From the video, I laughed at the comments of hearing the other tenants.
With my windows open in Sapporo Japan during the summer I can here conversations clearly. I think from the floor below, guessing it bounces off the next building which is but a couple meters away. I know every time the baby wakes wet. During the winter with double windows I don't hear as much but I do hear my neighbor belting out the songs in the shower. Like the commentator in the video, it does create a sense of connectivity. If he's happily singing in the shower then I'm happy for him and it makes me smile every time.
However it makes me a little self conscious and I try to be quiet as possible.
Also very surprised to see a guitar in the video. Most agencies will ask if you have instruments and likely deny or limit your apartment choices.
The thing that really jumps at me is: don't get injured, disabled or just old. If you're going to have problems with ladders you're going to have problems living like this.
On the other hand, some things that take a lot of space are easier to replace these days. Books? I have a lot but I'm not buying a lot of physical books these days. Video collections? How many DVDs have you bought in the past year? TVs are thin, headphones are common, no need for that big multimedia cabinet that used to hold a TV, stereo and media storage.
This is also going to tend to push some people towards "third spaces" for socializing with friends. There's a very active Starbucks near me that's open until midnight, always packed, and which in addition to a bunch of tables full of laptops has several divided off areas with armchairs that regularly have small groups chatting.
Things don't take up much space in themselves, activities do. What you lose when living smaller aren't the things themselves, but a kitchen were it is easy to cook healthy food, a kitchen table to discuss politics at or a workbench were you can leave your tools out. There isn't really much of a replacement for those spaces. While I do think some American concepts are outdated the idea of having capabilities in things like a larger home and a car wasn't unfounded. One of the best ways to not be part of something is simply to miss it. Having a lower standard of living is one easy way to do that. It tends to be hard to explain way things happen, but fairly easy to explain why they don't. People not having the time or space for them tends to be a common one. (Of course it is still always hard for people to accept). The 'next big thing' is unlikely to be created at starbucks. They will be created at kitchen tables and in garages and bedrooms like they always have been. Because that is where you don't have to ask anyone for permission.
> Because that is where you don't have to ask anyone for permission
Some cities have hscker or maker spaces, but the result is similar (at least what I've seen) : you can't leave you stuff out (it'll get stolen), make too much noise etc. Nothing like a garage where no one will get on you for cutting bricks with a chainsaw.
More simply we miss paying some bills by living in a small apartment where there's not room enough for a desk to out to do that so they end up on the kitchen table covered with kids' spaghetti etc
There is of course also the opposite problem of having a lot of space but ending up in essentially a house size cubicle without connection to other people.
But it seems like the larger problem today is that it is hard for people to wrap their heads around that when something becomes available, or even common, whatever enables or let's you explore it becomes more important.
It used to be that to be a musician you had to end up in a studio or a stage (or at least in lessons or rehearsals). People would fly across the world for auditions and recordings. Today everyone can have their studio or even stage at home. But that makes your home so much more important. If you don't have the space, the time, if it is too costly, not connected to a community or unstable then it is a lot harder to become a musician.
And that isn't just true for something like being a musician but everyday things like cooking, reading or exercise were we now have more possibilities than ever. Virtual cycling is for example a thing now.
Within reason, check out what your local library may have. It's not going to be a workshop, but some of the same kind of things have been showing up at local libraries as they shift to meet changing usage patterns.
Coffee shops being third spaces more than half a thousand years old, starting from coffee shops alongside the Bosphorus in Istanbul in 1400s, before it jumps to Italy via the merchants of Genoa and Venice.
Coffee shop + armchairs you mention is also a time-honoured tradition: the TV show ‘Friends’ is effectively just a camera pinned to that armchair. It’s probably the most famous TV series in the whole western world. People don’t change all that much!
> The thing that really jumps at me is: don't get injured, disabled or just old. If you're going to have problems with ladders
People with desk jobs often forget this, but that's true of a lot of work, too. If I couldn't climb a ladder, I couldn't do my job. Now, I probably won't be doing this when I'm 80, but I don't want to live every day of my life as if I'm the weakest I'll ever be. Desk jobs and comfy ramblers will still be around when I'm old (or disabled) and can't climb any more.
> This is also going to tend to push some people towards "third spaces" for socializing with friends. There's a very active Starbucks near me
I love "third places" in principle, but I find it funny how many people spend all day sipping coffee in front of a computer ... and then to socialize with friends at night, they go to a place where they pay to sit at a computer sipping coffee. I guess if that's what you love doing, go for it. As Ken Robinson said, "They look upon their body as a form of transport for their heads."
