透过三个问题看改造

张利/ZHANG Li

透过三个问题看改造

张利/ZHANG Li

从某种意义上讲，所有的建造项目都是改造——基于地表既有环境的空间介入。正像大多数自然学家所共同认为的那样，真正的原初自然在今天人类足迹所到之处已经不复存在。因而，所谓的“新建”只不过是在新的人工干预之前，对已有的人工干预增加了一次标准化的复位——拆除——罢了。

当人们沉浸于城市的“新建”热潮之中——20世纪中后期重建中的欧洲，或是20世纪末期至21世纪初期的新兴经济体——乐此不疲时，对旧有建筑的利用、旧有城市的进化曾是稀有产物，被蒙上一层“另类”的面纱，并因其历史良心、社会责任与道德正确而占据心理高地。而今，全球的主要城市关注的重点都从空间数量的增加转移到空间质量的提升（这里当然也包括我国城市的“新常态”），旧区更新、旧有建筑再利用、旧有空间再激活等已成为建造项目的主流，其“另类”的面纱也早已脱落。这为我们冷静地审视、评价它们提供了可能。

有3个问题是所有的改造项目都必须正面解答的，而其解答又可大致分成几种明确的类别，因而透过这3个问题也就不难概括出整个改造项目的策略线索。这3个问题是：（一）认识论层面的问题：对“新”与“旧”的权重关系的判断；（二）方法论层面的问题：对改造过程的干预强度与方法的选择；（三）人口学层面的问题：对空间改造先后所使用人群的人口构成变化的解释。

从认识论的层面讲，一个改造项目在“新”与“旧”的权重关系方面大致有3种可能的取向：“旧”重于“新”，或说，历史主义的取向；“新”“旧”并置，或说，存在主义的取向；“新”重于“旧”，或说，现实主义的取向。历史主义的取向对我们来说肯定不是陌生的，“整旧如旧”也一度是改造项目尊重历史的座佑铭。事实上，自现代性诞生以来，与历史和遗产息息相关的 “真实性”就是一项不可回避的使命。即便是在现代主义者最为自信的年代，像“历史街区”这样的议题也要被列入到国际现代建筑协会（CIAM）关于伟大的现代城市的核心议程之中。然而当鲜活的有待再利用的空间被当作遗产而化石化，当进行时态的历史“真实性”被过去时态的考古实证性所取代时，历史主义取向确实存在着把任何改造项目带入场景化的风险。存在主义取向是在近期颇受欢迎的，“新”“旧”之间的并置与对比很容易造就空间的当代感，在种种熟练的材料工法技巧中去表现“旧”的结束与“新”的开始，并不时形成意外，这是件令建筑师上瘾也令观者痴迷的事情。我们注意到这种并置与对比在某些情况下正逐渐形成一种新的公式化的手法主义，这恐怕不是其倡导者的初衷。与其他两种取向相比，现实主义的取向在头脑上最为“简单”——它把任何即有的现状看成是不停发展的空间实体的一个中间状态，从而丝毫不在意完全按照现实的需求去发挥现状的每一分潜力，哪怕会因此形成一个一气呵成的“新”的空间，哪怕会因此而“新”“旧”不分。有意思的是，这种在美学上毫无谦疚的态度往往能在改造项目中造就实际利用率最高、最受普通人欢迎的空间，比如本期所收录的伊拉斯谟学习中心。

