Preserving and Revitalizing an Ethnic Urban Neighborhood ...

Preserving and Revitalizing an Ethnic Urban

Neighborhood in Transition :

San Francisco’s Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan

ODA TakashiMiyagi University of Education

AbstractThis study discusses the history, transitions, governance, and planning of an ethnic urban neighborhood, as exemplified by San Francisco’s Japantown in the United States. It presents a variety of challenges in urban ethnic neighborhood governance, including gentrification, redevelopment, heritage preservation, and the participatory public planning process. In response to economic neoliberalization, recent urban planning policies have inspired a diverse network of urban actors, including individuals, private corporations, and nonprofit community organizations to banded together to preserve their community’s cultural heritage in the face of market-driven redevelopment and perceived gentrification. In San Francisco, recent movements have aimed to preserve the ethnic and cultural heritage of the city’s Japantown. While the community has nurtured and been enriched by many different cultural and ethnic groups, San Francisco’s Japantown has historically been represented by primarily Japanese American community organizers and postwar Shin Issei （first-generation Japanese immigrants） business owners and residents, marking it as a culturally diverse space. However, partly because of this diversity, recent community discussions on preserving Japantown have been divisive. While the general agreement is that the neighborhood’s heritage should be preserved, many disagree as to how to balance preservation efforts with economic revitalization to ensure the community’s sustainability. Using interviews and field observation, this study analyzes the strengths and challenges of one such movement, the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan. Analysis of the campaign’s implementation reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the plan and makes recommendations for future community governance.

Key words : participatory planning, urban design, redevelopment, consensus building, Japantown

I　Introduction

This study examines the historical origins, recent transitions, and planning of an ethnic urban neighborhood, as exemplified by San Francisco’s Japantown in the United States. This analysis presents various challenges in urban ethnic neighborhood governance, including gentrification, redevelopment, heritage preservation, and the participatory public planning process.　Many articles that deal with specific ethnic neighborhoods （including my own

1） focus on the

―　1　―

Japanese Journal of Human Geography 66―1（2014）

distribution of ethnic residents, businesses, and institutions using quantitative and spatial data and GIS analyses. However, few have used qualitative methods to examine decaying former immigrant neighborhoods that require preservation and revitalization to maintain their cultural and ethnic character and sustain economic vitality. Over the past few decades, the devolution of state power has shifted urban management from central government control to local, more participatory governance （Kodras 1997 ; Pierre and Peters 2000 ; Hajer and Wagenaar 2003 ; Hague and Harrop

2004 ; Yamamoto 2007）. This involves the political participation of a network of diverse urban actors （Putnam 1993）, including individuals, private corporations, and nonprofit community organizations. Existing studies in geography, however, have paid little attention to the socioeconomic process of, and the challenges faced in, creating alternatives to traditional urban government and management.　In response to the Western application of neoliberal policies such as privatization, deregulation, and devolution throughout the 1980s, North American neighborhoods have transitioned drastically and dramatically. Some urban politics studies have examined coalition building among diverse stakeholders to accelerate urban growth, redevelopment, and gentrification. Movements against urban growth, specifically the anti-high rise movement in the 1970s and 1980s, contributed to some growth regulation in the US ; however, very few achieved the goal of forming an entity to collectively contest the expansion, commodification, and gentrification of urban neighborhoods （Mollenkopf 1975 ; Ross et al. 1991）.　San Francisco, California, with a population of over 800 , 000, is a classically liberal “left coast city” （DeLeon 1992）. Influenced by neighboring Bay Area counties and universities such as the University of California, Berkley, the city has seen countless counterculture movements influenced by issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, free speech, Japanese American redress, environmental issues, and same-sex marriage. In this political environment, citizens feel empowered to regularly organize, voice their concerns, and exert pressure on local government. This political activism has regularly included many movements to preserve the character and quality of the city, such as the movement in the 1960s and 1970s to prevent the Manhattanization of the city （that is, to prevent the construction of densely built, horizon-obstructing

skyscrapers）（DeLeon 1992 ; Godfrey 1997 ; McGovern 1998）.　These political factors are equally relevant at the neighborhood level. San Francisco’s Japantown （hereafter Japantown）, with more than a century of history, continues to face numerous challenges in preserving and managing its existence as it evolves as an ethnic urban space. The neighborhood is currently in the vestige stage （Sugiura 2013b） of an ethnic town, in that its ethnic population and businesses are spatially dispersed within a metropolitan area, while the ethnic town itself faces reduction and deconstruction. In this study, I look at Japantown’s spatial evolution and the struggle to preserve its identity.　This article is based on my participatory observation between 2006 and 2008 of the planning process following the Save Japantown campaign, and in-depth academic fieldwork I conducted from 2008―2009

