Developing livable public space and the role of public private partnership (PPP) an overview and japanese insigh

First, it introduces urban livability concept and trend, the role of public space as a key enabler and drive, and common types of public place.. Through the case studies of several new u

Developing Livable Public Space and the Role of Public-Private

Partnership (PPP): An Overview and Japanese Insight

Kien To

PhD, Senior Planner and Urban Expert Eight-Japan Engineering Consultants Inc (EJEC)

Abstract:

This paper aims to provide a brief overview on urban public space development in global context as well as in Japan with a focus on their livability aspect, and the role of public-private partnership (PPP) First, it introduces urban livability concept and trend, the role of public space as a key enabler and drive, and common types of public place The quest for urban livability has become a trend world-wide Today, instead of economic development, cities around the world increasingly compete on the basis of livability, among some other emergent factors A wide range of activities happening in many public spaces show that the city has much to offer in terms of public life, liveliness, equality, spontaneity, creativity, temporality and overall livability Traditionally, the image of urban public space comes in the form of squares, streets, plazas, parks, open spaces, playgrounds, beaches, riverbanks, waterfront promenades, and other public facilities Local authority is often perceived to be responsible to provide them to the citizens as part of the city’s social welfare However, as cities grow and expand, their local governments usually face with increasing financial constraints to fund for the planning, design, implementation, management and maintenance of public infrastructure, including public space So they either fund only prioritized projects, or seek for other complementary resources such as from private sector New York City has initiated and shown the world the concept of incentive zoning (aka bonus zoning) in late 1960s, whereby the local authority may grant additional development capacity in exchange for the developer's provision of a public benefit or amenity as specified in the local ordinances Incentive zoning is a form

of and contributes to PPP It provides a flexible, performance-based tool that replaces harsh control with attractive incentives for a smarter urban and economic development This valuable tool helps develop privately owned public spaces (POPS), which remain located in the private property but must

be publicly accessible and usable by all members of the public at any time POPS can come in the same form of the conventional (such as urban square, park or plaza) But oftentimes, they are expected to come in complementary forms such as atrium, courtyard, forecourt, sky garden, pedestrian mall, underground shopping corridors, etc However, some stakeholders have shown their concerns, that POP resulted from incentive zoning may be just ‘pseudo-public’ and may not be fully public They may cause unwanted social exclusion, “trap” of consumerism, or unexpected restrictive security measures

In Japanese context, the Western concept of “public” and “private” interestingly did not exist in Japanese traditional society and culture People lived a rather “public” life, city planning or zoning regulations were vague, and urban spaces were mixed use and defined by the temporal events that take place therein rather than by specific physical boundaries However, the Western concept of public space has gained dominance in Japan today Japan also adopted incentive zoning tools and utilized PPP schemes widely As a result, POPS have thrived in many Japanese cities in distinctive ways Through the case studies of several new urban districts in different cities within Tokyo Greater Area (or Tokyo Capital Region), the paper demonstrates and concludes that a combination of conventional public space and complementary POPS benefits all parties (win-win) including residents, if jointly managed well The PPP instrument can substantially help solve local governments’ financing problem towards financial sustainability Ultimately, this kind of approach in the planning, design, implementation and management of livable urban public space of both types paves way towards more livable and sustainable

cities in the future

Keywords: Public space, liveability, incentive zoning, public-private partnership (PPP), place-making, Japan

1 Background

Public space and its contribution to urban livability

The quest for urban liveability1 is a key interest throughout the world, and it “continues to attract considerable attention internationally, in the media, among urban policy makers and from academics” (Bunnell & Kathiravelu, 2016) In the context of the built environment, particularly in an urban setting, urban liveability is the quality of life, where the accessibility to needs and services contributes to overall well-being2 Traditionally, cities around the world compete in the global arena on the basis of economic development However, nowadays they are increasingly emphasizing on the importance of competing on the basis of liveability, and they are re-examining their urban assets and remaking them

to enhance liveability, which consequently strengthens competitiveness (Kaal, 2011)