> I don't want to live every day of my life as if I'm the weakest I'll ever be
But even if you're completely healthy and in great shape, you can have an accident or illness that makes you temporarily unable to climb a ladder. If you broke your leg one day, or came down with a nasty flu or stomach virus, would you want to be living in a place where you needed to climb a ladder to travel between your bed and your bathroom? Nobody is healthy 100% of the time.
> Books? I have a lot but I'm not buying a lot of physical books these days. Video collections? How many DVDs have you bought in the past year?
This is observation is unfortunately woefully irrelevant to Tokyo. CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray are still very much alive and kicking in Japan. Tower Records never closed shop, and Tsutaya (the local equivalent of blockbuster) has stores everywhere. I don't have statistics, but physical books (especially Manga) also seem more popular.
Few architects consider how easily sound can travel in residential buildings - from nearby buildings and closely-spaced balconies for example. Many apartment blocks have adjoining balconies with light partitions that do nothing to dampen sound. The result is having to listen to every neighbour above, below, to your left, and to the right. It's even worse when sound proofing is poor inside the apartment complex.
> Like the commentator in the video, it does create a sense of connectivity.
And/or absolute hell for eg people with difficulty sleeping or early schedules.
Also makes you realise how many weirdoes wear hard shoes and heels inside. Though I guess that’s less likely in Japan given the strong cultural separation between inside and outside.
I've had insomnia most of my life and am an incredibly light sleeper (not helped by health issues) and the best thing I've found for cutting out background noise when it can't be avoided is silicone earplugs (the type you use for swimming), they are soft, pliable so easily inserted/removed and quickly warm up to body temperature so you forget they are installed (enough that I've made it to work a few times with them in).
Earplugs are for hearing protection; they will cut damaging volumes down to merely loud, but not interfere with perception that much. What matters is the relationship of the signal to the noise floor, and masking is a lot more effective. A box fan works for me.
I also have the same issues, but tinnitus on top which makes earplugs unusable for me as they amplify the condition. I've kind of resigned to my fate at this point.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bio-Ears-Silicone-EarPlugs-Protecti... I use these, they are big enough you can split one plug in half and use them for a few nights so I get a couple of weeks out of a box, own brand ones are no worse, boots in the uk does them at about half the price.
Honestly though they are cheap at 5 times the price for a good nights sleep.
> Most agencies will ask if you have instruments and likely deny or limit your apartment choices.
I would absolutely lie if I were asked about it. I don't play any instruments in my apartment except a keyboard with headphones, but I do have a lot of instruments.
How do you like living in Sapporo? I loved my time there through there but found it really hard to find anyone else doing tech. I even resorted to walking around the CS building at Hokkaido University just to see what was going on.
Hoping to come back to Niseko this coming season if you want to meet up!
Very Coasean. The agent who can most easily change the costs of a behavior internalizes it in a functioning market. Instead of neighbors being force to suffer the guitar playing, the effects are removed (via soundproofing) and the guitar player pays the premium.
Who are you to decide how people live their own lives? Sure, if Japan started trying to fund apartment blocks of these places in your country, maybe you could get pissed. But if these people choose these lives, there's no need to label it as plight.
These regulations don’t impose “basic standards.” They take away the choices of people of limited means. (Instead of living in a small house, commute forever from the suburbs.)
No, rich yuppies can still afford to live near work. It’s the service workers that can’t find affordable small housing, and then need to spend an hour each way on the train to get to their jobs.
You can’t impose “minimum standards” for housing by fiat any more than you can make a plane fly by regulatory directive. That idea displays a level of ignorance comparable to flat eatherism. All you can do is push on the balloon—and when you do, it’ll bulge out somewhere else. In the context of housing, that means if you make it illegal to build housing for poor people in places wit jobs, you’ll either make them homeless, unemployed, or you’ll saddle them with long commutes from places with affordable housing.
>You can’t impose “minimum standards” for housing by fiat
Of course you can. This is precisely how the modern world operates.
>any more than you can make a plane fly by regulatory directive.
This honestly sounds like a childish understanding of governance. How you can compare two entirely different things? Aerospace is perhaps the most regulated mode of transport than I can think of. Planes are, quite literally, kept flying by regulatory directive. I'm embarrassed for myself that I need to stoop to explain such a fundamental working of the world.
>That idea displays a level of ignorance comparable to flat eatherism. All you can do is push on the balloon—and when you do, it’ll bulge out somewhere else.
I think you've either got a lot of reading to do or you're a young person who's been inculcated with a juvenile ideology. In either case you need to rid yourself of this simplistic world view.
