このブログを検索
2025年6月18日水曜日
2025年1月2日木曜日
建築職能リノベーション時代──まちづくりにおける次世代アクティビティ タウンアーキテクトの仕事、日本建築学会編:建築を拓く,鹿島出版会,2004年10月25日
日本建築学会編:建築を拓く,鹿島出版会,2004年10月25日
建築職能リノベーション時代──まちづくりにおける次世代アクティビティ
タウンアーキテクトの仕事
布野修司
戦災復興から高度成長期へ、そしてオイルショックによる安定成長期を経て世界有数の経済大国となった日本は、国際的に著名な建築家を幾人も生み出し、とりわけ一九八〇年代半ばから九〇年代にかけての「バブル経済」を背景として実現された建築作品の水準は世界中の注目を集め、世界の建築界をリードしてきた。
しかし、そうした華やかな「建築」の時代が終わり、「空白の一〇年」と言われる長い景気後退が続く中で、日本は新しい世紀を迎えた。日本の社会は、未曾有の構造改革の時代を迎え、建築界もまたその渦中にある。そして、いわゆる「建築家」の影も薄くなりつつあるように思われる。
しかし、「建築家」の時代が終わったわけではない。古今東西、どんな社会においても、「建築家」の役割が無くなることはない。むしろ、地域社会に根ざしたその本来的な役割が求められつつある。日本の「建築家」の新たな局面について考えてみたい。
1.「建築家」:その理念と現実
「建築家」とは何か、という問いへの答えとして、古来多くの定義や金言、椰揄や賞賛がある[1]。例えば、以下のようだ。
・「建築家」は文章の学を解し、描画に熟達し、幾何学に精通し、多くの歴史を知り、努めて哲学者に聞き、音楽を理解し、医術に無知でなく、法律家の所論を知り、星学あるいは天空理論の知識をもちたいものである」 ヴィトルヴィウス 『建築十書』 第一書第一章。
・「「建築家」:名詞。あなたの家のプラン(平面図)を描き、あなたのお金を浪費するプランを立てるひと」
アンブローズ・ビアズ 『悪魔の辞典』
この二つの答えの間には天と地ほどの開きがある。しかし、二つながら真実をついている。あるいは、その間には、理想と現実、理念と実態の裂け目があるというべきかもしれない。
また、近代になると、次のような定義、発言がある。
・「偉大な彫刻家でも画家でもないものは、「建築家」ではありえない。彫刻家でも画家でもないとすれば、ビルダー(建設業者)になりうるだけだ」 ジョン・ラスキン
・「ローマの時代の有名な「建築家」のほとんどがエンジニアであったことは注目に値する」 W R レサビー
・「「建築家」の仕事は、デザインを作り、見積をつくることである。また、仕事を監督することである。さらに、異なった部分を測定し、評価することである。「建築家」は、その名誉と利益を検討すべき雇主とその権利を保護すべき職人との媒介者である。その立場は、絶大なる信頼を要する。彼は彼が雇うものたちのミスや不注意、無知に責任を負う。加えて、労働者への支払いが予算を超えないように心を配る必要がある。もし以上が「建築家」の義務であるとすれば、「建築家」、建設者(ビルダー)、請負人の仕事は正しくはどのように統一されるのであろうか。」 ジョン・ソーン卿
・「エンジニアと積算士(クォンティティー・サーベイヤー)が美学をめぐって議論し、「建築家」がクレーンの操作を研究する時、われわれは正しい道に居る」 オブ・アラップ卿
ここでは、「建築家」と彫刻家や画家、ビルダー、エンジニア、積算士、職人などが比較されている。「建築家」の仕事が多様化しているとも言えるし、分裂しているとも言える。「建築家」の備えるべきある種の全体性、総合的能力が失われつつある指摘がある。
「建築家」という職能は古くから知られている。ごく自然に考えて、ピラミッドや巨大な神殿、大墳墓などの建設には、「建築家」の天才が必要であった筈である。実際、いくつかの「建築家」の名前が記録され、伝えられている。最古の記録は紀元前三千年というが、故事によれば、ジェセル王のサッカラ(下エジプト)の墓(ピラミッド複合体)は「建築家」イムホテプによるものである。もっとも、彼は単なる「建築家」ではない。法学者であり、天文学者であり、魔術師である。
伝説では、ギリシャの最初の「建築家」はクレタの迷宮をつくったダエダルスである。かれもただの「建築家」ではない。形態や仕掛けの発明家といった方がいい。ダエダルスというのは、そもそも技巧者、熟練者を意味する。
「建築家」は、こうして、、全てを統括する神のような存在としてしばしば理念化されてきた。今日に伝わる最古の建築書を残したことで知られる冒頭のヴィトルヴィウスの言うように、「建築家」にはあらゆる能力が要求される。この神のごとき万能な造物主としての「建築家」のイメージは極めて根強く、ルネサンスの「建築家」たちの万能人、普遍人(ユニバーサル・マン)の理想に引き継がれる。レオナルド・ダヴィンチやミケランジェロ、彼らは、発明家であり、芸術家であり、哲学者であり、科学者であり、工匠である。ルネサンスの建築理論家、レオン・バティスタ・アルベルティーも、ヴィトルヴィウスを引き継いで、「建築家とは、・・・ 確実ですばらしい理性とルールに基づき、まず第一に、心のなかで知性に従って物事を如何に分割するかを知っていること、続いて第二に、実際の仕事において、物体を組み合わせたり積み上げたり、重量を配分することによって、人間の要求に極めてうまく適合するような材料を如何に統合するかを知っている人である」という。
そして、多芸多才で博覧強記の「建築家」像は今日でも「建築家」の理想である。近代「建築家」を支えたのも、世界を創造する神としての「建築家」像であった。彼らは、神として理想都市を計画することに夢中になるのである。そうしたオールマイティーな「建築家」像は、実は、今日も実は死に絶えたわけではない。
一方、もうひとつ、広く流布する「建築家」像がある。フリー・アーキテクトである。フリーランスの「建築家」という意味である。すなわち、「建築家」は、あらゆる利害関係から自由な、芸術家としての創造者としての存在である、というのである。神ではないけれど、自由人としての「建築家」のイメージである。
もう少し、現実的には、施主と施工者の間にあって第三者的にその利害を調整する役割をもつのが「建築家」であるという規定がある。上のジョン・ソーンの定義がほぼそうだ。施主に雇われ、その代理人としてその利益を養護する弁護士をイメージすればわかりやすいだろう。医者と弁護士と並んで、「建築家」の職能もプロフェッションのひとつと欧米では考えられているのである。
こうして、「建築家」の理念はすばらしいのであるが、なかなかそれを体現するとなると大変である。複雑化する現代社会においては、ひとりでなんでもというわけにはいかない。建築をつくるのは集団的な仕事であり、専門分化は時代の流れである。また、フリーランスの「建築家」といっても、実態をともなわないということがある。「建築家」の資質の問題も大きいが、日本の場合どうも建築家の職能を認める社会の成熟がないのである。日本の場合、請負業の力が強かったということもある。「建築家」という職能は今日に至るまで必ずしも確立されていないのである。
2.二一世紀の日本の「建築家」:新たな領域
「建築家」の理念と現実、「建築家」という職能の成立とその歴史、そして「建築家」をめぐる各国の諸制度をめぐって論ずべきことは多いが、ここでは二一世紀初頭の日本の状況に絞って、「建築家」のあり方を展望しよう。
この半世紀ほどの日本社会の流れを冷静にみつめると、第一に言えるのは、建てては壊す(スクラップ・アンド・ビルド)時代は終わった、ということである。二一世紀はストックの時代である。地球環境全体の限界が、エネルギー問題、資源問題、食糧問題として意識される中で、建築も無闇に壊すわけにはいかなくなる。既存の建築資源、建築遺産を可能な限り有効活用するのが時代の流れである。新たに建てるよりも、再活用し、維持管理することの重要度が増すのは明らかである。
そうであれば、そうした分野、コンヴァージョン(用途変更)やリノベーション(再生)、リハビリテーション(修景修復)などの分野が創造性に満ちたものとなるのははっきりしている。京都のように木造町家を多く抱える都市では、町家再生は既に注目すべきビジネスになりつつある。また、ライフ・サイクル・コストやリサイクル、二酸化炭素排出量といった環境性能を重視した設計が主流となって行くであろう。さらに、維持管理、耐震補強といった既存の建物に関わる事業が伸びていくことになるであろう。
新しく建てられる建築が量的に少なくなるということは、はっきり言って、「建築家」もこれまで程多くは要らない、ということである。一九九七年の、日本の建設投資の名目国民総生産(GDP)に占める割合は、一四.八%である[2]。かつては二〇%以上にも及んだことがあるが、建設投資は一貫して減りつつある。農業国家から土建国家に戦後日本は変貌を遂げて来たが、産業構造の転換は不可避である。公共事業見直し、IT(情報技術)革命へ、というのがひとつの方向である。また、高齢社会の度合いをますます強める日本においては、介護など福祉分野に多くの人材が必要とされることも明らかである。同じ一九九七年、米国の建設投資は七四.二兆円、日本(七四.六兆円)と同じであるが、対GDP比は七.六%にすぎない。ヨーロッパになるとさらに建設投資は少ない。英国が四.三%、フランスが四.五%である。むしろ、これまでの日本の建築界が特殊だったのである。
