“城市空地”的美學與可持續性

張利/ZHANG Li

作者單位：清華大學建筑學院/《世界建筑》

《世界建筑》很少直接使用具體建設項目的名稱或具體城市運動的口號來作為學術話題的標識。不過這一次，我們實在是不能比拉坎布拉教授和迪蒙特教授做得更好，他們所使用的“這不是空地”完美地定義了我們這次的聚焦。

城市更新是發生在地表的持續性累加行為，每一次新的干預都同時產生兩種意義的空間資源——被賦予明確價值的“有效空間資源”，和未被賦予明確價值的“殘余空間資源”。在較長的時間范圍內，前者通過歷次干預的疊加演化出城市的“旅游友好”的前臺風景，為歷史所津津樂道；而后者則通過邊緣殘余的沉淀化為城市的“犄角旮旯”的后臺碎片，被選擇性遺忘。在很多人看來，這些碎片是城市的自然新陳代謝過程所產生的累贅，唯一的整治辦法是通過某種意義的“現代”開發建設把它們轉變為有效空間資源。

所幸的是，我們生活在一個善于對過去的選擇性遺忘（或說得更極端些：歧視）進行反思的時代，這不僅在于本雅明所說的任何文明的精致所依賴的必要的“野蠻”，也不僅在于我們對于曾經打破米開朗基羅鼻子的托里賈諾的作品內涵的再發現，而是在于我們這個時代對于真實的日常生活和普通人的平凡社區的發自內心的熱情。

這種反思是深刻的，啟發性的。它始于居伊·德波與其同儕在思想界所引領的情境主義運動，通過Team X 和早期荷蘭結構主義者在建筑界形成第一波說服力，在20 世紀晚期和21 世紀之交遭受各種建筑投機分子濫用之后，終于在今天回復到它的初衷。

在今天看，這種反思有4 個基本的特征：第一，社區空間為重。衡量城市空間質量的標示性單位不是為旅游者的建筑名勝，而是為本地人的社區空間。第二，公共性優先。社區空間是所有人的、為社區所共享、應為所有人提供同樣的可達性與易用性。第三，生活即美。社區空間的美不在于它的形態，而在于它對生活于其中的人的活動的激發，或說活動形式的豐富程度及人與人互動的密度與強度。第四，權宜為用。社區空間的用途來源于它不同時間階段下的不同的權宜之用，以及這些使用狀態之間的無縫轉換。

我們不難在本期的案例中發現上面4 個基本特征的不同程度的、帶有側重的呈現。很明顯，所有的案例都體現了通過社區空間品質的提升對城市性格塑造所做出的貢獻。中國深圳梅豐社區公園、西班牙巴塞羅那對海公園對曾經的不可達空間進行了全面的公共性賦予，雖然后者有相當的注意力在構筑裝置和線性網絡的可視性上，而前者的路徑系統設置則更多來自對人的不同的運動狀態的考量。委內瑞拉加拉加斯的七彩薩利納斯、荷蘭扎安的A8高速公路公園強調的是對一定時間范圍內某種受歡迎的權宜之用的架構。布拉格的濱河空間設計則是通過一個精巧的設計干預，試圖激發、開啟一系列豐富的街區生活。必須指出的是，所有的案例都讓相應的空間資源在城市局部發揮更積極、更長時間的作用，從而貢獻于更大范圍的可持續性。

這些便是本期《世界建筑》所試圖傳遞的關于“城市空地”的美學與可持續性的信息。特別感謝拉坎布拉和迪蒙特教授，是他們慷慨地允許我們使用“這不是空地”這一精確而美好的表達。□

It is rare in the history of World Architecture to adopt the title of a special number directly from the name of a project or a programme.But this time,we have found it hard to do any better than the two professors, Lacambra and Di Monte, whose wording of Estonoesunsolar perfectly defines the purpose,and the focus of this issue.

Urban renewals are endless iterations of intervention cycles on the surface of the planet.Every intenvention produces two types of spaces:those that have specific purposes and values,thus dubbed as "assets"; and those that have no specific purposes and values, usually referred to as "residues".With time, "assets" overlaid on each other would eventually evolve into frontstage showcase pieces, perfect for tourists;while "residues" remain as backstage nuisances,selectively forgotten.To many, they are the undesirables produced through the metabolism of a city, with the only way to treat them being the panacea of a new modern development.

Fortunately, we live in a time of reflections.One of the most important reflections is exactly the one on the selective oblivions (or to put it more to the extreme: discriminations).It is not only an outcome of Walter Benjamin's notion of the "barbarism" upon which all civilised elegance resides, nor an outcome of the rediscovery of Pietro Torrigiano's sculptures before and after he broke Michellangelo's nose,but an outcome of a genuine passion of our time towards the realworld life around us and the downto-earth local communities.

This reflection is deep, and enlightening.Originating from Guy Debord and his friends'intellectual movement of the situationists, it enjoyed the first wave of convincing architectural implementations from Team X and early Dutch structuralists.It got frequently abused by a full series of glamorous opportunists in the late 20th century and at the turn of the 21st century, before finally returning to its original argument today.

Looked from today, this reflection are likely to promote four characters: (1) The focus on community spaces.The best key performance index for a city is no longer its landmark attractions for tourists, but community spaces for local residents.(2) Putting public access first.All commuinity spaces are shared properties of everyone of the community.Equal access and convenience should be provided for the entire community.(3) Life being inherently beautiful.The beauty of community spaces doesn't come from their morphological formulations,but from their encouragement of more human activities and interactivities, the richer and the intenser, the better.(4) The ad hoc being the useful.The usefulness of the community space lies in its capability of accommodating continuously changing usages, and in its capacity of switching among a variety of ad hoc modes along time.

All the four charaters are found in the examples collected in this WA issue, albeit through representations of multiple scopes.The emphasis on community space, and the ambition to make it a mark in the city is obvious in all examples.The Meifeng Community Park in Shenzhen, China,and the Parque de Diagonal Mar in Barcelona,Spain are two projects that enable complete public access to large urban patches that were previously inaccessible.Diagonal Mar may have put more energy in creating visual attractions in its plan and installations, while Meifeng has taken more consideration in making its pathway system meeting the needs of different movements.Pinto Salinas in Caracas, Venezuela, and A8enA at Zaanstad,the Netherlands both take the ad hoc uses within a certain time as frameworks of their designs.The Prague Riverfront in Prague, Czech features a delicate treatment, a unique design that breathes new life into the decaying old urban fabric and opens up a full spectrum of possibilities.What need to be mentioned here is that all examples make the respective urban spatial resource lasting longer and performing better, adding worthy elements to the overall sustainability of the city.

This is the message we try to give through this special WA number about the aesthetics and sustainability of unused urban spaces.Our special thanks to Prof.Lacambra and Prof.Di Monte, it is upon their generosity that we achieve the impeccable wording of the title of this special number.□