How to Repurpose an Abandoned School — A Complete Step-by-Step Guide from Site Selection to Proposal [2026 Edition]
For businesses and municipalities exploring abandoned school reuse: with 8,850 closed schools and 1,951 unused facilities as the backdrop, this guide covers all 7 steps from site survey through policy formulation, property disposition, use-change permits, sounding, proposals, and opening — including 5-ministry subsidies and common failure patterns.
TL;DR
- Japan recorded 8,850 closed schools between FY2004 and FY2023. Of existing facilities, 1,951 (25.6%) remain unused, with approximately 450 new closures per year.
- The reuse process follows 7 steps: site survey → policy formulation → property disposition → use-change permit → sounding → proposal → operator selection and opening.
- Combining subsidy programs from 5 ministries and resolving the 3 major barriers — Building Standards Act use-change, asbestos, and seismic compliance — before committing determines success or failure.
The Current State — What 8,850 Schools and Structural Inertia Mean
8,850 cumulative closures, 1,951 unused — the full picture and 3 structural reasons why they stay unused
8,850
Cumulative closed schools
FY2004–FY2023
450
New closures per year
schools/year
1,951
Unused facilities
25.6% of existing
Japan's accelerating school consolidation trend has driven a relentless increase in the number of closed school buildings. According to MEXT data, the cumulative total of closed schools from FY2004 through FY2023 reached 8,850 schools. New closures occur at a rate of approximately 450 schools per year, and as long as the declining birthrate continues, this pace shows no sign of slowing.
Of the 7,612 school buildings that still exist, 5,661 (74.4%) are in active use, while 1,951 (25.6%) remain unused.
Current Breakdown of Active Uses
Among the 5,661 actively used facilities, the breakdown by purpose is as follows.
| Purpose | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Schools (post-consolidation continued use, etc.) | 4,191 | 40.5% |
| Community sports facilities | 1,693 | 16.4% |
| Corporate facilities / business incubation | 1,207 | 11.7% |
| Social education / cultural facilities | 1,206 | 11.7% |
| Welfare and medical facilities | 735 | 7.1% |
| Other | Remainder | 12.6% |
Corporate and business incubation uses have grown the fastest (+18.3% over the previous survey), driven by satellite offices and coworking spaces. Welfare and medical facility conversions remain at just 7.1% (735 facilities), leaving considerable room for expansion. Disability welfare facilities specifically number only 177, up just 1 from the previous survey — an essentially untouched domain.
3 Structural Reasons Facilities Stay Unused
Behind the 1,951 unused facilities lie structural factors that cannot be explained by simple lack of demand.
Factor 1: Absent consensus processes. Approximately 50% of municipalities holding unused facilities have not conducted any resident needs survey. "No demand from the community" (41.5%) tops the list of reasons for non-use, but if no one has asked the community what it wants, the absence of demand is a foregone conclusion. The very process of community engagement — the gateway to consensus — remains undesigned.
Factor 2: The maintenance-versus-demolition dilemma. Maintaining a closed school costs several million yen per year, while demolition requires tens of millions to over 100 million yen. The resulting "can't use it, can't tear it down" deadlock perpetuates a state of indefinite limbo.
Factor 3: Building deterioration. "Building deterioration" (41.4%) ranks second among reasons for non-use. Schools built before 1981 under the old seismic code require structural retrofitting as a precondition, and in some cases, retrofit costs exceed the cost of new construction. This technical barrier suppresses private-sector entry.
These factors are mutually reinforcing. Without community engagement, no private proposals arrive; without proposals, municipalities cannot act; and while nothing moves, buildings continue to deteriorate — a negative cycle that feeds on itself. Viewed from the other side, however, this creates substantial room for outside proposals and facilitation.
5 Reuse Categories — Revenue Structures and Prerequisites
Welfare, education, tourism, community, and mixed-use models with distinct economics and entry conditions
Abandoned school reuse falls into five broad categories. The critical insight is that each has a fundamentally different revenue structure and set of entry prerequisites. Assessing alignment with your own business model is the first step in setting direction.
1. Welfare and Medical
Conversion to elder care facilities, disability employment support centers, nurseries, after-school day services for children with disabilities, and small multi-function care homes. The defining advantage is stable institutional revenue (care reimbursements, disability welfare service fees, childcare subsidies) that does not depend on attracting customers.
