Summary of Key Points
Tokyo's Takaragawa Gateway City is an example of a “managed city” transformed by the Japanese railway company, JR East Japan. Essentially, it represents a scenario where private enterprises take over some municipal functions, utilizing technology and sophisticated services to address issues such as aging populations (preventing loneliness) and declining passenger numbers. The article compares three different models of “operated cities” around the world: corporate-led care in Japan, elite enclaves in the United States, and state-operated platforms in China. It highlights the potential drawbacks of these managed cities—excessive focus on efficiency and order can stifle urban diversity. Finally, it suggests creating “blank spaces” to balance governance with vitality.
I. Is Japan Creating Managed Cities Out of Necessity?
Japan's managed cities are not designed for growth but rather to combat aging and population decline:
- The Challenge of Aging: 29% of the Japanese population is over 65 years old, and problems such as elderly people staying home alone or dying from loneliness are significant. Takaragawa Gateway City is fully “elderly-friendly”: there are no steps in the design to facilitate the use of wheelchairs, and health monitoring centers are integrated into walking routes to encourage residents to go out.
- JR East Japan’s Self-Saving Strategy: Faced with a declining number of train passengers, JR East Japan has adopted a strategy of “vertical integration,” providing a comprehensive range of services throughout the day: commuting by JR train, working in JR-owned offices, dining at JR restaurants, shopping at JR malls, and living in JR-run nursing homes, all within its own closed ecosystem.
II. How Are Managed Cities Governed?
Unlike traditional cities that are handed over to local authorities after construction, Takaragawa Gateway City continues to be operated by JR East Japan:
- Data-Driven Optimization: Similar to software management, the city uses quantitative indicators such as foot traffic, spending, and duration of stays to make adjustments. For example, cleaning robots are scheduled automatically, and delivery robots deliver goods precisely.
- Rules for Private Spaces: Public areas like squares and green spaces are actually considered JR’s “private public spaces.” Residents are treated more as users rather than citizens; behaviors such as loud noises, lying on benches (with armrests), or performing street acts can result in being asked to leave. These activities that do not generate profit are quietly eliminated, making the city cleaner and safer but also less vibrant.
III. The Three Global Models of Operated Cities
Different countries have different approaches to who should govern cities:
- Japan: Corporate Caregivers: The government lacks funds and resources to manage aging communities, so private companies (such as JR East Japan and Mitsui Real Estate) step in with a long-term business model combined with social responsibility. The advantage is that the services are meticulous and reliable, but the companies are only accountable to their shareholders, and their promises of 100-year service are not legally binding.
- The United States: Elite Enclaves: Tech giants like Google buy land to create private cities (e.g., Sidewalk Toronto), offering exclusive services like drone deliveries and private security. Those who cannot afford these benefits remain in older neighborhoods, effectively withdrawing from the public system.
- China: State-Directed Platforms: The government leads the development of “urban brains” with strengths in systems integration (e.g., underground infrastructure and traffic control). However, an overemphasis on macro-level order may lead to the elimination of small-scale activities like street vendors and markets, highlighting the need for inclusivity.
IV. The Drawbacks of Managed Cities: Perfection Can Be Boring
The most valuable aspect of a city is its diversity, yet managed cities often aim to eliminate all friction:
- Jane Jacobs’ Warning: Rock music did not emerge in sterile squares, and groundbreaking ideas do not come from rule-following workspaces. Understanding between different social groups comes from everyday interactions on the streets, not from algorithm-driven venues.
- The Cost of Over-Optimization: When every behavior is quantified and every “accident” is filtered out, a city becomes like a high-end theme park—clean and safe but lacking in surprise and vitality.
V. How to Balance Governance and Vitality?
The solution is to intentionally create “rough gaps” in the system:
1. Empowering Residents with Data: Communities are given open-source interfaces, allowing residents to decide when cleaning robots should operate and which areas should not have cameras.
2. Reserving Space for Diversity: 10%-20% of the space is reserved for unstructured activities such as vending, graffiti, and skateboarding, with companies unable to interfere freely.
3. Legal Protection for Public Spaces: Even if a space is privately owned, it must be open to the public, and residents should have the same rights as those in municipal parks—no one can be ejected just because they do not consume services.
The best form of governance is knowing when to intervene and when to let the city grow naturally.