论文检索
    当前位置: 首页>>论文检索>>论文检索>>正文
    “高线”效应与“毕尔巴鄂效应”—城市明星项目激活效应的差异化解读
    2019-08-22  点击:[]


    高线效应与毕尔巴鄂效应”——城市明星项目激活效应的差异化解读

    “High Line Effect” and “Bilbao Effect”: Comparative Interpretation of Renovation Effect by Signature Projects



    雷巍 何捷*

    LEI Wei HE Jie*

     

    雷巍 / 1995年生 / / 天津大学建筑学院风景园林学硕士研究生

    LEI Wei, born in 1995, male. He is a master’s student of Landscape Architecture in School of Architecture, Tianjin University.

     

    何捷 / 1970年生 / / 天津大学建筑学院副教授 / 研究方向:空间人文学、游憩行为与绿色基础设施、地理设计

    通讯作者邮箱(Corresponding author E-mail)janushe@tju.edu.cn

    HE Jie, born in 1970, male. He is an associate professor in School of Architecture, Tianjin University.

    Research directions: spatial humanities, recreation behaviour and green infrastructure, geo-design

     

    DOI:

    基金项目:国家自然科学基金面上项目(51478300);

    高等学校学科创新引智计划(B13011

     

    注:图2~4 底图来自谷歌地图;图5 改绘自chelseagallerymap.com ;图6 底图来自中

    华人民共和国自然资源部标准地图服务;图7 底图来自百度地图。

    Note: The base images of Figure 2-4 are from Google Earth; Figure 5 is from chelseagallerymap.com;

    Figure 6 is from standard map service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's

    Republic of China; Figure 7 is from Baidu Map.

     

     

    摘要:全球化产业转型的浪潮下,部分衰落的后工业城市和片区成功地通过昂贵的明星项目介入,逐步带动周边的产业转型与基础设施更新,进而带来极其可观的经济回报,成为众多城市争相效仿的范例。但随着越来越多后继的效仿项目并未达到预期的回报、以及明星项目及其所在区域的持续转型,这类成功项目的背后特殊的可持续的支持系统益发引起关注。本文以高线效应和毕尔巴鄂效应为例,从转型介入、片区与城市关系、扩张的形式与模式以及成功与失败四个方面,探讨纽约的高线公园和毕尔巴鄂的古根海姆博物馆两个项目的异同,为解读明星项目背后与城市的复杂关系提供一种多元化、差异化的视角。

    关键词:城市更新;景观介入;高线效应;毕尔巴鄂效应

     

    AbstractIn the global trend of industrial transformation, some decaying post-industrial cities and urban districts have achieved their industrial transformation and infrastructure renewal of the surrounding areas through intervention of expensive signature projects which brought extremely considerable economic returns. It has become a prototype for many cities to follow. However, as more and more copycat projects failed to meet their return expectation, and at the same time, as star projects and their embedded regions continue to transform, there is a growing awareness that special sustainable support systems are behind these successful projects. The paper investigates the "Highline Effect" and "Bilbao Effect" and their associated cases. These two signature projects’ similarities and differences are discussed from the perspectives of transformation and intervention, regional and urban relations, expansion patterns and models, and the critiques on success and failure. The research finding is expected to provide a diversified and differentiated interpretation for the signature projects and the hidden complicated urban relations.

    Key words: urban renovation; landscape intervention; High Line Effect; Bilbao Effect

     

     

    引言

    后现代城市向全球化大都会转型的趋势始于19世纪70年代,数十年间在功能型城市规划思想主导下,北美洲和欧洲许多逐步被居住、工作和旅游排挤而衰落的旧工业区和行政中心,结构性地转型为具有高象征性和美学性的文化中心[1]。关于城市规划设计的讨论中给予了这个阶段的城市一个纲领性的名称——创意城市(Creative Cities[2]90年代起,全球兴起了大量中心博物馆项目和工业废弃地改造项目,其中詹姆斯·科纳事务所、DS+R建筑设计事务所、皮特·奥多夫领衔设计的高线公园和弗兰克·盖里事务所设计的古根海姆博物馆,作为美国纽约西切尔西区和西班牙毕尔巴鄂老城转型初期的旗舰项目,不仅成为了设计师和区域的名片,高线”效应和毕尔巴鄂效应更被认为在极大程度上激活了片区的复兴,成为了规划设计领域和诸多政治家心中的神话级的城市复兴范式[3-5]。遗憾的是,后来大多数效仿这两个案例的城市更新项目都没有达到其预期收益。如何更全面地理解两个鼻祖级项目的差异性,对众多仍希望效仿这类项目的创意型城市发展本土化的适应性策略尤为重要。这就需要跳出通常被讨论的设计和红极一时的种种褒奖,通过对转型介入、片区与城市关系、扩张的形式与模式以及对成功和失败的重要探讨,从更长的项目周期中重新批判性地解读明星项目相似中的差异性。

     

