aspects of"open play", aesthetics, affordances, and creativity of his playgrounds, or Solomon[8]regarding the science of play itself and how to build playgrounds that enhance children's development.In addition, Lefaivre and D?ll[9]focused on how to consider play as a design tool in a"Ground Up City".

For those interested in the particular design and architectural solutions of these playgrounds,I would recommend to read up on the sources mentioned here.For this text though, we understand the Amsterdam playgrounds as an example of van Eyck's alternative place making strategy, rather than focussing on the design of the playgrounds themselves, or the relevance that playgrounds as a typology have in cities.This builds on Lefaivre's suggestion that the process behind the design and development of these playgrounds yield a potent "totally ignored, urban design tool that has great relevance for the enhancement of community in the often alienated inner-city neighbourhoods of today"[10].In doing so, the text aims to provide a framework for transposing van Eyck's approach to contemporary urban development, through understanding van Eyck's "Interstitiality".

This interstitiality can be understood as a strategy regarding urban voids and leftover spaces, but in Van Eyck's own terms would more appropriately be named as designing for in-between spaces, literally and figuratively.Literally, this refers to void spaces that arise as a result of the separation between urban planning and architectural design,as mentioned earlier, but figuratively, Van Eyck also saw potential in these particular places as a strategy to encourage the interaction between people within the city.Places in between the private realm of the home, and the collective realm of the city.In the following section, we break down van Eyck's interstitial strategy through four aspects:open-ness, interstitiality, polycentricity and citizen participation.All together enabling a strategy of designing for place and occasion, designing for possibilities rather than for occupation[11].

3.1 Openness: From Closed Play Gardens to Open Play Places

Though van Eyck made Amsterdam's playgrounds famous around the world, the importance of areas for children to play outdoors in the city was already well established, and followed in a long Dutch tradition of celebrating play as a part of the urban life of children.Originally occurring in the open streets and plazas of cities, through increasing urban development, many complaints arose regarding poor playing conditions for children in Amsterdam at the end of the 19th Century,sparking upper-class citizens to create the first private playground in the city in 1880.A larger movement in the Netherlands regarding play gardens subsequently formed, an initiative founded by Uilke Jans Klaren,as his efforts in creating a playground in his own neighbourhood, eventually gave rise to establishing a playground collective.Founded in 1917, it was called the "Bond van Amsterdamse Speeltuinverenigingen"(Bond of Amsterdam Play Garden Associations), from which in 1937 the "the Amsterdams Speeltuinen Verbond" (Amsterdam Cooperation for Play Gardens)was formed.Please note how the word "play gardens" (from the Dutch word "speeltuin") is a more accurate translation than the commonly used word"playground".These play gardens resembled backyard gardens, behind street-facing clubhouses, and were fenced plots supervised by keepers belonging to the association, and exclusively accessible for the children of the association's members.The fact that you had to be a member, combined with their arbitrary placement,making them placed scattered around the city, made that these play gardens only served a limited segment of Amsterdam's children's population, and were indeed"considered a luxury"[12].By the 1940s, Amsterdam had a considerable tradition of such private playgrounds, an example can be seen in Fig.3, 4.

What paved the way for van Eyck's involvement was a move in 1947 by Jakoba Mulder, second in charge of the Public Works Department at the Amsterdam Town Planning Department, to rectify this uneven distribution and to make play areas available to all its citizens, by installing at least one "open" playground in every neighbourhood, in addition to the members-only play gardens.These new playgrounds would be entrusted to the supervision of the general public, and would later also be initiated bottom-up by the general public, as will be explained in Point 3 regarding citizen participation.The open character of these new play areas, in which a non-fenced play area would be loosely governed and supervised by the surrounding community, made it possible for the playground to work as the type of urban in-between space that van Eyck was to become known for, as the exploration of an urban realm that would fit between the private realm of the home and the collective realm of the city.For this initiative Aldo van Eyck also chose not to continue to use the name"play garden" (Dutch: speeltuin), but instead described these new types of playgrounds as "play places" (Dutch:speelplaats), in Dutch a significant difference, alluding to van Eyck's strategy of place making.

