I needed something to hold up against my Danish case(s), or, needed to get away from them, in order to look at them from a different angle. So, I chose to go to Tokyo. Many others might have chosen to go somewhere else, for example, somewhere nearer Denmark, to "one of the countries we normally compare ourselves with". That would definitely have made sense, I accept. But that is another project. In this project, my research on neighbouring countries has been limited, although not totally neglected. Instead, I have, first of all, done intensive empirical work in Denmark, on Amager, thus not really allowing myself also to make a detailed comparative analysis with another case, but, as a consequence hereof, allowing myself the luxury of regarding my stay abroad as primarily an opportunity to renew my reflections on my case, partly by confronting it (my case) and them (my reflections) with Japanese researchers (especially my co-supervisor, of course), and partly by confronting myself with a Japanese way of thinking - methodologically as well as theoretically. Why Tokyo? From an urban studies point of view, it does not seem obvious - Tokyo is a/the mega-city, and Amager, even Copenhagen, is, well ... not. They form an odd couple, "Amager vs. Tokyo". A normal comparative study, where one makes a direct comparison, does not really make sense in my research.
So, what I intend to do here, is to tell some stories. I have chosen and visited some urban development projects from different locations in the Japanese metropolitan region. It has, within the framework of this project, been impossible for me to make intensive empirical studies on/at these locations. Due to language barriers and other practical problems, I have not been able to build up any kind of complete image of the complex situations of each of these, and there are most likely many problems which I am not aware of.
The projects I have chosen cover geographically the whole urban region of Tokyo. I have chosen two projects from the central parts of Tokyo ("within the 23 wards") as well as four projects from satellite cities:
The characters of these projects vary a lot, thus covering a wide range of urban development projects. Since the first three share some common characteristics, I have added a section about these kinds of projects after the Makuhari section. In addition to the projects themselves, I use each of them as an opportunity to raise some more general issues from the Tokyo region. For example, I use the Tokyo Teleport Town as an opportunity to talk about the political situation in Tokyo, specifically the election of a new governor, Aoshima, in 1995.
In relation to my research in Denmark, it is noted that I have chosen both projects bearing resemblance with the Ørestad project, and projects resembling the Culture Centre on Amager.
Tokyo Telecom Centre, conceptual drawing
"The Tokyo Teleport Town project continues Tokyo's transformation from a single-centred structure to a multi-centred one, and is preparing Tokyo to become a 21st century international metropolis for the future's advanced information oriented society."
Quote from TTC Homepage, September 1995
Project area:
448 ha (~ 4,5km2) (Existing land:0 ha; reclaimed land:448 ha)
Projected population:
Working population:106,000; Residential:63,000
Construction period:
1985-2003
Land use:
Residential facilities (36 ha); Business & Commercial facilities (58 ha); Housing/Commercial/Business complexes (48 ha); Roads (116 ha); Parks (93 ha); Promenades (26 ha).
With an statement as the one in the quote above, it seems appropriate to begin with this project. "Tokyo consciously strives to transform itself into a world city through the creation of a network centre for innovation, information and finance" (Fujita, 1991). This is, for example, stated in Tokyo Metropolitan Government's own Second Long-Term Plan, also from 1986, which emphasised the need for a multicored metropolis, a need that is again emphasised in the 1990 Third Long-Term Plan (TMG 1988, 1992, 1994). In the Second, and even more in the Third Plan, the idea of subcentres takes form, and becomes real projects. The whole Metropolitan region is considered in the plan, and activities are planned for the metropolitan centre and subcentres, as well as for the suburban development areas (the New Towns of Tama) and the district centres (Satellite-Towns). With this plan, a new concept is introduced to Tokyo's urban structure. The aim of the plan is to "promote the transition to a balanced and characteristic multi-core urban structure" (TMG 1994, p.46). Around the old centre of Tokyo (Emperor's Palace; Tokyo Station; Marunouchi; Yurakucho; Otemachi; Akasaka), the plan imagines seven subcentres as shown below:
These subcentres have individual characters as shown below:
Ikebukuro
"A town expected to grow into a composite city which will encourage culture of the citizens"
Shinjuku
"Business centre and active interchange of citizens"
Shibuya
"A town which creates new information and trend
Osaki
"A town for high-tech information exchanges"
Ueno-Asakusa
"A town that creates tomorrow's culture respecting traditional aspects"
Kinshicho-Kameido
"A activated industrial and cultural town"
Waterfront Subcentre Teleport Town
"A future-type subcentre that meets the needs of vital exchange of information and international activity"
The controversial part of this plan is clearly that Tokyo Teleport Town is to become the 7th Subcentre. Each of the other subcentres' characteristics are not changed very much from today's situation, perhaps sharpened a bit in their profiles. Tokyo Teleport Town, on the contrary, is the imagined catalyst for the multicore urban structure adaptive to the demands of the future.
