论文检索
    当前位置: 首页>>论文检索>>论文检索>>正文
    高密度城市容积率奖励机制对公共空间形成作用的研究:纽约和东京的比较
    2019-08-21  点击:[]

     

    高密度城市容积率奖励机制对公共空间形成作用的研究:

    纽约和东京的比较

    The Effect of FAR Awards Mechanism on the Formation of Public Space in High-density Cities: the Comparison of the New York City and Tokyo

    陈亚斌

    CHEN Yabin

     

    陈亚斌 / 1981 / / 工程师 / 上海同济城市规划设计研究院有限公司城市设计研究院城创所所长 / 研究方向为城市设计

    CHEN Yabin, male, was born in 1981. He is an engineer, the Director in Urban Design institute of Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design institute Co.Ltd

     

    摘要:容积率奖励作为高密度城市空间资源配置的手段,可以有效促进公共空间形成。研究解析了容积率奖励机制促进公共空间形成的动因。将纽约和东京作为比较样本,梳理其容积率奖励机制的发展历程、现行机制及成效并对其进行比较分析。纽约和东京容积率奖励机制有效促进公共空间产生的主要影响因素为主体互动和奖励机制,即在地方政府与市场资本的博弈和全过程管控的容积率奖励机制,最终有效促进高质量公共空间产生。

    关键词:容积率奖励;公共空间;比较;利益主体;机制

     

    Abstract: FAR (floor area ratio) Awards, as an approach of urban spatial resource distribution in high-density, can effectively promote the formation of public space. The research analyzes the drivers of FAR awards promoting public space. Taking the New York City and Tokyo as samples, the research summarizes the development, mechanism, and effects of FAR awards in the New York City and Tokyo and compares the FAR awards of two cities. The influence factors of the effectiveness of FAR awards on promoting public space in the samples are stakeholders' interaction and award mechanism, namely the negotiation between local government and market capital, and the FAR awards for whole process control. As a result, the mechanism promotes the emergence of high quality public space.

    Key words: FAR bonus; public space; comparison; stakeholder; mechanism

    引言

    高密度城市中,土地和空间资源一直是多方利益主体博弈的焦点。以开发商为代表的市场资本主体追求开发土地利益的最大化,以获得更多利润;地方政府则需在保障公共利益、提供城市公共产品的同时[1],考虑地方经济发展,平衡市场资本。容积率是地方政府平衡市场资本主体利益与社会公众利益的重要管控工具[2],也是我国现行控制性详细规划的重要指标之一。本文通过国外案例比较,探究利用容积率奖励机制促进公共空间有效形成的影响因素。


    1 理论基础及比较框架

    1.1 理论基础

    容积率奖励是一种城市空间资源的配置手段,通过影响市场资本主体的成本效益达到优化城市公共产品的目的[3][4],主要作用于市场资本主体及地方政府。市场资本主体和地方政府的互动关系和动因可以通过经济学理论进行解释。

    亚当·斯密的经济人”假设认为,人的一切行为的目标都是自身利益的最大化。在土地和空间资源的争夺中,市场资本具有经济人的特征[5],愿意通过提供公共产品来满足自身利益。制度经济学理论进一步发展了这一理论。科斯在1991年提出的科斯定理指出,“当交易成本为零时,产权会自动界定给最有效率的使用者”,而生产者只关心自己利益的最大化[6]

    经济学理论阐述了在土地资源配置过程中,主要利益主体的价值取向和核心诉求。我国控规中的容积率指标难以突破,市场资本主体转而寻求对策,与地方政府的博弈进一步加剧。容积率奖励机制迎合了市场资本主体逐利的需求,并利用其游戏规则,协助地方政府提供更多的公共空间,同时减少政府财政支出,弹性调控地区开发强度。因此,本研究重点分析在容积率奖励促进公共空间形成的过程中,利益主体互动和机制本身与机制有效实施之间的联系。

    1.2 比较框架及案例选取

    除了经济学理论对主要行为主体的动因分析外,规划师和社会公众在土地资源配置中也扮演着各自的角色[2]。为了深入研究公共空间奖励容积率机制有效实施的影响因素,探讨利益主体相互协调的过程,比较研究首先对两个案例中机制产生和发展历程进行梳理,试图分析利益主体的相互作用与阶段性结果的相关关系;继而分析现行机制及成效,包括奖励内容、设计要求、管理、运营和保障机制等,以得到现行机制中有益于容积率奖励有效实施的要素;最后,通过对比案例中利益主体互动过程、公共空间奖励容积率机制和实施成效,总结出对我国的经验和启示。

    比较案例选取纽约和东京两个城市,二者都是高密度城市,面临存量空间不足和人口压力较大的问题,且均存在地方政府与市场的博弈。尽管两者公共空间奖励容积率机制的发展过程、内容和管理存在差异,但均形成了有效推动公共空间形成的容积率奖励机制。


    2 纽约公共空间奖励容积率解析

    纽约市采用分区规划对地块的土地利用类型和使用强度进行控制,并覆盖城市全域空间。其用地类型包括4大类、18小类,每类用地均确定了刚性的容积率指标,且不能进行突破。20世纪初,美国高层建筑的发展导致了城市空间环境恶化,且对分区开发强度的刚性控制不利于市场健康发展,促使了纽约市1916版区划条例的产生。该条例首次提出了容积率这一概念,并对容积率奖励机制加以完善。通过容积率奖励而获得的额外公共空间被称为私有公共空间(英文名称为Privately Owned Public Space,简称为POPS[8],即权属上为私人土地的公共空间。随着区划条例的更新,POPS对象类型逐渐丰富,审批手段也根据奖励对象进行区分。该机制既标志着区划从刚性向弹性的转向,也探索出政府与资本主体协作共赢的新模式,成为公共空间奖励容积率机制的经典范例。

