發(fā)現(xiàn)金家坊

李穎春

袁菁

施佳宇

施佳宇 詹強(qiáng) 何威 攝影

譚鐳 譯

金家坊，位于明清兩代上?？h城的西北角，占地15 ha，由16 條街道、近500 幢房屋組成。2016 年初啟動(dòng)舊城改造項(xiàng)目之前，這里曾經(jīng)生活著近5 000 戶(hù)居民。查閱16—18 世紀(jì)的古代地圖，這一帶是城墻腳下、西門(mén)之內(nèi)的空白地帶。①上海地圖繪刊史上將1814 年清嘉慶《縣城圖》刊行到1918 年《袖珍上海新地圖》出版之前的時(shí)間段稱(chēng)為“近代早期”。據(jù)此，19 世紀(jì)以前的地圖可歸為“古代地圖”。參見(jiàn)鐘翀的文章《近代上海早期城市地圖譜系研究》，刊載于《史林》2013 年第1 期8—18 頁(yè)。它遠(yuǎn)離政治中心，沒(méi)有值得標(biāo)注的機(jī)構(gòu)和地名，甚至在地圖上所占的面積也被大幅壓縮。

這里本沒(méi)有名字，我們借用地塊內(nèi)一條主要道路的名字，將其命名為“金家坊”。

2017 年底，我們決定在這里開(kāi)展研究工作。當(dāng)時(shí)不少居民已經(jīng)搬離，一個(gè)新的規(guī)劃藍(lán)圖也已基本成型。我們對(duì)這個(gè)即將消失的街區(qū)感到好奇，原是希望在這里尋找一些古代留下的痕跡，以填補(bǔ)歷史地圖上的“留白”。但隨著研究的推進(jìn)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)金家坊的城市空間不能簡(jiǎn)單地理解為一片古代化石。恰恰相反，它是歷史上持續(xù)不斷建設(shè)活動(dòng)的結(jié)果，反映了史書(shū)上從未記載的、一代代普通人的生活情境。

于是，我們的工作重心從“古跡尋訪”轉(zhuǎn)向了對(duì)不同時(shí)期日常生活空間的發(fā)掘。我們研究工作的第一步，是觀察記錄由街道和建筑組成的城市物質(zhì)空間，并對(duì)其發(fā)展歷程各階段的特征進(jìn)行分層識(shí)別。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，金家坊的街巷間，仍然依稀保留著500 年前城墻、城門(mén)和水道的位置；現(xiàn)存道路的寬度和走線，清晰地反映出哪些道路形成于古代，哪些建造于近代。這里各式各樣的建筑物，幾乎是19 世紀(jì)末至20 世紀(jì)初上海城市住宅演變的縮影。金家坊雖然缺乏一種明快簡(jiǎn)潔的空間秩序，但這并不意味著歷史風(fēng)貌的衰敗，而恰恰是不同時(shí)期歷史殘片層疊和拼貼形成的獨(dú)特景觀。

金家坊一帶有著異常豐富、難以被“歸類(lèi)”的住宅形態(tài)。每一組建筑背后，都是一位具象的產(chǎn)權(quán)人。通過(guò)對(duì)現(xiàn)存地界石碑的字跡辨析，以及零星的訪談和歷史資料，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)20 世紀(jì)初期，這里的房屋業(yè)主大多為從事或參與商業(yè)活動(dòng)的華人。與租界內(nèi)實(shí)力雄厚的華洋資本偏愛(ài)的成片里弄相比，金家坊一帶的華人中小業(yè)主們更傾向于在不到1 畝（約500 ～600 m2）的小地塊內(nèi)進(jìn)行精打細(xì)算的混合開(kāi)發(fā)，將自住、出租、商業(yè)、工坊等功能融為一體，造就了這一帶豐富靈動(dòng)的街道立面。②相似的情況也存在于老法租界地區(qū)，參見(jiàn)劉剛的文章《近代上海租界的土地重劃與自主開(kāi)發(fā)》，刊載于《時(shí)代建筑》2018 年第6 期126—130 頁(yè)。

隨著調(diào)研的深入，我們與這里的居民漸漸熟悉，并開(kāi)始記錄他們?cè)诶铣亲詈蟮纳钊粘！?duì)于不少居民來(lái)講，這些位于城市中心的小小房屋，不僅是生活場(chǎng)所，也是謀生手段?！盁熂埖辍笨赡苁瞧渲凶畹湫偷睦?。煙紙店老板們?cè)谕ǔ儆谧约业姆孔永铮贿吔?jīng)營(yíng)生意，一邊照料家務(wù)，同時(shí)不耽誤享受生活中的小樂(lè)趣。所有的時(shí)間和空間都是自己的，這種“自由”和“方便”似乎不能簡(jiǎn)單地用金錢(qián)來(lái)計(jì)算。