2 at the University of California, Berkeley. In my analysis, I will revisit some key

arguments and data from my previous articles on Japantown regarding the construction of an institutional framework for its preservation （Oda 2010） and quantitative spatial analyses of the term “gentrification” as it is used, felt, and defined by local people （Oda 2012）. However, this article pays more attention to qualitative aspects of the complex consensus-building process in Japantown’s preservation and planning, particularly with regard to the influence of the community’s history on its political process.

―　2　―

Japanese Journal of Human Geography 66―1（2014）2

　I will first summarize a brief history of the neighborhood and its recent transitions. I will then discuss the institutionalization and legitimization of Japantown’s participatory planning and preservation while identifying the major stakeholders involved. The latter half of this article examines the neighborhood’s institutionalized planning challenges, which involve diverse stakeholders with different backgrounds. The final section reports Japantown’s more recent neighborhood planning efforts. In this way, I evaluate the effectiveness of local participation in neighborhood planning as an alternative to top-down government planning procedures.

II　Japantown : its traditions and transition

Historical origins and evolutionJapantown has experienced different phases of growth （consistent with other ethnic neighborhoods in the

US） throughout its more than 100-year history. Settled by Japanese immigrants in the early 1890s, Japantown began to grow after the Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake （M7 . 8） destroyed previous ethnic clusters near the present Chinatown area, prompting many Japanese immigrants to move to the Western Addition district on Geary Boulevard （Figure 1）.　As with other ethnic urban spaces, Japantown has reflected local, regional, and international socioeconomic and political dynamics. At its inception, Japantown’s ethnic cluster served a defensive role to protect its recent immigrant population from discrimination. During World

Figure 1.　Japantown, Chinatown, and A-1 and A-2 redevelopment areas in San FranciscoSource : US Census, 2000 ; reprinted from Oda （2012）

Preserving and Revitalizing an Ethnic Urban Neighborhood in Transition : San Francisco’s Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan（ODA）

―　3　―

3

War II, Japantown went through a phase of exclusion and eviction following Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942 （Kawaguchi and Seigel 2000 ; Graves, D. and Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2009 ; Oda 2012）. The order, which dictated the forcible removal of coastal-area Japanese Americans, labeled “enemy aliens,” to internment camps, led to the decline of the Japanese population in Japantown.　After the war, some residents returned to the community to rebuild, only to find that the Western Addition district had been targeted for “slum clearance” under the postwar Housing Act of 1949. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency then designated A-1 and A-2 project areas in and around Japantown （Figure 1） describing the first and second phases of redevelopment that correspond to 1956―1973 and 1964-present. Postwar redevelopment proceeded despite Japanese Americans’ protest against these policies, ultimately resulting in the eviction of numerous residents and businesses from Japantown, particularly in A-1 project areas. This experience led the Japanese American community to distrust government policymaking processes, which continues to affect recent neighborhood planning as is discussed later in this paper.　In 1968, the Kintetsu Enterprise Company of America, a US subsidiary of a major private railway company headquartered in San Francisco’s sister city of Osaka, Japan, opened a new shopping mall called the Japan Trade Center （later renamed the Japan Center Mall）（Sugiura and Oda

2009 ; Oda 2010）. This period precipitated the involvement of new Japanese groups in the neighborhood, particularly the Japanese-speaking Shin Issei （postwar Japanese immigrants）, and the expatriate managers of businesses in shopping malls. Changes in the neighborhood’s physical environment caused by the redevelopment led local Sansei （English-speaking third generation Japanese

Americans） to mobilize to protect their immigrant community from external capital investors （Lai

2001 ; Sugiura 2007）. During this period, several non-profit community organizations were founded to preserve Japanese Americans’ cultural heritage （Oda 2010）. Though a relatively high percentage of San Francisco’s Japanese residents still live in and around Japantown as compared with the rest of the city （Figure 2）, the neighborhood has come to rely heavily upon the Japanese businesses and community organizations that developed in the postwar period.　While the Japan Center Mall and surrounding businesses served as a showcase of Japan’s period of high economic growth, the neighborhood economy has suffered over the past two decades, reflecting the decline of the Japanese economy as well as the domestic relocation of Japanese businesses （Oda 2010 ; Oda 2012）. Waves of “gentrification” （a term used by some members of the

local community to refer to physical redevelopment） pressured community organizers to take action against the domination of the neighborhood by major market-led developers. These struggles between economic development and cultural preservation （described in Sugiura and Oda 2009 with

respect to a local bowling alley, Starbucks, and a condominium development） came to a head in early 2006 when Kintetsu America, the largest Japantown property owner, announced their intention to sell all of their properties in the neighborhood. This development further provoked community concern about market-led gentrification, resulting in the Save Japantown campaign （Figure 4）, the concomitant formal zoning amendment called the Japantown Special Use District of 2006, and the institutionalization of a participatory public planning process, which I describe in the next section3.

―　4　―


Major Road

Japantown

1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 7

8 - 11

Percentage

0 1 2 km

Figure 2.　Percentage of Japanese residents in San Francisco by Census tract, 2000Source : US Census, 2000 ; reprinted from Oda （2012）

Figure 3.　Japantown’s central areaNote the presence of a Peace Pagoda donated by the people of Osaka （upper right）Photo by Takashi Oda, December 17, 2006

Figure 4.　The Save Japantown City Hall RallyPhoto by Takashi Oda, March 14, 2006


―　5　―

5

III　Preserving intangible culture : framework and stakeholders

Formation of institutional framework and instrumentsThe Save Japantown campaign quickly gained support from local politicians, government officials, and people from the wider San Francisco area. Eventually, the campaign led to a formal zoning regulation on redevelopment and the formation of a public planning program. After consulting with city officials, campaign leaders realized it was difficult to immediately apply current preservation schemes such as the Planning Code （Historic Districts application） to the neighborhood, as the majority of Japantown’s buildings had been constructed less than 50 years before. Instead, citizens proposed the city planning code be amended so that the changes to particular Japantown properties are consistent with “Japanese use4”. However, as the meaning of “Japanese use” in this regulatory context was ambiguous, some community members feared the amendment would lead to the “misinterpretation” and “misrepresentation” of Japanese and Japanese American culture. As I will discuss in the next section, this issue became a major point of disagreement among planning participants.　As a next step, the community, in partnership with city supervisors5 and planners, created a forum for drafting official planning guidelines for Japantown. In 2007, preliminary discussions regarding the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan （hereafter JBNP） began to take place with the hope that the city would eventually officially adopt and enforce the plan. The JBNP, which will be further discussed in the following section, exemplifies a combination of governance, entitlement, and empowerment. The plan represents the collaboration of individuals and political institutions to further the governance of an ethnic urban space in San Francisco, and could hence be seen as both a community entitlement and the result of the empowerment achieved through resistance against market-led urban restructuring.

StakeholdersAlthough the previous section discusses the general prospects for the preservation of Japantown as a whole, the neighborhood is actually a diverse and complex community with shifting contextual perspectives. Thus, in early 2007, the JBNP formed a steering committee comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders, including designated city planners, members of local community, merchants , homeowners’ associations, and residents.　The first JBNP community meeting was held on March 28, 2007 ; from the summer of 2007 until early 2008, the JBNP held regularly scheduled meetings in a Japantown office, as well as larger public hearings and workshops to gather community input on the plan （Figure 5）.　Figure 6 describes the JBNP’s organiza-tional structure, actors, and partnerships. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, an active supporter of Save Japantown, collaborated

Figure 5.　JBNP community workshopRepresentatives presenting maps reflecting their respective

community groups’ preferred land coverPhoto by Takashi Oda, February 12, 2008

―　6　―


with the City and County of San Francisco to secure an initial budget. The Planning Department contracted a team of consultants to advise on preservation, urban design, economic revitalization and transportation, as well as local nonprofit organization Japantown Taskforce Inc., which conducted community outreach and arranged and documented meetings.　Additionally, while not involved in the institutional framework, it is worth noting that the JBNP process involved some minor local stakeholders, such as Russian Americans and Korean Americans who live and run businesses in the vicinity of Japantown, as well as younger generations of Japanese Americans. Although these stakeholders represented a minority, their involvement was key to the governance of a neighborhood that values cultural and historical diversity.　That said, despite the establishment of an institutional framework, the diverse interests and backgrounds involved made consensus-building particularly difficult. In Japantown’s particular case, the combination of internal generational differences and the complicated cultural and political history of this ethnic urban space represented a significant neighborhood management challenge. In the following chapter, I analyze the diverse perspectives of JBNP’s stakeholders.

VI　Different objectives and positions after allied preservation campaign

In May and June 2009, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 JBNP participants. Interviewees, who included local government figures, members of nonprofit community organizations, business owners, and planning consultants contracted with the city, were asked questions on a wide range of topics, including Japantown, preservation, and participation in public forums. Using interview recordings, 19 indexes were developed based on interviewee properties and common issues mentioned （Table 1）. To map the opposing views and properties, I used Hayashi’s Quantification Method III with the corresp function on the MASS library, calculated using statistical software R （ver. 2 . 4 . 1）.

contracting

Planning Department

• Cultural Preservation• Historic Preservation• Urban Design• Economics• Transportation

Planning ConsultantsPublic Relations

and OutreachConsultant

JapantownCommunity & Steering Committee

CommunityConsultant

Figure 6.　JBNP organizational structure


―　7　―

7

Passion for preservation While all interviewees expressed the need for preservation, views differed as to how Save Japantown and the JBNP should address that need. While a majority of participants opposed market-oriented redevelopment of ethnic urban neighborhoods, they had different objectives for future neighborhood governance. However, preservation remained a unifying theme. As reflected in the following statements, many of the Japanese American community leaders interviewed felt a strong need to pass on their heritage to future generations.

Interviewee A : Community organization executive director （Sansei male）In 20 years … young people in our community would look back and say, “you know, in 2009 the community had a chance to create a ［Japantown］ preservation plan but they didn’t, and because they didn’t, we are standing in what used to be Japantown.” I don’t want that to be our legacy. I don’t want our history to look back and say we failed … we failed the generations before us, and they ［past generations］ had ［it］ much worse than us.

Interviewee B : Japanese American Attorney （Sansei female）You can’t put a price on people’s culture. I think there is a certain measure of justice that this community gets to stay here because it was so crudely taken away … so much was taken from people and I’m amazed at how Issei and Nisei weathered that, came back, re-established the community. As someone who has a child, to me, this is a place that’s given to me that I then hand on. So, it’s to create a continuity of history and culture that really adds richness to the city.

Anti-government sentimentStatistical analysis revealed the first axis of difference among interviewees, as the most highly contested issue, concerned views against the government and redevelopment （percentage

contribution : 24 . 21%）. People who were negatively inclined toward the government tended to have

Table 1.　Indexes Generated for Quantitative Analysis

（Former） Residents of Japantown（Former） Commuters of Japantown

Positive Views toward JBNPPositive Views toward GovernmentDesire for Historic/Cultural PreservationAcceptance of Economic/Business DevelopmentDesire to Remedy Physical/Economic Decay in JapantownDesire to Upgrade Japantown’s Physical EnvironmentDesire to Prevent Decline and Assimilation of Japanese AmericansDesire to Pass on LegacyNegative Views toward JBNPNegative Views toward GovernmentNegative Views toward WWII InternmentNegative Views toward Postwar RedevelopmentNegative Views toward Consultant TeamsNegative Views toward Sansei （Japanese Americans）Negative Views toward Community OrganizationsNegative Views toward Local Business & MerchantsNegative Views toward Shin Issei

―　8　―


lived in Japantown, mentioned the internment history of Japanese Americans, and wished to pass Japantown’s legacy to the next generation. Many of them also expressed negative views on the implementation of JBNP.　The following statements by community organizers exhibit a strong opposition to state encroachment into their ethnic neighborhood, reflecting their troubled history with the US government （as previously described in Section II）.

Interviewee A : Community organization executive director （Sansei male）How much do we want to give up and sacrifice ? Federal government and local government have taken homes, buildings, stores, ［and］ lands from our community for the last 67 years, and I don’t know why we are so easily willing to give up more. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s like you’ve taken enough― there is nothing left to take. Now it’s our turn to say “you have to give stuff back and you have to provide resources to this community so that 100 years from now, people could be proud of this community.

