山地建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性

張利 /ZHANG Li

山地建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性

Mountain Buildings and Sustainability

張利 /ZHANG Li

如果我們武斷地把人工與自然定義成空間環(huán)境的兩個(gè)極端，那么顯然山地與平地相比，是接近自然一端的。如果再把現(xiàn)代主義運(yùn)動(dòng)之后的基于基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施網(wǎng)格的二維規(guī)劃工具納入考慮范圍的話(huà)，山地建成環(huán)境的自然屬性就更明顯了——它使我們興奮地（或是不情愿地）放棄駕輕就熟的二維工具，把思考擴(kuò)展到大地的另外維度，即垂直的維度和物種多樣性的維度。

有趣的是，在全球關(guān)注可持續(xù)性的今天，我們所得到的大多數(shù)建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性策略仍然是默認(rèn)以平地為基礎(chǔ)的。很多盛行的解決方案，如極致密度、海綿城市、快速公交網(wǎng)絡(luò)等，都是針對(duì)平地密集聚居環(huán)境的，對(duì)山地環(huán)境捉襟見(jiàn)肘。同時(shí)，山地環(huán)境強(qiáng)大的自然屬性——不論是茂盛的山林還是貧瘠的巖壁——又不時(shí)把任何基于山地的建設(shè)置于環(huán)境倫理的困境之中，使“山地建成環(huán)境是否在根本上是可持續(xù)的”成為一道常見(jiàn)的質(zhì)疑。這些都使我們愈發(fā)地對(duì)山地建筑的可持續(xù)性這一問(wèn)題感興趣。

我們可以根據(jù)人工干預(yù)程度的不同，把山地建成環(huán)境分成3種，并據(jù)此來(lái)觀察其可持續(xù)性的策略與取向：輕度干預(yù)，以景觀方式介入；中度干預(yù)，以微型社區(qū)方式介入；強(qiáng)度干預(yù)，以局部經(jīng)濟(jì)社區(qū)方式介入。

輕度干預(yù)的山地建成環(huán)境是最沒(méi)有爭(zhēng)議的，它們從道德上講，幾乎就是提供生態(tài)與環(huán)保教育的前臺(tái)哨所。它們多數(shù)以零星的點(diǎn)狀構(gòu)筑物獨(dú)處于自然環(huán)境之中，從觀景平臺(tái)、游客服務(wù)設(shè)施到宗教設(shè)施。其所吸引的人群是典型的尋求片刻逃逸的都市觀光者，后者“除了照片什么也不帶走，除了腳印什么也不留下”。在山地建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性方面，這類(lèi)構(gòu)筑物明顯取向于對(duì)自然的原生狀態(tài)的保護(hù)，包括對(duì)地質(zhì)環(huán)境和物種環(huán)境的保護(hù)，因而近距離體驗(yàn)但最小化觸碰是這類(lèi)建筑的共性。對(duì)建筑師來(lái)講設(shè)計(jì)這類(lèi)構(gòu)筑物還有一種極大的誘惑，即無(wú)論設(shè)計(jì)成什么樣，都將擁有一個(gè)慷慨的原生自然環(huán)境給予烘托，因而得到一張“性感”的作品照片幾乎是板上釘釘?shù)摹?/p>

中度干預(yù)的山地建成環(huán)境雖然有爭(zhēng)議，但卻在某種程度上是最“令人向往”的，因?yàn)樗鼈冊(cè)噲D傳遞的是人在自然中詩(shī)意棲居的不滅理想。從海德格爾的黑森林情結(jié)到馬勒的作曲小屋，到維特根斯坦的河谷居所，再到安縵集團(tuán)的坡地客房，人的不甘于在城市的喧鬧與重復(fù)中終了此生的宿愿再三顯現(xiàn)。不過(guò)這類(lèi)建筑在道德上實(shí)在是沒(méi)有什么光環(huán)：它們或是令人艷羨的私人居（會(huì)）所，或是昂貴奢華的高級(jí)酒店。其所吸引的人群也不再是所有的社會(huì)階層，而是有能力消費(fèi)被精致收納的自然的上中產(chǎn)階級(jí)或特權(quán)人群。在山地建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性方面，這類(lèi)建筑的取向是相對(duì)模糊的：一方面它們強(qiáng)調(diào)自然的詩(shī)意，另一方面它們把自然調(diào)制成高端消費(fèi)的對(duì)象。即是消費(fèi)，便必然有著物質(zhì)循環(huán)中的不連續(xù)——從本質(zhì)上講，在這類(lèi)建筑中發(fā)生的物質(zhì)循環(huán)只是對(duì)城市中同類(lèi)物質(zhì)循環(huán)的一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單位移，雖然在這里有著被精心營(yíng)造出來(lái)的詩(shī)情畫(huà)意的外衣。

