Haste May Make Waste: Japanese Planning Act for Tokyo and Yokohama

 

Hamakko (= a child of Yokohama)

First, in defense for Tokyo. As a capital city the development pressure on her is always greater than for Yokohama. In addition, there was 1964 Tokyo Olympics that hurried the city to rebuild ASAP from the post war rubble. It must have been under such atmosphere the farmers around Shibuya happily sold their ancestral land without much ado about natural environment. Yokohama’s landlords at that time did not have the pressure of the same level. Lucky for forests, but unlucky for landlords maybe, the title holders could own their property without any worry as before at least till 1968, the year when Japanese City PlanningAct became effective. Just 4 years difference could have done a huge difference on local forests between the two cities … And it may have reflected how officials in townhalls operated based on the 1968 Act.

At the entrance for Niiharu Citizen Forest,
houses of landlords are standing.

In Tokyo, when the local civil servants drafted city planning, their way of drawing borders was a very rough sketch. They demarcated a large area for “business district,” “commercial area,” “industrial area,” “housing,” … In this approach, it must have been natural for designation for Urbanization Control Area based on already existed large public parks, such as Shinjuku-Gyoen, Inokashira Park, etc. And in the process, small forests remained in between these large established parks were assigned to be OK-for-clear-cutting (… maybe like the original idea for the 21st century redevelopment of Jingu Gaien …). They were all destroyed, small farms were bulldozed, and rows of concrete structures were constructed. The result is the aerial view of Tokyo we can have when we depart from Haneda Airport: almost a carpet like continuation of buildings with occasional large green patches for Imperial Palace or the like.

This scenery would be inevitable for bayside area of Tokyo,
all reclaimed land artificially.
Still, almost no green to speak of ...

And this is a part of Meiji-jingu Shrine, Tokyo,
which is the official sanctuary for Japanese Emperor Meiji.
Of course,
this place is designated for Urbanization Control Area.

Yokohama was different. For one thing, people could have time, without the absolute deadline for Olympics, or the else. Landlords were not hurried for decision. City planners were able to ponder how to draw the lines. So, a master plan for city development consisted of small meshes covering the entire city. The demarcation between urbanization and urbanization control areas was far intricate than for Tokyo. One block, maybe 10m*10m, was designated for manufacturing zone which stood next to the urbanization control area of a tiny forest surrounding an old Shinto shrine. The luxury of time also allowed stake holders to negotiate enough. True, the title of Urbanization Control Area could give lots of headaches for landlords. But the city council and the townhall office can adjust the local and inheritance taxes based on the discussion with the landlords. Are you OK to let your ancestral land divided in rows of tiny houses on which you don’t have ownership anymore? Oh, I must remind you if you sell your farmland for commercial development you have to pay tax of considerable amount for your transaction. Instead, if you make your land Urbanization Control Area, you have preferential property tax treatment, and maintain your forest as is. Moreover, after your death, inheritance tax of your land levied on your kids will be discounted. Not a bad deal, don’t you think?

Male Daurian Redstart
relaxing in a winter farmland of Yokohama.

The offer must have been attractive especially for small title holders, which was/is common among Japanese farmers. Many landlords in Yokohama took the deal. Of course, there was a kind of sense of mission among city civil servants at that time. Do you remember a tale of Mr. Yoshikazu Asaba (; my posts for June 10 and 17, 2016)? I don’t say Tokyo did not have such officers at that time, but Yokohama surely had an advantage in terms of requirement of age. The merit worked well also for large mass of greens like Miho (39.5 ha), Segami (48.2 ha), and Niiharu (67.2 ha), etc. Forests. Let me explain.

Farmland attached to Niiharu Citizen Forest,
the Urbanization Control Area of Yokohama.

Among large forests in Yokohama, the entire area owned by single entity is only a handful. As long as I know such large title holders are the City of Yokohama (e.g. Yokohama Nature Sanctuary), Kanagawa Prefecture (e.g. Shikinomori Park of Kanagawa Prefecture), the government of Japan (e.g. Yokohama Park), owners of large golf courses (e.g. Hodogaya CC owned by Hodogaya CC Co.) and Keikyu Co. (owning Kanazawa Citizen Forest). Yokohama’s golf courses are one of the oldests in Japan, thanks to our history of the first modern international port for Japan. (Yokohama has lots of such advantages, probably as the favorite daughter for Japanese modern history. Please see my post for Doshi River.) The ownership of the golf courses has been established long before 1968. Landownership of Keikyu Co. is … it’s a long and complicated story of Japanese modern economy and politics since the 19th century, which is beyond the scope of this blog. What I want to say here is, the absolute majority of landlords for Yokohama’s large green spaces is small title holders. They en masse configure the large forests in Yokohama. Of course, they could see the merit of making their land for Urbanization Control Area I listed above. In addition, the negotiation the city took with these landlords would be the key why Yokohama now has lots of backyard forests. I’ll tell you about it next week.

Satoyama Garden, owned by the City of Yokohama.

If you have any questions about Yokohama’s Green Tax and Green Up Plan, please make a contact with

Strategic Planning Division, Green Environment Bureau, City of Yokohama
横浜市みどり環境局戦略企画課

Phone: 045-671-2712
FAX: 045-550-4093

Email: mk-kikaku@city.yokohama.lg.jp