阿諾瑪·佩里斯/Anoma Pieris

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

隨著20世紀(jì)中葉至后半葉第一代在國外接受訓(xùn)練的斯里蘭卡建筑師回國，一種獨特的“斯里蘭卡式建筑”的主導(dǎo)權(quán)確立和自我表達(dá)逐步成為可能，一個新的建筑流派也隨之創(chuàng)立?！叭ブ趁窕苯ㄖ尸F(xiàn)出多種形式，折射出1948年斯里蘭卡從英國獨立后經(jīng)歷的劇烈社會變遷。政府機構(gòu)和公共紀(jì)念物傾向于唯佛教美學(xué)獨尊，這一趨勢隨著古代城市的考古發(fā)掘以及殖民和國家層面的文化價值主張而不斷增長。受到官方社會主義者的實用主義和民間涌現(xiàn)的城市中產(chǎn)階級的推動，歐洲現(xiàn)代主義被引入地方語境之中。中國援建的斯里蘭卡第一座國際會議中心，舉辦了1976年不結(jié)盟國家首腦會議。這座建筑的幾何造型就源于佛教美學(xué)。先鋒建筑師則將現(xiàn)代主義者的空間與氣候適應(yīng)性設(shè)計相結(jié)合。

1980年代，隨著政府和民用建筑的去殖民化，地域主義的涌現(xiàn)標(biāo)志著審美趨勢的顯著轉(zhuǎn)向。從鄉(xiāng)土建筑中汲取的本地母題重新定義了一種斯里蘭卡式美學(xué)，很大程度也歸功于阿卡汗建筑獎的宣傳平臺，當(dāng)?shù)亟ㄖ煹淖髌返靡栽趪H上發(fā)表。這是南亞與東南亞地區(qū)去殖民化的全盛時期，針對建筑的角色形成卓有成效的對話，各個國家獨有的設(shè)計思想體系也得到長足發(fā)展。

1國際緊急救援組織兒童村，賈夫納，斯里蘭卡/SOS Children's Village, Jafina, Sri Lanka（攝影/Photo: Sumangala Jayatillaka）

根據(jù)這一歷史脈絡(luò)，我們可將斯里蘭卡的建筑發(fā)展分為3個時期。第一個時期是去殖民時期，如上所述，表現(xiàn)為民族和文化母題的強化。第二個時期始于1977年的經(jīng)濟(jì)自由化，在斯里賈亞瓦德納普拉科特建立了新首都和議會，以取代科倫坡（殖民時期首都）作為國家的行政中心，并開啟郊區(qū)土地的開發(fā)進(jìn)程。政府主導(dǎo)的城市更新及農(nóng)村社會住宅項目主要依賴境外援助。然而，5年之后，這個國家因1983-2009年內(nèi)戰(zhàn)而土崩瓦解。設(shè)計美學(xué)天賦大多只能轉(zhuǎn)向酒店業(yè)建筑，這類建筑與城市商業(yè)項目之間亦分道揚鑣。或許是戰(zhàn)時狹隘心理的趨使，設(shè)計文化幾乎集中體現(xiàn)于精英住宅和旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)，它們所呈現(xiàn)出的典型空間遠(yuǎn)比那些更具社會敏感度的建筑要多。在旅游區(qū)的泡沫之外，交戰(zhàn)區(qū)的暴力和窮困并未消減。商業(yè)開發(fā)項目大多采取大型體塊，填滿了那些密度原本很低的郊區(qū)空間。

戰(zhàn)爭的影響在城市密度的不斷提升中顯而易見，城市住宅的封閉性越發(fā)增強，多層公寓層出不窮，以安置因戰(zhàn)爭而流離失所的難民。公共空間被路障包圍，公共生活被交戰(zhàn)狀態(tài)及軍國主義化統(tǒng)治所侵蝕。災(zāi)害不斷的氛圍集中體現(xiàn)在2004年印度洋海嘯，它摧毀了沿海地區(qū)的村莊和城鎮(zhèn)。因海嘯賑災(zāi)而注入的國際援助引發(fā)一系列社會導(dǎo)向的住宅項目的重現(xiàn)。

