
How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing - fern12
https://jamesjgleeson.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/how-tokyo-built-its-way-to-abundant-housing/
======
mabbo
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 least divert it to poorer areas.

We need more of this in the western world.

~~~
masklinn
> 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), but it can not be the "true essence" of the article.

My reading is not that the meat is "simple zoning" but:

1\. Japanese people don't have "mandatory fantasies" of single-occupancy
dwellings, and people are fine with living in good multi-family dwellings
(apartments), note that the average Tokyoite dwelling is 64 sq m (690 sq ft)

2\. Japanese people don't value buildings[0], only land

3\. Which means tearing down buildings and replacing them is normal and
expected

4\. Which (combined with residential zoning concepts) means it's easy and
common to redevelop low-density dwellings (single-occupancy and low-density
1~2 storeys apartment buildings) into higher-density ones, the graphs in the
middle of the article could hardly be clearer there with single-occupancy
dwellings having remained roughly flat but 3~5 and 6+ storey buildings having
skyrocketed (alongside the number of homes having increased much faster than
residential land acreage)

Simplifying zoning codes is not going to make Europe — let alone the US —
adopt these mentalities.

[0] personal ones, family/clan homes & temples are a different case

~~~
mseebach
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.

------
dalbasal
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 industrial capitalism^. We're
"rich" in these. 3 & 4 are not, and are generally managed by governments. The
long term trend is decent-ish though. Medicine, education and such have grown
over the decades and people get more of this.

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. Meanwhile, the whole market acts a mechanism transferring
wealth up the generations & economic classes.

Especially in europe, the whole thing is stagnant too. Modern planning doesn't
seem much better than old planning. Modern building is not much better/cheaper
than old building. It seems that we have less ability to deliver on larger &
more ambitious projects than they did 100 years ago.

Interestingly, this generational stagnation seems to hold for both the liberal
and ex-communist parts of europe. No one wants to go back to soviet
supermarkets, cars or electronics. Soviet housing system...? opinions vary.

Housing is the biggest problem in our economic lives.

^excepting mattresses :)

~~~
macspoofing
>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 heavy rent control (disincentivizing investment and
maintenance), to regulations that just make housing investment expensive.
Reasonable regulations should be the guideline, but they aren't. The most
aggregious local example is San Francisco.

Soviet housing never worked. 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.

~~~
zeth___
>Soviet housing never worked. 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.

And yet there was no homelessness in the USSR.

If that's a system that doesn't work, sign me up for two.

~~~
zo1
You'd be surprised at how humans "make a plan" when it comes to those things,
as long as family/community is not broken. Either way, there probably was
_some_ homelessness, but we'd have to look at actual records/stats on it.

But the USSR was just one system of social housing. Have a look at what's
happening _right now_ in South Africa with what they call RDP housing:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_and_Development...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_and_Development_Programme)

Sounds good on paper. However it has so many problems:

[https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2017-03-16-gover...](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2017-03-16-government-
needs-to-live-up-to-its-housing-promises-break-the-legacy-of-apartheid-and-
restore-the-dignity-of-millions/)

[http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/cracks-exposed-in-rdp-
hous...](http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/cracks-exposed-in-rdp-housing-
system/)

[http://www.cplo.org.za/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/BP-432-RDP...](http://www.cplo.org.za/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/BP-432-RDP-Housing-May-2017.pdf)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Either way, there probably was some homelessness, but we'd have to look at
> actual records/stats on it.

Since it was a subject of official denial, records and stats would likely be
hard to find.

------
avar
The reason housing is such an issue in the richest parts of the world is
because zoning policy is set at the local level. The interests of prospective
buyers and market incumbents are at polar opposites.

Byers want cheap housing, but existing owners want their property value to
rise. Since those living in the area get to vote the natural outcome is
stagnation.

Japan is somewhat getting around this for two reasons. National zoning laws as
noted in that article, and expanded upon by e.g. [1], and a zoning law that
doesn't lock areas into certain developments, which avoids American-style
developments where certain parts of town are only residential, or only office
space etc.

1\. [http://urbankchoze.blogspot.nl/2014/04/japanese-
zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.nl/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

~~~
masklinn
> The reason housing is such an issue in the richest parts of the world is
> because zoning policy is set at the local level.

