This is my translation of Arata Isozaki’s preface, originally published in Zhongjie Lin’s Kenzo Tange and Metabolist Movement: Urban Utopias of Modern Japan.
Those who set their aims toward establishing future utopia, organize movements towards its realization, and put their ideas into practice as a guiding role in various artistic, social and political spheres are called the avant-gardes. One probably comes up with something like this in attempting to identify the historical characteristics of modern art movements from the beginning of the 20th century. In the development of modern art and architecture in the 20th century, especially the first half, first a movement was formed and then a manifesto put forth. A classic example was Futurism. Soon the forms of such movements were broadened, and one could recognize the emergence of movements in the various “isms” in the informal appearance of Impressionism and Cubism, all the way to Symbolism. Furthermore, since around 1910, the various artistic factions like Futurism, Purism, Dada, Surrealism, and Existentialism proliferated and continued to create a greater current of the so-called modern artistic movement. The sphere of architectural design also completely overlapped with all of the artistic movements. Here one can see an institutionalizing tendency rather than a single movement. De Stijl, the Bauhaus, Russian Constructivism, etc. developed in tandem and grew into a movement in the form of a congress like CIAM. As a result, the description of artistic and architectural movements in the 20th century followed the format of a single chart of the various groups. In the end, modern art and architecture are narrated according to the history of avant-garde movements.
In 1960 Metabolism was formed in Tokyo and became the final example of a modern architectural movement to raise a manifesto. I think the historical role of the avant-garde movement in a broader sense ended in the failure of the global Cultural Revolution in 1968. Of course, after 1968 expressions of avant-garde and avant-gardism were still often used, but these were more like a metaphor or rhetoric, free of the historic meaning associated with the avant-garde movements. Radical movements and ideas, free of ideology, are pushed forward. However, the original avant-garde form that organized the movement for realizing a single ideology by raising a manifesto can no longer be seen. Its historical role ended in the 1960s.
Today, if one looks back at the Metabolist Movement that took place in Tokyo half a century ago, one should look at the two contexts that are layered upon it. One is the global development of the Modern Movement of architecture. Another is the particular context of Japan as an island nation and a nation on the edge of the Far East. Regarding the process of global development, it is sufficient to say that Metabolism was the last example of a modern art and architectural movement seeking utopia as an aim to raise an avant-garde manifesto. It provided a foothold connecting Japanese modern architecture to the global development of modern architecture.
Around 1960, the masters of modern architecture all reached the age of retirement and a generational change took place. At the same time, the architectural situation within society shifted. In other words, there were several signs and preparations being made for realizing the condition of Post-Modernism that became apparent in 1968. I believe that the Metabolist Movement was not the beginning of the next period, rather it must be situated as the last modern architectural movement of the 20th century that can be seen in the form of a movement.
The few comments that I would like to add here describe the special context that gave birth to the pure form of the technological utopia within Japan as a country on the edge of the Far East vis-à-vis the center of the West. The land throughout the nation received a devastating blow from World War II and was occupied militarily until the mid-1950s. The modern architectural movement, formerly developed at the center, was under a transition. In other words, if we also add the special conditions of the acceptance of modern architecture in Japan since 1930, this was Japanese domestication that can be seen as a unique transformation that I call the Japanization.
If we switch to the point of 1930 in Russia and Germany, which were at the center of the avant-garde movement of modern architecture at that time, we can see the movement itself was at a critical stage open to political criticism. Because of the counter-modernism of Stalinism and Nazism, the activities of modernism in these countries were stopped. In exactly the same period, China, the United States, and Japan, which had been on the fringe of the modern movement, began to receive the influence of modern architecture from the West. These countries were already been on their way of modernization but, rather than spontaneously creating a progressive movement, they began to transplanted modernism from the center of its birth. The proponents of the progressive movement of modernism were people in a position to determine its contents like critics, architects, and artists. Because what was transplanted and received was selectively transferred, this impresario played a tremendous role as the driving force and connoisseur. Around 1930, one should probably pay attention to the behavior of the intellectuals in charge of making the cultural policy for the Chinese Nationalist Party in Nanjing (China), the first design curator of the Museum of Modern Art in New York Philip Johnson (the US), and the Tokyo Imperial University professor Hideto Kishida (Japan).