>In the context of housing, that means if you make it illegal to build housing for poor people in places wit jobs, you’ll either make them homeless, unemployed, or you’ll saddle them with long commutes from places with affordable housing.
You need to have more imagination here. Most countries manage this just fine.
Those people would have a two or even three-hour commute otherwise. They chose to sacrifice space to save time and energy. Most workers wasting 10+ hours in a car or public transportation don't get to choose.
Yeah that much is obvious. The job is untenable unless it's commutable. Just move the job out of Tokyo instead of requiring such a ludicrous "sacrifice".
This is prioritising having a very short commute in Tokyo over anything else. It's a good thing that such an option exists.
A few years back in London, I had friends living in small house/flat shares in Zone 1 who would be paying the same amount as I did for an entire 1 bedroom further out.
I didn't want to have flatmates, they saw it as an acceptable compromise.
The majority of people I speak to outside of the big city bubble see living in flats/apartments at all as subpar/odd. It's a compromise for city living.
I totally agree. It makes me irrationally mad that some cities like London and Los Angeles enact policies meant to prevent small apartments on a pretense of lofty words, completely ignorant to the fact that commute distance is one of the largest factors in one's happiness and well-being.
This is one of the best examples of "no skin in the game" decision making, as the vast majority of decision makers live in relative comfort and it costs them almost nothing to pass this type of policies which signal value, don't have immediate obviously bad effect and are not strongly opposed by anyone. However, the cost is paid by the countless people who spend hours in traffic and, consequently, the environment.
It gets worse than that. With a minimum unit size you remove options for people who otherwise might not be able to afford a dwelling at all. Yeah, housing further away from the city is probably cheaper, but now you likely need a car to get to your job which again not everyone can afford to buy and maintain.
I recently saw a report that showed an older man who worked as a dishwasher in Hong Kong. He lived in what could be described as the upper half of a bunk bed in a closet. Certainly undesirable, but definitely better than homelessness.
I don't think that is right. What happens is that homes get built to be in compliance with minimum size regulations. Just as employment opportunities change to be in compliance with labor regulations. Neither minimum wage nor maximum work hour limits have removed options from workers.
Pretty much any zoning policy is based on protecting incumbents over newcomers.
I'm slowly coming around to the idea that trying to move to a major city is just daft unless you're very wealthy. You're intentionally choosing to compete on a stage that you don't have to compete in and there are generally huge stacks of rules set up to ensure that it's difficult for you to do so.
> Pretty much any zoning policy is based on protecting incumbents over newcomers.
And why shouldn’t it? They’re already living there, paying taxes, participating in the economy, and participating in the community. Everyone else, however, only might live there. There’s no guarantee.
“My friends and I would make much better use of your grand piano than you do, so it should be taken from you and given to us.”
Because you shouldnt get to tell me how I live and the size of an apartment I should live in.
If I want to live in an 80 square foot box, as long as I'm keeping it clean and safe, you really shouldn't have a say in it just because you have a place down the street.
One of the worst parts of democracy is the deletion of individual rights and the majority telling the minority how they should live.
If nobody had ever been kicked out of their normal apartment after having their rent artificially raised to build those 80 sqft apartments, I might agree with you. If nobody had ever had their house forclosed for the “greater good” and had efficiency apartments put in their place, I might agree with you.
Both of these scenarios have happened. I don’t agree with you. This isn’t democracy in action, this is fighting back against unrestrained capitalism which would make everyone’s living conditions equally miserable in an effort to extract the most money possible out of them.
And as an aside, it’s not as if the apartment owners have no say in the process either; its worth wondering why they aren’t throwing their considerable power around as well.
>I totally agree. It makes me irrationally mad that some cities like London and Los Angeles enact policies meant to prevent small apartments on a pretense of lofty words, completely ignorant to the fact that commute distance is one of the largest factors in one's happiness and well-being.
Meanwhile all of northern England suffers from underemployment. The obvious solution is to not concentrate jobs in one place. It makes me irrationally angry that people can't see the obvious solution when it's staring them in the face.
If most of your jobs revolve around serving those with money, in person, then they're going to be centered around wealthy areas.
That's as far as I see it how the UK has evolved. Basically everyone with money lives in London or the Home Counties, so service employment is heavily biased towards there.
I don't see how you can fix that without forcibly moving people.
Economies of scale and knowledge spillovers cause large labor markets to be more productive than smaller ones, and thus not trying to concentrate jobs will be an uphill battle. Increasing mobility in areas with more unemployment will probably be more effective.
They consider that 'micro' accommodation is exploitative and have minimum surface area regulations, all of this while having a rhetorics about "affordable housing"...
In my opinion they should focus on enforcing standards and amenities and let people be creative on the rest.
For example, there are very creative things being done in Asia (e.g. Hongkong, Japan) that create comfortable, modern flats in very small spaces by using sliding, folding, and making use of the whole volume.
The UK as a whole does not care about housing policy (and by extension the wellbeing of the population at large).
In the mid 20th century we engaged in a huge campaign of housebuilding, the result being that my relatively poor family were able to rent a terraced house with garden front and back for decades. I owe pretty much everything to that.
Today? Nothing.
Local governments don't care, landowners don't care, the national government doesn't care, no-one is seriously protesting, it's just not a thing.
I'm considering moving out of the country soon, and if I do, this will be the number one reason - we've basically gone back to a feudal society in which you either already own property, or else you fight over increasingly small scraps.
My best understanding of why this is happening is that this is all based on some sort of silly ponzi game in which everyone pretends that their home is worth lots of pictures of the queen's face, and when the majority landowning generation retires, they'll all swap houses and somehow loads of money and labour will appear from somewhere to look after them.
It's not just the UK -- housing prices are rising everywhere. I think it's a consequence of low interest rates. Because interest rates are so low, people can afford a 30 year mortage -- nobody would have been able to afford the interest rates on this in the 80ies or 90ies. This means that property owners can now ask for insane prices, and someone will pay them.
Also, since interest rates on savings accounts are practically zero, people look to real estate as a safe investment -- further driving housing prices.
House prices are just a matter of allocation; deciding in the competition whether you or I get to live in a small or large place; or indeed any place (tempered by our preferences on % of income/wealth to spend on housing).
Nah, I'm talking about the actual existence of places to live. We used to _build new places_ all over the place, speculatively.
The local and national governments used massive plots of land to build huge estates.
We stopped doing that. The numbers and prices and stuff are besides the point. The home that I am currently occupying will, barring nationalization or excessive tax, be in my family for the next 60 years. The price of it is essentially irrelevant. What matters is that it exists, as one house which homes one family.
I think the population of UK increased a lot since mid 20th century, while the land is the same, increasing the population density and competition for resources, driving prices up. Economy 101.
In London the population decreased throughout the second half of the 20th century and has only recently reached its previous peak of the early 1950s.
Outside of London there are many areas were real estate price are low.
The main issues in the UK are that most of the jobs are around London and that the public transports infrastructure is poor (actually even roads) yet expensive. So many people end having to live around London while paying up to £500 a month to commute on unreliable trains.
Another issue is that flats are frowned upon and usually poor quality.
At first I thought that looked pretty bad, then I saw the price. ~740USD per month, and it’s enabling young single people who only earn $1800-2400/mo to live in the city near their jobs.
Beyond just enabling lower income people a place to live, if you had dorms like that available in SF for $740/mo I think you’d have a long, long line of young tech workers signing up to move in.
In the US, trading a very long commute for lower housing costs is widely understood and socially acceptable, I wonder why trading a tiny space for low rent and a short commute isn’t.
>In the US, trading a very long commute for lower housing costs is widely understood and socially acceptable, I wonder why trading a tiny space for low rent and a short commute isn’t.
Because it's a race to the bottom. In EU society minimum standards of accommodation are socially acceptable. Allowing people to exploit the desperate to all possible extents is anathema to any humane values.
Japan is already a caricature of extremist employee exploitation. It's not something to emulate. I wonder why such a basic observation of the situation isn't obvious to people "in the US".
I'd gladly trade the shared 900sq ft I pay ~$400 to rent for something smaller but as far as I can tell I can't really rent anything cheaper in the entire united states.
My roommate and I don't even know what to do with our living room. Spend money filling up a space we don't actually care about? Nah, we've just been collecting free shit to throw in there because we really don't care.
Thanks for keeping me from being 'exploited' though.
Trouble with Tokyo is not the rents - it's the absurd move-in charge (often running into 5-6 times the rent). You can generally find apartments for cheap (~$750) for either a shared house, or a full blown apartment with appliances. Trouble is that these apartments, though in Tokyo are often one train away from Yamanote, which makes the commute interesting. Of course, if you commute by bicycle, none of this matters.
I think it's important to realize that, and it's mentioned in the video linked, individuals staying in these apartments are making a deliberate choice so that they can have a better commute.
I've lived in central Tokyo in a rather large 1BR running ~$2,300 per month and now reside a bit further out paying ~$1,600 for a smaller 1BR.
Many people in Tokyo live ~45 minutes commute to work (via admittedly crowded trains) and pay significantly less for reasonably sized studio apartments.
