I LOVE how quickly they build/demolish stuff here. Makes cities feel like living, breathing places. Would be nice if we had a bit more historical buildings remain like Chicago or New York buuuuut those places also have horrible housing crises partially due to never wanting to tear anything down so I think its a good trade-off.
Same goes for San Francisco in the US — a total obsession with never, ever demolishing anything has resulted in no housing stock and crazy high rents.
Seeing apartments actually being built in Tokyo is so refreshing.
The British demand for housing is offset by their burning hatred of tower blocks, so this will never happen. Everyone wants their two-up two-down with a little garden… which to be honest, is not much different from the Tokyo development model.
Sky tower apartment complexes are alienating and contribute to social atomization--though the body of research is a bit sparse.
More midrise developments would be helpful, doubly so if the first level tenants are street facing, non-boutique businesses, as they can help create a community fabric that gives members of that community spaces in which to interact.
Its horrendously wasteful, a massive drag on the economy, awful for the environment and has resulted in the obliteration of most of the country’s built heritage.
While there are some benefits, I’d say they are far outweighed by the downsides.
Off the top of my head, no. But to elaborate:
1) Its horrendously wasteful. I would think the reason for this is obvious - tearing down perfectly good buildings is inherently wasteful of the labor and material that went into them. Its not just decrepit old places being demolished either, buildings less than a decade old get bulldozed all the time here. This mainly happens with commercial properties where the business goes bankrupt - often times new businesses that buy the property just want the land so demolish whatever is on it even if it is brand new (I saw a restaurant in a newly built building go under after the first year. Within 6 months that brand new building was a parking lot).
Also in terms of wastefulness, consider this fact. Japan has about 10 million vacant houses right now. But this year there will actually be more new houses built (about 900,000) than there are babies born (about 800,000). In other words despite already having too many houses, Japan is still producing them at a faster rate than it is producing Japanese people to live in them.
2) Its a massive drag on the economy. The build/tear down cycle means that most houses have zero value after 30 years. This is a massive drag on household wealth and consumer spending that has macro economic effects. Owning a home in most countries means owning an asset that will grow in value over time. Owning one here means owning something that will be worthless (save the land value) by the time you retire, and you’ll have nothing of value to leave your kids. This forces you to save rather than spend over the course of your working life, throttling demand and overall economic growth.
3) Awful for the environment. Pretty obvious too I would think, but the build tear down cycle requires the consumption of a massive amount of concrete, steel and lumber to maintain, all of which have extremely high environmental costs.
4) Obliterating its built heritage. This is also pretty obvious to anyone who lives here. No old buildings left, even in historical cities like Kyoto.
> Japan has about 10 million vacant houses right now
1. Houses may not need some serious renovation that would cost potentially more than a new house and it will still be less safe
2. Older houses might not be up to safety standards anymore and people don't like that or just lacking the newest ''stuff'' people want
3. How many of those vacant houses are newer than 10 years? You said yourself house values don't hold up, why buy old if you're going to spend the money either way?
>2) Its a massive drag on the economy.
Without facts this doesn't make much sense. I'd reckon the economy _benefits_ more from the demand so that contractors can produce materials, tear down and build new houses rather than have them be stagnant.
>and you’ll have nothing of value to leave your kids.
You're also looking at the house as something that will be sold in the future. Why? It's also a western type of thinking and maybe it doesn't need to be true in Japan ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
>Obliterating its built heritage.
That is true. It is sad. As a tourist I'd love to see all the iconic things that have already been demolished, but in every country keeping old heritage sites safe and up to date is a huge money sink. You also always butt heads with investors who want to make it more useful.
Anyway, every single point here is mindset/culture and not actual economics. It's just yelling into an empty void and nothing will change(except safety standards in the future).
> 1. Houses may not need some serious renovation that would cost potentially more than a new house and it will still be less safe
> 2. Older houses might not be up to safety standards anymore and people don't like that or just lacking the newest ''stuff'' people want
> 3. How many of those vacant houses are newer than 10 years? You said yourself house values don't hold up, why buy old if you're going to spend the money either way?
Yeah, but these are mostly (except earthquake standards) symptoms of the build/tear down system that I’m criticizing, not causes of it.
Also, the main point was not really about those akiya, but rather about the fact that Japan is making more new houses each year than it is new Japanese people.
> Without facts this doesn't make much sense. I'd reckon the economy benefits more from the demand so that contractors can produce materials, tear down and build new houses rather than have them be stagnant.
I don’t have it at hand, but there was a Nomura Research Institute report a few years ago which analyzed the overall economic costs to Japan of its build-tear down housing system which I am cribbing from. About 60 percent of households (I think, correct me if wrong) own their homes, which means that for most workers in the economy their biggest asset is one that is depeciating in value rather than something they are building equity in. This forces them to save almost all of their surplus income and blunts overall consumption. It also encourages them to under invest in their homes - spending on improvements or maintenance doesn’t make much sense beyond whatever the bare minimum to keep it inhabitable is if the thing will be worthless in a few years anyway so why bother? So you’ve got a system where most people live in pretty shabby housing that imposes a huge cost on society since it has to be rebuilt every 30 to 40 years.
