摘要
「原台南州廳」創建於日大正五年（民國五年，1916），迄今將近九十年。民國八十五年（1996）行政院文化建設委員會委託建築師規劃設計整修時，是一座台南市政府尚在辦公的老建築。民國八十六年（1997）初取得建造執照準備發包施工，然因台南市政府遲至是年十月才搬遷，加上適逢地方政府及議會因選舉面臨交替中，辦公廳舍無法立即交給文建會辦理整修。民國八十七年（1998）地方政權轉移後，原台南市政府廳舍正式交給文建會使用；但同年五月該廳舍卻被指定為「原台南州廳」市定古蹟，整個工程發包因古蹟進行向上級核備之程序而延宕下來。民國八十八年（1999）三月終於正式開工，但「原台南州廳」正面臨原先以老建築整修的規劃設計方案來進行古蹟的保存修護，其間修護理念、方法、技術的重新調整，必須加以克服，而興起本文研究的念頭。
壹、緒論
鑒於國內<文化資產保存法>及其＜施行細則＞有關修護理念不夠完整明晰，難於全面取得共識，因此針對本案建築師的規劃設計方案，試行尋找國外頒行的古蹟修護規範予以檢視探討，俾供爾後有關文化資產的保存維護有一些規範可以應用遵循。遂以「原台南州廳」修護及再生為案例，首先述及原設計的建築特色，再述及本案經歷幾個使用時期後在修護前的一些狀況。
貳、再生理念回顧
先於國外修護理念文獻作一歷史的回顧，瞭解國際古蹟修護干預層級的精義，並比較美國、日本、中國、台灣等國修護準則的內涵，俾作為往後檢討實質修護內容的依據，結論是美國的「再生準則」（”Standards for Rehabilitation ”）與「修復準則」（ ’’Standards for Restoration’’）言簡意賅、扼要中肯，而其「再生方針」（ “ Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings ”）的每一步驟，由輕到重，從簡至繁，以淺入深，層次分明，理念清晰，簡明易懂，很具有說服力。反觀日本、中國、台灣的修護準則，在修護層級上沒有像美國再生準則及方針那樣上下逐一對應清楚的表達，因此本文即以美國「再生準則」及「再生方針」做為「原台南州廳」古蹟修護理念探討的依據。
參、再生方針及探討
先將建築師最初對未列入古蹟的「原台南州廳」修護及再生規劃設計構想作一陳述；當「原台南州廳」指定為古蹟後，經會同國內外學者專家意見交流提出修護補救建議，最後建築師又在部分室內解體調查變更設計完成修正定案。本章即以美國「再生方針」與「原台南州廳」修護後，相關較為重要的建築本體構造元素及結構系統、室內裝修、基地環境等加以討論，並指出修護後狀況在「再生方針」修護步驟的對應干預層級，以明瞭修護理念的實踐程度。
肆、結論
「原台南州廳」修護與再生有其時程演變及修護制度存在的問題，國內修護理念的共識只是冰山一角而已，但修護理念不能因其他問題的存在而因噎廢食，否則難與國際文化資產保存做法接軌，特別在結論中敘明。

