鄉(xiāng)村建筑師

摘 要 本文為關(guān)于建筑師及學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)參與當(dāng)代中國鄉(xiāng)村振興實踐的研究。根據(jù)“政策—現(xiàn)象—結(jié)果”的分析框架，本文研究了過去20年來鄉(xiāng)村振興政策對建筑實踐的綜合影響。這項工作基于對中國鄉(xiāng)村振興的長期論述，特別關(guān)注建筑實踐，以及學(xué)術(shù)界參與鄉(xiāng)村實踐的重新重視。通過分析現(xiàn)有的相關(guān)研究后，本文對鄉(xiāng)村振興的現(xiàn)象按照時間進(jìn)行分類，并將建筑實踐置于這一框架的核心位置。通過對鄉(xiāng)村振興框架下的鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)研究，分析提出了3個不同的時期：開創(chuàng)階段（1978—2003年）、成熟階段（2004—2021年）和鞏固階段（面向2049年）。成熟階段是本研究的核心，在這一階段，發(fā)現(xiàn)兩個主要軌跡：獨(dú)立的建筑實踐和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)對政策驅(qū)動的響應(yīng)。本文選取了這些軌跡中的3個代表進(jìn)行分析，分別是李曉東建筑實踐、清華大學(xué)鄉(xiāng)村振興中心的相關(guān)工作和DnA設(shè)計與建筑工作室的獨(dú)立實踐。

關(guān)鍵詞：鄉(xiāng)村振興；建筑師參與；機(jī)構(gòu)參與；中國鄉(xiāng)村

0 引 言

“A rural revival is needed to counter urbanization across the globe.”

“應(yīng)對全球范圍內(nèi)的城市化進(jìn)程需要鄉(xiāng)村振興”

——劉彥隨，李玉恒[1]

隨著世界對城市化和工業(yè)化的追求，農(nóng)村衰落成為當(dāng)代全球現(xiàn)象[2]。在全球化和城市化的框架下，鄉(xiāng)村和城市的進(jìn)步與提升呈現(xiàn)出繁榮與爭議并存的雙重性[3]。像中國這樣一個國家，約880 萬km2 [4] 的鄉(xiāng)村土地是其文明的基礎(chǔ)，占可利用土地的 92%，這種規(guī)模的鄉(xiāng)村轉(zhuǎn)變不容忽視。

在中國的過去30 年中，通過研究城鄉(xiāng)比可以看出城市化進(jìn)程的影響，以及人口由鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)向城市中心的大規(guī)模遷移。根據(jù)城鄉(xiāng)居住總?cè)丝冢袊y(tǒng)計年鑒報告稱，2023 年鄉(xiāng)村人口約占總?cè)丝诘?5%[5]，與2001 年的64% 相比有顯著下降[6]。觀察1949—2012 年的城市化率，從10.6% 增加到52.6%[7]，這一變化趨勢更加明顯。過去幾十年，中國城市化進(jìn)程和大規(guī)模基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)無疑吸引了全球關(guān)注。與此同時，中國政府對鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)進(jìn)行了重新定義，盡管其在全球范圍的知名度較低[8]。過去40 年的改革開放和快速城市發(fā)展極大改變了城鄉(xiāng)關(guān)系，而在過去的20 年中，鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)已從輔助角色和后備力量轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閰^(qū)域發(fā)展中的重要組成部分和主要載體。因此，在過去的20 年中，重新考慮鄉(xiāng)村發(fā)展和復(fù)興策略，似乎是一個緊迫的全球性挑戰(zhàn)，在國際討論中具有重要的現(xiàn)實意義。鄉(xiāng)村的發(fā)展面貌已經(jīng)從促進(jìn)城市化和工業(yè)化過渡到全面的城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃和綜合措施管理[9]，鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展再次受到關(guān)注。

在中國，設(shè)計和規(guī)劃學(xué)科在重塑鄉(xiāng)村面貌方面的重要性已得到認(rèn)可，特別是在有爭議的城鄉(xiāng)二元結(jié)構(gòu)中，近期的工作重點是振興鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐。目前，中國農(nóng)村面臨著三個主要問題：農(nóng)業(yè)問題、農(nóng)村問題和農(nóng)民問題（三農(nóng)問題）[10]。這些問題促進(jìn)政策上的回應(yīng)，推動和諧發(fā)展，這類政策旨在通過多學(xué)科合作的方法，促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新方法的運(yùn)用，以振興鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐。為實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)，近年來中國出臺了一系列戰(zhàn)略，逐漸將重點從城市中心轉(zhuǎn)向了“隱形的中國”。

從過去幾年重新關(guān)注鄉(xiāng)村背后的經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治原因，到在全國不同地區(qū)實施鄉(xiāng)村振興的政策和方法工具，不同學(xué)科的學(xué)者從不同角度對鄉(xiāng)村振興進(jìn)行了研究。然而，很少有文章和研究關(guān)注鄉(xiāng)村振興與政策實施之間的直接關(guān)系，以及中國鄉(xiāng)村振興政策對鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐的影響。因此，本研究旨在提供一個新的視角，考察過去20 年來鄉(xiāng)村振興政策對建筑實踐的綜合影響，重點關(guān)注建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)在這一過程中的參與情況。為此，本文在“政策—現(xiàn)象—效應(yīng)”的框架內(nèi)提出了一種分析方法，用于剖析政策影響的復(fù)雜層次、由此產(chǎn)生的鄉(xiāng)村振興現(xiàn)象，以及對建筑實踐的后續(xù)影響。中國的建筑師們展現(xiàn)出豐富的專業(yè)知識，探索了各種方法論，挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)做法，并對一些根深蒂固的觀念進(jìn)行批判性評估。從利用當(dāng)?shù)夭牧虾蛡鹘y(tǒng)建筑技術(shù)，到與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)共同參與設(shè)計，建筑師的實踐涵蓋了一系列方法。重新考慮鄉(xiāng)村的發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略是一項緊迫的全球性挑戰(zhàn)，在過去幾十年里，它在國際上引起了很大的關(guān)注，成為政府、學(xué)者和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)研究的熱點0。

1 當(dāng)代中國的鄉(xiāng)村振興概況

1.1 中國鄉(xiāng)村振興介紹

關(guān)于鄉(xiāng)村振興，2017 年10 月18 日至24 日，中國共產(chǎn)黨第十九次全國代表大會1 的順利召開，標(biāo)志著鄉(xiāng)村振興的概念首次上升到國家戰(zhàn)略層面[11]，也標(biāo)志著中國農(nóng)村的發(fā)展歷程進(jìn)入了一個開創(chuàng)性的時期。實施鄉(xiāng)村振興策略，是堅持農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村優(yōu)先發(fā)展，實現(xiàn)農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村現(xiàn)代化的總目標(biāo)，制定和完善促進(jìn)城鄉(xiāng)融合發(fā)展的框架、機(jī)制和政策體系的重要途徑[9]。鄉(xiāng)村振興可以被視為鄉(xiāng)村發(fā)展的第二階段，從追求數(shù)量轉(zhuǎn)向提升質(zhì)量，并被認(rèn)為對國家的全面復(fù)興至關(guān)重要[12]。中國共產(chǎn)黨第十九次全國代表大會后，黨中央以全面推進(jìn)鄉(xiāng)村振興為總目標(biāo)，明確提出了農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村優(yōu)先發(fā)展的重大戰(zhàn)略舉措。縮小城鄉(xiāng)社會經(jīng)濟(jì)差距，通過多層次目標(biāo)體系實現(xiàn)城鄉(xiāng)一體化，是實現(xiàn)中國鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略的首要途徑[13]。中國鄉(xiāng)村振興的本質(zhì)在于加速農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)村發(fā)展的現(xiàn)代化，涵蓋5 個核心領(lǐng)域：企業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展、宜居的生活環(huán)境、社會禮儀與文明、治理有效和生活富裕[14]。

盡管中國政府對鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)的關(guān)注自2017 年以來明顯加大，但對鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)的關(guān)注不是最近才出現(xiàn)的現(xiàn)象。自中華人民共和國成立以來，有關(guān)鄉(xiāng)村的政策一直在不斷完善，與經(jīng)濟(jì)社會共同發(fā)展[15]。自21 世紀(jì)初以來，在鄉(xiāng)村現(xiàn)代化的旗幟下，許多計劃得到了推進(jìn)2。在第十個五年計劃期間，政府的經(jīng)濟(jì)戰(zhàn)略將修訂農(nóng)村發(fā)展政策作為核心內(nèi)容[16]。在“十五”計劃即將結(jié)束之際，繼農(nóng)村發(fā)展政策之后，2005 年年底，中國共產(chǎn)黨在第十六屆中央委員會第五次全體會議中，在國家層面提出建設(shè)“社會主義新農(nóng)村”的重大歷史任務(wù)，將社會主義新農(nóng)村建設(shè)放在經(jīng)濟(jì)社會發(fā)展工作的首位，并列為具體實施和實踐的首要任務(wù)[17]。在該政策全國廣泛實施之前，贛州在2004 年9 月開展了社會主義新農(nóng)村建設(shè)，是中國第一個開展社會主義新農(nóng)村建設(shè)的地級市，這一政策被稱為“贛州模式”[18]。隨后，全國人民代表大會于 2006 年 3 月正式批準(zhǔn)了這一政策[19]?！稗r(nóng)村綜合改革要求我們圍繞城鄉(xiāng)一體化發(fā)展新格局，構(gòu)建鼓勵工業(yè)和城市帶動農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)村發(fā)展的體制和機(jī)制”3 [20]。根據(jù)這一政策，2004—2005 年期間，中國政府關(guān)于廢除農(nóng)業(yè)稅的工作開始啟動。2004 年，中國政府宣布將農(nóng)業(yè)稅降低1%，并在5 年內(nèi)全面取消農(nóng)業(yè)稅[21]。自1949 年以來，農(nóng)業(yè)稅在支持國家工業(yè)化進(jìn)程中發(fā)揮了重要作用[22]。2006 年1 月1 日，全國各省正式取消了農(nóng)業(yè)稅。這是農(nóng)村角色轉(zhuǎn)變的關(guān)鍵時期：從支持城市化和城市地區(qū)工業(yè)化的發(fā)展，到成為國家整體發(fā)展的重要組成部分。