本專輯提及的建筑師都屬于第三個時期，也就是2009年內(nèi)戰(zhàn)結(jié)束之后。建筑活動日益活躍。面臨的主要挑戰(zhàn)包括重建被戰(zhàn)爭所破壞的北部及東部地區(qū)，重新安置以泰米爾人和穆斯林為主的少數(shù)族裔。其中，蘇曼加拉·賈雅提拉卡設(shè)計的賈夫納國際緊急救援組織兒童村（圖1，見24頁）是一個重要的社會導(dǎo)向性項目。它延續(xù)了由國際非政府組織在斯里蘭卡和其他貧困或新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體建造的類似孤兒院模式，這些國際組織已發(fā)展出一種十分成功的社會服務(wù)供給模型。賈雅提拉卡之前也曾在斯里蘭卡的其他地區(qū)為國際緊急救援組織設(shè)計項目，每個項目的設(shè)計思路都是力爭延續(xù)當(dāng)?shù)剜l(xiāng)土文脈——這也是國際組織的要求——以確保兒童村可以無縫融入其所在的環(huán)境。在將這種思路轉(zhuǎn)譯為建筑語言的過程中，他重新創(chuàng)造了一種村落肌理，令人想起孩子們所熟悉的農(nóng)業(yè)村莊——這些村莊依然可透過建筑周圍的“自然（植物的）格柵”隱隱瞥見，只不過這組建筑中的“房子”比周圍那些要堅實得多。鑒于戰(zhàn)后孤兒數(shù)量如此之多，這座飽含情感的建筑確保了家庭在社區(qū)中的安全感，也回應(yīng)了重新融入社會的需求。

穩(wěn)健建筑工作室通過酒店類項目探索空間的延續(xù)性。他們在山城康提設(shè)計的精品酒店（圖2，見 28頁）并不像一棟孤立建筑，而是城市與山景的一個自然、謙恭的延伸。建筑順應(yīng)了陡峭的地形，面朝湖光山色。建筑群盤旋上升，無視形式或材料設(shè)計的限制；其輕質(zhì)鋼結(jié)構(gòu)類似于非正式的城市或工業(yè)構(gòu)筑物，與建筑的形式操作渾然一體。建筑時而攀上山坡，時而毫無戒備地敞向街側(cè)——這種方式使人聯(lián)想到康提的鄉(xiāng)土建筑，但絕未流于殖民或文化取向建筑的形式幾何學(xué)。米琳達(dá)·帕蒂拉賈和他的團(tuán)隊拋棄了過去充斥著酒店類建筑的如畫風(fēng)格的僵化歷史。

2 精品酒店，康提，斯里蘭卡/Boutique Hotel, Kandy, Sri Lanka（攝影/Photo: Kolitha Perera）

3 內(nèi)隆藝術(shù)中心，科倫坡，斯里蘭卡/Nelung Arts Centre, Colombo, Sri Lanka（攝影/Photo: Kesara Rathnavibhushana）

4馬內(nèi)爾住宅，科倫坡，斯里蘭卡/Manel Nivasa, Colombo,
Sri Lanka（攝影/Photo: Eresh Weerasuriya）

希蘭特·韋蘭達(dá)維設(shè)計的兩個項目皆位于商業(yè)首都科倫坡的狹窄城市地段。內(nèi)隆藝術(shù)中心（圖3，見34頁）是一座教育和表演藝術(shù)設(shè)施，它通過在擁擠的城市區(qū)域嵌入休閑與公共活動空間，延續(xù)了上述社會融入的動議。這座4層高的建筑采取L型平面布局，環(huán)抱一片開放廣場，面朝廣場的陽臺由多層垂直木桁架所包裹。建筑形式明顯傳達(dá)出一種為公眾參與創(chuàng)造空間的張力；它的靈感來源是，當(dāng)?shù)貍鹘y(tǒng)表演一般都在開放空間舉行，以此吸引更多的大眾觀看；這個設(shè)計也正是為了促進(jìn)城市中的類似互動。