Interviewee C : Business owner and community leader （Sansei male）I think most of the property owners are Nisei and … don’t ［always］ like governmental intervention. They are like “let me do whatever I want on my property” … “let me control my own destiny” … “I don’t want government to tell me what to do” … it’s typical Nisei. I’m sure all the experience they’ve had through the Depression, the War and discrimination and redevelopment … Everything has affected their decisions.

　In contrast, a non-Japanese planner involved in the Japantown BNP process shared the frustration felt by local government officials with the difficult consensus-building process, particularly in Japantown.

Interviewee D : Planning Department planner （Caucasian female）In particular in Japantown, there is the added weight of the history of the neighborhood that doesn’t go away. I mean … any community has a history, but in this case, it’s very open wounds … in terms of how the government has made really bad decisions in the past about property rights, about, you know, a lot of aspects of the neighborhood. So it’s hard to carry on with the discussion about what could happen in the future. If the emotion that’s carried with that history is so persistent, people who are stuck on that can’t move forward. So, you are left almost with no options in terms of what do you want to see here, how do you want it to move forward ［…］ do you want to stay like this like some type of time capsule ?

Generational differences between Japanese Americans and Shin IsseiThe second axis of difference is among people of Japanese ethnicity （percentage contribution :

19 . 33%）. Though many non-Japanese stakeholders may have perceived Japantown to be unified in its mission to preserve the community’s cultural and historic identities, this was not necessarily true of the Shin Issei. Many of San Francisco’s Shin Issei live and/or operate businesses in and around Japantown. While many interviewees expressed respect for these Japanese American pioneers, they stated their concerns about the lack of Shin Issei engagement in the planning process.


―　9　―

9

Interviewee E : Store owner （Shin Issei female） interview translated from JapaneseThe Issei, first generation Japanese immigrants, were very good to me. But, now when we want to preserve Japanese traditions, Japanese Americans say “That’s Japanese culture, not Japanese American culture.” I joined the ［J］ BNP process hoping to leave something, to give back to the Issei pioneers. I wish those ［Shin Issei］ who live here and do business would play … more central roles in the process. These people don’t show up while those from the nonprofit organizations … show up often. That’s the dilemma I feel.

Interviewee F : Store owner （Shin Issei female） ; interview translated from JapaneseJapanese Americans and we, the Shin Issei from Japan, are very different. They had World War II experience, and we differ in that regard. They don’t speak Japanese, so it’s hard to communicate with them. I’d say Japanese Americans born here and those of us from Japan have distance from each other and I think that’s the problem.

Interviewee G : Japanese expatriate male ; interview translated from JapaneseDespite the fact that there are many Japanese language speakers among the merchants here, the majority of the discussion was in English. So, to them, a lot of the discussion, even if they participated, was not easily understood. This is my personal opinion, but nonprofit leaders are the ones that spoke out in the JBNP discussion, and it seemed our interests ［like local business］ were not on the table. The question is whether we can survive here as being Japantown, and that’s the key … I don’t know if the nonprofit people would agree, but whether or not people running the business here can survive is the most important thing.

Preserving intangible ethnic and cultural heritageAnother challenge uncovered during interviews and field study was the vagueness of planning objectives. A Japantown community organizer and member of the JBNP steering committee pointed this out when highlighting that the Japanese American community is concerned about losing business and buildings that provide Japanese character― the same developments the community initially opposed when Japan-based companies first began investing in Japantown in the 1960s.

Interviewee I : Community organization executive director （Sansei female）What was never articulated was what Japantown is going to be saved for. Thirty, forty years ago, people were screaming Japantown was ［going to be］ sold off to Japanese corporate developers … Now, people are screaming ［that］ we are ［being］ sold off to a non-Japanese, outside developer. I think … people are concerned because they do not have control over the future destinations of major properties and a … commercial center that they want to sentimentally own or direct. The sentiment runs deep because of the historical past of redevelopment, before that, eviction, and … fear of not being in control of their destiny. But, I think people have to articulate what exactly do they want to control, what do they want to see articulated as benefits, and what is the community ? If they don’t articulate that, you have a “loosey goosey” kind of sense about saving the community.

　A member of the Planning Department staff also admitted stakeholders did not clearly define the concept of preservation in the context of the JBNP process.

