【作者】 王婷；

【导师】 余柏椿；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 城市规划与设计， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 城市化和人口的迁移是城市规划和相关学科研究的核心问题之一。在城市化进行的过程中,难免会因为各种原因产生一些城市中的问题区域,这就需要对其进行“城市更新”。本文选择的是这些问题区域中的特定类型——移民聚居区,并研究中法两国针对这种特定类型区域现有的更新政策,最后借鉴法国的政策体系对中国的政策体系提出优化的建议。之所以选择移民聚居区这种特定类型的问题区域,并选择中法两国进行比较,主要的原因如下：(1)比较的可能性。中法两国的移民主体虽然存在差异(分别来自国内和海外殖民地),但在迁移原因(工业化中的劳动力需求)、迁移模式(从暂时到永久定居)、迁移后面临的问题(排斥、就业和贫困)有很多相似之处。而法国也是西方世界中较少的在二战以后的三十年中较快的完成城市化进程的国家,与中国目前的城市化进程存在比较的可能性。(2)比较的必要性。城市化的根本目的在于城市移民的现代化和市民化,而目前中国的移民尤其是面临着城市更新的移民聚居区中的移民,却可能被排除在城市化进程之外。而法国城市中的移民,其现代化和市民化的难度相对更大(文化差异更大),但经过以“社会融合”为目的的城市更新,已经取得了不错的效果,值得中国借鉴。本文研究的需要进行城市更新的移民聚居区,在中国主要指从农村移民到城市的移民,或称为农民工在城市中特定区域的聚居区域；在法国主要指法国前殖民地(francophones)的移民在法国城市(主要是大巴黎地区)特定区域的聚居区,这也是二战后法国缺乏工业化所需的劳动力出现的一种特殊城市化现象。这些聚居区都存在一定的物质空间和社会空间问题,在中国有大量的旧城更新和“城中村”更新研究涉及到这些特定问题区域,而在法国城市政策(la politique de la ville)被定义为专门针对这些问题区域的城市公共政策研究。虽然在中法两国也存在着其他类型的移民聚居区,比如北京的“韩国城”、巴黎的“中国城”等,但这些区域并不存在城市更新的命题,反而成为这些城市独特的文化景观,成为城市发展的积极型区域。本文主要使用的数据是以在中法两国的实地调查和权威部门公布的统计数据为主(中国以武汉、北京和深圳为主,法国以巴黎、里昂为主)。本文主要价值观是基于新马克思主义的社会空间理论,主要方法论是基于多元混合的公共政策分析理论。本文在分析中法两国移民聚居区的空间分布的基础上,首先探讨了两国移民聚居区所存在的物质空间和社会空间问题；接着介绍两国采取的不同的更新政策的演变和主要内容,并对其进行系统分析和价值分析；最后提出针对中国移民聚居区更新政策的优化方案,使其在适应中国经济发展进程的同时,达到促进社会融合的目的,使中国的城市更新规划的模式从单一的物质空间规划逐渐向多元的规划模式转变。本文主要的观点和结论如下：(1)中法两国的移民聚居区更新这一命题本质上存在相似性,都是为了解决由于特定群体的社会空间隔离导致的贫困聚居的问题而产生的相关研究和政策。同时,这种相似的社会空间隔离却表现出不同的物质空间形态和分布特征,尤其是中国的城乡二元体系造就了独特的“城中村”现象。解决这一问题不仅要从表象的物质空间方面着手,也需要从其本质的社会空间方面加以认识。(2)中法两国的移民聚居区更新政策虽然都属于城市更新政策的范畴,但中国的更新政策仍然聚焦于物质空间更新,而相对忽视了社会空间的更新。法国的移民聚居区更新政策虽然也包括物质空间更新的内容,但主要将其作为解决社会空间问题的手段之一。目前法国的社会空间更新政策,尤其是社会空间更新规划已经形成一定的系统。社会空间政策不同于普通的社会政策,是社会政策“空间转向”的结果,它使得社会政策不仅对特定人群优先,也使得其对他们所处的特定空间优先,从而保证了物质空间的更新不会造成大规模的社会空间重构。同时,社会空间政策所依据的理论(新马克思主义)也决定了它不同于传统的物质空间政策,是政府机构和各个利益团体,尤其是底层利益团体共同协作的结果。(3)中法两国的移民聚居区更新政策从政策系统和政策价值两个方面来讲都存在着很大的差异。中国的政策系统主要由地方城市政府主导,且相对缺乏法律的指导和保障；法国的政策系统主要由中央政府主导,且法制化程度和公众参与的程度都相对较高。中国的政策价值在效率问题上存在一定的偏差,很多时候用经济效率或者经济效益代替了社会效率的概念,在公平问题上有所欠缺；法国的政策价值对公平考虑的较多,但在效率上特别是经济效率上也存在一定的问题。(4)中国的移民聚居区更新政策从系统方面和价值方面都应该进行政策的优化设计。系统方面应该推进其法制化、民主化的进程,并更多的让移民这一弱势群体参与到政策系统中来。价值方面应该以全社会的效率提高(不仅仅是经济效率)作为政策的价值基点,并充分考虑社会公平的问题。(5)中国的移民聚居区更新规划作为政策的最终执行层面应加入城市社会空间规划的内容,并主要在社区这一层面进行实施。城市社会空间规划一般应包括就业、教育、医疗、社会融合等多方面的内容,是一种以问题为导向的动态协作式规划类型。更多还原

【Abstract】 Urbanization and population migration are core issues of urban planning and related disciplines. Because a variety of reasons some problematic urban areas have inevitably appeared in the process of urbanization.And they need to be "urban renewal." This paper chooses some problematic areas in a specific type-migrant communities, and to study China and France’s t existing policies to take for this particular type of urban areas. Then it gives some recommendations for China’s policy system base on strongpoints of the policy system from France. (1) It has the possibility of comparison.The main migrations in China and France are different (from domestic or form overseas colonies), but the reasons for the migration (demand for labors in the Industrialization), migration patterns (from temporary to permanent settlement), migration problems (exclusion, employment and poverty) have many similarities. France is a special country in the Western world which has completed urbanization process in thirty years after WWII. (2) It has the necessity of comparison. The fundamental purposes of the urbanization are modernization and citizenization. But in China migrants who are in migrant communities may be excluded from the urbanization process. The migrants in French city are more difficult to modernize and citizenize than China (greater cultural differences).But after the urban renewal which purpose is social mixing, it has achieved good results, and China can learn some experience form France.The migrant communities which need urban renewal, in China mainly refers to specific urban areas which are inhabited by migrants from rural to urban:in France, mainly refers to specific urban areas (mainly in the Greater Paris area) which are the inhabited by former French colony (francophones). These neighborhoods have certain physical space and social space problems. In China, there