Comparative History of Urban Planning in Japan, Korea and Taiwan: A Challenge from Machizukuri

Transcription

1 Comparative History of Urban Planning in Japan, Korea and Taiwan: A Challenge from Machizukuri Shun-ichi J. Watanabe Adjunct Professor, Tokyo University of Science Abstract This is a paper based upon comparative urban planning research that presents a general view of historical development of urban planning in Japan and her former colonies of Taiwan and Korea during the time including the postwar days. It also aims at exploring its future perspectives. In the late 19th century, modern urban planning came from Western Europe and North America to Japan. Since then, the Japanese planning system has taken a basic character such as the bureaucratic initiative, the centralization of planning powers, and the emphasis upon building 'hardware' facilities. As such, it then spread to Taiwan and Korea, through each Government-General. In the prewar days, the planning system thus spread functioned as an effective tool for colonial control; in the postwar days, it was used as a strong means for the city construction under the 'development dictatorship' of newly independent governments. In the postwar Japan, Machizukuri was developed and also spread to Taiwan and Korea recently. Machizukuri has a basic character such as the people's initiative, the decentralization of planning powers, and the emphasis upon creating 'software' social systems. The author concludes that the point may be: How to make a soft landing from 'the efficient development model by centralized bureaucratic powers' to 'the model of improving the quality of life by people's participation.' Keywords: comparative urban planning, planning history, Machizukuri, NPO non-profit organization, participation, decentralization 1. Introduction A kind of social technology that can be called 'urban planning' has probably existed in many parts of the world since recorded history. Yet the urban planning that we are involved in now is a planning system of an extremely special style. It is 'modern western urban planning,' which emerged from the late 19th century to the early 20th century in Western Europe and North America following Industrial Revolution. It is a social technology that created and protected a good physical environment in the suburbia of large industrial cities and was mainly developed and supported by an emerging middle class who settled there. The concept of the Garden City had a big influence on the development of modern western urban planning. The Garden City was proposed as an answer to the problem of growing large cities by an English citizen named Ebenezer Howard. He presented his idea in his famous book published in 1898, Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. Thus Howard became a powerful source of an intellectual tradition to discuss how the city should be. He also started a tradition of practice that 'a citizen makes the city.' In fact, he established an organization corresponding to the present-day NPO, which actually built the first Garden City of Letchworth in London suburbs in There, a Garden City that was full of greenery with a small scale, low density and unmixed land use development enchanted people and professionals, presenting an powerful urban image of modern western urban planning. In the early 20th century, modern planning gradually moved from citizens' hands to that of the

2 government which had a far bigger authority, capital, and technology. Urban planning was legally institutionalized as an important element of a public service that the government provides. It became spread all over the world beyond Western Europe and North America. In this process, Japan was probably the first country in East Asia that accepted modern urban planning in full scale. Therefore, historical development of modern urban planning of East Asia starts first from the story of Japan. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were an age of imperialism of powers. Within that time frame, Japan began the invasion to surrounding countries by the Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War In around 1942, the colonies and occupied territories of the Japanese Empire covered such wide regions as: a part of the Aleutian Islands to the east; 'Manchuria,' Kwantung Leased Territory ( )and Korea to the north; Burma to the west; and Taiwan, Dutch East Indies present Indonesia and many islands in the west Pacific to the south. In 1945, the Japanese Empire collapsed as the result of the war defeat; the colonies and occupied areas were liberated, and became eventually independent. In the colonial Taiwan and Korea, the government-general was respectively set up, which introduced the Japanese planning system. In the postwar days, newly independent governments succeeded the former colonial planning system. The Japanese planning system was also planted in 'Manchuria' and other areas under the colonial rule but the respective governments replaced it with their own planning system in the postwar days. Therefore, they are not referred to in this paper, which deals mainly with the impact of the Japanese planning system to the current situation. In the following, I will discuss the historical spread of modern urban planning in East Asia from the standpoint of comparative planning research. There I will see it in terms of the spread from Europe and America to Japan, and then the one from Japan to Taiwan and Korea. What actually was the total process? How did the character of planning systems change in the process? What can we learn as for future perspectives? These are the questions to be answered in this paper. 