透過三個(gè)問題看改造

張利/ZHANG Li

透過三個(gè)問題看改造

張利/ZHANG Li

從某種意義上講，所有的建造項(xiàng)目都是改造——基于地表既有環(huán)境的空間介入。正像大多數(shù)自然學(xué)家所共同認(rèn)為的那樣，真正的原初自然在今天人類足跡所到之處已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在。因而，所謂的“新建”只不過是在新的人工干預(yù)之前，對(duì)已有的人工干預(yù)增加了一次標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的復(fù)位——拆除——罷了。

當(dāng)人們沉浸于城市的“新建”熱潮之中——20世紀(jì)中后期重建中的歐洲，或是20世紀(jì)末期至21世紀(jì)初期的新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體——樂此不疲時(shí)，對(duì)舊有建筑的利用、舊有城市的進(jìn)化曾是稀有產(chǎn)物，被蒙上一層“另類”的面紗，并因其歷史良心、社會(huì)責(zé)任與道德正確而占據(jù)心理高地。而今，全球的主要城市關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)都從空間數(shù)量的增加轉(zhuǎn)移到空間質(zhì)量的提升（這里當(dāng)然也包括我國(guó)城市的“新常態(tài)”），舊區(qū)更新、舊有建筑再利用、舊有空間再激活等已成為建造項(xiàng)目的主流，其“另類”的面紗也早已脫落。這為我們冷靜地審視、評(píng)價(jià)它們提供了可能。

有3個(gè)問題是所有的改造項(xiàng)目都必須正面解答的，而其解答又可大致分成幾種明確的類別，因而透過這3個(gè)問題也就不難概括出整個(gè)改造項(xiàng)目的策略線索。這3個(gè)問題是：（一）認(rèn)識(shí)論層面的問題：對(duì)“新”與“舊”的權(quán)重關(guān)系的判斷；（二）方法論層面的問題：對(duì)改造過程的干預(yù)強(qiáng)度與方法的選擇；（三）人口學(xué)層面的問題：對(duì)空間改造先后所使用人群的人口構(gòu)成變化的解釋。

從認(rèn)識(shí)論的層面講，一個(gè)改造項(xiàng)目在“新”與“舊”的權(quán)重關(guān)系方面大致有3種可能的取向：“舊”重于“新”，或說，歷史主義的取向；“新”“舊”并置，或說，存在主義的取向；“新”重于“舊”，或說，現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的取向。歷史主義的取向?qū)ξ覀儊碚f肯定不是陌生的，“整舊如舊”也一度是改造項(xiàng)目尊重歷史的座佑銘。事實(shí)上，自現(xiàn)代性誕生以來，與歷史和遺產(chǎn)息息相關(guān)的 “真實(shí)性”就是一項(xiàng)不可回避的使命。即便是在現(xiàn)代主義者最為自信的年代，像“歷史街區(qū)”這樣的議題也要被列入到國(guó)際現(xiàn)代建筑協(xié)會(huì)（CIAM）關(guān)于偉大的現(xiàn)代城市的核心議程之中。然而當(dāng)鮮活的有待再利用的空間被當(dāng)作遺產(chǎn)而化石化，當(dāng)進(jìn)行時(shí)態(tài)的歷史“真實(shí)性”被過去時(shí)態(tài)的考古實(shí)證性所取代時(shí)，歷史主義取向確實(shí)存在著把任何改造項(xiàng)目帶入場(chǎng)景化的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。存在主義取向是在近期頗受歡迎的，“新”“舊”之間的并置與對(duì)比很容易造就空間的當(dāng)代感，在種種熟練的材料工法技巧中去表現(xiàn)“舊”的結(jié)束與“新”的開始，并不時(shí)形成意外，這是件令建筑師上癮也令觀者癡迷的事情。我們注意到這種并置與對(duì)比在某些情況下正逐漸形成一種新的公式化的手法主義，這恐怕不是其倡導(dǎo)者的初衷。與其他兩種取向相比，現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的取向在頭腦上最為“簡(jiǎn)單”——它把任何即有的現(xiàn)狀看成是不停發(fā)展的空間實(shí)體的一個(gè)中間狀態(tài)，從而絲毫不在意完全按照現(xiàn)實(shí)的需求去發(fā)揮現(xiàn)狀的每一分潛力，哪怕會(huì)因此形成一個(gè)一氣呵成的“新”的空間，哪怕會(huì)因此而“新”“舊”不分。有意思的是，這種在美學(xué)上毫無謙疚的態(tài)度往往能在改造項(xiàng)目中造就實(shí)際利用率最高、最受普通人歡迎的空間，比如本期所收錄的伊拉斯謨學(xué)習(xí)中心。

