There are so many cool things like this all over Japan, and only a very small percentage of them get completely run-over with international tourists. Even an hour or two outside of Tokyo, many not-so-hidden treasures like this can be found. And there aren't many tourists at these spots.
Take last year's "Lawson with a view of Mount Fuji" thing. The city had to to take all kinds of counter-measures to international tourists flocking there just to take a photo. Meanwhile, there are dozens more Lawsons in the area with epic views of Mount Fuji in the background, and not a tourist in sight.
Yes, I agree, because life would get boring really quickly. People should be able to express themselves (in a civil, legal manner) so that the world can be more colourful and filled with art and beauty.
But also no, I don't agree. Have you seen the impact tourism in Japan has had on the local ecosystem as of late? They've literally banned tourists in some areas because frankly: more tourists act like animals. They litter, act rude and disrespectful, and are just obnoxious. Also, in a lot of cases, they provide little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice, for example.
So I think when making something like this, there has to be some degree of forward thinking around how it's going to divert (tourist) traffic to the area and what impact that's going to have on the locals.
No patience for these complaints. Either you want tourist money or you don't. Seems like half the city lives off it and the other half hates it. That's an internal problem.
I think the main concern is about the capacity to handle that many tourists. As the population increases and general prosperity increases, amount of tourists will correspondingly increase. There are not that many tourist spots for a given location and causes overrun. There need to be some throttling function. Probably increase the cost/tax, or reduce the visas. Or increase the ability to handle so many tourists. I don't know how this can be done. May be better infrastructure and new places of interests.
>little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice
A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards. If you could set forth an edict and gradually empty Venice out into a touristless town over the next 5 years, you would probably see economic growth tumble downwards, not up.
Now capitalism would eventually catch up, it always does. Italians are cool people and hard workers. But ask e.g. the Baltic states whether they're secretly happy they lost ~a century of economic growth before finally getting the chance to enter a boom time, because it meant their economies stayed local. Then ask them another question: Suppose you didn't have much industry of note, but tourists just loved you and flocked from all over the world to see you, would you take that? I think you'd have a lot of takers.
One should a much stronger argument than "But... but tourism is icky" before you go messing with one of the primary economic levers of a whole city. Preferably an argument backed up by graphs and forecasts, because it runs contrary to basic economic wisdom. Absent those I feel comfortable guessing that the median Japanese town which bans tourists will probably suffer economically for it, in no small part because that suggests tourists were at some point a big deal. Any eventual industrial rebound, if it happens at all, will happen because they gradually became cheaper to work in than surrounding areas (I wonder why?), and would not be sufficient to make up for the lost compound growth of the 5-10 years where a key industry for that area was kneecapped.
The claim that “tourism has little financial benefits to the local economy in Venice” is debatable and context-dependent. Here's a detailed breakdown addressing both why the claim may be true in some aspects, and why it may be misleading or false in others.
---
Arguments Supporting the Claim:
1. High Leakage of Tourist Revenue
Much of the tourist spending in Venice ends up outside the local economy:
Many hotels, cruise lines, and travel agencies are owned by foreign or non-local entities.
Revenue often flows to large tour operators, not to Venetians themselves.
Day-trippers (especially cruise passengers) spend very little per capita.
2. Overtourism and Cost Externalization
The externalities of mass tourism (e.g. garbage collection, water bus crowding, maintenance of ancient infrastructure) are borne by the municipality and residents, not by tourists.
The economic cost of wear and tear on fragile historical structures is immense and undercompensated.
3. Loss of Local Businesses and Services
Traditional shops and services (bakeries, fishmongers, schools) are being replaced by souvenir shops and Airbnbs, which often serve short-term tourists.
This creates a "hollow economy" where real life becomes unviable for locals.
4. Depopulation and Real Estate Inflation
Real estate is increasingly purchased by investors for short-term rentals, pushing locals out and reducing residential density.
Venice’s population has dropped from ~175,000 in 1950s to under 50,000 today in the historic center.
