地址：北京市海淀區中關村北大街100號（北樓）北京大學建筑與景觀設計學院一層 Email：info@landscape.cn
Copyright ? 2013-2022 景觀中國（www.36byz.com）版權所有 京ICP備05068035號
京公海網安備 110108000058號
俞孔堅?給中國城市治病：我的18年自白
——《景觀設計學》2015年第5期“主編寄語”
Reflecting on Eighteen Years Healing Chinese Cities
By Kongjian Yu
我對于中國城鎮化和城市建設的反思始于1996年，當時，我為自己的回國前景投石問路，乘火車從香港、深圳經上海北上，到達北京，眼前的景象令我震撼：在深圳，那些帶我參觀的人們都以城市中超尺度的寬廣大道為豪，卻無視一位老農吃力地蹬著三輪車、負重橫穿馬路時的驚慌失措；城市中心大面積的良田撂荒，野草叢生，名曰預留作為深圳市的未來中心區（現今這里果然成為了擁有巨大的花崗巖軸線和中央公園的中心城區）。上海的浦東正在開發，上百座在建的樓房，構成一片吃力生長著的怪異鋼筋水泥叢林；列車窗外，沃野里平地拔起一兩座高樓，地面上卻是一片狼藉—濕地成了建筑垃圾堆填場，村莊只剩下斷墻殘垣。北京的大街小巷則在進行著轟轟烈烈的街道拓寬運動，包括北京大學東門外的中關村北大街，一排排高大的白楊樹被悉數砍去，一片片低矮的四合院被推為瓦礫；河流治理工程也同時興起，河道硬化和截彎取直工程將河道兩側的茂密樹林伐去；所到之處，用于開發小區的地塊被高高的圍墻圈起，“三通一平”的工程迅速將“生地”變為“熟地”；奇花異卉和來自鄉村的古樹被肆無忌憚地用以裝飾街道、政府大樓前的市政廣場和新建住宅小區。全國人民似乎都在歡呼：讓中國的城鎮化來得更快速而猛烈些吧！
而我當時所見的一切，均是與我所學到的城鎮化和城市建設理論和觀念相違背的。深受簡?雅各布斯的《美國大城市的死與生》、伊恩?麥克哈格的《設計結合自然》等著作的影響，我確信中國正在陷入疾患，犯了西方城鎮化和城市建設已經犯過的錯誤！于是我心生不忍，匆匆于次年一月回國，自命不凡，開始大聲疾呼，并投身于阻止和治療城市病的艱苦工作中。多方求證之后，我意識到，這種病同時因為4類人所攜帶的病毒而起：第一類，也是最主要的一類病毒被城市建設的決策者所攜帶，這種病毒由“權力+GDP業績考核+低俗”結合而成，它可以開動國家機器沿著特定的軌道前行，因而擁有巨大的殺傷力；第二類病毒被開發商所攜帶，這種病毒由“資本+貪婪+缺德+低俗”構成，所以其攜資本的力量，創造并適應墮落時代的廣泛需求；第三類病毒被規劃設計的專業人士所攜帶，由“奴性+陳舊知識+權威”結合而成，所以，憑借知識的迷信和“知識就是力量”的符咒，往往能助紂為虐；第四類，則是被廣大的民眾，也就是城市的受眾所攜帶，由“盲從+低俗”結合而成，為其他幾種病毒的泛濫提供社會和文化環境。由于上述四類病毒的侵害，中國城市泛濫著我們今天已經普遍感受到的各種城市病：文化與社會的、經濟的、生態與環境的，在此無須枚舉。我認為要阻止這一人類有史以來最泛濫、最嚴重的“流行病”，必須對這4類病毒的攜帶者同時進行治療、對癥下藥！且必須是猛藥！
我的第一劑猛藥是開給城市決策者和開發者的。我于1998年便開始發表系列文章，發起了對城市化妝運動的猛烈批判，并明確指出，這是封建集權意識、暴發戶意識和小農意識的綜合癥，克服這一系列病毒的良藥是“續唱新文化運動之歌”，使決策者重新回到我黨建黨之初的偉大理想，回到“德先生”和“賽先生”，并在中央和地方級電視臺，以及各類市長和部長級研修班上宣講（該藥的核心內容后編撰于和李迪華合著的《城市景觀之路》[2003]一書中）。
我所開的第二劑猛藥叫作“生存的藝術”和“反規劃”，是開給規劃設計的專業技術人員的（包括城市規劃師、景觀設計師和建筑師等）。這劑藥是從專業批判和自我批判開始的，我批判了中國傳統園林沒有能夠走出封建士大夫的“園”，沒能走向探究土地適應新時代快速城鎮化需求之路，而喪失了解決迫切的人地關系領導學科的地位（此觀點集中體現在1998~2000年在《中國園林》上發表的系列文章和《生存的藝術》一書中）。我也批判了計劃經濟時代助紂為虐的城市規劃方法論，它滋長了權力機器的膨脹和開發商的貪婪；因而我大喝住手，并下了“反規劃”的猛藥（2002年首次發表，集中體現在我和我的同事及學生合著的《反規劃》[2005]一書中）。強調必須先做不建設規劃，盡快劃定禁止建設區，特別是生態紅線，來阻止病態城市的蔓延，并在具體方法和技術上提出了通過判別和規劃生態安全格局和生態基礎設施來確定生態基底，并通過生態基礎設施—而非灰色基礎設施—來建設諸如“海綿城市”等生態而宜居的可持續性城市。
我所開的第三劑猛藥叫作“大腳革命”，是針對大眾文化的—這里的大眾當然也包括上述三類人。我堅信，“大腳革命”是解決中國城市病的社會文化基礎，其核心是批判上千年來中國文化中的小腳審美—以犧牲健康和功能來換取畸形的美麗—而倡導尋常、健康的大腳之美，倡導“足下文化與野草之美”。這是一場城市啟蒙運動，一場新美學、新文化的運動。它呼喚生態環境意識的覺醒，回到平常、回到土地、回到公民性。這劑藥是通過大眾媒體傳播的，最具代表性的是被收入中學教科書的《足下文化與野草之美》（江蘇版）一文，以及在網上流傳的《大腳革命》“一席”報告和大量相關散文；此觀點亦集中體現在散文集《回到土地》[2009]一書中。
上述三劑藥如要起作用，還需要有相應的觸媒。我認為有4個觸媒可以有效地傳播思想、發揮藥效：
第一是向“五四”新文化時期的思想領袖學習，走出大學的象牙塔，直接與“病毒攜帶者”交流溝通，為他們當場治病。我發現關于這一途徑最有效的方法是與決策者進行交流。他們是中國社會中具有抱負也聰慧的族群—除了部分人假公濟私以外—他們能夠快速接受新思想并令其發揮效用。在給書記、市長們講完課后，我常常在一小時內即被拉至工地現場，當場制止正在進行中的河道裁彎取直工程、民居或工業遺產拆遷工程、濕地填埋工程等。其中，最最直接有效的是向最高決策者建言，例如，我關于國土生態安全格局、“海綿城市”建設、大運河遺產廊道保護等方面的建言，最終都被國務院、國家部委和最高決策層采納或參考，并在全國發揮效用。這令我非常欣慰，也使我對治理中國城市和國土充滿了信心。
我對秉信陳舊專業知識的技術官僚和所謂的“專家”感到無奈，他們不但很難接受新的思想，且往往是舊知識體系的衛道士，也是既得利益者。而對于中國的廣大民眾的教育，只能慢慢來，并需要從娃娃抓起。所以，我特別熱衷于給掌握權力且并非專家型的市長們、帶孩子的家長們，以及廣大的青年學生授課。
