题名

原址本真性或襲產基礎設施化？臺北市道路建設與歷史保存爭議辨析

并列篇名

Original-Site Authenticity or Heritage Infrastructuring? Case Studies of Road Construction and Historic Preservation Controversies in Taipei

DOI

10.6234/JGR.202011_(72).0005

作者

王志弘(Chih-hung Wang)

关键词

都市治理 ； 拼裝體 ； 都市論 ； 物質性 ； 公民參與 ； urban governance ； assemblage ； urbanism ； materiality ； citizen participation

期刊名称

地理研究

卷期/出版年月

72期（2020 / 11 / 01）

页次

103 - 137

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本文從基礎設施部署的視角，檢視歷史保存與道路建設的爭議。作者將歷史保存視為體現不同都市意義及發展策略的另類基礎設施化，反思強調原址與歷史本真性之保存策略的侷限，藉此開展基礎設施政治的視野。作者討論臺北市林安泰古厝、迪化街、新北投車站及三井倉庫等，涉及道路闢建與原址保存爭議的案例，主張它們體現了都市治理從以開路為發展先鋒，到納入歷史作為空間調節機制的策略轉變。但是，歷史文化通常還是扮演配角，易地重組式的標本化保存往往是官方底線。保存陣營強調歷史記憶應錨定於原址、原建築形制及原材料之物質性，卻難以跟道路基礎設施化的僵固性抗衡。作者主張，保存政治或可跨出對於原址的執守，著眼於文化的參與式基礎設施部署，令文化成為生活支持網絡的關鍵環節，並藉此追尋替代性的都市意義。
英文摘要