5. Low Multiplier Effect
Much of the employment created is low-paid, seasonal, precarious, and lacks career development.
Limited reinvestment into the community fabric (education, public health, sustainable infrastructure).
---
Counterarguments (Why Tourism Still Brings Economic Benefit):
1. Tourism Is a Major Employer
A significant portion of Venetian jobs is in hospitality, transport, and retail, all tied to tourism.
Completely removing tourism would collapse the current local job market.
2. Tax Revenues
The city imposes tourist taxes (tassa di soggiorno) on accommodations and more recently, even entrance fees for day-trippers.
These can help fund infrastructure and conservation—if well-managed.
3. Export Substitute
Venice doesn’t have a diversified industrial base. Tourism is one of the few export-equivalent services Venice can offer due to its geographic isolation and fragile ecosystem.
---
Conclusion
While tourism contributes significantly in gross economic terms, the net local financial benefit is undermined by:
revenue leakage,
rising costs of living,
poor job quality,
and infrastructure stress.
Thus, the statement is partially true: mass tourism as currently structured in Venice is unsustainable and offers diminishing marginal returns to locals, especially compared to the burdens it imposes
Can't really blame click economy when travel is promoted as universal good from local, state and national governments all over the world. Travel used to be few times in a lifetime thing. Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least.
> Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least
You and I live in different worlds. I only know one person who travels that often, after he became wealthy from a successful buy out. Overwhelmingly the people around me travel a handful of times in a lifetime.
Most people I know are not rich but have or had ok jobs and they all travel 4-5x / year. Most do all inclusive trips mixed with once a year a longer trip. It is quite weird as I myself am somewhat confused how they manage; when asked they mostly say that they dont have other use for the money anyway.
Don’t underestimate domestic Japanese tourism! To be fair, it feels a bit different, compared to international, as there’s no language barrier and etc.
This is awesomeness happening because copyright can't sabotage it.
sidebar: The opposite of this awesomeness is counterproductive absurdity. The latter is what copyright always devolves to when it is insufficiently restrained.
Studio Ghibli has historically been fairly permissive with non-commercial fan tributes compared to Disney or other animation studios, which is part of why we see these wonderful community expressions flourish in Japan.
Not to defend anti-creativity, but it's my understanding that at least in the US you have to defend your copyright and go after violations or I guess a real serious violation could say "but this other person did it and had no consequences so that's unfair"
It's made of concrete, which now that I think about it must have been the obvious choice, but I can't help but feel a bit disappointed that it's not soft and fluffy like in the movie.
No wonder, people go nuts for stuff like this. The only reason it doesn't have constant lines is that because it's a little out of the way. If it was in Tokyo you'd see lines around the block daily.
If you're in Seattle, there's also a large statue of the robot from Laputa: Castle in the Sky here. It's standing on the front lawn of a house in the Ballard neighborhood. I had recently seen the movie when I first encountered it, so it was a fun find.
There is a tradition of placing small tokens or flowers on his palm! At one point the owner had a tumblr where they posted pictures of the offerings it received occasionally.
I guess if they ruin it, they're also likely to generate economic life for the area (though the owners are going to hate it). A lot of areas outside the main cities are quietly struggling. A little depressing to see when visiting.
It’s not an actual bus stop. The bus stop is part of the installation. It depicts the scene where Totoro takes the cat bus [1]. But I was hoping it had an umbrella too.
Fair enough. I believe there is a map for people with disabilities which might have better info. Frankly speaking, I can’t think of any city where all bus stops have chairs and covering.
Here in Hungary all major cities have that, in fact, I lived in a very small village with like 100 people, and even that had a damn "container" or whatever and a bench inside, to protect against the rain and to be able to sit down. It has been modernized further by now (yes, for these ~100 people), but what they did then was extremely cheap yet effective, so there is no excuse for lack of benches and shelters at bus stops, really.
