9 ms·

I think this headline is misleading in 2 ways. 1. yes you might get a house at this price but it's either 1-2 hours out of the city center (which is fine, just

I think this headline is misleading in 2 ways. 1. yes you might get a house at this price but it's either 1-2 hours out of the city center (which is fine, just saying Tokyo is large.) Or alternatively it's in bad neighborhoods. (bad is relative if you are from the US) 2. your house will most likely look like this: https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg Sayonara sunlight, hello neighbor. here are listings: https://www.homes.co.jp/smp/kodate/shinchiku/tokyo/list/ https://www.homes.co.jp/smp/kodate/shinchiku/tokyo/list/ there are nice ones in the list. I am just saying that this is the eastern country side of Tokyo (check the map) when the title probably makes everyone think something different.

jseliger 6y ago
Sayonara sunlight, hello neighbor. This is the sort of thing that markets solve really well. If you want a dwelling unit with those properties, pay for it. If they're less important to you than cost, don't. If one is $300,000 and the other $600,000, it's very reasonable to choose affordability and go to a park.
- harimau777 6y ago
  The problem comes when you cannot afford to pay for it.
  - uoylj 6y ago
    It's almost like people aren't entitled to everything they want in life simply because they exist.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    That really isn't a problem. So long as you can afford something where your basic needs are met: four walls, clean, safe, sturdy, etc, nobody's entitled to waterfront views. The idea is you create value through your work and utilize the proceeds to upgrade your residence, if that's what you value.
    - harimau777 6y ago
      I agree that not everyone's entitled to waterfront views, but I think that in a functioning society everyone would be able to own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight), within a reasonable commute of their work, in desirable part of the country (e.g. in a cosmopolitan city). The difficulty that I see is that housing prices in America are so high that it's unrealistic for moth people to create enough value to purchase a residence at even that basic level of quality.
      - SolaceQuantum 6y ago
        I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location. This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations, and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all.
        bsanr2 6y ago
        >This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations I'm not convinced that these are values worth respecting.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        > I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location. A house or a place to live? There's not enough physical land adjacent to places of business for each person who wants one to own a single-family home. They're an awfully inefficient use of space -- see the entire western half of San Francisco. > This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments... Property can't be affordable and a good investment. Those two are mutually exclusive. An investment goes up relative to inflation. Affordability by definition goes down relative to inflation. You can't have something that goes up as it goes down. > ...the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations... You can, if you do something along the lines of what Singapore does with the HDB. Some 90% of Singaporeans live in government homes built by the HDB, and the remaining 10% is available to the wealthy to play. > ...and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all. They city can absolutely take them all if you allow building up. There's no excuse for down-town San Francisco north of market limiting buildings to 6 stories when downtown Hong Kong has 118 story buildings.
  - geddy 6y ago
    And? Go somewhere cheaper?
    - harimau777 6y ago
      Often that's not a realistic option due to factors such as where family lives, access to minority cultural/religious institutions, access to good jobs, or access to cultural opportunities.
      - geddy 6y ago
        My point is, what is society supposed to do about it? I can't afford to live three towns over where it's nicer. I'd need about another $3K a month. Could you spot me on that, permanently?
- throwawaythekey 6y ago
