Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#61

Post by freewilly1040 »

astrange wrote: post #52
bilbo0s wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of problem in Japan: > also set strict requirements for younger people who lived there: if your income exceeded a certain threshold, you would be evicted. If you refused, you were charged rent – at potentially up to twice the market rate, depending on your income... Part of problem in US: > Cupertino residents are ... incredibly dedicated to not letting anyone new move in... Sounds like HNUser "npunt" was correc…

There's a lot of differences - Japan actually has great zoning and land use laws, and zoning is nationally controlled, so homeowners can't abuse it to raise their own property prices like in California. That's what the "traffic" complaints are excuses for. As a result, housing in Tokyo is a lot cheaper than you'd expect it to be. Still, the issues with public housing aren't surprising. I'm not sure you can get evicte…

I wonder if the root cause in Tokyo is more their aversion to immigration than any zoning problem

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#62

Post by yellowapple »

amyjess wrote: post #11
reustle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They drive golf carts* I've been to a couple golf cart communities in Florida and they are actually pretty cool for retirement

My dad lives in a 55+ community in Nevada, and they have golf carts too. There's even a sign when you enter the development warning you that golf carts are permitted on the roads. Unlike a lot of retirement communities, it looks like just another suburban housing development. The only hint that it's different, aside from the golf carts, is that every single house is one-story in order to accommodate people who can't…

Sounds vaguely like the Somersett neighborhood in Reno (though I don't recall if it's entirely 55+; there are some kid-friendly amenities, which suggests that families with kids are allowed to live in at least some parts, but for some reason I remember it being mostly retirees).

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#63

Post by maxander »

You’ve got to admire Japan- they face a problem for the welfare of their citizens, but they’re grappling with it in an intelligent and informed manner. They’re not particularly close to solving the underlying issues but, from the sound of it at least, steps are in the consistently right direction.

In the U.S., in contrast, this kind of problem wouldn’t even come up- because everyone involved would be living on the street, and no one in a position of civic authority would consider it their responsibility.

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#64

Post by gdilla »

npunt wrote: post #13

In everything from technology to culture to aging, Japan seems to be a portent for things yet to happen in the west. We tend to view suburbs as these static places that serve a particular purpose for primarily families and where nothing changes. But in fact suburbs are starting to transform into de facto retirement communities as boomers exit the workforce, due in large part to incentives from certain laws that keep…

one thing that is markedly different is immigration. Japan has minuscule amounts of immigration, and non japanese blood people can't be citizens. In Canada, at least, they recognize we'd all be old white people without the current levels of immigration.

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#66

Post by beiller »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #60
dougmwne wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the simplest explanation is that once people have put down decades worth of roots in a place, most would prefer to stay, no matter how many millions their house would sell for. I think for most people the upheaval of leaving all your friends, acquaintances, family, local culture, habits, patterns of living, and your very home behind far outweighs even a eye-opening property value. You'd need a damn good reaso…

I think you make a great point, but it begs the question: why does changing houses mean giving up your roots?

Probably because making profit on selling your home means you have to move away. Because your neighbours home also went up just as much.

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#67

Post by aikinai »

gdilla wrote: post #64
npunt wrote: post #13

In everything from technology to culture to aging, Japan seems to be a portent for things yet to happen in the west. We tend to view suburbs as these static places that serve a particular purpose for primarily families and where nothing changes. But in fact suburbs are starting to transform into de facto retirement communities as boomers exit the workforce, due in large part to incentives from certain laws that keep…

one thing that is markedly different is immigration. Japan has minuscule amounts of immigration, and non japanese blood people can't be citizens. In Canada, at least, they recognize we'd all be old white people without the current levels of immigration.

There's no blood requirement to get Japanese citizenship. It's actually easier than many western countries, including the US, for skilled immigrants.

They just don't allow much unskilled immigration, which is why the total number is low. And even that is rapidly changing; in particular, a brand new immigration policy was passed this year.

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#68

Post by Gibbon1 »

tungwaiyip wrote: post #27
Tiktaalik wrote: post #6

Really interesting article. > ... it also set strict requirements for younger people who lived there: if your income exceeded a certain threshold, you would be evicted. If you refused, you were charged rent – at potentially up to twice the market rate, depending on your income. The goal was to make public housing a safety net for elderly, low-income and socially vulnerable people. The effect, however, has been to mak…

I have also seen this in public housing in Hong Kong. Government built housing for families in the 70s. Children move out. The remaining residents turn grey. The residents in the housing complex are aging along with the buildings.

The street I spent my childhood on there was about 30 kids under 10 years old. Now there is about three. My family moved away but I recently checked and the girl next doors parents have lived there ever since. They're in their 80's.

Mulling it over I think uniform single use zoning/construction is 'bad'. I saw presentation by a guys showing various housing. One of them was a very nice 1920's era apartment building in Redwood city. One of his points was it'd be totally illegal to build something like that today.

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#69

Post by cameldrv »

01100011 wrote: post #55
mathattack wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their houses are paid off and they are locked in to low property taxes.

You could sell your bay area house for $1M and buy a palace in AZ for half that. That leaves you with a nice chunk of change to pay property taxes with.

But it's unnecessary. If you bought your 3 bedroom house in Cupertino in 1978 for $60k, you're paying taxes on about $140k, so about $1400 a year. These people can live on just Social Security.

If they can easily afford to stay where they are with all of their friends and community, in a spectacular climate, not have to deal with the hassle of moving or maintaining a larger house, and pass a $2.5 million asset to their kids, why would they move?

Re: Tokyo's suburban housing became vast ghettoes for the old

#70

Post by 01100011 »

cameldrv wrote: post #69
01100011 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could sell your bay area house for $1M and buy a palace in AZ for half that. That leaves you with a nice chunk of change to pay property taxes with.

But it's unnecessary. If you bought your 3 bedroom house in Cupertino in 1978 for $60k, you're paying taxes on about $140k, so about $1400 a year. These people can live on just Social Security. If they can easily afford to stay where they are with all of their friends and community, in a spectacular climate, not have to deal with the hassle of moving or maintaining a larger house, and pass a $2.5 million asset to the…

> why would they move?

To follow their children who probably left the bay area so they could raise a family?

To escape the cold and humid winters of this 'spectacular climate'(seriously, that's a very relative opinion. San Diego was better. Phoenix is fine if you have AC).

To not have to deal with the hassle of maintaining a 40-60 year old house?

To not have to pay some of the highest state income taxes around?

To reallocate their assets to a growth vehicle and pass on more wealth to their children(seriously our market is maxed for now)?

To live near millions of people in their age bracket in an environment that caters to them?

To have access to superior medical care(IME, South bay sucks. San Diego is better. Phoenix is better. San Antonio is better. etc...).

CA is generally a horrible place to retire unless you have money to burn. If I were 65+, had children, and owned a house in the south bay, I would leave in a heartbeat unless my children were working FANG jobs in the same area of the bay.

Post reply on HN