綠色與城市發(fā)展
我對在這座城市親眼目睹的變化感到十分好奇，而李運旗卻說過去的五年才是這座城市快速改變的時期。他回憶道，他有許多好友在這段時間都離開了，回來時也發(fā)現(xiàn)這座城市已然大不相同了。1950年，吉隆坡的人口為261,528，而今這個數(shù)字是140萬。但市中心的人口實際并沒有像上個世紀的各種戰(zhàn)略計劃中預(yù)測的那樣快速增長。伴隨著人口老齡化以及人口增長率自20世紀80年代達到最高點后的不斷下降，人口從“城市”向外遷移的趨勢愈加明顯。造成這種情況的原因并非是就業(yè)機會的缺乏，而是城市中心長期缺乏經(jīng)濟適用房。大多數(shù)年輕人都搬到了偏遠的小城鎮(zhèn)居住，盡管他們每天依然要回到城市工作。因此，“大吉隆坡”（巴生谷）的市區(qū)在過去的15年里應(yīng)運而生并迅速發(fā)展，產(chǎn)生了高速增長的郊區(qū)人口。這意味著如今的大吉隆坡是一個擁有超過750萬人口的城市。加上刺激經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的城市聚集政策，這個數(shù)字在2030年將飆升到1000萬4。
李運旗告訴我，新開發(fā)的郊區(qū)密度高、經(jīng)濟實惠，并且由地鐵線路相連接，郊區(qū)與市中心的通勤時間僅為45分鐘到一個小時之間。但他也注意到年輕專業(yè)人士回歸市中心居住的新趨勢。他本人出生在吉隆坡，這里距離唐人街只有一步之遙。小時候他就對觀察這個地區(qū)的建筑十分感興趣，每每想起，他都以自己的城市為傲。“我收集了吉隆坡的郵票、硬幣、書籍、明信片和舊照片。也喜歡去欣賞那里的古建筑，得空就四處閑逛，探究建筑背后的歷史和故事”在結(jié)束學校的建筑課程后，最初他任職于一家模型制作公司，并在1989年開始了他自己的建筑模型事業(yè)，制作傳統(tǒng)建筑和地標性建筑藝術(shù)品。今天，它已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為一家生產(chǎn)獨特手信、紀念品和收藏品的巨大全球性出口企業(yè)。秉承著“同一個城市，同一種傳承”的理念，他的企業(yè)可以為世界上任何一座城市設(shè)計獨特的藝術(shù)作品。
1972年，伊麗莎白女王首次訪問吉隆坡，那個時期的事李運旗記憶猶新： “我們住在唐人街附近的公寓里，那時我父親是一家大酒店的廚師，我們經(jīng)常步行外出，整個社區(qū)被陰影和樹木覆蓋，綠意盎然。這也是一個鄰里關(guān)系親密的社區(qū)。如今大多數(shù)樹木都已不復(fù)存在，城市里出現(xiàn)了很多條寬闊道路使得步行外出非常不便。逛街這件事變得愈發(fā)困難，因為失去了綠蔭，整座城市都“熱浪滾滾”。但他也指出，這樣的情況正在改變。地鐵、輕軌和單軌項目的完工，鼓勵了更多的人重新選擇步行。 “樹木和主要建筑物的行人通道不斷增加，有遮蓋的人行道和帶空調(diào)的天橋數(shù)量也在增長。”
李運旗談到為了在城市開發(fā)的過程中很多的樹木都被移除了，這種情況直到約10年前才有所改觀，彼時人們，特別是開發(fā)商開始意識到城市樹木的重要性。20世紀50年代種植了很多來自印度和南美洲英國殖民地有適應(yīng)能力的物種。這些參天大樹雖然很醒目卻很不容易維護，并且其根系具有破壞性。而現(xiàn)在種植的樹木是本地物種，更適應(yīng)本地的生態(tài)環(huán)境。李運旗補充道：“現(xiàn)在的城市開發(fā)需要達到大約30％的綠化覆蓋的要求，因此商場通常與公園相連，并有綠色屋頂。新吉隆坡106交易塔就是個很好的例子，同時，綠色植物還使整座商場更具吸引力。目前市內(nèi)還有11個公園。”
李運旗建議在下一步的改進中有必要增加更多的人行道照明設(shè)置及步行設(shè)施。他告訴我，他的家人在這座城市里都以步行的方式出行，但是我對這里的氣候依然比較擔憂。這里氣候炎熱，雨水不斷，是否真的適合步行呢？ 他向我解釋道，吉隆坡人喜歡在晚上外出。涼風習習的夜晚非常適合夜間活動。他告訴我，來自郊區(qū)的人們也喜歡在夜晚開車到市中心享受夜生活，例如在唐人街散步。談話很自然地引向了我最喜歡的話題，隨后我們談?wù)摿顺鞘械钠噯栴}。我們怎樣才能克服擁有汽車的愿望呢? “首先，良好的公共交通系統(tǒng)是必不可少的。目前政府正在增加地鐵線路，使城市更適合步行。其次，我們可以通過增加停車費用和減少停車可能性來限制停車。在城市之外人們需要私家車，但可通過換乘市內(nèi)公共交通工具的方式來解決通勤問題。”
GREEN OR GROWTH