    1 起点与终点:明星项目催化下的后工业文化产业转型与全域城市更新

    衰落后工业城区的文化复兴从何而来又走向何方?在创意型城市兴起各种明星项目的初期,答案并不明确。昂贵的明星项目不能通过加入一点点文化和艺术实现城市更新和产业转型,已然成为热潮后众多失败项目的共同批判[6]。准确来说,高线公园和毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆并不是阶段性复兴的起点,两个城市区域向文化艺术产业的转型也非凭空而来。早在1970年《生活》杂志的封面标题中,纽约苏豪区的“Living big in a loft”,已经预示纽约内城以艺术家为先锋的泛文化转型成为了一种主流区域复兴方式[1, 7]。随着苏豪区的士绅化,于19世纪80年代艺术家们逐步搬入附近的西村,于19世纪90年代再转移到了高线公园所在的西切尔西区[8,9],像高古轩等知名画廊在高线公园的想法提出之前就已选址于西切尔西区[10]。被部分文章称为衰落的工业小城市的毕尔巴鄂,文化艺术产业渊源则更胜于纽约,从19世纪起,著名的朝圣之路至少有两条经过了毕尔巴鄂市,带来了大量的人流和商业机遇,形成了重要的文化连结[6]。至今,巴斯克郡政府仍然重视文化之旅带来的旅游经济,非常积极地支持着法国之路,以提升自己的国际知名度[11]

    明星项目的背后是庞大的基础设施建设、优惠政策和产业的支持系统,换言之,昂贵的明星项目作为城市和区域复兴的名片需要众星拱月式地扶持,而在一二十年后的现今看来,所谓的明星项目其实只是一个开始(图1)。高线公园项目咨询公司HR&A董事长约翰·阿尔舒勒认为,高线项目在西切尔西区的成功转型中最重要的作用并不是设计本身带来了产业的转型,而是西切尔西区的特殊区划中,政府首次在法律上允许将纯工业用地转变为充满生气的住宅和商业用地[12]。如今的高线公园除自身即为名片外,周边又新建起了大批新的明星项目(图2),毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆建筑师弗兰克·盖里设计的IAC大楼也在其中。与高线公园20年间一系列紧锣密鼓的建设项目类似,毕尔巴鄂从1979年就展开了综合清理计划,如对重度污染的内维翁河道的清理等工作[13]1991年毕尔巴鄂向古根海姆基金会提出合作之前,已在1989年通过土地规划确定了机会区,并于1992年通过了战略规划方案[14]。在1997年古根海姆博物馆开放之前,毕尔巴鄂已在1995年完成了如由诺曼·福斯特设计的新地铁等大型基础设施工程[12]。除了西萨·佩里、阿尔瓦罗·西扎、拉斐尔·莫内欧等明星建筑师设计的建筑项目环绕在古根海姆博物馆周围,也有如扎哈·哈迪德事务所完成总体规划设计的 Zorrozaurre 岛、圣地亚哥·卡拉特拉瓦设计的沃兰汀步行桥等与之隔水相望(图3)。毕尔巴鄂的规划愿景从1991-2010年的基础设施建设与价值实现转向20112035年间专业化的时代,明确了艺术产业和旅游服务业向专业化、高端化的转型[15]。从时间的持续性上看,古根海姆博物馆项目作为全球首屈一指的当代艺术博物馆在开放的20年后依然发挥着显著的作用。类似地,高线公园三期直接相连的是哈德逊广场巨型项目,作为美国历史上最大的、私人投资的地产项目,即将在高线公园开放十周年之际的2019年第一期落成。2019年也恰是当年反对拆除高线公园的民间组织——高线之友成立20周年之际,后高线时代辉煌依旧。不论是高线公园还是古根海姆博物馆,所谓的激活效应显然是从一个明星项目到一系列明星项目集合的过程。

     

                                                 

     

    1 高线公园和古根海姆博物馆项目重要事件时间表

    Figure 1 Timeline of the High Line and Guggenheim Museum

     

    2 纽约高线公园周围的明星项目

    Figure 2 Signature Projects around the High Line Park

     

    3 毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆周围的明星项目

    Figure 3 Signature Projects around the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

    2 项目之于城市,城市之于项目:定位与期望的差异性

    不论是从建筑、景观还是城市规划理论的视角下去看待高线公园和古根海姆博物馆,这类项目介入建成区域的更新发展有着异曲同工之妙。美国建筑师 Wayne Attoe Donn Logan 1992年出版的《美国都市建筑:城市设计中的触媒》一书中提出了城市触媒的概念[16]。这与同时期以查尔斯·瓦尔德海姆为首、在1997年首次举办的景观都市主义主题会议中提出的景观都市理论的批判[17]不谋而合。这样的概念理论以及作为典型理论实践案例的 毕尔巴鄂效应高线”效应,批判了以柯布西耶和赖特主导的现代城市规划和摩天大楼在解决当代城市建成区种种问题的局限性,提出城市景观(包括景观建筑)类似触媒,可以更好地介入和组织都市化过程[16, 17]。尽管从表面上看“高线效应和毕尔巴鄂效应最终的成果都是明星项目引领下的复兴共荣,但不同尺度的城市以及不同的城市定位,明星项目介入的方式与程度确不尽相同,文创产业与城市发展的相互影响关系也是不同的。

    毕尔巴鄂作为典型的欧洲中小型城市,在政策和财政上享有巴斯克郡自治优势,艺术和文化产业在城市萧条之初能够被定位成支柱产业[13]。在数十年的时间里,不论从政府还是民间渠道,城市的发展导向从基础设施建设、艺术产业消费与赞助、博物馆的复兴、艺术街区组团的形成、艺术教育与新一代艺术家的培养等方面都得到了迎合[18],迅速成为全球化的艺术文化之城,这样众星拱月式的支持是高线公园所在的西切尔西区或者纽约所不能给予的。尽管纽约市经济发展公司提出的特殊区划一定程度上给予了西切尔西区政策的红利,但这样的红利并未指向西切尔西区的艺术产业,而是促进了高端化地产的开发。而纽约似乎也并未在全球艺术文化产业上强调自身的存在感——例如,以设计为主题标签的毕尔巴鄂是西班牙七个加入联合国教科文组织创意城市网络的城市之一,而该网络中有美国的九个城市,纽约并不在其列。西切尔西区艺术产业的发展更应该归功于当时该区恰是当年从苏豪区和西村搬离的艺术家们聚集的自发性艺术街区,虽然资本再次沿用了苏豪和西村的开发模式并取得了成效,却也再次通过士绅化驱逐了原本的艺术产业[19]

