國內外當前對於都市違建傾向視個案或地方特性，以彈性治理予以承認，政府協助進行基 礎設施改善，但對於如何透過更積極之官方干預改善違建本身之不穩定性與安全性，以及減低 違建對都市產生之環境與經濟外部性，同時保有住戶之空間需求，探論仍顯不足。本文透過政 治生態學取向之都市永續修補理論框架，探究台中、高雄如何透過都市計畫、建築管理規範修 訂，導人生態與永續科技元素，以轉化、矯正增建式違章住宅之政策實踐與其環境意涵。研究 方法為檔案論述分析，針對法規辦法與趨勢政策作質性資料分析。研究發現台中主要藉由容積 移轉與分期分區方式合法化部分違建，以公圜綠地、人行空間與違建間之交換關係來減低違建 外部性，延續其開發導向之都市治理主軸；高雄則基於當地產業轉型升級之急迫性，導人太陽 光電系統、立體綠化技術將屋頂與地面增建改建為合法構造。兩個城市均策略性地導人特定永 續技術與論述，彌補違建之環境外部性，透過政策或補助機制控制違建之新增，同時延續與合 理化政府對於既存違建之歷史性包容妥協，使之接軌城市轉型階段之經濟發展需求；經由規範 體制之調整與放寬，兩個城市之永續導向違建治理體制在政治論述上建構出將違建納人其各自 企業化城市脈絡之途徑。

A trend of flexible, place-specific regulatory strategies prevails in both the domestic and international urban policies governing urban informality. Yet, it remains unclear in what ways these various policies can address the issues of precariousness and unsafety of squatter settlement in terms of reducing the economic and environmental externalities through active intervention from the states. Drawing upon the theory of urban sustainability fix, thispaperanalyzes two sets of urban governance models combining urban planning, architectural management on top of sustainable science and technology. Research methods are archival research and content analyses of planning and architectural legislations along with political discourses. The analyses findthatTaichung, in its active quest for real estate development, enactednew planning legislations grounding the transfer of floor areas and the temporal and geographical divisionasthe main strategiesgoverning extralegal residential buildings. In so doing, the municipality establishes the exchange mechanism between urban green space and unlicensed floor areas as a way to reduce the environmental and economic externalities caused by informality. Under the pressing demands of economic restructuring, Kaohsiungcity government incorporates solar energy systems and vertical greeneryinto its regulatory regimesof extralegal residential buildings through developing new and renewed architectural codes as well as building management schemes. Both cities strategically incorporate specific environmental technologies and discourses as their “sustainability fix” to balance the economic, environmental and social concerns. This has allowed both cities tolessenenvironmental externalities of informality, continuing their legacy of tolerating urban informality, and in the meantime, seeking new development opportunitiesin the face of industrial and economic restructuring. The pro-environment urban policies in both cities discursively construct extralegal buildings and squatter settlements as something that could be worked into the entrepreneurial urban contexts.