哈爾沃·魏德·埃勒夫森，米爾扎·穆葉齊諾維奇/Halvor Weider Ellefsen, Mirza Mujezinovic

張裕翔 譯/Translated by ZHANG Yuxiang

人民的建筑？

哈爾沃·魏德·埃勒夫森，米爾扎·穆葉齊諾維奇/Halvor Weider Ellefsen, Mirza Mujezinovic

張裕翔 譯/Translated by ZHANG Yuxiang

近年來，我們目睹了社會可持續(xù)議題在建筑行業(yè)中的再度興起。建筑師們再一次開始關注建筑物的社會影響，并探索被忽視已久的社會責任和建筑學科內(nèi)在的社會潛力。這次關于社會適應性的討論與21世紀初的經(jīng)濟蕭條相關，激發(fā)了建筑師們在對社會更加敏感的形式框架內(nèi)探索建筑的新定義。然而，在本文中，我們認為要更好地分析挪威背景下建筑的社會效益，需要觀察這一專業(yè)對管理國家級社會基礎設施的政府部門之貢獻以及兩者之間的關系。

社會適應性，可持續(xù)建筑，社會基礎設施

1 新的議題

在2008年奧斯陸歌劇院的開幕儀式[1]上，挪威國王哈拉爾五世將這座由著名的斯內(nèi)赫塔建筑事務所設計的覆滿大理石的劇院稱為一座位于海濱的城市紀念性地標（圖1）。然而，未來將為這幢建筑帶來顯赫名聲的，并非它那傾斜的白色板塊創(chuàng)造出的形式特質(zhì)，抑或它給人們提供的歌劇觀賞體驗——像挪威國王所說的“……感受自我和我們所寄身于的世界……”那樣。真正使得它聲名遠揚、被行內(nèi)外人士稱道的，是這座劇院的開放屋頂。這片城市空間一方面繼承了斯內(nèi)赫塔事務所一貫秉承的地景建筑設計思路，另一方面也契合了當時在建筑設計領域中初露鋒芒，并在幾年后形成風尚的公眾性、開放性思潮。奧斯陸歌劇院促進了社會可持續(xù)性這一主題在建筑行業(yè)中的確立。2016年威尼斯建筑雙年展“來自前線的報道”則是近期圍繞該主題展開的重要活動之一：該展覽描繪了一種更加注重社會承載力之提升而非形式特點的建筑實踐前景。

所以說，這座歌劇院的開幕儀式可以被理解為一次建筑話語的轉(zhuǎn)向，象征了數(shù)十年來一直由“建筑對象”所支配的實踐方式的終結(jié)：像在大多數(shù)歐洲國家一樣，挪威的建筑設計從1980年代以來就一直被后現(xiàn)代主義形式語匯以及結(jié)構(gòu)主義的建筑和城市設計方法所支配。更重要的是，在挪威的建筑執(zhí)業(yè)背景下，人們對建筑實踐的自治性特征有著非常深刻的認知，并虔誠供奉和演繹著斯維勒·費恩、克努特·克努森、文克·塞爾默這些挪威建筑師的思想遺產(chǎn)和建筑師、理論家克里斯辰·諾柏-舒茲的建筑現(xiàn)象學理論。這一傳統(tǒng)由奧斯陸建筑學派和戰(zhàn)后時期建筑思潮孕育而出，植根于幾代建筑師的實踐探索，滋養(yǎng)了——正如埃勒夫森和穆葉齊諾維奇在《定制：關于挪威當代建筑》中所描述的——一種由內(nèi)而外的人文主義建筑精神[2]。雖然社會學關注為這些實踐搭建了框架，藝術創(chuàng)作式的形式關注依然為建筑物本身提供了最終解釋：建筑被看作一個由獨立個體通過他/她的藝術實踐和匠人技藝構(gòu)建出的自治對象。

