The WAN poll of over 10,000 architects in 100 countries has provided a resounding vote of support for the architect, Kisho Kurokawa.
The results were as follow:
Replace the capsules 75%
Leave as existing 20%
Many thanks to those who contributed to the poll.
Extracts from your comments are given below:
Arguments for leaving the building as it is
The building is very unique and has a lot of quality. Leave the building as it is because it is part of it' s own history. No place can build up history if buildings like this get demolished.
Replacement may have been the designers initial intent, the world values the ideas and contribution of the tower as it stands. It should continue to provide the world the experience and learning from the Architect's ideas.
It is something of its time, and unless the capsules are no longer of real use, it should stay as it is.
This is the beautiful building, which has significant architectural value. It might need to be clean but definitely, should not be demolished.
Leave as is, maybe there is someone else out there with a replacement of the modules solution.
It is an internationally significant work of architecture and should be heritage listed & protected.
Arguments for replacing the modules
This building is such a classic example of Japanese metabolism that it must be kept. Surely the replacement of capsules, as originally intended, would be an opportunity to learn afresh what is possible with modularisation. I hope someone takes up the challenge.
As a student I travelled from Manchester, England to Tokyo to visit the tower, in 1981. It was brilliant and ahead of it's time. An updated version would be of immense interest and value.
It was an inspirational, very unique idea- lets follow through with modern insight to make the concept even stronger.
After 33 years, it only makes sense to update the modules.
Only if the original conceptor can do it... if not... demolish. the option "leave as is" would need a better knowledge.
This historical experiment that is a seed for many sustainable projects is not completed if the worn-out capsules are not replaced.
It becomes a contemporary design issue to retrofit this extraordinary experiment in mass housing, with an innovative and contemporary solution. The challenge has been put there for the current generation to respond.....and for the next in its turn.
Honour the architects original intentions.
Try to keep the look, but recognize that people have to WANT to live there. Its a machine for living-not a sculpture.....
The architect had intended and even provided for future expansion plans, Give Him a chance to finish what he started.
It is critically important that experimental architecture is restored and respected in order that the future is left a legacy.
Renovate the current capsules, it has been 33 years....
I strongly support the original idea of replacing the modules with updated ones that again represent the 'zeitgeist' of the time at the start of the 21st century. If thoroughly catalogued it could be a vital example of how a building can change over time in a coordinated way.
This a landmark building of modern architecture. Demolishing the tower would be a great lost for architecture and for everybody who loves it.
This beautiful tower should change in an evolutionary manner as was originally intended, rather than being preserved it seems crazy that they haven't replaced or refurbished the capsules already as was intended, then just want to bulldoze the whole thing. seems there are probably other political issues at stake here...
I say replace just the problematic capsules. If the new capsules look slightly different so be it - it can only enrich the architecture and provoke discourse on original design versus 'upgrade 1', and reinforce the original idea of its component design. I'd find it quite thrilling to live in such a place where you're awaiting the unveiling of the latest upgrade. It keeps the community interest and sustains the perpetual nature of architecture. I must design one myself!
Keep architecture moving and real.
Give someone else a chance to be part of it or create a competition to see what people come up with, design/architectural wise.
Arguments for demolition
Sculptural concepts must function otherwise it's a waste of valuable land. If the building doesn't work get rid of it!
you can't save everything, when people complain about the building, that tells me that this building is not working properly. If a demolition is a viable option, then clear the site for a better design.
Time's up for the pods!