I’m curious about the changes I have witnessed in the city, which Andrew suggests have really accelerated in the last 5 years. He recalls that many of his friends that have been away during this time, also find the city completely different when returning. In 1950, the population of Kuala Lumpur was 261,528. Today it is approximately 1.4 million, but the core has not actually grown nearly as fast as predicted under various strategic plans of the last century. With an aging population and growth rates continually declining since a high in the 1980’s, significant outward migration from the ‘City’ has been a clear trend. It has not resulted from any lack of employment opportunities, rather being primarily due to a chronic shortage of affordable housing at the centre. A strong movement towards young people moving to small, outlying towns became keenly prevalent, who nonetheless, commute daily back into the City to work. Thus, a metropolitan area of ‘Greater KL’ (Klang Valley) has been born and developed rapidly in the last 15 years, generating a booming suburban population that today means Greater KL boasts a city of over 7.5 million people, combined with an urban agglomeration policy intended to further spur the country's economic growth to reach almost 10 million by 20303.
Andrew describes to me how the newly developed suburbs are high density, affordable, connected by metro lines, and within 45 minutes to an hour commuting time. But he also notes a new trend of young professionals coming back to live in the city centre. He himself was born in KL, just a stone’s throw from the area still known as Chinatown. He takes real pride in his city, recalling being always interested in observing the architecture of buildings in the area from the time he was small. “I collected stamps, coins, books, postcards and old photographs of Kuala Lumpur. I enjoyed looking at the old buildings there and often roamed around asking lots of questions about the history of buildings and the background.” Initially working for a model-making company after he had quit his school programme in Architecture, he then started his own business in architectural scale models in 1989, making samples of art pieces of heritage buildings and iconic landmarks that has today morphed into a huge, global, export business creating unique, veneer-based gifts, souvenirs and collectibles. His concept of ‘One City, One Heritage’develops art pieces and designs that celebrate the unique and distinctive quality of any world city.