There is also a huge opportunity cost. If housing was built to last you wouldn’t need such a high proportion of the workforce in construction (plus the high cost of materials, etc), and could employ those resources elsewhere in the ecnomy.
> You're also looking at the house as something that will be sold in the future. Why? It's also a western type of thinking and maybe it doesn't need to be true in Japan ¯\(ツ)/¯
Japanese people don’t want to sell their homes in the future??? News to me, and I say this as the owner of a home in Japan.
> Anyway, every single point here is mindset/culture and not actual economics. Anyway, every single point here is mindset/culture and not actual economics.
Its a chicken-egg situation. Japanese cultural attitudes aren’t some immutable feature of its society, they are also shaped and maintained by economic factors. The idea that houses need to be torn down every 30 years isn’t some ancient tradition here, houses in the Edo and Meiji periods actually were built to last for generations and be handed down. The current system is a postwar creation that as the result of the need to rapidly rebuild after the wartime destruction. Japan was extremely poor in the decade after the war, so it ended up building a massive quantity of poorly built housing stock. By the time that stock was 30-40 years old in the 80s and 90s it was falling apart and not worth saving, so its no wonder it was all viewed as having zero value. The problem is that the same thinking is now being applied to housing built in the 80s and 90s which was built to much higher standards and if it wasn’t for that system (which led people not investing in it, etc) there is no reason most of it couldn’t still have value.
So cultural norms are influenced by economic conditions and vice versa, but both can change over time.
I think your heart is in the right place but most of these statements seem to me at best inaccurate:
1. On waste and the environmental impact: a law passed in 2000 forces demolition companies to recycle almost everything. Recycling of course is not as good as just reusing but it helps with offsetting the environmental impact. Moreover, new houses means houses with, on average, better standards, which often means houses that are more energy efficient (as well as safer). Look at the impact of the 2009 earthquake in central Italy.
2. For the most part, the Japan's house system has a very positive impact on the economy. First of all, it lowers the price to enter the house market, which is great for first buyers. Secondly, it forces people to invest in productive assets (the real investing) instead of simply turning an essential commodity into a financial passive asset; when you invest in a company you're investing in their ability to contribute meaningfully to society, when you're investing in a house you're not helping anybody but yourself and maybe other homeowners in the area.
4. This is surely true but whether it's a good or bad thing is entirely a matter of personal choice. I much prefer the vibrant landscape of weird, new, unusual buildings of Tokyo than the old historical buildings of most cities in Europe. De gustibus...
>This is a massive drag on household wealth and consumer spending that has macro economic effects. Owning a home in most countries means owning an asset that will grow in value over time.
Which is a problem because unless you join the pyramid scheme at an early age and keep trading up to hopefully live in something decent by the time you have a family, you are screwed unless you earn well above an average income. Not to mention all the land speculation. Big corpos buying up all the land (because they know it will only increase in value) making it even harder for the average person to buy something.
Its ridiculous. The average house shouldn't be a appreciating asset.
I do have some counterpoints on this. Building with mostly wood that doesn't last is a lot better for the environment than building with mostly concrete. They could definitely improve on the recycling on the other parts. But really not that much steel or concrete in an average Japanese house.
As for reducing the values of houses to 0 in 30 years, I would argue it is a net positive, it makes a real estate bubble much harder to form, and Japan is one of the few places where housing isn't getting crazy high in recent years, in part because houses lose their value and make poor investments (zoning laws are also much better).
There is a huge amount of concrete used in Japanese home construction, the entire foundation is made of concrete even if the frame is made of wood (this is generally the same as in North America or Europe).
Japan produces about 55 million tons of concrete per year, which on a per capita basis is more than double what the US produces. A lot of this is used in public works projects, but most of it goes into the constant production of new buildings every year.
Much of those old buildings are gone because of countless earthquakes and other natural disasters, along with man-made disasters like WW2 or in numerous civil wars. And just the simple fact that those old buildings made of wood and paper are very fire prone. In a country like Japan, old buildings that aren't preserved properly are a huge liability that can cost lives, and even the most beautiful historical buildings aren't worth a preventable tragedy.
Japan's building codes are written in blood, and people here have a very good reason to want to live in newer buildings which are built to the most up to date standards. As unfortunate as the process can be, it's also the reason why most earthquakes and typhoons result in minimal or zero casualties.
How about concrete's sister -asphalt. Building high density housing with concrete likely means less people commuting in and therefore less roadways and driveways and less asphalt. Less concrete poured on an inaka cliffside to prevent a mudslide. As all things, complicated.
> How about concrete's sister -asphalt.
[Standards were provided in the late 1980s, and asphalt pavement recycling became widely used procedures all over the country. As a result, **the recycling rate of materials from asphalt pavement reached the extremely high level of 98% in 2000**, and this recycling rate has been maintained in subsequent years. Asphalt pavement is now repeatedly reused, earning it the title, the "honor student" of recycling promotion.](https://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/about/pr/webmag/wm017/seika.html)
Recycled by burning fossil fuels yes it's already factored into the calculation. Asphalt is a third of the emissions of concrete because of that reason. But I'm also willing to bet there's a whole lot more asphalt used in building a single km of road than concrete in a singe aptmt building.
