葉卡捷琳娜·拉韋尼克/Jekaterina Lavrinec

黃華青 譯/Translated by HUANG Huaqing

城市敘事：“增長(zhǎng)城市”vs“收縮區(qū)域”

隱喻和敘事在城市發(fā)展中發(fā)揮著重要作用，因?yàn)樗鼈兯茉炝顺鞘猩畹哪繕?biāo)和軌跡?！霸鲩L(zhǎng)城市”的話語(yǔ)在現(xiàn)代化及市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)開(kāi)發(fā)時(shí)期都很普遍。對(duì)維爾紐斯來(lái)說(shuō)，近幾十年來(lái)它都呈現(xiàn)為一座“綠色之城”，直到最近的官方話語(yǔ)中才開(kāi)始強(qiáng)調(diào)持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)的理念（“維爾紐斯是一座增長(zhǎng)城市”）——也就是2016年提出，將提升城市中心密度的目標(biāo)作為未來(lái)城市發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略之一?；凇霸鲩L(zhǎng)城市”理念的話語(yǔ)盛行，標(biāo)志著高強(qiáng)度投資、建造的時(shí)代來(lái)臨，同時(shí)在很多情況下，也伴隨著那些對(duì)社區(qū)而言極為珍貴的空間和路線的喪失。

實(shí)際上，“增長(zhǎng)城市”理念早已影響了維爾紐斯多個(gè)歷史階段的發(fā)展。在蘇聯(lián)推動(dòng)的現(xiàn)代化時(shí)期它就已得到彰顯。施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)是19世紀(jì)末至20世紀(jì)初的一批木結(jié)構(gòu)房屋“群落”，它們經(jīng)歷1860-1870年代涅里斯河右岸的城市化進(jìn)程后幸存至今。當(dāng)時(shí)，盡管街區(qū)化住宅和這一木屋區(qū)之間差別顯著，但城市與鄉(xiāng)村生活方式的共存依然成為維爾紐斯城市生活的有機(jī)組成部分。幾戶小木屋間會(huì)有共享的花園，用以種植水果、蔬菜，飼養(yǎng)家畜家禽。這里的鄰里關(guān)系比起那些住宅樓街區(qū)中的要親密、開(kāi)放得多。緊鄰木屋街區(qū)有一處傳統(tǒng)集市，它曾經(jīng)是（某種程度上依然是）各地居民的熱門(mén)目的地，也是該區(qū)域城鄉(xiāng)居民之間溝通交流的場(chǎng)所。對(duì)于維爾紐斯市民而言，城市各地的城中村大部分皆被視為過(guò)去城鄉(xiāng)結(jié)構(gòu)的獨(dú)特原型，是歷史留下的印記。

1992年，施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)部分被列入文化遺產(chǎn)名錄，因其建筑、民族文化和城市品質(zhì)的價(jià)值而受到保護(hù)[1]。街區(qū)的其余部分依然可以開(kāi)發(fā)，但設(shè)定了一片限定建筑物高度的緩沖區(qū)。由于缺乏對(duì)于未來(lái)發(fā)展的具體設(shè)想，當(dāng)?shù)鼐用癖粍?dòng)地空等了十余年。這種狀態(tài)往往導(dǎo)致城市區(qū)的衰敗，而根據(jù)規(guī)則，需要積極主動(dòng)的調(diào)解者和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，將當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窬墼谝黄?，共同?guī)劃街區(qū)的未來(lái)設(shè)想。由于沒(méi)有強(qiáng)有力的社區(qū)組織，這個(gè)街區(qū)在缺乏明確價(jià)值、形象和未來(lái)的情況下陷入收縮。

1 施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)/ Wooden ?nipi?k?s Neighbourhood

