Public Toilet Designs Effects for Women and Marginalized People
Introduction
Public toilets are often a last-minute emergency trip people do not want to take. It is a common space in the built environment, often located inside commercial buildings or on their own at a rest stop. The design, quantity, and location of public toilets is crucial to creating a pleasant experience for the people that use them. The smallest room is often overlooked in the mind of the designer, architect, or city planner. Lacking adequate dimensions, routes to and from, and the frequency of public toilets is an issue that needs to be considered.
The public toilet is a symbol of separation and inequality through multiple lenses. The prominent issues of gender or sex segregation is at the forefront of discussions due to transgender rights. While discussing one inequality, the intersection of other disadvantages is important to include. The public toilet is a space that should be equitable for all; however, gender, class, ability, houselessness, and race are all critical factors relating to the discrimination in public toilets. The history of the public toilet reveals the contexts surrounding society at various developments in the bathroom design and how these social implications arose with it. Architecture, design, and planning are important contributors to these implications and the lack of change in the public toilet structure.
Public Toilet History
In 1819 New York common council prohibited the dumping of waste into sewage systems due to the belief they would only be used as storm drains for run-off water. People were frequently seen in cloaks to obtain privacy when needed in relieve oneself in public. The city was seen as dirty and various diseases were running ramped. In the 1850s the sewers were thought to be the cause of the cholera outbreaks (Mokdad, Allaa).
In the early 1800s, Paris was accustomed to the use of chamber pots and waste carts. The city was becoming overcrowded quickly and barrels of easement were placed on street corners to alleviate the great amount of waste on the streets. In 1830 public urinals were seen as sculptural objects and public urination was banned. Groups of women would gather in circles to allow one at a time to relieve themselves in the center with privacy or what they would call picking a flower. Cholera outbreaks began in 1849 leading to legislation to improve public health and the idea to take a top-down approach to sewage by 1853. The rest of Europe was now endowed with their versions of public toilets called public waiting rooms totally about 95 across various cities (Mokdad, Allaa).
In an effort to keep up with other European countries, London issued the Health Act of 1854 and continued to build upon the sewer system they began implementing in 1815. Prior to this, trying to outdo their rival city of Paris, the Society of Arts pressured the sewer companies heavily and eventually the Great Exhibition was hosted in England. The Crystal Palace facilities engineer was placed in charge of integrating water closets into the building. The 1851
The Great Exhibition wanted to provide the comfort of public toilets to their already accustomed visitors. Paris already had cabinets and urinals. London needed the success of these water closets to further push for the sewer systems. In the eyes of those who visited these public toilets, it was a great success. It was not enough however to keep them around and more years passed before public toilets were prominent in London (Penner, Barbara pg 45-48).
The year of the great exhibition was the year john snow discovered the water fountain with leaky sewage connected was causing the cholera epidemic. By 1858 comprehensive sewage plants protected water supply and provided modern infrastructure. The Water Act of 1862 presumably stopped the design of toilets. The water based flushing system became standard and was improved by 1895. In New York, vertical plumbing was implemented in 1880. Plumbing was now for everyone, not just the elites; however, woman suffragettes were fighting for their rights to accessing public toilets throughout this time (Mokdad, Allaa).
In 1928, there were 233 public toilets available to men and 184 available to women in London. The Public Health Act of 1936 allowed fees to be charged for the use of public toilets with the exception to urinals placing women at the disadvantage. A Paris company in 1964 produced automatic public toilets to 300 countries. Known as Sunny Sets by 1981 these toilets implemented barrier free usage, recycled water, and were protected from drug use and prostitution. At the same time in the New York, the AIDS epidemic placed public toilets in association with drug use, security issues, sexual activity, hygiene issues, and other illegal usage. Of the 700 available public toilets in 1991, only 350 were accessible to those with disabilities and only 125 could accommodate those with infants. By 2004, only 419 remained and by 2010 129 remain standing with only 60 actually available. Yet the NYPD issues over 17,000 public urination citations each year (Mokdad, Allaa).
Description
The modern public toilet was born at the Great Exhibition in London providing a space that allowed almost all everyday people to use modern technology. At the same time, these spaces called public toilets, restrooms, bathrooms, etc, also became some of the first gendered spaces. From the start of their story, sex separation was connected to public health concerns and the idea of creating well-ordered families. Public toilets were unequal for the poor, the disabled and women. The spaces created separation in society in other aspects, such as race and religion. This paper explores the public toilet in relation to women’s equality issues, including homelessness and accessibility issues.
