蟾蜍山聚落保存運動：非正式聚落的公共性與邊界辯證

Abstract

蟾蜍山非正式聚落位處臺北盆地邊緣，其與山共生的環境，造就了聚落豐富的生命力，並以有機的方式在都市裡和諧生活著，然而在都市土地再發展的壓力與都市計畫的命題下，蟾蜍山非正式聚落保存運動相應展開。本研究從空間的政治經濟學觀點出發，透過疏理蟾蜍山聚落特殊的歷史背景與社會關係，彰顯聚落生成背後的公共性價值，同時，研究者關注保存運動開啟的聚落邊界辯證，尤其聚落與都市的關係以及聚落內部社會關係的轉變。 蟾蜍山聚落具有豐富歷史疊層，自清領時期古道、流經聚落前方的瑠公圳以及日治時期的農業現代化發展，聚落從公館舊聚落演變成為日式宿舍地景，戰後國民政府來臺，又因其特殊山勢而選擇將空軍作戰指揮部設置於此，從此開啟蟾蜍山作為軍事地景的身分；為了安置戰後移民，列管眷村煥民新村成立，自力營建家戶亦圍繞著眷村而出現，這些基礎勞動無非是支撐起臺灣的戰後發展的關鍵；在都市快速發展的年代，城鄉移民落腳於位處都市邊緣的蟾蜍山聚落，使這裡成為具有住宅提供意義的所在。蟾蜍山居民的生命奮鬥史猶如公共歷史的切片，以逆眾之姿屹立於蟾蜍山腳下。 在制度化資源的支持下，這個隱匿於都市的非正式聚落猶如擁有自己的空間自治系統，家屋依附山勢漸進式地生長，居民則透過相互協商的過程，生產出聚落內部的公/私空間，而不同的社會活動亦出現於聚落各個角落中，具有包容性的空間使用彰顯了更大的公共性。此外，參與式營造空間的過程以及不同的群簇關係，造就了聚落內部多重的認同邊界，然而土地產權的差異彰顯了聚落內部的張力。在這個維持著傳統生活型態的地方，保存運動重新開啟了非正式聚落的公共性辯論，促使地方邊界與既有社會關係產生轉變。從藝術介入式的行動、政治協商到文化資產申請一途，諸多過程開啟了聚落的主體辯論，包含作為居住主體的居民、未來使用主體的臺科大學生、對外協商主體的保存團隊以及與臺科大校方的張力。 種植等社區營造型、跨越聚落尺度的活動參與，讓不同生活群簇的居民得以在廣場流動與交流，不但居民的認同邊界逐漸有所交融，亦加深了廣場空間的轉化使用，再度公共化聚落的公共空間。從領域與邊界關係來看，聚落保存運動開啟了去領域化與再領域化的過程，當聚落的社會關係出現不同的孔隙，邊界開始鬆動，諸多的行動皆讓地方與外在不斷地處於動態變遷的過程中，形成新的社會關係以及當代的地方理解，同時也意味著，新的公共性正在被創造。換言之，正是當前聚落具有孔隙的狀態，面對聚落的未來，才更得以有更公共性的辯論。

Located at the periphery of the Taipei basin and surrounded by the natural preserve, the Toad Hill settlement has been sustaining an organic and vital living inside the bustling city. Under the pressure of urban redevelopment and implementation of the predetermined urban plan, an activist group initiated the settlement conservation movement. This research adopts the political-economic perspective to analyze the historical processes and social relations of the informal settlement, with special emphasis on the dialectics of its public value. The other concern of the study is to identify the boundary effect between the settlement and the city regarding the spatial, social, and planning context, as well as the socio-spatial tension inside the settlement, while recognizing the daily transgressing activities across the boundaries. The political-economy analysis reveals the structural context of the settlement’s morphological transformation. From the Qing imperial, Japanese colonial, and the Nationalist period of governance, multiple layers of history are juxtaposed on a settlement scale subjugated to garrison, agricultural, and military impacts. During the post-War urbanization period, the informal settlement sprawling around the Japanese bungalow and the military-dependent housing diminished the state crisis of the housing deficit, and the self-help and self-built squatter village ironically represented an alternative mode of “publicness.” The disfranchised residents and the informal settlement symbolize the counterpublics who may redefine the meaning of public and the politics of representation of the public realm. Re-investigating the public and semi-public spaces of the settlement, it is clear that their production and maintenance are “negotiated” by the residents on daily basis. In contrast to the designated public spaces from top-down decision-making, the bottom-up approach exhibits an alternative mechanism of planning in a settlement scale. The boundary dialectics in Toad Hill conveys the dynamics of changing social relations, and in the public-private contention, boundaries are constantly shifting between the residents’ clustered living spaces. Each cluster boundary is tacitly recognized by a territorial identity, which has emerged from a distinctive historical process of migration. Different spatial clusters of the Toad Hill settlement merge with each other over time and through community activities. While the intervention of the contemporary zoning disintegrates the settlement’s overall sense of place and triggers impending crisis of partial demolition, the subsequent conservation action and political negotiations open up the settlement boundary bordering the city yet increase the tension between different shareholders and stakeholders of the settlement. The publicness debates and the boundary dialectics influence each other. Residents from different territorial clusters interact in the community square through the habitual and the ritual as well as the intentional community-building activities related to conservation. Therefore, the daily-life performances and initiated activities not only dissolve the cluster boundaries but also re-publicized the public space. The conservation movement further propels the de-territorialization and re-territorialization process, and since the social and physical boundaries become more and more porous, it is possible to reconstruct new social relations and re-inscribe contemporary identity to the place. In other words, within the boundary dialectics, the publicness of the informal settlement is continuously contended and contested.