非超級(jí)的荷蘭性：密度，人性化尺度與健康的地球

張利/ZHANG Li

作者單位：清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

此時(shí)，我的桌上攤開著兩本書，每本打開的頁面都是一幅由荷蘭人繪制的圖畫。一幅是阿爾多·凡·艾克畫的《歐特羅環(huán)》，收錄在莎拉·懷廷的《焦慮的現(xiàn)代主義》一書中。另外一幅是瑪?shù)侣　じダ锷嗥盏摹冬F(xiàn)行犯》，收錄于雷姆·庫哈斯的《癲狂的紐約》。每幅圖都表達(dá)了荷蘭人對什么是建筑以及建筑為誰服務(wù)的想法。兩幅圖繪制的時(shí)間僅相差10多年，然而，它們背后的建筑意識(shí)形態(tài)卻大相徑庭。

從1990年代開始，隨著北京的CCTV大廈等具有爭議的地標(biāo)項(xiàng)目的出現(xiàn)，荷蘭人在中國建筑景觀中確立了“超人”的身份。在多數(shù)人看來，他們是城市標(biāo)志性的超大型建筑的終極創(chuàng)造者。這些建筑大膽、華麗、引人注目，它們否認(rèn)重力，忽視所有已知的建筑原則?！俺?jí)荷蘭人”的沖擊波發(fā)出了明確無誤的信息，宣告建筑是一種集體性的視覺聲明：突出標(biāo)志化沖擊力和紀(jì)念性是建筑的至高無上使命。在這種價(jià)值觀驅(qū)使下，對于一個(gè)城市來說，想要在建筑方面迅速揚(yáng)名全球，恫嚇可能比關(guān)愛有效得多。

然而，與荷蘭長達(dá)幾個(gè)世紀(jì)的人文主義傳統(tǒng)相比，發(fā)生在21世紀(jì)初的這20年內(nèi)的“超級(jí)荷蘭”現(xiàn)象只是短暫的一瞬，我們甚至可以認(rèn)為它只是漫長的荷蘭人文主義線索中的一個(gè)小插曲而已。

作為人口密集的低地小國，荷蘭人從很早就培養(yǎng)出自身與環(huán)境、與他人的和平相處之道。工業(yè)化之后，荷蘭迅速崛起成為全球最重要的貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)體，但在軍事武力上從未有相應(yīng)的表現(xiàn)。荷蘭的大都市選擇聚焦于普遍生活品質(zhì)的提升，無意強(qiáng)化帝國式的張揚(yáng)。一方面，在精心填海造城圈定的寶貴土地上建造紀(jì)念性的廣場或臺(tái)基毫無意義；另一方面，無論是騎自行車或劃船，對水平交通方式的長期執(zhí)念，已經(jīng)讓任何垂直的東西都相形見絀。從啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)到第二次世界大戰(zhàn)，在闡釋密度、人口規(guī)模和建立有利的共生環(huán)境方面，荷蘭人一直源源不斷提供著可供參考的范例。凡·艾克的“由我們、為我們”實(shí)際上提供了一個(gè)長鏡頭，讓我們看到荷蘭建筑這條更綿長、更執(zhí)著的發(fā)展路徑。

功能混合與類型學(xué)的雜交為荷蘭人提供了獨(dú)特的解決密度問題的方法。在1950年代的鹿特丹，正是巴克馬的巴恩商業(yè)街以水平體量的并置否定了勒·柯布西耶和格羅皮烏斯的純粹垂直體量的模型，并在戰(zhàn)后重建期間，在現(xiàn)代主義的巔峰時(shí)期，首先創(chuàng)造了真正的街頭生活（或者說得更孟浪一點(diǎn)，是歐洲傳統(tǒng)城鎮(zhèn)記憶的真正再現(xiàn)）。同樣，半個(gè)多世紀(jì)后的幾個(gè)街區(qū)之外，MVRDV設(shè)計(jì)了大市場（Markthal），將住宅和市場混合雜交，同時(shí)共享相同的城市基底，終結(jié)了超大型巨構(gòu)必須是且僅是標(biāo)志化建筑的時(shí)代。

