Hacker News Reader

Comment by milkytron | Hacker News Reader

> When it comes to, politically, how do we make Tokyo-esque urbanism feasible in America, the key is building a coalition of folks who are more interested in the dynamism of their cities than they are in the value of their particular property.

I think younger people are beginning to feel this way, as property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach. But also, the amount of financial power that the property owning class has and the financial incentives to continue to develop our cities (more like metros) in the way that we have makes changing this exceptionally difficult.

View on HN

> property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach

Ironically maybe least true in Tokyo, where interest rates are extremely low, and houses are still sort of affordable as long as you can adjust your expectations (e.g. no 200sqm mansions).

Tokyo is a cheaper place to live than most people think -- in fact, it is probably cheaper than any major city in California. But most people in California would not be willing to sacrifice the standard of living they have, even in apartments. Many studio apartments in America are quite a lot larger and better equipped than a one or two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo.

How is it cheaper then? I’ve seen those shows and YouTube channels that show to rent basically a closet in Tokyo costs like $15,000 upfront. The monthly rent prices I have seen are insane.

We don't call it "key money" in the US, but you'll be paying something like 10% of your annual rent to a broker in places like NYC. In some markets the landlord pays these fees, but in other markets where demand is high, the tenant gets to pay. Combine this, your first month's rent, and a security deposit, and Tokyo doesn't seem much different than the US.

Broker’s fees, first and last month’s rent can be common in big cities. It still doesn’t match what I’ve seen in first hand accounts of renting in Tokyo. I can’t remember about how much of the renting fees are refundable or not, where in the U.S., typically only the broker’s fee is non refundable. And I certainly don’t hear anyone saying places with these policies are surprisingly cheap.

The person I responded to said that Tokyo is surprisingly cheap if you compare it to California real estate in the major cities (read as LA or San Francisco) and be willing to take major cuts on space and standard of living. That’s sort of a weird argument. Additionally comparing it to NYC doesn’t make it less weird.

Of course living in Tokyo is cheap if you throw out standard of living, ignore the initial capital required to rent, and then compare it to some of the other most insane real estate markets.

Monthly rent goes up from $200 at the low end (10 square meters or so) to $3000 at the high end (120 square meters).

You have everything in between.

There’s places (especially popular ones) that do key money (up to 3 months, which you don’t get back) and deposits (up to 3 months, which you do), but it’s starting to become less common, and you’ll always be able to find a place that doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t apply at all if you buy a house instead (for roughly the same monthly prices as renting).

My main point is that renting in Tokyo is possible regardless of your budget, where in other markets it’s just plain impossible due to the minimum price for even tiny apartments.

I have never been to Japan but I did a fair bit of international traveling for a couple of years. Going from living in a US style suburban McMansion to small apartments in Italy, Panama, Iceland, etc. was eye opening in such a positive way. US houses have tons of square footage and just so much wasted space. It adds a ton of cleaning and unnecessary maintenance and since large swaths of the US prefer ranch style houses I would rather reduce the footprint for more space for outdoors and a garden. I am genuinely happier in smaller spaces with better utilized space. In my experience you can easily halve the size of most US houses and still be very comfortable with no drop in quality of life. Am I advocating for families of 4+ to live in a 250 sq ft (25 sq meter) apartment like I did in Florence? No, but you also don't need 4000 square feet (400 sq meter) houses either. I can't imagine a scenario even with 3 kids as we're planning on to need more than 1600 sq fetter (150 sq meters) regardless of my personal financial situation and would certainly give up that space for more walkability.

I went through a similar learning trajectory.

I think one has to experience it oneself though, my friends and relatives who never left the suburbs pity me for my restricted living space, and don't believe me when I tell them live is easier with less baggage and it a walkable center of town. I suspect they think I'm rationalising an inability to afford a suburban McMansion.

I thought I never needed anything more than a 1,500 square foot house like my wife’s favorite uncle built with his own hands for his kids. Our house is 3,000 square feet and we just finished 800 square feet for the basement and with three kids it’s just not enough. Heading to my parent’s 5,000 square foot McMansion on the weekends is a real reprive.

