This study provides a micro-level analysis of the relationship between land-ownership change and the growth process of Sapporo city. In this paper the author focused on the importance of land-ownership change as a good indicator for analyzing the urban growth. The most important questions addressed by this paper are : Why the process occurred?, When did it occur?, Where did it take place?, Who was responsible?, and How was it conducted? The author analyzed the long-term process of building supply and revealed how many renovation cases were identified that brought by newly advanced land purchasers, while other renovation cases were brought by original land-owners without land-ownership change. The result of this paper was summarized :
As for the building supply in Sapporo city, two peaks were identified. The first period was in the years around 1972, which was the year of the Winter Olympics, held in Sapporo city. The transportation bureau of the city built a subway (Nanboku line) by 1972, which created the high urban land demand along the subway line. Along it many old and large-lot buildings were found which were mainly provided by major financial groups in Tokyo and Osaka by 1972. The second peak was during the year after 1985. Several high-rise buildings (over 16 stories) were built in the Central Business District (CBD), but their locations tended to be away from the subway line for two reasons : higher land price; and no space for new buildings along the subway line where already occupied by 1972. This is a significant characteristic of Sapporo compared to other major cities where we can find high-rise buildings in the highest priced district along the main streets of the cities.
To investigate the process of land-ownership change, the data housed in the Bureau of Legal Affairs in Sapporo were used. According to the data, four major patterns of building supply were identified. Among them, 'Type A' and 'Type D' provided typical examples. 'Type A' included 28 cases out of a total of 63 and was mainly brought about by companies from Tokyo and Osaka who actively purchased some lots so that they could build their own buildings. On the other hand, distribution of 'Type D' was quite different compared to that of 'Type A'. The lot size of 'Type D' was relatively larger. 'Type D' also included 28 cases and was brought about by the same land-owners who continued to keep their land and have renovated the original old buildings (mostly low-rise single use) to larger ones by themselves. Since the number of cases of 'Type B' and 'Type C' were a very few, 'Type A' and 'Type D' could be considered as 'Driving Forces' for the growth of the city.