A spontaneous or government-led
process: an investigation of thetransformation of an outcaste andday labourer home place Sanʼya,Tokyo
Sylvia	  Shuwen	
  Zhou,	  Gradute	
  School	
  of	
  Public	  Policy,	  University	
  of	
  Tokyo	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

A spontaneous or government-led process: an investigation of thetransformation of an outcaste and day labourer home place San’ya,Tokyo
Sylvia Shuwen Zhou
Graduate School of Public Policy
University of Tokyo
1. Introduction
San’ya is located in Taito District, which was part of the Asakusa District1 – one ofthe oldest 15 districts of Tokyo. Historically, it was the area for the Japanese outcaste
people. Post-war reconstruction brought its population to the peak as huge influx of
day labor undertaking construction work chose San’ya as their night stopover.
However, the 1989 bubble soon turned San’ya into slackness. The ten-year stagnation
after the collapse of bubble economy put San’ya in long recession where in themeantime population ages dramatically.
Situation is significantly changed in the last decade. While most of the area in San’ya
is still domed by slack air where shops and restaurants are closed all the year roundwithout even signs for letting, newly completed constructions are scattered. The
hostels that once mainly accommodated day laborers are refurbished and open toforeign backpackers and domestic tourists. Fresh new condominiums targeting on
ordinary middle-income families/individuals are erected one unit by another. The daylaborers once boomed the business are aging rapidly. Johoku Labour and Welfare
Center whose door were used to be broken in by day laborers seeking jobs every
morning at 6 o’clock, now only have less than 10 available positions to post andreceive few visitors. ‘‘San’ya’ (as a place associated with poverty and the homeless)will eventually disappear one day’, a shopkeeper sighed.
The transformation taking places in San’ya is seemingly a spontaneous process ofurban renewal responding to the demographic changes. Refurbishment and physicalupgrading of the business facilities, and the new construction of condominiums are
initiated and invested by dispersed individuals – mostly the original owners of the oldJapanese Kanyi Shukusho who also own the land of today’s new-born condominiums.
However, whether this is the entire story?
What is the driving force of transformation that took place in San’ya in the past 10
years? It is caused by spontaneous market forces responding to the dynamics ofdemographic and ground rent changes, or actually a government-led process? Why aclear-cut answer cannot be simply chosen from the two options? As San’ya is a placethat have long been associated with the low-class population and indignity in theJapanese society, its transformation could have different social/political significancecomparing to many other urban renewal cases taking places everywhere around the
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

1	
  After	   the	   1946	
   district	
   configuration	
   of	
   Tokyo	
   City,	  Asakusa	
   District	
   was	   then	
   divided	
   into	   two	
   parts.	
   They	  were	
  respectively	
  merged	
  into	
  Arakawa	
  District	
  and	  new	
  Taito	  District.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
world today. These questions nurtured the momentum for this research, and theresearch generated the argument for this paper that the transformation of San’ya is a
strategic and systematic ‘clean-out’ process, though from the surface it is aspontaneous process driven by market forces.
Qualitative methods are the main tools to understand the transformation in San’ya inthis research. They include literature review, observation, open interview, andphotography. Literature review and interview help to give a panorama of San’ya’,
from its past to today, from socio-economic activities to built environment change.
Observation helps raise and define questions from the built environment. Photographycollecting the image of San’ya’s today aims at visualizing San’ya’s transformation by
a comparison with its historical images. The city development master plans obtained
through literature review as well to learn the possible development direction ofSan’ya. Historical quantitative data gives information for socio-economic anddemographic changes. The combination of quantitative data and information derived
from interviews helps identify the turning points in San’ya’s history, and the hidden
forces influencing the local development.
Information sources are composed of official institutions and individuals. The official
institutions include Johoku (North of the City) Labor and Welfare Center, Taito Ward
Office, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communication, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism(MLIT). The individuals include the staff from the Welfare Center, Taito Ward Office,hostel’s staff, residents, teachers from the local schools and some long-term daylabors/homeless people. As San’ya historically was associated with many social
issues, talking about San’ya with certain groups is often a taboo, such as the homeless,local children’s parents, and so on. To breakdown the self-defense of the interviewees
and collect valuable information, the researcher was sometimes disguised as a foreign
tourist. Questions were asked in casual manner in these cases.
The subjectivity of information from interviews is among the major limitations of themethodology adopted in this research. Through the interviews, information conflicts
among interviewees from different background are evident on certain questions.
Further questions inquiring examples and details, and other complimentary
information sources are used to derive less arguable information.
The following of the paper is divided into four sections. The second section reviews
the literature discussing the driving forces of urban development and transformation,and discusses their unfitness to describe the transformation in San’ya. The third
section gives the historical background of San’ya and an account of its ongoingtransformation in the past 10 years. The fourth section explores the facts backing theargument of this paper. The last section concludes the research.