Public spaces - such as squares, streets, plazas, parks, playgrounds and waterfront promenades - play a key role and can become a key drive to enhance urban livability Judging various basic elements that make the city livable as mentioned earlier - from healthy environments to accessible and well-designed public places, from good public transport to recreational opportunities, and so on - many of these are closely related to key public spaces in the city Quality public spaces are “flexible spaces that can accommodate different activities, whether programmed or spontaneous, and have the capacity to transform over time to encourage new uses, energizing the site at all times” (Ryan 2006) A wide range

of activities happening in many public spaces show that the city has much to offer in terms of public life, spontaneity, liveliness, creativity and livability People passing through those spaces play a dual role: “as opposed to being a passive observer of other people’s experiences on television or video or film, in public places the individual himself is present, participating in a modest way, but most definitely participating” (Gehl 2001) Public spaces work best when they do not offer intended uses, but rather, provide opportunities for different people to make use of them in the way that suits them The mix of people that thereby results is one of the keys to understanding the importance and vitality of public spaces (Efroymson et al., 2009) Moreover, public space should be planned and designed more attractively and inclusively for all kinds of users from all walks of life, and fully accessible by all

Types of public space with a larger impact and the importance of district level

Some public spaces may have larger

impact on urban livability than others, so

which ones should be more focused? A

previous research led by the author (To

& Nakaseko, 2017) refers to the

influential Kevin Lynch’s five key

elements that substantially shape up “the

Image of the City” (1960) - namely path,

edge , district, node, and landmark – and

suggests several types of key public

space that might have larger impact to

urban livability They are (1) Main Street

(as path), (2) Promenade (as edge), (3)

District , (4) Transportation Hub &

Square (as node), (5) Central Market or

Central Park (as landmark) (Fig.1)

(Some of these types are reflected in

Case Studies section)

1

Livability (American and Canadian English) is spelled as liveability in British and Australian English

2

Source: Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=livability)

Figure 1 Suggested types of public space which may have larger impact on urban livability, based on Lynch (1960)’s five key

elements (Source: Author)

Furthermore, To et al (2018) develop the research further and conclude several important key words for planning and designing public space (some of these keywords are also reflected in Case Studies

part), such as: shared, mixed use, efficient, eco-design, inclusive, participatory, safe and comfortable

The research also emphasizes on the importance of district or neighborhood level, instead of city level People, especially residents usually do their various activities and enjoy their social life in public spaces more often in their neighborhood and possibly reach out further to the district where they live in, than they do in other parts of the entire city District level is important, as it is the intermediate level that can well connect downwards to local communities as well as upwards to the city This scale is good for scaling up from successfully tested community-level initiatives In some cases, testing new initiatives directly at this scale might also be suitable, and might be better than testing at the city-scale

2 The rise of privately owned public space and the role of public-private partnership

Public-private partnership and the rise of privately owned public space

A public–private partnership (PPP) is a cooperative arrangement between two or more public and private sectors, typically of a long-term nature (Hodge et al., 2007) Governments have adopted this approach in the history, yet more recently has it become a global trend For example, local governments around the world are increasingly in short of capital fund for developing, renewing or maintaining of public spaces to meet people’s rising needs in their emerging city So they tend to rely more on partnering with private developers through, for example a PPP scheme, to financially solve the problem The term privately owned public space (POPS) refers to urban spaces that are the result of a trade-off between local governments and private landowners or developers Landowners are granted the right to build a bulkier building than allowed by existing development control regulations, or receive a tax cut

