埃利·斯托亞/Eli St?a

尚晉 譯/Translated by SHANG Jin

建筑的使命1）
——建筑在挪威弱勢(shì)居民住房上的潛在作用

埃利·斯托亞/Eli St?a

尚晉 譯/Translated by SHANG Jin

從建筑品質(zhì)上看，弱勢(shì)居民的優(yōu)質(zhì)住房指的是什么？本文根據(jù)對(duì)挪威無家者和尋求避難者住房品質(zhì)的研究對(duì)這一問題展開了討論。文中強(qiáng)調(diào)了非量化品質(zhì)的重要性，并探討了保障私密與控制、尊嚴(yán)、建宅過程和積極參與等問題。本文主要論點(diǎn)是，美觀、象征及其他非量化的住房品質(zhì)不僅對(duì)于居民的福祉是不可或缺的，而且對(duì)于實(shí)現(xiàn)邊緣化群體的社會(huì)融合與賦權(quán)等目標(biāo)也是至關(guān)重要的。

住房品質(zhì)，弱勢(shì)居民，福祉，社會(huì)融合，賦權(quán)

“人人都應(yīng)享有安全美好的生活。這對(duì)于接受教育、成立家庭、實(shí)現(xiàn)就業(yè)和保障健康都非常重要。家宅也是社交生活的平臺(tái)，并讓我們?nèi)谌氡镜厣鐓^(qū)?！盵1]

挪威從二戰(zhàn)后的前10年開始形成了一種深厚的傳統(tǒng)，讓公眾積極參與住房建設(shè)。其總體思想是：住房應(yīng)是全體市民共享的福利。如今，挪威的住房業(yè)為歐洲市場(chǎng)驅(qū)動(dòng)型之首。由于1980年代住房政策開始轉(zhuǎn)向自由化，政府機(jī)構(gòu)不再具有中心地位，也失去了指導(dǎo)住房建設(shè)所需的手段。這進(jìn)一步表明目前挪威的社會(huì)住房政策針對(duì)的是特定群體，即被列為住房市場(chǎng)中弱勢(shì)的人群。根據(jù)挪威政府的統(tǒng)計(jì)，這一群體不到人口的3%[1]，其中包括移民、低收入家庭、殘障人士和無家者。除了提供公租房，目前對(duì)弱勢(shì)群體的公共社會(huì)支持包括面向個(gè)人的低息貸款和補(bǔ)助方案（住房津貼和資助）[2]。

《國(guó)家住房與支持服務(wù)戰(zhàn)略》[1]提出：優(yōu)質(zhì)住房對(duì)于弱勢(shì)群體尤為重要，因?yàn)樗菍?shí)現(xiàn)健康、教育與社會(huì)融合領(lǐng)域目標(biāo)的一大支撐。本文將討論“優(yōu)質(zhì)住房”對(duì)建筑品質(zhì)的意義。其基礎(chǔ)是針對(duì)無家者[3,4]和尋求避難者[5,6]的住房品質(zhì)研究。雖然《戰(zhàn)略》提到了住房的物理屬性，但這僅限于實(shí)用功能方面，而沒有強(qiáng)調(diào)美觀及其他非量化的建筑品質(zhì)。我們認(rèn)為在對(duì)居民的福祉和日常生活的影響上，這些品質(zhì)的潛在作用被低估了。

1 住房品質(zhì)的建筑因素

關(guān)于住房品質(zhì)，我們開展的研究有兩個(gè)方面。一是認(rèn)為品質(zhì)是在人與物質(zhì)環(huán)境之間的相互作用中不斷形成和改造的動(dòng)態(tài)現(xiàn)象。按照這種觀點(diǎn)，被列為品質(zhì)的因素會(huì)因居民的生活階段和偏好而異。它會(huì)隨時(shí)間變化，并取決于評(píng)估者的角色——是住戶、鄰居、業(yè)主、開發(fā)商還是建筑師[7]。從理論上看，可以說這是一種社會(huì)建構(gòu)主義的住房品質(zhì)視角。它需要理解不同的住戶情況、前提條件和價(jià)值觀，以及體現(xiàn)人與物質(zhì)因素相互作用的復(fù)雜性，即杜塞所謂的建筑“與世界混為一體”的因素[8]29。這進(jìn)一步表明品質(zhì)不是一成不變的，它必須根據(jù)住戶的情況和時(shí)間的變化來考查。

