台、美歷史保存的發展與比較

The Courses and Comparison between Taiwan and the United States in Historic Preservation

1949年是個重要的分界。是年政府遷台，未遑進行戰後台灣的歷史保存，而美國已進入歷史保存的第三階段，以社區導向，強調在地化與多元化的“文化保存''，經營其古蹟事業。直到1998年，在全球化的浪潮影響下，台灣的文化政策轉向社區，意味著我們以近50年的時間，終於追趕上美國185年的歷程。但是這種幾近“大躍進''的方式，缺乏了時間以及經驗的累積，以至於產生了貌似先進，但本質仍未全然轉變的結果。

In 1949, while the United States began the third phase of the preservation movement built on elements of the Community and Culture Preservation, Taiwan dealt with its post-war preservation policy. Up to 1998, with the influence of globalization, Taiwan’s preservation efforts turned to concentrate on the community. However, the results were poor. In 2009, Taiwan’s government stopped the Reuse Policy of transforming historical buildings into museums or art centers because afterwards they could barely survive. There were differences between Taiwan and the United States in historic preservation: (1) Inner Philosophy: Historicism (Taiwan) vs. Pragmatism (the U.S.); (2) Agency in Charge: Council for Cultural Affairs (Taiwan) vs. the National Park Service (Lead Federal Agency); the National Trust (to unite the public and private efforts); State Historic Preservation Officers (responsible for the National Register of Historic Places); the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (an independent federal agency, to mitigate adverse effects of federal actions); (3) Policy Principles: using imprisonment and high fines to limit private property rights (Taiwan) vs. deducting revenue tax to compensate the historic buildings’owners (the U.S.); (4) Reuse: overemphasizing and restricting (Taiwan) vs. maintaining for habitation and business (the U.S.).