張利/ZHANG Li

為老年人的建筑：在倫理與美學之間

Buildings for the Elderly: between Ethics and Aesthetics

張利/ZHANG Li

剛剛公布的國家計劃生育政策調整顯然是針對一個事實——中國正在進入老齡化的社會。與老齡化社會的預期同時存在了一段時間的，是對“老年建筑”的普遍關注。在建筑界關于“老年建筑”的討論（或爭論）中，有兩個問題非常引人注目：一，如何定義“老年建筑”；二，如何定位 “老年建筑”的設計實踐，或者說，如何在“老年建筑”中體現(xiàn)設計的價值。

在“老年建筑”一詞中，“老年”作為定語，可以有“面向養(yǎng)老需求的”“為老人服務的”“方便老人的”“帶有老年情懷的”等多種含義。這也是 “老年建筑”一詞經(jīng)常遇到不同程度的誤讀與誤用、甚至是受到來自挑剔的建筑理論人士的挑戰(zhàn)的原因——他們質疑以人群年齡來定義獨立的建筑類型的合理性，其背后則隱含著對“老年建筑”是否足以推動某種建筑思潮動向（諸如“綠色建筑”“鄉(xiāng)土建筑”）的追問。我們在此更愿意使用 “為老年人的建筑”這一說法，這里的關注方向是以建筑的方式提升老人生活空間質量，其取向是解決問題的實踐而非思想理論的圖謀。

與所有以社會問題的解決為最終訴求的建筑實踐一樣，為老年人而做的建筑實踐也必須在倫理與美學之間鎖定一個清晰的定位。在這方面，我們目前經(jīng)?？吹降亩ㄎ挥?種。

第1種定位即是時下流行的“養(yǎng)老地產(chǎn)”，它把為老年人而做的建筑實踐鎖定為社會倫理的可銷售的物質化，它把我國傳統(tǒng)的孝道文化和當下的市場開發(fā)結合在一起，雄心勃勃地提出從開發(fā)到運營的理念。建筑師的設計工作在此是輔助市場產(chǎn)品的形成。這一定位借助倫理的作用把“養(yǎng)老地產(chǎn)”描述為一種帶有社會共識色彩的必需品，從而強勢誘導中青年群體利用手頭的資源來參與解決老年問題。這一定位所必須面對的是老人問題的社會屬性與地產(chǎn)開發(fā)的利益訴求之間的矛盾。創(chuàng)造性地在這一矛盾的兩極間尋找平衡是這種定位維系其積極作用的關鍵。

第2種定位是空間的宜老性改（創(chuàng)）造，把為老年人而做的建筑實踐鎖定為從社會倫理出發(fā)、面向老人物質需求的生活空間再創(chuàng)造，它既可表現(xiàn)為對各種現(xiàn)有建筑（特別是居住建筑）的適宜性改造，又可表現(xiàn)為在公共資源支持下的福利建筑的新建。建筑師的設計工作在此與在學校、醫(yī)療等建筑中的設計工作類似，是側重于環(huán)境行為學、人因工程學的工程實踐。這一定位促進關于老人生活空間的實證數(shù)據(jù)積累，也有可能在老人生活空間方面形成復雜化、精細化的知識體系。由于明確聚焦于建筑的物質層面，拋開了建筑精神層面上的訴求，這種定位特別有利于在老人生活空間中隨時代發(fā)展而形成技術進步。雖然這種定位不再把長久的建筑文化價值看成是自己的目標，但其對社會穩(wěn)定的積極作用是不能否認的。

第3種定位是宜老的環(huán)境情感，它把為老年人而做的建筑實踐鎖定為同時從社會倫理與建筑美學出發(fā)、面向老人精神需求的生活空間再創(chuàng)造。與前述第2種定位類似，它既可表現(xiàn)為對各種現(xiàn)有建筑（特別是居住建筑）的改造，又可表現(xiàn)為在公共資源支持下的福利建筑的新建，只不過它所關注的重點已不再是物質而是精神。建筑師的設計工作在此是側重于心理學與空間美學的實踐，因為情感的主觀因素更多地是形成關于宜老環(huán)境情感的空間案例而不是技術數(shù)據(jù)。這一定位與建筑文化價值的關系是不言而喻的，而在這方面經(jīng)典案例的相對缺乏恰恰是其具有巨大潛力的原因。