In return, the developer is then obliged to provide a publicly usable space, or other amenities The space remains located in the private property but must be publicly accessible and usable by all members of the public at any time Another form of POP is not newly created but preserved If a landowner agrees

to maintain a piece of inner city open space instead of building the land up, and agrees to open it to the community, he is entitled to tax benefits (Dimmer, 2013) POPS may come in the same forms of the conventional (such as an urban square, park or plaza) But oftentimes, they are expected to come in complementary forms such as of atrium, courtyard, forecourt, sky garden, pedestrian mall, underground

shopping corridors, etc This approach is part of incentive zoning concept originated from US urban

planning There are various definitions of incentive zoning For example, in Levitt v Town of South Kingstown Planning Bd of Appeal, 2001 R.I Super LEXIS 12 (R.I Super Ct 2001), the court defined incentive zoning as: "The process whereby the

local authority may grant additional development

capacity in exchange for the developer's

provision of a public benefit or amenity as

specified in the local ordinances."

(USLegal.com, 2016) According to Gwinnett

County’s (USA) Unified Development

Ordinance (UDO), “incentive zoning is a

valuable tool that can be used to grant provisions

that developers want in exchange for desired

public improvements, needs, and goods

Incentive zoning contributes to strong

public-private partnerships and provides a flexible,

performance-based tool that replaces “sticks”

with “carrots” for smart growth”

It has been already half of a century since this form of public space was born (mostly likely “invented”

in the case of Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, New York City, Fig.2), and Jerold Kayden coined the term POPS in his seminal book of the same title in the year 2000 For the developer, the motivation is

Figure 2 Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan (New York), created in 1968, is one of the world’s oldest POPS (Source: MusikAnimal)

simple: the value of the incentive equals or exceeds the cost of providing the POPS, making the trading profitable The trading mechanism has been endorsed as “being a marvelously creative solution for obtaining public benefits without expenditure of taxpayer money, at a time when public sector budgets are increasingly constrained" (Kayden 2000) Oftentimes, the allowed extra space comes in the form of more top floors, and they may be rented or sold at higher prices thanks to better views While some POPS offer very limited possibilities for facilitating public interaction, some other POPS do generate

or facilitate a variety of social activities, and become truly meaningful public spaces Although there are many commonalities in planning and design POPS, there are also distinct differences between countries due to their distinctive national planning and governance cultures, each with their own institutional frameworks, perceptions of problems and available resources (Dimmer, 2013)

Shortcomings and other emerging prospects

Despite the explained merits, this approach also bears shortcomings Privatization processes have concerned some stakeholders, because it is generally believed that privately funded public space may

be just ‘pseudo-public’ and may not be fully public in the real sense For example, Langstraat & Van Melik (2013) paint a picture of modern urban public life, which is characterized by social exclusion, pasteurized consumerism and restrictive security measures However, there is an emergent angle to look

at this topic more positively The “private sector” in the PPP is not limited to only developers but includes local communities as well There have been good signs of bottom-up and participatory place-making More and more practical urban design and planning take into account inputs or initiatives from local communities and the general public, or even involve them in the planning and design processes These public participation processes certainly improve design quality, management and maintenance

of public spaces, and ultimately urban liveability in a sustainable way Because people who contribute

to the place-making processes understand their own needs, represent their own groups, want to make a change, and have a sense of ownership and pride after making contributions, so they will protect the outcomes enthusiastically In Tokyo, a case study led by the author has observed place-making initiatives by the elderly and concluded that the low-rise, high-density and small-scale contexts intensify the negotiation between public and private realms, but also make community members work more collaboratively (Chong et al., 2016) This kind of participatory processes across planning, design, management and maintenance phases contribute to urban livability for all

