:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:傳統街屋區整建後使用評估之研究─以台灣三峽與新加坡牛車水街屋之比較為例
作者:賴裕鵬
作者(外文):Yu-Peng Lai
校院名稱:雲林科技大學
系所名稱:設計學研究所博士班
指導教授:聶志高
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:牛車水使用後評估傳統街屋區三峽ChinatownSanxiaTraditional Shophouse DistrictPost-Renovation Evaluation
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:78
本研究旨在探討台灣三峽及新加坡牛車水街區及其街屋整建後的使用狀況與評價。針對兩街區中之街屋使用者及遊客進行非參與式觀察、實地測繪、訪談與問卷施測。分析其中商業發展的現況與評價,並探究街區景觀及其公眾設施的規劃與使用者感受,最後根據街屋室內環境及其使用者滿意度進行討論。獲致下列四點結論:
1.兩街區產權制度的不同導致保存政策及作法上的差異。台灣產權私有,三峽是以土地徵收執行街屋整建;而新加坡產權多為國有且有租約期限,是以土地徵收、標售街屋及民眾自行整建的方式修復牛車水街屋。另外,兩街區保存法規的規範,對於整建的設計及施工有一定之影響,皆對於街屋保存與街區景觀美化提出規範。
2.商業發展的評價差異:兩地街屋使用者皆認同整建後有助於街區商業的發展,而承租商家也願意持續營商,遊客亦願意再度觀光,但部分牛車水遊客不願意再度消費。產業制限後,兩地遊客仍認為店家選擇多樣化,僅部份使用者及遊客認同業種型態與街區文化互相契合。三峽道路與騎樓淨空後,使用者與遊客皆認同行走的便利性。相對於,牛車水允許攤販設置於道路與騎樓上,已有部份使用者認為影響生意,另部份使用者與遊客表示騎樓逛街不便。而貨物載卸不便皆對於兩地部份使用者造成困擾。
3.街道景觀與公眾設施的評價差異:兩地植栽綠化方式不同,但使用者及遊客皆提出具美感的評價。在夜間照明方面,兩地燈具投射於立面的方式皆深獲使用者喜愛並有正面的評價,但部份使用者認為三峽光源不夠。就廣告招牌而言,三峽使用者認同招牌統一設置的方式,卻不認可招牌的圖案設計及尺寸規模,而遊客卻認為辨識性充足。相對於牛車水招牌受到稅賦的影響,部份使用者認為無須組立更多招牌,但部份遊客卻認為招牌已破壞街屋立面的美觀。另一方面,三峽使用者及部份遊客認為垃圾桶、公共廁所與停車場等設置量皆不充足,而牛車水部份使用者及遊客也有相同的看法。
4.街屋整建後的評價差異:在恢復原貌的原則下,三峽街屋立面的修復皆得到使用者及遊客的肯定,同時也認可街區景觀較為統一。相較於牛車水而言,則並非全然同意,但對於富色彩變化的立面色調卻感到滿意。另外,就街屋室內的整建而言,三峽使用者除對於使用面積充足及需要安裝冷氣是持認可的態度外,其他感受皆呈現居中。此外,牛車水商家與辦公人員對於室內的評價感受不同,商家對於樓板平穩、樓梯便利、加裝室內窗、使用面積充足、需要安裝冷氣及衛生設備良好等議題呈現同意的感受,而辦公人員只在需要安裝冷氣、照明充足與衛生設備良好等題項是持正面的評價。
The objective of this study was to examine the street districts of Taiwan’s Sanxia District and Singapore''s Chinatown, as well as usage situations and evaluations following shophouse renovation. Non-participatory investigation, field mapping, interviews, and questionnaire surveys were administered to shophouse users and tourists in both street districts. Analysis was conducted of both districts’ business development status and evaluations. Street district scenery, public facility planning, and user perceptions were examined. Finally, discussions were conducted based on shophouse interior environments and user satisfaction. The four conclusions of this study are as follows:
1.The differences between both street districts’ property rights systems result in varying preservation policies and methods. Taiwan practices a private property rights system. The Sanxia District has performed shophouse renovation through land expropriation. Singapore’s property rights are primarily state-owned and have a lease term. Renovation on Singapore''s Chinatown shophouses has been conducted using methods such as land expropriation and sale of shophouse sites, as well as residents’ self-conducted renovations. In addition, the preservation law specifications of both street districts have influenced renovation designs and construction, providing specifications for shophouse preservation and street district landscape beautification.
