Social disparities have been regarded as an issue to be solved urgently,1 against the background of the backdrop of globalization and neoliberalism. How can urban planning respond to this problem? From a spatial viewpoint, it has been noted that social disparities occur simultaneously at different spatial scales, ie, at global, national, and city scales. Among them, the spatial disparities between large cities and rural areas, particularly the polarization to the megacity regions [Note 1] has become increasingly evident, along with the spatial disparities within such megacity regions.2,3
Agglomeration economies are the sources of the concentrations of people and capital to megacity regions. Yet, many megacity regions in the world suffer from urban problems, namely disadvantages arising from excessive concentration such as air pollution, traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing, over-concentration of commuter trains, and long-distance commuting. Judging from these situations, it can be said that the disadvantages of excessive concentration are larger than the benefits of the agglomeration economies in megacity regions. If so, why does concentration to megacity regions still continue in many countries, including Japan? We understand that one of the keys to understand this paradox lies in the social disparities within megacity regions.
As discussed in Chapter 2, there is currently a salient concentration of affluent people to the central part of Tokyo in Japan. For the affluent people [Note 2] who possess enough income and wealth to be able to live in decent residential areas near the city center, the disadvantages of concentration will be significantly smaller, provided that the air pollution problems are solved. Moreover, those who possess properties near the city centers of megacities will enjoy larger benefits, owing to increase of land prices associated with polarization to megacities [Note 3]. Thus, for affluent people, living in the megacities suggests that “the benefits of agglomeration economies > the disadvantages of concentration,” but for many other people, the situation is completely the opposite. Similarly, enterprises located in the megacities can also maximize the benefits of agglomeration economies. Generally speaking, the executives of enterprises are affluent people. Thus, both for the executives who have the right to decide the locations of enterprises and for the enterprises themselves [Note 4], concentration to megacities is logically desirable in the long-term, as long as the employees can tolerate the disadvantages of concentration.
If so, why do people continue to migrate to megacities? This means that the inequality formula of “advantages of agglomeration > disadvantages of concentration” subjectively holds for the young singles comprising the majority of immigrants to megacities. For young singles, there are high advantages to agglomeration, such as entering higher education facilities, job opportunities (including expectations in the near future), and enjoyment of the urban lifestyle. However, their subjective values for housing tend to be low, ie, they would be satisfied with low-level housing conditions (such as a single-room apartment located in an inner city area to avoid long-distance commuting), and thus, their subjective view of the disadvantages of concentration will be lowered.
Yet, this subjective inequality formula is suddenly reversed when situations change, for example, if they marry and have children, as they may require a decent housing space and living environment for raising their children. However, it is difficult to find jobs that earn enough income and are worthwhile in non-megacity regions, owing to the concentration of business activities in megacity regions. In addition, even if people consider moving to non-megacity regions, the social costs incurred from such movement, such as the opportunity costs in finding new jobs, places to live, educational opportunities for children, and new friends, are prohibitively high. It follows that the inequality formula “(advantages of accumulation to megacity regions – advantages of accumulation to non-megacity regions) + costs of moving from megacity regions to non-megacity regions > disadvantages of concentration to megacity regions – disadvantages of concentration to non-megacity regions” holds; thus moving from megacity regions to a non-megacity is largely restricted.
As mentioned above, regional disparities at the national scale occur along with the spatial disparities within megacity regions. The affluent people occupy the decent residential areas in the city center areas, whereas lower-income migrants from non-megacity regions live in the high-density residential areas in the inner city areas. In this paper, an urban divide is defined as a situation in which the spatial disparities generated in the above process remain for a long time. Urban redevelopment projects implemented in high-density inner city areas often seek a “Tower in the Park”-style urban development vision, and have generally targeted affluent or upper-middle-class people. It can be said that this scrap and build-style urban redevelopment policy has actually restricted the realistic improvement of high-density inner city areas, and as a result, has also restricted the alleviation of the urban divide [Note 5].
In Japan, in the field of improvement of high-density inner city areas, emphasis is primarily placed on urban redevelopment projects that generally target the affluent or upper-middle-income people, for the purpose of disaster prevention. However, the inner city areas of megacity regions also function as a gateway for accepting a wide variety of people, including immigrants from on-megacity regions and other countries (such as Korea and China). It is therefore noted that inner city areas have played the role of an incubation place for urban culture and innovation by encouraging a culture of tolerance, which is one of the bases for economic development according to Florida (2002).4,5
Objective and methodologyThis study aims at verifying a hypothesis regarding the polarization to megacity regions and the urban divide. First, we examined the polarization to megacity regions in Japan, focusing on the concentration of wealth based on various economic statistics, as well as on the record of public investment. In Japan, there are two megacity regions with populations of over 10 million: the Tokyo megacity region and the Osaka megacity region. The situation regarding the Tokyo megacity regions was examined in Kidokoro et al. (2018).6 Thus, we selected Osaka City as a case analysis for the urban divide inside a megacity region based on a cluster analysis, and analyzed the current conditions of the urban divide in Osaka City. Third, we investigated the diverse types of living in the Airin area, Nishinari Ward, Osaka City. Through analysis of interview surveys to the local real estate companies, we discussed the mechanisms of housing provisions for realizing diversity.