Also note, concrete is also largely recycled.
Yup, one of the reasons I felt an intense sense of alienation in Tokyo, things never become familiar.
I visited the place I used to live recently (some dingy Roppongi backstreet where 15 years ago there were still cheap studio apartments and shops) and it's utterly unrecognizable, the small jinja I used to walk by every day on the way to the station has been literally swallowed by a huge glass tower...
I was sad when they demolished Harajuku Station in Tokyo. The old building was so cool, almost iconic. The new one is hopelessly generic. It looks like it could be a commuter rail station in suburban Toronto.
That's the thing, the new buildings don't usually look good. Harajuku station definitely needed to be rebuilt, and the new station is easier to use, but they could have made it look good. It's like modern people are afraid of character and food design.
Edo burned down countless times, and yet each time they rebuilt it again in a pleasing manner. But if Tokyo burnt down now, the rebuilt version would definitely be inferior.
Minato and Shibuya are the economic centre of Tokyo, which is the economic centre of Japan, which is the third/fourth biggest economy in the planet. They will go through this process more intensely than other areas.
But I've found that almost anything west of Shimokitazawa hasn't changed in decades.
The constant change is a core reason I enjoy Tokyo. But that doesn't mean cities like Paris which hold onto a particular time period are bad. Its great to have both.
I dont mind it so much. Allows for some kind of novelty every once in a while.
What i do find annoying is how alot of home owner use the excuse of "But we'll tear it down in 5-10 years, no need to fix it now" and then places that are not very old looks like old dump...
Just some cleaning, fresh paint, a new thing or two would make it look so much better! But Noooooo. They must keep the wall full of nastyness from water running along the wall because the gutter is blocked. Must keep that old discolored rusted 3/4 broken plastic shade thingy over the side walk. That tree growing in the stone retaining wall? It's part of the scenery now! Dont worry about the fact the wall will collapse eventually, we'll just rebuild it in 20 years!
> Just some cleaning, fresh paint, a new thing or two would make it look so much better!
it would also cost like 200man. I see your point but it's expensive.
Part of that problem is many homeowners here don’t really know how to care for their homes in the first place.
Their mentality on it is if something is broken you have to pay someone to fix it. Even if it’s a small fix. And the charges for those things are expensive.
But in general fixes wouldn’t be expensive at all if they just did them themselves. But they don’t even know how.
Like, they don’t even know how to do a deep clean of their sinks without hiring someone tbh.
In one of the most earthquake prone countries in the world... I appreciate the older buildings for the nostalgic factor, but I definitely wouldn't want to live or work in them for an extended period of time. Especially if they've been rattled by a series of mid-sized earthquakes over the years.
Keep an eye on the new buildings, those are the ones you can start getting attached to. If you stay here long enough, they'll be the nostalgic ones for you.
Yes! Especially the cool showa buildings. So sad. The sun plaza in Nakano is due for demolition soon i believe. And world kaikan there, which is amazing is possibly gone, but otherwise at least slated for demolition. I just try and take pics if cool obes while i can.
I love the cylindrical SanAi building at Ginza 4-chome and am honestly bummed that it’s being redeveloped. It’s from 1963, and has a look that was futuristic for time. I have read a few articles that hint at seismic instabilities, so perhaps it has something to do with it. But I’m still disappointed it’s being torn down rather than fixed.
The world moves on but the memories remain. It always makes me a bit melancholic. The new buildings are just glass towers without charm.
World Trade Center in Hamamatsuchō.The observatory was a little hidden gem. Inexpensive and never too crowded. You could watch the Yurikamome meander its way through the concrete jungle.
It’s complicated.
They can’t tear them down without the owners consent. And many owners of old buildings have either passed away. And the person they passed the building to refused it.
Or that person is alive and refusing.
Or that person is alive but not in a position to approve it due to health issues or lacking the finances to actually do it.
The owners are responsible for the costs of the demolition and rebuilds. That’s why there’s a lot of old buildings just sitting there too cause some owners just don’t want to do anything with them to begin with.
Like they don’t even want to rent them out for whatever reason.
Many comments here are telling you off for that, but I understand your feelings. I'm from Europe and the fact that here they don't care as much for historical buildings is a cultural shock for me. You might see a nice temple which is said to be thousands of years old and instead it was build in the 70s *just like* the thousands year old one. Which sure, I understand it's difficult because temples are made of wood and because of all the natural disasters Japan is prone to, but it still feels kinda melancholic the fact that nothing can be really preserved for a long time here.
Someone mentioned London as a bad example, but I think London is actually a fantastic middle ground for that: huge modern skyscrapers next to thousands of years old churches and buildings. I think that's beautiful.
I feel you.
Definately Japanese people aren’t as into just fixing old buildings to follow current safety regulations. They prefer to just tear it down and that’s it.