第二，當然是辦學。通過培養新一代技術官僚，在可預見的將來，將會對根治城市病有重要的功效。與第一種途徑相比，這是一個中長期的工程，也可能是個星火工程。但畢竟，北京大學的學子畢業后即便不能謀個一官半職，但有幸成為未來的總規劃師也未可知，如果我可以在有生之年看到他們中有人能解救一方的人民和土地于病痛之中，將是一件欣慰之事。但辦學談何容易！經過15年的努力，從設立中心開始，經過研究院、學院，我和我的同事都從黑發變成了白發，曲線救國，終于辦起了一個建筑與景觀設計學院，入駐未名湖畔的紅四樓。其間的艱辛，只有我們自己知道。
第三，也是從“五四”新文化時期的先賢那里學來的：發表文字、創辦雜志，包括新媒體。開始時給一些雜志的投稿都被欣然接受，但由于良藥苦口，這些批判性的文章很快引起了行業內部分專家的關注，甚至憤怒。因為直言不諱但有效用的文章不能順利發表，于是便和志同道合的同事一起，決心自己創辦刊物。當然大家都明白，這很難，辦了5年，連個“戶口”都沒有，只能以書代刊。之后終于有了自己的刊號，辦起了這本《景觀設計學》期刊，并在同志們的齊心協力之下，獲得了國際認可。
第四，實踐。榜樣的力量是無窮的。土人設計從無到有，近500名同仁的參與和努力，為我的理論的發展和檢驗提供了不可或缺的基地和后盾。“大腳革命”的思想分別在規劃和設計兩個層面上展開：規劃層面是“反規劃”和城市生態基礎設施（包括“海綿城市”）的大量規劃實踐；在設計層面上，則是大量低維護的、以綜合生態系統服務為目標的當代城市設計和景觀工程實踐。生態性和當代藝術性是這些設計實踐的標志。
到目前為止，體現上述思想的土人實踐已經遍布全國200多個城市，并走向了國際。我可以自豪地說，它們在解決中國城市問題病癥方面起到了積極的作用。
這篇文章讀起來像是在自吹自擂，也或是給所有一起艱辛走過來的同志的告慰，但在如此浩瀚磅礴的時代大潮里，不寫自己知道的那點事，還能寫些什么有深度的文字呢。畢竟我有幸經歷了這轟轟烈烈的城市建設高潮，并自命不凡地苦苦抗擊著蔓延全國的各種城市病，一路走來，倍感孤傲，卻努力留下可供考據的文字及實踐案例。拋下這一堆磚，權當為后來者敲打、批判或吸取經驗教訓，以作玉石大廈之粗料吧！
譯 薩拉?雅各布斯 陳立欣
My musings on Chinese urbanization and new construction began in 1996 when I prepared for returning China. At that time, I traveled by train from Hong Kong to Shenzhen, and then arrived in Beijing via Shanghai. The changes I saw during this trip astonished me. In Shenzhen, our guides proudly showed off the newly finished, oversized urban avenues while turning a blind eye to the helplessness of an old farmer laboring his way through. Large areas of farmland in the heart of the city had been abandoned and were covered in weeds in anticipation of future preservation at the city center. (The city center was built up eventually with giant paved axial streets and a central park.) Also at this time, Pudong in Shanghai was under development, and hundreds of half-finished buildings were becoming a bizarre concrete jungle. From the train window, the havoc wreaked on the landscape, from the wetland filled with construction waste to bulldozed villages, was visible. Entering Beijing, I saw roads undergoing a campaign of aggressive enlargement, including the Zhongguancun North Road just outside the east gate of Peking University. Rows of aspens had been cleared and clusters of courtyards were filled with debris. At this time, river management projects were increasingly popular. The concretization and straightening of waterways had reduced riparian edges to nothing, land for neighborhood development was becoming enclosed, and the “three connections and one leveling” campaign had turned raw land into developable, ripe land. Exotic flowers and ancient trees replanted from countryside had been used to decorate streets, municipal plazas, and luxury residential buildings. The country was unquestioningly celebrating urbanization.