  From my observational experience, and limited study on the issue, markets don't seem to be solving this optimally, at least in Melbourne, Australia. Overall, the market for apartments seems to be supply constrained. The main factors: 1. Government approval is required to build large apartment buildings. In general, this seems to lag behind demand. 2. Large buildings take a long time to build 3. There have been a number of years of high immigration, especially in and around the CBD. All of these factors combine to cause high prices. In a high price environment, many residents are stretched for cash. They essentially have to pick the lowest price apartment available. It's not uncommon to have multiple people sharing a room in order to decrease costs. This creates a high price floor. Mid range apartments don't tend to be much more expensive, simply because many residents are already super stretched financially and unable to afford the extra marginal cost. As a property developer in a high floor, low marginal payoff environment your financial incentive is now to build as many low cost apartments as possible. >> The majority of Victoria’s newest apartments are so small they would be considered unliveable in Sydney…More than three-quarters of new one-bedroom apartments built across the state are 50 square metres or less, which means they probably would have been illegal in Sydney, London and Adelaide. [1] Making these apartments meet a reasonable minimum standard could only be less than 5% of the total cost [1]. To achieve this governments have tried to intervene by increasing minimum standards [2]. What concerns me the most is the longer term impacts. When demand drops off (as covid is pointing to), you have a massive supply of low quality apartments. Is the end result of this many vacancies and people living in shoe boxes when they could've been somewhere nicer? There are a few long bows there, but as someone who lives in a relatively sunny but not quite sunny enough apartment that is my take. [1] - https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/05/18/apartment-standards-is-this-sham-consultation/ https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/05/18/apartment... (great blog for planning issues) [2] - https://architectureau.com/articles/victorias-draft-apartment-standards-released/ https://architectureau.com/articles/victorias-draft-apartmen...
  - imtringued 6y ago
    If there is an oversupply of "low quality apartments" whatever that even means then surely people have flocked to the high quality apartments?
clairity 6y ago
that house looks great for $850/mo, and a bmw out front to boot. where do i sign up (in LA)?
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  You can get a large house that gets a lot of sun and is somewhat walkable / bikeable in Compton for $350k. With 20% down and all taxes & fees & insurance included, that's close to $1700/mo. In San Bernardino, you can get stuff for $250k, which about $1200/mo. You can get trailers in Riverside for $150k, which is about $730/mo.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    Is that new construction like in TFA? $300k for new construction is ludicrously cheap for most coastal California cities. I was told to budget $150-250k for permits when I considered buying land and building my own house in Santa Barbara. Both my current and my previous house would be illegal to build today because they are too large (even though both houses comfortably fit the frontage requirements, there is an additional X square feet of livable space per Y square feet of lot; in all R-1 zones, the calculation is such that a single-story house can usually hit the dwelling-space limit, so most 2 story houses in town would be illegal to build today).
    - giraffecat 6y ago
      Santa Barbara is a terrible place to consider for buying/building a house. Sky high property taxes and inflated property values are begging the local economy to dry out due to rental prices (The Bay is cheaper if you compare similar apartments with similar interior/exterior). The city can't expand because of geology, and it refuses to build up to preserve the "historical view of the Riviera". Sure it's a pretty city, but it won't mean much if it's dead.
      - p1esk 6y ago
