設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)空間的立場(chǎng)

張利/ZHANG Li

設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)空間的立場(chǎng)

Pedagogical Positions of Design Teaching Spaces

張利/ZHANG Li

絕大部分建筑人的建筑教育開(kāi)始于建筑學(xué)院的設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)空間。頗具懷舊色彩的“專(zhuān)教”一詞在某種程度上傳達(dá)了這類(lèi)特殊教學(xué)空間的識(shí)別性。我們不想聲稱(chēng)自己是環(huán)境決定論者，但不可否認(rèn)的是，設(shè)計(jì)教室——或“專(zhuān)教”——對(duì)我們建筑價(jià)值觀的最初樹(shù)立有著至關(guān)重要的影響。我們?cè)诖藛?dòng)建筑學(xué)的行程，浸染建筑師的習(xí)性。我們?cè)诖艘詿o(wú)知者的天真，毫無(wú)抵抗地接受這一空間傳遞給我們的立場(chǎng)。

設(shè)計(jì)教室從來(lái)不是，也不可能是一種中性的透明存在，雖然不止一個(gè)當(dāng)代的前衛(wèi)建筑學(xué)院聲稱(chēng)要徹底去除設(shè)計(jì)教室的價(jià)值觀引導(dǎo)。設(shè)計(jì)教室一定是其所屬教育機(jī)構(gòu)的建筑教育立場(chǎng)的真實(shí)物化，我們可以從3個(gè)方面識(shí)別一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)教室所攜帶的教育立場(chǎng)。

第一方面是設(shè)計(jì)教室的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)立場(chǎng)。任何一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)教室都容納著由設(shè)計(jì)教師與設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)生所組成的群體，而其中隱含的組織結(jié)構(gòu)與行為結(jié)構(gòu)是非常令人感興趣的。其一，在教師與學(xué)生之間，傳統(tǒng)的基于逐桌輔導(dǎo)機(jī)制的垂直師生關(guān)系正被時(shí)下的基于圍合式研討空間的水平師生關(guān)系所取代。其二，在學(xué)生與學(xué)生之間，傳統(tǒng)的單打獨(dú)斗的個(gè)人空間也越來(lái)越多地與共享桌面的群組頭腦風(fēng)暴空間相結(jié)合。事實(shí)上，如何取得設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)的個(gè)人空間與共享空間之間的平衡已經(jīng)是困擾建筑學(xué)院決策者們的常見(jiàn)問(wèn)題，各學(xué)院的創(chuàng)造性策略也是層出不窮。哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院充分利用了蘇式建筑中的方形環(huán)廊，使?jié)B透式的設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)空間在舊的規(guī)則邊界網(wǎng)格中靈活地蔓延，使歷史韻味濃厚的空間歷久彌新。天津大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院很早就在建筑學(xué)院中引入多層次的社區(qū)化的凝聚感，隨著學(xué)院建筑的改造與擴(kuò)建，這種社區(qū)性不斷得到增強(qiáng)。東南大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院使用了完整的可移動(dòng)構(gòu)件體系，在相當(dāng)局限的空間中把局部空間組合的多樣性最大化，實(shí)現(xiàn)了以變應(yīng)變的有限中的無(wú)窮。香港中文大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院使用了高可視度的邊庭空間，強(qiáng)調(diào)非正式交往中的敘事性與正式活動(dòng)中的流動(dòng)性。

第二方面是設(shè)計(jì)教室的技術(shù)立場(chǎng)。既然是技術(shù)，就總會(huì)默認(rèn)地存在演化進(jìn)程中的新與舊，也總難免在不同院校之間形成一種技術(shù)更新此起彼伏的“蛙跳”效應(yīng)。清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院在舊建筑的方院之中加入通透的新樓，不僅在新樓的圍護(hù)結(jié)構(gòu)中實(shí)現(xiàn)了一系列的節(jié)能技術(shù)措施，更通過(guò)新舊建筑體量組合，戲劇性地改善了局部室外氣候。香港大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院紐魯詩(shī)樓在其40余年的使用中，不停地融入高密度環(huán)境下的可持續(xù)性策略，從對(duì)氣候的適應(yīng)到對(duì)空間使用要求的適應(yīng)，從熱環(huán)境到光環(huán)境，以基本的建造解決方案來(lái)維持建筑空間的高性能。新近建成的西交利物浦大學(xué)的設(shè)計(jì)樓則是在各種空間環(huán)境技術(shù)的基礎(chǔ)之上，賦予了最新的建造實(shí)驗(yàn)室以建筑學(xué)院的中心地位，讓建造技術(shù)的過(guò)程與結(jié)果同時(shí)為設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)服務(wù)。

