張利/ZHANG Li

關(guān)于挪威的觀察

Observations from Norway

張利/ZHANG Li

從某種程度上說，挪威是一個(gè)從話語權(quán)力的“邊緣”擾動(dòng)“中心”的成功例子，雖然挪威本身在產(chǎn)生這種擾動(dòng)的進(jìn)程中也不停地面臨新的困惑。

二戰(zhàn)以后，至少在西方，未被德國占領(lǐng)的、擁有著“特殊關(guān)系”的美英兩國一度是事實(shí)上的國際政治與經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的制定者，英語體系的文化中心地位隨之而成。丘吉爾在其1946年的富爾頓演說中，曾經(jīng)不無優(yōu)越感地提出“以英語為母語的人，在和平的年代，必須在思想的堅(jiān)定、追求的執(zhí)著以及決策的簡明三項(xiàng)原則的指導(dǎo)與約束下行事，就像我們在戰(zhàn)爭時(shí)代所做的一樣。我們必須，我相信我們也會證明，我們是配得上這些苛刻要求的。”后工業(yè)時(shí)代初期，英語體系所占據(jù)的中心地位被國際教育和因特網(wǎng)進(jìn)一步放大。即使是同處西方的西部歐洲，也不自覺地被加上了種種邊緣化的“特色”標(biāo)簽，如拉丁語系地區(qū)的歷史、日爾曼語系地區(qū)的技術(shù)與斯堪的納維亞地區(qū)的自然。

恐怕沒有人是愿意永遠(yuǎn)處在邊緣的。近日人們開始驚呼盎格魯——美利堅(jiān)時(shí)代的敗象（這多半緣于眾所周知的近期美英國內(nèi)的政治亂象）。可早在此前很久，一度被列在“邊緣”的歐洲國家就開始了對“中心”進(jìn)行的創(chuàng)造性擾動(dòng)和替代：首先是戰(zhàn)后的荷蘭，隨后是世紀(jì)之交的西班牙與瑞士，再后來是整個(gè)斯堪的納維亞地區(qū)。

作為全球最北部的國家，挪威是與世無爭的樸素自然主義的代表。然而隨著上世紀(jì)中期北海油田的發(fā)現(xiàn)，挪威的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力迅速提升，其文化影響力也不再滿足于“北方自然”這種角色定義。從上個(gè)世紀(jì)末到本世紀(jì)的最初10年，挪威向世界推出了一種基于高福利與平權(quán)主義的模式樣板——在社會學(xué)上呈現(xiàn)為“挪威式”體系，在建筑學(xué)上呈現(xiàn)為以斯內(nèi)赫塔建筑事務(wù)所作品為代表的集成化城市開放空間——以此積極參與未來人類社會的想象與定義，對原來的“中心”地區(qū)形成一種逆向的輻射。然而，這本應(yīng)是一路高歌的進(jìn)程在進(jìn)入本世紀(jì)的第二個(gè)10年后卻遇到了不小的挑戰(zhàn)：石油經(jīng)濟(jì)的萎縮所導(dǎo)致的資源局限、內(nèi)部的原生恐襲和外部的移民涌入所導(dǎo)致的社會裂痕。

本期專輯所收錄的，正是挪威建筑在這樣的困惑面前所進(jìn)行的繼續(xù)其進(jìn)程的努力。從營造文明社會的角度而言，這些實(shí)例不外乎參與建造3種新的家園：新的物質(zhì)家園、新的精神家園、新的倫理家園。

新的物質(zhì)家園關(guān)注的是圍繞居住和服務(wù)形成可持續(xù)的社區(qū)，這是后工業(yè)時(shí)代以來挪威建筑的強(qiáng)項(xiàng)。卑爾根的格內(nèi)維索恩學(xué)生住宅以類型學(xué)的方式研討中高密度下的社區(qū)向心力，特隆赫姆的圣奧拉夫醫(yī)院關(guān)注以對人體本身的再理解來指導(dǎo)新的醫(yī)療空間的構(gòu)建，同樣位于特隆赫姆的斯瓦特拉蒙實(shí)驗(yàn)住宅把對全建筑壽命周期內(nèi)能耗降低的探討發(fā)揮到了極致——除了常規(guī)的種種技術(shù)外甚至使用了人工對機(jī)器的反向替代，奧斯陸的斯邁斯特回收中心則采用了另一條可持續(xù)性實(shí)踐的路徑——運(yùn)用對已知技術(shù)的集成接近實(shí)現(xiàn)全壽命周期內(nèi)碳排放量的中和。

