架构师提供的文本描述。这是在东京为一对电影制片人建造的房子。这种结构是由钢筋混凝土L形砌块和箱形工程木的顺序框架组合而成的。我们把卧室、胶片档案和厨房放在实心的混凝土部分以保证安全，而起居室则放在木工房里以保持开放。作为一个高度为6m，宽度为5.5m，深度为14m的开阔空间材料，我们选用了38 mm×287 mm的薄壁工程木。

Text description provided by the architects. This is a house to be built in Tokyo, for a movie producer couple. This architecture is consisted by combining L-shaped blocks of reinforced concrete and sequential frames of box-shaped engineer-wood. We put bedrooms, film archive and galley in solid concrete part for security, and living room in engineer-wood part for openness. As material that consist an open space that is 6m in height, 5.5m in width, 14m in depth, we choose thin engineer-wood (38mmx287mm).

 © Ryota Atarashi

3.Ryota Atarashi

这一建筑的主题是营造一种质感和质感，这种感觉被追求“白、平墙”风格的现代建筑所否定。我们故意把模子的木纹留在混凝土表面，然后选择纹理的石头和熨斗。

Main theme for this architecture is to bring out a sense of mass and material, which were denied by modern architecture which pursued "white, flat wall" as a style. We intentionally left the wood grain of mold on the surface of concrete, and choose textured stones and irons.

 © Ryota Atarashi

3.Ryota Atarashi

不用说，房子是个放松的地方。一座像白色立方体的房子，四周都是平坦的、白色的墙壁，给人以非常抽象的形象。但是，只有当我们使用大脑中的智力部分时，才能感觉到这幅图像。问题是我们并不全是智力生物。对于像这个客户这样每天做足够的智力劳动的人来说，白色立方体只会带来疲劳感。建筑的作用，尤其是生活的作用，是抚慰人的感官方面，而不是刺激智力方面。这就是我的想法。当然，当现代建筑诞生的时候，知识分子的生活作为一种时尚会有一定的意义。然而，既然它已经成为日常生活的一部分，它的身份就失去了。每次构建架构时，我们都必须检查我们的方法是否合理。

It goes without saying that a house is a relaxing place. A house like a white-cube, surrounded by flat, white walls everywhere, gives a person very abstract image. But that image could only be sensed when we use intellective part of our brain. The problem is that we're not all-intellective-creature. For the people like this client, who do enough intellectual labor on a daily basis, white-cube would only bring sense of fatigue. The role of architecture, especially the ones for living, is to soothe the sensory side of people, not to stimulate the intellectual side. That's my take. Sure, intellectual living would have got some meaning as a fashion at the time when modern architecture was born. However, now that it became a part of everyday life, its identity has been lost. We have to examine whether our approach is rational or not every time we build architecture.

 © Ryota Atarashi

3.Ryota Atarashi

我们不赞成“城市是一个问题，建筑是答案”的说法。这种观点纯粹是现代建筑理论的产物，而现代建筑理论本身对今天的建筑教育计划有很大的影响：城市中存在哪些问题？建筑能给他们什么答案？学校训练我们学习这种提问方法。学生评价是建立在这一概念性、理性的问答系统之上的。如果仅限于学术培训的话，这无疑是相关的；没有实质内容的纸上建筑仍然处于抽象的纯净水平，这使得它能够从理论上解决城市带来的问题。

Architecture as Dialogue We do not subscribe to the assertion that "the city is a problem and architecture is the answer". That point of view is a pure product of modern architectural theory, which as such weighs very heavily on today's architectural education programmes: What are the problems running through the city? What answers can architecture offer them? School trains us in the acquisition of this method of questioning. Student evaluation is based on this conceptual and rational system of question and answer. And it is doubtlessly relevant, if limited to academic training; architecture on paper, devoid of substance, remains at a level of abstract purity that allows it to theoretically resolve the problem posed by the city.

但对于真正的建筑来说，这是另一回事。事实上，即使它被设计成一个纯粹的答案，建筑意识到，从它强加“质量”并成为一个被建造的物体的那一刻起，它就永远无法超越“城市=问题”的方程式。由于许多建筑师还没有意识到这一点的明显性，通过有意识地运用经验教训：“问题解决方案”，城市景观中涌现出了数不清的建筑。不幸的是，人们期待的合法和公平的“答案”最终往往不过是可悲的“城市填充物”。因为在使用这一方法时，城市的具体情况被抽象化、理论化和形式化为问题，并转化为一套逻辑系统，反过来将管理一个逻辑架构的答案。以建筑物的形式将这些概念标签过滤到物质世界中，重新引入这些关系是毫无用处的，也是不光彩的。由此产生的建筑仅仅是多余的残余物。

But with real architecture it is quite anther matter. Indeed, even when it is designed as a pure answer, architecture realized, from the moment it imposes "mass" and becomes a built object, never manages to get beyond the "city=problem" equation. Because many architects have not grasped the obviousness of this, an incalculable number of buildings have sprouted in the urban landscape through the conscious application of the lesson learned: "problem-solution." Unfortunately, the legitimate and equitable "answer" expected often winds up being nothing more than deplorable "urban filler". For in using this approach, the concrete situation of the city is rendered abstract, theorised and formalised as problem and turned into a set of logical systems which will in turn administer a logical architectural answer. It is useless and unsightly to reintroduce these relationships defined through the filter of conceptual labels into the material world in the form of buildings. the resulting built architecture is merely a superfluous residue.

毫无疑问，我们是第一代意识到现代主义局限性的现实的一代。我们真诚而认真地避免尽可能多地通过概念来处理建筑问题。对我们来说，这座城市从一开始就充满了“物质”，而建筑过程就是“物质”的创造，因此，我们试图操纵这些具体的关系，因为它们都是具体性的。以前存在的城市与未来建筑之间的关系从未像人们在回答问题时那样单方面地设想过，而是作为新旧“实体”之间的持续和平衡的“对话”。
这就是我们的观点如此孩子气的原因。简单地对事物采取行动，因此，它们实际上将成为人们所希望的。

We are doubtless the first generation to become aware of the reality of modernism's limits. We sincerely and conscientiously avoid dealing with architecture through concepts as much as possible. For us, the city is from the outset imbued with "substance," and the architectural process is the creation of "substance". Therefore, we seek to manipulate these concrete relationships, as they are, in all their concreteness. The relationship between pre-existing city and future architecture is never envisaged in a unilateral way, as one would do when bringing an answer to a question, but rather as a continuous and balanced "dialogue" between the old and the new "substance."
This is what makes our point of view so childlike. To act upon things simply, so they will actually become what one would wish

 © Ryota Atarashi

3.Ryota Atarashi