社會住宅的社區營造與青創計畫：興隆Ｄ2社宅的社會支持分析

Abstract

社會住宅作為政府新建的公營住宅，除要滿足弱勢居民的居住需求，亦期表現當代社會住宅可能的居住與生活模式。不同時期的公宅政策，除了透過實體居住服務來滿足社會支持的需求，亦考量居民的主體、社會融合等多元的需求，將這些支持內容納入社宅規劃與制度當中。因此，台北市當今的社會住宅，除提供居住空間外，亦強調居民的培力，社區事務的參與，創造多元融合的都市生活型態。此種上位的政策思維，正反應居住空間所欲提供的社會支持、生活培力的想法，以社區營造的機制落實於規劃設計。 社會住宅的社區營造，作為社宅推動經營的重要一環，初期作為與周邊社區溝通的橋樑，後期作為社宅內的互動平台。公營的社會住宅在社會福利的背景下，在社宅「社區」，透過一系列具社會性的設計，從居民組成，建築量體、內部公共空間的規劃配置，回應混居的設計。有意的建置社區營造的制度與機制，並以青創計畫、居民代表等計畫與組織，滾動社區居民互動、營造社會新關係。 社宅社區由上而下的社區營造設計，對於居民日常生活的互動，乃為符合公營福利設施、管理便利的居住規定與限制。然在開放與限制之間，有機的透過青創計畫的互動基礎、公共空間中非正式的交流。於居民、物業管理單位、都發局、青創輔導單位等不同利害關係者之間，從日常生活互動中實踐了社宅的社會支持功能。 本研究以文山區興隆D2社會住宅為例，探討混居設計下，居民組成、空間規劃、社區營造等社會設計的機制，在不同居民互動交織的過程中，社區營造與居民社區生活所需的社會支持，如何在居民移居進社宅後，在社宅社區支持其生活所需。由上而下的社會住宅與由下而上的社區營造，實踐社宅社區生活的支持功能。提供都市高樓層集合住宅社區營造的示範。 本研究的經驗分析，有助於檢視政府設計的社宅空間、管理制度、社造機制，在混居社宅中所實踐的社會支持內容，填補以往研究對於安康原住戶移居興隆社宅後，混居生活的居住感受與支持網絡。本研究發現：(一)空間設計上，高強度管理的安心社區氛圍，及時、低門檻的線上網絡平台，較易促發居民互動。(二)青創計畫的部分，實驗性的彈性機制，有助於回應變動、流動的社區現況。(三)社會支持的部分，歸納不同性別、年齡、社經背景影響居民取得社會支持的來源與內容。建議：(一)在流動的利害關係者的條件下，透過建立活動執行、溝通的標準流程，讓後續青創辦理活動有跡可循。(二)基於居民獲取社會支持的習慣，建議以社宅為中心去串連既有服務資源，透過青創戶、社宅的社福單位作為資源仲介者，搭建合作管道，豐富居民的互動網絡。

Social housing, as government-built public housing, not only meets the residential needs of vulnerable residents but also aims to reflect contemporary social living patterns. Different periods of public housing policies consider diverse needs beyond basic housing support, including residents' agency and social integration. These supporting functions are incorporated into the planning and design of social housing and are implemented through institutional arrangements. Therefore, social housing in Taipei City emphasizes not only providing housing functions but also empowering residents and encouraging their participation in community affairs to create a diverse and integrated urban lifestyle. The top-down policy approach integrates the ideas of residential functions and life empowerment into community-building mechanisms and planning. Community development is a crucial aspect of promoting social housing. It serves as a bridge for communication with the surrounding communities during the initial stages and becomes a platform for interaction within the social housing community in later stages. Publicly owned social housing, within the context of social welfare, utilizes a range of socially oriented designs at the community level. This includes considerations of the composition of residents, architectural layout, and internal public spaces, all aimed at facilitating cohabitation. Deliberate community development institutions and mechanisms are established, such as youth entrepreneurship projects and resident representatives, to promote interactions among community residents and foster new social relationships. Within the top-down community development framework, interactions among residents in their daily lives align with public welfare facilities and management regulations, effectively striking a balance between openness and restrictions. The mechanism incorporates informal interactions through youth entrepreneurship projects in public spaces. This way, social housing functions are realized through interactions among residents, property management units, urban development authorities, and youth guidance units. This study takes the Xinglong D2 social housing in the Wenshan District as a case study to explore the mechanisms of community development and social design under a mixed-housing context. It examines how community development and social support meet the needs of residents after their relocation to social housing, focusing on interactions among residents with diverse backgrounds. The study combines top-down social housing and bottom-up community development to implement supportive functions for social housing communities, offering a demonstration of community development for high-rise urban housing complexes. Based on experiential research, the study finds that (1) in terms of spatial design, a secure community atmosphere with high-intensity management and user-friendly online platforms can better facilitate resident interactions. (2) The flexible mechanism of youth entrepreneurship projects helps respond to dynamic and changing community conditions. (3) Social support varies based on residents' gender, age, and socio-economic backgrounds. Recommendations include (1) establishing standardized processes for activity execution and communication among mobile stakeholders to facilitate subsequent youth entrepreneurship activities, and (2) centralizing social housing as a resource hub for linking existing service resources. This can be achieved through youth entrepreneurship households and social welfare units in social housing, which act as intermediaries to create collaborative channels and enrich residents' interactive networks.