您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 旅游 >> 正文

为何大机场这么惹人讨厌?

更新时间:2016-4-14 11:06:17 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Airports, Designed for Everyone but the Passenger
为何大机场这么惹人讨厌?

One morning in 1977, Brian Eno, the electronica pioneer and former synthesizer player for the band Roxy Music, was sitting in an airport in Cologne, Germany, and was deeply disturbed.

1977年的一个上午,电子音乐先驱、Roxy Music乐队前合成乐器演奏者布赖恩·伊诺(Brian Eno)坐在德国科隆的一座机场里,非常苦恼。

“The light was beautiful, the building was beautiful,” Mr. Eno told a Dutch television interviewer. “They spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the architecture and everything — except the music.”

“灯光很美,建筑很美,”伊诺对荷兰的一位电视采访者说,“他们在建筑和其他方面花了数亿英镑,却没在音乐上投资。”

Mr. Eno was so unhappy with the music in the airport (or maybe we should say inspired) that he recorded “Music for Airports,” intended to serve as a soundtrack for the harried air traveler. The album, which was briefly played in a terminal in La Guardia Airport in the ’80s, is hailed today as a high-water mark of ambient music.

伊诺对那座机场的音乐感到不满(也许我们应该说这激发了他的灵感),所以录制了《机场音乐》(Music for Airports),为备受折磨的机场旅行者提供背景音乐。80年代,这张专辑在拉瓜迪亚机场(La Guardia Airport)的一个航站楼短暂播放过一段时间,如今它被誉为背景音乐的黄金标准。

Roughly 40 years later, during a layover in Madrid’s airport, I started to think about Mr. Eno and how, by today’s standards, his complaint about airports and bad music almost seems quaint.

差不多40年后,在马德里机场中转时,我想起伊诺,也想到,按照今天的标准,他关于机场糟糕音乐的抱怨几乎显得怪异。

Airports have been drastically transformed since the 1970s, when you could smoke anywhere, stroll leisurely through security and hug your loved one at the gate before boarding the plane.

如今的机场跟20世纪70年代的大不相同。当时,你可以在机场的任何地方抽烟,悠闲地通过安检,登机前在登机口与爱人拥别。

Passing through security these days takes forever and sometimes borders on harassment. The lighting is brighter than a World Series night game. Almost all the chairs have armrests, preventing you from splaying out. And the ambient noise — the endless gate changes, the last calls for boarding, the CNN late-breaking news — makes it almost impossible to relax.

如今,通过安检需要很长时间,有时那感觉像是受到骚扰。灯光比世界职业棒球大赛(World Series)的夜间比赛还亮。几乎所有的椅子都有扶手,让你展不开手脚。还有环境噪音——无休止的登机口变更、最后的登机通知、CNN的最新新闻——让人几乎难以放松。

It’s no wonder then that passengers often feel more like prisoners than clients.

难怪乘客们常常觉得自己像犯人,而不像客户。

How did we get here? Who is to blame? Why isn’t there a place in airports for not traveling? Not moving? Yawning a bit, slowing down? Catching some shut-eye maybe, or at least a little peace and quiet?

我们是怎么走到这一步的?我们该指责谁?为什么机场没有一个地方是为不旅行、不移动设计的?有没有可以让人打个哈欠、慢下来,甚至打个盹,或者至少获得片刻的平静和安宁的地方?

Why are airports built for everyone — the city, the airlines, the retailers — except for the very people who use them the most: the passengers?

为什么机场设计考虑到这座城市、航空公司和零售商,却不考虑最常使用它们的乘客呢?

One answer is a current trend of airport architecture that evokes an airport’s region and cityscape, yet doesn’t get bogged down in the small details of the interior design.

其中一个原因是目前的机场建设潮流是考虑机场的地区和城市风光,但不深入考虑内部设计的细节。

Read the proposals of top airport architects, and many of the words you’ll find could have been lifted from a travel brochure: “geology,” “prairie,” “landscapes,” “clouds,” “sun” and “horizon,” to name a few.

看看顶级机场建筑师们的提案,你会发现很多词像是来自旅游指南,比如“地理”、“大草原”、“风景”、“云”、“太阳”和“地平线”。

For a proposed terminal in Urumqi, China, architects at HKS were inspired by the “textures and lines” of the Silk Road.

