Emergent Tokyo: Designing the spontaneous city(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Emergent Tokyo: Designing the spontaneous city
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-21/tokyo-s-urban-planning-secrets-revealed-in-new-book
80 comments
https://archive.ph/itpRl
> When it comes to, politically, how do we make Tokyo-esque urbanism feasible in America, the key is building a coalition of folks who are more interested in the dynamism of their cities than they are in the value of their particular property.
I think younger people are beginning to feel this way, as property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach. But also, the amount of financial power that the property owning class has and the financial incentives to continue to develop our cities (more like metros) in the way that we have makes changing this exceptionally difficult.
I think younger people are beginning to feel this way, as property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach. But also, the amount of financial power that the property owning class has and the financial incentives to continue to develop our cities (more like metros) in the way that we have makes changing this exceptionally difficult.
> property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach
Ironically maybe least true in Tokyo, where interest rates are extremely low, and houses are still sort of affordable as long as you can adjust your expectations (e.g. no 200sqm mansions).
Ironically maybe least true in Tokyo, where interest rates are extremely low, and houses are still sort of affordable as long as you can adjust your expectations (e.g. no 200sqm mansions).
Tokyo is a cheaper place to live than most people think -- in fact, it is probably cheaper than any major city in California. But most people in California would not be willing to sacrifice the standard of living they have, even in apartments. Many studio apartments in America are quite a lot larger and better equipped than a one or two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo.
I have never been to Japan but I did a fair bit of international traveling for a couple of years. Going from living in a US style suburban McMansion to small apartments in Italy, Panama, Iceland, etc. was eye opening in such a positive way. US houses have tons of square footage and just so much wasted space. It adds a ton of cleaning and unnecessary maintenance and since large swaths of the US prefer ranch style houses I would rather reduce the footprint for more space for outdoors and a garden. I am genuinely happier in smaller spaces with better utilized space. In my experience you can easily halve the size of most US houses and still be very comfortable with no drop in quality of life. Am I advocating for families of 4+ to live in a 250 sq ft (25 sq meter) apartment like I did in Florence? No, but you also don't need 4000 square feet (400 sq meter) houses either. I can't imagine a scenario even with 3 kids as we're planning on to need more than 1600 sq fetter (150 sq meters) regardless of my personal financial situation and would certainly give up that space for more walkability.
I went through a similar learning trajectory.
I think one has to experience it oneself though, my friends and relatives who never left the suburbs pity me for my restricted living space, and don't believe me when I tell them live is easier with less baggage and it a walkable center of town. I suspect they think I'm rationalising an inability to afford a suburban McMansion.
I think one has to experience it oneself though, my friends and relatives who never left the suburbs pity me for my restricted living space, and don't believe me when I tell them live is easier with less baggage and it a walkable center of town. I suspect they think I'm rationalising an inability to afford a suburban McMansion.
I thought I never needed anything more than a 1,500 square foot house like my wife’s favorite uncle built with his own hands for his kids. Our house is 3,000 square feet and we just finished 800 square feet for the basement and with three kids it’s just not enough. Heading to my parent’s 5,000 square foot McMansion on the weekends is a real reprive.
Yeah it would be easier if we didn’t buy them so much shit. But that’s a deeply ingrained part of American culture. Who has the time to cut their kids off from friends, extended family who buys lots of trinkets for every holiday, etc? Trust me we tried to fight that battle and all we have to show for it is a two inch thick layer of dinosaurs in the living room.
Yeah it would be easier if we didn’t buy them so much shit. But that’s a deeply ingrained part of American culture. Who has the time to cut their kids off from friends, extended family who buys lots of trinkets for every holiday, etc? Trust me we tried to fight that battle and all we have to show for it is a two inch thick layer of dinosaurs in the living room.
I don't doubt you but I just wanted to chime in with another point of anecdata that I have a family of 4 (2 kids) & we live perfectly fine in a 92m^2 (just under 1000 sq feet) apartment in Berlin. It would have been nice to have more room but I don't actually think about it that often! jsonne's idea of a modest 1600 sq ft apartment would actually be considered huge here :)
I suspect you're right that a lot of it has to do with the surrounding culture - almost nobody in Berlin lives in large homes (there are very few houses and most people live in 5-8 story high apartment buildings) & I think Germans as a habit just don't buy as much crap.
I suspect you're right that a lot of it has to do with the surrounding culture - almost nobody in Berlin lives in large homes (there are very few houses and most people live in 5-8 story high apartment buildings) & I think Germans as a habit just don't buy as much crap.
It’s definitely cultural, but also changing culture over time. My brother and I grew up in an 1,100 square foot house, which was a standard size for a detached suburban house in America in the 1950s when it was built. But the average new American home is double that today.