The Telecom Centre is the pride of Teleport Town. It is a monumental building complex, over 100 meter tall, with a strong resemblance to the famous Parisian tradition of arches (Arc de Triomphe, Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel and, most recently, La Grande Arche de la Défense), and doing so in a somehow "very Japanese" manner, namely in a manner that architectonically does it, well, differently, but not "bad", while, at the same time, integrating into the monument itself no less than 150,000 square meter floor-area for 21st century activities! The Telecom Centre building, which is to be completed in the autumn of 1995, is an "advanced high-tech building" which will serve as Tokyo Teleport Town's "information base", as well as being "one of the Town's waterfront landmarks". Using the Telecom Centre Building's advanced information and broadcasting systems, the plan is to establish telecommunications and CATV networks to utilise multimedia applications to "add to the Town's safety and harmony". The Tokyo Teleport Centre is a Third Sector organisation (a corporation owned by both public and private partners, as MM21 Corp.) and is the recipient of joint contributions from 33 stockholders, including, public utilities, the communication industry, and banks. (TTC Homepage, September 1995). The solid business foundation is mainly due to subsidies from the Japanese government and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, and interest free and low interest loans from the Japan Development Bank. The Teleport Centre Building has been certified as a special facility in accordance with the "Minkatsu Ho" by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Postal Service and Telecommunications, and the Ministry of Construction (TTC Homepage, 1995). "Minkatsu ho" is an abbreviation for the mouthful "Minkan jigyousha no nouryoku no katsuyou ni yoru tokutei shisetsu no sokushin ni kansuru rinji souchiho", meaning something like "civil enterprise ability to practically approach particular facilities stimulant to extraordinary installations", also known as the Private Participation Promotion Law. In this context, this is thought to mean that the subjects of the law are those private sector organisations providing infrastructural facilities that government would normally pay for and establish. In this case, the infrastructural facilities in mind are of course those on the "information superhighway". The exact consequences of this certification are unknown.
But the Telecom Centre is, however central to the Teleport Town it might be, only a part of the Teleport Town, and it is perhaps more this "rest" that has caused some of the recent problems, I will refer to shortly. The Teleport Town itself, located only 6 km south of Central Tokyo, spread across the reclaimed areas of Aomi, Ariake and Daiba, is, as the name points out, a "teleport town". But what does that mean?
A teleport is an "integrated facility that provides its users with fast, convenient access to advanced telecommunications, both short- and long-distance, through satellites, fibre-optics, microwave, and other networks." Teleports is intended to "merge communications, real estate, and economic development in a revolutionary way". Many teleports are "intelligent" office complexes served by a sophisticated communications centre comprising satellite earth stations, microwave hubs, and fibre-optic networks carrying data at very fast speed. The idea is that for the tenants of a teleport, hardware should no longer be an issue. The teleport gives them "seamless, affordable, efficient, instantaneous, and global movement of voice, text, data and video information through advanced networks". At the bottom line, a teleport is about "innovative application of information and communications technology to generate growth for businesses, communities, and entire regions" (Teleport '96). It might be useful to distinguish between two different kinds of teleports; namely, virtual/digital ones, and, physical ones. The former is basically a kind of net-organisation which is based completely on digital/virtual communication; in this sense we can call things like "digital cities" (a la Amsterdam's "www.dds.nl") teleports, although the port metaphor invites for something else. Perhaps, as some do, it is more correct to call a local, down the corner, Internet-provider a virtual/digital teleport. Whatever such virtual/digital teleport is, it is significantly different from the physical teleport, a la Tokyo Teleport Town, where the teleport is not "just" a virtual place, but indeed a real place, made of "flesh and blood", or, with reference to Sennett (1994), flesh and stone. This kind of place-making uses the port metaphor in a more literal sense, and thinks of the teleport as a concrete piece of ("good old") urban development, in this case of course of the Waterfront kind.
The "teleport" metaphor is an important "image-maker", but the Teleport Town project goes even further in terms of imagining and envisioning the future. The vision is about an "ideal city" for multifunctional human activity. In addition to the Telecom Centre and the other information-oriented businesses planned for, the Teleport Town will consist of urban housing, shopping malls, plazas and parks which are to be "combined in a balanced manner to permit people who live, work and visit the area to freely enjoy a fun and convenient urban lifestyle", in "a futuristic city with balance"; "a pleasant, relaxing environment is to be created using natural greenery and water to link the entire development and to allow each person to enjoy a healthy and happy urban life" (TTT 1994).
The Teleport Town is made up by four different districts, with "four competing characters". These districts are: Aomi Area, an "information centre linked with the world" (TMG 1994), and a "business centre (Tokyo Teleport) with intelligent buildings" (TTT 1994); Ariake Minami ("south"), a "cultural exchange city" (TMG 1994), and a "centre for active exchange with people, things and information coming together from around the world at conventions held here (Tokyo International Convention Park)" (TTT 1994); Ariake Kita ("north"), a "relaxing, appealing city" (TMG 1994), and a "town for living, with both mid- and high-rise urban buildings, and tennis courts" (TTT 1994); and, Daiba Area, a "busiting (?), enjoyable city" (TMG 1994), which "encompasses the Odaiba Seaside Park, will be a fun area with luxury high-rise housing, hotels and shopping" (TTT 1994).
| Area | Size | Working Population | Resident Population |
| Aomi | 117 ha | 64,000 | 8,500 |
| Ariake Minami | 107 ha | 12,000 | 16,000 |
| Ariake Kita | 147 ha | 14,000 | 33,000 |
| Daiba | 77 ha | 16,000 | 5,500 |
These four districts will be connected with each other and the rest of Tokyo with modern public transport facilities, as well as good road connections. The transport system includes:
Rainbow Bridge - Tokyo Port Linkage Double-deck Bridge, across the Tokyo Bay, linking the Teleport Town with Tokyo Waterfront New Transit System and Metropolitan Highway No. 11 and extended Harumi Dori Avenue and Loop Road No. 2. This has been completed and is in use.