新的精神家園關(guān)注的是現(xiàn)代社會對人的頭腦的塑造，特別是對現(xiàn)代公民意識的塑造。在這方面的3個(gè)來自奧斯陸的案例中，我們看到的是來自早年奧斯陸歌劇院的那種無處不在的公共空間和無約束社交環(huán)境在各種新建設(shè)施中的再現(xiàn)。富魯賽特圖書館與活動(dòng)中心是一個(gè)典型的在傳統(tǒng)的單功能空間中混雜社會性功能空間的實(shí)例，而其統(tǒng)合廚房、俱樂部、劇場、咖啡與閱覽室的關(guān)鍵工具是人體尺度；費(fèi)斯迪卡廉學(xué)校利用新建部分與舊廠房之間的偶然性對話打消學(xué)校建筑的規(guī)制感，實(shí)現(xiàn)對自發(fā)的公共性的引入；瑟倫加海浴場則是一個(gè)非?！芭餐钡淖髌罚〞车乃叫?、可達(dá)性與消失的邊界共同勾勒出無差異的社區(qū)融合理想。

新的倫理家園表達(dá)的是對具備一定爭議的全球性社會問題的價(jià)值觀判定，出于這一特性，這類建筑永遠(yuǎn)不可能僅從純建筑的邏輯進(jìn)行評論。

于特島青年?duì)I地重建項(xiàng)目的背后是令當(dāng)代挪威乃至世界為之痛心的原發(fā)性恐襲事件，創(chuàng)下了單一罪犯槍殺無辜生命數(shù)量的可恥紀(jì)錄。而這一項(xiàng)目過程中的社會爭議與每一個(gè)具體設(shè)計(jì)決策的進(jìn)退兩難也恰切地反應(yīng)了挪威社會在這一事件沖擊下的不可避免的焦慮與彷徨。以遇難學(xué)生家長意見為主導(dǎo)而完成的這一建筑，最終選擇了以正常的使用和繼續(xù)的教育來紀(jì)念這一事件的方式，除“守安堂”的雙層嵌套設(shè)計(jì)外，幾乎沒有任何象征性或戲劇性的語匯來把空間故事化。可以明確的是，它比很多我們熟知的以“救世主”方式出現(xiàn)的獲獎(jiǎng)建筑更加遠(yuǎn)離偽善，它所做的是對社會融合的推進(jìn)而不是對社會傷痛的消費(fèi)。遺憾的是，在以“擁有之后”（After Belonging）為題的2016年奧斯陸建筑三年展中，西班牙策展團(tuán)隊(duì)對這一作品選擇了忽略——可能他們對世界其他地區(qū)的痛楚更感興趣吧。

因?yàn)闆]有于特島慘案所導(dǎo)致的巨大社會創(chuàng)傷與爭議，另外兩個(gè)新的倫理家園的項(xiàng)目可以輕松地選擇更容易被傳播的立場，而不會陷入舉步維艱的境地。哈爾登監(jiān)獄所探討的服刑罪犯的懲罰感與幸福感的平衡顯然蘊(yùn)含了大量的（如果不是過量的）樂觀主義； 而In Transit工作營的“成長的托堰”則是把大部分西歐建筑院校內(nèi)的熱門專題——難民住區(qū)帶到了實(shí)際環(huán)境的研討中，因?yàn)樯形磳?shí)現(xiàn)，所以是有待檢驗(yàn)的。

特別感謝挪威駐華使館郝月（Carolina Harrysson）女士，是她的幫助使本期專輯成為可能。

Norway is a success story of how the "margin" changes the "centre" in the development of a global discourse, albeit not without its own confusions.

After WWII there has been an Anglo-American dominance in setting up the post-war international order, resulting in the two English speaking countries enjoying central places in global culture. Winston Churchill, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri, "It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement." Entering the post-industrial time, the wave of international education (higher education in particular) and internet further pushed non English speaking European countries to accompanying roles, be it history in the Italian-French speaking countries, technology in the German speaking countries, or nature in the Scandinavian countries.

