“城村架构”中的一个砖墙原型——林君翰先生访谈

范路

“城村架构”中的一个砖墙原型
——林君翰先生访谈

范路

林君翰先生是香港大学建筑系的副教授和“城村架构”（RUF）工作团队的创始人。“城村架构”成立于2005年，是一个非盈利机构。它以建筑项目、学术研究、展览和写作等方式，积极介入中国大陆的乡村向城市转变的过程。到目前为止，该机构团队已经在中国大陆完成了至少15个项目。这些项目位于大陆不同地区的乡村，包括学校、社区中心、医院、乡村住宅、桥梁及增量规划策略等（图1、2）。

在这些项目中，坐落于陕西省石家村的“四季”住宅（2009-2012）格外引人注目。它获得了2014年维纳博艮砖筑奖、2012年WA中国建筑奖优胜奖和2012年《建筑评论》杂志住宅奖。林君翰先生通过设计这座乡村砖墙住宅，尝试发展一种关于中国传统合院住宅的可持续发展的现代原型。他还试图通过使用当地已有建筑材料和工序，来沟通传统和现代。

本访谈旨在呈现石家村住宅中所运用的创新性设计策略，以及建筑师对项目背后社会问题的批判性思考。

关于“城村架构”和石家村

范路：您为何想要于2005年成立“城村架构”？该组织的建筑学目标又是什么？

林君翰：“城村架构”是我和约书亚·鲍乔弗（Joshua Bolchover）一起成立的，目的是探究中国的城市化问题。我们认为，城市化会导致积极或消极的后果，而城市化的过程对于决定结果非常重要。我们通过合作，试图找到将学术研究与实际项目相结合的方式。我们的一个方法就是在项目进行过程中开展研究。这不同于纯粹的分析性研究，还是对建筑项目所产生影响的检验。我们常常会想，对一个单独的项目来说，它能否在乡村或更大的尺度上解决更多的问题？

1 太平古桥修复工程，贵州，2007-2009/Taiping Bridge Renovation, Guizhou Province, 2007-2009

范路：在您看来，中国乡村向城市转变过程中的主要社会问题是什么？建筑又能以何种方式来应对这些问题？

林君翰：在这一过程中有许多问题，也有许多可能。但我试图关注解决建筑问题的能力。我认为，从一种经济和生活方式向另一种的转变是最大的挑战。我经常回想起福建土楼的渐进式发展变化。这种过程不需要建筑师，因为随着数百年的岁月，建筑创新自然而然地发生，产生了每一座土楼。而目前，建筑已成为了某种商品。我不认为由承包商建造的通用型建筑（generic buildings），能很好地满足当下的需求或生活方式。居住在这些建筑中也并不令人激动。我认为自己的角色是建筑师，可以为大家提供其他的设计选择。我并不提供单一或最终的解决方案，而是贡献一些新思路。

范路：“城村架构”中的15余个项目广泛地分布在中国大陆地区——从西北的陕西省到南部的广东省。这些项目有没有什么共同之处？

林君翰：我感兴趣的是这些项目及其场地的区别。我们尝试通过项目来表达这些不同，即有能力进行特定的回答和建造。当然，在这些地区，会有一些共同的让人苦恼的压力和问题，但解决办法必须来自于当地的独特之处。

范路：建造这些项目的资金均来自当地乡村之外的慈善机构。这对项目的设计创新是否有很大帮助？

林君翰：除了“四季”住宅，我们从来没有过一个经费完全自足的项目。这也带来了“四季”住宅项目的一个大问题。对此，我将在后面进一步讨论。而普遍规则是，我们的合作伙伴从来没有为项目提供全部资助。很重要的一点是，每个项目的所有当事方都参与投资。诚然，慈善机构的参与，让我们能够探索一些可能性，一些没有它们参与就无法实现的可能性。但通常的平衡点是，由当地社区支付其力所能及的一部分，其他参与方支付另一部分。

2 桐江再用砖小学，江西，2009-2012/Tongjiang Recycled Brick School, Jiangxi Province, 2009-2012

