著：（美）保羅·施拉波貝斯基 （美）丹尼斯·帕普斯 譯：陳崇賢

在智慧城市設(shè)計(jì)的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域里，往往最受關(guān)注的是科技，最不受關(guān)注的是空間設(shè)計(jì)，但從城市建設(shè)的角度來看，實(shí)際情況應(yīng)該是完全相反的。為什么事實(shí)并非如此，這很大程度上與我們這個(gè)時(shí)代所特有的社會對科技的癡迷有關(guān)，而且實(shí)際上，智慧城市的藍(lán)圖是由許多大型企業(yè)所主導(dǎo)的。 例如，思科系統(tǒng)（Cisco Systems），一家被評為道瓊斯指數(shù)（Dow Jones Index）和《財(cái)富》世界500強(qiáng)的公司告訴我們：“智慧城市利用數(shù)字科技來連接、保護(hù)和改善大眾的生活。”恰好，它有一些設(shè)備可以賣給你，而這并非偶然。

毋庸置疑，在智慧城市的整個(gè)概念中充斥著金錢的影子。大型科技企業(yè)、咨詢公司、計(jì)算機(jī)硬件和軟件制造商們都堅(jiān)定地宣稱，這是一個(gè)雙贏的局面——有利于他們的事情，我們也將從中受益——但從智慧城市建設(shè)中獲利的動機(jī)，使得他們對“智能化”（smartness）為城市居民帶來效益的評估遠(yuǎn)沒有那么客觀。眾所周知，設(shè)計(jì)出能夠更好地接納科技的城市，這本質(zhì)上是件好事，可是如果它實(shí)際上不利于人性場所的營造，而其實(shí)更有利于企業(yè)生產(chǎn)好的產(chǎn)品呢？很顯然，這將會出現(xiàn)為數(shù)字而設(shè)計(jì)的方法來適應(yīng)科技的局面。

毫無疑問，設(shè)計(jì)師和規(guī)劃師也會感到興奮，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在城市可以高效地整合大量監(jiān)控和運(yùn)營技術(shù)。但同時(shí)，我們要確保這種熱忱不會導(dǎo)致我們忽視營造良好場所的基本原則，而變得本末倒置。成功的智慧城市首先必須從根本上保持大城市始終具有的基本特質(zhì)，它們必須是可以反復(fù)記錄人類生活復(fù)雜性和多樣性的載體，而這只有通過城市的內(nèi)在結(jié)構(gòu)（inherent framework）才能得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。大型科技企業(yè)希望我們相信他們的產(chǎn)品將成為城市的DNA，而事實(shí)上只有城市的結(jié)構(gòu)才是它的DNA。

盡管科技是新的，但關(guān)于如何將科技融入城市的問題已經(jīng)延續(xù)了幾個(gè)世紀(jì)之久。例如，回想上一個(gè)科技奇跡（汽車）是如何在20世紀(jì)顛覆了人性場所的營造，并且造成了嚴(yán)重的社會和環(huán)境問題，至今我們都在解決這些影響。洛杉磯過去為了給汽車讓路，拆除了公共有軌電車，一個(gè)世紀(jì)后的今天，又耗資數(shù)百億人民幣（數(shù)十億美元）來恢復(fù)它。沒有比這更能說明對新生事物的迷戀會破壞曾經(jīng)對人類有益的東西。同樣地，在20世紀(jì)50—60年代，高架高速公路穿過北美的每個(gè)主要城市，從而導(dǎo)致了社區(qū)之間的割裂、城市與濱水地區(qū)之間的割裂。我們現(xiàn)在正在尋找方法來擺脫這些礙眼的、帶來污染和頹敗的東西。2000年，波士頓在“大挖掘”（Big Dig）項(xiàng)目上花費(fèi)了上千億人民幣（140億美元）；最近，多倫多選民就嘉丁納高速公路（Gardiner Expressway）的停建問題展開了激烈的爭論，因?yàn)樗鼘堰@座城市與安大略湖（Lake Ontario）分隔開。