In 1972 Queen Elizabeth visited KL for the first time and Andrew remembers the period well. “We lived in flats nearby Chinatown, my father was a chef at a big hotel and in those days we walked everywhere; it was very green, shaded and tree covered and we had a close knit community. Nowadays most of the trees have been lost and there are too many large roads to make walking convenient. It’s difficult to move around the streets and the city feels ‘hot’.” But he notes that changes are afoot. The completion of the Metro, LRT and Monorail projects are encouraging more people to walk again. “The city has been adding both trees and a network of pedestrian connections to major buildings. There are covered walkways and airconditioned skybridges.” Andrew relates how city trees were frequently removed for development until about 10 years ago, when there was more of a realisation of the importance of trees in the city, particularly from developers. Many of the large trees were planted during the 1950’s, using adaptable species from the British colonies in India and South America. These huge trees are impressive, but are not easy to maintain and the roots are disruptive. Today’s plantings are local, native species, better adapted to both the environment and ecology. Andrew enthuses that “There are now requirements for green coverage in development, something like 30%, so the malls are connected with parks and have green roofs, like the new KL106 building. The greenery is making the malls more attractive to visit. There are also now 11 parks within the city”
Anticipating further improvements coming, Andrew suggests more footpath lighting and walking surface provision is necessary. Now his family all walk the city he tells me, but I am concerned about the climate. It’s really hot, it’s raining a lot, surely not good for walking? He assures me that KL people like to walk in the evenings. The climate is perfect for night time activity, when there is a cool breeze. He notes how people from the suburbs will drive into the centre to enjoy the evenings and walk around places like Chinatown. That leads us to my favourite subject and we talk about the problems of cars in the city. How can we get over the desirability of car ownership? “Firstly, you must have good public transport in place. The government is adding metro lines and making the city more walkable. Then you need to restrict parking, both through increased parking cost and reducing availability. Outside the city people need cars, but park and ride options using public transport can be used to address this for commuting.”
同一個城市，同一種傳承
對我而言，最近所有城市在發(fā)展中最明顯的特點就是建筑風格失去了地方特色，大量千篇一律“國際”風格的玻璃外墻辦公大樓拔地而起。我想知道李運旗是否認為這個城市正在失去它的特色？“這確實是目前我們遇到的一大問題。”他提到：“快速發(fā)展使得大家更青睞標準化建筑流程和更便宜的施工方法。”他認為能代表吉隆坡乃至整個馬來西亞文化的標志性建筑——雙子塔（Petronas（twin）Towers）就具有很強的當?shù)靥厣Ｋ脑O(shè)計靈感源自伊斯蘭教建筑，例如重復(fù)的幾何形狀和蔓藤花紋。其中兩個互鎖的正方形構(gòu)成的八角星圖案展示了“統(tǒng)一、和諧、穩(wěn)定”的伊斯蘭教義內(nèi)涵。相比之下，目前大部分已經(jīng)建成或即將完工的高層建筑都毫無特色和內(nèi)涵可言。這是一個全球性的問題，世界上的城市正在日益趨同。
