Kyoto City Landscape Policy 2007 / Evaluation Report 2017

The effect of the landscape policy has been evaluated in 2017 from the government website. One of the major intention is the negotiation between the architects and the policy. The data below shown the increase of permissions on the boundary of the 2007 policy which has been revised once in the 2010. [1]

 

The landscape policy in 2007 concluded a list of historical buildings that are not allowed to be demolished, during negotiations and conversations with the locals and the district associations, more buildings are allowed to be renovated. [Figure 1] For new buildings, the architects or developers also tried to negotiate with the City Planning Department about the restriction of design. A few special exemptions are granted as a new construction which excess the building height control revised in the 2007 policy. [Figure 2] Small height differences are made such as the the Kyoto DWCLA Campus (同志社女子大学新楽真館) built in 2015. [Figure 3] It is located in the 15 m restriction building height area, while the building is 18 m high. The idea is to encourage students to be actively respond in their learning. [2]

 

Fig. 1  Number of renovated historical building (Source : Evaluation of the Landscape Policy 2007, 2017)

 

Fig 2. Exemption building from the restricted region (Source : Evaluation of the Landscape Policy 2007, 2017)

 

Fig 3. List of the exception buildings (Source : Evaluation of the Landscape Policy 2007, 2017)

 

References:

[1] Kyoto City official website, A record landscape policy for 10 years, 2018, Electronic version http://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/digitalbook/book_cmsfiles/337/book.html

[2] DWC Websiite, DWCLA Campus, About Shin Gakkan (tentative name) and other related works, 2015 http://www.dwc.doshisha.ac.jp/news/2015/11/post_911.html

1 Comment on “Kyoto City Landscape Policy 2007 / Evaluation Report 2017

  1. You chose interesting and hot topics about how to balance the conflict between conservation and contemporary construction, between the top-down policies and the voice of the public as well as between the prescriptive restriction of regulation and architectural innovation and then you listed related examples to illustrate the Kyoto solution in each post. Actually, all these questions are good enough, and you could choose one to two to make a deeper discussion and analysis with enough supporting evidence in the future. Moreover, when talking about the layout of Kyoto, you could integrate some maps in the post to make it more understandable. Good work.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.