Tokyo Waterfront New Transit System, between Shinbashi to Hinode, Shibaura Berth and Tokyo Teleport (approx. 12 km), with 8 stations in and 4 outside Teleport Town. It is a guideway middle-scale track transit system, using an elevated double-track all along the line, and carries (one way) 4,320 passengers/hour with a train of 6 carriages in service at every 5 minutes. This has been build, but is still under implementation and test (summer 1995).
Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit, a subway linking Shinkiba to Tokyo Teleport (phase I: 4,9 km), and further to Osaki (phase II: 7,3 km). Construction is now going on for phase I, and will be finished in March 1996. Phase II is scheduled to be finished in 2000.
The Marine Transit System, linking Hinode Pier with Tokyo Teleport and International Convention Park, with "smart-looking barges" for 500 passengers. Now in operation.
The Tokyo Teleport Town is now in the process of concrete place-making. A master plan has been made several years ago, and construction of facilities began several years ago. The first stage of the project, which is scheduled to be finished this year (1995), seems to be accomplished on time, i.e. before the 1995-96 New Year. The main infrastructural facilities are hereafter either in use or under final implementation, and some of the housing sites, as well as the Telecom Centre and the International Exhibition Hall, are either finished or in the final construction phases. The four stages of the development programme are planned (as shown in the table) based on the principle that the basic infrastructures are essential, and must therefore come first. Only when they are provided for, can the real development begin.
|
1st stage
|
2nd stage |
3rd stage
|
4th stage
|
|
|
Target |
Construction of basic urban infrastructures and major strategic facilities |
Start of construction on a full scale |
Achievement of accumulation of urban facilities to induce autonomous development thereafter |
Completion of construction of TTT |
|
Major facilities to be completed |
Tokyo Port Linkage Bridge; Tokyo Waterfront New Transit; Tokyo Waterfront Rapid-Transit Rail-roads; |
Widening and extension of Harumi Avenue; City highway Extension of |
City Highway Metropolitan Waterfront Line Harumi Line; both railroads |
Further extension of Tokyo Water-front Rapid-Transit Railroads to Handa/Tsu-rumi (airport) |
The development plan for Tokyo Teleport Town. Source: TMG (1994).
The question is, however, what will happen to the 2nd stage, and thus the project in general. The Teleport Town has recently been a "hot" issue in the public sphere and especially in the media in Tokyo. It has even been a central issue in the most recent important regional election, namely the gubernatorial election. April 9, 1995, was the day of the Tokyo Gubernatorial Election. After 16 years in office (1979-95), residing governor Shunichi Suzuki had decided to resign. He left a void. There were no obvious successor: the best his own party (Lib.-Dem.) could offer was a grey, middle-aged man, who had little support even from his own party members. All major parties were in a crisis, and had much difficulties facing up to the situation. Until shortly before election day, there were no clear elections themes, and the candidates held only sparse campaigns. A coalition between social democrats and liberal democrats were then made, which meant that the was only one "serious" candidate (Ishihara). The polls made in the months before the election pointed out that the citizens were very dissatisfied with the situation, and that there would be a record-low participation. At the same time, there are actually many signs of a more concerned citizenry, with many, different citizen groups. But then, on March 15th, only weeks before the election, a new candidate turned up: Yukio Aoshima, best known as a former TV personality and script writer, but also an experienced politician (member of the House of Councillors in the last 25 years). But, what was perhaps most important of all, he was not affiliated with a party. His election programme was very simple: he picked out one issue, a concrete case, and said he would scrap it! This case was the World City Expo, a huge international trade and culture fair, scheduled to be held in 1996 in and around the Teleport Town. In his first announcement of his candidacy, on March 15th, he said: "The funds set aside for the development of an urban subcentre, under way in a reclaimed area, should rather be used for disaster prevention. I would cancel the World City Expo" (Japan Times, March 16th 1995). His arguments were simple, and in terms of media abilities he had no competition from any other candidates. And so it happened that Tokyo got a new, party-independent governor:
| Candidates | Age | Votes Won | Votes Won(%) |
| Yukio Aoshima | 62 | 1,700,993 | 34 (Winner) |
| Nobuo Ishihara | 68 | 1,235,333 | 27 |
| Tetsundo Iwakuni | 58 | 824,385 | 18 |
Aoshima had from the very beginning many problems in taking over from Suzuki, especially because the Teleport Town, and thus the World City Expo, was a project Suzuki himself had put pride and effort into. The kind of problems anyone in his new chair would have: becoming, in 3 weeks, the head of one of the largest and most powerful cities in the world must be hard to stand up to. As seen in the table below, the Metropolitan Government, which he of course now is the head of, has about 200.000 employees, and an annual fiscal budget in the region of 12.000.000.000.000. Further more, as an party-independent facing the Metropolitan Assembly, he had the misfortune of being attacked from just about all sides, except perhaps for a few communists. But Aoshima said he had made a campaign pledge, and he w/could not run away from it.