同時(shí)，我們認(rèn)為品質(zhì)是對(duì)象本身內(nèi)在的特征，因此是有可能區(qū)分建筑優(yōu)劣的。沒有這種角度，在建筑設(shè)計(jì)和居住環(huán)境上投入精力就毫無意義。住房品質(zhì)的建筑因素在本質(zhì)上是規(guī)范性的，其目標(biāo)通常是為設(shè)計(jì)師提供實(shí)用的指導(dǎo)，給未來的居民支持，并“教育”購(gòu)房者，使他們知道詢問和尋找的目標(biāo)。在這個(gè)意義上，建筑干預(yù)的目標(biāo)就是為社會(huì)增加價(jià)值。

但是，像這樣的實(shí)質(zhì)論方法存在明顯的缺陷，因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)忽視各種可知品質(zhì)的關(guān)系。建筑史上有許多例子表明，盡管建筑師的用意是好的，卻因結(jié)果更糟而備受責(zé)難。杜塞以現(xiàn)代主義建筑為例，認(rèn)為“建筑增加價(jià)值之路絕不平坦”[8]29。所以，建筑師的一項(xiàng)重要任務(wù)就是堅(jiān)持參與公共討論，探討我們時(shí)代的住房品質(zhì)的現(xiàn)狀和可能，并有義務(wù)參與討論，為所謂的弱勢(shì)群體研究合適的生活條件。

如今需要將住房品質(zhì)研究中的社會(huì)建構(gòu)主義同實(shí)質(zhì)論角度結(jié)合在一起。一方面，住房品質(zhì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)如果不能充分植根于社會(huì)文化的土壤中，其意義就極其有限。另一方面，過度相對(duì)主義的方法存在著危險(xiǎn)。我們認(rèn)為在既定的文化社會(huì)背景中，不從根本上考慮住房條件改善與惡化的區(qū)別就無法討論住房的品質(zhì)。

綜合的方法需要跨學(xué)科的研究。在上述兩個(gè)項(xiàng)目中，本文作者同其他領(lǐng)域的研究人員（環(huán)境心理學(xué)、人類學(xué)和地理學(xué)）研究了建筑和其他物質(zhì)特征與（1）無家者和（2）尋求避難者的住房狀況的社會(huì)因素之間的相互作用。住房狀況包括住房與住區(qū)的建筑特征以及本地化與城鄉(xiāng)文脈。該項(xiàng)工作建立了一種框架，區(qū)分出涵蓋了物質(zhì)和社會(huì)因素的4種品質(zhì)維度[9,10]。這包括（1）功能維度：住房狀況如何影響日常生活和作息，比如睡眠、烹飪和飲食，以及培養(yǎng)實(shí)踐和思維能力的其他工作和創(chuàng)意活動(dòng)；（2）心理-社會(huì)維度：住房狀況如何影響安全、獨(dú)居和與親友家人共處的可能性；（3）美觀維度：建筑和環(huán)境的美觀如何帶來愉悅、感官刺激和幸福；（4）象征維度：住房狀況如何表現(xiàn)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)地位、社會(huì)認(rèn)同和價(jià)值觀。

雖然這些維度很多都有可量化的因素（尤其是前兩項(xiàng)），但本文的重點(diǎn)是突出非量化品質(zhì)的重要性。在下文中，我們將詳細(xì)考查心理-社會(huì)、美觀和象征維度，并列出將它們轉(zhuǎn)化為建筑方案或干預(yù)措施的例子。

2 建筑作為社會(huì)包容與融合的潛在手段

盡管政治文件中強(qiáng)調(diào)了為所有人提供優(yōu)質(zhì)住房的重要性[1]，但建筑意義上的優(yōu)良品質(zhì)并沒有全面的討論。此外，最近10年挪威為無家者2）建造了許多住房，并積極將建筑方案作為提高住戶尊嚴(yán)與社會(huì)認(rèn)同的手段。其中有些項(xiàng)目是我們研究弱勢(shì)群體住房品質(zhì)的對(duì)象[3,4]。

"Everyone should live safely and well. This is important in order to get education, start a family, be employed and take care of our health. Our home is also a framework for a social life and provides affiliation with our local communities."[1]

Norway has a strong tradition of public engagement in housing development. Originating in the first decades after the Second World War, Norwegian public housing was based on the idea that it is a welfare good that should be available for all citizens. With the liberal turn in housing policy beginning in the 1980s, the housing sector in Norway is currently among the most marketdriven in Europe. As a result, the public authorities have lost their central role as well as the necessary measures needed to guide housing development. This development further implies that social housing policy in Norway is currently directed towards selected groups defined as disadvantaged in the housing market. According to the Norwegian government, these groups constitute less than three percent of the population[1], and include immigrants, low income families, people with disabilities or mental health problems and homeless people. In addition to the provision of public rental housing, current public social support for disadvantaged groups consists of low interest loans and subsidy schemes (housing allowances and grants) given on individual basis[2].

