- h % y ø

21ACHRONOLOGICALSTUDYREGARDINGTHEPLANNINGPROCESSESOFTHECENTRALDISTRICTOFMINATOMIRAI 21,AWATERFRONTREDEVELOPMENT

PROJECT INYOKOHAMA,AT ITS INCEPTION STAGE

Toshio TAGUCHI

A chronological study of the planning processes underlying Yokohama’s Minatomirai 21 scheme at its inception stage revealed that a strongvision by policy makers and the continuity of dedicated planners across its administration were essential to the project’s successfulimplementation. The scheme was originally proposed by Akira Tamura to create a new city center by relocating an existing shipyard andfreight train yards. Although Tamura, who as the chief planner advocated privatization in accordance with the local planning frameworks, wasrequired to relinquish control over the second stage of its execution, his successors havemade commendable progress in the project.

Keywords : Urbanwaterfront redevelopment, Relocation of existing industrial estates,Utilization of privatizationmethod,Local government initiatives, Continuity of chief urban plannerswithin a project

21 MM1)

2)

50 MM

MM

186ha MM 1(4ha)

(141ha)(41ha)

3) AB C D

EF

MM

MM

MM

* Vice-president, Akira Tamura Memorial-A Town Planning ResearchInitiative NPO



Toshio TAGUCHI



21 MM1)

2)

50 MM

MM

186ha MM 1(4ha)

(141ha)(41ha)

3) AB C D

EF

MM

MM

MM




Toshio TAGUCHI



21 MM1)

2)

50 MM

MM

186ha MM 1(4ha)

(141ha)(41ha)

3) AB C D

EF

MM

MM

MM


横浜みなとみらい 21 中央地区における開発方式の時系列的分析A CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY REGARDING THE PLANNING PROCESSES OF THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF MINATOMIRAI 21, A WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN YOKOHAMA, AT ITS INCEPTION STAGE

田口俊夫＊

Toshio TAGUCHI

＊　ＮＰＯ法人田村明記念・まちづくり研究会　副理事長・工博 Vice-president, Akira Tamura Memorial-A Town Planning Research Initiative NPO Technology, Dr. Eng.

日本建築学会計画系論文集第82巻第735号，1175-1185， 2017年5月J. Archit. Plann., AIJ, Vol. 82 No. 735, 1175-1185, May, 2017

DOI http://doi.org/10.3130/aija.82.1175【カテゴリーⅠ】�

─ 1175 ─

計画系　735号�

MMMM

4)

5) MM

1963

1964 12 5 ( )

1961 4

1963 1

1

6 36vision

25

21 19811975

D

44ha8ha 52ha 10 1.5

C B7) F

20ha 7ha 27ha

2

MM1967

1967 12 12

8)

1968 49)

10)

1969 2 4

11)

12)

─ 1176 ─


13)

1969 3 14)

40ha25 30

33.68ha93

1,520

1.8ha

1968 78

15)

1966 16)

17)

18)

1987 19952 1971

1972 3

1971 3

MM JR

1992

19697 19) 20)

21)

1969 12

22)

3

1970 5 1

5,000

40,100 39,800 23)

19731976

24)

1970 9

─ 1177 ─


25)

1970 726)

MM

1972 11

27.5ha35.1ha 62.6ha

27)

1973 4

MM

MM2004 2 1

MM1987 3

28)

1987 6 MM

1974

1975 35 60

30ha 29)

30) 1970 4

1971 81973 7 30ha1974

2

─ 1178 ─


1976 331) 1973

2 1978 3 311

YK32)

1977 9

1972

1977 11

12

33)

1977 12 13

34)

1978 4 2

1978 3 1

1978 4

MM

1978 11 MM1979 12 6

35)

36)

19755

MM

1980 3

1981 319 1

180ha110ha

─ 1179 ─


MM1981 3

1983 3

37)

7 1981 7

70ha3 (1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(2)

8 21982 3

10ha

MM

MM

1982 8 38)

MM

─ 1180 ─


1992 6

1978 6

1979 11

39)

1980 2 3

40)

1980 3 1241)

94,000 100

90 50

50 30

-

MM820

575 1980 342)

1983 3 770605 680

251979 20 / 1983

3 28ha680 24 / 2831 90

1978 3 2

1980 4

31 503 3 91327 9,590

1982 4 MM

MM

MM MM

1983 3 944)

27 959 5 ha3 ha

ha

19823 MM

1981MM

─ 1181 ─


1 MM21 1983

1135.1ha

101.8ha 2006 6 20113 UR

29.22 7.23

869

646 16051.6ha

21.8ha MM

4.9ha10 6ha

1983 11 MM

21 YMM 1984 7MM

1986 64 1988

MM

1994 1999 205,0601,174

1145)

