From our other sites
The story
At a session of the Hiroshima Prefectural Assembly on the 25th, Governor Mika Yokota signaled a positive stance toward having Hiroshima put itself forward as a candidate for Japan’s proposed “secondary capital.” Citing the need to correct Japan’s over-concentration in Tokyo, she said “our prefecture is fully qualified to take on this role” — effectively throwing Hiroshima’s hat into a ring that already includes Osaka, Aichi, and Fukuoka, which have floated their own bids. On 5ch, the remark drew a mixed bag of reactions: some pointed to Hiroshima City’s geographic constraints and poor airport access, others argued that relocating the capital outright would be more meaningful than merely designating a “secondary” one, and still others scratched their heads comparing Hiroshima to other prefectures, asking “why Hiroshima?”
At the prefectural assembly session on the 25th, Governor Yokota indicated a positive stance toward bidding to become a candidate site for the “secondary capital” initiative — a plan for certain cities to take over some of the capital’s functions — stating that “Hiroshima Prefecture is fully qualified for this role.”
[Governor Mika Yokota]
“I have long argued that, for the balanced development of Japan as a whole, we need to correct the excessive concentration of everything in Tokyo, and I believe our prefecture is fully qualified to take on the functions of a secondary capital.”
Source: news.yahoo.co.jp / Original article here
What people said
Beijing ("Northern Capital")
Nanjing ("Southern Capital")
Tokyo ("Eastern Capital")
Though at this rate Japan can't even manage to annex Taiwan.
(even carving into the mountains would be risky, since the soil there is crumbly decomposed granite prone to landslides),
and the ground in the city center is weak too.
If it has to be Hiroshima, Higashi-Hiroshima or Fukuyama would be a better fit than Hiroshima City.
Hiroshima Airport was built deep in the mountains of Mihara thanks to the political muscle of Shizuka Kamei,
and the area around it is still practically empty to this day.
That's why I keep saying: pick a "new capital," not a "secondary capital"!!
There's no rule saying Tokyo has to be the capital, right? It's been the capital for over 150 years now, so it's about time to move it somewhere else.
And for fixing Tokyo's over-concentration, relocating the capital outright would be way more effective than some "secondary" capital.
Fair point.
Cheaper than pouring more investment into Tokyo.
Just moving the capital alone won't cut it, though.
Tokyo only got this concentrated because bureaucrats pressured companies into relocating their headquarters there, and the media brainwashed the public with nonstop "Tokyo is the best" messaging.
Huh? So we'd just calmly sit and watch North Korean missiles fly over? lol
It's too far from the other major cities — anywhere north of Tohoku is a no-go.
It's already been decided from the start — it's Keihanna (the science-city area spanning Kyoto, Osaka, and Nara).
A new maglev station is coming there too, and there are several international airports nearby.
Every other region floated is just a decoy.
Emperor Meiji himself moved there and a temporary imperial palace was even established in Hiroshima,
and during that period the Imperial Diet also convened there —
so Hiroshima has actually served as Japan's capital in a legal sense before.
Hiroshima City as the "secondary capital" is basically the sentimental pick
— like wanting to relive that rising-sun era when Hiroshima was the imperial capital during the Sino-Japanese War and everything in Japan was going well.
Building a brand-new, state-of-the-art city from scratch somewhere else would definitely be cheaper than endlessly redeveloping Tokyo bit by bit!
I'm a Tokyoite myself, but if we're going to do something as half-baked as a "secondary capital," I'd much rather just relocate the capital outright.
Packed trains,
restaurants with no seats —
if it means being freed from the crowds, sign me up.
Are you kidding me.
Route 2's congestion still hasn't been fixed,
the Route 5 tunnel still isn't open,
the Astram Line extension is stalled,
and outmigration is still outpacing inflow as always.
Don't get ahead of yourselves.
That's not very "Hiroshima" of you.
Never want to go back.
but you can't exactly do large-scale excavation of hillsides for development these days,
so Hiroshima City itself just doesn't have the flat land to take on anything extra.
Right, that's why there's plenty of land lying around Higashi-Hiroshima.
Hiroshima University is out there too, so why not just develop that area?
No need to force everything into Hiroshima City. It's only about 30 minutes by train — Saijo, for instance. Plus there's the sake.
Osaka = makes sense
Kyoto = makes sense
Aichi = I guess, sure
Fukuoka City = hmm
Nara = uh… yeah…
Hiroshima City = huh??
Kyoto would probably end up wrecking its own scenery, though.
Nara's the bigger "huh??" if you ask me.
Kyoto's own governor already said, "We don't need to be a secondary capital — we were originally the capital,"
so they haven't entered the race, and there's zero chance they will.
That's not really about emergency capital functions, so
it wouldn't be needed right away, would it?
At most, maybe some ministry relocation — there was some talk about Tokushima or something along those lines,
but that seems to have fizzled out.
I think it'd be for everyday use, not just emergencies.
It'd be used for something at all times, with the Diet occasionally convening in Hiroshima.
If you built it just for emergencies, it'd get criticized as a waste of maintenance costs and tax money instead.
Background and Key Points of This Debate
The “secondary capital” concept is about dispersing some of Tokyo’s functions to guard against risks like a major earthquake directly beneath the capital, and it’s distinct from relocating the capital itself. The national government hasn’t laid out any official selection criteria or process — at this stage, several municipalities including Osaka, Aichi, and Fukuoka have simply put themselves forward independently, and Governor Yokota’s remarks fit into that same pattern. Disagreement in the thread centered on two main points. The first was whether to treat “secondary capital” and “capital relocation” as separate ideas: some argued outright relocation would be more effective for correcting Tokyo’s over-concentration, while others countered that the Kanto Plain’s location itself gives the capital’s functions a practical rationale. The second was Hiroshima City’s actual suitability — commenters pointed out that the Atomic Bomb Dome, as a UNESCO World Heritage site, is subject to buffer-zone restrictions that effectively limit large-scale development downtown, a real constraint that led many to argue Higashi-Hiroshima would be more realistic than Hiroshima City itself. This regulatory point was only mentioned piecemeal in the thread, making it an easy detail to miss.
*This article was compiled from excerpts and a summary of the 5ch (News Speed+) thread “[Hiroshima] Governor Yokota Signals Willingness to Bid for ‘Secondary Capital’ Candidacy: ‘We Have Ample Qualifications’.”
Leave a Reply