1.2 2013—2021： 鄉(xiāng)村振興是農(nóng)村政策的核心重點

鄉(xiāng)村振興政策是以往脫貧計劃的延續(xù)[23]，可視為鄉(xiāng)村振興的前提條件[24]。2013 年，中國政府以“黨中央一號文件”提出了建設(shè)美麗鄉(xiāng)村的目標(biāo)，重點關(guān)注農(nóng)村地區(qū)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展[17]。同年，中華人民共和國農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部啟動了“美麗鄉(xiāng)村”政府倡議，選擇1000 個村莊作為試點[25]。這一舉措的實施是一項重大成就，引起了公眾的極大關(guān)注[26]。正如前文提到的，中國共產(chǎn)黨第十九次全國代表大會的順利召開，以及在此背景下宣布的“國家鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略”，標(biāo)志著中國鄉(xiāng)村發(fā)展道路上的一個轉(zhuǎn)折點。事實上，鄉(xiāng)村振興開始主導(dǎo)當(dāng)年的政策，并成為有關(guān)鄉(xiāng)村的核心話題。同年，中央農(nóng)村工作會議于12月28 日至29 日在北京召開，會上提出了全面振興鄉(xiāng)村的計劃，勾勒出鄉(xiāng)村振興藍(lán)圖，并規(guī)劃了來年的發(fā)展計劃。2018 年，在十九大指明方向后，中國政府發(fā)布了中共中央、國務(wù)院印發(fā)的《鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃（2018—2022 年）》”。2021 年是中國共產(chǎn)黨成立100 周年，這一重要時刻標(biāo)志著宣布實現(xiàn)近年來設(shè)定的各項目標(biāo)的關(guān)鍵節(jié)點。其中，扶貧工作在2017 年至2021年經(jīng)歷了“最后沖刺”階段，并于2021 年被正式宣布徹底消除貧困。自1978 年以來，已有超過7.7 億人擺脫貧困[27]。同年，中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務(wù)委員會頒布了《中華人民共和國鄉(xiāng)村振興促進(jìn)法》4，為全面實施鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略，促進(jìn)農(nóng)業(yè)、農(nóng)村、農(nóng)民全面進(jìn)步，加快推進(jìn)農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村現(xiàn)代化提供了堅實的法治保障。2021 年，國家鄉(xiāng)村振興局成立，取代國務(wù)院扶貧辦。

回顧關(guān)于鄉(xiāng)村的學(xué)術(shù)研究，近幾十年來，隨著國內(nèi)外學(xué)術(shù)界對鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)及其轉(zhuǎn)型的研究表現(xiàn)出濃厚的興趣，討論的重點逐漸轉(zhuǎn)向鄉(xiāng)村。學(xué)術(shù)界對鄉(xiāng)村的關(guān)注延伸到鄉(xiāng)村振興實踐這一新興領(lǐng)域，該領(lǐng)域近年來得到了顯著的擴(kuò)展。劉冷、曹聰杰和宋偉于2023 年， 對1991 —2021 年間發(fā)表的有關(guān)鄉(xiāng)村振興的現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行了研究，研究顯示，在分析的時間范圍內(nèi)，有3000 多名學(xué)者在鄉(xiāng)村振興領(lǐng)域發(fā)表了文章，其中 發(fā)表的文章集中2017—2021 年間，作者將這一時期定義為高產(chǎn)期[28]。當(dāng)前的研究不再僅僅關(guān)注城鄉(xiāng)二元對立，而是涵蓋了旨在促進(jìn)農(nóng)村地區(qū)和諧與可持續(xù)發(fā)展的更廣泛政策。然而，主要的研究領(lǐng)域通常集中在土地使用政策與管理、地理學(xué)、可持續(xù)發(fā)展，以及管理實施等主題上。值得注意的是，學(xué)術(shù)界對這些政策帶來的建筑方面的影響缺乏關(guān)注。如下文闡述的，鄉(xiāng)村振興與鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐的相互聯(lián)系是一個重要的研究領(lǐng)域，值得更深入研究。從圖1 中可以看出，建筑師參與鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐的趨勢與針對鄉(xiāng)村發(fā)展的政策逐步推進(jìn)有著密切關(guān)系。

2 建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)參與鄉(xiāng)村振興：3 個階段

中國政府實施的鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略，代表了最新一系列致力于農(nóng)村發(fā)展的政策[29]。中國發(fā)展研究基金會 （CDRF）5 根據(jù)政策變遷，將農(nóng)村工作細(xì)分為3 個階段：20 世紀(jì)80 年代的“激活”政策、20 世紀(jì)90 年代的“ 穩(wěn)定” 政策和自2000 年年初起的“回饋農(nóng)村”政策[30]。本研究將分析視角從政策驅(qū)動的年代細(xì)分，轉(zhuǎn)向鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐驅(qū)動的框架，提出一種與以往學(xué)者討論框架略有不同的年代劃分（圖2），以建筑實踐的時間線為核心。本研究側(cè)重于分析建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)在鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)開展的工作，旨在理解導(dǎo)致不同時期之間轉(zhuǎn)變的背景和政策。本文通過系統(tǒng)研究建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)在鄉(xiāng)村振興框架下的鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐，將其分為3 個階段（圖3）：開創(chuàng)階段（1978—2003 年）、成熟階段（2004—2021 年）和鞏固階段（2021—2049 年）。

2.1 開創(chuàng)階段1978—2003 年

從20 世紀(jì)80 年代末開始，學(xué)術(shù)界對鄉(xiāng)村的關(guān)注主要涉及鄉(xiāng)土建筑的遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)。在陳志華教授的指導(dǎo)下，1993 年成立了清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院的鄉(xiāng)土建筑研究所，致力于中國鄉(xiāng)土建筑的研究。該課題組繼承了梁思成、林徽因等學(xué)者注重傳統(tǒng)建筑保護(hù)的傳統(tǒng)，廣泛考察了鄉(xiāng)土建筑的歷史、文化和地方特色。2023 年12 月，在鄉(xiāng)土建筑研究所成立30 周年之際，“從鄉(xiāng)土遺產(chǎn)到鄉(xiāng)村振興”學(xué)術(shù)研討會在清華大學(xué)召開。會議討論的重點從主要解決遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)問題過渡到改造現(xiàn)有建筑和建造新建筑。

2.2 成熟階段2004—2021 年

成熟階段是本研究的重點。從2004 年“社會主義新農(nóng)村“計劃開始，到2021 年中國共產(chǎn)黨成立100 周年之際，“鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略”和“扶貧攻堅戰(zhàn)”取得重大進(jìn)展。這一時期 通過創(chuàng)建社會主義新農(nóng)村，把主要投向城市的公共資源更多地投向農(nóng)村[31]。在此期間，農(nóng)村地區(qū)的建筑項目顯著增加，主要有兩種軌跡：第一條軌跡被稱為獨(dú)立實踐，時間跨度約為2004 —2011/2013 年，在此期間，城市規(guī)劃者也參與了農(nóng)村地區(qū)初級基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的建設(shè)；第二條軌跡被稱為政策驅(qū)動實踐，時間跨度為2013—2021 年，在這一時期，可以觀察到建筑師對鄉(xiāng)村振興政策的響應(yīng)，特別是2013 年制定的“美麗鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)”政策，以及2017 年出臺的“鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略”的進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。這一時期建筑師開始大量參與鄉(xiāng)村項目，導(dǎo)致此類工作大幅增加。政策驅(qū)動的軌跡引發(fā)了兩種截然不同的回應(yīng)：一方面是獨(dú)立建筑實踐的回應(yīng)；另一方面是學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)對這一現(xiàn)象的回應(yīng)。

2.3 鞏固階段面向2049 年

2049 年是中華人民共和國建國100 周年，這對中國來說具有里程碑式的意義。考慮2049年的特殊意義，這一階段設(shè)定了未來20 年內(nèi)政策對鄉(xiāng)村振興的持續(xù)推動，將鄉(xiāng)村振興的道路設(shè)定為一個漸進(jìn)過程，與到2049 年建設(shè)成為富強(qiáng)民主文明和諧的社會主義現(xiàn)代化國家的總體目標(biāo)相一致[32]。實現(xiàn)鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)的全面振興[33]。

3 建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)參與鄉(xiāng)村振興：2004—2021 年，成熟階段