        The Bay is cheaper if you compare similar apartments with similar interior/exterior Santa Barbara is significantly cheaper than bay area in terms of renting or buying real estate. The 2br apartment I'm currently renting in SB is $2.6k/mo. A very similar apartment in Redwood City is over $4k/mo.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Although do note that those factors don't fully cover the differential. Even in Hudson County or Contra Costa County, you're gonna have a hard time finding a 3 bedroom for $300k.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Hm, it could use a bit of work but this 4 bed 3 bath, 2400 sq ft home in Hudson is $249 [1]. It's a little ways from the train station though - a 10 minute drive. There's regular service from there to Penn Station, which takes about 2 hours. [1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/116-Route-9h-Hudson-NY-12534/2080136532_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/116-Route-9h-Hudson-NY-12...
vmception 6y ago
sign me up.
api 6y ago
I'll take it instantly for 850 a month. I'd likely still take it for 2000 a month.
cultofmetatron 6y ago
The apartment I paid 2k/month for in Oakland was garbage compared to that...
omarhaneef 6y ago
It’s not so much the exact number as the approximate order of magnitude. For anyone living in one of the equivalent world cities (say, NyC, London, Shanghai, Paris, San Fran- you may quibble with me in the exact list but you know what I mean) these prices aren’t even remotely plausible. (The one possible exception might be Berlin but that info could be dated)
d6e 6y ago
Yeah I don't care about sunlight. I'd prefer to have less honestly.
wenc 6y ago
> 2. your house will most likely look like this Not sure what's wrong with that? That looks pretty amazing actually. I live in a unit that looks similar to that near downtown Chicago. My unit is north facing, and even so, there's more than enough sunlight.
- distantaidenn 6y ago
  Nothing at all is wrong with it. I live in a pretty well to do family oriented neighborhood in central Tokyo, and this is a very common design. Although I’m not sure about mortgages, but rents definitely ain’t just $850. But as the parent post said, it’s all about location. Prices nosedive once you leave the center of Tokyo or are off the main train lines.
- EVdotIO 6y ago
  From a tiny studio in NYC I haven't really left in 2 months, it looks absolutely palatial.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  The title says "house" for a "family", and the pictured structure is not normally what people think when they hear that, being significantly smaller than even a typical townhouse. In particular, a "house" suggests something larger than a small apartment. Obviously there's nothing wrong with an apartment or microhouse, but it makes the quoted rent less impressive.
  - wenc 6y ago
    Well I guess that’s true from a North American perspective. I’ve lived in several countries, and from my perspective, in Asia and much of Europe, that structure seems like it would be considered a passable family home in an urban area. Most urban folks have a different relationship with space — smaller spaces are ok if one is close to transit and city amenities.
    - jessriedel 6y ago
      But the whole point of the headline is to try and convince the reader that Tokyo housing prices are low relative to the reader's expectation. If the small housing price example is congruent with the size of the example house, there's no story.
axguscbklp 6y ago
>Or alternatively it's in bad neighborhoods. (bad is relative if you are from the US) I've never been to Japan, but I imagine that a bad Japanese neighborhood is incredibly safe compared to a bad U.S. neighborhood. In a bad U.S. neighborhood one has to regularly take precautions in order to not be physically assaulted or even killed by other people. >your house will most likely look like this: https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg Looks pretty amazing for less than $1000/month. That said, of course I'm not thinking that Japan is some paradise. What I hear/read about their justice system and their stifling conformist culture doesn't sound very good to me.
- dr-detroit 6y ago
  Bad Japanese neighborhood means its a cheap place meant for families but unfortunately became a black hole for old people to die in obscurity
- jbay808 6y ago
  Their conformist culture is upsetting, as is the rampant institutional sexism, but a lot of the issues with their justice system are overblown. 99% conviction rates are more likely a result of cases being dropped below a high confidence threshold, not a result of kangaroo courts.
antigirl 6y ago
Did you even watch the video in the article, he litreally shows distance to major districts and its not 1-2 hours
E14n 6y ago