	
  

	
  
2. Breaking down the dualism in analyzing the driving forces of urban
transformation
Ever since Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in the 17th century, scholars have neverstopped wrestling with the increasingly powerful state and its role in society, inshaping every perspective of human life. Following the Industrial Revolution, many
thinkers such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and many others devoted themselves to what
Karl Polanyi would later call the great transformation (Migdal, 1994). Some scholars,such as Hegelians, put the state at the center of the transformations in Europe. Others
including Marx, looked elsewhere for the source of historical change, notably to theorganization of production.
Not surprisingly, then, the underlying questions echo the classical debates aboutmajor societal transformations and the role of states. When have they succeeded indetermining the parameters of everyday social relations? When and how have states
been able to establish various agenda for their societies? And when have other social
forces had their own way in molding the social and economic patterns? As in theclassical debates, scholarship since World War II has seesawed between societycentered and state-centered theories to answer these questions.
State in this paper refers to an organized political community living under a single
system of government (Thompson, 1995). Government here is used as the synonyms
of states. Society, referring to a depiction offered by Liah Greenfeld and Michel
Martin (1988), its ‘only definitive characteristic is that it is the outermost social
structure for a certain group of individuals who, whatever might be their attitude
toward it, view themselves as its members and experience their identity as being
determined by it.’ It basically can be an aggregate of any individuals or organizations
different from state or government.
At the level of cities, the arena’s size is scaled down. But when the debates come towho shapes the cities, the wrestling is still between state and society. Sometimes
society is replaced by market -- a concept that refers to many varieties of systems,
institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructure whereby parties engage inexchange, which emerges more or less spontaneously in the history of human society(Vanberg, 1986).
Spontaneous or market force and government forces are then often seen as the two
fundamental forces shaping and transforming cities. Market forces basically workthrough ground rent system which internalizes the geographical differences in land
price over time (Smith, 1996). It is the response by individuals, investors anddevelopers to demographic and social changes over different locations (Kadi, 2009).
Government forces work through planning, development approval or control overzoning. Planning is often the most direct force transforming a city. It generates
development strategically planned and facilitated by the government forsocial/economic/environmental goal. It is often seen as a counterforce orcompensation of government forces.
Generally speaking, who dominates the driving force behind the transformation of acity – market forces or government forces – depends on how strong and controlling
the government is. In countries or the period that state has strong power dominates the
	
  

	
  
everyday life of people in the society, the shape and transformation of the cities are
more likely determined by states. Classic examples are the capital cities in the ancientcivilizations. For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is the earliest record of aplanned city describes the cities in ancient Mesopotamia -- during the third dynasty of
Ur – as such:
Go up on to the wall of Uruk and walk around. Inspect the foundation platform
and scrutinise the brickwork. Testify that its bricks are baked bricks, And that
the Seven Counsellors must have laid its foundations. One square mile is city,
one square mile is orchards, one square mile is claypits, as well as the open
ground of Ishtar's temple.Three square miles and the open ground comprise
Uruk. Look for the copper tablet-box, Undo its bronze lock, Open the door to its
secret, Lift out the lapis lazuli tablet and read.(Dalley, 1989)
In the modern time, Garden City Letchworth in the U.K. designed by Ebenezer
Howard in 1989, Brasilia city designed by Oscar Niemeyer in late 1950s, are referred
as examples of urban development backed by strong government.
Cities shaped by spontaneous forces include Mediterranean cities in the 20th century(Leontidou, 1990), ‘urban village’ phenomenon in Chinese cities (Peilin, 2002),
Tokyo cities (Sorensen, 2002), and so on. In Mediterranean countries, weak legal
enforcement of land use under zoning control extended or densified cities (Leontidou,
1990). In Chinese cities, urban villages filled in the gray zone between urban andsuburban areas where legal enforcement is weak. In Tokyo, Kenzo Tange proposed
1960 Plan visioning a European style city over the burned land of post-war Tokyo.
The established private land ownership dismissed the plan soon for its expensivenessand limited government financial resources back to that time (Sorensen, 2002).
Referring to the above-mentioned examples, identifying the driving force of urban
transformation whether is spontaneous force or government force definitely does agreat favor for us to understand the cities. However, in many cases it oversimplifies
the complex world. Also, it often leads to the ignorance of the crucial forces standing
behind the screen. A presenter standing on the stage is not necessarily a key
contributor of the presented project.
Among the urban theories, then, urban managerialism and urban entrepreneurism
breaks down the dualism and enables the analysis of urban transformation seeing themarket and government forces as interwoven forces. Urban managerialism, which
was derived from the works by Pahl (1970), argues that the analysis of cities needs tobe linked to a broad social process. It puts forward the idea that within cities, there
were forces like managers or gatekeepers 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, which are also
conceptualized by Pahl (1970) as gatekeeping occupations, can be estate agents, local
authorities, building society managers, and planners, and so on.
Urban entrepreneurialism mainly conceptualizing the new paradigm of urban
development observed in late 1970s is another example. But different from urban
managerialism, urban entrepreneurialism sees government in a leading position in
urban development, rather than parallel to the other development agents. The

	
  

	
  
proponents of this concept argues that cities are transformed through ‘public-private
partnership in which a traditional local boosterism is integrated with the use of local
governmental powers to try and attract external sources of funding, new direct
investments, or new employment sources’ (Harvey, 1989a:7). Blunkett and Jackson
describe the experience in the U.K. in 1970s as such:
From the early 1970s, as full employment moved from the top of government(Britain) priorities, local councils began to take up the challenge. There was
support for small firms; closer links between the public and the private sectors;
promotion of local areas to attract new business. They were adapting the
traditional economic role of British local government which offeredinducements in the forms of grants, free loans, and publicly subsidized
infrastructure, and no request for reciprocal involvement with the community,
in order to attract industrial and commercial concerns which were looking forsuitable sites for investment and trading… Local government today, as in thepast, can offer its own brand of entrepreneurship and enterprise in facing theenormous economic and social change which technology and industrial
restructuring bring. (Blunkett and Jackson, 1987, 108-142)
In different countries and cities, urban entrepreneurism appears in different forms. But
the essence is the same that government withdraws from the role as a provider ofeverything, instead, only provides the vision, coordinates with the private developers
to transform a city or a community, and the transformation does not need to conformto the needs of the original local communities. The urban development is done bymarket force but the typology still organized conforming to a unified plan.
In the case of San’ya, which force seems the one drives its transformation in the last
decade? Market force? Government force? Or a mixed and coordinated force of theprevious two? It seems a spontaneous process of urban renewal responding to theaging of the day labourers and the increase of foreign tourists. It has scattered new
construction of condominiums, and also refurbishment and physical upgrading ofbusiness facilities at different pace. The fact that the renewal projects were initiatedand invested by dispersed individuals may reinforce the judgment. However, theTokyo 2000 city master plan and the redevelopment of facilities offering public
services (ex. transport) also indicate the features of entrepreneurism where
government forces mingle with market forces.
Now, regardless whether urban entrepreneurism or urban managerialism can be used
as a formula to interpret the transformation of San’ya, comparing to the approaches
analyzing the driving forces of urban transformation with dualism, they propose new
ways of defining 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 and paving
the way. Market force can be introduced by the government to fulfill the vision. Thiswidely 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.