出于某些原因，多倫多可能是目前全球最受矚目的智慧城市創(chuàng)意試驗(yàn)場。其中最重要的是，它是這個(gè)對外界控制信息持懷疑態(tài)度的民主國家中最大的城市，這是一個(gè)很好的基礎(chǔ)。在保護(hù)市民權(quán)益的前提下與外界企業(yè)建立各種合作關(guān)系。備受矚目的人行道實(shí)驗(yàn)室（Sidewalk Labs）項(xiàng)目將在多倫多海濱的幾個(gè)街區(qū)打造一個(gè)模板，這是令人興奮的，因?yàn)槎鄠惗鄾Q心要成為創(chuàng)建未來城市的引導(dǎo)者。人行道實(shí)驗(yàn)室項(xiàng)目將如何發(fā)展還有待觀察，但它很有可能就像阿布扎比（Abu Dhabi）的馬斯達(dá)爾（Masdar）那樣，只是個(gè)例而無法成為可復(fù)制的模板。

另外，多倫多值得關(guān)注也因?yàn)樗且粋€(gè)“巨無霸”城市（juggernaut）。到21世紀(jì)中葉，它有望取代洛杉磯成為北美第二大城市，目前處在全力快速（pedal-to-the-floor）增長階段。然而與以往的快速發(fā)展期不同，盡管增長需求（以及加拿大的土地供應(yīng)量）巨大，但多倫多不希望繼續(xù)成為北美擴(kuò)張最快的城市之一。因此，該城市周圍環(huán)繞了一圈綠帶，希望城市擴(kuò)張能夠被限制在綠帶內(nèi)。這也可能會使城市擴(kuò)張區(qū)內(nèi)的土地變得更加密集，以滿足未來的需求。在現(xiàn)有大部分低層建筑結(jié)構(gòu)的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展雖然很復(fù)雜，但可能更環(huán)?？尚?，并且從長遠(yuǎn)來看，在財(cái)政上也具有可持續(xù)性。

在這種發(fā)展背景下，Sasaki事務(wù)所目前在大多倫多地區(qū)（Greater Toronto Area, GTA）的城市擴(kuò)張區(qū)內(nèi)有2個(gè)重大項(xiàng)目。這2個(gè)項(xiàng)目就像書擋，一個(gè)在城市東面，一個(gè)在城市西面。它們本質(zhì)上是完全不同的，但是兩者都體現(xiàn)了對智慧城市設(shè)計(jì)本質(zhì)的態(tài)度。兩者都首先尋求建立一個(gè)精細(xì)而具有彈性的框架，以便為人們創(chuàng)造優(yōu)質(zhì)的空間?？萍迹òㄉ胁粸槿怂目萍迹┍灰暈槭潜夭豢缮俚?，而智慧框架的設(shè)計(jì)為其做好了充足準(zhǔn)備。我們的目標(biāo)是利用新興科技來支持和促進(jìn)美好城市的建設(shè)，但要確保美好城市的建設(shè)仍然是一切努力的前提。出行、環(huán)境衛(wèi)生、公民參與、數(shù)字“孿生”和可持續(xù)發(fā)展等問題都是社區(qū)可以改進(jìn)的主要方面，在2個(gè)多倫多項(xiàng)目的規(guī)劃和城市設(shè)計(jì)中都考慮了這些內(nèi)容。