Chinese Nationalist Party built a few national memorials such as the modernized design of Sun Yat Sen’s Mausoleum, through which they institutionalized a style that fused the traditional Chinese roof with Art Deco. During this process, Liang Sicheng who returned from studying with Paul Cret at the University of Pennsylvania stood out. The importance of his activities came to be seen after 1950 in the intellectual discourse of architectural styles and city building in the People’s Republic of China.
Philip Johnson organized “Modern Architecture: International Exhibition” (1932) at MoMA, and published The International Style, written together with H.R. Hitchcock. The book was based on a survey of avant-garde architectural movements born in Europe, but his personal preference was for Mies van der Rohe. Guided by the emerging force of late Bauhaus post-humanism, Mies led in the mainstream of modern architectural interpretations in the United States in the 1930s. Such interpretation shaped the ideological current, fusing functionalism, industrialism, and the metropolization. It resulted in the common idea of modern architecture equaling the International Style, coupled with the United States’ establishment of economic and political hegemony in the world during the 1950s. The acceptance of Mies van der Rohe in the 1930s marked the outset of this move.
Around 1930, Hideto Kishida (the mentor of Kenzo Tange) as Japan’s impresario selected Le Corbusier. Kunio Maekawa and Junzo Sakakura had already spent time at Le Corbusier’s atelier in Paris, and of course, there were many Japanese who studied at the Bauhaus, but Kishida picked from the group Kunio Maekawa, and then Kenzo Tange, and backed up their activities. The one who transplanted Le Corbusier in its pure form, by contrast, was Junzo Sakakura. Kishida tried to reinterpret traditional Japanese architecture from the constructive perspective of modernism and searched for a model that integrated it with Corbusian elements. The one who clearly responded to this goal was Kenzo Tange. Such reception and transformation already began as the process of domestication during the Second World War. The debate resurfaced in the 1950s as the confrontation between and integration of the “national element” and the “modern element.”
During the 1930s, these marginal countries selectively accepted various strands of modernist architecture that conformed to their respective national characteristics. Due to the isolation during the Second World War, architecture in each of these countries underwent transformation separately, which became another type of domestication. In the 1950s, these forms became clear. Through its victory in the war, the United States became a hegemonic country, and it tried to disseminate the functionalist international style architecture around the world. That was a global trend until it faltered during the Vietnam War.
Soon after the revolution, as China undertook to build its own nation in conjunction with Soviet Russia, they could not avoid the artistic methods of socialist realism that followed Stalinism. This was an old style of forms modeled on opposing the formalism of the former Russian avant-garde. Certainly, in the mid-fifties, Khrushchev demythologized Stalinism. However, in the sphere of architecture, it did not move beyond simple industrialism and functionalism. This ideological debate cast a deep shadow on the debates of architectural styles of new China in the 1950s. They invited many self-claimed socialist realist architects and artists to play a guiding role in architecture. At the same time, they politically rejected Liang Sicheng’s attempt to realize methodological reform of appraising and preserving traditional Chinese architecture from a modernist standpoint. New China, which once again caused a revolution half of a century after a modern nation had been made, adopted an eclectic style (as seen in the Metropolitan Plan of Beijing and the Ten Grand Architecture project) as a political mandate to create a national expression with a flavor of traditional styles in the form of the 19th century nation-state. This fell into the dead-end trap of continued domestication that finally became the reevaluation of the “domestic methods.” Modern architecture could not help but be detoured until the political reform that began in the 1980s.
In the 1950s, Japan entered a period in which economic growth began to be possible, born out of the condition of the stabilized policy of the welfare nation called the 1955 System. It followed the institutional reform of agricultural liberation and the breaking up of zaibatsu (financial clique) after World War II, along with the Korean War in the neighboring country that sustained Japan’s economic prosperity. Notwithstanding the new system and the ongoing social reorganization, the cultural and ideological debates still developed along the axis of the 1930s centered on the issues of modern/tradition and modernism/nationalism. Kenzo Tange was the one at the center of the debates who continued them from the 1930s onward and developed an independent model. The simple dialectical problems were established as Jomonesqe = populist= ethnic versus Yayoiesque = elitist = international. Tange and Taro Okamoto who studied the Western avant-gardes advocated the dialecticism created through the tension of coexistence of both extremities. Tange initiated the point of view of integrating such binomial coexistence. He articulated these characteristics in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Building (1955) and the Tokyo Olympic Stadium (1964), and what made that possible was because both buildings are national projects. In other words, “Japan” as the underlying modern national polity was played down (?). Namely, even as a meager national power, its strength as a unified nation still existed. This type of relationship continued up to the Osaka Exposition in 1970.
