Near-complete Tokyo condo to be demolished for spoiling Mount Fuji view

You'd think the people might be overreacting but I live 10 minutes from the location and the view was pretty amazing of Fuji. Right down the middle of the street you could see Mt. Fuji and it looked big and clear. But the building blocked out half of the view. I'm happy Sekisui House decided not to fight this.

Must be nice to be able to throw away money like this. Proof that large corporations here have money to proverbially burn.

They should have never built it in the first place.

Can't they just claim they are preventing a tourist hotspot from forming?

That’s not very ‘sexy’ (sic)

TaiwanIsNotChina

Today 06:17 am JST

Can't they just claim they are preventing a tourist hotspot from forming?

Oh I was going to say something but you beat me to it and I think even better than how I was going to do it!

But the irony of the situation is clear!

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Sekisui House probably got their money back.

It’s a different class of resident who complained about it for this to happen.

Just means more work for the construction industry.

That’s not very ‘sexy’ (sic)

That's not very funny either.

Can't they just claim they are preventing a tourist hotspot from forming?

That’s an acceptable justification only when the tourists are mostly foreigners.

..and now since the internet learnt about this great view, the insta crowd will flock there, residents will complain even more and then they will put up a screen to block the view.

JT should have included the picture

https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/1219250

18-unit condominium in Kunitachi, built along a street known for the view of the iconic 3,776-meter peak, due to "insufficient consideration for the impact on the scenery." Most of the units were sold for around 70 million yen to 80 million yen.

70 millions yen for one unit and they have 18 unit, how much that would be?

it will demolish a nearly completed condominium in western Tokyo, just weeks before transfer to purchasers, after nearby residents complained the building partially blocks the view of Mount Fuji.

They just will demolish just like that, basically it's already finished and ready for use.

https://news.ntv.co.jp/category/society/e44d317c96fe430bb927f38cd259dcfa

obladi

Today 06:58 am JST

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Sekisui House probably got their money back

But I wonder about the buyers.

just weeks before transfer to purchasers,

Think about the mess these people are now in!

When I purchased my house, I gave my prerequisite notice to the owner of my rental homes that I was leaving months before the date I was leaving.

We made contracts with moving companies, etc...

Now suddenly these people have nowhere to go, they will probably still have to vacate the place they are presently living on the the original date they planed on moving to their new condo, which means finding a place at short notice, still moving and probably to a temporary rental, the hassle, the stress, the interruption of their lives and the need to start all over again trying to find another condo to buy if they can!

Even if Sekisui pays some form of compensation it may not be enough!

I don't know the contract in this case but in our case had the previous owner of our house pulled out we would be compensated at 3 times the deposit which honestly would have been eaten up by cancelation fees, apartment key money, deposit, moving expenses loss of work time (salary), etc...

Not to mention the time lost searching for the right place and right cost (what the buyer can afford) and having to start all over again, this time with the stress and fear this situation could happen again.

I don't know the situation of each condo buyer but in our case the monthly cost of renting was 40% higher than our mortgage payments (including paying parking Rental which we don't need now as our house has parking).

So it is a good possibility that each month these people have to continue renting their monthly expenses will be higher than had they gotten their condo and started paying mortgage!

Will Sekisui be paying out enough compensation to cover all the costs and inconveniences to those that are now not going to have a place to live?

"insufficient consideration for the impact on the scenery."

Has there ever been such consideration? It doesn't look like it. Japan is a country of eyesores.

JT should have included the picture

https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/1219250

I guess the 20+ above-ground power lines marring the scenery are considered to be acceptable.

If this view is so treasured, why not bury the power lines along this street, which would also make them resilient against wind and snow that can damage above-ground equipment.

—

https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/why-does-japan-have-so-many-overhead-power-lines

The company said it would book construction costs and dismantling fees as extraordinary losses.

There must be a real motive behind this move. Perhaps the company is using it a ploy to avoid taxes. By filing it as losses, they could be avoiding a bigger tax to pay.

