5 ms·

This is a universal human thing I find. Once something is made or built, we fucking hate change. And change is also super expensive because you now have to tear

This is a universal human thing I find. Once something is made or built, we fucking hate change. And change is also super expensive because you now have to tear down what was built. A lot of countries got bombed during WW2 and got a fresh start. I don’t want to be bombed. You really lock in your decisions when you start a project.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
> This is a universal human thing I find. From everything I've read, building (and rebuilding) in Japan is much more straightforward than in the states, or other Western countries. We've invented many processes and regulations that were well-intended, meant to reduce abuse or exploitation (e.g. pollution, destroying local environment, etc) but also made it hard to build even things that are good, that we broadly want, like new infrastructure or more housing as housing prices rise.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Cultural attachment to buildings there seems limited to traditional buildings (shrines, temples, etc), with the dominant attitude towards modern buildings being much more utilitarian. In the US we don’t have much in the way of old/storied buildings, especially in the western half of the country. Maybe that’s responsible for disproportionate attachment to modern buildings.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    > Cultural attachment to buildings there seems limited to traditional buildings (shrines, temples, etc) And even these tend to get rebuilt periodically, and are regarded as the 'same' building.
- gessha 3y ago
  Japan has a very natural reason to build and rebuild - earthquakes and fires. This is part of their culture. Their buildings are meant for 30 years of use after which they hold no value and need to be rebuilt based on government recommendation. [1] The government may revise this number but it stands as of recently. They have temples that have been built and rebuilt many times due to weather and nature. [2] [1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/how-tos/japans-30-year-building-shelf-life-is-not-quite-true/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/how-tos/ja... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri...
  - omegaworks 3y ago
    California suffers earthquakes and fires, yet we persist in our refusal to make our cities denser.
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      California doesn't have 800+ years of cultural experience tearing down and rebuilding earthquake or fire damaged buildings.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        800 years is enough time for a badger to evolve to correct behaviour through natural selection and random chance. I thought that the whole point of homo sapiens is to use intelligence and draw conclusions quickly. Maybe I was wrong.
        ch4s3 3y ago
        What does this even mean? My point is that Japanese society has a lot of old institutions and practices that accommodate rebuilding and revitalization. California was largely built up after WWII and has a lot of institutions that favor suburban development and have a status quo bias.
    - yndoendo 3y ago
      Doesn't Japan see homes as a depreciating asset while America's economic treats homes as a persistent or appreciating investment asset? Wouldn't this be one of the big reason affluent companies and people are buying up homes in the USA and turning them into rentals? *Edit, fixed wording.
      - omegaworks 3y ago
        Yes, exactly. Our natural environment is similar, but our monetary and economic policies support different priorities.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
> Once something is made or built, we fucking hate change. I don't think that's quite it. Why would we hate change qua change? Change is neither good nor bad as such. There's plenty we all wish was different (and plenty that should be preserved). Almost everyone wishes Madison Square Garden were demolished and old Penn Station were rebuilt. But it's difficult because buildings, and urban layouts, are enmeshed in a thicker reality than just stone laid upon stone. Look at the urban plans of European cities, especially ancient or medieval ones. You may find a few weird quirks in the way streets are laid out. For example, you might find streets that are circular, only to find out that this is because there used to be a Roman amphitheater there. Even some of the stones from the original structure are still present in the very foundations of the new buildings. Living, breathing cities are a network of dependencies, and it is not a simple matter to change how a street runs. It is very expensive, people live there, businesses operate there, property lines are what they are. Unless the justification is severe enough, there isn't enough reason to even think about doing it. That's why it is essential for us to get urban planning right in the beginning according to durable principles.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Yeah, I'd say it's not as much about hating change, as it is about hating to have huge inconvenience and/or large amount of work and/or potential financial loss suddenly disrupting your life. A random example fresh on my mind: I'm happy with my city renovating streets and improving infrastructure. But just now, the city started renovating three major streets at the same time, grinding all traffic in the city to a halt. Think taking 2 hours instead of 20 minutes to leave it, or a city bus that was, literally, exactly 199 minutes late. This suddenly disturbed our weekend plans, and at this very moment, I'm NOT happy with the renovations. It's not about the works and the changes - it's about the unexpected hassle this caused to me personally. (Not that I would vote against the works. Maybe just towards not doing them all at once, and giving more warning.)
api 3y ago
It’s basically the sunk cost fallacy.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  But it is not a fallacy. Paying up for building a new house when you have a house that works perfectly well from 1982 is not the sunk cost fallacy. Repairing a way to worn down house might be though.
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    The best course of action for an individual is path dependent. An middle class family with kids in school, saving for retirement and college, owns their home already, and decides to maintain an older home rather than build a new one. I.e. If you already own the home, the best course of action for you in this particular year, with the money you have on hand, meets the constraints of your particular life circumstances. Global efficiency doesn't actually matter to you.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      > and decides to maintain an older home rather than build a new one. Ye doing maintenance is probably almost always worth it. Doing something before it is too late is like one or two orders of magnitude cheaper. Like painting the outer walls before the wood rots, etc. Fixing the roof before it leaks through both layers of protection. The point I am trying to make, is that buyers seem to underestimate the cost of fixing stuff when it is "too late". I have a theory that there is more competition for houses the cheaper they are. So poorer people are forced to buy homes that are not worth what they cost. I.e. the poorer buyer would be better off buying a more expensive home that is cheaper to maintain in the long run, have to buy the cheaper home that need expensive repairs. If the market was only "rich" people, the bad homes would have a lower price to offset their repair costs. Or something ...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