To summarize, the center of modernism, guided by the founding avant-gardes up to 1930 in Europe, shifted to surrounding countries: China, America, and Japan when it started to be accepted selectively according to national conditions. Some 20 years of reception based on national conditions took place as a form of domestication. Liang Sicheng (China), Philip Johnson (He played both roles as impresario and architect in the United States,), and Kenzo Tange (Japan) were those of the same generation who propelled this process. Their work expressed the final form of transposed modernism. There were various architects who continued as modernists afterward, but the period as a whole began to show aspects that differed from the linear development (progress) of simple political and social modernization. The avant-garde as an intellectual movement welcomed the end of the frustration from the Cultural Revolution of 1968. One can consider this phenomenon from the relationship between the nation-state and capitalism, which coexisted basically from the beginning. In Japan up until around 1970, they were amalgamated, but after that capitalism began to take over the nation. Relatively speaking, the national image declined. The image of the 19th-century nation-state was expressed by the “architecture” of its capital. In the 20th century, the metropolis itself becomes the lead actor, and architecture began to be absorbed by the metropolis. In short, the “city” became the image. This situation had been foreseen from the start of the modern movement. However, these issues went beyond the nation as an institution and dominant ideology and became the comprehensive social problem in the mid 20th century. The Metabolist movement arose exactly from this situation.
Kenzo Tange recognized the problem of going beyond the “city” and “architecture.” He was an assistant professor in the city planning orientation newly formed after the war within the division of architectural engineering at Tokyo University. However, what he lectured and researched was not related to technical necessities controlling the city concretely through legislation and city planning. Rather it was related to the historical development of urban morphology that should be called Urbanism/Urban Design. Tange studied the movement of CIAM led by Le Corbusier focusing on the topic of the city. This differed from the concrete approach of city planning adopted by the bureaucracy to establish legal regulations generated based on reality; rather, it was examined from the perspective of the modernist “planning” aiming at social reform that moved toward utopia. Modernism was a utopian movement in a broader sense. The issue of “city” had remained the theme through the development of Tange’s career since his Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Memorial Plan (1942) during the Second World War. A materialization of this concept was the Hiroshima Peace Park Memorial Plan (1949-1955). This plan was applauded at the 1952 CIAM meeting organized around the theme of the Core of the City. As a memorial for the revitalization of the Hiroshima atomic bombing site, it provided a concrete form representing the method of modernism’s “utopian” planning on its pure level.
As stated above, in contrast to the 19th century nation state’s capital city that prioritized “architecture,” the 20th-century metropolis focused on the theme of “city.” The postwar reconstruction plans in the 1950s heralded the theme of the “city”: the reactionary restoration plans became the mainstream, as seen in the restoration plans across Europe except for the cases like the “Berlin Reconstruction Plan competition” (1955) that illustrated the impossibility of simply reproducing the city. For example, the reconstructions of the center of Warsaw and Frankfurt simply became rehabilitations. The same thing happened in Japan, although most wooden buildings had been burned to the ground. What was implemented on these ruins was based on the prevalent method of city planning that had been institutionalized and commonly acknowledged throughout the world; therefore there was no room for a utopian proposal based on CIAM’s modernist principles to intervene in the reconstruction. In the 1950s, only the cities like Chandigarh and Brasilia were left with the mark of utopian plans. Moreover, when criticisms were raised with regards to the contradictions inherent within the implementation of modernist methods, both these projects fell into a state of failure.