范路：当“四季”住宅项目计划建造时，石家村最突出的社会问题是什么？

林君翰：我想再一次提到，我并不试图解决社会问题。石家村当时正处在从乡村向城市转变的过程中。许多旧的“传统”住宅被拆除，代之以现代的“通用型”住宅。因此，我想要提供一些其他建议。我认为某些传统观念依然有意义，依然能够与新想法相结合，协同创造更好的住宅。

关于原型和砖墙

范路：您认为“四季”住宅中哪些设计策略是最具创新性的？

林君翰：该住宅设计并不依赖任何“全新的”观念，它只是整合各个局部。我试着将各个局部更为连贯地整合在一起。我认为最后的成功在于该住宅适合石家村，它看上去属于那里，但同时又引人注目。这也是我常常用来评价其他建筑影响力的标准。我寻找的是既异质又熟悉的东西。

范路：人们可以在“四季”住宅中看到某种均质性（homogeneity）。在石家村的传统住宅中，庭院往往位于中心，其他室内房间围绕其布置。而在“四季”项目中，4个庭院和室内房间并列排布，两类空间都不占据主导地位（图3）。从建构层面来看，混凝土框架、胡基砖填充墙、镂空花砖墙3个层次清晰区分，分别发挥各自的作用（图4）。最外层的镂空花砖墙表皮呈现了匀质的图案肌理，而没有反映内部空间的不同。所以，是否可以把这种匀质性看作是您设计中的现代主义成分？

3 传统农宅庭院的剖面透视/Sectional perspective of a typical village house courtyard

John Lin is an associate-professor and cofounder of the working group Rural Urban Framework (RUF) at the University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Architecture. Founded in 2005 as a non-profit organization, RUF is engaged in the rural-urban transformation of China through built projects, research, exhibitions and writing. It has built or is currently engaged in over 15 projects in various villages in China, which include schools, community centers, hospitals, village houses, bridges, and incremental planning strategies (fig.1, 2).

Among these projects, The House for All Seasons in Shijia Village, Shaanxi Province is a compelling one. It was awarded the Wienerberger Brick Award 2014, WA Chinese Architecture Award 2012, and Architectural Review's House Award 2012. Through the design of this brick-wall rural house, Professor John Lin attempts to develop a modern and sustainable prototype of a traditional Chinese courtyard house, and to bridge the gap between the traditional and the modern by using the existing knowledge of local materials and processes.

Thus, this interview aims to present the innovative design strategy of Shijia Village House and the critical thinking of social background behind the project.

On Rural Urban Framework and Shijia Village

FAN Lu: Why did you want to set up RUF in 2005? And what is the architectural objective for this organization?

4“四季”住宅，混凝土框架、胡基砖填充墙、镂空花砖墙3个建构层次/The House for All Seasons, three tectonic layers - concrete framework, mud brick infill wall and porous brick screen

John Lin: Together with Joshua Bolchover, we wanted to investigate the issue of urbanization in China. We believe that urbanization can lead to positive or negative results and the process of urbanization is very important in determining the outcome. Through our collaboration we tried to find ways to combine research and projects. One of our approaches is to conduct research through the process of doing projects. This level of engagement is different than pure analytical research. Also it's a way of testing the repercussions of an architectural project. Is it possible for a single project to address much larger issues at the scale of the village and beyond?

FAN Lu: In your opinion, what are the main social problems during the process of rural-urban transformation of China and how can architecture respond to those problems?

John Lin: There are many problems and many potentials. But I try to focus on the ability of architecture to address architectural problems. I think the drastic change from one economy and lifestyle to another is the biggest challenge. I often recall the gradual development which can be seen in the tulous. This process didn't need architects because innovation developed naturally over hundreds of years, with the subsequent building of each tulou. Currently, building has become a commodity. I don't think these generic buildings built by contractors respond very well to current requirements or lifestyles, they certainly aren't very inspiring for living in. I see my role as an architect to help offer other options. Not a single or final solution, but to simply contribute through new ideas.

FAN Lu: The locations of over 15 projects in RUF are quite widespread in China - from Shaanxi Province in the Northwest to Guangdong Province in the South. Is there anything these projects share?

