我的征尘是星辰大海。。。
The dirt and dust from my pilgrimage forms oceans of stars...
-------当记忆的篇章变得零碎，当追忆的图片变得模糊，我们只能求助于数字存储的永恒的回忆
作者:黄教授
手机视频列表
再论平江路古街保护被一个半个世纪前发黄的文件锁死的困境
视频
音频
原始脚本
古城保护，一份封存近半个世纪的政策，该不该与时俱进？写完关于平江路与苏州老城的两篇文章之后，出乎意料地收获了大量阅读与激烈争论。 褒贬分明的评论区恰恰把一个长久被模糊的问题推到台前。 我们今天坚守的古城保护框架是否还适配当下这座城市的现实？支持文章观点的读者大多看见老城深处真实的生存困局。 古城里不全是风光旖旎的网红街巷，大量低矮老旧房屋。 有的属于原住民私产，有的是历史遗留的公馆房。 一部分本地人搬去现代化新区，把老房子出租给外来商户。 还有不少居民长久留守在条件简陋的旧宅之中。 无论产权形式如何，这里长期缺少一套可以自我运转、自主造血的商业闭环。 房屋修缮、基础设施更新很大程度依赖财政持续补贴。 政府不停投入资金维护，却很难从片区内部产生足够收益反哺运维。 长久来看，这是一种难以持续的负担。 而批评的声音同样汹涌。 最常见的反驳就是把整片老城笼统定义为不可触碰的文化遗产，认为撰文者不懂历史，轻视保护，应当完整保留旧貌。 争论的核心慢慢就落到一个尖锐问题之上。 一项诞生于上世纪80年代，由国务院划定古城保护要求的政策，距今已经走过将近半个世纪。 改革开放之后，整个国家的城市面貌、人口结构、经济模式、居民生活标准发生翻天覆地的变化。 将近50年时光过去，当年定下的约束框架，难道就永久不可调整？政策文件的纸张早已泛黄，外部环境早已沧海桑田。 将话沿用半个世纪之前的规则，本身就值得审慎反思。 这里首先要厘清一个关键事实，苏州所谓延续2500年的古城格局。 保护对象是水网、街巷、棋盘式的城市肌理，是河道与街区的空间骨架，而不是落在地块之上，一栋栋后来修建的房子。 很多老城现存建筑大多建成于民国，建国之后，砖混简易楼房，后期搭建木屋，并不具备高等级文物价值。 这和平遥古城那种完整保存下来的明清民居群落。 存在本质差别，这就很容易让人联想到北京的龙须沟。 当年龙须沟同样是老城历史地段，如果只守住地块格局。 放任居民长期居住在缺乏给排水、没有独立厨卫的简陋房屋里，显然不是现代人可以接受的生活。 真正有价值的是城市空间脉络，而不是落后的居住硬件。 国际通行的历史街区保护思路，很多是外壳保留历史风貌，内部彻底现代化改造。 外立面维持历史样貌，内部管线、卫浴、保温、消防全部更新，适配当代人的生活标准。 但苏州老城相当一部分老破小，就连建筑外观本身都没有突出历史审美价值。 很多只是普通简易砖混、临时木结构，机械执行修旧如旧，不断花钱修补毫无文物特色的老旧建筑，投入巨大，收益有限。 顺着这个逻辑推演下去，如果只要年代久远，就要原样封存保护，那么全国乡村无数老旧土坯房是不是全部都要列为保护对象？显然不能一概而论。 保护应当区分城市空间格局遗产和普通老旧建筑，不能混为一谈。 大量远距离的游客、历史爱好者偏爱老城烟火气。 复古氛围。 但是他们只是短暂打卡，不会长期定居。 赞美老城区风情的人，绝大多数不愿意长期住进没有独立卫生间、消防隐患突出、冬天阴冷潮湿的老房子。 欣赏景观是一回事，日复一日在此生活是另外一回事。 很多评论者本质上是在欣赏一种他人的怀旧生活，站着说话不腰疼。 还有一种流传很广的刻板印象，苏州本地人都手握多套老房子，个个富裕，不存在居住困境。 现实远没有这么简单。 一部分居民确实依靠房屋出租获得收益，但还有大量留守原住民没有多余房产，困在老旧住宅之中。 租金收益集中在少数拥有多套老宅的业主手里，并不能代表全部老城居民的处境。 所以整个议题最终跳出拆迁还是原样保护二元对立。 真正值得探讨的第三条思路，不是彻底推倒重建，也不是一成不变封存半个世纪。 我们应当分开两件事，严格保护2500年延续下来的水巷棋盘城市骨架。 灵活更新片区之内普通老旧建筑，守住街巷河道的历史格局，放开建筑本体现代化改造的弹性空间，允许外观管控前提下。 内部做现代化升级。 对没有文物价值、结构老化严重的普通旧建筑，在服从整体机理的前提下，适度更新重建。 保护不等于冻结时间，历史城市从来就不是博物馆标本。 一座活着的古城应当保留历史脉络，同时容纳现代人体面的居住条件。 将近半个世纪前的政策是当时最优选择，但时代已经完全不同，制度本身应当具备随环境迭代调整的能力。 固守旧文件不等于守护历史。 能够让历史空间长久活在当代人的生活之中，才是可持续的保护。
修正脚本
古城保护，一份封存近半个世纪的政策，该不该与时俱进？写完关于平江路与苏州老城的两篇文章之后，出乎意料地收获了大量阅读与激烈争论。 褒贬分明的评论区恰恰把一个长久被模糊的问题推到台前。 我们今天坚守的古城保护框架是否还适配当下这座城市的现实？支持文章观点的读者大多看见老城深处真实的生存困局。 古城里不全是风光旖旎的网红街巷，还有大量低矮老旧房屋。 有的属于原住民私产，有的是历史遗留的公馆房。 一部分本地人搬去现代化新区，把老房子出租给外来商户。 还有不少居民长久留守在条件简陋的旧宅之中。 无论产权形式如何，这里长期缺少一套可以自我运转、自主造血的商业闭环。 房屋修缮、基础设施更新很大程度依赖财政持续补贴。 政府不停投入资金维护，却很难从片区内部产生足够收益反哺运维。 长久来看，这是一种难以持续的负担。 而批评的声音同样汹涌。 最常见的反驳就是把整片老城笼统定义为不可触碰的文化遗产，认为撰文者不懂历史，轻视保护，应当完整保留旧貌。 争论的核心慢慢就落到一个尖锐问题之上。 一项诞生于上世纪80年代，由国务院划定古城保护要求的政策，距今已经走过将近半个世纪。 改革开放之后，整个国家的城市面貌、人口结构、经济模式、居民生活标准发生翻天覆地的变化。 将近50年时光过去，当年定下的约束框架，难道就永久不可调整？政策文件的纸张早已泛黄，外部环境早已沧海桑田。 僵化沿用半个世纪之前的规则，本身就值得审慎反思。 这里首先要厘清一个关键事实，苏州所谓延续2500年的古城格局。 保护对象是水网、街巷、棋盘式的城市肌理，是河道与街区的空间骨架，而不是落在地块之上，一栋栋后来修建的房子。 很多老城现存建筑大多建成于民国及建国之后，多为砖混简易楼房，或是后期搭建木屋，并不具备高等级文物价值。 这和平遥古城那种完整保存下来的明清民居群落，存在本质差别，这就很容易让人联想到北京的龙须沟。 当年龙须沟同样是老城历史地段，如果只守住地块格局，放任居民长期居住在缺乏给排水、没有独立厨卫的简陋房屋里，显然不是现代人可以接受的生活。 