建筑設(shè)計(jì)：克里斯蒂安·費(fèi)爾南德斯建筑師事務(wù)所，橫向建筑與設(shè)計(jì)事務(wù)所

加夫列拉·米斯特拉爾文化中心，圣地亞哥，智利

建筑設(shè)計(jì)：克里斯蒂安·費(fèi)爾南德斯建筑師事務(wù)所，橫向建筑與設(shè)計(jì)事務(wù)所

歷史文脈

在智利近年來(lái)政治社會(huì)分化的一個(gè)時(shí)期中，這座建筑曾扮演著不可替代的重要角色。該建筑在薩爾瓦多·阿連德執(zhí)政期間作為“新人類”的標(biāo)志性杰作而誕生，1973年政變后，作為奧古斯托·皮諾切特政權(quán)駐地而成為“統(tǒng)一權(quán)力”的代表。近30年中，包括國(guó)防部在內(nèi)的4個(gè)政府機(jī)關(guān)曾使用過(guò)該建筑。這些兩極化的歷史使得這座建筑令大眾敬而遠(yuǎn)之。

建筑最初的設(shè)計(jì)與建造是突破性的。為了滿足功能需求，建筑師設(shè)計(jì)了擁有紀(jì)念碑式比例的巨大屋頂。在城市環(huán)境的影響下，面向城市干道人行道的一側(cè)，建筑呈現(xiàn)出水平延展的體量與比例，另一側(cè)則呼應(yīng)并融入小尺度的居住街區(qū)中。

然而，2006年3月5日發(fā)生于建筑東側(cè)的火災(zāi)完全摧毀了原有大廳空間。因此，智利政府決定通過(guò)國(guó)際建筑競(jìng)賽來(lái)完成該建筑的更新，克里斯蒂安·費(fèi)爾南德斯建筑事務(wù)所、橫向建筑與設(shè)計(jì)事務(wù)所的聯(lián)合方案從超過(guò)55個(gè)參賽方案中最終勝出。

城市空間構(gòu)想

方案希望通過(guò)處理周邊建成環(huán)境，使建筑與先前被忽略的周圍空間建立起新的聯(lián)系。建筑師的設(shè)計(jì)圍繞4個(gè)主要概念展開：通過(guò)巨大屋頂下的松散小體量，提升對(duì)城市的開放度和關(guān)聯(lián)度；創(chuàng)建新的公共空間；通過(guò)納入社區(qū)功能，使建筑向社會(huì)開放；通過(guò)公眾參與使建筑功能合理化，并為城市建立新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

開放性與透明性

藝術(shù)與文化建筑應(yīng)當(dāng)擁有多變的透明性，不僅要整合直接的使用者，更要喚起整個(gè)社會(huì)的參與共享。因此，建筑師將公共空間的開放性與內(nèi)部空間的透明性合二為一。音樂(lè)、舞蹈表演大廳和劇院作為“盒子或容器”展示在公眾眼前。

功能與組織

建筑通過(guò)3個(gè)體量形成水平組織，分別容納3個(gè)主要的功能分區(qū)：演藝與音樂(lè)檔案中心、表演藝術(shù)培訓(xùn)室和容納2000人的大型劇場(chǎng)。這3部分體量在街道層面獨(dú)立分開，提供了有遮蔽的多向步行空間。而在地下各層中，它們直接聯(lián)系在一起，形成便捷的交通?！酰愜?譯）

項(xiàng)目信息/Credits and Data

主持建筑師/Principal Architects: Cristián Fernández Eyzaguirre, Christian Yutronic V., Sebastián Baraona R.

合作者/Collaborators: Marcelo Fernández, Carlos Ulloa, Hernán Vergara H., Loreto Figueroa A., Nicolás Olate Vásquez, Natalia Le-Bert, Nicolás Carbone, Juan Pablo Aguilera, Rodrigo Herrera, Eduardo Cid, Sebastián Bravo, Sebastián Medina, Ximena Conejeros, Irene Escobar, Ricardo álvarez, Sebastián Bórquez, Rodrigo Carrión

建筑面積/Floor Area: 一期/Phase 1－24,500m2, 二期/ Phase 2－29,600m2

設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)間/Design Period: 2008-2009

建造時(shí)間/Construction Period: 一期/Phase 1, 2009-2010,二期/Phase 2: 2015-

攝影/Photos: Nicolás Saieh(Fig. 2, 5, 7, 8), Marcos Mendizabal(Fig. 3), Juan Eduardo Sepúlveda(Fig. 4, 10)

1 首層平面/Floor 0 plan

2. 3 外景/Exterior views

4 外景/Exterior view

Historical context

This building, like no other, has been a major player during a period in Chile's recent history that was characterized by political and social division. The building was built as a masterpiece, a symbol of the "new man" during Salvador Allende's government. After the coup in 1973 this building housed General Pinochet's regime embodying the "Total Power." During the last three decades four governments have occupied the building including the Ministry of Defense. This has led to a building not wanted by most with a "bipolar" biography.

The original building was designed and built in record time. As a strategy, the architects designed a great cover of monumental proportions to subsequently house the building's program. From the beginning the urban impact was profound, as they installed a huge building with horizontal proportions perched practically on the sidewalk of the main street of the city, with its other side invading a small residential neighborhood.

