this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
32 points (97.1% liked)

Canada

7152 readers
409 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Did it solve it in this tokyo?

Nope. The thing making tokyo somewhat affordable is absolutely tiny units and a declining population.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very high plumbing distance covered to person ratio in suburbs

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, but isn't most property tax revenue from commercial development anyway?

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Metro area Tokyo has as many people as Canada.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

So? What does it's absolute size have to do with a policy not working there but working here?