3.2 Interstitiality: Regenerating Interstitial Urban Leftover Spaces

A second aspect that made these new play places so different, was that they were not conceived topdown on the scale of the neighbourhood or block,but bottom-up, on the scale of left-over, interstitial spaces that were found inside the densely populated city.This was partially due to the fact that the department wanted to give every neighbourhood its own playground, so they often turned vacant lots in the city centre into (temporary) play areas.As such, they did not just appear in fancy parks, or in designated play areas, but also in between housing blocks, on converted parking lots, and abandoned derelict plots previously used as garbage dumps.Van Eyck was proud to have started a more "situationist", "ground up" approach to urban design as a statement to those areas where he thought the functional city planning was failing, as he reported to the CIAM X meeting in Dubrovnik in 1956 that: "on innumerable formless islands left over by the road engineer and demolition worker, on empty plots,on places better suited to the child than the public watering place, 70 places have been identified in this city so far for the making of play places"[13].Several slides of his CIAM presentation showing the earliest examples of his space place making strategy can be seen in Fig.5, 6.However, some of these leftover spaces were in fact not caused by bad urban planning, but were in fact war-torn, bomb damaged sites in and around Amsterdam, as seen in Fig.7-11.Regardless of the exact reason behind their voidness, hemmed in by old walls and ramshackle buildings, these have come to be the best known amongst all his playgrounds[14].Indeed,it was quite the heroic community story, a bombed or abandoned lot, that was induced with new life as a public play area.

3.3 Participation: Citizen Participation in Location Scouting

7 置入建筑夾縫間的游樂場前后，迪克斯特勒特，1954/Before and after view of playground inserted into empty plot between buildings at dijkstraat, 1954（圖片來源/Source:阿姆斯特丹凡·艾克城市檔案館線上文件/Aldo van eyck archive in the amsterdam city archive, https://www.archined.nl/2002/06/de-speelplaatsen-van-aldo-van-eyck/）

8 迪克斯特勒特游樂場平面/Plan drawing of playground at dijkstraat, as shown in figure 7（圖片來源/Source: 3https://i2.wp.com/artbooks.yupnet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2015/01/Picture-13.png）

9 游樂場置入被戰(zhàn)爭轟炸的棄置空間前后，澤迪克，1955/Before and after view of playground inserted into war bombed derelict plot at zeedijk, 1955

就這樣，每座游樂場并不來自任何城市規(guī)劃的既定任務，而是源自當?shù)厣鐓^(qū)直接而具體的需求。阿姆斯特丹會將游樂場植入每一處其市民認為有必要的地方。如莉安娜·勒費夫爾所言，凡·艾克曾推薦她去重訪市政檔案館，“檔案館中藏有190 封市民信件，都是手寫的；如果某些信件的字跡難以辨識，公共項目部會將其轉(zhuǎn)譯為職業(yè)化的打印體，便于相關公務員閱讀?！蓖ㄟ^一個高度系統(tǒng)化的流程，每封寄往公共項目部的信件都會導向一系列給寄信者本人的復函、過程備忘錄、設計草圖和平面、立場報告以及政策提案。每一個游樂場都是定制的產(chǎn)物，是對一個或一群特定市民的某個特定需求的回應，是對某個被認為具有建造游樂場潛質(zhì)的特定場地的回應。這樣一種將市民納入此般尺度的自下而上城市更新之中的系統(tǒng)化組織，代表了一個在城市層面的參與性政治及民主行動的獨有案例，形成了一份“15m 長的檔案”[10]。

據(jù)勒費夫爾所言[2]，隨著這一進程的成功，凡·伊斯特倫“盡管并未放棄自上而下的規(guī)劃理念”，但也開始“學習”這些在現(xiàn)存城市肌理中剩余的、間隙的場所的獨特性和異規(guī)性，并試著在工作中納入、而非無視它們。

