張利/ZHANG Li

止，而后能觀
—— 從2016 WA中國建筑獎看減速時代的建筑思索

Wait and You Will See: WAACA 2016 and Architectural Ideas in the Chinese Economic Slowdown

張利/ZHANG Li

2016 WA中國建筑獎印證了一個觀點，即經(jīng)濟減速對中國當代建筑來說未嘗不是一件好事。減速使我們有理由、也有機會擺脫業(yè)已疲憊的形式美消費，于建筑的美學與倫理間尋找一種闊別已久的平衡。

建筑的美學與倫理是一對難解的話題，也是造就當今建筑學的大多數(shù)精神分裂病例的原因。美學與倫理在早期的建筑學中本來是明確的能指與所指關系，聯(lián)系統(tǒng)一，并無紛擾糾葛。維特魯威的“堅固、實用與美觀”、宋代的《營造法式》，是廣為人知的例子。進入工業(yè)社會后，這種樸素的統(tǒng)一開始被技術或資本的過剩所突破，并隨著經(jīng)濟的周期性增長與停滯呈現(xiàn)一種黑格爾式的“正-反-合”過程：持續(xù)增長期刺激對形式的消費，鼓勵美學的激進冒險；隨后的停滯甚至是萎縮期敦促對揮霍的反思，祭出倫理的矯枉過正；再后的經(jīng)濟恢復期則帶來短暫的和解與平衡；如此往復。

在經(jīng)歷了長時間的高速增長之后，中國經(jīng)濟在近20年來第一次進入增速放緩的調(diào)整期，中國建筑師也在近20年來第一次得到群體化的相對冷靜，從而有時間對前面留下的“更快、更新、更奇特”的遺產(chǎn)（或后果）進行再思考。從參評2016 WA中國建筑獎的項目中，我們不難發(fā)現(xiàn)中國當代建筑的一些微妙但卻頗具揭示意義的變化：紀念性的符號化圖示少了，平民化的日?？臻g多了；純粹的形式操作少了，積極的人類學介入多了；對輸入價值觀的模仿或取悅少了，對文化歸屬的琢磨與詮釋多了；以答案定制問題的少了，以問題推導答案的多了；將美學與倫理割裂、或以牽強的解釋在美學之上附會倫理的少了，在美學與倫理間建立連貫關系的多了。

WA建筑成就獎的名稱看來在一定程度上限制了它的親和力——“成就”二字令很多建筑師望而卻步。盡管如此，作為針對建成期5年以上“舊”建筑的獎項，它還是能把經(jīng)歷了一段時間考驗的、有強大說服力的作品，再次帶到聚光燈下。從某種意義上說，深圳華僑城創(chuàng)意文化園是所處城市文化氣質(zhì)的縮影，承載了其進取、自信與焦慮，也為其文化識別性的演化過程提供了持久的舞臺。

WA城市貢獻獎這次帶給人們的與WA建筑成就獎有所類似，同樣是關注一個高密度混居社區(qū)的文化屬性的項目。西村大院將邊界的明確性與滲透的公共性嫻熟地組織到了一個混合的巨構之中，無處不在的生活細節(jié)與愈久彌新的材料工法為其注入了在這一尺度建筑中罕見的情感。

WA設計實驗獎一如繼往地延續(xù)自WA中國建筑獎創(chuàng)建之初就確立的對設計自主實驗的關注。這次設計實驗獎帶給人們一個歷史保護項目。雖然這一結果或許因其學科細分而有些出人意料，但毋庸置疑的是，廣元千佛崖保護設計所敢于承擔的冒險——包括在重力、光線乃至“歷史意象”等方面對常規(guī)處理套路的挑戰(zhàn)——以及其冒險的結果，都是令人欽佩的。

WA社會公平獎所指向的是建筑的“有力”與“無力”的邊緣。一方面，好的當代建筑總是責無旁貸地承載促進社會公平的理想，另一方面，其對所服務的群體的理解程度（在多數(shù)情況下是微弱的）在事實上又決定了實際的社會效果。本次公平獎帶給人們的是一個更貼近日常生活的作品，來自普通的鄉(xiāng)村社區(qū)、普通的生活環(huán)境，關注普遍性的自然教育話題，實現(xiàn)恰如其分的建筑表達。

WA居住貢獻獎再次帶給人們突出設計的類型學探索的作品。唐山第三空間綜合體提出了高層住宅垂直界面的嶄新可能性，使高層住宅具備了一定的城市友好性。我們非常期待觀察這種新的界面肌理對高層住戶鄰里關系的影響，也非常期待看到更多的建筑師在社會住宅這一最常見的建筑類型上為普通人的生活而思考。

WA技術貢獻獎這次帶給人們的是結構技術與表現(xiàn)上的耕耘。天津大學新校區(qū)綜合體育館展現(xiàn)的不是結構上的“更大、更寬、更高”，而是結構體系與材料表現(xiàn)上的更融匯統(tǒng)一。能看到早期的現(xiàn)代主義結構理性在當代中國建筑中得到穩(wěn)健的實現(xiàn)，無疑是令人興奮的。

我們相信，2016 WA中國建筑獎所體現(xiàn)的僅僅是中國當代建筑在經(jīng)濟減速時代冷靜思索的開始。我們希望這種思索能夠繼續(xù)并產(chǎn)生出影響建筑文明的靈感。□

If there is one thing that WAACA 2016 proves, it is the opinion that the Chinese economic slowdown might not necessarily be bad news to Chinese architecture. The slowdown gives us a temporary departure from the all-too-hungry consuming of forms, indicating a return to a longlost balance between the ethics and aesthetics of architecture.

