Thoughts On The Reusing Of Old Buildings With No Historical Protective Value Based On The Experience Of The Taiwan Military Dependents’ Village

In the fast expansion of urbanization,renovation of the old urban areas is an inevitable.After a long course of development,unique historical meaning and customs have been bestowed upon the old buildings and neighborhoods.However,most of them do not meet the protective standards of cultural relics or historic architecture.Therefore,such buildings are caught in a predicament where they are considered something in between buildings with historical protection value and those without.In the rapidly changing modern metropolises,old neighborhoods tend to be confronted with a host of conflicts: the constantly rising land price may lead to tear-down and reconstruction;as people’s living standards improve,the traditional lifestyle may fade into history.Consequently,it is hard to preserve and renovate old buildings.Having gone through a special period,chaotic property rights still persist in old neighborhoods.Those who advocate for protection over historical architecture also admit that apart from the prevalent commercial renovation,old buildings themselves may not suffice to deal with daily needs and economic pressure.As to how to transform and recycle them,thus integrating them into modern life,tough explorations are still being made.Taiwan’s urbanization bears resemblance to and happens earlier than that of the Chinese mainland.The fact that culture across the Taiwan Straits stems from the same origin makes it more than necessary for the latter to learn from the former.This article aims to provide some inspiration for the Chinese mainland on relevant work by studying the experience of Taiwan for preserving and reusing old buildings with no historical protective value.Chapter One and Two introduce the Military Dependent’s Village and relevant theories,thus touching upon the main idea of this article.Chapter Three elaborates on the basic characteristics and difficulties for preservation of the Village,hence discovering problems infesting it,including: inferior quality,poor environment,low living standards and frequent social problems.The Village declined due to changes of the times,pressure from urban development,abandonment of the residents,etc.Also it was because the Village was the product of a unique era.Having undergone political turmoil,it is trouble by unclear property rights,etc.In addition,while the Village is shabby,it provides ampler space for renovation.Although the Village is exclusive to Taiwan,it carries far-reaching significance and is comparable to old urban areas for the Chinese mainland.Chapter Four sheds light upon the distribution of property rights while the Village was still under construction and the redefinition of them while it was being renovated.After studying,the article finds the difficulty lies in the fact that the homes distributed for free in the past were pivotal to the villagers,yet they did not own the property rights of either the houses or the lands.The renovation policy was special because it collected all the property rights in the name of the Village,and constructed state-owned houses in other places.The old residents acquired the new houses with legitimate property rights by receiving subsidies from the government.The military sold the old lands,received the returns,and set up the Renovation Fund to rebuild other state-owned houses.Through this policy,the right of ownership and disposal was nationalized,which constituted the prerequisite of further disposal and created enabling conditions for reusing.Yet at the same time,it caused some social problems such as the loss of genuineness,fragmentation of the social network for the villagers and mindsets in need of reconstruction.Chapter Five delves into the cultural value of old buildings with no historical protective value with the Military Dependents’ Village as the example,reevaluates the unique spatial layout of the community,weighs the meaning of its planning,the social influence of culture of the Village,etc.By so doing,the article proves that preserving of old buildings with no historical protective value is not just about buildings themselves,but more about the implication behind them and higher tolerance toward the contemporary renovation.This chapter also evaluates the cultural preservation policy of the Village,and acknowledges its progressive meaning of obtaining legal safeguard and funds as well as entrusting the military property rights to the local cultural authorities.Problems such as local egalitarianism,inability to accommodate local residents and narrow way of thinking for reusing are discussed.Chapter Six categorizes the reusing model of the Village from who it serves,positioning of functions,operation model,and the rights of renovation and use.Next,based on different owners of the rights of renovation and use,it conducts evaluation on the originality,activeness,operational cost and social benefits of the reusing model after the property rights of the Village are unified.The first category of such rights belongs to the neighboring communities,including services related to public activities and green lands.The second is run by cultural authorities,mainly including city public welfare functions and tourism functions.There are precedents for the two categories in the Chinese mainland,with the common characteristics of brand new functions,a good number of copiers and high repetitiveness.The third category transfers the rights from the government to those who are fond of old buildings.That is of positive meaning because: individuals are allowed to renovate spontaneously,thus making urban resources truly match realistic needs.This model reintroduces in dwelling function and revitalizes old buildings with original functions.In this manner,it helps to retrieve part of the genuineness of the cultural assets.The third model delivers the highest comprehensive benefits with the lowest cost.The conclusion part summarizes the experience of the Village.With regards blurred property rights,unified and collective management is the fundamental guarantee for the reuse of old buildings with no historical protective value.Via the independent operations of a special fund and an executive committee,the residents are moved and relocated voluntarily.They can choose flexible resettlement and tiered compensation,hence all property rights can be collected with a holistic approach,thus preventing social problems from occurring.Concerning difficulties of preserving,the shabby look of the Village tests to the feasibility of the preserving and reusing of old buildings with no historical protective value.The meaning of preserving rests not with the buildings,but the rediscovery of cultural value and the revision of protective system.Public engagement from bottom to top at the initial stage and capacity transform from top to bottom later,in addition to protective policies that leaves leeway for renovation,are a vital link in the preserving of old buildings.Regarding difficulties of renovation,the key is the separation of property rights and the re-distribution of the rights of renovation and use.In accordance with the features of the positions and renovation targets,by choosing modes flexibly,social resources can be mobilized,thus optimizing the matching between existing resources and social needs,ensuring that the rights of renovation and use are distributed to individuals and groups in need of old buildings,and arranging the space with flexibility.While pursuing diversity and adaptiveness,it is the most appropriate for the revitalization of old buildings with no historical protective value to bring back the daily functions of the buildings and realize sustainable use.