    2.1 发展历程

    纽约市1961版区划条例中提出了公共空间奖励容积率的机制,以解决阳光与空气不足、街道公共空间被挤占的问题,也突破了容积率刚性控制的制约。该条例规定,容积率奖励对象为广场和骑廊,且容积率奖励上限为20%POPS采用羁束型审批制度,即开发商仅需向市建筑委员会报送建筑方案附件,并判断其合规即可获批[7]。这一机制不仅建设成本低、审批限制少,还可增加地块附加值,受到开发商的追捧[8]。因此,地方政府进一步扩大了开放空间奖励容积率的适用范围,增加了下沉式广场等五种公共空间类型。

    容积率奖励显著增加公共空间面积的同时却带来了新的问题。开发商意在容积率奖励,公共空间质量难以保证。因此,地方政府在1975年降低了容积率奖励的上限,增加了公共空间设计标准和运营要求,收紧了公共空间奖励容积率机制的审批程序。此举使开发商的热情降低[9],复杂的奖励机制迫使地方政府对其进行优化。为简化管理,纽约2007版区划条例中将容积率奖励适用的空间类型合并为两种,即公共广场和骑廊;为简化审批程序,条例对设计标准进行量化,以便于相关部门依据设计标准进行简化审批。城市规划局还提出了涵盖开放性、可达性、安全性、舒适性等方面的公共广场设计指引。

    2.2 现行机制及成效

    纽约的POPS是运行时间最久、最为完善的公共空间奖励容积率机制。最新版的容积率奖励对象为公共广场及骑廊,明确了“公共使用”属性。其设计要求和运营要求从公众使用的角度出发予以引导,如设计需设置座椅、照明设施、标识牌等,并提出开放时间、日常维护等要求(表1)。

     

      1. 纽约公共空间奖励容积率机制细则

    奖励对象

    所属项目

    对象界定

    设计要求

    运营要求

    奖励内容

    公共广场

    Public Plaza

    纽约市2014版区划条例

    区划地块中为公众使用和享受的开放空间[10]

    对空间形式、位置、朝向、可视性、步行路径、高程、台阶、座椅、植被、照明、标识牌等18项内容制定了量化的细节标准

    开放时间、日常维护、户外餐饮管理和建筑立面4项具体内容

    根据用地性质和区划确定,为POPS面积的310倍,且奖励容积率≤基础容积率×20%

    骑廊

    Arcade

    连续、有覆盖、沿街道延伸的空间,或公众可达的开放空间[11]

    高度、宽度、长度、面积、开放程度等

    开放时间为24小时

    根据用地性质和区划确定,为POPS面积的23倍,且奖励容积率≤基础容积率×20%

     

    POPS机制拥有完善的管理和监督制度。POPS项目的建设许可证需开发商缴纳足够的保证金方可颁发;建筑落成后的建筑使用许可证则需POPS建成后才可颁发。开发商还需与CPC签订运营协议,其中不仅规定了开发商运营的要求,还列明了开发商违反相关要求的处罚条款。规划局、建设局和媒体公众是公共空间监督的主体。政府网站公示了POPS项目的位置和建筑、运营时间、公共设施等信息,便于公众监督。举报一经核实,开发商将收到违规通知书,如未能在循序期间改正则予以处罚[7]。管理和监督制度成为POPS公共性保障的强有力手段。

    截止到2017年,已经有超过550个项目应用了POPS机制(图1),面积总计35 000 m2[11]。其中包括284处广场、99处骑廊。这些公共空间多分布于曼哈顿,其次是布鲁克林和皇后区。

    1. POPS项目数量增长趋势(根据参考文献[8]改绘)

       

      3 东京公共空间奖励容积率解析

      日本的土地利用是通过地域地区制度进行控制的,即将城市建成区内的土地进行土地利用分区(称为用途地域),并实行用途地域制度。该制度规定了12种土地利用类型,对土地使用性质、用途、密度、容积率等进行控制,且容积率指标不得突破。除用途地域之外,还先后根据地区发展等因素划定了特定用途地域,制定特定的开发指标体系及容积率奖励体系。日本的容积率奖励机制伴随着特定用途地域出现,往往是根据特殊目标确定的。

      3.1发展历程

      第二次世界大战后,东京的经济经历了短暂的经济恢复期,便开始快速发展。产业结构的变化带来人口的急剧增长,居住和办公空间的需求也日益增加。在这种背景下,兴建高层建筑、保留更多绿色公共空间的呼声渐强[12]。高层建筑热潮和公共空间的需求促使日本政府于1961年和1963年分别出台特定街区制度容积地区制,作为非一般用途地域的先例,通过提供更多公共空间获取容积率奖励。

      1970年的“综合设计制度”和1988年的“再开发促进区地区计划”[13]进一步促使高层建筑通过地面层开放处理建筑与外部空间的过渡关系,使之成为一种流行的手法,如新宿住友大厦和东京池袋的阳光大厦。

    2000年后,东京都政府借助民间资本实现城市更新[14],进一步放宽容积率限制。政府希望市场资本主体可以发挥其创造力,促进多样化的城市公共空间产生。因此,东京都政府推出了东京开发制度,其中对三类街区提出了公共空间奖励容积率的细则,根据分区建设强度计算得到容积率奖励额度,在符合要求的前提下,土地所有者和民间资本主体可以根据自身需求制定地区发展规划。