3.4 多中心性：創(chuàng)造場所的網(wǎng)絡

凡·艾克的間隙性策略的最后一個層次，也不是一開始便計劃好的，而是源于借助高效而有效的設計策略管理項目選址的嚴謹過程。鑒于這類開放游樂場地的間隙性和廣闊分布的特質(zhì)，游樂場成了一個多中心網(wǎng)絡。它幾乎獨自形成了一個城市片層，充滿童真，持續(xù)變化又可變，整齊地編織在功能城市的粗放肌理之中。

1947 年，這個項目剛剛開啟時，城市中只有不到30 處游樂公園，這一數(shù)字自從1929 年以來并未增長；隨著凡·伊斯特倫在城市規(guī)劃局走馬上任，他下令繪制了一系列城市地圖，詳細編目城市（公共）設施的供給和分布。從這些地圖中，可以令人震驚地看到，雖然兒童游樂場已是凡·伊斯特倫關心的五大主要事業(yè)之一，但當時的阿姆斯特丹幾乎沒有什么服務兒童的此類設施。到了1968 年，這種情況大為改觀。阿姆斯特丹已經(jīng)擁有超過1000座游樂場，這就意味著，從1947 年開始，平均每年就要設計并建造不少于50 座游樂場[10]。每座游樂場都是由凡·伊斯特倫和他的助手雅科芭·穆爾德親自過問，由阿爾多·凡·艾克設計。經(jīng)過逾20年的建造，戰(zhàn)后的阿姆斯特丹游樂場成了一個值得銘記的成功故事，它創(chuàng)造了一張多中心的、扎根社區(qū)的游樂場之網(wǎng)。它如同一片游樂場的星云，嵌入至該時期在城市中成長起來的兒童的集體記憶中。而在此后的整個荷蘭，由于凡·艾克在游樂場中使用的設計工具以及這種自下而上的、間隙式的設計策略都極具影響力，它們也在其他城市的市政項目部門得到廣泛復制。

凡·艾克的游樂場除了對阿姆斯特丹以及荷蘭其它地區(qū)的社會生活產(chǎn)生影響之外，也對建筑學和城市設計學科的發(fā)展具有深遠意義。它推動了建筑學的多項重要進展——“社區(qū)”和“對話”的建筑，人性的建筑，“之間的領域”的形式塑造等，以作為對于國際建協(xié)抽象的功能主義規(guī)劃的替代選擇。由此勒費夫爾認為，它們不僅是游樂場設計的新類型，更代表了二戰(zhàn)后面向公共空間和城市設計的一條新路徑[10]。

4 走向功能城市中的間隙性

順著這一游樂場網(wǎng)絡的自下而上的有機過程，凡·伊斯特倫將前面提到的那些在阿姆斯特丹傳統(tǒng)城市肌理中涌現(xiàn)的特征，整合到他在西阿姆斯特丹戰(zhàn)后新建街區(qū)的設計策略中：包括斯勞特戴克、斯洛特梅爾、格茲維爾德。凡·艾克的游樂場策略也不再僅用于填充歷史城市中心的空隙場地，而應用到更多經(jīng)過功能主義規(guī)劃的新城之中。事實上，游樂場成為了凡·伊斯特倫西阿姆斯特丹新城鎮(zhèn)政策的一個組成部分，在首先測試游樂場的社區(qū)中，人們目睹了這些變化，亦是人們對生活質(zhì)量改善的認可。

此外，在新城規(guī)劃政策中落實的不僅是空間效果。不同于在其早期設計中采取的純粹功能主義的、效率優(yōu)先的、自上而下的公共服務設施規(guī)劃和分布，在凡·伊斯特倫的檔案記錄中，他不僅宣稱自己將游樂場作為斯洛特梅爾規(guī)劃設計的重要部分，而且還特別提到，游樂場必須是“從使用者層面要求的對象”；到那個時候，新城中每個提出需求的街區(qū)都會得到一座游樂場。這不僅讓我們理解了設施和空間本身的重要性，還應認識到恰當?shù)倪x址以及公眾參與的重要性。由此，它結(jié)合了游樂場的開放性、它的間隙式布局策略、它的公眾參與設計策略，并最終導向了一個間隙性游樂空間的多中心網(wǎng)絡。

As mentioned, Jacoba Mulder, who worked under Cornelis van Eesteren at the Amsterdam Town Planning Department, initiated the open playground initiative, leading to van Eyck's first playground design for the Bertelmanplein.Though it was in part meant as a strategy to rectify the uneven distribution of play gardens, and to make play areas available to all its citizens, it was simultaneously a result of citizen participation in the scouting of appropriate locations for these interventions.Mulder herself was the first to start to identify a possible location in her neighbourhood, as she had noticed that the children in her neighbourhood had nowhere to play.A month or so after her 26-year old assistant Aldo van Eyck had completed the playground, a woman living a few blocks away saw the new play space and wrote to the Public Works department requesting one for her area.From that moment on, they spread like wildfire, first through the historical centre, then, in the course of the 1950s,to the new districts to the west of the city[10].

As such, each playground was not conceived within a master plan assignment, but rather resulted from a direct and specific need and request of a local community.The city embedded playgrounds where the people of Amsterdam felt they should be placed.As Liane Lefaivre reports, after van Eyck recommended her to go revisit the municipal archives, "The archive holds 190 letters by citizens.All were written by hand.And when the letter was difficult to read, the public works department had them typed out professionally, so that the relevant civil servants could read them".In a very systematic process, each letter sent to the departments lead to the production of return correspondence with the initial sender, internal memos, of drawings and plans, of position papers and of policy proposals.Each one was made to order, in response to a specific request by a specific citizen or group of citizens for a specific site that had been identified as the potential location for a playground.This systematic organisation of citizen participation in bottom-up urban regeneration at this scale represents a unique example of participatory politics and democracy in action at the urban level,making up a "fifteen – metre long archive"[10].

Following the success of this process, according to Lefaivre[2], van Eesteren, "without abandoning the idea of top-down planning", began to "learn" from the particularities and irregularities of these left-over,interstitial places in the existing fabric of the city and to work with them rather than to overlook them.

3.4 Polycentricity: Creating a Network of Places

The last aspect of van Eyck's interstitial strategy was again not so much an initially planned effort, but a result of the rigorous process of managing location scouting through efficient and effective design strategies.Because of the interstitial and wide-spread nature of the open play places, the playgrounds became part of a polycentric network.It almost became its own layer in the city, playful, continually changing and changeable, which was neatly intertwined in the rough fabric of the functional city.

In 1947, at the start of this process, there were fewer than 30 play gardens in the city, which had not increased from 1929, when van Eesteren, the erstwhile new director of the Municipal Department of Public Works, commissioned a series of city maps that took inventory of the availability and distribution of (public)services.From these maps it's striking to see that even though playgrounds for children were already one of the five main concerns of van Eesteren, there were hardly any services for children available at that time yet.By 1968, the situation was radically different.Amsterdam now had over 1000 playgrounds, which means no fewer than 50 playgrounds were designed and produced every year from 1947 onward[10].Each playground was individually dealt with by van Eesteren and his associate Jacoba Mulder, each was designed by Aldo van Eyck.Built up over a period of just over 20 years, the postwar Amsterdam playgrounds were a remarkable success story that created a polycentric network of community based play areas.A galaxy of playgrounds, that embedded the playground into the collective memory of children growing up in the city at that time.The network of places went further than just Amsterdam, and had a strong influence in the Netherlands at large from there on, as both the Van Eyck-designed equipment of his Amsterdam playgrounds as well as their bottom-up,interstitial design strategy were widely copied in other municipalities and public works departments.

Besides the impact that van Eyck's playgrounds had on the social life in Amsterdam, and the rest of the Netherlands, they were also of great significance for the development of the discipline of architecture and urban design.It was here that the major breakthroughs of an architecture of "community" and "dialogue" and of the human and formal building of the "realm of the inbetween" as an alternative to CIAM functional abstract planning took place.As such, Lefaivre[10]argues that they were the first examples not only of a new type of playground design, but also, in general, of a new, post-WWII approach to public space and urban design.

4 Towards Interstitiality Within the Functional City

Following the bottom-up, organic process of this emerging network of playgrounds, van Eesteren took the above-mentioned features that had initially emerged ad-hoc in the traditional fabric of Amsterdam and incorporated them as design strategy in his designs for new post-war neighbourhoods of West-Amsterdam: in Sloterdijk, Slotermeer and Geuzeveld.Van Eyck's playground strategies were thus no longer limited to infill sites in the historic city centre, but spread into the functionally planned new towns.The fact that the playgrounds became an integral part of van Eesteren's policy for the new towns of West Amsterdam can be regarded as an acknowledgement of the improvement in quality of life that was witnessed in the neighbourhoods where they had been tested first.

In addition, it was not merely the spatial effect that was implemented in the new town policy.As, unlike Van Eesteren's earlier approach to a purely functional,efficient top-down planning and distribution of public services, there is a memo in the van Eesteren archive in which he not only declares that he is making the playgrounds an integral part of his design for Slotermeer, but specifying that they must be "the object of request on the part of the users", and by that time every block in the new towns that wanted a playground was granted one[10].Herewith not only understanding the importance of the service and space itself, but also the process of the right location and citizen participation.It thus integrated the open-ness of the playgrounds, with its interstitial distribution strategy,and citizen participation as a design strategy that leads to a polycentric network of interstitial play spaces.

For van Eyck the playground design became a manifestation of both architectural and intellectual observations.They provided a strategy for dealing with what he felt were the flaws of top-down modernist town planning, while at the same time enabling explorations into a new type of architecture.One that was not about defining boundaries, and enclosed spaces, but one that was about making places and allowing occasions to occur.A strategy that designed for possibilities rather than for occupation."Space in the image of man is place,and time in the image of man is occasion.Split apart by the schizophrenic mechanism of deterministic one-track thinking, time and space remain frozen abstractions…Place and occasion constitute each other's realisation in human terms: since man is both the subject and object of architecture, it follows that its primary job is to provide the former for the sake of the latter.Since,furthermore, place and occasion imply participation in what exists, lack of place - and thus lack of occasion –will cause loss of identity, isolation and frustration"[11].

10 澤迪克游樂場照片/Colour photo for playground at zeedijk（圖片來源/Source: 凡·艾克基金會線上文件/Van Eyck Foundation, http://vaneyckfoundation.nl/2018/11/23/theamsterdam-playgrounds-1947-78/）

12 由凡·艾克和博世設計的新五角樓，1983/Het pentagon -nieuwmarkt by van eyck and bosch, 1983（圖片來源/Source: 荷蘭建筑學會/NAI, Netherlands Architecture Institute, http://schatkamer.nai.nl/nl/projecten/woningbouwcomplex-sint-antoniesbreestraat-pentagon）

11 澤迪克游樂場平面/Plan for playground at zeedijk of figure 9（圖片來源/Source: 阿姆斯特丹凡·艾克城市檔案館線上文件/Aldo van Eyck Archive in the Amsterdam City Archive,https://www.archined.nl/2002/06/de-speelplaatsen-vanaldo-van-eyck/）

13 由凡·艾克和博世設計的城市立面填充項目/Urban infill project, hubertushuis by van eyck and bosch, 1984（圖片來源/Source: 凡·艾克基金會線上文件/Van Eyck Foundation,http://vaneyckfoundation.nl/2018/11/21/hubertushuisamsterdam/）