HKS的建筑师们在中国乌鲁木齐一个航站楼的提案中说,灵感来自丝绸之路的“结构和线条”。

For an airport completed in 2011 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the architect César Pelli cites the “landscape,” “expansive sky” and “faraway horizon” as the design’s point of departure.

建筑师塞萨尔·佩利(César Pelli)说,“景观”、“广阔的天空”和“遥远的地平线”是他设计马尼托巴省温尼伯机场的出发点。该机场在2011年建成。

“Like the great railway stations, airports are also the contemporary equivalents of gateways,” Norman Foster said in an interview in Icon magazine, referring to his airport in Beijing, which is shaped like a dragon. “Very often they represent your first experience of a city or country. In that sense, they have the potential to excite and inspire.”

“和大火车站一样,机场也是当代的城市门户,”诺曼·福斯特(Norman Foster)在接受《Icon》杂志采访谈论自己设计的形状像龙的北京机场时说,“它们往往代表着你对一座城市或一个国家的第一体验。从那种意义上讲,它们具有令人兴奋和鼓舞的潜力。”

There is nothing blatantly wrong with this model, but I’m not convinced that it should be the future of airports.

这种模式没有明显的错误,但我觉得那不应该是机场未来的发展方向。

Sure, one day I want to see the Silk Road, and I like expansive skies, too (though I see plenty already when I’m in the plane). But many airports are threatening to be a kind of camera obscura, a simulacrum of a city that, if we’re on a layover, we’ll never see.

当然,有一天我想去看看丝绸之路,我也喜欢开阔的天空(虽然我在飞机看的已经够多的了)。但是很多机场可能正在变成一座城市的暗箱或幻影——如果我们只是在那里中转的话,我们永远看不到那座城市。

Architects may need to spend more of their creative energies on the traveler’s experience than on creating an interactive postcard.

建筑师们可能需要把更多的创意精力放在旅行者的体验上,而非创造一个互动明信片上。

There is another explanation for our perpetual discomfort in today’s airports: the sheer number of moving parts involved.

如今的机场一直令人不舒服的另一个原因可能是:参与机构太多。

With the design of a house, the players include the client and the architect and the contractor, maybe a home inspector. Plans need to be approved by the city or the region. And that’s about it.

设计一座房子时,参与者包括房主、建筑师和承包商,也许还有一个房屋监理。施工计划需要得到这座城市或这个地区的批准。仅此而已。

The design of an airport, however, imposes platoons of specialists — interior designers, specialized engineering firms (for lighting, structure and landscape) and quantity surveyors — most of whom are even less concerned with the passenger’s comfort than architects are.

但是,设计机场则需要很多专家——室内设计师、专业工程公司(照明、结构和景观)和建筑成本估算师——他们大部分人甚至还没有建筑师关心旅客的舒适度。

I wonder what we may be losing with this current emphasis on ceding important decisions to specialists. When discussing his work, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was fond of saying, “God is in the details.” Thanks to star architects, we now have towering, impressive halls of light and space. These new airports are the cathedrals of the 21st century: centers of communication, travel, family and commerce.

我想知道,目前把重要决定交给专家的做法让我们失去了什么。路德维希·米斯·范德尔罗厄(Ludwig Mies van der Rohe)在谈论自己的作品时喜欢说:“关键是细节。”多亏这些明星建筑师,现在我们拥有高大的、令人震撼的、明亮宽敞的大厅。这些新机场是21世纪的教堂:是交流、旅行、家庭和商业的中心。

But where are “God’s details” in these new cathedrals? Are the details in the shining new hubs of the Orient or in the airports of Europe’s capital cities. Will they be in the airports of tomorrow: the late Zaha Hadid’s new terminal in Beijing or Moshe Safdie’s new greenhouse addition in Singapore?

但是这些新教堂的“关键细节”在哪里?在东方闪亮的新交通枢纽,还是在欧洲重要城市的机场?它们会出现在明天的机场吗?比如已故的扎哈·哈迪德(Zaha Hadid)设计的北京新航站楼或摩西·萨夫迪(Moshe Safdie)设计的新加坡新机场。

Luckily, there are still some architects working who haven’t forgotten their profession’s obligation to please the people who use their space.

