文章 Articles

警惕城市恐龙化

昔日旱涝保收的昆明如今成了最缺水的城市之一。朱晓阳从中得出警示:天真的乌托邦式的城市发展只会加剧当地的社会和环境问题。

Article image

我面前的这份文件有些刺激:昆明中心城区住宅项目规划,“除有城市景观、机场净空高度控制要求和建设场地限制的地块外,原则上不再受理审批40层以下的住宅”……“‘城中村’改造项目修建性详细规划按上述要求进行全面梳理”(市规划委,2010年1号)。

城中村改造以“整合成片”之名实施,将邻近不相干的地方也纳入拆迁,改造范围至少扩大一两倍——最近就有这样一个例子:昆明潘家湾城中村改造,城中村仅39亩,而拆迁范围将有129亩。请想象一下这里的未来图景:高楼耸立,所有住宅在40层以上;水泥的森林,钢铁的城市;绿地和广场穿插其间……

这幅未来图景想必不是孤例。我将这种改造和城市化称为“城市恐龙化”。恐龙化意味着它们在扩张成巨大无比的身躯,也意味着恐龙式的命运——城市发展的不可持续性。不过可以预见,恐龙式结局的代价,将由住在那里的人们来承担,到时恐龙制造者(城市领导人、规划者和房地产开发商)早就撤走了。

说这种城市是恐龙并不过分。高层小区虽有一种俯瞰人寰的观看快感,却是空壳化的。它使城市原有的生气灭绝。在当今中国的旧城市中,生气主要由三种居住区产生:一是传统的邻里。如北京宣武、崇文的老城区。它们有上百年的历史,其混合居住和邻里守望形成城市的生命之源。二是1950年代以后形成的单位社 区。虽说建筑平庸,却有着深厚的社会资本和生气。三是城中村。城中村现在完全被污名化,但居住者和研究者都知道,它功能完好,有条有理(城市领导人显然不 这么看),居民交往密切,生活方便。

这些构成城市生命绵延和生气散发的所在,却是狂妄的恐龙城市意欲“悄灭”和取代的。恐龙城市的小区,在多大程度上能使城市的生气得到继续发扬呢?这些小区在1990年代大批出现以后,不少人为其设计理想的社会空间。但其最根本的问题,就是无法组成一个社区。除了少数由单位集体买房组成居民区的地方, 业委会难以形成,业主以散兵方式对抗物业公司。这是许多社会科学调查的一种共识。这种现代化小区需要过几十年,经过人与人、人与物相互“住”入,使生气凝 聚起来,才能改变其空壳巨人的实质。

城市恐龙化,更体现在它的外部扩张和对可承载的土地等资源的吞噬上。仍以我熟悉的昆明为例:整个滇池流域面积为2920平方公里;如果只算平原和盆地,面积仅有590平方公里。按照官方规划,2010年昆明市中心城区的面积应控制在164.25平方公里;而早在两年前,昆明主城区就已达到249平方公里。



滇池旁的粪瓢人


至于这种“城市恐龙化”的后果是什么,已有资源和生态环境方面的专家在发话。最近昆明地区遭遇特大旱灾,据说成因之一,就是滇池流域城市化急速推进,使滇池流域水资源的支持能力达到极限。再如那条“悄灭”粪瓢人的昆洛路,由北向南沿滇池东岸插下去,划过之处,建于1950年代的农田水利灌溉系统遭破坏,昔日旱涝保收之地变得旱涝交替。而且这种公路还使城市扩张变本加厉,一有公路便有狂热的房地产开发商跟进。在没有旱灾的年月,昆明已是全国最缺水的 14个城市之一。这有点匪夷所思,却是真的。

我对城市恐龙化的警告,完全是基于一个设想:恐龙制造者怀有一颗现代主义的天真心。但现实让我看到,每一座40层以上的楼房只是些堆上天际的银子 ——城中村拆迁产生的巨额土地出让费和豪宅的利润——政绩。这才是恐龙制造者的梦想。

该如何终止城市恐龙化呢?建议先终止对“光明-田园-卫生城”乌托邦的讴歌。正是在这种乌托邦的光环下,大拆大建才获得暴力的正当性,无数人的日常生活世界遭到摧毁。让我们坚守每一个“破旧”的街区和大院,坚决拒绝金钱乌托邦的硬暴力和软暴力。站住这个立场,城市恐龙化就不能蔓延。


朱晓阳,北京大学社会学系人类学副教授。

本文最早发表于《南方周末》,经授权翻译并转载于此。


首页图片由 Philou.cn
 

 

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

谁将“居住”在这些高楼大厦里面?

当然这些政策还有另一个层面的解读——谁将入住这些高楼大厦中呢?
云南以其少数民族闻名于世。而高楼大厦却很可能导致民族间更严重的边缘化,就如当今中国的其它边疆地区的状况一样。
(由Jieping Hu翻译。)

Who will "live" in these tower blocks

There is of course another dimension to such policies - who will live in these tower blocks?

Yunnan is known for its ethnic minorities. The tower blocks are likely to help increase the marginalisation of such people, as in other border areas of what is currently China.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

恐龙or not?

稍稍考察一下中国历代的建筑,毫无疑问的说,古代的建筑在当时似乎都是以"流行"的形式出现的;或者以作者的观点来讲那就是某一种情况下的恐龙化..