對于凡·艾克而言，游樂場設計成了他的建筑學及智識觀察的體現(xiàn)。它們提供了一種策略來應對他眼中自上而下的現(xiàn)代主義城市規(guī)劃的缺陷，同時促進一類新建筑類型的探索。這類建筑并不關于限定邊界或圍合空間，而是關乎塑造場所，讓不同的情境在此發(fā)生。這是一個為了創(chuàng)造可能而非占據(jù)空間的策略?！霸谌说挠成湎?，空間成為地方，時間成為境遇。由于被確定性的單軌思維的精神分裂機制所撕裂，時間和空間一直是冰封的抽象物……場所和境遇在人的意義層面是相互成就的：因為人同時是建筑的主體和客體，這就意味著，建筑的主要職責就是為了境遇而提供場所。此外，場所和境遇意味著參與其中，而缺乏場所感——由此也缺乏境遇感——將會導致身份感的喪失，導致孤立和沮喪”[11]。

這樣一種間隙式的設計策略，結(jié)合城市認同以及場所營造的理念，對荷蘭的城市發(fā)展、以及凡·艾克之后的建筑師都具有持續(xù)性的影響。阿爾多·凡·艾克的“結(jié)構(gòu)主義”建筑哲學啟發(fā)了包括尤普·凡·斯蒂格特、赫曼·赫茲伯格在內(nèi)的建筑師。最終，推動了一種全新的城市發(fā)展模型的出現(xiàn)——“為社區(qū)的設計”——用城市社區(qū)中小規(guī)模的參與式項目，取代大規(guī)模的現(xiàn)代主義式干預。其中最早的、也是最具代表性的項目之一，是阿姆斯特丹新市場區(qū)域的再開發(fā)，由蒂奧·博世和阿爾多·凡·艾克設計。在這個項目中，凡·艾克關于間隙空間、無等級式構(gòu)成和參與式設計的理念，導向了一種可以輕松融入街區(qū)現(xiàn)存肌理的建筑。這座建筑被稱作“五角樓”，得名于它的5 條城市界面，是一個更接近建筑尺度的城市改造項目。它填充了一塊開放場地，可以反過來回饋城市以居住、商店、辦公和小商業(yè)等功能空間（圖12）。另一個應用了凡·艾克的間隙式設計策略的典型案例，是圖13 所示的建筑項目，這個項目是阿姆斯特丹的胡貝圖斯社區(qū)的“母親住宅”。該項目位于一塊城市空隙場地，地段上原有一座猶太教堂和學校，但在二戰(zhàn)后被棄用了。項目于1983 年建成，它填充了一處19 世紀街道立面的縫隙，因此需要在建筑高度、垂直布局以及基礎結(jié)構(gòu)上契合現(xiàn)存的立面墻體；但它顯然也因其大膽的用色以及所謂采光井和交通“樞紐”的設計而易于辨識，它成了一處在街道側(cè)和內(nèi)部花園之間充滿親和力的間隙空間。凡·艾克的加建也幫助整合并翻修了兩旁現(xiàn)存的歷史建筑。

5 結(jié)論：以極小干預重估城市空隙

正如我們在文章開頭提到的，在凡·艾克看來，現(xiàn)代城市的“科學規(guī)劃過程”直接導致了他在當代城市中發(fā)現(xiàn)的問題，例如身份缺失、職住分離、城市設計過程的整體產(chǎn)業(yè)化等。凡·艾克并未順從這些潮流，而是認為建筑師應對此保持批判，由此開啟了對城市本質(zhì)的反思，在其中首要考量“城市究竟要為人性的動機和欲望提供什么”[11]。