The big issues that consistently affects real-estate around Tokyo is proximity to a station and the age of the building. The basic rule is that a condominium must be within 10 minutes walk from a station, and a free standing house up to 15 minutes walk. A house around 30 years old is worthless, and a house younger will be some fraction of its original purchase price. There are exceptions but this is a pretty good rule of thumb. Land is generally the only thing that appreciates in value and only if its in a desirable location. As a point of reference, we live in an 90m^2 home 45min from Tokyo station and it was less then the above price.
- PappaPatat 6y ago
  > A house around 30 years old is worthless Living in a city which city center was (re-) build between the 16th and 17th century, the 30 years till worthless puzzles me. Even the house I live in is over 100 years old and in excellent condition. Why do houses loose their value so rapidly in Tokyo?
  - creamyhorror 6y ago
    Because many of them were built cheaply to begin with and develop problems over the decades. They weren't built for long-term living, and in a sense it was the right move since Japan was developing rapidly up till the end of the '80s. (Well-built exceptions probably exist, of course.) And then there's increased earthquake/disaster risk with poorer construction. It's something I wondered about too until I looked at descriptions and photos of >30-year-old houses on real estate sites.
    - E14n 6y ago
      I think that's more perception then reality. I live in a 30 year old house and it could easily last 100 years if properly maintained, but there is little incentive to improve the building because it will not improve the resale value.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Most Japanese houses are wooden made, and earthquake is often happens.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mikekchar 6y ago
Given your name, I guess you live in Japan, so I'll just give my opinion for others who have never lived here. I also think the title is misleading, though I wouldn't express it so dramatically. One thing to consider is that Tokyo is a prefecture, not a city. There are rural areas of Tokyo (like really rural), though most of it is very suburban. Anybody who has lived in the suburbs in western countries would probably be fairly comfortable in most parts of Tokyo prefecture. It is true that in quite a few areas of Tokyo it takes a long time to get to central Tokyo. 2 hours is at the extreme, though. I live in very rural Shizuoka prefecture and I can get to Tokyo station in 2 hours if I time the bus and shinkansen perfectly. If you are on the train line, most places are no more than an hour away. It's pretty comparable to living in satellite cities in London, but the train is much better :-) If you are not on the train line, though, it can take quite a long time. Roads in Japan are very slow, especially in rural areas. It's not unusual for it to take me over an hour to drive 30 km or so if I need to go through several towns. So you definitely can find houses in Tokyo that will be 2 hours away from the city center, but I don't think anyone working in central Tokyo would buy those houses. I honestly don't think the example picture is representative of houses you'll find in Tokyo prefecture. They definitely exist in areas that are desirable, though. I think saying that you're probably looking at either a 1 hour commute by train or your are going to get a house jammed in wherever it will fit is correct. But it's not both at the same time. I don't often go to Tokyo, but I occasionally go to surrounding areas. Probably if I was looking at houses for commuting to central Tokyo, I would probably look at places in Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama as well as Tokyo. There is actually quite a lot of choice. The video linked in the article is well worth watching (as is anything from "Life Where I'm From" if you are interested in Japan) and is extremely balanced IMHO. Compared to other big city centers around the world, Tokyo and the surrounding area is quite affordable. Compared to Silicon Valley it's almost comically so, but Silicon Valley is really right at the other extreme.
- lolcopterpilot 6y ago
  Yeah, a new house like that in an upscale or hip area like Hiroo or Azabu or something with 3 bedrooms will be well above 2million dollars. On the other hand, rural (so cheap) areas are less packed so sunlight is less of an issue.
lolcopterpilot 6y ago
And I am willing to bet that picture was taken somewhere like Shinagawa or Meguro, maybe Setagaya. Where houses like that start at a price rather double of what's stated in the article, potentially triple.
hackeraccount 6y ago
It's got parking. It's detached. Sold.

