Public Toilet Designs Effects for Women and Marginalized People

Mar 17, 2021 | final paper, Graduate, History, public restroom, Research | 0 comments

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

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/health/public-restrooms-safety-coronavirus-pandemic-wellness/index.html

https://www.swansea.ac.uk/humanandhealthsciences/news-and-events/latest-news/makepublictoiletsdementia-friendlyexpertscallforbetterdesignandsignage.php

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.

Unisex Bathroom Revolution (W9-research study)

Mar 15, 2021 | Case Study, public restroom, Research | 0 comments

The Unisex Bathroom Revolution

Although it may seem like in today’s world we are much more advanced when it comes to social equality, this is far from the truth. It may also seem that those days are so far in the past that it is irrelevant now. It wasn’t until 1905 that the decision was made to build a woman’s bathroom in victorian London (Molotch 191). That was only 116 years ago. Even up to the 1950s and 1960s, locker rooms and bathrooms were still not integrated in the United States (Molotch 191). In the 1970s, Battles over segregation and public facilities were still happening. This is seen with the James v. Stockham court case (Molotch 192). The problems didn’t end there. People with disabilities followed suit in fighting for equality in the bathrooms and public places. This created a movement for universal design and ADA accessibility witch is still in place today. This movement changed building codes for architecture. It created modifications to standard sizes for hallways, entryways, and more (Molotch 192).

This leads to today’s struggle and the strides that need to be made to move forward by providing spaces where all feel safe and welcome. The University of Massachusetts-Amherst in 2001, called for transgender-friendly restrooms. This group was called the Restroom Revolution (Molotch 193). This revolution was pushing for unisex bathrooms. This would make transgender people more comfortable with using the toilet. They fought upon against conservative administrations that opposed changed proposed by the progressive student body (Molotch 193). It is often people see changes at the forefront at an American college and educational facilities. This is due to the organization of a new generation and their moral ideals. This is a great landscape of American society and changes seen at the educational facilities are usually followed by changes elsewhere in the United States. The arguments seen from the opposition of the movement were of safety concern when it came to potential issues with young women’s safety. These concerns, although valid, were vail in terms of their actual placement in reality. There have even been some big moves made to ensure transgender people on campus feel safe and validated. Just like how to handicap and ADA imp limitations were made into new codes and regulations to ensure the ease of use of public facilities by disabled people, there were new rules in place on campus to ensure this would extend to transgender individuals. A proposal was made “suggesting to designate at least one bathroom per residence hall ad unisex and establish such bathrooms on every third floor of a building” (Molotch 195). This never went through but a point was made and a discussion was started. This went on for years of negotiation and talking about what to do. Debates on gender equality and Gender norms are stated and are still seen today.

There are solutions to the problem of safety as well as creating spaces in the future that is accessible to everyone no matter gender. Unisex bathrooms can take many forms but the ones seen at Kalapuya ilihi hall at the University of Oregon is an example of a simple solution to the problem of unisex bathroom sand safety. These are organized with Stalls that are individual and have full walls and doors, similar to European-style stalls, and are exposed to the corridor or room that is adjacent. There is then a shared row of sinks that can be accessed by anyone, even someone not intending to use the stalls. This would create no only opportunity for everyone to use the bathroom as they see fit, but also provide visual access to these spaces so that any wrongdoing or dangers can be avoided. This is a solution that takes up the same amount if not less space overall due to its shared nature. This, on top of solving the issue of accessibility and safety for transgenders, would also fix a gender inequality that women’s restrooms today are the same size as men’s restrooms but need more space and have fewer receptacles for bathroom usage. This simplifies the construction and design of restrooms, Solves a gender disparity, and puts the safety and wellbeing of its users first.

Of course, it isn’t as simple as converting bathrooms to unisex and calling it a day. This problem extends way past the college institutions and is seen in the systems that are in place. This is seen when the administration at UMass did an analysis study on bathrooms around campus. In their findings, it was seen that they had an insufficient number of restrooms on campus and this was used as an argument on why they shouldn’t pursue providing unisex bathrooms by converting their current ones. This was due to the fact that according to the board that provides permits wouldn’t issue a permit for them as the bathroom number wouldn’t pass inspection. It was asked then if they could just build more bathrooms and this was met with a no due to not being able to receive a permit to do so as well as funds (Molotch 205).

Although it may seem like bathrooms are not a big deal and that this sent a real issue, it goes beyond transgender rights and bathroom design. This is about gender categorization. This idealism always leads to sexists attitudes and practices which drags us deeper into the muck (Molotch 206). We have to look for solutions to our problems and not let petty differences define a generation. The war for equality of races and genders is far from over, we may still be in the beginning. There is more ground to cover and more societal norms to change, and all this works to create a better future for all. This will not change overnight and will not solve all issues, but if we work together, we can change the world for the better, and it all starts with the bathroom.

Page from an independently produced zine lobbying in support of Restroom Revolution.

Page from an independently produced zine lobbying in support of Restroom Revolution.

Molotch, Harvey Luskin, and Laura Norén. Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. New York University Press, 2010.

