Tokyo proves that housing shortages are a political choice(citymetric.com)
citymetric.com
Tokyo proves that housing shortages are a political choice
https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/tokyo-proves-housing-shortages-are-political-choice-4623
214 comments
Japanese also don't consider housing to be equity or investment, it depreciates in value every year. A house is just a house not something to speculate on or store money in. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-land/japan-...
Has this always been the case? I remember hearing way back in the 80s various (and probably hyperbolic) stories about how the dollar value of the land in greater Tokyo was greater than the dollar value of the all the land in the entire United States, how if you dropped a $10,000 bill in Tokyo it would be worth less than the land it covered, that sort of thing.
It's possible for land to be valuable and worth owning while buildings are not viewed as investments. I'm not convinced that SF owners of single family properties would necessarily be financially harmed by a major relaxation of density restrictions. It's entirely possible that the value of living space per square foot could go down while the value of land per sq foot goes up.
It's possible for land to be valuable and worth owning while buildings are not viewed as investments. I'm not convinced that SF owners of single family properties would necessarily be financially harmed by a major relaxation of density restrictions. It's entirely possible that the value of living space per square foot could go down while the value of land per sq foot goes up.
You are 100% correct. Land is valuable, houses & buildings are not.
The small house on my land has decreased to the point where I pay less than $100 a year in taxes on it.
The land that it's on has increased by around 30x in the last 50 years.
The small house on my land has decreased to the point where I pay less than $100 a year in taxes on it.
The land that it's on has increased by around 30x in the last 50 years.
What drives the value of the land if you are not able to build a valuable structure on it?
Location.
It's valuable to be next to useful places. This value of proximity could be increasing so rapidly that it would wash out the value of any particular residential building you could put there.
It's valuable to be next to useful places. This value of proximity could be increasing so rapidly that it would wash out the value of any particular residential building you could put there.
A piece of land in a great location that you can't build a house/apartment or carpark on is still worthless for all intents and purposes.
The only reason someone would buy it is to speculate that one day you can build something there.
Zoning dictates prices, it's a struggle to get people to understand that sometimes.
The only reason someone would buy it is to speculate that one day you can build something there.
Zoning dictates prices, it's a struggle to get people to understand that sometimes.
As the article points out (but does not emphasise), the houses in Japan are by design transient. They are built to fit need, and demolished to make space for something new in their due time.
This makes the land much more valuable - a plot can be repurposed when necessary, especially when the zoning rules and taxation encourage it too.
This makes the land much more valuable - a plot can be repurposed when necessary, especially when the zoning rules and taxation encourage it too.
Sometimes people would rather live next to nothing, not other people.
Houses and buildings are extremely valuable. Sure, sometimes the land is more valuable in some locations, but it still costs the average American a small fortune to build a home on it regardless of the land cost.
That doesn’t mean the house still has that value after it is built though.
The market inflates price (not value), because regulation is restricting the build (or inflate the cost of building process itself) of new houses.
In Japan it seems regulatory process is easy, hence price drops.
I'd add that probably building a lot of social housing inflates the market as well...
In Japan it seems regulatory process is easy, hence price drops.
I'd add that probably building a lot of social housing inflates the market as well...
Still not correct. Materials and labor costs dwarf regulatory costs, even in hot markets.
The market does not inflate price, the market assigns value. In a hot real estate market, prices are value-driven, not cost-driven. In quieter markets, where supply of land is high, and builders are not booked out 1-2 years in advance, prices are cost-driven.
The market does not inflate price, the market assigns value. In a hot real estate market, prices are value-driven, not cost-driven. In quieter markets, where supply of land is high, and builders are not booked out 1-2 years in advance, prices are cost-driven.
Yeah but... Real estate market gets hot because of restricted supply...
And supply is set by regulation, regardless of cost...
And supply is set by regulation, regardless of cost...
Supply is definitely not set by regulation.
Artificially restricting supply seems to be the function of zoning laws and similar. If laws governing a property preclude the building of and usage as, say, high-density housing, then the supply of high-density has been restricted by regulation. Consequently, prices for property that has been enabled for high-density goes up. And because the demand for high-density housing is driven by the greater pool of demand for housing of all kinds and there's less housing overall to go around, the price of low-density housing also goes up.
I don't know what's going on in any particular place but the potential for regulations to affect supply and demand is clearly there.
I don't know what's going on in any particular place but the potential for regulations to affect supply and demand is clearly there.
The context here is Japan, where houses and buildings are worthless, not America
Japan went through a huge multi decade housing bust after the 80s, which brought down much of the USA/Canadian west coast with it for 5 or so years in the early/mid 90s.
The value of the land would go through the roof. Houses would absolutely be getting torn down to build high density apartments.
There is more to it than monetary considerations however, communities will be destroyed, the feelings and romantic notions people have about the area will be stepped on.
There is more to it than monetary considerations however, communities will be destroyed, the feelings and romantic notions people have about the area will be stepped on.
Berkeley has a ridiculous number of nonconforming buildings. Clearly they did not destroy the community.
The way this is achieved is by making sure that there is never a housing shortage, by building enough to keep the prices low.
It's never an investment because prices never appreciate, so no-one would even try to invest in it.
It's never an investment because prices never appreciate, so no-one would even try to invest in it.
Sure, the "house" depreciates, but what about the land / dirt?
This is what I always find interesting in real estate, especially in the pricey areas: we use the mental shortcut of saying "I bought an expensive house".
No, you didn't, you bought expensive land. If you "bought a house" for $3M, the structure itself would probably take <$500K to rebuild if it's <3000 sq. ft. (300 m^2): the rest of the money went to dirt ownership.
This is what I always find interesting in real estate, especially in the pricey areas: we use the mental shortcut of saying "I bought an expensive house".
No, you didn't, you bought expensive land. If you "bought a house" for $3M, the structure itself would probably take <$500K to rebuild if it's <3000 sq. ft. (300 m^2): the rest of the money went to dirt ownership.
If it's legal to build something new on the lot this kind of thinking is valid.
So, somewhat caricatured, this is true in Japan, and untrue in California.
So, somewhat caricatured, this is true in Japan, and untrue in California.
But this doesn't really apply to apartments, which are probably much more common in Tokyo
I believe this is partly a cultural artifact of Japan being earthquake prone. The severity and frequency of earthquakes used to make it difficult to build housing that would last.
People are downvoting you, but everyone I know here in Japan has told me this.
It's not that they're planning for complete annihilation from a massive earthquake, but there's bound to be some wear and tear when a relatively large one strikes every few years. Compound that with the absurd humidity and mold problem endemic to pretty much all of coastal Asia (trying to keep your house mold-free is a losing battle after a certain point and it's unavoidable) and the cost and effort of repairs far outweighs the ease of just tearing it down and rebuilding.
In the west, a 20 year old house is considered brand new. In Japan, 20 years old is bordering on junk territory. 30 years is junk and not worth the effort of repairs. You can search online and find 40 year old houses basically selling for pocket change since they're basically considered moldy death traps on the verge of collapse.
Now, though, Western-style homes built to withstand earthquakes are becoming common and they're expected to be a slightly better investment. How these houses fair against mold is something I'm not sure of.
A commenter below mentioned spirits accumulating in a house, but I've never heard of such a thing and it reeks of mysterious orientalism. But most people won't buy a house that someone committed suicide in or was murdered in. "Jikenya" (incident homes) are marked as such and sell for drastically reduced prices, if they can sell them at all.
It's not that they're planning for complete annihilation from a massive earthquake, but there's bound to be some wear and tear when a relatively large one strikes every few years. Compound that with the absurd humidity and mold problem endemic to pretty much all of coastal Asia (trying to keep your house mold-free is a losing battle after a certain point and it's unavoidable) and the cost and effort of repairs far outweighs the ease of just tearing it down and rebuilding.
In the west, a 20 year old house is considered brand new. In Japan, 20 years old is bordering on junk territory. 30 years is junk and not worth the effort of repairs. You can search online and find 40 year old houses basically selling for pocket change since they're basically considered moldy death traps on the verge of collapse.
Now, though, Western-style homes built to withstand earthquakes are becoming common and they're expected to be a slightly better investment. How these houses fair against mold is something I'm not sure of.
A commenter below mentioned spirits accumulating in a house, but I've never heard of such a thing and it reeks of mysterious orientalism. But most people won't buy a house that someone committed suicide in or was murdered in. "Jikenya" (incident homes) are marked as such and sell for drastically reduced prices, if they can sell them at all.
> Compound that with the absurd humidity and mold problem endemic to pretty much all of coastal Asia (trying to keep your house mold-free is a losing battle after a certain point and it's unavoidable) and the cost and effort of repairs far outweighs the ease of just tearing it down and rebuilding.
Worse than, say, the US South? Just make sure you have air and vapour tightness, with a good whole-house dehumidifier and you should be set.
Good building (science) channel from builder in Austin, TX, where humidity is a thing:
* https://www.youtube.com/user/MattRisinger/videos
Worse than, say, the US South? Just make sure you have air and vapour tightness, with a good whole-house dehumidifier and you should be set.
Good building (science) channel from builder in Austin, TX, where humidity is a thing:
* https://www.youtube.com/user/MattRisinger/videos
> with a good whole-house dehumidifier and you should be set.
Central air conditioning is not a thing in Japan. People install one split duct heat pump per room they expect to inhabit during summer/winter (generally living + bedroom) and only run those when they're in the room and for as few hours as they can (electricity is expensive)
Central air conditioning is not a thing in Japan. People install one split duct heat pump per room they expect to inhabit during summer/winter (generally living + bedroom) and only run those when they're in the room and for as few hours as they can (electricity is expensive)
Air conditioning != dehumidifier. One controls air temperature, the other moisture levels.
While air conditioning can reduce humidity, if you have good insulation then your your HVAC won't run that often, but things like cooking and bathing will effect humidity levels, and so a separate apparatus is really needed for that. They're not unreasonably sized:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJnP_6uxcg * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3wd2yVwzvE
While air conditioning can reduce humidity, if you have good insulation then your your HVAC won't run that often, but things like cooking and bathing will effect humidity levels, and so a separate apparatus is really needed for that. They're not unreasonably sized:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJnP_6uxcg * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3wd2yVwzvE
My point is just that Japanese homes are not built with any ductwork at all, aside from a vent above the stove and in the shower/bathroom. A "whole-home" device like those you linked would require installing air ducts to every room, and the homes just aren't designed for it.
Actually you wouldn't have to duct the whole house: humidity does not concentrate like heat does, but rather diffuses. So even if you only have a dehumidify one part of the house, the moisture level would level average out (over a given period of time).
Though this does depend slightly on air circulation, but a couple of tubes (e.g.) connecting floors would help balance things out.
Japanese companies produce many quality products that deal with indoor air quality:
* https://news.panasonic.com/global/topics/2017/53539.html
There are stand alone units as well:
* http://www.survivingnjapan.com/2012/08/a-guide-to-dehumidifi...
All that said, a proper building envelope is the first thing that needs to be done. Don't know enough JP codes and construction techniques to comment on that though.
Though this does depend slightly on air circulation, but a couple of tubes (e.g.) connecting floors would help balance things out.
Japanese companies produce many quality products that deal with indoor air quality:
* https://news.panasonic.com/global/topics/2017/53539.html
There are stand alone units as well:
* http://www.survivingnjapan.com/2012/08/a-guide-to-dehumidifi...
All that said, a proper building envelope is the first thing that needs to be done. Don't know enough JP codes and construction techniques to comment on that though.
I'm wondering if the mould problems are made worse by the fact that there's already a ton of mould there, spreading spores rampantly. Combine that with a density the US South doesn't even come close to reaching, and you'd have to go on whole-area eradication program to get it manageable.
Mold growths under specific conditions which can be controlled:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK4xr7faQYA
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK4xr7faQYA
Tokyo (for example) seems to have more extreme weather than Austin, notably it has twice as much rain on average.
It compares a bit closer to the Carolinas I think. However, Japan has a rainy season as well (usually about mid June to end of July) where it's very humid. It usually dries out a bit in summer (August to mid October) because the temperature goes up.
I remember the first year I was in Japan trying to dry my shirts on the line in the rainy season. All of my clothing was cotton based and quite a lot of it got moldy on the line! Most Japanese clothes these days have at least some synthetics in it so that it dries quicker.
I remember the first year I was in Japan trying to dry my shirts on the line in the rainy season. All of my clothing was cotton based and quite a lot of it got moldy on the line! Most Japanese clothes these days have at least some synthetics in it so that it dries quicker.
It is not only suicide or murder homes. My wife (Japanese) extends this to houses that someone died in regardless of the reasons.
It goes so far that there’s apps to check that this is or isn’t the case. But for obvious reasons, the biggest favor goes to buying a new house.
It goes so far that there’s apps to check that this is or isn’t the case. But for obvious reasons, the biggest favor goes to buying a new house.
This peaked my interest, me and a few friends have visited Tokyo several times over the years and will do so many times in the future, given that i wouldnt actually need anything spectacular would it be feasible to buy a cheap old house? if its only good for 5 years itd still save on hotels etc during that time. however im not even sure if youre allowed to own a house as a foreigner
I don't know anything about the Japanese style of home ownership, but, in the US, I'd be worried about routine maintenance on a house occupied only a few times a year, as well as the hassle of starting and stopping utilities per visit (probably hard to do from out of country).
I might be wrong, but is not the motivation for rebuilding houses to build a larger house? E.g. replace a nice 2-floor wooden house with not so nice 9 floor house from bricks and without a garden, and later demolish it and build ugly modern concrete high-rise building?
> absurd humidity and mold problem endemic to pretty much all of coastal Asia (trying to keep your house mold-free is a losing battle after a certain point and it's unavoidable)
The only place I ever read about this supposedly terrifying mould is on the internet, usually from Americans. What exactly is wrong with mould? Everyone lives in mouldy houses where I live. Going by Americans online, we should all be dead by now (if not from the mould, from touching raw chicken... the other supposed terror).
The only place I ever read about this supposedly terrifying mould is on the internet, usually from Americans. What exactly is wrong with mould? Everyone lives in mouldy houses where I live. Going by Americans online, we should all be dead by now (if not from the mould, from touching raw chicken... the other supposed terror).
There's only a few strains of mould which pose a health problem for humans. I wonder if the mould in areas where it's endemic has colonized the "friendlier" strains, competing with the toxic ones, like good gut bacteria.
and where do you live?
Not OP. I have to admit that my apartment in Japan is covered in mold. It makes for good cheesemaking ;-) Some people in the UK seem to be quite concerned about the health effects of mold as well. I know people who have spent tens of thousands of pounds battling it. I don't have any idea if its justified or not. I know nothing about the topic. However, I can at least verify that the people I know in Japan don't worry very much about mold growing on surfaces in the houses in the summer. You try your best to keep the house clean in the summer and then before new year you do "ousoji" (big cleaning) and clean every surface.
The biggest thing about mold in our household is clothes. You constantly have to take your clothes out of storage and air them. I've had a fair amount of clothes ruined to mold and that's the biggest problem I deal with.
The biggest thing about mold in our household is clothes. You constantly have to take your clothes out of storage and air them. I've had a fair amount of clothes ruined to mold and that's the biggest problem I deal with.
Fiji
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
My sources say that this is a long held artifact of the shinto belief system and culture. This is a clumsy way to state this but they essentially that houses accumulate spirits over time and become “haunted”. Old dwellings are valued less because they are “dirtied” or “burdened” with an accumulated cruft of spiritual... somethingness. Haunting here isn’t a literal translation but it’s the best I can do in a short time. It’s kind of how Marie Kondos whole schitck is about treating your things as if they have “personness” or “the quality and dignity of being actively present and deserving of respect”.
My sources say that this is a long held artifact of the shinto belief system and culture. This is a clumsy way to state this but they essentially that houses accumulate spirits over time and become “haunted”. Old dwellings are valued less because they are “dirtied” or “burdened” with an accumulated cruft of spiritual... somethingness. Haunting here isn’t a literal translation but it’s the best I can do in a short time. It’s kind of how Marie Kondos whole schitck is about treating your things as if they have “personness” or “the quality and dignity of being actively present and deserving of respect”.
I'm sure some people believe this (although this is the first time I've heard of it). However, Japan is really a secular society. People observe religious rituals, but I literally don't know a single person that actually follows the Shinto religion strictly (and my wife's father and brother were Shinto priests!!!)
Most people build a new house because that's the dream: to live in exactly the house you want to live in. If you buy an old house, then you are putting up with somebody else's choices. That and the fact that until recently houses weren't built to last. You seriously don't want to live in a house built in the 1950's. It wouldn't even take an earthquake for it to fall down around you and kill you ;-)
Housing standards have improved dramatically over time and the difference between at 10 year old house and a new house was historically stark (well, at least since WWII). These days it's starting to even out and I see the used house market starting to pick up a bit (personally, I even prefer the houses built 10 years ago to the ones they build now -- It seems nobody wants windows in their new houses any more...)
Most people build a new house because that's the dream: to live in exactly the house you want to live in. If you buy an old house, then you are putting up with somebody else's choices. That and the fact that until recently houses weren't built to last. You seriously don't want to live in a house built in the 1950's. It wouldn't even take an earthquake for it to fall down around you and kill you ;-)
Housing standards have improved dramatically over time and the difference between at 10 year old house and a new house was historically stark (well, at least since WWII). These days it's starting to even out and I see the used house market starting to pick up a bit (personally, I even prefer the houses built 10 years ago to the ones they build now -- It seems nobody wants windows in their new houses any more...)
I don't have a source off hand, but I've heard that the average lifespan of a Japanese house is 30-40 years. Sure, there are some historic houses and estates that have lasted for much longer than that, sometimes even centuries. They're built with the intent that a couple will raise a family in them and so there's not much reason for houses to last longer than that. Energy costs are also some of the highest in the world so getting the latest insulation technology and other efficiencies is important.
Can you show your sources? And is it possible that you both can be right?
[deleted]
This is what my friends who own houses in Tokyo tell me. Homes are bought with the assumption that they will be destroyed before the loan is up and that the bank will pay it off. This doesn't really make sense to me because there have been big earthquakes in Japan in my lifetime, and there isn't a massive housing crisis while every structure in the country is being rebuilt. So I don't fully understand this logic. But unlike the other comments replying to you, I can confirm that I've heard this many times.
My understanding is that while people in the US pay for housing with 15 or 30 year mortgages... in Japan the 100 year term is the most common. I am not sure if this has any effect on the market, but people certainly don't think "when I grow old, I'll have this big nest egg locked up in home equity". The bank owned the house when they were born, and it owns it when they die.
My understanding is that while people in the US pay for housing with 15 or 30 year mortgages... in Japan the 100 year term is the most common. I am not sure if this has any effect on the market, but people certainly don't think "when I grow old, I'll have this big nest egg locked up in home equity". The bank owned the house when they were born, and it owns it when they die.
So it is basically a fixed "interest" leasehold market. Here the bank and leaseholders are the landlords but only in name only. So the money is in the land really and the option to build which is retained by the leaseholder. The bank is betting on the interest. If you borrow 20k at 100 years you end up paying $80,685.50 in interest. I guess there must be some magic number somewhere that makes this work nor why you don't have appreciation ... I guess because newer and better keeps being built.
I just bought a house in Japan. No bank came to me with a 100 year term. It’s 20 - 35 years.
I guess it’s possible they’ll give that if you ask for it?
I guess it’s possible they’ll give that if you ask for it?
I've heard the Japanese do not like "used" houses but I've never hear about the earthquake angle.
It's not that hey won't last exactly, but more that regulations have improved since the mid 90's and revised in 2004, so newer buildings are considered to be safer.
It's actually something people talk about when looking at renting a new apartment.
It's actually something people talk about when looking at renting a new apartment.
The biggest change was in the 1980s (1981 iirc). Existing structures were grandfathered in, but the Kobe earthquake proved newer buildings were much, much safer which inspired people to rebuild their homes ASAP.
There was a monster real estate bubble in the eighties (prices tripled), I think earthquakes were also a risk back then.
You're not wrong, but why is this the case?
One hypothesis I heard was that building codes changed quite regularly, especially with regards to earthquakes, and therefore people often wanted the latest designs. So when they built houses, they didn't spend as much effort because they knew after a few decades they'd be completely torn down:
> This scrap-and-build approach is a quirk of the Japanese housing market that can be explained variously by low-quality construction to quickly meet demand after the second world war, repeated building code revisions to improve earthquake resilience and a cycle of poor maintenance due to the lack of any incentive to make homes marketable for resale.
* https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl...
* https://www.rethinktokyo.com/2018/06/06/depreciate-limited-l...
In North America, I believe we also do some mental gymnastics: we say that houses are expensive, but what's actually pricey is the dirt. It's just that we tend not to completely demolish structures: to the point that even if someone completely guts a house, replacing (e.g.) >75% of materials, we psychologically still call it an "old house" even though most of the structure except the frame is new (see Ship of Theseus).
One hypothesis I heard was that building codes changed quite regularly, especially with regards to earthquakes, and therefore people often wanted the latest designs. So when they built houses, they didn't spend as much effort because they knew after a few decades they'd be completely torn down:
> This scrap-and-build approach is a quirk of the Japanese housing market that can be explained variously by low-quality construction to quickly meet demand after the second world war, repeated building code revisions to improve earthquake resilience and a cycle of poor maintenance due to the lack of any incentive to make homes marketable for resale.
* https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl...
* https://www.rethinktokyo.com/2018/06/06/depreciate-limited-l...
In North America, I believe we also do some mental gymnastics: we say that houses are expensive, but what's actually pricey is the dirt. It's just that we tend not to completely demolish structures: to the point that even if someone completely guts a house, replacing (e.g.) >75% of materials, we psychologically still call it an "old house" even though most of the structure except the frame is new (see Ship of Theseus).