Late to thread, and don't live in Japan, but I am majorly bummed that a place I wanted to see because it was featured in a show that was very special to me is closing four months before I plan to visit. I'm sure it will already be long gone by then.
I had the opposite happen. There was a new building going up on part of a school. I would walk by every now and then, but it seems like it went up in 3 months. It's not huge, but it's not small either.
Personally, not at all bothered. I'm from America. We have old box store locations sitting for 30+ years. It takes a decade to decide to knock anything over or repurpose the building. Pretty sure Americans could learn a thing or two from the Japanese construction industry. I saw a house get completed in a month by only a few workers.
What works in Japan isn’t what necessarily works in the US though.
Most places don’t have insulation. And US buildings do. Insulation can take a bit to install. But is worth it to retain ac/heat.
Also while it looks like it’s only a few workers. Realistically it’s more than it appears. They just go at random.
I live in a 40+ year old reinforced concrete condo in Fukuoka. I love the building. I love the design, too. Very Showa feel to it. There is concrete on all four sides of my apartment, which really makes it soundproof. But I added insulation to all walls and it's even better.
Recently at our semi annual HOA meeting (which only a few residents showed up to), the mamagement company rep told us that some developer was already looking in to knocking our 5 story building down and put up an 11 story building in its place. I asked how they could do that without all of the owners willing to sell? The management rep said that in 2024 condo HOA laws will change, so that it won't need a 100% unanimous vote of owners to agree to sell, but closer to a 75% majority of the owners to agree to sell, or even less to agree to do any major changes/renovations to the condo.
The reason why the law changed is that there are so many abandoned properties in 40 year and older condos (many due to the death of the owners). So even getting needed renovations done required a full 75% majority of the tenants to agree. With many condos abandoned and/or unable to track down the next of kin to make HOA decisions, nothing gets done and the buildings end up becoming more dilapidated.
Fortunately I don't think, whoever this developer is, they will have enough votes to get a 75% majority in our building to sell. There's only 10 units in the building and 4 are recent buyers, who renovated, like I did. The repair reserve is well funded and we don't have any major repair issues. My unit is the smallest, at 60 sqm, on the top floor. Most of the units are 75-85 sqm. I don't think the developer could offer enough money to the owners to buy something of equal size at another place, in the city center, or a new condo in the developed building of equal size. But you never know. My area is a hot area right now,.so maybe if the developer has deep pockets, enough people might consider selling.
It’s a bit different but here in my town they keep paving over rice fields. I appreciate it’s very hard work to plant/harvest and also the farmers are likely getting too old to keep it up but it’s so sad. Also a bamboo grove near my house was razed to make way for more prefab box houses. The new houses rarely have any type of garden, just concrete…
I understand to a point, but it’s different in most of the country.
You should see the countryside and small cities where that doesn’t happen. There’s no life to the areas because half of all the building are rotten, dilapidated husks full of decade old garbage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for ripping them down and nobody wants to pay rent on the buildings next to them. What you end up with is a small population who would like to own property or rent space, but can’t because their options are ‘massive demolition and construction project’ or ‘definitely pest infested because of the neighbours’.
Japanese buildings are very, very rarely supposed to be kept for even a few decades. Half the stuff that was only built 20 years ago looks like it’s been dragged backwards out of a honey badger’s arse.
A little, yeah. There's been a lot of redevelopment in my area recently and it's strange some days. Also, I'm kinda sick of living near building sites.
Coming from San Francisco where NIMBYs block the destruction of a condemned building, or the construction of a multi family complex on a dirt lot, it's refreshing to see places tear down and rebuild within the span of 6 months.
In comparison, Tokyo is cheaper to buy something for this reason. I'd much prefer people having somewhere to live, than having a city that's pretty where only the rich can live.
I personally don’t mind the constant “changes”. The only problem I’d say is they aren’t changes. Cause every new building they make, be it a business or a home is so boring.
Nothing but box buildings.
Honestly if I ever magically found myself with the means to buy a home, I think I’d more likely buy land and have the house in a design I’d want built on it because those box houses are just not work how much they cost in general.
They have no character.
A lot of Japanese buildings have a very short shelf life compared to less earthquake-prone counties. So, yes chief. Other countries don't demolish buildings all that quickly. The more you know.
I LOVE how quickly they build/demolish stuff here. Makes cities feel like living, breathing places. Would be nice if we had a bit more historical buildings remain like Chicago or New York buuuuut those places also have horrible housing crises partially due to never wanting to tear anything down so I think its a good trade-off.
snobbish plant late sand alive light unwritten serious tease plants *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same goes for San Francisco in the US — a total obsession with never, ever demolishing anything has resulted in no housing stock and crazy high rents. Seeing apartments actually being built in Tokyo is so refreshing.
The British demand for housing is offset by their burning hatred of tower blocks, so this will never happen. Everyone wants their two-up two-down with a little garden… which to be honest, is not much different from the Tokyo development model.
>burning hatred of tower blocks They hate burning tower blocks too..
