为了考虑和进入系统，这些项目提案有一个特殊的协定。胡安·卡罗斯·瓦格斯-莫里诺设计了技术上的程序。这些项目首先被列入“项目清单”，通过EXCEL的电子工作表组建立数据，再手绘成大区域地图（尺寸为3m×6m），放置在设计课题工作间。该图是采用最新的高分辨率正射投影（orthophotography）以及多层透明塑料布（plastic sheets）打印的。正射投影能让学生定位和描述每个提议项目的地理情况，而塑料布允许在投影仪上以单独工作表的形式绘制项目草图。在EXCEL的电子工作表中，每个项目标注有编号、提议学生的名字以及能够确认项目是否拥有独特空间物理变化或政策的分类号。此外，每个项目纳入八色示意中分类中的一个或多个类别：与国家或自治市政府相关的、与社区相关的、交通、工业、生态（包括水文）、遗产、设施以及野生动物保护区。

 

　　在场地调研的最后一天，根据不同的类别，将学生分成若干小组，且要求他们要像专家一样在每一个类别最重要的项目中最多挑选出20个项目。这个限制确实让学生专注战略性和重点的议题。共有近80个项目入围下一轮开发。这些项目都利用ESRI ArcMap 9.0在GIS上进行图像数据化处理。每个项目的图像都在独立的图层上数据化，以其所属类别的颜色标记，而全部的属性色谱加载到EXCEL的电子工作表中。依靠这些独立的电子数据库，以及简易地在电子表格中挑选想要图层的序号，学生在利用ESRI's ArcScene得到了三维视觉上的不同效果群组。正射影像的可视化效果，逐层覆盖在数字高程模型上，同时也被单独项目的图层以假设重要性的反顺序逐个覆盖。不同的效果群组，例如旅游或生态项目，都是首要探究的对象。这样能让学生们形象地看到研究区域中不同项目类型的累积效果。随后，学生们通过班级讨论，合并不同项目，得到3个方案情景，分别是依据旅游业、生态以及经济驱动的选择。每个情景都以三维可视化方式展示（图07-09），并且标识了一组项目的序号（例如项目：2，6，26，55，43）。这些可视化效果都会展示给当地的合作方以及政府代表，并且用于日后深化的讨论。这些工作在场地调研中都已完成。

 

　　随后，课题组还准备了更多更复杂的情景，进行互相比较，最终选定一个情景。这个情景会发展为一个可选的市政规划平面图（图10），而一些项目将会在细部尺度上深化（图11-12）。

 

　　3结语

 

　　设计课题的开始阶段主要依赖图示、德尔菲方法和判断，我已介绍了框架流程应用的两种变量。我在许多短期工作坊中采用过这种方法。在所有案例下，参与者都完全意识到，这个阶段是一个确认议题的探索过程，在很长时间内还需要更加彻底的框架流程方法，需要更好的数据以在不同设计尺度中进行项目应用。

 

　　很明显，在高度组织化的团队式设计课题结构中，尽管每个学生都参与了研究的每一个阶段，他们个人是不能也不可能完成所有的事情。因此，我们鼓励学生在班级会议上将他们所做的事情以及其他同学可能感兴趣的事情进行汇报。项目归属于整个小组的学生。荣誉也是属于大家的，按字母顺序将他们的名字进行排序。当然，我们希望项目中的某些环节可能让学生有机会说“这是我做的”。但这一情况很少出现，因为整个研究性设计都是集体的。

 

　　那么教师又如何？教师这个角色是多样而富有挑战的。很明显，有人是“监制人”——负责组织课题项目的开展。他需要个人兴趣以及责任心，但并不总能有成果。还有人是首席顾问，他为整个小组以及学生个人提供建议。这个角色也是必须的，但有时候学生也会求助于其他专家顾问，通常是其他教师。毫无疑问，还有一只重要的“看不见的手”，以保持观察，防止悲剧发生。学生们通常会过度雄心壮志。他们常常会低估一些不能预估但是经验判断会发生的问题的影响。此外，课题小组还需要重要的调解员角色，通常是有关社会问题以及组织事务。他们有明确的责任要确保每个人的个体教育需求在团队组织的范围之内得到满足。除了调解员，还有 “评论家”，但仅仅在学生复查和讨论进展中的工作成果之后才能进行点评。最后，还会有一个人负责勘误，确保项目不会失败并能在时间和金钱允许范围之内完成。然而，最艰难的角色是要故意放弃控制管理和设计上的决定，而让团队从经验学习。无论怎么说，学生都会从中收获到批判性的教学经验。

 

　　我不能说，这条路子及其诸多方法会总是有效而良好的。我清楚地知道它暗含着图纸泛滥以及判断的失误，以及其依赖于参与者对合作适应并且能快读画图和做判断。在最差的情况下，他们能提出问题而继续深入研究，收集数据以及得到可选的设计策略。然而，在我的经验中，最好的情况是，这些方法能导向清晰、高效和健全的“起步”。

 

　　注释：

 

　　①译注：每次按顺序完成一系列工作流程就叫做一次迭代。

 

　　作者简介：

 

　　卡尔·斯坦尼茨/ 哈佛大学设计研究生院风景园林与规划荣誉退休教授

 

　　译者简介：

 

　　邝志峰/1990年生/广东人/华南理工大学建筑学院本科生（广州 510641）

 

　　林广思/1977年生/广东人/华南理工大学建筑学院教师（广州 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.