The relationship between ethics and aesthetics in architecture is a tricky one. So much so that today most of the architectural schizophrenia around us can be traced back to it. In the early times, this relationship used to be a harmonious connection between the signified and the signifier, one of inherent unity. Vitruvius' principle of commodity, firmness and delight, and Chinese Ying-Zao-Fa-Shi of the Song Dynasty, were both sound examples of this early unity. It was after industrialisation that the unity became broken by the excessive power of technology and capital. Along with the cycles of economic growthrecession-recovery, the relationship between ethics and aesthetics in architecture also changes in a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern. Sustained growth would encourage consumerism and iconography, resulting in radical aesthetics. The following recession would evoke austerity and overhauls, resulting in ethical over-reactions. Then, the following recovery would bring up temporary balancing and reconciliations. The loop would go on.

After a long and continuous high growth, Chinese economy has for the first time in two decades, entered a time of adjustment and slowdown. Chinese architects, as a community, has for the first time in two decades, embraced a time of sombre and calm. This facilitates a thorough rethinking of the legacies, or the consequences of the "faster, newer and stranger" approach of the previous time. We are clearly witnessing this rethinking through WAACA 2016. The 300+ projects reveal subtle yet unmistakable changes of direction in Chinese architecture today: monumentality and iconography is being replaced by the focus on the everyday life of normal people; self-referential formal operations are being replaced by active contextual and anthropological investigations; the pursuit and pleasing of imported values is being replaced by the exploration and interpretation of cultural roots; backward question-follows-answer approach is being replaced by forward answerfollows-question approach; and, the separation of ethics and aesthetics (or more often, farfetched stories trying explain certain aesthetics) is being replaced by the unity of the two.

Obviously, the word "achievement" in WA Achievement Award sounds a little bit intimidating to some. That said, as an award that honours buildings that has been occupied for at least five years, it is without doubt capable of bringing tried and tested buildings under spot light. To some degree, the OCT Lofts in Shenzhen is representative of its city. In its physicality and in the life it contains, the OCT Lofts register the progress, confdence and anxiety of Shenzhen. It is a worthy stage of the culture identity evolution in this open southern Chinese city.

WA City Regeneration Award fares similarly well in the sense of delivering convincing results. As the Achievement Award, it celebrates a project that explores the potentials of a high-density mixeduse complex. The West Village Yard in Chengdu skilfully orchestrates territorial identity and permeable public life into a hybrid megastructure. Nuisances of daily life is presented in every corner, as is traditional local craft. There is a clear sense of human attachment in this compound, one that scarcely seen in a building of this type.

WA Design Experiment Award extends the prolonged interest in autonomous design experiment. Surprisingly, in 2016, it brings up a project of historical conservation. The Protective Structure for Qianfoya Cliff Inscriptions is certainly a risk taking project. It has carried out a series experiments in structure, day lighting and re-interpretation of the "historic image". It simply refuses to repeat the solutions of similar preservation projects, and it does this by providing an exciting alternative. We do admire this attitude.

WA Social Equality Award points to the line between the powerfulness and powerlessness of architecture. On one hand, all contemporary buildings claim to have embodied some kind of progressive social ideal. On the other hand, the result of such buildings in real use is greatly limited by the architect's understanding of the community he or she is working for. The winner of this category in 2016 is a building deeply embedded in normal life. It comes from a normal village located in a normal environment, and features a universal environmental-educational subject. What it excels in is the way things are put together.

For the second time, WA Housing Award acknowledges a project that does typological experiments. The Third Space in Tangshan opens up new possibilities for the usually dreadful vertical interface of high-rise apartments. It proves that a city-friendly high-rise is not impossible. What we are still keen to see is how this experiment is going to affect the life of the people living in it. We also eagerly anticipate more Chinese architects taking deeper design thinking in social housing, the building type that speaks to the absolute majority of Chinese citizens.

Unsurprisingly, WA Technological Innovation Award brings up a project of structural expression. The Gymnasium in the new campus of Tianjin University is by no means a structurally challenging project by modern standard. It is not one of those engineering-intensive structures that competes for "the biggest, the widest, the tallest" titles. But it does one thing wonderfully: the unity of form and function of the concrete roof. In a time of radical parametric design and digital fabrication, it is simply reassuring to see the beauty and honesty of the early modernists being revisited.

We have good reasons to believe that what we are seeing from WAACA 2016 is just the beginning of a time of reflection in contemporary Chinese architecture. We expect this refection to make some serious contributions to the story of architecture today.□

清華大學建筑學院/《世界建筑》

2017-03-11