城市在漂綠 ─從台北好好看系列二政策看當代都市自然的社會建構

Abstract

在自然的都市化歷程中，自然的存在型態與價值常依都市發展現況與社會需求而定。台北市在籌辦2010台北國際花卉博覽會期間，提出「台北好好看」都市景觀改造計畫的配套政策；該計畫的系列二以提供容積獎勵為誘因，交換暫時存在都市內部的綠地空間。在都市內部公園綠地長期不足、都市更新與都市再生為當代都市發展重要議題的脈絡下，此種在城市中蔓延的綠色地景，引發各界關注都市內部生產綠意與綠地一事的討論。 一直以來，「綠美化」就常被當作是都市環境治理的重要手段，但本研究的分析發現，其已經成為台北市推動都市再生與塑造都市綠色形象的一個重要機制。「台北好好看」系列二所推動的綠美化，挪用自然在景觀面向的美學姿態，並謬誤連結了與生態相關的效益，使其肩負起都市行銷的政策目的。又因建物存記與容積獎勵的政策機制，造成「綠」的生產與存在空間被納入都市更新的議程，自然的意涵被強化為自然房地產脈絡的內容，自然在當代都市的交換價值也有了具體價格。第三部門一方面反彈「是否要妥協於此種暫時性、移動式的自然」以及使用容積獎勵作為生產自然的機制，另一方面則是藉由此種都市中釋放出來施作「綠」的空間，結合社區營造，試圖重建人與土地的關係。 當代都市發展中對「綠」的需求與難得，反映出「綠」在都市開發的大纛下，向資本邏輯運作社會爭奪空間的困境。各方行動者在本案例中爭奪「綠」的代言權與使用權時，「綠」以暫時性、移動式、鄰里尺度的概念，結合土地開發利益，以及正在萌芽的社區營造式的「綠」，帶動了都市實質空間發展；「綠」亦受都市實質空間的發展，而被建構出自然在當代都市的意涵，進一步形塑為服膺於都市行銷與都市更新目的的價值。都市內部的「綠」與城市發展兩者之間交互影響，「綠」在其中常被作為發展過程的名目與外衣，造成當代都市發展的漂綠色彩。

In the process of urbanization of nature, the existing types and value of nature are often determined by the development status and social requirements of cities. For the coming of 2010 Taipei International Flora Exposition, the Taipei City Government had promulgated policies to support the urban landscape renovation project - ‘Beautiful Taipei’ programs. The second program, named ‘Reducing the Dilapidated Buildings for Urban Environment Renewal,’ provides floor-to-area ratio (FAR) bonus as an incentive for temporary green open spaces in the city. The widespread urban green landscapes in this typology have drawn massive attention and provoked discussion over producing greening and open spaces inside city, especially in a context where urban renewal and urban regeneration have become crucial development issues for Taipei, a metropolis long lacking sufficient urban open spaces. ‘Greening as Beautification’ has always been regarded as an important method in environmental governance for a city. However, this study found that advocating urban renewal and creating a green urban image had already become an important mechanism for governing Taipei. The ‘greening as beautification’ strategy advocated by the second program of ‘Beautiful Taipei’ has manipulated nature’s aesthetic value in the landscape realm and been mis-related to ecological benefits – so as to convey the political purposes for urban marketing. Furthermore, policies such as building archive and FAR bonus had included the production of ‘green (spaces)’ in urban renewal agenda, imposing a real-estate identity on nature, and the exchange value of nature has been therefore tagged with an exact price. As for the third sector, it on the one hand debates over whether to compromise with such temporary, unrooted nature and to use FAR bonus as incentives for production of nature and, on the other hand, attempts by alternative producing strategies of green (spaces) to reestablish man-land relationships together with community building. The increased scarcity of and demand on ‘green (spaces)’ in contemporary urban development have revealed the contested green space under the name of urban development in a capital-oriented society. While different actors contesting over interpretation and appropriation of green, they stimulate the development of urban physical environment by either temporality, mobility, community scale, incorporating profitable land developments, or the rudimentary ‘green’ community building. Being influenced by this development in the urbanized nature, ‘green’ also gains significance and is further shaped to satisfy purposes of urban marketing and urban renewal. Consequently, in the name of greening, the actors involved in urban governance have camouflaged and facilitated the actual urban development and resulted in the issues of greenwashing.