Jin-gu-yuan Mixed-use Complex, Kunshan 昆山金谷园多功能建筑群

PUBLIC SPACE, HIGH DENSITY, AND AN EMERGING CIVIL SOCIETY

THE PROBLEMS

The 19th-century Chinese cities did not have much consciously planned public space, especially the nodal types such as square and park. People simply used the streets, or whatever left by the traffic flow. The urban renewals brought by the Economic Reform since 1978 have changed Chinese cities completely. However, the renewals have focused on improving the cities’ economic infrastructure. The “non-productive” public space, especially the part serving average residents, has not received proportional attention.  So as the first problem, Chinese cities today need more public space quantitatively. But the limited public space already supplied by the urban renewals has also exhibited three quality issues.

To begin with, much of the resources used on the public space has been lavished on a few “window-dressing” projects to show off the governments’ accomplishment. These huge squares and green areas tend to be far away from where residents concentrate and inaccessible to the masses most of whom don’t own cars. The users also often feel alienated by the large areas of lawn or sun-baked hard surface. Secondly, the few new public spaces serving the average residents, such as those in commercial streets and neighborhoods, have been impacted by a kind of privatization. Overlooked by the laissez-faire government, these profitless projects tend to be barebones, with no or few benches, shading and other amenities, and shunned by the opaque facades of nearby buildings. They have been often commercialized or even encroached by neighboring private developments.  In particular, the gated community has become the dominating form of residential development, killing the street life ever since. Thirdly, the gentrification of public space has taken many free or inexpensive functions and services away from the new public spaces. For example, pedestrians and street peddlers have been treated as second-class citizens. (For a full analysis see my article Brave New City: Three Problems in Chinese Urban Public Space since the 1980s" in Journal of Urban Design, No. 2, 2011.)

If the problems could be excused by the poor economy at the beginning of the Reform, it is no longer the case. Meanwhile, more people are living in the cities now. 51.3% Chinese are urban residents in 2011, compared with 17.92% in 1978. As a result, China has 117 cities with more than 1 million people in 2007, a rapid rise from 21 such cities in 1985. The urban population has also become increasingly middle class. All these demand a timely improvement of the urban environment, including the provision of more and better public space.

But there is one more reason.  China has entered such a historical moment that the public, government officials and professional analysts have agreed that a fundamental reform in its political and social structure cannot be delayed because its successful economic development can no longer work with the other aspects of the society. It is time to accelerate the process of political democratization and of increasing civil liberties. To get more people into the process, the civil society in Chinese cities, already prospers over the internet, must be further developed into the physical world. What is more appropriate than creating adequate public spaces for the purpose, as Henri Lefebvre argued before? Even though we should be cautioned against architectural determinism, one cannot deny that environmental form does have a role in quickening or retarding the progress. It is urgent now for Chinese urban planners and designers to create incubators for an emerging civil society.

How is this to be done? This article will use the Jin-gu-yuan Mixed-use Complex in Kunshan, China, designed by this author, to illustrate a new set of design principles.

THE PROJECT

Located west of Shanghai, the historical city Kunshan has been rapidly transformed into a major manufacturing center in the Yangtze River delta. With an area of 118 square kilometers and a population of 180,000, the central city is undergoing major urban renewals. The 1.38-hectare project site sits in one of the renewal zones, between a newly completed 5.6-hectare Jin-gu-yuan gated residential development to its north and the Loujiang River to its south. The low-rise houses occupying the other areas surrounding the site will be all replaced by high-density developments, similar to the high-rise Jin-gu-yuan that has 155 apartments per hectare.

Considering a major commercial street exists north of the Jin-gu-yuan, the developer (a part of the municipal government) called for a 6,220-square-meter floor area of neighborhood shopping, dining and community service facilities, including a kindergarten. Public space is required but its amount not specified. Early schemes by others reflected the conventional design approach, they showed a long row of one to two-story building, with the narrow strip of leftover space between the building and the river as “public space”. Dictated by Chinese building codes that require the kindergarten to sit in its own parcel, the facility was placed on the ground at the west end of the row in these schemes.