從這一視角出發(fā)，本文在開頭討論了城市剩余空間的價值缺失——無論是現(xiàn)代城市開發(fā)的直接后果還是其他原因?qū)е拢M而呈現(xiàn)了阿爾多·凡·艾克將數(shù)百處被忽視的剩余空間轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐饬x場所的過程?；趯Ψ病ぐ嗽诎⒛匪固氐び螛穲霰澈蟮脑O計策略的分析，本文展示了從數(shù)百個面向同一設計問題的反復實踐中，如何生發(fā)出一種獨特的設計策略——將間隙性與公共參與、開放性相融合，以建立一張多中心的社區(qū)場所網(wǎng)絡。

盡管凡·艾克的游樂場最初是建在臨時的、棄用的空地上，但它的意義卻遠遠超出了最初的定位，它是一個應對時代需求的創(chuàng)造性城市解決方案，并最終成為一種在荷蘭各地的新城區(qū)域設計中廣泛應用的設計策略。這后來進一步發(fā)展為一種廣泛意義上的城市設計、規(guī)劃和建筑實踐路徑，尤其與城市更新及復興相關，也對荷蘭的城市發(fā)展實踐產(chǎn)生了深遠影響。此外，凡·艾克還引入了很多我們?nèi)缃窳曇詾槌５慕ㄖ枷胗^念，如身份、之間、互惠、場所和境遇等，它超越了功能城市，打開了面向建成環(huán)境潛在特質(zhì)的全新的結(jié)構(gòu)化視角。

放在當代建筑實踐的視野下，我們可以看到，對于城市空隙體系的認知正在發(fā)生類似的變化。根據(jù)金建佑[15]的說法，當代城市是一個過度膨脹的有機體，它需要消減而非增加元素。無論其現(xiàn)存狀態(tài)和空間品質(zhì)如何，城市空隙都在城市作為一個整體的平衡和穩(wěn)定層面扮演著重要角色。在過去一個世紀，這些空隙主要被視為可建造的場所。如今，它們往往被作為城市的構(gòu)成要素，就因為它們的空白而發(fā)揮著特定的功用。從本文的分析中不難看到，借助極小的干預，那些原本可能閑置的場地就可以被賦予在城市生活中的積極作用。

總結(jié)而言，凡·艾克的設計策略是關于節(jié)制的，關于少做的，關于回饋的。它是一種為場所和境遇設計的策略，一種創(chuàng)造可能而非簡單占據(jù)的策略。這樣一種“幾乎什么也不做”的策略，可從多方面來解釋。在恩尼亞和馬泰拉[5]看來，它可以意味著對不積極的偏好，因此根本無需對場地做任何改變；或是設計一個臨時性項目，只在一段有限的時間內(nèi)占據(jù)空間；或是采取某種極其微小卻是永久性的干預手段。根據(jù)所處的境況，這樣一條路徑有利于保護場所，有利于找回或重新激活場所中的潛在品質(zhì)。這種策略不僅可以應用于某個特定場所的單一干預，也可以體現(xiàn)在多個不同場所共同作用的系列工程之中。

通過理解凡·艾克的間隙式設計策略的過程和成效，筆者希望本文的發(fā)現(xiàn)能夠呼吁人們采取創(chuàng)造性的、以人為本的、場所營造的策略，以重新凸顯碎片化的剩余空間中極小卻有意義的干預手段的重要價值。□

