Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo
In that regard, I have often found the Japanese exaggerating about the lack of inhabitable land in their country. Especially that the Japanese have traditionally built very concentrated villages/towns, leaving plenty of empty land around, even when the country's population was 1/4 of what it is now. In most European countries (except maybe Spain), houses in the countryside are built "as far as possible" (within certain limits) from other houses, for the sake of privacy or having a bigger garden or "territory". That's why, coming from a country with almost exactly the same density of population as Japan, I was surprised to see so many "wild" expanses in the Japanese countryside, with only fields or forests. In the Belgian countryside, almost anywhere you look you'd find a hamlet or village. So for me Japan is a great place to explore nature (a bit exaggerating, but you get the picture).

In Japan, it's exactly the opposite. People build right next to each other, often without garden/backyard, even when it's in sparsely populated regions like Tohoku or Hokkaido. They do that because of a stronger gregarious intinct, for safety reasons (neighbours can look over your house when you are away), and because it's more convenient for business (closer from the shops, station...). Because of this different approach to land use, they could "pack" more people per square kilometre, or use more land for farming. I have noticed that in the countryside, most people have a patch of cultivated land in their backyard (like they did during the war in Europe) rather than a decorative garden like in Europe. You won't find many people with their own little "Japanese garden" with momiji, cherry trees, cedars and a pond with koi. This is left to old shogun or daimyo gardens or the super-rich (in some European countries like Britain or Belgium, its fairly standard to have a well-tended garden with various trees, parterres and maybe a small pond with Japanese koi).

Japan also produces enough rice to sustain its 128 million people, and many other crops (esp. vegetables and fruits). That means they have the space. And if you can cultivate some land, you can also live on it (but the reverse in not true, e.g. in the mountain).

In Western countries, the most expensive pieces of residential land are usually dramatically set over rocks in a valley or facing the sea, on top of a hill overlooking a city, or other difficult to reach places. Many European castles are located in such places. In LA, such places can be found at Malibu, a mountain flank running straight into the sea. Japan has plenty of places that would cost a fortune for the view they offer over a town/city, but it seems that the Japanese are not interested in living in such places, favouring convenience over landscape or exceptional situation.

Finally, the density of population in Tokyo is 5655 inhabitant/km² (Tokyo-to), or 13,333 inh./km² for the 23 inner wards, which is normal for a big city. NYC has 10,292 inh./km² and Paris (20 wards) has 24,448 inh./km². A city like Sapporo only has 1668 inhabitant/km². This shows that Japanese cities are not so crowded, despite their appearances.

Thank you for that very interesting and informative post. I have always had a huge interest in urban planning and it is very interesting to me how the Japanese regulate their landuse. I REALLY wish the United States would follow such a model but I don't see it ever happening. It's great to see how density really works, rather necessary or not.