向場所學(xué)習(xí)
——城市設(shè)計的一項任務(wù)

米凱利·博尼諾 瑪利亞·保拉·雷皮里諾 皮埃爾-艾蘭·克羅賽特 (意)

孫昊德 [譯] 楊 滔 [校]

向場所學(xué)習(xí)
——城市設(shè)計的一項任務(wù)

米凱利·博尼諾 瑪利亞·保拉·雷皮里諾 皮埃爾-艾蘭·克羅賽特 (意)

孫昊德 [譯] 楊 滔 [校]

米凱利·博尼諾（意大利都靈理工大學(xué)）

Michele Bonino, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

瑪利亞·保拉·雷皮里諾（意大利都靈理工大學(xué)）

Maria Paola Repellino, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

皮埃爾-艾蘭·克羅賽特（西交利物浦大學(xué)）

Pierre-Alain Croset, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China

[譯者] 孫昊德（清華大學(xué)）

[Translator] SUN Haode, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China [校對] 楊 滔（北京市建筑設(shè)計研究院有限公司）

[Proofreader] YANG Tao, Beijing Institute of Architectural Design Co. Ltd, Beijing, China

以北京為例，對特定場所的研究為考察中國特大城市開啟了一扇機遇之門。通過對北京市朝陽區(qū)北京第二棉紡織廠（以下稱“京棉二廠”）的研究及其與某些西方案例的比較，可以看到，記錄其城市記憶、社區(qū)意識等特殊價值并“反饋”給更大范圍的城市空間是十分重要的。這無疑是城市設(shè)計的一項任務(wù)：它不僅是一項設(shè)計問題，更是一種策略，即在規(guī)劃設(shè)計中觀察、理解并深度檢驗城市，從而使城市更為人性化。

場所；東西方比較；社區(qū)意識；城市實踐；城市設(shè)計的任務(wù)

北京的復(fù)合城市元素，如網(wǎng)格結(jié)構(gòu)、中軸線、環(huán)路基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施以及巨大街區(qū)，使之具有觀察研究的重要價值[1-2]。本文將著重對北京城區(qū)分片考察，并對“京棉二廠”這樣一個特定場所進行觀察研究?！熬┟薅S”是20世紀50年代中期北京建成的三座棉紡織工廠（北京第一棉紡織廠、第二棉紡織廠、第三棉紡織廠，以下簡稱“京棉一廠”“京棉二廠”“京棉三廠”）之一， 位于東四環(huán)外朝陽路上，也是以上三座工廠中唯一保留下來的，其他兩座工廠的生產(chǎn)區(qū)在“高歌猛進”的城市更新中已被拆除。通過一項全面的都市開發(fā)項目，“京棉二廠”的生產(chǎn)區(qū)轉(zhuǎn)型為專門用于電影制作和廣告產(chǎn)業(yè)的園區(qū)；其生活區(qū)則保持了原有的物質(zhì)結(jié)構(gòu)和社會構(gòu)成。不過，生活區(qū)的建筑密度逐步加大，既包括像中心地帶塔樓這樣的正常建設(shè)，也包括住宅樓周邊的木板房等私搭亂建?！熬┟薅S”豐富的歷史賦予該場所故事性。對于西方學(xué)者而言，這是一個獨特的案例。因為，從場所描述的角度，西方學(xué)者在研究北京時會遇到資料搜集、行政程序及語言上的門檻等一系列障礙，從而難以理解北京。對于“京棉二廠”的研究雖然避免了探究更廣泛的城市問題，然而卻導(dǎo)致了局限于自身描述的危險。盡管如此，我們還是發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些研究視角：“描述”意味著對于場所、工程、過程的“記錄”。不過，“描述”不是為快速的城市變遷歌功頌德，包括其物質(zhì)形態(tài)的演變、習(xí)俗變遷以及彼此認同和建設(shè)方式的改變?！坝涗洝笔怯涗泩鏊膬r值，意味著對其邊界和特征進行更好的定義，使之更加清晰，并可以用于更廣泛的城市分析。這無疑是城市設(shè)計的一項任務(wù)：它不僅是一項設(shè)計問題，更是一種策略，讓我們在規(guī)劃設(shè)計中可以觀察、理解，并深度檢驗城市，從而使之更為人性化。

選擇對工業(yè)“單位”[3]進行觀察對于實現(xiàn)這一目標似乎特別合適。工業(yè)“單位”的本質(zhì)揭示了一系列關(guān)聯(lián)：生產(chǎn)區(qū)和附屬生活區(qū)之間的關(guān)聯(lián)；在現(xiàn)階段的更新和運作中，“單位”和周邊城市地區(qū)之間的關(guān)聯(lián)；物質(zhì)遺存和社會活動記憶之間的關(guān)聯(lián)；安于現(xiàn)狀的和期望改變的利益相關(guān)者之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。我們還將“京棉二廠”同歐洲的相似案例進行比較研究。通過更為綜合的城市分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，相對于純粹的物質(zhì)保護，轉(zhuǎn)型中的工業(yè)區(qū)發(fā)揮了更廣泛的作用[4]：它們成為房地產(chǎn)增值的引擎；成為政治宣揚工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)觀念的慶典場所；成為有效促進靈活使用和分配的地區(qū)；成為了對新興創(chuàng)意和新興經(jīng)濟階層的崇拜象征。

1 住宅和工廠的關(guān)聯(lián)