The Toilets are Calling and I Must Go

Feb 10, 2021 | Graduate, public restroom, Reflection, Research, United States | 0 comments

In case you didn’t know we are on a road trip. We left a couple of weekends ago and are taking our sweet time, stopping for snack breaks, bathroom breaks, and stretch breaks at every rest area we approach. We’ve left Eugene and we are headed east towards Colorado. If you are wondering why we are on this adventure it’s because we are doing research for our Interior Architecture History II graduate paper assignment.

So, why Colorado you ask? Colorado is great and has so much to offer but I bet you can’t guess why and what we will be visiting? It seems to be the only topic our peers will research and discuss these days? Hmm, still not crossing your mind.

Okay, I’ll give you a hint – you use one every day.

Any Ideas?

Well, since we are almost there, I’ll fill you in on the details. We are headed to Colorado to visit Rocky Mountain National Park’s Long’s Peak toilets! These toilets were built in 2018 by the ColoradoBuildingWorkshop in collaboration with the National Parks Service. A little information about the site location; Long’s Peak is the tallest and most iconic mountain in Rocky Mountain National Park and has become one of the most frequented 14ers in the state of Colorado (ROMO Backcountry Privies | 2018 | Colorado Building Workshop). In 1983 the National Parks Service first installed backcountry toilets to deal with human waste on the trail to the summit. Over time and exposure to harsh climate conditions, the original toilets have deteriorated and are no longer successfully managing backcountry waste. ColoradoBuildingWorkshop worked with the National Parks Service to re-design and construct new backcountry toilets. The final design is made up of a series of prefabricated structural gabion walls that explore lightweight prefabricated construction. Within the gabions, a series of thin steel plate moment frames triangulate the lateral loads within the structure while stones collected from the area are used as ballast (ROMO Backcountry Privies | 2018 | Colorado Building Workshop). Students participating in ColoradoBuildingWorkship erected the structure in eight days, hiking three to six miles each day to the site. I find this structure to be very unique and quite beautiful. I love how the structure seemingly disappears into the surrounding landscape.

I bet you haven’t seen a better view from a toilet.

Blending in with its’ surroundings.

Since we are here admiring this award-winning structure – and probably waiting in line to use the toilet or catching your breath in this thin air – let me tell you a few facts about backcountry waste management. There are many different kinds of backcountry toilets and they are called by many different names. Outhouse, Pit Toilet, Privy, Composting Toilet, to name a few. These toilets also have different rules that apply to them in order for your waste to properly decompose. So always read the notes posted inside and be sure to follow the directions! For example, urine increases the stench in old-fashioned pit privies, so users are asked to pee in the woods and only use these privies for number two type business. More modern pit toilets often found at campgrounds or trailheads always remind you to put the toilet seat back down after you do your business. Lowering the seat helps manage the smell. Always use privies or pit toilets if they are available, they are the most sanitary option and help to prevent the pollution of camping areas and water sources (Poop Week: Real Talk on a Backcountry Basic — Washington Trails Association).

Let me know in the comments if you would prefer a driving or walking tour on our next weblog excursion. I’ll try not to include another 14er next time!

Bibliography:

Longs Peak Toilets – AIA. https://www.aia.org/showcases/6120798-longs-peak-toilets. Accessed 10 Feb. 2021.

Poop Week: Real Talk on a Backcountry Basic — Washington Trails Association. https://www.wta.org/news/signpost/poop-week-real-talk-on-a-backcountry-basic. Accessed 10 Feb. 2021.

ROMO Backcountry Privies | 2018 | Colorado Building Workshop. http://coloradobuildingworkshop.cudenvercap.org/portfolio-item/romo-backcountry-privies-2018/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2021.

Image Sources:

ROMO Backcountry Privies | 2018 | Colorado Building Workshop. http://coloradobuildingworkshop.cudenvercap.org/portfolio-item/romo-backcountry-privies-2018/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2021.

Poop Week: Real Talk on a Backcountry Basic — Washington Trails Association. https://www.wta.org/news/signpost/poop-week-real-talk-on-a-backcountry-basic. Accessed 10 Feb. 2021.

History of Roman Water Distribution and Bath Houses!

Feb 5, 2021 | Ancient, History, public restroom, Research, technology | 1 comment

The history of Roman water technology is actually very interesting when we look at how quickly advancements were made in order to expand the land. From localizing cities around water systems to building aqueducts beneath the ground, to building aqueduct bridges and siphons, the romans quickly learned how to transfer water to many homes and places thus changing their societal habits. The advancement of water movement over the years has allowed hygiene habits to change from collecting rain water for drinking and bathing in river water to having water delivered to wells and local cisterns for use. As the Roman society continued to advance so deed the need for water in public areas as well as more localized areas as well. We will first be looking at the advancements in water distribution and holding systems in Rome, as well as the changes that were brought through the society with this new access to water, concluding with how it has progressed into todays society.

Water was commonly sourced from springs, wells, and reservoirs made by dams, the most famous on being the Proserpina dam that actually holds two reservoirs. Through open channels of earth, and piping, aqueducts allowed water to be moved from these sources to largely supply water for public baths in Rome, an expression of Civic pride, as well as homes, according to Mays pg. 117. Continuing on page 117, Mays indicated the 3 main conduits; open channels, lead piping, and terracotta piping. The lead pipes were used for pressure conduits like inverted siphons, while the channels were built above ground with stone so water would flow at a low slope to the next channel. Most channels were built on the ground however as technologies progressed some channels were located high above the ground in an aqueduct bridge! At the ends of some of these bridges were siphons that would distribute water from up high through 5 or 6 pipes (as shown in the picture above) that would lead underground to a more localized area. Not all people according to Mays on page 122, received water directly however most all had access to a secondary resource such as a well or a water tower.

