Happy Things Thread

[finlay]

Why is Hokkaido only one prefecture while the others are smaller?

I'm not sure, but I think it's to do with the fact that it's settled much more recently. Anyway, Hokkaido is a different class of prefecture than all the rest, and it actually has subprefectures as well, which none of the others do - but overall it has around the same population as the rest of the prefectures. The do in Hokkaido is 道, which usually means "road" - historically, this referred to a region of Japan, so 北海道 (Hokkaidou / north sea road) contrasting with 東海道 (Toukaidou / east sea road, which is no longer used as a prefecture but refers to the region around Nagoya between Tokyo and Osaka) and I think there's a 西海道 (west ~) somewhere.

The other prefectures are mostly known as 県 (ken), but there is also 都 (to), used for the metropolitan prefecture of Tokyo, and 府 (fu), used for the metropolitan prefectures of Kyoto and Osaka, again mostly for historical reasons.

Before the Meiji revolution in the late 1800s, Japan was divided into a different set of provinces, known as 国 (kuni), which also confusingly means country, or 州 (shuu), which is now used for states in America, for example. Many of these match up to modern prefectures (almost all of them have different names, though, like there was Musashi, which covered Tokyo, Saitama and Yokohama), but Hokkaido wasn't colonised by the Japanese at that point, so I don't think it has a matching historical prefecture.

[finlay]

Why is Hokkaido only one prefecture while the others are smaller?

I'm not sure, but I think it's to do with the fact that it's settled much more recently. Anyway, Hokkaido is a different class of prefecture than all the rest, and it actually has subprefectures as well, which none of the others do - but overall it has around the same population as the rest of the prefectures. The do in Hokkaido is 道, which usually means "road" - historically, this referred to a region of Japan, so 北海道 (Hokkaidou / north sea road) contrasting with 東海道 (Toukaidou / east sea road, which is no longer used as a prefecture but refers to the region around Nagoya between Tokyo and Osaka) and I think there's a 西海道 (west ~) somewhere.

The other prefectures are mostly known as 県 (ken), but there is also 都 (to), used for the metropolitan prefecture of Tokyo, and 府 (fu), used for the metropolitan prefectures of Kyoto and Osaka, again mostly for historical reasons.

Before the Meiji revolution in the late 1800s, Japan was divided into a different set of provinces, known as 国 (kuni), which also confusingly means country, or 州 (shuu), which is now used for states in America, for example. Many of these match up to modern prefectures (almost all of them have different names, though, like there was Musashi, which covered Tokyo, Saitama and Yokohama), but Hokkaido wasn't colonised by the Japanese at that point, so I don't think it has a matching historical prefecture.

[sirdanilot]

Interesting

Some Dutch municipalities are also much smaller than others, but this is because there's a movement going on to merge municipalities into larger 'regions'. This started in the more rural parts of the Netherlands, but the municipalities in the west of the country are still quite small.

It used to be: one village + a couple of hamlets around it = one municipality. Nowadays several larger municipalities are merged into larger ones. When I was born my home town of Terneuzen (25.000 inhabitants) was a separate municipality from surrounding villages like Axel (10.000 inhabitants) and Sas van Gent (around 6.000 inhabitants) but these were all merged now totalling about 50.000 inhabitants. But where I live now, the municipality of Leiden is quite small in area (120.000 inhabitants) and all surrounding suburbs, even though there is hardly a visible border between them and the city, are separate municipalities (Oegstgeest, Leiderdorp at like 30.000 inhabitants and even hamlets like Zoeterwoude at 6.000 inhabitants...). This is even so in Amsterdam, which is why it is known as a not very large city at 800.000 inhabitants even though all kinds of suburbs in different municipalities surround it, and if they would all be merged it would go way over one million inhabitants easily, probably reaching close to 2 million. The smallest municipalities are the islands way up north with only 200 inhabitants, but of course it's practical to leave the islands as separate municipalities.

[linguoboy]

Hokkaido wasn't colonised by the Japanese at that point, so I don't think it has a matching historical prefecture.

So what was Ezochi under the Matsumae-shi then? Essentially a private fiefdom outside Tokugawa administration?

[finlay]

Oh I dunno, some of my knowledge is made-up. I remember the name Ezo now, yeah.