This paper examines the controversies between historic preservation and road construction through the perspective of infrastructure deployment. Iregard historic preservation as the embodiment of variegated urban meanings and developmental strategies in terms of their alternative infrastructuralization. The preservation strategies which prioritize the original site and historic authenticity are limited in the face of road construction, and a vision of infrastructural politics is needed. Through the discussion of four cases, including Lin An Tai Historical House, Dihua Street, the New Beitou Station, and the Mitsui Bussan Warehouse, the paper shows how they epitomize the strategic shift of the urban governance of Taipei that first forwarded development through road expansion but later incorporated historicity as a mechanism of spatial regulation. Still, history and culture often only play a minor part in urban governance. As the authorities would not sacrifice road developments for preservation, they usually propose relocation and re-assemblage of the historic buildings as the preservation bottom line. Activists advocating for preservation however insist that historicity should be anchored at the original site, and be renovated in the same form as the original ones and with the same materials, a proposition that finds it weak to resist the infrastructuralized obduracy of the road. It is therefore argued that preservation politics should not insist on preserving cultural heritage on the original site, but may take the deployment of the participatory infrastructure of culture into account. This is for culture to enter the supporting network for everyday life and become the key moment, from which we might expect to seek the alternatives of urban meanings.
主题分类 人文學 > 地理及區域研究
参考文献
  1. 王志弘, C.H.(2005)。地方意象、地域意義與再現體制：1990 年代以降的文山地區。台灣社會研究季刊，58，135-188。
    連結：
  2. 王志弘, C.H.(2003)。台北市文化治理的性質與轉變，1967-2002。台灣社會研究季刊，52，121-186。
    連結：
  3. 王志弘, C.H.(2010)。都市社會運動的顯性文化轉向？1990年代迄今的台北經驗。建築與城鄉研究學報，16，39-64。
    連結：
  4. 王志弘, C.H.(2012)。新文化治理體制與國家—社會關係：剝皮寮的襲產化。人文社會學報，13，1-26。
    連結：
  5. 王志弘, C.H.(2015)。拼裝都市論與都市政治經濟學之辯。地理研究，62，109-122。
    連結：
  6. 王志弘, C.H.(2019)。道路建設的視線權力、空間修補與僵固性：臺北市中華路一段的社會物質性。人文社會學報，19，51-92。
    連結：
  7. 王志弘, C.H.,黃若慈, J.T.(2019)。基礎設施化的國家建造：台灣經建計劃體制的形成與轉變。國家發展研究，19(1)，145-188。
    連結：
  8. 吳光庭, K.T.(2012)。都市文化遺產保存與地區再生的對話—以臺北市迪化街一段「127 公店」為例。博物館學季刊，26(1)，7-17。
    連結：
  9. 周志龍, T.L.,辛晚教, W.C.(2013)。都市文化與空間規劃芻議。都市與計劃，40(4)，305-323。
    連結：
  10. 周素卿, S.C.,吳幸玲, H.L.,江尚書, S.S.(2009)。後工業化臺北與新自由主義都市政治。中國地理學會會刊，43，15-32。
    連結：
  11. 林文一, W.I.(2015)。文化創意導向都市再生、「新」都市治理的實踐及缺憾：以迪化街區為例。都市與計劃，42(4)，423-454。
    連結：
  12. 林崇傑, C.J.(2008)。台灣運用容積移轉於歷史保存之政策與實踐之檢討。文資學報，4，27-92。
    連結：
  13. 夏鑄九, C.J.(2003)。在網絡社會裡對古蹟保存的新想像。城市與設計學報，13/14，51-83。
    連結：
  14. 殷寶寧, P.M.(2016)。創意街區、飲食文化與都市再生：臺北市大稻埕迪化街美食地景與文創轉向。文資學報，10，29-66。
    連結：
  15. 殷寶寧, P.M.(2019)。從藝術介入、創意市集到社區記憶再現－大稻埕都市再生的後博物館想像。博物館學季刊，33(2)，29-47。
    連結：
  16. 康旻杰, M.J.(2012)。「掠奪」資本主義城市中的都市保存。文化研究，15，230-241。
    連結：
  17. 顏亮一, L.Y.(2006)。市民認同、地區發展與都市保存：迪化街個案分析。都市與計劃，33(2)，93-109。
    連結：
  18. 顏亮一, L.Y.(2006)。國族認同的時空想像：台灣歷史保存概念之形成與轉化。規劃學報，33，91-106。
    連結：
  19. 聯合報（1969）：〈迪化街將拓寬〉，2 月 23 日，版 4。【United Daily News (1969). Dihua Street will be widened. February 23, p.4.】
  20. 聯合報（1972b）：〈迪化街百一餘戶要求暫緩拓寬〉，12 月 7 日，版 7。【United Daily News (1972a). Hundreds of households in Dihua Street requested postponement of widening. December 7, p.7.】
  21. 聯合報（1983b）：〈迪化街老來俏有人主張維護〉，11 月 12 日，版 6。【United Daily News (1983b). People advocated maintaining Dihua Street where becomes prettier as it gets old. November 12, p.6.】
  22. 聯合報（1988）：〈郭為藩走訪迪化街，對拓寬案持「保留」看法〉，8 月 3 日，版 8。【United Daily News (1988). Kuo Wei-Fan visits Dihua Street and holds ‘reservation’ attitude towards street widening issue. August 3, p. 8.】