2. Urban Planning System of Prewar Japan The first Japanese planning law was the Tokyo UrbanImprovementAct,whichwasenactedin1888 in order to remodel the premodern castle town of Edo into the modern capital Tokyo just like the Haussmann's Paris. The planning style of urban improvement was, in fact, an older one than modern planning as it aimed mainly at building such urban infrastructures as streets and parks in the urbanized area, not aiming at controlling the urbanizing areas as a whole. The act was applicable only to Tokyo, where the urban improvement works changed the physical appearance of the capital's core considerably. Narrow streets were paved and widened straight; side walks were provided with trees. People, with surprise and pleasure, welcomed devices of civilization such as gas lamps and horse cars of the street. Tokyo became a brilliant window to the Western civilization, for which urban improvement works provided physical and even psychological infrastructures. If we look back from now, however, we can say that urban improvement was rather 'urban engineering works,' which built urban infrastructures after the area is already built up, than 'urban planning,' which tries to plan, build and maintain the urban area as a whole before it is actually built up. Such 'infrastructure construction after urbanization' became basic character of the Japanese urban planning that continues until the present days. In another word, it became the 'planner's dream' to build the urban area fully equipped with infrastructures or to have a 'strong planning system.' After the World War I, the development of industry and urbanization caused the population concentration to Tokyo and other large cities, which suffered from serious social and urban problems. Then, the government, learning from the technique of modern western urban planning, enacted the nation's first City Planning Act of 1919 hereafter, 'the 1919 Act'. This law was to be applied first to the six largest cities and then to smaller cities all over the country.

3 It was the bureaucrats of the Home Ministry that took charge of this new administrative field of urban planning. Urban planning was basically assumed as the job of the central government, not that of the municipality; the former was to decide almost all planning matters and the latter was simply to enforce them. This was typically a highly centralized bureaucratic planning system and, of course, there was no legal provision for people's participation. The 1919 Act was a real modern planning system in that it aimed at the control of the whole urbanizing area with a variety of planning tools. As for the construction program, it created Land Readjustment Program mainly for suburban development in addition to the infrastructure construction of the urban improvement program. As for the land use control tool, the act institutionalized the zoning system for the first time in Japan. The implementation of the 1919 Act revealed, however, that land use control was weakened by politically strong landowners, who wanted to use their own land at their own desire, and that the construction programs did not progress much due to the lack of the fiscal resources of the government. In short, the planning practice in the prewar Japan was characterized as 'weak urban planning.' The 1919 Act, which lasted for nearly half a century, was drastically amended to the City Planning Act of 1968 hereafter, 'the 1968 Act'. This act, after going through numerous amendments since then, is the current legislation for urban planning in Japan. In the 1960s in the postwar era, the rapid economic growth started, which brought about a rich government financial situation. A huge amount of money poured into the construction of such regional infrastructures as expressways and Shinkansen, and also into the construction of such urban infrastructures as street and sewage systems. Various agencies of the central government supplied subsidies to local governments; there was little coordination among national agencies and also within local government themselves. There were hardly discussions as for the desirable urban image of each local government. As the result, the more an individual infrastructure was constructed, the more the entire urban area became physically confused. In other ward, 'strong construction programs' progressed under 'weak planning controls.' However, this system with the concentration of resources and powers in the hand of central government bureaucrats, functioned very efficiently in building expressways, industrial estates, and so on and contributed to the rapid economic growth of that time Then, how did this sort of Japanese planning system spread to the prewar colonies of Taiwan and Korea? Now we will see this as follows. 3. Urban Planning Systems of Taiwan and Korea The colonization of Taiwan started in In Taipei, the Japanese government established the Taiwan Government-General, which introduced the urban improvement program to Taiwan. The planning administration was carried out mostly by Japanese bureaucrat planners of the Home Ministry and related agencies. Local Taiwanese bureaucrats were hardly able to take part. At that time, Taipei was a small walled settlement that had been built by the Qing dynasty bureaucrats. In 1905, the government-general made a plan to completely remove the city walls and to build wide modern streets. The network of these streets was later to be extended into the surrounding undeveloped areas. In 1932, an urban plan was made to cover more than 9 times of the then urbanized area of Taipei with the planned population of 600,000 as compared with the 260,000 existing population at that time. The street network was planned to cover the entire Taipei basin, which is the central urban area of the present-day Taipei. The 1932 Plan can be seen as an application of modern planning principle in that it aimed at the control of the whole urbanizing area, exceeding the old planning frame of merely providing infrastructures of the urban improvement style.