The number of employees in the Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Governor's bureaus 49,000 employees
(responsible for urban planning, welfare and general administration)
Public enterprise bureaus 19,000 employees
(responsible for subways, buses, waterworks, sewerage, etc.)
Metropolitan police and fire departments 60,000 employees
Public school personnel 70 employees
Soon after being inaugurated as governor, Aoshima had to take the consequences of his campaign pledge. It proved to be a very difficult choice, because the Metropolitan Assembly put much pressure on him to reconsider his actions. The Liberal Democrats went so far as to threaten him with votes of no confidence, and even took up some less "noble" attitudes, e.g., threatened with voting against him on every possible occasion, thus disrupting the whole governmental function. Headed by these Liberal Democrats, the Assembly adopted a resolution against scrapping the Expo, and did so with a vast majority vote (100 to 23). Aoshima was now facing a democratic dilemma: Either way, his decision would be regarded as "undemocratic", because if he did not cancel the Expo, he would have been elected as governor on wrong premises, thus being undemocratic seen from the voters point of view, while at the same time becoming "undemocratic" in terms of the logic of representative democracy if he went ahead with his pledge in spite of a majority vote against him. After a period of, I guess, frustration over the situation, he made his decision on May 31st 1995. He turned against the Assembly, and decided to ax the Expo, in the interest of easing the public distrust of politics. He hereby became ever more popular among the citizens, but also extremely unpopular among the politicians.
The consequences for the Teleport Town of this cancellation are difficult to point out, since the Expo was meant to be a starting point for the urban activities in the Teleport Town. Many corporations who was to participate in the Expo had already begun construction of various kinds of pavilions for the Expo, activities that were thought of as part of the urban development of the Teleport Town. Most of these activities were cancelled in the wake of Aoshima's decision.
Aoshima has on this background decided to set up a new committee which shall reconsider the Master Plan. What this committee will say is uncertain at this moment. Aoshima said: "The funds set aside for the development of an urban subcentre, under way in the reclaimed area, should rather be used for disaster prevention. I would cancel the World City Expo" (Mianichi Daily News, March 15th 1995). The question is, however, what he meant, and whether he after being elected, has changed his mind. Some critics blamed him, during and after his campaign, for mixing up the Teleport Town project with the World City Expo, and for not knowing the difference between them. Especially the liberal democrats has been eager to show the public that Aoshima has been unaware of the real situation, just as they went directly to the press, asking for big headlines, when they at an internal meeting in the Assembly found out that Aoshima did not know the name of a project called Tokyo International Forum, which is currently under construction in Marunouchi, another subcentre of Tokyo, and due to be opened in January 1997 and start public use of its facilities in March 1997. The Forum will "serve as a symbol of a new era for the international city of Tokyo", and will provide Japan's largest comprehensive culture and information facility and will incorporate a variety of halls including a large-scale auditorium seating 5,000, conference rooms, an exhibition space, and an information centre, all of which will be equipped with the most modern equipment and state-of-the-art technology (the Forum's homepage, October 1995).
Project area:
186 ha (~2km2) (Existing land:110 ha, reclaimed land:76 ha)
Projected population:
Working population:190,000; Residencial:10,000
Construction period:
1983-2000
Land use:
Buildings (87 ha); Roads and railways (42 ha); Parks greenery (46 ha); Port facilities (11 ha).
The Japanese capital region is often thought of as one large urban composite, Tokyo. In reality, we deal with a network of cities, some of which by all means have a right to think of them selves as a city of its own, and thus not a part of Tokyo. Especially in the case of Yokohama. Situated only 25 minutes by train from Tokyo Station, it is of course easy to regard Yokohama as just another part of Tokyo. But it is a city of 3,3 million inhabitants, thus two-thirds the size of Denmark, and to regard Yokohama as just another part of Tokyo is just about as "politically incorrect" (in some circles, at least) as to regard Denmark as just another part of Europe, or, for that sake, as to regard Amager as just another part of Copenhagen.
Yokohama is in fact the second largest city in Japan, next to only Tokyo. There is a special relationship between Tokyo and Yokohama, and I think it can best be described metaphorically as a relationship between a brothers, where the little brother is trying to stand up to his brother. For this purpose, Yokohama invented Minato Mirai 21 as "a sophisticated, urban alternative to Tokyo" (MM21, 1994). Minato Mirai 21 (MM21) literary means "Harbour Future 21". It is, as the name suggests, a project aiming at developing the harbour area, or part of it, into a city for the 21st century. The project is carried out in cooperation between public and private stakeholders (Yokohama City and Mitsubishi Estate and others).
The development of a new city centre in Yokohama, linking the existing "two cities" of Yokohama: the historical centre Kannai-Isezakicho and the new centre (post WW2) around Yokohama station, has become an opportunity after Mitsubishi Shipyard in the 1970s (?) decided to move its activities away from the city centre. The shipyard was situated in a very central position in the centre of Yokohama City, occupying - as shipyards do - much space. Also on parts of this site were some technical railway facilities. As landprices increased, and the harbour functions and waterfront facilities changed, the site became too valuable to use as an industrial site. In the beginning of the 1980s (?), Yokohama City Government rented the former shipyard site from Mitsubishi, and tried to buy out the remaining corporations. But Mitsubishi, the post-zaibatsu corporate network of formally independent businesses, did no want to miss the opportunity to do business, so in came Mitsubishi Estate Company. The MM21 plan was then made, in cooperation between Yokohama City and Mitsubishi Estate Company, as well as others.
