LocHal / Mecanoo. Image © Ossip van Duivenbode
建筑重复使用的重要性
Why Reusing Buildings Should - and Must - be the Next Big Thing
由专筑网李韧，蒋晖编译
专业建筑组织的可持续标准奖项的作品常常只利用到奖项揭幕的当前或者是前后，建筑在日后的使用会减少。当前的模式改变可能性不大，那么我们需要重新思考一下建筑的可持续性的实际意义，其实我们应该减少建筑的特殊性，并且关注现有建筑。本文最初发表于CommonEdge，标题为“为什么重新利用建筑是另一件大事？”。
1992年的里约全球环境会议之中，有三件事变得愈发清晰，即全球确实在变暖，第二，化石燃料不是可再生资源，第三，建筑环境确实需要适应新现状。同年，我在建筑教育杂志上发表了一篇文章，标题为《Architecture for a Contingent Environment》，其中，我建议建筑师与自然学家、保护主义者共同面对这种现状。
Sustainability awards and standards touted by professional architecture organizations often stop at opening day, failing to take into account the day-to-day energy use of a building. With the current format unlikely to change, how can we rethink the way what sustainability means in architecture today? The first step might be to stop rewarding purpose-built architecture, and look instead to the buildings we already have. This article was originally published on CommonEdge as"Why Reusing Buildings Should be the Next Big Thing."
At the inaugural Rio Conference on the Global Environment in 1992, three facts became abundantly clear: the earth was indeed warming; fossil fuels were no longer a viable source of energy; the built environment would have to adapt to this new reality. That year I published an essay in the Journal of Architectural Education called “Architecture for a Contingent Environment” suggesting that architects join with both naturalists and preservationists to confront this situation.
Image via CommonEdge. ImageSt. Ann's Warehouse / Marvel Architects
保护主义者建议，建筑专业人士应当充分考虑在可持续策略前提下的适应性再利用，因为再利用策略能够有效地节约资源，并且减少建筑垃圾的产生。在一系列策略中，拟定LEED标准的工程师们忽略了现有建筑，因此适应性再利用策略始终不够全面。而这一巨大的盲区同时还存在于AE专业中，虽然这并不归咎于全球保护者之中。
1990年，美国建筑师学会在广泛的支持下成立了环境委员会（Committee On The Environment——COTE），十多年来，气候变化始终是大多数建筑师关注的次要问题。在AIA Fellows的言论中人们会发现，气候科学家近期宣布，由于气候变暖，海平面会逐步上升，而生物会灭绝，因此业内对这个问题的讨论也逐步增加。该组织的官方刊物《建筑师》第十一月刊中显示，AIA 成员们奉行着一系列新建筑的绿色性能标准，同时也遵循着奖惩措施，这些措施与LEED有着同样的地位。而一则故事也表明，COTE前十名奖项也将在杂志的后续刊物中公布。
除此之外，这些获奖者比起AIA的付费编辑更加客观。另外，这个行业的主要宣传机构也同样有理由推进政府领导人员来支持这些基础设施、能源、可持续策略的发展，而这些正能直面这场危机。
Preservationists subsequently suggested that the profession consider adaptive reuse of historic buildings in its sustainability strategies, because reuse saves energy wasted in new construction, and generates less construction refuse as well. In their first set of guidelines, the engineers drafting LEED criteria ignored existing buildings altogether. Adaptive reuse has not been on the radar, at least until recently. That huge blind spot has lingered in the AE professions, though not among conservationists in the global community.
In 1990 the American Institute of Architects formed its Committee On The Environment (COTE) with widespread support from its members, but for more than a decade climate change remained a secondary concern among most architects. But message boards among AIA Fellows have followed the recent announcement by climate scientists that the earth is likely to warm so much that sea levels will rise and species will perish—so the discussion within the profession is heating up as well. As announced in the November issue of Architect, the official magazine of the organization, AIA members now have a set of metrics with which to measure the “green” performance of new buildings, and awards for buildings that follow those standards, putting it on an equal footing with LEED in that regard. A splashy cover story made it clear that the COTE “top ten” awards would feature prominently in subsequent issues of the magazine.
With that in mind, it’s worth looking at these award winners from a more objective point of view than that of cheerleading editors paid by the AIA to promote its messages. Moreover, there are reasons for the leading advocacy organization in our industry to be more aggressive in pushing government leaders to support infrastructure, energy and sustainability policies that will confront this crisis head-on.
