In my recent post about "takeaways from Japan" I spoke about a willingness to experiment and be playful with the built environment. I said that quite often people design homes around what they want, as opposed to what they think might broadly appeal to the market. So today, let's look at an example. Below is a site on the outskirts of Tokyo, about an hour from the center of the city. The architect — Kamakura Studio — describes it as being situated in a "new town" where about 75% of the residents have moved in within the past decade. And like Japan as a whole, problems of aging and population decline are expected in the future.
Using Google Maps to get rough dimensions, the site looks to be somewhere around 8m wide by 11m deep. So this is not a huge site compared to what you might find in the suburbs of other cities, but it's certainly a very workable set of dimensions. Also noteworthy is the fact that the area has no sidewalks. This is common throughout Tokyo. Ordinarily, this would imply a suburban mental model. But in practice, Tokyo's streets actually feel very pedestrian-friendly. And that's because they tend to be narrow and the entire city is oriented mostly around rail.
What was ultimately developed on the site is this (House F):
Totalling 169 m2, the first floor of the house serves as an office for the architect and as an open space for the local community. The firm opens up the space to people who may want to stop in for coffee (or just hang out) and for movie nights. There's even a "plant-sharing network" on the terrace where dozens of households supposedly contribute and participate. On the second and third floor of the house are the domestic quarters. Here there are two generous bedrooms, study spaces, and multiple balconies, one of which provides access to a rooftop terrace.
It's a highly livable house, but it's also designed to meet a particular set of ambitions. I mean, look at the above coffee window. And this is one of the really cool things about domestic architecture in Japan. (If any of you are familiar with how the zoning would work for a site like this, I'd love to understand that.)
Project images via Kamakura Studio
Last year, Pew Research Center asked over 5,000 adult Americans whether they would rather (1) live in a community with smaller houses that are within walking distance of schools, stores, and restaurants, or (2) live in a community with larger houses, but where schools, stores, and restaurants are several miles away. The result:
One of the things that I notice about people from Paris is that they’re always very clear on whether they live in Paris or outside of Paris in the banlieues (the suburbs). They’ll say things like, “No I don’t live in Paris. It’s too expensive. I live in such and such a place in the banlieues.”
I suppose this isn’t entirely different than saying you don’t live in New York, you live on Long Island, or you don’t live in Toronto, you live in Burlington. Except that there seems to be a greater sense of division when they say it here in Paris (although it’s entirely possible that it could be my rusty French that is leading me to believe this).
There is a sense that you’re either inside the Boulevard Périphérique, or you’re really not. And this seems like a shame. Cities regions care less about administrative borders and more about the movement of people, ideas, and goods.
And as much as I love Paris (the central part), it is, from what I can tell, far more static than some of its surrounding areas in terms of new people (immigration), new buildings, and probably new ideas.
Paris can sometimes feel like a perfectly curated museum. It’s beautiful and precious and should not be touched — please stand behind the ropes mesdames et messieurs. But perhaps it’s time to equally celebrate les banlieues and recognize what they have to offer.
In my recent post about "takeaways from Japan" I spoke about a willingness to experiment and be playful with the built environment. I said that quite often people design homes around what they want, as opposed to what they think might broadly appeal to the market. So today, let's look at an example. Below is a site on the outskirts of Tokyo, about an hour from the center of the city. The architect — Kamakura Studio — describes it as being situated in a "new town" where about 75% of the residents have moved in within the past decade. And like Japan as a whole, problems of aging and population decline are expected in the future.
Using Google Maps to get rough dimensions, the site looks to be somewhere around 8m wide by 11m deep. So this is not a huge site compared to what you might find in the suburbs of other cities, but it's certainly a very workable set of dimensions. Also noteworthy is the fact that the area has no sidewalks. This is common throughout Tokyo. Ordinarily, this would imply a suburban mental model. But in practice, Tokyo's streets actually feel very pedestrian-friendly. And that's because they tend to be narrow and the entire city is oriented mostly around rail.
What was ultimately developed on the site is this (House F):
Totalling 169 m2, the first floor of the house serves as an office for the architect and as an open space for the local community. The firm opens up the space to people who may want to stop in for coffee (or just hang out) and for movie nights. There's even a "plant-sharing network" on the terrace where dozens of households supposedly contribute and participate. On the second and third floor of the house are the domestic quarters. Here there are two generous bedrooms, study spaces, and multiple balconies, one of which provides access to a rooftop terrace.