THE DESIGN THEORIES

The problems in public space stated earlier can be partially attributed to the conventional design approach that blindly imitates the urban form of European and US cities and ignores the unique conditions of Chinese cities. These conditions include the larger size of a city, the limited existing public space (especially the shortage of the nodal types), the hotter and longer summer, the poorer majority of the urbanities, and the need to preserve arable land. But the biggest oversight may be on the higher population density of Chinese cities. For example, in each square kilometer of the central city, Beijing and Shanghai have 7,387 and 16,828 residents respectively in 2012, far exceeding those of the most crowded Western cities. High density brings in a host of other issues such as more intensive use of the public space and higher building density. Therefore it demands design strategies qualitatively different from the current imported ones.  The first five of the eight concepts used in the project primarily respond to the high density, which were proposed in Public Places in Asia Pacific Cities (2001) edited by this author, while the rest has more to do with the economic and cultural peculiarities of Chinese urbanities.

1. Numerous Small Nodes

Many small public spaces are better than a few huge “window-dressing” projects in a dense city. The former model will create a public-space network accessible to most residents within a 500-meter walking or bicycling distance. Being able to use all kinds of vacant lots, it will also cause less relocation. The nodal type will create a more static setting that supports social gathering better. In fact, the traditional Chinese city had many courtyards in public buildings to supplement the streets as public space. In this project, the footprint of the building in the conventional design is shrunk and divided into five portions, creating five gardens between the buildings. Measured from 42X34 meters to 21X15 meters, these nodal spaces with clear boundaries will act as a more serious invitation to social groups than merely expanding the sidewalk. 

2. Vertical Zoning

To carve out more public space in a dense city, spaces have to be piled up, and one has to abandon the traditional “horizontal” zoning that dictates a singular use for each parcel, either among different functions or between open space and a building site. As long as fire and other hazards are prevented from spreading across floors, building codes should allow vertical zoning. Some of the building functions in this project are juxtaposed vertically. For example, all rooms used by the children in the kindergarten, along with the outdoor play areas, are now moved to the upper level, only the functions used mainly by adults remain in the north part of the first floor. The entire kindergarten has the image of a hilltop village. An exterior stair, designed as a mountain path, provides a secondary entrance. The new layout not only makes the kindergarten more secured (a big issue in China), but also affords the children a better view of the river which would have been blocked by a wall in the conventional scheme. Meanwhile, the concept allows the southern portion of the first floor to be used as a covered walkway and shops, which will continue the waterfront public corridor along the Loujiang River. Because a variance was not issued, the developer had to give the entire Building A to the kindergarten, but the experiment shows that the concept can be realized physically.

3. Multi-layered Street

Since the curbside shops attract more people, the conventional approach has created miles after miles of commercial streets in Chinese cities. They do not only tire us physically but also make the urban environment less legible, especially in an extended metropolitan area. Research showed that a commercial street longer than 600 meters did not attract more customers. So why don’t we shorten the commercial section of a street by creating sidewalks on the second floor? To heed William Whyte’s warning that a public space works only when it is close to pedestrian flows, the proposed sidewalk must be no more than one floor above the ground and frequently connected to the ground by public stairs. Moreover, the pedestrians on the ground should be able to see the shop fronts along the upper-level sidewalk. The concept was realized as a small-scale experiment in Buildings E and B-D of this project.

4. Paved Garden

The essence of an urban park in a high-density city is not a piece of transplanted “nature”, merely to be viewed upon, but a public room with greeneries. In designing a public green area, the conventional approach favors the model of English landscape garden characterized by the large lawns, lakes and forests. It does not support the intensive human activities observed in many Chinese parks. Therefore, most part of a public green area should be paved, with as many overhead or vertical planes of plants as possible. Of course, a limited area of lawn may be designed to create a void center for a sense of relief and to allow for occasional use of a large group. Finally, associations with nature should be created but with a more symbolized approach rather than a literal one.  All these ideas are used in the design of the five gardens in this project. The largely paved gardens will accommodate many residents’ activities which may not be possible in their small apartments. Meanwhile, the numerous trellises and tree pits give shades and a sense of nature to the gardens. Near each of the two gates of the Jin-gu-yuan housing, a small lawn opens a visual channel toward the river. In festivals, it can be transform into a stage or playground.