> almost nobody in Berlin lives in large homes (there are very few houses and most people live in 5-8 story high apartment buildings) & I think Germans as a habit just don't buy as much crap
I grew up with a similar culture in India, but now live in the US where every Christmas, I receive a ton of stuff I could do without.
I have a question for you – wow many gifts do Germans give each other for Christmas, and what sort? I had just kind of assumed that most western countries do these things similar to the US, but as I have found out in the past that might be an incorrect assumption.
I grew up with a similar culture in India, but now live in the US where every Christmas, I receive a ton of stuff I could do without.
I have a question for you – wow many gifts do Germans give each other for Christmas, and what sort? I had just kind of assumed that most western countries do these things similar to the US, but as I have found out in the past that might be an incorrect assumption.
Unless you’re invited to someone’s home to celebrate together you wouldn’t buy random friends a Christmas present. If you’re celebrating together (or if you’re relatively close family) you would buy 1 present and sometimes this would be something small/symbolic (for a child it’s more likely to be a “real” present like Lego or a board game).
But Germans generally don’t celebrate holidays in massive gatherings, I would expect my mother in law to join us, or maybe 1 other person. It would be unusual for the number of people to reach double digits.
But Germans generally don’t celebrate holidays in massive gatherings, I would expect my mother in law to join us, or maybe 1 other person. It would be unusual for the number of people to reach double digits.
I do feel this. I consider myself somewhat of a minimalist (not an extreme one but to a decent degree yes) and while we don't buy my kid a ton of toys the people around him do. I think the system we're settling into is a combination of cycling toys (he gets them for 1-3 months then we pack them into the closet) and then donate the ones that aren't his favorite. It's imperfect but it has helped stem the tide.
I truly do not understand what you’d use that space for? Your house has more space per person than our entire house has in total (800 sqft, for 3 people). I mean, I can imagine enjoying an extra 200 sqft, but that’s about it.
It's not just about sacrificing your standard of living, it's that you won't find a smaller, well organized 2 bedrooms in US. Unless you buy a studio and remodel it yourself (which is quite expensive).
[deleted]
How is it cheaper then? I’ve seen those shows and YouTube channels that show to rent basically a closet in Tokyo costs like $15,000 upfront. The monthly rent prices I have seen are insane.
We don't call it "key money" in the US, but you'll be paying something like 10% of your annual rent to a broker in places like NYC. In some markets the landlord pays these fees, but in other markets where demand is high, the tenant gets to pay. Combine this, your first month's rent, and a security deposit, and Tokyo doesn't seem much different than the US.
Broker’s fees, first and last month’s rent can be common in big cities. It still doesn’t match what I’ve seen in first hand accounts of renting in Tokyo. I can’t remember about how much of the renting fees are refundable or not, where in the U.S., typically only the broker’s fee is non refundable. And I certainly don’t hear anyone saying places with these policies are surprisingly cheap.
The person I responded to said that Tokyo is surprisingly cheap if you compare it to California real estate in the major cities (read as LA or San Francisco) and be willing to take major cuts on space and standard of living. That’s sort of a weird argument. Additionally comparing it to NYC doesn’t make it less weird.
Of course living in Tokyo is cheap if you throw out standard of living, ignore the initial capital required to rent, and then compare it to some of the other most insane real estate markets.
The person I responded to said that Tokyo is surprisingly cheap if you compare it to California real estate in the major cities (read as LA or San Francisco) and be willing to take major cuts on space and standard of living. That’s sort of a weird argument. Additionally comparing it to NYC doesn’t make it less weird.
Of course living in Tokyo is cheap if you throw out standard of living, ignore the initial capital required to rent, and then compare it to some of the other most insane real estate markets.
Monthly rent goes up from $200 at the low end (10 square meters or so) to $3000 at the high end (120 square meters).
You have everything in between.
There’s places (especially popular ones) that do key money (up to 3 months, which you don’t get back) and deposits (up to 3 months, which you do), but it’s starting to become less common, and you’ll always be able to find a place that doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t apply at all if you buy a house instead (for roughly the same monthly prices as renting).
My main point is that renting in Tokyo is possible regardless of your budget, where in other markets it’s just plain impossible due to the minimum price for even tiny apartments.
You have everything in between.
There’s places (especially popular ones) that do key money (up to 3 months, which you don’t get back) and deposits (up to 3 months, which you do), but it’s starting to become less common, and you’ll always be able to find a place that doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t apply at all if you buy a house instead (for roughly the same monthly prices as renting).
My main point is that renting in Tokyo is possible regardless of your budget, where in other markets it’s just plain impossible due to the minimum price for even tiny apartments.
[deleted]
I think the author needs an updated understanding of what is missing. Being interested in a particular property value would absolutely lead to more interest in dense dynamic cities. A city block in tokyo is probably worth more than a city block in most American cities. A capitalist with an interest in seeing their land values go way up would absolutely champion a more dense, desirable city.