The Renwick Gallery. Image Courtesy of Flickr User massmatt
好消息是，部分获奖者能够将已建成的建筑进行再利用，而非重新建造。学校、酿酒厂、博物馆都可以通过现代化体系而进行新生。华盛顿伦威克画廊的节能改造甚至获奖了，这是一座维多利亚时期的建筑，材料精致，但是其中的暖通空调系统却有着严重的不足。虽然通风系统并没有什么特别，但它却能够拯救一座历史建筑，因此工程师们在其中有着不可磨灭的功劳。
我曾经评估过10个项目，从中收集了一些讯息——适应性再用项目能够节约能源并且提升可持续程度。但是令人费解的是费城Ortlieb酿酒厂的Kieran Timberlake工作室，在该项目中，建筑师们通过被动式通风应用传感技术来将能源节约最大化。Witold Rybczinski在近期的一篇文章中评估了其被动式策略，因此我检查了数据支持系统，在其中，建筑师进行了测试，该测试的目标是位于玻璃屋顶之下的人群，同时也希望能够通过电脑控制的自然通风系统来进行夏季的降温。杂志的一张封面照片也传达了这样的信息，那便是一座智能的翻新建筑可以做到那些新建筑做不到的事。
The good news is that several of the award winners were for adaptive reuse of existing buildings rather than new construction. A school, a brewery, and a museum were among the vintage buildings that were given new “lives” through reuse or modernized systems. There was even an award for an energy-conserving retrofit of the historic Renwick Gallery in Washington, a Victorian building with wonderful materials but serious challenges to any HVAC conversion. There is nothing sexy about ductwork and high-tech heating, ventilation and air conditioning, but it can make a life or death difference for a historic structure. It was progressive simply to admit that our engineer colleagues were being creative here.
From what I could glean from the tables evaluating the ten projects, the adaptive reuse schemes were working to conserve energy and promote sustainability. But one puzzling case was the Kieran Timberlake studio in the former Ortlieb’s Brewery in Philadelphia, a highly touted example of using sensor technology to maximize energy conservation by using passive ventilation. Witold Rybczinski evaluated its paradoxical strategy in a recent article, so I hastened to look at the data supporting claims that architects on the KT staff were willing “guinea pigs” in tests that eventually proved the efficacy of putting people under a top floor partially-glass roof and expecting summer temperatures to be mitigated by computer-controlled natural ventilation. A cover photo for the magazine sent the message that a “smart” renovated building could do things that the old, un-renovated version couldn’t.
Michael Moran/OTTO
在上世纪70年代，我与Timberlake、Steve Kieran在宾夕法尼亚大学共同修习机械系统课程。当时教授认为，只有空调系统才能让使用者感觉到舒适，因此对于热舒适性的陈旧观点，以及经过氟利昂冷却的空气，这些才是大大的挑战。许多历史建筑在没有机械通风的情况下也很好地做到了这一点，因为它们都有着屋顶百叶窗以及天窗。
费城的某位公司负责人说，建筑师并不喜欢直接拿客户来做实验，而是更倾向于直接通过建筑来进行测试。华盛顿的一所私立学校由于与建筑师存在异议，因此将一座雨水花园拆除，而建造了一座运动场。但是如果让工作人员来进行测试，那么便会发现，从物理学的角度来说，这并没有意义。因为在玻璃屋顶之下，充足的阳光都会促进植物的生长，但是会让使用者感到炎热。在空间中放置大量传感器并不能保证任何研究成果，因此很难评估使用者的舒适程度。
事实上，人们都希望开窗或者关窗能够控制温度与湿度，但是夏日的阳光还是让人很头疼。在这个学校项目中，经过3年的实际感受，学校负责人承认这是通风系统所出现的问题，因此在顶楼安装了空调。双模式系统在天气温和的时候能够保证自然通风，在夏日便能自动关闭。那么，学校负责人看待旧建筑的方式与看待新设计是一样的，那么也证明了新技术是一种更优的解决方式。
I remember the mechanical systems classes I took at Penn in the 1970s with Jim Timberlake and Steve Kieran, and the insistence of our professors that tons of air conditioning was the only means of providing “comfort” to users, under the preposterous ASHRAE standards for summer cooling (68-70 F. and 55% RH). Nothing could be better than a challenge to those outdated attitudes toward thermal comfort and the use of Freon-cooled stale air rather than naturally cooled fresh breezes. Lots of historic buildings do this quite effectively without mechanical fans by trusting in convection and using rooftop louvers or monitors.
According to PR from the Philadelphia firm and one of its principals, the architects had grown weary of trying out their daring research on paying clients, instead electing to buy a building and use it as an in-house laboratory. (A private school in Washington, D.C. removed a “rainwater retention garden” from its front plaza and replaced it with a playground after disagreeing with the architects about its efficacy). But it hardly made sense to subject unwitting staff members to an experiment that looked foolhardy from the standpoint of tenth-grade physics: heat gain under any glass roof will make plants happy but fry humans, which is why we call them “hot houses.” Adding a lot of proprietary sensors to the space didn’t promise to tell researchers anything that a dry bulb thermometer or underarm sweat check couldn’t, and it was hardly reassuring that the computer program for evaluating staff comfort was called ROAST.
