Click here to view the condensed version of this article
Since the 1970s, neoliberalism has spread from Europe and the United States to the world along with the process of globalization, and Japan's urban policy has also been deeply influenced by it. This paper begins by hypothetizing that Japan's neoliberal urban policies have contributed to the polarization and differentiation of Tokyo. Through the analysis of the land scale, the author observes that the unipolar trend of Tokyo has accelerated significantly since neoliberalism became the mainstream urban policy in Japan in 2000, and the results of the spatial and policy analysis at the city scale reflect the increasingly significant urban differentiation within Tokyo. The analysis in this paper tests and supports the validity of the hypothesis proposed in this paper, and proves that there is a strong correlation between the urban policies of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the district governments and regional gentrification. This paper calls for a shift from neoliberalism to regional collaboration and from large-scale urban redevelopment to progressive urban renewal. In the post-neoliberal present, this paper provides a way to think about the paradigm shift of Chinese planning theory.
introduction
In recent years, in the context of globalization and neoliberal policies, social polarization has been regarded as one of the problems that need to be solved urgently in many countries and regions. How should urban planning respond to this problem? Socially divided at global, national and urban scales is occurring in terms of space. There is a gap between urban and rural areas, there is a polarization phenomenon of unipolar concentration in large cities, and the phenomenon of spatial differentiation within large cities is becoming more and more obvious.
Waley pointed out that since 2000, a similar trend has emerged in Japan, with political, economic, cultural, population, and social resources and activities being excessively concentrated in Tokyo and the surrounding prefectures of the Tokyo metropolitan area (the Tokyo metropolitan area is an urban agglomeration centered on the capital Tokyo, generally including Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba, and Saitama prefectures, so it is also called "one capital and three prefectures"), and the phenomenon of "one pole concentration in Tokyo" has emerged. I believe that Tokyo's polarization and polarization are inseparable from Japan's neoliberal policies. The so-called neoliberal policies are mainly market-oriented economic policies, deregulation, and fiscal austerity, including the reduction of spending in the welfare sector such as social security, housing, and the decentralization of power to local governments, and the resulting reduction in the income redistribution function of the national government. Tsukamoto argues that after the Koizumi cabinet at the beginning of the 21st century, neoliberal policies have become the mainstream of Japan's economic development and urban development.
At present, the practice of neoliberal space governance in the world is coming to an end. In the past, neoliberalism had a certain impact on China's urban and rural development, which not only led to the more intense differentiation of urban social space in the movement of excessive capital accumulation, but also affected the balance between government and market power and the adjustment of power structure. Li Lingyue argues that the theoretical paradigm of neoliberalism is based on Ford Keynesianism, and that China is guided by a planned economy, so it cannot be simply used to explain the phenomenon of urban development in China. To move beyond neoliberalism, a deeper understanding of the manifestations of neoliberalism's social space is necessary. Therefore, this paper will analyze the relationship between neoliberal urban policies and Tokyo's polarization and differentiation from the perspective of neoliberal urban governance in Japan, and discuss the problems and challenges brought about by the neoliberal crisis. It is hoped that through the study of Tokyo, Japan, it will provide a way to think about the paradigm shift of mainland planning theory. 1 Polarization in Tokyo: An Analysis Based on the Land Scale1.1 The Formation of the "Tokyo Pole Concentration".
There are two major metropolitan areas in Japan: the Tokyo metropolitan area, with Tokyo as its central city, and the Osaka metropolitan area, with Osaka as the central city. Nagao argues that during the rapid economic development of the early 1960s, the two cities attracted a large number of people through the development of labor-intensive industries represented by the textile industry, and the urban population grew rapidly. At that time, Japan's territorial spatial structure was still called the dual-center structure of the "twin-lens reflex". Since then, however, as the cost of transportation and communication has decreased, there has been a trend towards a unipolar shift toward Tokyo. In the 21st century, Japan has strengthened its neoliberal policies, and the trend of polarization in Tokyo has begun to intensify. As can be seen in Figure 1, the concentration of wealth in Tokyo, especially property values, rose sharply at a rate faster than population growth after 2000, while land prices and other wealth-related statistics in Osaka stagnated after 2000.