I think the problem is actually that people with aggregate political power in cities in America don’t really care about property values in the monetary sense. They treat their homes, community, and city on more political/ideological/ethical terms and preferences than on economic terms. The dense Tokyo-style city is absolutely foreign to most Americans and they disdain actions that would lead toward alternate city structures. This is as opposed to the property owning class, which should be more than happy to see their value go up by making more dense cities, especially when it is funded by taxpayers.
This seems like a case of just assuming capitalists/landowners are to blame and then coming up with an argument.
I think the problem is actually that people with aggregate political power in cities in America don’t really care about property values in the monetary sense. They treat their homes, community, and city on more political/ideological/ethical terms and preferences than on economic terms. The dense Tokyo-style city is absolutely foreign to most Americans and they disdain actions that would lead toward alternate city structures. This is as opposed to the property owning class, which should be more than happy to see their value go up by making more dense cities, especially when it is funded by taxpayers.
This seems like a case of just assuming capitalists/landowners are to blame and then coming up with an argument.
Exactly. The root cause of NIMBYism is not preservation of property values. It is preservation of neighborhood character -- low density, peace and quiet, low traffic, etc.
People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that.
As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.
People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that.
As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.
> People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that.
I did spent a lot of money on a house in the suburbs. I would have preferred to buy something more dense and walkable, but getting anything decent like that was not an option. Because so much low-density gets built and the higher infrastructure need per unit in low-density areas gets subsidized by hifh-density areas, the economics work out greatly in favor of the suburbs in a lot of places.
I did spent a lot of money on a house in the suburbs. I would have preferred to buy something more dense and walkable, but getting anything decent like that was not an option. Because so much low-density gets built and the higher infrastructure need per unit in low-density areas gets subsidized by hifh-density areas, the economics work out greatly in favor of the suburbs in a lot of places.
The obvious solution then is to convert areas that already lack "character", are high density, noisy, high-traffic, etc. The article points out alleys, train underpasses.
Why does this not happen in the U.S.? Is that also NIMBYism?
Why does this not happen in the U.S.? Is that also NIMBYism?
NIMBYism is not restricted to rich people in the suburbs. Poor people who live in areas that can be revitalized also frequently oppose new construction because they worry that if their neighborhoods become more attractive to people with higher incomes, gentrification will force them out.
That has happened to people, so it's a valid concern.
That has happened to people, so it's a valid concern.
Right, it's certainly multifaceted. Political, ideological, and ethical values all impact how people desire their community to be. Economics also has some impact.
I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.
I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.
The rapidly growing membership of organizations working on housing issues, like
* https://yimbyaction.org/
* https://welcomingneighbors.us/
is proof that this is something people care about a lot and are fighting hard for. And we're starting to notch up some successes, too!
* https://yimbyaction.org/
* https://welcomingneighbors.us/
is proof that this is something people care about a lot and are fighting hard for. And we're starting to notch up some successes, too!
It’s a real problem. I love the dynamism of cities but had to move out due to affordance. Now that I own a home, it’s a major conflict because I just dumped non-retirement life savings into this home. If it lost major value, it would be disastrous. I’m happy enough for more urbanism and communities, but why do I need to sacrifice my life savings to support that?
The U.S. government has really allowed things to get out of hand with housing. The first thing they should address are investors and companies buying up houses. There are at least two houses in my neighborhood sitting empty and quickly dilapidating, as they were likely purchased by investors.
The U.S. government has really allowed things to get out of hand with housing. The first thing they should address are investors and companies buying up houses. There are at least two houses in my neighborhood sitting empty and quickly dilapidating, as they were likely purchased by investors.
The home you live in is not an investment, you should not see it as one.
If the $ value of your house goes down, you can still live it in just fine. If you want to move, and the overall market is down, you will sell your house for less but you will also buy your new house for less. No matter what, a 100m2 house is still worth a 100m2 house in a similar neighborhood.
The only case you should be worried is if only YOUR neighborhood goes down in price while the rest of your city is stable or going up. Or only your city is going down and you want to move to a different city.
Anyway - it's still unclear to me how allowing small business in residential area would make the housing prices go down. If anything it would make it go up as having small business in a walking distance is very convenient.
Even multi-stories buildings, I see why homeowners don't want them because of their personal confort, but if it becomes the norm I don't see how it would make their property prices go down.
If the $ value of your house goes down, you can still live it in just fine. If you want to move, and the overall market is down, you will sell your house for less but you will also buy your new house for less. No matter what, a 100m2 house is still worth a 100m2 house in a similar neighborhood.
The only case you should be worried is if only YOUR neighborhood goes down in price while the rest of your city is stable or going up. Or only your city is going down and you want to move to a different city.
Anyway - it's still unclear to me how allowing small business in residential area would make the housing prices go down. If anything it would make it go up as having small business in a walking distance is very convenient.
