【2019ICN】Mike Douglass/包容城市的居住議題:來自東亞的經驗

文:麥克.道格拉斯(夏威夷大學瑪諾阿分校都市與區域規劃系榮譽教授)

本篇報告首先將提出包容城市住居架構的四個面向:參與式治理、分配正義、同樂共善與環境健康。欲使住居真正根植於包容城市之中,住居的概念必須超越「房屋」或「住所」,更包含提供服務的土地、街區、巷弄、共用/公共空間,以及連接群眾生活/生計所需的廣大都市空間。住居不僅是功能性空間,形成友誼與社會認同、互助合作及地方營造的同樂共善生活。同時還包括人類與健康自然環境之間的關係。以上的住居概念可以用來衡量現行及未來提出的社會/低成本住宅或城市的建造方式。

東亞地區的住居建造方式差異甚巨,但仍可觀察到某些模式。其一,在多數城市中,自己自足形成了低收入家戶的住居基礎。從一九七〇年代開始,透過摧毀先前存在的中低收入街區進行大規模住居建造,開啟一種建築模式,通常對環境造成負面影響。某些案例中,例如新加坡與香港,國家成為主要的住居提供者。在其他地方,大規模私有土地與住宅開發商則扮演重要角色。然而這些案例間的差異也十分驚人。日本形成了獨棟房屋與低樓層公寓住宅;在南韓,高樓層公寓取代獨棟房屋的程度,讓首爾贏得「公寓之都」之名。

一九八〇年代末,三股力量開始改變東亞的建造模式與住居取得方式。首先是全球新自由主義,開始將「發展型國家」轉變成「新發展型國家」,亦即由國家主導計畫轉向國家高度參與的公私部門夥伴關係,及公共資產私有化。第二股動力,發生在南韓與台灣(以及日本),正是公民社會興起,走向選舉民主制度。第三股動力則是加速都市化;此一轉變始於六〇年代末期,在兩千年完成。這三股動力共同促成公民社會組織施壓政府,在蓬勃發展的都市中提供社會住宅。政府的回應則是在國家規範下,轉向商業經濟提供住居,手段則包含提供低成本住宅補助與折價。多數案例裡,大型都市中都可見這些方法伴隨著人口與國家經濟在空間分布上的兩極化,同時也見到因為投機炒作導致街區仕紳化的過程。都市中對於住居議題的社會不滿交織在更廣大的新發展主義帶來的影響中,包含收入不平等的擴大、中產階級空洞化、不穩定勞動、老年族群的福利危機以及青年向上流動途徑中斷。全球氣候變遷則對這些都市的未來增添極具挑戰的環境因素。

新發展主義模式下,都市的概念從「社會行動劇場」轉變成一片私有化功能的地景,透過大型土地開發,支持競逐全球投資的城際間強烈競賽。這些土地開發甚至到達整個城市規模,造出的新市鎮、智慧城市與環保城市抹去整片都市與自然地景。建造大規模住屋時,城市中的狹小街道、親密的街區群體生活,這些我們心之所向的城市肌理,卻被服務全球積累的大型商業計畫所取代。最極致的表現莫過於「U(ubiquitous)-town」,住宅蓋在擠滿連鎖商店與全球品牌的巨大商場樓上。我想指出,社會住宅與包容性的公共都市必須攜手共進。

過去十年中崛起了追求包容城市的新興運動。這些新興可能性的主要內容,首先是政府將權力下放給民選地方政府;其次「社會性選舉」到來,讓更多年輕選民進入選舉程序中。這些動力帶來朝向「公民民主」的「民主深化」承諾,亦即在都市空間與住居生產中,城市居民的積極參與。倘若實現,此一轉向代表著由對抗認同轉向計畫認同的根本改變,後者的發生是透過市民-地方政府合作與城市共同建造。此類由公民社會-地方政府採取行動的過程,將提升人民近用都市的權利,包含都市居住權。當地方政府由民主選舉產生,國家權力下放地方到達一個程度,選出有責信且進步的市政府時,將會產生新政策,充滿與世界其他城市共同學習獲得的創新行動。例如參與式預算,社會經濟,共享城市,社區貨幣,街區活化,促進街區活化的微型貸款,自助住居,開放式公共市集,新的公共空間,參與式藝術節慶,行人徒步區與完整街道,以及都市食物生產。在此政策脈絡下,住居同時將貢獻也受益於責信透明的地方治理程序所散發的社會活力。

制定社會住宅策略時,我們應當注意避免使用首都作為唯一的參照脈絡。

雖然東亞地區人口衰減,一段時間內,首都弱勢族群面對的問題仍將是「無殼蝸牛」(但同時也遭遇高空屋率)。然而國內其他地區的問題卻更可能是「無蝸牛的殼」,因此住居問題將不是建設新住宅,而是現有建物的更新與再利用。所有都市的住居策略,都必須考慮到家戶內的改變。老年人口,更多獨居人口,人口流失,以及代間生活機會變化等議題相互交錯,我們必須提供這些新舊不同形式的家戶更創意的住居方案,以應對不確定年代的亂流。共居、合作住宅、青銀公寓、結合「飢餓藝術家」與獨居銀髮族、食物菜園及其他重組住屋(家戶)與街區的創新作法開始因應需求而生。大量建造的住居無法回應這類需求;相反地,我們將寄希望於積極參與地方治理過程的公民社會,產生多面向、在地的解決途徑。