In fact, a summer under the sun was indeed unpleasant for staff, despite hopes that opening and closing rooftop openings would control temperature and humidity. Even shorts and t-shirts didn’t help. After three years and hundreds of staff surveys, the principals admitted that their ventilation scheme was a failure and installed air conditioning in the top floor. A dual-mode system allows for natural ventilation in temperate weather but not during hot summer days. Apparently, the principals looked at the old building in much the same way as they did their new designs—as a way of proving that new technology always outstrips the time-tested solutions of past designers.
Done House, New South Wales, Australia, 1991 © Reiner Blunck, Courtesy the Pritzker Prize Committee
那么为什么要通过一个问题事件来作为封面故事？其他获奖作品是否与酿酒厂一样地效率低下？事实上，COTE的许多首个前十名项目都或多或少取得了一定成就，当城市中的多户公寓保持闲置、亦或是呼应创新性再利用策略时，我们为什么不多一些考虑诸如Glen Murcutt澳大利亚被动式住宅等项目呢？一些零能耗建筑是否比窗户、墙体、屋顶都有着热性能改善的再利用历史阁楼建筑要好一些？诸如有机花园与雨水储蓄水池等低技术策略为教育项目提供了全新的背景，这甚至超越了SOM事务所设计的联邦法院的高级特征，而该项目花费了数百万美元，同时也获得了LEED白金认证。
在2018年的排名中，获奖者并没有那么杰出。甚至不像这些设计指标的全球影响那样存在有批判性。英国研究者在2008年建议，2050年之前全球只有15%的建筑施工场地是服务于新建筑，其他的项目都应当为改造与再利用。
Why create a cover story based on a questionable claim? Were other award winners as ineffectual as the brewery? Indeed, many of the projects in COTE’s first “top ten” boasted rather modest achievements, even under the basic criteria adopted by the AIA last year. Why give an award to a house not unlike one of Glen Murcutt’s Australian passive sheds when multi-family apartment buildings in many cities lie empty, crying out for innovative adaptive reuse solutions? Are a few Net Zero energy buildings better than dozens of reused historic loft buildings with improved thermal performance in their windows, walls, and roofs? Low tech improvements such as organic gardens and rainwater cisterns gave a flagging school a whole new theme for its education programs, outstripping the high tech features of an SOM-designed Federal Courthouse costing millions and achieving LEED Platinum status.
If the Class of 2018 is any indication, COTE laureates aren’t as green as their wreaths appear. It hardly seems as though the AIA looked critically at the national and global effects of these design metrics, as engineering firms such as London’s Arup Associates did recently. The Brits suggested in 2008 that only 15% of global architectural construction before 2050 be devoted to new buildings, with the rest going to the reuse and energy-conserving renovations of existing ones.
© Danae Santibanez
如果85%的现有建筑都能够改善现有基础设施，那么对经济的发展会有多大的好处。AIA官方平台对于这种可持续性的优势含糊其辞，并且对这种方式在亚洲与欧洲的影响视而不见。那么这便是建筑师们应当挺身而出的时候了，建筑师应该充分考虑基础设施的再利用，保持理性的态度与官方人员进行沟通。
数十年来，AIA将历史保护作为研究核心，甚至一个多世纪以来，还为在世的女建筑师颁发了金质奖章，但这并没有通过提倡现有建筑的适应性再利用来提供批判性方向策略。随着国家领导人的更换，建筑师们恰好能够改变现状，同时引导公众关注全球的挑战危机。保护主义者应当追求再利用策略，而不是只关注一些单纯的修复工作，建筑师们更应当将注意力转移到项目翻新之中，而不是只颂扬高科技绿色产品。
Consider the economic boon to the U.S. if 85% of construction were devoted to existing infrastructure improvements such as energy retrofits to multi-family housing in large cities. The AIA lobbying platform is vague about the benefits of this kind of sustainability spending, turning a blind eye to the positive effects of such investment in Europe and Asia. It’s time for architects to develop a clear infrastructure/reuse agenda and head for the offices of senators and congressmen with hard-hitting legislative proposals.
Just as it took decades for the AIA to promote historic preservation as one of its core concerns, and more than a century to honor a living female architect with its Gold Medal, it has not provided critical leadership by advocating for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. With a new Congress and perhaps a coming leadership change in Washington, our flagship organization has a chance to make amends for these oversights, and perhaps shift public attitudes toward the most challenging crisis in human history. Just as preservationists should pursue reuse instead of harping on pure restoration, architects should be shifting their attention toward additions and renovations rather than showering praise on high tech green machines.
LocHal / Mecanoo. Image © Ossip van Duivenbode
LocHal / Mecanoo. Image © Ossip van Duivenbode
© Ossip van Duivenbode
© Laurian Ghinitoiu
© Laurian Ghinitoiu
© Bruce Damonte
|
|
