你敢相信這是中大校園的建築嗎?
劉耀章

請先看看以下的照片。

        這幾張照片是近日在中大校園內拍攝的,照片中的建築物位於中大本部,地點是大學道和中央道相交之處,換言之,是大學最核心的地段,而且該建築物體積龐大,從火車站已經可以遙遙望見。近日由於建築工程接近尾聲,拆去圍板,露出建築物的真面目,效果真是震撼性!

          筆者稍為追查過此建築物的背景,得知乃是「中央實驗大樓」﹙Centralized Science Laboratory Building﹚,由大學教育資助委員會撥款興建,將於今年第四季度落成。現在大家所見的紅黃藍綠諸色外牆,將是永久性景觀。建築物的美醜,並無客觀標準,但以此大樓而言,筆者覺得絕對稱得上「惡俗」,特別是在中大本來逐漸綠樹成蔭的環境之中。 

        這座中央實驗大樓的出現,可說是將中大校園建築的惡俗化推向了一個新台階。這種惡俗化的趨勢,近年愈演愈烈。

          上世紀七十年代初,當中大將三間成員書院都集中到馬料水現在的校園之內時,建築物大致有兩種風格,一是山腳的崇基書院,主要由矮小的磚石建築組成,樹木茂盛,人工和天然之間,有一種由於長期相互適應而建立的和諧;另一是山頂的新亞、聯合書院和山腰的大學本部,建築基本上出自當時名建築師司徒惠的設計,簡單樸實,外牆不作裝飾,以灰色為主,當時由於樹木不多,整個環境令人有牛山濯濯之感,但建築物風格一致,之後由於大學廣植樹木,這些簡樸的建築穿插在綠油油的林木當中,令人感到很舒服,七、八十年代畢業的校友大都印象深刻,也相當懷念。內地前來中大進行交流的學者和文人,很多對中大校園也多所讚美。 

        可惜當中大開始「富」起來之後,大興土木,校園之內變得日益擠逼不在話下,新建築追趕潮流,和原有面貌格格不入,各幢新的大樓和商業區的建築並無分別,大學校園原有的和諧感覺,到如今可說盪然無存。這裏挑選尤其惡劣的幾座新建築稍作引申。

         一是位於大學圖書院旁邊的田家炳樓。此大樓九十年代初落成時,外牆有一座髹上紅色漆油的鐵架,望之有如「鹹蛋超人」。李國章當上大學校長後,有一次和教職員對談,就說到中大的新建築物實在難看,還特別指出田家炳樓作為例子,可能由於這樣的緣故,紅色鐵架年前終於拆除,令大樓的外觀有所改善,至於為此改動用去多少金錢,則不得而知。 

        二是接近新亞校園的蒙民偉樓,這座大樓在懸崖邊拔地而起,體積龐大,也是從火車站就可以望見,外裝所舖紙皮石是極之搶眼的黃色,遠望有如一大片芥辣醬塗在山坡上,和四周的建築極不相稱。。

        三是崇基書院原入口處車道上的利黃瑤碧樓,以及與於相連的崇基行政樓,龐然巨物般矗立在山坡之上,紙皮石外牆,平庸不堪,從火車站下來第一眼就會望見,令人以為進入一個毫無個性的新市鎮。筆者這樣說並非誇大,如果你從利黃瑤碧樓信步沿馬路而下,經過崇基行政樓、許讓成樓、信和樓等建築,很難感到是置身一所大學校園之內,這些建築物和香港市區的一般商業樓宇並無兩樣。

        然後就是本文提到、即將落成的中央實驗大樓。如果中大有「惡俗建築選舉」,我會將之作為首選。

        只是此惡俗趨勢恐怕還會繼續,且看剛剛動工的文物館新翼,這是一座玻璃幕牆建築,和中環的商業大廈基本一樣,而且位於「百萬大道」上,這裏本來是中大校園內,能夠保持建築物原有和諧風格的少數地方之一,幾年後大家且「拭目以待」。中大校方現在還要籌建好幾所新書院,每所又不免有幾幢新大樓,像我們這樣的陳年校友,反應恐怕只能是「吾不欲觀之矣」。

2006726

Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to 你敢相信這是中大校園的建築嗎?
劉耀章

  1. Alison says:

    You have said what I wanted to say!
    Thanks.

  2. aaron says:

    it’s a dump of shit.

  3. 陳日東 says:

    烽火臺正在重修。起初,紀念朱銘贈「門」的碑石給掘走了,還以為完工後會安回去,原來不是,空出來的坑位,已重新鋪上石階,那塊與「門」相對近二十載的碑石,將無法放回原處,縱使補回有關雕塑的說明,也不是那回事。

    為甚麼小小一項工程,都要對歷史和記憶做成無可挽回的傷害?

    朱銘在香港搞展覽,中大的「門」就搞破壞,實在說不過去啊!!!

  4. 思考 says:

    只是數個月沒有回中大,竟然變成這樣… =口=

  5. BrianKo says:

    嘩…在山坡上的貨櫃碼頭…

  6. NEL says:

    不堪入目。

  7. 32中 says:

    劉遵義係唔係港大派來o既卧底!想搞死中大呀?
    還是前校長李國章才是卧底!
    你唔話係中大仲以為自己去o左火星,o的招標佬點解咁無腦o家?

  8. Teresa T says:

    Is this yet another joke from those architects graduated from a certain Pokfulam university?

  9. rita says:

    just like the logo of a broadcaster……not match with CU…..so awful!!!

  10. Tanbo says:

    是, 真的是難看得很過火…!!
    實在令人很生氣!!!

  11. BC3MM says:

    同山下的吐露港彩色隔音屏障亙相輝映, 相映成趣~

  12. 校友 says:

    我懷疑設計者是從吐露港的隔音屏障抄出來的 :x

  13. Janice says:

    中大的優美校園,已當蕩然無存!還好意思提出「綠山城」Green Campus!

