About a year ago, the government announced a program to encourage the building of more permanent homes—durable enough to last 200 years. The government reckons that increasing the replacement period of the nation’s housing stock from the current 26 years would reduce the amount of construction-related trash the nation disposes annually by about 10m tons. Dubbed the “200-Year Home project, the idea is that homes will be multi-generational dwellings, that can be easily renovated according to family size and age.

The government points out that compared with the average life span of its citizens, the average life span of a home at 26 years is too short—and clearly they have a point. In the U.S., the average life of similarly built homes (eg, houses built of wood and some synthetic materials), the life span is 55 years, while in the UK it is 77 years. Indeed, when you think that the average Japanese couple buys the family home in their late 30s, and that typically they have to take a 35-45 year mortgage to buy the home—it is ironic that the life span of their dwelling is less than that of the mortgage.

The government has said that it will encourage more durable housing by: i) introducing a requirement for all home repairs to be recorded, ii) requiring better quality construction methods, iii) providing tax cuts and interest bank loans, and iv) introducing financial subsidies for housing builders to churn out longer-life homes.

This got me to thinking about why the Japanese insist on tearing down their homes so frequently. While I can see that tax cuts would definitely help improve the situation, I believe there are some other factors that strongly influence homeowners’ decisions to pull down their homes. If these fundamental problems are not addressed, then it is unlikely that the government will be successful in its goal to have people build and live longer in a single
dwelling.

Typically, Japanese homes cost around 30 million - 40 million yen, so the average family is still paying through the nose to build somewhere to live. It is estimated that the major builders (Sekisui, Daiwa, Misawa, etc) are charging about 20% more for their cookie cutter solutions than if a homeowner was to get their own architect and do it themselves. Unfortunately, people feel so unsure about their own abilities in the so-called expert area of homebuilding, that they allow the housing titans to do it all for them. This means that any initiatives to start making houses more durable have to start with these building firms.

In the 200-Year Home project, the government acknowledges that the quality of design and construction needs to be improved, and they estimate that durable houses will only cost 20% more than conventional ones. I doubt this figure very much, unless they are considering the inflated prices charged by the building firms, and most likely their assumption is based on timber houses that will continue to be full of health-affecting cheap synthetic materials.

Instead, I think the starting point should be choosing a building material far more appropriate for permanent homes in Japan—concrete. Unfortunately, concrete costs more than 20% over its timber counterpart.

Why concrete? Well firstly, because the nation has plenty of the raw material and is unlikely to run out any time soon. Secondly, if used properly with in-ground and internal insulation and good thermal design, it is within the experience of existing builders to improve the housing stock. Concrete can significantly cut the power consumption for a house, as well of course as offering structural integrity in earthquakes and for building upwards.

If you’re going to have concrete, then you need glass as well—and double glazed windows need to become standard for all parts of Japan from northern Kyushu northwards. Again, Japan has an ample supply of glass and is home to the world’s leading glass companies. They are proficient at making strengthened product that looks good, lasts forever, and can withstand medium-strength earthquakes. I find it strange why the product costs so much.

Thermal Properties

One of the biggest problems of Japanese houses constructed over the last 30 years is the fact that they are made of lightweight synthetic materials and low-quality timber. Basically, they are constructed for convenience rather than thermal design. In winter, the walls sweat with condensation and the wallpaper goes moldy. In the summer, the rooms become humid boxes with poor ventilation, and the occupants have to resort to all-day air conditioning or going out to a comfortable shopping mall.

It amazes me that such an advanced nation as Japan hasn’t made greater use of insulation and made double-glazed windows, or that apartment builders are still making concrete floor slabs that extend to the outside of the building and conduct heat and cold into the building. This is starting to change, but it seems that government regulation forcing the speed of such change is in order. The nation’s biggest box builders: Sekisui and the others, make good money churning out the same designs they have done for several decades and they are not about to change unless forced to do so.

Rabbit Hutches

Size is another issue. There are about 1.15 million dwellings a year constructed in Japan, and the average size is around 30 tsubo (100 square meters), about half that of the U.S. (although closer to the UK). Small rooms and low ceilings have less air and less circulation and react more quickly to the presence of a breathing person inside, or to heat outside. Small dwellings also can’t accommodate growing families.

While the shortage of land is hard to circumvent, local government rules restrict the height of buildings to 8-10 meters in many parts of Tokyo (other than main roads) and thus people are forced to build and live in rabbit hutches that match the footprint of the land underneath.