成熟階段構(gòu)成了本研究的核心焦點。建筑師的工作仍然是鄉(xiāng)村振興最具體的產(chǎn)出之一，豐富或改變了農(nóng)村景觀[25]。作者對過去20 年在中國農(nóng)村地區(qū)實踐的建筑師進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)分析，通過分析2000 —2022 年谷徳平臺6 上發(fā)布的近300 個項目7，以“中國鄉(xiāng)村重建”為主題詞進(jìn)行了篩選。選擇該平臺進(jìn)行研究的原因：這是一個建筑領(lǐng)域的著名網(wǎng)站，以其在該領(lǐng)域的權(quán)威性和涵蓋不同規(guī)模的建筑項目而聞名。在對過去20 年內(nèi)以鄉(xiāng)村振興為重點的政策進(jìn)行初步研究之后，作者對項目研究中獲得的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行了交叉對比，揭示了鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐與政策實施之間的相關(guān)性。從2015 年開始，與鄉(xiāng)村振興政策一致的鄉(xiāng)村項目（圖4，圖5）急劇增加（圖6）， 并在2018—2019 年期間達(dá)到頂峰。在2018— 2019 年期間達(dá)到頂峰是意料之中的，這顯然遵循了前文的推理：在2017 年提出鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略后，鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐迅速增加。此外，該分析在支持最初假設(shè)方面至關(guān)重要，即從2015年開始，很大一部分項目主要由地方政府委托進(jìn)行（圖 7），從而驗證了過去10 年政策驅(qū)動的軌跡。

通過分析建筑生產(chǎn)，可以確定兩條主要軌跡：第一條軌跡，作者稱之為獨(dú)立實踐，大約從2004 年持續(xù)到2011—2013 年，該階段見證了獨(dú)立建筑師在農(nóng)村地區(qū)承擔(dān)單一任務(wù)的建筑實踐，明確的案例包括李曉東早期在農(nóng)村的項目（2003 年的玉湖小學(xué)，2009 年福建省的橋上小學(xué)，2011 年交界河村的籬苑書屋），以及鄉(xiāng)村城市框架的項目（2006 年的秦磨村，2011 年懷集縣的木蘭小學(xué)，2012 年陜西的嶺子底村便民橋，2012 年的同江村循環(huán)再用磚學(xué)校等）。在這一階段早期，即建筑師下鄉(xiāng)浪潮之前，規(guī)劃師參與了農(nóng)村地區(qū)的初級基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、道路系統(tǒng)和一些公共設(shè)施的建設(shè)，并設(shè)立了試點項目，這些項目的范例隨后在全國范圍內(nèi)推廣。此趨勢的代表性案例是位于北京城市擴(kuò)張區(qū)的試點項目，由張悅8、倪鋒9 所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的團(tuán)隊在順義區(qū)實施，該項目獲得2008 年亞太區(qū)豪瑞10 金獎，以及次年的全球豪瑞銅獎。第二條軌跡被稱為政策驅(qū)動的實踐，包涵2013—2021 年時期。在此時期，建筑領(lǐng)域?qū)︵l(xiāng)村振興政策作出了回應(yīng)。建筑師們開始大規(guī)模參與鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐，導(dǎo)致此類項目顯著增加。政策驅(qū)動的軌跡引發(fā)了兩種截然不同的響應(yīng)：一方面是獨(dú)立建筑實踐的回應(yīng)，表現(xiàn)為政府委托數(shù)量的不斷增加；另一方面是學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)對這一現(xiàn)象的回應(yīng)。

伴隨著國家政策發(fā)展的軌跡，實施鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略的學(xué)術(shù)響應(yīng)是一個值得注意的現(xiàn)象。實際上，自2017 年起，各大高校在鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐中的逐步參與便已顯現(xiàn)。在這一實踐中，清華大學(xué)屬于先鋒之一，該校于2017 年10 月，響應(yīng)全國代表大會的號召，設(shè)立了鄉(xiāng)村振興中心，作為與地方政府合作，在全國不同省份建立工作站的模范。2021 年2 月23 日，中共中央辦公廳、國務(wù)院辦公廳印發(fā)了《關(guān)于加快推進(jìn)鄉(xiāng)村人才振興的意見》，2022 年又印發(fā)了《鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)行動實施方案》，將鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)作為實施鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略的重要任務(wù)和國家現(xiàn)代化建設(shè)的重要組成部分[34]。2021 年12 月，由清華大學(xué)發(fā)起，19 所高校成立了“鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)高校聯(lián)盟”，該聯(lián)盟作為高校共同助力鄉(xiāng)村振興、發(fā)展和服務(wù)鄉(xiāng)村現(xiàn)代化的合作機(jī)制，吸引了更多高校參與鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)[35]。繼上述行動之后，2022 年9 月7 日，由國家鄉(xiāng)村振興局與清華大學(xué)共同推動的“百校百縣千村”行動開始啟動，鼓勵各大高校積極參與鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)和鄉(xiāng)村振興[36-37]。

在對參與這一過程的建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行全面概述之后，本研究將重點工作放在這些軌跡的3 個相關(guān)代表上。李曉東的建筑實踐是鄉(xiāng)村項目的先鋒力量，體現(xiàn)了過去20 年中最早的鄉(xiāng)村獨(dú)立實踐。在政策驅(qū)動的軌跡中，清華大學(xué)鄉(xiāng)村振興中心被評選為響應(yīng)政策實施范例最具代表性的機(jī)構(gòu)，而 DnA 設(shè)計與建筑工作室的實踐則被評選為獨(dú)立政策驅(qū)動實踐的典范。

3.1 獨(dú)立實踐： 李曉東的建筑實踐

中國鄉(xiāng)村自發(fā)項目的先鋒無疑是李曉東。李曉東（1963 年生于北京）于1984 年畢業(yè)于清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院，并于1989 年至1993 年在荷蘭代爾夫特理工大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院獲得博士學(xué)位。他的實踐主要集中在小規(guī)模的項目上，對場地有很強(qiáng)的整體性，將當(dāng)代建筑與地域文化融為一體。李曉東在2000 年年初開始下鄉(xiāng)實踐時，中國建筑界主要是由開發(fā)商設(shè)計和建造的大型城市項目。與城市建筑行業(yè)的高約束相比，鄉(xiāng)村項目幾乎沒有太多限制，為獨(dú)立建筑師提供了在小型項目中進(jìn)行實踐的機(jī)會。他完成的第一個項目象征著對鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)重新關(guān)注的開始，即麗江玉湖小學(xué)擴(kuò)建項目11。該項目位于海拔接近2800 米的云南麗江玉湖村，該區(qū)域自1997年12 月起被列為世界文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)區(qū)12。當(dāng)時，村里的小學(xué)于2001 年剛剛建立，但由于無法滿足教育需求，急需擴(kuò)建。李曉東的鄉(xiāng)村建筑實踐一直持續(xù)到2011 年，之后他將實踐方向轉(zhuǎn)向了城市。2009 年，福建省下石村的橋上小學(xué)，不僅在設(shè)計方面，而且在類型學(xué)方面都實現(xiàn)了突破：它是第一座將學(xué)校和橋梁的類型學(xué)結(jié)合在一起的建筑。該建筑長28m，寬8.5m，突破了連接溪流兩岸的傳統(tǒng)橋梁類型和場地內(nèi)現(xiàn)有的土地類型。李曉東將實踐注意力轉(zhuǎn)移到城市前，在農(nóng)村完成的最后一個項目是籬苑書屋。該項目位于北京市懷柔區(qū)的交界河村，建于2011 年，是第一個在鄉(xiāng)村建造的圖書館，之后又有許多項目沿用了這一類型。李曉東在鄉(xiāng)村的建筑實踐獲得了國際認(rèn)可，并贏得了眾多獎項。

3.2 政策驅(qū)動實踐

3.2.1 學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)回應(yīng)：清華大學(xué)與鄉(xiāng)村振興中心

清華大學(xué)無疑是學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)參與鄉(xiāng)村振興實踐的先行者。2017 年10 月，伴隨著國家政策發(fā)展的趨勢，響應(yīng)黨的十九大提出的“鄉(xiāng)村振興戰(zhàn)略”號召，清華大學(xué)成立了鄉(xiāng)村振興中心。鄉(xiāng)村振興中心最初由清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院發(fā)起，7 年來，在校黨委的指導(dǎo)下，在清華大學(xué)校黨委和團(tuán)委的支持下，多部門合作開展項目。鄉(xiāng)村振興中心共組織了460 多個團(tuán)隊，由來自200 多所高校100 多個學(xué)科的7000 多名師生組成[38]。在選定的鄉(xiāng)村建立工作站，為學(xué)生在鄉(xiāng)村建立永久性基地，倡導(dǎo)“以實踐為基礎(chǔ)”的校地合作實踐育人模式，為社會實踐提供新的可能。每年寒暑假，來自不同院系和眾多附屬大學(xué)的學(xué)生都有機(jī)會到偏遠(yuǎn)的鄉(xiāng)村去，貢獻(xiàn)他們在不同領(lǐng)域的知識和專長。

