2014 WA中国建筑奖：缘起与观察

2015-12-19张利ZHANGLi

世界建筑 2015年3期

张利/ZHANG Li

2014 WA中国建筑奖：缘起与观察

WACAA 2014: Intensions and Observations

张利/ZHANG Li

建筑奖项与其他文化艺术领域的奖项一样，其初衷是对杰出范例或个人贡献的表彰与集粹。然而，从20世纪中叶至今，随着当代建筑的发展，建筑奖项逐步脱离了单纯表彰与集粹的初衷，而成为建筑价值观散布与建筑思潮涌动的直接参与者；同时，建筑奖项也脱离了单纯面向专业人士的目标范围，而是试图影响业内与业外的广泛人群。可以说，建筑奖项被越来越多地赋予了明显的媒体角色。在此，我们无意判断这种建筑奖项的媒体化本身的是与非。我们关注的是，在这种全社会泛媒体化的语境之中，建筑奖项应如何应变，才能持续发挥其对建筑文明演进的积极作用，而不是沦为消费媒体时代猎奇与悦众的工具。

WA中国建筑奖由王路教授创立于2002年，是中国大陆地区首次以当代中国建筑师的自主实验为唯一关注的奖项。问世之初，它便通过鲜明的个性、毫不折衷的勇气和完全独立的评委判断而得到了各界的认可与支持。后历经10余年持续数届的努力，WA中国建筑奖已成为了最受关注的中国非官方建筑奖项之一，也是当代中国的非官方建筑奖项谋求国际影响力的一个示例。

10余年间,国际与中国建筑语境发生了很多变化，这是包括WA中国建筑奖在内的所有中国建筑奖项必须面对的现实。如果说10年前，既定规则的破除、陌生形式的冲击与大众回馈的瞬时效应曾经是建筑获得社会关注的原因的话，那么在今天，环境资源的可持续性、广义的人的平等生存以及传统智慧的重新发现与诠释则正在成为建筑贡献于当代文明的最佳可能。不仅如此，随着在世纪之交得势的少数形式极端主义者在各地的骚动与干扰，“设计实验”一词不可避免地被滥用、曲解和狭义化，其原有的积极意义也持续地被个别国际建筑明星的自我营销与精英主义所折衷。面对这些变化，WA中国建筑奖需要以更开放的方式呈现、推崇在当代中国建筑中产生的更多样的价值。

有鉴于此，《世界建筑》的团队征求了王路教授与其他相关学者、建筑师的意见，对2014年的WA中国建筑奖在价值取向界定、奖项设置、评委会构成以及评审过程等方面进行了调整，多元化是所有这些调整的基本主题。这其中，最重要的多元化是奖项设置的多元化——通过WA奖辅助更多有意义的建筑追求在业内外得到肯定与尊重。

2014年的WA中国建筑奖共包含了6个奖项：

设计实验奖延续了WA奖的原有取向，并进一步将核心价值定义为设计的自主探索，奖励那些在理念或建筑本体层面上的卓有成效的实验性成果。与前几届WA奖相比，本届的设计实验奖增加了对建筑规模的限制（3000m2以下）。这一新增的规模限制也引发了一些相关的讨论。

社会公平奖的核心价值是以建筑推进社会公平，奖励那些服务于社会弱势群体的，通过建筑手段推进社会公平、践行人文关怀的成果。这一奖项的设置所面对的是当前中国社会的重要问题之一：如何使财富、机会更均衡地分布，以造福于更多的人和更广泛的地域。

城市贡献奖的核心价值是大型公共项目对城市生活的积极作用，奖励那些以积极有力的介入为城市环境与城市生活所作出的突出贡献。这一奖项的设置面对的是当前中国城市化进程中的主流公共建筑项目。

居住贡献奖的核心价值是居住品质和居住环境的提升，奖励那些对居住模式与居住环境问题的卓越解决方案。无需赘述，这一奖项的设置所面对的是当前中国最普遍的、也是最容易被建筑师忽略的居住问题。

技术进步奖的核心价值是技术的切实进步，奖励那些创造性地使用技术手段解决现实问题的成果。这一奖项的设置所面对的是在当代中国建筑中，设计应如何驾驭技术的问题。

建筑成就奖的核心价值是建成空间环境的长久价值，奖励那些经历了相当的时间考验、展现了建筑的长久性价值的典范性成果。这一奖项的设置所面对的是当前中国城市因过度求“新”而忽视建成环境的长期使用效果、对正处于建筑生命周期“壮年”的建筑较少受到关注的问题。

2014年WA中国建筑奖的扩容受到了各界的关注，这使我们备感鼓舞。此次WA奖的扩容与改变也引发了不少的讨论（有时候是争论，更有时候是质疑），这也同样使我们感到兴奋。在此我们要向所有关注WA中国建筑奖、慷慨地提供建议与意见的人表示感激。回顾此次WA奖的举办，我们有如下的观察。

