關(guān)于公平：設(shè)計(jì)的有力與無(wú)力

張利/ZHANG Li

現(xiàn)任聯(lián)合國(guó)人權(quán)事務(wù)高級(jí)專員扎伊德·拉阿德·侯賽因即將于本月末卸任。雖然他還未卸任，但對(duì)他任內(nèi)的遺產(chǎn)大家似乎已經(jīng)有了共識(shí)：一方面，他直言不諱的苛刻言論使其與世界主要國(guó)家交惡；另一方面，他在真實(shí)世界中所創(chuàng)造的實(shí)際業(yè)績(jī)微乎其微，使他最終不過是又一個(gè)行將被人遺忘的政客而已。

侯賽因式的例子并不鮮見。在涉及為社會(huì)公平而進(jìn)行的奮斗時(shí)，擲地有聲的豪言壯語(yǔ)與軟弱無(wú)能的現(xiàn)實(shí)干預(yù)所形成的強(qiáng)烈反差，長(zhǎng)期以來一直是諸多精英與知識(shí)分子難以逃脫的宿命模式。建筑師對(duì)這種模式當(dāng)然并不陌生，至少在過去的幾十年里是這樣。

伯納德·魯?shù)婪蛩够摹稕]有建筑師的建筑》、亨利·列斐伏爾的《城市權(quán)》和哈?！しㄙ悶楦F人所做的住宅是戰(zhàn)后20年內(nèi)較早關(guān)注社會(huì)公平問題的建筑案例，前兩個(gè)通過寫作，后一個(gè)通過實(shí)踐。與之相伴的文化和媒體事件，尤其是在MoMA的展覽《沒有建筑師的建筑》，幫助把他們的學(xué)術(shù)關(guān)注樹立成一種另類的、以鄉(xiāng)土建筑為重心的語(yǔ)境，與1960年代末的國(guó)際建筑話語(yǔ)形成了鮮明的對(duì)比。這一語(yǔ)境的學(xué)術(shù)興趣基本上存在于兩個(gè)方面：從美學(xué)上講，是世界各地非建筑師建筑所承載的工藝與智慧；從倫理上講，則是維系產(chǎn)生這些建筑傳統(tǒng)的社群的尊嚴(yán)，以及建造活動(dòng)如何貢獻(xiàn)于具體地區(qū)的社會(huì)融合。

沒過多久，這一語(yǔ)境中更偏社會(huì)學(xué)的部分就得到了更深入的發(fā)掘。坂茂的建筑開啟了一種將富勒式的快裝結(jié)構(gòu)方案與緊急情況下的人道主義救援結(jié)合起來的思路。正是因?yàn)樗拈_創(chuàng)性工作，世界各地的災(zāi)區(qū)已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了一種新的志愿者群體——建筑師，為災(zāi)民做輕盈、好看、能夠快速裝配的建筑。在大中華區(qū)，我們從本世紀(jì)初就看到了類似的做法，包括謝英俊在1992年地震后的作品以及朱競(jìng)翔近期的項(xiàng)目。

同樣是針對(duì)社會(huì)問題，像迪埃貝多·弗朗西斯·凱雷和卡梅隆·辛克萊這樣的人走了一條截然不同的道路。他們進(jìn)一步遠(yuǎn)離傳統(tǒng)建筑話語(yǔ)的舒適圈，浸入到社區(qū)生活的日常之中。他們創(chuàng)造了基于可利用資源與技術(shù)的建筑，有時(shí)其飽含詩(shī)意的作品甚至完全來自于一時(shí)權(quán)宜之計(jì)的靈感。在這個(gè)方向上，大中華區(qū)也有很多好的案例，首先是李曉東的鄉(xiāng)村三部曲，然后是林君翰的城鄉(xiāng)架構(gòu)系列，然后是無(wú)數(shù)的新銳建筑師走向廣大的中國(guó)農(nóng)村。

