September 12, 1995

Dear Sirs:

On August 23 this year, the decision to dismantle the Daikyaku-den, or the Grand Reception Hall, was announced.

The decision, we must protest, was based on a gross distortion of the survey report which we conducted to determine the Hall's earthquake resistance.

As the two principal architects involved in the design of this facility, we take serious issue with this distortion, and we therefore wish to provide an objective account of the way this matter developed.

We were asked to evaluate the structural integrity of the Grand Reception Hall to earthquakes on March 16. On May 31, we submitted a report based on our initial examinations and conclusions; we then requested that further surveys and detailed discussions be held prior to the determination of whether reinforcement work should or should not be implemented.
Our report provided three options to reinforce the Grand Reception Hall's structural integrity to withstand large-scale earthquakes. For ease of reference, we have prepared the following outline that shows which of our proposed measures were adopted or rejected.Chronology & Head Temple Assessment of Three Anti-Earthquake Options (May 31 Report)

1) Option One: Reinforcement of pillars
2) Option Two: Reinforcement of the first, second and third floors
3) Option Three: Reinforcement of underground beams

• Head Temple Reaction as of May 31 (Report Submitted):

-	Option One: Possible adoption
-	Option Two: Possible adoption, though less realistic due to limitations imposed on facility usage while reinforcement work in progress
-	Option Three: Possible adoption, though reinforcement work will be extensive
-	Conclusion as of May 31: All three options under consideration, though none specified for implementation

• Head Temple Reaction as of July 12 (During Meeting):

-	Option One: Adoption likely
-	Option Two: Rejected
-	Option Three: Adoption likely
-	Conclusion as of July 12: Rejection of Option Two

• Head Temple Reaction as of August 23 (At Presentation):

• Head Temple Reaction as of August 28 (Follow-up Report):

Preliminary Cost Estimate (Reference)
- Option One: ¥30 Million [US$231,000]
- Option Three: ¥220 Million [US$1.7 Million]
- Dismantlement: ¥500 Million [US$3.8 Million]

As is evident from the above-mentioned facts, the proposal of the Nichiren Shoshu Head Temple to dismantle the Grand Reception Hall on August 23 was groundless and, as such, is unjustifiable. In spite of the fact that work to reinforce the facility through Option Two had already been deemed unnecessary [as there were other viable options], Head Temple officials not only brought the issue up again, but they exaggerated the inconvenience the effort would cause, and this was given as the primary motive to dismantle the Hall. This is in clear contradiction of fact and reason.

Moreover, as it is clear from the outline provided here, the sole anti-earthquake measure required at the present time is the reinforcement of pillars (Option One).

The implementation of Option One entails comparatively little effort, requiring the pressure injection of high-strength concrete into the hollow cores of the main pillars situated at the four corners of the Hall. In addition, this work would in no way alter or despoil the appearance of the facility.
In our opinion, the rationale for the decision to dismantle the Daikyaku-den, given the facts, are not at all convincing: they are simply too trivial to be decisive in an important issue such as this. Accordingly, we have made repeated appeals to the authorities of the Head Temple to reconsider our proposal and abandon the dismantlement plan.

Yet Head Temple authorities are adamant, and their decision is about to be acted upon. All that remains on our side as a result of this affair is bafflement and a growing suspicion over the real reason motivating them.

During the years of the so-called ubble economy, facilities that were often still safe to use -buildings which served the needs of many people and the community in which they were located -were torn down and new ones built in their stead without any viable reason other than economic gains.

However, we maintain that structures that have become familiar to citizens and fit into the community have significance as integral components of the social environment. Following reflection on the excesses committed during the bubble economy era, the consensus today is that no one, even the owner, should arbitrarily determine the disposition of buildings -and that existing facilities ought to be cherished and maintained.

Needless to say, the Grand Reception Hall is an irreplaceable structure which has inspired and impressed a great number of people for many years. It is for these reasons that we strongly disagree with the decision to demolish the Hall under false pretenses, a move that precludes satisfactory explanations.

Under the present circumstances, the arbitrary decision may be carried out any day now. But we feel that it is still not too late.

We are determined to continue our petition to retain the Grand Reception Hall.

Though we may be presumptuous in offering our views so forthrightly, we ask for your understanding and patience on this issue.

Sincerely yours,

Kimio Yokoyama
Grand Reception Hall Architectural Designer

Shigeru Aoki
Grand Reception Hall Anti-Earthquake Assessment Structural Engineer