3 Japanese context

Overview

Traditionally, the Western concept of “public”

and “private” did not exist in Japanese culture

until late 20th century (Hidaka & Tanaka,

2001) The mixed use of spaces in Japan,

particularly in densely built up Tokyo, seems to

derive partly from space constraint due to

density Consequently, people lived a very

“public” life Because private space in the home

was limited, residents of Tokyo spent much of

their time outside, whether working, eating,

shopping, reading, relaxing, walking down the

street (Delisi, 2007), or even having a bath in

public baths Remarkably, despite this public

life, Japanese cities lack large public spaces as

perceived in the Western tradition, and

foreigners often view them as lacking a center or focal point Consequently, “public space” has been a flexible notion in Japan Oftentimes, it is not a physical and permanent boundary but a public event that determines the extent of a public space at a given time (Hidaka & Tanaka, 2001) Slessor (2001) notes this distinction and identifies religious spaces as serving the traditional roles of Western public plazas:

“Historically, there is no Japanese tradition of large urban spaces comparable to the civic squares and

Figure 3 Hojoya Festival is anually celebrated on the avenue in front of Hakozaki Shrine, Fukuoka City (Source: Author)

piazzas of Europe Public activities were held in temples and shrines, and more importantly, on the streets These were the setting for the events, festivals and activities of daily life” (Fig.3) As a result, city planning or zoning laws were vague in Japan’s urban development history (Aguirre et al, 2012) Tokyo and some other Japanese cities have successfully connected the formal, static infrastructure and built environment of the city with the more informal uses of everyday life and special occasions, such

as festivals This is achieved by flexibly allowing different usages of streets and public spaces in the city’s codes and regulations This strategy of recognizing temporality in spatial usage is particularly useful in dealing with changes in an ever-changing built environment during the course of globalization For example, the Scramble Crossing in Shibuya – well known as the world’s most crowded crossing -

is sometimes utilized for big events such as New Year count-down or Halloween celebration Nowadays, the Western concept of public space has gained dominance in Japan (Hidaka & Tanaka, 2001) Such forms as traditional shopping streets, urban pocket parks, streets and alleyways, and mega shopping malls gradually shape up the impression of public space in Japan

The rise of POPS in Japanese big cities

Japanese planning system was traditionally very uniform, standardised and top-down However, taking

a closer look, it becomes clear that incentive zoning and the provision of POPS differ significantly in different cities such as Osaka, Kyoto, Yokohama, Tokyo, and Sapporo for example Thus, local history and culture, physical and socio-economic contexts and actor networks do make a critical difference (ibid.) In an article titled “Standardised Diversity: Privately Produced Public Space in Japan”, Dimmer (2013) discusses about POPS on various spatial scales and in different cities in Japan in order to develop

a more nuanced understanding of the differentiated implications of this planning tool He agrees on a collective opinion that the planning system in Japan is generally too rigid and centralised, so in practice leaving little institutional space for appropriating plans and projects to local conditions

Take a look at some dominant cities In Yokohama City, already in the early 1970s, a more collaborative planning culture evolved, where the financially strained local government sought to mobilise private funding for highly demanded public infrastructure, including public space A progressive, long-term mayor politically backed visionary planners to formulate a unique institutional framework in Japan Today, together with Sapporo and Kanazawa, Yokohama showcases example of urban design in Japan During 2000s, however, incentive zoning seemed no longer to function well in most Japanese cities due

to issues such as a shrinking population and a hollowing-out of the local economy In Sapporo, a planned city with ample public space such as parks, wide promenades and sidewalks, planners were more critical

of incentive zoning With long and snowy winters, most noted POPS in the city center are found in form

of a new and complementary underground mall with abundant amenity spaces They are utilized to link the underground level with the street level, and their design and location were strictly controlled by district plans Furthermore, planners were aware of the shortcomings of incentive zoning and used their authoritative powers and negotiation tools to assure better design quality In Osaka, from the 1930s onwards, based on a PPP scheme, city and private

landowners began to collaboratively produce

POPS in the densely built-up Semba central

business district, creating a local planning culture

and a collaborative ecosystem between public and

private sector Unlike all other cities, Tokyo is

characterized by the absence of a clear city center

Whilst many smaller Japanese cities have

developed proper detailed spatial plans for key

areas, it is tougher for Tokyo due to its size and the

overlap between various, sometimes competing

public actors Under these circumstances,

long-term visions and far reaching, strict design control

regulations seem to be unfeasible (ibid.)