  23. 聯合報（1983a）：〈重建林安泰古厝政府應速下決心，民生報邀請各界座談，與會者發出懇切呼籲〉，1 月 14 日，版 7。【United Daily News (1983a). The government should be determined quickly to rebuild Lin An Tai Historical House, all walks of life were invited by Min Sheng Bao for talks and participants made sincere appeals. January 14, p. 7.】
  24. 聯合報（1984）：〈大同建成延平三個舊市區工商人口結構呈衰落現象，如不及時整體規劃將難挽頹勢〉，7 月 30 日，版 7。【United Daily News (1984). The industrial and commercial population structure of the three old urban districts in Datong, Yanping and Jiancheng District is declining, it will be difficult to reverse the decline if the overall planning is not done in time. July 30, p. 7.】
  25. 聯合報（1975）：〈臺北市古蹟名勝已核定二十九處民局將分別建立牌示並負責維護保全現狀〉，4 月 9日，版 6。【United Daily News (1975). Taipei City has approved 29 places of historic interest, Department of Civil Affairs will establish signs and maintaining the status quo. April 9, p.6.】
  26. 聯合報（1977）：〈林安泰古厝定月底拆遷北門古城亦將遷建〉，9 月 9 日，版 3。【United Daily News (1977). The demolition of Lin An Tai Historical House was decided at the end of the month, and North Gate will also be relocated. September 9, p.3.】
  27. 聯合報（1972a）：〈迪化街路面決定拓寬〉，9 月 22 日，版 7。【United Daily News (1972b). Dihua Street was decided to widen. September 22, p.7.】
  28. Amin, A.,Thrift, N.(2002).Cities: Reimaging the Urban.Cambridge. UK:Polity Press.
  29. Barry, A.(2013).Material Politics: Disputes along the Pipeline.New York:John Wiley & Sons.
  30. Bidwell, D.(2009).Is Community-based participatory research postnormalscience?.Science, Technology &Human Values,34(6),741-761.
  31. Brenner, N.,Madden, D.J.,Wachsmuth, D.(2011).Assemblage urbanism and the challenges of critical urban theory.City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture Theory, Policy, Action,15(2),225-240.
  32. Campo, D.(2016).Historic preservation in an economic void: Reviving Buffalo’s Concrete Atlantis.Journal of Planning History,15(4),314-345.
  33. Carse, A.(2017).Keyword infrastructure: How a humble French engineering term shaped the modern world.Infrastructures and Social Complexity: A Companion,Abingdon, Oxon:
  34. Carse, A.(2012).Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal watershed.Social Studies of Science,42(4),539-563.
  35. Castells, M.(1983).The City and the Grassroots:A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements.Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
  36. Conrad, C.C.,Hilchey, K.G.(2011).A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities.Environ Monit Assess,176,273-291.
  37. De Landa, M.(2006).A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity.London:Continuum.
  38. Deleuze, G.,Guattari, F.,Massumi, B.(Trans.)(1987).A Thousand Plateaus.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
  39. Durant, D.(2011).Models of democracy in social studies of science.Social Studies of Science,41(5),691-714.
  40. Furlong, K.(2010).Small technologies, big change: Rethinking infrastructure through STS and geography.Progress in Human Geography,35(4),460-482.
  41. Gandy, M.(2005).Cyborg urbanization: Complexity and monstrosity in the contemporary city.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,29(1),26-49.
  42. Graham, S.(Ed.),McFarlane,C.(Ed.)(2015).Infrastructural Lives: Urban Infrastructure in Context.New York:Routledge.
  43. Guy, S.(Ed.),Marvin, S.(Ed.),Medd, W.(Ed.),Moss, T.(Ed.)(2011).Shaping Urban Infrastructures: Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-Technical Networks.London:Earthscan.
  44. Hackett, E.(Ed.),Amsterdamska, O.(Ed.),Lynch, M.(Ed.),Wajcman, J.(Ed.)(2008).The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
  45. Hamlett, P.W.(2003).Technology theory and deliberative democracy.Science, Technology & Human Values,28(1),112-140.
  46. Harvey, D.(1982).The Limits to Capital.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
  47. Harvey, D.(2008).The right to the city.New Left Review,53,23-40.
