| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 地政學系碩士在職專班 === 106 === European and American housing policies transform from Welfarism, which is dominated by the government to provide a large number of social housing, to the market-oriented Neo-liberalism of the 1970s. For financial viability and solutions to poverty-gathering, the government adopts various mixed strategies, such as mixed tenure, mixed-income, functions, etc., to address the social housing labeling and looks forward to further promoting social inclusion. The concept of mixed, like an umbrella, covers various modes of implementation. The major mode in reality is mixed-income. However, there have been comments that mixed-income only scatters poverty but do not allow low-income households to move up, let alone social inclusion. In recent years, in order to promote social inclusion, in addition to mixed-income, the government adopts an open-minded attitude and participating in the neighborhood community scale is mixed, and pays attention to the four levels of mix, which are allocation, proximity, tenure and duration. Moreover, there are some people co-residence with others or through the creative classes such as artists to guide community members to demonstrate the mobility of residents and the potential of community self-management, design their own creative social housing, which is preserved in the local culture. This mode effectively guides the disadvantaged, addresses the social housing labeling, and further promotes social inclusion.
The focus of this study is that the housing policy in our country has always been market-oriented, and therefore the social housing ratio is too low. Currently, the number of social housing is eager to expand. In order to prevent people from directly connecting the social housing with the negative impression of poorly managed homes, cheap houses and rental housing in the early stages, the government adopts a mixed strategy of European and American housing policies to avoid labeling. However, the announcement of the social housing sites still causes surrounding residents to protest. The reasons for the opposition to the construction of social housing is that the social mainstream value represents that social housing brings the negative effects, which result from the stereotype of the social housing linked to crime due to culture and poverty. Mixed-income mode simply disperses the poverty, but it just solves the problem of labeling superficially. The fundamental solution should be that through the creative class to strengthen the resident' own identity, to organize community training, to establish community communication channels, to have a dialogue with neighboring residents. By forming a common culture to further create a creative atmosphere to promote social inclusion, and give full play to the multiple functions of social housing and adopt a phased plan. Initially, the social mainstream will recognize the positive effects of social housing through a mixture of creative class.
The public sites of social housing in Taipei includes two types, public housing reconstruction and new construction on idle public land. There are 4 sites of public housing reconstruction belong to shabby poverty-gathering areas. Through the implementation of mixed-income and the move-in of the youth, the project was initially approved due to superior design of new buildings and management to enhance environmental quality. However, in the long term we still need to establish ancillary facilities to achieve the possibility of leading the disadvantaged, and to observe the inclusion of old and new households. The other sites are mostly low-use or idle public land. They are not belong to specific shabby areas, which are waiting to be solved, so that surrounding residents resist more intensely. Additionally, social housing construction tends to gather some disadvantaged groups, and therefore the government should place emphasis on the good-natured interaction with the surrounding residents so as to promote inclusion. It is suggested that the mixed should be expanded into the planning of "neighborhood community" scale and share with the surrounding residents in the role of "public facilities" of the site. In addition to the adoption of mixed-income, we can also adopt functional mix, focus on publicity and spatial function, and introduce open and authorized software and hardware programs, which creative cities focus on. And adopt phased means to promote communication through supporting design. With creative space and creative talents, close to the lives of residents and surrounding residents, community dialogue and local links should be established to led the atmosphere to change the mainstream impression in order to practice social inclusion and achieve a creative city.
|
|---|