The initial plan was to set up a public sector corporation to manage and sustain MM21. This caused problems, however, and such corporation was never founded. Especially the private partners were concerned, because they did not have reliance in letting the corporation belong to the public sector. On the other hand, the public sector partners did not want the corporation to be fully dependent of the market conditions. As seen in other Japanese cases, the solution came to be the making of a "Third Sector" corporation, Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation, neither publicly nor privately owned. This kind of corporation is characterised by the following:
The MM21 Corporation is directed by a Steering Committee which consists of Yokohama's mayor, some bureaucrats from the state, some Keidanren representatives, and, some university professors. Shareholders in the corporation are (MM21, 1994):
The principal developers of MM21 (see table) have been committed to this project, and there has to my knowledge not been any big conflicts of the kind Tokyo Teleport might be/is facing. This is not really because of the project itself, since the project itself has a strong resemblance with Tokyo's (or perhaps it is the other way round?).
But MM21 is situated in another context than Tokyo Teleport Town, and that might make the whole difference. First of all, it is situated in the context of Yokohama City, not Tokyo. It does then, per se, make sense, because it will break the trend towards concentration in Tokyo. And since a great proportion of Yokohama's citizens commute to their jobs in Tokyo, caught every day in the "rasshuawaa" ("rush hour"), there is a certain logic to this project.
DEVELOPER
RESPONSIBILITIES
Public sector
City of Yokohama
Overall planning and coordination; Land reclamation; Construction of port facilities, roads, parks, service tunnels, sewers, and infrastructure
Japanese Government
Construction of public facilities
Kanagawa Prefecture
do.
HUDC
Land readjustment in connection with developing roads and building sites
Joint public-private sector
MM21 Corp.
Survey work and public relations
Pacific Convention Plaza Yokohama Corp.
Construction and management of convention facilities
MM21 District Heating and Cooling Corp.
Development and maintenance of heating system
Seaside Subway Yokohama Inc.
Development and operation of MM21 Line (subway)
Media City Yokohama Co., Ltd.
Provision of interactive information services
Cable City Yokohama
Development and maintenance of cable television system; preventing radio-wave interference
Others
Management and operation of public facilities
Private sector
Various corporations
Construction of office and commercial facilities
Minato Mirai 21 "is becoming an international community - a community that continues the Yokohama tradition of promoting international exchange. That community already is the site of business negotiations, trade exhibitions, and various conferences that bring together participants from around the world" (MM21, 1994). Now the site of Japan's tallest building, the Landmark Tower, "rising 296 meters into the shy ..." (direct quote from Yokohama City's own WWW-server), as well as a few other impressive skyscrapers and urban complexes, such as a large conference centre and exhibition hall, MM21 is one step ahead of Tokyo Teleport Town.
In sharp competition with Tokyo, MM21 also introduces a Teleport plan. MM21's teleport plan "is a bold concept for investing the community with advanced communications functions." All members of the community will be linked to a fibre-optic cable ("highway") linking them to each other and the world outside. An "interactive visual information system" began operation in 1989, and in the plan is also a Communication Centre which is very competitive to TTT's Telecom Centre in terms of a "futuristic" look. Already in operation now, however, is Yokohama International Operation Centre (opened 1989), a switching centre for IDC, Inc., one of Japan's three international telecommunications carriers.
Makuhari is yet another recent urban development project. Makuhari is located in Chiba Prefecture. Chiba City, the capital of Chiba Prefecture, is situated at a strategic point on Tokyo Bay approximately 40km east from the centre of Tokyo, and 30km from the New Tokyo International Airport in Narita. Chiba City is today a city of 850.000 inhabitants, and has recently launched a programme on becoming a "major city". Mayor of Chiba, Asahi Matsui, in August 1995, says: "As it enters fourth year as a major city, the City of Chiba is on the right course for future growth. Since FY1995 is the last year of the city's fifth Five Year Plan, Chiba is currently working to develop a new plan which will aim for city planning commensurate with the 21st century while maintaining its basic objective of (the creation of autonomous communities. With the opening of the underground walkway around Chiba Station, the extension of the Chiba monorail, the completion of the city at museum, and numerous other large-scale projects, the City of Chiba is beginning to take shape." (Chiba City homepage).
As an addition to Chiba City itself, the prefectural government began in the mid 1980s a new town development, based in what was then a small village called Makuhari, some 10 km from the city centre.
With about 7,000,000 annual visits, Makuhari Messe (Nippon Convention Centre) in Makuhari New Town, is the largest of its kind in Asia. Since its opening in October 1989 it has now established itself as an important venue for international information exchange.