Through the 1950s, Japan entered the extended period of economic growth, and after the conservative party’s policy for the stabilization of social welfare called the 1955 System, the population began to concentrate in big cities. In other words, cities like Tokyo had to undergo a transformation of its urban form. The metropolis characteristically dissolved its previous boundary (for example, city wall) and expanded to the surrounding area (mostly farmland). The environs of Tokyo had already been urbanized and there was no room for expansion. Overcrowding occurred within the city in which land ownership was subdivided to cope with urban growth. At this point, the plan to extend urban areas over Tokyo Bay emerged. Such concept was initiated by bureaucrats who held the responsibility for city policy as well as the financial sector. Kenzo Tange was cautious. He started with his research through a studio project that studied a marine city plan on Boston Harbor on the occasion of being invited to lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tange presented its model at the 1960s Tokyo World Design Conference (in which the Metabolist Manifesto was distributed as a small pamphlet), and then he began to work on the Plan for Tokyo 1960. This project continued through 1960, and he officially presented it in an NHK special program during the New Year’s days of the following year. Special mention must be made that its public debut was through television media.
This utopian project literally began on a virtual place. If we assumed that the utopia is nowhere, then the Plan for Tokyo 1960 is truly a utopian plan.
上世纪中叶，日本建筑界有一群关注创建未来乌托邦城市的年轻人，他们为了共同的目标组织并参与相关工作，在具体的实践中融进自己的想法。他们在各种各样的艺术、社会、政治活动中扮演着领袖角色。这些人也由此被称作“先锋”建筑师(the avant-gardes)。有关于“先锋”这一说法，学界普遍认为其最早出现于二十世纪初的现代主义运动(modern art movement)。在现代艺术和建筑学充分发展的二十世纪，尤其是二十世纪上半叶，“运动(movement)先行，主义（言论/manifesto）紧跟”是现代艺术运动发展的典型模式，其中最经典的例子便是未来主义（Futurism），以及之后涌现的印象主义(Impressionism)和立体主义(Cubism)，还包括最后出现的象征主义(Symbolism)。