3.2.2 獨(dú)立實踐回應(yīng)：DnA 設(shè)計與建筑工作室

徐甜甜于2004 年在北京創(chuàng)建的DnA 設(shè)計與建筑工作室，無疑是當(dāng)代中國在鄉(xiāng)村振興領(lǐng)域最具影響力和國際知名度的工作室之一。與中國各大城市因快速城市化而趨于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的建筑景觀不同，DnA 設(shè)計與建筑工作室的設(shè)計方法將注意力重新轉(zhuǎn)移到對當(dāng)?shù)夭牧?、資源和技術(shù)的利用上，包括采用傳統(tǒng)的手工建造方法，這些方法往往被城市中心典型的快速發(fā)展所邊緣化?？v觀該事務(wù)所2015—2022 年的建筑作品，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)大部分項目都集中在浙江省西南部，麗水市下轄的松陽縣。該地區(qū)被定義為“最后的江南秘境\"， 松陽縣全面保留了70 個傳統(tǒng)村落，探索以文化為引領(lǐng)的鄉(xiāng)村復(fù)興路徑[39]。徐甜甜在該地區(qū)實施了約20 個項目，通過小規(guī)模的干預(yù)，使鄉(xiāng)村重建超越了單一的建筑設(shè)計，促進(jìn)該地區(qū)的多尺度增長。徐甜甜的方法很明確：將建筑針灸作為一種可持續(xù)的鄉(xiāng)村戰(zhàn)略。通過最小干預(yù)的設(shè)計，將公共項目引入村莊，每個項目都尊重文化遺產(chǎn)和文脈[40]。對該地區(qū)各種項目背后的客戶進(jìn)行研究后發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些項目主要由地方政府委托實施。這一觀察結(jié)果證明了最初的假設(shè)，即在鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)開展的項目增加與為鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)制定的振興政策之間存在聯(lián)系。

4 結(jié) 語

總之，鄉(xiāng)村振興在當(dāng)代中國扮演著舉足輕重的角色，包括建筑范圍的學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)和獨(dú)立實踐。近期的研究主要關(guān)注政策框架，忽視了這些轉(zhuǎn)型對建筑環(huán)境的影響。本研究強(qiáng)調(diào)了過去二十年來建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)在中國鄉(xiāng)村所扮演的角色，旨在豐富當(dāng)前關(guān)于鄉(xiāng)村振興的討論，同時提出了以建筑實踐為重點的時期劃分。研究建議按時間順序劃分為開創(chuàng)階段、成熟階段和鞏固階段，有助于人們對這些實踐的演變和影響有更細(xì)致的理解。通過考察李曉東、清華大學(xué)鄉(xiāng)村振興中心、DnA 設(shè)計與建筑工作室等實踐案例，本研究證實了建筑在促進(jìn)鄉(xiāng)村振興方面所走過的多樣化但又趨同的道路。

注釋

0 文章《鄉(xiāng)村建筑師 ：建筑師及學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)參與中國鄉(xiāng)村振興的分析》是作者博士論文（2020 年至今）其中一章的改編。該博士論文研究基于“全球化的跨國建筑模式”的聯(lián)合博士課程框架。該聯(lián)合博士課程為都靈理工大學(xué)的歷史與項目和清華大學(xué)的建筑、城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃和景觀設(shè)計。

本文提出的時期劃分提供了一個總體框架，旨在說明中國農(nóng)村建筑實踐的總體趨勢。然而，我們必須承認(rèn)這種時期劃分的局限性。在所分析的時間段內(nèi)，中國各地區(qū)的社會經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展并不平衡，導(dǎo)致不同地區(qū)的鄉(xiāng)村發(fā)展程度存在顯著差異。由于中國地域廣闊，各地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展水平參差不齊，根據(jù)具體情況和地區(qū)的不同，建議的時期劃分起止日期可能存在較大差異。因此，在這一時期劃分中提出的日期應(yīng)被視為總體趨勢的指示性日期，而不能被解釋為絕對的截止日期。

The article “The Countryside Architect： An Analysisof Architects and Academic Institutions Involved inChina’s Rural Revitalization” represents the adaptationof one of the chapters of the Author’s Ph.D. thesis（2020 – ongoing）. The Ph.D. research is conducted inthe framework of the Joint Ph.D. curriculum named“Transnational Architectural Models in a GlobalizedWorld” within the framework of the Doctoral Program inArchitecture. History and Project at Politecnico di Torinoand the Doctoral Program in Architecture， Urban andRural Planning， and Landscape Architecture at TsinghuaUniversity in Beijing.

The periodization proposed in this article， as presented，provides a general framework aimed at illustrating theoverall trends in architectural practices in rural China.However， it is important to acknowledge the limitationsof this proposed periodization. The social and economicdevelopment across different regions of China was unevenduring the analyzed timeframe， resulting in significantdifferences in the degree of rural development acrossdifferent areas. Given the vastness of the country and thevarying levels of economic development across regions，the indicative starting and ending dates of the proposedperiodization might differ considerably depending on thespecific context and regions. The dates proposed in thisperiodization should， therefore， be regarded as indicativeof an overall trend， with the end date， which is not to beinterpreted as absolute.

1 2017 年10 月18 日至24 日，中國共產(chǎn)黨第十九次全國代表大會在北京召開。

The 19th Party Congress was held in Beijing fromOctober 18–24， 2017.

2 21 世紀(jì)初以來，頒布或?qū)嵤┑呐c鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)相關(guān)的政策數(shù)量龐大。由于作者不具備對其進(jìn)行詳盡分析的學(xué)術(shù)背景，因此該部分僅代表作者認(rèn)為與研究背景相關(guān)的政策，特別是對建筑師和學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)參與鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)相關(guān)的政策。

or implemented since the beginning of the 21st centuryare numerous. Since the author does not possess theacademic background to analyze them exhaustively， thisparagraph reports those that the author considers relevantto the initial hypothesis and specifically related to theeffect of the policies on the involvement of architects andacademic institutions in building the countryside.

3《中國浙江：發(fā)展新愿景》收錄了習(xí)近平 2003 —2007 年為浙江日報“中國浙江：發(fā)展新愿景”專欄撰寫的232 篇文章。該文集已由外文出版社以多種語言出版。

The volume “Zhejiang， China： A New Vision forDevelopment” collects the 232 essays written by XiJinping for the column “Zhejiang， China： A New Visionfor Development” of Zhejiang Daily between 2003 and2007. The collection of essays has been published by Foreign Languages Press in multiple languages.

4 2021 年4 月29 日第十三屆全國人民代表大會常務(wù)委員會第二十八次會議通過，自2021 年6 月1 日起施行。

Adopted at the 28th Meeting of the Standing Committeeof the Thirteenth National People’s Congress on April29th， 2021， and came into effect on Jun. 1st， 2021.

5 中國發(fā)展研究基金會（CDRF）注冊于 1997 年，是由國務(wù)院發(fā)展研究中心（DRC）發(fā)起成立的公募基金會。

Registered in 1997， The China Development ResearchFoundation （CDRF） is a public foundation initiated bythe Development Research Center of the State Council（DRC）.

6 作者承認(rèn)這項研究具有一定片面性，但它在提供了足夠廣泛的統(tǒng)計樣本（分析了 300 多個項目），以闡明過去20 年農(nóng)村地區(qū)建筑實踐的主要趨勢和在發(fā)展軌跡方面的作用。作者提供的圖紙可能存在誤差。

The author acknowledges the study’s partiality whilerecognizing its utility in providing a sufficiently extensivestatistical sample （with almost 300 projects analyzed） toelucidate key trends and the trajectory of architecturalpractices in rural areas over the past two decades.Accidental inaccuracies in the drawings provided by theauthor may occur.

7 gooood 是一家在建筑、景觀設(shè)計、室內(nèi)設(shè)計和藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域具有影響力的在線雜志，總部位于北京。它是建筑領(lǐng)域訪問量最高的網(wǎng)站之一，在中國排名第一（全球建筑類網(wǎng)站排名前三，位居中國和亞洲建筑網(wǎng)站榜首）。說明來自官方網(wǎng)站https：//www.gooood.cn/aboutus。

gooood is an influential online magazine in the field ofarchitecture， landscape， design， interior design， and art.Based in Beijing， gooood is a top-ranked website in thefield of Architecture which has the highest traffic in China（one of the top 3 architecture sites in the world; 1st rankin top architecture sites in both China and Asia）. Officialwebsite. https：//www.gooood.cn/aboutus.

8 張悅教授現(xiàn)任清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院城市規(guī)劃系副主任。他于2003 年獲得清華大學(xué)城市規(guī)劃與設(shè)計專業(yè)博士學(xué)位。張悅教授曾獲得2009 年全球豪瑞銅獎和2008 年亞太地區(qū)豪瑞金獎，獲獎項目為中國北京的農(nóng)村社區(qū)可持續(xù)規(guī)劃。他還憑借“最小化最大化：中國北京白塔寺城市更新”項目獲得了2017 年豪瑞獎。

Professor Zhang Yue is Professor amp; Vice Chair of theDepartment of Urban Planning at the School of Architecture，Tsinghua University， in Beijing， China. He obtained hisPhD in 2003 in Urban Planning and Design at TsinghuaUniversity. Professor Zhang Yue was the winner of theGlobal Holcim Awards Bronze 2009 and Holcim AwardsGold 2008 Asia Pacific for Sustainable planning for arural community， in Beijing， China. He also won a HolcimAwards Acknowledgement in 2017 for Maximize theMinimum： Baitasi urban regeneration in Beijing， China.