I lived in a 2 br place in Nishishinjuku. It was brand new, soundproof, had 3 floors, a rooftop terrace and I paid $2100 USD/month (225k JPY/month). About a 15 min walk from Shinjuku station, or otherwise 2 min walk to the Oedo line.
It's possible to have a decent place if you look around. Obviously a different story in the video at 80000 JPY/month (750 USD/month).
The limitations are primarily one of physics (you can't have multiple objects occupying the same space). "Sensible" isn't looking at it from the right angle. This is the largest city in the world, so of course the average person is going to have less space than elsewhere. The inhabitants of Tokyo have a much smaller ecological footprint than those living in the suburbs since they almost all use mass transit to get around. How is this not sensible?
I live in Tokyo. These apartments (9m^2) are definitely not the norm, a typical tiny apartment is 20m^2 and a typical university dorm room for 1 person is 15m^2. They are just a bit more choice on the new/close/small, old/far/larger list of housing options; they are not a widespread trend. Also, the old/far/larger options are in livable neighborhoods with good public transit. Transit is usually paid by your employer, so it makes sense that the people in the video have non-traditional jobs without that perk. Roommates are not a popular option, but other than that I find Tokyo to be quite good for low end apartment options compared to say Vancouver (do you want a close moldy basement suite with a roommate or a far moldy basement suite and car dependency?).
I work remotely as a game developer been saving a bit of money living outside a big city in the US. Tokyo/Japan has always been a dream destination for me figure if I don’t visit in the next few years while I’m flexible I may never.
Any suggestions for someone visiting that does not speak Japanese?
Smartphone with google translate should help you with most situations, but be quick and familiar with it! Rent a sim card/data plan for Google maps (or your preferred alternative). Don't be shy about asking for help. Subway staff, police officers, etc. Do master the simple basics such as Where is X, This please, etc. There are restaurants that will not have an English menu and your translation app may or may not work, however many restaurants will have displays of food with prices, and you can take a photo and simply show the photo! Shinagawa is more international, and thus you'll find more English speakers, but don't limit yourself to that Ward.
Your question was specific to Japanese language barrier, but one external suggestion: August is pretty miserable in Tokyo unless you're acclimatized to hot and humid environments, try to avoid that month.
If you're literally talking about "visiting" as in a vacation or short trip, you'll find that English works just fine and you'll be able to do/see pretty much anything, perhaps with the occasional hand gesture or momentary confusion.
Umm, no. People do not speak English unless it's hotel or airport but you have plenty of signs written in English to support moving around. People will try if you ask simple questions though.
Umm, yes. Or more properly, English plus hand gestures. We're not talking about defending a doctoral thesis here. We're talking about getting around, shopping, and eating. Every subway station has signage in English. You can point to things on a menu. Proof: millions of tourists go to Tokyo every year and very few speak Japanese.
Hey, Japan is awesome. Visiting in the winter, excl. Xmas and New Year is the best. Japanese knowledge is not needed in Tokyo. Outside, the smaller the place the less likely they will speak English. You can get around with Google Translate. Food is cheap and outstanding. Travelling is not so much - you have to be creative. :)
Check some articles here https://www.youcouldtravel.com/destinations/japan if you want to visit. Also happy to help if you have questions + lots of info online. Good luck!
It's very easy to get around, not speaking Japanese is not a huge barrier for visiting. It's also probably not as expensive as you think. As this discussion shows, there is a whole range of sizes/prices for apartments, the same is true for transportation, food, events and hotels. For a trip, I'd recommend $150/day/person but a smaller amount is possible with comprimises.
Lived 2 years in Tokyo. Could not stand it. The noise, the low ceilings (I am 1m90). Insulation seems unheard of.
Now we moved to the countryside, baby is much happier here. Can run, can jump. The teenager can finally play guitar and piano, something she had zero place to do in Tokyo. I now have a room where I can do some little electronics. Impossible in Tokyo.
Tokyo is a city that grinds lives, it is chilling to witness.
They are expensive. nd to be good at anything you need time and room to fiddle and do silly things, something you may not be comfortable doing in an overcrowded park like yoyogi.
Here she just goes into the field or in her room when she want to practice clumsily the chords she learns through youtube.
Why not. In most citys over the world, you can't really have your own apartment if you are single and in a low paid job. This way people can. And Tokyo has a great train and subway, so as long you can walk easy to a station, I think that's cool. Not forever, but why not.
Bicycling is pretty popular too (and drivers are more respectful there). So you don't even need to be dependent on rail so long as you live within some single digit kilometers of work.