    3.2 现行机制及成效

    东京的容积率奖励和豁免在多个项目中都有所规定,但奖励对象为公共空间的容积率奖励机制主要集中在“都市开发制度”中。都市开发制度是为了确保公共开放空间(公开空地)等公共产品的提供,采取容积率奖励及建筑斜线缓和等措施的制度[15]。其中,针对公共空间奖励容积率机制的子项目为特定街区制度、再开发促进区地区计划制度以及综合设计制度。奖励对象包括公园、绿地、广场、建筑中的公共空间以及屋顶绿化,根据所属项目的不同,设计和运营要求的强度也不同。奖励额度是根据区划功能、基准容积率、有效空地率等通过公式进行计算的,以活用制度促使建筑规划师因地制宜地采用不同的建筑形式和容积率奖励机制。

      1. 东京公共空间奖励容积率机制细则

    奖励对象

    所属项目

    对象界定

    设计要求

    运营要求

    奖励内容

    有效公开空地,包括公园、绿地、广场等公共开放空间;建筑物中的公共空间;屋顶绿化等

    都市开发制度

    特定街区,由《东京都特定街区运用基准》及《实施细则》约束

    具有优秀城市空间的功能更新区域

    建筑内部空间提供有效空地原则上≤总有效空地面积的1/2且>100㎡,并提供植栽、花坛、池泉等景观设施

    管理者需保证其公共性,并每年向东京都报告;为保证公共性,管理者应明确公示公共空间的细节

    容积率奖励,根据用地功能、基准容积率及有效空地率进行计算,并根据用地限定上限,最高不超过300%

    再开发促进区地区计划,由《东京都再开发促进区地区计划运用基准》及《实施细则》约束

    利用率低、质量较低的、需要土地利用置换的区域

    公开空地率高于有效公开空地率最低限度的区域,包括公共开放空间、立体绿化等

    综合设计,《东京都综合设计许可纲要》及《实施细则》约束

    具有一定规模的、可供建设的空地区域

    约束绿化率、绿化的连续性、树种多样性、草坪覆盖率、建筑物绿化等

    不可随意变更,变更需提交申请;除特殊情况外不可占用

    根据有效空地率、空地质量、基准容积率、用地功能、住宅类型、环境水平等进行计算,并根据用地限定上限,最高不超过300%

    东京都地方政府鼓励开发主体根据现有公共空间奖励容积率机制自主进行地区发展目标、发展计划的制定,并依据实际情况给予一定技术或组织上的协助。在规划提案阶段,市町村、所有者、居民、开发商协商一致后可签订协议,并将协议与包含容积率奖励内容的规划书一同提交东京都进行审批,必要时需要有关机关进行审核。规划提案者或建筑所有者有义务对公共空间的维护管理选任管理负责人。管理负责人应负责公共空间的管理和维护,并每年向东京都提交报告。公共空间应设置易于识别的标识板,以保证空间的公共性。

    都市开发制度框架下的特定街区制度、再开发促进区地区计划与综合设计制度已促成若干地块进行整合,并拓展公共空间。截止至2015年,已有64个区块在特定街区制度框架下落实了该机制,如Shinmaru Building和日本桥三井塔楼大厦[15];再开发促进区地区计划也落成了53个地区的城市规划,如六本木新城和东京中城。截止到2016年,综合设计共颁布许可727个项目,包括新宿公园大厦和Tennozu Air。以东京中城为例,作为都市再生特定地区,通过公共空间的提供突破已有规划的容积率限制,形成4 hm2的连续绿地,为高密度的东京提供了大量公共空间[14]

     

    4 纽约和东京容积率奖励促进公共空间形成的比较

    纽约与东京分别于1961年、1963年开始尝试通过容积率奖励促进公共空间形成的策略,经过数十年的发展,取得了较好的收效。案例在主体互动与奖励机制上存在差异,但通过容积率奖励形成的室外公共开放空间、建筑内部公共空间和包含立体绿化的公共空间均有了质和量的提升。研究通过比较探究容积率奖励有效促进公共空间形成的影响因素。

    4.1主体互动:地方政府与市场资本主体的博弈和协商

    纽约和东京以土地私有制为主体,地方政府均使用弹性手段引导市场资本主体实现共同目标。在容积率指标由地方政府确定且难以突破的背景下,纽约市私权为主导的政治制度利用市场手段推动容积率的弹性调整。当容积率奖励机制与市场不适应时,纽约市政府根据市场情况对容积率奖励进行修改以避免机制滥用。此外,公众参与程序基于宪法明确列入区划法[16],社会公众有权进行听证和申诉,切实维护了社会公众利益。东京都政府则根据城市发展状况,制定特定片区的发展目标并逐渐开放容积率限制,以促进城市建设和复兴。2002年的《都市计画法》中提出的城市规划提案制度将城市规划编制放权至土地所有者或非营利团体[17],鼓励民间开发主体活用容积率奖励机制,并以审批手段保障公共空间的类型和质量。

    纽约和东京的容积率均在土地区划中确定,且较难突破。过于刚性的容积率指标不利于市场运行,市场资本通过与地方政府对抗、协商和多次调整推动容积率奖励机制产生。地方政府以容积率奖励促进公共空间产生,并通过颁布法律、发布设计导则、公众参与设计等方式实现对公共利益的维护。

    4.2 奖励机制:全过程管控的公共空间弹性引导机制

    奖励机制包括奖励对象、奖励额度、设计运营要求、审批及管理手段等。对比两个案例可知,奖励对象可狭义地界定为室外开放空间;也可广义地界定为室外开放空间、建筑内部公共空间和立体绿化营造的公共空间三类。对于奖励额度和上限,纽约及东京均限定了容积率奖励额度和上限:纽约根据区划开发强度确定奖励额度;东京则根据区块功能、有效空地、质量等,通过公式进行奖励额度的综合判定。从审批角度,纽约根据开放空间类型和等级制定审查流程,重要的公共空间奖励容积率项目需不同部门层层审批;东京在鼓励民间开发主体自主提交提案的基础上,由地方政府把控地区规划纽约的管理制度十分完善:每个POPS项目的细则均可在网站查询,方便POPS和媒体公众共同监督和反馈。不同于纽约,东京的公共空间奖励容积率项目是由开发主体指定的管理员进行管理和负责。

