跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.24.175) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/11/03 18:00
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:王祖毅
研究生(外文):WANG, TSU-YI
論文名稱:共居治理性的社群實踐:以玖樓共生公寓為例
論文名稱(外文):The community practice of co-living Governmentality:A Case Study of 9Floor Co-Living Apt.
指導教授:林文一林文一引用關係
指導教授(外文):LIN, WEN-I
口試委員:王文誠宋郁玲林文一
口試委員(外文):WANG,WEN-CHENGSONG,YU-LINGLIN, WEN-I
口試日期:2019-07-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:都市計劃研究所
學門:建築及都市規劃學門
學類:都市規劃學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:中文
論文頁數:138
中文關鍵詞:共生公寓共享治理性社群
外文關鍵詞:coliving apartmentsharinggovernmentalitycommunity
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:635
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:2
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
共享相關論述日漸成為一種國際潮流,而台北也在此共享相關的論述下產生不同形式的實踐,而其中共同住宅的發展在共享論述下亦是作為重要的一環。然而,在台北的實踐中,共生共寓(coliving apartment)的出現也標誌著新型態的都市生活模式,在此趨勢之下產生。因此,以玖樓共生公寓作為研究案例,本研究欲深入探討台北共生公寓的實踐過程,觀察玖樓共居模式背後台北的地理與歷史背景脈絡。並分析共居治理機制的建立、共居社群的形塑以及對於都市居住問題的回應。

本研究是以治理性的角度為主要的理論取徑,並以此檢視玖樓共生公寓的都市居住實驗過程以及其公寓經營的操作手法。此外,本研究亦回顧玖樓所接合的共享與共同住宅的相關論述,並用以觀察其協作生活方式的特徵。最終,本研究利用城市權的理論視角檢視玖樓共生公寓的發展與企業擴張的過程,玖樓主張的城市權是否與原先的論述上,具有相當程度的差異性。

在研究方法的面向上,本研究主要採取深度訪談法、文本分析法以及觀察法。透過訪談居住於三峽青銀共居公寓與溫州八玖公寓的室友、玖樓員工以及公部門與非政府組織的相關人員,本研究深入了解玖樓共居模式的實踐過程。此外,在文本分析的部分則是參考了相關政策文件、社群網站的相關資料以及新聞稿等研究素材進行深入分析。在觀察法的面向上,研究人員則是參與了兩場玖樓公寓內的相關社群活動。藉由紀錄活動參與者的共居活動體驗過程,以了解玖樓共居生活模式的全貌。

本研究發現玖樓共生公寓的誕生反映了太陽花學運的共享契機以及台北在2015年間的房價反轉情勢。玖樓也透過對於都市居住問題的思考,形塑獨特的共居問題意識。透過不同的篩選標準、空間的規訓、典範室友的樹立與自我治理,玖樓嘗試於形塑自身期望的共居社群。然而,在玖樓共生公寓企業的經營過程中,玖樓對於都市居住議題的論述逐漸轉變。原先聚焦的城市權主張,在其品牌的經營之下逐轉向更為強調「酷」與神秘感的共居社群。對於青年居住議題或居住弱勢的關注也轉向更為僅具象徵性的意義。

The discussion about sharing has become an international trend, and Taipei has also produced different forms of practice under the relevant discussion of sharing. The development of cohousing is also an important part of discussion under the topic of sharing. However, in the practice of Taipei, the emergence of the coliving apartment also marks a new mode of urban life, which occurs under this trend. Therefore, taking the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. as a study case , this study intends to deeply explore the practical process of Taipei coliving apartment and observes the geographical and historical background of Taipei.It also It also analyzes the establishment of the coliving governance mechanism, the shaping of the coliving community, and the response of the the urban housing problem.

This study takes the governmentality perspective as the main theoretical approach, and examines the urban residential experiment process of the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. and the operation method of its apartment management. In addition, the study also reviews the relevant discussions of sharing and cohousing and uses them to observe the characteristics of their collaborative lifestyle. In the end, this study uses the theoretical perspective of the right to the city in order to examine the development of the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. and the expansion of their enterprise.To review whether the right to the city advocated by the squatter have a considerable degree of difference with the original statement.

In the aspect of research methods, this study mainly adopts in-depth interviews, text analysis methods and observation methods. Through interviews of roommates in Sanxia Apartment, the roommates of Wenzhou Apartment, the employees of the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. , the relevant personnel of the public sector and NGOs ,this study gains an in-depth understanding of the practical process of the coliving mode. In addition, in the part of text analysis, the research materials such as relevant policy documents, social networking websites, and press releases are analyzed profoundly. In the aspect of the observation method, the researchers participated in the relevant community activities in the two apartment buildings. By recording the experience of the coliving activities of participants in the event, we can understand the overall picture of the coliving mode of the 9Floor Co-Living Apt..

This study suggests that the birth of the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. reflects the sharing opportunity of the Sunflower Movement and the housing price reversal situation in Taipei in 2015. Through the deliberation on the urban living in Taipei, the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. has a unique sense of coliving problematic. By different screening criteria, spatial discipline, the establishment of a model roommat and self-governance, the 9Floor Co-Living Apt. tries to shape the coliving community in the manner that it prefers. Nonetheless, in the managing process of the 9Floor Co-Living Apt., the discourse on the urban residential issue has gradually changed. The original focus of the right to the city, under the management of its brand, turns to a coliving community that much more emphasizes on "coolness" and mystery. The 9Floor Co-Living Apt.Concerns about the issue of youth dwellings or the disadvantages of the living have also turned to symbolic meanings.



