CPIJ

Published by The City Planning Institute of Japan
Ichibancho West Building, 6th Floor
Ichibancho 10, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 102 Japan

News Letter
No.18 monthPhone:81-.3-3261-5407 Fax:81-3-3261-1874
URL:http://wwwsoc.nacsis.ac.jp/cpij
Edited by The International Affairs Committee of the CPIJ
Chairman: Yoshihide NAKAGAWA, Prof. of Waseda Univ.

2000

Editor：Kenjiro OMURA
University of Tsukuba, Institute of
Policy and Plannning Sciences
Since Meiji Restoration in 1867, Japanesepeople have strove in many ways in order to create amodern society.
It enabled us to overcome thedevastating damage on social and economic systems afterWorld War II and achieve amazing economic growth.
Although some may not agree, the central government
has played an important role in the reconstruction process,and it is responsible, in large part, for the economic
prosperity of today’s Japan.
In the field of city planning, the central
government also has played a large role through thosetimes. Major planning policy in Japan before the war
was to create a capital that symbolized the power ofJapanese Government, or to build urban infrastructurethat will last for “one hundred years.” Those policies
were carried out under the strong leadership of the central
government.
Local governments were merely adelivering body of central government programs, andcitizens’ voices were hardly heard.
After WWII, a law was passed that establishedthe system of local governance, but Japanese people had
to wait until 1969, which was at the peak of higheconomic growth period, for decision making powers tobe actually delegated to local governments.
During the high economic growth period, theurbanization in three major metropolitan areas --- Tokyo,
Osaka, and Nagoya--- progressed rapidly. In order tocontrol suburban sprawl and confusion of land uses inthose areas, the central government set unified regulatory
rules and guided the local governments.
Besides,financial aid from the central government was very
crucial for local governments in order to develop
industrial base, which was highly needed at the time.
Through this high economic growth period, Japan faced
the urgent issues of urbanization and industrialization; it
forced close working relationship between central andlocal government to be formed, and the system thatenabled such close relationship was developed.
After the two oil crises, Japanese economy had
moved into a period of stable growth. As the speed ofurbanization lessened, people’s interest moved to more
immediate surroundings, like living environment,
historical heritage, and natural environment. Many
progressive attempt in city planning were made byvarious local governments, and those attempts began toinfluence the central government policy.
Today, many agree that political and economic
system that is lead by a strong central government cannot
cope with issues today’s societies have, and demand fordecentralization is high. Similarly, decentralization is
now a very important issue in the field of city planning.
However, the present planning system has been fosteredthrough a long relationship between central and local
governments, and immediate change will not occur. We
need to have a long-term view to deal with the questions:
How can we better our cities and rural areas? What is thebest system in achieving those goals? How citizens andprivate corporations should be involved in decision
making process? Huge issues lie in front of us.
Following articles will feature on those issues.

2

Decentralization of City Planning Administration
Tatsuo Akashi, Deputy Director
City Planning Division, Ministry of Construction
Under the decentralization policy adopted by
Japanese Government, the administrative system ofnational and local government is under review. The
purpose of the decentralization policy is to promoteformation of unique and vivial regional societies by
increasing discretionary powers of local governments.
Since the Decentralization Act was passed in 1995, aseries of discussion and consultation regardingcity-planning administration has also taken place,followed by phased revisions of related laws and codes.
A part of the revisions has already been implemented in
November 1998.
Main foci of revisions regarding city planningincluded the following: reassignment of decision making
bodies, due process (whether approvals by higher
governments are required or not), the roles of central andlocal governments, and the roles among local
governments (the Japanese local government system is abilayer system, composed of prefectures andmunicipalities.)
The 1968 City Planning Act delegated all
decision making powers to local governments (the law
allows the central government to practice its power over
local governments in very exceptional cases, but it has
never been done.) Therefore, the ongoing review does
not interfere with the very foundation of the present
system. However, the review is important in a sense
that, in the process of reviewing and discussing thefoundation of general administrative system, particularly
deep attention was paid to the city-planningadministration as a main branch that is concerned with
developing regional societies.
One large change regarding the generaladministrative system caused by the review is
discontinuance of “agency-delegated functions”. The
agency-delegated functions are a type of prefecture’s
administrative jobs, in which prefectural governors work
as an agency of the national government. This system
has been used widely in Japanese administrative laws,
including city-planning laws. By doing away with this,what has been “decisions made by the prefecture andapproved by the national government” will change to“decisions made by the prefecture, with consultation andagreement of the national government.”

