#archiaid

Whilst a large number prefectures in the region experienced damage, the prefectures of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima which are located along the north eastern coastline suffered the most devastation and accounted for approximately 80% of the damage caused by the disaster, as can be seen in Figure 1. The effects of the tsunami also caused a meltdown of the nearby Fukushima nuclear power plant, worsening what was already a highly difficult and catastrophic situation.[2] Official statistics state that the disaster caused the destruction of over 395 000 homes, whilst more than 700 000 were partially damaged. Over 55 000 non-residential buildings, such as schools, community centres and hospitals, along with basic infrastructure such as electrical services and roads were also damaged by the disaster.[3]

The provision of emergency housing was a priority immediately after the disaster. Whilst temporary housing was in the process of being constructed, 470 000 people were accommodated in emergency shelters such as schools and community buildings, with friends and relatives and in paid accommodation.  As of October 2012, approximately 306 000 people were still housed in temporary accommodation that was a combination of government funded rental housing, social housing and prefabricated temporary housing.[4]  Laws state that prefabricated temporary housing is only to be lived in for 2 years, however, due to the slow process of providing permanent housing this has been extended to 3 years and is expected to be extended again.[5]

With the need for temporary accommodation met, focus has now turned to the redevelopment of towns that were almost entirely destroyed in the disaster.[6] Of the damaged area, the northern half is predominately mountainous with small coastal towns, whilst the south is made up of low-lying coastal plains. The southern area is dominated by mid-size cities and rural and coastal towns and villages. Reconstruction of the area faces additional challenges, as it had previously been struggling with economic decline and an aging population. A large proportion of the population have also lost their jobs as they worked in the fishing industry, the infrastructure of which was also severely damaged.[7]

Most town design and housing reconstruction has been facilitated by government and civil engineering “consultants.” The majority of social housing that is being provided resembles a four-storey concrete box and there is concern that these “consultants” have little consideration for the cultural values and identity of place, and are in fact a form of destruction themselves. There are also proposals to relocate housing to higher ground, whilst commercial buildings, predominantly those in the fishing industry, will remain adjacent to the shore. There has been criticism that this will affect the culture of these towns. In response to this, architectural organisations such as KISYN and ArchiAid have been formed to assist in the reconstruction and make the process more cohesive.[8]

ArchiAid is a group of universities and architects (predominantly Tohoku based) that create a network of expertise in the fields of urban planning, reconstruction design consultation, and cultural and educational community care.[9] ArchiAid aims to provide long term assistance for the redevelopment and recovery of areas damaged in the Tohoku disaster, by matching them up with professionals who can provide the required specialist assistance. Its secondary aim is to promote the sharing of knowledge by architects, and to accumulate and create a database of knowledge of disaster recovery that can be used in the future. ArchiAid’s assistance model is based on architecture education bodies in the area supporting and working with visiting architects, at the same time allowing architecture students to gain hands on experience. They tend to do small projects that involve residents and students in a culturally sensitive reconstruction process, the distribution of which can be seen in Figure 2.[10]

ArchiAid’s initiatives play a large role in the redevelopment of the small villages. An example initiative was the “Go to the peninsula” Summer Camp held on the Oshika Peninsula in July 2011. The Oshika Peninsula, in the Miyagi prefecture, was located closest to the earthquake epicentre and experienced the most damage. Its predominantly elderly population was distributed over approximately 30 small villages, the damage of which varied vastly. The Camp was attended by 111 people made up of 15 university teams of architects and students from around the country. Teams did surveys of the villages, documenting the damage and held discussions with residents on possible futures. After the summer camp, students and architects participated in a ‘Disaster prevention collective relocation promotion project’ for “sustainable reconstruction to higher ground.”  The project focuses on the reconstruction of housing and industry over the next three years, as well as programs that will promote tourism. Refer to Figures 3 to 6. From these “A Pattern Book for Oshika Peninsula” was developed, documenting villager’s lifestyles to ensure that their culture is incorporated into the reconstruction process, as can be seen in Figures 7 to 10.[11]

ArchiAid has also been involved numerous other projects, which include the building of community centres and schools, and designing master plans for towns. They initiate student build projects and projects that support the redevelopment of local industries, such as the fishing industry. They do surveys of local’s opinions and devise programs for how redevelopment should occur along with frequent exhibitions, workshops and publications of their research.[12]

The Japanese government should be recognised for their efforts in trying to speed up the provision of housing and reconstruction of areas devastated by the Tohoku disaster, however these efforts may be detrimental to local cultures. Whilst efforts by volunteer organisations such as ArchiAid may not be obvious, as they tend to be randomly distributed and small projects, they are still extremely valuable and will hopefully help to preserve the unique traditions and cultures of the areas devastated. ArchiAid’s concept of generating a network of expertise, whilst educating architecture students and creating a resource of knowledge on disaster recovery is unique and may prove to be invaluable in the event of future natural disasters in Japan.

