This book examines heritage-led regeneration and decision-making processes in Tokyo’s urban centres of Nihonbashi and Ma
249 108 16MB
English Pages XXII, 349  Year 2020
This book explains how cultural heritage can be a tool for enhancing urban agriculture and improving landscape and life
257 6 17MB Read more
670 95 1MB Read more
This book is about the extraordinary world we live in, and the extraordinary knowledge that the elite possess about it t
182 109 3MB Read more
This book is about the extraordinary world we live in, and the extraordinary knowledge that the elite possess about it t
249 51 764KB Read more
This article investigates the relationship between transformation of cities and the right to the city. To be able to do this, the problems that are created by contemporary urbanization such as social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation are discussed in the first part. After that, with a special focus on the period starting with industrial revolution up until today, the article explains economic and political motivations behind urban transformation. This part emphasizes how urban change under different forms of capitalism creates and deepens social inequalities in cities. Final part of this article will be a discussion on the right to the city, and its relation to these urban issues. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2020), 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2020.v4n1-1
0 0 1MB Read more
This book examines examples of contemporary situation of historic regions in the Middle East and its broader geographic
263 93 11MB Read more
This book explores the geographical, geomorphological, ecological, touristic and socioeconomic aspects of natural herita
188 77 21MB Read more
The city is an organism that has been transformed through continuous modifications of its form. In these transformations, we can find traces that remain and organize the successive urban aggregates over time. The case that will be proposed is the one of the urban fabric formed in the area of Pompeo’s theater, in the Renaissance district of Rome. Through Saverio Muratori’s studies on the urban history of Rome and the new archaeological discoveries, the formation of residential building on the remains of the ancient building until its specialization was analyzed. The role of the substratum, evident in this case, the study shows how spontaneous architecture attests to the great forms of the past, and reuses them in every era, transforming and reinterpreting them. In this way the city is so eternal reuse of its forms, its paths and its materials. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2019), 3(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.4695
0 0 1MB Read more
This study offers a comprehensive reconsideration of the life and literary works of Paulinus of Nola (ca. 352-431), a Ro
159 37 84MB Read more
Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxii
Introduction: Unlocking A Global City (Jiewon Song)....Pages 1-30
Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions (Jiewon Song)....Pages 31-53
Institutionalizing Urban Heritage (Jiewon Song)....Pages 55-101
The Arrival of Authenticity (Jiewon Song)....Pages 103-128
Turning Conservation into Placemaking (Jiewon Song)....Pages 129-162
Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi (Jiewon Song)....Pages 163-235
Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi (Jiewon Song)....Pages 237-303
Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime? (Jiewon Song)....Pages 305-315
Back Matter ....Pages 317-349
Global Tokyo Heritage, Urban Redevelopment and the Transformation of Authenticity Jiewon Song
Global Tokyo Heritage, Urban Redevelopment and the Transformation of Authenticity
Jiewon Song Seoul, Republic of Korea
ISBN 978-981-15-3494-2 ISBN 978-981-15-3495-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover image: © MeijiShowa/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
For my Parents
This monograph has evolved out of my PhD dissertation submitted to the Department of Urban Engineering, the University of Tokyo, Japan. On this journey, I have accumulated many debts, not only financial but also intellectual. Conducting the research and writing the dissertation were made possible by a combination of multiple fellowships granted by the University of Tokyo. I thank the Association for Preservation Technology Northeast Chapter, US, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, for awarding me scholarships. I am also grateful to the National University of Singapore for granting me the postdoctoral fellowship and the Global Urban History Project for affording me the travel award that provided me with the opportunity to complete the manuscript of this book. I owe a great debt to scholars, government officials, researchers, heritage practitioners, architects, urban planners, developers and anonymous individuals not only Japan but around the world whom I met and interacted with through my fieldwork. Their support, conversations and openness provided the intellectual inspiration and remarkable insights
that led me to develop an integrative and holistic framework to better understand cities in the global urban age. My immense gratitude goes to Professor Yasufumi Uekita of the University of Tsukuba in Japan and Dr Masanori Nagaoka, Head of Culture Unit, the UNESCO Office in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, who provided me with irreplaceable support, advice and encouragement. Without their inspiration, this book might perhaps not have been written. My heartfelt thanks go to Professors Hideki Koizumi, Naoto Nakajima and Akito Murayama of the Department of Urban Engineering, the University of Tokyo. I am grateful to them for sharing their knowledge and showing a consistent interest in my research during my PhD years. I also have greatly benefited from their encouragement to follow my intellectual curiosity and think outside the box. My warm thanks to Assistant Professor Masayoshi Nagano of the University of Tokyo and Research Associate Mengfei Pan at Aoyama Gakuin University for their kind support. I would like to express gratitude to Yoko Moriguchi and Dr Tomoyoshi Ejima of Mitsubishi Estate for permission to make use of copyright materials. I am similarly grateful to the Architectural Institute of Japan and the City Planning Institute of Japan for permission to reproduce my papers: “The Three Levels of Authenticity in Heritage ConservationBased Urban Regeneration: Recasting the Conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building”, originally published in the Journal of Architecture and Planning, forms part of Chapter 2 and 7, while “The Origin and Evolution of Urban Heritage Conservation in the Specified Block System in Tokyo”, initially published in the Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan, forms Chapter 5. At Palgrave Macmillan, I am particularly grateful to Joshua Pitt, Senior Commissioning Editor, for invaluable advice, guidance and support during the review and publication process. Without his vision and encouragement, the book would not have materialized. Special thanks go to four anonymous reviewers who provided critical and/or constructive review comments on the manuscript. I have benefited enormously from them in a way that challenged me, sharpened my argument and clarified the structure of the book. Many thanks also to the editorial board for taking on this book project and the entire team at Palgrave
Macmillan/Springer for turning the manuscript into final print. I cannot express enough gratitude to Saskia Sassen, Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology at Columbia University for writing a powerful endorsement of this book. Finally, this book is dedicated to my parents. Without their love, none of my work would be possible. Their sacrifices, patience and prayers over the years enabled me to see farther, standing on the shoulders of giants. Their life philosophy always inspires me and gives me strength while I continue my professional journey and scholarly pursuits.
Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
Abbreviations are explained with initial in-text use, but most are also listed here for quick reference. BCR BS CHA CM EFARZS ELUDS FAR GHQ ICCROM ICOMOS IIWC JR M2C MLIT
Building Coverage Ratio Building Standards Law Korean Cultural Heritage Administration Coredo Muromachi Exceptional Floor Area Ratio Zone System Efficient Land Utilization District System Floor Area Ratio General Headquarters International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property International Council on Monuments and Sites ICOMOS International Wood Committee Japan Railway Company Marunouchi Building Block Redevelopment Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
MOA MR1 NEMDR OG OMY PPP PSCBD
Memorandum of Agreement Muromachi One Block Nihonbashi East Muromachi District Redevelopment UNESCO Operational Guidelines Otemachi, Marunouchi and Yurakucho Public–Private Partnerships Permission System for Comprehensive Building Design System SBS Specified Block System SCAP Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers SDUR Special District for Urban Renaissance SF Marunouchi Park Building Block Redevelopment STSBS Important Cultural Property Special Type Specified Block System TDR Transfer Development Rights TMG Tokyo Metropolitan Government UB Urban Building Law UK United Kingdom UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlement Programme US United States WWI First World War WWII Second World War
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3
Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5
Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7 Fig. 2.8
The conceptual framework of global city making (Created by the author based on Tanaka ) Three scales and cultures in heritage-led urban regeneration (Created by the author) Three levels of authenticity in heritage-led urban regeneration (Created by the author in reference to Plevoets and Cleempoel ; English Heritage ; Van Balen ; National Park Service ; and the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity) Construction of urban authenticity (Created by the author) Urban case studies: Nihonbashi and Marunouchi (Created by the author based on Shinkenchiku-sha [2015, p. 51, p. 93] and Toshishuppan [2016, p. 25, p. 45]) Rationale of case studies (Created by the author) Nihonbashi in its present condition (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018) Marunouchi in its present condition (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018)
47 47 48 49
Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5
Fig. 3.8 Fig. 4.1
Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4
List of Figures
Former Sapporo city central post office building (Photographed by the author, 17 October 2016) Overview of the battleground in the present setting (Created by the author based on Google Maps) Mitsubishi Ichigokan in 1894 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 122]) Mitsubishi Ichigokan site around 1965 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1. p. 124]) Tokio Marine Building before (left) and after (right) ([left] Mitsubishi Estate [1993b, Vol. 2. p. 236] and [right] Photographed by the author, 4 December 2016) Residue of the Imperial Hotel: Main entrance (above) and lobby (below) in the Museum Meiji-Mura (Photographed by the author, 17 October 2016) Location and setting of the Imperial Guards Headquarters (Created by the author with reference to the Agency for Cultural Affairs  “Preface”) Former Headquarters of the Imperial Guards (Photographed by the author, 4 December 2016) Location of Patan (Created by the author based on Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, English, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/np.html. Accessed 20 April 2017) Location and setting of the I Baha Bahi Buddhist monastery (Created by the author based on Watanabe [1998, p. 3]) Specified Block System and related urban redevelopment systems (Created by the author based on Takuchi Kikaku Yochibu Kikaku Chousa Ka [n.d., p. 7]) Tokyo Banker’s Club Building in 1990 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, p. 488]. The photo was taken before demolition) Tokyo Banker’s Club Building in 2014 (Photographed by the author, 18 September 2014) Tokyo Banker’s Club Building site in 2018 (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018)
72 74 75 77
133 135 136
List of Figures
Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12
Fig. 5.14 Fig. 5.15 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5
Legal frameworks on urban heritage (Created by the author) Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters (Photographed by the author, 18 September 2014) Life Building case summary (Created by the author based on the interviews and archival research) Mitsui Main Building (Photographed by the author, 4 July 2014) Mitsui Main Building case summary (Created by the author based on the interviews and archival research) Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014) Tokyo Station case summary (Create by the author based on the interviews and archival research) Post Office before (left) and after as Kitte/JP Tower (right) ([Tokyo Central Post Office Building] Mitsubishi Estate [1993c, Appendix p. 374] and [Kitte/JP Tower] Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014) Post Office case summary (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “Marunouchi 2-Chome 7 Chiku Toshikeikaku Teian” for the 184th City Planning Council Meeting (6 February 2009) and Nikkei XTECH ) Takashimaya Tokyo Store (Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014) Takashimaya case summary (Created by the author based on the interviews and archival research) Case study area: Nihonbashi (Created by the author) Mitsui-Gumi House (1872–1897) (Horikoshi [1929, p. 30]) Mitsui-Gumi Exchange Bank (1874–1897) (Horikoshi [1929, p. 58]) Shirokiya Department Store in 1957 (Shirokiya 1957) Shirokiya to Coredo Nihonbashi (Created by the author based on Mitsui Fudosan and Tokyu Fudosan [n.d.].)
144 145 146 146 148 150 151
153 153 153 164 168 169 172
List of Figures
Property rights transfer in the Coredo Nihonbashi project (Created by the author with reference to Mitsui Fudosan and Tokyu Fudosan ) Coredo Nihonbashi (Photographed by the author, 9 April 2014) Nihonbashi 1 Chome Specified Block site (Created by the author based on the City Planning Application Materials, the Nihonbashi 1 Chome Redevelopment Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive) Nihonbashi 1 Chome Specified Block redevelopment (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, 26 July 1999) Mitsui Main Building and its contemporary urban orientation (Created by the author based on Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, 26 July 1999) Urban institutions and actors in the MR1 Plan (Created by the author with reference to the MR1 Plan Project File, Mitsui Fudosan Archive) MR1 Plan decision-making process (Created by the author based on the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive) Nihonbashi-Yaesu Machizukuri Committee scheme (Created by the author based on the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive) Bank of Japan (left) and Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi (right) (Photographed by the author, [Bank of Japan] 11 January 2016 and [Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi] 21 July 2018) Nihonbashi Bridge (Photographed by the author, 26 December 2017) Muromachi One Block (Created by the author with reference to the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
Fig. 6.7 Fig. 6.8
Fig. 6.15 Fig. 6.16
List of Figures
Fig. 6.22 Fig. 6.23
Mitsui Main Building location and its original setting (Created by the author based on the Nihonbashi Muromachi 2 Chome Specified Block Site Map in Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, 26 July 1999 and Mitsui Main Building Memorial Publication Editorial Board ) Views from street level: Chuo-Dori Avenue (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018 except bottom left was taken 26 December 2017) Mitsui Main Building: MOA summary (Created by the author with reference to the Mitsui Main Building Memorandum of Agreement, the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive) Key features, form and design (Created by the author based on the Memorandum of Agreement of the Mitsui Main Building, the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive) Key features, materials and substance (Created by the author based on the Mitsui Main Building Revitalization Project document, the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive) Historical space (interior and exterior) (Photographed by the author, 4 July 2014) Outline of Nihonbashi East Muromachi District redevelopment (Created by the author based on the Mitsui Fudosan News Release between 24 November 2005 and 23 October 2014) Nihonbashi East Muromachi District redevelopment site (Created by the author with reference to Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 23 October 2014) View of Naka-Dori Street between CM1 and CM2 (Photographed by the author, [above] 9 April 2014 and [below] 26 December 2017) Nihonbashi Muromachi East (left) and West (right): view from Chuo-Dori Avenue (Photographed by the author, 4 July 2014) Fukutoku Shrine (Photographed by the author, [left] 21 July 2018 and [right] 26 December 2017)
Fig. 6.28 Fig. 6.29
Fig. 6.30 Fig. 6.31 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3
Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6 Fig. 7.7 Fig. 7.8 Fig. 7.9
Fig. 7.10 Fig. 7.11
List of Figures
Nihonbashi 2 Chome redevelopment site (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018) Outline of Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan: Phase II (Created by the author with reference to Mitsui Fudosan News Release between 13 November 2014 and 28 September 2016) Yakuso Shrine (Photographed by the author, 26 December 2017) Nihonbashi regeneration (Created by the author based on Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 29 January 2016) Case study area: Marunouchi (Created by the author) Key elements of Marunouchi in its present setting (Created by the author) One London Block looking towards Naka-Dori Avenue in the early Taisho era (1912–) (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1]) Marunouchi Land Register 1912–1913 (Created by the author with reference to Chizu Shiryo Hensankai [1989, p. 18]) Tokyo Station near completion (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 184]) View of Marunouchi around 1916 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 212]) Gyoko-Dori Avenue as urban axis (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1]. Adopted by the author) A view of One New York Block (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 269]) Urban damage from the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake (Created by the author based on Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 285]) Marunouchi Building in 1951 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993c, Appendix, p. 398]) Overview of Marunouchi Manhattan Plan (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998)
221 222 224 238 243
246 247 248 249 250
List of Figures
Fig. 7.14 Fig. 7.15
Fig. 7.19 Fig. 7.20 Fig. 7.21 Fig. 7.22 Fig. 7.23
Marunouchi 2 Chome Specified Block site (Created by the author based on Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998) Marunouchi 2 Chome Specified Block redevelopment (Created by the author based on Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998) Marunouchi 1 Chome Specified Block redevelopment (Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014) Overview of SF project (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 174th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 28 July 2006) Overview of Ichigokan replication Review Committee meetings (Created by the author based on the City Planning Institute of Japan  and Kanto Chapter of Architectural Institute of Japan ) Ichigokan replication rationale (Created by the author with reference to the City Planning Institute of Japan  and Kanto Chapter of Architectural Institute of Japan ) Requirements for national Modern Historic Site designation (Created by the author based on the Ichigokan Project Review Committee Minutes of Meeting, 12 February 2003) SF project site (Created by the author with reference to the City Planning Institute of Japan ) Public open space: Ichigokan Plaza (Photographed by the author, 7 October 2014) Replicated Ichigokan (Photographed by the author, 22 June 2014) Marunouchi Yaesu Building in 1928 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 309]) Marunouchi Yaesu Building absorbed into SF project (Photographed by the author, 4 December 2016)
267 268 270 271 273 275
Fig. 7.26 Fig. 7.27
Fig. 7.28 Fig. 7.29
Fig. 7.30 Fig. 7.31
Fig. 7.32 Fig. 7.33
List of Figures
Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building decision-making process (Created by the author based on the following references: The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station , Okada and Suzuki , and the City Planning Institute of Japan ) Overview of Tokyo Station conservation project (Created by the author in reference to the City Planning Institute of Japan ) Tokyo Station and FAR-receiving buildings (Created by the author based on Shinkenchiku-sha [2012, p. 39]) FAR-receiving buildings and purchased FAR (Created by the author in reference to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, http://www. mlit.go.jp/common/000162567.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015) Redesigned Tokyo Station Plaza (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018) Tokyo Station conservation policies (Created by the author in reference to Okada and Suzuki [2013, pp. 128–130]) Key features, form and design (Created by the author based on Okada and Suzuki [2013, pp. 174–211]) Restored dome ceiling (left) and post-war floor design (right) (Photographed by the author, [dome] 21 July 2018 and [floor] 7 October 2014) Third-floor attic space (Photographed by the author, 30 July 2014) Marunouchi urban spatial restructuring (Created by the author based on the Council for Area Development and Management of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho )
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
The twenty-first century is a time of intensified globalization and is, moreover, the age of the city. Cities are becoming more and more connected as urban ideas and strategies travel across borders. Globally, urban redevelopment/regeneration is increasingly consistent with city making, which is a complex process involving state initiatives, government intervention, public subsidy and the private sector. This book explores Tokyo, which showcases not only the urban experience of Japan but also of a global city. While the book is anchored in Tokyo, it concerns Japan’s intentions and motivations for the shaping of Tokyo as a global city, and their broader implications for the survival of the nation-state and its authentic identity. Saskia Sassen (2008, 2006, 1996), who invented the term “global city”, notes that the nation-state has made the current age of globalization and its dynamics possible. Thus, it can be said that the making of global cities is a national scheme promoting selected cities to engage with global political and economic networks in order to achieve national and international competitiveness in global markets. Sassen (2019, 2007) further defines the global city as a strategic national economic and political site for the management of global economic operations. Nevertheless, the global city also requires a national © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_1
urban strategy. The national government provides incentives and techniques to assist urban redevelopment activities in cities on the macro level, while precipitating competition between urban districts to achieve global-city status on the micro level. The global city is a national strategic urban place and an emblem of the nation-state. The global, the national and the urban are thus not mutually exclusive. Meanwhile, the concept of the global city has mainly been developed around economic processes in transnational systems. The making of global cities tends to be accompanied by privatization and deregulation reform of the national economy, including a call for private-sector engagement in the form of public–private partnerships. While the existing global city literature has made significant contributions to our understanding of globalization and transnationalism, and the growing interdependence between nationstates and cities, it tends to be limited to global economies and markets. On the one hand it questions the process of globalization that is magnifying the role of speculative capital; but on the other hand, it lacks insight into the interactions between the speculative mechanisms of globalization and the urban built environment, or the consequences on the ground for urban places in cities. There is almost no literature investigating the physical and spatial manifestation of the global city, particularly as it relates to the governance of urban heritage, the construction of urban places and their authenticity. Against this background, this book draws attention to heritage-led urban regeneration praxis in Tokyo. Increased globalization and prevalent intercontinental cultural programmes such as UNESCO World Heritage and the “creative city” concept officially promote the use of heritage as a driver for the quality of place, place identity and uniqueness in urban regeneration. Recent global heritage discourses such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011) and the ICOMOS Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas (2011) call for an integral and holistic approach to heritage conservation and urban development.1 These international heritage policy documents have evolved from the 1976 UNESCO Nairobi Recommendation and the 1987 ICOMOS Washington Charter. Meanwhile, the concept of historic urban landscape has developed from the Vienna Memorandum (UNESCO),
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
the Declaration on the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO) and the Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites, and Areas (ICOMOS).2 This latest approach advocates breaking down the barriers between historic and modern as well as between World Heritage and non-World Heritage that are embedded in the existing national and international system (Bandarin 2015).3 By placing heritage conservation at the centre of urban processes, these doctrinal texts pave the way for the field of heritage to intersect with broader and more complex urban issues, playing a positive role in attracting capital and investment and acting for urban identity (Song 2017). Surprisingly, these supra-national heritage policies and guidelines have taken over governance not only of UNESCO World Heritage Sites but equally of non-World Heritage properties on the urban heritage praxis ground, both calling for and challenging the notion of authenticity in the heritage context. In this way, the practice of heritageled urban regeneration is introducing a combination of global urban and cultural heritage strategies into the space of placemaking. Heritageled urban regeneration links heritage conservation and urban redevelopment, connecting finance, conservation and economic growth. It has been widely put into practice in the West, in particular across Europe, but is unfamiliar outside the West in such countries as Japan. Zukin (2009) asserts that global cities seek to overcome the pressure of the significant competition they face by creating their own ‘authentic cultural identities’. Their key players posit that authentic cultural identities increase differences between cities as well as nations, thus competition between global cities raises the expectation of authenticity. In this context, urban redevelopment comes into play, using heritage conservation to achieve authenticity for urban places. It transforms heritage into an ‘apparatus’ (Harrison 2013)4 or a ‘differencing machine’ (Bennett 2006)5 for guaranteeing the authenticity not only of nation-states and cities but also of urban places. In other words, heritage conservation ventures out to large-scale urban scenes at the centre of global city making. Given these concerns, heritage-led urban regeneration is a channel where the global, the national and the urban meet and interact.
Urban redevelopment is also a complex process in itself, requiring multi-level institutions and actors as well as lengthy discussion and negotiation. In the context of global city making, it is the nexus of the political economic power of spatialization and globalization. In this nexus, the strategic alliance between public and private sectors comes to the fore, and plays a central role in financing in the form of public– private partnerships. The force of economic globalization and the power of public–private partnerships together select, frame and conserve heritage properties by managing urban transformation, positioning selected heritage properties prominently and spotlighting the original physical fabric to attain urban distinctiveness in cities. Heritage thus reconfigures urban places and (re)constructs their authenticity in heritage-led urban regeneration. In fact, heritage authenticity expands into a politicaleconomy framework of urban strategies to become the authenticity of urban places. This book reveals the cultural and micro politics of placemaking in contemporary Tokyo with a particular focus on decision-making processes in heritage-led urban regeneration. It critically investigates the redevelopment projects involved with urban heritage conservation that have taken place in the central business districts of Tokyo. As a global city, Tokyo provides a vantage point for the analysis of heritage-led urban regeneration, the political economy of spatialization and their urban manifestation. In a break with the typical approach of the globalization and global city literature, it depicts the untold aspects of the making of a global city through the prism of multidisciplinary heritage and urban studies. In this book, I argue that despite conservation efforts, the process of heritage-led urban regeneration ironically turns authenticity (multiple authenticities) into a singular entity (a single authenticity). This leads to the homogenization of cities and their urban places, a process that tends to reduce the visibility of smaller and unique urban elements as they become absorbed into a larger framework of urban strategies. In this way, political economic institutions and actors collectively act as place-makers choosing and monopolizing authenticity for urban places, and this in turn becomes urban vision and narrative—the weaponization of authenticity. Smith (2002) and Zukin (2011) point out that urban scholars have
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
not clarified how an urban place and an authentic sense of place are constructed but have often left these ideas vague or over-conceptualized. Nor have heritage scholars spelled them out. In responding to this gap, the book takes a systematic and empirical approach to envision what constitutes authenticity and how the authenticity of urban places is shaped in a competitive urban strategy within a contemporary globalization framework. In the midst of the globalization era and the urban age, we are facing a critical turning point for authenticity as nations and cities unprecedently crave their own uniqueness on the ground of placemaking.
This section introduces five key terms that help unlock the global city Tokyo and will be used to illustrate heritage-led urban regeneration and its complex dynamics and mechanisms under the impact of contemporary economic globalization. The existing East–West and/or North– South dichotomous approaches have limited scholarly analysis, because the effects of globalization have gone beyond those of previously defined boundaries, scales and disciplines. These terms enable a holistic approach to challenging dominant urban and heritage discourses.
1.1.1 Globalization Globalization, a planet-wide force and process, is not a new phenomenon but has existed for centuries; for example, Baldwin (2016) traces its origins way back to prehistoric times. Modern globalization, the transnational movement of capital and information, is said to have emerged at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twentyfirst century. In this context, globalization mostly refers to international economic integration. The term globalization is commonly distinguished from internationalization, with the latter more related to national boundaries (Sassen 2019; Roccu and Talani 2019). Academic debate on globalization has predominantly developed in the disciplines of economics and
international relations through such aspects as business, class, gentrification, migration and technology. The existing literature on globalization tends to create a dichotomous view of the superior global versus the inferior national (Sassen 2008). While a large number of studies criticize globalization (Yúdice 2003), this book does not aim to debate whether it is good or bad. In practice, the players in globalization can be identified as the international organizations and multinational corporations that have created the platform for global interdependence represented by nation-states (Sassen 2007). In fact, it is the United States—a contemporary imperial power—that has designed the rules of the game with its European partner countries for their own national benefits and created the platform for global interdependence represented by the nation-states. Although globalization is often labelled a new form of imperialism,6 it does not carry the burden of imperial responsibility and is therefore a better game for advanced countries (Stiglitz 2018). As a result, the weight of globalization is centred strongly on the West. Tung (2001) claims that globalization is the most important driving factor in the economic competition between nation-states and cities to become prime locations for multinational investment.7 At the same time, it is also one of the most important motivations in the urban competition between cities (Tallon 2010).8 Given that the forces of globalization are now not limited to economics but apply to almost everything in contemporary society (Wolf 2004), the process of globalization has transformed everything into a resource (Yúdice 2003). Although the interconnection between the cultural, political and economic domains is not new, it is hard to deny that globalization has accelerated changes in the role of heritage conservation and expanded it in an unprecedented way into the political and economic spheres by wielding heritage as a resource for urban redevelopment. In other words, heritage has become a resource for politics and the economy (Yúdice 2003). Hence, we cannot discuss the contemporary forms and strategies of urban redevelopment without reference to globalization. It causes urban strategies to invite global finance, promote private participation, increase competitiveness, project modern dynamic city images and position the city via global actors and city marketing.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
This reflects the fact that nation-states and cities want to be part of the globalization network and to leave their own footprint. As global cities are also generators of cultural capital and value, heritage conservation is no longer a supporting actor but is central to the process of globalization (Yúdice 2003).9 Jokilehto (2007) divides globalization processes into two types: one is from above and the other from below. The former is represented by multinational firms, international capital flows and world markets that rely heavily on the global financial system, while the latter takes the form of human rights and environmental questions, including all the issues of heritage conservation that are associated with awareness of local cultural and economic resources as well as their contexts.10 In this space, UNESCO and its authenticity assessment have come into play. Together with national economic and political operations, authenticity reconfigures urban places on the ground of global city making. Thus the dynamics of globalization involve not only the urban political economy but also the culture and heritage sector. Critics of globalization also have examined whether it brings heterogeneity or homogeneity across geographic places (Cowen 2002). Zukin (2010) argues that globalization is the forces of homogenization accompanied by cultural and economic development projects, while other scholars conclude that both homogenization and heterogenization are constituted in the process of globalization (Cowen 2002).11 In a further insight into globalization discourse trends, Zukin (2009, 2006) shows that the focus has shifted from whether migrations of humans, images and capital reduce differences between national cultures to the idea of whether cultural creativity can increases differences between nations since material production can no longer express cities’ and nations’ authentic cultural identity. Cowen (2002) maintains that globalization tends to find larger identities between cities and places and ignore small and unique ones. More precisely, when those small and unique characteristics come into contact with the outside world, they are absorbed into large cultural streams and disappear. As a result of that, the qualities of smaller characteristics tend to be lost, while large cultural characteristics survive. The forces of urban redevelopment homogenize the physical built environment by diminishing attractive local qualities and ambience.12 This is one of the reasons why urban critics persistently claim that
urban places are becoming more and more homogenized under the influence of globalization. Zukin (2012) and Harvey (2002) have claimed that the forces of globalization are driving cities to come up with the same urban regeneration recipe, leading them to become more similar. Globalization, then, is increasing the importance of the sense of identity for places, in other words, the authenticity of urban places.
1.1.2 Public–Private Partnerships According to the Oxford Dictionary of Economics (Hashimzade et al. 2017), public–private partnerships (PPP) are ‘an arrangement for collaboration between public and private sectors for the provision of policies, services, and infrastructure’. Savas (2000) encapsulates PPP in three ways: first, any arrangement for goods and services; second, multi-partners for complex and privatized projects; and third, a formal collaboration to improve urban conditions.13 In the latter, the private sector explores its territory beyond the market of, for example, urban redevelopment, whilst the public sector goes beyond its traditional role of, for example, property developer.14 In practice, PPP largely consists of ‘asset-sale privatization, contracting out and cooperative or joint venture agreements’ (Sagalyn 2011). Despite the fact that privatization is often distinguished from PPP, it is inevitably accompanied by the privatization of state-owned enterprises and assets. While privatization implies less government involvement, this is not the case for PPP in urban redevelopment. Two case studies in the book illustrate this aspect. Newman (2017) also describes PPP as collaboration between the public sector and the private sector, whilst other critics of PPP perceive it as a political brand and a political economic relationship between the two sectors (Greve 2010; Klijn 2010; Kotler et al. 1999). In this book, the term ‘public sector’ indicates government and public agencies, while ‘private sector’ refers to private corporations and developers. De Vries (2013) traces early examples of PPP back to seventeenth-century Holland and the emergence of the modern economy. This early type of arrangement advanced in Britain and the US between the eighteenth
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
and nineteenth centuries. With the increasing dominance of globalization, PPP has played a significant role as an evolutionary tool for incentivizing the private sector and mobilizing private investment since the late twentieth century (Yehoue and De Vries 2013). As critics point out, the alliance between public and private entities rises dramatically in the twenty-first century along with the increasing mobility of investment capital resulting from globalization, and the growing authority of a private sector equipped by deregulation and privatization. Furthermore, the context of the alliance has now shifted from local competition within national boundaries towards competition on a global scale. The complexity of PPP is not limited to arrangements between the public and private sectors but also involves a mix of multiple stakeholders, urban politics and financial viabilities. PPP tends to be undertaken for urban mega-projects and therefore requires a very large financial transition. Inevitably, the driving factor is financial (Sagalyn 2011). PPP has gained popularity and iconic status in the delivery of urban policy and the praxis of urban redevelopment, including heritage-led urban regeneration. With governments worldwide having endured the global financial crisis and budget cuts, PPP is an alternative way of sharing public-sector economic activities to deliver public services and create infrastructure, including in operations with the private sector. From this perspective, the role of government seems minimized in PPP, yet it is the exercise of public power–a government initiative and device to foster public interest using economic relations with the private sector. While PPP is seen as an urban governance reform strategy separate from orthodox state intervention, it involves government-provided funding, regulatory relaxation, subsidy and monitoring. Coombe and Weiss (2015) further acknowledge that PPP is a new distribution of government powers under competitive economic globalization. It can therefore be considered a significantly government-backed tool (De Vries 2013; Sagalyn 2011). Against this background, I posit that nation-states benefit from the privatization and deregulation derived from PPP; in other words, the alliance between the public and private sectors in its turn empowers the state in both tangible and intangible ways. Japan opened its eyes to PPP along with the easing of regulation and the utilization of private resources during the 1980s, when Western
countries were reassessing the role of the state in the economy and modernizing their approaches to PPP with the emergence of the global economy. In the 1990s, Japan was hit very hard by economic decline, and this accelerated PPP. The national government relaxed restrictions not only in the economic sector but across different sectors including urban planning and cultural property administration. Particularly in the urban sector, the government introduced “rezoning” as an incentive for private developers to collaborate in urban redevelopment projects. By enforcing an Act on Special Measures Concerning Urban Reconstruction at the beginning of the new millennium in 2002, the government actively promoted PPP to include not only infrastructure such as waste disposal, water management and public transport, but even heritage conservation as well. Indeed, it opened up a new era for urban conservation with the increasing influence of global cultural programmes such as UNESCO World Heritage and the “creative city” widening the scope, expanding the role and increasing the scale of heritage. At the same time, however, there was a critical drawback to this new era for heritage conservation—the lack of public funding. This is where PPP came into play, opening the door for the private sector to take control of the delivery of urban heritage conservation. Prior to this, responsibility for heritage conservation in Japan had long been traditionally restricted to the state, especially when it came to nationally designated heritage properties. This book illustrates in detail, for the first time, the change in institutional heritage conservation. A large body of scholarly analysis of PPP focuses mainly on case studies and best practices, as well as PPP models and frameworks, from the perspective of economics and finance for infrastructure (Newman 2017). The prevalent global heritage discourse calls for an integrated approach to heritage conservation and urban redevelopment; however, existing PPP literature tends to draw a distinction between heritage conservation PPP and urban redevelopment/regeneration PPP. In other words, there are few studies of PPP governance covering both heritage conservation and urban redevelopment, hence insufficient understanding of the dynamics of PPP and its implications for the urban. While the complexity of PPP makes it a demanding topic, this book seeks to contribute insights into PPP, taking account of the changing face of urban power through the lens of heritage-led urban regeneration.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
1.1.3 Urban Redevelopment Widely known as economic development, urban redevelopment is generally set up by public stakeholders envisioning large-scale land adjustment in existing urban areas. It often involves rezoning and infrastructure improvement. Urban redevelopment has been a global urban practice and represents the nexus of urban policy, political intent, social values and economic power. It is also a socio-spatial response to the continued need for the realignment of the urban fabric and function; for economic success as a foundation for attaining global competitiveness; and for increasing the most efficient use of urban land (Roberts 2017). Urban redevelopment is also an integrated action that provides a longterm improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental conditions of an urban area (Roberts et al. 2000).15 In general, urban redevelopment projects are executed as part of economic, commercially driven strategies that involve retail, industrial, leisure, residential, infrastructural and other facilities. However, providing these facilities does not in itself create sufficient distinctiveness and uniqueness for urban competitiveness. The book takes these features into account to shed light on one aspect of urban redevelopment, namely heritage-led urban regeneration. From the heritage sector point of view, heritage-led urban regeneration aims to promote heritage conservation, while mobilizing heritage property as a promotional tool to improve urban function and image within a framework of urban strategy. The involvement of heritage with propertyled redevelopment has become popular in recent decades and has also gone global. Recent academic research has shed new light on the integration of conservation and redevelopment and the need to balance the tensions between them in the search for sustainable urban development (Labadi and Logan 2016). This heritage placemaking is a contemporary marriage of heritage conservation and urban redevelopment. While some heritage critics perceive it as a progressive and fashionable marriage because it adds new economic and social roles to heritage, others, including conservation practitioners, are very uncomfortable about it (Pendlebury 2002). In heritage-led urban regeneration, heritage becomes a form of power over place; in other words, heritage authenticity turns into the
authenticity of urban places. Kong (2007) also emphasizes that heritage plays a growing role as a tool for producing urban places. Like Zukin, Kong perceives heritage placemaking as a materially oriented strategy that tends to locate built heritage at the heart of a programme highlighting the physical and visual representation of newly created urban places. Other critics such as Philo and Kearns (1993) further comment that heritage placemaking functions more as a “repackaging” and “anesthetization” of the memories and cultures of urban places. Unavoidably, heritage-led urban regeneration boosts the privatization and monumentalization of urban places in its process so that, in their turn, political economic forces control the interpretations of the past (De Cesari and Herzfeld 2015). Long and Labadi (2010) maintain that culture or heritage not only calls for a relationship with economic exchange but has also been a force of production in its own right; in this way, heritage has become a new political currency seeking investment and enhancing value, whether inside or outside an official heritage domain. Heritage itself now increasingly plays the role of distributing and deploying legal and policy frameworks and institutional circuits of power, knowledge and normative discourse (Meskell 2015). Urban redevelopment itself is a multidisciplinary field; however, heritage-led urban regeneration is far more complex, involving as it does the protection and preservation of heritage property that is often under threat of demolition due to interconnected urban redevelopment interventions (Leary 2013). Furthermore, heritage-led urban regeneration becomes a battleground at the intersection of conservation, regeneration, placemaking, economic development and authenticity under the influence of competitive economic globalization and neoliberal urban governance. In this context, the global, the national and the urban fall together into heritage-led urban regeneration. In the book, the term redevelopment will be used interchangeably with regeneration, renewal and placemaking.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
1.1.4 Urban Heritage Conservation The term urban heritage has its roots in architectural history and urban conservation. It has expanded its focus from individual monuments and ensembles to the historic areas of cities including industrial and vernacular quarters (Ripp and Rodwell 2015). In this book, I particularly highlight examples of Western-style architecture in Japanese city centres using such non-traditional materials as bricks, reinforced concrete and stone. Hence, the term urban heritage will be used interchangeably with modern heritage, modern architecture and built heritage, whilst the term conservation is used in a general sense that includes restoration, preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction, unless otherwise stated. UN-Habitat (United Nations 2015) defines urban heritage as social, cultural and economic assets and resources that are the accumulation of cultures and traditions and are produced or reused in cities and towns. It is part of a dynamic process of cities; and urban heritage conservation or urban conservation is a part of the urban planning process. At the same time urban heritage is a subject that ensures the distinctiveness and identity of urban place—an integral component of urban development in the twenty-first century (Bandarin 2019). In this context, urban heritage plays a significant role in the construction of the authenticity and identity of place in urban development and regeneration processes. It implies that conservation is no longer limited to ensuring the material safeguarding of heritage properties but also gives meaning to urban place. Heritage conservation practices can be traced back centuries. Scholars have identified that it is around the end of the eighteenth century that conventional practices such as the repair and repurposing of an old building or a space within a building became associated with ideas of heritage and the nation-state. This Western-centred idea and practice grew into an international heritage doctrine with the emergence of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the twentieth century. Meanwhile, the heritage conservation domain formed its own territory: on the one hand, it was firmly established as an independent discipline; on the other hand, remarkably, it invited an inner circle of disciplines and practices. The reverse was true, however, at the turn of the twenty-first century. The fact that cities take centre stage in cultural, economic, environmental and urban policy
making produced holistic and interdisciplinary approaches to regional and urban cultures (Soja 2010). In other words, cities are now inevitably taking control over heritage as its users, promoters and producers (Bandarin 2019). Heritage conservation is no longer an end in itself, in view of the political economy of heritage in urban redevelopment and regeneration processes under neoliberal globalization. Alongside this, new political economics have developed around heritage that now require management, governance, translation and capitalization in heritage practices and placemaking (Meskell 2015). It is not the first time urban issues and strategies have been on the table, nor the first time heritage conservation has been revealed as under threat from urban political economy. Nonetheless, cities have become more and more important with the increase of globalization, which has made urban issues and strategies ever more complex. As a key player generating urban cultures and experiences, heritage can no longer hide away from urban political economic frameworks, and conservation practices cannot be seen as static but as part of dynamic spatial processes. Shedding light on heritage conservation and urban redevelopment within the context of global city making is thus a novel approach. With these considerations in mind, the book looks into twentieth-century modern architecture heritage practices in Japan, more specifically the modern built heritage located in Tokyo’s central business districts. The rise of urban heritage conservation activity dates from the late 1960s when Japan was commemorating the Meiji era (1868–1911) centennial. During this period, urban heritage began to acquire national heritage designation and the Meiji-Mura Museum—a private open-air museum—was opened. In this early period, the value and significance of urban heritage was based on the European architectural design and form of the Meiji era that were part of building the modern state and the national pride. In 1990, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) undertook an urban heritage conservation initiative known as the Historic Structure Conservation for Landscape Project.16 The TMG selected 150 heritage properties and provided conservation subsidies. However, as this initiative was based on landscape policy, the focus was on the
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
historical façade of buildings (Goto 2006). In 1996, a new heritage system, the Registered Tangible Cultural Property,17 was established, targeting urban heritage sites that were especially in need of conservation and adaptation due to the pressures of rapid urbanization and urban redevelopment. Ten years on from its establishment, over 7000 modern urban heritage properties had been registered under this system. However, despite these successful registrations, the government agency and heritage experts remained concerned about the difficulty of urban heritage conservation in an urbanized area, as urban redevelopment was proceeding far faster than conservation efforts. Accordingly, urban heritage properties continued to disappear. It was not until 1999 that genuine urban heritage conservation began to be implemented in the larger system of city planning, triggered by two corporately owned heritage properties of the Showa era (1926–1989). This implementation saw national heritage designation and conservation integrated into an urban redevelopment system in the first case of heritage-led urban regeneration practice (see Chapter 5). The role of conservation has expanded not only into the urban but also into the political and economic areas. The role of urban heritage and actions aimed at its conservation have been increasingly highlighted as catalysts in global and local inter-city competitions. Accordingly, urban heritage plays a growing role in property-led redevelopment, adding distinctiveness and aesthetic quality to urban places and thus synergizing with one of the central aspects of heritage—building collective identity (Lowenthal 1998). This can be a point of departure when the term authenticity begins to disengage from its own territory of heritage conservation and enter a political-economy framework of urban strategies. Thus, the book investigates urban heritage conservation and its consequences as well as implications for the wider framework of the global city.
1.1.5 Authenticity The concept of authenticity is not new. Like heritage practice, the notion of authenticity is Western in origin but has gone global. Nevertheless, different disciplines seem to have different starting points and sources
as regards authenticity. For instance, Zukin (2010) traces the idea of authenticity back to between the ages of Shakespeare and Rousseau, centring around the honest and true nature of the individual authentic self, in contrast to dishonesty. This book therefore positions authenticity in the context of international heritage policy and heritage conservation. European countries have been engaged with the discussion of authenticity since the late eighteenth century; at the beginning, however, the term was by no means central to heritage conservation. The word became increasingly present in the heritage domain in the nineteenth century, in particular in France, England and Germany where the authenticity discourse was shaped, although the main discussion was limited to medieval churches (Starn 2002; Choay 2001; Jokilehto 1999) and was dominated by the idea of the original and the fake. Starn (2002) stresses that the idea of authenticity was still new at that time and was not exercised in the nineteenth century. Born in Europe, the idea moved beyond its territorial roots in the twentieth century, and was deployed through international organizations in the form of theories, guidelines and practices that have become the authorized code of international ethics, principles and standards in heritage conservation (Smith 2006; Byrne 1991). These international heritage policy documents were actually written for the World Heritage context, and were specifically relevant to the narrative of nation and the universality of World Heritage (Smith 2006). Although “soft law” and non-binding, they apply to heritage conservation even outside the context of World Heritage. One of the major heritage policy documents in this context is the 1964 Venice Charter, which was derived from the devastation of post-WWII Europe and the ideology of the Western Block during the Cold War. The Charter is the first international document to mention authenticity even though strategically, it does not define the word, leaving scope for improvement for the future (Starn 2002). Concomitantly, the Charter is often accused of presenting a Eurocentric heritage conservation approach and thereby poorly articulating heritage in the non-Western world. It lays the foundations for the global heritage debate on authenticity that has hitherto been dominated by the narrow confines of the dichotomous East-versus-West view. This view entails multiple conflicts of Traditional versus Modern, not limited to Wood versus Stone.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
In the heritage conservation domain, authenticity is defined as an essential qualifying factor that empowers heritage to express its cultural significance through its material attributes and intangible values. The emphasis of heritage authenticity has shifted from a material-oriented approach to a more inclusive one that draws attention to the maintenance of traditional skills and crafts due to decaying structures and artefacts that require regular replacement with new materials (Lowenthal 1998).18 Diverse viewpoints expressed at the 1994 Nara Conference in Japan and in the Nara Document on Authenticity expanded the notion from intrinsic to extrinsic value; the word moved beyond something residing in the heritage and the site to become something socially and culturally constructed. The Nara Document is often praised for broadening understanding of authenticity by spotlighting cultural diversity; however, as Sand (2015) argues, it also opened a Pandora’s box. The term remains exotic, contradictory and unrealistic in many parts of the world, and Japan is no exception (see Chapter 4). One of the recent international debates about heritage authenticity to take place outside the West is the Forum on Revisiting Authenticity in the Asian Context held in Sri Lanka in December 2014 in support of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and the Korean Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA). International heritage experts gathered in the twentieth anniversary year of the Nara Document. The Forum’s outcome was published in 2018 (Wijesuriya and Sweet 2018) in a document that kept Pandora’s box very much open. Those experts discussed authenticity based on their different cultural contexts; the dialogue thus failed to evolve to the next level but remained enshrined in the heritage scale without envisaging the urban challenges of the twenty-first century. Similarly, Western scholars who have looked into heritage conservation practice in Japan include Adolf Ehrentraut, Uta Hohn, Peter Siegenthaler, Christoph Brumann, Christoph Henrichsen, Jordan Sand, Niels Gutschow and Siegfried Enders, to name but a few. Their studies focus neither on the modern built heritage nor on Tokyo, but express a longing for Japan’s traditions and traditional cultures. In particular, Hohn (1997)
explores the townscape preservation in urban areas in Japan but her discussion is mainly developed around the conservation of the historic landscape and groups of historic buildings countering urban development. Only a few critics, including Gutschow (2017), Henrichsen (2017) and Sand (2015), explore the notion of authenticity, yet their discussion is largely undertaken in the context of ancient built heritage where the Emperor is the kernel of authenticity. Moreover, their analytic frameworks are constructed not on the urban scale but on the heritage scale. As well as the historic urban landscape approach, the rise of modern built heritage conservation—that is, twentieth-century built heritage— has also required authenticity to evolve into the ability of heritage (ICOMOS 2017). When the first modern built heritage designation on the UNESCO World Heritage list was made in 1984, it may have signalled a change in the political economy of heritage, and the evolution of authenticity and placemaking in the globalization era. After all, neither scholars nor heritage practitioners seem to have foreseen this. This book does not seek to provide further definitions of authenticity, rather, its position is that it is time to abandon the dichotomous cultural diversity debate. Authenticity is now a global term, backed up by international heritage policy documents. One of the goals of this book is to dissect what is seen as authentic for conservation, how it transforms into the authenticity of urban places and how its urban manifestation is anchored in urban heritage.
Data and Methodology
The main aim of this research is to explore the complex interaction between heritage conservation, urban redevelopment and globalization, and their socio-spatial consequences and implications. The research is based on an extensive empirical investigation of the dynamics and mechanisms of the construction of authenticity of urban places in global city making. It also adopts a theoretical framework that balances the proximity between theoretical and empirical approaches to the analysis of the culture and politics of urban places.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
The research uses multiple qualitative research methods, including historical analysis, case studies and process tracing. Historical analysis explores the history of two districts that can lay the foundations for understanding the formation and evolution of their urban territories. The research conducts case studies and comparative analysis in each district that help examine in detail the interactions between authenticity, heritage and redevelopment in heritage-led urban regeneration processes. In a wider context, the comparison of two districts provides a bigger picture of the urban political mechanism of authenticity, while the research can present the interactions between institutions and actors in heritage-led regeneration processes. I combine histories, archival documents, interview transcripts and other sources to trace the links between possible causes and observed outcomes. The primary data presented in the book are collected from extensive fieldwork and archival research. As part of the fieldwork, I walked around districts, streets and project sites, observing the surrounding environments. A total of 25 personal interviews were conducted on heritageled urban regeneration projects in two urban districts. The interviewees include government officials, conservation architects, developers and academics. Most of them were key players directly involved in the respective heritage-led regeneration projects. Interviews were mainly individual, while a few were collective. I combined oral history interview and semi-structured interview. In the latter, the questions were provided for the interviewees in written form. The interviews were open-ended and did not follow any particular format. All interviews were recorded, with permission, and lasted between 30 minutes and three hours; the average interview ran for 60 to 80 minutes. The interviews provided a substantial amount of first-hand information on the ideas and interests behind the heritage-led urban regeneration projects, and on how the political economic institutions and actors involved worked together to shape both conservation and development practices. Regular communication over the course of a year, including by email, with some interviewees allowed me to obtain detailed in-depth information and to draw a map of heritage-led regeneration decision-making processes and the construction of authenticity in those two urban districts.
Finally, the fieldwork was supplemented with extensive archival research. Sources include government reports, project reports, minutes from expert committee meetings, newspapers, academic journals, magazines, international cultural heritage policy documents and architectural drawings, as well as photos, corporate archives and the personal archives of actors directly engaged with the corresponding heritage-led regeneration projects. These data were a rich supply of information illustrating the decades-long evolution of urban redevelopment and urban heritage conservation and the impact of political economic decisions not only on two districts and Tokyo, but on Japan as a whole.
Scales and Structure
This book explores three scales, the global, the national and the urban, which are not mutually exclusive but come together on the ground of heritage-led urban regeneration practice. It contains six chapters, as well as this introductory and a conclusion chapter. The research seeks to make a holistic assessment of global city making and provide insights into its socio-spatial implications, not limited to the historic environment but covering the urban and built environment as a whole. Chapter 2 introduces a set of analytical frameworks of authenticity applied to unlocking the global city Tokyo and decoding the construction of urban authenticity of two urban cases, Nihonbashi and Marunouchi. These frameworks lay the foundations for reading the complexity of heritage-led urban regeneration, using contact zone theory as a structuring concept to guide the overall framework of the research and visualize the collected data. This concept helps explore the complex interaction between different scales and frameworks under the heading of heritage-led urban regeneration processes. The research recognizes global–national–urban interactions as a contact zone through which we see the international flows and influences of concepts and systems from cities in the West to the East and which reveals uneven power relations between them. The chapter finishes by introducing the two urban case studies and their rationale.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
Chapter 3 examines the rise of urban heritage conservation and the institutional processes of modern urban built heritage in Japan. While early conservation efforts on urban heritage can be identified as long ago as the early Meiji era, it was the urban destruction in post-WWII Japan together with rapid land development in urban areas that accelerated awareness of urban heritage in danger and initiated urban heritage conservation. Although legal heritage protection began in the 1800s and the modern comprehensive heritage law was enacted in 1950, the philosophy and principles applicable to urban heritage conservation are derived principally from traditional built heritage practices. Hence there was a vacuum of power when it came to executing urban heritage conservation. Urban heritage was not invited into the national heritage system until the year 1955 and the first example of urban heritage conservation comes from outside the heritage system: the Meiji-Mura open-air museum, opened in 1965 through a collaborative partnership between a private-sector company and an architect. Although the conservation treatments used in the museum were still based on the long tradition of wooden structures, due to a lack of knowledge and skills required for urban heritage, it was the first institution to put urban heritage conservation efforts into action. Around the same time, in a series of battles between conservation and development, in the central business districts of Tokyo an intense power struggle was taking place between the public sector and the private sector, which were experiencing a conflict of heritage conservation interests in the midst of the rapid urban renewal. Unfortunately, these battles resulted in two cases of urban heritage demolition, the Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the Imperial Hotel. While the former was bulldozed by the property owner, the latter was destroyed in sections, some of which were saved and relocated to the Meiji-Mura. These two battles demonstrate the absence of public-sector capacity and leadership in urban heritage administration. In 1972, state intervention and control in urban heritage conservation began with the first national heritage designation of the former headquarters of the Imperial Guards in central Tokyo. Unlike the Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the Imperial Hotel, the headquarters is government-owned property, and the chapter explores the political dimension of its conservation, illustrating that state intervention and
political expression are not mutually exclusive in urban heritage conservation. Chapter 4 begins with Japan’s first international development assistance project in heritage conservation in Kathmandu, Nepal, which triggered a debate over the notion of heritage authenticity. At an international meeting discussing Japan’s first UNESCO World Heritage nomination, Western experts openly criticized the validity of Japan’s approaches to the restoration of the I Baha Bahi Buddhist monastery. Nevertheless, Japan successfully campaigned to win UNESCO World Heritage status for their two national monuments, leaving the question of authenticity unanswered. Japan’s first statement of authenticity located its traditional conservation practices in the logic of the 1964 Venice Charter with the help of Western allies. Despite the intense debate over authenticity and the successful UNESCO World Heritage designation, Japan’s heritage agency and experts neither attempted to localize the Western notion of authenticity within their own cultural context nor contributed their traditional conservation approach to the global debate on authenticity. Paradoxically, despite the international success and recognition of the Nara Conference on Authenticity in 1994, the notion of authenticity has never been discussed by Japanese heritage institutions and experts, so that the term still remains exotic and unfamiliar in Japan. The chapter also unpicks the detail of the 1994 Nara Conference on Authenticity and its outcome, the Nara Document. Chapter 5 examines the processes of integration of urban heritage conservation with the urban redevelopment system in the context of the institutional and regulatory framework. The bubble economy of the 1990s and its after effects severely hit major cities across Japan. The national government promoted deregulation as an emergency economic package to recover from the long-term national economic downturn and the TMG introduced competitive development strategies to win the global city race. In parallel, the conservation of urban heritage moved to centre stage of cultural heritage administration. In general, socio-political and economic conditions and partnerships between multi-level institutions and actors were woven into the foundations laid for the heritage-led urban regeneration framework. In 1999, the TMG officially put heritageled urban regeneration into practice as a part of a national economic
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
initiative, not only reconciling conservation and redevelopment but also inviting private-sector investment. In this process, private-sector institutions and actors challenged government authorities by putting candidate heritage properties onto the negotiating table, opening the door for private developers as well as architecture firms to get involved in the conservation of nationally designated urban heritage properties in a break from the conventional system. The chapter shows how agencies and industry negotiated legal systems to establish a heritage-led urban regeneration system. The Nihonbashi district, also known as home to Mitsui, is presented as a case study in Chapter 6. Despite calling Nihonbashi home, Mitsui only owns a single block, and not the entire district. When the Nihonbashi regeneration began, the municipal authority (Chuo ward) played a crucial role in formulating the public–private partnerships and executing urban redevelopment projects. Empowered by decentralization reforms, rather than turning against the central government, the municipal authority sought to seize the administrative initiative by acting as a coordinator between the national government, the TMG and the private developers. Heritage-led urban regeneration in Nihonbashi was triggered when the government agency considered the Mitsui Main Building, the headquarters of Mitsui zaibatsu, for national heritage designation. The successful implementation of heritage-led urban regeneration on the one hand achieved the integration of urban heritage conservation and redevelopment; on the other hand, it shifted the balance of urban power between the public and private sectors. Accordingly, the Nihonbashi regeneration has shifted from a joint venture between the municipal authority and Mitsui to a monopoly for Mitsui, who expanded their urban territory by embedding their corporate spirit in the contemporary urban fabric of the Nihonbashi district, empowering the Mitsui corporate identity. In this process, the dichotomy between Edo Nihonbashi and modern Nihonbashi continues, while the power of public–private partnerships erases other Nihonbashi authenticities that are not part of the Mitsui legacy, such as Shirokiya. Chapter 7 examines the other urban case study, the Marunouchi district. The modern urban history of Marunouchi begins with Mitsubishi’s
purchase of the territory. In Marunouchi, urban heritage is directly associated with nation-building projects such as the Emperor, the modern state and the triumph of the 1905 war. However, public–private partnerships in urban redevelopment make corporate and national identities go hand in hand, empowering both. In the particular case of Marunouchi, heritage-led urban regeneration processes elucidate a strong presence of the nation-state in global city making. Unlike Mitsui, Mitsubishi owned the entire district at the beginning and took the lead in building partnerships with land owners and leaseholders, and in delivering urban redevelopment projects. The replication of Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the conservation of the nationally designated Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building were the high points of the construction of the authenticity of Marunouchi. While the former is non-official urban heritage, the latter is official heritage; the two heritage properties together summon up the legacy of redbrick Marunouchi, empowering both Mitsubishi’s corporate identity and Tokyo as the imperial capital. The Marunouchi district thus became an arena of contestation between legacies and urban heritages. While the redbrick legacy champions the Marunouchi authenticity, the power of the public–private partnerships has spatially cleansed the remaining Marunouchi authenticities such as the Marunouchi Yaesu Building and the Tokyo Central Post Office Building. The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings and outcomes of the investigation, and describes the implications of the research for heritage conservation, urban redevelopment and authenticity under the impact of unprecedented globalization. In line with this it also considers the transformation of authenticity in the urban age and the power it facilitates with regard to whether authenticity can suggest the “right to the urban” or is in fact a new urban regime.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
Notes 1. The original draft of the Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation is specific to urban heritage. It positions the historic urban landscape as an attempt to reshape urban conservation. See UNESCO (2011). “Preamble”. 2. See UNESCO (2016). 3. Bandarin (2015, pp. 12–13). 4. Harrison (2013, pp. 84–88). 5. Borrowed the term from Tony Bennette to describe how urban heritage increasingly exhibits difference in heritage-led urban regeneration. See Bennette (2006). 6. See Coleman (2011). 7. Tung (2001, pp. 110–111). 8. Tallon (2010, p. 112). 9. Yúdice (2003, pp. 1–39). 10. Jokilehto (2007 pp. 23–24). 11. Cowen (2002, pp. 15–16). 12. Cowen (2002, p. 65). 13. Savas (2000 pp. 105–106). 14. Savas (2000, p. 106). 15. Roberts et al. (2000, p. 296). 16. Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu no Keikan Isho Hozon Jigyo (歴史的建造物の景 観意匠保存事業). 17. Toroku Yukei Bunkazai (登録有形文化財). 18. Lowenthal (1998, p. 7).
References Baldwin, Richard. 2016. The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Bandarin, Francesco. 2015. Introduction: Urban Conservation and the End of Planning. In Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach
and the Future of Urban heritage, ed. Francesco Bandarin and Ron Van Oers, 1–16. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ———. 2019. Chapter 1 Reshaping Urban Conservation. In Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action, ed. Ana Roders and Francesco Bandarin, 3–20. Singapore: Springer. Benette, Tony. 2006. Exhibition, Difference and the Logic of Culture. In Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformation, ed. Ivan Karp et al., 46–69. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Byrne, Denis. 1991. Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management. History and Anthropology 5 (2): 269–276. Choay, Francoise. 2001. The Invention of the Historic Monument. UK: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, William. 2011. Globalization, Imperialism and Violence. In The Dark Side of Globalization, ed. Jorge Heine and Ramesh Thakur, 19–31. New York: United Nations University Press. Cowen, Tyler. 2002. Creative Destruction: How Globalization is Changing the World’s Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. De Cesari, Chiara, and Michael Herzfeld. 2015. Urban Heritage and Social Movements. In Global Heritage: A Reader, ed. Lynn Mekell, 171–195. UK: Wiley Blackwell. De Vries, Piet. 2013. The Modern Public-Private Demarcation: History and Trends in PPP. In The Routledge Companion to Public-Private Partnerships, ed. Piet De Vries and Etienne B. Yehoue, 9–28. New York: Routledge. Goto, Osamu. 2006. Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower to Kindai Kenchiku no Hozon (in Japanese). In Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, ed. Mitsui Fudosan, 120–125. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Greve, Carsten. 2010. The Global Public-Private Partnership Industry. In International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships, ed. Graeme A. Hodge, Carsten Greve and Anthony E. Boardman, 499–509. UK and USA: Edward Elgar. Gutschow, Niels. 2017. Architectural Heritage Conservation in South and East Asia and in Europe: Contemporary Practices. In Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia, ed. Katharina Weiler and Niels Gutschow, 1–72. Switzerland: Springer International. Harvey, David. 2002. The Art of Rent: Globalization, Monopoly and the Commodification of Culture. Socialist Register 2002: 93–110. Harrison, Rodney. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. UK: Routledge.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
Hashimzade, Nigar, Gareth Myles and Black John. 2017. Oxford Dictionary of Economics (5th ed.). UK: Oxford University Press. Henrichsen, Christoph. 2017. Authenticity in Japan. In Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia, ed. Katharina Weiler and Niels Gutschow, 261–286. Switzerland: Springer International. Hohn, Uta. 1997. Townscape Preservation in Japanese Urban Planning. The Town Planning Review 68 (2) (April): 213–255. ICOMOS. 2011. The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas, English, https://www.icomos.org/ Paris2011/GA2011_CIVVIH_text_EN_FR_final_20120110.pdf. Accessed 6 January 2016. ICOMOS. 2017. Approaches to the Conservation of Twentieth-Century Cultural Heritage Madrid-New Delhi Document. ICOMOS International Committee on Twentieth-Century Heritage. Jokilehto, Jukka. 1999. A History of Architectural Conservation. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. ———. 2007. International Charters on Urban Conservation: Some Thoughts on the Principles Expressed in Current International Doctrine. City & Time 3 (3): 2, 23–42. Klijn, Erik-Hans. 2010. Public-Private Partnerships: Deciphering Meaning, Message and Phenomenon. In International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships, ed. Graeme A. Hodge, Carsten Greve and Anthony E. Boardman, 68–80. UK and USA: Edward Elgar. Kong, Lily. 2007. Cultural Icons and Urban Development in Asia: Economic Imperative, National Identity, and Global City Status. Political Geography 26 (4) (May): 383–404. Kotler, Philip, Gary Armstrong, John Saunders, and Veronica Wong. 1999. Principles of Marketing (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall. Labadi, Sophia, and Colin Long. 2010. Introduction. In Heritage and Globalization, ed. Sophia Labadi and Colin Long, 1–16. London: Routledge. Labadi, Sophia, and William Logan. 2016. Approaches to Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability. In Urban Heritage, Sustainability: International Frameworks, National and Local Governance, ed. Sophia Labadi and William Logan, 1–20. London: Routledge. Leary, Michael E. 2013. Part 2: Introduction. In The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, ed. Michael E. Leary and John McCarthy, 119–125. New York: Routledge.
Lowenthal, David. 1998. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. UK: Cambridge University Press. Meskell, Lynn. 2015. Introduction: Globalizing Heritage. In Global Heritage: A Reader, ed. Lynn Meskell, 1–21. UK: Wiley Blackwell. Newman, Joshua. 2017. Governing Public-Private Partnerships. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Pendlebury, John. 2002. Conservation and Regeneration: Complementary or Conflicting Processes? The Case of Grainger Town, Newcastle upon Tyne. Planning Practice & Research 17 (2): 145–158. Philo, Chris, and Gerry Kearns. 1993. Culture, History, Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling of Places. In Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past, and Present, ed. Chris Philo and Kearns, 1–31. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ripp, Mattihias, and Dennis Rodwell. 2015. The Geography of Urban Heritage. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6 (3): 240–276. Roberts, Peter. 2017. The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration. In Urban Regeneration, ed. Roberts Peter, Hugh Sykes and Rachel Granger, 9–43. London: Sage. Roberts, Peter, Hugh Sykes and Rachel Granger. ed. 2000. Urban Regeneration. London: Sage. Roccu, Roberto, and Leila Talani. 2019. Introduction: The Globalisation Debate—From De-Globalisation to the Dark Side of Globalisation. In The Dark Side of Globalization, ed. Leila Talani and Roberto Roccu, 1–17. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Sagalyn, Lynne. 2011. Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance: Coordinates and Policy Issues. In Global Urbanization, ed. Eugenie Birch and Susan Wachter, 191–211. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sand, Jordan. 2015. Japan’s Monument Problem: Ise Shrine as Metaphor. In Heritage in the Modern World: Historical Preservation in Global Perspective, ed. Paul Betts and Corey Ross, 126–152. UK: Oxford University Press. Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 2007. A Sociology of Globalization. London and New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ———. 2008. Neither Global Nor National: Novel Assemblages of Territory, Authority and Rights. Ethics and Global Politics 1 (1–2): 61–79.
1 Introduction: Unlocking A Global City
———. 2019. Cities in a World Economy (Fifth Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Savas, Steve. 2000. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. New York: Chatham House Publishers. Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York and London: Routledge. Smith, Neil. 2002. New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode 34 (3) (July): 427–450. Soja, Edward. 2010. Writing the City Spatially. City 7 (3): 269–280. Song, Jiewon. 2017. Inventing Authentic Urban Places: The Politics of Heritage Conservation in Urban Redevelopment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Tokyo. Starn, Randolph. 2002. Authenticity and Historic Preservation: Towards an Authentic History. History of the Human Sciences 15 (1): 1–16. Stiglitz, Joseph. 2018. Globalization and its Discontents Revisited: Antiglobalization in the Era of Trump. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Tallon, Andrew. 2010. Urban Regeneration in the UK. New York: Routledge. Tung, Anthony. 2001. Preserving the World’s Great Cities: The Destruction and Renewal of the Historic Metropolis. New York: Clarkson Potter/Publishers. UNESCO. 2011. UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, English, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php&URL_ID=48857&URL_DO= DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 6 January 2016. UNESCO. 2016. The HUL Guide Book: Managing heritage in dynamic and constantly changing urban environment, English, http://historicurbanlandscape. com. Accessed 30 November 2016. United Nations. 2015. UN Habitat III Issue Papers: 4—Urban Culture and Heritage, New York, NY, USA. 31 May 2015, English, http://www. unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/ISSUE-Paper-En.pdf. Accessed 8 September 2015. Wijesuri, Gamini, and Jonathan Sweet. ed. 2018. Revisiting Authenticity in the Asian Context. Proceedings of a Forum on Revisiting Authenticity in the Asian Context, December 8–12, 2014, ICCROM-CHA Conservation Forum Series 2. Rome: ICCROM. Wolf, Martin. 2004. Why Globalization Works. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Yehoue, Etienne B., and Piet De Vries. 2013. Introduction. In The Routledge Companion to Public-Private Partnerships, ed. Piet De Vries and Etienne B. Yehoue, pp. 1–6. New York: Routledge. Yúdice, George. 2003. The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era. USA: Durham, NC.
Zukin, Sharon. 2006. David Harvey on Cities. In David Harvey: A Critical Reader, ed. Noel Castree and Derek Gregory, 102–120. UK: Blackwell Publishing. ———. 2009. Destination Culture—How Globalization Makes All Cities Look the Same. Inaugural Working Paper Series, Centre for Urban and Global Studies at Trinity College, Vol. 1, No. 1 [online]. Accessed 13 November 2013. ———. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2011. Reconstructing the Authenticity of Place. Theory and Society, 40 (2): 161, 161–165. ———. 2012. Competitive Globalization and Urban Change: The Allure of Cultural Strategies. In Rethinking Global Urbanism: Comparative Insights from Secondary Cities, ed. Xiangming Chen and Ahmed Kanna, 17–34. London and New York: Routledge.
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
This chapter links theories in different disciplines to establish the basis for the construction of the authenticity of urban places and its implications for the making of the global city Tokyo through the lens of heritageled urban regeneration. The chapter provides a map to help read and understand the political economy of deploying heritage, placemaking and authenticity, which, as urban and heritage critics have claimed, are all political, economic and social constructs (Lowenthal 2015; Harvey 2002; Lefebvre 1991). Despite the fact that economic factors remain a key driving force behind globalization, the impact of globalization is no longer limited to the economic sector—all factors become intertwined under competitive globalization. The realm of heritage is not immune to this global trend and the debate is not limited to World Heritage properties but applies equally to non-World Heritage properties across the urban. Heritage conservation has come into play in this large-scale urban scene and is becoming engaged with urban design, that is, heritage-led urban regeneration. First encountered in the cities of the major powerhouses of global economy and politics in the West, heritage-led urban regeneration has become a global phenomenon. As explained previously, modern globalization has transformed cities into dynamic sites where © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_2
the global, the national and the urban interact; specifically, the political and economic power of the global and the national are assembled in the urban, but the national remains undiminished. More importantly, however, heritage-led urban regeneration provides a particularly valuable vehicle to elucidate not only how power within globalization is deployed over sectors of the economy such as urban and spatial planning but also how authenticity is exercised in the making of the global city.
