.png)
by Maya
Avoidance and Interaction
Sub-Sections
← Youth in Miyashita Park engaging in civil inattention. They are sitting on the stairs but only on the edge so as not to interact with others unnecessarily by bothering others.
Two guys interviewing two girls →
Introduction
One of the most prominent features of city life that is shared in many anthropological works is that urbanites are constantly under the risks of sharing spaces with strangers. For example, Simmel (2002) refers to the busy lifestyle of city life and claims that people engage in "[blasé attitude, whose essence] is an indifference toward the distinction between things" (p. 14) in order to cope with the abundant stimuli that surrounds them. Similarly, Karp (2015) uses the term "civil inattention" to claim that "[urbanites] are constrained to generate a norm of noninvolvement because of the social risks that are tied to stranger interaction and because of the inability to cope with the sheer volume and complexity of potential encounters in the city" (p. 100). Although the ideas suggested by Simmel and Karp are contrasting to some extent, (Karp claims that urbanites try to respect others’ personal space by acknowledging the presence of others and make an effort not to pay overly attention to them, while Simmel states that urbanites completely ignore others’ existence to avoid risks all-together) they share the general view that strangers are seen as risks and thus there is a tendency of urbanites to avoid them. Goffman furthers this idea by stating that "individuals feel the need to move beyond civil inattention by treating others in a setting as 'nonpersons'" (as cited in Simmel, 2002, p. 104).
Despite such arguments that emphasizes on the avoidance nature of the urbanites, Lofland (1972) argues the importance of strangers in one's identity formation, as urbanites' identity is dependent on the confirmation of them by strangers, claiming that "the self is initially created through the interaction of the infant human organism and the 'self'-possessed human others who surround him, and its continued existence and well-being are forever dependent on relatively continuous support from such others" (p. 95). In this sense, Lofland (1973) claims that "Urbanites... are not always busily engaged in 'avoiding' the city" (p. 158) under the right circumstances. This is also confirmed by Karp (2015), who while claiming that urbanites engage in civil inattention, "[they] can suspend the normal rules of disengagement and participate in at least quasi-intimate relationships" (p. 110).
"the self is initially created through the interaction of the infant human organism and the 'self'-possessed human others who surround him, and its continued existence and well-being are forever dependent on relatively continuous support from such others"
(Lofland, 1972, p. 95).
Especially for youth, "who have not yet committed themselves to culturally defined 'adult roles'—that is, entering the workforce for young men, and becoming a bride, then a mother, for young women'' (Daliot-Bul, 2014, p. 125), it becomes optimal to break the general rules of non-involvement as their ambiguous social positioning provides them "a favorable starting point to explore the cultural alternatives to the male-dominated hegemonic culture" (Daliot-Bul, 2014, p. 125). Indeed, in Miyashita Park, youth do engage in the norm of non-involvement, yet many youth can be seen maximizing their sociality by interacting with one another. Historically, Miyashita Park has been used as a place for various protests with many actors claiming their space within it → Learn more about the protests that occurred in Miyashita Park in the section Transformation Process. Today, the freedom and openness of the Miyashita Park → Learn more about the security and freedom of Miyashita Park in the section Built Environment created overtime also influence youth to use this space and to claim it for themselves → Learn more about how youth use the space of Miyashita Park to claim it for themselves in the section Consumption of Space . Specifically, in his article, Glass (2012) claims that “instead of being a location that is found and used, participants actively create and maintain scene spaces through shared activity” (p. 712) revealing how a place is of social construction and that the common action by a certain group has the power to transform a space into a place. In other words, through stranger interaction, youth are “constantly engaged in efforts to territorialise, to claim spaces, to include some and exclude others from particular areas” (Massey, 1998, p. 127), turning Miyashita Park into a place of youth. Utilizing space and turning it into their place, youth also figure out their identity as “spatial organisation are deeply bound up with the social production of identities (Sibley, 1995, as cited in Massey, 1998, p. 127).
