-
《景观设计学》2016年第2期
作 者：塔纳尔•R•奥兹迪尔(Taner R. OZDIL)，林玮(Wei LIN)等类 别：景观出 版 社：高等教育出版社有限公司出版时间：2016年4月
俞孔坚• “大脚”度量的集聚与混合
——《景观设计学》2016年第2期“主编寄语”
Aggregation and Integration, Measured by Big Feet
By Kongjian Yu
我的老师理查德•福尔曼教授曾经从生物学的角度提出过一种理想的景观格局—集聚间有离散（Aggregate-with-outliers，1995），这样的格局最有利于生物多样性的保护。其实，人类生活、工作和游憩的城市形态，又何尝不是如此。
要理解人类的城市，必须从理解人是社会性动物及其需求开始。在外星人的眼里，人类与蚂蚁、蜜蜂、猴子和狒狒实际上没有多大区别：白天每个个体分头忙碌，晚上纷纷回巢，分享收获，交流聚会，抱团取暖；从高空用高倍望远镜看地球上的城市，就如同我们用肉眼看蜂巢和蚁穴一样，难怪近年来“蜗居”和“蚁族”被用来形容城中村的人居状态。辉煌一时后被铲平的北京唐家岭，本地人口不足3 000人，近些年却集聚了超过5万的外来人口，其中大学毕业生占三分之一；两年前，我曾带领研究生对与唐家岭毗邻的一个村落进行了调查，当地居民只有不足2 000人，却集聚了2万人在此栖居，南腔北调，摩肩接踵，虽嘈杂拥挤，却活力无比；我也曾“冒着生命危险”深入世界上最大的蚁居城市—巴西里约热内卢近郊的Favela（俗称贫民窟），那里集聚了30多万人口，里面的景象与媒体报道的负面形象并不完全一致，那里有着自由组织的街道，空间利用高效，生活井然秩序，到处生机勃勃。只要不随意拍照、不去招惹带枪的毒品贩子，实际上并无危险，那里甚至已经被开发成为旅游目的地。
无论是北京唐家岭这类城中村，还是里约的Favela这样高密度、混合到极致的聚落，实际上都在揭示着城市形成的人性基础：人是社会性物种，需要集聚在一起，以实现人的各种需求。根据马斯洛需求层次理论，需求可分为生理需求、安全需求、爱和归属感、尊重和自我实现5类。而这些需求都要求个体在一个社会群体中或以社会群体为背景来更好地实现。正是这些需求，将个体凝聚为社区，并进而集聚成为城市。西方中世纪的城市和中国广大乡村的集市便是人类这种属性的本质反映。它们代表了在不使用任何交通工具的情况下，以最经济和最高效的方式，人可以集聚的密度和功能混合的程度。
集聚的密度和功能混合的程度却随着个体日常出行方式及远足能力的变化而变化。在工业革命之前，天足的脚力是衡量空间聚集程度的量度，所以，中国广大乡村的集市之间的距离大约为5~10km，定时流动，当街为市，用来满足个体的各种日常需求。马车定义了欧洲中世纪城市的尺度和街道格局；霍华德的田园城市（Garden City，1898）模式是基于蒸汽机动力的首个经过规划的、理想的、集聚和满足居民一切需要的、功能混合的城市模式，尺度约2km2，从城市边缘到中心约1km，街区尺度不足百米，居住人口3万人，另外有2 000人散居在乡间。30多年之后，柯布西耶提出了新的集聚的城市模式，即光明城市（The Radiant City，1935），但其尺度是田园城市的百倍，人口规模也是数以百万计，街区尺度则是上千米了，已经完全不再是人的步行尺度。这时候，所谓集聚和混合都只有通过汽车轮子来实现了，城市被理解为由各种功能体块组装起来的机器，只留下了不能步行的集聚—百万人和千万人规模的集聚。几乎在同时，另一位欢呼和拥抱汽车时代的建筑大师弗兰克•劳埃德•赖特则将这种汽车轮子上的城市推演到了极致，提出了顷宅城（Broad Acre City），这里人的步行空间被压缩在每家的4 000m2的后院之内，所有出行都依赖于汽车，包括买酱油、理发、看电影和约会。
美国的郊区化因此如脱缰野马，以“美国梦”的名义和“消失的城市”（The Disappearing City，1932）的欢呼，蔓延开来。美国中西部的大部分城市沿快速路网延伸，形成大面积的城镇化的低密度郊区，并围绕一个高楼林立的CBD核心。这样的城市形态以巨大的能源、土地、环境成本以及社区交流和家庭生活的牺牲为代价，维持着每个个体对集聚与混合的需求。所以，早在50年代后期，这种城市形态就已经被“外行”的人文主义学者简•雅各布斯所痛斥，并把汽车作为罪魁祸首。这样的质疑一直到20世纪80年代，才被城市规划设计界所广泛认同，于是，以新都市主义（New Urbanism）为代表的步行的、高密度的、混合型的城市形态的回归思潮应运而生，一直延续到今天。然而，要想刹住这基于汽车的惯性蔓延谈何容易！
而正当美国为这样的城市聚集模式感到绝望并苦苦修补的时候，中国的城镇化起步了。中国本可以充分吸取先行城镇化的国家和地区的经验，来构建宜人尺度的高密度和混合型的城镇体系，但可悲的是，中国的城镇化车厢却挂在了美国的城镇化机车龙头之上，以同样的惯性，驶入了死亡的陷阱：拓宽马路以满足汽车的需要，铲平古村古镇以腾出“建设用地”用于城市的扩张，巨大的街区（并被写入技术规范和教科书）使步行和自行车出行成为妄想，单一功能的各类城市开发区盲目拉动城市向郊外扩张，大片大片的睡城拔地而起……中国的城市已经并仍在走向不归之路！关于这一悲剧，我在十多年前的《城市景观之路：与市长们交流》一书中就已经道破，并将其归结为封建集权意识、暴发户意识和小农意识在过去几十年城市快速发展中的并发症。关于这一点，我不想再重复，因为我并不为自己十多年前的批判在今天得以“不幸言中”而自豪。相反，我想在这里给中国的城镇化做另一个更充满希望的憧憬：它将宣告目前某些专业人士在推动的城镇化实际上是一条错误的道路；中国未来的集聚和混合形态将由惯性发展的大城市和复兴的村落构成“集聚兼有离散”的格局。