木造を主体としてきた日本と石造の欧米とは事情を異にするとは言え、日本がほぼ先進諸国の道を辿っていくのは間違いないであろう。乱暴な議論であるが、日本の建設投資が米国並みになるとすれば、「建築家」の数は半分になってもおかしくない。英、仏並みだと三分の一以下になってもいいのである。日本の「建築家」はその存在と存続を問われているのである。
建設投資が減り、「建築家」の数が減ることは何も悲観することではない。能力ある「建築家」であれば、むしろ歓迎すべきであろう。それだけ「建築家」としての社会的ウエイトは高くなることを意味する。
問題は、今「建築家」として、あるいは「建築家」を志すものとして、どうするかである。第一は、既に上に述べた。建物の増改築、改修、維持管理を主体としていく方向である。そのための設計、技術開発には広大な未開拓分野がある。第二は、活躍の場を日本以外にもとめることである。国際「建築家」への道である。世界を見渡せば、日本で身につけた建築の技術を生かすことの出来る、また、それが求められる地域がある。中国、インド、あるいは発展途上地域にはまだまだ建設が必要な国は少なくないのである。一七世紀に黄金時代を迎えたオランダは世界中に都市建設を行うために多くの技術者を育成したのであるが、やがて世界経済のヘゲモニーを英国に奪われると、オランダ人技術者は主として北欧の都市計画に参画していった。かつて明治維新の時代には、日本も多くの外国人技師を招いたのである。
第三に、建築の分野を可能な限り拡大することである。建築の企画から設計、施工、維持管理のサイクルにはとてつもない分野、領域が関係している。全ての空間に関わりがあるのが建築であるから当然である。ひとつは建築の領域でソフトと言われる領域、空間の運営やそれを支える仕組みなどをどんどん取り込んでいくことである。また、様々な異業種、異分野の技術を空間の技術としてまとめていくことである。「建築家」が得意なのは、様々な要素をひとつにまとめていくことである。マネージメント能力といっていいが、PM(プロジェクト・マネージメント)、CM(コンストラクション・マネージメント)など、日本で必要とされる領域は未だ少なくない。
この第三の道において、「建築家」がまず眼をむけるべきは「まちづくり」の分野である。「建築家」は、ひとつの建築を「作品」として建てればいい、というわけにはいかない。たとえ一個の建築を設計する場合でも、相隣関係があり、都市計画との密接な関わりがある。「都市計画」あるいは「まちづくり」といわなくても、とにかく、「建築家」はただ建てればいい、という時代ではなくなった。どのような建築をつくればいいのか、当初から地域住民と関わりを持つことを求められ、建てた後もその維持管理に責任を持たねばならない。もともと、都市計画は「建築家」の仕事といっていいが、これまで充分その役割を果たしてきたかというと疑問がある。大いに開拓の余地がある。いずれにせよ、「建築家」はその存在根拠を地域との関係に求められつつある。『裸の建築家―タウンアーキテクト論序説』[3](以下『序説』)で少し考えたのであるが、以下に、新たな職能分野「タウンアーキテクト」について考えてみよう。
3.タウンアーキテクトとは?
「タウンアーキテクト」を直訳すれば「まちの建築家」である。幾分ニュアンスを込めると、「まちづくり」を担う専門家が「タウンアーキテクト」である。とにかく、それぞれのまちの「まちづくり」に様々に関わる「建築家」たちを「タウンアーキテクト」と呼ぼう。
「まちづくり」は本来自治体の仕事である。しかし、それぞれの自治体が「まちづくり」の主体として充分その役割を果たしているかどうかは疑問である。いくつか問題があるが、地域住民の意向を的確に捉えた「まちづくり」を展開する仕組みがないのが決定的である。そこで、自治体と地域住民の「まちづくり」を媒介する役割を果たすことを期待されるのが「タウンアーキテクト」である。
何も全く新たな職能というわけではない。その主要な仕事は、既に様々なコンサルタントやプランナー、「建築家」が行っている仕事である。ただ、「タウンアーキテクト」は、そのまちに密着した存在と考えたい。必ずしもそのまちの住民でなくてもいいけれど、そのまちの「まちづくり」に継続的に関わるのが原則である。そういう意味では、「コミュニティ・アーキテクト」といってもいいかもしれない。「地域社会の建築家」である。
上で見たように、「建築家」は、基本的には施主の代弁者である。しかし、同時に施主と施工者(建設業者)の間にあって、第三者として相互の利害調整を行う役割がある。医者、弁護士などとともにプロフェッションとされるのは、命、財産に関わる職能だからである。その根拠は西欧世界においては神への告白(プロフェス)である。また、市民社会の論理である。同様に「タウンアーキテクト」は、「コミュニティ(地域社会)」の代弁者であるが、地域べったり(その利益のみを代弁する)ではなく、「コミュニティ(地域社会)」と地方自治体の間の調整を行う役割をもつ。
「タウンアーキテクト」を一般的に規定すれば以下のようになる。
①「タウンアーキテクト」は、「まちづくり」を推進する仕組みや場の提案者であり、実践者である。「タウンアーキテクト」は、「まちづくり」の仕掛け人(オルガナイザー(組織者))であり、アジテーター(主唱者)であり、コーディネーター(調整者)であり、アドヴォケイター(代弁者))である。
②「タウンアーキテクト」は、「まちづくり」の全般に関わる。従って、「建築家」(建築士)である必要は必ずしもない。本来、自治体の首長こそ「タウンアーキテクト」と呼ばれるべきである。
③ここで具体的に考えるのは「空間計画」(都市計画)の分野だ。とりあえず、フィジカルな「まちのかたち」に関わるのが「タウンアーキテクト」である。こうした限定にまず問題がある。「まちづくり」のハードとソフトは切り離せない。空間の運営、維持管理の仕組みこそが問題である。しかし、「まちづくり」の質は最終的には「まちのかたち」に表現される。その表現、まちの景観に責任をもつのが「タウンアーキテクト」である。
④もちろん、誰もが「建築家」であり、「タウンアーキテクト」でありうる。身近な環境の全てに「建築家」は関わっている。どういう住宅を建てるか(選択するか)が「建築家」の仕事であれば、誰でも「建築家」でありうる。また、「建築家」こそ「タウンアーキテクト」としての役割を果たすべきである、ということがある。様々な条件をまとめあげ、それを空間的に表現するトレーニングを受け、その能力に優れているのが「建築家」だからである。
4.日本の「タウンアーキテクト」
『序説』では、「タウンアーキテクト」の原型となるイメージを思いつくまま列挙した。「建築主事」「デザイン・コーディネーター」「コミッショナー・システム」「マスター・アーキテクト」「インスペクター」などである。いくつかのレヴェルに分けてみたい。
①建築士
日本の「タウンアーキテクト」の具体的存在形態を考える上でベースとするのが建築士である。日本には約三〇万人の一級建築士、約六〇万人の二級建築士、約一万三〇〇〇人の木造建築士が存在する。その組織体としての建築士事務所は合わせて約一三万社ある。もちろん、建築士に限定する必要はないけれど、まず念頭に置くのは建築士一〇〇万人、一五万チーム程度の組織である。都道府県毎の数字にはかなりのばらつきがあるが、各地域地域をそれぞれが拠点とするのが基本的イメージである。
単にあるまちで建築の仕事をしているというだけではなく、地域の活動にも積極的に関わる。また、地域環境の維持管理について責任をもつ。かつて、大工さんや各種の職人さんは身近にいて、家を直したり、植木の手入れをしたり、という本来の仕事だけではなく、近所の様々な相談を受けるそういう存在であった。その延長というわけにはいかないけれど、その現代的蘇生が「タウンアーキテクト」である。
②地域職人ネットワーク
地域環境の維持管理については、例えば具体的に、住宅の増改築、補修などを行うために、職人さんとの連携が不可欠となる。①②を合わせたチームが「タウンアーキテクト」の原点である。広原盛明の「ハウスドクター」、大野勝彦の「地域住宅工房」など、いくつかの理念が既に提出されている。「京町家作事組」など活動事例もある。
③建築主事
