見端知末－－〈都市更新條例〉名稱論辯之歷史考察

A Historical Study on the Title Debate of the Urban Renewal Act

文本及語言是論述的形式，用於社會意涵的創造與重製，我國的〈都市更新條例〉，自1982年內政部營建署開始研擬草案、到1998.11.11公告施行，都採用了「都市更新」一詞，更以“urban renewal”做為英譯名稱，與美國1940s～1960s所採用的名稱與定義一致，立法時期曾引起學界強烈的反對，認為這種過於強調實體空間改造、以拆除重建為核心的觀念是過時而且具高度爭議的。制訂法令時，不僅未參採當時與永續城鄉發展結合的都市再生（urban renaissance）觀念，更逸脫美、歐國家謹守的都市計畫格局，向個別街廓內建築改建的操作傾斜。研究發現，政府行動的目標並不是都市發展，也非產業政策，而是包裝在都市地區居住環境提升的民生課題下，扭曲了「適足居住權」來為政策買票的進行所編制出來的不動產業振興戰略。或許政府不是不知道“urban renewal”的意涵，而是想做的就是1940s～1950s的美國推土機式更新。

Text and language are approached as forms of discourse that help to create and reproduce social meaning. Consisted with the US's term and definition during the 1940s~1950s', ''urban renewal'' had adopted as an official term since the initiation of the draft by The Construction and Planning Agency in 1982 to its enactment of ‘Urban Renewal Act' in 1998. During the legislation, the term aroused strong opposition from the academic community, believing that such an idea that overly emphasis on physical reforming, taking reconstruction as the main approach is outdated and highly controversial. When drafting the regulations, Taiwan Government not only neglected the concept of ''urban renaissance'' which has integrated advanced sustainable city, but also lean upon the practice of specific block rebuild and deviated from the urban planning approach which strictly complied by the US and UK. This study reveals that the goal of government action is not for urban re-development nor an industrial revitalization policy. It's nothing but a vote-buying tactic for the presidential election which distorted the ''right to adequate housing'' and disguised with the appearance of livelihood improving. The truth might not be the government didn't unaware of the extreme negative meaning of ''urban renewal'', perhaps the very want of the government is the bulldozer renewal as the US did in the 1940s~1950s.