> 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 r

> 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.