其一，当代中国建筑创作的多元化是不可逆的。正像在互联网时代人们很难再被排他的单一信仰统一一样，在中国当前以新媒体驱动的建筑信息环境中，建筑人也很难再被排他的单一建筑价值观所统一。过去建立在信息资源不平衡、信息传播渠道不平衡的基础之上的建筑话语特权甚至是话语霸权，在今天都在迅速地丧失其存在的合法性。黑格尔式的普适终极目标与统一过程正在事实上被康德式的共通判断力和自主过程所取代。在此次WA奖的申报项目中，我们注意到，即使是在领域相对明确的奖项（如社会公平奖和居住贡献奖）中，仍然可以看到对类似问题的出乎意料的多样化的解答。这种以建筑师的个人思辨为根基的多元化真不啻为建筑文化的一道福音。我们终于不再需要争论谁的目标比谁的目标更正确，而是可以安下心来证明谁在自己的方向上走得更远、走得更好了。

其二，当代中国建筑文化的发展要求更成熟的中国建筑奖项的出现。申报2014年WA中国建筑奖各奖项的300余项建筑作品在整体上展现了一种令人信服的质量。对此，出席奖项评审的32位建筑师、学者均表达了这样一种期望，即中国的高质量建筑作品需要有成熟的、高影响力的中国建筑奖项在全球化的话境中推广传播。中国的建筑奖项，特别是非官方建筑奖项，不应满足于把传播范围仅限于国内。

其三，与建筑一样，建筑奖项也是一项伴随着遗憾的事业。2014的WA中国建筑奖虽然得到了各界的支持与鼓励，但还是有不少遗憾的。这在以下4个方面表现的犹为突出：

（1）奖项设置的方向。2014年的WA关注了建成2年以内的建筑和建成5～10年的建筑，但没有为当今建筑创作的一个越来越重要的领域——旧建筑改造与遗产利用——设置单独的奖项，而这一领域是我们今天的建筑文化中最为活跃的部分，也很有可能是中国建筑的可见未来中举足轻重的部分。

（2）奖项彼此之间的界定。设计实验奖的最大规模定在3000m2，导致近年来一些非常优秀的建筑实验作品不能申报设计实验奖，不得不参与到核心价值不是设计实验的其他奖项的竞争之中。

（3）奖项的申报规则。2014年WA中国建筑奖的各项奖除了少数彼此互斥外（如设计实验与城市贡献、建筑成就与所有其他奖），多数奖项是可以用同一作品重复申报的，而且规则也明确了这一点。不少评委在评审过程中认为这一规则是值得商榷的：既然明确各奖项的核心价值，就应要求申报者根据其作品的核心价值择一奖项申报。

（4）获奖建筑师的分布。本期《世界建筑》的封面上给出了获奖项目的地域分布，这或多或少可以用近期再受关注的胡焕庸线加以解释。获奖建筑师集中于北京、上海、深圳、香港等一线城市，这也可以用知识、技术与财力资源的集中来解释。但女性建筑师与非汉文化背景建筑师在获奖者中的几近缺席则完全没有反应出相应群体在当代中国建筑界的活跃程度。这一点也势必应引起我们重视。

我们期待在下届WA中国建筑奖回应这些问题，与您一起把这一奖项办得更好。

Like all art awards, architecture awards started with the original intention of selecting and recognising the best works or people. From mid-20th century up to now, along with the development of contemporary architecture discourse, architecture awards have gone far beyond their original role. Some awards have become the disseminators of architecture values and propellers of architecture movements. Most awards are trying to reach out to a much broader audience outside the profession. Architecture awards have become a unique type of architecture media. We are not here to debate on the pros and cons of this identity shift of architecture awards. We are concerned however, with the strategies and processes of architecture awards adapting to the changing time. It is of course better for architecture awards to continue to be positively engaged in the evolution of the story of architecture, rather than feeding the ever-growing consumer appetite for the new, cheerful, silly or simply bizarre.

The World Architecture Awards for Chinese Architecture (WAACA) was initiated by Professor Wang Lu in 2002. It was the first architecture award in mainland China to focus entirely on domestic design experiments. It was immediately well received by the Chinese architecture population, not only for its distinctive identity, but also for its uncompromising approach and independent judgment. After more than a decade since its founding, WAACA is now one of the most revered non-governmental architecture awards in China. WACAA has also enjoyed attention from the international circle.