	
  

	
  
3. San’ya in the past and today	
  Lying in the northeastern corner of Tokyo city (Taito-ku), San’ya has its northern andeastern boundary naturally lined by the Sumida River. It covers approximately
1.65km2, with its northern part – Chome 1-8 of Minami Senju – under theadministration of Arakawa Ward, and the rest under that of Taito Ward covering
approximately 0.69km2, composed of Chome 1, 2 of Nihonzutsumi, Chome 1, 2 ofKiyokawa, and Chome 2 of Higashi-Asakusa. Though the smaller portion of San’yasits in Taito Ward, the center of gravity – the Namidabashi intersection lays here.
Map 1. San’ya Area

Its history as part of urban territory started from Edo period (1603-1868) of Japan,
when Tokyo began to be the country’s capital. All over the time, San’ya wasassociated with indignity. In the Edo period, it was an area assigned to the outcaste
people in Tokyo. During the industrialization of Japan, San’ya concentrated day
labourers. The homeless in Tokyo also took San’ya as their home place. The traces ofSan’ya of old time can still be easily identified, which continue influencing the shapeof San’ya today. However, ‘normalisation’ which transforms San’ya from a place forlow class population to accommodate the middle-class majority in the society has
been taking place in the past 10 years. To present a full picture of the transformationsin San’ya, this section starts from the beginning of San’ya’s history as an urban
territory, and ends with the transformation of San’ya today. It is expected to lay afoundation for further discussions on San’ya’s transformation.

	
  

	
  

3.1.	
  San’ya	
  in	
  Edo	
  and	
  Meiji
As mentioned above, San’ya was first turned into urban land in Edo period, when thecity of Edo (Tokyo today) was occupied by the first Tokugawa shogun Ieyasu in 1590.
Merely one decade before he consolidated the rule of the entire country, the city of
Edo was little more than a tiny fishing village laid against what is today called Tokyo
Bay (Fowler, 1996). The location where San’ya sits today, back to the pre-Edo time,
was waterfront. Utagawa Hiroshige -- Japan’s famous ukiyo-e artist from Edo period
once pictured Nihonzutsumi – now the central part of San’ya -- of that time.
Picture 1. ‘One Hundred Famous Views of Edo – Nihonzutsumi’ by Utagawa Hiroshige

At where the Imperial Palace now stands – on a rise to the west of an inlet extending
into the bay, Ieyasu constructed a castle (ibid). The highlands in the surrounding areas
were resided by the affiliates of Ieyasu and other feudal lords (ibid). In Japan, theseareas were called the Yamanote (Mountainsides) or ‘High City’, where was longassociated with high social classes – the Nobles and the Samurai2. For the lowest class– the Chonin -- and the outcaste, Ieyasu drained and cleaned the flat marshland in theeast of the castle. As these areas were lowlands, they were also called the Shitamachi,
namely ‘Low City’. The peasants who are in the between of the Samurai and theChonin were the only class lived outside the city.
As the town was expanding along with the population growth, over time the Edo
government relocated the residential areas of the Chonin and the outcaste further and
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
  Feudal Japanese society was essentially divided into four different castes. The Nobles (the Emperor, Shogun and

Daimyos) held the greatest status and influence. The Samurai were below the nobles, and the second mostpowerful caste, having significant influence and rights within society. The Peasant caste were below the Nobles
and Samurai, legally bound to their landlord, whom gave them land to farm, and entitled to some civil rights. The
Chonin caste were the lowest caste in society even though they were the craftsmen, artisans and merchants ofJapan. The merchants were the most despised people in the Chonin caste due to the nature of their occupation.
Although not considered a caste, below the Chonin were the outcasts, who were more than just mere beggars. With
the introduction of Buddhism people associated with death- such as executioners, hide tanners and butchers- also
became the outcasts of society	
  

	
  

	
  
further into the periphery of the town, attempting to adapt to the population growthand sustain the decency of the Samurai class. In 1857, after the Great Fire destroyed
half of the Edo City, the town’s licensed quarter, entertainment zone were moved
further in the east of the city where were mainly thinly populated marshland. It was
half-a-day walking distance away from the northeast of the castle. The outcaste labor
was used to drain the marshlands at that time. Soon brothels were erected (ibid). Thislicensed quarter was named Shin Yoshiwara (New Yoshiwara). Though thegovernment attempted to keep the Samurai away from the indecent entertainment
areas by issuing edicts, the effect was turning Asakusa, which was on the overlandroute, into a busy attraction for the pleasure seekers (ibid). As the northeast is an
unlucky direction in Chinese geomancy, execution ground were located further in thenortheast of Shin Yoshiwara, and temples traditionally guarding cities from ill spirits
were erected (ibid). The outcaste ghettos were mostly located there too. The
configuration of San’ya was first established. For around two hundred years till
prostitution was banned in Japan, San’ya was known for cheap temporary
accommodation and unlicensed prostitutes. It attracted the pleasure seekers who
found the nearby Yoshiwara expensive.
‘Namidabashi’ -- the center of gravity of San’ya -- as a name, which means theBridge of Tears, probably can more than accurately describe the historical image ofSan’ya in the heart of the local Tokyo people. The intersection was named after the
spot where criminals in the Edo (1603 – 1868) and early Meiji (1868 – 1912) periods
are said to wave farewell to their loved ones before being led to an execution ground.
The no-longer existed execution ground was next to the Ekoin Temple, which today
sits behind the bridge. In the following years after the start of Meiji Restoration,
Tokyo went through industrialization, modernization, post-earthquake and post-WWII
reconstruction, as well as 1964 Olympics. The configuration of Tokyo has changed
dramatically after all these events, but San’ya’s inferiority in the geographicalhierarchy of Tokyo, and its association with poverty and low class was remained.

3.2.	
  Post-­‐war	
  prosperity	
  and	  recession	
  in	
  San’ya	
  Japan’s industrialization since Meiji periods created a huge amount of seasonal
workers moving from rural Japan to cities for temporary jobs. Quite often, they work
as day laborers on construction and manufacturing. In Tokyo, more than two thirds ofthe day laborers came from Japan’s eastern half. As San’ya is located in the
Northeastern corner of central Tokyo, it is a gateway for people to enter Tokyo. The
geographical location turned it into a foothold for newly arrived migrants. Since then,there were generally two kinds of people living in San’ya: more or less permanent
residents such as shopkeepers, low-income salarymen, and some light- and cottageindustry entrepreneurs; and highly mobile day laborers who usually live in the Kan’yi
Shukusho (簡易宿所), which is a type of Japanese-style economic lodgings, or
hostels.
Post-WWII reconstruction created a great number of construction projects, after morethan two thirds of the central Tokyo area was destroyed by the American bombing in
1945. After 10 years of recovery when social and economic infrastructure is
restructured, Japan’s economy started to experience high-speed growth. Investment
flooded into Tokyo. The large demand for business and residential spaces in Tokyo

	
  

	
  
area pushed the number of construction projects in this city to a peak. All these
construction work generated large demand for labor workers. The needs from theother manufacturing soared in the same time. The rush to recover economy and theconcentration of investment in the urban areas again drew farmers to the cities.
Adding up the influx population from other backgrounds, population in San’ya
reached its peak before the Tokyo Olympics in 1964, at around 25,000. 15,000 people– the majority were day laborers -- live in Kan’yi Shukusho (see Figure 1). Day
labours as the majority in San’ya significantly influenced and prospered local
economy.
Figure 1. Change in hostels guest over year
20,000	
  15,000	
  10,000	
  Change	  in	
  Hostels	  Guest	
  5,000	
  
0	
  
1953	
  1963	
  1973	
  1985	
  1995	
  2005	  Source: adapted from the data from Taito Ward Office (2009)

Population of day laborers in San’ya started decreasing after 1964 Tokyo Summer
Olympics, but it was not the time point symbolizing the downturn development ofSan’ya yet. Between 1960s and late 1980s, Tokyoists living in the other parts of thecity might wonder whether they had entered another world when they encountered
crowds of labor workers who often tied towel band over their heads. The mass
violence between right wing labour unions further degraded the image of San’ya
among the local people. However, businesses there were prosperous. Facilities
serving the local residents and day laborerers were new and up-to-date, which include
restaurants, coffee shops, hostels, self-service laundry shops, and so on. Iloha
Shopping Street was refurbished with a glass arcade in 1976, which is located at
Nihonzutsumi 1 Chome, and had been the major shopping center in San’ya since
1922.
Though construction work in central Tokyo had been getting less along with thedecrease of available space and skyrocketing land price 3 , economic prospect ingeneral was still bright and demand from construction and manufacturing industries
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3	
  The Second World War destroyed most part of Tokyo, which allows land development at low prices during thereconstruction. Economic recovery then stimulated investment to flood into Tokyo, which created large demand
for residential and business spaces. The sudden increasing demand and the limited amount of available land had
Tokyo’s land price soar. In Ginza – one of the growth cores in Tokyo, land was 45,000 yen/m2 in 1947, but
350,000 yen/m2 in 1953, and 1,100,000 yen/m2 in 1961. In the following years, although Japan’s economic
growth continued slowing down, economic prospect for businesses based in central Tokyo stayed bright. Land
price continued increasing until economic bubble blasted in 1991. The slump of land price led to dramatic
devalorization of assets in the hands of investors. Further investment stopped. Unemployment rate increased.
Economy in Tokyo region in general went into stagnation.

	
  

	
  
for day labourers were still big in Tokyo Metropolitan Area as a whole. From late1960s, several suburban development projects were initiated. Tama new town
development was approved in 1965 and started construction in the following year.
This new town accommodated 16 university and college campuses. Several
universities originally located in central Tokyo moved their main campus to thesuburban new towns. Those include some of the top public and private universities inJapan, such as Keio University, Chuo University, Hitotsubashi University and so on.
Day labourers may not be able to find jobs in central Tokyo which allows them to be
based in San’ya, but they can move and find work to do somewhere else. The demandfor day laborers reached another peak in 1989, after the boom in 1960s. Up to
beginning of bubble economy, which was around 1989, San’ya’s population wasmaintained at around 18,000 by estimation.
The collapse of economic bubble in 1991 is a turning point for Japanese economy,
also for San’ya. The decline of day labour population started from the late 1960s, but
the downward development of living environment in San’ya began from 1990. The
job positions advertised by the Johoku Labour and Welfare Center4 welfare center
declined dramatically from 35,207 in 1990 to 22,966 in 1991 (see Figure 2). The
number continued declining in the following years and never turned up again. The
requests for unemployment aid soared from 22,265 in 1990 to 86,347 in 1994 (seeFigure 2). Soared rate of unemployment among day labourers made significant
contribution to the shabby appearance of San’ya then. As Fowler (1996) observed
during late 1980s and early 1990s that the men who could not get work ended up
drinking on the street during the day. Day labourers who could no longer afford
Kan’yi Shukusho moved out and settled down in streets, parks, or riversides in San’ya
area. ‘San’ya then, might just as well be considered a state of mind as a slum’(Fowler.
1996:14).
Figure 2. Annual total of job vacancy advertised at Johoku Labor and Welfare Center andrequests for unemployment aid

Requests	
  for	
  unemployment	
  
aid	
  
Number	  of	
  job	  vacancy	
  
1966	
  
1970	
  
1974	
  
1978	
  
1982	
  
1986	
  
1990	
  
1994	
  
1998	
  
2002	
  
2006	
  
2010	
  

160000	
  140000	
  120000	
  100000	
  80000	
  60000	
  40000	
  20000	
  
0	
  

	
  

Source: adapted from the data from Johoku Labor and Welfare Center

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4	
  Johoku Labour and Welfare Center is a public welfare center which offers job and healthcare consultation for theregistered unemployed people. It is located in the central area of San’ya. 	
  
	
  

	
  
Illoha Shopping Street, which was symbolic for San’ya’s prosperity soon was turned
to be the symbol of San’ya’s downturn (see Picture 2). With its newly built glass roof,
it became one of the major camping sites for the homeless people in the night,
especially during winter and the rain season. The homeless scared away the notmuch-left shoppers in the recession. Illoha soon slid into slackness. Up to 2008, there
were only around 4,682 people living in Kan’yi Shukusho.
Picture 2. Illoha today at 17.38, 12 March 2015 (Thursday Afternoon)

3.3.	
  Ongoing	
  transformation	  	
  The core area and most of the rest where are far away or less accessible to train
station are still shadowed under the languishment. In the daytime, some small woodstructured family-owned workshops may still be making shoes or papers. Streets, aswell as Illoha are empty. Over 80% of the shops and restaurants are closed. Bicycles
lining outside Kan’yi Shukusho can be the only indicators telling that a quite few ofpeople are still living here. In the nighttime, the area can turn to be deathly still. The
frequently encountered empty houses add more unpleasant and somehow depressing
air into the environment.
However, the transformation ‘normalising’ San’ya to be a middle-class area is taking
place quietly, but visible. It is generally agreed that the process started from around2000. Three evident tendencies compose of the transformation: 1) increasing newlybuilt condominiums targeting on middle-income families; 2) decline in the number of
old Kanyi Shukusho and increase in the amount of newly-built backpacker hostels; 3)
day labourers and the homeless residing in San’ya ages rapidly and the number
continues declining.

	
  

	
  
Well-equipped condominiums in San’ya were mostly built within the last 15 years(see picture 3).5 The average rental price of each new unit is similar to the price of thesame kind in the other parts of Tokyo, whifch is at around 60,000 ~ 100,000 yen for a
one-bed en-suite studio of 16 ~ 35 m2, and 150,000 ~ 200,000 yen for a two-bedroom
apartment of 40 ~ 80 m2.6 Among the Kan’yi Shukusho, around 10% have been
turned into economic business hostel for young Japanese people and foreign
backpackers (Johoku Labor and Welfare Center). Most of them were open in the last
5 years, but 2002 FIFA held in Tokyo and Seoul was the event triggered the trend.
The business received the new round of investment are mostly reinvested by theoriginal landlords or business owners, who have been in San’ya for generations. For
instance, the land of the newly-built condominiums were mostly the assets belonging
to the families that once run Kanyi Shukusho business for generations. After smallerfamilies were separated from the big families, assets were re-divided, and some wereredeveloped to for new profitable business in the local. The majority are located along
Meiji Dori and Yoshino Dori, within 15 minutes walking distance from Minowa
Station and Minami-Senju Station.
Picture 3: The new condominiums in San’ya

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5	
  Search	
  on	
  summo	
  6	
  The	
  estimation	
  is	
  based	  on	
  the	
  price	
  information	
  published	
  on	
  suumo.jp	
  -­‐-­‐	  one	  of	
  the	
  largest	
  Japanese	
  on-­‐line	
  real-­‐estate	
  agent.	
  The	
  searching	
  filter	
  is	
  set	  twice.	
  The	
  first	
  setting	  has	  no	
  narrow-­‐down	
  on	
  year.	
  The	  second	  setting	
  narrows	
  down	  to	
  the	
  last	  15	
  years	
  (number	
  in	
  bracket):	
  537(413)	
  (kiyokawa,	
  nohonzutsumi,	  higashi	  akakusa,	
  ;	
  1352	
  (988)	
  (minami	
  senju).	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
Picture 4: The refurbishment of Kan’yi Shokusho to be backpacker’s hostel -- the old and
new Tokyo Palace

Map 2. Facilities in San’ya

Source: Johoku Labor and Welfare Center
Notes: the pink blocks on the map are hostels open to foreign backpackers; the orange blocks
are traditional Kan’yi Shukusho and business hotel open to the Japanese visitors.