2 新自由主義和建筑實踐

1980年代給建筑生產(chǎn)帶來了一個全新的經(jīng)濟背景：正當1960年代末期以及1970年代針對現(xiàn)代主義僵硬普適性的批判觸發(fā)了建筑新形式的時候，新式治理和增量計劃模型等新自由主義概念也逐漸取代了戰(zhàn)后時期的綜觀規(guī)劃和增量式治理模式。因此，對1950-1960年代以來特有的綜觀規(guī)劃模型具有重要影響的建筑行業(yè)，開始自我調(diào)整、適應新的經(jīng)濟現(xiàn)實，客戶與建筑師之間的關系也因而被重新定義。因為建筑項目本身成為了促進城市發(fā)展的重要工具，建筑師在新環(huán)境下的房地產(chǎn)開項目中扮演了更加重要的角色。自然而然地，不同的建筑表現(xiàn)手段也幫助鞏固了建筑在房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)中的地位。新自由主義城市發(fā)展的敘事圍繞著消費主義和全球化展開，其中，將休閑娛樂與工作混合配置正與后福特主義的生產(chǎn)邏輯一脈相承。后福特主義經(jīng)濟取代了凱恩斯-福特主義范式，后者立根于政府、工業(yè)和勞工聯(lián)盟之間的緊密聯(lián)合以及居家生活、娛樂（消費）和工作場合（生產(chǎn)）之間的隔離。

1 奧斯陸歌劇院：奧斯陸歌劇院的公共開放屋頂很快成為該建筑的標志性特色。建筑設計：斯內(nèi)赫塔建筑事務所/Oslo Opera House: The Oslo Opera House's public accessible roofareas quickly became the buildings most iconic asset. Architects: Sn?hetta（攝影/Photo: Adrian Bugge）

1 A new agenda

At the opening of the Oslo Opera House[1]in 2008, designed by the renowned architectural firm Sn?hetta, Norwegian King Harald V defined the marble clad building at the Oslo harbour front as a "monumental landmark" for the city (Fig.1). However, it was neither the formal qualities of the building's angled white planes that would grant it fame in the years to come, nor the experiences its opera-function offered, where we could "…experience ourselves and the world in which we dwell…", according to the Norwegian King. What instead resonated among both architects and laymen was its publicly accessible roof. While this urban space in many ways was in line with Sn?hetta's legacy as an inherently landscape-oriented architectural practice, it also concurred with an emerging emphasis on social concerns within the architectural community that would strengthen in the years to come. This newfound accentuation of social sustainability within the discipline illustrated by the Oslo Opera was most recently exemplified in the 2016 Venice Biennale "Reporting from the Front", envisaging an agenda for architectural production accentuating the social capacities of the discipline more than the formal qualities of its buildings.

The opera opening can thus be seen as symbolically marking a shift in an architectural discourse that for previous decades had been predominantly preoccupied with architectural objects. In Norway, as in most of Europe, architectural discourse since the mid-1980s had focused on formal post-modernism, or approaches to architecture and urban form inherited from structuralism. More important in the Norwegian context, though, was the perception of architecture as an autonomous practice, maintaining - as well as re-interpreting - the legacy of Norwegian architects Sverre Fehn, Knut Knutsen, or Wenche Selmer, further bolstered by architect and historian Christian Norberg-Schulz's theorisation on architectural phenomenology. Emerging out of the Oslo School of Architecture and Design during the post-war era, and rooted in several generations of architectural practice, this tradition nurtured an inherently humanist approach to architectural conduct, as discussed by Ellefsen/Mujezinovic in "Custom Made: Takes on Contemporary Norwegian Architecture"[2]. While social concerns framed these practices, the architectural object was ultimately interpreted through its formal faculties as work; an autonomous object conceived by an independent actor through his or her artistic practice and craftsmanship.