4 Case studies in Japan

Figure 4 A traditional dance performance at “Hibiya Step Plaza” at the new Tokyo Midtown Hibiya Shopping Complex (Source: Tokyo Art & Live City)

This section introduces several case studies in some new urban districts in which the author has conducted some field observations in recent years They are all located in Tokyo Greater Area - the most populous metropolitan area in the world - which comprises of Tokyo Metropolis itself and some neighbouring urban regions and areas In these urban districts, lively and livable public spaces (both conventional public space and POPS) are found

Case 1: Kashiwa-no-ha New Town (Kashiwa City, Chiba Prefecture, Tokyo Greater Area)

Confronted with various urban issues relating to the shrinking population, aging society, environment, health, crime and disaster prevention, Japan has seen a need to renew itself by developing a new town model that represents a new image of the Japanese city to the world and reflects changes in residents’ needs as resulted by their changing and diversifying lifestyles

As one of the largest urban development projects in Tokyo Greater Area, Kashiwa-no-ha is a 273-hectare new urban area under construction in Kashiwa City, Chiba Prefecture It is located in a strategic location on the Tsukuba Express train line linking Tokyo and Tsukuba Science City It takes just 35 minutes by train to cover the 20 km distance from Tokyo In December 2011, the Japanese government chose Kashiwa-no-ha to develop a "Comprehensive Special Zone for Regional Revitalization" to revitalize the Tokyo Greater Area and build a new town of the future The ambitious goal is to develop Kashiwa-no-ha to become an urban development model of the world, which integrates many of today's most trendy urban models such as intelligent, innovative, creative, livable, resilient and finally sustainable city To achieve this goal, one of the project's most strategic concepts is to build this completely new town based on a strategic partnership between three major sectors: public, private, and academia – a new form of PPP The public sector is represented by Chiba Prefecture and Kashiwa City governments, the private sector is led by Mitsui Fudosan - a leading real estate developer in Japan – together with local communities and NPOs The academia comprises of two major and prestigious universities: the University of Tokyo and Chiba University Three key phrases as development concepts are adopted to help Japan fulfil its commitment to tackle challenges for its future as well as the urban future of the world: 1) an environment-friendly city, 2) a city of new industry creation, 3) a city of health and longevity (Mitsui Fudosan, 2014)

The first milestone was the establishment of Kashiwa-no-ha Urban Design Center (UDCK), the first of its kind of urban design center for town-making in Japan This is the “headquarter" for all stakeholders, where local administrator, university expert, private developer, local community and other stakeholders such as Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) come together to share, exchange and collaborate on planning, design, implement and management for this town It serves as a "one-stop center" and a

“think-tank” for discussion and exchange, publicity and capacity building Based on this strong foundation, numerous initiatives, projects, activities and events have been being implemented, including the creation of various public spaces in this new town For example, in 2014, the Gate Square located outside the station was built together with Central Plaza, which houses the UDCK and serves

as the gateway and a focal point of the new town Table 1 summarizes some public space initiatives Table 1 Livable public space initiatives in Kashiwa-no-ha

Note: PS: Conventional public space; POPS: Privately owned public space

Public

space

Urban

Design

Center

Kashiwa

-no-ha

(UDCK)

POPS Central

Plaza within Gate Square,

in station-area zone

 Multi-purposed facility for lectures, town planning meetings and civic activities, participated by multiple stakeholders

 Independent “Think tank” for town planning, design and development

 One-stop center for various types of info

 Hosting activities and events of various types and topics (in or outside the UDCK) Source: Author

State-of-

the- art

Central

Plaza

PS +

POPS

Gate Square, in station-area zone

 Serving as a gateway to the town and providing various lifestyle services that facilitate healthy and active living It integrates environmental, healthcare, and industry creation components

 Serving as a focal point where people gather

or pass by Wi-Fi is available here Power points are available at many public resting seats, and seats in restaurants/cafes around Source: Author

Real-time

energy

monitori

ng

boards

PS Popular

public spaces (e.g near train station, bus stop, mall, etc.)