Untold Dimensions of Heritage and the Global City
Accordingly, in this book, the authenticity of urban places refers to the socio-spatial outcomes of heritage-led urban regeneration on the built environment. The research construes heritage-led urban regeneration as one of the contemporary placemaking programmes, a systemic interplay of three main branches of law—heritage, building and planning—in the case of Japan. Heritage-led urban regeneration is a complex and dynamic process involving multi-level institutions and actors that requires a longterm negotiation due to the various legal conditions. As heritage-led urban regeneration has gone global, it is now under the influence of the global economy and an integral part of global city making (Fig. 2.1). As the national capital, the global city of Tokyo provides an ideal urban context for the shaping of authenticity and heritage conservation within the larger framework of urban redevelopment strategies, not least because of the impact of the city branding and property-led urban regeneration that are taking place globally. Moreover, at the time the research for this book was carried out, Tokyo was anticipating hosting the 2020 Summer Olympic Games, which involved building cultural strategies such as the Tokyo Cultural Resources District Vision.1 This aims to promote cultural resources including urban heritage as an integral part of generating authenticity, not limited to urban places but involving Tokyo and Japan in the broader scheme of global city strategy. Compared to cities in the United States and Europe, however, commercial business districts in Tokyo tend to have no residential communities and consist of a community of landowners, leaseholders,
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Fig. 2.1 The conceptual framework of global city making (Created by the author based on Tanaka )
private companies and workers. The welfare of local residents is therefore not an issue in this context. As yet there is no civic and community participation that could identify and address issues of public concern either in heritage conservation or urban redevelopment within the corresponding urban territories (Igarashi 2014). It especially true for the two urban case studies of Nihonbashi and Marunouchi. What can be observed is the urban vision drawn by the public–private partnership, which often lacks transparency in the heritage-making and urban redevelopment processes. These processes take place behind closed doors, and all related information and materials are strictly confidential. Moreover, the expert heritage-led urban regeneration group increases its monopoly of knowledge, and transparency and accountability in the decisionmaking processes are thus poorly coordinated. Therefore, this research
aims to scrutinize the component elements of heritage-led urban regeneration, in order to show how urban institutions and actors are intertwined in the processes that result in construction of the authenticity of urban places. Urban regeneration in Japan has emerged as part of a national economic revitalization strategy for cities that have suffered a long-term economic downturn. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) decided to put heritage-led urban regeneration into practice during the 1990s as part of a national economic initiative attempting to reconcile heritage conservation and urban development within the framework of the city planning system. In this way, an urban redevelopment system evolved into a heritage-led urban regeneration system. This new integrated system was implemented when the conservation of urban heritage took centre stage in cultural heritage administration; the national government promoted deregulation as an emergency economic package; and in parallel local governments like TMG introduced competitive development strategies to win global urban competitions. As noted earlier, the term heritage-led urban regeneration is still unfamiliar in Japanese scholarship. Yet, conservation and development are two separate domains, as are the disciplines of architecture and urban planning. Accordingly, heritage-led urban regeneration, and especially its systems, has received very limited scholarly attention. Most existing studies of the urban planning system are limited to open space and transferable development rights; and research on urban heritage conservation is often restricted to architectural contexts and neglects its connection with the broader framework of urban regeneration and/or the integration with global city redevelopment. Moreover, urban regeneration research predominantly focuses on urban governance and management, with limited attention to the correlation with heritage conservation (Song 2017). To this extent, the question of authenticity is never raised. Existing literature on this topic is not only very limited, but also fails to cast light on the complex interactions of heritage-led urban regeneration processes. Similarly, there are only a handful of studies on urban redevelopment projects relevant to heritage conservation in the context of the case studies in the book, Nihonbashi and Marunouchi. First, urban planning
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
scholars (Amemiya and Seta 2015) explore the two urban redevelopment projects executed in neighbouring urban blocks in the Nihonbashi district, known as the Nihonbashi Muromachi-Higashi and Honcho 2 Chome. While the former was a redevelopment project integrating the replication of Fukutoku-Mori Shrine (see Chapter 6), the latter was undertaken as a Specified Block System (see Chapter 5) project to include the creation of green space. Amemiya and Seta claim that by combining different urban strategies and public–private–third-sector partnerships, these urban projects achieved both the conservation of historical context of urban place and urban area management. Although the study underlines the conservation of the historical context in urban management and untangles urban redevelopment through the spectrum of stakeholders and the regulatory framework, it oversimplifies the mechanism by underestimating issues of the replication of heritage and history, and more importantly their outcome, authenticity. Second, a sociologist (Matsuhashi 2012) examines social change, spatial transformation and contemporary imagination in Marunouchi, an urban place in modern Tokyo. The study adopts the lens of historical sociology, considering the urban history of Marunouchi from the Meiji period to contemporary times, illustrating the degeneration and transformation of Marunouchi, and capturing the production and experience of its place identity. Taking the geopolitical location of Marunouchi into account, the study construes Marunouchi within the framework of the space/place–power relationship and depicts the nexus of imperial, political, economic and civic interests. Since it sees the urban redevelopment and the conservation of modern urban heritage that have taken place in Marunouchi as a Marunouchi urban branding strategy, the study stops short of discussing issues of authenticity construction associated with heritage conservation and urban development. Third, conservation architects (Tahara et al. 2013) examine the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building conservation project, which was undertaken between 2002 and 2012 and formed part of a larger framework, the Tokyo Station Area Redevelopment in the Marunouchi district (see Chapter 7). The study shows that international conservation guidelines and principles such as the 1964 Venice Charter have been at the forefront of the Tokyo Station conservation project; in other words, the project
publicly summoned the canon of authenticity. Although this project was part of the larger urban strategy, the study is centred on an architectural scale and is limited to materials, design and structural engineering, neglecting the wider implications for the urban context. Fourth, an architect developer (Nomura 2014) surveys the pioneering central Tokyo urban regeneration projects of Marunouchi and East Ginza. Although the research does not use the term heritage-led urban regeneration, these particular urban regeneration projects incorporated urban heritage conservation, that is, partial conservation. Nomura adopts the private developer’s standpoint, prioritizing economic trade-offs and requiring creativity in heritage conservation. In this regard, his study identifies problems and challenges of heritage conservation in urban regeneration, and deals with technical details from an architectural and construction engineering angle. While the research discusses the historical value of these urban heritage cases, it does not engage with a theoretical framework and thus does not explore the challenging issues of replication and authenticity. This book seeks to fill gaps in the literature by untangling complex urban processes, including policy, strategy and systems, against the background of globalization. The discussion aims to shed a critical light on heritage-led urban regeneration to provide a detailed and comprehensive analysis that goes well beyond the established account of the paradox and dilemma between conservation and regeneration, to include the political economy of authenticity in the wider context of the making of the global city.
Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration as Contact Zone
The notion of “contact zone” was first introduced by Mary Louise Pratt.2 Pratt (1991) defines the contact zone as ‘social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today’. In other words, the contact zone is a place where two or more different and unequal languages or
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
cultures are randomly encountered and interact. In this process, their relationship tends to be divided into areas of domination and of subordination. The present research adopts the concept of the contact zone to cast light on hybridity and hybridization, illustrating the complexity and the implications of heritage-led urban regeneration. Pratt’s contact zone successfully captures the intersection of the global, the national and the urban as well as the dynamics of heritage, urban redevelopment and authenticity. It is an antidote to dichotomous frames that only see North versus South, East versus West and/or conservation versus redevelopment. The power of contemporary economic globalization positions not only heritage but also authenticity in an urban political economy that requires a unifying framework and a hybrid approach. Accordingly, heritage-led urban regeneration as contact zone can display three different sets of scales and cultures that come into contact, interact and co-exist in this urban process.3 These sets are heritage making, comprising global and local heritage practices; placemaking, consisting of urban redevelopment and economic globalization; and authenticity making, including development and conservation. More importantly, each set involves a hierarchical relationship (see Fig. 2.2).
Fig. 2.2 Three scales and cultures in heritage-led urban regeneration (Created by the author)
First, the heritage-led urban regeneration process provides a contact point for both nationally designated urban heritage and the European theory and practice of conservation. There are two faces to modern urban heritage: it is a non-European heritage property but built to Western form and design. Such properties tend to be made of nontraditional materials and techniques, so in this context, the Western conservation guidelines and principles are likely to predominate over the non-Western urban heritage practices. Despite the differences between Japanese traditional conservation practices and European ones, some heritage experts, both Western and Japanese, have collectively claimed that the two show similar ideas and practices (see Chapter 4). Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs has declared that Japanese practices adhere to European conservation principles such as the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites established in 1964, known as the Venice Charter, which has been adopted by the World Heritage context (Akagawa 2015).4 This recognition tells us that European conservation principles and guidelines and/or the UNESCO World Heritage system are fixed as the command centre and powerhouse, with an influence that is effective even beyond the West and UNESCO’s World Heritage system. Second, urban redevelopment is not a new practice in cities, which are often at the centre of cultural, economic and political activities. However, globalization increasingly affects the dynamics of cities by promoting competition between them at the national and global levels. As previously stated, economic factors are a key driving force behind globalization. Its impact is no longer limited to the economic sector; vast sectors of society have become intertwined with contemporary economic globalization. In line with this, urban strategic visions and goals have begun to attain more and more global competitiveness, while government agencies and actors seek to keep up with it. Whether deliberately or unintentionally, globalization is becoming a force for standardization that influences investors, developers and officials, and feeds into urban development strategy. Urban strategies under globalization also result in a selective process of consuming and contesting the authentic quality of cities. Global cities such as London and New York are located at the
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
centre of this flow of strategies and ideas, and provide models of urban strategies, while Tokyo, despite its status as the global city, remains on the periphery together with other global cities, sharing ideas and models in the hope of winning global urban competitiveness to catch up with cities in the West and/or the North. The third scale combines the two sets of scales described above. The heritage-led urban regeneration process pursues the combined effect of heritage conservation and urban redevelopment through a battleground of globalization, urban and heritage practices that impacts on shaping cities and conservation actions. The success of conservation depends on the management of properties in a larger framework of urban redevelopment strategies (Macdonald and Cheong 2014).5 Japan’s practice is no exception. This state of affairs is primarily due to the fact that the state sector is no longer a fertile ground for heritage protection and conservation subsidies, particularly for urban heritage. Faced with declining budgets, conservation is increasingly turning towards the private sector for both delivery and outcomes. The urban regeneration strategy requires effort to ensure that urban heritage keeps pace with modernization and can be flexibly used. On the one hand, heritage properties gain social and economic roles through heritage-led regeneration, but on the other hand, building a consensus between the promoters of urban regeneration and heritage conservators on new uses of heritage properties is far from straightforward. The survival of heritage and conservation efforts largely depends on the political economy of urban regeneration. As a consequence, social and political economic factors dominate the shaping of authenticity, not only of heritage but of urban places. In summary, thinking of heritage-led urban regeneration as a contact zone will help understand the complex interplay between heritage conservation, urban redevelopment and globalization, and more importantly the construction of authenticity of urban places. This research is a further step towards development of an analytical framework for decoding the authenticity of urban places, the subject of the next section.
Decoding the Authenticity of Urban Places
Drawing inspiration and support from the existing literature, the present research departs from previous studies in its comprehensive considerations of the complex relationships of authenticity, heritage conservation and urban development under economic globalization. In doing so, it engages with a wider range of discourses across the humanities and social sciences, as well as with related issues from the fields of political science, cultural studies and urban studies. Many critics and practitioners have discussed and developed the notion of authenticity, but there has been little work on its structure. The heritage-led urban regeneration process is complex, demanding a holistic and multidisciplinary approach; and urban heritage conservation is no longer an end in itself (Pendlebury 2002) but requires an approach that goes beyond architectural issues. Ashworth (2012) points out that the urban is a historical subject matter and different paradigms have led to a rise in place planning and management issues. The 1964 Venice Charter, for instance, has been known for its principles of architectural conservation and restoration for over 50 years, but its original intention was to promote heritage conservation on the urban scale. Houbart (2014) contends that the Charter’s main innovation was separation from the exclusive concept of monument and the promotion of a comprehensive approach to heritage.6 The Charter was the outcome of an endeavour to reconcile heritage with its society and the built environment in post-World War II Europe, a response to the socio-political need for universally applicable conservation guidelines amid a flood of stylistic reconstruction on the European continent.7 Jokilehto (1998) also emphasizes that the Charter extends the concept of heritage from ‘historic monuments’ to cover ‘historic urban areas’. Cameron (2008) agrees that the Venice Charter contributed to identifying the significance of the setting, and endorses an interdisciplinary approach to the conservation decision-making process, commenting that decisions should not be made by architects alone. At the same time, however, she points out that the Charter generally focuses on the conservation of the existing fabric while ignoring the
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
reconstruction of archaeological sites and the question of large urban reconstruction. Since the establishment of the Venice Charter, international efforts have developed into the Amsterdam Declaration (1976); the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (1976), also known as the 1976 Nairobi Recommendation; and the Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (1987), namely the 1987 Washington Charter. All of them emphasize the need to integrate heritage into planning policies as “integrated conservation”. From this time, conservation actions, including interpretation and approaches to authenticity, became more complicated due to spatial scale. As the urban built environment is constantly changing, understandings of heritage conservation and authenticity are required to shift their focus from the protection of the physical fabric of heritage properties to urban management (Veldpaus and Pereira 2014; Pendlebury et al. 2009). In particular, the 1987 Washington Charter proposed a comprehensive approach to conservation that embeds it in economic, social development, and urban and regional planning strategies (Van Oers 2010). While the Washington Charter recommends a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the conservation of historic towns and urban areas, the Venice Charter remains the backbone of its conservation principles. The latter originally entailed two scales for heritage conservation: the architectural and the urban. The 1977 UNESCO Operational Guidelines (hereafter, the OG) for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention continue to be regarded as the ‘test of authenticity’. Article 7 of the 1977 OG defined authenticity as design, material, setting and workmanship to measure the basic truth of values established in heritage properties (Stovel 1995a). According to heritage critics (Kono 2014; Cameron 2008), the word “authenticity” appeared in the first version of the OG, which defined it as one of the prerequisites for a heritage property to be designated a World Heritage Site.8 It also defined the term as the ‘truthfulness’ of a cultural place, determined by physical attributes in various historical layers as reflected in Article 11 of the Venice Charter (Kono 2014; Cameron 2008).9
In the original draft of the 1977 OG, the term “integrity” was proposed (Kono 2014). It was American ICOMOS Secretary-General Ernest Allan Connally who brought the US concept of integrity to the negotiating table of the World Heritage Committee in the late 1970s (Stovel 1995a). Connally had been Associate Director for Programs in Archaeology and Historic Preservation in the United States National Park Service and had significant experience of the evaluation of heritage properties both at national and global levels (Stovel 1995b). In the United States, concern for integrity and authenticity emerged in the mid-1930s with the reconstruction of George Washington’s birthplace at Wakefield, Virginia. Aspects of integrity were first elaborated by the Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation during the 1950s, while the National Register of Historic Places adopted them in the late 1960s. They defined integrity as a composite quality comprising seven aspects: materials, workmanship, setting, design, location, feeling and association. These aspects could be reduced to two categories, ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ (Sprinkle 2014; Stovel 2008). While the definition of integrity was closely associated with American approaches to the reconstruction and adaptive use of heritage properties, American preservation experts avoided objectifying or quantifying the measures for integrity due to its ambiguity (Sprinkle 2014).10 In 1966, however, the situation changed due to the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act. One of the goals of the National Register was to provide financial assistance for eligible heritage properties and it was this that caused the change in the definition of integrity. Connally came to the conclusion that being too strict would not help heritage conservation (Sprinkle 2014).11 He therefore proposed a relative context of integrity in making judgements, acknowledging the tension between listing heritage properties and the integrity standards. In March 1977, Connally again took the lead in the discussion on integrity at the World Heritage Convention meeting in Paris. Professor Raymond Lemaire, one of the main authors of the Venice Charter, suggested replacing the word “integrity” with “authenticity” because the term integrity might restrict analysis to concern for the original form or design. During the discussion, experts agreed to reduce the seven aspects of integrity to four aspects of authenticity, while keeping
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
an understanding of the defined aspects ‘as a composite’. Although in renaming integrity authenticity, experts intended to avoid the original material-oriented analysis, the test of authenticity included design, material, setting and workmanship; the three aspects of integrity that were dropped were association, feeling and location.12 The choice of the term authenticity and its criteria at the Paris meeting was presented at the first session of the World Heritage Committee held in June 1977 and adopted as the ‘test of authenticity’ in the 1977 OG (Stovel 1995b). In this way, American “integrity” was seamlessly transformed into the UNESCO World Heritage test of authenticity, an initial step towards turning conceptual authenticity into practical for practitioners (Stovel 2008). Although the text of the first 1977 OG ensured that heritage properties should meet the test of authenticity in design, materials, workmanship and setting, it did not limit authenticity consideration to the original form and structure. The OG acknowledged that all subsequent modifications and additions made over the course of time were part of the artistic or historical values of heritage properties. While the OG inherited the spirit of the Venice Charter, it is worth noting that it was the end result of discussions and considerations of the socio-political conditions in the 1970s. Although the definition remained unchanged through various revisions of the OG, the World Heritage Committee applied the term inconsistently until 1994 (Cameron 2008). In recognition of cultural diversity and the associative values of heritage sites, the four attributes for the test of authenticity were expanded to fourteen at the Nara Conference in 1994 (see Chapter 4). The 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity, which was officially adopted by ICOMOS in 1999 and incorporated into the UNESCO Operational Guidelines in 2005, defined the authenticity conditions as form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling. These new criteria for authenticity have remained unchanged since then. Based on these attributes, the present research sets out a comprehensive analytical framework to examine the complex relationship between heritage conservation, urban development and authenticity, as well as their socio-spatial implications.
The analytical framework is built on the reasoning of two notable critics. Harvey (2002) notes that heritage is a form of commons, which has become a type of commodity. We tend to distinguish this kind of commodity from ordinary commodities. However, he argues that although these two types of commodity are connected, modern and contemporary scholars have kept them analytically apart—high culture and low culture. In this way, conservation and commodification become two sides of the same coin, in particular in the process of heritage-led urban regeneration. Meanwhile, Stovel (2007) maintains that authenticity is an essential quality for the analysis of cultural heritage properties, as well as for guiding conservation and management decisions. In line with this, and due to the complexity of authenticity, he requires the concept to be deconstructed and reassembled so that it can be easily applied to conservation. Some urban critics, including Harvey, comment that urban regeneration strategies are having an impact on the production of urban heritage, and on regulation and conservation in the contemporary built environment. Our research framework is designed to look at the big picture rather than at fragments, and to explore how authenticity is constructed through a prevalent placemaking practice—heritage-led urban regeneration. While, as we have seen, the Nara Document sets out six groups of attributes of authenticity,13 Heynen (2006) claims that the document’s vagueness may be seen as a deliberate expression of the difficulty of defining authenticity qualities. Although some studies (Plevoets and Cleempoel 2011; Van Balen 2008) use the Nara Document’s authenticity conditions to assess authenticity in the conservation of heritage properties, their approaches are still limited to the heritage scale. My own integrated framework for analysis therefore adopts the authenticity conditions of the Nara Document to envision the mechanisms and dynamics of crafting urban authenticity. It divides the authenticity conditions into three levels (architecture, urban and human) with added subcategories drawn from the UK’s English Heritage conservation guidelines and the US National Register evaluation criteria (Figs. 2.3 and 2.4).14 These authenticity attributes are not, however, mutually exclusive as a composite, nor are they equal in their relationship. There is a hierarchy of attributes according to the given socio-political and economic
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Fig. 2.3 Three levels of authenticity in heritage-led urban regeneration (Created by the author in reference to Plevoets and Cleempoel ; English Heritage ; Van Balen ; National Park Service ; and the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity)
interests. What is new in this proposed framework compared to previous efforts is that it sees urban authenticity as an organic compound of those attributes. Not only is heritage authenticity a social construct; urban authenticity is a social and political economic construct.
Case Studies and Their Rationale
This research investigates the construction of urban authenticity through heritage placemaking, focusing on heritage-led regeneration practices in Nihonbashi (Chapter 6) and Marunouchi (Chapter 7) respectively. Very few studies of these two districts have considered urban redevelopment as it relates to heritage conservation. The research is the first of its kind not only to develop an analytical framework for urban authenticity but to analyze the outcome of authenticity construction at the urban scale (Fig. 2.5).
Fig. 2.4 Construction of urban authenticity (Created by the author)
The two districts have been chosen because so far they are the only ones where heritage-led urban regeneration has been implemented in Tokyo or in Japan. Located in the centre of Tokyo, they illustrate a wide range of socio-economic and political structures that are critical for examining the political economy of heritage conservation and authenticity in urban redevelopment. Moreover, they provide fertile conditions for exploring the interaction between public- and private-sector institutions and actors, and a group of experts, and their influence in shaping heritage and urban authenticity (Fig. 2.6). The research identifies institutions and actors, and how they collectively act as place-makers (re)creating the authenticity of urban places. Not only social, economic and political structures and functions but also socio-spatial consequences are explored through Nihonbashi and Marunouchi. These two districts show that heritage-led urban regeneration contributes to increasing the privatization of heritage and the
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Fig. 2.5 Urban case studies: Nihonbashi and Marunouchi (Created by the author based on Shinkenchiku-sha [2015, p. 51, p. 93] and Toshishuppan [2016, p. 25, p. 45])
Fig. 2.6 Rationale of case studies (Created by the author)
presence of a corporate identity in urban places through public–private partnerships. In addition, they demonstrate the interlacing of nationalism and the national narrative in placemaking, which strengthens the symbolic importance and propels the authenticity of urban places. Both districts are under the direct political authority of the TMG and the economic control of private developers. The comparison of heritage-led regeneration decision-making processes in these two districts (Figs. 2.7 and 2.8) can provide an opportunity to develop a general account of how political economic institutions and actors collaborate to control and shape the authenticity of urban places. Last but not least, the selected urban territories represent recent globalization and global city-making discourses as well as major debates in both urban heritage conservation and urban redevelopment, enabling an analysis of social, economic and political values and meanings created and contested in the decision-making processes. Heritage-led regeneration outcomes can thus be assessed in detail, enabling more forward mapping of the picture of authenticity on the urban scale.
Fig. 2.7 Nihonbashi in its present condition (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018)
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Fig. 2.8 Marunouchi in its present condition (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018)
Notes 1. 東京文化資源区 (Tokyo Bunka Shigenku). See also Tokyo Cultural Resources Alliances, Japanese, http://tohbun.jp/. Accessed 1 January 2017. 2. Silver Professor and Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Literatures at New York University. 3. The concept of the “contact zone” has been widely adopted as a general term for places where two or more cultures blend, therefore the use of the concept is not limited to postcolonialism. See http://www.oxfordref erence.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095634533. Accessed 31 July 2016. 4. Akagawa (2015, p. 77). 5. Macdonald and Cheong (2014, p. 6). 6. Houbart (2014, p. 228). 7. According to Houbart (2014), “all authors agree on the fact that the main innovation of the Venice Charter in terms of preservation doctrine is the renouncement of the sole concept of monument in favor of a broader approach, including urban or rural settings as well as minor architecture with cultural significance,” as expressed in its Article 1.
8. The Operational Guidelines is a flexible working document which has been revised more than 12 times over the past 40 years. See also Labadi (2013). 9. Article 11 of the Venice Charter calls for respect for the valid contributions of all periods. 10. Sprinkle (2014, p. 45). 11. Sprinkle (2014, pp. 56–62). 12. These three attributes returned in the 1994 Nara Document. 13. Article 13 of the Nara Document on Authenticity. See Larsen (1995). 14. See also Song (2016).
References Akagawa, Natsuko. 2015. Heritage Conservation and Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy: Heritage, National Identity and National Interest. London: Routledge. Amemiya, Katsuya, and Fumihiko Seta. 2015. Research on Conservation and Regeneration for the Historical Context of the Region by Urban Developments’ Coordination and Role of Area Management Activities—Case study on Nihonbashi Muromachi-Higashi project and Honcho-2chome project (in Japanese). Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan 50 (3): 1252–1257. The City Planning Institute of Japan. Ashworth, Gregory. 2012. Preservation, Conservation and Heritage: Approaches to the Past in the Present through the Built Environment. Asian Anthropology 10 (1): 1–18. Cameron, Christina. 2008. From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage Committee and Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 39 (2/3): 19–24. The Association for Preservation Technology International. English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. UK: English Heritage. Harvey, David. 2002. The Art of Rent: Globalization, Monopoly and the Commodification of Culture. Socialist Register 2002: 93–110. Heynen, Hilde. 2006. Questioning Authenticity. National Identities 8 (3): 287– 300. Houbart, Claudine. 2014. Deconstructing a Doctrinal Monument: Raymond M. Lemaire (1921–1997) and the Revisions of the Venice Charter. Change
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Over Time 4 (2) (Fall): 218–243, Special Issue: The Venice Charter at Fifty, 1964–2014. University of Pennsylvania Press. ICOMOS. 1987. Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (The Washington Charter 1987). ICOMOS. Igarashi, Akio. 2014. Global City Tokyo ni Okeru Toshikukan no Saihen to Shimin Sankaku (in Japanese). In Saisei suru Toshikukan to Shimin Sankaku, ed. Tajima Kayo et al., 12–43. Tokyo: Cuon. Jokilehto, Jukka. 1998. The Context of the Venice Charter (1964). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2 (2): 229–233. Kono, Toshiyuki. 2014. Authenticity: Principles and Notions. Change Over Time 4 (2) (Fall): 436–460. Special Issue: The Venice Charter at Fifty, 1964–2014. University of Pennsylvania Press. Labadi, Sophia. 2013. UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-Based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Larsen, Knut Einar. ed. 1995. Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Lowenthal, David. 2015. The Past is a Foreign Country—Revisited . New York: Cambridge University Press. Macdonald, Susan, and Caroline Cheong. 2014. Research Report: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships and the Third Sector in Conserving Heritage Buildings, Sites, and Historic Urban Areas. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute. Matsuhashi, Tatsuya. 2012. Historical Sociology of Modern Tokyo (in Japanese). Tokyo: Minervashobo. National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin—How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. US Department of Interior. Nomura, Kazunori. 2014. The Historic Building Which is Reborn (in Japanese). Tokyo: Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun. Oxford Reference. A Dictionary of Critical Theory. Contact Zone, English, http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.201108030956 34533. Accessed 31 July 2016. Pendlebury, John. 2002. Conservation and Regeneration: Complementary or Conflicting Processes? The Case of Grainger Town, Newcastle upon Tyne. Planning Practice & Research 17 (2): 145–158. Pendlebury, John, Short Michael, and While Aidan. 2009. Urban World Heritage Sites and the Problem of Authenticity. Cities 26 (6): 349–358.
Plevoets, Bie, and Koenraad Van Cleempoel. 2011. Assessing Authenticity of Nineteenth-Century Shopping Passages. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1 (2): 135–156. Pratt, Mary Louise. 1991. Arts of the Contact Zone. Modern Language Association, 33–40. Shinkenchiku-sha. 2015. Tokyo 150 Project: Urban Diversity Management (English & Japanese), Special Issue, June 2015. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Song, Jiewon. 2016. The Three Levels of Authenticity in Heritage Conservation-based Urban Regeneration: Recasting the Conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building. Journal of Architecture and Planning 81 (727) (September): 1981–1990. Architectural Institute of Japan. ———. 2017. The Origin and Evolution of Urban Heritage Conservation in the Specified Block System in Tokyo. Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan 52 (2) (October): 135–144. The City Planning Institute of Japan. Sprinkle, John. 2014. Crafting Preservation Criteria: The National Register of Historic Places and American Historic Preservation. New York: Routledge. Stovel, Herb. 1995a. Working Towards the Nara Document. In Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, ed. Knut Einar Larsen, xxxiii–xxxvi. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS. ———. 1995b. Considerations in Framing the Authenticity Question for Conservation. In Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, ed. Knut Einar Larsen, 393–398. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS. ———. 2007. Effective Use of Authenticity and Integrity as World Heritage Qualifying Conditions. City & Time 2: 3 (2007): 21–36. ———. 2008. Origins and Influence of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 39 (2/3): 9–17. The Association for Preservation Technology International. Tahara, Yukio, Masahito Shimizu and Shimizu Satomi. 2013. Design Process for the Restoration Work of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building: Policy for the Intervention in Conservation and Utilization of Important Cultural Property (in Japanese). AIJ Journal of Technology Design 19 (43) (October): 1209–1214. Architectural Institute of Japan. Tanaka, Shigeyoshi. 2005. Toshizukuri to Kokyosei (in Japanese). In Toshishakai to Risk, ed. Hiro-o Fujita and Masaki Urano, 129–172. Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing. Toshishuppan. 2016. Tokyo Keikaku Chizu 2020 to, Sono Sakihe (in Japanese), Special Feature. Tokyojin (377) (October). Tokyo: Toshishuppan.
2 Heritage-Led Regeneration: Global-National-Urban Interactions
Van Balen, Koenraad. 2008. The Nara Grid: An Evaluation Scheme Based on the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 39 (2/3): 39–45. The Association for Preservation Technology International. Van Oers, Ron. 2010. Managing Cities and the Historic Urban Landscape Initiative—An Introduction. In World Heritage Papers 27: Managing Historic Cities, ed. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 7–17. Veldpaus, Loes, and Roders Pereira. 2014. Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta. Change Over Time 4 (2) (Fall): 244–263. Special Issue: The Venice Charter at Fifty 1964–2014. University of Pennsylvania Press.
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
Japanese heritage legislation has existed for more than a century largely within the national system. The establishment of the Japanese National Committee of ICOMOS in 1980 and the ratification of the World Heritage Convention by the Japanese government in 1992 may be seen as marking Japan’s official entry into international heritage practices. The 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity provided an official opportunity for the government of Japan and Japanese heritage experts to enter the international cultural heritage discourse. Despite the long history of heritage law and the growing influence of Japan’s heritage diplomacy on the global heritage sphere in recent years, neither Japanese nor nonJapanese scholars have undertaken a comprehensive exploration deep inside the concept and practice of urban heritage conservation and their evolution.1 There is also reluctance in Japan to challenge or to question the status quo. In one respect, this may reflect the fact that most of the conservation works have been carried out by the government, whose branches operate within a rigid bureaucracy in which interdepartmental communication is very poor and change is often very difficult to effect. Another reason, however, could be the lack of any discussion in Japan that links © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_3
conservation policy, national identity, and historical background to the practice of Japanese cultural heritage. (Akagawa 2015, p. 12)
Under this national system, cultural heritage is defined and largely divided into six categories: tangible cultural properties; intangible cultural properties; folk cultural properties; monuments; cultural landscapes; and groups of traditional buildings (as of 2016). Urban heritage is considered “structures” and is grouped with fine arts and applied crafts under the umbrella of tangible cultural properties. More precisely, traditional and modern built heritage properties co-exist under the single term “structures”.2 Larsen (1994) states that in Japan, wood is the most widely used building material and wooden structures are strongly associated with traditional methods, especially before the Meiji Restoration (Meiji Ishin, 明治維新) of 1868. For example, 90% of the nearly 3500 built heritage properties designated Important Cultural Properties (Juyo Bunkazai, 重 要文化財) were wooden structures (as of 31 March 1992).3 After the turn of the century, buildings and structures made of wood still made up approximately 71% of built heritage properties designated Important Cultural Properties (as of 1 November 2016).4 These nationally designated heritage properties largely comprise shrines, temples and castles. Ideas and techniques around wood have thus played a significant role in generating heritage concepts and practices in Japan. Similarly, much of the study of Japanese built heritage conservation remains limited to traditional wooden structures and their appearance as historic cultural landscape. As regards modernizing the nation-state, Japan was strongly influenced by the Western powers from the late Edo period (1853) to the early Showa period (1933). The Meiji era (Meiji Jidai, 明治時代, 1868– 1912) falls within this period. At the end of the nineteenth century, Japan was exposed to European value concepts and heritage conservation theories, whilst its heritage practices remained deeply rooted in wood and related organic material specifications (Larsen 1994).5 It was seen that Japan drew from and imitated European heritage conservation approaches but allowed time for the European methods to transform and fit into the Japanese cultural context. This seems to have resulted in two
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
different cultural phenomena. First, the age-old traditions of craftsmanship and technical knowledge were maintained. Second, modern scientific conservation methods supplemented the traditional; for instance, synthetic resin was used to prolong the life of traditional materials (though only on special occasions) and the use of metal, for example in turnbuckles, was accepted to reinforce timber structures to conserve the original design (Larsen 1994).6 In this way, traditional skills and techniques for wooden structures remained strong and laid a solid foundation for the built heritage conservation movement. During the Meiji era, Japan opened a door to the outside world, breaking the isolation policy that had been laid down in the late Edo period. The opening of diplomatic relations with Europe and the United States enabled Japanese intellectuals to catch up with their counterparts, and adopt their culture and systems to improve Japan’s reputation as a modern state. This exposure to Europe and the US was not limited to the import of Western thought but also involved their technologies. In particular, the Japanese government put enormous effort into learning Western construction methods by inviting foreign architects and construction engineers. The national government commissioned foreign professionals to erect Western-style architecture which led to a reform of the Japanese architectural style. To a certain extent, the Meiji period was a time of social and cultural dynamics between traditional and modern architecture (Sekino and Kikuchi 1980).7 Simultaneously, increasing exposure to Western culture in addition to rising concerns over how to define Japan’s national identity and project nation building in the new Meiji government triggered the establishment of a heritage conservation policy. The government therefore enacted laws on the conservation of arts and monuments in order to present and protect properties that the authorities believed constituted Japan’s national culture (Akagawa 2015).8 In 1871, the first national preservation law to come out of the early modernization process was passed, the Edict for the Preservation of Antiquities and Old Items (Kokikyubutsu Hozonkata, 古器旧物保存 方). This first piece of national heritage legislation did not, however, specifically refer to buildings and structures (Nishimura 2004).9 The Law for the Preservation of Old Shrines and Temples (Koshaji Hozonho, 古社
寺保存法), enacted in 1897, can be regarded as the first national system for built heritage protection. The main purpose of the 1897 law was to safeguard ancient monuments such as traditional wooden shrines and temples from imminent deterioration and the threat of demolition by neglect because of the promotion of European culture and the exclusion of Buddhism.10 The law, which was designed not only to safeguard religious structures but also to protect religious organizations and systems (Nishimura 1984), became the only regulatory framework available to heritage conservation until 1919. As its name suggests, it inevitably laid a narrow but solid foundation for shaping heritage conservation which became the backbone of conservation systems beyond traditional wooden structures in later years. There are only a handful of studies examining conservation concepts pertaining to urban heritage before World War II, when urban heritage was still considered neither historical nor contemporary. Even so, Japanese scholars disagree about when and how the conservation of urban heritage actually took its place in the heritage legislation. Some scholars argue that the 1897 law is the origin of urban heritage conservation, highlighting that it gave national protection to buildings for the first time, even though it only provided a small amount of funds for building repairs. Others point out that urban heritage still did not come under the umbrella of national protection even when the new comprehensive heritage legislation known as the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties (Bunkazai Hogoho, 文化財保護法) was enacted in 1950. Shimizu (2013) describes how the overall heritage conservation framework, including the notion of built heritage, was set up during the Meiji era.11 While Western influence foreshadowed the traditional built heritage and its setting that instigated the heritage legislation, the Meiji era was also the point in time that urban heritage was born. Against this background, urban heritage cannot be discussed without mentioning the socio-political context of the Meiji era, which was one of the most tumultuous periods in Japan’s history: a time of rapid modernization, dramatic changes in political, social and economic institutions, and a period of challenges from the West. Unlike many other Asian countries, Japan was not colonized by Western powers so there was neither a colonial power nor ‘an expression of a colonizer’s interests’ in
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
the process of modernization (Akagawa 2015).12 Ironically, awareness of urban heritage and the establishment of heritage legislation are intertwined with the socio-political context of the Meiji era. Taking these circumstances into account, this chapter attempts to dig into the integration process of urban heritage with institutions and systems at national level, which in turn helps reveal the national intentions and motives determining urban heritage conservation in Tokyo.
Perceiving Urban Heritage
Sparked off by the Meiji Restoration, the Meiji era lasted for about 45 years between 1868 and 1912, a period when Japan was basking in its triumph over Russia (1904–1905) and the expansion of its empire before the pressures of World War I (1914–1918), the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 and the country’s defeat in World War II (1939–1945), all of which were yet to come. The victory over the European powers significantly affected the Meiji era, which was physically founded on the centre of Tokyo, in the context of modern and Western-style architecture. The era bridged and/or represented a compromise between two forms: one used traditional building materials such as wood, while the other used Western materials such as brick, stone, glass, steel and reinforced concrete. In moving from wood to brick and stone construction, the Meiji era epitomizes the end point of the traditional architectural styles and techniques that have been absorbed into the category of intangible cultural heritage (Sekino 1963). The era was the transition period before the move to industrialization and the raising of the national stature in the world of global politics in the name of Imperial Japan. At the same time, it was during this turmoil that the concept and actions of urban heritage conservation emerged, sandwiched between tradition and modernity. Western-style architectural design of the Meiji period resembles nineteenth-century European architecture, which itself was inspired by flourishing architectural styles from the European past. Each architectural style depicts its native state, territory, history, culture and tradition, which have evolved over a long period of time. Japanese traditional architecture also has its own logic, evolved from native factors cultivated over
the course of time. Fujimori (1993) maintains that use is prioritized over style in Japanese traditional architecture. Craftsmen bring different uses together and combine them to shape a single building; therefore, style comes in last. A single building may be constituted of different architectural styles, so there was no single architecture style to provide inspiration from the past in Japan. In contrast, style is prioritized over use in European architecture. Architects tend not to include different architectural styles in a single building, so that a single building is built in a single dominant architectural style, enabling European architects to adopt styles from the past. This difference in practice between Japan and Europe indicates that it is possible to revive old structures with new uses in Europe, while there is no such concept of re-purposing old buildings in Japan. Consequently, when old structures are no longer functional, they are programmed for demolition.13 It is notable that Western-style buildings of the Meiji era not only mirrored the European architecture style, but also attempted to marry two different sets of cultures in a single structure. It is out of this marriage that urban heritage conservation concepts and practices have grown. The Meiji period is a significant turning point in the history of Japan; the mixing together of imitation, confusion, and trial and error not only in science and technology but also in culture and institutions also affected the shaping of the Meiji urban heritage. The boundaries are far from clear-cut; rather there is a double structure of Japanese and Western styles, and in some cases the two styles are literally intermingled. Western-style structures are largely represented in public spaces, while Japanese traditional structures tended to appear in private spaces, mainly because Western-style modern buildings were introduced through government-led projects, such as government office buildings, schools, and factories (Kikuchi 1980). This government initiative started in Tokyo and gradually spread to other regions and cities throughout Japan. As a result, many of the Meiji buildings regarded as urban heritage are public buildings. Unexpectedly, however, Japanese cities and their urban heritage were struck by a series of natural and manmade disasters. In 1923, the Great Kanto earthquake hit cities in Kanto region including Tokyo. World War II had a devastating impact on the urban built environment, and urban
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
heritage was no exception. When Japan entered the war, the image of the Meiji era, known for cultural dynamics and hybridity, was suddenly reversed. Air raids destroyed not only the Meiji urban heritage in Tokyo but also other aesthetically and historically significant buildings and when Japan lost the war, Meiji history and heritage were seen as war criminals deeply involved in the national disgrace. Meiji urban heritage, far from being appreciated, was neglected and demolished (Taniguchi and Futagawa 1976).14 Against this background, two complicated yet paradoxical sociopolitical conditions pertain to urban heritage created in the Meiji era. First, the development of science and technology contributed to establishing the idea of cultural heritage, but it was limited to old shrines and temples. While Western-style Meiji architecture is a sign of modernity, it is not yet perceived as Japanese cultural heritage by Japanese people. Second, Meiji architecture is a symbol not only of Westernization but of a strong modern state. In the post-Meiji era, the earthquake and World War II stimulated fast-track urban redevelopment; shattered cities were improved by upgrading the functions of urban areas and the built environment. The government and the private sector worked together to promote small- and large-scale land development projects, leading to skyrocketing land prices and demanding new modern construction techniques. The destructive power of the post-war urban renewal was enormous and rapid. Demolition of urban heritage that had survived the war was justified in the name of improving urban performance (Iida 2007).
Anchoring into the Conventional System
During the Meiji period, the dominant ideas of heritage and approaches to conservation were largely constituted of antiquities, shrines and temples. It was a while before official intervention by government agencies in the conservation of urban heritage led to the shaping of urban heritage conservation concepts and tools outside of the heritage
system. There were three principal factors promoting heritage legislation and administration. First, the combination of the anti-Buddhist movement and the Europeanization policy resulted in the destruction of shrines and temples. The 1897 Heritage Law was intended to protect traditional wooden structures from these socio-political forces. Second, victory in the Russo-Japanese war enhanced Japan’s national strength and increased patriotic spirits, leading Japanese society to engage their sense of national pride with the conservation of shrines and temples. Third, World War II caused the destruction of built heritage and an illicit trade in artistic objects. The speed of heritage destruction exceeded that of legal protection.15 A huge conservation alert in 1949 added to the growing attention to heritage and adverse impacts on heritage conservation: an accidental fire damaged wall paintings in the Kondo of Horyuji (法隆 寺金堂), a Buddhist temple in Nara Prefecture (奈良). The following year, the House and Senate legislated for a new integrated legal system for cultural heritage protection similar to European heritage systems such as those of Britain and France, resulting in the enactment of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties in 1950 (Takahashi 1950). This law embedded urban heritage in the existing national system and laid the foundations for the institutional approaches to urban heritage conservation that will be discussed in the following section.
3.2.1 Modernizing Heritage Protection After the Horyuji temple fire of 1949, public-sector actors associated with heritage conservation sought to increase the national heritage budget. The fire triggered a strong sentiment for the nation’s cultural heritage in both the national government and the people of Japan, although it was not the only reason for the 1950 Heritage Law.16 Japan had undergone a process of democratization with the ending of World War II, and the ensuing major socio-political reforms of state and local institutions and systems included cultural heritage administration.17 The 1950 Heritage Law was implemented during the period of occupation by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers/General Headquarters (SCAP/GHQ) (1945–1952), which undertook national
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
reconstruction as an attempt to re-engineer Japan’s national regulatory framework. Under the administration of the SCAP/GHQ, the national government was obliged to eliminate politically sensitive agendas such as ultra-nationalism, militarism and imperialism. Against this background, the 1950 Heritage Law provided a means of breaking the chain between religious organizations and the Emperor (Akagawa 2015).18 Three existing heritage laws, the National Treasures Preservation Law (Kokuho Hozonho, 国宝保存法), the Historical Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty, and Natural Monuments Preservation Law (Shiseki Meisho Tennen Kinenbutsu Hozonho, 史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法) and the Law Regarding the Preservation of Important Works of Fine Arts (Juyo Bijyutsuhinto no Hozon ni Kansuru Horitsu, 重要美術品等ノ保存ニ関スル法律), were consolidated into the single 1950 Heritage Law, and the previous regulations abolished (Suzuki 1998). The main achievements of the 1950 Heritage Law can be summarized as follows. First, it officially adopted the term “cultural property” (Bunkazai , 文化財), and clarified the purpose and philosophy of heritage protection. Second, it brought together tangible cultural heritage, intangible cultural heritage and natural heritage by consolidating three individual pieces of heritage legislation. Third, it established an independent administrative body specific to cultural heritage administration called the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Properties. Fourth, it helped establish two different levels of national heritage designation for masterpieces—National Treasure and Important Cultural Property—in response to post-war fiscal constraints. Fifth, it afforded scientific methods to the conservation of national heritage, while expanding the category of conservation subsidies in particular, nationally designated heritages other than shrines and temples. Sixth, the Law provided coordination between cultural heritage conservation and the property right. Lastly, it opened the door for local governments to undertake the designation of local heritage assets (The Agency for Cultural Affairs 2001), although the national government continued to play a central role in heritage administration due to the shortage of financial resources.19
3.2.2 Caretaker In the same year as the enactment of the 1950 Heritage Law, the Ministry of Education approved the Government Organization Act, which eventually resulted in the establishment of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Properties (Bunkazai Hogo Iinkai, 文化財保護委 員会) (hereafter, the Committee) as an external bureau of the Ministry and an official caretaker for the conservation and designation of national heritage assets. The primary reason for establishing the Committee was to create an integrated approach to heritage conservation and to foster heritage administration. At the time, there were 1600 built heritage properties designated as national cultural properties (Inumaru 1950).20 The Committee’s first task was to re-investigate the nationwide inventory of Important Cultural Properties based on the definition of cultural heritage, in particular nationally designated heritage properties (Takahashi 1950). Political neutrality was assured through the separation of politics and heritage administration. The Committee was not directly supervised by the Ministry and the Minister could only provide basic advice. The new agency was designed to operate under the committee system to secure the independence, specialty and consistency of cultural heritage administration. Although the committee system was borrowed from the United States administrative system, it did not work well due to cultural differences in the public administration of the two countries. The Committee was tasked with implementing the 1950 Heritage Law until 1968 when it was consolidated into the Agency for Cultural Affairs (Bunkacho, 文化庁) through institutional reforms, putting an end to the administrative committee system on cultural protection (Nishimura 2004; Nakamura 1999; Inumaru 1950).21
3.2.3 Regulatory Capacity The 1950 Heritage Law and the Committee placed significant emphasis on the utilization of heritage properties under legal protection, while promoting their conservation. Until recently, two different approaches applied to utilization and conservation. Their goals also embodied the
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
idea of environmental conservation despite the fact that the term did not refer to urban scale but was limited to architectural scale. The idea of environmental conservation also included public access to historic buildings, linking back to the idea of utilization (Takahashi 1950). Under the Government Organization Act, the Committee was composed of one chairman and five expert members and had a number of subgroups. A group of experts, called the secretariat, was responsible for the overall administrative work of three departments: the department for buildings/structures (Kenzobutsu, 建造物), at that time largely dominated by shrines, temples and castles; the Monuments and Sites department (Kinenbutsu, 記念物); and the Fine Arts and Crafts department (Bijutsukogeihin, 美術工芸品). The Committee also engaged with three large external groups, the Expert Council for Cultural Properties, the National Museum (Tokyo, Kyoto and Nara) and the National Research Institute of Cultural Properties (Tokyo and Nara). The Expert Council for Cultural Properties was a decision-making board that engaged with all three sectors as well as archaeological materials and intangible heritage.22 The Buildings/Structures department was responsible for surveys, repairs, management and experimentation, the most important of which was repairs. However, their role was strictly supervisory and work specifications were exactly same as those of the Fine Arts and Crafts department (Inumaru 1950).23 In other words, the rationale for fine arts and crafts was the same as that for traditional buildings and structures, so modern built heritage was destined to be bound up with traditional heritage properties in a single category of buildings/structures in the national system. The Committee distinguished management and repairs in their built heritage conservation policy. Particularly with repairs, it provided a partial subsidy from national and regional government budgets (60–80% of total cost) to a property owner to undertake necessary work, on the condition that the Committee would take control of the management and repair. The amount of the conservation subsidy was based on the actual expenses incurred by property owners and/or regional organizations rather than the actual damage to and values of heritage properties.24 Inumaru (1950) explains that this tendency was particularly prevalent in
post-war Japan. Rather than directly executing management or repair, the Committee reviewed changes of conditions and/or design and granted permits.25 The Committee concentrated largely on paperwork, acting as coordinator between property owners, experts and regional authorities, including the Board of Education, due to the limited number of skilled experts who were able to oversee the conservation of national heritage properties on site.26
3.2.4 Urban Heritage Under Legal Protection By 1955, there were 2261 nationally designated buildings and structures (National Treasures 238; Important Cultural Properties 2023), mainly owned by the state, public and religious organizations. The record indicates that seven of the Important Cultural Properties were built during the Meiji era, five of them identified as religious properties in which pagodas and gates are made of wood. Urban heritage was not yet included in the protection provided under the 1950 Heritage Law.27 Between 1955 and 1965, fourteen additional urban heritage properties constructed from wood and stone were designated Important Cultural Properties (industrial 1, cultural 1, school 3, religious 4, government 1, housing 4). While the National Treasure list included a wooden urban heritage structure from the early Meiji era, there were no stone-built urban heritage structures. The Committee emphasized urban monuments and attempted to shape the cultural heritage values of modern structures. In particular, there was a sensitivity towards urban heritage properties in danger due to the urban destruction of World War II and the fast-paced urban land development in post-war Japan.28 At the same time, the urban heritage of the Meiji period was more than 100 years old, and properties faced challenges of functional obsolescence and adaptability. Although the obsolescence was not specific to urban heritage properties, it applied particularly where there was a threat of demolition due to urban redevelopment pressure, which tended to problematize the lack of economic and operational feasibility of urban heritage.29 Seeking to overcome economic issues, the Committee started considering façade conservation in the style of the French heritage practice known as the landscape approach, which allowed property owners
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
to replace the interior of their properties, while the exterior was seen as a public good. In France, there was a general consensus that the “use” of a property is something that belongs to its owner, whilst the “aesthetics” of a building’s exterior are owned by and shared with the public (Sekino 1958). Although the Committee perceived that façade conservation would enhance the conservation of townscapes, they did not put it into practice immediately. The early institutional approach to urban heritage under the 1950 Heritage Law was very much based on the conventional system that grew out of repair practices for shrines, temples and castles. The concept of urban heritage was yet to gain ground not only in society in general but even among experts. Fifteen years on from the enactment of the 1950 Law, the Committee acknowledged the narrowness of its applicability to designated heritage properties, and their owners and site managers. While institutional heritage definitions and practices were confined to antiquities, along with traditional wooden structures, the Committee sought to advocate an integrated approach to heritage conservation, adopting the ideas of the environment and immediate surroundings of heritage properties. In view of rapid urbanization and development, the Committee called for different legal systems to be integrated, in particular the City Planning Law (Toshi Keikaku Ho, 都市計画法), the Building Standards Law (Kenchiku Kijun Ho, 建築基準法) and the City Parks Law (Toshi Koen Ho, 都市公園法), to solve urban and economic issues that often adversely impacted on urban heritage properties. Meanwhile, the Committee was looking at relocation and reconstruction, including an open-air museum, as a last resort to save urban heritage from unavoidable adverse impacts.30 Nevertheless, the first open-air museum specific to urban heritage opened in 1965 outside the realm of government control and heritage administration.
Urban Heritage Enshrined
There are currently a number of open-air museums throughout Japan. Early examples include Sankei Garden (Sankeien, 三溪園, 1906) in Yokohama (横浜), the Open-air Museum of Old Japanese Farm Houses
(Nihon Minka Shuraku Hakubutsukan, 日本民家集落博物館, 1960) in Osaka (大阪) and the Meiji-Mura Museum (Hakubutsukan Meijimura, 博物館明治村, 1965) in Inuyama (犬山). The Meiji-Mura Museum (hereafter the Museum) opened as a private-sector museum fifteen years after the establishment of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Properties and the enactment of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. It was the first open-air museum dedicated to urban heritage and related artefacts from the Meiji era and more importantly, the first attempt to undertake urban heritage conservation and management beyond repairs. Although it is a private sector-driven cultural institution, in many ways it is far from making a profit. In spite of its inclusiveness, the 1950 Heritage Law did not guarantee the protection of urban heritage, particularly Meiji-era structures. The rationale of the law and its executive agency, the Committee, was based on the conventional system of shrines, temples and castles. No other legal instruments were available for the conservation of urban heritage. Japanese scholars had only started investigating the inventory of urban heritage around 1955, but urban development in the post-war era was proceeding faster than heritage designation and conservation efforts. The architect Yoshiro Taniguchi witnessed the death and life of urban heritage in the form of the demolition of the Rokumeikan (鹿鳴館) in 1940, and this was a turning point in his attitude towards Meiji urban heritage. He wanted the Rokumeikan to be saved and used as a museum to display the culture and history of the Meiji era (Tanikawa 1976).31 He regretted the fact that the Rokumeikan was demolished unnoticed, and its demolition was not even discussed. It was this loss that motivated him to pursue the conservation of Meiji-era urban heritage, not just as physical fabric, but as a means of exhibiting Meiji culture. Taniguchi’s vision became a concrete plan after the end of World War II (Taniguchi and Kikuchi 1966). In 1961, he set about implementing his vision without any support from state agencies. The Museum was very much an individual attempt to put urban heritage conservation into action. Taniguchi and his friend from high school days Moto-o Tsuchikawa, then vice-chairman of Nagoya Railroad Company, jointly established an authorized foundation for the Museum in 1962. The first two museum collections were the Kyoto city tram—the first tram in Japan
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
(1895)—and Tomatsu House (Kyu Tomatsu-ke Jutaku, 旧東松家住 宅),32 a three-storey traditional wooden house (1901).33 The Museum became an officially authorized institution in 1964 and with a total area of 0.5 km2 it finally opened to the public as the Museum Meiji-Mura the following year.34 It had taken twenty-five years from the demolition of the Rokumeikan for the conservation of urban heritage to be put into practice. The Museum undoubtedly contributed to laying the foundations of urban heritage conservation in Japan with the three curatorial principles described in the following sections.
3.3.1 Three Curatorial Principles 22.214.171.124 Location Taniguchi’s vision for the Museum was based on the Shosoin Repository of the temple Todaiji (東大寺正倉院) in the city of Nara, a treasure house built around CE 756 in traditional timber-frame style. The site contains a group of temple buildings in a vast and quiet natural environment (Taniguchi and Futagawa 1976).35 With urban areas exposed to increasing development that could impact adversely on the Museum environment, Taniguchi did not consider metropolitan areas suitable candidate sites. His three requirements for the Museum location were: a vast area of land; distance from development pressures; and natural surroundings that would help protect heritage properties from manmade disasters such as fire.36 He considered that a medium-sized city would be an ideal location. Nagoya Railroad, supported by Tsuchikawa, provided land in Inuyama city in Aichi Prefecture (愛知) which met Taniguchi’s ground rules.
126.96.36.199 Collections Care and Management The Museum was responsible for collecting and managing all kinds of historical materials associated with the Meiji period in order to promote social education grounded on the Meiji spirit, and Meiji-era urban heritage played a central role as a historic resource in the care
and management of the Museum collections. Properties due for demolition or given up by their owners were selected (Taniguchi and Kikuchi 1966). The collections care and management principles can be summarized as relocate, collect and restore and the guidelines strictly prohibited reconstruction of heritage properties without relocation. The urban heritage collections were not strictly limited to buildings built during the Meiji period but also included those which disappeared in this period. The Museum’s in-house specialist team plays a critical role not only in decision-making processes, but also in developing new conservation techniques and training craftsmen.37 Taniguchi had particularly emphasized the development of new conservation techniques, including repair techniques specific to urban heritage, because he recognized that the existing conservation framework for historic buildings was largely based on traditional timber-frame structures. He was aware that urban heritage properties are made of various kinds of materials including wood, stone, brick and steel. It is not unusual for multiple types of material to coexist within a single urban heritage property—a major difference from traditional timber-frame buildings and structures,38 which is why the collections care and management principles were directly linked to the Museum’s two pillars of conservation, relocation and restoration.39
188.8.131.52 Relocation and Restoration Since the Museum aims to rescue properties threatened with demolition, relocation is an inevitable choice. Relocation as a conservation method is not specific to urban heritage but also occurs with traditional wooden buildings. A series of prior works such as documentation and intensive architectural survey are required before heritage properties can be dismantled. It is also a very expensive treatment, and the Nagoya Railroad has played an important role in providing financial support for the relocation of heritage properties. Taniguchi defined four categories of conservation in reference to traditional wooden heritage practice: on-site preservation; off-site preservation; design-oriented preservation; and partial preservation. The first
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
two categories in particular were regarded as fundamental to conservation practice in line with the institutional goals of the Museum. Although off-site preservation, in other words relocation, detaches a property from its context and setting, it was a way of mitigating the adverse effects of enforced demolition on heritage properties, so relocation was added to the Museum’s conservation principles as an emergency treatment for urban heritage.40 In the delivery of urban heritage conservation, restoration and relocation are not two separate treatments, rather they work together.41 Under the Museum’s conservation principles, restoration refers to the design-oriented preservation of either the exterior or interior of heritage properties. Considering the interplay of a building’s design with its structure, material and use, Taniguchi believed that when these four elements cannot be retained together, design-oriented preservation is an alternative approach. The Museum’s conservation principles allowed later additions and repairs to be removed prior to undertaking restoration work on heritage properties that were to be relocated, since alterations and additions could destroy their original design and use. Since the Museum’s objective was to showcase the living history of the Meiji era, the original state and use of urban heritage properties were perceived as critical for keeping heritage alive (Taniguchi and Kikuchi 1966). When the Museum celebrated its first anniversary, its collection included sixteen modern heritage buildings that were either completely relocated or scheduled to be relocated. The Museum’s internal guidelines stated that the buildings and structures to be relocated should be handled with care as if they were nationally designated heritage properties (Taniguchi and Kikuchi 1966). By the year 1965, two urban heritage properties in the Museum’s collections had become nationally designated heritage properties, that is, Important Cultural Properties.42 The first urban heritage conservation case in the Museum, and the first modern masonry heritage property to be dismantled and relocated in Japan, was the central post office building, originally built as a telephone exchange, in Sapporo (札幌) city, Hokkaido (北海道) (Fig. 3.1). The building was the first recorded case of relocation, with conservation work beginning in 1962 and completed in 1965 (Ichikawa and
Fig. 3.1 Former Sapporo city central post office building (Photographed by the author, 17 October 2016)
Ito 1966). Japanese practitioners had not previously had any opportunity to engage with the conservation of stone masonry buildings.43 The two-storey Western-style stone building was erected in 1898 but was threatened with demolition due to post-war urban reconstruction in Sapporo in the early 1960s. It was dismantled and relocated to the Museum, where it was reconstructed and restored back to its original 1898 state with its original name.44 Once destined to be turned into a pigsty, the post office building was designated a national Important Cultural Property in 1968.45 The collaboration and partnership between individuals and the private company established by the Museum played a vital role in saving and archiving urban heritage properties amid increasing urban development pressures in post-war Japan. Although its curatorial process inevitably transformed urban heritage into a void object by disengaging it from its true meaning, function and setting, the Museum can certainly be seen as a cultural movement to preserve urban and cultural histories at a time when urban heritage properties were swiftly vanishing, in exchange for the nation-state’s rapid economic growth (Noda 1974).46
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
A Tug of War: Public Power Versus Private Power
As the tension between heritage conservation and the increasing forces of modern urban transformation and urban economic demands rose in post-war Japan, two controversial cases of conservation of urban heritage arose.47 Both were corporately owned heritage properties located in the centre of Tokyo: the Mitsubishi Ichigokan from the Meiji (1868– 1912) era and the Imperial Hotel from the Taisho (1912–1926) era. Although they represent different historical periods, the Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the Imperial Hotel have several factors in common: both are iconic symbols of Tokyo, brick structures, and were designed by foreign architects (Fig. 3.2).48 The year 1968 is significant in the history of urban heritage conservation—an attention-grabbing opportunity for the foundations for overall urban heritage inventory and management to be laid. It was three years after the opening of the Museum, but more importantly, it was the Meiji centennial—a celebration of the imperial period. The Architectural Institute of Japan established a subcommittee in 1962 to create an inventory of Meiji-era urban heritage. Yet despite this positive mood, 1968 was the year when the two aforementioned urban landmarks were lost. These demolition cases prompted experts and practitioners to compile an inventory of urban heritage properties across Japan covering three periods in the modern history of Japan—from the Meiji era through the Taisho era to the Showa era. This inventory of modern architecture, comprising 600 properties, was published in 1980.49
3.4.1 Freeze or Demolish The Mitsubishi Ichigokan (三菱一号館), also known as the Higashi Kyugokan (東9号館),50 was erected by Mitsubishi zaibatsu in 1894 (Fig. 3.3). This three-storey brick-with-stone-trim Queen Anne-style office building with basement was designed by British architect Josiah Conder, who is also known for designing the Rokumeikan. It was built
Fig. 3.2 Overview of the battleground in the present setting (Created by the author based on Google Maps)
in Mitsubishi Field, the area of Marunouchi where modern and genuine red-brick buildings of the Meiji era were developed by a single business entity. While it was the first modern office building built in Japan, the Mitsubishi Ichigokan (hereafter, the Ichigokan) also marked the beginning of modern urban planning with the development of the first office
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
Fig. 3.3 Mitsubishi Ichigokan in 1894 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 122])
district in Japan. The Ichigokan, having survived the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 and the air raids of 1945, was clearly an irreplaceable marker of the shaping of modern Tokyo. The conflict between the two camps—heritage conservation and urban development—was inflamed when Mitsubishi released its Marunouchi Comprehensive Development 10-Year Plan51 in 1959. One of the major reasons for this plan was that red-brick buildings were regarded as obsolete. Under the plan, traffic lanes were widened from 13 m to 21 m, the building height was raised from 15 m to 31 m, and the size of building blocks was increased.52 With this plan, the demolition of the Ichigokan seemed certain. In 1960, the Architectural Institute of Japan presented a list of three eligible Meiji urban heritage properties in central Tokyo to the Ministry of Education: the Bank of Japan,53 the Akasaka Palace54 and the Ichigokan. While the first two were state owned and directly epitomized Meiji nationalism, the latter was a corporately
owned property mainly showcasing the legacy of Mitsubishi zaibatsu (Uchida and Nakatani 2010). According to Uchida (2010), the inclusion of the Ichigokan in the list of eligible properties indicates that both the Institute and the Ministry trusted Mitsubishi zaibatsu. Unfortunately, however, their trust appears to have ended in a one-sided relationship. Mainichi Shimbun (毎日新聞, 1964) reported that the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Properties started to deliver their policy of designating the Ichigokan a national Important Cultural Property even before the Marunouchi plan was implemented. The Committee regarded the building as significant for two reasons: it was the only surviving building to retain Conder’s original design and form; and it was a cornerstone of Tokyo’s city planning. They thought the second reason provided a rationale for the in-situ conservation of the Ichigokan. According to Masaru Sekino, Mitsubishi zaibatsu agreed with the Committee to consult before starting on demolition of the Ichigokan.55 In view of this agreement, the Committee took no further action and waited for the owner’s final decision. According to the corporate history of Mitsubishi (1993a), however, the Ichigokan block comprised three buildings (the Ichigokan and two annexes) and Mitsubishi started to examine the feasibility of the Ichigokan block redevelopment around 1965. By the time the development plan was produced, the Ichigokan was already empty and being used as a temporary field project office. In April 1967, Mitsubishi decided to demolish the two annexes, while weighing the Ichigokan in the balance of the redevelopment project.56 Towards the end of September 1967 the Committee opened negotiations with Mitsubishi to have the Ichigokan designated as national heritage. At the negotiating table, the Committee asked Mitsubishi to undertake in-situ conservation, while also proposing the relocation of the entire building as an alternative in the worst-case scenario. Two months later, in November 1967, Mitsubishi’s in-house engineering team tested the durability of the Ichigokan structure. Unfortunately, the test results came out negative.57 At the same time, National Railways was working on an underground construction plan near the Ichigokan site. Mitsubishi revealed that the underground construction might have an adverse impact on the
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
building, adding that the Ichigokan was difficult to relocate and reconstruct because of its brick masonry structure. They proposed, instead, a partial property relocation after dismantling.58 Thus the structural durability issues of the Ichigokan became the rationale for making way for redevelopment (Fig. 3.4). On 21 March 1968, Mitsubishi gave the Committee short notice of the Ichigokan demolition work.59 Swift destruction was to follow, as the building began to be dismantled at midnight on 22 March 1968.60 However, even while demolition was proceeding, discussions between the Committee and Mitsubishi continued. The next day, the Committee paid an investigative visit to the Ichigokan site even though demolition was already taking place.61 On 25 March 1968, third-sector organizations such as the Architectural Institute of Japan and its Meiji
Fig. 3.4 Mitsubishi Ichigokan site around 1965 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1. p. 124])
Architecture Subcommittee came together to appeal to the Minister of Education62 and request Mitsubishi to stop demolition of the Ichigokan, demanding its in-situ conservation instead. Mitsubishi claimed their property rights, even stating that if the Committee undertook forced designation, they would regard it as regulatory taking, that is, eminent domain.63 Mitsubishi refused the in-situ conservation proposal, stating that destruction of the building was inevitable, but seeking an opportunity for relocation.64 Mitsubishi internally discussed using the Ichigokan as a museum with relocation.65 Ironically, however, they neither stopped the demolition nor undertook the relocation of the Ichigokan. They made the final decision to retain some of the roof and interior features on the excuse of the difficulty of taking bricks out of a wall.66 It is known that parts taken from the Ichigokan were moved and stored at an external plant for future use. The ambiguous dialogue between the Committee and Mitsubishi continued even after demolition work was completed.67 Although the demolition of the Ichigokan was a source of alarm to the Committee, they were not capable of proposing any alternative conservation strategies but instead persisted with the idea of in-situ conservation. As well as their inconclusiveness, an additional hindrance to the Ichigokan conservation was that the national heritage designation system required the owner’s consent and a year of administrative processing— which seemed to be the main reasons why Mitsubishi rejected it.68 In the existing regulatory framework, neither the Committee nor the 1950 law could initiate legal proceedings over non-designated heritage properties. Architectural historians, including Hirotaro O-ota and Teijiro Muramatsu, also emphasized the cultural and historical value of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan, but their opinions did not seem to make much impact on the owner’s final decision. Extraordinarily, it is said that the Committee decided to designate the Ichigokan a national Important Cultural Property without the owner’s consent when Mitsubishi started knocking down the building.69 Nevertheless, that did not happen. Muramatsu (1968) asserts that the Committee’s reluctance to enforce designation ran contrary to their ceaseless exaltation of the cultural and historical significance of the Ichigokan. The situation seemed to require state agencies, third-sector organizations and political actors to respond promptly, but though all of them worked strenuously to put forward
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
their arguments and wishes, none were able to directly counteract Mitsubishi. By 20 May 1968, approximately 80% of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan had been dismantled and the building was completely gone before the summer.70 Mitsubishi concluded that as the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Properties was merged with the Agency for Cultural Affairs in June 1968, the relocation would no longer be discussed, and the topic eventually disappeared. Following that, the exterior and interior features of the Ichigokan that had once been kept were disposed of.71 Yamaguchi (2010) argues that the lifespan of brick buildings is short, particularly in an earthquake nation like Japan. For this reason, almost all brick buildings disappeared in the late 1950s, and the Mitsubishi Ichigokan was the last surviving brick office building in the Marunouchi district in 1968. Uchida (2010) maintains that the majority of architects, planners and intellectuals neglected urban heritage conservation, regarding it as an impediment to modernizing the built environment and resolving the urban problems of post-war Japan in the late 1960s. The Ichigokan demolition case was certainly an outcome of the socioeconomic and political situation, and the lack of sufficient state intervention, in spite of the conservation campaigns and efforts of the time. No one foresaw, however, that Mitsubishi would revive the Mitsubishi Ichigokan in Marunouchi in 2009.