城中村的鄉(xiāng)村生活方式被邊緣化的開(kāi)端是在21世紀(jì)初，該區(qū)域開(kāi)啟了一系列高強(qiáng)度、市場(chǎng)主導(dǎo)的再開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目。在社交媒體中出現(xiàn)一批信息，談到所謂“木房子的懶主人”居住的“臟地方”“罪犯窟”，指的就是施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)。而在城市中飼養(yǎng)家畜家禽的做法，同樣引來(lái)負(fù)面的關(guān)注和嘲諷，最終在城中村中被禁止。對(duì)這個(gè)街區(qū)負(fù)面形象的不負(fù)責(zé)任的傳播，給當(dāng)?shù)鼐用裨斐闪藰O其深刻的創(chuàng)傷：我們城市游戲與研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)?shù)氐暮⒆映３?duì)學(xué)校同學(xué)隱藏其家庭地址，以避免遭到欺凌。木屋街區(qū)的負(fù)面形象與商務(wù)區(qū)的成功形象之間的割裂，傳達(dá)出一種社會(huì)與經(jīng)濟(jì)分化的趨勢(shì)，加重了歷史街區(qū)居民和辦公樓白領(lǐng)間的隔閡。就像弗蘭·東斯在她的研究《城市設(shè)計(jì)：城市形態(tài)的社會(huì)生活》中所言，“無(wú)論城市是被視為領(lǐng)域，還是溝通的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，城市的空間及物質(zhì)組織對(duì)于其社會(huì)體驗(yàn)及未來(lái)愿景而言皆十分關(guān)鍵?！盵2]

一片超高層建筑構(gòu)成的商務(wù)區(qū)，將涅里斯河右岸變成了所謂“玻璃山丘”，有人甚至將這片高速增長(zhǎng)的商務(wù)區(qū)稱為“第二個(gè)曼哈頓”。由于功能性單一、對(duì)于其他社會(huì)群體來(lái)說(shuō)消費(fèi)過(guò)于昂貴，這個(gè)商務(wù)區(qū)在下班后和節(jié)假日就成了無(wú)人的“鬼城”，咖啡館關(guān)門(mén)，商店空空如也。商務(wù)區(qū)開(kāi)發(fā)中最缺乏的就是多樣性。在我們看來(lái)，商務(wù)區(qū)白領(lǐng)和歷史老城居民的對(duì)話對(duì)于兩個(gè)區(qū)域的宜居性皆意義非凡。我們應(yīng)探討如何讓各個(gè)區(qū)域都向另一個(gè)區(qū)域的使用者“開(kāi)放”。不過(guò)這類“對(duì)話導(dǎo)向的思維”，必須在商務(wù)區(qū)開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目中付諸實(shí)踐才有意義。

哈維·莫洛奇在他的經(jīng)典文章《城市作為增長(zhǎng)機(jī)器：走向空間的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)》中指出一個(gè)重要問(wèn)題：誰(shuí)才是決定城市生活形態(tài)的主導(dǎo)敘事的生產(chǎn)者和受益者[3]。他提出，盡管城市增長(zhǎng)的主導(dǎo)敘事對(duì)精英階層而言十分受用，但同樣存在替代性的地方（“反增長(zhǎng)”）敘事，源自那些城市激進(jìn)主義者、中產(chǎn)階級(jí)職業(yè)者和工人。在我們看來(lái)，關(guān)注弱勢(shì)地區(qū)居民的微小地方敘事，是社區(qū)建設(shè)工作的重要部分，也是對(duì)歷史街區(qū)采取一種敏感、包容性開(kāi)發(fā)的第一步。

2 城市修補(bǔ)對(duì)比/Urban contrast of patchwork

包容性實(shí)踐：街區(qū)變遷中的小故事

人們通過(guò)一些小故事及各類物件與他們所在的街區(qū)建立關(guān)聯(lián)。有些可能在觀察者眼中微不足道，但對(duì)于當(dāng)?shù)貛状用駚?lái)說(shuō)卻至關(guān)重要。為了建立街區(qū)包容性開(kāi)發(fā)的前提，Laimikis團(tuán)隊(duì)試圖挖掘那些支撐著地方認(rèn)同的地方性敘事。在空間中標(biāo)定出街區(qū)關(guān)鍵的位置、物件和故事，為設(shè)計(jì)團(tuán)隊(duì)提供了在制定空間開(kāi)發(fā)策略時(shí)可借鑒的寶貴洞察。