    纽约和东京的容积率奖励机制均对奖励对象、奖励额度和上限进行了明确规定,并根据地方具体情况采用科学手段确定容积率奖励额度,如根据地块性质、提供公共空间面积和质量确定。对提供的公共空间提出设计和运营要求是保障公共空间公共性的重要因素,且需要合理的审批流程、有效的管理和监督制度相配合。

    4.3 实施成效:有效促进多样化高质量公共空间的产生

    尽管纽约与东京的公共空间奖励容积率机制在主体互动与奖励机制上存在差异,其公共空间奖励容积率机制均取得了不错的实施效果,具体体现在:(1)室外公共开放空间数量和质量的有效提升;(2)建筑底层和内部公共空间的产生;(3)立体绿化公共空间的形成。纽约的POPS项目主要奖励对象为室外公共开放空间,对尺度和质量的引导和规定不仅使建筑外部公共开放空间增加,而且形成了良好的交往氛围。东京通过容积率奖励促进建筑内部和外部的公共空间形成,建筑与外部空间以公共开放空间作为过渡,建筑内部也形成了高质量的公共空间。

    5 启示

    公共空间奖励容积率机制迎合了利益主体的核心诉求,通过地方政府制定游戏规则,引导市场资本主体提供更多公共产品。合理的容积率奖励机制,可以有效引导类型多样、满足使用者需求的公共空间。通过纽约、东京两个案例在公共空间奖励容积率机制发展过程中主体互动和奖励机制的分析和对比,本文探索了不同背景下推行该机制的影响因素,并立足于我国城市现状,给我国当前的容积率奖励机制以启示。

    我国推行容积率奖励机制具有土地制度的基础,也存在市场需求。但由于地方政府在制定容积率奖励机制时,对市场需求了解不甚充分,加之容积率奖励机制制定和管理制度不到位,在实际推行中存在困难。地方政府与市场资本主体互利合作新模式进行探索、切实了解机制推行实际存在的问题,完善容积率奖励机制,科学确定奖励对象、奖励额度和上限,对设计和运营要点进行引导,并采用合理的管理制度,可以成为有效推动公共空间奖励容积率机制实施的支撑,为社会公众提供类型和功能多样的公共空间,实现市场与公共需求的平衡。


     

    参考文献·

    1. 托马斯·戴伊. 理解公共政策[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006. Dye T R. Understanding Public Policy [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press,2006.

    2. 吴可人, 华晨. 城市规划中四类利益主体剖析[J]. 城市规划. Wu Keren, Hua Chen. Analysis of Four Types of Stakeholders in Urban Planning [J]. City Planning Review.

    3. 杨俊宴, 吴明伟. 奖励性管制方法在城市规划中的应用[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2007(2):77-80. Yang Junyan, Wu Mingwei. The Rewarding Planning Control in China’s Urban Planning Administration [J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2007(2):77-80.

    4. 运迎霞, 吴静雯. 容积率奖励及开发权转让的国际比较[J]. 天津大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, 9(2). Yun Yingxia, Wu Jingwen. International Comparison of FAR Awards and TDR Application [J]. Journal of Tianjin University (Social Sciences), 2007, 9(2).

    5. 汪坚强.中国控制性详细规划的制度构建[M]. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2017. Wang Jianqiang. The Institution Construction of China’s Regulatory Planning [M]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2017.

    6. 赵燕菁. 制度经济学视角下的城市规划()[J]. 城市规划, 2005(6):40-47. Zhao Yanjing. Urban Planning in the Perspective of Institutional Economics [J]. City Planning Review, 2005(6):40-47.

    7. 于洋. 纽约市区划条例的百年流变(19162016)——以私有公共空间建设为例[J]. 国际城市规划, 2016, 31(2):98-109. Yu Yang. A-Century Development of New York City’s Zoning Resolution (1916-2016) from the Perspective of Privately Owned Public Space Construction [J]. Urban Planning International, 2016, 31(2):98-109.

    8. New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces: History [EB/OL]. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops-history.page#collapse1, 2019.07.01.

    9. 杨震, 徐苗. 私人拥有的公共空间的演变与批判:纽约经验[J]. 建筑学报, 2013(6):1-7. Yang Zhen, Xu Miao. Evolution and Critiques of Privately Owned Public Spaces: the New York City Experience [J]. Architectural Journal, 2013(6):1-7.

    10. Article III: Commercial District Regulations [EB/OL]. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/zoning/zoning-text/art03c07.pdf, 2019.07.01.

    11. New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces [EB/OL]. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops.page, 2019.07.01.

    12. 覃力. 日本高层建筑研究[D]. 同济大学, 2006. Tan Li. Japanese Tall Buildings [D]. Tongji University, 2006.

    13. 薄力之. 城市建设强度分区管控的国际经验及启示[J]. 国际城市规划, 2019, 34(1):89-98. Bo Lizhi. On the Urban Development Density Zoning: International Experience and Inspiration [J]. Urban Planning International, 2019, 34(1):89-98.

    14. 何仲禹, 翟国方. 日本东京城市综合体的规划设计与开发经营[J]. 现代城市研究, 2016(3):60-67. He Zhongyu, Zhai Guofang. Planning, Development and Management of the Urban Complex in Tokyo, Japan [J]. Modern Urban Research, 2016(3):60-67.

