The park’s name already points out the fact that this is not a standard general-use park, but rather “green space”. Although I could not find any online information about it’s age and plan, it seems like a part of the original landscape was preserved when this area of Nagoya was developed. Therefore, the park is essentially a patch of forest on a hill. On the west side Taki no mizu ryokuchi is surrounded by a residential area. Standing at the entrance you look over a tiny lake and a small waterfront. Roofed seating is provided, as is the free drinking water fountain that can be found in almost any Japanese public park. On one side of the lake, a wooden boardwalk leads into the forest. Inside, you can opt for the short route and return by walking along the other side of the lake. The long route takes you around the back and up the hill on a unpaved forest path. From the top you get a view of the still-in-build motorway on the east of the park and over the residential area. The path then leads you back down some steps back to the entrance.

The park had a great atmosphere and I enjoyed it a lot. The forest, the lack of concrete around the lake, the unpaved paths and the lack of lawn distinguish Taki no mizu ryokuchi from the typical Japanese suburban park. It surprised me to find a place like this in the middle of the dense Japanese suburbs. In my opinion, this kind a of green space offers a great way of experiencing nature within the city. The cost for establishing should be low, as the place stays mostly the same and facilities are added only at the entrance. Leaving the original nature intact has the advantage of mature trees and a natural habitat for flora and fauna. It also means designers don’t have to think hard about how to create ecologically sound living space and can instead focus on connecting it with other green spaces in the area. Yet, this kind of park is a case where advance planning plays a great role. Setting the land aside during development is easy, but in most cases it would be a very costly and time-consuming option to build a forest like this from scratch inside an already developed area.

The park also seems to be rather popular with adults, as I counted more than 10 people during my 2 hours there (on a workday afternoon), all well over 30. A little off the path though, some kids had left behind a kind of “nest” – maybe a forest playhouse in it’s early stages. I didn’t see any urban wildlife, but my exploration was commented on by a variety of birds. Despite the “No fishing” sign I could not see any swimming in the lake.

I was less impressed by the number of signs put up by the park authority. While the “Do not play with balls”-sign so familiar from Sapporo was absent, I counted seven different warning and forbidden signs, including “Don’t dump your cat”, “Don’t dump trash”, “Don’t fish”, “Stay on the path to protect the trees” and conflicting signs such as “Be quiet in the morning” and “Please don’t use the park in the night and in the morning because it annoys the neighbours”. Sure, I understand the need for rules in parks, but having them all on a board at the entrance would be far more elegant in my opinion. Another thing I noticed was the limited accessibility for wheel-chairs. Only the entrance area is barrier free, the ring route around the lake and the forest have steps and narrow points. This said, I guess the park designers had to make a compromise between accessibility and leaving the park as natural as possible. Also, from a point of aesthetics, I would have prefered wooden poles for the boardwalk instead of look-alikes and nylon ropes.

[Show as slideshow]

12►

View Larger Map

This poses certain logistical problems (transportation of waste, biochar facilities etc.). But with the recent interest in urban agriculture, vertical farms, green walls etc, the transportation problems could possibly be avoided? The new circle would happen entirely in the city: waste is converted to biochar, biochar is used in urban agriculture and green spaces, food produced within the city miraculously turns to waste. Just a small exercise in creative thinking.

Some reading links:

• “Black is the new green”, Financial Times, 27.2.2009
• “Biochar: is the hype justified?“, BBC News, 16.3.2009

• Does the planning system recognize, and have the ability to respond to, current and impending environ- mental and natural resource issues and natural hazards and threats in ways that promote sustainability? Does it provide for the recognition of the ecological consequences of all urban projects?

• Does the planning system recognize, and have the ability to promote social justice – in particular, to be participatory, pro-poor, redistributive, gender sensitive and inclusive and to acknowledge the important role of informality? Linked to this, does it have the ability to promote global charters such as the MDGs?

• Is the planning system backed up by, and aligned with, progressive national constitutions and international agreements on human and environmental justice? Can it recognize the ‘rights’ of urban dwellers to the city?

• Does the planning system fit within the constitutional allocation of powers and functions?

• Does the planning system recognize, and have the ability to respond to, cultural, socio-economic and spatial diversity at all scales?

• Does the planning system facilitate and encourage open and ongoing public dialogue between various partners and groupings on planning processes and outcomes? Are the outcomes of such dialogues clearly translated into planning documents and regulations?

• Does the planning system facilitate urban built forms and infrastructural systems that are environmentally urban challenges and the need to revisit urban planning sustainable and supportive of local livelihoods and social inclusion? Can the system recognize and support the making of ‘places’ that reflect local identity, cultures and needs?

• Does the planning system acknowledge the important role played by informality, including slums and informal settlements, in many cities? Is it able to be sufficiently flexible to act on the opportunities presented by infor- mal practices and groups and by community-based organizations (CBOs) and NGOs?

• Is there sustained support for the planning system from government, from politicians, from the business sector and from both wealthy and poor communities? Has it been adopted for sound reasons and not because it has been imposed by outside donor or aid agencies, or inter- national consultants?

• Can the planning system cope with the need for both greater and lesser degrees of flexibility – for example, to be able to implement firm controls where the need for protection (of the environment, heritage, etc.) and social inclusion exist, or where market externalities occur, and to be more flexible where population and economic factors are rapidly changing?

• Does the planning system have the ability to promote (e.g. achieve local economic development and slum upgrading) as well as control? This implies that it does not just present a future vision, but can also take steps to reach it?

• Does the planning system consider plan and implemen- tation as interrelated processes, linked to budgets and decision-making systems (i.e. it does not just present a future vision but can also take steps to reach it)?

• Is there alignment and synergy between directive and strategic spatial plans and the system of land laws and land-use management? Is there a mechanism for this linkage?

• Is there alignment and synergy between urban plans and broader institutional visions that may be captured in public documents such as a CDS?

• Is the planning system institutionally located and embedded so that it can play an effective role in terms of spatial coordination and promotion of policies, and implementation?

• Is there recognition that urban planning systems have limitations in terms of achieving all of the above, and that properly aligned and integrated national and regional plans and policies are extremely important in terms of achieving well-performing urban areas?

• Does the planning system include an approach to monitoring and evaluating urban plans, including clear indicators of plan success? Do institutions have the capacity and resources to undertake this task?

• Are there close linkages between planning practice, the professional organizations of planning, and the planning education systems? Do the planning education systems have the capacity and resources to produce sufficient skilled graduates, who are in touch with current issues and practices?

• Review of “Plant it green”
• “Why the ideal city has to feel like nature”