【技术讨论】Space for a Change
实践中，Space for a Change The discovery of building as a new paradigm in our work happened at the same time as a change in the situation of the western city, which involved the extensive reformulation of the conditions affecting contemporary architecture as a whole: the gradual privatization of the public space of the city. Faced with a complete lack of public funds, cities and local authorities found themselves increasingly unable to play an active role in urban planning developments, and instead sold out to investors, who helped themselves to the biggest and best pieces of the city. It was a game whose end could be predicted: architecture would end up as infrastructure built to maximize the profits of a global economy. A mode of resistance to the instrumentalization of our profession lies in an architecture which regards itself as an agent of a new philosophy of urban planning. The impulse of architecture to play a role in urban planning is vital, because otherwise urban planning will no longer exist. The master plan is dead; this, as we know, has its advantages. The grid-patterned urban space of the 19th century only exists on paper; the actual dynamics of today's urban transformations have long prevailed over such instruments of order. Today, our urban interventions take place in an amorphous and imponderable space, comparable to chess figures moved across a horizontal screen with white noise. The grid of the chessboard has disappeared and along with it the clear rules determining how the figures on it are to be moved. Yet the figures have remained; a castle is still a castle. And its moves are still significant, even though the coordinates of its moves can no longer be determined as easily as they used to be. However, the more the background recedes, the more distinct the figures have to be. For, in view of the implosion of the old order, it is these figures which make a city. Their interrelations create force fields of great tension, and in doing so create space. This process is infinitely more complex than the ordained decision to lay down a plan and then fill it up, step by step, with architecture. Space is no longer pre-ordained (if it ever was). It comes into being as a result of the force fields which figures create together, forming the basis of a vigorous urbanity. This agenda has also left visible traces in our architecture, as a comparison of the Museum in Groningen (1993 – 94) and the UFA-Cinema Center in Dresden (1993 – 98) clearly illustrates. The Groningen Museum represents the final chapter of a phase of our work going back to the eighties which was characterized by the fractalization of objects. It was in Groningen that we were first able to realize on a large scale our conception of a space which exploded the prison of the functionalistic box into a thousand pieces. The UFA Cinema Center, on the other hand, is the first of several projects dedicated to the creation of public space through architecture. The definition of a building as an object is replaced by the idea of an urban transistor. By this we mean an architecture which is capable of amplifying the urban spaces adjoining it through its own transistor-like spatial organization. In the case of the UFA Cinema Center this concept resulted in architecture whose main element was not only its function as a cinema. Instead, we made use of its critical mass, giving it a spacious lobby and creating a roofed-in urban space for showing films. Moreover, the cinema volume has been raised and is transversed by a public passageway connecting two important city spaces. We believe that a vigorous urban architectural experience results when the qualities of space are linked, creating a rhythm of dynamism and concentration.。相关讨论：
1. 各位同行在实际项目中有没有类似处理经验可以分享？遇到这类情况通常从哪些方向入手分析问题根源？ 关于"Space for a Change"概念的讨论
楼主提到的"Space for a Change"概念，结合城市公共空间私有化和公共资金短缺的背景，这其实触及了当前城市更新中的核心矛盾。作为参与过多个城市更新项目的结构工程师，我认为可以从中国实践角度补充几点：
当前我国在《城市居住区规划设计标准》GB 50180-2018第4.0.3条明确规定"居住街坊应配建公共绿地"，但现实中确实存在类似问题——开发商常通过架空层、屋顶花园等"伪公共空间"规避配建义务。去年我参与的某旧改项目就遇到这种情况：开发商将原本应向社会开放的社区活动中心改造成会所，仅对业主开放。
应对策略方面，我们项目上摸索出几个可行路径：
■ 政府让渡部分开发权：通过容积率奖励（如《城市设计管理办法》第21条允许的容积率补偿），换取开发商提供真正开放的公共空间
■ 社会资本参与：采用PPP模式建设口袋公园，像上海黄浦区"梧桐树下"项目，由企业负责运维但产权归政府
■ 微更新替代大拆大建：北京白塔寺胡同改造中，用30万/个的"微花园"替代传统景观，成本降低60%还能发动居民共建
需要澄清的关键点
不过楼主原文提到"gradual privatization of the public space"时似乎被截断了，想确认具体指哪类空间？因为不同空间的处理方式差异很大：
空间类型中国管控要求常见规避手法
社区配套用房必须无偿移交政府（《物权法》第73条）登记为"业主共有"后实际由物业控制
架空层空间计入公摊面积的归业主，未计的归开发商刻意不计入公摊做成收费场所
屋顶平台属于共有部分（《民法典》第271条）通过购房合同约定归顶层业主专用
个人建议：如果要做这类改造，务必在方案阶段就明确空间权属。我们最近在做的苏州平江路更新项目，直接在土地出让合同中写明"每5000㎡开发面积须提供不小于200㎡的24小时开放公共空间"，比事后补救有效得多。
最后提醒：以上信息基于2023年及之前的政策实践，具体项目操作请务必核查当地最新规定（如2024年新出台的《城市更新条例》地方细则），不同城市对公共空间的管控尺度差异很大。楼主能否补充说明具体想讨论哪类空间改造？这样我们可以聚焦讨论实操方案。
页:
[1]