Modernity, space and national representation at the Tokyo Olympics 1964

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The 1964 Tokyo Olympics acted as a rite of passage for post-war Japan, symbolizing the modernization of the city and the country. This was reflected by the space and architecture of the venues. Urban development of Olympic cities has been scrutinized recently but the symbolic implications have been touched upon only in passing, most especially in Tokyo's case. This article will show how symbolic layers of architecture and space aimed at linking history and modernity while bypassing the highly problematic legacy of ultra-nationalism and World War II. An important hub for transmitting this message was the Meiji Shrine dedicated to the first emperor of modern Japan. The hallmark building of the 1964 Games, Kenzo Tange's National Gymnasium, interacted with the shrine by way of an architectonic axis connecting them. This contrasted with the different spatial styles evident at the 1960 Olympics in Rome and 1972 Olympics in Munich, which testified to their different relationships to the national past. While developing infrastructure such as canalization and traffic was very important for Tokyo, symbolic revitalization of the city's fabric was equally crucial.

Staging China. The Politics of Mass Spectacle

“…The event signalled to the international community that the State of Japan had moved on from its wartime past and was ready to be a member of the international community. Moreover, the Olympic Games provided an opportunity to redesign the city of Tokyo in ways that would revitalise its symbolic relevance as the country's post-war capital (Tagsold 2010). Six years later, the Osaka World Exposition extended this sense of a fresh start, showing off futuristic architectural designs and technological innovations that would herald a new era of prosperity and respect for modern Japan (Wilson 2012).…”

Sports and the city

“…the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup) as a platform to narrate a particular identity for their city or state, while also serving as a justification for revamping local infrastructure, reconfiguring and “beautifying” large swaths of a city, and developing costly new facilities with government funds or public–private partnerships (e.g. Ahmed, ; Andranovich & Burbank, ; Broudehoux, , ; Chalkley & Essex, ; Dawson, ; Gaffney, ; Garcia‐Ramon & Albet, ; Golubchikov, ; Grix, ; Hiller, ; Horák, ; Horne & Manzenreiter, ; Kassens‐Noor, ; Klauser, ; Koch & Valiyev, ; Manzo, ; Müller, , , ; Tasgold, ; Trubina, ; van der Westhuizen, ; Whittle, Lomax, Heppenstall, & Brerton, ). Others have focused on hotly contested bid process, which itself becomes an important site in which urban politics and competing identity narratives play out (e.g.…”

Considering Water Quality of Urban Rivers from the Perspectives of Unpleasant Odor

“…In Tokyo, water pollution triggered odor problems during the rapid economic growth period in the early 1960s. Major events like the Olympic Games became a symbol of modernity and a catalyst for urban development because large-scale urban transformations happened [23,24]. The city of Tokyo hosted the Olympic Games in 1964, and substantial investments were made for infrastructure development [23].…”

“…Major events like the Olympic Games became a symbol of modernity and a catalyst for urban development because large-scale urban transformations happened [23,24]. The city of Tokyo hosted the Olympic Games in 1964, and substantial investments were made for infrastructure development [23]. However, major investment was in economic development such as the bullet train and expressways, and little investment in municipal sewers and parks [25].…”