    从项目自身的产业导向上看,高线公园作为公园类的景观项目,虽然本身并不具备古根海姆模式下商业博物馆显著的功能和产业导向性,但这并不妨碍二者的比较。即使是把与高线公园毗邻的众多明星项目作为“高线效应或是西切尔西区特殊区划成果一部分,纵然其中不乏有与古根海姆博物馆同等属性的,如以美国当代艺术系列收藏而闻名的惠特妮博物馆 [20],也未能显著主导城市的艺术产业市场,这与古根海姆博物馆聚集的新艺术区和毕尔巴鄂老艺术区构成的分别以当代和传统艺术为主题的空间聚落格局不同(图4)。纽约以及高线公园项目的特殊性在于,一方面纽约拥有以切尔西区、上东区的博物馆大道、桥下艺术新区、布鲁克林DUMBO、中城区以及下城区[8]为核心的多个成熟艺术产业群落,不论是以纽约古根海姆博物馆所在的老牌艺术区,还是近20年逐步成熟的西切尔西区,都难以通过明星项目去复兴和统领文化艺术产业(图4);而另一方面,高线公园虽然不是正统意义上的博物馆,但也发挥着类似艺术博物馆的功能——高线公园是纽约唯一一座致力于多媒体当代艺术活动的公园,2018年专门举办了19场艺术活动,涵盖主题频道、主题活动、表演艺术、定制艺术品四种主要形式,而这些纯艺术活动其实只是平均每周五场左右的公共活动中的一小部分 [2122]。或是因为有高线公园这一特殊项目的存在,毗邻的苏豪区在90年代后期,画廊数量就开始持续走低,在十年间近乎减半[20],西切尔西区的画廊数量虽然同样有所下降,但目前仍然保留着较多的文化艺术产业的集群(图45)。

    4 同比例尺下纽约高线公园(左上)、纽约古根海姆博物馆(右上)、毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆(下)周边博物馆与画廊产业分布对比

    Figure 4 Distribution of Museums and Galleries around the High Line Park (left above), Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (right above), and Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (bottom) in Same Scale

     

    5 20196月西切尔西区内运营的228家画廊(含临时画展等)

    Figure 5 228 Galleries Including Temporary Exhibitions Operating in West Chelsea on June of 2019

     

    3 复制与进化:形式与模式

    高线公园和古根海姆博物馆作为触媒,介入城市后出现了扩张式的影响,引发了以项目本身为蓝本的一系列新兴项目。在较长的项目发展周期中对比,不难看出“高线效应和毕尔巴鄂效应其直接或间接影响的不同逻辑以及这些新兴项目基于项目蓝本的复制与进化下不同的形式与模式。高线公园作为景观项目激活了周边的产业发展和城市更新,其发展更多是其自身功能的衍生化,而非周边街区中类似高线公园的景观项目。在西切尔西区特殊的文化艺术产业背景下,高线公园虽然迎合地将公园定位致力于多媒体和当代艺术[23],但高线之友巧妙地结合了其作为普通步道和公园的基本功能,举办了各种有别于周围博物馆和画廊举办的社区活动、艺术活动及慈善活动等。由于与高线公园这条高架中轴空间相结合形成的新颖性 [1],这些活动基本局限于公园当中,而很难复制到西切尔西区的其他公共空间。

    从全球范围来看,虽然将废弃的高架铁路改造为公园步道并不是纽约高线公园首创,但纽约高线公园成为城市名片之后最显著的影响是这种形式的符号化,让类似高线公园的景观项目层出不穷。据不完全统计全球共有18座这样的公园,如近年建成的澳大利亚新南威尔士高线公园The Goods LineASPECT Studios设计,2015年开放)、韩国首尔高线公园Seoul SkygardenMVRDV设计,2017年开放)、中国西安“高线公园”(曲江创意谷,张唐景观设计,2018年开放)以及规划建设中的,如新加坡高线公园、迪拜高线公园等(图6)。这些项目大多沿袭了高架上线性公园的形式,而非开发管理模式。

     

    6 全球的18高线公园项目

    Figure 6 All 18 “High Line” Parks around the World

     

    如果从开发管理模式上看,高线公园的模式主要实践在北美洲。尽管高线公园在社区服务与社区参与上饱受士绅化问题的挑战,但在社区活动的提供和组织上高线公园依然得到了官方的肯定。 高线之友团队作为八个管理组织之一,加入了纽约市长和纽约公园委员会发起的社区公园计划,延续高线公园的模式,与志愿者主导的团队合作管理了梅尔罗斯的12个社区公园[24]。除此之外,高线之友发起了高线网络的非营利项目,用于支持北美洲废弃基础设施再利用的公园项目,愿景是重新定义一种新的城市景观,通过不同项目间的交流学习将这些项目像高线公园一样激发无限潜力的可能[25](图7)。其中值得一提的是纽约下东区尚在建设中的低线公园,作为高线网络中的19个项目之一,从直抒胸臆的名字到低收入社区选址的特殊性,再到前期社区介入的形式等,低线公园无疑很大程度上尽可能复制了高线公园,未来也可能继续沿用高线公园的管理模式。

