Content uploaded by Christian Dimmer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian Dimmer on Oct 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
The 16th International Docomomo Conference - Inheritable Resilience - 12. OTHERS1412
1. main text
‘It’s a Sony—Goodbye Sony Building, Hello Sony Park’
was the name of a two-part exhibition held at the Ginza
Sony Building between November 12, 2016 and March 31, 2017.
It marked 50 years of Sony in Ginza and bade farewell to the
building. e first part of the exhibition (Nov. 12, 2016–Feb. 12,
2017) was a history of its products. e building configura-
tion was made central in structuring and exhibiting a
70-year-long evolution of iconic consumer electronics and
entertainment products. To walk along a succession of spac-
es, between the building’s top and boom, was to walk along
the prolonged and constant creativity of Sony. e second
part (Feb. 22–Mar. 31, 2017) exhibited a vision of how the
building site would be developed once the building was de-
molished. e Sony Building framed its own annihilation, it
seemed, introducing its own successor: Sony Park, and a suc-
cessor to the successor: New Sony Building. All floor surfac-
es were covered with green plastic turf, while most wall sur-
faces and spaces were dedicated to various expressions of
nostalgia and anticipation. Visitors were encouraged to ex-
press what they feel and think about the Sony Building in
the context of the approaching demolition and reconstruc-
tion. e event invited the public to bid farewell to the build-
ing and prescribed how they were to do it. And indeed, many
people showed up. e event relied on, and confirmed, the
status of the Ginza Sony Building.
Designed by architect Ashihara Yoshinobu (1918–2003),
the Sony Building had long been recognized as an architec-
tural icon and a prominent destination in the itineraries of
visitors to Tokyo’s Ginza district (Fig. 1). e building was
widely acknowledged as an essential part of Japan’s modern
history of architecture. More recently, it was listed by DoCo-
MoMo as one of Japan’s 100 most important modernist
buildings (See Watanabe 2005: 133). ¹
Despite such recognition of cultural value, the building
was demolished in spring 2017 and replaced by a temporary
semi-open and built-landscaped space called Ginza Sony
Park. e intention was for the park to be open from sum-
mer 2018 until shortly aer the Tokyo Olympics in 2020. At
that time, the park was meant to give way to a New Sony
Building, that would retain a park characteristic and com-
plete the three-step process of change. e recent postpone-
ment of the Tokyo Olympics is expected to result in a change
of schedule, but it is not expected to alter the intended pro-
cess as a whole.
is paper argues that Ashihara’s 1966 modern master-
piece emerged at the critical intersection of revolutionary
technologies in consumer electronics, novel architectural
ideas, a burgeoning consumer society, and an urban district
that has been transformed by an Olympic building boom. In
this dense and multilayered context, the building became
an assemblage through which a number of distinct modern-
ist traditions have evolved. e building became a place of
convergence. is aspect of the building, we argue, is clearer
in the present, ironically, only aer it has been demolished;
in its absence. e meanings of the building and its capacity
to function as a significant cultural marker have accumulat-
ed gradually since its opening in April 1966. But it is the se-
ries of recent events and the resulting dynamic that encour-
ages us to revisit the building to construct a wider, more
satisfying understanding of its value.
Christian Dimmer and Erez Golani Solomon
1 Waseda University; christian_dimmer@aoni.waseda.jp
2 Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem; erezgs@post.bezalel.ac.il
ASSEMBLING SONY’S PRESENCE IN GINZA
abstract.
This paper oers a critical re-evaluation of what is arguably the clearest representation of a Japanese consumer electronic and media
corporation in architectural form: the Ginza Sony Building. The paper argues that architect Yoshinobu Ashihara’s 1966 modern master-
piece can be seen as a multilayered assemblage through which a number of distinct modernist traditions have evolved. This aspect of the
building, we argue, is clearer in the present, ironically, aer it has been demolished; in its absence. The building’s status as a modernist
icon and, consequently, fame, developed gradually since it was opened. But a series of recent events and the resulting dynamic encour-
aged us to revisit the building to construct a wider, more satisfying understanding of its value. The renewed relevance of the Sony Build-
ing, we know in hindsight, was determined when Tokyo was announced as a host of the 2020 Olympics. That announcement in Septem-
ber 2013 was a catalyst for a chain of events that revealed four distinct ‘evolutions’ in which the iconic building plays a distinct role. We
discuss the change over time of: (1.) the emergence and presence of Sony in Ginza; (2.) the employment of modern architectural tradi-
tions and ideas; (3.) the linkage between Sony’s flagship products and the building; and (4.) the representations of Sony as an architec-
tural form and how it evolved from building to park and the expected building-park. The paper, then, oers a re-reading of the modernist
building as a non-discrete urban assemblage at the intersection of new technologies in consumer electronics, novel architectural ideas,
a Post-War nascent consumer society, and, an urban district that transformed because of the 1964 Olympic Games and is currently
re-transforming through the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The paper recognizes the Sony Building as a relevant object of study and repositions
it in the current context. It accounts for the main evolutionary traditions and shows how the building encourages their composition.