真正有价值的是城市空间脉络，而不是落后的居住硬件。 国际通行的历史街区保护思路，很多是外壳保留历史风貌，内部彻底现代化改造。 外立面维持历史样貌，内部管线、卫浴、保温、消防全部更新，适配当代人的生活标准。 但苏州老城相当一部分老破小，就连建筑外观本身都没有突出历史审美价值。 很多只是普通简易砖混、临时木结构，机械执行修旧如旧，不断花钱修补毫无文物特色的老旧建筑，投入巨大，收益有限。 顺着这个逻辑推演下去，如果只要年代久远，就要原样封存保护，那么全国乡村无数老旧土坯房是不是全部都要列为保护对象？显然不能一概而论。 保护应当区分城市空间格局遗产和普通老旧建筑，不能混为一谈。 大量远距离的游客、历史爱好者偏爱老城烟火气、复古氛围。 但是他们只是短暂打卡，不会长期定居。 赞美老城区风情的人，绝大多数不愿意长期住进没有独立卫生间、消防隐患突出、冬天阴冷潮湿的老房子。 欣赏景观是一回事，日复一日在此生活是另外一回事。 很多评论者本质上是在欣赏一种他人的怀旧生活，站着说话不腰疼。 还有一种流传很广的刻板印象，苏州本地人都手握多套老房子，个个富裕，不存在居住困境。 现实远没有这么简单。 一部分居民确实依靠房屋出租获得收益，但还有大量留守原住民没有多余房产，困在老旧住宅之中。 租金收益集中在少数拥有多套老宅的业主手里，并不能代表全部老城居民的处境。 所以整个议题最终跳出拆迁还是原样保护二元对立。 真正值得探讨的第三条思路，不是彻底推倒重建，也不是一成不变封存半个世纪。 我们应当分开两件事，严格保护2500年延续下来的水巷棋盘城市骨架。 灵活更新片区之内普通老旧建筑，守住街巷河道的历史格局，放开建筑本体现代化改造的弹性空间，允许外观管控前提下，内部做现代化升级。 对没有文物价值、结构老化严重的普通旧建筑，在服从整体肌理的前提下，适度更新重建。 保护不等于冻结时间，历史城市从来就不是博物馆标本。 一座活着的古城应当保留历史脉络，同时容纳现代人体面的居住条件。 将近半个世纪前的政策是当时最优选择，但时代已经完全不同，制度本身应当具备随环境迭代调整的能力。 固守旧文件不等于守护历史。 能够让历史空间长久活在当代人的生活之中，才是可持续的保护。
英文翻译
Ancient city protection: should a policy that has been in place for nearly half a century keep pace with the times? After writing two articles about Pingjiang Road and the old town of Suzhou, I unexpectedly gained a huge volume of reads and sparked intense debates. The sharply divided comment section has just pushed a long-obscured question to the forefront. Does the ancient city protection framework we adhere to today still fit the current reality of this city? Most readers who support the views in the articles have noticed the real survival predicament deep in the old town. The old town is not entirely made up of picturesque internet-famous streets and alleys; there are also a large number of low-rise, aging houses. Some are private property of indigenous residents, and some are legacy mansions left over from history. Some local people have moved to modern new districts and rented out their old houses to non-local merchants. There are also many residents who have stayed in run-down old houses for a long time. Regardless of the form of property right, this area has long lacked a self-operating, self-sustaining closed business cycle. House renovation and infrastructure upgrading largely depend on continuous financial subsidies. The government keeps investing in maintenance, but it is difficult to generate enough revenue from within the area to feed back operation and maintenance. In the long run, this is an unsustainable burden. Meanwhile, voices of criticism are equally fierce. The most common refutation is to generally define the entire old town as untouchable cultural heritage, claiming that the author does not understand history, belittles protection, and the original appearance should be fully preserved. The core of the debate has gradually settled on a sharp question. A policy that was born in the 1980s, with ancient city protection