Demolishing an Almost-New Building, Because Why Not?
Beauty is Fleeting (Former) Wedding Venue Rokusisui (旧六絲水), Kyoto Japan -- Rokusisui (六絲水) -- Copyright 2014 Jeffrey Friedl, http://regex.info/blog/
Nikon D4 + Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm — 1/200 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100 — map & image datanearby photos
Beauty is Fleeting
(Former) Wedding Venue Rokusisui (旧六絲水), Kyoto Japan

This photo is from a blog post seven years ago, Exposing for Single-Shot HDR (Sort Of), using photos from a special visit to a newly-built about-to-open wedding venue in Kyoto. (Photos from that visit also appeared on Heian Shrine Gate From a New Perspective.)

As lovely as the new venue was, it seems that they weren't able to make it as a wedding venue; they stopped doing business a few years ago (prior to COVID). The lovely building in the super-amazing location has been vacant since.

But the building won't be vacant for much longer, because the building won't be for much longer. It's being demolished! The five-story reinforced-concrete building is not even eight years old. Wow, what a waste.

Living right next to the building, a meeting was held to explain the demolition and its schedule, attended by two representatives of the company doing the demolition. Based on their attire, it was clear that one was an office worker, and the other was someone who was likely to be the on-site foreman. They explained the schedule with attention to the concerns that neighbors would have (noise, dust, etc.).

When they were done, they asked whether there were any questions. There was a long silence, so I decided to ask my off-topic question. I said that what I really wanted to know had nothing to do with their work (the demolition of the building), but if they had information, I'd appreciate to hear: why is this almost-new building being demolished, and what will replace it?

This opened a flood-gate of discussion from the few other residents that bothered to attend. 🙂

In the end, the answer was "It's owned by a holding company in Kobe (a nearby city), and they truly don't know what they'll do with the land".

It's very hard to believe that they'll spend a quarter-million dollars to demolish a six-million-dollar building (costs are my informed estimates) without knowing what they'll do with it, so it's likely that they'll make condominiums, which is, to current area residents, perhaps the most-objectionable thing that area zoning allows.

(My view is that it's their land and they can do whatever zoning allows. The building that I live in was built just 16 years ago on land that had been more or less a big garden, so I'm sure the building was a shock to the surrounding residents. But it wasn't their land, it was the land of the person that made the building.)


One comment so far...

I’m taking a wild guess that taxes will be lower if the land is cleared (plus no utility bills or other upkeep costs) than with the structure still standing. Plus demolishing will keep someone’s rice bowls filled .

Or the response you got was a ‘nonya’ answer: as in none ya business.

— comment by Bob Barlow on July 20th, 2021 at 12:24am JST (2 months, 9 days ago) comment permalink
Leave a comment...


All comments are invisible to others until Jeffrey approves them.

Please mention what part of the world you're writing from, if you don't mind. It's always interesting to see where people are visiting from.


You can use basic HTML; be sure to close tags properly.

Subscribe without commenting