Tokyo's building codes do require bathrooms. Plus minimum sunshine for a room to count as a bedroom, along with shutters on all windows.

What caught my eye about your comment is central heating. Japan in fact penalizes central heating. Not just not requiring it but going so far as to increase property taxes slightly.

In Japan's case it is a desire to reduce energy intensity in a country dependent on energy imports.

You wrote: <<Japan in fact penalizes central heating>>

I belive it. Japan housing is so inefficient for a wealthly / highly industriaslied country: It is bizarre!

I tried to Google about this topic, but I did not find anything. Can you provide a hint about your source?

what do you mean by inefficient? japanese houses are remarkably energy-efficient for their climate. they are very breezy, which cuts down on AC use in the summer, and in winter you heat specific objects instead of the entire house

That really isn't true. A lot of older housing in Japan has really bad insulation, you are basically stuck with a kotatsu in the winter not by choice.

i took GP's comment of "heating specific objects" to mean an object like a kotatsu.

That’s on purpose, to avoid mold in the summer. And heating a kotatsu and a bed instead of an entire house is way more energy efficient

> Tokyo's building codes do require bathrooms. Plus minimum sunshine for a room to count as a bedroom, along with shutters on all windows.

I'm actually interested to know if Melbourne has similar minimum standards. I'm mostly in favour of deregulating residential construction, but after seeing multiple shoddily built apartments with next to no sunlight in the Melbourne CBD, I shifted a bit closer to the "regulation" side of the spectrum.

Do you actually think the comment you replied to was complaining about requirements like central heat or bathrooms? NIMBYs will trot out every excuse and misdirection to avoid addressing the dire shortage of housing. This anti-growth mindset is a philosophy of death. I suspect that deep down, many want the world to end with them and are actually sabotaging efforts to solve societal issues out of some sort of Freudian death-drive.

What in the -- Freudian death drive? I'd wager it's far more simple: run of the mill selfishness. NIMBYs want to keep the gravy train flowing while they're here. Increased housing stock threatens the currently astronomical prices and returns. NIMBYs are "anti-growth" because their pocketbook demands it.

This isn't it. On the one hand, people acknowledge that transit resources, clean environment, water, electricity, don't grow on trees (and that trees are also nice). On the other hand, anyone who wants to control development at all is labelled as a NIMBY. Some of that is accurate, some of that is not. But I get it: you want your cake and you want to eat it also.

Tokyo definitely has places without (a) toilets in your apartment (you have access to one in the same building though) and (b) places without showers in building (you'll have to use a bathhouse). The lack of heat might be annoying to some people, and the insulation isn't going to be good enough to let your electric space heater work very well (so get used to using a kotatsu). Now, using a kotatsu isn't bad, but it isn't super convenient.

>Tokyo definitely has places without (a) toilets in your apartment (you have access to one in the same building though) and (b) places without showers in building (you'll have to use a bathhouse).

These are really old buildings. No one is building new housing units like this.

This is like judging places in America based on trailer homes made in the 1960s.

Hat tip for "Duluth". If anyone is not famaliar, it is north-central United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth,_Minnesota