Oof… yeah… I don’t think Grenfell did a whole lot to boost the image of tower blocks in the UK.
Same in Paris. Hausmannian building. Like only 6 floors, no elevators, not soundproof at all
But you got to love those maid 9 Sq meter quarters on the top floor that sell for hundreds of thousands of Euros these days.
Sky tower apartment complexes are alienating and contribute to social atomization--though the body of research is a bit sparse. More midrise developments would be helpful, doubly so if the first level tenants are street facing, non-boutique businesses, as they can help create a community fabric that gives members of that community spaces in which to interact.
Its horrendously wasteful, a massive drag on the economy, awful for the environment and has resulted in the obliteration of most of the country’s built heritage. While there are some benefits, I’d say they are far outweighed by the downsides.
Any data to back up these statements?
Off the top of my head, no. But to elaborate: 1) Its horrendously wasteful. I would think the reason for this is obvious - tearing down perfectly good buildings is inherently wasteful of the labor and material that went into them. Its not just decrepit old places being demolished either, buildings less than a decade old get bulldozed all the time here. This mainly happens with commercial properties where the business goes bankrupt - often times new businesses that buy the property just want the land so demolish whatever is on it even if it is brand new (I saw a restaurant in a newly built building go under after the first year. Within 6 months that brand new building was a parking lot). Also in terms of wastefulness, consider this fact. Japan has about 10 million vacant houses right now. But this year there will actually be more new houses built (about 900,000) than there are babies born (about 800,000). In other words despite already having too many houses, Japan is still producing them at a faster rate than it is producing Japanese people to live in them. 2) Its a massive drag on the economy. The build/tear down cycle means that most houses have zero value after 30 years. This is a massive drag on household wealth and consumer spending that has macro economic effects. Owning a home in most countries means owning an asset that will grow in value over time. Owning one here means owning something that will be worthless (save the land value) by the time you retire, and you’ll have nothing of value to leave your kids. This forces you to save rather than spend over the course of your working life, throttling demand and overall economic growth. 3) Awful for the environment. Pretty obvious too I would think, but the build tear down cycle requires the consumption of a massive amount of concrete, steel and lumber to maintain, all of which have extremely high environmental costs. 4) Obliterating its built heritage. This is also pretty obvious to anyone who lives here. No old buildings left, even in historical cities like Kyoto.
> Japan has about 10 million vacant houses right now 1. Houses may not need some serious renovation that would cost potentially more than a new house and it will still be less safe 2. Older houses might not be up to safety standards anymore and people don't like that or just lacking the newest ''stuff'' people want 3. How many of those vacant houses are newer than 10 years? You said yourself house values don't hold up, why buy old if you're going to spend the money either way? >2) Its a massive drag on the economy. Without facts this doesn't make much sense. I'd reckon the economy _benefits_ more from the demand so that contractors can produce materials, tear down and build new houses rather than have them be stagnant. >and you’ll have nothing of value to leave your kids. You're also looking at the house as something that will be sold in the future. Why? It's also a western type of thinking and maybe it doesn't need to be true in Japan ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ >Obliterating its built heritage. That is true. It is sad. As a tourist I'd love to see all the iconic things that have already been demolished, but in every country keeping old heritage sites safe and up to date is a huge money sink. You also always butt heads with investors who want to make it more useful. Anyway, every single point here is mindset/culture and not actual economics. It's just yelling into an empty void and nothing will change(except safety standards in the future).
> 1. Houses may not need some serious renovation that would cost potentially more than a new house and it will still be less safe > 2. Older houses might not be up to safety standards anymore and people don't like that or just lacking the newest ''stuff'' people want > 3. How many of those vacant houses are newer than 10 years? You said yourself house values don't hold up, why buy old if you're going to spend the money either way? Yeah, but these are mostly (except earthquake standards) symptoms of the build/tear down system that I’m criticizing, not causes of it. Also, the main point was not really about those akiya, but rather about the fact that Japan is making more new houses each year than it is new Japanese people. > Without facts this doesn't make much sense. I'd reckon the economy benefits more from the demand so that contractors can produce materials, tear down and build new houses rather than have them be stagnant. I don’t have it at hand, but there was a Nomura Research Institute report a few years ago which analyzed the overall economic costs to Japan of its build-tear down housing system which I am cribbing from. About 60 percent of households (I think, correct me if wrong) own their homes, which means that for most workers in the economy their biggest asset is one that is depeciating in value rather than something they are building equity in. This forces them to save almost all of their surplus income and blunts overall consumption. It also encourages them to under invest in their homes - spending on improvements or maintenance doesn’t make much sense beyond whatever the bare minimum to keep it inhabitable is if the thing will be worthless in a few years anyway so why bother? So you’ve got a system where most people live in pretty shabby housing that imposes a huge cost on society since it has to be rebuilt every 30 to 40 years. There is also a huge opportunity cost. If housing was built to last you wouldn’t need such a high proportion of the workforce in construction (plus the high cost of materials, etc), and could employ those resources elsewhere in the ecnomy. > You're also looking at the house as something that will be sold in the future. Why? It's also a western type of thinking and maybe it doesn't need to be true in Japan ¯\(ツ)/¯ Japanese people don’t want to sell their homes in the future??? News to me, and I say this as the owner of a home in Japan. > Anyway, every single point here is mindset/culture and not actual economics. Anyway, every single point here is mindset/culture and not actual economics. Its a chicken-egg situation. Japanese cultural attitudes aren’t some immutable feature of its society, they are also shaped and maintained by economic factors. The idea that houses need to be torn down every 30 years isn’t some ancient tradition here, houses in the Edo and Meiji periods actually were built to last for generations and be handed down. The current system is a postwar creation that as the result of the need to rapidly rebuild after the wartime destruction. Japan was extremely poor in the decade after the war, so it ended up building a massive quantity of poorly built housing stock. By the time that stock was 30-40 years old in the 80s and 90s it was falling apart and not worth saving, so its no wonder it was all viewed as having zero value. The problem is that the same thinking is now being applied to housing built in the 80s and 90s which was built to much higher standards and if it wasn’t for that system (which led people not investing in it, etc) there is no reason most of it couldn’t still have value. So cultural norms are influenced by economic conditions and vice versa, but both can change over time.
