山地建成环境的可持续性

张利 /ZHANG Li

山地建成环境的可持续性

Mountain Buildings and Sustainability

张利 /ZHANG Li

如果我们武断地把人工与自然定义成空间环境的两个极端，那么显然山地与平地相比，是接近自然一端的。如果再把现代主义运动之后的基于基础设施网格的二维规划工具纳入考虑范围的话，山地建成环境的自然属性就更明显了——它使我们兴奋地（或是不情愿地）放弃驾轻就熟的二维工具，把思考扩展到大地的另外维度，即垂直的维度和物种多样性的维度。

有趣的是，在全球关注可持续性的今天，我们所得到的大多数建成环境的可持续性策略仍然是默认以平地为基础的。很多盛行的解决方案，如极致密度、海绵城市、快速公交网络等，都是针对平地密集聚居环境的，对山地环境捉襟见肘。同时，山地环境强大的自然属性——不论是茂盛的山林还是贫瘠的岩壁——又不时把任何基于山地的建设置于环境伦理的困境之中，使“山地建成环境是否在根本上是可持续的”成为一道常见的质疑。这些都使我们愈发地对山地建筑的可持续性这一问题感兴趣。

我们可以根据人工干预程度的不同，把山地建成环境分成3种，并据此来观察其可持续性的策略与取向：轻度干预，以景观方式介入；中度干预，以微型社区方式介入；强度干预，以局部经济社区方式介入。

轻度干预的山地建成环境是最没有争议的，它们从道德上讲，几乎就是提供生态与环保教育的前台哨所。它们多数以零星的点状构筑物独处于自然环境之中，从观景平台、游客服务设施到宗教设施。其所吸引的人群是典型的寻求片刻逃逸的都市观光者，后者“除了照片什么也不带走，除了脚印什么也不留下”。在山地建成环境的可持续性方面，这类构筑物明显取向于对自然的原生状态的保护，包括对地质环境和物种环境的保护，因而近距离体验但最小化触碰是这类建筑的共性。对建筑师来讲设计这类构筑物还有一种极大的诱惑，即无论设计成什么样，都将拥有一个慷慨的原生自然环境给予烘托，因而得到一张“性感”的作品照片几乎是板上钉钉的。

中度干预的山地建成环境虽然有争议，但却在某种程度上是最“令人向往”的，因为它们试图传递的是人在自然中诗意栖居的不灭理想。从海德格尔的黑森林情结到马勒的作曲小屋，到维特根斯坦的河谷居所，再到安缦集团的坡地客房，人的不甘于在城市的喧闹与重复中终了此生的宿愿再三显现。不过这类建筑在道德上实在是没有什么光环：它们或是令人艳羡的私人居（会）所，或是昂贵奢华的高级酒店。其所吸引的人群也不再是所有的社会阶层，而是有能力消费被精致收纳的自然的上中产阶级或特权人群。在山地建成环境的可持续性方面，这类建筑的取向是相对模糊的：一方面它们强调自然的诗意，另一方面它们把自然调制成高端消费的对象。即是消费，便必然有着物质循环中的不连续——从本质上讲，在这类建筑中发生的物质循环只是对城市中同类物质循环的一个简单位移，虽然在这里有着被精心营造出来的诗情画意的外衣。

强度干预的山地建成环境是最具争议的，因为它们试图利用山地的独有资源——地形、水文甚至物种——建立一个相对完整的局部经济循环，会对山地原本的生态面貌带来明显的改变，从而经常暴露于激列的讨论之下。在后工业社会时代，发展山地局部经济最常见的模式是与山地运动、特别是与冬季运动的结合。全球蓬勃壮大的中产阶级不停地在世界各地寻找在雪上驾驭身体、挑战重力的新刺激，新的滑雪目的地层出不穷。在这方面，冬季奥运会可以说是造就冰雪运动目的地的最大强心剂，也是最受关注的环境问题的讨论对象。与冬奥会雪上项目相关的赛道、场馆与服务设施从来都不是小规模的营造，也从来不能逃避道德上的两面性：一方面，它们毫无疑问将带来所属地区体育休闲经济的繁荣，长长的产业链条将惠及地区内的所有社区；另一方面，它们也命中注定地将对所处的山脉造成持久性的影响，而且部分专业性极强的项目设施在赛后难以民用（如高山滑雪，跳台滑雪等），其瞬时的环境成本更为突显。在山地建成环境的可持续性方面，它们永远面临着发展区域体育休闲经济与控制环境影响的决策取舍。现任国际奥委会主席托马斯·巴赫在其主导的《奥林匹克2020 议程》中对这一问题的态度是鲜明的。在这份把社会机会、资源效率和青年激发列为奥林匹克运动参与全球可持续发展三大基石的文献中，使奥运会对经济与社会机会的贡献最大化、同时有效控制环境影响是被明确倡导的途径。基于这一观点，宏观上，如果强度干预的山地建成环境能够最终造成运动休闲产业对矿业和制造业的替代，那么其对区域长期可持续发展的贡献将是巨大的；微观上，更具环境意识、更面向长期价值的设计将是控制环境影响的必经之路。