  48. Harvey, P.(Ed.),Jensen, C.B.(Ed.),Morita, A.(Ed.)(2017).Infrastructures and Social Complexity: A Companion,Abingdon, Oxon:
  49. Harvey, P.,Jensen, C.B.,Morita, A.(2017).Introduction: Infrastructural complications.Infrastructures and Social Complexity: A Companion,Abingdon, Oxon:
  50. Heynen, N.(Ed.),Kaika, M.(Ed.),Swyngedouw, E.(Ed.)(2006).In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism.London:Routledge.
  51. Jasanoff, S.(2004).Science and citizenship: a new synergy.Science and Public Policy,31(2),90-94.
  52. Larkin, B.(2013).The Politics and poetics of infrastructure.Annual Review of Anthropology,42,327-343.
  53. Lefebvre, H.(1996).Writings on Cities.Oxford:Blackwell.
  54. Lin, C.Y.,Hsing, W.C.(2009).Culture-led Urban Regeneration and Community Mobilisation: The Case of the Taipei Bao-an Temple Area, Taiwan.Urban Studies,46(7),1317-1342.
  55. Massey, D.(Ed.),Allen, J.(Ed.),Pile, S.(Ed.)(1999).City Worlds.London:Routledge.
  56. McFarlane, C.(2011).Assemblage and critical urbanism.City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action,15(2),204-224.
  57. McFarlane, C.(2011).The city as assemblage: Dwelling and urban space.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,29(4),649-671.
  58. McFarlane, C.(2009).Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements.Geoforum,40,561-567.
  59. McFarlane, C.(2011).On context: Assemblage, political economy and structure.City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action,15(3-4),375-388.
  60. Mitchell, T.(2002).Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity.Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
  61. Monstadt, J.(2009).Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: Insights from technology and urban studies.Environment and Planning A,41(8),1924-1942.
  62. Ottinger, G.(2010).Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science.Science, Technology, & Human Values,35(2),244-270.
  63. Reichl, A. J.(1997).Historic preservation and progrowth politics in U.S. Cities.Urban Affairs Review,32(4),513-535.
  64. Ryberg-Webster, S.,Kinahan, K.L.(2014).Historic preservation and urban revitalization in the twenty-first century.Journal of Planning Literature,29(2),119-139.
  65. Scott, A. J.,Storper, M.(2015).The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,39(1),1-15.
  66. Swyngedouw, E.(1996).The city as a hybrid: On nature, society and cyborg urbanization.Capitalism Nature Socialism,7(2),65-80.
  67. Ulldemolins, J.R.(2014).Culture and authenticity in urban regeneration processes: Place branding in central Barcelona.Urban Studies,51(14),3026-3045.
  68. von Schnitzler,A.(2008).Citizenship prepaid: water, calculability, and techno-politics in South Africa.Journal of Southern African Studies,34(4),899-917.
  69. 中央通訊社（2018）：〈三井倉庫外觀修復書店模擬文笙書局意象〉，March 13。http://www.cna.com.tw/news/acul/201803130278-1.aspx。（2018/5/3 瀏覽）。【Central News Agency (2018). Exterior rehabilitation of Mitsui Warehouse, and a memory bookstore for simulating the image of Wensheng Book Store. March 13. http://www.cna.com.tw/news/acul/201803130278-1.aspx. (accessed 2018/5/3).】
  70. 王世安, S.A.(2016)。臺北市=Taipei，國立臺灣大學法律系=College of Law, National Taiwan University。
  71. 王巧瑩, C.Y.(2006)。桃園市=Taoyuan，中原大學建築學系=Department of Architecture, Chung Yuan Christian University。
  72. 王志弘, C.H.(2015)。城市作為翻譯政治的場域：理論性的探索。城市學學刊，6(1)，1-28。
  73. 王芳萍, F.P.,張榮哲, J.C.(2014)。古蹟文萌樓與日日春運動。台灣人權學刊，2(4)，151-168。
  74. 吳思萍（2016）：〈納入文資異見三井倉庫下周再議〉，《聯合報》，3 月 10 日，版 B2。【Wu, S.P. (2016). Inclusion of dissenting opinion on cultural heritage, discussion of the Mistui Warehouse has been adjourned to next week. United Daily News, March 10, p. B2.】
  75. 李乾朗, C.L.(2014).百年古蹟滄桑：臺灣建築保存紀事.臺北=Taipei:典藏=Artco Books.