激進(jìn)地把緩慢、分散的運(yùn)動(dòng)作為優(yōu)先考慮的重點(diǎn)，是荷蘭人設(shè)計(jì)人性化尺度的城市空間時(shí)所采用的典型做法。1960年代，阿姆斯特丹有許多阿爾多·凡·艾克設(shè)計(jì)的游樂場。眾所周知，當(dāng)時(shí)正值每個(gè)歐洲城市都在進(jìn)行乏味的功能規(guī)劃的時(shí)期，凡·艾克的臨時(shí)游樂場異常親切，老少皆宜，是當(dāng)時(shí)為普通歐洲公民設(shè)計(jì)的最好的開放空間。世紀(jì)之交，交通工程師漢斯·蒙德曼提出了拆除紅綠燈將道路還之于人的哲學(xué)。在他死后，他的想法于2010年代后期得以實(shí)現(xiàn)，阿姆斯特丹亞歷山大廣場的所有紅綠燈都被拆除，得到了騎自行車者和行人的一致好評(píng)。同樣，2015年，Luchtsingel在鹿特丹竣工，它穿越辦公大樓，連接了被遺忘的角落，為行人提供了一條全新的生動(dòng)路線。

出于對洪水引發(fā)失地的持續(xù)擔(dān)憂和對即將到來的資源短缺的高度警覺，荷蘭人有充分的理由從最靈活的平面布局到最瘋狂的技術(shù)解決方案無所不用其極地提升資源的使用效率和環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性。1970年代初，赫爾曼·赫茲伯格位于阿珀?duì)柖鄠惖闹醒牍芾磙k公室成功地提供了“半進(jìn)化”的分子模塊空間，為使用者提供了各種可能性，并使建筑存在的時(shí)間更長久。1980年代至今，整個(gè)阿爾米爾新城都在新的環(huán)境友好的人居城市理念下進(jìn)行規(guī)劃、建造和生長，一切都依靠水和最先進(jìn)的能源應(yīng)用技術(shù)。更激進(jìn)的是韋斯特蘭地區(qū)，那里是新型農(nóng)業(yè)溫室的巨大海洋，最近剛剛投入運(yùn)行。應(yīng)用先進(jìn)的人工照明、氣候控制和層疊種植技術(shù)，這些農(nóng)場全天候種植作物，其目的是用一半的資源達(dá)到比今日普通農(nóng)場高一倍的產(chǎn)量?！靶B(yǎng)活全世界” 不再只是一句口號(hào)。

如上所述，我們相信，過去中國人對“超級(jí)荷蘭建筑”的固有印象在根本上存在疏漏，并令人同情的過時(shí)。無論是傳統(tǒng)，還是民族性，還是他們今天開拓性的思維和實(shí)踐，都使荷蘭建筑比我們熟悉的更加人性化、更加進(jìn)步、更加能為當(dāng)今世界提供啟發(fā)。這是為什么我們覺得有必要出版《世界建筑》專輯聚焦于“非超級(jí)”的荷蘭建筑的令人興奮的新鮮景象。

我們衷心感謝卡斯·卡恩教授，他的無私幫助使這一期的出版成為可能?！?/p>

Two books are sitting open on my table, each turned to a page with a sketch by a Dutch. One isthe Otterlo Circlesby Aldo van Eyck, printed in Sarah Whiting'sAnxious Modernism. The other is Madelon Vriesendorp's Flagrant Délit, collected in Rem Koolhaas'Delirious New York. Each sketch depicts a Dutch idea about what architecture is and whom architecture is for. The dates of the sketches are more than a decade apart. The architecture ideologies behind them, however, are eons apart.

