Why Japan Is Crazy About Housing(archdaily.com)
archdaily.com
Why Japan Is Crazy About Housing
http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-housing/
17 comments
Thanks for the links, Google Translate did enough :-)
I find this fascinating: "The rules around the market are different, too. For example, in California most houses are sold and bought as-is. In Japan, the seller is on the hook for up to an year for problems that weren't discovered at the point of sale."
In California there are many rules, permits, and processes that must be followed before building a new house. This comes from voters (residents) seeking to limit the rate of change in their neighborhood, and restrict change they would find objectionable (like multi-floor houses in a neighbor with all single floor houses). So buying an existing house is always "easier" than building a new one. Buyers are not responsible for any problems that were disclosed at the time of purchase and signed off on by the buyers. The buyer has the option (and should) to get a thorough home inspection prior to the purchase.
Contrast that to Las Vegas were my I spent my formative years where new houses were the norm and 'old' houses were depreciating because why buy an 'old' house when a 'new' one was the same price? This continued for a long time and pretty much covered the valley floor there with very similar looking houses. That has slowed some now that land to build on is quite far away from the rest of town. But I could see that tearing down houses on land closer to town and rebuilding them might improve the value of those houses.
The bottom line for me is that clearly municipal regulation has a lot more influence on home 'value' than a nominally open market would suggest. I always knew it had a some effect but it seems possible that it is perhaps the dominant effect.
I find this fascinating: "The rules around the market are different, too. For example, in California most houses are sold and bought as-is. In Japan, the seller is on the hook for up to an year for problems that weren't discovered at the point of sale."
In California there are many rules, permits, and processes that must be followed before building a new house. This comes from voters (residents) seeking to limit the rate of change in their neighborhood, and restrict change they would find objectionable (like multi-floor houses in a neighbor with all single floor houses). So buying an existing house is always "easier" than building a new one. Buyers are not responsible for any problems that were disclosed at the time of purchase and signed off on by the buyers. The buyer has the option (and should) to get a thorough home inspection prior to the purchase.
Contrast that to Las Vegas were my I spent my formative years where new houses were the norm and 'old' houses were depreciating because why buy an 'old' house when a 'new' one was the same price? This continued for a long time and pretty much covered the valley floor there with very similar looking houses. That has slowed some now that land to build on is quite far away from the rest of town. But I could see that tearing down houses on land closer to town and rebuilding them might improve the value of those houses.
The bottom line for me is that clearly municipal regulation has a lot more influence on home 'value' than a nominally open market would suggest. I always knew it had a some effect but it seems possible that it is perhaps the dominant effect.
No kidding about building a new house in California. I was quoted an estimate of $250k by a builder just for for permits to build a 2200 sq-ft. home.
Additionally the used home that I did buy would be illegal to build today (as the house is nearly double the size of what is allowed on the lot by current zoning).
Additionally the used home that I did buy would be illegal to build today (as the house is nearly double the size of what is allowed on the lot by current zoning).
Wait, what? 250k for building permits?
Wow - I read it as 250k for the build and was wondering why the complaints. Damn that's bad. I thought Auckland New Zealand was bad and our cost is about NZ$3000 per square metre for total cost on an average quality building. However the parent quotes over NZ$1000 per m2 just for permits. That's terrible.
Apparently a lot of that was due to the location. It is on a hill, and there is a lot more red-tape for hills around here since there are so many more rules. A fair chunk of that was to pay someone with a lot of experience dealing with the zoning board to show up to meetings for you. If you had no life, you could do it yourself. The majority was the actual costs of the permit though.
Having actually done an modification with a permit (installing a new furnace in the exact same place as the old one), I can see why every contracter I talked to said "don't bother with permits" It took about a dozen visits and they rechecked everything each time.
The cost of this particular permit was minimal ($500 US) but I spent so much time driving back-and-forth and waiting on inspectors &ct. that the hassle outweighed the dollar cost.
Having actually done an modification with a permit (installing a new furnace in the exact same place as the old one), I can see why every contracter I talked to said "don't bother with permits" It took about a dozen visits and they rechecked everything each time.
The cost of this particular permit was minimal ($500 US) but I spent so much time driving back-and-forth and waiting on inspectors &ct. that the hassle outweighed the dollar cost.
That's what I said. And last I checked, (2 years ago, 3 years after getting the quote) the lot was still undeveloped.
I'm an architect (of the building kind) who has worked across countries (though not Japan). I have to concur that one of the things which most frequently dictates what gets built is half-baked rules by mortgagers and financiers.
This article also conflates the 'average' and the 'architecture' (as seen on arch daily) which is very much atypical.Though even with the average there is a stronger actual interest in space than in the west (probably due to actual exposure of average people to different spaces). For instance, I remember looking at the website of a mass house-builder in Japan and the big item being advertised was a 1.5m (approx.) half-height 'nook' space in your living room. This would never happen in the west (most people would think 'whatever would I use that for?'.
This article also conflates the 'average' and the 'architecture' (as seen on arch daily) which is very much atypical.Though even with the average there is a stronger actual interest in space than in the west (probably due to actual exposure of average people to different spaces). For instance, I remember looking at the website of a mass house-builder in Japan and the big item being advertised was a 1.5m (approx.) half-height 'nook' space in your living room. This would never happen in the west (most people would think 'whatever would I use that for?'.
I'm curious, what would that nook space be used for?
You might put a desk in there, similar to a desk-under-bed like this kind of thing http://www.ghoofie.com/bedroom/modern-and-cool-bedroom-desig...
A shrine to a dead relative or a place for similar artefacts such as arranged cut flowers.
Futon storage, maybe. Depends on the type of flooring.
seating, storage, spare bed, play area for kids, etc. and combinations thereof
That doesn't surprise me. I hear automobiles also have short lives in Japan, for similar regulatory reasons.
"Old" Japanese cars can be shipped off to New Zealand, though -- the steering wheel is on the right side, and import tariffs are low because there isn't a local manufacturing economy to protect. They stay reliable and economical for a long time.
Unfortunately it isn't quite as easy to ship old Japanese houses overseas...
Unfortunately it isn't quite as easy to ship old Japanese houses overseas...
A lot of them also wind up in eastern Russia, even though the steering wheel is on the "wrong" side.
Samoa recently changed to driving on the left in large part to gain access to cheap Japanese cars being shipped over from families in NZ and Australia.
Same for South East Asia.
To be fair, Thailand and Indonesia do drive on the wrong side of the road, but both have fairly strong automotive lobbies that try and keep the cars out. Eastern Russia is not only close to Japan, it is (a) not Korea (who love Korean cars), and (b) it is really far away form Moscow's influence in getting them to buy more expensive cars of lesser quality made much further away.
I'd heard this specifically with regard to automobile engines: that regulations, fees, and/or taxes are such that relatively low-mileage engines are considered obsolete, and are frequently available outside of Japan as low-cost used or rebuilt engines, often in very good condition.
I found a few general-information sites which suggest this or similar reasons, but cannot find a definitive source.
I found a few general-information sites which suggest this or similar reasons, but cannot find a definitive source.
It becomes prohibitively expensive to own cars for a long time here in Japan because the government mandates regular inspections, which can cost up to $1000 USD. The period of validity for the inspection depends on the type of vehicle, but in general an inspection on a new car is valid for two to three years and must be done every year or two after that.
Apologies if this is imposing but do you have any links or insight regarding Japanese estate tax or real estate transfer? A family member passed away recently and was the owner of land in Tokyo. I have visited multiple times but do not speak Japanese and cannot figure out if we need to report the transfer of ownership, pay tax for the transfer, etc... The land is currently used by other family members who own the house that was built on the land.
