| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:46 am
|
 |
|
|
So let me get this straight. They are going ahead with the park and just leave the burnt remains in place? No plans to rebuild it then? No plans to rebuild it with? Surely Ms. Kondo could fill in the details with an architech sitting next to her?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Ktimene's Lover
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 2242
Location: Glendale, AZ (Proudly living in the desert)
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:14 am
|
|
|
|
That seems like a bad plan rather than just rebuild it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Egan Loo
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1353
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:26 am
|
|
|
|
As the article says, the house was vacant before the fire. No one was living in it. The former owner had already moved out two years ago, and that led to the city buying the land. There is little reason to rebuild a house that no one is going to live in.
Instead of spending money rebuilding a vacant house, the former owner, the city, and Miyazaki seem to agree that the money is better spend turning the entire site into a garden. The reason Miyazaki highlighted the home in his book was more because of the former owner's lush, almost forest-like garden — not the house.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
DomFortress
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 751
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:33 am
|
|
|
| Egan Loo wrote: | | Instead of spending money rebuilding a vacant house, the former owner, the city, and Miyazaki seem to agree that the money is better spend turning the entire site into a garden. The reason Miyazaki highlighted the home in his book was more because of the former owner's lush, almost forest-like garden — not the house. |
I've always wonder about that myself, why is there so many of Miyazaki's fans seem to place so much emphasis on a piece of "property" over the "nature" of a landscape itself?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:08 am
|
|
|
| Egan Loo wrote: | | As the article says, the house was vacant before the fire. No one was living in it. The former owner had already moved out two years ago, and that led to the city buying the land. There is little reason to rebuild a house that no one is going to live in.
Instead of spending money rebuilding a vacant house, the former owner, the city, and Miyazaki seem to agree that the money is better spend turning the entire site into a garden. The reason Miyazaki highlighted the home in his book was more because of the former owner's lush, almost forest-like garden — not the house. |
The local government had spent taxpayers money renovating that "empty house" before it was allegedly torched, and no where does it say that the house was never the focus of the park. That house was put on show well before the fire and it was sold out for 37 days, so to presume that it wasn't an important part of the area is incorrect. Perhaps if the park can bring in enough revenue some of that could be put toward a house rebuild fund. It has never been said if the house was insured for that fire, or not. A tragic shame if it wasn't.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Egan Loo
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1353
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:21 am
|
|
|
| Mohawk52 wrote: | | The local government had spent taxpayers money renovating that "empty house" before it was allegedly torched, and no where does it say that the house was never the focus of the park. |
It was an empty house — no quotation marks needed. The former owner moved out two years ago. The government was renovating both the house and the surrounding garden for the park. Now it is focusing on the garden.
| Quote: | | That house was put on show well before the fire and it was sold out for 37 days, so to presume that it wasn't an important part of the area is incorrect. Perhaps if the park can bring in enough revenue some of that could be put toward a house rebuild fund. It has never been said if the house was insured for that fire, or not. A tragic shame if it wasn't. |
This house in Tokyo was never put on show before the fire. You're probably thinking of a different house in Aichi, about 300 kilometers southwest of Tokyo.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:38 am
|
|
|
| Egan Loo wrote: |
| Mohawk52 wrote: | | The local government had spent taxpayers money renovating that "empty house" before it was allegedly torched, and no where does it say that the house was never the focus of the park. |
It was an empty house — no quotation marks needed. The former owner moved out two years ago. The government was renovating both the house and the surrounding garden for the park. Now it is focusing on the garden.
| Quote: | | That house was put on show well before the fire and it was sold out for 37 days, so to presume that it wasn't an important part of the area is incorrect. Perhaps if the park can bring in enough revenue some of that could be put toward a house rebuild fund. It has never been said if the house was insured for that fire, or not. A tragic shame if it wasn't. |
This house in Tokyo was never put on show before the fire. You're probably thinking of a different house in Aichi, about 300 kilometers southwest of Tokyo. |
I stand corrected.  However if that mock scale house was so popular, I can't see why the original would not be so as well, and worth investing on a rebuild. It could be the home of the park keeper as well.
Last edited by Mohawk52 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am; edited 1 time in total
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Egan Loo
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1353
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:46 am
|
|
|
| Mohawk52 wrote: | I stand corrected. However if that mock scale house was so popular, I can't see why the original would not be so as well, and worth investing on a rebuild. I could be the home of the park keeper as well. |
The Aichi house was not a mockup of the Tokyo house. The Aichi house was a mockup of the fictional family home in the 1988 My Neighbor Totoro film.
The Tokyo house was a real, 80-year-old house that Miyazaki highlighted in a 1991 book after the Totoro film, mostly because of its lush, forest-like garden.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 pm
|
|
|
|
Regardless, it's still worth rebuilding as it got Miyazaki's blessing anyway.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Egan Loo
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1353
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:19 pm
|
|
|
| Mohawk52 wrote: | | Regardless, it's still worth rebuilding as it got Miyazaki's blessing anyway. |
As the article's headline says, though, Miyazaki is giving more than his blessing for the park's revamped garden plan — he is designing it himself. Growing a garden where an empty — and now burnt-down — house once stood … that seems to be a great example of Miyazaki's philosophies.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