从方法论的层面上讲，一个改造项目在干预强度有数种选择：弱干预、中干预、强干预。弱干预只对已有的空间界面进行可逆的更改。中干预一方面对已有的空间界面进行可逆的更改，另一个方面对已有空间界面所不具备的必要条件进行新界面的补充。强干预则不仅对已有的空间界面进行不可逆的更改，也同时对必要或非必要的空间条件进行新的补充。有趣的是，在改造项目中，极弱或极强的干预都更容易引起人们的注意。在极弱的干预方面，醒目的片断涂鸦可以瞬间唤起人们对一个常被忽略的界面的意识，从而使二维的图画在城市中产生出三维的吸引力，也使建筑与环境艺术的边界变得模糊。在极强的干预方面，对新旧两种界面的各自强化——使旧的更“旧”，新的“更新”——是一种屡见不鲜的做法。从对旧的砖石的残片处理，旧木构件的打磨处理，到旧的界面的几何边界，到新的混凝土、新的金属螺栓与拉索的直接置入……这种在斯卡帕的维奇奥城堡博物馆中实现了惊人的丰富与想像力的基因正在随着其后世的大量繁殖而变得越来越可预测。这倒使我们把目光转移到不起眼的中干预上，那种波澜不惊的旧界面梳理与新界面植入——多数是以空间基础设施的方式——更多地是在为功能而不是美学服务，新增的部分等于在物质上标识新的功能需求与旧的空间条件之差异。有趣的是，最近采用这种干预方法的是本期所收录的OMA 的普拉达基金会。抛开调皮的小别墅金漆与接待中心前面悬挂的中国式塑料条帘，OMA 几乎处处与最不可能与他们联系在一起的“克制”二字联系到了一起。

从人口学的层面讲，一个改造项目在其发生前后，都自然有一个使用人群的人口构成对比，这里面也有3种常见的情况：第一种，改造之前没有明确的使用人群（废弃或空置），改造之后有；第二种，改造之前有明确的使用人群，改造之后也有，且前后为同一人群或后一人群包含前一人群；第三种，改造之前有明确的使用人群，改造之后也有，但两个人群完全不同。任何涉及人口构成的问题都必然是与社会相关的问题，因而也都势必接受社会价值观的质询。很显然，在前两种情况下，改造项目的人口学争议是小的。第一种情况无异于变废为宝，常见于工业遗产、废弃公共设施的改造，先天与城市空间资源的循环利用兼容，也自然会获得社会的肯定，像本期收录的西岸艺术中心、水塔之家，皆属此类。第二种情况是服务于即定人群的空间提升，常见于社区设施、企业设施的改造，因为使用者需求的明确及设计者与使用者关系的密切，也往往会顺利地得到好评，本期收录的云庐、YoungBird 室内空间改造、西贡之家等乃是此类范例。而第三种情况，即在项目改造的前后，发生新的使用人群对旧的使用人群的取代的情况，这往往是人口学争议的高发领域。争议的核心是“原住民”的迁出，以及由“新住民”进入而带来的“中产阶级化”，这是压在此类改造项目的巨大的道德包袱。而一个有意思的观察是，在我国主要城市的中心旧城区，“原住民”与“新住民”经常同为新近移入该城市工作与生活的居民，因而在“原”与“新”之间的道德势能在实际上并非字面上那么大。如果再考虑现代城市化进程中从未停止过的人口随产业的移动与分布，像本期收录的管·白塔寺这样的改造项目所代表的人口学变化，很有可能反倒是积极的，而其相对激进的改造成果，也许反倒是恰如其分的。

Every building project is a retrofit project to some extent. After all we are just making modifications the existing surface of planet earth. As most nature scientists agree on， the genuine pristine nature no longer exists wherever there has been human footprint. A so-called "new building" only differs with a "retrofit" in its addition of a standardised resetting procedure， namely pulling down， before the set of new interventions.

During the construction boom， whether Europe in the 1960s or emerging economies in the last decade of the 20th century， retrofit projects are of a unique type against the plethora of new buildings. They gain an easy advantage in psyche due to their addressing of history， social responsibility and morality. It was almost taken for granted that every retrofit project was automatically great. However， with the major cities around the world entering a new phase in which quality is everything and quantity is nothing （the Chinese new normal in particular）， retrofit projects are becoming the main stream. The previous uniqueness and easy advantage are lost. All retrofit projects are now subject to sober scrutiny.

Three questions may help us in carrying out such scrutiny. 1） The value question: what do you value most， the new， or the old， or both？ 2） The operational question: how much do you intervene？3） The demographic question: how do you plan/ interpret the demographic change in the users，before and after the project？ All of these questions are inevitable to decision makers/designers of retrofit projects. The answers to them also render a profile of a particular project.