地方知識(shí)中出現(xiàn)的一些物件，指向不同的歷史片層，盡管今天有些已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在，但它們依然強(qiáng)有力地影響著地方認(rèn)同。簡(jiǎn)單列舉幾個(gè)施納皮施克斯居民在展示自己的街區(qū)時(shí)提到的元素：古老的石板路，如今依然部分保存在街區(qū)中；維爾紐斯出租馬車(chē)車(chē)夫的馬和車(chē)（今天在這里還可以看到馬蹄鐵）；有些居民驕傲地說(shuō)，他們住在一棟曾是馬廄的漂亮房子里；有些居民依然記得粘土開(kāi)采場(chǎng)的位置，這就聯(lián)想到這里曾在16～17世紀(jì)因陶瓷作坊而聞名的歷史，當(dāng)時(shí)維爾紐斯老城的屋瓦皆產(chǎn)于此；街區(qū)中有些地方的下水系統(tǒng)還未現(xiàn)代化，街上的藍(lán)色立管也成了場(chǎng)所視覺(jué)認(rèn)同的一部分。像這些微小片段，是郊區(qū)地方性敘事的一部分，它曾對(duì)城市很重要，也有它自己的生活方式。然而，這些19世紀(jì)榮耀歷史留下的線索，皆在20世紀(jì)初“貧民窟”的主導(dǎo)敘事下被埋葬了。

必須承認(rèn)，在今天的施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)，與這段歷史的聯(lián)系已越發(fā)微弱。原因是它在二戰(zhàn)期間經(jīng)歷了一段劇烈的人口變化時(shí)期，很多房屋主人被迫放棄自己的房產(chǎn)，他們的房子后來(lái)被新搬來(lái)的家庭瓜分為臨時(shí)住所。然而，今天有很多居民在積極收集街區(qū)歷史的信息，有些甚至與之前的房主取得聯(lián)系。戰(zhàn)后時(shí)期，這個(gè)街區(qū)還得到了一個(gè)流行外號(hào)——“小上?！?，這似乎是全球犯罪團(tuán)伙對(duì)于那些由非法居民自發(fā)占據(jù)并開(kāi)發(fā)的聚落的稱號(hào)。

為了收集并活化街區(qū)中的小故事，Laimikis團(tuán)隊(duì)采取了參與性藝術(shù)方法。在公共空間舉辦的文化活動(dòng)、街區(qū)中的藝術(shù)裝置、城市游戲和游行，都給街區(qū)居民帶來(lái)頻繁的會(huì)面、分享故事和理念的機(jī)會(huì)。此外，這些活動(dòng)亦有利于激發(fā)地方性敘事，重塑街區(qū)的負(fù)面形象[4]。舉幾個(gè)例子，我們團(tuán)隊(duì)在2015年為變化中的街區(qū)創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)叫做“Urbingo”的城市游戲，它不僅可用于收集街區(qū)故事，也建立了一個(gè)頻繁使用的圖像和文字檔案庫(kù)。這個(gè)卡牌游戲（如今也有電子版）激發(fā)使用者積極探索街區(qū)的元素、全景和故事，由此讓街區(qū)向游客“敞開(kāi)”，揭示場(chǎng)所的文化和建筑價(jià)值。第一版游戲就是為變遷中的施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)創(chuàng)造的（如今我們也為越來(lái)越多的其他歐洲城市街區(qū)創(chuàng)建Urbingo的特殊版本）。這個(gè)游戲中很重要的部分是，當(dāng)?shù)厝送ㄟ^(guò)為游戲卡提供物件和故事主題而參與到游戲創(chuàng)造中。對(duì)于當(dāng)?shù)厝藖?lái)說(shuō)，這個(gè)游戲提供了一個(gè)讓他們重新審視生活環(huán)境、并選取那些希望與參觀者共享之物的契機(jī)。這一任務(wù)塑造了一種看待生活環(huán)境的創(chuàng)造性態(tài)度，促進(jìn)當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窀鼘Ｗ⒌赜^察街區(qū)的細(xì)節(jié)和全景。這個(gè)游戲吸引了來(lái)自城市各個(gè)地區(qū)的參與者，很多人都是第一次參觀施納皮施克斯木屋街區(qū)，這積極促進(jìn)了場(chǎng)所負(fù)面形象的重塑。此外，這個(gè)游戲也幫助我們監(jiān)控街區(qū)的高速發(fā)展、感受它的脆弱（原因是街區(qū)高強(qiáng)度開(kāi)發(fā)的全景圖始終劇烈變化著）。

