From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Is Japan crowded?
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.162152.25329@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec8.163739.14987@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>>>  I keep running into the myth "Japan is a crowded little island" as
>>>  an explanation for a wide variety of things perceived as "only in Japan".
>>>
>>>  The figures below give the population density for a variety of countries
>>>  and States of the US.  If anyone can see ANY correlation between population
>>>  density and culture I will send them $100 (by FAX *<8^) ).
>>>  The following figures are from 1984.
>
>>Japan is a mountainous country, and some nonmountainous parts of it are
>>rather dubiously habitable by the standards of much of the world.  I've
>
>	I expected this "mountainous terrain" stuff.  Anyone visited
>	Switzerland or San Francisco?  Both demonstrate how easy it

Particularly check out the Twin Peaks area, or, to the north, the hills along
highway 101 in Marin County. All susceptible to landslides if not properly
designed, yet that is not a problem in these areas (it IS a problem along the
coast and in parts of LA, where the road systems in residential areas are
not tiered properly).

>	is to build on hills.  SF shows how well skyscrapers can be built
>	in earthquake areas.  Further, rural areas of Japan are actually losing

During our last "big one", none of the modern skyscrapers were at all damaged;
the major damage was to a residential area built on old landfill, and even
that was the result of a) a fire started by a gas pipe and b) some bizarre
resonance effects of the clayey landfill that acted as a 'lens' to focus the
waves. Note: these residential buildings were ALL 1 to 4 stories in height.

>	population, which is to be expected, but clearly demonstrates that
>	habitability is not the sole reason for unequal population
>	distribution.

>>Another neglected factor is the height of residential structures.  New York
>>City has the same density as Tokyo, but most of Tokyo is maybe 2 stories
>>tall, on average.  Part of this is earthquake fears, I'm sure.  Maybe
>>government policies (using earthquake fears as a pretext) are another
>>part of the story.
>
>	I was in Tokyo a few days ago, and I saw plenty of high rise
>	condos and office buildings.  Japanese structural
>	engineers are world reknowned for their ability to design
>	for earthquakes.  I think high rises are only starting now
>	because they can afford the cost of high rises, and because
>	the bubble economy drove up the price of land.

Couple things here: there used to exist laws (sometimes ignored) regarding 
how high buildings could be built in Tokyo (same all over the industrialized
world, so no big surprise). However, these were written in the days before
modern earth-quake proofing techniques became available, and for a long time 
the height restrictions for "normal" buildings remained in place. Permission 
could be gotten to build higher than this but it was a) expensive and b) the 
fact that so many plaots of land were very small made it impractical to build 
anything higher than a few stories. Note, the new capitol buildings in Shinjuku
attest eloquently to ability of the Japanese to build what are presumably 
earthquake-safe skyscrapers. 

HOWEVER

High rises and skyscrapers can make an area MORE not LESS crowded. The lack of
such buildings on a large scale in Japan could not therefor be used to argue
as a reason Japan IS crowded.

>
>	Of course Tokyo is tight.  So is NYC.  The point is no one makes
>	claims that because NYC is crowded, that's why _Americans_ are
>	"paranoid", or "so polite", or whatever attribute the Japanese
>	are supposed to have to be different.  I'm not claiming Japan
>	isn't crowded, only that it is no more or less so than many other
>	areas which do not use that fact to demonstrate their unique
>	qualities.  Japanese love being "different."  As was elsewhere
>	noted, a little travel abroad on their part, with an open mind
>	changes a lot of their perceptions, and the rest of us needn't
>	accept their parochial little self-image on face value.  Also,
>	much of their self-image comes from contact with Americans who
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	are the weird ones, but are too parochial too know it. and so
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	are free and easy with their generalizations.

Mr Goldman has made an error here, at least with regards to Californians; we 
are not "too parochial to know it". Rather, we wallow in our wierdness.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - Oh come on! You didn't think I was serious, did you?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA