North American vs. Japanese zoning(devonzuegel.com)
devonzuegel.com
North American vs. Japanese zoning
http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning
320 comments
I find these types of articles invigorating and demoralizing at the same time. I think the reason why, and something I've thought about a lot lately, is: what would it actually take to do something like this? It'd probably involve a series of steps like this to do _exactly_ this:
* Decide to run for office
* Raise an enormous amount of money, somehow without indebting yourself to private interests
* Convince a large amount of people to vote you into office
* Bring to bear an enormous amount of political capital to convince other people to enact these changes
That involves no small amount of luck and personal charisma. I probably have none of these things, so that leaves me out.
There are other methods that are potentially easier (the one that comes to mind is effectively paying off an incumbent politician), but I'd roughly guess that there's only a 40-60% chance to get the outcome you want. Even easier actions, like calling your representatives, I'd peg at 2-5% expected value. Voting is <0.1%.
Are these really our only options? Am I thinking about this problem wrong? Is this just the great struggle of human governance we've been trying to solve for millenia?
* Decide to run for office
* Raise an enormous amount of money, somehow without indebting yourself to private interests
* Convince a large amount of people to vote you into office
* Bring to bear an enormous amount of political capital to convince other people to enact these changes
That involves no small amount of luck and personal charisma. I probably have none of these things, so that leaves me out.
There are other methods that are potentially easier (the one that comes to mind is effectively paying off an incumbent politician), but I'd roughly guess that there's only a 40-60% chance to get the outcome you want. Even easier actions, like calling your representatives, I'd peg at 2-5% expected value. Voting is <0.1%.
Are these really our only options? Am I thinking about this problem wrong? Is this just the great struggle of human governance we've been trying to solve for millenia?
As a Brit something that always struck me as strange was that Americans all seemed to own large, detatched houses. It just seemed odd to me, and whilst it's true that a lot of the US is less dense than the UK I find it fascinating that the zoning laws seem to massively encourage and protect single family homes.
As a European I guess this explains why Sim City's zoning never made much sense to me.
Not mentioned: In America, owning a home is considered the most important investment you can make.
Who would've thought that mindset would lead to unaffordable housing!
Or parents telling their children that they won't be able to live near their parents because... well... investment! Like this guy: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/999364778907914245
Who would've thought that mindset would lead to unaffordable housing!
Or parents telling their children that they won't be able to live near their parents because... well... investment! Like this guy: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/999364778907914245
Comparisons between the governments of homogeneous states like Japan and sprawling unions like the USA are not particularly helpful. The nature of the problems the governments face is too different.
Instead, compare California to Japan. From this article, run the thought experiment of a California-wide zoning board.
Instead, compare California to Japan. From this article, run the thought experiment of a California-wide zoning board.
So the linked article doesn't directly cite any work but does provide highlighted notes for an article, which I followed... which also doesn't actually cite anything. So I went down a rabbit hole of researching early zoning laws to evaluate a very specific claim: that the origin of zoning laws is racist.
In 1917 Buchanan v Warley mades directly racist zoning illegal... which affected a single city in Kentucky and otherwise had very little effect. In addition, the very first zoning laws didn't get passed until 1910 in the US and zoning didn't exist much until the 1920s [1] so that seems to undermine that claim as an emotional, not a factual one.
Everyone seems to suggest that the fix for high housing prices is to simply build more densely (more supply, same demand, therefore prices should go down right?). Yet that appears to not be the case either - as buildings get taller and more dense, costs seem to increase outside the direct supply/demand system [3] and those units which are built are typically more expensive then low density options.
[1] - https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/02-03.pdf
[3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/08/31/high-rise...
--
[2] - http://marketurbanism.com/2017/11/01/does-density-raise-hous...
In 1917 Buchanan v Warley mades directly racist zoning illegal... which affected a single city in Kentucky and otherwise had very little effect. In addition, the very first zoning laws didn't get passed until 1910 in the US and zoning didn't exist much until the 1920s [1] so that seems to undermine that claim as an emotional, not a factual one.
Everyone seems to suggest that the fix for high housing prices is to simply build more densely (more supply, same demand, therefore prices should go down right?). Yet that appears to not be the case either - as buildings get taller and more dense, costs seem to increase outside the direct supply/demand system [3] and those units which are built are typically more expensive then low density options.
[1] - https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/02-03.pdf
[3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/08/31/high-rise...
--
[2] - http://marketurbanism.com/2017/11/01/does-density-raise-hous...
Imagine we immediately changed to Japan’s system - do you think us Americans would do a good job utilizing it?
I think the Japanese system is better, I just fear that part of the benefit they have is cultural (harder to implement than laws).
I think the Japanese system is better, I just fear that part of the benefit they have is cultural (harder to implement than laws).
As interesting as the article is why is it titled North America vs Japan? Not USA vs Japan or North America vs Asia? There are 23 countries and almost two dozen dependencies in North America.
This is something concrete we could push for to fix California's housing crisis. Something like this at the state level would go a long way toward making it easier to build efficiently so that supply can increase to match demand.
The biggest change I see from the NA model is that localities don't really have the ability to make their own rules. Seems like this would require a very strong movement at the state level to ever implement something like this.