安大略湖沿岸西部的湖景村（Lakeview Village）①將被打造為一個(gè)混合型社區(qū)。它位于一塊約71.6 hm2（177英畝）的棕地上，該地在20世紀(jì)下半葉曾是一個(gè)大型燃煤發(fā)電廠的所在地。這個(gè)社區(qū)將包含8 000個(gè)供各種類型家庭居住的住宅單元、一個(gè)海濱酒店、一個(gè)占地約14.9 hm2（160萬平方英尺）的創(chuàng)新區(qū)（Innovation District）、約1.9 hm2（20萬平方英尺）的商業(yè)用地、約1.2 hm2（3英畝）的城市學(xué)校用地，以及20.2 hm2（50英畝）與區(qū)域綠網(wǎng)相連的公園。它與主要的通勤火車站（可沿著海濱步行道或自行車道到達(dá)）相距不到 1.5 km，25 min內(nèi)可以從火車站直達(dá)多倫多市中心。總體而言，從土地利用和規(guī)劃的角度來看，湖景村對大多倫多地區(qū)，甚至對北美城市都具有重要意義，因?yàn)樗鼮橹鸩綄?shí)現(xiàn)大多倫多地區(qū)的目標(biāo)做出了貢獻(xiàn)，即在城市擴(kuò)張區(qū)內(nèi)增加密度，并且在工作場所和公共交通周邊提供必要的住房。因此，湖景村是一個(gè)可實(shí)現(xiàn)理想密度的模板，它利用現(xiàn)有基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，通過減少通勤和建立強(qiáng)烈的社區(qū)意識以及環(huán)境因素（協(xié)作式全站點(diǎn)系統(tǒng)，并減少對私人汽車的依賴）來改善生活質(zhì)量。然而，湖景村之所以成為一個(gè)可復(fù)制的智慧設(shè)計(jì)研究案例，是因?yàn)樗邆湟巳说某叨纫约案窬W(wǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)大小合理的街區(qū)，并在整個(gè)社區(qū)中融入綠色空間（如果不考慮它的峽谷地區(qū)，大多倫多是人均公共綠地最少的北美城市之一），同時(shí)也結(jié)合了周邊現(xiàn)有的城市元素。區(qū)域能源、真空廢物處理技術(shù)、可轉(zhuǎn)換停車位、大量的自然采光及其他措施將使湖景村成為一個(gè)智慧社區(qū)，但最初這是通過智慧城市設(shè)計(jì)框架實(shí)現(xiàn)的。

位于東部的維爾雷尼（Veraine）②將成為皮克靈市（Pickering）的一個(gè)新社區(qū)，該社區(qū)位于城市擴(kuò)張區(qū)的邊緣，這片土地目前主要用于種植動物飼料作物。由于將在附近修建多倫多的第二大聯(lián)邦機(jī)場，以及多倫多房地產(chǎn)市場一直以來對地面入戶住宅產(chǎn)品的需求，這個(gè)大多倫多地區(qū)的東北角可能會在未來數(shù)十年發(fā)生重大變化。與湖景村不同，維爾雷尼很長一段時(shí)間需要自給自足。因此，它被看作是一個(gè)有界社區(qū)（bounded community），在公共機(jī)構(gòu)和商業(yè)中心周圍緊湊地建起混合型住宅區(qū)。雖然維爾雷尼和湖景村一樣采用了格網(wǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)，但是它的規(guī)模完全不同。鑒于維爾雷尼的規(guī)模很大（占地4 000英畝，約合16 km2，可容納6萬居民，提供4.5萬個(gè)就業(yè)機(jī)會），而且建設(shè)周期很長，因此充分考慮了未來無人駕駛汽車及各種其他科技的需求。Sasaki事務(wù)所認(rèn)為，有必要果斷地打破20世紀(jì)晚期郊區(qū)的布局特征，即隨機(jī)的曲線和（盡端路造成的）刻意的不連貫。取而代之的是相反的方式：即最大化的連通性，通過可步行和騎行的綠道將社區(qū)內(nèi)的許多節(jié)點(diǎn)連接起來。Sasaki事務(wù)所將維爾雷尼的格網(wǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)旋轉(zhuǎn)為“正北”朝向布局，以最大限度地利用太陽能和自然采光，并與現(xiàn)存的18、19世紀(jì) 較大模數(shù)的上加拿大（Upper Canada）格網(wǎng)參考系統(tǒng)形成一種恰到好處的關(guān)系。結(jié)果2種格網(wǎng)之間產(chǎn)生一系列不規(guī)則且具有自然特征的交叉點(diǎn)，它們在社區(qū)肌理內(nèi)創(chuàng)造了自由、開放空間和地方特色，同時(shí)保持了維爾雷尼格網(wǎng)的潛力，使其成為一個(gè)可以應(yīng)對未知未來的真正可行的框架。目前的農(nóng)業(yè)用地會向當(dāng)?shù)厮磁欧诺?，但這些用地將被新的社區(qū)所占用，經(jīng)過精心設(shè)計(jì)后，維爾雷尼的地表狀況將得到很大改善。未來所有的徑流將被滯留和滲濾，場地實(shí)質(zhì)上變成了“海綿”，因此將大大改善本地水源狀況。在交通方面，快速公交系統(tǒng)將在中短期內(nèi)為社區(qū)服務(wù)，而在長遠(yuǎn)的未來將被鐵路系統(tǒng)取代。通過設(shè)計(jì)將最大化實(shí)現(xiàn)這2個(gè)目標(biāo)，以及整個(gè)社區(qū)的二級交通系統(tǒng)，它將“鄰里節(jié)點(diǎn)”與交通樞紐連接起來。與湖景村一樣，隨著共享單車和無人駕駛汽車的增多，該社區(qū)已經(jīng)在研究將來轉(zhuǎn)換或取消當(dāng)前的停車位。因此，維爾雷尼社區(qū)的空間框架使其能夠融合尚未出現(xiàn)的智能科技，而不會影響作為一個(gè)人性場所的社區(qū)結(jié)構(gòu)。

