不動産再生事業を営むサン

    Why and how has Tokyo experienced a huge increase in the number of high-rise buildings, called “tower-block gentrification” by P. Waley, in a relatively short period? This article analyzes the historical process of the city's vertical expansion since the 1980s, by showing four step-by-step stages of speculation on real estate. During the 1980s, that is, “economic bubble” era, Tokyo witnessed a sudden big wave of redevelopment (Step 1). Inner-city working community with old factories and warehouses were invaded and destroyed by capital. Yet, after the burst of the bubble in the early 90s, a sharp downturn of land price hit real estate market. Alternately, local governments entered into high-rise construction, pushed by “crisis-driven” deregulation and neoliberal private-public partnership policy (Step 2). And then, a turning point was marked in the history of Tokyo's building construction. During the first decade of the new century twice number of high-rise buildings were finished as in 1990-99. Such a change was accelerated by the mixture of financialization of real estate market, state-led neoliberal policy, and making of ʻlivable city' image fitting to differentially gentrified high-rise buildings (Step 3). Global financial crisis in 2007-8 hit local market, resulting in the failure of nearly all independent agents for realestate financialization. In the 2010s, high-rise construction began to increase again after a break, pushed by back-to-city migration, state-led “special zone” policy, and the boom of 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. But the market structure has changed, becoming more oligopolistic (Step 4). Four top real estate company groups occupied more than a third of newly established high-rise buildings. It is unclear whether such a process of transformation might be unique to Japanese cities or not. Tokyo has to survive with a huge number of tower-block constructions.

The objective of this study is to clarify the advantages of agricultural production corporation for establishing a new agricultural corporation by joint venture with a big non-agricultural company. The implications were derived from an interview survey of 3 agricultural production corporations established by joint venture. The main outcome is as follows : There are three advantages for the growth of an agricultural production corporation on its corporate entry into agriculture by joint venture, namely, the ability to (1) acquire capital and market at the same time, (2) acquire human resources from the company, and (3) avoid the risk of declining freedom of management action.

　This study focused the innovation and succession of an accommodation behind the Nagoya Station. To this extent, it explores this renovation project as “production of space” that has risen in the gaps of the maglev line development. It does so by seeking to answer the following questions—first, why did the real estate owner rent out the accommodation to the entrepreneurs; second, what was the purpose and aim of the entrepreneurs’ renovation of this accommodation; and third, what kind of innovation and gentrification did the encounter between the real estate owner and entrepreneurs cause in this space?

　This paper focuses on the emergence of a “new urban social movement”. It is different from the urban social movement in Keynesian cities (Castells 1983). In the midst of neoliberalizing cities, grassroots entrepreneurs are emerging as leaders in the restoration of “use-value”.

　It was seen that civic entrepreneurs were able to restore the social relations inherent to the accommodation, and create social and spatial innovations. They have created “service hubs”, where community building is linked to entrepreneurial activities (Dear and Wolch 1997). Behind the Nagoya station, safety nets emerged for those who had been socially excluded as a result of neoliberal gentrification. It is on the basis of these service hubs that a non-profit organization is connecting with local entrepreneurs and generating profits from the city, to make the “new urban social movement” a sustainable one.

The Republic of Kenya has made remarkable progress in the past 20 years. On the outskirts of the capital city of Nairobi, multilevel roads have been constructed, and modern shopping malls and beautiful residential areas have been built. These coincide with a period of high economic growth driven by the development of natural resources. At the same time, however, poverty is still prevalent in Kenya, and it is said that a quarter of the population is poor. I began my fieldwork in Kenya in the mid-1990s. Since then, I have witnessed this imbalance and wondered whether the government is making efforts to improve people's lives. In such a situation, when I paid attention to the presence of Kenyan migrants living abroad, I thought that their multifaceted contribution, not only through their economic power of remittance, would impact their home country and lead to its social development. It is not a top-down development but a bottom-up aspiration to help each other among the fellow countrymen.

Kenyan immigrants in Baltimore, Maryland, the United States, where I conducted fieldwork, had strong feelings for their people back home and the ability to take actions to save their home country from crisis. They showed an attitude of improving the work capacity and correcting unequal gender relations and social hierarchy. Also, they make efforts to resist injustice and discrimination prevailing in their home countries and return to their hometown with glory. This paper examines the potential for these immigrants' attitudes, behaviors, and newly acquired abilities, which I named “immigrant power,”to promote social development in Kenya.

本研究は、景観やコミュニティ形成の向上を目指した戸建て住宅地の供給を促進するために、静岡県の「豊かな暮らし空間創生住宅地」認定制度をとりあげて、制度の意義および課題、制度に基づいて作られた住宅地の居住者の評価を明らかにし、供給促進のための行政対応のあり方を検討するものである。当制度により、今までにこうした住宅地の供給の経験がない地元の事業者でも取り組みが可能となっている。また、居住者は認定制度の要件にそってつくられた住宅地の景観、コモンスペースでの人々の交流、管理組合等を評価している。今後、こうした住宅地のより供給を促進するには、行政各部署内の連携や、販売や管理システムの基準の設定等が今後必要である。