Housing Agenda in Inclusive Cities: The Experience from East Asia

Mike Douglass, University of Hawaii

The discussion begins by presenting a framework for housing in inclusive cities that is composed of 4 dimensions:  participatory governance, distributive justice, conviviality, and environmental health. For housing to be fully embedded in an inclusive city, the concept of housing needs to be defined as more than a house, or dwelling, to include serviced land, neighborhoods, lanes, common/public spaces, and connectivity to larger urban spaces of associational life and livelihoods.   It is more than a functional space; it also becomes integral for the conviviality of friendships and social identities, mutual help, and place-making beyond a dwelling. It also includes human relationships with the health of the natural environment. This conceptualization of housing allows for assessments of current as well as proposed modes of not only producing social and low-cost housing, but also of the city as a whole.   

Modes of producing housing in East Asia vary substantially.  Yet certain patterns can be observed. One is that for low-income households, self-provisioning laid the foundations of housing in most cities.  From the 1970s, mass production of housing began a pattern of construction through the destruction of pre-existing middle- and lower-income neighborhoods, typically with negative impacts on the environment.   In some cases, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, the state became the major housing provider. In others, large-scale private land and housing developers took central roles. Even in these cases, differences are striking.  In Japan the result has been individual houses and low-rise apartments/condominiums; in Korea high-rise flats have replaced houses to such an extent that Seoul has earned the epithet, “apartment city.”   

From the late 1980s three dynamics began to change modes of production and access to housing in East Asia. One is global neoliberalism, which began to transform “developmental states” into “neo-developmental states”, namely, from state command planning to a strong state engaged in public-corporate partnerships and privatization of public assets.  The second dynamic, which applies to South Korea and Taiwan (and Japan), is the rise of civil society leading to electoral democracies. The third dynamic is accelerated urban transitions, which began in the late 1960s and reached completion by 2000. Together these dynamics led to pressures on government from civil society organizations to provide social housing in booming cities.  Governments responded by turning to the corporate economy to provide housing under state regulations, including vouchers and subsidies for low cost housing. In most instances, these approaches coupled with the spatial polarization of population and national economies in very large cities, has boosted processes of gentrification through speculative housing investments as well. Social discontents about housing in cities were enmeshed in broader neo-developmental outcomes, namely, widening income inequalities, hollowing out of the middle class, precariatization of labor, welfare crises in aging populations, and curtailment of upward life trajectories for youth.   Global climate change adds a daunting environmental dimension to the prospect of cities.

In the neo-developmental mode, cities were also being transformed from the idea of the city as a “theater of social action” to a landscape of privatized functions in support of hyper-competition among cities for global investment through large-scale land development that has reached scales of entire cities in the form of new towns, smart cities and eco-cities that have erased entire urban and natural landscapes.   While mass housing has been produced, the city of small lanes, intimate neighborhoods of associational life – the tissue of the city of our heart’s desire – is replaced by corporate mega-projects serving global accumulation. The ultimate expression is “U(ubiquitous)-town” where housing is built atop mega-shopping malls with warrens of chain stores and global franchises. The point to be made is that social housing and the inclusive public city need to pursued hand-in-hand.  

Over the past decade, more promising movements toward inclusive cities have appeared.  The main elements of these newer possibilities are, first, devolution of state power to democratically elected local governments, and, second, the advent of “social elections” bringing greater participation of younger voters in electoral processes.  The promise of these dynamics is a “democratic consolidation” toward “civic democracy”, namely, the active participation of city residents in the production of urban space and housing. If fulfilled, such a turn represents a fundamental change from resistance identities to project identities through citizen-local government collaboration and co-production of the city.  Such a process of civil society-local state activation can advance the right to the city, including the right to dwell in the city. Where local governments are democratically elected, and devolution of state power to cities has also advanced to a point that accountable, progressive municipal governments are being elected, the results have been a new policy agenda with innovations learned with other cities around the world.   Participatory budgeting, social economy, sharing city, community currency, revitalizing neighborhoods, micro-credit for neighborhood revitalization, self-help housing, open public markets, new public spaces, participatory art festivals, no car streets and complete streets, and urban food production are examples. In such a policy context, housing both contributes to and benefits from the social energy of an accountable, transparent process of local governance.   

In composing strategies for social housing, care must be taken to avoid using the capital city as the only context.   As populations decline in East Asia, the plight of vulnerable people in the capital city might for some time still be characterized as “snails without shells” (but with high vacancy rates nonetheless). But the remainder of the country more likely will be one of “shells without snails”, and access to housing will not be a matter of building new housing but rather of renovating and repurposing existing buildings.   In all cities, housing strategies must also be cognizant of changes in the household. Aging populations, more people living alone, depopulation, and changing life chances between generations intersect in ways that call for innovations in housing to best provide for old and new forms of households in the turbulence of uncertain times. Co-living, share housing, inter-generational condos, matching “starving artists” with elder singletons, food gardens, and other innovations in reconstituting the house(hold) and the neighborhood are emerging in forms that speak to this need.  Mass produced housing will not be able to do so. Instead, hope must be given to on-the-ground, multi-faceted approaches that emerge from an active civil society engaged in local processes of governance.