現(xiàn)在，城市中的智能化數(shù)字網(wǎng)絡(luò)當(dāng)然必不可少，也應(yīng)該加以整合，但我們更應(yīng)該重點(diǎn)關(guān)注營造美好的實(shí)際城市場所。未來，設(shè)計(jì)師和公眾將不得不挑戰(zhàn)自我，以避免城市的發(fā)展變成為了科技而科技，而是要認(rèn)真考慮需要結(jié)合什么樣的科技。我們應(yīng)該自問，在不影響人類體驗(yàn)的前提下是否可以合理地包容科技，或者什么樣的科技可以被用來構(gòu)建一個(gè)更好的城市結(jié)構(gòu)？汽車的發(fā)展史表明，這需要城市規(guī)劃者和開發(fā)商保持警惕，并在一定程度上保持客觀態(tài)度，以確?？萍颊嬲幸?，而不僅僅只是讓人欣喜若狂并可以從中獲利。

Sasaki事務(wù)所的場所營造策略就是基于這種理念。在我們的策略中，期望融入能夠改善生活質(zhì)量和環(huán)境因素的智慧城市元素； 車輛、行人、建筑物及其居住者都相互聯(lián)通；真空廢物收集將取代道路上行駛的柴油垃圾車；區(qū)域能源創(chuàng)造協(xié)同效益和環(huán)境收益，將生態(tài)方面的考慮提升到重要位置——現(xiàn)在這些已成為必要。我們?yōu)椤拔粗牟淮_定”（unknown unknowns）設(shè)計(jì)框架，但首要原則是為人們打造一個(gè)美好的居所。沒有放之四海而皆準(zhǔn)的辦法，當(dāng)然也沒有秘訣。我們倡導(dǎo)一種融合了集體智慧和世界經(jīng)驗(yàn)的理念與情感。好的城市設(shè)計(jì)首要任務(wù)是追求人本主義，其次才是追求科技。

注釋：

① 湖景村的業(yè)主為Lakeview Community Partners Limited（LCPL）。

② 維爾雷尼的業(yè)主為Dorsay Development Corp.。

圖片來源：

圖1～3、6、9、15～16、18～19 ? Sasaki；圖4～5、7～8、10～14、17、20 ? Cicada。

（編輯/王一蘭）

Smart Cities Start with Smart Design

Of the various facets of Smart City design, the one that receives the most attention is the technological. The one that receives the least is that of physical design. From a city-making point of view, the reality should really be the exact inverse. Why this isn’t the case largely has to do with a societal techno-enthrallment that characterizes our age, and the fact that the smart city narrative is being driven by corporations. Cisco Systems, for example, a Dow Jones Index and Fortune 500 company tells us that“A smart city uses digital technology to connect, protect, and enhance the lives of citizens.” Cisco, not coincidentally, has some equipment to sell you.

To be sure, designers and planners are also excited that cities can now incorporate a large amount of monitoring and operating technology with efficiency. At the same time, we want to make sure this zealousness does not lead us to neglect the fundamentals of good place— making, letting the tail wag the dog. Successful smart cities must fundamentally first uphold the basic conditions that have always characterized great cities. They must be the tablet upon which the richness and complexity of human life can be written and rewritten a thousand times over. The only thing that enables this is the inherent framework of the city. Big tech would have us believe that their products will be the city’s DNA, but only the framework of the city can be its DNA.