To give you a concrete figure, I live in Manhattan and have a cross-town commute (i.e. takes longer than an up/downtown commute of similar length) of 3 km that takes 10 minutes. I could easily do a longer commute no problem, and it might even be good for me since I'd get more daily exercise.
I've lived in spaces this small, and smaller, but there were large common areas and the small space was only meant for sleeping and storage. It was unclear from the video what common spaces were available to these individuals. I got the impression the apartments were "fully functional" (bathroom, kitchen, living space). The extremely narrow hallway added to the impression that the units were not part of a larger shared space.
The fact the option exists is better than nothing. These people did not seem under duress and it was a choice they made over alternatives.
That said, it's a symptom of a wider problem when full-time workers are in spaces that small, it tells us not enough units are being built to accommodate demand. Just like SF's insane rents are symptomatic of a wider problem and not merely the fault of wealthy people. More units would help as well as more jobs in local communities instead of concentrating all the good jobs inside a small city core (i.e., they said they did this to avoid commuting, wouldn't it be nice if they didn't have to commute at all?).
And to the person who mentioned Hong Kong's "coffin beds", I agree, those were straight out of a horror film and very sad to see.
The issue in HK is poverty, not space. HK's blue collar workers are still quite poor today, and so live in nasty conditions. Poor people everywhere live in nasty conditions, it just so happens that the problems are different… e.g. Bangkok or Manila or India.
I assume though if there was less poverty in Hong Kong, more space wouldn't suddenly appear... the existing small spaces would just become nicer but more expensive.
I'm a bit claustrophobic and the video made me uncomfortable. I understand the financial and time saving reasons, but between an isolated place like this, and a shared place with roommates, I would pick roommates any day of the week.
In Japan, with it's work culture of long work hours and most people working at the same office for very long time, these apartments certainly makes sense.
It makes just as much sense for them to live in coffin size spaces with food funnelled in tubes. Where does this absurdity end? "Making sense" and accepting that you need to cater to real humans in a society are two things that are rationally far apart. It doesn't "make sense" to pretend that human needs of space have no consideration.
>In Japan, with it's work culture of long work hours and most people working at the same office for very long time
This is not something that should be venerated above all else. It should be condemned.
That would be ok for literally just a bedroom. If they pooled all other living and storage spaces and lived collectively, like in a military officers' mess perhaps, it could work.
This is actually a thing in Japan. A number of real estate companies manage “share houses” where 10-20 people each get a ~9sqm room, with shared living space, kitchen, bathroom, etc.
While I’ve never lived in one, the few times I’ve seen inside, they’ve been in incredibly clean. People I know who’ve lived in these places generally have nothing but good things to say about them. They’re often not cheap, though. From what I’ve seen, they’re usually in central locations, and priced more than a similarly sized room with your own kitchen/bathroom out in the suburbs.
I really like this idea. You have your personal space (I saw a video in which you even have a small kitchen and bathroom in your room) and then the rest are shared areas. I don't believe it could work in many other countries but in Japan, where people are more concious of colaborating to keep everything clean AFAIK, it could be a great way to fight the feeling of loneliness that is spreading around the world.
I have thought a lot about shared living spaces and I just can't see it working without a really strong sense of community otherwise everyone would just think "not my problem" when there is a mess.
You do still have a kitchen in this situation, you're just hiring a cook to come use it.
It's not that uncommon in the US to hire a cook to come cook meals at a college co-op house or fraternity/sorority. My dad's co-op at MIT did this in the 60s. The cost of a cook spread out across several dozen people is very low, and you end up saving lots of time spent individually cooking while getting quality food at much less than restaurant prices.
There's also the issue that, absent having a cook that cooks for everyone, you'd need much more combined kitchen space (whether that be a single giant kitchen or one per apartment) so that everyone could cook individually, and that in itself takes up more space and is more expensive.
In dense cities there's simply no need. There's restaurants, convenience stores, food trucks, and bodegas everywhere. And the restaurants will run the gamut from multi-$100 many course meals right down to $5 will get you a meal fast food. Many of these restaurants are on the first floors of apartment buildings anyway, so it doesn't even look that different from a shared kitchen/dining space anyway (it's just not exclusive to the residents of the building).
And in not-dense cities, people tend not to live in buildings with enough units in them to even support this. That's why the university thing is kind of an edge case; it's people living in dense housing situations in not-dense places.
Shared housing is becoming popular in Tokyo now, specially in Setagaya. Thanks to Netflix and Terrace House for the hype and people are starting to realize they can live better in a sharing accommodation that they wouldn't be able to afford alone.
Things like that might also have the unintentional benefit of providing a sense of community and staving off the epidemic of loneliness that modern society is sinking into.