Having two main water distribution systems from underground piping to above ground channeling, the Romans were able to lead water to locations far further than previously achieved. Water towers were introduced in more urban areas to collect and store rain water. However cisterns were more popular for holding and collecting rain water in Rome. The difference between the two is water towers are more for personal use and cisterns are more for small city storage and use. Some of these cisterns were located above the ground, however it is more common according to May page 126, that they were built underground.

With the advancement of aqueducts, large fountains, pools and public bathing rooms became more popular in Rome and Greece. These could range from a small water fountain to a large 3 story fountain/bathhouse. May page 128, says baths were really quite unique in roman cities containing a hot bath, a warm bath, and a cold bath including dressing rooms. Many of these baths could be empty with no seating while others have seating blocks in the center of the bath. Along the perimeter there are often statues and gorgeous arches that identify this as a grand place.

A very famous Roman Bath house still stands in Catania, Italy called the Indirizzo Roman baths says Wilson. Due to an earthquake, much of the structure has been damaged and little rooms are held true to their original structure. The water source for this Bath house was an underground river that flowed on the north side of this structure. With this standing roman bath we are able to learn a lot more about how water systems were incorporated within fountains, baths and future toilets. Orientation of how pools were built and were pools were located not only was determined by where the sun path was, but also by how the pipes were to be laid out from the water source. As piping was straight and did not have any bends in it due to lack of technology, often times these pool houses would not be symmetrical but quite organic according to Wilson pg. 199-201. The larger pools were cold, it was much easier to warm tiny pools to become hot than larger pools. The warming process was done by praefurnium, a fireplace type structure that has a maintained fire that warms the stones and water in the pool says Rigs Fig. 11. As the water runs off into another pool it is able to cool down to eventually become cool again. Other rooms that are located on the south side of the building is where hot saunas are to allow people to sweat, before cooling off in the cold water pools. All heated pools are heated by fire and all cold pools are kept cold through running water.

As the water technologies have advanced from simple rain water collection to the advancement of community bathhouses we are able to see how much human technology is able to advance cultures hygiene and cultural practice. As we start our look in historical societies we see how close they originate to water systems such as rivers and streams, whereas now our cities and towns are able to grow much further out from direct water sourcing due to our advancements in water transportation. As piping continues to grow Romans were able to move away from local wells to personal cisterns and local community bathing.

The Origin of the Road Side Toilet

Feb 1, 2021 | Description (G), Graduate, History, public restroom, Reflection, Research, United States | 7 comments

First came the car, then the interstate, and simultaneously the rest area. The Interstate Defense Act of 1956, implemented by President Eisenhower, allowed for the construction of highway systems across the country to eliminate unsafe roads and traffic jams and ensure speedy and safe transcontinental travel. Many years later, the United States interstate system currently has 46,876 miles of paved roads interconnecting cities and states. Accompanying these interstates incrementally and at the border of each state are rest areas. Built with the same enthusiasm and vigor as the highway system, these roadside pit stops allowed drivers to safely take breaks from monotonous Interstate travel by providing drivers with basic amenities such as toilets, vending machines, picnic tables, and pet walking areas. (History.org)

Before interstates and rest areas there were minor roadside stops for drivers. These roadside stops provided drivers with minimal amenities, most just including picnic shelters.

Rest areas were constructed as part of the interstate highway system. The legislature required that rest areas be constructed on the same basis, quality, and importance of the highway system and match its modernity. Being a prominent part of the interstate system and being deemed a necessity by the Policy on Safety Rest Areas for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, most states established roadside development programs that constructed and maintained roadside rest areas. These development programs are managed and operated by the Department of Transportation, and in-house landscape architects and architects design the landscaping, site circulation, and building structures. (Dowling)

The rest areas’ goal is to provide particular points for stopping along the interstate, so the number of automobiles parked along the road is reduced. Rest areas provide drivers with locations to stop and be a safe and comfortable distance from traffic. The excerpt below from the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways gives an in-depth description of the rest areas’ intended use.

“Rest areas are to be provided on Interstate highways as a safety measure. Safety rest areas are off-road spaces with provisions for emergency stopping and resting by motorists for short periods. They have freeway type entrances and exit connections, parking areas, benches and tables and may have toilets and water supply where proper maintenance and supervision are assured. They may be designed for short-time picnic use in addition to parking of vehicles for short periods. They are not to be planned as local parks.”

A Policy on Safety Rest Areas for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, 1958

Rest areas serve a dual function for travelers. They provide basic service amenities. They also create a context of place and showcase the identity of the state or region the rest area is located. Rest areas are intentionally designed with unique and colorful expressions of the historical and regional locale to connect people with the regions they are passing through. It is standard for rest areas to have a main theme implemented throughout the site. The toilet building is often the largest building on the site and is designed to serve as the rest area’s centerpiece expressing a certain theme. Picnic areas scattered around the toilet building are designed to support the theme of the rest area. Often, the material or design qualities of these structures are exaggerated to create unique and interesting structures. (Dowling, Balancing Past and Present Safety Rest Areas and the American Travel Experience)

A rest area in Joshua Tree, California. Minimal design made from local materials.