我曾經(jīng)漫步于一個叫做富都（Pudu）的市中心區(qū)域，它是一個古老而迷人的低層小區(qū)。這里到處都是“店屋”、餐館和具有當?shù)靥厣慕ㄖ部梢哉业郊∑伦罟爬系陌褪空荆≒udu Sentral）和最大的市場。這個區(qū)域看起來非常適合李運旗提到的那些回到城市想要尋找低成本但真實的生活方式的“年輕專業(yè)人士”居住，并且這個區(qū)域有望使城市再生。事實上富都監(jiān)獄舊址目前正在進行全面重建，建設(shè)內(nèi)容包括零售商場、娛樂中心、辦公室、酒店和服務(wù)式公寓等。但不難想象的是，新建筑都采用了國際通用、平淡無奇且隨處可見的玻璃墻面風格。該監(jiān)獄原本由英國人在1891年至1895年間分階段建造而成，如今卻在沒有研究其作為國家歷史一部分的社會歷史價值，在沒有識別其對后代的保護價值的情況下拆除它，這是不合理的。重新開發(fā)本可以與遺產(chǎn)保護并存，可以采用保持建筑結(jié)構(gòu)僅改變其功能的方式，同時可以通過增加額外的建筑物來解決提供額外地面空間的問題。最近經(jīng)過修復(fù)和重建的香港維多利亞監(jiān)獄就是一個很好的例子，通過精心修復(fù)并增加優(yōu)質(zhì)現(xiàn)代建筑設(shè)施后，這里作為“大觀遺產(chǎn)和藝術(shù)中心”重新開放。文化遺產(chǎn)旅游觀光行業(yè)的經(jīng)濟潛力不容小覷。我擔心富都的“煥發(fā)新生”最終會以“重新開發(fā)”告終，那么這個獨特而古老地區(qū)和它承載的文化遺產(chǎn)價值將在爭奪廉價土地的過程中喪失殆盡。李運旗解釋說，目前已經(jīng)確定將對該地區(qū)的一些低質(zhì)量建筑進行重建，樓層高度最多可達7或8層，但是開發(fā)的容積率非常低，而且由于市中心交通流量控制，新開發(fā)項目中沒有停車位。
盡管吉隆坡的一些舊城區(qū)過去多姿多彩，但至今未有一處被列入或宣布為文物保護區(qū)。不過這些城區(qū)的一些建筑物已被馬來西亞旅游和文化部下屬的國家遺產(chǎn)部門列為“文物建筑”和“國家遺產(chǎn)”。吉隆坡城市館就是這樣一座建筑。然而對歷史建筑重新利用并非易事。不僅在修復(fù)和維持古建筑上需要花費大量資金，在使古建筑符合現(xiàn)代建筑和安全法規(guī)上也要頗費心思。維護和改造舊建筑的過程是一個與過去的文化連接的過程，然而作為活化石的古建筑常常會使用現(xiàn)代已經(jīng)無法復(fù)制材料和工藝。可以這么說，保護歷史建筑是一條單行道。歷史遺跡一旦消失，我們就再也沒有機會對它們進行翻新或保存了。同時我們也永遠無法確定它們將來會有什么樣的價值。這就是為何尋找和拯救具有歷史意義的建筑如此重要。因為歷史一旦被摧毀就會永遠消失。
李運旗很希望看到游客和當?shù)鼐用穸寄苄蕾p建筑和城市中蘊含的美和文化底蘊。他通過吉隆坡城市館清晰地表達了對家鄉(xiāng)建筑的熱愛。與此同時我們也能感受到向他人介紹這座城市的過去、現(xiàn)在和未來給他帶來的巨大喜悅。他希望游客能夠受到啟發(fā)，并對整個國家的建筑和文化遺產(chǎn)問題有更多的了解和認識。雖然城市館的所有權(quán)仍然歸市政廳所有，但是維護的責任卻落在了李運旗的肩上。這是一個不容小看的負擔，但這種公共所有與私人管理的合作模式，有助于為舊遺產(chǎn)注入新的活力，并作為催化劑重新將生命力帶回城市中心。
ONE CITY ONE HERITAGE
To me, one of the most apparent aspects of all the recent development has been the loss of local character in the building style and the development of bland, reflective-glass office blocks in generic ‘international’ style proliferates. I wonder if Andrew thinks the city is losing its unique character? “It’s a problem,” he feels. “Fast-track development has led to standardised processes and cheaper construction methods.” He feels that the Petronas (twin) Towers, the iconic landmarks of both KL and even Malaysia itself, have that key quality of relating to the local culture and generating a strong identity. The design was inspired by characteristics of Islamic architecture such as repetitive geometries and arabesques, with the simple geometric plan of two interlocking squares that create an 8-pointed star and represent the Islamic principles of ‘unity within unity, harmony, stability and rationality’. By contrast, much of the current crop of high-rise building, both recently and soon to be completed, really could be built to look the same anywhere in the world. It’s a problem globally, cities are becoming identical.