John Lin: I am interested in the differences between these projects and sites. This is what we try to manifest through our projects. The ability to respond and build specifically. Of course there are common forces and problems which are afflicting all these areas, but the solution must come from the local, unique and specific qualities of these areas.

FAN Lu: The costs of these projects are all from charity organizations outside of local villages. Did design innovation benefit a lot form this situation?

John Lin: We never do a project which is entirely self-funded. Except for this house. Which is the biggest problem with the house project. I can discuss this later. But as a general rule, our partners never provide the entirety of funds. It is important that all parties are invested in each project. Of course the involvement of a charity allows us to pursue possibilities which wouldn't be possible otherwise. The usual balance is to fund a project that would eventually be within reach of the local community to support on their own.

FAN Lu: What were the prominent social issues in Shijia Village when your project was planned to be built?

John Lin: Again, I don't try to solve social problems. But the village was in a process of transformation. There were many houses being torn down-the old "traditional" house for a modern "generic" house. I wanted to offer other suggestions. I thought some traditional ideas still made sense alongside newer ideas to create greater synergy between the parts of the house.

On Prototype and Brick Wall

FAN Lu: What do you think is the most innovative aspect of design strategy for The House for All Seasons?

John Lin: The house does not rely on any "brand new" idea. Only integration of the parts. I tried to put the parts together in a more coherent way. I think the success ultimately is that the house "fits" in the village, it seems to belong there, but also stands out. I generally use this criteria to judge the impact of any architectural project. I look for something which is both foreign and familiar at the same time.

林君翰：我不清楚。不过我在尽力表达现代主义的“精神”，而非其历史定义。这种精神在今天仍然有意义，例如对于材料和技术的意识，渴望以恰当方式使用材料和技术，在建筑中清晰表达形式、功能及相关的空间序列等。但最终，我们必须小心，避免对此进行过多的分析。我同意你提到的一点，选择4个小的相互协调的庭院，是不同于设置一个大庭院的。当时我是对传统合院住宅庭院的完全内向性的体验感兴趣。而在“四季”住宅设计中，我间隔地设置了4个小庭院，觉得这样可以扩展、多样化原有的体验，并能够让住宅的“内部更大”。当人们依次感受这4个院子，会发现我为它们赋予了不同的性格。其中一个院子还直接与屋顶相连。我认为这是对合院住宅观念的形式探索。当然，作为一名建筑师，我有义务去试着超越我已经知道的东西。然而，我强烈地觉得，尽管我们必须利用空间和结构的形式观念，但还应该让建筑保持某种基本自由，让住宅中的人自在生活、成长。建筑不应该控制所有的事。

范路： 在 “城村架构”的许多项目中，也包括在“四季”住宅中，都设计有连接地面的屋顶平台（图5-7）。你们为何偏好这种设计手段？

林君翰：我想这是我们的兴趣使然。一方面，我们对连接地面或场地感兴趣。我们想要让建筑与地面发生联系，以产生围绕建筑的连续空间。另一方面，我们试图让每个空间都具有功能，而屋顶总是能提供活动场地及最佳视角。我想我们总会有一些更爱使用的设计手段。

范路：您将“四季”住宅看作一个建筑原型。原型应该具有某些普遍性的价值。那么对石家村的其他项目来说，它们能够从“四季”住宅那里获得什么样的参考？

林君翰：我认为“四季”住宅作为一个原型，表明了一些可以被用来进行组合的观念。但这并不意味着它可以被不断地或重复地建造。我也不认为这样会产生一个真正伟大的乡村。乡村的品质在于每座住宅会有不同的形式与造型，会有各种独特的影响。乡村的形态是由集体共同创造的。只是到了现代建筑时期，才出现了商品化和千篇一律的问题。我们设计“四季”住宅，是希望它能影响住宅创新的过程，而非取代这一过程。