5. Hard Edges

In many Western cities, sense of territory is created by space, such as the front lawn of a home, and by non-physical means, such as customs. These “soft” edges do not work in high-density Chinese cities which posse neither extra space nor a similar culture (Chinese in a queue tend to have their bodies touch each other). In a conventionally designed park, the lawns and unprotected flower beds are quickly worn out. Therefore, we should use more physical, particularly vertical (i.e., space-efficient) boundaries. In this project, a wall, a colonnade and tall bushes divide the gardens from the northern street. Inside the gardens, conversation groups are separated by dense plants of eye-level height. The two lawns described earlier are completely rimmed by railings which can be opened for occasional use of the turf by large groups.

6. Low-cost Activities

By imitating the West, the planners often assumed gentrified functions for public spaces, such as symphony concert and artists’ village, which are unfrequented by the majority of Chinese urbanities. 60.8% (the largest group) of Shanghai residents in 2012 listed simple green spaces as the most visited public facility. As Ray Oldenburg argued, a good public space should be free or inexpensive. It was observed that low-cost recreations attracted people most in Shanghai parks. In addition to exercises that are loved by everyone, the older generation prefers playing chess/cards and talking. The middle-aged enjoy social dancing and singing. And the younger generation loves the sports. In this project, the five gardens have plenty of benches, many are arranged in a centripetal form, to provide settings for quiet social activities. There are small “plazas” for self-expressions. We also transformed the roofs of Buildings B-D into one volley ball and two badminton courts, satisfying the teenagers’ needs often overlooked by planners.

7. Spaces for Open-ended Uses

All the five buildings in this project are adjacent to a covered walkway at least three meters wide. Some sections of the walkway are further expanded. The generous dimension aims at providing more than a traffic corridor. Since only the public knows all the ways to use public space, the best design may be to provide many minimally furbished but free spaces, so people can invent their own uses, such as an English-speaking corner, bird display, and an outdoor cafe. Adding a roof will open up most versatile possibilities with a small cost increase. In particular, the street market proves to be an efficient tool to help low-income residents to make a living. With a good management, the peddlers also enrich a public space. While this project may be too small, it is still hoped that a few peddlers could be accommodated in the covered walkway.    

8. Buildings Paired with Open Spaces

One of the characteristics of Chinese traditional space is coupling an indoor space with some outdoors spaces to serve each building function. In contrast to the Central Park model, today’s Chinese still prefer a more refined mixture of indoor comfort with nature. We tried several ways to adapt the idea to this project. The juxtaposition of buildings with gardens is one, which makes it easier to provide food and drink to people in the gardens, another Oldenburg’s hallmark for a good public space. Moreover, the kindergarten in Building A has a roof deck next to each classroom and a roof garden shared by all classes, and the second-floor shops in Building E all open into their own roof decks overlooking the Loujiang River.  

Except for Garden 5, the construction is near completion now. We will see if the design works after the Complex opens and the plants grow. Urban design should never be reduced to fancy graphic compositions. Human behaviors should serve as the main foundation of the design concepts. It is not even merely a design issue. If the southern gates of the nearby housing estate are not opened as planned, few people will use the public facility. If the shops in the Complex do not include some inexpensive convenience stores, people in the gardens will interact less with the nearby buildings. If the management fails to regulate the peddlers smartly, street market will never occur or will become a nuisance. It takes a civil society to make a civil place, but I believe that Chinese urbanities are learning to claim the ownership of public space, a relatively new phenomenon in the long history of China.

Project Data

 

Location
Zhenchuan West Road (between Baimajing Road and West Cangji River), Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, China

Project Period  2009-2013

Site Area 1.38 hectare

Floor Area  6,220 square meters

Client  Kunshan City Construction, Investment and Development Co., Ltd.

Designer
Architecture: Miao Design Studio (Design Architect), Pu Miao; Hanjia Design Group, Shanghai (Architect of Record), Jiang Ninqing
Structure: Shanghai Yuangui Structural Design Inc., Zhang Yewei, Li Mingwei

Engineering: Hanjia Design Group, Shanghai, Guo Zhong, Yu Yang, Wu Qiuyan

Publication

Journals Urban Design (UK, Summer/2013), Architectural Journal (China, 10/2013)

archdaily.com

 

在高密度城市中创造公共空间

催生明日的公民社会

问题

大多数十九世纪的中国城市没有多少有意规划的公共空间,特别是像广场或公园那样的节点空间。街道(或不如说是除去交通后的剩余面积)是城市中的主要公共空间。1978年以来,经济改革推动的城市改造彻底改变了城市面貌。但是,这一阶段的改造主要着眼于改善城市的经济基础设施。“无利可图”的公共空间没有得到相同比例的关注,特别是为普通居民服务的主体部分。所以说,城市公共空间今天面临的第一个问题是数量上需要更多。同时,城市改造中已经提供的有限公共空间还存在三个质量问题。