自1910年开始，包括未来主义、纯粹主义(Purism)、达达主义(Dada)、超现实主义(Surrealism)、存在主义(Existentialism)这些艺术运动如同小溪一般，经历了从各自渗透传播，到逐渐汇聚，最终形成一股汹涌洪流——即所谓广义的现代艺术运动(modern artistic movement)。建筑设计领域也经历了相似的过程，在时间上也完全重叠。因此，我们可以看出这些运动不是独立的，而是以一个整体的姿态集体涌现。从支流到洪流，呈现出某种思潮化，甚至学院化（institutionalizing）的趋势，包括像荷兰风格派(De Stijl)、包豪斯学派(Bauhaus)、俄罗斯构成主义(Russian Constructivism)这些思潮就经历了自身发展，相互协调，直到逐渐融入现代艺术运动的过程。这三个学派最终汇入现代艺术运动的重要组成部分，也就是后来的国际现代建筑会议（CIAM）。因此，对于二十世纪的艺术和建筑运动的描述，学界遵循了多个组群的单一图表体系，以至于人们也就能够在同一个先锋思潮运动的历史框架下，对现代艺术和建筑学两个领域的现象一并论述。
日本的新陈代谢学派创立于1960年，同时也是现代建筑运动中最后一个在学派成立的同时伴有宣言提出的实例，但由于受到1968年全球性文化革命风暴的冲击，新陈代谢学派的先锋运动的历史身份也最终消亡殆尽。尽管在1968年之后，所谓“先锋”和“时尚主义”(avant-gardism)这种说法还仍然存在，但被提及时，给人的感觉往往更像是一种隐喻或讽刺，这也导致如今的“先锋“、”前卫“这类术语的含义逐渐庸俗化，脱离了之前发生的艺术运动的历史意义。然而，哪怕缺少意识形态的宣言式表述，不在标榜自身的前卫身份，先锋运动依然会被潮流推动，激进思想仍会不断涌现。只不过，由于所谓前卫运动这样的具有历史性地位的角色在上世纪六十年代前后就已经消亡了，通过提出某一宣言来实现某个单一思想的模式也自然不复存在。
今天，重新回头看半个世纪前出现在日本的新陈代谢运动，我们应该更加留意其所依托的两个主要背景因素。一方面，现代主义建筑运动在全球范围内的迅速发展；另一方面，日本作为一个岛国——一个地处远东地区的国家的特定身份和所处的环境。我们有充分的理由认为新陈代谢运动是有着乌托邦诉求的现代艺术和建筑运动的最后的范例。上述背景也为日本现代建筑界努力与现代主义全球化发展趋势进行联系提供了重要的立足点。
在1960年前后，建筑界的现代主义建筑大师们普遍到了即将退休的年纪，这也为年轻一代建筑师的登场提供了有利机遇。与此同时，建筑实践领域的状态也随着社会的变革而悄然改变。在1968年，普遍迹象表明，各方面条件为后现代主义的出现所做的准备和相关基础都已经逐渐确立并清晰起来。尽管如此，笔者依旧认为，在一定程度上，新陈代谢运动无疑应该被定位为二十世纪的最后一波现代主义建筑运动，而非后现代主义的开始。
在这里笔者希望添加一些补充说明，以期解释致使新陈代谢这个有着技术性乌托邦本质和纯粹形式化运动出现的特殊背景，以及这一运动为何出现在日本这个地处远东地区的国家，而非那些西方世界中心国家的原因。日本经历了二战打击和战后十年的军事占领，而此时的现代建筑运动在西方国家也经历了从初步发展到逐渐滞后的过渡阶段。所以，1930年以来日本对现代建筑的接受过程，也必然经历了的“本土化”(domestication)的转变过程，或许称之为“日本化”(Japanization)更为合适。
如果切换到1930年的前苏联和德国——作为那个年代前卫现代建筑运动的中心——我们会看到，当时的建筑思潮带有明显的政治批判色彩，说明当时的艺术活动反而处于相对开放的环境之中。由于斯大林主义（Stalinism）和纳粹主义(Nazism)这两种“反现代主义运动“(counter-modernism)的大行其道，这两个国家的现代主义运动前进状态一度发生停滞。反观同一时期的中国、美国和日本——这些一只脚踏在现代主义运动边缘的国家——已经开始接受来自于中心地区的现代主义建筑运动的影响。当时的中日美已经准备好用自己的方式，迎接现代主义。只不过，由于从一开始她们就试图从现代主义诞生的中心地区，移植现代主义的种子，这一过程并非是从内部自发的。事实上，现代主义在中日美的演进中起决定作用的，大多是评论家、建筑师和艺术家，并且正是这些人，决定了各自国家现代主义运动的具体方向和内容。现代主义在中美日所经历的，是先移植，再接收的过程，而最终在现代思想观念中得以顺利转化并吸收的内容，也就必定具有了各自独特的选择性。在这一个过程中，评论家、建筑师和艺术家这些骨干力量，作为推动者和话语权掌控者，起到了举足轻重的作用。因此，我们有必要对1930年前后的以下事件或个人给予足够的关注，即中国国民党南京政府中制定文化政策的知识分子们，纽约现代艺术博物馆的第一任馆长菲利普·约翰逊（Philip Johnson），以及东京帝国大学(Tokyo Imperial University)教授岸田日出刀（Hideto Kishida）。
