有機(jī)的，智慧的，生物準(zhǔn)則的

張利/ZHANG Li

有機(jī)的，智慧的，生物準(zhǔn)則的

Be Organic, Be Smart, Be Bioprincipled

張利/ZHANG Li

恐怕沒(méi)有人認(rèn)為《世界建筑》對(duì)花枝招展的項(xiàng)目感興趣。事實(shí)上，我們也很少發(fā)表花團(tuán)錦簇的項(xiàng)目。我們的編輯團(tuán)隊(duì)一直堅(jiān)定地反對(duì)任何試圖模仿活體形態(tài)的建筑物。因此，長(zhǎng)期關(guān)注我們的讀者可能會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，在這一期中，我們的品味似乎發(fā)生了變化，竟然毫不猶豫地批量出版了與花卉植物相關(guān)的項(xiàng)目。

確實(shí)在發(fā)生變化，但變化的不是我們的“品味”，而是我們的“意識(shí)”。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，我們一直在等待著關(guān)于未來(lái)可持續(xù)城市的真正革命性的觀點(diǎn)。而現(xiàn)在，隨著生物準(zhǔn)則城市概念的到來(lái)，我們比以往任何時(shí)候都更加接近這個(gè)目標(biāo)。

建筑與城市規(guī)劃領(lǐng)域的每一個(gè)人，都處于綠色建筑與城市技術(shù)革新的歡呼與反思的循環(huán)之中。面對(duì)工業(yè)化帶來(lái)的問(wèn)題，幾代人試圖在我們的現(xiàn)代生活中恢復(fù)前工業(yè)時(shí)代城市的真實(shí)的有機(jī)模式。然而，一次又一次地，事實(shí)證明，說(shuō)起來(lái)容易，做起來(lái)難。一方面，無(wú)論是1890年代的埃比尼澤·霍華德的“花園城市”，還是1990年代的艾莉絲·沃特斯的“可食用校園”，這些聰明的頭腦想出的創(chuàng)新觀念都太過(guò)烏托邦式。另一方面，被普遍采用的技術(shù)解決方案又是基于工業(yè)化流程的，解決了某個(gè)地方的問(wèn)題卻在另一些地方造成了危機(jī)?？雌饋?lái)我們幾乎走投無(wú)路，只有訴諸傳統(tǒng)中國(guó)文人在自家菜園中自給自足的節(jié)儉生活方式，犧牲一切現(xiàn)代的舒適和便利，才能使人類的棲息地再次得以可持續(xù)。

幸運(yùn)的是，現(xiàn)在出現(xiàn)了生物準(zhǔn)則城市的概念。其獨(dú)特之處在于它所倡導(dǎo)的所有解決方案都是基于生物過(guò)程而不是工業(yè)過(guò)程的。其驅(qū)動(dòng)變化的核心，是生命科學(xué)，而非傳統(tǒng)工程。它將城市視為一個(gè)新陳代謝的實(shí)體，與我們所理解的叢林或島嶼的生態(tài)異曲同工。它側(cè)重基于自然的生物活動(dòng)調(diào)動(dòng)的物質(zhì)循環(huán)和能量循環(huán)。它將公共空間視為生產(chǎn)性的田地和氣候緩沖地帶。它將建筑視為共生生物的生活聚落，因此可以產(chǎn)生積極的并自我更新的能量，由此證明，人類是自然界的一部分，而并非隔絕在自然之外。正如艾倫·威斯曼所說(shuō)的那樣，如果再來(lái)一次而沒(méi)有人類，自然世界可能會(huì)懷念我們。

對(duì)于建筑師和城市主義者，生物準(zhǔn)則城市的想法開(kāi)辟了一整套新的可能性。隨著傳統(tǒng)的自然-人工的二元對(duì)立越來(lái)越模糊，諸多鴻溝現(xiàn)在有望得以彌合。我們?nèi)缃窨梢韵胂笠环N新的交融，無(wú)機(jī)與有機(jī)、消費(fèi)與生產(chǎn)、制造與生長(zhǎng)、衰敗與回收、完成功能與適應(yīng)調(diào)整將整合在一起。借助現(xiàn)代信息技術(shù)的基礎(chǔ)構(gòu)架，我們當(dāng)下有可能真正地將我們城市的工業(yè)足跡最小化。在這一期與植物相關(guān)的項(xiàng)目中，我們所看到的不是繁盛的美學(xué)，而是生物的倫理。

通過(guò)生物準(zhǔn)則城市，我們將生活得更有機(jī)、更智慧。

特別感謝喬基姆·馮·布朗教授在全球生物經(jīng)濟(jì)方面的開(kāi)創(chuàng)性工作以及他對(duì)本期專輯的支持。

World Architectureis not known for taking interest in floral projects. In fact, we seldom publish projects that bare even remote resemblances to flowery plants. Our editing team has always taken a firm stand against any building that tries to mimic the shape of a living thing. Therefore, it might appear to our long-time readers that something has changed in our taste in this issue, for we are publishing unapologetically floral projects in batches.

Something has changed indeed, not in our taste, but in our mind. We have been waiting for a truly revolutionary idea about future sustainable cities for a long, long time. And now, with the arrival of the Bioprincipled Cities concept, we are closer than ever to that.

Same as anyone from the field of architecture and urban planning, we have lived through cycles of hypes and moans about technological advancements in green buildings and cities. Facing the issues caused by industrialisation, generations of people have tried to restore the genuinely organic model of the pre-industrial cities in our modern lives. Yet time and again, things were proved to be easier said than done. On one hand, innovative concepts from the brilliant minds have been too utopian to engage, be it Ebenezer Howard's Garden City of the 1890s or Alice Waters' Edible Schoolyard of the 1990s. On the other hand, mass adopted technological solutions are all based on industrial processes, thus resolving issues somewhere but creating deficits elsewhere. It almost seemed certain that we could only resort to the self-sustained frugal life-style of the traditional Chinese intellectuals living in their farms, sacrificing all modern comfort and convenience, to make the human habitat sustainable again.

Fortunately, there is now the concept of Bioprincipled Cities. What makes it unique is that all the solution packages it advocates is based on bio-processes, not industrial processes. And driving the changes in the core, there is life sciences, not traditional engineering. It addresses the city as one metabolic entity, the same way we address the ecology of a jungle or an island. It focuses on material cycles and energy cycles that are mobilised by natural, biobased actions. It deems public spaces as productive fields and climatic buffers. It regards buildings as a living colony of symbiotic creatures, therefore can be energy positive and self-refreshed. It takes the argument that human beings are part of nature rather than alien to it. As Alan Weisman puts it, the nature world would probably miss us if it is ever without us again.

For architects and urbanists, the idea of Bioprincipled Cities is opening up a complete set of new possibilities. With the traditional naturalartificial dichotomy getting more and more blurred, numerous gaps can be now bridged. We can now imagine a new hybridity consisting of both inorganic and organic, both consuming and producing, both fabricated and grown, both decaying and recycling, both performing and readapting. Combined with modern IT infrastructure, we now are truly able to minimise the industrial footprint of our cities. What we see deep under the floral projects published in this issue is not an aesthetics of exuberance, but an ethics of organisms.

With Bioprincipled Cities, we will live more organic and smarter lives.

Our special thanks to Professor Joachim von Braun for his pioneering work in global bioeconomy and for his support to this issue.

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2017-04-11