The thing with villages merging into larger cities is happening in Japan too, for what it's worth.

[linguoboy]

The thing with villages merging into larger cities is happening in Japan too, for what it's worth.

I wish this sort of thing would happen more often where I'm from. St Louis County has 90 municipal governments. That might seem reasonable for an administrative region with a population of one million, but it masks huge discrepancies. The least populous one, Champ, has only 13 people living in an area of less than a square mile (bzw. 2 km²). The smallest of all is Mackenzie, which covers only 5.2 ha, though at least its population is a whopping 174. Right now there is an ugly succession battle going on in Kinloch (pop. 200) where the mayoral election was decided by 38 votes to 18 and the existing administration is alleging voter fraud. Kinloch was also on the list of municipalities being sued by the state Attorney General for violating rules on reporting municipal income to the state and remitting to the city fee-based revenues above a certain percentage (an attempt to stem the moral hazard of writing nuisance tickets in order to keep the coffers full), though it was later dropped. At lot of the problems in Ferguson and elsewhere are caused by communities being too small to really support themselves, but too stubborn to merge (or bereft of potential partners, since no wealthier municipality wants to incorporate a struggling one).

[hwhatting]

At lot of the problems in Ferguson and elsewhere are caused by communities being too small to really support themselves, but too stubborn to merge (or bereft of potential partners, since no wealthier municipality wants to incorporate a struggling one).

In Germany, many states (Länder) forced such a merger process on small municipalities in the 70s. That created its own problems, as it quite often went over the heads of the inhabitants and caused quite a lot of resentment. In some municipalities they've still not got over it 40 years after.

[finlay]

I still don't really "get" the concept of suburbs not being part of the main city like what happens in America and indeed here. Like, I live in a suburb that is termed a "city", and I can't work out why, because it doesn't fulfil any of the functions I'd expect of a city except for having its own city hall and services, and a population of a few hundred thousand. But to me it's just... part of Tokyo. That's where all the people actually work.

In Scotland I'm fairly sure most of the kinds of functions you'd expect of a "city" here are carried out on a county level. I've just read on Wikipedia that there are community councils too, but they're definitely more like neighbourhoods than cities. They seem to be more of a bridge than something with any power.

[sirdanilot]

Perhaps because politically, the needs and problems of the inner city are quite different from those in the suburbs. Criminal activity and perpetual gridlock may be problems in the inner city, and the suburbs do not want thdeal with that and therefore try to remain independent as long as possible. At least in Holland it's especially the richer suburbs that actively resist being 'absorbed' by the bigger cities. That's why we have the municipality of Wassenaar which is not a part of Den Haag/The Hague (a large city), because Wassenaar is very rich and posh, and the inhabitants don't want anything to do with The Hague on a political level even when many people work there.

The lack of proper city regions in Holland is quite a problem. Yes there are city regions, but they are quite loosely organized and also they do not span the complete area of city and suburbs. For example Leiden is not a part of the Den Haag city region (Haaglanden) even though for many things we depend on this city. This has consequences such as there not being a proper tram line to Voorschoten/Den Haag, because nobody earns anything from building a tram line outside the city region. (incidentally there was a tram line in the ancient past of the 1960s but it was terribly slow at that time and torn down because of that). So now we are stuck with gazilions of buses each hour which pollute the city center.

[linguoboy]

ILike, I live in a suburb that is termed a "city", and I can't work out why, because it doesn't fulfil any of the functions I'd expect of a city except for having its own city hall and services

As an American, I don't get what you don't get about this. What else is a "city" from an administrative point of view but a means of providing city services? What other "functions" do you expect a city government to perform?

Control over the provision of these services is one of the major sticking points when it comes to consolidation. Only this morning I was reading about problems with the police force in Breckenridge Hills (pop. 4,746). Just last year, the mayor proposed eliminating it and purchasing coverage from the neighbouring city of St Ann at two-thirds the cost. But the City Council voted it down, partly because they questioned his figures and partly because "they also felt that an outside city would never be as concerned about Breckenridge Hills as are its own officers".

Perhaps because politically, the needs and problems of the inner city are quite different from those in the suburbs.