還有一種展現(xiàn)場(chǎng)所的歷史文脈和文化潛能的包容性活動(dòng)，即Laimikis團(tuán)隊(duì)與當(dāng)?shù)鼐用裨?013-2015年合作舉辦的“街道馬賽克工作坊”。鑒于施納皮施克斯街區(qū)在16-17世紀(jì)曾因陶瓷作坊而聞名的事實(shí)，我們提議當(dāng)?shù)鼐用袷褂煤?jiǎn)單的馬賽克技藝裝飾街區(qū)中的老舊電線桿。在露天制作馬賽克的過(guò)程中，當(dāng)?shù)鼐用耖g建立了交流和聯(lián)系，很多人都通過(guò)捐贈(zèng)陶瓷、提供創(chuàng)意的方式予以幫助。這種通過(guò)參與手工藝活動(dòng)而激發(fā)協(xié)同感的做法，呼應(yīng)了理查德·桑內(nèi)特在他的研究《在一起：合作的儀式、愉悅與政治》中提出的洞見(jiàn)：將合作視為一種技藝，以及社會(huì)合作式工作坊的重要性[5]?！敖值礼R賽克工作坊”作為一項(xiàng)開(kāi)放的、仍在進(jìn)行的活動(dòng)，幫助他們?cè)诮謪^(qū)中建立起一張互助與信任之網(wǎng)。一年之內(nèi)，由于當(dāng)?shù)鼐用瘢ㄓ绕涫莾和┑姆e極參與，街區(qū)中出現(xiàn)了一條馬賽克線路。這鼓勵(lì)一些居民開(kāi)始在街區(qū)中運(yùn)營(yíng)另類的導(dǎo)游線路。在我們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)中，空間針灸療法（小干預(yù)、大變化）是街區(qū)和公共空間復(fù)興的有效方式。通過(guò)激活歷史情景，這種包容性的創(chuàng)造活動(dòng)有利于場(chǎng)所形象的重塑[6]。在前面提到的例子中，Laimikis扮演了文化調(diào)解者的角色，根據(jù)街區(qū)的問(wèn)題和需求提出活動(dòng)模式，但真正創(chuàng)造活動(dòng)內(nèi)容的是居民本身。

Urban narratives: "growing cities" vs. "shrinking areas"

Metaphors and narratives play important role in urban development, as they shape the priorities and trajectories of city life. The narratives of the "growing city" were common for the period of modernisation and for market-oriented development. For Vilnius, which has presented itself for decades as a "green city", the idea of constant growth ("Vilnius is a growing city") has become central in the official communication just recently, after the goal of raising the density in the city centre was proclaimed in 2016 as a city strategy for the next years.Rhetoric based on the concept of the growing city marks the period of intensive investments, constructions and in many cases – loss of places and routes dear to groups of residents.

However, the idea of "growing city" was present in different phases of Vilnius development. It was implemented in the process of Soviet modernisation. The wooden neighbourhood of ?nipi?k?s is a conglomeration of a few "islands" of the wooden architecture built in the end of the 19th and the beginning of 20th centuries,that survived the urbanisation of the right bank of the Neris river in Vilnius, in the 60's-70's. Back then, despite the difference between the quarters of block houses and the wooden area, a co-existence of the urban and rural lifestyles became an organic part of Vilnius life. Wooden houses with the gardens, shared between several families each, provided conditions for growing fruits and vegetables and keeping domestic animals. The relations between the neighbours in this area were more intensive and open than between the neighbours in the blocks of flats. Next to the wooden neighbourhood there is a traditional market place, which used to be (and still is to some extent) a point of attraction for various groups of residents; it used to be a place where a contact between the residents of urban and rural parts of the district took place. From the perspective of Vilnius residents, the urban villages in various parts of Vilnius were mostly seen as peculiar rudiments of the previous urban-rural structure, a mark of the past times.

In 1992 a part of the wooden ?nipi?k?s neighbourhood was included in the cultural heritage register as protected heritage area (referred as "Skansen"), valuable for its architectural, ethnic cultural, and urban qualities[1].Other parts of the wooden area remained open for the redevelopment, although a buffer zone, limiting the height of the possible constructions, was set. A lack of detailed scenario for the further vision for this area left the residents in passive waiting for decades. This state usually brings decay to the urban areas, and as a rule, needs pro-active mediators and active leadership to bring residents together for co-developing a shared vision for the neighbourhood.With no strong community, the neighbourhood turns into a shrinking area which lacks articulated values, image, and future.

A tendentious marginalisation of the rural lifestyle of the urban village started in the beginning of the 21st century, when an intensive market-oriented redevelopment of the area has begun. A number of messages in mass-media about the "dirty place","criminal slums" with "lazy owners of the wooden houses", referring to the wooden area of ?nipi?k?s, was growing in mass media. The fact of keeping the domestic animals in the city attracted negative attention and mockery, and was forbidden in the urban village. The consequences of the irresponsible communication of the negative image of the neighbourhood are deeply traumatic for the residents: our urban games and research Lab has found that the kids of the area used to hide their home addresses from their classmates at school, seeking to avoid the bullying. A split between the negative image of the wooden area and the image of successful business area expresses the attitude towards the social and economic contrast and enlarged the distance between the residents of the historic area and the office workers. As Fran Tonkiss puts it in her study Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form,"whether the city is conceived in terms of territory,however, or as networks of connection, the spatial and the physical organisation of the urban is critical to its social experience and its future prospects"[2].

A development of the business area of skyscrapers turned the right bank of the Neris river into so-called"glass hill", some referred to the growing business district as to the "second Manhattan". With no variety of functions (mixed-use), and with no affordable places for people of different social groups, this business part of the area turns into a "ghost area" with no people around after the working hours and in the weekends,with closed cafes and empty shops. Variety is what was missed in the development of this business area. From our perspective, the dialogue between people, working in the business area and living in the historical area is crucial for the liveability of the both parts of the district.We need to model how to "open" each of the parts to the users from different parts. But this kind of "dialogueoriented thinking" must be implemented into the development projects of the business area.

In his classical paper "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place" Harvey Molotch pointed out the importance of the question,who is a producer and benefiter of the dominating narrative, that shapes the urban life. He argued that while the dominating narrative of urban growth serves well to the elites, there are alternative local ("antigrowth") narratives, produced by groups of urban activists, middle-class professionals and workers[3].From our perspective, this focus on the small local narratives by the residents of disadvantaged areas is an important part of community work as the very first step in sensitive inclusive development of the historic areas.

Inclusive practices: small stories in the changing neighbourhood

People relate themselves to the neighbourhoods through small stories and various objects. Some of them might seem insignificant for the observer, but are extremely important for several generations of the residents. To arrange conditions for inclusive development of the neighbourhoods, Laimikis team seeks to identify the local narratives, crucial for identity of the place. Mapping of the key localities, objects, and stories of the neighbourhoods provides valuable insights to draw upon while developing spatial solutions for the neighbourhood.

Objects, present in the local knowledge, refer to different historical layers, and some might be physically absent but still powerful for the local identity. Just to mention few elements that ?nipi?k?s residents refer to while presenting their neighbourhood: the historical pavement, which is still partly present in the neighbourhood. The horses and cabins of Vilnius cab drivers (nowadays you still can find horseshoes here).Some residents say proudly that they live in the nice house which used to be a horse stable. Some remember the location of the quarries for extraction of clay, and this relates to the historical fact, that this neighbourhood was famous for its ceramic workshops in 16th-17th centuries,and the shingles for the roofs of the Old Town of Vilnius were produced here. The sewing system in some parts of the neighbourhood still remains unmodernised, however,street standpipe of blue colour became a part of visual identity of this place. Small episodes like these are a part of local narrative of suburbia that used to be important for the city and had its own way of life. But these connections to the proud past of 19th century were buried under the dominating narrative of "slums" in the beginning of the 20th century.

It must be said, that a possibility to relate to the neighbourhood's history is limited in the wooden ?nipi?k?s neighbourhood, which faced a dramatic population shift during the WWII, when the owners of many houses were forced to abandon their property.The houses were divided between the new families who moved to the wooden neighbourhood as to a temporal shelter. However, nowadays some residents are active in collecting the facts about the history of the neighbourhood and some even hold occasional contact with the previous owners. It is in the postwar period when the historical neighbourhood has gained its alternative popular name, Shanghai, which appeared to be a common name in the criminal slang for the settlements all around the world, which were taken and developed by the residents groups illegally, in spontaneous way.

城市修補(bǔ)：城中村的脆弱

人們不僅通過(guò)這些故事與故鄉(xiāng)建立關(guān)聯(lián)，還借助建造、固定、裝飾生活環(huán)境來(lái)建立情感聯(lián)系。木屋和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施都需要居民的悉心照料。“修補(bǔ)”只是其中一種延長(zhǎng)物件壽命的策略。盡管那些處于遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)區(qū)的住宅在翻新時(shí)受到諸多限制，但對(duì)于其他未列入遺產(chǎn)名錄的小建筑和住宅，屋主可采用各種材料（金屬、塑料、木材）進(jìn)行修補(bǔ)。一幅幅層次豐富的獨(dú)特天然拼貼畫(huà)就此誕生。在不斷追求增長(zhǎng)和翻新的當(dāng)代城市中，歷史修補(bǔ)留下的真實(shí)表皮成了一個(gè)珍貴的視覺(jué)和觸覺(jué)愉悅之源。

反過(guò)來(lái)說(shuō)，這個(gè)區(qū)域也通過(guò)引入新的城市片層、拆除舊有城市肌理來(lái)進(jìn)行“修補(bǔ)”。開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目嵌入了截然相反的建筑形式、材料（木材、混凝土和玻璃）及日常節(jié)奏（由工作日午休和下班構(gòu)成的辦公節(jié)奏，以及當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦木徛罟?jié)奏）。每種材料（木材、混凝土和玻璃）都有不同的生命周期以及不同的翻新方法。

我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，修補(bǔ)的隱喻對(duì)于這個(gè)街區(qū)非常重要，因?yàn)樵诔鞘性匍_(kāi)發(fā)的中心清晰呈現(xiàn)城中村特征是很有意義的：它的脆弱、歷史片層的共存、城中村內(nèi)部的開(kāi)放社交生活、將手工藝作為一套獨(dú)特技藝，在當(dāng)代社會(huì)都十分難得。Laimikis將這個(gè)施納皮施克斯街區(qū)的設(shè)計(jì)概念及相關(guān)材料，呈現(xiàn)于2017/2018深圳城市建筑雙城雙年展的城中村板塊“城市共生”。我們將從中歐城中村之間找到的內(nèi)在相似點(diǎn)展現(xiàn)于此。在雙年展的策展宣言中，侯瀚如、劉曉都和孟巖提出將城中村作為“城市另類新生活的孵化器”。在他們看來(lái)，“城中村，作為當(dāng)代城市另類模式，以特殊的方式體現(xiàn)著城市長(zhǎng)期演變的未完成狀態(tài)。它自身在被外力逼迫下，自發(fā)形成并可持續(xù)演進(jìn)。自我繁殖和自我更新是它的立命之本……城中村處于傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)代之間、清晰與混沌之間、合法與非法之間，在非黑即白的價(jià)值評(píng)判體系之外，城中村的意義恰恰在于因其所處的灰色地帶而被保育和發(fā)展出蓬勃的、自下而上的自發(fā)潛力?！盵7]

