少年包青天
探索“文旅+”的无限可能_我的网站
一 | 如何推进文旅深度融合，省政协围绕“大力培育文旅消费新业态新模式新场景”开展专题调研水雾掠过耳畔，脚下“石板路”微微起伏，马车声由远及近，弓弦破空的声响忽从前方传来——在杭州西溪湿地蔡志忠美术馆，戴上VR设备，仿佛一步踏入北宋江湖。再看八九十公里外的安吉黄杜村，白茶原野集面向连绵茶垄铺开，坐下喝喝茶、听听故事，几小时悄然而过。近年来，数字IP主题展、沉浸式演艺、乡村咖啡馆等文旅新业态在城乡快速扩张，一夜爆红的项目竞相涌现。然而，流量退去后的“反转”也逐渐显现：有的乡村民宿从一房难求到无人问津，有的标杆项目急剧收缩或关停，有的仿古街区开业即巅峰。 By Anna Dalla Valle (CNS)-- Forward-looking mindset: whole-system and life cycle thinking My work is centred on the environmental sustainability of buildings over the entire life cycle and beyond in view of the circular economy: from design and construction to use and reuse, up to final disposal or, preferably, recovery for a second life. Here, the paradigm shift is twofold, because a whole-system thinking is needed not only to consider the entire life cycle, but also to envision what happens next. The ultimate goal is to minimize environmental impacts and to drive both sustainability and innovation. To be more explicit, the first shift involves keeping in mind the entire life cycle – from the early design stages – moving beyond the traditional focus on construction and energy efficiency during use. It is to select building products looking back to the supply chain, such as recycled content, locally sourced and bio-based solutions, while also looking ahead to performance decay, maintenance needs and the potential for extending service life. Moreover, the second shift press to move beyond the linear building process – as traditionally practiced – in which we extract raw materials, we build, we use, and eventually we demolish. Indeed, this model has reached its limits, undermining planetary resources with adverse environmental and social effects. Interconnected choices: designing decisions that create shared value A life cycle perspective matched with circularity inevitably challenges this linearity, wondering from the very beginning about what happens when assets become obsolete and fall into disuse, to design buildings as part of a continuous loop of resources. Accordingly, design, construction, daily use (energy and water consumption), maintenance, replacement and end-of-life turn out to be regarded not as isolated steps but interconnected with each other. In fact, at each stage, choices can either preserve or destroy value. For example, if construction solutions are carefully selected, they can be reused in the future, either in their entirety, as whole products, or through disassembly into components, or even by separating materials. In this way, they may maintain the same function (e.g. a window reused as it is) or serve different purposes (e.g. glass cullet used as input for glass wool insulation). If technological systems are designed flexibly, buildings can reach different business segments and host concurrently different activities, resulting easily adaptable from housing to office and vice versa, instead of being demolished. If building processes integrate digital tools, data can guide smarter decisions over decades, provided that data infrastructure is ensured, followed by constant monitoring and analysis of the collected data and the update and dissemination of results across industry and practitioners as well as policymakers. Thinking this way means making choices future-oriented, ready to embrace innovation while respecting planetary boundaries, namely limiting the environmental impact at every stage and in every region – to avoid burden shifting – not just at the beginning but along the whole (first-second) life cycle. Certainly, a demanding but exciting challenge: one I am proud to take on and in my little to contribute to. Beyond appearances: close-up process for understanding what lies behind In daily life, we often say to "look beyond appearances". Usually, this expression pertains to people, to underline the risk of avoiding judging someone solely by what can be seen. Now the interesting thing is that the same advice can be applied to architecture, obviously without undermining the importance of aesthetic beauty, at the core also of the New European Bauhaus initiative together with sustainability and inclusion. Nonetheless, as an architect expert in sustainable technology, I have learned to extend it to the built environment, by seeing buildings not merely as visible structures (walls, roofs, windows), but as living parts of a larger and complex system. In this sense, architecture can be compared to a plant. Plants are anchored in the soil by roots; buildings are anchored in the ground by foundations. Plants capture sunlight, absorb water, accommodate small animals, and interact with other organisms; buildings consume energy, deplete water, host human life, and interact with their surroundings. Both are deeply connected to their ecosystem. However, to fully understand them, both must be looked beyond appearances, through a "close-up" process taken to the extreme. It is not simply a matter of focusing on details, as happens in photography and cinema fields; the intention is to delve deeper and deeper to the fuller extent: an in-depth analysis of whatever is behind, starting from the exterior to gradually shift to construction technologies, materials, up to their chemicals. The latter is, of course, not the responsibility of architects, but it lies at the heart of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), analyses that I usually perform during the decision-making at the different process stage to help building stakeholders minimize environmental impacts across the entire – potentially multiple – life cycle. For architectural technology, for example, it is a matter of addressing, alongside conventional requirements (e.g. performance, safety, usability, well-being), the specific requirements of environmental sustainability (e.g. the rational