As the architectural discipline continues to debate the question of what a canon should be, it seems that embracing the living patterns and behaviors of cities—rather than adopting idealized and imported models—offers a more effective and truthful approach to improving urban quality of life. In other words, less aesthetics, and more anthropological approach.
Even though it is not yet formulated in a rigorous way, I believe this should be the underlying premise for contemporary architectural education, that is to emphasis the both/ and approach of studying our surroundings to look for experiential, spatial and tectonic intelligence, while also understanding the traditional canons.
The February issue of Architecture Review presents a selection of projects that fall outside traditional notions of exemplary architecture, highlighting buildings that have developed and expanded organically over time. However, the editors overlooked Taiwan, despite our own wealth of intriguing examples.
隨著建築學科持續探討「典範應該是什麼」這一問題，似乎更長遠且有效的方式並非採用理想化或外來的模式，而是擁抱城市自身的生活模式與行為方式，以此來提升都市的生活品質。換句話說，應該少一些純粹的美學考量，而更多地從人類學的角度切入。
儘管這一觀點尚未被系統化地闡述，我認為它應當成為當代建築教育的基本前提，也就是強調「亦此亦彼」的學習方式：既從我們的周遭環境中尋找體驗、空間及構造的智慧，同時也理解傳統的建築典範。
Architecture Review 二月號提出了一系列不符合傳統典範概念的建築案例，聚焦於那些隨時間自然發展與擴展的建築。然而，編輯們卻忽略了台灣，儘管我們同樣擁有許多值得關注的獨特案例。