3.4.2 Chopping Up In the history of the Imperial Hotel, spanning from the Meiji and the Taisho through to the Showa periods, there were two dominant architectural styles—European and American design. A high-class Western-style hotel, the first version of the Imperial Hotel (Teikoku Hotel , 帝国ホテ ル) was designed by Japanese architect Yuzuru Watanabe and erected in the Meiji period. It was a timber-framed brick building in Renaissance style, targeting European visitors. The total construction cost of the Imperial Hotel was twice as much as the Rokumeikan (1883), showing its scale, elegance and splendour. On opening in 1890 it was not well received by Europeans. However, Japan’s victory over Russia in 1905 was
a turning point that increased the number of foreign visitors to Japan, and the Imperial Hotel became popular with foreigners and Japanese, with royalty and ordinary citizens.72 Unfortunately the building suffered a series of fires: its annexe burnt down in 191973 and the main building was completely destroyed in 1922.74 Three years after the first fire, the hotel owner decided to hire American architect Frank Lloyd Wright to design the second version of the Imperial Hotel to accommodate more of those foreign visitors. This was one of the first settings to be challenged by development issues. Construction of the new Imperial Hotel (hereafter, the Imperial) began in 1919.75 Although the design required issues of function, layout and aesthetics to be balanced, Wright favoured the artistic features of the Imperial Hotel over profitability and usability. He also needed to balance the traditions of West and East in his design. He decided to create the Imperial as a state guest house, a social meeting place and a palace. One reason for this could be that the Imperial Family was one of the two main investors in the project,76 and the construction site was owned by the state. In 1923, after four years of construction, the new three-storey main building with a basement was completed. It was made of reinforced concrete and brick and had 300 guest rooms.77 The new Imperial Hotel became an iconic symbol at the centre of the power struggle between conservation and development, and Lloyd Wright’s design attracted both praise and criticism.78 The official opening ceremony happened to be held on the day the Great Kanto earthquake hit Tokyo, 1 September 1923. Fortunately the new building survived intact, creating an additional attraction for the Imperial.79 However, a real tragedy was soon to follow. In 1936 an extension plan for a new eight-storey annexe was announced, planned for the 1940 Tokyo Olympic Games, which never happened due to the second SinoJapanese War (1937–1945). Towards the end of the war in 1945, air raids struck the guest rooms in the south wing and the banquet hall, completely destroying their interiors. Although emergency repair work began soon after the war was over, it was not enough to put the building back to its original 1923 state due to the post-war shortage of materials. Between 1945 and 1952, the existing stone walls had even been
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
painted white when the building was requisitioned by the General Headquarters (GHQ). The lengthy delays in post-war reconstruction were a critical factor in the Imperial’s deterioration. While it was suffering physical decay, the impact of the war caused a huge increase in foreign visitors to Japan, motivating the owner to build two new additional annexes on a nearby site to cater for them.80 The first annexe (two basements and seven storeys with 170 guest rooms) was built in 1954, while the second (five basements and ten storeys with 450 guest rooms) was completed in 1958,81 bringing the Imperial site up to maximum development capacity. The owner’s enthusiasm for redevelopment was undiminished, and under a new development plan as part of preparations for the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games, the existing Frank Lloyd Wright Imperial Hotel was proposed for demolition. The plan was widely opposed and therefore not implemented. In 1967, in anticipation of the Osaka Expo in 1970, the owner came up with another development plan for a 26-storey, 100-metre-high tower.82,83 Architect Teitaro Takahashi was appointed to design the third version of the Imperial Hotel. He had already designed two of the 1950s annexes, which had been criticized in some quarters. Unsurprisingly, this latest development plan inflamed debate between the conservation and demolition factions. When the debate over the Imperial started, most of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan had already been bulldozed. Like the Ichigokan case, the Imperial demolition plan was not widely known until the national newspaper Asahi Shimbun (朝日新聞) reported the story on 16 March 1967.84 Following the report, architects and scholars lined up with third-sector organization such as the Architectural Institute of Japan to discuss agendas and advocate for the Imperial’s conservation. At the same time, the Kanto Finance Bureau, a state agency, raised an objection on the grounds that the Imperial Hotel site was originally owned by the Imperial Family, who had granted a lease to build the hotel on the site in the Taisho era on the condition that the building should act as a state guesthouse, which had continued since 1922. The Bureau was concerned that with the demolition of the Imperial, the site’s original political function as the state guesthouse would be lost.85 On 28 January 1967, the first official response to the demolition plan from the political
arena was raised by the Education Committee of the lower house of the Diet. They requested that the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Properties act to save the Imperial. Around the same time, the Architectural Institute of Japan received petitions from the United States also calling for the retention of the Imperial.86 On 18 July 1967, architects and scholars gathered to establish the Conservation Group to Protect the Imperial Hotel to advocate for the significance of the Imperial in the nation’s cultural heritage and for the needs of conservation.87 Meanwhile, the owner of the Imperial was awaiting building permit approval to implement the development plan. Unexpectedly, however, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government delayed approval because the Imperial was located within the Urban Aesthetic Zone (Bikan Chiku, 美観地区, 1933).88 A famous aesthetic controversy had been raised by the demolition and redevelopment of the Tokio Marine Building (Tokyo Kaijo Building Kyukan, 東京海上ビルディング旧館) in 1966, and the debate was still ongoing (Fig. 3.5). The TMG was probably
Fig. 3.5 Tokio Marine Building before (left) and after (right) ([left] Mitsubishi Estate [1993b, Vol. 2. p. 236], assumed taken before demolition in 1966 and [right] Photographed by the author, 4 December 2016. The new building was opened in 1974)
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
waiting for the controversy to resolve before granting approval. The owner resubmitted the development plan with some changes to avoid further delays in his construction schedule.89 On 22 October 1967, Frank Lloyd Wright’s widow, Olgivanna, and his fellow architects arrived in Tokyo from the United States to support the public awareness campaign on the conservation of the Imperial Hotel. Olgivanna Lloyd Wright met the Education Minister and the Tokyo Metropolitan Governor to seek support for saving the Imperial. Her efforts seemed to pay off. On 2 November 1967, the Education Minister, Toshihiro Kennoki, expressed his intention of supporting the conservation campaign. The following day, the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Construction, and the chairman of the Cultural Properties Protection Committee also delivered their opinions in favour of the campaign. However, none of them presented a concrete action plan. According to Kirishiki (1968), the chairman of the Committee was not motivated to conserve the Imperial, resulting in the absence of a visible government plan for the campaign. Tokyo Metropolitan Governor Ryokichi Minobe put forward three proposals for the Imperial Hotel conservation: relocation with partial financial support; listing as the Tokyo Metropolitan Selected Historical Structure; and a list of candidate sites for the relocation, such as Mizumoto Park(水元公園).90 The Governor’s ambition was to weave the Imperial conservation campaign into the upcoming 1968 Meiji centennial events in Tokyo. The Imperial Hotel conservation campaign looked likely to turn into a competition between the state government and the TMG.91 None of the political actors proposed national heritage designation for the Imperial. National heritage status acted as a legal permit for public agencies, principally the Committee, to engage with heritage properties. Kirishiki (1968) adds that the Urban Planning Bureau of the TMG deferred the Imperial’s building permit application till 9 November 1967 in order to gain time before hearing the final outcome of the negotiations over official heritage listing for the Imperial.92 Unfortunately, however, the Committee did not make any moves within the given time. As a result, on 10 November 1967 the TMG finally approved the permit, officially allowing Frank Lloyd Wright’s Imperial Hotel to be demolished to make way for the third Imperial.93 Even after the building permit was
approved, third-sector organizations continued to lobby for the in-situ conservation of the Imperial, sending petitions to the Ministry of Education, the Committee and the property owner. Despite their efforts, the end of the Imperial Hotel came on 15 November 1967.94 A couple of weeks after the building permit was approved, Eisaku Sato, the Prime Minister, unexpectedly expressed his support for the Imperial Hotel conservation at the press club in Washington, DC during a visit to the United States. At a press conference on his return to Japan on 21 November 1967, the Prime Minister handed the Imperial Hotel case over to the Museum Meiji-Mura, a privately funded institution,95 an action that suddenly brought the Museum to the negotiating table.96 The property owner attempted to speak with the Museum on 22 and 23 November 1967, but his efforts seem to have failed. Kirishiki (1968), although critical of the Prime Minister’s actions, seeks to defend the Museum in several ways. First, the Museum was dedicated to saving Meiji-era urban heritage properties, and the Imperial Hotel did not fit into the Museum’s collection policy because it was a product of the Taisho period. Second, political economic actors and public agencies tried to avoid their financial responsibilities in association with the relocation and reconstruction costs of the Imperial. Kirishiki (1968) further assumes that the Museum probably did not want to get involved with the Imperial case.97 On 29 November 1967, the owner of the Imperial met with two Museum executives in a last-ditch attempt to turn the situation around and arrange its relocation. The financial issues remained unresolved. Meanwhile, third-sector groups still held out for in-situ conservation. The Museum was now taking the lead, arranging meetings with the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Education to clarify the conditions for relocation and construction, including financial support.98 Both these political actors promised a state subsidy for the relocation and reconstruction of this non-designated heritage property. The Museum, the owner and a general contractor, Kajima Corporation, started to schedule the relocation and reconstruction.99 On 28 February 1968, the main entrance and lobby of the Imperial Hotel were taken apart and transported to the Museum site, while at the same time a foundation stone was laid for the new high-rise Imperial Hotel. The newly created
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
Agency for Cultural Affairs with which the Committee had merged expressed its intention to provide a 100-million-yen state subsidy for the Imperial Hotel relocation and reconstruction.100 Unfortunately, however, in April 1969, the future of the relocation and reconstruction was again thrown into doubt when the Agency failed to secure the budget needed for the Imperial. The state allocated 10 million yen to the Imperial case, but this amount was too small to cover the cost of relocation and reconstruction.101 With broken promises from political and economic actors, and unable to proceed with the reconstruction of the Imperial, the Museum decided to use its own financial resources, including a donation from its parent body, the Nagoya Railroad Company, to undertake the reconstruction.102 On 10 March 1970, the third version of the Imperial Hotel was opened in Tokyo, while the reconstruction of the entrance and main lobby of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Imperial Hotel was completed in the Museum in 1974 (Fig. 3.6).103 Nine years after its opening, the Museum, a privately funded initiative for urban heritage conservation, had retained not only the entrance and lobby of the Imperial Hotel but had also saved the honour of interest groups, including architects, scholars, the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Culture, the Committee (and the Agency), and moreover, the owner of the Imperial Hotel.104 By the time the Imperial was demolished in 1968, 24 urban heritage properties across Japan were designated national Important Cultural Properties. Only three are located in Tokyo: the former Iwasaki Family House (Kyu Iwasaki-tei, 旧岩崎邸, built in 1894; designated in 1961), the Holy Resurrection Cathedral of the Autonomous Orthodox Church (Nikolai-do, ニコライ堂, built in 1891; designated in 1962) and the Public Speaking Hall (Mita Enzetsu-kan, 三田演説館, built in 1875; designated in 1967) of Keio University.105 None of these properties are either corporately owned heritage or centrally located in Tokyo.
3.4.3 State Intervention and Control The demolition cases of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the Imperial Hotel portray the intense power struggles that took place between public and
Fig. 3.6 Residue of the Imperial Hotel: Main entrance (above) and lobby (below) in the Museum Meiji-Mura (Photographed by the author, 17 October 2016)
private entities, between heritage conservation and urban development actors, and between authentic urban identity and modernization. They also reveal the fact that state agencies were not involved in this challenge. Twenty-three years after the establishment of the Committee for Protection of Cultural Properties, the state authority eventually entered
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
the conservation of urban heritage, in particular centrally located heritage properties in Tokyo. The first case of the state’s direct involvement with urban heritage conservation is the former Headquarters of the Imperial Guards (Kyu Konoe Shidan Shireibu Chosha, 旧近衛師団司令部庁 舎), designated a national Important Cultural Property in 1972. The Headquarters of the Imperial Guards (hereafter, the Headquarters) is a two-storey Gothic-style red-brick structure, a government office building that exemplifies Meiji urban heritage. Built in 1910, it was designed by Yasushi Tamura, an army engineer. The Headquarters office was originally located inside the Sakashita-mon (坂下門) Gate at the Imperial Palace but in May 1910, it moved into the Headquarters adjoining the Inui-mon (乾門) Gate in the Kitanomaru district, which is the Kitanomaru Park (北の丸公園) located north of the Imperial Palace as we know it today (Fig. 3.7).106 As its name suggests, the Headquarters is a state-owned government building, and one of the few of its kind remaining in Tokyo.107 The Headquarters epitomizes the early
Fig. 3.7 Location and setting of the Imperial Guards Headquarters (Created by the author with reference to the Agency for Cultural Affairs  “Preface”)
nationally designated Important Cultural Properties of Meiji red-brick structure in Tokyo. More importantly, it is the first state-led urban heritage conservation case in Japan. On completion, the Headquarters became the home of the Imperial Guards, which protected the imperial capital until the end of World War II. After the war, the army was demobilized, and the Headquarters, including its surrounding site, was registered as a non-administrative property under the management of the Kanto Finance Bureau of the Ministry of Finance as of November 1945. It was then taken over by the post-war Imperial Guards, which were no longer part of the army but provided security for the Imperial Family. They used the Headquarters as a dormitory for their guards until the Kitanomaru Park Improvement Plan was implemented in 1963.108 When the Guards repurposed the building from office to dormitory, they gutted the interior and divided it into many small rooms.109 It is significant that the Headquarters was a living witness to the bloody history of the Imperial Guards and the historical scenes at the end of World War II. In this place, soldiers attempted a military coup d’état to foil Emperor Hirohito’s radio broadcast announcing the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration and Japan’s surrender, ending the war on 15 August 1945. The rebels murdered two military officers, including Takeshi Mori, commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, but when their coup d’état failed they committed suicide. Thus on one hand, the building epitomizes the end of the Imperial Guards as well as Japan’s defeat in World War II; on the other hand, the incident stigmatized the Headquarters, giving it the reputation of a difficult heritage property. These negative aspects pulled the rug from under the Headquarters when its conservation campaign began. The Kitanomaru Park Improvement Plan triggered debate over the conservation of the Headquarters. As a national project, the state agency aimed to turn the entire park into a forest park. The park had previously been under the regulatory control of the TMG, but the Cabinet Council arranged a transfer of authority from the TMG to the Ministry of Construction. In 1965, the Ministry asked the Committee for Protection of Cultural Properties to assess the cultural heritage values of the
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
Headquarters. The Committee responded by stating that the Headquarters had cultural heritage value and hence it needed to be retained.110 Ironically enough, however, in 1966 the Cabinet Council decided to restrict the types and number of buildings that could be located in the park. The permitted buildings were the Nippon Budokan (日本武道館), the Science and Technology Museum, the National Archives and the Museum of Modern Art. The excuse for excluding the Headquarters was that if the Ministry allowed an additional building in Kitanomaru Park, it would exceed its permitted 7% building coverage ratio, meaning the Ministry would be unable to maintain it as a forest park. The Ministry planned to integrate the Kitanomaru Park into the neighbouring forest of the Imperial Palace by planting trees on the site of the Headquarters after bulldozing the building.111 In the same year, the Committee created a list of eligible Meijiera heritage properties, which included the Headquarters. At the same time, the Defence Agency put a 55 million-yen proposal forward to the Committee—as well as to the Minister of Construction, the Chief Cabinet Secretary and the Director General of the Prime Minister’s Office—to repurpose the building as a Meiji-era archive of military history. In preparation for the 1968 Meiji centennial celebration, the Agency planned to repair and renovate the interior of the Headquarters, creating archives, storage and exhibition space.112 The Defence Agency’s store of historical military materials numbered around 25,000 items including arms, manuscripts and medals, and in their view, the Headquarters was a perfect candidate site to display the military history of Japan.113 They did not, however, win the negotiation. In 1968, the Committee asked the Ministry of Construction to save the Headquarters. The Ministry, however, was still determined to demolish the property in the name of the Improvement Plan. They were also anxious that the building could adversely impact the visual landscape of the Park.114 The Prime Minister was concerned about the negative war-time associations of the Headquarters, and the possibility of it being used by political extremists. Against this background, the Cabinet granted a demolition permit to the Ministry of Construction.115 The Architectural Institute of Japan and the newly formed Agency for Cultural Affairs, as well as architects and scholars, communicated with
various political actors and institutions to appeal the heritage value of the Headquarters and its eligibility for official heritage designation.116 In 1971, the Ministry of Construction proposed a political deal to the Agency for Cultural Affairs: the Ministry would invalidate the scheduled demolition in exchange for the Agency designating the Headquarters a national Important Cultural Property and directly supervising delivery of the conservation of the Headquarters.117 By that time, the Mitsubishi Ichigokan was completely destroyed, while all but the main entrance and lobby of the Imperial Hotel had been demolished. With Meiji-era remnants disappearing one after another, the former Headquarters of the Imperial Guards became the last property to be retained. In September 1972, the Cabinet Council reversed its previous decision on the demolition of the Headquarters and finally approved its national heritage designation and its use as a branch office of the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo, where collections of traditional crafts could be put on public display. This final Cabinet decision demonstrated the national desire to prevent the building from permanently displaying negative aspects of Japan’s past. It was six years since the first decision about demolition of the Headquarters had been made. In the same year, the Headquarters was designated a national Important Cultural Property.118 In the designation statement, the exterior of the Headquarters was emphasized, with the focus of the conservation work on restoring the exterior to its original state, mainly because the post-war Imperial Guards had already razed the original interior of the building.119 Meanwhile, the interior of the property, apart from the lobby, was excluded from the designation because of the presence of the original physical fabric.120 The conservation work took five years between 1973 and 1977. The Agency believed that re-purposing the property as a gallery was the best alternative for Meiji-era urban heritage, especially as the conservation work was focusing on the exterior of the property. The interior space was completely changed as larger spaces were needed for exhibitions. The Headquarters of the Imperial Guards (Fig. 3.8) is the first urban heritage conservation case to be directed by the Agency for Cultural Affairs.121 More importantly, the case demonstrates the intention behind
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
Fig. 3.8 Former Headquarters of the Imperial Guards (Photographed by the author, 4 December 2016)
official heritage designation and the national government’s rationale for conservation, showing that state intervention is not limited to physical conservation practice, but also includes national political intention and strategies for urban heritage.
Notes 1. Akagawa (2015, p. 11). 2. See The Agency for Cultural Affairs. English, http://www.bunka.go.jp/ english/policy/cultural_properties/introduction/overview/. Accessed 24 November 2019. 3. Larsen (1994, p. 3). 4. The Agency for Cultural Affairs, “The Number of National Designation Cultural Heritage Properties”, Japanese, http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/ bunkazai/shokai/shitei.html; http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/categoryl ist.asp. Accessed 10 November 2016. 5. Larsen (1994, p. 155). 6. Ibid. 7. Sekino and Kikuchi (1980, pp. 36–40).
8. Akagawa (2015, p. 9). 9. Nishimura (2004, p. 53). According to Nishimura, there were exceptions. See further The first annual report of the prewar Ministry of Home Affairs (内務省第一回年報) (1876, pp.184–186). 10. The Meiji government issued the Edict of Separation of Shinto and Buddhism by the Grand Council of State (Daijo-kan, 太政官) in March 1868, and the Imperial Edict for Establishment of Shinto in 1870. Although the government did not intend to exclude Buddhism, the edicts provoked Shinto priests and people exploited by temples to destroy Buddha statues and Buddhist objects. 11. Shimizu (2013, p. 10). 12. Ibid., p. 9. 13. Fujimori (1993, pp. 210–212). 14. Taniguchi and Futagawa (1976, pp. 11–12). 15. The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property, Office of Historic Buildings (1959). 16. Kakiuchi (2014, pp. 3–4) and The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property (1960b, pp. 40–41). 17. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (2001, p. 17). 18. Akagawa (2015, p. 51). 19. Kakiuchi (2014, p. 4) and The Agency for Cultural Affairs (2001, pp. 29–33). 20. Inumaru (1950, p. 15). 21. Nishimura (2004, p. 104), Nakamura (1999, p. 21), and Inumaru (1950, pp. 6–19). 22. Inumaru (1950) and The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property (1959). 23. Inumaru (1950, p. 14). 24. Ibid., pp. 14–16. 25. There are exceptions such as Himeji-jo (姫路城) and Matsumotojo (松本城), which are nationally designated heritage properties. The Committee provided direct supervision over these castles. 26. There were 30 skilled experts available in heritage conservation specific to national heritage properties. More importantly, only ten of them were capable of supervising the actual work. See further Inumaru (1950). 27. The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property (1960a, pp.197– 198). However, there are gaps in numbers in national heritage property data between the 1960s and the current online database of the Agency for Cultural Affairs (http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc.asp).
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
28. The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property (1965, pp.69– 70). 29. Ibid., pp. 71–72. 30. Ibid., pp. 78–80. 31. Tanikawa (1976, p. 6). 32. It was listed as Important Cultural Property in 1974. 33. Taniguchi and Kikuchi (1966). 34. Ibid. 35. Taniguchi and Futagawa (1976, p. 8). 36. Ibid.; Taniguchi (1970, p. 1). 37. The team—architectural commission was set up in 1963. 38. Taniguchi and Futagawa (1976, p. 15). 39. Taniguchi and Kikuchi (1966). 40. Taniguchi and Futagawa (1976, pp. 12–14). 41. Ibid., p. 13. 42. Those heritage properties are the St. John Cathedral relocated from Kyoto, and the residence of Tsugumichi Saigo relocated from Tokyo between 1963 and 1964. 43. Kikuchi (1970, p. 5). 44. Taniguchi and Futagawa (1976, pp. 16–17). 45. It was renamed the Sapporo city central post office main building after its relocation to the Museum, effective after 1910. 46. Noda (1974, p. 2). 47. Interview with S.K., Senior Cultural Properties Specialist, the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan. Conducted by the author, 26 June 2014. 48. Asahi Shimbun, 20 May 1968. 49. Interview with S.K. 50. At the time of Mitsubishi Ichigokan’s demolition, the building was called Mitsubishi Higashi Kyugokan, and the building renamed when Mitsubishi adopted the land lot number system. 51. It is known as Marunouchi Sogo Kaizo Jukkanen Keikaku (丸の内総合 改造十ヶ年計画). 52. Mainichi Shimbun, 14 December 1964. 53. Kingo Tatsuno designed the Bank of Japan, completed in 1896. 54. Tokuma Katayama designed the Akasaka Palace, constructed between 1899 and 1909. 55. Mainichi Shimbun, 14 December 1964. 56. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp.196–198).
57. See Mitsubishi Higashi Kyugokan Taikyusei no Kozoteki Kento. (in Japanese), an internal test report issued by Mitsubishi Estate on November 1967. 58. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 196–198). 59. Asahi Shimbun, 26 March 1968, Mitsubishi Estate (1993a), and Uchida (2010). 60. It is reported that the demolition work took place Saturday midnight on 22 March 1968. See Asahi Shimbun, 26 March 1968, Muramatsu (1968), and Uchida (2010, p. 17). 61. Uchida (2010, p. 17). 62. Ibid. 63. Asahi Shimbun, 26 March 1968. 64. Ibid.; Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, p. 198). 65. Uchida et al. (2010, p. 22) and Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, p. 198). 66. Asahi Shimbun, 26 March 1968. 67. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1. p. 198). 68. Asahi Shimbun, 26 March 1968. 69. Ibid. 70. Asahi Shimbun, 29 May 1968. 71. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, p. 198). 72. Akashi and Murai (2004, pp. 34–72). 73. This annexe had 40 guest rooms and was built in 1906. 74. Mainichi Shimbun, 28 December 1919 and Mainichi Shimbun, 17 April 1922. 75. Akashi and Murai (2004, p. 34). 76. The other main investor was Kihachiro Okura (1837–1928) who received the title of Baron in 1915. 77. Asahi Shimbun, 12 July 1959 and Sekino and Kikuchi (1980, pp. 64–67). 78. Asahi Shimbun, 30 October 1967 and Akashi and Murai (2004, pp. 34– 36). 79. Sekino and Kikuchi (1980, pp. 64–67). 80. However, the foreign visitors were mainly Americans. See Asahi Shimbun, 2 December 1954. 81. These two annexes were designed by Japanese architect Teitaro Takahashi. Both the architect himself and his works were discredited. See Asahi Shimbun, 12 July 1959. 82. This new development plan had been rumoured for about 8 years before actually released. Asahi Shimbun, 16 March 1967.
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
83. Also known as Expo’70, it was held between 15 March and 13 September 1970. See also Akashi and Murai (2004, pp. 36–43). 84. Kirishiki (1968, p. 11). 85. Asahi Shimbun, 10 June 1967. 86. Mainichi Shimbun, 29 June 1967. 87. Asahi Shimbun, 19 July 1967. However, Kirishiki (1968) offers an insider view that the majority of the members of the Group expressed opinions from a political and economic point of view rather than from a cultural heritage perspective. 88. In 1933, the surroundings of the Imperial Palace were designated Bikan Chiku, which was the first of its kind in Japan. 89. Asahi Shimbun, 12 October 1967. 90. Mizumoto Park is in Katsushika ward in Tokyo and opened on 1 April 1965. 91. Kirishiki (1968, pp. 14–15); Mainichi Shimbun, 2 November 1967; Asahi Shimbun, 2 November 1967; Asahi Shimbun, 3 November 1967; and Mainichi Shimbun, 3 November 1967. 92. Kirishiki (1968, p. 14). 93. Mainichi Shimbun, 10 November 1967. 94. All guest rooms in Wright’s building were vacated. The hotel building completely shut down on 24 November 1967. 95. Kirishiki (1968, p. 15). 96. Ibid. 97. Ibid., p. 16. 98. Mainichi Shimbun, 27 December 1967 and Mainichi Shimbun, 28 December 1967. 99. Asahi Shimbun, 28 December 1967. 100. Asahi Shimbun, 11 September 1968. 101. Asahi Shimbun, 1 April 1969. 102. Asahi Shimbun, 14 February 1970. 103. Kajima Corporation. “Kyu Teikoku Hotel Chuo Genkan Ichiku Seibi”, Japanese, http://www.kajima.co.jp/tech/traditional/ex/ex2_01/ index.html. Accessed 16 November 2016. 104. Kirishiki (1968, p. 18). 105. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (2012). 106. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (1978, p. 1). 107. The Agency for Cultural Affairs, National Cultural Heritage Database, Japanese, https://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc.html. Accessed 3 June 2016.
108. After their eviction, the Headquarters was abandoned. 109. The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo. “An introduction of a building”, English, http://www.momat.go.jp/english/cg/visit/architect ure/. Accessed 24 January 2016 and Asahi Shimbun, 4 April 1968. 110. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (1978, p. 5). 111. Ibid., and Asahi Shimbun, 4 April 1968. 112. Ibid., and Asahi Shimbun, 19 October 1966. 113. Ibid., and Asahi Shimbun, 4 April 1968. 114. Asahi Shimbun, 4 April 1968. 115. Ibid. 116. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (1978, p. 6). 117. Ibid. 118. The Craft Gallery was opened on 12 November 1977 and the total project cost is known to be 800 million Japanese yen. See Hashimoto (1972, p. 122) and Asahi Shimbun, 12 September 1972. 119. Hashimoto (1972, p. 122). 120. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (1978, pp. 2–3, 37–39). 121. Asahi Shimbun, 16 September 1976.
References Akagawa, Natsuko. 2015. Heritage Conservation and Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy: Heritage, National Identity and National Interest. London: Routledge. Akashi, Shindo, and Osamu Murai. 2004. Frank Lloyd Wright: Imperial Hotel (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kenchiku Shiryo Kenkyusha. Asahi Shimbun. 1954. Wright-shi no Shiranai Shingata Teikoku Hotel Shutsugen (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 2 December. ———. 1959. Teikoku Hotel Kyukan Torikowashi – Mokushi Dekinu (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 12 July. ———. 1966. Meijishiryokan Tsukuru – Konoe shidan shireibu wo Kaishu (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 19 October. ———. 1967. Kieru Taisho no Meikenchiku: Tsuini Torikowashihe (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 16 March. ———. 1967. Kongo wa Shikichi ni Monoii (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 10 June.
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
———. 1967. Teikoku Hotel Mamorukai ga Hassoku (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 19 July. ———. 1967. Teikoku Hotel Isogi Kaichiku (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 12 October. ———. 1967. Teikoku Hotel to Wright (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 30 October. ———. 1967. Mou Damatte Orenai (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 2 November. ———. 1967. Ichiku no Tochi Teikyo (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 3 November. ———. 1967. Kuni no Hiyo Enjo wo Yobo – Meiji-mura (in Jsapanese). Asahi Shimbun, 28 December. ———. 1968. Mata Kieru Meiji no Nanokori (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 26 March. ———. 1968. Mata Akarenga Sonpai Ronso (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 4 April. ———. 1968. Hozon mata jikangire (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 20 May. ———. 1968. Hozon ni mata jikangire: Shometsu sunzen no Mitsubishi Kyu Ichigokan (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 29 May. ———. 1968. Teikoku Hotel no Meiji-mura Ichiku – Kuni de Ichi Oku Yen Futan (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 11 September. ———. 1969. Teikoku Hotel Donaru? Kyukan Fukugen (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 1 April. ———. 1970. Fukugen Yatto Hon Gimari (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 14 February. ———. 1972. Hozon Hongimari – Kyu Konoe Shidan Shireibu (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 12 September. ———. 1976. Kindai Bijutsukan Kogeikan ni Umarekawaru Kyu Konoe Shidan Shireibu (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 16 September. Fujimori, Terunobu. 1993. Nihon no Kindai Kenchiku (in Japanese), Vol. 1. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten Publishers. Hashimoto, Fumio. 1972, December. Meiji Yofu Kenchiku no Hozon - Kyu Konoe Shidan Shireibu Chosha no Hozon Kettei (in Japanese). In Nihon Rekishi, Vol. 295, 120–124. Society of Japanese History of Japan-Yoshikawa Kobunkan. Ichikawa, Seisaku, and Michio Ito. 1966. Meiji-mura no Ichiku Koji no Jisshi ni Tsuite (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 967 (81): 17–19. Architectural Institute of Japan.
Iida, Kishiro. 2007. Kindai Kenchiku to Meiji-Mura (in Japanese). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 55 (12): 4–5. The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Inumaru, Hideo. 1950. Bunkazai Hogo Iinkai no Soshiki to Kinou (in Japanese). Monbu-Ziho, No. 879, December, The Ministry of Education Research Dissemination Bureau, 6–19. Kajima Corporation. Kyu Teikoku Hotel Chuo Genkan Ichiku Seibi, Japanese, http://www.kajima.co.jp/tech/traditional/ex/ex2_01/index.html. Accessed 16 November 2016. Kakiuchi, Emiko. 2014. Cultural Heritage Protection System in Japan: Current Issues and Prospects for the Future. English, GRIPS Discussion Paper 14–10, July, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.grips.ac.jp/ r-center/wp-content/uploads/14-10.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2016. Kikuchi, Juro. 1970. Meiji-mura no Kotohajime (in Japanese). Meiji-mura Tsushin, Vol. 1, 4–5. Tokyo: Meiji-mura Tokyo Office. ———. 1980. Yofu Kotohajime: Kancho Kenchiku ni Miru Meiji no Kokoroiki (in Japanese). In Meiji no Tatazumai: Hakubutsukan Meiji-mura. Nihon no Hakubutsukan, Vol. 7. ed. Sekino Masaru and Kikuchi Juro, 36–40. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha. Kirishiki, Shinjiro. 1968, May. Teikoku Hotel Kyukan no Hozon Mondai to Hozon Undoh no Keika (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science: 11–18. Architectural Institute of Japan. Larsen, Knut Einar. 1994. Architectural Preservation in Japan. Paris, France: ICOMOS International Wood Committee. Mainichi Shimbun. 1919. Teikoku Hotel Bekkan de Kasai (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 28 December. ———. 1922. Tokyo no Teikoku Hotel Yakeru (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 17 April. ———. 1964. Tada Hitotsu Meiji wo Mamoru (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 14 December. ———. 1967. Teikoku Hotel Hozon Toriageru (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 29 June. ———. 1967. Seifu mo Hozon wo Kento (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 2 November. ———. 1967. Teikoku Hotel Kyukan To Kinenbutsu ni Shitai (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 3 November. ———. 1967. To ga Kenchiku Shinsei Mitomeru (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 10 November.
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
———. 1967. Kyu Teikoku Hotel no Iten Jyoken wo Hayaku (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 27 December. ———. 1967. Kyu Teikoku Hotel Ichiku de Monsho ni Kyouryoku Youbou (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 28 December. Mitsubishi Estate. 1993a. Marunouchi Hyaku-nen no Ayumi – Mitsubishi Jisho Shashi (in Japanese), Vol. 1. Tokyo: Mitsubishi Estate. ———. 1993b. Marunouchi Hyaku-nen no Ayumi – Mitsubishi Jisho Shashi (in Japanese), Vol. 2. Tokyo: Mitsubishi Estate. Muramatsu, Teijiro. 1968, May. Mitsubishi Kyu Ichigokan Mondai to Bunkazai Hogogyosei ni Taisuru Shikan (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 83 (995): A14. Architectural Institute of Japan. Nakamura, Kenjiro. 1999. Bunkazai Hogo Seido Gaisetsu (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gyosei. Nishimura, Yukio. 1984, June. Historical Study on Generation of the Concept of ‘Historic Environment’ in Japan: Part 1 Theories and Administrative Movements on Conservation of Cultural Properties at Early Meiji Era (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Planning, Environmental Engineering (340): 101–110. Architectural Institute of Japan. ———. 2004. Urban Conservation Planning (in Japanese). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Noda, Utaro. 1974. Meiji-mura Kyunenmae no Haru (in Japanese). In Meijimura Tsushin, Vol. 46, 1–2. Tokyo: Meiji-mura Tokyo Office. Sekino, Masaru. 1958. Bunkazai Hozon to Toshikeikaku (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 73 (854): 39–43. Architectural Institute of Japan. ———. 1963. Architecture of the Meiji-Era in the History of Japanese Architecture (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 78 (921): 19–22. Architectural Institute of Japan. Sekino, Masaru and Juro Kikuchi. 1980. Meiji no Tatazumai: Hakubutsukan Meiji-mura. Nihon no Hakubutsukan (in Japanese), Vol. 7. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha. Shimizu, Shigeatsu. 2013. Kenchiku Hozon Gainen no Seiseishi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chuo Koron Bijutsu Shuppan. Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 1998, August. Toshi Kankyo to Rekishi Isan no Kyozon (in Japanese). In The Chuo Koron, 184–197. Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha. Takahashi, Seiichiro. 1950, December. Bunkazai Hogo Iinkai no Hassoku ni Saishite (in Japanese). Monbu-Ziho (879): 2–5. The Ministry of Education Research Dissemination Bureau.
Taniguchi, Yoshiro. 1970. Meiji-mura to Inuyama (in Japanese). In Meiji-mura Tsushin, Vol. 1, 1–2. Tokyo: Meiji-mura Tokyo Office. Taniguchi, Yoshiro, and Juro Kikuchi. 1966. Meiji Kenchiku no Hozon to Meiji-mura no Kaisetsu: Zaidan Hojin Meiji-mura no Setsuritsuni tsuite (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 967 (81): 15–17. Architectural Institute of Japan. Taniguchi, Yoshiro, and Yukio Futagawa. 1976. Hakubutsukan Meiji-mura (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: Hakubutsukan Meiji-mura. Tanikawa, Tetsuzo. 1976. Hitokoto (in Japanese). In Hakubutsukan Meijimura, ed. Taniguchi Yoshiro and Futagawa Yukio, 5–7. Tokyo, Japan: Hakubutsukan Meiji-mura. The Agency for Cultural Affairs, Architecture and Other Structures Division. 1978. Juyo Bunkazai Kyu Konoe Shidan Shireibu Chosha Hozon Seibi Koji Hokokusho (in Japanese). Tokyo: The Agency for Cultural Affairs. ———. 2001. Bunkazai Hogoho Gojyunen-shi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gyosei. ———. 2012. Kokuho • Juyo Bunkazai Kenzobutsu Mokuroku (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: The Agency for Cultural Affairs. ———. National Cultural Heritage Database, Japanese, http://kunishitei. bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc.html. Accessed 3 June 2016. ———. The Number of National Designation Cultural Heritage Properties, Japanese, http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/shokai/shitei.html; and http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/categorylist.asp. Accessed 10 November 2016. The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property, Office of Historic Buildings. 1959. Bunkazai Hogo Jigyo no Gaiyo (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 74 (877): 1–10. Architectural Institute of Japan. The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property. ed. 1960a. Bunkazai Hogo no Ayumi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Printing Bureau of the Ministry of Finance. ———. 1960b. Bunkazai Hogoho Seitei Mae no Bunkazai no Hogo wo Meguru Zadankai (in Japanese). Tokyo: The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property Secretariat. ———. ed. 1965. Bunkazai Hogo no Genjo (in Japanese). Tokyo: Dai Ichi Hoki. The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo. An Introduction of a Building, English, http://www.momat.go.jp/english/cg/visit/architecture/. Accessed 24 January 2016.
3 Institutionalizing Urban Heritage
Uchida, Yoshio. 2010, January. Kyu Mitsubishi Ichigokan Kaitai wo Megutte (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 125 (1598): 16– 17. Architectural Institute of Japan. Uchida, Yoshio, et al. 2010, January. Interview with Mitsubishi Estate (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 125 (1598): 21–23. Architectural Institute of Japan. Uchida, Yoshio, and Norihito Nakatani. 2010, January. Mitsubishi Ichigokan Saigen no Mokuteki to Imi (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 125 (1598): 14–23. Architectural Institute of Japan. Yamaguchi, Hiroshi. 2010. The Road to Reconstruction: A Personal Record Concerning Buildings in the Marunouchi District (English & Japanese). In Mitsubishi Ichigokan Double Context 1894–2009: The Documents of Birth and Reconstruction, ed. Suzuki Hiroyuki, 54–65. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha.
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
This chapter does not argue whether Japan has its own notion of authenticity but rather examines Japan’s early approaches to authenticity and its interactions with the conservation of urban heritage at the national and urban levels. From the 1980s onwards, international heritage policy and the discourse of authenticity was shifting from a Eurocentric understanding to more inclusive postmodernism. The government of Japan started to participate in international technical cooperation in heritage conservation as a means of implementing the Japanese construct of heritage practices and improving Japan’s image in countries in Asia and the Pacific region. These investments brought Japan’s heritage practice to the attention of the international heritage community in the early 1990s. Japan became the 125th country to ratify the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1992; nominated Horyu-ji (法隆寺), a temple site, and Himeji-jo (姫路城), a castle, for UNESCO World Heritage status in 1993; and hosted the Nara Conference on Authenticity with its outcome, the Nara Document (hereafter, the Document), in 1994. The term authenticity was probably first exposed to the cultural heritage sector because Japan and Japanese experts had to prove their heritage practice to the global community. There were three reasons © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_4
to test Japan’s heritage practice. First, Japan brought its heritage practices onto the global stage through international development assistance. Second, it was involved with the first UNESCO World Heritage nomination. Third, Japan contributed its traditional approaches to the global debate on authenticity. Watanabe (1995) explains that although Japan had developed legal frameworks for heritage protection since the Meiji era, this framework prioritized heritage classification, while the heritage evaluation system remained underdeveloped. In the same way, Japan has unquestioningly adopted Western standards and values in the name of modernization since the Meiji period, apparently leaving questions of authenticity unanswered. The 1990s seemed to be a turning point for Japan and its attitude. The discussion in this chapter starts where Japanese conservation practices first confront Western heritage values and practices, in other words, with the arrival of authenticity.
Challenging the European Realm
In the 1990s, setting its course towards international cooperation and diplomacy, Japan began to include heritage conservation and technical cooperation over the restoration of buildings and structures of historic and cultural significance in Asia and the Pacific region in its national strategy.1 One of Nepal’s oldest Buddhist monasteries, the I Baha Bahi in Kathmandu, became Japan’s first international cultural heritage project.2 The I Baha Bahi Restoration Project (hereafter the Kathmandu Project) was undertaken in close cooperation with the Nippon Institute of Technology and the Department of Archaeology of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal between 1990 and 1995 (Watanabe 1998). After a year of restoration work, the Agency for Cultural Affairs put this first international initiative on the cover of the special issue (September 1991) of their monthly magazine (Gekkan Bunkazai, 月刊文化財). The article highlights the importance of advertising Japan’s excellence in dismantle-repair, reconstruction and trace detection techniques as part of the country’s international cooperation programme (Masuda 2013). Neither the Agency nor Japanese experts foresaw that their first overseas heritage project would invite the somewhat unwelcome attention of
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
international heritage experts, some of whom regarded Japan’s efforts as invading their intellectual territory. Whether this was actually the case or not, Japan was seen to be challenging sensitive European territory, the criterion of authenticity.3
4.1.1 I Baha Bahi Restoration Project, Kathmandu, Nepal The Buddhist monastery of I Baha Bahi, constructed in 1427, is located in the city of Patan, one of the three major cities of the Kathmandu Valley (the others are Bhadgaon and Kathmandu) (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). The monastery is a two-storey building comprising four wings built on a square plan around a courtyard covering 23 m2 .4 The Kathmandu Project was originally developed out of a scholarly initiative by a research team from the Nippon Institute of Technology (hereafter, the Research Mission) in Japan. Between 1978 and 1984, the Research Mission undertook investigations and research on Nepali traditional structures, focusing in particular on royal buildings and Buddhist monasteries in
Fig. 4.1 Location of Patan (Created by the author based on Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, English, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/np.html. Accessed 20 April 2017)
Fig. 4.2 Location and setting of the I Baha Bahi Buddhist monastery (Created by the author based on Watanabe [1998, p. 3])
the Kathmandu Valley. When these activities began, the I Baha Bahi was not yet included in the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site, which itself did not attain World Heritage status until 1979.
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
The Research Mission worked closely with international expert Dr. Eduard Sekler, Professor of Architecture at Harvard University. Based on their research findings, the team decided to take responsibility for the repair and restoration of the monastery of I Baha Bahi. Their rationale was based on the following reasons. First, the I Baha Bahi was a foundation for understanding the Buddhist monastic architecture of Nepal. At that time, scholarly understanding of the historical development of Buddhist monastic architecture was not yet fully established. The only possible way for researchers to learn Nepali architecture was through Indian and Pakistani structures resembling the ruins of Nepali structures. The I Baha Bahi could thus become a textbook example of Buddhist monasteries in Nepal. Second, despite its decaying condition, the I Baha Bahi still showed the fine quality of design and architectural techniques developed during the thirteenth century. Third, not only the buildings but also the courtyard were still being fully used by local people as living heritage for rituals and religious ceremonies. Finally, the I Baha Bahi was centrally located in the city of Patan and was not only a landmark attracting people but was also leading people from the monastery to other parts of the city (Watanabe 1998). The Research Mission approached the Department of Archaeology of the Ministry of Education and Culture, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, requesting permission to undertake repairs and restoration to a number of Buddhist monasteries in the Kathmandu Valley, including the I Baha Bahi. Discussions also took place with UNESCO. The joint project began in November 1990, after a great deal of communication with various institutions and actors at local, regional and international levels.5 Phase I ran from November 1990 till April 1993; and Phase II from November 1993 to December 1995. The cost of Phase I was covered by the national government of Nepal (25%) and the Nippon Institute of Technology (75%), while the cost of Phase II was covered in full by the Nippon Institute of Technology.6 No financial assistance seems to have been received from the government of Japan. However, at the beginning of the project the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the government of Japan began to work with Nepal’s Department of Archaeology, seeking to pursue Japan’s national goals through technical
cooperation in the cultural heritage sector. Staff from the Agency’s Architecture and Other Structure Division and members of the Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments were involved during Phase I, making multiple short visits between October 1990 and June 1991, and between October 1991 and June 1992.7 The Kathmandu Project began as an unofficial initiative by researchers and the Nippon Institute of Technology. However, it is probable that the involvement of the government and a public agency in Phase I placed Japanese heritage practice centre stage in the authenticity debate at the 16th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee held in Santa Fe, US, in December 1992.8 Japanese government officials and a heritage expert from the Agency for Cultural Affairs were attending the session to acquire World Heritage status for Horyu-ji and Himejijo. It was the first time the government of Japan had taken part in the World Heritage Committee as members of a treaty. The government also intended to make political capital out of the Kathmandu Project by exhibiting and promoting the excellence of the conservation techniques developed out of their own cultural practices and imposing them in the name of international cooperation on cultural heritage (Takashina 2013; Masuda 2013).9 The previous month, the ICOMOS International Wood Committee (IIWC) had held its 8th international symposium in Nepal, a strategic choice since Nepal belonged neither to Europe nor to North America, where the conservation debate predominated (Akagawa 2015). The IIWC expressed particular concern over the absence of authenticity considerations in Japan’s dismantle-reconstruct approach to the I Baha Bahi (Weise 2018). At the symposium, Katsuhiko Watanabe of the Research Mission delivered a presentation on the I Baha Bahi restoration. The presentation and site visits shocked international experts present at the symposium because the Japanese team’s conservation treatment was based on the traditional Japanese approach to wooden structures. The project thus ran counter to the established Eurocentric understanding of authenticity (Weise 2018; Akagawa 2015). Following a suggestion by Hideo Noguchi, the head of UNESCO’s Heritage Unit, an international conference on the concept of authenticity in Japan was proposed, and this led to the 1994 Nara Conference on Authenticity (Akagawa 2015).10
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
4.1.2 Debating Authenticity The IIWC experts who had visited the Kathmandu Project shared what they had witnessed at the UNESCO Committee. These (mainly Western) experts had observed the Japanese techniques of dismantling structures on the project site and were surprised to observe Japanese experts supervising Nepali workers dismantling not only timber-frame structures but also brick exterior walls. Nepali traditional buildings have a double-layer wall structure consisting of a wooden interior and brick exterior. Like Japan, Nepal experiences a great deal of seismic activity, so the dilapidation and decay of Nepali urban heritage properties were caused by not only age but earthquakes (Watanabe 1998).11 Japanese experts intentionally dismantled structures showing weaknesses and deficiencies to improve earthquake resilience (Masuda 2015, 2013; Cameron and Inaba 2015).12 Buildings on the project site were being adapted for school use, so the seismic capability of the brick structure was being reinforced by removing the weakened walls and putting in new brick walls. Western experts who had actual experience of living in structures where the original brick exterior walls had been retained and the interiors renewed were concerned over the retention of the original exterior walls embedded in the idea of material authenticity (Masuda 2013).13 In their view, Japan’s conservation method destroyed the historic brick walls (Masuda 1995a), and they questioned Japanese technical capacity and the quality of the restoration work. The Japanese experts were confident in the excellence of their dismantle-repair technique, while the Western experts could not possibly accept the Japanese technique, which they perceived as “dismantle-reconstruct”. One of the international experts who had visited the Kathmandu Project site during the ICOMOS Symposium was Professor Herb Stovel of Canada, then Director General of ICOMOS. Leading the debates, he expressed strong reservations about the Japanese approach to the Nepali structures (Masuda 2015, 2013; Cameron and Inaba 2015). Meanwhile the designation of the Kathmandu Valley including the I Baha Bahi as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1979 turned the site into part of a UNESCO international campaign comprising different conservation projects by different donor countries such as Germany,
France and Japan. However, there was no mention of authenticity in the nomination (Weise 2018) so Japan’s approach to World Heritage may have created further confusion for the Western experts, whose ideas were firmly rooted in retaining the original brick exterior walls for the sake of conserving the authenticity of the Nepali traditional structures (Cameron and Inaba 2015; Masuda 2013).14 An early example of the technique of reinforcing brick structures was the Headquarters of the Imperial Guards (see Chapter 3), the first urban heritage conservation project under the direct supervision of the Agency for Cultural Affairs completed in 1977. Here Japanese technical experts directly applied reinforced concrete to the inside of the brick walls to buttress the building. However, heritage practitioners soon learned that bricks were more durable than reinforcing steel bars. When steel rusted, reinforcing walls fixed to the original brick walls would have to be replaced, so that the original brick wall could not be retained at the next repair. In the 1980s, appropriate methods of conserving and reinforcing the original brick walls without dismantling or removing them were developed.15 Unfortunately these techniques were not yet available in the I Baha Bahi case (Masuda 2015, 2013).16 It also seems that the proper documentation that is normally characteristic of the Japanese way was not made available either.
The First Statement of Authenticity
It took years of discussion before the government of Japan finally decided to join UNESCO in 1992. Financial contributions to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre were compulsory and the government was not sure about the return on its contributions. A number of environmental organizations in Japan put pressure on the government to sign up to UNESCO in the hope that it could influence environmental protection policy. The government also claimed that having Japan’s national cultural heritage properties added to the list of World Heritage Sites would benefit the country.17 On signing the agreement, the government was required to submit a tentative list of cultural properties that it would consider for World Heritage nomination over the next ten years,
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
a compulsory UNESCO requirement.18 Ten candidate cultural heritage sites throughout Japan were selected, including Horyu-ji and Himeji-jo. Regardless of whether Japan had its own notion of authenticity, the nomination process was an opportunity for the Japanese heritage agency as well as experts to confront the authenticity of their cultural heritage properties and prove their heritage practices within the established international framework of UNESCO and ICOMOS. For the first World Heritage nomination in 1992, the Agency for Cultural Affairs prepared the nominations without consultation with external experts. Disappointingly, there was no mention of authenticity, although the information provided met the test of authenticity in the 1977 UNESCO World Heritage Operational Guidelines. The nomination process was challenging as the government and heritage experts had to identify the significance and meaning of their national heritage on a global scale. While studies on Horyu-ji had been carried out by Japanese scholars from an East Asian perspective, including China and Korea, there was almost nothing on Himeji-jo, which was puzzling for the Japanese experts (Masuda 1995a).19 The two properties were added to the World Heritage List in 1993.
4.2.1 Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-Ji Area The nomination of Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area20 (hereafter, the Horyu-ji) covered 48 buildings. The site is located in Nara prefecture (奈良) and its origins date from the seventh century, but the original structures of the Horyu-ji burnt down in 670. Therefore, from the eighth century onwards, the Horyu-ji has been continuously rebuilt. While the properties are owned by the religious entity, conservation practices were carried out under the direct supervision of the Agency for Cultural Affairs as nationally designated heritage. The authenticity statement of the Horyu-ji includes the following21 : The conservation work that has been carried out since 1895 has met the highest standards of contemporary conservation practice. From 1934 onwards, new techniques have been developed for the conservation of wood structures, and especially in the case of interventions involving
dismantling and reconstruction, which established sound precedent for the conservation of wooden buildings. The Japanese conservation practice conforms to established principles of authenticity in design, materials, techniques, and environment. Minor changes made to buildings have allowed them to retain their historic form and features and safeguard the original character. Damaged wooden members are carefully replaced only when absolutely necessary and the process follows traditional techniques. The use of new materials is rigorously controlled. Special attention is paid to the use of traditional tools and techniques in conservation work. Most of the forty-eight buildings are in the original locations and have retained their historic settings. In general, the property retains a high level of authenticity in terms of form/design, materials/substance, traditions/techniques and location/setting.
The description strongly validated established Japanese conservation principles and practices secured under the legally non-binding instrument of the UNESCO framework known as the ‘test of authenticity’. Authenticity was largely judged on the basis of the retention of the original fabric and the control of new materials. The document further provides a sense that authenticity is something static, in contrast to the end result of the authenticity debate. While the text shows respect for Japanese traditional conservation practices, it does not define authenticity as such, but somewhat vaguely mentions ‘a high level of authenticity’. The document seems to suggest that there was no attempt to stipulate the aspects of authenticity specific to Japanese cultural and historical context or outside the box of the Western discourse.
4.2.2 Himeji-Jo Himeji-jo is a castle located in Hyogo prefecture (兵庫). It comprises 82 buildings and is known as the finest surviving castle architecture of the early seventeenth century in Japan. It is owned by the state and thus all conservation activity has been directly supervised by the national government through the Agency for Cultural Affairs. The Himeji-jo authenticity statement, like that of Horyu-ji, was founded on European authenticity discourses22 :
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
A series of conservation projects since 1934 have been carried out using techniques developed in Japan for conservation of wooden structures and in conformity with established principles of authenticity in terms of form/design, materials/substance, traditions/techniques and location/setting. The use of new materials is rigorously controlled, and all-important proposals should be discussed and approved by the council. Buildings added to the site in the 19th or 20th centuries have been removed. The only modern intrusion has been the insertion of the reinforced concrete foundation raft, which was justified on the grounds that the process of deformation of the structures due to the weakness of the subsoil would inevitably lead to catastrophic collapse in a region of high seismic activity. Incompatible interventions, such as doors and windows, that occurred in earlier work, have been replaced with appropriate elements when enough information was available on the form and substance of the originals.
Both UNESCO and ICOMOS validated the reinforced concrete addition to the foundations as part of structural supports. The document also identifies the removal of nineteenth- and twentieth-century additions. The description states that European conservation practice and Japanese traditional practice share common goals because both practices strictly control new and original materials. In other words, both Japanese and international experts framed Japanese traditional heritage and conservation practice within the Western established notion of authenticity. Indeed, Japan’s heritage agency and experts endeavoured to convince international heritage experts that Japan’s tradition of wooden structure conservation largely coincides with the spirit of the 1964 Venice Charter (Masuda 1995b).23 Coupled with active lobbying which included inviting leading international heritage conservation experts to Japan, they formed a joint force to make overarching connections between Japan and the international heritage community, disseminating information about Japanese heritage conservation practice, particularly in English, through publications and talks in support of Japan’s World Heritage nomination (Gfeller 2017). As a result, Himeji-jo and Horyuji were successfully added to the UNESCO World Heritage List at the 17th World Heritage Committee in Cartagena, Colombia in December 1993.
Due to the lack of existing resources, the Agency for Cultural Affairs heavily relied on information in their repair reports to draft the nomination dossiers for Horyu-ji and Himeji-jo (Masuda 1995a, b).24 They were concerned about the gap between heritage conservation discourse and practice at global and at local levels, such as the lack of engagement between theory and practice in heritage discourse in Japan. Japanese heritage experts were also aware of the country’s weak presence in the international heritage community, where misconceptions on Japanese cultural heritage practice, for example the case of the Ise Shrine, were prevalent (Masuda 2013; Watanabe 1995). Nevertheless, the two nomination documents confirm that good conservation ensures the original form and design of heritage properties by cleaning off later changes and additions, implying that authenticity belongs in the original form and design of heritage. International and Japanese experts appeared to be in agreement in interpreting authenticity as a static rather than dynamic and continuing process in the case of Horyu-ji and Himeji-jo. Once the properties had been successfully designated under UNESCO World Heritage, and soon after the 1992 World Heritage Committee, the government sought to overcome barriers and misconceptions over their heritage practice. In May 1993, the Agency invited Professor Stovel to Japan to explore the country’s traditional building and structure conservation practices. Stovel proposed an international open meeting on authenticity to be held in Japan (Cameron and Inaba 2015; Masuda 1995b),25 and the Nara Conference on Authenticity was planned for 1994, co-sponsored by the governments of Canada and Norway as well as international and local agencies and institutions.
An Elephant in the Room
Despite the authenticity controversy in 1992, the dominant paradigm of heritage conservation and authenticity had not changed. Authenticity problems such as how to deal with reconstruction and dismantling at a global level remained unresolved. The Japanese agency and experts were inclined to follow the dominant Eurocentric framework for heritage conservation and the notion of authenticity set in the 1964 Venice
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
Charter as a global standard in order to obtain UNESCO World Heritage status for their national heritage properties. This tendency to comply with universal rules continued at the 1994 Nara Conference on Authenticity and in its Document.
4.3.1 The Nara Conference on Authenticity The term authenticity is neither a new concept nor the only determinant of quality in heritage practice. However, it has become an evaluation criterion for UNESCO World Heritage since the turn of the twentieth century, evolving in the twenty first-century heritage discourse.26 The authenticity debate beyond Europe took centre stage on Japan’s entrance to the international World Heritage community. Japanese experts and the government overcame the first hurdle of World Heritage listing by positioning their heritage practice in the spirit of the 1964 Venice Charter, with the help of an international alliance of experts. However, World Heritage listing is rather a technical process; they still had to conquer the theoretical approach to authenticity and that called for an international conference (Ueno 2007).27 The Nara Conference was to some extent the result of a series of events for Japan, including the Kathmandu Project and the first-time World Heritage listing. Labadi (2013) claims that even before these events international experts had been seeking to break down barriers and offer relativist perspectives on authenticity in conservation practice at the World Heritage Committee. In 1984, Michel Parent, chairman of ICOMOS, wrote an article based on his 1979 analysis “Comparative study of nominations and criteria for world cultural heritage, principles and criteria for inclusion of properties on the World Heritage List” (Cameron and Rössler 2013). Parent argued that authenticity is a relative concept, therefore one cannot judge or understand the authenticity of heritage without knowing its specific context and culture. Parent was not necessarily implying the culture and tradition of non-European countries. While his argument was probably based on the Venice Charter, regarded as the Eurocentric doctrinal text, which had predominated in the heritage domain worldwide since 1964, awareness of the complexity
of diverse cultures and regions was growing in the international heritage community. Against this backdrop, Parent proposed that interpretation should be based on the context attached to each cultural heritage and site.28 Ten years on from the publication of Parent’s article, his idea evolved into the voice of wood at the 1994 Nara Conference on Authenticity. Labadi (2013) notes that at international level heritage experts had expressed the difficulty of interpreting and applying the term authenticity during the 1980s and early 1990s at the World Heritage Committee. The geographical location of the conference (Nara, Japan) symbolized a move beyond the concept of authenticity enshrined in the Operational Guidelines.29 Von Droste and Bertilsson (1995) explain two intentions behind the conference: first, to come up with a better definition of authenticity; and second, to add a new dynamic perspective to the World Heritage Convention through engagement with diverse cultures around the world.30 The international heritage community, especially the World Heritage Committee, was enthusiastic about identifying the universal essence of conservation practice across countries and clarifying the ‘test of authenticity’ defined in the Operational Guidelines by taking various aspects of authenticity into account. The Japanese agency and experts, however, were more interested in promoting a better understanding of Japan’s traditional heritage and conservation practices such as dismantle-repair. Indeed, there was a tacit understanding between Japanese and international experts that Japanese heritage and their conservation practices were not well known outside Japan (Stovel 1995a).31 The Nara Conference has been praised for its role in acknowledging cultural and heritage diversity rather than maintaining the stone-versuswood dichotomous discourse. The conference moved away from the material-centred understanding that had developed in Europe since the nineteenth century to shed light on differences in values, conservation practices, cultural settings and heritage contexts. Despite this, it failed to explore the applicability of authenticity to heritage and conservation practices (Akagawa 2015; Stovel 1995a),32 proposing a paradigm shift in approaches to heritage conservation rather than offering any solutions. Labadi (2013) contends that neither international nor Japanese experts
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
have put the ideas and expressions launched at the Nara Conference into effect. Despite the conference discussions, in the post-Nara period, non-European authorities and heritage experts continued to employ the European context of authenticity that tends to seek heritage authenticity in the original fabric of heritage.33 Furthermore, non-European heritage scholars still often rely on the wood–stone (or the East–West) dichotomous discourse when they account for authenticity as a means of highlighting “difference” and protecting their intellectual claims. If Japan has failed to conquer not only the theoretical but also the systematic approaches to authenticity in the post-Nara Conference era, so have other non-Western regions. The Agency for Cultural Affairs had first attempted to adopt the principles of the 1964 Venice Charter as official conservation guidelines within Japanese traditional heritage practice as long ago as 1975. The direct application of Western conservation principles confused Japanese practitioners in the field, who were mostly craftsmen and carpenters. Japanese traditional practices focus on dismantling and lengthening the repair cycle, whilst the 1964 Venice Charter was perceived as proposing strict control of changes subject to the original techniques and styles (Takashina 2013).34 The Agency did not make any further efforts to refine the application of the principles of the Venice Charter to meet Japanese cultural and historical context. Takashina (2013) explains that scholars and researchers only began to test the applicability of international conservation philosophy and principles to Japanese practices from around 1992. While preparations for the UNESCO World Heritage nomination acted as a trigger for the test of authenticity in Japan, it was a technical attempt and excluded the theoretical viewpoint. Neither was successful. Furthermore, there seemed to be a glass wall between academic professionals and practitioners in the field, so the latter never became part of the discussion. The Agency’s initial application of international conservation policy during the 1970s can be seen as a continuation of the admiration for the Western system as a means of modernization that perhaps dates back to the Meiji era—the national desire for achieving cultural advancement. The Agency, whether intentionally or not, laid solid foundations for Japanese heritage practice to follow the guidelines of the Venice Charter (Akagawa 2015).35 Japanese heritage
experts assert that the country’s heritage authenticity is also attached to material (Masuda 2015).36 Twenty years later, when the term authenticity officially arrived, the Agency and Japanese experts addressed the differences between Japanese heritage conservation practices and those of the West using the stone–wood framework, while continuing to strive for the conservation guidelines and principles of the 1964 Venice Charter in pursuit of authenticity.
4.3.2 The Nara Document on Authenticity Prior to the Nara Document, the application of authenticity to heritage conservation was largely dominated by the material-oriented approach. Despite the awareness of intangible qualities attached to heritage in earlier stage, it came down to the fabric of heritage properties. The test of authenticity introduced in the 1977 Operational Guidelines did not function properly due to its contradictory and unrealistic depiction of authenticity (Kono 2014; Labadi 2010; Pressouyre 1996).37 The Nara Document on Authenticity (hereafter, the Document) produced by heritage experts in collaboration with the governments of Norway and Canada, ICOMOS, ICCROM and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, was a response in recognition of these limitations. When the Document was published it was thirty years after the term authenticity had first appeared in the 1964 Venice Charter without explicit discussion.38 Although the Charter did not define authenticity, it included the intangible quality embedded in the fabric (Smith 2006; Rowney 2004) and introduced the vision of authenticity as the ‘essential qualifying factor concerning heritage values’.39 Starn (2002) adds that the Venice Charter strategically did not define authenticity in order to leave room for future improvement. Nonetheless, international and Japanese experts gathered at the Nara Conference tended to limit the interpretation of the Venice Charter as tangible attributes focused.40 Heritage experts gathered in Nara, particularly those from Japan, wanted Japanese traditional conservation practices to be incorporated into the international framework of heritage conservation in such a way as to ease the future nomination of Japanese cultural heritage
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
properties for World Heritage status (Stovel 2008, 1995b).41 Japan’s successful nomination of two properties to World Heritage status in 1993 played a key role in putting issues related to Japanese traditional structures forward, specifically, the treatment of wooden structures and issues related to ceremonial rituals (Hosoda 2004). They framed their traditional practices as ‘a culture of wood’ set against the European conservation practice of ‘a culture of stone’.42 In what was seen as a paradigm shift from the Eurocentric approach to post-modern cultural relativism, the concept of authenticity in the Document closely adheres to distinctively Japanese traditional practices. The Document has gained a reputation for international consensus building as a result of the shift from universal international conservation principles towards taking cultural and heritage diversity into account. Stovel (2008) explains that the Nara Document marked a milestone in modern conservation history, as the term authenticity was a longstanding concern among heritage experts, particularly in the World Heritage context. He further points out four contributions of the Document towards improving approaches to authenticity in conservation decision-making processes. First, the value of authenticity is no longer seen as intrinsic but extrinsic. Second, authenticity is not an absolute qualifier but is understood as a relative concept. Third, the Document challenges the idea of authenticity attributes as a composite. Fourth, it provides the “why” to improve understanding of the “how” of authenticity. The Document extended the four attributes (design, materials, workmanship and setting) of authenticity stated in the 1977 Operational Guidelines into fourteen attributes (form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors).43 Among these attributes, Kono (2014) identifies that ‘use and function’, ‘traditions and techniques’ and ‘spirit and feeling’ in particular represent the intangible and dynamic aspects of authenticity and can thus reflect diverse heritage values.44 In this sense, the Document raised awareness of the complexities involved with authenticity by including multiple dimensions of heritage that were not limited to intrinsic, but which also included extrinsic values in regard to heritage conservation. More importantly, this was also seen as a shift from a material-oriented approach to
a more appreciative understanding of the intangible aspects of cultural heritage. Notwithstanding this, there were negative comments by participating experts who regretted that the Document was insufficiently clear and failed to improve on the Venice Charter (Cameron and Rössler 2013).45 While the Document grants authenticity more breadth and flexibility, it keeps the attributes associated with the fabric unchanged, as it was largely built on the spirit of the 1964 Venice Charter. The debate at the Nara Conference did not change the material authenticity as credibility concept that was first mentioned in the Venice Charter (Van Balen 2008). In fact, the debate on authenticity and the drafting of the Document during the expert meeting in Nara widened the schism between those who continued to support a material-oriented approach and advocates of ‘an intangible, relative and cultural diversity-oriented approach’ (Van Balen 2008). Critics argue that the Nara Document opened a Pandora’s box by claiming a multicultural approach to the authenticity of heritage, more precisely World Heritage (Sand 2015). The Document had no binding power, but rather had to find an official position in the world heritage sector. After a slow and time-consuming process, the Document was formally adopted at the ICOMOS International General Assembly in 1999, five years after it had first been shared and used among international heritage experts and institutions.46 As an official international doctrinal text addressing the authenticity of heritage, it became known as an important work in different cultural contexts, cultural heritage diversity and human development under the name of ICOMOS (Kono 2014; Cameron 2008). In 1999, the World Heritage Committee started an official debate on the Document in order to have its vision adopted into the UNESCO Operational Guidelines. In 2005, the Committee formally authorized the Document to guide authenticity analysis on the World Heritage nomination process and its Articles 9, 11 and 13 were officially annexed to the 2005 Operational Guidelines. The Guidelines reproduced and extended an authenticity attribute described as ‘information sources’ in Article 13 of the Nara Document to include management system, languages and other forms of intangible heritage.47 The test of authenticity was now revised to include the fourteen attributes described above.