requirements delineated by the State Council, has been in place for nearly half a century. After the reform and opening up, the country's urban landscape, demographic structure, economic model, and residents' living standards have undergone earth-shaking changes. Nearly 50 years have passed, is the regulatory framework set back then permanently unadjustable? The paper of policy documents has long turned yellow, and the external environment has long changed beyond recognition. Rigidly following the rules set half a century ago is itself worthy of careful reflection. First of all, we need to clarify a key fact: the so-called 2500-year continuous ancient city pattern of Suzhou. The protection targets are the water network, streets and alleys, the chessboard-shaped urban fabric, and the spatial skeleton of rivers and blocks, not the individual houses built later on the plots. Most existing buildings in the old town were built after the founding of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Most of them are simple brick-concrete buildings or wooden structures added in later periods, and do not have high-level cultural relic value. This is essentially different from the fully preserved Ming and Qing residential complexes in Pingyao Ancient City, which easily reminds people of Longxugou in Beijing. Back then, Longxugou was also a historic area in the old city. If we only preserve the plot pattern and allow residents to live long-term in shabby houses without water supply and drainage systems and independent kitchens and bathrooms, this is obviously not a way of life acceptable to modern people. What is truly valuable is the urban spatial context, not the outdated residential hardware. Most of the internationally accepted approaches to protecting historic districts retain the historical style of the exterior and carry out complete modernization of the interior. The facade maintains the historical appearance, while internal pipelines, bathroom facilities, thermal insulation, and fire protection systems are all updated to meet the living standards of contemporary people. But for a considerable number of old and dilapidated properties in Suzhou's old town, even the building appearance itself has no prominent historical aesthetic value. Many are just ordinary simple brick-concrete structures or temporary wooden structures. Rigidly implementing the principle of "repairing the old as the old" and constantly spending money to patch up old buildings with no cultural relic characteristics brings huge investment and limited returns. Following this logic, if any building that is old must be preserved in its original state, then should countless old adobe houses in rural areas across the country all be listed as protection targets? Obviously this cannot be applied universally. Protection