This strategy of interstitial design, combined with the notion of urban identity and place making had a lasting effect on urban development in the Netherlands, and on generations of architects following van Eyck.The "structuralist" architectural philosophy of Aldo van Eyck inspired architects such as Joop van Stigt and Herman Hertzberger.And eventually, a whole new model for urban development emerged – "bouwen voor de buurt"(building for the neighbourhood) – that was to replace large-scale modernist interventions with small scale participative projects in urban neighbourhoods.One of the first and most symbolic of these projects was the redevelopment of the Nieuwmarkt in Amsterdam,by Theo Bosch and Aldo van Eyck.Here, van Eyck's ideas on interstitial space, non-hierarchical composition,and participatory planning led to an architecture that could easily mold into the existing tissue of the neighbourhood.Known as the Pentagon, named after the five-sides of the plot facing the city, the project is an urban intervention of a more architectural scale,that filled in an open area, and could give something back to the city by combining residential, shops, office space and small businesses, see Fig.12.Another great example of van Eyck's interstitial strategy applied in later architectural practices can be seen in Fig.13, in his project for the Mothers' House for the Hubertus Society, also in Amsterdam.The project was located at the urban void site of a former synagogue and school that had become dilapidated and out of use following WWII.The project, completed in 1983, comprised the infilling of a gap in the nineteenth-century street fa?ade, and as such conforms to the existing fa?ade wall as regards building height, vertical layout and understructure, but is also clearly distinguished by the striking use of colour, and the so-called light well and circulation "joint", executed as an inviting in-between space between the street side and the inner garden.Van Eyck's new infill also worked to integrate and renovate the two existing adjacent historic buildings

5 Conclusion: Reappraising the Urban Void Through Minimal Intervention

As we noted at the beginning of the article, for van Eyck the "scientific planning process" of modern cities directly lead to the problems that he observed in contemporary cities, such as a loss of human identity, segregation of work and dwelling, and the industrialisation of the urban design process in general.Instead of complying with these trends, he felt that architects should be critical towards them and he started a reflection on the nature of the city that considered foremost "what a city really has to provide for in terms of human motives and desires"[11].

From this perspective, the text started with questioning the value of urban leftover spaces,whether a direct result of modern urban development or otherwise, and described a process through which Aldo van Eyck was able to turn hundreds of neglected leftover spaces into meaningful places.By way of analysing van Eyck's design approach behind the Amsterdam Playgrounds, this text has shown how from a series of hundreds of iterations of the same design problem, a distinct design strategy arose, that combined interstitiality with citizen participation and open-ness to establish a polycentric network of community places.

Though van Eyck's playgrounds were initially built on temporary or unused plots of land, they had a significance far beyond their original role as a creative urban solution in a time of need, and eventually became a strategy embedded in the design of new towns and urban areas all around the Netherlands.This later evolved further into a general approach to urban design,planning and architectural practices, especially related to urban renewal and regeneration, that heavily influenced the general practice of urban development in the Netherlands.In addition, van Eyck eventually introduced many new notions into architectural thinking that we take for granted today, such as identity, the in-between,reciprocity, and place and occasion, opening up new structural insights into the potential qualities of the built environment, beyond the functional city.

Transposed to contemporary practice, we find that the perception of the system of urban voids is also undergoing a similar change.According to Kim Gunwoo[15]contemporary cities are hypertrophic organisms that require elimination rather than the addition of elements.Regardless of their condition and spatial quality, urban voids currently play an important role in balancing and stabilising the city as a whole.In the last century, these voids were mainly regarded as places to build.Today, these voids are often treated as constitutive elements of the city and essential for precise functioning because they are empty.From our analysis, we have indeed seen how through minimal interventions, an active role in city life can be provided to places that otherwise would remain unused.

Altogether, Van Eyck's design strategy has been one of restraint.Of doing less, of giving back.It's a strategy of designing for place and occasion; designing for possibilities rather than for occupation.This strategy of "almost doing nothing" can be explained in many ways.According to Enia and Martella[5]it can mean opting for inaction and thus not modifying a place at all; or designing a temporary project intended to occupy it only for a limited period of time; or also carrying out a particularly small but permanent intervention.Depending on the circumstances, it is an approach that could help to protect a place, to reclaim it or to reactivate certain latent qualities.This strategy can be implemented both through a single intervention on a specific place, or through a network of coordinated projects in different locations.

Through understanding the process and effect of Van Eyck's Interstitial design strategy, the author hopes that the findings in this text can be understood as a plea for the importance and value of minimal, but meaningful interventions in scattered leftover spaces through creative, human-oriented,place making strategies.□