     

     

    7 高线网络项目

    Figure 7 Highline Network Projects

     

    毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆作为毕尔巴鄂效应的主角项目,从计划之初就自带了古根海姆效应的光环[26]。当年纽约古根海姆博物馆前馆长、担任西班牙文化部行政顾问的卡门·吉梅内斯正是看中了古根海姆博物馆的强大潜力而向古根海姆基金会提议选址毕尔巴鄂,与当时古根海姆基金会对紧急流动资金的需求和海外业务扩张的需求一拍即合[27]。成立于1937年的古根海姆基金会与1999年由社区居民成立的高线之友有着根本的不同——古根海姆基金会在接受毕尔巴鄂邀请时运营纽约馆已超过30年,有着专业的团队致力于品牌的经营模式和当代艺术事业。作为自带产业属性的博物馆项目,古根海姆博物馆激活了毕尔巴鄂本身不够景气的博物馆产业,进而衍生到了艺术文化产业。但其在自身功能上并没有像高线公园一样进行拓展和衍生,依然延续了古根海姆博物馆自身的经营模式。尽管古根海姆博物馆多少有适应性的本土化策略,但毕尔巴鄂市的城市规划与发展的策略性契合以及其他的项目实践主要是由政府主导的非营利机构Bilbao Metropli-30Bilbao Ria 2000完成的,而这两个组织并无权参与古根海姆博物馆的运营。艺术文化产业的带动属于同性质的产业扩张,这样的产业带动在博物馆与艺术馆附近的街区中颇为常见。全球实践中,毕尔巴鄂效应更多是局限于如何通过建一个博物馆美术馆来赚钱的商业模式,但究竟是政府和民间力量成功迎合的功劳更大、还是古根海姆博物馆的带动效果好促成了毕尔巴鄂显著的成功,目前还没有研究可以清晰地论证。

     

    4 成功与批判:超越城市基础设施的项目

    在全球诸多后工业城市希望借由“高线效应或是毕尔巴鄂效应激活城市发展时,一方面,基于越来越多的失败案例和大量的研究,包括本文研究所提出的如何在区域激活的长期进程中,差异化理解城市与项目关系以及扩张的形式与模式的异同,传统的城市基础设施概念似乎已经不再适用于这样的项目。这也就是许多参照这两个项目的案例,无法仅通过一个美丽的形象工程达到目的的重要原因。这些后继项目无疑都可以被称为是明星项目,但却很少在短期的经济回报或者长期的可持续发展管理模式上被提及。

    另一方面,高线公园和毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆一二十年的项目周期给予了更长的时间和更完整的发展进程去理解项目。除了宏观的社区经济发展之外,越来越多的言论开始挑战过去被认为是成功的定义。考虑到毕尔巴鄂古根海姆博物馆有着被引入的昂贵私立博物馆的属性,被批判脱离市民,仅作为服务于旅游业的特殊化建筑[28]或许尚可接受;而高线公园作为发起自民间,希望为社区提供绿色开放空间的公园却最终沦为士绅化的工具,颇具讽刺性[29]。尽管至今高线公园依旧提供大量免费的公众参与活动,但社区的整体士绅化已经不可扭转地驱逐了当年的社区居民和产业[30]士绅化、城市低收入群体权益等问题并不在本文讨论范围之内,但需要意识到的是,这些影响事实上有悖于许多类似项目提出时的美好愿景[31]。这是政治家、参与城市决策与建设的专业人士以及有投票权、参与权的市民需要在明星项目中警惕的前车之鉴

     

    5 结语

    通过明星项目带动区域复兴是城市更新激活的方式之一,而明星项目并不仅局限于景观建筑的开发,也并非是复杂城市关系下的单一策略体系。相比于当下炙手可热的部分项目,基于一二十年的项目发展和研究基础,去比较被冠以“高线效应和毕尔巴鄂效应的两个鼻祖级开发项目,就不难看出共性下看似统领区域发展的单一明星项目背后的一系列明星项目集成和支持系统,也可以显示出共性下两个项目在城市定位与期望的差异性和其形式与模式的本质区别。这样的比较案例辩证地引导了认知项目、项目所在的外环境以及项目与环境之间的相互关系,为解读明星项目背后与城市可持续发展的复杂关系提供一种更具参考性的多元化、差异化的视角。

    需要强调的是,明星项目作为触媒介入后工业城市更新的实践时间不长,在当下城市持续且迅速的转型过程中,即使是已经被视为成功且成熟的案例本身在当下依然面临严峻考验——例如古根海姆博物馆面临访客下降以及毕尔巴鄂文创经济增长失速的挑战、高线公园及其所在的西切尔西区或也将受到哈迪逊河码头项目的发展冲击等。这些挑战在未来都将用事实给予案例研究全新的解读方式和价值认知,而如何及时地化用优点规避风险成为了不同地区城市沿用明星项目开发模式的实际需求和困扰问题。作为超越传统城市基础设施的明星项目,城市的决策者、相关产业、研究人员以及市民需要从更长的时间周期和更多维度的关系下批判性地去看待这列项目成功光环背后的得与失。


     