當(dāng)下，越來越多的建筑將倫理置于美學(xué)之上。在這種浪潮的鼓舞下，越來越多的建筑師把為窮人做設(shè)計(jì)當(dāng)成是一種不可回避的義務(wù)。然而，如果我們真心希望通過設(shè)計(jì)來給現(xiàn)實(shí)生活帶來積極改變的話，我們就必須提出并解答一些基本的問題。如果我們仔細(xì)回顧一下自法賽以來這一流派中諸多備受推崇的案例，特別是如果我們近距離觀察一下這些案例在建成后的長(zhǎng)時(shí)間使用，我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)一個(gè)令人不安的事實(shí)。大多數(shù)項(xiàng)目，無(wú)論是住宅、教育、醫(yī)療還是文化建筑，往往更善于提高外部人士（大多是生活在城市環(huán)境的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)）的意識(shí)，而不是改善內(nèi)部人士（當(dāng)?shù)鼐用瘢┑纳钏?。這些項(xiàng)目所產(chǎn)生的最好的效果是在大災(zāi)之后迅速地興建起足夠數(shù)量的庇護(hù)所；最壞的情形則發(fā)生在那些最脆弱的社區(qū)，讓當(dāng)?shù)氐膵D女和兒童在并不好用的建筑里充當(dāng)照片的舞臺(tái)布景，用以證明建筑師的光輝。

本期《世界建筑》的主要目的是掃描為窮人做設(shè)計(jì)的現(xiàn)狀，提供一個(gè)切片式的記錄。連同這份記錄，我們還想提出三個(gè)問題，每個(gè)問題指向一個(gè)特殊的關(guān)注層面。對(duì)于這些問題，我們也許能從本期發(fā)表的項(xiàng)目中找到答案，也許不能。

第一個(gè)問題指向的是為公平而設(shè)計(jì)的流派全體：在設(shè)計(jì)的“能”與“不能”之間，界限究竟在哪里？我們已經(jīng)不大可能像希格弗萊德·吉迪恩和克里斯托弗·亞歷山大那么樂觀（或自負(fù)，這取決于你如何看待它）——這兩位碰巧都相信建筑可以并且應(yīng)該改造人的行為，或設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)際上能夠教給人們?cè)撊绾紊?。顯然，我們都感受了技術(shù)至上的現(xiàn)代主義城市所帶來的巨大痛苦——他們簡(jiǎn)單地把我們當(dāng)成了機(jī)器零件——現(xiàn)在我們是否又要把這種設(shè)計(jì)理性帶給地方社區(qū)呢？

第二個(gè)問題指向這些項(xiàng)目的運(yùn)行方案：除了建筑師和當(dāng)?shù)厝酥?，我們是否需要一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的第三方群體來確保我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)的建筑能長(zhǎng)期發(fā)揮作用？如果是的話，該第三方是否應(yīng)該參與設(shè)計(jì)過程？到目前為止，大多數(shù)涉及公平的項(xiàng)目設(shè)計(jì)都強(qiáng)調(diào)其自發(fā)的社會(huì)功能。學(xué)校、緊急住所、圖書館、診所、本地工坊是最常見的類型。為了持續(xù)運(yùn)行，他們需要教師、房屋管理員、圖書館員、醫(yī)生、企業(yè)家以及大量的資源。為了提供這些資源，至少在中國(guó)，你需要得到當(dāng)?shù)卣闹С?，并且有一個(gè)真正介入運(yùn)營(yíng)的投資者。

第三個(gè)問題，也是最難的一個(gè)，指向設(shè)計(jì)本身：建筑是面向城市中產(chǎn)階級(jí)這些局外人的，還是提供給（通常是）鄉(xiāng)村內(nèi)部人士的？不生活在一個(gè)特定的氣候中，要想把建筑設(shè)計(jì)得適應(yīng)這個(gè)氣候是很困難的。不生活在一個(gè)特定的人群中，要想建筑設(shè)計(jì)得融入這個(gè)人群則是根本不可能的。鑒于這些社區(qū)通常是那么偏遠(yuǎn)，設(shè)計(jì)往往要以快速訪談和現(xiàn)場(chǎng)調(diào)查為依據(jù)，而這些有限的依據(jù)又往往引向太多的假設(shè)和推測(cè)。也許世界各大城市都越來越相像，因而在城市中進(jìn)行假設(shè)和推測(cè)還是可行的；而每個(gè)蕭條的偏遠(yuǎn)社區(qū)卻是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的，我們無(wú)法在一個(gè)社區(qū)中引用另一個(gè)作為參照。為了調(diào)查和解釋這種獨(dú)特性，入門級(jí)的人類學(xué)實(shí)踐是必不可少的。

為了給窮人做設(shè)計(jì)而給窮人做設(shè)計(jì)是不夠的。現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)到了建筑師在低收人群體前放下身段的時(shí)候了?！?/p>

Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is stepping down this month. His legacy seems to have already been fixed: an outspoken rhetoric in words putting him in crossfires with all major states around the globe, and a disappointing score sheet in real-world achievements making him yet another politician to forget.