Fig. 1 Population and wealth concentration in Tokyo (top) and Osaka (bottom) from 1972 to 2016
In addition to the unipolar concentration of Tokyo on a national scale, there is also a concentration of wealth in the center of Tokyo. Figure 2 shows the percentage of wealth-related statistics in the three central wards (Chiyoda-ku, Chuo-ku, and Minato-ku), where there is a large concentration of government agencies, corporate headquarters, and financial institutions. It can be seen that although the growth of the share of net assets has lagged slightly, the proportion of taxable income and the proportion of population in all three districts have increased sharply since 2000. It can be seen that since neoliberal urban policies became mainstream in Japan at the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a polarization of wealth and population concentration in Tokyo on the national scale of Japan, and a differentiation in the concentration of Tokyo city center on the urban scale.
Figure 2 Concentration of population and wealth in the three central wards of TokyoIn addition, there is a trend towards both public and private sector investment in Tokyo. Figure 3 shows the change in public and private investment in Tokyo and Osaka relative to the national average (national average = 100). Tokyo's public investment surpassed the national average in 2007, and although it declined at the time of the 2011 East Japan earthquake, it exceeded the national average again in 2016; In terms of private investment, both Tokyo and Osaka have maintained levels above the national average, but the level in Tokyo is significantly higher than that in Osaka, and the gap is gradually widening.
Figure 3 Public and private sector investments in Tokyo and Osaka Prefecture from 1994 to 2016
1.2 Changes in Tokyo's urban planning policies
The transition to neoliberalism in Tokyo's urban policy can be traced back to the "Nakasone-ism" that preceded the bubble economy in the late 1980s, but it was not until the Koizumi administration in 2001-2006 that a significant shift began to take place, and neoliberalism has since become the mainstream policy of Tokyo's urban planning. Among them, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's "New Vision for Urban Development in Tokyo (2001)" is a landmark planning policy document that proposes a vision oriented towards economic growth, leading the world through the creation of a strong and vibrant global city with an economy, and a new concept of urban form centered on the central area within the Yamanote Loop JR Line. This vision of a new urban form is markedly different from the polycentric urban form proposed in the Tokyo Metropolitan Long-Term Plan (1982) and the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Plan (1986). The shift from polycentric to monocentric development is a clear reflection of Tokyo's shift in urban planning policy from a managerialism that seeks to control monocentric polarization to a government-enterprise approach that seeks to maximize economic growth. In order to realize this new urban planning vision, the Japanese government enacted the Special Law on Urban Regeneration in 2002, which provides a new planning tool, the Special Urban Regeneration Zone. When an area is designated as a special urban regeneration zone, existing urban planning regulations such as floor area ratio restrictions can be removed and developers can make new requests, which is a deregulated urban policy implemented by the Japanese government under neoliberal policies.
While the population of the Tokyo metropolitan area continued to grow, the population of central Tokyo (the three wards of the central city) showed a V-shaped curve of decreasing and then increasing around 1995 (Figure 4). From the 1960s to the 1980s, the population of Tokyo's central three wards continued to decline due to suburbanization. During the bubble economy of the late 1980s, developers and private companies bought large tracts of land in central Tokyo for speculation, and existing residents moved out of the city center, further accelerating the population decline in the three wards of Tokyo. However, after 2000, under the guidance of the planning policy of the "New Vision for Urban Development of Tokyo", the population of the three wards of Tokyo rebounded significantly due to deregulation and large-scale urban renewal projects, but this also led to the gentrification of the three wards, that is, the outflow of existing residents in central Tokyo and its surrounding areas, and the inflow of middle- and upper-middle-class and affluent people.