4 In 1936, the government-general promulgated the Taiwan City Planning Order, which was a combination of the homeland's 1919 City Planning Act and 1919 Urban Building Act. The planning system under this order was maintained and extended to many colonial Taiwanese cities until the end of the war in In 1910, or 15 years later than the case of Taiwan, Japan made Korea her second colony, establishing the Korea Government-General in Seoul. In 1912, it started the urban improvement program there by broadening and straightening the former narrow streets in the midst of the historical Lee dynasty's capital of 500 years old. Here again started the planning practice and tradition of street construction as the main function of urban planning. In 1930s, the militaristic Japanese government started the invasion to the continent at full scale. In this context, the Korea Urban Area Planning Order of 1934 was promulgated by combining the homeland's 1919 City Planning Act, 1919 Urban Building Act and Land Readjustment Program. This order, as the name suggests, did not aim at improving the existing urban area but did aim mainly at developing the new urban area outside it for industrial development with a famous case of the new harbor city of Najin ( ). In Taiwan and Korea, the actual planning practice was centered on such construction works as street building and Land Readjustment. Land use controls were only carried out in areas resided predominantly by Japanese immigrants. In short, colonial urban planning was heavily oriented toward government's construction works. In doing so, each government-general sought and, in fact, realized the 'ideal image' of the projects which was never possible in the homeland under a 'week planning system.' It must be stressed that this was only possible because of the strong military power of the colonial government. In 1945, the war ended and subsequently the government-general was replaced by each national government. Japanese planning bureaucrats returned home. The colonial planning system was left over but was not replaced immediately by the new planning system of the new government. The power mechanism of the colonial planning system was utilized by literally translating 'government-general' to either 'president' South Korea and to 'Generalissimo' Taiwan. There, the planning system with concentration of powers for development and construction later functioned as an efficient tool for rapid economic development in the postwar days. The urban structure of Seoul and Taipei, as we see today, which is fully equipped with urban infrastructures may be seen by the former colonial planners as their 'dream come true' or an unexpected inheritance of the government-general. If we understand the above point as the 'continuity' of the colonial planning system, it would be also necessary to point out its 'discontinuity.' After the Japanese planners returned home, there was a huge lack in planning expertise in Taiwan and Korea. This technical vacuum was eventually filled by nationals who came back home after studying in the United States and other western countries. They have brought in planning philosophy, techniques and legislation which are completely different from the Japanese planning system. The biggest difference was the introduction of professionalism into planning as contrasted to bureaucracy embodied by the Japan's Home Ministry, whose body order is still discernible in the contemporary Japanese planning system. During 1960s, when the social, political and military disorders of the postwar days were over, Korea and Taiwan started to amend the old planning system they inherited from the colonial government in order to have their own systems. The first City Planning Acts were enacted in Korea in 1962 and in Taiwan in They had the second revision respectively in 1971 and in 1973, having had many more revisions until now. In this process, both planning systems became almost completely different from the original Japanese system. This can be seen as the 'complete independence' from the colonial planning system. 4. Birth of 'Machizukuri' One of the biggest challenges that Japanese planning system received from the postwar society was

5 'Machizukuri,' or community building. In 1952, a group of citizens stood up who wanted to maintain their good living environment in the Tokyo's suburban Town of Kunitachi, where Hitotsubashi University is located. Their activity eventually became a big citizen movement to petition for zoning designation of Education District, where land uses are strictly controlled by prohibiting some undesirable uses. In this broad historical context, the term 'Machizukuri' was created by Professor Shiro Masuda of Hitotsubashi University who was a resident in Kunitachi at that time. He published an article in which he used a new word 'Machizukuri' with a meaning near to 'municipal reform' more or less as a slogan. In 1960s, citizens and residents all over the country started various kinds of social movements in order to mitigate and protest against the negative impact of the rapid economic growth of the time. They include urban redevelopment proposals Nagoya's Sakae-Higashi district, progressive municipal administration Yokohama, opposition against industrial and residential developments Mishima and Tsujido, and