What do you think?

Must be some pretty powerful vips living in that area.

I think this place should be added to the tourist trail. Show some love for nature-loving Japan.

The offending building is the tall gray one on the right side of the street in this view.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13514351/Luxury-apartments-blocked-view-Mount-Fuji-demolished-days-owners-in.html

This is the building.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13514351/Luxury-apartments-blocked-view-Mount-Fuji-demolished-days-owners-in.html

Next, how ow about removing all buildings that block Mt Fuji view?

If the view is essential, they could remove all the overhead cables obstructing the Fuji view.

There is a much better view of Fuji at Higashi Kurume station on the Seibu Ikebukuro line. But there is a sign by the viewing spot saying something like it’s one of the best views of Fuji in Tokyo so I doubt they would allow a developer to obstruct it.

It's a 20 years old story, but Kunitachi is known for it's right to scenery.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E7%AB%8B%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3%E8%A8%B4%E8%A8%9F

(in Japanese)

This will have taken lots of arm-twisting and won't be the "okay we'll take it down" touchy feely experience suggested by the story.

The planners must have been asleep at the wheel to allow this. Every 10 story building should be checked for impact, regardless of where it is.

They need to pull down Fuji - it's just causing too many problems.

They must have gotten some clearance for other construction in return. I am sure the potential new owners will sue.

I have a nice view of Tokyo skytree from my veranda!

I wonder if I can block any construction that in the future blocks my view?

I guess the 20+ above-ground power lines marring the scenery are considered to be acceptable.

My wife said - with a straight face - that Japanese just don't notice them.

Seeing pictures, it totally destroyed the view. I wouldn't be impressed if I lived there either.

So this is the official soup opera story.

Now, what is the real story being this?

There was a regulation covering the area East of Ueno Park that would prohibit buildings from being built over a certain height (around 10 stories) to enable views of Mt. Fuji. The general public was unaware of this regulation until an article appeared in "The Economist"(!) around 15 years ago, leading to the scrapping of a few construction plans.

Some places are stricter than others, but Weak zoning laws prevail nation wide.

In my city some historical sights and areas have been blighted by ugly apartment and other building constructions.

The "It's my land I can do what-ever I want" appears to still be the general rule.

Exceptions exist, but they are in the minority.

And it's interesting that the concept of Shakkei 借景 - borrowed scenery - has been an important part of Japanese architectural design esp of gardens for centuries.

The idea of distant vistas being incorporated into the design - not as a pretty view - but as an integral component of the atmosphere, has been lauded by designers world wide.

Sadly holding onto traditions only suit when banging a we are exceptional drum, but quickly discarded when Inc is involved.

Glad that this building will go but what an easily avoidable chaos and turmoil has been created for no doubt hundreds of people.

The company has a ton of cash, so they can take the financial hit. However, I would have just left it there and told the residents "get used to it". When you buy a place, you don't own the rights to the view. That's life, especially in Tokyo.

When I lived in Nagano, the overhead cables were removed from the main streets for the Winter Olympics. When Kobe was reconstructed, the main streets no longer had overhead cables. They could paint the missing part of Fuji on the side of the condo block then no one will notice.

The company has a ton of cash, so they can take the financial hit.

I wouldn't be so sure Sekisui House is doing this out of a sense of responsibility...

Kunitachi is a town developed and built by once the richest family on earth (Tsutsumi family of Seibu fame), and there has been shall we say conflict of this nature in the past. Google Daigaku Dori, same issue, and there was a court decision that says if you have 'standing' you can sue (but the plaintiff's case was dismissed because construction had already started).

The Kunitachi council then rushed in new laws to prevent a repeat. If this building infringe in any way, Sekisui's would have a hard time in court, IMHO.

here's a similar case

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2004/10/28/national/judge-reverses-kunitachi-ruling/

It would improve the view immensely, if they They took down that Lawson everyone is complaining about… ;)

I wonder how many of the people that complained live in a house blocking the view for others….