Al Hussein's case is not unfamiliar. When it comes to the struggle for equality, power in words and powerlessness in real-world interventions have long been the fateful pattern for many elites and intellectuals. This pattern is certainly no stranger to architects, at least for the past few decades.

Bernard Rudofsky'sArchitecture without Architects, Henri Lefebvre's "Right to the City "and Hassan Fathy's dwellings for the poor were among the post-war-years examples in architecture,writing or practice, to address the issue of equality.Accompanied by culture and media events, not least the Architecture without Architects exhibition in MoMA, they effectively setup vernacular architecture as an alternative discourse in the dense of the late 1960s. The academic interest was basically a two-fold one: aesthetically it was about the craft and wisdom of making of non-pedigreed architecture from all over the world; ethically it was about the dignity of the communities that sustained these building traditions and how the practice of building may contribute to local social coherence.

It didn't take long before the social part of the discourse got explored in greater depth. The architecture of Shigeru Ban initiated an approach that marries Fullerian structure solutions with emergency humanitarian situations. Thanks to his pioneering work, disaster-hit communities in different parts of the world have been able to see a new species of volunteers - architects doing light and good-looking,rapid-assembled buildings for them. In the greater China region we have seen similar approaches starting from the turn of the century, including Hsieh Ying-Chun's works after the 1992 earthquake, and various recent projects by ZHU Jingxiang.

Also aimed at social issues, people like Diébédo Francis Kéré and Cameron Sinclair took a very different path. They step further away from the comfort zone of traditional architecture discourse and dive into the troubled water of daily community life. They produce architecture that is based on available resource and technology, sometimes even making poetic works entirely out of ad-hoc solutions. There are also plenty of good examples in the greater China region in this direction, first demonstrated by LI Xiaodong's rural trilogy, then by John Lin's rural framework series, then by countless emerging architects going out to work in the vast Chinese countryside.

Encouraged by the growing evidence of architecture putting ethics before aesthetics, more architects are now finding it an obligation to design for the poor. Yet serious questions need to be asked if we are serious to ensure positive real world social changes through our designs. If we look back closely on the highly revered projects in this genre since Fathy, particularly if we scrutinise the life of these projects since their completion, we'll have an unsettling observation. Most projects, be they residential, educational, medical, or cultural, are more capable of raising the awareness of the outsiders (mostly middle class living in an urban environment) than raising the living standards of the insiders (local inhabitants). Best case scenarios are usually found in the aftermaths of disasters where shelters are made abundantly and quickly. Worst case scenarios are invariantly found in the most vulnerable communities, where local women and children are used in staged photos to prove the glory of architects.

It is therefore the key interest of thisWAnumber to provide a snapshot of the status quo of designing for the poor. Along with this snapshot, we would also like to ask three questions which may or may not be answered by the projects published. Each of these questions addresses a particular scope of concern.

The first question relates to the design for equality genre as a whole: where is the boundary between what design can and what design can't? We all remember the different forms of optimism (or complacency depending on how you look at it) from Siegfried Giedion and Christopher Alexander who both happened to believe that architecture could and should practice active behaviour modification,or that we could actually design people's lives.Yet we all suffered greatly from the cities created by technocratic Modernism that simply treat us like machine parts. Are we to bring this design rationality again to the local communities?

The second question relates to the programmes of such projects: do we need a powerful third party,other than architects and locals, to run long-term programmes in the buildings we design? If so, should such third party be included in the design process?Up to now, most design for equality projects are built upon social programmes. Schools, emergency lodgings,libraries, clinics, local craft workshops are the most common types. To last long, they would need teachers,house keepers, librarians, doctors and entrepreneurs,along with huge amount of resources. To provide such resources, in China at least, you'll need the support from the local government, and a truly engaged investor.

The third question, and the most difficult one,relates to design: is the building speaking more to the urban middle-class outsiders, or the (usually)rural insiders? Fitting a building into a specific climate is hard without living in that climate. Fitting a building into a specific community is impossible without living in that community. Quick interviews and site surveys, which is usually the case given how remote these communities are, only lead to assumptions and speculations. While all major world cities are getting more and more alike, each depressed community is still unique. To investigate and to interpret such uniqueness, an architect needs to practice some basic anthropology.

Designing for the poor for the sake of designing for the poor is not enough. Time for architects to get humble before the poor. □