首先,改善公共空间的资源中的大部分被用于少数几个“橱窗化”的政绩工程。这些巨型广场或绿地通常远离普通居民活动稠密的地方。由于中低收入的居民大多没有车,所以无法日常使用这些设施。超大的草坪及烈日暴晒的硬地更拒人于千里之外。其次,公共空间的“私有化”使商业街或社区中新建的少量公共空间也无法服务好普通居民。由于被经济效益至上的政府所忽视,这些“低效益”的工程通常能省就省,缺乏坐椅,遮荫,及其他必要的设施。与这些公共空间相邻的建筑立面经常是不透明的,拒绝内外交流。不少新建的公共空间甚至被商业化或被私人侵占。近三十年来垄断居住区形式的封闭式小区,正在逐渐扼杀城市街道的公共生活。第三,公共空间日益趋向“贵族化”。新建公共空间中的免费或廉价的活动或服务大大减少。步行者及小贩经常被看做二等公民。以上问题的详细分析见本文作者的谁的城市?图说新城市空间三病”,《时代建筑》1卷,2007年。

如果以上这些问题可以被归咎于改革开始时国家财政的窘困,现在已不再是这么回事。同时,越来越多的人正在往城市里搬。在1978年只有17.9%的中国人是城市居民,而在2011年上升到51.3%。这造成了越来越多的大城市。在1985年我国有21个百万以上人口的城市,而在2007年飞跃到117个。与此同时,这些密集的城市人口又越来越中产化。所有这些趋势要求我们必须尽快地改善城市日常生活环境,包括提供大量,优质的公共空间。

但是还有一个更重大的理由要求我们创造更多更好的公共空间。今天,无论是公众,政府,还是专业分析人士都已达成共识,那就是我国成功的经济改革已经不能再与现有的政治,社会体系兼容。对后者的深化改革,像加速政治民主与增进公民权利,已经不能再继续推迟。要让更多的人参与到这场改革中来,我们必须加速群众自发的草根组织--公民社会--的形成。也就是把目前在网络上已经很红火的公众讨论延伸在实体世界中。正如法国哲学家Henri Lefebvre 所指出过的,创造能容纳这些活动的公共空间是实现这一目的的重要条件。当然,我们必须警惕建筑决定论的陷阱,不能指望只靠物质环境就可以改变人的社会行为。但我们仍不能否认是否有好的环境可以加快或拖延这一改变。现在是城市规划师与设计师为明天的公民社会创造摇篮的时候了。

如何在中国城市现有的约束中创造更多更好的公共空间呢?下面将用作者最近做的一个城市设计昆山金谷园多功能建筑群来解说一系列设计原则。

昆山金谷园多功能建筑群

坐落在上海西边的古城昆山已飞速演变成长江三角洲的一个主要工业城市。占地118平方公里的市中心有人口18万,正在经历多项大型城市改造。本工程位于其中一个改造区域中。1.38公顷的条型基地的北边是刚完工的5.6公顷金谷园封闭式小区。基地南边是娄江。基地周围还有多片低层棚户住宅,将被改建为与金谷园(每公顷155户)相似的高层,高密度小区。

考虑到金谷园小区北面就有一条主要商业街,建设单位要求将本工程建成一个建筑面积约6220平方米的社区零售,餐饮,及服务设施,包括一个6班的幼儿园。公共空间要有但未指定面积。其他人做的早期方案显示了时下习惯的手法,多为一长条一到二层的建筑,建筑与娄江之间剩下的窄条面积就算是“公共空间”了。由于规范要求幼儿园必须坐落在自己的基地中,这些方案均将幼儿园放在基地西端的地面上。

八个设计概念

前面说的我国城市公共空间中现存的问题,部分是因为常规设计思路盲目地照搬欧美城市形式,对中国城市的独特现状视而不见。这些状况包括较大的城市总体规模,有限的现有公共空间(特别是稀少的节点空间),更热更长的夏天,大多数城市居民的较低收入,以及需要对城市周边可耕地进行的保护。但最不该忽视的一个国情是我国城市的高人口密度。 举例来说,在2012年北京和上海中心城区里的每平方公里各自有738716828个居民。远超过最拥挤的西方城市。高密度滋生了一系列其他问题,如对公共空间的高负荷使用及更稠密的建筑密度。因此,我们必须有一套本质上与进口模式完全不同的设计对策。以下介绍的头五个概念就是主要针对高密度环境提出的,最早发表于本文作者编著的《亚太城市的公共空间当前的问题与对策》(2001)。其余三个概念则试图应对我国城市居民当前的经济及文化特征。

