7 ms·

> When it comes to, politically, how do we make Tokyo-esque urbanism feasible in America, the key is building a coalition of folks who are more interested in th

> When it comes to, politically, how do we make Tokyo-esque urbanism feasible in America, the key is building a coalition of folks who are more interested in the dynamism of their cities than they are in the value of their particular property. I think younger people are beginning to feel this way, as property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach. But also, the amount of financial power that the property owning class has and the financial incentives to continue to develop our cities (more like metros) in the way that we have makes changing this exceptionally difficult.

esyir 4y ago
It's interesting you put it this way, since one of the reasons for Tokyo's public transport success has been exactly this "property owning".
Aeolun 4y ago
> property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach Ironically maybe least true in Tokyo, where interest rates are extremely low, and houses are still sort of affordable as long as you can adjust your expectations (e.g. no 200sqm mansions).
- twblalock 4y ago
  Tokyo is a cheaper place to live than most people think -- in fact, it is probably cheaper than any major city in California. But most people in California would not be willing to sacrifice the standard of living they have, even in apartments. Many studio apartments in America are quite a lot larger and better equipped than a one or two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    How is it cheaper then? I’ve seen those shows and YouTube channels that show to rent basically a closet in Tokyo costs like $15,000 upfront. The monthly rent prices I have seen are insane.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      We don't call it "key money" in the US, but you'll be paying something like 10% of your annual rent to a broker in places like NYC. In some markets the landlord pays these fees, but in other markets where demand is high, the tenant gets to pay. Combine this, your first month's rent, and a security deposit, and Tokyo doesn't seem much different than the US.
      - bmitc 4y ago
        Broker’s fees, first and last month’s rent can be common in big cities. It still doesn’t match what I’ve seen in first hand accounts of renting in Tokyo. I can’t remember about how much of the renting fees are refundable or not, where in the U.S., typically only the broker’s fee is non refundable. And I certainly don’t hear anyone saying places with these policies are surprisingly cheap. The person I responded to said that Tokyo is surprisingly cheap if you compare it to California real estate in the major cities (read as LA or San Francisco) and be willing to take major cuts on space and standard of living. That’s sort of a weird argument. Additionally comparing it to NYC doesn’t make it less weird. Of course living in Tokyo is cheap if you throw out standard of living, ignore the initial capital required to rent, and then compare it to some of the other most insane real estate markets.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      Monthly rent goes up from $200 at the low end (10 square meters or so) to $3000 at the high end (120 square meters). You have everything in between. There’s places (especially popular ones) that do key money (up to 3 months, which you don’t get back) and deposits (up to 3 months, which you do), but it’s starting to become less common, and you’ll always be able to find a place that doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t apply at all if you buy a house instead (for roughly the same monthly prices as renting). My main point is that renting in Tokyo is possible regardless of your budget, where in other markets it’s just plain impossible due to the minimum price for even tiny apartments.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsonne 4y ago
    I have never been to Japan but I did a fair bit of international traveling for a couple of years. Going from living in a US style suburban McMansion to small apartments in Italy, Panama, Iceland, etc. was eye opening in such a positive way. US houses have tons of square footage and just so much wasted space. It adds a ton of cleaning and unnecessary maintenance and since large swaths of the US prefer ranch style houses I would rather reduce the footprint for more space for outdoors and a garden. I am genuinely happier in smaller spaces with better utilized space. In my experience you can easily halve the size of most US houses and still be very comfortable with no drop in quality of life. Am I advocating for families of 4+ to live in a 250 sq ft (25 sq meter) apartment like I did in Florence? No, but you also don't need 4000 square feet (400 sq meter) houses either. I can't imagine a scenario even with 3 kids as we're planning on to need more than 1600 sq fetter (150 sq meters) regardless of my personal financial situation and would certainly give up that space for more walkability.
    - YorkshireSeason 4y ago