第4種定位是老人情懷，它把為老年人而做的建筑實踐鎖定為從建筑美學出發(fā)、借助老人空間個例抵達建筑共同意義的藝術創(chuàng)作。這一定位與前3種定位不同的是，它并不試圖提供解決老人問題的通用策略，而是反過來把具體的老人空間看成是承載普遍建筑美學價值的媒介。這一定位的最主要表現(xiàn)是建筑師為自己的老齡親人或者老齡的自己修建的住宅，也有時表現(xiàn)為建筑師為具體的微觀老人社區(qū)而修建的房屋。這類建筑遠離抽象的策略，貼近具體的個人生活，所以往往具備不可復制的、難以推廣的感人因素。

本期的《世界建筑》收錄了上述各種定位的案例。我們無意討論不同定位之間孰優(yōu)孰劣，而是相反，對于在為老年人所做的建筑實踐中所展現(xiàn)出來的游走于倫理與美學之間的復雜圖景充滿好奇。

特別感謝周燕珉教授及其團隊、程曉青教授對本期《世界建筑》提供的幫助。

The newly announced turn in China's National Family Plan Policy states a fact: China is on the way to a society of the aged. This prospect has been there for a while，along with it is the discussion of architecture for the elderly. Two questions have emerged from the discussions: （1） What is "architecture for the elderly"？ （2） How can design contribute to "architecture for the elderly"？

It is not surprising that the notion "architecture for the elderly" has been time and again misused or abused，or challenged by some die-hard architecture theorists as "a floppy duck". It is indeed questionable to define some architecture simply by the age group it serves. It is also unlikely that "architecture for the elderly" would lead to any sustained revelation in architecture thoughts. Hence we would like to use "buildings for the elderly" here，by which we mean buildings that provides quality space for the elderly. What matters in buildings for the elderly is the solution of particular issues rather than the formation of any theoretical construction.

As all buildings taking social issues as the top agenda，buildings for the elderly must define their own position along the spectrum between ethics and aesthetics. We see four distinct positions here.

The first position is，unfortunately very popular today，"realestate for pensioners". It defines buildings for the elderly as a materialised ethical product that sells on the market. It exploits the Chinese tradition of filial piety and the booming housing market，proposing an ambitious new entire genre. Architects are involved in this genre as part of the product designers. With the power of ethics，this position defines the "real-estate for pensioners" as a necessity in the society，and calls for the working age group to pay for it. An inevitable contradiction of this position is the conflict between the social nature of agedgroup-related issues and the profit-making nature of real-estate development. Some smart balance is needed to keep this position having positive performances in the society.

The second position is the modification （creation） of existing（new） space for the elderly. It aims squarely at the practical spatial needs of the aged people. It can be the adaptive reuse of existing structures，it can also be the building of new social welfare facilities. Similar to his role in schools and hospitals，an architect here is the engineer of the space. Quite an amount of environmental behaviourism and ergonomics are involved，positive data are collected，and sophistication of know-hows is done. Because of the clear focus on the material side，this position is extremely good at adopting technological advancements in the spaces for the elderly. Cultural values are certainly not the topic，though constant contribution to social cohesion can be obtained through such a position.

The third position is environmental emotion. It focuses solely on the spiritual needs of the elderly. It too can be both reuse of existing structures or construction of new ones. But it puts the spiritual first. Architects here work more in their traditional territory，dealing with a lot of psychology and aesthetics. Because emotion is a very subjective matter，this position collects case rather than data. Obviously，this position has a close relationship with architecture culture. The de-facto lack of outstanding cases of this position actually depicts huge potential. We may expect some really impressive cases in this direction soon.

The fourth position is poetry expressed through the lives of the elderly. If takes an unmistakable aesthetical approach and regards the buildings for the elderly as artistic creation. Contrast to all the three positions aforementioned，this position never tries to present any universal strategy to the aged-group issues. On the contrary，it takes the particular incarnations of spaces for the elderly as vehicles to universal value in architecture. Cases of this position typically include houses architects do for their elderly family members or themselves in their later lives，beside buildings architects make for particular micro communities of senior citizens. These buildings distant themselves away from abstract strategies and engage in special individual lives. Thus they always possess something that is truly moving and unduplicatable.

In this issue of World Architecture we have a collection of projects of all positions. We are not trying to weigh any of these positions against the rest. What we feel curious about is，actually the range of spectrum between ethics and aesthetics covered by the single umbrella "buildings for the elderly".

Our thanks to Professor ZHOU Yanmin and her team as well as Professor CHENG Xiaoqing for their key contribution in this issue.

清華大學建筑學院 /《世界建筑》

2015-11-06