在歐洲，工廠周邊的住宅配建始于19世紀中葉[5]，其主要目的是為了保證穩(wěn)定并高效的勞動力供給。這些由資本家主導(dǎo)建設(shè)的居住區(qū)大多位于城市以外，或者是城郊結(jié)合的工業(yè)地帶。在這兩種情況下，居住區(qū)都保有特殊的自治性。最早的案例包括英國利茲市的索爾泰爾工業(yè)區(qū)和利物浦市的陽光港口工業(yè)區(qū)以及德國奧伯豪森市的艾森海姆工業(yè)區(qū)和埃森市的克虜伯工業(yè)區(qū)[6-8]。與這些西方案例的比較，如何能夠在當前中國的工業(yè)“單位”模型研究中起到作用呢？首先，它們在空間和功能設(shè)置上存在相似性，表現(xiàn)為：重復(fù)性幾何規(guī)律布局的住宅樓；統(tǒng)一規(guī)模的公共區(qū)域；日常生活的服務(wù)設(shè)施和住宅區(qū)內(nèi)主要交通的管制。在工業(yè)“單位”中，工廠通過福利分房和配給生活設(shè)施，控制了社區(qū)日常生活的方方面面[9]。此外，在“京棉二廠”案例中，由于在“單位”的這一小型社會中也有其他工廠的居民，“京棉二廠”中生產(chǎn)區(qū)和生活區(qū)的關(guān)系并不是單一的。

在今天，我們?nèi)钥梢酝ㄟ^對空間結(jié)構(gòu)的觀察，辨別出不同的功能區(qū)分并發(fā)現(xiàn)對稱且封閉的空間構(gòu)成。這些是新中國成立后的工業(yè)“單位”的典型特征。“京棉二廠”的生產(chǎn)區(qū)由辦公室和廠房構(gòu)成，生活區(qū)則由住宅和學(xué)校、醫(yī)院等福利設(shè)施構(gòu)成。生產(chǎn)區(qū)和生活區(qū)在空間上被朝陽路隔開，混合的建筑群沿南北向中軸線展開，兩個功能區(qū)的大門以及行政辦公樓、禮堂等標志性建筑都面向此軸線。部分保留下來的圍墻仍然限定著“單位”的邊界，導(dǎo)致該社區(qū)在城市環(huán)境中的內(nèi)向性和獨立性，但也間接加強了該社區(qū)的凝聚力和場所的特殊性。生活區(qū)內(nèi)不同時期的功能混合以及豐富的房屋類型，造就了當前統(tǒng)一而復(fù)雜的特征。當“京棉二廠”在1956年建成之后，其住宅密度便逐年增長，生活區(qū)的空間也在不斷改進，以滿足居民需求。于20世紀50年代和60年代建設(shè)的蘇聯(lián)式、紅磚、多家庭住宅樓，呈“T”形或“L”形布置，它們之間的空間較為寬敞，供日常公共使用。然而，由于當時臨時構(gòu)筑物的倍增以及之后20世紀80年代多層居住建筑的建設(shè)，這些公共空間被逐漸侵蝕。在20世紀90年代末，為了提高住房密度，該“單位”與房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商合作，在生活區(qū)內(nèi)建設(shè)了兩座高層塔樓。“京棉二廠”為工廠員工留出了西側(cè)塔樓1～18層的住房，同時將其他住房賣給了單位以外的居民[10]。“京棉二廠”在2009年又相繼建設(shè)了兩座塔樓（圖1）。社區(qū)之外的居民就這樣直接地融入該社區(qū)的日常生活（圖2）。

20世紀90年代末工廠停工之后，生產(chǎn)區(qū)的空間和社會結(jié)構(gòu)發(fā)生了巨大變革。在2009——2011年間，生產(chǎn)區(qū)轉(zhuǎn)型為創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)園區(qū)。轉(zhuǎn)型后的“京棉二廠”被一個新社區(qū)所占據(jù)，然而新社區(qū)與路北生活區(qū)的社會結(jié)構(gòu)卻缺乏聯(lián)系（圖3）。事實上，隨著工廠的關(guān)閉和“單位”組織能力的衰退，生活區(qū)和生產(chǎn)區(qū)之間的聯(lián)系永久地被消解了。

2 “單位”和城市的關(guān)系

最初，“京棉二廠”位于北京東郊的 “八里莊”地區(qū)，當年這是徹底郊區(qū)化的地方。遠離城市的選址并沒有問題，因為“紡織城”作為一個“單位”，具備完整的自洽性功能，只需要靠近水源和鐵路，便可以開展工業(yè)生產(chǎn)活動（圖4）。由于首都城區(qū)的快速擴張，城市肌理與該工業(yè)區(qū)開始融合。如何應(yīng)對與城市肌理緊密結(jié)合的工業(yè)“單位”，成為該地區(qū)未來發(fā)展的挑戰(zhàn)。

20世紀90年代末，為實現(xiàn)首都工業(yè)郊區(qū)化，北京的紡織產(chǎn)業(yè)被集中轉(zhuǎn)移到順義的現(xiàn)代化工業(yè)園區(qū)[11]。在城區(qū)那些被遺棄的工業(yè)區(qū)，不同方式的城市更新得以展開?！熬┟抟粡S”和“京棉三廠”被完全拆除，用于建設(shè)“新紡織城”。項目由房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商主導(dǎo)，主要建設(shè)高密度的住宅樓和商業(yè)綜合體?！熬┟薅S”的生產(chǎn)區(qū)則轉(zhuǎn)型成為新的創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)園區(qū)，即“萊錦城”，但卻并不對園區(qū)以外的城市空間開放。盡管后來園區(qū)引入了很多半私密性活動和一些商業(yè)活動，試圖以產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的方式融入城市空間，然而園區(qū)空間依舊不完全向社會公眾開放。在尚未完成的景觀設(shè)計中，“萊錦城”實際上被設(shè)計成為一座開放式公園，鼓勵市民進入使用。