While the technologies are new, the questions around how to integrate tech into cities are centuries old. Consider, for example, how the last technological miracle, the automobile, upended place-making for people in the 20th century, and created major social and environmental issues, the effects of which we are grappling with now. In Los Angeles, public trams were infamously ripped out to make way for cars. Now, a century later, and at a cost of billions of dollars, that transit is being put back in; there is no better example of a fixation on shiny new objects undermining what was good for a population than this. Equally, in the 1950s and 1960s, elevated freeways were carved into every major North American city, cutting neighborhoods off from one another and cities off from their waterfronts. We are now looking for ways to get rid of these eyesores and generators of pollution and blight. Boston spent$14 billion dollars in 2000 on the Big Dig; Toronto voters recently waged a bitter fight over the grounding of the Gardiner Expressway, which separates that city from Lake Ontario.

Toronto is perhaps the most interesting testbed for Smart City ideas in the world right now, for a few reasons. Foremost amongst them is that it is the largest city in a democratic country with a skepticism of outside control of information, which is a good starting point. Partnership with outside entities is arranged in ways that protects citizens’ rights. The high-profile Sidewalk Labs project to create a template on a few blocks of Toronto’s waterfront is exciting because of Toronto’s determination to be a leader amongst cities for creating the urban future. It remains to be seen how things play out with Sidewalk Labs’ project, but there is a distinct possibility of it being more of a one-off than a template, as Masdar in Abu Dhabi has proven to be.

Toronto is also of importance because it is a juggernaut. Projected to overtake Los Angeles as North America’s second largest city by mid-century, it is in pedal-to-the-floor growth mode. Unlike in previous boom cycles, however, Toronto is not keen on continuing to lead as one of North America’s sprawlingest cities, even though growth demands(and Canada’s supply of land) are substantial. A greenbelt has thus been looped around the city, with the hope that growth can be contained within the belt. Lands within the urban growth boundary are expected to densify to meet future needs. The backfilling of the existing, mostly low-rise fabric, while complex, will likely be more environmentally viable, and in the long run, financially sustainable.

Within this dynamic context, Sasaki currently has two major projects inside the urban growth boundary of the Greater Toronto Area(GTA). These literal bookends to the city— one in the east, and one in the west— are completely different in nature, but both embody attitudes towards inherent smart city-design. Both seek to first and foremost put in place an elegant and resilient framework, in service of the creation of great places for people. Technology— including that which is not yet known— is viewed as essential, and abundant provision is made for it through the design of smart frameworks. Our goal is to use new and forthcoming technologies to support and enhance good city-making, but ensure good city-making remains the foundation of any such effort. Mobility, sanitation, citizen engagement, digital“twinning,” and sustainability are all major opportunities for improving communities, and in both of our Toronto projects, we have accounted for these dimensions in the planning and urban design.

Lakeview Village①, in the west will be a mixeduse community on the Lake Ontario shore, on a 177 acre brownfield site that for the last half of the 20th century was home to a large coalfired power plant. It will include 8,000 residential

units supporting a diverse mix of household types, a waterfront hotel, a 1.6 million square feet Innovation District, 200,000 square feet of retail, a 3-acre urban school site, and 50 acres of parks connecting to a regional green network. It is sited within 1.5 km(accessible along a waterfront pedestrian/bicycle trail) of a major commuter rail station connecting straight into downtown Toronto in 25 minutes. From a land-use and planning point of view, Lakeview Village is significant to the Greater Toronto Area(GTA), and to North American cities in general, through its contribution to progressive GTA goals of increasing density within the urban growth boundary, and for the provision of much-needed housing alongside jobs and close to transit. As such, Lakeview is a template for attainable and desirable densification; leveraging existing infrastructure, improving quality-of-life(through reduced commutes and creation of a strong sense of community), and through environmental factors(synergized sitewide systems, and less reliance on single-occupant automobiles). What makes Lakeview a case study of replicable smart design, however, is its humanscaled, gridded framework of logically-sized blocks, its infusion of green-space throughout the community(the GTA is, with the exception of its ravines, one of the North American cities with the least amount of public green space per capita), and its connectedness to existing urban elements around it. The inclusion of district energy, vacuum waste technology, convert-able parking, extensive daylighting, and other measures will make Lakeview a smart community, but in the first instance this is enabled by a smart urban design framework.