  14. John , Major in Physics says:

    > 嘩…在山坡上的貨櫃碼頭…

    會否在下次10號風球時, 成了灣仔稅務大樓、入境處等?

  15. kevin10 says:

    東施效顰
    不堪入目

  16. Edward Wan says:

    紅燈黃綠青藍紫…彩虹七色為我們偉大的母校添上朝氣~

    新一代的小孩必定以為這是充滿歡笑的美國老鼠樂園, 從而立下”將來大個左一定要入中大讀書”這個堅定的目標…

    這樣的垃圾建築, 只有滿腦子垃圾的人才能想得出…

  17. pig says:

    Looks like the expression profile for DNA chips

  18. says:

    實在…………..想嘔死
    本來身為中大生覺得自豪
    想不到剛畢業不久, 就有令人覺得”中大影衰自己”既感覺…

  19. poonwinghang says:

    和中大的山水一色很不相襯
    放在理大或者是漂亮
    但在中大…..
    真係好似貨櫃

  20. rosa says:

    It’s a disaster! Whose design is it?

  21. thickest says:

    媽的,有沒有人知道誰是設計師?
    設計師品味差倒也罷了,最要命的是那些高層……
    怎能讓這樣一個格格不入的東西強行建在中大的山腰上?
    唯今之計,只好希望校方換走那些色彩繽紛的「隔音屏障」玻璃,那是整個大樓最要命的東西,媽的……

  22. Joy says:

    I feel very very sad about that! Is there anything we can do?

  23. CLARE says:

    以前既中大都好樸素, 呢幢野真係好似d大陸商業大樓, 同四周綠油油既環境好唔配。
    唉…

  24. 楊德立 says:

    邊個批呢個design的呢? 請問筆者知否?
    咁既design都可以過,很想知其理據為何。

    勁同意「我懷疑設計者是從吐露港的隔音屏障抄出來的」!!

  25. 校友 says:

    個波又想點呀….好似有外星人咁,繼uc後又一力作,好得人驚呀……………

  26. June says:

    有天回中大,小巴剛轉上九肚山迴旋處,遠遠就見到這五顏六色的東西,嚇了一跳,駛唔駛突出成咁?還以為是暫時的顏色膠紙….中大環境的徹底破壞。

    Thanks! 形容得極貼切!

  27. Joe says:

    Seriously I thought there was a celebration or something when I passed by CUHK the other day. Now I’m just absolutely terrified to know the fact that it is permanent!
    Alumni who care about CUHK, it’s time to make some noise!

  28. WKL says:

    我覺得好美!
    中大真的要與以前一樣嗎??為何要那麼保守!!!
    問題在於,很多人不向前走,如文中所說,總是回想以往,而不大接受新事物。

  29. queenieyu says:

    俗不可耐, 令人震驚!

  30. River says:

    建築物好不好看並不重要,是否真的需要新的建築物,是否符合成本效益才更重要。如果一味好大喜功,重量不重質,重外表不重內涵,就算如何配合一貫風格,如何美麗也是多餘、浪費!

  31. alkyyip says:

    中大竟然變成這樣…
    實在令人氣憤~!!>_

  32. WKL says:

    為何不登我於昨天贊美那些建築物的意見??
    我想每人都有表達權,而且亦可以與其他人分享,更不是只聽其合乎自己意見的聲音。
    現在我實在很失望,本來你們太著重過往已令我有點婉惜,但現在發現,原來連接受其他人的意見的能力也沒有,我想我不會再有什麼期望了。
    請放開心胸,身為大學生,這是很重要的條件。
    我不期望你會登出這段留言,但若你們能接納其他人的意見,請登出我昨天那段贊美的留言吧!謝謝!!!

  33. mike says:

    很有特色
    可惜放錯了地方…

  34. bugsage says:

    品味實在太差, 差到無可再差, 實在和原先的校園風格, 格格不入!!

  35. 伊達 says:

    這真是我讀過的中大的新建築嗎?>o

  36. sh says:

    Your words are so true

  37. Magician says:

    it may not be a very bad design. However, it is placed in the wrong place. It didn’t match the efficiency either. CU doesn’t need such a building. What CU needs is only a plane building with good internal design, not this piece of great “deflatmentation” screen!

  38. cola says:

    我將來兩年會在工程學大樓
    跟這座惡俗大樓朝夕相對
    想來簡直慘呀!!!

  39. Karin says:

    上次還書,一見這東西就嚇至滴汗…
    天,怎可讓這東西放在中大上?
    我不批評品味了,但根本格格不入…

    這,還是學校嗎?

  40. Bill says:

    幢建築物好恐怖!!!
    去馬料水果陣睇倒仲以為唔係中大建築
    點知ocamp再入中大先發覺o係中大裏面…
    好核突好核突…

  41. ahking says:

    當我踏出火車的第一刻,忽然被迎面而來且格格不入的建築物帶來前所未有的震憾. 我雖然不是一些美術派的人,但是個人的審美標準亦令我對此建築感到厭惡,作為中大人,深知優美的景色是我們引以為傲的標誌,但是,今天…..我為此感到羞恥.

  42. _ says:

    作為理學院的學生[也就是將來可能會用這大樓的人]都覺得這大樓的外觀跟講求實際不花巧的科學實驗研究格格不入, 簡直有損中大形象!!!
    我也同意樓上某人所說, “Looks like the expression profile for DNA chips”
    他日也許我跟同學談電話:”喂! 我在橙紅色的實驗室…哦,你在深綠…陣間彩虹邨藍色見~” Orz

  43. Simon Tse says:

    i never met a schoolmate who did not say that it’s extremely ugly

    terrible!