From a legal point of view, this change is very
fundamental, but it will not cause dramatic change
because prefectures in large part have been working quite
independently. However, because the revision extends
the terrain of independence for local governments, it will,in the long run, certainly cause gradual change in theadministrative system and how policies are carried out.
For city-planning administration, the revisions
focused on two points: (1) municipalities should be thecentral bodies in city-planning administration, and (2)higher governmental organizations, like the national
government and prefectures, should clarify the purpose
and limit the extent of interference. In other words, therevisions emphasized and reinforced the role ofmunicipalities, a body which is closest to local people
and most aware of the local situation. Municipalities arethus acknowledged as the best organizations to realize thepurpose of decentralization.
And for the higher
governmental organizations, they are to refrain from“supervising as guardians,” the role they played whencity planning was still in its developing stage.
Furthermore, city-planning administration deals
with very wide range of people’s lives, from hedge
around houses to interregional highways. Therefore, ineach city planning decision, every-day point of view, likecreating townscape or better living environment, andregional and national point of view should be adjusted
properly.
Taking this into consideration, the revision
reassigns decision-making powers appropriate for eachlevel of governments.
Now decisions made byprefectures are limited only to inter-municipal matters; all
the rest are delegated to local municipalities, thus
enlarging the discretionary power of municipalities.
Also, matters that require approval of the national
government is limited to regional issues and matters that
directly interfere with national interest.
Looking at roads for example, prefectures are
now responsible for highways, national road, prefecturalroad, and roads with four or more lanes (used to include
roads with width of 16m or more). And out of those,highways and national road (it used to include prefecturalroad with width of 16m or more) are going to requireapproval of the Secretary of Construction. For land use
district (= basic zoning of building use and density),
prefectural decision and national approval are now
limited only to the three major metropolitan areas (usedto include cities with population of 250,000 or more.)

3

The impact of the revisions can be seen throughnumbers.
The percentage of decisions made bymunicipalities is estimated to rise from 60% to 75% of allcity-planning decisions, whereas decisions made byprefectures will drop from 40% to 25%. Decisions that
require national government approval will drop from 20%
to 10%.
In addition, a bill proposing amendments to the
Local Governance Act will be laid before the Diet in thespring of 1999. The bill is going to propose such
revisions like discontinuance of delegated agency
functions in city planning, authorization of city planningcommissions of municipalities (at present, only those ofprefectures have legal base), and enlargement of
discretionary powers for entitled cities (cities withapproximately 1 million population or more).

City Planning System in the Period ofDecentralization
Mari Uchiumi
Yokohama National University
Movement of Community-based Planning
City planning in Japan has been carried out according
to nationally set standards. It is possible for local
governments to create an “ordinance,” but subjects of theordinance are limited only to matters “delegated bynational laws,” and creating ordinances that go beyond
the framework of national laws is not allowed. In otherwords, Japanese planning system does not allow flexible
uses to respond to different local situations.
To supplement such deficiency in the system, local
governments, since the 1968 City Planning Act, havepracticed self-autonomy right based on the Constitution
and have created “local ordinances.”
The local
governments had to supplement the local planningoutside the framework of the national statutory city
planning system.
In recent years, the role of those “local ordinances” isgrowing more important, decentralization movement
serving as a tailwind. Until recently, “local ordinances”
were only a passive statement which stayed within theframework of the national laws. However, starting in the
1980’s, ordinances that aims for “regional planning that
responds to the local situation and with extensive public
involvement” began to appear, and those ordinances went

beyond the framework of the national laws. By looking
at those ordinances, three major trends are perceptible.
(1) Comprehensive PlanningThose ordinances have multiple objectives and try totake comprehensive approach in achieving thoseobjectives. They deal with wide range of matters, fromnatural environment, historical and cultural heritage, tosocial welfare.
They are also characterized byprovisions that:-call for cross-sectional discussion,-control matters that are concerned with several laws, and-require extensive public involvement.
Conventional administrative system has been ruled bystrong sectionalism. In addition, national laws only allow
dealing with problems within the jurisdiction of each law.
Such situation set the background for those local
ordinances to come about.
In other words, themechanism created by those ordinances requires
cross-sectional adjustment and various laws to be utilized
comprehensively; therefore, they sometime even require achange in organizational structures of the local
government.
The ordinances enable planning that
responds to specific local situations and to meet thediverse needs of local people by taking comprehensive
approach.