School buildings — with their classrooms, gymnasiums, kitchens, and grounds — are structurally well-suited for welfare use. Renovation costs can be held to roughly one-third to one-half of new construction (approximately ¥70,000–100,000/m² vs. ¥200,000–250,000/m²), based on documented case studies. However, renovations to meet Building Standards Act requirements for special-use buildings — sprinklers, accessibility, fire compartments — are unavoidable, and their cost determines project viability.
The rural locations where most closed schools sit work against customer-dependent business models but are not fatal for welfare facilities, where users are transported via shuttle services. This ability to absorb locational disadvantage through institutional revenue is the fundamental reason welfare conversions align structurally with abandoned school reuse.
2. Education and Child-Rearing
Conversion to free schools, after-school childcare clubs (gakudō), correspondence high school satellite campuses, and child-rearing support hubs. The spatial and cultural resonance of "a former school" makes this the category with the highest community acceptance. MEXT explicitly recommends converting closed schools into after-school childcare, and the municipal contract framework makes market entry relatively accessible.
The revenue structure centers on municipal commissions — stable but low-margin. Increasingly, operators add proprietary educational programs with premium pricing to secure business viability.
3. Tourism and Industry
Conversion to farm stays/glamping sites, craft breweries (whisky, wine, craft beer), coworking/satellite offices, local specialty processing facilities, and farm markets. These are often designed as experience-based tourism products combining local culture and natural resources.
Since revenue depends on visitor numbers, location conditions and market research matter far more here than in other categories. Most closed schools in depopulated areas have poor transport access, and success hinges on designing a compelling "reason to visit." Corporate and business incubation uses grew +18.3% over the previous survey, riding the tailwind of remote work adoption to drive satellite office conversions.
4. Community
Use as community centers, local gathering spaces, disaster preparedness hubs, or library facilities. Standalone profitability is difficult to achieve, but viability emerges when combined with Designated Manager System fees and government subsidies. For local residents, the school is often the most familiar public building, and these conversions inherit its role as a community symbol.
Revenue stability depends on the designation period. The typical 3–5 year period makes long-term investment recovery difficult, so pre-negotiation of contract terms is essential when renovation investment is involved.
5. Mixed-Use
A model that consolidates multiple functions — welfare, education, community — into a single former school facility. Classrooms become disability employment support workshops; the gymnasium becomes a community sports center; the kitchen becomes a community dining hall — leveraging the inherent spatial diversity of school buildings.
Combining institutional revenue (welfare), designated management fees (community), and usage fees (tourism/industry) creates a more stable revenue base than any single category. A leading example is the Hashikita Community Center in Yokkaichi City, Mie Prefecture (former Higashi-Hashikita Elementary School), which consolidated a certified nursery center, child welfare facility, and child-rearing support center in a single closed school, investing approximately ¥1 billion in renovations.
The trade-off is higher coordination costs, as multiple administrative departments and regulatory frameworks are involved. Without institutional support for mixed-use projects on the municipal side, realization is difficult.
The 7-Step Roadmap
A bird's-eye view of the journey from site survey to opening
Abandoned school reuse follows 7 steps. While the order may vary, having a bird's-eye view of the full process prevents losing sight of "where am I now?" and "what comes next?"
| Step | Name | Primary actor | Estimated duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| ① | Site survey | Operator / municipality | 1–3 months |
| ② | Reuse policy formulation | Municipality (with residents) | 3–12 months |
| ③ | Property disposition procedures | Municipality → MEXT | 1–3 months |
| ④ | Use-change permit / building survey | Operator (architect) | 2–6 months |
| ⑤ | Sounding | Municipality → private sector | 1–3 months |
| ⑥ | Proposal | Municipality → operators | 2–6 months |
| ⑦ | Operator selection / opening | Municipality + operator | 6–18 months |
From the operator's perspective, Steps ① and ④ can be self-directed, but Steps ②–③ depend on the municipality's process. Grasping the municipality's timeline early is what determines the overall project schedule.
Step 1 — Site Survey (Minna-no-Haiko Project)
Using MEXT's platform and matching events to gather facility information
The first point of entry for finding available closed school facilities is the Minna-no-Haiko Project (official name: "Everyone's Closed School Project — Connecting to the Future"), operated by MEXT. Launched in September 2010, this platform publishes monthly-updated listings of closed school facilities for which municipalities are soliciting proposals, with 418 facilities nationally registered and publicly listed as of October 1, 2025.