そもそもの発想において「タウンアーキテクト」の原型となるのは「建築主事」(建築基準法第四条に規定される、都道府県、特定の市町村および特別区の長の任命を受けた者)である。全国の自治体、土木事務所、特定行政庁に、約一七〇〇名の建築主事がいて、建築確認業務に従事している。建築確認行政は基本的にはコントロール行政であり、取り締まり行政である。建築基準法に基づいて、確認申請の書類を法に照らしてチェックするのが建築主事の仕事である。しかし、そうした建築確認行政が豊かな都市景観の創出に寄与してきたのか、というとそうは言えない。「タウンアーキテクト」構想の出発点はここである。
建築主事が「タウンアーキテクト」になればいいのではないか、これが誰もが考える答えである。全国で二千人程度の、あるいは全市町村三六〇〇人程度のすぐれた「タウンアーキテクト」がいて、デザイン指導すれば、相当町並みは違ってくるのではないか。
しかし、そうはいかないという。デザイン指導に法的根拠がないということもあるが、そもそも、人材がいないという。建築主事さんは、法律や制度には強いかもしれないけれど、どちらかというとデザインには弱いという。もしそうだとするなら、地域の「建築家」が手伝う形を考えればいいのではないか。第二の答えである。
④建築コミッショナー
建築主事を積極的に「タウンアーキテクト」として考える場合、いくつかの形態が考えられる。欧米の「タウンアーキテクト」制がまず思い浮かぶ。最も権限をもつケースだと「建築市(町村)長」置く例がある。一般的には、何人かの建築家からなる委員会が任に当たる。建築コミッショナー・システムである。
日本にもいくつか事例がある。「熊本アートポリス」「クリエイティブ・タウン・岡山(CTO)」「富山町の顔づくりプロジェクト」などにおけるコミッショナー・システムである。ただ、いずれも限られた公共建築の設計者選定の仕組みにすぎない。むしろ近いのは「都市計画審議会」「建築審議会」「景観審議会」といった審議会である。それらには、本来、「タウンアーキテクト」としての役割がある。地方分権一括法案以降、市町村の権限を認める「都市計画審議会」には大いに期待すべきかもしれない。しかし、審議会システムが単に形式的な手続き機関に堕しているのであれば、別の仕組みを考える必要がある。
⑤地区アーキテクト
しかしいずれにしろ、一人のコミショナー、ひとつのコミッティーが自治体全体に責任を負うには限界がある。「タウンアーキテクト」はコミュニティ単位、地区単位で考える必要がある。あるいは、プロジェクト単位で「タウンアーキテクト」の派遣を考える必要がある。この場合、自治体とコミュニティの双方から依頼を受ける形が考えられる。
具体的には、各種アドヴァイザー制度、「まちづくり協議会」方式、「コンサルタント派遣」制度として展開されているところである。
5.「タウンアーキテクト」の仕事
「タウンアーキテクト」は具体的に何を仕事とするのか。『序説』では、「タウンウォッチング」「百年計画」「公開ヒヤリング」・・・等々各地域で試みられたら面白いであろう手法を思いつくまま列挙している。しかし、そこでの議論は、建築コミッショナーとしての「タウンアーキテクト」の役割に集中しすぎている。やはりベースとすべきは、身近な仕事において、また具体的な地区で何ができるかであろう。
「タウンアーキテクト」制をひとつの制度として構想してみることはできる。建築コミッショナー制を導入するのであれば、権限と報酬の設定、任期と任期中の自治体内での業務禁止は前提とされなければならない。
地区アーキテクト制を実施するためには自治体の支援が不可欠である。地区アーキテクトは、個々の建築設計のアドヴァイザーを行う。住宅相談から設計者を紹介する、そうした試みは様々になされている。また、景観アドヴァイザー、あるいは景観モニターといった制度も考えられる。具体的な計画の実施となると、様々な権利関係の調整が必要となる。そうした意味では、「タウンアーキテクト」は、単にデザインする能力だけでなく、法律や収支計画にも通じていなければならない。また、住民、権利者の調整役を務めなければならない。一番近いイメージは再開発コーディネーターである。
しかし、制度のみを議論しても始まらない。地域毎に固有の「まちづくり」を期待するのであれば一律の制度はむしろ有害かもしれない。どんな小さなプロジェクトであれ、具体的な事例に学ぶことが先行さるべきである。
まずは、①身近なディテールから、というのが指針である。また、②持続、が必要である。単発のイヴェントでは弱い。そして持続のためには、③地域社会のコンセンサス、が必要である。合意形成のためには、④参加、が必要であり、⑤情報公開が不可欠である。
「まちにコモンスペースを設計しよう」というスローガンは、そうした意味で「タウンアーキテクト」の大きな指針である。一戸の住宅を設計する場合にも相隣関係は常に問われる。一戸が二戸になる共有化されたルールが「まちづくり」の原点である。また、公と私の中間領域、共領域を創出するのが「まちづくり」の出発点である。
以上のような「タウンアーキテクト」の像は机上の空論ではない。『序説』の最後に予告したのであるが、実際、「京都コミュニティ・デザイン・リーグ(京都CDL)」というグループが京都で2001年より活動を開始しつつある[4]。大学の研究室を母胎とする活動であるが、ひとつのタウン・アーキテクト制のシミュレーションである。
こうして、「タウンアーキテクト」という職能領域を展望してみたのであるが、もちろん、従来からの「建築家」に求められる役割が変わるわけではない。地域を越えて、国際的に活躍する「建築家」ももちろん必要であるし、民間の仕事を主とする「建築家」も要るであろう。それぞれに役割分担がある。しかし、原点として、「建築家」の出発点は、おそらく、「タウンアーキテクト」としての仕事にもとめられるであろう。地域社会で認められる仕事の経験がなければ、国際的にも通用しないのである。「建築家」が「建築家」としてまず果たすべきは都市景観に対する責任である。何もある都市にとってシンボリックな「作品」を設計することだけが「建築家」の仕事ではない。都市の「地」を長い時間をかけてつくる重要な仕事が「建築」にはあるのである。
1 布野修司・宮内康編『現代建築ーーーポスト・モダニズムを超えて』(新曜社、一九九三年)「終章 現代建築家」参照。
2 日建連ハンドブック,一九九九年
3 布野修司、『裸の建築家・・・タウンアーキテクト論序説』、建築資料研究社
4
京都CDLの活動については、機関誌『京都げのむ』1号、2号が刊行されている。
[1] 布野修司・宮内康編『現代建築ーーーポスト・モダニズムを超えて』(新曜社、一九九三年)「終章 現代建築家」参照。
[2] 日建連ハンドブック,一九九九年
[3] 布野修司、『裸の建築家・・・タウンアーキテクト論序説』、建築資料研究社,二〇〇〇年。
[4] 京都CDLの活動については、機関誌『京都げのむ』1号、2号が刊行されている。
2024年12月23日月曜日
Peter J.M. Nas (ed.),Directors of Urban Change in Asia, Routledge Advances in AsiaーPacific Studies, Routledge, 2005
Peter J.M. Nas (ed.),Directors of Urban Change in Asia, Routledge Advances in AsiaーPacific Studies, Routledge, 2005
13
Tokyo
A speculator and builders’
paradise
Shuji Funo
Introduction
From its origin as a
small castle town[1]
until the end of the Edo Era (1603-1868), urbanization in Tokyo (formerly know
as Edo) seems to have followed an orthogenetic process. The Tokugawa Shogunate
closed Japan to foreign countries with the exception of the port of Deshima at
Nagasaki (opened to only the Dutch) from 1641 to 1853.[2] Japan continued
to stay at the periphery of European World Economy, though the silver from
Iwami Ginzan (silver mine) exported through Deshima did make a small
contribution. Japan accepted no immigrants from outside during this so-called sakoku
(seclusion) era. It is, therefore, a
unique example of urbanization within the formation of the Modern World System.