9 倪鋒，北京市城市規(guī)劃委員會。

Feng Ni， Beijing Municipal Commission of UrbanPlanning.

10 豪瑞獎是一項國際競賽獎項，旨在表彰和推廣可持續(xù)建筑和設(shè)計方面的創(chuàng)新項目和理念。該獎項由豪瑞可持續(xù)建筑基金會主辦。

The Holcim Award is an international competition thatrecognizes and promotes innovative projects and conceptsin sustainable construction and design. It is organized bythe Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction.

11 玉湖小學(xué)和社區(qū)中心是新加坡國立大學(xué)設(shè)計與環(huán)境學(xué)院建筑系的研究與設(shè)計項目，時間為2002 至2004 年， 項目團(tuán)隊包括： 李曉東博士、Lim Guanxiong 博士， Yeo Kang Shua， Cheong Kenghua。

The Yuhu Primary School and Community Center isa research and design project by the Department ofArchitecture， School of Design and Environment.National University of Singapore 2002-2004.Project team： Dr Li Xiaodong， Dr Lim Guan Tiong， YeoKang Shua， Chong Keng Hua.

12 麗江古城于 1997 年被列入聯(lián)合國教科文組織遺產(chǎn)名錄。

The old town of Lijiang was inscribed in the UNESCOheritage sites in 1997.

參考文獻(xiàn)

References

[1] LIU Y S， LI Y H. Revitalize the world’s countryside[J].Nature， 2017， 548（7667）： 275-277.

[2] LI Y H， YAN J Y， SONG C Y. Rural revitalizationand sustainable development： typical case analysis and itsenlightenments[J]. Geographical Research， 2019， 38（3）：595-604.

[3] ZHANG X， Li X. Rural Futures： Challenges andOpportunities in Contemporary China[M]//Li X， Mo W，Rebecca Gros. Building a future countryside. New York：The Images Publishing Group / ACC Art Books， 2018.

[4] World Bank Open Data. World Bank open data[EB/OL].[2024-02-22]. https：//data.worldbank.org.

[5] National Bureau of Statistics. China statistical yearbook2023[M]. Beijing： China Statistical Publishing House， 2023.

[6] National Bureau of Statistics. China statistical yearbook2001[M]. Beijing： China Statistical Publishing House， 2001.

[7] LI Y H， WESTLUND H， ZHENG X Y， et al. Bottomupinitiatives and revival in the face of rural decline： casestudies from China and Sweden[J]. Journal of Rural Studies，2016， 47： 506-513.

[8] PETERMAN S. Villages with Chinese Characteristics[M]//AMO， KOOLHAAS R. Countryside， A Report.Cologne： TASCHEN， 2020： 124-147.

[9] WEN Q， ZHENG D Y， SHI L N， et al. Themes evolutionof rural revitalization and its research prospect in China from1949 to 2019[J]. Progress in Geography， 2019， 38（9）： 1272-1281.

[10] ZHOU G H， LONG H L， LIN W L， et al. Theoreticaldebates and practical development of the “three rural issues”and rural revitalization in the New Era[J]. Journal of NaturalResources， 2023， 38（8）： 1919-1940.

[11] XIU J H. The restrictive factors of rural revitalizationand its breakthrough methods[C]//Proceedings of the4th International Conference on Economy， Judicature，Administration and Humanitarian Projects. Kaifeng， China：Atlantis Press， 2019： 819-823.

[12] GENG Y Q， LIU L W， CHEN L Y. Rural revitalizationof China： a new framework， measurement and forecast[J].Socio-Economic Planning Sciences， 2023（89）： 10-16.

[13] LIU Y S， ZANG Y Z， YANG Y Y. China’s ruralrevitalization and development： theory， technology andmanagement[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences， 2020，30（12）： 1923-1942，

[14] YANG X J， LI W W， ZHANG P， et al. The dynamicsand driving mechanisms of rural revitalization in WesternChina[J]. Agriculture， 2023， 13（7）： 1448.

[15] ZHANG D S， GAO W， LV Y Q. The triple logic andchoice strategy of rural revitalization in the 70 years sincethe founding of the People’s Republic of China， based onthe perspective of historical evolution[J]. Agriculture， 2020，10（4）： 125.

[16] SU M. New Rural Development Strategies[M]//SUM. China’s rural development policy： exploring the “newsocialist countryside”. Boulder： Lynne Rienner Publishers，2009.

[17] WANG J H. Building a new socialist countryside[M]//CHEN X W， WEI H K， SONG Y P. Rural Revitalization inChina. Singapore： Springer， 2023： 121-144.

[18] LOONEY K E. China’s campaign to build a newsocialist countryside： village modernization， peasantcouncils， and the Ganzhou model of rural development[J].The China Quarterly， 2015（224）： 909-932.

[19] AHLERS A L， SCHUBERT G. “Building a newsocialist countryside” - only a political slogan？[J]. Journal ofCurrent Chinese Affairs， 2009， 38（4）： 35-62.

[20] XI J. Energize rural areas through reform[M]//XI J.Zhejiang， China： a new vision for development. Hangzhou：Foreign Languages Press， 2019：322-323.

[21] WANG X X， SHEN Y. The effect of China’sagricultural tax abolition on rural families’ incomes andproduction[J]. China Economic Review， 2014（29）： 185-199.[22] LIN J Y， LIU M X. Rural informal taxation in China：historical evolution and an analytic framework[J]. China amp;World Economy， 2007， 15（3）： 1-18.

[23] DENG W. An analysis of rural area revitalizationstrategy from the perspective of economic law[J]. BeijingLaw Review， 2023， 14（2）： 1056-1078.

[24] SU M， YUAN M Y， MA X J， et al. The organicconnection of rural revitalization and poverty alleviationfrom the perspective of spillover effect[J]. InternationalJournal of Education and Humanities， 2022， 5（2）： 176-185.[25] ZHANG X C. Beautiful villages： rural constructionpractice in contemporary China[M]. HE Y F， trans.Mulgrave： Images Publishing， 2018.

[26] JI Q， YANG J P， HE Q S， et al. Understanding publicattention towards the beautiful village initiative in Chinaand exploring the influencing factors： an empirical analysisbased on the Baidu index[J]. Land， 2021， 10（11）： 1169.

[27] World Bank， Development Research Center of the StateCouncil， the People’s Republic of China. Four decades ofpoverty reduction in China： drivers， insights for the world，and the way ahead[M]. Washington： The World Bank， 2022.

[28] LIU L， CAO C J， SONG W. Bibliometric analysisin the field of rural revitalization： current status， progress，and prospects[J]. International Journal of EnvironmentalResearch and Public Health， 2023， 20（1）： 823.

[29] SEMPREBON G. Rural futures： toward an urban（ized） peasantry in the Chinese countryside[M]. Siracusa：LetteraVentidue Edizioni， 2022.

[30] China Development Research Foundation. China’srural areas： building a moderately prosperous society[M].London： Routledge， 2017.

[31] XI J. Examine the “Three Rural Issues” from TwoPerspectives[M]//XI J. Zhejiang， China： a new vision fordevelopment. Hangzhou： Foreign Languages Press，2019：312-313.

[32] WEI H K， CUI K， WANG Y. Goal evolution andpromotion strategies of rural revitalization in the view ofcommon prosperity[J]. China Economist， 2022， 17（4）： 63-76.

[33] WU Z X， WEN Y F. Analysis on the strategy of RuralRevitalization in China in the perspective of intellectualproperty right[J]. South Florida Journal of Development，2022， 3（1）： 1176-1181.

[34] 新華社. 中共中央辦公廳 國務(wù)院辦公廳印發(fā)《鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)行動實施方案》： 中央有關(guān)文件. 中國政府網(wǎng)[EB/OL].（2022-05-23）[2024-04-10].https：//www.gov.cn/zhengce/2022-05/23/content_5691881.htm.

[35] 清華大學(xué). 清華等19 所高校發(fā)起成立鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)高校聯(lián)盟[EB/OL].（2021-12-22）[2024-04-10].https：//www.tsinghua.edu.cn/info/1182/90242.htm.

[36] 人民網(wǎng).“ 百校聯(lián)百縣興千村” 行動啟動： 社會· 法治[EB/OL]. 人民網(wǎng).（2022-09-08）[2024-04-10].http：//society.people.com.cn/n1/2022/0908/c1008-32521841.html.

[37] 央視網(wǎng).“ 百校聯(lián)百縣興千村” 行動啟動儀式在山東舉行： 鄉(xiāng)村振興[EB/OL].（2022-09-09）[2024-04-10].https：//xczx.cctv.com/2022/09/09/ARTIf87roAkiOolcbPR44gau220909.shtml.

[38] 清華大學(xué)鄉(xiāng)村振興工作站.2024 暑假清華大學(xué)鄉(xiāng)村振興工作站考察實踐派出申請說明及申請公告[EB/OL].（2024-03-16）[2024-04-13].http：//mp.weixin.qq.com/s？__biz=MzkwMjQ5MTgxMQ==amp;mid=2247545205amp;idx=1amp;sn=baed52dedd2652e36d817fd488bce5d4amp;chksm=c0a6cab9f7d143af35b40519ac6397d9ca88181108317eb57161eae29aa11bdfd91fcf8fc612#rd.

