公交纜車(chē)
——正規(guī)城市與非正規(guī)城市的橋梁，加拉加斯，委內(nèi)瑞拉

建筑設(shè)計(jì)：阿爾弗雷多·布利耶博格，休伯特·克隆普納/城市智庫(kù)

1 遠(yuǎn)景/Distant view

委內(nèi)瑞拉的首都加拉加斯位于海拔1000m處一個(gè)寬20km的山谷中，城市面積800km2，有近600萬(wàn)人口。就全世界對(duì)加拉加斯的通常認(rèn)知而言，這個(gè)城市的形象與委內(nèi)瑞拉驚人的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)、其作為OPEC成員國(guó)的角色以及該國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層面的政治斡旋緊密聯(lián)系在一起。這是加拉加斯的一個(gè)側(cè)面。

實(shí)際上，加拉加斯由兩個(gè)城市構(gòu)成。一個(gè)是正規(guī)城市，這里有高樓、安保完善的封閉住宅區(qū)、巨大的財(cái)富以及私家汽車(chē)；另一個(gè)則是非正規(guī)城市，這里居住著約100萬(wàn)戶人家。一直以來(lái)，加拉加斯的非正規(guī)城市空間持續(xù)向東蔓延，相對(duì)1950年代的城市面積已經(jīng)翻了5倍。非正規(guī)城市由高密度的破敗的建筑構(gòu)成，大部分依附于加拉加斯外圍陡峭的山地上。這些片區(qū)基本僅由居民們規(guī)劃與建造，不具備傳統(tǒng)意義上的街道鋪地，步行是居民唯一的出行方式，他們依據(jù)長(zhǎng)期的習(xí)慣選擇路徑沿著陡峭的臺(tái)階上上下下。非正規(guī)城市的居民沒(méi)有私家車(chē)，如果一定要說(shuō)這里有交通“系統(tǒng)”，那就是人行道。

在這樣的環(huán)境下，城市智庫(kù)（UTT）設(shè)計(jì)了一種創(chuàng)新的交通方式——公交纜車(chē)。2003年7月，UTT在加拉加斯市中心的大學(xué)組織了一場(chǎng)非正式但面向公眾的演講與討論活動(dòng)，活動(dòng)主題是反對(duì)政府（有關(guān)非正規(guī)城市空間的）規(guī)劃并主張開(kāi)始探索其它的發(fā)展可能性。參加活動(dòng)的有建筑師、規(guī)劃師、其他領(lǐng)域的專(zhuān)家們、大學(xué)的激進(jìn)主義者以及非正規(guī)城市區(qū)域的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。來(lái)自圣奧斯汀的演講者們不僅言辭激烈地表達(dá)了他們的反對(duì)意見(jiàn)，同時(shí)也提出了具有說(shuō)服力的理由，展現(xiàn)了他們的博學(xué)、專(zhuān)業(yè)，這使得政府規(guī)劃師們感到震驚。演講者們?cè)诜磳?duì)政府規(guī)劃的同時(shí)清楚地表達(dá)了他們的訴求，其中包括：保護(hù)人行道為主的社區(qū)；進(jìn)行混合功能發(fā)展；擴(kuò)大公園，設(shè)計(jì)有吸引力的安全的街道空間；增加包括創(chuàng)業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)在內(nèi)的就業(yè)崗位；設(shè)立其它各種社區(qū)設(shè)施。

這是土地用地規(guī)劃與城市發(fā)展中的一個(gè)標(biāo)志性轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)：在此之前，從未有過(guò)一個(gè)“貧民窟”社區(qū)堅(jiān)持自我塑造未來(lái)發(fā)展的權(quán)利；也從未有過(guò)其它社區(qū)的利益相關(guān)者要求參與到?jīng)Q策階段。政府終于讓步了。