  44. Andy says:

    我由第一眼見到呢座o野就覺得佢真係不知所謂…
    設計o個個將一座咁o既o野放係中大不知所謂…
    approve 呢堆顏色放o左本部最當眼地方o個個仲不知所謂…
    作為一個醫學院學生…絕對認同要有新 lab building o既必要
    但係覺得有得用就得…
    何苦要搞到咁浮誇呢…真係丟人現眼
    好多離開o左中大o既師兄師姐搭火車經過都冇眼睇

  45. Patrick says:

    it looks like priated VCD law….

  46. Kitty says:

    我覺得望落去好似一個個貨櫃咁..
    第一次見到的時候真係嚇死我

    中大可唔可以唔好次次都做出d咁驚人的行為呢..

  47. Joe says:

    有必要弄得那麼花巧嗎??

  48. benson says:

    座野好難睇啊,求命,次次見到佢,我就想炸左佢!!!!

  49. kitty says:

    根本格格不入

  50. PY says:

    i feel sorry about that..building…
    stop damaging my campus please /..\
    i still need to study in here for a few years.

    O… when saw that… I am speechless …

    Condemn those ‘engineerers’

  51. Another Kitty says:

    本來第一次和中大的愛戀,是由建築學圖書館望下去未圓湖的那一刻開始的
    那時想,哦,竟然有學校那麼美!
    把中大放在first choice,很大的原因,也使因為它的校園
    在這一刻,我覺得心的一角好像在一片熒光彩色中融化掉

  52. Another Kitty says:

    請放上不同的聲音,包括讚美的聲音
    應該聽,聽聽不同的想法,看看我們的思維判斷有何漏洞

  53. admin says:

    "Another Kitty", All "feedback" on this subject are posted here uncensored. Website duty-administrators are very prepared to hear "不同的想法". Please send them in. Administrator

  54. Tony says:

    我覺得只係 外牆顏色有問題….其他外形 ar 個D 都 ok 既
    不過真係可唔可以換左隻色佢 ….

  55. yan says:

    不知所謂, 明顯的格格不入!
    連望多一眼都唔想.
    個設計師有無去過中大睇過附近的環境先設計o既呢?

  56. K says:

    果然惡俗!
    感覺似商場多於研究所!
    噁心!

  57. Anita says:

    多了這個垃圾,中大成了貨櫃場,拜托換走d彩色玻璃啦

  58. M says:

    坦白講,單純的談論這個設計我沒意見,因為想起西班牙也有這種風格的設計;但這棟樓出現於中大實在突兀。中大風景優美,最有外國的老牌大學校園感覺。停止破壞整體環境好嗎??

  59. Tam says:

    孔子曰:名不正,則言不順。懇請中大校方將’校園發展處’正名’校園破壞處’。

  60. Another Kitty says:

    謝謝你的回應^^
    我覺得顏色全換成同一系統的色調回比較好
    淺藍色,淺藍綠色都好,最好比較自然的色調,不要熒光,其實,不要顏色也可以
    不過,最好問問建築系藝術系的意見
    以我淺陋的見解,我覺得design主要是靠線條上的形狀上的突破,而顏色最好是以和諧為主,建築不是要體現人與環境之間的和諧嗎?

  61. YKK says:

    初見這棟醜陋的建築物時,真的嚇了一跳
    中大向來環境清幽
    但近年建築物既外型真係愈黎愈不倫不類

  62. ja says:

    小小的感覺.

    個人感覺,它比新engin building 同HSB舊engin build,來得和諧,色調用了近大自然的顏色:陽光黃和紅,天空的藍,和樹林的青綠. 不是因為用了新的顏色設計而不是清一色的石灰色,就俗不可耐.

  63. nell says:

    是不是哥斯拉入侵中大??
    這幢新建築物富時代感嗎? 可以在繁華的巿區也找到嗎?

  64. kiki says:

    really really super ugly

  65. _ says:

    CU e-newsletter

  66. Peter Cheung says:

    請問我們可以聯合起來做點什麼嗎?正如作者所說,當年的田家炳樓的外墻鐵架都可以拆,為什麼今次不可以?請問關注組可以將這裡的意見,交給劉遵義嗎?可以叫評議會跟進嗎?我們的校園,實在不可以讓中大這班混蛋官僚破壞下去。劉遵義,拜託,不要再破壞我們的校園了!

  67. At Peace says:

    I think this building is the most creative building in Hong Kong of all time

  68. Monica says:

    嘩!!~ 第一次看見,給它嚇了一大跳!!! 有不能置信之感!!~

  69. k says:

    我之前番去中大時,一出火車望出去見到呢棟野,
    仲以為係工程後未拆既板添!!!!
    當然有d人會覺得靚,但好明顯同中大環境格格不入,
    而且咁起又見得同實驗大樓有咩關係
    (如果話係美術系既都算啦….不過美術系人都未必接受…)

  70. Jessica Fung says:

    請問關注組,或中大學生會,可以就此建築物發起一個簽名運動嗎?我身邊很多同學都很不滿,卻又不知如何表達。如果可以簽名抗議,一定會有很多人支持。在這裡「呻」是沒有用的,一定要團結起來,讓中大校方知道我們的不滿。中大學生會,請行動,帶領我們捍衛我們的校園。

    Jessica (BBA, 2005)

  71. Jessica Fung says:

    黃世澤校友,請幫我們向中大評議會反映我們的不滿,要求評議會關注事件!!!

  72. KODY says:

    這一座..真係嚇我一跳
    我當初見到
    真係覺得好唔襯
    紅撞綠…
    or橙撞綠??

    如果可以拆左果d五讀六色既玻璃就順眼好多…
    同埋咁多顏色無乜實際腦途..
    而裡面既人望出黎..
    個景咪上左色???? >::::

  73. yu_uc says:

    很痛心…
    你地都講晒我想講既野,
    關注組可以把我們的意見跟有關部門反映嗎?
    一定要換左d玻璃窗佢~
    唔可以俾佢就咁算數!
    見到座’彩色隔音屏障’都想嘔!

  74. penguin says:

    「中央實驗大樓」?? 真係幾experimental wo. 胡恩威0岩0岩出左本. 下年書展可以出本.