This sounds confusing even for someone who is fluent in Japanese. Perhaps seeking professional help would be wise. It sounds like the kind of thing this guy does: http://www.langleyesquire.com/
To echo this, this guy [1] has a fantastic series on buying and refurbishing property in Japan and talks about what you're mentioning.
It's actually surprisingly fascinating. He also has some interesting videos on the recycling culture in Japan including videos of open air recycling centers full of perfectly working appliances.
1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZfoMTPXZXE&list=SPE0D149A2A5...
It's actually surprisingly fascinating. He also has some interesting videos on the recycling culture in Japan including videos of open air recycling centers full of perfectly working appliances.
1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZfoMTPXZXE&list=SPE0D149A2A5...
Just to throw it in there. Accounting rules more or less matches repair rules. Especially for buildings, there is a defined schedule for the exterior and water/gas pipes maintenance, which is something like every 10 years for the exterior, and every 30 year for the pipes and other basic structures(a quick link in english [1]).
And after 50~60 years there is a major overhaul of most buildings that could cost the same amount as just scrapping and rebuilding everything (which is the prefered solution). It may seems short compared to other countries' building repair schedules, but earthquake resisting buildings are build with very different norms, like more "moving" or bending parts, possibly flexible pipes which won't last as long as other rigid materials, elevators which will cost a lot more to maintain that basic ones, etc.
Also as years go by architects are better at designing resisting buildings, and after 30 years there is a gap in the materials and technology used, which can justify a hefty premium on new buildings.
[1] http://japanpropertycentral.com/2013/08/large-scale-repairs-...
And after 50~60 years there is a major overhaul of most buildings that could cost the same amount as just scrapping and rebuilding everything (which is the prefered solution). It may seems short compared to other countries' building repair schedules, but earthquake resisting buildings are build with very different norms, like more "moving" or bending parts, possibly flexible pipes which won't last as long as other rigid materials, elevators which will cost a lot more to maintain that basic ones, etc.
Also as years go by architects are better at designing resisting buildings, and after 30 years there is a gap in the materials and technology used, which can justify a hefty premium on new buildings.
[1] http://japanpropertycentral.com/2013/08/large-scale-repairs-...
Thank you for the links, they were very informative. I also found the article a bit cursory. I was particularly surprised that they didn't mention Japan's construction industry. It makes up a much larger part of the economy than in countries like the United States or the United Kingdom, and it exerts a lot of political power. A large number of the laws promoting new construction over renovation or purchase of existing buildings benefit the construction industry more than property owners.
I recommend Alex Kerr's Dogs and Demons for a more detailed discussion of real estate and zoning laws in Japan.
I recommend Alex Kerr's Dogs and Demons for a more detailed discussion of real estate and zoning laws in Japan.
Hi Kohsuke,
> In Japan, the seller is on the hook for up to an year for problems that weren't discovered at the point of sale.
Actually, it's 5 years in Japan now. My contractor just had to do a complete re-wallpapering of my house because the paper suddenly split.
> In Japan, the seller is on the hook for up to an year for problems that weren't discovered at the point of sale.
Actually, it's 5 years in Japan now. My contractor just had to do a complete re-wallpapering of my house because the paper suddenly split.
I live in Japan and I find the housing here completely abysmal. The construction practices are very poor and even if you shell out for an apartment in a new mansion, expect to find paper-thin walls, no heat insulation and overall very shoddy construction quality. In the winter my (fairly new) apartment gets almost as cold as outside and getting up in the morning always requires running the AC for half an hour first. Single pane windows are standard, there is no central heating and walls are hollow and very thin. I can literally hear my neighbor taking a shower every night, and don't get me started on being able to hear passersby on the street all night long, despite the fact that I live pretty high up.
This is an absolutely amazing 1st world country with 3rd world construction practices. I blame it on several factors:
1. Cheap and scammy construction companies that try to maximize their profit margin by using cheap materials and poor building practices.
2. People who don't know any better. Most Japanese people assume that what they get is standard and fair.
3. The pervasive Japanese mindset that everything is disposable, replaceable and ephemeral. In Japan, little value is generally placed on long term value of things.
The house where I grew up in Europe is built like a castle compared to even some of the best houses I've seen here.
If this doesn't sound crazy enough, there are a lot of carbon monoxide related deaths every winter in Japan because many people (especially elderly people) use an ancient heating system called /kotatsu/, where they burn coal under a small table that's covered with a blanket. My girlfriend once got burnt badly because she fell asleep under her kotatsu and accidentally touched the heater. Don't get me started on electric blankets and similar nonsense, which is all over the place.
This is an absolutely amazing 1st world country with 3rd world construction practices. I blame it on several factors:
1. Cheap and scammy construction companies that try to maximize their profit margin by using cheap materials and poor building practices.
2. People who don't know any better. Most Japanese people assume that what they get is standard and fair.
3. The pervasive Japanese mindset that everything is disposable, replaceable and ephemeral. In Japan, little value is generally placed on long term value of things.
The house where I grew up in Europe is built like a castle compared to even some of the best houses I've seen here.
If this doesn't sound crazy enough, there are a lot of carbon monoxide related deaths every winter in Japan because many people (especially elderly people) use an ancient heating system called /kotatsu/, where they burn coal under a small table that's covered with a blanket. My girlfriend once got burnt badly because she fell asleep under her kotatsu and accidentally touched the heater. Don't get me started on electric blankets and similar nonsense, which is all over the place.
I've lived in Japan for quite a while, and to the degree I can judge (I'm not an architect or a civil engineer... :), the housing stock seems pretty good on average. While obviously there's a wide range of examples in all countries, certainly modern Japanese housing seems to be of far higher quality and far better finished than "equivalent" modern U.S. housing (U.S. housing from 100 years ago is a completely different thing).
It is very true that there is a somewhat different conception of what housing should be like, with Japanese housing being relatively small, compact, and lightweight (though there are those heavy tile roofs on more traditional houses...). The concept of "insulation" seems to be rather unknown in Japan, which is a real shame given their energy issues (I don't know the amount to which home heating contributes to energy usage though).
I think it's a mistake, though, to conflate all this with with a lack of quality, or to dismiss the cultural differences. Granted, if you, as a European, are trying to find housing, you're going to want what you want, not what the average Japanese wants, but your post does have a whiff of condescension about it ("These poor Japanese, how ignorant they are of our superior European practices!").
[I'll note that in my experience living in Japan, it's much quieter than urban living in the U.S., despite the higher densities and relative lack of insulation, simply because people take more care to not be obnoxious. There's some noise but it's more likely to be quiet conversation on the balcony next door, or children laughing as they play, and not so much douchebag-practicing-his-electric-bass-at-3am. The urban U.S. is noisy.]
I once visited a fairly wealthy Japanese family who had a big, newly built (and very cool) house in the countryside. It was a fairly cold windy winter's day when I visited, but the whole family was sitting in a small room with multiple glass doors to the outside wide open, with the wind blowing in, huddled around a portable electric heater watching TV...
I also totally disagree with your dismissal of the kotatsu; it's a fantastic invention (right up there with bathtubs you can easily completely immerse yourself in, with a friend), and there's very little more cozy and wonderful than snuggling up under a kotatsu on a cold winter's evening.... also, cats love kotatsus!! :] [and heating an insulated 0.5m^3 space is a lot more efficient than heating a whole house!]
It is very true that there is a somewhat different conception of what housing should be like, with Japanese housing being relatively small, compact, and lightweight (though there are those heavy tile roofs on more traditional houses...). The concept of "insulation" seems to be rather unknown in Japan, which is a real shame given their energy issues (I don't know the amount to which home heating contributes to energy usage though).
I think it's a mistake, though, to conflate all this with with a lack of quality, or to dismiss the cultural differences. Granted, if you, as a European, are trying to find housing, you're going to want what you want, not what the average Japanese wants, but your post does have a whiff of condescension about it ("These poor Japanese, how ignorant they are of our superior European practices!").
[I'll note that in my experience living in Japan, it's much quieter than urban living in the U.S., despite the higher densities and relative lack of insulation, simply because people take more care to not be obnoxious. There's some noise but it's more likely to be quiet conversation on the balcony next door, or children laughing as they play, and not so much douchebag-practicing-his-electric-bass-at-3am. The urban U.S. is noisy.]
I once visited a fairly wealthy Japanese family who had a big, newly built (and very cool) house in the countryside. It was a fairly cold windy winter's day when I visited, but the whole family was sitting in a small room with multiple glass doors to the outside wide open, with the wind blowing in, huddled around a portable electric heater watching TV...
I also totally disagree with your dismissal of the kotatsu; it's a fantastic invention (right up there with bathtubs you can easily completely immerse yourself in, with a friend), and there's very little more cozy and wonderful than snuggling up under a kotatsu on a cold winter's evening.... also, cats love kotatsus!! :] [and heating an insulated 0.5m^3 space is a lot more efficient than heating a whole house!]
I for one would prefer apartments to provide enough isolation that one could practice their electric bass at 3AM without bothering the neighbors. Society is prejudiced against night owls enough already ;-).
It's an electric bass, not a trumpet. Why not just use headphones?
The same reason people prefer comfortable cars to bicycles (I commute by cycle myself).
Headphones are alternative solution to receive the sound with a pile of sacrifices, with the only advantage - not disturbing neigbhours. That is not a lie, you can feel the sound.
I actually understand your point of view, but I have a strong belief it is culture influenced (see side story).
If you want to save up, go for paper-thin walls. Some, like me, would rather pay extra for the comfort.
Side story: I spent my childhood in late soviet constructed building. These had impressively thick walls inbetween rooms and flats. Sadly not sound insulated, but by a degree better of what I have seen in UK so far.
Being a music lover, I would listen to a high quality (even had some of the rare DVD-Audio disks) on East EU-acceptable/West EU-loud volume every evening.
In a contrast, last five years I have been living in UK. Fully detached houses are heavily rare, people love to save money and go for semi-detached houses with thin walls. Being polite, the best I can hope for is watch movies with just enough volume to recognise the speech. In my hometown, I could get close to cinema (sound wise) experience without stepping out of home.
You would ask why I do not watch movies in headphones?
1. As mentioned earlier, low frequency soundwaves are received by the body, not ears.
2. That would be an awkward experienced watching a movie with (girl)friends, everyone wearing headphones.
3. Comfort of not having a piece of technology attached to your body.
4. I was exposed to a greater quality sound already.
England would be a hell, if everyone had loud speakers and used them at night. So, I am thankful and respectful to english-men prefering headphones.
Headphones are alternative solution to receive the sound with a pile of sacrifices, with the only advantage - not disturbing neigbhours. That is not a lie, you can feel the sound.
I actually understand your point of view, but I have a strong belief it is culture influenced (see side story).
If you want to save up, go for paper-thin walls. Some, like me, would rather pay extra for the comfort.
Side story: I spent my childhood in late soviet constructed building. These had impressively thick walls inbetween rooms and flats. Sadly not sound insulated, but by a degree better of what I have seen in UK so far.
Being a music lover, I would listen to a high quality (even had some of the rare DVD-Audio disks) on East EU-acceptable/West EU-loud volume every evening.
In a contrast, last five years I have been living in UK. Fully detached houses are heavily rare, people love to save money and go for semi-detached houses with thin walls. Being polite, the best I can hope for is watch movies with just enough volume to recognise the speech. In my hometown, I could get close to cinema (sound wise) experience without stepping out of home.
You would ask why I do not watch movies in headphones?
1. As mentioned earlier, low frequency soundwaves are received by the body, not ears.
2. That would be an awkward experienced watching a movie with (girl)friends, everyone wearing headphones.
3. Comfort of not having a piece of technology attached to your body.
4. I was exposed to a greater quality sound already.
England would be a hell, if everyone had loud speakers and used them at night. So, I am thankful and respectful to english-men prefering headphones.
Why not use a bicycle instead of a car? Headphones are a substitute for speakers in the same way a snorkel is a substitute for a submarine, or a spoon for an industrial mixer.
The movement of air by a speaker is not felt the same way as headphones. Your skin is responsible for picking up some frequencies. For this reason, most gigs have massive subwoofers and line array speaker stacks instead of a plethora of headphones :-)
I am a bass player and I sometimes have to use in-ear-monitoring to stop going deaf, and it isn't the same as hearing the sound from the speaker, particularly if you are counting on the response of the amplifier + speaker combination for sound. Try telling an electric guitarist to use headphones - half of the sound they get is from the combination of amplifier and speaker and the interaction between the two (amplifier sag, speaker cabinet resonance, angle of speakers etc.)
I am a bass player and I sometimes have to use in-ear-monitoring to stop going deaf, and it isn't the same as hearing the sound from the speaker, particularly if you are counting on the response of the amplifier + speaker combination for sound. Try telling an electric guitarist to use headphones - half of the sound they get is from the combination of amplifier and speaker and the interaction between the two (amplifier sag, speaker cabinet resonance, angle of speakers etc.)
Yes but you don't need to be choosing your tone at 3am, surely you can practice techniques/write music without you guitar sounding 100%. I do
Again with the anti-nightowl-ism ;-). Society's prejudice against sufferers of DSPS and non-24-hour sleep cycles must end! That, or we can just build soundproof apartments and let us all choose our own schedules.
It's more anti-"being woken up by your neighbor being an asshole"-ism. I'm sure as a night owl you wouldn't appreciate having your neighbor play trumpet at 7am after your late night of jamming.
No, I wouldn't appreciate it, but if I complained about my neighbor being noisy at 10AM and someone else complained about their neighbor being noisy at 2AM, I'd get more strange looks.
I'm sure most of us could stand to be more considerate of our neighbors, but I'd prefer if soundproofing became common enough that we didn't really have to.
I'm sure most of us could stand to be more considerate of our neighbors, but I'd prefer if soundproofing became common enough that we didn't really have to.
My experience as a Westerner living in Japan for many years is so obviously different than yours (I never had sound issues when I lived in apartments, my new house is shockingly well-built and designed when compared to the American houses I'm used to, I've never seen a non-electric powered kotatsu outside of a museum, etc.) that I think we'll just have to agree to disagree for the most part.
However, regarding the lack of central heating in Japanese dwellings, I think that's a true cultural difference between Japan and America. It's strange for an American to wake up in a cold room or have to turn on the heat (or AC in summer) when we move into the bedroom after dinner--but it's equally strange to a Japanese person when they see we're heating an entire American house 24 hours/day. It some ways they're right: when the entire family is in one room watching TV or using computers, why should you waste energy heating the entire rest of the house when you could just heat one room--or even just heat up 6 or so cubic feet of space underneath a kotatsu or electric blanket?