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
Between the 1999 ICOMOS approval and the 2005 UNESCO authorization, the World Heritage Committee approved the Document text on reconstruction in 2003. The Committee changed its policy stance on reconstructions and their authenticity when it approved the designation of the Old Bridge Area of the old city of Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina) for World Heritage status. UNESCO had long been concerned with intangible heritage and this policy change reflected a shift towards greater emphasis on the associative and intangible qualities of heritage at the international scale (Smith 2006).48 The Nara Document became a primary reference for authenticity in heritage conservation on the global stage, while ‘authenticity’ and ‘integrity’ became two different criteria in the World Heritage nomination process (Kono 2014; Smith 2006).49 By bringing the issue of intangibility to the table of heritage discourse, the Document laid the foundations for the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), an international effort to strike a balance between tangible and intangible heritage to retain local character in a rapidly changing society. Kono (2014) emphasizes that the Document was not born suddenly, nor was it innovative, but it was essential. The expansion of heritage concepts at an international level has been accompanied by an incessant debate on authenticity.50 Many factors in conservation theory and practice functioned as driving forces to create the Document and establish it as an international doctrinal text.51 Although the Document was drafted in the context of World Heritage, it spotlighted the issue of authenticity and paved the way to understanding the genuineness of information sources as a fundamental prerequisite to defining authenticity. It was also the first international doctrinal text to specify the socio-cultural context of heritage when interpreting authenticity, and it paved the way to understanding the interdependent relationship between tangible and intangible heritage.52 In particular, it expanded the understanding of authenticity to include processes of urban management and provided the groundwork to link social, cultural and economic processes to heritage conservation. While the Nara Document is seen as a groundbreaking event in the global discourse of heritage conservation, authenticity issues remain unresolved. First, understanding of the authenticity concept is still
limited to the heritage scale. Second, there is a gap in conservation outcomes between heritage values and economic development when heritage properties are being adaptively used. Third, the application of authenticity to heritage conservation should be carried out holistically rather than piecemeal (Stovel 2008).53 In addition to these pending authenticity issues, neither authorities nor experts have yet applied the authenticity framework derived from the Document to practice; it is still not operational.54 Metaphorically speaking, the Document made international agencies and experts very vocal, but Japanese agencies and experts silent. The Japanese team claimed that the concept of authenticity was based on the culture of stone and should therefore be flexible and changeable at the Nara Conference. However, their claim may have been voiced by international experts in particular from Canada and Norway. In fact, the final draft of the Document was written by two Western experts, Raymond Lemaire (French) and Herb Stovel (English), particularly under the leadership of the latter (Gfeller 2017; Larsen 1995).55 The English and French versions of the Document are different, the latter being stricter (Cameron and Rössler 2013).56 In this sense, the Nara Document is no more than a metaphor for cultural and heritage diversity predominantly from a Western framework but not necessarily speaking for Japan or its heritage practice, or the rest of the world. The political power play in the UNESCO World Heritage discussion and its official publications supports the essence of national tradition and identity that reveals authenticity as a symbol of nationalism. It is arguable whether the Document is truly an account of cultural and heritage diversity as it excluded an already ongoing heritage category such as urban heritage at that point in time. Despite the international success of the Nara Conference and its Document, the Japanese agency and experts have neither confronted nor discussed their approach to authenticity until now. They have not attempted to solve the problems of authenticity application in their heritage practice. Between 2012 and 2014, international and Japanese experts assembled once again in Japan to reaffirm the vision behind the Nara Document in what was known as Nara+20 (Boccardi 2019; Song 2016). Japan’s stance was not much changed from that of the original Document, and although international and Japanese experts raised new issues and directions for heritage
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
conservation in a series of meetings, again nothing was clarified. Despite having an opportunity to be part of the global debate on authenticity and challenge the Eurocentric framework in the early 1990s, the Agency for Cultural Affairs and Japanese experts ultimately framed their heritage practice within the Western authorized discourse on a global level, while on a national level, they secured the rationale of heritage conservation within the values and systems of traditional buildings and structures. That, in turn, forced newly emerging urban heritage into the traditional system and detached it from the dynamic urban process. Neither Japanese experts nor their international counterparts and allies foresaw the increasing economic impact of globalization on heritage conservation and authenticity at the time the Nara Document was being drafted. Unexpectedly, however, the question of authenticity has resumed outside the Nara Conference, the Nara Document and the Nara+20, as urban heritage comes into play at the heart of urban redevelopment and regeneration in the centre of Tokyo. The next chapter discusses the notion of authenticity in the rise of urban heritage conservation.
Notes 1. For the first seven years, it operated as part of Japan’s official development assistance programme. 2. The spelling used here is based on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. 3. Pressouyre (1996, p. 12). 4. Watanabe (1998, pp. 16, 19). 5. Ibid. (1998, pp. 22–24). 6. Ibid. 7. Watanabe (1998, p. 24). 8. Masuda (2013, pp. 74–75). 9. Takashina (2013, p. 57) and Masuda (2013, pp. 66–80). 10. Akagawa (2015, p. 69). 11. Watanabe (1998, p. 16). 12. Masuda (2015, p. 58) and Cameron and Inaba (2015, pp. 30–37). 13. Masuda (2013, pp. 66–80). 14. Ibid.
15. Conservation examples from the 1980s are: Shoei-kan of Doshisha University (同志社彰栄館, 1884) designated as national Important Cultural Property in 1979 and restoration undertaken in 1981; and Former Yamagata Prefecture Office and Assembly Building (山形県庁議事堂, 1916) designated as national Important Cultural Property in 1984 and restoration undertaken in 1987. See Masuda (2015). 16. Masuda (2015, p. 63) and Masuda (2013, pp. 75–76). 17. Email correspondence with N.Y., Professor at the University of Tokyo, 28 July 2016. 18. Labadi (2013, p. 37). 19. Masuda (1995a, p. 48). 20. As is written in UNESCO World Heritage List. 21. UNESCO World Heritage Centre (1993a) “Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area”, English, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/660. Accessed 13 September 2016. Emphasis added. 22. UNESCO World Heritage Centre (1993b) “Himeji-jo”, English, http:// whc.unesco.org/en/list/661. Accessed 13 September 2016. Emphasis added. 23. Masuda (1995b, p. 14). 24. Masuda (1995a, pp. 44–60) and Masuda (1995b, p. 13). 25. Cameron and Inaba (2015, p. 33) and Masuda (1995b, p. 14). 26. See ICOMOS (2017). 27. Ueno (2007, pp. 71–85). 28. Labadi (2013, p. 36). 29. Ibid. (2013, p. 47). 30. Von Droste and Bertilsson (1995, p. 7). 31. Stovel (1995a, p. xxxv). 32. Akagawa (2015, p. 78) and Stovel (1995a, pp. xxxv–xxxvi). 33. For example, China’s nomination dossier of Mount Wutai submitted in 2008. See Labadi (2013, p. 114). 34. Takashina (2013, p. 11). 35. Akagawa (2015, p. 77). 36. Masuda (2015, p. 58). 37. Pressouyre (1996, pp. 11–13) and Labadi (2010, pp. 66–84). 38. Reymond Lemaire cited in Cameron and Inaba (2015). 39. Jokilehto (1998, pp. 229–233) and Article 10 of the Nara Document on Authenticity 1994. 40. See Cameron and Inaba (2015). 41. Stovel (2008, pp. 9–17) and Stovel (1995b, pp. 393–398).
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
42. Opening statement at the committee session at the Nara Conference in 1994, delivered by UNESCO Ambassador Koichiro Matsuura. Cited in Cameron (2008, pp. 21–22). 43. Article 13 of the Nara Document on Authenticity 1994. 44. Kono (2014, p. 447). 45. Cameron and Rössler (2013, p. 89). 46. The Advisory bodies, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and the World Heritage Committee had informally used in the analysis of nominations to the World Heritage List since the mid-1990s. See Stovel (2008). 47. These additional attributes were derived from the UNESCO Expert Meeting on Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context held in Great Zimbabwe in 2000. See also Stovel (2008). 48. Smith (2006, p. 106). 49. Smith (2006, p. 106) and Kono (2014, p. 451). 50. For example, the Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (1987) and the notion of cultural landscapes were adopted into the UNESCO Operational Guidelines (1992 Revision). 51. Kono (2014, p. 455). 52. Jokilehto (2006, pp. 6–7). 53. Stovel (2008, pp. 15–16). 54. Kono (2014, p. 449). 55. Gfeller (2017) and Larsen (1995, p. xxi). 56. Cameron and Rössler (2013, p. 89).
References Akagawa, Natsuko. 2015. Heritage Conservation and Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy: Heritage, National Identity and National Interest. London: Routledge. Boccardi, Giovanni. 2019. Authenticity in the Heritage Context: A Reflection Beyond the Nara Document. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 10 (1): 4–18. Cameron, Christina. 2008. From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage Committee and Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation
Technology 39 (2/3): 19–24. The Association for Preservation Technology International. Cameron, Christina, and Mechtild Rössler. 2013. Many Voices, One Vision: The Early Years of the World Heritage Convention. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Cameron, Christina, and Nobuko Inaba. 2015. The Making of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 46 (4): 30–37. The Association for Preservation Technology International. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, English, https://www. cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html. Accessed 20 April 2017. Gfeller, Aurélie Élisa. 2017, June 1. The Authenticity of Heritage: Global Norm-Making at the Crossroads of Cultures. The American Historical Review 122 (3): 758–791. American Historical Association. Hosoda, Atsuko. 2004, January. Availability and Understanding of “Cultural Landscapes” Concept in the Operational Guidelines to Implement the World Heritage Convention I (in Japanese). Nagasaki International University Review 4: 73–81. Nagasaki International University. ICOMOS. 2017. Approaches to the Conservation of Twentieth-Century Cultural Heritage Madrid-New Delhi Document. ICOMOS International Committee on Twentieth Century Heritage. Jokilehto, Jukka. 1998. The Context of the Venice Charter (1964). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2 (2): 229–223. ———. 2006. Considerations on Authenticity and Integrity in World Heritage Context. City & Time 2 (1): 1, 1–16. Kono, Toshiyuki. 2014. Authenticity: Principles and Notions. Change Over Time 4 (2) (Fall): 436–460. Special Issue: The Venice Charter at Fifty, 1964–2014. University of Pennsylvania Press. Labadi, Sophia. 2010. World Heritage, Authenticity and Post-Authenticity, International and National Perspectives. In Heritage and Globalization, ed. Labadi Sophia and Colin Long, 66–84. London: Routledge. ———. 2013. UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-Based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Larsen, Knut Einar. ed. 1995. Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS. Masuda, Kanefusa. 1995a, March. Report on the Conference the World Heritage Convention and the Nara Conference on Authenticity (in
4 The Arrival of Authenticity
Japanese). Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians of Japan (24): 44–60. Society of Architectural Historians of Japan. ———. 1995b, February. Sekai Bunka Isan Nara Conference he Itaru Michi (in Japanese). Gekkan Bunkazai (377): 13–20. The Agency for Cultural Affairs. ———. 2013. Nihon no Hozon Shuri - Kokusaiteki Kenchi kara (in Japanese). In Bunkazai Kenzobutsu no Hozon Shuri wo Kangaeru Dai 1-kai Symposium - Hozon Shuri no Rinen no Arikata, ed. The Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments, 20–29, 66–80. Tokyo: The Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments. ———. 2015. The Nara Document on Authenticity and the World Heritage Site of Kathmandu Valley. In Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, ed. Kai Weise, 57–64. Proceedings of an International Symposium Kathmandu Valley, 25–29 November 2013. Paris and Kathmandu: UNESCO and UNESCO Office in Kathmandu. Pressouyre, Léon. 1996. The World Heritage Convention, Twenty Years Later. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Rowney, Barry. 2004. Charters and the Ethics of Conservation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. The University of Adelaide. Sand, Jordan. 2015, February. Japan’s Monument Problem: Ise Shrine as Metaphor. Past and Present 226 (10): 126–152. Oxford University Press. Smith, Laurajane. 2006. The Uses of Heritage. New York and London: Routledge. Song, Jiewon. 2016. The Three Levels of Authenticity in Heritage Conservation-based Urban Regeneration: Recasting the Conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building. Journal of Architecture and Planning 81 (727) (September): 1981–1990. Architectural Institute of Japan. Starn, Randolph. 2002, February. Authenticity and Historic Preservation: Towards an Authentic History. History of Human Sciences (15) (1): 1–6. Stovel, Herb. 1995a. Working Towards the Nara Document. In Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, ed. Larsen Knut Einar, xxxiii–xxxvi. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS. ———. 1995b. Considerations in Framing the Authenticity Question for Conservation. In Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, ed. Larsen Knut Einar, 393–398. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS.
———. 2008. Origins and Influence of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 39 (2/3): 9–17. The Association for Preservation Technology International. Takashina, Masayuki. 2013. Hozon Shuri no Genjo – Gijutsusha no Tachiba kara (in Japanese). In Bunkazai Kenzobutsu no Hozon Shuri wo Kangaeru Dai 1-kai Symposium - Hozon Shuri no Rinen no Arikata, ed. The Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments, 10–19, 55– 65. Tokyo: The Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments. Ueno, Kunikazu. 2007. On the Problems for the Registration of the World Heritage in Japan—The Meaning of Nara Conference (in Japanese). Historical Geography 49–1 (232): 71–85. The Association of Historical Geographers in Japan. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1993a. Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area. English, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/660. Accessed 13 September 2016. ———. 1993b. Himeji-jo. English, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/661. Accessed 13 September 2016. Van Balen, Koenraad. 2008. The Nara Grid: An Evaluation Scheme Based on the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 34 (2/3): 39–45. The Association for Preservation Technology International. Von Droste, Bernd, and Ulf Bertilsson. 1995. Authenticity and World Heritage. In Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, ed. Knut Einar Larsen, 3–15. UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Agency for Cultural Affairs/ICCROM/ICOMOS. Watanabe, Akiyoshi. 1995, February. Authenticity to Nihon no Bunkazai Hogo (in Japanese). Gekkan Bunkazai (377): 4–9. The Agency for Cultural Affairs. Watanabe, Katsuhiko. ed. 1998. The Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal: A Report on the I Baha Bahi Restoration Project (English & Japanese). Japan: Chuo Koron Bijutsu Shuppan. Weise, Kai. 2018. Authenticity and the Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage in Nepal. In Revisiting Authenticity in the Asian Context, ed. Wijesuriya Gamini and Sweet Jonathan, 119–132. Proceedings of a Forum on Revisiting Authenticity in the Asian context, 8–12 December 2014, ICCROM-CHA Conservation Forum Series 2. Rome: ICCROM.
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Two demolitions that occurred in the 1960s drew attention to the conservation of urban heritage in central Tokyo. These examples revealed the absence of legislation concerning urban heritage and the lack of government involvement in the face of development pressures. One of the major obstacles to the conservation of urban heritage is a low level of public and professional awareness. However, despite these negative connotations, the former Imperial Guard Headquarters was successfully designated an Important Cultural Property and state-led conservation was undertaken. While political intentions and plans were part of the heritagization of the Headquarters, this case confirms that the 1950 Heritage Law and the Agency for Cultural Affairs could only safeguard urban heritage properties on the condition of national designation (see Chapter 3). At the turn of the 1990s, as demolition threats to urban heritage properties continued to increase, state agencies finally started to protect corporately owned urban heritage built in 1912 onwards, particularly non-designated heritage assets considered eligible for national Important Cultural Property status. Government agencies, scholars and heritage practitioners were becoming aware that the 1950 Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties alone was incapable of providing © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_5
protection for urban heritage. In 1999, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, in collaboration with state agencies, private developers and experts, put heritage-led regeneration into practice in an attempt to reconcile conservation and development within the framework of the urban redevelopment system known as the Important Cultural Property Special Type Specified Block System (Juyo Bunkazai Tokubetsu Gata Tokutei Gaiku Seido, 重要文化財特別型特定街区制度, hereafter the STSBS). This chapter discusses the integration process of heritage conservation into placemaking and examines how government agencies devise and implement integrated strategies for urban heritage in the context of urban redevelopment with strong constraints on public spending.
Urban Redevelopment as a Mode of Conservation
A programme of land redevelopment requires the involvement of different levels of government and legislation. The SBS urban redevelopment system has not previously been examined from the standpoint of heritage placemaking by Japanese or foreign scholars and practitioners.
5.1.1 The Birth of the Specified Block System The SBS (Tokutei Gaiku Seido, 特定街区制度) was established in 1961 in line with the third revision of the Building Standards Law (Kenchiku Kijun Ho, 建築基準法, 1950). The system became part of the City Planning Law (Toshi Keikaku Ho, 都市計画法, 1919)1 under the Ministry of Construction, with its Planning Standards (Keikaku Hyojun, 計 画標準) issued in 1962.2 The SBS was the first urban redevelopment system that aimed to offer balanced floor area ratio (hereafter, FAR), and maximum height and setback restrictions to create a sound urban built environment at a time when cities in Japan were undergoing rapid urbanization (Fig. 5.1). Nevertheless, the system was not widely and immediately implemented due to its strict standards and limited focus on public services.3 By the time of its first revision in 1964,4 there were only
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Fig. 5.1 Specified Block System and related urban redevelopment systems (Created by the author based on Takuchi Kikaku Yochibu Kikaku Chousa Ka [n.d., p. 7])
two urban projects approved and designated as specified blocks under the SBS: Nagoya City Hall and Aichi Prefectural Office Building.5 More importantly, the idea of heritage conservation had not yet appeared in the Standards. In the 1970s, the SBS competed strongly with other similar redevelopment systems, weakening its contribution to urban redevelopment projects. Amid concerns in the public sector, public agencies began to reexamine the system’s application procedures, FAR incentives and rationale as a redevelopment tool,6 as a result of which the SBS relaxed its standards on FAR, height and setback, eventually leading to a transfer of FAR when a redevelopment project took place on more than one adjoining specified blocks.7 The private sector was increasingly invited to become involved in larger-scale redevelopment projects. However, the application procedures for the SBS were lengthy—generally up to a year— because city planning approval was required, implying strong intention to control urban redevelopment on the part of the government.8 By 1975, the number of urban redevelopment projects under the SBS across Japan increased to 51, of which 27 were in Tokyo. Urban heritage conservation was yet to come into play in the SBS.9
5.1.2 Framing Urban Heritage Conservation The first SBS urban redevelopment project executed in Tokyo was the Kasumigaseki (霞ヶ関) district, where the major government cabinet offices are located. The Kasumigaseki specified block designation was approved by the Ministry of Construction in 1964, placing the redevelopment project under the control of the Ministry. The TMG launched its own SBS operational guidelines (Unyo Kijun, 運用基準) in 1984, which were revised in 1988, 1997 and 1999 until the launch of the STSBS. From the outset, the Tokyo SBS guidelines incorporated heritage conservation policy into urban redevelopment strategy by framing it within environmental concerns.10 Under the environment criteria, the guidelines considered historic environment, cultural environment and landscape individually. The former two were directly associated with heritage conservation, while the latter implied sequential landscape design, aiming to create aesthetically pleasing urban space. More significantly, the guidelines stipulated FAR incentives for the conservation of urban heritage protected under the 1950 Heritage Law, which applied to historic buildings. The heritage conservation assessment criteria for the FAR bonus were significance, need, scale and local contribution.11 This was the TMG’s official first step towards integrating heritage conservation into the framework of redevelopment. In 1988, the TMG revised the SBS operational guidelines to greatly increase the base FAR and defined heritage as historic buildings and landmarks under the protection of the Heritage Law. One of the main reasons was to protect heritage properties from urban redevelopment in the city centre.12 The system required properties to obtain official heritage status in order to be incorporated into redevelopment. This revision added a requirement for specific issues outside the planning application to be agreed between the TMG and the developers, such as the conservation intact of historic buildings and landmarks for the specified block.13 The 1988 guidelines represented a further step towards the establishment of a heritage-led urban regeneration system.
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Meanwhile, the TMG was facing a critical situation: non-designated urban heritages built between the Meiji and the pre-war Showa periods (1868–1931) were disappearing fast in Tokyo. The powerful existing 1950 Heritage Law provided continuous protection and controlled changes to nationally designated heritage properties, such as Important Cultural Properties. However, it did not protect non-designated heritage properties, which were often not eligible for the official designation system.14 The TMG tried to offer financial compensation by providing FAR bonuses in exchange for promoting urban heritage conservation outside cultural heritage administration, particularly for urban heritage properties located in the city centre.15 Centre stage in the debate between conservation and redevelopment in Tokyo’s historic urban space, and partly responsible for the 1988 revision of the SBS guidelines, was the case of the Block Redevelopment Plan for the Tokyo Banker’s Club Building (Tokyo Ginko Shukaijo, 東京銀行集 会所, hereafter the Club Building) (Fig. 5.2).16,17
Fig. 5.2 Tokyo Banker’s Club Building in 1990 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, p. 488]. The photo was taken before demolition)
Unfortunately, although the TMG made a great effort to save the Club Building, its owner and developer refused to retain the property intact. Its official heritage designation was lost and both interior and exterior of the building dismantled; some significant pieces of exterior façade within its block were relocated and reconstructed.18 The TMG failed to implement the 1988 SBS in the case of the Tokyo Banker’s Club Building Block Redevelopment Plan. The Club Building owner and developer applied through the Permission System for Comprehensive Building Design System (Sogo Sekkei Seido, 総合設計制度, hereafter the PSCBD)19 instead of the SBS, leading to demolition of the Club Building to create an open space in order to achieve the FAR bonus (Doi et al. 1997). Maeno (1991) claims that the owner and developer only earned 0.4% FAR bonus through the Club Building demolition—not much profit.20 The owner and developer presumably chose the PSCBD route because the application procedure was shorter and involved less government control.21 In other words, the requirement for prior arrangements on heritage conservation with the TMG and the very long application procedure of the city planning system may have been disadvantages that led them to avoid the SBS. The Club Building case became a prototype for “facadism” or partial demolition to be promoted as a genuine method of heritage conservation.22 This has inevitably become a popular conservation method in urban redevelopment.23 The case influenced urban heritage conservation practice in Tokyo in such cases as the St. Luke’s International Hospital (Seiruka Kokusai Byoin, 聖路加国際病院),24 the DN Tower 21 (Kyu Daiichi Seimeikan, 旧第一生命館)25 and the Otemachi Nomura Building (大手町野村ビル).26 While none of these were official heritage properties at the time redevelopment was undertaken, the first two cases were approved in 1989 under the SBS, and the third was permitted under the PSCBD in the same year. None were nationally designated heritage but there were all listed as Tokyo Metropolitan Selected Historical Structures (Tokyo-to Sentei Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu, 東京都選 定歴史的建造物). Even though these outcomes in fact represented the destruction of urban heritage, the Club Building redevelopment case was an incubator for the integration of urban heritage conservation into the
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Fig. 5.3 Tokyo Banker’s Club Building in 2014 (Photographed by the author, 18 September 2014)
framework of redevelopment. The remains of the Club Building disappeared in the second half of 2016 (Figs. 5.3 and 5.4).27
The Evolution of the System
Although the Tokyo Banker’s Club Building Redevelopment Plan demonstrated that urban heritage conservation failed to come into play in the urban land-use planning system, the relevant government agencies seemed to learn lessons from the case.28 Ten years after the demolition of the Club Building, multilevel government agencies, industry and actors finally sat around the table and put their heads together to establish a heritage-led urban regeneration system and put it into practice to prevent urban heritage properties from being destroyed to make a way for new development (Kume et al. 2006). The conservation of urban heritage of the Showa period (1926–1989) became a central issue in cultural heritage administration. At the same time, national Important Cultural Property designation came on stream. This is an official heritage status
Fig. 5.4 Tokyo Banker’s Club Building site in 2018 (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018)
protected by the Heritage Law and it has been a requirement for FAR incentives since the 1984 Tokyo SBS operational guidelines were issued. At around the same time, the TMG tackled its SBS guidelines, leading to the third revision in 1997. This included several changes relevant to urban heritage conservation: first, block redevelopment was regarded as involved with heritage conservation; second, heritage sites were counted as open space; third, designated FAR was divided into two types, general and special, with the former containing heritage conservation; and fourth, it restricted the transfer of bonus FAR to office use, particularly in the three centrally located wards in the Tokyo Metropolitan area— Chiyoda-ku (千代田区), Chuo-ku (中央区) and Minato-ku (港区). Two urban heritage properties of the Showa era located in these central business districts were designated national Important Cultural Properties: the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters (Meiji Yasuda Seimei Kan, 明 治安田生命館, 1934) designated in 1997, and the Mitsui Main Building (Mitsui Honkan, 三井本館, 1929) designated in 1998. Both properties are corporately owned modern headquarters office buildings, built
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
on a large scale and involved in block redevelopment projects, the former located in the Chiyoda ward and the latter in the Chuo ward. They undoubtedly laid the foundations for creation of the STSBS, a spin-off of the SBS, which became the first heritage-led regeneration system framework in Tokyo. The remainder of this section is in two parts. The first part touches upon the three prerequisites leading to the STSBS, which are socioeconomic and political conditions at the policy level and decisionmaking processes. The second part discusses two nationally designated Important Cultural Properties and the advancement of the system.
5.2.1 Three Prerequisites 184.108.40.206 Drafting a Clear-Cut Contract The first condition in the policy and decision-making process is drafting a Memorandum of Agreement between the Agency for Cultural Affairs and a property owner prior to processing heritage designation. The 1990 demolition of the Tokyo Banker’s Club Building was a lesson for government agencies, in particular, the Agency for Cultural Affairs.29 When the debate on the Club Building heated up during the late 1980s, the Agency was celebrating its twentieth anniversary and its attention was shifting from heritage properties of the Meiji era to those of the Taisho era (1912–1926).30 The demolition of the Club Building showed that it was still early to raise awareness of the conservation of urban heritage from the most recent past (the twentieth century). In their attempt to designate the Club Building a national Important Cultural Property, the Agency faced a number of obstacles: the Club Building was centrally located in Tokyo, it was corporately owned and it was continuously occupied. While the Agency had much experience in the designation of traditional heritage such as sacred and religious buildings and castles, their capability in urban heritage designation was still limited at that time. Urban heritage properties, especially modern ones like the Club Building, have different requirements from traditional ones, including, though not limited to, setting and location. While the Agency did not recognize
the need for a different approach to urban heritage, they were confident about exercising their authority and power over urban heritage designation. Without a strategic plan, they embarked on discussions with the property owner, seeking consent for the designation of the Club Building. The result was disappointing.31 The Club Building case revealed not only the Agency’s unsophisticated approach, but also their lack of strategies and experience specific to urban heritage designation. It was inevitable that the Agency would lose the negotiations in this case. In 1994, an opportunity of improving on the drawbacks to urban heritage designation came when the former Bank of Iwate Headquarters Building (also known as the Bank’s Nakanohashi branch) located in Morioka-city (盛岡), Iwate Prefecture (岩手), was to be designated a national Important Cultural Property.32 Following the Tokyo Banker’s Club Building case, the Agency was desperate to achieve Important Cultural Property status for corporately owned urban heritage33 and attempted a different approach to the Bank of Iwate building. They drafted clear guidance to support the conservation and management in consultation with the property owner, identifying the three most ambiguous terms in conservation practices under the 1950 heritage legislation: change of existing conditions (Genjo Henko, 現状変更); repair (Shuri, 修理); and management (Kanri , 管理).34 The legal officer of the Iwate Prefecture Government, a former Agency official, noted that the Heritage Law neither defined nor distinguished these three terms. The Agency therefore decided to spell them out at the negotiating table with the property owner as specifically applicable to individual urban heritage. This would provide a clear and simple explanation of the conservation actions to the owner. This arrangement between the Agency and the owner was reduced to a Memorandum of Agreement only two or three pages long.35 The designation of the Bank of Iwate Nakanohashi Branch (Iwate Ginko Nakanohashi Shiten, 岩手銀行中橋支店) as an Important Cultural Property was the first case when the Agency issued an official heritage conservation contract. Unlike the Club Building case, the Bank of Iwate building was not under severe development pressure despite its central location in the city of Morioka. Since urban redevelopment was
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
not a major issue in the designation, the case did not involve negotiation of FAR incentives. This part of the contract was later made into the Conservation Management Plan (Hozon Katsuyo Keikaku, 保存活用計 画) of Important Cultural Property, a mandatory requirement for owners of national Important Cultural Properties.36 Drafting the Memorandum of Agreement provided an opportunity for the Agency to exercise a strategic approach to urban heritage designation, piloting relaxing the burdens on property owners.37 This exercise helped persuade the owners and developers of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters and the Mitsui Main Building to be designated national Important Cultural Properties.
220.127.116.11 Deregulating Cultural Heritage Protection In the midst of an economic recession, major national policy actions directly impacted urban heritage conservation. The second condition in the policy and decision-making process was the revision in 1996 of the 1950 Heritage Law, which introduced two major changes. The first was the adoption of a new heritage registration system known as the Registered Tangible Cultural Properties System (Toroku Yukei Bunkazai Seido, 登録有形文化財制度, hereafter the Registration System), which particularly focused on urban heritage from the Meiji era onward.38 The Registration System is a spin-off of the Western heritage system, developed after extensive research on European and the United States heritage systems such as the US National Register of Historic Places listing.39 Unlike the existing designation system, the Registration System permits changes and calls attention to the use of heritage properties, targeting non-designated properties to pave the way for inviting private owners to participate in voluntary protection. The Registration System was an outcome of long-term concern for non-designated urban heritage, which fell out of eligibility for official designation due to the limitation of the existing designation system, low awareness levels and strong development pressures. Between 1950 and 1996, there were a number of cases of adaptive use of modern historic buildings in Japan, but all were public-sector initiatives, so new uses for historic properties were limited to public
facilities such as museums and libraries. Adaptive use of heritage buildings became popular, particularly after the end of the bubble economy years.40 The Agency also held a series of expert meetings between 1994 and 1996 to discuss urban heritage conservation issues. While the designation system was powerful and offered continuous protection, it did not allow official changes to the existing conditions or features of heritage properties. Sakitani (1996) affirms that the Registration System allows the scope of heritage conservation practices to be increased, complementing the existing designation system without making changes to the 1950 Heritage Law.41 The launch of the Registration System and the second change in the 1996 amendment modifying the Important Cultural Property designation criteria were not mutually exclusive. The Agency undertook national inventory research on modern as well as industrial and infrastructure heritage properties (Kindaika Isan, 近代化遺産), and set up expert committees to review the national heritage designation system for this emerging category during the early 1990s. A group of experts re-examined the designation criteria for Important Cultural Properties with a view to widening the scope and definition of heritage, promoted the use of heritage, and re-interpreted the notion of “partial protection”.42 It essentially echoed the Registration System and created a combined effect promoting the conservation of urban heritage. The experts deemed that the designation system lacked flexibility in coping with the diversity of urban heritage; adaptability was therefore added to the revised designation criteria for Important Cultural Property urban heritage. More fundamentally, the 1996 amendment to the Important Cultural Property designation criteria paved the way not only for enlarging the scope of national heritage properties but for inviting corporate and private owners to take part in these conservation efforts.43 The Agency extended its interest to the conservation of Showa-era urban heritage. These new cultural heritage administration requirements were, however, actually a chain reaction from the socio-economic and political conditions of the time. During the period between roughly 1985 and 1990, massive destruction of historic buildings and structures outside the scope of the 1950 Heritage Law occurred, despite their significance. The major socio-economic reasons were land development,
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
urbanization and changes in lifestyle, which were on a collision course with urban heritage properties (Kakiuchi 2014). This period was also known as Japan’s bubble economy; when it ended in the early 1990s, the country began a prolonged economic contraction. In these circumstances, the national government proceeded with regulatory reforms in various sectors of economy under the 3-Year Programme for the Promotion of Deregulation (Kisei Kanwa Suishin 3-Kanen Keikaku, 規制緩 和推進 3 ヶ年計画). In 1995, the cabinet approved the Deregulation Action Programme, which directly laid the foundations for new deregulation in a wide range of fields including the cultural heritage sector, affecting use and public access to national heritage properties. Implementation of the Registration System and the revision of the Important Cultural Property designation criteria were also intended to deregulate heritage protection.44 The national Important Cultural Property policy was thus able to shift from untouched and pristine stasis towards a functional and alterable position.45
18.104.22.168 Exemption from the Building Code The earliest appearance of the term “exemption” in the law dated back to the Urban Building Law (Shigaichi Kenchikubutsu Ho, 市街地建築 物法, hereafter the UB) enacted in 1919.46 Although it did not specifically consider heritage conservation, the UB required complete or partial exemption from the application of the building code to those historic buildings and structures that were protected by the heritage legislations. At that time, heritage legislation consisted of the Ancient Temples and Shrines Preservation Law (1897) and the Historical Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty, and Natural Monuments Preservation Law (1919). In 1929, the Ancient Temples and Shrines Preservation Law was abolished and the National Treasures Preservation Law introduced, leading to a revision of UB enforcement. The UB did not require heritage properties including historic buildings and structures protected under the heritage laws to meet building control regulations, such as building height and coverage ratio which were controlled by Article 25 of the Imperial Ordinance, under which cultural heritage was defined as nationally and locally
designated specially protected buildings, historical sites, places of scenic beauty, and natural monuments (Enforcement Ordinance, Article 27). In 1950, the Urban Building Law was abolished due to the enactment of the Building Standards Law (Kenchiku Kijun Ho, 建築基準法, hereafter the BS). The word “exemption” appears in Article 3 (Tekiyo Jogai, 適用除外) and offers a complete exemption from the application of the BS to nationally designated heritage properties under protection of the 1950 Heritage Law. The BS continued the UB tradition that placed heritage properties under the protection of the heritage legislation by excluding them from the imposition of legal controls such as building coverage ratio and building height. In other words, the UB and the BS did not interfere with the Heritage Law but granted official heritage properties full care and protection under it.47 Under the 1950 Building Standards Law, national heritage properties largely consist of national treasures, Important Cultural Properties and important tangible folk cultural properties, as well as historic properties designated historic sites, places of scenic beauty and natural monuments, and accredited under the Law Regarding the Preservation of Important Works of Fine Art (1933). Article 3 further expanded the application of the exemption to include non-nationally designated heritage properties officially approved and designated by local administrative agencies. These properties were neither legally restricted on change of existing condition, nor managed by protective measures. Item 2, Article 182 of the 1950 Heritage Law—also known as Other Ordinances (Sono Hokano Jorei, その他の 条例)—states that local public entities may, by establishing regulations, designate significant heritage assets within their districts that are not nationally designated Important Cultural Properties. In 1996, a new category of heritage was added to the BS for exemption, the Registered Tangible Cultural Property. In principle, the exemption did not apply to these registered heritage properties as the Heritage Law applied different grading scales to designation and registration. However, the BS accepted them, conditional on official local heritage designation status and the approval of exemption application by the local council’s building review. As these laws did not provide details of the exemption, no one paid much attention to the term or anticipated its potential to
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
provide grounds for integrating urban heritage conservation into the urban land-use planning system.48 With regard to precisely this issue, the TMG proposed to establish a heritage-led regeneration system adopting the SBS, and accordingly, private-sector actors introduced the term “exemption from the BS”. At the same time, the combination of national heritage status and the FAR became a key success factor for achieving urban heritage conservation within the framework of redevelopment. At the TMG’s request, a team of private-sector actors undertook in-depth research on domestic and overseas conservation cases to find FAR and exemption cases applicable to the SBS in Tokyo. They identified two domestic urban heritage conservation examples involving FAR exemption.49 The first case is known as Building No.15 of the former Foreign Settlement (Kyu Kyoryuchi Jugobankan, 旧居留地 15 番館, hereafter, Building 15) located in Kobe city. Originally erected as an American Consulate Office in 1880, Building 15 was designated an Important Cultural Property in 1989, while a new office tower was built through the PSCBD within the same block in 1990.50 The local public agency granted a building permit stipulating exemption from the application of the BS, so the FAR of Building 15 was counted as zero.51 Building 15 was completely destroyed by the Great Kobe earthquake of 1995; the current building is post-disaster reconstruction work using 75% of the original materials in the original location (Masuda 2015).52 The second case is the Gokomachi Church (御幸町教会, hereafter the Gokomachi), one of the early works of William Vories, built in Kyoto city in 1913. The Gokomachi was kept nearly intact and listed as a Kyoto city tangible cultural property in 1997.53 The owner of the church applied for a building permit to erect an addition within the same block after its heritage listing. Its local heritage status rendered the Gokomachi eligible for exemption from the BS so that the building permit exempted it from the FAR and Building Coverage Ratio. The exemption was approved by the Kyoto municipal government(Suzuki 1998). Suzuki (1998) stresses that these two exemption cases could provide a sound basis for the idea of exemption and the FAR incentive for urban heritage conservation underpinning the integration of conservation into the SBS. Urban heritage properties are often located in the middle of economic and political activity, so the debate between conservation and
Fig. 5.5 Legal frameworks on urban heritage (Created by the author)
redevelopment is strongly associated with their urban location and setting. The integration process of urban heritage conservation into the redevelopment framework inevitably involves multilevel institutions and actors. Thus the three preconditions, and the collaborations and partnerships across sectors, together paved the way for the establishment of the STSBS (see also Chapter 6) (Fig. 5.5).
5.2.2 Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters In May 1997, the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters (hereafter, the Life Building) was designated the first national Important Cultural Property of the Showa era (Fig. 5.6). In 1986, Meijiyasuda Life Insurance (hereafter, Meijiyasuda) opened discussions between conservation and redevelopment at corporate level by establishing a committee known as the M Plan Committee (hereafter, the M Committee) comprising Meijiyasuda (property owner), Mitsubishi Estate (developer) and Takenaka Corporation (general contractor) to examine ways of integrating the conservation of the Life Building into its block redevelopment in 1990. While Meijiyasuda and Mitsuibishi Estate had seats at the negotiating
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Fig. 5.6 Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters (Photographed by the author, 18 September 2014)
table of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters Block Redevelopment Plan, Takenaka Corporation was responsible for the conservation of the Life Building.54 In 1992, the M Committee decided to undertake both conservation of the Life Building and the redevelopment of its block, commencing negotiations with the TMG (Ajisaka et al. 2009). Although the M Committee held over 100 meetings, their negotiations with the TMG did not appear to go smoothly and they were unable to form a detailed implementation plan within the city planning system before the designation of the Life Building. Talks between the property owner, the developer and the government agencies deteriorated significantly. The Life Building Block Redevelopment became divorced from the Life Building designation as Important Cultural Property during the course of the stakeholder meetings between the TMG, Meijiyasuda and Mitsubishi. The conversation had ceased by the time the Life Building was officially designated a national Important Cultural Property in 1997.55 Nonetheless, the national heritage designation of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters inevitably set the stage for the STSBS (Fig. 5.7). News of the Life Building as the first Important Cultural Property designation of the Showa era alerted
Fig. 5.7 Life Building case summary (Created by the author based on the interviews and archival research)
another major developer who was also in a position to make a final decision between conservation and redevelopment.
5.2.3 Mitsui Main Building News of the designation of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters as Important Cultural Property was a decisive event for Mitsui Fudosan (hereafter, Mitsui), the owner of the Mitsui Main Building (Fig. 5.8).
Fig. 5.8 Mitsui Main Building (Photographed by the author, 4 July 2014)
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Even before the news emerged, Mitsui had been favouring demolition of their asset—the Mitsui Main Building—at corporate level, to make way for block redevelopment. The news held corporate decision makers back from knocking down the building.56 The situation was similar to Meijiyasuda and Mitsubishi Estate, which resumed their Life Building Redevelopment Plan before the heritage designation of the building, although this fizzled out without proceeding to the next stage. Meanwhile, the TMG moved on to the Mitsui Main Building Block Redevelopment Plan as the first case of an urban redevelopment project conserving a nationally designated Important Cultural Property in the centre of Tokyo.57 Mitsui and Mitsubishi Estate joined forces to advance redevelopment plans at the negotiating table with the government agencies. At the same time, Mitsui was advancing its own negotiations with the government agencies.58 It held an extensive series of meetings with public-sector agencies (the Ministry of Construction, the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Chuo ward) in addition to experts, and the corresponding private actors (Meijiyasuda and Mitsubishi Estate) between 1997 and 1999. By the time the consultation began, the SBS was the only redevelopment system that stipulated the conservation of urban heritage and could offer the highest FAR bonus to compensate for the conservation efforts.59 Although the STSBS was developed out of the SBS, Mitsui originally considered three alternative redevelopment systems for the Mitsui Main Building Block Redevelopment: the PSCBD, the Efficient Land Utilization District System (Kodo Riyo Chiku 高度利用地区, hereafter the ELUDS) and the SBS. After calculation and negotiations between conservation and redevelopment, Mitsui and the TMG agreed on the SBS. All discussions and negotiations took place behind closed doors. In July 1997, on receiving approval from the national government agencies, the STSBS preparations were finally set in motion.60 The Mitsui Redevelopment Plan, known as the MR1 Plan (see Chapter 6), officially commenced only two months after the official designation of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters had taken place.61 As the first case of heritage conservation in the urban land-use planning system in Tokyo, the Mitsui Main Building Block Redevelopment STSBS consisted of the Important Cultural Property national heritage status and exemption
from the building code in addition to FAR (Fig. 5.9). Article 3 of the BS stated that nationally designated heritage properties were exempted from building regulations and the reinterpretation of the Article expanded the scope of practice to exempt the floor area ratio of Important Cultural Properties in the STSBS. For the first time in the urban land-use planning system, the STSBS also included design control. On approval by the Ministry of Construction, the TMG finally implemented the STSBS. In the centre of Tokyo, the number of urban heritage buildings and structures decreased dramatically from 1016 to 477 between 1980 and 1990.62 In particular, urban heritage properties decreased from 264 to 65 between 1980 and 1999 in the Chuo ward, where the Mitsui Main Building is located.63 By the time of the official designation of the Main Building in 1998, only eleven urban heritage properties throughout Tokyo’s 23 wards were under the protection of the Heritage Law as national Important Cultural Properties.64 The STSBS was the first integrative approach to urban heritage, leading neither to facadism nor to partial demolition but to complete preservation within the framework of urban redevelopment in Tokyo. Another key point is that the STSBS opened a new financial option not only for public agencies but also for owners and developers. Neither Meijiyasuda nor Mitsui took a conservation subsidy but they did receive a FAR bonus for the conservation of their heritage properties. More importantly, the system paved the way for the involvement of private-sector commercial practitioners/architecture firms to deliver the conservation of nationally designated Important Cultural Properties. In this way, the STSBS laid out a framework for
Fig. 5.9 Mitsui Main Building case summary (Created by the author based on the interviews and archival research)
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
heritage-led regeneration in Tokyo. At the same time, the TMG revised the Tokyo Metropolitan SBS operational guidelines, officially releasing its fourth version, the STSBS, in April 1999.
Urban Regeneration and the Authenticity Redux
The SBS was originally established as a way of erecting high-rise buildings in centrally located urban districts. It was originally established at the national level under the Ministry of Construction in 1961 as a top-down approach to urban development, then grafted onto the TMG urban policy in 1984. In the same year, the TMG established its own SBS operational guidelines. Since then, the TMG SBS has included heritage conservation under the category of landscape, distinguishing it from historic and cultural environments. Although historic and cultural environments were not defined in the 1984 Tokyo SBS guidelines, they considered urban heritage one of the landscape elements. The 1984 guidelines stated that the SBS would provide exemption from the building code where conservation and restoration on two levels were being carried out on heritage properties.65 Partial exemption was offered to nondesignated heritage properties, and FAR bonuses granted to nationally designated historic buildings under the 1950 Heritage Law. Although the system had included the idea of heritage conservation from the early stages, it was not until the national heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building paired with the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters that the urban redevelopment system as a mode of heritage conservation finally got under way in the light of the STSBS. Since its establishment, heritage-led urban regeneration has been an important tool for urban revitalization in Tokyo and has evolved into divergent types, becoming incorporated into the larger question of city development. It further changed the authority of state agencies such as the Agency for Cultural Affairs in the delivery of conservation and provided alternative finance options other than state subsidy to property owners and developers in support of conservation efforts. On top of that, the establishment of the heritage-led urban regeneration system has made a break with the
conventional heritage system and the redux of authenticity. This section explores two current redevelopment systems driving heritage-led regeneration in Tokyo that have evolved from the framework of the STSBS.66
5.3.1 Exceptional Floor Area Ratio Zone System In 2000, the Exceptional Floor Area Ratio Zone System (Tokurei Yosekiritsu Tekiyo Kuiki Seido, 特例容積率適用区域制度, hereafter the EFARZS) was established within the city planning system, allowing unused floor area to be relocated from a heritage property to its neighbouring blocks to accommodate urban redevelopment while protecting the property.67 The EFARZS was created for the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (Fig. 5.10) conservation and the Tokyo Station Area Improvement (116.7 ha).68 The East Japan Railway Company (JR East), owner of the station, agreed to its designation as a national Important Cultural Property in 2003, expecting to receive a floor area incentive instead of a state subsidy for undertaking the Tokyo Station conservation.69 The EFARZS enabled the preservation and restoration of Tokyo Station from a financial perspective by selling unused floor area (700% of the total FAR 900%) through Transferable Development Rights which
Fig. 5.10 Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014)
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Fig. 5.11 Tokyo Station case summary (Create by the author based on the interviews and archival research)
completed in 2012.70 Despite the heritage conservation benefits, the EFARZS requires a single conservation project to be responsible for multiple urban redevelopment projects at the same time to accumulate floor area.71 In the absence of height restrictions, the system also permits the construction of high rises in the immediate surroundings of a heritage property. The details of the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building conservation project will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 (Fig. 5.11).
5.3.2 Special District for Urban Renaissance In 2002, the national government introduced more deregulation to promote more efficient land use and boost Tokyo’s international competitiveness. In line with this, the Special District for Urban Renaissance (Toshi Saisei Tokubetsu Chiku, 都市再生特別地区, hereafter the SDUR) was launched as a new urban redevelopment system under the Act on Special Measures Concerning Urban Renaissance (Toshi Saisei Tokubetsu Sochiho, 都市再生特別措置法).72 This is a highly flexible system compared to the existing urban redevelopment systems, because the national government has removed almost all conventional land-use restrictions, and that encourages the private sector to design urban development plans. However, regional government agencies such as the TMG still retain final decision-making authority, so development proposals have to meet the requirements given by the agency.73 Unlike the EFARZS, the
SDUR is not designed to conserve urban heritage, but accelerates landuse deregulation to assist urban redevelopment under a larger national framework of global urban competitiveness (Figs. 5.12 and 5.13).74 Under the SDUR, at the time this research was undertaken, there are two urban heritage conservation cases in redevelopment projects in Tokyo, the Tokyo Central Post Office Building (hereafter, the Post Office) and the Takashimaya Tokyo Store (hereafter, the Takashimaya) (Figs. 5.14 and 5.15). While the former is a non-designated property, the latter is a nationally designated Important Cultural Property. While the Post Office has retained two, insufficient, spans of its façade, the Takashimaya is protected by the heritage legislation. In the SDUR framework, government agencies emphasize the contribution of urban regeneration as a trade-off with the floor area incentive. In this way heritage properties are turned into machines tasked with earning higher floor area bonuses.75 Both public- and private-sector actors tend to lack consensus
Fig. 5.12 Post Office before (left) and after as Kitte/JP Tower (right) ([Tokyo Central Post Office Building] Mitsubishi Estate [1993c, Appendix p. 374] the photo was taken before the completion of the post office building assumably around 1931 and [Kitte/JP Tower] Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014)
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Fig. 5.13 Post Office case summary (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “Marunouchi 2-Chome 7 Chiku Toshikeikaku Teian” for the 184th City Planning Council Meeting (6 February 2009) and Nikkei XTECH )
Takashimaya Tokyo Store (Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014)
Fig. 5.15 Takashimaya case summary (Created by the author based on the interviews and archival research)
on the value assessment of heritage properties, particularly those that are in the transition towards commodification in urban redevelopment.76 This has also paved the way for a battleground at the interplay between authenticity, heritage conservation and urban redevelopment. Before the official advent of the STSBS, the laws neither explained exemption nor anticipated heritage conservation at urban scale. Nonetheless, when the private-sector team reported the exemption cases to the TMG, the government commented that the scale of the Gokomachi was too small compared to the Mitsui Main Building, the church being neither located in the city centre nor exposed to urban redevelopment pressures. In fact the TMG passed the issue and the final decision to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) in the making of the STSBS.77 Neither a single public agency or private developer seems to have anticipated the post-STSBS urban manifestation in the centre of Tokyo at that time. The heritage-led urban regeneration process demands the authenticity of urban heritage which, in its turn, causes heritage authenticity to be extended to the urban scale. We shall discuss this further in Chapters 6 and 7.
Notes 1. The City Planning Law-Old Act (1919) was abolished in 1968 to make way for a new City Planning Law. Nevertheless, the name of law remains the same. 2. Interview with I.T., PIC of Urban Redevelopment Promotion, Land Use Planning Section, Urban Development Planning Policy Division, Bureau of Urban Development, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 4 November 2016. Conducted by the author. 3. Takuchi Kikaku Yochibu Kikaku Chousa Ka (n.d.). 4. Interview with I.T. 5. Takuchi Kikaku Yochibu Kikaku Chousa Ka (n.d.). 6. Ibid. 7. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, “Urban Land Use Planning System in Japan”, English, http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/ 000234477.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2016.
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
8. Interview with S.T.1, Architect/Managing Director of Tokyo Kosoku Doro Company, 15 October 2014. Conducted by the author. He was a former employee of Mitsubishi Estate and a project leader of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters Block Redevelopment Project. 9. At the 140th Tokyo Metropolitan City Planning Council Meeting held on 26 July 1999, one of the council members presented the SBS operational manuals (Unyo no Tebiki, 運用の手引き) issued by the Ministry of Construction, which included the ‘conservation of landmarks’. The council member did not explicate its date of issue; therefore, it remained unclear when exactly the Ministry’s SBS guidelines first mentioned the heritage conservation. However, the term heritage conservation did not appear in the national SBS planning standards between 1961 and 1964. 10. In the Tokyo Metropolitan SBS guidelines, the term conservation covers preservation and restoration. 11. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of City Planning (1984). 12. Asahi Shimbun, 23 January 1988. 13. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of City Planning (1988). 14. Sakitani (1996, p. 6). 15. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of City Planning (1988). 16. The Tokyo Banker’s Club Building was built in 1916 and was a nondesignated urban heritage property of the Taisho era. 17. Asahi Shimbun, 23 January 1988. 18. Maeno (1991), Asahi Shimbun, 8 February 1989, Asahi Shimbun, 20 October 1989, and Mainichi Shimbun, 5 September 1990. 19. The PSCBD was established in 1970 within the Building Standards Law (1950). 20. Maeno (1991). 21. The PSCBD application process takes up to six months and permits are controlled by the local government building authority. 22. The term “facadism” has always negative overtones in the architectural field. It is a trade-off between the demolition of a large part of structure and the conservation of a small part of façade. Tomlan defines “facadism” as another name for demolition. See Tomlan (2015, pp. 279–285). 23. Interview with H.M., Architect/Deputy General Manager, Design Department III of Mitsubishi Estate, 18 September 2014. Conducted by the author. He was PIC in the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters Block Redevelopment Plan. 24. The St. Luke’s International Hospital was listed as Tokyo-Metropolitan Selected Historical Structure in 1999.
25. The DN Tower was listed as Tokyo-Metropolitan Selected Historical Structure in 2004. 26. The Otemachi Nomura Building was formerly known as the Nisshin Seimei-kan (日清生命館, 1932–) and then it was recognized as the Marunouchi Nomura Building (丸の内野村ビルヂング, 1941–) until its block redevelopment. The Building was listed as Tokyo-Metropolitan Selected Historical Structure in 1997. See Ajisaka et al. (2009). 27. Mitsubishi Estate, 2014, “Marunouchi 1-3 Project (Tentative Name) Slated to Commence”, News Release on 27 November, English, http:// www.mec.co.jp/e/news/pdf/mec141127_otemachi_1-3.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2016. 28. Interview with G.O., Professor at Kogakuin University, 29 December 2014. Conducted by the author. He was a former senior specialist for historic buildings and structures at the Agency for Cultural Affairs and served between 1988 and 2004. 29. The information in regard with the Memorandum of Agreement for heritage designation is constructed based on the interview with G.O. Unless otherwise stated. 30. Interview with G.O. 31. Ibid. 32. This is a two-storey red brick structure designed by Manji Kasai and Kingo Tatsuno in 1911 that became the first Important Cultural Property of corporately owned urban heritage. 33. Interview with G.O. 34. The change of existing conditions requires approval and repair is on a notification basis, whilst management is based on the owner’s own judgement. 35. Interview with G.O. 36. The Agency launched the Conservation Management Plan targeted on the building and structure of national Important Cultural Property in March 1999. 37. However, the Agency for Cultural Affairs no longer drafts the Memorandum of Agreement for heritage designation upon the implementation of the Conservation Management Plan. G.O. argues that the Plan ironically puts the burden back on property owners. 38. Sakitani (1996, pp. 4–10) and Asahi Shimbun, 20 June 1996. 39. For example, the 50-year rule in the Registration System was adopted from the United States National Register. See Nishimura (1996). 40. Nishimura (2004, pp. 169–170).
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
48. 49. 50.
51. 52. 53.
55. 56. 57.
Sakitani (1996) refers to Article 2 of the 1950 Heritage Law. Interview with G.O. Nishimura (2004, pp. 164–169). Sakitani (1996) and the Agency for Cultural Affairs (1996, pp. 39–40). The 1950 Heritage Law, amended in June 2018, has placed greater importance on utilization than on conservation. When and how exactly the idea of exemption implemented is still unknown. Interview with K.M., Principal of Nihon Sekkei, 27 October 2014; and Interview with S.T.2, Project Manager, Research and Planning Group, Environment and Energy Service Department, Office Building Division of Mitsui Fudosan, 6 January 2016. Both interviews were conducted by the author. K.M. and S.T.2 were key players in the Mitsui Main Building Block Redevelopment Plan who also conducted the research on the FAR and exemption cases. Interview with K.M. and interview with S.T.2. Ibid. Nozawa Corporation, “Building No. 15 of the Former Settlement in Kobe”, Japanese, https://www.nozawa-kobe.co.jp/other/15ban.html. Accessed 8 August 2016. Suzuki (1998, pp. 184–196), Interview with K.M., and Interview with S.T.2. Masuda (2015, p. 63). Kyoto Gokomachi Church, “Kyoto Gokomachi Church no Rekishi”, Japanese, http://k-gokomachi.ciao.jp/policy.html. Accessed 9 August 2016. Interview with K.Y., Group Leader, Architectural Design Group 3, Integrated Space Design Section, Design Department of Takenaka Corporation and N.T., Historic Building Expert, Senior Manager, Proposal Group, Design Department of Takenaka Corporation, 22 August 2014. Conducted by the author. Both of them were PIC of the conservation of the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 11 June 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Interview with G.O. The first Specified Block System project involved with urban heritage conservation is known as the DN Tower 21 (Former Dai-ichi Life Building) in 1995, attaining 1230% FAR in total (FAR bonus: 230%). But
58. 59. 60. 61. 62.
the tower was listed as Tokyo Metropolitan Selected Historical Structures in 2003. Interview with S.T.2. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 9 October 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 11 June 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 5 December 2004, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Urban heritage refers to architectural heritage assets built between the Meiji, the Taisho and the Showa (pre-war) periods. The City Centre of Tokyo includes the wards of Chiyoda, Chuo, Taito, Shinjuku and Minato. Mitsui Main Building Block Redevelopment Plan File, Nihon Sekkei Archive. See also Architectural Institute of Japan (1983). Mitsui Main Building Block Redevelopment Plan File, Nihon Sekkei Archive and Architectural Institute of Japan (1983). Those are the Ministry of Justice Old Main Building; Tokyo Medicine School Old Main Building; Keio University Library; the Bank of Japan Old Main Building; St. Nicholas Church; the Former Iwasaki Residence; the Nihonbashi Bridge; Jiyu Gakuen Myonichikan; Tsunamachi Mitsui Club; the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters; and the Mitsui Main Building. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of City Planning (1984, pp. 7, 11). Interview with T.Y., Professor at Kyoto Institute of Technology and N.K., Manager/Architect, Renovation Design Department of Nihon Sekkei, 14 December 2014. Conducted by the author. While the former was PIC in the Tokyo Station Conservation project, the latter was PIC in the Takashimaya Tokyo Store Block Redevelopment Plan. The EFARZS was revised in 2004 and renamed the Exceptional Floor Area Ratio District System (EFARDS). Under the EFARZS, three central business districts were combined into a single district known as the Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho district (116.7 ha), and designated for the first EFARZ in Japan. In 2012, the cabinet council approved extension of the application of the EFARDS, formerly the EFARZS, to secondary cities in other regions of Japan. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 167th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (22 December 2004)”, Japanese, http://www.
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/toshikei167.htm. Accessed 9 October 2016. Interview with T.Y. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, “Dai 13kai Toshikeikaku Seido Sho-i-in-kai Sanko Shiryo”, Japanese, http:// www.mlit.go.jp/common/000162567.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015. See also Song (2016). Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 184th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (6 February 2009)”, Japanese, http://www.toshiseibi. metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/toshikei167.htm. Accessed 22 October 2016. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, “Special District for Urban Renaissance”, Japanese, http://www.mlit. go.jp/jutakukentiku/house/seido/kisei/60-2toshisaisei.html. Accessed 11 October 2016. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “Special Urban Renaissance Districts”, English, http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/pdf_e/015.pdf. Accessed 7 October 2016. The Cabinet Office, “Toshi Saisei Kinkyu Seibi Chiiki no Chiiki Seibi Hoshin: Tokyo”, Japanese, http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/tiiki/ toshisaisei/kettei/020719housin.html. Accessed 4 March 2017. See the discussions in the 184th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (6 February 2009) and the 195th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (22 November 2011). Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “Marunouchi 2-Chome 7 Chiku Toshikeikaku Teian” (in Japanese) for the 184th City Planning Council Meeting (6 February 2009) and “Nihonbashi 2-Chome Chiku Toshikeikaku Teian” (in Japanese) for the 195th City Planning Council Meeting (22 November 2011). The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 26 June 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive.
References Ajisaka, Toru, et al. 2009. Preservation and Revitalization of Meijiseimeikan Part 2 (in Japanese). In Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, F-2, History and Theory of Architecture, 312–322. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan. Architectural Institute of Japan. ed. 1983. Nihon Kindai Kenchiku Soran (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gihodo Shuppan. Asahi Shimbun. 1988. Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu Hozon ni Tedasuke Yosekiritsu wo Oohaba Kanwa Tokyoto Kohyo (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 23 January. ———. 1989. Tomin no Koe Todoite Meikenchiku Nokoru Ginko Club, Bubun Hozon (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 8 February. ———. 1989. Haritsuke Hoshiki de Hozon, Tokyo Marunouchi no Ginko Club. Asahi Shimbun, 20 October. ———. 1996. 136 Tsujo Kokkai de Seiritsu shita Omona Horitsu, Joyaku (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 20 June. Doi, Kazuhide, Ohara Mokoto, and Kazuhiko Niwa. 1997. Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu no Hozon to Toshikaihatsu ni Kansuru Kenkyu: Tokutei Gaiku, Sogo Sekkei Seido wo Mochiita Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu no Hozon Jirei ni Kansuru Kenkyu (in Japanese). In Research Report of Chugoku Branch of Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 20, 437–440. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan. Kakiuchi, Emiko. 2014. Cultural Heritage Protection System in Japan: Current Issues and Prospects for the Future. English. GRIPS Discussion Paper 14–10, July, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.grips.ac.jp/ r-center/wp-content/uploads/14-10.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2016. Kume, Daijiro, et al. 2006. Preservation and Revitalization of Meijiseimei-kan (in Japanese). In Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, F-2, History and Theory of Architecture, 155–156. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan. Kyoto Gokomachi Church. Kyoto Gokomachi Church no Rekishi, Japanese, http://k-gokomachi.ciao.jp/policy.html. Accessed 9 August 2016. Maeno, Masaru. 1991. Nihon Ginko Club ‘Kyu Tokyo Ginko Shukaijo’ no Hozon ni Tsuite (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 106 (1312) (December): 49. Architectural Institute of Japan.
5 Turning Conservation into Placemaking
Mainichi Shimbun. 1990. Marunouchi Ginko Club Kaitai he, Hekimen Design wa Shisetsu Biru ni Fukugen (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 5 September. Masuda, Kanefusa. 2015. The Nara Document on Authenticity and the World Heritage Site of Kathmandu Valley. In Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, ed. Kai Weise, 57–64. Proceedings of an international symposium Kathmandu Valley, 25–29 November 2013. Paris and Kathmandu: UNESCO and UNESCO Office in Kathmandu. Mitsubishi Estate. 1993a. Marunouchi Hyaku-nen no Ayumi: Mitsubishi Jisho Shashi (in Japanese). Vol. 2. Tokyo: Mitsubishi Estate. ———. 1993c. Marunouchi Hyaku-nen no Ayumi: Mitsubishi Jisho Shashi (in Japanese). Appendix. Tokyo: Mitsubishi Estate. ———. 2014. Marunouchi 1-3 Project (Tentative Name) Slated to Commence. News Release on November 27, English, http://www.mec.co.jp/e/ news/pdf/mec141127_otemachi_1-3.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2016. Nikkei XTECH. 2013. Mei Kenchiku wo Katsuyo suru Toshisaisei (2) JP Tower/KITTE (Atarashii Kenchiku no Kodo), Japanese, 25 December. Nikkei Business Publications. https://tech.nikkeibp.co.jp/kn/article/ building/column/20131217/645061/. Accessed 20 December 2019. Nishimura, Yukio. 1996. America no Toroku Bunkazai Seido (in Japanese). Gekkan Bunkazai, No. 397, October: 34–39. ———. 2004. Urban Conservation Planning (in Japanese). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Nozawa Corporation. Building No. 15 of the Former Settlement in Kobe, Japanese, https://www.nozawa-kobe.co.jp/other/15ban.html. Accessed 8 August 2016. Sakitani, Yasufumi. 1996. Bunkazai Hogoho Kaisei no Kihon Rinen (in Japanese). Gekkan Bunkazai, No. 397, October: 4–10. Song, Jiewon. 2016. The Three Levels of Authenticity in Heritage Conservation-based Urban Regeneration: Recasting the Conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building. Journal of Architecture and Planning 81 (727) (September): 1981–1990. Architectural Institute of Japan. Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 1998. Toshi Kankyo to Rekishi Isan no Kyozon (in Japanese). The Chuo Koron, August: 184–196. Takuchi Kikaku Yochibu Kikaku Chousa Ka. n.d. Daitoshi Chiiki ni Okeru Jutaku•Takuchi Kyokyu Sokushin Hosaku ni Kansuru Kenkyu (in Japanese). Japan: Nihon Jutaku Kodan Kenchikubu Chosa Kenkyuka.
The Agency for Cultural Affairs, Architecture and Other Structures Division. 1996. Kokuho oyobi Juyo Bunkazai Shitei Kijun (Kenzoubutsu no Bu) no Kaisei ni Tsuite (in Japanese). Gekkan Bunkazai, No. 393, June: 39–40. The Cabinet Office. Toshi Saisei Kinkyu Seibi Chiiki no Chiiki Seibi Hoshin: Tokyo, Japanese, http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/tiiki/toshisaisei/ kettei/020719housin.html. Accessed 4 March 2017. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Dai 13-kai Toshikeikaku Seido Sho-i-in-kai Sanko Shiryo, Japanese, http://www.mlit. go.jp/common/000162567.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015. ———. Special District for Urban Renaissance, Japanese, http://www.mlit.go. jp/jutakukentiku/house/seido/kisei/60-2toshisaisei.html. Accessed 11 October 2016. ———. Urban Land Use Planning System in Japan, English, http://www.mlit. go.jp/common/000234477.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2016. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government. “Marunouchi 2-Chome 7 Chiku Toshikeikaku Teian” (in Japanese) for the 184th City Planning Council (6 February 2009). Information Disclosure Upon Request. ———. “Nihonbashi 2-Chome Chiku Toshikeikaku Teian” (in Japanese) for the 195th City Planning Council Meeting (22 November 2011). Information Disclosure Upon Request. ———. Special Urban Renaissance Districts, English, http://www.toshiseibi. metro.tokyo.jp/pdf_e/015.pdf. Accessed 7 October 2016. ———. The 167th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (22 December 2004), Japanese, http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/ toshikei167.htm. Accessed 9 October 2016. ———. The 184th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (6 February 2009), Japanese, http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/ toshikei167.htm. Accessed 22 October 2016. ———. The 195th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (22 November 2011), Japanese, http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/ pdf/giji195.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2016. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of City Planning. 1984. Tokyo-to Tokutei Gaiku Unyo Kijun (in Japanese). The Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Information Disclosure Upon Request. ———. 1988. Tokyo-to Tokutei Gaiku Unyo Kijun (in Japanese). The Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Information Disclosure Upon Request. Tomlan, Michale A. 2015. Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy. New York: Springer.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
This chapter examines a case of urban heritage conservation in a framework of urban strategies, namely the heritage-led urban regeneration in the Nihonbashi (日本橋) district. First, it briefly introduces the urban history of Nihonbashi; second, it focuses on the association between Nihonbashi and Mitsui; third, it reveals the driving factors behind heritage-led regeneration initiatives; fourth, it explores the integration of urban heritage conservation within urban redevelopment; and fifth, it analyses subsequent spatial impacts on the Nihonbashi district.
Two Faces of the Business District
6.1.1 Edo Nihonbashi In 1603, the Tokugawa Bakufu (徳川幕府 1603–1868), also known as Edo Bakufu (江戸幕府), built the Nihonbashi district (Fig. 6.1) on reclaimed marshland at the south-eastern side of Edo Castle (now the site of the Tokyo Imperial Palace). It is assumed that the original wooden Nihonbashi Bridge was also constructed in the same year. The bridge is the zero point from which all distances are measured across Japan and © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_6
Fig. 6.1 Case study area: Nihonbashi (Created by the author)
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
is at the intersection of five different main roads (Gaido, 街道) leading to major regions in Japan. Nihonbashi is the geographical centre of Edo. The word “Nihonbashi” is therefore used to designate both the bridge and the district in Edo. The Nihonbashi district played an integral role in the socio-economic and cultural sectors of the metropolis Edo, and the Nihonbashi Bridge symbolized the prosperity of the district. The Bakufu created Edo as the capital city, positioning Edo Castle as a political centre and the Nihonbashi area as an economic centre in early modern Japan. The Nihonbashi district cannot therefore be discussed without considering the Edo period—and vice versa.1 On the creation of Nihonbashi, the district developed into the most bustling entertainment quarter as well as the centre of commerce and industry.2 In this mercantile centre of Edo, two innovative rising merchants at the centre of commercial and economic development brought new business methods into the district. Their stores were known as Mitsui Echigoya (三井越後屋) and Shirokiya (白木屋). As Nihonbashi became a destination for consumption, the district filled with more and more merchants and new businesses, attracting not only feudal lords (Daimyo, 大名) but also intellectuals and publishers.3 Nihonbashi therefore played a leading role in socio-economic progress and dictated the cultural trends of Edo. This favourable outcome continued under the new modern constitution. When the new Meiji government renamed Edo Tokyo and brought Western civilization into the new capital, the urban character of Nihonbashi began to change.4
6.1.2 Modern Nihonbashi The nation’s political and economic modernization did not weaken the prominent socio-economic position of the Nihonbashi district. In fact, the new government placed the district at the centre of the nation’s commerce and industry by locating the Bank of Japan (1869) and the Tokyo Stock Exchange (1873) there.5 Nihonbashi became one of the few places in Tokyo where Western modern advancements such as infrastructure and buildings could be found. The Meiji government particularly promoted the adoption of these Western cultures as part of its foreign policy,
and the district became a melting pot of different cultures of Japan and the West. All these social and economic conditions were eminently beneficial to Nihonbashi’s growth. Unfortunately, however, the district suffered from natural and manmade disasters: the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 and World War II (1939–1945). The former did not just physically devastate the district but wiped out Edo Nihonbashi. Air raids in 1945 led the General Headquarters (hereafter, GHQ) occupation to take over Nihonbashi. The central part of the Nihonbashi district survived the 1945 bombing, and the GHQ did not govern the entire district.6 Following these disasters hope emerged with the reconstruction of the Mitsui Main Building. The positive impact of the Korean War (1950– 1953) Special Procurement on Japan’s post-war economic reconstruction helped restore financial businesses by 1955 and long-standing commercial businesses were back on track by 1965.7 The built environment of Nihonbashi underwent rapid transformation with post-disaster and postwar reconstruction together with urban development, which was sped up by preparations for the 1964 Tokyo Summer Olympics. With urbanization, the district lost the Edo-era ambience, which was retained only in the names of the Nihonbashi Bridge and of long-standing shops, the remnants of the Edo Nihonbashi in the modern Nihonbashi. A living dichotomy, Nihonbashi now began to be pushed into a series of interurban competitions both at regional and global scales.
