張利/ZHANG Li

現(xiàn)任聯(lián)合國人權事務高級專員扎伊德·拉阿德·侯賽因即將于本月末卸任。雖然他還未卸任，但對他任內的遺產大家似乎已經有了共識：一方面，他直言不諱的苛刻言論使其與世界主要國家交惡；另一方面，他在真實世界中所創(chuàng)造的實際業(yè)績微乎其微，使他最終不過是又一個行將被人遺忘的政客而已。

侯賽因式的例子并不鮮見。在涉及為社會公平而進行的奮斗時，擲地有聲的豪言壯語與軟弱無能的現(xiàn)實干預所形成的強烈反差，長期以來一直是諸多精英與知識分子難以逃脫的宿命模式。建筑師對這種模式當然并不陌生，至少在過去的幾十年里是這樣。

伯納德·魯?shù)婪蛩够摹稕]有建筑師的建筑》、亨利·列斐伏爾的《城市權》和哈?！しㄙ悶楦F人所做的住宅是戰(zhàn)后20年內較早關注社會公平問題的建筑案例，前兩個通過寫作，后一個通過實踐。與之相伴的文化和媒體事件，尤其是在MoMA的展覽《沒有建筑師的建筑》，幫助把他們的學術關注樹立成一種另類的、以鄉(xiāng)土建筑為重心的語境，與1960年代末的國際建筑話語形成了鮮明的對比。這一語境的學術興趣基本上存在于兩個方面：從美學上講，是世界各地非建筑師建筑所承載的工藝與智慧；從倫理上講，則是維系產生這些建筑傳統(tǒng)的社群的尊嚴，以及建造活動如何貢獻于具體地區(qū)的社會融合。

沒過多久，這一語境中更偏社會學的部分就得到了更深入的發(fā)掘。坂茂的建筑開啟了一種將富勒式的快裝結構方案與緊急情況下的人道主義救援結合起來的思路。正是因為他的開創(chuàng)性工作，世界各地的災區(qū)已經出現(xiàn)了一種新的志愿者群體——建筑師，為災民做輕盈、好看、能夠快速裝配的建筑。在大中華區(qū)，我們從本世紀初就看到了類似的做法，包括謝英俊在1992年地震后的作品以及朱競翔近期的項目。

同樣是針對社會問題，像迪埃貝多·弗朗西斯·凱雷和卡梅隆·辛克萊這樣的人走了一條截然不同的道路。他們進一步遠離傳統(tǒng)建筑話語的舒適圈，浸入到社區(qū)生活的日常之中。他們創(chuàng)造了基于可利用資源與技術的建筑，有時其飽含詩意的作品甚至完全來自于一時權宜之計的靈感。在這個方向上，大中華區(qū)也有很多好的案例，首先是李曉東的鄉(xiāng)村三部曲，然后是林君翰的城鄉(xiāng)架構系列，然后是無數(shù)的新銳建筑師走向廣大的中國農村。

當下，越來越多的建筑將倫理置于美學之上。在這種浪潮的鼓舞下，越來越多的建筑師把為窮人做設計當成是一種不可回避的義務。然而，如果我們真心希望通過設計來給現(xiàn)實生活帶來積極改變的話，我們就必須提出并解答一些基本的問題。如果我們仔細回顧一下自法賽以來這一流派中諸多備受推崇的案例，特別是如果我們近距離觀察一下這些案例在建成后的長時間使用，我們會發(fā)現(xiàn)一個令人不安的事實。大多數(shù)項目，無論是住宅、教育、醫(yī)療還是文化建筑，往往更善于提高外部人士（大多是生活在城市環(huán)境的中產階級）的意識，而不是改善內部人士（當?shù)鼐用瘢┑纳钏?。這些項目所產生的最好的效果是在大災之后迅速地興建起足夠數(shù)量的庇護所；最壞的情形則發(fā)生在那些最脆弱的社區(qū)，讓當?shù)氐膵D女和兒童在并不好用的建筑里充當照片的舞臺布景，用以證明建筑師的光輝。

本期《世界建筑》的主要目的是掃描為窮人做設計的現(xiàn)狀，提供一個切片式的記錄。連同這份記錄，我們還想提出三個問題，每個問題指向一個特殊的關注層面。對于這些問題，我們也許能從本期發(fā)表的項目中找到答案，也許不能。

第一個問題指向的是為公平而設計的流派全體：在設計的“能”與“不能”之間，界限究竟在哪里？我們已經不大可能像希格弗萊德·吉迪恩和克里斯托弗·亞歷山大那么樂觀（或自負，這取決于你如何看待它）——這兩位碰巧都相信建筑可以并且應該改造人的行為，或設計實際上能夠教給人們該如何生活。顯然，我們都感受了技術至上的現(xiàn)代主義城市所帶來的巨大痛苦——他們簡單地把我們當成了機器零件——現(xiàn)在我們是否又要把這種設計理性帶給地方社區(qū)呢？

第二個問題指向這些項目的運行方案：除了建筑師和當?shù)厝酥?，我們是否需要一個強大的第三方群體來確保我們設計的建筑能長期發(fā)揮作用？如果是的話，該第三方是否應該參與設計過程？到目前為止，大多數(shù)涉及公平的項目設計都強調其自發(fā)的社會功能。學校、緊急住所、圖書館、診所、本地工坊是最常見的類型。為了持續(xù)運行，他們需要教師、房屋管理員、圖書館員、醫(yī)生、企業(yè)家以及大量的資源。為了提供這些資源，至少在中國，你需要得到當?shù)卣闹С?，并且有一個真正介入運營的投資者。

