7 ms·

> on the vibrant business and street culture in Japanese cities and the seemingly very, very low barriers to entry for regular people to participate. An astute

• morleytj 1y ago
  A similar situation in the US can be seen in Boston. Historically terrible nightlife and for easily explained reasons. Liquor licenses are distributed by the state at a capped amount that can potentially be increased each year, meaning the majority of new businesses wanting to have alcohol sales will need to purchase an existing liquor license from another business, often at an exorbitant price (over 500k USD on average I believe) This makes it extremely difficult for any new businesses to start, and massively advantages large chain businesses that have the ability to make the initial investment in securing a license, versus small or quirky businesses which just have no chance getting started.
  • xyzhut 1y ago
    This makes so much sense to me. I've always thought Boston's nightlife was terrible when compared to places in Texas. You go to Austin and there are the most random bars, clubs, and restaurants. Most have their own quirks and personality, making it so no one place is exactly like the other.
  • charcircuit 1y ago
    Why do you need a liquor license for nightlife. There is more to life than just drinking alcohol.
    • fragmede 1y ago
      Because the economics of it are such that there's where you get your money. How much cover charge are you willing to pay to go out to a club playing local talent on a random weeknight? A cover charge that would actually cover costs at a venue with no bar would be exorbitantly expensive. This is why many places with cheap cover have a drink minimum.
      • smelendez 1y ago
        Yeah, this is actually a problem for venues now that younger generations drink less alcohol. People will drink a beer every set in a show, but they’re less likely to do that with coffee, soda, THC drink, or any other beverage except water, which most bar venues offer for free.
      • charcircuit 1y ago
        You can sell other drinks, food, entertainment, services, games, etc. Alcohol isn't the only thing people are able to do at night. There are plenty of activities that are possible.
        • morleytj 1y ago
          I've thought the same thing. Would love if other people were into that. I'd ask you to consider the following thought experiment. If the regulatory barriers are lower to establish a nightlife business establishment without alcohol as an option, and a large number of people want to do activities without alcohol, why do these businesses not exist in significant numbers? It's certainly not a novel concept to open a cafe or a late night board game location. If they were sustainable businesses economically, which barriers currently exist that prevent them from being present in cities to the same extent as bars?
          • Ntrails 1y ago
            Alcohol doesn't just make more money because it has huge margins. It has decent margin, high profit per unit, and a magic trick: it makes people less cautious about spending more. I have no interest in a second coke or a third coffee. I can drink tea for days, but if it feels pricey I probably only have one or two. Real estate is expensive if that's your customer profile
  • ericrallen 1y ago
    There are some pretty awesome small, unique bars in Boston, but there could be so, so many more if the liquor license laws and rent prices were more reasonable, though.
  • pipes 1y ago
    Unfortunately most people don't seem to understand that over regulation can end up benefitting bigger more established businesses, simply because it raises the barrier to entry.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • frollogaston 1y ago
    If this is one of those sought-after business zones in a rich area, there are only X slots to fill, and somehow it's decided who gets them. Take away liquor licenses, and the barrier will be rent instead. If you want lower barriers, there simply has to be more real estate available in that one area. It's usually like this in other cities, the rich areas have high-investment establishments that play it safe. Maybe that's ok if you want something mainstream and/or high-end.
• 0xfaded 1y ago
  Looks like https://maps.app.goo.gl/sa5JdGPMoZKiUiUP7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/sa5JdGPMoZKiUiUP7 in Osaka is still going, though I remembered it being called "spacebar", a fantastic male for a retro gaming bar.
  • creamyhorror 1y ago
    It's Space Station. Still a great vibe and going strong (thankfully), I visited it half a year ago.
• lwansbrough 1y ago
  North Americans: the city planners are ruining your life in ways you didn't even know could exist.
  • kurthr 1y ago
    I'm all for reducing permit requirements, but realisitically these would be used by McDo and Starbux to externalize more costs while increasing their quarterly profit. Really, you need to have something that is trusted and rational without corporate corruption, which Japan nominally is. The US is going the opposite direction from that.
    • mikem170 1y ago
      It's my understanding that houses in Japan are zoned to allow a percentage of the space to be used for a low-impact business, like the coffee shop in the article, and that bigger businesses are allowed on the bigger roads and in dedicated commercial/industrial districts. Also most houses can be converted to triplexes, too. This helps with density, encouraging more businesses nearby, less need for cars, better quality of social life, etc. I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways. I wondered if Japan does anything along those lines to avoid the problems you mentioned, but google ain't what it used to be and I wasn't able to find specifics.