    15. http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/cpproject/intro/description_1.html, 2019.07.01.

      City Development System [EB/OL].

    16. 于洋. 面向存量规划的我国城市公共物品生产模式变革[J]. 城市规划, 2016, 40(3):15-24. Yu Yang. Stock Land Planning-Oriented Production Mode Change of Urban Public Goods in China [J]. City Planning Review, 2016, 40(3):15-24.

    17. 谭纵波. 从中央集权走向地方分权——日本城市规划事权的演变与启示[J]. 国际城市规划, 2008, 23(2):26-31. Tan Zongbo. From Centralization to Decentralization——The Evolution of Power and Responsibility in Japanese Urban Planning and Some Thoughts on It [J]. Urban Planning International, 2008, 23(2):26-31.

     

    (整理:赵迪 译:张玉瑶)

     

     

    Introduction

    In high-density cities, land and space resources have always been the focus of multi-stakeholder games. The market capital entities represented by real estate developers seek maximal benefits of land development for more profits. Local governments shall consider local economic development and compete for market capital while protecting public interests and providing urban public products[1]. FAR is an important control tool for local governments to balance the interests of market capital entities and the public [2], as well as one of the important indicators of current regulatory plan in China. Through the comparison with foreign cases, this paper tries to explore the factors that influence the effective formation of public space with FAR awards mechanism.

    1 Theoretical Basis and Comparative Framework

    1.1 Theoretical Basis

    FAR award is a means of urban space resource allocation to optimize urban public products by influencing the cost-effectiveness of market capital entities [3][4], and mainly acts on market capital entities and local governments. The interaction and motivation between the market capital entities and local governments can be explained by economic theories.

    "Hypothesis of Economic Man" by Adam Smith holds that the goal of all human behaviors is to maximize their own interests. In the competition for land and space resources, market capital has the characteristics of "economic man"[5] and is willing to satisfy its own interests by providing public products. The theory of institutional economics has further developed this theory. In 1991, Coase proposed the "Coase Theorems", indicating that "when the transaction cost is zero, property rights will be automatically defined to the most efficient users", while producers "only care about maximizing their own interests"[6].

    Economic theory expounds the value orientation and core demands of main stakeholders in the process of land resource allocation. It is difficult to break through the FAR index in regulatory regulations of China, and the market capital entities have turned to seek "countermeasures", which further intensifies the game with local governments. The FAR awards mechanism caters to the demand of the market capital entities for profit, and uses its "rules of the game" to assist local governments to provide more public space while reducing financial expenditure and flexibly regulating the regional development intensity. Therefore, this study focuses on the analysis of the relationship between the interaction of stakeholders, the mechanism itself and the effective implementation of the mechanism in the process of promoting the formation of public space through FAR awards.

    1.2 Comparison Framework and Case Selection

    In addition to the economic theory analysis of the motivation of main actors, planners and the public also play their respective roles in the allocation of land resources [2]. In order to deeply study the influencing factors of the effective implementation of the FAR awards mechanism in public space, and explore the process of coordination among stakeholders, the comparative study first sorts out the mechanism generation and development process of the two cases, and tries to analyze the correlation between the interaction of the stakeholders and the phased results. Further, it analyzes the current mechanism and the effects, including the reward content, design requirements, management, operation and guarantee mechanisms, etc., in order to obtain the elements of current mechanism that are conducive to the effective implementation of the FAR awards; Finally, the experience and enlightenment to China are summarized by comparing the interactive process of stakeholders in the case, the FAR awards mechanism in public space and the implementation results.

    The two cities selected in the case, New York and Tokyo, are both high-density cities facing the problems of insufficient stock space and great population pressure, and both have a game between the local government and the market. In spite of differences in the development process, content and management of the FAR awards mechanism for public space, both cities have formed an FAR awards mechanism that effectively promotes the formation of public space.

     

    2 FAR Awards Analysis of Public Space in New York

    New York adopts Zoning by-Low to control the land use types and intensity of the plots, and covers the whole urban space. The land use includes 4 categories and 18 sub-categories, each of which has determined a rigid floor area ratio index and cannot be exceeded. At the beginning of the 20th century, the development of high-rise buildings in the United States led to the deterioration of urban space environment, and the rigid control of the zoning development intensity was not conducive to the healthy development of the market, prompting the formation of the "New York Zoning Regulations (Edition 1916)". The regulation initiatively proposed the concept of "floor area ratio (FAR)" and improved the FAR awards mechanism. The extra public space obtained through the awards is called Privately Owned Public Space (POPS)[8], that is, public space with the ownership of private. With the updating of zoning regulations, POPS object types get richer, and the approval methods are differentiated according to award objects. This mechanism not only marks the change from rigidity to flexibility in zoning, but also explores a new mode of win-win cooperation between governments and capital entities, which has become a classic example of FAR awards mechanism in public space.

    2.1 Development Process

    The "New York Zoning Regulations (Edition 1916)" proposes the FAR awards mechanism in public space to solve the problems of insufficient sunshine and air and the crowding of public space in streets, and also breaks through the restriction of rigid control of FAR. According to the regulations, the FAR awards targets plaza and arcade, and the ceiling for the award is 20%. POPS adopt an as-of-right system, i.e. developers only need to submit the annex of construction plan to the municipal construction committee and can be approved after judged compliant [7]. This mechanism is not only of low construction cost and few approval restrictions, but also can increase the added value of plots, which is highly sought after by developers [8]. Therefore, local governments have further expanded the application scope of FAR awards in open space, and added five types of public space such as sunken plaza.

