当下不少建筑师似乎越来越喜欢做旧建筑改造的项目。究其原因，可能出于环保的理念：充分利用现有建筑资源加以改造，减少因拆除而产生难以降解的建筑垃圾，反映出建筑师的社会责任感。也可能出于对历史文化的认知：一个城市，一个街区，一个建筑都是历经几十年，几百年持续不断地建造，更新而成。对旧建筑的改造利用可以使这些既存的老的、或不那么老的房子的寿命得以延长，留下来就是留下了城市的记忆。这反映出建筑师的文化观。更有可能的是出于一种特别的审美趣味：那些老的、历经风雨甚至残缺不全的旧房子与全新的、现代的建筑语汇和材料相互穿插并置，会产生一种莫名的美感。时间的维度在新旧的对比和反衬中得以延伸，呈现出一种文化的喻意和艺术收藏的价值。以第一种立场做改造，讲的是资源利用。不管是几十年的老房子还是搁了好几年的烂尾楼，只要结构还撑得住，就可以按需要改造包装，求的是改头换面，并无文化或艺术方面的牵挂。但由于只是利用，于是往往碰到利用的价值问题。典型的说法是“改造还不如拆了重建合算！”的确，由于国家在环保方面的相关政策尚没有跟上，垃圾处理收费低，相比起改造加固的投入和修建工期长于新建工期的客观事实，改造确实不如新建合算。但显而易见的是这种低成本破坏环境的状况是难以为继的！相信有关政策也会尽快调整。持第二种态度面对改造，关注的是城市有机更新、历史痕迹的留存的问题。不仅在改造中要保留旧建筑的形态特征，甚至一片老墙、一棵老树、一个老物件等但凡能唤起城市记忆的元素，都将在改造中得以精心地修缮保护和利用。但在实践中碰到的问题是人们对老房子价值的认识差异：百年以上的老房子是文物，一点儿不能动；几十年的旧房子则价值不大，可拆可改。似乎今天城市的历史是由几百年前幸存下来的几处文物加上今天所谓标志性建筑和高楼大厦组成的，而大量的背景建筑则完全没有历史价值，显然这是一种文化和历史观上的糊涂。如此这般会造成城市文脉上的第二道裂痕。因此以文化的态度面对改造需要对所有的城市资源给予应有的尊重。持第三种观点进行改造，尽管多出于建筑师的美学趣味，但的确有可能把那些“腐朽”化为“神奇”，把那些平庸的大房子（车间、仓库）提升到“艺术殿堂”的高度，此类成功案例已经不少。但现实中是不是所有的资源都可以进行这样的转换？是不是一个城市需要那么多艺术空间？把一个可以利用的平常建筑改造成一个可以高质量利用的平常建筑应该是更大量的需求，但建筑师对此感兴趣吗？而同时另一个值得注意的倾向是有些出于追求趣味而进行的改造，可能为了扮“酷”而牺牲了应有的利用质量，中看不中用，这种现象对艺术群体可能不是问题，而对一般客户就可能引起误导和困惑，反而对旧建筑改造利用的初衷带来负面的影响。总的来说，以笔者之浅见，在现实中这三种态度、三种方法应该结合起来，既有环保的意识又有文化的观念，同时去追求艺术的价值，相互促进，而不应成为矛盾。
Lots of architects seem to jump on the bandwagon of renovation and restoration. We can point to a few possible reasons. Renovation promises sustainability--making maximum use of existing architectural resources, reducing hard-to-dispose-of construction garbage and, not least, showing certain architects' sense of social responsibility. Restoration also appeals to an appreciation for history and culture--a city, a block, a building can never be what it is but for decades and centuries of constant construction and renewal. The reformation and utilization of old buildings prolongs the lifespan of the old and not-so-old buildings as it preserves urban memory. This points up the culture sensibilities of an architect. Another more likely possibility comes from a special aesthetics, namely the fusion and juxtaposition of the old, the ancient and even damaged buildings, using modern architectural archetypes and brand new materials. The dimension of time is stretched in the comparison and contrast of the old and new, adding to renovation's value as art in itself.Renovation based on the first concept is about the exploitation of resources. As long as the structure remains stable, no matter if it's a decades-old building or a "rotten-tailed" building (that is, deserted before completion), it can be renovated according to a need not of cultural or artistic significance but simple renewal. But this exploitation is always confronted by a problem of value. Common wisdom holds that it makes more financial sense to demolish and rebuild than to renovate. Indeed, rebuilding often does make more economic sense than renovating due to the fact that our environmental policies are often backward and our labor and garbage disposal fees are low. But apparently this low-cost approach does enormous damage to the environment. We hope that construction policies will be improved as soon as possible.Renovation based on the second concept is concerned with organic urban renewal and historical preservation. Not only do the structural characteristics of old buildings need to be preserved, but an old piece of wall, an aged tree, a traditional object, among other elements that can evoke memories of a city, should also be carefully restored and utilized. The question raised from such a practice is the difference in the understanding of old buildings: those over one hundred years old are antique and must be restored down to their details, while those only a few decades old are not as important and could be demolished or redesigned. The city today seems to be made up of few antique buildings that luckily survived centuries, while the so-called landmark high-rises, along with most buildings in the backdrop contribute little historical value, which shows an apparent confusion of cultural value and historical viewpoints. This may lead to a second "wound" to the urban culture. Thus, from a cultural point of view, we should respect all urban resources in reformation.The third concept behind renovation, the aesthetic interest of architects, has led to a good number of successful examples of ruins that have been turned into wonders, such as large industrial buildings transformed into temples of art. But is everything fit for such transformation? Does a city need so many art spaces? There is certainly a need to turn functioning common buildings into a well-functioning common buildings, but are architects interested in this? Another emerging trend are renovations tailored for style, in which actual functionality is compromised by the desire to look "cool." This phenomena may attract art crowds but turn away the general public, having corrupted the original intention behind renovation. In my humble opinion, overall these three ideas and methods -- the environmental, cultural, and aesthetic concerns -- should be integrated so they better interact with each other, rather than conflict. |
感觉还不错
建筑师讨论