The Seeds of Urban Privatization
6.2.1 The Birth of Mitsui Founded by Takatoshi Mitsui (1622–1694), Mitsui can trace its roots as far as back as Echigoya (越後屋), owned by his father in Matsusaka (松坂) in today’s Mie Prefecture (三重). Mitsui started the Echigoya kimono store in 1673 at the age of 52 in the heart of Edo— Nihonbashi Honcho 1 Chome, laying the foundations for the corporate spirit of Mitsui in Nihonbashi. The store later grew into one of the largest conglomerate groups in Japan (hereafter, Mitsui). When this first and original store burnt down in 1682, Mitsui relocated, opening a
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
new Echigoya in Nihonbashi Suruga-cho (駿河町), known as Nihonbashi Muromachi (室町) today, in the following year. This time, his Echigoya store housed not only the kimono business but also a moneyexchange business. With the success of both businesses, he became an official merchant of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1687. The business began to expand further when Japan entered the modern era which is known as the Meiji period (1868–1912), supporting the Meiji government’s economic modernization policy, which relied heavily on the relationship with the Western world. Since then, Nihonbashi Muromachi has been empowered as the headquarters of Mitsui.8
6.2.2 Transformation into Zaibatsu Building a relationship with the national government on the solid ground of successful businesses, Mitsui undertook new construction projects to build Western-style office buildings for the expansion of its banking and trading businesses. This is known to have paved the way for the development of modern office buildings in Japan. In 1871, Mitsui decided to open a bank in Nihonbashi Kabuto-cho (兜町), where the state government sold land to Mitsui to erect the Mitsui-Gumi House ( 三井組ハウス), a five-storey timber-frame construction with stone wall cladding (Fig. 6.2). This new Western-style office building was the first private sectorowned office building in Japan and epitomized modern advancements. Before the completion of the Mitsui-Gumi House, commercial buildings in Japan were generally two-storey wooden structures with low ceilings. However, soon after its opening, the state government took control of the House as the first national bank in Japan, merging it with the Daiichi National Bank. Mitsui decided to build another bank building in its home district of Nihonbashi Suruga-cho, naming it the MitsuiGumi Exchange Bank (Kawase Bank Mitsui-Gumi, 為替バンク三井組) (Fig. 6.3).
Fig. 6.2 Mitsui-Gumi House (1872–1897) (Horikoshi [1929, p. 30]. Photographed around 1874)
Completed in 1874, it was again designed as a Western-style threestorey office building but this time of masonry construction. The building later became the Mitsui Bank headquarters. Alongside Mitsui’s business growth, the number of its office buildings had also increased, exemplifying Mitsui’s leading role in the development of bank office buildings in Japan.9 In 1895, Mitsui decided to take the plunge and construct an office complex building—the Mitsui Main Building—within the same Nihonbashi neighbourhood as the Mitsui-Gumi Exchange Bank. Designed by Tamisuke Yokokawa and completed in 1902, the Main Building was the first steel-frame brick-clad building with an elevator. This first Mitsui Main Building housed three major associated companies of the Mitsui zaibatsu, Mitsui & Co., Mitsui Mining Co. and Mitsui Bank. Unfortunately, however, the building burnt down when the 1923 Kanto Earthquake hit Tokyo, leading Mitsui eventually to build the second Main
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.3 Mitsui-Gumi Exchange Bank (1874–1897) (Horikoshi [1929, p. 58]. Photographed around 1879)
Building in 1929. For the new construction, Mitsui decided to appoint an American architecture firm to build a stronger and more solid structure than the previous one for their headquarters. They used domestic building materials, while importing the most advanced building technology of the time from the United States. On the completion of new headquarters, Mitsui undertook additional office building construction in the immediate surroundings, leading the area to become known as the Muromachi One Block (Muromachi Ikko, 室町一構). Through being anchored in this single block, the Mitsui zaibatsu converted the entire Nihonbashi district into its homeland.10 In 1998, sixty-nine years after its completion, the second generation of the Mitsui Main Building became a nationally designated Important Cultural Property.
Awakening Interurban Competition
6.3.1 The District in Decline Japan enjoyed record economic growth between World War II and the end of Cold War (1991). By the 1960s, the country had become the second-largest economy in the world. In the late 1980s, however, the Japanese bubble economy burst, and the national economy plummeted into stagnation that lasted for ten years until the dot-com bubble ended in the early 2000s. During this time, there were almost no cranes visible in urban centres in Japan, including the Nihonbashi district. The modern Nihonbashi was founded on banking business, accommodating the major financial institutions, so their bankruptcy followed by the economic collapse directly affected the district. More specifically, long-standing retail businesses located in Nihonbashi were also dragged down into the long period of economic stagnation. Hence the decline of Nihonbashi.
6.3.2 Nihonbashi 1 Chome Redevelopment One of the old-established retailers rooted in the Nihonbashi district to close down in 1999 was known as Tokyu Department Store, located at the Nihonbashi 1 Chome. This department store was originally known as Shirokiya, established in 1699. Like Mitsui’s Echigoya, its business success contributed to the economic prosperity of the Nihonbashi district during the Edo era and Shirokiya evolved into a department store. In 1956, however, it merged with Tokyu Corporation and became the Tokyu Department Store Nihonbashi branch in 1967.11 This one closure indicates that Nihonbashi was in a critical state of decay. There were no pedestrians and young visitors in the district. The closure of the Tokyu Department Store acted as an official economic warning to urban districts and cities across Japan and the national government was urged to raise its game and call for international investment in urban renewal. In this way, the Nihonbashi district was forced to attain competitive power in the global economic market and was dragged into the
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
interurban competition game, which is how the Nihonbashi 1 Chome came to be transformed into the first urban regeneration block.12 The game began after the demolition of the department store building. Three private-sector corporations—Mitsui, Tokyu Corporation and Tokyu Land Corporation—came to an agreement to implement a joint redevelopment plan on the site of Tokyu Department Store, to be called Nihonbashi 1Chome. The project was executed within the framework of the Land Acquisition and Transfer System (Tochi Shutoku · Joto Gyomu Seido, 土地取得・譲渡業務制度)13 under the supervision of the Organization for Promoting Urban Development (Minkan Toshi Kaihatsu Suishin Kiko, 民間都市開発推進機構)14 in 2000. It was designed as a flagship government redevelopment project to trigger the economic revitalization of the Nihonbashi district.15 The private-sector actors, Mitsui and its business partner Nihon Sekkei, proposed a mixed-use office and commercial tower as their first flagship urban regeneration project in the district.16 The redevelopment project was a collaboration between public and private sectors within the framework of the city planning system known as the Specified Block System, under the supervision of the municipal government of the Chuo ward. While Mitsui commissioned a foreign architect, William Pedersen of Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, to erect the first soaring glass office tower in Nihonbashi, the Chuo ward was about to undertake its first municipal-level SBS redevelopment initiative, which was approved by the Tokyo Metropolitan City Planning Council in October 2000.17 The project, completed in March 2004, incorporated a new skyscraper designed in the form of a sail, called the Coredo Nihonbashi—a specially created Mitsui brand name. This new office tower played a significant role in the clean break from the district’s lost decade, celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Edo Bakufu and the Nihonbashi Bridge.18 With completion of the Coredo Nihonbashi, Mitsui engraved its presence and expressed its ambition in Nihonbashi.
6.3.3 Neglected Authenticity While both private- and public-sector institutions and actors collaborated to revive the urban image of Nihonbashi, none of them seemed
to pay much attention to the history of the Tokyu Department Store Nihonbashi branch, formerly Shirokiya.19 Although its historical name had officially disappeared when consolidated into the Tokyu Department Store 48 years before, the building and its site were still regarded as the home of Shirokiya (Fig. 6.4). As a department store, this longestablished and Nihonbashi-born brand never resided in a single building but was sustained over its 32-year lifetime by travelling through different Western-style modern buildings. Until its bankruptcy in 1999, each tangible form of Shirokiya reflected changing social needs and flavours of modernizing Japan without being relocated from its original site. Hence, there was only a single Shirokiya with 336 years of history (Fig. 6.5).20 Unfortunately, however, the Coredo Nihonbashi showed that the Nihonbashi 1 Chome redevelopment was based on the premise of cleansing off the history of Shirokiya from the district.
Fig. 6.4 Shirokiya Department Store in 1957 (Shirokiya 1957)
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.5 Shirokiya to Coredo Nihonbashi (Created by the author based on Mitsui Fudosan and Tokyu Fudosan [n.d.].)
Moreover, although the Coredo Nihonbashi was regarded as a joint project by three enterprises and the public agencies, the project was tuned into the needs of Merrill Lynch, a global financial institute. By the time the city planning permit application was submitted, the design of the new tower was already finalized, so that the TMG arranged the city planning regulations to meet the needs of the redevelopment plan rather than assessing it. The ambition of the Chuo ward and Mitsui was to use the Coredo Nihonbashi opening to spotlight the regeneration of Nihonbashi.21 When the project began, the property share ratio between Mitsui and two Tokyu enterprises was 50:50. In early February 2004, one of the two Tokyu enterprises, Tokyu Land Corporation, sold its 20% share in the Coredo Nihonbashi to the Chuo Mitsui Trust and Banking Company Limited, a Mitsui group company, through a mediating limited company. In late February, the Tokyu Corporation sold its 30% share in the Coredo to Mitsui Fudosan. Although the Chuo Mitsui Trust had commissioned the Tokyu Land Corporation to take responsibility for asset management, the Mitsui Corporation effectively owned 100% of the Coredo Nihonbashi upon its completion. In this manner, the remnant of Shirokiya was legally consolidated into Mitsui and disappeared without a trace, leaving Mitsui in a dominant position over the legacy of Nihonbashi (Fig. 6.6).22 Although the Shirokiya legacy belonged to the history of Nihonbashi, it lost out in the contest between the two major legacies of Nihonbashi,
Fig. 6.6 Property rights transfer in the Coredo Nihonbashi project (Created by the author with reference to Mitsui Fudosan and Tokyu Fudosan )
Mitsui and Shirokiya, seeming to belong neither to Mitsui nor to Tokyu, even though the district was their home too. While the significance of the legacy of Shirokiya was equal to that of the spirit of Mitsui, it did not fit into the competition and promotion of the Nihonbashi regeneration. As a result, its physical structure was razed to the ground, and its history was overwritten to facilitate wider economic goals. Mitsui, together with the municipal authority, defined the Nihonbashi regeneration to create
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
a vibrant commercial and business district, locating the Merrill Lynch Japan head office and the Graduate School of Finance, Accounting and Law of the Waseda University in the Nihonbashi 1 Chome block.23 This lack of attention to the Shirokiya history meant that the existing urban fabric was knocked down to make way for redevelopment.24 The redevelopment project demonstrates that urban competitiveness requires the selection process for historical and cultural resources in the larger scheme of urban strategies. The Coredo Nihonbashi not only marked the official start of the Nihonbashi regeneration, but also signalled the beginning of crafting authenticity in the making of Nihonbashi in the age of the global city (Fig. 6.7).25
Under the Direction of the Municipal Authority
The driving force behind the Nihonbashi regeneration was not just a collaboration between private-sector institutions and actors but a partnership between the public and private sector actors. Behind this public–private partnership, there were external pressures such as a nationwide economic bubble, which put Nihonbashi into inter-district competition. During the 1990s, large-scale urban regeneration projects were taking place across the central commercial business districts in Tokyo due to the continuing economic stagnation. Those urban districts are Shinjuku (新宿) and Shibuya (渋谷), which function as sub-centre areas of Tokyo and have major terminal stations. They were successfully revived through economically driven redevelopment projects, and their success played a significant role in stimulating other centrally located districts in Tokyo, including the neighbouring district of Marunouchi, a major urban competitor of the Nihonbashi district. By the time of the Nihonbashi 1 Chome redevelopment commenced, Marunouchi had already implemented a series of commercially driven regeneration projects.26 The national government and the TMG had set Marunouchi up as one of the core models in drawing the urban development vision for Tokyo,
Fig. 6.7 Coredo Nihonbashi (Photographed by the author, 9 April 2014)
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
inevitably pushing Marunouchi into the process of urban spatial restructuring (see Chapter 7). The Nihonbashi district was not even considered in the core group but was included in the subgroup of urban policies at the national scale. Thus it was neither the national government nor the TMG, but the Chuo ward, a municipal authority of the Tokyo metropolitan region, that took the lead, delineating its own master plan as well as higher-level plans to drive the planning direction of the Nihonbashi regeneration.27 Hence, the first Nihonbashi regeneration project was an outcome of a complex chain reaction between centrally located urban districts in Tokyo. Furthermore, the Coredo Nihonbashi project was implemented within the framework of a particular city planning system, the Specified Block System (SBS). This system was originally established under the Ministry of Construction in 1961, transferring to the TMG in 1984. With the transfer, the TMG set out its own SBS operational guidelines. A Decentralization Law enacted in July 1999 and implemented in April 2000 delegated power to municipal authorities, which presumably gave Chuo ward the chance to draw up a municipal version of the SBS operational guidelines, drawing on the TMG version, and applied to the Nihonbashi regeneration. The Nihonbashi 1 Chome project thus became the first example of the SBS urban redevelopment project under Chuo ward direction (Figs. 6.8 and 6.9).28 The ward gave priority to the economic revitalization of Nihonbashi, while maintaining the balance with other neighbourhood districts such as Ginza (銀座). With the launch of the Chuo ward Specified Block System, the municipal authority attempted to revitalize the main streets in its administrative territory, such as Chuo-Dori (中央通 り) Avenue, maintaining regulatory consistency between the SBS and the district planning system. The ward worked closely with Mitsui Fudosan in the construction of the Coredo Nihonbashi to implement this new municipal-level SBS. Indeed, the ward invited Mitsui to play a critical role in executing the Nihonbashi regeneration, giving Mitsui a solid foothold in the revitalization of Nihonbashi and expanding its territory. In parallel, Mitsui was moving forward with another urban redevelopment project, which consisted of the conservation of urban heritage and its block redevelopment and involved national government agencies
Fig. 6.8 Nihonbashi 1 Chome Specified Block site (Created by the author based on the City Planning Application Materials, the Nihonbashi 1 Chome Redevelopment Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
Fig. 6.9 Nihonbashi 1 Chome Specified Block redevelopment (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, 26 July 1999)
and the TMG but did not exclude Chuo ward. As well as considering the master plan of the municipal authority, Mitsui examined the direction of national urban redevelopment policies, while keeping their eye on redevelopment projects taking place in its neighbouring district and competitor, Marunouchi.29 Meanwhile, the lesson Mitsui learned from the Nihonbashi 1 Chome redevelopment project was that they needed areawide and culture-led approaches if the Nihonbashi district was to attain
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
urban competitiveness and win the interurban and inter-district competition. Mitsui’s vision of urban redevelopment to revive Nihonbashi involved shedding new light on the Edo culture and on their corporate identity. Creating an internal corporate commitment, Mitsui established a specialized division called the Nihonbashi Urban Regeneration Promotion Division (Nihonbashi Machizukuri Suishinbu, 日本橋街づくり推 進部) to identify target areas for implementation of their urban vision.30
Creating the Prototype
This first urban regeneration project was a business-driven redevelopment pursuing global standards to attract global companies and responding to the increase of foreign capital entering the Japanese market. As we have seen, the Coredo Nihonbashi housed global financial firm Merrill Lynch’s Tokyo office as its key tenant.31 The Coredo Nihonbashi also got rid of the Nihonbashi-born Shirokiya legacy. The municipal master plan showed that the authority wanted to have a new landmark tower, which would both represent the Nihonbashi regeneration and replace the Shirokiya history. The Chuo ward conceived the authenticity of Nihonbashi as based on the Nihonbashi River, the Nihonbashi Bridge and the Mitsui Main Building.32 In partnership with Mitsui, the municipal authority launched an even more complicated redevelopment plan, which underpinned Mitsui’s presence in the district.
6.5.1 The Imperative Accordingly, the second urban redevelopment project in the Nihonbashi regeneration was the Mitsui Main Building Block (hereafter, the Muromachi Block) redevelopment (Fig. 6.10). The existing Mitsui Main Building was built in 1929 (the Showa era) after the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. It was designated a national urban heritage property in 1998 and was one of the first two cases of urban heritage conservation in the larger framework of urban redevelopment schemes (see Chapter 5) and it
Fig. 6.10 Mitsui Main Building and its contemporary urban orientation (Created by the author based on Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, 26 July 1999)
became the prototype for integrated regulatory frameworks for heritageled urban regeneration in Japan. The significance of the Mitsui Main Building was identified by architectural historians early on. Earliest evaluations date back to the 1960s when leading Japanese architecture historians such as Teijiro Muramatsu and Eizo Inagaki contributed to raising awareness of urban heritage conservation, triggered by the two demolition cases of the 1960s (see Chapter 3). Over and above that, their architectural survey and research activities resulted in a catalogue, known as the Inventory List of Japanese Modern Architecture (Nihon Kindai Kenchiku Soran, 日本近代建築総 覧), published by the Architectural Institute of Japan in 1980. This list
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
includes the Mitsui Main Building, and particularly mentions its importance and exceptional quality.33 The book not only singles out the building, but also identifies the significance of three Mitsui buildings (the Main Building, Building No. 2 and Building No. 3) that once stood together in the same Muromachi Block. Today, however, only the Mitsui Main Building and Building No. 2 survive. In 1989, in recognition of the 60th anniversary of the building and in collaboration with renowned architecture scholars, Mitsui published a book about the Mitsui Main Building, entitled the Blue Book, containing in-depth historical documentation of the building. The Agency for Cultural Affairs used it to convince government officials outside the cultural heritage administration sector, having long wanted to nominate this corporately owned Showa-era urban structure for national Important Cultural Property status. Despite growing awareness of the recent and contemporary past in society, modern buildings of the Showa era were not yet seen as heritage even though the Japanese name for the era had already changed to Heisei (平成).34 This is especially because these buildings are products of the recent past and many of them still exist, so it is difficult to prove their exceptional qualities. The evaluation of urban heritage still largely relies on the name of architect, design and form for its recognition. The Agency approached Mitsui to negotiate national heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building because Japanese heritage laws required the owner’s consent before an individual property can start on the designation process. Mitsui had already made their corporate decision to demolish the building, even though many of their executives wanted to retain the headquarters because it was their home.35 While the existing national heritage designation system provides a maintenance support subsidy for property owners, they are required to keep a heritage property strictly intact, so that the heritage is under state control. It was often said that heritage laws did not allow a single nail to be knocked into a wall of a heritage property. When it comes to urban heritage conservation, the existing heritage legislation is not designed to correspond to the scale of urban heritage and the cost of its conservation. The government agency started to notice that the conservation of urban heritage was beyond the scale of the national budget. The Agency therefore offered Mitsui a 300
per cent FAR bonus in exchange for national heritage designation, a deal that was the city planning system outside the heritage legislation. The Agency still required the property owner to keep the building in a ‘permanent state of stasis’36 in accordance with the national Important Cultural Property standards.37 These restrictions led Mitsui to refuse consent for the national designation of the Mitsui Main Building and to decline the Agency’s offer. Around the same time in 1990, the TMG launched the Preservation of Historic Structures for Landscape Design Project (Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu no Keikan Isho Hozon Jigyo, 歴史的建造物の景観意匠保存事 業), which can be seen as the very first public-sector urban heritage conservation initiative in Tokyo. This government-led initiative dealt with approximately 150 heritage assets across the Tokyo metropolitan region, but was essentially focused on a landscape approach, providing subsidies to property owners for partial preservation such as repairing building façades and the exterior features of windows and doors. The Mitsui Main Building was the first recipient of this project and Mitsui’s first-time engagement with institutional conservation was not with the Agency for Cultural Affairs but with the TMG.38 Under this scheme, Mitsui restored fourteen Venetian doors located at the entrances of the Main Building. These doors were once compulsorily acquired by the GHQ during the Allied occupation of Japan following World War II.39 Although the project only produced partial preservation, the TMG-led initiative was the beginning of urban heritage practice becoming part of urban development strategy.40 In 1997, as noted in Chapter 5, the Agency turned a hostile situation into a friendly one by officially announcing the first Important Cultural Property designation of a Showa heritage property, the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters (1934), which was occupied for office use and located in the Marunouchi district.41 This news gave Mitsui management pause for thought; they re-examined the conservation possibilities of the headquarters building at the heart of the block redevelopment and the Nihonbashi regeneration and approached the Agency to discuss the national heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building. More importantly, the designation news led Mitsui and Mitsubishi, a developer of
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters Block Redevelopment, to form an alliance to blend conservation into urban redevelopment.
6.5.2 Socio-Economic and Political Interest The modern Nihonbashi district, full of financial firms and retailers, remained unchanged despite the fact that the “lost decade” brought immense adverse impacts on the existing business models, industrial structure and capital flows. As time went by, Nihonbashi was left behind, becoming a symbol of urban decay, losing out on urban renewal opportunities and losing its attractiveness for investment. It remained with a district of small and medium-rise buildings apart from landmark buildings such as the Bank of Japan,42 the Mitsukoshi Department Store (officially named Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi Main Store), the Takashimaya Department Store (formally known as Takashimaya Tokyo Store) and the Mitsui Main Building. It drove private developers to consider abandoning the name Nihonbashi and consolidating the district into its thriving neighbours such as Ginza and Akihabara (秋葉原).43 Soon after the status of national Important Cultural Property had appeared as an alternative to the Nihonbashi regeneration strategies, Mitsui began to draw up a redevelopment project named the Muromachi One Block (Muromachi Ikko, 室町一構) Redevelopment Plan, officially launched in July 1997.44 Among the Mitsui group affiliated companies, Mitsui Fudosan was responsible for the management of corporate assets so it played dual roles as the owner of the Mitsui Main Building and the developer in charge of the Plan.45 The Muromachi One Block Redevelopment Plan (hereafter, the MR1 Plan) took a total of eight years and was completed in 2005 with multi-level partnerships between publicand private-sector institutions and actors. In the first three years of the MR1 Plan, actors put effort into a consensus-building process comprising a number of subcommittees undertaking detailed discussion. This unprecedented project required a long sequence of negotiations due to the involvement of multiple levels of public and private agencies and actors as well as different legal frameworks. The MR1 Plan (Fig. 6.11) integrated heritage conservation into a wider urban-system framework
Fig. 6.11 Urban institutions and actors in the MR1 Plan (Created by the author with reference to the MR1 Plan Project File, Mitsui Fudosan Archive)
from scratch, as there were no existing concepts, tools or value assessment systems for urban heritage at that point in time. These circumstances were not limited to Tokyo but applied across urban areas throughout Japan where choices were being made between conservation and development.46 Public- and private-sector actors shared an understanding of the value and power vested in the Mitsui Main Building through the
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Inventory List of Japanese Modern Architecture (1980) and a heritage designation proposal prepared by the Agency (1990) (Fig. 6.12). Both national and urban-level governments were simultaneously moving towards the implementation of an economic revitalization strategy. The Ministerial Conference on Economic Measures (Keizai Taisaku Kakuryo Kaigi, 経済対策閣僚会議) proposed national-level deregulation in major sectors of the economy, including urban planning. They planned to lift the restrictions on an urban redevelopment system—the Efficient Land Utilization District System47 —and remove open-space requirements from the FAR bonus guidelines to allow additional FAR up to a maximum of 300% for urban development.48 In parallel, the municipal government put forward a pilot redevelopment project to revitalize the economy of Nihonbashi and revamp the district as a financial centre. A series of multi-level negotiations on the MR1 Plan took place between Mitsui, their project partner Nihon Sekkei and public agencies such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the TMG and Chuo ward.49 Mitsui also finalized their corporate decision to retain the Mitsui Main Building without giving up the block redevelopment and its investment returns. They also offset the cost of conservation of the Mitsui Main Building
Fig. 6.12 MR1 Plan decision-making process (Created by the author based on the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
on their corporate finance balance sheet in preparation for negotiations with public-sector agencies.50 The adoption of an emergency economic package at a Cabinet meeting in 1997 was converted into an opportunity for bringing multi-level institutions and actors together to face up to the challenges in the heritage conservation and urban redevelopment.51 Determined to build partnerships with private developers, the public agencies invited Mitsui to join government-led urban strategies for the economic revitalization of Nihonbashi. However, the negotiation processes between the public- and private-sector camps were not straightforward due to consultations related to national heritage designation between the Agency and Mitsui. However, the Agency introduced a new approach to national heritage designation, under which the Agency could waive or relax heritage protection requirements by drafting a property care and management contract between itself and the property owner, known as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (see Chapter 5). By this time, there had been two national modern urban heritage designation cases based on written contracts—The Bank of Iwate, Nakanohashi Branch (1994) and the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters (1997). Mitsui obtained these earlier examples through the Agency before proceeding with the MOA, and gradually shifted their focus to achieving the relaxation of both in the existing FAR controls and heritage protection through the MR1 Plan.52 Towards the end of 1997, despite all the negotiations, the national government had not yet officially revealed its new deregulation proposals for urban planning and the selection of districts that were to benefit from the national emergency economic package. Koji Omi, Minister of State for Economic Planning, who was playing a central role in determining the package, discussed the eligibility of the Nihonbashi district with one of the Mitsui executives before making his final decision.53 However, Nihonbashi was not originally considered a beneficiary district, while its neighbour Ginza was selected.54 For this reason, Chuo ward and Mitsui worked together to influence national-level decision making by political economic actors to count Nihonbashi as part of the Ginza emergency package. In 1998, when the Ministry of Construction handed over final authority on the relaxation of FAR in the central business districts of Tokyo to the TMG, Mitsui pushed the Chuo ward to manipulate
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
the TMG and the selection procedure. The ward simultaneously coordinated two different teams of multi-sector collaboration and partnership: one brought the Ministry of Construction, the TMG, the National Land Agency and the municipal authority itself together to support deregulation of urban planning55 ; the other team was the NihonbashiYaesu Machizukuri Committee (Nihonbashi Yaesu Machizukuri Iinkai, 日本橋八重洲まちづくり委員会), a one-year joint initiative for the Nihonbashi regeneration involving both public- and private-sector actors and consisting of the TMG, the East Japan Railway Company, urban planning and architecture consulting firms and the Chuo ward itself (Fig. 6.13).56 The Committee was chaired by urban planning expert Shigeru Ito. In the development of the MR1 Plan strategies, Mitsui prioritized achieving the FAR bonus and softening the restrictions on building form. At a management meeting in March 1998, Mitsui officially finalized their project to conserve the Mitsui Main Building, while consolidating it into the wider goals of the MR1 Plan.57 They considered 1300% of total FAR would be adequate, and thus convinced the public-sector agencies to approve the new construction including their targeted total FAR in the light of revitalizing the Nihonbashi district.58 The Mitsui Main Building was subsequently unanimously scheduled for designation as national Important Cultural Property as a way of pushing forward the MR1 Plan.59 With the TMG at the negotiating table, the subject matter of the MR1 Plan changed from official heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building to how to maximize the amount of FAR for the redevelopment plan. Chuo ward facilitated discussions between Mitsui, the TMG and the MLIT with a view to achieving its visions for the Nihonbashi revitalization. Although the Agency for Cultural Affairs was not integral to the deregulation decision making, it expected the MLIT to officially spell out the FAR exemption and heritage property building coverage, paving the way for the conservation of urban heritage.60 The expanded interpretation of Article 3 of the Building Standards Law became the key determining factor in the MR1 Plan. As described in Chapter 5, Article 3 concerns the exemption of official heritage properties from the building code that has existed in the legal system since the 1919 Urban Building Law.61
Fig. 6.13 Nihonbashi-Yaesu Machizukuri Committee scheme (Created by the author based on the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
Both public- and private-sector actors recognized the need for advanced legal interpretation that would provide the foundational underpinnings for embedding urban heritage conservation within the redevelopment strategy. Nonetheless, although the exemption was not a new legal term in the Building Standards Law, the implementation of the extended interpretation was not a simple process, as Article 3 interferes with Article 52 (site area), Article 53 (building area), and Article 9 of the Building Standards Law. One of the key players responsible for working out a solution in the MR1 Plan was Nihon Sekkei, who supported its client Mitsui while
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
seeking to convince the public agencies, especially the MLIT, of the feasibility of the Article 3 extended interpretation. The stakeholders in the MR1 Plan wanted legal back-up for the exclusion of the designated heritage properties from FAR calculations. As there had been no previous cases in Tokyo, the TMG asked the Mitsui team to dig out the existing heritage cases involved with the application of Article 3 outside Tokyo, such as those in Kyoto and Kobe cities. The team not only looked into domestic cases but also examined overseas ones such as New York City, and researched building certification cases that were subject to national Important Cultural Property status across major cities in Japan.62 They identified various cases including two that could fit with discussion of the MR1 Plan (see Chapter 5). The team’s efforts paid off when, based on these findings, the public- and private-sector institutions and actors put the FAR calculation of the Mitsui Main Building on the negotiating table. The legal expansion of the Article 3 interpretation was approved and the MLIT as well as the TMG granted the FAR bonus proposed in the MR1 Plan. It was the national heritage designation status and the exemption of building codes that were the driving force behind the MR1 Plan.63 In 2014, fifteen years on, Article 3 of the Building Standards further extended the legal scope of the exemption to incorporate not only officially designated and registered heritage properties, but also non-designated heritage properties.64 The interpretation of Article 3 has been an inclusive foundation for heritage properties under the protection of heritage law, but also for heritage that falls outside this protection.65 In the second half of 1998, the regulatory framework was finalized for the MR1 Plan, and the Mitsui Main Building was officially designated an Important Cultural Property. With the Mitsui Main Building turned into national urban heritage, the national agency moved to finalize the revision of the existing SBS, which was issued as the Important Cultural Property Special Type Specified Block System in April 1999. The corresponding city planning decision for final approval of the MR1 Plan was made in August 1999, making the Mitsui Main Building the first case of the STSBS and the prototype for heritage-led urban regeneration. The rationale for heritage-led urban regeneration has subsequently been embedded in the FAR calculation.
It was the end of the bubble economy that triggered the idea of economically driven urban regeneration in central business districts. It brought public- and private-sector institutions and actors together, providing a platform for the integration of modern heritage into urban development. Prior to this, almost no urban heritage in central Tokyo survived development pressure amid rapid urban transformation. Heritage issues were always discussed in the context of public administration and advocated for public-sector financial resources within the heritage administration system. The Agency faced limited financial resources and regulatory capacity to provide protection not only for urban heritage but also for designated and registered cultural heritage in general. This critical financial situation led to the conservation of the Mitsui Main Building being included in the urban planning system, adding a new model for heritage conservation and offering a new financial model for safeguarding nationally designated Important Cultural Properties beyond the scope of the 1950 Heritage Law. Countless demolitions and unsuccessful urban heritage conservation projects had in fact paved the way for the establishment of the STSBS. This heritage-led regeneration platform certainly added a new dimension to urban conservation as well as urban strategies in Tokyo. Despite these accomplishments, however, bargains were undoubtedly made between conservation and redevelopment throughout the multi-level cooperation and decision-making processes. The Mitsui Main Building was saved because public–private sector institutions and actors struck a deal that fulfilled social, economic and political needs by casting urban heritage within a framework of national and regional urban regeneration strategies.66 This chapter now moves on to a detailed examination of the construction of the authenticity of Nihonbashi, centring around the Mitsui Main Building conservation.
6.5.3 Urban: Location and Setting This section investigates through the lens of two attributes of authenticity on the urban level that limit the rationale of urban heritage conservation. The Mitsui Main Building sits in the Nihonbashi district of Chuo ward, one of the central business districts in Tokyo, and near three
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
nationally designated landmarks, The Bank of Japan (1896), the Nihonbashi Bridge (1911) and the Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi (1914). The first two were designated Important Cultural Properties in 1974 and the latter in 2016. The national Important Cultural Property of the Main Building sits between two groups. The history of Nihonbashi can be traced back to the Edo period; the land on which is stands was reclaimed from wetlands to create a commercial shopping district.67 A bustling quarter during the Edo period, its golden age had come to an end by World War II. Because the land was already subdivided and overcrowded, the district was not able to take in large-scale corporations and industries, which contrasted with the record period of economic growth for the nation between World War II and the end of the Cold War. It was an early warning sign of the urban decline of the Nihonbashi district.68 The original Main Building was composed of four urban monuments arranged to form a modern neighbourhood. These were the Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Tokyo (1927)—formerly the Yokohama Specie Bank, Tokyo Branch—and the Mitsui Main Building (Fig. 6.14). Constructed on a grand scale, this group of buildings displayed classical European architecture, and were designed for commercial and business uses to represent the modern image of Japan.69 Unfortunately, however, the Bank of Tokyo Building was torn down in 1975 to make a way for the construction of a new office tower. Today, therefore,
Fig. 6.14 Bank of Japan (left) and Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi (right) (Photographed by the author, [Bank of Japan] 11 January 2016 and [Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi] 21 July 2018)
two urban heritage properties remain in the setting of the Main Building. The modern address of the Mitsui Main Building is 2-1-1 Nihonbashi Muromachi; however, this address was originally situated at the intersection of 1 Nihonbashi Suruga-cho and 3-1 Nihonbashi Muromachi. Mitsui has owned this piece of land in Suruga-cho since 1694, and the site conveys over 300 long years of Mitsui traditions that connect the Edo traditions and the modern traditions of Mitsui and Nihonbashi.70 The Building’s front façade was originally designed to face SurugachoDori (駿河町通り) Street, with its main entrance facing the Mitsukoshi Department Store, reflecting the connections between the Main Building and the other three buildings described above. The urban orientation between buildings was changed when the urban axis was changed from Surugacho-Dori Street to Chuo-Dori Avenue, which reoriented the main front façade of the Building and altered the approaches to it. More importantly, the contemporary structure of the Nihonbashi Mitsui tower (2005)—an outcome of the MR1 Plan—was a critical stimulus for the break from the existing network in its setting. The Tower has shed new light on Chuo-Dori Avenue by underlining the Mitsui spirit (the Mitsui Main Building and the Mitsukoshi Department Store), while leaving the Bank of Japan in the background.71 The setting has thus become a symbol of the Mitsui legacy (Fig. 6.15). The Main Building itself, known as the Muromachi One Block (Fig. 6.16), consisted of five individual buildings (the Mitsui Main Building, the Main Building Addition, the Naka No. 3 Building, the Mitsui No. 2 Building, and the Higashi No. 3 Building), which were built in different forms at different times, making the block redevelopment conditions very complicated (Fig. 6.17). The Main Building block remained undeveloped due to its low FAR allowance of 718%, which was not promising in terms of profit from the property owner’s perspective. There were difficulties not only in merging lots, but also in designing a comprehensive development plan. Despite its favourable position, the Nihonbashi district suffered a further heavy blow during Japan’s economic stagnation between the 1980s and the 1990s. The whole of Nihonbashi was frozen economically, and private-sector investments were driven away by its unchanged state. Depressed and dethroned from its dominant
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Nihonbashi Bridge (Photographed by the author, 26 December 2017)
Fig. 6.16 Muromachi One Block (Created by the author with reference to the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
Fig. 6.17 Mitsui Main Building location and its original setting (Created by the author based on the Nihonbashi Muromachi 2 Chome Specified Block Site Map in Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, 26 July 1999 and Mitsui Main Building Memorial Publication Editorial Board . It is assumed that Muromachi-Dori Street became Chuo-Dori Avenue in the 1960s, while Honkawayacho-Dori Street was renamed NichiginDori Street in the 1980s)
position in the central business districts, Nihonbashi became, ironically, a growth opportunity for urban competitors such as the Ginza, Marunouchi and Roppongi (六本木) districts. These three competing districts took over from Nihonbashi and played leading roles in interdistrict competition. Public- and private-sector actors began to put an urban redevelopment strategy in motion in order to rescue Nihonbashi from this desperate situation.72 In parallel with the arrival of the pressing need for economic revitalization in Nihonbashi, the municipal authority was seeking collaboration with private developers and invited Mitsui. The first public– private sector meeting relating to the redevelopment plans was held on
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
18 November 1997. The municipal authority put forward their plans for the Nihonbashi 1 Chome Redevelopment and the MR1 Plan as catalysts for revamping Nihonbashi. The ward encouraged Mitsui to think beyond the existing regulatory frameworks and asked them to guide these urban projects. Mitsui became integral to the interwoven discussions between stakeholders and shared information between institutions and actors against the vertically divided administration system of the government. It planned to tailor the negotiations in such a way as to attain regulatory incentives for the conservation of the Mitsui Main Building, and for a new tower expected to be built next to the national heritage property. Mitsui and Nihon Sekkei examined three alternative redevelopment systems for the MR1 plan: the Permission System for Comprehensive Building Design (Sogo Sekkei, 総合設計, PSCBD), the Efficient Land Utilization District (Kodo Riyo Chiku, 高度利用地区, ELUD) and the Specified Block (Tokutei Gaiku, 特定街区, SBS). The first two systems are under Building Standards control, but the third comes under the City Planning Law. On the other hand, the PSCBD and the SBS are associated with block level, whilst the ELUD is engaged with district level. The SBS is the only one of these redevelopment systems to stipulate heritage conservation that allows FAR bonuses in exchange for the conservation of heritage properties. For this reason, Mitsui prioritized the SBS, adopting it as a tool for turning the conservation of the Mitsui Main Building into the MR1 Plan.73 Mitsui also established three sets of goals for the MR1 Plan: (1) the Mitsui Main Building as a symbol of Mitsui’s dignity; (2) the new tower as a symbolic piece of architecture of the new Heisei era (1989–2019); and (3) the MR1 Plan as the prototype for urban redevelopment.74 Mitsui’s aim was for the MR1 Plan to strengthen the link to the Bank of Japan and frame Nihonbashi as Japan’s financial centre.75 Before the arrival of the Main Building conservation, the Building Standards and the City Planning laws created an urban redevelopment formula trading open spaces with FAR relaxation and setback restrictions. This formula accelerated the disappearance of urban heritage located in central Tokyo to make a way for larger structures and open spaces to make urban places look more modern. The setting and location of the Mitsui Main Building led the public–private institutions and actors to re-examine the existing
regulatory framework and urban redevelopment system in such a way as not to exclude development tool but to include conservation tools consolidating the two contradictory urban practices of conservation and redevelopment into a single complementary output in the Nihonbashi regeneration strategy.76 The MR1 Plan took a step towards clearing the conditions for obtaining the city planning permit by adopting the SBS. In this process, Chuo ward expressed its visions of the Nihonbashi regeneration that had been triggered by the Coredo Nihonbashi. The municipal authority deployed the Mitsui Main Building at the centre of Nihonbashi, and its conservation was a foundation for the recreation of Nihonbashi’s legacy, together with the restoration of the Nihonbashi bridge, another nationally designated heritage setting. The government envisioned accomplishing an ambitious grand project of removing the Capital Expressway which ran over the bridge to resurrect its waterfront landscape, which had existed prior to the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, through individual redevelopment projects in the Nihonbashi regeneration.77 The municipal authority particularly supported the MR1 Plan as it combined the conservation of the Mitsui Main Building with the new construction of a high rise. The authority positioned the Plan to play a leading role in the Chuo ward Master Plan, expecting spin-off benefits in the wider Nihonbashi district from the Bank of Japan site to the Yaesu area, such as upgrading the existing old, small, and low-rise buildings to create a sense of vitality.78 The Chuo ward authority believed that the MR1 Plan could turn the Nihonbashi district into Japan’s Wall Street to compete with other central financial districts including the Marunouchi and the Otemachi districts located in Tokyo.79 The ward defined Chuo-Dori Avenue as an important urban axis linking urban landscapes and creating vibrancy by connecting Nihonbashi to the Ginza district. In its urban vision, this street would lead visitors from the first-class central financial district to the first-class shopping district. The Avenue, in turn, could become a kernel of a larger scale of urban landscape by connecting the Nihonbashi district to its neighbours such as the Otemachi district. The ward strategically conceived individual urban heritage property located along Chuo-Dori Avenue as shaping urban landscape. The municipal authority was convinced that
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
rising office towers and improved commercial facilities would promote the locational competitiveness of Nihonbashi, and they envisaged not only restoring the setting of the Mitsui Main Building but also recreating the centre of the Nihonbashi district. At the same time, Mitsui opened a conversation with the TMG on the MR1 Plan, particularly focusing on the application of Article 3 of the BS, the exemption from the building code.80 In line with this, Mitsui widened the scope of the MR1 Plan from Nihonbashi itself to global perspectives: balancing the old and the new; establishing international financial and office centres; upgrading the existing urban functions; and creating new urban forms.81 Mitsui’s three requests to the municipality were: achieving 1300% total FAR; including the Nihonbashi district in the application for the revised ELUD system; and achieving both commercial and office uses in the new ELUD system.82 Mitsui particularly emphasized that the MR1 Plan required 1300% total FAR to undertake the conservation of the Mitsui Main Building as a national Important Cultural Property, and redevelop the Muromachi Block as an international financial centre. They further ensured that the MR1 Plan would result in the spin-off benefits of renewing deteriorating buildings and ensuring the historic landscape of the Nihonbashi area. In other words, Mitsui nudged the municipal authority to increase their urban power by taking the initiative in delivering their visions of Nihonbashi including the MR1 Plan.83 In April 1999, the MR1 Plan FAR issues were finalized when government agencies such as the MLIT agreed to authorize a 500% FAR bonus to the MR1 Plan. The breakdown consisted of the Mitsui Main Building 225%; open space 225%; and landscape contribution 50%. Without this decision, the MR1 Plan could have ended up as an ordinary heritage maintenance case but the public agencies and private developers collaborated to turned it into a prototype not only to regenerate the Nihonbashi district but to transform the Mitsui legacy into the authenticity of Nihonbashi. Considering the scale of the Mitsui Main Building, it could not have been easy for the MLIT and the TMG to make the final decision to permit the application of Article 3 of the BS, exempting the floor area of the Mitsui Main Building, which in turn would allow its floor area to be transferred to the floor area of the new tower.84 In
September 1998, the TMG’s city planning policies exempted the FAR of the national heritage Mitsui Main Building. The TMG prioritized the conservation of national Important Cultural Properties, including eligible urban heritage properties. As well as the floor area issue, the TMG considered the setbacks and heights of the designated heritage properties to be included in the exemptions. The TMG explained the FAR rationale of the Muromachi Block as follows: first, the Mitsui Main Building coupled with the Bank of Japan generates landscape sequence, therefore, their floor area should be assessed highly; second, two adjacent properties (the Mitsui Main Building and the Bank of Japan) are national Important Cultural Properties, so their sites should also be highly assessed; third, the MR1 Plan contributes socially to improving the historic building landscape; and fourth, the heritage property in the MR1 Plan creates socio-economic values by repairing its exterior wall and ensuring public access. The TMG assessed the MR1 Plan highly for its aesthetic contributions to the district and perceived the Plan as a driver for increasing heritage conservation in the urban built environment.85 The heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building in 1998 was the apex of the MR1 Plan. The official designation placed the Main Building under the protection of the heritage law and arranged for the new tower on the north side of the block to be erected. The subsequent construction of the new Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower next to the Mitsui Main Building has remarkably changed the approach to the Mitsui Main Building and its block. Although Chuo-Dori Avenue has been the main urban axis for a long time in Nihonbashi, this new tower sheds new light on the street through the façade linking the Mitsukoshi Department Store and the Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower. This new glass tower spotlights the north side of the block and draws people into it. The Bank of Japan site was once the frontage and the Main Building was originally designed with this in mind. The MR1 Plan changed the existing urban orientation to the location and setting of the Mitsui Main Building as well as the urban axis of Nihonbashi. The conservation of the Mitsui Main Building brought the Block into this dynamic of spatial games under the influence of global capitalism. The MR1 Plan consisted of the Main Building conservation
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.18 Views from street level: Chuo-Dori Avenue (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018 except bottom left was taken 26 December 2017)
and a new office tower construction, conceived by both public and private institutions as a device for creating the new contemporary authenticity of Nihonbashi (Fig. 6.18).86
6.5.4 Human: Spirit and Feeling The MR1 Plan and the national heritage designation determined the conservation rationale of the Mitsui Main Building within the urban regeneration scheme. The Main Building as head office speaks for the Mitsui legacy which can be traced back as far as when founder Takatoshi Mitsui opened his first shop in the Nihonbashi district in 1673. Since then Nihonbashi has been Mitsui’s beloved homeland, backbone and headquarters.87 Suzuki (1989) maintains that whenever Mitsui establish a new corporate office building, they always look to imprint an upgrade
in their corporate attitude on the form and design of the building.88 In 1901, the Mitsui group was inaugurated as a zaibatsu, erecting its first modern headquarters building in 1902, which was known as the Mitsui Dai-Ichigokan (三井第一号館). It was Mitsui’s first attempt to reconfigure the Edo Nihonbashi into the modern Nihonbashi but the building was only occupied for 20 years due to the Great Kanto earthquake in 1923.89 While most of its exterior survived the earthquake, the interior was destroyed by fire. The new world-class headquarters that Mitsui decided to build became the Mitsui Main Building that we know today, bringing together the head offices of Mitsui’s affiliated companies as the foundation of the Mitsui zaibatsu.90 New York architects Trowbridge and Livingston were commissioned to create a luxury office design, and construction company James Stewart & Co. to bring the very latest technology from America to build a headquarters fit for the status of Mitsui zaibatsu.91 Takuma Dan, a leading Mitsui executive, had studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and held America’s technology capability in high regard.92 The Mitsui Main Building was not the first office building designed and constructed by foreigners in Japan, but it was the first time Mitsui had hired foreigners to develop architectural design and supervise construction. Dan was determined to set the example of post-disaster reconstruction and show the dignity of the imperial capital, even at considerable financial cost. Indeed, construction of the Main Building was rushed for budgetary reasons.93 The design policy created by Dan for the new headquarters building was made up of three elements: grandeur, dignity and simplicity.94 With the 1923 earthquake still fresh in the Mitsui executives’ memory, Dan also required the new Mitsui Main Building to have a seismic and fireproof structure.95 In 1924, Mitsui published the construction plan of the new Main Building. Their first headquarters building was finally demolished in 1926.96 As Iijiri (2006) maintains, Mitsui management already had experience and knowledge of buildings and capital cities in Europe and America and wanted the new headquarters to catch up and compete with those of head offices and cities in major Western countries.97 It was only this determination that enabled Mitsui to build a headquarters in the magnificent American Renaissance style in the heart of Tokyo.98 Designed to reflect the nobility not just of Mitsui zaibatsu
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
but also of Imperial Tokyo and Japan, the Main Building manifests the power and glory of the Imperial state, capital and zaibatsu.99 It also epitomized a corporate intention to make a break with Edo Nihonbashi of the past.100 Completed in 1929, the Mitsui Main Building was enrolled in the history of building construction in Japan, with the entry of American architects and contractors into the country’s building and construction sector. Anticipating that their investment in the Main Building would contribute to the development of building technology and construction management in Japan, Mitsui had sought to aggregate top-quality design, technology and systems to create the Mitsui Main Building as the finest example of twentieth-century American-style architecture in the whole of Japan. The entire project illustrates the socio-political climate of Japanese society in the early twentieth century, with a shift from the former Europe-oriented Westernization strategy towards America.101 Today’s national heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building as an Important Cultural Property reinforced its status as a social, economic and political symbol linking the pride of the Mitsui family, the glory of the Mitsui zaibatsu, the example of Tokyo’s post-disaster recovery and the modern state power of Japan.102 This heritage making further revived the legacy of Mitsui that had contributed to the making of modern Japan.103 Although the zaibatsu no longer exists in post-war Japanese society, the Main Building remains a symbol of zaibatsu. Norihiko Dan, a descendant of Takuma Dan, took charge of development planning in neighbouring blocks during the Nihonbashi regeneration. Although the Mitsui Main Building had symbolized the deterioration of Nihonbashi during Japan’s economic stagnation, the MR1 Plan did away with any negativity, transforming it instead into a symbol of Nihonbashi’s economic revitalization. Thus the imposing presence and high spirits that the leaders of the Mitsui zaibatsu had expressed with their construction of the Main Building remain alive and well.
6.5.5 Architecture It is its architectural style and technology history that have led to the official heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building, lending its primary merit and defining its values. Discussion about the building’s conservation, which began in March 1999 following the decision on the redevelopment policy and the national heritage designation, initially had two approaches. One concerned the use of the Main Building, while the other was about the relationship between the Main Building (old) and the Tower (new). There were several reasons why the delivery of conservation was delayed: (1) division of office and non-office uses of the floor area were not finalized in the MR1 Plan; (2) the future use of the Main Building was not determined; and (3) the relocation date of the Mitsui Trust Bank, a leaseholder of the Main Building, was undecided. The office and non-office uses were directly associated with the urban planning system, while the non-office-use floor area determined the future use of the Main Building in the MR1 Plan. The Important Cultural Property designation of the Mitsui Main Building and the negotiations between Mitsui and the Agency for Cultural Affairs can be seen as a starting point for the development of conservation policies for the Main Building. Unlike the MR1 Plan discussion, Mitsui as the property owner had the upper hand in the heritage designation decision-making process. The conversation between the property owner and the Agency began with a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).104 Mitsui prepared their version of the MOA in consultation with the Agency before giving their official owner’s consent. In August 1998, a month before the submission deadline, Mitsui submitted a set of documents including the owner’s consent and the MOA to the Agency, in which they set out the financial aspects of heritage conservation that were included as a condition of their consent to the heritage designation. They requested permission for the new construction within the Muromachi Block and a FAR allowance equivalent to the demolition of the Main Building. The Agency judged that the exterior of the Main Building was a character-defining feature as it captured the original, and so was placed under legal protection. However, they were flexible on the interior of the
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Main Building, leaving decisions on conservation actions to the owner’s judgement.105 Mitsui was determined to keep the Mitsui Main Building in as near a ‘permanent state of stasis’ as possible to allow for the authenticity of an Important Cultural Property. This decision, coupled with the materiality of the Main Building, embodies the Mitsui spirit as national heritage (Fig. 6.19). The MOA is a written legal document specifying how Important Cultural Property protection regulations will be applied and the controls that will be relaxed. Based on the consultations between the Agency and Mitsui identifying significant tangible features of the Mitsui Main Building based on the 1950 Heritage Law, its eight tabulated paragraphs can be categorized under two aspects, conservation and management. The former required notifications of repair and/or permits to change the current status of the heritage property before the preservation activity began,106 while the latter left the actions to the property owner’s judgement. Any features not mentioned in the table were also left to the judgement of
Fig. 6.19 Mitsui Main Building: MOA summary (Created by the author with reference to the Mitsui Main Building Memorandum of Agreement, the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
the property owner. In the MOA, for example, the Agency requests Mitsui to secure a view of the South, East and West exterior walls, while the question of public access to the heritage property is left to Mitsui. Nevertheless, the latter turned out differently from what the Agency expected. The Agency deemed that keeping the original use of the first floor for banking services would guarantee public access to the Main Building but in practice this did not happen due to the security issues of banking institutions.107 Despite the successful heritage designation of the Mitsui Main Building, it was some time before Mitsui organized expert committees to discuss conservation and management issues. In 1999, American architect Cesar Pelli was appointed after winning the competition to design the exterior of the Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower. A team of American experts specialized in design solutions included consultants such as architectural historian Judith Robinson and a senior principal of Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects, Fred Clarke. Meanwhile another team of Japanese experts, mainly scholars and public officers, was working on the new use of the building. The outcomes of this multi-actor dialogue based on the MOA were published in 2002.108 The Japanese experts adopted the 1964 Venice Charter into the conservation guidelines and policies for the Main Building, using it to support their views on the authenticity of urban heritage specific to the Main Building as a work of art and historical evidence.109
22.214.171.124 Form and Design The Important Cultural Property designation statement of the Mitsui Main Building highlights its historical and design significance. All the actors involved took this into account and worked together to conserve the original form and design (Fig. 6.20). The original building was designed in the Beaux-Arts classical tradition, also known as the American Renaissance. Known for its very rich and lavish ornamentation, this style became simpler and lighter (though not too simple and light) under the control of Mitsui’s design policy. The conservation of the building’s original state shed light on US twentieth-century architectural trends,
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.20 Key features, form and design (Created by the author based on the Memorandum of Agreement of the Mitsui Main Building, the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
itself a kernel of the Main Building’s authenticity. As a leading zaibatsu, Mitsui contributed around 15 per cent of GDP, making the construction of the Main Building vital for exhibiting their financial importance and strength and imposing their presence in Nihonbashi.110 The Main Building was so well built that even after 69 years after completion, it still did not require earthquake resistance in the process of heritage designation as national Important Cultural Property.111 Within Japanese architectural history, the Mitsui Main Building is positioned in between the mature modern Western-style architecture and the early stages of steel-frame and reinforced-concrete composite construction. Having survived World War II, the GHQ occupation and the post-war reform, it had become one of the few remaining examples of the pre-war office building. The Main Building continues to serve Mitsui, and the conservation efforts epitomize Mitsui’s determination and the state’s power to promote Mitsui. The building originally had five storeys, and its design offers architectural embellishments with an open ceiling to the first floor which is the bank premises.112 Unlike the simple exterior, the first-floor interior is richly ornamented, inviting visitors into the building and impressing the eminence of Mitsui upon them. The first floor is divided into two spaces which are assigned to the Mitsui Bank and the Mitsui Trust Bank. The pecking order between the two banks is reflected in the arrangement of the three entrances. The first and the main entrance is on the west side,
facing the Bank of Japan; the second leads to the Mitsui Bank is on the south side, which is the main façade of the building facing the Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi and Surugacho-Dori Street; and the third entrance is to the Mitsui Trust Bank on the east side facing Chuo-Dori Avenue.113 The original form and design of the Mitsui Main Building not only reveals the political and economic climate of its time and the corporate strategy behind its construction but speaks of the structural hierarchy between the headquarters of the Mitsui zaibatsu and the Mitsui family home.114 The vocabularies of design and form distinguish the interior spaces of the Mitsui family and the Mitsui zaibatsu. On the executive floor, office spaces for the Mitsui family display full wall wainscoting, while the other office spaces are designed for executive members of the Mitsui zaibatsu and have half-wall wainscoting. The latter housed five major affiliated companies, Shintaku (信託), Ginko (銀行), Gomei (合 名),115 Bussan (物産) and Kozan (鉱山). The allocation of entrances and the division of the interior space reflect the organizational hierarchy of the Mitsui zaibatsu. More importantly, the national heritage designation has transformed their footprints into the authenticity of the Mitsui Main Building.
126.96.36.199 Materials and Substance In Japanese architectural history, the early Showa period is regarded as the mature stage of Western-style architecture construction, including not only design and form but also materials and substance, such as the use of marble and granite. Stone architecture including granite office buildings began to appear during the Meiji era and came to full fruition in the early Showa era. Bricks were already popular building materials but only stone could provide the solidity to offer a feeling of social trust to building owners as well as users.116 The stone was not foreign to Japanese culture, although before the Meiji period the only stone structures were stone walls. The use of various kinds of granite from flooring and counters to columns and ceilings in the construction of the Mitsui Main Building is a demonstration of Japan’s modernization.117
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Not only the original design and form but also the original materials and substance of the Mitsui Main Building are retained. The conservation policy for the Main Building in regard to materials and substance is a careful re-interpretation of Takuma Dan’s design policy of grandeur, dignity and simplicity, and of Trowbridge and Livingston’s aim of ensuring the quality of the original material. The ten-point scale of conservation interventions for the Main Building prioritized its design and function. While the exterior of the Building is simple as regards form and design, the materials and substance are rich and lavish (Fig. 6.21). The north exterior wall of the Building presented a challenge due to the construction of the Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower. The architects commissioned to design the Tower, Pelli Clarke Pelli, invited an American heritage conservation consultant to advise on the conservation and design treatment of the north exterior wall and on preserving the historical authenticity of the link between the Main Building and the Tower.118 The team of architects and engineers created a historical space where the old intersects with the new (Fig. 6.22). Here, the heritage and the Tower appear connected but they are not actually structurally attached due to fire regulations. If an earthquake struck the block, these two buildings would become two separate structures. When the condition of the building was assessed in the heritage designation process, it was decided that a heavy earthquake-resistant structure was not required; thus the original building materials and substance did not have to be altered, affecting the authenticity of the Important Cultural Property.119
Fig. 6.21 Key features, materials and substance (Created by the author based on the Mitsui Main Building Revitalization Project document, the MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive)
Fig. 6.22 Historical space (interior and exterior) (Photographed by the author, 4 July 2014)
188.8.131.52 Use and Function The Mitsui Main Building was originally built for office use as the headquarters of the Mitsui zaibatsu and its use and function of the Main Building has not been changed since its completion in 1929, except during the post-war period of the GHQ occupation. While the official heritage designation contributes to the preservation of the initial use and function of the Mitsui Main Building, the heritage law in Japan does not control original use and function. The expert committee of publicand private-sector actors were therefore in search of a new use and function for the building. The indoor historical space (see Fig. 6.22) was to be a gateway to the new cultural facility and public space connected to Chuo-Dori Avenue, Nihonbashi’s main urban axis. No public plazas were included along the Avenue prior to the MR1 Plan.120 The provision of a cultural facility sought to exemplify adaptive-use practices in urban heritage, with the Main Building as a catalyst inviting visitors not only into the national heritage property but into the Nihonbashi district itself. Of the variety of alternative uses and functions, the cultural facility was selected because it was seen as the best match for the property
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
considering the history and urban culture of Nihonbashi and the Mitsui legacy.121 The experts reviewed adaptive use projects across Japan and overseas and narrowed them down to four candidate facilities. The finalists were the National Industry and Technology Museum (日本産業技術博物 館ナショナルセンター); the National Heritage Centre (日本ヘリテ ージセンター); the Museum of Modern Architecture (近代建築博物 館); and the Mitsui Culture Archives (三井文化資料室). Some had their own parent organizations, while others did not.122 All four plans were regarded as complementing the significance of the Mitsui Main Building, and the committee chose the Mitsui Culture Archives, whose parent body is the Mitsui Bunko (三井文庫). No candidate could more strongly foster the spirit of Mitsui. While the Main Building itself epitomizes the Mitsui family and the Mitsui zaibatsu, the Mitsui Bunko collection also included archival materials from Mitsui and the Main Building. The expansion of the Mitsui Bunko would display the history of Mitsui and the wealth of the Mitsui family in the national heritage of the Mitsui Main Building. In order to create an exhibition space, Mitsui cleansed the executive rooms of Mitsui Mining and the dining hall on the seventh floor, which were not placed under strict legal protection in the designation MOA.123 The economic feasibility of this new cultural facility was also taken into account, since it would require neither a large additional investment by Mitsui nor a state subsidy.124 The original structural frame of the seventh-floor spaces were retained, while their original interior features, uses and functions were removed. Although the Agency undervalued these spaces in connection with the Main Building as an Important Cultural Property in the MOA, they still contributed significantly to its authenticity. The “use and function” heritage authenticity conditions were determined within the wider Nihonbashi regeneration strategies. The new cultural facility opened in 2005 was named the Mitsui Memorial Museum; it was the first museum of its kind in the central business districts. This new use and function has contributed to the provision of new urban culture and the Nihonbashi experience, while keeping the second to the sixth floors, which are still in private ownership, closed to the public. Nevertheless, the building itself has compromised its public-use role.125 The official heritage designation
and the process of adaptive use have jointly framed the history of Mitsui family and the Mitsui zaibatsu in a national context, superimposing them over the culture and history of Nihonbashi.126 More importantly, these heritage processes have not only transformed heritage authenticity but cultivated the privatization of urban heritage. Nevertheless, when it comes to the urban scale, use directly engages with economic performance. The TMG SBS operational guidelines categorizes use as either office use or non-office use. The system requires a certain amount of floor area to be allocated to non-office use. From an economic perspective, non-office use is less profitable and thus private developers are enthusiastic to increase office-use floor area in their redevelopment projects. Moreover, the adaptive use of historic buildings generates costs because of the multi-level physical interventions such as the fire protection, improvements and repair. Against this background, Mitsui and the TMG have arranged to trade uses between the Main Building and the Tower. Mitsui took out the seventh floor of the Main Building, which was the area outside heritage law protection, and intended it for a museum space. After over a year of negotiations, the TMG finally granted the ‘transfer of office-use floor area’ within the SBS allowing a designated portion of ‘office-use floor area’ of the Mitsui Main Building to be exchanged with an equal portion of ‘non-office-use floor area’ of the Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower.127 The Main Building was legally defined and treated as an office building until its designation as national Important Cultural Property; therefore, the floor area of the Building was counted as office use.128 The Tower gained an additional (approx.) 10,000 m2 of office-use floor area, an additional financial incentive for Mitsui. The TMG issued the use-transfer MOA in March 2000, having granted the city planning permit for the MR1 Plan in August 1999. Prior to the MR1 Plan, when the total FAR of a new development exceeded base FAR, the excess portion of floor area had to be converted to non-office uses. The rationale behind this arrangement was to financially support the conservation of officially designated heritage properties by relaxing zoning regulations. In their MOA, the TMG imposed the condition that the transferred non-office-use floor area should be associated with cultural activities and/or facilitates contributing to the conservation of a national Important Cultural Property. The TMG further emphasized
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
that the outcome of the use transfer should provide as much public access as possible.129
184.108.40.206 Traditions and Techniques Efforts in relation to traditions and techniques all link back to the quest for the idea of the original. The Mitsui Main Building is a product of twentieth-century tradition and techniques. Japan has been absorbing Western architectural design and construction technology since the Meiji era, including them into its own social system and developing its own style of seismic isolation system in the early Showa era. While Japanese engineers were stunned by the American state-of-the-art design and technology of the Mitsui Main Building on its completion in 1929, nationalism was at its height in Japanese society at the time, so the adoption of American design and operations came under severe criticism from various sectors of society including the economy, architecture and technology.130 It had been Mitsui who particularly needed the American production and technological capability in order to depict the social, political and economic status of the Mitsui zaibatsu. In addition, the 1923 Kanto earthquake triggered the need for American design and construction technology, as the United States was known as a world leader in the construction sector. Compared to the Marunouchi Building (1923, see Chapter 7), the first example of American construction in Japan, Mitsui longer negotiating with the American firm for them to incorporate the Japanese experience of natural disasters into their design of the Mitsui Main Building and a massive amount of steel structures were used in the Main Building construction. The adoption of American design and technology demonstrates the shift from stone and brick to steel and concrete and paved the way not only for increasing scale and height of buildings but also for earthquake-resistant construction. The twentiethcentury traditions and techniques, as well as modernizing, and rationalizing and Westernizing building production,131 have been transfigured into the modern legacy of Mitsui and Nihonbashi.
The expert committee admitted that the conservation of modern traditions and techniques was particularly difficult as they were the outcome of industrial production. When an assembly line stops, it is the end of manufacture. The only way to re-produce the product is to restore the assembly line in the factory. The Mitsui Main Building is an accumulation of modern traditions and techniques of the early twentieth century, which are irreplaceable. At the same time, although its architectural design and construction technology were heavily reliant on those of the West, the Mitsui Main Building construction also involved Japanese traditions and techniques, such as stonemasons and their stone-carving skills.132 The expert committee acknowledged that the Main Building included both modern industrial technology and advanced Japanese craft skills.133 The conservation might provide an opportunity to contribute to training contemporary stonemasons in order to keep skills alive, particularly through the faithful interior restoration efforts undertaken in August 2001. Both Mitsui and the expert committee highlighted the traditions and techniques involved in the restoration work.134
Continuing Dichotomy and Shifting Urban Power
The opening of the Coredo Nihonbashi in 2004 not only marked the beginning of the Nihonbashi regeneration but also exemplified public– private partnerships not only in urban redevelopment but in urban heritage conservation. This first urban project in the Nihonbashi regeneration scheme was typical of commercial and business-oriented redevelopment in inviting a global financial firm, Merrill Lynch. The Nihonbashi regeneration did not end with the invitation to invest but took a two-pronged approach to constructing the Nihonbashi identity by spotlighting two fragments of the past: Edo Nihonbashi and the legacy of Mitsui, which it then combined into a single framework by launching Mitsui’s own brand name, Coredo. Both public- and private-sector institutions and actors were inclined to adopt a city planning system as a major urban regeneration tool, which turned urban heritage conservation into placemaking.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Upon the completion of the Coredo Nihonbashi, the MR1 Plan added a layer to the creation of the Nihonbashi authenticity by designating the Mitsui Main Building a national Important Cultural Property. Whether intentionally or not, the heritage designation and the public–private conservation partnerships and urban regeneration strategies resulted in the Main Building gaining a powerful position in the construction of the Nihonbashi authenticity, especially during the first phase of the Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan, which ended in 2014. The regeneration schemes put the Main Building into a ‘differencing machine’,135 blurring the line between the Nihonbashi and Mitsui identities and creating a seamless integration of the two to reinvigorate Nihonbashi. Nevertheless, the official heritage status of the Main Building has played a role in the heritage-led urban regeneration process, as it shows that Mitsui, authorized by the national government, is entitled to create and impose its visual frame of authenticity on Nihonbashi. This tendency becomes clearer in the first phase of the Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan, during the post-MR1 Plan period.
6.6.1 Mitsui Echigoya Station On completion of the MR1 Plan in July 2005, the brand-new Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower filled up with the headquarters offices, shops and resturants, and a hotel (Mandarin Oriental, Tokyo),—undoubtedly beneficiaries of the Mitsui Main Building conservation efforts. In October 2005, Mitsui installed a six-month temporary information centre promoting the Nihonbashi area at street level in the Mitsui No. 3 Building Annexe. The Annexe was destined to be demolished for the large-scale Nihonbashi regeneration. This temporary centre was named the Mitsui Echigoya Station, and was located opposite the Main Building facing Chuo-Dori Avenue (see Fig. 6.31). It was named after the Echigoya draper’s shop (Echigoya Gofukuten, 越後屋呉服店), which was the origin of the Mitsui group and the Mitsukoshi Department Store that had opened in 1673 in the heart of Nihonbashi. Even though it was temporary, the exhibition illustrated the historical roots of Mitsui that lay behind the Main Building—a visual reminder superimposing the idea of
“birthplace of the Mitsui group” over the Nihonbashi area, and imprinting the Mitsui identity on the Nihonbashi identity structure.136 While the dichotomy between the Edo and the modern, as well as Mitsui and Nihonbashi, do not merge cleanly, the physical fabric of the Mitsui Main Building represents the original quality, while the rest is essentially reproduction.
