3 ms·

> but if there were a large, aging building in my area that the city wanted to relocate in order to build new businesses and services But Tsukiji's not an "agi

> but if there were a large, aging building in my area that the city wanted to relocate in order to build new businesses and services But Tsukiji's not an "aging building"; it's a bustling, energetic neighborhood. It's the biggest fish market in the world. They sell any kind of fish or seafood you can think of, and those you can't dream of, also. Some of the best sushi restaurants in Japan are in the area (Sushi Dai, for one). It's a marvel of efficiency and economy - specialized transport carts with zero turning radii, etc. I'd be sad if my city wanted to move one of its biggest markets, dealing with a food culture absolutely integral to my country's history, to a contaminated toxic site, because it wanted to create a temporary press site & traffic artery for a temporary sports event. But of course, it's the other way around; giant events like the Olympics or the World Cup are political opportunities for megaprojects/infrastructure to be pushed through under the excuse of being a host city. Most probably, the Tokyo city government has been wanting to move the Tsukiji market for a while, and the Olympics is a great excuse under which to do so.

Zikes 11y ago
The building is aging, that's partly why they're relocating the market, which will continue to operate. The article makes several colorful comments about the state of literal decay it's in: > Tsukiji is creaking at the seams > leaky roof > bumpy floors > An earthquake could bring the roof down. They spent a decade cleaning up the prospective new site, which hopefully means it's no longer contaminated. I'm sure the city understands the value of keeping fish clean and safe, especially considering their habit of eating so much of it basically raw. In addition, the building is too small to support the needs of the city and the businesses within. One apparent objective of the new site is to accommodate the growing needs of the fish market, which should be a net success for the area's customers. The only objective negative I can think of is that the logistics of transporting the product from the market to the various local businesses might need to change significantly, but if the city's infrastructure is good enough to handle those needs then it shouldn't be a lasting problem.
Grue3 11y ago
I was staying near Tsukiji market while in Japan. Sadly never got around to visiting the auctions, but when I was walking around the market I noticed that it's literally next to Ginza neighborhood with lots of highrise offices. If the market is gone, the land on which it was located would be very valuable indeed. Proximity to upscale district and plenty of waterfront property. It's really not a place where a sprawling fish market should be.
- brenschluss 11y ago
  > If the market is gone, the land on which it was located would be very valuable indeed. Proximity to upscale district and plenty of waterfront property. It's really not a place where a sprawling fish market should be. Land valuation is based off of the revenue the land generates, plain and simple. The 'value of a land' is thus an index of the real estate market, and does not involve any positive (or negative) externalities involved in considering the use of land, density of land, mix of programs of land, etc. At times, it may be important to support and privilege land uses that don't maximally contribute to revenue but contribute to other land that contribute to revenue. To use the metaphor of food consumption, it would be like assuming that the value of food lies in the energy that it provides to the body, so drinking water is pointless because water has zero calories. Indeed, like a body, cities are metabolic entities. The notion that urban planning decisions need to be based off of (short-term) market-based valuation misses the potential to invest in long-term positive externalities. Infrastructure is not something that can be effectively funded by a market, because markets lack a proper valuation criterion. So - the land on which Tsukiji is located is very valuable inded. And Toyosu, where it's going, is actually pretty close. But "moving the fish market will create valuable land for Ginza's overpriced highrise offices" is a short-term strategy, plain and simple; in this case, perhaps it's one that makes sense.

Zikes 11y ago

The building is aging, that's partly why they're relocating the market, which will continue to operate. The article makes several colorful comments about the state of literal decay it's in: > Tsukiji is creaking at the seams > leaky roof > bumpy floors > An earthquake could bring the roof down. They spent a decade cleaning up the prospective new site, which hopefully means it's no longer contaminated. I'm sure the city understands the value of keeping fish clean and safe, especially considering their habit of eating so much of it basically raw. In addition, the building is too small to support the needs of the city and the businesses within. One apparent objective of the new site is to accommodate the growing needs of the fish market, which should be a net success for the area's customers. The only objective negative I can think of is that the logistics of transporting the product from the market to the various local businesses might need to change significantly, but if the city's infrastructure is good enough to handle those needs then it shouldn't be a lasting problem.

Grue3 11y ago

I was staying near Tsukiji market while in Japan. Sadly never got around to visiting the auctions, but when I was walking around the market I noticed that it's literally next to Ginza neighborhood with lots of highrise offices. If the market is gone, the land on which it was located would be very valuable indeed. Proximity to upscale district and plenty of waterfront property. It's really not a place where a sprawling fish market should be.

brenschluss 11y ago
> If the market is gone, the land on which it was located would be very valuable indeed. Proximity to upscale district and plenty of waterfront property. It's really not a place where a sprawling fish market should be. Land valuation is based off of the revenue the land generates, plain and simple. The 'value of a land' is thus an index of the real estate market, and does not involve any positive (or negative) externalities involved in considering the use of land, density of land, mix of programs of land, etc. At times, it may be important to support and privilege land uses that don't maximally contribute to revenue but contribute to other land that contribute to revenue. To use the metaphor of food consumption, it would be like assuming that the value of food lies in the energy that it provides to the body, so drinking water is pointless because water has zero calories. Indeed, like a body, cities are metabolic entities. The notion that urban planning decisions need to be based off of (short-term) market-based valuation misses the potential to invest in long-term positive externalities. Infrastructure is not something that can be effectively funded by a market, because markets lack a proper valuation criterion. So - the land on which Tsukiji is located is very valuable inded. And Toyosu, where it's going, is actually pretty close. But "moving the fish market will create valuable land for Ginza's overpriced highrise offices" is a short-term strategy, plain and simple; in this case, perhaps it's one that makes sense.