    Introduction

    The trend of post-modern cities transforming into global metropolises began in the 1970s. Under the theoretical practice of functional cities for decades, many old industrial and administrative centers in North America and Europe that have been progressively forced aside by living and working, tourism and leisure are structurally transformed into high symbolic and aesthetic cultural centers [1]. The discussions in view of urban planning and design have given the city of this stage a programmatic name called Creative Cities [2]. Since 1990s, a large number of central museum projects and industrial wasteland transformation projects have been launched worldwide, among which are the High Line Park co-designed by James Corner Field Operation, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Piet Oudolf, and the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao designed by Frank Gehry. As the flagship projects in the early transformation stage of West Chelsea in New York City and downtown Bilbao, these projects have not only become business cards for designers and the specific regions, the High Line Effect and Bilbao Effect are also considered to have greatly renovated the districts, which have become mythological urban renewal paradigms in the field of planning and design and in favor of many politicians [3-5]. Regrettably, most of the urban renewals that followed these two cases did not achieve the expected benefits. How to understand the differences between the two prototype projects thoroughly is particularly important for the development of adaptive strategies for the development of creative cities that still want to emulate such paradigms. This requires thoughts out of the long-term discussed designs and praises to critically reinterpret the differences from those similar signature projects through the discussion of transformation intervention, regional and urban relations, forms and models of expansion, success and failure from a longer project cycle.

    1 Starting and Ending Points: the Cultural Industry Transformation and Overall Urban Renovation Catalysed by the Signature Projects

    Where does the cultural renaissance of the declining industrial zones come from and go further? The answer is not clear at the initial stage when creative cities thrive with signature projects. That expensive signature projects cannot achieve urban renovation and industrial transformation by "adding a little culture and art" has become the common criticism of many failed projects after the craze [6]. The High Line Park and the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao are not the starting point of a phased renaissance. Also, the transition of the two urban areas through culture and art industry is not out of thin air. As early as 1970, Life magazine ran an edition with the cover of SoHo's Living big in a loft, which has foreshadowed the transformation in NYC inner city of the artists' pioneering pan-culture into a mainstream in means of regional renaissance[1][7]. With the gentrification of SoHo, artists gradually moved into the nearby West Village from 1980s, and then to the West Chelsea in 1990s where the High Line located[8-9]. Famous galleries such as the Gagosian Gallery had already selected to locate at West Chelsea before the idea of the High Line Park officially announced [10]. Bilbao, a small declining industrial city as described by some articles, has superior cultural and artistic origins than NYC. At least two lines of the famous Gamino de Santiago de Compostela have passed Bilbao since the 19th century, which brought a large number of tourists and businesses, forming an important cultural linkage [6]. The Basque County Government nowadays still values the tourism economy brought by the cultural journey and is very active in supporting the cultural route Camino Frances to enhance its international reputation [11].

    Behind the signature projects are huge support systems of infrastructure, policy incentives and industries. In other words, expensive flagship projects as pieces of business cards for urban and regional revitalization need to be supported around by various signature projects. In nowadays' view to see such projects themselves after one or two decades, the so-called signature projects are actually just a beginning (figure 1). John Alschuler, former chairman of HR&A, the consulting firm responsible for the High Line Park project, believed that the key factor of the successful transformation of West Chelsea lies not in the transformation of the industry itself catalyzed by the High Line Park, but for the first time the special zoning of West Chelsea legally allowed the conversion of pure industrial land into a vibrant residential and commercial zone [12]. Surrounding today's High Line Park, which is already a piece of business card itself, has risen and is continuing rising a number of new signature projects, among which is the IAC tower designed by Frank Gehry (figure 2). Similar to the series of intensive construction projects around the High Line Park within past decades, Bilbao has launched a general clean-up plan since 1979, including the heavily polluted River Nevion [13]. Prior to the cooperation with Guggenheim Foundation in 1991, Bilbao identified "opportunity areas" through urban planning in 1989 and adopted a strategic plan in 1992 [14]. Before the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in 1997, Bilbao completed series of major infrastructure construction such as the new subway opened in 1995 designed by Norman Foster [12]. In addition to the signature architectural projects surrounding the Guggenheim Museum designed by star architects such as Cesar Pelli, Alvaro Siza, and Rafael Moneo, etc. There are also projects over the river like Zorrozaurre Planning, which is done by Zaha Hadid Architects, and the Zubizuri Bridge designed by Santiago Calatrava (figure 3).Bilbao's strategic vision has shifted from "from infrastructure to value (1991~2010)" to "the age of professions (2011~2035)", of which clarifies the transformation of the current culture and tourism industry into specialized high-end services [15]. In view of functionality as time goes by, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, belonging to the world's leading museums of contemporary art, still plays a significant role in the 3rd decade since its opening. Similarly, the 3rd phase of the High Line Park is directly connected to the Hudson Yards Megaproject which is the largest private property investment in the history of the United States. The first phase of the Hudson Yards will open in 2019 during the 10th anniversary of the opening of the High Line Park and the 20th anniversary of the Friends of the High Line, the non-governmental organization established originally in oppose to the removal of the High Line. The post High Line era remains brilliant. No matter it is the High Line Park or the Guggenheim Museum, the so-called "catalytic effect" is clearly a process from a single signature project to a collection of signature projects.