neighborhood resident movements Kobe's Maruyama and Mano districts. This nature of movements was often 'opposition' to the existing system or policy of the government. People engaged in the movements called their activities 'Machizukuri.' In 1970s, however, the government began to develop various programs to respond to the people's needs that are expressed in Machizukuri activities. These programs include the Model Community Program, the Living Environment Model Program and so on. At the same time, people also began to learn that their collaboration with government would bring about better fruits. As a result, the relationship between the people and government gradually shifted from 'opposition' to 'collaboration.' In 1980, the amendment of the 1968 Act introduced the District Planning system, which aims at detailed and strict land use controls at the neighborhood level with community participation. This planning system can be seen as one of the government's responses to the growing needs of Machizukuri activities. The next year, Kobe City was the first in the nation to enact the Machizukuri Ordinance, which aims at coordinating and incorporating Machizukuri activities into the District Planning system at the local level. Many other innovative municipalities including Tokyo's Setagaya Ward followed in this line. In 1992, the Municipal Master Plan system was institutionalized for the first time in Japan. This system legally required citizen participation in the process of preparing the Master Plan. It had a great impact toward a wide and intensive practice of participation by both the people and municipality. In this context, one unique civic action was developed. Some citizen groups made 'Citizen-Made Master Plans' by their own hands, and presented them to the local municipality and citizens. Thus, some citizens demonstrated that they now have expertise for plan making. How can we orientate Machizukuri in relationship with the statutory urban planning? Well, generally speaking, there are only three sectors, or social mechanisms that produce, distribute and provide goods and services on a social scale. They are: government, market and civil society or voluntary sector. The urban facilities and services can be also provided by the government, enterprise and nonprofit organization NPO. The real essence of Machizukuri seems to correspond to the people's activities to provide urban facilities and services based upon the principle of the civil society. In 1998, the NPO Act was enacted. Since then, it became insufficient to discuss Machizukuri only in relation to urban planning; it became necessary to discuss Machizukuri as one field of the whole spectrum of NPO activities. In this context, two points must be stressed. First, the 'participation' of people and NPOs in the process of making public policies including urban planning has become crucially important. Second, the 'decentralization' of powers, especially planning powers, is also extremely important because it is necessary to guarantee such participation. Moreover, the people's participation is important not only at the process of making policies and plans but also at the stage of their implementation and even their evaluation. In short, the people's participation is now extended to the field of the production and distribution of public services. It is now clear that the government is no more the only provider of public services. In short, the point with which Machizukuri challenges to the traditional urban planning is: How can

6 people participate in all the stages of the preparation, implementation and evaluation of public policies and plans in the name of 'urban planning' as a crucial public service. This will require that the traditional urban planning which is a hard technology for construction and engineering works should be evolve into a new hard and soft social technology which would enrich the quality of people's urban life as a whole. 5. 'Machizukuri' in East Asia In comparative planning research, we pay a special attention to 'the same' and 'the different' points of each planning system. In terms of 'the same,' the starting point is the historical fact that the Japanese planning system was imposed to both Taiwan and Korea in the prewar days. In terms of 'the different,' each planning system departed from the Japanese system and evolved into its own style after the war. Recently, however, the 'same' side has surfaced again. In the late 1980s, people's activities that are very similar to the Japanese Machizukuri have risen as 'Shequ-yingzao' ( ) in Taiwan and as 'Maeul-Mandeulgi' in Korea. The social circumstances in the postwar history of South Korea and Taiwan are very similar to each other. In the cold war days after the World War II, they both had a long period of the military regime, or 'development dictatorship' that limited the political freedom and promoted economic development. The government carried out the construction of the important regional infrastructures such as expressways and has achieved economic development. In the late 1980s, the oppressive regime went out and suddenly the society as a whole became democratized. At the same time, citizen movements including Machizukuri activities started on full scale. Some academics studied and introduced the philosophy and technique