I wonder how many of the people that complained live in a house blocking the view for others….

not comparable...Fujimi Dori was planned from the start to have a view of Fuji san. Think Avenue des Champs-Élysées, then you'll appreciate its significance to the locals.

https://www.seibuholdings.co.jp/assets/pdf/history/SeibuHD_history_en_02-03.pdf

We named it Kunitachi (theChinese characters for Kunitachi imply “to establish a coun-try”) because we were convinced that here, a new Japan would be born.” Kunitachi exemplified all of the spirit Tsutsumi brought to developing land always in anticipation of a new age.

The sacred peak of Mt. Fuji can be seen from Fujimi Road,the radial road extending from the roundabout in front of Kunitachi Station. This is no coincidence, but was part of Tsutsumi’s plan from the beginning.

Highly fishy story.

Insurance policies at play.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Doesn't Japan have the concept of building permit (of course I know the answer...) ?

So instead of a 10 storey building, is it going to be 6 or 8 storeys ?

Anyway, it is ugly with those power lines and buildings are still built with total disconnection of any harmony between one another.

Insurance policies at play.

That's not what it says in the story. Is it a conspiracy do you think? Is that your theory?

Doesn't Japan have the concept of building permit (of course I know the answer...) ?

They had permits.

So instead of a 10 storey building, is it going to be 6 or 8 storeys ?

Did you not read the story?

not comparable...Fujimi Dori was planned from the start to have a view of Fuji san.

It would seem that way, Fujimi-dori - 富士見通り - literally means 'Fuji View Road'.

The street that it was blocking the view from was literally called "View of Mount Fujii Street" (富士見通り） which may also have contributed.

Its pretty rare for a developer to actually take a step like this out of considerations for the impact of their buildings on the scenery, a factor that seems to normally get zero weight put on it in decision making in this country, so its quite surprising.

If they are allowed to write the lose off in taxes then it should be a crime. This was their decision and I see this as a huge corporate write off to avoid tax.

リッチToday  01:14 pm JST

If they are allowed to write the lose off in taxes then it should be a crime. This was their decision and I see this as a huge corporate write off to avoid tax.

Even it they could I dont see how that's a crime. The abundance of evidence in the form of objections from Kunitachi and it's residents would be a substantial defense against any charge of deliberate intent.

I am sure the developer as well as the condo buyers were all satisfactorily compensated. And it served the community and the view.

I wish at least one article on this would tell us what the buyers that expected to move in just a few weeks from now are going to do?

All we get are the view from the residents that were upset about the building and from the company!

If as per standard a 10% deposit was put down and the 3 times penalty cancelation clause we are looking at an average of around ¥24.6 million to each buyer!

That does seem a lot but then it will be taxed (well the ¥16,4 million part as the ¥8.2 would be just returning the deposit).

But the money isn't everything, these people are set to move in and move out of where they are now!

If they have given notice of moving out of their rental homes or sold their present home, where are they going to go now on such short notice?

I wonder could they sue the city, or the résidence group involved?

I sure would if it was me in this situation!

Does anyone other than me see the irony of this?

They could always put up a blinder behind the building to block the view of it

There was something wrong with the construction. It isn't just about the view.

Antiquesaving

Today 07:39 am JST

Compensation should be in kind, not just a penalty. They should provide them the same or better condo in a similar location at no extra cost or time. Failure to do so within 1 week of delivery date should mean they are owed 3× their whole housing cost, not just the deposit. As you said, they need a new place to live.

browny1

Today 10:45 am JST

Some places are stricter than others, but Weak zoning laws prevail nation wide.

National zoning laws can help prevent nimbyism. Nimbyism, among other things, are keeping home prices skyhigh in many countries. It's also preventing mixed zoning which creates a more walkable and liveable city.

> The "It's my land I can do what-ever I want" appears to still be the general rule

To a certain degree, can you not see their point? Would you like it it I told you what you could and couldn't do to or on property that you bought with your money? I know I wouldn't like that. Unfortunately, this is how it is in many countries, including the one I'm working in now (US). HOAs are like private dictatorships...and they have legal recourse, including taking your property away for failure to abide by the HOA laws.

I'm not sure what surprises me most - the fact that they are going to take it down, or the fact that it costs 70-80 million yen for a condo way out in Kunitachi!

The view doesn't look as if it ever looked amazing in the recent past. It may have looked amazing before the buildings on either side of that street were built, but how long ago was that?

If I had bought one of those condos intending to live there I would be dropping a big fat lawsuit about now. Canceling the project and having it torn down this late, with the building all but finished, is nonsense.

If I had bought one of those condos intending to live there I would be dropping a big fat lawsuit about now. Canceling the project and having it torn down this late, with the building all but finished, is nonsense.

I doubt it will come to that. This is Japan - the company will already be reaching out to the buyers and be working on compensation. And Japan not being a litigious country, combined with a system that does not award large punitive damages, in my opinion the likelihood is that most, if not all, buyers will come to an agreement with the builders for compensation.

If I had bought one of those condos intending to live there I would be dropping a big fat lawsuit about now. Canceling the project and having it torn down this late, with the building all but finished, is nonsense.

The cynics in me says the developer is using others to heap pressure on oppositions and that this is not the end of the story. They already has a lady who lived next door saying she doesn't think demolition is common sense.

Planning laws have been prescriptive and strict on 10m or 20m height limits since the Daigaku case loss in early 2000s (and in this case, appears to be 10m going by buildings in the street). IMHO, the developer is in damage control.

桜川雪 -

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with some aspects of your comments.

However the articles case is not a case of nimbyism. It's a result of seemingly haphazard zoning laws resulting in the building being in an inappropriate position. If the building was in the same area but in a less than confronting site, perhaps little would have been said.

But this all goes further than that. People have rights to use their land as they wish, but the community also have rights. If one lives in an urban environment for example, the land uses impact upon the neighbouring areas should be taken into account imo.

Zoning laws exist all over the world for the protection of both urban and rural environments. I'm all for a mixed land use within sensible reasoning without detracting from or destroying the current situation.

Case in point - my friends house. 5 years ago my city sold a large plot of govt land opposite a school and in a 100% residential area with a sprinkling of small businesses. The buyers levelled a smaller building, cleared some adjoining blocks and built a funeral home surrounded by acres of asphalt parking. No resident was ever consulted for their opinions. It's impacted on the value of their properties and is another ill planned option. Funeral homes are necessary. We all will die. But this one located in such a place just 1.5 kms from downtown could just as easily been built on more suitable land not so far away. Some people think collusion was involved but we don't know.

But the critical point is - people are a part of a wider community and while they have the right for determining land use, their rights should not be to the detriment of others. Re - telling me what I can do with my property. Well yes. If you want to do whatever on your property you'd better move to an isolated place.

It can be complicated.

In most cases I've seen in my home country Australia - which has strict zoning laws - I and most, don't see it as some Big Brother Govt Inc crushing rights, but rather as a means to keep and create a harmonious living environment for hte majority.

If they had just named the condo "Lawson" then there would have been no issue here.

If you want to do whatever on your property you'd better move to an isolated place.

I can say you can't do it even in an isolated place. I wanted to build a nicer home on my farm in New Zealand and have a side income as well. No way was the response.

I'm not alone, this guy is a celebrity. His land is not far from mine and nope to him as well, in the middle of no where, no neighbours....

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/wanaka/lodge%E2%80%99s-fate-sealed-thiel-appeal-fails

From my mansion I have the view of Mt. Fuji it is a dream to wake to it every morning and seeing the sunset on it every evening. Once upon a time I had a view of Tokyo Skytree and Asakasa fireworks until they built condos in front of my building and all that was taken.

Rounding up, I have empathy for all those who complained about their view being blocked.