UR

188,339 63,481

1983 3 5ha 3 ha 8ha8 ha

12MM

39 40

MM4 ha

MM1989

38,671.75

─ 1182 ─


MM 2 3

1964 1975

1975

1978

MM

1982

1983MM

MM

46) MM

MM

MM

UR

MM

MM

─ 1183 ─


MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

MM21

1

24 1891

2 9 31947 61947

1955GATT

3 21 21,2015Vol.86,2015.3

4 ,2006.125

,2014.76 , ,p.2833,2006.12

7

8 ,p.117,1992.29 1968 4

19721973

10

1971 2

10 4 957 1973 9

11

19592002

12 ,1969 2 513 ,1969 2 514 42

15 4216) 1963

17 ,1975.318

,1972.3 1980

19 42202122 3823 3824 4925 ,p.125,1992.226 4227 5128 , ,p.39,2004.329 4230 4231 4232 5133 4934

1978 12 15 7835

36 ,p.269,1991.537 ,p.17,1981.638 991 ,p.241,1982.839 ,p.119,1992.240

,1980 341 6942 3643 ,p.382,1993.344 21

1983.345 18 ,2007.146 ,p.8,1964.12

─ 1184 ─


A CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY REGARDING THE PLANNING PROCESSES OF THECENTRAL DISTRICT OF MINATOMIRAI 21, A WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENTPROJECT IN YOKOHAMA, AT ITS INCEPTION STAGE

Toshio TAGUCHI*

* Vice president, Akira Tamura Memorial-A Town Planning Research Initiative NPO

Minato Mirai 21 (“MM21”) is a waterfront redevelopment scheme that blends offices, residential and commercialuses in the center of Yokohama. It is regarded as one of the most courageous attempts at waterfront redevelopmentin Japan. It started with a proposal in 1964 by Akira Tamura, an eminent Japanese urban planner. This work wascommissioned by Ichio Asukata, a liberal socialist mayor of Yokohama city. They envisaged the relocation of an agingbut operational shipyard, harbor piers and railway freight yards in order to create a new site which would connecttwo existing central districts that had been separated by these industrial estates.Besides MM21, Tamura proposed other novel structural plans as “six spine projects” for Yokohama, which was

then under population influx pressure from Tokyo. Because of the city government’s financial constraints and limitedplanning power, Tamura initiated a paradigm shift in planning principles towards ceasing reliance on paternalisticsupport from central government. He strongly advocated a local planning approach with local government initiativesand also the introduction of privatization. Tamura wrote numerous books detailing his peerless experiences as aleader of the new urban planning and coordination bureau of the city for ten years. However, a chronological study ofhis work based on historical facts has not been attempted previously. This research aims to clarify the detailedprocess for planning and negotiation of MM21. The roles and positions adopted towards the MM21 scheme of theconcerned bodies such as the City, Mitsubishi Group, Japan National Railways (“JNR”), the Yokohama maritimeindustry, Japan Housing and Development Corporation and national ministries have also been explored.Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (“MHI”) owned the old shipyard, and Mitsubishi Estate acquired most of the shipyard

land, becoming the major landowner in the area. JNR operated huge freight yards within the planned area. As thearea was exclusively a harbor district, the maritime industry of Yokohama wished to protect their interests. Tamuraprepared a new industrial estate in a newly reclaimed area to relocate the shipyard which made it possible for MHIto expand its production. Tamura negotiated and reached a deal with MHI, but they could not make a decision onrelocation due to the extremely volatile economic situation surrounding the ship industry. At the same time, Tamurapersuaded JNR to either move or abandon their freight yards, which caused a strong movement of communityopposition to the relocation. Tamura envisaged an appropriate size for redevelopment of the Mitsubishi Estate interms of private investment by minimizing the volume of reclaimed land. By allowing the company to make decentprofits from the redevelopment, the construction of public infrastructure and facilities was planned mostly throughprivate contributions rather than public investment.Tamura was later required by the new mayor to relinquish control over the second stage MM21’s execution, but

Tamura’s successors were able to successfully execute the second stage of MM21. Regarding the privatization aspectof the project, Keiichi Ozawa as the new chief urban planner made a breakthrough by persuading the Mitsubishigroup and the maritime industry to introduce a land readjustment scheme in the area and also provide a newmaritime development area within it. After Ozawa left his role, Ryoichi Hirose, as the next chief planner, helpedconcerned bodies to reach agreement on the final implementation plan in 1983. Both Ozawa and Hirose were reliablestaff members of Tamura’s group. Although the redevelopment area was eventually expanded due to pressure fromconcerned parties, the continuity of dedicated chief urban planners made the project successful over a longer term.

A CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY REGARDING THE PLANNING PROCESSES OF THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF MINATOMIRAI 21, A WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT

PROJECT IN YOKOHAMA, AT ITS INCEPTION STAGE

Toshio TAGUCHI＊

＊ Vice-president, Akira Tamura Memorial-A Town Planning Research Initiative NPO Technology, Dr. Eng.

（2016 年 7 月 31 日原稿受理，2017 年 2 月 9 日採用決定）

─ 1185 ─


- h % y ø

Documents

Transcript of - h % y ø