Zhou Jiale, Ding Rui, Zhang Xiaoping, Huang Baohua

Keywords： Infill Development; Old Community Reconstruction (OCR); Low-efficiency Land Use; Housing Comapny; Finland; Benefit Sharing

Abstract：

The redevelopment and reconstruction of old community at home and abroad are generally faced with such problems as complex property rights relations, difficult collective decision-making of multiple subjects, high renovation costs and insufficient social capital incentives, which require countries to constantly explore and innovate renovation models and paths suitable for their own urban characteristics in practice. This paper takes Finland unique joint-stock “housing company” infill development mode of old community as the research object, from the development present situation, the related policy, the implementation mode, profitability, effective and barrier system is introduced and analyzed in five aspects, and enlightenment from Finland experience summed up three aspects: first, the benefit sharing mechanism should be rationally designed so that investors and communities can form a community of interests and share the transformation dividends in the long term; second, attach importance to the community building in the reconstruction process, and ensure the balance of multiple appeals and interests by means of full public participation; third, give play to the government’s service function to provide organizational guidance, system construction and incentive mechanism guarantee for the old communities reconstruction project.

Funds：

• [1] WEST G. Scale: the universal laws of growth, innovation, sustainability, and the pace of life in organisms, cities, economies, and companies[M]. New York: Penguin Press, 2017.

  [2] DAVID L, CAROLE C W, REID E, et al. Infill development standards and policy guide[R]. New Jersey: Rutgers University for New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 2006.

  [3] 文萍, 赵鹏军. 存量用地背景下填充式开发研究综述[J]. 国际城市规划, 2019, 34(1): 134-140. DOI: 10.22217/upi.2016.137.

  [4] JOEL G. Edge city: life on the new frontier[M]. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

  [5] NEWMAN P, KENWORTHY J. The transport energy trade-off: fuel-efficient traffic versus fuel-efficient cities[J]. Transportation research part a: general, 1988, 22(3): 163-174.

  [6] PUUSTINEN T, PENNANEN K, FALKENBACH H, et al. The Distribution of perceived advantages and disadvantages of infill development among owners of a commonhold and its implications[J]. Land use policy, 2018, 75: 303-313.

  [7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Attracting infill development in distressed communities: 30 strategies[R]. 2015.

  [8] STEPHEN G, PETER N. Understanding infill: towards new policy and practice for urban regeneration in the established suburbs of Australia’s cities[J]. Urban policy and research, 2014, 32(2): 121-143.

  [9] HAUGE A L, MAGNUS E, DENIZOU K, et al. The meaning of rehabilitation of multi-storey housing for the residents[J]. Housing, theory and society, 2012, 29(4): 358-381.

  [10] HADI J T. Design policy and process through infill development[D]. Turkey: Middle East Technical University, 2019.

  [11] NYK?NEN V, LAHTI P, KNUUTI A, et al. Asuntoyhti?iden uudistava korjaustoiminta ja lis?rakentaminen[M]. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2013.

  [12] TUULIA P, KY?STI P, HEIDI F, et al. Financing major repairs in apartment buildings through infill development: exploring views and benefit requirements of the owner-occupiers[J]. Property management, 2017, 35(5): 508-527.

  [13] FEANTSA. Finland national report: housing solutions for people who are homeless[R]. Helsink:Y-S??ti?, 2008.

  [14] RUONAVAARA H. How divergent housing institutions evolve: a comparison of Swedish tenant co-operatives and Finnish shareholders’ housing companies[J]. Null, 2005, 22(4): 213-236.

  [15] MARTTI L. Legal challenges in ensuring regular maintenance and repairs of owner-occupied apartment blocks[J]. International journal of law in the built environment, 2010, 2(2): 178-197.

  [16] PUUSTINEN T, VIITANEN K. Infill development on collectively owned residential properties: understanding the decision-making process–case studies in Helsinki[J]. Housing, theory and society, 2015, 32(4): 472-498.

  [17] NYK?NEN V, LAHTI P, KNUUTI A, et al. Arviointi maank?ytt?- jarakennuslain toimivuudesta 2013[R]. 2014.

  [18] City of Helsinki. Helsinki City Strategy 2017-2021[EB/OL]. (2017-09-27)[2020-08-29]. https://www.hel.fi/helsinki/en/administration/strategy/strategy/.

  [19] MARKUSLAINE H L. T?ydennysrakentamisen haasteet Helsingiss?, Tampereella ja Sein?joella[EB/OL]. (2019-03-21)[2020-08-29]. https://www.hsy.fi/ymparistotieto/ajankohtaista-hsyssa/.

  [20] VUORELA L. Housing company’s capital assets in housing prices[D]. Helsinki: Aalto University, 2019.

  [21] AKBAR R. A methodological approach to urban land-use change modeling using infill development pattern–a case study in Tabriz, Iran[J]. Ecological processes, 2016, 5(1): 1.

  [22] YMP?RIST?MINISTERI?N. Lis?rakentaminen osana korjausrakentamishanketta[R/OL]. (2011-10-26)[2020-08-29]. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/41468.

  [23] City Board of Tampere. Five Star City Center[EB/OL]. (2018-05-14)[2020-08-29]. https://www.tampere.fi/en/housing-and-environment/city-planning/development-programs/five-star-city-centre.html.

  [24] VIHOLA J, KURVINEN A. Municipal economics of regional development–infill versus greenfield development[J]. Datutop, 2016, 34: 59-82.