Implications for Women
The first notable disparity between men and women in regard to the public toilet was the payment of a penny to use the facilities. Regulations stated that a payment was required to use a public toilet but there was no payment for the use of public urinals. Men often were able to do their business for free, while women had to pay for the new technology (Mokdad, Allaa). As the public toilet became further developed, the differentiation of public toilet design for men and women continued to create disparities. The idea of women out in public was new at this time, and the creation of public toilets was minimal because there was not a strong desire to actively help women spend more time in public.
The mid-nineteenth century was in the business of continuing to keep women at home and in private. Ideas of privacy surrounding the bathroom were continuing to grow. The social anxiety surrounding the time was highlighted by the idea of women going to work in factories a as well as their participation in social activism. The need for sex separated toilets was conflated with this anxiety and keeping the privacy between men and women at work. The idea of privacy was elevated to modern ideas of modesty and bodily functions and social morality. The effort to protect the virtue of modesty, hiding women away from their male counterparts in all public realms was important to this time. (Kogan, Terry pg 148).
This realist approach of the nineteenth century and anxiety over the emergence of women lead to the design of women exclusive spaces in public buildings along with the idea that women were fragile and in need of a retreat. The laws that separate sex in public toilets have created great complications for all transsexual and transgendered people, people with disabilities, parents with opposite-gendered children, intersex persons and women. The separation encourages the social understanding that these groups of people need public protection from their inherent vulnerability, while men are inherently predatory (Kogan, Terry pg 164).
Although sex separated bathrooms were determined to fit the needs of keeping men and women distanced, it did not make any change to the design of the public toilet. Most public toilets are labeled men and women, but what really is the difference? In a one-person public toilet, the women’s room often has a changing table while the men’s room may have a urinal in addition to the sit down toilet. In a shared public toilet, these differences remain, but the stall shapes and sizes are largely the same. Public toilet design was done by male architects and engineers because they’re were not any female coworkers at the time toilets were becoming a part of society. Women did not have a say and did not get much consideration when the design of public toilet stalls were integrated into bathrooms (Ramster and Greed).
The standard stall size created to fit the male proportions leads to issues for women, people with disabilities, and parents or caretakers. The time needed to enter a stall, remove garments, sit down, use toilet paper, and redress in the confined spaces of the stall is a disadvantage that men using urinals do not have to bear. Imbedded in this is the need for changing tables, handicap bars, and sanitary disposal bins that were not accounted for in the design of many public bathrooms. Often architecture produces the minimum requirements for public toilets to meet ADA standards, but forgets to think about the user. There is no code in place to protect the dimensions of stall needed for women to appropriately use the restroom in the public domain (Ramster and Greed).
Along with the inconsiderate design of the public toilet for women, the lack of public toilets for women in public places continues to be a serious issue. The nineteenth century societal norm of women not working or visiting public spaces created spaces that only had male public toilets. Many government buildings and public offices did not have a women’s toilet room and needed a space for them. This led to public toilets for women, as well as other marginalized persons, being placed further away than the men’s toilet when women began to enter these workplaces. Women were sent somewhere else to use the toilet, or through a long trek to get there. Some women were often left with no option to use the toilet (Anthony and Dufresne)
In many public spaces, the number of public toilets for men were often double or triple the number of public toilets for women. This has since developed into more equal numbers of public toilets for women compared to men; however, having equal public toilets for men and women does not necessarily provide equal experiences. Due to the layout of stalls and the addition of urinals for men, public restroom trips average a man about 30 seconds upon entering. For women, the time taken to use the bathroom averaged just under three minutes. This timing does not account for waiting in line to use a public toilet. In places where there are more public toilets for men, or even equal numbers of public toilet rooms, women still face long lines waiting to use the restroom (Anthony and Dufresne).
In the time spent by women finding, using, and returning from a trip to a public toilet, men are likely to use the time productively in a workplace setting. Not only does the time spent in the bathroom serve as an inconvenience to women at events, but it can take precious time away from important daily life. Their voices are left out of important meetings or informal conversations where they are needed to be heard. Decision making to create public toilets and the design of them continues to be by male dominated fields such as architecture and planning. The 17 percent of registered female architects in 2020 makes it clear this issue is still just as prevalent today as it was from the beginning of the modern public toilet (Anthony and Dufresne).