Friend of mine said that before moving to US he always thought that scenes in Hollywood movies about guys and girls punching and kicking through the walls were totally ridiculous. After living in Seattle for a while he no longer thinks so. The walls are indeed much thinner than in Europe. He supposed that this was due to earthquakes. What was the point to make home heavier/more robust if it still is not enough to protect against strong earthquakes while making evacuation harder? That and the culture that prefers to rebuild from scratch rather than maintaining older things leads to houses that are only good for 30-40 years...
Differential availability of materials makes a huge difference - the US has a lot of cheap wood, leading to lath-and-plaster construction, especially in milder climates. This can be found in traditional European construction ("half timbered"), but we used up the forests so many areas switched to stone or brick.
E.g. this Scottish vernacular cottage: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Du2mYluV4AAipYU.jpg
The only piece of structural timber was the roof beam (now missing), which could be covered by branches and thatch.
I think "settlement persistence" makes a difference too, as new greenfield houses in the UK tend to be poor quality, but more central ones are more durable.
E.g. this Scottish vernacular cottage: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Du2mYluV4AAipYU.jpg
The only piece of structural timber was the roof beam (now missing), which could be covered by branches and thatch.
I think "settlement persistence" makes a difference too, as new greenfield houses in the UK tend to be poor quality, but more central ones are more durable.
I have only seen lathe and plaster in ‘quality’ built and historical homes, but the majority use drywall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall
Traditionally, all Japanese buildings were made of wood, probably due to the abundance of materials (75% of the land is still forest even today). But wooden houses didn't last long because of its monsoon climate with a lot of rainfall (things get rotten). And then, there's an earthquake. People tend to think that materials are transient and fragile, and the modern housing system in Japan might have reflected this collective belief.
Also true in North America: see prevalence of 2x4 and 2x6 frame houses.
Yet my parents live in a house whose frame was built in the 1890s. Though, of course, they don't live in an earthquake zone.
Yet my parents live in a house whose frame was built in the 1890s. Though, of course, they don't live in an earthquake zone.
> especially with regards to earthquakes, and therefore people often wanted the latest designs. So when they built houses, they didn't spend as much effort because they knew after a few decades they'd be completely torn down
That only explains the structure itself. But an empty, small lot of land (only big enough for one home) with no structure at all (or an abandoned, worthless structure) can be worth well over $1M in america.
That only explains the structure itself. But an empty, small lot of land (only big enough for one home) with no structure at all (or an abandoned, worthless structure) can be worth well over $1M in america.
It can be in Tokyo too. I have one right next door in fact. 2.2M for like 320 sqm.
Following Japanese standards that fits 4 homes though :)
Following Japanese standards that fits 4 homes though :)
One piece missing in this analysis is construction cost: between permitting, regulations, unions, and Other Unknown Factors™, it can cost 2x as much to build the same structure in the USA compared with elsewhere.
If construction is cheap, sure, tear down the old and build anew. But if it costs more to build a house than buy the same house (yay SF Bay Area!) you’d be crazy to do this now.
If construction is cheap, sure, tear down the old and build anew. But if it costs more to build a house than buy the same house (yay SF Bay Area!) you’d be crazy to do this now.
This is hyper-locale specific, but the median per square foot construction cost in the US is under $150:
* https://www.newhomesource.com/guide/articles/cost-to-build-h...
Though a more realistic number, if one wants something a bit "nicer" may be up to $250:
* https://www.thumbtack.com/p/home-building-cost-by-sqft
In more (high-demand) urban areas, the price of the dirt may dwarf the price of the structure. When people say they "bought a home for $x", what's really happening is that they bought the land for $y and the structure for $z. If you look at homeowner's insurance, the coverage for rebuilding is $z and not $x.
* https://www.newhomesource.com/guide/articles/cost-to-build-h...
Though a more realistic number, if one wants something a bit "nicer" may be up to $250:
* https://www.thumbtack.com/p/home-building-cost-by-sqft
In more (high-demand) urban areas, the price of the dirt may dwarf the price of the structure. When people say they "bought a home for $x", what's really happening is that they bought the land for $y and the structure for $z. If you look at homeowner's insurance, the coverage for rebuilding is $z and not $x.
To be fair, tract houses are usually built poorly and don't age well. The 1960s tract house I currently rent is hot garbage and it would be better/safer to tear it down and rebuild, than it would to fix it up.
~60 years is much older than most single family homes in Japan. On average they get torn down after ~30 years.
That claim seems dubious. I'd suggest it is rather because Japan is still licking its wounds in the aftermath of the late 1980s real estate bubble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble
https://japanpropertycentral.com/2018/08/japan-property-pric...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble
https://japanpropertycentral.com/2018/08/japan-property-pric...
If it's been 30+ years, it's probably time to stop thinking of it as a temporary thing.
France's Glorious Thirty lasted nearly 30 years. They turned out to be a temporary thing.
Nothing is forever, sure. The sun will swallow the Earth in ~5 billion years.
I guess we can all do better this fine Sunday than quibble over the true meaning of "temporary".
I guess we can all do better this fine Sunday than quibble over the true meaning of "temporary".
Not sure how much impact leasehold vs freehold has on appreciation/depreciation but I think many appt buildings in Japan are build on leaseholds.
Here on HN was an article about Japanese economy growth (nominal) several decades ago, because companies were investing in real estate, which was constantly increasing in cost.
In short, search for "Japanese housing bubble".
In short, search for "Japanese housing bubble".
I suppose the Japan speciality is that this happens even in big cities?
Generally this nature of housing is taken for granted in places all over the world. Most townas and cities are not fast-growing.
Generally this nature of housing is taken for granted in places all over the world. Most townas and cities are not fast-growing.
This very nearly almost made me aroused. What a wonderful idea.
I ranted about this concept recently when I went to buy my family a house. I can't believe it exists somewhere.
Even before you mix in
build-friendly government policies, Japan has had decades long population decline and extremely difficult immigration process.
This is literally the opposite of the major US cities which have seen the most housing inflation. Nothing is built and everybody is moving in.
This is literally the opposite of the major US cities which have seen the most housing inflation. Nothing is built and everybody is moving in.
as the article points out, there is significant net migration to Tokyo both from the country itself and from abroad, which makes the situation indeed comparable. I seriously wonder if people here even bother to at least skim the article.
In fact Tokyo has grown significantly faster than New York or Los Angeles over the last fifteen years. (population up by about 1.2 million compared to 500k respectively).
In fact Tokyo has grown significantly faster than New York or Los Angeles over the last fifteen years. (population up by about 1.2 million compared to 500k respectively).
Look at this. From the article it says Tokyo started 110,000 houses annually per year since 2003.
Population of Tokyo: ~9M.
Population of the Bay Area: ~7M.
The BA starts around 11,500 houses per year. Roughly similar in population -- a tenth of the housing being built. Wtf.
Population of Tokyo: ~9M.
Population of the Bay Area: ~7M.
The BA starts around 11,500 houses per year. Roughly similar in population -- a tenth of the housing being built. Wtf.
because it is wholly under the domain of politics in the Bay Area. Most if not all special interest groups are linked back to either those in office or their party. the usual method is to form groups where you friends and family get nice part time advisement jobs pulling down 100k or more; we recently had a candidate in my state who part timed a get out to vote PAC for even more.
There have been many stories posted here and elsewhere how nearly every attempt to build housing is derailed, usually under the guise of setting aside for "affordable housing", followed by union workers only, followed by environmental concern; one was defeated for adding a few hours of shade to twenty percent of a play area/park of a school!; to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. It comes down to money for politicians and those already there not wanting "those people" living among them.
Heck in my local metro area they have squads to clear out the homeless and undesirables every time a convention or big game comes in; a town which has been blue for most all this century and most of the previous. One where you will hear the politicians stamp their feet about how unfair it is and if only they had more power and money they could fix it, yet they never have. Instead a new stadium displaced an older black church, go figure.
There have been many stories posted here and elsewhere how nearly every attempt to build housing is derailed, usually under the guise of setting aside for "affordable housing", followed by union workers only, followed by environmental concern; one was defeated for adding a few hours of shade to twenty percent of a play area/park of a school!; to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. It comes down to money for politicians and those already there not wanting "those people" living among them.
Heck in my local metro area they have squads to clear out the homeless and undesirables every time a convention or big game comes in; a town which has been blue for most all this century and most of the previous. One where you will hear the politicians stamp their feet about how unfair it is and if only they had more power and money they could fix it, yet they never have. Instead a new stadium displaced an older black church, go figure.
> to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old.
On the other hand, why do people need to build a new, ugly modern high-rise buildings in historical parts of the city? Is there not enough of other land?
Historical parts better stay historical forever and there should be no new buildings, I think. Because no tourist will ever come to see modern, ugly concrete buildings.
On the other hand, why do people need to build a new, ugly modern high-rise buildings in historical parts of the city? Is there not enough of other land?
Historical parts better stay historical forever and there should be no new buildings, I think. Because no tourist will ever come to see modern, ugly concrete buildings.
There can't be that many historic buildings in a city that burned to the ground in 1906, yet somehow we have historic auto-body shops, historic bars, historic music halls converted to comedy clubs, historic crab restaurants...
https://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg
Historic, historic, architecturally beautiful, indescribably beautiful San Francisco...
Historic, historic, architecturally beautiful, indescribably beautiful San Francisco...
Kind of a waste of such a nice street grid for such low density housing.
Waste of a lovely bayside location. Imagine how much better that water view would look contrasted against modern glass and steel skyscrapers: https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-c....
It could even be nice with two or three story buildings.
And then people wonder why the city isn't investing in public transport.
While I'm totally in favor of what you're saying - it could be that the article means greater Tokyo and not just the central part of Tokyo (to bring the comparison similar to the Bay Area one), which would amount to more like 39 million population - it's a much much much larger city than the San Francisco Bay Area.
But I would believe the number if they really do just mean central Tokyo housing starts, that seems like a reasonable number. And that would make it potentially even more embarrassing for SF.
But I would believe the number if they really do just mean central Tokyo housing starts, that seems like a reasonable number. And that would make it potentially even more embarrassing for SF.
The population of Tokyo proper is 13.8M and the metro area (think Bay Area SF to San Jose) is 38.1M. I lived in Tokyo and have been back around 100 times over the last 10 years, most recently last week. SF does not even register as a city to my way of thinking.
just to put things in context:
greater tokyo area is 38 million, the largest urban economy in the world.
They built many houses because they also demolishes lots of houses.
I loved the beginning of a recent article on Japan on the London Review of Books:
"One can fly to Japan from anywhere, but from Japan one can only fly to the Third World, and it hardly matters whether one lands in Kinshasa, London, New York or Zurich: they are all places where one must be constantly watchful and distrustful, where one cannot leave a suitcase unattended even for ten minutes, where women strolling home through town at 3 a.m. are deemed imprudent, where the universal business model is not to underpromise and overdeliver but if anything the other way round, where city streets are clogged at rush hour because municipal authorities mysteriously fail to provide ubiquitous, fast and comfortable public transport, where shops need watchful staff or cameras against thieving customers, and where one cannot even get beer and liquor from vending machines that require no protection from vandalism."
