In this reflection, you’ll hear from a delegate on lessons learned from the Tokyo Study Trip.
***
The Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923, the bombing in 1945 during World War II – multiple disasters have floored Tokyo, and yet it has reinvented itself in new physical form each time. In contrast, New York City has developed continuously since its “founding” in the 1600s (aside from fires and the destruction in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001). Tokyo’s government is practiced in starting over: planning, building, clearing, re-planning, and re-building residential units on a scale of multi-millions. First by necessity and now by choice, Tokyo embraces a culture of modernizing its evolving housing landscape. It piqued my curiosity: what would New York City look like if it had been forced to reenvision the landscape and modernize, not once, but multiple times in the last century?
During a week of meetings and site visits with Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) housing officials, academics, and real estate developers, study trip delegates absorbed key elements of Tokyo’s approach to reinventing its city: 1) encourage developers to construct housing units at a quantity that matches the city’s growing population, 2) incentivize replacing older building stock to meet updated construction and seismic standards with building life cycles of 70 years, and 3) plan for density and distribution of density around transit nodes.
Government housing officials we met were curious about the desire in the U.S. to live in “used homes,” or pre-owned properties. Rebuilding and changing the shape of neighborhoods is embedded in Japanese housing policy: public subsidies benefit owners purchasing new properties, older housing is replaced with earthquake-ready construction, and the city builds densely to meet the projected influx of new residents. Inseparable from past tragedies and housing policy is the cultural interest and, perhaps, even consensus that rebuilding is – quite simply – good for Tokyo.
In New York City, despite housing unaffordability, homelessness, and aging buildings, we lack consensus that building is simply good for New Yorkers. Instead we grapple with the potential losses from building and population growth – both real and feared. What could New York City look like if we focused less on maintaining what we love of the built environment in this moment and more on envisioning a future city that we could also love? What if we focused new construction on reaching a shared, citywide vision? Might we enable construction of new residential units of all types at a pace, volume, and rent level that matches our needs? Could we prevent the outmigration of families, address extreme income gaps, and become more adaptable and accessible?
Even with Tokyo’s multiple shots at building housing at scale, it has not entirely solved its housing affordability challenges for lower-income households and families. Tokyo’s “culture of building,” however, is allowing the TMG to advance a vision that will uniquely serve its current and future residents with housing. Could New Yorkers coalesce around a vision for a future city that preserves its many cultures and beauty by recognizing the benefits of retaining residents, welcoming newcomers, distributing density, and sharing neighborhood change?