Yeah it would be easier if we didn’t buy them so much shit. But that’s a deeply ingrained part of American culture. Who has the time to cut their kids off from friends, extended family who buys lots of trinkets for every holiday, etc? Trust me we tried to fight that battle and all we have to show for it is a two inch thick layer of dinosaurs in the living room.

I do feel this. I consider myself somewhat of a minimalist (not an extreme one but to a decent degree yes) and while we don't buy my kid a ton of toys the people around him do. I think the system we're settling into is a combination of cycling toys (he gets them for 1-3 months then we pack them into the closet) and then donate the ones that aren't his favorite. It's imperfect but it has helped stem the tide.

I don't doubt you but I just wanted to chime in with another point of anecdata that I have a family of 4 (2 kids) & we live perfectly fine in a 92m^2 (just under 1000 sq feet) apartment in Berlin. It would have been nice to have more room but I don't actually think about it that often! jsonne's idea of a modest 1600 sq ft apartment would actually be considered huge here :)

I suspect you're right that a lot of it has to do with the surrounding culture - almost nobody in Berlin lives in large homes (there are very few houses and most people live in 5-8 story high apartment buildings) & I think Germans as a habit just don't buy as much crap.

> almost nobody in Berlin lives in large homes (there are very few houses and most people live in 5-8 story high apartment buildings) & I think Germans as a habit just don't buy as much crap

I grew up with a similar culture in India, but now live in the US where every Christmas, I receive a ton of stuff I could do without.

I have a question for you – wow many gifts do Germans give each other for Christmas, and what sort? I had just kind of assumed that most western countries do these things similar to the US, but as I have found out in the past that might be an incorrect assumption.

Unless you’re invited to someone’s home to celebrate together you wouldn’t buy random friends a Christmas present. If you’re celebrating together (or if you’re relatively close family) you would buy 1 present and sometimes this would be something small/symbolic (for a child it’s more likely to be a “real” present like Lego or a board game).

But Germans generally don’t celebrate holidays in massive gatherings, I would expect my mother in law to join us, or maybe 1 other person. It would be unusual for the number of people to reach double digits.

It’s definitely cultural, but also changing culture over time. My brother and I grew up in an 1,100 square foot house, which was a standard size for a detached suburban house in America in the 1950s when it was built. But the average new American home is double that today.

I truly do not understand what you’d use that space for? Your house has more space per person than our entire house has in total (800 sqft, for 3 people). I mean, I can imagine enjoying an extra 200 sqft, but that’s about it.

It's not just about sacrificing your standard of living, it's that you won't find a smaller, well organized 2 bedrooms in US. Unless you buy a studio and remodel it yourself (which is quite expensive).

I think the author needs an updated understanding of what is missing. Being interested in a particular property value would absolutely lead to more interest in dense dynamic cities. A city block in tokyo is probably worth more than a city block in most American cities. A capitalist with an interest in seeing their land values go way up would absolutely champion a more dense, desirable city.

I think the problem is actually that people with aggregate political power in cities in America don’t really care about property values in the monetary sense. They treat their homes, community, and city on more political/ideological/ethical terms and preferences than on economic terms. The dense Tokyo-style city is absolutely foreign to most Americans and they disdain actions that would lead toward alternate city structures. This is as opposed to the property owning class, which should be more than happy to see their value go up by making more dense cities, especially when it is funded by taxpayers.

This seems like a case of just assuming capitalists/landowners are to blame and then coming up with an argument.

Right, it's certainly multifaceted. Political, ideological, and ethical values all impact how people desire their community to be. Economics also has some impact.

I'm not saying it's capitalists or landowners who are to blame for how US cities have been developed, simply that the power they hold and their influence on politics pose great challenges (amongst many other challenges) for creating more dynamic cities.

Exactly. The root cause of NIMBYism is not preservation of property values. It is preservation of neighborhood character -- low density, peace and quiet, low traffic, etc.

People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that.

As housing gets more expensive, this tendency will only increase -- if you had to work really hard for a really long time to buy a house, you will probably be more unhappy to find out that your neighborhood is changing than if you didn't have to try that hard to get into it -- especially when your options to move elsewhere are at least as expensive.

The obvious solution then is to convert areas that already lack "character", are high density, noisy, high-traffic, etc. The article points out alleys, train underpasses.