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n07/edward-luttwak/friendly-relati...
If it's true, it sounds like there are a lot of "political choices" going in on in Japan that are completely unknown to the rest of the world.
"One can fly to Japan from anywhere, but from Japan one can only fly to the Third World, and it hardly matters whether one lands in Kinshasa, London, New York or Zurich: they are all places where one must be constantly watchful and distrustful, where one cannot leave a suitcase unattended even for ten minutes, where women strolling home through town at 3 a.m. are deemed imprudent, where the universal business model is not to underpromise and overdeliver but if anything the other way round, where city streets are clogged at rush hour because municipal authorities mysteriously fail to provide ubiquitous, fast and comfortable public transport, where shops need watchful staff or cameras against thieving customers, and where one cannot even get beer and liquor from vending machines that require no protection from vandalism."
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n07/edward-luttwak/friendly-relati...
If it's true, it sounds like there are a lot of "political choices" going in on in Japan that are completely unknown to the rest of the world.
I really hate this trope that is wheeled out about Japanese accomodation; the flats that people talk about would be considered too small to live in by western standards. Most of them seem to be made of horrendous cheap plastic prefab; you get a corridor with a kitchen in it, a mezzanine to sleep on above said corridor that is too small to sit upright, a 7'x'7 living area and a bathroom (including toilet) that is about 2ft x 2ft.
For this delight there are people being charged $1000 per month or more in rent.
Add in the fact that Japanese have an extremely different relationship to property culterally (and due to earth quake fears) means propeerties are often knocked down and rebuilt (the article notes this - 600000 new homes for an ageing population seems like most of those are going to immigrants).
A lot of people in Europe prefer the shared living, and it is better use of resources - you only need one bathroom/one living room per 3 people and those can be MUCH nicer than these micro appartments.
London and the west also have different cultural values about building high rise property and overlooking neighbours. It's fine that Japan doesn't mind a sky scraper being built overshadowing their homes but for Londoners or elsewhere this is simply unacceptable to suggest we can change our whole culture to Japanese values and magically solve housing problems.
For this delight there are people being charged $1000 per month or more in rent.
Add in the fact that Japanese have an extremely different relationship to property culterally (and due to earth quake fears) means propeerties are often knocked down and rebuilt (the article notes this - 600000 new homes for an ageing population seems like most of those are going to immigrants).
A lot of people in Europe prefer the shared living, and it is better use of resources - you only need one bathroom/one living room per 3 people and those can be MUCH nicer than these micro appartments.
London and the west also have different cultural values about building high rise property and overlooking neighbours. It's fine that Japan doesn't mind a sky scraper being built overshadowing their homes but for Londoners or elsewhere this is simply unacceptable to suggest we can change our whole culture to Japanese values and magically solve housing problems.
> the flats that people talk about would be considered too small to live in by western standards. Most of them seem to be made of horrendous cheap plastic prefab; you get a corridor with a kitchen in it, a mezzanine to sleep on above said corridor that is too small to sit upright, a 7'x'7 living area and a bathroom (including toilet) that is about 2ft x 2ft.
What are you talking about? That sounds like the kind of accommodation so rare that it gets articles written [1] for being so innovative. Apartments in Japan are small, but I have never seen one like that except on the internet, or in Hong Kong.
As a counterpoint, the typical small single occupant housing I saw in Japan had the following characteristics: solid concrete construction, a narrow kitchen (double burner with fish broiler, sink, counter, rice cooker, and microwave, with cupboards above and below), a small living room plus a small tatami bedroom to the side (though these spaces likely aren't separate in denser cities), a closet-sized toilet room, and a larger room with bath.
So yes, they are certainly smaller than anything you find in most western countries - but that is because zoning makes it illegal.
{1} https://www.livingbiginatinyhouse.com/tiny-tokyo-apartment/
What are you talking about? That sounds like the kind of accommodation so rare that it gets articles written [1] for being so innovative. Apartments in Japan are small, but I have never seen one like that except on the internet, or in Hong Kong.
As a counterpoint, the typical small single occupant housing I saw in Japan had the following characteristics: solid concrete construction, a narrow kitchen (double burner with fish broiler, sink, counter, rice cooker, and microwave, with cupboards above and below), a small living room plus a small tatami bedroom to the side (though these spaces likely aren't separate in denser cities), a closet-sized toilet room, and a larger room with bath.
So yes, they are certainly smaller than anything you find in most western countries - but that is because zoning makes it illegal.
{1} https://www.livingbiginatinyhouse.com/tiny-tokyo-apartment/
For a real-life anecdote, last year I lived in Tokyo in a 6 jo apartment (tatami bed + living room around 110 sq ft + about equal size bathroom and kitchen), and my rent 40 minutes by train from Shibuya station and 15 minutes from Kichijoji (#1 most livable Tokyo neighborhood) was around $430/mo.
I have also heard that prefab is really common - in fact just walking around Tokyo it does look like there's a ton of prefab houses. That said I've toured around some and been inside some, and they were very comfortable, more so than my current rickety San Francisco apartment and similarly to brand new NYC ones I've been in - so I don't consider them lower quality than what I typically see in American cities just because they're prefab. Rather it's far more efficient and that keeps costs down.
There is something to be said about traditional Japanese living being more space-efficient - folding out your futon means that you don't have to have separate permanent bedrooms, dining rooms etc like a Western apartment would have, which allows for you to have a decent living in ~220 sq ft like I did - but if you want to live like a Westerner, you will have to pay up for that, and I do hear that Western style apartments are more popular these days.
After living in San Francisco, I felt like I had hit the jackpot, but as it turns out that's just "normal" in a functioning city.
I have also heard that prefab is really common - in fact just walking around Tokyo it does look like there's a ton of prefab houses. That said I've toured around some and been inside some, and they were very comfortable, more so than my current rickety San Francisco apartment and similarly to brand new NYC ones I've been in - so I don't consider them lower quality than what I typically see in American cities just because they're prefab. Rather it's far more efficient and that keeps costs down.
There is something to be said about traditional Japanese living being more space-efficient - folding out your futon means that you don't have to have separate permanent bedrooms, dining rooms etc like a Western apartment would have, which allows for you to have a decent living in ~220 sq ft like I did - but if you want to live like a Westerner, you will have to pay up for that, and I do hear that Western style apartments are more popular these days.
After living in San Francisco, I felt like I had hit the jackpot, but as it turns out that's just "normal" in a functioning city.
I've been looking at dome houses and found some pre-fab Japanese dome homes[1] that are certified by the Japanese "Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism" [2]. The round ones range from about 290 square feet to 480 square feet. They are packed less densely than I imagine most Japanese housing, but they are still quite small by western standards.
1: https://www.i-domehouse.com/case/project_house/plan_00004.ht...
2: https://www.i-domehouse.com/page03.html
1: https://www.i-domehouse.com/case/project_house/plan_00004.ht...
2: https://www.i-domehouse.com/page03.html
On the other hand, there are virtually zero homeless people in Japan (certainly outside Tokyo) while they are seemingly everywhere in every Western city...so perhaps the quality of the bathroom accommodations aren’t really the point. I think you’re closer when you talk about cultural attitudes to “home”, but I’m not referring to some hokey ancient wisdom of the Far East.
The fact is that it’s perfectly fine, even normal, to live in a “one room” in Japan. No one is going to shame you for it.
I actually think some one-room apartments are super cozy, and feel like nice dorms.
If you consider sento/public baths, you’ve got your shared public resources.
The fact is that it’s perfectly fine, even normal, to live in a “one room” in Japan. No one is going to shame you for it.
I actually think some one-room apartments are super cozy, and feel like nice dorms.
If you consider sento/public baths, you’ve got your shared public resources.
Uh, there are plenty of homeless in Tokyo, they do keep it tidier I guess. There are also homeless in Osaka and Nagoya. I assume other big cities have homeless, but I’ve only been to (and seen them) in these three cities.
That said it's nothing compared to the homeless situation in SF. My Japanese gf visited SF for 2 months, and she was seriously shocked by how horrible the homelessness situation was. She never imagined any developed country could have such awful conditions, and felt like she was in "the city of the walking dead."
So that's the reputation American cities are getting internationally. Something to really be ashamed about.
So that's the reputation American cities are getting internationally. Something to really be ashamed about.
There are three groups of homeless in the west that don’t exist in Japan:
1. Japan didn’t dump all of their institutionalized mental people on the street.
2. For whose who are actually poor and need help there is subsidized housing (eg UR Chintai) and ok benefits if your income is low enough.
3. There is a large and bored police force, so people acting out and drug addicts don’t last long on the street.
1. Japan didn’t dump all of their institutionalized mental people on the street.
2. For whose who are actually poor and need help there is subsidized housing (eg UR Chintai) and ok benefits if your income is low enough.
3. There is a large and bored police force, so people acting out and drug addicts don’t last long on the street.
For point 3, it sounds like you’re saying that Japan has either a more abusive or cruel police force than the USA or a larger proportion of people locked up. I can only go by news stories and reputation, but I’d be really surprised if either of these were true.
No really, the best word to describe their police force is "bored".
https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/05/18/as-crime-dries-up-...
Police officers spent a week of their time watching an unlocked trap car with a crate of beer inside it.
https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/05/18/as-crime-dries-up-...
Police officers spent a week of their time watching an unlocked trap car with a crate of beer inside it.
It’s not “cruel” to enforce the law, nor does it require mass incarceration because people react to incentives. I suspect Japanese culture may be another important factor, however.
Japan has poverty and mental illness just like the states, but somehow they are more organized about “being homeless” and pooping in the street isn’t acceptable.
That being said, I’ve seen much worse in India and SE Asia, but developing countries will be like that.
That being said, I’ve seen much worse in India and SE Asia, but developing countries will be like that.
There is no way to compare India to the US. Homelessness in the US is a matter of (lack of) policy and indifference.
There are about 13,000 homeless in all of Japan, a nation of about 130 million people. They’re almost all men whose careers bottomed out and they fell out of the system in their 40s/50s.
There is a woman who runs a program to move homeless men from the cities to rural areas that are short on labor. Her organization offers to relocate them and train them for agricultural work. Most of the homeless men she finds are willing to work but have fallen into a spiral of shame and are paralyzed by it.
Japan is a tough place if you have thin skin or are prone to self pity. You can basically be cut from the team if you aren’t a player. You’ll find hikikomori and others who can’t keep up lurking beneath the surface—-often they fail a test or disappoint someone and never recover. Usually, these people have a home, though, with family or someone who takes them in.
There is a woman who runs a program to move homeless men from the cities to rural areas that are short on labor. Her organization offers to relocate them and train them for agricultural work. Most of the homeless men she finds are willing to work but have fallen into a spiral of shame and are paralyzed by it.
Japan is a tough place if you have thin skin or are prone to self pity. You can basically be cut from the team if you aren’t a player. You’ll find hikikomori and others who can’t keep up lurking beneath the surface—-often they fail a test or disappoint someone and never recover. Usually, these people have a home, though, with family or someone who takes them in.