In the mid-seventeenth century,
Tokyo’s population reached one million - matching London and Paris - although
its huge urban village form did not resemble its European counterparts. Japanese society gradually opened to
the world since 1853. Imperial
rule was restored in 1868, and Edo was
renamed Tokyo, meaning Eastern
Kyoto (Capital), as the new capital of Japan in 1869. Tokyo today is a mega city.[3] The city
has transformed from a huge village to a global capital centre over the past
150 years.
Edo[4] was established
as the Shogun’s capital, even though Kyoto (where the Emperor resided) remained the formal capital of Japan. The Tokugawa Bakufu Shogunate controlled all of Japan,
including Kyoto. It is obvious that the directors of Edo were the Shoguns, who introduced
control systems for both land and people in the early Edo period. Political
authority in Japan was divided amongst a centralized and bureaucratised
military regime and some 250 bureaucratised feudal domains called Han. Daimyōs,
the governors of the Han, were obliged to visit Edo with levies for the Shogun
once a year (sankin kōtai system). They were classified according to their
degree of loyalty, and were given land and goods based on the Shogun’s
evaluation of their accomplishments.
All building lots[5]
were arranged hierarchically around the Edo castle in the centre. Edo’s spiral
pattern of moats and roads, as if the centric power of Shogun absorbed
the power of people, is very unique. Daimyōs more faithful to the Shogun
received larger residential sites nearer to Edo castle. Edo was a highly
controlled city where residential quarters among classes (Hudai Daimyōs
(insiders), Tozama Daimyōs (outsiders), hatamoto/gokenin (antrustion/inmate),
chōnin (townspeople)) were strictly segregated according to hierarchy of
Edo society (Si Nou Kou Shō (samurai
(knight)-farmers-craftsman-merchant) system).
FIGURE HERE
Figure 1. Diagram of Edo spatial structure (After M. Naito 1967).
Following the
Meiji Restoration, the Emperor moved from Kyoto to Tokyo, which at last became
the capital of Japan both nominally and actually. The Emperors, however, did not
become the directors of Tokyo. The New Meiji Government took the initiative in
restructuring Edo as a modern capital comparable to
European capitals such
as London and Paris. The central government invited and
hired foreign engineers to create the new face of the city before reaching the same level
of industrialization in western countries. The modernization of Tokyo in a Western
image was the prime objective.
The
directors of Tokyo were the Meiji Governors, who were advised by western
architects and urban planners and promoted modern city planning. From the Meiji
Restoration onward, Japan continued to import concepts
and systems of urban planning from the west, including Baron G.E. Haussemann’s grand
projects of Paris in late nineteenth century; the Nazi national
land planning during the Second World War; the Greater London
Plan after the Second World War; and the German B (Bebauungs)-Plan of the early
1980s.
Also important
for Tokyo were the disasters – wars and earthquakes – that changed the city dramatically.
The ‘scrap and build’ process was a real driving force of Tokyo’s
transformation. The directors of urban change, especially after the 1960s, were
speculators and builders. Twice destroyed in the twentieth century (by
earthquake in 1923 and aerial bombardment in 1945), Tokyo emerged as a
speculator and builders’ paradise, a true global city, in the 1980s. Today,
Tokyo is comprised of over 12 million inhabitants and one-fourth of the
Japanese population lives in the greater metropolitan area.[6] The mega-city seems to be awaiting another catastrophe unless measures to
change its over-centralization are taken.
Notwithstanding all the
changes, there is one invariant area, which Roland Barthes (1915-80)[7] called ‘void’ or ‘vacant’, in the centre
of Tokyo. That is the Emperor’s palace complex, where Edo castle was once located.
It is remarkable that this mega-city has been able to preserve a large natural
precinct in its centre for over 400 years.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 2. Edo in
late seventeenth century (After T. Tamai 1989 and Shinban Edo Oezu, New
Edo Large Pictorial Map).
FIGURE HERE
Figure 3. Edo just
before Meiji Restoration (Edo Kiriezu).
Dreams of occidentalists:
Towards a Western-style capital
Due to the drastic change of social
system by Meiji Restoration, Tokyo’s population dropped from one million to
about 600,000. One of the most urgent tasks of Meiji
New Government was to remodel Edo into a modern capital. In 1869, Japan’s first
railway was opened and the first steam locomotive started running in 1872 between from
Shimbashi to Yokohama. In 1885, a cabinet system of government was adopted and
Japan established a modern nation-state political system, drafting the Constitution
of the Japanese Empire in 1889.
Two projects are
symbolic of modern urban planning[8] in Tokyo. One is the
Ginza renga gai (Ginza Brick Quarter) project (1872–77), and the other is the Hibiya Kanchō Shūtyū Keikaku (Governmental Offices Concentration project) (1886–87) at
Kasumigaseki.
The Ginza district, where many
merchants and craftsmen had gathered in the Edo period, was becoming a new centre
of Western civilization because of its location near Tsukiji (a protected settlement for
foreigners) to the east and Shinbashi (connected to Yokohama’s
international port) to the south. The Ginza
renga gai project was
launched to refashion the entire Ginza district in red
brick after the great fire of 1872. Brick was adopted not only for fire
protection, but also to create a showpiece with a European flavour.
The directors of this project were
Shigenobu Ohkuma[9] (1838–1922), the Minister of
Finance, and Kaoru Inoue[10] (1835–1915), the Deputy
Minister. Together with
many other bureaucrats, they lived in the Ginza area and were key proponents of Western
civilization. English architect Thomas James Waters[11] with
his brother Albert Waters were invited to prepare plans for the
area. Construction took nearly a decade and the project was completed in
1877. 2,855 buildings were made, one third of which were two-storey brick
buildings with colonnade and balconies. The streets were lined with maples,
willows and gaslights,
creating the first commercial street with a European atmosphere in Japan. Georgian-style streetscape were transferred to the Far East and
suddenly emerged in the central part of Tokyo in this manner. The project,
however, was not welcomed by residents. Newspapers at that time criticised
the project as unsuitable for Japanese climate and claimed that this planning would encourage beriberi outbreaks. Almost all trees withered and died. The brick
structures were soon abandoned because of frequent earthquakes in Japan.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 4. Ginza Brick Quarter Project 1872.
Most of the daimyō land plots in the vicinity of the new Imperial
Palace (Edo castle) were claimed by various agencies of new government as sites
for offices. The project to build Central Business District for government
offices was launched after the Cabinet System was
adopted in 1885.
The Director who proposed the project was again
Kaoru Inoue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and an enthusiastic occidentalist.
First, he designated an English architect Josiah Condor,[12] the
father of modern Japanese architecture and designer of the Rokumeikan (an
elaborate hotel and a symbol of Western Civilization in 1883) to make plans for
new office blocks, which were never implemented. Later, Herman Ende
(a professor of the Bau-akademie and a technical adivisor of O.E.L.F. von
Bismarck, the first Prime Minister of Deutsches Reich and
Willhelm Böckman[13]
from Germany) were invited to plan and design this Central District of
Tokyo. They prepared a
master plan which included a central Assembly Hall far bigger than that of the
German Empire (built four years before), based on baroque urban planning
concepts.
The project was
not implemented because of financial concerns raised by James Hobrecht, a
civil engineer responsible for the Berlin Plan in 1862. Hobrecht had carried out many projects in
Moscow, Cairo, and Alexandria in addition to Berlin, and was the most famous of
foreign engineers invited to Japan during Meiji Era. Ende
edited the project and only two buildings were constructed on the site (half of which
is now Hibiya Park), the first example of a western public park in Tokyo.
Amidst the planning of the flamboyant projects
like Ginza Brick Quarter, the Hibiya
Governmental Offices Concentration Projects and Mitsubishi Londontown projects,[14] various
strategies called Shikukaisei (urban block improvement) to reform
Tokyo were discussed. In 1880, the governor of Tokyo Michiyuki Matsuda(1839–82) published the first Shikukaisei program.
Akimasa Yoshikawa (1841–1920), the next governor, followed
up the program supported by the Ministry of Interior. The major concern of
Yoshikawa’s program was to revitalize and develop transportation networks that
could be the base of modern industries via an international port (although
Matsuda’s plan laid more stress on commercial development). The Capital of the
Great Japanese Empire or a Metropolis for modern capitalism, that was the
issue.
The directors of this effort were Ministry of
Interior headed by Aritomo Yamagata[15] (1838–1922) and newly rising entrepreneurs like Eiichi
Shibusawa (1840–1931) who founded the first national
bank in 1877. The first legislation in Japan to
facilitate city planning, Tokyo Shikukaisei Jorei, was enforced
in 1888. It was a 16-point initiative that created a city planning board and
set in motion various improvements to infrastructure, especially in the
downtown area. The greatest attention was given to road construction. The model
was the Great Reform of Paris by Baron Georges-Eugene Haussemann (1809–91). However,
because of cholera outbreaks, special attention was given to the water supply
and sewage removal, and
consequently, road network reform was interrupted.[16]
The fruits that Tokyo Shikukaisei accomplished
until 1916 were enlargement of streets for trams, establishment of water supply
and sewage treatment and installation of Hibiya Park. Most of sites of the Daimyō’s
residences and temples were converted for newly needed facilities.
Dreams of nationalists or colonists:
Towards an ideal city
The Industrial Revolution in Japan started in the 1880s
and Tokyo absorbed a huge migratory population from rural areas. The population reached nearly two million at the beginning of twentieth century. Three famous slum areas called hinminkutu
(caves of the poor people) appeared within Tokyo from the 1890s onward. During the Taisho Era (1912–26), the number of wage earners increased in
the Japanese cities, and an increasing proportion of citizens came to lead consumer
lifestyles. The
Japanese economy was already involved in the world economy in 1920s. The population
of Tokyo had reached 3.7 million in 1920.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 5. Tokyo in
1910 (Dainihon Rikuti Sokuryoubu, Department of survey of land, Great
Japan, original scale 1:20,000).
Tokyo had become so large that Tokyo shi
(municipal government) could not manage the urban and housing problems.
Therefore, legislation was established to control and regulate the urban
expansion. The Toshi Keikaku Hou (Town Planning
Act) was adopted in 1919 along with Shigaichi Kenchikubutu Hou, the first
Municipal Area Building Law in Japan. The word toshi keikaku, or urban planning, was used for the first time in late 1920s. The
emphasis continued to be on infrastructure development in order to
establish modern industry. These acts and building codes adopted a Zoning System to
delineate Fire-protection Zones and to identify districts within the city for
special uses. It also provided for land readjustment such as the straightening of roads and
property lines in suburban areas expected to transform from farms
to houses. The concepts and methods of land readjustment were taken from Adiches[17] Law of Germany.
Japanese architects opened their eyes to urban
issues in the latter part of Meiji Era, but could not yet afford to carry out
urban projects. A typical example is Shigeyoshi Fukuda (1887–1971), a city architect
and engineer who launched the ‘New Tokyo’ Plan in 1918. He estimated that the
population of Tokyo would be 6.76 million after 50 years (1961) and that its area
would grow 3.6 times, assuming a density of 250 persons/hectare. His ‘New
Tokyo’ Plan was based
on this individual idea and remained unrealised.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 6. The ‘New Tokyo’ Plan by S. Fukuda, 1918.
The idea of ‘Garden City’ was introduced to Japan in 1907 via a book
titled ‘Denen Toshi’.[18] This was
published by Ministry of Interior technocrats who wanted to enliven rural
regions. However, the theory and true aim of the ‘Garden City’ was not
understood in Japan. The naming of ‘Denen Toshi’ caught the interest of
entrepreneurs as they developed suburbs into residential quarters. The ‘Denen Toshi’ company was
established by Eiichi Shibusawa in 1918 and developed 3 settlements, one of
which is called Denen Chofu (today one of the richest areas in Tokyo).
In September 1923, the Great Kantō Earthquake[19] struck
Tokyo and resulting fires burned down the city centre. It reduced 60 percent of Tokyo to
ashes, reverting it physically to the beginning of Meiji restoration. This
might be said to be the first true opportunity to change Tokyo, since
the resulting reconstruction projects were actually based on the first comprehensive
reform proposals.
Shimpei Gotō[20] (1857–1929), mayor of Tokyo (1920–23), was appointed to lead the
reconstruction and drew up plans. He was a national
figure with experience as an administrator in Taiwan (Formosa), Manchuria
(North Eastern China), and had
played a leading role to draft Toshi Keikaku Hou (Town Planning Act 1919). Gotō established the Tokyo Institute for Municipal Research soon after he
had become mayor in 1920, inviting Charles Austin Beard[21] (1874–1948) as a principal advisor and proposing a master plan for the city even prior to the emergency. His plan included new
street lines and wider streets, reorganization of the rail network,
improvements to water and sewer systems, and creation of open
spaces.
Gotō is often considered as the father of modern urban planning in Japan. Only few elements of the master plan, however, were
actually accomplished, because of its cost and the opposition of powerful
landowners. Land acquisition was a major issue of urban planning
from the beginning.
The
Dōjunkai
(Foundation for Restoration after the Great Kantō earthquake), was established with donations from foreign
countries, and became the first
body supplying public housing in Japan. It began to build collective houses as well as detached and
semi-detached houses. It also initiated slums upgrading projects and carried out land readjustments.
The Showa Era (1926–89) has difficult beginnings because
of the Great Earthquake and the World Economic Crisis (1929). In addition Japan was heading
for war (1931–45). Wartime planning, however, created new changes
in Tokyo as new transportation systems were introduced. In 1927
Japan’s first subway line opened, in 1931 Tokyo Airport was completed in
Haneda, and in 1941 the Port of Tokyo was opened. In 1932, the outline of Tokyo was expanded by
combining adjacent 82 towns and villages into what was called Dai Tokyo[22] (Greater Tokyo). By 1935,
the number of people living in Tokyo had reached 6.36 million, comparable to
the populations of New York and London. In 1943, the dual administrative system of
Tokyo-fu and Tokyo-shi was abolished, and were consolidated to
form Tokyo Metropolis. The Metropolitan administrative system was thus established,
and a governor was appointed.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 7. Dai Tokyo 1932.
In 1941, the
Pacific War broke out. Ironically, the only realized examples of Japanese modern urban planning
took place in its
colonies in Taiwan, Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula. The
Datong City Plan and Dalian Plan in China were famous Japanese colonial
projects. Japanese architects considered the colony as an experimental field to
realize ideals of modern architecture and city planning. Colonial urban planning reminds us
that top to bottom urban planning requires political power and will to realize it.
The power of the state
as a whole was director to implement colonial urban planning. Japanese architects and planners were indebted to Nazi planning concepts during this
period.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 8. Datong City Plan, China, 1939.
A central government committee proposed
the ‘Tokyo Green Belt Plan’ in 1939. The plan included a green belt
encircling Tokyo for protection of scenic spots and also for air
defence, but never
materialized due to the lack of time and financial resources. Here the
director was war itself.
In the final
phase of the Second World War, Tokyo was bombed 102 times, including the
heaviest air raid on 10 March 1945, in which many citizens lost property or were killed.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 9. Dai Tokyo Chiku Keikaku
(Greater Tokyo Regional Planning Model) 1940.
Dreams of futurists: Towards an
international metropolis
The war came to an end on 15 August 1945, when Japan’ acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. Much of Tokyo had been in ruins by the
bombings and by October 1945, the population had fallen to 3.49 million, half
its level in 1940.
Tokyo again reverted to tabula rasa.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 10. Tokyo Ruins by Bombing 1945.
The shortage[23] of
dwelling units, lost and needed for families coming back from colonies outside
was estimated at 4.2 million at the conclusion of the war. Building shelters
and managing daily life was very hard.
It took few years to commence the reconstruction plan. Eiyo Ishikawa[24](1893–1955), the Tokyo government’s chief planner, had already prepared
a ‘War Damage Rehabilitation Plan’ during the war, adopting a symmetrical radial
and ring-road network with spaced green belts, and identifying of
land uses through zoning. It was too idealistic to be implemented. This concept of symmetrical radial and ring-road network with spaced green belts, however, had continued to the influential model
until Kenzo Tange (1913–) proposed the linear model in 1960. Dai
Tokyo Tiku Keikaku (Greater Tokyo Regional Planning Model) of 1940 was
also based on this concept such as those of S. Fukuda’s plan and S. Gotō’s
plan.