	
  

	
  

Figure3: Changing number of Kanyi Shukusho in San’ya
138$
136$
134$
132$
130$
128$

Number$of$Lodges$

126$
124$
122$
,1
2$

Ja
n

,1
0$

Ja
n

,0
8$

Ja
n

,0
6$

Ja
n

,0
4$

Ja
n

,0
2$

Ja
n

Ja
n

,0
0$

120$

Source: adapted from the data from Johoku Labor and Welfare Center

Population aging in this area is as visible as the rejuvenation observed from the built
environment. Aged shopkeepers serve aged day labourers. People occasionally
emerging in the street corner are more often in ragged wears, walking with stoop.
Young people may find themselves the real minority in San’ya. Some public primaryschools in San’ya has been closed in the recent years, due to the shrinking number of
new students. Tanaka Elementary School once located in Nihonzutsumi 2 Chome isone of the examples, which was closed in 2001 and merged into Tōasakusa
Elementary School. Daishizuiko Elementary School and Daigozuiko Elementary
located in Minami-Senju were closed in 2002.
Statistic data appears to be more striking. Along with the population aging in thiscountry as a whole, Taito-ku and Arakawa-ku where San’ya is located has
respectively 23.5% (25.29% only Japanese) and 22.7% of the population are over 65
years old, which are among the top five most aged wards out of the 23 wards inTokyo Metropolitan Area (Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Informal Affairs andCommunication, 2013). Among the residents in Kan’yi Shukusho, the aged
population hits 28.0% in 2012 (Johoku Labor and Welfare Center), namely one thirdof the hostel guests. The average age of the Kan’yi Shukusho residents reached 64.7.
Several massive construction serving as nursing houses for the aged people have also
emerged in San’ya in the last five years and been in service. They are mostly run by
the government or NPOs.

	
  

	
  
4. A ‘mild’ process of systematic cleaning out
The scattered new development in different locations and the independent designs of
the newly built buildings easy to give people the impression that the transformation in
San’ya is driven by spontaneous market forces with no government coordination or
guidance. However, a set of historical events indicates that the transformation ofSan’ya – as a place of ‘indignity’ in the society -- does not happen without
government’s intention. The whole process tends to be a strategic and systematic‘clean-out’ process ‘normalizing’ and ‘gentrifying’ San’ya, though from the surface it
is a spontaneous process driven by market forces responding to the demographic
change in the area. The ‘government force’ appears to not have explicit purpose ingentrifying San’ya if the actions are looked at independently. They are not traditional
way of shaping space at all. However, they turn to be strategic actions paving the wayfor ‘normalizing’ through influencing the population displacement process when all
the actions taken over time were put together.
4.1. The strategies for transforming San’ya
This set of events include renaming of San’ya in the 1960s, and renovation of
Minami-senju station, policy change in Johoku Labor and Welfare Centre andconstruction of temporary settlement for the homeless in the early 2000. Renaming ofSan’ya was done during the reconfiguration of Tokyo administrative districts in the
1965, one year right after the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games. San’ya as a place thatpeople could find on map was renamed as Kiyokawa, Nihontsuzumi, Higashi
Akasaka. In 2010, the renovation of Minami Senju Station was completed, following
the opening of Tsukuba Line. The use of the Johoku Labour and Welfare Center waschanged 2000. After the change, only the people holding registered certificate ofsocial assistance can use the facilities in the center. In the same year, Tokyo
Metropolitan Government initiated the program aiming at decreasing the number ofthe homeless people in Tokyo metropolitan area.
If looking at the effect of the set of strategies, they can be categorized into four:
erasure of memory, population displacement and encouragement of new investment.
All the three categories are oriented towards a ‘clean-out’ and normalizing’ process.
Renaming San’ya was a simple action but in fact has an effect of erasing thecollective memory of San’ya as a place associating with the dark side of the society. It
is not very clear that this effect is exactly the original intention, but there isundeniable reluctance of taking San’ya as part of the history in Tokyo, and acollective effort to forget the history of San’ya in the official venues can be found in
local school’s education. Public schools located in San’ya, which only accept students
living in this area, see it a taboo to mention San’ya even simply as a name. The
principal from one of the schools explained in an interview that it was to not let thestudent feel inferior in the society. Together with the following set of observed
actions, the inference of this action here gets its root.
The effect of population displacement in San’ya seems accelerated by the policychange in the Johoku Labor and Welfare Centre and the Homeless Assistance
Program. Policy change in the Johoku Labor and Welfare Centre – only assists
registered social assistance recipients in 2000. This change is a de facto action
	
  