Here is the link to an article about the woman who retrains homeless to work on farms, if anyone is interested: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/09/national/kanaga...
I wish that regulators would stop assuming that "cultural values" are more important to me than paying half as much rent, and that I shouldn't be allowed to live in a cheap studio with a built in mezzanine.
I've said this repeatedly about Sydney, plenty of people would live in capsule homes given the chance. For a lot of people in the inner city you don't actually spend that much time at home besides sleeping.
Local landowners would lose their minds though.
Local landowners would lose their minds though.
They aren't, there are no regulations on this. I hope you get what you wish for.
There are usually quite a lot of regulations on dwellings, often including room size, layout, window placement, ceiling height, etc.
The specific "guidelines" for places I've lived are:
https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/...
http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/residenti...
The San Francisco guidelines are particularly onerous, but the Victorian guidelines still set e.g. minimum sizes for bedrooms and living areas.
The specific "guidelines" for places I've lived are:
https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/...
http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/residenti...
The San Francisco guidelines are particularly onerous, but the Victorian guidelines still set e.g. minimum sizes for bedrooms and living areas.
In the US there certainly are regulations on that!
https://jorgefontan.com/micro-apartments-minimum-apartment-s...
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supervisors-back-...
https://la.curbed.com/2019/3/27/18281150/santa-monica-micro-...
https://jorgefontan.com/micro-apartments-minimum-apartment-s...
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supervisors-back-...
https://la.curbed.com/2019/3/27/18281150/santa-monica-micro-...
> there are no regulations on this
Of course there are. FAR limits, zoning rules, all manner of review processes inhibiting construction, et cetera.
Of course there are. FAR limits, zoning rules, all manner of review processes inhibiting construction, et cetera.
> London and the west also have different cultural values
That’s the article’s point. Housing shortages are a political choice.
That’s the article’s point. Housing shortages are a political choice.
[deleted]
I think it's not quite as vigorous in opposition as that. The argument is more that housing shortages are a result of how we in the west regulate construction and housing leasing to under supply.
I'm not a Londoner, but my american city of about 1 million people has more than 60 different residential zonings. My home can be a single family home, a day care, or a coffee shop with up to 2 employees who reside off the property itself. Additionally, the house is in a historic district and no changes to the exterior may be made that are visible from the alley or street can be made with out approval by the city via application and subsequent public forum.
I can see how this would strangle growth of housing supply as the place grows.
I'm not a Londoner, but my american city of about 1 million people has more than 60 different residential zonings. My home can be a single family home, a day care, or a coffee shop with up to 2 employees who reside off the property itself. Additionally, the house is in a historic district and no changes to the exterior may be made that are visible from the alley or street can be made with out approval by the city via application and subsequent public forum.
I can see how this would strangle growth of housing supply as the place grows.
Not to mention that the US Dollar and the UK Pound are much more attractive for foreign investment than the Japanese Yen. We can easily measure this by comparing Japanese bond demand with that of the US, UK and Europe. Not to mention that Japan is not currently an attractive place for Chinese investment for reasons I will not go into here.
Real estate is going up due to foreign investment. We are watching in real time as the slowdown in China is showing a direct correlation with west coast US and west coast Canadian real estate markets cooling. Buffalo, NY, and many other rust belt cities, have seen significant increases in housing prices while their populations decrease rapidly.
I second how boring listening to the trope about Japanese real estate prices when it has nothing to do with attitudes towards building. North Dakota has little to no zoning restrictions and we certainly don't see those prices staying in reasonable amounts.
It is so obviously false to anyone even remotely involved in investment or real estate, that I sometimes wonder if there is some kind of agenda that pushes this nonsense outside of your typical internet obsessive ideologies.
Real estate is going up due to foreign investment. We are watching in real time as the slowdown in China is showing a direct correlation with west coast US and west coast Canadian real estate markets cooling. Buffalo, NY, and many other rust belt cities, have seen significant increases in housing prices while their populations decrease rapidly.
I second how boring listening to the trope about Japanese real estate prices when it has nothing to do with attitudes towards building. North Dakota has little to no zoning restrictions and we certainly don't see those prices staying in reasonable amounts.
It is so obviously false to anyone even remotely involved in investment or real estate, that I sometimes wonder if there is some kind of agenda that pushes this nonsense outside of your typical internet obsessive ideologies.
I was in Tokyo last month. I think the city is under-estimated and not getting the praise that it deserves. It is true that you get less square meters in Tokyo, but the Japanese makes it up by quality, utility and accessibility.
Quality: Having stayed in relatively cheap locations, you get much better quality (especially clean) comparing to what you'd get if you were in New York, Hong Kong or "Paris".
Technology: Japanese care about technology and convenience. Toilets and showers are one example. Being able to store your luggage in several stations. Automated doors for practically any store. Small details that add up.
Accessible: There is a great transit system that makes the whole place very accessible. Even the most remote places are still accessible by train. The train stations are not the most modern in the world but at least smell good enough.
Quality: Having stayed in relatively cheap locations, you get much better quality (especially clean) comparing to what you'd get if you were in New York, Hong Kong or "Paris".
Technology: Japanese care about technology and convenience. Toilets and showers are one example. Being able to store your luggage in several stations. Automated doors for practically any store. Small details that add up.
Accessible: There is a great transit system that makes the whole place very accessible. Even the most remote places are still accessible by train. The train stations are not the most modern in the world but at least smell good enough.
Why did you use double quotes around Paris?
> What Japan’s inexpensive homes and its alternative policy approach prove is that the housing shortage in British cities is not inevitable. Housing does not have to be expensive in prosperous cities. The housing shortage is something we have chosen to experience and can choose to change if we want to.
Written for Britain, but this could be applied universally.
Written for Britain, but this could be applied universally.
It is also meaningless. Yes, if you get to choose what to do, you can do whatever you want. But you don't, so affordable housing remains an unsolved issue in most places. Things haven't changed and aren't changing just because people become convinced otherwise.
There's a lot of people (in the US at least) that see appreciating property values as inevitable. Combined with views associating dense housing with urban ghettos from the 80s, it's one of the reasons people think building more houses won't make them more affordable.
That's weird. Don't we get enough stories about Rust Belt economic hardship and Detroit real estate horror stories to know that property values don't always go up? Have we already forgotten 2008?
But it don't have to take a depression to create sinking house prices. In Sweden we had shrinking house prices between 1931 to 1981, with only three years (right after the war) when prices increased. The same period is the most economically successful period we ever had.
Why? Because politicians built a shitton of houses (and tore down a lot of crappy housing too). Nowadays people here too think prices always go up, not realizing it is a political choice. It may very well be the right choice, but so many doesn't even understand it is a choice in the first place.
Why? Because politicians built a shitton of houses (and tore down a lot of crappy housing too). Nowadays people here too think prices always go up, not realizing it is a political choice. It may very well be the right choice, but so many doesn't even understand it is a choice in the first place.
Right, but similar interventions are also completely unthinkable today. Which is why Stockholm have some of the most expensive property in Europe.
In a less exotic location, Houston proves the same.
Houston and Chicago put the bay area to shame with populations over 2 million, high growth and super cost effective housing. The secret is no zoning laws in Houston
Topography also plays a role, Houston and Chicago can grow outward forever, something that pesky hills and water get in the way of in the Bay Area.
Houston does, however, rely on the taxpayers in the rest of the country to underwrite their many many housing units built in a floodplain.
Tokyo proves you need tremendous investment in infrastructure, not just unleashing developers to build without restriction.
Most (if not all?) of the transit in Tokyo is private. When you build densely enough, transit becomes highly profitable on its own, and someone will do it.
They are private in ways specific to Japan that, what I know, you pretty much won't find anywhere else.
Public-private partnership is not so "specific to Japan". The transit/retail connection is definitely a uniquely bright idea but it's something that many other jurisdictions could emulate.
Having that work is specific to Japan. If there is a single example of someone managing to do that successfully, especially with multiple companies, I would like to hear about it. Transit/retail or rail plus property is used in other places, like Hong Kong, but with government owned operators.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-inf...
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-inf...
Can you elaborate?
Transit as retail and real-estate play: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/05/secret-tokyos...
The end to end control over development of these networks+districts was still more centralized, though not by a government, compared to the rather uncoordinated mess that has been US public transit development.
The end to end control over development of these networks+districts was still more centralized, though not by a government, compared to the rather uncoordinated mess that has been US public transit development.
Operated privately is very different from built privately.
As I understand it, developers are quite free to build with minimal restrictions in Tokyo.
It's of course not the only thing you need for a healthy city. But it's a great start!
It's of course not the only thing you need for a healthy city. But it's a great start!
From what I've seen if you build the infrastructure it doesn't change residents attitude to increased density. Actually makes them more opposed as they now have very good public services compared to elsewhere and they don't want to lose it.
It's a chicken and egg problem.
It's a chicken and egg problem.
It’s amazing that this even needs to be published — no study is needed to prove the laws of supply and demand that have been known and obvious for centuries.
In the neighboring cities of Vancouver, the "known and obvious" laws are false. We have developers building skyscrapers full of condos which are selling for 500k-2M for a 1 bedroom. They're largely vacant because they're bought as investment properties. The ultra-rich can afford these places, but don't need to sleep in them. The demand isn't just people who need a place to stay, and rental prices are absurdly high.
We've got a new tax in Vancouver that's helping: the empty homes tax. But that's only Vancouver and not the outlying area.
We've got a new tax in Vancouver that's helping: the empty homes tax. But that's only Vancouver and not the outlying area.
They aren't false. There just hasn't been sufficient building allowed to take up the slack. If Vancouver took a page from Wizards of the Coast's tactics, prices would eventually go down. Namely: you have to convince speculators that you are willing to build (issue cards) until the value of speculative assets falls to the livable price for everyone else. If they were willing to allow unlimited building until the prices fell to the desired level, eventually speculators would realize that Vancouver property is a terrible bet.
Actually the presence of these investors is just a reflection of Vancouver's own unwillingness to allow said amount of building. If the speculators thought there was any chance of them building enough to meet demand, they would no longer view housing in Vancouver as a safe investment. So it's really a self-inflicted wound, not a violation of the laws of supply and demand.
That being said, an empty home tax does not seem like a bad supplemental approach. However, even assuming the tax is perfectly effective, if the population inflows outpace building, prices will continue to rise. And I would guess that is likely to be the case. The tax is a band-aid, but the problem needs stitches and cyanoacrylate.
Actually the presence of these investors is just a reflection of Vancouver's own unwillingness to allow said amount of building. If the speculators thought there was any chance of them building enough to meet demand, they would no longer view housing in Vancouver as a safe investment. So it's really a self-inflicted wound, not a violation of the laws of supply and demand.
That being said, an empty home tax does not seem like a bad supplemental approach. However, even assuming the tax is perfectly effective, if the population inflows outpace building, prices will continue to rise. And I would guess that is likely to be the case. The tax is a band-aid, but the problem needs stitches and cyanoacrylate.