建筑師的另一個項目是馬內(nèi)爾住宅（圖4，見38頁），業(yè)主是一位來自農(nóng)村、白手起家的商人，同時是一位虔誠的僧伽羅佛教徒。建筑師的靈感來自當(dāng)?shù)卮迕袷煜さ囊环N叫作“馬杜瓦”（即糧倉）的構(gòu)筑物，重新為之賦予現(xiàn)代主義形式。靈活的矩形大空間與節(jié)制的服務(wù)空間塑造了一種與眾不同的鄉(xiāng)土建筑，由先鋒建筑師將傳統(tǒng)院落式住宅重新引入到城市環(huán)境中。這位業(yè)主比大多數(shù)城市精英更為親近鄉(xiāng)土建筑的源頭，他對這些靈活空間的調(diào)整也都是自發(fā)而非強加的。建筑并未像周邊的城市建筑那樣占滿地段，而是自在輕松地居于其中。

戰(zhàn)爭結(jié)束加速了商業(yè)化發(fā)展，這為建筑師創(chuàng)造了各種建筑類別的全新契機，但同樣模糊了原創(chuàng)性的本土語言。今天，作為一個渴望達(dá)到中產(chǎn)收入水平的新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體，斯里蘭卡人選擇的路徑看起來仍是地域性的。例如，斯里蘭卡人所熟悉的新加坡、馬來西亞等國家，就提供了在商業(yè)開發(fā)和城市規(guī)劃中適應(yīng)氣候環(huán)境的先例。拉夏吉里雅的貝弗利商業(yè)街（圖5，見42頁）是一座緊鄰斯里蘭卡議會大廈的湖畔購物中心，滿足了大都市郊區(qū)消費者的野心和欲望。這個項目設(shè)計十分大膽，尤其是它忽略了過去幾十年商業(yè)建筑的風(fēng)格先例，并在類型學(xué)上選取了一種內(nèi)向、封閉的模式。弱化消費驅(qū)動式的膚淺而轉(zhuǎn)向場所營造是很困難的。戈德里奇·薩穆埃爾及其團(tuán)隊選擇了觸感凸顯的材料，精心營造視線的關(guān)聯(lián)，以雕琢這個與周邊景觀相互滲透的多層公共開放空間。他們舍棄了城市中其他那些西方風(fēng)格的購物中心常見的合成感室內(nèi)，而選擇了更具質(zhì)感的內(nèi)表面材料。

像這樣的城市建筑，延續(xù)了在內(nèi)戰(zhàn)期間涌現(xiàn)的堅固、隱蔽的類型學(xué)，以作為對外部危險的回應(yīng)。垂直性、大體積的中庭和屋頂平臺是建筑的標(biāo)志性特征。盡管周圍的建筑相對低矮，但這種防御性的內(nèi)向化設(shè)計，亦有利于屏蔽那些可能會干擾到中產(chǎn)階級消費者的交通、塵土和各種形式的社會侵?jǐn)_。這樣的設(shè)計選擇是那個特定發(fā)展階段在建筑形式上的表現(xiàn)。

拉夏吉里雅的帕林達(dá)·坎南加拉工作室（圖6，見48頁）是對粗野主義的一種精致詮釋，直率地表達(dá)了這種封閉性的建筑形態(tài)。建筑冷峻的外表隔離出一個沒有噪音和塵土的微環(huán)境。多層的混合功能獨戶住宅設(shè)置是城市區(qū)土地稀缺的結(jié)果，為此不得不將一塊狹小地段上的體量最大化。這座建筑是面向未來的，因為它預(yù)見了一種密度提升的方式，不過如今周邊的開放區(qū)域還是提供了花園和林地的借景。精心雕琢的清水混凝土表面以及其上的光影游戲帶來視覺的愉悅。就像前面那個商業(yè)項目一樣，形式的限制被強加在一種現(xiàn)代主義的抽象體量之上，不過這種形式其實來自斯里蘭卡困頓的歷史。

像這樣的高端項目，以其精致的美學(xué)從郊區(qū)隨性的商業(yè)增長與未經(jīng)規(guī)劃的開發(fā)項目中脫穎而出。然而就像其他亞洲城市一樣，增長模式依靠的是不斷堆積和對公共資源的侵蝕，建筑師也助長了這種碎片化的密度增長。在內(nèi)戰(zhàn)造成數(shù)十年的封閉性建造模式之后，斯里蘭卡建筑師一直努力重塑社會介入性的設(shè)計。隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的賦權(quán)、增長的自信以及更多異文化美學(xué)的交互滋養(yǎng)，他們面臨最大的挑戰(zhàn)將是如何公平地分配這些機會?！?/p>