From the end of the War onward, the director
was GHQ of the American Occupation Forces until Japan’s return to international
community via the San Francisco peace treaty in 1951. One
year after the war, the Special City Planning Law was enacted and large-scale reconstruction
plans were made by
architects and planners for several cities. In May
1947, the Constitution of Japan, based on the doctrine of democratic sovereignty
and the Local Government Act was promulgated. The first Governor of Tokyo was elected under the new system. In 1949, Tokyo
Metropolis started the 23-ku system. The Capital Construction Law was
passed in 1950. This law established the Capital Construction Committee; a
national organization devoted to the goal of Tokyo’s reconstruction, and created
the Emergency Five-Year Capital Construction Plan. However, due to severe economic
conditions, it was impossible to effectively realize these plans and problems
were left for the next generation to solve. Land readjustment
projects were planned in many districts of Tokyo but decision-making was overly time consuming. Competitions for reconstruction programs were held, but the ruined
economy did not permit
their implementation.
The real reconstruction started with the
outbreak of Korean War (1950–53), and special procurement demand arising from the War. The Japanese economy
steadily recovered during the 1950s and post-war economic reconstruction was completed
roughly ten years later. A Capital Region Development Plan was seriously considered in order
to control the excessive population concentration. To this end, a Capital
Region Development Law[25] was
enacted in 1956 to replace the Capital Construction Law of 1950. This co-centric radial plan was modelled after the Greater London Plan(1944) by
Sir Patrick Abercrombie(1879–1957), and was based on the idea of strong
controls. Laws were promoting the construction of industrial satellite cities and restricting
factory locations in existing urbanized. Earlier in 1955, the
Japan Housing Corporation[26] had
been established as a semi-public organization to carry out large-scale housing
construction and housing site development in metropolitan areas. Their
activities ushered a new era in town construction in Japan. New towns
intended for middle-income level families were built one after another in the
suburbs.[27] It should be
noted that new towns created in Japan were very different from the self-contained
new towns of England, which both provided work, places and housing. This was
the inevitable result of the conditions prevailing in Japan at the time.
In the 1960s Japan
entered a period of high-level economic growth. In 1962, the
population of Tokyo broke the 10 million mark. In 1964, the Olympic games were
held in Tokyo and the super express bullet train (shinkansen) opened,
forming the basis for Tokyo’s current prosperity. The 1964 Tokyo Olympics
transformed Tokyo’s landscape radically by virtue of the Metropolitan highway (Shuto
Kōsoku) and other facilities like the Yoyogi National Gymnasium designed by
a world famous architect, K. Tange. Tokyo began to change from horizontal city
to vertical city since mid-1960s.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 11. Tokyo Plan 1960,
Kenzo Tange.
From
late 1950s to early 1960s, Japanese architects raised hands to be the ‘directors’
as if they could lead the directions of Japanese cities. K. Tange proposed the
‘Tokyo Plan 1960’ following Kiyonori Kikutake’s (1928–) ‘City on the Sea’ (1958) and
‘Tower City’ (1959). The ‘Tokyo Plan 1960,’ which insisted on a linear
structure rather than a radial system, intended to change structure of Tokyo
radically, but was only pie in the sky. Many architects, including Noriaki Kurokawa
(1934-) (‘Rurban City’, ‘Spiral City’) and Fumihiko Maki (1928–) (‘Group
Form’), who had belonged to the Metabolism Group launched ideal projects for
the future city. Arata Isozaki (1931–) proposed a project called ‘The
City in the Air’.
Prominent
urban projects by star architects were proposed for a period of two or three
years in the beginning of the 1960s. Realization was of no concern and the
proposals lacked procedural and financial considerations. However, one image of
the future city was temporarily realized at the sites of ‘Expo ’70’. Another
rare case, K. Kikutake’s ‘City on the Sea’ (1958), was realized as ‘Aqua polis’
in 1975.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 12. City on the Sea, Kiyonori Kikutake 1959.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 13. Aqua Polis, Okinawa, Kiyonori Kikutake 1975.
On the other hand, rapid
expansion of urbanized areas, shortage of housing, increased land-use prices
and confusion in land ownership
became apparent in metropolitan areas. Solving these problems became an extremely urgent policy issue. Planning in Tokyo
began to move in new direction from mid-1960s, because little was done to create
better living environments at that time, and citizens still suffered from severe
water shortages and air pollution. Minobe Ryokichi[28] (1904–84), a
professor who criticized urban policy from a socialist-communist perspective,
was elected as governor in 1967. He made an appeal to recover clean rivers and
blue skies and promised to work toward a more healthful Tokyo. The ‘Town
Planning Law’ was revised in 1968 long after the first version of 1919.
The Post-Modern City Tokyo at its Zenith
By the beginning of the 1970s, the excesses of high-level economic
growth became apparent through environmental problems such as air, river, and noise
pollution. At the same time, the Energy Crisis of 1973 brought the period of high-level
economic growth to a halt. Saving energy and resources became a real issue to avoid catastrophe.
Development shifted from outward urban expansion towards the
fuller development of already urbanized areas. Urban planning and housing paradigms shifted from large-scale development to
small-scale projects, from new construction to urban renewal, from high-rise
flats to low-middle rise town houses, and from quantity of dwelling units to
quality of life. This
situation Tokyo stood resembles that of the end of the 20th century.
Japan’s stable growth
period, however, was followed
by a ‘bubble economy’. In 1980’s, Tokyo enjoyed rapid economic growth again via its increasing internationalisation
and the emergence of information society. Tokyo became one of the world’s most vital
and attractive major cities, boasting advanced technology, information, culture
and fashion, as well as a high level of public safety.
Suzuki Shunichi
occupied the seat of governor after Minobe in 1979, serving four terms until 1995.
He called his vision for the city ‘My Town Tokyo’. His administration put
together a series of three comprehensive plans in 1982, 1986 and
1990. The biggest difference from the previous administration was their
emphasis on the Central
Business District and other major commercial districts, where
construction of large, showy projects was intended to advance Tokyo as an
international business centre and metropolis. New Tokyo City Hall[29] located
in Shinjuku designed by K. Tange (an intimate friend of the governor S. Suzuki from 1960s) is
the symbol of Tokyo’s zenith.
The urban issues Tokyo faced in the mid-1980s
were quite different from those it had faced in the past. The city had reached
its limits for horizontal expansion. The ‘Tokyo Problem’ and ‘Tokyo Reform’
became pressing issues for debate. Scholars and critics discussed the negative
effects of Tokyo’s political, economic and cultural dominance, as well as
possibilities for relocating the Japanese capital.
Tokyo’s status as one of
the world’s financial centres attracted an unprecedented influx of foreign
businessmen and workers in the 1980s. The resulting demand for centrally
located office space and 24-hour facilities sparked a speculative building rush
that dramatically transformed the cityscape. Western architects with
post-modern designs were invited to give Tokyo a fashionable facelift,
befitting its status as a global city.
FIGURE
HERE
Figure 14. Post
Modern Building Shinjuku 2ban Kan, designed by Minoru Takeyama 1978.
Further
urban development necessitated the search for new frontiers. The first frontier
identified was the unused public land in the city centre. Investors snapped up
downtown properties, while large real estate companies launched re-development
projects. Many of these destroyed the fabric of existing downtown communities.
The second frontier was the sky. Tokyo still had more space in the air than New
York. The project called ‘Manhattan Project’, revived after a long hiatus, started
to renew Marunouchi area (the former Mitsubishi London town), the Central Business
District around Tokyo Station. The third frontier was the under the ground, the
so-called geo front. A project to create an underground city with 500,000
inhabitants was seriously proposed. The fourth and final frontier was the Tokyo
waterfront, hitherto the home to dockyards and factories. Factories of heavy
industries moved out according to the change of industrial structure. The
tertiary industries evidently became the key industries of Tokyo in the 1980s.
New technologies, production systems, and building materials shaped
Tokyo’s urban transformation. Since 1960s sealed aluminium sash systems have been de rigueur, meaning that all dwelling units are
now air-conditioned. So-called intelligent office buildings came into fashion
in the 1980s. Domed, climate-controlled stadiums allow baseball games to be
played in the midst of storms. The daily lives of Tokyo’s citizens have become completely
divorced from nature. Most space in Tokyo is artificially controlled by
computer. Electronic conglomerates enjoying symbiotic
relations with the government are prominent players in this development
process, as are the large construction companies, which still wield considerable
political power. Tokyo
is a temporary metropolis that is constantly changing within this reiterative ‘scrap
and build’ process, the city is losing its historical memory.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 15. Great
Hanshin Earthquake.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 16. Tokyo from the Space 2000
(TMG)
Never ending Tokyo projects: Scrap and build
process
At the beginning of
the 1990’s the
bubble economy collapsed and Suzuki-era ended
in 1995. The waterfront
became a principal issue in the gubernatorial election of 1995. How to
redevelop the waterfront had become the major topic of early 1990s. Under the
title ‘Urban Frontier’, the ‘World City Exposition Tokyo ‘96’ directed
expansion towards Tokyo Bay. To hold exposition and equip infrastructures for
the development after is a well-worn device in Japan.