The cities are all extremely friendly to developers (our "affordable housing" is $1700/mo for a 1-bdrm and developers are only required to build a small fraction of "affordable" units). I'm not sure how familiar you are with the area, but it doesn't seem like anybody is holding back on new development except for some weak and failing anti-gentrification efforts. Another significant factor in our local economy is a massive amount of money laundering, perhaps billions of dollars worth. It's been washed in real estate -- and laundry is one place where supply and demand break down: losses are acceptable.
What we're seeing is a huge demand for apartments, at rates that property owners can't afford, given the massively inflated value (hence tax). And homeowners (the upper-middle class), sensibly, don't want to see the market crash. So they don't actually want the government to act: new homeowners fear losing half of their investment. It's a vexatious problem all around
What we're seeing is a huge demand for apartments, at rates that property owners can't afford, given the massively inflated value (hence tax). And homeowners (the upper-middle class), sensibly, don't want to see the market crash. So they don't actually want the government to act: new homeowners fear losing half of their investment. It's a vexatious problem all around
Perhaps in Vancouver the supply constraint is not political, although I somewhat doubt that. My impression from reading about it is that they allow relatively little high density building.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/statistics-on...
From looking at this, it looks like over the last three years they've added between five and six thousand units a year. But the annual population growth during that time has been around 30k people per year. Given the average household size in Canada is south of three people, that means there have been ten thousand households added, two for each unit built.
So, to the extent that Vancouver's government is preventing the building of mid- and high-density housing, I stand by my statement. If they have done all they can to enable the building of such construction, then we must look elsewhere for our cause.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/statistics-on...
From looking at this, it looks like over the last three years they've added between five and six thousand units a year. But the annual population growth during that time has been around 30k people per year. Given the average household size in Canada is south of three people, that means there have been ten thousand households added, two for each unit built.
So, to the extent that Vancouver's government is preventing the building of mid- and high-density housing, I stand by my statement. If they have done all they can to enable the building of such construction, then we must look elsewhere for our cause.
I don't believe the money-laundering is as large a factor as simple supply and demand. The money-laundering report says that prices may have been inflated at 5% (and maybe more in Vancouver proper) but how could a 5% increase put off so many buyers? Also the problem with the report is it's a lot of guessing. Yes, money launderers may have been buying mansions and expensive condos but the vast majority is bought by not-money-launderers. I'm afraid this money-laundering narrative has gotten out of hand in the media and the politicians where they are blamed for everything. Plus Vancouver is notorious for a slow approval process for construction permits with waits of 1-2 years.
Looked up Vancouver ion Google Maps. Looks like mostly single houses. That needs to go if you want low house prices.
Yes, this. Six story 2x apartments per story + shared community space per 4 blocks = 48 units vs 4 units. The density also supports and drives community resources like shops, pubs, doctors and schools and makes public transport feasible. No need for 20 floor monsters.
If you restricted London to 1% foreign born people you wouldn't see a housing shortage either - currently 37% of London's population was born outside of the country. The article quickly dismissed that political choice, but it seems more relevant to me.
Being an immigrant myself I'm not anti-immigrant, but it is important for things like housing policy.
Being an immigrant myself I'm not anti-immigrant, but it is important for things like housing policy.
So you think Tokyo is less than 1% foreign born?
486K as of 2017. So around ~3%
http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/Foreign_Population_by_Nat...
http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/Foreign_Population_by_Nat...
How the heck can they deliver so many flats? Poland with 30% of Japan’s population builds roughly 5 times less houses per year and trust me we’re building new blocks literally everywhere. Yet flats are getting much more expensive every year, it’s cheaper for Londoners to buy flats in London than for Poles to get something in Warsaw. I guess what works for Japan won’t work for European Union as folks from Germany, the UK or France can buy Greek, Bulgarian or Polish flats easily...
> How the heck can they deliver so many flats?
> ...
> I guess what works for Japan won’t work for European Union as folks from Germany, the UK or France can buy Greek, Bulgarian or Polish flats easily...
This confuses me. Af first, you are impressed by the fast rate of construction in Japan and affordable prices in Tokyo. From there, it seems reasonable to speculate that if Poland increased residential construction to be more in line with that of Japan (proportional to population), Poland might also see a reduction in prices.
But you instead immediately jump to the conclusion that it wouldn't work because Poland is in Europe. Japan's system works well enough with a population of 125 million. Any particular reason it couldn't scale to support the 500 million in Europe?
If foreigners are eager to buy up Polish housing, this is only a problem if Polish housing is scarce. If instead, Poland increases construction until it has a surplus of housing, housing becomes just another export that can be sold at a profit, injecting money into the Polish economy.
So why wouldn't it be in Poland's interest to follow the Japanese model?
> ...
> I guess what works for Japan won’t work for European Union as folks from Germany, the UK or France can buy Greek, Bulgarian or Polish flats easily...
This confuses me. Af first, you are impressed by the fast rate of construction in Japan and affordable prices in Tokyo. From there, it seems reasonable to speculate that if Poland increased residential construction to be more in line with that of Japan (proportional to population), Poland might also see a reduction in prices.
But you instead immediately jump to the conclusion that it wouldn't work because Poland is in Europe. Japan's system works well enough with a population of 125 million. Any particular reason it couldn't scale to support the 500 million in Europe?
If foreigners are eager to buy up Polish housing, this is only a problem if Polish housing is scarce. If instead, Poland increases construction until it has a surplus of housing, housing becomes just another export that can be sold at a profit, injecting money into the Polish economy.
So why wouldn't it be in Poland's interest to follow the Japanese model?
Japanese flats usually don't have central heating. They tend to have a/c in one room. The kitchen is usually tiny by western standards. Often there is no bedroom -- the living room is used for sleeping. In all, 20-30m² flats are pretty common.
This is, of course, a lot cheaper to build than 100m² flats with two bedrooms, central heating and a kitchen bigger than most Japanese restaurants.
You can't (or rather, propbably don't want) tiny flats unless you live in a city like Tokyo. Where you can find 24/7 convenience stores everywhere, where there's affordable and tasty food to be found everywhere and at almost any time, where public transport is amazing and affordable. Hell, you don't even need a bath in Japan, as there are public baths everywhere.
TL;DR invest in your city and smaller, more affordable housing becomes possible and desirable. If you don't, it'll start to feel like USSR housing really quickly.
This is, of course, a lot cheaper to build than 100m² flats with two bedrooms, central heating and a kitchen bigger than most Japanese restaurants.
You can't (or rather, propbably don't want) tiny flats unless you live in a city like Tokyo. Where you can find 24/7 convenience stores everywhere, where there's affordable and tasty food to be found everywhere and at almost any time, where public transport is amazing and affordable. Hell, you don't even need a bath in Japan, as there are public baths everywhere.
TL;DR invest in your city and smaller, more affordable housing becomes possible and desirable. If you don't, it'll start to feel like USSR housing really quickly.
Think speak in the article :"Tokyo reformed its green belt twice" in fact Tokyo did not reform its green belt, it abandoned it.
Also, yes, it is good if single people can make the choice to live independently, but a far larger problem in my mind is that families are driven either into poverty or out of London. The reform that I would seek is that apartments should have three bedrooms, this would create desirable family homes as well as flexible share candidates.
Also, yes, it is good if single people can make the choice to live independently, but a far larger problem in my mind is that families are driven either into poverty or out of London. The reform that I would seek is that apartments should have three bedrooms, this would create desirable family homes as well as flexible share candidates.
What makes you think the market won't provide those 3 bedroom apartments? Why should those details be dictated? Isn't the the whole problem causing housing shortages in the first place - local government deciding how much luxury everybody must have, no matter how much they don't want it? Whenever there's a housing shortage, people start wanting to impose even more restrictions instead of allowing the people living there to drive the market with what they really want.
The market is providing 2 beds (one big, one small) because these are acceptable to young professional couples. When babies come (which is often what happens) then the apartment works for a short time, but then confronts the couple with a challenge. The second bed is inadequate, and if the babies are of different sexes then the law dictates that they can't share the room past 9(?) years old.
This causes the couple to seek a house (there are no 3 bed apartments) houses are very inefficient in terms of footprint, and affordability means that most young couples end up commuting.
Government has a role because developers just building things mean that the costs of the development are unanticipated and then later socialised as collateral damage. On the other hand if government manages development then the appropriate stock with appropriate infrastructure (doctors, schools, shops, transport) can be provided at the time and the cost socialised in the transaction and managed. This is economically much more efficient.
This causes the couple to seek a house (there are no 3 bed apartments) houses are very inefficient in terms of footprint, and affordability means that most young couples end up commuting.
Government has a role because developers just building things mean that the costs of the development are unanticipated and then later socialised as collateral damage. On the other hand if government manages development then the appropriate stock with appropriate infrastructure (doctors, schools, shops, transport) can be provided at the time and the cost socialised in the transaction and managed. This is economically much more efficient.
I am not convinced. The attribution to the simple zoning system is surely not a complete proof, if any. Consider a counter-example: South Korea that has a very similar zoning system. Yet the housing price around Seoul soared roughly by 60% the past 3 years---so did rents (to a smaller but still significant rate). All the while the apartments supply has been at record high in 10 years. That zoning policy may be a factor but clearly not sufficient.
> All the while the apartments supply has been at record high in 10 years.
Has the number of jobs increased? Housing needs to be built in proportion to office/factory/commercial space in order to balance supply and demand.
Has the number of jobs increased? Housing needs to be built in proportion to office/factory/commercial space in order to balance supply and demand.
The employment rate has increased by somewhat unnoticeable amount over the past 10 years [1]. The increased housing supply is mostly due to cost factors (tax breaks from the previous administrations, low interest rate) and the demand due to decline of small cities (demand gets concentrated around Seoul, the capital city; people buy houses around Seoul while living far away in another place on rent). As for the office/factory/commercial space, there has been a sharp increase in supply, and the vacancy rate (spaces that cannot find tenants) is 10-20% in major cities. Folks still buy buildings with a yield of 2.5-4% because the interest rate is so low. I am currently based in Cambridge, Boston. There are empty stores that have been looking for tenants for more than a year.
[1]: http://www.index.go.kr/unify/idx-info.do?idxCd=4013
[1]: http://www.index.go.kr/unify/idx-info.do?idxCd=4013
This is bit overblown article. Certainly bad zoning laws can help inflate prices and there are several other factors like investors using real-estate for investment. However the major cause of real-estate price increase over long term is plain and simple: heavy urbanization of entire world. If you look at graph of population moving to urban centers over centuries it looks like literally almost vertical line in recent decades [1]. I'd heard that 90% of Earth's population is concentrated around just 40 urban centers! The real-estate in rural area has remained same or took nose dive while in urban areas it keeps going up.
Interesting question is how fat this trend will keep going? My guess is that this is black-hole effect, a larger city attracts even larger population towards it. Japan has recently became outlier because of economic issue as well as population decline.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
Interesting question is how fat this trend will keep going? My guess is that this is black-hole effect, a larger city attracts even larger population towards it. Japan has recently became outlier because of economic issue as well as population decline.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
Kind of unrelated but also relevant. What is it like working as a software engineer in Japan vs. say San Francisco? How's the pay? The stress?
