Hacker News Reader

Comment by codesuki | Hacker News Reader

I think this headline is misleading in 2 ways.

1. yes you might get a house at this price but it's either 1-2 hours out of the city center (which is fine, just saying Tokyo is large.) Or alternatively it's in bad neighborhoods. (bad is relative if you are from the US)

2. your house will most likely look like this: https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg

Sayonara sunlight, hello neighbor.

here are listings: https://www.homes.co.jp/smp/kodate/shinchiku/tokyo/list/

there are nice ones in the list. I am just saying that this is the eastern country side of Tokyo (check the map) when the title probably makes everyone think something different.

View on HN

> 2. your house will most likely look like this

Not sure what's wrong with that? That looks pretty amazing actually. I live in a unit that looks similar to that near downtown Chicago. My unit is north facing, and even so, there's more than enough sunlight.

The title says "house" for a "family", and the pictured structure is not normally what people think when they hear that, being significantly smaller than even a typical townhouse. In particular, a "house" suggests something larger than a small apartment.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with an apartment or microhouse, but it makes the quoted rent less impressive.

Well I guess that’s true from a North American perspective. I’ve lived in several countries, and from my perspective, in Asia and much of Europe, that structure seems like it would be considered a passable family home in an urban area. Most urban folks have a different relationship with space — smaller spaces are ok if one is close to transit and city amenities.

But the whole point of the headline is to try and convince the reader that Tokyo housing prices are low relative to the reader's expectation. If the small housing price example is congruent with the size of the example house, there's no story.

I'd contend it's fair to adjust for the country's typical expectations. Just like you couldn't simply expect the same size of house in Hong Kong as you might in Europe.

What do you mean fair? This isn't a contest

Not normal for who? Because in Tokyo, the house in the pic is quite normal. If I look just from my rooftop, I can probably count 20 houses of a similar design.

Also, keep in mind the height of the house. People tend to build up here rather than wide -- at least in family areas in central Tokyo. My current house, while slender is almost obscenely tall. It's four floors including the rooftop deck. In comparison, my childhood house back in midwestern America, seems much less spacious.

Not normal for the majority of readers of this article.

Nothing at all is wrong with it.

I live in a pretty well to do family oriented neighborhood in central Tokyo, and this is a very common design. Although I’m not sure about mortgages, but rents definitely ain’t just $850. But as the parent post said, it’s all about location. Prices nosedive once you leave the center of Tokyo or are off the main train lines.

From a tiny studio in NYC I haven't really left in 2 months, it looks absolutely palatial.

It’s not so much the exact number as the approximate order of magnitude.

For anyone living in one of the equivalent world cities (say, NyC, London, Shanghai, Paris, San Fran- you may quibble with me in the exact list but you know what I mean) these prices aren’t even remotely plausible.

(The one possible exception might be Berlin but that info could be dated)

Sayonara sunlight, hello neighbor.

This is the sort of thing that markets solve really well. If you want a dwelling unit with those properties, pay for it. If they're less important to you than cost, don't. If one is $300,000 and the other $600,000, it's very reasonable to choose affordability and go to a park.

From my observational experience, and limited study on the issue, markets don't seem to be solving this optimally, at least in Melbourne, Australia.

Overall, the market for apartments seems to be supply constrained. The main factors:

1. Government approval is required to build large apartment buildings. In general, this seems to lag behind demand.

2. Large buildings take a long time to build

3. There have been a number of years of high immigration, especially in and around the CBD.

All of these factors combine to cause high prices. In a high price environment, many residents are stretched for cash. They essentially have to pick the lowest price apartment available. It's not uncommon to have multiple people sharing a room in order to decrease costs. This creates a high price floor. Mid range apartments don't tend to be much more expensive, simply because many residents are already super stretched financially and unable to afford the extra marginal cost.

As a property developer in a high floor, low marginal payoff environment your financial incentive is now to build as many low cost apartments as possible.

>> The majority of Victoria’s newest apartments are so small they would be considered unliveable in Sydney…More than three-quarters of new one-bedroom apartments built across the state are 50 square metres or less, which means they probably would have been illegal in Sydney, London and Adelaide. [1]

Making these apartments meet a reasonable minimum standard could only be less than 5% of the total cost [1]. To achieve this governments have tried to intervene by increasing minimum standards [2].

What concerns me the most is the longer term impacts. When demand drops off (as covid is pointing to), you have a massive supply of low quality apartments. Is the end result of this many vacancies and people living in shoe boxes when they could've been somewhere nicer?

