[masklinn]

> We need more of this in the western world.

AFAIK EU zonings are not significantly (if at all) more complex than Japanese zoning, the US are the stand-out there with a constellation of byzantine exclusive zonings. I do know for certain that both french and german zoning are national/federal policy and (quite necessarily) mixed-use.

So it would probably be a good thing to unfuck US zoning (good luck with that though), but it can not be the "true essence" of the article.

My reading is not that the meat is "simple zoning" but:

1. Japanese people don't have "mandatory fantasies" of single-occupancy dwellings, and people are fine with living in good multi-family dwellings (apartments), note that the average Tokyoite dwelling is 64 sq m (690 sq ft)

2. Japanese people don't value buildings[0], only land

3. Which means tearing down buildings and replacing them is normal and expected

4. Which (combined with residential zoning concepts) means it's easy and common to redevelop low-density dwellings (single-occupancy and low-density 1~2 storeys apartment buildings) into higher-density ones, the graphs in the middle of the article could hardly be clearer there with single-occupancy dwellings having remained roughly flat but 3~5 and 6+ storey buildings having skyrocketed (alongside the number of homes having increased much faster than residential land acreage)

Simplifying zoning codes is not going to make Europe — let alone the US — adopt these mentalities.

[0] personal ones, family/clan homes & temples are a different case

[mseebach]

Both London and Copenhagen, the cities I have a bit of first hand experience with, may not have ridiculous zoning rules, but heritage listings are ubiquitous and seems to be very broadly applied. One place I worked, a low-level listed building, in central Copenhagen, we couldn't place an air conditioning unit for a server room on the exterior wall of an interior courtyard (the company occupied the entirety of the courtyard, so it's not an issue of the neighbours). Anecdotally, many other listing restrictions made it nearly infeasible to make the space suitable for a modern office. The block of flats I lived in was mildly architecturally remarkable (for being the first instance of a style that since was very popular, so not rare), and so listed. Getting permission to develop the attic space into flats took years and cost a fortune in legal costs (and meant that we hit the 2008 crash and had to abandon the project). The reason for listing was the particular plan of the blocks in a parallel north/south layout to maximise light in the flat, it has absolutely nothing to do with the exterior visual style of the blocks, but that was what the listing board took a very detailed interest in.

In London, views to St. Paul's Cathedral from a number of points around the city are listed, which apparently has made it nearly impossible (it's unlikely that it's the only reason, though) to build tall buildings where they would have mattered the most. London, of course, also has the green belt zoning restriction which also doesn't do house prices any favours, but doesn't explain why density in the more central parts of the city is so low.

Listings certainly serve a purpose in retaining some living history and culture, but in places it feels like the pendulum has swung all the way to making parts of the city into museum.

[cdavid]

Indeed, I am a bit puzzled by the recent articles claiming Japan is housing heaven. There are a few things to keep in mind w.r.t. housing in Japan, and especially in Tokyo:

1. Buying houses is still very expensive. One of the reason it is "affordable" is because mortgages are low.

2. Housing is not a capital asset in Japan, but effectively a consumable good. As soon as you buy a house, the value get depreciated. I don't know the current numbers, but 10 years ago, the value of a house depreciated to nothing in 15 years.

3. This is one of the main reason why Japanese save so much, which has consequences on the economy.

4. The housing quality is terrible. Unless you can afford living in condos/high rise buildings/custom made houses, sound/heat isolation is non existent, amenities are not that great either. This is mostly caused by land high price: when you buy a house, 80+% of the cost is the land. Which explains 2. and 3.

IOW, I would not put too much on the cultural difference: there are fundamental reasons why buildings are not valued, which is linked to the exorbitant cost of land in cities, especially in Tokyo, because of the paucity of land in Japan. Japan has 130 millions people living in 250000 km2, 80% of which is not usable for housing. There are also a lot of regulations on the land itself: https://www.nri.com/global/opinion/papers/2008/pdf/np2008137...

[mabbo]

> Japanese people don't value buildings[0], only land

This is becoming true in most of the housing-is-too-expensive cities of North America. In my neighbourhood in Toronto, most houses that weren't built in the last 20 years would be torn down immediately when bought so that a new monster mansion can be built. The plot of land is worth millions- but mainly because there's such a low supply of housing.

The trick is to build tall to multiply the amount of land. Otherwise, you get the horrendous situation Silicon Valley is in.