use and optimization of materials, energy, water), taking into account the technical feasibility and evaluating the entire life cycle. At the utmost, it is to look into everything that underlies the presence of that specific material in that exact spot, its behaviour and interrelationships when in service, and its post-use journey, setting up the necessary network to actually close the loop in practice. Material-immaterial synergy: the invisible foundations of sustainable architecture To embrace this vision, the idea of resources is to be extended compared to the ordinary sense. Certainly, buildings are made and calls for a set of tangible resources, such as money to be started, bricks, steel, or timber to be erected, tools and equipment to be managed including in the long-term. The issue that often runs out is that buildings rely heavily as well on intangible resources, namely knowledge, skills, processes, organisation, information flows and network. These two dimensions – tangible and intangible – are closely connected and interdependent on each other. Without appropriate eco-design knowledge, even the best materials are wasted; without materials, knowledge has no application. In such a mindset, architecture becomes a remarkable expression of the synergy between tangible resources and intangible resources: a space where East and West can successfully meet, building a bridge across cultures through openness and inclusiveness. Indeed, it is well recognized that different traditions bring different perspectives and, when combined, generate the best and more holistic solutions. The "living building" is both a technical and cultural artefact, an expression of human creativity that must not overstep the planetary boundary. Strategic imperative: cross-border and cross-disciplinary cooperation Evidence is found in international collaborations such as Joint Schools, where universities from different countries join forces to promote shared research and training. A concrete example of Sino-foreign cooperation is the XJTU-POLIMI Joint School, opened in Xi'an (China) in 2019 through a partnership between Politecnico di Milano and Xi'an Jiaotong University. As POLIMI's first campus outside Italy, it serves as an international platform dedicated to education and research as well as technology transfer and business incubation. This initiative, like others currently in place, aims to take the best of each part to foster shared growth and mutual learning. Italy brings its strong polytechnic culture, its multidisciplinary approach and focus on design quality, together with the European emphasis on social and environmental responsibility. China, in turn, is a leader in fast-evolving business, in the integration capacity of digital technologies and in large-scale engineering projects, pulled by top-down policies that allow fast implementation. In conjunction, these strengths can create fertile ground for innovation and speed up the transformation process within the Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector, always been acknowledged as resistant to change, due to its intrinsic complexity and fragmented nature. Rethinking the built environment: buildings as resource-driven assets The effort is to move beyond the concept of buildings as "material banks" – namely repositories where resources are temporarily stored – to rethink them and push the vision further of buildings as "resource-driven assets". While the first construct is earmarked for physical goods, that proposed calls for careful consideration of both tangible/material/visible resources and intangible/immaterial/invisible resources, taking care that everything is optimised and nothing is wasted, to preserve their value over time. In practice, this means looking at what goes into buildings, such as materials, systems and the energy required to transform and assemble them, but also, for instance, the set of expertise, skills and specialization of practitioners involved during design. Similarly, starting from the outset, it means looking at what comes out throughout buildings life, like emissions, waste, and decommissioned materials, but also knowledge gained from monitoring and lessons learned from operations. To ignore either side of the equation (inputs-outputs) would be a missed opportunity. If we want buildings to truly act as resource-driven assets, we must synergise, map, understand, and manage the full spectrum of in- and out- flows, both tangible and intangible. On the tangible side, this requires a deep understanding of material, energy and water flows across the entire life cycle. Which resources are extracted, transported, and assembled? How much energy is consumed, and how is it sourced? How do materials degrade over time, and how can they be reused or recycled without losing quality? These questions are essential to reduce impacts and to design systems that are both efficient and resilient. On the intangible side, equally important are the flows of information and knowledge that connect all actors in the construction value chain. Long before a building is erected, crucial questions are: How is data exchanged among stakeholders? Is communication efficient enough to speed up the workflows? How can design capabilities evolve into maturity, meaning quality achieved through best practice? Then, as more buildings themselves add to this immaterial layer through sensors, smart meters, and digital platforms that produce valuable insights, another set of questions follows: How is this information managed, shared, and preserved? How to ensure that data supports predictive maintenance and reverse logistics? How to activate new business models based on sharing and collaboration? Just as materials should not