The number of public toilets and the placement of them is also a sanitary and public health issue for marginalized groups. For women who menstruate finding a toilet can be what feels like a life or death situation. While this isn’t often the case, menstruation proves a serious issue for women. The idea of privacy and the social virtue of hiding women’s bodily functions goes beyond number one and two. Menstruation is culturally something to be hidden away and kept hush hush. The stall design in public toilets is cramped and leaves little room for women to take care of themselves in a situation of menstruation. Without properly sanitary and private restrooms, those who menstruate are at a disadvantage (Greed, Cara).
Many places cannot provide women with these facilities, keeping them at home and out of places of work and education. This furthers the disparity between them and their male counterparts. The lack of these public toilets and the time spent waiting to get to them, creates a hazard of potential toxic shock syndrome or bleeding onto clothes if they cannot change their sanitary products in time. Architecture and design have not changed the normative outcome for public toilets since the late nineteenth century and has not grown to fit the demands of modern society and public restrooms. This is also evident by the continuation in sex separated spaces in the post sexual revelation society and gender nonconforming persons (Anthony and Dufresne).
Being pregnant is also a circumstance specific to those who menstruate. This entails the need to use the bathroom more frequently than non-pregnant counterparts due to pressure on the bladder. Having a pregnant belly also requires much more space within a public toilet and demands the needs of more accessible spaces with grab bars and extra room. After the birth of a child, women need private and clean spaces to breastfeed as well as deal with post-partum bleeding. The majority of women are the primary caretaker of their children and need to take children with them into public restrooms. For young children prone to wandering, mothers have a need for extra room or the accessible stall to keep these children nearby. The standard stall for one average sized male does not work for women in a caretaking role (Serlin, David).
Disability and Gender Issues
Caretaking is not specific to women with children. In the context of people with disabilities, the gendering of public toilets by default causes the gendering of disabled toilets. Inequality is faced by people with disabilities is prevalent in the realm of the public toilet. While the majority of United States cities had common public toilets throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the design lacked accessibility and functionality for people with disabilities. When the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 implemented curb cuts and ramps, they provided innovations of grab bars, lowered sinks and more to be instated in private homes for the disabled. The installations of these familiar standards were not finalized until 1980, when the larger stalls and curved floors were implemented to assist the disabled (Serlin, David).
For the majority of the twentieth century, the design and manufacturing of bathroom necessities, toilets, sinks, stalls, were unmindful of the body with special needs. Toilet design was at the height of ergonomic, industrial design, and anthropometry that created and unwavering sense of what normal should be for a physical body. The designs neglected any body type that was seen as atypical and further excluded those with disabilities from the public eye (Serlin, David).
As ADA regulations state the minimums needed for design, the accommodations often are made to feel different. The furthers the notions of separate but not equal, especially in facilities like public bathrooms for those with disabilities. Design needs to be based on more than just the radius it takes a wheelchair to navigate a stall, but rather should create spaces in public restrooms that feel inclusive and welcoming to those with any sort of disability or special need. The benefit of making the able-bodied build environment more friendly to the disabled also can benefit those only temporarily disabled, the elderly, parents pushing strollers, or people who are overweight. The stereotypical design of the public toilet and stalls neglect many of these realities
Another issue present with disability is the notion of dependency. Those with a disability may often times need a caregiver or potentially just need a little extra help. The idea of needing this help is viewed primarily to be feminine. This view along with the contrast of private female spheres versus male public spheres is important to note. People with disability being hidden from the public eye and only having access to stalls in which they must relieve themselves in “female form” creates the gendered space. Men with disabilities cannot perform the masculine task of using a urinal but instead must relieve themselves sitting down. The space itself requires more than the average male public toilet and therefore is combined with the mentality of the ladies’ room (Serlin, David).
Class and Race Implications
Lower income and unhoused persons are another marginalized group when it comes to the public toilet. In 1858 when the sewer system was being added to most parts of London, many slum areas and their residents were not able to afford the new technology. They were forced to continually live among cesspools until laws were passed and sewer systems reached all houses. The pay a penny model for public toilets was another barrier to those with little to no income. Although the 1970s the banishment of pay restrooms was in motion, the majority stores only provide bathroom door codes for paying customers (Richards, Katie).