―　10　―


Interviewee H : Planning Department historic resource survey specialist （Caucasian male）Community preservation … means physical elements, but it also means social, cultural and economic elements of the community. I don’t think that was completely well defined by anyone involved in the ［JBNP］ process at the beginning, certainly not by the Planning Department. That was one of our learning curves. I think what “preservation” meant in the context of this plan wasn’t what preservation means in the context of other plans.

Preservation and/or/versus economic developmentThe question of how to maintain the community was also a divisive issue. In particular, those who stressed cultural values and identities had different objectives compared to those who emphasized economic development. A non-Japanese member of the consulting team experienced this divide in her work with the Planning Department.

Interviewee J : Historic preservation consultant （Caucasian female）［The］ Planning Department is presenting this mindset ［that］ “the only way you get things

to happen in a neighborhood is through developers.” That’s its bottom-line thinking … that’s the world we live in, so the best you can hope for is something that accommodates developers … All Americans are convinced by that argument, whether the Japanese Americans or anybody else. It’s such a predominant way of thinking about things here. So, why wouldn’t people go, “Oh well, I guess they are right. I guess this is the best we can do” … You know what I don’t understand is how ［this apathetic feeling］ sits side-by-side with this passionate desire not to lose Japantown. It’s a cognitive dissonance … When I attended meetings and I’ve said something from my heart, even as an outsider … while this is everybody’s passion, it felt like … the side of the people that are fatalistic and think that the dollars are the most important thing is what’s ending up being the top argument.

　In an interview with the President of the San Francisco Planning Commission （at the time）, he underscored the need to maintain the balance between cultural preservation and economic revitalization. Given San Francisco’s presence on a 7×7 mile peninsula makes it geographically similar to an island, “we have nowhere to go but up.” To that end, he believed allowing the development of high-rise condominiums in Japantown could generate funds to preserve the neighborhood’s cultural resources.

Interviewee K : （Former） President of the San Francisco Planning CommissionAs cultural ［and］ business icons which can grow together, that’s what we are working on … to do that, it has to survive financially. The question is― you’ve been through the process― where is the money from ? What makes economic feasibility is important. Otherwise, it’s

going to sit the way it is and maybe slowly fade away … It has to be kept very viable as basically a tourist destination as well as a center for Japanese culture so that there’s a gathering place.

　These interviews illustrate that the transition from government to governance was not straightforward for Japantown. On the one hand, the shift allowed diversified stakeholders to at least participate in the planning of an urban neighborhood within an institutional framework.


―　11　―

11

On the other hand, involving citizens in neighborhood governance introduced new complications regarding the coordination and integration of members’ conflicting values and interests. The complexities of coordinating these diverse interests may endanger the institutional framework acquired as result of community empowerment, shifting the focus to internal differences rather than collective strategizing.　Having observed this process, this study asks several questions : who should govern “institutionalized public participation” by coordinating and integrating the diverse views of the community to reach a consensus― government officials, contracted consultants, or nonprofit leaders ? Furthermore, how can the intangible and variable qualities of history, culture, and ethnicity be preserved, and for what purpose ? As discussed in the next section, the latest incarnation of the JBNP may address these complexities.

Draft Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan and Stepping Forward Unable to achieve a consensus, these conflicts significantly slowed JBNP progress from 2008―2009. In early 2009, the city decided to suspend the JBNP following economic difficulties and the departure of JBNP’s designated planner. At that time, the group submitted their 161-page draft plan to the San Francisco Planning Commission. However, given the previous points of contention, the commission acknowledged the plan, but did not adopt it, as it had not received the state-mandated environmental review necessary for legal adoption.　After a cooling-down period, a group of concerned JBNP participants reconvened to discuss next steps. Out of that and subsequent meetings, the group formed the Japantown Organizing Committee, which created a re-branded version of the JBNP : the Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy （JCHESS

6）. As exemplified by the title, the re-branded

program aims to both preserve cultural heritage and sustain economic stability. Per the JCHESS draft strategy currently under review （released February 26, 2013）, the group’s “vision is that

Planning Department

Japanese American

Preservation

Nisei – SanseiU.S. CitizenEnglish-speaking

Community Organization

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Planning CommissionHistoric Preservation Commission

