|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-05-2010, 02:56 PM
Quote:
Japan has earthquakes - sometimes serious ones. In recent years techniques for strengthening a building have been developed, and there are currently strict earthquake tolerance requirements in place for buildings. However, in the past there were not. (Or those that were in place were much less stringent). As buildings age they become weaker and more prone to collapse. And the heavier the building started, the greater chance of dying if it falls down on you. So buildings were usually built with the assumption that they`d be torn down and rebuilt in so many years. Most were built with the assumption of a life of 20 or 30 years. 30 years later, the buildings are in terrible shape and are sort of at the end of their lifespan... Which is why they are torn down and new ones built. This is particularly true of buildings built in the first 30 or 40 years after the end of the war. The first batches were built with a 10 to 15 year lifespan in mind, and then usually replaced with something better but not by all that much. If something is built to last 100+ years, then it is a shame to tear it down and build something new. But if it was built to last 25 years and 30 have passed... Well... Things are different. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-05-2010, 04:14 PM
Quote:
Once people buy land and house, it`s not common to move.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-05-2010, 05:40 PM
I had heard the major construction companies also have influence on government officials. It's nice for them to help create a culture of disposable housing, isn't it.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-06-2010, 01:11 AM
Quote:
What the construction companies do is manage to keep the cost of building materials high even for short lifespan construction. They take advantage of the culture of replacing houses, but they didn`t make it.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-06-2010, 01:32 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-06-2010, 02:00 AM
Quote:
 If we follow the thinking that people build new houses largely because it is cheaper (in fees) to do so - then yes, it can look that way. But if we look at it from another angle - things can seem a bit different. The culture of rebuilding houses has been in place for a very long time. Regardless of benefits available to build a house, people would likely still be tearing down and rebuilding. They would just take longer to get the money together to do so, and spend a longer period of time in rental housing. More people in the rental housing, and the cost of rent goes up making it even harder for people to buy homes. But making it cheaper to buy land and houses for everyone doesn`t work, as it just makes it easier for someone to buy land and build apartments... Or wait until all the land around is full of apartments and sell it at a higher price. Even now, most used houses are purchased by speculators who do not live on the property and often leave it in limbo until the value of land rises only to resell it once they think they can make money. There are a number of anti-speculation laws in place but it isn`t that hard to get around by "giving" the land to an employee or renting out the space. This was a huge problem at one point, and people who wanted to buy houses honestly couldn`t because it was so expensive just to live in rental housing that there was virtually no hope of saving the money to build a home. Instead of penalizing speculators or businesses... This is where real buyers are rewarded. Under the current laws, benefits for purchasing or building a new home can only be used once. If you buy a new house or build one, that`s it. You can never take advantage of the benefits again even if you build or buy another new house. This makes it easier for a family to buy a real home, which in turn keeps rental costs lower, which makes it easier for other families to buy homes, and so on (and as a distant result more money comes in as property tax...). It also makes it less likely that employees will "pose" as real buyers as they will lose their benefits for when they really do want to buy a home. What the construction companies have done is gotten protection for the cost of raw materials - much like Japanese produced rice has protection. This keeps the price of the materials at a certain rate. They take advantage of people building new houses, but the reasons behind the tax benefits, etc, are unrelated in my eyes. The goal is to penalize speculators - but instead of giving them the chance to find loopholes by making it a straight penalty... There is a "reward" of sorts for not being one. In terms of the benefits for building/buying new - I think it works quite well in the way it is intended. Construction companies taking advantage of the culture kind of sucks, but it`s not the reason laws regarding new building exist.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
03-07-2010, 04:05 PM
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-07-2010, 04:11 PM
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
03-10-2010, 03:37 AM
a couple of years ago, the PM at that time Fukuda i believe started a campaign ２００年住宅ビジョン. partially explained here
住生活基本法 - Wikipedia but i don't know what happened to that once fukuda was out of power. 蒼天（そうてん）翔（か）ける日輪（にちりん）の 青春の覇気 美（うるわ）しく 輝く我が名ぞ 阪神タイガース ※オウ オウ オウオウ 阪神タイガース フレ フレ フレフレ
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