Makuhari
1.Makuhari Messe - 2.Chiba Marine Stadium - 3.Makuhari Prince Hotel - 4.Mihamaen (Japanese Garden) - 5.Hotel New Otani - 6.Hotel Green Tower - 7.Hotel Francs - 8.Hotel Manhattan - 9.JR Kaihim Makuhari Station - 10.Hotel Springs - 11.OVTA - 12.PLENA Makuhari - 13.World Business Garden - 14.Tokyo Marine and Fire Insurance - 15.Makuhari Techno Garden - 16.IBM - 17.Sumitomo Chemical Engineering - 18.Canon Sales - 19.NTT - 20.Jusco - 21.North Exhibition Hall - 22.Tokyo Gas - 23.KITZ - 24.BMW - 25.Fujitsu - 26.Sharp - 27.Robot FA Center - 28.Seiko (Toyo Engineering Corp. Homepage, October 1995). http://toyo-eng.co.jp
Makuhari is, in contrast to both MM21 and TTT situated "in the middle of nowhere", that is, without direct connection to surrounding urban areas. Nearest neighbour, apart from Chiba City, is Tokyo Disneyland. Since it is only having a working population, and no residents, the urban life is, so to speak, only going on in day-time. Combined with a particularly futuristic urban design and architecture, there is a very special atmosphere in the town. Most Japanese people do not like the atmosphere, neither did I when I visited the place. None the less, the urban activities there are continuously expanding. But to many Japanese people, Makuhari stands out as a bad example.
The urban context of Tokyo is rapidly changing. The impetus of the urban development of Tokyo is amazing: There have been planned or are in the design stage over 100 large-scale urban projects in the Tokyo Metropolitan area. The three I have described are among the largest, and perhaps also among the most ambitious. But they are not the only ones of great impetus; for example, Tsukuba Science City in Ibaraki Prefecture, is also noteworthy.
Onishi (1990, p.10) argues that these three projects described here are "major projects which typify those being considered for the Tokyo metropolitan area". Onishi argues that these projects have some common characteristics:
These are good characteristics, I find. They cover the basic concept of all three projects. Each project has, however, made its own interpretation of the basic concept. This is of course a necessity, because they are in a competitive situation, with each others. I have been told by a senior civil servant in one of the governmental bodies that there exists a formal agreement between the governmental bodies of the whole Metropolitan region, saying that there should be a division of labour between the three new cities: MM21 should be an international meeting point (conferences, etc.), Makuhari the world-oriented exhibition centre, and Tokyo Teleport Town the convention centre for Tokyoites. But this agreement exists only on a surface level, because reality is that the three cities have a very competitive attitude towards each other. They simply have each their own agenda.
"Tokyo Metropolis roughly corresponds to a state or province in the United States, Canada, and Germany, or to a county in Britain. However in the wards region, Tokyo Metropolis is responsible for city planning, fire fighting, waterworks, sewerage and public cleansing. Thus while Tokyo Metropolitan Government covers a wide administrative region, it also functions as a city." (Tokyo Metrobulletin, 1995).
How does one in Japanese describe the phenomenon "Tokyo"? I mean, in English it does not really make sense to call Tokyo a "city" per se. It would rather be a "network of cities", or, to use some of these Greeckophile words, a "metropolis", or perhaps even (as tokyo Metropolitan Government does (did?), a "megalopolis" (daitokai or daitoshi-ken?). My dictionary (edict) finds plenty words in Japanese: toritsu (metro, municipal), shufu (capital, metropolis), zento (the whole metropolis), daitoshi (centre, metropolis), tonai (metropolitan area). If Tokyo is considered as what is located within the 50km-circle on the map - "shutoken" - what is Tokyo then? Does it make sense to call Tokyo any of these words for "city": toshi, daitoshi, shi, shigai, tokai ? In my view, even for a place like Shinjuku it seems inappropriate with these words. Even with a "dai-" in front of it. On the other hand, I don't like the sound of "fuku-toshin" (?), "subcentre", as used by the government. So is Tokyo rather a region? (ittai <> ryouiki - is one more "metropolitan" than the other?), perhaps with a "dai-" or something in front?
Without being a specialist in Japanese language (nihongo), I think it would make sense to think of "the city" at several levels. As is done in the over-all regional planning, it does make sense to speak about "daitoshi", "tonai" and "shutoken", and with activities like TTT, also "fuku-toshin". But at another level, the level of the citizens, other words would be more appropriate.
Since the 1970's concepts like 'locality making' (machi-zukuri) and 'village awakening' (mura okoshi) has been popular. Also known as "endogenous development", these concepts started out as an alternative approach among regions which were being left behind during the high economic growth period or affected by its failures, and the idea of local "development from within" (naihatsuteki hatten ) became a challenging issue in Japanese regional development debates of the 1970s (Steffensen 1994). From the outset it was contextually connected to progressive city government initiatives, regionalist theories, and novel revitalisation activities in structurally backward localities.
From the late 1960s, a growth of citizens' movements, local opposition groups, together with distinctly profiled local progressive government activities gave wide rise to local-based resistance towards large development plans while increasing the attention to basic social welfare issues (Steffensen 1995). In 1970 a 'Community Concept' was introduced by MOHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) in order to 'regain humanity and social solidarity'. The stated goal was the establishment of one hundred 'model communities' within three years. The Concept based itself on a government report issued by the National Life Council in 1969, which enthusiastically advocated community formations containing qualities like 'responsibility and independency', 'regional characteristics and common interests' as well as 'openness and mutual trust feelings' (Kokumin Seikatsu Shingikai Ch"sabukai, 1969, quoted in Steffensen 1995).