In the USA, at any rate, this binary distinction is becoming obsolete. For years, "old line" or "inner ring" suburbs have been experiencing many of the issues associated with "inner cities". Not all bad, mind you--some are gentrifying. At the same time, "inner city" problems are expanding further out. Ferguson, for instance, is 12 miles (20 km) from the city centre of St Louis, whereas wealthy Clayton is only ten. But urban flight operates radially in St Louis, so suburbs in North County are more likely to share the problems of St Louis' impoverished North Side whereas Midtown St Louis is experiencing an influx of yuppies from affluent Mid County.

In some cities, sociologists are predicting the rise of a pattern already familiar to Europeans living in the most dynamic larger cities: a posh centre of older, well-maintained housing stock surrounded by struggling banlieues. Only it's worse here because of our longstanding tradition of sprawl. Organisations have a lot of experience providing social services in dense urban areas. This is much harder to do when the poor are spread out in low-rises and bungalows (as anyone tasked with providing these services to rural communities can tell you).

[sirdanilot]

I think the phenomenon of the inner city becoming impoverished is a mostly American one. The city centers in European cities have the major advantage of often being beautiful, historical and touristic, so everyone wants to live there and housing prices are absurd. 500 euros per month in the city center of Amsterdam for a small little student room with a kitchen/bathroom shared with others, perpetual mice plagues and a leaking roof is a 'bargain'. This is even true for smaller cities; if I'd live 1 kilometer north of where I live now my rent could be 1.5 times higher than it is now simply because I would be in Leiden's historical city center. Another factor is that the city center is often easier to reach by subway, tram or bus, and the central train station is often located near the city center. All sorts of events, bars, terraces, boats etc. are going on in the city center.

This is a bit different in bombed cities such as Rotterdam which are devoid of historical buildings thanks to our wonderful German neighbours, but even there they at least attempt to make the city center look attractive, and much of the city center is occupied by China Town which is always nice to visit.

Now I know this is not so in the Americas. I was in Rio de Janeiro and I was wondering why we hadn't gone to the city center. 'Why would you go there? It's filthy and dangerous and there's nothing to see there, only skyscrapers' was the response. And having been there a couple of times, it is actually true that there is nothing much to see in the city center there.

Unlike in America, the business center is not always int he city center in Europe. Amsterdam's skyscrapers (which aren't that high because otherwise they would sink in the mud and also due to the nearby airport) are located in the South of the city, and not in the Center.

[Pole, the]

If I were to make such a map, it would look something like that:

ddd.png (69.26 KiB) Viewed 3669 times

blue = lived (been at least a month)
green = slept (been at least one night)
yellow = visited (been at least an hour)

[linguoboy]

I think the phenomenon of the inner city becoming impoverished is a mostly American one. The city centers in European cities have the major advantage of often being beautiful, historical and touristic, so everyone wants to live there and housing prices are absurd.

I can see you've spent a lot of time in Scotland and the North of England.

[sirdanilot]

Why on earth would I go to Scotland or northern England?

You have to drive on the left, take an expensive boat or plane, and it always rains there too. And it's expensive compared to other countries. And they eat food that looks like a bag of shit and probably tastes like it too.
Seriously, driving on the left was the reason that we never went to Britain on vacation with our family, as my father refused to drive on the left as he finds it dangerous if you aren't used to it. We visited all countries widely surrounding holland except for Britain.

[Viktor77]

If I were to make such a map, it would look something like that:

ddd.png

blue = lived (been at least a month)
green = slept (been at least one night)
yellow = visited (been at least an hour)

Hey, you're living where some of my ancestors came from. They came from Czerniejewo, many from Poznań, and Włocławek. They had German Prussian names so I assume they didn't have Polish blood, though I'd like to know. I plan to visit Poland, and especially these areas, next year.

[Pole, the]

Hey, you're living where some of my ancestors came from. They came from Czerniejewo, many from Poznań, and Włocławek. They had German Prussian names so I assume they didn't have Polish blood, though I'd like to know. I plan to visit Poland, and especially these areas, next year.

Oh, nice to know.

[Salmoneus]

I think the phenomenon of the inner city becoming impoverished is a mostly American one. The city centers in European cities have the major advantage of often being beautiful, historical and touristic, so everyone wants to live there and housing prices are absurd.