1、大量小型的节点空间

在一个高密度城市中,众多袖珍型庭院或硬地比一、二个超大“橱窗化”的公园或广场要好。前者将形成一个公共空间网,使大多数居民在步行或骑自行车500米以内就可以使用一个公共空间。小型的尺度使得这类工程可以建在各种边角空地上,减少拆迁。节点形态将创造较静止的环境,有利于形成社交聚会。传统中国城市里不少庙宇或会馆中的庭院,实际上就是节点公共空间,它们弥补了街道作为公共空间的不足。在本工程中,按习惯手法连续铺开的一层建筑面积被缩小并分割成五栋建筑,腾出地方来在各栋之间形成五个庭园。这些节点空间均有明确的边界,每个长宽在42X34米到21X15米。在公众眼中,它们将比仅仅加宽一点的街道更有效地鼓励人们在这里开展社团活动。

2、垂直功能分区

要在稠密的城市里挖出更多的公共空间,一个办法是将不同功能叠加。传统的功能分区通常为每个地块指定一种用途,比如像是房屋还是室外空间,是这种建筑功能还是那种。这种“水平”式分区不再能满足高密度城市的需要。在保证火灾及其他灾害不会越过楼板的前提下,我们应当修改现行建筑及规划法规,允许垂直分区。本工程中的某些功能已经如此做了。例如,A栋的幼儿园中所有儿童用房连同室外游戏场地被移到二层。只有主要为成人使用的服务,供应用房留在一层的北边。整个幼儿园被设计成一个小山村的形象。貌似山径的一个室外楼梯可被用做幼儿园的第二入口。这一新布局使娄江景观不再被围墙阻挡,孩子们可以方便地了望河景。它同时又改善了幼儿园的安全(当前群众关心的一个大问题)。但更重要的是,垂直分区使A栋一层的南边得以成为商铺及一条公共敞廊,延续了从基地东面开始的娄江滨江景观带这一公共步行道。建成后由于多种原因,建设单位最终将整个A栋(公共敞廊除外)交给幼儿园使用。但本实验证明垂直分区在设计及使用上是完全可行的。

3、多层街道

由于人行道边的商店吸引更多的顾客,我国城市就出现了许多过度蔓延的商业街。这些街道不仅让购物者肉体疲劳,而且使城市中的区块难于被识别,特别是在一个大都市中。研究发现,长于600米的商业街难于吸引更多的顾客。所以,我们为何不能通过在二层或半地下层设置人行道的方法来缩短一条街的商业部分呢?美国社会学家William Whyte 曾警告,只有靠近人流的公共空间才会被人使用。因此,新的人行道离地面人流不宜超过一层,并应与地面通过频繁的公共楼梯连接。同时,地面上的行人应能看到二层人行道边商店的店面。多层街道的概念在本工程的E栋及B-D栋中得到了局部的应用。

4、硬地花园

在高密度城市中,公园的本质是一个有绿化的公共大厅,而不再是一片移植到城市中的,仅用于观赏的“自然”。时下公园设计的习惯做法喜欢采用英国景观式园林的模式,以大片草地,水面及树林为主。该模式无法支持公众对公园的高强度使用与损耗, 这可以在许多中国城市公园中观察到。因此,公共绿地中的大部分地面应当是铺砌的,但同时设置尽可能多的位于上空或垂直面上的绿化。当然,可以设置少数几片面积有限,带保护措施的草坪,为使用者提供延伸视线的空间,同时也可满足偶尔的大型团体活动。公园应当能让人联想到大自然,但这必须用象征的手法而非模仿。以上这些想法均被应用于本工程中的五个庭园中。居民将用这些以硬地为主的花园来进行他们不大的公寓难于容纳的活动。大量的花架及树穴突现这些空间的自然本质。对应于北面金谷园小区的两个大门处,各设置了一片带围栏的小型草坪,开辟了通往娄江的视觉渠道。在重要的节庆日,这些草坪可成为社区表演的舞台或孩子们的游戏场。