2 Neoliberalism and architectural practice

The 1980s brought forth a novel economic reality for architectural production: where the critique of modernism's deterministic universalism in the late 1960s and 1970s had resulted in new architectural models, neoliberal concepts of newgovernance and incremental planning models now replaced the synoptic planning and growth-regimes of the post-war decades. As a result, the building industry, which through the 1950s and 1960s had been instrumental to the comprehensive planning models of the era, was prone to a new economic reality redefining the relationship between client and architect. New real estate development models increased demands on architectural performance, as the architectural project itself became a primary urban development tool. Consequently, architectural representations and architectural visualisation techniques embedded architecture deeply in the economics of real estate. The narratives of neoliberalist urban development revolved around consumerism and globalisation, where combining recreation, entertainment, and work was integral to the new post-Fordist logics of production. The post-Fordist economy replaced the Keynesian-Fordist paradigm, defined by the close bonds between government, industry, and labour unions, and the separation of domesticity and leisure (consumption), from the realm of work (production).

The spatial results of post-Fordism are well known due to habour front redevelopments across the globe. Such project-based urban developments, consisting of large scale architectural interventions and urban designs, were articulated as pedestrianised enclaves centred around shopping and experience, and spearheaded by iconic landmark buildings designed by architects whose fame grew proportionally to the media's production of images. Increasing property prices in downtown areas combined with consumer demands for an "urban" lifestyle lead to accelerated gentrification, bolstered by municipal revitalisation and investment strategies to boost competitiveness and attract investors. Such new entertainment areas utilised the potential market value of social congregation in urban spaces and became criticised for their commodification of the social sphere of cities. Still, harbour front redevelopments and the gentrification of the urban core throughout the 1990s and 2000s displayed the social potential inherent in the previously neglected downtowns of the world's cities.

3 The architectural object and government

Confronted with increased demands for building economy and efficiency within neoliberal forms of production, one can argue that leading architects in Norway resorted to nurturing cultural icons, lavish villas, or other objects of redundancy that allowed for a more elaborate architecture than speculative housing and office schemes did. But while Norway also produced its share of architectural excess for private clients, it was the government's "National Tourist Routes" project (Fig.3), consisting of small but uncompromising architectural installations along Norway's scenic infrastructure, that became Norway's most important architectural institution throughout the 1990s, ultimately contributing to a "re-launch" of Norwegian architecture on the world stage. While the tourist route project framed Norwegian architecture as sometimes frugal and ascetic, other times playful and whimsical, the architectural cementation of a Norwegian architectural identity-brand was built on the legacy of the building as work and architect as auteur, in control of all aspects of building design and execution. Much in accordance with the "Fehn tradition", such projects conveyed a unit between artistic intention and landscape constraints.

最著名的后福特主義空間呈現(xiàn)主要位于世界各地的濱港區(qū)改造項目中。這些由大型建筑和城市設計組成的以建筑項目為基礎的城市改造項目，多為步行化的城市商業(yè)、體驗區(qū)，并利用那些依賴媒體聲名鵲起的明星建筑師設計的地標性建筑獲得矚目。不斷上漲的中心城區(qū)不動產(chǎn)價格摻雜著消費者對“都市感”生活的想往促進了城市復興計劃和吸引資本的投資促進戰(zhàn)略的擬定，進而加速了紳士化的進程。這種新型娛樂地區(qū)利用了城市地區(qū)社會集聚帶來的潛在市場價值，也因其將城市公共空間商品化而受到詬病。但不管怎樣，1990年代到2000年代之間發(fā)生的濱港區(qū)改造項目和城市核心區(qū)的紳士化都顯示出世界城市中曾經(jīng)被忽視的下城地區(qū)內(nèi)在的社會潛力。

3 建筑對象和政府

面臨不斷增長的對建筑經(jīng)濟的需求和在新自由主義生產(chǎn)形式下對效率的需要，的確可以認為挪威的優(yōu)秀建筑師們開始致力于打造文化標志，例如那些能夠在精致程度上做文章的豪華別墅或者其他浮華的建筑對象，而不是那些投機住房或者辦公樓。然而，正當挪威制造著過度的私人建筑之時，“國家旅游線路”項目——一個在挪威風景線路上由多個小規(guī)模項目、但頗具匠心的建筑裝置組成的政府項目成為了挪威1990年代最重要的基礎設施，并幫助挪威建筑在世界舞臺上“重新亮相”（圖2）。雖然國家旅游線路項目讓挪威建筑顯得時而簡約冷淡，時而活潑精怪，但是挪威建筑的整體形象，依然是建立在這樣一種關系之上：建筑為藝術作品，而建筑師為作者、把控著設計和建造的全過程。與“費恩傳統(tǒng)”相契合，這類項目表現(xiàn)出一種藝術家意圖和基地限制的統(tǒng)一。