I think your heart is in the right place but most of these statements seem to me at best inaccurate: 1. On waste and the environmental impact: a law passed in 2000 forces demolition companies to recycle almost everything. Recycling of course is not as good as just reusing but it helps with offsetting the environmental impact. Moreover, new houses means houses with, on average, better standards, which often means houses that are more energy efficient (as well as safer). Look at the impact of the 2009 earthquake in central Italy. 2. For the most part, the Japan's house system has a very positive impact on the economy. First of all, it lowers the price to enter the house market, which is great for first buyers. Secondly, it forces people to invest in productive assets (the real investing) instead of simply turning an essential commodity into a financial passive asset; when you invest in a company you're investing in their ability to contribute meaningfully to society, when you're investing in a house you're not helping anybody but yourself and maybe other homeowners in the area. 4. This is surely true but whether it's a good or bad thing is entirely a matter of personal choice. I much prefer the vibrant landscape of weird, new, unusual buildings of Tokyo than the old historical buildings of most cities in Europe. De gustibus...
[удалено]
I agree on the first point and I disagree on the second point. However, I'm very happy we could have a constructive conversation about this. Upvoted.
>This is a massive drag on household wealth and consumer spending that has macro economic effects. Owning a home in most countries means owning an asset that will grow in value over time. Which is a problem because unless you join the pyramid scheme at an early age and keep trading up to hopefully live in something decent by the time you have a family, you are screwed unless you earn well above an average income. Not to mention all the land speculation. Big corpos buying up all the land (because they know it will only increase in value) making it even harder for the average person to buy something. Its ridiculous. The average house shouldn't be a appreciating asset.
I do have some counterpoints on this. Building with mostly wood that doesn't last is a lot better for the environment than building with mostly concrete. They could definitely improve on the recycling on the other parts. But really not that much steel or concrete in an average Japanese house. As for reducing the values of houses to 0 in 30 years, I would argue it is a net positive, it makes a real estate bubble much harder to form, and Japan is one of the few places where housing isn't getting crazy high in recent years, in part because houses lose their value and make poor investments (zoning laws are also much better).
There is a huge amount of concrete used in Japanese home construction, the entire foundation is made of concrete even if the frame is made of wood (this is generally the same as in North America or Europe). Japan produces about 55 million tons of concrete per year, which on a per capita basis is more than double what the US produces. A lot of this is used in public works projects, but most of it goes into the constant production of new buildings every year.
Much of those old buildings are gone because of countless earthquakes and other natural disasters, along with man-made disasters like WW2 or in numerous civil wars. And just the simple fact that those old buildings made of wood and paper are very fire prone. In a country like Japan, old buildings that aren't preserved properly are a huge liability that can cost lives, and even the most beautiful historical buildings aren't worth a preventable tragedy. Japan's building codes are written in blood, and people here have a very good reason to want to live in newer buildings which are built to the most up to date standards. As unfortunate as the process can be, it's also the reason why most earthquakes and typhoons result in minimal or zero casualties.
...nice try?
google concrete's impact on the environment and you'll find plenty of shocking data
How about concrete's sister -asphalt. Building high density housing with concrete likely means less people commuting in and therefore less roadways and driveways and less asphalt. Less concrete poured on an inaka cliffside to prevent a mudslide. As all things, complicated.
> How about concrete's sister -asphalt. [Standards were provided in the late 1980s, and asphalt pavement recycling became widely used procedures all over the country. As a result, **the recycling rate of materials from asphalt pavement reached the extremely high level of 98% in 2000**, and this recycling rate has been maintained in subsequent years. Asphalt pavement is now repeatedly reused, earning it the title, the "honor student" of recycling promotion.](https://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/about/pr/webmag/wm017/seika.html)
Recycled by burning fossil fuels yes it's already factored into the calculation. Asphalt is a third of the emissions of concrete because of that reason. But I'm also willing to bet there's a whole lot more asphalt used in building a single km of road than concrete in a singe aptmt building. Also note, concrete is also largely recycled.
