How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing • Hacker News Board

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#31

Post by mabbo » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:17 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #14

mabbo wrote: post #5

The true essence of the article: > Japan has a relatively simple and unambiguous zoning code, one which the national government has repeatedly adjusted in order to allow for more housing growth in Tokyo. That has been done in the face of opposition at neighbourhood and even city level, opposition that in countries which have devolved land use decisions to a local level would be enough to stop densification or at leas…

> We need more of this in the western world. AFAIK EU zonings are not significantly (if at all) more complex than Japanese zoning, the US are the stand-out there with a constellation of byzantine exclusive zonings. I do know for certain that both french and german zoning are national/federal policy and (quite necessarily) mixed-use. So it would probably be a good thing to unfuck US zoning (good luck with that though)…

> Japanese people don't value buildings[0], only land

This is becoming true in most of the housing-is-too-expensive cities of North America. In my neighbourhood in Toronto, most houses that weren't built in the last 20 years would be torn down immediately when bought so that a new monster mansion can be built. The plot of land is worth millions- but mainly because there's such a low supply of housing.

The trick is to build tall to multiply the amount of land. Otherwise, you get the horrendous situation Silicon Valley is in.

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#32

Post by dalbasal » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:27 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #28

dalbasal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This something only a government could really do. Housing is nowhere near a free market. Public decisions control what can be built/rebuilt & where, essentially dictating "supply". It's also public infrastructure, services and wider economic policies that determine the value of that supply to consumers. A quasi-laissez faire housing market can work. The US has many of them, in the geographically unrestricted cities l…

In that case, wouldn't the reasonable response to desire for higher density be, you know, demolishing single units to build high density housing? Often, that isn't possible due to zoning in these 'unrestricted' cities. Zoning tends to be really restrictive, up to the point of placing tight limits on the density of dwellings.

Zoning or not, leveling housing to make room for high density is expensive, slow and difficulty-prone.

It's slow because you need to wait for many individuals in a market to act. They'll usually need to act in cooperation, piecing together smaller parcels. It's expensive because you are destroying housing to make housing.

Also, management of public infrastructure (even schools) is not flexible, adapting to local needs in realtime. A planner/zoner may look at an area, see that the infrastructure is insufficient and shut down population increases because they have no way to pay for more infrastructure.

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#33

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:33 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #2

I think it's worth occasionally thinking of the "economy" in simple terms, especially for the wider middle class. There are relatively few broad categories that make up most of our economic lives. For most people the "economy" mostly consists of (0) their job/income (1) food/consumable (2) stuff/durables (3) transport (4) vital services: health, education, etc. (5) housing. 1 & 2 are well served by free markets, and…

The planning commission in my small town recently blocked a $10 million apartment building that would have mostly been cheaper housing.

Some directly stated that they didn't want the poor people living in the area, which is stupid because they already live there (demographically it's already the poorest zone in the county). A few others said they didn't want to disturb the historical character of the shabby, decades old commercial building that is currently on the site.

The real reason is that they don't consider reducing housing prices a good outcome. Which is just bonkers. Variations of that problem will repeat all over the place. Entrenched interests are often at odds with the policies that would serve the larger group of people (and even be economically beneficial...).

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#34

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #23

dalbasal wrote: post #2

I think it's worth occasionally thinking of the "economy" in simple terms, especially for the wider middle class. There are relatively few broad categories that make up most of our economic lives. For most people the "economy" mostly consists of (0) their job/income (1) food/consumable (2) stuff/durables (3) transport (4) vital services: health, education, etc. (5) housing. 1 & 2 are well served by free markets, and…

>Housing is in many places (mostly successful cities) the economic disaster. Fully exposed to financialization, business cycles, inflation prone. Rather than signalling to supply, prices adjust to whatever the median person can afford to pay Why should housing not be to governed by market forces? Housing shortages are due to regulations, from limiting new development outright, to limiting high density buildings, to h…

Many supply restrictions are geographic rather than based on regulation.

Also, Singapore has a semi-socialized system that seems to work.

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#35

Post by mseebach » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #14

mabbo wrote: post #5

The true essence of the article: > Japan has a relatively simple and unambiguous zoning code, one which the national government has repeatedly adjusted in order to allow for more housing growth in Tokyo. That has been done in the face of opposition at neighbourhood and even city level, opposition that in countries which have devolved land use decisions to a local level would be enough to stop densification or at leas…

> We need more of this in the western world. AFAIK EU zonings are not significantly (if at all) more complex than Japanese zoning, the US are the stand-out there with a constellation of byzantine exclusive zonings. I do know for certain that both french and german zoning are national/federal policy and (quite necessarily) mixed-use. So it would probably be a good thing to unfuck US zoning (good luck with that though)…

Both London and Copenhagen, the cities I have a bit of first hand experience with, may not have ridiculous zoning rules, but heritage listings are ubiquitous and seems to be very broadly applied. One place I worked, a low-level listed building, in central Copenhagen, we couldn't place an air conditioning unit for a server room on the exterior wall of an interior courtyard (the company occupied the entirety of the courtyard, so it's not an issue of the neighbours). Anecdotally, many other listing restrictions made it nearly infeasible to make the space suitable for a modern office. The block of flats I lived in was mildly architecturally remarkable (for being the first instance of a style that since was very popular, so not rare), and so listed. Getting permission to develop the attic space into flats took years and cost a fortune in legal costs (and meant that we hit the 2008 crash and had to abandon the project). The reason for listing was the particular plan of the blocks in a parallel north/south layout to maximise light in the flat, it has absolutely nothing to do with the exterior visual style of the blocks, but that was what the listing board took a very detailed interest in.