Lots of things have changed in the Chinese architecture discourse in the past decade, a reality that has to be addressed by all Chinese architecture awards. Ten years ago, it was applausable for architecture to hit headlines by revolting against existing principles, posing striking forms, or shaking public beliefs. Now, it is through sustainability, equality and the creative re-interpretation of traditional wisdom that architecture generates real incentives to contemporary life. Moreover, the spectacles and turbulence introduced by some formal extremists at the turn of the century worldwide have put big question marks behind the word "design experiment", with the word itself being continuously abused, distorted, narrowed and tarnished by a handful of self-promoting international stars. Facing these changes, WAACA has to take a much more open approach, and a much active attitude towards diversity and pluralism.

The team for WAACA 2014 have been meticulously collecting ideas from the best minds in Chinese architecture, including Professor Wang Lu, the founder of WACAA. This lengthy inquiry finally led us to the reforms in WAACA 2014: Multiple categories were created. Diversity in values was encouraged. The line-up of the Jury was expanded. The Jury process was refined. Underlying all these changes was the key concept of pluralism. The key move was the establishment of more than one award categories.

There are six categories in WAACA 2014:

The Design Experiment Award carries on the original WAACA focus. It honours design adventures in small buildings. Comparing with previous WAACAs, this award in 2014 limits the candidate projects to buildings with a floor area of less than 3000 square metres. This limit has caused some arguments.

The Social Equality Award focuses on social equality. It honours projects that assist the poor and theweak through architecture. This category address one overarching issue in China: how to distribute wealth and opportunities more equally across the society, and by doing this benefit more communities in more places?

The City Regeneration award focuses on the urban quality of medium to large scale buildings. It honours medium to large public buildings that have made outstanding contributions to urban environments and urban life. This category addresses the mainstream buildings in the on-going, rapid Chinese urbanisation.

The Housing Award focuses on housing exploration and adventure. It honours projects that provide excellent solutions to the ubiquitous housing problem. Obviously, this category address the housing issue which is so demanding in China yet so often neglected by Chinese architects.

The Technological Innovation Award focuses on technological innovations. It honours buildings that solve practical problems through the creative use of technologies. This category addresses the issue of getting technologies to serve design.

The Achievement Award focuses on the longterm impact of buildings. It honours buildings that have been proven to be excellent solutions by time. This category tries to tackle the issue of the hunger for the new and the general overlook of any building 4-5 years after its completion.

The new format of WAACA 2014 has attracted attention from all corners in the Chinese architecture community. We feel thrilled by this. We are more thrilled by the fact that the new format of WAACA 2014 has also evoked questions and debates. We would like to express our gratitude here to everyone who has kindly contributed their opinion to WAACA. We have some observations on WAACA 2014 ourselves:

[I] The trend of diversification in contemporary Chinese architecture design is irreversible. In the time of Internet, it is no longer possible to unify people's minds for a single, exclusive belief. Similarly, in the time of a new Chinese architecture discourse largely driven by self-media, it is impossible to unify the architects' minds for a single, exclusive idea. The existence of dominant voice supported by a painful imbalance of information and communication resource has been a past. The Hegelian universal agenda and progress has been replaced by the Kantian common judgment and autonomous processes. In WAACA 2014, we saw multiple values and approaches even on one narrow issue, e. g., in the Equality Award and the Housing Award. This is truly great news to Chinese architecture culture. Gone are the useless arguments of rights and wrongs. Replacing them, are now the debate and competition on who has covered more distance in his/her own path.

[II] Better Chinese architecture asks for better Chinese awards. The 300+ candidate projects in WAACA 2014 have demonstrated the quality of contemporary Chinese architecture with convincing evidence. All the jurors have expressed the same feeling that, to send the message of Chinese architecture across the globe, better architecture awards are crucial vehicles. It is time for Chinese architecture awards to take a step further and get into the uncharted water of international territory.

[III] Like architecture, architecture awards are never without regrets. Though WAACA 2014 has been praised by the vast majority people, there are still lots of things that cry out for improvement:

(1) The categories of awards. An important category is missing. WAACA 2014 has covered buildings completed in the last two years and buildings that have built for 5-10 years. Yet no category has been setup particularly for old buildings. This is even more significant an absence considering the vitality in conservation and adaptive reuse. Smart adaptive reuse will surely play a key role in the sustainability of Chinese cities.

(2) The boundary between different categories. In WAACA 2014, the Design Experiment Award is open only to buildings under 3000 square metres. This has caused some headache in a number of cases when a truly experimental building is larger than 3000 square metres.

(3) The rules of submission. Currently, a built project can apply to more than one categories. Many jurors have expressed the point that it could be better, both for WAACA and the candidates, if one building could only apply for one category.

(4) The distribution of winning architects. On the cover of this special issue, there is a map showing the places of the winning/highly commended projects. This conforms to the locations of the major cities. But the virtual absence of female architects, and architects who doesn't bear a Han-Chinese background, is disproportionate to the vividness of these two groups in contemporary Chinese architecture.

We look forward to tackling the abovementioned issues in the next WAACA. Together with the help from you, we can have a WAACA that will be even better next time.