原文译文It's Time to Rethink 'Temporary'“短暂”一我们该重新想想了We tend to view architecture as我们习惯性地认为建筑就应该是永permanent, as aspiring to the status of久性的，希望他们都能像纪念碑一样永monuments. And that kind of architecture存纪念碑这样的建筑是有它的价值，has its place. But so does architecture of a但是不同类型的建筑都有其存在的意different sort.义For most of the first decade of the21世纪的头十年里，建筑就是一种2000s, architecture was about the地标式的旦告无论是充满争议的纪念statement building. Whether it was a馆，还是极尽奢华的公寓楼，建筑存在controversial memorial or an impossibly的意义就是要在人们心里留下永久的luxurious condo tower, architecture's印象。
建筑一直都是永恒的代名词，但raison d'etre was to make a lasting impression. Architecture has always been synonymous with permanence, but should it be?是本该如此吗？In the last few years, the opposite may be true. Architectural billings are at an all-time low. Major commissions are few and far between. The architecture that's been making news is fast and fleeting: pop-up shops, food carts, marketplaces, performance spaces. And while many manifestations of the genre have jumped the shark (i.e., a Toys R Us pop-up shop), there is undeniable opportunity in the temporary: it is an apt response to a civilization in flux. And like many prevailing trends — collaborative consumption (a.k.a., “sharing”)，community gardens, barter and trade — “temporary” is so retro that it's become radical.在过去的几年里，情况却恰恰相反。
花在建筑上的费用前所未有的低大型 的建筑项目少之又少新闻上频频出现 的建筑都是转瞬即逝，高效便捷型的： 大牌游击店，移动餐车，大卖场，路演 舞台当这类建筑形式失去其吸引力时 （比如玩具“反”斗城品牌店），不可 否认的是临时性建筑赢得了机会：临时 性建筑是对个流动性文明时代的最好 回应正如许多潮流趋势一合作消费（又名“共享”），社区花园，以物易 物一“临时建筑”这股潮流又重新流行 起来，来势汹汹，势不可挡In November, I had the pleasure of moderating Motopia, a panel at University of Southern California's今年11月，我有幸和罗伯特•科朗 尼伯格一同主持了在南加州大学建筑School of Architecture, with Robert Kronenburg, an architect, professor at University of Liverpool and portable/temporary/mobile guru. Author of a shelf full of books on the topic, including “Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change,” “Portable Architecture: Design and Technology” and “Houses in Motion: The Genesis,” Kronenburg is a man obsessed.Mobility has an innate potency, Kronenburg believes. Movable environments are more dynamic than static ones, so why should architecture be so static? The idea that perhaps all buildings shouldn't aspire to permanence represents a huge shift for architecture. Without that burden, architects, designers, builders and developers can take advantage of and implement current technologies faster. Architecture could be reusable, recyclable and sustainable. Recast in this way, it could better solve seemingly unsolvable problems. And still succeed in creating a sense of place.In his presentation, Kronenburg offered examples of how portable, temporary architecture has been used in every aspect of human activity, including health care (from Florence Nightingale's redesigned hospitals to the Airstream trailers used as mobile medical clinics during the Kennedy Administration), housing (from yurts to tents to architect Shigeru Ban's post-earthquake paper houses), culture and commerce (stage sets and Great Exhibition buildings, 学院举行的“移动都市”专题会。
罗伯 特•科朗尼伯格是一名建筑师，利物浦 大学的教授，同时他也是便捷式，临时 性和移动性建筑的领军人物他写了许 多有关这方面的书，包括《灵活：建筑 要适应变化》，《便捷式建筑：设计与 科技》和《移动房屋的起源》科朗尼 伯格教授对这一领域非常痴迷科朗尼伯格认为，移动本身有着一 种潜能移动环境比静止环境更有活 力，那为什么建筑就应该是静止不动 的？ 一切建筑物都不应该追求永恒这 一观点是建筑界的一次巨大改变没有 了建造永久性房子的压力，建筑师，设 计家，建造者和开发商就可以尽快的利 用，推行现代技术建筑物可以是重复 利用，可回收可持续的按照这种方式 重新定义建筑就可以解决那些看似无 法解决的问题，而且仍然能成功打造出 一处风景科朗尼伯格在他的演讲中举出许多 例子，说明便捷式，临时性建筑物是如 何应用于人类活动的方方面面的，包括 医疗（比如重新设计的弗洛伦斯•南丁 格尔医院和肯尼迪时期将气流拖车改 造成的移动医疗诊所），住房（比如蒙 古包，帐篷和日本建筑师坂松设计的用 于震后居住的纸房子），文化和商业（比 如临时舞台，万国博览会建筑，塞纳河 畔历时弥久的旧书店，移动摊位，兜售 各种各样的食物，艺术品还有音乐制品 centuries-old Bouqinistes along the Seine, mobile food, art and music venues offering everything from the recording of stories to tasty creme brulees.)Kronenburg made a compelling argument that the experimentation inherent in such structures challenges preconceived notions about what buildings can and should be. The strategy of temporality, he explained, “adapts to unpredictable demands, provides more for less, and encourages innovation.” And he stressed that it's time for end-users, designers, architects, manufacturers and construction firms to rethink their attitude toward temporary, portable and mobile architecture.This is as true for development and city planning as it is for architecture. City-making may have happened all at once at the desks of master planners like Daniel Burnham or Robert Moses, but that's really not the way things happen today. No single master plan can anticipate the evolving and varied needs of an increasingly diverse population or achieve the resiliency, responsiveness and flexibility that shorter-term, experimental endeavors can. Which is not to say long-term planning doesn't have its place. The two work well hand in hand. Mike Lydon, founding principal of The Street Plans Collaborative, argues for injecting spontaneity into urban development, and sees these temporary interventions (what he call。