Fig. 4 Population change in Tokyo from 1960 to 2015 (Index: 1985=100)
Overall, the process of policy change in Tokyo's urban planning is clear, from the era of suburbanization in the early 1980s, which centered on the restriction of polarization, to the gentrification of neoliberalism as the mainstream urban policy since the beginning of the 21st century. 2 Differentiation in Tokyo: An Analysis Based on the Urban Scale2.1 Spatial Analysis of the 23 Wards of TokyoIn order to study the degree of urban differentiation and gentrification in the 23 wards of Tokyo [in view of the high concentration of population in Tokyo and the contiguous urban areas, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government has set up 23 special wards, called the "23 wards of Tokyo"), this paper collects relevant statistical data for each ward (Table 1), in which the index a~e describes the degree of urban differentiation and the index f~j reflects the degree of gentrification. Based on this, I have divided the 23 wards of Tokyo into seven districts.
Table 1 Urban differentiation index of the 23 wards of Tokyo
(1) The central area of the city. In recent years, the population of the three central wards has increased rapidly, and the gentrification caused by the migration of the middle and upper classes and wealthy people is very significant.
(2) The western central fringe area. The area is located in the immediate vicinity of the downtown area and to its western part, the population growth rate is second only to the downtown area, and gentrification is also underway.
(3) The eastern central fringe area. The area is adjacent to the downtown area and is located to the east of it. The proportion of residents living in high-rise apartments with more than 11 floors is high and growing rapidly, second only to the downtown area, and the proportion of low-income families and the elderly is also high. As a result, there is a mix of timber-framed housing areas where low-income and elderly families live and high-end residential areas where middle-class people live.
(4) North/East Inner City. High-density timber housing areas are widely distributed in the region, and low-income people and the elderly are generally concentrated, and the spatial differentiation and wealth gap between the area and the city center can be clearly observed.
(5) Western Inner City. The proportion of low-income families is high, and the proportion of young people (20~39 years old) is also high. Compared with the northern/eastern inner city, where the elderly and low-income people are concentrated, the young low-income population in this area is concentrated in the high-density wood-framed housing areas in the area.
(6) Southern Inner City. Most of the indicators are medium, reflecting the presence of different types of residential areas in the region, such as mixed industrial residential areas, urban renewal areas of coastal high-rise apartments for the middle class, and independent residential areas in the inland suburbs.
(7) Western suburbs. Relatively high income levels, a high percentage of college graduates and white-collar workers, and relatively low prices for high-rise apartments are all characteristics that characterize a typical middle-class suburb.
In summary, the traditional spatial differentiation phenomenon in Tokyo still exists, that is, there is a significant spatial difference between the wealthier western Yamanote Highland residential area and the poorer eastern Joshitachi lowland residential area. At the same time, there is a gentrification phenomenon in the eastern part of the city, especially in the eastern center of the fringe area, and the simple and clear spatial differentiation between Yamate and Joshita Town in the past has gradually become blurred and complex. In addition, under the leadership of neoliberal policies, urban renewal projects that originally targeted the middle class and the wealthy in downtown areas have been widely promoted in the inner city, and Tokyo's urban spatial differentiation has become more and more obvious. 2.2 Policy Analysis of the 23 Wards of TokyoBased on the urban development-oriented planning vision, Tokyo's urban planning policies can be broadly divided into two orientations: "large-scale urban redevelopment" and "progressive urban renewal". The former type is policy-oriented based on large-scale urban development projects, which typically involve the construction of high-rise apartments and office buildings, for example, by designating planning tools such as special urban regeneration zones to increase development intensity. This type of urban development policy is typical of neoliberal urban policies, which will largely promote the gentrification of redeveloped areas. The latter type is policy-oriented by seeking the gradual development of the city to solve the problems in the existing built-up area, so that the existing residents can live according to their original lifestyle. Based on the above analysis, a typical district from each of the seven regions classified in Table 1 will be selected as a case study (Table 2). Table 2 Construction status of redevelopment projects in the target areas of typical cases in 7 regions (data as of March 2020)
