RELATION BETWEEN PORT ENACTMENT MOVEMENT AND URBAN PLANNING BEFORE WWII

Focusing on the waterfront zone designated in port enactment movement

Abstract

 Before WWII, port and harbor act (herein after “port act”), which regulates the use and administration of ports as a whole, had not been enacted despite of several enactment movements occurred in Japan. These movements claimed that Waterfront Zone which enables port administrations to control its usage, should be designated. On the other hand, city planning act and city building act (former building standard law) were enforced in 1920. Urban zonings of port land areas were unclear at that time.

 The first movement rose in the 1920’s which was led by The Ports & Harbors Association of Japan (PHAJ). This association was established in order to establish the port act. They sent out a survey to question the necessity of Waterfront Zone to its members. Although some of the members who thought current zoning; commerce zone, which was already designated in the city building act, was enough to control the usage of port area, had negative opinions, most agreed to the establishment of the new zoning. The new draft of the port act was written based on these opinions and proposed to the Japanese cabinet in 1928. However, the legislation failed again, because most of several ministries (finance, railway, communication, agriculture, commerce) were not supportive although cooperation of these ministries was necessary.

 The second occurred among the 1930’s. Under the condition of Japan gradually becoming isolated internationally, the purpose of establishing the port act had changed from organizing the use of waterfront area to creating the East-Asia economic sphere ruled by the empire of Japan. However, the enactment was stopped in 1939, because the Japanese cabinet resigned. At that time, most port areas were either replaced from aforesaid commerce zone or newly designated to industrial zone based on the standards of the city planning act.

 The third was triggered by the absorption of the port bureau (of the ministry of inner affairs) in to the newly established General Maritime Bureau (of the ministry of communications) in 1943 which led to rise in momentum to establish the port act. Japan was defeated in several naval battles and needed to restructure its shipping system. In 1944, PHAJ took second survey about the demand of the port act from its members. Some members answered that the governmental authority should strictly control the waterfront areas and regulate shipping for efficient maritime freight. However, as the situation of the war was extremely worsening, it became difficult to continue this movement.

 At last, none of the movements were able to reach their goals while Japanese Empire’s era. The major reasons were, firstly, port administration was divided to many bureaus and ministries and it was difficult to adjust the gap between them. Secondly, industrial zone designated in the city building act was effective to control the usage of port land area to some extent. Thirdly, the general maritime bureau realized in organizing port administration which partly replaced the purpose of the movements.

 On the other hand, City planning act defined port as one of the city planning facilities and port land area was designated as industrial zone in many port towns. It was ambiguity to control the land usage on waterfront area under this act, but the zoning specific to port land area hadn’t been designated until 1950 when port act was enacted.