第壹章 緒論1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的4
第三節 研究架構與流程6
第四節 小結8
第貳章 理論與文獻回顧9
第一節 從共享(sharing)到共同住宅(cohousing)9
第二節 治理性給予共居概念的視角12
第三節 共生公寓中的城市權15
第四節 小結17
第參章 個案介紹與研究方法設計18
第一節 前言18
第二節 個案介紹 18
第三節 研究方法與設計29
第肆章 玖樓共生公寓的源起與發展脈絡34
第一節 前言34
第二節 台北時空下的地理與歷史背景脈絡35
第三節 玖樓居住問題的建構與解方43
第四節 玖樓共享的論述學習與公寓的想像52
第五節 小結63
第伍章 玖樓共生公寓的共居治理模式64
第一節 前言64
第二節 玖樓室友的篩選65
第三節 玖樓共生公寓的空間規訓78
第四節 玖樓共生公寓的權利義務賦予與自我管理85
第五節 小結99
第陸章 玖樓共生公寓的主體性型塑100
第一節 前言100
第二節 玖樓共居社群的反思101
第三節 玖樓共居形象的建立與包裝販售109
第四節 台北都市議題的回應與反思124
第五節 小結130
第柒章 結論與建議131
第一節 結論131
第二節 後續研究建議134
第捌章 參考文獻 136
第一節 英文文獻 136
第二節 中文文獻 137

一、中文部分
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法: 訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊,第三卷,第二期,頁122-136。
侯志仁(2019)。反造再起:城市共生ING。台北市:左岸文化。
萬文隆(2004)。深度訪談在質性研究中的應用。生活科技教育月刊,第三十七卷,第四期。
潘信榮(2017)。網絡崩世代居住空間的重構-以玖樓共生公寓為例。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文,台北市。 取自:https://hdl.handle.net/11296/bkb228
顏寧(2011)。質性研究:設計與施作指南(原作者: Sharan B. Merriam)。台北市:五南。
共宅一生股份有限公司(2018)。共居試辦方案成果分析及續行方案建議草案。
共宅一生股份有限公司(2018)。玖樓2018品牌回顧。取自:
https://9floor.co/assets/%E7%8E%96%E6%A8%93_2018%E5%93%81%E7%89%8C%E5%9B%9E%E9%A1%A7__c464572924c92ce39224b10744379022.pdf
新北市政府城鄉發展局(2017)。青銀共居申請手冊。取自:
https://www.ntpc.gov.tw/uploaddowndoc?file=news/201711061830325.pdf&filedisplay=%E9%9D%92%E9%8A%80%E5%85%B1%E5%B1%85%E5%87%BA%E7%A7%9F%E7%94%B3%E8%AB%8B%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf&flag=doc
新北市政府城鄉發展局(2018)。三峽青銀共居計畫Longstay成果手冊。取自:
https://www.planning.ntpc.gov.tw/userfiles/1090800/files/%E4%B8%89%E5%B3%BDLongStay%E6%88%90%E6%9E%9C%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf
新北市政府城鄉發展局(2018)。三峽青銀共居計畫Longstay招租簡章。取自:
https://www.wugu.ntpc.gov.tw/archive/file/%E6%8B%9B%E7%A7%9F%E7%B0%A1%E7%AB%A0.pdf
二、英文部分
Agyeman, J., McLaren, D., & Schaefer-Borrego, A. (2013). Sharing cities. Friends of the Earth Briefing, 1-32.
Attoh, K. A. (2011). What kind of right is the right to the city? Progress in human geography, 35(5), 669-685.
Belk, R. (2009). Sharing. Journal of consumer research, 36(5), 715-734.
Boyko, C. T., Clune, S. J., Cooper, R. F., Coulton, C. J., Dunn, N. S., Pollastri, S., . . . De Laurentiis, V. (2017). How sharing can contribute to more sustainable cities. Sustainability, 9(5), 701.
Chiodelli, F., & Baglione, V. (2014). Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban Research & Practice, 7(1), 20-34.
Davidson, N. M., & Infranca, J. J. (2015). The sharing economy as an urban phenomenon. Yale L. & Pol'y Rev., 34, 215.
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society: Sage publications.
Delanty, G. (2013). Community.
Foucault, M. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality: University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution: Verso Books.
Jenkins, T. (2017). Living Apart, Together: Cohousing as a Site for ICT Design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. Writings on cities, 63181.
Lemke, T. (2001). 'The birth of bio-politics': Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and society, 30(2), 190-207.
Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking marxism, 14(3), 49-64.
Maalsen, S. (2018). ‘Generation Share’: digitalized geographies of shared housing. Social & Cultural Geography, 1-9.
Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City, 13(2-3), 185-197.
May, T. (2011). Social research: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
McLaren, D., & Agyeman, J. (2015). Sharing cities: a case for truly smart and sustainable cities: Mit Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2017). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. In Foucault and Law (pp. 191-224): Routledge.
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum, 41(2), 169-174.
Raco, M. (2003). Governmentality, subject‐building, and the discourses and practices of devolution in the UK. Transactions of the institute of British geographers, 28(1), 75-95.
Roelofsen, M., & Minca, C. (2018). The Superhost. Biopolitics, home and community in the Airbnb dream-world of global hospitality. Geoforum, 91, 170-181.
Roy, A., & Ong, A. (2011). Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global (Vol. 42): John Wiley & Sons.
Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between cohousing and gated communities. A literature review. Sociological Inquiry, 84(2), 316-335.
Sharp, D. (2018). Sharing Cities for Urban Transformation: Narrative, Policy and Practice. Urban Policy and Research, 1-14.
Summerville, J. A., Adkins, B. A., & Kendall, G. (2008). Community participation, rights, and responsibilities: the governmentality of sustainable development policy in Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(4), 696-711.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top