Significance of the researchAs we examine in Chapter 2, both the Tokyo and Osaka megacity regions experienced drastic concentrations from non-megacity regions during the period of rapid economic development. The concentration of income and wealth to the Tokyo megacity region, and in particular, to the central part of Tokyo, appears to continue: Osaka City, ie, the central city of the Osaka megacity region, has experienced relative stagnation. As a result, the spatial concentration of poverty to specific areas has deepened and remained in Osaka City7 as compared to Tokyo, where the spatial dispersion of poverty has proceeded under the conditions that urban redevelopment projects widely have been promoted under the pressure of polarization. Thus, the problems caused by spatial concentration of poverty are more serious in Osaka City than in Tokyo. In addition, as Osaka City has experienced inflow from abroad as a new global hub with the background of international tourism (particularly from China), Osaka City is considered as a typical area in Japan for examining the role of inner city areas as places to cultivate diversity.
The significance of this paper lies primarily in that it discusses spatial disparities at the national and city scales as an interrelated phenomenon; in the past, they have been discussed separately. This paper emphasizes the role of inner city areas as places to cultivate diversity, even though inner city areas in Japan have been often considered as problematic areas to be redeveloped.
Concentration to Megacity Regions: Analysis at the National Scale Formation of megacity regions in JapanTokyo is a political center: Osaka is the spatial hub of west Japan,8 where a wide variety of industries (such as textiles) had been expanded through population concentration during the periods of rapid economic development in the 1960s and early 1970s. The spatial structure of Japan was called the “twin-lens reflex” structure, but the polarization to the Tokyo megacity region has since accelerated, as transportation and communication costs have lowered.9 Recently, the importance of the global network has progressively accelerated, as well as the proximity to the market. The centrality of Tokyo is also extremely high in the trade network among firms in Japan.10
An inflow of population was observed until the first half of the 1970s, in both the Tokyo and Osaka megacity regions. In both megacity regions, suburbanization advanced in this period, and the relative importance of the central city was lowered. Figure 1 shows the trends of the ratios of the total incomes of the Tokyo Metropolis and Osaka City to the total incomes of all 47 prefectures based on the Report on Prefectural Account [Note 6].11 Although the standards for the calculation have changed in certain years owing to the renewal of input-output tables, etc. and there are minor differences in calculation methods in different prefectures, overall trends can be clearly observed.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Prefectural incomes of Tokyo Prefecture and Osaka Prefecture (analyzed from12)
The ratio for Osaka City increased until the 1970s and has stagnated since then; in contrast, that of the Tokyo Metropolis decreased after the 1960s but has continuously increased since the 1980s, except for the period of the collapse of the bubble economy in the early 1990s. It follows that polarization has advanced from the viewpoint of wealth, ie, not only from the viewpoint of population concentration. This trend also corresponds to the locations of firms. In fact, the ratio of the total number of employees of firms whose headquarters are located in the Osaka City to the total number of employees of firms whose headquarters are located in Tokyo decreased from 53.5 in 1960 to 12.7 in 2015 (indexed as Tokyo = 100), according to a study that examined the locations of companies listed in the Tokyo Stock Exchange.12
Recent polarization to TokyoIn this section, the trends of polarization to Tokyo are further analyzed from the viewpoint of the concentration of wealth. To observe the volume occupied in the national economy, the ratio of the absolute volume of wealth to that of the nation were examined without standardizing, such as by per capita or per household. In particular, Tokyo and Osaka City were compared [Note 7] by analyzing the Census of Population and other social and population statistics.13-18 Figures 2 and 3 show the ratios of the “23 Wards” area of Tokyo and Osaka City to the national total respectively.
The polarization of wealth to Tokyo has advanced since the 2000s. In particular, whereas the total property prices decreased until 2000 and other statistics stagnated in the 23 Wards area of Tokyo, the concentration of wealth, and particularly property values, drastically advanced at a higher pace than that of population increase after the 2000s, when neoliberal policies were strengthened in Japan. In the case of Osaka City, property values decreased and other statistics related to wealth stagnated until 2000 (similar to Tokyo); however, in contrast with Tokyo, those statistics have not increased since the 2000s. In addition to the trends of polarization to Tokyo at the national scale, a concentration of wealth to the central areas at the metropolitan scale has also been observed. Figure 4 shows the trends of the ratios of the statistics used in Figures 2 and 3 (except for property values, which are not available) for the central three wards (Chiyoda Ward, Chuo Ward, and Minato Ward) to those of the entire Tokyo Metropolis. Although the increase in the ratio of net assets trailed slightly behind and started after the mid-2000s, the ratio of taxable income, as well as population of the three central wards, sharply increased after the 2000s. It follows that the concentration of wealth to the central areas of Tokyo at the metropolitan scale is clearly observed, together with a concentration of wealth to Tokyo as a whole on a national scale.
In addition, a concentration of public and private investments to Tokyo has also been observed. Figure 5 shows the changes of the ratios of public and private investments per capita in the Tokyo Metropolis and the Osaka Prefecture to the national average (the national average = 100). The amount of public investment is based on the “Report on Administrative Investment” and the private investment is based on the “Economic Census for Business Activity”. Notably, private investment is calculated based on firms; thus, the amount in Tokyo, where many headquarters are concentrated, tends to be larger than the actual amount. The public investment per capita in the Tokyo Metropolis, shown on the left axis of Figure 5, surpassed the national average (=100) in 2007. It became lower in 2011 when the East Japan Earthquake occurred, but again surpassed the national average in 2016. In contrast, the level of public investment in the Osaka Prefecture has continuously fallen below both the levels of the Tokyo Metropolis and national average, and has lowered over the long-term. As for private investments, both the Tokyo Metropolis and the Osaka Prefecture have maintained higher levels than the national average, but the level of the Tokyo Metropolis is significantly larger than that of the Osaka Prefecture, and the difference increased from 2012 to 2016.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Public and private investments for Tokyo Prefecture and Osaka Prefecture
In this section, we examined formations of two megacity regions and the polarization to Tokyo afterwards in Japan, with special consideration of the accumulation of wealth at the individual level. In particular, the concentration of wealth to Tokyo has been strengthened and has increased even faster than the concentration or population after 2000. This indicates that the wealth generated by economic activities is not well-reallocated, rather, it is accumulated in the form of individual wealth, particularly in the central areas of Tokyo. Public investment tends to be provided in Tokyo at a faster pace than in other regions, which is considered to generate a positive feedback to the polarization to Tokyo.
Urban Divide in Megacity Regions: Case of Osaka City Analysis of urban divide in Osaka City at the ward levelTo examine social disparities in Osaka City, various statistics are collected per ward (Table 1), including the annual income level (the ratios (%) of less than 4 million yen/household, 4-10 million yen/household, and over 10 million/household) based on the Housing and Land Survey19 (columns (a), (b), and (c), respectively), rate (%) of people requiring public assistance20 (column (d)), rate (%) of higher-educated people (graduates of universities or graduate schools of universities based on the Census of Population data; column (e)), rate (%) of white collar workers (total number of managers, professionals, engineers, and clerical workers (from the Census of Population data; column (f)). Gentrification, through the development of condominiums targeting upper-middle income, is currently gaining momentum in the central and inner city areas in Osaka City [Note 8].24 Thus, to examine such gentrification trends, the increase rate (%) of population by ward (2010-2015) (from the Census of Population data; column (h)), rate (%) of aged people over 65 (from the Census of Population data; column (g)), and rate (%) of residents who live in apartments/condominiums with over 11 stories (from the Census of Population data; column (i)) are also investigated [Note 9]. Through observation of these indices, it is possible to divide Osaka City into five areas, from the perspective of social disparities and level of gentrification (note that each area is shown in the parentheses after the name of Ward in Table 1), as follows (Figure 6).
Table 1 Transition of each index of each ward (ku) of Osaka city (analyzed from13,19,20)
| Ward and classification | Index and year | |||||||||
| (a) Under 4 million/year | (b) 4-10 million/year | (c) Over 10 million/year | (d) Public assistance | (e) Graduation of university | (f) White color | (g) Aging rate | (h) Rate of change | (i) Building over 11 floors | ||
| 2008 | 2008 | 2008 | 2018 | 2010 | 2015 | 2015 | 2015 | 2005 | 2015 | |
| Nishinari (1) | 82.30% | 16.60% | 0.60% | 23.70% | 9.80% | 29.00% | 38.70% | −7.70% | 7.60% | 9.20% |
| Naniwa (1) | 72.40% | 24.00% | 1.80% | 7.50% | 21.00% | 40.90% | 19.40% | 12.70% | 28.60% | 40.60% |
| Ikuno (1) | 70.40% | 26.50% | 1.60% | 7.20% | 14.30% | 34.10% | 31.40% | −2.70% | 10.30% | 10.80% |
| Hirano (5) | 67.20% | 29.90% | 1.50% | 6.90% | 14.00% | 34.30% | 27.60% | −1.70% | 23.20% | 31.10% |
| Higashiyodogawa (5) | 66.50% | 30.60% | 1.40% | 6.10% | 19.30% | 38.50% | 23.90% | −0.50% | 16.20% | 19.90% |
| Konohana (5) | 65.40% | 31.90% | 1.40% | 4.20% | 14.60% | 35.70% | 26.20% | 1.60% | 44.70% | 54.80% |
| Sumiyoshi (5) | 64.20% | 31.90% | 1.90% | 6.40% | 21.60% | 42.40% | 27.20% | −0.80% | 9.40% | 13.30% |
| Taisho (5) | 64.10% | 32.70% | 1.60% | 5.60% | 11.80% | 31.60% | 30.10% | −6.10% | 34.20% | 37.90% |
| Higashisumiyoshi (5) | 63.80% | 31.20% | 2.50% | 6.60% | 21.40% | 41.40% | 29.20% | −3.30% | 8.70% | 12.40% |
| Chuo (3) | 62.70% | 32.90% | 2.20% | 1.90% | 38.10% | 56.90% | 16.50% | 18.20% | 47.90% | 61.10% |
| Minato (5) | 62.50% | 34.50% | 1.50% | 4.90% | 16.70% | 38.40% | 27.10% | −3.30% | 30.70% | 38.00% |
| Osaka city | 61.60% | 33.90% | 2.30% | 5.00% | 21.30% | 42.10% | 25.00% | 1.00% | 29.90% | 37.50% |
| Higashinari (5) | 61.20% | 33.80% | 2.50% | 4.40% | 20.80% | 41.60% | 25.70% | 0.60% | 18.80% | 21.40% |
| Asahi (5) | 60.40% | 33.00% | 3.30% | 4.90% | 20.90% | 41.70% | 29.40% | −0.90% | 23.10% | 27.20% |
| Yodogawa (5) | 58.90% | 36.60% | 2.30% | 3.60% | 23.90% | 42.60% | 23.00% | 2.40% | 37.10% | 40.50% |
| Joto (5) | 58.80% | 36.30% | 2.50% | 3.20% | 21.80% | 43.30% | 25.10% | −0.70% | 40.30% | 44.10% |
| Miyakojima (5) | 58.50% | 35.50% | 3.00% | 3.20% | 25.90% | 47.20% | 23.60% | 1.90% | 35.70% | 41.80% |
| Suminoe (5) | 57.80% | 37.70% | 2.30% | 5.50% | 17.40% | 37.30% | 28.40% | −3.30% | 51.80% | 52.50% |
| Nishi (4) | 57.70% | 36.70% | 2.80% | 1.50% | 31.90% | 50.50% | 16.10% | 10.80% | 57.60% | 63.10% |
| Kita (3) | 57.20% | 38.00% | 2.50% | 1.90% | 31.90% | 52.50% | 19.20% | 11.80% | 48.90% | 55.00% |
| Abeno (2) | 56.70% | 33.70% | 4.80% | 2.80% | 31.40% | 52.00% | 25.50% | 1.10% | 25.80% | 33.20% |
| Tennoji (2) | 54.00% | 37.10% | 4.40% | 1.90% | 36.70% | 55.90% | 19.80% | 8.30% | 31.00% | 43.70% |
| Nishiyodogawa (5) | 52.60% | 43.60% | 2.00% | 3.50% | 16.70% | 36.10% | 24.50% | −2.10% | 30.90% | 33.20% |
| Tsurumi (5) | 51.70% | 43.80% | 2.20% | 2.50% | 19.40% | 39.70% | 21.80% | 0.40% | 29.40% | 37.60% |
| Fukushima (5) | 50.70% | 44.50% | 2.40% | 1.10% | 27.60% | 49.00% | 20.00% | 7.40% | 46.50% | 54.50% |
Bold numbers in black mean the top 3 while bold and italics numbers in grey mean the bottom 3.
Area (1): South inner city area (Nishinari Ward, Ikuno Ward, Naniwa Ward): The percentage of low-income people is rather high. In particular, Nishinari Ward is an area where poverty is concentrated, the percentage of low-income people (less than 4 million/year/household) is as high as 82.3%, and the rate of people who need public assistance is also significantly high (23.7%). The decrease in population and percentage of aged people are also high. In Naniwa Ward, many high-rise apartments/condominiums have been constructed and gentrification has recently advanced.
Area (2): Residential areas near the city center (Tennoji Ward, Abeno Ward): The percentage of higher-income people is rather high. The percentages of higher-educated people white collar workers are also high.
Area (3): City center area (Kita Ward, Chuo Ward): There have been many recent development projects for apartments/condominiums and the rate of increase of the population is evident in this area.
Area (4): West inner city area (Nishi Ward): This area used to comprise mixed-use areas, composed of residential, industrial, and commercial land uses. Gentrification trends have become recently evident, eg, the construction of many apartments/condominiums has been observed in former industrial sites.
Area (5): Fringe inner city area (other wards): The values of the indices are generally intermediate. These areas are located in along the coast or near rivers and are largely residential and industrial-mixed use areas, where lower-middle or lower-income people comprise the majority of the residents. The population is generally stagnant, but is decreasing at a significant rate in Taisho Ward and Minato Ward, where large-scale industrial areas and public housing estates are located.
As mentioned above, an urban divide is observed in Osaka City between the central areas and their vicinities (where upper- and middle-income people comprise the majority), and the areas in the inner city (where lower-income people comprise the majority of residents). It can be said that these trends have been further strengthened owing to the gentrification promoted by the deregulation of urban planning. Generally speaking, this result agrees with the hypothesis regarding the concentration to megacity regions and urban divide posited in Chapter 1. Whereas the concentration of affluent people to the central areas is not evident in comparison with Tokyo, in contrast, the concentration of low-income people to specific areas (in particular, Nishinari Ward) is characteristic of Osaka City.
Analysis of urban divide in Osaka City at the micro scaleTo analyze the urban divide at the macro scale, a cluster analysis was applied using Chou (the smallest statistical tract available in the Census of Population data) as a unit, based on the Census of Population13 data. The following valuables were selected as the indices for reflecting the social disparities and gentrification trends from the available data of the Census of Population at the Chou level: a. density of the young population at 20-39 years old (2015); b. changes in the density of the young population at 20-39 years old (2005-2015); c. density of children (less than 15 years old; 2015); d. changes in density of children (less than 15 years old; 2005-2015); e. density of aged population over 65 years old (2015); f. rate of households living in wooden townhouses (2015); g. rate of households living in rental housing of less than two stories (2015); h. rate of households living in apartments/condominiums of over three stories; i. rate of households living in private rental housing (2015); and j. changes in the density of households living in private rental housing (2005-2015) [Note 10]. In the course of the cluster analysis, initially, if Chou lacked some of the data, those data were removed from the data set. Next, each valuable was standardized so that the variance became 1. Then, clustering was performed based on the Ward's method, and 10 clusters were established. Based on the characteristics of each cluster, each cluster was named as shown in Table 2. In Table 2, within each index the highest two clusters are shown in bold, and the lowest two clusters are shown in white numbers against a black background (the standardized values are used for analysis, and thus the absolute number itself has no meaning). The geographical distribution of the clusters is shown in Figure 7.
Table 2 Classification of results of cluster analysis of Osaka city, 2005-2015 (analyzed from13)
| Name | N | Differences from overall averages | |||||||||
| (a) Density of 20-39 y/o | (b) Increase of 20-39 y/o | (c) Density of under 15 y/o | (d) Increase of under 15 y/o | (e) Density of over 15 y/o | (f) Ratio of row houses residents | (g) Ratio of apartment buildings residents | (h) Ratio of mansion blocks residents | (i) Ratio of private leased houses residents | (j) Increase of private leased houses residents | ||
| 1. Newly developed areas with rental mansion blocks | 103 | −25.54 | 5.51 | −14.35 | 0.53 | −29.89 | −2.82 | −1.00 | 15.85 | 27.17 | 1.33 |
| 2. Areas with rental mansion blocks for singles or “DINKs” | 124 | 37.14 | 30.63 | −2.94 | 4.85 | −10.25 | −2.99 | −2.41 | 27.95 | 22.99 | 29.62 |
| 3. Newly developed areas with condominiums | 165 | −27.01 | 2.36 | −10.01 | 0.75 | −23.82 | −2.30 | −1.83 | 8.00 | −19.13 | −2.74 |
| 4. Areas with houses for families with children | 331 | 13.08 | −7.25 | 2.05 | −1.47 | 3.51 | −1.55 | −0.92 | 11.48 | 13.42 | −1.51 |
| 5. Areas with existing houses | 249 | −9.97 | −7.72 | 0.97 | −2.47 | 1.35 | 0.17 | −0.47 | −16.41 | −7.12 | −6.45 |
| 6. Areas with increasing condominiums for families with children | 115 | 29.74 | 20.34 | 24.39 | 19.66 | 6.98 | −2.35 | −1.96 | 19.64 | −12.20 | 5.47 |
| 7. Mixed areas of residence and industry | 161 | −1.78 | −16.75 | 6.01 | −8.42 | 21.00 | −2.26 | −1.59 | 17.86 | −25.00 | −5.08 |
| 8. Concentrated urban areas with apartment buildings | 264 | −17.18 | −6.34 | −5.34 | −2.07 | 2.55 | 1.98 | 5.52 | −24.55 | 0.53 | −8.36 |
| 9. Areas with increasing rental mansion blocks for families with children | 37 | 100.48 | 80.34 | 6.97 | 12.60 | −8.50 | −2.87 | −2.55 | 30.32 | 31.52 | 74.74 |
| 10. Concentrated urban areas with row houses | 180 | −9.34 | −7.65 | −0.26 | −2.79 | 12.44 | 9.60 | 1.35 | −32.82 | −5.78 | −9.01 |
| Total | 1729 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
While the results are overall consistent with the by-ward analysis described in Section 3.1, it is observed that the city area is broadly divided by the JR Osaka Circular Line. Inside the JR Osaka Circular Line, new developments of apartments/condominiums are prevailing, and the increase of young people is evident in the city center areas such as Chuo Ward. The areas where many middle-class family residents live exist in the neighboring areas of city center areas (cluster types 4 and 6). In contrast, outside the JR Osaka Circular Line, high-density and old wooden housing areas (composed of old wooden rental housing of less than two stories) and old wooden townhouses (cluster types 8 and 10) extend across the south inner city areas (Nishinari Ward and Ikuno Ward) to the fringe inner city areas. In particular, Abeno Ward, located outside the JR Osaka Circular Line, and Nishinari Ward located inside the JR Osaka Circular Line, show clear differences, and thus an urban divide. Among the south inner city areas, whereas old wooden townhouses owned by the residents themselves occupy the majority of high-density areas in Ikuno Ward, old wooden rental houses with less than two stories occupy the majority in high-density areas in Nishinari Ward. It follows that instable housing widely prevails in Nishinari Ward, where the concentration of poverty is widely observed [Note 11].
Meanwhile, among the areas outside the JR Osaka Circular Line, different types of built-up areas are observed in a mosaic pattern in the north, west, and east areas. Along the north bank of the Yodo River and the coast, cluster types are widely observed with high-rise rental apartments (cluster type 1; Yodogawa Ward, Higashi Yodogawa Ward) and high-rise owned condominiums (cluster type 3, Nishiyodo Ward, Nishiyodo Ward, Taisho Ward), and the population is increasing at a significant pace. It is noted that gentrification (based on the development of high-rise apartments/condominiums at former industrial sites) targeting the middle-income class is advancing in a mosaic pattern in the fringe inner city areas, as well.
Transformation of Housing in Nishinari WardThe analysis in the previous chapter clearly shows that concentrations of poverty are observed in the south inner city areas, particularly in Nishinari Ward in Osaka City. Many high-density sub-standard, makeshift residential areas were developed in Osaka City after the fires caused by bombing during the Second World War. One of those areas was the northern part of Nishinari Ward.20 Today, housing conditions in those areas in Nishinari Ward are problematic: for example, the percentage of single and aged households is the highest in the city; old wooden rental housing is most concentrated; and the average housing space per capita is the smallest in the city. Many day laborers lost jobs and were unable to stay even in hostels owing to the prolonged economic recession after the burst of bubble economy in 1990, and as a result, many people became homeless.21 With this background, poverty and an extremely high level of aging are observed in Nishinari Ward. The Airin [Note 12] area in Nishinari Ward has been known as the area where hostels for day laborers are concentrated.22 An inflow of people to the Airin area has been observed recently, owing to an increase of international tourists, as well as an improvement of the area based on the Nishinari Special District Vision and urban development in neighboring areas. As a result, the Airin area seems to be gradually changing to a place where a variety of people co-exist.22,23
Against this background, to examine the recent trends in the transformation of housing in the Airin area, we conducted interview surveys of different types of real estate agents in Nishinari Ward [Note 13]. The results of the interview surveys are summarized below.
Private rental housing for singlesThere were many small wooden rental housing units (one-room, 6 tatamis (10 sq. m) rental unit: 20 000 yen/month, two-room unit: 35 000 yen/month) in Nishinari Ward. The upper limit of public assistance to poor people is 40 000 yen/month. Thus, the real estate agents set the rent for rental units in line with this amount (interview D). Generally speaking, experienced real estate agents make deals for approximately 10 new properties/month or 100 new properties/year in this area; approximately 90% are for those who need public assistance. Tenants are often introduced from the Ward Welfare Office. There are often ex-convicts, and approximately 30% are handicapped persons. Most of them have no relatives, and thus meet no particular conditions for renting, such as deposits, guarantors, or guarantee companies. The size of the rental units are often 15-18 sq. m. One-room rental units renovated from old wooden townhouses comprise the majority of these units (interview A).
There are a certain number of newly constructed apartments/condominiums, aside from the small wooden rental housing. For example, there are cases of cooperative joint rebuilding of high-rise apartments for the purpose of resettlement of existing residents, and for providing accommodation to singles who need public assistance. These are based on using the rebuilding subsidy program of Osaka City to alleviate the problems in extremely high-density wooden housing areas. As characteristics of these newly built apartments, it is notable that they not only provide enough one-room space in accordance with housing space standards, but, in addition, welfare facilities or special nursing homes for the aged are often jointly established in these locations, in collaboration with social welfare corporations located in this area (interview J). These rental housing units targeting singles provide important options for the accommodation of the poor people, such as aged former day laborers, or homeless people who have difficulties in working and require public assistance.
Private house/room for tourist stay (renovated or newly built)The renovation of existing houses for the purpose of being a private house or providing room stay is often accomplished through the renovation of private rental housing for singles. The owners of private rental housing for singles were keen to accept public assistance as beneficiaries earlier, as the number of day laborers decreased. As the number of public assistance beneficiaries rapidly increased, those owners started to build new rental apartments for public assistance beneficiaries, and thus competition among them gradually became harsh. In addition, Osaka City reduced the rent subsidy (which is a component of public assistance) as the amount of public assistance increased largely, owing to the increase of public assistance beneficiaries. Thus rental housing that accepted public assistance became unprofitable. As a result, vacant rental rooms have been diverted to rental rooms for tourist stays. In the beginning, many of these private rental houses/rooms for tourist stays started informally; nevertheless, most of them are currently in accordance with regulations (interview D).
Owners of private rental houses/rooms for tourist stays are broadly comprised of Japanese and Chinese. In the case of Japanese owners, many of them are retired. They obtain certain capital and purchase properties as investments through the introduction of real estate agents in the area, and then, they renovate those properties as private rental houses/rooms for foreign tourist stays. They often try to attract customers through Airbnb [Note 14] (Interview L). Among Chinese owners, vigorous actions are observed by those from Fujian Province. An example of those actions is the establishment of the Chinese Commercial Association. They purchased a three-story building formerly used as a Pachinko (pinball game) hall, and renovated it into an office of the Chinese Commercial Association (3rd floor) and 11 private rental rooms for tourist stays (2nd floor); the latter are rented to a Chinese operating company for 800 000 yen/month. Private rental rooms/houses for tourist stays owned or operated by the Chinese usually target Chinese tourists, and thus usually attract customers through Chinese social networking sites (interview F). They also attempt to use the purchased properties for other purposes. For example, one Chinese real estate company actively purchases vacant shops or warehouses and reforms them into Karaoke pubs (usually 1st floor) or offices/dormitories for staffs (usually 2nd floor), so as to revitalize shopping streets (Interview F). As of April 2019, approximately 60 Karaoke pubs owned or operated by Chinese were counted by this research mainly along the Tobitahondori shopping street. Many Chinese tourists often visit Japan in a group of 4-5 people, and thus do not stay in a one-room rental unit for their tourist stay. Thus, one-room rental rooms are generally not competitive, and some have closed; however, some rental rooms are furnished with adequate facilities and some of them have been diverted to the accommodation for foreign students or trainees (Interview G). As observed from the above cases, a variety of types of private rental houses/rooms for short or long stays are provided in this area, and function as places that accept a variety of people.
Moreover, the number of hotels in Nishinari Ward for short stays is significantly increasing. One type of hotel is a hotel converted from an existing hostel for day laborers, as mentioned above. While the number of day laborers has been recently decreasing in Nishinari Ward, the number of international tourists has increased. Against this background, many hostels for day laborers have been converted to reasonable hotels for international tourists or Japanese businessmen (Interview H). There are also cases where hotel companies purchase vacant houses and renovate them as hotels in collaboration with local real estate agents, who have good contacts with local people. These hotels provide important job opportunities (such as bed making or laundry) for single mothers or foreign workers who live in this area (interview B).
Owner-occupied houseThough the popularity of Nishinari Ward as a residential area is low among the Japanese owing to historical discrimination and population decrease, international residents, and in particular the Chinese (many being young couples or couples with small children), do not have a sense of discrimination regarding this area. In addition to the sense of discrimination, the recent increase of land prices in Nishinari Ward owing to the growing demand for hotels or private houses/rooms for tourist stays is also an obstacle for young Japanese to obtaining their own houses in Nishinari Ward (Interview D).
As clarified in our interview surveys, the housing styles in Nishinari Ward had been converted from hostels for day labors to a variety of types of housing for different types of residents and tourists (Figure 8). There is even a tendency for day laborers who used to live in such hostels to move to private rental apartments to settle down in this area. There is also an increased inflow of people, particularly from countries abroad (such as China). There is a possibility that increasing the presence of foreign families (such as Chinese people) can play an important role in community activities.
Conclusion
This paper posited a hypothesis regarding a framework for understanding polarization to megacity regions on a national scale and the urban divide within megacity regions at a city scale in an integrated manner. It examined the validity of that hypothesis by analyzing the polarization to the Tokyo megacity region in Japan on a national scale, and the urban divide in Osaka City on a city scale. In Japan, two megacity regions, namely the Tokyo megacity region and Osaka megacity region arouse through drastic inflows of population during rapidly growing economic development period in the 1960s. Afterwards, polarization to the Tokyo megacity region advanced. In particular, the concentration of wealth to Tokyo has accelerated since the 2000s, when the Koizumi administration launched neoliberalism policies, further strengthening the tendency of polarization to Tokyo. In addition, the concentration of affluent people and wealth to the central areas of Tokyo on the city scale is also evident.
As a result of a city-scale analysis based on income and education levels as well as the working conditions in Osaka City, it was found that gentrification from the development of high-rise apartments/condominiums in the central areas has advanced, and that an inflow of upper-income people has been observed. Nevertheless, these trends are rather mild in comparison with Tokyo. In contrast, the concentration of poverty to specific areas in high-density inner city areas has advanced in Osaka City. It follows that a tendency to the creation of an urban divide from the viewpoint of social disparities is evident in Osaka City.
In particular, the Airin area in Nishinari Ward functioned as a place for accepting low-income immigrants such as day laborers during the rapidly growing economic development period in Japan, without adequate investment in housing by the public. While the concentration of poverty has become serious recently in the Airin area as the day laborers have aged, the stock of hostels has become over-supplied owing to the decrease of day laborers, providing an opportunity to divert them to other purposes. In fact, according to our interview surveys of local real estate agents, it was found that hostels or old wooden rental houses have increasingly been diverted to welfare apartments for public assistance beneficiaries or to guesthouses/private rental rooms/houses for international tourists. This has been partly accelerated by the inflow of Chinese capital. This phenomenon clearly reflects the dual nature of the inner city area, ie, as the area where poverty concentrates, yet, also, simultaneously and because of that fact, as the area leading to a tolerant urban culture which accepts heterogeneous people and activities. By this nature, the inner city areas of megacity regions have taken the role of accepting the immigrants from other areas, and still function as gateways to nurturing diversity. This is why incremental improvement based on small-scale developments is desirable, and why these areas should not be regarded as problematic areas to be redeveloped in a scrap-and-build style.
As for the validity of the hypothesis regarding the polarization to megacity regions and the urban divide, in Japan, it can be said that the case of the Tokyo megacity region, where remarkable polarization has occurred and accelerated since 2000, is in line with this hypothesis. In the case of the Osaka megacity region, the hypothesis was also valid, in the sense that a drastic inflow of population occurred during the rapid economic development in 1960s; as a result, a conspicuous urban divide emerged. Recently, the characteristics of megacity regions as formed through inflows of population from other regions as explained by this hypothesis became unclear in the Osaka megacity region. Yet, it is noted that the urban divide generated during the rapid economic development is deepening, by way of the spatial concentration of poverty.
In addition, in the Airin area where we conducted the case study, a new scene has emerged in the context of the megacity region, ie, an inflow of international immigrants from China. Examination of this new phenomenon is the next step of this research. Furthermore, we propose comparative studies of megacity regions in different countries with a variety of backgrounds, both at the national and at city scales.
Funding informationNo funding information is provided.
DisclosureThe authors have no conflict of interest.
Notes:Note 1Megacities are defined to as the city regions with the population of over 10 million.
Note 2Piketty (2014)1 defines the highest 10% income bracket as affluent, the next 40% as the middle income, and the lowest 50% as low income. This paper follows this definition, although this study does not aim to conduct analysis by income in detail but rather aims to conduct a spatial analysis.
Note 3Large companies with headquarters located in the city center also possess properties to a large extent, and affluent people tend to possess the stocks of those companies.
Note 4It is also pointed out that business management policies are inclined to be those which place more emphasis on the profits of shareholders, rather than on benefits to employees; eg, those based on the neoliberalism ideas.
Note 5For example, although there are some exceptions, the 4 m width regulation for frontal roads in the Building Standard Law. In the case of the improvement of slum areas in developing countries, it has been reported that building standards adapted from developed countries are too high to implement improvement projects, and may become even an obstacle for improvement.