  Illustrations

Figure 1: Areas affected by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami (Source: Japan Disaster - Tohoku Earthquake / TSUNAMI / Nuclear Plant.  http://jishin.yamatoblog.net/english%20pages/japan%20disaster%20-%20tohoku%20earthquake%20-%20tsunami%20-%20nuclear%20plant%20 )

  Figure 2: Map showing locations of ArchiAid projects (Source: AAAR 2012)

  Figure 3: Participants of the “Go to the peninsula” Summer Camp 2011 (Source: AAAR 2011)

  Figure 4: Students surveying the Oshika area in the Summer Camp (Source: AAAR 2011)

  Figure 5: Oshika Peninsula Support Group meeting with residents (Source: AAAR 2011)

  Figure 6: Oshika Peninsula Support Group doing onsite surveys with residents (Source: AAAR 2011)

  Figure 7: A Pattern Book for Oshika Peninsula

   Figure 8: A summary of activities in a seashore village (Source: A Pattern Book for Oshika Peninsula)

  Figure 9: Studies documenting the lifestyles of seashore villages (Source: A Pattern Book for Oshika Peninsula)

  Figure 10: Design proposals for housing that includes traditions and allows for future extensions (Source: A Pattern Book for Oshika Peninsula)

  References

[1] M. Godzik, “Rebuilding housing in Japan's tsunami hit towns and cities,” International Journal of Housing Policy 13, no. 4 (2013): 434. ; SBS, “Japan marks third anniversary of tsunami,” March 11, 2014, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/11/japan-marks-third-anniversary-tsunami, (Accessed 24 April 2014).

[2]  N. Mimura and others, “Damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami – A quick report,” Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change 16, no. 7 (Oct 2011): 803. ; H. Nakamura, and K. Hino, “The Great East Japan Earthquake. Damage features and reconstruction efforts,” Toshi Keikaku 291, (2011): 17–22, cited in Godzik, International Journal of Housing Policy 13, 434.

[3] MLIT, “White paper on land, infrastructure and transport in Japan 2011,” 2011, http://www.mlit.go.jp/hakusyo/mlit/h22/hakusho/h23/html/k1112000.html ; National Police Agency, “Press information on the damage situation of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake and police activities, 24 October 2012,” 2012. http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/ higaijokyo.pdf , cited in Godzik, International Journal of Housing Policy 13, 435.

[4] Reconstruction Agency, “Current state of reconstruction and reconstruction efforts. 2012 Material 2,” http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/20121016_sanko02.pdf , cited in Godzik, International Journal of Housing Policy 13, 437.

[5] Godzik, International Journal of Housing Policy 13, 438; Discussion with Ayano Toki, Assistant Professor -Tohoku Graduate School of Engineering, Minamisoma, 24 December 2013.

[6] Y. Onoda, “Challenges that lie ahead of reconstruction,” ArchiAid Annual Report 2011, (March 2012): 8-9.

[7] M. Godzik, International Journal of Housing Policy 13, 435-7.

[8] M. Godzik, International Journal of Housing Policy 13, 438-440. ; U. Meyer, “After the Tsunami, at the 'Women’s River',” arcspace.com, http://www.arcspace.com/articles/after-the-tsunami-at-the-womens-river/ (Accessed 24 April 2014). ; K. Rosenfield, "Learning from the Great East Japan Earthquake", ArchDaily, March 12, 2012. http://www.archdaily.com/?p=215667 (accessed 25 Apr 2014).

[9] T. Igarashi, “Exhibition Summary,” in Taro Igarashi, 70 (Sendai: Taro Igarashi Lab, 2012).

[10] ArchiAid, ArchiAid Annual Report 2012, (March 2013): 10-11. ; H. Abe, “In Step with Disaster,” ArchiAid Annual Report 2012, (March 2013): 12.

[11] ArchiAid, “’Go to the Peninsula’ summer camp,” ArchiAid Annual Report 2011, (March 2012): 16-17. ; ArchiAid; “Oshika Peninsula Support Activities,” ArchiAid Annual Report 2011, (March 2012): 18-19. ; ArchiAid; “Ogatsu Studio,” ArchiAid Annual Report 2012, (March 2012): 30-35.