    While significantly increasing the area of public space, the FAR awards have also brought new problems. What developers seek is the FAR awards, so the quality of public space lacks guarantee. Therefore, the local government lowered the ceiling of FAR awards in 1975, raised the design standards and operational requirements for public space, and tightened the approval procedures for the FAR awards mechanism for public space, which weakened the enthusiasm of developers [9], and the complicated mechanism forced local governments to make optimization. In order to simplify the management, the "New York Zoning Regulations (Edition 2007)" merged the space types applicable to FAR awards into two types, namely, public plaza and arcade. In order to simplify the approval process, the regulations quantified the design standards for relevant authorities to simplify the approval according to the design standards. The Department of City Planning (DCP) also proposed guidelines for the design of public plazas covering openness, accessibility, safety and comfort.

    2.2 Current Mechanism and Effect

    POPS in New York is the longest-running and most perfect FAR awards mechanism in public space. The latest FAR awards targets public plaza and arcade, defining the attribute of "public use". The design and operation requirements shall be guided from the perspective of public use, including seats, lighting facilities, signboards, etc., and requirements for opening hours, daily maintenance, etc. shall be put forward. (Table 1).

    Table 1 FAR Awards Mechanism Details in Public Space of New York

    Object

    Product

    Object Definition

    Design Requirement

    Operation Requirement

    Awards

    public plaza

    New York Zoning Regulations (Edition 2014)

    Open space for   public use and enjoyment in zoning plots [10]

    Quantitative   detail standards have been established for 18 items including spatial form,   location, orientation, visibility, walking path, elevation, steps, seats,   vegetation, lighting, signboards, etc.

    Opening hours,   daily maintenance, outdoor catering management and building facade

    3-10 times of POPS area according to the   nature of land use and zoning, and the FAR awards ≤ base FAR ×20%

    arcade

    Continuous and   covered space extending along the street or open space accessible to the   public [11]

    Height, width,   length, area, openness, etc.

    24-hour   operation

    2-3 times of POPS area according to the nature   of land use and zoning, and the FAR awards ≤ base FAR ×20%

     

    POPS mechanism has sound management and supervision system. The construction license for POPS projects can only be issued after the developer pays sufficient deposit. The certificate of occupancy after the completion of a building can only be issued after POPS are completed. Developers also need to sign an operation agreement with CPC, which specifies the operation requirements for developers as well as s the penalty clauses for violation of relevant requirements of developers. Planning Bureau, Construction Bureau, media and the public are the main bodies of public space supervision. The government website will publicize the location, construction, operation time, public facilities and other information of POPS projects to facilitate public supervision. Once the report is verified, the developer will receive a Notice of Violation, and will be punished if it fails to rectify within a proper period of time [7]. The management and supervision system has become a powerful means to ensure the publicity of POPS.

    By 2017, more than 550 projects have applied POPS mechanism (Fig. 1), with a total area of 3.8 million square feet (35,000 square meters) [11], including 284 plazas and 99 arcades. These public spaces are mostly distributed in Manhattan, followed by Brooklyn and Queens.

     

    每年私有公共空间建设项目量

    Number of Private   Public Space Construction Projects per Year

    单位:个

    Unit: Number

     

    Figure 1 Increasing Trend of POPS Projects (redrawn based on reference [8])

     

    3 FAR Awards Analysis of Public Space in Tokyo

    Land use in Japan is controlled through the regional system, that is, the land within the urban built-up area is divided into land use zones (namely use zones) and "use regional system" is implemented. The system stipulates 12 types of land use and controls the nature, use, density and FAR of land use, among which FAR cannot be exceeded. In addition to use areas, specific use areas are designated successively according to factors such as regional development, and specific development index system and FAR awards system are formulated. The FAR awards mechanism in Japan appeared along with specific use areas and has often been determined according to special objectives.

    3.1 Development Process

    After World War II, the economy in Tokyo witnessed rapid development after a short recovery period. Changes in industrial structure brought about rapid population growth, and the demand for residential and office space also increased gradually. In this context, the call for the construction of high-rise buildings and the preservation of more green public spaces began to grow up [12]. The upsurge of high-rise buildings and the demand for public space prompted the Japanese government to issue "Specific Block System" and "Floor Area System" in 1961 and 1963 respectively as precedents for non-general use areas, and more public space was obtained through FAR awards.

    The "Comprehensive Design System" in 1970 and the "Redevelopment Promotion Zone Area Plan" in 1988 [13] further enforced high-rise buildings to handle the transitional relationship between buildings and external space through ground floor opening, making it a popular method, such as "Shinjuku Smamoto Building (1974)" and "Sunshine 60 (1978)" in Ikebukuro, Tokyo.

    After 2000, the Tokyo metropolitan government realized urban renewal by virtue of private capital [14] and further relaxed the FAR limit. The government hoped that the market capital entities could give full play to their creativity and promote the creation of diversified urban public spaces. Therefore, it introduced the "Tokyo development system", which provided detailed rules for FAR awards in public space to three types of blocks. The award amount was calculated according to the intensity of zoning construction. On the premise of meeting the requirements, land owners and private capital entities could formulate regional development plans according to their own needs.

    3.2 Current Mechanism and Effect

    FAR awards and exemption in Tokyo are stipulated in a number of projects, but the mechanism targeting public space is mainly concentrated in the "urban development system", which is to adopt measures such as FAR awards and building slash mitigation to ensure the provision of public products such as public open space (open vacant land) [15]. Among the system, subprojects of the FAR awards mechanism targeting public space are specific zoning system, redevelopment promotion area planning system and comprehensive design system. Objects of the awards include parks, greenbelts, squares, public spaces in buildings and roof greening, and the intensity of design and operation requirements are different depending on different projects. The award amount is calculated by formulas based on zoning function, benchmark floor area ratio, effective vacant land ratio, etc., so as to promote building planners to adopt different building forms and FAR awards mechanisms according to local conditions through the system.