(2) Planning with Common Goals
Those ordinances set common goals in order topromote planning by the citizens. By-clarifying roles and responsibilities of government andcitizens, and4-setting norms for related programs,
they function to reorganize the complex system of related
city planning programs. By setting common goals, they
try to promote community planning and building throughcooperation of government and citizens.
And bysimplifying the related programs, which tend to becomecomplicated, they try to make planning more easily
understood by citizens. Thus, the ordinances set basis
for each regional administration to be achieved throughdemocratic process.

(3) Neighborhood PlanningThe ordinances create system of neighborhood
planning in order to match neighborhood situations moreclosely. For example, the ordinances include provisions
that:-explain the process for forming public consensus onplans proposed by governments, or-enable plans made by citizens to be adopted officially,
with provisions for financial and technical assistance.
Tools like “District Plans” and “Building Agreements”
createdbynational
laws
also
deal
with
neighborhood-level planning and incentive system, but
those do not fit to provincial situations. Furthermore,they do not include provisions that lead community-madeplans to be officially adopted. Neither actual method nor
assistance is stated in the laws. Therefore, the needbecame high for “local ordinances” that enabled local

people to be actively involved in the planning process.
Creating New Planning System
By looking at the major trends of the local ordinances,
we can see that local areas, although still intrial-and-error stage, are developing unique systems forplanning. Those movements reflect the actual situationof regional planning administration and provide
implication for a model for decentralized planningsystem.
On the other hand, the importance of “decentralization”
also began to be emphasized at the national level. So
now, a turn from “planning by nationally set standards” to“planning based on specific regional situation and with
the involvement of local people” is promoted. However,
the measures taken are limited to creating “District Plans”
or increasing delegation of administrative powers, andthey do not go beyond the framework of present planningsystem. No prospect is shown regarding what role thelocal ordinances are going to take in the present system.
Like many other countries, Japan also needs to turn its
head from the center to the local level. In that process, it
is important to recognize the implications made by the“local ordinances” and to acknowledge the roles they
have taken.

5Machizukuri Ordinances with Provisions for Citizen
Participation
University of Tsukuba
Omori Laboratory
Hironobu Kurata
In recent years, ordinances regarding community-basedplanning are established in many local governments.
However, the aims of these ordinances vary, from
improving living environment to conserving historical
heritage or landscape, or targeting at welfare, road, ortransportation.
This report looks particularly at ordinances that areconcerned with framework and due process for realizing
community-based planning. The report will referred tothem as “machizukuri ordinances,” and explain theirrecent trend with some examples, paying special attention
on the provisions for citizen participation.
1. Background of Machizukuri Ordinances
The major factor that machizukuri ordinances became
popular is the limitation of the Development Control
Outlines, which were originally used to control sprawls of
unplanned development and land use. These outlines
were used to supplement the City Planning Act, but by
establishing the machizukuri ordinances, local
governments aimed to make clear the will and reinforce
legal grounds for their guidance.
On the other hand, by the introduction of District Plans,
citizen participation in community planning became more
and more emphasized, and the governments were urged
to make a new system for citizen participation, instead offormer top-down government system.
2. The Promotion of Citizen Participation andMachizukuri
The main focus of citizen participation in themachizukuri ordinances is to promote community-basedplanning and building process, such as development
control and conservation of the environment, withcitizens’ voluntary actions and cooperation. This isachieved through “fostering residents’ groups,” “creating
District Plans,” and “clarifying the democratic due
process.”
In one common pattern of machizukuri ordinances, a
local government authorizes machizukuri organizations,which are to make a general district plan. The plan isthen proposed to the government to be adopted officially.