And you can down-vote me for me not liking Tokio for the fact that their bus stops have no benches, but that is a must-have for someone like me who has disabilities, and many cities in Hungary (and even small towns) have benches and whatever you could call it (container shelter of some sort) to protect against the rain, so don't tell me Hungary is better in this regard than Tokio, or is it? This is surprising to me. Maybe Tokio does not have enough elderly people or people with disabilities?
In any case, if shitty villages with a population of 100-500 have benches and a shelter at bus stops in Hungary, surely Tokio could do it too, I wonder why they are not doing it.
If you want I could probably find it on Google Maps FWIW. I hope the pictures are old (pre-modernization).
Do not mistake my comment for hatred of Tokio, however. It is just a place that I simply cannot visit for such reasons. There is nothing more to it.
As someone who's triggered by this and has griped about it just recently: No, this doesn't qualify, because Totoro is actually Japanese content that happens to be popular internationally. "Thing, Japan" is if you take something that is commonplace outside of Japan as well, and act as if only the mystical, wise place that is Japan has it.
No, the question is 'Where else there are decorated bus stops?' and there are countless examples of that. But no one cares (= no one will make a HN post about it) if you see that in Poland [0] or in the UK [1]. So 'Thing, Japan' + HN has a very strong Japanophilia
I don't think it matters to many people that this was in japan, so much as it does that this is totoro and also that it was done by regular people who just wanted to make something nice. It'd be just as cool if grandparents in Ohio did this, expect they'd inevitably be sued into bankruptcy for it by disney.
Do you realize the linked article isn't talking about an actual bus stop? The movie My Neighbor Totoro has a scene at a bus stop. These people recreated the bus stop near their home/business.
So no, any bus stop that's been decorated is not "the same thing outside of Japan." This is specifically about being the bus stop from the movie.
I concur. This would have been awesome anywhere. The fact that this is in Japan is not surprising, although it's clear that if one were to go check out a lifesize Totoro statue, having in Japan makes it nicer because it's its "natural" environment.
Eh, depends where the bus stop is. Around me, the transit busses don't have marked stops, and will stop anywhere on the route, and there's no sidewalk, so landowners can put up art/sculpture at the edge of their parcel or the road easement, if they want. School busses stop at specific places, but many landowners have put up shelters for students to wait underneath. In town, there are bus stops and city managed sidewalk; you can't block the sidewalk, but a landowner could put up art at the edge of the sidewalk. Commercial signs are regulated regardless of where installed, but a sculpture such as this isn't commercial.
Your city may be different, of course, but I wouldn't expect this to cause a problem, if installed by permission of the owner, in most cities. HOAs might throw a fit, they like to do that.
This sculpture isn't particularly tall, but height restrictions are popular. A sculpture that does not appear to be stable, or appears particularly flammable might be reviewable as well. There's no utility connections, so there's no need to review those.
The night the bar I went to shut down, we got some spray paint and wrote messages all over the building. Few weeks later they're having an estate sale. I notice it was painted over. Asked the owner, he said the county got on his ass about it.
All the land around a bus station is typically city-owned, I wouldn't give it a week before a work detail is despatched to remove it.
> we got some spray paint and wrote messages all over the building ... he said the county got on his ass about it.
No surprise, messages in spray paint are generally discouraged. Had you drawn a mural, it may have been treated differently.
> All the land around a bus station is typically city-owned, I wouldn't give it a week before a work detail is despatched to remove it.
When the bus stop is on a gravel road next to a field, as depicted in the article, I doubt the land is city-owned. But yeah, no surprise, the city doesn't want you to dump your stuff on their land, and they'll remove it.
Edit: from the google maps picture, it's not even on a gravel road, it's next to gravel parking for a small building. What municipality is going to give you shit for putting a sculpture next to your parking lot, unless the sculpture is obviously dangerous, offensive, or subverting building codes (if your sculpture is occupiable space, it needs to meet building codes)
That's not generally true. In my current house, I own the land to the middle of the street. There is no sidewalk. The city has an implied easement (I've not found any documentation of it at least) covering the street and any drainage features abutting the street, although there are none on my side of the street. I can't place a sculpture on the road and expect it to remain, although there have been concrete blocks placed to obstruct parking since before I purchased the property, and they haven't been removed, so I could probably put some art there if I really wanted. Some of the lots around me do not extend into the street, and some do. As mentioned, sidewalks are not universal, and certainly not around here ... in town sidewalks are common, but lot boundaries are not consistent --- many lot lines on sidewalked streets don't extend into the sidewalk, but some extend into the sidewalk and the street surface. Regardless, art left on the sidewalk is likely to be removed, as it impairs access and the municipality has rights to maintain access to sidewalk regardless of ownership.