Even multi-stories buildings, I see why homeowners don't want them because of their personal confort, but if it becomes the norm I don't see how it would make their property prices go down.
> The home you live in is not an investment, you should not see it as one.
I don’t and didn’t say I did and really need lectured on that. It’s my primary complaint of how people think about the financial aspect of home ownership. I was a happy renting but mainly because I was very lucky and found a landlord who kept my rent below market and only raised it once. That was until I got tired of a revolving door of neighbors and a particularly nasty one, so I chose home ownership primarily for lifestyle. It’s nice to not have a maniac neighbor living above me.
Trust me, it’s not by choice that I needed to tie up so much of my worth in a mortgage. I’m not arguing against really anything other than indiscriminately blaming homeowners. Even when I was renting, which so far occurred every year except for one of my adult life, a lot of urban development generally increased rent and prices. As I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of urban designers just want to build, build, build. That’s something I don’t think solves what people think it does. And in general, urban design cannot fix cost of living issues and these conflicts of interests.
By the way, moving is a whole other discussion. I couldn’t have afforded my home merely a few months after purchase due to the volatility of interest rates.
Tokyo has extensive public transportation and culture and other things that support its density. You don’t get Tokyo in the U.S. by just slapping down apartment buildings, which typically come with parking and traffic demands on the local area.
I don’t and didn’t say I did and really need lectured on that. It’s my primary complaint of how people think about the financial aspect of home ownership. I was a happy renting but mainly because I was very lucky and found a landlord who kept my rent below market and only raised it once. That was until I got tired of a revolving door of neighbors and a particularly nasty one, so I chose home ownership primarily for lifestyle. It’s nice to not have a maniac neighbor living above me.
Trust me, it’s not by choice that I needed to tie up so much of my worth in a mortgage. I’m not arguing against really anything other than indiscriminately blaming homeowners. Even when I was renting, which so far occurred every year except for one of my adult life, a lot of urban development generally increased rent and prices. As I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of urban designers just want to build, build, build. That’s something I don’t think solves what people think it does. And in general, urban design cannot fix cost of living issues and these conflicts of interests.
By the way, moving is a whole other discussion. I couldn’t have afforded my home merely a few months after purchase due to the volatility of interest rates.
Tokyo has extensive public transportation and culture and other things that support its density. You don’t get Tokyo in the U.S. by just slapping down apartment buildings, which typically come with parking and traffic demands on the local area.
* don’t need
Not only do I believe that a person's home is an investment, for many it is their biggest and most important investment (if not, in many cases, their only one).
When the kids leave the nest and it comes time to retire, downsizing is the way a home owner will "cash in" on that investment (or, as you suggest, moving to a less expensive community/city/state).
I'm sure you know all this but I am confused as to why you say it is not an investment. It is illiquid, to be sure, but it does not depreciate in the way that a car, for example, does. It seems to me no less of an investment than precious metals or stocks (but for the illiquid aspect I mentioned).
When the kids leave the nest and it comes time to retire, downsizing is the way a home owner will "cash in" on that investment (or, as you suggest, moving to a less expensive community/city/state).
I'm sure you know all this but I am confused as to why you say it is not an investment. It is illiquid, to be sure, but it does not depreciate in the way that a car, for example, does. It seems to me no less of an investment than precious metals or stocks (but for the illiquid aspect I mentioned).
I think the original statement doesn't really get to the truth of it. High density and vibrant communities are positives for property value. People objecting to these changes either aren't thinking logically or they aren't objecting to the value part. They want to preserve the character of the area they moved in to.
I think some of it is a misunderstanding of economics, but some of it is also different willingness to take risks and looking at different time horizons. If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. If I can wait till the neighborhood becomes hip and desired and maybe someone wants to buy my home for big money to build a larger building, cool. However, if I cannot wait a few years or worry that the apartment building goes up and then the economics change and the city takes a turn for the worse and nothing gets build anymore, I might be against the apartment building. It's also always nicer to have those things build a little further away. Being the quiet neighborhood a short hop away from the cool hip hood gives you most of the benefits without the risks and downsides. Of course if everyone thinks like that we get the current situation. IMO it's selfish, not that they aren't thinking logically.
I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s entirely selfish. Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank?
There can be a lot of selfish, not in my backyard type of behavior, but I think blaming homeowners is not effective.
Most people owning homes these days are having to put everything they have into being able to afford it, and they’re effectively forced to do that due to the market, skyrocketing and ultimately unaffordable rents with terrible living standards, schools, etc. Turning around and tanking their value due to some mega corp wanting to slap an apartment building down isn’t a good strategy.
A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic. And most modern apartment buildings are built as cheaply as possible.
There can be a lot of selfish, not in my backyard type of behavior, but I think blaming homeowners is not effective.