There are a few long bows there, but as someone who lives in a relatively sunny but not quite sunny enough apartment that is my take.

[1] - https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2015/05/18/apartment... (great blog for planning issues)

[2] - https://architectureau.com/articles/victorias-draft-apartmen...

If there is an oversupply of "low quality apartments" whatever that even means then surely people have flocked to the high quality apartments?

It's an interesting question. To rephrase, I think the market is undersupplied with new construction skewed towards lower quality apartments. This would suggest that high quality apartments would be extra valuable.

I have less experience in the high end of the market, as it's firmly out of my price range. Perhaps that alone is the answer? If while earning ~2x median pay, I don't consider staying somewhere more livable it would suggest prohibitively high prices. I'm unsure if the price is dictated more by the aforementioned undersupply or the higher quality. It probably reveals something about inequality in society.

I can't be certain the motivations of the developers choosing to build smaller apartments, the reasons I alluded to in the parent comment were an attempt at an educated guess. There is however an obvious ground truth that apartment sizes are shrinking (47m2 2014/44m2 2015 for 1 bedroom -10% in one year!) [1]

- [1] https://www.afr.com/property/melbourne-new-apartment-sizes-s...

The problem comes when you cannot afford to pay for it.

That really isn't a problem. So long as you can afford something where your basic needs are met: four walls, clean, safe, sturdy, etc, nobody's entitled to waterfront views. The idea is you create value through your work and utilize the proceeds to upgrade your residence, if that's what you value.

I agree that not everyone's entitled to waterfront views, but I think that in a functioning society everyone would be able to own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight), within a reasonable commute of their work, in desirable part of the country (e.g. in a cosmopolitan city).

The difficulty that I see is that housing prices in America are so high that it's unrealistic for moth people to create enough value to purchase a residence at even that basic level of quality.

I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location. This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations, and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all.

>This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments, the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations

I'm not convinced that these are values worth respecting.

> I think, unfortunately, the definition of decent in this case is viewed as luxury. Most specifically the concept that everyone should be able to own a house within a reasonable commute of work in a desirable location.

A house or a place to live? There's not enough physical land adjacent to places of business for each person who wants one to own a single-family home. They're an awfully inefficient use of space -- see the entire western half of San Francisco.

> This cannot happen while also respecting the idea of properties as investments...

Property can't be affordable and a good investment. Those two are mutually exclusive. An investment goes up relative to inflation. Affordability by definition goes down relative to inflation. You can't have something that goes up as it goes down.

> ...the wealthy wanting to be able to purchase disproportionately large places in multiple desirable locations...

You can, if you do something along the lines of what Singapore does with the HDB. Some 90% of Singaporeans live in government homes built by the HDB, and the remaining 10% is available to the wealthy to play.

> ...and the idea that so many people may desire to live in a city that the city cannot possibly take them all.

They city can absolutely take them all if you allow building up. There's no excuse for down-town San Francisco north of market limiting buildings to 6 stories when downtown Hong Kong has 118 story buildings.

> own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight)

I'm not sure this is that important a criterion for most people. Pre-lockdown, I'd leave the house before the sun came up, and got home barely in time to catch the sunset. If I wanted sunlight, I could walk a block in either direction.

I actually have a preference for living in shadier (as in shade, not crime) parts of town, especially neighborhoods with tree-lined streets/boulevards.

Tree lined streets have a lot of sunlight.

Yes, but there's also just enough shade for things to not get too hot in the summer. It's like having a permanent dimmer on.

> I agree that not everyone's entitled to waterfront views, but I think that in a functioning society everyone would be able to own a decent house (e.g. one that gets sunlight), within a reasonable commute of their work, in desirable part of the country (e.g. in a cosmopolitan city).

Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning behind this belief?

I see the role of society to be to provide for its member's needs[1]. While I don't think "needs" means that everyone gets a Ferrari and a Yacht, I do think it goes beyond just what one requires to be alive. In particular, due to America's size and diversity, having flexibility in where one lives is an important part of being able to choose one's lifestyle.[2]

[1] At least until we arrive at some sort of Star Trek level of technology, no society is going to do this perfectly, so when I say "functioning society" I mean one that more or less provides for the vast majority of its citizens and provides some sort of safety net/second chance for people who do fall through the cracks.

[2] This is much more "wishy washy" and hard to quantify, but I'd say that in a functioning society everyone would be able to, in a general sense, live the sort of life that they want while providing for themselves and their family. I mean this in broad strokes such as wanting to live in a cosmopolitan city/near the beach/near mountains or wanting to be able to seriously practice art/music/sports (although not necessarily as one's day job).