6.6.2 Nihonbashi East Muromachi District Redevelopment Nihonbashi Muromachi once flourished as the centre of the Edo, and both the public- and private- sector institutions and actors came together to revive the former glory of the district. Mitsui increased their presence in the post-MR1 period with continuing contributions to the Nihonbashi regeneration, and launched the Nihonbashi East–Muromachi District Redevelopment (NEMDR) Plan in November 2005.137 This plan comprised five urban blocks, which the TMG designated as the Special District for Urban Renaissance under the 2002 Act on Special Measures Concerning Urban Renaissance. It was a cooperative development with two private developers and five individual development projects beginning in 2009 and completed in 2014. While one of the projects was under the care of the Nomura Real Estate Development (hereafter, the Nomura), Mitsui was in charge of the rest.138 Norihiko Dan was appointed principal architect in charge of urban design of the NEMDR.139 The NEMDR strategy revealed a continuing dichotomy affecting all five development projects, in that one side of authenticity was anchored in the Mitsui Main Building, while the other side was anchored in the Edo-era style (Figs. 6.23 and 6.24). The five sites of the NEMDR are located on the east side of ChuoDori Avenue. Integral to the East Muromachi district regeneration are numbers 2-2, 2-3 and 1-5 of the East Muromachi Block, converted into three mixed-use towers, the Coredo Muromachi 1 (CM1), the Coredo Muromachi 2 (CM2), and the Coredo Muromachi 3 (CM3). CM1 was the first project in the NEMDR, and the second in the series of Mitsui’s Coredo brand projects; it was completed in October 2010, six years
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.23 Outline of Nihonbashi East Muromachi District redevelopment (Created by the author based on the Mitsui Fudosan News Release between 24 November 2005 and 23 October 2014)
after the opening of the Coredo Nihonbashi. Mitsui took the lead and cooperatively worked with landowners in East Muromachi to integrate small plots into larger urban blocks, enabling both Mitsui and the public agencies to promote the urban regeneration of Nihonbashi. CM1 and CM3 were located side by side on Chuo-Dori Avenue, whilst CM2 sat at the intersection of Edo Sakura-Dori (江戸桜通り) Street and NakaDori (仲通り) Street, facing CM1 (Fig. 6.25) . Their main common features were retail stores and offices. Mitsui and the architect Dan took an urban design approach to construction of their vision of the Nihonbashi urban identity.140 There were initially two urban policies in regard to urban design. One was the SDUR, which aimed to shape the urban landscape, and the other was the Important District under the Ordinance on Promoting Stylish Streetscape Making (Shareta Machinami
Fig. 6.24 Nihonbashi East Muromachi District redevelopment site (Created by the author with reference to Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 23 October 2014)
Zukuri Suishin Jorei Juten Chiku, しゃれた街並みづくり推進条例重 点地区).141 The two policies emphasized landscape and incorporated it into the urban design. Ironically, however, these design efforts to create the authenticity of urban place turned out to be a step towards the homogenization of Nihonbashi. The Muromachi enclave is divided into east and west by Chuo-Dori Avenue (Fig. 6.26). While west Muromachi was shaped by the Western classical-style architecture that epitomizes the era of modernization in Japan, East Muromachi remained undeveloped with small plots and alleys that were seen as the remnants of the Edo. Mitsui and the master architect attempted to create a visually unified landscape of one Muromachi on the basis of the landscape sequence formed by the three national urban heritage properties sitting on the west side of ChuoDori Avenue: the Bank of Japan, the Mitsukoshi Department Store and
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.25 View of Naka-Dori Street between CM1 and CM2 (Photographed by the author, [above] 9 April 2014 and [below] 26 December 2017)
the Mitsui Main Building. They also considered the Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, the motifs of which were inspired by the design and form of the Mitsui Main Building. These four buildings share not only an architectural language but also a 31 m skyline, which can trace its roots back to
Fig. 6.26 Nihonbashi Muromachi East (left) and West (right): view from ChuoDori Avenue (Photographed by the author, 4 July 2014)
the 1919 Urban Building Law. The control of building height that originally existed under the UB was replaced by floor-area control following the amendment of the Building Standards Law in 1950. Inspired by the MR1 Plan, the 31 m skyline rule was incorporated into the Nihonbashi legacy and into the design of the lower part of the skyline of the new office towers in an effort to create uniform landscapes, and adding to the layers of the Nihonbashi authenticity in the NEMDR.142 While the new towers were filled with retail stores and offices as is typical of mixed-use developments, their exterior design and form, especially the sides facing Chuo-Dori Avenue, were arranged to visually harmonize and interlock with the exterior design and form of the Western classical-style architecture located on the west side of the Avenue following the 31 m skyline standard. The Edo flavour was engraved in the rest, in aspects such as the ground floor exterior design and the design of Ukiyo Koji Alley (浮世小路), Edo Sakura-Dori Street and Naka-Dori Street, which ran between the blocks of the NEMDR. In collaboration with Chuo ward, the Edo-inspired streetscape design was incorporated into the district improvement plan and implemented in the East Muromachi landscape. Features of the urban design code, such as the 31 m skyline, were extended to Number 2-4 of the East Muromachi Block, for which Nomura was repsonsible. Overall, the NEMDR was engineered in such a way as to (1) exude nostalgia towards Edo, (2) draw people into brand-new commercial facilities, and (3) invite visitors to wander around between the East Muromachi blocks.143 Last but not least, the three towers (CM1, CM2 and CM3) resonate with the Mitsui Main Building and the Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower. Each
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
was designed in three layers, low, medium and high. The lower parts of the towers were made of stone and glass, while the upper part was made of glass and metal. In this way, the philosophy, the logic and the rhythm of the Mitsui Main Building and its neighbouring office tower in West Muromachi were reconfigured and imprinted on the towers in East Muromachi. In addition to the Main Building elements, Western Classical design motifs are devices that offer prestige and status to the towers and urban spaces. For example, CM3 the incorporation of a loggia entrance into the cinema complex located in CM3 illustrates the additional adoption of the European classic motif.144 In 2014, the NEMDR was fully accomplished with the replication of the Fukutoku Shrine (Fukutoku Jinja, 福徳神社), which was believed to be located in the Muromachi enclave between 859 and 876 A.D. and enshrined Ieyasu Tokugawa as a god before and after the Edo period (Fig. 6.27).145 While the small plots of East Muromachi were consolidated into larger urban blocks, the NEMDR players sought to anchor the neighbourhood in the Edo Nihonbashi to stage place authenticity, hence the replication of the Shrine. Staging authenticity did not come free but there were economic trade-offs, mainly in the installation of commercial facilities and profit-seeking businesses. Amemiya and Seta (2015) acknowledge that such trade-offs are inevitable when conservation is being undertaken during urban redevelopment. Although they
Fig. 6.27 Fukutoku Shrine (Photographed by the author, [left] 21 July 2018 and [right] 26 December 2017)
regard the reproduction of the Shrine as heritage conservation and as a means of regenerating the historical context of Nihonbashi, these critics leave out the problems of replication and the risk of commodifying and “Disneyfying” Nihonbashi.146 Hence, the Nihonbashi place authenticity is based on the genuineness of the national heritage property materials, their visual outcomes and the replication. This set of replications positions the Mitsui Main Building at the head of the Nihonbashi identity hierarchy. The physical fabric of the Main Building is the backbone of the reproduced modern elements, while the presence of Edo traditions in Nihonbashi is, in fact, inessential duplication. The physical presence of the Mitsui Main Building is on a grand scale, that of the Edo reproduction is on a smaller scale. The modern motifs of the Western-style buildings, such as Chuo-Dori Avenue, take centre stage in Muromachi, while the Edo motifs are in the background, positioning Mitsui at the centre of the modern Nihonbashi and dominating over Edo Nihonbashi. Nevertheless, Norihiko Dan (Shinkenchikusha 2014) maintains that it is generally impossible for high-rises to form landscape. That being said, he designed the blocks to form landscape, prioritizing high-rises. He claims that the NEMDR successfully reconciled the oppositing logics of architecture and urbanism to invent the street space as a means of shaping the Nihonbashi identity.147 But he also overlooks the impact of the Mitsui Main Building conservation and the perils of replication in the Nihonbashi regeneration.
6.6.3 The Second Phase of the Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan Mitsui officially announced the commencement of the second phase of the Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan in 2014, spotlighting the Takashimaya Tokyo Store which had been designated a national Important Cultural Property in 2009 (Fig. 6.28). In the second phase, Mitsui plans to implement another series of redevelopment projects in the Nihonbashi district which are expected to be completed by 2020 (Fig. 6.29). Their strategy continues to single out history, culture and community as authentic qualities of Nihonbashi
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Fig. 6.28 Nihonbashi 2 Chome redevelopment site (Photographed by the author, 21 July 2018)
Fig. 6.29 Outline of Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan: Phase II (Created by the author with reference to Mitsui Fudosan News Release between 13 November 2014 and 28 September 2016)
and frame them into the urban redevelopment strategy in the light of Tokyo’s competitiveness as a global city.148 Mitsui has branched out of its homeland and begun to expand its territory in both northerly and southerly directions, increasing the urban power and influence it has gained through the Nihonbashi regeneration, which is founded on the Mitsui Main Building conservation. With the experience of the MR1 Plan, Mitsui was able to use national Important Cultural Property tradeoffs from the Takashimaya Tokyo Store conservation in the Nihonbashi 2 Chome Block Redevelopment to maximize floor area.149 In addition to the official urban heritage of the Takashimaya Tokyo Store, Mitsui has included another Edo remnant in the Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan—the recreation of the Yakuso Shrine (Yakuso Jinja, 薬祖神社) as part of the Nihonbashi Honmachi 2 Chome SBS redevelopment project (Fig. 6.30). This project site adjoins Number 2-3 of the Nihonbashi Higashi Muromachi Block where the reproduced Fukutoku Shrine is located. Mitsui coordinated the Yakuso Shrine project to create a public open
Yakuso Shrine (Photographed by the author, 26 December 2017)
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
space.150 As Amemiya and Seta (2015) point out, these historic resource reproductions are regarded as contributions to urban regeneration, so public agencies such as the TMG approve them for trade-offs with additional floor area bonuses.151 The Nihonbashi Regeneration Plan is continuing as a public–private partnership, with the final decision resting with the government. Mitsui has undoubtedly exercised increasing influence not only over urban strategies in Nihonbashi but also the wider framework of Tokyo. Beginning with the Coredo Nihonbashi, the urban power of Mitsui has grown, shaping and controlling the urban redevelopment strategies in the form of public–private partnerships. While the Mitsui Main Building conservation-led development has promoted a positive image of Nihonbashi to secure investments and economic regeneration, it also demonstrates how the public sector can authorize a single private-sector entity to package unique and authentic qualities of place into a single quality (Fig. 6.31). Moreover, the Nihonbashi case shows that a single national heritage designation lays the foundations for a single corporate identity and history to be engraved on the contemporary urban fabric of place that has positioned itself as the prototype of urban regeneration and evolved. Mitsui was once simply a member of the Nihonbashi community and it never owned the entire district. However, the global strategy of urban regeneration and the global practice of urban heritage conservation have turned Nihonbashi into an authorized Mitsui colony. Some may argue that the Japanese term zaibatsu is out of date, but it is not. It is important to note that the nation-state has empowered Mitsui and enabled the reconstruction of their spirit within global city making.
Fig. 6.31 Nihonbashi regeneration (Created by the author based on Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 29 January 2016)
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Takami (1988, pp. 1–6). Horie (2011, pp. 23–24). Chuo Ward Office of Tokyo Metropolis (1980, pp. 176–179). Kato (1988, n.p.). Mitsui Fudosan, “History: Nihonbashi Changes and Grows”, English, http://www.nihonbashi-tokyo.jp/en/history/modern.html. Accessed 30 August 2016. Chuo Ward Office of Tokyo Metropolis (1980, pp. 418, 502–505, 525). Mitsui Fudosan, “History: Nihonbashi Changes and Grows”, English, http://www.nihonbashi-tokyo.jp/en/history/modern.html. Accessed 30 August 2016. Mitsui Bunko (2015, pp. 4–7, 10–11), Japan Business History Institute (2012, p. 2), and Horie (2011, p. 27). Mitsui Bunko (2015, pp. 50–51, 56–57). Japan Business History Institute (2012, pp. 3–5, 16–19). Asahi Shimbun, 26 December 1998. Iwasa and Suzuki (2006, p. 7). The way the land acquisition and transfer system works in this project is that the Tokyu Department Store, the owner, transfers the property to the Organization for Promoting Urban Redevelopment (OPUD) after demolishing the existing building. Then the three project operators lease the land from the OPUD in order to execute their construction plan, which is expected to start on April 2001. Upon its completion, three investors purchase the land at the earliest possible date. The Organization for Promoting Urban Development (OPUD) was originally established as an incorporated foundation in 1987 (changed to a general incorporated foundation as of 1 April 2013), approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to the 1987 Act on Special Measures Concerning the Promotion of Urban Development by Private Sectors (Minkan Toshi Kaihatsu no Suishin ni Kansuru Tokubetsu Sochiho, 民間都市開発の推進に関する特別 措置法) and the 2002 Act on Special Measures Concerning Urban Renaissance (Toshi Saisei Tokubetsu Sochiho, 都市再生特別措置法). The Organization provides support for facilitating the provision of
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
middle-risk funds for long-term private sector urban development projects. See http://www.minto.or.jp/. It is known as the ‘Nihonbashi N1 Project’. See Japan Business History Institute (2012, p. 469); and Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 7 January 2000. Among the three private-sector actors, undertaking ratio is divided as the following: Mitsui Fudosan: Tokyu Corporation: Tokyu Land Corporation = 50:30:20. The SBS adopted into the Coredo Nihonbashi project is an early version of the SBS, another version of the PSCBDS. Japan Business History Institute (2012, p. 469). City planning guidelines under the Specified Block System are based on the assumption of new construction. See Moriyama (2004). Asahi Shimbun, 26 December 1998. Interview with S.Y., Senior Project Architect of Nihon Sekkei, 1 November 2016. Conducted by the author. Ibid; and Nihonbashi 1 Chome Redevelopment Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Iwasa and Suzuki (2006, p. 7). Shirokiya had a spring on its store site known as Shirokiya Spring. The spring existed until permanent closure of the Tokyu Department Store in 1999. A stone monument of the well was created and located in the plaza of the Coredo Nihonbashi Annex—the only residue of Shirokiya in Nihonbashi today. Kobayashi (2006). Japan Business History Institute (2012, p. 468) and Matsuura (2016). Nihonbashi 1 Chome Redevelopment Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Shinkenchiku-sha (2004, p. 26) and interview with S.Y. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 10 September 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Japan Business History Institute (2012, pp. 470–471). Email Correspondence with S.Y., 1 November 2016. Mitsui Fudosan and Tokyu Fudosan (2004). Architectural Institute of Japan (1983, p. 105). Interview with G.O., 29 December 2014. Conducted by the author. Ibid. The expression was borrowed from Araoz (2008, p. 35). Interview with S.T.2, 6 January 2016. Conducted by the author.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
38. 39. 40. 41.
42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.
Suzuki (2006, p.114). Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 18 June 2001. Goto (2006). G.O. explained that a report was prepared by the modern heritage committee of the Agency that gave a permit to step into the designation of Showa-era heritage beforehand. The Bank of Japan building was designated a national Important Cultural Property in 1974. The MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Later, it became officially named the Nihonbashi Muromachi 2 Chome Specified Block Redevelopment Project. Interview with K.M., 27 October 2014. Conducted by the author. Interview with K.M. It refers to Kodo Riyo Chiku Seido (高度利用地区制度). At the meeting held on 18 November 1997. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 19 November 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Ibid. One of the items in the package was the relaxation of FAR controls in central business districts. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 10 December 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 12 January 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Both the Nihonbashi and Ginza districts are located in Chuo ward. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 14 January 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. Yaesu is a district in Chuo ward adjoining the Nihonbashi district and Tokyo Station. Suzuki (2006, p. 118). The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 14 January 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 20 January 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 8 April 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. It remains unclear when and how the concept ‘exemption from building code’ emerged.
62. The research was undertaken between November 1997 and April 1998 through interviews with public-sector actors, including phone interviews. 63. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 8 April 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 64. For further information see the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “The 11th Chiiki Kasseika Working Group”, Japanese, http://www8. cao.go.jp/kisei-kaikaku/kaigi/meeting/2013/wg3/chiiki/150130/item11-2.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2016. 65. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 8 April 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 66. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 10 February 1999, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 67. Horie (2011, p. 24). 68. Iwasa and Suzuki (2006, p. 6). 69. Suzuki (2006, p. 119). 70. Suzuki (1989, pp. 22–23). 71. Interview with M.J., Principal of Jun Mitsui & Associates Inc. Architects and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects Japan, 24 December 2014. Conducted by the author. 72. Interview with S.T.2. 73. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 10 October 1997; and the MR1 Minutes of Meeting, 22 October 1997. Both Nihon Sekkei Archive. 74. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 22 October 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 75. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 31 October 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 76. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 18 November 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 77. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 19 November 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid. 80. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 5 December 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 81. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 8 January 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
82. The Nihonbashi district is designated as the Efficient Land Utilization District in 2000. 83. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 9 January 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 84. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 24 July 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 85. The Nihonbashi Muromachi Specified Block Redevelopment Guidelines (日本橋室町再開発計画・特定街区の考え方) was prepared by the Bureau of Urban Development of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in September 1998. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 8 September 1998, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 86. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 26 July 1999. 87. Horie (2011, p. 27). 88. Suzuki (1989, pp. 25–26). 89. Ibid. 90. Japan Business History Institute (2012, pp. 14–15). 91. The Mitsui zaibatsu became the largest zaibatsu in Japan by the end of World War II. See Edo (1989, p. 8) and Ishida (1989, p. 212). 92. Suzuki (2006, p.110). 93. Suzuki (1989, pp. 29, 40) and Ishida (1988, p. 57). 94. Ishida (1988, p. 59). 95. Suzuki (2006, p.110). 96. Ishida (1988, p. 89). 97. The leaders of Mitsui had visited cities in Europe and North America in 1910 and 1921. 98. It is also known as the Beaux-Arts style and the American Renaissance style. 99. Japan Business History Institute (2012, p. 15) and Suzuki (2006, p. 40). 100. Iijiri (2006, p. 127). 101. Suzuki (2006, pp. 36–37). 102. Suzuki (1989, pp. 50–51). 103. Iijiri (2006, pp. 126–131). 104. The MR1 Plan Minutes of Meeting, 4 November 1997, Nihon Sekkei Archive. 105. Interview with G.O. 106. Article 43, and Item 2 of Article 43 of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties.
107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.
123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138.
Interview with G.O. See Shinkenchiku-sha (2002). Ibid. and Mitsui Fudosan (2001). Interview with S.T.2. Ibid. The Mitsui Main Building was originally regarded as a five-storey building but today it is considered as a seven-storey building. Suzuki (1989, p. 49). Ibid., pp. 50–51. The Mitsui Gomei company constitutes the Mitsui zaibatsu. Matsuyama and Suzuki (2006). Yahashi (2006). Shinkenchiku-sha (2002, pp. 100–103). Mitsui Fudosan (2001) the Meeting Minutes, 30 November 2000. Ibid., 12 September 2000. Ibid. The National Industry and Technology Museum, the National Heritage Centre and the Museum of Modern Architecture have parent organizations, whilst the Museum of Modern Architecture does not. Mitsui Fudosan (2001) the Meeting Minutes, 12 September 2000. Ibid., 31 October 2000 and 5 February 2000. Ibid., 5 February 2001. Ibid., 26 March 2001. The letter of the pledge of FAR arrangement, 3 August 2000. The MR1 Plan Project File, Nihon Sekkei Archive; and Interview with S.T.2. Mitsui Fudosan (2001) the Meeting Minutes, 30 November 2000. The MR1 Plan Project File, Mitsui Fudosan Archive. Ishida (1988, pp. 1–13). Ibid., pp. 211–229. Matsuyama and Suzuki (2006, pp. 146–151). Mitsui Fudosan (2001) the Meeting Minutes, 26 March 2001. Ibid., 26 March 2001; and Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 18 June 2005. Term borrowed from Bennette to describe the role of urban heritage increasingly exhibits difference. See Bennette (2006). Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 29 July 2005; and Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 7 October 2005. Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 24 November 2005. Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 31 March 2009.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
139. Dan (2008). 140. Ibid. 141. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 177th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (27 July 2007)”, Japanese, http://www. toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/pdf/giji177.pdf. Accessed 24 December 2016. 142. Dan (2008). 143. Ibid. 144. Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 15 November 2011. 145. Fukutoku Jinja. Japanese, http://mebuki.jp/yuisho/. Accessed 27 September 2016 and Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 31 March 2009. 146. Amemiya and Seta (2015). 147. Shinkenchiku-sha (2014). 148. Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 13 November 2014. 149. Interview with T.Y. and N.K., 14 December 2014. Conducted by the author. 150. Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 8 August 2016 and Mitsui Fudosan News Release, 28 September 2016 151. Amemiya and Seta (2015).
References Amemiya, Katsuya, and Fumihiko Seta. 2015. Research on Conservation and Regeneration for the Historical Context of the Region by Urban Developments’ Coordination and Role of Area Management Activities—Case Study on Nihonbashi Muromachi-Higashi Project and Honcho-2chome Project (in Japanese). Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan 50 (3) (October): 1252–1257. Araoz, Gustavo. 2008. World-Heritage Historic Urban Landscapes: Defining and Protecting Authenticity. APT Bulletin 39 (2/3): 33–37. Architectural Institute of Japan. ed. 1983. Nihon Kindai Kenchiku Soran (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gihodo Shuppan. Asahi Shimbun. 1998. Shirokiya kara Tokyu Hyakkaten no Sogyo 336-nen Tadoru (in Japanese). Asahi Shimbun, 26 December.
Bennette, Tony. 2006. Exhibition, Difference, and the Logic of Culture. In Museum Frictions: Public Cultures, Global Transformations, ed. Karp Ivan et al., 46–69. Durham: Duke University Press. Chuo Ward Office of Toyo Metropolis. 1980. Chuo-ku Sanjunen-shi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chuo Ward Office. Dan, Norihiko. 2008. Urban Design of Muromachi East Area of Nihombashi. In Architecture and Urbanism of Tokyo, ed. Norihiko Dan, 79–89. Taipei: Garden City Publishers. Edo, Hideo. 1989. Honkan Kaiso (in Japanese). In Mitsui Main Building, ed. Mitsui Main Building Memorial Publication Editorial Board, 8–14. Tokyo: Mitsui Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Fukutoku Jinja. About Fukutoku Jinja Shrine (Mebuki Inari), English, http:// mebuki.jp/yuisho/. Accessed 27 September 2016. Goto, Osamu. 2006. Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower to Kindai Kenchiku no Hozon (in Japanese). In Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, ed. Mitsui Fudosan, 120–125. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Horie, Tomoko. 2011. Mitsui Zaibatsu to Sono Jidai (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tosho Shinbun. Horikoshi, Saburo. 1929. Meiji Shoki no Yofu Kenchiku (in Japanese). Tokyo: Maruzen. Iijiri, Kazuo. 2006. Nihonbashi Gaiku no Dignity (in Japanese). In Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, ed. Mitsui Fudosan, 126–131. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Ishida, Shigenosuke. 1988. Mitsui Honkan to Kenchiku Seisan no Kindaika (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kashima Institute Publishing. ———. 1989. Mitsui Honkan no Gijutsushiteki Igi (in Japanese). In Mitsui Main Building, ed. Mitsui Main Building Memorial Publication Editorial Board, 201–242. Tokyo: Mitsui Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Iwasa, Hiromichi, and Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2006. Taidan: Nihonbashi Saisei no Vision (in Japanese). In Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, ed. Mitsui Fudosan, 6–12. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Japan Business History Institute. 2012. Mitsui Fudosan Nanajunen-shi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Mitsui Fudosan. Kato, Takashi. 1988. Nihonbashi Oboegaki (in Japanese). In Tokyo-shi Shigaihen: Nihonbashi, Takami Yasujiro, n.p. Tokyo: Jukaishorin. Kobayashi, Shinji. 2006. Rekishi no Keisho to Toshi no Saisei: Nihonbashi Saisei Keikaku (in Japanese). Shinkenchiku (January): 138–139. Shinkenchikusha.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Matsuura, Takayuki. 2016. Nihonbashi: Edo no Nigiwai wo Yomigaerasenagara, Atarashii Sangyo wo Sozosuru Machizukuri (in Japanese). Tokyojin, No. 377, November: 46. Toshi Shuppan. Matsuyama, Iwao, and Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2006. Ishiku to Ishiya ga Tsukutta Meikenchiku (in Japanese). Tokyojin, No. 227, May: 146–151. Toshi Shuppan. Mitsui Bunko. 2015. Shiryo ga Kataru Mitsui no Ayumi – Echigoya kara Mitsui Zaibatsu (in Japanese). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan. Mitsui Fudosan. 2000. Agreement was made for the redevelopment plan of Tokyu Department Store, Nihonbashi site. News Release on 7 January, English, http://mitsuifudosan.co.jp/corporate/news/2000/0107/index.html. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2001. Juyo Bunkazai ‘Mitsui Honkan’ (1kkai Eigyoba) Tenjo Soshoku no Fukugen Toso (Hoshu · Shufuku) Koji wo Jisshi. News Release on 18 June, Japanese, http://mitsuifudosan.co.jp/corporate/news/2001/0618/ index.html. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2001. Mitsui Honkan Katsuyo Konwakai (in Japanese). Unpublished Report. ———. 2005. Urban revitalization project of Nihombashi District that values both preservation and development. Completion of construction of “Nihombashi Mitsui Tower”. Also, Announcing the opening of “Mitsui Echigoya Station”, Nihombashi’s information center this Autumn (early October). News Release on 29 July, English, http://www.mitsuifudosan. co.jp/english/corporate/news/2005/0729/index.html. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2005. New information center in Nihombashi District “Mitsui Echigoya Station” Grand Opening on October 10. Also, featuring Tokyo FM’s satellite studio. News Release on 7 October, English, http://www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/english/corporate/news/2005/ 1007/index.html. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2005. “Nihombashi Mitsui Tower” Grand Opening. Also, announcing Nihombashi’s Latest Redevelopment Project, the East Muromachi District Redevelopment Project. News Release on 24 November, English, http://www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/english/corporate/news/2005/ 1124/index.htm. Accessed 5 February 2016. ———. 2009. Nihonbashi Saisei Keikaku - ‘(Kasho) Muromachi Higashi Chiku Kaihatsu Keikaku 2–2 Gaiku’ Chakko (Heisei 22-nen 9-gatsu Shunko Yotei) ‘Muromachi Higashi Chiku Kaihatsu Keikaku’ Heisei 26nen Zentai Shunko (Yotei). News Release on 31 March, Japanese, http://
www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/corporate/news/2009/0331/. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2011. Second Section of Muromachi East District Development Project (tentative name): Muromachi East District Development Project Block #2–3. Construction Starts on Today on Mixed-Use Facility Comprising Offices, Retail Properties, a Cinema Complex and Rented Housing TOHO CINEMAS to Open Theater at First Cinema Complex in Nihonbashi District. News Release on 15 November, English, http://www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/english/corporate/news/2011/ 1115/index.html. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2014. Nihonbashi 2 Chome Chiku Dai Isshu Shigaichi Saikaihatsu Chakko. News Release on 13 November, Japanese, http:// www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/corporate/news/2014/1113/. Accessed 4 February 2016. ———. 2016. Fukutoku no Mori Kansei he. News Release on 8 August, Japanese, http://www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/corporate/news/2016/ 0808/. Accessed 4 February 2017. ———. 2016. Fukutoku no Mori Tanjo. News Release on 28 September, Japanese, http://www.mitsuifudosan.co.jp/corporate/news/2016/0928/. Accessed 4 February 2017. ———. History: Nihonbashi Changes and Grows. English, http://www. nihonbashi-tokyo.jp/en/history/modern.html. Accessed 30 August 2016. Mitsui Fudosan and Tokyu Fudosan. 2004. Tokyo-to Toshikeikaku Nihonbashi 1 Chome Tokuteigaiku Saishu Hokokusho (in Japanese), March. Unpublished Report. ———. n.d. Nihonbashi 1-Chome Building Information (in Japanese). Mitsui Main Building Memorial Publication Editorial Board. ed. 1989. Mitsui Main Building (in Japanese). Tokyo: Mitsui Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Not for Sale. Moriyama, Hisako. 2004. Shogyo to Kinyu no Chushinchi, Fukkatu no Symbol (in Japanese). Nikkei Architecture 769 (3 May): 8–14. Shinkenchiku-sha. 2002. Shinkenchiku: Cesar Pelli & Associates Japan—Kyodoteki Sozo. November, Special Edition. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-Sha. ———. 2004. Machizukuri no Chihobunken / Chuo-ku (in Japanese). Shinkenchiku, April: 26–27, Shinkenchiku-sha. ———. 2014. Nihonbashi Saisei Keikaku: Nihonbashi Muromachi Higashi Chiku (in Japanese). Shinkenchiku, April: 66–75. Shinakenchiku-sha. Shirokiya. 1957. Shirokiya Sanbyakunen-shi (in Japanese) Tokyo: Shirokiya.
6 Saving the Authentic: Nihonbashi
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 1989. Mitsui Honkan no Rekishiteki Igi (in Japanese). In Mitsui Main Building, ed. Mitsui Main Building Memorial Publication Editorial Board, 15–58. Tokyo: Mitsui Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. ———. 2006. Mitsui Honkan kara Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower he – Mitsui no Umareta Basho (in Japanese). In Nihonbashi Mitsui Tower, ed. Mitsui Fudosan, 102–119. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Takami, Yasujiro. 1988. Tokyo-shi Shigaihen: Nihonbashi (in Japanese). Funabashi: Jukaishorin. The Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. The 11th Chiiki Kasseika Working Group, Japanese, http://www8.cao.go.jp/kisei-kaikaku/kaigi/meeting/2013/ wg3/chiiki/150130/item1-1-2.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2016. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of City Planning. 1984. Tokyoto Tokuteigaiku Unyo Kijun (in Japanese). Tokyo: The Tokyo Metropolitan Government. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 1999. The 140th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (26 July 1999). Japanese, Requested Information Disclosure. ———. 2007. The 177th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes (27 July 2007), Japanese, http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/keikaku/shingikai/ pdf/giji177.pdf. Accessed 24 December 2016. Yahashi, Shutaro. 2006. Ishi ga Sugoi Meikenchiku (in Japanese). Tokyojin, No. 227, May: 154–155. Toshi Shuppan.
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
This chapter spotlights the Marunouchi (丸の内) district, which is located in the vicinity of the Imperial Palace in the heart of Tokyo (Fig. 7.1). Because of its close proximity to the Imperial Palace, this district is a politically and economically significant central business district of Tokyo. The urban history of Marunouchi can be traced back to the Edo Bakufu (江戸幕府, 1603–1868) after Ieyasu Tokugawa had entered Edo Castle in 1590. Before his arrival, as Okamoto (2009) points out, the castle already existed, having been built in 1457. The Marunouchi area, an inlet of Edo Bay known as Hibiya (日比谷), was a trading port city. The area increased in importance from 1592 onwards, at the beginning of the Edo period, when Tokugawa infilled the land.1 Because Marunouchi was located a stone’s throw from the castle, he arranged mansions for the feudal lords in this area to keep his eye on them and their families. It is at this point that Marunouchi began to serve as the administrative capital. In 1868, the Edo Bakufu came to an end and the area was taken over by a new government known as the government of Meiji (明 治). In the same year, the new government renamed Edo Tokyo, called this new Japanese era Meiji, and renamed Edo Castle Tokyo Castle. © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_7
Fig. 7.1 Case study area: Marunouchi (Created by the author)
The Meiji government aimed to develop Japan as a strong modern state under a single government, replacing the policy of isolation with an open-door policy. This was an attempt to abolish feudalism and wipe out the remnants of the old feudal city. The Meiji government also urgently wanted to assimilate Western civilization, in particular the railway, telecommunications, electricity and architecture sectors. In 1869, the Meiji government once again renamed Tokyo Castle the Imperial Palace, acquiring the former mansions of feudal lords located in Marunouchi and turning them into their government facilities.2 In 1872, the Marunouchi district suffered a great fire; the area between the Babasaki-Mon (馬場先門) Gate and Tokyo Station, where feudal Marunouchi was located, was particularly badly damaged. This burnt field turned into an opportunity for the Meiji government to build modern Marunouchi to meet their political vision, which was the
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
construction of a modern city and architecture in the Euro-American urban image. In this process, political and economic leaders who had had some exposure to Euro-American cultures, cities and buildings took the lead in turning the images of the West into the built environment of Tokyo.3 The fire had not destroyed the whole of the Marunouchi neighbourhood, so the government continued to occupy and use those old structures that had survived the fire. Marunouchi was thus an urban townscape in which two distinct types of residential building, traditional and Western-style, co-existed during the early Meiji period. The government linked the idea of post-disaster reconstruction to the idea of the construction of new capital and implemented it as their urban policy for modernizing Japan. Nevertheless, there were other significant factors in the modernization in Japan. In 1858, the country was forced by Europe and America to sign unequal treaties, as a result of which the government promoted a Europeanization policy under the leadership of Foreign Minister Kaoru Inoue, who believed the policy would help Japan to revise the treaties.4 He appointed British architect Josiah Conder to design the Rokumeikan (鹿鳴館, 1883) as an international social meeting place for diplomatic purposes. The Imperial Hotel (Teikoku Hotel , 帝国ホテル) was built in the enclave of Marunouchi in 1887 (see Chapter 3). Inoue established the temporary Architecture Bureau under direct control of the Cabinet, even appointing himself the head of the Bureau. The Government Offices Centralizing Plan (Kancho Shuchu Keikaku, 官庁集中計 画) was to promote construction of a modern Tokyo that would be equivalent to Paris or Berlin.5 In 1885, Inoue again appointed Condor to prepare the Plan. Unfortunately his urban version of the Rokumeikan did not come true.6 In 1888, the Tokyo City Government executed a development plan which ran counter to the national government office’s centralizing plan. Under the direction of political and economic leaders, the Tokyo municipal initiative was planned by Japanese engineers, while the national initiative had been designed by a foreign architect. One of the main goals of the Tokyo City Plan was to locate the political and economic functions of the capital near the Imperial Palace. In the negotiation there were two camps: one trying to position the political function in the heart
of the Imperial Capital as the land was owned by the state, and the other striving to release this state-owned land to the private sector and allocate an economic function to the district. The latter won the negotiation in the City Plan for the Marunouchi district. So as Fujimori (1992) highlights, the Tokyo City Plan laid the foundations for the modernization of Marunouchi by selling the state-owned land to Mitsubishi in 1890, with the exception of public space such as roads.7 Thus did the Mitsubishi ownership of Marunouchi begin.
Privately Controlled Commercial District
Around 1887, Marunouchi was one of the neighbourhoods occupied by the Army Ministry, which erected barracks and parade grounds for their troops. Once the domestic chaos of the Meiji Restoration had settled down, there was no further need for guards for the Imperial Palace area.8 However, the need for larger areas of land for the military resulted in military facilities being relocated to suburban areas. Besides the land, the military also used old Edo-style mansions of feudal lords as barracks; these no longer met modern standards and were structurally unstable.9 The collapse of these old-style mansions led the Ministry to build new modern military facilities. Despite the counterforce in domestic politics, military expansion was one of the key national policies of the Meiji government. In implementing the development plan, the Tokyo City government designated three urban districts: Kabutocho (兜町), Otemachi (大手町) and Marunouchi. The government’s highest priority was Kabutocho, in Nihonbashi, with Otemachi and Marunouchi second, based on their vision of creating financial business districts at the centre of the Imperial Capital.10 Kabutocho was firmly established as a financial district filled with banks, financial institutions and media. However, 1887 onwards, political and economic leaders began to seek their visions of the Imperial Capital in Marunouchi, instead of Kabutocho. Plans for the Tokyo City railway network and central station that had been part of the initial Tokyo City Plan resurfaced in the government’s thinking.11 The Imperial
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Capital Central Terminal Plan and the Modern Marunouchi Plan naturally coalesced in the City Plan. The 1888 Tokyo City Plan envisaged the substantial transformation of Marunouchi on government-owned unused land, opening the way for urban development. This Plan was an early attempt by a public–private partnership to put urban visions into practice.12 The 1889 Meiji Constitution liberalized trade in land, allowing the military to either convert land they already owned to other government uses or sell it to the private sector. The socio-political conditions of the nineteenth century, including the Tokyo City Plan, led the Ministry to sell their Marunouchi land to finance their relocation plan.13 The government carefully screened potential buyers for the Marunouchi land because of its location right in front of the Imperial Palace. They sounded out the private sector, and in particular a group of influential zaibatsus, including Mitsubishi. Following negotiations, Mitsubishi finally acquired the Marunouchi field in 1890, and under their ownership it became a privately controlled district. In 1892, Mitsubishi started the construction of the Marunouchi district that would bring their urban visions to life.14
Transformation into a Political-Economic Centre
With the sale of the land and clearance of the military facilities as well as other buildings, including the old Edo mansions of feudal lords and early Meiji-period buildings, the vacant land became known as Mitsubishi Field. The government, however, had laid down some conditions during the negotiations. In 1889, the Tokyo Governor sent a request (Shiku Kaisei Sekkeini Kansuru Kuiki Narabini Kenchiku Seigen no Gini Tsuki Joshin, 市区改正設計に関する区域ならびに建築制 限の義につき上申) to the Home Secretary for approval of building restrictions in three designated urban districts in the Tokyo City Plan. These restrictions were not limited to building materials, structures and the distance between buildings, but also included information such as
road plans, building permit regulations and bidding rules. The government particularly valued the urban aesthetics and culture of the capital city, and Marunouchi was located very near the Imperial Palace. Yataro Iwasaki, the founder of Mitsubishi, also recognized the importance of Marunouchi as the centre of Tokyo, mentioning it in the development proposal submitted to the Tokyo City government (hereafter, Tokyo City) on purchasing the land. In the proposal, Iwasaki stated that he would only construct buildings with permanent materials such as brick and stone in order to protect the district in respect of landscape, sanitation and fire resistance.15 Public agency and private enterprise came to an agreement on creating the modern Marunouchi in the image of a European townscape. Although the Marunouchi development scheme was initially devised by Tokyo City, Mitsubishi gradually took over control of the district as the landowner. Early discussions between Tokyo City and Iwasaki implied that the landowner was responsible for maintaining the urban landscape. Mitsubishi therefore did not sell a single parcel of the land in Marunouchi but only rented parcels of the land out until the Great Kanto earthquake hit Tokyo in 1923.16 The following sections discuss the four key components in the making of Marunouchi as a political-economic centre (Fig. 7.2).
7.2.1 Mitsubishi Ichigokan and One London Block On the east side of Marunouchi, where Tokyo Station sits today, there was a government quarter along Daimyo-koji (大名小路) Avenue. In 1892, Mitsubishi launched an ambitious urban development initiative in this quarter with the construction of a modern office building, the Mitsubishi Ichigokan. This office building, the first step in reconfiguring the old Marunouchi into the new modern one, was inspired by Lombard Street, a red-brick commercial street in central London, UK. Critics have identified that Mitsubishi had already drawn up a comprehensive plan for the Marunouchi development in the Meiji era to include offices, cultural centres, shopping streets and apartments, aiming to transform Marunouchi into a culture-oriented district. It seems that such a comprehensive plan could not yet be implemented due to the difficulties of
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.2 Key elements of Marunouchi in its present setting (Created by the author)
meeting the socio-economic demands of the time. Thus, it took a while before the full version of the plan could be put in place.17 To put the English-style business district vision into practice, Mitsubishi commissioned Josiah Conder as chief architect. The Mitsubishi Ichigokan, built in the former government quarter in 1894, was not only the first Western-style office building in Marunouchi but
the first modern multifunctional office building in Japan.18 It was a masonry brick building created in a genuine European architectural style that was not exclusively the architect’s achievement but had the financial backing of Mitsubishi Limited Partnership (Mitsubishi Goshi Kaisha, 三菱合資会社). In the same year, the headquarters of three leading private firms, Mitsubishi, the 119th National Bank and the Takada Company, moved into the Ichigokan, increasing the value of the property. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a) maintains in its corporate history that the Ichigokan became an exemplar for other later-built Mitsubishi redbrick buildings. It survived the Great Kanto earthquake to remain a symbol of Marunouchi until its demolition in 1968 (see Chapter 3).19 The Ichigokan inevitably played a significant role in the formation of the One London Block (Iccho London, 一丁倫敦, 1894–) and the later development of Marunouchi (Fig. 7.3). In the making of modern Marunouchi, subtle differences can be identified between Conder and his Japanese disciples. While Conder added variety in design both to the exterior and interior of each building, Japanese architects created unity in design, putting emphasis on the visual uniformity of the urban landscape. Conder created the rhythm of his urban landscape by connecting individual buildings through the use of the same materials, making each building distinctive through variations in design. Fujimori (2001) rejects Conder, undervaluing his design approach to the London Block Mitsubishi Buildings Nos. 1– 3.20 Fujimori (2001) sees visual integrity as the backbone of landscape aesthetics and management, and appraises the Japanese architects’ design of Mitsubishi Buildings Nos. 4–13 as shaping a single landscape by using the same material and similar design. Mitsubishi has inherited the legacy of Japanese architects in the making of modern Marunouchi. Visual integrity has become adopted as a keyword in the urban design of contemporary Tokyo, increasing the homogenization of urban places.21
7.2.2 Central Station The Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) stimulated the Japanese economy. Human resources and urban functions began to be concentrated in
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.3 One London Block looking towards Naka-Dori Avenue in the early Taisho era (1912–) (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1])
Tokyo and demand rose for leasing offices in Marunouchi. Around this time, Mitsubishi filled both Babasaki-Dori (馬場先通り) Street and Naka-Dori (仲通り) Avenue with their red-brick office buildings to create the One London Block, which established the urban aesthetics of the capital.22 The favourable post-war business climate not only stimulated Marunouchi, but also other urban districts centrally located in Tokyo. One of its neighbouring districts, Hibiya (日比谷), became a bustling commercial district, which contrasted with the rigid ambience of Marunouchi caused by the restrictions on building structure and height. An internal Mitsubishi group discussed the possibility of building restriction deregulation, which would allow the company to execute urban redevelopment. Their motives were not just about profit but also their corporate responsibility to protect the exemplary status
of Marunouchi.23 The internal voices did not therefore immediately translate into action (Fig. 7.4). Victory in the Russo-Japanese War also underpinned the cultural and political importance of Marunouchi. The Central Station Plan for an elevated railway connecting Shinbashi (新橋) and Yurakucho (有楽町) was a driving factor in shifting the centre of Tokyo from Kabutocho to Marunouchi. This had originally been part of the Tokyo City Plan, which was incorporated into the Marunouchi development plan. Back in 1890, the Home Secretary had instructed the Ministry of Railways to construct a central station in the centre of Tokyo: the plan was halted due to the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) but was approved as a national project after the war at the Imperial Diet in 1896. Eight years later, the Ministry invited German engineer Franz Baltzer to design the central station plan. The Ministry was not satisfied with his station design, which consisted of five individual buildings, and turned it down.24 Baltzer’s design had
Fig. 7.4 Marunouchi Land Register 1912–1913 (Created by the author with reference to Chizu Shiryo Hensankai [1989, p. 18]. Most of the Marunouchi area was still under the control of the government)
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.5 Tokyo Station near completion (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 184])
singled out the central station so that it displayed a connection neither with the Emperor nor with the Marunouchi district development.25 Despite the rejection, the construction of railway platform commenced based on Baltzer’s plan.26 In 1903, the Meiji government commissioned Japanese architect Kingo Tatsuno, a disciple of Josiah Conder, to create a new design for a single magnificent seamless central station building (Fig. 7.5).27 After a series of revisions, in 1910 the Ministry finally approved Tatsuno’s design for a red-brick station building. While the RussoJapanese War provided a positive reinforcing stimulus to the central station plan, it was also a major reason for the delay of government approval for the station design. Nevertheless, the triumph over the war in 1905 provided an additional opportunity for the central station. The Meiji government wanted the station to be the war memorial by increasing its size and height from two to three storeys. The central station platform was completed ahead of the station building. The construction of the central station commenced in 1908 in the Meiji era but was completed in 1914 in the Taisho era (Fig. 7.6). The station building reflects the agreement on the Marunouchi development between Tokyo City and Mitsubishi, as well as the relationship of Conder and Tatsuno as teacher and student, echoing the red-brick buildings of the London Block and epitomizing the spirit of the Meiji era. On
Fig. 7.6 View of Marunouchi around 1916 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 212]. Presumably looking from Tokyo Station)
completion, the central station was officially named Tokyo Station and became the gateway to the Imperial Capital (Okamoto 2009; Fujimori 2001).
7.2.3 Gyoko-Dori Avenue Gyoko-Dori (行幸通り) Avenue runs between Tokyo Station and the Imperial Palace. The size of the blocks and streets around Gyoko-Dori Avenue are different from those of Babasaki-Dori Street and Naka-Dori Avenue, which are located at the other side of the London Block. Fujimori (2001) identifies the first drawing of Gyoko-Dori Avenue in the 1903 Tokyo City Plan—a revision of the original city plan invalidated due to the budget restrictions—and infers that the new version of the Tokyo City Plan and Tatsuno’s commission to design Tokyo Station occurring in the same year were no coincidence. He further states that there were only three red-brick buildings completed in the London block at that time, all designed by Conder, and presumes that Mitsubishi was neither capable of drawing a blueprint of the entire Marunouchi district nor of planning the surroundings of Tokyo Station at that time. Fujimori (2001) concludes that the state government intended to construct Gyoko-Dori Avenue as a national war memorial, like Tokyo Station.28 The City Plan was revised and implemented in 1906 and completed in 1914.29 Japan’s triumph over Russia in the war effectively increased not only the size of Tokyo Station but also the breadth of GyokoDori Avenue from 20 m to 73 m, illustrating the confidence of Japan
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.7 Gyoko-Dori Avenue as urban axis (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1]. The photo was taken around 1951. Adopted by the author)
as a modern state and the glory of the Emperor.30 Fujimori (2001) views Tokyo Station and Gyoko-Dori Avenue as metaphors for the main entrance and the urban landscape of the Imperial Capital.31 The Avenue has continued to play an important role as an urban axis in Marunouchi and as a means of creating the relationship between the Imperial Palace and Tokyo Station (Fig. 7.7).
7.2.4 One New York Block The twin triumphal symbols of Tokyo Station and Gyoko-Dori Avenue, coupled with the post-war economic expansion, led to the urban political and economic restructuring of Marunouchi. New construction techniques and technologies characterized the design of Tokyo Station, including reinforced concrete, which arrived in Japan around the end of the Meiji period. The opening of Tokyo Station and Gyoko-Dori Avenue was a test of new technologies that allowed for larger-scale development by increasing block size, and this in turn boosted the construction of office buildings in front of Tokyo Station, leading to the creation of One New York Block (Iccho New York, 一丁紐育, 1923−) (Fig. 7.8). Up till then, the land in front of Tokyo Station had remained a vacant lot.32 The adoption of new construction techniques and technologies did not imply an immediate break from the London style, but rather two different styles and scales co-existed within a single district. Together with
Fig. 7.8 A view of One New York Block (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 269])
the advancement of building technologies, it opened the door for urban redevelopment.33 One New York Block invited banking and industrial institutions into the district, enabling Marunouchi to take part in key sectors of economy and position itself as the centre of the political economy of modern Japan.34 Despite the influence of the Russo-Japanese War triumph, it remains unclear why and how the size of the blocks along Gyoko-Dori Avenue was increased (Fujimori 2001).35 While these two wartime symbols formed the backbone of Marunouchi’s new direction, another war was already on the horizon when the new Taisho era (1912–1926) began. World War I rather brought an economic boom to Japan. The first office building in the American style, Mitusbishi Building No. 21, was completed in 1914, the same year as the opening of Tokyo Station and the beginning of the war.36 At this time, building height and size had not yet risen dramatically, but the building was built with steel-framed reinforced concrete for the first time. With increasing demand for office space in Marunouchi, true American-style office buildings appeared in the late Taisho era, including the Tokyo Marine building (1918), the Nippon Yusen building (1923) and the Marunouchi Building (1923). America’s invention of the iron structure and elevator system was a major driving force for the construction of taller and larger office buildings
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
in Marunouchi. While earlier American-style office buildings were the outcome of trial and error, these three buildings, white large-scale high rises, displayed a clean break from the European style and techniques. As the economic consequences of WWI boosted Japan’s economic growth, the Marunouchi district became an inevitable beneficiary. The interim economic stagnation from 1920 to 1921 did not adversely affect the district, so the demand for office space was continuously on the rise. While the socio-economic conditions of the time required larger and taller office buildings, construction time needed to be shortened to meet the demand. Mitsubishi entered into a business partnership with the George A. Fuller Company of New Jersey (hereafter, Fuller) to construct the Marunouchi Building. The building was designed by Japanese architect Kotaro Sakurai, while Fuller was in charge of engineering. This white skyscraper rose right in front of Tokyo Station in 1923. The Marunouchi Building was the first example of the adoption of genuine American modern construction technology and techniques, and was the largest building in Asia at the time. An attention-grabbing structure, it drew people into the Marunouchi district. The Marunouchi Building signified the completion of the One New York Block, which existed until 1932.37 The Marunouchi Building triggered the construction of American-style office buildings to fill initially vacant lots located along Gyoko-Dori Avenue. Thus were the aesthetics of red-brick office buildings in the London style replaced by the economy, efficiency and practicality of office buildings in the New York style. During the Taisho era, then, the centre of Marunouchi completely shifted from the One London Block to the One New York Block, in other words, to the Tokyo Station area.38
Heritage and Urban Restructuring
The One London Block formed the basis of the modern Marunouchi district in the Meiji period. During the Taisho era the district rapidly became urbanized through the One New York Block The growing number of high-rise buildings was not limited to the territory of the One New York Block but also expanded into the One London Block, which,
in turn, evicted urban heritage properties of the Meiji era from the Marunouchi district. In 1934, the construction of the new Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters marked the beginning of the eviction; the red-brick Mitsubishi Building No. 2 was replaced by Mitsubishi, itself the Marunouchi landowner. Two different disasters, the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake and World War II (1939–1945) stimulated rapid urbanization and the spatial restructuring of urban districts in Tokyo. At the same time Japan was approaching a transition phase from the Taisho era to the new Showa era (1926–1989). Marunouchi was the area least damaged by the earthquake, while the Nihonbashi district was completely devastated (Fig. 7.9). Until then, Nihonbashi, more precisely Kabutocho, had played a leading role as a financial centre in Tokyo; earthquake damage caused Nihonbashi to lose ground to Marunouchi as regards the finance and business functions. While Japanese society was thrown into turmoil during WWII, the Marunouchi Building stood in front of Tokyo Station and continued to act as the unchanging face of Marunouchi. This continued to be the case even after the war (Fig. 7.10).39 The Building was the first of its kind in Japan to blend commercial and office uses in a single building. For the first time, indoor semi-public spaces were provided in the form of shopping arcades between B1 and 2F. The Marunouchi Building became known as a unique and captivating indoor space for the public.40
Fig. 7.9 Urban damage from the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake (Created by the author based on Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1, p. 285])
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.10 p. 398])
Marunouchi Building in 1951 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993c, Appendix,
The first Marunouchi urban restructuring plan (Marunouchi Sogo Kaizo Keikaku, 丸の内総合改造計画) was completed with the erection of the Mitsubishi Corporation Building in 1971. This first plan mainly targeted redevelopment of Naka-Dori Avenue by trading the existing red-brick office buildings for new office buildings, townscapes and green spaces.41 The 1959 plan typifies the era of high economic growth in postwar Japan. During these post-war years, the notion of globalization was adopted into urban restructuring, leading to prioritizing of the construction of functional office buildings to meet the changing needs of the urban built environment.42 The Mitsubishi Ichigokan was demolished, while the Marunouchi Building survived.43 In 1986, the TMG launched its comprehensive long-term guidance to encourage private-sector engagement with urban development, the Urban Development Policy. The following year, the national government issued its 4th Comprehensive National Development Plan (Daiyoji Zenkoku Sogo Kaihatsu Keikaku, 第四次全国総合開発計画), which aimed to promote multi-polar national land formation due to the excess concentration of population and industry in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. In parallel, the National Land Agency, the TMG and other relevant government ministries were examining the redevelopment of the Tokyo Station Area. Meanwhile, Mitsubishi independently released a new 30-year urban development plan, the Marunouchi Manhattan
Fig. 7.11 Overview of Marunouchi Manhattan Plan (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998)
Plan, to upgrade the Marunouchi district with office towers, formally requesting deregulation in the City Planning Law in 1988.44 Mitsubishi’s new development plan took a completely opposite stance from the national development plan and Tokyo’s urban development policy. The Manhattan Plan was ultimately regarded as unfeasible plan, a legacy of the bubble economy (Fig. 7.11). It did, however, show that Mitsubishi was attempting to take the initiative in the Marunouchi redevelopment for the sake of its own survival, and more importantly it revealed the absence of government leadership and the weakness of urban development policies. In 1994, a new direction in urban redevelopment targeting central Tokyo was unveiled by the TMG. Known as the Master Plan for Business and Commercial Facilities (Gyomu Shogyo Shisetsu Master Plan, 業務商業施設マスタープラン), it aimed to upgrade the city centre to an international business district. Centrally located urban districts were designated business and commercial hotspots.45 In 1997, the TMG issued four further sets of guidelines: the Centre Core Management Guidelines (Kubu Chushinbu Seibi Shishin, 区部中心部整備指 針); the Business and Commercial Important Area Designation and the Basic Guidelines for the Implementation of Urban Development System (Gyomu Shogyo Juten Chiku Shitei to Toshi Kaihatsu Shoseido no Unyo no Kihon Shishin, 業務商業重点地区指定と都市開発諸制度の運用の 基本指針); the Tokyo Metropolitan Specified Block System Implementation Guidelines (Tokyo-to Tokutei Gaiku Unyo Kijun, 東京都特定街 区運用基準); and the Tokyo Metropolitan Efficient Land Utilization District Area Designation Policies and Designation Criteria (Tokyo-to Kodo Riyo Chiku Shitei Hoshin Oyobi Shitei Kijun, 東京都高度利用地
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
区指定方針及び指定基準). In the Centre Core Management Guidelines, Marunouchi was defined as the ‘centre core’ together with four other urban districts: Otemachi (大手町); Yurakucho (有楽町); Uchisaiwaicho (内幸町); and Kasumigaseki (霞が関) and Nagatacho (永 田町). These districts were also named the ‘regenerated city centre’ (Koshin Toshin, 更新都心) meaning the high-level integration of political, governmental and economic functions as well as the application of existing urban infrastructure, including urban heritage conservation. These urban strategies express TMG’s intention to shift their urban development approaches from the previous ‘Central Business District (CBD)’ to the new ‘Amenity Business Core (ABC)’.46 Under the new guidelines, the TMG moved from urban redevelopment to urban regeneration policies, and the regenerated city centres were seen as representing Japan in the eyes of global society. Marunouchi and other selected urban districts were encouraged to compete with socalled global cities such as London, Paris and New York. From this point on, the TMG’s initiative of scaling urban spatial restructuring was not limited to local and national levels but extended to the global level. The TMG promoted urban redevelopment systems such as the ELUDS and the SBS by proposing FAR deregulation.47 Despite mention of urban heritage conservation in the TMG guidelines, the 72-yearold Marunouchi Building was not considered historic and Mitsubishi decided to demolish it to make way for Marunouchi’s urban redevelopment, looking towards the twenty first century. Globalization moved urban redevelopment from the architectural scale to the urban scale and the Marunouchi Building Block Redevelopment (hereafter, the M2C) became the first SBS project in Marunouchi to merge two urban blocks into a single specified block.48 Demolition of the Marunouchi Building commenced in 1997 (Figs. 7.12 and 7.13). In 1988, before construction work started, a series of council meetings about the M2C took place both in Chiyoda ward and the TMG. Most of the ward’s councillors and City Planning Council members objected to an office tower development on the grounds of the adverse visual impact in the vicinity of the Imperial Palace and the lack of civic engagement in the Moderate Guidelines decision-making process (Yuruyakana Guideline, ゆるやかなガイドライン).49 At the Tokyo Metropolitan
Fig. 7.12 Marunouchi 2 Chome Specified Block site (Created by the author based on Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998)
Fig. 7.13 Marunouchi 2 Chome Specified Block redevelopment (Created by the author based on Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998)
City Planning Council Meeting, the Council received 94 signed letters opposing the M2C, but not a single response in favour. Some council members at the meeting warned of the danger of relaxing FAR restrictions and violating a business ecosystem that could turn into a monopoly
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
in urban development, damaging small and medium-sized businesses in neighbouring districts for the sake of restoring Marunouchi’s vitality and competitiveness. Despite the objections, the TMG and the majority of council members approved the M2C.50 Critics claimed it was the dubious decision-making process of the Moderate Guidelines at the Advisory Committee of Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho Area Development that licensed M2C.51 M2C was initiated in 1999, ten years after publication of the non-viable Manhattan Plan. There were, however, advocacy efforts to save the Marunouchi Building as urban heritage. Despite its special qualities, the Building was not officially seen as historic but as an outdated office building, meaning that heritage conservation efforts were not able to come into play in the M2C. In fact, the Marunouchi Building represented Marunouchi not only positively but also negatively. While the district had experienced high economic growth during the 1950s and 1980s, it faced decline in the late 1990s, when the Marunouchi Building turned into a symbol of the depression. Against this background, Mitsubishi was determined to revitalize the image of Marunouchi, in the hope of drawing attention to the district and seeing it thriving once again.52 The value of the building had appreciated when it survived the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, but nevertheless, it was regarded as structurally obsolete against earthquakes.53 Mitsubishi Estate’s underachievement in its real-estate business drove them to construct a new mixed-use tower on the site of the Marunouchi Building, completed in 2002.54 During the demolition, Mitsubishi selected two remnants of the Marunouchi Building considered historic. The tripartite division was reproduced with new materials and placed at the office entrance of the 2002 tower facing Gyoko-Dori Avenue. What was once the exterior was turned into the interior and attached to the new building as a device connecting the new to the old. The 31 m skyline was incorporated into the design of the new tower, as Mitsubishi believed the 31 m height of the lower part of the new tower embodied the legacy of the old Marunouchi Building. More importantly, those reproduced fragments contributed to the continuity of the Marunouchi urban landscape, retaining the memory of the original Marunouchi Building and serving as the gateway to the district.55 The demolition of the old Marunouchi
Building set the stage for the first phase of the Marunouchi spatial restructuring, which involved four additional redevelopment projects.56 The completion of the new Marunouchi Building represented the beginning of the second phase (2008–) of the Marunouchi redevelopment. Among the block redevelopment projects in the first phase, the Marunouchi 1 Chome redevelopment project (Fig. 7.14) involved a nationally registered tangible heritage property, the Industry Club of Japan (Nihon Kogyo Club, 日本工業倶楽部). It is urban heritage from the Taisho era, built in 1920 and officially registered in 1999. Its official heritage status saved one-third of the building’s interior and one-third of the exterior as façade preservation, while the remaining third of the building was demolished to make way for the redevelopment.57 While the old Marunouchi Building was razed, the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters was nationally designated an Important Cultural Property. The Headquarters was the only urban heritage property kept intact in the Marunouchi district until the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building acquired its national designation and became integrated into the larger scale of urban redevelopment strategies in 2003. These examples laid the foundations for legal heritage designation to play a key role in heritage-led urban regeneration.
Conjuring the Replication Recipe
The second phase of the Marunouchi spatial restructuring began with the reproduction of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan, demolished by its owner Mitsubishi in 1968 (see Chapter 3). The Mitsubishi Ichigokan replication project (hereafter, the Ichigokan project) was part of a block redevelopment project. The block comprised three buildings, the Mitsubishi Shoji Building (1971), the Furukawa Building (1965) and the Marunouchi Yaesu Building.58 Beginning in 2008, the project aimed to replicate the old Mitsubishi Ichigokan on the corner block facing Babasaki-Dori Street, erecting an office tower behind it named the Marunouchi Park Building (hereafter, the SF project) (Fig. 7.15). Mitsubishi was certain that the SF project would turn Marunouchi into the most exciting and interactive urban place, contributing to
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.14 Marunouchi 1 Chome Specified Block redevelopment (Photographed by the author, 11 July 2014)
Fig. 7.15 Overview of SF project (Created by the author with reference to Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 174th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 28 July 2006. The term BCR refers to Building Coverage Ratio)
making Tokyo a world-class city.59 Before the SF project began, the Tokyo Metropolitan City Planning Council approved it, designating the block as SDUR on 28 July 2006.60 Under this system, the Ichigokan project was defined as the replication of a historic structure (Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu no Fukugen, 歴史的建造物の復元),61 and its new use and function as an art museum (which opened in 2009) was counted as an urban regeneration contribution to the Marunouchi district in a larger urban redevelopment scheme. As a result, the TMG granted 100% FAR bonus to the redevelopment project and Mitsubishi combined it with the 130% FAR purchased from the Tokyo Station conservation project (see Sect. 7.5.2).62 Mitsubishi invited experts to form a committee to review the feasibility of the old Mitsubishi Ichigokan replication; there were urban planning and architecture subcommittees. The major role of the Ichogokan Project Review Committee (hereafter, the Review Committee) was to guide Mitsubishi to pick the ‘right’ approach. The two subcommittees had separate meetings but with similar agendas, and some experts belonged to both teams. The City Planning Institute of Japan was in charge of the urban planning subcommittee, while the architecture subcommittee was led by the Architectural Institute of Japan. The former had built the overall framework for the SF project including the Ichigokan project and the latter thrashed out the technical details necessary for the Ichigokan replication work. There were thirteen meetings in all between 2003 and 2005 (four for the urban planning subcommittee and nine for the architecture subcommittee) (Fig. 7.16). The demolition of the original Mitsubishi Ichigokan had been controversial, and similarly, its replication was arguable. However, both Mitsubishi and the experts were well aware of the significance of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.16 Overview of Ichigokan replication Review Committee meetings (Created by the author based on the City Planning Institute of Japan  and Kanto Chapter of Architectural Institute of Japan )
in the history of both modern architecture and modern urban planning in Japan. Accordingly, despite public objections to the replication, they were all keen to discover the raison d´être of the Ichigokan project.63
7.4.1 Possessed Authenticity The Review Committee’s urban planning subcommittee was composed of a chair, a vice-chair, three expert members (two from academic institutions, one from the Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho Area Management Association) and four observers from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the TMG and Mitsubishi Estate. The architecture subcommittee had a chair, seven expert members engaged with academic institutions, a member from Mitsubishi Estate, and one observer from an academic institution.64 The Review Committee developed the Ichigokan replication policies to fit into the existing heritage system within the four pillars of Marunouchi’s larger urban redevelopment scheme: defining the replication; seeking the legal heritage status; finding new uses; and positioning in the SF project. The experts sought to come up with a rationale for how far Mitsubishi should or should not pursue replication in the interests of achieving historical accuracy, in other words. the authenticity of the new Ichigokan. This is how they laid the groundwork for the construction of the authentic Marunouchi.
220.127.116.11 Defining the Replication The conversation began with whether to rebuild a single building or reconstruct the entire London block, which would shed new light on the existing Babaski-Dori Street. Although the decision-making process was a case of trial and error, one thing was for sure from the outset the property owner Mitsubishi, who was also the developer, wanted to undertake the old Ichigokan replication within the SF project.65 Disappointingly, Mitsubishi seemed to come to the discussion table full of enthusiasm but lacking a proper blueprint. Defining the Ichigokan replication required an exchange of ideas and discussion between the experts, the Agency and Mitsubishi. They began
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
by finding a rationale for the replication efforts and the authenticity of a recreated Ichigokan. Few building records and materials from the original Ichigokan remained, leading the expert members to find the basis of authenticity within the Ichigokan project itself and to some extent the SF redevelopment project. One of the expert members pinpointed the lack of historical materials to support the replication work. For example, the set of standard architectural drawings was incomplete; structural elements were not preserved; and the basic dimensions of the Ichigokan were unknown. It was quite likely that the Ichigokan project would be seen by the public as a mere imitation. The experts adopted the term “authenticity” throughout their meetings but without defining it. They seemed to have a consensus on authenticity and they were aware that the authenticity concept would be a key factor in the Ichigokan replication, as it could only add genuineness to the twenty first century Ichigokan. To secure the authenticity of the new Ichigokan they highlighted materials, craftsmanship and construction methods, anchoring into the original state of the 1894 Mitsubishi Ichigokan, identifying three approaches to authenticity that could ensure the replication efforts and its outcome, the new building. First, the Ichigokan was the first red-brick office building built in the British style and also the first office building built by Mitsubishi in Japan, defining the year 1894 as the basis of originality. Second, the Ichigokan was the anchor in the creation of the One London Block—and this shifted the date of origin to the year 1904. The 1904 state of Ichigokan could provide some flexibility in the replication work. Third, the experts acknowledged the importance of gaining public consensus prior to putting the replication into action. The rationale for the Ichigokan replication is summarized in Fig. 7.17. The committee members were concerned that the public might judge the Ichigokan project as the fabrication of history, or as an excuse to obtain a FAR bonus for the SF project. In particular, they felt the creation of fake “kitsch” led to a distortion of history and fabricated the authenticity of heritage property as well as the Marunouchi district. In other words, they were convinced that the authenticity of heritage directly impacted on shaping the authenticity of urban places. On this view, heritage conservation and urban placemaking represent two sides of the same coin. The members paid keen attention to the conveyancing
Fig. 7.17 Ichigokan replication rationale (Created by the author with reference to the City Planning Institute of Japan  and Kanto Chapter of Architectural Institute of Japan )
implications of the Ichigokan project and its impact throughout the committee meetings, seeking authenticity to lay the solid foundation of the Ichigokan replication. Mitsubishi wanted to re-use the remnants of the original Ichigokan in the replication. In spite of the possibility of the building turning into just another replica, they were committed to rebuilding the Ichigokan in its original state, which was not only about form and design but even about structure. The expert group and Mitsubishi were beset by incessant disagreement. While the former tried to explicate the replication rationale, the latter put their passion into reviving the original Mitsubishi Ichigokan, but lacked a rationale. Eventually the committee arrived at the conclusion that replication to the 1894 original state would be possible entirely based on archival evidence, original building fabric and historical photographs.66 Although they acknowledged its impracticality, the experts resolved on a faithful replication of the 1894 original state.