Ownership and self-expression of a distinct"Sri Lankan architecture" became possible during the mid to late 20th century when the first generation of foreign trained Sri Lankans returned to the island, and a school of architecture was created. The architecture of decolonisation took many forms, reflecting the tremendous social changes that followed independence from Britain in 1948. Government institutions and public monuments tended to respect the cultural hegemony of Buddhist aesthetics, a tendency which grew alongside archaeological discoveries of ancient historic cities and colonial and national affrmation of their cultural value. European modernism was introduced into the local context, largely in fl uenced by socialist pragmatism in the public arena and an aspiring urban middle class in private. China funded the first international conference hall to host the 1976 Non-Aligned nations' conference,its geometry influenced by Buddhist aesthetics.Pioneering architects combined modernist spaces with climate-sensitive designs.

The emergence of regionalism during the 1980s saw a marked shift in aesthetic orientation as institutional and domestic architecture was decolonised. Indigenous motifs drawn from vernacular architecture began to determine a Sri Lankan aesthetic and largely through the auspices of Aga Khan Program publications, local architects had their work published internationally. This was the heyday of regional decolonisation throughout South and Southeast Asia, with robust conversations on the role of architecture and the development of country-specific design ideologies.

We might periodise the architecture of Sri Lanka into 3 phases based on that legacy. The first period of decolonisation, described above, strengthened both national and cultural themes. The second period,following economic liberalisation in 1977, saw the creation of the new capital and parliament at Sri Jayewardenepura, displacing Colombo (the colonial capital) as the preferred administrative centre for the nation and opening up land for suburban development. Government- led urban rejuvenation and rural social housing became possible with injections of foreign aid. But within five years, the country was wracked by civil war which lasted from 1983 to 2009. Aesthetic talent was increasingly diverted towards hospitality architectures and a split occurred between these and urban commercial programmes. As a consequence of wartime insularity,design culture was increasingly diverted towards elite homes and the tourism industry, which occupied a greater representative space than other more socially sensitive programmes. Outside this tourism bubble, the violence and destitution of the war zone continued. Commercial developments persisted as agglomerations that filled out formerly low scale suburban areas.

Destruction in the war zone was mirrored by increasing fortification of urban dwellings and the multi storey apartments that rose to accommodate war-displaced refugees. Public spaces were barricaded and public life eroded by militancy and militarisation. This climate of ongoing catastrophe was compounded by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that devastated coastal villages and towns. The injection of international aid for Tsunami relief witnessed resurgence in socially oriented settlement projects.

The architects in this issue fall under the third phase in this periodisation with the ending of the civil war in 2009. A flurry of architectural activity followed. Reconstruction of the wardevastated north and east, and resettlement of the predominantly Tamil and Muslim, minority populations remains a major concern. Among these, Sumangala Jayatillaka's design for SOS International's Children's Village in Jaffna (Fig. 1,page 24) is a significant socially-oriented project.It continues a pattern of similar orphanages built in Sri Lanka and other impoverished or emerging economies by an international NGO, one that has developed a highly successful model for social service provision. Jayatillaka who has also built for SOS in other parts of the country, approaches each project with a view to continuing the local vernacular, as required by the INGO, so that the village may be seamlessly emplaced in its host context. In translating this desire into architecture,he has recreated a village setting, evocative of theagrarian settlements familiar to the children, still visible to them through the "natural (planted) fence"around the perimetre, although the houses are more robust than those around them. Given the high numbers of children orphaned at the end of the war,an empathetic architecture that ensures the safety of the family unit within a surrounding community recognises the need for social integration.

RAW, Robust Architecture Workshop, explores spatial continuity through the hospitality brief. A boutique hotel in the hill town of Kandy (Fig. 2, page 28) appears not as a stand-alone construction but as a natural, suppliant, extension of both city and hillscape. The complex accedes to its steep topography and scenic views of lake and mountain that orient it. Ignoring formal and material design constraints,the buildings twist and soar; their light- weight steel constructions akin to informal urban or industrial structures; integral to the acts of architecture that shape them. At times they clamber up the hill side or open to the street, disarmingly, in a manner reminiscent of the Kandy vernacular, but at no point do they bow to the formal geometries of colonial or cultural buildings. Milinda Pathiraja and his team have set aside the staid legacy of the picturesque that stultified hospitality architecture in the past.

