Scroll 向下滑動
People lived here. Fish were raised beneath the glass. 人們真的住在這裡。玻璃下面養著魚，
Sunlight was stored as warmth. Waste was returned as nutrient. 陽光被儲存為熱量，廢棄物被轉化為養分。
It was built. It was used. It was demolished. 它被建造，被使用，最後被拆除。
The New Alchemy Institute and Solsearch Architects — David Bergmark and Ole Hammarlund — conceived and designed the structure. Construction was enabled by funding from the Government of Canada's Department of the Environment and Department of Urban Affairs, together with the Government of Prince Edward Island. New Alchemy Institute 與 Solsearch Architects 的 David Bergmark、Ole Hammarlund 構思並設計了這座建築。加拿大聯邦環境部、城市事務部，以及愛德華王子島省政府共同提供資金，使建設得以實現。
It was a cold-climate bioshelter: a single structure that joined a family residence, a greenhouse, aquaculture tanks, passive and active solar heat storage, a wind turbine and composting toilets. The ambition was to demonstrate that housing, food production and ecological systems could operate as one integrated circuit rather than as separate utilities. 這是一座寒帶氣候下的生態庇護所（bioshelter）：一棟結合家庭住宅、溫室、水產養殖槽、主動與被動式太陽能儲熱、風力發電機和堆肥廁所的單一建築。其目標是證明住宅、食物生產與生態系統，能夠作為一套整合迴路而非各自獨立的設施來運作。
Not a demonstration model. A house with a kitchen, a greenhouse, and a family living inside. 這不是展示模型，而是一棟有廚房、有溫室、有一家人居住其中的房子。
Under the long south-facing roof, translucent aquaculture cylinders stood where winter sun could reach them. Water moved through fish tanks, then to irrigate plant beds, and nutrients followed the same circuit. Solar heat was stored in water and thermal mass. A wind turbine supplemented electrical supply. Composting toilets returned organic matter to the growing beds. 在長長的朝南屋頂之下，半透明的水產養殖筒立在冬陽能照到的位置。水流過魚缸，再灌入菜床，養分隨著同一條迴路循環。太陽熱能被儲存在水與蓄熱體中。一具風力發電機補充電力供應。堆肥廁所將有機物質送回種植區。
Food was grown. Meals were cooked. Thousands of people came to visit during the years it operated. The building was documented throughout its life by researchers, architects, and participants — that documentation is the primary basis for what is known about it today. 這裡種出食物，煮出餐食，在它運作的年間迎來了數千名訪客。研究人員、建築師與參與者在其生命週期中持續記錄這棟建築——那些文獻記錄，是今天得以了解它的主要依據。
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau came to Spry Point for the opening. Inside, the air was humid and the crowd pressed close around the microphones; outside, neighbours listened in coats on the grass. The opening was a national event. What the press photographs show is a packed interior, a working greenhouse, and a prime minister speaking in front of glazing still wet from plant transpiration. 加拿大總理 Pierre Trudeau 為開幕來到 Spry Point。室內濕熱，人群擠在麥克風四周；室外，鄰居們穿著外套站在草地上聆聽。這次開幕是一場全國性的事件。新聞照片所呈現的，是擁擠的室內、一座運作中的溫室，以及一位總理在仍因植物蒸散而濕潤的玻璃前發言。
What a single visit could not show was how the building actually functioned over time: as an integrated circuit of systems, each dependent on the others. To understand that, you have to follow the water. 單次參觀無法呈現的，是這棟建築實際上如何隨時間運作：作為一套整合的系統迴路，各部分彼此依存。要理解這一點，你必須跟著水走。
circuit begins迴路起點
Aquaculture tanks水產養殖槽
Translucent cylinders placed where winter sun could reach them. They served as both fish habitat and thermal mass, storing solar heat in water. Fish were raised; nutrients accumulated in the water and moved with it to the next stage of the circuit. 半透明的圓筒被置於冬陽能照到的位置，同時作為魚的棲息地與蓄熱體，將太陽熱能儲存在水中。魚在此被養殖；養分積累於水中，隨水進入迴路的下一個階段。
water moves to水移動至
