Lubna Alli

My first trip to Asia: twenty-five days, six countries, and thirteen cities, the majority of which belonged to Japan. Clean streets, lots of easy-to-follow signage and impressive transit systems. Why didn’t I think to come here earlier?

Oftentimes, Asia gets lumped into the umbrella idea of the Global South. Westerners use their far-removed opinions as a deterrent, a fear factor of sorts, to stay as far away from East and Southeast Asia as they can. There are talks of a poorer quality of life, of diarrhea scares, of typhoon epidemics, of dirty streets, of life-threatening traffic, and of a lack of AC; all the things that scare away impressionable North Americans.

Cities are complex systems, and in each area of the world, the definition of high functioning relies heavily on the local factors in each space at each given time. Granted that I visited more developed cities (Singapore, Japan, and Korea being strong powerhouses in Asia’s economy), Asia leaves me with the impression that it is, in many ways, more high functioning than North American cities. Naturally, throughout my entire time in Asia, my thoughts ran wild with comparisons to the various other cities I’ve seen throughout my studies and travels abroad, and I was prepared to be nothing but a tough critic. A tough critic that was in for a pleasant surprise, at that.

---

Can cities really learn from each other?

Is it really possible to learn anything by comparing urbanization in different countries, or is the range of information necessary for a meaningful comparison simply too large? This was the central theme of my entire trip, both while doing my own travels and while in Tokyo with the Masters and Ph.D. students from the University of Tsukuba and Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

I have a theory. Japanese cities (and a majority of other Asian cities) are front runners, bound to surpass North American cities on a global scale because of how late they’ve entered the development race. They are like the younger, smarter sibling that has everything set up so nicely for them that it’s smooth sailing till the end. Developing countries get to learn from the mistakes their older brothers, the OG powerhouses, made, all while wagging their fingers in our faces as they climb to the top as mom’s favourite.*

Take a look at Europe, for example. It boasts some of the oldest cities in the world, but as the old saying goes, it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. How, then, does this explain their high walkability scores, integrated transit systems, and the introduction of smaller sub-centres?

Borrowing from disaster prevention

Day 2’s focus on the Sumida Ward really sets itself up for easy comparison, as disaster prevention seemed to be a central planning theme for most of the week. With old infrastructure comes a newfound development challenge, a planning problem that does not affect a majority of Toronto’s neighbourhoods. We do not have a significant number of wooden houses, nor are earthquakes a pressing concern in our day-to-day life. As the central question suggests, although there are many points that can be used for a city-to-city comparison, each city is still unique.

My take is that we can still learn a thing or two from Kiyojima and Hikifune’s disaster prevention methods, and apply them to a more pressing community issue that Toronto faces: gun violence. Yes, Toronto has Neighbourhood Watch programs, but the same level of community engagement is not there. What if city planners created toolkits similar to the ones used in the event of an earthquake, but equipped them with the necessary items for an event that would constitute an emergency in Toronto’s landscape, even if it’s not necessarily crime-related? Just as these programs mobilize communities in Japan to meet in a common space, Toronto could do the same and build community emergency preparedness, so residents are ready to support themselves and their neighbours. This focus on social programming benefits both the community and its people, and will cost the government less in the long run if people are prepared to be there for one another.

---

Parallel growth: Takashimadaira, Yokohama and Hamilton

As the question suggests, there is a range of information necessary for a clean and fair comparison. This comparison is on a more even playing field with Tokyo and Toronto. Of all the presentations we had in Tokyo, a number of the places discussed compared quite seamlessly to those in Toronto. My observation is that the majority of both cities’ recent intensification spiralled after industrialization, WWII and the rise of the automobile.

On Day 1 we spoke about Takashimadaira, which in many ways speaks to the CMHC’s affordable housing model and Canada’s first-ever National Housing Strategy, launched in 2017 by the federal Liberal government. The ageing population in Tokyo, let alone Japan, is also becoming a growing issue in Toronto, as championed by public health city planners. The Takashimadaira danchi (public condominium), which opened in 1972 with a majority of hopeful young couples, has now transitioned into a majority 65+ living complex, and is easily comparable to different suburbs (or sub-centres) in the GTA where retirement communities have become prominent. Hamilton, just outside the GTA, is widely considered to house one of the fastest-growing older populations in and around Toronto.

The growth of these sub-centres is becoming a widely pushed practice in both Tokyo’s and Toronto’s planning, as it allows for the dispersal of the population and intensification in the city’s core. Yokohama and Kashiwa are great examples of this, just as Scarborough, Markham and Mississauga are excellent examples of thriving sub-centres outside of the downtown core. Yokohama, in particular, is an excellent example of post-war redevelopment, where the city was rebuilt from the ground up after being destroyed by US air raids. Like Singapore, it still carries visible traces of British and other foreign influence from its days as an international port, a fun example being The Full Monty British Pub & Cider House, a British pub still operating in a Japanese city. Yokohama, much like Hamilton, has a lot to offer for a city that is not too far outside of the core. Both are still developing (Yokohama’s Seaside Area Regeneration Plan and Hamilton’s 2016-2025 Strategic Plan), and both boast a waterfront that offers significant development potential.