of the Japanese Machizukuri to their own localities. In Taiwan, a citizen group named OURs ( ) was organized in 1992 and started a movement to propose and act for urban policies. In 1994, the central government started a social campaign named 'Shequ-zongti-yingzao' ( ) or literally 'comprehensive community building.' The campaign emphasized the importance of creating community spirit and of promoting people's participation. The central government provided various subsidy programs for the local government for hard and soft projects. In 1995, Taipei City also started a unique program to promote community activities through the project proposal system, the 'community planner' system and the 'community planning service center' program. In South Korea, a citizen group named 'Urban Solidarity' ( ) was created in 1996 and began the activity like OURs of Taiwan. Around the turn of the century, Seoul City saw a movement to preserve the traditional Korean style houses in the Pukchon area; Kwangju City saw a citizen movement to improve their neighborhood environment. In 2006, the central government started a policy of Livable City with financial subsidies and technical supports to the Machizukuri activities of all over Korea. In both Taiwan and Korea, Machizukuri activities developed in accordance with the democratization of the political system and the government plays a big role in promoting these activities. Yet in the current situation where the NPOs are still weak, too much intervention of the government may fail in growing the NPO sector as a whole. It is important to remember that Machizukuri is a grassroots activity of a 'bottom-up style' rather than a 'top-down style.' In short, the point with which these activities challenge the traditional urban planning is the need to shift from the large-scale development project for urban infrastructure to the small-scale improvement project for living environment, and also the need to shift from the centralized planning style of bureaucratic initiative to decentralized planning style of people's initiative and creativity. It should be noted that recently the international exchange of Machizukuri is increasing. After the Jiji ( ) earthquake in 1999, the exchange of experiences and expertise of the Machizukuri-style reconstruction started between the people of Taiwan and of Kobe City, which had suffered an earthquake and had started a subsequent reconstruction program 4 years before. Another exchange program is being developed by young academics of Japan, Korea and Taiwan, who have recently organized themselves into an international network,

7 named ASCOM for the comparative research of Machizukuri. It is hoped that similar international networks be organized among the citizens and government officials so that we can learn form each other. 6. Conclusion So far, I have briefly depicted the planning history of Japan, Taiwan and Korea as a diagram of 'traditional urban planning vs Machizukuri that challenges it.' I believe that this historical experience of ours may serve as a kind of model of a wider applicability to the modernization process of other areas in East Asia. The traditional planning system has been a social technology for elite bureaucrats to efficiently build regional and urban infrastructures. It can be considered as a 'centralization model' for efficient development for a society where various resources are still scarce and so have to be centralized. As the result of economic development, a mass of middle class people emerge who ask for the better quality of life and for political freedom and participation. What they need is a 'decentralization model,' envisaged by Machizukuri activities. Yet, the centralization model has been so successfully realized that the social system based upon it, has become too huge and too rigid to flexibly respond to the new demands of the society of the next era. How can we find a path of soft landing from the centralization model to the decentralization model? Machizukuri seems to be one of the answers. It is the painstaking efforts of the people who work hard creatively to shift from the traditional style to a new style. I believe that Machizukuri is what Ebenezer Howard expressed more than a century ago. That is: The peaceful path to real reform. References: Howard, Ebenezer 1898 Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, London: Swan Sonnenschein. Ishida, Yorifusa (2004) Nihon Kin-Gendai Toshi Keikaku no Tenkai (Development of the Modern and Contemporary Urban Planning of Japan ), Tokyo: Jichitai Kenkyusha. Sohn, Jung-Mok (2004) translated by Nishigaki, Y., Ichioka, M. and Lee, J.H., Nihon Tochika Chosen Toshi Keikakushi Kenkyu (Study of Urban Planning under the Japanese Colonial Rule), Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo, Original in Korean. Watanabe, Shun-ichi J 'Toshi Keikaku' no Tanjo: Kokusai Hikaku kara mita Nihon Kindai Toshi Keikaku The Birth of 'City Planning': Japan's Modern Urban Planning in International Comparison, Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo. Watanabe, Shun-ichi J. (2006) 'Machizukuri in Japan: A Historical Perspective in Participatory Community-Building Initiatives,' in Carola, Hein and Pelletier, Philippe eds. Cities, Autonomy, and Decentralization in Japan, London and New York: Routledge, pp