A
promise to electors to halt waterfront development led to the election of Yukio
Aoshima, better known as a TV comedian, as Governor. His abandonment of the
‘World City Exposition Tokyo ’96 - Urban Frontier’ symbolized the end of the
‘bubble economy’ and its infinite expansion. It is also very symbolic that the
Great Hanshin Earthquake[30] in the same year revealed the
weakness of Japan’s tradition of urban planning.
Standing at the
dawn of a new historical starting phase at the beginning of the 21st century, Tokyo still suffers from financial difficulties created
by the ‘bubble economy’. The paradigm of urban
planning is shifting again. Instead of large-scale projects here is greater
interest in creating communities and enriching the people’s immediate
environment, and a greater interest in creating an urban culture. ‘Sustainable City’ or ‘Compact City’
is becoming a new slogan, replacing the ‘Expanding City’ or ‘Mega-City’.
Looking back at this overview of the
history of urban planning in Tokyo, several general trends are evident.
Lack of originality: Concepts and
systems of urban planning have always been imported from western countries,
such as Baron Haussemann’s grand project of Paris, Nazi ideas on national land planning,
the Greater London plan, and the German B-plan. It is not a bad idea to learn
from other systems, but they do not necessarily work well in different context.
Ideas and methods need to be rooted in the realities of Japan.
Absence of subjectivity and the passiveness of people: In Japan, it is not clear who is planning and
designing the city. The local government is controlled by the central
government and cannot decide on any matter related to urban planning. In
addition, there is no system for
participation and advocacy.
Weakness of urban planning finance: There are no
special funds allocated for urban planning. They depend on the annual budgets. Policies may
easily be changed by the mayor, who may be replaced in the next election. Unstable
planning boards are also problematic. Officials in local government change from
one board to another frequently. Professionals in urban planning are needed on urban
planning boards.
Immaturity of public consciousness to limit the power of private urban planning: Japan is said to
be the freest country in
the world for the design of buildings. This is
because of the loose relation between the Building Code and the
Urban Planning Law (block regulations). The cityscape is chaotic, as a result of architects responsible for this situation
enjoy the freedom.
The ‘scrap and build’ urban process: For half a century after the war the ‘scrap and
build’ process has been repeated. Urban planning has neglected the urban
historical heritage. The resulting poor quality urban stock remains a
big problem.
The politically powerful
construction industry was one of the drivers of rapid post-war economic growth.
Relying heavily on the ‘scrap and build’ method, concrete and steel transformed
the Japanese landscape. In the late 1960s, construction accounted for over 20
percent of GDP. High growth gave way to a period
of stable but lower growth in the wake of the 1973 Energy Crisis; heavy industries lost ground to
light science and technology industries. The focus of
urban development shifted again from outward expansion to the full
development of already urbanized areas. Money generated by the speculative bubble of the
1980’s transformed Tokyo into a global city, wired to the dynamic movements of the world
capitalist economy.
The glory
days of Tokyo with the ‘bubble economy’ had gone and Tokyo suffered from
economic stagnation and post-bubble debt.
Nevertheless,
a curious phenomenon appeared. Along the Tokyo waterfront many new office
buildings and flats were built. The number of high-rise flats newly built in
2002 [31] is said
to be unprecedented. This construction was driven
by the speculative activities of real-estate agents and investors as before. The rumour
of ‘The 2003 Problem’[32] – companies
move to the waterfront, leaving older inner-city office buildings unoccupied-spread. The
oversupply was obvious
and predictable, but the individual realtors and developers
continue to pursue their own short-term interests, even as they know they will
later suffer.
The central government has tried to
influence the fluctuating annual number of dwelling units built by reforming
tax incentives. The current slogans of the central government are
‘Restructuring’ and ‘Urban Rebirth’. The central government has established a
special board called ‘Urban Rebirth’ and has opted to deregulate building codes
and urban planning laws to stimulate building activity. Local governments can
now rezone areas and make decisions on the restructuring of districts. Most local
governments, however, are suffering from financial constraints and lack of funds to
realize new projects. Though
policymakers believe promoting building activity through deregulation is the
only way to economic recovery, the idea is actually ill conceived.
What is actually happening, however, is
the hollowing out of the inner city. Ishihara Shintaro, governor of Tokyo Metropolitan
Municipality, has declared sixteen policy goals, the first of which is to ‘Create an
urban city that facilitates a balance of jobs and residences’. It consists
of two strategies: ‘Promotion of inner city residence’ and ‘Fundamental reform of the Metropolitan housing system’. The
former includes bringing workplaces and residential
areas together in the suburban Tama area. The results have been disappointing.
FIGURE HERE
Figure 17. Priority
Areas for Redevelopment in Central Tokyo 2004 (TMG).
Conclusion
Nobody controls a global city like
Tokyo; nobody knows who is behind the constant change. Something invisible,
which we might call the World Capitalist System, guides the
transformation of the Japanese capital.
Tokyo has its natural limits. The city cannot
grow indefinitely. What is first needed is decentralization and reorganization
of the land based on the ecological balance in the region. The municipal
government should strengthen the autonomy of urban community for risk
management. Water, food and other daily necessities are needed in the
neighbourhood units in case of disaster.
It is obvious that the
city needs powerful leadership and the participation of citizens to implement
new ideas. Unfortunately, while formal procedures for citizen involvement have
been proposed, they do not function effectively. People are
reluctant to participate when their private concerns are not
affected. Though blackouts
and drought already threaten the metropolitan area in summer, the current system of production and consumption of spaces, however, is
controlled by profit margins
rather than social or ecological responsibility. If the current trends remain
unchanged, Tokyo awaits catastrophe, and another reconstruction.
References
Barthes R. (1970) L'empire des signes, Paris,
: Skira.
Cybriwsky, R. (1998) Tokyo: The Shogun’s
City at the Twenty-First Century, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fujimori, Terunobu (1982) Meiji
no Tokyo Keikaku (Urban planning of Tokyo in the Meiji era), Tokyo:
Iwanamishoten. [Japanese]
Funo, Shuji (1998) Toshi to
Gekijou (City and theatre), Tokyo: Shokokusya. [Japanese]
--
(2003) ‘The declining capital’, in IIAS Newsletter, 31 July, Leiden:
IIAS.
Goodman, G.K. (2000) Japan and the Dutch
1600-1853, Richmond: Curzon.
Ishida, Yorifusa (1987) Nihon Kindai Toshi
Keikaku no Hyakunen (The hundred years of modern urban planning in Japan),
Tokyo: Zichitai Kenkyu-sha. [Japanese]
Ishida, Yorifusa (1992) Mikan no Tokyo Keikaku
(The unaccomplished Tokyo projects), Tokyo: Tikumashobou. [Japanese]
Jinnai, Hidenobu (1995) Tokyo a Spatial
Anthropology: Translated by Kimiko Nishimura, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Karan, P.P. and Stapleton, K. (ed. )
(1997) The Japanese City, Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
Koshizawa, Akira (1991) Tokyo no
Toshikeikaku (Urban planning of Tokyo), Tokyo:Iwanamishoten. [Japanese]
Naito, Akira (1967) Edo to Edo Jou
(Edo and Edo castle), Tokyo: Kasimasyuppankai. (Japanese)
Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City:
New York, London, Tokyo, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Seidensticker, E. (1980) Low
City, High City: Tokyo from Edo to the Earthquake, Tokyo: Charles E.
Tuttle.
Seidensticker, E. (1990) Tokyo
Rising: The City Since the Great Earthquake, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Tamai, Tetsuo (1986) Edo: Ushinawareta
Toshikuukan wo yomu (Reading urban spaces lost), Tokyo: Heibonsha.
[Japanese]
Tokyo to (Tokyo Metropolitan Government) (1989)
Tokyo to no Toshi Keikaku Hyakunen (100 Years of urban planning in
Tokyo), Tokyo: Tokyo to. [Japanese]
Watanabe, Shunichi (1993) Toshikeikaku
no Tanjou (The birth of urban planning), TokyoKasiwashobou. [Japanese]
Notes
[1] Archaeological evidence indicates that human settlement in the Kanto Plain
dates back to prehistory. The origin of the city goes back to the foundation of
a small castle called Edo in 1457, which was built by a feudal lord named Dokan Ohta, and was part
of a small castle town before the end of sixteenth century.