第三個問題，也是最難的一個，指向設計本身：建筑是面向城市中產階級這些局外人的，還是提供給（通常是）鄉(xiāng)村內部人士的？不生活在一個特定的氣候中，要想把建筑設計得適應這個氣候是很困難的。不生活在一個特定的人群中，要想建筑設計得融入這個人群則是根本不可能的。鑒于這些社區(qū)通常是那么偏遠，設計往往要以快速訪談和現(xiàn)場調查為依據，而這些有限的依據又往往引向太多的假設和推測。也許世界各大城市都越來越相像，因而在城市中進行假設和推測還是可行的；而每個蕭條的偏遠社區(qū)卻是獨一無二的，我們無法在一個社區(qū)中引用另一個作為參照。為了調查和解釋這種獨特性，入門級的人類學實踐是必不可少的。

為了給窮人做設計而給窮人做設計是不夠的。現(xiàn)在已經到了建筑師在低收人群體前放下身段的時候了。□

Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is stepping down this month. His legacy seems to have already been fixed: an outspoken rhetoric in words putting him in crossfires with all major states around the globe, and a disappointing score sheet in real-world achievements making him yet another politician to forget.

Al Hussein's case is not unfamiliar. When it comes to the struggle for equality, power in words and powerlessness in real-world interventions have long been the fateful pattern for many elites and intellectuals. This pattern is certainly no stranger to architects, at least for the past few decades.

Bernard Rudofsky'sArchitecture without Architects, Henri Lefebvre's "Right to the City "and Hassan Fathy's dwellings for the poor were among the post-war-years examples in architecture,writing or practice, to address the issue of equality.Accompanied by culture and media events, not least the Architecture without Architects exhibition in MoMA, they effectively setup vernacular architecture as an alternative discourse in the dense of the late 1960s. The academic interest was basically a two-fold one: aesthetically it was about the craft and wisdom of making of non-pedigreed architecture from all over the world; ethically it was about the dignity of the communities that sustained these building traditions and how the practice of building may contribute to local social coherence.

It didn't take long before the social part of the discourse got explored in greater depth. The architecture of Shigeru Ban initiated an approach that marries Fullerian structure solutions with emergency humanitarian situations. Thanks to his pioneering work, disaster-hit communities in different parts of the world have been able to see a new species of volunteers - architects doing light and good-looking,rapid-assembled buildings for them. In the greater China region we have seen similar approaches starting from the turn of the century, including Hsieh Ying-Chun's works after the 1992 earthquake, and various recent projects by ZHU Jingxiang.

Also aimed at social issues, people like Diébédo Francis Kéré and Cameron Sinclair took a very different path. They step further away from the comfort zone of traditional architecture discourse and dive into the troubled water of daily community life. They produce architecture that is based on available resource and technology, sometimes even making poetic works entirely out of ad-hoc solutions. There are also plenty of good examples in the greater China region in this direction, first demonstrated by LI Xiaodong's rural trilogy, then by John Lin's rural framework series, then by countless emerging architects going out to work in the vast Chinese countryside.

Encouraged by the growing evidence of architecture putting ethics before aesthetics, more architects are now finding it an obligation to design for the poor. Yet serious questions need to be asked if we are serious to ensure positive real world social changes through our designs. If we look back closely on the highly revered projects in this genre since Fathy, particularly if we scrutinise the life of these projects since their completion, we'll have an unsettling observation. Most projects, be they residential, educational, medical, or cultural, are more capable of raising the awareness of the outsiders (mostly middle class living in an urban environment) than raising the living standards of the insiders (local inhabitants). Best case scenarios are usually found in the aftermaths of disasters where shelters are made abundantly and quickly. Worst case scenarios are invariantly found in the most vulnerable communities, where local women and children are used in staged photos to prove the glory of architects.

It is therefore the key interest of thisWAnumber to provide a snapshot of the status quo of designing for the poor. Along with this snapshot, we would also like to ask three questions which may or may not be answered by the projects published. Each of these questions addresses a particular scope of concern.

The first question relates to the design for equality genre as a whole: where is the boundary between what design can and what design can't? We all remember the different forms of optimism (or complacency depending on how you look at it) from Siegfried Giedion and Christopher Alexander who both happened to believe that architecture could and should practice active behaviour modification,or that we could actually design people's lives.Yet we all suffered greatly from the cities created by technocratic Modernism that simply treat us like machine parts. Are we to bring this design rationality again to the local communities?

The second question relates to the programmes of such projects: do we need a powerful third party,other than architects and locals, to run long-term programmes in the buildings we design? If so, should such third party be included in the design process?Up to now, most design for equality projects are built upon social programmes. Schools, emergency lodgings,libraries, clinics, local craft workshops are the most common types. To last long, they would need teachers,house keepers, librarians, doctors and entrepreneurs,along with huge amount of resources. To provide such resources, in China at least, you'll need the support from the local government, and a truly engaged investor.

The third question, and the most difficult one,relates to design: is the building speaking more to the urban middle-class outsiders, or the (usually)rural insiders? Fitting a building into a specific climate is hard without living in that climate. Fitting a building into a specific community is impossible without living in that community. Quick interviews and site surveys, which is usually the case given how remote these communities are, only lead to assumptions and speculations. While all major world cities are getting more and more alike, each depressed community is still unique. To investigate and to interpret such uniqueness, an architect needs to practice some basic anthropology.

Designing for the poor for the sake of designing for the poor is not enough. Time for architects to get humble before the poor. □