At my last house, I believe my lot went to the curb, although we never had it surveyed, and I didn't measure the width of the street. That wasn't in a city, but it did have a sidewalk; the county established standards for the sidewalk, but as the landowner, I was responsible for maintenance of it. The land between the sidewalk and the street was in my undisputed control, although looking at the county assessor interactive map, the lot line may fall a few feet on the house side of the sidewalk; the plat map shows a 50 foot gap in lots for the street and google maps measurement shows the street is much less than 50 feet.
Not necessarily. The sidewalk can still be owned but could be considered an easement, such that the owner can't restrict reasonable traffic flow along that easement.
This was my initial thought just from reading the headline and was not dissuaded from seeing the permanence of the structure. I'd imagine some fines for your effort as well.
And don't forget the inevitable graffiti. The uncreative will simply spray random words and letters, but the deep thinkers among us may have the wit to draw a penis on it.
Besides, think about it, have these parents completed an Environmental Impact Report? How do we know this is not terrible for the environment? Chesterton's fence. Regulations are written in blood.
Depends on where you live. In the upper Midwest, it's common to see a roadside booth at the end of a driveway, where kids can keep out of the weather while waiting for the bus. Most are pretty simplistic, but I can't discount the idea of making a fancy one.
In my urban neighborhood, there are some houses with interesting or odd art works on their lawns, often what you'd call folk art.
A future where Miyazaki prefecture become littered with grandparent-fueled Ghibli characters and quickly become overrun with tourists...
Or kids at this specific stop are treated to a moment of joy while waiting for their train to come...
Time will tell...
You can't just tell everyone to not do anything cool because it might attract too many tourists. That's a race to the bottom of a boring world.
There are so many cool things like this all over Japan, and only a very small percentage of them get completely run-over with international tourists. Even an hour or two outside of Tokyo, many not-so-hidden treasures like this can be found. And there aren't many tourists at these spots.
Take last year's "Lawson with a view of Mount Fuji" thing. The city had to to take all kinds of counter-measures to international tourists flocking there just to take a photo. Meanwhile, there are dozens more Lawsons in the area with epic views of Mount Fuji in the background, and not a tourist in sight.
Tokyo has been overrun by Westerners since it was still called Edo. Commodore Perry and all that.
Westerners in Tokyo is less that 0.5% of the city's population. Definitely not overrun.
Yes and no.
Yes, I agree, because life would get boring really quickly. People should be able to express themselves (in a civil, legal manner) so that the world can be more colourful and filled with art and beauty.
But also no, I don't agree. Have you seen the impact tourism in Japan has had on the local ecosystem as of late? They've literally banned tourists in some areas because frankly: more tourists act like animals. They litter, act rude and disrespectful, and are just obnoxious. Also, in a lot of cases, they provide little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice, for example.
So I think when making something like this, there has to be some degree of forward thinking around how it's going to divert (tourist) traffic to the area and what impact that's going to have on the locals.
> Look at Venice, for example.
No patience for these complaints. Either you want tourist money or you don't. Seems like half the city lives off it and the other half hates it. That's an internal problem.
Same in Barcelona.
I think the main concern is about the capacity to handle that many tourists. As the population increases and general prosperity increases, amount of tourists will correspondingly increase. There are not that many tourist spots for a given location and causes overrun. There need to be some throttling function. Probably increase the cost/tax, or reduce the visas. Or increase the ability to handle so many tourists. I don't know how this can be done. May be better infrastructure and new places of interests.
that's probably because some are profiting while others are inconvenienced by it. different experiences are bound to happen.