We’re headed towards a new caste system in America: those who inherit houses / tax concessions / rent control in productive places, and those who don’t. In many ways this will be a rebalancing, as the middle-class from places on the way down gets locked out of the labor force and the poor from places on the way up find themselves with exclusive access to booming jobs markets. But I’d anticipate some serious civil unrest before the border controls around wealth centers like the Bay Area are truly solidified.
When I was a child and living my parents we had two properties: One small apartment in the city, and a big house with a sizable garden (like 50-60 trees) far in the suburb. We live 5 day of the week in the apartment and spend the weekend on the suburb.
I think it was the best setup. You get both of best world. During the week you are close to work, school, services and need absolutely no transportation. In the weekend you can barbecue.
Americans can have that luxury. I guess they just need to work harder to be able to afford two properties?
I think it was the best setup. You get both of best world. During the week you are close to work, school, services and need absolutely no transportation. In the weekend you can barbecue.
Americans can have that luxury. I guess they just need to work harder to be able to afford two properties?
“Category II Residential Zone: The permitted buildings include shops, offices, and hotel buildings as well as buildings with karaoke box”
Are there any other examples of countries using a Japanese zoning system?
The discourse within the planning profession has to change before this type of innovative thinking can make any headway in N. America.
[deleted]
Japanese real estate has been in a rut for decades. I don't think Japan is the right country to compare the US to as a model to admire.
For the land of the free, some US rules are a shock to me.
Like how in many places you are not allowed to have a brown lawn, or one with taller weeds instead of grass.
> Grass or weeds taller than 8 inches is in violation of Minneapolis ordinance. If grass or weeds are taller than 8", an inspector may issue an order to the property owner giving them at least 3 days to cut it. If the violation is not corrected, inspectors may authorize a contractor to cut the grass and assess the costs and administrative fees to the owner.
Like how in many places you are not allowed to have a brown lawn, or one with taller weeds instead of grass.
> Grass or weeds taller than 8 inches is in violation of Minneapolis ordinance. If grass or weeds are taller than 8", an inspector may issue an order to the property owner giving them at least 3 days to cut it. If the violation is not corrected, inspectors may authorize a contractor to cut the grass and assess the costs and administrative fees to the owner.
It would be great to have improved zoning, but switching to Japanese-style zoning in the US doesn’t solve the problem of US housing being an investment vehicle for Global Capital.
In Japan, land itself keeps its (high) value, but still mostly grows/tracks with inflation. Houses themselves are seen as disposable with an approximately 30 year shelf-life.
In Japan, land itself keeps its (high) value, but still mostly grows/tracks with inflation. Houses themselves are seen as disposable with an approximately 30 year shelf-life.
This would be a disaster in the US. This surely victimizes some in Japan also but because of cultural differences you just get more silent suffering.
Even if implemented, the new Federal Zoning Board would be obligated to honor pre-existing zoning rules. If not, the party holding power in Washington at the time would get demolished. What politician will risk telling an entire state of voters that their assumptions about their property are going to be unilaterally changed? No one, it would be political suicide.
Accurate or not, any politician proposing this would be accused of trying to socialize housing.
Even if implemented, the new Federal Zoning Board would be obligated to honor pre-existing zoning rules. If not, the party holding power in Washington at the time would get demolished. What politician will risk telling an entire state of voters that their assumptions about their property are going to be unilaterally changed? No one, it would be political suicide.
Accurate or not, any politician proposing this would be accused of trying to socialize housing.
"greatly limits density"
"strangles redevelopment"
"keeps neighborhoods in formaldehyde"
This article sounds somewhat socialist and left leaning and assumes that such a "Japanese system" is what most families actually want.
If you have a house in a typical middle class neighborhood, practically speaking you don't want neighborhood to densify too much. With higher density comes a lot more people living in the same street as you, and with that comes noise, more traffic and less personal space which can have negative psychological impacts on some people.
It also comes back to the arguments for an against planning and development of cities; just because there is an open area available, should we really develop everything? I realize that we live in a world with a booming population, but it doesn't mean that we should aim to fill every square meter on this planet with people.
Edited open space->personal space. Sorry guys.
This article sounds somewhat socialist and left leaning and assumes that such a "Japanese system" is what most families actually want.
If you have a house in a typical middle class neighborhood, practically speaking you don't want neighborhood to densify too much. With higher density comes a lot more people living in the same street as you, and with that comes noise, more traffic and less personal space which can have negative psychological impacts on some people.
It also comes back to the arguments for an against planning and development of cities; just because there is an open area available, should we really develop everything? I realize that we live in a world with a booming population, but it doesn't mean that we should aim to fill every square meter on this planet with people.
Edited open space->personal space. Sorry guys.
Instead most of these parks have fences around the grass, and you're not allowed to lie down there and hang out. Some are also "temples" and have guards that'll yell at you if you even sit down out of the way on some stairs for a second.
I live in Amsterdam, and in general I'd much prefer living in a smaller house with no yard of my own if there's a big park nearby, but in Japan I'm not so sure. If I can't use the park for anything worthwhile (lie in the sun, have a BBQ etc.) I'd rather just live in an American-style suburb with my own small yard.