第一軍郵局：初論1950-80 年代金門建築「現代」的本質與風格

An Example of the Modernisation in Architecture at the 1950s and the 80s Quemoy (Kinmen): The First Field Postal Station

本文以金門新市里的第一軍郵局（現金門山外郵局。1957 年落成後使用至今）為例，試以其增改建歷程迴 探金門的營建體系如何在軍事管制與戰時體制下自農業社會一躍進入工業時代，因不斷地增改建，而將不同時 間點的審美、知識、技術，與材料一併砌築進建築物中。 以此為基礎，本文提議1954 至1968 年之間為金門戰後現代建築運動的第一階段，為技術與材料還有制度 上的現代化；此後在造型、風格或設計上現代主義化的1968 至85 年間則為第二階段。如此論述的證據，除了 公文檔案外，亦爬梳自1950 年代直至軍管解除前所出版的定期刊物《今日郵政》以及《正氣中華報》（1966 後 為《金門日報》）以為背景的參照；雖有時代的保防審查與視界限制，這些刊物仍縝密且直觀地報導了當時對建 築、對建材、對社會、對空間、對機械、對現代，還有美的期望。本文依此判斷在此一建築現代化的歷程中，設 備與車輛對建築設計在造型、平面與剖面上具相當影響，此外則為建築材料與施作技術的限制。第一軍郵局， 相較於其他1990 年代後陸續拉皮拆除的公有建築物中保有最多的時代紀錄，而由本文視為金門建築審美上的 Modernism 及建築生產上的Modernisation 歷程之一例。 在結論中，本文試借第一軍郵局的增改建歷程及這平凡的時代風格蠡測金門戰後在建材選擇與技術變化等 系統性上的建築發展。論述演繹的過程裡，金門建築史研究的未竟之處，包括不同的建築類型、不同的設計組 織、造型美學的表達，乃至工程技術還有社會價值觀與需求的改變等，亦借結論提出以為邀約。

 

This paper studies the construction, extension, modification and currently scheduled-to-demolition of the First Field Postal Station at Kinmen (formally known as Quemoy), in an objective of reflecting and periodising the modernisation and modernity of Kinmen architecture between the 1950s and the 1980s. Careful and thorough study on these dates of architectural development in Kinmen has yet been done as literature review shows. This paper reconstructs the construction methods, the works, the society and the aesthetics based on the day-to-day information collected from newspaper and publications in the third part, before proposing an impression of Kinmen’s time of modernisation and modernism in the fourth part. The First Field Postal Station was built in 1957, and was altered and extended due to increasing postal service-personnel and introducing machines and mobiles in the 60s and 70s. The postal station’s form, style and capacity reached its completeness before 1981, and met decrease afterwards. The station was a result of Kinmen’s modernisation in building methods and materials since 1954; it is so argued. The paper also argues the period between 1968 to 85 to be Kinmen’s second stage of architectural modernisation for building technologies, and that the modernisation supported the sociological need of new aesthetics. Instead of focusing on the artist-centred epistemology of architectural history, this research concerns more the historiographical attitude that technologies, labour-skills, and material-supply formed the aesthetics of architecture. The application of mobile vehicles and mechanical equipment shaped on the other hands the sections and the plans of a building. This anonymous design of public building has reflected its time and its society under the martial law, however, this paper also argues, the insufficiency of the Kinmen building industry overpowered the political moral of the time.