  75. S says:

    這件東西同中大都格格不入, 我最初還以為是因為封玻璃的膠還沒有除去.點知是最終的外表,超級唔夾lor ,很懷疑設計師的審美觀,雖然說美是主觀性的,但我相信會覺得這棟建築物好的人肯定會比認為他差的人少很多,很多.大眾的主觀不就是客觀嗎?

  76. Lo says:

    我有一次為了還書而回中大,在火車站離遠見到七彩顏色的物體,已深感好奇,以為係有慶典,待還完書後,等火車之時,才駭然發現那是我一年來經過天橋時所見到的地盤(我係工程學院的),我第一個反應係:不是ma,為什麼弄成咁??
    我昨年還抱有期望的。
    不過,可能將來看看o下就會慣。

  77. Elaine says:

    聽說建築靈感來自periodic table
    劉遵義bad taste得不得了

  78. wing says:

    单从建筑的角度看,问题还不至于这么大,就是中央那白色的球比较难看.

  79. student says:

    那白色的球不是那建築的一部份,只是那幢building後面的景物

  80. Hui Hon WIng says:

    劉遵義是「經濟」動物,哪會理會文化及傳統?

  81. Grace says:

    I feel really sad. I used to be proud of graduating from CU, beautiful environment, excellent professors, smart school-mates….What stupid decision those guys have made to the University? Who???? Anything we could do for our University?

  82. Eddie Yu says:

    核突都唔太緊要, 成日話美與醜, 一線之差..

    反而呢棟既野同其他building格格不入, 綠色既山上有棟彩色既野, 好醜怪! 仲有, 中大唔係以”樸素”見稱架咩?

  83. Anthony Lee says:

    聽說這建築設計是取自化學元素表的IDEA….
    不過我真係估唔到個設計師真係成個元素表”MAP” 上牆上面…

  84. cl says:

    I LIKE THIS BUILDING!

    you can say that this building does not match the environment. You cannot say that this is ugly.

    now is 2006, don’t say that we should use the same design language as we did 30 years ago.

    haha…it is so easy to satisfy you guys if you guys really want to use the ancient design language!

    from this example, you know how hard ‘creativity’ can grow in hongkong. even the standard of CU students …!

  85. Kar En says:

    It happened that when I first saw the building I was shocked and asked my friend next to me (who had just come to CU to work for few weeks, b4 he studied in City U) “What is it?!”. He gave me an embarrass smile when giving me the answer! Even non-CU students knew that it is ridiculous!!

  86. Irene Chan says:

    i believe there is some common agreement on creativity so that we can a least have some qualitative measurement.
    Creative doesn’t mean that things go on without ANY rules. The architecture have lots of study on the matching of buildings with the environment.

    P.S….IT IS NOT A MATTER OF STANDARD OF CU STUDENTS. PLEASE BE GENTLE.

  87. 中大老友 says:

    在中大唸書,畢業後也常回去走走,借借書。有孩子了,當然要去荷花池,餐廳還是不錯的…青山綠水,……但今日的中大,像披了猴子戲服的小妖。

  88. Cindy Lam says:

    Personally, I don’t feel comfortable to see that building in the university campus. That colouful cyber-look construction doesn’t match the style of other buildings and surroundings. For a well-established university as the Chinese Univeristy, I prefer to those conventional and classical design.

  89. Donald Chan says:

    一座建築用玻璃幕牆並不是問題, 用有顏色的玻璃幕牆也不是新鮮事。問題在於是我們需要一座用意是突出自己,鶴立雞群的硬石屎,還是一座與周邊相呼應,和諧的教學大樓?

    請大家再往前想,將來在李達三樓原址(已拆卸),也有一座幕牆式的新教學大樓啊!

  90. Ashley IP says:

    虧中大一向以優美歸一,結合於山間的校園自居…
    .
    現在是要建一個校園, 不是單單建一幢獨立的建築物呀… 設計和建造新大樓時應要對周遭的環境負責 — 不僅是要保護自然環境, 也要保存既有建築群的風格. 新的建築物應是融入既有環境, 而不是要既有環境作出迎合呀!!
    .
    感覺就好像外衣是典雅筆挺的西裝,襯衣卻是花花綠綠的夏威夷恤… 你硬要說好看我也拿你沒法子… >,

  91. Wendy says:

    問題不僅僅在於它的顏色,我覺得另一個遭人忽略的問題,是這幢樓樓身太闊,簡直將中大橫腰斬開兩半。以前由山腳到山頂,是有層次的,現在這種層次感完全被破壞了。由遠處望過來,便只見到這幢樓和那個同樣難看的白色圓球。

    另一問題,是校方的處事手法,一如以往的封閉霸道官僚。一所大學的建築,影響不知幾多代人,校方不作任何諮詢,所謂的校長副校長品味如此低劣,竟然會以「美以主觀的」來推搪責任。什麼是美,當然人人會有不同感覺。但這不表示,所有的判斷,都是沒有標準的。中大不是由零開始,它的建築它的文化氣質早已成形,校友對中大早期那些素樸的建築大都抱欣賞態度。近年中大的大部份建築,都和中大原來的建築格格不入,這也是公論。(除了新亞的天人合一,有什麼地方重建新建是好看的呢?看看文化研究所,小橋流水改建後的樣子,真是慘不忍睹。

    大學官僚不懂文化,沒有品味,有人反對了,便只懂用公關手段來遮掩推搪,又或干脆躲起來不作回應,實在非常令人反感。中大為什麼會愈變愈差,愈來愈低俗呢?大學是不是生病了呢?

  92. bird_hkau says:

    I study in Architecture at architectural association in London.
    I think that people should look at the buildings at much more aspects… I really appreciate the fact that the University in Hong Kong is brave enough to accept novel architectural ideas, and disappointed by the feedback the student given…
    I hope more people will appreciate the concept and ideas the architects try to put into buildings and our life, and stop giving unsupportive feedback…

  93. ht says:

    Sorry, I totally agree what was said in the message posted by cl, August 28th, 2006.