Then, with the cooperation of residents and thegovernment, community building based on the generalplan is promoted.
Some of the typical examples of such machizukuri
ordinances are Kobe City Machizukuri Ordinance (1982),
Setagaya Machizukuri Ordinance (1982, revised in 1995),
Kakegawa City Lifelong Education Machizukuri andLanduse Ordinance (1992), Manazuru Machizukuri
Ordinance (1994), Toyonaka Machizukuri Ordinance(1994), and Kamakura Machizukuri Ordinance (1997).
3. Originalities of Local Governments
Those Machizukuri Ordinances are similar in theirbasic aims of promoting community planning andbuilding through fostering of citizen organizations, but at
the same time, each has its uniqueness.
Here, I will explain briefly about two cases, Setagaya
Machizukuri Ordinance and Toyonaka Machizukuri
Ordinance. In both cities, citizen organization and the
local government actually worked together to make theordinance.
The characteristic of Toyonaka Machizukuri Ordinanceis that its major focus is on supporting citizenorganizations. It aims to promote smooth actualizationof city-planning project by supporting machizukuriorganizations at early stages. To be more specific, thecity supports the very early stage of organizing groups.
Then, the city guides them through the next stage ofdesigning “General Machizukuri Plans,” which include
making extensive examination of the district, putting
together the future image of the district, and studying
methods for realizing the image. Finally, it supports thelast stage of proposing the plan to the local government,
which can then lead to the beginning of actual projects.
The characteristic of Setagaya Machizukuri Ordinance(1982) is that it is focused on a support system forrealizing actual projects. Setagaya-ku designates certain
districts as “Machizukuri Promoting Districts.” Then,
Machizukuri Councils (citizen organization) will have theright to propose plans for public projects. Moreover, theOrdinance requires Ward Council approval for thedesignation of “Machizukuri Promoting District,”therefore there is certainty for the public projects to be
carried out accordingly. Toyonaka City and Setagaya-ku
both had set the provisions for authorizing Machizukuri
Council, but Setagaya-ku, in 1995 revision, repealed theprovision. Instead, it broadened the domain of planningbody by giving the right to propose general district plan6

not only to the authorized councils but also to any
citizens in the district.
Both cities’ ordinances set provisions for financial andtechnical support to machizukuri organization. There
are also provisions for making use of the national laws
such as statutory District Plans, in order for the generalplans to be realized.
As we have seen, machizukuri ordinances that set
provisions for citizen participation are similar in theirbasic composition, but each are unique in details on how
they are promoted and carried out.

Planning with Citizen Participation
District Planning Laboratory
Minoru Nishida
City Masterplans
The revision of City Planning Act in 1992 obliged
local governments to make “the basic policy of city
planning,” which is commonly called “the City
Masterplan”.
The distinctive feature for the city masterplan is thateach local municipality is responsible for making the plan,and the municipality has the obligation to explain to thecitizens in the course of planning. These provisions
enable the masterplan to be an important guide for unique
district planning, and to possibly make it more familiar tothe citizens of the district.
City planning in the past has been viewed often as justrestrictions on citizens’ lives, such as district zoning andcity-planning road. It has not necessarily been afamiliar thing to the citizens.
Besides, citizen
participation in city planning has centered on“development projects” such as land readjustment or
redevelopment, and it often took the form of an opposing
action, such as the movement against road construction.
In recent years, many local governments have changed
the name of city planning division to “Machizukuri
Division” and are trying to make a softer image of city
planning. Despite the effort, the system of citizen
participation in making city masterplan was conceived bymany people with some uneasiness, since neither the
local government nor the citizens had the experience of
citizen participation in creating city-wide masterplans.
Now each local government is struggling to search forways of citizen participation. It is still true that many ofthem are only taking the form of citizen participation
when they are actually not, but some local governments
are trying out many ways, such as the usage of internet orwalking-tours, to promote citizen participation. Also, anumber of government officials are participating inmachizukuri events planned by citizens, and new wave ofpartnership is about to begin.
Since it has been generally thought that the
governments were responsible for city planning, very
rarely had correction or changes in the government-madeplan occurred. Now, some of the progressive local
governments are taking three-step planning strategy for
citizen participation: ”rough draft, first plan, and finalplan,” and they work very flexibly toward modifications.
Some local governments open citizens’ opinions to the
public, and publicly answer them. For the relationshipwith city council, there also seems to be a change fromthe conventional way, in that more detailed explanation is
given to council members, although it may notnecessarily require a council decision.
On the side of the citizens, it is now understood that inorder to participate in creating a masterplan from earlystages, knowledge and experience of city planning isnecessary. Some citizen organizations are now trying toaccumulate their works and the experience of making
masterplan proposals.
Seikatsu-sha Network
People who are especially active in proposing
citizen-made city masterplans are the women of
Seikatsu-sha Network, which is a group aiming toparticipate and to propose plans based on their everyday
experience.
In the past, they have made disasterprevention maps, and have made suggestions toconstructions of public buildings from the women’s pointof view. Now that the citizen participation is adopted in
the planning system, they are challenging the city
planning, something they could not put their hands on in
the past.
They said, “We don’t know much about masterplans,
but it is fun to think how our city would be in ten years
from now. So, let’s do it!”
Their principles were as follows:
1. Bring in your friends and extend the group
2. Never fear the differences of opinions
3. Make it fun--- or else it will not last
4. Do in workshop style--- discuss and work at the same
time.