正如新紡織“城”、萊錦“城”等名稱所示，這些城市更新項目試圖建設(shè)一系列小型“城市”，即單一功能的封閉社區(qū)。

然而，“京棉二廠”的生活區(qū)則展現(xiàn)出了向周邊城市開放的跡象。從20世紀90年代開始，生活區(qū)的產(chǎn)權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)、服務(wù)產(chǎn)業(yè)和使用者發(fā)生了變化?！皢挝弧眱?nèi)的托兒所、小學(xué)和中學(xué)在接收工廠子弟的同時，也接受了周邊地區(qū)的學(xué)生；家屬醫(yī)院成為朝陽醫(yī)院的一個分支醫(yī)療機構(gòu)；職工宿舍和餐廳也被外來人員租用運營。該地區(qū)周邊的功能甚至也發(fā)生了改變，服務(wù)設(shè)施與周邊公共空間逐漸融合。當“單位”原本具有限定功能的物質(zhì)和精神屏障弱化之后，工業(yè)“單位”內(nèi)豐富的功能性和社會性結(jié)構(gòu)彼此交織，并得以與周邊的城市空間相融合（圖5）。

圖2 / Figure 2北京京棉二廠家屬區(qū)的社區(qū)生活No. 2 Textile Factory, residential area, community life賈玥 攝 / photo by Jia Yue

圖3 / Figure 3北京京棉二廠改造后的生產(chǎn)區(qū)No. 2 Textile Factory, the production area after the renovation賈玥 攝 / photo by Jia Yue

與意大利都靈市的米拉菲奧里工業(yè)區(qū)（Mirafiori）的比較研究對于理解上述轉(zhuǎn)型議題十分有效。為了服務(wù)菲亞特米拉菲奧里工廠的生產(chǎn)，工人生活區(qū)于20世紀30年代末建立[12]；至今該地區(qū)已經(jīng)歷了重要的城市更新。過去20年之中，“綜合體項目”[13-14]（即阿爾夸塔地區(qū)的城市2號項目）介入該地區(qū)的建設(shè)，并試行了新的城市公共政策。這基于一系列措施的整合，包括建筑創(chuàng)新實踐、社會經(jīng)濟激活以及在開發(fā)過程中當?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的參與等[15]。這種方法的特點在于多重維度的介入，涵括項目類型、體制等級、運營方以及該地區(qū)投入的公私資源等。通過公共組織以及都靈理工大學(xué)和菲亞特工廠的合作，一部分菲亞特工廠（300,000m2）轉(zhuǎn)型成為頂級生產(chǎn)和設(shè)計中心（圖6）。

這些軟性、漸進式、對話式的更新過程體現(xiàn)了特定的城市形態(tài)和社區(qū)意識，對工業(yè)“單位”來說是具有潛力的改造模式。都靈另一個保留下來的菲亞特林格托工廠（Lingotto）則代表了一種相反的做法[16]：其更新由大量的私人資本啟動。雖然這對于工廠的一次性改造至關(guān)重要，但是卻難以觸及到工廠更新的本質(zhì)。這片地區(qū)真正意義上的更新則需要提供20年以上的有效撥款，并且全部來源于市民的稅收。

3 遺產(chǎn)和記憶的關(guān)系

2009年，日本建筑師隈研吾受委托進行“京棉二廠”生產(chǎn)區(qū)的更新項目設(shè)計并提出了整體理念。項目設(shè)計進而由北京本地的一家機構(gòu)負責(zé)深化，但最終設(shè)計理念的實現(xiàn)卻并未向隈研吾進行確認。在總體設(shè)計中，統(tǒng)一的工廠結(jié)構(gòu)被分割為46個面積300～5,000m2不等的獨立單元，由園區(qū)道路和公園彼此隔離：在巨大的連續(xù)板式廠房中，許多通道被雕刻出來，形成一系列內(nèi)部“街區(qū)”，以創(chuàng)造新型城市片區(qū)（圖7）。

與“京棉一廠”和“京棉三廠”生產(chǎn)區(qū)更新中所采用的房地產(chǎn)投機策略相反，“京棉二廠”的設(shè)計保持了原有工業(yè)“單位”的低密度特征。保留原有的板式廠棚結(jié)構(gòu)，意味著生產(chǎn)區(qū)高5～8m的空間得以保持，確保了單元內(nèi)室內(nèi)設(shè)計具有很大的自由度。目前產(chǎn)業(yè)園匯集了170家與設(shè)計、印刷和媒體相關(guān)的創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)機構(gòu)，并提供了10,000個就業(yè)崗位。廠區(qū)的充分利用及其毗鄰北京城市中心的良好區(qū)位，確保了該地區(qū)更新的成功。這一項目跳出了大拆大建的模式，為中國其他城市提供了可直接借鑒的典范[17]。

