Project Overview
Verified information from primary sources: opening date, operator, target area, location
Former Mint Bureau Site
approx. 3.2ha
park portion 1.7ha
Full Opening
Dec 2020
partial opening July
Designated Manager
2 companies
Joint venture
Toshima Midori Disaster Prevention Park IKE・SUNPARK is located at Higashi-Ikebukuro 4-42, Toshima Ward, Tokyo. The site was originally approximately 3.2 hectares of national land where the Mint Bureau Tokyo Branch was located; 1.7 hectares became the target for park development, partially opening in July 2020 and fully opening in December 2020. In response to local residents' requests for evacuation space, Toshima Ward partnered with UR (Urban Renaissance Agency) to advance park development.
The designated manager is a joint venture between Hibiya Amenis and NTT Urban Value Support; the broader project team spanning design and construction adds Toshi Keikaku Kenkyujo (都市計画研究所) and Kabuki Kensetsu (株木建設), totaling 4 companies. Main facilities include a lawn plaza, playground equipment, health exercise plaza, café, KOTO-PORT (revenue facility), and wooden deck.
Triple-Integrated Model
Three-stage collaboration of national land transfer, disaster prevention park development, and Park-PFI revenue facilities
IKE・SUNPARK's distinctive feature is the layering of three systems. First, transfer of national land to the municipality. Second, development as a disaster prevention park. Third, private operation of revenue facilities through Park-PFI.
| Stage | Content | Entity |
|---|---|---|
| National land transfer | Site use plan examined following Mint Bureau relocation to Saitama | Ministry of Finance, Tokyo, Toshima Ward |
| Disaster prevention development | Temporary evacuation sites, storage, manhole toilets integrated with normal functions | Toshima Ward + UR |
| Park-PFI revenue facilities | Café + KOTO-PORT separately offered and privately operated | Toshima Ward (Park-PFI offering) |
National land transfer to the municipality was triggered by the Mint Bureau Tokyo Branch's relocation to Saitama City. During deliberation over the site's use plan, local residents strongly requested park development as evacuation space. After consultation with Tokyo Prefecture and the Ministry of Finance, Toshima Ward finalized the park development policy.
Two-Tier Offering Structure
Separation between UR + Toshima Ward park development offering and Park-PFI revenue facility offering
IKE・SUNPARK's offering is designed with a two-tier structure. The upper tier (park development side) was jointly implemented by Toshima Ward + UR, offering and selecting the operator for park development + designated management. The lower tier (revenue facility side) was separately offered by Toshima Ward as a Park-PFI, selecting the operator for highly commercial revenue facilities.
This two-tier offering structure differs from Park-PFI's standard offering method. Standardly, a Park-PFI certified plan submitter offers and develops revenue facilities + designated park facilities as an integrated unit. At IKE・SUNPARK, however, the upper-level plan for disaster prevention park development pre-determined park development, and Park-PFI was then offered as an addition for revenue facilities—an order of operations.
Role Division Between Designated Manager and Project Team
Role division between the 2-company designated manager joint venture and the 4-company project team spanning design, construction, and management
IKE・SUNPARK's designated manager is a joint venture between Hibiya Amenis and NTT Urban Value Support (2 companies). The broader project team spanning design and construction also includes Toshi Keikaku Kenkyujo (都市計画研究所, design) and Kabuki Kensetsu (株木建設, construction), totaling 4 companies. Hibiya Amenis serves as the lead company overseeing the overall project, while NTT Urban Value Support handles facility maintenance.
The characteristic of role division is that the park/greenery specialist (Hibiya Amenis) handles on-site operations, while the NTT group operating company (NTT Urban Value Support) handles maintenance. The project team, including design and construction specialists, addresses the complex needs of an urban disaster prevention park. Notably, this park combines the Designated Manager System with Park-PFI.
Implications for Other Municipalities
Preconditions for replicating the national land redevelopment + disaster prevention park scheme
Three points must be considered by municipalities referencing IKE・SUNPARK.
First, private utilization of former national land sites requires trilateral consultation among the Ministry of Finance + Tokyo Prefecture (or other prefectures) + municipality. Such opportunities arise only when large-scale relocations occur, as in the Mint Bureau case. However, municipalities can enable opportunity capture by tracking national land trends during normal times.
Second, the combined disaster prevention park + Park-PFI model effectively balances normal-time vibrancy with emergency-time evacuation function, but one must recognize that revenue facility business viability is constrained by disaster prevention functions. Balancing normal-time revenue with emergency-time response should be pre-considered from the perspectives of operating hours, facility placement, and equipment specifications.
Third, the two-tier offering structure enables separate operator selection for park development + revenue facilities but risks impairing spatial design consistency between the two. At IKE・SUNPARK, UR + Toshima Ward's integrated design mitigated this concern. Other municipalities should explicitly state spatial design principles in upper-level plans.
Park-PFI Complete Guide
Comprehensive explanation of the system, procedures, and cases
Park-PFI vs Designated Manager System
Differences, use cases, and combination patterns of the two systems
Hisaya-odori Park Independent-Accounting Park-PFI
The business scheme of Japan's largest-class Park-PFI
What to do next
When responding to withdrawals or unsuccessful calls for designated managers, examine the reasons before reviewing management methods and solicitation terms.
| # | What to check or consider | Responsible team or contact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ask operators why they withdrew or did not apply. Check which conditions caused difficulties, including the management fee, term, repair costs and staffing | Current manager and interested operators |
| 2 | Review how the management fee was calculated, checking staffing assumptions against current minimum wages and other relevant costs | Responsible department |
| 3 | Review repair requests and funding over the past five years. Identify outstanding repairs and expected future costs | Facilities and budget teams |
| 4 | Compare direct operation, appointment without open solicitation, revised re-solicitation and other methods, using the withdrawal reasons, management fee and repair costs | Responsible department and decision makers |
| 5 | If re-soliciting, review price adjustment provisions, the designation period and responsibility for repairs | Solicitation drafting team |
Before re-soliciting, examine the reasons for withdrawals or unsuccessful calls and review the conditions for sustainable operation. Distinguish operator-specific circumstances from problems with the solicitation terms.
References
Park-PFI Implementation Status (as of 31 March 2026) — MLIT City Bureau (2026)
Park-PFI Case Collection — MLIT City Bureau (2026)
Guidelines on Using Park-PFI to Improve Urban Park Quality (May 2025 revision) — MLIT City Bureau (2025)
