社會住宅中的公共性:以臺北市社會住宅之公共空間為例（2011-2022）

Abstract

居住是人類生存最基本的需求，住宅的公共空間則反映了規劃過程中的社會關係，因此成為建築設計中值得研究的課題。本研究選取臺北市自2011年到2022年興建完工的社會住宅，包括大龍峒、興隆D1、建康、青年一期、興隆D2、明倫、廣慈D區六處社會住宅案例中，對其公共空間與公共設施的設計，包括社會福利、廣場等多元的使用類型，以及混合居住概念，了解社會住宅的公共空間，其公共性的形成過程與意義。 本研究透過國外公共性的理論研究，以「所有權」、「參與」、「物理空間」以及「包容性」，分析臺北市社會住宅公共空間所具備之公共性，主要分為四點。第一是臺北市政府作為社會住宅的所有權者，但公共空間的類型與使用，是在多場公聽會的衝突以及民間住宅團體的雙向溝通過程中而產生，空間中的公共性是受到多重利益關係者影響而變動的。第二是居民在日常使用過程中，在與現有的物業管理之間的衝突、協商與合作之下，產生的合作夥伴模式。第三在物理空間中的可及性與多樣性，提供居民在同場域轉換之間的偶遇以及意外性，促使了社會混合的發生與可能，並且在社會住宅場域中，青創活動、公共藝術行動等社區活動重塑了公共空間的性質，促使了社會混合的發生。第四為社福空間與社會住宅的結合，滿足了不同群體之間對於公共空間的需求，使內部的居民能夠與外部的社區產生異質交流（Heterogeneous Interactions）的可能，並促成空間的包容性。 透過研究發現，在四項公共性因素之中，「公營住宅」時期所規劃之社會住宅公共性程度低且公共空間定位不清。到了「公共住宅」時期，社福空間以及社區營造之概念進入社會住宅場域，一方面透過青創計畫的社區活動，重新塑造空間中的公共性；另一方面透過社福設施促成空間中的包容性，並產生異質交流。然而臺北市社會住宅由於自償性以及安全管制之因素，侷限了社會住宅公共性之發展。本研究認為自償率不應與社會住宅公共空間中所應具備的價值劃上等號，社會住宅具備階級融合以及都市再生的能力。同時社會住宅空間構成是社會過程中的產物，空間中由下而上的公共治理模式，如青創計畫、公共藝術、住戶代表委員會等皆影響公共性的形成過程與意義。

Housing is one of the basic requirements for human survival, and public spaces of housing reflect the social relation in the planning process, so it has become worthy of study in architectural design. This thesis selects the social housing, which was completed from 2011 to 2022 in Taipei City, including Dalongdong, Xinglong D1, Jiankang, Qingnian, Xinglong D2, Minglun, and Guangci, then focuses on the design of public spaces and facilities, including social welfare, Courtyard, and other function in social housing, as well as the concept of mixed living, to understand the formation process and meaning of publicness in social housing. This thesis analyzes the publicness of public space within social housing in Taipei City through ownership, participation, physical configuration and inclusiveness. It is mainly divided into four points. First, Taipei City Government is the owner of the social housing, but public spaces within social housing are generated by the conflict in public hearings and communication with the social housing consortium. Second, there is a partnership arises from the conflict between the property management and residents in the daily use of public space. Thirdly, the accessibility and diversity of physical configuration provide interpersonal interaction in space with unpredictability, and through the community activity to promote social mix in public space. Finally, the combination of social welfare services and social housing creates heterogeneous interactions between residents and neighbors. Through the thesis, it is found that among the four factors of publicness, the early social housing planning was low publicness and the definition of public space was unclear. But after the community activity with youth innovation planning and social welfare in social housing makes heterogeneous interactions between different social classes, the publicness was reshaped in social housing. This thesis believes that social housing can mix different social classes and prompt urban renewal. The space in social housing is made by social processes. Therefore, bottom-up public governance can create publicness in social housing.