幸运的是,还有些建筑师没有忘记自己的职业责任:让使用这些空间的人高兴。

Richard Rogers is one. Mr. Rogers and his firm, Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners, create buildings that offer alternative spaces — “public realm” is their phrase — where you can experience the building in a casual, relaxed way. (The square in front of the Pompidou Center in Paris, which Mr. Rogers designed with Renzo Piano, is one example.)

理查德·罗杰斯(Richard Rogers)是其中一位。罗杰斯和他的公司Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners创造的建筑提供可以随意放松的另类空间(他们称之为“公共区域”)(罗杰斯和伦佐·皮亚诺[Renzo Piano]设计的巴黎蓬皮杜中心[Pompidou Center]前面的广场就是一个例子)。

Moreover, Mr. Rogers’s “inside-outside” approach, which uses the building’s innards — its water pipes, ventilation ducts, escalators, etc. — as the facade itself, offers a new way of imagining a building’s interior. With the inside now outside, a building’s interior is more open and flexible — space can be converted and reconfigured without worrying about disturbing most of the building’s innards.

而且,罗杰斯“内部外用”的策略(把水管、通风管和电梯等建筑物内部结构用作外观)提供了构想建筑物内部空间的新方法。这种策略可以让内部空间更开放、灵活,进行改造时也不必有太多顾虑。

As a big fan of his work, I was (almost) pleased when American Airlines decided to route me through Madrid on my back way to France last year. My thinking was that Mr. Rogers, who was awarded the Pritzker, architecture’s highest honor, the year after his new terminals opened in 2006, could deliver a space, along with his collaborator, the architect Antonio Lamela, that prioritized the traveler and his needs.

去年,我搭乘美国航空公司(American Airlines)的航班返回法国时必须在马德里中转。因为我是罗杰斯作品的忠实粉丝,所以我(几乎)为这一安排感到高兴。2006年,罗杰斯设计的新航站楼投入使用,第二年他获得了建筑界的最高荣誉普利兹克奖(Pritzker)。我觉得,罗杰斯与合作建筑师安东尼奥·拉梅拉(Antonio Lamela)能够打造一个优先考虑旅行者需要的空间。

The layover did not begin well. At 6 a.m., we landed at Terminal 4S, a satellite terminal. Bleary-eyed, I walked almost seven minutes to the other end of the terminal, which is lit by light fixtures that are too bright to allow you to sleep and not bright enough to read.

但我的中转体验并不美好。早上6点,我们在4S航站楼降落,它是一个卫星航站楼。我睡眼惺忪地走了近7分钟才走到航站楼的另一端,那里的灯光亮得让人睡不着,但读书又不够亮。

We were quickly whisked away via tram to a larger building, Terminal 4. Here, as with many European hubs, they don’t assign gates to flights more than an hour in advance. For those waiting, the terminal provides clusters of aqua-blue chairs that are scattered around almost haphazardly, like puddles might form after a quick rain. The banks of steel chairs have two armrests separating four chairs, which, unless you’re about 6 or younger, make it impossible to splay out.

我们很快又被赶上电车,来到一个更大的建筑里——4号航站楼。这里和欧洲的很多交通枢纽一样,不会提前1个多小时分配登机口。该航站楼给等候的旅客提供一堆堆水蓝色椅子,它们几乎是杂乱地散落在各处,就像一阵急雨留下的水坑。横排钢椅被两个扶手隔成四个座位,除非你是6岁以下,否则不可能舒展四肢。

Finally, I saw that my flight was assigned a gate, and I sleepily stumbled there. The chairs were a different material, rubberlike instead of steel, but also had the annoying armrests. Curiously, given how new the airport is, at this gate, there are no outlets for recharging your laptop or smartphone.

最后,我的航班终于分配了一个登机口,我疲倦地赶到那里。那里的椅子材质不同,像橡胶,而非钢铁,不过也有恼人的扶手。令人费解的是,尽管这个机场很新,但这个登机口却没有给笔记本或手机充电的插口。

For heat, there is one silver cylinder-shaped grate, perforated evenly with holes the size of children’s fingers. The system barely works. Or more precisely, I think the heat works well, but the cylinders aren’t enough to heat a space with six-story-high ceilings.