jseliger 6y ago

Sayonara sunlight, hello neighbor. This is the sort of thing that markets solve really well. If you want a dwelling unit with those properties, pay for it. If they're less important to you than cost, don't. If one is $300,000 and the other $600,000, it's very reasonable to choose affordability and go to a park.

harimau777 6y ago
The problem comes when you cannot afford to pay for it.
- uoylj 6y ago
  It's almost like people aren't entitled to everything they want in life simply because they exist.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  That really isn't a problem. So long as you can afford something where your basic needs are met: four walls, clean, safe, sturdy, etc, nobody's entitled to waterfront views. The idea is you create value through your work and utilize the proceeds to upgrade your residence, if that's what you value.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    I agree that not everyone's entitled to waterfront views, but I think that in a functioning society everyone would be able to own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight), within a reasonable commute of their work, in desirable part of the country (e.g. in a cosmopolitan city). The difficulty that I see is that housing prices in America are so high that it's unrealistic for moth people to create enough value to purchase a residence at even that basic level of quality.
    - SolaceQuantum 6y ago
      I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location. This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations, and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all.
      - bsanr2 6y ago
        >This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations I'm not convinced that these are values worth respecting.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        > I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location. A house or a place to live? There's not enough physical land adjacent to places of business for each person who wants one to own a single-family home. They're an awfully inefficient use of space -- see the entire western half of San Francisco. > This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments... Property can't be affordable and a good investment. Those two are mutually exclusive. An investment goes up relative to inflation. Affordability by definition goes down relative to inflation. You can't have something that goes up as it goes down. > ...the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations... You can, if you do something along the lines of what Singapore does with the HDB. Some 90% of Singaporeans live in government homes built by the HDB, and the remaining 10% is available to the wealthy to play. > ...and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all. They city can absolutely take them all if you allow building up. There's no excuse for down-town San Francisco north of market limiting buildings to 6 stories when downtown Hong Kong has 118 story buildings.
- geddy 6y ago
  And? Go somewhere cheaper?
  - harimau777 6y ago
    Often that's not a realistic option due to factors such as where family lives, access to minority cultural/religious institutions, access to good jobs, or access to cultural opportunities.
    - geddy 6y ago
      My point is, what is society supposed to do about it? I can't afford to live three towns over where it's nicer. I'd need about another $3K a month. Could you spot me on that, permanently?
throwawaythekey 6y ago
From my observational experience, and limited study on the issue, markets don't seem to be solving this optimally, at least in Melbourne, Australia. Overall, the market for apartments seems to be supply constrained. The main factors: 1. Government approval is required to build large apartment buildings. In general, this seems to lag behind demand. 2. Large buildings take a long time to build 3. There have been a number of years of high immigration, especially in and around the CBD. All of these factors combine to cause high prices. In a high price environment, many residents are stretched for cash. They essentially have to pick the lowest price apartment available. It's not uncommon to have multiple people sharing a room in order to decrease costs. This creates a high price floor. Mid range apartments don't tend to be much more expensive, simply because many residents are already super stretched financially and unable to afford the extra marginal cost. As a property developer in a high floor, low marginal payoff environment your financial incentive is now to build as many low cost apartments as possible. >> The majority of Victoria’s newest apartments are so small they would be considered unliveable in Sydney…More than three-quarters of new one-bedroom apartments built across the state are 50 square metres or less, which means they probably would have been illegal in Sydney, London and Adelaide. [1] Making these apartments meet a reasonable minimum standard could only be less than 5% of the total cost [1]. To achieve this governments have tried to intervene by increasing minimum standards [2]. What concerns me the most is the longer term impacts. When demand drops off (as covid is pointing to), you have a massive supply of low quality apartments. Is the end result of this many vacancies and people living in shoe boxes when they could've been somewhere nicer? There are a few long bows there, but as someone who lives in a relatively sunny but not quite sunny enough apartment that is my take. [1] - https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/05/18/apartment-standards-is-this-sham-consultation/ https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/05/18/apartment... (great blog for planning issues) [2] - https://architectureau.com/articles/victorias-draft-apartment-standards-released/ https://architectureau.com/articles/victorias-draft-apartmen...
- imtringued 6y ago
  If there is an oversupply of "low quality apartments" whatever that even means then surely people have flocked to the high quality apartments?

clairity 6y ago

that house looks great for $850/mo, and a bmw out front to boot. where do i sign up (in LA)?

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
You can get a large house that gets a lot of sun and is somewhat walkable / bikeable in Compton for $350k. With 20% down and all taxes & fees & insurance included, that's close to $1700/mo. In San Bernardino, you can get stuff for $250k, which about $1200/mo. You can get trailers in Riverside for $150k, which is about $730/mo.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  Is that new construction like in TFA? $300k for new construction is ludicrously cheap for most coastal California cities. I was told to budget $150-250k for permits when I considered buying land and building my own house in Santa Barbara. Both my current and my previous house would be illegal to build today because they are too large (even though both houses comfortably fit the frontage requirements, there is an additional X square feet of livable space per Y square feet of lot; in all R-1 zones, the calculation is such that a single-story house can usually hit the dwelling-space limit, so most 2 story houses in town would be illegal to build today).
  - giraffecat 6y ago
    Santa Barbara is a terrible place to consider for buying/building a house. Sky high property taxes and inflated property values are begging the local economy to dry out due to rental prices (The Bay is cheaper if you compare similar apartments with similar interior/exterior). The city can't expand because of geology, and it refuses to build up to preserve the "historical view of the Riviera". Sure it's a pretty city, but it won't mean much if it's dead.
    - p1esk 6y ago
      The Bay is cheaper if you compare similar apartments with similar interior/exterior Santa Barbara is significantly cheaper than bay area in terms of renting or buying real estate. The 2br apartment I'm currently renting in SB is $2.6k/mo. A very similar apartment in Redwood City is over $4k/mo.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Although do note that those factors don't fully cover the differential. Even in Hudson County or Contra Costa County, you're gonna have a hard time finding a 3 bedroom for $300k.