How to Search — and What to Watch For
The listings are published as regional PDFs (12 files). There is currently no online search function; files must be downloaded and reviewed manually. Each facility entry includes:
- Facility name, location, school type, and year of closure
- Land area and floor area
- Conditions and preferred use types the municipality is seeking
- Contact information (direct line to the responsible municipal department)
MEXT only provides the platform; it does not act as a matchmaker between municipalities and businesses. All inquiries go directly to each municipality's responsible department, and negotiations proceed between the municipality and the business directly.
Using Matching Events
MEXT hosts an annual matching event in which municipalities set up booths and engage directly with businesses in a trade-show format. Businesses with an interest in closed school reuse can attend. To apply, contact MEXT's Facility Grants Division at minpro@mext.go.jp.
The value of these events lies in reading signals that PDFs alone cannot convey — for instance, whether a municipality is actively seeking private operators, or whether it has a strong preference for a specific use type.
Geographic Distribution
School closures are heavily concentrated geographically. Hokkaido leads by a wide margin with 859 cumulative closures, followed by Iwate Prefecture (331) and Fukushima Prefecture (330). Depopulated areas dominate, and most facilities have limited transport access. This locational profile is a handicap for visitor-dependent business models but not a decisive barrier for welfare facilities that operate on institutional revenue with shuttle-based access.
Step 2 — Formulating a Reuse Policy
Use selection and designing the community consensus process — the single biggest cause of failure
Once candidate facilities have been identified, the next requirement is formulating a "what do we use this for?" policy. The single most important element at this stage is designing the community consensus process.
Why Community Consensus Is Critical
Successful cases documented in MEXT's case study collection share a common pattern around community engagement:
- Nishiwaga Town, Iwate Prefecture (small multi-function care home): Representatives from 4 former school districts held over 10 deliberation sessions, and residents established an NPO before the school even closed
- Nagaoka City, Niigata Prefecture (disability employment support): A local university was commissioned as coordinator, facilitating 4 working groups (12 sessions each) plus a resident survey
- Yokkaichi City, Mie Prefecture (mixed-use child-rearing support): A resident deliberative body was formed, with municipal staff participating only as observers
All of these involved year-long consensus processes. Conversely, proceeding without community consensus is the single most common cause of project failure, as discussed below.
Initial Consultation with the Municipality
At the policy formulation stage, the following points should be confirmed with the municipal contact:
- The municipality's priority order for intended uses (welfare, education, industry, etc.)
- The community consensus process and timeline
- Alignment with existing regional plans (depopulation plans, comprehensive strategies, etc.)
- Relationship with other idle facilities (potential for bundled multi-facility reuse)
Step 3 — Property Disposition Procedures
Relationship with national subsidies and post-2010 simplification. No treasury repayment for facilities over 10 years old
When using closed school facilities for purposes other than education, the property disposition procedures related to national subsidies cannot be bypassed.
Why Procedures Are Required
The majority of public school facilities were built with national subsidies. These subsidies come with restricted-use periods, and any non-educational use within that period triggers property disposition procedures. If a municipality grants access without following the correct procedures, it may face demands to repay the subsidies.
The 2010 Relaxation and the 10-Year Rule
These procedures were once among the greatest barriers to school reuse. However, MEXT progressively relaxed them, with a major simplification around the time the Minna-no-Haiko Project launched in 2010.
The current framework has three key features:
- Facilities where the subsidized work was completed 10 or more years ago: No repayment to the national treasury is required, regardless of the recipient
- Conversion to public-benefit purposes: Completed by filing a report only — formal approval is not required
- In practice, national treasury repayment is rarely triggered
Even for facilities closed since FY2004, if the building is more than 10 years old since construction (and most closed schools are 30+ years old), free transfer or loan to the private sector is possible without any treasury repayment. Without this relaxation, the current breadth of school reuse would not exist.
Details are set out in the Property Disposition Procedures Handbook published by MEXT. Before proceeding, confirm the target facility's construction year and national subsidy history directly with the municipal contact.
Step 4 — Use-Change Permit and Building Survey
The 3 major barriers — Building Standards Act 200m² threshold, asbestos, and seismic assessment
Once property disposition procedures are on track, attention turns to the building itself. This is the phase that most significantly affects project cost and timeline, and overlooked issues here result in substantial losses.