從方法論的層面上講，一個(gè)改造項(xiàng)目在干預(yù)強(qiáng)度有數(shù)種選擇：弱干預(yù)、中干預(yù)、強(qiáng)干預(yù)。弱干預(yù)只對(duì)已有的空間界面進(jìn)行可逆的更改。中干預(yù)一方面對(duì)已有的空間界面進(jìn)行可逆的更改，另一個(gè)方面對(duì)已有空間界面所不具備的必要條件進(jìn)行新界面的補(bǔ)充。強(qiáng)干預(yù)則不僅對(duì)已有的空間界面進(jìn)行不可逆的更改，也同時(shí)對(duì)必要或非必要的空間條件進(jìn)行新的補(bǔ)充。有趣的是，在改造項(xiàng)目中，極弱或極強(qiáng)的干預(yù)都更容易引起人們的注意。在極弱的干預(yù)方面，醒目的片斷涂鴉可以瞬間喚起人們對(duì)一個(gè)常被忽略的界面的意識(shí)，從而使二維的圖畫在城市中產(chǎn)生出三維的吸引力，也使建筑與環(huán)境藝術(shù)的邊界變得模糊。在極強(qiáng)的干預(yù)方面，對(duì)新舊兩種界面的各自強(qiáng)化——使舊的更“舊”，新的“更新”——是一種屢見不鮮的做法。從對(duì)舊的磚石的殘片處理，舊木構(gòu)件的打磨處理，到舊的界面的幾何邊界，到新的混凝土、新的金屬螺栓與拉索的直接置入……這種在斯卡帕的維奇奧城堡博物館中實(shí)現(xiàn)了驚人的豐富與想像力的基因正在隨著其后世的大量繁殖而變得越來越可預(yù)測(cè)。這倒使我們把目光轉(zhuǎn)移到不起眼的中干預(yù)上，那種波瀾不驚的舊界面梳理與新界面植入——多數(shù)是以空間基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的方式——更多地是在為功能而不是美學(xué)服務(wù)，新增的部分等于在物質(zhì)上標(biāo)識(shí)新的功能需求與舊的空間條件之差異。有趣的是，最近采用這種干預(yù)方法的是本期所收錄的OMA 的普拉達(dá)基金會(huì)。拋開調(diào)皮的小別墅金漆與接待中心前面懸掛的中國(guó)式塑料條簾，OMA 幾乎處處與最不可能與他們聯(lián)系在一起的“克制”二字聯(lián)系到了一起。

從人口學(xué)的層面講，一個(gè)改造項(xiàng)目在其發(fā)生前后，都自然有一個(gè)使用人群的人口構(gòu)成對(duì)比，這里面也有3種常見的情況：第一種，改造之前沒有明確的使用人群（廢棄或空置），改造之后有；第二種，改造之前有明確的使用人群，改造之后也有，且前后為同一人群或后一人群包含前一人群；第三種，改造之前有明確的使用人群，改造之后也有，但兩個(gè)人群完全不同。任何涉及人口構(gòu)成的問題都必然是與社會(huì)相關(guān)的問題，因而也都勢(shì)必接受社會(huì)價(jià)值觀的質(zhì)詢。很顯然，在前兩種情況下，改造項(xiàng)目的人口學(xué)爭(zhēng)議是小的。第一種情況無異于變廢為寶，常見于工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)、廢棄公共設(shè)施的改造，先天與城市空間資源的循環(huán)利用兼容，也自然會(huì)獲得社會(huì)的肯定，像本期收錄的西岸藝術(shù)中心、水塔之家，皆屬此類。第二種情況是服務(wù)于即定人群的空間提升，常見于社區(qū)設(shè)施、企業(yè)設(shè)施的改造，因?yàn)槭褂谜咝枨蟮拿鞔_及設(shè)計(jì)者與使用者關(guān)系的密切，也往往會(huì)順利地得到好評(píng)，本期收錄的云廬、YoungBird 室內(nèi)空間改造、西貢之家等乃是此類范例。而第三種情況，即在項(xiàng)目改造的前后，發(fā)生新的使用人群對(duì)舊的使用人群的取代的情況，這往往是人口學(xué)爭(zhēng)議的高發(fā)領(lǐng)域。爭(zhēng)議的核心是“原住民”的遷出，以及由“新住民”進(jìn)入而帶來的“中產(chǎn)階級(jí)化”，這是壓在此類改造項(xiàng)目的巨大的道德包袱。而一個(gè)有意思的觀察是，在我國(guó)主要城市的中心舊城區(qū)，“原住民”與“新住民”經(jīng)常同為新近移入該城市工作與生活的居民，因而在“原”與“新”之間的道德勢(shì)能在實(shí)際上并非字面上那么大。如果再考慮現(xiàn)代城市化進(jìn)程中從未停止過的人口隨產(chǎn)業(yè)的移動(dòng)與分布，像本期收錄的管·白塔寺這樣的改造項(xiàng)目所代表的人口學(xué)變化，很有可能反倒是積極的，而其相對(duì)激進(jìn)的改造成果，也許反倒是恰如其分的。

Every building project is a retrofit project to some extent. After all we are just making modifications the existing surface of planet earth. As most nature scientists agree on， the genuine pristine nature no longer exists wherever there has been human footprint. A so-called "new building" only differs with a "retrofit" in its addition of a standardised resetting procedure， namely pulling down， before the set of new interventions.