be wasted, neither should information. Data and knowledge must be treated as resources that enrich our collective know-how, building an "infodump bank" that not only improves current performance but also informs future decisions, guides new designs and strengthens subsequent projects. The correlation between tangible and intangible resources is ever closer: managing them together ensures that nothing is wasted and that the embedded value is preserved across time. In that respect, "no waste of resources" also means "no waste of value", since every material, every bit of data, and every piece of knowledge carries potential that, if carefully handled, can extend usefulness, inspire innovation, and create lasting benefits well beyond the life of a single project. Global impact: construction sector as global lever for planetary sustainability Through joint research and cross-border exchange programmes, the construction sector proves to be an extraordinary testing ground and given its global impact in terms of emissions and resource consumption, it clearly stands as a priority for change. Furthermore, never forget that buildings are everywhere and shape our daily lives, leading mindful planning crucial not only for preserving the natural environment but also human well-being. In this framework, architects, engineers, designers, scientists and all necessary professionals can work side by side to explore new possibilities, even creating new synergies across key business sectors. Imagine if constructions integrate materials from unexpected sources such as fashion and/or food waste. Fast-fashion clothing and textile scraps, invasive plants and agricultural by-products, or even organic waste – which are currently a significant environmental burden with serious social effects – can be rethought as valuable inputs for new building solutions. In this way, the concept of waste disappears, as it serves as input resources from another industrial sector, consequently, contributing to lower material intensity (virgin material reduction), greater industrial symbiosis (new business opportunities), and implementing smarter ways to manage resources. At the same time, digital technologies and artificial intelligence can support this process, helping to track resources, optimise flows, and potentially update in real-time the expected environmental impacts in relation to what actually happens. The ambition is to create architecture that is resource efficient and socially valuable in the long term. Considering the key role of construction, even small changes, when scale up to thousands of buildings and millions of people, can make a big difference for the planet. At this point, the key role of China is beyond question. As the world's largest construction market and major exporter, its choices strongly affect global trends, making environmental awareness and transparency in its building sector essential. Indeed, in a globalised economy, what is produced in one region may be assembled in another, used in a third and so on throughout the different stages of the life cycle, spreading responsibilities across several borders. For this reason, it is imperative to turn LCA into a standard practice, but also to regionalise results, to identify where the greatest impacts occur over the building life cycle, including in geographical terms. Here, China inevitably results in a central hotspot to concentrate efforts: improving practices there could deliver benefits worldwide, setting the chance to become an outstanding reference and reducing burdens far beyond its borders, (hopefully) without exceeding the limits of the planet. Yet – be warned – the focus is not solely on new construction, where starting from scratch makes everything easier: the real challenge (and greatest opportunity) stands in the existing building stock, because of representing the largest reserve of resources we already have. These artefacts embody vast amounts of materials, energy, and human effort that should not be wasted leaving unfinished and/or uninhabited. Instead of discarding them, we must be proactive to renew the existing buildings, extending their service life while improving performance to meet ever-evolving needs. Call to action: building bridges within planetary boundaries It is time to join forces, to move from theory to practice, from words to action. To succeed, we need lots more than technology. We need dialogue between cultures; we need young and open minds, trained to think across disciplines and borders, ready to learn from diversity, capable of working together toward a unified vision, think globally while acting locally. Green architecture should not be perceived as a trend, but as a common responsibility of the present for the future. These are just the premises to the most open question ever: "What if we built bridges between East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet?" I therefore invite everyone to begin offering practical responses, reframing global challenges as shared opportunities for innovation. Profile: Anna Dalla Valle is an Assistant Professor and Researcher in the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC) at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. She is an associate and active member of both the Italian LCA Network Association and the Italian Society of Architectural Technology. She represents Politecnico di Milano in the New European Bauhaus initiative and fully participates in various international organizations, including the LCA Working Group of the Italian Green Building Council, the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and the International Energy Agency’s working group on ' Ways to Implement Net-zero Whole Life Carbon Buildings'. 