In the "National strategy for housing and support services"[1]it is stated that good housing is particularly important for disadvantaged groups, since it is believed that higher quality housing supports the health, education and integration goals for these individuals. This article discusses what "good housing" may imply in terms of architectural qualities, and is based on research carried out on housing standards for homeless people[3,4]as well as asylum seekers[5,6]. Although the physical properties of "good" housing are mentioned in the national strategy, these criteria tend to be limited to practical and functional aspects while aesthetic and other non-measurable architectural qualities are not emphasised. This article argues that the potential role of such qualities is underestimated when it comes to the effect they may have on residents' wellbeing and everyday life.

1 Architectural aspects of housing quality

The perspective on housing quality in the research we have carried out has been twofold. First, we regarded quality as a dynamic phenomenon which is continuously shaped and reshaped in the interplay between people and their material surroundings. What is regarded as quality will, according to this perspective, vary according to each resident's phase in life and their preferences. Their perspectives change over time and are also shaped by the role the person has, whether he or she is a resident, neighbour, owner, developer or architect[7]. Theoretically, this method represents a social constructivist approach to housing quality, which requires insight into residents' situations, prerequisites and values, as well as the complexity that characterises the interplay between human and material actors, what Doucet refers to as architecture's "messy engagement with the world"[8]29. This further implies that quality is not always guaranteed, instead it must be assessed according to the residents' unique situation and how temporary each situation may be.

Second, we regard quality as an embedded property of an object, which implies that it is possible to distinguish between good and bad architecture. Without this perspective, it would be meaningless to put effort into the design of buildings and residential environments. Architectural perspectives on housing quality are in their nature normative, often aiming to provide practical guidelines for designers but also aim to support future residents and to "educate" home buyers, making them aware of what to ask and look for. In this sense, the aim of architectural intervention is to add value to society.

An essentialist approach like this still has obvious shortcomings, as it tends to neglect relational aspects of perceived qualities. There are several examples from architectural history where, in spite of all good intentions, architects have been blamed for making things worse. Doucet uses modernist architecture as an example, concluding that "architecture's adding of value is anything but straightforward"[8]29. Thus, an important task for architects is to continuously take part in the public discourse on housing quality. Embedded in this is also a responsibility to take part in the discussion of appropriate living conditions for so-called disadvantaged groups.

There is a need to combine both the social constructivist and the essentialist perspectives to more effectively understand housing quality. On one hand, housing quality norms may have limited significance if they are not sufficiently anchored in a social and cultural context. On the other hand, there is danger in taking a too relativist approach. We would argue that it is not possible to discuss housing quality without the acknowledging that there is a difference between good and poor housing conditions within a given cultural and social context.

A combined approach requires interdisciplinary research. In the two projects mentioned above, the author of this article has, together with researchers from other fields (environmental psychology, anthropology and geography) studied how architectural and other material characteristics interplay with social aspects of the housing situation for (1) homeless people and (2) asylum seekers. The housing situation includes both architectural features of buildings and residential neighbourhoods, as well as locality and urban / rural context. Our research has led to a framework that identifies four quality dimensions covering a combination of material and social elements[9,10]. These dimensions are (1) Functional: How the housing situation affects everyday life and routines, such as sleep, cooking and eating as well as how it affects the development of practical and intellectual skills, such as work and creative activities ; (2) Psycho-social: How the housing situation affects the likelihood to be safe, alone and to be together with friends and family; (3) Aesthetic: How the aesthetics of the building and its surroundings provides pleasure, sensory stimuli and overall well-being; (4) Symbolic: How the housing situation communicates socioeconomic status, social identity and values.

1 這些無家者的聯(lián)排住宅設(shè)計(jì)特別考慮了公共與私密空間的過渡區(qū)。該項(xiàng)目共包括挪威東南莫斯市4個(gè)不同位置的24處住宅。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：CODE Arkitektur, 2006/These row houses for homeless people are designed with special consideration of the transition zones between public and private spaces. The project consists of all together 24 dwellings located on four different sites in the city of Moss in southeastern Norway. Architects: CODE Arkitektur (2006).（攝影/Photo: Henning Kaland/CODE）

2 入口和戶外區(qū)由高幕墻保護(hù)，讓人僅能瞥見私密區(qū)的一角，為住戶帶來了安全感和控制感。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：C O D E Arkitektur, 2006/The entrance and the outdoor area are protected with high screen walls, giving only a glimpse of the private area, and providing the residents a feeling of security and control. Architects: CODE Arkitektur (2006). （攝影/ Photo: Karine Denizou）

3 二層的私密露臺(tái)由木質(zhì)女兒墻包圍，讓住戶能俯瞰鄰里，同時(shí)又不被人看到。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：CODE Arkitektur, 2006/The private terrace on the first floor is sheltered with wooden parapets, giving the residents an overview of the neighborhood and at the same time the possibility to not be observed. Architects: CODE Arkitektur (2006). （攝影/Photo: Karine Denizou）