The word 'komyuniti' (the Japanese rendering of community) took off as a common practice in the 1970s. Most early komyuniti scholars were concerned with the mass-consumption and personal liberalism threatening the Japanese vis-a-vis a rapidly changed living environment. Many of their studies saw it as an essential mission to encircle the basic social principle behind still more apparent consumer identities sh"hisha shutaisei and 'ordinary people' subjecthood seikatsusha shutaisei. While the attention paid to the 'sh"hisha' as a subject clearly refers to a systematically emerging (Japanese) consumer culture, the 'seikatsusha', on the other hand, came up as an interesting novel and totally free-wheeling construct not listed in ordinary dictionaries. The seikatsusha 'term is (notably in the early 1990s) conveniently available to everybody in any situation, often confusingly mixed with the sh"hisha category. But in contrast to consumers who in principle are defined through their consumption of goods and services, the term seikatsusha also contains strong connotations of persons appreciating family-life and community-life as well as assumed active interest in environmental and welfare issues. As such, the seikatsusha therefore represents an essential ideal/construct to 'era of localities' advocates. The notion falls in between a 'shimin', citizen or civilist, but without its political connotations, and a 'j-min', resident, but without its 'plainness'. When one takes the standpoint tachiba of - or sees things from the viewpoint shiten of - the seikatsusha, it abstractly signifies that the person claims to take a stand in favour of ordinary life, guarding 'quality of life' and the 'life-world' sphere. Komyuniti as such was perceived by many social scientists as a social formation in which one consciously took part as an 'individual ego' koga (a modern self), to variable extent described as qualitatively different from traditional inveterated communal ties. Complying to this view, increased attention was paid to the manufacturing of 'residential ambience' by means of functional planning by local administrations, as well as contriving new integrative methods of enhancing citizens' (territorial) participation. This trend is reflected in novel terms such as 'local planning mode of community' and 'participational mode of community'. With the so-called progressive local governments in the lead, an atmosphere of dialogue between citizens and local administrations was nationally promoted in the spheres related to making and managing 'integrated residence areas' teij-ken. As, for example, Shoji Kokichi (1986) has pointed out, citizens' movements during the high growth period inevitably took their stands on 'conflict' tatakau , centred on demands and obstructions as means of achieving influence. When entering the low (or stable) growth period, however, he notices a qualitative conversion of the focus, now rather concerned with 'making' tsukuru (e.g. locality/residential area-making initiatives). The word machi-zukuri (machi understood as an activity centre beyond geographic scope) has gradually become an omnipresent catchword in local community planning and development undertakings. In the 1970s a related focus on 'making' a locality echoed from the Japanese periphery, often passionately embedded in traditional 'self-reliance' ideologies'." (Steffensen 1995).
Hasumi (1993, quoted in Steffensen 1994) argues for the breakdown of the rigid duality between a so-called "village community-like mode of living" (sonrakuteki seikatsu yooshiki ) and "urban-like mode of living" (toshiteki seikatsu yooshiki). Instead, he suggests, people who live in a rural as well as an urban setting should rather be generically perceived as subject to a "modern mode of living", which if not generally then certainly in the Japanese case, is a mode of living highly dominated by urban spaces.
In the most urbanised spaces in Japan, i.e., in Tokyo, the "machi zukuri" movement has with a few exceptions been weak. Most of the examplars of "machi zukuri" can be found in smaller, rural towns. But there are exceptions, and here I will pick out one, which is the most far-reaching I have heard of.
Located only 5 minutes ride on the subway from Shibuya Station, Setagaya is located very centrally in Tokyo. Setagaya is one of the 23 cities (ku) in central Tokyo. It is a place for the better of. In Setagaya, there is a long tradition for community activities. It is known for its central role in the "machi zukuri" movement in the 1970s (also Musashino-shi had a central role). As times have changed, so have the activities. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the "machi zukuri" work was faced with some difficult conditions. It all came down to one problem, namely with a lack of resources - financial as well as human (professional skills). In order to sustain a high level of community activities as well as to increase the quality of the work, it was decided that there was a need for some kind of support function. This was agreed upon by citizens groups, local government and local enterprises. This led to the establishment of a new locally based "machi zukuri" support centre.
Setagaya Community Design Centre (SCDC) is based on the idea that citizens have a right to participate in and say their ideas to community planning (Uzuki 1995). Established in April 1992, the aim is to promote citizen initiated community planning by providing financial support as well as technical support by professionals. SCDC was established as a section under the public sector/local government institution called Setagaya Urban Development Corporation, who also founded the Setagaya Community Design Fund in December 1992. A Trust Management Committee was set up, with representation from the public sector, local citizen groups and local enterprises, all of whom made contributions to the fund.
The fund finances various citizen activities, such as tree planting in the community, public facility designing, redevelopment planning for apartment housing, and preparing community access maps for handicapped people. Support is given to both lay citizen groups and to non-profit professional organisations, called "Community Design Houses", which can give professional, technical support to citizen's activities in their neighbourhoods and to information-exchange activities between citizen groups. These decentralised "machi zukuri" houses are yet an idea only; all support activities are centred in the SCDC. On of the reasons why the decentralised structure has not been realised is a difficulty in terms of the legal basis. Since the concept of non-profit organisation is not very common, and not widely appreciated in Japan, there is no legal system that fits SCDC.
