| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立成功大學 === 都市計劃學系碩博士班 === 95 === “Urban Renewal” in America is the lesson of the wrong “Vision” and rough “Mechanism” in 1950’s. The “West End” community renewal project in Boston exemplifies this phenomenon. Sociologist Herbert Gans, he examined this particular community through the perspective of urban sociology and defined residents in the West End as the “Urban Villagers”. Moreover, he criticized the renewal policy and described the American federal government as “slum bulldozer” .
The focus of the research is based on Herbert Gans’ study, which provides a new platform for extended discussion of the case study of New Caoya Community in Kaohsiung. This community was an urban-rural migrant in 1960’s and developed most large squatter settlement in Taiwan. The main points of discussion include the misemployment of “Vision” and “Mechanism” in planning of the past to form conflicting squatter settlement landscape, the failing of the effort of the city government as the only force on “Politics Effect”, “Land Ownership” and “Land Tax”, and the urban planners’ viewpoints.
Despite the efforts of professionals and urban planners to propose several programs and suggestions to redevelop the community, the concepts of “Vision” and “Mechanism” are still disconnected. This is because urban planners, city government staff and community inhabitants have difficulty with producing a consensus. Besides, New Caoya Community inhabitants are able to transform grass-root capacity into formal political capacity. And therefore, Kaohsiung city council eventually would have great political effect to influence city government and urban planners’ redevelopment programs. This characteristic makes redevelopment works for New Caoya Community, however, more complex and more difficult than the West End. The New Caoya Community therefore faces the new challenge of connection between “Vision” and “Mechanism”.
At the end of this research, the conclusion will suggest more of an advancement in the tasks of dealing with problems of redevelopment for New Caoya Community rather than a provision of specific planning program or solution.
|
|---|
