That bit about Tokyo eating itself just as it ate the country is accurate and depressing at the same time.
Thanks for ending with something hopeful. Making our new version of the city at the margins is where folks interested in community, quality of life, sustainability, creativity, etc... should gravitate to. So much is possible when we get out of that deep deep water.
Well but isnt it also one of the amazing features of Japanese cities that development in "mature" areas in fact does happen and therefore the offerings are more competitive and affordable? So maybe the developers and buyers should decide, when enough is enough? Compared to let us say London, SF Bay Area etc, where Real Estate owners and Nimbys capture all the value of economic growth in recent years?
Not to confuse with the continued waste in "public works" projects in Japan...
Thanks for reading. Sure, I agree with you that as a prescription for what ails western cities, Japanese development is superior to the over-regulated conditions that prevail there. However, the main reason I wrote this post was because Tokyo is often trotted out as a counterpoint to Western urbanist debates about NIMBYism, etc. If I were to suggest what housing-starved cities in North America should do today, it would be close to what Tokyo has done for the past 75 years, but the issue I wanted to point out is that a future of demographic decline presents a different set of problems.
Going forward, the micro-level incentives to redevelop no longer necessarily align with the health of the macro urban system, in the sense that overdevelopment in some areas accelerates the decline of other areas. I also think the reality is more complex than just the workings of free-market dynamics and people "voting with their feet." Redevelopment is incentivized through a number of laws, financial instruments, and cultural and social norms. In a different institutional context, an urban political economy that was more aligned with the demographics of post-growth society should emerge.
That bit about Tokyo eating itself just as it ate the country is accurate and depressing at the same time.
Thanks for ending with something hopeful. Making our new version of the city at the margins is where folks interested in community, quality of life, sustainability, creativity, etc... should gravitate to. So much is possible when we get out of that deep deep water.
Well but isnt it also one of the amazing features of Japanese cities that development in "mature" areas in fact does happen and therefore the offerings are more competitive and affordable? So maybe the developers and buyers should decide, when enough is enough? Compared to let us say London, SF Bay Area etc, where Real Estate owners and Nimbys capture all the value of economic growth in recent years?
Not to confuse with the continued waste in "public works" projects in Japan...
Thanks for reading. Sure, I agree with you that as a prescription for what ails western cities, Japanese development is superior to the over-regulated conditions that prevail there. However, the main reason I wrote this post was because Tokyo is often trotted out as a counterpoint to Western urbanist debates about NIMBYism, etc. If I were to suggest what housing-starved cities in North America should do today, it would be close to what Tokyo has done for the past 75 years, but the issue I wanted to point out is that a future of demographic decline presents a different set of problems.
Going forward, the micro-level incentives to redevelop no longer necessarily align with the health of the macro urban system, in the sense that overdevelopment in some areas accelerates the decline of other areas. I also think the reality is more complex than just the workings of free-market dynamics and people "voting with their feet." Redevelopment is incentivized through a number of laws, financial instruments, and cultural and social norms. In a different institutional context, an urban political economy that was more aligned with the demographics of post-growth society should emerge.