每每分析各个时代建筑特色风格,总离不开当时的社会背景、个人的生活方式等等。同样面对今天的所谓的“恐龙”式建筑,何尝不是一种限在社会背景、个人生活方式的展现。

所谓的防治恐龙化,难道是指背离现在的社会背景、社会事情和个人生活么?虽说从我们内心深处非常排斥这种“空洞”的生活场景,但这一是事实的体现,我们摆脱不了,或者说,我们将会永远生活在这恐龙化之中。

一贯的将这些恐龙化完全归结于政府政绩、xx领导人的责任,是相当不复责任的。

Dinosaurs or not?

Take a second to think about Chinese historical architecture; there's no question that historical architecture took shape according the "fashionable" forms of the time, or perhaps, from the builder's point of view, it was dinosaurisation within a certain situation...

Every analysis of the architectural styles and features of every era cannot stray from the social context of the time, as well as individual lifestyles, among other things. Likewise, with regard to today's so- called "dinosaur" architecture, it is also limited by social contexts in a way, and is also a display of individual lifestyles.

Could it be that this so- called prevention of dinosaurisation in fact indicates deviance from modern contexts in social affairs and personal lifestyle? Although we claim to reject such "empty" social scenery from the bottom of our hearts, this is a factual manifestation of which we cannot get rid. You could say that we will live amidst this dinosaurisation forever.

In future, to consistently attribute this dinosaurisation to the government, as the responsibility of whichever leader, is in fact quite irresponsible on our part.

(Translator: Ruaridhi Bannatyne)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回复 “恐龙 or not?”

我觉得您可能有些误解作者的原意了。我的理解是作者是在抨击一种政策-资本导向的、人为推进的迅猛的城市化,而不是在关注景观的改变,不是在为农业社会“唱挽歌”。

我的家就在昆明,就从最直观的感受上来说,也会感到现在发生的这些事情“不对”。对于昆明现在在发生的事,比如对居民防盗笼的强拆,比如螺蛳湾事件,比如以拆城中村的名义对本不是城中村的社区进行强制拆迁,这些事情除了从政绩和金钱方面来解读,很难有什么其它合理的解释。

In Reply to 'Dinosaurs or not?'

I think you may have misunderstood the author's original intention. My understanding is that the author is attacking the the policy-capital oriented, man-made rapid process of urbanization, rather than paying attention to the changes in the landscape and "singing Elegy" for the agricultural community.

My dwelling is just in Kunming. From the most intuitive point of view, I feel these things happen now are not right. Things are now taking place in Kunming such as forced demolitions of anti-theft cage of the residents, Luoshi Bay incident, and compulsory relocation of irrelevant communities under the name of demolishing Urban Village. Apart from interpreting to performance and financial aspects, hardly could find any other reasonable explanation.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中文版本和英文版本似乎并不一致

英文版本中,意思为“昆明中心城区住宅项目规划中,低于40层以下的住宅不再需要原则上的审批”。(It states that in project planning for residential apartments under 40 storeys in downtown Kunming, “approval in principle is no longer required.)
但在中文版本中,意思却变成“昆明中心城区住宅项目规划中,不再受理审批低于40层以下的住宅。”(It states that in project planning for residential apartments under 40 storeys in downtown Kunming, “ in principle will no longer be approved.)
如果英文版本是准确的,即低层住宅不再需要审批,那为何每幢40层以上的住宅却需要呢?
(由Jieping Hu 翻译。)

Chinese and English versions does not seem to match

In the English
It states that in project planning for residential apartments under 40 storeys in downtown Kunming, “approval in principle is no longer required.
But the Chinese text sounds more like:
It states that in project planning for residential apartments under 40 storeys in downtown Kunming, “ in principle will no longer be approved.
If the English text is accurate, that the approval of lower building is no longer required, why would "every residence over 40-storeys high"?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回应第4个评论

谢谢指出错误,文章已被更正。

中外对话

Response to comment 4

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. The text has now been corrected.

chinadialogue

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

昆明--畸形国际大都市

从一个昆明市民的角度来看看,昆明的确是作者说的城市恐龙化。昆明正在被官员的政绩需求和地产公司的炒地需求下变成一个大工地。而且,重复建设到了明目张胆的地步。昆明的绿化和树木,在创园林城市的政绩需求下,在二环改造的压力下,以及在目前的轻轨建设中,种了挖,挖了种,不知何时才是尽头。而一个一个在建的楼盘,让昆明污浊不堪。虽然,昆明正在成为一个现代化的大都市,但是,特色皆失。

yfy

Kunming- Deformed International Metropolis

From the point of view of a citizen of Kunming, it really is a dinosaurised city, as the author says. Kunming is in the process of being changed into a giant work site by the political ambitions of officials and the demand for real estate speculation on the part of property developers. What's more, repetitive construction has developed to the point of brazenness.
Green areas and trees in Kunming are being planted and dug up, dug up and replanted, according to the needs of the government , who are trying to create a "garden city", are under pressure from the ongoing transformation of the second ring road, as well as the current light rail construction, with no end in sight. Furthermore, the developers' construction sites, as they are established one by one, are making Kunming filthy beyond all endurance. Although Kunming is becoming a modern metropolis, it is losing its character.

yfy

(Translator: Ruaridhi Bannatyne)