2.Differences in business development evaluation: Shophouse users from both districts agree that renovation contributes to street district business development; renting businesspeople are willing to continue operating businesses, and tourists are willing to revisit the districts, although some Chinatown tourists expressed unwillingness to engage in future consumption. Following industry restriction, tourists in both districts continued to view shop selection as diverse, and only a small number of users and tourists considered industry types and the street district cultures to be in conformity. Users and tourists support and identify with the improvement in walking convenience following the clearing of the Sanxia District’s roadside and arcade. By contrast, some users of Singapore’s Chinatown claim that permitting stands to conduct business on roadsides and within arcades has affected business, and some users and tourists have complained about the inconvenience of shopping in the arcades. Inconvenience caused by cargo loading and unloading has troubled users in both districts.
3.Differences in street landscape and public facility evaluation: Taiwan’s Sanxia District and Singapore''s Chinatown have different green planting approaches, but users and tourists from both districts express evaluations regarding aesthetics. Regarding nighttime lighting, both districts’ methods of projecting lighting on the façades have gained favor and positive recognition or evaluation from users, but some users feel that the Sanxia District does not have a sufficient light source. Concerning advertisement signs, users from the Sanxia District agree with the uniform method of displaying and establishing advertisement signs, but do not identify with the graphic designs and sizes of the advertisement signs. However, tourists view the advertisement signs as exhibiting sufficient identifiability or discrimination. By contrast, the advertisement signs of Singapore’s Chinatown are influenced by taxes; some users believe that there is no need to establish more signs, but some tourists feel that advertisement signs have damaged the appearance of the shophouse façades. In addition, the Sanxia District’s users and a number of tourists believe that facilities such as garbage cans, public bathrooms, and parking lots are insufficient. Numerous users and tourists of Singapore’s Chinatown express the same view.
4.Differences in evaluation following shophouse renovation: Under the principle of recovering original appearances, the Sanxia District’s shophouse façade renovation has gained affirmation from users and tourists with the recognition that the street district landscape has become more unified. By contrast, those from Singapore’s Chinatown did not express the same consent, but felt satisfied by the rich and diverse colors of the façades. In addition, regarding interior renovation of shophouses, users of the Sanxia District expressed only a positive or accepting attitude about having sufficient usage area and the need for installing air conditioners, but exhibited a moderate attitude or perception regarding other opinions. The businesspeople and office staffs of Singapore’s Chinatown exhibit a disparity in opinions concerning interior evaluation perceptions. Business operators expressed agreement on issues such as smooth and even floors, convenient stairs, installing indoor windows, sufficient usage area, the need to install air-conditioning, and excellent sanitation facilities, whereas office staff expressed only positive evaluation regarding items such as the need to install air-conditioning, sufficient lighting, and excellent sanitation facilities.
英文文獻
1.HDB (2009). HDB Annual Report 2008/2009. HDB.
2.J. Henderson (2000). Case Study Attracting Tourists to Singapore''s Chinatown: A Case Study in Conservation and Promotion. Tourism Management, No.21, pp.525~534.
3.Jieming Zhu, Loo-Lee Sim & Xuan Liu (2007). Place Remaking Under Property Rights Regimes: A Case Study of Niucheshui. Environment and Planning, Vol.39, pp.2346 ~ 2365.
4.John Zeisil(1996)。研究與設計─環境行為研究的工具(關華山譯)。田園城市文化。
5.Sim Loo Lee (1996). Urban Conservation Policy and the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage. Cities, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 399~409.
6.URA (1974/1975). URA Annual Report. URA.
7.URA (1987). Restoring Yesterday’s Plendour. Skyline, Vol.28/87.
8.URA (1988a). Remember 1988. Skyline, Vol.37/88.
9.URA (1988b). Be A Part of History- Invest in Tanjong Pagar and Chinatown. Skyline, Vol.38/88.
10.URA (1989a). Kreta Ayer Recalls Its Past. Skyline, Vol.1/89.
11.URA (1989b). Procedures for Conservation Works. Skyline, Vol.41/89.
12.URA (1990). Phasing Out Rent Control. Skyline, Vol.7/90.
13.URA (1991a). URA’s Conservation Approach. Skyline, Vol.12/91.
14.URA (1991b). Save Our Heritage-“Conservation Initiated By Private Owners” Scheme. Skyline, Vol.14.
15.URA (1991c). A Future with A Past: Saving Our Heritage. URA.
16.URA(1993).Working to Conserve the URA’s Role as Singapore’s Conservation Authority. Skyline, Vol.21.
17.URA (1995a). Conservation Guidelines. URA.
18.URA (1995b). Chinatown Historic District. URA.
19.URA (1995c). Conservation Sites at Pagoda Street. URA
20.URA (1997a). URA Brings Back Street Bazaars to Chinatown. Skyline.
21.URA (1997b). Transforming an Ordinary Backlane into a Landscape Walkway. Skyline.
22.URA (1997c). Conservation Guidelines Technical Supplment-The Roofs. URA.
23.URA (1997d). Conservation Guidelines Technical Supplement-The Timber Floor and Staircases. URA.
24.URA (1997e). Conservation Guidelines Technical Supplement-The Party Walls. URA.
25.URA (2001). A More Pleasant Telok Ayer. Skyline. URA
26.URA (2006). Conservation Guidelines. URA.
27.URA (2009). No. 9 Neil Rd. Manual. URA.
28.Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1983). 「建築物用後評估」簡介(李婉婉譯)。建築師雜誌,第8期,pp. 32~38。
29.Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E., (1980). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior, Vol.12, No.4, pp.429~450.

中文文獻
1.王俊凱(2011)。新加坡牛車水「店屋」空間變遷之研究。雲林科技大學碩士論文。
2.台北縣政府(1990)。變更三峽都市計畫(第一期公共設施專案通盤檢討)。台北縣政府。
3.台北縣政府(2000)。變更三峽都市計劃(三角湧老街再發展方案)。台北縣政府。
4.台北縣城鄉發展局(2006)。臺北縣三峽三角湧老街傳統建築風貌保存原樣復舊及景觀道路改善工程:工程報告簡報。未出版。