Building Standards Act: Use-Change Permit
When a school (educational facility) is converted to a special-use building such as a welfare facility or lodging facility, a building permit application is required if the total floor area exceeds 200m². Since most school buildings span several hundred to several thousand square meters, nearly all conversions require a permit.
The permit application typically triggers requirements for the following renovations:
- Fire suppression systems: Installation of sprinklers and automatic fire alarm systems
- Accessibility: Wheelchair-accessible restrooms, corridor width, and step elimination
- Fire and structural protection: Non-combustible interior finishes and fire compartment redesign
These renovation costs are often the deciding factor in project viability. Case studies in MEXT's collection range from approximately ¥41.5 million (Iwate Prefecture, Nishiwaga Town — small multi-function care home) to approximately ¥235 million (Niigata Prefecture, Nagaoka City — disability employment support facility Wajima Tout-le-Monde).
Asbestos Survey
Buildings constructed before 1975 may contain asbestos in ceiling tiles, flooring, and insulation materials. Dispersal during renovation or demolition poses serious health risks. Since April 2022, pre-work surveys by certified asbestos investigators have been legally mandatory for major renovation or demolition. Survey costs and — if asbestos is found — removal costs (ranging from several million to tens of millions of yen) must be included in financial projections from the outset.
Seismic Assessment
Buildings constructed before 1981 (under the old seismic standards) require seismic diagnosis. Some municipalities will only offer facilities for lease if seismic retrofits have already been completed; in other cases, the business bears the cost of both the diagnosis and retrofitting.
In a Hokkaido case study (former Nozomi Elementary School in Yūbari City, converted to a nursing home), renovation costs came to approximately ¥158.53 million (¥73,900/m²) — roughly one-third of new construction. However, if deterioration is severe, renovation costs can exceed new construction. A careful cost comparison with demolition and new build, conducted with a licensed architect, is essential.
Pre-Consultation Recommended
The use-change permit process is complex, and pre-consultation with the competent administrative authority (prefecture or designated city) is strongly recommended. Working with an architect to identify "what renovations are needed and where" in advance prevents unexpected cost overruns.
Step 5 — Sounding
Pre-testing private-sector interest through market dialogue
A sounding-type market survey is a method by which municipalities engage in dialogue with private businesses before a formal call for proposals, in order to gauge feasibility and private-sector interest. Inserting this step before the formal proposal stage prevents the outcome of "zero applicants."
Why Sounding Matters
Sounding is equally valuable for operators. Because dialogue occurs before proposal requirements are finalized, it creates an opportunity to shape municipal policy around your own business concept. It is not uncommon for formal requirements to be "informed by sounding results," giving early participants a structural advantage.
Preparing for Sounding as an Operator
When participating in a sounding exercise, the following information should be prepared:
- Intended use and business plan overview
- Estimated renovation scope and rough cost projections
- Track record (especially experience operating similar facilities)
- Approach to building community relationships
Sounding announcements are posted on municipal websites and the Small Concession Platform. In some cases, facilities listed on the Minna-no-Haiko Project become direct targets for sounding exercises.
Step 6 — Participating in a Proposal Process
How proposal-based evaluation works and the 5 elements that get scored
When municipalities publicly solicit operators for closed school facilities, they typically use a proposal method (qualitative evaluation) rather than competitive price-based bidding. Proposals are evaluated on the content of the plan, business viability, and community contribution, making it possible for smaller organizations to compete.
Simplified Evaluation-Type Proposals
The operator selection for Wajima Tout-le-Monde (former Shimada Elementary School, Nagaoka City, Niigata Prefecture) used a simplified evaluation-type proposal. A local university served as a neutral coordinator, guiding 4 working groups (12 sessions each) and a resident survey before the operator was selected.
Unlike full-scale proposals requiring exhaustive business plans, the simplified evaluation type focuses on basic business overview, financial projections, and community partnership approach — making it more accessible to small and mid-size organizations and social welfare corporations.
5 Elements Evaluators Score
The key elements municipalities typically evaluate include:
- Feasibility of the business plan: Cash flow projections, staffing structure, opening timeline
- Contribution to community needs: Job creation, welfare service provision, community access
- Community engagement plan: Public information meetings, approach to NIMBY concerns
- Financial stability: Track record and financing plan
- Investment commitment: Specificity of the renovation plan and maintenance approach
"Community engagement" in particular requires groundwork laid during Step 2. Operators who first encounter residents at the proposal stage appear as "outsiders who showed up out of nowhere," which is inherently disadvantageous.