What I witnessed nineteen years ago went against the urbanization theories I had been taught. Influenced by The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs and Design with Nature by Ian McHarg, I became convinced that China was sick from the mistakes of urbanization. In response, I returned to China in January, 1997, began speaking my qualms, and devoted my practice to healing and preventing the illness befallen so many Chinese cities. Like an epidemiologist, I identified four groups responsible for spreading the virus of poor urbanization. First, are the policy makers, empowered by the state and motivated by a combination of power and GDP, this group follows a predestinated course. The second are the developers, who feed off capital, voracity, wickedness, and vulgarity. The third are urban design professionals who carry the virus by misusing their authority and promoting outdated knowledge. Finally, is the general public, who incubate a social and cultural environment that facilitates invasion of the previous three carriers. For these reasons, a myriad of urban illnesses are wreaking havoc in Chinese cities, culturally, socially, economically, ecologically, and environmentally. To treat this epidemic — the most severe in human history — it must be treated.
My first prescription is directed at urban policy makers and developers. Since 1998, my fierce criticism has been lunged against the urbanization movement for its unchecked centralized power and parvenu syndrome. The cure for this is a return to the Culture Movement which will help guide focus back to democracy and science. This can be taught to policy makers and the public through media campaigns and seminars. (The main points of this strategy were discussed in my 2003 book, The Road of Urban Landscape, coauthored with Dihua Li.)
Second, I have advocated for an art of survival, or an approach of negative-planning aimed at urban planners and designers, landscape architects, architects, etc. This antidote is as much self-critique as it is directed towards the whole profession. The traditional Chinese landscape has been unable to develop beyond the garden of feudal times, and has failed to adapt in response to rapid urbanization. Landscape as a tool for mitigating relationships between people and land was the focus of my 2006 book, The Art of Survival and a series of articles published between 1998 and 2000 in Chinese Landscape Architecture. I have also been critical of urban planning under the background of planned economy, which has only consolidated resources for power hungry and greedy developers. I brought up the concept of negative-planning approach in 2002, and explored the idea in detail in the 2005 book, Negative-Planning Approach. My directive was not to begin with one plan, but to define a non-construction area and particularly the ecological essential line, that would prevent unregulated sprawling. Additionally, we established a more detailed methodology for defining and initiating the ecological security pattern and ecological infrastructure — rather than conventional grey infrastructure — that would help build livable and sustainable cities.