However, regarding the lack of central heating in Japanese dwellings, I think that's a true cultural difference between Japan and America. It's strange for an American to wake up in a cold room or have to turn on the heat (or AC in summer) when we move into the bedroom after dinner--but it's equally strange to a Japanese person when they see we're heating an entire American house 24 hours/day. It some ways they're right: when the entire family is in one room watching TV or using computers, why should you waste energy heating the entire rest of the house when you could just heat one room--or even just heat up 6 or so cubic feet of space underneath a kotatsu or electric blanket?
I also used to live in Japan. Construction has to follow guidelines to ensure they comply to earthquake standards and Japan is one of the leaders in earthquake - proof technology. Part of this may come in the compromise of 'thinner walls'.
This in part also explains why tearing down a house and building a new one is desired, as you would want the most modern earthquake proof property.
I haven't lived in a place in Japan that wasn't double glazed and central heating is not really required since most of the year heating is not required (at least in Tokyo).
Without trying to sound 'patronizing', you sound a bit like a foreigner who hasn't yet fully adapted to Japan.
This in part also explains why tearing down a house and building a new one is desired, as you would want the most modern earthquake proof property.
I haven't lived in a place in Japan that wasn't double glazed and central heating is not really required since most of the year heating is not required (at least in Tokyo).
Without trying to sound 'patronizing', you sound a bit like a foreigner who hasn't yet fully adapted to Japan.
Without getting into the general argument here, I'm just going to dispel a few misconceptions about earthquake engineering:
No one (basically) who is involved in earthquake engineering would ever use the term 'earthquake-proof' to describe one building, much less an entire country's construction practices. Instead, we generally design buildings to not require any repair after earthquakes which occur more frequently than once per century, and design buildings not to fall down after earthquakes which occur more frequently than once per 2500 years. There is always a chance that an earthquake will occur outside of those limits, and nothing is designed to withstand those.
While you are correct in assuming that adding weight to a structure (all things being equal) will increase the seismic forces it experiences, the contribution of sound insulation to the weight of the building is pretty insignificant. And for lightweight structures it is much easier to increase their strength than to decrease their weight.
Third, earthquake resistant 'technology' [re: design practices] is not as ever-changing as you might think. While there are some examples of innovative solutions like putting water tanks at the top of skyscrapers, for low-rise structures there really isn't that much to it. If you take a 100 year old house, screw some plywood sheets between the floors, and bolt it to the foundation, then it will be 90% (estimated) as safe as a brand new house. Earthquake resistance is not so much about technology, and is more about making very sure that all of the force generated in the house can make it to the ground without breaking anything (though physicists would say that the force goes in the other direction from the ground to the structure). This means that earthquake safety is fairly proportional to the amount of time and money spent on construction, which is very much not incentivized by disposable construction.
No one (basically) who is involved in earthquake engineering would ever use the term 'earthquake-proof' to describe one building, much less an entire country's construction practices. Instead, we generally design buildings to not require any repair after earthquakes which occur more frequently than once per century, and design buildings not to fall down after earthquakes which occur more frequently than once per 2500 years. There is always a chance that an earthquake will occur outside of those limits, and nothing is designed to withstand those.
While you are correct in assuming that adding weight to a structure (all things being equal) will increase the seismic forces it experiences, the contribution of sound insulation to the weight of the building is pretty insignificant. And for lightweight structures it is much easier to increase their strength than to decrease their weight.
Third, earthquake resistant 'technology' [re: design practices] is not as ever-changing as you might think. While there are some examples of innovative solutions like putting water tanks at the top of skyscrapers, for low-rise structures there really isn't that much to it. If you take a 100 year old house, screw some plywood sheets between the floors, and bolt it to the foundation, then it will be 90% (estimated) as safe as a brand new house. Earthquake resistance is not so much about technology, and is more about making very sure that all of the force generated in the house can make it to the ground without breaking anything (though physicists would say that the force goes in the other direction from the ground to the structure). This means that earthquake safety is fairly proportional to the amount of time and money spent on construction, which is very much not incentivized by disposable construction.
There are many other earthquake-prone regions which don't rely on thin-wall, disposable architecture.
What you generally will see is an aversion to unreinforced masonry construction -- stone or brick. Where you do see these they've generally been substantially reinforced with either internal or external metal skeletons (or you live in a region with poor building codes and the structures were erected since the last big temblor).
I'd suspect that Japanese construction methods follows engineering to some extent, but is also strongly influenced by tradition.
What you generally will see is an aversion to unreinforced masonry construction -- stone or brick. Where you do see these they've generally been substantially reinforced with either internal or external metal skeletons (or you live in a region with poor building codes and the structures were erected since the last big temblor).
I'd suspect that Japanese construction methods follows engineering to some extent, but is also strongly influenced by tradition.
If what's he's saying is right, it doesn't matter if he's a foreigner who hasn't adapted.
chile also has earthquakes and seems to be completely different (the buildings i have lived in have had thick walls - they help keep the building cool in summer - and there is a strong second-hand market). so i don't think earthquakes explain this.
I've lived in Japan for 11 years now, and have the complete opposite experience from you. While older houses (30~10 years ago) were horribly insulated, houses now are sturdily built, with good insulation (mine has fiberglass and spray-foam composite) and are pretty well put together. If you buy a cheap house, then yeah, you'll have a cheap house -- but that's anywhere in the world.
> If this doesn't sound crazy enough, there are a lot of carbon monoxide related deaths every winter in Japan because many people (especially elderly people) use an ancient heating system called /kotatsu/, where they burn coal under a small table that's covered with a blanket.
Umm.. Kotatsu do not produce Carbon Monoxide. They're usually electric, and you're the first foreigner I've ever seen who has complained about them. (I love them, my wife hates them because once inside, I never leave)
Carbon monoxide poisoning usually comes from eldery in older house where they use kerosene heaters (touyu) for heating. Almost all kerosene heaters have a 3-hour timer though, so it is a little safer than you make out.
> If this doesn't sound crazy enough, there are a lot of carbon monoxide related deaths every winter in Japan because many people (especially elderly people) use an ancient heating system called /kotatsu/, where they burn coal under a small table that's covered with a blanket.
Umm.. Kotatsu do not produce Carbon Monoxide. They're usually electric, and you're the first foreigner I've ever seen who has complained about them. (I love them, my wife hates them because once inside, I never leave)
Carbon monoxide poisoning usually comes from eldery in older house where they use kerosene heaters (touyu) for heating. Almost all kerosene heaters have a 3-hour timer though, so it is a little safer than you make out.
> This is an absolutely amazing 1st world country with 3rd world construction practices.
The earthquake in 2011 probably showed that Japanese houses are built quite sturdily.
Older houses did not have insulation, but insulation has been the norm for a while. I've moved several times in the Tokyo area and the apartment I've had that had thin walls was an olden wooden building that's about 40 years old now. And I'm not living in expensive places either.
Older houses did not have insulation, but insulation has been the norm for a while. I've moved several times in the Tokyo area and the apartment I've had that had thin walls was an olden wooden building that's about 40 years old now. And I'm not living in expensive places either.
There is definitely an irony in shoddy construction being done in an earthquake prone country.
I think part of it may also be that the construction companies form a strong political lobby.
I think part of it may also be that the construction companies form a strong political lobby.
Poor quality and earthquake resistant are not mutually exclusive.
Peeling wallpaper is not going to affect the structural integrity of your house.
Peeling wallpaper is not going to affect the structural integrity of your house.
Sounds like Southern California.
It seems a lot like cars in the US, where people regularly discard perfectly good cars and buy new ones. In my extended family, we tend to keep cars for decades, driving them daily. If you keep them maintained (and maintenance is cheap), you can keep them operating just fine for a long time.
Heck, my truck is 25 years old, I've had it for 20 years, costs me about $300/yr in maintenance, insurance is cheap (no collision), no worries about somebody stealing or damaging it, and I go out on a frosty morning, turn the key, and it starts right up.
I don't feel any urge to replace it with a new one.
Heck, my truck is 25 years old, I've had it for 20 years, costs me about $300/yr in maintenance, insurance is cheap (no collision), no worries about somebody stealing or damaging it, and I go out on a frosty morning, turn the key, and it starts right up.
I don't feel any urge to replace it with a new one.
The japanese are even more insane there. Their inspections are insanely expensive, to the point where cars older than 5-6 years have essentially negative value, as the biannual inspection would cost something like $5k.
http://followrory.blogspot.com/2013/06/shaken-car-inspection...
http://followrory.blogspot.com/2013/06/shaken-car-inspection...
There's a perfectly rational reason for shaken (車検), though most HNers won't like it. It's designed to help a few parts of the auto industry value chain, from manufacturers (who get a domestic market which is, basically, forced into a 6-year upgrade cycle) to smaller-scale exporters (who get a constant stream of perfectly usable cars for essentially scrap value, then resell them to emerging markets for significant fractions of their off-the-lot value, because "everyone knows" that Japanese cars last forever).
Interesting - I think the same logic could probably explain the house price depreciation discussed in the article too. The accounting / mortgage rules Kohsuke mentioned above would definitely have a very positive effect on the construction industry, and the Japanese government has a history of expensive net-negative schemes to help this industry (see also: concrete rivers).
Yup. The cynicism of Japanese consumer law can be breathtaking.
Have you followed the sorry debacle of Abe's third arrow? Any policy initiative that threatens a vested interest eventually gets overturned.
Have you followed the sorry debacle of Abe's third arrow? Any policy initiative that threatens a vested interest eventually gets overturned.
I think many of those cars are then moved on to places like the Solomon Islands?
Here's one website that specializes in these:
http://www.tradecarview.com/
Don't get too excited at some of the crazy prices. They don't include shipping costs and none of the cheap cars will be street-legal in Europe or North America.
Don't get too excited at some of the crazy prices. They don't include shipping costs and none of the cheap cars will be street-legal in Europe or North America.
Moved all over, actually. Australia is a big importer, all of SE Asia, etc.
Other than the absurd "cash for clunkers" program, the government here is fairly friendly to us old car drivers. For example, a couple days ago was the last time I have to have my truck emissions tested. At 25 years of age it drops off the radar.
My 40 year old Dodge now qualifies for "collector plates" where, for a one time fee, I never have to pay the annual registration fee again.
And, of course, there is quite an industry in the US providing repair/maintenance parts for those old machines for far less money than parts for new cars. It's really quite nice if you like having those cars.
My 40 year old Dodge now qualifies for "collector plates" where, for a one time fee, I never have to pay the annual registration fee again.
And, of course, there is quite an industry in the US providing repair/maintenance parts for those old machines for far less money than parts for new cars. It's really quite nice if you like having those cars.
US regulation is weird. Stuff that is wildly not compliant to modern standards is grandfathered in, while stuff that in many respects meets MORE stringent standards (e.g. anything sold in western europe) can't be registered.
I don't find it weird. First, the probably insignificant numbers make the impact negligible. Second, it is fair that decisions made in good faith under the rules applicable at the time are not retroactively punished.
But first is true for both cases. If you want to buy something like a Porsche 959, there are only ~200 of them in the world. To get them in the US you have to go through quite the process to have the emissions stuff modified and updated. Even if every one was in the US and constantly driving, I doubt the emissions impact would be worse than a few semi's from the 1970s (and I bet there are plenty of those still on the roads).
Insignificant numbers is right. When was the last time you saw a '72 Dodge on the road?
What they look like: http://www.carinsurancecomparison.com/car-insurance-rates-fo...
What they look like: http://www.carinsurancecomparison.com/car-insurance-rates-fo...
Sometime in the last year or two I saw an old Barracuda in the local Whole Foods parking lot. Don't know the model year.
Which motor do you have?
Which motor do you have?
A stroked & bored 340. It dynos at 380-390 hp.
Ah, that does sound like it would be worth hanging on to.
When you said "1972 Dodge" I hoped it was something with a little more oomph than a slant-6 :-)
When you said "1972 Dodge" I hoped it was something with a little more oomph than a slant-6 :-)
I was going to put a big block in it, but several moparheads told me the bb's unbalance the car (too heavy) and that the 340 was a great block that could be upgraded to pretty hefty power levels.
They were right, and I'm pretty happy with it.
I dislike chrome plate and billet engine dress-up stuff, I got all go and no show parts. (And a few whoa upgrades.)
They were right, and I'm pretty happy with it.
I dislike chrome plate and billet engine dress-up stuff, I got all go and no show parts. (And a few whoa upgrades.)
Not often...still see more than few old beater late-80s Mercedes (Can't kill those old 300Ds)/Honda Accords and the like. I since this is mode or less the deep south K5 Blazer's are not exactly extinct either. 25 years ago is 1989 model year at this point.
But that same argument argues to allow harmonization with similar standards. If I wanted to buy, say, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Scirocco, and have it shipped to the US to drive why shouldn't I be able to. It passes the stringent Euro standards, is based on the same platform as several US-sanctioned vehicles, and uses the same powerplants.
I have friends and family stationed at a US military base in Germany. They really liked the German cars but knew they weren't going to stay. The local dealer has an Americanization option. It basically changes the bumpers, headlights, and pilot lights and the ECU fuel map.
The front bumper requirement explains why American cars don't look as svelte as their european equivalents.
The front bumper requirement explains why American cars don't look as svelte as their european equivalents.
Generally disagree. People react pretty negatively to having stuff that they purchased in good faith being taken away from them. There are limits of course. State inspections (where they exist) tend to keep you from driving a vehicle that's seriously dangerous or polluting but don't require things to be up to all current standards. This seems a bigger deal in general than whether people can buy something that they don't already own given that there are alternatives--which for the majority--are perfectly satisfactory. (Not arguing for silly government regulations of course but, at the margins, I find many more things to get much more annoyed about.)
That is not my argument. I'm saying why am I not allowed to import a vehicle from a country with standards that are at least equivalent, if not more stringent than our own? I'm talking about a new vehicle on sale in a 1st world country. I could even buy the same vehicle in Mexico, drive it across the border, and drive it here legally if I was a Mexican citizen on vacation.
* Well, technically I could import it for "display purposes", but it could not be registered for road use.
* Well, technically I could import it for "display purposes", but it could not be registered for road use.
I'll bet that the auto industry lobbied for those expensive inspections.
If you haven't seen it, you should look up the "modus vs. volvo" crash experiment (videos come up top in search results). It is half-drowned in "breathless TV", but it's interesting.
Car manufacturers did up their safety game over the last decades. My daily drive is also a car of a certain age, and that's the only doubt I have about it ...
Car manufacturers did up their safety game over the last decades. My daily drive is also a car of a certain age, and that's the only doubt I have about it ...
When I got my driver's license last year I had to go through some education on driving risks, and they showed us some cars that had been in actual accidents. The main takeaway from that was that you really, REALLY, want a car from this side of the 2000's. There has been a tremendous amount of work put into safety features in the last 15 years across the board, and you SHOULD take advantage of that.