英國倫敦北部的巧克力工廠也是工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)型為創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)園區(qū)的典范案例。它對于周邊衰敗地區(qū)產(chǎn)生了更為廣泛的激活作用。1996年，巴萊斯（Barratts）糖果工廠的廢棄廠區(qū)由當?shù)匾患曳怯?、推廣藝術(shù)和創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的“藝術(shù)拼貼”機構(gòu)進行管理。經(jīng)過兩個階段的更新，廠房被劃分為面積20～150m2的藝術(shù)家工作室和公共活動空間。該工廠再利用的成功緣于其每年大約200歐元/m2這樣低廉的租金[18]，這或許與該項目簡單的更新建設(shè)以及藝術(shù)家可共享空間的設(shè)計是分不開的。這些因素也促進了該地區(qū)創(chuàng)新群體社區(qū)的實質(zhì)性發(fā)展。在一年一度的“工作室開放日”中，工廠向公眾敞開大門，市民既可以參觀工廠，也可以參與并了解其中的活動[19]。與城市的互動是該項目的核心內(nèi)容：一方面，創(chuàng)新群體為了獲得租用工作室的資格，必須表明其藝術(shù)活動可為當?shù)貛硪嫣?；另一方面，地區(qū)可識別性和居民對餐廳、俱樂部、健身房等公共空間的使用也促進了廠區(qū)的復(fù)合性發(fā)展（圖8）。

圖5 / Figure 5京棉二廠家屬區(qū)底視軸測圖No. 2 Textile Factory, Axonometric view of the residential area, from below都靈理工大學(xué)Maria Paola Repellino繪制 / drawn by Maria Paola Repellino, Politecnico di Torino

圖6 / Figure 6Isolarchitetti建筑事務(wù)所. 位于前菲亞特工廠的設(shè)計中心Mirafiori Sud，都靈，2007——2011Isolarchitetti. Centro del Design in the former Fiat Factory, Mirafiori Sud, Torino, 2007-2011

在北京和倫敦的兩個案例中，更新方法促使設(shè)計師反思他們的設(shè)計，重新考慮使用的臨時性、地區(qū)的靈活性以及更新的強度，而不是一味地注重建筑更新的規(guī)?；蛘吡鞒?。“京棉二廠”和歐洲改造案例[20]的主要不同點在于中國已經(jīng)直接采納再利用這一概念并極其迅速地開展更新，以獲得經(jīng)濟利益，因此缺乏工業(yè)“考古”和“遺產(chǎn)”的觀念，缺少對幾十年歷史分層的考慮，而這些在歐洲是經(jīng)常被討論的話題，對于判定地段的歷史和文化價值具有重要作用。

4 更新過程中利益相關(guān)者的關(guān)聯(lián)

“京棉二廠”工業(yè)區(qū)的更新過程由行政和經(jīng)濟因素主導(dǎo)。北京國棉文化創(chuàng)意發(fā)展有限公司是由北京市國有資產(chǎn)經(jīng)營有限責(zé)任公司、北京紡織控股有限責(zé)任公司、北京市國通資產(chǎn)管理有限責(zé)任公司和京棉紡織集團共同建立的聯(lián)合企業(yè)，主要負責(zé)對廢棄的工廠項目進行更新。

圖7 / Figure 7隈研吾建筑都市設(shè)計事務(wù)所（Kengo Kuma Associates）, 中國電子工程設(shè)計院. 京棉二廠廠區(qū)轉(zhuǎn)型成為創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)園，2009——2010. Kengo Kuma Associates, CEEDI, No. 2 Textile Factory, production area, transformation into a creative district, 2009-2010.

“京棉二廠”的更新不限于只保留該場所的歷史記憶，更期望為首都文化產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展做出貢獻。該更新促進了朝陽區(qū)政府所推廣的“國際媒體長廊”的發(fā)展，增強了這一創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)社區(qū)的影響力。

作為創(chuàng)意園區(qū)的投資方和推廣者，北京國棉文化創(chuàng)意發(fā)展有限公司聘請了國際知名建筑師為園區(qū)進行16個月的整體設(shè)計。城市更新為地塊帶來了眾多經(jīng)濟利益，地價的明顯升值和工廠本身的市場增值只是其中的兩個方面[21]。

在歐洲，德國更新轉(zhuǎn)型為當代藝術(shù)中心的萊比錫棉花紡織工廠是一個成功案例。在20世紀初，該工廠規(guī)模為90,000m2，是歐洲主要的紡織品提供商[22-23]。在停工并廢棄后，整個工廠在2001年被一家私人公司收購，開始了全新的管理與開發(fā)。最初，該公司通過較低的租金吸引新興藝術(shù)家的進駐。經(jīng)過多年的實踐，該公司通過吸引租戶參與，開始為廠區(qū)向國際藝術(shù)中心轉(zhuǎn)型進行投資，以替代原有提供廉價服務(wù)設(shè)施和租用合同的方式。該公司承擔(dān)了全部材料費用，并借助“失業(yè)人員雇用特別計劃”對廠房進行整體更新建設(shè)。對于廠區(qū)持續(xù)并不斷擴大的利用，不僅證明了其自身轉(zhuǎn)型的成功，更帶動了城市其他地區(qū)的更新發(fā)展（圖9）。

