白塔寺街区更新: 二十年的美好“纠结”

张利/ZHANG Li

作者单位：清华大学建筑学院/《世界建筑》

在北京的老城更新项目中，甚少有其他项目能有白塔寺片区这样的多面性与混杂性。白塔寺片区的更新工作跨越了20年，自然有着难以言表的纵深与丰富。出乎人们意料的是，白塔寺片区虽然在北京并不是任何一种类型的首要代表——不管是从其历史价值上讲还是从其社会意义上讲——却一直凭借其独特的复杂性与自发性，提供着一个事实上的当代中国建筑深度讨论的代表性舞台。

这一切开始于1990年代，当时白塔寺被列为北京受保护的老城片区之一，亟待复兴。然而，它的“非典型性”——即不属于典型的任何已知的老城片区流派——最终使它成为充满机遇的城市更新实验平台。白塔寺从未像前门那样是一座城市的标签，它从未像南锣鼓巷那样人山人海，它从未像东交民巷那样是潮流的风向标，它也从未像什刹海那样把浪漫的怀旧演绎到极致。然而，一直以来，它自己是一个活生生的实体，不间断地呼吸、演变、进化。它是中国城市更新的一个缩微样本，不停地在更新过程中萌发出种种“纠结”——这些“纠结”在某种程度为建筑的历史提供了刻度。而且，谢天谢地，在今天看来，白塔寺出现的这些“纠结”都是美好的“纠结”。

这里有更新机制的“纠结”。到底应该是自上而下还是自下而上？白塔寺一直精明地（几乎是太精明地）拒绝选择答案。曾几何时，CIAM式的决定论主导了北京的城市更新：从城市结构到其中每个人的生活，一切都可以而且理所应当地被规划。在今天看来这种技术至上主义的大包大揽对世纪之交时的许多城市更新问题（如果不算失败的话）负有责任。又几何时，伯克利式的激进主义试图对其之前的弯路进行纠正，认为特定片区相关的一切必须由片区内部的共识决定。如果没有共识，就要接受无序与混乱。白塔寺片区似乎有意将自己置于这两种极端之间。“有组织的自发性”可能是描述白塔寺更新方式的最贴切词汇。所有的关键利益相关方，尤其是代表政府的片区开发者，一直坚持以专注但自律的方式行事。整个白塔寺片区以渐进的方式更新，体现为一个个局部的修补刻画。对于每一个局部，唯一可以确定的是其解决方案类型的不确定性。从对院落空间的彻底改造到对大型建筑楼层降层，白塔寺已经产生了各种各样的解决方案，兼具独特性与可复制性。

这里有建筑价值观的“纠结”。关于旧城，在当代建筑学中一个挥之不去的课题是到底应该向新还是向旧，应该唯尊历史还是优先当代。许多老城片区都舒服安全地选择把自己装点成古色古香的模样，白塔寺并未效仿。也有许多老城片区最近选择以极简的形式主义向中产阶级人群宣称自己的当代身份，白塔寺也未效仿。在白塔寺，我们似乎能看到阿尔多·罗西所说的“固执”，它阻止整个片区滑向任何单一的形式语汇。长时间来，白塔寺如同一眼建筑理念的泉涌：张悦的人本主义方法论、徐甜甜的批判性社会干预、张轲的激进形式、董功与华黎的避世诗意、张永和的类型学探究、众建筑的富勒-班纳姆式的设计逻辑，等等。正是这种多元性和包容性，使白塔寺成为了中国当代建筑的一个鲜活舞台。

这里有人口学上的“纠结”。在一端是“本真性”的光环，突出着对诸如“原住民”这样的术语的执念，在另一端是达尔文式的社会经济进化（“绅士化”概念的褒义替代品？）的力量，突出对具备“全球胜任力”的新居民的青睐。在这种两极对立下，即使在亨利·列斐伏尔 “城市的权利”征服大多数学术阵地之后，真正达成混合的居住区仍然少得可怜。北京也同样见证了在优先考虑新移民与优先考虑原居民之间的思维摇摆。然而，有意思的是，白塔寺片区真实存在着清晰可见的不同人群共生。当然这有着特殊的原因：白塔寺的人口结构建立在近90%的“伪（准）原住民”（指过去20～30年间及更早遗留的房客与租房者）基础之上，这使白塔寺片区不论是选择“原住民化”，还是全球新移民化，都将因不接人气而最终碰壁。令事情更加复杂的是，居住在整个片区的功能构成中占据了令人吃惊的统领地位，非居住的业态极其稀少。这导致不同职业、教育背景的人必须共存，且各种年龄群体的分布分散化，以及多样化文化与生活方式必须接受彼此并置。这些都使得给白塔寺片区赋予一个明确的人口特征定义变得异常困难。幸运的是，越来越多的建筑师（及建筑专业学生）正在将这种复杂人口结构视为一个机会，试图使基于延续城市物理肌理之上叠加对应于人口结构的多层次意义成为可能。

白塔寺很复杂，白塔寺很扑朔，白塔寺很迷人。在2017年北京国际设计周的一个中午，人们曾看到白塔寺城市更新项目的长期主管者王玉熙在与当地胡同孩子一起玩可移动的街道艺术装置。人们听到他说：“这一切都让人开心，不是吗？”

本期不是《世界建筑》第一次出版白塔寺的相关内容，但是第一次《世界建筑》为白塔寺策划的完整专辑。我们相信，长达20年的白塔寺片区更新项目所具备的建筑学和人类学潜质已经是不言自明的了。

我们特别感谢王玉熙、张悦、施卫良及许多其他为白塔寺做出巨大贡献的人。我们还要感谢思唯雅·兰泰里的插图为本期增添了快乐。

Few Beijing old town regeneration projects are as multi-faceted as Baitasi. There is a certain unfathomable depth and richness associated with this project spanning well over two decades. It is amazing that Baitasi, while not championing either in historical value or social significance in Beijing,has been hosting such complexity and spontaneity,that itself has become a de-facto contemporary source of great architectural questions and debates.

