asian urbanism

SAMPLE 1

Resilience to catastrophic events achieved through community power

Due to its geographical location and history of frequent wars, Japan, especially its capital Tokyo, suffered from a series of natural disasters such as earthquakes and bombings followed by big fires (Sorensen 45-46). Back in Edo era, Japan repeatedly rebuilt the cities when it was struck by earthquakes and following fires, but as modern and industrial era opened, government tried different rebuilding models to make its cities more resilient to fires (Sorensen). However, most of the urban plans and modifications that the government came up with did not work out for Tokyo. For example, the Ginza transformation modeled after European cities by Thomas Water was not welcomed by Tokyoites since he failed to assess their needs and to consider the frequent natural disasters in Japan (Hein 217).

As the government could not suggest urban models that could combat the recurring natural disasters and fires, Tokyoites invented a community based method to resiliently respond to those catastrophic events. People in Tokyo created community groups called “Machizukuri” which run on self- help and self-governance (Sorensen 59). One event that Machizukuri was highly recognized for was when Kobe earthquake of magnitude 7.2 broke out in 1995 and burnt about 7,000 buildings, causing a huge number of casualties (Shaw 21). Machizukuri groups worked closely with the municipal government and urban planners in the“black zones” where roads and infrastructures were successfully recovered. On the other hand, “white zones” which did not have properly running Machizukuri were not able to recover according to their residents’ needs (Shaw 23).

Although humans cannot stop earthquakes from happening, it is possible for the city to minimize its loss by accurately assessing each community’s needs. The Machizukuri as seen in the Kobe earthquake made a great progress in the recovery process by communicating with the city officials and planners. Previously, the city government tried to come up with a one-size-fits-all masterplan of the whole Tokyo, which did not satisfy the needs of all districts since it is almost impossible for planners to evaluate the exact situations of each area. Yet, as Machizukuri actively reported their situations and asked for recoveries that fit their needs, the city could offer better infrastructure with less time and costs.

The implementation of Machizukuri shines a silver lining to Low City, the lower half of Tokyo which always has been the biggest victim of fires and disasters. Its dense, dilapidating buildings that fall behind fireproof regulations and management often caused a huge loss compared to High City, a rich half of Tokyo of which buildings and urban structures are more resilient to disasters. To fill the resilience gap between the rich and poor neighborhood like this, the city needs to work more with community groups which will offer effective ways to rebuild the city in the context of their districts. In the near future, I hope to see Tokyo listening more carefully to Machizukuri from all of its districts to relieve the gap between Low and High City to respond to future geographic catastrophes adequately and justly.

Bibliography

Hein, Carola. “Resilient Tokyo Disaster and Transformation in the Japanese City.” The resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster. Ed. Lawrence J. Vale, Ed. Thomas J. Campanella. Oxford: Oxford U Press, 2005. 213-234. Print.

Shaw, Rajib. “Kobe Earthquake: Turning Point of Community-Based Risk Reduction in Japan.” Community Practices for Disaster Risk Reduction in Japan. Tokyo: Springer, 2014. 21-31. Print.

Sorensen, Andre. “Uneven Geographies of Vulnerability: Tokyo in the Twenty-First Century.” Planning Asian Cities: Risks and Resilience. Ed. Stephen Hamnett, Ed. Dean Forbes. Oxon: Routledge, 2013. 40-66. Print.

SAMPLE 2

The two readings this week focus on the role of infrastructure in the urban fabric. Using the Cheonggye stream restoration in Seoul as a case study suggests that the distinction between infrastructure and symbolism as two distinct architectural approaches is not discrete. In many regards, Cheonggye stream has been reprogrammed to support an image of a globally competitive South Korea as well as to draw a continuous narrative between the historical Chosun dynasty to modern Korea. Kal (2011) points to the “evocation of nostalgic memory… to create a distance from the earlier discourse of modernization which called up citizens as self-sacrificing subjects working productively for national development.” In doing so the infrastructural project uses symbolism (that of historical progression) to replace symbolism (of ruthless modernization). Therefore, it changes the meaning of “modern” itself. Like in the previous notion of modernism, economic output forms a basis of today’s modernism (or postmodernism), yet today, what is “modern” also relies on nature and history to combat the impersonal face of the modernism of the past. Today’s modernism attempts to reconcile progress with history and therefore takes on a degree of self-awareness, that is awareness of its location in time, and to some degree, its purpose in history.