    You really cannot said the building is ‘ugly’, by the way, the term ‘ugly’ is actually too empty to tell what is precisly doing bad in the design.

    What does it tell? It just tells that CUHK students just know how to criticze thing by ‘appearance’, by first glance.

    Being an architectural graduate, I think it would be better to ask what the ‘inner parts’ of the building is doing? /Does it save energy? /Does it provides good ventilation? /How is the inner layout of the floor plan?……..before making any ‘skill-deep’ comment.

    Time is changing, what we urgently need is how the building is doing good to our environment in the time of resources shortage. If the building can save energy, provide effective ventilation…….it must be a good building even it is ‘urgly’.

    Hey, it is time for us to catch up with the ‘design fashion ‘ nowadays. What you guys think is ‘a good building’ might probably make people feel bad as what you are feeling when they were built….

    by the way, this new building is the only one that shows ‘details’ on its facade among all others in CUHK and it would be a merit to be addressed.

    THINK DEEPER AND LOOK AT THING IN MORE DETAIL! otherwise, it will be just as what cl has said’ you know how hard ‘creativity’ can grow in hongkong. even the standard of CU students …! ‘

  94. Wendy says:

    上面讀建築的兩位朋友,你到底有沒有看到反對的人,提出的理由?如果你未在中大生活過,不知道中大的歷史和文化,只是抽空的談creativity,妄顧在這裡生活的人感受以及和自然環境的配合,那我想問:讀建築的人,難道便有特別的權威嗎?

    至於ht所說的inner part,理由更加奇怪,難道inner part很節省能源,便’it must be a good building even if it is urgly’ 這是什麼樣的邏輯?如果是這樣,你讀建築只需要考慮節省能源便夠了,還讀其他幹什麼?一座好的建築,沒有其他元素了嗎?用這樣天真的觀點,來質疑中大學生的水平,有點那個吧。

  95. ht says:

    hi wendy, thanks very much for your respond.

    I have been in CUHK for 6 yrs.

    Sick ppl have to listen to doctor….they have to consider what the doctor advises, in the same way, users have also to respect in a certain way what the architect suggests.

    But the question is, have you criticized the building after talking with the architect of the new building?
    You cannot comment a doctor unless you have consulted him.

    Architect has no special authority, but what I have said here is we are discussing the issue only by ‘personal feeling’, a postmodern way of thinking. What I would like to point out to all CUHK students is that, there are much more to learn in the design industry before we can talking about sth called ‘中大的歷史和文化’ otherwise it will be too selfish indeed.

    let me also ask you some questions, do you know how much energy is consuming everyday in this little island of the world and do you know how much CO2 has been producting from our air-conditioning? I am sad because our next generation seem not to taking this global issue quite seriously, but only appearance.

    And do you know how much we are consuming from our next next generation that they will have nothing to use in their time? Do you know that how much pollution is producing by the way we are making and operating our building, so that ppl far far away, such as in the 3rd world, are being affected? Do you still remember the spread of SARS because of the poor ventilation due to the building form in ‘Tao Dai estate’…….? All of that are indeed more important that appearance.

    Most Ppl in Europe, esspecially architects and students, learn the above issues and that’s why it is a key issues for them to consider when they design and criticize a building.

    So in response to your question ‘這是什麼樣的邏輯?’, it is my logic to consider how the building perform is more fundamental than appearance.

    Actually, I really don’t know how this new building is performing, so I cannot make any comment on that, what I want is to raise a ‘different’ perspective to the discussion.

    The buildings in NA and United, as many student mentioned, are actually some classical WESTERN concrete building style in modern time, so it would also be ‘alien’ to the context in their time, what really fits the Chinese culture and context of our University is sth like the tradition CHINESE architecture but no any WESTERN one. We have to learn more about the history before we can comment on the context and culture issue, or at last, it would just be a question of ‘I like it or not’ (a postmodern mind set)issue without any soild reference.

    At last, in response to ‘難道inner part很節省能源,便’it must be a good building even if it is urgly’’, yes it is, because it can not only help saving our broken environment, stopping pollution, but also saving the nature resources for the poor ppl in the 3rd world and our next next generation.

    It is not a ‘天真的觀點’ but a responsiblity for all of us to be consider in commenting our building, so that our campus would be more responsible to the others in term of the environment as well as the basic need.

    You think it is a ‘天真的觀點’ because you are so lucky to be born/ living in HK but not places like Africa where ppl struggling drop of fresh water everyday.

    Indeed, I would like to stress it again, I really don’t know how this new building is working and it might be one of those bad designs with respect to what have been mentioned above.

    But I would like to urge all of you to make a more positive impact to the build environment of our campus, more than just focusing on the appearance.

    thx

  96. bird_hkau says:

    Hi, I am the one from Architectural Association again!!!
    I am so glad to hear there are positive feedbacks…
    Some people may think “Why architect have the special authority?”
    In fact, they have the right to as the question, because the building is for the people. I think architect should always listen to people’s opinion before they design for maximizing the efficiency and establish relationship with people. The communication between designer and user are very important, but communication work on the effort of both ends. In another aspect, form sketching ideas to build, the concept of a building have gone thought a lot of development. And architecture is not only about Art, it also about a lot of other issues. (School politics)

  97. ht says:

    Thanks Claire for your respond.

    I would like to further the ‘context’ issue by quoting the famous ‘glass pyramid entry’ of Musee de Louvre (巴黎羅浮宮) by 貝律銘. It was a similar but much more contoversial case. Those who are interested and would like to learn more about the issue can search for information of this piece of architecture.

    Sometimes,architect contribute by making strong statment which may be at first opposed by many people. There is still a communication, but it is sth initiated by the architect. I think the above example is one of that cases.

