柯爾斯頓·漢尼瑪/Kirsten Hannema

戴安娜·貝福德 荷譯英/Translated from Dutch by Dianna Beaufort

黃華青 英譯中/Translated from English by HUANG Huaqing

這是荷蘭建筑嗎？瑞士建筑雜志《Modul?r》的主編馬科·索耶在2017年“立面技藝：重塑、激活、重釋”論壇上的荷蘭建筑展演后大為吃驚地發(fā)出疑問。本次論壇是由列支敦士登大學(xué)與阿姆斯特丹建筑學(xué)院、麥金托什建筑學(xué)院聯(lián)合主辦的。

原本他期待看到的是激進(jìn)的概念，或是具有狂野形式、看不到細(xì)節(jié)的標(biāo)志性建筑，或是打破常規(guī)的設(shè)計(jì)——仿佛嘶喊著雷姆·庫(kù)哈斯那句著名宣言“去他的文脈”。畢竟，這才是讓庫(kù)哈斯的OMA、MVRDV、UNStudio、Mecanoo等荷蘭建筑事務(wù)所在1990年代受到世界矚目的原因。這一場(chǎng)“超級(jí)荷蘭運(yùn)動(dòng)”——如巴特·魯茲瑪在其著作（《超級(jí)荷蘭》，2000）中所定義的那樣，讓荷蘭成為建筑界的“麥加”。

然而，這次呈現(xiàn)在索耶眼前的卻是磚砌公寓建筑和雙坡屋頂?shù)穆?lián)排住宅、1：1比例模型、手繪平面、對(duì)地域建筑傳統(tǒng)的大量隱喻。其中，漢斯·范·德海登的作品尤其讓索耶矚目：這位建筑師的細(xì)節(jié)設(shè)計(jì)之一是一個(gè)裝飾性排水口，與預(yù)制混凝土供應(yīng)商合作完成，是為滿足荷蘭建筑業(yè)的過量降水控制規(guī)范。這個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)平常而又獨(dú)具匠心，令索耶深受吸引。

1 全磚住宅樓“皮拉烏斯” /Piraeus building（攝影/Photo:Schwendinger&Büttner）

2 《Igloo》雜志封面，蒂爾堡的皮烏沙文海港亭，公民建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)/Igloo magazine with cover pavilion by Civic architects（圖片來源/Source：作者提供/Provided by author）

3 林堡博物館，Shift 建筑及城市主義事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)，2011/Museumplein in Limburg, Shift architecture urbanism, 2011（攝影/Photo: René de Wit）

4 非奇觀建筑文章/Unspectacular Architecture article（圖片來源/Source：作者提供/Provided by author）

新荷蘭

展覽結(jié)束后，索耶與漢斯·凡·德海登的閑聊再次讓他驚訝，后者告訴他，如今在荷蘭有很多像他這樣的建筑師：馬克·德博思，雅克·德布勞威爾，杰倫·古斯特，喬·詹森及彼得·文哥德爾等。他們?cè)诹钊嗣宰淼?、以概念?gòu)思生產(chǎn)奇觀設(shè)計(jì)的“超級(jí)荷蘭”期間，依然保持著“清醒”。對(duì)他們而言，建造和對(duì)文脈的思索依然是首要問題。盡管庫(kù)哈斯成了荷蘭建筑的英雄，但他們的偶像卻是德國(guó)建筑師漢斯·科爾霍夫——他和克里斯蒂安·拉普合作設(shè)計(jì)了阿姆斯特丹轟動(dòng)一時(shí)的全磚住宅樓“皮拉烏斯”（1994，圖1）。為了理解這棟建筑對(duì)其實(shí)踐產(chǎn)生的深遠(yuǎn)影響，他們甚至為此寫了一本書——《后“皮拉烏斯”》（2017）。

索耶隨即決定，在《Modul?r》雜志上為這7家建筑事務(wù)所的作品出版一期名為“新荷蘭”的?？?，副標(biāo)題為“關(guān)注文脈”。索耶對(duì)這種與眾不同的荷蘭建筑的欣賞并非個(gè)例。在此前幾個(gè)月，羅馬尼亞雜志《igloo》剛剛出版一期當(dāng)代荷蘭建筑?？?018年4/5期，圖2），封面照片是年輕的公民建筑事務(wù)所的作品：蒂爾堡的皮烏沙文海港亭。這是一座粗壯的鋼結(jié)構(gòu)建筑，形態(tài)靈感來自港口的舊船和老橋，建筑底層是餐廳，屋頂上設(shè)置了公共觀景平臺(tái)。雜志還刊登了鹿特丹事務(wù)所Shift 建筑及城市主義事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)的林堡博物館廣場(chǎng)(圖3），以及藝術(shù)家兼設(shè)計(jì)師弗朗克·哈弗曼斯設(shè)計(jì)的建筑裝置。然而，“超級(jí)荷蘭”的作品卻無(wú)跡可尋。

如今，我受邀撰寫這篇文章，向國(guó)際讀者闡釋過去幾年荷蘭建筑界發(fā)生的一切——很顯然，我的任務(wù)并不是報(bào)道Mecanoo或MVRDV在鹿特丹建成的又一座奇觀式博物館?？梢哉f，荷蘭建筑師正在用一種全新的建筑重新在國(guó)際舞臺(tái)上占有一席之地，這種建筑可謂“異常的常規(guī)”。這是如何發(fā)生的？

