「老房子文化運動計畫」與仕紳化之研究以榕錦時光生活園區為例

A Study of Heritagization and Urban Regeneration: Rongjin Park as an Example

本文以臺北市政府文化局「老房子文化運動計畫」之「榕錦時光生活園區」為例，探討企業型城市的發展策略與仕紳化之間的關係。首先，面對全球化與後工業化帶來的挑戰，許多城市依循新自由主義與都市企業主義的思維，積極推動都市再生與文化資產活化，重整城市產業結構，再造城市品牌，以提升城市競爭力，卻往往造成空間不均衡發展與社會不平等惡化的問題。其次，臺灣研究仕紳化與文資保存政策不在少數，但研究襲產化（heritagization）與仕紳化之論著並不多見。
有鑑於此，本文提出問題意識，以文獻檔案回顧與次級資料分析之研究法，勾勒大安區及中正區高學歷居民比例、低收入戶比例等統計數據，並依據「臺北地政找房+」與房仲網站之房價資料，建立住宅大樓房價資料庫，據以分析園區周邊人口特徵之樣態與變化，檢視西方仕紳化供給面與需求面理論之描述力與解釋力。
主要研究發現有三：其一，「華光社區」的迫遷可謂直接的社會取代，社宅的規劃興建並未根本解決此區仕紳化之問題。其二，榕錦園區的發展與周遭地區社會空間之轉變，包括某些里博碩士高學歷人口比例的增加、低收入戶數比例變動不大、豪宅數量與比例增加造成的城市地景的重構，反映出某種程度的間接社會取代。其三，西方之仕紳化理論對本案例之描述力、解釋力有限，這顯示在地脈絡的重要性與國家機關的關鍵角色。最後，本文說明研究限制與未來可能的研究方向。

This paper focuses on the“Rongjin Gorgeous Times,”a project under the Taipei City Government Department of Cultural Affairs’“Old House Cultural Movement Project,”to explore the relationship between entrepreneurial urban development strategies and gentrification. Facing the challenges of globalization and post-industrialization, many cities—shaped by Neoliberalism and urban entrepreneurialism—actively promote urban regeneration and cultural heritage revitalization, restructure industrial patterns, and rebrand themselves to enhance competitiveness. However, these efforts often result in spatially uneven development and the deepening of social class inequalities. While there is abundant research on gentrification and cultural heritage policies, studies specifically addressing the relationship between heritagization and gentrification remain relatively scarce.
Therefore, this paper formulates research questions, conducts a literature review and secondary data analysis, and examines the explanatory power of supply-side and demand-side gentrification theories.
The findings suggest that: (1) there was direct social displacement when the“Huaguang Community”was demolished by the government; (2) there may have been indirect social displacement, as indicated by signs of socio-demographic“upgrading”and a high proportion of luxury buildings; (3) Western gentrification theories offer limited descriptive and explanatory power in this case; and (4) local contexts and the role of state institutions are crucial. Finally, the paper discusses research limitations and potential directions for future study.