為了考慮和進入系統，這些項目提案有一個特殊的協定。胡安·卡羅斯·瓦格斯-莫里諾設計了技術上的程序。這些項目首先被列入“項目清單”，通過EXCEL的電子工作表組建立數據，再手繪成大區域地圖（尺寸為3m×6m），放置在設計課題工作間。該圖是采用最新的高分辨率正射投影（orthophotography）以及多層透明塑料布（plastic sheets）打印的。正射投影能讓學生定位和描述每個提議項目的地理情況，而塑料布允許在投影儀上以單獨工作表的形式繪制項目草圖。在EXCEL的電子工作表中，每個項目標注有編號、提議學生的名字以及能夠確認項目是否擁有獨特空間物理變化或政策的分類號。此外，每個項目納入八色示意中分類中的一個或多個類別：與國家或自治市政府相關的、與社區相關的、交通、工業、生態（包括水文）、遺產、設施以及野生動物保護區。

 

　　在場地調研的最后一天，根據不同的類別，將學生分成若干小組，且要求他們要像專家一樣在每一個類別最重要的項目中最多挑選出20個項目。這個限制確實讓學生專注戰略性和重點的議題。共有近80個項目入圍下一輪開發。這些項目都利用ESRI ArcMap 9.0在GIS上進行圖像數據化處理。每個項目的圖像都在獨立的圖層上數據化，以其所屬類別的顏色標記，而全部的屬性色譜加載到EXCEL的電子工作表中。依靠這些獨立的電子數據庫，以及簡易地在電子表格中挑選想要圖層的序號，學生在利用ESRI's ArcScene得到了三維視覺上的不同效果群組。正射影像的可視化效果，逐層覆蓋在數字高程模型上，同時也被單獨項目的圖層以假設重要性的反順序逐個覆蓋。不同的效果群組，例如旅游或生態項目，都是首要探究的對象。這樣能讓學生們形象地看到研究區域中不同項目類型的累積效果。隨后，學生們通過班級討論，合并不同項目，得到3個方案情景，分別是依據旅游業、生態以及經濟驅動的選擇。每個情景都以三維可視化方式展示（圖07-09），并且標識了一組項目的序號（例如項目：2，6，26，55，43）。這些可視化效果都會展示給當地的合作方以及政府代表，并且用于日后深化的討論。這些工作在場地調研中都已完成。

 

　　隨后，課題組還準備了更多更復雜的情景，進行互相比較，最終選定一個情景。這個情景會發展為一個可選的市政規劃平面圖（圖10），而一些項目將會在細部尺度上深化（圖11-12）。

 

　　3結語

 

　　設計課題的開始階段主要依賴圖示、德爾菲方法和判斷，我已介紹了框架流程應用的兩種變量。我在許多短期工作坊中采用過這種方法。在所有案例下，參與者都完全意識到，這個階段是一個確認議題的探索過程，在很長時間內還需要更加徹底的框架流程方法，需要更好的數據以在不同設計尺度中進行項目應用。

 

　　很明顯，在高度組織化的團隊式設計課題結構中，盡管每個學生都參與了研究的每一個階段，他們個人是不能也不可能完成所有的事情。因此，我們鼓勵學生在班級會議上將他們所做的事情以及其他同學可能感興趣的事情進行匯報。項目歸屬于整個小組的學生。榮譽也是屬于大家的，按字母順序將他們的名字進行排序。當然，我們希望項目中的某些環節可能讓學生有機會說“這是我做的”。但這一情況很少出現，因為整個研究性設計都是集體的。

 

　　那么教師又如何？教師這個角色是多樣而富有挑戰的。很明顯，有人是“監制人”——負責組織課題項目的開展。他需要個人興趣以及責任心，但并不總能有成果。還有人是首席顧問，他為整個小組以及學生個人提供建議。這個角色也是必須的，但有時候學生也會求助于其他專家顧問，通常是其他教師。毫無疑問，還有一只重要的“看不見的手”，以保持觀察，防止悲劇發生。學生們通常會過度雄心壯志。他們常常會低估一些不能預估但是經驗判斷會發生的問題的影響。此外，課題小組還需要重要的調解員角色，通常是有關社會問題以及組織事務。他們有明確的責任要確保每個人的個體教育需求在團隊組織的范圍之內得到滿足。除了調解員，還有 “評論家”，但僅僅在學生復查和討論進展中的工作成果之后才能進行點評。最后，還會有一個人負責勘誤，確保項目不會失敗并能在時間和金錢允許范圍之內完成。然而，最艱難的角色是要故意放棄控制管理和設計上的決定，而讓團隊從經驗學習。無論怎么說，學生都會從中收獲到批判性的教學經驗。

