透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.81.157.133
  • 學位論文

創意城市建構與社區動員政策間的混雜:一個衝突或雙贏的都市再生策略?以中山創意基地(URS21)為例

A Contradictory or Win-win Regeneration Strategy? The Hybrid between Creative City Agenda and Community Activation Policy. A Case Study of Chung Shan Creative Hub (URS21)

指導教授 : 林文一
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


臺北市都市更新處自2010年起推動都市再生前進基地推動計畫(URS計畫),以西方的創意城市論述包裝,試圖操作「創意城市與創意人才培育」概念,企圖同時包裹台灣獨特的「社區營造」概念,期望透過創意工作者與社區鄰里的結合,重新提振都市活力。部分學者對於這種創意人才與在地鄰里的結合持正面態度,但在Florida(2002)的創意城市理論假設中,卻隱含衝突與矛盾的問題。 在上述理論基礎之下,本研究試圖從臺北在地脈絡檢視中山創意基地(URS21)的個案,提出以下研究問題:一、創意城市及創意人才培育的論述,是如何在臺北市的都市再生策略中,與社區營造的概念混合,並實踐在中山創意基地?二、中山創意基地培育創意社群與社區營造、活化的策略是如何被建構與落實,以及在實踐過程中帶來的影響與落差?三、藉由臺北市都市再生政策中強調「創意城市與創意人才培育」以及「社區營造」雙贏的經驗案例,驗證創意人才與社區關係論述間存有何種相關性? 本研究採質性研究方法的個案研究進行田野深度訪談、參與觀察與文本分析討論。研究發現如下:一、在URS21營運之前,都更處以社區營造活動介入鄰里,灌注知識與認同,然在此過程中鄰里並未被賦權,也缺乏參與的機會。二、受限於URS政策本身的模糊性質,URS21經營者在缺乏制度工具的情況下只能以較為被動的方式操作,進而導致營運過程中的矛盾與困境。三、總結本研究對個案之了解,創意城市與社區營造的在地實踐,儘管難以達成相輔相成的雙贏局面,也不致落入毫無貢獻的雙輸困境。然而,URS計畫的制定是由多方意見拼貼湊成,政策目標的模糊、制度工具與評估指標的缺乏,以及跨局處部門整合的侷限,都進一步導致URS基地的實踐過程遭遇諸多困境。

並列摘要


Since 2010, “Urban Regeneration Station” (URS) is a new policy agenda of Urban Regeneration Office of Taipei City to pursue the creative city idea which has been propagated globally. It seeks to foster creative talent, simultaneously, to exercise the community activation policy of Taiwan that is for boosting urban creativity and vitality. However, certain scholars, such as R. Florida (2002), have doubted that the hybrid between creative city agenda and traditional community activation or cohesion policy could be a win-win solution for developing a creative city within a closely connected community. For exploring the exercise of this expected win-win solution in Taipei, this essay develops three main questions in a case study of Chung Shan Creative Hub (URS21): Firstly, how can the creative city ideas and nurture creative talent merge with community activation policy, and have been practiced in URS21? Secondly, how have the URS21project which are trying to combine nurturing creative talent with activating local communities been constructed and practiced? What are the impacts and gaps within the practice? Finally, what kind of relevance between creative talent and local communities in the win-win solution of Taipei city? This exploration takes a qualitative research approach with the analysis and discussions of deep field works, semi-structural interview, participant observation and the document analysis. The conclusions contain three main parts: the first shows that Urban Regeneration Office’s alleged community cohesion building and empowerment has not provide enough opportunities for community participation, community knowledge building and decentralization of decision-making. The second is that, the operation of the URS21 project lacks of institution instruments, clear understanding and objectives in relation to fostering community cohesion (or activation) and creative class. This results in the vague strategies, passive attitude, contradictions and difficulties in the process of struggling to achieve local government’s expected combination of creative class and local communities. Such issues also get worst by the inefficiency and limitations of cross-sectoral integration with different local authorities and local sectors. The third demonstrates that the practice of the hybrid between creative city agenda and community activation policy is not a win-win solution by the current URS policy agenda. Nonetheless, it has generated certain meaningful lessons and other possible contributions for local officials, researchers or communities.

參考文獻


江尚書(2009)。新自由主義化下的都市再發展:以台北車站特定專用區為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台灣大學,台北。
林炎旦、李兆翔(2010)。文化創意產業之人才培育策略。台灣教育,665,11-25。
金家禾(2007)。創意產業在台北都會中心區群聚發展之研究。都市與計畫,34(4),343-361。
徐進鈺(2003)。邁向學習性經濟中的創意型城市:兼論台北的機會與限制。研考雙月刊,27(4),頁 66-75。
王佳煌(2010)。文化/創意產業、創意階級/城市論著的批判性檢視。思與言,48(1),131-190。

被引用紀錄


温建吉(2017)。創意修補/固著的青黃半接:以臺北市寧夏路木材產業為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201703787

延伸閱讀