想了解蓋里大師的著名作品——周澤榮博士大樓嗎？想了解蓋里大師的創作過程嗎？通過閱讀本書，您能看到在周澤榮博士大樓的建造過程中，蓋里大師是如何體驗建筑的城市環境；如何進行委托談判與流程溝通；如何思考建筑的設計與施工。如果建筑會說話，它就會告訴你，蓋里大師的作品和創作流程都是業界的傳奇。
書摘
變化的商學院
A changing business school
Following the demolition of the Dairy FarmersCo-operative Milk Company’s warehouse in 2010, until thebeginning of preliminary excavation in early 2012, the site of the DrChauChak Wing Building was used as an open-air parking lot. In those days the placelooked more or less like a void surrounded by other, yet-to-change, rusty andmuddy spaces. In early 2010 the new Goods Line pedestrian link didn’texist; most of the new UTS facilities were still on paper and Frank Gehry’sfirst sketch of the Dr Chau Chak Wing Building was still to be drawn. How,then, have we moved from that situation to the one we can experience today?How, in other words, did change take place?
Building a new facility is neither a matter only ofdesigning it (see Concept, p.81) nor is it only a matter of complexengineering calculus and complex, demanding and skilled work (see Construction,p.121). Before design, bricks, joints, concrete and cables fit together thereare people who meet, speak, argue … and dream ofpossible futures. The building may not even be there in their thoughts: itmaterialises only at a certain point, as an intersection of needs, wishes andactions that, like threads, become woven into a fabric. To grasp how thisactually occurs we need to confront the process of change. Rather thanunderstanding change in its most canonical form — as matter of stages, a passagefrom A (the parking lot) to B (the building) — one needs to focus on the processualmovements between A and B. In other words it is necessary to move from amacroperspective — which tells us the obvious: we don’t havea parking lot anymore — to a micro one:
[F]roma distance (the macro level of analysis), when the observer examines the flowof events that constitute organising, they see what looks like repetitiveaction, routine, and inertia dotted with occasional episodes of revolutionarychange. But a view from closer in (the micro level of analysis) suggestsongoing adaptation andadjustment.1
Looking closely at these micro-movements it is possible tounravel the heterogeneous set of material and immaterial elements thatgradually become woven together, held together by the discursive, visionary andemotional bonds they share (and by the power and interests guiding them).Despite what the commercial management literature says, the process is notnecessarily a harmonious one and cannot be planned in the form of a step-by-stepguide. As the story of the Dr Chau Chak Wing Building commission shows,processes of change are characterised not only by careful planning and hardwork but also by their alignment to other changes (both contextual and broader)and serendipitous encounters.2
We have already addressed the first contextual change —initiated both by the UTS City Campus Master Plan and by other developmentsaffecting Ultimo (see Context, p.17). The second broader changeinfluencing the development of the Dr Chau Chak Wing Building related to theways in which business education has gradually been subject to redefinition,rethinking, indeed, even contestation, in recent years. Such redesign has beenmade in an attempt to address the challenges of an increasing globalisingworld, as well as in response to the perception by many commentators thatbusiness schools, particularly in their finance and economics disciplines, werea contributory factor inducing the irrational exuberance of financialisationthat bankrupted major economies globally. Leading business schools are thusredesigning their curricula, introducing a new emphasis on interdisciplinaryapproaches, experiential learning, and creativity, which are perceived, inpart, as a panacea for the above issues.3 The new emphasis parallels arenewed attention being paid to those spaces in which learning takes place,typified by the increased number of business schools designed byinternationally renowned architects.4 The changes undertaken by the UTS Business School can beseen as largely aligning with this framework. Thealignmentwas initiated with the appointment of a new dean for the UTS Business School in2008, Professor Roy Green. Green had a clear idea of how to pursue UTS’ maingoal (to become a ‘world leading university of technology’), inpart informed by what other global business schools were doing at the time:
Howwould we do that? We’d do that by linking creativity,technologyand innovation. That’s really theethos of theplace.
A ‘strategic conversation’ was organised to strengthen and test new and emergentideas. The conversation, conducted and facilitated by a consulting company,which lasted from April through to December 2009, consisted of a series ofworkshops in which members of the UTS Business School discussed the world afterthe financial crisis in terms of the challenges confronting business education.Key points of change were identified, among which were the need for a betterintegration ofthe different disciplines and curricula, a more interactive and creativeapproach to teaching, and the importance of forging and maintaining strongconnections with industry.
At that time the Dean had won the Business School’sapproval for the construction of a new building, something that played animportant role in the conversation. Attention turned to the ways in which thebuilding presently occupied by the school did not facilitate interactiveengagement, serendipitous collaboration between different areas andinterdisciplinary work generally. The new space, it was strongly suggested, inconversations led by the Dean and the consultants, should reflect the emergingstress being placed on interaction, flexibility and creativity in the newvision that was being developed. A new building was seen as a medium forachieving the kinds of integrated and more porous teaching and learning experiencesthat the Dean’s vision for the UTS Business School was aiming toprovide.
At the time the building was no more than a letter ofintent – no architect had been appointed to design it. However,during a conversation with the Dean Roy Green, Stewart Clegg and FacultyManager Bill Paterson, Maureen Thurston – at the time, one of theconsultancy associates facilitating the strategic conversation – whohappened to have known Gehry for more than 30 years, suggested Frank Gehry as apossible architect. Gehry had worked with business schools previously: in 2002his design for the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western ReserveUniversity in Cleveland was built; he was also responsible for the Peter B.Lewis Library (2008) at Princeton University, and the Ray and Maria StataCenter (2004) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Gehry’s workwas seen as the perfect representation of many of the strategies formulatingthe new vision of the Business School. Having said that, it is one thing tothink of Gehry; it is a totally different endeavour to have him working withyou. With the subsequent enthusiastic support of UTS Vice-Chancellor RossMilbourne, Thurston offered to contact Gehry. This is her account of the story:
So what actually happened was, it was a bit of a flash.I went up to [the dean] and [...] I mentioned to him, just offhandedly: Look,if you’re interested, would youlike to have the equivalent of Frank Gehry do the building? He looked at me andhe said, yes that would be good. I said, well if you’re serious, I can give him a call. He said [...] yesthat’d be great so I called Frank over the weekend. Frank, Ilove him dearly but he still challenged me and said, are you sure that this is something that’s worth my time? I go, yes and he says, and this isproject, is it really good to go? I go, yes, it really is good to go. [. . .]He said, okay then I’ll come. I’m flying back from Dubai, I’ll just swing over and visit.
新書資訊