It’s old American military officer housing, rented out as low income housing for several decades, then after it accidentally lasted long enough to appeal to locals, it was refurbed into a kitschy/artsy commercial area to indulge in Americana through a Japanese lens.
We do, but most of them have something within cycling distance that isn’t on an 70+ kph road with maniacs (and the closer to civilization, they have public transit).
That’s actually rather difficult to give one answer to, even if narrowed to one country/culture as the target audience.
For North America: central heat/air is not a thing here outside of commercial applications. A handful of private individuals do it, but it ends up costing a ton both directly (the unit/maintenance) and indirectly (more materials, ductwork, insulation, etc. that are less common and more expensive here). We just had building laws revised this year to require slightly higher building codes for energy efficiency and insulation, but it’s still well below the standard of other places. It’s somewhat a cost issue (Japanese houses depreciate to nothing after 20 years in most cases and land value only goes up in a handful of areas, so there’s additional pressure not to care a ton), and also a reaction to “sick home syndrome” that came from bad plastics/materials offgassing things like formaldehyde in the '80s in more tightly-closed homes. Here, homes that breathe well are still considered better.
From what I’ve heard, houses in Japan are torn down after twenty years and rebuilt anew. Absolute craziness from the European standpoint, but I’m sure there must be a reason for it like the propensity to earthquakes and tsunamis (particularly with Japan being rather conservative overall).
It’s mostly crappy areas. Outside the urban centers, they refuse to invest in infrastructure. So everyone flees to the city center, which produces slums, and then everything except the high income areas kinda suck.
We have a lot of good infrastructure in my village and I’m pretty rural (depending upon how big ‘urban center’ is in your definition, I’m between 20 and 45 minutes away by train).
A lot of the countryside that is depopulating is quite ugly, but there is no money to invest in that infrastructure when almost the whole population is pensioners. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem to be sure. I think the government needs to do more to get people out of the megalopolises. My area has campaigns that use our tax money to pay people to move here as well as subsidizing preschool and kindergarten.
Re-populating smaller towns would give them more tax income to put money back into infrastructure and other programs. Having people move out of the megalopolises helps reduce demand on things like childcare and lower housing costs as demand cools.
that’s just a really bad take i think. tax laws have to adapt to the people, not the other way around. it’s just a very bad idea to move around people to get more favorable taxation, because tax laws can be changed much faster than people can move around.
on top of that, “demand cools” for housing … is questionable. you know, if we wanted to, we could just build more housing. and i only partially get your childcare take … are you saying that elderly people (who often need care themselves) should take care of the children? i’m not sure about that.
are you saying that elderly people (who often need care themselves) should take care of the children
I have no idea where you’re getting this. I guess because a lot of the population currently in the countryside is elderly? If the people and the jobs move there, that won’t be an issue. The people at the daycare/preschool in my village are middle-aged. EDIT: and more to the point, I meant increased availability in the megalopolises not where I am now.
it’s just a very bad idea to move around people to get more favorable taxation
That’s not the point I’m trying to make. There are people who move to the super-populated areas because they feel it’s their only chance of advancement and job security. I’ve met plenty that would rather be back where they came from or with more space. Without the job security there, without good futures, people are only coming back to visit family and not living even when they want to. If the people feel supported and secure in their opportunities and the opportunities for their children, they will come back which also brings tax revenue and improvements.
tax laws can be changed much faster
I don’t think it makes sense for the central government to directly start shifting large amounts of tax money that no one is going to use. Sure, they could start improving infrastructure and stuff in many rural areas, but if 50 people live there and that number is declining, it’s a waste of money. It only makes sense to help do anything other than basic upkeep if people are coming or it could concretely be shown to increase the chance of people coming. Again, with jobs and future outlook, that’s not happening.
we could just build more housing
This only goes so far. Look at how built out Tokyo is (including into Chiba, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Saitama, etc. I already know people who commute 1.5 hours or more to work. The more affordable housing is further away, and often of very poor quality with paper-thin walls, causing people to lose 3-4 hours of their day in commute. That’s insane. It’s also not like public transit can be increased quickly enough to do anything about this either.
You might argue that the answer is more highrises. The problem is that those tend to go for more and price people, dis-proportionally the elderly and those on fixed income. They also take a long time to build and create new logistics issue with garbage management and other things. Not unsolvable, but I still feel like it’s trying to force many people to live where they ultimately don’t want to.
yeah i think that this is the most important issue. we cannot just assume where people want to live. we have to ask them. there needs to be proper data about how many people want to live in which region. then, based on that, construction and infrastructure development should happen, in the countryside / city.
there is no money to invest in that infrastructure when almost the whole population is pensioners
The national government has plenty of money. And investing in these communities would generate permanent employment, such that more young people would live there.
But the politics of the county resists this kind of investment, because it isn’t immediately profitable.
Does Japan not have any crappy areas?
Well there’s Johnson Town in Saitama.
Why is there a sign saying “blue corn” in English there? And why is it called “Johnson Town”?
https://www.japan-experience.com/all-about-japan/saitama/attractions-excursions/johnson-town
It was an old US airbase town
That doesn’t look bad.
