市營共同住宅團地의 住居水準과 住環境에 관한 硏究 = (A) Study on the Residential Envsironment and its Standards in the Development of Munidipal Housing Estate

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to present the direction for improvement of the residential environment by analysing the optimum housing in terms of the satisfaction and attitude in the course of conducting research and evaluation on the residential environment of the Municipal housing estate (Soo-Jeong) which was developed in 1969 by the Municipal Government of Pusan.
When judging from such basic objective, the residential standards were evaluated for the improvement of housing quality which has to be preceded, and from the view point that it should be conducted along with the maintenance of the residential environment, I have obtained the following conclusions as a result of studying basically the land use, housing density, traffic circulation, public facilities, parks and open spaces as well as minutely analysing the actual condition of the residents in the estate.
1. In view of the livability of each flat as they are below the minimum value of the appropriate residential standards in terms of dwelling size, facilities and environment, a positive measure for betterment should be studied for the improvement of housing quality in the estate.
2. Regarding the land utilization, in the comparison of the estate with park and open spaces, the later's facilities are poor as compared with the standards for urban planning facilities and those of other housing estates.
The reason is that it was already below various standards at the time of implementing the land subdivision projects in 1969. Even so, the open space facilities which were previously installed had been diverted into the use for parking area owing to the absence of urban policy and residents' lack of understanding. Since the whole area of its neighbourhood have already been developed into residential areas, it is not possible to secure parks and open spaces without special support from the central or local government.
3. As for the housing density, we can find that the residential environment is extremely bad as the housing density has been raised as compared with the standards for reasonable density proposed for optimum housing and especially the population density and household density are high.
4. When we examine the head of household occupation, the journey to work, the means of transport, the distance and the time required, they are commuting by bus or on foot as they are engaging in skilled occupations such as driving, printing, labour as well as in trade and service industries such as merchandising, barber shop, beauty parlor, eating house and entertainment place near the estate or within the downtown area such as Jung-ku and Pusanjin-ku.
The estate should be considered a success from the view point of traffic convenience. The distance from an estate to work place has become an important factor in selecting the site for urban public housing especially in case of municipal housing for low-income bracket.
5. As public institution, there are Dong Office and police box, as shopping center, there are shops, supermarkets, as medical and health institutions there are hospitals, drugstores and public bathing houses and as welfare facilities, there are old people's hass and kindergarten. Such institutions and facilities are to be utilized together with the ordinary housing area.
However, in order for the apartment housing area to demonstrate smooth functions, the expansion of public facilities should follow. Tennis courts (2 places), New Community Hall (1 place), children's play ground (2-3 places) are the basic facilities which are to be installed at the time when the development of the housing estate was initzally taken place. But as mentioned in para. "The land use, the method for improvement is difficult at the current stage. In view of the results analysed in the above, the residental environment of the municipal housing estate has reached the dwelling level below standards in general. In addition to the individual livability, the public facilities in the estate cannot bear comparison with those for other income brackets.
The standards for facilities of housing estate take on a meaning in aiming at meeting the established standards in general, and how the residents in the estate can accommodate the substance of the standards for facilities can be a separate problem actually. If the substance of the facilities becomes no more than nominal standards, it can not be of great help in the welfare-oriented aspect. the residents of the estate covered by this research belong to the low-income bracket, and he degree of housing satisfaction appeared to be low. When judged the housing standard, the attitude neighbourhood, the sense of settlement, the dwelling pattern, income, etc. It is recognized that this housing estate is worth continuing to exist.
Therefore, firstly, laying emphasis on the improvement of the housing estate each resident should be responsible for betterment, repair, maintenance and management at his own account for the improvement of livability that can be resolved by residents' own capability.
Secondly, for the expansion of public facilities, the municipal government should take the leading role to intervene in and render assistance actively.
The government housing development policy has been attaching importance to supplying housing units for improving the housing shortage of the country.
But, from this day on, the housing project should be determined toward the direction in which the qualitative improvement of both the environment of the housing estate and the housing units are carried out at the same time.
Furthermore, as the urban housing development plan would not only maintain the housing units for management intensively but is an integrated development plan including community facilities such as road, park, school, meeting place and so on, the fact should not be forgotten that it plays a very important role a bridge linking the housing policy with the urban planning together.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次 = 1
• Ⅰ. 序論 = 7
• 1. 硏究目的 = 7
• 2. 硏究對象 및 範圍 = 9
• 3. 硏究方法 = 10
• Ⅱ. 市營共同住宅團地의 開發 = 11
• 1. 住宅行政의 方向 = 11
• 가. 住宅事情 = 11
• 나. 住宅行政의 方向 = 13
• 2. 共同住宅 團地의 開發 = 13
• 가. 開發現況 = 13
• 나. 共同住宅 團地의 造成 = 14
• 다. 住宅建立 內容 = 17
• 라. 住宅構造 = 19
• Ⅲ. 住環境에 대한 基本的 考察 = 21
• 1. 住環境의 槪念 = 21
• 2. 住居水準 = 22
• 가. 標準住居水準 = 22
• 나. 適正 住居水準의 最小値 = 24
• 다. 住居의 質 = 25
• 라. 우리나라의 住居水準 = 28
• 마. 住居狀態 = 29
• 3. 住居密度 = 30
• Ⅳ. 住生活 環境의 分析 및 評價 = 33
• 1. 住宅團地와 住環境 分析 = 34
• 가. 土地利用 = 34
• 나. 住居密度 = 38
• 다. 交通 = 43
• 라. 公共施設 = 48
• 마. 公園ㆍ綠地 施設 = 52
• 2. 團地住民의 住居實態分析 = 54
• 가. 家族構成 = 54
• (1) 家口主의 年齡 = 54
• (2) 家族構成 = 55
• 나. 職業 所得 및 敎育水準 = 56
• (1) 家口主의 職業 및 所得 = 56
• (2) 敎育水準 = 58
• 다. 住宅의 所有關係 = 58
• (1) 以前 住居地의 狀態 = 58
• (2) 住宅의 所有關係 = 61
• 3. 住居意識構造의 評價 = 67
• 가. 近隣意識 = 67
• 나. 居住豫定其間 = 69
• 다. 現住居地의 滿足度 = 72
• Ⅴ. 分析結果 및 改善方向 = 78
• Ⅵ. 結論 = 82
• 參考文獻 = 85
• SUMMARY = 89