    Sorry that I also cannot get any information about the glass facade, so I cannot make any comment on that (it is always my standpoint that to ask first before making any comment).

    So, I just make some guess here. If the glass facade is designed by the reason of obtainng more natural light from outside to the lab which indeed required a lot of light, I think it may be quite a good idea provided that there is some adjustment to make sure the illumination is constant enough for performing experiments.

    However, if the glass facade is make just because of willing to make it without any careful consideration, it would be a great disaster at last, for example, the air-conditioning consumption would be double, triple or even more due to the large amount of heat gain though the glass. And relating to this guess, I can only think of the function of the coloured glass that it can be used to lower the heat gain (comparing with the transparent glass). But that point is quite hard to understand, as the architect is just creating trouble by choicing glass facde without reason, and ‘solving’ it by using coloured glass.

    Anyway, we must have dialogue with the architect first as he may be someone like 貝律銘 who can give powerful and reasonable explaination to the ‘ugly’ design and at that time, those who make critic only out of subjective feeling will all become silent.

    Thx

  98. Wendy says:

    ht,你對我的回應,似乎對錯了焦。一幢建築,是可以既節省能源,又美觀又有格調又和環境相配合的。兩者沒有必然衝突。你不能說,因為我們只談後者,便等於忽略或反對前者。我欣賞你對節省能源和對第三世界的關心,但這並不能構成對其他人的反駁。

    又,你看看中大今天很多建築和無止境的豪華裝修建築,以及各種各樣的浪費,你能說中大校方是在節省能源嗎?

    又,現在不是我們不願意和建築師對話,而是校方根本不透露誰是建築師,而在面對那麼多反對聲音下,也不見建築師站出來回應。正如Bird-HKLau所說,建築的目的,是為人所用,影響一所大學的文化,建築師有責任,在設計之前,好好和用家溝通,了解用家的需要和感受,而不是一切米已成炊之後,硬生生的要我們接受。中大過去,已有數不清這樣的例子,造成太多不可挽回的破壞。

    又,不要動不動便說其他人的判斷,是主觀的後現代的。每個人都可以對自己身處的環境,有自己的感受和判斷,這些感受是否合理,要看她提出的理由是什麼。即使是對於美醜的判斷,也不是純粹個人喜好,沒有理由可言。你可以不同意別人的判斷,但你需要提出相關的理由,例如這樣的設計和顏色,體現了什麼樣的創新和美感,如何和環境配合等等,而不是一方面扣人帽子,另一方面將自己放在一個自以為很穩妥其實卻不相干的道德位置去批判別人。

  99. Alice says:

    if such design is for buildings along Victoria Harbour, people may applause for its inspirational design, however we’re not studying in the harbour, aren’t we? Buidling should be functional, and buildings in our campus are supposed to reply functions — the pursuit of knowledge. In what way those colourful facade can satisfy such need?
    (is it possible to trace the contract architect? on tender or sth else? so we can ask…are u fm HKU?)

  100. ht says:

    Wendy, 你對我的回應,也似乎對錯焦了。抱歉。

    First,in response to ‘你看看中大今天很多建築和無止境的豪華裝修建築,以及各種各樣的浪費,你能說中大校方是在節省能源嗎?’, sorry again that I don’t think I have make any comment to show I am ‘pro’ the way how CUHK is building buildings.

    Instead, I have said, ‘I really don’t know how this new building is working and it might be one of those bad designs with respect to what have been mentioned above.’ So Wendy don’t put your 帽子 on my head.

    Ok, just have a role play, imagine that I am the architect, you just now tell me what you want….. can you name it? appearance? context? culture? and what’s up??

    Just only conclude what you are saying above, I dare to say that the architect might give, once more, the same building to you even he had talked with you….

    Why? as everyone seem to be on the same side of ‘against’ the architect’s design, but when asking how would you like, everyone might just give their own image…. I like concerte building, I like purple facade, I like grant entrance, I like the building fit into the context but making it a bit morden to show the energy of the Univrsity, so on and so on…..

    So, if you are the architect, what would you do then? I again dare to said, he will just say,’ok I make the decision and it is what match all of your desires.’Do you get the point? The problem is that everyone just giving their own desire without soild reference, only appearance and appearance packaged by the word, culture and context, and it is really a cons of postmorden thinking, at the end, what can you say to the architect.

    Let me give another example, as you are talking about context, I would give my advice as this, how is the circulation/ access to the building? How is it related to the topography of the site? How is the view that the students can enjoy when they come to the building? Will the building provide shading for us when we sit outside to have some discussion of our project?

    Then, what do these questions contribute? They contribute a lots. As long as soild question like this is consider, the building is starting to shape itself with soild reference, like positioning the entrance of the building along the topography, it will give it some sense of orientation and harmony with the site. Also, designing how the building could shade the ground level for students, indeed it does contribute to the light and shadow of the facade. All together, when someone is looking at the building apart, they would surely find that it has some harmony bounding with the site and it is sth so-called context.

    Did anyone ask sth concerning the entrance of the building? All of the above is not sth that is hard for an U-student to think of.

    You asked ‘體現了什麼樣的創新和美感?’, Imagine that the architect response, ‘ yes it is, as the glass wall reflects the sky, showing the movement of the clouds and it brings the sky, the ground and the ppl inside together to show a harmony which is a key concept in Chinese culture, that is the response to culture. And the glass not only can bring the sky but by its colour, it shows the idea of periodic table which gives ppl a sense of the function of the building, recalling the memory of student about the operation of the lab inside so that there is a hidden connection between the ppl outside and inside, that’s is my 創新. And the curve of the building form that runnig along the hill, together with the coloured glass and cloud reflection, gives a unique focus of the University, serving as a focus point and organizing the layers of the whole picture, that is my 美感.’