公交纜車(chē)與加拉加斯“正規(guī)”城市部分的已有公共交通系統(tǒng)相連，線路全長(zhǎng)2.1km，單個(gè)車(chē)廂可容納8名乘客。此前，哥倫比亞的麥德林市已經(jīng)試驗(yàn)過(guò)采用纜車(chē)作為日常交通工具，但是加拉加斯的公交纜車(chē)系統(tǒng)的車(chē)站將不僅僅承擔(dān)交通功能，還會(huì)是公共服務(wù)以及社區(qū)活動(dòng)的中心。

這個(gè)纜車(chē)系統(tǒng)每小時(shí)單向載客量可達(dá)1200人。整條線路共有5個(gè)站臺(tái)，其中2個(gè)在山谷中，并與城市已有的公共交通系統(tǒng)直接相連，其他3個(gè)則沿著山脊分布，保證非正規(guī)住宅區(qū)的可達(dá)性，與該區(qū)域已有的人行流線良好連接，并將施工的可持續(xù)性納入考慮以盡量避免拆除已有住宅?！酰钤?shī)雨 譯，本文原發(fā)表于魯比出版社2008年出版的 《城市運(yùn)輸》一書(shū)，由伊爾卡·魯比與安德烈亞斯·魯比編輯）

2 近景/Nearby view

3 剖面/Section

4 鳥(niǎo)瞰/Aerial view

5 夜景/Night views

6 夜景/Night views

7 整體計(jì)劃/Overall plan

項(xiàng)目信息/Credits and Data

客戶/Client: C.A. Metro Caracas / Oderbrecht

項(xiàng)目主持/Project Leads: Alfredo Brillembourg, Hubert Klumpner

項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)/Project Team: José Antonio Nunez, Carlos Bastidas, Alfredo Brillembourg, Patrick Edlinger, Elizabeth Florian, Cesar Gavidia, Dora Kelle, Hubert Klumpner, Rafael Machado, Claudia Ochoa, Regina Orvananos, Juan Ponce,Matt Tarczynski

調(diào)研、設(shè)計(jì)、展覽/Research, Design, Exhibition: Michael Contento, Lindsey Sherman

景觀建筑師/Landscape Architect: Topotek 1 – Martin Rein-Cano, Christian Bohne

平面設(shè)計(jì)/Graphic Design: Intégral Ruedi Baur & Associés -Ruedi Baur

社區(qū)宣傳/Community Outreach: Felix Caraballo

竣工時(shí)間/Completion: 2010

區(qū)域/Area: 2.1 km

預(yù)算/Budget: 240,000,000 USD

攝影/Photos: Iwan Baan(fig.1,4), Urban Think Tank(fig.2,5,6)

Caracas, Venezuela, is located some 1,000 metres above sea level, in a 20-kilometre-wide valley – a megalopolis of 800 square kilometres, home to nearly six million people. To the extent that the rest of the world knows Caracas, they associate it with Venezuela's staggering economic growth, its membership in OPEC,the machinations and manipulations of its leadership.That is one Caracas.

But Caracas is dual cities: one is a formal city of tall buildings, homes secured behind guarded gates, enormous wealth, and private transportation and the informal city,and the other an informal city, home to some one million families, sprawling to the east and covering an area four times larger than the city's metropolitan boundaries in the 1950s. Much of this informal city of densely packed, ramshackle structures clings to Caracas' steep mountainsides. Planned and built almost exclusively by the residents themselves, these barrios have no streets in the conventional sense, no paved roadways; people move around on foot, along pathways established by habit, and up and down steep stairs. To the extent that there is a transportation "system": it serves the pedestrians. Barriodwellers do not own cars.

In this climate, the Urban Think Tank (UTT)developed an innovative transport solution known as the Metro Cable. In July of 2003, UTT organised an informal,but very public, presentation and symposium at Caracas'central university to protest the government plan and begin the process of exploring alternatives. Attended by architects, planners, various other experts, university activists, and barrio leaders, the meeting stunned government planners: speakers from San Agustín were not only vehement in their objections, they were eloquent and well-informed. Rejecting the plan, they also articulated very specific demands, among them the preservation of a pedestrian-oriented community; mixed-use development;expanded parks, and attractive, safe streetscapes; sources of employment, including entrepreneurial opportunities;and various other community amenities.