[39] DESIGN D A， XU T， FEIREISS K， et al. DnA designand architecture： rural moves： the Songyang story[M].Berlin： Aedes， 2018.

[40] XU T. Architectural Acupuncture[M]//WANG J. TheSongyang story： Architectural Acupuntucture as Driver forProgress in Rural China： Projects by Xu Tiantian， DnA_Beijing. Zürich： Park Books， 2020.

ORIGINAL TEXTS IN ENGLISH

The Countryside ArchitectAn Analysis of Architects and AcademicInstitutions Involved in China’s RuralRevitalization

Lidia Preti

Introduction

“A rural revival is needed to counter urbanization across the globe.” [1]

Yansui Liu， Yuheng Li

As the world pursues urbanization andindustrialization， rural decline emerges as acontemporary global phenomenon[2]. In the frameworkof globalization and urbanization， the progression andenhancement of both rural and urban areas exhibita duality of both prosperity and controversies [3]. Ina country such as China， where rural land embodiesthe foundation of its civilization representing 92% ofthe available land - with approximately 8.8 millionsquare kilometers [4] - the scale of the countrysidetransformation cannot be overlooked.

Over the past three decades， the impacts ofurbanization processes and the consequent massmovement of populations from rural areas to urbancenters are also discernible by examining the urbanruralratio. Looking at the total population by urban andrural residence， the China Statistical Yearbook reportsthat in 2023 the rural population represents around 35%of the total population [5]， which significantly decreasedcompared to the percentage in 2001， accounting for64%[6]. This is further reinforced if we look at theurbanization rate that from 1949 to 2012， increased from10.6% to 52.6%[7]. The processes of urbanization andthe construction of large-scale infrastructure in Chinaover the past decades have undoubtedly garneredglobal attention. Concurrently， albeit with far lessvisibility on the global stage， the Chinese governmenthas redefined its rural areas[8]. The opening up reformsand rapid urban development over the past 40 yearsdrastically changed the relationship between urbanand rural areas while， over the past two decades， ruralareas have changed from auxiliary roles and reserveforces to important components and main carriers inthe regional development in China. Consequently，over the last 20 years， reconsidering strategies for ruraldevelopment and rejuvenation appears to be a pressingglobal challenge that holds great relevance in theinternational discourse. The rural landscape has transitionedfrom facilitating urbanization and industrialization toencompassing comprehensive urban-rural planning andintegration initiatives [9] gaining renewed attention forthe sustainable development of rural areas.

In China， design and planning disciplineshave been recognized for their significant role inreshaping rural landscapes， particularly within thecontested rural-urban dichotomy， with a recentemphasis on rural revitalization practices. Presently，the Chinese countryside grapples with three primaryrural issues （ 三農(nóng)問題， san nong wenti）： issuesconcerning agriculture， rural areas， and farmers [10].These challenges have prompted a policy responseto promote harmonious development aiming for amultidisciplinary approach， fostering innovative methodologies to revitalize rural settlements. Insupport of this hypothesis， in recent years the nationhas introduced a series of national strategies， shiftingfocus from urban centers to the “invisible China”.

Thus far scholars from various disciplines havestudied rural revitalization from different angles，from the economic and political reasons behind therenewed attention toward the countryside over the lastyears to the policies， methods tools for implementingrural revitalization in different areas of the country.However， few articles and studies focused on thedirect correlation between rural revitalization，policy implementation， and the consequences onarchitectural practice in the Chinese countryside.The study aims therefore to offer a new perspectiveexamining the comprehensive impact of ruralrevitalization policies on architectural practices overthe past two decades， focusing on the engagement ofarchitects and academic institutions in this process. Todo so， an analysis is proposed within the frameworkof the “policy-phenomenon-effect” to examine thecomprehensive impact of the rural revitalizationpolicies in China. It is used as an approach to dissectthe intricate layers of policy impact， the resultant ruralrevitalization phenomenon， and the subsequent effectson architectural practices. Demonstrating considerableexpertise， Chinese architects have explored diversemethodologies， challenged conventional practices，and critically evaluated entrenched beliefs. Theirinitiatives encompass a range of approaches， fromutilizing local materials and traditional buildingtechniques to engaging in participatory designendeavors with local communities. Reconsideringstrategies for rural development constitutes a pressingglobal challenge that holds great relevance in theinternational attracting over the last decades theattention of the government， scholars， and academicinstitutions becoming a fertile ground for research 0.

1 O v e r v i e w o f C o n t emp o r a r y R u r a lRevitalization Practices in China

1.1 Introduction to Rural Revitalization in China

When talking about rural revitalization， the19th National Congress of the Communist Partyof China （CPC）1 represents a key moment for theapproach to the countryside being the concept of ruralrevitalization raised to the national strategic level forthe first time [11]. The convening of the 19th NationalCongress on October 18， 2017， marked a seminaljuncture in the trajectory of rural development withinChina. Implementing the rural revitalization strategyconstitutes a pivotal approach to maintaining theprioritized development of agriculture and ruralsectors， attaining the comprehensive objective ofmodernizing agriculture and rural domains， andformulating and refining the framework， mechanisms，and policy systems promoting integrated urban-ruraldevelopment [9]. Rural revitalization can be regardedas a second season of rural development shiftingfrom quantity to quality [12] and deemed essentialfor the nation’s overall rejuvenation. Following the19th National Congress， the Central Committeehas articulated a significant strategic initiativeemphasizing the prioritization of agricultural andrural development， with the overarching goal ofcomprehensively advancing rural revitalization. Thediminishing of the socio-economic divide betweenurban and rural locales and the rural-urban integrationthrough a multi-level goals system constitutes one ofthe first ways to realize China’s rural revitalizationstrategy [13]. Its essence lies in expediting themodernization of agriculture and rural developmentacross five core areas： “thriving businesses， pleasantliving environments， social etiquette and civility，effective governance， and prosperity” [14].

The attention of the Chinese governmenttowards rural areas， although notably amplified since2017， is by no means a recent phenomenon. Sincethe establishment of the People’s Republic of China，policies concerning rural areas have been consistentlyrefined to evolve together with the economy andsociety [15]. Under the banner of village modernization，numerous programs have been promoted since thebeginning of the 21st century2. The government’seconomic strategy during the 10th Five-Year Plan（spanning from 2001 to 2005） included the revision ofrural development policies as a central component[16].As the 10th Five-Year Plan period was coming to anend， following the policies for rural development，at the end of 2005 the building of a “New socialistcountryside” （ 建設(shè)社會主義新農(nóng)， jiàn shè shèhuì zhǔ yì xīn nóng） was proposed at the nationallevel in October at the Fifth Plenary Session of theSixteen Central Committee of the Communist Partyof China[17]. Prior to the national resonance of thepolicy， Ganzhou （ 贛州） was the first prefectural cityin China to start in September 2004 a policy underthe guise of a new socialist countryside that is todayknown as the “Ganzhou model” [18]. The policy wasthen officially approved by the National People’sCongress in March 2006 [19].

“Comprehensive rural reform requires that wefocus on the new pattern of integrated development ofurban and rural areas to build systems and mechanismsthat encourage industry and cities to fuel the growthof agriculture and rural areas3 [20].” In alignmentwith this trajectory， between 2004 and 2005 theagricultural tax abolition was launched. In 2004 theChinese government announced the decrease of theagricultural tax by 1% to fully abolish it in 5 years[21].The agricultural tax that has played an important rolein the support of the industrialization of the countrysince 1949 [22] was officially removed by all provinceson January 1st， 2006. This represents a pivotal date inthe changing role of the countryside： from supportingand paying for the development of urbanizationand industrialization of urban areas to an importantcomponent of the overall national development.

1.2 2013-2021： Rural Revitalization as the coreFocus of Rural Policies

The rural revitalization policies represent thecontinuation of previous plans related to povertyalleviation [23]， which can be seen as the prerequisite ofrural revitalization [24]. In 2013 the Chinese governmentput forward the goal of building a beautiful countryside（ 美麗鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)，měilì xiāngcūn jiànshè） with the“No. 1 Document of the Party Central Committee”[17] focusing on the sustainable development of ruralareas. In the same year the government initiativeBeautiful Village was launched by the Ministry ofAgriculture choosing 1000 villages as pilot cases [25].The implementation of the initiative represented asignificant achievement that generated considerablepublic interest [26]. As mentioned in the introduction，the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party ofChina， together with the “National Strategy of RuralRevitalization” （ 鄉(xiāng)村振興， xiāngcūn zhènxīng）announced contextually， marks a turning point in theapproach to the Chinese countryside. Indeed， the term振興 （zhènxīng， revitalization） began to dominatethe policies of those years and became central to thediscourse on the countryside. In the same year， theCentral Rural Work Conference （CRWC） was held inBeijing from December 28th to December 29th wherethe plan for the overall countryside regeneration waspresented outlining the road to rural revitalizationand mapping out plans for the upcoming year.In 2018， after the directions of the 19th NationalCongress， China released the “Strategic Planning forRevitalization of Rural Areas” issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China （CPC）and the State Council. The 100th anniversary of theCommunist Party of China in 2021 marked a keymoment to announce the achievement of the objectivesset in previous years such as the poverty alleviationthat saw a period of “final push” between 2017 and2021， and it was declared officially eradicated in2021， lifting over 770 million people out of povertysince 1978 [27]. In the same year was promulgated thelaw on the Promotion of Rural Revitalization4 （ 中華人民共和國鄉(xiāng)村振興促進(jìn)法， zhōnghuá rénmíngònghéguó xiāngcūn zhènxīng cùjìn fǎ）， enacted tofully implement the rural revitalization strategy， fosterthe comprehensive advancement of agriculture， ruralareas， and farmers， and expediting the modernizationof agricultural and rural sectors. Subsequently， in 2021the National Rural Revitalization Bureau was openedreplacing the State Council’s poverty alleviationoffice.

