With the evolution of digital and material technologies, Japanese designers and architects are seeking ways to reverse the wholesale destruction of traditional public space in Japan brought about by industrialisation, automobiles, and Western-style concrete and steel interventions. Japanese public spaces (hiroba, or wide open areas), human-scale spaces traditionally fashioned of warm and renewable materials, are making a comeback thanks to technological breakthroughs in glass and non-flammable woods that allow the expression of highly refined and delicate qualities. Includes an essay by Kengo Kuma and numerous exemplary projects
"[Re] TOKYO explores a wide, understanding vision of the transformative processes of one of the most influential and unknown metropolitan areas in the world, from large scale efforts such as Tokyo's land engineering transformations, to smaller examples such as its capital vending machine system. Four hundred pages, compiling 400 years of history, are covered in this uniquely Japanese complexity of social conurbation, including more than 1400 illustrations, diagrams, photographs, and maps in order to visually support selected themes. [Re] TOKYO develops the idea of [re]definition processes to explain what, who, when, where, and why all these changes took place--a tool to understand its history and speculate about its future as an exciting metropolis and cultural center of the world."--Provided by publisher
The conflict environment is changing, and—after almost two decades of continuous COIN, stabilisation and counterterrorism missions—government and public opinion in western and allied countries are unlikely to support continued large-scale or long-duration missions of this type. Yet history demonstrates that such missions are, and are likely to remain, some of the most frequent and geographically widespread. Likewise, ground forces are critical for success in COIN and stabilisation missions, due to the need to interact closely with local government and populations, which implies the need to establish and maintain a physical presence in the area of operations, which in turn implies the need to survive and prevail in a close combat environment, which only ground forces can do. Thus, despite their unpopularity, ground forces can expect (and must be prepared) to continue engaging in these types of operations. However, the same factors that have enhanced the threat in recent decades—in particular, connectivity and the ability to conduct collaborative and remote engagement— also create opportunities for new operating methods for ground forces conducting COIN and stabilisation. These include the ability to deploy only a small element forward on the ground, conducting SFA and FID tasks, while supporting it with a QRF and other enablers that remain offshore in a sea-base or in regionally-deployed FOBs. In such a scenario the main force might be withheld from the theatre of operations and either deploy for a brief initial period only, or not at all. For a force operating in this manner, protected mobility and communications would remain essential, as would the ability to access and deliver precision fire support when required. Deployed forces would probably be modular to a very low level, operating in a mesh of multi-role, semi-autonomous small teams supporting each other and swapping roles as needed. Traditional intelligence, engineering, civil affairs, psychological operations and military governance capabilities would remain essential, but might be called forward as needed. Ultimately, however, while ground forces will almost certainly continue to play a central role in counterinsurgency and stabilisation operations, the way they perform this role, the organisation and equipment with which they do so, and the environment in which they conduct such missions is likely to change, and keep changing, into the foreseeable future.