should distinguish between urban spatial pattern heritage and ordinary old buildings, and not mix the two together. A large number of tourists from afar and history lovers favor the old town's lively local vibe and retro atmosphere. But they only come for a short check-in visit and will not settle here long-term. The vast majority of people who praise the charm of the old town are unwilling to live long-term in old houses without independent bathrooms, with prominent fire hazards, and that are cold and humid in winter. Appreciating the scenery is one thing, living here day after day is another. Many commentators are essentially just appreciating other people's nostalgic life, speaking from a position of comfort without bearing the hardship. There is also a widely spread stereotype that all local Suzhou people own multiple old houses, everyone is wealthy, and there is no housing hardship. The reality is far from that simple. Some residents do earn income from renting out houses, but there are still a large number of remaining indigenous residents who do not have extra properties and are trapped in old residential buildings. Rental income is concentrated in the hands of a small number of owners who own multiple old houses, which cannot represent the situation of all old town residents. Therefore, the entire topic ultimately breaks through the binary opposition between demolition and in-situ preservation. The third approach that is truly worth exploring is neither complete demolition and reconstruction, nor unchanged preservation for half a century. We should separate two things: strictly protect the chessboard-shaped urban skeleton of water alleys that has been passed down for 2500 years. Flexibly renew ordinary old buildings within the area, guard the historical pattern of streets and rivers, reserve flexible space for modernization transformation of building bodies, and allow modern internal upgrades under the premise of appearance control. For ordinary old buildings with no cultural relic value and serious structural aging, moderate renewal and reconstruction is allowed on the premise of conforming to the overall urban fabric. Protection does not equal freezing time; historic cities have never been museum specimens. A living ancient city should retain its historical context while accommodating decent living conditions for modern people. The policy from nearly half a century ago was the optimal choice at that time, but the times are completely different now, and the system itself should have the ability to iteratively adjust along with the changing environment. Sticking rigidly to old documents does not equal guarding history. Only enabling historical spaces to live on in the lives of contemporary people for a long time is sustainable protection.
back to top