“城市空地”的美学与可持续性

张利/ZHANG Li

作者单位：清华大学建筑学院/《世界建筑》

《世界建筑》很少直接使用具体建设项目的名称或具体城市运动的口号来作为学术话题的标识。不过这一次，我们实在是不能比拉坎布拉教授和迪蒙特教授做得更好，他们所使用的“这不是空地”完美地定义了我们这次的聚焦。

城市更新是发生在地表的持续性累加行为，每一次新的干预都同时产生两种意义的空间资源——被赋予明确价值的“有效空间资源”，和未被赋予明确价值的“残余空间资源”。在较长的时间范围内，前者通过历次干预的叠加演化出城市的“旅游友好”的前台风景，为历史所津津乐道；而后者则通过边缘残余的沉淀化为城市的“犄角旮旯”的后台碎片，被选择性遗忘。在很多人看来，这些碎片是城市的自然新陈代谢过程所产生的累赘，唯一的整治办法是通过某种意义的“现代”开发建设把它们转变为有效空间资源。

所幸的是，我们生活在一个善于对过去的选择性遗忘（或说得更极端些：歧视）进行反思的时代，这不仅在于本雅明所说的任何文明的精致所依赖的必要的“野蛮”，也不仅在于我们对于曾经打破米开朗基罗鼻子的托里贾诺的作品内涵的再发现，而是在于我们这个时代对于真实的日常生活和普通人的平凡社区的发自内心的热情。

这种反思是深刻的，启发性的。它始于居伊·德波与其同侪在思想界所引领的情境主义运动，通过Team X 和早期荷兰结构主义者在建筑界形成第一波说服力，在20 世纪晚期和21 世纪之交遭受各种建筑投机分子滥用之后，终于在今天回复到它的初衷。

在今天看，这种反思有4 个基本的特征：第一，社区空间为重。衡量城市空间质量的标示性单位不是为旅游者的建筑名胜，而是为本地人的社区空间。第二，公共性优先。社区空间是所有人的、为社区所共享、应为所有人提供同样的可达性与易用性。第三，生活即美。社区空间的美不在于它的形态，而在于它对生活于其中的人的活动的激发，或说活动形式的丰富程度及人与人互动的密度与强度。第四，权宜为用。社区空间的用途来源于它不同时间阶段下的不同的权宜之用，以及这些使用状态之间的无缝转换。

我们不难在本期的案例中发现上面4 个基本特征的不同程度的、带有侧重的呈现。很明显，所有的案例都体现了通过社区空间品质的提升对城市性格塑造所做出的贡献。中国深圳梅丰社区公园、西班牙巴塞罗那对海公园对曾经的不可达空间进行了全面的公共性赋予，虽然后者有相当的注意力在构筑装置和线性网络的可视性上，而前者的路径系统设置则更多来自对人的不同的运动状态的考量。委内瑞拉加拉加斯的七彩萨利纳斯、荷兰扎安的A8高速公路公园强调的是对一定时间范围内某种受欢迎的权宜之用的架构。布拉格的滨河空间设计则是通过一个精巧的设计干预，试图激发、开启一系列丰富的街区生活。必须指出的是，所有的案例都让相应的空间资源在城市局部发挥更积极、更长时间的作用，从而贡献于更大范围的可持续性。

这些便是本期《世界建筑》所试图传递的关于“城市空地”的美学与可持续性的信息。特别感谢拉坎布拉和迪蒙特教授，是他们慷慨地允许我们使用“这不是空地”这一精确而美好的表达。□

It is rare in the history of World Architecture to adopt the title of a special number directly from the name of a project or a programme.But this time,we have found it hard to do any better than the two professors, Lacambra and Di Monte, whose wording of Estonoesunsolar perfectly defines the purpose,and the focus of this issue.

Urban renewals are endless iterations of intervention cycles on the surface of the planet.Every intenvention produces two types of spaces:those that have specific purposes and values,thus dubbed as "assets"; and those that have no specific purposes and values, usually referred to as "residues".With time, "assets" overlaid on each other would eventually evolve into frontstage showcase pieces, perfect for tourists;while "residues" remain as backstage nuisances,selectively forgotten.To many, they are the undesirables produced through the metabolism of a city, with the only way to treat them being the panacea of a new modern development.

Fortunately, we live in a time of reflections.One of the most important reflections is exactly the one on the selective oblivions (or to put it more to the extreme: discriminations).It is not only an outcome of Walter Benjamin's notion of the "barbarism" upon which all civilised elegance resides, nor an outcome of the rediscovery of Pietro Torrigiano's sculptures before and after he broke Michellangelo's nose,but an outcome of a genuine passion of our time towards the realworld life around us and the downto-earth local communities.

This reflection is deep, and enlightening.Originating from Guy Debord and his friends'intellectual movement of the situationists, it enjoyed the first wave of convincing architectural implementations from Team X and early Dutch structuralists.It got frequently abused by a full series of glamorous opportunists in the late 20th century and at the turn of the 21st century, before finally returning to its original argument today.

Looked from today, this reflection are likely to promote four characters: (1) The focus on community spaces.The best key performance index for a city is no longer its landmark attractions for tourists, but community spaces for local residents.(2) Putting public access first.All commuinity spaces are shared properties of everyone of the community.Equal access and convenience should be provided for the entire community.(3) Life being inherently beautiful.The beauty of community spaces doesn't come from their morphological formulations,but from their encouragement of more human activities and interactivities, the richer and the intenser, the better.(4) The ad hoc being the useful.The usefulness of the community space lies in its capability of accommodating continuously changing usages, and in its capacity of switching among a variety of ad hoc modes along time.

All the four charaters are found in the examples collected in this WA issue, albeit through representations of multiple scopes.The emphasis on community space, and the ambition to make it a mark in the city is obvious in all examples.The Meifeng Community Park in Shenzhen, China,and the Parque de Diagonal Mar in Barcelona,Spain are two projects that enable complete public access to large urban patches that were previously inaccessible.Diagonal Mar may have put more energy in creating visual attractions in its plan and installations, while Meifeng has taken more consideration in making its pathway system meeting the needs of different movements.Pinto Salinas in Caracas, Venezuela, and A8enA at Zaanstad,the Netherlands both take the ad hoc uses within a certain time as frameworks of their designs.The Prague Riverfront in Prague, Czech features a delicate treatment, a unique design that breathes new life into the decaying old urban fabric and opens up a full spectrum of possibilities.What need to be mentioned here is that all examples make the respective urban spatial resource lasting longer and performing better, adding worthy elements to the overall sustainability of the city.

This is the message we try to give through this special WA number about the aesthetics and sustainability of unused urban spaces.Our special thanks to Prof.Lacambra and Prof.Di Monte, it is upon their generosity that we achieve the impeccable wording of the title of this special number.□