圖8 / Figure 8英國倫敦的巧克力工廠The chocolate factory, London, UK

另一個引人關(guān)注的案例是西班牙巴薩羅那廢棄飛機庫轉(zhuǎn)型成為文化產(chǎn)業(yè)設(shè)施。1997年，舊飛機庫由私人機構(gòu)AAVC（加泰羅尼亞視覺藝術(shù)協(xié)會）通過公私合營的方式進行管理，改造成為藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作和研究中心。面積為1,800m2的實驗室和服務(wù)設(shè)施用于數(shù)字藝術(shù)發(fā)展、展覽空間和年輕藝術(shù)家的居住。這些空間的分配是基于公共標準和專家委員會協(xié)調(diào)的選拔過程來完成的[24]。

雖然這3個城市實踐項目均主要由私人企業(yè)主導(dǎo)，但西方案例中緩慢的轉(zhuǎn)型進程為試驗新的改造形式和管理工具提供了機會。如果說在“京棉二廠”的改造中，遺產(chǎn)的更新策略主要是關(guān)注轉(zhuǎn)型的經(jīng)濟效益，那么歐洲的兩個案例則強調(diào)獲取更廣泛而持續(xù)的經(jīng)濟收益，至少著眼于更新過程中社會包容的原則。

“北京工業(yè)‘單位’”是中國清華大學(xué)與意大利都靈理工大學(xué)一項以“記憶·更新”為主題的聯(lián)合研究課題。該項目在2013——2014年由都靈圣保羅銀行提供經(jīng)費資助，并由都靈理工大學(xué)米凱利·博尼諾（Michele Bonino）教授和清華大學(xué)張利教授主持。其他參與“單位”研究課題的教授和學(xué)者還有來自都靈理工大學(xué)的皮埃爾-艾蘭·克羅賽特（Pierre-Alain Croset，時任都靈理工大學(xué)教授）、菲利普·德·皮耶里（Filippo De Pieri）、古斯塔沃·安布羅西尼（Gustavo Ambrosini）、莫羅·貝爾塔（Mauro Berta）、喬瓦尼·杜爾比亞諾（Giovanni Durbiano）、阿爾圖羅·帕瓦尼（Arturo Pavani）、瑪利亞·保拉·雷皮里諾（Maria Paola Repellino）、盧泉清和谷豐以及來自清華大學(xué)的劉健、朱文一、馬丁·德·赫斯（Martijn de Geus）、達妮埃拉·伊達爾戈（Daniela Hidalgo）和孫昊德。

圖9 / Figure 9德國萊比錫紡織廠，哈雷14Leipzig Cotton Mill, Halle 14, Leipzig, Germany

ORIGINAL TEXTS

Beijing lends itself to observation for its comprehensive urban elements: the grid, axis, infrastructural rings, the large zoning[1-2]. In this essay, we will look at it in part, considering a specific place. To the east of the fourth ring road, the No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory is the sole survivor of the three industrial complexes which were built in the mid-1950s on the border of today’s ChaoYang Road. Today, nothing remains of Textiles No. 1 and No. 3 which were obliterated by radical replacement interventions. No. 2 still stands: the industrial part was transformed, with a careful urban project, into a district dedicated to film-making and advertising. The housing area maintains a large part of its original physical and social structure, with gradual densification through structured (the towers at the middle of the area) or informal interventions (the superelevations and the wooden shutters that crowd the homes). Its varied past makes it a place with an interesting story to tell. To the eyes of a Westerner, this seems to be an exception for many reasons: the barriers that we find ourselves facing when studying Beijing (access to sources, procedures, language) often make it a difficult city, from the point of view of descriptions of the places. In the Textile, there is the risk of confining oneself within narrations, avoiding confrontation with more general urban questions. Nonetheless, we discover some opportunities: “narrating” also means“documenting” (places, projects, processes), no mean feat in a city that changes quickly, not only regarding its physical traits, but also in the habits and ways of reaching agreements and results. Documenting the values of a place means better defining its boundaries and characteristics, making them clearer and more shared with the wider scale urban analyses. Certainly, this seems to be one of the tasks of Urban Design: not only a matter of design, but increasingly a device with which to observe, understand, study in depth the city, while planning it.

The choice of observing an industrial danwei[3]seems particularly suitable for reaching this goal. Its very nature highlights a series of relationships: between the factory and the housing areas linked to it; between the danwei and the surrounding city, in the current phase of transformation and opening; between the physical heritage and the memory of the social events that have left their mark on it; among the stakeholders that have defined or are imagining the processes for changing it. We study these aspects by comparing them with European examples, where similar relationship values clearly emerge. Upon returning them to more comprehensive urban analyses, these show how industrial areas in transformation take on wider roles than purely to conserving their physicality[4]: they turn into engines for the valorisation of real estate, places of celebration of an often promotional and political idea of heritage, areas of effective innovation for flexibility of use and distribution, fetishes for new creative and neweconomy classes.

1 The Relationships between Home and Factory

In Europe, starting from the mid-19th century, the urban practice of building residential areas near to the factories was developed[5]: the goal was mainly to ensure the stability and productivity of the workforce. These settlements, created on an entrepreneurial initiative, were located in extra-urban areas or were welded to the city fabric as industrial districts, in both cases maintaining specific autonomy regarding the context. The first examples of industrial settlements were Saltaire in Leeds and Port Sunlight in Liverpool, England, or Siedlungen Eisenheim in Oberhausen and Krupp in Essen, in Germany[6-8]. Which useful analogies can be found between the Western examples and the later Chinese model of the industrial danwei? There are similarities in the spatial and functional set up: the repetitive geometrical layout of the residences, the uniform size of the public areas, the presence of services for everyday life and the exclusion of main traffic in the residential area. In the industrial danwei, the factory workers benefit from the assignation of a home and the social infrastructure offered by the work unit, which thereby controlled all aspects of the community’s daily life[9]. In the case of the No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory, moreover, the relationship between productive and housing units was not univocal, in that the microsocieties of the danwei integrated inhabitants also employed in other factories.