Looking at the academic studies on thecountryside， in the last decades the discourse hasbeen redirected toward the countryside with a stronginterest of the national and international academiccommunity in the study of rural areas and theirtransformation. This scholarly attention extends tothe burgeoning field of rural revitalization practices，which have experienced significant expansion inrecent years. A review of the existing literature onrural revitalization， covering the period from 1991 to2021， was published in 2023 by Liu Leng， CongjieCao， and Wei Song. The study revealed that duringthe analyzed timeframe， over 3000 scholars havecontributed to the field， with a concentration ofarticles between 2017 and 2021， which the authorsdefine as a high-yield period [28]. The current studiesno longer focus solely on the urban-rural dichotomyyet encompass a wider array of policies aimed atfostering the harmonious and sustainable developmentof rural areas. However， predominant research areasoften focus on topics such as land use policy andmanagement， geography， sustainable development，and management implementation. Indeed， therecan be observed a lack of scholarly attention givento the architectural repercussions of these policies.As the following paragraph seeks to elucidate， theinterconnection between rural revitalization strategiesand architectural practice is a significant study areadeserving of closer examination. As illustrated inthe accompanying drawings， the trend of architectsengaging in rural areas within the framework ofrevitalization practices seems to closely align withthe policy incrementation targeting rural development（Figure 1）.

2 Architects and Institutions’ Involvement inRural Revitalization： Three Phases

2.1 Proposed Classification of Three Phases

The rural revitalization strategy implementedby the Chinese government represents the last setof policies dedicated to the development of thecountryside [29]. The China Development ResearchFoundation （CDRF5） proposes a subdivision of theefforts towards the countryside according to policyshifts in three phases： the “invigorating” policies ofthe 1980s， the “stabilizing” policies of the 1990s，and the “repay the countryside” policies since 2000，China’s rural [30]. Transitioning the analytical lens froma policy-driven chronological subdivision towards anarchitecture-driven framework， this study endeavorsto propose a periodization （Figure 2） that divergesslightly from the framework discussed by previousscholars， to position architectural practices as thefocal point of the proposed chronological scheme. Thestudy focuses on the analysis of the work carried outby architects and academic institutions in rural areasaiming to comprehend the context and policies thathave resulted in the transition between the differentperiods. Through a systematic study of the architectureproduction in the countryside within the framework ofrural revitalization strategies， the analysis unfolds inthree distinct periods （Figure 3）： the pioneering phase（1978-2003）， the maturing phase （2004-2021）， and theconsolidating phase （towards 2049）.

Pioneering Phase 1978—2003

Starting from the late 1980’s， the scholarlyattention toward the countryside was mainlyconcerning the heritage preservation of vernaculararchitecture. Under the guidance of Professor ChenZhi Hua， in 1993 was established in TsinghuaUniversity Rural Architecture Research Institute of theSchool of Architecture （ 建筑學(xué)院的鄉(xiāng)土建筑研究所） and since its inception has been dedicated to thestudy of vernacular architecture in China. The grouphas extensively examined the history， culture， andlocal characteristics of rural architecture， continuingthe tradition of scholars like Liang Si Cheng andLin Hui Ying， who focused on the preservation oftraditional architecture. December 2023， marked the30th anniversary of its institution on the occasion ofwhich was held in Tsinghua University the conference“From Vernacular Heritage to Rural Vitalization”（ 從鄉(xiāng)土遺產(chǎn)到鄉(xiāng)村振興， cóng xiāngtǔ yíchǎndào xiāngcūn zhènxīng）. As suggested by the title ofthe conference， over the last thirty years， the focustransitioned from the preservation of vernaculararchitecture， what the literature defines as heritageledregeneration， to its adaptation to the wave of newconstructions over the last two decades. This is centralalso to the understanding of how the architecturalfocus on rural areas has transitioned from primarilyaddressing heritage preservation to the adaptation ofexisting buildings to the construction of new ones.

Maturing Phase 2004—2021

The stage defined as the maturing phaseserves as the focal point of this study. It is proposedto commence in 2004 when the “New SocialistCountryside” program was initially introducedand conclude in 2021 coinciding with significantadvancements observed in the “Rural RevitalizationStrategy” and “Poverty Alleviation” policies on theoccasion of the 100th anniversary of the foundationof the Chinese Communist Party. This period couldbe defined as the “giving back” period： “By creatinga new socialist countryside， public resources thathave been invested predominantly in cities aredirected more at the countryside” [31]. Throughout thisperiod， a notable increase in architectural projects inrural areas is observed， characterized by two maintrajectories. The first trajectory， termed independentexperimentation， spans approximately from 2004to 2011/2013. Concurrently during this period，urban planners were engaged in developing primaryinfrastructure in rural areas. The second trajectory，referred to as policy-driven practice， encompassesthe period from 2013 to 2021. During this timeframe，it can be observed an architectural response topolicies enacted for rural areas revitalization， notablybeginning in 2013 with the “Beautiful VillageConstruction” policy and further evolving with the“Rural Revitalization Strategy” introduced in 2017.This marks the period when architects begin to engagesignificantly in rural projects， leading to a considerableincrease in such endeavors. The policy-driventrajectory has elicited two distinct types of responses：on one hand， the response of independent architecturalpractice， and on the other， the institutional academicresponse to this phenomenon.

Consolidating Phase Towards 2049

This phase hypothesizes a projection of policy trends and efforts towards rural revitalization overthe next two decades， considering 2049 as a potentialmilestone for achieving the objectives set by policiesestablished during this phase. The path to ruralrevitalization is set to be a gradual one， initiatingwith actions aimed at meeting intermediate goals，all the while maintaining a vision towards the longtermobjective set for 2050 which aligns with theoverarching goal to establish a modern socialistnation by that year [32]. 2049 will also mark the 100thanniversary of the founding of the People’s Republicof China （PRC） signifying a milestone for thecountry. Therefore， purportedly the efforts toward thecountryside will be further consolidated during thenext 20 years to reach by 2050 revitalization of ruralareas in an all-round way [33].

3 Architects and Institutions’ Involvement in Building the Countryside： 2004—2021，Maturing Phase

The work of architects remains one of the mosttangible outputs of rural construction， enriching oraltering the rural landscape [25]. At the foundation ofthe study of architecture production in rural areas，lies a systematic analysis conducted by the authoron architects who， over the past two decades， havebeen engaged in practicing in rural areas in China.The study was carried out by analyzing almost 300projects6 published on the gooood7 platform， usingthe keyword “rural reconstruction of China” andexamining the period from early 2000 to 2022.The selection of the platform for studying thephenomenon is deliberate： a preeminent website in thefield of architecture， renowned for its authority anddistribution in the field encompassing architecturalprojects at different scales. Following the initial studyof the policies that prioritized rural revitalizationin the past two decades described in the previousparagraphs， the author cross-referenced the dataobtained from the project study， recognizing acorrelation between architectural production in thecountryside and policy implementation. The graphicalrepresentation distinctly illustrates a sharp increasein rural projects （Figure 4， Figure 5） aligned withnational rural revitalization policies （Figure 6） startingfrom 2015 with a peak between 2018 and 2019.The peak reached during 2018 and 2019 is expectedfollowing the previous reasoning： a rapid increase ofarchitectural production in the countryside followingthe rural revitalization strategy announced in 2017.Additionally， the analysis was crucial in supporting theinitial hypothesis that， beginning in 2015， a significantportion of projects were primarily commissionedby local governments （Figure 7） thus validating thepolicy-driven trajectory of the past decade.

By analyzing the architectural production， itis possible to identify two main trajectories. Thefirst trajectory， termed by the author independentexperimentation， spans approximately from 2004 to2011-2013， witnessing a phase of experimentation byindependent architects who undertook single tasks inrural areas. Clear examples of this tendency are theearly projects in the countryside by Li Xiaodong （YuhuElementary School in 2003， the School Bridge inXiaoxi， Fujian province in 2009， the Liyuan Libraryin Jiaojiehe Village in 2011） and those by Rural UrbanFramework （Qinmo Village in 2006， Mulan PrimarySchool in Huaiji County in 2011， the Lingzidi Bridgein Shaanxi province in 2012， Tongjiang RecycledBrick School in 2012） to name a few. These projectsare almost all traceable to basic infrastructuretypologies for villages， such as bridges and schools.During the initial stage of this phase， and beforethe wave of architects working in the countryside，planners were involved in the establishment ofprimary infrastructures， road systems， and some publicfacilities in rural areas setting pilot projects whoseexample will later be extended at the national level. Arepresentative instance of this trend is the pilot projectin the urban sprawl of Beijing undertaken for theShuiyi district， realized by the group led by ProfessorZhang Yue8 and Feng Ni9 awarded the Holcim AwardsGold 2008 Asia Pacific for Sustainable Planning fora rural community and Holcim Awards Bronze 2009Global the following year10. The second trajectory，referred to as policy-driven practice， encompassesthe period from 2013 to 2021. During this timeframe，there emerges an architectural response to policiesenacted for rural areas revitalization. This marks theperiod when architects begin to engage significantlyin rural projects， leading to a considerable increasein such endeavors. The policy-driven trajectoryhas elicited two distinct types of responses： on onehand， the response of independent architecturalpractice as demonstrated by the increasing numberof governmental clients， and on the other， theinstitutional academic response to this phenomenon.