TulliusCicero 3y ago

> This is a universal human thing I find. From everything I've read, building (and rebuilding) in Japan is much more straightforward than in the states, or other Western countries. We've invented many processes and regulations that were well-intended, meant to reduce abuse or exploitation (e.g. pollution, destroying local environment, etc) but also made it hard to build even things that are good, that we broadly want, like new infrastructure or more housing as housing prices rise.

jwells89 3y ago
Cultural attachment to buildings there seems limited to traditional buildings (shrines, temples, etc), with the dominant attitude towards modern buildings being much more utilitarian. In the US we don’t have much in the way of old/storied buildings, especially in the western half of the country. Maybe that’s responsible for disproportionate attachment to modern buildings.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  > Cultural attachment to buildings there seems limited to traditional buildings (shrines, temples, etc) And even these tend to get rebuilt periodically, and are regarded as the 'same' building.
gessha 3y ago
Japan has a very natural reason to build and rebuild - earthquakes and fires. This is part of their culture. Their buildings are meant for 30 years of use after which they hold no value and need to be rebuilt based on government recommendation. [1] The government may revise this number but it stands as of recently. They have temples that have been built and rebuilt many times due to weather and nature. [2] [1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/how-tos/japans-30-year-building-shelf-life-is-not-quite-true/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/how-tos/ja... [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri...
- omegaworks 3y ago
  California suffers earthquakes and fires, yet we persist in our refusal to make our cities denser.
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    California doesn't have 800+ years of cultural experience tearing down and rebuilding earthquake or fire damaged buildings.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      800 years is enough time for a badger to evolve to correct behaviour through natural selection and random chance. I thought that the whole point of homo sapiens is to use intelligence and draw conclusions quickly. Maybe I was wrong.
      - ch4s3 3y ago
        What does this even mean? My point is that Japanese society has a lot of old institutions and practices that accommodate rebuilding and revitalization. California was largely built up after WWII and has a lot of institutions that favor suburban development and have a status quo bias.
  - yndoendo 3y ago
    Doesn't Japan see homes as a depreciating asset while America's economic treats homes as a persistent or appreciating investment asset? Wouldn't this be one of the big reason affluent companies and people are buying up homes in the USA and turning them into rentals? *Edit, fixed wording.
    - omegaworks 3y ago
      Yes, exactly. Our natural environment is similar, but our monetary and economic policies support different priorities.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

> Once something is made or built, we fucking hate change. I don't think that's quite it. Why would we hate change qua change? Change is neither good nor bad as such. There's plenty we all wish was different (and plenty that should be preserved). Almost everyone wishes Madison Square Garden were demolished and old Penn Station were rebuilt. But it's difficult because buildings, and urban layouts, are enmeshed in a thicker reality than just stone laid upon stone. Look at the urban plans of European cities, especially ancient or medieval ones. You may find a few weird quirks in the way streets are laid out. For example, you might find streets that are circular, only to find out that this is because there used to be a Roman amphitheater there. Even some of the stones from the original structure are still present in the very foundations of the new buildings. Living, breathing cities are a network of dependencies, and it is not a simple matter to change how a street runs. It is very expensive, people live there, businesses operate there, property lines are what they are. Unless the justification is severe enough, there isn't enough reason to even think about doing it. That's why it is essential for us to get urban planning right in the beginning according to durable principles.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Yeah, I'd say it's not as much about hating change, as it is about hating to have huge inconvenience and/or large amount of work and/or potential financial loss suddenly disrupting your life. A random example fresh on my mind: I'm happy with my city renovating streets and improving infrastructure. But just now, the city started renovating three major streets at the same time, grinding all traffic in the city to a halt. Think taking 2 hours instead of 20 minutes to leave it, or a city bus that was, literally, exactly 199 minutes late. This suddenly disturbed our weekend plans, and at this very moment, I'm NOT happy with the renovations. It's not about the works and the changes - it's about the unexpected hassle this caused to me personally. (Not that I would vote against the works. Maybe just towards not doing them all at once, and giving more warning.)

api 3y ago

It’s basically the sunk cost fallacy.

rightbyte 3y ago
But it is not a fallacy. Paying up for building a new house when you have a house that works perfectly well from 1982 is not the sunk cost fallacy. Repairing a way to worn down house might be though.
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  The best course of action for an individual is path dependent. An middle class family with kids in school, saving for retirement and college, owns their home already, and decides to maintain an older home rather than build a new one. I.e. If you already own the home, the best course of action for you in this particular year, with the money you have on hand, meets the constraints of your particular life circumstances. Global efficiency doesn't actually matter to you.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    > and decides to maintain an older home rather than build a new one. Ye doing maintenance is probably almost always worth it. Doing something before it is too late is like one or two orders of magnitude cheaper. Like painting the outer walls before the wood rots, etc. Fixing the roof before it leaks through both layers of protection. The point I am trying to make, is that buyers seem to underestimate the cost of fixing stuff when it is "too late". I have a theory that there is more competition for houses the cheaper they are. So poorer people are forced to buy homes that are not worth what they cost. I.e. the poorer buyer would be better off buying a more expensive home that is cheaper to maintain in the long run, have to buy the cheaper home that need expensive repairs. If the market was only "rich" people, the bad homes would have a lower price to offset their repair costs. Or something ...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]