    2 Project for the City, City for the Project: Differences among Positioning and Expectation

    Regardless of whether it is from the perspective of architecture, landscape or urban studies, the intervention of High Line Park and the Guggenheim Museum into their regional renovation has the very similarity. American architects Wayne Attoe and Donn Logan came up with the concept of "urban catalyst" in their book American Urban Architecture: Catalysts in the Design of Cities published in 1992[16]. This coincided with the criticism of the landscape urbanism theory Landscape Design proposed in the themed conference held in 1997 by scholars leading by Charles Waldheim [17]. Such conceptual theories together with the Bilbao Effect and High Line Effect as typical theoretical practices, criticized the inability of modern urban planning and skyscrapers advocated in domination by Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright in solving the issues of built environment in contemporary cities, and believed that urban landscape (including landscape architecture) are similar to "catalysts" that can better intervene and organize the urbanization[16-17]. Although at a rough glance, the final results of the High Line Effect and Bilbao Effect are both common revival and prosperity under the leadership of such signature projects, the cities of different scales, the different positioning of the cities, the different ways and extends in which signature projects are involved, as well as different the relationship between the creative industries and urban development are all obvious and concerned.

    As a representative of small and medium-sized European cities, Bilbao takes the advantage of policy and finance owing to the autonomy of Basque County that initially positioned the art and culture as pillar industries at the age of depression [13]. In the past few decades, whether from the governmental or non-governmental side, the targeted development of the city, such as urban infrastructure construction, the consumption and sponsorship of art industry, the revival of museums, formation of art blocks, art education and the cultivation of new generation of artists, have all been well catered [18] , which quickly made Bilbao a global city of art and culture. In comparison, such support that serves the High Line Park around is not available in West Chelsea or NYC. Although the special zoning proposed by the planning department of New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) did give a certain degree of bonus to West Chelsea, however, these bonuses did not go straight to the art industry on site but promoted the development of high-end real estate. Besides, New York does not seem to exclusively emphasize its position in the global art and culture industry. For example, Bilbao, in title of Creative City of design, is one of the seven Spanish cities in UNESCO's Creative Cities Network, while NYC is not among the nine American cities within the network. The development of the art industry in the West Chelsea should highly attribute to the original art district formed by the artists "expelled" from SoHo and West Village. Although the capital once again adopted and achieved the profitable development model of Soho and West Village, the results have once again "expelled" the original art industry [19].

    In view from the industrial orientation of the project itself, although the High Line Park, as a landscape project, does not have the significant function and industrial orientation as the commercial museum running under the "Guggenheim model", this does not hinder the comparability. Even to see the many signature projects adjacent to the High Line Park as a whole as part of the outcome of the High Line Effect or West Chelsea special zoning, though there are some similar projects like the Guggenheim Museum, such as the Whitney Museum of American Art, which is famous for the collection of American contemporary art [20], failed to significantly dominate the city's art industry. This is in clear contrast with spatial structure of Bilbao where the Guggenheim Museum dominates the art district of contemporary art and the old art district dominates the traditional art (figure 4). The uniqueness of the New York and High Line Park is that on the one hand, New York has so many developed art industrial clusters centered at Chelsea, Museum Avenue, Lower Bridge, Brooklyn DUMBO, Midtown and Lower City [8] that whether it is the old art district where the Guggenheim Museum New York stands or the growing West Chelsea is difficult to merely revitalize and lead the cultural and art industry through signature projects (figure 4); On the other hand, although orthodoxically saying the High Line Park is not a museum, it functions as an art museum. The High Line Park is the only park in NYC dedicated to multimedia contemporary art. Within 2018, it organized 19 art events in four categories of channel, plinth, performance and commission. These pure art activities are only a small fraction of the normal public events in frequency of around five per week [21-22]. It might because of the special existence of the High Line Park that although the number of galleries in West Chelsea decreased, compared with the number of galleries in SoHo that began to decline in the late 1990s and nearly halved within 10 years [20], West Chelsea at least still survives considerable amount of cultural and art industries (figures 4, 5).

    3 Replication and Evolution: Forms and Patterns

    The High Line Park and the Guggenheim Museum, as "catalysts" and prototypes have expansionary impact after the intervention and aroused series of emerging projects, which seen them as prototype. In comparison under the longer project development cycle, it is not difficult to see the directly or indirectly different logics of the High Line Effect and Bilbao Effect, and the different forms of these emerging projects based on the replication and evolution of the prototypes. The High Line Park, as a landscape project, has activated the surrounding industrial development and urban renewal, of which development is more about the derivation of its own functions rather than the similar High Line projects in the surrounding neighborhoods. In the context of the special cultural and art industries in the West Chelsea, though the High Line Park has "comforted" to position itself for multimedia contemporary art [23], the Friends of the High Line skillfully takes the advantage of High Line’s basic function as a common trail and park, organizing various community activities, art events, charity events different from those of museums and galleries around. Due to the novelty [1] created by the High Line Park as an elevated central axis, these activities are basically confined to the park and difficult to be replicated to other public spaces within the West Chelsea. From an international perspective, although the transformation of abandoned elevated railways into parks is not originated from New York's High Line Park, the most significant impact is the semiotization of its form after it ascended to as a piece of city's business card that follows with constant emerging similar projects. Based on incomplete statistics, there are 18 such parks worldwide, such as The Goods Line in New South Wales, Australia, opened in 2015, designed by ASPECT Studios, the Skygarden in Seoul, South Korea, opened in 2017, designed by MVRDV, the 'High Line Park' in Qujiang Creative Valley in Xi'an, China, opened in 2018, designed by T+Z Studio, as well as projects under planning and construction such as the 'High Line Parks' in Singapore and Dubai (figure 6). Most of these projects follow its form as elevated linear parks rather than its mode of development and management.

