山地建成環境的可持續性

張利 /ZHANG Li

山地建成環境的可持續性

Mountain Buildings and Sustainability

張利 /ZHANG Li

如果我們武斷地把人工與自然定義成空間環境的兩個極端，那么顯然山地與平地相比，是接近自然一端的。如果再把現代主義運動之后的基于基礎設施網格的二維規劃工具納入考慮范圍的話，山地建成環境的自然屬性就更明顯了——它使我們興奮地（或是不情愿地）放棄駕輕就熟的二維工具，把思考擴展到大地的另外維度，即垂直的維度和物種多樣性的維度。

有趣的是，在全球關注可持續性的今天，我們所得到的大多數建成環境的可持續性策略仍然是默認以平地為基礎的。很多盛行的解決方案，如極致密度、海綿城市、快速公交網絡等，都是針對平地密集聚居環境的，對山地環境捉襟見肘。同時，山地環境強大的自然屬性——不論是茂盛的山林還是貧瘠的巖壁——又不時把任何基于山地的建設置于環境倫理的困境之中，使“山地建成環境是否在根本上是可持續的”成為一道常見的質疑。這些都使我們愈發地對山地建筑的可持續性這一問題感興趣。

我們可以根據人工干預程度的不同，把山地建成環境分成3種，并據此來觀察其可持續性的策略與取向：輕度干預，以景觀方式介入；中度干預，以微型社區方式介入；強度干預，以局部經濟社區方式介入。

輕度干預的山地建成環境是最沒有爭議的，它們從道德上講，幾乎就是提供生態與環保教育的前臺哨所。它們多數以零星的點狀構筑物獨處于自然環境之中，從觀景平臺、游客服務設施到宗教設施。其所吸引的人群是典型的尋求片刻逃逸的都市觀光者，后者“除了照片什么也不帶走，除了腳印什么也不留下”。在山地建成環境的可持續性方面，這類構筑物明顯取向于對自然的原生狀態的保護，包括對地質環境和物種環境的保護，因而近距離體驗但最小化觸碰是這類建筑的共性。對建筑師來講設計這類構筑物還有一種極大的誘惑，即無論設計成什么樣，都將擁有一個慷慨的原生自然環境給予烘托，因而得到一張“性感”的作品照片幾乎是板上釘釘的。

中度干預的山地建成環境雖然有爭議，但卻在某種程度上是最“令人向往”的，因為它們試圖傳遞的是人在自然中詩意棲居的不滅理想。從海德格爾的黑森林情結到馬勒的作曲小屋，到維特根斯坦的河谷居所，再到安縵集團的坡地客房，人的不甘于在城市的喧鬧與重復中終了此生的宿愿再三顯現。不過這類建筑在道德上實在是沒有什么光環：它們或是令人艷羨的私人居（會）所，或是昂貴奢華的高級酒店。其所吸引的人群也不再是所有的社會階層，而是有能力消費被精致收納的自然的上中產階級或特權人群。在山地建成環境的可持續性方面，這類建筑的取向是相對模糊的：一方面它們強調自然的詩意，另一方面它們把自然調制成高端消費的對象。即是消費，便必然有著物質循環中的不連續——從本質上講，在這類建筑中發生的物質循環只是對城市中同類物質循環的一個簡單位移，雖然在這里有著被精心營造出來的詩情畫意的外衣。

強度干預的山地建成環境是最具爭議的，因為它們試圖利用山地的獨有資源——地形、水文甚至物種——建立一個相對完整的局部經濟循環，會對山地原本的生態面貌帶來明顯的改變，從而經常暴露于激列的討論之下。在后工業社會時代，發展山地局部經濟最常見的模式是與山地運動、特別是與冬季運動的結合。全球蓬勃壯大的中產階級不停地在世界各地尋找在雪上駕馭身體、挑戰重力的新刺激，新的滑雪目的地層出不窮。在這方面，冬季奧運會可以說是造就冰雪運動目的地的最大強心劑，也是最受關注的環境問題的討論對象。與冬奧會雪上項目相關的賽道、場館與服務設施從來都不是小規模的營造，也從來不能逃避道德上的兩面性：一方面，它們毫無疑問將帶來所屬地區體育休閑經濟的繁榮，長長的產業鏈條將惠及地區內的所有社區；另一方面，它們也命中注定地將對所處的山脈造成持久性的影響，而且部分專業性極強的項目設施在賽后難以民用（如高山滑雪，跳臺滑雪等），其瞬時的環境成本更為突顯。在山地建成環境的可持續性方面，它們永遠面臨著發展區域體育休閑經濟與控制環境影響的決策取舍。現任國際奧委會主席托馬斯·巴赫在其主導的《奧林匹克2020 議程》中對這一問題的態度是鮮明的。在這份把社會機會、資源效率和青年激發列為奧林匹克運動參與全球可持續發展三大基石的文獻中，使奧運會對經濟與社會機會的貢獻最大化、同時有效控制環境影響是被明確倡導的途徑。基于這一觀點，宏觀上，如果強度干預的山地建成環境能夠最終造成運動休閑產業對礦業和制造業的替代，那么其對區域長期可持續發展的貢獻將是巨大的；微觀上，更具環境意識、更面向長期價值的設計將是控制環境影響的必經之路。