ASSEMBLING SONY’S PRESENCE IN GINZA - Christian Dimmer and Erez Golani Solomon 1413
Fig. 1. Ginza Sony Building and emptied Su-
kiyabashi Crossing, sectioned isometric
with view of the interior spaces, by Yoshino-
bu Ashihara. Image source: © Yoshinobu
Ashihara Archive, Musashino Art University.
Ginza Sony Building was not an ordinary building com-
mission. It was not marked by a clear-cut client-architect
relationship, in which the client prescribed a clear building
program as part of a ready-made marketing strategy. In-
stead, Sony founders Masaru Ibuka (1908–1997) and Akio
Morita (1921–1999), and their young management team, to-
gether with architect Yoshinobu Ashihara co-designed an
unprecedented showroom building whose meaning and
concept were open from the start. Along with that iterative
and prolonged architectural design process co-emerged an
elaborate corporate marketing strategy and a physical as-
semblage through which Sony, as we know it today, became
known.
Our analysis examines Sony Building along four fields
of engagement and interpretation: (1.) the emergence and
presence of Sony in Ginza; (2.) the employment of interna-
tional modernist architectural traditions and ideas for the
Sony Building commission; (3.) the linkage between Sony’s
The 16th International Docomomo Conference - Inheritable Resilience - 12. OTHERS1414
flagship products and the building; and (4.) the representa-
tions of Sony as an architectural form and how it evolved
from Sony Building to Ginza Sony Park and the expected
New Sony Building.
2. the emergence and presence of sony in
ginza.
When it was opened to a curious Japanese public on
April 29, 1966, (Emperor Hirohito’s birthday, and not May 7,
Sony’s 20th anniversary),² the Ginza Sony Building marked a
daring aempt by the young, expanding consumer electric
enterprise to market itself in a radically new way. Aer its
establishment in 1946, the company’s head oce was first
located in Nihonbashi (in a space leased from Shirakiya de-
partment store) but soon moved to Gotanda, to a physically
and symbolically remote seing in the south-western sub-
urbs. e move from Gotanda to Ginza was a conscious one.
It wasn’t only a maer of location: village vs. center (e
Sony headquarters was called “Sony-mura”—Japanese for
Sony village—which was a derogatory term), nor was it a
maer of brand positioning: Gotanda’s commonness vs. Gin-
za’s exclusivity, but more an issue of a new becoming.
For Sony founders Ibuka and Morita, Ginza was essen-
tially the location from where Sony products should emerge
into the public gaze. e showroom assembly was an un-
known concept in post-war Japan. Neither a place for selling
products nor a destination where the company’s headquar-
ters would be relocated, but a location where a brand image
was to be built and knowledge about Sony to be disseminat-
ed, in and outside Japan. Ginza was at that time a prestig-
ious business district and a manifestation of Japanese mo-
dernity. However, Ginza had sti competition from other
emerging urban centers. It was threatened as Tokyo’s center
of gravity gradually shied westwards towards Shibuya and
Shinjuku. In that context the success of Sony helped re-
vamp the image of Ginza in Tokyo while Ginza, in turn, con-
tributed to the construction of Sony as an image: “If you
hear Ginza you have to think of Sony”).³
Sony’s entry into Ginza took place gradually from De-
Fig. 2. View of Ginza with two modern landmarks: the Sony Building at Sukiyabashi crossing and the tubular San’ai Dream Center (Nikken Sekkei, 1964) at Ginza
4-Chome crossing (upper-le). Image source: © Yoshinobu Ashihara Archive, Musashino Art University.
ASSEMBLING SONY’S PRESENCE IN GINZA - Christian Dimmer and Erez Golani Solomon 1415
cember 1957, when an opportunity arose to put up a large
neon billboard at the southern corner of Sukiyabashi cross-
ing (Fig. 2). Although the site was 200 meters far from Ginza’s
very center—the famous 4-Chome crossing, it was near Su-
kiyabashi Bridge, which had become known at that time
because of an acclaimed radio drama and subsequent block-
buster film.
