What it does do is stabilize city budgets. Low density suburban units carry a huuuuuge infrastructure burden on cities to maintain. In most places, the suburbs cost more to maintain than they generate in tax revenue, hence why so many North American cities are in such poor finances
Isn’t part of this because of a lack of commercial real estate in suburban developments? Suburban mixed-use development is decently viable, but that requires a dense type of suburb that isn’t really built in North America.
Kind of. Per unit of area Tokyo is every bit as expensive as even the most expensive parts of Canada, yes, but when you are buying a smaller area that does put it in greater reach of the average person. The idea being presented is that people would rather have a small space to call their own over having no space, while current policy pushes for a minimum amount of space that is usually larger than the small spaces people will accept.
Which makes a ton of sense if BC was tiny, but it isn’t. Even the lower mainland and the island are larger than tokyo physically with only 1/10th the population. So shouldnt we be able to fit everyone into 1000 square feet per person instead of 100?
The declining population argument doesn’t really work because, while the country as a whole is bleeding population, everyone still wants to live and work in Tokyo.
Tokyos population has been stagnant for a decade and has declined for the last few years. That means everyone doesn’t actually want to live and work there, since there aren’t enough people moving there to keep the population growing.
Did it solve it in this tokyo?
Nope. The thing making tokyo somewhat affordable is absolutely tiny units and a declining population.
What it does do is stabilize city budgets. Low density suburban units carry a huuuuuge infrastructure burden on cities to maintain. In most places, the suburbs cost more to maintain than they generate in tax revenue, hence why so many North American cities are in such poor finances
Isn’t part of this because of a lack of commercial real estate in suburban developments? Suburban mixed-use development is decently viable, but that requires a dense type of suburb that isn’t really built in North America.
Very high plumbing distance covered to person ratio in suburbs
Sure, but isn’t most property tax revenue from commercial development anyway?
Kind of. Per unit of area Tokyo is every bit as expensive as even the most expensive parts of Canada, yes, but when you are buying a smaller area that does put it in greater reach of the average person. The idea being presented is that people would rather have a small space to call their own over having no space, while current policy pushes for a minimum amount of space that is usually larger than the small spaces people will accept.
Which makes a ton of sense if BC was tiny, but it isn’t. Even the lower mainland and the island are larger than tokyo physically with only 1/10th the population. So shouldnt we be able to fit everyone into 1000 square feet per person instead of 100?
The declining population argument doesn’t really work because, while the country as a whole is bleeding population, everyone still wants to live and work in Tokyo.
Tokyos population has been stagnant for a decade and has declined for the last few years. That means everyone doesn’t actually want to live and work there, since there aren’t enough people moving there to keep the population growing.
Metro area Tokyo has as many people as Canada.
So? What does it’s absolute size have to do with a policy not working there but working here?