I can see you've spent a lot of time in Scotland and the North of England.

Could say the same to you - does London not count as one of the largest and most dynamic cities in Europe?

Because London has poorer inner-city areas and wealthier 'leafy suburbs'. True, the absolute core of Central London is the wealthiest of all, but the population is tiny. And there are enclaves of pleasantness in the inner boroughs, thanks to recent gentrification in places like islington and camden. But it generally remains true that the greatest poverty is in 'inner city' areas, in the inner boroughs (places like hackney, tower hamlets, etc).

And regarding 'city' - it's not about governance. "City" in our dialect is a close synonym of "metropolitan area" (well, a combination of 'metropolitan area' and 'urban area', I think, since dormitory towns usually aren't included in it) - it is essential that it be functionally independent. If people mostly commute from an area to another to work, that area can't itself be a city, though it may be part of one.

[linguoboy]

Could say the same to you - does London not count as one of the largest and most dynamic cities in Europe?

London is sui generis.

[Rui]

I've done a map like Viktor's, from the same website (iirc we found it independent of each other), though I'm not quite as hardcore as Viktor is. It's just something for my knowledge in a "hey, cool" type of thing, not something I'm actively working to complete. This is my map, the legend is on the right side by New Jersey/Long Island, but if you can't see, red is for lived, green is for visited, blue is drove through, yellow for train only (I count this separately because it's basically like driving), and black for airport only (which in my case is just Los Angeles and Detroit). I've lived in 4 counties: Queens, Monroe, and New York counties in New York, and Fairfield County in Connecticut. It's not particularly impressive since I've barely ever left the northeast, though, but like I said, it's just fun to keep track.

edit: or something can screw with the colors and make my "airports only" light gray and a shade away from invisible...

[Risla]

I just biked 25 miles, over two hours (and two minutes)!

[jmcd]

Why on earth would I go to Scotland or northern England?

You have to drive on the left, take an expensive boat or plane, and it always rains there too. And it's expensive compared to other countries. And they eat food that looks like a bag of shit and probably tastes like it too.
Seriously, driving on the left was the reason that we never went to Britain on vacation with our family, as my father refused to drive on the left as he finds it dangerous if you aren't used to it. We visited all countries widely surrounding holland except for Britain.

There I thought people had public transport in the Netherlands. And Ryanair.
Also, compare : http://fr.climate-data.org/location/2103/ with http://www.climatedata.eu/climate.php?l ... 52&lang=en
Anyway, haggis is delicious; don't knock it til you've tried it.

[jal]

However, if I'd do it in Holland I run into the problem of the scale. If I would colour in all provinces I've been then I would color in everything except the two most northern provinces of Holland (though incidentally I'm going to Frisia (Friesland or Fryslân) the day after tomorrow so only Groningen will be left for me to visit for the first time). If I would colour in all municipalities I've been in, it would take forever as the municipalities in Holland are quite small-scaled. Though the larger cities have a larger municipality, there are also singleton villages which form one tiny municipality and I'd have to use paint's bucket tool for every single one of them.

I've been to all provinces, though the Northern two and Limburg the least, probably. I don't think after the many municipality reforms we've had in the recent decades that there are any "singleton villages" left as separate municipalities. Also, if you compare your map to RUIs one, you can see there's quite a lot more counties in the US than municipalities in the Netherlands.


JAL

[jal]

and caused quite a lot of resentment. In some municipalities they've still not got over it 40 years after.

Same here. My howntown of Amersfoort swallowed the municipality of Hoogland, which was quite large, and the Hooglanders still resent that, up to the point that they chalked away the "gemeente Amersfoort" below the Hoogland city-limits signs, and put a "gemeente Hoogland" underneath some of the Amersfoort signs.


JAL

[sirdanilot]

They still exist. I was in Millingen aan den Rijn (near the German border ) and it is still its own municipality. There are more examples of this still

[jal]

They still exist. I was in Millingen aan den Rijn (near the German border ) and it is still its own municipality. There are more examples of this still

Well, I'll grant you that one, even though it's not anymore since 1-1-2015, according to Wikipedia. They're still being rounded up.


JAL