Kyoto station ... did I see an eyesore?
I had some time to kill the other day in Kyoto station. This is a snap from the outside. The building arouses passions, especially from long-term residents. The argument against the huge structure of glass and steel is that it's so un-Kyoto, that it just doesn't fit. It's too high and imposing and detracts from the Kyoto-ness of Kyoto. It has helped to open further the floodgates of crass, modern architecture in a once beautiful city of low, wooden buildings. The argument for the building - that it is an architectural masterpiece, and a big improvement on the last one. It's the twenty-first century and Kyoto should move on. If Kyoto Tower (the eyesore reflected in the photo) was permitted, then why on earth not Kyoto Station?
I'd love as much of old Kyoto to be preserved as possible. It's disappearing pretty fast. On the road I used to live, the old machiya houses are being replaced by convenience stores. I think that's a great shame. But Kyoto Station itself, I'm not so sure about. I thought that I'd naturally come out in opposition to the building which was opened in 1997. However, once you're inside, the sheer size of the place is awesome. Stairways to heaven. Escalators too. A cathedral of glass and metal. Some of the artwork is a bit dodgy, but it's robust enough to stand up to the elements. And the elements are certainly part of the station building. That is one of the things I think I liked about the place. You're not sure if you are inside or outside, and for the indecisive chap that I am, that is rather appealing. Not all the modern art is dodgy. I reckon some of it is pretty good. I rather liked this piece in the photo.
But highlight of an hour to kill at the station is not the 700 yen cup of Earl Gray in the English Tea Shop, but the overhead walkway. A futuristic tunnel that takes you along the heights of the building itself.
From there you can look out across Kyoto to the north, taking in one eyesore from another, as many long-term Kyoto residents would put it.
posted by jh at 7.2.06
6 Comments:
I used to be of the same opinion about Kyoto tower, but I like that as well. I remember being on top of a mountain at night looking over the view and an engineer mate of mine thought the lit up tower was fine - as a landmark to tell you where the station is. You can also see it from many parts of the city and there are a lot worse eyesores in Kyoto.
I like it - its distinctive.
If I want to know where the station is I can look up a map! Of course those that know the lie of the land can just look at the four sides of the city and tell that the side that doesn't have mountains is where the station is located.
If I want to appreciate some 60s/70s architectural homage to city planning aimed at getting attention via something tall (did architects around the world just go to sleep for 20 years?) I'll go to eastern Europe. In the meantime can someone please calculate how much gunpowder is needed to launch the damn thing into space.
Kyoto station is acceptable. It serves as a nice wall to hide the mess south of it.
It certainly is distinctive Japanvisitor, but I reckon it also has a touch of the destructive about it too.
I moved to Kyoto in 1997 and left in 2002, so I have never seen the city in the way some of the old-hands have. Must admit I don't get too worked up over it.
jb: Never knew you were a latter-day Guy Fawkes. I'll keep my eye on the news; and come to think of it, check my chairs for semtex next time I share a drink with you.
I've never been to Kyoto, just through it on the shink, but these pictures of the station don't look nearly as bad as some accounts suggest. Pretty nice, actually. I'd been under the impression that the station architecture more closely resembled the Tower's.
My mate was from an engineering design consultants in London, traveling around Asia - didn't know Kyoto at all - but did need to know where the station was so he could get on to his next destination.
I remember a similar fuss kicked up by the Alex Kerr-inspired Kyoto die-hards over the French bridge over the Kamogawa, which unfortunately got shelved.
I was against the French bridge over the Kamogawa.
In the whole of Kyoto, the river is perhaps the place I remember most fondly, and I guess while I was there, it seemed sacrilege to add a French bridge to "my version" of Kyoto.
Now had it been built before I arrived in Kyoto, then perhaps I wouldn't have given a monkey's. It might have fitted in well with the riverside "boules" playing locals.
Guess in many cases we get up in arms about what shatters our particular windows on life.
Post a Comment
<< Home