Proposal solicitations are posted on the Minna-no-Haiko Project listings as well as on municipal official websites and procurement notice boards. Regular monitoring is essential.
Step 7 — From Operator Selection to Opening
Contract options and designated manager system considerations
Once an operator is selected through the proposal process, the next steps are contract execution and preparations for opening.
Contract Options
Contract terms vary based on the facility's condition and the municipality's policy.
| Type | Overview | Advantages | Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free loan | Building provided at no charge | Minimal upfront costs | Contract period may be short |
| Paid lease | Rent paid to municipality | Easier to negotiate longer-term contracts | Ongoing occupancy costs |
| Paid sale | Building purchased outright | Long-term investment recovery possible | Significant upfront cost |
| Free transfer | Building provided at no charge as a grant | Minimal cost | Subject to municipality's discretion |
In Iwate Prefecture's Nishiwaga Town ("Yuki Tsubaki no Sato" small multi-function care home, former Koshinahata Elementary School), the land was leased for a fee while the school building was provided at no charge. In Nagaoka City's case, the land was sold and the building was transferred at no charge. In both instances, the welfare/public-benefit purpose of the conversion was a key factor in favorable terms.
Designated Manager System Considerations
For facilities that retain community sports or public hall functions, the Designated Manager System may apply. The designation period is typically 3–5 years, making it difficult to plan long-term capital recovery. If a renovation investment is involved, it is advisable to negotiate up front for a longer contract period or provisions protecting the investment.
Timeline to Opening
From operator selection to opening, 6–18 months is typical. The larger the renovation scope, the longer it takes, with design, construction, administrative procedures, and subsidy applications proceeding in parallel. Backward-scheduling from the target opening date is essential, with particular attention to subsidy application windows that cross fiscal-year boundaries.
Subsidy Programs — 5 Ministries
Key programs from MEXT, MAFF, MLIT, MIC, and MHLW and how to combine them
Multiple ministry subsidy programs can be combined in abandoned school reuse projects. It is rare for a single subsidy to cover the full cost; combining multiple programs directly reduces upfront investment.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
- The simplification of property disposition procedures itself functions as a de facto "support." By eliminating treasury repayment obligations, municipalities are empowered to decide on private-sector loans and transfers
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)
- Rural Area Revitalization Grant (agricultural tourism promotion): Available for facility development at farm-stay hubs in rural areas
- Rural Area Innovation Facility Development Program: Facility development for new business creation using closed schools
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)
- Social Infrastructure Development Block Grant (Urban Renaissance Development Plan project): Applicable to closed school reuse projects positioned as part of urban regeneration
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC)
- Depopulated Area Independence and Vitalization Promotion Grant: Available for closed school reuse in areas designated as depopulated. Since school closures are concentrated in depopulated areas, eligibility is common
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)
- Child Welfare Facility Construction Subsidy: Applicable to nursery and after-school childcare conversions. The standard rate is 1/2 national + 1/4 prefecture, reducing the operator's out-of-pocket costs to 1/4
- Social Welfare Facility Construction Subsidy: Also applicable to disability welfare facility conversions. KAKA's FACTORY in Yuni Town, Hokkaido (former Kawabata Elementary School → community living support + employment support type B) is a documented case using this subsidy
Subsidies in Practice
In Nishiwaga Town, Iwate Prefecture ("Yuki Tsubaki no Sato"), subsidies covered ¥33 million of the ¥41.5 million renovation cost, limiting the operator's share to ¥8.5 million. In Nagaoka City's "Wajima Tout-le-Monde," subsidies covered only ¥55 million of the ¥235 million renovation, leaving the operator with approximately ¥180 million. The operator's financial burden varies dramatically depending on the subsidy programs used and the facility's condition. Building subsidy requirements into the business plan from the planning stage increases the likelihood of successful grant applications.
3 Common Failures
No community consensus, unconfirmed seismic status, and overlooked asbestos
In the practice of abandoned school reuse, certain failure patterns recur. All of them are preventable with prior awareness.
Failure 1: Proceeding Without Community Consensus
The most fatal pattern. Even when the operator and municipality agree on direction, the project will collapse if local residents are neither informed nor persuaded. This is especially acute for disability welfare facility conversions, where NIMBY reactions — "I acknowledge the need for the facility, but not in my neighborhood" — can surface.