这个憧憬必须回归到高密度和混合型的集聚方式上来理解和认识，而且必须是建立在人类天然“大脚”的基础上来设计，即可步行的集聚和混合社区。它将是田园城市模式和中国农业时代村镇模式的螺旋式的回归。部分中国村镇将得到复兴，相反，一些失去了自然和文化特色的小城镇将颓败，甚或消失。一种“集聚兼有离散”（惯性生长的大城市+复兴的美丽村落）的城市形态将在中国大地上再现。这样的憧憬得以成为现实需要5个条件：
第一，永恒的人性：即人作为社会人对集聚与混合功能的需求。
第二，对城市病的逃离：逃离大城市、寻求环境优良的宜居的集聚地将是大部分人的需求（也在马斯洛定义的最基本的需求之列），而最有可能实现这一需求的是退休的和最有经济能力的人群。这意味着高铁沿线的美丽乡村将迎来一大批“新上山下乡”的城镇化人口，乡村复兴指日可待。
第三，高速轨道交通和网络技术：用有别于汽车时代的技术，使逃离大城市成为可能。轨道连接起那些可步行的美丽村落，无线网络和电源实现了脱离城市基础设施的办公和聚集，二者使步行的集聚和功能混合社区得以实现；
第四，生态文明的要求：生态文明已经成为国家战略，加之能源与环境的约束，会促使国人重新发现“大脚”的美丽和自行车的魅力；
第五，经济转型的机遇：新经济的增长对设计和创意产业的鼓励和发展，将推动诸如“创意小镇”类的集聚和混合型社区的发展，而大城市边上或高铁沿线的美丽村落，将成为新型城镇化的最佳基地。
美好憧憬之余，我们不禁要问：面对这样一条充满希望的重整国民栖居格局的道路，我们是否会再次迷途？
译 萨拉•雅各布斯 张健
My mentor, Professor Richard Forman, developed an ideal ecological landscape pattern, what he called an “Aggregate-with-Outliers” (1995). In his view, this was the best possible pattern for biodiversity protection. The same pattern is true for the urban morphology of human life and work.
To understand the city, humans must be seen as social animals. From the eyes of an extraterrestrial, human beings would be no different from ants, bees, monkeys or baboons; they move as individuals in the daytime and return to their nests in the night to share, communicate and warm each other. From a high-powered telescope, our cities are much like a beehive or an ant colony. No wonder people use similar phrases to describe the residential urban villages. As an example, the once-flourishing and then torn down area of Tangjialing, Beijing, with a population of 3,000, swells to over 50,000 people, one third of which are college students. Two years ago, I conducted research with my graduate students in a village adjacent to Tangjialing. At that time, 20,000 people from around the country crowded into the little village of fewer than 2,000 local residents. The atmosphere was noisy yet vibrant. At another time, I “risked my life” to sneak into one of the world’s largest ant tribe cities, Rio De Janeiro. Visiting the favela of 300,000 people felt very different from how these areas are represented. Instead, I saw organized streets, efficiently used spaces, and ordered daily lives. The environment was full of life. The favela has even been developed into a type of tourism destination.