取暖用的是一个银色圆柱状取暖炉,上面均匀地分布着孩子手指大小的小孔。这个暖气几乎没有作用。或者更准确地说,暖气运行良好,但这些取暖炉不够加热这个六层楼高的空间。

Worst of all, there aren’t enough seats for those waiting: I counted 32 at our gate for a flight on an Airbus 320, which, if the flight is full, holds about 150 passengers.

最糟糕的是,这里的座位不够等候的乘客坐:我数了一下,登机口只有32个座位,而这个航班所用的空客320飞机满员时可容纳约150名乘客。

All you can do is stand up (unless you’re lucky enough to get one of the coveted chairs); search for another sweater; and wonder why Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lamela (and architects of other airports) have created a building so devoid of the details that most of us care about: comfortable furniture; cheerful ambience; and inviting interiors that allow us to experience the space and, at the same time, unwind.

你能做的只有站着(除非你够幸运,能找到一个隐蔽的椅子);找找行李箱里还有没有毛衣;寻思为什么罗杰斯和拉梅拉(以及其他机场的建筑师们)创造出如此缺乏舒适细节的大楼,而这些细节是我们大部分人所在乎的:舒适的座椅,令人愉快的氛围,以及能让我们体验和放松的迷人内部空间。

To be fair, Mr. Rogers is not working with a clean slate. As with any architect of an airport, he is forced to work within limitations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (or a country’s equivalent), an airport’s city, environmental laws, and other agencies involved with the zoning, safety and construction.

公平地讲,罗杰斯不能随意创作。和所有的机场建筑师一样,他受到很多机构的限制:联邦航空局(Federal Aviation Administration,或每个国家类似的机构)、机场所在的城市、环境保护法以及规划、安全和建设机构。

Moreover, Mr. Rogers and other airport architects are designing for a post-9/11 world, where security concerns often trump comfort and, sadly, good architecture.

而且,罗杰斯和其他机场建筑师是在为9·11之后的世界做设计,所以,很可悲,安全考虑往往多于舒适度和建筑风格。

Architects have to try to create art and, at the same time, make room for sightlines, security checkpoints and control rooms. It’s an almost impossible juggling act, I realize, and it’s a small wonder that any airport gets built that isn’t just a cinder-block hovel with benches and rendition-style interrogation rooms.

建筑师必须创造艺术性,同时为视线、安检点和控制室留出空间。我意识到,这是几乎难以实现的手技杂耍。机场没变成带有长凳和布景风格审讯室的棚屋,已经是小小的奇迹了。

Even so, I think architects could do better. Should the real-world complications of the 21st century completely freeze our creativity? If the old architectural bromide “form follows function” still holds, why would that equation so often rule out attention to aesthetics, comfort, acoustics and light — essentially, the real-life sensory experience of a tired, overworked traveler?

尽管如此,我依然认为,建筑师们可以做得更好。21世纪现实世界的复杂真的必须冻结我们的创造力吗?如果建筑界的古老格言“形式服从功能”依然适用,那么为什么建筑师们常常忽视审美、舒适、音响和灯光呢?这些是疲惫劳累的旅行者最真切的感官感受。

Perhaps one day, Brian Eno will be stuck again in Cologne (or any other airport will do) and he’ll be inspired to create a new masterpiece. Instead of “Music for Airports,” he’ll sit down and compose music for “Sleeping in Airports.”

也许有一天,布赖恩·伊诺会再次被困在科隆机场(其他机场也行),他会产生灵感创作新的杰作。不是《机场音乐》,而是《机场睡眠音乐》。

If architects and their patrons have forgotten about us, maybe Mr. Eno and other artists can somehow save us. Until then, you’ll find me sitting uncomfortably at the gate for my connecting flight, exhausted yet wide-awake, hoping against hope that I don’t get stuck with the middle seat.

如果建筑师和他们的客户遗忘了我们,也许伊诺等艺术家能用某种方法拯救我们。在那之前,你会发现我难受地坐在登机口,等待转接航班,精疲力竭却十分清醒,只希望自己不要分到机舱里的一个中间座位。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表