The technology is here to make safe 3-5 story timber houses, and of course there is concrete, but the authorities are more concerned about sunlight for the neighbors’ garden. Of course, no one wants to be next to a towering edifice, but you have to wonder what is more important: a decent amount of room and height, and a healthy living environment, or getting 8 hours sunlight on the bottom floor. I think the reality of city living needs to be recognized and height restrictions moved up by at least one floor. This would immediately give home builders 25% more space in which to grow a family or lifestyle. Given that the population is no longer growing, this one area of deregulation might make a huge difference
to the desirability of staying at home.

Another major contributor to the premature deterioration of homes is the lack of a maintenance culture in Japan. Most men are at work until late, sleep on the weekends, and take few holidays. This fact, coupled with builders’ penchant to offer a “cradle to grave” service on their standard house designs, means that home owners seldom take personal responsibility for maintaining their own dwellings. Timber homes overseas also fall down if they are not painted, leaks are not filled, and rotting timber replaced on a regular basis. A quick bicycle ride around Tokyo suburbs reveals an astounding number of homes with loose roofing, leaking walls and unpainted surfaces suffering from the weather. It not only looks ugly, it virtually guarantees the home is going to fall down within 25 years, if not pulled down first. And in an earthquake—well forget about it.

Changing Attitudes

I assume that the status quo has remained because citizens are obedient, and building your own home and maintaining it is so inconvenient. Thus, there is little incentive to make a structure last longer. Indeed, most people I know are not home (well, apart from the housewives) that much anyway. For most, “home” is a small space that is comfortable for a single person in the evenings, but not a space to actually “live” there for extended periods. There is little room to cook, to store food and furniture, to do hobbies, or exercise in private, or do other quality of life activities that bind someone to their home. And for growing families, cramped quarters are a recipe for stress, so it is no wonder that the kids and Dad are typically out.

What I am saying here is that while the objective of making more permanent homes is a good goal, practically speaking, there are many impediments which are beyond the minor tinkering of regulations that the government is considering. Instead, the LDP should launch a proper study on the issue and take some major decisions that will make a true difference. For example, instead of lowering building taxes for five years, homeowners should be able to deduct home loan interest from their other income (negative gearing). This would have an immediate effect on people’s willingness to take on bigger home loans and to spend more building high-quality buildings.

Likewise, the government needs to lean on the major home building firms and require them to meet more stringent standards. It is a fact that Japanese are unused to building their own homes, and so with more than half the nation’s houses being churned out by factories, this is an obvious place to start applying regulatory change.

12 Comments

• 

  fireant at 09:38 AM JST - 22nd April

  or getting 8 hours sunlight on the bottom floor.

  It's not 8 hours of sunlight on the bottom floor. It's 2 -3 hours of sunlight in the summer on the second floor. At least in my prefecture. Each prefecture has its own rules on housing construction. What is true in Aomori is not true in Fukushima. And what's true in Tokyo is usually not true anywhere else.

  Also, Lloyd alludes to Japanese homes being close to UK homes. My British friend said they are virtually the same size. The main difference is in ceiling height.

• 

  DeepAir65 at 10:25 AM JST - 22nd April

  Also, Lloyd alludes to Japanese homes being close to UK homes. My British friend said they are virtually the same size. The main difference is in ceiling height.

  But in the UK my same size house in London had a 70 foot south facing garden...

  I also despair of the insulation thing here - the Japanese attitude needs to change and realise that insulation is not just for cold countries...

  And I agree 100% with the maintenance comments - just last week we were walking around the neighbourhood and I commented on a building made within the last year that looks really old - why? There is a lot of visible wood (bit like a Swiss Chalet design) and non of it apears treated. I reckon well less than 26 years for that house.

  And then there is the Japanese penchant for buying new things - who wants to buy a second hand house? They are amazed when they find out parts of my brother's house are over 400 years old. I found photos on the internet from 1910 - and it was obviously old then!

• 

  WhatJapanThinks at 10:28 AM JST - 22nd April

  I can't talk about the US situation, but I think a lot of the broad brushes that Terrie is painting the Japanese with is similar to the UK situation, such as half of all homes (are we talking houses rather than flats) are cookie-cutter. Now I think about it, half is not really that high a figure for factory-built, whatever that really means.

  Of course, Japanese city homes are shoe boxes on the whole, but a lot stems from plots being not much bigger than the footprint needed for a house. I live in an area with a lot of old houses with (for me) normal-sized garden with enough space for a lawn, flower beds and vegetable patchs, but when they get knocked down they are sub-divided into four or six or more plots that have just enough for a house, a car parking spot and a bit of grass or concrete that barely suffices for cat-swinging activities. Add an extra floor to houses and you'll never get any sunlight to the ground floors at all.

