Initially seemingly a diversion from my usual transport infrastructure sojourns, I recently had reason to consider the purpose of other public facilities and their desire to educate, or at least influence the thoughts of the user. I visited the Peace Memorial Park and Museum in Hiroshima.
The best museums understand their role in education, a purpose beyond the purely functional management and presentation of artifacts. In Europe we are by no means short of examples both big and small, national and private, and I wander through quite a few on a regular basis. The best seek to place matters in a political, geographic, environmental and social context, and to show that an awareness of the history of our actions can have a fundamental effect on our future.
And so it is in Hiroshima, where a message of particular relevance at this time of fractious global politics is that intended by the 1955 Peace Memorial Park and Museum. The stated purpose is not only to mark the events of August 1945, but equally is to prevent the proliferation and use of atomic weapons - the first having since met with limited success and the second still muddied by global threats. But as I came away, I wondered, even in these neurotically aware times, is this ambition achieved by the design of this place and its message, and is the persuasion it attains to transferable to our transport infrastructure and its environmental tasks?
And so it is in Hiroshima, where a message of particular relevance at this time of fractious global politics is that intended by the 1955 Peace Memorial Park and Museum. The stated purpose is not only to mark the events of August 1945, but equally is to prevent the proliferation and use of atomic weapons - the first having since met with limited success and the second still muddied by global threats. But as I came away, I wondered, even in these neurotically aware times, is this ambition achieved by the design of this place and its message, and is the persuasion it attains to transferable to our transport infrastructure and its environmental tasks?
First, a little background.
By the end of March 1945, while the US had spent a year dropping conventional weapons on most of the major Japanese cities, they had left Hiroshima untouched, an army city that would not have escaped their attention, suggesting a plan that foretold some other treatment. And as I read further, I am in no doubt that Hiroshima was an experiment in ‘effect in use’ of emerging weaponry, the city having been chosen for its level topography and the pristine nature of the target, a way of proving a hypothesis on the radius of absolute destruction, previously calculated by those immersed in science and engineering rather than humanity.
Despite many cities in Japan having been subjected to blanket firebombing, while this imposed considerable collateral damage as in Europe, psychologically it had instilled as much resistance as capitulation. Even the firestorm horrors of Tokyo in March had not persuaded Japan to bring an end to the war. By initiating the unexpected, the uncontrollable and the lingering at Hiroshima, the perpetrators had come to understand that it was not the loss of life and property that would lead to the end of the war, but the change of societal and philosophical belief in the direction the country and its leaders were taking.
By the end of March 1945, while the US had spent a year dropping conventional weapons on most of the major Japanese cities, they had left Hiroshima untouched, an army city that would not have escaped their attention, suggesting a plan that foretold some other treatment. And as I read further, I am in no doubt that Hiroshima was an experiment in ‘effect in use’ of emerging weaponry, the city having been chosen for its level topography and the pristine nature of the target, a way of proving a hypothesis on the radius of absolute destruction, previously calculated by those immersed in science and engineering rather than humanity.
Despite many cities in Japan having been subjected to blanket firebombing, while this imposed considerable collateral damage as in Europe, psychologically it had instilled as much resistance as capitulation. Even the firestorm horrors of Tokyo in March had not persuaded Japan to bring an end to the war. By initiating the unexpected, the uncontrollable and the lingering at Hiroshima, the perpetrators had come to understand that it was not the loss of life and property that would lead to the end of the war, but the change of societal and philosophical belief in the direction the country and its leaders were taking.
Despite a clear lesson that change was achieved here by changing convictions, the same has not been recognised by the designers and curators of the Peace Memorial Park and its Museum. Instead, the focus of the message and the Park is the physical consequences and human suffering and, while it tells a gruelling story, if avoidance in the future is the desire, it is not the impact on the fabric and body that needs to be addressed - for after all, they are someone else’s and largely replaceable – but our philosophy and beliefs.
In the absence of a place and time for contemplation, of a space and message that would encourage personal reflection on the morality of war and its weapons, it is difficult to believe that the Peace Memorial Park will achieve its aim.
In the absence of a place and time for contemplation, of a space and message that would encourage personal reflection on the morality of war and its weapons, it is difficult to believe that the Peace Memorial Park will achieve its aim.
|
|
- • -
As you might imagine, in my weeks in Hiroshima I also found time to investigate the Hiroshima main line station.
Yes, in Hiroshima there is that same tendency to use much of the station space for rampant consumerism and in Japan, that means elegant displays and tasteful offers, only sullied by excess packaging born of Shinto uber-cleanliness. But importantly and in addition, there are also large areas given over to excellent personal facilities, restful rest rooms, parent/child facilities, and simple quiet contemplative spaces away from the inevitable throng, all quietly watched over by the older people of the community. As a consequence, there is pleasure and time taken by all in their use, a common acceptance by families, businesspeople and tourists of the primacy of public transport in lieu of less environmentally acceptable alternatives.
Transferring this casual encouragement to our European culture, I might also imagine health facilities in lieu of Japan’s over-sugared offer. I might imagine good quality bike hire facilities as a transport adjunct. I could see garden spaces encouraging a joy in flora and fauna and the health and cost benefits of home-grown food. In short, I could see station designers, given a free reign, achieving considerable benefits and influence with environmentally supportive concourse spaces, forecourts, accessible roofs, and bright ideas a plenty.
No, stations doubtless would not make as much short-term money from chains in every spare square foot. However, if in part through public transport we are to approach net zero for the good of our planet - an aim of arguably equal importance to avoid making ourselves extinct by nuclear means - it is not simply the operational infrastructure, the functional engineering factors, that need to be calculated, measured and addressed, for they are replaceable, but also the character and message of our stations in enhancing an acceptance and enjoyment of the better use of limited resources, to induce conviction in the benefits of environmental philosophies and beliefs.
Transferring this casual encouragement to our European culture, I might also imagine health facilities in lieu of Japan’s over-sugared offer. I might imagine good quality bike hire facilities as a transport adjunct. I could see garden spaces encouraging a joy in flora and fauna and the health and cost benefits of home-grown food. In short, I could see station designers, given a free reign, achieving considerable benefits and influence with environmentally supportive concourse spaces, forecourts, accessible roofs, and bright ideas a plenty.
No, stations doubtless would not make as much short-term money from chains in every spare square foot. However, if in part through public transport we are to approach net zero for the good of our planet - an aim of arguably equal importance to avoid making ourselves extinct by nuclear means - it is not simply the operational infrastructure, the functional engineering factors, that need to be calculated, measured and addressed, for they are replaceable, but also the character and message of our stations in enhancing an acceptance and enjoyment of the better use of limited resources, to induce conviction in the benefits of environmental philosophies and beliefs.
|
|