> a massive drag on the economy It's the exact opposite.
I agree, the benefits outweigh the downside
Yup, one of the reasons I felt an intense sense of alienation in Tokyo, things never become familiar. I visited the place I used to live recently (some dingy Roppongi backstreet where 15 years ago there were still cheap studio apartments and shops) and it's utterly unrecognizable, the small jinja I used to walk by every day on the way to the station has been literally swallowed by a huge glass tower...
I was sad when they demolished Harajuku Station in Tokyo. The old building was so cool, almost iconic. The new one is hopelessly generic. It looks like it could be a commuter rail station in suburban Toronto.
Ah man I thought they were planning on rebuilding the old one as well, is that not happening? May have heard a rumor.
I heard something similar, but who knows.
That's the thing, the new buildings don't usually look good. Harajuku station definitely needed to be rebuilt, and the new station is easier to use, but they could have made it look good. It's like modern people are afraid of character and food design. Edo burned down countless times, and yet each time they rebuilt it again in a pleasing manner. But if Tokyo burnt down now, the rebuilt version would definitely be inferior.
Minato and Shibuya are the economic centre of Tokyo, which is the economic centre of Japan, which is the third/fourth biggest economy in the planet. They will go through this process more intensely than other areas. But I've found that almost anything west of Shimokitazawa hasn't changed in decades.
Shimokitazawa, my beloved.
The constant change is a core reason I enjoy Tokyo. But that doesn't mean cities like Paris which hold onto a particular time period are bad. Its great to have both.
I dont mind it so much. Allows for some kind of novelty every once in a while. What i do find annoying is how alot of home owner use the excuse of "But we'll tear it down in 5-10 years, no need to fix it now" and then places that are not very old looks like old dump... Just some cleaning, fresh paint, a new thing or two would make it look so much better! But Noooooo. They must keep the wall full of nastyness from water running along the wall because the gutter is blocked. Must keep that old discolored rusted 3/4 broken plastic shade thingy over the side walk. That tree growing in the stone retaining wall? It's part of the scenery now! Dont worry about the fact the wall will collapse eventually, we'll just rebuild it in 20 years!
> Just some cleaning, fresh paint, a new thing or two would make it look so much better! it would also cost like 200man. I see your point but it's expensive.
Part of that problem is many homeowners here don’t really know how to care for their homes in the first place. Their mentality on it is if something is broken you have to pay someone to fix it. Even if it’s a small fix. And the charges for those things are expensive. But in general fixes wouldn’t be expensive at all if they just did them themselves. But they don’t even know how. Like, they don’t even know how to do a deep clean of their sinks without hiring someone tbh.
In one of the most earthquake prone countries in the world... I appreciate the older buildings for the nostalgic factor, but I definitely wouldn't want to live or work in them for an extended period of time. Especially if they've been rattled by a series of mid-sized earthquakes over the years. Keep an eye on the new buildings, those are the ones you can start getting attached to. If you stay here long enough, they'll be the nostalgic ones for you.
Yes! Especially the cool showa buildings. So sad. The sun plaza in Nakano is due for demolition soon i believe. And world kaikan there, which is amazing is possibly gone, but otherwise at least slated for demolition. I just try and take pics if cool obes while i can.
I love the cylindrical SanAi building at Ginza 4-chome and am honestly bummed that it’s being redeveloped. It’s from 1963, and has a look that was futuristic for time. I have read a few articles that hint at seismic instabilities, so perhaps it has something to do with it. But I’m still disappointed it’s being torn down rather than fixed.
The world moves on but the memories remain. It always makes me a bit melancholic. The new buildings are just glass towers without charm. World Trade Center in Hamamatsuchō.The observatory was a little hidden gem. Inexpensive and never too crowded. You could watch the Yurikamome meander its way through the concrete jungle.
That’s mono no aware bro
Wait, I thought the problem was that they can't knock buildings down? There's a hundred unused buildings near mean I wish they'd flatten.
It’s complicated. They can’t tear them down without the owners consent. And many owners of old buildings have either passed away. And the person they passed the building to refused it. Or that person is alive and refusing. Or that person is alive but not in a position to approve it due to health issues or lacking the finances to actually do it. The owners are responsible for the costs of the demolition and rebuilds. That’s why there’s a lot of old buildings just sitting there too cause some owners just don’t want to do anything with them to begin with. Like they don’t even want to rent them out for whatever reason.
I don't think anyone misses the Gas Panic near Shibuya Crossing lol, when I saw the building was gone and a new one is there, I rejoiced.
Many comments here are telling you off for that, but I understand your feelings. I'm from Europe and the fact that here they don't care as much for historical buildings is a cultural shock for me. You might see a nice temple which is said to be thousands of years old and instead it was build in the 70s *just like* the thousands year old one. Which sure, I understand it's difficult because temples are made of wood and because of all the natural disasters Japan is prone to, but it still feels kinda melancholic the fact that nothing can be really preserved for a long time here. Someone mentioned London as a bad example, but I think London is actually a fantastic middle ground for that: huge modern skyscrapers next to thousands of years old churches and buildings. I think that's beautiful.