  76. 林銘忠（1980）：〈可憐林安泰古厝‧遭到「剖解」﹗試問古樸的身體‧何日「復健」，拆下建材堆置安和路上‧百年老屋無聲息各方殷盼古厝早日重建‧保存我們的古蹟〉，《中國時報》，1 月 28 日，版 6。【Lin, M.J. (1980). Poor Lin An Tai Historical House has been “dissect!” The building materials had been piled on Anhe Road. The century-old house is quietly looking forward to the early reconstruction. Please preserve our historical buildings. China Times, January 28, p.6.】
  77. 邱奕寧（2015a）：〈新北投車站重組「早有結論辦什麼公聽會」，激辯完馬上定案公聽會被罵慘〉，《聯合報》，6 月 29 日，版 B1。【Chiu, Y.N. (2015a). Restoration of Xinbeitou Station. What is the purpose of the public hearing if there is an agreement long ago?People complaint about public hearing for finalize immediately once the debate over. United Daily News, June 29, p.B1.】
  78. 邱奕寧（2015b）：〈新北投車站修復用不起台灣檜〉，《聯合報》，9 月 27 日，版 B2。【Chiu, Y.N. (2015b). Restoration of Xinbeitou Station unable to afford Taiwan cypress. United Daily News, September 27, p.B2.】
  79. 邱奕寧（2016a）：〈「柯 P 很生氣」文資委員不滿給壓力三井倉庫遷移沒共識擇期討論〉，《聯合報》，3月 31 日，版 B1。【Chiu, Y.N. (2016a). ‘Ko P got so angry.’ There is no consensus about Mitsui Warehouse relocation caused disaffection among the cultural heritage committee. United Daily News, March 31, p.B1.】
  80. 邱奕寧（2016b）：〈新北投車站位移七星公園公聽會勝出〉，《聯合報》，5 月 3 日，版 B2。【Chiu, Y.N. (2016b). Xinbeitou Station has decided to relocate at Qixing Park due to the result of public hearing. United Daily News, May 3, p.B2.】
  81. 邱紹雯（2012）：〈當初一元賤賣，如今只能扼腕〉，《自由時報》，8月30日。http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/611188。（2017/2/22 瀏覽）。【Chiu, S.W. (2012). It was sold off cheaply for just NTD1 and now regretting for it. Liberty Times, August 30. http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/611188 (accessed 2017/2/22)】
  82. 邱紹雯、吳為恭、湯世名（2012）：〈新北投車站難歸鄉北投人不排除原地重建〉，《 自由時報》，8 月 30 日。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/611187。（2017/2/22 瀏覽）。【Chiu, S.W., Wu, W.K and Tang, S.M. (2012). Xinbeitou Station hard to return home, Beitou residents didn't rule out reconstruction on the original site. Liberty Times, August 30. https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/611187 (accessed 2017/2/22)】
  83. 洪致文, C.W.(2016).像我們這樣的文化恐怖份子：文化資產與城市記憶守護筆記.臺北=Taipei:前衛=Avanguard.
  84. 唐復年（2007）：〈彰縣搶救北投夢碎新北投車站列暫定古蹟〉，《聯合報》，8 月 20 日，版 A9。【Tang, F.N. (2007). Changhua managed to salvage, Beitou’s dream was shattered, Xinbeitou Station has listed as a historic site. United Daily News, August 20, p. A9.】
  85. 夏鑄九, C.J.(1998)。臺灣的古蹟保存：一個批判性回顧。建築與城鄉研究學報，9，1-9。
  86. 徐定心（1988）：〈迪化街決暫緩拓寬，工務局成立專案檢討後再說〉，《聯合晚報》，8 月 23 日，版 3。【Hsu, T.H. (1988). Dihua Street was temporarily suspended from widening, Public Works Department has set up a team to review. United Evening News, August 23, p. 3.】
  87. 張世杰（2016）：〈三井倉庫公聽會「何不限縮車道」〉，《聯合報》，5 月 5 日，版 B2。【Chang, S.C. (2016). Public hearing of Mitsui Warehouse. Why not narrow the driveway? United Daily News, May 5, p. B2.】
  88. 張博亭（2017 ）：〈三井倉庫拆掉重組新址已做隔震工程〉，《蘋果日報》， 5 月 8 日。http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20170508/1113962/。（2017/10/25 瀏覽）。【Chang, P.T. (2017). Mitsui Warehouse was deconstructed then reconstructed, seismic base isolation is applied on the new site. Apple Daily, May 8.
  89. 莊琇閔（2013）：〈日榮無償捐贈新北投車站要回家了〉，《聯合報》，4 月 19 日，版 B2。【Chuang, H.M. (2013). Rirong Assest management Co., Ltd. agreed to donate for free, Xinbeitou Station’s going home. United Daily News, April 19, p. B2.】
  90. 陳靖宜（2016）：〈4 次文資審議三井倉庫決暫時移置等公共運輸量達 8 成再遷回文資團體：結論沒變相當可惜〉，《聯合報》，5 月 21 日，版 B2。【Chen, C.Y. (2016). Mitsui Warehouse has decided to relocate temporarily after 4 times cultural heritage review, it will be moved back once the volume of public transport reaches 80%. Cultural heritage organizations: It's a pity the conclusion hasn't changed. United Daily News, May 21, p. B2.】
  91. 游蓓茹（2015）：〈新北投車站選址學者、地方不同調〉，《自由時報》，5月21日。http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/882266。（2017/1/20 瀏覽）。【Yu, P.J. (2015). Different opinion between scholars and locals on the site selection of Xinbeitou Station. Liberty Times, May 21. http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/882266 (accessed 2017/1/20).】