Bibliography

Dowling, Joanna. Balancing Past and Present Safety Rest Areas and the American Travel Experience. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/nsrac2008/PDFs/A3_1-History.pdf.

—. “Safety on the Interstate: The Architecture of Rest Areas.” Society for Commercial Archeology, 19 Mar. 2020, https://sca-roadside.org/safety-on-the-interstate-the-architecture-of-rest-areas/.

History.org, Rest Area. “Rest Area History.” Rest Area History.Org, https://restareahistory.org/history. Accessed 21 Jan. 2021.

Image Sources

Hansen, Kristine. “The 15 Most Beautiful Rest Stops in America.” Architectural Digest, https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/most-beautiful-rest-stops-in-america. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021.

History.org, Rest Area. “Rest Area History.” Rest Area History.Org, https://restareahistory.org/history. Accessed 21 Jan. 2021.

The Alternative Bathroom

Jan 31, 2021 | History, public restroom, Research | 1 comment

Rev. Henry Moule’s earth closet, c. 1875. Science & Society Picture Library Prints, www.ssplprints.com/image/81833/rev-henry-moules-earth-closet-c-1875

Starting from the 1800s, alternative bathrooms were devised and developed to combat the looming sanitation crises and to make waste a communal resource. One can see how the creations of different bathroom systems throughout time reflected their era’s pressing concerns within environmental, economic, and social lenses. Barbara Penner’s detailed account of the alternative bathroom’s timeline, in Bathroom, dives into all of the contexts and effects of such bathrooms.

In Chapter 6 of Bathroom, written by Barbara Penner, the variety of alternative bathrooms reflect the changing priorities of different communities. The complexity of these alternatives’ relationships to people’s needs was further influenced by topical environmental concerns, the desire to capitalize, and even class differences. Not to mention that these were interpreted differently between different countries and time periods, which makes it a very important field of research. The development of these bathrooms continue even today as our priorities are ever-evolving in all parts of the world.

Environmental Effects and Utility

Beginning in the mid 1800s, the first prominent alternative bathroom was proposed by Joseph Bazalgette who detailed a city-wide network of self-sustaining public facilities. While the merit of self-sustainability was concrete, this plan was still set aside because of the greater fear of waterborne systems’ effects on the environment. In many parts of the world, the cost of having a flushing toilet was river pollution and the direction of human excrement to water was also a large loss to workers who sought fertilizer for their land (Penner 242). Out of that fear, research into waste utilities such as sewage farming became prominent.

A large debate between waterborne systems and dry systems broke out, however, arguing the many sides that shared concerns over matters such as epidemic prevention or affordability. For waterborne systems, supporters argued that it more easily transported sewage to farms. During hot summers, the water-transported waste could irrigate dry land. This regular drainage from private and public toilets would ideally prevent epidemic outbreaks too as up to 50 infections, from tapeworms to hepatitis A, could be linked to feces and the unsanitary conditions of bathrooms (Penner 269). On the other hand, dry system supporters argued that all the water would dilute the waste by drainage causing it lose all their valuable fertilizing properties. Alternative bathrooms such as earth closets, patented by Reverend Henry Moulde in 1860, were devised to retain the fertilizing value in waste. By replacing water with earth, flushing these toilets poured earth into the bucket containing excrement thus drying and deodorizing the feces’ smell (Penner 246). Though, a downside to dry systems was that their maintenance and sanitation were more laborious, and it was considered the lowest ranking task within the service hierarchy. Aversion to this task as well as its convenience caused more people to favor water systems and even witness a decline in water sewage.

Plan of Rev. Moule’s earth closet. Science Museum Group, collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co49020/moule-earth-closet-by-the-rev-a-c-moule-1860

Picture of earth closet. Old & Interesting, www.oldandinteresting.com/earth-closet.aspx

In the 1970s, the world experienced an environmental movement in which greater innovations in alternative bathroom technology surfaced. While the desire for waste-turned manure remained, skeptics began to turn away from waste sewage. They feared that the sewage, even after being treated to remove harmful toxins and pesticides, would not be purified enough to be safely used on land. Because of this, the emphasis of purification and self-sustainability grew larger during this movement and was a common factor in coming up with alternatives. One example that came to be with these pursuits are Bill Wolverton’s natural waste-treatment environment (1975) made up of water hyacinth, duckweed, bulrush, and water iris. Such environments were believed to treat waste organically and purify them (Penner 260). Another innovation was compost toilets such as Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak’s twin-pit, pour-flush toilet which could create compost out of waste without manual handling. Through using biogas plants and UV ray effluent treatment, the waste could be treated without causing water pollution and could be even converted into energy (Penner 268).

