Questions

The provision of public toilets fundamentally concerns people’s mobility: how, whether, and with what level of dignity people move through space.  As such, public toilet provision is, in essence, an issue about not only equitable access to public space but also about quality of life, particularly for the aged, people with disabilities, and the homeless, social groups with an especially acute need for accessible and adequate public toilets. 

Despite the implications for quality of life, many cities throughout North America suffer from not only a lack of public toilets, but also the shutting of existing public toilets.  The lack of public toilets in North American cities is a product of the byzantine nature of these facilities. Public toilets are not simply places to pee.  Public toilets are multiple and contested spaces, and part of a larger discourse on who owns public space and on the social control of that space.  As Molotch (2010, p.2) states, “peeing is political, and so is taking a shit and washing up.”  In other words, public toilet provision is not politically expedient, nor is it a priority of planning.  Public toilet provision creates compound practical difficulties and social dilemmas for planners, designers, and city officials.  Municipalities do not have the political will to provide public toilets because public toilets are costly, invite public censure, and carry political risk.  Public toilets are regarded as dirty and often disgusting spaces.  And public toilets often are used by particular groups of people, for example, people with substance abuse issues and people who use the toilets for sexual activity, in such a way that renders the public toilets seemingly unusable by many. 

So, where to go from here?  If public toilet provision is so politically objectionable, how will public toilets be provided?  As I discussed previously, foisting responsibility for public toilet provision onto the private sector is not the solution.  There needs to be a sustainable, inclusive, and long-term answer to the public toilet problem, and it likely needs to come from the public sector.  Over my next few blogs I will examine more thoroughly some of the barriers to public toilet provision and explore what cities around the world are doing to provide public toilets.  I want to know what works and what doesn’t.  I will consider variables like cost, design, and public consultation.  And I have a lot of questions.

On that note, I end this blog with an apt quote from my favourite television show:

Rajesh: You know, there’s something I've always wondered about Aquaman.
Leonard: Yeah?
Rajesh: Where does he poop?
Leonard: What?
Rajesh: What would a toilet look like in Atlantis?  How would you flush it? And when you did flush it, where would the poop go?

The Big Bang Theory, Season 4, Episode 1

Molotch, H. (2010). On not making history: What NYU did with the toilet and what it means for the world. In H. Molotch & L. Norén (Eds.), Toilet: Public restrooms and the politics of sharing (pp. 255-272). New York: New York University Press.

Passion

A few years ago, I had to write an essay about a contemporary urban planning challenge in Toronto.  My Google search ('urban planning challenges Toronto') for possible topics yielded a website with the following photograph:

http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/12/a_history_of_public_toilets_in_toronto/

I was captivated.  I was mesmerized.  I was spellbound.  I was inspired by this enchanting black and white photograph.  Here was my topic: planning challenges of public toilet provision in Toronto.  Specifically, I wanted to know: where did all the public toilets go, and why?  But, where would I start?  I had a photograph, but little more.  Slowly, I gathered resources and I gathered data.  I gathered all the information I could about public toilets—in Toronto and elsewhere.  The more research I did, the more I found the subject of public toilet provision fascinating, especially its political history. 

Of all the essays I wrote while at university, this one was my favourite.  I felt excited to write it and excited to share my findings with anyone brave enough to listen to me.  In fact, I was so hooked on the subject of public toilet provision that I went on to write a research paper (later published) and my Master’s dissertation on it.  And now I’m writing a blog on the subject. 

Yes, I'm passionate about public toilet provision—about its deep social relevance.  And this is more or less how it happened. 

The Great Unsolved Mystery

In my last (first) blog, I considered the question of public toilets and privilege.  I argued that because lack of access to accessible and adequate public toilets has implications for quality of life and dignity, the ability to go when you need to go should be judged a civil right, thus unrelated to how much is in your pocket (or how much you value a pee).  Consequently, the public sector has a moral obligation to be the first-line provider of public toilets, with private sector establishments providing only ancillary provision. 

In this blog, I was going to say more on the issue of public versus private sector toilet provision.  Instead, I want to begin this blog with the following addendum to my argument about public toilets and privilege: while my argument is theoretically persuasive (and I hold to it), my recommendation—that the public sector assume first-line provision of public toilets—is extremely challenging to put into practice.  Here’s why: several barriers, including hypocritical planning policies, double standards from the community, interest group politicking, political risk, siting challenges, cost, and, most critically, public censure, have produced a lack of planning and policy formation in North American cities with regards to public toilet provision. 