非奇觀建筑

是經(jīng)濟(jì)原因？錯(cuò)！看起來，將過去10年的建筑界動(dòng)態(tài)歸咎于2008年金融危機(jī)似乎是合乎邏輯的——隨著美國(guó)投行雷曼兄弟的巨幅次貸虧損，引發(fā)全球經(jīng)濟(jì)疲軟，荷蘭建筑業(yè)也隨之陷入衰頹，這才慢慢催生了“新荷蘭”建筑師。然而，事實(shí)并非如此簡(jiǎn)單。誠(chéng)然，經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的影響不可忽略。商業(yè)資本和政府的委托——那些曾驅(qū)動(dòng)“超級(jí)荷蘭”的金融引擎——逐步枯竭。居住和辦公市場(chǎng)皆瓦解。40%的建筑師失業(yè)?！昂商m的建設(shè)工作已經(jīng)完成，”前荷蘭政府總建筑師弗里茨·范·東恩在2013年評(píng)論不計(jì)其數(shù)的閑置辦公樓和商業(yè)建筑時(shí)如此斷言。顯然，到了需要改變的時(shí)候。

然而，早在經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退之前，在《A10》雜志刊登的一篇關(guān)于歐洲新建筑的文章（2007年4/5期，圖4）中，建筑評(píng)論家漢斯·易卜林斯就觀察到“超級(jí)荷蘭運(yùn)動(dòng)”已日薄西山，被一種他歸為“非奇觀”的新風(fēng)潮所取代。這篇文章的插圖都是日常化的磚建筑，設(shè)計(jì)得如同普通住宅一樣，但又極為關(guān)注細(xì)部和精準(zhǔn)度。這些建筑大多出自索耶從漢斯·凡·德海登那里聽聞的建筑師之手，這群建筑師已長(zhǎng)期生存于那些“超級(jí)荷蘭運(yùn)動(dòng)”的實(shí)驗(yàn)主義同行以及他們的建筑所集聚的極大媒體曝光度之下?！叭欢裉?，這場(chǎng)建筑派對(duì)的喧囂已逐步停歇，有更多人開始關(guān)注這種新的實(shí)踐道路及其代表人。” 易卜林斯如此寫道。

Is this Dutch architecture? Marko Sauer, editorin-chief of the Swiss architecture magazineModul?r,was flabbergasted during the Dutch presentation at the 2017 symposium Crafting the Facade: Reuse,Reactivate, Reinvent, which was hosted by the University of Liechtenstein in collaboration with the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture and the Mackintosh School of Architecture.

He had expected radical concepts, iconic buildings with wild shapes and invisible detailing, mouldbreaking designs that screamed "fuck the context",to use the famous phrase by Rem Koolhaas. This was,after all, what brought Dutch architectural firms like Koolhaas' OMA, MVRDV, UNStudio and Mecanoo to the attention of the world in the 1990s – the Super Dutch movement, as Bart Lootsma coined it in his book (Super Dutch, 2000), and which positioned the Netherlands as a Mecca of architecture.

What he saw instead were brick residential buildings and gabled roofs on terraced houses, 1:1 scale models, hand-drawn plans and a whole slew of references to local architectural traditions. Hans van der Heijden's contribution in particular caught his eye: one of the architect's details was an ornamental rainwater spout, made in collaboration with a prefab concrete supplier and designed to meet Dutch building regulations for excess run-off. The detail was both prosaic and distinctive; Sauer found it fascinating.

New Dutch

After the presentation he chatted with Van der Heijden who surprised him again by telling him that there were more architects like him in the Netherlands: Mark de Bokx, Jacq. de Brouwer, Jeroen Geurst, Jo Janssen and Jan Peter Wingender. They stayed "sober" during the intoxicating Super Dutch years with its spectacular designs based on conceptual thinking. For them, construction and contextual thinking remained paramount. And while Koolhaas became the hero of Dutch architecture, they admired German architect Hans Kollhoff who, along with Christian Rapp, built – all in brick – the sensational residential complex Piraeus in Amsterdam (1994,Fig. 1). In order to understand the influence this building had on their own practice, they even wrote a book:Post Piraeus(2017).

Sauer decided to devote an issue ofModul?rto what he called "The New Dutch", featuring the work of seven architectural firms, and giving it the subtitle: "Mind the Context". Sauer's admiration for a different kind of Dutch architecture was not unique. A few months prior, the Romanian magazineigloohad published an issue on contemporary Dutch architecture. On its cover was the Piushaven Harbour Pavilion in Tilburg by the young achitectural firm Civic Architects (Fig. 2): a robust steel construction inspired by the old ships and bridges in the harbour, with a roof-top public viewing platform over a restaurant. The magazine also showed the Museumplein Limburg by the Rotterdam-based firm Shift architecture urbanism(Fig. 3) and the architectural installations by artist/designer Frank Havermans. Super Dutch was nowhere to be found.

And now I have been asked to write this article, for an international audience, on what's been happening in the field of architecture in the Netherlands over the last few years – with the explicit request not to cover the latest library design by Mecanoo or MVRDV's spectacular Museum Depot in Rotterdam. That says something: Dutch architects are reconquering their position on the international stage with a new kind of architecture, a kind that could be described as"exceptionally normal". How did this happen?

Unspectacular architecture

It's the economy, stupid! It seems logical to ascribe the developments of the last decade to the global economic malaise sparked by the 2008 crisis that saw massive losses on mortgages and real estate by the American financial firm Lehman Brothers, and that plunged the Dutch architectural sector into a deep recession – and consequently gave birth to New Dutch architects. But it's not that simple. Certainly, the recession had a huge impact.Commissions from commercial businesses and the government – the financial motors that drove Super Dutch – dried up. The residential and office markets collapsed. Forty percent of architects lost their jobs."Building work in the Netherlands is complete",said former Chief Government Architect Frits van Dongen in 2013, while referencing the countless empty office and retail buildings at that moment. It was clear that something had to be changed.

