Plan B: Japanese government unveils proposal for backup city

[Phantasee]

Plan B: Japanese government unveils proposal for backup city in case earthquake cripples Tokyo
By Wil Longbottom

Last updated at 7:20 AM on 4th November 2011

Concerned about the impact a crippling earthquake could have on Tokyo, the Japanese government has unveiled plans to develop an entire backup city in case.

Snappily called the IRTBBC - or Integrated Resort Tourism, Business and Backup City - the spare city will be built on a 1,236-acre site 300 miles west of the capital Tokyo.

It could be home to 50,000 residents and 200,000 workers and will also feature offices, resorts, casinos and parks - as well as essential government facilities in case of disaster.

The potential site is on the site of Itami Airport - which is politically unpopular and has been superceded by other airports including Kansai and Kobe, according to wired.co.uk., and could also boast a 1,900ft-tall office tower.

Hajime Ishii, a member of the ruling Democratic Party, told the website: 'The idea is being able to have a back-up, a spare battery for the functions of the nation.'

Nearly 16,000 people were killed after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the east coast of Japan on March 11, 2011 - sparking a tsunami with up to 133ft waves which devastated the country.

Although Tokyo, home to 12.79million people, was not among the cities severely damaged by the quake, electricity supplies and fresh water were cut off for days in the capital.


The city has been badly damaged by earthquakes in the past, notably 1923, and video footage taken earlier this year showed skyscrapers in Tokyo wobbling as the massive quake struck.

A group of planners has requested £115,000 to study whether the project is feasible.


It comes after the operators of the nuclear power plant crippled by the tsunami were forced to deny further nuclear incidents today.

[...]

The article touches on the Fukushima situation a bit at the end, but that's probably covered in that thread.

Has this ever been done before on this scale? Building a full up city to use in case of emergency? It seems to be a little bit more developed than the usual bunkers we've seen over the second half of the last century.

[AniThyng]

Well, Malaysia recently built up a new city a couple dozen KM from the existing capital as a new administrative zone (partly as an excuse to waste money on extravagant buildings, partly because the capital is congested), and it's hardly unprecedented to build up a fresh capital away from the existing capital (Canberra, Brasillia, Washington), so this seems like pretty much the same thing, just that it isn't going to supplant the existing capital and it won't be in use immediately - and it seems like it's going to be also a mixed commercial/residential development anyway so it will still be populated regardless.

[Zaune]

Well, I guess Tokyo-3 may end becoming a reality.

I'd just like to point out that it would be entirely in keeping with the Daily Mail's standard of journalism if one of their reporters had happened to watch a few episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion and used it as their inspiration for the next bit of so-called news they needed to squeeze in between the adverts.

[Phantasee]

Well, Malaysia recently built up a new city a couple dozen KM from the existing capital as a new administrative zone (partly as an excuse to waste money on extravagant buildings, partly because the capital is congested), and it's hardly unprecedented to build up a fresh capital away from the existing capital (Canberra, Brasillia, Washington), so this seems like pretty much the same thing, just that it isn't going to supplant the existing capital and it won't be in use immediately - and it seems like it's going to be also a mixed commercial/residential development anyway so it will still be populated regardless.

Islamabad is another example, and going back, even New Delhi counts.

But those were replacements for an existing capital, not back ups. This is more like a hugely scaled up version of those bunkers built in the US with recreations of the Congress chambers and Oval Office.

[Stark]

A 'back up' can easily become a 'replacement', even without disaster. If they build a city with better traffic links, wider infrastructure, cheaper housing, better safety, modern facilities etc it might grow fast and become a major city anyway.

Or, they could make it a wasteland of special legal exceptions full of peepshows like Canberra. :V At very least I expect an entire wave of anime about how rather than Tokyo changing, Tokyo has become the provincial small town near the new thriving metropolis of whatever.

[Phantasee]

That does make more sense. I guess I should look at it as similar to the US bunkers, but built in a useful, productive city, instead of being underground and basically useless unless it's needed.

[Stark]

A lot depends on how much money they sink into it; there's alot of ground between sticking a pin in a map and building an entire city in one go. It might just be cheaper than building more islands in Tokyo bay.

[Purple]

Well, I guess Tokyo-3 may end becoming a reality.

Dam it you beat me to it!

But on a serious note. I find it just amassing what the Japanese are willing and capable of doing. However, what I find even more amazing is the casualty count of that earthquake. 16K for a 9.0? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, it is a huge tragedy and all. But I shudder to think how many digits more would have been racked up if that same quake had hit anything else like say some of the major cities of the west.

TLDR; Japan, once again you amaze me.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not sure what the earthquake resistance of buildings in "the West" is really like. I suspect it varies. In the US, cities like San Francisco have pretty extensive building codes about earthquakes, but then San Francisco has been leveled by quakes before. Other cities, like New York, aren't even in the same league... but New York has never experienced a really damaging earthquake, so the odds are considered pretty low.

From what I know, the real problem is cities in the midwest where there's the possibility of a once in a millenium earthquake like New Madrid, but where there aren't enough small normal earthquakes to lend a sense of urgency to the problem, the way that the routine 6.0 and 7.0 quakes that hit California keep them from getting cocky about building design.

In Europe, I suspect much the same is true- buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes where people expect earthquakes to happen, although the maximum earthquake they can handle varies, and a 9.0 is big enough to destroy even hardened buildings if it's close enough.

[Broomstick]

But on a serious note. I find it just amassing what the Japanese are willing and capable of doing. However, what I find even more amazing is the casualty count of that earthquake. 16K for a 9.0? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, it is a huge tragedy and all. But I shudder to think how many digits more would have been racked up if that same quake had hit anything else like say some of the major cities of the west.

TLDR; Japan, once again you amaze me.

Strictly speaking, the earthquake in question killed less than one hundred people. Read that again folks - Japan got hit by a 9.0 earthquake and had a death toll UNDER 100. That is deaths directly attributable to the earthquake, not the subsequent tsunami.

It was the tsunami that killed thousands. That, and fires and the usual post-disaster problems.

Admittedly, some deaths attributable to earthquake got listed as tsunami and vice-versa, but the death toll from the ground tremors was miraculously low.