  Talking about maintenance culture, my pet hate is the lack of creosote on wood! So many lovely old wooden buildings, even in tourist areas of Kanazawa and Kyoto, but with the black stain washed out and looking very sad and sorry, and surely a couple of hours with a paintbrush would be a whole lot easier and cheaper than complete replacement or restoration treatment five years down the line.

• 

  huberts2 at 11:09 AM JST - 22nd April

  200 years

  A good article, thanks. I have lived on and off in Japan for a number of years and during that time owned a delightful 75sq.m apartment; very well constructed with the use of substantial materials and likely, subject to the following comment, to last "200 years". However after 20 years it did need some maintenance eg rusting steel window frames, flat roof sealant breaking down and therefore beginning to leak etc. But it proved just too difficult to get the 'management' to act and make the repairs before real and permanent damage occurred. I think the attitude was - "well, it's usual for buildings to fall apart after 25(?) years". What a shame it was to see such an unnecessary loss. So we sold and got out.

• 

  Altria at 12:10 PM JST - 22nd April

  Really interesting article, thanks.

  I've also heard that it's cheaper to get an architect to custom design your house than buy one of the premade box models. I'd definitely go for something with concrete and glass, proper insulation, vertical design and a flat roof area you can use for plants, barbeques etc.

• 

  niku at 03:05 PM JST - 22nd April

  After spending 30 to 40m on a home, who can afford insulation and to regularly maintain the home??? I'm yet to see any nation with a small land mass and relatively high population solve this problem. I always thought Japan was at the forefront of innovative technology?? Anyone beg to differ??

• 

  papasmurfinjapan at 04:12 PM JST - 22nd April

  Regardless of these "guidelines", nothing is going to change unless building standards are made much stricter - and actually enforced.

  As such, the onus is on the government to take charge on this matter. Of course that will never happen because the construction industry is one of the most corruption infested in the country, paying off politicians and bureaucrats to keep them with a steady line of work.

  What is the incentive for a house maker to build a house that lasts 200 years? If they did that they'd be out of business within 1 generation. The industry, with the seal and approval of the government has deliberately built housing with a life-span of 20yrs (30 for concrete) for decades. Newer homes are structurally much better than those of 15 years ago, but insulation, ventilation, termite control etc. - the factors that actually determine how long your house is actually going to last - have seen little change.

  Of course periodic maintenance can increase the life-span of a house dramatically, but under the current system of value depreciation, it adds minimal, if any value to your home if/when you want to sell it. After 20-30 years your house is regarded as practically worthless, no matter what condition it is in.

• 

  jerseyboy at 04:26 PM JST - 22nd April

  Some excellent posts. Thanks.

• 

  Ah_so at 08:29 PM JST - 22nd April

  Of course, Japanese mindsets will also have to change. When buying a house, you are effectively buying a plot of land. The house on it will be demolished, as no one wants a second-hand house. This stigma will live on, so even if you build a quality house at extra cost, buyers may not pay extra for it, being determined to put some ugly rabbit hutch on top.

  The UK is a good comparison. While houses used to be built to last with sizeable gardens often, today they are being built out of cheaper materials, with smaller room, wood frames and clearly not designed to last more than 50 years. They are "turning Japanese".

  By comparison, I live in a 75-year old house (thus relatively new for London) and it will almost certainly be around in 100 years time.

• 

  Armanian at 06:12 AM JST - 23rd April

  I live in the UK and i will be honest the houses are small and everything especially when compared to the US, but they do allow space for families. The height of japanese places i think are probably smaller because... well this is only what i have been told is because the japanese are small.

• 

  kagunlapell at 02:00 PM JST - 23rd April

  I completely agree with this article: houses in Japan s*ck! bad insulation, bad materials, bad design, bad construction. show a picture of any part of Osaka to my friends, they thing this is Bangladesh or worst, ant yet, no it's Japan! The URSS had better apartments...but Japan is allegedly to be the 2nd (3rd?) economy in the world, but have 3rd world houses. Buying a house in Japan is burning money.

• 

  Ultradude at 03:14 PM JST - 23rd April

  Yes, the housing here generally does a good job of destroying the myth that Japanese are so demanding of quality in all things they purchase. I live a in great nieghborhood here in Tokyo but many of the houses are so craptacular it boggles my mind when I think how much they are valued at.

Register or login to add a comment!