城中村本身就是一種脆弱的現(xiàn)象，它質(zhì)疑著城市不同歷史階段的大規(guī)模開(kāi)發(fā)軌道。它豐富了城市生活，拓展著空間和生活方式的多樣性；它包含著關(guān)聯(lián)過(guò)去的素材和敘事以及未來(lái)的全部潛力，理應(yīng)抱著關(guān)注與關(guān)懷重新審視?！?/p>

3 電線桿上的馬賽克/ Mosaics（1-3圖片來(lái)源/Sources: 作者提供/Provided by author）

參考文獻(xiàn)/References

[1]立陶宛文化遺產(chǎn)名錄中，關(guān)于斯堪森地區(qū)施納皮施克斯木屋的描述/Lithuanian Cultural Heritage Register, description of Skansen territory in ?nipi?k?s:https://bit.ly/2H18eXc (last visit: April 2018).

[2]弗蘭·東斯. 城市設(shè)計(jì)：城市形態(tài)的社會(huì)生活. 劍橋大學(xué)：政體出版社，2013/Tonkiss G. 2013. Cities by Design. The Social Life of Urban Form. Cambridge:Polity Press:28.

[3]哈維·莫洛奇. 城市作為增長(zhǎng)機(jī)器：走向空間的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué). 美國(guó)社會(huì)學(xué)期刊，總第82期，下冊(cè)/Molotch, H. 1976. The City as a Growth Machine:Toward a Political Economy of Place // American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 2:309-332.

[4]Kaisari-Ernst, T., Lavrinec, J., Niggemeier K. 2013.Community and neighbourhood development: informal communication tools and cases. Vilnius: Laimikis.LT

[5]理查德·桑內(nèi). 在一起：合作的儀式、愉悅與政治，倫敦：企鵝叢書(shū)/Sennett, R. 2013. Together. The Rituals, Pleasures & Politics of Cooperation. London:Penguin Books.

[6]葉卡捷琳娜·拉韋尼克. 社區(qū)藝術(shù)活動(dòng)作為參與式研究的一種形式：街頭馬賽克工作室的案例，2014/Lavrinec, J. 2014. Community Arts Initiatives as a Form for Participatory Research: the Case of Street Mosaic Workshop // Creativity Studies, Vol. 7, Issue 1:52-65

[7]侯瀚如，劉曉都，孟言. 城市共生，深港城市/建筑雙城雙年展/Hou Hanru, Liu Xiaodu, and Meng Yan. Cities, Grow in Difference: Starting from Urban Villages… // Cities Grow in Difference. Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism Architecture, NYC: Sure Design:51-52.

To collect and activate small stories of the neighbourhoods, Laimikis team uses participatory arts approach. Cultural events and actions in public spaces,artistic interventions, urban games and excursions in the neighbourhood provide frequent occasions for people of the neighbourhood to meet and to share their stories and ideas. Furthermore, these forms of activity are used for activating local narratives and for reshaping negative image of the neighbourhood[4].To mention a couple of examples of this approach, an urban game "Urbingo" that our team created in 2015 for the changing neighbourhoods, serves both as a matrix for collecting stories of the neighbourhood, and as an actively used archive of the images and stories. This card game (which also has its electronic version) encourages the users to explore the elements, panoramas, and stories of the neighbourhoods and in this way "opens up" the neighbourhood for the visitors and reveals the cultural and architectural values of the place. The very first version of this game was created for the changing ?nipi?k?s neighbourhood (and now the number of the neighbourhoods in European cities, for which special Urbingo versions are created, is growing). The important part is that locals contribute to the creation of the Urbingo game by proposing objects and stories for the game's cards. For locals, the game serves as an occasion to re-examine their environment and to pick up things that they want to share with the visitors of the place. This kind of tasks brings creative attitude toward the living environment, promotes an attentive approach to its details and panoramas. This game attracts participants from different parts of the city, many of whom visit the wooden ?nipi?k?s for the first time,and it helps lot in reshaping the negative image of the place. Additionally, this game helps to monitor the rapid changes of the place and to experience its fragility (due to the intensive redevelopment panorama of the place changes intensively).