18.104.22.168 Seeking Legal Heritage Status The discussions on giving legal heritage status to the reassembled Ichigokan mainly took place between the Review Committee, the Agency and the Chiyoda ward Board of Education, all of whom appeared confident that the legal heritage status would promise the authenticity of the Ichigokan project, and this was undoubtedly a major reason for exploring the possibility of official heritage designation. There were two
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
further reasons: government agencies only provide a conservation subsidy for official heritage67 ; and heritage designation enables a property to be exempted from the Building Standards Law. The Heritage Law also allows an official heritage property to engage with other legal systems beyond cultural heritage administration. It was clear that the replication of the Ichigokan alone could not achieve legal heritage status due to the motivation behind its demolition in 1968, when Mitsubishi had refused its national heritage designation. The Heritage Law admits replication only if a property is officially designated before its destruction in the course of natural disasters. Although the experts took account of an exceptional case such as exemption from the BS, which requires the approval by the TMG, they seemed to be aware that this lost building would not easily be re-designated heritage. In their search for legal heritage status, the Review Committee tapped into additional resources and ideas. They examined the possibility of the new Ichigokan as a historic site under the category of monuments (Kinenbutsu, 記念物), which could give significance to the replicated Ichigokan not as a historic structure but as a relic attached to a historic site. If the Ichigokan replication came under the heading of monuments, the work could be officially justified by precedents for reconstruction treatment in historic sites. The heritage framework for monuments is strongly associated with the land, that is, the original location, leading the Review Committee to highlight the significance of the land on which the Ichigokan was originally built. The experts used this logic for Mitsubishi to frame the Ichigokan project in such a way as to meet the requirements for official designation as a historic site. They thought this would be the most feasible way of achieving official heritage status for the new Ichigokan. Since the Ichigokan was known to be the first office building in Japan, its site could have significance as the origin of the first office district in Japan. Once the site is officially designated as a historic site, designation status allows the replication of property, because the building is considered part of the historic site. The Ichigokan replication could thus be undertaken in the context of site management. Official monument status could also provide flexibility in the use of the replicated building. Numerous previous replication cases in the context of historic site could apply to the Ichigokan project. Official “historic site” status
would clearly help position the Ichigokan project in the City Planning Law. In their search for legal heritage status, urban planning experts looked at the relationship between the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building and the Mitsubishi Ichigokan. The station building was designated a national Important Cultural Property in 2003, while its conservation project was implemented in 2002. In particular, one of the planning experts asserted that Tokyo Station was an outcome of the old Mitsubishi Ichigokan sharing the red-brick legacy, and thus these two buildings should not be treated in isolation in the Marunouchi history. He further stated that the original Mitsubishi Ichigokan laid the foundation for the Marunouchi street planning that had resulted in the creation of both the One London Block and Tokyo Station. The Agency and the experts believed the Landscape Act (enacted in 2004) could provide exemption from the BS applicable to the original Ichigokan site. The Act also opened the way for the replicated Ichigokan to be eligible for designation as Important Landscape Structure (Keikan Juyo Kenzobutsu, 景観重要建造物). The Review Committee members thought official “historic site” status would reinforce the idea of “birthplace” and this legal heritage status would validate the replicated Ichigokan, making its value equal to that of Tokyo Station. As the urban planning experts particularly emphasized the in situ requirement of the new Ichigokan, Mitsubishi had to decide whether to put the basement of the Ichigokan back to its original condition or rebuild it in its original location. In April 2006, the Agency introduced another element to the negotiations, the Registered Monuments System (Toroku Kinenbutsu Seido, 登録記念物制度) (Fig. 7.18). However, despite all these discussions between public agencies and actors, it seems the Ichigokan site did not become an official historic site, and the designation was still not settled by the end of 2005. Mitsubishi was facing two hurdles. First, the heritage system required archaeological remains to be uncovered from the original Ichigokan site to back up its historical significance, and the Agency instructed Mitsubishi to inspect the remains. An area near the Yaesu Building was identified as a potential site, but the rest of the site was considered unsuitable.68 Mitsubishi scheduled a test dig to be attended by members of the Chiyoda ward Board of Education. Second, the replicated Ichigokan could be counted
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.18 Requirements for national Modern Historic Site designation (Created by the author based on the Ichigokan Project Review Committee Minutes of Meeting, 12 February 2003)
as a new construction if the site was not officially designated a historic site. In the earlier discussion between Mitsubishi and the Chiyoda ward, the ward noted that when preservation or reconstruction was sought for a historic building, the district planning regulations could be relaxed. In the final discussion in 2005, the ward closed the case by stating that the new Ichigokan could be considered heritage reconstruction only if the work involved the remnants of the original structure in reference to the Tokyo Station conservation case. The ward did not approve the Ichigokan project as a heritage case because the property owner had intentionally demolished the original Mitsubishi Ichigokan in 1968. Mitsubishi seems to have decided to follow the district planning guidelines as the project schedule was pressed for time. The new Ichigokan was set back from its original line, barring it from legal heritage designation as the building was not able to be rebuilt in the exact original location.
22.214.171.124 Finding New Uses and Functions The search for new uses and functions in the replication plan proceeded in parallel with the discussion on seeking legal heritage status. Although at first, Mitsubishi did not have a blueprint for the new Ichigokan use plan, relying on expert opinion, they gradually shaped their own ideas. The Review Committee developed ideas based on the earlier discussion of the official designation of the new Ichigokan as a historic site. Finding
a new use and function turned out to be not so simple, as it required the structure and its immediate surroundings to be surveyed. At the same time, the SF project itself also needed to consider the relationship between the new buildings and the adjacent block because its scale and capacity could create a dramatic change in the immediate environment (Fig. 7.19). The new Ichigokan site comprised the new Ichigokan structure and open space within the SF project redevelopment block. The overall plan
Fig. 7.19 SF project site (Created by the author with reference to the City Planning Institute of Japan )
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
focused on utilization of the site rather than the new structure. However, the Committee called attention to original elements such as a partitioned tenement house plan. They recommended Mitsubishi to keep the original building plan while injecting a new use and function into the replicated Ichigokan. Although at the beginning Mitsubishi did not have a blueprint for the new facility, they prioritized openness, emphasizing the visitor experience and the experiential quality of open space. Mitsubishi promoted the open space in the SF project as the first outdoor public space in the Marunouchi district. The location of the open space was once the garden behind the old Ichigokan and was to be transformed into the garden in front of the new Ichigokan. The site plan divided the space into three different zones—museum, communication and interaction.69 The Committee disagreed with Mitsubishi’s original idea of using the new Ichigokan as a museum of Marunouchi’s history, which they felt, together with the designated historical site, would be too rigid and unattractive to the public. The Committee asked Mitsubishi to create an energetic balance of old and new. Finding new uses and functions for the new Ichigokan was at odds with its replication policies and Mitsubishi saw the need to draw a line between replication and alteration. A drawback to undertaking complete replication was the issue of fakes with authentic quality, and it was aspect that the Committee needed to gauge at the public presentation of the Ichigokan project held on 2 July 2005. The Review Committee once again made efforts to connect the new Ichigokan with Marunouchi history to add a sense of genuineness to the replication. They combined urban planning approaches with public amenities to lay the groundwork for new use and function of the replicated Ichigokan. The Committee made a number of requests to Mitsubishi: first, careful planning of access and usability needed to be included in the overall design. Second, it was suggested the term “public amenity” was included in the development plan to help convince public-sector actors and benefit negotiations. Third was advice on history exhibitions and how to create premium quality for the replicated Ichigokan and its open space. Fourth, the experts highlighted the significance of the original name “Ichigokan” and asked that it was kept for the sake of public recognition of the recreated structure. Ironically,
Fig. 7.20 Public open space: Ichigokan Plaza (Photographed by the author, 7 October 2014)
however, the original name has bridged both the twenty first century replication and the twentieth century original production, blurring the line between them (Fig. 7.20).
126.96.36.199 Positioning in the Redevelopment The agendas of the experts, public agencies and the property owner associated with the Ichigokan and the SF projects varied but were not mutually exclusive. The TMG did not play a major role in the Ichigokan project but paid more attention to the SF project and its spatial relationship with its surroundings, the new Ichigokan, the Marunouchi Yaesu Building and the new office tower. Mitsubishi balanced the spatial relationship between the new Ichigokan, the adjacent new tower and other buildings in the immediate surroundings but did not take the one building in the SF project site into consideration—the Marunouchi Yaesu Building. Despite the experts’ concerns, Mitsubishi decided on demolition of the Marunouchi Yaesu Building together with
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Replicated Ichigokan (Photographed by the author, 22 June 2014)
the Furukawa Building and the Mitsubishi Shoji Building in the SF project. When the possibility of obtaining legal heritage status was lost, Mitsubishi promptly moved the entire project in the direction of the SDUR system framework, applying for planning permission in 2006. The application was based on expert advice obtained at the Ichigokan project review meetings. The Ichigokan replication was up for negotiation with FAR bonuses, which made it economically feasible. Although the new Ichigokan was not officially recognized as cultural heritage by other public agencies, the TMG called it heritage reconstruction, and credited the new Ichigokan with museum use and as public open space. The government interpreted these aspects as contributing to the urban competitiveness strategies of the Marunouchi district.70 Despite objections by Tokyo Metropolitan City Planning Council, the TMG agreed with Mitsubishi and granted a FAR bonus to the SF project. The project was approved and 100% FAR bonus was granted in the cause of the Ichigokan replication (Fig. 7.21).
7.4.2 Unwanted Authenticity The complications of the SF project were not just caused by the Ichigokan replication but also involved conservation issues with the Marunouchi Yaesu Building (hereafter, the Yaesu), which was adjacent to the Mitsubihi Ichigokan site. The Ichigokan replication and the Yaesu
conservation were separate parts of the project. The construction of the Yaesu started in 1926, three years after the Great Kanto earthquake, and was completed in 1928. The building, designed by Akira Fujimura, was the second high-rise office building after the Marunouchi Building owned by Mitsubishi. While its exterior consisted of podium, middle and top, the architect gave distinctiveness to each facade by using either a different material or design.71 At the time of its opening, the design of the Yaesu Building had been a popular topic with architects and the general public and it was highly praised as a ‘building with aesthetic appeal’.72 The SF project combined three building plots into a single block, enabling Mitsubishi to secure sufficient land to create a largerscale office tower, while still replicating the Ichigokan. From the outset, Mitsubishi sought a trade-off between economics and conservation in the SF project. They undoubtedly ran into opposition from the experts since the construction of the new office tower exposed the Yaesu to the risk of being lost. Mitsubishi drew a distinction between the Ichigokan project and the Yaesu Building conservation, on the excuse of a new office tower development, which meant they could regard the Yaesu issues as not their concern. They even removed the Yaesu issues from the Committee agenda in the Ichigokan project. The Agency, other public agencies and experts had already noted the significance of the Yaesu Building in the early stages of the SF project, including the Ichigokan project. The importance of the Yaesu Building (Fig. 7.22) was recognized from its early days and it was included in the Inventory List of Japanese Modern Architecture (Nihon Kindai Kenchiku Soran, 日本近代建築総 覧), first published in 1980.73 Experts argued that the loss of the Yaesu would not be just the loss of an individual building or the ruin of the townscape, but could lead to the loss of Marunouchi history as a whole. They stressed that the demolition of the Yaesu could disturb the balance of urban rhythm in Marunouchi. The old Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the One London Block were constructed along Babasaki-Dori Street, the main street of Marunouchi. The corner tower of the Yaesu sat at the junction of Daimyo-koji Avenue and Marunouchi 3rd Street (opposite Babasaki-Dori Street) and acted as a visual landmark to attract people from Tokyo Station to the main street. Having survived WWII, the Yaesu was the second-oldest surviving urban heritage building after
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.22 p. 309])
Marunouchi Yaesu Building in 1928 (Mitsubishi Estate [1993a, Vol. 1,
the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building in Marunouchi and the oldest surviving office building to be designed and owned by Mitsubishi. The experts thought that if Mitsubishi wanted to demolish the Yaesu, they needed to come up with a very good story. As the heritage value of the Yaesu was equal to that of the Ichigokan, the experts proposed that Mitsubishi undertake the Yaesu Building conservation feasibility study before finalizing the SF project, the impact of which was not limited to the architectural scale, but extended to the urban. Around the same time, the TMG considered the Yaesu eligible for listing as a Tokyo Metropolitan Selected Historical Structure (Tokyo-to Sentei Rekishiteki Kenzobutsu, 東京都選定歴史的建造物), which was associated with the Tokyo Metropolitan Townscape Ordinance (Tokyoto Keikan Jorei, 東京都景観条例) enacted in 1997. In the selection process, the TMG confirmed the Yaesu as one of the high-rise modern office buildings made of reinforced concrete that exhibited a distinctive exterior character and as the prototype contributing to the creation of Marunouchi office district. The TMG also pointed out that the Yaesu
was one of the first high-rise builds when red-brick office buildings were still around in the Marunouchi neighbourhood and was one of the few remnants of the pre-war era. They also identified the significance of the corner tower and its landmark function in the district.74 Although there was a consensus between the public agencies, the experts and Mitsubishi regarding the significance of the Yaesu, Mitsubishi disagreed with the public agencies and the experts who tended to undervalue the Yaesu in comparison with the Marunouchi Building. They respected the Marunouchi Building as an exemplar of the 31 m skyline and block redevelopment that had laid the foundations for Marunouchi’s development as an office district. They felt that the Yaesu Building was unsatisfactory both in terms of office building and block redevelopment. They also brought up the repair history of the Yaesu, claiming that there was not much of the original fabric left in the building. Thus while Mitsubishi acknowledged the significance of the podium and the corner tower of the Yaesu Building, their priority was given to the replication of the Ichigokan. They insisted that their pursuit of the Ichigokan replication was not only to resurrect the building but to reassemble Marunouchi’s history. Mitsubishi concluded that the complete replication of the Ichigokan would safeguard the authenticity of Marunouchi by anchoring it into the materiality of the Ichigokan. They rather favoured the partial preservation of the Yaesu Building, which they saw as helping balance the trade-off between conservation and redevelopment. One of the experts declared in the committee meeting that the demolition of the Yaesu Building would lead to the fabrication of history rather than an inheritance from the past. Despite the recognition and discussion, the Yaesu Building was neither listed on the Tokyo Metropolitan Selected Historical Structures nor saved in the SF project. The Yaesu, apart from its podium and the corner tower, disappeared in July 2007 (Fig. 7.23). The Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters, built in 1934 and designated a national Important Cultural Property in 1997, has now become the oldest of the buildings built by Mitsubishi, and the second-oldest urban heritage in the Marunouchi district.
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.23 Marunouchi Yaesu Building absorbed into SF project (Photographed by the author, 4 December 2016)
Re-Enacting the Narrative
The Ichigokan project decision-making processes revealed that the rationale for the heritage making of the new Ichigokan and the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building conservation, another red-brick legacy in Marunouchi, were not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Tokyo Station conservation could even authenticate the replicated Ichigokan structure. This section examines the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building conservation, and further discusses the heritagization of Tokyo Station, how political and economic institutions as well as actors shaped regulations, and the construction of the Marunouchi authenticity within the broader urban redevelopment strategy (Fig. 7.24).
7.5.1 Socio-Economic and Political Interests On 1 October 2012, the conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building was successfully completed.75 However, long before the work
Fig. 7.24 Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building decision-making process (Created by the author based on the following references: The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station , Okada and Suzuki , and the City Planning Institute of Japan )
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
had first begun, the station had been the subject of a number of battles between redevelopment and conservation authorities dating as far back as 1958. The privatization of the station in 1986 added further fuel to the fire. Most of the tension between the two camps seemed to dissipate when Education Minister Gentaro Nakajima expressed his support for the conservation of Tokyo Station in a 1988 statement before the House of Councillors,76 in which he emphasized the need for restoring the station and laid the groundwork for authorizing its restoration to secure its value as part of the nation’s cultural heritage. In the same year, the Ministry of Construction proposed a Transfer Development Rights (TDR) programme to provide stronger financial support to the East Japan Railway Company (hereafter, JR East), the owner of Tokyo Station, in the form of a subsidy to pay for its conservation.77 On 1 October 1999, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara officially announced his decision to restore Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building back to its original design. A few days later, the president of JR East held a press conference to express his support for the restoration policy. This basic agreement between these two key political and economic actors was the principal basis of the conservation of Tokyo Station.78 In 2000, the national government introduced the Exceptional Floor Area Ratio Zone System (Tokurei Yosekiritsu Tekiyo Kuiki Seido, 特例区 容積率適用区域制度, hereafter the EFARZS),79 a new legal system in the City Planning Law that allowed the transfer of unused FAR from an existing building to neighbouring buildings. In the following year, the TMG organized the Research Committee for Regeneration and Improvement of Tokyo Station Area, comprising three subcommittees: transportation, land use and conservation. Its plan revealed the inclination of political and economic institutions towards attaining not only global and regional status, but also cultural, political and economic standing.80 For the conservation of Tokyo Station, the committee set three main objectives: (1) ‘creation of urban scenery with dignity and style’; (2) ‘conservation of the historic building’; and (3) ‘perpetual conservation and utilization of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building’.81 The committee classified the station as an artefact and repeatedly asserted its determination to restore Tokyo Station to its 1914 state, giving priority to the Marunouchi side (Fig. 7.25).82
Fig. 7.25 Overview of Tokyo Station conservation project (Created by the author in reference to the City Planning Institute of Japan )
In 2002, the Tokyo Station area was designated as eligible for the Exceptional Floor Area Ratio Zone (EFARZ). JR East organized an internal Expert Committee for the Preservation and Restoration of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (hereafter, the Expert Committee). The Expert Committee consisted of external experts, including academics and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, and internal project members. Its three subcommittees were history, design and materials, and structure. The Expert Committee, which was tasked with ensuring the appropriateness of conservation treatment, set four key strategies for governing the conservation of Tokyo Station83 : (1) ‘identifying significant physical elements for conservation’; (2) ‘restoring to the original 1914 state’; (3) ‘defining architectural design for interventions’; and (4) ‘maintaining its authenticity and integrity as Important Cultural Property’.84 The committee adopted three internationally recognized guidelines around which to structure their conservation policies: (1) the Venice Charter85 ; (2) the UNESCO Operational Guidelines86 ; and (3)
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
the Burra Charter.87 Consideration by the Expert Committee of the Nara Document—incorporated into the UNESCO Operational Guidelines in 2005—is not mentioned anywhere. Until then, the concept of authenticity in heritage conservation was mainly guided by an idea called the “four degrees of authenticity”. Acceptance of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines, which mention the ‘four degrees of authenticity’, into the Tokyo Station conservation policies implies that the Committee did not consider the Nara Document at the time the policy was created.88 The first application of the Nara Document was attempted at the national Important Cultural Property conservation of the Takashimaya Tokyo Store in Nihonbashi (see Chapters 3 and 6). The Conservation Management Plan only mentions the Document without presenting its practical application.89 It is worth noting that the Expert Committee adopted the concept of the ‘four degrees of authenticity’ as mentioned in the UNESCO Operational Guidelines, while they understood the concept of “setting” in the guidelines as “location”. According to the project report (JR East Design Corporation 2014), the Committee determined that there was no possibility of moving Tokyo Station to a new site. Hence, they considered that the concept of location was irrelevant and therefore not applicable. This is the reason why, in this case, the setting was not taken into consideration. Unlike the heritage conservation guidelines in the US and the UK, “place” or “location” (Basho, 場所) and “surroundings” (Shuhen Kankyo, 周辺環境) come under the single term “setting” in Japanese guidelines. While architecture experts such as Hiroyuki Suzuki assumed the former,90 urban planning experts like Yukio Nishimura embraced the latter in the discourse of heritage conservation in Japan.91 Meanwhile, the term “setting” was translated into “surroundings” (Kankyo, 環境) in 1994 Nara Document-related reports.92 In spite of that, the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building conservation case marks the first official attempt to incorporate the notion of authenticity into national Important Cultural Property practice. Around the same time, TDR system implementation was finalized for the conservation project, which led JR East to officially recognize Tokyo Station as a cultural heritage.93 In May 2003, the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building was officially designated an Important Cultural Property—making it nationally
protected urban heritage. The Tokyo Station area designation statement stressed the design and historical significance of the station, emphasizing its original 1914 state.94 The political and economic institutions created the legal framework for a financial incentive before legitimizing and institutionalizing the significance of Tokyo Station as Important Cultural Property, a process that justifies the conservation of the station. Suzuki (The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station 2014) asserts that the EFARZS was implemented as an urban planning system because state agencies like the Agency for Cultural Affairs lacked the financial wherewithal to undertake conservation of the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building.95 The TDR programme and the official designation as an Important Cultural Property have had a mutually beneficial relationship.96 Finally, the conservation of Tokyo Station was set in motion,97 becoming the first case of a private sector-led conservation of an Important Cultural Property under the EFARZS.98 JR East took over responsibility for the conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building from the Agency99 meaning that, for the first time, the state agency lost its authority over the delivery of a conservation effort in heritage-led urban regeneration. The authority of a state agency depends on whether a conservation project is public sector led or undertaken by the private sector. In private sector-led heritage conservation, the role of the state agency is limited to providing advice rather than directing and supervising the delivery of a conservation effort. In public sector-led heritage conservation, a government subsidy is provided, and the state agency directs and supervises the conservation actions from beginning to end. This requires long-term re-assignment of the official in charge, and also a change in conservation policies. These are the factors that most concern private owners of heritage properties. No grants are provided for conservation actions in private sector-led heritage conservation. The state agency engages with the heritage conservation as a member of the Expert Committee, which establishes ground rules for conservation actions. The private agency undertakes actions that aim to achieve high-quality conservation outcomes without direct supervision by the state agency.
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
7.5.2 Urban: Location and Setting The main financial and business district of Tokyo has an interaction platform for collaborative decision-making for urban regeneration projects involving players other than JR East. This area comprises the Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho districts, where the landowners established the Council for Area Development and Management of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho (hereafter, the OMY Council) in 1988 to create specific development plans.100 In 1996, the TMG, Chiyoda ward, JR East and the OMY Council came together to form an Advisory Committee on Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho Area Development (hereafter, the Advisory Committee) to create public–private partnerships in order to implement a comprehensive vision of urban regeneration and to promote integrated city planning actions in these districts. In 2000, the Advisory Committee issued its Guidelines for the Redevelopment of the Area (revised in 2005, 2008, 2012 and 2014), which aimed to facilitate integrated urban regeneration projects in tune with government policies such as district planning.101 While its surrounding area has seen dramatic changes, the station has not moved from its original site. The geographical location of the Marunouchi district intersects with political and financial systems to create a complex relationship that must balance the need for authenticity, built heritage and urban regeneration. These pressures further limit the forces promoting heritage conservation. Inspired by the vision of a red-brick office district in London, Marunouchi became the first modern business district in Japan.102 Since the realization of this vision, the district has gone through incessant transformations to keep pace with both internal and external competitors within the dynamics of globalization. The conservation of Tokyo Station has played a significant role in these dynamics. While Mitsubishi was not a key stakeholder, it was a parent body of the redevelopment of the Tokyo Station area. The regeneration project relied on close cooperation between Mitsubishi and JR East.103 For example, Mitsubishi purchased parcels of commercial floor area in the station as investments to fund its own redevelopment projects such as the recreation of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan and the erection of
a tower behind it. According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (hereafter, the MLIT), the designated FAR of Tokyo Station is 900%,104 of which 700% was distributed in six parcels to neighbouring blocks through the TDR programme. The remaining 200% of FAR was needed for station conservation work.105 However, since the MLIT has declined to provide detailed information on the buying and selling of floor area, the details of the TDR mechanism in the city planning system remain unclear (see Figs. 7.26 and 7.27). The designation of the Tokyo Station area as an EFARZ in the year 2002 could in itself have promoted intensive land use and accelerated the redevelopment. However, the TDR programme inevitably proved
Fig. 7.26 Tokyo Station and FAR-receiving buildings (Created by the author based on Shinkenchiku-sha [2012, p. 39])
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Fig. 7.27 FAR-receiving buildings and purchased FAR (Created by the author in reference to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, http:// www.mlit.go.jp/common/000162567.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015. While “before” combines base FAR and FAR bonus, “after” is FAR derived from Tokyo Station)
to be an additional stimulus bringing more intensive redevelopment to the area. In a sea change, the district began to fill up with steel and glass skyscrapers and the long-standing urban style such as the Tokyo Central Post Office Building was destroyed in order to gain additional floor area. Thus, while the original purpose of the TDR programme was to offer economic incentives to JR East aimed at facilitating the conservation of Tokyo Station, it actually helped real-estate development in the Marunouchi district, allowing skyscraper curtain walls to be constructed in blocks neighbouring the station. The rapidly evolving skyline and the growing number of office buildings in the district have undoubtedly impacted the station’s relationship with its setting, the adjacent landscape. The development of a transportation and pedestrian network, together with the accompanying infrastructure, have had an impact on the scale of the streets and approaches to the station. The public open space on the Marunouchi side of the station was redesigned as part of the station area improvement scheme, with construction undertaken between 2014 and 2017. Since its re-opening on 7 December 2017, the open space has not only provided the public with open physical space between the Imperial Palace and the Station via the broad area known as Gyoko-Dori Avenue,
Fig. 7.28 2018)
Redesigned Tokyo Station Plaza (Photographed by the author, 21 July
but has also played a role in the integration of Tokyo Station within the contemporary urban fabric that runs from the Imperial Palace through Marunouchi, and into the Yaesu district. This adds historical dimensions to the station that will boost its national and regional importance (Fig. 7.28).
7.5.3 Human: Spirit and Feeling The urban regeneration strategy and heritage designation system frames the station in a national context that combines socio-economic and political interests, which has determined the direction of conservation work. The station speaks for the modernization of Japanese society. When Kingo Tatsuno was first commissioned to design Tokyo Station, it was at a time when Japan, emerging as a modern state on the international stage, was in its architectural heyday. His ambition was to create a European-style edifice worthy of the nation’s capital, and his design became a vision of Westernized Japan.106 The conservation attitude towards the original 1914 design evokes collective memories of Tatsuno’s leadership. Suzuki (2012) maintains that Tatsuno’s ambition to design and construct an impressive central station for Tokyo represented the
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
spirit of the era and that the conservation of the original 1914 design could restore the spirit of Japan’s progressive modern history. Soon after Tatsuno was commissioned to design the station, Japan won the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, which increased both national pride and civic awareness. Basking in the glow of victory, the national government increased the station budget to seven times the original amount, facilitating the construction of a majestic three-storey Central Station that evokes dignity.107 The original 1914 station design is, in itself, an unofficial war memorial and an powerful symbol of the era. However, restoring it to its original 1914 form wiped out other collective expressions, such as Japan’s 1945 defeat and the post-war reconstruction. Socio-economic and political stakeholders, as well as third-party organizations such as the Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station108 and the City Planning Institute of Japan, advocated the 1914 original form and design. Although in a remarkable coincidence of opinion both these organizations refer to the 1945 air raid which destroyed the station, they do not mention the defeat in the war, which has a cause-and-effect relationship with the bombing. It can be concluded that conservation to the 1914 original form and design evokes a sense of national pride. While the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building symbolizes the entrance to Tokyo, its original 1914 name was Imperial Station, and its design incorporated a central entrance with a gate opening directly to the Imperial Palace for the exclusive use of the Emperor and his family. Even today, the entrance remains closed to the public, epitomizing the continuity of the connection between Tokyo Station and the Emperor.109 The urban regeneration honours Tokyo as the entrance to the Imperial Capital, and the conservation of Tokyo Station is directed to specific privileged aesthetic and historical viewpoints. Nevertheless, because the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building has become private sector-owned national heritage, restoring it to its original 1914 appearance was not intended solely to foster national cultural identity, but also to embrace the corporate spirit of JR East. In this regard, the intention was to frame Tokyo Station as a social, economic and political symbol. Heightened socio-economic and political interest in the station has moved it to a dominant position by enriching its links to the legacy of the red-brick
Fig. 7.29 Tokyo Station conservation policies (Created by the author in reference to Okada and Suzuki [2013, pp. 128–130])
Marunouchi district and highlighting its past by transforming its urban landscape as well as its historical layers. In addition to these aesthetic and historical characteristics, the urban regeneration scheme modifications to the station were designed to meet contemporary needs and create revenue in exchange for the conservation effort—primarily in the form of the creation of a large-scale commercial space including underground and above-ground shopping. These spaces, dedicated to the sale of popular brands and souvenirs, mark the area where commercial value takes over from the symbolic value of Tokyo Station.
7.5.4 Architecture Since conservation efforts for Tokyo Station focused heavily on evidence of the original materials, policies for its conservation can be broken down into the following four categories: preservation, restoration, replacement and others (in situ preservation (parts), retention and document preservation). Each action follows a specific conservation policy that applied to both the exterior and interior. Borrowing European techniques and arguments from the international guidelines, the Expert Committee assessed each conservation treatment based on historic and scientific research (Fig. 7.29).
188.8.131.52 Form and Design The design of Tokyo Station intersects with modern intentions. The original layout, as envisioned by German railway engineer Franz Baltzer in
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
1898, was in keeping with the Gothic Revival, the most influential architectural design period in the second half of nineteenth century Britain. Combining these design elements, Tatsuno erected a steel-reinforced brick structure to create an urban monument. The form of the threestorey, 335 metre-long structure epitomized the growing confidence of Japan in its ability to compete with Europe.110 Unfortunately, the original 1914 form and design lasted just 31 years before the air raids of 1945 gutted the station. Post-war reconstruction changed the station’s form and design. For example, during the reconstruction effort, the shape of the domes, both exterior and interior, was changed, and the number of storeys was reduced from three to two. Figure 7.30 shows the lost features identified during the conservation work. Since they were necessary to convey its dignity, those original design elements, along with the station’s monumental size, were restored in the latest conservation effort. Ironically, the station’s designation status lists it under the post-war reconstruction period, which has lasted for 67 years. Under Japan’s Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties (1950), a change of the existing conditions was required before Tokyo Station could be returned to the dignity of its 1914 unveiling. The expert members of the Expert Committee did not prioritize the value of post-war reconstruction over the original 1914 form and design, even though scholars argued that pursuing the original 1914 form and design would remove the historic post-war urban fabric from the district. That said, the conservation actions did show respect for post-war reconstruction efforts in the form of document preservation. For example, the image of the reconstructed post-war duralumin ceiling is incorporated in the flooring design under the 1914 original restored dome (Fig. 7.31). In this way, the original 1914 state was placed at the top of the authenticity hierarchy.
Fig. 7.30 Key features, form and design (Created by the author based on Okada and Suzuki [2013, pp. 174–211])
Fig. 7.31 Restored dome ceiling (left) and post-war floor design (right) (Photographed by the author, [dome] 21 July 2018 and [floor] 7 October 2014)
184.108.40.206 Materials and Substance Almost all the components that were in good condition were preserved and reused, although exceptions were made for parts that might interfere with the future use of the station. Some of the materials that were confirmed as conveying the dignity of Tokyo Station, but were in bad condition, are accurately reproduced. According to the project report (Okada and Suzuki 2013), the preservation ratio of the brick wall was 98.8% for the exterior and 79.5% for the interior.111 Much of the material comprising the external wall on the Marunouchi side of the station, such as brick-shaped tiles and cast stone, was preserved, while the materials on the track side were restored after removal of the mortar installed during post-war reconstruction. The original exterior brick walls under the north dome facing the railway lines were replaced with reinforced concrete walls for safety reasons. With the change in construction techniques that follows from changed materials, two sets of authenticity attributes—materials and substance, and traditions and techniques—are closely linked.
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Meanwhile, the copper roofing was replaced with new sheets due to excessive deterioration. The committee first attempted to replace damaged roof slates with materials obtained from the original sources. However, to meet the requirement for a large quantity of slate tiles, it was necessary to combine natural slate from different regions of Japan and Spain. All the new materials were carefully matched to accurately depict the original 1914 state. While the Expert Committee concluded that using this combination of original and restored materials helped to express the dignity of the station, some scholars argue that a more scientific approach to restoration would be preferable, and that retaining existing components did not always guarantee authenticity.112 The issue remains a subject of debate, even today.
220.127.116.11 Use and Function The station’s initial function as the city’s central station is preserved, and Tokyo Station retains functions such as the hotel (1915) and gallery (1988) that were added during later periods. The decision was made to continue this mix of use and functions, but also to modernize them to meet contemporary needs. Within the structure of the station, a portion dating from the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 was also preserved. These elements are hidden from everyday view but are part of the station’s backbone. In the course of the conservation, for example, parts of the structure that were to make up the third floor were found to be in good condition, and were preserved and reused, while other parts were found to be structurally unsound. Instead of being removed, the unsound portions were preserved in situ, and covered by new structural components. Although a large percentage of the structure and framework was retained, the third floor of the station was the exception because it was destroyed during the war. In the absence of the original, it was neither necessary to preserve the original structure nor restore it to its original state. Instead, it became possible to add a contemporary refinement to the attic: a new glass roof has been installed and the space is used as a restaurant (Fig. 7.32). Paradoxically, however, the Agency for Cultural
Third-floor attic space (Photographed by the author, 30 July 2014)
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Affairs gave only conditional permission for this change of use for the attic space, stipulating that the structure change must be completely reversible.113 Today, while the main programme characteristics of the station are public, other programmes can be characterized as private. These private programmes are only accessible when users pay for functions such as the hotel and gallery, which limits their access to the station.
18.104.22.168 Traditions and Techniques As twentieth century modern urban heritage, the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building epitomizes modern construction techniques. Surprisingly, a number of twentieth century construction-related crafts and skills are already dying out. One of the primary benefits of the station conservation project was that it encouraged the revival of a number of manufacturing processes (e.g., brick-shaped tiles), and encouraged trained contemporary craftsmen to reproduce skills (e.g., concave joints). The whole process was seen as promoting the (re)development of crafts and skills necessary for the restoration. In this way, contemporary techniques helped to preserve traditions.114 Contemporary techniques were also applied to ensure that the authenticity of Tokyo Station, as an Important Cultural Property, would be safeguarded, specifically in the matter of seismic isolation. The Expert Committee decided that the system utilized would impose minimal modifications to the entire structure, both exterior and interior.115 In fact, the application of the seismic isolation structural changes was possible due to the station’s ambivalent designation status, which separates the above-ground from the underground part. The construction of the underground station in 1972 permitted the installation of the seismic isolation system in the absence of original plans of the station’s underground that was judged to be outside the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. This absence also led to dismantling of parts of the original underground structure, such as pine supports. Seismic isolation led to the removal of the original structural materials from the station. The project report (Okada and Suzuki 2013) notes that these
have been recorded and some of them have been saved. The added techniques will safeguard Tokyo Station from earthquakes, even though some scholars feel this engenders a contradiction between the station and its authenticity.116
Contesting Urban Heritage and Spatial Cleansing
The Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building conservation has undoubtedly encouraged multiple urban redevelopment projects in its immediate surroundings. The urban level demonstrates that socio-economic and political interests in an urban regeneration scheme have facilitated the conservation of Tokyo Station in exchange for support for real-estate developments through the TDR programme. The human level shows how the urban regeneration strategy and the heritage designation system frame the station in a national context, enabling it to act as a social, economic and political symbol directing the conservation of the station in specific privileged historical and regional directions. The architectural level reveals that the conservation of Tokyo Station prioritizes architectural issues, requiring attempts to preserve and restore the original 1914 design and materials. More importantly, the Tokyo Station conservation showed that global heritage policy and its value system officially came on stream in the conservation practice of non-World Heritage properties. The conservation case illustrates that Eurocentric conservation policies and guidelines are actually starting to gain ground in urban heritage practice in nonWestern cultures. Japanese heritage experts sought solutions in World Heritage system in an effort to break from the conventional heritage system and to manage the changes of urban heritage; ironically, however, their efforts highlighted the physical fabric of properties and resumed the material authenticity of heritage on the ground of heritage conservation. Coupled with the national heritage designation and conservation of the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building, political-economic institutions and actors designed policy interventions to restructure Marunouchi’s place identity through the replication of the Mitsubishi Ichigokan. In
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
this process, political-economic players shed light on these two red-brick urban heritages in a market-orientated urban development strategy, while heritage players focused on the material values and technical conservation of properties. The majority of players made serious efforts to gain legal heritage status for the reproduced Ichigokan. Although they did not succeed, they aimed to combine the Ichigokan replication with legal protection for the urban heritage of Tokyo Station by emphasizing the red-brick legacy of Marunouchi. Their rationale was that authentic qualities locked inside the physical fabric of Tokyo Station could raise the value of the replicated Ichigokan amid the rapidly changing built environment of Marunouchi. This in turn, however, played the red-brick legacy off against other cultural and historic elements of Marunouchi, unifying the Marunouchi authenticities into a single entity that has authorized the corporate identity of Mitsubishi and consolidated Japanese nationalism on the ground of urban regeneration. Global cultural and urban strategies can be seen to fall together into the practice of heritage-led urban regeneration and reconfigure urban place. The global framework of urban regeneration intensifies contestation among urban heritage over placemaking. Conjoined with this, heritage authenticity becomes the authenticity of urban place, while paradoxically absorbs unwanted urban characters and qualities. The overall result is that political-economic and heritage actors together played an integral role in blurring the line between the real and the fake, turning the recreated Ichigokan and Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building into a ‘differencing machine’ within the Mitsubishi’s urban spatial restructuring strategy.117 The official heritage of Tokyo Station and the replicated Ichigokan enhance the legitimacy of the construction of the Marunouchi authenticity. Urban regeneration strategy picks out historical and heritage subjects, seeking distinctive qualities in the physical fabric of the chosen heritage, while ‘spatially cleansing’118 or weakening other cultural characters and historic qualities of Marunouchi, for example, the demolition of the Marunouchi Yaesu Building and the Tokyo Central Post Office Building. This places Mitsubishi in an unshakable position as the original of Marunouchi. Tokyo Station not only gives priority to the red-brick legacy but re-enacts its dignity as the Imperial Station, the gateway to the capital, and the war memorial (Fig. 7.33).
Fig. 7.33 Marunouchi urban spatial restructuring (Created by the author based on the Council for Area Development and Management of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho )
Notes 1. Okamoto (2009, pp. 26–29). 2. Okamoto (2009, pp. 55–64).
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
3. Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru, industrialist and the father of Japanese capitalism Shibusawa Eiichi, and industrialist, investor and art collector Baron Masuda Takashi. 4. The generic name for these treaties is “the Ansei Five-Power Treaties”. 5. Okamoto (2009, p. 78). 6. Fujimori (1992, p. 221). 7. Fujimori (1992, pp. 244–245) and Okamoto (2009, pp. 85–87). 8. Unlike the Japanese domestic situation, by this time the world was facing the era of Imperialism and the Meiji government was providing armaments to promote Japan’s advances into Northeast Asia, including Korea, Manchuria and the mainland China. 9. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, pp. 83–84) and Okamoto (2009, pp. 92–94). 10. Fujimori (1992, pp. 245–246). 11. Yoshikawa Akira, the Governor of Tokyo, put forward the railway network and central railway station plan in Marunouchi in 1884 when drafting the Tokyo City Plan. It is also known as the Yoshikawa Plan. See also Fujimori (2001, pp. 43–44). 12. See Fujimori (2001, pp. 40–47). 13. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 84–85). 14. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 90–103). 15. Ibid. 16. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 106–109) and Okamoto (2009, pp. 92–102). 17. Okamoto (2009, pp. 92–102). 18. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 116–119). 19. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, p. 120) and Iwai (1997, pp. 24–28). 20. Mitsubishi built 13 red-brick buildings in Marunouchi during the Meiji period. 21. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, p. 124) and Fujimori (2001, pp. 42– 43). 22. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 135–144). 23. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 146–147). 24. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 180–183). 25. Matsuhashi (2012, p. 148) and Fujimori (2001, p. 45). 26. Fujimori (2001, pp. 44–45). 27. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 180–183). 28. Ishiguro (2001) and Matsuhashi (2012) also describe how Gyoko-Dori Avenue was planned with Tokyo Station. Mitsubishi offered land for Gyoko-Dori Avenue to the Tokyo City in August 1913. In exchange,
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
it received land at Zenigamecho (錢瓶町) and Nagatacho (永田町). See Ishiguro (2001, p. 53) and Matsuhashi (2012, p. 176). The 73 m width of Gyoko-Dori Avenue was almost realized in 1906. Gyoko-Dori Avenue was unfinished at its 1914 opening. Its construction was resumed in 1923 after the earthquake and completed in 1926. Fujimori (2001, pp. 46–47). Architectural Institute of Japan (1992, p. 455). Okamoto (2009, p. 168). Such as the Tokyo Banker’s Club (1916) and the Industry Club of Japan (1920). Fujimori (2001, p. 46). Before the Mitsubishi Building No. 21, the construction adopted reinforced concrete walls to the Mitsubishi Building Nos. 14–20, while their roofs and floors remained wooden construction. The visual impression of the Marunouchi Building is described in Tokyo City (1930) and Konwa (1929). Okamoto (2009, pp. 198–203, 250–252). Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, p. 530). Interview with H.M., 18 September 2014. Conducted by the author. While raising the building heights in Naka-Dori Avenue from 15 m to 30 m, Mitsubishi started to apply a code of uniform landscape. Shinkenchiku-sha (2002, pp. 56–79) and Iwai (1997, pp. 24–28). The Yaesu Building (1928) stood next to the Mitsubishi Ichigokan and also survived the first Marunouchi urban restructuring plan. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 20 January 1988 and Mainichi Shimbun, 23 January 1988. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 1 December 1995 and Iwai (1997, pp. 24–28). Iwai (1997, pp. 24–28) and Shinkenchiku-sha (2002, pp. 56–79). Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 14 April 1998. The Marunouchi Building block redevelopment comprised of the Marunouchi Building and the Mitsubishi Corp. Building Annex. Its block was officially known as the Marunouchi 2 Chome. Its development application was approved by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government City Planning Commission on 26 June 1998. Strictly speaking, it was soft law established in February 1998 by the Advisory Committee on Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho Area Development. See also Mainichi Shimbun, 28 June 1998 and Asahi Shimbun, 29 July 1998.
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
50. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 27 May 1998. 51. The Advisory Committee was established in 1996 in a form of a public– private partnerships comprised of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Chiyoda ward, East Japan Railway Company, and the OtemachiMarunouchi-Yurakucho District Redevelopment Project Council. 52. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 3 August 1997 and Shinkenchiku-sha (2002, pp. 56–79). 53. Mainichi Shimbun, 1 January 1997 and Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 1 December 1995. 54. The Weekly Economist, 26 May 1998. 55. Mitsubishi Estate News Release, 30 May 2001. 56. The Weekly Economist, 6 March 2007. 57. Nishimura (2000, p. 49). 58. It is officially known as the Special District for Urban Renaissance of Marunouchi 2-1 Block project. 59. Mitsubishi Estate News Release, 1 June 2006. 60. The area of Tokyo Station and Yurakucho is one of the eight areas designated as the Urban Renaissance Urgent Redevelopment Areas in Tokyo. The government aims for these areas to compete with other global cities. 61. In Japanese architectural conservation, 復原 refers to restoration/reconstruction, while 復元 indicates new construction/replication. These two different terms have different meanings but have same pronunciation, Fukukgen. See also Shimizu (2013). 62. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 174th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 28 July 2006. 63. All information regarding the Ichigokan project in this section is reconstructed and rephrased based on the minutes of meetings of the Ichigokan Project Review Committee, unless otherwise stated. 64. Those of academic institutions are Chiba Institute of Technology, Kyoto University, Showa Women’s University, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo University of Science, and The University of Tokyo (in alphabetical order). 65. Mitsubishi discovered the historic fabric of the Ichigokan soon after launching the committee. The fabric was kept by the construction company which dismantled the building in 1968. 66. The archival evidence includes original, repair and measured drawings. 67. In case of the historic site designation, the national government subsidizes 50% of total construction cost.
68. In the Minutes of the Review Committee Meeting, and its final report, whether the test dig was actually carried out is not mentioned. 69. Mitsubishi created an indoor public space in the Marunouchi Building, and a public space with a glass roof and a pedestrian passage outside of the Tokyo International Forum in the Marunouchi district. 70. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “The 174th Tokyo Metropolitan Government City Planning Council Meeting Minutes”, 28 July 2006. 71. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 308–311). 72. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, 26 March 1929. 73. The item number of the Yaesu Building is 15077 in Architectural Institute of Japan (1983, p. 96). 74. Internal materials of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government provided to the Ichigokan Project Review Committee. Author and date unknown. 75. The conservation project was entitled ‘Preservation and Restoration of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building’. 76. The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station (2014, p. 22). 77. Ibid. 78. The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station (2014, p. 26) and Okada and Suzuki (2013, p. 11). 79. It was revised in 2004 and renamed the Exceptional Floor Area Ratio District System (EFARDS). 80. See also the City Planning Institute of Japan (2002, p. 7). 81. JR East Design Corporation (2014, p. 171). 82. The City Planning Institute of Japan (2002, pp. II-2 and III-2). 83. Tahara et al. (2013). 84. JR East Design Corporation (2014, pp. 20–21). 85. The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites adopted by the International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments (ICOMOS) in 1964 (the Venice Charter). For the conservation of Tokyo Station, Articles 9 and 11 were adopted. See Tahara et al. (2013, p. 1214). 86. It is entitled “The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention” and calls for four degrees of authenticity, also known as the test of authenticity (design, material, workmanship and setting). First introduced in 1977. See JR East Design Corporation (2014, p. 21) and Tahara et al. (2013, p. 1214).
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
87. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter). Introduced in 1979 and Article 19 was adopted for the conservation of Tokyo Station. See Tahara et al. (2013). 88. See JR East Design Corporation (2014) and Tahara et al. (2013). 89. Interview with T.Y. and N.K., 14 December 2014. Conducted by the author. 90. Suzuki (2003, p. 165). 91. Nishimura (2004, p. 783). 92. JR East Design Corporation (2014, p. 21). 93. The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station (2014, pp. 7, 26–27). 94. The Agency for Cultural Affairs (2003). 95. The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station (2014, p. 7). 96. Interview with S.M., Chief Architect, Marunouchi Project Office, JR East Design Corporation, 19 December 2014. Conducted by the author. 97. Interview with S.M. 98. Interview with T.Y. 99. Ibid. 100. Otemachi-Marunouchi-Yurakucho Chiku Machizukuri Kyogikai (大手町 ・丸の内・有楽町地区まちづくり協議会). 101. Also see http://www.otemachi-marunouchi-yurakucho.jp/. Accessed 3 April 2016. 102. Mitsubishi Estate (1993a, Vol. 1, pp. 106–129). 103. Zacharias et al. (2011). 104. The city planning application was approved on 28 June 2002. 105. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, http:// www.mlit.go.jp/common/000162567.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015. 106. Suzuki (2012, pp. 108–116). 107. Okada and Suzuki (2013, p. 8). 108. Akarenga no Tokyoeki wo Aisuru Shimin no Kai (赤レンガの東京駅を 愛する市民の会). 109. Suzuki (2012, p. 112). 110. JR East Design Corporation (2014, pp. 12–14) and Suzuki (2012, p. 112). 111. Okada and Suzuki (2013, p. 175). 112. For example, the UK’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage) states that “retaining the authenticity of a place is not
113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.
always achieved by retaining as much of the existing fabric as is technically possible” (Paragraph 92). Scholars such as Jokilehto Jukka and Plevoets Bie also argue for material-oriented authenticity. Interview with S.M. Ibid. Ibid. Interview with T.Y. Term borrowed from Bennette to describe how the role of urban heritage increasingly exhibits difference. See Bennette (2006). Term borrowed from Herzfeld to describe the control of heritage and conservation work, and their outcomes in the competitive urban strategies for global city making. See Herzfeld (2006).
References Architectural Institute of Japan. 1992. Kindai Nihon Kenchikugaku Hattatsushi (in Japanese). Japan: Maruzen. Asahi Shimbun. 1998. Marunouchi kara Keikan Giron wo Takameyo (in Japanse). Asahi Shimbun, 29 July. Bennette, Tony. 2006. Exhibition, Difference, and the Logic of Culture. In Museum Frictions: Public Cultures, Global Transformations, ed. Ivan Karp et al., 46–69. Durham: Duke University Press. Chizu Shiryo Hensankai. 1989. Chiseki Chizu Daicho · Chiseki Chizu: Tokyo (in Japanese), Vol. 5. Tokyo: Kashiwashobo. Fujimori, Terunobu. 1992. Meiji no Tokyo Keikaku (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. ———. 2001. Marunouchi wa Koshite Tanjoshita (in Japanese). In Toshin Saikochiku heno Kokoromi: Marunouchi Saikaihatsu no Tettei Kaimei, ed. Kenchiku Shiryo Kenkyusha, 40–47. Zokei Special Issue, July. Tokyo: Kenchiku Shiryo Kenkyusha. Herzfeld, Michael. 2006. Spatial Cleansing: Monumental Vacuity and the Idea of the West. Journal of Material Culture 11 (1–2): 127–149. Ishiguro, Keisho. 2001. Meiji•Taisho•Showa Tokyo Shashin Daishusei (in Japanese). Japan: Shinchosha.
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
Iwai, Mitsuo. 1997. Maru Biru Kaichiku Keikaku (in Japanese). Journal of Architecture and Building Science 112 (1405): 24–28. JR East Design Corporation. ed. 2014. Report for the Preservation and Restoration Design of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (in Japanese), August 2014, Detail Special Edition. Tokyo: Shokokusha. Kanto Chapter of Architectural Institute of Japan. 2005. Kyu Mitsubishi Ichigokan Fukugen Kento I-inkai Hokokusho (in Japanese), December, Kanto Chapter of Architectural Institute of Japan. Unpublished Report. Konwa, Jiro. 1929. Shinban Dai Tokyo Annai (in Japanese). Japan: Chikumashobo. Mainichi Shimbun. 1997. Maru Biru Story – Sokoha Kao de Ari, Machi demo Atta (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 1 January. ———. 1988. Gimon Ooi Marunouchi Saikaihatsu (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 23 January. ———. 1998. Kosoka ni Hanpatsu no Koe – Maru Biru Atochi Saikaihatsu Keikaku (in Japanese). Mainichi Shimbun, 28 June. Matsuhashi, Tatsuya. 2012. Historical Sociology of Modern Tokyo (in Japanese). Japan: Minervashobo. Mitsubishi Estate. 1993a. Marunouchi Hyakunen no Ayumi: Mitsubishi Jisho Shashi (in Japanese), Vol. 1. Tokyo: Mitsubishi Estate. ———. 1993c. Marunouchi Hyakunen no Ayumi: Mitsubishi Jisho Shashi (in Japanese), Appendix. Tokyo: Mitsubishi Estate. ———. 2001. Maru Biru Jotoshiki Jisshi, News Release on 30 May, Japanese, http://www.mec.co.jp/j/news/release/010530_1.htm. Accessed 6 February 2016. ———. 2006. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. Announces Second Stage of Marunouchi Redevelopment Project, News Release on 1 June, Japanese, http://www.mec.co.jp/j/news/archives/mec060601.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2016. Nihon Keizai Shimbun. 1988. Mitsubishi Jisho ga 30-nen Keikaku, Tokyo Toshin ni Chokoso biru 60-to wo Tate, Marunouchi nado Saikaihatsu (in Japanese). Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 20 January. ———. 1995. Maru Biru 72-nen no Rekishini Maku (in Japanese). Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 1 December 1995. ———. 1997. Marunouchi no Tasogare (in Japanese). Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 3 August. ———. 1998. Mitsubishi Jisho no Saikaihatsu Katamaru (in Japanese). Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 14 April.
Nishimura, Yukio. 2000. Toshiron Note: Keikan · Machizukuri · Toshi Design (in Japanese). Japan: Kajima Publishing. ———. 2004. Urban Conservation Planning (in Japanese). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Okada, Tsuneo, and Hiroyuki Suzuki. ed. 2013. Important Cultural Property, Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building—Project Report of Preservation & Restoration Work (in Japanese). Tokyo: East Japan Railway Company. Okamoto, Satoshi. 2009. Marunouchi no Rekishi: Marunouchi Style no Tanjo to Sono Hensen (in Japanese). Tokyo: Randumhouse-kodansha. Shimizu, Shigeatsu. 2013. Kenchiku Hozon Gainen no Seiseishi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha. Shinkenchiku-sha. 2002. Marunouchi Saikochiku (in Japanese), Shinkenchiku, October, 56–79. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. ———. 2012. Restoration and Preservation of the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (in Japanese), Shinkenchiku, November, 36–57. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha. Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2003. Toshi no Kanashimi (in Japanese). Tokyo: ChuokoronShinsha. ———. ed. 2012. Preservation and Restoration of the Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building (English & Japanese). Tokyo: East Japan Railway Company. Tahara, Yukio, Masahito Shimizu, and Satomi Shimizu. 2013. Design Process for the Restoration Work of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building—Policy for the Intervention in Conservation and Utilization of Important Cultural Property– (in Japanese). AIJ Journal of Technology and Design 19 (43): 1209– 1214. The Agency for Cultural Affairs. 2003. Shin Shitei no Bunkazai Tokyo Eki Marunouchi Honya (in Japanese). Gekkan Bunkazai, No. 478, July, 31–33. The Agency for Cultural Affairs. The Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station. 2014. Aka Renga no Tokyo Eki wo Aisuru Shimin no Kai 25nen (in Japanese). Unpublished Journal. The City Planning Institute of Japan. 2002. Tokyo Eki Shuhen no Saisei Seibi ni Kansuru Kenkyu I-inkai Hokokusho (in Japanese). The City Planning Institute of Japan. Unpublished Report. ———. 2004. Kyu Mitsubishi Ichigokan Fukugen Kento I-inkai Hokokusho (in Japanese), March, The City Planning Institute of Japan. Unpublished Report. The Council of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho. 2016. The Council for Area Development and Management of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho
7 Replacing the Authentic: Marunouchi
(English & Japanese). Tokyo: The Council for Area Development and Management of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Dai 13-kai Toshi Keikaku Seido Sho-i-inkai Sanko Shiryo, Japanese, http://www.mlit.go.jp/ common/000162567.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government. The 135th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, Japanese, 27 May 1998. Requested Information Disclosure on 27 October 2016. ———. The 174th City Planning Council Meeting Minutes, Japanese, 28 July 2006, http://www.toshiai/pdf/giji174.pdf. Accessed 24 December 2016. The Weekly Economist. 1998. Marunouchi ni Kodawaru Mitsubishi Jisho wo Matsu Mammoth no Unmei (in Japanese), The Weekly Economist, 26 May, Mainichi Shimbun-sha, 46–67. ———. 2007. Shin Maru Biru Shunko de Marunouchi Saikochiku wa Dai 2 Stage he (in Japanese). The Weekly Economist, 6 March, Mainichi Shimbunsha, 4–5. Tokyo City. 1930. Tokyo-shi Koho (in Japanese), February 20–March 15. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun. 1929. Bikan wo Kuwaeta Yaesu Biru (in Japanese). Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, 26 March. Zacharias, John, Tianxin Zhang, and Nakajima Naoto. 2011. Tokyo Station City: The Railway Station as Urban Place. Urban Design International 16 (4): 242–251.
8 Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
In this concluding chapter, I offer a shorter, rather than a conventional form of conclusion, and focus on the implications of the research findings. The book has three major themes and draws on historical analysis and interpretation to investigate urban redevelopment projects involved with heritage conservation that have taken place in the metropolitan area of Tokyo. First, the book explores the institutionalization of urban heritage conservation and heritage authenticity in Japan, linking to global movements. Second, it probes the integration process of urban heritage into a wider framework of urban management. Third, it considers the dynamics of multi-level interactions between urban institutions and actors on the ground of placemaking with an eye to the socio-spatial consequences and their potential implications for the authenticity of urban places. The research puts heritage-led urban regeneration at the centre of its analysis and takes an empirical approach, seeking to read and understand the cultural and micro politics of placemaking and the construction of urban authenticity in the context of global city making, and more importantly, their manifestation in the contemporary urban built environment. Urban and heritage research has hitherto predominantly been undertaken in a comparative framework, which often hollows out surface phenomena. By leaving out the historical background, such studies © The Author(s) 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9_8
tend to neglect socio-economic and political motivations and the hidden meanings behind urban scenes. To bridge this gap, the book focuses on Tokyo and scrutinizes it through the prism of the evolution of urban heritage conservation. Contemporary urban scholars have claimed that the twenty-first century is an urban century. In this context, cities are more and more connected, so that urban policies and strategies have transferred across the borders not just of nations but also of cities, which now engage in mutual cross-referencing. Cities in Asia are no exception, as they are increasingly integrated into the circuits of global capital and neoliberalized urban systems. Contemporary cities have become increasingly dependent on global forces and trends. The impact of competitive globalization has gone beyond the economic domain to include the interweaving of various socio-political and economic factors. Nevertheless, economic factors remain a key driving force behind globalization, and with global urbanism, economic and political elites seek to implement their ambitious urban visions to distinguish their own city from others. Ironically, these efforts are becoming a reference book for city making (Zukin 2010) that is leading to the transformation of the urban into standardized and homogenized places around the world. Sassen (2000, 1998, 1992) emphasizes the importance of local urban place in globalism and insists that globalization strikes specific socio-economic and political conditions attached to specific places. In other words, the power of globalization seizes particular cities and urban places, and turns them into resources to be used for competition. When globalization comes into contact with the urban, it gains control over it. More importantly, when globalization configures cities, it creates a global urban hierarchy—not all global cities are created equal. There are prototype cities and offshoot cities; and the book examines Tokyo as one of the latter. The field of heritage is not immune to this global trend. Heritage conservation plays a part in global city making, becoming a catalyst for spatial restructuring and engaging with urban design and city planning. Heritage placemaking lays the foundations for heritage to be used as a resource and for heritage authenticity to become absorbed into the broader urban scene. The supra-national heritage policy developed by
8 Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
international elite institutions and actors such as UNESCO and ICOMOS, and its effect on the conservation of heritage and heritage place, is also under-represented in existing scholarship. Although global heritage policy documents have no legally binding effect, and critics have claimed the “authorized” discourse presents a Eurocentric view, they are certainly influencing heritage practices and values beyond the UNESCO World Heritage system and the West. While the exploration of modern built heritage has focused on preservation of the recent past, this category of heritage has largely been perceived as colonial heritage, the legacy of colonialism or colonial victimhood, and in academic study it thus tends to have been segregated from urban processes. While Japan’s urban heritage does not fit into the conventional framework of colonialism, since the country was itself at one time a colonial power, Japanese experts have enshrined it in the system of ancient built heritage, detaching it from its urban setting. Japan’s urban heritage is spread across three modern historical periods: the Meiji (1869–1911), the Taisho (1912–1925) and the Showa (1926–1989). The conservation of urban heritage was put on the map with the opening of the Meiji-Mura open-air museum in the late 1960s when the nationstate was commemorating the Meiji centennial. Yet it took a while for urban heritage to become fully incorporated into the national heritage system. In the late 1990s, the conservation of Showa-era urban heritage came into effect in the form of public–private partnerships and collaborations. It was the combination of heritage legislation and urban redevelopment systems in action. This integration of heritage conservation into the land-use planning system resulted in the first case of heritageled regeneration practice in Japan. The original goal of the integration was the protection of urban heritage properties; however, the driving forces behind the practice were largely political and economic. While the case was highly praised as an innovative and comprehensive approach to urban conservation, it also served as a focal point of interaction between political economic and socio-cultural powers, which fits into accounts of the production of urban place developed by geographers and sociologists (Kato 2007). Accordingly, heritage-led urban regeneration has opened up debate at the interplay between authenticity, heritage conservation and urban redevelopment.
Not only is it important to study processes of deriving representations, but it is also important to study the inequitable results of struggles over aesthetic strategies such as historic preservation, over visual images of urban public spaces, and over the development of cultural consumption. (Zukin 1997)1
Thus two systematically distant topics—heritage conservation and urban redevelopment—merge into heritage-led urban regeneration, which situates heritage conservation as a market mechanism—a new form of capital accumulation (Coombe and Weiss 2015) in a neoliberal urban system. This engagement of heritage conservation with urban political economy is motivating heritage to become part of a new language of political currency seeking investment and enhancing value (Labadi and Long 2010). International heritage policy provides a rationale for urban heritage conservation in this process, in other words, authenticity. In this book I present an integrated framework for analysis by adopting the authenticity conditions set out in the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity (Chapter 2) to envision the structure and dynamics by which urban authenticity is crafted. The combined effects of global urban and heritage strategies and public–private partnerships place selected urban heritage properties in a dominant position, although since they do not enjoy equal authenticity attributes, some are superior to others under given socio-economic and political conditions. The original physical fabric of the chosen properties tends to play a central role in pursuing place authenticity, so that authenticity becomes a single entity, leading to the homogenization of urban places. When the notion of authenticity initially comes into play in the heritage domain, it increases the tension between the original form or state, and its copy. There have been many approaches to and interpretations of authenticity through global heritage policy documents leading to authenticity of original fabric becoming key in heritage conservation. While it is characteristic of heritage and conservation discourses that multiple paradigms co-exist (Ashworth 2011), the material or tangible authenticity of heritage remains the dominant one. The Nara Document
8 Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
opened a Pandora’s box, while the most recent international heritage discourse—known as the historic urban landscape approach—is now opening another door into urban governance and urban management. The rise of heritage-led urban regeneration signifies that heritage is no longer an end in itself. Two case studies—Nihonbashi and Marunouchi—illustrate that the concept of authenticity has been extended to the urban scale, where it has turned out to be extremely complicated. In Nihonbashi, the leadership of the municipal authority was evident from the beginning as they called for national and regional authorities to create public–private partnerships for strategic collaboration to curate the Nihonbashi regeneration. Multi-level interactions with both public- and private-sector actors shaped the regulatory framework, resulting in the first two redevelopment projects, the Coredo Nihonbashi in 2004 and the MR1 Plan in 2005. While Shirokiya was erased from the Nihonbashi legacy, the government authorities deployed the Mitsui Main Building block as the centre of the district, empowering Mitsui to take over the leadership of the Nihonbashi regeneration through successive redevelopment projects. National designation as an Important Cultural Property helped the Mitsui Main Building to play an iconic role, opening and accelerating the way to a succession of urban developments. Mitsui took their iconic property as a standard for the urban aesthetics of Nihonbashi, while their own commercial urban brand Coredo absorbed both the Edo and modern qualities of Nihonbashi. This has created a dichotomy in that Edo Nihonbashi represents the merchant culture, which no longer exists on a substantial scale, whilst modern Nihonbashi epitomizes the power of the modern state and the wealth of political economic elites such as Mitsui zaibatsu through nationally protected urban heritage. The Mitsui identity is at the top of the urban hierarchy in Nihonbashi. Mitsui and its corporate identity have expanded their territorial power and influence into the Nihonbashi authenticity, authorized by the global strategy of urban regeneration and heritage conservation. In Marunouchi, the private sector took the initiative from the beginning, as Mitsubishi owns the land. While the enclave has been positioned as politically and economically significant due to its close proximity to the Imperial Palace, it requires constant change and renewal of its urban fabric. The urban restructuring of Marunouchi dates back to 1934
when the Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters replaced the redbrick Mitsubishi Building No. 2. In the early 2000s, Mitsubishi decided to reinstate the red-brick Mitsubishi Ichigokan. Around the same time, both implementation of the TDR programme and the national designation of the red-brick Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building were resolved. The conservation of Tokyo Station and the replication of the Ichigokan, major pillars in the establishment of the modern Marunouchi, combined to promote the red-brick legacy of Marunouchi, which is strongly associated with the corporate identity of Mitsubishi. The Ichigokan was the first office building built by Mitsubishi in the district. While the Ichigokan replication was part of a larger urban redevelopment project, the Tokyo Station conservation authenticated and has been defending the legitimacy of the recreated Ichigokan. The Tokyo Station conservation was an outcome of the agreement between the political and economic leaders who wanted to restore the station to its original 1914 state, removing the memory of Japan’s defeat in WWII and the postwar reconstruction. The adoption of international heritage policies in the Tokyo Station conservation project confirmed the authenticity of the fabric of the nation-state and the Emperor. The conservation of Tokyo Station Marunouchi Building not only embraces the national pride but also fosters the spirit of a corporate owner, JR East. Paradoxically, the project resulted in multiple development projects in the immediate surroundings in order to assimilate floor area through the TDR, enabling demolition of other urban heritage of the recent past such as the Tokyo Central Post Office Building and the Marunouchi Yaesu Building. The heritage-led regeneration processes show how multilevel institutions and actors bring politics and economics into play in heritage conservation, while the reverse is also true. The two urban case studies in Tokyo show that the corporate power of Mitsui and Mitsubishi monopolized urban authenticity by reducing the visibility of other cultural and historical qualities. The government’s intention was to create distinctive and authentic urban places through heritage-led urban regeneration. Meanwhile the forces of globalization and inter-urban competition introduce competition between qualities, heritage properties and places so that only a single authenticity remains and the rest is cleared out. In other words, globalization brings out a major distinctive and unique quality of
8 Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
urban places but destroys their smaller qualities. In contrast to its original goals, the heritage-led urban regeneration framework has expanded, producing places of hybridity and palimpsest and strongly emphasizing the original fabric of heritage. Collaboration between the government and the private sector is moving the integration of heritage conservation and urban redevelopment in the direction of commodification. Zukin (2010) points out that public–private partnerships show the political and economic ambition of private developers and public officials. Fainstein (2010) also adds that public-sector institutions and actors, including urban planners and policy makers, tend to prioritize economic growth over other social concerns of cities. In selecting heritage properties which are then framed within national systems of heritage designation and protection as authenticity, public–private partnerships are using authenticity as both an actual and symbolic tool to achieve urban competitiveness. This is why urban scholars have claimed that the construction of authenticity, heritage and place is intertwined with economics and politics. The socio-spatial outcomes of heritage-led regeneration in the two urban districts in Tokyo demonstrate the interests and visions of dominant institutions and actors who rely on the international capital flows and market systems that have come to represent economic globalization. More importantly, power is shifting towards the private developers and builders who always achieve their targeted FAR incentives to erect office towers. Even though relevant experts in the field are invited to the discussion, their role within a given framework is determined by the corporate owners and private developers. This implies a lack of balance in the heritage-led urban regeneration processes. It is in this way that private developers are acquiring ownership not only of heritage authenticity, but also of place authenticity. In the global city Tokyo, this developer-driven monopoly contributes to homogenizing urban places. As Harvey (2012) argues, urban heritage has been used as a vehicle to create urban distinctiveness and authenticity which, in turn, privileges corporate owners and private developers. This transformation from authenticity of heritage to authenticity of place is taking authenticity beyond the aesthetic category concerning the ‘right to the urban’ (Shin 2014).2 The right to claim diverse authenticities in urban places. The right to be aware that authenticity is the outcome of ‘choice
and chance’ (Lowenthal 2008). This argues not for top-down or bottomup processes, but for the speculative mechanism and dynamics in globalization process, which requires legal and institutional systems to change, and controls urban processes. In the present, urban century, the competition between cities is intense and complex, and cities crave authenticity in their quest for global city status. They want to be authentic. Thus, the reality of authenticity is no longer limited to the heritage domain and an aesthetic category. [A]uthenticity becomes a tool, along with economic and political power, to control not just the look but the use of real urban places…Authenticity, then, is a cultural form of power over spaces…But authenticity could become a potent tool to combat the recent negative effects of upscale growth if we redefine it as a cultural right. (Zukin 2010)3
While this book challenges the dominant scholarship on urban regeneration and the global city, my arguments resonate with earlier scholarship not only in heritage studies but also in urban studies. The research does not seek to argue for the validity of aesthetic authenticity. Claims of authenticity are no longer simple: they do not always foster the distinctiveness and uniqueness of urban places but can distort and destroy the special qualities and characters of contemporary globalization. Urban planning regulations such as zoning and air rights transfers were at one time adopted to protect urban heritage properties from demolition and safeguard place identity, but now they favour public officials and private developers. Lack of public funding continues to induce commodification and consumption of heritage in exchange for redevelopment to create improved urban identity and image as well as distinctive experience, displacing those authenticities that have not been chosen. It is largely public agencies, leaseholders, private developers and visitors who benefit. Although multilevel institutions and actors are involved in heritage-led urban regeneration, they have neither succeeded in controlling the speed of urban growth nor managed to protect the smaller qualities of urban places. Above all, there is a lack of consensus building between institutions and actors due to rigid bureaucratic control systems.
8 Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
Urban heritage and efforts for its conservation are no longer immune to the competitive global economy, as government officials, private investors and developers deploy their unique and non-replicable qualities to provide monopoly power for urban places. As shown in the two case studies, urban heritage plays a visible and iconic role in urban identity and image. The special mark of distinction that applies to official heritage status increases the value and monopoly power of heritage. Government exercises its power by authorizing urban heritage, allowing it to become a symbolic as well as an iconic device that creates visual reputation and unique place identity. There are two aspects to the urban manifestation of the heritage-led regeneration process in the global city Tokyo. One is that not only speculative urban regeneration, but also heritage-led urban regeneration increases the status of speculation in heritage and more importantly, authenticity. The other is the national motivations behind global city making. While the dominant discourse of the global city spotlights its economic characteristics, such as deregulation and privatization, a new national imagination can be conjured in the name of new urban imagination by using the capacity and resource of the private sector. Urban heritage thus becomes an instrument to strengthen the national narrative and mobilizes heritage authenticity to reinforce the fabric of the nation-state. Global city making is the making of the nation’s best image and status. It is against this backdrop that urban power exploits and cultivates urban heritage as a political and economic currency that put it and its authenticity into a dominant position over place. Not only does authenticity tie in with urban political economy, providing visual guidelines for the allure, elegance and cleanliness of urban places to attract investors (Harvey 2012; Zukin 2010). It also becomes a form of power over heritage and heritage place, transforming itself into a powerful weapon to distinguish global cities from one another by resurrecting the significant past. This transformation from the authenticity of heritage to the authenticity of urban place in global city making signals that authenticity is no longer limited to linguistic, regional or cultural expressions but is now a global term. It constructs global urban identity; more precisely, it builds nation branding. Thus does authenticity rise as a new urban regime that is central to city making.
