通过两张跨度一百多年的照片的对比,可以得出一些结论:
一、福州的绿化普及度较一百多年前有较好的提高。
二、福州传统古民居的破坏极为严重。
三、福州老城的改造完全不考虑对传统文化的破坏,大量古建筑(如白塔)被淹没在都市的高层建筑群当中。
第一点我很好奇,是因为民众生活水准提高,去山林伐木砍柴的人减少所致,还是因为全球气候变暖?
第二点和第三点,正迅速地使福州堕落成一座毫无特色的现代城市。
两张照片地址如下:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foochow_morrison.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foochow_morrison_2009.jpg
On 11月4日, 下午1时16分, GnuDoyng <gnudo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 请欣赏从乌山东眺福州内城的两张照片并思考。<a href="http://heritage-preservation-and-
> planning-in-fuzhou-foochow-china.googlegroups.com/web/
> Foochow_morrison.jpg?
> gda=oz_WSUcAAAAozYvJW_4F3cNPjZvLTGpux7mtHBoG9V5ha510tqY_s4lcasJtBujGv-
> O2xg9iVFriNflBnS90ecEO3zvz3dEqeV4duv6pDMGhhhZdjQlNAw&gsc=O3DgGiEAAADJdjQa76-A8cl-
> lPKcaDF_Gx6aDTnS89UbM4ENjhzWn2kzfKN-m9S9niuHrq-IEXAE">第一张</a>是老照片,由莫理循
> (George Ernest Morrison)摄于清末。除了连成一片汪洋的福州古民居之外,照片上还可以清晰望见文庙、乌塔、白塔、南门、明城
> 墙、茶亭,今天后三者已经不存了。幸亏乌山东麓的高爷庙还没有完全拆掉(位于照片左下方那两堵封火山墙内的建筑),所以我周末走访乌山时得以找到莫理循
> 当年大致的立足点,拍下了一张同方位的<a href="http://heritage-preservation-and-planning-
> in-fuzhou-foochow-china.googlegroups.com/web/Foochow_morrison_2009.jpg?
> gda=Fry_fUwAAAAozYvJW_4F3cNPjZvLTGpu1lUPeouCTL-
> KUPtvA5dWFbHaEjP2qDYDPGX3OIdSKU2w2_2PJQKm4k0Pi15A2oUE_Vpvmo5s1aABVJRO3P3wLQ-&gsc=O3DgGiEAAADJdjQa76A8cl-
其实我觉得,福州现在的传统文化意识是有在慢慢恢复的,不管决策者们所看重的深层目标是什么,对古建筑也已经开始有一定选择性地进行保护了,不能说"完
全不考虑对传统文化"。
但是抛开实际操作方式先不谈,在保护的观念上仍是只停留于对单体建筑的关注,而对于城市的整体形象整体性格没什么意识,造成城市大部分区域景观杂乱无
章。
即便,假如,对单体建筑的保护很成功,这些老建筑也仅仅像是埋没在杂物堆里的古物----没有被陈列出来,擦得再亮,也只是杂物。福州还是有特色的,不过我
们在带别人体验传统文化时,只能是"客人在杂物堆般的城市里穿行,主人挖出一件件历史的遗迹"。除非你是来品味沧桑感的,否则这种情景真的无法给人美好
的体验。
至于绿化率,仅就这两张照片来看,呵呵,是得不出什么结论的。Geroge同志你的拍摄地点看上去比Morrison的----相对于你们的视角----好像更
偏后,也更高。如果站在他的位置,相机很可能也收不进你这张照片前景里的这一圈树(如果一百年前它们就有这么高大的话)。市中心的树一般是没人砍的,所
以它们相较于一百年前会显得更葱郁,而且房子荒了一会儿,也就暂时变绿地了。话说回来,福州的绿化率近二十年来确实有很大提高,而且还有挺大的提升空
间。
On Nov 4, 1:16 pm, GnuDoyng <gnudo...@gmail.com> wrote:
First of all, I would like to say both Morrison and Geroge's photos
are great and taken from one same position (basically)... According to
some remaining walls and roofs. Well, it is just my opinion.
Regarding to the issue of green, I am not a tree hugger, so I am pro-
planting. But I would say Foochow's current planting process is
average. Why? There is no emphasis on sides of wall waterbodies, e.g.
streems, rivers. If there is a lack of planting on sides of rivers,
storm-water run-off is a serious issue which adversely affects
sustainable development of a place.
Talking about historic building protection, as I mentioned in the
other posts, Foochow's decision-makers have no idea about what they
are doing. Well, maybe they do not even care. A camparison between
Morrison and Geroge's photos shows everything. Why? In my opinion,
Foochow's brand or image is partially related to 2 towers (whatever
you call it in Chinese). Morrison's photo displays the unique skyline
and urban morphology of urban area surrounding the 2 towers. George's
photo shows random concrete crap and urban morphology without any
comprehensive development control in regards to the 2 towers. In my
opinion, protection is more than keeping and maintaining the
building's physical conditions.
Oh well, Foochow's urban planning is so average. It is sad to me.
> > > 第二点和第三点,正迅速地使福州堕落成一座毫无特色的现代城市。- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -