張利/ZHANG Li

作者單位：清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院/《世界建筑》

本期《世界建筑》是我們對熱帶（包括部分亞熱帶）亞洲當代建筑觀察的第一部分，聚焦于斯里蘭卡和印度。

如果把斯里蘭卡和印度當代建筑的發(fā)展路徑與我國當代建筑的發(fā)展路徑進行比較，不難發(fā)現(xiàn)一些平行的典型特征。這與20世紀中期以來除日本外的整個亞洲所經(jīng)歷的民族獨立與發(fā)展歷程是密切相關(guān)的。

在斯里蘭卡和印度，從其獨立的民族國家建立開始，我們可以看到大致清晰的三個建筑發(fā)展時期。首先是殖民時代剛剛結(jié)束的“后殖民化”或“去殖民化”時期，強調(diào)民族獨立的存在，以出身于精英階層的民族建筑巨匠的地域風(fēng)格作品為代表——雖然這些巨匠的教育背景甚至成長背景都與殖民時期的宗主國家脫不開干系——典型的如杰弗里·巴瓦和查爾斯·柯里亞。其次是城市化與經(jīng)濟增長早期的“英雄主義”時期，重要建筑攜帶紀念性與識別性的光環(huán)，成為集體文化標識的象征。最近的、也是最令人感興趣的是21世紀以來的社區(qū)營造時期，是城市化與經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的挑戰(zhàn)達到一定程度——換句話說，是社會的現(xiàn)代化到達一定程度后，建筑必須重新回到幾千年來連接人與生存環(huán)境的本色，從特定的視角支持特定的社區(qū)與人群。在這一時期，出身于普通中產(chǎn)階級家庭、擁有國際教育背景的新一代建筑師成為行動的主力。

讓我們明確地承認一個立場：把斯里蘭卡和印度建筑“異域情懷化”的作法是過時的和令人反感的；僅僅出于追逐西方明星的疲倦，而想在亞洲發(fā)展中國家找到一種替代偶像的思路是狹隘的。事實上，我們在當代斯里蘭卡和印度建筑中所看到的最鼓舞人心的元素，恰恰不是遠離生活現(xiàn)實的文化奇葩和抽象理念，而是設(shè)計對居住于城市或鄉(xiāng)村的普通人生命歷程的真實參與。從某種程度上講，這種真實參與必然意味著面向現(xiàn)實的折衷，從而使完成作品的視覺純粹性受到一定損耗。但不得不指出的是，恰恰是這種不回避現(xiàn)實的態(tài)度，使得斯里蘭卡和印度當代建筑所承載的設(shè)計策略可以穿越“實驗性”的壁壘，動態(tài)地融入具體的社區(qū)，被具體的人群在日常生活中使用，而不是成為靜態(tài)的建筑旅游目標。這也許是斯里蘭卡與印度當代建筑可以提供給我們的最大借鑒。

本期專輯中收錄的建筑涵蓋了五種類型。其一是公益建筑，這類建筑中以教育和社區(qū)營建（含宗教）為主。有意思的是，與我國的常見情況略有不同，在斯里蘭卡與印度的這類建筑中，探索性的設(shè)計策略和實際的日常功用往往可以進行無縫的銜接——這一方面出于熱帶地區(qū)建筑系統(tǒng)的靈活性，另一方面也使我們不得不對在這兩個國家所執(zhí)行的相應(yīng)建筑規(guī)范體系頗感興趣。其二是旅游建筑，這與斯里蘭卡和印度的度假產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟有密切關(guān)系。比較這兩個國家度假酒店（包括精品酒店）的氣候適應(yīng)主導(dǎo)與我國度假酒店的視覺主導(dǎo)是一件有意思的事情。其三是居住建筑，遺憾的是我們?nèi)匀粵]有看到令人信服的社會公有住宅案例，也許我們在這方面可以期待后面對新加坡等國家的關(guān)注。其四是文化建筑，基于地域化語匯的謙遜與內(nèi)斂依然是斯里蘭卡和印度在這類建筑中的強項。其五是辦公建筑，其所關(guān)注的氣候與智能化策略是當前國際社會關(guān)于辦公建筑的默認話題。不得不承認，得益于我國的經(jīng)濟與技術(shù)環(huán)境，中國一線城市的更新為這一方面的技術(shù)革新提供了相當寬廣的舞臺。