Notes 1. Heritage conservation as urban practice emphasizes the importance of reading the political economy and political relations behind heritage conservation and its socio-spatial outcomes. 2. Term borrowed from Shin (2014) to emphasize speculative urban transformation and speculation in urban authenticity. The idea was originally proposed by Henri Lefevre in his seminal essay “The Right to the City” in 1967. His series of writings was provoked by the demolitions and redevelopments he witnessed in Paris. 3. Zukin inclines to Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey’s “right to the city” and proposes the change of authenticity framework and definition by moving away from the conventional heritage-oriented approach.
References Ashworth, Gregory. 2011. Preservation, Conservation and Heritage: Approaches to the Past in the Present Through the Built Environment. Asian Anthropology 10 (1): 1–18. Coombe, Rosemary J., and Lindsay M. Weiss. 2015. Neoliberalism Heritage Regimes and Cultural Rights. In Global Heritage: A Reader, ed. Lynn Meskell, 43–69. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. Fainstein, Susan. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Harvey, David. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso. Kato, Masahiro. 2007. ‘Colonialism Without Colony’ in the Production of Socio-Spatial Urban Configuration (in Japanese). Ritsumeikan Studies in Language and Culture 19 (September): 117–129. Labadi, Sophia, and Colin Long. 2010. Introduction. In Heritage and Globalization, ed. Sophia Labadi and Colin Long, 1–16. London: Routledge. Lowenthal, David. 2008. Authenticities Past and Present. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 5 (1) (Winter): 6–17. Sassen, Saskia. 1992. The Global City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 1998. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: New Press.
8 Conclusion: Authenticity—A New Urban Regime?
———. 2000. Cities in the World Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Shin, Hyun Bang. 2014. Contesting Speculative Urbanization and Strategizing Discontents. City 18 (4–5): 509–516. Zukin, Sharon. 1997. Cultural Strategies of Economic Development and the Hegemony of Vision. In The Urbanization of Injustice, ed. Andy Merrifield and Erik Swyngedouw, 223–243. New York: New York University Press. ———. 2010. Naked City. New York: Oxford University Press.
Absence 129, 254, 289–292 Academics 307 Access 291 accessibility, 269 Accumulation capital 308 Act Government Organization 64–65 Landscape, 266 National Historic Preservation, 42 on Special Measures Concerning Urban Renaissance, 151, 214 Action 139, 246, 262–263, 280, 286–287. See also Deregulation Act on Special Measures Concerning Urban Reconstruction 10 Actors 305–307, 309–312 Adaptability of urban heritage 140
Additions restoration 71 Administration 190, 195, 265 heritage, 61–64, 67, 133, 135, 140 Adoption 249, 278 Advancements 165–167 Advocacy 257 Aesthetic 198, 238–246, 251, 272, 285–286, 307–309, 311, 312 urban aesthetic zone, 82 Aesthetic quality 15 Affairs. See Agency Age urban 24 Agency(ies) 129–131, 135, 142, 143, 146–147, 151, 173, 177, 182–189, 197, 215, 223, 242, 253, 262, 265–267, 270–274, 278–280, 289
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Song, Global Tokyo, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3495-9
for Cultural Affairs, 38, 63–64, 79, 85, 89–91, 107–108, 122–123, 129, 137–140, 147, 149, 181–190, 202–204, 262, 264–267, 278–280, 291 Defence, 89 government, 22–23 public, 8, 23, 83–85, 312 Agenda 260–262, 270–272 Agent 311 Ages of Rousseau 16 of Shakespeare, 16 Agreement 137–139, 171, 186, 202, 242, 247, 277, 310. See also Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Aichi Prefecture 69, 131 Aid technical corporation 103 Air-raid 61, 75, 80, 284–287 Air-Rights 312 Ajisaka, Toru 145 Akagawa, Natsuko 38, 55–59, 63, 108, 117–118, 123 Akasaka Palace 75 Akihabara 183 Alley 216–218 Alliance 183 of international experts, 115 Allies Western 22 Allure 313 Alteration(s) 269 restoration, 71 Alternative 208 Ambience 166, 245 Ambition 171–173, 284, 311 Amemiya, Katsuya 35, 219, 223
Amendment 140, 218 of heritage law, 140 Amenity Business Core (ABC) 255 America 199–201, 238–239, 250–251 American architect Frank Lloyd Wright 80 design, 80 American Consulate Office 143 Amsterdam Declaration 41 Analysis 18–19 Ancient built heritage 18 Anne Queen Anne style 73 Annex 213. See also Mitsui Anniversary 171, 181 of Agency for Cultural Affairs, 137 AntiBuddhist Movement 62 Antiquities 57. See also Edict Appearance 285 Application 271, 279, 291 Approval 241, 246, 247, 265 Arcade Marunouchi Building 250 Archaeology(ical) 42. See also Connally; Ichigokan department of, 107–108 remains, 266 Architect 57, 60, 73, 79, 81, 83, 85, 89, 171, 181, 199–201, 204, 207, 211, 214 Architecture 44, 57, 59–61, 73, 78, 169, 180, 185, 187, 195, 199–201, 205, 209, 211, 216–219, 237–239, 260–262, 272, 279, 286
Area 111–112, 121 Army Ministry of 240 Arrangement 132–134, 138 Artefact(s) 17, 277 of the Meiji era, 68 Article 141–143, 148, 187–189, 197 11 of Venice Charter, 41 7 of UNESCO Operational Guidelines, 41. See also Exemption Artistic 41–42 Art Museum 260. See also Ichigokan Asahi Shimbun 81 Ashworth, Gregory 40, 308 Asia 251, 306 East, 111 and Pacific, 104 Aspects 41–42 Assessment on heritage 132, 154 Asset 129, 142, 147 Assistance international development 22 Association 42. See also Authenticity Association of Citizens Who Love Red-Bricked Tokyo Station 285 Attic 291 Attribute(s) 308 authenticity, 288 of authenticity, 118–120 test of authenticity, 41–43 Authenticity(ies) 1–24, 31–48, 55–91, 103–123, 129–154, 163–211, 213–222, 237–293, 305–313 external, 119 extrinsic, 17, 119
intangibility, 121 intangible, 17, 118–120 internal, 119 intrinsic, 17, 119 Marunouchi, 24 Nihonbashi, 23 qualifier, 119 tangible, 9, 118–121 Authority(ies) 57, 66, 138, 149–152, 163–179, 186, 187, 194–196, 277, 279–280, 309 government, 23 municipal, 23 Authorizing 313 Avenue 192, 196–197, 208, 213–220. See also Chuo-Dori Daimyo-koji, 242, 272 Gyoko-Dori, 248–251, 257, 283 Naka-Dori, 245–249, 253 Awareness 129, 137–140, 180, 181 civic, 285 of urban heritage, 21 Axis 192, 196, 249
Babasaki 238, 245–249, 258–260, 272. See also Street Babasaki-Dori, 245, 248, 258, 272 Bakufu 163, 165, 237 Balance 270–274, 281, 311 Baldwin, Richard 5 Baltzer, Franz 246–247, 286 Bandarin, Francesco 3, 13–14 Bank 165–168, 183–185, 190–192, 198, 202, 204–206 119th National, 244
of Iwate Nakanohashi Branch, 138 of Japan, 75 Banker Tokyo Banker’s Club Building 133 Bankruptcy 170–171 Barrack 240 Basement of Ichigokan 265 Basho 279 Battle 277 Bay. See also Hibiya Edo 237 Beauty Scenic 142 Beaux-Arts 204 Beneficiary 186–187, 213 Benefit(s) 196, 269, 291 Bennett, Tony 3 Berlin 239 Bhadgaon 105 Bijutsukogeihin fine arts and crafts 65 Bikan Chiku urban aesthetic zone 82 Binding power 120 Birth 166 Birthplace 214, 266 George Washington, 42 Block 168–171, 173–194, 197–201, 207, 214–220, 242–251, 254–260, 262, 266, 268–274, 282, 309 One London, 242–246, 251, 263, 266, 272 One New York, 249, 251 Specified Block System, 35
Bloody history 88. See also Imperial Guards Blue Book 181 Blueprint 248, 262, 267–269 Board of Education 264, 266 Boccardi, Giovanni 122 Body of experts 311 Bombing 166, 285 Bonus 132–137, 147–151, 182, 185–187, 195, 197, 260, 263, 271. See also Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Border 306 Bosnia and Herzegovina 121. See also Mostar Branch 170–172, 191 Brand 171–172, 212–214, 218, 309 Branding 313 Break 171, 201, 249–251, 292 Brick 59, 70, 73–80, 87, 109–111, 168, 206, 211, 241–248, 266, 274, 281, 285–288 Bridge 121. See also Mostar Nihonbashi, 163–166, 170, 178, 190–192, 195, 196 Trowbridge, 200, 204, 206 Britain 8, 239, 263, 287 British architect Josiah Conder 73 Brumann, Christoph 17 Bubble economy 22, 139–141, 170, 175, 190, 254 Buddhism 58 Buddhist. See Antimonastery 107 monument, 111–112
Buddhist monastery 22. See also I Baha Bahi Budget 181 Budokan Nippon 89 Builder 311 Building 130–154, 165–172, 179–220 Furukawa, 258 Ichigokan, 310 Marunouchi, 254–260, 269–274 Marunouchi Park, 258 Marunouchi Yaesu, 266, 270–274, 293 Marunouchi Yaesu Building, 310 Mitsubishi Building No.2, 310 Mitsubishi Shoji, 258 Mitsui Main Building, 309 no. 15 of the former Foreign Settlement, 143 Tokyo Central Post Office Building, 310 Tokyo Station Marunouchi, 266, 273, 276–286, 288–292, 310 Building Coverage Ratio (BCR) 142–143 Building Standards Law (BS) 130, 141–142, 187, 188, 195, 197, 218, 264–266 Built environment 2, 7, 20, 305 heritage, 10–15, 17, 18, 21, 307 Bunkacho 64. See also Agency Bunkazai 130, 139. See also Cultural Property Hogoho, 58. See also Ho; Law Hogo Iinkai, 64. See also Committee Juyo, 56. See also Importance
Bunko Mitsui 209 Burdens on property owners 134, 139 Bureau 239 Bureaucracy 55 Burra Charter 279 Business 163–171, 175, 179, 183, 186, 190–192, 209, 212, 237, 240, 243–246, 251–257, 281 Bustling 245 Buyers 241 Buying 282 Byrne, Denis 16
Cabinet 88–90, 132, 141, 186, 239 Calculation 189 Cameron, Christina 40–42, 109, 115, 120–122 Campaign(ed) conservation 79, 83–84, 88 UNESCO international, 109 UNESCO World Heritage, 22 Candidate 209 heritage-led urban regeneration, 22, 23 Canon 36. See also Authenticity Capacity 190, 200, 211 public sector, 21 Capital 163–166, 179, 183, 196, 199–201, 237–249, 284–286, 293, 306, 308, 311 resource, 1–3 Tokyo, 24 Capitalism 198 Capitalization 14 Caretaker 64. See also Committee
Carpenter 117 Cartagena 113 Castle 103, 112, 237. See also Himeji-jo Edo, 163, 165 Catalyst 306 Category aesthetic 311 of heritage, 307 Cathedral 85. See also Holy Ceiling 167, 204–206 Tokyo Station, 287 Centennial 307 Meiji period, 14, 70, 79, 89 Central Business District (CBD) 255 Centre 165, 170, 175, 209–214, 220, 240–247, 249–255 of Tokyo, 147–149, 154 Ceremony(ies) Imperial Hotel 80 religious, 107 Chairman of ICOMOS 115 Change 268, 280–283, 286–292 Chaos of Meiji Restoration 240 Character 312 Charter Burra 279 ICOMOS Washington, 2 Venice, 16, 22, 35–37, 40–42, 115–118, 204, 278 Washington, 41 Cheong, Caroline 39 Chiku 82, 195, 216. See also Bikan; District China 111. See also Horyu-ji Chiyoda-ward 136, 147, 255, 264, 267, 281
Choay, Francoise 16 Choice 311 Chuo 23. See also Ward Chuo-Dori 205–206, 213–216, 220 Chuo-ward 136, 148 Church 85. See also Holy Gokomachi, 143 Circuit 306 City 237–242, 246–249, 253–257, 260, 266, 271, 277, 281–282, 289, 305–307, 310–313 global, 305–307, 311–313 Civilization 165 Western, 238 Cladding 167 Clarke, Fred 204 Classicism 204 Cleansing 293, 310 Clearance 241 Club 133–139. See also Banker Code building 141–143, 147–150 Coincidence 285 Cold War 16, 170, 191 Collaboration 118, 130, 144, 171, 175, 187, 194, 218, 307, 309–310 Museum Meiji-Mura, 72 Collection Museum Meiji-Mura 68–71, 84, 90 Colombia 113. See also Cartagena Colonialism 36, 307 Colonizer 58 Colony 223 Columns 206 Commander SCAP/GHQ 63 Commencement 220
Commerce 163–166 Committee 140, 144, 145, 187, 204, 207–209, 212, 257, 260–272, 277–280, 286–292 for the Protection of Cultural Properties, 55, 63–68, 76–79, 81–89 UNESCO World Heritage, 41–43, 108–109, 113–115, 121 Commodification 44, 154, 311, 312 Commodity 43, 44 Company. See also Museum, Meiji-Mura East Japan Railway 150 Nagoya Railroad, 68, 70, 85 Compensation 147. See also Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Competition 166, 171, 174, 175, 179, 194, 306, 310–311 Competitiveness 151, 152, 175, 179, 197, 221, 257, 272, 311 Competitor 175, 178, 281 Completion 167–172, 205–206, 211, 213 Complexity 119. See also Authenticity Components 288–289 Concept of authenticity 115–120, 122, 309 Concern 311 Concrete 211, 249, 273, 288 Conder, Josiah 73, 239, 243–249. See also British Condition 306–308 Conference 103, 108, 114–118, 122–123 Nara, 43
Connally, Ernest Allan 41–42. See also Integrity Consensus 263, 274, 312 on heritage, 154 Consensus-building 183 Consent owner’s 78, 138, 181–182, 202 Conservation 1–5, 31–46, 55–91, 103–111, 114–123, 129–154, 163, 177–190, 194–198, 202–206, 210–212, 218–222, 254–260, 263–267, 271–292, 305–310, 312–313 management plan, 139. See also Preservation; Protection Construction 238–239, 241–252, 271–272, 276, 283–285, 288–293 of authenticity, 305, 310–312 Ministry of, 130, 147–148, 177, 186 Consultant conservation 203, 204, 207 Consultation 186, 202–204 Consumption 308, 312 Contact contact zone theory 7, 20, 36–39 Contract 137–141. See also Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Contractor 84 American, 201. See also Kajima Corporation Control 113, 131, 134, 141, 142, 148, 239, 242, 306, 311–312. See also Conservation Controversy of authenticity 114 Convention
UNESCO World Heritage 41–43, 103, 116, 121 Conventional System 61, 67, 68 Coombe, Rosemary 9, 308 Cooperation 281 international technical, 103–105, 108 COREDO 171–179, 196, 212–216, 223, 309 COREDO Muromachi (CM) 214–218 Council 255, 260, 271 Tokyo Metropolitan City Planning, 171 Council for Area Development and Management of Otemachi, Marunouchi, and Yurakucho (OMY) 281 Councilor 255, 277 Country Japan 239, 284 Coup d’État military 88. See also Imperial Guards Courtyard 107. See also I Baha Bahi Coverage 141–143. See also Building Coverage Ratio (BCR) building, 187 Cowen, Tyler 7 Craft 291. See also Headquarters Gallery of the Tokyo National Museum of Modern Arts, 90 skill, 212 Craftsman 117, 291 Craftsmanship 57, 263. See also Conservation Cranes 170 Creative City 2, 10 Credibility 120. See also Authenticity
Criteria assessment 132 designation, 140 use, 210 World Heritage, 115, 121 Criterion of authenticity 105, 115 Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA) 17 Cultural Property 63–67, 71, 76, 78, 85, 88, 90. See also Bunkazai Culture 239, 242–243, 292, 309 Currency 308, 313
Daiichi National Bank 167 Dai-Ichigokan Mitsui 200 Daiichi Seimeikan 134. See also DN Tower 21 Daimyo 165 Daimyo-koji 242, 272. See also Avenue Damage 238, 252, 257, 289 Dan Norihiko 201, 214–216, 220 Takuma, 199–201, 202–205, 214 Danger 256 Debate on authenticity 104, 109–110, 120–121, 123 Decay 107, 109, 170 physical, 81 Decentralization 23, 177 De Cesari, Chiara 12 Decision 255, 262, 274–276 decision-making, 281
Declaration Amsterdam 41 ICOMOS Xi’an Declaration, 3 Potsdam, 88 UNESCO Conservation of Historic Urban Landscape, 2 Decline 170 Defeat 310 of Japan, 285 Second World War, 88 Defence Agency 89 Defending 310 Deficiencies 109 Delivery of conservation 279–280, 286 Democratization 62 Demolition 57–60, 66–79, 84–85, 89–90, 134–138, 148, 171, 180–183, 190, 202, 244, 255–258, 260, 265, 270–273, 310, 312–313. See also Banker Department 183, 192, 198, 213, 216. See also Mitsukoshi; Takashimaya of Archaeology, 107–108 Depression 257 Deregulation 2, 8–9, 22, 34, 141, 151, 152, 185–187, 245, 253–255, 313. See also Regulation Designation 129–140, 142–149, 181–189, 198, 201–211, 213, 223, 254, 258, 264–268, 280, 282–285, 287, 291–292, 309, 311 heritage, 21–23, 63, 68, 77–79, 83, 89–90 Destruction 60–62, 66, 71, 77, 134–137, 140, 265
heritage, 16 urban, 21 Deterioration 58, 81, 289 Determination 277 Developer 36, 38, 48, 130, 132, 134, 139, 144–150, 154, 182–186, 194, 197, 210, 214, 262 private, 8–10, 19, 23 Development 138–141, 147–152 urban, 32–41, 43, 46, 48 De Vries, Piet 8, 9 Dichotomy 166, 212–214, 309 Diet Imperial 246 lower house of, 82 Difference 116–118 Dignity 200, 202–205, 277, 285–289, 293 Dilapidation 109 Diplomacy heritage 55 Disaster 60, 69, 166, 179, 200–201, 204, 211, 239, 252, 265. See also Earthquake; War Disciple 244, 247 Dismantling 109–110, 112, 114, 117, 291 Distinction 244, 313 Distinctiveness 244, 272, 311–312 District 35–36, 44–48, 237–260, 263, 265–269, 273–279, 281–287. See also Marunouchi; Nihonbashi central business, 4, 21 Marunouchi, 22–24 Nihonbashi, 23 Diversity cultural 17–18, 43
of urban heritage, 140 DN Tower 21 134 Doctrine international heritage 13 Document 103, 112–114, 118–123 heritage policy, 306, 308 Nara, 43, 55, 278–279, 308 preservation, 288 Documentation 110 Doi, Kazuhide 134 Dome 287 Donor 109 Dori 177, 192, 196–198, 205–206, 213–220. See also Avenue; Street Dormitory 88. See also Imperial Guards dorm, 90 Dossier World Heritage nomination 110, 120–121 Drawing architectural 20 Duralumin 287
Earthquake 166, 168, 179, 200, 205, 207, 211 Great Kanto, 59–61, 75, 80, 242–244, 252, 257, 272, 289–292 Great Kobe, 143 resilience of buildings, 109 East East-Muromachi 214–216 East Japan Railway Company (JR East) 187, 276–282 Echigoya 163–167, 170, 213–214
Economy 139–141, 170, 175, 185, 190, 211, 244, 249–251, 254, 272, 308–313. See also Bubble economy Edict for the Preservation of Antiquities and 57 Old Items, 57 Edifice 284 Edo period 23, 57, 237, 241–242, 309. See also Street Sakura-Dori, 214–218 Education Board 264, 266 Minister, 277 Efficient Land Utilization District System (ELUDS) 147, 195, 197, 255 Ehrentraut, Adolf 17–18 Electricity 238 Element 263, 269, 286–289, 293 Elevator 168 Eligibility 133, 139, 186. See also Designation for heritage designation, 90 Elite 305–307, 309 Embellishment 205 Emergency economic package 185–187 Emperor 18, 24, 247, 248, 285, 310 Hirohito, 63, 88 Emphasis 244, 277, 293 Empire Japan 59 Empirical approach 305 Empowering 309 Enactment 142
of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties, 61–64, 66–68 Enclave 216–220, 239, 309 Enders, Siegfried 17 Enforcement 141 Engagement 253, 255 Engineer 201, 207, 210–211, 239, 246, 286 army, 87 Engineering 251 England 16 English style 243 Entrance 205–206, 219, 249, 257, 285–286 Imperial Hotel, 73, 84–85, 90 Environment 130–132, 149, 239, 253, 292, 305 Enzetsu-Kan Mita 85 Establishment 144, 149 Estate 257, 262, 283, 292 Mitsubishi, 144–147 Ethics 16. See also Authenticity Europe 57, 60, 108, 116, 119, 200–201, 239, 287 Eurocentric, 114, 119, 123 European, 104–105, 113, 116–117, 119 Europeanization 62, 239 Eviction 252 Evidence 264, 286 Evolution 306 Exceptional Floor Area Ratio District System (EFARDS) 277, 280 Exceptional Floor Area Ratio Zone System (EFARZS) 150–151 Exchange 165–169
Executive 181, 199–201, 206, 209 Exemplary. See also Headquarters of the Meiji urban heritage 87 Exemplify 208 Exemption 141–143, 147–150, 154, 186–189, 197 Exhibition 209 Expert 130, 139–140, 147, 187, 204, 207–209, 212, 260–274, 278–280, 286–293, 307, 311 heritage, 14–16, 22, 103–123 Expo Osaka 81 Expression 255 Expressway 196 Exterior 134, 182, 197–204, 207, 218–219, 244, 272, 273, 286–287, 291 conservation, 70, 79, 90
Fabric 175, 214, 220, 264, 274, 284, 287, 292–293, 308–310, 313 heritage, 40–41 of heritage, 112, 119–120 physical, 68, 90 urban, 4, 11, 23 Fabrication 263 Façade 66, 134, 152, 192, 198, 205–207, 258, 272 Facadism 134, 148 Face 163, 192, 213 Facility 238, 240–242, 254, 269 Factor 306 Fainstein, Susan 311 Fake 263, 269, 293 Family
Imperial 80, 81, 88 Iwasaki, 85 Feasibility 260, 271–273 Feeling 284 Feudalism 238 Finance 149, 252 Financial Centre 185, 195, 197 Fire 238–239, 242 Horyuji, 62 Imperial Hotel, 81 Firm 169, 179, 211–212 Flagship 171 Flexibility 120, 263, 265. See also Authenticity Floor Area 130–133, 147–152, 197–199, 202–206, 210–211, 214–220, 281, 310 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 130–137, 139, 143, 147–151, 182, 185–189, 192–197, 202, 210, 255, 258–264, 271, 277, 282, 311 Flooring design 287 Footprint 206 Force 240–251, 281 Form 172, 179–181, 183, 187, 191, 287 Forum on Revisiting Authenticity in the Asian Context 17 Fragment 212, 257 Framework 15, 18, 21–23, 260, 265, 289, 293 analytical, 18, 20 global city, 15 globalization, 5 heritage-led urban regeneration, 22 institutional and regulatory, 22
legal and policy, 12 political economy, 14–15 Public-Private Partnership, 8 theoretical, 18 urban strategy, 5, 11 France 16, 110 heritage system, 62, 67 French heritage practice 66 Fudosan Mitsui 146, 173, 177, 183 Fujimori, Terunobu 60, 240, 244, 248–251 Fujimura, Akira 272 Fukugen 260 Fukutoku-Mori Shrine 35. See also Nihonbashi Fukutoku Shrine 219–223 Fuller, George, A. Company of New Jersey 251 Function 206–209, 239, 244, 252–253, 260, 267–270, 289 Fund 281 Funding 312 Furukawa 258, 270. See also Building Futagawa, Yukio 61, 69
Gaido 165 Gaiku 130, 195, 254. See also Block Gallery Tokyo Station 289 Games 80 Gap 306 Gate 238, 285 Babasaki-Mon, 238 Inui-mon, 87 Sakashita-mon, 87
Gateway 248, 257, 293 Gekkan Bunkazai 104. See also I Baha Bahi General Headquarters (GHQ) 62, 81, 166, 182, 205, 208 Genjo Henko 138 Gentrification 6 Genuineness 263, 269 Geographer 307 Germany 16, 109 Gfeller Aurélie Élisa 113, 122 Ginko 133, 138, 206. See also Banker Ginza 36, 177, 183, 186, 192–197 Glass 59, 283, 289 Global 55–91, 129–152 Globalism 306 Globalization 1–9, 12–14, 18, 24, 31, 32, 36–40, 48, 123, 253, 255, 281, 293, 306–307, 310–313 Glory 201, 214, 249 Goals 187, 195 God 219 Gofukuten 213 Gokomachi church 143, 154 Gomei 206 Gothic Revival 287 Goto, Osamu 15 Governance 2, 9, 12–14, 34, 309 Government 1, 2, 8–10, 15, 19, 21–23, 103–114, 119–120, 129–131, 134–138, 141, 143–147, 165–167, 170, 171, 175–177, 181–182, 185, 186, 194–196, 213, 223, 237–244, 247, 253–255, 265, 271, 277, 280, 285, 309–312
Governor 241, 277. See also Minobe of Tokyo Metropolitan, 83 Grandeur 200, 204–205 Granger, Rachel 11 Granite 206 Grant 210, 280 Great Kanto Earthquake 166, 179, 200 Greve, Carsten 8 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 205 Group(s) 241, 245–246, 293 conservation group to protect the Imperial Hotel, 82 of traditional buildings, 56 Growth 251–253, 257, 283 Guards 86–88, 90. See also Imperial; Headquarters Guesthouse. See also Imperial, Hotel State 80 Guideline(s) 132–133, 136, 148– 150, 253–257, 265–279, 286, 292, 313. See also Museum, Meiji-Mura conservation, 69–71, 111, 116–120 heritage, 36–38, 40–41, 43 Gutschow, Niels 17, 18 Gyoko-Dori 248–251, 257, 283
Hakubutsukan museum 68 Hall Public Speaking Hall of Keio University 85 Harrison, Rodney 3 Harvard University 107 Harvey, David 8, 31, 44, 311–313
Headquarters 165–169, 181–186, 198–201, 204–206, 244, 252, 258, 274, 310 former Bank of Iwate, 138 former Imperial Guards, 129 General, 62, 81 Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance, 136, 139, 144–150 of Mitsubishi, 77. See also Ichigokan Mitsui Main Building, 23 of the Imperial Guards, 21, 86–90, 110 Height 211, 218 building, 151 Heisei period 181, 195 Henrichsen, Christoph 18 Heritage 1–24, 31–48, 55–91, 103–123, 129–154, 163–222, 237–293, 305–313 intangible, 56, 59, 63–65 modern, 13–14, 17–18, 21 stone, 13, 16 traditional, 17, 21 urban, 1–5, 10, 13–15, 17–24 western, 13–14 wooden, 21 Heritage Conservation action 15, 21, 24 administration, 21–22 Heritage-led Urban Regeneration actors 19, 22–23 Heritagization 129, 276 Herzegovina Bosnia and 121 Herzfeld, Michael 12 Heterogeneity 7 Heterogenization 7 Heyday 284
Heynen, Hilde 44 Hibiya 237, 245. See also Bay Hierarchy 206, 220, 287, 306, 309 Higashi Kyugokan 73. See also Ichigokan Higashi-Muromachi 192 Himeji-jo 103, 108, 112–114. See also Castle Hirohito 88. See also Emperor Historian 204 History 191, 201, 205, 208–210, 220–223, 244, 260–264, 266, 269, 272–274, 278–279, 285, 293, 307 Ho. See Act; Law Hogo 58 Hozon, 58, 63 Kenchiku Kijun, 67, 130, 142 Shigaichi Kenchikubutsu, 141 Toshi Keikaku, 67, 130 Toshi Koen, 67 Toshi Saisei Tokubetsu Shochi, 151 Hogo Iinkai 64. See also Bunkazai; Committee Hohn, Uta 17 Hokkaido 71 Holland 8 Holy Resurrection Cathedral of the Autonomous Orthodox Church 85 Homeland 199, 222 Home Secretary 241, 246 Homogeneity 7 Homogenization 4, 7, 244, 308, 311 Honkan Mitsui 136 Horitsu 63. See also Ho; Law
Horyu-ji 103, 108, 111–114. See also Temple Hosoda, Atsuko 119 Hospital St. Luke’s International 134 Hotel Imperial 21, 73, 79–85, 90, 239 Mandarin Oriental, Tokyo, 213 Tokyo Station, 289 Hotspot commercial 254 Houbart, Claudine 40 House of Councilors 277 Hozon. See also Conservation Katsuyo Keikaku 139 Hozonkata 57. See also Edict Human 44, 199, 244, 284, 292 Hybridity 37, 61, 311 Hybridization 37 Hyogo prefecture 112
I Baha Bahi 22, 104–110 Iccho London 244 New York, 249 Ichigokan 73–79, 81, 85, 90, 242–244, 253, 258–274, 281, 292–293, 309–310 Mitsubishi, 21, 24. See also Mitsubishi Ichikawa, Seisaku 71 ICOMOS International Wood Committee (IIWC) 108 Identity 179, 212–216, 220, 285, 292–293, 309–313 national, 122
Igarashi, Akio 33 Iida, Kishiro 61 Ikko Muromachi 169, 183 Imitation 263 Imperial 163, 199–201 Capital, 240, 248, 249, 285 Capital Central Terminal Plan, 241 Diet, 246 guard headquarters, 129 Headquarters, 86–91 Hotel, 73, 79–85, 90, 239 Imperial Guards Army, 88 Japan, 56 ordinance, 141 Palace, 87, 89, 237–242, 248–249, 255, 283–286 Station, 283, 285 Imperial Guards 21, 87, 88, 90, 110 Imperialism 6, 24, 63 Implementation 254, 279 Implication 264 Importance 242, 246, 263, 284 Important Cultural Property 56, 63–67, 71, 72, 78, 85, 89–90, 129, 133, 135–137, 150, 169, 181–185, 187–190, 197–198, 258, 266, 274, 278–280, 291, 309. See also Bunkazai Important Cultural Property Special Type Specified Block System (STSBS) 129–131, 137, 143–150, 154, 188–190, 201–204 Impracticability 264 Improvement Plan 88. See also Headquarters Inaba, Nobuko 109, 110, 114
Inagaki, Eizo 180 Incentive 131–133, 136, 139, 143, 150–151, 195, 210, 280, 283, 311 Inclination 277 Industrialization 59 Industry 209, 253, 258 Infrastructure 165, 185, 255, 283 heritage, 140 Initiative 163, 182, 187, 197, 239, 253–255, 309 Inlet 237 Inoue, Kaoru Foreign Minister 239 Inscription UNESCO World Heritage 118, 122 In-situ conservation 76–78, 83–85 Installation 219 Institution 107, 120, 170, 171–177, 183–186, 188–190, 194–195, 199, 204, 212–214, 240, 250, 262, 276–280, 292, 305–307, 310–312 Institutionalization 305 Instrument 313 Insurance 310 Meiji Yasuda Life, 136, 145, 147–150, 252, 258, 274 Integration 130, 143–144, 163, 190, 213, 255, 305–307, 311 Integrity 41–42, 121, 244, 278. See also Connally Intention 255, 285 Interaction 269, 281 Interest 284–286, 292 Interior 67, 71, 78–80, 88–90, 109, 134, 200, 202, 205–207, 212, 244, 257, 286, 288, 291
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) 17, 118 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 18, 55, 109–114, 115–123, 307 Interpretation 116, 118, 187–188, 206, 305, 308 Inter-urban 171, 179 Intervention(s) 86, 91, 111, 113, 207, 210, 278, 292. See also Headquarters, of the Imperial Guards Inui-mon 87. See also Gate Inumaru, Hideo 64–66 Inuyama 67–69. See also Museum, Meiji-Mura Invention 250 Inventory 180, 185, 272. See also List of urban heritage, 64, 68, 73 Investment 170, 183–185, 192, 223, 281, 308 Investor 313 Iron 250 Isan Kindaika 140 Ise Shrine 114 Ishihara, Shintaro Tokyo governor 277 Ishin. See also Meiji, Restoration Meiji 56 Isolation 211, 238, 266, 291 Ito, Michio 72 Ito, Shigeru 187 Iwasaki, Yataro 242. See also Mitsubishi
family house, 85 Iwate 138–139. See also Bank Bank of, 186
James Stewart & Co. 200 Japan 1–3, 9, 10, 13–14, 17–22, 31–34, 36–39, 44–48, 103– 123, 130–132, 139–141, 150, 163–175, 179–183, 186–201, 204–210, 214–216, 237–239, 241–247, 248–253, 255–263, 265, 277, 279–281, 284–287, 289, 305–307 Japanese 103–123, 130, 170, 179–181, 185, 201–206, 211, 223, 237–240, 245–252, 279, 284, 292–293, 307 heritage practice, 37, 38 Japan Railway (JR) 150 Jinja 219, 221. See also Shrine Jogai 142. See also Exemption Jokilehto, Jukka 7, 16, 40 JP tower 153 JR East 310 Judgement owner’s 203 to authenticity, 115 Jugobankan. See also Building Kyu Kyoryuchi 143 Juyo Bunkazai 130
Kabutocho 167, 240, 246, 252 Kajima Corporation 84
Kakiuchi, Emiko 141 Kankyo 279 Kanri 138 Kanto 166, 168, 179, 200, 211, 241–244, 252, 257, 272, 289 earthquake, 61, 75, 80 finance bureau, 81, 88. See also Earthquake Kasumigaseki 132, 255 Kathmandu 22, 104–110, 115–116. See also I Baha Bahi Kato, Masahiro 307 Katsuyo 139. See also Conservation Kearns, Gerry 12 Keio University 85. See also Hall Kenchiku. See also Ho; Law kijun 130, 142 Kenchikubutsu 141 Kennoki, Toshihiro 83 Kenzobutsu 65, 134, 260, 266, 273 Kernel 196, 205 of authenticity, 18 Key 187–189 Kijun 130, 132, 142 Kikuchi, Juro 57, 60, 68, 69–71 Kinenbutsu 62–65, 265–266 Kirishiki, Shinjiro 83–84 Kisei. See also Deregulation kanwa 141 Kitanomaru 86–90 Kitsch 263 Kitte 152 Klijn, Erik-Hans 8 Kobe 143, 189 Kodo Riyo Chiku 147 Koji. See also Avenue Daimyo- 272 Ukiyo, 218. See also Alley
Kokikyubutsu 57. See also Edict Kokuho 63. See also Ho; Law Kondo of Horyuji 62 Kong, Lily 12 Konoe Shidan Shireibu Chosha 87. See also Headquarters; Imperial Kono, Toshiyuki 41, 118–123 Korea. See Horyu-ji Korean Cultural Heritage Administration. See Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA) Korean War 166 Koshaji 58. See Ho; Law Kotler, Philip 8 Kozan 206 Kume, Daijiro 135 Kyoryuchi 143. See also Jugobankan Kyoto 143, 189 Kyugokan 73. See also Higashi; Ichigokan
Labadi, Sophia 11–12, 115–118, 308 Land 147–148, 151, 152, 167, 171–173, 185–187, 190–192, 237–242, 246, 249, 253–255, 265, 272, 277, 282 Landmark 132, 179, 183, 191, 272–274 Landowner 32, 215, 242, 252, 281 Landscape 2, 14, 18, 132, 148–150, 182, 196–197, 214–219, 241–244, 249, 257, 266, 283, 286, 309. See also Townscape Larsen, Knut Einar 56–57, 122
Law 16, 21, 254, 264–266, 277, 287, 291 Ancient Temples and Shrines, 129–133, 135–143, 149–150, 154 Building Standards, 67, 130, 187, 188, 218 City Parks, 67 city planning, 67, 130, 182, 195, 196 decentralization, 177 fire protection, 207 for the Preservation of Old Shrines and Temples, 57 for the Protection of Cultural Properties, 58, 129 heritage, 180, 187, 189, 198, 203, 207, 208 Historical Sites, Places of Scenic Beauty, and Natural Monuments Preservation Law, 63, 141 National Treasures Preservation, 63, 141 Preservation, 141 regarding the Preservation Important Works of Fine Arts, 63 Urban Building, 142, 187, 218 Layer 213, 214–218 Layout 286 Leader 199–201, 238–240 Leadership 177, 204, 214, 238–241, 284 Leary, Michael 12 Leaseholder(s) 24, 32 Lefebvre, Henri 31 Legacy 23–24, 173–175, 179, 192, 196–198, 201, 209, 211–212,
218, 244, 276, 285, 292–293, 307, 309–310 Legislation 129, 130, 138, 141, 142, 152, 181, 182, 307 heritage, 55–59, 61–63 Legitimacy 293, 310 Lemaire, Raymond 42, 122 License 257 Life Meiji Yasuda 136, 139, 144–150, 252, 274 Linkage 198 List 110–111, 273, 287 of Japanese Modern Architecture. See Inventory World Heritage, 111, 113, 115 Listing 115 World Heritage, 115 Livingston 200, 204–206. See also Trowbridge Lloyd Wright, Frank 80–85 Lloyd Wright, Olgivanna 83 Lobby Imperial Hotel 73, 84–85, 90 Lobbying 113 Local 7–9 Location 192–196, 279–280 authenticity, 31 integrity (US), 42 Logan, William 11 Loggia 219 Lombard Street 242 London 242–251, 255, 262–263, 266, 272, 281 Long, Colin 12 Lords feudal 237, 240–242 Lowenthal, David 15–17, 31, 312 Luke 134. See also Hospital
Macdonald, Susan 39 Machinami 215 Machine differencing 3, 213, 293 Machizukuri 179, 187, 188 Maeno, Masaru 134 Main Mitsui 136, 139, 146–147 Mainichi Shimbun 76 Maintenance 197 Majority 257, 293 Makers 311 Making 241–244, 260, 276, 279 Management 120, 121, 138–139, 183–187, 201–203, 244, 255, 262, 265, 279, 281, 305, 309 Mandarin 213. See also Hotel Manhattan Plan 253–254 Manifestation 154, 305, 313 spatial, 2 urban, 4, 18 Mansions of feudal lords 237, 240–242 Marble 206 Market-directing 293 Marshland 163 Marunouchi 20, 23–24, 32–35, 44–48, 74, 75–79, 150–154, 175–179, 182, 192–195, 211, 237–264, 266, 268–293, 308–310 Masonry 168, 244 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 200 Master Architect 214, 215 plan, 175–179, 191–195 Master Plan 254
Masuda, Kanefusa 104, 108–111, 113, 114, 118, 143 Material 17, 20, 109, 111–112, 169, 206–209, 220, 241–244, 257, 263, 272, 278, 286–292. See also Fabric heritage, 32, 33, 35–37, 40–42 material-oriented, 17 Materiality 203, 274 Matsuhashi, Tatsuya 35 Matsusaka 166 Maximum 185 Mechanism 282, 308, 312 Medieval 16 Meeting 114, 123, 144–146, 147, 185–187, 194, 239, 255, 260–263, 271, 274, 287 Meiji 21–22, 56–61, 66–76, 79, 83, 89–90, 237–243, 246–252, 258, 274 Centennial, 73, 83, 89, 307 era/period, 56, 61, 66–71, 73, 79, 89, 90, 167, 206, 211 government, 57, 165, 167 heritage, 60, 68, 69, 73, 75, 84, 87 museum, 68, 73, 84, 307 nationalism, 75 period, 35, 104, 117, 307 Restoration, 56, 59 spirit, 69 Yasuda Life, 133, 136–150 Yasuda Life Insurance Headquarters, 182, 183, 186, 310 Member 255, 262–263, 265–267, 278, 280 Memorandum Vienna 2
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 137, 147–150, 186, 202–204, 209–210 Memory 257, 284, 310 Merchant 165, 167, 309 Merrill Lynch 173–175, 179, 212 Meskell, Lynn 11–14 Metal 219 Metaphor 249 Nara Document, 122 Metropolis 165 Metropolitan 14, 22, 34, 48, 69, 81–83. See also Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) Mie Prefecture 166 Milestone Nara Document 119 Militarism 63 Military 241–242 Minato-ward 136 Mining 168, 209 Minister 186 Foreign, 239 of Construction, 83 of Education, 75, 78, 277. See also Kennoki Prime, 83–85, 89. See also Sato, Eisaku Ministerial Conference on Economic Measures 185 Ministry(ies) 64, 76, 83–85, 88–90, 177, 185–187, 253 Army, 240 of Construction, 130, 132, 147, 177, 186, 187, 277 of Education and Culture, 107
of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 282 of Railways, 246 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) 185–189, 282 Minka 67 Minobe, Ryokichi 83. See also Governor Misconception on heritage practice 114 Mission 105–108. See also I Baha Bahi Mitsubishi 21–24, 73–79, 81, 85, 90, 144–147, 182, 239–248, 251–274, 281–282, 292–293, 309–311 Mitsui 23–24, 136, 139, 146–150, 154, 163–223, 309–310 Takatoshi, 166 Mitsui Main Building 168, 179–223 Mitsukoshi 183, 190–192, 198, 206, 213, 216 Mixed use 171 Mizumoto Park 83 Mode 130, 149 Modernity 59. See also Meiji Modernization 39, 57–59, 86, 104, 117, 165–167, 206, 211, 216, 239, 284 Modifications 286, 291 Monastery 22, 105. See also I Baha Bahi of I Baha Bahi, 105–107 Monopoly 23, 33, 256, 311–312 Monument 13, 22, 38, 40, 108, 111–112, 142, 191, 265–266, 287 Monumentalization 12
Morioka 138–139 Mori, Tekeshi 88. See also Coup d’état; Headquarters Mortar 288 Mostar 121 Motif 216–219 Motivation 264–266, 306, 313 Movement 305 MR1 Plan 147, 182–202, 208–210, 213–214, 222, 309. See also Mitsui; Nihonbashi Municipal(ity) 23, 148. See also Ward Muramatsu, Teijiro 78, 180 Muromachi 166–169, 179–181, 183, 192, 197, 202, 214–223. See also Nihonbashi Museum 65, 67–72, 78, 84–85, 89, 260, 268–271 Meiji-Mura, 14, 22, 68–69, 73, 84, 307 Open-air, 14, 21
Nagatacho 255 Nagoya city hall 131 Nagoya Railroad Company 68–69, 85. See also Museum Nairobi 41 UNESCO Recommendation, 2 Nairobi Recommendation 41 Naka-Dori 192, 218–219, 245–249, 253. See also Avenue Nakajima, Gentaro Education Minister 277 Nakamura, Kenjiro 64
Nakanohashi 138, 186. See also Bank; Iwate Nakatani, Norihito 76 Nara city 69, 306 conference, 17, 22, 43, 103, 108, 114, 115–118 Document, 17, 22, 44, 55, 103, 118–123, 278–279, 308 Prefecture, 62 Narrative 276, 313 national, 48 Nation 165, 187, 223, 274, 284, 307, 309, 310, 311–313 Nationalism 48, 63, 75, 122, 211, 293 National Register of Historic Places 139 Nation-State 307, 310, 313 Negotiation 136–148, 183–186, 195, 240–242, 267–270 Neighbourhood 238–240, 274 Neoliberal globalization 14 urban governance, 12 Nepal 22, 104–110 Network railway 240 transportation and pedestrian, 283 Newman, Joshua 8–10 Nihon 171, 180, 185, 188, 195, 258, 272 Nihonbashi 20, 23, 32–35, 45–48, 163–179, 190–201, 204–223, 240, 252, 279, 309 higashi, 45 honcho, 35
Nihonbashi East-Muromachi District Redevelopment (NEMDR) 214–216 Nikolai-do 85. See also Cathedral; Holy Nippon 250 Institute of Technology, 105–108 See I Baha Bahi Nippon Budokan 89 Nishimura, Yukio 57–58, 279 No. 180–183, 191–194, 213 Nobility 200 Noda, Utaro 72 Noguchi, Hideo 108 Nomination 104, 110, 111, 113–115, 117, 118, 120, 121 UNESCO World Heritage, 22 Nomura 134. See also Otemachi real estate development, 214, 218 Nomura, Kazunori 36 Norway 114 Nostalgia 218 Notifications 203
Objection 255, 262, 271 Obsolescence functional 66 Obsoleteness 75, 257. See also Ichigokan Occupation 166, 182, 205, 208. See also General Headquarters (GHQ) Office 198–201, 204–206, 210, 239, 242–246, 249–251, 260, 263, 265, 270–274, 280–283 building, 310 tower, 311
use, 136 Offshoot 306 Okada, Tsuneo 288, 291 Okamoto, Satoshi 237, 248 Olympics. See also Imperial, Hotel; War summer 166, 196 summer in 2020, 32 Tokyo Summer Games 1940, 80 Omi, Koji 186 O-ota, Hirotaro 78 Open-air Museum 307. See also Museum, Meiji-Mura Openness 269 Operation 148–150 Operational Guidelines (OG) 41–42. See also United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) UNESCO, 111, 116, 118–123 Opinion 267, 285 Opposition 272 Ordinance 143, 215, 273 Organization for Promoting Urban Development 171 third-party, 285 Oriental 213. See also Hotel Orientation 192, 198 Original 109, 112–114, 117, 123 design and form, 113, 114 fabric, 112, 117 material, 113 techniques and styles, 117 Originality 263 Ornamentation 205 Osaka Expo 81 Otemachi 196, 240, 254–255, 262, 281
Nomura building, 134 Overseas 143 Owner 134–141, 142–150, 181– 186, 192, 202, 206, 258–260, 267, 270–271, 277, 280, 309–310 land, 24 property, 8 Ownership 209, 240, 309, 311 Oxford Dictionary of Economics 8
Package economic 185–187, 223 emergency economic, 34 Palace 237–242, 248–249, 255, 283–286 Akasaka, 75 Imperial, 87, 89, 163, 309 Palimpsest 311 Pandora’s Box 17, 120, 309 Paradigm 114, 116, 119, 308 Paragraph 202–204. See also Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Parcel 242, 281 Parent, Michel 115 Paris 239, 255 Park 67, 83, 86–90 Kitanomaru, 86–90 Park Service United States National 42 Partnership(s) 144, 175, 179, 183–187, 212–214, 222, 241, 244, 251, 281, 307–311 public-private, 2, 4, 8, 21–24, 33, 35, 48
Passion 264 Past 274, 286 Patan 105–106 Pedersen, William of the Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates 171 Pelli, Cesar 204, 207 Pendlebury, John 11, 40–41 Pereira, Roders 41 Perils 220 Permission 271, 291 Permission System for Comprehensive Building Design (PSCBD) 134, 143, 147, 195 Permit 139, 143, 196, 203, 210, 242 building, 81–84 demolition, 89 Petition letters 81–84 Phase 213, 220, 252, 257–260 of I Baha Bahi Restoration, 107–108 Philo, Chris 12 Philosophy 117, 219 Physical 278, 283, 292–293 Pigsty 72 Place 165, 170, 175, 178, 195, 214–216, 223, 239, 244, 258, 263, 279, 292–293, 305–307, 309–311. See also Headquarters stigmatized, 88 Placed 202, 209 Placemaking 3–5, 18, 31, 32, 37, 44–46, 130, 212, 263, 293, 305–307 Plan 171–173, 175–179, 183–188, 191–201, 208–210, 212–214, 220–223, 239–249, 253–257, 267–269, 277, 281, 291
MR1, 309 Planetary 5 Planners 311 Planning 130–134, 142–143, 147–150, 171–173, 177, 182, 185–190, 194–196, 202, 210, 212, 248, 253–257, 258–262, 265–271, 279–285, 277, 306, 312 city, 15 urban, 10, 13, 31–34, 40–41, 45, 46 Player 281, 292 Plaza 270, 284 Plea 80. See also Olympics Plevoets, Bie 44 Podium 272, 274 Policy 117, 121, 132, 137, 139–140, 149, 167, 200, 201–206, 215, 237–239, 253–255, 262, 269, 276–277, 280, 286, 292, 306–308, 311 Politics 240, 305, 309–311 Postmodernism 103 Post Office Tokyo Central 152 Post-war 61, 63, 66, 68, 71–73, 245, 249, 253, 285–288 Potsdam Declaration 88 Power 120, 122, 170, 177, 184, 197, 201, 212–213, 220–223, 306–311 Powerhouse 31, 38 Practice 103–104, 108, 111–119, 121–123, 182, 195–196, 241, 243, 279, 292–293, 307 Practitioners 110, 117 Pratt, Mary Louise 36–39 Prerequisite 137
Presence 214, 220 Preservation 12, 13, 15–18, 41–43, 57–58, 63, 70–71, 141, 148–149, 150, 182, 203, 208, 258, 267, 274, 286–287, 292, 307–308. See also Conservation President of JR East 277 Press Conference 277 Pressouyre, Léon 118 Pride 201 national, 285 Prime Minister 83–85, 89. See also Sato, Eisaku Principle(s) 35–37, 40–41, 115, 117–119. See also Conservation of conservation, 112, 117 Priority 240, 274, 277, 292 Privatization 2, 8–12, 46, 210, 277, 313 Privilege 311 Process 239, 257, 262, 273–276, 279–280, 305–311 decision-making, 257, 262, 276 Production 307 Professionals 117–118 Profit 219 Program TDR 277, 280, 282, 283, 292 Use & Function, 289 Project 167, 171–179, 182–187, 190, 194–195, 212–216, 219– 222, 246, 255–269, 270–282, 288, 291, 292, 305, 309–310. See also Redevelopment of I Baha Bahi, 104–114 of Kathmandu, 104–114 Promotion 174, 179
Property 169, 173–175, 179–194, 196–198, 201–205, 207–210, 213, 220, 244, 252, 258–267, 270, 274, 276–279, 280, 287, 291, 307–309 Protection 12, 21, 39, 41, 58, 61–67, 76, 79, 82, 86–89, 104, 110, 130, 132, 133, 136, 139–142, 148, 154, 194–196, 198, 202–204, 207–210, 242, 245, 287, 291, 311. See also Conservation Prototype 134, 273, 306 Proximity 237 Publicness 269 Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) 8–10. See also Partnership(s) Purchasing 242 Purpose 283 Pursuit 274
Quality of place 311 Quarter 242–244 Queen Anne style 73
Raid air- 285–287 Railroad 68–71, 85. See also Company; Museum Railway 150, 238, 240, 246, 277, 286–288. See also Japan Railway (JR) Raison d’être 262
Ratification of the World Heritage Convention 55 Ratio 130, 141–143, 147–150 floor area, 277, 281, 283 Rationale 131, 188–189, 197–201, 210, 262–264, 308 of heritage conservation, 123 Rationalization 211 Rebels 88. See also Headquarters Recession 139 Recipe 258 Recognition 269, 274 Recommendation. See also Nairobi areas 41 Concerning the Safeguarding and, 41 Contemporary Role of Historic, 41 UNESCO Nairobi Recommendation, 2 UNESCO Recommendation, 41 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, 2 Reconstruction 40–41, 61, 63, 67, 69–72, 81, 104, 112, 114, 121, 143, 166, 223, 239, 265–267, 271, 285–287, 310. See also Conservation heritage, 13 urban, 10 Recovery post-disaster 179, 201 Recreation 196, 221, 281 Redbrick 24, 75, 242–248, 251– 253, 263, 309–310. See also Marunouchi
Redevelopment 1–24, 32–48, 103–123, 129–154, 163–222, 237–293, 305–309, 310–313. See also Regeneration urban, 1–24 Redux 149–150 Reform 141 decentralization, 23 national economy, 2 post-war, 205 urban governance, 9 Regeneration 19–20, 22, 31–39, 43–45, 123, 130, 132, 135, 137, 143, 148–154, 163, 171, 173–180, 182–185, 186–190, 199, 201, 209, 212–222, 255, 258, 277–286, 292, 305–311. See also Redevelopment urban, 15, 19–20, 22 Regime 313 urban, 24 Region 115–116 Register 246, 266 United States National, 41–43 Registration 139–140, 141 Regulation 141, 148, 203, 210, 242, 267, 276, 312 Rehabilitation 13. See also Conservation Reinforcement 109, 110 Rekishiteki. See also Tokyo kenzobutsu 134 Relationship 265–268, 270, 279–283 Relativism 119 Relaxation 9, 131, 186–187, 195. See also Deregulation Relic 265 Relocation 67, 69–72, 76–79, 83–85
Remains. See also Ichigokan archaeological 266 Remnant(s) 173, 238, 257, 264, 267, 274 Renaissance 200, 214 Renewal 12, 21, 170, 309. See also Redevelopment; Regeneration Repair 107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 117, 138, 203, 210, 274 Replacement 110, 286 Replica 262–264 Replication 24, 34–36, 219–220, 258–269, 274, 293, 310. See also Ichigokan Representation 308 Reproduction 214, 219–223 Request 241, 254 Requirement 265–266, 289 Researchers 107 Residue 135 Resolution 254 Resource 245, 265 Responsibility 242, 245, 280 Restaurant 289 Restoration 13, 22, 38, 56, 59, 69–71, 104–108, 109, 149, 196, 212, 240, 276–279, 286, 289, 292. See also Conservation Restriction(s) 130, 142, 150–152, 182, 187, 195, 241, 256 Restructuring 249, 252, 293 Retention 109, 112, 286 Reuse adaptive 209 Revenue 286 Revision 247 Revitalization 34, 149, 171, 177, 185–187, 194, 201 Revival 287, 291
Rezoning 9–11 Rhythm 244, 272 Right 310–312 Ripp, Mattihias 13 Rituals 119 River Nihonbashi 179 Roberts, Peter 11 Robinson, Judith 204 Roccu, Roberto 5 Rodwell, Dennis 13 Rokumeikan 68–69, 73, 79, 239. See also Conder, Josiah Role 185–187, 191–195, 244, 249, 252, 258, 293 Roof 289–291 Roppongi 194 Rössler, Mechtild 115, 120–123 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 16 Rowney, Barry 118 Rule 218, 241–242, 280 Russia 59, 79, 248 Russo-Japanese War 62, 245–251, 285
Safeguarding 121 Safety 288 Sagalyn, Lynne 8–9 Sakashita-mon 87. See also Gate Sakitani, Yasufumi 140 Sakura-Dori. See Street Edo 214–216 Sakurai, Kotaro 251 Sale 286 Sand, Jordan 17–18, 120 Sankeien 67 Santa Fe
UNESCO World Heritage Committee 108 Sapporo 71, 72 Sassen, Saskia 1, 5, 6, 306 Sato, Eisaku 84. See also Prime Minister Savas, Steve 8 Scale 249–251, 255, 258, 268, 272, 273, 283, 286, 306, 309 Scenery 277 Scheme 242, 258–262, 283, 286, 293 Schism 120 Sector 165, 167, 171–177, 211–213, 223, 237–241, 250, 253–254, 269, 279–280, 285, 309–311 Seed 166 Seismic 109, 113, 200, 211, 291 Sekino, Masaru 57, 59, 67, 76 Sekler, Eduard 107. See also Harvard University Selection 273 Selection 183–187 Selling 282 Seta, Fumihiko 35, 219, 223 Setback(s) 130, 195–196, 267 Setting 104, 116, 119, 137, 140, 144, 190–197, 243, 279–283, 307 authenticity, 40–42 Settlement 143 SF Project 258–262, 267–274 Shakespeare, William 16 Shibuya 175 Shigaichi Kenchiku Ho 141. See also Ho; Law Shimizu, Shigeatsu 58 Shinbashi 246
Shin, Hyun Bang 311 Shinjuku 175 Shino-Japanese War 80 Shirokiya 23, 165, 170–175, 309. See also Nihonbashi Shogunate Tokugawa 167 Shop Mitsui 199 Shopping 242, 252, 286 district, 191, 196 Showa period 15, 56, 73, 79, 133, 135, 140, 206, 211, 252, 307 Showa period 144–146, 181–182 Shrine 56, 58, 60–65, 67–68, 219–223 Fukutoku, 219–223 Yakusho, 222 Shuri 138 Siegenthaler, Peter 17 Significance 132, 140, 174, 180, 181, 204, 209, 260–270, 271–274, 280 Simplicity 200, 204–206 Sino-Japanese War 246 Site 141, 135–137 Size 247–251, 287 Skills 291 Skyline 257, 274, 283 Skyscraper 171, 251, 283 Slate 289 Slavery 36 Smith, Laurajane 16, 118, 121 Smith, Neil 4 Sochiho 151. See also Act; Ho Society 252, 255, 284 Japanese, 181, 201, 211 Sociologist 35, 307 Sociology 35
Soft law 16 Soja, Edward 14 Solidness 206 Solution 292 Song, Jiewon 3, 34 Space 240, 250–252, 268–271, 283, 286, 289, 308, 312 Spain 289 Spatialization 4 Special District for Urban Renaissance (SDUR) 151, 214, 260 Specified Block System (SBS) 130–137, 143–150, 171, 177, 189, 194–195, 210, 222, 255 Speculation 312–313 Spirit 113, 120, 166, 174, 192, 201, 209, 247, 285, 310 authenticity, 43 of Meiji, 69. See also Nara, Document Sprinkle, John 42 Sri Lanka 17 Stagnation 251 economic, 170, 175, 192, 201 Stakeholder 9, 11, 35, 145, 189, 195, 281–285 Standardization 38 Standard(s) 42, 104, 111, 115, 130, 131, 142 Starn, Randolph 15–16, 118 State 308–310, 313 Statement 110, 111–112 Station 238, 240–243, 245–254, 258, 265–267, 272, 276–292, 309–310 Echigoya, 213–214 Tokyo, 24, 35, 36, 150–152
Status 132, 135, 142, 143, 147, 200, 203, 211–212, 219, 245, 258, 262, 264–266, 267, 277, 287, 291–293, 313 Steel 70, 110, 168, 211, 250, 283, 287 Stewart, James 200 Stiglitz, Joseph 6 Stock Tokyo Stock Exchange 165 Stone 69–72, 73, 80, 116–118, 119, 122, 167, 206, 219, 237, 242, 288 Stone mason 212 Store 165, 166–172, 183, 192, 198, 213, 215, 216–222 Takashimaya, 153–154 Stovel, Herb 41–43, 109, 114, 116, 119, 122 Strategy 130, 132, 138, 163, 175, 182–186, 187–190, 192–196, 201, 206, 209, 213–214, 220–223, 255, 258, 271, 276–279, 284, 292–293 Street 177, 192, 196, 198, 206, 213, 214–216, 242–249, 258–262, 266, 272, 283 Edo-Sakura-Dori, 215 Naka-Dori, 215 Surugacho-Dori, 192 Streetscape 214–216, 245 Structure 104–110, 111–114, 134, 140–142, 148, 167–169, 174, 181–183, 192, 200, 202–206, 211, 214, 239, 241, 245, 249–251, 260, 264–269, 273–279, 285–287, 289–292 Struggle 308 power, 21
Style 167, 172, 191, 199–201, 205, 211, 216–220, 238–240, 243, 249–251, 263, 277, 282–285 Subcommittee 183, 277 Meiji architecture, 73, 78 Subcommittee 260–262 Subsidy 1, 9, 63, 65, 148–150, 181–182, 209, 265, 277, 280 Substance 206–207, 288 Substantiating 310 Supervision 110, 111, 171, 280 Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) 62 Surrender 88. See also Headquarters Surroundings 151, 248, 268, 279, 292, 310 Suruga-cho 192 Surugacho-Dori 192, 206. See also Street Suzuki, Hiroyuki 63, 143, 199, 279, 284, 288, 291 Sweet, Jonathan 17 Sykes, Hugh 11 Symbol 122, 195, 201, 244, 249, 257, 285–286, 292 Symposium 108–111 System 129–137, 139–140, 142– 154, 171, 177, 181–186, 187–190, 194–196, 201, 210, 211, 250, 254–255, 258–262, 264–267, 271, 277, 279–285, 291–292, 306–308, 311 urban planning, 32–34
Tahara, Yukio 35 Taisho period 73, 79, 81, 84, 137, 245, 247–252, 258, 307
Takada Company 244 Takahashi, Seiichiro 62, 64 Takahashi, Teitaro 81 Takashimaya 183 Department Store, 279 Tokyo Store, 153–154 Takashimaya 220–223 Takashina, Masayuki 108, 117 Takenaka Corporation 144 Talani, Leila 5 Tallon, Andrew 6 Tamura, Yasushi 87 Tangible 139 cultural heritage, 56, 63 Tangible 142 Taniguchi, Yoshiro 61, 71 Tanikawa, Tetsuzo 68 Teacher 247 Team 105–108, 122. See also I Baha Bahi Technique(s) 43, 104–110, 117, 119, 211, 249–251, 286–292. See also Nara, Document Technology 105–108, 199–201, 209, 211, 250 Teikoku 79. See also Imperial, Hotel Telecommunication 238 Telephone Switching Station 71. See also Hokkaido; Sapporo; Museum Temple 56, 57, 60–63, 67–68, 103 Horyuji, 62. See also Fire Todaiji, 69. See also Horyu-ji Tenement house plan 269 Terminal station 175 Terminal Plan 241
Territory 105, 177, 222 Test 112, 116–118, 120 of authenticity, 41–42 Test-pit 266 Text 112, 115, 120, 121 Theory 114, 121 Tiles 288–291 Timber 109, 167 Tokio Marine Building 82 Tokugawa, Ieyasu 163, 167, 219, 237 Tokyo 1–24, 31–48, 55–81, 81–91, 163–222, 237–293, 305–307, 310–311 Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) 14, 22–23, 32–35, 81–83, 88, 132–137, 143– 148, 151–154, 173–177, 182, 185–189, 196–198, 210, 214, 223, 253–257, 258–262, 265, 270–274, 277, 281 Tokyo Metropolitan Selected Historical Structure 134, 273–274 Tokyu 170–175 Tomatsu House 69. See also Museum Tool 312 Tourism 185 Tower 170–172, 179, 191–198, 202–203, 207, 210, 213–218, 253–260, 270–274, 282 Townbridge and Livingston 202–205 Townscape 18, 67, 239, 242, 253, 272. See also Landscape Trace 199–201 Track 288 Trade 219–222, 241, 271–274
Tradition 43, 57, 59, 113, 115, 119, 192, 211, 220, 288–291 national, 122. See also Nara, Document Tram 68 Transfer 177, 197, 210 Transfer Development Rights (TDR) 150, 277, 279, 282, 292, 309–310 Transformation 163–222, 237–292, 306, 309–312 Transnationalism 2 Transportation 277, 283 Treasure national 63–67, 69 Treatment 21, 108, 119, 265, 278, 286. See also Conservation Treaty 108, 239 Trend 305–307 Tripartite 257 Triumph 24, 247–251 over Russia, 59. See also Russo-Japanese War Troops 240 Trowbridge and Livingston 200 Trust 173, 205–206 Truthfulness 41 authenticity, 41. See also Operational Guidelines (OG) Tsuchikawa, Moto-o 68 Tung, Anthony 6 Turmoil 252
Uchida, Yoshio 76, 79 Uchisaiwaicho 255 Ueno, Kunikazu 115
Ukiyo Koji 218. See also Alley UN-Habitat 13 Uniform 218 Uniqueness 252, 312 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 3, 7, 10, 13, 18, 22, 38, 41–43, 103, 104, 107–115, 117, 118, 120–122, 278–279, 307 United States (US) 8, 32, 42 Unity 244 Upscale 312 Urban Building Law (UB) 141, 142, 187, 218 Urbanism 40, 220, 305–307 Urbanization 15, 67, 130, 140, 166, 252 Usability 269 Use 60, 67, 71, 78, 147, 148, 151, 152, 182, 202–203, 205–210, 214, 241, 244, 252, 257–260, 264–270, 277, 282–283, 288–291, 307, 311, 312 Utilization 64, 147, 185, 195, 254, 269, 277
Valletta ICOMOS Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas 2 Valley Kathmandu 105–107, 109 Value 244, 257, 266, 273, 277, 286–287, 293, 306–307, 313 Van Balen, Koenraad 44, 120
Van Oers, Ron 41 Variation 244 Variety 244 Veldpaus, Loes 41 Venice Charter 16, 22, 35, 40–41, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 204, 278. See also Charter Vibrancy 196 Vicinity 237, 255 Victimhood 307 Victory 59, 62, 79, 246, 285, 310. See also War Vienna UNESCO Vienna Memorandum 2 Vision 118, 120, 122, 175, 179, 187, 196, 238, 240–244 Vitality 196, 257 Voice 116, 122 Vories, William 143
Wainscoting wall 206 Wakefield 42. See also Birthplace Wall 78, 80, 109–110, 167, 181, 196, 198, 204, 206, 283, 288 War 58–63, 65–68, 71–73, 79– 81, 88–90, 245–249, 252, 273–277, 281–287, 293, 310 1905 War, 24 Cold War, 16, 191 post-war, 201, 205, 208 pre-war, 205 Russo-Japanese War, 62 Shino-Japanese War, 80 World War I, 59, 250
World War II, 21, 40, 88, 182, 190–192, 252 Ward 136, 147, 171–172, 175–179, 187, 194–197, 255, 264, 267, 281 administrative territory, 23 Waseda, University 175 Washington Charter 2. See also Charter Watanabe, Akiyoshi 104, 114 Watanabe, Katsuhiko 104, 107, 109 Watanabe, Yuzuru 79 Waterfront 196 Wealth 309 Weapon 313 Weaponization 4 Wedding 11 Weise, Kai 108 Weiss, Lindsay 9, 308 West 117, 166, 204, 205, 216–218, 239, 307 Westernization 61, 201 Western Style. See Heritage architecture 13 West-Muromachi 216 Wetlands 191 Widow 83. See also Imperial, Hotel Wijesuriya, Gamini 17 Wolf, Martin 6 Wood 56–57, 59, 66–67, 70, 108, 109, 111, 113, 116–119 Workmanship 119. See also Operational Guidelines (OG) authenticity, 41–42 Worthy 284
Xi’an Declaration 3
Yaesu 258, 266, 270–274, 284, 293, 310. See also Building Marunouchi Yaesu Building, 24 Yaesu District 187, 196 Yakusho Shrine 222 Yamaguchi, Hiroshi 79 Yasuda Life Insurance 136, 139, 144–150 Meiji Yasuda Life, 182–186 Yehoue, Etienne 9 Yokohama Specie Bank 191 Yokokawa, Tamisuke 168 Yosekiritsu 150. See also Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Yúdice, George 5–7 Yurakucho 246, 254–257, 281
Zaibatsu 23, 73, 167–169, 199–201, 205–211, 223, 241, 309 Zone 20, 36–39, 150. See also Contact urban aesthetic, 82 Zoning 210, 269, 312 Zukin, Sharon 3–5, 7, 12, 16, 306, 311–313