Why does this not happen in the U.S.? Is that also NIMBYism?

NIMBYism is not restricted to rich people in the suburbs. Poor people who live in areas that can be revitalized also frequently oppose new construction because they worry that if their neighborhoods become more attractive to people with higher incomes, gentrification will force them out.

That has happened to people, so it's a valid concern.

> People who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a down payment on a house in the suburbs do not want their neighborhood to change into something that is not a suburb. If they wanted to live in a dense urban area, they would have done that.

I did spent a lot of money on a house in the suburbs. I would have preferred to buy something more dense and walkable, but getting anything decent like that was not an option. Because so much low-density gets built and the higher infrastructure need per unit in low-density areas gets subsidized by hifh-density areas, the economics work out greatly in favor of the suburbs in a lot of places.

The rapidly growing membership of organizations working on housing issues, like

* https://yimbyaction.org/

* https://welcomingneighbors.us/

is proof that this is something people care about a lot and are fighting hard for. And we're starting to notch up some successes, too!

It’s a real problem. I love the dynamism of cities but had to move out due to affordance. Now that I own a home, it’s a major conflict because I just dumped non-retirement life savings into this home. If it lost major value, it would be disastrous. I’m happy enough for more urbanism and communities, but why do I need to sacrifice my life savings to support that?

The U.S. government has really allowed things to get out of hand with housing. The first thing they should address are investors and companies buying up houses. There are at least two houses in my neighborhood sitting empty and quickly dilapidating, as they were likely purchased by investors.

I think the original statement doesn't really get to the truth of it. High density and vibrant communities are positives for property value. People objecting to these changes either aren't thinking logically or they aren't objecting to the value part. They want to preserve the character of the area they moved in to.

I think some of it is a misunderstanding of economics, but some of it is also different willingness to take risks and looking at different time horizons. If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop. If I can wait till the neighborhood becomes hip and desired and maybe someone wants to buy my home for big money to build a larger building, cool. However, if I cannot wait a few years or worry that the apartment building goes up and then the economics change and the city takes a turn for the worse and nothing gets build anymore, I might be against the apartment building. It's also always nicer to have those things build a little further away. Being the quiet neighborhood a short hop away from the cool hip hood gives you most of the benefits without the risks and downsides. Of course if everyone thinks like that we get the current situation. IMO it's selfish, not that they aren't thinking logically.

> If my single-family home is the only one in the neighborhood with an apartment building next to it, its value might indeed drop.

People love single-family homes in dense urban environments. A neighborhood that I think is a good example of comfortable density with a good variety of building sizes is Brooklyn Heights in New York City. You can buy a studio apartment for $250,000 or a townhouse for $17,000,000, and everything in between. You would make an incomprehensible amount of money selling your house if your neighborhood turned into Brooklyn Heights.

In dense urban areas, yes. That's not the scenario I described though.

If all the buildings in your neighborhood turn into apartment buildings, you're a dense urban area now.

Three initial plan is likely only for a single building though. There is no guarantee there won't be a recession and nothing else gets built for a long time.

I guess, what are you worried about? A stronger tax base is good for your community; you have 100 people paying property taxes where there used to be 1 person. The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?

I personally not worried about anything. I'd immediately go for something that's like Japanese zoning and probably actively penalize sprawl. However, I'm trying to steelman the NIMBY fucks.

> The worst case is that they park your cars in front of your trash cans on trash day and it doesn't get picked up?

Future buyers might be worried about that or they might worried about the thing becoming a crack house or other xenophobic shit. I know lots of people who for reasons I don't agree with or even find appalling don't want to live next to an apartment building.

I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s entirely selfish. Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank?

There can be a lot of selfish, not in my backyard type of behavior, but I think blaming homeowners is not effective.

Most people owning homes these days are having to put everything they have into being able to afford it, and they’re effectively forced to do that due to the market, skyrocketing and ultimately unaffordable rents with terrible living standards, schools, etc. Turning around and tanking their value due to some mega corp wanting to slap an apartment building down isn’t a good strategy.

A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic. And most modern apartment buildings are built as cheaply as possible.

> Why do people feel homeowners should effectively subsidize development by letting their value tank?