國家旅游線路既是挪威建筑行業(yè)和文化領域重新接軌的產(chǎn)物，又是這一鏈接的紐帶。在1990年代期間，建筑圈內(nèi)的活躍人士不僅在文化領域重新定義了建筑，而且還使得建筑在挪威的其他領域甚至政府部門獲得了更多的關注。雖然這一變革與文化城市主義和標志性建筑出現(xiàn)在同一時期，但更重要的是它趕上了挪威前所未有的經(jīng)濟繁榮期和這一時期政府對社會、技術和文化建設的大規(guī)模投資。相應地，保證建筑質(zhì)量不再被看作過度投資，而是逐漸被看作社會財富的積累，或是一種潛在的政治工具。也許只有在這樣的背景下，我們才能更好地理解挪威當前對于社會可持續(xù)性和社會適應性的充分重視。

4 建筑的再政治化和政治的“建筑化”

奧斯陸歌劇院的設計時期正值千年交替時地標建筑如雨后春筍般涌現(xiàn)的熱潮和經(jīng)濟樂觀主義的春天，而開放之日則正趕上經(jīng)濟危機，同主要來自學術界的針對新自由主義城市開發(fā)模式的批判聲浪一同到來。正如亞歷杭德羅·賽艾拉-波羅在他的文章《深入21世紀——后資本主義建筑》中提到的，我們可以透過彼時經(jīng)濟危機的背景和危機引發(fā)的社會運動來更好地觀察這次建筑重歸政治參與的轉(zhuǎn)向[3]。類似挪威蒂因-特內(nèi)斯圖恩等事務所的實踐很好地詮釋了這次建筑運動的內(nèi)涵，培育了一種低預算條件下最大化追求社會效益的公民建筑。然而，即使建筑的再政治化也為挪威的建筑領域提供了新的議題，其影響卻依然是有限的，我們現(xiàn)在能找到的真正回應了迫切的社會需要或?qū)I(yè)需要的、針對社會問題的建筑實踐并不是很多。雖然一些特定社會團體的邊緣化現(xiàn)象依然在挪威出現(xiàn)，但切切實實對建筑生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)生深遠影響的社會危機還是多在歐洲南部出現(xiàn)：比如說，在西班牙，因為缺失穩(wěn)定的經(jīng)濟基礎，建筑實踐面臨著實實在在的艱難考驗。作為回應，建筑師們也開始更多地通過非盈利的空間或策劃干預開展自己的實踐。

因此，挪威背景下的社會適應性之實現(xiàn)會更傾向于依賴政府項目或者旨在為公共部門提供服務的建筑項目：政府管理流程的不斷自我更新和優(yōu)化也正面地影響了與之相應的建筑產(chǎn)物，使之體現(xiàn)出了政治改革的社會維度。這一點也許在福利項目中表現(xiàn)得最為明顯：例如，在初等教育校園設計中，用戶會饒有興致地參與到現(xiàn)代教育學模式的討論中（自主學習、師生間的有機聯(lián)系、學生的社會參與等等），并致力于將這些想法轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槲镔|(zhì)世界中的形式。烏諾建筑師事務所設計的奧斯陸庫本職業(yè)學校（“蜂巢”，圖3）很好地支撐了以上說法。空間流動性，以及開放、圍合空間的混合，都服務于校園生活中社會維度和學習氛圍的營造，同時也促進了高效的管理系統(tǒng)的實現(xiàn)。類似的模式也可以在其他類型的公共福利項目中見到，例如在大學甚至監(jiān)獄建筑中，改造人格或精神的意圖也通過空間的語言體現(xiàn)了出來。這一點在哈登監(jiān)獄的設計中被顯示地尤為清晰——該建筑曾被《紐約時報》的一篇文章定義為“激進的人道主義”[4]。不管是為學生創(chuàng)造學習環(huán)境或是為罪犯設計改造地點，這種政治目標明確的空間宣言都通過定義一種政府管理與不同目標人群或部分人口之間的彈性關系而獲得實踐。這座橋梁的搭建依賴于建筑專業(yè)人士在藩籬兩端之間積極構(gòu)建出的有效反饋機制；建筑師既需要做公共建筑管理的代表，又需要扮演受委托的設計師的角色。