Taken together, triggered by the ambiguous status as youth, they go out to explore their own value through playing with other youths, balancing themselves between the attitude of avoidance and the action of stranger interaction. By engaging in youth-specific activities, youth make the space of Miyashita Park a place of youth, trying out various ways and techniques to maximize sociality with other youth to figure out their identity. In other words, through the actions of playing together, cooperating and engaging in Nampa, youth create their own place where stranger interaction is welcomed, maximizing sociality and forming identity with similarly placed youth. It is the ambiguous positioning of the youth in society that allows them to explore different values in youth-specific ways, thus shaping youth culture.
Concept & Mapping
In June of 2020, Shibuya Ward and Mitsui Fudosan partnered to establish the new version of Miyashita Park with a low-rise complex that covers a site area of approximately 10,740 square meters with the total length of about 330m.
Miyashita Park was fully revitalized compared to the previous version. The biggest difference is the introduction of consumerism. The new Miyashita integrates commercial facilities, hotels, and parking lots. In its renewal, it was developed as a more multifunctional space while preserving its original charm and sports functions of Miyashita Park that have been cherished over the years (LIVE JAPAN, 2021). By conserving the park’s significance and the sports-related contents, the developers may aim to build up blend of traditions and modernity.
Concept
Miyashita Park’s overall philosophy is to provide opportunities for visitors to meet “new stimulations and trends” and feel “ease and comfort” by being at the park. The former implies for park users to have new encounters and communications with people, things, experiences, and cultures, which is supported by the park offering unique and variety of sports facilities, retail shops, restaurants, and services. The latter is based on the notion of park being an open and comfortable place for everyone (Mitsui Fudosan, 2020). To establish the image of a park, Miyashita installs many benches inside its buildings, in outdoor hallways, small open spaces between the South and North blocks, and on the rooftop. Also, the place is rich in greenery with the provision of lawns, trees, and garden plants. This “parkness” can be particularly observed on the rooftop having vast grass all over the rooftop and many benches. By visiting Miyashita Park, people can feel a sense of being at the park and get some comfort.
“卵とキャラメルが出会って、プリンが生まれた。
When eggs and caramel meet, pudding is born.
出会いって、愛。組み合わせって、未来かも。
Encounter, love. The combination may be the future.
公園の下に、ハイブランド。
Below the park, high brand stores.
ハイブランドの横に、飲み屋横丁。
Next to the high-end brands, there is an Izakaya alley.
ホテルも珈琲屋もレコードショップもギャラリーも、
混ざってくっついたらどうなるんだろう。
What happens when they get mixed up and stick together?
ごちゃっと自由に、ここは公園のASHITA。
Mixing without control, this is Ashita (tomorrow/future) in the park.
その全部があたらしくなった、MIYASHITA PARK。
MIYASHITA PARK, where all of them are new.
さあ開業、開園です。
Come on, it's opening, it's opening.
ニンゲンも風も花も鳥も、どうぞいらしてください。
Humans, winds, flowers and birds, please come and join us” (Miyashita Park, n.d.).
In contrast to this diversity and inclusion-based concept, however, it is important to know that homeless people who used the old version of Miyashita Park as residence now disappeared in the new park. As showed in the previous History and Transformation Process sections, Miyashita has a history of partnering with Nike to eliminate homeless persons and transform the park into a place more accessible to a broader range of social groups. The current redevelopment in collaboration with Mitsui Fudosan also seems to have a similar purpose in mind. The renewal of Miyashita can be considered to be what Malone (2002) calls “’purification of public space’ that is the need for clear, closed boundaries, internal homogeneity and order and the means for boundary maintenance in order to keep out objects or people who do not fit the classification” (p.161) or more specifically, it is regarded as “gentrification” that is urban affluence due to redevelopment and an influx of higher-income people (Nishiyama, 2020). The introduction of commercial activity promotes affluence in Miyashita Park and makes the park safer and more open to legitimate users who can participate in consumerism while excluding homeless people. It seems that the diversity of the new concept does not include the homeless.
Mapping
Miyashita consists of two sides of the South and North, and they are connected by corridors. Only the rooftop is all the way through from end to end, forming like an elongated shape. The park has 4 floors in total. While retail shops and restaurants take central place from 1st and 3rd floors, the rooftop offers open space for free resting and playing.