I had walked around an inner-city area called Pudu, an old and most charming, low-rise district somewhat in decay, full of shophouses, eateries and local character including Kuala Lumpur's oldest bus station (Pudu Sentral) and one of the largest wet markets in Kuala Lumpur. The district looks perfect for those “young professionals” Andrew mentioned, returning to the city looking for cheaper but authentic lifestyles, and it does appear ripe for urban regeneration. Indeed, the old Pudu Jail site is currently being wholly redeveloped with a mixed development including a retail mall, entertainment hub, offices, hotel and serviced apartments. But you guessed it; the intended new buildings are all in that bland, international, ‘a(chǎn)nyplace’, glass tower style5. The Jail was built by the British in stages between 1891 and 1895 but demolished without perhaps studying its historic value to society as part of the nation’s history and identifying the value of preservation for coming generations. Redevelopment could have been implemented through adaptive reuse, where the structure could have been maintained and only its function changed whilst additional floor space could have been provided through additional building. A great example is the recently restored and developed Hong Kong Victoria Prison, stunningly restored and augmented with premium quality modern architectural additions in reopening as ‘The Tai Kwun Center for Heritage and Arts.’ The economic potential that could be realised through heritage appreciation and tourism cannot be understated. I worry that positive ‘regeneration’ in Pudu may end up being complete ‘redevelopment’ and that the special character and unique heritage of this old district will be quickly lost in the grab for cheap land. Andrew explains that some of the lower quality buildings in the area have been identified for redevelopment, up to 7 or 8 stories, but with very low plot ratios for development and that no parking can be incorporated into new development as this would generate increased traffic flows.
None of the old areas of Kuala Lumpur have been gazetted or declared a heritage zone despite their colourful pasts, but several buildings have been gazetted as “heritage building” and “national heritage” by the National Heritage Department under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture Malaysia6. City Gallery is one such building, but committing to utilise historic buildings is no simple matter. They need large inputs of capital to maintain their condition as well as to adapt them to modern day building and safety codes. Maintaining and adapting older buildings maintains an important cultural link with the past however, they are living history, often utilising materials and craftsmanship that can no longer be found in modern day. The preservation of historic buildings is a one-way street. There is no chance to renovate or to save a historic site once it’s gone, and we can never be certain what will be valued in the future. This reality brings to light the importance of locating and saving buildings of historic significance, because once a piece of history is destroyed, it is lost forever.
Andrew appreciates that both tourists and long-standing residents are able to appreciate the aesthetic and cultural history of a building or area. City Gallery is a clear declaration of his love for the city fabric he was born into and yet also represents his joy at being able to inform others about both the past, present and future. He wants the tourist to be inspired and have a greater appreciation and awareness of the country’s heritage issues, both architectural and cultural. The building remains owned by City Hall, however under the lease conditions, responsibility for the upkeep falls to Andrew. A burden not to be taken lightly, this public / private partnership model is however helping to breathe new life to old heritage, and acting as a catalyst for greater change in bringing vitality back to urban centres.
回到未來
一如既往，我試圖弄明白變革將把我們帶向何處。李運旗希望未來吉隆坡的公共交通系統(tǒng)可以得到加強，私家車數(shù)量會下降，市民們都把火車和步行作為普通的日常出行方式。“街道寬闊、樹木高大，如蓋的綠蔭與周圍的建筑連成一片。在李運旗的理想未來里，人們擁有更簡單、更優(yōu)質(zhì)、更健康的生活方式，可以理解和欣賞文化的多樣性，返璞歸真。事實上，回到過去即到達未來。
BACK TO THE FUTURE
As always, I want to understand where change is taking us. Andrew’s vision of tomorrow’s KL is one containing far fewer private vehicles, where public transport is enhanced and everyone takes the train and walks as normal part of life. “The streets are wide, deeply shaded with trees, full of greenery and seamlessly connected to the spaces and buildings around them. His future consists of a more simple, quality, healthy existence, where people understand and appreciate diversity in culture and can all go back to their roots”. The past is the future indeed.