There might be three typical answers to the value question: A） putting the old above the new， or， the historicist approach. B） Giving equal importance to the old and the new， and juxtaposing them， or， the existentialist approach. C） putting the new above the old， or， the realist approach. The historicist approach is nothing unfamiliar. Ever since the arrival of modernity， the concept of historical authenticity has been looming above everything built that has something to do with history or heritage. Even in the booming years of the die-hard modernists， historical area still topped the agenda of CIAM meetings on the heart of the city. There is a deteriorating tendency though， that under this historicist umbrella， everything becomes more or less a heritage and is prone to be fossilised in a scenographic fashion. The existentialist approach is much more popular nowadays. Stark contrast between the new and the old， and the skillful hiding and seeking of traces of history have been proven to be addictive to both designers and critics. The caveat is that， there is a growing trend of making this juxtaposition a new adaptall formula. Comparing with these approaches， the realist approach seems stunningly simple: rather than diving into the endless debate of new and old，it simply tries to create a coherent， beautiful new space using whatever is available. It regards the old as a dynamic being， evolving and active， something that can be seamless transformed into the new without necessarily being marked or tracked. While unappealing at first sight to some contradictionand-complexity-hungry critics， this unapologetic approach usually ends up with the most effective and popular spaces. The Erasmus Medical Studies Centre， published in this issue， is a good example.

The answer to the operational question is a measurement of level of intervention: weak， medium or strong. A weak intervention only takes reversible operations on the old. A medium intervention takes a step further， adding new necessities. A strong intervention does everything， modifying the old and adding the new without bothering on constraints of reversibility or necessity. Interestingly， it is the extreme ends， the weakest and the strongest interventions， that are more notable to the public. Graffiti is one of the weakest interventions， it is merely painting on a wall. Yet when used in the right place， it steps out its 2D territory and generates 3D attractions in the city. Dramatizing both the old and the new is one of the strongest interventions，and one that is loved by architects. Rustic finishing，drastic fragmentation， in combination with the cleanness and purity of modern concrete， bolts and wires... it all started with Scarpa's fabulous Castelvecchio but has since been duplicated by copycats in the more and more predictable fashion. That brings our eyes to the third approach， the medium intervention: carefully sorting out the old and cautiously adding the necessary new， mostly as infrastructure. An unexpected example in this regard is OMA's Fondazione prada， which is also published in this issue. Except for the cute gold paint in the villa and the naughty Chinese plastic drapes at the visitors' entrance， OMA has， almost everywhere around the project， demonstrated"restraint" - a word that may be least associated with OMA. That is quite something in itself.

The demographic question is always a contentious one. Again three situations may exist: A） no users before the project （empty or abandoned）， users after. B） the same users before and after. C） different users before and after. Demographics is always an issue of social concern. It can be safely assumed that under the first two situations， a retrofit project is less likely to cause any public row. The first situation is actually built space recycling， mostly found in industrial heritage reuse or public infrastructure redevelopment projects. Examples of this kind published in this issue include the West Bund Art Centre and the Tower Home.The second situation is practically the upgrading of spaces for specific groups of people， mostly found in community / cooperate facility redevelopment projects. Because of the close-ties between the designers and the end-users， they usually score high. published in this issue include examples of this type， such as Yun Lu， YoungBird Office， and Saigon House. The third situation， however， is usually highly controversial. The core of controversy is the moving out of the "original inhabitants" and the moving in of the "new inhabitants"， which is usually referred to by the mighty G word: gentrification. Yet an interesting observation from old town centers in contemporary Chinese major cities is that， both the "original inhabitants" and the "new inhabitants" are in reality， relatively new arrivals of economic immigrants to the city， therefore the moral potential energy lying in between the "original inhabitants" and the "new inhabitants" are far less than it sounds. Taking into considerations the rapid shift of industries in modern Chinese cities， the demographic change brought about by projects like Tubular Baitasi can even be positive.

Reading Retrofit projects Through Three Questions

清华大学建筑学院/《世界建筑》

2016-04-10