>little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice
A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards. If you could set forth an edict and gradually empty Venice out into a touristless town over the next 5 years, you would probably see economic growth tumble downwards, not up.
Now capitalism would eventually catch up, it always does. Italians are cool people and hard workers. But ask e.g. the Baltic states whether they're secretly happy they lost ~a century of economic growth before finally getting the chance to enter a boom time, because it meant their economies stayed local. Then ask them another question: Suppose you didn't have much industry of note, but tourists just loved you and flocked from all over the world to see you, would you take that? I think you'd have a lot of takers.
One should a much stronger argument than "But... but tourism is icky" before you go messing with one of the primary economic levers of a whole city. Preferably an argument backed up by graphs and forecasts, because it runs contrary to basic economic wisdom. Absent those I feel comfortable guessing that the median Japanese town which bans tourists will probably suffer economically for it, in no small part because that suggests tourists were at some point a big deal. Any eventual industrial rebound, if it happens at all, will happen because they gradually became cheaper to work in than surrounding areas (I wonder why?), and would not be sufficient to make up for the lost compound growth of the 5-10 years where a key industry for that area was kneecapped.
The claim that “tourism has little financial benefits to the local economy in Venice” is debatable and context-dependent. Here's a detailed breakdown addressing both why the claim may be true in some aspects, and why it may be misleading or false in others.
---
Arguments Supporting the Claim:
1. High Leakage of Tourist Revenue
Much of the tourist spending in Venice ends up outside the local economy:
Many hotels, cruise lines, and travel agencies are owned by foreign or non-local entities.
Revenue often flows to large tour operators, not to Venetians themselves.
Day-trippers (especially cruise passengers) spend very little per capita.
2. Overtourism and Cost Externalization
The externalities of mass tourism (e.g. garbage collection, water bus crowding, maintenance of ancient infrastructure) are borne by the municipality and residents, not by tourists.
The economic cost of wear and tear on fragile historical structures is immense and undercompensated.
3. Loss of Local Businesses and Services
Traditional shops and services (bakeries, fishmongers, schools) are being replaced by souvenir shops and Airbnbs, which often serve short-term tourists.
This creates a "hollow economy" where real life becomes unviable for locals.
4. Depopulation and Real Estate Inflation
Real estate is increasingly purchased by investors for short-term rentals, pushing locals out and reducing residential density.
Venice’s population has dropped from ~175,000 in 1950s to under 50,000 today in the historic center.
5. Low Multiplier Effect
Much of the employment created is low-paid, seasonal, precarious, and lacks career development.
Limited reinvestment into the community fabric (education, public health, sustainable infrastructure).
---
Counterarguments (Why Tourism Still Brings Economic Benefit):
1. Tourism Is a Major Employer
A significant portion of Venetian jobs is in hospitality, transport, and retail, all tied to tourism.
Completely removing tourism would collapse the current local job market.
2. Tax Revenues
The city imposes tourist taxes (tassa di soggiorno) on accommodations and more recently, even entrance fees for day-trippers.
These can help fund infrastructure and conservation—if well-managed.
3. Export Substitute
Venice doesn’t have a diversified industrial base. Tourism is one of the few export-equivalent services Venice can offer due to its geographic isolation and fragile ecosystem.
---
Conclusion
While tourism contributes significantly in gross economic terms, the net local financial benefit is undermined by:
revenue leakage,
rising costs of living,
poor job quality,
and infrastructure stress.
Thus, the statement is partially true: mass tourism as currently structured in Venice is unsustainable and offers diminishing marginal returns to locals, especially compared to the burdens it imposes
Kyushu is quite far off the beaten tourist path, so I doubt it would get a lot of non-domestic traveling.
I believe you’re underestimating the rapacious hunger of the click economy
Can't really blame click economy when travel is promoted as universal good from local, state and national governments all over the world. Travel used to be few times in a lifetime thing. Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least.
> Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least
You and I live in different worlds. I only know one person who travels that often, after he became wealthy from a successful buy out. Overwhelmingly the people around me travel a handful of times in a lifetime.
Most people I know are not rich but have or had ok jobs and they all travel 4-5x / year. Most do all inclusive trips mixed with once a year a longer trip. It is quite weird as I myself am somewhat confused how they manage; when asked they mostly say that they dont have other use for the money anyway.
Like eating meat daily. At some point the masses want, and get, what was once just for the elite.
Or driving cars for that matter.
Don’t underestimate domestic Japanese tourism! To be fair, it feels a bit different, compared to international, as there’s no language barrier and etc.
Isletwald in CH or Hallstatt in Austria were also quite far off the beaten path. That didn’t stop hordes of tourists from overrunning them.
possible but more a corner case that additionally takes one along the opposite vibe trajectory to the story's
so ... why?
Luckily tourists are a political problem, which the corona restrictions clearly showed.
Doesn't pessimism like this exhaust you?
> Or kids at this specific stop are treated to a moment of joy while waiting for their train to come...
Kids are becoming a rarity in Japan
As least Japan doesn’t have a bunch of sheep tech bros building a Burning Man every year pretending they are cool
The my neighbour Totoro theatre show has a 18ft soft moving puppet built by Jim Henson’s Creature shop. It’s incredible how they pulled it off.
https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/My_Neighbour_Totoro
I saw the musical in London and it was so good! Highly recommend it!
This is awesomeness happening because copyright can't sabotage it.
sidebar: The opposite of this awesomeness is counterproductive absurdity. The latter is what copyright always devolves to when it is insufficiently restrained.
Studio Ghibli has historically been fairly permissive with non-commercial fan tributes compared to Disney or other animation studios, which is part of why we see these wonderful community expressions flourish in Japan.
Not to defend anti-creativity, but it's my understanding that at least in the US you have to defend your copyright and go after violations or I guess a real serious violation could say "but this other person did it and had no consequences so that's unfair"
> This is awesomeness happening because copyright can't sabotage it.
If this were a Disney character, it would have been destroyed a long time ago.
I love that this happened on Miyazaki Prefecture.
I love that they didn't half-ass it, even if it was just for the kids.
If you half ass for kids, you end up with half ass adults. Maybe they understood this.
It's made of concrete, which now that I think about it must have been the obvious choice, but I can't help but feel a bit disappointed that it's not soft and fluffy like in the movie.
Here it is on Google Street View/Maps
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hQgZg8trKy56qfuG7
Looks like it turned into a little side business for them.
No wonder, people go nuts for stuff like this. The only reason it doesn't have constant lines is that because it's a little out of the way. If it was in Tokyo you'd see lines around the block daily.
Haha, digging the Kei VW bus ...
If you're in Seattle, there's also a large statue of the robot from Laputa: Castle in the Sky here. It's standing on the front lawn of a house in the Ballard neighborhood. I had recently seen the movie when I first encountered it, so it was a fun find.
There is a tradition of placing small tokens or flowers on his palm! At one point the owner had a tumblr where they posted pictures of the offerings it received occasionally.
Miyazaki prefecture? Thats going to be a long route for the Nekobasu.
https://www.ghibli-museum.jp/en/welcome/#:~:text=Poof%2C%20B...
this is so incredibly cute.
i swear tourists better not ruin this
I guess if they ruin it, they're also likely to generate economic life for the area (though the owners are going to hate it). A lot of areas outside the main cities are quietly struggling. A little depressing to see when visiting.
Okay, it looks nice and it is great that they are doing this, but what if it rains, and where do I sit, on the floor?
It’s not an actual bus stop. The bus stop is part of the installation. It depicts the scene where Totoro takes the cat bus [1]. But I was hoping it had an umbrella too.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vPOgiR5aUWE
I can’t think of any bus stops near me, in Tokyo, that has a cover or seating. It’s pretty normal.
Then I will never go to Tokyo. I have MS. I need to be able to sit.