5.李乾朗(1985)。台灣傳統騎樓空間之特質與類型。建築師,pp.60~62。
6.李乾朗(2003)。台灣古建築圖解事典。遠流事業股份有限公司出版。
7.狄瑞德、華昌琳(1971)。台灣傳統建築之勘查。東海住宅與都市研究中心。
8.林會承(1995)。台灣傳統建築手冊-形式與作法篇。藝術家出版社印行。
9.林會承(1989)。大溪、三峽、老湖口老街街屋立面調查與研究。行政院文化建設委員會。
10.林沖(2000)。騎樓型街屋的發展與型態的研究。華南理工大學建築學院博士論文。
11.林琳(2002)。廣東地域建築-騎樓的空間差異研究。中山大學博士論文。
12.倪漢忠(1995)。鹿港傳統街屋的型態構成。私立東海大學碩士論文。
13.徐裕健建築師事務所(2002a)。台北縣三峽三角湧老街傳統建築風貌保存、原樣復舊及景觀道路改善工程竣工圖(道路景觀)。未出版。
14.徐裕健建築師事務所(2002b)。台北縣三峽三角湧老街傳統建築風貌保存、原樣復舊及景觀道路改善工程竣工圖(街屋第一進修繕)。未出版。
15.夏鑄九(1972)。台北的老商店簡述。境與象出版社。
16.陳格理(1992)。現階段建築用後評估研究工作的檢討。建成環境用後評估研究之理論與應用研討會論文集,pp.91~95。
17.陳殿禮(2004)。台灣九二一震災重建國小單班普通教室空間規畫與使用評估之研究。國立雲林科技大學博士論文。new window
18.張珩、邢志航(2004)。住宅特性與居住機能滿意程度關聯之研究-以公寓大廈式集合住宅為例。建築學報,第47期,pp.89~106。new window
19.葉昌雯(2010)。新加坡店屋建築立面形式之研究-以牛車水區、小印度區及甘榜格南區為例。雲林科技大學碩士論文。
20.黃世孟(1990)。論用後評估與建築設計之規劃研究。賀陳詞教授七秩壽慶論文集,pp.363~376。
21.黃羅財(1983)。台灣傳統長形連棟式店舖住宅之研究。東海大學碩士論文。
22.管倖生等(2006)。設計研究方法。全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
23.漢寶德(1978)。鹿港古風貌之研究。境與象出版社。
24.劉鵬(2008)。新加坡集合住宅研究。天津大學碩士論文。
25.關華山(1979)。台灣傳統街屋二題。建築師,pp.17~26。
26.簡志維(2006)。民間參與歷史建築保存之可行性分析-以三峽老街為例。國立交通大學工學院專班營建技術與管理組碩士論文。


日文文獻
1.田中一二(1931)。台北市史(一)。成文出版有限公司。1986年3月台一版。
2.宇高雄志、Malone-Lee Lai Choo(2002)。シンガポールの歴史的市街地の保存における保存ガイドラインの運用実態。日本建築學会計画系論文集,第556號,pp.257~264。
3.泉田英雄(1990)。シンガポール都市計画とツョップハウス─東南アジアの植民都市とその建築樣式の研究 その1。日本建築學会計画系論文集,第413號,pp.161~172。
4.泉田英雄、黃俊銘(1994)。屋根付テラスと連続步廊の街並み景觀にっいて-東南ァジァの植民地都市とその建築樣式に関る研究 その2。日本建築学會大會学術講演梗概集,第458號,pp.145~153。
5.陳聡、金俊豪與藤本信義(2007)。騎楼街区における居住者の属性および居住環境に対する評価について─中国広州市の騎楼街区における居住環境に関する その2。日本建築學会計画系論文集,第617號,pp.17~23。
6.張漢賢、東樋口護與橋本清勇(2001)。シンガポールにおける歴史的ショップハウス市街地の「政府主導・民間提案型」都市保存の制度。日本建築学会計画系論文集,No.542,pp.191~197。
7.黃俊銘(1990)。東南アジア及び日本における華人町の形成史に関する研究。東京大學博士論文。

相關網站
1.URA Master Plan 2008網站:
http://www.ura.gov.sg/uramaps/。(瀏覽日期:2011/5月)
2.新加坡國家檔案局網站:
http://www.a2o.com.sg/a2o/public/html/index.html。(瀏覽日期:2011/5月)
3.2004年URA公告網站(Circulars 2004):
http://www.ura.gov.sg/circulars/text/dc04-37.htm。(瀏覽日期:2011/5月)
4.都市重建局土地銷售網站(Land Sales Information):http://www.ura.gov.sg/sales/sales_main.html。(瀏覽日期:2011/10月)
5.立面修復方針購買網站(Purchase Specific Facade Restoration Guidelines):http://spring.ura.gov.sg/cudd/facade/overview.cfm。(瀏覽日期:2011/6月)
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top