Greenhouse beds溫室菜床
Nutrient-bearing water from the fish tanks irrigated the growing beds. Plant roots took up nitrogen; transpiration raised humidity inside the glazed space, which contributed to the thermal environment. The greenhouse was warm in part because water and soil held heat. 來自魚缸的含養分水灌進菜床。植物根系吸收氮素；蒸散作用提升玻璃空間內的濕度，這也影響了室內的熱環境。溫室的溫暖，部分原因正是水與土壤儲存了熱量。
circuit enters迴路進入
Kitchen and dwelling廚房與居室
Vegetables, herbs and fish from the bioshelter systems reached the kitchen a few steps away. The heat entering this room came through the same glazing that supported the food production. These were not separate functions — they were the same system at different moments. 來自生態庇護所各系統的蔬菜、香草和魚，只需幾步就能到達廚房。進入這個房間的熱，來自支撐食物生產的同一片玻璃。這些並非各自獨立的功能——它們是同一套系統在不同時刻的呈現。
circuit returns through迴路經由
Compost and soil堆肥與土壤
Composting toilets and plant waste were returned to the growing beds as nutrient rather than removed as sewage. Water evaporated, condensed on the cold glazing, ran back, and entered the circuit again. The design attempted to close loops that conventional buildings leave open. 堆肥廁所與植物殘餘以養分而非污水的形式被送回菜床。水蒸散、在冷玻璃上凝結、流回，再次進入循環。這套設計試圖關閉傳統建築留下的開放迴路。
Drag the marker, tap a node, or keep scrolling 拖動標記、點一下節點，或繼續向下滑動
Bruce McCallum, who documented the Ark's planning and development, recorded specific failures in the experimental systems. In his account, the wind turbine failed. Solar panels leaked. The experimental technologies had weaknesses that became apparent only under real conditions of use. 記錄了 Ark 規劃與發展過程的 Bruce McCallum，留下了對實驗系統具體失敗的記錄。在他的陳述中，風力發電機發生了故障，太陽能板出現了滲漏，這些實驗性技術的弱點，只有在真實使用條件下才變得清晰可見。
"The wind turbine failed. Solar panels leaked." The building was an inhabited experiment, not a proof of concept that resolved into certainty. 「風力發電機壞了。太陽能板漏水了。」這棟建築是一場有人居住其中的實驗，而不是一個最終化解為確定性的概念驗證。
Bruce McCallum, "My Involvement with the PEI Ark Project" — peiark.com/my-involvement-with-the-pei-ark-project/ Bruce McCallum，〈My Involvement with the PEI Ark Project〉— peiark.comThe bioshelter also required continuous human attention. Growing systems needed management. The building lived on labour and on political support, both of which shifted over its twenty-five years. Government interest and uses changed. The site was handed on and repurposed. In 2001 the structure was demolished. 生態庇護所也需要持續的人力投入。種植系統需要管理，這棟建築依賴勞動力與政治支持來維持運作，而這兩者在它存在的二十五年間都發生了轉變。政府的興趣與用途改變了，場地被移交並改作他用。2001 年，這棟建築被拆除。
The reasons for its demolition are not fully documented in the public record. What is documented is that it operated for a significant period, that it encountered genuine technical difficulties, and that the conditions — funding, political attention, maintenance labour — that sustained it did not remain constant. 它被拆除的具體原因，在公開記錄中並未有完整記載。有據可查的是：它運作了相當長的一段時間，遭遇了真實的技術困難，而維持它運轉的條件——資金、政治關注、維護勞力——並沒有保持穩定。
Before the Ark was a building, it was an argument being worked through on paper and in model form. David Bergmark and Ole Hammarlund — the Solsearch architects — developed systems models that attempted to map the relationships between heat, water, plants, fish and the people using the building. 在 Ark 成為一棟建築之前，它是一個在紙上和模型中被反覆推演的論證。Solsearch 建築師 David Bergmark 與 Ole Hammarlund 建立了系統模型，試圖描繪熱能、水、植物、魚，以及使用建築的人之間的相互關係。
