A Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D. in Engineering Advanced Assemblage Analysis of Built Environment and Persistence of the Identity of Place in Yanesen September, 2013. Graduate School of Science and Technology Keio University Muminović Milica Abstract: The Thesis advances methods of urban analysis based on the assemblage theory by increasing its capacity to address changes in built environment and relating them to persistences of the identity of place. In urban theory, the identity of place is defined as specific quality arising from a certain location, and highly related to its durability. The methodology proposed and tested in this thesis approaches place in its complexity and analyses the dynamics of change of a concrete place as a whole. The dynamics of change contribute to the persistence, which itself defines the identity of the place. The Yanesen precinct of Tokyo was selected because of its peculiar urban character, which remains strongly associated with urban forms and practices of the past (Edo period), although the components of its built environment have dramatically changed, leaving almost no original buildings. The methodology applied was developed on the basis of assemblage theory and issues arising from the particularity of the Yanesen itself. The resulting assembled method brings together various tools and methods, in order to approach the totality of the place identity with due sensibility, addressing the built environment as a dynamic and complex assemblage system. This study has shown that application of assemblage theory in place theory is possible and useful for better understanding of the identity of places and built environments in their full physical complexity and dynamics. Methodological advancements developed here contribute to the analysis in the fields of urban morphological preservation and conservation. The project refines analytical tools in urban morphology by providing a broader view of persistences in definition of the identity of place, in which the concrete elements of built environment are not necessarily conserved. That is related to an approach to built environments as dynamic systems, which can have multiple states which demand neither total conservation nor complete change. The study also provides methodological contributions to analyses in the field of place making by broadening the scope and including commonly overlooked ordinary urban places and practices. The refined method enabled observation of processes which are usually hidden behind the expressiveness of the various elements of built environment. That remains of particular interest for further developments in the analysis of places. Finally, this study has contributed to the assemblage theory itself by refining the core concepts and definitions of identity and becoming. The findings from the specific case study of Yanesen are potentially contributing to better understanding of places in architectural and urban design, thus informing future, place sensitive design practice. Acknowledgments There are number of people whom I would like to tank for their various supports during my PhD degree. I am immensely grateful to my supervisor, Professor Darko Radović, for his immeasurable intellectual support and guidance from the beginning to the end of my PhD. I am also grateful to my supervisory panel, Professor Mita Akira, Professor Honda Satoshi, Professor Kishimoto Tatsuya, and Pofessor Boontharm Davisi, for their valuable comments. I am particularly thankful to Professor Honda Satoshi for discussions and guidance which have provided additional support for the methodology developed in this thesis. I am also very thankful to Profssor Boontharm Davisi for her comments, discussions and support during all phases of my PhD. I am very grateful to Professor Paul Waley, for his comments and discussions on different aspects of Tokyo, which have helped me develop better insight into concepts of Shitamachi and history. I am also very thankful to Professor Kim Dovey and discussion which have helped me to develop a better understanding of theory, particularly related with assemblage. I am infinitely thankful to PhD Candidate from Faculty of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, Emilio Garcia, for discussions, support and collaboration in development of part of the research methods. I am very grateful to Emilio for generously reading my thesis and giving me very insightful feedbacks and also for multiple discussions which have helped me structure and clarify my thoughts, ideas and methodology. I am very thankful to Professor Heide Imai, for her comments, support and discussions which have helped me in various stages of my research and to Professor Jorge Almazan for his generous guidance and help. I am extremely thankful to generous support from PhD Candidate Pega Sanoamuang, Technical Assistant Ryoko Iwase and Architect Talaie Farzaneh. I am exceptionally thankful to my Professor Zoran Đukanović. This research would not be possible without financial support of the Japanese Government and the MEXT Scholarship. This research would also not be possible without help and support of former and current students and the spirit of co+labo at Keio University. Table of contents: Abstract Acknowledgments Table of contents List of figures List of tables 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research questions, hypothesis and aims of the study ............................................. 1 1.2. Approach ............................................................................................................... 3 1.3. The introduction to case study of yanesen ............................................................... 6 1.4. Limitations and potentials .................................................................................... 10 1.5. Structure of the thesis ........................................................................................... 11 2. Conceptual framework ...................................................................................... 15 2.1. Identity ................................................................................................................. 15 2.2. Place ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.1. Heidegger’s phenomenology and place ............................................................... 21 2.2.2. Place and experience .......................................................................................... 22 2.2.3. Place-space-scale ................................................................................................ 24 2.2.4. Place and social aspects ...................................................................................... 24 2.2.5. Place and time ................................................................................................... 25 2.2.6. Identity of the place ........................................................................................... 28 2.3. Assemblage theory-place and identity .................................................................... 30 2.3.1. Assemblage theory and its applications .............................................................. 30 2.3.2. Assemblage ........................................................................................................ 33 2.3.3. Multiplicities ..................................................................................................... 35 2.3.4. Becoming ........................................................................................................... 37 2.3.5. Identity .............................................................................................................. 38 2.3.6. Place as assemblage ............................................................................................ 43 3. Methodology, methods and data collections .............................................. 47 3.1. Assemblage methodology ...................................................................................... 48 3.2. Approach to identity of place of yanesen ............................................................... 55 3.3. Data collection ..................................................................................................... 60 3.3.1. Promotion, branding, commercial material ......................................................... 60 3.3.2. Archival research ............................................................................................... 62 3.3.3. Site fieldwork .................................................................................................... 64 3.4. Methods ............................................................................................................... 65 3.4.1. Discourse analysis .............................................................................................. 65 3.4.2. Urban morphology-elements of built environment .............................................. 70 3.4.3. Statistical methods ............................................................................................. 71 3.4.4. Mapping the change and persistence of elements of built environment ................ 73 3.4.5. The relationships of public and private ............................................................... 78 3.4.6. Visual permeability ...........................................................................................