5. 172 173
IX Mixed-Income Housing: Social Integration or Cultural Hegemony?
結論
很多美國城市有非常自豪且有能力的少數族
群及低收入社區。可用的補貼促進產生了一個
非營利組織的網絡，包括以鄰里和整個城市為
基礎的非營利組織。他們並非都很完美，但是
在奧克蘭，他們幾乎承擔了所有近三十年生產
的可負擔住宅，很多還因為品質和設計而受到
全國矚目。當有限的補貼都撥給營利的開發商
去進行包容性目標，遭到破壞的就是他們的地
方自決。他們成功的表現，質疑了認為這類鄰
里缺乏能力去提昇自己，改善鄰里生活品質，
除非引入足夠數量的較高收入者的說法。
大多數私人開發商利用生產出來的單位數量
和利潤做為衡量每年成功的標準，但非營利單
位營造的是人與社區。奧克蘭的營利開發商一
直致力破壞這些草根成果。在辦公室大樓很流
行的 1980 年代，他們甚至抗拒在市中心蓋市
價住宅的公共壓力。他們甚至在新建物能豁免
時，還反對引入房租管制，他們也反抗對於不
公平驅離的保護。他們與當時的市長 Brown 合
作，關閉了市中心僅存的提供給超低收入單身
者的單身出租住宅。他們提出的包容性住宅版
本，並沒有服務超低收入家戶，也沒有包含那
些家戶需要的特別服務需求，如育兒照護、家
庭諮詢及英語（ESL）課程。最後，私人開發商
提出的包容性住宅並沒有頌揚他們有義務納入
6. 174
的少數族群的特殊文化起源，只試圖描繪與大
多數混和的同質性。
基於以上種種原因，提供給非營利部門去蓋
可行住宅的資金，不管是來自地方或全國資源，
都不應該被抽去支持營利的開發商。如果要有
包容性分區，私人開發商應該去支付這種住宅，
主要從他們自己的利潤，或付足夠費用給當地
可負擔住宅信用基金來完成工作。獎勵機制像
是密度補助、加速程序、短期減稅是有可能，
但不能直接使用已經很稀少的住宅補貼。這種
資金來源支持地方非營利部門，他們更有能力
以全面性的方式滿足低收入家戶的需求。
包容性分區的政策，不管是地方或全州適
用，都可能有益，但這些政策只是搭建了舞台。
應該更努力去增加政府補助的總額，讓私人或
非營利開發者都可以滿足這些需求，不是只有
住宅，而是社會與教育服務的全部面向，低收
入家戶才能藉此改善他們的生活。
175
X CoHousing Cultures are the Future of Social Housing:
Planning, Designing and Managing Projects in Berlin and Europe
1. crisis = opportunity
Where are the local opportunities for housing
innovations to be found in our current global
crises?
Sustainable urban development - provoked by
growing lists of dramatic social and ecological
crises – and inspired by growing interest in and
success with alternative development strategies
– has become a priority in recent years in our
cities. In 2012 we will be reflecting on 20 years of
discussions following the 1992 World Conference
for Environment and Development in Rio de
Janeiro. We will most certainly have to conclude
that while more and more of us are talking about
environmental and economic disasters – including
great deficits in the production and maintenance
of housing - only an inadequate number of
isolated actions have been taken to finally begin
to substantially move our cities in the direction of
sustainability. In the next year as in this year we
will have to conclude that none of our cities are
really sustainable!
Even as the total picture becomes darker and
indicators show us we are losing ground in most
ecological, social as well as economic areas,
there is hope to be found in increasing numbers
of local, civil society initiatives. Growing
challenges, improved access to information and
empowerments of civil society are encouraging
hundreds and thousands of sustainable local
responses to the global crises, including
innovative new housing options. The question
needs to be asked, now that we apparently have an
idea of and access to sustainable approaches, how
we can best get on with sustainably developing
our cities. Where do we best begin? Should we
CoHousing Cultures are the Future of
Social Housing: Planning, Designing and
Managing Projects in Berlin and Europe
Michael LaFond
Director of id22: Institute for Creative Sustainability in Berlin
emphasize resource conservation, social justice,
or alternative economic structures?
Similar to other non-profit initiatives and
projects around the globe, including organisations
like OURs in Taipei, our Berlin Institute for
Creative Sustainability argues that sustainability
must be based on an understanding of local
cultures and encouraged through capacitybuilding
strategies. The Institute for Creative Sustainability
also argues that CoHousing models, as further
developments of social housing, offer tremendous
potentials with respect to sustainability.
Evidence and examples are being gathered
which demonstrate the potentials of local
structures which are social and communicative,
economically affordable and stable as well as
environmentally friendly with regards to resource
conservation. These local, self-organised models
are showing great hope with respect to sustainable
strategies for planning, designing and managing
housing.
Finally it should be added that although I
have been working and living in Berlin for a
couple of decades, and speak mostly from this
perspective, my experiences before that were in
the United States. Much of my education and
training in cultural fields, architecture and urban
planning were in Seattle: for American standards
a relatively progressive and sustainable city,but
nonetheless part of a larger culture that is radically
individualized and polarized, and also very much
in need of social housing innovations! For me it is
an honor, and a fascinating challenge to be invited
to consider a comparison and translation of
experiences with social and participatory housing
between our countries.