本期《世界建筑》收錄了上述3個類型的山地建成環境案例，對它們的可持續性的評價尚無結論，這恰恰可以為我們的討論提供有益的素材?！?/p>

If we arbitrarily take the natural and the artificial as two polar extremes, and try to measure all built environments through the spectrum between these two extremes, then mountain buildings would definitely be more "natural" than those in flat areas. They would be even more "natural" if we consider the 2D-centred plan tools after the arrival of Modernism. For the plan of mountain buildings, we have to give up the ubiquitous infrastructure-grid (albeit reluctantly), and extend our thoughts into other dimensions of the surface of the earth: the vertical and the ecological.

Ironically, although the world is crying for sustainable approaches today, most planning approaches we have are for cities on a flat land. Many popular solutions, those of Hyper Density, Sponge City and BRT Networks, are sure-footed in flat cities but flat-footed in mountainous areas. More embarrassingly, the natural quality of mountainous areas often put any mountain construction project under a hard moral dilemma: is it truly sustainable to build in mountains at all? All these observations make us keen to study the sustainability of mountain buildings.

We may categorise mountain buildings into three groups, by the degree of human intervention: minor interventions, mostly landscape structures; medium interventions, mostly micro communities of residences and resorts; heavy interventions, mostly complete communities of full local economic cycles.

Minor interventions are easily excused. They are, nevertheless, observatories of ecological investigation and education. They usually stand in a pristine natural setup as isolated structures, from viewing decks to small visitor centres to religious facilities.They attract people, usually urban dwellers seeking a moment of escape, who would "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". In regard to sustainability, their interpretation is simple: to protect the nature as it is, geologically and biologically. Zero distance experience and minimum artificial footprint is the motto of these structures. To architects, they have a unique charm: no matter what you design, you have a gorgeous natural background at your disposal. So a "sexy" architecture photo is guaranteed.

Medium interventions evoke debates. But they are somewhat "desirable". What they try to manifest is the long human desire of poetic dwelling in nature. From Heidegger's love with the black forest, to Mahler's composing hut to Wittgenstein's house in the valley, to the seductive guesthouses of Aman, man's willing to run away from the noises and routines of the city is recurrent. Yet when it comes to morality, these buildings have no chance of any high ground: they are either privileged private houses (clubs), or super expensive hotels and resorts, therefore not for everyone, far from. Only the elite can afford to consume this luxury. When it comes to sustainability, these buildings take an even more blurred stand. On one hand they do present the poetics of dwelling. On the other hand they cook the poetics of dwelling into consumerism products. Every circle of consumerism would necessarily end up with a broken cycle of resource. In these buildings, the broken cycles of urban consumerism are repeated, only moved to a different location, and dressed up with an idyllic cover.

Heavy interventions are the most controversial. Ambitious enough to set up a complete economic cycle based on the available resource in the local mountain, this type of mountain buildings are destined to have consequences in the mountains and is therefore usually put in the centre of fierce debates. In the postindustrial age, the most common development pattern of local mountain economy is sports, particularly winter sports. The growing world middle class population are seeking around the globe for new stimuli of testing their bodies on snow. The Winter Games is the biggest catalyst in this regard. Winter game facilities are never small, in physicality or in publicity. They always bare a moral duality in public debates: On one hand they offer unrivalled economic incentives to the hosting region with long industry chains that will surely benefit wider population. On the other hand they have substantial consequences on the mountains they are located in, particularly for highly professional sports venues that are hard to use after the games, such as Alpine and Ski Jumping, the environmental cost is deemed as very high. In terms of sustainability, they are permanently accompanied by the question of decision between the development of sports industry and the conservation of natural environment. In the Olympic Agenda 2020 led by president Thomas Bach, which puts social development, resource efficiency and youth mobilisation as the three pillars of the sustainability of the Olympic movement, the approach to this question is clear: maximising social development while minimising environmental consequences. In the bigger picture, buildings for the Winter Games will certain help the sports industry to replace old polluting industries and move a whole region in a sustainable direction. In the microcosm picture, sustainable design and environmentally friendly decisions are indispensable.

We have selected projects of all the three groups mentioned above. No conclusion has been achieved yet on the sustainability of these projects. They are open to further discussion and scrutiny, as is our report on the sustainability of mountain buildings.□

清華大學建筑學院/《世界建筑》

2015-09-11