Given these numerous barriers, it is no surprise that public toilets are not a familiar feature of the urban landscape.  However, it is not only (or even) the quantity of barriers that has thwarted public toilet provision.  The most important barrier to public toilet provision is that the issues involved are morally and politically loaded, exceptionally complex, and inextricably intertwined: public toilet provision is a wicked problem.  Yet, all of these issues are necessary to deal with if public toilet provision is elevated from a marginalized social concern to a matter of socio-political importance and, hence, actively addressed by government.

So, bit by bit, I will explore and chronicle the story of public toilet provision in the contemporary (North American) city.  I will consider the history of public toilet provision, examine the convoluted present-day context, and contemplate the future of public toilet provision in urban North America.  I also will look at public toilet provision in cities worldwide.  I will try to put public toilets into perspective.  And I will start with a pithy quote:

The trail of lime trees outside our building is still a public loo . . . where else are they supposed to go to the toilet in a city where public toilets are about as common as UFO sightings?  Sarah Turnbull, “Almost French: Love and a New Life in Paris” (cited in http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/toilet)

For Customers Only

In a Saturday Night Live skit entitled ‘Ruining it for Everyone,’ Jerry Langley, played by Adam Sandler, explains to RIFE host (Julia Sweeney) why he’s responsible for the proliferation of ‘bathroom for customers only’ signs on restaurant doors:

Hostess: Also with us is Jerry Langley from New Jersey. Tell us your story, and what you ruined.
Jerry Langley: Well, uh, uh . . . a few years ago, I-I needed to go to the bathroom . . . [laughs] so . . . I-I-I stopped in this restaurant, and I asked if I could use theirs!  And, uh . . . I was in there, I went a little crazy, and, uh . . . I just started whizzing all over the place!  I whizzed in the sink, and on the mirrors . . . I figured I’m not a customer, I could just whiz away!  I went back there the next night, and they had a sign up: “Bathroom for customers only” [laughs].
Hostess: Well, then . . . now, because of you, the general public can’t use the bathroom at that restaurant.
Jerry Langley: [Laughs] Well, uh, uh . . . actually, I’ve done that at a lot of restaurants!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93druining.phtml

Potty humour aside, this actually is a shrewd piece of dialogue, addressing, albeit unintentionally, a range of thorny issues associated with public toilet provision.  In this blog post, I will concentrate on the issue of public toilets and privilege, exploring the question of whether public toilets should be available for all or for only a select few—those who can afford to pay per go. 

Public Toilets and Privilege

A cartoon illustration I found online neatly encapsulates a growing problem: ‘bathroom for customers only’ signs mushrooming on restaurant and coffee shop doors.  To a large extent, these ubiquitous signs reveal the frustration of an industry fed up with serving as gatekeeper for the city’s de facto public toilets (of course, these signs also could serve purely mercenary aims).  Yet, these signs are reflective as well of a not-so-tacit and increasingly insidious social convention—if you want to pee, you have to pay.  Now more than ever before, voiding your bladder and bowels is subject to what’s in your pocket and, ultimately, how much you value a pee.

But, should using an ‘away from home’ toilet be a privilege reserved for a select population—those who can afford the cost of a cookie or cup of coffee (or those who can afford to make this choice)?  Or should the ability to go when you need to go be judged a civil right, thus unrelated to how much is in your pocket (or how much you value a pee)?  I would argue that because lack of access to accessible and adequate (sufficient, well-designed, clean, and maintained) public toilets has implications for quality of life and dignity, particularly for the aged, people with disabilities, and the homeless, social groups with an especially acute need for public toilets, the public sector has a moral obligation to increase the availability of at no cost toilet facilities beyond what the private sector currently provides. 

In my next blog post I will attempt to decode the convoluted issue of public versus private sector toilet provision.  The idea I want to put forward in this posting, however, is that the de facto privatisation of public toilets—the offloading of responsibility for public toilets from the public sector to an ill-equipped and often indisposed private sector—has created a system of social stratification whereby access to toilet facilities is determined by age, health, physical ability, and income, and people without the proper credentials are relegated to the lowest stratum.  Yet, the critical need for accessible and adequate public toilets can be met by only the public sector.  It is the public sector that, as the custodian of all citizens and guardian of the common good, has a moral obligation to ensure that the rights of citizenship, such as the right to quality of life and dignity, which in part comes from having access to public toilets, is accorded to everyone equally.