[presentation]

Uhh, maybe US cities haven’t, but here in Tokyo I never smell feces, step on needles, nor are there hordes of homeless people in every major part of the neighborhood, in a city that has affordable housing, a truly phenomenal public transit network, streets that pretty much never have potholes, and endless cultural and culinary amenities, in a place with GDP per capita far lower than SF. And it similarly was the case for pretty much every city I’ve been to in East Asia, so it’s not even just a Tokyo thing.

I was active in SF housing politics when I lived there for 8 years, and my conclusion is that SF and most other US cities incompetent local governments (SF’s especially) are stuck in a mindset where they still repeatedly declare that they’re “great!” despite their blatantly subpar infrastructure and the rampant, systematic trampling of their own citizens human rights. Perhaps it is great for the elderly voters who never leave their homes in the burbs and see the “undesirables”.

They make excuses about how US culture makes tried and true solutions in other cities impossible to implement (So... are they saying US culture is just inferior?), and that things will get better just around the corner (when it costs 10x more and takes 10x longer to make any updates to the built infrastructure in US cities than anywhere else, and SF itself has built virtually nothing in the last 40 years).

Maybe it will, but I decided for myself that I’m not willing to wait around for it, and chose one of the countless cities in the world that in fact does do better.

[csomar]

I don't think you are reading the parent poster. Tokyo was probably rubble in 1945 then it re-invented itself into a world-class city.

Hong Kong was (probably still is for now) a world class city for the rich and the free and now is on path to become a hell-hole for both.

Cities swing through a pendulum of up and down. SF might be going to ruins but it'll be back. It might have to reach rock-bottom first before re-inventing itself though.

[9nGQluzmnq3M]

Property is extremely expensive in HK, so it's long been a hell-hole for the poor: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/05/the-coffin-homes-o...

That said, the city does not have visible homeless or crime problems of most large US cities, partly because you can legally get a coffin for $300/month.

[rtlfe]

> That said, the city does not have visible homeless or crime problems of most large US cities.

Why not? Are there support systems to give people shelter and reduce the need for crimes of desperation?

[9nGQluzmnq3M]

Hong Kong has an imperfect but subsistence-level dole system (CSSA), coffin house style bad but cheap housing (notably absent in SF), less of a drug problem, and a more functional system for taking care of the mentally ill.

[eru]

Yes, it would be interesting to see what would happen if SF legalised housing again.

[kgin]

Tokyo absolutely took advantage of that clean slate, but San Francisco's issues don't seem to be related to physical infrastructure.

[presentation]

You kidding me? Physical infrastructure is absolutely central to the issue. Demand to live in SF skyrocketed but the city responded by resisting any expansion of its housing stock. To claim that doesn’t have an impact on the affordability in the city, which in turn affects whether or not people can afford to live in a home there, is madness.

[kgin]

https://medium.com/land-buildings-identity-and-values/what-i...

> Tokyo could be the rare example of a once expensive city that successfully managed the difficult political process of removing planning restrictions in order to achieve affordable housing.

They didn't achieve affordable housing as a result of a clean slate. In fact housing in Tokyo was insanely expensive during the 80s. It wasn't until zoning restrictions were changed in the 90s that prices came back down. It's about the laws, not about having to contend with old buildings.

[electriclove]

How did you make the move? Are you Japanese or Asian? I would love to move to Tokyo or similar but feel I would be discriminated against for being a dark skinned Indian male.

[presentation]

I’m half southeast Asian, which is different enough people can tell if they get close, but close enough that I can blend in in a crowd. It depends where in Japan you’re moving to as well - but being in Tokyo it’s definitely global and people are generally used to foreigners. Your mileage may vary being more visibly “different”, as well as you motivation to learn Japanese/local customs (I’m pretty conversational, which took a lot of work), and your sensitivity to being treated differently - though for me I mostly don’t take it personally.

[electriclove]

Thanks for the response. I think I wouldn't be too sensitive regarding being treated different but I would feel more sensitive to how my wife and kids experience it. It's the same issue keeping me away from places in the US like Idaho and Montana.

