• Guest Editors' IntroductionDesigning the Future of Preservation
• Fallon S. Aidoo (bio) and Daniel A. Barber (bio)

Although "'Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" has served as a catchy public education tool for American environmental activists in the recent past, adaptation of the built environment to the challenges of climate change has deeper, broader roots. Even recent efforts to reduce new construction, reuse existing building stock, and recycle materials follow decades of considering the environmental stressors and material metabolism of the built environment. As conceptualized and practiced globally in accordance with diverse disciplines, politics, cultures, and resources, "retrofit" registers historical and contemporary responsiveness to unsustainable building conventions and endangered built environments. "Retrofit," however, can carry many meanings: to mitigate weathering, abate decay, reduce waste, limit emissions, extend livability, redress inefficiency, and even to contest colonialism, claw-back indigeneity, and materialize local ingenuity. This issue of Future Anterior offers research on the pluriverse of adaptive practices, conservation theories, and mitigation methods that have transformed the pedagogies and praxis of preservation.

Only a few decades ago, preservation's leading academic, cultural, philanthropic, and governmental sponsors treated environmental design and hazard mitigation as marginal to their mandate to redesign built environments for the future. Today, research of retrofits sprawls across preservation's fields of inquiry and intervention—architecture, planning, and engineering as well as history, archaeology, anthropology, geography, and the material sciences.¹ Such expansiveness yields discontinuity, disconnectedness, and dissonance between critical discourses on building form and performance, land use and utilization, infrastructure integrity, and investment. Nonetheless, scholars, educators, and practitioners have organized and ordained responses to energy and climate crises.² Revised building regulations, design pedagogies, construction specifications plus planning prescriptions, policy recommendations, and legal briefs in multiple spoken and spatial languages reflect investigation and collaboration at multiple scales (i.e., interior spaces, singular structures, building complexes, planned unit developments, neighborhoods, and cities) by a multitude of actors.³ Who, currently and historically, convenes such collective thought and action on energy and climate exigencies? What is the value of knowledge and networks built? [End Page iii] Where and how can or has the value been measured, seen, and demonstrated?

Contributors to this issue, who hail from a half-dozen disciplines and conduct research on three different continents, reflected on these questions, researched relevant cases, and reviewed instructive publications. Each engages with ongoing research that treats retrofitting the built environment as a professional exercise, an industry practice, an investment thesis, a public policy, a social enterprise, a tactic of activists, and/or a subaltern intervention. Together, they explore what it means for jurors of the world's foremost honor for architects to award the 2021 Pritzker Prize to Anne Lacaton and Jean-Phillipe Vassal, French architects committed to making existing structures—single-family dwellings to social housing—livable, longer. The takeaway of these explorations is generative not conclusive: adaptation of venerated and vernacular architecture to current and future environmental conditions renders designers of change vital. What's a preservationist's place in a future of change to buildings, landscapes, and artifacts that make up World Heritage sites, national registers of historic places, cultural heritage trusts, and local historic districts? Explained further below, recent reports and reporting on retrofitting practices and practitioners suggest a viable if not venerable path forward for preservationists' inquiries and interventions in climate change and energy transitions.

The mere fact that centuries-old heritage still stands, serves communities, and showcases culture across the globe suggests somebody—or rather some bodies of governance, finance, or resources management—long ago considered how to retain and reuse them for profit if not posterity. Although diverse individuals and institutions have made material changes to tangible heritage, periodicals and pedagogies concerning the built environment primarily chronicle how designers optimize buildings and landscapes for changing ecology, energy, and economics. In these forums, architects of resilience largely envision and evaluate adaptation and mitigation even though engineers, planners, scientists, and archivists also design systems and structures that preserve the integrity and authenticity of historic structures and infrastructure undergoing reuse and reconfiguration.⁴ Moreover, first-person narratives of retrofit and dialogue on reclamation that appear in architectural media, syllabi, webinars, and reports tend to elevate the built works of well-known predecessors...