In June 1959, Sony opened its first showroom on the
ground floor of the building on top of which the billboard
was mounted. e concept was novel. Products were not for
sale but visitors could freely interact with them. To Morita,
showrooms were places “where potential customers could
handle and (freely) try out our products with no salesman
around.”⁴ He stressed that the advertisement value of the
showrooms “was enormous”.⁵ “Because we were new, we had
to introduce our company to the Japanese (people)”.⁶ Roost
pointed out that Sony’s showrooms resemble museums,
where the dierent products are presented generously like
works of art, and how dierent they appear from the
cramped shelves of ordinary Japanese retail spaces.⁷
e tremendous success of this experiment encouraged
Sony to open a second showroom on 5th Avenue in New
York. It opened in October 1962 and strengthened Sony’s in-
ternational brand image.⁸ Soon aer, Sony began consider-
ing a more substantial presence in Ginza. e acquisition of
land for the project was complex and time-consuming.
Property rights were obscured as a result of the war and it
was dicult to determine the status and ownership of land.
is complicated the design process of a prospective build-
ing, as it wasn’t clear how much land Sony would be able to
assemble in the end.⁹ erefore, the architect had to develop
“dozens of blueprints, each taking into account the dierent
amounts of land that they might finally manage to ac-
quire”.¹⁰
3. the employment of modern architectural
traditions and ideas.
Yoshinobu Ashihara’s intellectual development is
aligned with the emergence of the modernist architectural
tradition as a whole. Ashihara’s modern origins can be traced
back to his undergraduate education in architecture at To-
kyo Imperial University (later renamed Tokyo University)
and his employment in the oce of Junzo Sakakura, a disci-
ple of Le Corbusier, in Tokyo (1946–7). His professional ori-
gins should be credited to the years he spent in the United
States, during which he completed a master’s degree in ar-
chitecture at Harvard University’s Graduate School of De-
Fig. 3. Split floor conguration at Sony Building, Isometric by Yoshinobu Ashihara. Image source: © Yoshinobu Ashihara Archive, Musashino Art University.
The 16th International Docomomo Conference - Inheritable Resilience - 12. OTHERS1416
sign (1952–3), under the tutoring of Walter Gropius, and
worked in the architectural practice of Marcel Breuer (1953–
6). us, Ashihara’s thinking about architecture was formed
in the lecture rooms of two pivotal educational institutions
dedicated to formulating pioneering ideas about modern ar-
chitecture, and in proximity to three modern masters, in the
US and Japan.
One of Ashihara’s most recognizable architectural fea-
tures—perhaps his most—is the split-floor configuration,
commonly known as the “petal form” (Fig. 3),
and Sony Building is the clearest built manifestation of that
feature. A split floor is a kind of three-dimensional rep-
resentation of the fluidity of space in modern architecture.
e spatial composition of such fluidity at Sony Building
means that each of the building’s “regular” floors was subdi-
vided into four sub-floors, which were staggered in height,
each with an elevation of 90 cm, around a central pillar, like
spiraling flower petals. Ashihara described it as a “structure
of flowing space”.¹¹ e split floor is associated primarily
with ideas about a flowing spatial experience. For visitors, to
“use” the building as a showroom would mean to ride an ele-
vator to the top and to walk down the fields along the split
floors, which were surrounded by exhibits, in a counter-
clockwise direction.
Ashihara’s interest in the split-floor configuration can
be traced back to two main origins: the Breuer House by
Gropius and Breuer in Lincoln, Massachuses (1939), and
Frank Lloyd Wright’s Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in
New York (1959). e laer was indeed suggested by Morita
as an important reference for the design of the Sony Build-
ing.
e Sony Building also marks a critical evolution of an
architectural diagram. e split floor is, aer all, a diagram
that repeats in dierent forms. e diagram evolved from
the two above-noted origins (WG/MB, FLW) to the work of
Ashihara, who developed the idea a decade later in his Niiga-
ta American Cultural Center (1956, unrealized) and the
Yamazaki House (1956),¹² before giving it a clear expression in
the design of the Ginza Sony Building. In recent years, archi-
tects such as Sou Fujimoto have developed the split-floor
diagram further.