Veraine②, in the east, will be a new community in Pickering, at the edge of the urban growth boundary on land that is currently primarily farmed with animal feed crops. This far northeastern corner of the GTA is likely to undergo big changes in the decades to come, through the likely adjacent construction of a second major federal airport for Toronto, and the continued demand for groundrelated residential product in the Toronto housing market. Unlike Lakeview, Veraine has a need to be self-contained for a length of time. As such, it is conceived as a bounded community that compactly creates mixed-use and residential districts around an institutional and commercial town center. Veraine, like Lakeview, utilizes a grid structure, but at an entirely different scale. Given the large size of Veraine— 4,000 acres, housing 60,000 residents and 45,000 jobs— and the long duration of its implementation, a lot of consideration was given to future needs, from driverless vehicles to a variety of other technologies. Sasaki felt that a decisive break with the random curvy-ness and intentional disconnectivity(through cul-de-sacs) that characterized late-20th century suburbia was needed. Instead, the opposite is created: maximum connectivity, with numerous nodal points within the community, and walkable and bikeable greenways connecting these throughout. Sasaki rotated the Veraine grid to a“true north” orientation to maximize solar and daylighting benefits, and to create a looseness-of-fit in relation

參照組行髖關(guān)節(jié)置換的老年糖尿病患者并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率37.50%高于實(shí)驗(yàn)組的6.25%，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P＜0.05），見表 3。

to the existing, larger-module Upper Canada survey grid of the 18th and 19th centuries. The result is a series of anomalous intersections between the two grids, and with natural features, that create relief, open spaces, and identity within the community’s grid, while maintaining the potential for the grid of Veraine to be a truly enabling framework for an as-yet unknown future. The current farming uses of the land the community will occupy shed nitrogen fertilizer into local headwaters. Veraine has been engineered to create a ground condition that is considerably better than existing. All runoff will be detained and percolated, with the site essentially being a“sponge”. The result will be a large improvement for local streams. From a transportation point of view, bus rapid transit will serve the community in the short-medium term, to be replaced by heavy rail in the long term. Design provision has been made for maximizing both, as well as secondary transport throughout the community, connecting“neighborhood nodes” with transport hubs. As with Lakeview, a large amount of consideration has been given to future conversion or elimination of current parking provisions, as ride-share and driverless technologies increase. The physical framework of Veraine community lends itself to the inclusion of as-yet-unknown smart technologies, without pre-compromising the community’s structure as a place for people.

Intelligent digital networks in cities are of course now essential; their incorporation should be a given, and from there, focus should be on excellence of actual urban placemaking. Designers and the public will have to challenge ourselves to avoid bending the city to the specific demands of technology for technology’s sake. Determining what technology to integrate should be carefully considered. We should be asking, can it be reasonably accommodated without degrading the human experience, or what can be leveraged to make a better urban framework? Our history with automobiles shows that this requires vigilance, and a degree of objectivity on the part of city planners and developers to ensure the technology is actually beneficial and not just exciting and profitable.

Sasaki’s approach to place-making begins in this spirit. Within our approach, we expect inclusion of smart city elements that improve quality of life and environmental considerations; vehicles, pedestrians, buildings and their occupants, all communicating; vacuum waste eliminating the need for diesel garbage trucks on local roads; district energy creating synergies and environmental gains, ecological considerations elevated to the fore— these are all now essential things. We design the framework for“unknown unknowns,” with the first principle being the making of a great place for people. There is no one size fits all and certainly no recipe. We advance a philosophy and a sensibility that incorporates hiveknowledge and world-experience. Good urban design is a humanist pursuit first, a technical one second.

Notes:

①The client for Lakeview is Lakeview Community Partners Limited(LCPL).

②The client for Veraine is Dorsay Development Corp..

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1-3, 6, 9, 15-16, 18-19 ? Sasaki; Fig. 4-5, 7-8, 10-14, 17, 20 ? Cicada.