    So, Wendy, what will you say then? Everyone has his/ her own feeling, by just giving one own feeling, there will never be a contact point of discussion, and the ending is, students’ opinion will always be neglected, even the University try to listen, the content of what you are saying can never be contributive for helping to shape the building.

    Wendy, I am not worry that you are in the postmorden way of thinking but being trapped in the ‘traditionalism’ one in which only one side of the architect or the student can be correct.But the reality is not like that.

    Brothers and sisters, try to sharpen and consolidate your comment with soild reference, I have demonstrated some in this forum. Make a good ‘fight’ to the University so that they will start to listen your voice. But before that, move up from the ‘appearance’ level, or you will never be able to give contributive opinion, an opinion the architect has to listen.

  101. Wendy says:

    HT,我沒有其他話要說了!

  102. GL says:

    看見以上有中大建築系以建築、專業、”Architecture”為名來支持這個所謂”設計埋念”和”專業眼光”。我先不論這個設計的美醜與好與。我想問的是:
    1.到底誰會用這幢大樓?
    2.這幢大樓有否響中大整體校園?
    2.那什麼人有資格就這大樓及中大校園提出意見?誰人有資格或(注意)沒有資格就與決定這些事、這些設計?
    建築師不錯是”專業人仕”。這自當包括中大建築系的教職員、學生及舊生。但上面的中大建築同學/校友只懂以’建築學’的專業佐以’Traditonalism’、’Postmodernism’、I.M.Pei, Norman Foster…來支持這個元素表設計,而不懂得、不去埋解其他眾多校友、同學對此設計不滿的源頭。這在在表明這幾位中大建築同學/校友對建築此’專業’之外所認識之不足。
    是建築師說美的就是美,說好即是好? 中大上下過萬學生、員工數千,加上幾十年來的校友,對此就沒資格評論或參與?
    以此而論,只有醫生才有資格討論及制定公共醫療政策、只有律師才可討論及修訂法律耶?

  103. 思考 says:

    回 Wendy:

    「在我沒聽過periodic table這說法前,沒有一個人說這大廈能令他們聯想起這就是化學週期表,是設計的問題,還是中大同學不夠創意,能夠得這聯想?」

    我反而覺得,新聞組的師兄會聯想到硬碟重組,是很大的創意 :P

  104. GL says:

    “專業”分析、意見確是有須要,但是單從個別”專業”意見衡量就太偏狹。「專業人仕」之外其他的人就沒資格參與這些事? 更莫忘記每一項工程都是有關「專業人仕」的生意收入。

    「校園發展處」在中大校園內到處大斬特斬樹木和其他植物,到處起大樓、鋪石屎。每一處、每一次都說是基於校外的”專業”工程或建築顧問的”專業”建議而決定的。專業工程顧問說崇基池傍路說要擴闊行車路。啊,好!「校園發展處」上學期就想斬去大片池旁路的樹木。專業土力工程師說小橋流水溪旁”最好”做一做斜坡鞏固工程。更好!「校園發展處」上學期已經快快斬去’小橋流水’溪旁大片樹林,現已鋪上鋼筋水泥。沒看過的同學/校友請去看看。這樣真好!日後的小橋流水斜坡斜度系數遠高於安全標準。

    差點忘了「校園發展處」還另外斬了兩次樹,造了兩條新樓梯’方便’各位。
    1.自范元廉樓至中藥園
    2.自利黃瑤壁樓至火車站前
    但你何時看見有人用這兩條樓梯?

    啊,不要忘了「校園發展處」還找了名建築師嚴迅奇的公司Rocco Design Architects Ltd. 一手執靚過晒火車站之外整片地方,打造氣勢宏大,具有「一條龍功能主義」(排隊坐校巴的時候),兼且洋溢「後現代虛擬國際化」特色的中大火車站入口。Very Good! 這樣又可斬樹兼有大工程了。不用提前李達三樓及傍邊及本部中國文化研究所又斬了很多樹以起新大樓。

    當然,中大統計數字顯示新種的樹比斬了樹更多。但斬了的都是大樹、老樹,新種的,是小樹苗啊!李天命先生不是老早在「思方」教了這個嗎?我們以前上李先生的課時沒有在做夢的,尤其當你只可坐在梯級或地上的話。又想起今夏某夜「志文貓」被附近地盤的狗襲擊而死。何以好好的校園會有如此兇猛的狗咬死幾代新亞學生的「志文貓」?

    更要追問的是:以上及日後多項工程每一項花費多少? 有關工程及建築「專業顧問」每項收了多少顧問費?更莫忘記,「校園發展處」會自每一項工程總支出抽取一個百份比作為「項目行政費」。這是算作「校園發展處」部門的收入的。明乎此,不用再多說。

    一句話:搞了這麼多工程,大家可認為校園真的更好、更方便、更美???

  105. ht says:

    GL, I have never support ‘這個元素表設計’!

    you are a graduate student, pls be responsible for your comment and read what the others have said carefully before you post your response!

  106. Jimmy says:

    GL, 你不但斷章取義,而且扭曲別人的意見,身為大學生,簡直可恥!

  107. 小職員 says:

    此建築物及中大的名字肯定將出現於每一本建築教科書上… … 後世建築師們將引以為戒,功德無量…..

  108. Sandy says:

    Jimmy,
    有必要這樣討論嗎?真的容不下一些不同的意見嗎?討論中有所
    誤會曲解,是常事也是閒事,有必要去到「簡直可恥」的指責嗎?

    HT,別人如果真的誤會了你,說出來便是。平情而論,你如果看回你之前的評論,又何嘗不是邏輯混亂,對別人大加指責,扣上什麼「後現代批評」的帽子?那位Wendy校友指出了你的論點有問題,你不承認,卻又另開一個話題,好像之前的討論不再存在似的,這是負責任的表現嗎?

    我想說,討論便討論,有意見不同,也是常事,不要動不動便指責人,這樣很不好!

  109. jimmy says:

    Sandy, 「討論便討論,不要動不動便指責人」,但看來你也在指責人,是否五十步笑百步?

