著者

阿部 亮吾

出版者

一般社団法人 人文地理学会

雑誌

人文地理 (ISSN:00187216)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.58, no.2, pp.197-213, 2006 (Released:2018-01-06)

参考文献数

88

---

Hiroshima is very famous because it was the first city in the history of the world that was hit by an atomic bomb. The purpose of this paper is to explore the controversy over the conservation or demolition of the buildings damaged by the atomic bomb (the buildings A-bombed) in Hiroshima. There are two important agents concerned with this controversy. One is the local administration of Hiroshima City, which wants to remove these buildings. The other comprises a number of groups who want to conserve them. Through two significant controversies over the buildings A-bombed since the 1970s, I first examined the claims of the two conflicting sides and made it clear that these controversies are, in fact, spatial conflicts over “landscapes of the atomic bomb”.1. The local administration has a spatial orientation that tries to contain the A-bombed memory and history in Hiroshima into a limited landscape of the atomic bomb, including the Atomic Bomb Dome as a “Symbol of Peace’’ and the peace memorial park around it. Atomic Bomb Dome was decided in 1966 to conserve in perpetuity, and, in 1996, it was registered on the UNESCO World Heritage list.2. Conservation group advocates have insisted that landscapes of the atomic bomb must be established all over Hiroshima through an expansion of the example of the Atomic Bomb Dome.I explain that the current controversies concerning the buildings A-bombed in Hiroshima are spatial conflicts between the local administration and conservation groups, and I point out that the Atomic Bomb Dome plays an important role in these controversies.Second, I explored the historical moment when the administration’s orientation was formed by examining the period of recovery (1945-1952) from Second World War damage. I paid attention to important city plans for recovery in this period, and analysed two urban concepts which city planners were concerned with at that time. As a result, I revealed this point: 3. Two concepts were fitst, a “peace city’’ concept which contributed to the establishment of the bill for the construction of a peace commemorating city and second, an urban concept about modernization which formed the basis of the city planning for recovery. And both of them produced the peace memorial park around the epicenter. Then the Atomic Bomb Dome was positioned as an important component of the park and defined as the “the only one’’ building A-bombed in Hiroshima. This definition played a vital role in the fate of the other buildings which were A-bombed, because it meant that all of these, except for the Dome, would be excluded from both the processes of construction of a peace commemorating city and a modern city. I think this definition was the historical moment that led to the local administration’s current orientation.Now, in face of the visible disappearance of other buildings except for the Atomic Bomb Dome, there has been an increase in the number of different voices on rethinking how Hiroshima should be in the future. I conclude that our historical-geographical imaginations of the history and memory affected by the atomic bomb are essential for rethinking the future of Hiroshima.