政府於民國八十七年通過「都市更新條例」以推動都市更新。雖有法規及政策的推動，但都市更新案多由私部門之實施者自行與住戶主導開發，而產生自劃更新單元面積小、且缺乏公益性（公共設施比例過低）之都更結果，反觀最急需辦理更新之弱勢整宅、海砂屋等災損建物等，須由地方主管機關主導的都市更新案件並不常見。 本研究主要探討國內政府推動大型都市更新案件時所遭遇的困難。本研究由日本都市更新近五十年的歷史中，都市再開發法及其再開發補助制度演進之重點，探討東京市耗費十七年所完成「六本木六丁目地區市街地再開發組合」大型都更案例成功之主要因素，並訪談國內產、官、學界專家，研擬國內公辦都市更新事業之修正方向與建議。 本研究發現，推動公辦都市更新的主要困難在於更新地區之選定、實施者之選定，以及權利變換計畫等三個主要程序。因此，本研究認有效提升民間參與意願之重點為：（1）選定更新地區應注重公有地及私有地比例，並給予不同的容積獎勵；（2）公辦都市更新的推動應由地方及中央政府成立專責推動之法人，將行政審議程序與整合民意實務分流，以解決審議時間過長及人力不足的狀況；與（3）在招商及權利變換階段，應保障民間機構獲得足以抵銷更新經費的樓地板面積。;To promote urban renewal, the government promulgated the“Urban Renewal Act”in 1997. Although there were applicable laws and promotion policies, cases of urban renewal were mostly performed by private sectors. Accordingly, only small areas with limited public welfare projects were accomplished. For those areas such as financially weak communities and houses built with sea sand mixed concrete, urban renewal projects were very rare since such projects require authorities and operations from local governments. This study focuses on the difficulties encountered by the local governments in conducting large-scale urban renewal projects which are performed by private sectors. The “Roppongi 6-chome Redevelopment Project” in Japan which took 17 years to complete was deeply studied. Key success factors of the project along with highlights in relevant laws and regulations evolved in the 50 years history in Japan were identified. Experts from the developers, government officers, and scholars were also interviewed to confirm findings of this research and to obtain valuable suggestions. The study concludes that the main difficulties in promoting large scale urban renewal projects are selection of renewal area, selection of project executor, and proper right transfer at the final stage of the project. Suggestions of the research results are: (1) the renewal area should combine with public and private properties in which incentives in volume rate for the later one should be emphasized, (2) legal entities and task forces should be conducted by the local and central governments to help process and promote the projects, and (3) the government should promise the project executor at the right transfer stage enough floor areas that are sufficient to compensate the costs of the renewal project.
