cSUR International Workshop

Next Step to Sustainable Urban Regeneration

September 3-5, 2007 Takeda Hall, The University of Tokyo

Contents

1. Background
Restoration of Urban Waterfront 2. Framework for case studies
through Viaduct Removal 3. Cases around the world
4. Notable achievements and issues in planning processes -
Keys to successful urban waterfront restoration through viaduct removal

Akito Murayama 5. Next steps

Associate Professor
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University
murayama@corot.nuac.nagoya-u.ac.jp

1. Background 2. Framework for case studies (1)

• Shaping attractive urban centers, • Various issues of urban center regeneration
particularly improving existing built • Need of planning methodology for integrated solution
environment, for urban sustainability
and quality of life
• Built structures with poor design and
high vulnerability in cities where rapid
modernization and growth occurred in
the latter half of the 20th century
• Viaducts or elevated expressways on
urban waterfronts: representative
examples
• Efforts to remove the viaduct, restore
the waterfront and use the opportunity
to take a great leap forward in urban
center regeneration

2. Framework for case studies (2) 3. Cases around the world (1)

• Close look at planning processes in pioneer cases:

How did they reach to an integrated solution?
• Especially the conflict solution between civil engineers
and urban planners/designers seems to be a big issue
 Civil engineers: rebuild the viaduct as quickly and
cheaply as possible to move traffic Portland, USA Boston, USA San Francisco, USA

 Urban planners/designers: once-in-a-century opportunity

to restore the waterfront and to regenerate the
surrounding urban area
• What are the keys to successful urban waterfront
restoration through viaduct removal?
• Learning from international comparative case study
Seattle, USA Seoul, Korea Philadelphia, USA

1
3. Cases around the world (2) Willamette Riverfront in Portland (1)

1920: Seawall constructed

1940: Harbor Drive constructed
1968: Governor Tom McCall initiated
the study to replace Harbor
Drive with open park space
1972: Downtown Plan included the
removal of Harbor Drive and
the development of a park
1974: Harbor Drive removed
1978: Park completed
1988: Park renamed to Tom McCall
Waterfront Park
Now: East bank under consideration

Nihombashi, Tokyo, Japan Sumida Riverfront, Tokyo, Japan 1 km

Willamette Riverfront in Portland (2) The Big Dig in Boston (1)

1959: Central Artery opened
1987: The Big Dig approved
(burying CA underground)
1986-1989: Alternatives and a
competition
1991: Boston 2000 Plan - a first
master plan
http://www.portlandonline.com/
1991: Zoning change
1995, 1997: Surface Street
Consensus Plan
1998: Boston Plan 2000 update
2001: Boston Central Artery
Corridor Master Plan
2004: Viaduct torn down
2005: CA reopened and
developments began
http://www.preservenet.com/
1 km

The Big Dig in Boston (2) Embarcadero Waterfront in San Francisco (1)

1959: Embarcadero Freeway

(viaduct) constructed
1985: US$ 80 million
transportation project to
transform Embarcadero
surface road to a boulevard
with wider pedestrian way,
landscape, public art, street
furniture, streetcar and
cable car
1986: Citizens vote down freeway
removal
1989: Freeway heavily damaged
by Loma Prieta Earthquake
and city council decides to
tear it down
1 km

2
Embarcadero Waterfront in San Francisco (2) Central Waterfront in Seattle (1)
1933: Seawall constructed
1954: Alaskan Way Viaduct
constructed
2001: Alaskan Way damaged
by Nisqually Earthquake
2002-: Five alternatives
carefully studied
(Environmental impact
assessment)
2004: Reduced to two
alternatives: “tunnel” or
“rebuild”
2006: Central Waterfront Plan
based on citizens’ input
proposed by Mayor
2007: Seattle residents vote
down both alternatives
http://www.halttheramp.com/ 1 km

Central Waterfront in Seattle (2) Cheonggyecheon in Seoul (1)

Surface Bypass Tunnel
1958: Cheonggyecheon covered
1968: Viaduct constructed
1991: Idea of Cheonggyecheon
restoration discussed by
university professors and
Aerial discussion started
2000-2002: Restoration project
plan developed through the
series of symposiums
2002.6: Lee Myung Bak became
Seoul Mayor, promising
Rebuild Tunnel Cheonggyecheon
Restoration in election
2002.7: Cheonggyecheon
Restoration Headquarters
established
2003.7: Construction started
Five alternatives studied Central Waterfront Plan 1 km 2005.10: Restored river opened

Cheonggyecheon in Seoul (2) Delaware Riverfront in Philadelphia (1)

2006: Mayor Street signed an
executive order that invited
Penn Praxis (a non-profit
organization of School of
Design, University of
Pennsylvania) to lead a
citizen-driven planning
process for the Delaware
Waterfront
Late 2006: The process began
• The Value Sessions
• The Best Practice Session
• The Principles Sessions
• Design Workshop
• Citizen Feedback
• Exhibition/Final Report
• Implementation
1 km

3
 Delaware Riverfront in Philadelphia (2) Nihombashi in Tokyo (1)
1999: Local residents and businesses
formed the Nihombashi Area
Renaissance 100 Years Planning
Committee to discuss the
restoration of Nihombashi river
and other issues
2003: Experts, MLIT, TMG, Chuo
Ward, Metropolitan Expressway
Company began discussion
2005: Chuo Ward established the
Nihombashi / Tokyo Station-
Front Area Machizukuri
Committee
2005: Prime Minister Koizumi
convened experts to come up
with policies by September 2006
2006: Policies recommended
1 km