      I went through a similar learning trajectory. I think one has to experience it oneself though, my friends and relatives who never left the suburbs pity me for my restricted living space, and don't believe me when I tell them live is easier with less baggage and it a walkable center of town. I suspect they think I'm rationalising an inability to afford a suburban McMansion.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I thought I never needed anything more than a 1,500 square foot house like my wife’s favorite uncle built with his own hands for his kids. Our house is 3,000 square feet and we just finished 800 square feet for the basement and with three kids it’s just not enough. Heading to my parent’s 5,000 square foot McMansion on the weekends is a real reprive. Yeah it would be easier if we didn’t buy them so much shit. But that’s a deeply ingrained part of American culture. Who has the time to cut their kids off from friends, extended family who buys lots of trinkets for every holiday, etc? Trust me we tried to fight that battle and all we have to show for it is a two inch thick layer of dinosaurs in the living room.
      - 4y ago
  - eloisant 4y ago
    It's not just about sacrificing your standard of living, it's that you won't find a smaller, well organized 2 bedrooms in US. Unless you buy a studio and remodel it yourself (which is quite expensive).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
HEmanZ 4y ago
I think the author needs an updated understanding of what is missing. Being interested in a particular property value would absolutely lead to more interest in dense dynamic cities. A city block in tokyo is probably worth more than a city block in most American cities. A capitalist with an interest in seeing their land values go way up would absolutely champion a more dense, desirable city. I think the problem is actually that people with aggregate political power in cities in America don’t really care about property values in the monetary sense. They treat their homes, community, and city on more political/ideological/ethical terms and preferences than on economic terms. The dense Tokyo-style city is absolutely foreign to most Americans and they disdain actions that would lead toward alternate city structures. This is as opposed to the property owning class, which should be more than happy to see their value go up by making more dense cities, especially when it is funded by taxpayers. This seems like a case of just assuming capitalists/landowners are to blame and then coming up with an argument.
- milkytron 4y ago
  Right, it's certainly multifaceted. Political, ideological, and ethical values all impact how people desire their community to be. Economics also has some impact. I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Exactly. The root cause of NIMBYism is not preservation of property values. It is preservation of neighborhood character -- low density, peace and quiet, low traffic, etc. People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that. As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.
bmitc 4y ago
It’s a real problem. I love the dynamism of cities but had to move out due to affordance. Now that I own a home, it’s a major conflict because I just dumped non-retirement life savings into this home. If it lost major value, it would be disastrous. I’m happy enough for more urbanism and communities, but why do I need to sacrifice my life savings to support that? The U.S. government has really allowed things to get out of hand with housing. The first thing they should address are investors and companies buying up houses. There are at least two houses in my neighborhood sitting empty and quickly dilapidating, as they were likely purchased by investors.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  I think the original statement doesn't really get to the truth of it. High density and vibrant communities are positives for property value. People objecting to these changes either aren't thinking logically or they aren't objecting to the value part. They want to preserve the character of the area they moved in to.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    I think some of it is a misunderstanding of economics, but some of it is also different willingness to take risks and looking at different time horizons. If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. If I can wait till the neighborhood becomes hip and desired and maybe someone wants to buy my home for big money to build a larger building, cool. However, if I cannot wait a few years or worry that the apartment building goes up and then the economics change and the city takes a turn for the worse and nothing gets build anymore, I might be against the apartment building. It's also always nicer to have those things build a little further away. Being the quiet neighborhood a short hop away from the cool hip hood gives you most of the benefits without the risks and downsides. Of course if everyone thinks like that we get the current situation. IMO it's selfish, not that they aren't thinking logically.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      > If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.
davidw 4y ago
The rapidly growing membership of organizations working on housing issues, like * https://yimbyaction.org/ https://yimbyaction.org/ * https://welcomingneighbors.us/ https://welcomingneighbors.us/ is proof that this is something people care about a lot and are fighting hard for. And we're starting to notch up some successes, too!