It all started in the 1990s, when Baitasi was listed as one the typical old districts in Beijing waiting to be regenerated. Yet its "atypicality",i.e., not typical for any of the known genres of old districts, eventually made it a juicy substrate of experimentation. It has never been as iconic as Qianmen. It has never been as popular as Nanluogu Xiang. It has never been as trendy as Dongjiaomin Xiang. It has never been as nostalgic as Shichahai.It has been though, a living entity of its own,continuously breathing, mutating and evolving.It has been a microcosm sample of Chinese urban regeneration, producing dilemmas that make architecture what it is. And man, these are beautiful dilemmas in Baitasi.

There has been the dilemma of regenerative mechanism. Should it be top-down or bottomup? Baitasi has been smartly (almost too smartly)reluctant to pick an answer. There was a time when CIAM style determinism dominated urban regeneration in Beijing: everything, from the urban fabric to everyone's life in it, can be and should be planned by default. Such technocracy and wholesale approach is in today's view responsible for many problems (if not failures) in projects at the turn of the century. There was then a time of Berkeley style activism trying to correct what happened before it:everything related to a given community must be decided by the consensus of the community itself.When there is a lack of consensus, you have to accept anarchy. Baitasi somehow places itself in-between these two polar extremes. "Organised spontaneity"is the best available word to describe the Baitasi approach. For almost twenty-years, the key stake holders, particularly the developer representing the local government, have been acting in an attentive yet self-constrained manner. The entire Baitasi district has been updated piece by piece. For each piece, the only certainty is the uncertainly of the type of solution. From radical reorganisation of the courtyard space to the reducing of floors in some bigger buildings, Baitasi has generated a variety of solutions that is both individual-case-based and duplicable.

There has been the dilemma of architectural ideology. The haunting question in the spotlight is or course should it be new or old, historic or contemporary. While many old districts comfortably chose to dress up in decorative nostalgia, Baitasi did not follow suit. While many places then rushed to minimalist mannerism to claim some contemporary identity, Baitasi did not follow suit either. There seems to be a Aldo Rossian obstinacy in Baitasi, which has kept the entire area from sliding into any idiosyncratic monopoly. For over two decades, Baitasi has been a fountain of architectural argumentations: the equalitarian approach of ZHANG Yue, the critical social solutions of XU Tiantian, the radical claim of ZHANG Ke,the poetic escape of DONG Gong and HUA Li, the typological inquiry of Yung Ho Chang, the Fullerian-Banhamian logic of People's Architecture Office,etc. It is such pluralism and tolerance that has made Baitasi a vibrant stage for contemporary Chinese architecture.

There has been the dilemma of demographics.At one end, there is the aura of authenticity, the foolhardy faith in terminologies such as "aboriginal inhabitant". At the other end, there is the power of Darwinian social-economic evolution (a positive word for gentrification?), advocating the victory of the so-called "people of global competence".Even after Henri Lefebvre's right to the city has conquered most academic territories, truly mixed co-inhabitation are still few and far between. In Beijing, we have witnessed oscillations from giving priority to the new arrivals to giving the priority to the original inhabitants. However, in Baitasi,there is a visible demographical symbiosis. And it has good reasons: with its unique demographics,which consists of 90% "pseudo-original inhabitants"(or, lodgers and renters coming in the last 20～30 years and remaining), Baitasi virtually meets dead ends in both directions in the aboriginal-or-global debate. Making things even more complicated is that housing being the surprisingly dominant programme in the entire area. The co-existing of peoples of drastically different professional and educational backgrounds, the scattered distributions across the age spectrum, and the multiplicity of culture and life styles, has only made it even harder to give Baitasi a clear demographical definition.Fortunately, this complex demographics has been seen by more and more architects (and architecture students) as an opportunity, making the layering of demographical representations upon the evolving urban fabric a promising possibility.

Baitasi is complex. Baitasi is confusing. Baitasi is amazing. In the 2017 Beijing International Design Week, at a lunch break, WANG Yuxi, the perennial director of Baitasi urban regeneration project, was seen playing a mobile street installation with a local hutong kid and heard saying: "This is all enjoyable,isn't it?".

This is not the first time that WA has published Baitasi. It is the first time though, that WA has a whole issue entirely designated to Baitasi. We believe the architectural and anthropological potential of the two-decade-long Baitasi project has spoken for itself.

Our special thanks to WANG Yuxi, ZHANG Yue,SHI Weiliang, and many others who has contributed so much to Baitasi. We also like to thank Silvia Lanteri for her joyful illustrations that have added fun to this publication.