Fair enough. I believe there is a map for people with disabilities which might have better info. Frankly speaking, I can’t think of any city where all bus stops have chairs and covering.
Here in Hungary all major cities have that, in fact, I lived in a very small village with like 100 people, and even that had a damn "container" or whatever and a bench inside, to protect against the rain and to be able to sit down. It has been modernized further by now (yes, for these ~100 people), but what they did then was extremely cheap yet effective, so there is no excuse for lack of benches and shelters at bus stops, really.
And you can down-vote me for me not liking Tokio for the fact that their bus stops have no benches, but that is a must-have for someone like me who has disabilities, and many cities in Hungary (and even small towns) have benches and whatever you could call it (container shelter of some sort) to protect against the rain, so don't tell me Hungary is better in this regard than Tokio, or is it? This is surprising to me. Maybe Tokio does not have enough elderly people or people with disabilities?
In any case, if shitty villages with a population of 100-500 have benches and a shelter at bus stops in Hungary, surely Tokio could do it too, I wonder why they are not doing it.
If you want I could probably find it on Google Maps FWIW. I hope the pictures are old (pre-modernization).
Do not mistake my comment for hatred of Tokio, however. It is just a place that I simply cannot visit for such reasons. There is nothing more to it.
Fantastic, I love it. We should all be doing things like that.
meeds moar umbrella
Quintessential "Thing, Japan" content
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thing-japan
As someone who's triggered by this and has griped about it just recently: No, this doesn't qualify, because Totoro is actually Japanese content that happens to be popular internationally. "Thing, Japan" is if you take something that is commonplace outside of Japan as well, and act as if only the mystical, wise place that is Japan has it.
No it's not. "thing, japan" implies that the "thing" wouldn't be special outside of japan. Where else is there a totoro bus stop?
>Where else is there a totoro bus stop?
No, the question is 'Where else there are decorated bus stops?' and there are countless examples of that. But no one cares (= no one will make a HN post about it) if you see that in Poland [0] or in the UK [1]. So 'Thing, Japan' + HN has a very strong Japanophilia
0, https://www.whitemad.pl/en/bus-shelters-as-painted-anna-wojt...
1, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8586edj8ko
I don't think it matters to many people that this was in japan, so much as it does that this is totoro and also that it was done by regular people who just wanted to make something nice. It'd be just as cool if grandparents in Ohio did this, expect they'd inevitably be sued into bankruptcy for it by disney.
But there are general interest news stories about both of your examples. Source: your links.
Do you realize the linked article isn't talking about an actual bus stop? The movie My Neighbor Totoro has a scene at a bus stop. These people recreated the bus stop near their home/business.
So no, any bus stop that's been decorated is not "the same thing outside of Japan." This is specifically about being the bus stop from the movie.
I concur. This would have been awesome anywhere. The fact that this is in Japan is not surprising, although it's clear that if one were to go check out a lifesize Totoro statue, having in Japan makes it nicer because it's its "natural" environment.
Platform 9¾ at King's Cross Station
It seems quite common. I happened to drive past one in Taiwan. It's still special so I don't think that meme applies.
Those grandparents are the best.
The epitome of Ikigai - 生き甲斐
Now they need to make a cat bus to stop there.
Man, if only they would create a working cat bus....
Try that here and city regulators will be all over your ass, smh.
Disney would sue the hell out of you first.
Eh, depends where the bus stop is. Around me, the transit busses don't have marked stops, and will stop anywhere on the route, and there's no sidewalk, so landowners can put up art/sculpture at the edge of their parcel or the road easement, if they want. School busses stop at specific places, but many landowners have put up shelters for students to wait underneath. In town, there are bus stops and city managed sidewalk; you can't block the sidewalk, but a landowner could put up art at the edge of the sidewalk. Commercial signs are regulated regardless of where installed, but a sculpture such as this isn't commercial.
Your city may be different, of course, but I wouldn't expect this to cause a problem, if installed by permission of the owner, in most cities. HOAs might throw a fit, they like to do that.