My third cure is aimed at popular culture and is what I have called the Big Feet Revolution. I am fully convinced that the people are the social and culture base and the public education of Big Feet Revolution will be the cure to China’s poor urban development. My proposal for this social change takes its name from the small foot aesthetic — the practice of pursuing a concept of deformed beauty at the expense of health and function — that has dominated Chinese beauty standards for a thousand years. Rather, I propose harnessing the knowledge of the environment and everyday life — Big Feet knowledge — to awaken a new culture of aesthetics. This calls for an urban enlightenment, an eco-friendly consciousness that responds to the land. The Big Feet Revolution has been written about in the article, “Foot Culture and Virtue of Weed,” has been included in middle school textbooks (Jiangsu Province version), and in various other essays. This point is also heavily reflected in the book Back to the Land (2009).
For the strategies mentioned above to work, corresponding interventions are needed. There are four agents that can be effective in advancing these strategies.
First is to learn from the spiritual leaders of the May Fourth New Literary Movement. I find stepping out of the ivory tower and direct communication with policy makers to be the most effective approach. Policy makers are an ambitious and smart group, and except for the small part of them who abuse their power for private interests, they are open to new approaches. Often, after meeting with this group, I am immediately taken to construction sites where I stop the construction of straight river channels, the destruction of historical residential settlements, and the filling of working wetlands. It has been most effective to intervene with policy makers at the highest level. For example, in advocating for an eco-security pattern and sponge city construction, my concepts and suggestions have been accepted by the national ministry. Reaching the highest level of management has worked around the country, and it gives me confidence in the management of Chinese cities.
However, I feel helpless towards the technical officers and professionals who adhere to outdated knowledge. They are not only resistant to new strategies, but also defenders of the old knowledge system. Education of the younger generation gives me hope. Therefore, I am especially eager to teach mayors, professionals, and parents who have the power to reach children and young students.
The second intervention is education. Mentoring a new generation of technical officers will potentially help cure cities for the foreseeable future. This is a long-term project. In my teaching, I am inspired by the knowledge that graduates of Peking University will probably become chief designers, if not governmental officials. It will be a solace to see some of them save land and communities. But what a tough task it is to run a school! In the 15 years it has taken to start a design center, research academy, and college, my colleagues and I have grown white hairs.
My third technique also comes from the May Fourth New Literary Movement: publish articles, launch periodicals, and explore as many methods of new media as possible. At the beginning, the articles were accepted with alacrity, but these critical ones attracted the attention, even anger, from the industry. Knowing how difficult it is to publish critical articles, I began reaching out to those with the same objectives and motivations. During our first five years, we did not have access to officially launch periodicals, and could only publish “series books” instead. This was very difficult. Finally, we obtained our own ISSN, and started the journal Landscape Architecture Frontiers, which received global recognition with its concerted effort to general real conversation around the Chinese urban condition.
The final catalyst for change is practice. Through professional practice, we have the power of examples. The involvement and effort of nearly 500 colleagues at TURENSCAPE has provided an indispensable base for the development and implementation of my theories. The Big Feet Revolution has spread into two layers of planning and design, first is the negative-planning approach and urban eco-infrastructure on the planning layer, and the second is contemporary urban design and landscape engineering aimed at low maintenance and comprehensive ecosystem services. The layering of ecology awareness and contemporary art is the foundation for our design practice.
By now, TURENSCAPE has worked in 200 Chinese cities and more around the world. I am very proud of the role we have played in solving the woes of contemporary Chinese cities.
This article may feel self-focused; but what better insights do we have than the work and research we have completed ourselves? I have been fortunate to have developed the experience, among the aggressive waves of urban construction, to fight urban illness in this country. Meanwhile, I can leave my words and works for the future reference. May they be a source for future generations to ponder, to judge, and to learn from, and find inspiration.
Translated by Sara JACOBS Connie CHEN
地址：北京市海淀區中關村北大街100號（北樓）北京大學建筑與景觀設計學院一層 Email：info@landscape.cn
Copyright ? 2013-2022 景觀中國（www.36byz.com）版權所有 京ICP備05068035號
京公海網安備 110108000058號