Actual wrecks, or just pictures?
Actual wrecks from actual accidents. Not fatal ones, but still serious enough that you got to see how the cars were deformed by collision.
Sounds like a pretty efficient tool of persuasion. Genius.
Every time in read about the Japanese "salaryman" culture, it makes me sad... And then wonder whether the West will end up somewhere similar in the future.
This article had that effect on me, but it also made me angry; taking it at face value, it shows that salarymen have it even worse than I thought :(
They do get interesting architecture out of it, but that's hardly a good trade off for geographic permanence and a lack of financial movement... Or is it? It's hard to grok other cultures, despite my best efforts. Maybe it is worth it to them?
One thing seems to be certain across cultures: no one is happy and everything sucks ;)
This article had that effect on me, but it also made me angry; taking it at face value, it shows that salarymen have it even worse than I thought :(
They do get interesting architecture out of it, but that's hardly a good trade off for geographic permanence and a lack of financial movement... Or is it? It's hard to grok other cultures, despite my best efforts. Maybe it is worth it to them?
One thing seems to be certain across cultures: no one is happy and everything sucks ;)
Probably not - the West used to have much more of a salaryman culture with lifelong employment, but the trend is going in the other direction.
> a good trade off for geographic permanence and a lack of financial movement
Many people, even Americans, see things the opposite way. They don't like the idea of having to move far away from their parents to find a decent job, or have to uproot their families at the drop of a hat when a job ends.
I grew up in D.C., went to college and worked in Atlanta, went to graduate school in Chicago, got a job after in New York. My wife grew up in Oregon, went to college in Iowa, worked in Chicago and D.C., went to graduate school in Chicago.[1] Now we work in Wilmington and Philadelphia, and next year we're moving to Baltimore. This is the nature of the modern American economy, where you move around to find opportunities, but unless you're a single childless early 20-something it makes the rest of life very logistically complicated. Certainly among my friends, who are getting into their 30's, long-distance relationships are quite common and nobody is really thrilled about them.
[1] In comparison, my wife's parents grew up in the same city and went to high school together, less than 50 miles from where her dad's family settled during the wagon trail days.
Many people, even Americans, see things the opposite way. They don't like the idea of having to move far away from their parents to find a decent job, or have to uproot their families at the drop of a hat when a job ends.
I grew up in D.C., went to college and worked in Atlanta, went to graduate school in Chicago, got a job after in New York. My wife grew up in Oregon, went to college in Iowa, worked in Chicago and D.C., went to graduate school in Chicago.[1] Now we work in Wilmington and Philadelphia, and next year we're moving to Baltimore. This is the nature of the modern American economy, where you move around to find opportunities, but unless you're a single childless early 20-something it makes the rest of life very logistically complicated. Certainly among my friends, who are getting into their 30's, long-distance relationships are quite common and nobody is really thrilled about them.
[1] In comparison, my wife's parents grew up in the same city and went to high school together, less than 50 miles from where her dad's family settled during the wagon trail days.
This is certainly true of Americans in "upper middle class" culture, but how true is it for the rest? I went to an average / below average American high school, and most of my high school peers are still living in my hometown. It's only a subset of the highly ambitious among us who left (some who entered spread out professions like health stayed; engineers left).
And as an adult, many of my peers who grew up in economic centers like NYC and the SF Bay Area were able to stick around, regardless of profession.
And as an adult, many of my peers who grew up in economic centers like NYC and the SF Bay Area were able to stick around, regardless of profession.
It is interesting to read your comment.
Curious if you know married couples who have to be apart and how this affects their marriage? When both husband and wife have specialized jobs, it seems the choices are to compromise on one person's career or too live apart for at least some periods of time.
Curious if you know married couples who have to be apart and how this affects their marriage? When both husband and wife have specialized jobs, it seems the choices are to compromise on one person's career or too live apart for at least some periods of time.
I don't know any married couples that live apart, but I know at least one very long relationship that broke up because people with two specialized jobs couldn't make their careers work in the same city.
But yeah, the constant tension compromising one person's career or living apart for substantial periods of time. This is especially true as competition becomes more national. 10 years ago I would've said that someone from Pennsylvania would be crazy to go to Stanford over CMU or Penn, assuming they wanted to work on the east coast. But today I probably wouldn't say that.
But yeah, the constant tension compromising one person's career or living apart for substantial periods of time. This is especially true as competition becomes more national. 10 years ago I would've said that someone from Pennsylvania would be crazy to go to Stanford over CMU or Penn, assuming they wanted to work on the east coast. But today I probably wouldn't say that.
> When both husband and wife have specialized jobs
There's a name for this, which I first heard in academia, regarding couples who both hold a Ph.D.: "the two-body problem". It was usually applied when both sought academic jobs, but the concept applies to any sufficiently specialized hiring criteria. Pretty much all the solutions and compromises that you might imagine can and do happen. Being apart is pretty strenuous on a relationship, but some folks manage it for a time. Sometimes universities or other employers will hire both on simply in order to get a star candidate. Some manage to "solve" the problem -- landing satisfactory co-located positions on their own merits.
There's a name for this, which I first heard in academia, regarding couples who both hold a Ph.D.: "the two-body problem". It was usually applied when both sought academic jobs, but the concept applies to any sufficiently specialized hiring criteria. Pretty much all the solutions and compromises that you might imagine can and do happen. Being apart is pretty strenuous on a relationship, but some folks manage it for a time. Sometimes universities or other employers will hire both on simply in order to get a star candidate. Some manage to "solve" the problem -- landing satisfactory co-located positions on their own merits.
Fascinating. I had absolutely no idea.
As someone who lives in a property that's over 140 years old, which has been fully renovated, modernised, and improved (at a guess) maybe 10 times over its life I find the idea of housing as a disposable assets rather alien. Granted, there are no earthquakes here.
I wonder what the social and economic trade off is between maintaining and modernising a building for hundreds of years (considering energy efficiency and standard of living too) vs just knocking it down and building a new one every 30 years.
The article doesn't mention the effect this has on the rental market - If the asset depreciates I can't imagine being a landlord is a very lucrative proposition?
As someone who lives in a property that's over 140 years old, which has been fully renovated, modernised, and improved (at a guess) maybe 10 times over its life I find the idea of housing as a disposable assets rather alien. Granted, there are no earthquakes here.
I wonder what the social and economic trade off is between maintaining and modernising a building for hundreds of years (considering energy efficiency and standard of living too) vs just knocking it down and building a new one every 30 years.
The article doesn't mention the effect this has on the rental market - If the asset depreciates I can't imagine being a landlord is a very lucrative proposition?
"If the asset depreciates I can't imagine being a landlord is a very lucrative proposition"
That's not necessarily the case. Traditionally, landlords make money on 1) cash flow from tenant rents and 2) appreciation of the property at the eventual exit. In Japan, it seems like 2) is out of the equation, but if 1) is high enough, owning rental properties could be very lucrative for landlords, especially if there's high demand for rental properties. Detroit is a market that's experiencing an increase in rental properties even though appreciation is practically nothing in most areas.
That's not necessarily the case. Traditionally, landlords make money on 1) cash flow from tenant rents and 2) appreciation of the property at the eventual exit. In Japan, it seems like 2) is out of the equation, but if 1) is high enough, owning rental properties could be very lucrative for landlords, especially if there's high demand for rental properties. Detroit is a market that's experiencing an increase in rental properties even though appreciation is practically nothing in most areas.