arcticbull 6y ago
Hm, it could use a bit of work but this 4 bed 3 bath, 2400 sq ft home in Hudson is $249 [1]. It's a little ways from the train station though - a 10 minute drive. There's regular service from there to Penn Station, which takes about 2 hours. [1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/116-Route-9h-Hudson-NY-12534/2080136532_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/116-Route-9h-Hudson-NY-12...

vmception 6y ago

sign me up.

api 6y ago

I'll take it instantly for 850 a month. I'd likely still take it for 2000 a month.

cultofmetatron 6y ago

The apartment I paid 2k/month for in Oakland was garbage compared to that...

omarhaneef 6y ago

It’s not so much the exact number as the approximate order of magnitude. For anyone living in one of the equivalent world cities (say, NyC, London, Shanghai, Paris, San Fran- you may quibble with me in the exact list but you know what I mean) these prices aren’t even remotely plausible. (The one possible exception might be Berlin but that info could be dated)

d6e 6y ago

Yeah I don't care about sunlight. I'd prefer to have less honestly.

wenc 6y ago

> 2. your house will most likely look like this Not sure what's wrong with that? That looks pretty amazing actually. I live in a unit that looks similar to that near downtown Chicago. My unit is north facing, and even so, there's more than enough sunlight.

distantaidenn 6y ago
Nothing at all is wrong with it. I live in a pretty well to do family oriented neighborhood in central Tokyo, and this is a very common design. Although I’m not sure about mortgages, but rents definitely ain’t just $850. But as the parent post said, it’s all about location. Prices nosedive once you leave the center of Tokyo or are off the main train lines.
EVdotIO 6y ago
From a tiny studio in NYC I haven't really left in 2 months, it looks absolutely palatial.
jessriedel 6y ago
The title says "house" for a "family", and the pictured structure is not normally what people think when they hear that, being significantly smaller than even a typical townhouse. In particular, a "house" suggests something larger than a small apartment. Obviously there's nothing wrong with an apartment or microhouse, but it makes the quoted rent less impressive.
- wenc 6y ago
  Well I guess that’s true from a North American perspective. I’ve lived in several countries, and from my perspective, in Asia and much of Europe, that structure seems like it would be considered a passable family home in an urban area. Most urban folks have a different relationship with space — smaller spaces are ok if one is close to transit and city amenities.
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    But the whole point of the headline is to try and convince the reader that Tokyo housing prices are low relative to the reader's expectation. If the small housing price example is congruent with the size of the example house, there's no story.

axguscbklp 6y ago

>Or alternatively it's in bad neighborhoods. (bad is relative if you are from the US) I've never been to Japan, but I imagine that a bad Japanese neighborhood is incredibly safe compared to a bad U.S. neighborhood. In a bad U.S. neighborhood one has to regularly take precautions in order to not be physically assaulted or even killed by other people. >your house will most likely look like this: https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg Looks pretty amazing for less than $1000/month. That said, of course I'm not thinking that Japan is some paradise. What I hear/read about their justice system and their stifling conformist culture doesn't sound very good to me.

dr-detroit 6y ago
Bad Japanese neighborhood means its a cheap place meant for families but unfortunately became a black hole for old people to die in obscurity
jbay808 6y ago
Their conformist culture is upsetting, as is the rampant institutional sexism, but a lot of the issues with their justice system are overblown. 99% conviction rates are more likely a result of cases being dropped below a high confidence threshold, not a result of kangaroo courts.