    如果「簡直可恥」使任可人感到不快的話,我願在此道歉。但亂改別人的意見,確是不負責任的行為。是不是與你們意見不同的人,就可隨意被你們加上「支持設計」的罪名?就連別人引用一些terms 來交代清楚討論的意思,也要被人指責,究竟是誰不把討論當作討論?自己不明白別人所用的詞語,動不動便指責人,身為學生,為何不謙卑學習,作正面討論?如果Sandy 你那樣有正義感,為何又不為因意見不同,而無理受指責的人出聲?

  110. ht says:

    Jimmy and Sandy, thx for your comment.

    Sandy, it is up to everyone to post their response here and as I re-read my comment, I just really cannot find any sentence/ word that ‘指責人’. But if you would like to think in this way, I won’t say anything as it is your right to say so. But don’t fall into the contradiction that you are then 指責人 in another way.

    After saying so much, I just agree what Jimmy said, I feel my brothers and sisters here are very much like to indentify people in either pro and against the design very easily. Those who are pro the design are bad ppl…..

    But I have to make myself very clear again that I am not the one who is pro the design!

    It is totally meaningless for me to say any more. To me, the function of the forum has lost.

    So I would like to end my participation with the last comment: if you guys don’t consider others’ opinion seriously and try to broaden your view of seeing things, I sure you that there will be more and more buildings like that one being built in our campus. Even you guys have a dozen of new forums like this to make comment, your idea won’t be listened by the architect as it is too empty to be considered by the so-called professional.

    Good luck to you all and CUHK campus.

  111. architect-to-be says:

    1, architecture is an art, and in art, there’s not right or wrong. it’s a matter of appreciation;
    2, the colourful facade is just 1 element;
    3, design intentions (peroidic table?) may not necessarilly generate results;
    4, architecture changes with time, and so goes environment.
    PLS LEARN TO APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY

  112. jlm jen says:

    我也認為那大樓太colourful了,感覺好似電視台,而且太闊,攪到遠望起黎好迫咁,如果變番淨色會好好多。

    有可能真係一個薄扶林讀大學的人開了個玩笑呢。

    同埋,作為成年人,請大家以對事不對人的方式討論問題吧。我從上面一直讀下來,只覺得大家的討論愈來愈似嗌交。大家都係想express意見,無必要咁躁,亦無必要以中大學生們的意見來批評中大學生的質素。十分以偏蓋全。

    作為中大的學生,我們很清楚學校的style,這棟大樓確實與中大的環境不配合。但可能與別的大學配合,如hku,city或BU(style比較 modern)

  113. 聯合遺民 says:

    起座咁o既大樓不如起多幾楝宿舍好過﹗﹗
    真的與大學壞境很不協調。悲哉。
    看到大學一天比一天功利,實在痛心疾首﹗

  114. 渣估 says:

    唔好意思, 我覺得個設計冇咩唔妥…
    幾纏胃丫….!

  115. CM LAM says:

    在我的角度看,
    我喜歡百萬大道旁的建築:碧秋,兆龍,中國文化研究所;
    而田家炳樓,蒙民偉樓,利黃瑤碧樓,都要比這棟建築要醜.

    應同與否,都不重要,始終每個人對建築的觀感有異;像披了猴子戲服的小妖,隔音屏障,貨櫃箱,看得舒服,惡俗等詞,都包含了主觀成份,只是一廂情願的睇法

    ”建築物的美醜,並無客觀標準,但以此大樓而言,筆者覺得絕對稱得上「惡俗」,特別是在中大本來逐漸綠樹成蔭的環境之中。”我相信這些都是意見,而大家都圍繞著各自不同的意見爭論時,實是太過無聊了

    我相信作為這所有理想的大學的畢業生,應該要抱著”有容乃大”的精神,去看待校園的建築

  116. ps says:

    Sincerely, I think the ‘outlook’ of this building already much better than the two engineering buildings in front of it. The ‘outlook’ not only means its appearance but its impacts. It has brought up many discussions. And it is a less conservative decision by our school.

    The change of building style is not a sudden. From our CC Library to engineering buildings, we can see very different characters already. Of course, the requirements and needs are different. But they also implies changes are necessary. The question is how to change and that relies on discussions and experiments.

    It is really nice that we are concern about the architecture in our school. But it is so strange that we rarely express our opinion on current style, the style that shared by most of the new buildings such as Engineering Buildings, Wong Foo Yuan Buildings and etc. This is a style that constitutes the major image of current and future CUHK. Are we very content with them or we just get used to them?

  117. Don't says:

    我認為這樣幾好啊, 至少中大會有番座標誌性建築物.

  118. Pingback: 中大的中央實驗大樓 at Joe’s Blog

  119. jiner says:

    It got several prizes from the HKIA

    source:
    http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cpr/pressrelease/070419c.htm

  120. KYP says:

    其實香港有多少人懂得建築?令我最難受的是「建築」二字在香港跟本不是等於Architecture,而是Construction和Building。
    香港人跟本不明白何為建築,亦沒有機會學習如何去明白,因為那些賺大錢的發展商從來都沒有為我們高抬貴手。
    要是我們真的懂得何為建築,為甚麼我們還願意窮畢身之力而只求換取一個個不堪入目的單位、一個個不人道的空間?每聽到香港人在讚嘆大堂裏的鑽石吊燈和雲石如何漂亮、華麗時,我真的感到嘔心。
    這是香港人的悲哀,可惜我無能力改變。

    香港,其實真的不需要建築師。

  121. LouiseMays19 says:

    I guess that to get the credit loans from creditors you should have a good motivation. However, one time I’ve got a consolidation loan, because I wanted to buy a car.

  122. Finn says:

    I cannot say for sure if Ive ever seen so many wonderful news at one blog. Thanks for such nice post!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Blue Captcha Image
Refresh

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>