Example of effluent wetland design reflecting Wolverton’s own natural environment. Bur Oak Land Trust, 30 Aug. 2018, www.buroaklandtrust.org/wetlands-for-water-cleanup/

Dr. Bindeshwar’s squatting public twin-pit, pour flush toilet. India Times, 02 Sept. 2017, www.indiatimes.com/news/india/9-innovative-eco-friendly-toilets-that-can-help-india-overcome-its-sanitation-woes-328865.html

Toilet plan of twin-leach pit toilet system. Arkitecture & Design, www.arkitecture.org/two-pit-toilet-systems-twin-leach-pit.html

Impact on Economy and Desire to Capitalize

The economic effects of these alternative bathrooms were also a large concern because of their profitability or rather affordability throughout time. The 1860s began to focus on making profit out of utilizing human waste. This meant mechanically or chemically extracting ingredients from diluted sewage and applying them to the fields. In certain areas, like East Asia where the utility of human excrement was greatly valued, gangsters would run businesses that made an income out of selling dried fecal cakes. In China, the communist government later took this business back and enforced their populace to participate in it. Some markets did struggle to sell human waste as fertilizer, though, as guano (seabird droppings) from Peru was cheaper and made a stiff competitor (Penner 241).

With the advent of the great debate between water and dry systems, many businesses would sell both types of systems to increase their market. Walter Macfarlane & Co., for one, sold both systems and even included additional parts such as buckets and carts within their catalog. He even specially designed the “ordure scraper” to extract any waste residue from the dry public latrines that he also sold known as ordure closets. This is where dry systems gained some merit, too, as their parts were more simple and cheap (Penner 245). Other systems that would take advantage of selling pure manure include the pneumatic Liernur system which extracted the waste via vacuum steam pump at set times (Penner 250).

“Street reservoir of Liernur’s Sewerage System, Amsterdam, Netherlands, circa 1884.” Under Pressure, underpressure.online/narratives/wastewater-treatment/

In the 1870s, the affordability of sewage farming rather than its profitability became more noticeable. Chemically treating waste tended to cost more on top of maintenance of vast land.

Class Differences’ Impact on Evolving Bathroom Technology

To study the engineering of alternative bathroom technology also meant to analyze the anthropological and social effects caused by innovation. While the US and Europe grew early accustomed to drainage and sewer systems, it took more time for outside countries to catch on and integrate this technology into their communities. In fact, many areas’ toilet use and preferences were largely shaped by social/caste differences. This is demonstrated in Bombay, India where its caste system has determined many aspects of human behavior in a bathroom setting. To start, upper and lower class bathrooms were separated and faced very different levels of privacy and sanitation. While the upper class (and visiting colonists) could turn to water closets to relieve themselves, the lower class had to use communal facilities like latrines or even settle for open defecation in rivers. Colonists were often convinced that natives were dirty and did not have the capacity to take care of their own facilities, thus they were given lower quality sanitary provisions. (Penner 255).

It’s these kinds of toilet habits, from segregation to viewing people as ‘other’, that continue to divide people by class constructs. Even though developed countries translated technology (i.e. methane digesters and composting toilets) to developing countries, this “unintentional colonialism” still does not seek to provide facilities that low-income people can afford (Penner 267). In the 20th century, providing appropriate, socially liberating facilities for the universal people would become a large focus. Refer to Dr. Bindeshwar’s twin-pit, pour flush-toilet. Among its function of efficiently composting waste, it was also a public facility that was inclusive of low-income communities.

Today, we continue the fight for socially liberating bathrooms and health education. Of course, ideals for waste utility and environmental conservation still hold strong now in the research of bathroom alternatives. However, programs are also being developed to combat modern and future problems. The Gates Foundation, for one, engaged the public to create a low-cost toilet that can adapt to sustainable and social needs anywhere (Penner 272). CLTS programs are pushing communities to build their own toilets out of more affordable parts to educate themselves on the maintenance of sanitation in bathrooms (Penner 270). Because of efforts such as these, which blend the social differences that adversely impact disadvantaged communities, we can look forward to the accomplishments of our long-term sanitation goal: to universally improve lives.

Bibliography

Penner, Barbara. Bathroom, Reaktion Books, Limited, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=1707062.

Restrooms in the United States

Jan 31, 2021 | History, public restroom, Research, United States | 5 comments

Introduction

As seen throughout American history, public restrooms have been a haven for the discrimination towards indivuals – seen as less than the white, cis men – by society and the architecture of the public realm. Through our research, we aim to identify how the evolution of the United States’ public restroom has formed into what it is today. We cover how these changes were motivated by necessity, and when it became more focused on the aesthetic. Our research also analyzes how public restrooms contributed to the social construction of society; with the segregation of man and women, and the depictions of what ladies were expected to be within society: private, domesticated, moral, and weak. We identify the inequality that arises from the design of the toilet; the design was made for men then adapted to work for women. It is still seen today, insufficient restrooms for women, not to mention, individuals with disabilities, low economic status, who are tansgender, or people who don’t identify with the socially constructed idea of gender. We also recognize political events that have impacted the development, including activist movements, legislation, and the war.

Individual Research

click on the images below to find out more information

Movement Towards Public Restrooms

In the early 20th century, complaints about the lack of access to public restrooms is what ignited people to urge installation of toilets in cities around the United States. In an effort to gain public restrooms in cities, specifically in growing industrial regions such as the Northeast and Midwest, “comfort stations” competed with “washrooms” that resided in saloons. However, after Prohibition in the 1920’s the demand for comfort stations began to die down, but people now had to rely on restrooms in privately owned businesses. This affected those who lived in urban areas the most as these cities were filled with poorer people who didn’t have the same access to restrooms as wealthier people. This created sanitation and health issues as people had to rely on the streets as a restroom since they did not have access to public restrooms.

19th Century Restrooms’ Influence On Gender Segregation and Inequality

Once women were allowed into the workforce, there was a huge shift in the public realm of the United States. This change influenced the segregation of gender, race, and ability within society. It also fueled a lot of social anxiety that continued to push women into a domestic, private lifestyle, through architecture. Inequality rose from the divide, and women were not provided with the equivalent resources, to men, needed in their public restrooms. We can see the effects of it still today; women are constantly stuck in lines when they try to use the public restroom, but men, most times than not, experience no line at all.

Evolution of Bathrooms

Cholera, a waterborne disease originally began spreading in the 19th century, reaching the United States in 1826. The impact of the cholera outbreak created a significant concern for public safety and hygiene around the world. The rise of the Industrial Revolution led to an increase of population that lived closely together. Because of this, the previously common ways of disposing excreta would no longer work, and people needed clean sewage and drainage systems. Thus, The Health of Towns Association was founded and improvements to drainage and sewerage were seen as an essential part of urban planning for disease prevention. In the following years, The Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvements Act (the Torrens Act) further strengthened government regulations. The use of the sewage system transformed American bathrooms; and toilets that were once decorated bowls, became physical furniture that was connected to the sewage system below the house.

Map

This map identifies the location of important places, within the United States, that impacted public restrooms by influence, advocacy, legislation, and more.

Timeline

This timeline identifies how the United States’ public restrooms have changed overtime. It also includes moments in history that have influenced its evolution like legislation, social advocating, and natural/human caused disasters.

Bathrooms: from luxury to common appliance?

Jan 31, 2021 | History, public restroom, Research, technology, United States | 3 comments

Bathrooms: Luxury to the common appliance?

Yash Akhouri

Prefabricated Dymaxion Bathroom(1938) Buckminster Fuller

Summary

The biggest criticism made for bathrooms was that they did not move with the times, there was this sizeable industrial development happening and so many products and appliances were being streamlined that it seemed the one space that was falling behind was the bathroom. The house and what is essentially was; became more of a prevalent question as bathrooms were such crucial space for self-hygiene and care yet it seemed to be resolved as outbuildings due to a lack of development in waste management. The bathroom was a crucial element that solved the problem of the house. Buckminster Fuller was an architect to be one of the first to design a house with its own septic tank, this developed into the idea of the bathroom becoming the heart of the house. The innovation was led in the direction which was focused on off-site construction of the bathroom unit and less on-site work. This idea, however, needed a lot more work because making it all out of steel made it extremely heavy and very difficult to move around. Bathroom fittings and fixtures started to take on standards and norms, all artistic interpretation was ignored and everything was simply picked from a catalogue that was put together by industrial designers, manufacturers and engineers. This was a very objective approach and started to create bureaus of design development that intervened and by this creation, they were able to drive down cost and improve overall standards. bathrooms started becoming inferior to architects as there was no way for them to add their artistic flair into the design, it all became about sales figure and gauging the public instead of the craft itself. In 1905 Buffalo Statler hotels started including compact bathrooms into every room in their hotels, providing the concept of comfort and privacy for all its guests. All the plumbing and fittings fit with the trend of being standardised and mass-produced so it was easy to provide for all. Bathrooms turned from a luxury to a norm overnight. The suite came into fashion as these bathrooms started becoming streamlined, there was no overall theme but instead, space was brought together visually by straight lines, cleanliness and comfort started coming forward as there was now an integrated into bathrooms. The creation of the Dymaxion bathroom and its development in my eyes is the most fascinating system. Having a shower, toilet, bath and sink all in a single metal die-stamp that would form a core and be installed, seems crazy. The prefabrication was a successful process but the idea of installation and handling was ridiculous and was not even presented to a plumbers union. The bathroom developed into being an appliance and no longer an understood luxury, it became about building these happy consumerist products that did not satisfy basic needs and were for pomp and show. Plastic became a massive game-changer as now bathrooms units were moulded, lighter and easier to produce. “Americanisation” was a term coined after the rapid production of items such as the car and appliances; after World War Two a domestic bathroom in the household is all everyone wanted and this was easily deliverable as the Americanisation process and way of production easily lent itself to these demands. Bathrooms were being installed or were part of all new construction becoming a basic standard for housing, the lack of was a sign or disparage or deprivation. The time of social and architectural reform finally came about after the creation of eccentric pods that washed and massaged the body, the automation involved was rather kitsch and frustrating and brought about a realisation of how far things had gone. Now at the perimeter of buildings and not at the core. They were understood as services and no longer a core that the house was built around.

57_90b10c43-d92a-456f-8092-fbe6708ec09a_1024x1024

Buffalo New York~Hotel Statler~1905 Postcard.

The first bathroom suite(1910)

##### Caption

Human Washing Machine

This was one of the many pods typed bath room appliances that were taking hold of the commercial world

Ultrasonic Bath: Human Washing Machine ~ Pink Tentacle.”Jan. 2009,

An example of a public restroom also known as a superloo

Peel Street public toilets, Superloo(2013)

Bibliography

Penner, Barbara. Bathroom, Reaktion Books, Limited, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=1707062.