San Francisco is a filthy city but would are software engineers happier in that city or would they be in Tokyo?
San Francisco is a filthy city but would are software engineers happier in that city or would they be in Tokyo?
The difference here is that London has a lot of foreign and domestic real estate "investors" that I'm pretty sure won't be happy with affordable housing for everyone.
Who wants London's property market to crash?
Who wants London's property market to crash?
“Who wants London's property market to crash?”
People who value housing as a place to sleep rather than a financial investment.
People who value housing as a place to sleep rather than a financial investment.
This should be about 100% of the voters right?
No, not really. People who own their homes have a vested interest in prices rising, people who live in government-mandated affordable housing have no particular stake one way or the other, and people who rent at market rates often have low visibility into the fact that their rates are the result of a housing shortage and prefer to blame landlords for renting at prices the market will bear.
Of those that can AFFORD to live in London? Seems unlikely.
In the UK, since the early 1980's, it has been considered political suicide by a succession of both conservative and labour governments to not give money to the middle classes in the form of large increases in the value of their homes. This is one of the main reasons we have built about half as many houses as Canada since 1980, while having around twice the population.
Wouldn't this only work as a method of increasing middle class wealth if you owned 2+ properties? Otherwise, you have to live somewhere. You can't sell your house and unlock that wealth increase without spending it all on the next place to live.
People became obsessed with their home valuation. How much more money your house was worth since you bought it became one of the main methods of social boasting for decades, regardless of whether you were actually able to really profit from any of it.
Most of the middle class and up in the UK have a significant chunk of their wealth tied up in property (their own homes, then investment property), so not really.
London now has more renters than owner-occupiers, so the answer is, most of London's inhabitants want property prices to decrease. This would make their rent more affordable and give them a better shot at transitioning from renter to owner (which is a goal of many).
Current owners of scarce real estate wouldn't lose money if zoning laws were changed to allow more density. The land they own would actually become more valuable, as it could now have more units than before. Allowing more productive use of the underlying land is actually good for both the sellers and buyers of housing.
The number of houses built is not the best metric. How many square meters of housing are build every year?
Not mentioned in the article, but also significant is that in the last decade or so, commercial property developers have been required to provide housing too.
We can see many successful examples of mixed-use buildings in predominantly commercial districts such as Shinjuku and Roppongi.
We can see many successful examples of mixed-use buildings in predominantly commercial districts such as Shinjuku and Roppongi.
That is not a requirement but rather an innovation first done by Mori Tower about thirty years ago.
Most large sky scrappers are still pure office towers. The mixed use developments are rare and lifestyle branded.
Most large sky scrappers are still pure office towers. The mixed use developments are rare and lifestyle branded.
Uk is not London
Just a reminder that land is a limited natural resource that does not have a monetary value assigned to it except by political choice.
We could assign zero dollar value to land and allocate it democratically based on utility to the public and with an eye to preserving the environment. Allowing a market in land doesn't allocate it to the best uses (why do we have fancy hotels on the best real estate when there are homeless people?), just to the purposes of the people with the most money. If the people that own the construction equipment refuse to build when land is worth less, the public should step in and do it.
For the liberals out there, if we did this a certain person would not be president and the country would be a better, more egalitarian place. Imagine having nearly everything you pay in rent back in your pocket instead of being progressively squeezed more and more each year and spied on (given the increasing installation of monitoring equipment that you do not control).
If we could ban owning properties that you do not personally use, imagine how that would change the composition of cities. Gentrification would be vastly reduced. Shops, community centers, and other things that people love wouldn't get kicked out of town because the rent always increases.
That would be revolutionary.
We could assign zero dollar value to land and allocate it democratically based on utility to the public and with an eye to preserving the environment. Allowing a market in land doesn't allocate it to the best uses (why do we have fancy hotels on the best real estate when there are homeless people?), just to the purposes of the people with the most money. If the people that own the construction equipment refuse to build when land is worth less, the public should step in and do it.
For the liberals out there, if we did this a certain person would not be president and the country would be a better, more egalitarian place. Imagine having nearly everything you pay in rent back in your pocket instead of being progressively squeezed more and more each year and spied on (given the increasing installation of monitoring equipment that you do not control).
If we could ban owning properties that you do not personally use, imagine how that would change the composition of cities. Gentrification would be vastly reduced. Shops, community centers, and other things that people love wouldn't get kicked out of town because the rent always increases.
That would be revolutionary.
> democratically based on utility to the public
Ok, so I want to live in the center of the city, because there the walking distance is shorter.
John wants to do the same thing, but he gets assigned a tiny plot somewhere miles outside the center.
How will you make value judgements about people in this manner? You cannot assign randomly either, as everyone will hate the place they live.
Ok, so I want to live in the center of the city, because there the walking distance is shorter.
John wants to do the same thing, but he gets assigned a tiny plot somewhere miles outside the center.
How will you make value judgements about people in this manner? You cannot assign randomly either, as everyone will hate the place they live.
There are lots of ways to do it, but yes, whatever you do, you have to make that value judgment. I have trouble believing that the value judgment "Your parents were richer than John's parents" is anywhere near the top of the list of reasonable approaches. (I have real trouble believing that the value judgment "Your grandparents shared a race with the politically powerful, who refused to sell to John's grandparents" or "Your great-grandparents shot John's great-grandparents in the face" are anywhere except right at the bottom.)
What about "I can afford to pay for the privilege because my father worked his butt off and made lots and lots of money" is that still ok?
Less bad, but still doesn't clear the "rational" bar for me—why does what your father did have anything to do with where you should live?
(If anything, since you don't have any choice in which father you get and since an ineffective or even missing father affects your life in lots of ways, there's an argument that people without hard-working, diligent fathers should have extra support from society to make up for it. But it would be better to just address the root causes of why not having great parents puts you at a disadvantage in life.)
(If anything, since you don't have any choice in which father you get and since an ineffective or even missing father affects your life in lots of ways, there's an argument that people without hard-working, diligent fathers should have extra support from society to make up for it. But it would be better to just address the root causes of why not having great parents puts you at a disadvantage in life.)
What about "I worked my butt off for many years to be able to live here" is that ok?
Yes, that crosses the threshold of rational to me. It doesn't seem necessarily optimal, mind you—there are some interesting cases like "John worked his butt off, too, but he's been doing coal mining for thirty years and those jobs are gone, and you graduated last year with a CS degree and got a nice signing bonus from Facebook"—but at least we can argue that society for whatever reason values being a junior dev at Facebook more than coal mining and if that's wrong we should address that at the root.
The biggest practical problem is that it's very difficult to distinguish "I worked my butt off" from "My father worked his butt off" and "His father had generational wealth." Money is money, and the inheritance tax is far below 100%. So simply putting land access on the free market, if the market is denominated by money, does not effectively implement this proposal: it reduces in practice to the non-rational value judgments mentioned earlier, largely because very few people can earn enough salary to compete with once-modest savings that have been invested for generations. (And money persists across the years, so if society ever mis-valued something in the past, correcting that valuation now does not affect money that's already in people's hands. I guess that's the case for reparations in a nutshell, hm.)
One potential approach is to require that access to land involve the ongoing payment of money that dwarfs the one-time purchase cost (if there even is one), which approximates giving land access to those who are presently doing valuable things for society and not those who just happen to have money. If you're currently working your butt off, even if you're young, you can keep affording it; if you are relying on savings or generational wealth, it's going to run out.
It occurs to me that this is approaching the Georgists' land value tax, though from a different direction.
The biggest practical problem is that it's very difficult to distinguish "I worked my butt off" from "My father worked his butt off" and "His father had generational wealth." Money is money, and the inheritance tax is far below 100%. So simply putting land access on the free market, if the market is denominated by money, does not effectively implement this proposal: it reduces in practice to the non-rational value judgments mentioned earlier, largely because very few people can earn enough salary to compete with once-modest savings that have been invested for generations. (And money persists across the years, so if society ever mis-valued something in the past, correcting that valuation now does not affect money that's already in people's hands. I guess that's the case for reparations in a nutshell, hm.)
One potential approach is to require that access to land involve the ongoing payment of money that dwarfs the one-time purchase cost (if there even is one), which approximates giving land access to those who are presently doing valuable things for society and not those who just happen to have money. If you're currently working your butt off, even if you're young, you can keep affording it; if you are relying on savings or generational wealth, it's going to run out.
It occurs to me that this is approaching the Georgists' land value tax, though from a different direction.
Most of that land is sold with a mortgage with 5-20% downpayment, and so that ongoing payment already dwarfs the one-time purchase cost. Alternatively, you're talking about rent. Also, large wealth doesn't generally just run out, if properly managed. It can grow very easily with decently smart investments.
Also, how do you know society mis-valued John's grandfathers contributions? If John's grandfather invented the axe, thereby incrementally improving millions of lives, and generating vast wealth for himself, such that his contribution is still "being paid back" in some sense by society by allowing John to coast, this seems neutral to me. Remember, this is true for only a very small % of society. Instead of trying to implement a rule-based system to correct it and thereby creating other problems (such as creating a steep inheritance tax), good old-fashioned social pressure can go a long way. Celebrate the rich who use their wealth for beneficial purposes, and shame those who do not. Public appearance is important for business, but make it even more-so. Instead of celebrating flaunting of wealth, celebrate giving to charity. I see the rise of the tech elite already moving us in this direction.
Also, how do you know society mis-valued John's grandfathers contributions? If John's grandfather invented the axe, thereby incrementally improving millions of lives, and generating vast wealth for himself, such that his contribution is still "being paid back" in some sense by society by allowing John to coast, this seems neutral to me. Remember, this is true for only a very small % of society. Instead of trying to implement a rule-based system to correct it and thereby creating other problems (such as creating a steep inheritance tax), good old-fashioned social pressure can go a long way. Celebrate the rich who use their wealth for beneficial purposes, and shame those who do not. Public appearance is important for business, but make it even more-so. Instead of celebrating flaunting of wealth, celebrate giving to charity. I see the rise of the tech elite already moving us in this direction.
> Alternatively, you're talking about rent. Also, large wealth doesn't generally just run out, if properly managed.
Yeah, I don't think my proposal is foolproof. (Among other things, it sucks for the coal miner who no longer has a job, and is great for the new hire at Facebook!) I do think it's a little bit closer to the ideal than land access based on wealth though.
> If John's grandfather invented the axe, thereby incrementally improving millions of lives, and generating vast wealth for himself, such that his contribution is still "being paid back" in some sense by society by allowing John to coast, this seems neutral to me.
I guess this now becomes a matter of political opinion, but I don't see that as a reason for John to get a place near the city center and you to be in the outer suburbs. It makes sense to me for society to repay John's grandfather for his work. It does not make sense to me for society to repay John for his grandfather's work.
Let me put it another way: Jonny's grandfather stole a million dollars in 1930 (which is, of course, much more than that now!). The money was never recovered. The grandfather was caught, ordered to repay the money, and put into prison where he died. Since it hasn't been repaid yet, the debt falls onto Jonny, who needs to come up with millions of dollars and whose wages are garnished. Is this just? Does doing this yield a better society?