對(duì)于尋求避難者的住房3），情況就截然不同了。尋求避難者是由于戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)或迫害來到挪威尋求避難的，他們向政府申請(qǐng)居留權(quán)，并在審查中。這個(gè)過程需要半年到數(shù)年[9]。在申請(qǐng)獲得批準(zhǔn)前，收容中心會(huì)為尋求避難者提供臨時(shí)住房。這些中心不由挪威住房部門負(fù)責(zé)，而是國(guó)家移民政策的一部分。其結(jié)果是，雖然尋求避難者無疑是弱勢(shì)和脆弱的，但這種中心的品質(zhì)幾乎無人重視。所用的往往是非居住功能的老舊房屋（旅館、醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)等），并且這些建筑的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)通常都很低。許多中心人滿為患，并且存在潮濕、透風(fēng)、表面老化、室內(nèi)氣候差和缺少殘障住戶的無障礙設(shè)施等問題[9]。我們的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，住房狀況對(duì)住戶的幸福以及與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的交流都有負(fù)面影響。

因此，在挪威目前的政治體制下，移民政策的主要目標(biāo)是降低入境尋求避難者的人數(shù)，而不提供優(yōu)質(zhì)住房。所以找不到有代表性的收容中心。不過仍有些小規(guī)模干預(yù)的例子，通常是志愿者和/或?qū)W生發(fā)起的對(duì)收容中心的建筑和戶外區(qū)域進(jìn)行的改善，以此支持有意義的活動(dòng)，為住戶提高自尊和社會(huì)認(rèn)同。

我們將簡(jiǎn)要概括與弱勢(shì)群體住房品質(zhì)密切相關(guān)的一些問題：保障私密與控制、象征尊嚴(yán)、支持建宅和推動(dòng)居民積極參與。

2.1 保障私密與控制

處在不安和脆弱生活狀態(tài)中的人對(duì)受保護(hù)的私密生活有著特殊需求。有精神疾病或毒癮問題的住戶在很多情況下都希望保護(hù)自己不受環(huán)境帶來的身體、社會(huì)和心理危害。他們希望能限制過去的親友、鄰居或陌生人來訪。

這對(duì)于住所的設(shè)計(jì)有明顯影響，尤其是私密與公共空間的過渡區(qū)：入口區(qū)、戶外空間、窗洞口等。私密且受保護(hù)的露臺(tái)能帶來必要的安全感、控制感與獨(dú)立感，并能為個(gè)性化提供空間，從而形成私密空間的標(biāo)志（圖1-3）。

窗洞口在為無家者設(shè)計(jì)住宅上是重要的問題。很多住戶都不希望自己被外面看到，也不想有強(qiáng)烈的日照。這可以通過細(xì)心的設(shè)計(jì)和窗戶的大小以及遮擋、百葉和窗簾來實(shí)現(xiàn)。有些建筑師刻意選擇小洞口，而其他人用大窗戶，認(rèn)為這將給住戶帶來更大的自由，可以用窗簾和其他類型的遮擋調(diào)節(jié)開敞的程度（圖4-5）。

2. 2 象征尊嚴(yán)

“建筑與場(chǎng)所必然建構(gòu)并象征在社會(huì)中建立起來的個(gè)性與差異?！盵11]18

建筑品質(zhì)可以促進(jìn)脆弱居民生活狀況的改善，提高未來的希望和尊嚴(yán)。在研究中[4]我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，之前的無家者將各種建筑細(xì)節(jié)解讀為代表普通人生活方式、自尊以及回歸正常生活的象征。毒癮者習(xí)慣住在凄慘的房屋中，使他們與毒品和反社會(huì)行為有關(guān)的特征根深蒂固。住進(jìn)以高品質(zhì)設(shè)計(jì)贏得公眾關(guān)注的家中會(huì)帶來自豪感，甚至讓住戶從過去的毒癮者轉(zhuǎn)向新的社會(huì)身份。在為特隆赫姆市有犯罪前科和毒癮的人設(shè)計(jì)的住宅“交叉口”中（圖6、7），建筑成了一些住戶自我改造的動(dòng)力：“……因?yàn)檫@是生活品質(zhì)的問題，對(duì)么。這很容易想明白：假如這個(gè)地方曾經(jīng)是破敗不堪的垃圾堆，那你生活品質(zhì)就會(huì)一塌糊涂，這很簡(jiǎn)單。所以這里要給你一點(diǎn)提升。”4）