This was a watershed moment in land-use planning and development: never before had a "slum" community asserted the right to shape its own future; never before had stake-holders demanded a role in the decisionmaking. The government backed down.

Integrated with Metro Systems of Caracas, the public transit system provided in the "formal" city,Caracas Metro Cable is 2.1km in length and employs gondolas that hold eight passengers each. The idea of a cable car transportation system has been tested in Barrios in Medellin, Colombia, but the Caracas cable Stations are planned to provide more than just transport but rather conceived as hubs for social services and other community activities.

The total capacity of the system allows 1,200 people to move per hour in each direction. Of its five stations,two are in the valley and connect directly with the existing public transit system; three additional stations are located along the mountain ridge as community accesses,established pedestrian circulation routes, and suitability for construction with minimal demolition of existing housing.□(A version of this text was originally featured in"Urban Transformations", Edited by Ilka & Andreas Ruby, Published by Ruby Press, 2008）

評(píng)論

周政旭：基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施與公共服務(wù)向低收入社區(qū)/低收入群體延伸是應(yīng)對(duì)貧困問(wèn)題的慣常選項(xiàng)之一，關(guān)鍵在于以何種方式進(jìn)入。加拉加斯公共纜車(chē)項(xiàng)目顯然采取了一種非常直接的方式，在保持異質(zhì)性并置的基礎(chǔ)上，架起了“正規(guī)城市”與“非正規(guī)城市”之間的溝通之橋，加強(qiáng)兩者之間的交通往來(lái)與生活文化交流。同時(shí)，也創(chuàng)造了鮮明的城市景觀，無(wú)論是從“看”與“被看”的角度。尤其是從轎廂中俯瞰兩種城市形態(tài)之時(shí)，當(dāng)更能體會(huì)設(shè)計(jì)師的匠心。

Comments

ZHOU Zhengxu: Extending the infrastructure and public services towards low-income community/lowincome group has been one of the common choices when fighting against poverty, but the key lies in how to extend. The project of Caracas Metrocable apparently adopts a very direct method. On the basis of retaining heterogeneity, it sets up a bridge of communication between a "formal city" and an "informal city", in order to enhance the transportation exchange and life and cultural communication between these two cities. In the meantime,it creates a distinctive urban landscape, no matter from the perspectives of "seeing" or "being seen". The intention of the designer is especially clear when overlooking the two urban forms from the metrocable in air.

鮑威：我們對(duì)纜車(chē)的認(rèn)識(shí)大都來(lái)自于景區(qū)或滑雪場(chǎng)，當(dāng)其作為城市公共交通的策略來(lái)為市民提供通勤服務(wù)時(shí)，似乎顯得有些怪誕。但對(duì)于加拉加斯這樣在地形上展開(kāi)的既有城市，卻顯得恰到好處：地形制高點(diǎn)與步行系統(tǒng)對(duì)接，在城市邊界與公共交通系統(tǒng)對(duì)接，成為簡(jiǎn)單有效的大眾運(yùn)輸工具。從建筑上來(lái)講，雖然最初的渲染圖似乎更加吸引人，但項(xiàng)目在城市層面上實(shí)現(xiàn)的意義已經(jīng)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)對(duì)建筑本身的討論。

BAO Wei: Most of our impressions about cable cars come from scenic areas or ski resort, so it looks strange when used as an urban public transport means to provide commuting service for citizens.However, it is in fact perfect for an existing city sprawling on the landform like Caracas: the high points of the land form connect with the pedestrian system, and the system is linked up with the public transport system at the city border, as a simple but efficient people mover. From an architectural perspective, though the initial renderings seem more attractive, the practical significance of the project on municipal level has been far beyond a discussion on the construction itself.