The brand new apartment I moved into near the center of Tokyo in 2006 is now something like 30% cheaper than it was then. Whereas refinished 1930s era apartments in LA are like 50% more expensive. I absolutely love the constant push to modernize everyone's home. Why shouldn't home technology evolve like any other. Of course it's expensive and wasteful, but so is buying an iPhone 5s.
> Why shouldn't home technology evolve like any other.
Because it doesn't. Home technology evolves so slowly, that the analogous situation in the tech world would be if you could simply upgrade the memory and hard drive on your 286 to be able to use the latest and greatest software.
Because it doesn't. Home technology evolves so slowly, that the analogous situation in the tech world would be if you could simply upgrade the memory and hard drive on your 286 to be able to use the latest and greatest software.
Yes and no - the idea of insulating existed 100 years ago, but the materials weren't the greatest (attics full of horsehair, etc.). And the cheapness of fossil fuels made it seem mostly unnecessary. Moving from a drafty 1921 home to a passive house that was built this year, the difference for me was striking. Some of the improvements can be retrofitted onto older homes (PV, blown-in insulation, attic insulation), others, not so much (windows and doors are more painful to replace, e.g.).
Sure, windows and doors are more difficult to replace, but it's all quite doable, which is striking considering the century that passed in the meantime. It's a testament to how slowly housing technology evolves.
Old homes may have assumed cheap heating, but new homes seem to assume AC (cheap electricity). I have comfortably lived in 100-150 year old row homes without AC, and have sweltered in a 25 year old row home with broken AC in the same city during comparable summers.
Those drafts are a godsend in the summer, homes without drafts or AC turn into solar ovens.
(Other properties of old homes, like high ceilings, also contribute to livability in the summer (at the expense of being more expensive to heat during the winter))
So basically you have a seemingly balanced tradeoff; do you want to waste energy in the summer, or in the winter? Of course the tradeoff is not really balanced, you can put on more clothing in the winter so long as you keep your home above 0C (for the pipes), but you can only take off so much clothing in the summer.
Those drafts are a godsend in the summer, homes without drafts or AC turn into solar ovens.
(Other properties of old homes, like high ceilings, also contribute to livability in the summer (at the expense of being more expensive to heat during the winter))
So basically you have a seemingly balanced tradeoff; do you want to waste energy in the summer, or in the winter? Of course the tradeoff is not really balanced, you can put on more clothing in the winter so long as you keep your home above 0C (for the pipes), but you can only take off so much clothing in the summer.
One weird trick I use to get the effect of those drafts in the summer is to open a window.
Opened windows along with box fans (or better yet, a house fan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-house_fan) will help, but you will still be in a worse situation than if you had a house designed to stay cool and the same fans.
Houses designed to stay cool without AC, among other things, tend to have more intelligent window placement, and windows that open much wider than is perhaps normal (you won't find those rubbish casement windows that only crank open to an acute angle in homes designed to stay cool without AC: http://www.choicesil.com/images/House1-16-08%20017.jpg).
Given the option of staying in a house that never had AC, or a house with broken AC, I would chose the former every time. Fans and open windows will help in either case, but they will be more effective in the home that prioritized that usecase.
Houses designed to stay cool without AC, among other things, tend to have more intelligent window placement, and windows that open much wider than is perhaps normal (you won't find those rubbish casement windows that only crank open to an acute angle in homes designed to stay cool without AC: http://www.choicesil.com/images/House1-16-08%20017.jpg).
Given the option of staying in a house that never had AC, or a house with broken AC, I would chose the former every time. Fans and open windows will help in either case, but they will be more effective in the home that prioritized that usecase.
> the idea of insulating existed 100 years ago, but the materials weren't the greatest (attics full of horsehair, etc.).
Mineral wool commercial production started in 1871 in Germany, and asbestos started being used as insulation material in the 1860s in North America.
Mineral wool commercial production started in 1871 in Germany, and asbestos started being used as insulation material in the 1860s in North America.
It shouldn't because it doesn't? That seems like a circular argument. Home technology would evolve much faster if we invested more into it, and it we rebuilt homes every 30 years, we would be investing a lot more into building...
An iPhone depreciates about $200 a year. It sounds like these houses depreciate... $10,000/yr? I think the modernization is cool and all but, just wow.
[deleted]
They glossed over one of the biggest reasons houses are demolished after a few decades: earthquakes. Thirty years of earthquakes will ruin any house that's not a bomb shelter.
That's not really a reason. Romania has an active epicenter of earthquakes and the houses are not demolished/rebuilt that often. When designing and constructing buildings, there are also just some seismic requirements, that's all. There isn't any planned obsolescence involved and I haven't heard of much earthquake damage since 1977.
In the past ten years, Japan has had 21 earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 or greater. In the past 100 years, Romania has had 5.
chile doesn't demolish houses like this either. i don't know where you're getting 6.5 mag data, but for 8+ we're very similar to japan - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/mag8/...
Yet San Francisco is filled with older homes...
No, the real reason is the delta between a tiny but valuable home and junk in 30 years is not that high because construction is cheap due to climate and the time value of money eat's what little value might be there. For most people they get most of there value from simply living in the house.
PS: US, also spends a lot of our GDP on housing construction we just value the land vs home differently because of cultural reasons and construction materials. Despite the demonstration from the rust belt that it's mostly the land that's valuable not cheap homes. aka location location location
No, the real reason is the delta between a tiny but valuable home and junk in 30 years is not that high because construction is cheap due to climate and the time value of money eat's what little value might be there. For most people they get most of there value from simply living in the house.
PS: US, also spends a lot of our GDP on housing construction we just value the land vs home differently because of cultural reasons and construction materials. Despite the demonstration from the rust belt that it's mostly the land that's valuable not cheap homes. aka location location location
I live in San Francisco, and I can tell you that old houses here suck. Many door frames have shifted, so doors have trouble closing. Often, the door has been replaced with a smaller one, leaving giant air gaps. Ditto for windows. They don't seal well, or they jam easily. Floors aren't level. Pillars are noticeably crooked. It's crazy, but San Francisco makes it really hard to build new stuff.
Also, the bay area isn't nearly as geologically active as the Kanto region. If San Francisco had earthquakes of the frequency and scale of Tokyo, hardly any low-rise in the city would last more than 30 years.
Also, the bay area isn't nearly as geologically active as the Kanto region. If San Francisco had earthquakes of the frequency and scale of Tokyo, hardly any low-rise in the city would last more than 30 years.
That's funny - San Francisco, legend has it, has a lot of New Zealand Kauri in the houses, built from ships returning otherwise empty after helping fuel the gold rush in New Zealand. Similarly, our houses down here are cold and filled with draughts. But before you get all hasty, don't seal those gaps up. I tried this. Without the ventilation you will get mould. So cold it remains. Pulling all the seals off made me sad, but it was a quick fix. For the record, I'd choose and older house over a new one in a heart beat. Dents and scratches just add character to an old home. In a new house the wood often seems to be laminate, the benches Formica or composite etc. Systems, if you can call them that, are damn simple on old houses. This is good, as you will spend a lot of time crawling around them, fixing, replacing borer bombing and generally making lost ground.
It gets colder in Tokyo, too. Those "air gaps" and poorly sealing windows make for chilly winters indoors. And I'm sure houses these days are built with better insulation than they were twenty or thirty years ago, too.
Not to sound like a 50's handyman. (http://www.familyhandyman.com/doors/repair/fix-sagging-or-st...) However, replacing / rehanging doors and windows and doors is generally a fast and easy thing to do and more or less required as wood flows and settles in an older home. Really what your talking about has more to do with a generally mild climate enabling a lack of maintenance vs. any kind of earthquake damage.