Allen (1999) criticizes the postmodern shift in architecture towards a “semiotic/structuralist” model that makes it impossible to “construct alternative realities.” He brings up the effects this shift has had on public policy. “[T]he twenty-five year period coinciding with the rise of postmodernism in architecture has seen a massive defunding of urban infrastructure” (Allen 1999). The Cheonggye stream restoration project, however, seems to exist in a different space—one that exists between representation/symbolism and architecture. It is a massive and significant piece of public infrastructure which also conveys clear messages of Korean identity heavily embedded within the programming of the area. Cheongye stream seems to be signaling another movement, one in which infrastructure is used as representation.

Of course, many elements of Cheonggye stream is only a representation of the past, “detached from its original context and converted into a sign” (Allen 1999). The example of Kwangtong bridge illustrates this notion: in the post-modernist eye, elements of the past are appropriated and resignified to convey ideas that are useful to the present. In this case, the ideas are formulated from the top-down, thus creating an “official” interpretation of history. This brings up many questions. Which interpretations becomes associated with infrastructure and is there room for alternative histories? Creation and reflection, processes reflected and intertwined in Cheonggyecheon, suffer when they are dictated by a single voice. They stand to benefit when the equivocality of history and progress are recognized.

SAMPLE 3

Giving new meaning to architecture?

Are urban architectural development and the quest for globalization inextricably linked? Can urban architectural development be meaningful and successful in ways that do not involve modernization? What does ‘world architecture’ entail? Such are compelling questions when exploring under-developed areas and communities. Gomez sheds light on how informally these ‘shanty towns’ of the Philippines develop, and yet there is a certain uniqueness that belongs to these people and contributes to the social and cultural vitality of the city, and Scott delves into whether these areas need and are wanted to be developed. Does architecture have the capacity to only serve some places and communities successfully, and not others?

Gomez describes the city of Manila in a stratified manner describing the bottom, middle and top stories that layer and interweave the fabric of the city. Vertical ascension is associated with increasing wealth, power and modernity. A certain raw informality persists at the bottom layer that enables dislocated informal settlers to “eke out a living from the floor and underground of the vaster cityscape” (Gomez, 66). More puzzling however is the possibility that such a state of impoverishment can be afford to be tolerated, both by the government and residents. Government policies toward informal settlement has shifted from a mentality of ‘eradication’ to ‘assimilation’ into the urban fabric. Additionally, Gomez argues that these slums “can genuinely be seen as a ‘hothouse’ of cultural creativity, economic invention and social innovation…these actors resort to their own emergency solutions to urban integration problems” (Gomez, 67).

Scott insightfully explores the complex, compelling interrelationship between architecture, humanitarian-oriented institutions such as the United Nations, governments and power, and impoverished but culturally rich communities. Framed from the standpoint of the competition leading up to and the Hearts and Minds exhibition displayed at Habitat: The UN Conference on Human Settlements, the important question of whether architecture can assume new meaning in encountering Third World communities, and provide desired solutions. More troubling than the statistic of the growing global slum population is the idea that these slums can be tolerated in the interest of state utility, as they are an essential tool of the expansion of global capitalism.

While architecture has the power to transform reality and bring about progress, it is worthy to understand what constitutes successful architectural planning and development. Ultimately, the space of impoverished communities and the institutions that are trying to help provides a unique area to push the envelope on the meaning and purpose of architecture. It is fulfilling to see that there are strides made to fuse the worlds of relief and development with those of architecture and design to shape a new “world architecture”.

Works Cited

Scott, Felicity D. E. “Cruel Habitats.” In Outlaw Territories: Environments of Insecurity/Architectures of Counterinsurgency. New York: Zone Books, 2016. 283-338.

Gomez Jr., José Edgardo A. “Concrete Jungle or Geocultural Cipher? Reading Lineage into the Perils and Prospects of Metro Manila.” In Messy Urbanism: Understanding the "other" Cities of Asia. Edited by Manish Chalana and Jeffrey Hou. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2016. 60-80.