5、硬质边界 

在许多低密度的西方城市,领域感是用空间或甚至非物质的手段来产生的,前者像美国城市中独家住宅的宅前草坪,后者如西方文化的风俗习惯。但高密度的中国城市既没有过剩的空间也没有类似的文化(如中国人排队习惯触及别人的身体),所以这些“柔性”边界行不通。目前常见的设计通常盲目模范西方城市形式,所产生的无栅栏的草坪或其他空地很快就被破坏或占用。因此,我们必须采用物质的,特别是占用空间少的垂直屏障。在本工程中,矮墙,敞廊,及高大的灌木从在庭园与北面的街道之间形成一条“硬质”边界。在庭园中,高及人眼的密叶植物将各个交谈组团分隔开来,座凳同时是保护绿化的屏障。上面说到的两片草坪周边环有可多处开启的活动栏杆,在偶尔需要使用草坪时可打开,使草坪与周边融为一体。

6、低收费活动

以西方城市为楷模,我国城市规划者常为公共空间设想一些贵族化的使用方式,像交响音乐会或艺术家村。但事实上市民主体甚少光顾此类设施。一项2012年的调查发现,60.8% (最大群体)的上海市民使用最多的公共设施是简单的城市绿地。美国社会学家Ray Oldenburg指出,好的公共空间必须是免费或低收费的。我在上海的公园中也观察到,廉价的休闲方式最能吸引公众。除了人人喜爱的简易健身活动外,老年市民还喜欢棋牌及闲聊。中年人偏爱交谊舞及唱歌。年青一代则沉醉于球类活动。为此,本工程中的五个庭园中设置了大量的座椅,其中许多被布置成向心型来促进安静的社交活动。庭园中同时设计了小片集中硬地来满足自我表现类的活动需要。考虑到社区公共空间规划常常忽视青少年的需要,BCD栋的平屋顶被转化成一个排球场及二个羽毛球场。

7、用途开放的公共空间

本工程中的五栋建筑均被一条至少3米宽的敞廊所连接,敞廊的有些段落并被进一步扩大。这些富余的尺度是为了让敞廊起到比交通走道更多的作用。因为只有公众本身才知道所有使用公共空间的方式。最好的设计可能只需要提供一系列物质条件简单但是免费的空间。让人们发明自己的使用方法,比如像英语角,溜鸟,或露天咖啡座。增加一个屋顶可以用很少的成本激发最多样的使用。特别是,在公共空间设摊是帮助低收入居民迈出谋生第一步的有效办法。管理得当的话,适量的摊贩也能丰富公共空间。因此,本工程虽然规模有限,仍希望物业可以在敞廊中允许少量的设摊。

8、室内外空间配对

中国传统建筑的特点之一是将一个室内空间与一或多个室外空间配对来服务于每一项主要建筑功能。与西方的大绿地中散布孤立建筑(如纽约的中央公园)的模式,今天的中国人仍喜爱一种小块室内外空间混合的环境,既有室内的舒适,又与自然有密切接触。本工程尝试了多种方式来继承这一传统。如交替布置建筑与庭园的总平面,使庭园中的居民更方便地就近购买茶点,这是Oldenburg的好的公共空间的另一个特点。另外,A栋中的幼儿园虽在二层,也为每个活动室提供了一个屋顶平台,并有一个大型屋顶花园供所有六个班级玩耍。E栋二层的每个商铺都有自己的屋顶平台,与二层“街道”毗邻或可俯瞰娄江。

除了园5外,整个建筑群目前已基本建成。当本工程交付使用,攀援植物开始爬上来后,我们将可以看到以上设计概念是否可行。城市设计不能被简化为有趣的图形设计,设计概念必须以人的行为形式为主要基础。但这甚至不仅是一个设计问题。如果附近的小区入口不按计划打开,就不会有许多人来使用公共空间。如果本建筑群的商店中没有一个大众化的便利店,花园中的居民就不会进附近的建筑。如果物业不能对小贩进行有效的管理,街市或是从不出现,或会惹得大家都讨厌。只有在一个公民社会中才会产生一个公民的公共空间,但我相信市民们一定能逐渐用好管好自己的公共空间 -- 一个在中国漫长历史中刚出现的新事物。 

工程资料 

 

