Japanese Architecture – some comments on the current condition

March 12th, 2010By Category: Uncategorized

Architecture in Japan is a broad canvas. There is a great deal of history and a legacy of craftsmanship behind the formidable engineering and highly regarded aesthetic sensibility that drives the reputation today. An army of superlatives readily rolls out. From the oldest company in the world (Kongo Gumi, construction, est. 578), to the longest single-span bridge (Kobe to Awaji island 1970m).

Japanese architects have designed for Armani and Dior and several of the world’s leading art institutions and Tange, Maki and Ando have each received the Pritzker prize. But sometimes the details tell a little more. As happens around the world problems arise, imbalances develop and policy has to be modified. Building culture evolves. Here in Japan some of the main issues would be insulation, the fecundity of those industrialized ‘house maker’ construction companies, and of course regulatory administration. Insulation is something that historically just seems to have been left off the list in this country.

The wonderfully light and delicate traditional Japanese house was well designed for summer but winter seems to have been something to be endured from beneath the kotatsu. From this situation naked buildings of solid concrete were able to flourish. But while the works of Tadao Ando have been highly regarded, some of the inhabitants have come to realize what an R value of next to zero really means. Other architects such as Sejima Kazuyo have also achieved a world class architectural vocabulary because they choose to skip lightly over some of the more fundamental design issues.

But rather than focusing on insulation to improve thermal performance the emphasis was placed on airtight detailing. Japan’s excellent production standards and on-site workmanship was badly misplaced. About a decade ago as many clients began to expect zero air movement ‘Sick House Syndrome’ arrived, an inevitable result of unventilated humid enclosures lined with some less than human-friendly materials. This was closely followed by a typical knee-jerk governmental reaction that led to policy requiring all new houses to have holes in them (no architect present on that panel of decision makers).

But they did also introduce a compulsory rating system to evaluate a materials impact on human health, (Urea formaldehyde etc.) and this was a very good thing. But rather than more regulations to raise levels of insulation (and therefore reduce energy consumption) I think the current emphasis on energy performance will naturally drive market awareness so that clients, contractors and manufactures are all interested in the various benefits that come from higher levels of insulation. Japan has an extremely high proportion of ‘off the shelf’ type house building companies specializing in clone-like industrialized construction.

As an architect I dearly wish that this plethora of ‘House Makers’ would quietly self-combust and disappear, and of course they would if their seemingly inexhaustible supply of mediocrity focused clientele would just look up. Unfortunately, despite a very egalitarian demographic there is a large segment that just wants to blend in, to keep their heads down. Perhaps just for political expediency self-expression has being frowned upon since Buddha was a boy. Great for getting a country united and off its knees but after that… Of course like every generalization about Japan there is an equally valid opposite. I have been commissioned to design here expressly in order for the clients to avoid the above syndrome. There is a concerted minority committed to living outside the very same box that so many are trying to climb into. And then there is the delicate issue of governance.

With this country’s propensity for a political elite nurtured on nepotism genuinely talented policy makers are a bit thin on the ground. I live in Kyoto, the old heartland, a city small in stature but huge in the minds and hearts of the nation. But what do you do when the heart moves on? It is a very difficult issue, to maintain the dynamism and commercial viability as well as the existing historical urban fabric. Cities like Kyoto need design regulations, but in this city some of the details are puzzling. I recently designed a house to be built just outside the urban fringe, within a substantial suburban area of housing stock mostly built within the last thirty years, spreading back up and disappearing into the hills – completely away from any historically significant buildings of any kind. But the regulations here are fierce. The plan must be orthogonal, the walls must be perpendicular, the roof must be pitched (and at a slope of between 16.5 and 25.5deg.) There must be an eave of at least 600mm. The choice of cladding is also strongly controlled (but imitation wood printed metal siding is one acceptable type…??) etc etc.

On the one hand this kind of control makes it difficult to build truly appalling houses but it also makes it difficult to build truly remarkable houses. I believe it promotes a kind of mediocrity, and mediocrity is exactly what will kill Kyoto. Kyoto’s history is one of outstanding invention and craftsmanship, quality of materials and quality of ideas. It includes the first hydroelectric power station in Japan, the first railway line in Japan and when Higashi-Honganji was built it was one of the two biggest timber buildings in the world. This kind of spirit is what lives on in the minds and hearts of the nation, and it cannot be properly nurtured within the confines of the existing object-oriented planning regulations.

One alternative would be a ‘peer review’ panel, where designs are presented to and negotiated with, a (rotating) panel of accomplished professionals, academics and civil servants. A similar process could be employed in the commercial sphere where buildings that can demonstrate a contribution to the urban environment could receive dispensations for additional floor-area etc. A little more flexibility in this area could go a long way. Japan is one of the most remarkable architectural destinations on the planet. It generates a great deal of attention and generally fosters a liberal approach to design in a fairly unencumbered regulatory environment. But just like most other countries, with closer inspection the details reveal a little more of the complexity and contradiction of modern urbanism in a changing world.

 

————————————————- This post originally appeared by Japan Today Insight. The article, written by Peter Boronski is available along with further advice for doing business in Japan at insight.japantoday.com.

Author of this article

GaijinPot

GaijinPot is an online community for foreigners living in Japan, providing information on everything you need to know about enjoying life here, from finding a job and accommodation to having fun.

Related articles that may interest you

Comments

  • oily skin says:

    Great article. I always thought highly of Japanese architecture, but this article made me really think twice about it. Would it be safe to say in this case, that you get what you pay for?

  • A lot of new Japanese architecture and design is western influenced and a lot of buildings are becoming less traditional Japanese and more modern western.

  • Never better evaluation than the upper article says,.And I am very pleased I read it by accident.I will go a sightseeing here again ,and of course ,I will tell my friend here I hope more better thing can be whrite in here.I have so many profound or funny thing do benefits to our daily life.By the way,here are some sites also useful for life,such as shopping online,just have a look.

  • Your website is beautiful and useful. How do I access your site often. Come visit my website at addlink addurl and Linking to websites

  • future architect says:

    If you are rich, japan has great architecture. Amazing houses. Clean, subtle, interesting.
    If you are poor (or middle class) like most of us, it's shitty and uninspiring. No view, no space, cheap materials, just very thoughtless construction, and they charge enormous prices because of the location. For what? It's a sham.
    When people speak of architecture, they always reference something that has no practical function, they can name some celebrity architects, all of that really does nothing for the average person.
    I like to know how everyday people live.
    Why focus on the small percentage of good stuff?
    Walking around is fun, you can take interesting photos and write essays, but when it comes down to it, few of these places are admirable and truly habitable, in the sense of being a good place to kick it- most architecture in japan sucks. And I'm not a fan of it at all.

  • How is topography dealt with in Japan? I've done my fair share of hiking, sticking marks in the ground or standing on walls to do some topography of the areas and buildings, how is it done there?

Top