Nihombashi in Tokyo (2) 4. Notable achievements and issues in

planning processes
- Keys to successful urban waterfront
restoration through viaduct removal

• Clear downtown planning strategy in Portland

Study by experts, MLIT, TMG, Chuo Ward, Metropolitan Expressway Company
• Lack of planning and question of sustainability in Boston
• Civic movement and catastrophe in San Francisco
• Participatory planning and politics in Seattle
• Strong leadership and integrated approach in Seoul
• Effort of university design group in Philadelphia
• Unclear situation in Tokyo

Proposal by the Local Community:

Nihombashi River and Metropolitan Expressway Viaduct Nihombashi Area Renaissance 100 Years Planning Committee

Clear downtown planning strategy in Portland Lack of planning and question of

• Integration of land use and sustainability in Boston
transportation
• Transit and pedestrian oriented, not
• Segregation of
automobile oriented engineering work
• The removal of Harbor Drive and and urban design:
the development of a park: one of lack of planning
many projects to implement the
downtown plan
(weak planning
agency)
• Water leak and
ceiling collapse:
another vulnerable,
unsustainable
infrastructure?
• What will happen
after 50 years? http://www.boston.com/ http://www.boston.com/

4
Civic movement and
catastrophe in San Francisco
• Active civic movements to remove the
viaducts: Embarcadero and Central
• Public opinion divide: unsuccessful
referendums
• Viaduct removals were possible
because of the earthquake and the
incomplete network of freeways
Strong leadership and integrated approach
in Seoul
• Strong leadership of Mayor Lee Myung
Bak and strong political support
• Cheonggyecheon Restoration and
Transit System Improvements at the
same time: Small impact of viaduct
removal without providing alternative
route
• “Triangle Governance System” to
execute the project quickly
 Headquarters (within city government):
Executive function
 Citizen Committee: Judicial function
 Research Team (within Seoul Development
Institute): Research function
Unclear situation in Tokyo
• Experts submitted a proposal for
Nihombashi to the Prime Minister
Koizumi in September, 2006.
• Unclear situation with a new Prime
Minister
Participatory planning and politics in Seattle
• Central Waterfront Plan: Active citizen participation
including design workshops and forums
• Mayor and City Council with different political stances
• Referendum to evaluate two alternatives independently:
“No” to both alternatives
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/viaduct/
Effort of university group in Philadelphia
• Penn Praxis: Non-profit organization of
School of Design, University of
Pennsylvania
• Leading citizen-driven planning process
for the Delaware Waterfront that would be
open and transparent
• Coordination of competing segments of
governments: City Planning Commission,
State Department of Transportation,
Regional Planning Commission, etc.
• “Plan Philly”: city planning and urban
design web site for Philadelphia
• Funded by William Penn Foundation
• Supported by private consultants
5. Next Steps
• Study the future image of sustainable urban waterfront
• Explore the integrated planning methodology
Issues to be discussed:
• Integrated approach and downtown planning strategy
• Effective planning that coordinates civil engineering
work and urban design
• Sustainability of new infrastructures
• Planning for post-catastrophe
• Leadership, participatory planning and politics
• Role of universities (both research and practice)
5
Notes
This research on restoration of urban waterfront through viaduct removal was initiated in Center for Sustainable Urban Regeneration, The University of Tokyo and is
currently developed with Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (B), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Technology, Government of Japan and
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science "Study on Planning Methodology for Urban Regeneration through Viaduct Removal and Reuse" (Adopted in 2006) [Akito
Murayama].

The detailed observations on study cases can be found in the following papers and articles:
• 村山顕人（2007）「検証レポート・多様な価値観が共生する都市の景観：シアトルの取り組みから学ぶ」FORE (Future of
Real Estate) 2007年夏号 No. 48 pp.10-13、社団法人不動産協会
• 村山顕人・周藤利一（2006）「ソウルの清渓川はいかにして甦ったか？」地域開発 Vol. 504 2006年9月号（特集：韓国の国
土・都市計画とまちづくり）pp. 53-59
• 村山顕人（2006）「高架構造物の撤去・再利用を通じた都市空間の再生：ボストン、サンフランシスコ、シアトル、ニュー
ヨークの事例」（財団法人土地総合研究所第116回講演会：2006年3月13日）（講演録・配布資料：「土地総合研究」第14
巻第3号2006年夏 pp.85-115）
• 趙昇衍・村山顕人（2005）「ソウル：チョンゲチョン復元事業と都心部政策の転換」新都市 Vol.59 No.11 pp. 75-81
• 村山顕人（2005）「ボストン：ビッグ・ディッグ・プロジェクトと都市空間の再生」新都市 Vol.59 No.10 pp. 101-112
• Akito Murayama (2004) "Viaduct Removal, Waterfront Restoration and Urban Center Regeneration: Framework for
International Comparative Case Study", Draft Paper Presented in International Workshop on Sustainable Urban
Regeneration: Korea, Japan and China, December 1, 2004, Environmental Planning Institute, Seoul National University and
Seoul Development Institute