強(qiáng)度干預(yù)的山地建成環(huán)境是最具爭(zhēng)議的，因?yàn)樗鼈冊(cè)噲D利用山地的獨(dú)有資源——地形、水文甚至物種——建立一個(gè)相對(duì)完整的局部經(jīng)濟(jì)循環(huán)，會(huì)對(duì)山地原本的生態(tài)面貌帶來(lái)明顯的改變，從而經(jīng)常暴露于激列的討論之下。在后工業(yè)社會(huì)時(shí)代，發(fā)展山地局部經(jīng)濟(jì)最常見(jiàn)的模式是與山地運(yùn)動(dòng)、特別是與冬季運(yùn)動(dòng)的結(jié)合。全球蓬勃壯大的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)不停地在世界各地尋找在雪上駕馭身體、挑戰(zhàn)重力的新刺激，新的滑雪目的地層出不窮。在這方面，冬季奧運(yùn)會(huì)可以說(shuō)是造就冰雪運(yùn)動(dòng)目的地的最大強(qiáng)心劑，也是最受關(guān)注的環(huán)境問(wèn)題的討論對(duì)象。與冬奧會(huì)雪上項(xiàng)目相關(guān)的賽道、場(chǎng)館與服務(wù)設(shè)施從來(lái)都不是小規(guī)模的營(yíng)造，也從來(lái)不能逃避道德上的兩面性：一方面，它們毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)將帶來(lái)所屬地區(qū)體育休閑經(jīng)濟(jì)的繁榮，長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈條將惠及地區(qū)內(nèi)的所有社區(qū)；另一方面，它們也命中注定地將對(duì)所處的山脈造成持久性的影響，而且部分專(zhuān)業(yè)性極強(qiáng)的項(xiàng)目設(shè)施在賽后難以民用（如高山滑雪，跳臺(tái)滑雪等），其瞬時(shí)的環(huán)境成本更為突顯。在山地建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性方面，它們永遠(yuǎn)面臨著發(fā)展區(qū)域體育休閑經(jīng)濟(jì)與控制環(huán)境影響的決策取舍。現(xiàn)任國(guó)際奧委會(huì)主席托馬斯·巴赫在其主導(dǎo)的《奧林匹克2020 議程》中對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的態(tài)度是鮮明的。在這份把社會(huì)機(jī)會(huì)、資源效率和青年激發(fā)列為奧林匹克運(yùn)動(dòng)參與全球可持續(xù)發(fā)展三大基石的文獻(xiàn)中，使奧運(yùn)會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)與社會(huì)機(jī)會(huì)的貢獻(xiàn)最大化、同時(shí)有效控制環(huán)境影響是被明確倡導(dǎo)的途徑?；谶@一觀點(diǎn)，宏觀上，如果強(qiáng)度干預(yù)的山地建成環(huán)境能夠最終造成運(yùn)動(dòng)休閑產(chǎn)業(yè)對(duì)礦業(yè)和制造業(yè)的替代，那么其對(duì)區(qū)域長(zhǎng)期可持續(xù)發(fā)展的貢獻(xiàn)將是巨大的；微觀上，更具環(huán)境意識(shí)、更面向長(zhǎng)期價(jià)值的設(shè)計(jì)將是控制環(huán)境影響的必經(jīng)之路。

本期《世界建筑》收錄了上述3個(gè)類(lèi)型的山地建成環(huán)境案例，對(duì)它們的可持續(xù)性的評(píng)價(jià)尚無(wú)結(jié)論，這恰恰可以為我們的討論提供有益的素材?！?/p>

If we arbitrarily take the natural and the artificial as two polar extremes, and try to measure all built environments through the spectrum between these two extremes, then mountain buildings would definitely be more "natural" than those in flat areas. They would be even more "natural" if we consider the 2D-centred plan tools after the arrival of Modernism. For the plan of mountain buildings, we have to give up the ubiquitous infrastructure-grid (albeit reluctantly), and extend our thoughts into other dimensions of the surface of the earth: the vertical and the ecological.