      • astrange 1y ago
        > I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways. This isn't actually possible because owning a lot of houses is not a good business. That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. Houses are depreciating assets, so if you own more of them it's just more chances you'll have to pay for a roof replacement. In particular in Japan, houses are worth less than nothing and you may have to pay to demolish yours if you sell it! (Less true than it used to be because construction quality has gotten a lot better.)
• Xixi 1y ago
  I think another factor is real estate: a population shrinking by more than half a million people per year eases some of the pressure on rent and land value... When I lived in New York City (before COVID), I saw many local businesses get priced out of my neighborhood, only to be replaced by high-margin chains like Starbucks/H&M/etc. They were the only ones who could afford the rent!
• armada651 1y ago
  Japan is full of licenses and regulations, it is almost the exact opposite of the free market utopia you're imagining. You're not even allowed to buy a car without a permit that proves you have a parking space for it. What Japan does different is that it has sensible zoning laws that are designed around foot traffic rather than car traffic. Why don't you have small shops like this in the U.S.? Because of minimum parking space requirements for cars.
  • zbrozek 1y ago
    And that running businesses out of homes is frequently illegal, another casualty of zoning.
    • wodenokoto 1y ago
      That’s the whole point of zoning
      • pjc50 1y ago
        But why? (semi-rhetorical, but that's exactly the discussion we're having here, whether people should be allowed a backyard coffee shop)
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
        • frollogaston 1y ago
          Externalities. But I'm not a fan of the neighborhoods that have nothing but houses for miles. Gotta balance it a little more.
          • zbrozek 1y ago
            Just directly regulate the externalities with measurable objective limits rather than ban all land uses but one.
• rukuu001 1y ago
  Thank you - I rushed to the comments section to mention Melbourne's bars. Re 'more permissive and less expensive' - I think there was a time (20 years ago?) when Melbourne city would give a license basically anyone. There were bars in old convenience stores, out the back of record stores & barbers. Just so much fun.
• kerakaali 1y ago
  >> on the vibrant business and street culture in Japanese cities and the seemingly very, very low barriers to entry for regular people to participate. > An astute observation that allowing markets to operate without onerous licensing schemes and regulations often has wonderful upsides I suspect you are reading too much into this line from the article. Japan is a country full of bureaucratic regulations to the extent that it's often stifling -- especially compared to the US. The overall lowered barrier to entry is largely a result of zoning laws differences between Japan and the US. In the US, zoning laws are largely permissive (you CAN build this here) where zoning laws in Japan are restrictive (you CANNOT build this here). This leads to huge differences in urban planning where Japan favours mixed-used development whereas the US has huge swaths of contiguous blocks separating residential and commercial zones. Add to that, the cost of visibility is higher in the US because transportation is already car-centric. Small shops thrive on pedestrian traffic, which there is little of in the US outside core urban environments. NIMBY culture has killed much of urban diversity in America.
• goodpoint 1y ago
  > without onerous licensing schemes and regulations often has wonderful upsides If anything Japan is the opposite.
• tirant 1y ago
  One of the most known examples happened in Germany after WWII. After the war Germany had lost quite a lot of businesses, infrastructure, industry and farming. Also obviously lots of manpower. Produce was scarce and inflation was extremely high, so it was actually quite difficult to purchase anything even though people had money. the Allied Forces introduced price control on almost all essential good in order to stop inflation. That obviously did not work at all and most goods were actually traded in the black market, so you could actually buy bread by paying with cigarettes. A German economist, Ludwig Erhardt advised to remove all price and legal controls and to replace the old mark by a new one, but the Allied Forces only agreed to the latest, so a new currency was introduced, the Deutsche Mark, replacing the old Reichsmark. That had no effect whatsoever. However, Mr. Erhardt, from his position as Director of Economic Administration, decided unilaterally to remove of the price fixing and other regulations. And literally overnight, German streets filled with sudden and unplanned pop up markets, everyone started to sell anything they didn't need, just by the street or from their front yard. In 1949 Erhardt became Minister of Economy for 14 years, and later, in 1963, Chancellor.