ISHINOMAKI, Miyagi Prefecture--On paper, a museum here themed on the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami seemed like a safe and easily achievable project, a serene place for reflection and a memorial to the tragedy. 

However, the Miyagi 3.11 Tsunami Disaster Memorial Museum, which opened in June, has been hit by visitor complaints and even its exhibition director describes it as a "total failure."

The fault doesn't lie with finances as the museum was a joint project of the state and the Miyagi prefectural government, funded by taxpayers' money. 

Hiroyasu Yamauchi, 50, director of the Rias Ark Museum of Art in the prefecture, who supervised the facility’s artistic arrangement, explained why the museum project ended up in a mess in a recent interview.

Although it aims to pass down the disaster’s memories and lessons for posterity, the establishment is already flooded with criticism, such as images being difficult to view and the museum appearing inferior to similar facilities in surrounding prefectures.

The museum building sits on the grounds of the Ishinomaki Minamihama Tsunami Memorial Park, with an area totaling 765 square meters utilized for displaying showpieces within the 1,520-square-meter building.

It is home to a theater, exhibition panels and videos of the accounts of victims and others, so that records connected to the devastated townscape as well as lessons learned from the towering tsunami can be presented.

The museum construction and display preparation cost 1 billion yen ($9.1 million) and 350 million yen, respectively, while the facility is smaller than similar establishments in Rikuzentakata, Iwate Prefecture, and Futaba, Fukushima Prefecture.

A representative of the prefecture’s disaster recovery support and memorial division said the museum “was organized by the state so we did the best we could under the conceptual restrictions imposed by the central government.”

Miyagi prefectural officials noted they are continuing to ask the state to construct a national museum featuring the tremor aside from the already erected one.

Excerpts of Yamauchi’s interview follow:

Question: As sunlight enters the round glass-walled museum building from outside, the establishment does not appear to be ideal for viewing the displays inside it. What do you think of that?

Yamauchi: The state, which commissioned the building, defined it as a place of prayer to be taken advantage of for memorial services. After the building’s design was completed (in fiscal 2017), it was decided that the prefecture would show exhibitions there for handing down memories of the disaster. Consideration started afterward. The wrong button was decisively pushed at that time.

Q: Can you explain how you became involved in the project?

A: The prefectural government solicited display design proposals and asked me to examine them. One by Nomura Co., a leading player in the industry, passed our screening in August 2018. The proposal insisted that the glass window on half of the round wall should be covered with a movable screen for images to be shown, and I liked that.

But when the prefecture presented Nomura’s plan to the central government (the land ministry’s Tohoku National Government Park Office, which was responsible for the program), the idea of covering the window was rejected. Because of other restraints likewise, a decision was made to conduct a full review of the suggestion.

At the prefecture’s request, I started serving as a supervising adviser for the display in November 2019.

Q: What restraints did the state impose?

A: Nomura considered using a wide wall at the center for showing images in lieu of the window. But it (the state) said no to plans to embed a monitor in the wall or treat it with a high-reflectivity paint to render images easier to view.

Items were required to be put on display at heights of 115 centimeters or lower. The instructions were supposedly aimed at keeping an outdoor altar and hill visible from inside the building. However, it is common sense to display articles at heights of around 140 cm at the same level as people’s eyes.

Proposed improvements to convert parts of the building not intended for exhibitions into spaces for display were dismissed again and again. This blurred the concept for whom the facility is designed and for what purpose it was to be set up.

The most critical event was that the land ministry’s Tohoku Regional Development Bureau contacted the prefecture after details of the display were determined, so it would have exhibits on such topics as how authorities responded to the disaster. I thought then, “Stop messing around anymore!”

As a result, we had to give up a (19-square-meter) meeting space reserved for possible special exhibitions by groups moving to pass down the disaster to posterity.

Q: Will you illustrate why you appear to be unable to contain your anger against the program?

A: There are past examples that resemble this case. Facilities calling themselves “museums” were introduced nationwide during an economic boom. With no vision, authorities invested funds in them and contractors designed complicated electric and other displays. Consequently, there currently are a plethora of facilities simply eating up expensive maintenance costs.

Since recovery budgets are allocated to areas affected by the disaster, the same thing is happening again here.

Q: What steps do you think should be taken from now given that the museum has already been completed?

A: Ishinomaki is a heavily devastated region but insufficient attention was paid to residents’ opinions while the plan was forging ahead. I want local residents to visit the facility to consider whether the displays are really acceptable.