Governance Responsibility in Fragmented Small-Lot Urban Regeneration: Evidence from Taipei
Using Taipei as a case study and the DPSIR framework, this paper argues that the stagnation of small-lot urban regeneration in high-density cities stems not from a lack of incentives but from fragmented governance structures that create responsibility gaps, necessitating a repair framework centered on intermediary actors to realign distributed roles and restore process continuity.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the dense, vertical neighborhoods of modern cities, a quiet crisis is unfolding beneath the surface. Many buildings are aging, their structures weakening and their safety becoming uncertain, yet they remain standing. The challenge of fixing them is not just a matter of engineering; it is a problem of organization. When a neighborhood is made up of many tiny plots of land, each owned by a different person, getting everyone to agree on a plan is incredibly difficult. This is the realm of urban regeneration, the process of revitalizing old city areas. For decades, the standard approach has been to tear down large blocks and rebuild them as massive, unified projects. This method works well when there are big, empty spaces or when a single large developer can buy up an entire block. However, in cities where the land is chopped into hundreds of small pieces, this large-scale model often fails. The question facing researchers is why these small, aging neighborhoods get stuck in limbo, unable to renew themselves despite the clear need for safety and the desire of residents to improve their homes.
A team of researchers from Chinese Culture University in Taipei set out to solve this puzzle by looking at the city's own struggle with small-lot renewal. Taipei is a perfect place to study this issue because it is a high-density metropolis filled with narrow alleyways and buildings constructed before 1974 that are now in need of repair. The researchers found that the problem is not a lack of desire to rebuild or a shortage of money in the economy. Instead, the system itself is broken for small projects. The rules, the banks, and the professionals involved are all designed to handle large, easy-to-manage developments. When a project involves a tiny plot of land with many different owners, these systems do not know how to work together. The result is a gridlock where no single person or group feels responsible for moving the process forward, leaving thousands of aging buildings in a state of dangerous stagnation.
To understand exactly where the system breaks, the researchers used a framework that traces the life cycle of a problem, starting from the reasons people want to change something, moving through the obstacles they face, and ending with the consequences of inaction. They interviewed dozens of people involved in the process, from government officials and bank managers to architects and the landowners themselves. They also looked at maps showing where the old buildings are and where new projects have actually been approved. The data revealed a stark mismatch. While old, unsafe buildings are scattered evenly throughout the city, the approved renewal projects are clustered in only a few specific spots. This pattern suggests that renewal is not happening where the need is greatest, but only where the rules and the money happen to align perfectly.
The study identified that the main barrier is a "scale bias." The regulations require a certain minimum size for a project to qualify for standard urban renewal programs, a size that most small alleyway plots cannot reach. Because they are too small, these projects are forced into a different, more difficult legal path that requires every single owner to agree unanimously. This creates a fragile situation where one person saying "no" can stop the entire project. Furthermore, banks are hesitant to lend money for these small, complex projects because the risk is too high and the paperwork is too complicated. Architects and construction managers, who are used to working on large sites, often struggle to coordinate the many small steps needed for a tiny plot. The researchers found that these issues are not just separate problems; they feed into each other. The strict rules make the financial risk higher, which makes banks more cautious, which in turn makes it harder to get the project started, leading to a complete standstill.
The researchers discovered that the stagnation is not caused by a lack of incentives. The government has offered tax breaks and bonuses to encourage rebuilding, but these rewards are not enough to overcome the structural barriers. The real issue is a gap in responsibility. In a large project, a single developer manages the whole process. In a small-lot project, the responsibility is scattered across many different people and organizations, and no one is in charge of making sure the pieces fit together. When the process stalls, it is often because the regulatory hurdles, the financial requirements, and the social negotiations are not synchronized. The study showed that when these elements are misaligned, the project hits a "governance breakpoint," a point where the chain of action snaps and nothing moves forward.
However, the research also found a way out of this deadlock. By looking at the few small projects that did succeed, the researchers identified a critical missing piece: the intermediary. In successful cases, an architect or a project coordinator stepped in to do more than just draw plans. They acted as a bridge, translating complex legal rules into simple language for the owners, negotiating with banks to find workable loan structures, and mediating disputes between neighbors. These individuals took on the role of connecting the fragmented parts of the system. They did not just design buildings; they designed the process of getting the building built. By aligning the regulatory requirements with the financial realities and the social needs of the owners, these intermediaries were able to stabilize the project and keep it moving forward.
The findings suggest that fixing small-lot urban renewal requires more than just new laws or more money. It requires a fundamental shift in how responsibility is shared. The current system assumes that large-scale developers will handle the coordination, but in small neighborhoods, that role must be filled by skilled professionals who can navigate the gaps between the different parts of the system. The study proposes a new way of thinking about governance, where the goal is to repair the broken links in the chain of responsibility. This means creating mechanisms that allow banks to share risk, rules that are flexible enough for small plots, and professionals who are trained to manage the complex social and financial negotiations required for renewal.
Ultimately, the research in Taipei offers a clear lesson for cities around the world that are facing similar aging infrastructure. The solution to the problem of tiny, stuck neighborhoods is not to force them into a large-scale mold that does not fit. Instead, it is to recognize that these small plots require a different kind of management. It requires a system where the responsibility for coordination is explicitly assigned and supported. Without this, the cycle of stagnation will continue, leaving dangerous buildings standing and communities unable to improve their lives. The path forward lies in building a network of trust and coordination that can hold these small, complex projects together, turning a fragmented mess into a cohesive plan for renewal.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.