In London, views to St. Paul's Cathedral from a number of points around the city are listed, which apparently has made it nearly impossible (it's unlikely that it's the only reason, though) to build tall buildings where they would have mattered the most. London, of course, also has the green belt zoning restriction which also doesn't do house prices any favours, but doesn't explain why density in the more central parts of the city is so low.

Listings certainly serve a purpose in retaining some living history and culture, but in places it feels like the pendulum has swung all the way to making parts of the city into museum.

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#36

Post by dalbasal » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:40 PM UTC

mantas wrote: post #11

dalbasal wrote: post #2

I think it's worth occasionally thinking of the "economy" in simple terms, especially for the wider middle class. There are relatively few broad categories that make up most of our economic lives. For most people the "economy" mostly consists of (0) their job/income (1) food/consumable (2) stuff/durables (3) transport (4) vital services: health, education, etc. (5) housing. 1 & 2 are well served by free markets, and…

> Soviet housing system...? opinions vary. Opinions vary for those who were exposed to privileged side only. In reality, most people had to wait decades for an apartment. There was an easy way to get an apartment though - get sent to bumfuck nowhere for infrastructure project (military base or factory, nuclear plant etc..). Or climb up the party ladder or get a job at well-connected company than get arrange you an ap…

There were lots of things that were very bad about the eastern bloc. Freedom and rights, for a big example. As you say, people could not decide where they would live. I'm not comparing democracy to totalitarianism's merits on the moral front.

I was just comparing the average GDR house, to a modern one. It's not that different, and most people lived in an apartment then as they do now. Both are similar in quality & abundance to housing in West Germany, UK, etc.

Contrast this to manufactured goods. Eastern bloc residents couldn't get a car, and if they did it sucked. They couldn't get enough razors, toilet paper, car tyres. All the things that were abundant and cheap in the west, and are abundant and cheap in those countries now.

We can argue about the small/marginal differences in quality or abundance of housing under different systems. We can't argue about the massive quality & abundance differences for industrial goods.

This is why I'm quite leery of ideological "theory." From Marx to Rand, it all seems too grand to me. At the end of the day, these were economic policies and their successes and failures varied.

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#37

Post by FreakyT » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #33

dalbasal wrote: post #2

I think it's worth occasionally thinking of the "economy" in simple terms, especially for the wider middle class. There are relatively few broad categories that make up most of our economic lives. For most people the "economy" mostly consists of (0) their job/income (1) food/consumable (2) stuff/durables (3) transport (4) vital services: health, education, etc. (5) housing. 1 & 2 are well served by free markets, and…

The planning commission in my small town recently blocked a $10 million apartment building that would have mostly been cheaper housing. Some directly stated that they didn't want the poor people living in the area, which is stupid because they already live there (demographically it's already the poorest zone in the county). A few others said they didn't want to disturb the historical character of the shabby, decades…

> The real reason is that they don't consider reducing housing prices a good outcome.

I think this is the key. If you're a property owner, any outcome that reduces the value of your property is naturally a negative outcome. A rational economic actor, in that case, would always oppose anything that would reduce housing costs. It's a tough problem to combat, because what can be done? Barring property owners from participating in local governance?

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#38

Post by dominotw » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:44 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #23

dalbasal wrote: post #2

I think it's worth occasionally thinking of the "economy" in simple terms, especially for the wider middle class. There are relatively few broad categories that make up most of our economic lives. For most people the "economy" mostly consists of (0) their job/income (1) food/consumable (2) stuff/durables (3) transport (4) vital services: health, education, etc. (5) housing. 1 & 2 are well served by free markets, and…

>Housing is in many places (mostly successful cities) the economic disaster. Fully exposed to financialization, business cycles, inflation prone. Rather than signalling to supply, prices adjust to whatever the median person can afford to pay Why should housing not be to governed by market forces? Housing shortages are due to regulations, from limiting new development outright, to limiting high density buildings, to h…

> More to the point the wait lists for apartments was measured in years (ripe for corruption). The buildings were shoddy and depressing (hope you like grey). Urban planning was haphazard and may or not may have corresponded to where people actually wanted to live.

This tv show on amazon prime was really good insight to soviet life during stalin times, based on the life of Regina Zbarskaya. I really enjoying looking at the houses across social classes, streets in different cities, law enforcement, morality, relationships(eg: giving up your apartment is the biggest favor you could do, staying in relationship with someone because they have govt allocated apartment ect)

https://www.amazon.com/Part-9/dp/B01GU8D4IK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UT...

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#39

Post by golemiprague » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

Japan also got negative population growth and they don't bring immigrants in like the crazies in the western world. Being an homogenous society also helps with living in high density because everybody behaves according to the same code of behaviour. But yeah, diversity and immigration is our strength, only we can't afford it.

Re: How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

#40

Post by macspoofing » Mon, Apr 02, 2018, 12:54 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #34

macspoofing wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Housing is in many places (mostly successful cities) the economic disaster. Fully exposed to financialization, business cycles, inflation prone. Rather than signalling to supply, prices adjust to whatever the median person can afford to pay Why should housing not be to governed by market forces? Housing shortages are due to regulations, from limiting new development outright, to limiting high density buildings, to h…

Many supply restrictions are geographic rather than based on regulation. Also, Singapore has a semi-socialized system that seems to work.

>Many supply restrictions are geographic rather than based on regulation.

That's true. At the end of the day there are only so many desirable beachfront properties, or direct views on Central Park. Those are going to be expensive.

>Singapore has a semi-socialized system that seems to work.

I know very little about Singapore, but I'll make two comments:

1) I'm skeptical about the feasibility of models that work in tiny regions with very specific constraints and applying them to big nations. But maybe there's something there to learn from.

2) At the end of the of the day, it's not magic. You have a lot of people, in a relatively small geographic area - you need to focus on density. You don't need a heavily socialized system to build dense housing - you just need to align regulations.