Don't assume US insanity has sway everywhere else. Continental EU zoning
models are similar to Japan's, Germany and France zoning are national/federal
policies and non-exclusive zoning.

~~~
avar
Something gets lost in translation when we only talk about whether zoning laws
are national or not, but no, this insanity is very much the case in the EU as
well, and it's even worse in some cases.

Here's an article about how Paris only recently lifted height restrictions
(and then in only some areas of the city):
[http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/11/17/feu-vert-
po...](http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/11/17/feu-vert-pour-les-
grandes-tours-dans-paris_1441561_3244.html)

Does that mean Paris has different zoning laws? I don't know, but for the
purpose of this discussion it clearly amounts to the same thing. The local
government is allowed to set policies which inflate the worth of existing
properties by restricting the ability to build up.

I live in Amsterdam, and the zoning is extremely restrictive here, down to the
level that only certain streets are allowed to have businesses of any sort,
height & appearance restrictions etc.

~~~
Jacqued
On the other hand Paris proper (where those height restrictions apply) is
already one of the densest cities in the world, along with some of its
suburban cities [0].

I think around these parts there are two separate problems:

\- foreign/1%er investors buying up property and leaving it empty. Across
central Paris ~20-30% (depending on districts) of homes are empty [1].

\- The city is geographically too small, being locked inside the area of its
mid-19th century fortifications, replaced in the 70s by an urban highway. This
makes most of the land (and homes) outside of this circular highway much less
desirable and therefore a lot less dense. If the suburbs were built as densely
as Paris proper, most of the people living in the metro area would be able to
live in a space a tenth of the size, avoiding so much commute misery.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density)

[1] [https://www.terraeco.net/A-Paris-toujours-plus-de-
logements,...](https://www.terraeco.net/A-Paris-toujours-plus-de-
logements,50237.html)

------
afarrell
> For obvious reasons there aren’t many dwellings in Tokyo dating from earlier
> than 1950

For those unfamiliar with this bit of history, a significant quantity of Tokyo
housing stock was burnt by a US Air Force incendiary bombing operation on
March 10th, 1945. It was the single most destructive air attack of WWII,
though it is likely that more individuals died in the Atomic bombing of
Nagasaki.

~~~
aidos
I didn’t know about that attack. Thanks.

Probably a good time for this reminder:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb)

>>> _Bat bombs were an experimental World War II weapon developed by the
United States. The bomb consisted of a bomb-shaped casing with over a thousand
compartments, each containing a hibernating Mexican free-tailed bat with a
small, timed incendiary bomb attached. Dropped from a bomber at dawn, the
casings would deploy a parachute in mid-flight and open to release the bats,
which would then roost in eaves and attics in a 20–40 mile radius. The
incendiaries would start fires in inaccessible places in the largely wood and
paper constructions of the Japanese cities that were the weapon 's intended
target._

~~~
kikimaru
>>>In one incident, the Carlsbad Army Airfield Auxiliary Air Base (32°15′39″N
104°13′45″W) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was set on fire on May 15, 1943, when
armed bats were accidentally released. The bats roosted under a fuel tank and
incinerated the test range.

I got such a delicious feeling of Schadenfreude from this.

------
Shivetya
Interesting note about floor space, NYC has a 400ft minimum which has been had
demo projects under that limit, there are some current buildings going to 490
on average so its not like Westerners cannot live in smaller spaces, many do
and for similar reasons as Tokyo, the rise in single living.

this 2016 article covers the NYC scene pretty well
[https://ny.curbed.com/2016/9/19/12970542/micro-housing-
nyc-f...](https://ny.curbed.com/2016/9/19/12970542/micro-housing-nyc-future-
studio-apartments)

~~~
rocqua
Note: 400 square feet is ~37 square Meters.

I happen to write this from a 24 square meter (~260 square foot) apartment, I
am very happy with.

~~~
infinite8s
I presume you have no one else living with you. That's a very small space to
raise a family.

~~~
rocqua
Indeed, and a large part of loving it comes from the low rent. For a student
in the city though, it is great to not have roommates and still be able to
afford rent.

------
qwerty456127
How is densification of any good at all? Why not just develop nearby regions
and move more housing and businesses there instead?

------
rb808
It was only 20 years ago that Tokyo was famous for having the most expensive,
unaffordable housing in the world. Since then it has had a 20 year economic
depression. Maybe Tokyo's population has risen (I'm a bit surprised at that)
but it also has near-zero foreign immigration. I'm a bit surprised those
things aren't mentioned in the article, but it really doesn't prove Tokyo is a
great way to run things.

~~~
irq11
Also, Tokyo _sprawls_. The city isn’t one giant cluster of skyscrapers called
Shinjuku, sorry. Most of the people on this thread would be shocked to see
pictures of actual Tokyo housing, which mostly consists of low-rise, detached
buildings.

Japan is magic, you see. They must be doing something different there. It
can’t possibly be something boring like _“the city is built in an enormous,
flat river delta.”_