  92. 黃富三, F.S.(2001).台北市歷屆市長議長口述歷史.臺北=Taipei:臺北市文獻委員會=Taipei City Archive.
  93. 經濟日報（1977）：〈都市計畫案昨通過廿一件，其中屬於臺北市者十七件〉，8 月 31 日，版 2。【Economy Daily News (1977). Twenty-one urban plans were approved yesterday, 17 of which belong to Taipei city. August 31, p.2.】
  94. 葉乃齊, N.C.(1988)。臺北市=Taipei，國立臺灣大學木木工程學研究所=Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University。
  95. 廖珮妤、黃進恭、李青霖（2014）：〈花轎抬鑼鼓敲，漂泊 25 年新北投車站回家了〉，《聯合報》，2 月23 日，版 A12。【Liao, P.Y., Huang, C.K. and Li, C.L. (2014). Xinbeitou Station has come home after 25 years of wandering. United Daily News, February, 23, p.A12.】
  96. 臺北市政府（2008）：〈修訂「臺北市大同區大稻埕歷史風貌特定專用區細部計畫案」內「大稻埕歷史風貌特定專用區都市設計管制要點第七點停車空間規定」計畫書 (公告文號：97.08.20 府都規字第 0975182900 號)〉。http://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/public/MMO/URO/09705182900.pdf。（2017/2/21 瀏覽）。【Taipei City Government (2008). Amendment of the ‘Seventh, Parking Space Regulation, Regulations and Directions for Urban Design in Specific Purpose District for Historical Features of Dadaocheng’ within ‘Detail Plan of Specific Purpose District for Historical Features of Dadaocheng’. http://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/public/MMO/URO/09705182900.pdf. (accessed 2017/2/21).】
  97. 臺北市政府（2000）：〈變更臺北市大同區大稻埕附近地區主要計畫為大稻埕歷史風貌特定專用區主要計畫案(公告文號：89.01.27 府都四字第 8900475800 號)〉。http://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/public/MMO/URO/08900475800.pdf。（2017/2/21 瀏覽）。【Taipei City Government (2000). Master Plan of the Surrounding Area of Dadaocheng, Datong District, Taipei to Specific Purpose District for Historical Features of Dadaocheng. http://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/public/MMO/URO/08900475800.pdf. (accessed 2017/2/21).】
  98. 臺北市政府工務局新建工程處（2016）：〈忠孝西路北門周邊路型改善施工期間敬請配合提前改道〉。http://pwd.gov.taipei/ct.asp?xItem=246697230&ctNode=23078&mp=106001（2017/1/20 瀏覽）【New Construction Office, Public Works Department, Taipei City Government (2016.12.14). The improvement of the surrounding road of Beimen, Zhongxiao West Road, please detouring in advance during construction. http://pwd.gov.taipei/ct.asp?xItem=246697230&ctNode=23078&mp=106001. (accessed 2017/1/20).】
  99. 臺北市政府文化局（2016）：〈新北投車站重組位置議題公聽會議紀錄〉。http://www.culture.gov.taipei/frontsite/content/cultureDownListAction.do?method=viewDownLoadList&subMenuId=27&siteId=MTA1#。（2017/1/20 瀏覽）。【Department of Culture Affairs, Taipei City Government (2016). Public hearing minutes of reconstruction plan for the Xinbeitou Station. http://www.culture.gov.taipei/frontsite/content/cultureDownListAction.do?method=viewDownLoadList&subMenuId=27&siteId=MTA1#. (accessed 2017/1/20).】
  100. 臺北市政府都市發展局（2016）：〈三井倉庫歷建維護計畫文資審議簡報〉。http://www.gov.taipei/public/Attachment/641116135347.pdf。（2017/1/20 瀏覽）。【Department of Urban Development, Taipei City Government (2016). Cultural heritage review of maintenance plan for the historic building of Mitsui Warehouse. http://www.gov.taipei/public/Attachment/641116135347.pdf. (accessed 2017/1/20).】
  101. 蔡榮堂, J.T.(1977)。就建築論建築－對林家榮泰古厝之拆留及其問題之探討及建議。建築師，3(4)，23-36。
  102. 顏亮一, L.Y.(2014)。都市規劃、公共利益與社會正義－從樂生療養院保存運動談起。城市與設計學報，21，115-138。
  103. 顏亮一, L.Y.(2005)。全球化時代的文化遺產：古蹟保存理論之批判性回顧。地理學報，42，1-24。
  104. 魏莨伊（2016）：〈東移 51 米「三井倉庫」悄悄拆了〉，《聯合報》，10 月 18 日。https://udn.com/news/story/7323/2030434。（2017/1/20 瀏覽）。【Wei, L.Y. (2016). Moved eastward 51 metres, ‘Mitsui Warehouse’ has been deconstructed quietly. United Daily News, October 18. https://udn.com/news/story/7323/2030434 (accessed 2017/1/20).】
  105. 蘇映塵, Y.C.(2014)。臺北市=Taipei，國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所=Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University。
被引用次数
  1. 高郁婷,王志弘(2023)。文化與空間的再連結：「再造歷史現場」政策初探。文化研究，37，7-56。
  2. 賴子儀,王志弘(2021)。亡者的文化迴響：臺灣爭議性墓葬襲產化的空間政治。地理研究，73，103-138。
  3. (2024)。以產業文化支持地方生活網絡：基隆港交通建設與築港工業遺址保存爭議辨析。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，24，137-150。
print cancel