金家坊不是偉大的城市規(guī)劃作品，也沒(méi)有重要的文物古跡，但這個(gè)古代地圖上的“留白”深深地打動(dòng)了我們。在這里，我們看到的是歷史上的普通人，在既有的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)制度條件下，利用區(qū)位、土地和房屋在城市中求取最好的生存狀態(tài)，由此形成獨(dú)特的城市景觀、生活方式和社區(qū)記憶。這一輪的城市更新，會(huì)給金家坊帶來(lái)怎樣的空間與生活？離開(kāi)金家坊的人們，又將如何在新的環(huán)境下延續(xù)各自的生活？我們將繼續(xù)觀察。

Jinjiafang is located at the northwest quadrant of the walled city of Shanghai County in the Ming and Qing dynasties. It occupies an area of 15 ha, consisting of 16 streets and almost 500 houses. Before the initiation of the urban renewal project in 2016, there used to be nearly 5,000 households residing in this area. According to the historical maps from the 16thto 18thcenturies, the Jinjiafang neighbourhood was an ‘empty land’ within the West Gate of the town, adjacent to the city wall.①The maps published between 1814 and 1:918 were considered as ‘early modern’ in the study of the survey and publish history of Shanghai maps. Thus, maps published before 1800 can be categorized as ‘a(chǎn)ncient maps’. See ZHONG Chong. Study on City Map Pedigree in the Early Time of Modern Shanghai [J]. Shiling, 2013 (1): 8-18.It was far from the political centre of the town, and there was no institution or landmark worth noting on the maps. Even its area on the map was significantly compressed compared to reality.

Initially, this area did not have a name. We are naming it Jinjiafang according to the longest street in the neighbourhood.

At the end of 2017, we started a study on the Jinjiafang neighbourhood. Many residents had already moved away by then, and the blueprint of a new urban plan had been formed. Initially, we were curious about this disappearing neighbourhood as we were hoping to find some traces left from the ancient times and fill in the ‘emptiness’ on the historical maps. However, as the survey continued, we realised that this piece of urban artefact should not be simply understood as some fossils left from the pre-modern period. Instead, it is a collage of fragments from the continuous construction activities from ancient times to the present, reflecting the very real situations of ordinary people’s everyday life that have not been recorded in any oきcial documents.

Therefore, we decided to shift our focus from ‘searching for ancient relics’ to the exploring of the everyday urban space in diあerent historical periods. The first steps of our research were to observe and document the physical urban space that consists of streets and buildings. We realise that the approximate locations of the city wall, city gate and waterways from 500 years ago can still be traced among the streets of Jinjiafang. Streets formed in pre-modern times and the recent past can be clearly differentiated by measuring and analysing the widths and paths of the current streets. The variety of buildings presents a near epitome of Shanghai’s urban housing evolution from the late 19th century to early 20th century. There seems to be a lack of apparent spatial order in Jinjiafang, but it is not the representation of a ruinous historic appearance. Instead, it is a unique urban landscape composed of multiple historical layers and fragments.

The Jinjiafang neighbourhood contains an exceptional variety of housing forms which are difficult to ‘categorise’. Behind each group of buildings there was a particular owner. Through documentation of the boundary stones, on-site interviews and scattered historical information, we discovered that these property owners were mostly Chinese, either being merchants or engaged in commercial activities, most of them moved into the old town from elsewhere around the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China (ROC) era. Compared with the largescalelilonghouses for rent favoured by the big foreign and Chinese developers in the International Settlement and French Concession, these Chinese petit landowners were more inclined to carry out carefully calculated mix-used development within a small piece of land less than 1mu(around 500-600 m2), creating the vivid streetscape in this area.②Such development mode can also be found in the old French Concession. See Liu Gang, “Land Adjustment and Self-Organized Development in Early Modern Shanghai Foreign Settlement.” Time + Architecture 2018 (6): 126-130.

As our survey continued, we got to know more about the residents, and started documenting their last episodes of daily life in this neighbourhood. We found that for many residents, these small houses in the city centre are not only their homes but also their ways to earn a living. ‘Tobacco shops’ are probably among the most typical examples. The shop owners took care of their households and manage their businesses in their homes, in the meanwhile not missing out on enjoying the fun of life. All the time and space are theirs to steer. Such a sense of ‘freedom’ and ‘convenience’ cannot be assessed simply on monetary terms.

Jinjiafang is not a product of magnificent urban planning; neither does it embody any cultural or political significance. However, this piece of ‘emptiness’ on the antiquated maps has touched us deeply. Here, we see how generations of ordinary people pursued the best life they could under the existing socio-political conditions, making use of the available location, land, and housing. All these have given rise to a unique urban landscape, lifestyle, and community memory. What kind of space and life will this round of urban renewal bring? How will people carry on their lives in the new environment after they leave here? Our observation in Jinjiafang shall continue.