    In view of project development and management, the mode of High Line Park is mainly practiced in North America. Although it has been widely challenged by the gentrification in community engagement and participation, the High Line Park has been officially recognized for the community activities abundantly provided and well organized. Friends of the High Line as one of the eight administration institutions, joined the "Community Parks Initiative" sponsored by the Mayor and the New York Park Commission, to apply the mode of High Line Park to the twelve community parks in Melrose together with a group of volunteers [24]. In addition, Friends of the High Line launched the Highline Network, a non-profit program to support the landscape projects reusing abandoned infrastructure in North America. The vision of it is to redefine a new type of urban landscape that through the exchange of different projects, these projects are supposed to stimulate the potential of unlimited potentials like the High Line Park [25] (figure 7). Among those 19 projects within the High Line Network, it is worth mention the Low Line, which is still under construction in the Lower East Side of NYC. From the straightforward name to the special site selection background in a low-income community, and the similar form of community engagement at early stage, Low Line Park is undoubtedly replicating the High Line Park as much as possible, and is highly possible to follow the management mode of the High Line Park in the future.

    As the leading project of the Bilbao Effect, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao is born with its own aura of the Guggenheim Effect [26]. Carmen Gimenez, former curator of the Guggenheim Museum New York and at that time the administrative advisor of Spanish Ministry of Culture, saw the great potency of the Guggenheim Museum and proposed Bilbao to the Guggenheim Foundation, which happen to meet the demand for urgent liquidity and the expansion of overseas business of Guggenheim Foundation [27]. Founded in 1937, the Guggenheim Foundation is fundamentally different from Friends of the High Line, which is established by community residents in 1999. The running of Guggenheim Museum New York has been more than thirty years by Guggenheim Foundation before invited by Bilbao. There is a mature professional team dedicated to the brand's business and devotion for contemporary art. As a museum project with its own industrial attributes, the Guggenheim Museum has activated Bilbao's booming museum industry and further derived to the art and culture industry. However, it does not expand and derivate like the High Line Park, which goes beyond its own function as a park, but continues the business mode of the Guggenheim Museum itself. Despite the more or less adaptive localization strategy of the Guggenheim Museum, the strategic planning and project practices that fit in are mainly officially led by non-profit governmental institutions Bilbao Metropli-30 and Bilbao Ria 2000, while the two institutions do not have the right to participate in the operation of the Guggenheim Museum. The promotion of the art and cultural industry belongs to the same kind of industrial expansion and are quite common in the neighborhoods near Museums and galleries. In the global practice, the Bilbao Effect is quite limited to the business mode of how to make money through an art museum, but whether such success should be more attributed to Bilbao's government and civil powers that successfully catered it, the renovation effect of Guggenheim Museum has not been clearly demonstrated by any research yet.

    4 Success and Critiques: Urban Infrastructure That Goes Beyond

    While a large number of post-industrial cities around the world hope to activate urban development through the High Line Effect or Bilbao Effect, on the one hand, based on more and more failed practices and vast studies including the research proposed in this paper dedicated to understand the differentiated similarities and differences of relationship between cities and projects, form and pattern of expansion under the long-term process of regional activation, the old concepts of urban infrastructure no longer fits well into such projects. This is an important reason why many of those that hope to regard these two projects as high-quality infrastructure cannot achieve their goals through mere one beautiful flagship project. Undoubtedly, all these successors can be called signature projects, but they are rarely mentioned in successful short-term economic returns or long-term sustainable mode of development and management.

    On the other hand, the project cycle of more than one decade or two of the High Line Park and Guggenheim Museum Bilbao enables us to understand those projects based one longer time span and a more complete development process. In addition to the emphasize on macro community economic development, more and more views challenge the definitions that once in the past define what is successful. Considering that the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao was originally introduced as a wealthy private museum, it was to some extend acceptable to be criticized as an exclusive architecture for the tourism industry [28]. But it is quite ironic while the High Line Park initially launched in aim to provide green open space for the community but finally turns to be a tool for gentrification [29]. Although the High Line Park dose constantly provide a large number of free public activities, the overall gentrification of the whole community has irrevocably banished the original residents and industries [30]. Issues such as gentrification and the rights of low-income groups in urban areas are not within the discussion of this paper, but it is important to realize that these effects are in fact contrary to the good vision of many similar projects [31]. One need to be vigilant of what is actually behind the seemingly flashy signature projects, no matter it is for politicians, professionals that participate in decision-making and urban construction and citizens who have the right to vote for such projects, etc.

    5 Conclusion

    Promoting regional revitalization through signature projects is one of the ways to activate urban renewal and is not limited to either the development of landscape architecture or a single strategy system under complex urban relationships. Rather than those newly hot projects, the comparison of project development in cycle of one decade or two based on the two classic cases titled of High Line Effect and Bilbao Effect, it is not hard to recognize the comprehensive support system consisted of various signature projects instead of the seemingly simple one signature project that leads the regional development, and behind the common similarity the fundamental difference between urban positioning and expectation, form and pattern, etc. Such comparative cases dialectically guide the cognition of mutual relationship between the projects themselves, the external environment in which the projects are located, and the relationship between the projects and the environment, providing a more informative and differentiated perspective for interpreting the complex relationship between the signature projects and the sustainable development of the cities.