2.2.1 Analysis based on the urban policies of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government
The spatial distribution of redevelopment projects in each district can reflect the direction of urban development policies in each region. Therefore, in order to further analyze urban development policies, this article summarizes the construction status and progress of urban redevelopment projects designated by the Tokyo Metropolitan Urban Planning Department. In Table 2, Minato Ward in the downtown area has the highest index c~f representing development intensity, followed by Shibuya Ward and Koto Ward in the central fringe area, reflecting the high degree of gentrification in these areas. In addition, all indicators of Adachi Ward in the northern/eastern inner city are relatively low, reflecting a low level of gentrification in the area. The number of construction projects in the southern inner city of Ota is small, but the average building density and average plot ratio are high, at 78% and 6.25%, respectively, which means that the development intensity of the projects in this area is high, reflecting the characteristics of the recent large-scale mixed-use redevelopment projects mainly located in the coastal areas of the southern inner city. The average plot ratio of Toshima Ward in the western inner city is as high as 8.02, and the average number of floors is the highest among all case study districts at 38 floors, but the ratio of total redevelopment area and total redevelopment floor area to total area of the ward (E and F, respectively) is low. The high intensity of urban redevelopment projects in the area is due to the fact that many projects are being implemented around the Ikebukuro sub-center, which and the downtown area have been heavily renewing in recent times. However, there is still a clear spatial differentiation between high-rise urban redevelopment projects and low-rise timber residential areas in the region. In the western suburbs of Setagaya Ward, the average number of floors is as high as 21 floors, and the index is 22 floors in Adachi Ward, reflecting the ongoing implementation of tower-style urban redevelopment projects in the suburbs of Tokyo.
In summary, it can be seen that urban redevelopment projects are being vigorously promoted in Tokyo, especially in and around the city center where gentrification is significant. The analysis shows that there is a strong correlation between the degree of gentrification in Tokyo and the resulting urban differentiation and the neoliberal urban policies formulated by Tokyo. 2.2.2 Based on the analysis of the urban policies of each district, the author summarizes the basic land use policies and land use functional zones of each district according to the urban master planning documents formulated by each district (Table 3). First of all, although the number of functional zoning in Minato Ward (Zone 4) (the numbers in parentheses represent the number of functional zoning for land use in the master plan, see Table 3 for details), Shibuya Ward (Zone 6), and Koto Ward (Zone 4) are relatively small, in fact, the gentrification of these areas is quite significant with the implementation of large-scale urban redevelopment projects. For example, "harmony between the living environment and the international business core" and "solving urban problems through the implementation of urban redevelopment projects" were prioritized as the basic policies for land use in Minato Ward, while Shibuya City emphasized "urban redevelopment and land use to become more compact and dense" with "a high-level urban core with international competitiveness" as its land use policy, and redevelopment projects such as stations and roads were also included in its urban development vision.
Table 3 Basic land use policy and functional zoning in the master plan of the selected area in Tokyo
On the other hand, Adachi Ward (7 wards) and Ota Ward (13 wards) are the two wards that have developed land use policies based on the various characteristics of the existing built-up areas. For example, "Preservation of Urban Agricultural Land and Green Space Space" and "Improvement of High-Density Timber Housing Areas" in Adachi Ward Planning Documents, and "Coordination of Residential Areas and Industrial Areas" in Ota Ward. It can be said that these districts are more inclined towards gradual renewal based on the current status of existing built-up areas.
In addition, in the case of Toshima Ward, an inner city in the west, the urban development vision involves both large-scale redevelopment and gradual development of land use policies. In the document, the former is to "promote the compactness and density of various urban facilities in and around the Ikebukuro sub-center area", and the latter is to "maintain the existing mixed land use and promote the harmonious coexistence of various land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, warehouse, etc." The urban development vision of Setagaya Ward in the western suburbs also involves large-scale redevelopment and progressive land use policies.