Observing its spatial structure, we can still today recognise a departmentalisation of the functions and a symmetrical and closed spatial set up, typical to the industrial danwei of the new Republic. ChaoYang Road divides the productive area, made up of offices and workshops, from the residential fabric, made up of homes and welfare facilities such as schools and hospitals. The mixed fabric is divided along the sides of the northsouth central axis, along which the main gates of both functional units and the most representative buildings (the administrative offices and the auditorium) are set up. The walls along the boundaries of the danwei, still present in part, show a introvert and independent character from the urban environment, but indirectly strengthen the cohesion of the community and the unique character of the place.

The functional mix and the various typological solutions, created in different periods, today make the residential fabric uniform and complex. Following the completion of the No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory in 1956, we soon witnessed a gradual increase in housing density and a widespread process to adapt the space to the needs of the inhabitants. The Soviet matrix, redbrick multi-family housing, built in the 1950s and 1960s and set up in T or L shape, leave wide spaces between them for general use. The liveability of this public space was progressively eroded by the multiplication of temporary structures, founded informally between the 1950s and 1960s, and by the subsequent construction of multi-floor block housing, in the 1980s. At the end of the 1990s, two towers were built in the danwei in agreement with a real estate development company, in order to increase the housing density of the district. The apartments of the first 18 floors of the west tower were set aside for reinstatement of the inhabitants, while the rest of the housing units were sold to residents not necessarily employed in the No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory[10]. Two further towers followed in 2009 (Figure 1). The settlement of new inhabitants from other districts was easilyincorporated into the general life of the old community (Figure 2).

The productive area has also been subject to great spatial and social change following the abandonment of the factory at the end of the 1990s. Between 2009 and 2011, the factory was reconverted into new sites for creative activities: the regenerated site of the Textile was occupied by a new community, without however building up interactions with the social fabric of the residential part to the north of the road (Figure 3). With the closure of the factory and the decline in the organisation of the danwei, in fact, the link between residential and productive fabric dissolved for good.

2 The Relationships between Danwei and the City

Originally, the No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory stood in a completely suburban area to the East of the Capital, called Ba Lizhuang. Its location outside of the city was not a problem, in that the “Textile city” as a danwei was distinguished by a full, functional autonomy, which only needed to be close to a waterway and railway in order for its industrial activity to develop (Figure 4). Due to rapid urban expansion, soon the city incorporated the industrial complex. The integration of the industrial danwei in the urban area was a challenge for the future development of this part of the city.

At the end of the 1990s, production moved to a modern industrial plant in the area of Shunyi, in line with the gradual process of industrial suburbanisation of the Capital[11]. The abandonment of the industrial area was followed by various interventions of urban transformation, which differed in approach. The No. 1 and No. 3 Cotton Textile Cities were completely demolished to build a new part of the city —— the New Textile City, a high density residential and commercial complex promoted by real estate agencies. The No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory productive area was reconverted into a new creative cluster called Legend Town, which however is closed to the rest of the city. The regenerated areas were still not very accessible to the public, despite the introduction of numerous semiprivate activities, some commercial activities and the attempt to integrate with the urban space initially promoted by the requalification project. The landscape design —— which was never completed —— in fact planned the creation of a public park in order to encourage citizens to enter.

As the names reveal (New Textile City, Legend Town), these operations of urban renewal tend to construct small-scale cities, which are substantially configured as single-function gated communities.

The residential area of the No. 2 Cotton Textile Factory, on the other hand, shows signs of opening up towards the surrounding city. Starting from the 1990s, the forms of property, service providers and users change. The nursery school, primary school and secondary school welcome children from nearby districts as well as those of families in the danwei, and the hospital becomes the infirmary of the ChaoYang Hospital. The dormitories and canteens were rented to citizens coming from other areas of the city. Even the functions along the district’s borders tend to change and services were subject to a gradual integration with the public spaces outside of the area. The rich articulation of the functional and social fabric of the industrial danwei allows integration with the urban space at the fall of the physical and mental barriers that still define it (Figure 5) .

On these themes of transformation, a comparison with the district of Mirafiori in Turin may be useful: founded at the end of the 1930s as a working-class district serving the Fiat Mirafiori productive complex[12], it has already been through an important season of urban renovation. It was structured over the last two decades through intervention tools known as “Complex Programmes”[13-14](Via Arquata District Contract, Urban Regeneration of via Artom, Urban II), which experimented with new public urban policies. These are based on the integration of practices of architectural renovation and socioeconomic reactivation of the area, as well as on the participation of the local community in the development process[15]. The approach stands out for the plural dimension of project types, institutional levels, players and public-private resources placed on the field. An example is provided by the start-up of the transformation of a part of the Fiat factory (300,000 m2) into a top productive and design centre through the collaboration between public organisations, the Politecnico di Torino and Fiat (Figure 6).

These soft, progressive and dialogical regeneration processes seem to be potentially useful models for the industrial danwei, with their very urban morphology and their sense of community. Remaining in Turin, the opposite approach is represented by the other large Fiat factory, the Lingotto[16]: its transformation was spurred by a large investment of private capital, indispensable to strengthen the monolithic and hard to access nature of the factory: more than twenty years were necessary for an effective appropriation of the place by the citizens.