esyir 4y ago

It's interesting you put it this way, since one of the reasons for Tokyo's public transport success has been exactly this "property owning".

Aeolun 4y ago

> property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach Ironically maybe least true in Tokyo, where interest rates are extremely low, and houses are still sort of affordable as long as you can adjust your expectations (e.g. no 200sqm mansions).

twblalock 4y ago
Tokyo is a cheaper place to live than most people think -- in fact, it is probably cheaper than any major city in California. But most people in California would not be willing to sacrifice the standard of living they have, even in apartments. Many studio apartments in America are quite a lot larger and better equipped than a one or two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo.
- bmitc 4y ago
  How is it cheaper then? I’ve seen those shows and YouTube channels that show to rent basically a closet in Tokyo costs like $15,000 upfront. The monthly rent prices I have seen are insane.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    We don't call it "key money" in the US, but you'll be paying something like 10% of your annual rent to a broker in places like NYC. In some markets the landlord pays these fees, but in other markets where demand is high, the tenant gets to pay. Combine this, your first month's rent, and a security deposit, and Tokyo doesn't seem much different than the US.
    - bmitc 4y ago
      Broker’s fees, first and last month’s rent can be common in big cities. It still doesn’t match what I’ve seen in first hand accounts of renting in Tokyo. I can’t remember about how much of the renting fees are refundable or not, where in the U.S., typically only the broker’s fee is non refundable. And I certainly don’t hear anyone saying places with these policies are surprisingly cheap. The person I responded to said that Tokyo is surprisingly cheap if you compare it to California real estate in the major cities (read as LA or San Francisco) and be willing to take major cuts on space and standard of living. That’s sort of a weird argument. Additionally comparing it to NYC doesn’t make it less weird. Of course living in Tokyo is cheap if you throw out standard of living, ignore the initial capital required to rent, and then compare it to some of the other most insane real estate markets.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    Monthly rent goes up from $200 at the low end (10 square meters or so) to $3000 at the high end (120 square meters). You have everything in between. There’s places (especially popular ones) that do key money (up to 3 months, which you don’t get back) and deposits (up to 3 months, which you do), but it’s starting to become less common, and you’ll always be able to find a place that doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t apply at all if you buy a house instead (for roughly the same monthly prices as renting). My main point is that renting in Tokyo is possible regardless of your budget, where in other markets it’s just plain impossible due to the minimum price for even tiny apartments.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jsonne 4y ago
  I have never been to Japan but I did a fair bit of international traveling for a couple of years. Going from living in a US style suburban McMansion to small apartments in Italy, Panama, Iceland, etc. was eye opening in such a positive way. US houses have tons of square footage and just so much wasted space. It adds a ton of cleaning and unnecessary maintenance and since large swaths of the US prefer ranch style houses I would rather reduce the footprint for more space for outdoors and a garden. I am genuinely happier in smaller spaces with better utilized space. In my experience you can easily halve the size of most US houses and still be very comfortable with no drop in quality of life. Am I advocating for families of 4+ to live in a 250 sq ft (25 sq meter) apartment like I did in Florence? No, but you also don't need 4000 square feet (400 sq meter) houses either. I can't imagine a scenario even with 3 kids as we're planning on to need more than 1600 sq fetter (150 sq meters) regardless of my personal financial situation and would certainly give up that space for more walkability.
  - YorkshireSeason 4y ago
    I went through a similar learning trajectory. I think one has to experience it oneself though, my friends and relatives who never left the suburbs pity me for my restricted living space, and don't believe me when I tell them live is easier with less baggage and it a walkable center of town. I suspect they think I'm rationalising an inability to afford a suburban McMansion.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I thought I never needed anything more than a 1,500 square foot house like my wife’s favorite uncle built with his own hands for his kids. Our house is 3,000 square feet and we just finished 800 square feet for the basement and with three kids it’s just not enough. Heading to my parent’s 5,000 square foot McMansion on the weekends is a real reprive. Yeah it would be easier if we didn’t buy them so much shit. But that’s a deeply ingrained part of American culture. Who has the time to cut their kids off from friends, extended family who buys lots of trinkets for every holiday, etc? Trust me we tried to fight that battle and all we have to show for it is a two inch thick layer of dinosaurs in the living room.
    - 4y ago
- eloisant 4y ago
  It's not just about sacrificing your standard of living, it's that you won't find a smaller, well organized 2 bedrooms in US. Unless you buy a studio and remodel it yourself (which is quite expensive).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

HEmanZ 4y ago

I think the author needs an updated understanding of what is missing. Being interested in a particular property value would absolutely lead to more interest in dense dynamic cities. A city block in tokyo is probably worth more than a city block in most American cities. A capitalist with an interest in seeing their land values go way up would absolutely champion a more dense, desirable city. I think the problem is actually that people with aggregate political power in cities in America don’t really care about property values in the monetary sense. They treat their homes, community, and city on more political/ideological/ethical terms and preferences than on economic terms. The dense Tokyo-style city is absolutely foreign to most Americans and they disdain actions that would lead toward alternate city structures. This is as opposed to the property owning class, which should be more than happy to see their value go up by making more dense cities, especially when it is funded by taxpayers. This seems like a case of just assuming capitalists/landowners are to blame and then coming up with an argument.

milkytron 4y ago
Right, it's certainly multifaceted. Political, ideological, and ethical values all impact how people desire their community to be. Economics also has some impact. I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.
twblalock 4y ago
Exactly. The root cause of NIMBYism is not preservation of property values. It is preservation of neighborhood character -- low density, peace and quiet, low traffic, etc. People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that. As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.

bmitc 4y ago

It’s a real problem. I love the dynamism of cities but had to move out due to affordance. Now that I own a home, it’s a major conflict because I just dumped non-retirement life savings into this home. If it lost major value, it would be disastrous. I’m happy enough for more urbanism and communities, but why do I need to sacrifice my life savings to support that? The U.S. government has really allowed things to get out of hand with housing. The first thing they should address are investors and companies buying up houses. There are at least two houses in my neighborhood sitting empty and quickly dilapidating, as they were likely purchased by investors.

Gigachad 4y ago
I think the original statement doesn't really get to the truth of it. High density and vibrant communities are positives for property value. People objecting to these changes either aren't thinking logically or they aren't objecting to the value part. They want to preserve the character of the area they moved in to.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  I think some of it is a misunderstanding of economics, but some of it is also different willingness to take risks and looking at different time horizons. If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. If I can wait till the neighborhood becomes hip and desired and maybe someone wants to buy my home for big money to build a larger building, cool. However, if I cannot wait a few years or worry that the apartment building goes up and then the economics change and the city takes a turn for the worse and nothing gets build anymore, I might be against the apartment building. It's also always nicer to have those things build a little further away. Being the quiet neighborhood a short hop away from the cool hip hood gives you most of the benefits without the risks and downsides. Of course if everyone thinks like that we get the current situation. IMO it's selfish, not that they aren't thinking logically.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    > If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.

davidw 4y ago

The rapidly growing membership of organizations working on housing issues, like * https://yimbyaction.org/ https://yimbyaction.org/ * https://welcomingneighbors.us/ https://welcomingneighbors.us/ is proof that this is something people care about a lot and are fighting hard for. And we're starting to notch up some successes, too!