當代中國都市棕地治理與空間轉化—以廣州為個案

Abstract

本研究將檢視中國都會區棕地(閒置且存在污染風險的工業用地)再開發與空間轉化過程中的地方政府行為與邏輯，以補充既有土地開發與都市化文獻的缺口。自1994 年分稅制以來，土地開發變為地方政府推動行政任務的主要財政來源。然而，隨著中央在 2006 年後公布了「十八億畝紅線」耕地保護指標，傳統上以徵用農地來滿足行政和財政需求的方式變得越來越不可行。當中，土地資源的緊縮，更使地方政府在開發社會住房與調整產業結構兩種行政任務時，普遍面臨一個由行政指標壓力、財政收支平衡，以及土地資源供應三個要素共同構成的「壓力結構」。因此，在新增建設用地取得困難的情況下，地方政府如何透過都市棕地的再開發來回應「壓力結構」? 又社會住房建設與產業結構調整的指標變化，如何影響地方政府的棕地再開發行為? 這些行為造成哪些負面後果? 為回答上述問題，本文以廣州─一個同時身陷住房問題嚴重、產業調整急迫且土地供應短缺等困境的國家中心城市為研究對象，並檢視了兩組（共四個）分別轉化為社會住房與金融新城的棕地再開發個案。結果指出：廣州的棕地再開發呈現了核心區文創與金融化，邊緣區社會住宅化的功能轉化空間差異。然而，2011年以後加大的社會住房與金融中心建設壓力，使廣州政府更急躁與粗糙地開發棕地，造成工業遺址文創設施的快拆快建與選擇性的棕地汙染整治等負面後果。甚至，廣州政府更在 2013 年開始大規模開發都市棕地以賺取龐大出讓金，並將社會住房建設的部分財政壓力交由市場解決。總結以上，本研究認為當前的中國都會區棕地再開發，是地方政府在「壓力結構」下的一種回應策略，同時也是高環境風險的新型土地財政。在「壓力結構」不變、棕地整治法規缺位，以及棕地開發成為趨勢等情況下，廣州個案說明了其他城市可能出現的棕地再開發行為與負面後果。

This article aims to examine the behaviors and logics presented by the local states in the process of redeveloping urban brownfields (lands with potential or confirmed contamination) in their territories. Land development and its related financial income had been the main sources to carry out the development missions assigned by the upper level government to local states since the tax system was altered since 1994. Yet this traditional way was no longer applicable easily as the arable land protection policy- “the 1.8 billion mu red line (十八億畝耕地紅線)” was issued in 2006. Moreover, the land shortages caused by the policy shift also induced a “stress structure” that featured with administrative inspections, public budget balance and land sources to most of local governments in terms of the development of (social) housings and the transformation of their local economic structures. Given the above context, it’s timely and necessary to examine how local states responses to the “stress structure” through redeveloping the urban brownfields in their territories as land expropriation becomes much difficult. More specifically, how the changes of the administrative inspections of (social) housing developments and economic structure transformation affected local states’ brownfield reusing strategies? And what kind of (negative) consequences were caused by such behaviors? By taking Guangzhou - a newly promoted state central city (國家中心城市) that hindered by severe housing problems, urgency in transforming its economic structure and under-supplied construction land sources - for studied case, I examined two sets (four sites in total) of brownfield redevelopment cases that associated with (social) housing developments and economy transformation in the metropolitan. The result indicated that a “spatial differentiation” brownfield transformation strategy, which tended to redevelop the high valued brownfields located in urban core into financial or commercial purposes, while the relatively peripheral and therefore low valued brownfields were reusing as social housing complexes, was adopted by Guangzhou government. Meanwhile, the process of brownfield redevelopment was also much hurried and rough since the more stressful administrative inspections after 2011, caused several negative consequences like the “hasty” construction and demolition of industrial cultural facilities and the “selective” brownfield decontaminations. Further, Guangzhou government also gained an astonishing number of land finance through decentralizing its financial responsibility in developing social housings to the market, and the massive and systematic redevelopment of urban constructed lands (included brownfields). To conclude, this article argued that the urban brownfields redevelopment behaviors indicated above were not only the strategies to response the “stress structure” by local states, but also a “high risk land finance (高風險的新型土地財政)” with extremely uncertain contamination and harms to human bodies. As long as the “stress structure”, the lack of brownfield regulations and the trend of reusing brownfields remained, the Guangzhou model embodied the brownfield redevelopment strategies and the negative consequences that other cities might perform.