2 福維克渡船碼頭（“國家旅游線路”項目之一）：挪威政府的“國家旅游線路”項目為小型建筑項目的探索提供了超出市場限制的新框架。建筑設計：曼泰·庫拉建筑師事務所/Forvik Ferry Port (National Tourist Routes): The governmental "National Tourist Route" project has provided a framework for small-scale architectural explorations outside market constraints. Architects: Manthey Kula Architects（攝影/Photo: Manthey Kula）

The tourist route project was both the result of, and an agent for, new bonds between the architectural profession and the culture sector in Norway. Throughout the 1990s, core actors within the architectural community not only reframed architecture within the cultural sector, but also contributed to an increased awareness of the architectural field in other sectors of Norwegian society and government administration. While this repositioning concurred with the age of cultural urbanism and architectural icons, it more importantly corresponded with an era of unsurpassed economic growth in Norway that also led to large scale governmental spending in social, technical, and cultural infrastructure. Concurrently, architectural quality ceased to be perceived as a symbol of excess, but increasingly became recognised as a societal value and potential political tool. It is in this context that the current accentuation of social sustainability and resilience in Norwegian architecture might best be addressed.

4 The re-politicisation of architecture and "architecturalisation" of politics

The Oslo Opera, a building conceived at the peak of architectural icons as well as economic optimism at the turn of the millennium, opened amid an economic crisis, flanked by a surging critique towards neoliberalist urban development models, especially within academia. The shift towards political reengagement in architecture can be seen in the context of this crisis and the social movements it triggered (i.e. the Occupy Wall-Street movement), as suggested by Alejandro Xaera-Polo in his essay Well into the 21st Century - The architecture of post-capitalism[3]. Offices like Norwegian TYIN tegnestue exemplify such an architectural activism, nurturing the vernacular in search for low-budget commissions with social impact. Still, while the repoliticisation of architecture might have provided the profession with novel agendas for architectural practice in the Norwegian context, the impact of such reassessments is of minor significance, and there have been few examples of socially oriented architecture emerging from societal or professional necessity. Although the marginalisation of certain social groups also takes place in the Norwegian context, genuine societal crises having profound effects on architectural production have been displayed in southern parts of Europe. In Spain, for example, the lack of an economic base for practice coincided with an acute and graspable social crisis architects could challenge through non-profit spatial or programmatic interventions.

3 庫本職業(yè)學校：庫本職業(yè)學校將高效的設計與具有社會意識的空間方案相結(jié)合。建筑設計：烏諾建筑師事務所/ Kuben Yrkesarena: The Kuben Yrkesarena educational institution combines efficient scheme with socially conscious spatial solutions. Architects: UNO architects（攝影/Photo: Annette Larsen）

Thus, social resilience in the Norwegian context can most fruitfully be addressed in the perspective of government programs and the role architecture plays in providing public-sector services. The perpetual reinvention and refinement of governance processes also affect its architectural residues, reflecting the social dimension of political reform. This is perhaps most visible in welfare projects, such as schools for lower-level education, where the public client aspires to absorb discussions on contemporary pedagogical models (independent learning, dynamic relationship between pupils and teachers, social engagement among students, etc.) and aims to transform such ideas into physical form. This is illustrated by the new high school in Oslo known as "Kuben" (The Hive), designed by Uno Architects (Fig.2). Spatial fluidity, including the mixture of open and closed spaces, embraces both the social dimension of school life and its potentials for learning, as well as being highly efficient in terms of its overarching organisational scheme. Similar frameworks may also be seen in other types of public welfare projects, such as universities or even prisons, where the accentuation of rehabilitation also manifests in architectural and spatial layout. This is especially evident in Halden prison, characterised in a New York Times article as a space of "radical humanness"[4]. Such spatial manifestations of political goals, whether regarding creating new learning-environments for students or new rehabilitation-locations for convicts, are enabled by nurturing an elastic relationship between governmental practices and different user-groups, or population segments. This bridging is facilitated through a feedback loop where architects participate on both sides of the fence - being representatives for public building management agencies, as well as commissioned designers.

