| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北科技大學 === 建築與都市設計研究所 === 103 === The authorities for cultural affairs have enacted a regulation that requires response plans in consequence of the need to enable historic buildings targeted for restoration and reuse to obtain ‘use permits’. At the beginning of the implementation, many entities were not familiar with this regulation. As a result, the owner of the historic building reuse project for the Nanmen section of National Taiwan Museum, following the review for a response plan, was asked to submit one when the project was near its completion and was forced to sacrifice authenticity to the project’s historic buildings due to the subsequently required reinforcement for fire safety equipment. This case reveals that there are many conflicts between historic building preservation and existing regulations. Since the review for response plans has become an integral part of disaster prevention for historic buildings, how to make response plans a help instead of a hindrance in disaster prevention for historic buildings has become an important issue in disaster prevention planning.
For the discussion of response plans for historic building restoration and reuse, this study began with developing an improvement strategy by considering the disaster risks for National Taiwan Museum and simulated what it might be like after improvement using SketchUp and Artlantis. Based on this, key issues that entities might raise during the review for response plans were then examined and solutions were gathered through in-depth expert interviews to conclude a specific and feasible strategy.
Based on the above, solutions proposed by labor directors for the content of response plans and how plan designers should express the content in their response plans were analyzed. This study suggests that labor directors should submit response plans with content that does not depart from the original reason for the designation as a historic building, analyze disaster risks in their environments and buildings in accordance with their master plans to determine whether existing equipment for fire safety and evacuation is adequate, and propose an alternative to make up any inadequacy accordingly; and plan designers should conduct an analysis of disaster risks to bring out safety equipment or measures that meet the requirements from the fire safety authorities. It is also suggested that the authorities for cultural affairs create a special review system for cultural heritages so that cultural heritages, construction management, interior design, fire safety and accessibility etc. are handled uniformly by the special review system instead of the current approach in which panels are set up to review response plans. It is hoped that this study provides some insight for the writing of response plans and system and regulation revision in the future.
|
|---|
