I'm all for reducing permit requirements, but realisitically these would be used by McDo and Starbux to externalize more costs while increasing their quarterly profit. Really, you need to have something that is trusted and rational without corporate corruption, which Japan nominally is. The US is going the opposite direction from that.
It's my understanding that houses in Japan are zoned to allow a percentage of the space to be used for a low-impact business, like the coffee shop in the article, and that bigger businesses are allowed on the bigger roads and in dedicated commercial/industrial districts. Also most houses can be converted to triplexes, too. This helps with density, encouraging more businesses nearby, less need for cars, better quality of social life, etc.
I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways.
I wondered if Japan does anything along those lines to avoid the problems you mentioned, but google ain't what it used to be and I wasn't able to find specifics.
- In the "Control of Building Use by Land Use Zones" you can see how even the most exclusive of zoning enables "Houses with other small scale function", Clinics, Schools or stores with very small footprints.
- Structures are restricted by the shape, shadow, and floor area.
- No mention of "single-family" housing.
A map (of Tokyo) overlaying the gradient of zoning from least to most permissive. You can see how the up-zoning follows the major roads:
https://tokyochizu.github.io/zoning.html
> I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways.
This isn't actually possible because owning a lot of houses is not a good business. That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. Houses are depreciating assets, so if you own more of them it's just more chances you'll have to pay for a roof replacement.
In particular in Japan, houses are worth less than nothing and you may have to pay to demolish yours if you sell it! (Less true than it used to be because construction quality has gotten a lot better.)
I am not here to nit pick about this post, but this made me think:
> owning a lot of houses is not a good business
Generally, I agree. What do you think makes commercial (office) buildings different? Probably 90% are owned by insurance companies, private equity, and pension funds. My guess: Scale matters. Also, maybe I am blinded by big cities, but second tier cities and below might have lots of small fry landlords that own one or two small commercial buildings
"Ownership of the nation’s rental housing stock is in transition. The approximately twenty million rental properties in the United States, and fifty million rental units within those properties, have been steadily shifting from individual to corporate hands".
Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve.
Missing the point. As long as an area has a shortage of housing rentals will likely remain a good investment.
That said I have to disagree that the housing shortage is difficult to solve, at least in a technical sense. It's due almost entirely to poor urban planning and infrastructure management. The problem is entirely political.
Then again, political issues can be some of the most difficult to make progress on so perhaps I agree after all.
I understand that to be one of the differences in approach to zoning, zones and buildings are considered on a spectrum of "impact". A high impact building like an industrial plant shouldn't be too close to low impact buildings like a single dwelling. But because it's a spectrum you get a natural mix of low, medium, and high impact buildings. A large residential complex might be considered medium impact and so can go next to a shopping complex that is also medium to high impact etc.
I would imagine that a great deal of Tokyo's megalopolis fits nicely in the medium impact zone, allowing housing, small scale manufacturing and commerce to mingle in an organic way.
It's kind of the other way around: McDonalds will find a way to operate in pretty much any kind of environment. They have the deep pockets and knowledge to do so. They have restaurants across the world, including in very tricky places like Venice, Italy.
It's the small, local guy who with low margins who is not going to thrive in an environment where it's very difficult to get past all the hurdles to even start up.
> They have restaurants across the world, including in very tricky places like Venice, Italy.
You raise a great point. Their internal property consulting unit must be incredibly sophisticated, mixing international best practices with local, specialised knowledge. It would be interesting to hear some detail about how McD's selects their locations.
Vietnam has so much street food and coffee shops that McD and Starbucks cannot compete. That being said, Vietnamese zoning is pure anarchy and it would be too much for any Western country.
It’s weird, I’ve travelled for work and pleasure more than pretty much anyone I meet (I’ve visited 90 countries, worked in 21, lived longer term in 5. Currently settled West Coast US) and I’m somewhat of a fast food connoisseur lol - KFC, Domino’s, BK, Pizza Hut, etc are all without exception better in Europe and Asia with the exception of ,in my opinion , McDonalds. Maccies is better here as a rule. Sure you get the shitty franchisees sometimes but generally speaking!
This is a semi controversial opinion so, it’s interesting you feel the same way!
It's not a big difference but Japanese burgers are smaller (of course) but the buns aren't small enough. So there's just way too much bread in my experience.
Also, US has a mango pineapple smoothie that's really good. I refuse to look up how much sugar is in it.
American city planners influenced the construction of an elevated highway through the middle of Seoul in South Korea. Years later, that monstrosity was demolished.
https://youtu.be/wqGxqxePihE
It's not really the planners given that planners have no real power and just do what they're told. The problem is that the elected decision makers are beaten down by established rich homeowners and shy away from and all conflict. So we have a cascade of shy conflict aversion as lazy and uninterested elected officials defer endlessly to planners, and planners who don't want to cause drama for their elected bosses and get themselves fired capitulate and do the safe thing that the wealthy established homeowner class pushes for.