    Table 1 Detailed Rules of FAR Awards Mechanism for Public Space in Tokyo

    Object

    Product

    Object Definition

    Design Requirement

    Operation Requirement

    Awards


    Effective open   spaces, including public open spaces such as parks, greenbelts and squares; public   space in buildings; roof greening, etc.

    Urban   Development System

    Specific   blocks are bound by the "Tokyo Special Block Application Criteria"   and the "Implementation Rules"

    Functional   renewal area with excellent urban space

    In principle,   the interior space of the building shall provide effective open space 1/2 of the   total effective open space area and > 100 , equipped with landscape facilities such as   planting, flower beds and pond springs.

    Managers shall   ensure their publicity and report annually to Tokyo   metropolitan government, and shall clearly publicize the details of public space in order to   ensure publicity.

    FAR awards are calculated according to the   land use function, the benchmark floor area ratio and the effective space   ratio, and the upper limit is limited to no more than 300% according to the land use.

    Regional plan   for redevelopment promotion zone is bound by the "Tokyo Metropolitan   Area Plan Application Criteria" and the "Implementation Rules"

    Areas with low   utilization rate and low quality that need land use replacement

    Areas where   the open space rate is higher than the minimum effective open space rate,   including public open space, three-dimensional greening, etc.

    Comprehensive   design shall be bound by the "Tokyo Comprehensive Design Permit   Outline" and the "Implementation Rules"

    An open area   of a certain scale that can be built.

    Restrict   greening rate, greening continuity, tree species diversity, lawn coverage   rate, building greening, etc.

    Random is not   permitted. Submit application for any change; Do not occupy except under   special circumstances.

    Calculate according to the effective space   rate, space quality, benchmark floor area ratio, land use function,   residential type, environmental level, etc., and the maximum shall not be more than 300%   according to the land use limit














     

    The Tokyo metropolitan government encourages development entities to formulate regional development goals and plans according to the existing FAR awards mechanism for public space, and to provide certain technical or organizational assistance according to the actual situation. In the stage of planning proposal, the prefecture governments, land owners, residents and development enterprises can sign agreements after reaching a consensus, and submit the agreements together with the planning documents containing the FAR awards content to the Tokyo metropolitan government for approval, and relevant authorities shall review when necessary. The plan proposers or the building owners have the obligation to appoint managers for the maintenance and management of the public space. The person in charge of management shall be responsible for the management and maintenance of public space and submit a report to the Tokyo metropolitan government every year. Public spaces shall be provided with easily identifiable identification boards to ensure the publicity of the space.

    Specific block system, redevelopment promotion area plan and comprehensive design system under the framework of urban development system have facilitated the integration of several blocks and the expansion of public space. As of 2015, 64 blocks have implemented the mechanism under the framework of specific block system, such as Shinmaru Building and Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower [15]; The Redevelopment Promotion Zone Area Plan has also completed urban planning for 53 areas, such as Roppongi Hills and Tokyo Midtown. By 2016, 727 projects have been approved for comprehensive design, including Shinjuku Park Building and Tennozu Air. Taking Tokyo Midtown as an example, the "specific area for urban regeneration" has broken the floor area ratio limit of existing plans through the provision of public space, and formed a continuous green space of 4hm2 to provide a large amount of public space for high-density Tokyo [14].

     

    4 Comparison of Public Space Promotion by FAR Awards between New York and Tokyo

    New York and Tokyo began to try the strategy of promoting the formation of public space through FAR awards in 1961 and 1963 respectively. After decades of development, good results have been achieved. There are differences in entity interaction and award mechanism in the cases, but the outdoor public open space, public space inside the building and public space including three-dimensional greening formed by FAR awards have both improved in quality and quantity. The study explores the influential factors that FAR awards effectively promote the formation of public space through comparison.

     

    4.1 Entity Interaction: Game and Consultation between Local Government and Market Capital Entities

    New York and Tokyo take private ownership of land as the main entity, and both local governments use flexible means to guide the market capital entities to achieve common goals. Under the background that the area floor ratio index is determined by local government and difficult to break through, the political system dominated by private rights in New York adopts market means to promote the flexible adjustment of FAR. When the awards mechanism is not suitable for the market, the New York municipal government modifies the awards according to the market situation to avoid abuse of the mechanism. In addition, the public participation procedure is explicitly included in the zoning law [16] based on the constitution, and the public has the right of hearing and appealing, thus effectively safeguarding the public interest. The Tokyo metropolitan government, on the other hand, sets development targets for specific districts according to local development and gradually opens the FAR limit to promote the construction and revival. The "Urban Planning Proposal System" put forward in the "Urban Planning Method" in 2002 delegated the compilation of urban planning to landowners or non-profit organizations [17] to encourage non-governmental development entities to make full use of the FAR awards mechanism and ensure the type and quality of public space by means of examination and approval.

    The FARs of New York and Tokyo are both determined in the land zoning and difficult to break through. Too rigid index is not conducive to market operation, and market capital promotes FAR awards mechanism through confrontation, negotiation and multiple adjustments with local governments. Local governments promote the production of public space with FAR awards, and protect public interests by promulgating laws, issuing design guidelines, and public participation in design.