During the construction boom， whether Europe in the 1960s or emerging economies in the last decade of the 20th century， retrofit projects are of a unique type against the plethora of new buildings. They gain an easy advantage in psyche due to their addressing of history， social responsibility and morality. It was almost taken for granted that every retrofit project was automatically great. However， with the major cities around the world entering a new phase in which quality is everything and quantity is nothing （the Chinese new normal in particular）， retrofit projects are becoming the main stream. The previous uniqueness and easy advantage are lost. All retrofit projects are now subject to sober scrutiny.

Three questions may help us in carrying out such scrutiny. 1） The value question: what do you value most， the new， or the old， or both？ 2） The operational question: how much do you intervene？3） The demographic question: how do you plan/ interpret the demographic change in the users，before and after the project？ All of these questions are inevitable to decision makers/designers of retrofit projects. The answers to them also render a profile of a particular project.

There might be three typical answers to the value question: A） putting the old above the new， or， the historicist approach. B） Giving equal importance to the old and the new， and juxtaposing them， or， the existentialist approach. C） putting the new above the old， or， the realist approach. The historicist approach is nothing unfamiliar. Ever since the arrival of modernity， the concept of historical authenticity has been looming above everything built that has something to do with history or heritage. Even in the booming years of the die-hard modernists， historical area still topped the agenda of CIAM meetings on the heart of the city. There is a deteriorating tendency though， that under this historicist umbrella， everything becomes more or less a heritage and is prone to be fossilised in a scenographic fashion. The existentialist approach is much more popular nowadays. Stark contrast between the new and the old， and the skillful hiding and seeking of traces of history have been proven to be addictive to both designers and critics. The caveat is that， there is a growing trend of making this juxtaposition a new adaptall formula. Comparing with these approaches， the realist approach seems stunningly simple: rather than diving into the endless debate of new and old，it simply tries to create a coherent， beautiful new space using whatever is available. It regards the old as a dynamic being， evolving and active， something that can be seamless transformed into the new without necessarily being marked or tracked. While unappealing at first sight to some contradictionand-complexity-hungry critics， this unapologetic approach usually ends up with the most effective and popular spaces. The Erasmus Medical Studies Centre， published in this issue， is a good example.

The answer to the operational question is a measurement of level of intervention: weak， medium or strong. A weak intervention only takes reversible operations on the old. A medium intervention takes a step further， adding new necessities. A strong intervention does everything， modifying the old and adding the new without bothering on constraints of reversibility or necessity. Interestingly， it is the extreme ends， the weakest and the strongest interventions， that are more notable to the public. Graffiti is one of the weakest interventions， it is merely painting on a wall. Yet when used in the right place， it steps out its 2D territory and generates 3D attractions in the city. Dramatizing both the old and the new is one of the strongest interventions，and one that is loved by architects. Rustic finishing，drastic fragmentation， in combination with the cleanness and purity of modern concrete， bolts and wires... it all started with Scarpa's fabulous Castelvecchio but has since been duplicated by copycats in the more and more predictable fashion. That brings our eyes to the third approach， the medium intervention: carefully sorting out the old and cautiously adding the necessary new， mostly as infrastructure. An unexpected example in this regard is OMA's Fondazione prada， which is also published in this issue. Except for the cute gold paint in the villa and the naughty Chinese plastic drapes at the visitors' entrance， OMA has， almost everywhere around the project， demonstrated"restraint" - a word that may be least associated with OMA. That is quite something in itself.

The demographic question is always a contentious one. Again three situations may exist: A） no users before the project （empty or abandoned）， users after. B） the same users before and after. C） different users before and after. Demographics is always an issue of social concern. It can be safely assumed that under the first two situations， a retrofit project is less likely to cause any public row. The first situation is actually built space recycling， mostly found in industrial heritage reuse or public infrastructure redevelopment projects. Examples of this kind published in this issue include the West Bund Art Centre and the Tower Home.The second situation is practically the upgrading of spaces for specific groups of people， mostly found in community / cooperate facility redevelopment projects. Because of the close-ties between the designers and the end-users， they usually score high. published in this issue include examples of this type， such as Yun Lu， YoungBird Office， and Saigon House. The third situation， however， is usually highly controversial. The core of controversy is the moving out of the "original inhabitants" and the moving in of the "new inhabitants"， which is usually referred to by the mighty G word: gentrification. Yet an interesting observation from old town centers in contemporary Chinese major cities is that， both the "original inhabitants" and the "new inhabitants" are in reality， relatively new arrivals of economic immigrants to the city， therefore the moral potential energy lying in between the "original inhabitants" and the "new inhabitants" are far less than it sounds. Taking into considerations the rapid shift of industries in modern Chinese cities， the demographic change brought about by projects like Tubular Baitasi can even be positive.

Reading Retrofit projects Through Three Questions

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2016-04-10