交通方面可以和交警部門合作，火災(zāi)方面可以和消防部門合作，學生方面可以和教育部門合作……社區(qū)是老百姓居住、生活的地方，在這個層面發(fā)動百姓參與也最接地氣。
在社區(qū)層面，可以用主動干預(yù)和被動干預(yù)相結(jié)合。什么是主動干預(yù)？就是強調(diào)人的行為改變。一旦發(fā)生事故我們會強調(diào)是人的原因。其實有時候從學科角度和全球經(jīng)驗來看，被動干預(yù)比主動干預(yù)效果還要好。舉一個例子，對學齡前兒童，你主動干預(yù)，讓學齡前兒童自己掌握風險辨別技能，這很難做到。我們給他提供一個安全環(huán)境，這就是被動干預(yù)。當我們設(shè)計這個城市，設(shè)計兒童娛樂空間、居住空間、學習空間時，一定要站在他的角度設(shè)計，要適合他年齡段和認知程度空間，社區(qū)也很方便營造安全文化，因為每一個社區(qū)成員，他在這個社區(qū)都是有歸屬性。這個社區(qū)當中，他會比較容易形成安全文化。
現(xiàn)在，全球比較公認的傷害干預(yù)措施有四塊：環(huán)境干預(yù)、工程技術(shù)干預(yù)、宣傳教育干預(yù)和立法執(zhí)法。最近世界衛(wèi)生組織又強調(diào)，所有的干預(yù)一定要進行評價，如果沒有評價，你就不知道干預(yù)效果是不是有效，不知道干預(yù)是不是有針對性。甚至是在設(shè)計干預(yù)措施之前，就要有一個評價。比如，你社區(qū)主要傷害問題是什么？假如跌倒非常高發(fā)，就要分析一下這種高發(fā)傷害背后原因是什么，然后看到底要采取哪一種干預(yù)措施，是采取環(huán)境、技術(shù)、教育，還是立法方式，不管采取什么措施，都要結(jié)合當?shù)鼐唧w情況，要本土化。
一個越南鄉(xiāng)村溺水發(fā)病率很高，當?shù)卦趦和饡Y助下開展調(diào)查，對溺水案例進行分析后，發(fā)現(xiàn)河道橋梁是溺水高發(fā)場所，這個地方?jīng)]有路燈，騎車人夜間很容易發(fā)生溺水事故。于是給橋梁裝上護欄，非常簡單的措施，也不用花費很多，但溺水事故大幅度下降。還有一個案例，那里的居民家里面有儲水池子，還有挖的井，原來上面沒有蓋子，小孩不小心就會掉進池子和井里面，后來基金會資助他們，有開口裸露的地方加上蓋子，溺水死亡率就大幅度下降。在環(huán)境改善的時候不一定要高大上，一定要切合當?shù)貙嶋H情況。
居民生活在社區(qū)，主要的安全感是從社區(qū)來的。開展安全社區(qū)建設(shè)，是通過跨界合作來減少傷害和死亡，增強社區(qū)居民的安全感，達到更高的生活標準。
WHO提出在全球推廣安全社區(qū)模式，積極倡導通過安全社區(qū)和安全促進活動開展事故與災(zāi)害預(yù)防工作。實現(xiàn)安全健康的目標需要個人、組織和社區(qū)共同努力，并在不同的社會層面展開，包括國際、國家、部門、地方、社區(qū)。最重要的基礎(chǔ)工作是在社區(qū)開展。國外不叫安全城市而是叫社區(qū)，因為最主要的核心就是在社區(qū)。
1989年，瑞典社區(qū)成為全球第一個被世界衛(wèi)生組織認可的國際安全社區(qū)。2018年全球已有400多家安全社區(qū)，其中中國大陸有108家。安全社區(qū)是什么概念呢？以建立一套跨界組織和程序，聯(lián)合社區(qū)有關(guān)機構(gòu)、志愿者組織、企業(yè)和個人共同參與事故傷害預(yù)防和安全促進工作，持續(xù)改進實現(xiàn)安全目標的社區(qū)。強調(diào)社區(qū)公眾積極參與并在事故傷害中起主導作用，通過社區(qū)文化政治等方面作用，實現(xiàn)安全保障的目標。
