田中央事務所「地點性」建築實踐之研究

在1950年代，出於對近代主義的反省，地域主義（Regionalism）試圖恢復有人性的環境並創造讓人感到有溫度的建築。此時恰是「現代主義中國建築」在台灣萌芽的時期，也正是國民政府來台極力鞏固政權的開端。隨著政治影響力的增加與自由創作空間的緊縮，「明清宮殿復興樣式」建築逐漸成為支配台灣建築界的權力。本應紮根台灣土地的「真實的」地域性建築，異化成了極富東方神韻的「虛假的」地域性建築。在1970年代末，以漢寶德為首的第二代建築師開始關注台灣傳統建築的研究與保存，但多為以語彙為主導的「表象式」地域主義建築。1990年代，在解嚴的社會背景之下社區營造逐步興起，台灣建築關懷的對象逐漸擴展到民間及更多元的族群。在宜蘭地區湧現出的眾多關懷在地環境的建築師團隊中，田中央建築團隊是典型代表。相較於戒嚴時期湧現的激昂卻空洞的地域性表現，田中央的在地實踐更能連結真實的地方生活與環境。然而，田中央團隊的建築實踐常被譽為宜蘭地域性建築之典範，甚至被廣泛誤解為代表著宜蘭的地域性風格。「地域性」在頻繁甚至氾濫的使用過程中，早已模糊化形成一種感覺的表述，而無法具體指涉某種特定操作方法下生產出的建築樣式，或是某派意識鮮明的建築主張。因此，本研究首先對西方建築史脈絡進行爬梳，釐清地域主義及其批判的真實意涵；其次，探討在台灣地區特殊政治力影響下發展而成的「地域性」建築；進而在此基礎上，回顧不同研究者對田中央事務所生產的「地域性」建築，以及對宜蘭風格的論述與誤讀之可能性；最後，對田中央事務所的四個建築案例（壯圍沙丘、櫻花陵園、羅東文化工場、中山小巨蛋）及建築所在的地點（Place）進行深度剖析。本研究從空間與時間向度分析田中央建築團隊對於「空間體驗」的態度，以及空間與環境設計的操作手法，以詮釋其「地點性」表達的空間實踐特質。

關鍵字

現代建築；宜蘭經驗；地域性；地點性；空間體驗

並列摘要

In the 1950s, as a reflection on Modernism, the idea of Regionalism tried to restore a human environment and create buildings that contain humanistic feelings. This was exactly the period when the idea of “Modernist Chinese Architecture” began to sprout in Taiwan, and it was also the beginning of the Nationalist Government’s effort to consolidate its power in Taiwan. With the increasing of political influence and the contraction of free creative, the “Revival Style of Ming Qing Palace” gradually became a dominated force in Taiwan architecture. The unique regional architecture, which should have been rooted in Taiwan as a “real” representative, was transformed into a “false” style with traditional oriental charm. At the end of 1970s, the second generation of local Taiwanese architects headed by Han Bao-De began to pay attention to the research and preservation of traditional Taiwanese architecture, but they focused more on “representational” Regionalism dominated by vocabulary. In the 1990s, as the society embraced the Post-Martial Law period, community development gradually emerged. The objects for Taiwan architects to concern progressively expanded to the folk and diverse ethnic groups. Among the numerous architects who care about the local environment in Yilan, Fieldoffice Architects emerged in this era is a typical representative. Comparing with the exciting but empty regional manifestations appeared during the Martial-Law Period in Yilan, the Fieldoffice’s practice is able to better connect the real local environment and life. However, the Fieldoffice’s Works is often hailed as a model of Yilan’s regional architecture, and even widely misunderstood as representing the regional style of Yilan. In this frequent or even flooding use, the “Regionalism” has been blurred into a sensational expression which is unable to specifically refer to the architectural style produced under a certain operation method with clear consciousness. Therefore, this research firstly combs the history of Western architecture to clarify the exact meaning of “Regionalism” and its criticism; secondly, explores the “Regional” architecture developed under the influence of the special political atmosphere in Taiwan; thirdly, reviews the “Regional” buildings produced by the Fieldoffice and discusses the so-called Yilan Style with the possibility of misunderstanding; finally, examines the four cases of the Fieldoffice’s work (Zhuangwei Dune, Cherry Orchard Cemetery, Luodong Cultural Working House, and Jhong-Shan Elementary School gymnasium). This research analyzes Fieldoffice Architects’ attitude towards “spatial experience” from the perspective of space and time, as well as the practicing methods of environmental design, to interpret the characteristics of space practice expressed by its “placeness”.