Seaver, Tara. “Buckminster Fuller and The Dymaxion House.”

“Ultrasonic Bath: Human Washing Machine ~ Pink Tentacle.”Jan. 2009,

“JSTOR: Access Check.” JSTOR, 1 Jan. 2012,

. “Exporting the American Model? ‘Americanization’ and Postwar Western Europe.” Makinghistoryatmacquarie, 18 Nov. 2013,

19th Century Restrooms’ Influence On Gender Segregation and Inequality

Jan 31, 2021 | culture, gender, History, public restroom, Research, United States | 10 comments

“Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing”

edited by Harvey Molotch and Laura Norén

Chapter 1: Introduction by Harvey Molotch

The Influence of Gender Within Public Restrooms

Society has designed bathrooms physically, culturally, and behaviorally with the belief that there are only two genders, which are often depicted in opposition. The identification of gender, within American bathrooms, has led to the establishment of a hierarchical gender, male. It also is excluding other individuals who don’t identify with the socially constructed genders: male and female. Women are constantly waiting in lines to use a public bathroom, while men often don’t, and this is directly related to the fewer toilets in women’s bathrooms than men. However, to improve the inequality, their efforts went towards designing toilets and accessories that allowed women to pee standing up, like a man, instead of increasing the square footage of the women’s, so both restrooms have the same number of toilets (Molotch 5).

Figure 1: Women are almost always forced to wait in line for the restrooms in public, while there rarely ever a line for the men’s

The Governance of Public Bathrooms

On page 7, Molotch states that “the personal is political”, which is establishing the strong presence of politics seen within the establishment of public bathrooms. The governance of public bathrooms has also been used to discriminate towards others based on class, race, ability, gender, and other social identifiers. Bathrooms have many different uses beside disposing waste, for example, individuals use it to do drugs, to sleep, to have sex, to steal, commit crimes, chat, and smoke (Molotch 9). Molotch suggests the design be improved to create a safe and sterile environment for the users.

Figure 2: Bathrooms were segregated by men, ladies, and colored, and were seen as superior in the social public.

The Physical and the Social

The behavioral and social patterns that have emerged within public restrooms, have a strong influence from the restroom’s physical configuration. Women’s facilities were designed to be almost completely private, with inclusion of some open space for surveillance. The design of women’s toilets also creates health issues with the potential exposure of diseases from the toilet, and even the physical effects of eliminating the need to squat. On the contrary, male’s facilities were design to influence erotic, sexual acts with the publicness of the urinals. Bathrooms have been designed to benefit abled men, while women and individuals who struggle with disabilities find these public facilities discomforting and difficult to use and access. This has pushed many individuals, especially women, back into their homes (Molotch 12).

Figure 3: Women’s restrooms had individual, private toilet rooms/stalls creating a stigma of privacy around restrooms, especially for women.

Chapter 7: Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety by Terry S. Kogan

The Separation of Sexes

During the nineteenth century, women were expected to follow the social role of “moral women” (Kogan 146). They were expected to live the domesticated lifestyle: morally responsible and religious. In the late-nineteenth century, policymakers instituted toilet separation laws as a reaction to the social anxieties around women leaving the homestead and entering into the workforce. The 1887 Factories and Workshops Act, which demanded these industries have the proper sanitation rooms, also required those who employed women to provide them with a water-closet and wash-room that wasn’t already used by the male employees. When the diseases started to spread, due to the increase of people involved in the public, the Americans blamed it on moral failure – individuals who didn’t abide by the role of the “moral women” (Kogan 146).

Figure 4: When women joined the workforce facilities like factories were required to install ladies only rest rooms.

The Regulation of Women Within the Public Realm

As women entered the public realm, there was a major push back from society. Architecture was designed to keep the women segregated from the men, and the women’s rooms were, generally, heavily decorated like the domestic homes’ society believed women should reside in. Libraries tended to exclude women, and those who did, built a women’s section that was completely cut off from the rest of the library. The rooms were also decorated like a private house, and only provided magazines about fashion and home advice. Their bathrooms were tucked away into a private area to supposedly protect the “true women” (Kogan 151) modesty. Other public spaces, like the parlor and railroad cars, also became divided by gender as it was said to protect women, but it didn’t. Instead, it communicated a cultural message that women belong back in their homes where it is supposedly safer for them (Kogan 152).

See image at this link

Figure 5: Women’s domesticated, public library

Figure 6: 19th century library for only men

Bibliography

“Chapter 1: Introduction.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, by Harvey Luskin Molotch, W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2020.

“Chapter 7: Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, by Terry S Kogan, W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2020.

Image Sources

Cover photo: The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575

Figure 1: TODAY.com, https://www.today.com/health/covid-bathrooms-t184898

Figure 2: NAVIGATION: Historical Context, www.stalled.online/historicalcontext-navigation.