范路：“四季”住宅的单位造价约是855Rmb/m2。石家村同时期建造的其他住宅的平均单位造价是多少？是否造价成本会限制其他住宅参考你们设计的原型？

林君翰：“四季”住宅的造价与其他住宅相似。这也是它能够产生影响的必由之路。

范路：看项目的总平面图会发现，“四季”住宅孤独地矗立在开阔的农田中，而距其不远处的许多住宅则紧凑地聚集在一起（图8）。在“四季”项目中，镂空花砖墙的外皮形成了引人注目的建筑立面，并让内部使用者能透过它看到四周的农田。而对其他住宅来说，最外层的墙体为实墙，仅起到围合内部空间并分隔相邻住宅的作用。

林君翰：典型的情况是，住宅并不孤立在场地中。但我们得到的“四季”项目的建设用地便独立在农田中。因此，我们在该项目设计中，不得不找一个平衡点。让“四季”住宅既能表现场地的特殊性，又可以成为一个建筑原型，能够在许多不同地段上被采用。我认为这座住宅很容易就可以有简单的实墙外皮。

范路：我们观察“四季”项目的一些照片就会发现，发生在其室内的是公共活动（图9）。所以我们是否可以认为，该项目更多是用作社区中心而非居住住宅？

林君翰：这就涉及到我之前讨论过的投资模式和项目性质。我认为该项目的最大挑战是：我们按照设想建造了一座住宅，然后把它“交给”一个有需要的家庭，但在经历了长期的咨询之后，我们发现根本没办法选择一个家庭并真实评价其资格。这其中有许多复杂的政治情况，而我们则被迫去选择家庭。当我们最终对这一过程失去了信心，我们便决定让合作慈善机构陕西妇联来主导此事。之后，他们有了一些想法，将该建筑用作为需要帮助妇女的临时住宅和由他们成立的草编合作社的活动基地。这对一所住宅来说是个有意思的变化，它同时包括了家庭使用和公共活动的内容。个人认为，任何建筑项目最终被社区完全接受采用，是非常重要的。在此之后，建筑项目就有了它自己的生命。而目前，我正在进行另一个项目，在四川重建20座住宅。那里的家庭会支付自己住宅建造的大部分费用。这也是非常复杂的政治过程的结果，给设计带来了紧迫性和更大的阻力，但也为设计增加了新的特征。我认为在实现有意义项目的过程中，这些限制条件最终是很重要的。

建筑师常常会认为，如果预算更充裕或业主更为“思想开放”，那建筑构想就能更好地实现。我觉得必须非常小心这一诱人的想法。因为常常是项目中的约束和限制，让我们产生了最好的设计能力和必要的建筑解决办法。这是我个人在乡村和边远地区工作的发现和收获。限制与创新，本质上是不可分的。

5 琴模村小学，广东，2006-2008/Qinmo Village Primary School, Guangdong Province, 2006-2008

6 木兰小学，广东，2010-2012/Mulan Primary School, Guangdong Province, 2010-2012

7 “四季”住宅，屋顶平台景观/The House for All Seasons, roof terrace view

8 “四季”住宅，住宅孤立在开阔的农田中, 镂空花砖墙形成外立面/The House for All Seasons, the house isolated in the open farmland with porous brick-wall envelope serving as facades

9 “四季”住宅，室内的公共活动/ The House for All Seasons, public activities in an interior room

FAN Lu: A sort of homogeneity could be discerned in your Shijia Village project. In traditional housing in Shijia Village, courtyards are always placed in the center and surrounded by other interior rooms. While in your project, four courtyards and interior rooms are juxtaposed, and neither side takes the dominant position (fig.3). In tectonic aspect, three layers - concrete framework, mud brick infill wall and porous brick screen - are clarified and act as their roles respectively (fig.4). And in outermost envelope, the porous brick wall presents the same pattern all over without uncovering different spaces behind. So could this homogeneity be regarded as a modernism in your design?