[2] Many books and papers were written in Japanese in terms of the relationship
between Japan and the Netherlands (see Goodman 2000).
[3] The population of Tokyo
Metropolitan Government has grown to 12.17 million
(as of 1 October 2001), 9.5 percent of
Japan’s total population and the largest of the 47
prefectures. In contrast, Tokyo’s
land area
(2,187.0 square kilometers or 0.6 percent of the total area of Japan) is the third smallest of the
prefectures. The population density is 5,565 persons per square kilometer, by far the densest prefecture in Japan. The 23-ku areas are home to 8.21 million
persons, the Tama area to 3.94 million, and the Islands to 27,000. Tokyo has 5.518 million
households, and the average household comprises 2.2 persons.
[4] Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542–1616) occupied the
town in 1590 and made it the central governmental city, establishing a military government, the Tokugawa Bakufu (Shogunate) at Edo, in 1603. The Edo era lasted for nearly 260 years
until imperial rule was restored (the Meiji Restoration) in 1868.
[5] According to reliable
records, Edo consisted of about 300 neighbourhood units in the Kanei Period
(1624–44), which increased up to 933 units in 1713, and 1678 units in 1745. The
estimated population was 350,000 in 1695 and 500,000 in 1721. It is the point
for later discussion that Edo was a special governmental city where half of the
inhabitants belonged to the Bushi
class (nobility) who formally resided in the country. So the total number of
inhabitants in Edo was over one million at the end of the eighteenth century, beyond
those of London and Paris. It is said that Edo (in terms of population) was the largest city – or a huge urban village – in
the world in early-nineteenth century.
[6] The Greater Tokyo
Metropolitan Area is made up of Tokyo and the three neighboring prefectures of
Saitama, Kanagawa and Chiba. Approximately 26.3 percent of
Japan’s total population lives in the Tokyo Metropolitan
Area.
Tokyo is a vast self-governing unit consisting of 23 ku (wards), 26 cities, 5 towns, and 8 villages, and is divided into two major areas – the 23 ku area and Tama
area. The
total areas of all 23 ku cover about 621 square
kilometers. The Tama Area is adjacent to the 23-ku areas. The daytime population, broken down by
area, shows 11.191 million in the 23-ku area, 3.348 million in the Tama
Area, and 32,000 persons in the islands.
[7] See Barthes (1970).
[8] Y. Ishida (1987) divides the development of modern
urban planning in Japan into following stages. (i) Introduction of European urban reform (1868–87), (ii) The Tokyo Urban Improvement Ordinance period (Shikukaisei Jorei)
(1880–1918), (iii) The period establishing the urban planning
system (1910–35), (iv) Wartime period (1931–45), (v) Reconstruction period (1945–54), (vi) Urban development (1955–68),
(vii) Establishing
new urban planning system (1968–85),
(viii) Anti-planning during the ‘bubble economy’ (1982–93). If I add the period after Y. Ishida, (ix) Community design after the ‘bubble economy’ (1995–)
[9] Born in Saga Han of Kyushu island. Politician. The Prime Mister (1898.6–10).
One of the leaders of Meiji Restoration. The founder of Waseda University.
[10] Born in Thoshu Han. Politician. The
Mister of Foreign Affairs (1885–88).
[11] Thomas James Waters is known as an
engineer who had worked in Shanghai before coming to Japan. The detail of his
career is not known.
[12] Josiah Condor from England is respected as the
father of the Japanese modern architects. He was invited to Japan at the
request of Ministry of Technology (kouburyo) in 1877 and taught the
first generation of students at Kobudaigakko (Institute of Technology) and
designed a considerable number of buildings.
[13] Herman Ende was 57 years old at that time. Willhelm Böckman was Ende’s colleague of Ende & Beckmann Atelier.
Richard Seel, Hermann Muthesius, Heinrich Mänz, Adolf Steghmüller, Oskara Emil
Leopold Tietze were hired as architects according to Böckman’s recommendation.
[14] London town, which is located immediately south
of the Imperial Palace and now called Marunouchi facing to Tokyo Central
Station, was a creation of a private, family-owned business called Mitsubishi
headed by Iwasaki.
[15] Born in Chōsyū han. Politician. The
Prime Mister (1889.12–91.4).
[16] In terms of the urban planning in the Meiji-era (1868–1911),
see T. Fujimori (1982), which is still the best material.
[17] The name of Mayor of Frankfurt am Main
[18] The word ‘Denen Toshi’ is used as the
Japanese word translated from ‘garden city’, but means ‘rural city’ or ‘country
town’ if the word is literally translated into English.
[19] 104,619 People, most of which had lived in the densely built up area, died
or were missing and 300,000
houses were destroyed as a result of this disaster.
[20] Born in Mito han. Politician. Colonial
Officer in Taiwan(1898. The first director of Mantetu (Manshu railroad
company) in Manchuria (1906). The Postmaster and (1908). Minister of The
Ministry of Interior (1916). The Minister of Foreign Affairs (1918). Mayor of
Tokyo (1920).
[21] An American scholar on public administration, finance and politics who had
started a similar institute in New York.
[22] The area is 55260 ha, which is 6 times of that
of Tokyo-shi. Dai Tokyo was consisted of 35 ku (ward), the
area of which is the same as the present 23-ku (wards) area.
[23] The number of dwelling units exceeded the
number of households in 1968. It took about a quater century to recover the
shortage of dwelling units.
[24] Civil engineer who graduated from Tokyo
Imperial University. Engineer of Ministry of Interior. Director of Construction
board of Tokyo shi. Professor of Waseda University.
[25] It soon became clear that the Capital
Region Development Plan was unrealistic in its underestimation of industrial
and population concentration pressures in the metropolis. In particular, the
idea of green belts was totally ineffective in the face of the sprawl into
suburbs during 1960s. As a result,
a re-evaluation of the plan became necessary. The Capital Region Development
Law was revised in 1965, and the second Capital Region Development Master Plan
was established in 1968.
[26] The cooperation was disorganized in 2004
according to restructuring of governmental organization.
[27] The New Residential Built-up Area
Development Law and the Law for Infrastructure Development of New Cities are
notable as measures that dealt realistically with metropolitan development.
[28] He was a popular two-term governor until 1979.
His ideas reoriented Tokyo city planning, but
almost brought it to bankruptcy.
[29] The former Tokyo City Hall demolished had been
located in Marunouchi Central District. The movement of city hall to the west,
the former sub-centre Shinjuku shows the movement of centre of gravity of the city.
[30] In the early morning on
January 17, 1995, the Great Hanshin Earthquake occurred. The building collapsed
killed over 6,000 people, flying objects (furniture) and the fires. About
300,000 people have lost their houses and were compelled to live in the
temporary shelters until the end of August 1995 when the emergency houses were
barely completed.
[31] The population
movement between Tokyo and other prefectures in 2000 shows that 444,000 persons
moved into Tokyo while 391,000 moved out, a total movement of 835,000 and a net
population increase of 37,000. Regarding total movement, the trend of
depopulation has prevailed since 1967, with the exception of 1985. In 1997,
there was a net population increase for the first time in 12 years, and 2000
again showed a net increase. Looking at the total movement
between Tokyo and the three adjacent prefectures (Saitama, Chiba and Kanagawa
prefectures), 208,000 came into Tokyo with 205,000 moving out, representing a total
movement of 413,000 persons or 47.6 percent of the total, a net population
decline of 3,000. Concerning natural population movement, births numbered
101,000 and deaths numbered 84,000 for a net increase of 17,000 during 2000.
The degree of net increases has declined yearly since 1972, with the exception
of 1994 and 1996.
[32] See Funo (2003).
布野修司 履歴 2025年1月1日
布野修司 20241101 履歴 住所 東京都小平市上水本町 6 ー 5 - 7 ー 103 本籍 島根県松江市東朝日町 236 ー 14 1949 年 8 月 10 日 島根県出雲市知井宮生まれ 学歴 196...
-
traverse11 2010 新建築学研究11 Ondor, Mal & Nisshiki Jutaku(Japanese Style House):Transformation of Korean Traditional House オンドルとマル,そして日式住宅...