Most people owning homes these days are having to put everything they have into being able to afford it, and they’re effectively forced to do that due to the market, skyrocketing and ultimately unaffordable rents with terrible living standards, schools, etc. Turning around and tanking their value due to some mega corp wanting to slap an apartment building down isn’t a good strategy.
A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic. And most modern apartment buildings are built as cheaply as possible.
> Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank?
How does subsidization come into this? Just relax the zoning, make it simple to get permits and stop blocking everything at community meetings.
> A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic
Agreed. The planning and homogenous construction that gets often pushed for is a problem. This in part can be addressed by smaller parcels. Order Without Design, book and podcast, go into this and how some cities solved it. Somehow real estate and housing tempts everyone to throw out all the lessons we learned from communism about the perils of central planning.
How does subsidization come into this? Just relax the zoning, make it simple to get permits and stop blocking everything at community meetings.
> A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic
Agreed. The planning and homogenous construction that gets often pushed for is a problem. This in part can be addressed by smaller parcels. Order Without Design, book and podcast, go into this and how some cities solved it. Somehow real estate and housing tempts everyone to throw out all the lessons we learned from communism about the perils of central planning.
> If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop.
People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.
People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.
In dense urban areas, yes. That's not the scenario I described though.
If all the buildings in your neighborhood turn into apartment buildings, you're a dense urban area now.
Three initial plan is likely only for a single building though. There is no guarantee there won't be a recession and nothing else gets built for a long time.
I guess, what are you worried about? A stronger tax base is good for your community; you have 100 people paying property taxes where there used to be 1 person. The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?
I personally not worried about anything. I'd immediately go for something that's like Japanese zoning and probably actively penalize sprawl. However, I'm trying to steelman the NIMBY fucks.
> The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?
Future buyers might be worried about that or they might worried about the thing becoming a crack house or other xenophobic shit. I know lots of people who for reasons I don't agree with or even find appalling don't want to live next to an apartment building.
> The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?
Future buyers might be worried about that or they might worried about the thing becoming a crack house or other xenophobic shit. I know lots of people who for reasons I don't agree with or even find appalling don't want to live next to an apartment building.
Companies owning housing don't show up locally to block new housing:
> The role of institutional investors is still being studied, but the popularity of the narrative strikes at something dangerous: People want a convenient boogeyman and when they get it, they often ignore the structural problems that are harder to combat. Housing undersupply is the result of decades of locals opposing new home building. It’s not something that can be blamed on Wall Street greed and the nefarious tinkering of a private equity firm. And that’s a much harder truth to stomach.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin...
> The role of institutional investors is still being studied, but the popularity of the narrative strikes at something dangerous: People want a convenient boogeyman and when they get it, they often ignore the structural problems that are harder to combat. Housing undersupply is the result of decades of locals opposing new home building. It’s not something that can be blamed on Wall Street greed and the nefarious tinkering of a private equity firm. And that’s a much harder truth to stomach.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin...
I think it’s probably actually understated. Although, it also probably depends on your area. In my area, as I already have given an example of, “site unseen” investors are absolutely prevalent.
She has a lot of data in that article and it's pretty solid.
Whatever the amount of homes being purchased by investors, you have to look at the root cause of why they're investing. This is covered by the article - did any of you downvoters bother to read it?
> Yield-chasing investors have turned to the real estate market because it has become a very profitable place to put your money. And the main reason it has become so profitable is the preexisting housing shortage created by local governments and certain homeowners seeking to block new homes from being built, leading to a nearly 4 million home shortage nationwide.
Locally, when we look around at who's blocking housing, it's 100% our neighbors:
https://bendyimby.com/2022/09/07/development-code-weaponized...
Whatever the amount of homes being purchased by investors, you have to look at the root cause of why they're investing. This is covered by the article - did any of you downvoters bother to read it?
> Yield-chasing investors have turned to the real estate market because it has become a very profitable place to put your money. And the main reason it has become so profitable is the preexisting housing shortage created by local governments and certain homeowners seeking to block new homes from being built, leading to a nearly 4 million home shortage nationwide.
Locally, when we look around at who's blocking housing, it's 100% our neighbors:
https://bendyimby.com/2022/09/07/development-code-weaponized...
It's interesting you put it this way, since one of the reasons for Tokyo's public transport success has been exactly this "property owning".
If you are interested in why the Japanese/Tokyo urban design works then look at these 2 links from the "Life where I am from" Youtube channel
Why Japan Looks the Way it Does: Zoning https://youtu.be/wfm2xCKOCNk
What a Typical Tokyo Neighbourhood is Like https://youtu.be/TheOkz8oF_I
Why Japan Looks the Way it Does: Zoning https://youtu.be/wfm2xCKOCNk
What a Typical Tokyo Neighbourhood is Like https://youtu.be/TheOkz8oF_I
Sounds like the biggest factor is the lack of onerous American-style zoning regulations, which permits interesting uses of real estate to emerge intermingled with each other; as opposed to the suburban American standard of "everyone must live here in this zone, drive to this other zone to work, then drive to this other zone to grocery shop".
