透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.93.59.171
  • 學位論文

快慢移動的介中∕中介:台北市「橋下市場」的空間生產

Mediating Fast and Slow Mobility: Spatial Production of Under-Viaduct Marketplace in Taipei

指導教授 : 黃舒楣

摘要


本文探討「橋下市場」的空間生產,藉由「移動性」來梳理橋下市場的規劃建造、空間實作與變遷等歷史過程,分析都市空間政治的權力運作。以台北市堤防內、道路系統中的橋下公有市場為例,透過次級資料分析、參與式觀察與深度訪談,結合新聞與網路資料,獲得以下發現: 首先,台北市橋下市場的規劃與興建牽涉戰後攤販治理與市場安置政策,從1950年代開始的攤販治理的困局與治理技術的摸索與變遷,到1970年代橋下市場的形成,呈現了都市空間政治如何以空間為手段來治理都市攤販問題,如何藉由興建公有市場、臨時市場、建立正式與臨時制度,來容許攤販存在於特定的都市空間之中。治理過程體現公有市場安置配租的三種特性—「臨時化」、「支付化」與「附加化」,此三種特性更補充了既有觀點之不足,說明攤販安置並非用於提昇社會福利與集體消費。 其次,本研究回應橋下市場為一舉兩得的觀點,說明橋下市場的空間生產過程與變遷,反映了一種「移置」—移動和置放的都市空間政治,都市空間政治透過移動與置放特定的人、物、制度,來促成都市空間的持續運作。如為了促進都市交通的移動性,藉由生產橋下市場並移置攤販進入,以此騰空街市所處的都市空間,都市空間政治藉由節制攤販移動性來促成機動車的移動,並且形成都市空間的速度差異。隨著移動基礎設施的加速,導致了橋下市場的限制,但也浮現跨越與挪用移動基礎設施的可能性。 最後,橋下市場的空間實作,呈現了橋下市場作為「移動的介中/中介空間」的性質,承載了不同的移動實作,包含攤商的落腳經營與社會流動、舊書舊貨等緩慢經濟,甚至支持著非營利組織的社會實踐;藉由梳理不同的空間實作,以回應橋下作為都市治理縫隙的地方意象,並且重新記憶與評價橋下市場的空間生產。

關鍵字

移動性 橋下市場 攤販治理

並列摘要


Considering infrastructure as a contested terrain where urban governance operates, I try to understand and theorize the spatial production of the under-viaduct marketplace” in Taipei over the past seventy years. In addition, I examined spatial practice that contributed to the daily operation of those marketplaces, to understand how different actors confront and negotiate with the imposed regulation over vending in the city . I reviewed the historical archives and took participatory observation as well as interviews to investigate the subject. and eventually came up with findings as what follows. First, the planning and building of the under-viaduct marketplace in Taipei involved the dilemmas of vender governance, the attempts and changing of governmentality since 1950s to 1970s. The context and the production of “under-viaduct marketplace” reflect the tactics of urban governance to the vender issues, by constructing formal and temporary marketplaces for vender placement, and issuing regulations for temporarily vending permission and relived administrative duty. Three characteristic of the Placement Policy are identified, including “temporalizing”, “defraying” and “appending”, all of which expose that the policy never attempted at improving the social welfare or collective consumption. Secondly, the production of under-viaduct marketplaces was far from “killing two birds with one stone.” What it did, indeed, was mostly displacing venders and then moved them under-viaduct to the marketplaces as appendix. In so doing the city government cleaned up those urban spaces previously occupied by street markets, in order to enable the mobility of urban traffic and motorized cars while restricting the mobility of venders. Meanwhile, the infrastructures constraint the under-viaduct marketplaces. Yet transgression and appropriation still occurred and countered the imposed urban governance. Finally, through attending to the spatial practices availed from the markets, I argue that under-viaduct marketplaces are more than the interstices of urban governance, but places are “in-between” the mobility infrastructure, and “mediate” different practice of mobility, not only include migration, daily travel and social mobility, but also support second-hand industry thriving and non-profit organization working.

參考文獻


Adey, P. (2013)《移動》(徐苔玲、王志弘譯)。台北:群學。
Adey, Peter (2006) “If mobility is everything then it is nothing: towards a relational politics of (im)mobilities.” Mobilities, 1(1): 75-94.
Berman, M. (1983) All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. Verso.
Carroll, Peter (2005)〈「荒涼景象」──晚清蘇州現代街道的出現與西式都市計畫 的挪用〉,收於李孝悌編《中國的城市生活》(頁 497-553)。台北市:聯經。
Cresswell, Tim (2010) “Towards a politics of mobility.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1): 17-31.

延伸閱讀