7

It seems that early work, which was done in Chofu
City in 1994, interested them and matched their feelings
very well. In more than ten districts or cities of Tokyo,
citizens are starting to create their city masterplans, andmany of the staff members of those movements are theones who participated in the work in Chofu. They havemade very detailed and bold district research and publicpark research, and through those researches, theyacquired district information that the local government(and entrusted consultants) could never give. Their
power and energy and the richness in their ideas should
always be greatly admired.
In Suginami-ku, when the local government started
basic research for the masterplan, the citizens
organization,“Citizen’s
GroupofDreaming
Machizukuri,” was started, and I participated as one of
the citizens. In the first year, the group put together the“District Machizukuri Plan”. In 1996, when the local
government presented the rough-draft plan, citizens
presented their report, and the basic ideas in the reportwere reflected in the final masterplan.
In the process of preparing “District MachizukuriPlan,” which took up Suginami District No.2 as a model
district, detailed district research was done, and district
maps such as “the map of endangered houses” were made.
It was something very difficult for the local government
to do. The plan was made through workshops, withgovernment officials participating, and the proposals in
the Plan were realistic, based on everyday life. At thesame time it kept some dreams in it. For example, there
were interesting proposals concerning the Kanpachi
Street, which passes through the district and is giving
troubles to the residents. Since the street is planned tobe put underground in the future, they proposedconstruction of a park for young people on the groundabove the street and the revival of the old river, using theoverflow of underground water. Those ideas tookdisadvantage as an advantage, and they called it“repaying of kindness by Kanpachi Street”.
Governments tend to criticize citizens’ proposals to be“unrealistic,” but I realized that the citizens, based on
their everyday life, never present unrealistic ideas, unlike
some of the consultants who are simply trying to show off
their originality. After the workshops, in order to reflect
more people’s ideas to the plan, the group preparedpresentations for other district groups and shopping street
organizations. They also explained their proposals andhad discussion with relating sections of the local

government.
*The result of this activity is given in the publishedbook, ”Working Manual for Urban Design”.
The Prospect of Machizukuri through Citizen
Participation
The level of citizen proposals is high. Now there area variety of participants in Machizukuri organizations.
Especially, male participants are increasing in numbers,
including professionals of city planning and architecture,and retired businessmen. There are also quite a numberof cases where a passionate government official isparticipating as an individual resident. Regarding thetechniques for citizen participation, the first generation
would be the “workshop style” (ex. Kamakura City,
Yamato City, etc.) in which a government takes theinitiative, and participation is conducted more like anevent than a continuous effort. Today, it is going into
the second generation, “counter plan, opinion-proposal
style” (ex. Suginami-ku). Now the governments are
responding to the citizens more flexibly, and making it
possible for the proposals, which are usually realistic
ideas based on the situation of each district, to bereflected in the final plan.
Furthermore, some trial works for the third generation
are being done.
In Chofu City, the citizens’committee, ”Chofu Machizukuri Group” made the roughdraft plan and presented it to the public. This actuallymeant the realization of entrustment of the masterplan tothe citizens. In Komae City, three citizen plans havebeen proposed, and the government is now working to
make its plan based on those proposals. These examples
suggest that the third generation of citizen participation
would be the “partnership-style”. It is a welcome movethat governments are now recognizing abilities of thecitizens. But on the other hand, heavy load is put on to
the citizens who are working as coordinators. In thatmeans, it is important to support the coordinators ofcitizen participation by authorizing Machizukuri NPO
and supporting them financially as well.