How does subsidization come into this? Just relax the zoning, make it simple to get permits and stop blocking everything at community meetings.

> A lot of urban “designers” just want to put apartments everywhere, but it isn’t a good strategy. It certainly isn’t organic

Agreed. The planning and homogenous construction that gets often pushed for is a problem. This in part can be addressed by smaller parcels. Order Without Design, book and podcast, go into this and how some cities solved it. Somehow real estate and housing tempts everyone to throw out all the lessons we learned from communism about the perils of central planning.

The home you live in is not an investment, you should not see it as one.

If the $ value of your house goes down, you can still live it in just fine. If you want to move, and the overall market is down, you will sell your house for less but you will also buy your new house for less. No matter what, a 100m2 house is still worth a 100m2 house in a similar neighborhood.

The only case you should be worried is if only YOUR neighborhood goes down in price while the rest of your city is stable or going up. Or only your city is going down and you want to move to a different city.

Anyway - it's still unclear to me how allowing small business in residential area would make the housing prices go down. If anything it would make it go up as having small business in a walking distance is very convenient.

Even multi-stories buildings, I see why homeowners don't want them because of their personal confort, but if it becomes the norm I don't see how it would make their property prices go down.

> The home you live in is not an investment, you should not see it as one.

I don’t and didn’t say I did and really need lectured on that. It’s my primary complaint of how people think about the financial aspect of home ownership. I was a happy renting but mainly because I was very lucky and found a landlord who kept my rent below market and only raised it once. That was until I got tired of a revolving door of neighbors and a particularly nasty one, so I chose home ownership primarily for lifestyle. It’s nice to not have a maniac neighbor living above me.

Trust me, it’s not by choice that I needed to tie up so much of my worth in a mortgage. I’m not arguing against really anything other than indiscriminately blaming homeowners. Even when I was renting, which so far occurred every year except for one of my adult life, a lot of urban development generally increased rent and prices. As I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of urban designers just want to build, build, build. That’s something I don’t think solves what people think it does. And in general, urban design cannot fix cost of living issues and these conflicts of interests.

By the way, moving is a whole other discussion. I couldn’t have afforded my home merely a few months after purchase due to the volatility of interest rates.

Tokyo has extensive public transportation and culture and other things that support its density. You don’t get Tokyo in the U.S. by just slapping down apartment buildings, which typically come with parking and traffic demands on the local area.

* don’t need

Not only do I believe that a person's home is an investment, for many it is their biggest and most important investment (if not, in many cases, their only one).

When the kids leave the nest and it comes time to retire, downsizing is the way a home owner will "cash in" on that investment (or, as you suggest, moving to a less expensive community/city/state).

I'm sure you know all this but I am confused as to why you say it is not an investment. It is illiquid, to be sure, but it does not depreciate in the way that a car, for example, does. It seems to me no less of an investment than precious metals or stocks (but for the illiquid aspect I mentioned).

Companies owning housing don't show up locally to block new housing:

> The role of institutional investors is still being studied, but the popularity of the narrative strikes at something dangerous: People want a convenient boogeyman and when they get it, they often ignore the structural problems that are harder to combat. Housing undersupply is the result of decades of locals opposing new home building. It’s not something that can be blamed on Wall Street greed and the nefarious tinkering of a private equity firm. And that’s a much harder truth to stomach.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin...

I think it’s probably actually understated. Although, it also probably depends on your area. In my area, as I already have given an example of, “site unseen” investors are absolutely prevalent.

She has a lot of data in that article and it's pretty solid.

Whatever the amount of homes being purchased by investors, you have to look at the root cause of why they're investing. This is covered by the article - did any of you downvoters bother to read it?

> Yield-chasing investors have turned to the real estate market because it has become a very profitable place to put your money. And the main reason it has become so profitable is the preexisting housing shortage created by local governments and certain homeowners seeking to block new homes from being built, leading to a nearly 4 million home shortage nationwide.

Locally, when we look around at who's blocking housing, it's 100% our neighbors:

https://bendyimby.com/2022/09/07/development-code-weaponized...

It's interesting you put it this way, since one of the reasons for Tokyo's public transport success has been exactly this "property owning".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com