本期《世界建筑》收录了上述3个类型的山地建成环境案例，对它们的可持续性的评价尚无结论，这恰恰可以为我们的讨论提供有益的素材。□

If we arbitrarily take the natural and the artificial as two polar extremes, and try to measure all built environments through the spectrum between these two extremes, then mountain buildings would definitely be more "natural" than those in flat areas. They would be even more "natural" if we consider the 2D-centred plan tools after the arrival of Modernism. For the plan of mountain buildings, we have to give up the ubiquitous infrastructure-grid (albeit reluctantly), and extend our thoughts into other dimensions of the surface of the earth: the vertical and the ecological.

Ironically, although the world is crying for sustainable approaches today, most planning approaches we have are for cities on a flat land. Many popular solutions, those of Hyper Density, Sponge City and BRT Networks, are sure-footed in flat cities but flat-footed in mountainous areas. More embarrassingly, the natural quality of mountainous areas often put any mountain construction project under a hard moral dilemma: is it truly sustainable to build in mountains at all? All these observations make us keen to study the sustainability of mountain buildings.

We may categorise mountain buildings into three groups, by the degree of human intervention: minor interventions, mostly landscape structures; medium interventions, mostly micro communities of residences and resorts; heavy interventions, mostly complete communities of full local economic cycles.

Minor interventions are easily excused. They are, nevertheless, observatories of ecological investigation and education. They usually stand in a pristine natural setup as isolated structures, from viewing decks to small visitor centres to religious facilities.They attract people, usually urban dwellers seeking a moment of escape, who would "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". In regard to sustainability, their interpretation is simple: to protect the nature as it is, geologically and biologically. Zero distance experience and minimum artificial footprint is the motto of these structures. To architects, they have a unique charm: no matter what you design, you have a gorgeous natural background at your disposal. So a "sexy" architecture photo is guaranteed.

Medium interventions evoke debates. But they are somewhat "desirable". What they try to manifest is the long human desire of poetic dwelling in nature. From Heidegger's love with the black forest, to Mahler's composing hut to Wittgenstein's house in the valley, to the seductive guesthouses of Aman, man's willing to run away from the noises and routines of the city is recurrent. Yet when it comes to morality, these buildings have no chance of any high ground: they are either privileged private houses (clubs), or super expensive hotels and resorts, therefore not for everyone, far from. Only the elite can afford to consume this luxury. When it comes to sustainability, these buildings take an even more blurred stand. On one hand they do present the poetics of dwelling. On the other hand they cook the poetics of dwelling into consumerism products. Every circle of consumerism would necessarily end up with a broken cycle of resource. In these buildings, the broken cycles of urban consumerism are repeated, only moved to a different location, and dressed up with an idyllic cover.

Heavy interventions are the most controversial. Ambitious enough to set up a complete economic cycle based on the available resource in the local mountain, this type of mountain buildings are destined to have consequences in the mountains and is therefore usually put in the centre of fierce debates. In the postindustrial age, the most common development pattern of local mountain economy is sports, particularly winter sports. The growing world middle class population are seeking around the globe for new stimuli of testing their bodies on snow. The Winter Games is the biggest catalyst in this regard. Winter game facilities are never small, in physicality or in publicity. They always bare a moral duality in public debates: On one hand they offer unrivalled economic incentives to the hosting region with long industry chains that will surely benefit wider population. On the other hand they have substantial consequences on the mountains they are located in, particularly for highly professional sports venues that are hard to use after the games, such as Alpine and Ski Jumping, the environmental cost is deemed as very high. In terms of sustainability, they are permanently accompanied by the question of decision between the development of sports industry and the conservation of natural environment. In the Olympic Agenda 2020 led by president Thomas Bach, which puts social development, resource efficiency and youth mobilisation as the three pillars of the sustainability of the Olympic movement, the approach to this question is clear: maximising social development while minimising environmental consequences. In the bigger picture, buildings for the Winter Games will certain help the sports industry to replace old polluting industries and move a whole region in a sustainable direction. In the microcosm picture, sustainable design and environmentally friendly decisions are indispensable.

We have selected projects of all the three groups mentioned above. No conclusion has been achieved yet on the sustainability of these projects. They are open to further discussion and scrutiny, as is our report on the sustainability of mountain buildings.□

清华大学建筑学院/《世界建筑》

2015-09-11