No one is willing to remain in the margin. Recently there is of course an argument claiming Anglo-American decline mainly due the shambolic politics in the two countries. But it was long before this turn of time that countries in the "margin" shaking or replacing the leadership roles of those in the "centre". Architecturally at least, there was the Dutch not long after the war ended, then Spain and Switzerland at the turn of the century, then Scandinavia.

Being the world's north-most country on earth, Norway was the role model of Nordic peace with nature. Yet with the discovery of oil and the fastgrowing economic power, Norway has since embarked upon a path of impacting the world with soft power. In the first decade of the 21st century, Norway struck a huge success in providing an inspiring model in social welfare and equal rights, socially tagged as the Norway model, architecturally represented by the integrated civic spaces of works by offices like Sn?hetta. Norway not only engaged in defining future societies of the world, but also inspired those countries traditionally regarded as the "centre". However, this success has been damped by severe challenges over the recent years: the collapse of oil price, the social rift injected first by one of the world's deadliest terrorist attacks then by the influx of immigrants.

What we present now in this issue of World Architecture is exactly the continuous efforts in Norwegian architecture even in the current time of confusions. It does seem that Norwegian architecture's commitment to the building of a better civic society hasn't been terminated by the difficult time. The projects we collect here interpret the idea of "home" (assuming this refers to the common home of a community) in three layers: homes of physicality, homes of minds, and homes of ethics.

The home of physicality focuses on the making of sustainable communities centred around residential/ communal spaces. Norway has been one of the defacto leaders in this field. SIB Gr?nneviks?ren in Bergen takes a typological inquiry into the sharing quality of mid-to-high densities. St. Olav's Hospital in Trondheim reposes the problem of the spatial organisation of medical facilities, giving priority to the human body. Experimental Housing at Svartlamon in Trondheim expands the investigation of low-energy housing to its extreme where man power is brought back again to replace machine power. Smestad Recycling Centre in Oslo implements a more usual approach in which multiple technologies are combined to achieve carbon neutrality.

The home of minds focuses on the cultivation of modern minds, particularly the awareness of the new 21st century global citizens. Three projects from Oslo can be seen to be on this topic. Furuset Library and Activity Centre creates a healthy contemporary hybridity by mixing all kinds of programs into a library, utilising human scale as the fundamental tool to coordinate the vastly different programs. Fyrstikkalleén School in Oslo capitalises on the "incidentals" at the intersections of the new school building and the old factory, promoting spontaneous public life right from within. S?renga Sj?bad is a typical "Norwegian" project, where panoramic horizontality, access-to-all and diminishing borders come together, depicting the idea of new social coherence.

The home of ethics addresses global controversial issues. Because of the nature of such projects, and because of the positions they have to take upon highly contentious issues today, they can hardly be judged solely from architecture.

Behind Ut?ya Torget and Hegnhuset there is the most terrible event of our time, one that shocked Norway and the rest of the world. Fierce debates and painful dilemmas over each of the design decisions in the long process of the project precisely reflect the anxiety and confusion of the Norwegian society in the aftershocks of the attack. The architect and the client made a clever decision in following the recommendations by most of the victims' parents, continuing the use of the camp and expanding its education programs. Besides the nested design of the Hegnhuset, no architectural language was used in dramatising or symbolising the spaces. One thing is clear, this is a project that pull itself far far away from the hypocrisy of many well-known award-winning projects. This is a project that poses itself as a facilitator, not a saviour. It tries to bring reconciliation rather than consuming the pain. Quite shockingly, this project didn't get through to the Oslo Architecture Triennale 2016, the title of which is After Belonging, a topic to which this project could have contributed so much. We can only assume that the Spanish team of curators were solely focused on pains in other parts of the world.

Freed from the deep wounds and conflicting contentions caused by the Ut?ya tragedy, the other two projects related to the home of ethics fare much more easily. They are in better positions to convey ideas that are more communicable. Halden Prison in Halden investigates the balance of punishment and enjoyment of the inmates, although with a little bit too much optimism. Growing T?yen in Oslo of Studio In Transit takes the hot studio topic in every school, namely immigrant housing and integration facility, to a real environment and a real process. We would like to keep a keen eye on this on-going project, particularly on its performance in the real world.

Our special thanks to Ms Carolina Harrysson from the Norwegian Embassy in Beijing. It is her help that makes this issue possible.

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

2017-06-11