著者

石田 頼房

出版者

東京都立大学都市研究センター

雑誌

総合都市研究 (ISSN:03863506)

巻号頁・発行日

no.74, pp.23-45, 2001-03

---

この論文は、2000年8月22-26日にフィンランドのラハチ(Lahti)で開催された、第9回ヨーロッパ日本研究学会国際会議の都市・環境分科会においてLocalInitiatives andDecentralization of Planning Power in Japanという題で行なったキーノートスピーチの日本語版であるが、掲載に当たって結論部分の充実を中心に加筆・修正を行なった。日本都市計画は国の事業として、極めて中央集権的な制度として発展してきたことは、良く知られている。このような中央集権的な制度は、1919年都市計画法によって完成し、1968年都市計画法で機関委任事務としてではあるが、都道府県知事と市町村に「分権化」されるまで、戦前・戦後を通じて維持された。さらに、1968年都市計画法以後も、国の関与を通じて実質的に中央集権的性格は強く残っており、1999年の地方分権一括法及び都市計画法の2000年改正によっても完全な形での地方分権は、にわかには期待で、きないといえよう。しかし、この論文では、このような日本都市計画の中央集権的発展を歴史的に跡づけるというよりは、そのような歴史の中にあっても、ほとんど常に、中央集権に反対する動きや、必要に迫られた地方独自の都市計画への取り組みが存在し、それが国の都市計画政策に、制度的にも技術的にも影響を与えてきたという、いわば下から上への流れに注目して検討する。この論文でLocalInitiativesといっているのはその意味である。都市計画の地方分権は、都市計画制度の上で分権が規定されれば実現するのではなく、都市計画を取り囲む政治的、経済・社会的背景、さらに都市計画に関わる総ての人々の意識・行動様式まで含めた、最近、planningculture (計画文化・計画的風土)という概念で扱われるような都市計画に関わる総体的な状況が、地方分権にふさわしく転換することによってはじめて可能になる。それは、突然に可能になるのではなく、この論文で取り扱うような地方のイニシアティブが、今後とも積み上げられることで可能になるであろう。This paper originally read at the9th Conference of European Association of Japan Studies in Lahti, Finland on August24,2000, as a keynote speech of the Urban and Environmental Section. As preparing Japanese version, the author improved the text a little and added to the last concluding section an argument which refers to a future perspective of Japanese urban planning, especially to its changing planning culture. Japanese planning is characterized by centralized planning to a degree inappropriate for a democratic society. Attempts have been made to reform this situation, but solutions are Still pending. Very recently, after enforcement of the Package Act for Decentralization of Powers in1999, the decentralization of planning powers has become an urgent task for Japanese planning. It is extremely important that the decentralization of planning powers occur in the future not in regard to national guidelines but fol1owinglocalinitiatives. This article outlines the history of Japanese modern urban planning, examining in particular local attempts at planning and the continuous tendency toward centralization. It discusses the actual situation of urban planning in Japan and concludes with the future of Japanese planning in the age of decentralized planning powers and citizens' participation. The tendency of local initiatives to be absorbed into a centralized planning system has come into existence almost simultaneously with Japanese modern urban planning. Inl888, the Ordinance for Urban Improvement Projects in Tokyo was enforced. This ordinance was national legislation although it was concerned only with one city, Tokyo. The improvement projects were developed and decided upon by the central government as national projects. They were executed and financed, however, by the Prefecture of Tokyo. This arrangement caused conflict between the central government and the Prefecture of Tokyo even though the latter was in fact not a local institution but a branch of the Ministry of Home Affairs. At the beginning of the 20th century, other Japanese metropolises as well as many local cities were faced with population growth, industrialization and urban expansion and had to find solutions without any assistance by the central government. Many innovative local initiatives were made which ultimately led to the establishment of modern Japanese urban planning based on centralized planning powers in form of the Legislation of the Town Planning Act and Urban Building Act of l919. In January 1918, Seki Hajime, the then deputy mayor of the city of Osaka, proposed a bill entitled the Osaka Urban Improvement Act. This splendid draft reflected Seki's wide knowledge of European urban planning and the localities of Osaka. This and other initiatives, however, contributed to the creation of a centralized planning system and failed as local initiatives. In the 1930s, the need for planning in small towns and rural areas neighboring metropolitan regions was increased by the evacuation policies for munitions industries. In 1933, the Ministry of Home Affairs enforced the revised Town Planning Act, which in its new form was supposed to apply to a1lcities. It was meant to strengthen the planning boards of Local Town Planning Councils by shifting planners and planning secretaries away from the Reconstruction Bureau, which had been set up after the Great Kanto Earthquake. The result, however, was a further reinforcement of the centralization of planning powers. Local initiatives were developed only in Nagoya. A group of young planners on the local planning board and in the municipal administration formed a group and published a magazine discussing planning techniques and developing new concepts. After the so-called "Fifteen Years War", from l931 to 1945, Japanese planning was faced with reconstruction of more than hundred cities and the central government decided to give priority to damaged local cities over the reconstruction of metropolitan regions. The reconstruction projects were executed along strict guidelines of the central government_ They were later blamed for having deprived cities of their local particularities through the implementation of uniform land readjustment projects. In l949, the Shoup mission made recommendations on taxation and reallocation of administrative affairs, and recommended that planning powers should be reallocated to municipalities. A revision of the Town Planning Act in line with the Shoup Recommendations was prepared in l952. It made provisions for the decentralization of planning powers and for citizens' participation. The reluctant attitude of the Ministry of Construction, however, brought down this revision. Besides provisions for decentralization of planning powers and citizens' participation, the draft of the Town Planning Act of 1952 had provisions for new planning tools, such as area demarcation and detailed zoning. Almost allot these pending provisions were realized belatedly in the New Town Planning Act of 1968 and in the Building Standard Act of l970. The backgrounds for the 1968 revision of the Town Planning Act were new tendencies surrounding town planning administration such as citizens' campaigns against urban development projects as well as emerging reformist local autonomies and their new urban planning policies. This trend continued until around l980. It resulted in the implementation of a district planning system and in increased citizen participation. However, in1982, when Yasuhiro Nakasone, president of the LDP, took the helm of central government, Japanese urban planning policy was suddenly steered into deregulation of planning control and resulted in so-called bubble economy and its break down, Legislation of a revision of the Town Planning Act in 1992 symbolized an attempt to escape from the political situation of urban planning of that period. Parties, which were out of power, proposed - for the first time in Japanese planning history a consistent counterproposal to a billet the Town Planning Act introduced by the central government. The counterproposal was elaborated by reformist lawyers, planners and citizen groups, that argued against deregulation and centralization. It was rejected in the Diet, arguing that the revision by the central government it self provided opportunities for citizens and municipalities to participate in planning. With this argument as a turning point, local initiatives by citizens and municipalities have increased and intensified. The reformation of the planning system and the planning administration with respect to the2lst century is now under debate. It should aim at establishing a new concept, appropriate for the age of decentralized planning powers and citizen' participation, based on local initiatives and long-term perspective. In conclusion, the author examined and criticized the 1999 and 2000 revisions of Town Planning Act which the central government promulgated as a necessity for the decentralization of planning powers, and proposed ideas for the system and techniques of planning in the 21st century.