Figure 3: The Week- All You Need to Know about Everything That Matters, https://theweek.com/articles/621109/brief-history-ladies-bathroom

Figure 4: The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575

Figure 5: Alamy, stock-photo-young-women-reading-in-library-of-a-washington-dc-normal-schools-that-50048684.html

Figure 6: Boston Public Library, https://www.bpl.org/blogs/post/celebrating-165-years-the-bpl-through-time-and-place/

Toilet history and human civilization

Jan 23, 2021 | Ancient, Industrial Revolution, public restroom, Reflection, technology, Uncategorized | 1 comment

Toilet history and human civilization

People talk a lot about food, clothing, housing and transportation, which are the basis of human existence, but food and housing are closely related to toilets. The world is currently facing major problems such as environmental pollution, ecological damage and resource scarcity, which cannot be ignored and are closely related to the construction of our public toilets. A city is the most populated area in a region and is the center of politics, economy and culture. Since the birth of a city, it cannot function without a series of infrastructures. For a modern city, the construction of infrastructure is related to the life of the city and is a business card of the city. Especially the toilet, as the window of the city civilization, plays a pivotal role.

Toilet facilities in Pompeii：

Pompeii, the most famous ancient Roman archaeological site in the world, tells the details of Roman civic life in a city buried by a volcanic eruption. Public toilets (foricae) were already relatively common in the Roman city, mostly in the form of cesspits and sloping floor facilities, where people disposed of their excrement by burying it and flushing it (relatively late). The location of the toilets was mostly located deep in the kitchen of the house and the other wastewater in the house for unified discharge. In Pompeii, there were usually sloping floors near the toilets, which diverted the waste to the sewer inlet through the difference in elevation, and the excrement was cleaned by flowing water. In general, excrement in Pompeii was diverted through a network of waterways under the sidewalks or along the streets. It is easy to see that due to the lack of hygiene knowledge the city of Rome focused more on relieving the smell and visual discomfort of excrement, but not further on the health of the people.

Health risks due to incomplete health systems：

A number of details were uncovered in the investigations of archaeologists Ann Koloski-Ostrow and Gemma Jansen. They looked at the hidden dangers of public toilets used by people at the bottom of the Roman hierarchy. “Rome is famous for its sophisticated plumbing systems, modern studies of old excrement suggest that its sanitation technologies were not doing much for the residents’ health.（The secret history of ancient toilets)” Toilets are more often used to solve basic physical needs and to ensure some privacy, while it is not difficult to find rats and vermin in the sewers that pose a health and mental hazard to the users. Flies, on the other hand, are a major hazard for spreading pathogens, and they can come into contact with humans more easily in toilets to spread diseases.

The number of homes with private toilets is very small, and most people still use basins or fields to solve their excretion needs. And there are loopholes in the sewer system, such as all channels get blocked in less than a year and need to be cleaned regularly.

Location of toilets：

Generally, toilets are built near public places such as theaters, gymnasiums, bathhouses, etc., with more than a dozen seats. This is probably the earliest public toilet.

The evolution of toilets (London)

For a long time after the long history of human development the inhabitants of Europe would use the dumping form of sewage, and the only toilet in the opulent Palace of Versailles was occupied exclusively by the Queen. Both the people who petitioned the palace and the well-dressed officials usually had to purify their bowels in the corridors of the palace. And high heels were originally created to keep the street from being full of feces, dirty socks and pant feet. The advent of the industrial revolution began to overwhelm Europe. The burgeoning urban population and dirty environment became a breeding ground for disease. 1831 saw the first major cholera outbreak in London, and by 1832 30,000 people had died throughout England. It wasn’t until the late 18th century when watchmaker Alexander Cummings made a seemingly minor change to the toilet that really turned the fate of the toilet upside down. London sewers could not be systematized, and most flush toilets were only connected to existing cesspools. The original septic tank only contained excrement, etc., but now it also had to be connected to the water from the flush toilet. The city’s sewage system has not been upgraded as a result, so the sewage directly accelerates the efficiency of the overflowing cesspits, making the already crowded septic tanks even more overwhelming. While flush toilets have improved the quality of life for each household, they have thrown the sewage problem on the entire city. It was then that people gradually became aware of the connection between feces, germs and the cited water source. After a series of ordinances and reforms, London became the first modern city in the world to have sewage sewers. After this, major cities around the world followed suit, such as Paris in 1870 and Tokyo in 1884, all of which had supporting urban sewerage systems. It was because of the integrated urban sewerage system project that the flush toilet finally ushered in its own era and became a symbol of public sanitation.

The value of future research on toilets：

It is the continuous development of toilets and the renewal of sewage systems throughout history that has brought civilization one step closer, and could there have been a better way for people to use toilets in the history of their design and development, and could the disposal of excrement have been added to the initial planning of the whole city as an important factor as the living room? How can the layout and drainage of toilets be reset to make them more energy efficient? What are the basic standards of toilet use that everyone should have?

“Chapter 13.” Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies through the Centuries, by Andreas N. Angelakis and J. B. Rose, IWA Publishing.

“The Secret History of Ancient Toilets.” Edited by Chelsea Wald, Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 24 May 2016, www.nature.com/news/the-secret-history-of-ancient-toilets-1.19960.

Vuorinen, Heikki S. “Water, Toilets and Public Health in the Roman Era.” Water Supply, vol. 10, no. 3, 2010, pp. 411–415., doi:10.2166/ws.2010.111.