 

　　我不能說，這條路子及其諸多方法會總是有效而良好的。我清楚地知道它暗含著圖紙泛濫以及判斷的失誤，以及其依賴于參與者對合作適應并且能快讀畫圖和做判斷。在最差的情況下，他們能提出問題而繼續深入研究，收集數據以及得到可選的設計策略。然而，在我的經驗中，最好的情況是，這些方法能導向清晰、高效和健全的“起步”。

 

　　注釋：

 

　　①譯注：每次按順序完成一系列工作流程就叫做一次迭代。

 

　　作者簡介：

 

　　卡爾·斯坦尼茨/ 哈佛大學設計研究生院風景園林與規劃榮譽退休教授

 

　　譯者簡介：

 

　　鄺志峰/1990年生/廣東人/華南理工大學建筑學院本科生（廣州 510641）

 

　　林廣思/1977年生/廣東人/華南理工大學建筑學院教師（廣州 510641）

 

　　1 OVERVIEW

 

　　I have led and taught collaborative, multidisciplinary, semester-long studios on large and complex landscape planning and design problems for more than 40 years at Harvard, and sometimes also with other universities. I also have organized and taught many one-to-four day workshops. I have written about my teaching strategies and the framework within which I organize most of my work in other books and papers. In this paper I want to focus on a related theme in the framework, the most difficult stage of "getting started" on the changes which will be proposed as the main "product". I consider this stage to be the most important of any project because if the beginning is unsatisfactory, then the ending must also be.

 

　　The reasons for my teaching in a manner which requires students to work in teams, and frequently in large multidisciplinary teams, are many but normally center upon the scope and complexity of the problem around which the workshop or studio is focused and the need for many individual tasks to be coordinated.  Sometimes teams have been as small as three persons, and sometimes they have involved a studio class of 12 to 18 persons acting as "a team of the whole".

 

　　The framework within which I work and teach was developed by me, with advice from several colleagues (1990, 2003, 2012), and is shown in Fig.01. The framework consists of six questions which are asked several times during the course of a study. In designing a study of an area, the answers-the models and their applications-are particular to the case study. Some modeling approaches can be general, but model parameters and data are local to the place and time of the study as are the issues and options whose consequences are being studied.

 

　　This is NOT a linear process, but one which has several iteration `loops". It does, however, follow an organized sequence of questions. For several steps in this sequence there are different exercises and applied methods which cause the group of students to move forward together. I think that having a clear structure-a framework around which tasks can be identified and linked-is essential in a large and collaborative effort.

 

　　The six questions are:

 

　　1. How should the state of the landscape be described in content, space and time? This question is answered by representation models, the data upon which the study relies.

 

　　2. How does the landscape operate? What are the functional and structural relationships among its elements? This question is answered by process models which provide information for the several analyses which are the content of the study.

 

　　3. Is the current landscape working well? This question is answered by evaluation models, which are dependent upon cultural knowledge of the decision making stakeholders.

 

　　4. How might the landscape be altered-by what policies and actions, where and when? This question is answered by the change models which will be tested in this research. They are also data, as assumed for the future.

 

　　5. What difference might the changes cause? This question is answered by impact models, which are information produced by the process models under changed conditions.

 

　　6. How should the landscape be changed? This question is answered by decision models, which, like the evaluation models, are dependent upon the cultural knowledge of the decision making responsibility is theirs.

 

　　Over the course of the study, each of the six questions and its subsidiary questions are asked three times: first to define the context and scope of the work (the WHY? questions); second to identify the methods of study (the HOW? questions, and third, to implement the study method (the WHAT, WHERE and WHEN? questions).

 

　　The objective of the first iteration is to understand the context and scope of the study. The study process begins with a broad survey of the setting and major issues of concern. The six questions framework is used from top to bottom. Existing descriptions and representations of the region are examined and a general knowledge of how the landscape works is developed. Areas of concern, existing plans and policy interventions and their potential impacts, and decision making processes and criteria are investigated.

 

　　The aim of the second iteration is to define the methods of the study. In this stage, the framework is used from bottom to top. Designing the methodology for a study of alternative futures involves decisions that are especially complex, and which are most often based on experience and judgment. Basic to developing the methodology is an understanding of how public and private decisions to change the landscape are made. The issues and the criteria defining acceptable impacts that decision makers and their constituents apply are investigated. Ways of identifying planning and policy choices that may influence future change are identified. Existing landscape conditions must be understood and considered. Structural and functional landscape processes are studied and models are specified. Once the processes are understood, and data needs identified, requirements for data and appropriate means of representations can be identified.