“綠色”建筑，“更綠色”建筑，“最綠色”建筑

張利/ZHANG Li

?

“綠色”建筑，“更綠色”建筑，“最綠色”建筑

張利/ZHANG Li

毫無疑問，“綠色建筑”正在變得越來越時髦。建筑師喜歡它，市場人士喜歡它，政治家也喜歡它——這當然源于這一詞語所蘊涵的絕對正確性，“綠色”代表了我們的星球上最令人著迷的部分之一，難道不是么？

任何絕對正確的詞語背后都有著耐人尋味的話題，對于“綠色建筑”，這一話題是：建筑是憑什么稱自己為“綠色建筑”的？是令人暈眩的高端技術(shù)，是進入視覺的綠色植物，是物種共生的環(huán)境友好，還是因地制宜的氣候順應(yīng)？有意思的是，從“綠色建筑”對待自然的態(tài)度看，不同的“綠色建筑”幾乎分布到了自傲慢至謙恭間的所有區(qū)域。

對待自然最傲慢的當數(shù)以人定勝天為篤信的高端技術(shù)建筑， 以主動技術(shù)、高初期投入、高技術(shù)復(fù)雜程度為特征。低（“零”）碳排放、低（“零”）能耗與各種技術(shù)標簽使這些建筑在市場上擁有良好的賣相，為不少投資者與政治家所追逐，成為了當代“綠色建筑”最為普遍化的代表。我們當然沒有理由懷疑這些技術(shù)本身的科學原理和良好意愿，但我們有理由在兩個問題上存在懷疑：其一是前因，即這些技術(shù)產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)過程是否計入建筑的壽命周期，在通常的計算方法下是不計入的，比如生產(chǎn)太陽板玻璃的高溫過程所產(chǎn)生的碳排放不計入建筑壽命的碳排放內(nèi)。其二是后果，即這些建筑常常缺乏詩意的技術(shù)化外表對城市和自然環(huán)境的影響。

對待自然相對謙恭些的是以種植與共生來強化環(huán)境意識的建筑，它們可以被稱為比純粹技術(shù)性“更綠色”的建筑。它們統(tǒng)一的特點是植物在建筑本體上的生長，但其實際生活體驗卻因植物生長方式的不同和與建筑使用者關(guān)系的不同而大相徑庭。有些建筑標榜垂直的綠化，即使這意味著挑戰(zhàn)植物的根系以及重力的傳遞。最近這類方式開始從企業(yè)建筑向居住建筑滲透了，在高層和多層的商業(yè)公寓中都出現(xiàn)了代表性的案例：高層建筑的維護與所有權(quán)難題顯然在一定程度上提示了這種方法的局限，而在多層環(huán)境下盆栽與私有的實現(xiàn)則又似乎為這種方式進行了辯護。有些建筑則強調(diào)對屋頂水平種植的實現(xiàn)，從簡單的視覺滿足到真實的可食用植物的栽培，為建筑的使用者提供了在建筑空間內(nèi)體驗農(nóng)業(yè)的可能性。

對待自然最為謙恭的當然是因地制宜、以本地氣候為參照的建筑，低（適宜）技術(shù)、地方材料與工法、社區(qū)營造的參與是這些建筑共同的特征，它們是當之無愧的“最綠色”的建筑。這些建筑是我們在當今的全球化語境下體驗建筑地方色彩的最主要方式。低廉的造價、建造工藝傳統(tǒng)的重新詮釋、人性化的尺度和相對柔性的功能（多數(shù)是提供當?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的綜合服務(wù)）使它們成為了各種建筑獎項的寵兒。但也恰恰出于它們的低技術(shù)與低造價，這些充滿了道德正確性的建筑能夠在多長的時間范圍內(nèi)服務(wù)于社區(qū)是個令人擔心的問題。“最綠色”并不一定意味著“最可持續(xù)”。

Needless to say， Green Building is now a very fashionable concept. Architects like it. Businessmen like it. Politicians like it. This popularity comes out of the absolute correctness embedded in the concept. The green is one of the most desirable features on our planet， isn't it？

Yet where there is absolute correctness， there is doubt. When it comes to Green Building， the doubt is simple. By what do buildings claim themselves to be green？ Is it highly sophisticated technology？Is it visible green？ Is it symbiotic layer of building surface？ Or， is it simply a local response to a local climate？ Interestingly， green buildings vary a lot in their attitudes towards nature. If you line up all different approaches to green buildings according to their attitudes towards nature， you will end up with a complete spectrum， from complete arrogance to complete humility.

Unfortunately， on the arrogant extreme， you have what is the most common understanding of the green — hi-tech buildings armed to the teeth by all kinds of modern technology. Tey are frequently tagged as zero-carbon， zero-energy-consumption， and many other shiny labels. Tey sell well on the market and are pursued by investors and politicians alike. While we have no doubt to the science behind them and their genuinely good intention， we do have doubt though， on two things. One is the pre-life. Carbon emissions generated by the extreme heating processes in glass fabrication during the making of PV panels are not taken into account in the life of the buildings they serve. Te other one is the consequence. Tese hi-tech buildings， usually overtly dressed up in tech outfts， do not speak very well with its surroundings，neither urban nor natural.

Significantly more humble towards nature are buildings that adopt symbiotic surfaces. They can be called the greener. All of them feature vegetation that grows on the surface of the buildings. What set them apart are the way the vegetation is made and the relation with the users of the buildings. Some buildings are keen to make vertical vegetation，even if this means challenging not only the roots of the plants but also gravity. Vertical vegetation is currently migrating from corporation buildings to residential buildings. In some high-rise apartments，issues like maintenance and ownership are making the entire idea of vertical vegetation almost a scandal. In some mid-rise apartments however，large potted plants and private gardens are doing the contrary. Less troublesome is the use of roof vegetation. Be they simply green turf or more complicated edible gardens， they are much easier to maintain and much intimate to people using the buildings.

The most humble is of course the most local，vernacular approach. Featuring passive building technology， low-tech construction， local material and traditional craft， these buildings speak well to their immediate local climate and deserve to be called the greenest. They are one of the most vital parts of contemporary architecture under this globalising time. Their low budget， reinterpreted local craft， human scale and fexible program （mostly mixed use community buildings） make them favourites in major architecture awards around the world. However， it is right because of their extremely low cost and technology that we question the long-term capability of these highly moral buildings serving the communities they belong to. Te greenest does not necessarily translate into the most sustainable.

Te Green， the Greener， and the Greenest

作者單位：清華大學建筑學院/《世界建筑》

收稿日期：2016-06-08