4. the linkage between sony’s flagship
products and the building.
e building was conceived as a dynamic frame that
would showcase Sony’s products—a device from which the
company could broadcast a fresh brand image and a stream
of ever new products. An important feature was the original
front facade that actively linked the Sony Building with an
important Sony product. Facing Harumi Avenue, the north-
ern facade of the building was covered with televisions: 2,268
cathode ray tube TV screens. e laying and stacking of
screens in a proportion of 18 horizontal and 126 vertical units
formed a thin and tall media facade. is is significant be-
cause it marked an important step in the continuous dia-
logue between buildings and the latest media technologies
of the day. It is significant, also, in how architecture acts as
an intermediary in the dissemination of Sony products and
their migration to the outside world. e symbolic “release”
of the product begins when it is literally passing from inside
the building to its outside. is link blurred the distinction
between the exhibits inside and the building’s enveloping
frame. e building itself became a product. Indeed, one of
the requirements of Ashihara was to design a building that
resembles the fresh industrial aesthetic of Sony products.
In later years the facade further evolved, so that this ef-
fect was altered. It changed from a neon advertising sign at
the site (preceding the Sony Building), to a television wall, an
art wall, an LED wall, and a geometrical arrangement of tiles
on a flat surface, before the building was finally torn down
in 2017.
Another such significant linkage was formed through
the choreographed practice of product releases. Sony’s ep-
och makers were ritually announced at the building’s first
floor, by the founders. e Betamax (a consumer-level
analog recording device for video), for example, was an-
nounced in April 1975, the Walkman in July 1979, the CD play-
er in October 1982, the compact 8mm video in January 1985,
and the PlayStation in December 1994. e practice of Mori-
ta and Ibuka foretold Steve Jobs’s famed “one more thing”
keynote addresses, in which he announced updates to Apple
products or previewed the latest gadgets.
5. the representations of sony as an
architectural form and how it evolved
from ‘sony building’ to ‘sony park’ and to
the expected ‘new sony building’
e Sony Building was strongly influenced by Japan’s
two Summer Olympics. Like so many other builders at the
time, Morita was determined to open the Sony Building in
time for the 1964 Tokyo Games, but the project was delayed
due to the pre-Olympic construction boom and was only
completed in April 1966.
en, in 2013, when Tokyo was announced as host for the
2020 Olympics, the prospective event became a catalyst for
redevelopment. It is ironic that the same force that had
built the building in 1966 demolished it in 2017. As a sign of
the dawning post-growth age in Japan, Sony’s management
stressed that it didn’t want to add another building for the
approaching Games but hoped to garner more brand aen-
tion by providing an open space in one of the world’s prime
real estate spots.¹³ A Sony spokesperson remarked that the
park was not specifically aimed at aracting crowds during
the Olympics, but it is clear that the mega-event played an
important role in accelerating the redevelopment project:
“We are not an Olympic sponsor, but there are a lot more
foreigners coming to the Ginza area now, so we felt they
would appreciate the event space”.¹⁴
ASSEMBLING SONY’S PRESENCE IN GINZA - Christian Dimmer and Erez Golani Solomon 1417
Four levels below the park—the so-called lower park—
retain the original structures and some textures, of the Sony
Building. It serves to pre-empt criticism against the demoli-
tion of the building. It was kept mainly as a link to the un-
derground passage and railway system. e past remains
vaguely visible through the subterranean structure and
some large-format historical photographs that are on dis-
play there.
Morita and Ashihara wrote that they want to oer visi-
tors and pedestrians a public space where they could rest.¹⁵
e small triangular space at the corner of Sony Building
was designated for that purpose but was, in reality, used
mainly for corporate promotion events and served to draw
passersby from the busy sidewalks into the showroom. e
original intent currently finds fuller expression at Sony
Park, where a large number of public seating furniture is
available and large tropical plants provide a green atmos-
phere.
Sony counts on the temporary absence of a building as a
means to redevelop its relationship with the urban sur-
rounding. Absence promotes an image of a responsible com-
pany that gives more than it takes and blends in instead of
standing out. Promotion material, for instance, stresses how
the absence of the Sony Building opens up views on the ad-
jacent Hermes Building by Renzo Piano (2001), which were
mostly hidden before the demolition. Also, Sony encourages
visitors to walk in the neighborhood and explore art, archi-
tecture, food and other urban assets by using the Ginza
Sony Park as an anchor point. e park tries not to appear as
an introverted element but as an integrated component in a
wider network of public spaces in Ginza. Once again, Sony
and Ginza are being presented as an integrated whole.
e decision-makers at Sony seem to sense that in con-
temporary Japan, the value of the brand will be beer
served through a park than it would be by means of yet an-
other building among the pre-Olympic building boom.