In what way is that any more realistic than everyone being entitled to waterfront? Ideally, that would be lovely, but I just don't see a path to that.

I don't know if it would be possible to provide to everyone in society who wants it, but a path towards at least making it more available might look like:

Invest in public transportation (and potentially restrict private transportation in city centers) so that we can expand how far out someone can live and still have a reasonable commute.

Where appropriate, allow people to work from home so that commute is less of an issue.

Build more and in some cases higher density affordable housing so that more people are able to live in desirable areas.

Invest in infrastructure (both practical infrastructure such as high speed internet and "aesthetic" infrastructure such as parks and public works of art) in order to make more places desirable.

Its debatable. Not everyone going to agree with your definition of decent.

I definitely agree, I just chose cosmopolitan cities because they are both one of the most commonly preferred places to live right now and one of the most expensive.

And? Go somewhere cheaper?

Often that's not a realistic option due to factors such as where family lives, access to minority cultural/religious institutions, access to good jobs, or access to cultural opportunities.

My point is, what is society supposed to do about it? I can't afford to live three towns over where it's nicer. I'd need about another $3K a month. Could you spot me on that, permanently?

The big issues that consistently affects real-estate around Tokyo is proximity to a station and the age of the building. The basic rule is that a condominium must be within 10 minutes walk from a station, and a free standing house up to 15 minutes walk. A house around 30 years old is worthless, and a house younger will be some fraction of its original purchase price. There are exceptions but this is a pretty good rule of thumb. Land is generally the only thing that appreciates in value and only if its in a desirable location. As a point of reference, we live in an 90m^2 home 45min from Tokyo station and it was less then the above price.

> A house around 30 years old is worthless

Living in a city which city center was (re-) build between the 16th and 17th century, the 30 years till worthless puzzles me.

Even the house I live in is over 100 years old and in excellent condition.

Why do houses loose their value so rapidly in Tokyo?

Because many of them were built cheaply to begin with and develop problems over the decades. They weren't built for long-term living, and in a sense it was the right move since Japan was developing rapidly up till the end of the '80s. (Well-built exceptions probably exist, of course.) And then there's increased earthquake/disaster risk with poorer construction.

It's something I wondered about too until I looked at descriptions and photos of >30-year-old houses on real estate sites.

I think that's more perception then reality. I live in a 30 year old house and it could easily last 100 years if properly maintained, but there is little incentive to improve the building because it will not improve the resale value.

Most Japanese houses are wooden made, and earthquake is often happens.

>Or alternatively it's in bad neighborhoods. (bad is relative if you are from the US)

I've never been to Japan, but I imagine that a bad Japanese neighborhood is incredibly safe compared to a bad U.S. neighborhood. In a bad U.S. neighborhood one has to regularly take precautions in order to not be physically assaulted or even killed by other people.

>your house will most likely look like this: https://www.ii-ie2.net/dat/5ba1164d.jpg

Looks pretty amazing for less than $1000/month.

That said, of course I'm not thinking that Japan is some paradise. What I hear/read about their justice system and their stifling conformist culture doesn't sound very good to me.

Their conformist culture is upsetting, as is the rampant institutional sexism, but a lot of the issues with their justice system are overblown. 99% conviction rates are more likely a result of cases being dropped below a high confidence threshold, not a result of kangaroo courts.

that house looks great for $850/mo, and a bmw out front to boot. where do i sign up (in LA)?

You can get a large house that gets a lot of sun and is somewhat walkable / bikeable in Compton for $350k. With 20% down and all taxes & fees & insurance included, that's close to $1700/mo. In San Bernardino, you can get stuff for $250k, which about $1200/mo. You can get trailers in Riverside for $150k, which is about $730/mo.

Is that new construction like in TFA?

$300k for new construction is ludicrously cheap for most coastal California cities. I was told to budget $150-250k for permits when I considered buying land and building my own house in Santa Barbara.

Both my current and my previous house would be illegal to build today because they are too large (even though both houses comfortably fit the frontage requirements, there is an additional X square feet of livable space per Y square feet of lot; in all R-1 zones, the calculation is such that a single-story house can usually hit the dwelling-space limit, so most 2 story houses in town would be illegal to build today).

Santa Barbara is a terrible place to consider for buying/building a house. Sky high property taxes and inflated property values are begging the local economy to dry out due to rental prices (The Bay is cheaper if you compare similar apartments with similar interior/exterior). The city can't expand because of geology, and it refuses to build up to preserve the "historical view of the Riviera". Sure it's a pretty city, but it won't mean much if it's dead.

