白塔寺街區更新: 二十年的美好“糾結”

張利/ZHANG Li

作者單位：清華大學建筑學院/《世界建筑》

在北京的老城更新項目中，甚少有其他項目能有白塔寺片區這樣的多面性與混雜性。白塔寺片區的更新工作跨越了20年，自然有著難以言表的縱深與豐富。出乎人們意料的是，白塔寺片區雖然在北京并不是任何一種類型的首要代表——不管是從其歷史價值上講還是從其社會意義上講——卻一直憑借其獨特的復雜性與自發性，提供著一個事實上的當代中國建筑深度討論的代表性舞臺。

這一切開始于1990年代，當時白塔寺被列為北京受保護的老城片區之一，亟待復興。然而，它的“非典型性”——即不屬于典型的任何已知的老城片區流派——最終使它成為充滿機遇的城市更新實驗平臺。白塔寺從未像前門那樣是一座城市的標簽，它從未像南鑼鼓巷那樣人山人海，它從未像東交民巷那樣是潮流的風向標，它也從未像什剎海那樣把浪漫的懷舊演繹到極致。然而，一直以來，它自己是一個活生生的實體，不間斷地呼吸、演變、進化。它是中國城市更新的一個縮微樣本，不停地在更新過程中萌發出種種“糾結”——這些“糾結”在某種程度為建筑的歷史提供了刻度。而且，謝天謝地，在今天看來，白塔寺出現的這些“糾結”都是美好的“糾結”。

這里有更新機制的“糾結”。到底應該是自上而下還是自下而上？白塔寺一直精明地（幾乎是太精明地）拒絕選擇答案。曾幾何時，CIAM式的決定論主導了北京的城市更新：從城市結構到其中每個人的生活，一切都可以而且理所應當地被規劃。在今天看來這種技術至上主義的大包大攬對世紀之交時的許多城市更新問題（如果不算失敗的話）負有責任。又幾何時，伯克利式的激進主義試圖對其之前的彎路進行糾正，認為特定片區相關的一切必須由片區內部的共識決定。如果沒有共識，就要接受無序與混亂。白塔寺片區似乎有意將自己置于這兩種極端之間。“有組織的自發性”可能是描述白塔寺更新方式的最貼切詞匯。所有的關鍵利益相關方，尤其是代表政府的片區開發者，一直堅持以專注但自律的方式行事。整個白塔寺片區以漸進的方式更新，體現為一個個局部的修補刻畫。對于每一個局部，唯一可以確定的是其解決方案類型的不確定性。從對院落空間的徹底改造到對大型建筑樓層降層，白塔寺已經產生了各種各樣的解決方案，兼具獨特性與可復制性。

這里有建筑價值觀的“糾結”。關于舊城，在當代建筑學中一個揮之不去的課題是到底應該向新還是向舊，應該唯尊歷史還是優先當代。許多老城片區都舒服安全地選擇把自己裝點成古色古香的模樣，白塔寺并未效仿。也有許多老城片區最近選擇以極簡的形式主義向中產階級人群宣稱自己的當代身份，白塔寺也未效仿。在白塔寺，我們似乎能看到阿爾多·羅西所說的“固執”，它阻止整個片區滑向任何單一的形式語匯。長時間來，白塔寺如同一眼建筑理念的泉涌：張悅的人本主義方法論、徐甜甜的批判性社會干預、張軻的激進形式、董功與華黎的避世詩意、張永和的類型學探究、眾建筑的富勒-班納姆式的設計邏輯，等等。正是這種多元性和包容性，使白塔寺成為了中國當代建筑的一個鮮活舞臺。

這里有人口學上的“糾結”。在一端是“本真性”的光環，突出著對諸如“原住民”這樣的術語的執念，在另一端是達爾文式的社會經濟進化（“紳士化”概念的褒義替代品？）的力量，突出對具備“全球勝任力”的新居民的青睞。在這種兩極對立下，即使在亨利·列斐伏爾 “城市的權利”征服大多數學術陣地之后，真正達成混合的居住區仍然少得可憐。北京也同樣見證了在優先考慮新移民與優先考慮原居民之間的思維搖擺。然而，有意思的是，白塔寺片區真實存在著清晰可見的不同人群共生。當然這有著特殊的原因：白塔寺的人口結構建立在近90%的“偽（準）原住民”（指過去20～30年間及更早遺留的房客與租房者）基礎之上，這使白塔寺片區不論是選擇“原住民化”，還是全球新移民化，都將因不接人氣而最終碰壁。令事情更加復雜的是，居住在整個片區的功能構成中占據了令人吃驚的統領地位，非居住的業態極其稀少。這導致不同職業、教育背景的人必須共存，且各種年齡群體的分布分散化，以及多樣化文化與生活方式必須接受彼此并置。這些都使得給白塔寺片區賦予一個明確的人口特征定義變得異常困難。幸運的是，越來越多的建筑師（及建筑專業學生）正在將這種復雜人口結構視為一個機會，試圖使基于延續城市物理肌理之上疊加對應于人口結構的多層次意義成為可能。

白塔寺很復雜，白塔寺很撲朔，白塔寺很迷人。在2017年北京國際設計周的一個中午，人們曾看到白塔寺城市更新項目的長期主管者王玉熙在與當地胡同孩子一起玩可移動的街道藝術裝置。人們聽到他說：“這一切都讓人開心，不是嗎？”

