爱玩客
(W.E. Talk) Green architecture: building bridges between the East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet_我的网站
A | 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'. 
。 
在玩 沉没之城2 超过 15 分钟后，我不可能不意识到这就是戴着软呢帽的 生化危机4：重制版。这听起来可能有些轻描淡写，但我非常喜欢近期的 生化危机4：重制版 系列游戏，所以将 Frogwares 的克苏鲁式生存恐怖续作与其中一些最优秀的作品相提并论——尤其是感觉与 2019 年的 生化危机4：重制版 2 remake 非常相似——这更多是一种赞美而非贬低。让它脱颖而出的是其独特且丰富的 20 世纪 20 年代新英格兰背景，充满了充满爱意的细节，在它所模仿的机制之上注入了强烈的个性。
B | 你扮演 Calvin Rafferty，一位讨人喜欢的神秘学者。
C | 1929 年，一场末日般的洪水即将抹去马萨诸塞州的阿卡姆市，他在此时醒来。他绝对是一个有点通俗小说色彩的典型角色：下巴坚毅、拳头硬朗、且勇敢得有些愚蠢。
D | 但他身上也有一些层次感，时不时会浮现出来。类似于与 生化危机4：重制版 的比较，将他比作该类型的经典英雄其实并不是一种侮辱。引人入胜的宇宙恐怖剧情围绕着一次对洛夫克拉夫特超现实“幻梦境”的回忆模糊的探险展开，这次探险让 Calvin 的搭档兼爱人 Faye 陷入了昏迷状态。这从一开始就创造了紧迫的情感利害关系和动力，支撑我度过了第一章稍显缓慢的前半段。我不想剧透太多惊喜，但 沉没之城2 成功地展示了克苏鲁神话中的各种要素。其中一些古神级客串角色的表现更多是侧面暗示，而非展示其全部恐怖的荣光，但阿卡姆粉丝们会发现许多小细节，让他们发出超自然的狂笑。
E | 展开的故事包括一些有效的情感节奏和几个巧妙的转折，让我不断猜测某些角色的动机，但考虑到高概念的主题，总体上仍然相当容易理解。这不是那种你之后必须去查 YouTube 视频来解释结局的故事，我很欣赏这一点。但它也没有回避参与洛夫克拉夫特一些沉重的形而上学方面，有效地传达了这样一个理念：你面对的是超越人类理解能力的生物。同时，它在避开某些随时代发展而显得不合时宜的元素方面也做得不错。
F | 核心部分是阿卡姆镇本身，它为探索和战斗提供了一个华丽、潮湿且破败的背景。出色的纹理工作和声音设计结合在一起，创造出一种氛围，即使在科罗拉多州夏天的干燥酷热中，也让我的皮肤感到湿冷。每个区域的每个角落都塞满了密集的细节，这真的很令人振奋。
G | 每一个破旧的旅馆房间或恐怖的医院病房都让人感觉到既有人居住的痕迹，又被正在发生的灾难所蹂躏。过场动画和面部动画并不总能达到同样的质量水平，但整体上相当强劲的配音表现弥补了制作上的局限。每一章都会带你前往阿卡姆的一个新地点，每个地点在氛围和布局上都各具特色。你从被淹没的城市街道开始，乘船穿梭于各种废墟之间，最后在一个令人毛骨悚然的闹鬼旅馆中达到高潮。我觉得第二章是最恐怖的，背景设定在一家废弃的医院，里面有一个类似于 生化危机4：重制版 中 Mr. X 和 Nemesis 那样的不死追踪者。第三章带你前往阿卡姆鱼市，如果你熟悉洛夫克拉夫特的作品，那里的发展完全符合你的预期。也就是说，对于我们的主角 Calvin 来说，情况会以一些令人不快的鱼类主题方式变得非常糟糕。这种进程在保持新鲜感的同时，也维持了统一的美学风格。[沉没之城2] 并没有回避参与洛夫克拉夫特一些沉重的形而上学方面。正如我之前提到的，在机制方面，这是对现代越肩视角 生化危机4：重制版 毫不掩饰的致敬。
