Comparison of Urban Planning Cultures - The Case of Japan and England - Essay Example

? COMPARISON OF URBAN PLANNING CULTURES -The Case of Japan and England. and Comparison of Urban Planning Cultures -The Case of Japan and England. Introduction Regional and Urban Planning is a distinctive feature in states across the world. Quality of life and the ability of a region to create wealth is dependent upon urban planning of a region. However, urban planning cultures vary among nations. This paper will compare and analyse the urban planning cultures of a western state (England) and a non-western state (Japan).The The author has chosen Japan as it is a good example of a non-western nation whose urban planning culture was largely influenced by the imperialist order of the western nations. It is the author’s considered opinion that Japan is a worthy case study of planning culture in a non-western country since the country escaped the late 19th century colonization and enacted her own statutory planning policy in 1919. The historical chain of planning events in Japan points at a situation where the Japanese urban planning culture still directly influences the planning policies developed in the contemporary Japanese built environments. Analysis Although most planners argue as to portray planning as a universal concept, the essence of urban planning cultures questions this western-centred argument (Campbell and Fainstein 1996; Faludi 1973; Mandelbaum, Mazza, and Burchell 1996; Sanyal 2005). This is because planning systems in western states like England developed as a consequence of the negative effects of industrialization and urbanization (Cherry 1972; Hall 1996; Sutcliffe 1980).This This implies that planning policies in western nations like England emerged to solve urban ills such as environmental degradation and housing problems. This process enabled the western planners to reduce the effects of the ills that accompany market economy, and eventually served the needs of the majority working classes. On the flip, planning cultures in non-western countries like Japan emerged as a protest to a perceived western dominance and to enhance the spirit of national sovereignty through industrialization (Chatterjee 1993; Madanipour 2006). To adequately compare and analyses the urban planning cultures of Japan and England, it is imperative to study the influences that triggered Japan urbanism, including but not limited to: The Meiji Period, economic development of Japan, the dominance of central government, religious and philosophical dogmas, natural disasters and calamities, and technology (Tipton 2001) Meiji defiance against the imperialist order In 1853, USA fleets landed near Tokyo and Mathew Perry coerced the Japanese government to sign a treaty with the USA. It was the first time in 215 years that Japan was being forced to sign trade partnerships with a foreign country other than Netherlands and China. Japan also signed the same treaties with the UK (1854) and Russia (1857). In all these commercial treaties, Japan was not treated as an equal trade partner to the western countries. This was humiliating to Japan and disadvantageous to their economic interests. Japan was now faced with the real threat of colonization by western states. This situation triggered revolts and protests by the Japan feudal establishments (Tipton 2001). Initially, the public resentment was directed at foreign residents but later the hostility was driven to Tokugawa’s regime for what they viewed as failure of the regime to manage national security and sovereignty. Consequently, a regime change occurred and the lower-class Samurai alongside some wealthy aristocrats came into power (Norman and Dower 1975). Refreshed and reloaded, the new political regime immediately set out to build Japan as a sovereign modern-state nation against western imperialism spearheaded by UK and France. Remodelling and Modernization To see through their modern-state building agenda, the new Meiji government implemented a series of reforms, which included taxation on farm lands (Norman and Woods 2000:p.77). This became a burden to small-scale farmers who felt ripped off by the taxes (Yazaki 1968:p.279). On the other hand, the aristocratic feudal lords benefited from the land rates since they collected high farm rents from their tenants which included the small-scale farmers (Dore 1984; Norman and Woods 2000; Smethurst 1986). The exploitation of small-scale farmers and the soaring poverty levels spurred off the economic crises that were experienced during the subsequent years (Brown 1955; Dore 1984). These cases imply that the Japanese economic progress was achieved at the sacrifice of her people. The history of the Japanese urban planning system is therefore, best understood within the context of Japan’s political and industrial process. Civilisation and Enlightenment As a nascent state eager to flex her sovereignty against the imperialist order, Meiji leaders ensured political/economic reforms and cultural borrowing from the west. They captured their purpose by the slogan “civilisation and enlightenment” as a crucial cog in the wheel that drives off Japan from the unequal treaties and seclusion to economic and industrial prosperity (Beasly 1995; Tipton 2001). While the modern Japan embraced importing the western technologies, they made sure that they customised and reconciled the imported technology to meet their tastes and needs (Nakoyama 1984). This approach was also applied in the import of urban planning systems from the west. In this way, the Meiji oligarchy managed to claim a stake at their new-found independence from the imperialists’ powers. To show world powers their modernity, Japanese planners remodelled ancient feudal cities into modern ones. Members of Iwakura mission (1871-3) were impressed by the planning and industrial advances that they had seen in their visits to western nations like England and Paris. In England, the sight of towering smoke-emitting chimneys in big cities convinced the Japanese that urbanization was the only way to industrialization, and a sure manifestation of a nation’s wealth and prosperity. In France, they were impressed by the planning of Paris which the French Planner. Georges-Eugene Haussmann had designed and remodelled from a disorganized medieval city into a new modern urban environment replete with recreational parks, magnificent vistas, and avenues arranged around a common focal point. The Japanese were also aware that the developments they had seen in European nations has happened after 1800, and that the opulence they were seeing had materialized in the past 40 years. They, therefore, felt that with focus and purpose, they too, could catch up with the western level of civilisation (Kume, Healey, and Tsuzuki 2002). In this regard, the “civilisation and enlightenment” theme propagated by the Meiji regime became an enormous determinant in the formation of planning policies and objectives. The urban fabric of England and Paris, therefore, directly influenced the direction of the urban planning cultures of Japan. The urban planning objectives of Japan then became double-pronged: 1) Building industrial infrastructures like in England. 