    It is worth to emphasize that the signature projects have no long-term practices for catalyzing the renewal of the post-industrial cities. Under nowadays' rapidly ongoing urban transformation, even the cases that have been regarded successful and mature are still in face of severe challenges. For example, the Guggenheim Museum is dealing with the decline of visitors and the challenge of Bilbao's economic stagnation. While the High Line Park and West Chelsea may also have to compete with the newly developed Hudson Yards Megaproject. In the future, these challenges will provide brand new ways for interpretation and value cognition through evidence-based case studies, and how to timely use the studied advantages to avoid risks in their ways has become a practical need and dilemma for the similar signature projects in different regions. As signature projects beyond traditional urban infrastructure, city decision makers, related industries, citizens, and researchers need to critically look at the gains and losses of these projects from a longer time span and more dimensions.


    参考文献

    [1] Reckwitz A. The invention of creativity: Modern society and the culture of the new [M]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017.

    [2] Landry C. The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators [M]. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2012.

    [3] Ascher K, Uffer S. The High Line Effect: proceedings of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat International Conference, New York, October 26-30, 2015 [C]. New York: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2015.

    [4] Plaza B. The return on investment of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao [J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2006, 30(2): 452-467.

    [5] 哈里奇 S N, 普拉萨 B, 焦怡雪(). 创意毕尔巴鄂:古根海姆效应[J]. 国际城市规划, 2012, 27(03): 11-16. HARRIC S N, PLAZZA B, JIAO Yixue (trans.). Creative Bilbao: The Guggenheim Effect [J]. Urban Planning International, 2012, 27(03): 11-16.

    [6] Franklin A. Journeys to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: towards a revised Bilbao effect [J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2016, 59: 79-92.

    [7] Zukin S. Loft living: culture and capital in urban change  [M]. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1989.

    [8] Molotch H, Treskon M. Changing art: SoHo, Chelsea and the dynamic geography of galleries in New York City [J].

    International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2009, 33(2): 517-541.

    [9] Smith N, DeFilippis J. The reassertion of economics: 1990s gentrification in the Lower East Side [J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1999, 23(4): 638-653.

    [10] 甘欣悦. 公共空间复兴背后的故事——记纽约高线公园转型始末[J]. 上海城市规划, 2015, (01): 43-48. GAN Xinyue.The story behind the renainssance of public spaces: a case study of transformation of the High Line in New York [J]. Shanghai Urban Planning Review, 2015, (01): 43-48.

    [11] Fernández-Poyatos M D, Aguirregoitia Martínez A, Boix Martí-Nez B. Camino de Santiago y Xacobeo 2010 en los portales turísticos de las Comunidades Autónomas [J]. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 2011, 67: 23-46.

    [12] Harvard GSD. The High Line: A Debate [EB/OL]// The 13th Veronica Rudge Green Prize in Urban Design, Boston, Febrary 22, 2018 (2018-11-16) [2019-05-26].

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6puvBQznEsI&t=13s.

    [13] Gazura K. From grey city to metropolitan icon: Basque cultural revival and urban redevelopment in Bilbao, Spain [D]. Orono: University of Maine, 2018.

    [14] Plöger P. Bilbao city report, CASEreport 43 [R]. London: Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2008.

    [15] Bilbao Metropoli-30. Metropolitan Bilbao 2035: a look into the future [R]. Bilbao: Bilbao Metropoli-30, 2016.

    [16] Attoe W, Logan D. American urban architecture: catalysts in the design of cities [M]. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 1992.

    [17] Waldheim C. The landscape urbanism reader [M]. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.

    [18] Plaza B, Tironi M, Haarich S N. Bilbao's art scene and the “Guggenheim effect” revisited [J]. European Planning Studies, 2009, 17(11): 1711-1729.

    [19] Halle D, Tiso E. Lessons from Chelsea [J]. International Journal of the Humanities, 2006, 3(11): 45-66.

    [20] Anderson M, Hays K M. Whitney Museum of American Art [M]. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012.

    [21] Stampfer A B. Public art on the High Line Park: a case study of how artwork impacts visitors and encourages democratic discourse [D]. New York: Columbia University, 2012.

    [22] Friends of the High Line. Public Programs [EB/OL].[2019-07-02].

    https://www.thehighline.org/public-programs.

    [23] Friends of the High Line. Public Art for Everyone [EB/OL]. [2019-07-02].

    https://www.thehighline.org/art.

    [24] NYC Parks. Community Park Innitiative [EB/OL]. [2019-07-02].

    https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative.

    [25] Friends of the High Line. High Line Network [EB/OL]. [2019-07-02]. https://network.thehighline.org.

    [26] Dennison L. From museum to museums: the evolution of the Guggenheim [J]. Museum International, 2003, 55(1): 48-55.

    [27] Plaza B, Haarich S N. The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: Between regional embeddedness and global networking [J]. European Planning Studies, 2015, 23(8): 1456-1475.

    [28] MacClancy J. The museum as a site of contest: the Bilbao Guggenheim [J]. Focal Journal of Anthropology, 1997, 1(7): 271-278.

    [29] Alvarez A B, Scholar M N, Wright M W. New York City’s High Line: participatory planning or gentrification? [J]. The Penn State McNair Journal, 2012, 19: 1-14.

    [30] Yoon H,  Currid-Halkett E. Industrial gentrification in West Chelsea, New York: Who survived and who did not? Empirical evidence from discrete-time survival analysis [J]. Urban Studies, 2015, 52(1): 20-49.

    [31] Moskowitz P E. How to kill a city: gentrification, inequality, and the fight for the neighborhood [M]. Boston: Hachette, 2017.

     

    (整理:赵迪 译:雷巍 何捷)

     

    下一条:中国古典园林中舟船主题及其文化意象探析

    关闭