Based on the above discussion, the urban development policies of Minato-ku, Shibuya-ku, and Koto Ward are characterized by large-scale redevelopment. This orientation to urban redevelopment is in line with real estate market trends and is driven by the private sector, with the hallmarks of a clear neoliberal policy. Adachi and Ota wards are more focused on gradual development, mainly in response to existing problems in built-up areas, and this urban policy can effectively alleviate the spatial differentiation caused by gentrification. The Toshima and Setagaya wards can be seen as a mixture of the above two types (Figure 5).
Fig. 5 Comparison of urban policies in each of Tokyo's target districts
3 Summary and discussion
This paper proposes a framework hypothesis to understand the polarization of Tokyo at the territorial scale and the differentiation within Tokyo at the urban scale under the neoliberal urban policy from a comprehensive perspective, and tests the validity of the hypothesis through spatial analysis and policy analysis. The author finds a strong correlation between Tokyo's urban polarization and differentiation and the neoliberal urban policies it enacts.
First of all, during the period of rapid economic growth in Japan in the 1960s, the massive influx of people led to the creation of two megacities, Tokyo and Osaka. Since then, the polarization of Japan's land on a national scale toward Tokyo has begun to emerge. In particular, after the Koizumi Cabinet implemented neoliberal policies in the 2000s, the concentration of wealth and population in Tokyo further accelerated, and the trend of "concentration of one pole in Tokyo" was further strengthened. At the same time, at the city scale, the concentration of affluent people and wealth in central Tokyo is becoming more pronounced. The results of the analysis suggest that the accelerating polarization in Tokyo supports the hypothesis of this paper.
Second, I found that there is a strong correlation between the urban development policies of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and each ward and the degree of gentrification in each ward. The results of the spatial and policy analysis of this paper show that the degree of gentrification is higher in the areas oriented to large-scale urban redevelopment, while the gentrification degree is lower in the areas that respect the local status quo and implement gradual renewal. As a result, Japan's population and wealth are increasingly concentrated in Tokyo, especially in the center of Tokyo, under neoliberal urban policies. Large-scale redevelopment projects in the form of high-rise real estate, which lead to gentrification, are an important reason for the concentration of wealth and wealth in the city center.
Finally, the polarization and governance crisis brought about by neoliberal urban policies in Tokyo has gradually attracted the attention and concern of Japanese planning scholars and governments, who have begun to try to alleviate the problems of uneven distribution of resources and uneven space through administrative means such as land planning. In the post-neoliberal present, it is another important content of the new planning theory to rationally deal with government and market power, and to rationally implement the centralization and decentralization of power between the central and local governments. In my opinion, there is a need to shift from neoliberal urban policies to regional collaborative urban policies, in particular: (1) promoting gradual renewal and improvement within metropolitan areas, rather than gentrification of the middle class and large-scale urban redevelopment, (2) increasing the attractiveness of small and medium-sized cities to attract creative young people, and (3) paying more attention to balanced and creative urban policies, paying attention to different social groups, and coordinating the relationship between government departments and various sectors of society.
In conclusion, the analysis and discussion of the Tokyo case in this paper shows the limitations of neoliberal urban policy as a modern national urban governance. At present, the era of neoliberalism has ended, and the paradigm shift of new planning theory is causing widespread discussion in academic circles. We can draw on the experience and lessons of Japan, such as Japan, to develop a post-neoliberal planning theory that seeks a balance between centralization and decentralization, government-directed planning and market-oriented free competition, and social equitable development and efficient economic growth, and then build a hybrid urban planning theory and development policy. UPI Author: Wei Yang (Corresponding Author), Ph.D., Southwest Jiaotong University, Postdoctoral Fellow in Architecture, Assistant Researcher. [email protected]
Tetsuo Josho, Ph.D., is a professor of urban planning, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Urban Engineering, University of Tokyo. [email protected] typography | Xu Dudu
This article was originally written by this subscription account