Transfer of development rights and public facility planning in Taiwan: An examination of local adaptation and spatial impact

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, transfer of development rights has served as a compensatory regime to address the ‘reserved land’ issue in Taiwan, a planning challenge that has seen private owners remain uncompensated for land flagged by the government for public facilities. This article investigates two aspects of the implementation of transfer of development rights in Taiwan. First, it examines the local adaptation process by which the use of transfer of development rights has been diverted from its original function of historical preservation. Second, it maps the spatial impact of this compensation process, using Sanchong District in New Taipei City as a case study. We demonstrate that trends of high-end developments in prime locations and ‘piecemeal transfer’ in the city’s older, inner neighbourhoods show worrisome patterns of uneven development. We conclude that the neoliberal effects generated by the transfer of development rights policy have complicated the planning challenge the policy was initially intended to resolve.

Keywords

local adaptation public facility planning spatial impact Taiwan transfer of development rights

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brenner

Theodore

(2002) Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode 34(3): 349–379.

Brenner

Peck

Theodore

(2010) Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks 10(2): 182–222.

Campbell

Fainstein

(2003) Introduction: The structure and debates of planning theory. In: Fainstein

Campbell

(eds) Readings in Planning Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 1–16.

Chang

(1991) Urban Planning in Taiwan, 1895–1988. Taipei: Institute for National Policy Research [in Chinese].

Chen

Y-L

(2012) Neoliberalism, the developmental state, and housing policy in Taiwan. In: Park

B-G

Child Hill

Saito

(eds) Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.196–224.

Cheng

(2006) Scholars endorse changes to urban planning floor area transfer measures. The China Times, 13 October, sec. C2 [in Chinese].

Chorus

(2008) Japan: Using developing rights as driver for development. In: Janssen-Jansen

Spaans

Veen

(eds) New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-financial Compensation. Delft: Delft University of Technology, pp. 41–72.

Chou

T-L

(1999) Institutional restructuring in Taiwan’s planning paradigm. Third World Planning Review 21(3): 331–343.

Cook

(2008) Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US business improvement districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies 45(4): 773–795.

10.

Evans

(1995) Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

11.

Harvey

(2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12.

(2009) China’s emerging neoliberal urbanism: Perspectives from urban redevelopment. Antipode 41(2): 282–304.

13.

Hsu

(2009) The spatial encounter between neoliberalism and populism in Taiwan: Regional restructuring under the DPP regime in the new millennium. Political Geography 28: 296–308.

14.

Jessop

(2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode 34(3): 452–472.

15.

Johnson

(1982) MIT and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

16.

Johnston

Madison

(1997) From landmarks to landscapes: A review of current practices in the transfer of development rights. Journal of the American Planning Association 63(3): 365–378.

17.

Jou

S-C

Clark

Chen

H-W

(2016) Gentrification and revanchist urbanism in Taipei? Urban Studies 53(3): 560–576.

18.

Kuyucu

Ünsal

(2010) ‘Urban transformation’ as state-led property transfer: An analysis of two cases of urban renewal in Istanbul. Urban Studies 47(7): 1479–1499.

19.

Larner

(2000) Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy 63: 5–25.

20.

Yuan

Legislative

(1988) Reserved Land for Public Facilities. Taipei: Legislative Yuan [in Chinese].

21.

Lin

(2008) The policy and practice of ‘transfer of development rights’ for the historic preservation in Taiwan. Journal of Culture Resources 4: 27–92 [in Chinese].

22.

Lin

(2007) A Study on Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) Mechanism of Taipei County. Masters thesis, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan [in Chinese].

23.

Lin

(1987) Reserved land is faced with possible abolishment. The Taiwan Times, 7 September, 23 [in Chinese].

24.

McCann

(2004) ‘Best places’: Interurban competition, quality of life and popular media discourse. Urban Studies 41(10): 1909–1929.

25.

McCann

(2011) Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101(1): 107–130.

26.

Micelli

(2002) Development rights markets to manage urban plans in Italy. Urban Studies 39(1): 141–154.

27.

Ministry of the Interior (1988) Research on the Institution for Urban Construction Areas Multiplication and Transfer. Taipei: Ministry of the Interior [in Chinese].

28.

Ministry of the Interior (1997) Report on Legislating Urban Planning Transfer of Development Rights Measures. Taipei: Ministry of the Interior [in Chinese].

29.

Miraftab

(2004) Public–private partnerships: The Trojan Horse of neoliberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research 24: 89–101.

30.

Molotch

(1999) Growth machine links: Up, down, and across. In: Jonas

Wilson

(eds) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives, Two decades Later. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 247–265.

31.

Park

B-G

Child Hill

Saito

(2012) Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

32.

Peck

Theodore

(2001) Exporting workfare/importing welfare-to-work: Exploring the politics of third way policy transfer. Political Geography 20(4): 427–460.

33.

Peck

Theodore

Brenner

(2009) Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review of International Affairs 29(1): 49–66.

34.

Pfeffer

Lapping

(1994) Farmland preservation, development rights and the theory of the growth machine: The review of planners. Journal of Rural Studies 10(3): 233–248.

35.

Pruetz

Standridge

(2009) What makes transfer of development rights work? Success factors from research and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association 35(1): 78–87.

36.

Robinson

(2011) The travels of urban neoliberalism: Taking stock of the internationalization of urban theory. Urban Geography 32(8): 1087–1109.

37.

Stinson

(1996) Transferring development rights: Purpose, problems, and prospects in New York. Pace Law Review 17: 319–357.

38.

Taipei County Government (1996) Revisions on Master Planning of Sanchong Municipality: Chongyang Bridge Area. Banqiao: Taipei County Government [in Chinese].

39.

Too

P-T

(1993) Feasibility Study on Using Transfer of Development Rights for Historical Preservation. Taipei: Council for Cultural Affairs, Execution Yuan. [in Chinese].

40.

Wang

C-S E

(2003) Historic Preservation in Taiwan: The Restoration of Tainan Da Tianhou Gong. Masters thesis, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.

41.

Ward

(2006) ‘Policies in motion’, urban management and state restructuring: The translocal expansion of business improvement districts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(1): 54–70.

42.

Ward

(2012) Re-examining the international diffusion of planning. In: Fainstein

Campbell

(eds) Readings in Planning Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 479–498.

43.

Wilson

(2004) Toward a contingent urban neoliberalism. Urban Geography 25(8): 771–783.

44.

Zeng

(2013) Three types of reserved land have priority to be dezoned. The Liberty Times, 22 March [in Chinese].