Backyard Coffee and Jazz in Kyoto

> on the vibrant business and street culture in Japanese cities and the seemingly very, very low barriers to entry for regular people to participate.

An astute observation that allowing markets to operate without onerous licensing schemes and regulations often has wonderful upsides, allowing quirky and niche interests to survive and even flourish.

A similar situation was true of Melbourne's small bar scene vs Sydney's. Sydney's more expensive/onerous licensing requirements were prohibitive for tiny bars. Whereas Melbourne's licensing was more permissive and less expensive, resulting in an abundance of quirky and interesting venues. Possibly my favourite example was a tiny indy video game bar (it shut down during covid, I think). https://barsk.com.au/skgames/?p=done

North Americans: the city planners are ruining your life in ways you didn't even know could exist.

I'm all for reducing permit requirements, but realisitically these would be used by McDo and Starbux to externalize more costs while increasing their quarterly profit. Really, you need to have something that is trusted and rational without corporate corruption, which Japan nominally is. The US is going the opposite direction from that.

It's my understanding that houses in Japan are zoned to allow a percentage of the space to be used for a low-impact business, like the coffee shop in the article, and that bigger businesses are allowed on the bigger roads and in dedicated commercial/industrial districts. Also most houses can be converted to triplexes, too. This helps with density, encouraging more businesses nearby, less need for cars, better quality of social life, etc.

I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways.

I wondered if Japan does anything along those lines to avoid the problems you mentioned, but google ain't what it used to be and I wasn't able to find specifics.

> I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways.

This isn't actually possible because owning a lot of houses is not a good business. That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. Houses are depreciating assets, so if you own more of them it's just more chances you'll have to pay for a roof replacement.

In particular in Japan, houses are worth less than nothing and you may have to pay to demolish yours if you sell it! (Less true than it used to be because construction quality has gotten a lot better.)

> Houses are depreciating assets

.. which sit on top of the ultimate appreciating asset: land.

> That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate.

https://wustllawreview.org/2023/12/27/corporate-consolidatio...

"Ownership of the nation’s rental housing stock is in transition. The approximately twenty million rental properties in the United States, and fifty million rental units within those properties, have been steadily shifting from individual to corporate hands".

Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve.