Monday June 24th, 2019: my first full day in Tokyo! I had barely recovered from a twelve hour flight from Amsterdam, followed by three trains and a sweaty trek through the humid city. Bleary eyed but ready to learn, our first day of activities brought us the the National Diet Building: the home of the Japanese Parliament. We were also asked to respond to "Japan's Imperial Diet Building," by Jonathan Reynolds, chronicling the different designs proposed during the almost 70 years it took Japan to complete their parliament building, and comment on the interaction between architecture of government buildings and national identity.
The debate over the building raged for so long because the Japanese were questioning their own identity as they rose to become an international superpower during the Meiji restoration. A divisive theme during the late 1800s was exactly how western was Japan trying to become. Slogans like "Western technology, Japanese spirit" were popular, emphasizing Japan's transition to a technologically and economically advanced society to match its western counterparts. With this advancement, many sought to reject traditional Japanese values as barbaric and representative of Japan's past weakness. Because of this common sentiment, the style of the Parliament building was hugely debated.
Initially, the Japanese sought German architects to design it, resulting in a strange fusion of greek columns with ornate, almost Chinese rooftops. These were rejected by the general public, and a competition was held. Because the winning design of the competition was so protested, the final resulting design was made by a committee, compiling different aspects of several designs. The result is a muted building, with no overtly western or overtly Japanese emphasis in order to appease both sides of the debate.
For the purpose of analyzing government buildings, I will be dividing architecture into two fields: magnitude, and style. By magnitude, I am speaking to the budget and size of such buildings, while by style I am referring to the details that make them unique to their nation. I believe this is an important distinction, because buildings can be grand, but lack individuality, and buildings can also be small but enormously representative of the exclusive identity of a certain place. The magnitude of government buildings allows governments to symbolize their power, while the style allows them to create a unifying symbol of pride and national identity that is completely their own. In order to symbolize power, government buildings are often costly and extravagant. Because they serve as national symbols, they are also usually painstakingly planned out to every minute detail. They represent each country putting their best foot forward on an international scale.
There is no denying that the Japanese National Diet Building is grandiose. It cost nearly 26 million yen, and took 17 years to construct. The pyramid roof is massive and imposing. It accurately expresses Japan’s rapid rise to the role of international superpower through its sheer size alone. So, for the former, the building is completely successful. The latter is where it falls short. Walking through the building, I was not really struck with the sense that it was uniquely Japanese. I had the sensation that the building was oddly familiar, but I could not place which building it reminded me of. It later struck me that I couldn’t remember the exact building, because it reminded me of many different museums and government buildings in Western Europe. It was splendid, but at the same time underwhelming. Although the design that was finally accepted was that of a Japanese artist, the German influence is very apparent. There were vague elements of Japanese culture, including a koi pond, and wood paneling with symbols representing the Tokugawa class system, but overall, it did not feel very cohesive. This features were juxtaposed with a loudly branded American mail chute and western style caved octagonal ceiling patterns.
One government building that I believe does an excellent job of combining magnitude with
style is the Scottish parliament. A directly elected Scottish parliament did not exist until a 1997 referendum. Therefore, the proposed building was to be an important symbol of Scottish autonomy. Often overlooked on an international scale because of the overpowering reputation of England in the United Kingdom, this building was an opportunity to display Scottish power independent of England, and was successful, in my opinion. The modern abstract building is controversial, but it is both magnificent and unique. It is beautiful, sustainable, and artistically based off of the surrounding Scottish landscape.
Comments