[osdiab]

Oh, I didn't answer the how - I had been to Japan a lot, so I already had friends here. When I made the move permanent, I had cofounded a company with a few friends, piloted doing remote work from here a couple times before actually moving to convince the team that it can work. Once we were all onboard with it, I crashed at my friend's apartment while going apartment hunting with my Japanese then-girlfriend (now-wife). When I first arrived permanently I was on a tourist visa waiver, but then switched to a student visa studying Japanese (since I was planning to anyway). It was 6 months of full time school + full time job which was exhausting, but after we got married then I switched to a spouse visa and life calmed down since.

I don't know what your profession or situation is, but if you can line up a job you can pretty easily get a work visa (it's much less binding than US work visas). Japanese corporations are known to have pretty brutal work culture so that's something you ought to be aware of when searching, if you seriously pursue it. Hope it's interesting food for thought :)

[bart_spoon]

You should probably consider if your own fears are biased. There seems to be a tendency to assume that racism is more prevalent than reality in many areas of the country, fueled by the internet and the media. I live in a suburban, Midwestern area that is absolutely more diverse and welcoming than those on the coasts seem to think. Of the 6 households nearest to mine, 3 are white. The other 3 are Indian (first generation immigrant), Chinese (second generation), and Eastern European (first generation). I work at a smaller startup now, but at my previous job, my team was white-minority. Most people on my team were East or South Asian, including my boss.

I have no doubt there are racists here, especially in the rural areas. But I also have no doubt that the same holds true for places like California and Washington. You may be keeping yourself from experiencing areas of the country that you may love and would love you back.

[electriclove]

I appreciate your comment. I grew up in the Bay Area in the late 70s and 80s and even then there was plenty of diversity. But I was definitely treated differently/bullied due to my background. I don't think this will happen to my kids in the Bay nowadays (or at least not to that extent). But I guess I am a bit biased in thinking other parts of the country are not so progressive. I'll keep your perspective in mind and temper my assumptions. Thanks!

[selectodude]

Not all of us have the opportunity to just up and leave the US, unfortunately.

[osdiab]

I hope US cities wake up, become humble, and actually try to fix the deep hole of social issues they’ve dug themselves into. Best I can say is be active and vocal in your local government, since that’s where these messed up policies come from and you have a lot more power to impact your city than you do the federal government.

[asveikau]

Is it really cities that dug the hole?

What about the fact that, nation-wide, many Americans don't have access to good jobs? Especially people without college degrees, but not even limited to that. This is an economy-wide problem. The federal government could probably do something to better address that than a city government.

How about that we generally fail at mental health care, or health care in general? The former is clearly applicable to many homeless folks who are visibly suffering. The latter is a huge cost for many people, drives many personal bankruptcies, etc.

[osdiab]

I do believe city governments play an enormous role in these issues; the most obvious is the ridiculous and convoluted process for housing approvals in SF that has made it impossible for the city to come even close to providing adequate housing supply for the people that wish to live there, driving housing costs through the roof; coupled with the incessant stonewalling of any housing and transportation construction by municipalities across the Bay. Plus the fact that people dedicated to perpetuating this atrocious system keep getting elected to the the SF Board of Supervisors, no thanks to young people who would benefit from competition failing to show up to the elections.

But I also place a lot of blame on state policies too - CA Prop 13 is a cancer on the whole state, incentivizing land owners to fight tooth and nail to prevent progress. I'm glad that Scott Wiener got elected, though, as he's been making solid progress at the state level to rectify these issues.

The roots of these problems are not broadly federal in my opinion and, while they certainly can help, there's a lot of work to do at the city and state level that are achievable with a small number of dedicated people - if only they cared.

Neither would I just blame the sorry state of US cities on inadequate mental health care - while healthcare broadly certainly should be better, I'm in Japan where mental health awareness is relatively speaking in the stone age compared to SF, and that hasn't resulted in the level of human tragedy you experience viscerally by existing for 5 minutes in any of the US's major metropolises. Part of the reason for that is I can get my own apartment without roommates 15 minutes from the center of Tokyo for $600/mo, largely because the local government here actually does things to make it livable (and it's not just here, it's practically everywhere besides US cities).

[selectodude]

Our cities have the power but due to the way things are funded here, they simply don’t have the money to actually fix stuff.

[BurningFrog]

San Francisco's budget is $12B/year.

[lotsofpulp]

And that won’t go very far if they started to offer free mental health care and housing because they will start to get people shipped in from everywhere else.

[BurningFrog]

Providing housing need not cost the city anything. They just have to stop banning construction.