Ironically, although the world is crying for sustainable approaches today, most planning approaches we have are for cities on a flat land. Many popular solutions, those of Hyper Density, Sponge City and BRT Networks, are sure-footed in flat cities but flat-footed in mountainous areas. More embarrassingly, the natural quality of mountainous areas often put any mountain construction project under a hard moral dilemma: is it truly sustainable to build in mountains at all? All these observations make us keen to study the sustainability of mountain buildings.

We may categorise mountain buildings into three groups, by the degree of human intervention: minor interventions, mostly landscape structures; medium interventions, mostly micro communities of residences and resorts; heavy interventions, mostly complete communities of full local economic cycles.

Minor interventions are easily excused. They are, nevertheless, observatories of ecological investigation and education. They usually stand in a pristine natural setup as isolated structures, from viewing decks to small visitor centres to religious facilities.They attract people, usually urban dwellers seeking a moment of escape, who would "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". In regard to sustainability, their interpretation is simple: to protect the nature as it is, geologically and biologically. Zero distance experience and minimum artificial footprint is the motto of these structures. To architects, they have a unique charm: no matter what you design, you have a gorgeous natural background at your disposal. So a "sexy" architecture photo is guaranteed.

Medium interventions evoke debates. But they are somewhat "desirable". What they try to manifest is the long human desire of poetic dwelling in nature. From Heidegger's love with the black forest, to Mahler's composing hut to Wittgenstein's house in the valley, to the seductive guesthouses of Aman, man's willing to run away from the noises and routines of the city is recurrent. Yet when it comes to morality, these buildings have no chance of any high ground: they are either privileged private houses (clubs), or super expensive hotels and resorts, therefore not for everyone, far from. Only the elite can afford to consume this luxury. When it comes to sustainability, these buildings take an even more blurred stand. On one hand they do present the poetics of dwelling. On the other hand they cook the poetics of dwelling into consumerism products. Every circle of consumerism would necessarily end up with a broken cycle of resource. In these buildings, the broken cycles of urban consumerism are repeated, only moved to a different location, and dressed up with an idyllic cover.

Heavy interventions are the most controversial. Ambitious enough to set up a complete economic cycle based on the available resource in the local mountain, this type of mountain buildings are destined to have consequences in the mountains and is therefore usually put in the centre of fierce debates. In the postindustrial age, the most common development pattern of local mountain economy is sports, particularly winter sports. The growing world middle class population are seeking around the globe for new stimuli of testing their bodies on snow. The Winter Games is the biggest catalyst in this regard. Winter game facilities are never small, in physicality or in publicity. They always bare a moral duality in public debates: On one hand they offer unrivalled economic incentives to the hosting region with long industry chains that will surely benefit wider population. On the other hand they have substantial consequences on the mountains they are located in, particularly for highly professional sports venues that are hard to use after the games, such as Alpine and Ski Jumping, the environmental cost is deemed as very high. In terms of sustainability, they are permanently accompanied by the question of decision between the development of sports industry and the conservation of natural environment. In the Olympic Agenda 2020 led by president Thomas Bach, which puts social development, resource efficiency and youth mobilisation as the three pillars of the sustainability of the Olympic movement, the approach to this question is clear: maximising social development while minimising environmental consequences. In the bigger picture, buildings for the Winter Games will certain help the sports industry to replace old polluting industries and move a whole region in a sustainable direction. In the microcosm picture, sustainable design and environmentally friendly decisions are indispensable.

We have selected projects of all the three groups mentioned above. No conclusion has been achieved yet on the sustainability of these projects. They are open to further discussion and scrutiny, as is our report on the sustainability of mountain buildings.□

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2015-09-11