are a large number of researches about urban renewal in these communities (involving researches about urban villages), and urban policy in France (la politique de la ville) is defined to specifically address these problematic areas.Data used in this paper is based on two resources:one is the field surveys in China and France, the other is the statistics and researches of authorities in China and France (China’s data are mainly in Wuhan, Beijing and Shenzhen, France are mainly in Paris and Lyon). In this paper, values are based on social space of Neo-marxist theory, the main methodology is based on the diverse mixing of public policy analysis theory.This paper first comparing between migrant communities’existence of physical space and social space on the basis of the spatial distribution of them.Then it introduces two different policies’evolution and main content which are adopted by China and France and analysis their systems and their values.Finally, it gives some recommendations for China’s migrant communities’renewal policy system, and makes it adapts to China’s economic development process,in the same time, achieves the objective of promoting social integration. Meanwhile China’s model of urban renewal plan also should gradually change form the single material model to the diversity planning model.The views and conclusions of this paper are as follows:(1)China and France’s migrant communities have similar problems, especially problems of social space. China’s migrant communities have some particularities in the form of the distribution and physical space, but the essence of them is still poverty concentrating which is caused by social space segregation for specific groups.To solve this problem requires is not only from the physical space, social space also needs to be recognized.(2) China and France’s migrant communities’renewal policies are belong to urban renewal policy system, but China’s renwal policy still focuses on the physical space’s renewal, and relative neglects of the social space’s renewal. France’s France’s migrant communities’renewal also includes physical space’s renewal, but mainly makes it as a means of solving the problem of social space.Now the current policy of the French social space, especially in social space planning has been a certain system. Social space policy is different from the ordinary social policy, which is the result of social policy’s "spatial turn". It makes social policy give priority not only for specific populations, but also makes priority for its particular sapce, thus ensuring the material renewal does not cause large-scale renovation of social space.(3) China and France’s migrant communities’renewal policies are significant differences both in the policy system and policy value. China’s policy system is mainly dominated by the local city government, and the relative lack of legal guidance and protection.France’s policy system is mainly dominated by the central government and the rule of law degree and extent of public participation are relatively high. China’s policy on the issue of the value has certain deviation in the efficiency, and lacking in a fair question.France’s policy considers more in the value of fair, but has some problems in the efficiency, in particular of economic efficiency.(4)China’s migrant communities’ renewal policies should be optimized both in its system and value. Its system should promote the rule of law, the process of democratization and make the more migrants to participate in policy system. Its value should increase the efficiency of the whole society (not just economic efficiency) as the policy basis points, taking into account issues of social justice.(5) China’s migrant communities’renewal planning as the final implemented policy should be added to the urban social space planning, and be mainly at the community level. Urban social space planning should include employment, education, health care, social integration and other aspects of content.The ultimate aim of it is creating community spirit in the particular space of community, and promoting social harmony.更多还原