5 建筑作為附加值

針對挪威新公共管理政策的主要批判意見指出，地標建筑和文化機構(gòu)只不過是政府用于提高房價、吸引外資、加速城市發(fā)展進程的工具。然而，近幾十年的實踐證明，小型城市社區(qū)的地方政府通過投入高質(zhì)量的文化建筑的確能獲得較高的社會價值產(chǎn)出。拋開對于政府動用稅款建設貌似多余的文化中心之行為的詬病不談（音樂廳、文學中心以及奇奇怪怪的挪威搖滾音樂博物館），這其實恰恰證明了精致先進的建筑在建筑學實踐經(jīng)歷了數(shù)十年的商業(yè)化和專業(yè)細分的過程后，已經(jīng)逐漸超越了過度強調(diào)象征性的任務，而開始向促進社會發(fā)展的方向前進。更令人吃驚的是，這一潮流已經(jīng)進入到私人項目中。私人投資者們逐漸意識到了城市社會圈層中所蘊藏的經(jīng)濟刺激潛力，而且這種潛力遠遠超越了1980年代和1990年代的娛樂、商品消費等淺顯概念。新近開放的由基馬建筑師事務所和奧斯陸建筑事務所設計的“Sentralen”文化辦公空間項目（圖4）就很好地說明了這一點。該項目對舊銀行辦公樓進行改造，打造了一個類似于延森-斯科溫事務所設計的多加文化中心的新舊交織的混合建筑。相較于1980年代和1990年代的極力迎合商品經(jīng)濟和消費主義的新自由主義宣言式建筑，這些項目則顯得更為微妙而含蓄。相反地，這些項目的目的是為了實現(xiàn)城市內(nèi)部的生產(chǎn)活動——文化生產(chǎn)——提供空間性基礎設施。單單去拜訪一下“Sentralen”咖啡廳商店，就是一件很有趣的事情。在這里，聚集了相當多的文化工業(yè)人群，為申請各個公共機構(gòu)的資助做準備，從而促成他們大大小小的藝術項目。

6 建筑作為社會工具

4 “Sentralen”文化中心：這個位于奧斯陸的新文化目的地由一家銀行基金會運營，包含了辦公、活動、沙龍、餐廳等功能，并成為350位文化產(chǎn)業(yè)人士的新家。建筑設計：基馬建筑師事務所+奧斯陸建筑事務所/Sentralen: Oslo's new culture destination is run by a bank foundation, boasting offices, event-spaces, workshops, restaurants and houses 350 different actors within the culture sector. Architects: KIMA arkitektur+Atelier Oslo（攝影/Photo: Lars Petter Pettersen）

雖然建筑重新介入政治的動機十分純粹，并在世界范圍內(nèi)越來越多的建筑事務所的實踐中得以實現(xiàn)，但是我們?nèi)圆荒芎雎陨鐣訖C與經(jīng)濟發(fā)展過剩之間的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。因此，建筑行業(yè)內(nèi)新出現(xiàn)的這些社會議題好像并沒有開啟一個后資本主義的時代，而是預示了一個后自由主義的資本主義框架，在這個框架內(nèi)，建筑的政治再參與實踐立刻在當今世界發(fā)展的經(jīng)濟邏輯下獲得了實現(xiàn)：簡而言之，社會隱喻作為一種植根于項目審美中的元素，取代了“娛樂”作為合法化策略和宣傳工具的地位。然而，2000年以來對于城市社會圈層和建筑的社會價值之強調(diào)并不能被簡單定義為社會層面的“漂綠”行為，抑或利用社會可持續(xù)概念牟利的商業(yè)策略。它也不能被概括為一個幫助繼續(xù)方向指引的建筑行業(yè)重新找到華麗辭藻的工具。在挪威的建筑行業(yè)環(huán)境中，建筑對社會的再關注潮流可以被看作一種將建筑的社會適應性重新納入政府行為的決策標準之一的努力：無論是對于教育設施、市政設施還是文化機構(gòu)，政府在評估建筑績效時都開始更加側(cè)重社會可持續(xù)性的考量。這將幫助我們透過政府管理的結(jié)構(gòu)框架理解和關注滲透在挪威建筑中的社會適應性概念，同時也讓我們領會到公共實體的包容性是如何激發(fā)建筑創(chuàng)新，以及建筑質(zhì)量是如何幫助定義政府政策的，就像以上諸多項目以及本期《世界建筑》所呈現(xiàn)的那樣。

