老屋改造、街區活化、還是城市再生？臺灣文化引導都市再生實踐之空間想像、文化政治與論述形構初探
中文摘要
在近年社會與政治經濟發展的文化轉向趨勢下，台灣都市發展與文化政策交集出兩個重要的核心議題。其一，「老屋」成為「新寵」，全臺灣各地重新關注老房子的魅力、歷史建築與街區之文化價值，以此延伸出許多公私部門共同參與的計畫與政策。包含台北市的老屋新生大獎、老房子文化運動、臺南老屋欣力、遠東建築獎—舊屋改造特別獎、高雄眷村「以住代護」與2015年開辦的老屋活化再生、臺南歷史老屋補助、彰化歷史老屋活化再利用補助計畫等方案。其次，文化引導都市再生的城市發展模式樣態，在各地以文化資產再利用轉型文創園區，以期帶動在地產業轉型與地方活化的模式；或以地標型明星建築(landmark star architecture)的文化設施投資之城市行銷(city branding)模式，在全台各地層出不窮，成為引發各界關注焦點。 「老屋改造」往往涉及到街區活化、甚至整個城市再生的空間尺度想像。前述兩個城市發展文化轉向的趨勢促成了從「都市治理」(urban governance)到文化政治(cultural politics)論述的改變：過往文化資產被視為需耗費大量公共投資，造成從地方到中央的治理困局與認同的衝突；轉眼間，文化資產獲得文創產業青睞，成為賦予地方發展文化產業、帶動經濟活化前景的正向誘因。在新自由主義的脈絡下，文化資產場域開公私部門合作的機會—私部門資金得以參與公共文化資產活用，看似有助於都市歷史保存，卻同時隱含文化資產保存活化更大的危機。 企圖以文化導引在地產業的結構性轉化，最直接招致的質疑為「文化的工具化」。「文化」如何能夠成為以夢想替代財富創造的最快速途徑?在這個城市治理的資源動員過程中，對文化的想像如何被挪用，在不同的空間尺度層次上，從老屋改造、街區活化到城市再生，關於要保存甚麼、活化甚麼的論述又是如何被認知、想像、理解與架構出來的?是建立在常民生活的集體記憶?開發商所意圖打造的房地產利多?文化與創意工作者的夢土想像?又或者是政策制定者意志的貫徹?「文化」在這些不同的空間尺度層次意味著甚麼？透過文化產業的模式，以及引入私人開發商資本是否有助於推廣與促進文化資產的保存活化與地區再生？ 「老屋改造」與「城市再生」論述與政策實踐在全臺灣各地持續發酵，但這些治理過程中各個版本的故事，似乎相互流傳著曖昧模糊、且涉及不同尺度的空間生產歷程。故本年度研究計劃延續近年關於「文化引導都市再生」、「創意城市」、「創意街區活化」等研究基礎，聚焦於台灣目前各地採取各類「老房子」文化保存或活化運動相關政策，以及街區活化與都市再生的政策和實際執行的經驗作為分析個案，試圖從這些不同尺度與層次的空間生產過程，探討其間所潛藏的空間想像與文化政治作用，如何建構出當前的治理思維與論述實踐，以期同時回應於理論與實踐層次，作為批判性地檢視政策發展與促進文化資產保存活用，城市永續與產業轉型。
Abstract
Taiwan, as the other areas and countries, is facing a salient cultural turn in economic development these years. Under the circumstance, these are two important trends interplayed between the urban governance and cultural policies. First of all, the old, historic buildings and its cultural and historic values has won close attention around different areas in Taiwan. For example, the different versions of old house cultural movement, the prize for the rebirth of old buildings, and the grants for the remodel and management projects led by Taipei, Tainan, Kaohsiung and Changhua City government. The similar projects and prize also organized by some non-government organizations. That is, the charming of old houses won people’s hearts a lot, and gradually invites some policy-making both in urban management and cultural policies. Secondly, the cultural-led urban regeneration policies came about in different cities, to build landmark architecture by star architects as cultural facilities, and to reuse historic building blocks as creative cultural industrial parks are the most popular approaches adopt by these city governments. Nevertheless, the reuse of old houses usually involved the revitalization and mobilization of the spatial imagination of the blocks, even the whole area. The cultural turn of urban development made the different discourse formation of both urban governance and cultural policies. For example, the preservation of urban cultural heritage is usually seen as a budget consuming projects. However, cultural heritage became a key element to develop the creative industries for the locality, and people began to give much weight to it. Besides, under the neo-liberalism context, the government invited the private capital to invest in the building, management, operate and reuse of cultural facilities and heritages. That is to say, the involvement of private capitals in public cultural facilities and heritages might help the government to revitalize the heritages, cut the budgets in a short term, while to threaten the sustainability of the heritage in a long term. In consideration of the reuse of old houses as a model for cultural-led urban regeneration in different cities in Taiwan, the research has taken these regeneration projects of these cities as case studies, to figure out and interpret how the spatial imagination and the discourse formation were manipulating in different projects, and how cultural politics were mobilized for the urban governance, in order to examine critically, both theoretically and practically, how to introduce the policies to enhance the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage, the transformation of industries and the sustainability of cities.