Yet already before the recession, in an essay inA10magazine on new European architecture (Fig. 4),architecture critic Hans Ibelings observed that Super Dutch was on its last legs and being replaced by a new trend he categorized as "unspectacular". The article was illustrated with ordinary brick buildings, designed to look like the homes they were, but with a special attention to details and precision. They were designed by the architects Sauer had heard about from Van der Heijden, a group of architects that had been building for years in the shadows of their experimental Super Dutch colleagues and the monumental media attention their buildings garnered. "But now the roar of the architectural party has died down, there is undeniably more interest in this approach, and its respresentatives", noted Ibelings.

The rise of unspectacular architecture could be seen as a "compensation" for all the "party architecture of the past decade", according to Ibelings.You could also call it a reaction to Super Dutch,just like in the fashion industry where trends play off each other: after hippy style came punk, after glamour came grunge. After spectacular architecture,"boring"became fashionable. Another possible explanation is the increase of inner city challenges following the migration to cities and Dutch policies to limit development to within existing urban areas.Unspectacular architecture does well in an urban context where a certain anonymity is appreciated,in Ibelings' analysis: "This benefits an architecture which is not a personal expression on the part of the designer and does not attempt to express the identity and individuality of the user in its exterior."

The strength of this architectural trend was,according to Ibelings, "that it tries to escape from being held hostage by the interesting, at the very least by pretending not to be all that interesting at all…Rather than taking action against boredom [these are indeed Ibelings' words], these architects take the boredom of the everyday as a starting point, in order to eproduce an architecture that recognizes and reflects it. ...This seldom produces the shock of the new – at most a shock of recognition. On the other hand, boring architecture won't start to annoy you."

“非奇觀”建筑的興盛在易卜林斯看來，可視為對(duì)所有“過去10年的建筑派對(duì)”的“補(bǔ)償”。你也可以稱之為對(duì)“超級(jí)荷蘭”的逆反，就如時(shí)裝流行趨勢(shì)的相互迭代：嬉皮風(fēng)之后是朋克風(fēng)，艷麗風(fēng)之后又是頹廢風(fēng)。在奇觀建筑后，“無(wú)聊”成了新的時(shí)尚。另一個(gè)可能的解釋是移民潮帶來的內(nèi)城壓力激增，荷蘭的政策導(dǎo)向是限制現(xiàn)有城市區(qū)域內(nèi)部的開發(fā)項(xiàng)目。非奇觀建筑在密集城市環(huán)境中融入得當(dāng)，其一定程度的匿名性受到贊賞。易卜林斯分析認(rèn)為，“這種環(huán)境有利于這樣一種建筑，它既非設(shè)計(jì)者的個(gè)人風(fēng)格表達(dá)，亦未試圖彰顯內(nèi)部使用者的身份或個(gè)體性?！?/p>

易卜林斯認(rèn)為，這一建筑流派的力量在于，“它試圖逃脫趣味的操控，至少假裝得不那么有趣……他們并非倚仗無(wú)聊本身，而是將日常的無(wú)聊作為起點(diǎn)，以生產(chǎn)一種認(rèn)可并反映日常性的建筑……這很少會(huì)導(dǎo)致新事物帶來的震驚——至多是對(duì)認(rèn)可日常的震驚。換句話說，無(wú)聊的建筑不會(huì)令你惱怒。”

5 居住項(xiàng)目丘吉爾公園，萊頓，漢斯·凡·德海登建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)/Housing project Churchill park, Leiden, Hans van der Heijden Architect Contemporary Brick Architecture, Churchill park（圖片來源/Source：作者提供/Provided by author）

6 北荷蘭檔案館閱覽大廳，哈佩爾-科尼利斯-韋爾霍芬建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)，2015/Study Hall North Holland Archives,Happel Cornelisse Verhoeven Architecten, 2015（攝影/Photo:Karin Borghouts）

重新導(dǎo)向文脈

阿姆斯特丹Winhov事務(wù)所的建筑師彼得·文哥德爾有另一種說法（在《Modul?r》雜志中發(fā)表）：“對(duì)我們而言，好建筑就是更持久的建筑。它迫使你反復(fù)思考，如何將建筑適宜地嵌入它所處的文脈：如何處理場(chǎng)所精神、形態(tài)學(xué)關(guān)系，新建筑將如何影響場(chǎng)地。”當(dāng)然，彼得·文哥德爾認(rèn)為新建筑始終會(huì)是空間問題的“偶然性”解決方式。他認(rèn)為自己最重要的使命是“探索項(xiàng)目潛藏的根基——如歐洲城市文脈、建筑學(xué)傳統(tǒng)?！币虼?，Winhov事務(wù)所一直致力于建筑教育和普及，例如他們的網(wǎng)絡(luò)出版物《本地英雄》，分享了他們對(duì)那些個(gè)人化英雄的癡迷——或許有些晦澀——如喬凡尼·慕齊奧、喬斯·貝多、費(fèi)爾南德·普永。

材料作為概念

“后皮拉烏斯”學(xué)派成員的共識(shí)之一，是他們?cè)噲D“在建筑學(xué)內(nèi)部尋求合法性”，如彼得·文哥德爾所言?！案拍睢笔恰俺?jí)荷蘭”的法寶，建造只能居于次席。這可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致某種尷尬的境遇，例如UNStudio于1996年設(shè)計(jì)的阿納姆火車站，采用數(shù)字技術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)的一個(gè)將所有交通流線整合的“全套解決方案”，卻找不到一個(gè)施工商能夠建造那龍卷風(fēng)形狀的車站大廳。直到20年后，才找到唯一一家造船廠愿意接下這個(gè)任務(wù)。

文哥德爾的策略恰恰相反：材料是發(fā)展概念和建筑構(gòu)思的起始點(diǎn)。作為阿姆斯特丹建筑學(xué)院的講師（2010-2013），他負(fù)責(zé)了一項(xiàng)國(guó)際出版項(xiàng)目：《一種嚴(yán)苛的材料：當(dāng)代磚建筑構(gòu)造》（圖5）。學(xué)生需要探索磚材料的可能性，并根據(jù)他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)做設(shè)計(jì)。Winhov事務(wù)所采取相同的方式。根據(jù)這種邏輯，他們?yōu)榘Ｒ蚧魷乩砉ご髮W(xué)學(xué)生公寓設(shè)計(jì)了預(yù)制混凝土立面。這座校園中充斥著由精致線條框束的玻璃幕墻，故而他們希望設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)具有浮雕感的立面，而極短的建造工期意味著預(yù)制混凝土成為一個(gè)恰當(dāng)?shù)倪x擇。在混凝土工廠看到拋光機(jī)后，他們決定用水泥和大理石來塑造立面上的“窗欞”。大理石拋光后從立面上凸顯出來，賦予混凝土獨(dú)特的光澤（本刊p66）。

編織的一代

自從易卜林斯將“非奇觀建筑”視為一種風(fēng)潮，不斷有更多年輕擁躉加入這個(gè)對(duì)文脈、傳統(tǒng)及建造感興趣的事務(wù)所群體：蒙納多、科思-泰蘭斯、哈佩爾-科尼利斯-韋爾霍芬、馬基林·凡·艾格、莉莉斯·龍納·凡·洪多珂、唐娜·凡·米麗根·貝爾克、安·黛興、簡(jiǎn)·瑙塔、阿爾德·德弗里斯他們被策展人馬里烏斯·古特維爾德和楊特·恩格爾斯稱作“編織的一代”——這個(gè)定義出現(xiàn)在后者關(guān)于低地國(guó)家未來建筑的策展“Maatwerk/定制：佛蘭德斯與荷蘭的定制建筑（2016）”之中，作為法蘭克福德意志建筑博物館25周年回顧展的一部分。古特維爾德說，他們是“為超級(jí)荷蘭收拾殘局”的一代；換言之，這一代人不得不將1990年代至21世紀(jì)初建造的“標(biāo)志性”建筑——往往擁有宇宙飛船式的造型——編織到城市肌理中，以建立某種統(tǒng)一性。

這樣的空間難題恰恰激發(fā)起鹿特丹事務(wù)所哈佩爾-科尼利斯-韋爾霍芬的工作熱情，他們也擅長(zhǎng)于此。他們的成名作是哈勒姆的北荷蘭檔案館（圖6，本刊p84）翻修工程，將圍繞庭院布置的3座建筑融為一體，重新塑造了某種平衡。經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條對(duì)他們影響不大，因?yàn)樗麄儗⒕D(zhuǎn)移至佛蘭德斯地區(qū)——這完全符合他們對(duì)建筑異文化的興趣。在那里，他們建成了一些住宅項(xiàng)目、一所學(xué)校和一座消防站。他們即將在2019年完成一個(gè)備受矚目的項(xiàng)目——萊頓布料大廳市立博物館修復(fù)。

另一位冉冉上升的“編織新星”是阿德·德弗里斯，他在2016年完成的處女作是為一戶農(nóng)民建造的鄉(xiāng)村住宅，這家人正準(zhǔn)備在荷蘭東部置辦一座新房產(chǎn)。建筑師與業(yè)主及當(dāng)?shù)毓そ骋黄饏⑴c建造，使用了從當(dāng)?shù)貜U舊房屋中回收的本地橡木和石材。他讓房屋的方向與種滿樹的河岸平行，用兩堵長(zhǎng)墻標(biāo)識(shí)出車道的位置。在石基礎(chǔ)的上方，建筑師放置了一個(gè)盒子，擁有巨大的窗戶，以欣賞四周田野和樹林的風(fēng)景（本刊p42）。

阿德·德弗里斯不斷用更高水平的項(xiàng)目延續(xù)著處女作的成功。他與唐娜·凡·米麗根·貝爾克合作，贏得了烏得勒支和格羅寧根的兩項(xiàng)文化建筑委托，即將在2019年開始建造。

建筑2.0

盡管易卜林斯早在2007年就預(yù)示到，在“超級(jí)荷蘭”的浪潮后，“無(wú)聊”的文脈建筑會(huì)獲得更多市場(chǎng)；但荷蘭建筑博物館（NAi，2013年并入新博物館）的館長(zhǎng)奧雷·布曼試圖探索一個(gè)更激進(jìn)的全新語(yǔ)境。他對(duì)于建筑師不斷減弱的話語(yǔ)權(quán)感到擔(dān)憂?！斑h(yuǎn)比天賦或才華更為強(qiáng)勢(shì)的多方力量正在介入建筑師的工作——金融模型、股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)、全球化、新媒體、司法化、專業(yè)化……不勝枚舉?！睘閷で蠼鉀Q方案，他在2007年底召集了一次論壇：“建筑2.0——建筑的宿命”。他請(qǐng)來成功的“超級(jí)荷蘭”建筑師——包括法蘭馨·侯班、本·范·貝克爾、維尼·馬斯、維爾·阿雷茲、雷姆·庫(kù)哈斯、威廉·揚(yáng)·鈕特靈，分享他們對(duì)建筑未來的愿景。鈕特靈說，建筑師應(yīng)該少花時(shí)間扮演天才兒童、科學(xué)家或記者，而應(yīng)專注于設(shè)計(jì)“好”建筑。但這并非成功的秘方，在一年后的信貸危機(jī)中便可知曉。

建筑作為必需品

住宅項(xiàng)目都被取消。投機(jī)商建造的新辦公樓依然空空如也。一些在幾年前尚野心勃勃的重大項(xiàng)目，必須接受重新評(píng)估。阿姆斯特丹南阿克西斯商務(wù)區(qū)的交響樂辦公大廈（Architekten Cie設(shè)計(jì)）成了臭名昭著的建造詐騙案的縮影。銀行家迪克·舒寧加在奧普梅爾的藝術(shù)博物館項(xiàng)目（Herman Zeinstra設(shè)計(jì)）成了深度墮落的銀行體系的象征。舒寧加破產(chǎn)后不得不變賣他的藝術(shù)藏品；博物館至今空空如也。隨之提出的問題就是：誰(shuí)還需要建筑？