I think Jane Jacobs’s the Life and Death of Great American Cities is a major piece against these zoning laws. Tokyo seems to serve as a great example although it is not an American city.
"Arbitrary Lines" is a succinct modern take on why we should eliminate zoning in the US and what we should replace it with
https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines
https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines
There’s a very quirky and quietly hilarious book called Made in Tokyo that covers a sort of dual use or spliced architecture one readily finds in Tokyo. Places like a shopping mall under a highway or tennis courts on top of a warehouse. (The book is both in Japanese and English.)
https://www.amazon.com/Made-Tokyo-Guide-Junzo-Kuroda/dp/4306...
From the introduction:
> The buildings we were attracted to were ones giving a priority to stubborn honesty in response to their surroundings and programmatic requirements, without insisting on architectural aesthetic and form. We decided to call them “Da-me Architecture” (no-good architecture), with all our love and disdain.
https://www.amazon.com/Made-Tokyo-Guide-Junzo-Kuroda/dp/4306...
From the introduction:
> The buildings we were attracted to were ones giving a priority to stubborn honesty in response to their surroundings and programmatic requirements, without insisting on architectural aesthetic and form. We decided to call them “Da-me Architecture” (no-good architecture), with all our love and disdain.
Texas has less zoning regulations and it resulted in more roads, parking lots and dependency of the car.
Houston is the only major Texas city without zoning, and Houston still has plenty of parking requirements. As a result, both housing for people and housing for cars is really cheap. At this rate, Houston is going to figure out how to fix its planning mistakes of the past much faster than more regulated cities are going to decide to build enough housing for the people who want to live there. I'd never bet against Houston, or Texas in general.
How about we ease up on both zoning restrictions and parking requirements?
How about we ease up on both zoning restrictions and parking requirements?
I’d bet against Texas in the idea that their working class/average citizen population is going to be quite oppressed until women have meaningful rights there.
Hard to have a functioning society when a near literal half of your population is seen at best as second class citizens.
Hard to have a functioning society when a near literal half of your population is seen at best as second class citizens.
Houston had a female mayor, who happened to also be lesbian, for the maximum amount of terms. I get your general point about Texas, but at least Houston is probably the most diverse, multicultural, and liberal of the big Texas cities.
This is a discussion about zoning and property values.
The parent I’m replying to is partially discussing betting against Texas, especially regarding property values - if you think half the populace within a state being viewed as second class citizens doesn’t affect property values, I think you should reconsider.
How many rich tech people from SV/Cali who paid top dollar for Texas property are now quickly fleeing after the recent political happenings that stripped the rights of half the voting population? I’ve seen quite a few personal anecdotes on HN & also a general trendline across publicly accessible real estate data that point to them ditching their Texas properties quite quickly. This most definitely affects property values, & at least touches on zoning issues in the grand scheme of things.
How many rich tech people from SV/Cali who paid top dollar for Texas property are now quickly fleeing after the recent political happenings that stripped the rights of half the voting population? I’ve seen quite a few personal anecdotes on HN & also a general trendline across publicly accessible real estate data that point to them ditching their Texas properties quite quickly. This most definitely affects property values, & at least touches on zoning issues in the grand scheme of things.
> How many rich tech people from SV/Cali who paid top dollar for Texas property are now quickly fleeing after the recent political happenings that stripped the rights of half the voting population?
Not very many at all, in my estimation. Those "rich tech people from SV/Cali" moved to Texas in the first place for their bottom lines, not because they thought Texas was the vanguard of progressive politics. I doubt a socially conservative state becoming more socially conservative is going to trigger many reverse moves.
If I had to guess, the extremely restrictive abortion laws (prohibited after six weeks of gestation with very few exceptions) that you're obliquely referring to are not going to stand for very long, either.
Not very many at all, in my estimation. Those "rich tech people from SV/Cali" moved to Texas in the first place for their bottom lines, not because they thought Texas was the vanguard of progressive politics. I doubt a socially conservative state becoming more socially conservative is going to trigger many reverse moves.
If I had to guess, the extremely restrictive abortion laws (prohibited after six weeks of gestation with very few exceptions) that you're obliquely referring to are not going to stand for very long, either.
> How many rich tech people from SV/Cali who paid top dollar for Texas property are now quickly fleeing after the recent political happenings that stripped the rights of half the voting population?
The rich tech people who moved from California to Texas often were doing it specfically because of support for the political party that did that stripping (sometimes centered on tax/regulatory policy rather than culture war issues, but still supporting the party knowing the culture war stance was part of the package.)
So, probably not many.