2.3 支持建宅

住房品質(zhì)的一部分心理-社會(huì)因素與撥款建宅的建筑框架有關(guān)。關(guān)于家的意義的研究可以概括如下：家與安全和控制密切相關(guān)，它是躲避外部世界的港灣。家反映出住戶的思想、價(jià)值觀和狀態(tài)。它一方面是可以改變并實(shí)現(xiàn)個(gè)性化的地方（圖8）；另一方面則是人們生活中與傳承相關(guān)的永恒要素。家與親友等社會(huì)關(guān)系相連，也是日常活動(dòng)的舞臺(tái)。最后，家與特定場(chǎng)所和實(shí)體建筑的歸屬和主人翁感有關(guān)[12]。

2.4 參與和認(rèn)同

作為尋求避難者來到一個(gè)新的國(guó)家需要舍棄許多與個(gè)人身份有關(guān)的東西：家、親友和工作。申請(qǐng)過程本身以及避難體制將在很多情況下刺激身份的喪失感。為影響日常環(huán)境創(chuàng)造各種機(jī)遇可以抵消這種感受，甚至成為重新把握人生的途徑。奧斯陸的制造者中心5）是由建筑師和建筑學(xué)生組成的團(tuán)體，他們?cè)趭W斯陸多所收容中心與住戶動(dòng)手合作。項(xiàng)目中還有許多志愿者。他們的活動(dòng)包括頭腦風(fēng)暴（圖9）、工作坊（圖10）和建筑項(xiàng)目（圖11）。制造者中心向?qū)で蟊茈y者表示信任并給予他們責(zé)任：“我們相信賦權(quán)的感覺是認(rèn)同的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵因素。能夠幫助他人的感受有助于提高自尊，從而給精神帶來積極的影響。”[13]

3 結(jié)論性思考

“倘若有一群人離不開優(yōu)質(zhì)的環(huán)境，那恰恰就是這些人?！?）

以上引文討論的是2015年秋來到挪威的大量難民的安置問題。這看上去針對(duì)的是為快速提供大量新住房而逐漸接受更寬松、簡(jiǎn)化的建筑規(guī)范的做法。

4 “交叉口”項(xiàng)目是為在特隆赫姆市有犯罪前科和毒癮的人設(shè)計(jì)的。建筑師設(shè)計(jì)了玻璃墻，在他看來這象征了走出監(jiān)獄的自由和走入社會(huì)、坦然生活的可能。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：B?rd Helland, 2005/In a project called "Veiskillet", designed for former criminals and drug addicts in Trondheim, the architect designed glass walls, which according to him symbolised freedom from jail and the possibility to be visible and live openly. Architect: B?rd Helland (2005). （攝影/Photo: B?rd Helland）

Although there are measurable elements in several of these quality dimensions (in particular the first two), this article intends to highlight the importance of non-measurable quality aspects. In the following, we will look closer into some aspects of the psycho-social, aesthetic and symbolic dimensions and provide some examples of how they may be translated into architectural solutions or interventions.

2 Architecture as a potential tool for social inclusion and integration

Even if the importance of good quality housing for all is emphasised in political documents[1], the definition of what exactly is good quality in terms of architecture is not discussed thoroughly. However, during the last few decades there has been built several examples of housing for homeless people2）in Norway where architectural solutions have been used actively as tools to strengthen the residents' dignity and social identity. Some of these projects were studied as part of our research on housing qualities for disadvantaged groups[3,4].

5 為了保障私密，織竹屏保護(hù)著“交叉口”中的臥室窗。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：B?rd Helland, 2005/In order to secure privacy, woven bamboo screens protect the bedroom windows in "Veiskillet". Architect: B?rd Helland (2005).（攝影/Photo: B?rd Helland）

When it comes to housing for asylum seekers3）, the situation is different. Asylum seekers are people who arrive in a country in order to seek asylum due to war or persecution, and who are typically in the midst of having their application for residency under consideration by the authorities. This process may take from a few months to several years[9]. Before their application is approved, asylum seekers are offered temporary housing at what are known as reception centres. These centres are not the responsibility of Norwegian housing authorities but are instead a part of the country's immigration policy. The result is that, although asylum seekers are undoubtedly are both disadvantaged and vulnerable, very little emphasis is given to the qualities of accommodation. Typically, reception centres are repurposed establishments (hotels, heath institutions etc.), often older buildings, and the standard of these buildings are often low. Many centres are overcrowded and they have defects such as moisture, drought, worn-down surfaces, poor indoor climate and a lack of accessibility for disabled residents[9]. Our research shows that the housing situation at reception centres have negative effects on both residents' well-being as well as on their interaction with the local community.