A reorientation towards context

Architect Jan Peter Wingender of the Amsterdambased Office Winhov describes it differently (in the Modul?r article): "For us good architecture is about making buildings that last for a very long time. It forces you to think very carefully about the way a project is placed within its context: how you deal with the genius loci, the morphologic constellation, and how an addition will influence the site." Of course,a project will always be a "coincidental" solution to a spatial problem, thinks Wingender. He considers it his most important task "to explore the layer underneath the projects: the context of the European city, the tradition of our discipline". This is why Office Winhov is also involved in architectural education and awareness, which includes their online publication of Local Heroes where they share their fascination with personal – if somewhat obscure – heroes like Giovanni Muzio, Jos Bedaux and Fernand Pouillon.

Material becomes concept

Members of the post-Piraeus group are united by the fact that they "seek legitimacy within the discipline of architecture itself", says Wingender.It was the Concept that trumped all else for Super Dutch, putting the construction in second place.This could lead to some tricky situations, as was the case for Arnhem's train station by UNStudio,designed in 1996 with computer technology as a"total package" response to all the traffic routes that needed to be integrated. Not a contractor was to be found that would take on the tornado-shaped station concourse. In the end – 20 years later – a shipbuilder was the only one for the job.

Wingender works in reverse: the material is the starting point for developing the concept and the architectural thinking. As lecturer at the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture (2010-2013),he led the international project and publication:An Exacting Material: Tectonics in Contemporary Brick Architecture(Fig. 5). Students were required to play around with bricks and then design something based on what they discovered. Office Winhov uses the same approach. This is how they came to a prefabricated concrete facade for the student housing at the Eindhoven University of Technology. Buildings around campus had curtain walls with refined framing lines, and this inspired the idea of a facade with relief, while the short timeframe available for construction meant that prefab concrete was a good option. When they saw the polishing machine at the concrete factory, they decided to make "mullions" out of cement and marble for the facade. Polishing the surface brings out the marble and gives the concrete a specific sheen(Page 66).

A weaving generation

Since Ibelings identified "unspectacular architecture" as a trend, the number of architectural firms interested in context, tradition and construction has grown with new young advocates: Monadnock,Korthtielens, Happel Cornelisse Verhoeven, Marjolein van Eig, Lilith Ronner Van Hooijdonk, Donna van Milligen Bielke, Anne Dessing, Jan Nauta, Ard de Vries. They have been called a "weaving generation"by curators Marius Grootveld and Jantje Engels, in their contribution on the future of architecture in the Low Countries as part of the 25-year retrospective exhibition "Maatwerk: Custom Made Architecture from Flanders and the Netherlands" (2016) in the Deutsches Architekturmuseum in Frankfurt. They are the ones to "clean up the mess left by the Super Dutch party", says Grootveld, or in other words, the new generation will have to weave the "iconic" buildings of the 1990s-2000s – often structures like spaceships –into the urban fabric of cities to create some unity.

These spatial puzzles are exactly the kind of work that fires up the Rotterdam-based firm Happel Cornelisse Verhoeven – and they excel at them. They made a name for themselves with their North Holland Archive renovation in Haarlem, where a new balance was achieved in bringing together three buildings clustered around a courtyard (Fig. 6, page 84). The recession barely touched them as they turned their focus to Flanders – entirely in line with their interest in building cultures different from their own. Here they realized residential projects, a school and a fire station.They are set to complete their prestigious renovation of the Museum De Lakenhal in Leiden in 2019.

Another rising "weaver" is Ard de Vries, who debuted in 2016 with a country house for a family of farmers who were establishing a new estate in the east of the Netherlands. Together with the client and local craftsmen, and using local oak and stones retrieved from a locally demolished house, he positioned the house parallel to wooded banks and erected two long walls that serve as the driveway.On top of the stone foundations he placed a box with enormous windows looking out over the surrounding fields and woods(Page 42).

De Vries has managed to follow up his successful debut with more worthy projects. In collaboration with Donna van Milligen Bielke he won awards for two cultural buildings in Utrecht and Groningen, which are to be built next year.

Architecture 2.0

While Ibelings already saw in 2007 that after the Super Dutch bash there was new space for "boring"contextual architecture, the former director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute(NAi, merged into The New Institute in 2013)Ole Bouman was wanting to explore a radical new discourse. He was concerned about the increasingly weakened position of architects. "Various forces,much stronger than any talent or genius can combat, are working their way into the scope of an architect's work. Financial models, ownership structures, globalization, new media, judicialization,specialization… you name it." In search of solutions he organized a symposium in late 2007:Architecture 2.0 – The Destiny of Architecture. He asked successful Super Dutch architects – Francine Houben, Ben van Berkel, Winy Maas, Wiel Arets,Rem Koolhaas, Willem Jan Neutelings – to come and share their vision for the future of architecture.Neutelings argued that architects should spend less time trying to be whizzkids, scientists and journalists and just focus on designing "good"buildings. But this is no recipe for success, as became clear a year later with the credit crunch.

Architecture as necessity

Residential projects were cancelled. New offices,built on speculation, remained empty. Prestigious projects that only a few years earlier were presented with great aplomb, were having to be reassessed. The high-rise offices of Symphony (Architekten Cie) in Amsterdam's business district Zuidas turned into a symbol of scandalous construction fraud. Banker Dirk Scheringa's art museum in Opmeer by architect Herman Zeinstra became the symbol of a deeply rotten banking system. Scheringa went bankrupt and had to sell his art collection; the museum is still empty. It popped the question: who needs architecture?