I think it makes sense primarily to compensate people for their work and secondarily to incentivize valuable / productive work. I don't think "providing for your grandchildren" really accomplishes that. The grandchild is their own person; just as they're not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, they're not responsible for the accomplishments of their ancestors either. And I really don't think people would cease to make accomplishments like inventing axes if they knew that they could only achieve a good life for themselves and not for their grandchildren.
Yeah, I don't think my proposal is foolproof. (Among other things, it sucks for the coal miner who no longer has a job, and is great for the new hire at Facebook!) I do think it's a little bit closer to the ideal than land access based on wealth though.
> If John's grandfather invented the axe, thereby incrementally improving millions of lives, and generating vast wealth for himself, such that his contribution is still "being paid back" in some sense by society by allowing John to coast, this seems neutral to me.
I guess this now becomes a matter of political opinion, but I don't see that as a reason for John to get a place near the city center and you to be in the outer suburbs. It makes sense to me for society to repay John's grandfather for his work. It does not make sense to me for society to repay John for his grandfather's work.
Let me put it another way: Jonny's grandfather stole a million dollars in 1930 (which is, of course, much more than that now!). The money was never recovered. The grandfather was caught, ordered to repay the money, and put into prison where he died. Since it hasn't been repaid yet, the debt falls onto Jonny, who needs to come up with millions of dollars and whose wages are garnished. Is this just? Does doing this yield a better society?
I think it makes sense primarily to compensate people for their work and secondarily to incentivize valuable / productive work. I don't think "providing for your grandchildren" really accomplishes that. The grandchild is their own person; just as they're not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, they're not responsible for the accomplishments of their ancestors either. And I really don't think people would cease to make accomplishments like inventing axes if they knew that they could only achieve a good life for themselves and not for their grandchildren.
781(2)
Money is green everywhere, so people can never be sure if your father worked a lot for that money or if won the lottery or stole it. As a result, we should not make these decisions based on money alone.
We could just make value judgments on people based on how much money they have.
/snark.
Really to be serious I would say that your concern is valid, but we shouldn’t be comparing this idea to perfection, because today we certainly don’t have perfection. Yes you are right that determining who gets housing is nontrivial. But who said collaborating across society was simple? Abstracting it all away to markets is far from ideal, don’t dismiss other proposals simply because they may not be easy.
/snark.
Really to be serious I would say that your concern is valid, but we shouldn’t be comparing this idea to perfection, because today we certainly don’t have perfection. Yes you are right that determining who gets housing is nontrivial. But who said collaborating across society was simple? Abstracting it all away to markets is far from ideal, don’t dismiss other proposals simply because they may not be easy.
I don’t dismiss other proposals. I dismiss this one in specific.
Our current housing market isn’t perfect, but like democracy it’s the best we’ve been able to come up with so far.
Our current housing market isn’t perfect, but like democracy it’s the best we’ve been able to come up with so far.
We could assign zero dollar value to land and allocate it democratically based on utility to the public...
How is central allocation according to some metric actually democratic?
Just a reminder that land is a limited natural resource that does not have a monetary value assigned to it except by political choice.
Land's value is nominally derived from the income it can generate. In the Wealth of Nations, Smith walks us through the connection between the price of farm land and the value of the crops that could be grown on it.
How is central allocation according to some metric actually democratic?
Just a reminder that land is a limited natural resource that does not have a monetary value assigned to it except by political choice.
Land's value is nominally derived from the income it can generate. In the Wealth of Nations, Smith walks us through the connection between the price of farm land and the value of the crops that could be grown on it.
Why ban? In Switzerland you pay the same amount of property tax if you rent, live in or keep your property empty. The tax is adjusted every six months with the medium rent values.
Once upon a time in the West only property-owners could vote in national elections. Then they changed the law to give all citizens (over 18) the vote, regardless of whether they owned property or not. They should have changed the law so all citizens owned the property they lived in -- and thus given the vote to every citizen that way.
Do you not consider yourself a liberal? You’re proposing a socialist redistribution of land, which is far to the left of any major political party.
(I’m pointing out an inconsistency in your political labeling, not commenting on your suggestion.)
(I’m pointing out an inconsistency in your political labeling, not commenting on your suggestion.)
Real socialists very much distinguish themselves from liberals. If the labeling seems inconsistent, it's likely because the spectrum of American politics is so narrow the two get collapsed into each other. Socialist politics have been in a state of almost total collapse over the past 50 years, and most Americans are unfamiliar with its main tenets.
Having spent a bit of time trying to understand this band of the spectrum, here's my very rough mental model. Regarding economics, you can think of the left continuum as moving roughly from liberal -> progressive -> social democrat -> socialist -> communist.
* Liberals pretty much favor what you might call free markets, with some regulations against the worst excesses (pollution, fraud, etc).
* Progressives tend to favor a more Keynesian approach, with the government stepping in to try and tone down the amplitude of the boom/bust cycle, pursuing aggressive antitrust action, etc (think Elizabeth Warren).
* Social Democrats believe that capitalism fundamentally produces inequality, but also wealth, so to maintain social cohesion, markets have to be balanced with a strong welfare state, or safety nets (Sanders circa present day probably fits here).
* Socialists believe that capitalism is an inherently exploitative distribution of _ownership_ where an elite social class owns most of the necessities like housing, hospitals, factories, etc.[1] Socialists believe that that ownership is the result of workers being forced into a bad deal: having to sell their labor in exchange for access to those necessities, and that the remedy is for those workers to unite to wrest those necessities back from the owning class.
* Communists accept the same principles as socialists, but believe that the end goal for politics should be a society where all resources are collectively owned and distributed on the basis of need. Authoritarian communists believe that a strong centralized government is needed to make this happen (think Stalin or Mao), and that once the redistribution happens, that government will fade out of necessity. On the other hand, libertarian communists (also known as anarchists) believe that centralizing state power will only reproduce the exploitation of a capitalism under different owners.
[1] Not all socialists oppose markets, some think they're great, but that individual firms should be collectively owned by their employees, rather than external shareholders.
Having spent a bit of time trying to understand this band of the spectrum, here's my very rough mental model. Regarding economics, you can think of the left continuum as moving roughly from liberal -> progressive -> social democrat -> socialist -> communist.
* Liberals pretty much favor what you might call free markets, with some regulations against the worst excesses (pollution, fraud, etc).
* Progressives tend to favor a more Keynesian approach, with the government stepping in to try and tone down the amplitude of the boom/bust cycle, pursuing aggressive antitrust action, etc (think Elizabeth Warren).
* Social Democrats believe that capitalism fundamentally produces inequality, but also wealth, so to maintain social cohesion, markets have to be balanced with a strong welfare state, or safety nets (Sanders circa present day probably fits here).
* Socialists believe that capitalism is an inherently exploitative distribution of _ownership_ where an elite social class owns most of the necessities like housing, hospitals, factories, etc.[1] Socialists believe that that ownership is the result of workers being forced into a bad deal: having to sell their labor in exchange for access to those necessities, and that the remedy is for those workers to unite to wrest those necessities back from the owning class.
* Communists accept the same principles as socialists, but believe that the end goal for politics should be a society where all resources are collectively owned and distributed on the basis of need. Authoritarian communists believe that a strong centralized government is needed to make this happen (think Stalin or Mao), and that once the redistribution happens, that government will fade out of necessity. On the other hand, libertarian communists (also known as anarchists) believe that centralizing state power will only reproduce the exploitation of a capitalism under different owners.
[1] Not all socialists oppose markets, some think they're great, but that individual firms should be collectively owned by their employees, rather than external shareholders.
The left movement since even before Marx was generally very critical of liberalism - that is, the political philosophy based on the concept of rights (in theory rights conferred to all humans but in practice only very rarely so), property rights, and the idea that the only valid way to make changes in society is to vote.
Somehow the term "liberal" in the US (though also in some other parts of the world) came to be associated with progressives, who are yet still usually differentiated from the Socialists and other "far left" ideologies. Most of the academic socialist, communist, radical feminist and anarchist work is strongly critical of liberalism, even its metaphysics and epistemology.
Indeed, Marx himself started (if his early texts are anything to go by) as a liberal in that sense. The key turning point for him was his critique of liberalism in his On The Jewish Question. From SEP:
>Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation.
Somehow the term "liberal" in the US (though also in some other parts of the world) came to be associated with progressives, who are yet still usually differentiated from the Socialists and other "far left" ideologies. Most of the academic socialist, communist, radical feminist and anarchist work is strongly critical of liberalism, even its metaphysics and epistemology.
Indeed, Marx himself started (if his early texts are anything to go by) as a liberal in that sense. The key turning point for him was his critique of liberalism in his On The Jewish Question. From SEP:
>Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation.
This is a bit late. I was rhetorically appealing to liberals but consider myself a socialist if that helps.
"Liberal" means center-left (ie into free markets). In European discourse "liberal" parties are centrists, and US socialists use the term exclusively to refer to centrists Democrats.
I am surprised to read that houses in Japan are "inexpensive". They are very expensive, as is everything in Japan. Also I think there might be differences because the climate is relatively warm, the houses don't have central heating, which reduces the costs.
The prices in London are high probably because there are lot of rich people, lot of immigrants and therefore high demand for housing.
The prices in London are high probably because there are lot of rich people, lot of immigrants and therefore high demand for housing.
and those who live in London doesn't allow enough houses to be build to lower the cost?
The planning laws and social/physical infrastructure mitigate against initiatives and changes that would reduce the costs. One fundamental is that the rail gauge in the UK was the first one created, and this meant that tunnels and bridges were built unambitiously, consequentially there are no double decker trains in the UK. If there were double decker trains on the London commute lines London accommodation prices would be significantly reduced (I believe). That's just one small example of the complex confluence of issues that have driven the market in one direction though.
Everyone should remember that 60 years ago London housing was very poor as well as relatively expensive (although far more attainable). That's important as it shows that things can and will change over time in the market. We need to think about this because some of the reforms suggested will fundamentally alter the physical geography of the city in ways that will have consequences 100's of years into the future. Architects and planners have a very bad track record with respect to these alterations, for example see Birmingham, Portsmouth, Ipswich, Reading in contrast to Manchester, Brighton and Bristol where history has run differently (Bath is a really good story - the 60's got stopped in its tracks there).
Everyone should remember that 60 years ago London housing was very poor as well as relatively expensive (although far more attainable). That's important as it shows that things can and will change over time in the market. We need to think about this because some of the reforms suggested will fundamentally alter the physical geography of the city in ways that will have consequences 100's of years into the future. Architects and planners have a very bad track record with respect to these alterations, for example see Birmingham, Portsmouth, Ipswich, Reading in contrast to Manchester, Brighton and Bristol where history has run differently (Bath is a really good story - the 60's got stopped in its tracks there).
I never understood this argument. Japan is one of the most different places relative to everywhere else. That you can't find a more familiar example almost becomes a counter argument. There is something about housing markets that makes people feel like their city is somehow unique and if they could just fix their local problem everything would be great. While pretty much every in demand major city in the world is having the same problems.