3 The Relationships between Heritage and Memory

In 2009, the requalification project of the productive area of the No. 2 Textile (130,000 m2) was commissioned to Kengo Kuma, who would provide a concept that was then developed by a local Institute, whose realisation of the concept was never recognised by the Japanese architect. The masterplan divided the uniform configuration of the factory into 46 independent units from 300 m2to 5,000 m2, broken up by pathways and gardens: in the large slab of sheds, a number of passages have been engraved, created a sort of internal “blocks”, giving the idea of a new piece of the city (Figure 7).

The design maintains the original low density character of the industrial danwei, in contrast with the speculative solution that was adopted during the transformation of the No. 1 and No. 3 factories. The maintenance of the shed structures meant the breadth of the factory areas (from 5 to 8 metres in height) could be preserved, guaranteeing the interior design great freedom within the various units. The cluster currently holds 170 creative industries in sectors linked to design, graphics and media, employing up to 10,000 people. The complete use of the areasconfirms that the requalification intervention was successful, also guaranteed by the area’s proximity to the centre of Beijing. The project offers an alternative scenario to demolition and becomes an explicit model for other urban renovation projects in China[17].

To the north of London, the Chocolate Factory is an example of the transformation of the industrial heritage into a creative district, able to activate a wider regeneration of the degraded surrounding area. In 1996, the abandoned areas (10,000 m2) of the former Barratts Confectionery factory were put under the management of a local no profit company, Collage Arts, which promoted art and creative industry. During the two-phase renovation, the building was divided into artistic studios (from 20 m2to 150 m2) and areas used for collective activities. The factory’s reuse proved popular thanks to the low rent (around 200 euro/ m2per year)[18], which was possible because of simple operations to renew the sites and the fact that each area could be shared by several artists. These factors contributed to the development of an actual community of creative people in the district. Each year, during the “Open Studios”fair, the factory opens its doors to the public and citizens can visit and get to know the activities carried out within[19]. Interaction with the city is the main project: on one hand the creative people, in order to rent the areas, must demonstrate their activities have a spin-off on the local territory; on the other, the local identity and use of the public areas by residents (restaurants, clubs, training workshops) contribute to developing the complex (Figure 8).

1255 Magnetic resonance gadolinium-based contrast agent deposition in brain: status and progress

In both cases – in Beijing and London – the adopted approach stimulates the designers to question themselves regarding the temporariness of use, the flexibility of the areas, the intensity of the transformation rather than the programme or scale of the architectural intervention. The main difference between the approach adopted in the Textile and the European cases of renovation[20], regards the fact that in China they have moved directly to the concept of reuse, with interventions developed very quickly and often dictated by a rush to obtain economic results: there has been a lack in the decades-long stratification of concepts such as industrial “archaeology” and “heritage”, concepts often discussed in Europe as important for recognising the historical and cultural values of the sites.

4 The Relationships among the Stakeholders in Transformation

The process of transforming the No. 2 Textile Factory industrial area was led by political and economic reasons. With the support of the Beijing State-owned Asset Management Company and the Beijing Textile Holding Company, the Beijing Guotong Asset Management Company and the Beijing Jingmian Textile Group constitute a joint venture, known as the Beijing Guomian Cultural & Creative Development Company, to start up the project to renew the abandoned factory.

More than preserving the historical memory of the place, the transformation aims to contribute to developing the Capital’s cultural industries. The new cluster contributes to strengthening the communities of creative industries called the International Media Corridor, promoted by the ChaoYang District government.

The Guomian Company is the investor and promoter of the development process of the creative district. The company commissions an internationally-renowned architect with the design of a single intervention, to end after just 16 months. The clear increase in the value of the land and the market value of the factory are just two of the economic advantages that result from the renovation[21].

In Europe, an example of successful transformation is the Cotton Spinnerei, a former cotton works which was turned into a centre of contemporary art in the industrial suburb of Leipzig, in Germany. The 90,000 m2complex was the main textile producer in Europe in the early 1900s[22-23]. Following its disuse and abandonment, in 2001 the entire structure was purchased by another private company that started up an innovative policy of management and development. Initially, it kept the rent of the areas low in order to favour occupation by emerging artists. After a couple of years of experimentation, the company invested in requalifying the

Another interesting practice in managing obsolete industrial buildings, reconverted for cultural use, is that experimented in the Hangar of Barcelona. In 1997, the former warehouse became a centre for artistic production and research, managed by the private foundation AAVC (Association of Visual Arts of Catalonia) through privatepublic resources. The 1800 m2surface area offers laboratories and services for the development of digital arts, exhibition areas and housing for young artists. The areas are assigned through a call[24]which starts up a selection process based on public criteria and coordinated by a commission of experts.

Although the mainly private initiative unites the three urban practices, in the Western examples the slowness of the requalification process becomes the opportunity to experiment with new forms and management tools. If, in the Textile, the heritage renovation strategies are mainly concentrated on the economic effects of the transformation, the approach of the two European cases insists on accepting a wider idea of economic sustainability, attentive at least in principle to the social and inclusive dimensions of the intervention.