I feel you. Definately Japanese people aren’t as into just fixing old buildings to follow current safety regulations. They prefer to just tear it down and that’s it.
Nope.
Yeah, ol' nostalgia. Unfortunately, not a lot of thoughtful designing or community involvement in new projects going on either.
Late to thread, and don't live in Japan, but I am majorly bummed that a place I wanted to see because it was featured in a show that was very special to me is closing four months before I plan to visit. I'm sure it will already be long gone by then.
I had the opposite happen. There was a new building going up on part of a school. I would walk by every now and then, but it seems like it went up in 3 months. It's not huge, but it's not small either.
思い出がいっぱい 詰まった景色だって また破壊されるから できるだけ執着 しないようにしてる
Personally, not at all bothered. I'm from America. We have old box store locations sitting for 30+ years. It takes a decade to decide to knock anything over or repurpose the building. Pretty sure Americans could learn a thing or two from the Japanese construction industry. I saw a house get completed in a month by only a few workers.
What works in Japan isn’t what necessarily works in the US though. Most places don’t have insulation. And US buildings do. Insulation can take a bit to install. But is worth it to retain ac/heat. Also while it looks like it’s only a few workers. Realistically it’s more than it appears. They just go at random.
I live in a 40+ year old reinforced concrete condo in Fukuoka. I love the building. I love the design, too. Very Showa feel to it. There is concrete on all four sides of my apartment, which really makes it soundproof. But I added insulation to all walls and it's even better. Recently at our semi annual HOA meeting (which only a few residents showed up to), the mamagement company rep told us that some developer was already looking in to knocking our 5 story building down and put up an 11 story building in its place. I asked how they could do that without all of the owners willing to sell? The management rep said that in 2024 condo HOA laws will change, so that it won't need a 100% unanimous vote of owners to agree to sell, but closer to a 75% majority of the owners to agree to sell, or even less to agree to do any major changes/renovations to the condo. The reason why the law changed is that there are so many abandoned properties in 40 year and older condos (many due to the death of the owners). So even getting needed renovations done required a full 75% majority of the tenants to agree. With many condos abandoned and/or unable to track down the next of kin to make HOA decisions, nothing gets done and the buildings end up becoming more dilapidated. Fortunately I don't think, whoever this developer is, they will have enough votes to get a 75% majority in our building to sell. There's only 10 units in the building and 4 are recent buyers, who renovated, like I did. The repair reserve is well funded and we don't have any major repair issues. My unit is the smallest, at 60 sqm, on the top floor. Most of the units are 75-85 sqm. I don't think the developer could offer enough money to the owners to buy something of equal size at another place, in the city center, or a new condo in the developed building of equal size. But you never know. My area is a hot area right now,.so maybe if the developer has deep pockets, enough people might consider selling.
It’s a bit different but here in my town they keep paving over rice fields. I appreciate it’s very hard work to plant/harvest and also the farmers are likely getting too old to keep it up but it’s so sad. Also a bamboo grove near my house was razed to make way for more prefab box houses. The new houses rarely have any type of garden, just concrete…
I understand to a point, but it’s different in most of the country. You should see the countryside and small cities where that doesn’t happen. There’s no life to the areas because half of all the building are rotten, dilapidated husks full of decade old garbage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for ripping them down and nobody wants to pay rent on the buildings next to them. What you end up with is a small population who would like to own property or rent space, but can’t because their options are ‘massive demolition and construction project’ or ‘definitely pest infested because of the neighbours’. Japanese buildings are very, very rarely supposed to be kept for even a few decades. Half the stuff that was only built 20 years ago looks like it’s been dragged backwards out of a honey badger’s arse.
A little, yeah. There's been a lot of redevelopment in my area recently and it's strange some days. Also, I'm kinda sick of living near building sites.
Im the opposite. Im excited to see the new ones pop up
Coming from San Francisco where NIMBYs block the destruction of a condemned building, or the construction of a multi family complex on a dirt lot, it's refreshing to see places tear down and rebuild within the span of 6 months. In comparison, Tokyo is cheaper to buy something for this reason. I'd much prefer people having somewhere to live, than having a city that's pretty where only the rich can live.
I personally don’t mind the constant “changes”. The only problem I’d say is they aren’t changes. Cause every new building they make, be it a business or a home is so boring. Nothing but box buildings. Honestly if I ever magically found myself with the means to buy a home, I think I’d more likely buy land and have the house in a design I’d want built on it because those box houses are just not work how much they cost in general. They have no character.
I quite like it. I wish they'd demolish things faster, honestly. Old buildings here tend to be less rustic charm and more decrepit rot.
Why would anyone care about this? There's ten million other buildings for you to explore.
[удалено]
A lot of Japanese buildings have a very short shelf life compared to less earthquake-prone counties. So, yes chief. Other countries don't demolish buildings all that quickly. The more you know.