With the current political regime in Norway, the immigration policy's main goal is to lower the number of asylum seekers arriving in the country, thus investment in good housing is not a priority. Although no exemplary reception centres are found in Norway, there are examples of smaller-scale interventions.These projects are often led by volunteers or students, where buildings and outdoor spaces in receptions centres are improved in order to support meaningful activities and to strengthen self-esteem and social identity among residents.

We will next briefly outline some issues that are particularly relevant when discussing housing quality for disadvantaged groups. These include securing privacy and control, symbolising dignity, supporting home-making processes and involving residents through active participation.

6 在獲獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)目“交叉口”中，建筑師對(duì)住戶狀況的關(guān)懷通過細(xì)心的設(shè)計(jì)體現(xiàn)出來。他的目的是積極利用建筑幫助住戶重新開始，擺脫有害的生活模式[4]。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：B?rd Helland, 2005/In the award-winning project "Veiskillet" (Crossroad), the architect's care for the residents' situation came to expression through a considerate design. He aimed to use the architecture actively in order to help the residents in starting over and breaking away from destructive life patterns[4]. Architect: B?rd Helland (2005). （攝影/Photo: B?rd Helland）

2.1 Securing privacy and control

People who are in an insecure and vulnerable life situation have a special need for privacy. Residents with mental illness or drug addiction will in many cases want to protect themselves physically, socially and mentally within their new surroundings. They may want to be able to control the access of friends, neighbours as well as strangers.

This has clear implications for the design of dwellings and in particular of the transitional zones between private and public space, such as entrance areas, outdoor spaces and window openings. Private and sheltered terraces may provide feelings of safety, control and independence, and can also provide areas for personalisation and thus function as markers for private space (Fig. 1-3).

Window openings are important issues when designing dwellings for the homeless. Residents may want to protect themselves against visual access from the outside as well as strong daylight. This can be done through considerate design sensitivity to the size of windows as well as screens, blinds and curtains. Some architects choose deliberately small openings, while others provide large windows, arguing that this will give the residents a greater freedom to choose how much they will expose themselves through the use of curtains and other kinds of screens (Fig. 4-5).

7 “交叉口”項(xiàng)目是以低預(yù)算實(shí)現(xiàn)的，而額外的資金用在精選出來的元素和材料上，比如覆有拋光黃銅板的入口大門。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：B?rd Helland, 2005/The project "Veiskillet" was built with a small budget, but extra money was spent on selected elements and materials, such as the entrance door, which was covered in a polished brass sheet. Architect: B?rd Helland (2005). （攝影/Photo: Karine Denizou）

8 在莫斯市外的無家者聯(lián)排住宅中，有一面墻涂上了明黃、橙色或紅色。建筑師希望以此促進(jìn)或激勵(lì)住戶作出反應(yīng)，讓這面墻成為公寓中展示自我和個(gè)性化的大畫布。建筑設(shè)計(jì)：CODE Arkitektur, 2006/In the row houses for homeless people outside Moss, one of the walls is painted in a clear yellow, orange or red colour. By this, the architects wanted to start a process where the resident is expected or inspired to react. The wall then becomes a canvas for self-presentation and personalisation of the flat. Architects: CODE Arkitektur (2006).（攝影/Photo: Karine Denizou）

雖然看起來建筑品質(zhì)與邊緣化的人群及其艱難的生活狀況毫無關(guān)系，但我們的出發(fā)點(diǎn)恰恰是建筑應(yīng)當(dāng)改變這種處境。美觀、象征及其他非量化的住房品質(zhì)不僅對(duì)于居民的福祉是不可或缺的，而且對(duì)于實(shí)現(xiàn)邊緣化群體的社會(huì)融合與賦權(quán)等目標(biāo)也是至關(guān)重要的。

不過，更為重要的是：建筑無法憑借自身實(shí)現(xiàn)其使命。從本文中提到的大多數(shù)例子上可以清楚地看到，實(shí)體環(huán)境的利用和認(rèn)識(shí)與復(fù)雜的社會(huì)和心理過程密不可分。這就意味著不僅需要全面了解住戶具體情況和需求且技術(shù)嫻熟的建筑師，并且實(shí)現(xiàn)改變需要意識(shí)到建筑是動(dòng)態(tài)而不只是靜態(tài)的對(duì)象，而且必須廣泛調(diào)動(dòng)各方人員才能創(chuàng)造成功的結(jié)果。

注釋/Notes

1）題目呼應(yīng)托馬斯·基恩的文章《建筑的使命》[14]。作者呼吁將建筑理解為“人類活動(dòng)的對(duì)象及行為主體的工具”（第36頁(yè)），它“既被塑造又在塑造”（第41頁(yè)）。/The title refers to Thomas Gieryn's article "What buildings do"[14]where he speaks up for an understanding of a building both "as the object of human agency and as an agent of its own actors" (p36) or "as simultaneously shaped and shaping" (p41).