本期不是《世界建筑》第一次出版白塔寺的相關內容，但是第一次《世界建筑》為白塔寺策劃的完整專輯。我們相信，長達20年的白塔寺片區更新項目所具備的建筑學和人類學潛質已經是不言自明的了。

我們特別感謝王玉熙、張悅、施衛良及許多其他為白塔寺做出巨大貢獻的人。我們還要感謝思唯雅·蘭泰里的插圖為本期增添了快樂。

Few Beijing old town regeneration projects are as multi-faceted as Baitasi. There is a certain unfathomable depth and richness associated with this project spanning well over two decades. It is amazing that Baitasi, while not championing either in historical value or social significance in Beijing,has been hosting such complexity and spontaneity,that itself has become a de-facto contemporary source of great architectural questions and debates.

It all started in the 1990s, when Baitasi was listed as one the typical old districts in Beijing waiting to be regenerated. Yet its "atypicality",i.e., not typical for any of the known genres of old districts, eventually made it a juicy substrate of experimentation. It has never been as iconic as Qianmen. It has never been as popular as Nanluogu Xiang. It has never been as trendy as Dongjiaomin Xiang. It has never been as nostalgic as Shichahai.It has been though, a living entity of its own,continuously breathing, mutating and evolving.It has been a microcosm sample of Chinese urban regeneration, producing dilemmas that make architecture what it is. And man, these are beautiful dilemmas in Baitasi.

There has been the dilemma of regenerative mechanism. Should it be top-down or bottomup? Baitasi has been smartly (almost too smartly)reluctant to pick an answer. There was a time when CIAM style determinism dominated urban regeneration in Beijing: everything, from the urban fabric to everyone's life in it, can be and should be planned by default. Such technocracy and wholesale approach is in today's view responsible for many problems (if not failures) in projects at the turn of the century. There was then a time of Berkeley style activism trying to correct what happened before it:everything related to a given community must be decided by the consensus of the community itself.When there is a lack of consensus, you have to accept anarchy. Baitasi somehow places itself in-between these two polar extremes. "Organised spontaneity"is the best available word to describe the Baitasi approach. For almost twenty-years, the key stake holders, particularly the developer representing the local government, have been acting in an attentive yet self-constrained manner. The entire Baitasi district has been updated piece by piece. For each piece, the only certainty is the uncertainly of the type of solution. From radical reorganisation of the courtyard space to the reducing of floors in some bigger buildings, Baitasi has generated a variety of solutions that is both individual-case-based and duplicable.

There has been the dilemma of architectural ideology. The haunting question in the spotlight is or course should it be new or old, historic or contemporary. While many old districts comfortably chose to dress up in decorative nostalgia, Baitasi did not follow suit. While many places then rushed to minimalist mannerism to claim some contemporary identity, Baitasi did not follow suit either. There seems to be a Aldo Rossian obstinacy in Baitasi, which has kept the entire area from sliding into any idiosyncratic monopoly. For over two decades, Baitasi has been a fountain of architectural argumentations: the equalitarian approach of ZHANG Yue, the critical social solutions of XU Tiantian, the radical claim of ZHANG Ke,the poetic escape of DONG Gong and HUA Li, the typological inquiry of Yung Ho Chang, the Fullerian-Banhamian logic of People's Architecture Office,etc. It is such pluralism and tolerance that has made Baitasi a vibrant stage for contemporary Chinese architecture.

There has been the dilemma of demographics.At one end, there is the aura of authenticity, the foolhardy faith in terminologies such as "aboriginal inhabitant". At the other end, there is the power of Darwinian social-economic evolution (a positive word for gentrification?), advocating the victory of the so-called "people of global competence".Even after Henri Lefebvre's right to the city has conquered most academic territories, truly mixed co-inhabitation are still few and far between. In Beijing, we have witnessed oscillations from giving priority to the new arrivals to giving the priority to the original inhabitants. However, in Baitasi,there is a visible demographical symbiosis. And it has good reasons: with its unique demographics,which consists of 90% "pseudo-original inhabitants"(or, lodgers and renters coming in the last 20～30 years and remaining), Baitasi virtually meets dead ends in both directions in the aboriginal-or-global debate. Making things even more complicated is that housing being the surprisingly dominant programme in the entire area. The co-existing of peoples of drastically different professional and educational backgrounds, the scattered distributions across the age spectrum, and the multiplicity of culture and life styles, has only made it even harder to give Baitasi a clear demographical definition.Fortunately, this complex demographics has been seen by more and more architects (and architecture students) as an opportunity, making the layering of demographical representations upon the evolving urban fabric a promising possibility.

Baitasi is complex. Baitasi is confusing. Baitasi is amazing. In the 2017 Beijing International Design Week, at a lunch break, WANG Yuxi, the perennial director of Baitasi urban regeneration project, was seen playing a mobile street installation with a local hutong kid and heard saying: "This is all enjoyable,isn't it?".

This is not the first time that WA has published Baitasi. It is the first time though, that WA has a whole issue entirely designated to Baitasi. We believe the architectural and anthropological potential of the two-decade-long Baitasi project has spoken for itself.

Our special thanks to WANG Yuxi, ZHANG Yue,SHI Weiliang, and many others who has contributed so much to Baitasi. We also like to thank Silvia Lanteri for her joyful illustrations that have added fun to this publication.