    4.2 Awards Mechanism: Flexible Guidance Mechanism of Public Space for Whole Process Control

    The award mechanism includes award object, award quota, design and operation requirements, approval and management methods, etc. Comparing the two cases, we can see that the award objects can be narrowly defined as outdoor open space, and it can also be broadly defined as outdoor open space, public space inside buildings and public space created by three-dimensional greening. As for the awards limit and upper limit, both New York and Tokyo defined limits of FAR: New York determined the awards limit according to the intensity of zoning development, while Tokyo made a comprehensive decision on the award amount according to the block function, the available space, the quality, etc. From the perspective of examination and approval, New York formulated the examination process according to the type and grade of open space. FAR awards in important public space projects required examination and approval by different departments at different levels. Tokyo controlled regional planning by local governments on the basis of encouraging non-governmental development entities to submit proposals independently, while New York had mature management system: the detailed rules of each POPS project could be searched on the website to facilitate joint supervision and feedback by POPS and the media public. Oppositely, the FAR awards projects for public space in Tokyo was managed by administrators designated by the development entities.

     

    There are clearly defined award object, amount and upper limit both in New York and Tokyo, and scientific methods are adopted to determine the FAR awards amount according to specific local conditions, such as the plot nature, the area and quality of public space. Putting forward design and operation requirements for the public space is an important factor to ensure the public nature of the public space, and requires reasonable approval process, effective management and supervision system.

     

    4.3 Implementation Effect: Promote Effective Generation of Diversified and High Quality Public Space

    Although there are differences in the entity interaction and award mechanism between the public space FAR awards mechanisms in New York and Tokyo, both of their mechanisms have achieved sound implementation results, specifically: (1) the effective improvement of quantity and quality of outdoor public open spaces; (2) the generation of the building floor and internal public space; (3) the formation of three-dimensional green public space. In New York, the main award object of POPS projects is outdoor public open space. The guidance and regulations on scale and quality have not only increased the public open space outside buildings, but also formed a good communication atmosphere. Tokyo promotes the formation of public spaces inside and outside buildings through FAR awards. Public open spaces are used as a transition between buildings and external spaces. High-quality public spaces are also formed inside buildings.

     

    5 Enlightenment

    The FAR awards mechanism in public space has catered to the core demands of interest entities. Local governments formulate "rules of the game" to guide market capital entities to provide more public products. A reasonable FAR awards mechanism can effectively guide public spaces with various types and meeting the needs of users. Through the analysis and comparison of the main body interaction and awards mechanism in the development process of the FAR awards mechanism in public space in the two cases of New York and Tokyo, the paper explores the influencing factors of the implementation of the mechanism under different backgrounds, and gives enlightenment to the current FAR awards mechanism in China based on the current urban situation.

    The implementation of FAR awards mechanism in China has the foundation of land system as well as market demand. However, due to the insufficient understanding of market demand of local governments when formulating the FAR awards mechanism and the inadequate formulation and management system of the mechanism, there are difficulties in actual implementation. This paper explors a new mode of mutually beneficial cooperation between local governments and market capital entities to effectively understand the actual problems in the implementation of the mechanism, improve the FAR awards mechanism, determine the awards object, amount and upper limit scientifically, guide the key points during design and operation, and adopt reasonable management system, which can become the support for effectively promoting the implementation of the FAR awards mechanism in public space, provide public space with various types and functions, and realize the balance between market and public demand.


     

    Reference

    1. Dye T R. Understanding Public Policy [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press,2006.

    2. Wu Keren, Hua Chen. Analysis of Four Types of Stakeholders in Urban Planning [J]. City Planning Review.

    3. Yang Junyan, Wu Mingwei. The Rewarding Planning Control in China’s Urban Planning Administration [J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2007(2):77-80.

    4. Yun Yingxia, Wu Jingwen. International Comparison of FAR Awards and TDR Application [J]. Journal of Tianjin University (Social Sciences), 2007, 9(2).

    5. Wang Jianqiang. The Institution Construction of China’s Regulatory Planning [M]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2017.

    6. Zhao Yanjing. Urban Planning in the Perspective of Institutional Economics [J]. City Planning Review, 2005(6):40-47.

    7. Yu Yang. A-Century Development of New York City’s Zoning Resolution (1916-2016) from the Perspective of Privately Owned Public Space Construction [J]. Urban Planning International, 2016, 31(2):98-109.

    8. New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces: History [EB/OL]. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops-history.page#collapse1, 2019.07.01.

    9. Yang Zhen, Xu Miao. Evolution and Critiques of Privately Owned Public Spaces: the New York City Experience [J]. Architectural Journal, 2013(6):1-7.

    10. Article III: Commercial District Regulations [EB/OL]. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/zoning/zoning-text/art03c07.pdf, 2019.07.01.

    11. New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces [EB/OL]. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops.page, 2019.07.01.

    12. Tan Li. Japanese Tall Buildings [D]. Tongji University, 2006.

    13. Bo Lizhi. On the Urban Development Density Zoning: International Experience and Inspiration [J]. Urban Planning International, 2019, 34(1):89-98.

    14. He Zhongyu, Zhai Guofang. Planning, Development and Management of the Urban Complex in Tokyo, Japan [J]. Modern Urban Research, 2016(3):60-67.

    15. http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/cpproject/intro/description_1.html, 2019.07.01.

      City Development System [EB/OL].

    16. Yu Yang. Stock Land Planning-Oriented Production Mode Change of Urban Public Goods in China [J]. City Planning Review, 2016, 40(3):15-24.

    17. Tan Zongbo. From Centralization to Decentralization——The Evolution of Power and Responsibility in Japanese Urban Planning and Some Thoughts on It [J]. Urban Planning International, 2008, 23(2):26-31.

     

     

     

    上一条:基于多评准决策的都市公园生态系统服务评估-以台中市公园为例 下一条:“高线”效应与“毕尔巴鄂效应”——城市明星项目激活效应的差异化解读

    关闭