Abstract
The Tainan Prefectural Hall was founded in the fifth year of the Taisho Period(1916), nearly 90 years ago. When the Council for Cultural Affairs of the Executive Yuan R. O. C. entrusted the architects to plan and design for renovation in 1996, this old building was still an office of the Tainan City government. The construction license was issued at the beginning of 1997, but the building couldn’t be handed over to the Council for Cultural Affairs and renovated right away because the Tainan City government didn’t moved until October 1997, and it was the time when the local and the parliament’s authority was transferred after an election. In 1998, after the local authority had been transferred, the old building was officially under the control of the Council for Cultural Affairs.
However, the building was listed as a monument named "The Former Tainan Prefectural Hall" by Tainan City in May of the same year. The whole work was delayed because of the procedure of obtaining the admission from higher executives. In March 1999, the work finally started--but some difficulties emerged: to renovate and conserve “a monument” with the original plan for “an old building.” Thus, how to overcome the difficulties during the process of adjusting restoration idea, method, and technology creates the thought of this study.
I. Introduction
Due to the incomplete and indefinite related thought of «the Cultural Property Preservation Law» and its Rules of Procedure, it’s difficult to obtain the mutual recognition comprehensively. Thus, the study bases on the architects’ plan and design, tries to find out the historic preservation guidelines from other countries and examine them. Then, to provide some applicable standards which are related to cultural property can be obeyed in the future. So, hereby choose the restoration and rehabilitation of the Former Tainan Prefectural Hall to be the case study, mention about the architectural characters of the original building first, and then discuss about the conditions of the building when it passed though various eras but the restoration.
Ⅱ. Review of Rehabilitation Thought
First, review the foreign literature on restoration thought and understand the essential meaning of intervention level. Furthermore, compare the connotation of restoration standards in the US, Japan, China, and Taiwan; so that, to be the basis for examining the substantive restoration content in the future. The summary is: «the Standards for Rehabilitation » and «the Standards for Restoration of the US » are brief, pointed, and essentialized. In addition, the each instance of «the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings » is easy, clear, cogent, and demarcated. On the contrary, the standards in Japan, China, and Taiwan, are without clear expression corresponded one by one. Therefore, this study takes «the Standards for Rehabilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings» as discussion basis on the historic restoration thought of the Former Tainan Prefectural Hall.
Ⅲ. «The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings» and Discussion
First, to expound the architects’ design concept of restoration and rehabilitation for The Former Tainan Prefectural Hall that was not yet designated as a monument. When the building was designated, the domestic and foreign expert exchanged their opinions and advice some suggestions to remedy. Finally, the architects modified the demolition plan in some interior spaces and then settle the verdict. In this chapter, the discussion is on structural elements, structural systems, interior decoration, and environment that are related to «the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings» and the Former Tainan Prefectural Hall. Besides, check the condition of the restored building and indicate the corresponding intervention level on the Guidelines, in order to realize the practice condition of the restoration thought.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
There are diachronous evolution and restoration system problems in the restoration and rehabilitation of The Former Tainan Prefectural Hall. The mutual recognition on preservation is as exiguous as tip of the iceberg. However, the thought can not be given up due to some problems. Otherwise, it will be difficult to connect with the procedure of international cultural property preservation. This is the point in the conclusion.

碩論參考書目
一、中文部分
1.傅朝卿（2002），《國際歷史保存及估基維護—憲章、宣言、決議文、建議文》，台南：國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處、台灣建築與文化資產出版社。
2.國立成功大學建築研究所（1996），《台南市第二級古蹟—台南地方法院調查研究及修護計畫》，台南：台南市政府。
3. 台南市文獻委員會（1999），《義島縱走—義大利文獻史蹟考察專輯》，台南：台南市文獻委員會。
（1）傅朝卿，〈義大利建築文化資產維護層級的觀察與啟示〉頁107-117。
（2）邱仲銘，〈文化資產保護策略與行銷〉頁117-140。
4. Michael Petzet，“Principles of Monument Conservation”〈古蹟維護的原則〉譯文，台北：行政院文化建設委員會。
5.Bernard.M.Feilden（1994），“Rehabilitation of Historic buildings”〈歷史建築的修護再利用〉譯文，《Conservation of Historic Buildings》。
6.柏森建築師事務所（1998），《原台南州廳調查研究與修復計畫》。台南：國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處。
7. 國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處（2000），《原台南州廳修復技術研討暨研習資料彙編》，台南：國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處。
（1）陳森藤，〈原台南州廳修復設計與工程簡介〉，頁158-170。
（2）康美英，〈原台南州廳修復之結構設計〉，頁209-215。
（3）高村功一，〈原台南州廳廳舍的基本設計試案〉，頁171-208。
（4）山田繁男，〈原台南州廳廳舍的構造補強試案〉，頁171-208。
8.王貞富（2001），《日治時期磚造歷史建築物修復補強設計研究》，台南：國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處。

9. 國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處（1994），《行政院文化建設委員會籌設國立文化資產保存研究中心修正計畫》，（期程1994.7-2002.12）（草案），台南：國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處。
10.〈中國文物古跡保護准則〉，2000 。

二、英文部分
1.kka Jokilehto（1999），《A History of Architectural Conservation》
Butterworth-Heinemann.
2. Bernard.M.Feilden（1994），《Conservation of Historic Buildings》
3. Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer（1995），＜The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of the Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings＞U.S. Department of the Interior Nation Park Service Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships Heritage Preservation Services Washington, D.C.
三、日文部分
1.財団法人建築保全センター（2002），《公共建築物の保存.活用ガイドライン》，東京：株式会社大成出版社。