The rich tech people who moved from California to Texas often were doing it specfically because of support for the political party that did that stripping (sometimes centered on tax/regulatory policy rather than culture war issues, but still supporting the party knowing the culture war stance was part of the package.)
So, probably not many.
Keep in mind that zoning has almost nothing to do with road placement - those decisions are made by different levels of government, especially for major roads and highways.
And as another commenter mentioned, only Houston has "no zoning", and they have most of the regulations that are normally in zoning code in other cities anyway.
And as another commenter mentioned, only Houston has "no zoning", and they have most of the regulations that are normally in zoning code in other cities anyway.
I think part of that is due to climate. Houston in the summer is not a place where I’m going to bike or walk much in the summer. Cars make that city work.
I certainly take your point, living in a city that has a similar climate. But in a truly walkable neighborhood, where your place of residence, place of work, and other supporting places in life (grocery store, gym, bars and restaurants, etc.) are all within walking distance, and where said distance is actually walkable -- that is, you're not walking next to eight lanes of traffic, and you're walking past shops and restaurants and all the vibrancy of a neighborhood -- the weather won't play nearly as big a role.
Another thing is pedestrianised streets and lack of on-street parking. It makes it so much more pleasant to walk around and sit outside.
A lot of the streets that seem pedestrianized are not! They're just so small, and have so little reason for a driver to use them, that drivers don't.
Those streets also instigate walking anywhere on the street (no sidewalk), slowing down drivers even more. A beautiful cycle. I drive in Tokyo regularly and love this system.
I’ll preface this by saying I still prefer the diversity of somewhere like NYC over the monoculture of many East Asian cities including Tokyo.
But there are certain cultural and demographic factors in play in such East Asian cities, which are often considered a bit taboo to mention. However these factors are also responsible directly or indirectly, for some of the most praised aspects of these cities. And why it would be virtually impossible to replicate some of these successes in somewhere like NYC.
But there are certain cultural and demographic factors in play in such East Asian cities, which are often considered a bit taboo to mention. However these factors are also responsible directly or indirectly, for some of the most praised aspects of these cities. And why it would be virtually impossible to replicate some of these successes in somewhere like NYC.
> certain cultural and demographic factors...considered a bit taboo to mention
I doubt that these factors (presumably the more heterogenous racial and cultural makeup of Japan as compared to the US) have anything to do with the contrasts for operating small businesses that are specifically mentioned in TFA:
- For any two-story rowhouse in Tokyo, the owner can by right operate a bar, a restaurant, a boutique, a small workshop on the ground floor — even in the most residential zoned sections of the city.
- Liquor licenses are extremely cheap and easy. A liquor license in an American city can sometimes run up to $500,000.
- (In the US) Usually for retirement, people are counting on their property values going up so they have a strong incentive to resist changes that might threaten them. A lot of the dynamism we see in the emergent urbanism of Tokyo are things that reduce predictability, which reduce property values.
Are there cases in the US where similar liberal regulations for operating businesses have been established, and shown to fail due to demographic or cultural factors? I suspect not.
But as things stand now even in small US cities, there is a ton of red tape that stands in the way of small businesses. That has little to nothing to do with cultural and demographic factors; and happens to be largely the focus of the article.
I doubt that these factors (presumably the more heterogenous racial and cultural makeup of Japan as compared to the US) have anything to do with the contrasts for operating small businesses that are specifically mentioned in TFA:
- For any two-story rowhouse in Tokyo, the owner can by right operate a bar, a restaurant, a boutique, a small workshop on the ground floor — even in the most residential zoned sections of the city.
- Liquor licenses are extremely cheap and easy. A liquor license in an American city can sometimes run up to $500,000.
- (In the US) Usually for retirement, people are counting on their property values going up so they have a strong incentive to resist changes that might threaten them. A lot of the dynamism we see in the emergent urbanism of Tokyo are things that reduce predictability, which reduce property values.
Are there cases in the US where similar liberal regulations for operating businesses have been established, and shown to fail due to demographic or cultural factors? I suspect not.
But as things stand now even in small US cities, there is a ton of red tape that stands in the way of small businesses. That has little to nothing to do with cultural and demographic factors; and happens to be largely the focus of the article.
My guess would be that a lot of what makes Tokyo work is its high-trust society, rather than its (homogeneous) demographics per se.
Building a society with high trust seems historically path dependent, so a lot of the things that work well in Tokyo might not work well in the US.
For example, if you can trust that new restaurants will not cut corners on cost, health inspection becomes more of a formality. If you can trust the building will be left in good condition by businesses, it is more acceptable to rent a place out to whoever wants it, and so you see as time goes by that a small cornerstore becomes an upscale hairdresser, which becomes a laundromat, which becomes a take-out restaurant.
