Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROO-I8 <br /> <br />Jane Preuss, AICP <br />GeoEngineers: 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1410 . <br />Seattle, Washington 98101 <br />Jane Preuss: 206239 3232 <br />jpreuss@geoengineers.com <br /> <br />KOBE REBUILDS: PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES <br />Jane Preuss, Christopher Arnold, and Craig Comartin <br /> <br />On January 17, 1995 at 5:46 am a Richter magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck the Japanese port city of <br />Kobe. Over 6,300 people were killed and between 135,000 and 200,000 housing units were destroyed. <br />Since no other industrialized nation has experienced this magnitude of housing losses, and to establish a <br />basis for applying lessons learned, this project analyzes the Kobe experience in terms that facilitate <br />comparison with traditional practices in the United States. <br /> <br />The three principal investigators represent three different disciplines (planning, architecture, <br />engineering), each with its unique point of view that has been brought to bear in examining Kobe's <br />housing recovery process, The research focuses on application of basic planning, design, and <br />construction practices documenting a) evolution from short term recovery measures to long term <br />strategies for community development, and b) implications for mitigation and recovery planning. <br /> <br />A case study methodology was used to compare and contrast the influence of three basic types of <br />planning processes applied to three scales of interest (two case study neighborhoods at each scale): <br />. Replanning and replacement of neighborhoods involving changes in spatial layouts of blocks <br />(Redevelopment proj ects) <br />. Replacement of groups of buildings involving changes to the existing parcel and street layout (Land <br />Readjustment Act) <br />. Individual buildings or building clusters not necessitating changes in street layout <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />For each case study two perspectives were explored. One is recovery oflost housing units, including the <br />rate of construction, location, and type of housing (single family, multi family, townhouse etc. The other <br />perspective pertains to neighborhood functionality including scale, relationships of structures, streetscape <br />features and neighborhood support facilities, <br /> <br />In the first two years after the earthquake the majority of rebuilding occurred in the zones with no special <br />review requirements. Conversely, during this period, neighborhoods requiring public participation and <br />special government intervention (the redevelopment and the readjustment districts) evidenced virtually <br />no rebuilding, Thus in the immediate post disaster period the planning process appeared to retard the <br />community's ability to "get back to normal", <br /> <br />Four years after the earthquake conclusions on neighborhood "sustainability" reversed. The character of <br />neighborhoods in the zones with no special oversight has become very dense with larger scale projects. <br />Lack of an integrating vehicle (a plan) has resulted in a paucity of amenities, e.g. pedestrian scale <br />features such as landscaping have been eliminated to comply with such contemporary requirements as <br />parking. Conversely, in the zones for which planning was required, such as the readjustment areas, <br />neighborhood amenities such as parks and pedestrian scale amenities have been built into the overall <br />community fabric. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />_ L_ <br />