Plants seem to be cherished more than music players. e
temporary open space is not without precedent. In summer
2009, a temporary rice field that occupied a small prospec-
tive building plot in Ginza prompted much publicity. us,
this aspect in the evolutionary process of the Sony Building
seems to be motivated by the novel values of an unfolding
post-growth period, and the possibilities behind planning
initiatives that include selective thinning, negative growth
and reduction. Sony Park is not a public park as the name
suggests. It is more like a private garden that is opened to
the public on the terms of the owner. It is curated with
events and filled with brand interests and commerce, and
therefore cannot be described as a public space. But, even if
Sony Park does not fulfill all the promises of a park and an
open space, one can see the eorts of Sony to connect the
present to the past and at the same time oer a space that is
similarly new in Ginza as the original Sony Building was in
1966. At the same time, one cannot help but wonder if it
wouldn’t have been braver of Sony to preserve the modern-
ist landmark and adapt it to today’s needs.
REFERENCES
Brutus, “Ginza Sony Park Guide”, Brutus 8/1, 2018, 58–76.
MATSUBA, Kazukiyo, “The A rchitect Ashihara Yoshinobu — The Moderni st
who br oke up the Floor (Kenchikuka Ashihara Yoshinobu — Furoa wo watta
Modanisuto)”, The Yoshinobu Ashihara Architectural Archives- Dreaming
Modernism (Ashihara Yoshinobu kenchiku ākaibu-ten modanizumu ni kaketa
yume), Exhibition Catalog, Tokyo, Musashino Art University, 2017, 5–13.
MIYAMOTO, Yoshikazu, The Story of Ginza Sony Building (Soni ha Ginza de
Soni ni natta — Morita ha idonda Nihon Kigyo hajime no Burando Senryaku),
Tokyo, President, 2018.
MORITA, Akio with REINGOLD, Edwin M. & SHIMOMURA, Mitsuko, Made in
Japan — Akio Morita and Sony, New York, Dutton.
ROOST, Frank, Branding Center — Über den Einfluss globaler Markenkonzerne
auf die Innenstädte (Branding Center — About the Influence of Global Brand
on Inner Cities), Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaen, 2008.
SMART, Richard, Tokyo’s 50-year itch: why is Sony knocking down its flagship
building?, The Guardian, Cities, 28th June, 2016.
Sony, Sony Histor, Sony, 1996, accessed on Feb. 1 2020, www.sony.net/Sony-
Info/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/
WATANABE, Kenji, “Sony Building”, DOCOMOMO Japan: the 100 Selections,
The Japan Architect JA 57, Tokyo, Shinkenchiku-Sha, Spring 2005, 131.
NOTES
1 Kenji Watanabe, “Sony Building”, DOCOMOMO Japan: the 100 Selections, The
Japan Architect JA 57, Tokyo, Shinkenchiku-Sha, Spring 2005, 133.
2 The opening day was less a reverence to the emperor with nationalistic undertones
but showed the marketing genius of Akio Morita. It being the rst of three national
holidays in the so-called Golden Week, would simply facilitate a greater flow of
visitors and more public recognition.
3 Yo shi kaz u Miy amo to, The Story of Ginza Sony Building (Soni ha Ginza de Soni ni
natta — Morita ha idonda Nihon Kigyo hajime no Burando Senryaku), Tokyo, Presi-
dent, 2018, 13.
4 Akio Morita with Edwin M. Reingold & Mitsuko Shimomura, Made in Japan — Akio
Morita and Sony, New York, Dutton, 1986, 97.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Frank Roost, Branding Center — Über den Einfluss globaler Markenkonzerne auf
die Innenstädte (Branding Center — About the Influence of Global Brand on Inner
Cities), Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaen, 2008, 82.
8 Morita, 1986, 97.
9 Miyamoto, 2018, 15.
10 Sony, Sony Histor, Sony, 1996, accessed on Feb. 1 2020, www.sony.net/SonyInfo/
CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/.
11 Kazukiyo Matsuba, “The Architect Ashihara Yoshinobu — The Modernist who broke
up the Floor (Ken chikuka Ashihara Yoshinobu — Furoa wo watta Modanisu to)”,
The Yoshinobu Ashihara Arch itectural Archives- Dreaming Mod ernism (Ashihara
Yoshinobu kenchiku ākaibu-ten modanizumu ni kaketa yume), Exhibition Catalog,
Tokyo, Musashino Art University, 2017, 7.
12 Ibid., 8.
13 Brutus, “Ginza Sony Park Guide”, Brutus 8/1, 2018, 75.
14 Richard Smart, Tokyo’s 50-year itch: why is Sony knocking down its flagship build-
ing?, The Guardian, Cities, 28th June, 2016.
15 Miyamoto, 2018, 48.