Accompanying the line of national policydevelopment， the academic response to the policyimplementation for the revitalization of thecountryside is a noteworthy phenomenon. Indeed，since 2017 a progressive engagement of universitiesin rural revitalization practices was witnessed. Pioneerin this practice is Tsinghua University which， inOctober 2017， responding to the call of the NationalCongress concluded shortly prior， set the RuralRevitalization Center， as a model of cooperationwith local government to build workstations indifferent provinces of the country. On February 23rd，2021 the General Office of the Central Committeeof the Communist Party of China and the GeneralOffice of the State Council issued the “Opinions onAccelerating the Revitalization of Rural Talents”（ 關(guān)于加快推進(jìn)鄉(xiāng)村人才振興的意見， guānyújiākuài tuījìn xiāngcūn réncái zhènxīng de yìjiàn）followed in 2022 by the “Implementation Plan forRural Construction Action” （ 鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)行動實施方案， Xiāngcūn jiànshè xíngdòng shíshī fāng’àn）considering rural construction as an important task inthe implementation of the rural revitalization strategyand an important part of national modernization[34]. In December 2021， initiated by TsinghuaUniversity， 19 universities established the “RuralConstruction University Alliance” （ 鄉(xiāng)村建設(shè)高校聯(lián)盟， Xiāngcūn jiànshè gāoxiào liánméng） as acooperative mechanism established by universities tojointly help rural construction and develop and serverural modernization and to attract more universities toparticipate in rural construction [35]. Since its inception，104 universities have joined the Rural ConstructionUniversity Alliance. Following the aforementionedactions， on September 7th， 2022 the initiative “100schools， 100 counties， 1000 villages” （ 百校聯(lián)百縣興千， bǎi xiào lián bǎi xiàn xīng qiān cūn） promotedby the National Rural Revitalization Bureau， togetherwith Tsinghua University was announced [36-37]encouraging universities to actively participate in ruralconstruction and countryside rejuvenation.

Following an initial comprehensive overviewof the various architects and institutions involvedin this process， the study focuses on three relevantrepresentatives of these trajectories. Li Xiaodong’spractice stands out as a pioneering force in rural projects，embodying the earliest independent experimentations inrural areas during the past two decades. For the policydriventrajectory， the Rural Revitalization Center ofTsinghua University has been selected as the mostrepresentative example of institutional response to thepolicies implementation while the practice of DnA_Design and Architecture studio is selected as anexemplar case of independent practice.

3.1 Independent Experimentation： Li Xiaodong’sPractice

A pioneer in self-initiated projects in theChinese countryside is undoubtedly Li Xiaodong. LiXiaodong （1963， Beijing） graduated from the Schoolof Architecture at Tsinghua University in 1984 andobtained his PhD from the School of Architecture，Delft University of Technology between 1989 and1993. His practice is primarily focused on smallscaleprojects with a strong holistic approach tothe site by integrating contemporary architectureand regional culture. When Li Xiaodong started topractice in the countryside （early 2000）， the Chinesearchitectural scene was mainly dominated by largescaleurban projects designed and built by developers.Compared to the high constraints of the buildingindustry in the cities， projects in rural areas hadfewer limitations， allowing independent architectsthe opportunity to experiment with their practice onsmall-scale projects. The first project completed bythe architect， symbolically marking the beginning ofrenewed attention towards rural areas by architects，is the Yuhu Elementary School Expansion Project11in Lijiang， Yunnan province. The project is located inthe Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau at an altitude of almost2 800 meters asl in Yuhu village in Lijiang， an arealisted under the protection of the World CulturalHeritage Program since December 199712. At thattime， the primary school of the village， which hadbeen established just one year prior （2001）， wasunable to meet the educational requirements andneeded to be expanded. Li Xiaodong’s practice in thecountryside continued until 2011 when he oriented hispractice towards urban areas. In 2009 the design ofthe Bridge School in Xiaoshi Village， Fujian Province，represents a breakthrough not only in terms of designbut also in terms of typology： it embodies the firstbuilding combining both the typology of the schooland the bridge in one building. 28 meters long and 8.5meters wide， the building overcomes the traditionaltypologies connecting two sides of a creek and theTulous existing on the site. The last project realizedby Li Xiaodong in the countryside before his practicemoved to urban areas is the Liyuan Library. Locatedin Jiaojiehe Village within the Huairou District ofBeijing， the project was built in 2011 and is the firstlibrary built in the countryside， later on followed bymany projects following this typology. The practice ofLi Xiaodong in the countryside obtained internationalrecognition winning numerous awards.

3.2 Policy-driven Practice

3.2.1 Institutional Response： Tsinghua University and the Rural Revitalization Center

Looking at the academic panorama， TsinghuaUniversity is undoubtedly a pioneer in the engagementof academic institutions in rural revitalizationpractices. In October 2017， accompanying the line ofnational policy development， and responding to thecall of the “Rural Revitalization Strategy” announcedduring the 19th party congress， Tsinghua Universityfounded the Rural Revitalization Center （ 清華大學(xué)鄉(xiāng)村振興工作站， qīnghuá dàxué xiāngcūn zhènxīnggōngzuò zhàn）. Originally initiated by the Schoolof Architecture， over the past seven years the centerhas conducted projects collaboratively by multipledepartments， under the guidance of the school PartyCommittee and with the support of the CommunistParty Committee of Tsinghua University together withthe Youth League Committee. Over the past years， theCenter has organized more than 460 teams comprisingover 7，000 faculty members and students frommore than 200 colleges and universities across over100 disciplines[38]. The Rural Revitalization Centerof Tsinghua University introduced an innovativeapproach to countryside revitalization by establishingpermanent workstations in rural villages. Theseworkstations function as a dual-purpose platform：they serve as a physical base for students conductingactivities in rural areas during winter and summerbreaks and. when not in use by students， they oftenfunction as community centers or support facilitiesfor villagers. Each break， students from variousdepartments and affiliated universities have theopportunity to spend time in these villages， sharingtheir knowledge and expertise across different fields.

3.2.2 Independent Practice Response： DnA_Designand Architecture Studio

DnA_Design and Architecture studio， aBeijing-based design office founded in 2004 by XuTiantian， is undeniably one of the most influentialand internationally renowned offices working oncountryside revitalization in contemporary China.Differing from the architectural landscape of majorChinese cities， characterized by a tendency towardsbuilding standardization due to rapid urbanization， theapproach of the DnA office redirects attention to theutilization of locally sourced materials， resources， andexpertise. This involves the incorporation of traditionalartisanal construction methods often marginalized bythe rapid development typical of urban centers. Lookingat the architectural production of the office from 2015to 2023， it is noticeable how most of the projects areconcentrated in Songyang County， in the southwestof Zhejiang province under the administration ofLishui City. Defined as “The Last Hidden Land inJiangnan” （ 最后的江南秘境， Cóng xiāngtǔ yíchǎndào xiāngcūn zhènxīng）， Songyang has fully preserved70 traditional villages exploring the rural revival led bycultural interest [39]. With around 20 projects realizedin the area， through small interventions， Xu Tiantianbrought rural redevelopment beyond the design ofsingle architectural objects developing a multiscalegrowth in the area. The approach is clear： architectureacupuncture as a sustainable rural strategy. Bydesigning with minimal intervention public programsare introduced to the villages， each of them respectingthe cultural heritage and context [40]. Upon examiningthe clientele behind the various projects in theregion， it becomes evident that these initiatives arepredominantly commissioned by local governments（Songyang Dadongba County Government， SongyangPublic Road Administration， People’s Governmentof Zhangxi Village， Songyang County， VillageCommittee of Wang Village， People’s Governmentof Dadong Ba Town， Songyang County， etc.）. Thisobservation supports the initial hypothesis， suggestinga correlation between the increase in projectsundertaken in rural areas and the revitalizationpolicies enacted for the countryside.

In conclusion， rural revitalization practices playa pivotal role in contemporary China encompassingthe architectural discourse of both academicinstitutions and independent practice. The recentstudies mainly focusing on the policy framework，often overlook the effects of these transformationson the built environment. This study highlightsthe role of architects and academic institutions inthe Chinese countryside over the last two decades，aiming to enrich the ongoing discourse on ruralrevitalization while proposing a periodization focusedon architectural practices. The proposed chronologicalbreakdown into the pioneering phase， maturingphase， and consolidating phase allows for a nuancedunderstanding of the evolution and impact of thesepractices. By examining cases such as Li Xiaodong，the Tsinghua University Rural RevitalizationCenter， and the practice of the DnA_Design andArchitecture office， the study substantiates the diverseyet converging paths through which architecturecontributes to rural revitalization.