Note 6Although the comparison discussed in this section focuses on the central areas of megacity regions, such as 23 Wards area of the Tokyo Metropolis or Osaka City, Figure 5 compares the Tokyo Metropolis and Osaka Prefecture owing to limitations in the availability of statistics. Yet, it is understood that this comparison is sufficient to outline the trends of concentration in wealth and investment.
Note 7The indicators are calculated as follows. The rate of highly educated is calculated as the rate of graduates of universities or graduate school among people of 25-39 years old, as based on the Census of Population; taxable income is calculated as the per capita average taxable income, based on taxable income statistics by municipality from the System of Social and Demographic Statistics; net assets are calculated based on the National Survey of Family Income and Expenditure; and property prices are calculated based on the Summary Report on the Prices of Fixed Assets. Please note that the years of the data can vary, owing to differences in the statistics.
Note 8Hsiao (2019)24 defines gentrification as a phenomenon in which new higher-level residences are developed by urban redevelopment projects in a certain area, and in which the ownership shifts from rental to owned, and simultaneously, the residents also change from the existing residents to residents who possess higher income and social status. Thus, the compositions of the population and housing supply are largely changed. Based on an analysis of the urban redevelopment projects in Abeno Ward, Hsiao (2019)24 noted that the number of white-collar, middle-income residents increased significantly, and that problems regarding the displacement of blue-collar and/or aged residents were observed. It follows that gentrification is not only a phenomenon of urban redevelopment targeting upper or middle-income people, but also leads to income disparities in the surrounding areas, and an urban divide.
Note 9The reasons for using these indices are as follows. The rate of annual income/household class (less than 4 million, 4-10 million, more than 10 million) ((a), (b), (c) in the Table) is a direct indicator for determining social disparities, as explained above Note 1. The rate of public assistance ((d) in the table) indicates the ratio of the poor who need public assistance in a certain area. It is important for determining the actual level of poverty. The level of education ((e) in the table) is understood to affect the income level. Occupation ((f) in the table) is selected as index for the same reason as the level of education. In addition, the rate of population increase ((h) in the table), rate of aged ((g) in the table), and rate of residents who live in high-rising apartments/condominiums of over 10 stories ((i) in the table) are indicators for determining the level of gentrification as explained in Note 8).
Note 10As explained in Note 8 and Note 9, the reason why these indicators are used to determine the trends in gentrification is that the shift of the housing supply from wooden rental housing units to high-rise apartments/condominiums and from rental housing to owned housing will occur as gentrification advances. Simultaneously, the shift of occupation from lower income blue-collar workers to higher middle-income white-collar workers will occur. Thus, to determine the trends in the housing supply, the following indicators are extracted: h. apartments/condominiums of over three stories (2015); i. the percentage of households living in private rental housing (2015); j. changes in the density of households living in private rental housing (2005-2015); f. the percentage of households living in wooden townhouses (2015); g. the percentage of households living in private rental houses of less than two stories. As the indicators to determine the changes in the composition of the population, the following indicators were used: a. population density of the young generation (20-39 years old; 2015); b. changes in population density of the young generation (20-39 years old; 2005-2015), c. population density of children (less than 15 years old; 2015); d. change of population density of children (less than 15 years old; 2005-2015); and e. population density of the aged (over 65 years old; 2015).
Note 11The fact that there are many affordable rental housing units in Nishinari Ward is important for the tolerance and acceptance of immigrants from outside. Because of its location (good for transportation access and is located close to an entertainment zone). Nishinari Ward has accepted heterogeneous people historically discriminated against, such as craft workers and day laborers who, in a sense, can be regarded as wandering travelers in the modern age, in addition to immigrants from Korea, traveling entertainers, and so on. Thus, a unique urban culture has been nurtured. Nanba (1984)25 vividly depicted the process of generating an entertainment culture in the Sannou area in Nishinari Ward, where many comedians gathered and lived before and during the rapid economic development period.
Note 12Literally in Japanese, Airin means love and neighborhood. Kamagasaki is an original local name, but after several riots (disturbances), Kamagasaki got negative images. Osaka City government introduced a new place name and an administration regime ‘Airin’. Therefore, some local residents and scholars do not use the term ‘Airin’.
Note 13The interview surveys conducted in this research are as follows:
| Company type | Interviewee | Interview ID and date of interview |
| Limited Liability Co. | A (Company head) | A: 2017-11-22; B: 2019-4-9 |
| Co. Ltd. | C (Company head) | C: 2018-11-7; D: 2019-4-9 |
| Co. Ltd. | F (Company head) | E: 2018-4-24; F: 2019-4-8 |
| Joint Venture | G (Manager in Charge) | G: 2018-2-20; H: 2019-4-8 |
| Co. Ltd. | I (Manager in Charge) | I: 2018-6-27; J:2019-4-9 |
| Co. Ltd. | K (Company head) | K: 2018-4-24 |
| Co. Ltd. | L (Company head) | L: 2019-4-9 |
Note 14Airbnb is a platform for vacation rental.26,27
© 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Hsiao, Hongwei 2
; Fukuda, Ryo 3
1 Institute of Innovation in International Engineering Education, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
2 Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka City University, Osaka City, Japan
3 Collaborative Research Organization for Future Regional Society, The University of Tokyo, Yokkaichi‐shi, Mie, Japan