	
  
excluding the newly deprived people to use the governmental assistance facilities inSan’ya. It reduces the ‘pull factor’ of San’ya that attracting the unemployed. The ones
who cannot register as public assistance recipients can only live in a homeless way ifthey still choose to stay in San’ya. Through the interview, the staff from the center
also acknowledged this fact.
In the meanwhile, responding to the homeless issue in Tokyo, the Homeless
Assistance Program (路上生活者对策事業) started from 2000 offers temporary
shelters – or called ‘self-assistance’ center -- to the homeless, reduced the number ofthe homeless in San’ya. The homeless can stay up to six months with the condition of
doing maintenance job in the center. The homeless receive skill training for
employment during the first 2 to 4 weeks of stay. Every person can apply for the useof the center twice in his or her life. The whole Tokyo’s 23 wards are divided into 5groups. The locations of the temporary assistance facilities take rotation among themember wards in each group. For instance, as Taito ward, Arakawa ward, Kita ward
and Bunkyo ward are in the same group, the location of the facilities would be in
Taito ward for four years, and in Arakawa ward for the next four years. The homelessin San’ya between 2011 and 2015 should go to Kita Ueno to use the facilities there.
After this measure, the number of the homeless seems rapidly reduced. According tothe official statistics, the number of the homeless scattered around Tokyo in generaldecreases rapidly since the initiation of the program. So does in San’ya area. They
were once one of the most visible existence adding negative scores in San’ya. But
over the past 10 years, Tamahime Park and Iloha are getting less crowded.
The renovation of Minami-senju station completed in 2010 is a normal method that
improves the city’s image and creates good investment environment. It followed theopening of Tsukuba Line – the express train line connecting the center of Tokyo andits northern cities, which has a stop at Minami-senju station. This renovation opened
Akuresuti Minami, which is a trendy commercial center containing various
restaurants, shops, also a private clinic. The commercial brands that have entered inthis building are mainly middleclass-oriented, such as Maison Souvenir, a French
style desert shop. The poor population originally composed the majority here are not
the target customers. It can be expected that this renovation would gentrify this area if
population inflow to central Tokyo will keep growing in the following years.

4.2. A less aggressive and slow process
From the above analysis, the strategies of transforming San’ya can be generally
divided into two stages. The early stage started from 1960s, when the approach israther implicit. The second stage started from early 2000s, when more intensive
measures were taken. Overall, it can be said that Tokyo government has long been
intentional to transform San’ya, but it has never adopted an aggressive approach,which made the process less ‘apparent’. Meanwhile, between the 1960s and early
2000, Tokyo Metropolitan Government did not take any significant measures to pull
off the thorn in their eyes, though San’ya has long been associated with poverty andsocial problems such as violent conflicts between labour unions of the day labourers
and the hotbed of yakuza. To explain this, we have to infer from some facts

	
  

	
  
mentioned and not mentioned in the previous parts, and take into consideration of
economic and political factors.
To understand why after the Tokyo Metropolitan Government erased the name San’ya
there were no other events related to San’ya taking place that were led by the Tokyo
government until the early 2000, we should examine the economic significance ofSan’ya to Tokyo. Between 1960s and 1980s, San’ya had significant role for Tokyo’s
economic development. Post-WWII reconstruction created a great number of
construction projects, after more than two thirds of the central Tokyo area wasdestroyed by the American bombing in 1945. After 10 years of recovery when socialand economic infrastructure is restructured, Japan’s economy started to experiencehigh-speed growth. Investment flooded into Tokyo. The large demand for businessand residential spaces in Tokyo area pushed the number of construction projects inthis city to a peak. All these construction work generated large demand for labor
workers. The needs from the other manufacturing soared in the same time. AfterTokyo Olympic Games, though construction work in central Tokyo had been getting
less along with the decrease of available space and skyrocketing land price 7 ,economic prospect in general was still bright and demand from construction andmanufacturing industries were still big in Tokyo Metropolitan Area as a whole. Fromlate 1960s, several suburban development projects were initiated. Tama new town
development was approved in 1965 and started construction in the following year.
This new town accommodated 16 university and college campuses. Several
universities originally located in central Tokyo moved their main campus to thesuburban new towns. Those include some of the top public and private universities inJapan, such as Keio University, Chuo University, Hitotsubashi University and so on.
For all these construction and city development projects, day laborers madesignificant contribution. San’ya at that period was actually crucial to the developmentof Tokyo city. In this sense, it is easy to understand that San’ya was preserved duringthat time. Only erasing the name of San’ya actually is a very smart and visionary
decision.
After 2000, there is one important factor helps us to understand why more intense
measures where taken, that is the proposal of global city by the Tokyo Metropolitan
Government (2002 strategy plan). In this plan, a basic concept of ‘creating an
attractive and prosperous, environmentally-leading city that will serve as a model for
the world’ (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2011, p3) was proposed. Tokyo
recognized ‘the intensifying competition between international cities, and the growing
severity of problems facing the global environment’ (Tokyo Metropolitan
Government, 2011, p2), and targeted to be a city that can create internationallycompetitive environment. Strategies followed up immediately for the city
development goal, which includes ‘revitalization of Tokyo as a place in which to live
and work’, ‘development of urban infrastructure’, ‘building a safe and secure city’,
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
7	
  The Second World War destroyed most part of Tokyo, which allows land development at low prices during thereconstruction. Economic recovery then stimulated investment to flood into Tokyo, which created large demand
for residential and business spaces. The sudden increasing demand and the limited amount of available land had
Tokyo’s land price soar. In Ginza – one of the growth cores in Tokyo, land was 45,000 yen/m2 in 1947, but
350,000 yen/m2 in 1953, and 1,100,000 yen/m2 in 1961. In the following years, although Japan’s economic
growth continued slowing down, economic prospect for businesses based in central Tokyo stayed bright. Land
price continued increasing until economic bubble blasted in 1991. The slump of land price led to dramatic
devalorization of assets in the hands of investors. Further investment stopped. Unemployment rate increased.
Economy in Tokyo region in general went into stagnation.