A different type of inclusive activity that reveals historical context and cultural potential of the place is a Street Mosaic Workshop that Laimikis launched in cooperation with the local residents in 2013-2015.Drawing upon the fact that ?nipi?k?s neighbourhood was famous for its ceramic workshops in 16th-17th centuries we proposed to local residents to start decorating old electric poles in the neighbourhood by using simple mosaic technique. While spending time in the open air making the mosaics, lots of contacts between the residents were made, and many people provided their help, donations of the ceramics, and inspirations to the process. This effect of togetherness through shared craft activity corresponds to the insights that Richard Sennett develops in his study "Together.:the rituals, pleasure & politics of cooperation"[5], where he speaks about the cooperation as a craft and point out the importance of the workshops of social cooperation.Street Mosaic Workshop as an open on-going activity helped to build a network of mutual help and trust in the neighbourhood. In a year a mosaic route within the neighbourhood emerged due to the active participation of the residents (especially for kids). It encouraged some residents to start running alternative guide tours to the neighbourhood. In our experience, spatial acupuncture(small intervention – larger scale changes) appears to be effective method in revitalisation of the neighbourhoods and public spaces. By activating the historical scenario,inclusive creative activities contribute to the reshaping the image of the place[6]. In the cases mentioned above,Laimikis plays the role of cultural mediator, proposing formats for activities, depending upon the challenges and needs of the neighbourhood, but it is the residents who create the content of the activities.

Urban patchworks: the fragility of the urban villages

It is not only stories that people relate themselves to the place they live, they also develop emotional connections through building, fixing and decorating the environment. The wooden houses and the infrastructure need much attention from the residents.

Patching is one of the tactics to prolong the life of the objects. While there are limitations for renewing the houses that are located in the protected heritage area, small architecture and the houses that are not included into the cultural heritage list are patched by their owners, using various materials (metal, plastic,wood). In this way, peculiar natural collages of multiple layers are being created. In the contemporary cities with the ambitions for growth and permanent renovation old patched authentic surfaces become a source of rare visual and tactile pleasure.

In its turn, the area itself is being "patched" by introducing new urban layers and by deconstructing previous urban fabric. The redevelopment brings contrast of architectural forms, materials (wood,concrete, glass) and everyday rhythms (office time with its fixed lunch breaks and end of the working days - and slow rhythm of the residents). Each of these materials(wood, concrete, glass) has different circle of life and different approaches toward renewal.

We find the metaphor of patching crucial to this area, as it is instrumental in articulating special characteristics of the urban village in the epicentre of the redeveloped area: its fragility, a coexistence of historical layers, open social contacts within the urban village, and craftsmanship as a set of unique skills, rare in contemporary societies. Laimikis presented this concept and the materials devoted to the ?nipi?k?s neighbourhood at Bi-city Biennale of Urbanism Architecture in Shenzhen, 2017/2018, within the Urban Village section, subtitled "Hybridity and Coexistence". We found genetic similarities between the urban villages (from China and Europe), presented there. In their curatorial statement for the Biennale,Hou Hanru, Liu Xiaodu, and Meng Yan propose to examine urban villages as "the incubator of alternative new life in a city". According to them, "Urban village, an alternative model of the contemporary city, manifests the ongoing status of the evolution of a city in a unique way. Under the pressure of external forces, it is forming spontaneously and evolving continuously, steered by its own self-reproduction and self-regeneration. […]Residing in between past and present, order and chaos,legal and illegal statuses, and outside the all-or-none system of value judgement, the urban villages valuable for the bottom-up spontaneous potential preserved and developed from the gray zones where they are located"[7].

The urban village itself is a fragile phenomenon which questions the trajectories of massive urban development, implemented in the cities in different periods of time. It enriches the city life, expanding the variety spaces and life styles, it contains material and narrative connections to the past and full of potential for the future, which needs to be re-examined with attention and care.□