2）無家者的定義是“不占有或租賃住房的人，只有偶然或臨時(shí)性的住房，或者暫住在近親、朋友或熟人家中，或者被改造所或機(jī)構(gòu)收留，并將在兩個(gè)月內(nèi)釋放，且沒有住房。次夜沒有安排住處的人也被視為無家者?！盵1]11/A homeless person is defined as "...a person who does not own or rent a home, and is left with coincidental or temporary housing arrangements, who temporarily stay with close relatives, friends or acquaintances, or is under the care of the correctional services or an institution, due for release within two months and without a home. People without arranged accommodation for the next night are also considered homeless."[1]11

3）住在挪威收容中心的尋求避難者人數(shù)波動(dòng)很大?，F(xiàn)在（2017年4月）約1萬人，而2016年1月是3萬（www.udi.no）。/There are great fluctuations in the number of asylum seekers living in Norwegian reception centres. For the time being (April 2017) the number is about 10.000. In January 2016 it was 30.000 (www.udi.no).

4）對(duì)一位“交叉口”住戶的采訪[4]28/Interview with one of the residents in "Veiskillet"[4]28

5）參見/Refer to http://www.makershuboslo.com/

6）引自挪威建筑師協(xié)會(huì)（NAL）總顧問Tor Inge Hjemdal，見http://www.arkitektnytt.no/kreverkvalitet-for-flyktningeboliger [2017-05-08訪問]/ Quotation from Tor Inge Hjemdal, Chief Advisor in the Norwegian Association for Architects (NAL). See: http://www.arkitektnytt.no/krever-kvalitet-forflyktningeboliger [accessed 2017-05-08]

/References

[1] Norwegian Ministries. Housing for welfare. National strategy for housing and support services (2014-2020). H-2312 E, Oslo: Norwegian Ministries, 2014.

[2] S?rvold J. 'Den boligpolitiske vendingen' Attachment to Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (2011) Rom for Alle, NOU 2011:15, Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 2011.

[3] St?a E., Denizou K., Hauge ?. L. Endelig hjemme - Utforming av Boliger for Vanskeligstilte. Drammen: Husbanken / SINTEF / NTNU, 2007.

[4] Hauge ?.L. & St?a E. "Here you get a little extra push": The meaning of architectural quality in housing for the formerly homeless - a case study of Veiskillet in Trondheim, Norway. Nordic Architectural Research, 2009, 21 (1): 18-31.

[5] Hauge ?. L., St?a E., Denizou K. "Framing Outsidedness - Aspects of Housing Quality in Decentrailized Reception Centres for Asylum Seekers in Norway" Housing, Theory and Society, 2017, 34 (1): 1-20. [6] St?a E., Hauge ?. L., Denizou K., Thorshaug R. ?. & Gr?nseth A. S. Bokvalitet i asylmottak Trondheim: NTNU, 2016.

[7] Cold B. Boligen vi liker. In Svendsen, S E & M Hvattum (eds): Hva er god boligsak? Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal / Den Norske Stats Husbank, 1996.

[8] Doucet I. Problematising the Question. Conditions, No.4/2010: 26-29.

[9] Hauge ?. L., Denizou K. and St?a E. Bokvalitet p? norske asylmottak, SINTEF Fag 29. Oslo: SINTEF akademisk forlag, 2015.

[10] Gr?nseth A. S., St?a E., Thorshaug R. ?. & Hauge ?. L. Housing Qualities and Effects on Identity and Well-Being: Theoretical Perspectives for Interdisciplinary Research on Asylum Seeker Receptions Centres. HiL-Forskningsrapport nr. 169/2016. Lillehammer: Skriftserie H?gskolen i Lillehammer (HiL) , 2016.

[11] Dovey K. Framing Places. Mediating power in built form. London: Routledge, [1999] 2008

[12] Deprès C. The meaning of home: Literature Review and Directions for Further Research and Theoretical Development. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 8, 1991: 96-115.

[13] Makers' Hub. What do we believe in? 2017 [2017-05-08]. http://www.makershuboslo.com/about/

[14] Gieryn T. What buildings do. Theory and Society, 2002, 31: 35-74.