Homogeneous demographics might help, but I suspect building a high trust society is more culture than demographics. For example, a religious group may create a high-trust enclave by promising to excommunicate members who violate norms, while a demographically homogeneous country may destroy its culture in civil war and build something low-trust, too (China).
For example, if you can trust that new restaurants will not cut corners on cost, health inspection becomes more of a formality. If you can trust the building will be left in good condition by businesses, it is more acceptable to rent a place out to whoever wants it, and so you see as time goes by that a small cornerstore becomes an upscale hairdresser, which becomes a laundromat, which becomes a take-out restaurant.
Homogeneous demographics might help, but I suspect building a high trust society is more culture than demographics. For example, a religious group may create a high-trust enclave by promising to excommunicate members who violate norms, while a demographically homogeneous country may destroy its culture in civil war and build something low-trust, too (China).
> building a high trust society is more culture than demographics
This is the kind of question that benefits from a probabilistic analysis: does ethnic homogeneity, on average, help or hinder building and maintaining a high trust society?
Many conflicts in world history have an ethnic dimension. Many substantial social cleavages, even if they are not ethnically based, over time may evolve an ethnic dimension. For example some religions have an ethnic dimension, most religions require members to marry only within the own religion etc. Moreover, people are more likely to procreate with people they spend a lot of time with. So even linguistic differences can lead to ethnicisation, since it's easier to socialise with people you can easily communicate with.
This is the kind of question that benefits from a probabilistic analysis: does ethnic homogeneity, on average, help or hinder building and maintaining a high trust society?
Many conflicts in world history have an ethnic dimension. Many substantial social cleavages, even if they are not ethnically based, over time may evolve an ethnic dimension. For example some religions have an ethnic dimension, most religions require members to marry only within the own religion etc. Moreover, people are more likely to procreate with people they spend a lot of time with. So even linguistic differences can lead to ethnicisation, since it's easier to socialise with people you can easily communicate with.
> But there are certain cultural and demographic factors in play in such East Asian cities, which are often considered a bit taboo to mention.
If you aren't going to mention those factors, why hint at them? Just to annoy people and puff yourself up by insinuating you know something special that others aren't willing to hear? Just say what you mean -- or don't even bring it up.
If you aren't going to mention those factors, why hint at them? Just to annoy people and puff yourself up by insinuating you know something special that others aren't willing to hear? Just say what you mean -- or don't even bring it up.
What is the monoculture of Tokyo? Or are you just saying it’s monoracial? To an outsider, Tokyo seems endlessly diverse.
I dont think Tokyo has any valuable lessons for Western cities. People talk about how its affordable but its only a few decades since it was by far the most expensive real estate in the world.
Tokyo (and Japanese culture in general) may be so different from Western (specifically U.S.) cities that I suspect you are right. But I don't think the decline in Japanese real-estate value is the problem.
I've got a sort of mixed-message about Tokyo real-estate prices anyway. Sometimes the impression I have is that it still is expensive but only if you are comparing the cost per square feet with Western cities and not the cost of dwellings — I guess the salient point being that the Tokyo-ite will live in a smaller "flat" than their Western counterpart and so may in fact have a smaller rent.
I've got a sort of mixed-message about Tokyo real-estate prices anyway. Sometimes the impression I have is that it still is expensive but only if you are comparing the cost per square feet with Western cities and not the cost of dwellings — I guess the salient point being that the Tokyo-ite will live in a smaller "flat" than their Western counterpart and so may in fact have a smaller rent.
And these small units would be illegal in most modern US cities. Alain Bertaud who wrote Order Without Design described how his family lived in a tiny apartment in NYC when they first moved to the US. The unit would now be illegal and they wouldn't have an option.
It's over of the many cases where we don't like the options that poverty forces people to choose, so we make the options illegal instead of doing something about poverty.
It's over of the many cases where we don't like the options that poverty forces people to choose, so we make the options illegal instead of doing something about poverty.
Car infrastructure and draconian zoning laws destroying civilization. A tale as old as... the early 1900s.
Overturning zoning wholesale in the US would probably lead to the most improvement in societal outcomes possible from one law. You'd get higher population density in every city. A tiny list of likely outcomes:
- Lower per capita infrastructure costs
- Lower BMI (more walking as things are closer together)
- Lower per capita energy usage and CO2 emissions
- Fewer school shootings (they decrease as neighborhood density increases)
- Lower rents in cities
...the list goes on.
- Lower per capita infrastructure costs
- Lower BMI (more walking as things are closer together)
- Lower per capita energy usage and CO2 emissions
- Fewer school shootings (they decrease as neighborhood density increases)
- Lower rents in cities
...the list goes on.
I agree with most but don’t see how it would lower school shootings (source for your statement?). Also there are definitely other ways to prevent that.
The entire movie Bowling for Columbine was about my statement. :)
What other ways (better ways?) are there to prevent school shootings?
What other ways (better ways?) are there to prevent school shootings?