。文旅消费的生命周期正在被重新审视，为何有的项目昙花一现，有的却能持续生长？这些问题，也是浙江文旅深度融合发展必须直面的课题。今年以来，省政协围绕“大力培育文旅消费新业态新模式新场景”成立课题组，组织政协委员、专家等赴杭州、舟山、丽水等地开展调研，走访宣传、文旅等部门以及相关企业，召开民生协商会，多方探讨解题思路。他们发现，这是一场从产业格局到消费力量、从实践路径到制度体系的深刻变革。当产业格局之变、消费力量之变、实践路径之变交织在一起，也共同指向一个关键命题：文旅消费，如何从“流量狂欢”走向“价值深耕”？产业格局之变——“爆红”之后，拿什么“长红”“过去‘我想去一个地方，所以搜攻略’，现在是‘刷到一个打动我的内容，所以决定出发’。”调研中，一位文旅从业者的话，道出了文旅消费范式的转变。协商会上，省文化馆副馆长周平提到西子廊桥盲盒音乐会，引发热议。没有预告，不设门票，路过就是观众，抬头就是舞台。自两年前首次亮相至今，这场音乐会热度持续攀升，主流媒体关注和网友自发传播双向奔赴，全网累计传播量破百亿，还间接拉动所在商圈今年“五一”、端午时段销售额大幅增长。
二 | “当下，新型文旅消费呈现出动机情绪化、供给非标化、客群圈层化、形态跨界化趋向，更加注重体验、特色、分众、融合。”省政协文化文史和学习委员会主任钟关华认为，因消费逻辑的改变，产业格局也应在内容创新、运营能力、制度供给、人才培育等方面实现系统性重构。今年5月，《浙江省“十五五”旅游业发展规划》正式发布，提出着力打造文旅爆款产品、以文化基因激活旅游发展、加快发展智慧旅游等一系列举措，着力提升全省旅游业综合实力与核心竞争力。调研中，课题组发现，文旅项目“爆红”的机会前所未有地平等——一个精心设计的场景、一段触动情绪的视频，就可能让偏僻乡村一夜之间涌入数万名游客，但能否“长红”才是真正的考验。对此，他们提出诸多建议。比如，推行“进一次门、管多项事”，集成各系统政策资源，鼓励投融资、建管运等模式创新；加快建设统一的文旅垂类大模型，实现对客流分布、消费偏好、收益与舆情实时监测与智能研判；围绕点位运营管理、活动策划等开展精准指导，提升基层骨干专业能力。其中，同质化问题被反复提及。大家认为，新业态产品迭代快、生命周期短，复制成本低、跟进门槛不高，容易引发同质化竞争，经营不善极易造成烂尾和资源闲置。省政协委员、宁波市社科院（社科联）院长（主席）傅晓以去年全网出圈的“坐着高铁看中国·诗画江南最浙江”为例，抛出了一个值得深思的问题——高铁沿线串起了那么多街区镇村，能不能一眼认出这是绍兴还是湖州？如果每个古镇都卖着同样的臭豆腐、每个乡村都复制着同样的文艺范，“诗画浙江”就只剩下一个地理概念，丢了“诗画”的文化灵魂。对此，他建议，用好西湖、良渚、大运河等世界遗产及宋韵、上山文化、河姆渡等标识，精心打造“世界遗产线”“滨海风情线”等四季主题产品，同时推动文商体旅农深度联动，围绕高铁线和风景道布局主题酒店、运动驿站、农创空间，真正把交通流量转化为消费增量。
Current article:http://xb63nw.cuozubeishenjingli.cfd/news/20260826_270.html
Published on:06:48:02