2) Establishing well-designed city centres like in Paris. Japanese officials believed they could catch up with the European imperialists if they co-opted western-style architecture and civil engineering. Accordingly, the new remodelled capital of Japan (Tokyo) was introduced. Then the Tokyo-Yokohama Railway line of 1872 was opened. Furthermore, a 1400 two-story western-style brick residential and commercial quarter was constructed by the government. In 1890, the Mitsubishi Company also constructed the Mitsubishi Red Brick Street. With these developments, infrastructural developments and constructional works became a common feature in Japan. However, with the advancements came setbacks, including: the tussles between upper class and urban poor, the 1881 fire at Ginza Brick Quarter, and the subsequent remodelling of the town centre of Tokyo (Mc Cormack 2002: p. 259) Increased industrialization and urban growth led to the enactment of public transportation like electric trains and street cars. Tokyo City Improvement Ordinance (TCIO) was set up; becoming the pioneer planning policy aimed at providing public goods in the modern Japan (Koshizawa 1991). During this period of heightened urbanization, housing shortages shot up due to expanding humanity populations in urban areas. Major railway companies took advantage of this housing shortage and embarked on erecting a large-scale housing project (Honma 1987; Ishida 1987). In the face of the challenges arising from strong urban growth, and the unequivocal will to build a strong nation; the Japanese officials enacted the statutory planning system. Inception of the Statutory Planning System The city planning act and the urban building standing act were enacted in 1919. The aim of the government, while enacting these statutory planning acts, was to ameliorate the ills of rapid urbanisation. The ministry in charge of planning in the pre-war Japan highlighted the need for building controls and affordable dwellings (Honma 1987; Ishida 1987; Koshizawa 1991). Japanese planners and British planners shared a common crisis: uncontrolled urban growth. However, Japan lacked the means to solve these urban problems. While Japan was lacklustre in dealing with the health concerns arising from uncontrolled urban growth, England was resolute in her resolve, and the urban health problems inspired England to adopt their early town-planning statutes (Hawtree 1981). Therefore, while health issues and hygiene was a significant issue in England town-planning policies, in Japan it was a minor, less significant issue. Japanese planners did not duly focus on social housing concerns, and hygiene within urban spaces. The planning system enacted in 1919 had 5 unique parts, which consisted of: Land being zoned into residential, commercial and industrial zones. Inclusion of urban building's law that guided building heights and materials. Public facility's designation to enhance accessibility of structures and their ease of use. Building line system, which controlled location of buildings along road reserves. Land re-adjustment system that allowed for flexibility in the use of private land (Ishida 1987). The results of the Japan planning system further explained the differences between western planning culture and Japan’s planning culture; Urban planning in the west being a product of a democratic system that allows for autonomy and exploration, while urban planning in Japan being a system applied from above and controlled by bureaucrats. The unique set of conditions that led to Japan’s modernization brought about three defining features of Japanese Urban Planning. This subsequent section will tackle each of the 3 defining features and interrogates how they differ with the western philosophy of urban planning. Planning linked to Technology Dominance of technology defined Japanese planning since modernization. Meiji leaders on their visit to Europe and USA were awed by the landmark brick and stone buildings of western cities. They were also impressed by the infrastructural advancements in transport and communication systems (Kume, Healey, and Tsuzuki 2002). The Japanese leaders immediately realized the significance of having industrial infrastructures as a cornerstone for improved industrialization. They, therefore, resolved to import similar technological ideas to their native Japan. While urban planning as a way of delineating and controlling land-use was not readily applied in the pre-war Japan, the setting up of industrial infrastructures was immediately adopted by the state. During this period, Engineers and Architects who designed and supervised landmark, Japanese structures were incorporated into the rank and file of Japanese planning professionals, and tasked with the role of enlightening coming generations through education. Thus, they defined Japan’s planning culture and propagated their preferences in any decision-making that involved national planning matters. (Special Editorial Committee for 50th Anniversary Special Issue of City Planning Review 2001)This explains why technologies and architectural designs are central to Japanese planning policy. However, there is a difference between Japanese perception of Science and Technology, and that of the West. This difference in perception also defines the uniqueness of Japanese Urban Planning. In Japan, there is no difference between science and technology (Bartholomew 1989; Maruyama 1996; Nakayama 1984).While