A fire on March 5, 2006 in the eastern sector of the building completely destroyed the Great Hall.The Chilean government decided to create a future for this building and called for an international architecture competition. Over 55 proposals were received and Cristian Fernandez Arquitectos, teamed with Lateral Arquitectura & Diseno, provided the winning design.

Proposed urban spaces

Their approach was to immediately address the surrounding environment, providing a new relationship to the previously unacknowledged surroundings. The architects decided to focus on four main concepts: openness to the city and its urban relationships across a large deck with loose volumes under it, the creation of new public space, the opening of the building to the community by incorporating community programs, and the legitimacy of the project through the incorporation of as many social agents as possible in shaping a new benchmark for the city.

Openness and transparency

A building for arts and culture should always have varying degrees of transparency and share and engage users not only directly but also to the whole community. Therefore, the architects opted for a design that provided openness in the public spaces and transparency in the interior spaces. The halls for the performing arts of music, dance, and theater are on display to the public as "boxes or containers."

Program and organization

Horizontally the building is organized in three volumes that contain and represent the three major program areas. There are the Documentation Center for Performing Arts and Music, the Training Room for Performing Arts, and the Great Hall Theater that seats 2,000 people. The three buildings are separated at street level, providing multiple covered pedestrian spaces. At the lower levels all three buildings are directly connected.□

5 外景/Exterior view

6 南立面/South elevation

評(píng)論

李曉峰：這是一座經(jīng)歷了烈火煉獄而脫胎換骨的建筑。它是新設(shè)計(jì)，卻不是全新建筑。之前數(shù)十年間，它作為政府機(jī)構(gòu)的駐地，曾經(jīng)是當(dāng)?shù)鼐哂泻甏髷⑹孪笳饕饬x的現(xiàn)代建筑的代表。今天卻成了面向公眾的開放性的城市公共空間。建筑師的智慧著力于3方面：其一，處理周邊建成環(huán)境，使其成為適合休閑活動(dòng)的輕松而積極的公共場(chǎng)所；其二，盡可能將原有建筑的巨大體量化整為零，變宏偉巨構(gòu)為近人尺度，從而使其具有親和力；其三，通過(guò)空間透明性的處理，適合當(dāng)代“開放性”主題?？傊?，歷經(jīng)鳳凰涅槃，這座大樓在新時(shí)代煥發(fā)了青春。

7. 8 內(nèi)景/Interior views

王舒展：改造后的建筑，無(wú)處不透露著“開放”“現(xiàn)代”的氣息，也明確體現(xiàn)著對(duì)城市“公共空間”和“公共生活”的關(guān)懷。人們?cè)搼c幸，它不再是某個(gè)政治時(shí)期只被少數(shù)人獨(dú)占的權(quán)力機(jī)構(gòu)象征。然而，作為對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)貧v史文化相當(dāng)陌生的旁觀者，對(duì)一個(gè)“身世”復(fù)雜的老建筑的生命，還是不能臆斷。建筑的活力，也許并不在于它設(shè)置了多少貌似有活力的文體、觀演空間，而在于當(dāng)?shù)厝藗儗?duì)“公共”“開放”的具體行為達(dá)到多少共識(shí)；這涉及到建筑留給人們的記憶如何在未來(lái)發(fā)酵、人們對(duì)建筑改造指向的某種新的社會(huì)生活有多少向往、信任和決心。無(wú)論如何，用公開招標(biāo)的方式，從幾十份方案中公開選擇，采用平易近人的形式和適當(dāng)?shù)捏w量……所有這些，都為這個(gè)房子的“新生”開了個(gè)好頭。

9 剖面/Section

Comments

LI Xiaofeng: Completely transformed, this building is like a phoenix reborn out of inferno. The design is original, though the building per se is not brand new. As the seat of government for the past decades, it was once a representative work of modern architecture with majestic symbolism. Today it has rather become an urban space opening to the public. The architects' ingenuity is exercised in three aspects: first, the surrounding built environment is made into an active, relaxing public venue suitable for leisure activities; second, the architects did their best to break the original building's enormous volume into parts, bringing a grand structure down to human scale and endowing it with affinity; third, the space is made transparent to suit contemporary motif of "openness". In short, having gone through resurrection, the building is being rejuvenated in the new age.

WANG Shuzhan: The renovated building is brimming with "open", "modern" flavor, which clearly reflects its concerns for the city's "public space" and "public life". One should celebrate that it is no longer any monopolized power symbol of certain political era. However, as spectators unfamiliar with local history and culture, we are in no place to make assumptions about the complex "life" of an old building. The vitality of a building may not consist in the seemingly vigorous spaces it creates for recreations and spectacles, but rather in the level of consensus reached by local people in regards to the specific performance of "publicity" and "openness". This involves how architectural memories would ferment in the future, and how much expectation, belief and determination people would hold for some kind of new social life brought about by the renovation. In any case, public design competitions and selections, as well as the adoption of ordinary forms and appropriate volumes, all herald a promising start of the building's "new life".

Gabriela Mistral Cultural Center, Santiago, Chile, 2015

Architects: Cristián Fernández Arquitectos, Lateral arquitectura & dise?o

10 內(nèi)景/Interior view