It looks like America, so ehhhh
It’s old American military officer housing, rented out as low income housing for several decades, then after it accidentally lasted long enough to appeal to locals, it was refurbed into a kitschy/artsy commercial area to indulge in Americana through a Japanese lens.
Not a single mcmansion in sight! Not even enough yard to have a ride on mower??? Horrors!
Looks like an American suburb but without yard space.
So like a normal suburb from before 1920…
We do, but most of them have something within cycling distance that isn’t on an 70+ kph road with maniacs (and the closer to civilization, they have public transit).
What’s something that most people would be surprised to learn about Japan?
That’s actually rather difficult to give one answer to, even if narrowed to one country/culture as the target audience.
For North America: central heat/air is not a thing here outside of commercial applications. A handful of private individuals do it, but it ends up costing a ton both directly (the unit/maintenance) and indirectly (more materials, ductwork, insulation, etc. that are less common and more expensive here). We just had building laws revised this year to require slightly higher building codes for energy efficiency and insulation, but it’s still well below the standard of other places. It’s somewhat a cost issue (Japanese houses depreciate to nothing after 20 years in most cases and land value only goes up in a handful of areas, so there’s additional pressure not to care a ton), and also a reaction to “sick home syndrome” that came from bad plastics/materials offgassing things like formaldehyde in the '80s in more tightly-closed homes. Here, homes that breathe well are still considered better.
It still boggles my mind people in Japan buy new when it comes to housing. I guess if they are all cheaply built that makes sense.
a lot depends on the climate. you couldn’t do that in germany where you have to have thick walls or you’re gonna freeze to death in the winter.
From what I’ve heard, houses in Japan are torn down after twenty years and rebuilt anew. Absolute craziness from the European standpoint, but I’m sure there must be a reason for it like the propensity to earthquakes and tsunamis (particularly with Japan being rather conservative overall).
It’s probably due to the frequent earthquakes
It’s mostly crappy areas. Outside the urban centers, they refuse to invest in infrastructure. So everyone flees to the city center, which produces slums, and then everything except the high income areas kinda suck.
We have a lot of good infrastructure in my village and I’m pretty rural (depending upon how big ‘urban center’ is in your definition, I’m between 20 and 45 minutes away by train).
A lot of the countryside that is depopulating is quite ugly, but there is no money to invest in that infrastructure when almost the whole population is pensioners. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem to be sure. I think the government needs to do more to get people out of the megalopolises. My area has campaigns that use our tax money to pay people to move here as well as subsidizing preschool and kindergarten.
i don’t see how that would reduce costs
Re-populating smaller towns would give them more tax income to put money back into infrastructure and other programs. Having people move out of the megalopolises helps reduce demand on things like childcare and lower housing costs as demand cools.
that’s just a really bad take i think. tax laws have to adapt to the people, not the other way around. it’s just a very bad idea to move around people to get more favorable taxation, because tax laws can be changed much faster than people can move around.
on top of that, “demand cools” for housing … is questionable. you know, if we wanted to, we could just build more housing. and i only partially get your childcare take … are you saying that elderly people (who often need care themselves) should take care of the children? i’m not sure about that.
I have no idea where you’re getting this. I guess because a lot of the population currently in the countryside is elderly? If the people and the jobs move there, that won’t be an issue. The people at the daycare/preschool in my village are middle-aged. EDIT: and more to the point, I meant increased availability in the megalopolises not where I am now.
That’s not the point I’m trying to make. There are people who move to the super-populated areas because they feel it’s their only chance of advancement and job security. I’ve met plenty that would rather be back where they came from or with more space. Without the job security there, without good futures, people are only coming back to visit family and not living even when they want to. If the people feel supported and secure in their opportunities and the opportunities for their children, they will come back which also brings tax revenue and improvements.
I don’t think it makes sense for the central government to directly start shifting large amounts of tax money that no one is going to use. Sure, they could start improving infrastructure and stuff in many rural areas, but if 50 people live there and that number is declining, it’s a waste of money. It only makes sense to help do anything other than basic upkeep if people are coming or it could concretely be shown to increase the chance of people coming. Again, with jobs and future outlook, that’s not happening.
This only goes so far. Look at how built out Tokyo is (including into Chiba, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Saitama, etc. I already know people who commute 1.5 hours or more to work. The more affordable housing is further away, and often of very poor quality with paper-thin walls, causing people to lose 3-4 hours of their day in commute. That’s insane. It’s also not like public transit can be increased quickly enough to do anything about this either.
You might argue that the answer is more highrises. The problem is that those tend to go for more and price people, dis-proportionally the elderly and those on fixed income. They also take a long time to build and create new logistics issue with garbage management and other things. Not unsolvable, but I still feel like it’s trying to force many people to live where they ultimately don’t want to.
yeah i think that this is the most important issue. we cannot just assume where people want to live. we have to ask them. there needs to be proper data about how many people want to live in which region. then, based on that, construction and infrastructure development should happen, in the countryside / city.
The national government has plenty of money. And investing in these communities would generate permanent employment, such that more young people would live there.
But the politics of the county resists this kind of investment, because it isn’t immediately profitable.
Shit, pay me and I’ll emigrate to Japan in a heartbeat.