PS: I stayed at a a 100 year old farm house made by complete Amateurs and built on over time where some of the floors and trim sloped more than 5 degrees which is vary noticeable to the naked eye. Yet it had decent insulation, every door opened freely and most windows opened just fine. It took a few people a few weekends to get it there, but vary little cash. A respectable carpenter can do the same thing for you for about 10k every 15-20 years. Again though the difference without cold winters there is far less incentive to actually deal with such things.
Edit: The science behind it is even fairly interesting, but basically wood reacts to the forces on it over time so the less symmetric the home the more extreme the warping can get. Which again hurts Japan with there love of unusual shaped wooden homes.
PS: I stayed at a a 100 year old farm house made by complete Amateurs and built on over time where some of the floors and trim sloped more than 5 degrees which is vary noticeable to the naked eye. Yet it had decent insulation, every door opened freely and most windows opened just fine. It took a few people a few weekends to get it there, but vary little cash. A respectable carpenter can do the same thing for you for about 10k every 15-20 years. Again though the difference without cold winters there is far less incentive to actually deal with such things.
Edit: The science behind it is even fairly interesting, but basically wood reacts to the forces on it over time so the less symmetric the home the more extreme the warping can get. Which again hurts Japan with there love of unusual shaped wooden homes.
Do building codes & zoning play a role in this?
I've seen some crazy structures in the US, including a castle in Northern Idaho, but they tend to be in places with lax building codes (or lax building code enforcement) no HOAs and no urban zoning.
Just in the start of the article they mention a few things that we be hard to build legally in the US: handrail-less stairs, rail-less balconies, windowless rooms & houses.
I've seen some crazy structures in the US, including a castle in Northern Idaho, but they tend to be in places with lax building codes (or lax building code enforcement) no HOAs and no urban zoning.
Just in the start of the article they mention a few things that we be hard to build legally in the US: handrail-less stairs, rail-less balconies, windowless rooms & houses.
[deleted]
i found it interesting that depreciation is expected on your property and houses are expected to have no resale value.
same way i find it interesting that the same piece of property can cost $100k in one place and $1 million else where simply because of location. Man can be a very irrational animal, and once he has rationalized some useless idea into being, he can't shake it off his head.
Location isn't irrational. In fact, it's probably one of the most rational factors in real estate pricing in the US. It's one of the few factors that's driven largely by the market forces of supply and demand.
Locations are "hot" because they're in places with good jobs, good services, good schools (though this one needs an asterisk), access to amenities and culture, etc.
Locations are "cold" to the degree that they're in high-crime, poor-service areas, or in remote areas without job prospects. Nobody wants to live in these areas, so with reduced demand come lower prices.
A 2,000 square-foot home costs $100k in rural Montana and $1M in Southern California because millions of people want to live in SoCal, and relatively few people want to live in rural Montana. Housing prices in Detroit are low because the job market in Detroit has been cratering for decades while crime has been increasing. A home with a seaside view is worth more than a similarly proportioned home abutting a freeway, because people would rather look at the former than the latter. A home in San Francisco is worth a fortune because lots of people with lots of money want to live here, but the inventory (supply) is limited. Etc.
Plenty of factors in real estate pricing are highly irrational. With few exceptions, location isn't one of them. When people pay for location, they're not paying for the house on that location; they're paying for the location itself. That's why comparing X square feet in Y area to X square feet in Z area isn't apples to apples.
Locations are "hot" because they're in places with good jobs, good services, good schools (though this one needs an asterisk), access to amenities and culture, etc.
Locations are "cold" to the degree that they're in high-crime, poor-service areas, or in remote areas without job prospects. Nobody wants to live in these areas, so with reduced demand come lower prices.
A 2,000 square-foot home costs $100k in rural Montana and $1M in Southern California because millions of people want to live in SoCal, and relatively few people want to live in rural Montana. Housing prices in Detroit are low because the job market in Detroit has been cratering for decades while crime has been increasing. A home with a seaside view is worth more than a similarly proportioned home abutting a freeway, because people would rather look at the former than the latter. A home in San Francisco is worth a fortune because lots of people with lots of money want to live here, but the inventory (supply) is limited. Etc.
Plenty of factors in real estate pricing are highly irrational. With few exceptions, location isn't one of them. When people pay for location, they're not paying for the house on that location; they're paying for the location itself. That's why comparing X square feet in Y area to X square feet in Z area isn't apples to apples.
Even in North America, houses are considered a depreciating asset. The property on which the house sits is what tends to appreciate, hopefully offsetting the losses on the house (at least from the owner's point of view).
But with negative population growth and virtual no immigration as is the case with Japan, fewer properties are needed to sustain the decreasing number of people. Supply exceeds demand, so prices fall.
But with negative population growth and virtual no immigration as is the case with Japan, fewer properties are needed to sustain the decreasing number of people. Supply exceeds demand, so prices fall.
How does this work for condos?
The numbers I've seen suggest that condos on average actually appreciate more than houses even in a given location http://re-sanfrancisco.com/10-years-of-san-francisco-condo-v...
But I'm not sure how much you can conclude from that as a condo could still appreciate (i.e. someone would be willing to spend more money for it) even if the underlying physical plant were deteriorating at some rate. It's probably also worth noting that, in a lot of cases in the US, single family homes in particular don't necessarily deteriorate. People do maintenance, redo their kitchens, add decks, etc.
But I'm not sure how much you can conclude from that as a condo could still appreciate (i.e. someone would be willing to spend more money for it) even if the underlying physical plant were deteriorating at some rate. It's probably also worth noting that, in a lot of cases in the US, single family homes in particular don't necessarily deteriorate. People do maintenance, redo their kitchens, add decks, etc.
As a condo owner, you also own a representative share of the land the condo is built on (not an actual plot, but an interest in the total value of the land). The condo can depreciate, but if the land appreciates, the overall value of your share can appreciate.
Avante garde houses like those shown in the article are still very much the exception and not the norm in Japan. It's true that some Japanese architects are pushing the envelope but vernacular housing in Japan today is exemplified by companies like Daikyo, Mitsue, etc and not by these modernist custom designs.
Actual the fact a house deprecates makes more financial sense then what he have in the US. A house is an expensive durable good. Land is the asset that appreciates. Nothing crazy about separating the two.
A very interesting piece, revealing a cultural side-effect I had not expected.
The stereotype we hold in the West about Japan is that conformity is the norm, which for the most part holds. But not in housing it seems.
They have my admiration AND sympathy.
The houses shown are far from typical... :]
"Why Japan/China/Korea does X stupid thing" followed by some orientalist explanation is becoming very common. If you wrote a similar article about an African or Jewish country you would probably lose your job.
[deleted]
I read 'hosting'.
One of the primary reasons houses depreciate in value so rapidly in Japan is simply because that is the accounting rules. If you look at http://www1.m-net.ne.jp/k-web/genkasyokyaku/genka-tatemono.h... (and I hope Google Translate translates it well), you see that the typical wooden houses (the kinds you see in California, where I live) depreciate competely in just 20 years in the eyes of tax agency. This has real effect on mortgage.
The rules around the market are different, too. For example, in California most houses are sold and bought as-is. In Japan, the seller is on the hook for up to an year for problems that weren't discovered at the point of sale.
These differences depress the existing house market, and that is made up by the new house market, which in turn translates into a lot more new houses.
I find this report from Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism highly educational. It comes with lots of numbers: http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001002572.pdf more