In the Nishiwaga Town, Iwate Prefecture case, residents established an NPO before the school closed and held over 10 deliberation sessions, ultimately becoming the operators themselves. It was this process of residents becoming the protagonists that formed the core of consensus. The same outcome cannot be achieved when an outside operator drives the process unilaterally.
Countermeasure: Design a consensus process — resident briefings, workshops, surveys — before entering the proposal stage. Rather than leaving this to the municipality, the operator should take the lead in facilitating resident dialogue.
Failure 2: Starting Without Seismic Confirmation
This occurs when renovation design begins on a school built before 1981 without a seismic diagnosis, and the need for seismic retrofitting is discovered later — triggering additional costs. Seismic retrofits can run from tens of millions to over a hundred million yen, fundamentally overturning the project's financials.
Countermeasure: For any facility built before 1981, prioritize a seismic diagnosis before beginning renovation design. Use the diagnosis results to establish a rough renovation cost figure, then build the cash flow simulation around it.
Failure 3: Overlooked Asbestos
This occurs when renovation work begins on a building constructed before 1975 without an asbestos survey, and asbestos is discovered mid-construction — leading to work stoppages, cost escalation, and schedule delays. Since April 2022, pre-work surveys are legally mandated for major renovations and demolitions, but some operators skip the survey for smaller-scope work, only to face problems later.
Countermeasure: For any building constructed before 1975, commission a certified asbestos survey before breaking ground, regardless of renovation scale. Accept that a firm renovation cost estimate cannot be produced until survey results are in, and budget for the survey cost at the project's initial stage.
Getting Started
Three first steps you can take today
With the full procedure in mind, here are three first steps you can take today.
Step A: Download the Minna-no-Haiko Project regional PDFs Obtain the facility listings from the MEXT website and identify candidates in your target area. Contact the municipal responsible department to confirm the conditions, preferred uses, and timeline.
Step B: Conduct a preliminary building assessment — construction year, asbestos, and seismic status When making inquiries, ask for the construction year, renovation history, and whether a seismic diagnosis has been conducted. Commission a licensed architect for a simple building assessment (feasibility study) to obtain rough renovation cost estimates. For buildings from before 1981, prioritize seismic diagnosis; for buildings from before 1975, prioritize an asbestos survey.
Step C: Discuss applicable subsidy programs with the municipality early Based on your intended use (welfare, education, tourism, etc.), confirm applicable subsidy programs with the municipal contact and the relevant prefectural window. Building subsidy requirements into the business plan from the planning stage increases the likelihood of a successful grant application.
What Is Small Concession? A Complete Guide for Local Government Officials
Place abandoned school reuse in the context of PPP/PFI. A systematic introduction to target facilities, frameworks, and the three main barriers.
Comparing 7 PPP/PFI Methods
Choose the right method for abandoned school reuse (Small Concession, lease, designated management, etc.) using a comparison table and decision flowchart.
The process for abandoned school reuse looks complex, but the core question is simple: do the municipality's goals, the residents' aspirations, and the operator's mission align? Municipalities want to avoid maintenance and demolition costs, secure local welfare services, and create jobs. Residents want their school — the community's symbol — to live on in some form. Operators want viable, lower-cost facilities with genuine community need. Carefully bridging these three interests is the foundation of every successful conversion.
The procedure outlined here is only the entry point. Verifying the building's condition, gauging resident sentiment, confirming subsidy eligibility — none of this can be completed by reading case studies alone.
For the broader context of PPP/PFI, see also the Small Concession overview.
ISVD offers consultations on framing the preconditions for abandoned school reuse and designing an activation concept.
References
Minna-no-Haiko Project (Everyone's Closed School Project) (2025)
Survey on the Utilization Status of Closed School Facilities (FY2024) (2025)
Property Disposition Procedures Handbook (March 2025 Edition) (2025)
Case Studies on Closed School Facility Reuse (March 2023 Edition) (2023)
Subsidy Programs Available for Closed School Reuse (Compiled by MEXT) (2018)
Property Disposition Procedures Overview (2025)
Free Schools × Closed Schools
A new model for educational access
Kanto Region Abandoned School Listings
Latest public call listings in Kanto
How to Use MEXT's Minna no Haiko Project
From registration to matching