Since the 1990s, along with the arrivals of controversial landmark projects such as the CCTV Tower in Beijing, the Dutch have established themselves in the Chinese architecture landscape as supermen. They are known to be the ultimate creators of iconic urban megastructures that are bold, flamboyant, striking, denying gravity and ignoring known architectural principles. The sweeping shockwaves of the Super Dutch sent an unmistakable message about architecture as a collective visual statement: there is nothing wrong in iconography and monumentality. For a city to rapidly claim global notoriety architecturally, it is probably better to scare than care.

Yet the Super Dutch was merely a short existence, arguably two decades or so at the turn of the 21st century, compared to the centuries-long tradition of Dutch humanism. So short that it might be appropriate to call the Super Dutch period an interruption.

As a people densely populated on a small foot print of low land, the Dutch has cultivated their own way of staying at peace both with the environment and with other humans from very early on. After industrialisation, rapidly developing into a global power in trade but never in military might, the Dutch metropolitan cities had chosen to focus more on general living condition than on imperial expression. On one hand, it makes no sense to construct monumental squares or pedestals on valuable lands meticulously claimed from sea.On the other, the long obsession with horizontal mobility, either by bicycles or by boats, has relegated anything vertical to the inferior league. From Enlightenment to post WWII years, the Dutch have been an open source of reference in interpreting density, human scale and setting up conducive,symbiotic environments. Van Eyck's by us, for us certainly gives us a lens to see this longer, more consistent line of Dutch architecture.

Programmatic mix, and typological hybridity gives the Dutch a unique approach on density. In 1950s' Rotterdam, it was Bakema's Lijnbaan that denies the vertical purity in both Le Corbusier's and Gropius' models by the juxtaposition of horizontal volumes, and first created street life (or dare we say memories of traditional European towns) in post war reconstruction when modernism was still at its ruthless peak. Similarly, more than a half centuries later and a few blocks away, MVRDV made the Markthal which put the residential and the market virtually mating with each other while sharing the same foot print, putting an end to a time when megastructure is all about iconography.

Radically giving priority to slow, sporadic movement in the city is a signature Dutch approach to human scale urban space. In the 1960s there were Aldo van Eyck's playgrounds in Amsterdam.Famously interstitial and incredibly intimate,they represented some of the best open spaces for average citizens in Europe when every city was getting boringly programmatic. Closing to the turn of the century, traffic engineer Hans Monderman proposed the philosophy of removing traffic lights to give roads back to humans. After his death, carrying his idea to real life in the late 2010s, all traffic lights in Alexanderplein, Amsterdam have been removed and got the unanimous praise from cyclists and pedestrians. Similarly, in 2015, the Luchtsingel is opened in Rotterdam, penetrating office blocks and connecting forgotten patches, giving pedestrians a new fun route to take.

The everlasting danger of losing land to flooding and an extremely high awareness of impending resource shortage has given the Dutch good reasons to try everything possible for resource efficiency and environmental sustainability, from the most flexible floor layout to the wildest tech solutions. In early 1970s, Herman Hertzberger's Centraal Beheer Office in Apeldoorn managed to provide "half-evolved"molecule spaces, giving all kinds of possibilities to users and making the building inherently lasting longer. From 1980s up to now, the entire new town of Almere has been planned, constructed and occupied with the new environmentally-friendly habitat in mind. Everything relates to water and energy uses the most update technology possible.Even more radical are the sea of gigantic green houses in Westland area, recently put into running.Utilising cutting-edge artificial lighting, climatecontrol and stacked planting technology, these farms grow crops around the clock, and are designed to double the food production from half the resource compared to common modern day farms. A tiny country feeding the world is no longer a slogan.

It is exactly because of the above that we believe the general Chinese impression of the iconic Super Dutch is fundamentally flawed, and regrettably outdated. By tradition, by identity, and by their pioneering thinking and practice today, the Dutch is simply more human, more progressive, and more inspiring. That is why we feel obliged to publish this number ofWA, presenting the exciting new currents of Dutch architecture.

Our whole-heartedly thank to Professor Kees Kahn, whose generous help makes this publication possible.□