I totally agree and I would love to see this idea implemented in many other places but sadly not all the countries share the same mentality that Japan has about social duties.
In North America, the tiny home movement is fledgling... more of a novelty than a way of life for most people it seems.
Tiny homes are illegal in almost every single municipality due to zoning restrictions.
Are the arm's-length flats regarded similarly in Tokyo? More of an experiment than anything else? You can live here for a few months, but if someone gets upset, you might have to move?
Do these tiny flats exist legally, and is their existence expanding I guess is my question?
The second lady's apartment in the video for example... the pile of electrical cords amongst all of her clothes looks like kind of a fire hazard that some landlords would give you flak over in North America if they saw that.
"In North America, the tiny home movement is fledgling"
The US is lucky to have so much open space which lets people build their own tiny homes. The tiny homes don't feel cramped because they're surrounded by nature, with beautiful long uninterrupted views out of the windows. No noisy neighbours or traffic nearby either.
But take away the countryside location of these homes and could the tiny house work in an urban environment? I doubt it. The future for housing for most people on the planet (including the US) is in cities and urban environments. Can you live in a tiny home where you don't have long, uninterrupted views out of your windows? Or where you only have windows along one side of your dwelling (e.g. single-aspect apartments). Do you feel you have enough privacy when your apartment or house is joined with your neighbour's home?
Millions of people already live in homes like this and have to contend with these issues. Can we have small or modest-sized homes that give us light, space, privacy, quiet and comfort in a noisy urban setting? It's one of the most pressing and important issues in housing design - and one that architects and home builders have failed to address.
I lived in a space that size in an urban area for years. Saved money, had a whole city to go out in. They call such arrangements a "crash pad". We had a half decent kitchen, but enjoyed all the local restaurants, and the local hackerspace for projects that took space, a store across the street for all the things you didn't have the house. I'd much prefer living in a tiny urban apartment to a rural space where you can't walk anywhere, have to store everything you need at home, etc.
Seriously. I can see why people rent them; they're cheap! And you get to live on your own! I was spending double that just for a bedroom in a 4-bedroom apartment in Manhattan a year ago. The bedroom itself was not double the size of the one pictured, though admittedly you have to account for the rest of the apartment too.
First we create problems then we create addiction to solve them and then we come up with creative solutions like this. Does anyone else sees irony here ?
There definitely are places in Tokyo (on/inside the Yamanote line) for way under 80000 with more space.
Yup, they will be older but often you can find ones that have been fully renovated.
Sure, there's the earthquake issue but something tells me those cardboard boxes aren't much better at safety.
This is only anecdotal but my impression is that everybody wants to live in a newly built house and then after a few years move again into another flat in a newly built house. So, there's at any point a whole lot of empty and just fine places in Tokyo. I just wish their rents would drop further.
This may be dangerous to perceive this as the norm. Thinking back, a lot of things considered horrible today were the norm not that long ago.
We should think really hard about whether to accept this and make an argument: "no one forced those ppl in it". It's not the point. I'm sure we can do better. Is it beyond our abilities to figure out a good living condiditions? in year 2020? Really?
I'm horrified by the idea that in order to have a decent job, I'd have to live in such conditions. Can you imagine if it's not few ppl, but hundreds of thousands? All of New York?
Don't impose your preferences on other people. Personally I think having to commute an hour to and from work sounds horrible, as does the idea of living in a suburb with barely any restaurants or people around compared to the city centre. I can't be the only one who would happily trade reduced living space for reduced commute and a more urban location. Different people care about different things.
The only alternative I can think of is to grow smaller cities. But that's not going to happen as long as people prefer to move to a metropolis and are ready to put up with the cost of living.
For the change to start, the option of living in a metropolis should start sucking more than the option of living in a smaller city.
What are "good living conditions" that you would approve of? And what's too much, because certainly there's a point where the space (and resources) are wasted? 20sqm/person? 40? 80?
Keep in mind that we'd need to supply that space to everyone. Picking a low number sounds like a good idea if you don't suggest turning every park into a sky scraper or "removing" part of the population so there is more space to go around.
i feel claustrophobic watching that. islands are great for commerce but space is inherently rare. Japan, hong kong, manhattan, san francisco (peninsula), singapore. all business centers with shocking rents
There's plenty of space in rural Japan, it's just people choose to live in Tokyo, the cultural and economic hub of the country. Rural towns are literally paying people to move back.
Being an Island has nothing to do with the crowdedness.
Hong Kong is just as crowded in Kowloon, which isn't an Island. London is pretty crazy packed too and isn't an Island.
So is Australia… but that's not really relevant to the population density in London or Sydney. Both Islands are country-sized and have plenty of empty land.