This sculpture isn't particularly tall, but height restrictions are popular. A sculpture that does not appear to be stable, or appears particularly flammable might be reviewable as well. There's no utility connections, so there's no need to review those.
The night the bar I went to shut down, we got some spray paint and wrote messages all over the building. Few weeks later they're having an estate sale. I notice it was painted over. Asked the owner, he said the county got on his ass about it.
All the land around a bus station is typically city-owned, I wouldn't give it a week before a work detail is despatched to remove it.
> we got some spray paint and wrote messages all over the building ... he said the county got on his ass about it.
No surprise, messages in spray paint are generally discouraged. Had you drawn a mural, it may have been treated differently.
> All the land around a bus station is typically city-owned, I wouldn't give it a week before a work detail is despatched to remove it.
When the bus stop is on a gravel road next to a field, as depicted in the article, I doubt the land is city-owned. But yeah, no surprise, the city doesn't want you to dump your stuff on their land, and they'll remove it.
Edit: from the google maps picture, it's not even on a gravel road, it's next to gravel parking for a small building. What municipality is going to give you shit for putting a sculpture next to your parking lot, unless the sculpture is obviously dangerous, offensive, or subverting building codes (if your sculpture is occupiable space, it needs to meet building codes)
In the US, the land in between the sidewalk and the road is city-owned. As is the sidewalk.
That's not generally true. In my current house, I own the land to the middle of the street. There is no sidewalk. The city has an implied easement (I've not found any documentation of it at least) covering the street and any drainage features abutting the street, although there are none on my side of the street. I can't place a sculpture on the road and expect it to remain, although there have been concrete blocks placed to obstruct parking since before I purchased the property, and they haven't been removed, so I could probably put some art there if I really wanted. Some of the lots around me do not extend into the street, and some do. As mentioned, sidewalks are not universal, and certainly not around here ... in town sidewalks are common, but lot boundaries are not consistent --- many lot lines on sidewalked streets don't extend into the sidewalk, but some extend into the sidewalk and the street surface. Regardless, art left on the sidewalk is likely to be removed, as it impairs access and the municipality has rights to maintain access to sidewalk regardless of ownership.
At my last house, I believe my lot went to the curb, although we never had it surveyed, and I didn't measure the width of the street. That wasn't in a city, but it did have a sidewalk; the county established standards for the sidewalk, but as the landowner, I was responsible for maintenance of it. The land between the sidewalk and the street was in my undisputed control, although looking at the county assessor interactive map, the lot line may fall a few feet on the house side of the sidewalk; the plat map shows a 50 foot gap in lots for the street and google maps measurement shows the street is much less than 50 feet.
Not necessarily. The sidewalk can still be owned but could be considered an easement, such that the owner can't restrict reasonable traffic flow along that easement.
That is not a federal US law, depends on where in the US you live and probably mostly city or county level.
This was my initial thought just from reading the headline and was not dissuaded from seeing the permanence of the structure. I'd imagine some fines for your effort as well.
And don't forget the inevitable graffiti. The uncreative will simply spray random words and letters, but the deep thinkers among us may have the wit to draw a penis on it.
Ah, I see you're a man of taste as well.
You are absolutely correct. In fact, SF and Berkeley were both mad about the "guerrilla benches" where people were putting benches were bus stops were: https://sfist.com/2025/07/07/sf-city-hall-not-at-all-pleased...
Besides, think about it, have these parents completed an Environmental Impact Report? How do we know this is not terrible for the environment? Chesterton's fence. Regulations are written in blood.
California hates benches because a homeless person might sleep on them. They should have installed something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench
Try to do that in america and some bureaucrat will have a crew demolish it within a week.
Depends on where you live. In the upper Midwest, it's common to see a roadside booth at the end of a driveway, where kids can keep out of the weather while waiting for the bus. Most are pretty simplistic, but I can't discount the idea of making a fancy one.
In my urban neighborhood, there are some houses with interesting or odd art works on their lawns, often what you'd call folk art.
HN becoming Reddit.
[dead]