| Abstract: | 本研究係上年度之後續計畫;針對前次各行政區研究結果所區分出之高、中、低及混合收入住宅區,先依預售屋價格、人口成長率、人口密度、大專以上教育程度及三級產業從業者等指標找出各區中符合條件之抽樣里二至四個,進行影響房屋/土地持有情形之因素分析,以掌握台北市"里"層次住宅區位空間階層化的形成與"區"層次間之可能差異。研究結果顯示,高所得區與混合所得區各里住宅區位空間階層化情形有較多雷同處,而中所得區與低所得區各里住宅區位空間階層化亦存在若干相似性。此外,開發較遲的地區(如大安區)其各里空間階層化現象受"所得"影響似較開發較早地區(如士林區)中之各里來得明顯;也即對舊市區中各里住宅區位階層化的解釋,開發時間的先後與房屋取得方式等因素上可能更具意義。 除"里"資料分析外,本研究也特別針對學界、業界(建築投資、仲介及代銷)和政府官員等五種不同身分者就住宅區位空間階層化現象進行Delphi調查和深入訪談;發現各類背景之受訪者對住宅區位階層化形成原因和各區階層化之歸屬的看法固然不盡相同,唯咸認台北市住宅區位階層化已然形成。另在房地產相關政策和措施意見表達方面,學者們較具理想色彩,業界代表比較務實,而政府官員則居中。 總之,若與西方文獻中曾引介之城市相比較,在影響台北市住宅區位階層化因素方面,本階段研究發現"所得"固有其重要性,政府政策、都市發展歷史、房地產景氣與房屋取得時間和方式等因素更是不容忽視。這些因素的聚合如何共同衝擊著住宅空間區位的階層化,則有賴未來更純熟統計分析技巧之運用與更完整資訊的輔佐方可竟功。 The foci of this second-year research are mainly two-fold: (1) to further analyze Taipei City`s housing stratification at "Li" level; (2) to gather insights of five different groups of experts`---scholars, governmental officials, builders and/or developers, and real estate brokers, etc., opinion on housing stratification and related issues by conducting Delphi survey and in-depth interview. Through "Li" level data analysis, it is found that housing stratification exists not only in big administrative districts but happens also within the same district. Moreover, it is discovered that "income" serves as a more viable explanatory factor in newly developed districts such as Ta-an District whereas the development history and housing tenure work as better explaining elements in older parts of the city like Shih-lin District. Delphi Survey and in-depth interview findings revealed that although the five different groups of interviewees expressed somewhat different viewpoints on how the housing stratification came about in Taipei City, all of them are opt for the opinion that indeed the phenomenon has occurred or is about to take its toe in the city. As to what type of policy ought to be adopted in the housing market, scholars tend to hold rather idealistic views; builders, developers and real-estate brokers looked more pragmatic whereas governmental officials fall somewhere in between. The study concludes that so far "income" seems to be able to explain quite well with respect to Taipei City`s housing differentiation trend. Yet, a cluster of factors emboding government policy, urban development history, cyclical trend of housing market, etc., undoubtedly deserve further statistical and analytical rigor should profound knowledge on the subject which has already been so vividly demonstrated after two-year of research is hoped to be fully grasped. And to that the author plans to endeavor in her next academic pursuit. |