地点  江苏省昆山震川西路(白马泾路与西仓基河之间)

时间  2009-2013

基地面积  1.38公顷

建筑面积  6,220 平方米

业主  江苏省昆山城市建设投资发展有限公司

设计
建筑:缪朴设计工作室 缪朴; 汉嘉设计集团 蒋宁清

结构:上海源规建筑结构设计事务所 张业巍,李明蔚

设备:汉嘉设计集团 郭忠,于洋,吴秋燕

发表

期刊 《城市设计》(英国,夏季/2013,《建筑学报》(10/2013)

archdaily.com
Click on an image to enlarge it  欲放大图像请点击画面

Location Map  基地位置平面

Upper: Second Floor Plan  Lower: First Floor Plan  上:二层平面 下:一层平面

Left: Building A Section  Right: Building E Section  左:A栋剖面 右:E栋剖面


South elevation of Building A  A栋南立面


North entrance of Garden 1, next to the northeast corner of Building A

靠近A栋东北角的园1北入口

Garden 1 in front of Building B  B栋前的园1


A small lawn, with open-able fence, in Garden 1 connects the housing gate to Loujiang River.  1中一片带可开栏杆的小型草坪将小区大门引向娄江。


The southeast corner of Building A  A栋东南角


The exterior stair on the east side of Building A provides a secondary entrance to the second-floor kindergarten.  

A栋东面的室外楼梯为二层幼儿园提供了第二入口。


The exterior stair of Building A leads into a roof deck.

A栋室外楼梯上到一个屋顶平台。


Looking northwest toward the roof garden surrounded by classrooms in the kindergarten  向西北方向看被幼儿园教室围绕的屋顶花园


Looking toward the roof garden from the crawl space under the deck of Classroom 1  从活动1平台下的矮空间内望屋顶花园


One of the classroom interiors in the kindergarten (interior decoration by others)

幼儿园活动室内景之一(室内装修由他人设计)

















The multi-purpose room of the kindergarten on the second floor at the northwest corner of Building A  A栋西北角二层为幼儿园音体活动室


Shops linked by a covered walkway along the southern edge of the first floor of Building A  A栋一层南边为由一条敞廊连接的商店


South elevation of Building A and the multi-leveled riverbank

A栋南立面及台阶型河岸


Garden 2 with Building B behind  2,后为B


The east edge of Building B faces Garden 2

B栋东边缘面对园2



















The expanded area of the covered walkway on the east side of Building B, designed for “open-ended uses.”

B栋东边局部加宽的敞廊,可满足公众的自发性用途。


Southeast corner of Building B

B栋东南角




















Garden 2 with Building B behind  2,后为B


Garden 2 with Building C behind


Southeast corner of Building C (left) and Garden 3 (right)

C栋东南角(左)及园3(右)


Garden 3 between Buildings C (right) and D (left)

C(右)、D(左)栋之间的园3


From the inside of Building D looking into Garden 3  D栋内望园3


North side of the colonnade connecting Buildings C (left) and B (right)

连接C(左)、B(右)栋的敞廊北面


In the colonnade connecting Buildings D (left) and C (right), peeking into Garden 3 (left)  从连接D(左)、C(右)栋的敞廊中一窥园3


The ball courts on the roofs of Buildings C (left) and B (right)

C(左)、B(右)栋屋顶上的球场


Garden 4 flanked by Buildings D (left) and E (right)

D(左)、E(右)栋夹峙的园4


Garden 4 in front of Building D  D栋前的园4


The east edge of Building D faces Garden 4  

D栋东边缘面对园4



















West elevation of Building E with Garden 4 in its front  E栋西立面,前为园4


Northeast corner of Building E, with one of the exterior stairs leading to the second-floor “street”  E栋东北角为上到二层“街道”的室外楼梯之一。


The second-floor “street” in Building E is supplemented with roof decks.

E栋二层“街道”局部与屋顶平台相接。


The second-floor “street” in Building E has visual connections with the ground.

E栋二层“街道”与地面有视觉联系。


The second-floor “street” is visible behind the lighting well in one of the shops in Building E  透过E栋一个商店内的采光井可见另一面的二层“街道”。



The second-floor “street” in Building E has visual connections with the ground.

E栋二层“街道”与地面有视觉联系。


South elevation of Building E  E栋南立面


North elevation of Building E  E栋北立面

Comments