San’ya
A SPONTANEOUS OR GOVERNMENT-LED
PROCESS OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF
A HOME AREA FOR THE OUTCASTE
A case study of the transformations of San’ya,TokyoSylvia Shuwen Zhou

In the last 10 years, new investment is moving in in the San’ya
area and its neighborhood. Transformation has been taking place• Historically, San’ya was the area

assigned to outcaste Japanese –convicts, prostitutes, homeless,etc. -- in Tokyo. Industrialization
during Meiji and Taisho periods
transformed San’ya into an area
where day labour concentrate• 1960s, population reached peak, and economy
prospered• 1991, Japan’s economic bubble led San’ya todeep and long depression. Since then, thehomeless camps in San’ya in large scale.
Kan’yi Shukusho’s main guests are joblesssocial assistance recipients. It concentrated
the urban poor in Tokyo

The number of Kanyi shokusho decreases while thenumber of condominium increases
Number change in the Kanyi
ShokushoMiddle-income condominium

138$
136$
134$
132$
130$
128$

Number$of$Lodges$

126$
124$
122$
,12$

,10$

Jan,08$Jan,04$,06$

JanJan,02$

JanJanJan,00$

120$

60,000~100,000
yan for 16~35m2;
150,000~200,000
for 2LDK.
403 out of 518
were built within
10 years

6The driving forces of urban transformation

How about San’ya?
• In the case of San’ya, the new development has the typology of spontaneous• Market spontaneous force: response by individual and small developers todemographic and social changes(Kadi, 2009). It work through ground rent system
which internalizes the geographical differences in land price over time (Smith, 1996)

development, which is not the typology developed with coordinated forces with theinvolvement of government. However, the Tokyo 2000 city master plan and theredevelopment of facilities offering public services (ex. transport) also indicate thefeatures of entrepreneurism where government forces mingle with market forces.

• Government force: strategically plan and develop certain areas for social/economic/

environmental goal
• Mixed and coordinated force: urban managerialism and urban entrepreneurism• urban entrepreneurism: public-private partnership in which a traditional local

boosterism is integrated with the use of local governmental powers to try andattract external sources of funding, new direct investments, or new employment
sources’ (Harvey, 1989a:7)• Urban managerialism: within cities, there were forces like managers orgatekeepers occupying key positions both in the public and the private sectors,
affecting the access to scarce resources in cities, which conditions the everyday
life of the residents. The managers, as gatekeeping occupations, can be estateagents, local authorities, building society managers, and planners, and so on.
Pahl (1970)• Comparing to the approaches analyzing the driving forces of urban transformation

with dualism, urban managerialism and entrepreneurism propose new ways ofdefining the role of government in urban development and transformation. It
proposes that as a driving force of the transformation of a city, government does nothave to be in the frontier, but can be in the backstage leading the process andpaving the way. Market force can be introduced by the government to fulfill its vision.
• -> Opens the window for us to define government force in the transformation ofSan’ya, rather than frame it in the traditional understanding of government force.
Basing on it, we then will be able to define the process of San’ya whether is aspontaneous process or a planned one.

Events in the historical timeline indicates theprocess is led by the government

Research question and argument• RA: What is the driving force of transformation in San’ya?

It is caused by market spontaneous force following thedynamic of demographic and ground rent change, or aplanned process? Why the driving force is not ‘apparent’?
• Argument: The transformation of San’ya is driven bymarket force from the surface, however, a morecomprehensive examination indicates that thetransformation of San’ya is a strategic and systematic‘clean-out’ process led by the government.

Systematic clean-out

Strategies grouped by the effects• ERASURE OF MEMORY (1960s)• Renaming of San’ya during the reconfiguration of Tokyo administrative

districts in the 1960s: San’ya -> Kiyokawa, Nihontsuzumi, Higashi
Akawaka• POPULATION DISPLACEMENT (2000)• Policy change in the Johoku Labor and Welfare Centre – only assists

registered social assistance recipients in 2000

• Construction of temporary settlements for the homeless in late 2000
• ENCOURAGEMENT OF NEW INVESTMENT (2010)• The renovation of Minami-senju station

9Why the driving force is not ‘apparent’
Strong enforcement of population displacement were not taken placeConclusion• The transformation of San’ya as a traditional area fora) Between 1960s and 1980s, economic significanceb) In 2000, global city strategy is proposed by the Tokyo MetropolitanGovernment (2002 strategy plan). More intensive measures are needed tospeed up the normalisation.

outcast people and day labourers is a process guided bygovernment• The intensiveness of intervention in San’ya area isrelevant to the periodic strategic goal of city
developmenta) However, a) high economic and political cost; b) population aging
allows a ‘soft approach’ to work out.

11Implication• It is difficult to conclude whether the adoption of ‘benign’ approach can justify theredevelopment or renewal of an ‘undesirable’ place in the city core like San’ya. The
good side of the story is that the existing population does not have to be relocatedand cut off from their original social connection, while redevelopment can stillproceed and add land value to the area, as well as improve the general image of thecity. But on the other hand, the transformation has to be on the expense of excluding
the newly deprived population, taking away a possible way of surviving in place
where is close to various resources, and also increasing the living cost of the present
poor population.
• At the center of the issue probably should be the attitude of the elites, the city

governors and planners, as well as the ordinary residents, toward the deprived
population and deprived areas. Whose city? What does a good image mean?
Whether a city should be more tolerable to its flaws to accommodate everyone andopen its resources and opportunities to everyone? Whether a less ‘desirable’ place isa bad place that must be converted to feed the taste of middle class? Whether they
really have to be incompatible with the rest of the city and rest of the population?
These are questions that this research raises for more discussion in the future.

Thank you! :D