| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 建築與城鄉研究所 === 102 === The main concept of this paper is about “urban bricolage”. It implicates certain conscious yet sometimes transient interventions on ‘ruptured’ urban spaces. The urban bricolage attempt to be more individual and random, yet if such a social laboratory is practiced on a collective grassroots level, the effect may further challenge the modern urban planning.
I choose the South Airport area in Taipei’s south Wan-hua Distric, as the research case. Since 1950s the South Airport area has become the largest military dependents'' community. Immediately, more rural-urban immigrants moved into this area with the process of urbanization in Taipei; the spread of illegal construction and the decline of environmental quality soon followed by the population explosion. In the 1960s, the government built the resettlement housing to accommodate the underprivileged who was relocated from illegal construction. Even resettlement housing didn’t offer an appropriate space for living , but it transformed the image of the South Airport area from an urban slum into a modern housing showcase. Soon after, the government built modern high-rise buildings to implement the urban renewal projects and replaced old military dependents'' village.
Compared with many failed cases of public housing in the global north, the South Airport housing clusters even stand as an isolated high-rise blocks separated spatially. But the autonomous formation of street markets, it instigates an informal urbanism of collective appropriation of public spaces, but at the same time moderates the inconveniences and planning control of ever-day life.
Therefore, this paper appropriates the concept of urban bricolage to reveal the tactics of the grassroots in the South Airport public housing clusters. The first discussion is the South Airport public housing cluster manifest the effect of social segregation by modernist design and urban renewal. Secondly, the street markets in the South Airport housing clusters demonstrate the operative mechanism for their internal conflicts and conundrums as a mode of grassroots urban bricolage. This phenomenon can be seen as a grassroots resistance to the city''s governance. Finally, on such a basis suggests bricolage planning to be considered as an alternative to the modernist zoning approaches.
|
|---|