The SCDC has since it began its activities been involved in several neighbourhood projects. Of particular interest has been involvement in projects that involves several parties, for example, where some public or private corporations are involved. The strategy from the SCDC has been to try and avoid "choosing side", i.e., to keep a neutral, professional, position. The interests of the citizens are thus not followed blindly, and in some cases there has direct contradictions. This confrontation with professional assessment is, however, also hard for some of the corporations involved, because their professional expertise is being challenged; they are literally told that "no one can make the best plan". The approach chosen by SCDC also involves an insisting on making the processes open and public, something that easily causes problems with all or some involved parties.
One of the interesting experiences from the projects so far is, according to Mr. Uzuki, urban designer, now professor at Waseda University, former manager of SCDC, that conflicts do not always, as often assumed, occur between governments (or corporations) and citizens, but are often created by the citizens. In general, people's images of situations are restricted, or only partly "true". On the other hand, people are often confronted with very poor material from the public or private corporations, who do not in any ways make attempts to open up a dialogue.
To this end, the hope from Mr. Uzuki is that the establishment of SCDC has been the first step towards a new kind of community design organisation.
The cities of Tsukuba and Tsuchiura are situated in the Ibaraki Prefecture, some 50 km northeast of the centre of Tokyo. The cities are situated at the outskirts of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area.
The City of Tsukuba, or Tsukuba Science City, is renown as the 'scientific hub of Japan where the nation's best and brightest come together' (Ibaraki Prefecture 1993), has more than 300 public and private research institutes across the range of natural sciences and advanced technologies including optoelectronics, nuclear physics, biotechnology, microcomputer science, superconductivity and electronic communications. Tsukuba City is a new city, founded officially in 1987. The Science City development begun in 1963 when the Japanese Cabinet approved the plan for the 'techno-city'. Tsukuba originally comprised 5 villages, some of which still exists.
Tsuchiura City, located at the foot of Mt. Tsukuba and alongside Lake Kasumigaura, is renown as 'a place where you can glimpse 17th-century Japan' and the 'scenic ... beauty of nature' as well as 'truely a place where tradition and modern culture manage to thrive together' (Ibaraki Prefecture 1993). Tsuchiura has for centuries been a regional centre, because it has served as a base for fishing and water-borne transportation on the lake and as a storage and distribution centre for agricultural and commercial goods. Agriculture and fishing are still dominant occupations, but during the past decades the establishment of nearby Tsukuba Science City has influenced the industrial and commercial development in Tsuchiura. The World Expo 1986 took place in Tsuchiura and Tsukuba.
Mr. Ito is a Japanese architect, who has been working with regional planning in Tsukuba and Tsuchiura for more than 10 years. He is president of an independent consultant company called Shu Bunka Kenkyujo (Regional Culture Research Institute). One permanent researcher and a few temporary employees are working in the centre. The centre has three areas of activities:
The local government expects a plan on all three points. Planning activities are concerned with making a general plan for the next 5-10 years, as well as making specialised, concrete plans and designs.
Methodology:
The same approach is applied in all projects. People's opinions are diverse, Card Collecting Method helps creating shared images, lets people be positive, find out what ideas are necessary. Data of analysis are shown, create feed-back loops of learning. Not to think in conflicts, but be aware of them.
We now do like many Japanese do every day. We go to Shinjuku Station to get a train to one of the many New Towns, in this case Minamiosawa in the Tama Area, west of central Tokyo. The area includes, e.g., Chofu, Tanashi, Higashi-Yamato, Tachikawa, Akishima, Hachioji, and Tama New Town/Tama Centre.
The Tama area is inhabited by more than 3.5 million people, and covers 1,160 km2. The Tama area accounts for one-third of Tokyo's land area but a fourth of its population. Minamiosawa is situated between Tama Centre and Hachioji. It has about 130,000 inhabitants. It is a real New Town: It has been build mainly during the last two decades. And it is still expanding, and the plan is that in a few years the number of inhabitants will exceed 200,000.
Minamiosawa, as most of the other New Towns, is mainly a residential area, somewhat of a bedroom community. But the Tokyo Metropolitan Government is and has for a while been planning to develop a network of economic and/or academic subcentres in the area in an attempt to stem growing agglomeration of economic and academic activities in Tokyo.
Already, a number of projects has been carried out: Quite a few universities have been moved from the central Tokyo to the Tama area, and the area is becoming increasingly popular for business and commercial activities.
In order to strengthen the network organisation some changes, or expansions, of the infrastructural system have been planned. An example is a monorail system connecting Tama Centre with Higashi-Yamato.
The Japanese context is of course different from the Danish, but it should be clear that there are some fundamental corresponding factors of the urban development. Perhaps least surprisingly, the Japanese "Ørestads" in more or less extreme versions, but basically building on the same ideas - of the city (and even infrastructure) as a growth machine; of corporate planning strategies; of futuristic city planning. But as the machi-zukuri concept shows, also another "trend", more alike the Culture Shop, in some ways more pragmatic ("democratically"), but in a way also more radical (in participatory design facilitation).