Consideration for the people who make it

Recently, it seems that the number of students who graduate from university architecture departments but do not go into the architecture industry, but instead seek employment in finance, trading companies, real estate, etc., is increasing year by year. There are unpleasant words such as winners and losers, but the reality is that young people admire the winners and flock to them. On the other hand, managers are forced to focus on the stock market, which reacts sensitively to short-term profit results. Market evaluations do not take people or culture into consideration. The current Japanese economic system, which values results rather than process, is not an environment that takes the time to develop people. The future of young people who aim to create things is very bleak, and it is difficult to paint a bright picture for the future of the construction industry.

In the case of manufacturing, especially architecture, the human interaction in the production process determines the quality of the architecture, and the finished product depends largely on the skills of the craftsmen involved. In the preservation and restoration project of the Japan Industrial Club Building, which I was in charge of, the old interior was beautifully restored thanks to the skilled plaster and metalwork craftsmen. The Kyoto State Guest House, which was completed last spring, is also a crystallization of the skills of the craftsmen. To build good architecture, you need good builders. Unfortunately, however, there are fewer craftsmen with excellent skills. In the first place, a craftsman needs a lot of experience and years to reach the technical level considered to be a full-fledged craftsman, and to become an even better craftsman, but in modern architecture, there are fewer places where they can demonstrate their skills. The main reason for this is that architecture has become incorporated into a short-term economic system, and craftsmen who spend a lot of money and time on curing and maturing architecture have come to avoid such craftsmanship. It is necessary to create an environment where cultural value can be evaluated from a longer-term perspective.

I hear that after major general contractors declared their intention to end collusion, the winning bid prices for large national construction projects are falling far short of the planned price. It seems to have been effective in terms of not wasting taxpayers' money, but we need to be careful that the burden of low-price orders does not fall heavily on the subcontractors at the end, which in turn affects the quality of the construction. In the case of construction, which is a one-off production, the quality is determined by the relationship between the people involved in the production on-site, and a high level of skill is required to produce high-quality products. When comparing quotations and bidding, judging the skills of craftsmen only by the number of pieces increases the chance of buying cheap and losing money. In order to produce a good product, even when comparing quotations and bidding, the ability, attitude, and mindset of the building owner to properly evaluate the technology are important. Building owners should keep in mind that the quality of the product depends on the heart and skill of the builder.

Because architecture is a culture, the humanity of the building owner is put to the test. Preserving a good stock of architecture increases the social standing of the building owner who commissioned it, and leads to their name being remembered in history. In an age where corporate social responsibility (CSR) is emphasized, I hope that managers will reaffirm the cultural value of architecture and, by protecting and nurturing that culture, play a role in increasing the overall value of not only individual buildings, but also cities and even Japan.