	
  

	
  
‘creating a comfortable urban environment’, ‘promoting better living conditions’, andso on. In this plan, San’ya is circled in the central revitalization zone. It would then beeasy to understand that there are more governmental actions against a shabby area
filled with deprived population.
Map 3. Map of Zone Division

Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Government (2011)

However, as pointed out before, in this period the Tokyo government still did not takeaggressive actions such as forced eviction against the ‘undesired’ population, which is
a common practice in many developed and developing countries. The reason isprobably not because the Tokyo government is benign enough to not think about thisoption. In fact, the displacement of the homeless in San’ya to the other areas was once
proposed but denied in implementation, as the other wards do not want to have theproblems spread to their districts. The political and economic cost should be the realreason of not conducting evacuation and eviction in San’ya. Aggressive intervention
such as forced eviction would in fact have high cost on Japanese society. Meanwhile,
the population aging of day laborers allows the ‘soft approach’ to work though it
takes a bit longer time, as population displacement eventually will be completed itself
as long as the new influx of ‘undesirable’ population is discouraged. ‘Soft approaches’
which coordinate with the aging of day laborers, improve infrastructure(transportation) to signal development and encourage private and individual
investment, in this sense, is a more sound approach.

	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  
VI.	
  Conclusion	
  and	
  implication	
  	
  The transformation of San’ya appears to be driven by spontaneous market forces withno government coordination or guidance. However, historical events indicate that thisis a ‘clean-out’ process strategically and systematically ‘normalizing’ and ‘gentrifying’
San’ya, along with the trend of population aging. These events include renaming ofSan’ya, renovation of Minami-senju station, policy change in the use of Johoku Laborand Welfare Centre, and construction of temporary settlement for the homeless.
Categorizing by their effects, these events can be grouped as erasure of memory,
population displacement and encouragement of new investment.
Looking through the timeline, these events took place in two periods, which also
reflect different policy orientations. The first stage (1960s) has the approach withrather implicit purpose. The second stage (from early 2000s) has the purpose more
explicit than the previous one. The transformation also has a tendency of speeding up
during this period. Tokyo government is considered as having long been intentional totransform San’ya, but not opted to an aggressive approach, which made the processless ‘apparent’.
Between the 1960s and early 2000, Tokyo Metropolitan Government did not take any
significant measures to deal with San’ya which was seen a problematic area in Tokyo.
The economic significance of San’ya between 1960s and late 1980s helps us
understand this nothing-was-done period. The making of ‘global city’ strategy reactivated the government force to speed up the transformation of San’ya. Aggressive
approach were not adopted during this period either. Economic and political cost, as
well as the natural aging of present day laborer population gives an alternative of
explanation.
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 relocated andcut off from their original social connection, while redevelopment can still proceed
and add land value to the area, as well as improve the general image of the city. 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 and open its
resources and opportunities to everyone? Whether a less ‘desirable’ place is a badplace that must be converted to feed the taste of middle class? Whether they reallyhave to be incompatible with the rest of the city and rest of the population? These arequestions that this research raises for more discussion in the future.

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  

	
  
Reference	
  	
  
	
  

Journals and books:
Christopher J. Arthur, A guide to Marx's Grundrisse in English, p. 2, no date (CJA online
website, circa 2009)
Fowler, E. (1996). Sanʼya blues: laboring life in contemporary Tokyo. Ithaca, NY, Cornell
University Press.
Blunkett, D., Jackson, K., Jackson, K., Historien, G. B., Jackson, K., & Historian, G. B.
(1987). Democracy in crisis: the town halls respond. Hogarth.
Dalley, S. (1989). Myths from Mesopotamia. The World's Classics, 39-135.
Greenfeld, L. (1988). Center: ideas and institutions. University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban
governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 3-17.
Kadi, G. E. (1988). Market mechanisms and spontaneous urbanization in Egypt: the Cairo
case*. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 12(1), 22-37.
Leontidou, L. (1990). The Mediterranean city in transition: social change and urban
development. Cambridge University Press.
Migdal, J. S., Kohli, A., & Shue, V. (1994). State power and social forces: domination andtransformation in the Third World. Cambridge University Press.
Pahl, R. E. (1970). Whose city. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Peilin, L. (2002). Tremendous Changes: The End of Villages-A Study of Villages in theCenter of Guangzhou City [J]. Social Sciences In China, 1, 015.
Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. Psychology
Press.
Sorensen, A. (2002). The making of urban Japan. Cities and Planning from Edo to theTwenty-First Century. London and.
Thompson, D. (1995). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city (Vol. 11). MIT press.
Vanberg, V. (1986). Spontaneous market order and social rules. Economics and Philosophy,
2(01), 75-100.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government. (2011). Urban Development in Tokyo. Available:
http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/pamphlet/pdf/udt2011english.pdf (Accessed: 28
July, 2015)

	
  

	
  

Websites:
Bureauof
Urban
Development,
http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp

Tokyo

Metropolitan

Government:

Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs Employment Division, Tokyo Metropolitan
Government: http://www.hataraku.metro.tokyo.jp/english/index.html
Johoku Labor and Welfare Center: http://homepage3.nifty.com/johoku/jigyou-annai/jigyouannai-26-1.pdf.
NPO S-Comos: http://www.s-cosmos.org/
Portal Site of Official Statistics of Japan: http://www.e-stat.go.jp/
Sanyu Kai: http://www2.gol.com/users/sanyukai
Statistics Division, Bureau of General Affairs, Tokyo Metropolitan Government:
http://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.jp/homepage/ENGLISH.htm
Taito Ward Office: http://www.city.taito.lg.jp
Tokyo Metropolitan Government: http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/index.htm