Bouman wanted to give renewed legitimacy to the discipline by making connections with big social issues like food and energy supplies. So in 2010 he launched the programme "Architecture as Necessity",with a travelling exhibition and publication that presented the work of 25, mostly young, architectural firms. Studio Marco Vermeulen showed his design for "water squares" in Rotterdam that could collect the excessive rainfall anticipated by climate change:public squares as water basins that allowed the water to be slowly absorbed by the ground or directed to drainage systems. RAAAF(Fig. 7), consisting of brothers Ronald and Erik Rietveld, submitted"Generating Dunescapes", a design that makes use of the excess heat generated by the blast furnaces of IJmuiden, turning it into a resource for a complex of thermal baths. By Superuse Studios, pioneers in circular building strategies, there was the playground project, using the discarded blades of wind turbines.

7 “制造沙丘景觀”RAAAF事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)/Generating Dunescapes,RAAAF（圖片來源/Source: RAAAF）

8 克雷堡公寓改造項(xiàng)目/Flat Kleiburg（攝影/Photo: Marcel van der Burg）

布曼希望通過與食品、能源供給等社會(huì)議題的關(guān)聯(lián)性，賦予建筑學(xué)新的合法性。在2010年，他發(fā)起“建筑作為必需品”項(xiàng)目，包括一項(xiàng)巡回展及相關(guān)出版物，展示了25家建筑事務(wù)所（大部分是年輕的）的作品。馬可·韋爾默朗事務(wù)所展示了他的鹿特丹“水廣場(chǎng)”設(shè)計(jì)，這個(gè)廣場(chǎng)能夠收集氣候變化可能帶來的過量降水：公共廣場(chǎng)作為蓄水池，讓水慢慢被土地吸收或?qū)肱潘到y(tǒng)。還有羅納德與埃里克·里特維爾德兄弟的RAAAF事務(wù)所提交的“制造沙丘景觀”的設(shè)計(jì)（圖7），利用艾默伊登的鼓風(fēng)爐制造的多余熱量，轉(zhuǎn)化為一個(gè)溫泉浴場(chǎng)的熱源。還有超級(jí)利用事務(wù)所，他們是建筑熱量循環(huán)利用的先驅(qū)者，其設(shè)計(jì)的游樂場(chǎng)項(xiàng)目使用了廢棄的風(fēng)車扇葉。

“建筑作為必需品”項(xiàng)目展現(xiàn)了一種新的建筑實(shí)踐路徑，通過社會(huì)介入來提升建筑價(jià)值。但是，大多數(shù)項(xiàng)目其實(shí)都是經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)之前設(shè)計(jì)的。和那些“非奇觀”潮流的建筑師一樣，理想主義建筑師也一直存在。只不過在“超級(jí)荷蘭”期間，他們被視為另類——可能還帶著某種憐憫。而如今，他們卻成了先鋒派。

為人民的建筑

“建筑作為必需品”項(xiàng)目希望拋開明星建筑師以及標(biāo)志性建筑項(xiàng)目的文化。他們雄心勃勃：新一代建筑師應(yīng)該解決世界性的大問題。當(dāng)然，對(duì)大多數(shù)人來說，建筑學(xué)并不是必需品（只是5%的建筑是在建筑師的引領(lǐng)下建造的）。建筑學(xué)只是個(gè)奢侈品。好設(shè)計(jì)又能帶給人們什么？建筑如何能幫助提升日常生活品質(zhì)？

為了回答這個(gè)問題，代爾夫特理工大學(xué)與赫曼·赫茲伯格（為了紀(jì)念他80周歲生日）共同組織了2012年“建筑的未來”論壇。赫茲伯格——作為荷蘭結(jié)構(gòu)主義最著名的代表人物之一，因其人性化尺度的建筑而聞名——在如此高齡依然希望向前看，而非向后看，因而邀請(qǐng)了幾位年輕的、具有社會(huì)向度的建筑事務(wù)所共同談?wù)撍麄兊淖髌贰?/p>

NL建筑事務(wù)所和XVW 建筑事務(wù)所展示了他們的克雷堡公寓改造項(xiàng)目（圖8）——這是一棟戰(zhàn)后建造的巨型外廊式公寓，位于阿姆斯特丹的庇基莫米爾街區(qū)。這棟建筑曾是這個(gè)被徹底遺忘的、由失敗的現(xiàn)代主義思想塑造的大型公寓樓街區(qū)的象征。幾乎所有住宅樓都在1990年代被拆除，以建造全新的公寓樓和聯(lián)排住宅。經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退意味著沒有人再為拆除買單，于是克雷堡公寓樓被以1歐元的總價(jià)賣給了一群年輕的開發(fā)商。他們采取了DIY的改造方式：500套公寓樓都要由購(gòu)買者自己修整入住。最大的驚喜是建筑改造執(zhí)行的方式：大多數(shù)外廊式公寓在改造時(shí)，都會(huì)用油漆或貼面來裝點(diǎn)一新，而這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的建筑師選擇恢復(fù)克雷堡公寓極盛時(shí)期的粗野主義面貌。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目獲得了2017年密斯·凡·德羅獎(jiǎng)（擊敗了OMA的米蘭普拉達(dá)基金會(huì)以及鹿特丹的提默胡斯大樓）。評(píng)委會(huì)寫道，“克雷堡公寓……幫我們構(gòu)想了一種新的建筑實(shí)踐，回應(yīng)了21世紀(jì)不斷變化的家庭模式及生活方式：對(duì)現(xiàn)有建筑的改造以及對(duì)舊有建筑類型的復(fù)興，與新模型的實(shí)驗(yàn)探討一樣是切實(shí)的、激進(jìn)的?！?/p>