• 客座编辑的介绍设计保护的未来
• Fallon S. Aidoo（生物）和 Daniel A. Barber（生物）

尽管“‘减少、再利用、再循环’”近来已成为美国环保活动家引人入胜的公共教育工具，但建筑环境对气候变化挑战的适应具有更深、更广的根源。即使是最近在减少新建筑、再利用现有建筑存量和回收材料方面所做的努力，也是在几十年来考虑建筑环境的环境压力和材料代谢之后进行的。根据不同学科、政治、文化和资源在全球范围内进行概念化和实践，“改造”记录了对不可持续的建筑惯例和濒临灭绝的建筑环境的历史和当代反应。然而，“改造”可以具有多种含义：减轻风化、减少腐烂、减少浪费、限制排放、扩大宜居性，纠正低效率，甚至对抗殖民主义，收回本土性，并实现当地的独创性。本期的Future Anterior提供关于多种适应性实践、保护理论和缓解方法的研究，这些方法改变了保护的教学法和实践。

仅在几十年前，保护的主要学术、文化、慈善和政府赞助商将环境设计和减灾视为他们为未来重新设计建筑环境的任务的边缘。今天，改造研究已经蔓延到保护的调查和干预领域——建筑、规划和工程以及历史、考古学、人类学、地理学和材料科学。¹这种扩展性导致了关于建筑形式和性能、土地使用和利用、基础设施完整性和投资的批判性论述之间的不连续性、脱节性和不协调性。尽管如此，学者、教育工作者和实践者已经组织并规定了对能源和气候危机的应对措施。²以多种口语和空间语言修订的建筑法规、设计教学法、施工规范以及规划规定、政策建议和法律简报反映了多尺度（即内部空间、单一结构、建筑群、计划单元开发、社区、和城市）由众多演员组成。³谁在当前和历史上就能源和气候紧急情况召集了这样的集体思想和行动？建立的知识和网络的价值是什么？[End Page iii]在哪里以及如何或已经测量、查看和证明了价值？

本期的撰稿人来自六个学科并在三个不同的大陆进行研究，他们对这些问题进行了反思，研究了相关案例，并审查了具有指导意义的出版物。每个人都参与正在进行的研究，将改造建筑环境视为一项专业活动、行业实践、投资论文、公共政策、社会企业、活动家的策略和/或底层干预。他们一起探讨了将 2021 年普利兹克奖授予 Anne Lacaton 和 Jean-Phillipe Vassal 的世界上最重要建筑师荣誉的评委们的意义，这两位法国建筑师致力于使现有结构——从单户住宅到社会住房——更宜居、更长久. 这些探索的结论是生成性的，而不是结论性的：使受人尊敬的乡土建筑适应当前和未来的环境条件，使设计师对变革至关重要。在构成世界遗产地、国家历史名胜名录、文化遗产信托和当地历史街区的建筑物、景观和文物发生变化的未来，保护主义者的位置是什么？下文将进一步解释，最近关于改造实践和从业者的报告和报告为保护主义者在气候变化和能源转型方面的调查和干预提供了一条可行的（如果不是可敬的）前进道路。历史名胜、文化遗产信托和当地历史街区的国家登记册？下文将进一步解释，最近关于改造实践和从业者的报告和报告为保护主义者在气候变化和能源转型方面的调查和干预提供了一条可行的（如果不是可敬的）前进道路。历史名胜、文化遗产信托和当地历史街区的国家登记册？下文将进一步解释，最近关于改造实践和从业者的报告和报告为保护主义者在气候变化和能源转型方面的调查和干预提供了一条可行的（如果不是可敬的）前进道路。

数百年历史的遗产仍然存在、服务于社区并在全球展示文化这一事实表明，很久以前有人——或者更确切地说是一些治理、财务或资源管理机构——考虑了如何保留和再利用它们以获取利润，如果不是后代的话. 尽管不同的个人和机构对有形遗产做出了重大改变，但有关建筑环境的期刊和教学法主要记录了设计师如何优化建筑和景观以适应不断变化的生态、能源和经济。在这些论坛中，弹性架构师在很大程度上设想和评估了适应和缓解，尽管工程师、规划师、科学家、⁴此外，出现在建筑媒体、教学大纲、网络研讨会和报告中的改造和开垦对话的第一人称叙述往往会提升知名前辈的建筑作品......