---

Walkability and health

To touch on high-density, mixed-use, walkable urban centres as a common prescription for fixing the ills of automobile-dependent cities in North America, there are quite a few things we can learn from such areas in Japan. I will start this off with a fact that is both mind-boggling and game-changing. The obesity rate in Japan is 3.6%, whereas in the United States it is 32% (Senauer & Masahiko, 2006). That is nearly nine times higher than our Japanese counterparts, which is striking. I attribute it to the high walkability in Japan and the easy access to public transit, among other things like a smaller fast-food culture and a traditional diet that is generally healthier.

Japan also has one of the highest life expectancies in the world, where women are expected to live until 87 years old and men 81 years old. Interestingly enough, Singapore and South Korea (both countries that I also visited) also rank above Canada, while the United States trails well behind many of the other global powerhouses.

Smart cities, practically

What I think is also noteworthy is the practicality of Japanese city planning compared to Toronto’s. An easy example to draw upon is Kashiwa City (both Kashiwa Village and the Kashiwa-no-ha Area), which is considered to be a smart city. The difference between their idea of a smart city and ours lies in practicality. Smart cities for the Japanese have nothing to do with fancy technologies and impressive futuristic design, as the Sidewalk Labs proposal suggested. Instead, it is simply about improving the quality of life.

Smart cities for the Japanese have nothing to do with fancy technologies and impressive futuristic design. Instead, it is simply about improving the quality of life.

If you look at the buildings in Kashiwa City, many of them were not architecturally captivating by any means. In fact, many are comparable to the condo high rises in Tokyo or even the danchi in Takashimadaira. The difference was in the subtlety of the smart technologies, which focused on community support, environmental conservation, and regional contribution (such as watering flower beds, weeding, and the management of the Town Health Centre). This is where the true meaning of machizukuri comes into play, as city planning involves the community’s say, as shown by Kashiwa Village’s Jichikai Chokai (a neighbourhood association of residents living within the same area, town or housing complex, where community activities are organized to keep a cozier and more comfortable living environment).

Drawing back to the central question, Day 4’s focus on Otemachi also brought light to the inspiration that city planning, specifically in Tokyo, takes from around the world, which was mentioned in the opening presentation by Mr. Komai from Mitsubishi Estate. He spoke about the inspiration taken from other major cities around the world, including New York’s Times Square, which was used to model the Marunouchi Brick Square. Examples include the open space and underground pedestrian network (comparable to Toronto’s PATH), the urban forest in Otemachi (modeled after Central Park to improve air quality), the water purification system for the Imperial Palace moats, and Nakadori Street (comparable to our King Street Pilot) for improving walkability in the downtown core. As well, the overall CBD intensification of the Shibuya area, unlike Toronto’s, does not impose a maximum height limit and invites developers to build on the land and increase business at the core.

---

The case for public-private partnership

What is interesting are the future development plans for the area, which run contrary to the idea of developing the sub-centres rather than the core. I attribute this primarily to the idea that private control is more encouraged in Tokyo than in Toronto. Although the Japanese government has a very strong say when it comes to city planning, I strongly believe that the Japanese have managed to surpass Canada in their development process due to their emphasis on public-private partnerships, something that seems to have been a point of reluctance for the Canadian government, the Sidewalk Labs proposal being an excellent example to draw on. Torontonians have a fear of privatization and of a lack of government control, a lot of this attributed to concerns about the disappearing middle class.

Part of the reason this is not a similar point of contention for the Japanese is that housing pressure is lower: public housing such as the danchi and a large stock of vacant homes keep housing comparatively more affordable than in Toronto. If residents are not worried about the basic necessities needed to survive, then it is understandable why there isn’t as much of a public consultation battle when private partnerships arise. The reason their development is so effective is that there is more money and leeway in private control, and oftentimes projects can be rolled out at a much faster pace. Tokyo Metro, a corporatized operator that at the time was wholly owned by Japan’s national government and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (it listed half of its shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchange in 2024), runs with a commercial discipline that puts Toronto’s TTC to shame, and is an excellent example of public ownership paired with private-sector management. This is just one small example of the many public-private partnerships highlighted during our time in Tokyo.

The overall impression of Tokyo, let alone Japan, is one that is exemplary. It sets the bar very high for other cities to catch up, and in many departments at that. Cleanliness, lower visible homelessness, safety, technology, transit, affordable housing, walkability, and quality of life are all areas where their groundwork policies set them apart from the rest. Developing countries are now giving the developed countries a run for their money, and it’s high time that the older sibling swallowed their pride and looked to their little brother for help. It might be the only way to win back mom’s approval.

* Please note that I am aware that Japan is a developed country, not a developing country. I have used it more so from the West’s metaphorical standpoint, where Japan (like China) is still considered to be fairly new to the group of developed powerhouses.