中国城市还是“城市实验室”吗 Why ‘Urban Labs’ Hold the Future for Chinese Cities

[Photo by Urban Language]

随着经济飞速增长与快速城镇化发展齐头并进，改革与创新也会层出不穷。当代中国城市满足开展建筑风格与建造技术实验的全部条件：经济繁荣，劳动力资源庞大且廉价，接受过良好教育的中产阶层正在崛起，财力雄厚的政府，而且从法律意义上而言，全部土地都属政府所有。
当代城市规划师的口头禅之一是“城市实验室”，这个词汇把城市视为创新场所，而体量及数量均堪称庞大的中国城市则成为了世界各地设计师们的实验小白鼠。
当然，中国的新城也受到不少批评，大部分批评的锋芒都对准了这个国家尘土飞扬的施工现场，以及不断崛起的面貌大同小异的混凝土高楼。我们总是听说，摩天大楼就这样乱七八糟被随心所欲的建造出来，根本没有为真正的创新留出时间和精力。但是我认为，现实要远比我们所看到的复杂。鉴于中国当前海量的在建项目，城市无可避免地成为实验场所。
从崭新的交通系统--诸如高铁及共享单车--到通过在地铁站建设高密度混合用途的综合体来优化土地利用，中国也探索出令人惊叹的大量前卫的城市规划方法。事实上，这个国家因为千城一面而饱受诟病的主要原因之一，在于包括我在内的观察者们，总是基于最终能否成功实施来对实验性城市规划思想加以评判。这也是可以理解的。但是，实验性的本质，是要求我们去尝试新事物，评价其结果，并在必要的情况下重复实验。如果仅仅关注结果，就会忽略一个重要的事实，即实验精神本身也是值得鼓励与赞美的。
在中国，相当多建筑实验并不如人意，但与此同时，成功的案例也不胜枚举，尤其是广受赞誉的城市大运量公交系统。实际上看，建筑和城市规划领域的近期项目，与中国20世纪社会经济实验的传统一脉相承。不过，我们面对一个亟待回答的关键问题：新思想到底应被视为探索新可能性的途径，还是仅仅作为临场即兴与限定时间情境下的产物？
当我们点检中国的可持续建筑差强人意的发展记录时，就会察觉到新问题的出现。中国住建部寄望于把建筑及城市建设作为刺激经济的手段，提高人们居住标准的工具，但这一目标乃是双刃剑。遍布全国的旧住宅被推平并被现代化的高楼取而代之，同时夷平的还有众多城市的特征与个性。尽管数以百万计的人们改善了生活品质，但往往是以牺牲环境为代价。
城市的首要功能是作为人们的生活空间而存在。如果把城市作为实验场所对待，那会毫无忌惮地进行大刀阔斧的创新，同时带来令人堪忧的后果。 诸多可持续住区项目成为创新实验泛滥的证据，比如河北曹妃甸生态城，向其居民兜售了可持续的健康城市生活方式的图景，但很快就被发现这些都是无法实现的虚假承诺。众多此类项目，宣扬鼓吹它们所谓的生态理念，仅仅是为了大肆抬升房地产价格，却对环境无任何改善，这样的做法被称为 “漂绿”（ greenwashing）（译者注：宣称保护环境，实际上却反其道而行，本质上是一种虚假的环保宣传--来自于百度）。
国外建筑师曾经把中国视为试验场，在其本国绝无可能批建的项目却可在这里落成。不断变化的中国国内市场已经在精简项目，并转而关注小规模项目，这就使得中国客户们对全国各地的建筑现状产生颇多批评。比如，北京方面呼吁“不再建设奇奇怪怪的建筑”。
在过去20年里，中国转型的尺度与速度，与大胆创新及勇于改变的做法密不可分。与西方相对小规模的城市试验场有所不同，中国的方式更为引人注目。日益加重的气候变化与国家经济不确定性，都要求建筑师和城市规划师转变思维模式。 我们需要就如何调整我们的生活环境达成共识，而且要越快越好。我相信，中国拥有充足的资源与丰富的经验，可成功实现这一转变。
而且，变革的迹象已经崭露。中央政府2016年初发布的城市建设指导思路，重点关注的是生活品质与能效，包含了多项提议，比如拆除居住小区周边的围墙，目标在于创建更适宜步行的开放城市。还提出了建设新型海绵城市，设计收集雨水并在城市之中重新利用。
尽管以上所列指导思路并非强制性，但却展示出对原有城市建设方法及思路的重大变革。这也提示我们，中国对于实验性建筑所持的态度，摒弃了（建筑与城市规划方案的）临场即兴创作，而是朝向了寻求未来城市生活深思熟虑的解决方案之目标。希望这样的思想理念未来会在突破性设计之中展现出来，从而使中国转变为居于世界前列的可持续建筑及城市革新的实验室。