如果切换到1930年的前苏联和德国——作为那个年代前卫现代建筑运动的中心——我们会看到，当时的建筑思潮带有明显的政治批判色彩，说明当时的艺术活动反而处于相对开放的环境之中。由于斯大林主义（Stalinism）和纳粹主义(Nazism)这两种“反现代主义运动“(counter-modernism)的大行其道，这两个国家的现代主义运动前进状态一度发生停滞。反观同一时期的中国、美国和日本——这些一只脚踏在现代主义运动边缘的国家——已经开始接受来自于中心地区的现代主义建筑运动的影响。当时的中日美已经准备好用自己的方式，迎接现代主义。只不过，由于从一开始她们就试图从现代主义诞生的中心地区，移植现代主义的种子，这一过程并非是从内部自发的。事实上，现代主义在中日美的演进中起决定作用的，大多是评论家、建筑师和艺术家，并且正是这些人，决定了各自国家现代主义运动的具体方向和内容。现代主义在中美日所经历的，是先移植，再接收的过程，而最终在现代思想观念中得以顺利转化并吸收的内容，也就必定具有了各自独特的选择性。在这一个过程中，评论家、建筑师和艺术家这些骨干力量，作为推动者和话语权掌控者，起到了举足轻重的作用。因此，我们有必要对1930年前后的以下事件或个人给予足够的关注，即中国国民党南京政府中制定文化政策的知识分子们，纽约现代艺术博物馆的第一任馆长菲利普·约翰逊（Philip Johnson），以及东京帝国大学(Tokyo Imperial University)教授岸田日出刀（Hideto Kishida）。
中国方面：上世纪初，中国国民党南京政府曾经修建了一系列民族性很强的纪念建筑，其中最具代表性的便是南京的中山陵(Sun Yat Sen’s Mausoleum)。这一建筑将中国传统建筑中的屋顶形式和西方装饰艺术风格(Art Deco)元素融合在一起，创造出独特的当代设计风格。同一时期，经历了在宾夕法尼亚大学，跟随保罗·克瑞（Paul Cret）学习之后的梁思成回到中国。只不过，梁的建筑实践活动主要集中在上世纪五十年代的中国建筑设计和城市规划，所以其工作的重要性也大多体现在年代较晚的作品之中。
美国方面：1932年，菲利普·约翰逊（Philip Johnson）在纽约现代艺术博物馆组织了“现代主义建筑：国际展览”(Modern Architecture: International Exhibition)，并与亨利·罗素·希区柯克（H.R.Hitchcock）一起出版了《国际式风格》(The International Style)一书。虽然该书将欧洲前卫建筑运动当做一个整体来研究，但是菲利普·约翰逊很明显对其中一位建筑师情有独钟，那就是密斯。在包豪斯晚期的后人文主义(post-humanism)思潮的指引下，密斯无疑引领了二十世纪三十年代美国的现代主义建筑主流趋势。另外，带有美国特色的建筑的诠释和相关实践，在意识思潮的层面上也同时对现代主义建筑进行了修正。美国的现代主义建筑融合了功能主义（functionalism）、工业主义(industrialism)和城市化进程（metropolization）多重特征。二十世纪五十年代，美国在全球范围逐渐确立了经济、政治双重统治地位，美国的现代主义建筑随之成为了现代建筑普世价值观的代名词，现代主义风格也终于成为了国际主义风格。而这一转变的开端，无疑是以公众和建筑界二十世纪三十年代对密斯的广泛认可作为标志的。
日本方面：1930年前后，日本建筑界的领军人物，也是丹下健三在东京大学的导师——岸田日出刀——选择了柯布西耶(作为日本建筑走向的灯塔)。当时，两位日本建筑师，前川国男（Kunio Maekawa）和坂仓准三（Junzo Sakakura）已经在柯布西耶巴黎工作室工作了一段时间。除此以外，还有更多日本人在包豪斯学习过，但岸田日出刀从这一代人中选择了前川国男和丹下健三，并对他们的建筑活动倍加支持。相比之下，岸田之所以没有选择坂仓准三的原因，是因为坂仓的工作，很大程度只不过是移植柯布西耶的形式而已。岸田日出刀的意图是从现代主义的建构角度，重新诠释传统日本建筑，寻找一种能与柯布语言(Corbusian elements)相结合的模式，而丹下无疑对这一目标做出了明确的回应。从二战时期开始，这一极具本土化的接收与移植过程，便开始影响日本建筑，到了二十世纪五十年代，因“民族元素”(national element)和“现代元素”（modern element）一体化而产生的内部冲突重新出现，反过头来又以相反的方式影响着日本建筑实践接下来的发展。