For those without houses, going to the bathroom is an added pressure. In 2011, a Starbucks in New York began to lock their bathrooms. They were frequently being used as a replacement for public bathrooms due to the lack thereof in the city. The buzz surrounding the ordeal raised the need for adequate and sanitary public toilets for all, but especially for those who have no other choice (Barnard, Anne). The previous disparities experienced by women in relation to the public toilet are increasingly problematic for homeless women as well. Homelessness is a crisis that needs the proper facilities to take care of, including the unchosen act of using the bathroom.
Another Starbucks created public toilet trouble in the name of racial segregation in 2018. The Philadelphia barista denied access to the bathroom and had police called to escort two black men out of the store. Claims that they had not purchased anything were they only justification. America has a long history of segregating toilet rooms by race by the signs that read Whites Only and Colored Only (Glanton, Dahleen). In most cases, there were gendered white toilets but only one toilet for people of color. The past mentality of safety and sanitary laws that separated women and men in public toilets did not seem to matter if it were for black men and women. Black women in the height of segregation were not given the privilege of privacy like other women at the time.
Conclusion
Race, houselessness, class, ability and sexual orientation are intersectional attributes to the oppression of women in the sphere of public toilets. The design, location, and quantity of public toilets contribute to the disadvantages women face daily in history and in modern society. Architects and planners have work to do in order to bridge the gaps in public toilet equality. Design efforts to create nongendered public toilets and policy changes to allow for more unisex and family restrooms are beginning the conversation about how to find equity in public toilets. The implication for designers to create new ways of interacting with toilets could reflect other changes in the bathroom surrounding hygiene and design. In light of 2020 and the post covid era, public toilet design is bound to change from a hygienic standard. Designers working on these changes need to be aware of the societal factors that must influence a modern public toilet design.
Bibliography
Anthony, Kathryn H., and Meghan Dufresne. “Potty Parity in Perspective: Gender and Family Issues in Planning and Designing Public Restrooms.” Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 21, no. 3, Feb. 2007, pp. 267–294, doi:10.1177/0885412206295846.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885412206295846#articleCitationDownloadContainer
Barnard, Anne. “Baristas Lock Restrooms, but the Revolt Doesn’t Last.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/nyregion/starbucks-mutiny-exposes-new-yorks-reliance-on-chains-toilets.html.
Greed, Clara. “Taking women’s bodily functions into account in urban planning and policy: public toilets and menstruation.” Town Planning Review, vol. 87, no. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, p. 505+. GaleAcademicOneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A466167283/AONE?u=euge94201&sid=AONE&xid=3ba1cd3a. Accessed 6 Feb. 2021.
Greed, Clara. “Creating a Nonsexist Restroom.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 117-141.
Kogan, Terry S. “Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 141-164.
Glanton, Dahleen. “America’s Problems with Race Start (but Don’t End) at Your Starbucks Bathroom.” Chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune, 20 May 2019, www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-toilets-discrimination-20180418-story.html.
Mokdad, Allaa. “Public Toilets and the Implications In/For Architecture by Allaa Mokdad.” YouTube, YouTube, 23 Nov. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii6DtUhdqz8.
Ramster, Gail, Greed, Clara, and Bichard, Jo-Anne. “How Inclusion Can Exclude: The Case of Public Toilet Provision for Women.” Built Environment (London. 1978) 44.1 (2018): 52-76. Web.
Richards, Katie. “It is a Privilege to Pee”: The Rise and Demise of the Pay Toilet in America.” 2018. The Thetean: A Student Journal for Scholarly Historical Writing: Vol. 47 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/thetean/vol47/iss1/3
Penner, Barbara. Bathroom, Reaktion Books, Limited, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=1707062.
Serlin, David. “Pissing without Pity: Disability, Gender, and the Public Toilet.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 117-141.
Toilet : Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotch, and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=865705.
Image Citation
Anthony, Kathryn H., and Meghan Dufresne. “Potty Parity in Perspective: Gender and Family Issues in Planning and Designing Public Restrooms.” Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 21, no. 3, Feb. 2007, pp. 267–294, doi:10.1177/0885412206295846.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885412206295846#articleCitationDownloadContainer
Serlin, David. “Pissing without Pity: Disability, Gender, and the Public Toilet.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 117-141.