另一個(gè)舊建筑激活案例是DUS建筑事務(wù)所（也受赫茲伯格邀請(qǐng)到論壇發(fā)言）的阿爾梅勒新城哈芬街區(qū)改造規(guī)劃。DUS 建筑事務(wù)所于2004年由海德薇格·海恩斯曼、漢斯·韋爾默朗和瑪?shù)倌取さ马f德聯(lián)合創(chuàng)立，他們的成名作是由雨傘和塑料袋搭建的快閃亭——由建筑師親自參與建造，致力于讓更多當(dāng)?shù)厝思尤氲礁甏蟮慕ㄔO(shè)項(xiàng)目中。他們暫時(shí)搬入一座即將在阿爾梅勒哈芬區(qū)改造的聯(lián)排住宅，在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)分析鄰里的空間品質(zhì)，并觀察記錄當(dāng)?shù)厝松钪斜憩F(xiàn)出的需求。

這項(xiàng)改造規(guī)劃中第一個(gè)實(shí)現(xiàn)的新型社會(huì)住房項(xiàng)目是科思-泰蘭斯建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計(jì)的花園洋房，一個(gè)對(duì)花園城市生活的當(dāng)代詮釋。為了盡量節(jié)約綠化用地——這不僅是阿爾梅勒哈芬區(qū)的城市特征，也深受當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦男蕾p——這座建筑設(shè)計(jì)為一座由公共花園環(huán)繞的緊湊型公寓。建筑外立面裸露的混凝土結(jié)構(gòu)（表面為碎石質(zhì)感）支撐著寬敞的陽(yáng)臺(tái)，陽(yáng)臺(tái)上設(shè)置了儲(chǔ)存空間和植物房。結(jié)構(gòu)形式賦予這座建筑粗獷的外觀，而材料質(zhì)感則讓它更好地融入街區(qū)周圍的1970年代的建筑之中(本刊p54)。

多樣的建筑景觀

回顧過去10年，顯然在荷蘭建筑界發(fā)生了很多事，但卻很難將這一切納入一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的類別定義。在這個(gè)混合體中并不存在所謂“新建筑師”或“新荷蘭建筑”。文脈、工匠技藝、公眾參與和社會(huì)議題都是重要的建筑主題，同樣不可忽略的還有建筑的可持續(xù)性、3D打印等新技術(shù)、文化內(nèi)涵?！俺?jí)荷蘭”依然發(fā)揮著作用。這些著名建筑師所擁有的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和人脈意味著他們能夠獲得大量不會(huì)對(duì)年輕建筑師開放的重大項(xiàng)目。然而，這些大型事務(wù)所的作品中同樣出現(xiàn)了微妙的轉(zhuǎn)型，從設(shè)計(jì)建筑單體轉(zhuǎn)向設(shè)計(jì)更廣義的城市結(jié)構(gòu)，如OMA像素化的鹿特丹提默胡斯大樓（庫(kù)哈斯稱它為一個(gè)“反標(biāo)志性”）。從癡迷于概念到對(duì)建造感興趣的轉(zhuǎn)變，亦可見于UNStudio和年輕事務(wù)所RAP工作室最近的一項(xiàng)合作項(xiàng)目，他們將參數(shù)化設(shè)計(jì)與計(jì)算機(jī)驅(qū)動(dòng)的機(jī)械臂相結(jié)合。此外，還可看到從渴求原創(chuàng)性到延續(xù)前人設(shè)計(jì)的轉(zhuǎn)變——在MVRDV的維尼·馬斯領(lǐng)銜的“問題工廠”2017年出版的著作《復(fù)制粘貼》中，就闡釋了如何引用建筑史范例。

這種多樣性對(duì)于鹿特丹事務(wù)所Shift 建筑及城市主義而言非常熟悉。創(chuàng)始人哈爾姆·蒂莫曼，奧阿尼·拉迪斯和塞吉·凡·比吉斯特維爾德都曾在“超級(jí)荷蘭”的事務(wù)所中工作，在那里他們學(xué)會(huì)了如何利用概念來思考和溝通。在新的事務(wù)所中，他們希望探索一條不同的路徑，關(guān)注空間體驗(yàn)、當(dāng)?shù)匚拿}和建筑的建造工藝。當(dāng)然，他們依然借用設(shè)計(jì)概念來做研究——例如城市農(nóng)村、運(yùn)動(dòng)設(shè)施和微型住宅。當(dāng)下的狀態(tài)，正是他們出發(fā)探索自己的建筑學(xué)的起點(diǎn)，現(xiàn)存的空間逐步會(huì)經(jīng)過改造煥然一新，這也就是事務(wù)所名字“轉(zhuǎn)變”的內(nèi)涵。

盡管大多數(shù)“后皮拉烏斯”學(xué)派成員傾向于磚作為材料，但Shift事務(wù)所仍欣然采用混凝土、鋼和石材，而無(wú)視文脈展現(xiàn)的需求。他們的處女作是2011年蒂爾堡大學(xué)校園中的教師俱樂部：一座位于林間空地上的多功能建筑。它如同校園中的石材建筑——于1950年代由建筑師喬斯·貝多設(shè)計(jì)——與現(xiàn)代主義玻璃住宅的混合體：一塊內(nèi)部掏空的巨石，細(xì)節(jié)精準(zhǔn)至最后一顆螺絲（本刊p60）。林堡的博物館廣場(chǎng)則完全不同，如同由強(qiáng)勢(shì)的幾何體組成的城市集群（使人想起OMA的早期作品），建筑結(jié)構(gòu)的外顯是為了契合當(dāng)?shù)氐墓I(yè)環(huán)境。

或許很難將Shift事務(wù)所歸類，他們的作品沒有清晰的標(biāo)簽。他們自稱為“雜食動(dòng)物”，稱自己的建筑為“變色龍”。你或可將它當(dāng)作弱點(diǎn)，亦可視為他們的長(zhǎng)處。 當(dāng)下的荷蘭建筑亦是如此?！?/p>

Architecture as Necessity was presenting a new sort of architecture focused on the added value of social engagement, but many of the projects were conceived before the economic crash. And just like the architects behind the unspectacular trend,idealistic architects have been around since time immemorial. It's just that they were considered –with some pity – alternative types on the Dutch scene. Now, however, they are frontrunners.