 People can read news and various information regarding traffic conditions, town planning, community events, real-time power consumption, etc., provided by various relevant agencies or organizations

 During disaster events, the boards broadcast emergency warning, evacuation information and relevant real-time data for town people Source: Author Planter

boxes

Station-area zone  Flowers, vegetables, and herbs as landscape elements are planted in station-area zone and

taken care by residents, with technical guidance from instructors and experts from the nearby Faculty of Horticulture, Chiba University

Source: Author Pop-up

market Station-area zone  “Marche Couleur”: Fresh vegetables from

local farms and snacks are sold in colorful pop-up shops held monthly with a theme

 Morning market called “Tanakanaka directly delivered from farms”: Held monthly on 4 th

Saturday, local farmers gather together and sell their fresh home-grown vegetables

Source: Kashiwa City

Case 2: Minato Mirai 21 District (Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Tokyo Greater Area)

Yokohama is the second largest city by population after Tokyo, and the most populous municipality of Japan It is the capital city of Kanagawa Prefecture and located about 27 km South of Tokyo, by the Tokyo Bay Yokohama City was developed rapidly as Japan's prominent port city after its opening up

to the West in the mid-19th Century and is one of Japan’s major ports today Until the middle of the 20th Century, the city was relatively fragmented, and polluted by heavy industry factories (such as Mitsubishi) which occupied some bay-front areas In early 1980s, Yokohama City planned to create a new central urban area which connects existing fragmented urban areas together, called Minato Mirai

21 District (MM21) A grid street system was proposed, as opposed to the common labyrinth-like street networks of many Japanese towns The plans focused on supporting vibrant urban activities and making streets safer and more comfortable for pedestrians while creating more attractive views In 2010, the city was selected by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry as one of the four "Next-Generation Energy and Social System Demonstration Areas" The city aims to become an energy-recycling city that is environmentally robust, economically strong, vibrant and lively, livable and resilient to disasters The planning approach for Minato Mirai 21 was very different from Japan’s traditional town making since the Edo era The Western concept of axis and boulevard replaced organic, un-centered street pattern The district has three urban axes linking existing urban centers and railway stations, and lead people through the MM21 to the seashore: The King Axis (starting from Yokohama Central Railway Station), the Queen Axis (starting from Sakuragicho Railway Station), and the Grand Mall Axis or Jack axis (intersecting the other 2 axes in the middle of the city) Not only do these axes support development phasing, but they also serve as linear open/public spaces and vistas with distinct qualities (Doo & Feliciano, 2010) The city also launched guidelines for urban landscape design in central areas The guidelines touch on numerous topics, such as pedestrian space, car park, bicycle parking, color, night-time lighting, architectural design, skyline, roadside landscape, outdoor advertisement and so on

This case study focuses on the Grand Mall Axis only The most prominent public space along this axis

is the Grand Mall Park, a renewal project which won a “Good Design Award 2018” After a quarter of century, new buildings and new functions had emerged around the aging park To accommodate the changes, the renewal plan added terraces between public and private zones By inviting people for a relaxing walk, the project helps people rediscover the values of public spaces as a key to driving changes

in the city Another attractive feature is green infrastructure A combination of permeable paving and crushed stone substrates creates a cycle in which rain water is collected and stored in the substrates until

it evaporates via the paving and plantings (Good Design Award, 2018) Table 2 summarizes a few livable public spaces and their supporting urban furniture along the axis as observed in a recent survey Table 2 Some livable public spaces and supporting urban furniture along Grand Mall Axis

Note: PS: Conventional public space; POPS: Privately owned public space

Public

space

E-bike

sharing

system

(called

Bay

Bike)