The average hotel room is probably around 30m^2. Imagine the last hotel room you stayed in, cut off two thirds of it… and you have the size of this micro-flat.
My walk-in closet when I lived in SF was probably about 12m^2.
>I've never stayed in a hotel room that large (neither in the US nor in Europe), more like 20sqm including the bathroom/shower.
That's more or less correct, to give you a data point in Italy the minimum legal size for a hotel room (double, up to 3 star hotels) is 14 m^2 + 3 m^2 (minimum) for the bathroom, but usually they tend to be slightly larger. (the minimum becomes respectively 15+5 and 16+6 for 4 and 5 stars).
For the single it is 8 or 9 m^2 (8 up to 3 stars, 9 for more) + the bathroom (again 3, 4 or 5 m^2 depending on stars).
For 1 or 2 stars hotel it is not compulsory to have a bathroom "en suite", there must be as many bathrooms as (respectively) 40% or 80% of rooms.
On the other hand, the very minimum size that you can legally call apartment (i.e. that has the "dignity" to be identified as "self standing") is 28 m^2 at national level, and a number of cities are increasing this minimum size (locally) to 35 or 40 (or even more).
That’s certainly true. Going on a business trip to the US I was struck by the fact that the hotel room was as large as my entire second floor (in current Tokyo house).
I’ve lived in this 9 square meters space before (in Tokyo as well) and as a single person it is eminently doable. What do you really need from your home besides a place to sleep between work?
>I don’t know, 9 square meters is anything but cupboard size to me.
For a whole apartment (even excluding kitchen/shower)? Let's be generous and say it's double. Where in the west is 18 sq m. not closer to a cupboard than a house?
These places are actually 9 square meters, including kitchen and bathroom. Typically, the “kitchen” is a hole in the wall which is barely big enough to use to prepare instant ramen, and the bathroom/toilet/shower are combined into a small plastic cube-like room called a “unit bath”.
The catch is that there is a loft which doesn’t count towards the square meterage.
In contrast, an 18sqm place can have a kitchen with two burners where you can actually prepare food, a door between the kitchen and your bedroom so you don’t stink the place up while cooking, and can even have separate rooms for the toilet and sink. A lot of people I've met consider this pretty luxurious, at least in central Tokyo.
I’ve lived in multiple apartments in Sydney that were around that. One was smaller, maybe 2.5m x 3m studio with a “kitchenette” in the clothes cupboard (a microwave and a sink that barely fit a dinner plate). These go for ~AUD$1200-1600/mth in the CBD.
They’re generally aimed at students but plenty of single adults like myself lived in them too, mainly people who aren’t home much, eat out and socialise lots. It’s a place to sleep, and walking distance to work (and home, after a night out).
I now live on a quarter acre in a rural city but I didn’t regret it when I did it, I saved plenty of money and enjoyed the city life for a fair few years until I started a family.
My first own apartment was a 1-room with kitchen and bathroom, for a total of 26.56m². The living/sleeping room was about 3.5x5 m. (For a floor plan schematic, put "wbs 70 grundriss" into Google Images).
It was very nice. The only reason I moved into a 2-room apartment was because I wanted a sofa.
I’ve stayed at a friend’s house about 30-40 minutes from inner Tokyo on a single train ride (which is about the second last stop on one of the subway lines). It was a relatively normal sized 1-bedroom apartment for about $800 USD a month. You definitely have options in Tokyo, and the infrastructure makes housing choices like this possible (live closer in the city or live further out).
Nobody is forced into these apartments. They’re definitely the exception - not the rule. And for a similar price, you could get an apartment for double the size if you only add (quite) a bit of time to your commute.
I think it’s great that people have this choice. Especially for people who don’t spend much time at home anyway, what’s the issue with providing a cheaper option? And on the flip side, if places needed to be larger, it’ll drive up the cost for everyone.
If you want them to live better, provide better apartments, don't take away the ones they have. Allowing them to be built is not the problem, it's the symptom.
From the video, I laughed at the comments of hearing the other tenants.
With my windows open in Sapporo Japan during the summer I can here conversations clearly. I think from the floor below, guessing it bounces off the next building which is but a couple meters away. I know every time the baby wakes wet. During the winter with double windows I don't hear as much but I do hear my neighbor belting out the songs in the shower. Like the commentator in the video, it does create a sense of connectivity. If he's happily singing in the shower then I'm happy for him and it makes me smile every time.
However it makes me a little self conscious and I try to be quiet as possible.
Also very surprised to see a guitar in the video. Most agencies will ask if you have instruments and likely deny or limit your apartment choices.