City and County of San Francisco

Board of Supervisors

Planning Consultants

Japanese Shin Issei

Economic Revitalization

Japanese-born/nationalU.S. Permanent ResidentJapanese-speaking

Local businesses

San Francisco Japantown

Figure 7.　Relations among JBNP stakeholders

―　12　―


Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighborhood, which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American7 communities for generations to come” （San Francisco Planning Department 2013 ; p. vi）. Thus, it is clear that JCHESS’s mission explicitly involves integrating the cultural resources of both Japanese and Japanese Americans.　A community meeting was held on February 26, 2013 to discuss the JCHESS draft strategy after the city met with over 25 stakeholder groups in Japantown to collect input. In addition, informational hearings were held on July 17, 2013 at the Historic Preservation Commission and July 18, 2013 at the Planning Commission, and the document was released online for public review. Based on the feedback gathered, JCHESS was edited to address salient concerns. At the time of submission, JCHESS is under review through September 2013 by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors.

V　Concluding Remarks

This study examined the recent struggles and challenges surrounding the preservation of San Francisco’s century-old Japantown. Following decades characterized by settlement, eviction, repopulation, decline, and redevelopment, the Save Japantown campaign was organized to protect the neighborhood’s legacy against the neoliberal political influences of gentrification and market-driven redevelopment. The campaign legitimized the movement to preserve Japantown, provided instruments for citizen involvement in neighborhood governance, and aimed to become a blueprint for other sustainable ethnic neighborhoods. However, the complexities of orchestrating the governance of an ethnic neighborhood with a complex historical, socioeconomic, and cultural environment― specifically lack of consensus as to program objectives （cultural preservation vs. economic development） and the absence of tangible “historic” physical buildings― stalled the movement and represent continuing challenges （Figure 7）.　Seven years after the inception of the Save Japantown campaign, Japantown is now moving forward with the Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy （JCHESS）, which, as the title states, explicitly addresses both cultural heritage and economic sustainability concerns. Balancing these concerns remains one of the most complex challenges in modern urban policy. At the time of this writing, JCHESS is ongoing. As such, further observation is required to assess to what extent participatory neighborhood planning represents the diverse views of the community.　Future studies should examine the mechanisms and efficacy of re-branded, re-launched urban planning project such as JCHESS, as well as how their strategies are developed, authorized, and enforced. In this way, this and future studies can serve as a roadmap for neighborhood governance and community empowerment.

AcknowledgementsI would like to express my deep gratitude to the members of the Japantown community for supporting my study, particularly all the participants of the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan. While space limitations prevent my naming all of them, their kind assistance and friendship has strengthened my interest in, and passion for, the Japantown community. I am also very grateful to my academic advisors, Professor Michael Omi at the University of California, Berkeley, Professor Gen Ueda at Tohoku University, Professor Kenji Yamamoto at


―　13　―

13

Kyushu University, and Professor Keichi Kumagai at Ochanomizu University for their insightful comments and valuable assistance.　This research was conducted under the 2008―2009 Fulbright Scholarship Program at the University of California, Berkeley. Follow-up study was conducted through my postdoctoral research fellowship administered by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 2010―2012. Parts of the discussion here are based on the analyses presented in Oda （2012） and other articles published in Japanese as cited, as well as those presented at academic meetings, which were based on my 2010 doctoral dissertation submitted to the Tohoku University Graduate School of Environmental Studies. The views expressed here, and any errors herein, are my own.

Notes1　Oda, T. （2012） Quantifying a neighborhood in transition : a spatial analysis of Japantown, San Francisco, Science

Report of Tohoku University, 7th Series （Geography） Vol. 58―1/2.2　The author spent 10 months at the University of California, Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies under the

support of Fulbright Program.3　I discuss the construction of formal schemes to protect Japantown during the Save Japantown campaign in detail

in Oda （2010）.4　Japantown Special Use District legislation, section 249 . 31 of the Planning Code.5　As San Francisco is a consolidated city-county, San Francisco County’s board of supervisors also serve as San

Francisco city’s city council. Thus, in San Francisco, supervisors are equivalent to city council members.6　http : //sf-planning. org/index. aspx?page=1692.7　Emphasis added by the author.

ReferencesGodfrey, B. J. （1997） Urban Development and Redevelopment in San Francisco, The Geographical Review 87 : 309―

333.Graves, D. and Page & Turnbull, Inc. （2009） Historic Context Statement : Japantown San Francisco, California. San

Francisco : City and County of San FranciscoHague, R. and Harrop, M. （2004） Comparative Government and Politics : an Introduction. Basingstoke : Macmillan.Hajer, M. A. and Wagenaar, H. （2003） Deliberative Policy Analysis Understanding Governance in the Network Society.

Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press.Kawaguchi, G. and Seigel, S. （2000） San Francisco’s Prewar Japantown : The Shaping of a Community, Nikkei Heri-

tage 7 : 4―7.Kodras, E. J. （1997） Restructuring the State : Devolution, Privatization, and the Geographic Redistribution of Power

and Capacity in Governance. In State Devolution in America : Implications for a Diverse Society, eds. A. L. Staeheli, E. J. Kodras, and C. Flint, 79―96. California ; Sage Publications, Inc.

Lai, C. K.-M. （2006） Between ‘blight’ and a new world : urban renewal, political mobilization, and the production of spatial scale in San Francisco, 1940―1980, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Mollenkopf, J. H. （1975） The Post-War Politics of Urban Development. Politics Society 5 : 247―295.Oda, T. （2010） Governance of Preserving and Rebuilding an Ethnic Neighborhood in San Francisco : A Focus on the

Institutions and Actors, Quarterly Journal of Geography 62（1） : 12―27.Oda, T. （2012） Quantifying a neighborhood in transition : a spatial analysis of Japantown, San Francisco, Science Re-

port of Tohoku University, 7th Series （Geography） 58―1/2 : 1―26.Putnam, R. D. （2000） Bowling Alone : the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York : Simon & Schus-

ter.Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. （2000） Governance, Politics, and the State. New York : St. Martin’s Press.Ross, B. H., Levine, M. A., and Stedman, M. S. Jr. （1991） Urban Politics : Power In Metropolitan America. Itasca : F.

E. Peacock Publishers.San Francisco Planning Department. （2013） Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy

（DRAFT on public review） http : //www. sf-planning. org/ftp/files/plans-and-programs/in-your-neighborhood/japantown/JCHESS_FinalDraft_07―10―13. pdf （last accessed on September 12, 2013）.

Sugiura, T. （2007） The structure of redevelopment and changing built environment of San Francisco Japantown : fo-cusing on the interactions of local actors, Quarterly Journal of Geography 59 : 1―23.

Sugiura, T. and Oda, T. （2009） The struggle over place in an ethnic urban space : an example from San Francisco’s

―　14　―


Japantown, Quarterly Journal of Geography 61 : 157―177.Sugiura, T. （2011b） Ethnic Geography, Gakujyutsu Shuppankai （in Japanese）Sugiura, T. （2013a） Rethinking of ethnic urban place : representation in San Jose’s Japantown, California, Quarterly

journal of geography 65 : 69―89.Sugiura, T. （2013b） Ethnic Town as a place for reproducing ethnicity, Japanese Journal of Human Geography 65（6） :

4―14.Yamamoto, K. （2007） Significance of the ‘socially integrative city program’ in the urban policy of Germany, Japanese

Journal of Human Geography 59 : 207―226.

サンフランシスコ日本町のまちづくりにみるエスニック都市空間の保存と経済再建

小田隆史宮城教育大学

　本研究は，米国カリフォルニア州サンフランシスコにある日本町の近年の市民参加型まちづくりを事例に，衰退が進む日本町の歴史文化資源の保存，経済再建，そしてそれに関与する多様なステークホルダーの合意形成をめぐる諸課題について論じる。日本町は，連邦政府による強制移住政策，日米関係の歴史や経済情勢に翻弄されながら100年以上存続してきたが，戦後の再開発や日本資本の参入と撤退などにより，その構成や特徴は変化した。2000年代，日本資本の撤退が続き，町の衰退を懸念した地元関係者によって日本町保存運動が展開され，具体的な将来計画を描く参加型まちづくりが制度化された。しかし，多様な主体の「同床異夢」の現実が露呈し，利害調整が困難となったため計画は一時頓挫した。本稿は，その時点での関係者への聞き取りをもとに，新自由主義的都市政策のもと多元的価値観を有する主体が関与するようになったまちづくりの特徴と課題の一端を提示する。

キーワード：参加型計画，都市デザイン，再開発，合意形成，日本（人）町


―　15　―

15

Preserving and Revitalizing an Ethnic Urban Neighborhood ...

Documents

Transcript of Preserving and Revitalizing an Ethnic Urban Neighborhood ...