PS +

POPS

Popular public spaces

 E-bike sharing was first piloted in Yokohama Smart City Project in 2011-2013 and then implemented as a full bike sharing system since 2014

 People can rent a bike at a docking station and return in at any other station within the designated area

Source: Author Urban

park

POPS Grand

Mall Park3

 Shade from Zelkova trees, evaporating water from the moisture retaining brick pavement, and wind circulation, all make the surrounding environment naturally cooler (Summarized from information boards placed at the park)

Source: Author

“Smart”

pavement

and

various

artistic

seating

blocks

POPS

Sakura-dori and, and Grand Mall Park

 In Sakura-dori Street and Keyaki-dori Street, heat shielding pavement was applied Some facilities adopt water-retentive paving and permeable paving Moreover, “Yokosuka pavement” was adopted, which emits light like Noctiluca

 Artistic seating blocks under trees attract people to come, rest and linger together

Source: Author Urban

cooling

elements

central pedestrian boulevard and around Grand Mall Park

 Stone fountain installations provide landscape and micro-climate effects A water cycle is created by crushed stone covers which can store rainwater and cycle water stream vertically for ca.700 m depth underground

 Water retentive pavement and street furniture jointly make those places cooler and livelier

Source: Author Pedestria

n network

PS +

POPS

In and outside MM21

 MM 21 contains diverse pedestrian spaces built around three main axes: Queen axis, King axis and their linking Grand Mall axis

 Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses have been developed These routes form a large pedestrian network which offers good connectivity, accessibility and comfort

Source: Author

3

The Grand Mall Park is a very long park running through the Minato Mirai Central Area from north to south from between Landmark Plaza and Queen ’s Square to Shin-takashima station, and thus, being a popular walking course

Case 3: Yamashita Park’s parking facility (Yokohama City, Tokyo Greater Area)

Yamashita Park was opened in Yokohama City in

1930 During the 1980's and 1990's, Japanese largest

cities such as Tokyo, Yokohama and Osaka in Japan

were faced with a severe problem of extremely high

land price During that time, it was very difficult for

local governments to find suitable lands at suitable

locations to develop much needed infrastructure such

as public parking facilities Therefore, a variety of

underground infrastructure was proposed, and some

were constructed Especially, underground parking

facilities became popular thanks to their cost efficiency

as compared to conventional parking facilities with

costly land acquisition As a result, many underground

parking facilities were constructed under roads or

parks (although constructing underground facilities is

generally costly and technically complicated)

In the case of a new parking facility in this park, there

were four key planning and design ideas for efficient

land utilization First, the idea of building a park on top

of a parking facility was not new But the idea to

integrate a third function into the park-parking

complex - a water reservoir and pumping station - was

certainly novel and innovative at that time and even

today These three functions were constructed together

concurrently to reduce the construction cost in total,

and a collective funding by different agencies could be

possible Second, the large parking facility helped

solve the parking scarcity problem in the central areas,

thereby attract more tourists to come and visit

Yamashita Park as well as the adjacent beautiful bay

Third, the parking facility was constructed on the

ground level to reduce the construction cost as compared to the underground case and provides a great convenience and ease for car and tourist bus drivers who do not need to drive up and down Fourth, green spaces in the park serve as a green roof to for the entire complex to keep it cooler in the summer, and offer beautiful sitting and dating spots with great bay views Lastly, most parts of the parking facility were nicely covered by the park (and thus hidden), so that it does not make much unsightful impact on the historical urbanscape of the central areas near the Yokohama Port (Fig 5) Since its completion, the parking facility’s roof-top park has become a significant part of the park itself and a famous bay-viewing spot in Yokohama In short, this project demonstrates a good practice in the development of an integrated, vibrant and livable public space with a novel co-funding mechanism

Case 4: Sumida River Area (Tokyo Metropolis, Tokyo Greater Area)