Buying is way cheaper in Santa Barbara than the bay area like half to two-thirds depending on where you compare to. The only thing even close to Santa Barbara prices for sale when I checked a year ago were "unique" properties in East Palo Alto. Rents are pretty insane here though. It's a total flip from when I moved here (I was paying $50/month more in rent than a friend who got a job in the Indianapolis. I lived walking distance from downtown).

The Bay is cheaper if you compare similar apartments with similar interior/exterior

Santa Barbara is significantly cheaper than bay area in terms of renting or buying real estate.

The 2br apartment I'm currently renting in SB is $2.6k/mo. A very similar apartment in Redwood City is over $4k/mo.

There are plenty of 2br apartments for ~$2.5k on the east side of the bay (San Leandro, Richmond, etc.), and you will have better job opportunities as well.

My impression was the best of Silicon Volley jobs are located somewhere between San Mateo and San Jose. Am I wrong?

OP just pulled a part of the Los Angeles area out of their ass they figured was cheap because a rap song told them black lived there. $350k isn’t getting you something decent in any part of the city nor surrounding area.

Are those neighborhoods safe, or are they the kind of places where you have to regularly worry that you might get physically assaulted?

I don’t think those places are the best. Everywhere has pockets of good and bad though.

Given your name, I guess you live in Japan, so I'll just give my opinion for others who have never lived here. I also think the title is misleading, though I wouldn't express it so dramatically.

One thing to consider is that Tokyo is a prefecture, not a city. There are rural areas of Tokyo (like really rural), though most of it is very suburban. Anybody who has lived in the suburbs in western countries would probably be fairly comfortable in most parts of Tokyo prefecture.

It is true that in quite a few areas of Tokyo it takes a long time to get to central Tokyo. 2 hours is at the extreme, though. I live in very rural Shizuoka prefecture and I can get to Tokyo station in 2 hours if I time the bus and shinkansen perfectly. If you are on the train line, most places are no more than an hour away. It's pretty comparable to living in satellite cities in London, but the train is much better :-)

If you are not on the train line, though, it can take quite a long time. Roads in Japan are very slow, especially in rural areas. It's not unusual for it to take me over an hour to drive 30 km or so if I need to go through several towns. So you definitely can find houses in Tokyo that will be 2 hours away from the city center, but I don't think anyone working in central Tokyo would buy those houses.

I honestly don't think the example picture is representative of houses you'll find in Tokyo prefecture. They definitely exist in areas that are desirable, though. I think saying that you're probably looking at either a 1 hour commute by train or your are going to get a house jammed in wherever it will fit is correct. But it's not both at the same time.

I don't often go to Tokyo, but I occasionally go to surrounding areas. Probably if I was looking at houses for commuting to central Tokyo, I would probably look at places in Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama as well as Tokyo. There is actually quite a lot of choice.

The video linked in the article is well worth watching (as is anything from "Life Where I'm From" if you are interested in Japan) and is extremely balanced IMHO. Compared to other big city centers around the world, Tokyo and the surrounding area is quite affordable. Compared to Silicon Valley it's almost comically so, but Silicon Valley is really right at the other extreme.

Yeah, a new house like that in an upscale or hip area like Hiroo or Azabu or something with 3 bedrooms will be well above 2million dollars.

On the other hand, rural (so cheap) areas are less packed so sunlight is less of an issue.

And I am willing to bet that picture was taken somewhere like Shinagawa or Meguro, maybe Setagaya. Where houses like that start at a price rather double of what's stated in the article, potentially triple.

Although do note that those factors don't fully cover the differential. Even in Hudson County or Contra Costa County, you're gonna have a hard time finding a 3 bedroom for $300k.

Hm, it could use a bit of work but this 4 bed 3 bath, 2400 sq ft home in Hudson is $249 [1]. It's a little ways from the train station though - a 10 minute drive. There's regular service from there to Penn Station, which takes about 2 hours.

[1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/116-Route-9h-Hudson-NY-12...

The apartment I paid 2k/month for in Oakland was garbage compared to that...

Yeah I don't care about sunlight. I'd prefer to have less honestly.

It's got parking. It's detached. Sold.

I'll take it instantly for 850 a month. I'd likely still take it for 2000 a month.

sign me up.

Did you even watch the video in the article, he litreally shows distance to major districts and its not 1-2 hours

Reply on news.ycombinator.com