Two projects by Hirante Welendawe, both in the commercial capital, Colombo, occupy tight urban sites.Nelung Arts Centre (Fig. 3, page 34), a teaching and performing arts facility, maintains the desire for social integration, described above, by inserting recreational and public gathering spaces in a congested urban area.The four storey building is designed in an L-shaped formation flanking these open areas with multilevel, vertical timber trusses shielding balconies that overlook them. The building form clearly expresses the forces needed to make room for public engagement;it is inspired by the way in which performances are traditionally staged in open air spaces, attracting a larger public audience, and designed to enable similar interactions in the city.

At Manel Nivasa (Fig. 4, page 38), the home of a self-made businessman rooted to his Sinhala-Buddhist and rural origins the same architect is inspired by Maduwa (paddy storage/barn)architecture, familiar to villagers, reworking them as modernist forms. The flexibility of these large rectangular volumes, and containment of few service spaces create a very different reading of vernacular architecture to the traditional courtyard structures reintroduced into the city by pioneering architects.The client is closer to those vernacular roots than most urban elites, and adjustment to these flexible spaces is not artificial. The building does not occupy the site perimetre like contiguous urban architecture but sits easily on the site.

The end of the war accelerated commercial development creating new opportunities for architects in every dimension of building, but it also blurred the clarity of that original indigenous script.Today, as an emergent economy, aspiring to middle income status, Sri Lanka's inspirations appear regional. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia to which Lankans have easy access offer acclimatised precedents for both commercial development and urban planning. "Beverley Street", in Rajagiriya(Fig. 5, page 42) a lakeside shopping complex in the vicinity of the Sri Lankan parliament caters to the growing ambitions and desires of cosmopolitan suburban consumers. The project is bold, given the neglect of aesthetic precedents for commercial architecture in the previous decades, and the inward orientation and consequent segregation of this building typology. Softening the superfluity of consumer driven agendas through place-making is difficult. Godridge Samuel and his team have used tactile materials and selective visual connections in crafting multiple public and open areas with fleeting views to the surrounding context. They have selected textured surfaces over the synthetic interiors typically found in Western style shopping complexes elsewhere in the city.

Urban architectures like these continue a fortified stealth typology that emerged during the civil war era as a response to external threats.Verticality, volumetric atriums, and roof terraces are its defining features. Despite the relatively low rise surrounds, a defensive inward orientation obviates traffic, dust and the forms of social intrusion that might disrupt middle income consumers. These design choices are symptomatic of a development stage manifest in architectural form.

Palinda Kannangara's studio dwelling in Rajagiriya (Fig. 6, page 48), a sensitive rendering of Brutalism, makes this pattern of fortification explicit. The building's unforgiving exterior preserves its micro climate from noise and dust.The multistorey, single unit, mixed use dwelling responds to land scarcity in urban areas and the need to maximise volumetric spaces on a small footprint. The building is futuristic as it anticipates densification, although at present adjacent open areas offer borrowed views into gardens and fields.Crafted rawfinishes and the play of light upon them are a source of visual delight. As in the commercial project above, formal constraints are artificially imposed in a version of modernist abstraction,but these forms have emerged out of Sri Lanka's troubled past.

High-end projects, such as these, with their exquisite aesthetics stand out against haphazard commercial growth and unplanned development in suburban areas. But as with Asian cities elsewhere,which grow by accretion, eroding public amenities,architects contribute to piecemeal densification.The struggle for Sri Lankan architects has been to design for social engagement following decades of defensive construction shaped by civil strife. With economic empowerment, rising self-confidence and greater aesthetic cross-fertilisation, delivering such opportunities equitably will prove to be the greatest challenge.□

5貝弗利商業(yè)街，拉夏吉里雅，斯里蘭卡/Beverly Street,Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka（攝影/Photo: Eresh Weerasuriya）

6工作室住宅，拉夏吉里雅，斯里蘭卡/Studio Dwelling,Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka（攝影/Photo: Sebastian Posingis）