宜蘭厝活動的地景美學建構之研究

本研究的目的為針對宜蘭厝活動的地景美學建構過程和活動設計理念無法普遍落實的原因提出詮釋。自宜蘭厝活動推動以來，過去20年間由於農業發展條例修正以及國道五號通車對蘭陽平原的地景產生劇烈影響，其活動的訴求為透過開放及參與的方式尋找在地建築形態，然而從實踐結果來看其對於宜蘭住宅型態影響有限。本研究的問題是探討宜蘭厝的地景美學建構過程，研究方法採用採用文獻分析法和半結構性訪談法。研究範圍為第一期和第二期相關案例。訪談對象為宜蘭厝活動相關參與者包含推動者、建築師以及使用者。訪談結果共有以下五點: 1. 宜蘭厝活動沒有回應較常民化的居住需求。 2. 宜蘭厝推動者對於「批判的地域主義」概念自有詮釋。 3. 第一期宜蘭厝較第二期擁有較具體的理論基礎及理念。 4. 宜蘭厝使用者在與基金會的權利義務關係中不具強制約束力。 5. 宜蘭厝使用者相較於推動者及建築師擁有較大的主導權去影響建築師設計的方向。本研究之結論在訪談結果的基礎之上，針對活動設計理念無法普遍落實的原因，做出界定和說明。並且進一步解釋活動在不同階段中，參與者彼此間之互動關係、地景美學的變遷過程、影響建築師設計方向主導權的移轉。本研究結論為以下兩點: 1. 宜蘭厝活動採用鼓勵以及補助性質的方式進行推廣。活動在寬鬆的機制中進行，使用者在與基金會的權利義務關係中不具強制約束力，因此推動者的理念難以完全貫徹至每一棟宜蘭厝；活動結束之後，宜蘭縣政府也沒有考慮將活動歸納出的設計準則發展成剛性的都市設計或建築管理法規，因此宜蘭厝的數量佔宜蘭總體住宅比例較低。 2. 由於宜蘭厝活動所設定的機制不具強制約束力，因此影響建築師設計發展方向的主導權也由推動端逐漸移轉至使用端，雖然最初的地景美學由推動者提出但使用者才是地景美學的真正實踐者。然而這就是民主社會中推廣建築活動的常態，居民在自由的環境中實踐自己對於住屋的想像，因此理念落到以個別居民的認知作為基礎的結果中。

關鍵字

宜蘭厝活動；地景美學

並列摘要

This study aims to propose an interpretation for the impossibility of universal implementation of the construction process of the landscape aesthetics and the design concept for the “Yilan House” event. Since the launching of the Yilan House event, it aims to find local architectural forms through openness and participation despite the drastic impacts of the amendment of the Agricultural Development Act and the Freeway No.5 on the terrestrial landscape of Yilan-Ebene. However, based on the practical results, the impact of the event is quite limited on the residential styles in Yilan. This study has made an exploration of the construction process of the landscape aesthetics of Yilan House. Literature analysis and semi-structured interviews were used as the research methods. The scope of research consists of the phase-1 and phase-2 cases, while the subjects of the interview were participants of Yilan House, including the promoters, architects, and users. The following five conclusions were obtained from the interviews: 1. Yilan House event did not respond to the residential needs of the ordinary inhabitants. 2. The promoters of Yilan House have their own interpretation of the concept of "critical regionalism". 3. Phase-1 Yilan House has a more concrete theoretical basis and ideals compared to Phase-2. 4. Users of Yilan House have no mandatory binding relationship of rights and obligations with the foundation. 5. Yilan House users have greater dominance to influence the architects’ design compared to the promoters and architects. Based on the results of the interviews, this study took a further step to define and explain the causes for the impossibility of universal implementation of the design concept during the event. Also, it has explained the interactive relationship between the different participating parties, the relocation process of the landscape aesthetics, and the shifting of the dominance that affected the architects’ design. The study has made the following two conclusions: 1. Yilan House event was promoted through encouragement and subsidies within a loose mechanism. Users f Yilan House have no mandatory binding relationship of rights and obligations with the foundation, so it was not possible for the promoters to keep the concept consistency on every Yilan house. After the end of the event, Yilan County Government did not try to summarize and compile a design criterion based on the event so that it can be further refined as an urban design or architectural management regulation. Thus, the number of houses of Yilan House accounted for a lower percentage than the total number of residences in Yilan. 2. The event does not exert any restriction on the direction of design, so it’s expected that the participants of the Yilan House event are encouraged to develop their design freely. It’s a power shift from the organizer to the user, echoing the concept proposed by the imitator of the event that the user is the only one can build and complete local landscape aesthetics. Residents are empowered to accomplish their imagination in house and living and their opinions are fully respected. In a democratic society, it’s a suitable way to promote an event concerning architecture.