騎樓爭占：都市治理與日常生活政治

Abstract

騎樓空間是都市治理者與騎樓使用者彼此競逐的場域：前者追求公共使用及經濟發展，後者則追求私人利益。本文透過「都市治理�治理性」與「日常生活政治」的理論概念掌握騎樓──治理政策生產的與經濟使用所建構的──兩套空間秩序。藉由經驗案例分析，本研究指出歷史脈絡與地區特性，不僅導致都市差異化治理，也形構各區域內占用者與治理者特殊的互動關係。 有別於台灣各地的發展，高雄市同時面臨產業經濟升級、縣市資源重新分配、新區域發展、舊區域更新等議題，故市府參照地方發展歷史，提出不同空間治理政策因應。本文根據「歷史發展次序」以及「行政資源多寡」兩個向度，選擇出鳳山區中山路、鹽埕區新樂街、左營區明誠二路等三段騎樓進行研究。 本文首先爬梳高雄市的騎樓治理政策以及地區的發展脈絡，鋪陳騎樓的發展歷史，藉以指出高雄空間治理的階段化轉變、行政資源導致治理手法差異，並透過都市治理�治理性的分析框架指出，當前治理政策「歷史化」、「美學化」與「商業化」三種差異與趨勢，並乘載「經濟為優先」價值取向。 接著透過民族誌觀察與訪談使用者，掌握這三個街區內部的社會互動、日常生活使用與其歷史發展脈絡的關係。由街市與傳統市場使用習慣發展，中山路建構出亂中有序的空間紋理；繁華一時的新樂街存在穩定的鄰里關係與同質的商業行號；明誠二路新建住宅大樓則呈現高度「自治法制化」的社會關係。社會關係不只建構騎樓樣貌的差異，同時也對干預騎樓的治理政策有所影響。 因此藉由日常生活政治的概念──透過使用者對治理者與政策干預，以及使用者內部社會關係的分析──進一步類型化三個街區騎樓使用的特色。「互相」、「禮貌」、「律法」三種類型呈現在不同的公共使用與私人利益關係下，騎樓使用不同的彈性與包容度。 最後，本文則從高雄都市治理的階段性轉變及治理價值意涵，與騎樓日常生活政治所產生以個人利益為考量的「庶民倫理」價值，呈現台灣騎樓公共空間性質，一方面於騎樓空間治理與占用的互動過程中，具彈性、包容地吸納「具特定資格的」使用者；而另一方面，卻又排除某些使用者進入競逐協商場域，顯示騎樓雖具有彈性或包容的特質，但都與私人利益相矛盾。我們必須承認，這些被排除者的實踐、殘留的時空占用痕跡早已銘刻在都市地景中，只是不被提及。

The aim of this paper is to examine the mutual relationship between governance and everyday politics of the arcade life in Kaohsiung City. Arcade is part of people’s dwelling; it is a special architect style often seen in Taiwan. Though the law protects the public use of the arcade, the space is appropriated by the owner of the dwelling. It presents the conflict between the public and the private. This paper explores how city government negotiates with the users of arcade when enforcing the policy, and how these users using the space of arcade as well as reacting with the policy. Based on three cases, it shows that there are three types of governance and everyday use/ politics. For urban government, the policy could focus on the history story, the life style, or the business profit, which develop as Historical governance, Aesthetic governance, and Business governance. With the help of the concept of Governmentality, this essay also examine the regime of governance (including the examination of fields of visibility of government, the technical aspect of government, the episteme of the government, and the formation of identities). This essay also provides the observation of and interview with daily users, trying to pointing out how people in Taiwan appropriate the space of arcade. The negotiation within themselves, and the reaction to the policy government enforced, it then creates the everyday politics, which may affect the government’s policy. There’s also three type of everyday politic in the arcade: the politeness, the regulation, and the mutual. However, this research in the ends points out that the cooperation of policy and the everyday politics actually leads to the privatizing of the place, and it turns out denying some people, such as vagrants and the bag people, to use the arcade.