It's a highly livable house, but it's also designed to meet a particular set of ambitions. I mean, look at the above coffee window. And this is one of the really cool things about domestic architecture in Japan. (If any of you are familiar with how the zoning would work for a site like this, I'd love to understand that.)
Project images via Kamakura Studio
Last year, Pew Research Center asked over 5,000 adult Americans whether they would rather (1) live in a community with smaller houses that are within walking distance of schools, stores, and restaurants, or (2) live in a community with larger houses, but where schools, stores, and restaurants are several miles away. The result:
One of the things that I notice about people from Paris is that they’re always very clear on whether they live in Paris or outside of Paris in the banlieues (the suburbs). They’ll say things like, “No I don’t live in Paris. It’s too expensive. I live in such and such a place in the banlieues.”
I suppose this isn’t entirely different than saying you don’t live in New York, you live on Long Island, or you don’t live in Toronto, you live in Burlington. Except that there seems to be a greater sense of division when they say it here in Paris (although it’s entirely possible that it could be my rusty French that is leading me to believe this).
There is a sense that you’re either inside the Boulevard Périphérique, or you’re really not. And this seems like a shame. Cities regions care less about administrative borders and more about the movement of people, ideas, and goods.
And as much as I love Paris (the central part), it is, from what I can tell, far more static than some of its surrounding areas in terms of new people (immigration), new buildings, and probably new ideas.
Paris can sometimes feel like a perfectly curated museum. It’s beautiful and precious and should not be touched — please stand behind the ropes mesdames et messieurs. But perhaps it’s time to equally celebrate les banlieues and recognize what they have to offer.
On average, most respondents preferred the latter option -- the larger home. However, there are some demographic groups that feel differently. If you're young (under 29), highly-educated, Democratic-leaning, and/or Asian, this survey suggests that you have a preference for smaller houses in more walkable communities.
More specifically, in this chart, it's interesting to note that 62% of Asians (survey only counted English speakers), 55% of those aged 18-29, 54% of those with a post-graduate degree, and 65% of liberal Democrats prefer denser places that allow you to walk to more places.
A lot of this isn't surprising, but I don't think I've seen data supporting such a strong leaning from Asian adults before. What makes this even more interesting is that White and Asian households are by far the two richest ethnic groups in America. And here, when it comes to built form preferences, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Another important consideration is the cost of living in walkable versus car-oriented communities. Generally speaking, the latter is less expensive on a cost per square foot basis for homeowners; though, this obviously doesn't include the indirect costs of transportation and the additional time it to takes to commute places.
It is also more expensive to service and bring infrastructure to more spread-out communities. There are real economies to density. Despite this, higher-density living tends to be more expensive. Part of this has to do with higher build costs and more restrictive zoning, but it could also be a scarcity of supply (most of the US is car-oriented).
Indeed, there is a well-established premium to living in walkable communities, which creates an interesting dynamic. The thing that the majority of people reportedly don't want or don't prefer is actually more expensive. This always makes me wonder: What if this wasn't the case? What would happen if we didn't have this cost-of-living differential?
Charts from Pew Research Center; cover photo by Dmitry Tomashek on Unsplash
On average, most respondents preferred the latter option -- the larger home. However, there are some demographic groups that feel differently. If you're young (under 29), highly-educated, Democratic-leaning, and/or Asian, this survey suggests that you have a preference for smaller houses in more walkable communities.
More specifically, in this chart, it's interesting to note that 62% of Asians (survey only counted English speakers), 55% of those aged 18-29, 54% of those with a post-graduate degree, and 65% of liberal Democrats prefer denser places that allow you to walk to more places.
A lot of this isn't surprising, but I don't think I've seen data supporting such a strong leaning from Asian adults before. What makes this even more interesting is that White and Asian households are by far the two richest ethnic groups in America. And here, when it comes to built form preferences, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Another important consideration is the cost of living in walkable versus car-oriented communities. Generally speaking, the latter is less expensive on a cost per square foot basis for homeowners; though, this obviously doesn't include the indirect costs of transportation and the additional time it to takes to commute places.
It is also more expensive to service and bring infrastructure to more spread-out communities. There are real economies to density. Despite this, higher-density living tends to be more expensive. Part of this has to do with higher build costs and more restrictive zoning, but it could also be a scarcity of supply (most of the US is car-oriented).
Indeed, there is a well-established premium to living in walkable communities, which creates an interesting dynamic. The thing that the majority of people reportedly don't want or don't prefer is actually more expensive. This always makes me wonder: What if this wasn't the case? What would happen if we didn't have this cost-of-living differential?
Charts from Pew Research Center; cover photo by Dmitry Tomashek on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