7 民主的空間？

2016年，一個致力于通過免費演講宣傳和保護言論自由的挪威私人非盈利基金組織弗利特·奧德基金會入股了斯內(nèi)赫塔建筑事務所，成為了該事務所唯一的外部股東，占有公司20%的股份。雖然這主要是一次經(jīng)濟投資行為，但是這也源于弗利特·奧德對斯內(nèi)赫塔設計作品的肯定——他們將其稱為“自由開放的民主空間”。在參考了該事務所的作品集之后，基金會看到了斯內(nèi)赫塔與弗利特·奧德兩個組織之間深層的意識形態(tài)關聯(lián)。這次投資不僅顯示出特定的建筑實踐如何在市場環(huán)境下獲得吸引力，而且表明建筑所具有的培育、提升社會適應性的效用被逐漸重視起來。因此，建筑作為社會可持續(xù)的生產(chǎn)者，并不會經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在社會活動家們的意識形態(tài)平臺上。我們強調(diào)這一點，是為了表明建筑的狀態(tài)不僅僅可以用設計者的動機和概念源頭來評判，像建筑展覽中的慣用套路那樣。建筑學科的行動力是與其所處的政治框架和該行業(yè)如何通過創(chuàng)造滿足社會需要的美好環(huán)境來支撐它的重要性相掛鉤的。這一點的前提是，公共部門在推進建筑創(chuàng)新的政府行為過程中所具有的靈活度和適應度：最終，促進社會的技術、交流和文化進步的推動力還是要依賴于建筑作為一個學科對于政治框架的影響力，而非建筑事務所們是否將自己的實踐定義為社會行為。

5 Architecture as added value

Critics of public new-governance strategies in Norway have often noted how landmark buildingsand cultural institutions funded by government are vehicles to increase property value, attract foreign investment, and accelerate urban development processes. However, the recent decade has also demonstrated how the municipalities of smaller urban communities have invested in high-quality cultural buildings with a high social utilisation value. Despite re-occurring critiques of municipal spending of tax-money on what are regarded as superfluous cultural centres (concert halls, literature centres, and obscure museums for Norwegian rock-music), it also envisages, after decades of commercialisation and professionalisation of architectural practice, how elaborate and advanced architecture increasingly surpasses the role of symbol of excess, becoming a tool for societal development. More surprisingly, this has also spilled over into the private sector, where investors increasingly become aware of the potential economic incentives of the social sphere of cities, beyond the blunt entertainment and shopping products of the 1980s and 1990s. This is effectively visible in the newly opened cultureoffice house Sentralen (Fig.4), designed by Kima Architects and Atelier Oslo, where a historic bank building is turned into a delicate mixture of the new and the existing, being a follow-up of Jensen & Skodvin's Doga culture centre building from 2004. Such projects are subtler than the previous neo-liberal manifestations of the 1980s and '90s, which embraced the social and cultural through the consumerist economy. Conversely, these projects are poised to offer spatial infrastructure for production in the city itself - production of culture. On an anecdotal level, it is a rather interesting experience to visit Sentralen's coffee shop, where a notable number of culture-industry types gather, preparing their funding applications for different public institutions to finance their miscellaneous artistic projects.