Urban villages such as Tangjialing in Beijing and high-density, integrated settlements such as favelas in Rio indicate the human heart of a city’s formation. Humans need to gather and be social. Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs,” classified human behavior into five levels of needs: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization. In order to meet these needs, an individual must be part of a social group. It is these needs that tie individuals first to communities and then to cities. The cities of the Middle Ages or the bazaars of vast Chinese countryside are examples of the human need to organize socially. They reflect a density of aggregation and integration that humans can achieve in the most economical and efficient ways.
The intensity of transportation aggregation and integration are, however ever-changing, based on the individual body. Before the Industrial Revolution, our feet were the measurement of spatial aggregation. This explains why an enormous number of Chinese village markets are five to ten kilometers from each other. The markets occur on the street, and move periodically to meet different individual needs. The horse carriage defined the city scale and pattern of the European cities in the Middle Ages. Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City (1898) was the first mixed-use city planned for the intentional gathering and meeting of residents. The Garden City was around 200 hectares, and the distance from the cities edge to center was around one kilometer. The neighborhood scale was less than 100 meters, which supported a residential population of 30,000, with 2,000 more scattered in countryside. Over three decades later, Le Corbusier proposed a new aggregation city model, the Radiant City (1935). With the Radiant City, the scale grew to one hundred times the size of the Garden City and the population reached one million with the neighborhood scale at over 1,000 meters. The city was no longer imagined through the scale of human feet. Aggregation and integration was now realized through car wheels, and the city became a machine of unwalkable, mono-functional blocks. At the same time that Le Corbusier was planning the Radiant City, Frank Lloyd Wright was also planning new urbanisms for the automobile age. His conceptual plan for Broad Acre City compressed walking spaces to a half hectare backyard; going out for shopping or social activities would rely on automobiles.
The suburbanization of America sprawled like a runaway wild horse under the guise of the American Dream and The Disappearing City (1932). In many midwestern cities, low-density suburbs began to populate the landscape around a central business district consisting of mostly high-rise buildings. These urban patterns required huge amounts of land and resources and had lasting effects on the environment, in addition to neighborhood communication and family lives. In the late 1950s, the “amateur” humanistic scholar Jane Jacobs sharply criticized the automobile as the chief culprit of American suburbanization and lack of urban life. Jacob’s criticism has been widely acknowledged in urban planning and design, and was a major influence for the New Urbanism movement of the 1980’s and 1990’s, which advocated for pedestrian-friendly, high-density, mixed-use cities. This, however, has not stopped the momentum of the automobile.
While the United States was desperately trying to amend its twentieth century suburbanization, China started its own process of urbanization. Here there was a chance for China to learn from countries who had already experienced modern urbanization, but rather than design and advocate for truly high-density, mixed-use urban systems at a human scale, Chinese urbanization followed the American urbanization train. With the same inertia as the United States in the 1950’s and 1960’s, China created its own death trap. As the roads were widen, ancient village were razed in order for town to “gain” new land for urban expansion. The standards for city streets and blocks became larger and larger making walking or cycling no longer an option. Single-functional development blindly expanded into suburban areas, and Chinese cities went down the road of no return! I foresaw this tragedy ten years ago in a book titled Urban Landscape Road — Communicating with Mayors. In it, I summarized the complication of China’s rapid urbanization as being caused by a feudal centralized power split between the nouveau riche and the peasant class. I am not boasting in referencing myself, I do not feel proud for foretelling the tragedy. In contrast, I would like to imagine a positive vision for China’s urbanization: China’s future aggregation and integration patterns will include expanded metropolises and revived villages, propelled by the momentum of urbanization and forming “aggregate-with-outliers.”
This vision — a spiral of the Garden City and the Chinese traditional village — must be based on the human foot, but also must be understood through high-density and mixed-use aggregation patterns. Some Chinese villages will be revived, while others that have lost their natural or cultural features will decline or vanish. In an “aggregate-with-outliers,” the expanded metropolis and revived villages will be repeated to create a pattern of urban form. This vision depends on five conditions:
1. Human nature requires a mix of aggregation and integration as we are social animals.
2. Escapes from the big city in favor of more livable environments will be a need for most people. We can expect another round of “Down to the Countryside,” with increasing numbers of retired or financially secure urban populations traveling to the countryside along high-speed railway. We have a limited time to realize the potential consequences of a countryside revival.
3. High-speed rail and developed internet network will make escaping from big cities possible and accessible through technologies other than the automobile. Rail connects the walkable and beautiful countryside, while wireless networks make working and communicating possible from even far away urban infrastructures. Together, new transportation and new technology can achieve aggregate and mixed-use neighborhoods.
4. An ecological civilization will need to become a national strategy, which, together with restrictions on energy and environmental extraction, will help re-recognize the charm of thinking at the scale of our feet.
5. The new economy encourages growth in the design industry, as the beautiful countryside at the urban fringes and along high-speed railways will become sites for new urbanization.
Even with foresight, China risks getting lost in the momentum of urban construction.
Translated by Sara JACOBS Angus ZHANG