The model could not predict everything. A grey winter drew down the heat store further than anticipated. Algae grew where it was not wanted. The building worked conditionally — as bodies do — which is to say it worked imperfectly, partially, in a state of ongoing adjustment by the people inside it. 模型無法預測一切。一個陰暗的冬天比預期更快耗盡儲熱。藻類在不該生長的地方蔓延。這棟建築有條件地運作——就像身體一樣——也就是說，它在室內人員持續調整的狀態下，以不完整、局部的方式運作著。
The best understanding of the PEI Ark is collaborative, conditional, and fallible: a prototype that was genuinely inhabited, that encountered real difficulties, and whose memory survives through drawings, testimony, photographs, exhibition, archive and criticism — assembled over decades by many people, not resolved into a single verdict. 對 PEI Ark 最準確的理解是：協作的、有條件的、可能出錯的——一個真正被人居住過的原型，曾遭遇真實的困難，其記憶透過圖紙、證詞、照片、展覽、檔案與批評而得以留存——由許多人歷經數十年共同拼湊，而非被簡化成一個單一的定論。
In 2016, Steven Mannell curated "Living lightly on the earth: building an Ark for Prince Edward Island, 1974–76" at the Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown — an exhibition, archive and publication that gathered drawings, photographs, oral accounts and critical reflection from participants and researchers. That project, along with the peiark.com archive, is the primary resource for this record. 2016 年，Steven Mannell 在夏洛特敦的 Confederation Centre of the Arts 策劃了展覽「Living lightly on the earth: building an Ark for Prince Edward Island, 1974–76」，集結了參與者與研究者的圖紙、照片、口述記錄與批判性反思。這個計畫，連同 peiark.com 的檔案庫，是本文最主要的參考資源。
The glass went. The timber went. What remains is documentation: drawings made before and during construction, photographs taken over twenty-five years of use, the accounts of people who worked inside it, and the criticism of researchers who have since studied why it was built and what it was able to do. 玻璃消失了。木構消失了。留下的是文獻記錄：建造前後的圖紙、二十五年使用期間拍攝的照片、曾在其中工作的人們的陳述，以及此後研究者對它為何而建、它能做到什麼的批判性考察。
The water circuit the building demonstrated was not the building's invention. It is still available to study, and to build from. 這棟建築所展示的水循環，並非它的發明。那個迴路仍然可以被研究，也可以被重新建造。
The PEI Ark did not prove that integrated bioshelter design was impossible. It proved that a working prototype is a different thing from a sustained practice — and that the gap between them is filled by conditions no building can supply for itself. PEI Ark 沒有證明整合式生態庇護所設計是不可能的。它證明的是：一個可運作的原型，與一種持續的實踐，是兩件不同的事——而填補它們之間距離的，是任何建築都無法自行提供的條件。
A note on this record 關於本文的說明
"The House That Lived" is a reading of the PEI Ark — a title that carries a point of view. The historical identity of the building is the Ark for Prince Edward Island, designed and built 1974–1976 by the New Alchemy Institute and Solsearch Architects, demolished in 2001. The record here draws on the peiark.com archive, the 2016 Confederation Centre exhibition curated by Steven Mannell, Bruce McCallum's first-person account, and the New Alchemy Institute's documentation. Errors and omissions should be reported against those sources. 「一座活著的房子」是對 PEI Ark 的一種詮釋——一個帶有觀點的標題。這棟建築的歷史身分是 the Ark for Prince Edward Island，由 New Alchemy Institute 與 Solsearch Architects 設計建造於 1974–1976 年，並於 2001 年被拆除。本文內容取材自 peiark.com 檔案庫、Steven Mannell 於 2016 年策劃的 Confederation Centre 展覽、Bruce McCallum 的第一人稱記述，以及 New Alchemy Institute 的文獻資料。如有錯誤或遺漏，請對照上述來源核實。
Sources — all five photographs: PEI Ark Project archive 資料來源 — 五張照片皆來自：PEI Ark Project 檔案庫