中、美、日这些原本处于现代主义建筑辐射边缘的国家，都经历了同样有趣的过程。从上世纪三十年代开始，各国在选择性地接受了现代主义建筑的同时，努力将其和各自的民族特点进行融合。然而，未料到之后降临的二战却造成了各国相对隔离，进一步使得各国的现代主义运动向不同方向发展，导致相应的建筑实践，分别沿着不同方向发生转变，成就了另一种本土化。到了上世纪五十年代，现代性与本土性相融合的趋势变得更加清晰，分别呈现出以下不同的状态：
美国方面：上文已经提到过，二战胜利后，美国逐渐成为一个霸权国家，随之开始试图把其带有功能主义特征的国际主义风格传播到世界各地。直到在越南战争爆发，这个全球化的趋势才开始有所动摇。
中国方面：建国后，中共政府联合苏维埃俄国的力量，开始着手建设新国家，自然也就受到斯大林主义(Stalinism)艺术手法(artistic methods)的影响。所谓斯大林主义，是一种基于反对早期俄国的前卫形式主义(formalism)的立场。在上世纪五十年代中期开始，赫鲁晓夫（Khrushchev）试图全面否定斯大林主义，不过，在建筑领域，这一努力并没有超越简单的工业大生产和功能主义的套路，但是前苏联上述意识形态层面的争论，还是深深影响了新中国同时代的建筑风格。当时的中国政府官方，曾经使用过许多自诩为社会主义现实主义风格(socialist realist) 的建筑师和艺术家来主导建筑领域的工作，与此同时，却以提升和保护中国传统建筑为名，尝试手法性的改良。这样的政策，等同于对梁思成现代主义立场工作的拒绝，拒绝的理由无疑是出于某种政治，而非专业层面的原因。这个时期的中国建筑，正经历着一场全新的变革，即把接受一种折衷风格（参见北京的城市规划和建国十大建筑）当做是一项政治任务：即创造一种有着十九世纪传统建筑风格的本土化表达方式。这无疑将本应与日本和美国平行的现代主义建筑中国本土化进程，引入了一个死胡同，并最终陷入了对“民族化道路”再评价的死循环。然而，现代主义建筑本土化进程却对此毫无办法，只能期待上世纪八十年代开始的政治经济体制改革开始之后，绕道而行，甚至重新开始。
日本方面：二十世纪五十年代，日本进入到一个经济飞速增长的时期，衍生出了被称为55体制(1955 System)的稳定国家福利政策 。当时的日本国内，出现了日本农业改革(reform of agricultural liberation)和二战后金融集团(zaibatsu)纷纷解体的社会事件。紧接着，伴随着朝鲜战争的开始，战争对日本经济保持繁荣状态的支撑作用也开始显现。尽管新的体制和社会结构还处于重组之中，但是有关文化和意识形态之间的论战，依旧沿着二十世纪三十年代时期现代/传统和现代主义/民族主义的主线继续发展。这场论战正反两方的博弈是以绳文文化(Jomon esque)=平民主义(populist)=民族性(ethnic)和弥生文化（Yayoi esque）=精英主义(elitist)=国际化(international)这样的观点为基础的。丹下从1930年起一直处于这场论战的核心位置，他延续了一直以来的的相对独立姿态。丹下健三和致力于研究西方先锋艺术的冈本太郎(Taro Okamoto) 一起，倾向于共存张力性局势的辩证主义(dialecticism)态度。事实上，最早创立并促成以上理论对立共存局面的正是丹下健三。他在广岛和平纪念大厦（1955）和东京奥林匹克体育场（1964）的设计中，对持有的主要观点都有所诠释，而这两个建筑作品的政治背景也允许他在建筑创作中，实践相关理论和态度。因此，我们不能低估日本政府方面的现代民族政策在这其中的作用：即使当时日本国力较弱，但来自于统一国家政权的强有力干预依然存在。这种建筑文化与民族性之间的紧密关系一直继续到1970年的大阪博览会。