2.2 Symbolising dignity

"Buildings and places inevitably construct and symbolize socially constructed identities and differences"[11]18

Architectural qualities may support the processes of improving the life situation and strengthening the dignity and hope for vulnerable residents. In our research[4]we found that former homeless people interpreted architectural details as symbols of how normal people live, providing a perspective to their self-worth and the possibility to get their lives back on track. Drug addicts are used to miserable housing, confirming the part of their identity devoted to drugs and anti-social behaviour. Living in homes with high quality design may give a sense of pride and may even help residents overcome their addictions. In "Veiskillet", a development housing former criminals and drug addicts in Trondheim (Fig. 6,7), the architecture became a motivator for change for some of the residents: "... because it's a quality of life issue, isn't it, it's easy to think: If this place had been a rundown dump, your quality of life would have just gone to hell, quite simply. So here you get a little extra push."4）

2.3 Supporting home-making processes

9 “制造者中心”在2016年邀請(qǐng)住戶參加托爾紹夫收容中心的頭腦風(fēng)暴，對(duì)如何改善中心的建筑品質(zhì)展開了討論/ Makers' Hub invited residents in 2016 to take part in brainstorming sessions at Torshov Reception Centre where they discussed how they could improve the quality of the buildings at the centre. （攝影/Photo: Else Abrahamsen/ Makers' Hub）

Part of the psycho-social dimension of housing quality relates to providing the architectural framework for appropriation and the creation of a home. Research on the meaning of the home can be summarized as follows: A home is connected with security and control; it is a refuge from the world outside. A home reflects its residents' ideas, values and status. It is a place which on the one hand side can be changed and personalised (Fig. 8) and on the other hand, is something permanent in the residents' lives that is associated with continuity. A home is connected to relationships with family and friends, and as an arena for daily activities. Finally, the home is associated with attachment and sense of ownership to specific places and physical structures[12].

2.4 Participation and identity

To arrive as an asylum seeker in a new country involves leaving behind much of what is connected to one's identity: home, family, friends and work.The application process itself as well as the asylum system will in many cases strengthen feelings of a loss of identity. Providing opportunities to influence one's everyday surroundings may counteract this feeling and even work as a way to regain control over one's own life. Makers' Hub in Oslo5）is a group consisting of architects and architecture students who have been working on projects together with residents at different reception centres in Oslo. They also involve a number of volunteers in their projects. Among their activities are brainstorming sessions (Fig. 9), workshops (Fig. 10) and building projects (Fig. 11). Makers' Hub places trust in asylum seekers and gives them responsibility: "We believe that the feeling of empowerment is a key factor within identity. To feel useful for others helps to increase self-esteem and can thus create a positive impact on the psyche"[13]

10 某次頭腦風(fēng)暴的結(jié)果是對(duì)公共起居室進(jìn)行裝飾/ One of the results of the brainstorming sessions was to decorate the shared living room.（攝影/Photo: Else Abrahamsen/Makers' Hub）

3 Concluding reflections

"If there is a group who are dependent on good quality in their environment, it is exactly these people"6）

The quotation above was related to the discussion of how to accommodate the high number of refugees arriving in Norway in the fall of 2015. It came to express a reaction towards what seemed to be a growing acceptance for more liberal and simplified building regulations which could provide new housing quickly and in high numbers.

While it may seem that architectural qualities are irrelevant when people are marginalised and in a difficult life situation, our point of departure is that it is exactly in these situations architecture can make a difference. Aesthetic, symbolic and other non-measurable housing qualities are not only essential for residential well-being, but they can also be crucial for reaching goals such as social inclusion and empowerment for marginalised groups.

However, what is even more important: Architecture do not do anything on its own. It becomes clear from most of the examples mentioned in this article that the use and perceptions of our physical environment are intertwined with complex social and mental processes. This means that more is needed than just highly skilled architects with a thorough knowledge of the residents' specific situation and needs. Making a change requires an awareness of architecture as dynamic, not only as static objects, and that a broad range of actors must be involved in order to reach successful results.

What Buildings Do1）: The Potential Role of Architecture in Housing for Disadvantaged Residents in Norway

In terms of architectural qualities, what are the characteristics of good housing for disadvantaged residents?This article, which is based on research carried out on housing quality for homeless people and asylum seekers in Norway, intends to discuss this question. The research highlights the importance of non-measurable quality aspects, and also looks into issues such as securing privacy and control, dignity, home-making processes and involvement through active participation. The main argument is that aesthetic, symbolic and other non-measurable housing qualities are not only essential for residential well-being, but these characteristics can also be crucial to reach goals such as social inclusion and empowerment for marginalised groups.

housing quality, disadvantaged residents, wellbeing, social inclusion, empowerment

11 2016年夏，住戶與志愿者密切合作設(shè)計(jì)了一座涼亭，并建在托爾紹夫收容中心原有的棚屋頂上。這座涼亭是用于中心戶外社交活動(dòng)的/A pavilion was designed in close cooperation with residents and other volunteers and constructed on top of an existing shed at Torshov Reception centre during summer 2016. The pavilion is used for social outdoor events at the centre. （攝影/Photo: Else Abrahamsen/Makers' Hub）

挪威科技大學(xué)建筑與設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院／Faculty of Architecture and Design, NTNU

2017-05-09