antigirl 6y ago

Did you even watch the video in the article, he litreally shows distance to major districts and its not 1-2 hours

E14n 6y ago

The big issues that consistently affects real-estate around Tokyo is proximity to a station and the age of the building. The basic rule is that a condominium must be within 10 minutes walk from a station, and a free standing house up to 15 minutes walk. A house around 30 years old is worthless, and a house younger will be some fraction of its original purchase price. There are exceptions but this is a pretty good rule of thumb. Land is generally the only thing that appreciates in value and only if its in a desirable location. As a point of reference, we live in an 90m^2 home 45min from Tokyo station and it was less then the above price.

PappaPatat 6y ago
> A house around 30 years old is worthless Living in a city which city center was (re-) build between the 16th and 17th century, the 30 years till worthless puzzles me. Even the house I live in is over 100 years old and in excellent condition. Why do houses loose their value so rapidly in Tokyo?
- creamyhorror 6y ago
  Because many of them were built cheaply to begin with and develop problems over the decades. They weren't built for long-term living, and in a sense it was the right move since Japan was developing rapidly up till the end of the '80s. (Well-built exceptions probably exist, of course.) And then there's increased earthquake/disaster risk with poorer construction. It's something I wondered about too until I looked at descriptions and photos of >30-year-old houses on real estate sites.
  - E14n 6y ago
    I think that's more perception then reality. I live in a 30 year old house and it could easily last 100 years if properly maintained, but there is little incentive to improve the building because it will not improve the resale value.
- fomine3 6y ago
  Most Japanese houses are wooden made, and earthquake is often happens.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mikekchar 6y ago

Given your name, I guess you live in Japan, so I'll just give my opinion for others who have never lived here. I also think the title is misleading, though I wouldn't express it so dramatically. One thing to consider is that Tokyo is a prefecture, not a city. There are rural areas of Tokyo (like really rural), though most of it is very suburban. Anybody who has lived in the suburbs in western countries would probably be fairly comfortable in most parts of Tokyo prefecture. It is true that in quite a few areas of Tokyo it takes a long time to get to central Tokyo. 2 hours is at the extreme, though. I live in very rural Shizuoka prefecture and I can get to Tokyo station in 2 hours if I time the bus and shinkansen perfectly. If you are on the train line, most places are no more than an hour away. It's pretty comparable to living in satellite cities in London, but the train is much better :-) If you are not on the train line, though, it can take quite a long time. Roads in Japan are very slow, especially in rural areas. It's not unusual for it to take me over an hour to drive 30 km or so if I need to go through several towns. So you definitely can find houses in Tokyo that will be 2 hours away from the city center, but I don't think anyone working in central Tokyo would buy those houses. I honestly don't think the example picture is representative of houses you'll find in Tokyo prefecture. They definitely exist in areas that are desirable, though. I think saying that you're probably looking at either a 1 hour commute by train or your are going to get a house jammed in wherever it will fit is correct. But it's not both at the same time. I don't often go to Tokyo, but I occasionally go to surrounding areas. Probably if I was looking at houses for commuting to central Tokyo, I would probably look at places in Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama as well as Tokyo. There is actually quite a lot of choice. The video linked in the article is well worth watching (as is anything from "Life Where I'm From" if you are interested in Japan) and is extremely balanced IMHO. Compared to other big city centers around the world, Tokyo and the surrounding area is quite affordable. Compared to Silicon Valley it's almost comically so, but Silicon Valley is really right at the other extreme.

lolcopterpilot 6y ago
Yeah, a new house like that in an upscale or hip area like Hiroo or Azabu or something with 3 bedrooms will be well above 2million dollars. On the other hand, rural (so cheap) areas are less packed so sunlight is less of an issue.

lolcopterpilot 6y ago

And I am willing to bet that picture was taken somewhere like Shinagawa or Meguro, maybe Setagaya. Where houses like that start at a price rather double of what's stated in the article, potentially triple.

hackeraccount 6y ago

It's got parking. It's detached. Sold.