总之，1930年前后，在欧洲前卫建筑思潮的指引下，现代主义运动的中心，从欧洲转移到了其他一些国家，比如上面提到的中、日三国。这些国家根据自身条件，开始对现代主义建筑进行有选择性地吸收和移植。这种所谓的现代主义“本土化”的过程大约持续了二十年时间。中国的梁思成、美国的菲利浦·约翰逊（他在美国以评论人和建筑师双重身份发挥作用）和日本的丹下健三作为同一代人推动了这一进程。他们的工作反映在现代主义建筑最终形式转变上。在他们之后，尽管有许多现代主义建筑师仍然试图继续推进这一过程，但是，整个现代主义建筑的面貌，已经开始逐渐偏离了简单的政治和社会现代化的线形演化过程。从1968年世界范围的文化革命运动开始，先锋建筑学派不得不接受失败的现实。人们可以看到民族主义和资本主义两者之间的关系，从和平相处，一步步走向对抗对立。在日本，1970年前后，两者之间曾出现过融合的迹象，但自从那之后，资本主义又有超越、取代民族主义的趋势。从全球范围来看，十九世纪的民族主义建筑被资本主义主导的“建筑”所取代。到了二十世纪，大城市成为了建筑发展主要舞台，对都市现象的关注也逐渐超过对单个建筑的关注。简言之，“城市”成为了最能体现二十世纪的人类社会形象的主要代表。尽管从现代主义运动伊始，人们就预见到了这种发展趋势的必然性，然而，这些问题已经完全超出了国家范畴，成为主导意识形态，其背后则是二十世纪社会问题的综合体现。新陈代谢运动就是在这样的背景下产生的。
丹下健三也早就意识到了现代主义运动所面临问题远超出了“城市”(city)和“建筑”(architecture)范畴的现实。那时，他在东京大学建筑工程系战后组建的城市规划方向担任助理教授。而他所讲授的内容，却并不是通过立法和城市规划手段使用必要的技术来控制城市，而是有关于城市形态的历史发展的相关内容，也就是今天被称为“都市主义”或“城市设计”(Urbanism/Urban Design)的课程。丹下研究了由柯布西耶领导的关注城市主题的国际现代建筑会议（CIAM）。CIAM的城市观点不同于官僚政府采取的城市规划的具体方法——确立法律条例，实行种种规定——而是一种社会改良的现代主义“规划”思想，因此，从广义上讲，（丹下的）现代主义是一次乌托邦运动。从大东亚共荣圈纪念馆设计（1942）开始，贯穿二战，在丹下的建筑创作中，“城市”一直是他探讨的主题。丹下的城市思想最终在他的广岛和平中心项目（1949-1955）中得以实现。这个作品在1952年以城市核心为主题的的国际现代建筑会议上广受赞誉。作为广岛原子弹爆炸废墟复兴的纪念建筑，它提供了一个具体的形式，代表着纯理论层面的现代主义“乌托邦”规划有了切实可行的方法。
综上所述，与十九世纪带有民族特征“建筑”优先的策略相比，二十世纪的人们更为关注“城市”这一主题。在战后重建过程中，“反复兴规划运动”成为主流，这也预示着二十世纪五十年代“城市”问题的兴起。显然，除了“柏林重建设计竞赛”(Berlin Reconstruction Plan competition)（1955）这类案例以外，其他各种遍布欧洲的复兴规划都表明城市复兴不可能只是简单地重制。比如，像华沙和法兰克福的市中心重建，也从最初的城市再生逐步妥协，最终成为了试图满足最基本居住问题的简单诉求。即使是在大部分的木质建筑被烧毁的日本城市，同样的过程也在上演。应用在废墟重建上的方法依然是当下被普遍认同，并形成惯例的城市规划手段，而非国际现代建筑会议（CIAM）现代主义原则的乌托邦规划建议。在二十世纪五十年代，只有极少数城市，如昌迪加尔和巴西利亚保留了些许乌托邦印记。现代主义的实践方法内部也存在各种矛盾，类似城市规划不可避免的沦为失败的案例。
尽管如此，二十世纪五十年代的日本还是稳步进入了经济持续增长时期，在保守党为了获取社会稳定而颁布了1955年体制之后，人口开始向大城市的集中导致了东京这类城市所必定要经历城市形态的变革——大都市消除了它原先的边界（例如城墙），开始向周边区域（主要是耕地）延伸。当原有市郊被完全都市化，并且城市没有余地再继续扩张之后，如果再试图通过采用土地所有权细分的策略来应付城市扩张，过度拥挤的状况就会凸显出来。此时，将城市区域延伸到东京湾的策略也应运而生。诸如此类的概念最初是由政府财政部门和负责城市政策的官员提出的。丹下健三起初对此持谨慎态度，他借着被邀请到麻省理工学院演讲的机会，调集工作室成员对波士顿港的海洋城市规划作了研究，从此开始了他在这个领域的探索。丹下健三首先在上世纪六十年代东京世界设计大会（Tokyo World Design Conference）上介绍了之前研究的模型（也就是在这次大会上，新陈代谢派将宣言印制为小册子并分发出去），之后又着手开始了1960年东京规划（Plan for Tokyo 1960）的工作。这个项目持续整整一年时间。1961年新年，丹下在日本NHK的特别节目中，正式提出了这个项目。特别值得一提的是，这个项目是通过电视媒体初次公开亮相的。
从字面上理解，乌托邦本身所指就是一个虚构的所在。如果我们先入为主的认为，乌托邦构想本就必定无法成功，那么1960年的东京规划就只不过是另一个停留在纸面上的城市规划空想罢了。
LIYANG DING 