Periods of rapid economic growth and urbanization frequently go hand in hand with innovation. Contemporary Chinese cities fulfill all the conditions for experimenting with new architectural styles and building technologies: economic prosperity, a vast and relatively cheap labor force, a growing educated middle class, and a financially strong government that legally owns all the land. If one of the buzzwords of contemporary city planners is “urban lab” — a term that casts cities as sites of innovation — then China’s vast conurbations are their guinea pigs.

Of course, China’s new cities have also been subjected to their fair share of criticism, much of which has taken aim at the supposedly generic-looking concrete towers emerging from the country’s dust-filled construction sites. Skyscrapers are thrown together willy-nilly without spending time on or paying attention to real innovation, we are told. Yet to me, nothing could be further from the truth. Given China’s massive ongoing construction projects, experimentation is practically unavoidable.

From new transportation systems — such as high-speed trains and bike sharing — to optimizing land use by building high-density, mixed-use complexes over metro stations, China is home to a surprising amount of avant-garde urban planning. In fact, one of the main reasons behind the country’s reputation for having “a thousand cities with a single face” is that observers — myself included — understandably judge experimental ideas on the eventual success of their execution. Yet the nature of experimentation requires us to try something new, evaluate the results, and repeat the experiment if necessary. Focusing only on the result goes against the spirit of experimentation, which should instead be celebrated.

China is home to its fair share of failed architectural experiments, but it has also played host to many successful ones, especially its well-regarded urban mass transit systems. Indeed, recent projects in the fields of architecture and urban planning have largely been in line with China’s 20th-century tradition of social and economic experimentation. A key question that remains unanswered, however, is whether new ideas are conceived as a means to test new possibilities, or whether they are merely the products of on-the-spot improvisation and time constraints.

A further issue arises when we consider China’s patchy record on stimulating sustainable architecture. China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development aspires to use architecture and the construction of urban areas as tools to stimulate the economy and raise the standard of living, but this goal is a double-edged sword. Old houses across the country have been flattened and replaced by modern high-rises, eradicating the individual character of many cities. While millions of people’s quality of life has improved, it frequently comes at an environmental cost.

Cities are primarily spaces for living. Approaching them as “labs” can lead to real innovation, but also to less desirable consequences. Numerous sustainable-living projects are a testament to the abuse of new experiments, such as northern Hebei province’s Caofeidian Eco-City — in which residents were sold a vision of a sustainable and healthy urban lifestyle but soon found such claims to be practically bogus. Many such projects flaunt their supposed ecological credentials as a means to boost real estate values without committing to environmental conservation — a tactic known as “greenwashing.”

While foreign architects once saw China as a playground where they could try out projects that would never get the green light back home, the changing domestic market has brought about reduced construction and a shift in focus to smaller-scale projects. At the same time, Chinese clients have become critical of the state of architecture nationwide — as evidenced by Beijing’s call for “no more weird-looking buildings.” These two forces present us with an opportunity to ponder a more consistent vision for the future of China’s cities.

The scale and speed of China’s transformation in the last two decades could not have happened without embracing innovation and change. Unlike the West’s relatively small-scale urban labs, the Chinese approach has been much more pronounced. Increasing uncertainty about climate change and the national economy calls for architects and urban planners to shift their mindsets. We need to articulate a coherent vision of how we must adjust our living environments — sooner rather than later. I truly believe China possesses the resources and experience to successfully make this transition.

There are already signs of change. The recently released urban guidelines from China’s central government, which focus on quality of life and energy efficiency, include suggestions such as the removal of barriers around residential areas, aimed at creating more pedestrian-friendly, open cities. A more off-the-wall idea is the construction of new “sponge cities” designed to capture and recycle rainwater for urban use.

While the above guidelines are not yet binding, they represent a radical departure from established means of building cities. This encouragingly demonstrates that China’s attitude toward experimental architecture is moving beyond on-site improvisation and toward well-thought-out solutions for future urban living. Hopefully, this spirit will manifest itself in groundbreaking designs that will transform China into a pioneering laboratory for sustainable building and urban innovation.

www.sixthtone.com (English)

www.thepaper.cn (Chinese)

close

The Paper / SixthTone

January 2017