in the 19th century Europe science and technology was conceived as ideas and practice (Maruyama 1996; Nakuyama 1984). It easily passes that in Japan's science and technology was adopted merely as a tool for economic growth; While in Europe science and technology not only had the best practices but also had ideas, values and morals regarding its usage. Modern science and technology landed in Japan without its ideological and philosophical components (Makayama 1984). Moreover, the Japanese government solely owned and controlled modern science and technology, and ensured that the oligarchy’s interests were fully entrenched (Burks 1985; Nakayama 1984; Spaulding and University of Michigan. The Japanese Government focused on furthering technology and practical sciences, with little regard to ideas, values and morals. Thus, by delinking philosophy from science, the development of science and technology in Japan was firmly controlled and monopolized by the government (Maruyama 1996). This monopoly heralded absence of democracy and suppression of scientific research in Japan (Bartholomew 1989). At the institutional context, planning courses in Japanese Universities are centred towards Architecture and Engineering; And with very little Social Sciences grounding. And where Social Sciences exist in planning, there is a trend of emphasizing on mathematical rational models in the decision-making involving planning. The absence of a planning curriculum that tackles the political and administrative realms defines the tradition of Japanese Urban and Regional Planning, where politics and ideologies are relegated to the back seat, and practical planning policies effected. As such, planning in Japan became to be viewed as a reserve for the few professionals who decide. Planning linked to Capitalism While the Japanese planners were inspired by the western urban planning designs, their planning objectives were inclined more towards industrial infrastructures. The city planning documents of Osaka City Council show that their monetary budget was largely directed towards constructions projects and road building (Mosk 2001). Planning controlled by autocrats Japanese planning in the pre-war era occurred under restrictive absolutism. In the early 19th-century European, cities experienced urban protests that were silenced by brute force from police and army (Benevolo 1967; Jones 1976). When the European regime realized they could not fully forcefully suppress the uprising, they embarked on alleviating housing conditions for the urban slum dwellers as a way of reconciling with the people (Ashworth 1954; Hall 1996; Jones 1976). Therefore, the western urban planning policies have been inextricably linked with the formation of urban social policies. But since most Japanese hierarchy studied in Europe, they were therefore, knowledgeable of the uprisings and revolts that could arise due to increased industrialization marked with poor housing conditions. Therefore, the Japanese parliament banned freedom of assembly and curtailed freedom of speech by censorship (Mitchel 1998). This was in an apparent scheme to thwart protests and stamp their own planning styles. This also explains why the pre-war time was marked with poor housing standards and urban spaces. Planning decisions was a sole reserve of the central government as enshrined in the 1919 City Planning Act (Ishida 1987). Before this act was enacted, there were attempts by locals to come up with their own initiatives to improve their living environment, especially their cities (Hanes 2002; Sorensen 2001). References Bartholomew, JR. 1989. The formation of science in Japan: building a research Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press Beasley, W. G. 1995. The rise of modern Japan. 2nd ed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Benevolo, L. 1967. The origins of modern town planning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brown, DM. 1955. 4ationalism in Japan: an introductory historical analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Campbell, Scott, and Susan S. Fainstein, eds. 1996. Reading in planning theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell. Chatterjee, P. 1993. The nation and its fragments: colonial and postcolonial histories, Princeton studies in culture/power/history. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Cherry, GE. 1972. Urban change and planning : a history of urban development in Britain since 1750. Henley-on-Thames: Foulis. Faludi, A., ed. 1973. A reader in planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ishida, Y. 1987a. 4ihon Kindai Toshi Keikaku no Hyakunen (A hundred years of Japan's modern city planning). Tokyo: Jichitai Kenkyusha. Koshizawa, A. 1991. Tokyo no Toshi Keikaku (City planning of Tokyo). Tokyo: Iwanami. Kume, K., Graham, H., and Chushichi T., eds. 2002. The Iwakura Embassy, 1871-1873: a true account of the Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary's journey of observation through the United States of America and Europe. 5 vols. Vol. 2: Britain. Richmond: Curzon. Madanipour, A. 2006. Urban planning and development in Tehran. Cities 23 (6), pp. 433-438 Maruyama, Masao. 1996. Shiso to Seiji inMaruyama Masao shu (The Maruyama Masao reader): 1957-1958, edited by H. Matsuzawa and M. Uete. Tokyo: Iwanami. McCormack, Noah. 2002. Making modern urban order: towards popular mobilization. Japanese Studies 22 (3):257-272. Mitchell, R.H. 1998. The rise of the surveillance state, 1900-1917. In Meiji Japan: Political, economic and social history, 1868-1912, edited by P. F. Kornicki. London: Routledge. Mosk, Carl. 2001. Japanese industrial history: technology, urbanization, and economic growth. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Nakayama, S. 1984. Academic and scientific traditions in China, Japan and the West. Translated by J. Dusenbury. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Sanyal, B., ed. 2005. Comparative planning cultures. New York: Routledge. Special Editorial Committee for 50th Anniversary Special Issue of City Planning Review. 2001a. History of CPIJ's Organization. City Planning Review: Special Issue; Fifty Years of the City Planning Institute of Japan 1951-2001 50 (4), pp. 15-60. Tipton, EK. 2001. Modern Japan: a social and political history. London: Routledge. Read More