6 Architecture as societal tool

While the political re-engagement within parts of the architectural community is genuine, saturating the practices of a growing amount of architectural offices world over, one cannot but observe the extent to which social agendas become intrinsic to economic surplus. Thus, rather than introducing the age of post-capitalism, the new social agenda of architecture instead seems to envisage the contours of post-liberalist capitalism, where the political re-engagement of architectural practices swiftly becomes operationalised within the current day economic logics of development. In short, social implication replaces "entertainment" as a legitimating strategy and branding device, as part of project aesthetics. However, the accentuation of the social sphere of cities and the social value of architecture emerging in the mid-2000s cannot be reduced to the social equivalent of "green washing", or similar commercial strategies to profit from social sustainability. Neither can it solely be seen as a device for providing a new rhetoric to project meaning upon a profession in need of direction. In the Norwegian context, the renewed focus on the social sphere can be seen rather to help reframe social resilience in architecture as a value-factor for governmental conduct; whether being educational facilities, infrastructural installations, or cultural institutions, architectural performance is in a governance perspective increasingly measured through notions of social sustainability. This leads us to primarily understand and accentuate social resilience in Norwegian architecture through the structural framework of governmental administration and the porosity of such public bodies that enable architectural innovation and notions of architectural quality to affect and define governmental policy, as illustrated by the project presented above and within this issue of World Architecture.

7 Democratic spaces?

In 2016, the Fritt Ord Foundation, a private non-profit foundation promoting and protecting freedom of expression in Norway, invested in the architectural office Sn?hetta, becoming the only external owner with a share of 20 percent. While primarily being a financial investment, Fritt Ord saw Sn?hetta as a practice drawing what they defined as "free and open democratic spaces"[5]. Referring to the architectural firm's portfolio of cultural buildings, the foundation saw a kinship between Sn?hetta and Fritt Ord's fundamental values. This investment not only pointed to how certain architectural practices have become attractive in a market perspective, but also to the increased focus on architecture's role to secure and nurture social resilience. The agency of architecture as socially sustainable, thus, is to a less extent present in the ideological platforms of social activist. We accentuate this perspective to convey that the state of architecture cannot be measured only by the motivations and agendas of its protagonists, as is often addressed at architectural exhibitions. Rather, the discipline's capacity to act is tied to its political framework, and how the profession maintains its relevance through creating attractive environments that answer societal needs. A precondition in this regard is the flexibility and adaptability of public bodies to obtain and operationalise architectural innovations in governmental conduct. Ultimately, it is not whether architectural offices frame themselves as social practices, but the impact that architecture as a discipline manages to have within the governmental framework that facilitates the technical, social, and cultural facilities of society.

/References:

[1] Operaen har ?pnet. Norwegian Public Broadcasting Cooperation (NRK), April 12, 2008.

[2] Ellefsen, Halvor Weider, Mujezinovic, Mirza. Custom Made: Takes on Contemporary Norwegian Architecture. World Architecture 2014(05).

[3] Xaera-Polo, Alejandro. Well into the 21st Century -The architecture of post-capitalism. El Corquis, no. 187, 2016.

[4] Benko, Jessica. The Radical Humaneness of Norway's Halden Prison. New York Times, March 26, 2015.

[5] Eckblad, Bj?rn. Fritt ord inn p? Eiersiden i Sn?hetta. Dagens N?ringsliv, September 1, 2016.

An Architecture for the People?

In recent years, we have seen a renewed emphasis on social sustainability within the architectural profession. Architects accentuate the social imprints of buildings, as well as explore the latent social responsibilities and potentials inherent within the architectural discipline. This focus on social resilience has been linked to the economic depression of the early 21st century, sparking architects to reframe their profession within more socially conscious forms of practice. In this article, however, we argue that in Norway, the most profound relevance of architecture's social capacity might best be addressed through considering the profession's contribution to and relation with governmental institutions responsible for national social infrastructure.

social resilience, sustainable architecture, social infrastructure

奧斯陸建筑與藝術學院，MALARCHITECTURE事務所／The Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO), MALARCHITECTURE

2017-05-11