由上而下與由下而上之間的社區中介機制──臺北市社區營造平台與東京品川宿協議會的案例研究

台北市的社區營造過程在發展脈絡上不同於台灣之中央政府，自成立初期開始就與空間議題緊密相關，並因此衍生出多種機制，如任命社區規畫師、培養青年規畫師以及創設社區營造中心等。雖然台北市的經驗被認為是台灣社區發展的先驅案例，但由於在各行政區層面上欠缺有力的中介組織及平台，協調由上而下以及由下而上的雙向需求，因此發展依然有所侷限。而原先設立各行政區區公所（現改為行政中心）之目的，為試圖在由上而下的大尺度都市計畫落實到區域層級時，亦能對於由下而上的鄰里居民反饋做出協調，進而構想各行政區之計畫願景，收納由下而上的意見，落實參與式規劃，然而實際上各區區公所主要著重在民政相關庶務之處理，而非空間規劃以及社區營造。因此，即便在各行政區劃分下指定鄰里單元做為發展的基層組織，但欠缺各行政區層級的對話窗口情況下，社區營造發展機制與基層社區存有斷層，無法將草根民意由下而上的反映至上級主管機關。即便在後來發展以全市為服務範圍的社區營造中心，嘗試作為基層社區與政府部門的中介平台，但由於其跨區之發展策略以及僅為委任案的身分位階難以在政策層級上有所建樹，而原先社區層級的計畫構想也隨之停擺。相較之下，東京品川宿地區まちづくり協議會本身是眾多地緣組織的集合團體，負責協調由下而上的意見彙整，更進一步地制定社區發展計畫，甚至對於空間營造、景觀相關領域亦有涉略。雖然非所屬於政府部門，但卻因此在發展活動時擁有更大的彈性及靈活度，令協議會在議題發展上多方涉獵。而其中一股動能匯聚到景觀層面上，透過「景觀法」的援用，品川宿協議會與品川區役所將原先地緣居民所生產的計畫書化為景觀願景計畫，是為一由下而上的計畫推行管道，協議會也成為公部門與民間的中介平台。且由於是由民間個人發起而創制，草根性質較強，在發展上也不純然仰賴公部門的補助，因此具備較高自主性，一定程度上與台北市所發展的相關委任計畫案形成強烈對比，也反映了社造中心在發展上的不足。本研究藉由透過兩地兩案例的文獻爬梳以及相關人物訪談，分析了台北市的相關社區營造計畫中具平台性質的計畫及嘗試，以及品川宿協議會的相關發展歷程以及關鍵轉折。作為研究結果，可以發現到在台北的案例當中，雖然欠缺中介組織的實體授權及整體的機制保障發展，卻仍在社造中心、社區規畫師或是Open Green等各計畫的縫隙中發展出彈性且充滿動能的操作模式，然而缺乏相關條例的保障以及穩健的資源提供，令台北市的社區營造發展在計畫層級的發展上難以突破。相對的，品川宿協議會僅透過彈性的要綱認定而具備獨立、自主性，更藉由相關條例的援用，發展相關計畫，確實地落實了由下而上的發展方向。藉由對於兩地兩機制的案例研究以及相互參考照，本研究分析了台北市以及東京品川宿在發展社區營造以及相關計畫時，所考量的因素以及相應的操作方法，期能在未來相關機制的創制時，作為參考、借鑑。

關鍵字

社區營造；中介組織；由上而下；由下而上；區公所

並列摘要

The community building process of Taipei City is contextually different from that of Taiwan’s central government. It has been implicating in the spatial issues since its initiation, and has derived a variety of mechanism such as the designation of community planners, young planners, and community-building center. Regarded as a pioneering example of Taiwan’s community development, Taipei’s experiences are nonetheless hampered by the administrative design of community planning that is short of an efficient intermediate platform between top-down and bottom-up approaches within the scale of a district. The deployment of district offices is supposed to mediate the top-down urban policies and the bottom-up neighborhood initiatives, and thereby envision the district plan and facilitate the regular revision of zoning or the modes of participatory planning, yet their administrative role focuses on the civil affairs instead of spatial planning or community building. The mechanism of community development in Taipei, regardless of the territorial reinforcement through the designation of neighborhood units under the district governance, is not yet able to subsume the grassroots momentum into the system of urban governance and bridge the gap between urban planning and community design. Even if the establishment of a citywide community-building center is geared towards consolidating an intermediate platform, its project-based maneuver across various districts cannot suffice to translate the community tactics into governmental strategies, and vice versa, let alone to conceive a feasible vision for any specific district.As a contrast, the Machitsukuri Association of Tokyo’s Shinagawasyuku Area is a collective ensemble of many territorial organizations that mediates the bottom-up initiatives for community development and the top-down urban planning and design scheme. It is not a legal body commissioned by the government and is flexible in terms of mobilizing local activities and negotiating public issues. The Machitsukuri Association coordinates with the Landscape Act of Shinagawasyuku Area and becomes a trusted platform for the public sector to enact landscape regulations and district plans. Yet it is in nature a non-governmental organization created through bottom-up processes, with an autonomous mechanism not dependent upon public subsidies or project commission. Its practices and effect somehow reflect the deficiency of Taipei’s community-building center. This research analyzes the development processes of Taipei’s community-building platforms and Shinagawasyuku’s Machitsukuri Association, aided by in-depth interviews of the key persons of both sides. The cases of Taipei, though dynamic and flexible under the project-based schemes of community-building center, community planner, Open Green, and so on, commissioned by Taipei’s Urban Regeneration Office or Urban Development Department, do not authorize the intermediate representatives to propose or guide the development plans of certain districts through participatory processes. The lack of legal and resource support constrains the potential of a communicative and collaborative body of community building in a democratic city. Shinagawasyuku’s Machitsukuri Association, on the contrary, is legitimized as a collaborative organization of the district government through the legislation of the Landscape Act and the confirmation of its role as a consultative institute for district redevelopment. It is also a bona fide bottom-up case of community building that is autonomous and independent in decision-making and local initiatives.The case studies of Taipei and Tokyo in this research are therefore practical references for designing an intermediate mechanism of community building in an urban environment as well as facilitating a legal framework for relevant community development.