John Lin: I don't know. Rather than conveying the historic definition of modernism. I try my best to convey the "spirit" of modernism. This is still relevant today. A consciousness of material and technology and the desire to use these in appropriate ways. Also trying through architecture to convey a clarity of form and function linked through spatial sequence. But ultimately we have to be careful not to analyze it too much. I agree that there is a difference of choice to have a single large courtyard versus small integrated courtyards. I suppose I was interested in the traditional idea of a courtyard house, which is an entirely introverted experience. By interspacing the courtyards throughout I felt the experiences could be extended, and diversified and the house would be "larger on the inside". One discovers the courtyards, I gave characteristics to each one, and one of the courtyards is a direct link to the roof. I suppose on a formal level this was my experimentation with the idea of a courtyard house. And of course as an architect, I'm obligated to try and go beyond what I know.

However, I feel very strongly that even though we need to utilize formal ideas concerning the space and structure, there should remain a fundamental freedom about how one lives and grows within the house itself. Architecture shouldn't control everything.

FAN Lu: In many RUF projects including the House for All Seasons, roof terraces that connect the ground could be found (fig.5-7). Why do you prefer to this strategy?

John Lin: I think this happens as a result of our interests. On one hand, we are very interested in the connection to the ground. Or site. We want our projects to work with the ground and therefore form a continuum with the space surrounding a building. On the other hand, we try to make every space functional, therefore the roof always presents the possibility for activity and the best views. I guess we have some tools we like using more than others.

FAN Lu: You regard the House for All Seasons as a prototype, which should have some general significance. So to what aspects of the house could be referenced by other projects in Shijia Village?

John Lin: As a prototype, I mean that it demonstrates some ideas which can be combined together. However I don't mean that it should be built endlessly or repetitiously. I don't think this could make a really great village either. The quality of the villages are that there is individual impact on the form and shape of each family house. The village takes its shape collectively. Its only when we get to modern architecture that commodification and monotony becomes an issue. We planned this house to have an impact on the process of house renovation, NOT to replace it.

FAN Lu: The unit cost for the House for All Season is about 855 RMB/sqm. What is the average unit cost for other contemporary houses built in Shijia Village? Will cost be a limitation that makes the prototype difficult to be referred to in the village?

John Lin: The house is similar in cost to other houses. That's the only way it can work.

FAN Lu: In the site location plan, your project is isolated in the open farmland, while many houses nearby gather together compactly (fig.8). In your project, the porous brick-wall envelope serves as attractive facades and allows people inside to look through into farmland. But for houses nearby, outermost solid walls only enclose their interior spaces and separate one house from another.

John Lin: Although the typical condition is a house that does not stand alone, this is the site we were given. We had to make a balance between designing a house which addressed the specific site meanwhile as a prototype which could be adopted for many different sites. I think the house could easily have a simple solid wall.

FAN Lu: Furthermore, many photos show that a lot of public activities were taking place in interior rooms (fig.9). So can we think that the project function actually more as a community center than a domestic house?

John Lin: This regards the funding model and the project nature which I discussed earlier. I think the biggest challenge with the project was our idea to build a house and then "give" it over to a family in need. After a long process of consultation, we discovered that there was no way to select a family and truly assess their qualification to live in the house. There were too many political entanglements and we were pushed to select certain families. When we lost faith in this process, we decided to allow our partner charity the Shaanxi Women's Federation to manage it. They had some ideas to use it as a temporary house for women in need and also as a base for the straw weaving cooperative that they set up. This was an interesting development for a house to be both a domestic program and a public program. I personally think its important for any architectural project to be eventually adopted completely by the community. It has a life of its own after that. However I am currently working on a reconstruction for 20 houses in Sichuan. The families are paying the majority of the cost for their own house. Its an extremely complicated political process as a result of this. This adds an edge to the project, an urgency and a greater resistance to the design. I think ultimately these constraints are important in realizing meaningful projects.

Often as architects we feel that if the budget was expanded or if our client was more "open minded" our architectural visions could be better realized. I think we have to be careful of this seductive idea. Its often the constraints and limitations that bring out the best of our design ability and the necessity for architectural solutions.This has been one personal discovery while working in rural, remote areas: The inseparable nature of creativity and constraint.

A Brick-wall Prototype in Rural Urban Framework (RUF): An Interview with John Lin

FAN Lu

清华大学建筑学院

2014-06-20