application/pdf

アメリカやイギリスの諸都市，また東京等において，資本主義の脈動，市場的企図の展開に基づく「ネオリベラル都市開発（neoliberal urbanization）」が，単なる新自由主義思想としてのみならず，「現実に存在するネオリベラリズム」（N・ブレンナーとN・シオドーア）として，ジェントリフィケーションを含め都市の景観，経済循環，さらには人々の生活圏の様相に浸透し変化させている．他方で，PPP，CDC，またPDAといった，エリアマネジメントにかかわる新たな手法が，エリアマネジメントの動向として，「都市経営のパラダイムシフト」として1980年代，とりわけ1990年代移行起こってきている． 本稿は，この視座に立って，①ネオリベラル都市化に対して，エリアマネジメント組織はどのような機能を持ち得るのか（エリアマネジメント組織の有効性）という問いと，②さらに自治体としての法的ステイタスを与えられたエリアマネジメントのケース（公共開発機構：PDA）でどのようなことがおきるのか（自治体としてのエリアマネジメント組織の有効性），という問いを立てた．その解明のために，「ネオリベラル都市開発」に関連するエリアのデモグラフィ動態の把握を通じ，そこにおけるエリアマネジメント，とりわけ公共開発機構が，生起している地域からの住民の退去（displacement）に対してどのように有効であるのか（あるいは有効でないのか）に迫った． そこで，①シアトル市域を対象として，デモグラフィ変動と住宅費用負担を指標として，居住のデモグラフィックな著しい変動の生起（同市セントラルディストリクトでの高所得白人の激増と，既存の黒人の地域からの「退出」問題）を確認した．②有色人種の退出が少ない同市インターナショナルディストリクトを検討し，アドボカシー団体を核とした諸組織のネットワーク化と，高齢者事業等地域サービスの運営組織としてのエリアマネジメント組織（SCIDpda）の創出が，長期スパンでアジア人低所得者・高齢者など住民達の移動退出を防いできたことを明らかにした．③近年の同ディストリクト内のリトルサイゴン区への「ネオリベラル都市開発」に対して，同組織（SCIDpda）がエリアマネジメント諸機能（相談，住民自身よるビジョン計画策定支援，事務局作業）で，住民側の行動計画を提起にを支えた点でネオリベラル都市開発に抗して「効果」を持ったことを示した．また，そのエリアマネジメント組織の法的位相を確認し，この場合，NPOやCDCと異なり，PDAが自治体の法的地位を得ていることでの持続的安定性がプラスになったことを指摘した． Since 2000 “Neoliberal Cities”, “Neoliberal Urbanization” has been starting to be discussed, as “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”. It tends to develop as pulsing motion of capitalism, uneven geographical development, and gentrification in the inner city areas. On the other hand, there have occurred new measures and methods such as PFI, PPP, Community Development Corporation (CDC) and Public Development Authority (PDA) ‒ “Paradigm Shift of Urban Management”. In terms of this perspective, this article is facing the questions: 1) how can area organizations function against neoliberal urbanization, 2) and what happens in the case of PDA, area management organization which is set as one kind of government (“quasi municipality”). In order to cope with the questions, this article tries to grasp the demographic dynamics in the area to which “neoliberal development” has impacted, and tries to clarify how area management organizations, including PDA, function against “displacement” of residents due to neoliberal urbanization. As the result of our examination, we acquired the following fi ndings: 1) By examining the demographical dynamics in Seattle (WA), using US Census, especially housing cost burdens by race and ethnicity, we recognized that the colored, especially African American are suff ering heavy housing cost burdens. In addition to that “the oldest African American community in Seattle”, Central District are experiencing dramatic decrease of African Americans, and dramatic increase of whites. On the other hand, International District that is adjunct to Central District, the change on demographic change was very little, and the peculiar culture (as Asian local culture) has been kept. 2) In the International District , its long term movement has facilitated to protect the residents ‒ especially Asian low and middle income residents ‒ from “displacement” from the district. As to the movement, based on neighborhood activists, creation of an advocacy organization (Inter*Im), networking of many organizations in the district, and creation an organization that treats delivery of public services (senior citizens programs, aff ordable housings etc.) is the main contributing factors for preventing “displacement”. 3) In terms of short span development of “neoliberal development” to Little Saigon in International District, SCIDpda, an area management as well as PDA, has consulted local businesses of Little Saigon who shows concern and anxiety to the development, and has facilitated Vietnam businesses and residents establish their own vision for their area. And SCIDpda took its back work. Against neoliberal development, and against displacement of the residents, it has functioned efficiently in that it facilitated visions from residents’ side. And also that efficient function is sustained by its legal status as a special purpose government (so called “quasi municipality”) which was cheated by a city government.