感謝建筑師希蘭特·韋蘭達維女士，她的努力使本期專輯成為可能?！?/p>

This WA issue is the Part I of our investigation into the contemporary architecture of tropical (and some sub-tropical) Asia. Here we focus on Sri Lanka and India.

Comparing the paths of Sri Lankan and Indian architecture with that of China, we might see curves in parallel with quite some similarities. These similarities have good reasons in the background.Actually, almost all countries in Asia (perhaps with the only exception of Japan) has covered a similar road of national independence and economic development since the 1940s.

In Sri Lanka and India, starting from their respective independence, we may see three distinct periods in architecture. The first is the period right after independence, be it "post-colonial" or "decolonising", depending on how you name it. This is a period of claiming national independence and clearly represented by the works of their architecture maestros featuring refreshing regional languages, albeit even the maestros themselves were mostly educated (or even raised) in the countries of their colonisers. The second is the period of early urbanisation and economic growth, a usually "heroic" period for architecture in developing countries. In this period architecture is taken as the haloed collective cultural symbol, the carrier of national identity, and the monumentality in architecture is explored in full. The third, and the most recent period, is the period of community making. After the turn of the 21st century, with the challenges in economy and urbanisation reaching an unprecedented level, architecture has to retake its fundamental role in human civilisation, which is to bridge living communities and their surroundings. In this period we see more and more local architects of the new generation, mostly from a normal middle class family root and educated with international vision,designing for the normal lives of normal people.

Allow us to make our position clear here: we find the traditional "exoticisation" of Sri Lankan and Indian architecture inappropriate and ofiensive.Those who look at these countries only for the sake of having some exotic alternatives of western stars are extremely narrow-minded people. In fact, what we find most thrilling in Sri Lankan and Indian contemporary architecture is exactly the power of design bringing positive changes to normal community lives, be it in the city or in the countryside.It is by no means quaint objects or abstruse concepts,but sheer lively involvement in normal people's lives. To some degree, this lively involvement may necessarily lead to some compromises to reality, and some tolls on the visual purity of thefinished work.Yet it is rightly this attitude that makes Sri Lankan and Indian architecture able to break the boundary of "experimentation", injecting bold design ideas into the dynamics of communities and daily lives.Chinese architects be alert: you don't see Sri Lankan or Indian architecture only being the destinations of architecture tourism. This is truly something to learn from.

There are five types of projects selected in this number. The first type is social buildings, mostly with an educational or community programme. Again, what interests us most is that different from the situation in China, in Sri Lanka and India, such buildings with true design experiments usually gets seamlessly embedded in day-to-day use. The flexibility of tropical configuration might be a cause. The tolerance of regulations and codes might also be helpful. The second type is tourism buildings. Given the vast tourism industry in these two countries, buildings for such purposes are bound to be good. Comparing the wonderful examples in this edition with boutique tourism hotels in China reveals different priorities: in Sri Lanka and India it is the maximising of user comfort in a given climate,in China it is the maximising of visual attractiveness for media communication. The third type is housing.Unfortunately we are still not seeing convincing public housing projects. We may need to wait for the Part II of this investigation for that. The fourth type is cultural buildings. Call it cliché if you will, the humble yet powerful local architectural language is still an element of strength in Sri Lankan and Indian architecture.The fifth type is office buildings. Not surprisingly the default international subjects, such as energy and automation, are also addressed in the selected cases. We need to state here that benefiting from the economic and technological environment in China now, the richest Chinese cities are also offering some of the best platforms for building tech innovations in this field.

Our sincere thanks to Ms. Hirante Welandawe,who makes this issue possible.□