H | Calvin 可以收集一小库枪支，但子弹永远不够杀光所有敌人，这导致玩家必须紧张地搜刮抽屉以寻找每一发子弹。近战是一个选项，但不是一个非常有效的选项。即使是与最基础的丧尸类敌人搏斗，也几乎肯定会让你自己吃亏，所以近战变成了一种有意识的选择，即消耗我的治疗物品而不是弹药。Calvin 并不像 生化危机4：重制版 Requiem 中的 Grace 那样脆弱，但他肯定也不是 Leon S. Kennedy 级别的动作英雄，在胜任感和脆弱感之间保持了良好的平衡。控制方式非常相似。背包系统非常相似。基础敌人非常相似。
I | 还有一些谜题需要你找到三件东西插进门里才能打开。你可以捡起草药并将其合成治疗物品。它甚至有一套成就系统，可以在二周目（New Game+）中解锁强大的加成，这与较新的 生化危机4：重制版 游戏几乎完全相同。同样，我并不是在抱怨。
J | 如果执行得好，我并不会厌倦现代 生化危机4：重制版 的模式，Frogwares 做得非常出色，所以这感觉像是在我们等待卡普空下一道大菜时的一份免费加餐。我们曾对 沉没之城2 1 的评价沉没之城2 生存恐怖, 动作冒险, 动作, 角色扮演, 单人, 拟真, 剧情丰富, 恐怖, 战斗, 冒险, 悬疑, 洛夫克拉夫特式 查看更多立即下载沉没之城2 创造了全新的克苏鲁愿景，结合了引人入胜的故事、令人兴奋的环境和令人难忘的角色，是我玩过的较好的克苏鲁背景游戏之一。它致力于以优雅的方式更新叙事方法，同时保留了克苏鲁神话的设定和基调，这让它从乏味和挫败感中脱颖而出。评分：7.8阅读 沉没之城2 的完整评测对于弹药稀缺规则的一个例外是，某些 Boss 战或大型竞技场战斗拥有无限刷新的拾取物（通过游戏内笔记解释了它们奇异的物理特性），以防止你在弹夹打空时陷入死档。这感觉有点像是一种削弱难度的权宜之计——反正这些环节是我最不喜欢的，但是嘿，你知道还有什么也非常 生化危机4：重制版 吗？就是那些做得并不怎么好的 Boss 战。话虽如此，沉没之城2 并不只是 Frogwares 在做卡普空的翻唱乐队。它脱颖而出的一个方式是加成系统，让你能够解锁并装备强大的符文，这些符文具有诸如在手电筒关闭时增加伤害等效果，奖励那些能够击中甚至看不见的敌人的玩家。它们分为四个等级，强度递增，你无法在单次通关中真正解锁最强大的符文，这为再次投身于恐怖之中创造了引人入胜的动力。沉没之城2 并不只是 Frogwares 在做卡普空的翻唱乐队。
K | 另一个新颖之处是可以在每个区域周围找到书面线索，这些线索可以像你自己的古怪阴谋板一样用红线组织和连接起来。每条线索都属于一个类别，正确连接每个类别会给你一些进度点。有些会提供关键剧情目标的提示，而另一些则指向强大的可选宝藏。奖励感觉很值得，尽管有些需要一点回头路，即使谜题本身并不算特别烧脑。你可以独立于战斗难度来设置这些谜题的难度，这很酷，但较难的选项实际上只是移除了高亮文本和图标，这些图标原本会告诉你哪些线索属于同一类。我发现即使没有这些提示，弄清楚哪些线索相关并自己整合其中的信息也并不特别困难，所以这感觉就像是将难度从“非常简单”提高到了“简单”。后面有一个相当困难的可选谜题，确实需要我动动脑筋，但我最终还是渴望能有更多高难度的侦探工作。此外，游戏中没有理智系统（Sanity mechanic），这对于一款克苏鲁游戏来说显得有点奇怪。虽然有一些扭曲现实的离奇时刻，但我从未怀疑过我角色所经历的事情是否真实。
L | 这确实有点令人遗憾。
Current article:http://www.minpinpengcemiuanjiuxuan.pics/list_gaogp5/iooo.htm
Published on:02:58:56