封建都市江戸を近代首都東京に改造することは技術的にも政治的にも大きな仕事であった。これについて，藤森照信『明治の東京計画』 (岩波書屈，1982年)は，初期都市計画の樹立と実施の跡を精細に再現した。前後4個の計画が，開化主義者・新興商工業者・内務省等に担われ欧化・商業化・治国を夢みて案出され，対立と妥協と失敗を重ねながら，結果においては伝統と外来の技術を応用して日本らしい改造を果たしたという趣旨である。この著者を招き，またその研究に基礎を提供したあるいは基礎ずけを与えられた本学の3専門家を討論者としておこなったシンポジウムの記録が，本稿である。著者の業績が諸計画の内容とその都市的意義とそれらの担い手の性格・対立を浮きぼりにしたことは，多くの独創的な資料・事実の提示とともに一様に評価された。しかし，もともと都市計画史の大局の流れを志したその研究には，政治史からは財源の問題，日本近代史からは明治権力の首都支配の性格，都市計画史からは具体的な実際的技術検討の必要性があると指摘された。それらは報告者と討論者たちとの間の方法の相違を反映するもので，銀座煉瓦街・防火計画・市区改正・官庁集中の4計画ごとの討論においても，それぞれの性格・功罪・成否等の判断について意見の相違をもたらした。しかし，議論の過程で多くの事実が明らかとなり，報告者・討論者はもとより他の発言者・参加者も学ぶことが多かった。それは，報告者の克明で柔軟な思考と討論者への異なる方法の成果であったといえよう。

Edo，capital city of feudal Japan，had developed to be one of the largest cities in the world when Japan opened her doores to the Western World as was symbolized by the Meiji Restoration in 1868. It was a completed capital in the sence that its town plannings were appreciable results of the wisdom of feudal leaders backed by the people residing there，abundant in unique cultural features，while some depreciate the feudal character. It was a difficult task indeed to rebuild this feudal capital into a modern one for a new nation that was rapidly developing into a capitalistic country. The task was accomplished，regardless whether the results can be assessed as successful or not. But the actual process of the rebuilding as a whole has been left unexplored. Terunobu Fujimori has recently clarified the development of the measures and process of this rebuilding by his study embodied in the book Meiji no Tokyo Keikaku (Tokyo Rebuilding Planning in Early Meiji Period) published by Iwanami Shoten in 1982. According to him，the main plans were of four kinds beginning with the Ginza Rengagai Keikaku (Plans of Ginza Brick-Building Streets) in 1872，followed by the BōkaKeikaku (Plans of Fire Prevention) and the Shiku Kaisei Keikaku (Tokyo Main Town Plannings)，and ending with the Kancho Shūchū Keikaku (Plans of Government Offices Concentration) till around 1890. Driving planners of them were represented by occidentalists or enlightenmentists，rising bourgeoisie of merchants and industrialists，and the Ministry of Home Affairs. And the rebuiliding accomplished may be evaluated as having been successful，though far from idealistic，utilizing traditional wisdom and introducing western techniques. In the symposium，Fujimori who summarily reported his results and opinions was highly appreciated in his pioneering work by three discussants who at the same time expressed some lackings and desires to be filled; for instance，to examine fiscal problems raised by Mikuriya，power policy of the Meiji government by Ishizuka，and detailed technicalities of the plannings by Ishida. Following discussions among them as well as by some other participants made useful contributions for all to identify various facts accurately and to recognize the necessity to explore the problem from different approaches. The figures attached include those kindly offered by Fujimori from his book and Ishizuka from among his drawings.

postprint