Sumida River flows along the Western side of Tokyo and ends up at the Tokyo Bay Its tributaries include the Kanda and Shakujii rivers This important river can be considered as a symbolic river of Tokyo landscape Therefore, any waterfront projects in this area can potentially be of great significance. Sumida River used to be very important for Tokyo people not only as a spine of spatial distribution in the the Western side but also offered riverside public spaces for various socio-cultural and leisure activities, such as cherry blossom viewing or seasonal firework watching After World War II, due to Japan’s rapid economic growth, more factories built along the river and the increased container ship traffic polluted the river Other issues also emerged, including low water bus traffic, incompletion of river bank terraces, insufficient number of super levees for disaster prevention, and insufficient number

Figure-5 Panoramic view from Yamashita Park ’s highest level cum car park’s roof (top), car park’s entrance (middle) and cross section (bottom) (Source: Eight-Japan Engineering Consultants Inc.)

of sign boards directing ways from the closest stations to the river Therefore, there were a pressing demand to solve the pollution problem, revitalize factory sites and improve riverside landscape design

in order to re-introduce the faded traditional cultural activities

In 2006, there was a redevelopment competition

for a waterfront part of Sumida River within

Sumida Ward The objective of the plan was to

solve the above-mentioned problems and show a

new concept and policy in response to recent

significant developments around the area, such as

the Tokyo Sky Tree Tower project - the world’s

tallest tower After the completion of the tower in

2011, the number of tourists has been

significantly increasing around the Sumida River

As a result, water-transport related infrastructure

such as a wharf and a promenade to the Sky Tree

Tower became necessary in Asakusa and

Azumabashi areas The winning proposal

addressed the issues and emergent needs, and

pursued an interesting key planning concept:

“People - Town - Memory and the River” In

other words, these three elements will become

well connected through the Sumida River

Specifically, some planning and design strategies

included 1) making Sumida River close-by,

friendly and beautiful, 2) promoting an atractive,

enjoyable and active lifestyle for people, 3)

creating linkages between the waterfront and

nearby residential areas and the waterfront with

the town, 4) revitalizing traditional cultural

activities, and 5) connecting people from all

walks of life Many of these goals relate to a

network of livable public spaces along the river As such, the team significantly proposed a riverside promenade with steps, which serve as an “amphitheatre” for people to sit down and enjoy viewing spring cherry blossom as well as firework festival in the summer (Fig 6) Fig 7 shows some implemented parts of the project

Case 5: Kawasaki Station Area (Kawasaki City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Tokyo Greater Area)

Kawasaki station is located just about 20 minutes away from Tokyo Station and about 30 minutes from Haneda Airport by train It is served by two train lines, namely JR (Japanese Railways) and Keikyu In

1872, the station was opened as the first intermediate station of the first railway in Japan As the World War I broke out, steel demand rose up and many public steel companies were established Since then, more and more factories were built here including Tokyo electricity (Toshiba), sugar and weapon factories During World War II, Kawasaki was a target for air raids mostly because of the weapon factories as well as railways which transported their materials and products Kawasaki Station area was completely destroyed However, it was gradually reconstructed after the war, and further developed to become a commercial area with shopping malls, department stores, shops and theaters around the station

as seen today During 1980s, various issues emerged around Kawasaki station For example, Dai-Nippon Meiji Sugar Company closed down their confectionary factory in 1989, leaving the Northern side of the station a huge abandoned and polluted factory site Tokyo electricity (Toshiba) was also closed down later in the year 2000 Another issue was that many facilities needed to get renewed and cleaned up Although there were couple of public housing estates in the Eastern and Western sides of the station, there were very few market places, and the housing estates were downgraded as well

Figure 7 Implementation of some key sub-projects (Source: Eight-Japan Engineering Consultants Inc.) Figure 6: Bird-eye view of Site and part of the proposal (Source: Eight-Japan Engineering Consultants Inc.)