The industrial danweis of Beijing are the focus of a joint research project of Tsinghua University and Politecnico di Torino, entitled Memory/Regeneration, financed by the Compagnia di San Paolo di Torino for 2013-2014 and directed by Michele Bonino (Politecnico di Torino) and ZHANG Li (Tsinghua University). Other professors and scholars involved in the danweis’ research team are Pierre-Alain Croset, Filippo De Pieri, Gustavo Ambrosini, Mauro Berta, Giovanni Durbiano, Arturo Pavani, Maria Paola Repellino, LU Quanqing, and GU Feng for Politecnico; LIU Jian, ZHU Wenyi, Martijn de Geus, Daniela Hidalgo, and SUN Haode for Tsinghua.

參考文獻

[1] 施衛(wèi)良. 北京中心城（01-18片區(qū)）：工業(yè)用地整體利用規(guī)劃研究[M]. 北京: 清華大學(xué)出版社, 2011.

SHI W. Beijing city centre (01-18 districts): overall industrial land use planning study [M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2011.

[2] LU D. Remaking Chinese urban form: modernity, scarcity and space 1949——2005 [M]. Abingdon: Routledge, 2006.

[3] Bray D. Social space and governance in urban China: the danwei system from origins to reform [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005.

[4] ZHANG L. La naissance du concept de patrimoine en Chine, XIXe-XXe siècles [M]. Paris: éditions Recherches, 2003.

[5] Whittick A. European architecture in the twentieth century [M]. London: Lockwood, 1953.

[6] Abriani A. Villaggi operai in Italia [M]//Squarzina S. D. Villaggi operai in Europa nel secolo XIX. Torino: Einaudi, 1981: 83-108.

[7] Ashworth W. The genesis of modern British town planning [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954.

[8] Elia G. Il villaggio e la fabbrica: insediamenti industriali in Gran Bretagna e in Italia [M]. Bologna: Editrice compositori, 1999.

[9] Bjorklund E M. The danwei: socio-spatial characteristics of work units in China’s urban Society [J]. Economic Geography, 1986(62): 19-29.

[10] 張艷, 柴彥威, 周千鈞. 中國城市單位大院的空間性及其變化: 北京京棉二廠的案例[J]. 國際城市規(guī)劃, 2009, 24(5): 20-27.

ZHANG Y, CHAI Y, ZHOU Q. The Spatiality and Spatial Changes of Danwei Compound in Chinese Cities: Case Study of Beijing No. 2 Textile Factory [J]. Urban Planning International, 2009, 24(5): 20-27.

[11] 朱文一, 劉伯英. 中國工業(yè)建筑遺產(chǎn)調(diào)查,研究與保護:2012年中國第三屆工業(yè)建筑遺產(chǎn)學(xué)術(shù)研討會[M]//劉伯英, 李匡. 北京工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)保護與再利用研究. 北京: 清華大學(xué)出版社, 2012: 12-17.

ZHU W, LIU B. Survey, research and conservation of Chinese industrial architecture heritage, collected papers of the Third International Academic Conference on Chinese Industrial Architecture Heritage [M]//LIU B, LI K. Research on protection and regeneration of industrial heritages in Beijing. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2012: 12-17.

[12] Olmo C. Mirafiori [M]. Torino: Allemandi, 1997.

[13] Avarello P, Ricci M. Politiche urbane: dai programmi complessi alle politiche integrate per lo sviluppo urbano [M]. Roma: Inu, 2000.

[14] Grognardi D. Urban II Torino: Mirafiori nord, oltre la città-fabbrica [J]. Urbanistica Informazioni, 2001(176): 18-19.

[15] Guercio S, Robiglio M, Toussaint I. Periferie partecipate, cinque casi di riqualificazione urbana a Torino (Italia) [J]. Ciudades, 2004(8): 41-61.

[16] Pratali Maffei S. Il “riuso” del Lingotto [J]. Tema: tempo materia architettura, 1996(1): 4-11.

[17] Thun-Hohenstein C, Fogarasi A, Teckert C. Eastern promises: contemporary architecture and spatial practices in East Asia [M] // De Muynck B, Carrico M. Responsive, Recycled, and Real Reflections on Contemporary Chinese Architecture. Wien: Hatje Cantz, 2013: 125-133.

[18] www.chocolatefactorywoodgreen.co.uk.

[19] www.chocolatefactoryartists.co.uk.

[20] Couch C, Fraser C, Percy S. Urban regeneration in Europe [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003.

[21] 夏天. 萊錦創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)園設(shè)計小結(jié)[J]. 城市建筑, 2012(3): 45-49. XIA T. Summary on the design of Legend Town [J]. Urbanism and Architecture, 2012(3): 45-49.

[22] www.spinnerei.de.

[23] Garcia-Zamor J. Strategies for urban development in Leipzig, Germany [M]. New York: Springer, 2014.

[24] www.hangar.org.

Learning from Places, as One of the Tasks of Urban Design

Michele Bonino, Maria Paola Repellino, Pierre-Alain Croset

Translated by SUN Haode; Proofread by YANG Tao

The observation of a particular place within the gigantic scale of the Chinese city, Beijing in this case, offers a set of opportunities that are hard to imagine before approaching it. The study of the No.2 Cotton Textile Factory in Chaoyang District, and its comparison with some western cases, shows how important is to document its specific values, such as memory or sense of community, and “return” them to the wider scale. Definitely, this seems to be one of the tasks of urban design: not only a matter of design but a device to observe, understand, examine in depth, hence humanize the city, while planning it.

Place; East-west comparison; Sense of community; Urban practices; Urban design tasks

2015年2月12日

Received Date: February 12, 2015