Building for people

"Architecture as Necessity" wanted to do away with the stararchitect and culture of iconic architectural projects. Ambitions were high: new architects would solve the world's big problems. Of course, for most people architecture isn't a necessity(only 5% of buildings are built under the guidance of an architect) [95% of the buildings are realised without an architect], it's merely a luxury. What can good design offer them? How can buildings contribute to a higher quality of everyday life?

In an attempt to answer this question, the Delft University of Technology and Herman Hertzberger(in honour of his 80th birthday) organised the 2012 symposium "The Future of Architecture".Hertzberger – one of the best-known representatives of Dutch Structuralism and renowned for the human scale of his buildings – wanted to look ahead, in his old age, rather than look back, and thus invited several young, socially-engaged architectural firms to talk about their work.

NL Architects and XVW Architecten presented their renovation of Kleiburg (Fig. 8), an enormous, run-down gallery flat in the post-war neighbourhood of Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam. The flat had become symbolic of the utter neglect of this area of residential tower blocks and the failure of Modernism that conceived them. Nearly all of the flats were demolished in the 1990s to make room for new flats and terraced houses. The recession meant that there was no more money for demolition and Kleiburg was sold for a token sum of 1 euro to a group of young project developers. They adopted a do-it-yourself approach: the 500 apartments were to be fixed up by the buyers themselves. The big surprise was the architecture implemented: while gallery-access flats were usually spruced up with a lick of paint and new cladding, the architects decided to restore the brutalism of Kleiburg in all its former glory. The project won the Mies van der Rohe Award in 2017 (beating out OMA with its Fondazione Prada in Milan and its Timmerhuis in Rotterdam).The jury wrote: "Kleiburg …h(huán)elps us imagine a new kind of architectural project, which responds to changing household patterns and lifestyles in the twenty-first century: the transformation of an existing building and a revitalisation of typologies of the past, that are as relevant and radical as experimenting with new, untested models".

Another example of revitalisation was a plan by DUS Architects (also invited by Hertzberger to speak at the symposium) for the transformation of the Haven neighbourhood in new town Almere.DUS, established in 2004 by Hedwig Heinsman,Hans Vermeulen and Martine de Wit, had gained recognition with their pop-up pavilions made of umbrellas and grocery bags, built by themselves as part of an effort to engage locals in the bigger projects. They temporarily moved into a terraced house that was going to be renovated in Almere Haven, and from there they analysed the spatial quality of the neighbourhood and took stock of the needs expressed by people living there.

The first new affordable housing project realised in their master plan was Het Tuinhuis (The Garden House) by Korthtielens, a contemporary interpretation of life in a garden city. In order to save as much as possible of the green space so characteristic of Almere Haven – and much appreciated by its residents –it is a compact apartment building surrounded by a communal garden. The building's exterior is of concrete (with a gravel finish) that carries the weight of all the spacious balconies that include storage spaces and plant containers. The final structure is what gives the building its strong face,and its materials allow it to integrate well with neighbouring 1970s architecture(Page 54).

Diverse architectural landscape

Looking back over the last ten years, it's clear that not only a lot has happened in the Netherlands, but also it's not easy to categorise all these developments into a single definition. There is no New Architect or New Dutch Architecture rising from the mix. Context, craftsmanship, public engagement and social agendas are important themes, as are sustainability, new technologies like 3D printing, and cultural significance in architecture. Super Dutch still plays a role. The experience and references of these established architects means they get a lot of major projects that are simply not open to young architects. And yet, there is a slight shift happening in the work of these big firms, from designing architectural objects to design for broader urban structures. For example:OMA's pixellated Timmerhuis Rotterdam (described by Koolhaas as an anti-icon). The move from conceptual interests to interest in the construction can also be seen in the new collaboration between UNStudio and the young firm of Studio RAP,in their combination of parametric design with computer-driven robots. And there's the shift from striving for originality to building upon what went before, as illustrated in the bookCopy Pastepublished last year by "The Why Factory", headed by Winy Maas of MVRDV, covering how to employ references from architectural history.

This diversity is very familiar to the Rotterdam firm Shift Architecture+Urbanism. Founders Harm Timmermans, Oana Rades and Thijs van Bijsterveldt were trained at Super Dutch firms, where they learned how to think and communicate in terms of concepts. They wanted to go in a different direction with their new firm, focusing on spatial experiences,local context and the craft of building itself,though they also still do research through design concepts – like urban farming, sports facilities and microhousing. The present state is the point of departure for developing their architecture, so that the existing space is gradually transformed into something new; hence the name Shift.

While the post-Piraeus group preferred brick,Shift will work just as gladly with concrete, steel and stone – whatever the context calls for. They debuted in 2011 with their Faculty Club on Tilburg University's campus, a multifunctional pavilion situated in an open spot in the woods. It's a cross between the stone buildings on campus, designed in the 1950s by architect Jos Bedaux, and a Modernist glass house:an excavated stone monolith, detailed very precisely,down to the last screw(Page 60). Museumplein in Limburg is a totally different kind of building as it is an urban composition of strong geometric volumes(reminiscent of OMA's early work) and an injection of structure for the industrial environment here.

It is difficult to categorise Shift A+U and as a firm, they don't have a clear signature in their work.They describe themselves as "omnivores" and their architecture as chameleonic. You could see this as a weakness or as their strength. The same is true for current Dutch architecture.□