第三方面是設(shè)計(jì)教室的美學(xué)立場(chǎng)。每個(gè)建筑學(xué)院的決策者都明白，設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)空間的形式美是自己的學(xué)院所堅(jiān)信的建筑美學(xué)的無(wú)聲宣言。因而像每個(gè)內(nèi)心強(qiáng)大的建筑師在面對(duì)形式泥沼時(shí)都會(huì)堅(jiān)持走自己的路一樣，每個(gè)自信的學(xué)院在此也都會(huì)毫不遮掩地把自己認(rèn)定的形式干預(yù)納入到設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)空間之中。內(nèi)蒙古工業(yè)大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院延續(xù)其校園早期工業(yè)建筑改造所定義的直線與渾厚語(yǔ)匯。重慶大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院通過(guò)其色彩和向心型中庭空間的使用強(qiáng)調(diào)創(chuàng)建者的初衷。華南理工大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院基于熱帶氣候，把其庭院的環(huán)境友好性、空間適應(yīng)性與界面通透性發(fā)揮到極致。同濟(jì)大學(xué)建筑與城市規(guī)劃學(xué)院在逐漸迭加的建筑群組之中，清晰地貫徹國(guó)際現(xiàn)代都市的材料與幾何表達(dá)。中國(guó)美術(shù)學(xué)院則是在教學(xué)空間的內(nèi)外勿庸質(zhì)疑地傳遞其靈魂式信息，即對(duì)中國(guó)園林空間詩(shī)學(xué)的鐘愛(ài)。

本期雜志是《世界建筑》對(duì)建筑教育空間話題關(guān)注的第一部分，我們將在后續(xù)專(zhuān)輯中呈現(xiàn)其他精彩案例。

感謝本期所涉及的建筑學(xué)院的相關(guān)作者，是他們使本期雜志的出版成為可能。

Most of us start our architecture education in design studios. It is these spaces that give us the fi rst identity of someone working in architecture. We don't intend to promote environment determinism here, but it is true that spaces for design teaching have fundamental impacts in the setting up of our values towards architecture. We first enter these spaces when we were young and ignorant, totally defenceless to whatever in fl uence they would bring.

Therefore no design studio, or space of design teaching, is impartial. No matter how many avantgarde architecture schools claim to be impartial, they simply cannot. In a design studio we see the honest materialisation of the pedagogical positions of the institution to which it belong. We may observe these positions from three aspects.

The first is the position on social structure,to be more precise, the social structure of the people involved in the activities of a design studio,namely teachers and students. On one hand, in terms of the relationship between the teacher and the students, we see a global trend of the more horizontal structure replacing the traditional vertical one. On the other hand, in terms of the relationship among students, we see the increasing importance of shared common space as opposed to the isolated personal space. Actually, every leader of an architecture school must face the dilemma of balancing the shared and the individual working spaces in the studios. In different schools we see different yet equally clever solutions. HIT utilises the generous corridors circling the old Soviet quadrangle and results in a series of permeable teaching spaces out of a rigid grid. Tianjin U was the first to incorporate multi-layered atrium in a modern Chinese architecture school and it has been continuously enhancing the sense of community along with its expansions and renovations ever since. SEU adopts a fully-fledged mobile and rapid assemblage system in its studios and pioneers in creating in fi nite local spatial con fi gurations within very limiting perimeters. CUHK features a highly visible atrium along its entire length, adding spatial narrative and fl uidity in all learning activities.

The second is the position on technology. By default, there are newer (more advanced) and older(more dated) technologies. In reality, architecture schools leapfrog each other with technological upgrades. When doing the new addition in the centre of its old courtyard, Tsinghua not only sported a full range of energy saving technologies in the new building facade but also managed to obtain a dramatic micro climate improvement between the old and the new. During its 40 years of use, HKU has been constantly upgrading the spaces of the architecture faculty, producing a very sustainable story both environmentally and programmatically.The wonderful new design building of XJTLU demonstrates itself as an undeniable jack of all trades, from spatial flexibility to the ultimate transparency of a modern fab lab.

The third is the position on aesthetics. Every dean understands that design studios is the silent manifesto of the belief his/her school holds. That's why all architecture schools would try to do some proprietary formal intervention in their design studios, fearlessly and unapologetically. IMUT sticks to the straight-line mass it has developed in its early renovation of industrial heritages. Chongqing U maintains its colour scheme and atrium centrality as a perseverance of identity. SCUT is obsessed with its U-shaped tropical courtyard and maximises its adaptability and transparency. Tongji is keen to give its entire possession of 4 buildings an unmistakable modern metropolitan vibe, in both material and geometry. CAA embeds its sole educational purpose in its building: the life-long preoccupation with the poetics of Chinese gardens.

This issue is the Part I of WA's series on the subject of architecture teaching spaces. We would publish other institutions in the next part of the series.

Out thanks to all contributors from the institutions we are publishing in this issue. They made our publication possible.

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2017-07-11