Before a city installs a public toilet, this is the question
it should ask itself: How can we design our toilet to be as inclusive as
possible—to allow anyone who needs to use the toilet to be able to use the
toilet.
Instead, what cities tend to ask themselves is: How can we
design our toilet to exclude populations a, b, and c and also to control what
populations x, y, and z do in there.
Most cities provide exclusionary toilets (when they provide them at
all). And they provide exclusionary
toilets because they think this is the way to eliminate unwanted behaviours,
everything from people flushing their socks down the toilet to people just not
flushing the toilet.
What is an “exclusionary” toilet? I would argue that any public toilet whose
design does not allow for easy access and operation of the unit by all
people—any public toilet whose design does not allow anyone who needs to go to
be able to go—is an exclusionary toilet.
All Automated Public Toilets (APTs), by design, are
exclusionary, particularly the newer models of APTs on the market. These toilets (could) come equipped with all
manner of exclusionary tactic, from the explicit (e.g. floors with weight
sensors that will not allow the door to close if more than one adult person likely is
in the unit and doors that automatically open after a set amount of time) to
the implicit (e.g. restricted hours of operation (closed overnight), fee for
use, and located usually only in tourist areas).
APTs are designed to prevent undesirable behaviours (e.g.
vandalism, sex, drug use) from occurring in the toilet. And APTs cost a lot of money. Purchasing and installing an APT can cost
cities up to $1 million, depending on supplier, design, and a city’s existing
infrastructure. Yet, despite this hefty
expense, APTs do not prevent people from doing more than just numbers one and
two. Even the most sophisticated and
costly APT cannot overrule human behaviour, human need, and human want. And I’m glad, because no machine ever should
have authority over one of the body’s most basic requirements, regardless of
the alleged advantages.
But, beyond this, if you exclude one, you risk excluding
all. If you try to prevent people from
having sex, you likely exclude someone who requires a personal aide from using
the toilet. If you try to prevent
someone from taking a nap in the toilet, you likely exclude someone with
Crohn’s disease from being able to use the toilet undisturbed. If you try to prevent someone from using too
much toilet paper or too much soap, or from taking too long to dry their hands,
you likely exclude someone whose first language isn’t English, or who is not
able to read, or an elderly person, or someone with vision loss, or . . .
. If you exclude one, your facility is not inclusive.
‘Exclusion by design’ makes for a slippery ride. It sets in motion the idea that human dignity
should be accorded to only certain people: that only certain ‘ideal’ people are
worthy of having human rights in the toilet.
While I don’t believe that a public toilet necessarily should be used as
a location for people to do their laundry, take a shower, take drugs, or have
sex, the reality is that you cannot design away these behaviours from a public
toilet. Cities need to accept that
‘unwelcome behaviours’ will happen in any public toilet and they need to find a
productive way to address this. Cities
need to approach public toilet provision with intention.
So, what do I suggest in terms of public toilet design?
First, I want to say that no public toilet
can meet the needs of all people.
People
with profound and multiple physical disabilities likely won’t be able to use a
standard public toilet, even one designed to be ADA compatible.
This is why I think it is so important that
all cities install at least one Changing Places toilet (
http://www.changing-places.org/).
It is unconscionable that so many disabled
people and their families are subject to ‘the bladder’s leash’, planning their “daily
spatial routines around the provision of toilets, avoiding locations where
there is no provision, and consequently having a constrained daily home range
and constrained patterns of spatial behaviour” (Kitchin and Law, 2001, p.295).
Lack of accessible public toilets can be
understood as a denial of the rights of disabled people to participate in
social life with dignity.
I like this quote by Molotch (as cited in Molotch and Norén, 2010, pp.9-10)
At the extreme, officials often
close down the facility altogether rather than put up with the bad acts—thus
depriving everyone of access. Those
utterly without alternatives then excrete in public spaces—yielding visual and
olfactory ugliness, among other consequences.
Such patterns of prohibition, exclusion, adaptation, and befoulment
raise more general issues of how to respond to disliked behaviors. It brings home the problem of social control:
What price are we willing to pay to limit activities about which we might
disapprove? How much does potential offense
of the few color our imagination, politics, and resource expenditure? To what extent does a society design
operations and governing procedures out of fear of the miscreants, versus
adding satisfaction to collective needs?
Public toilet
provision is about human dignity and human rights.
Kitchin and Law (2001) explain that “public
toilets must be able to be used in private and in a way that minimises the
potential for embarrassment” (p.290).
I
think this is exactly correct.
No one
needs to know what you’re doing in a public toilet and how long you’re doing it
for.
I really like PHLUSH’s public
restroom design principles:
http://www.phlush.org/public-restroom-planning/public-restroom-design-principles/.
These principles are comprehensive and thoughtful,
and they address the concerns and fears (and disgust) many people have about public
toilets while offering a plan for how to make public toilets inclusive spaces,
including the creation of all-gender single-stall toilet units.
For many people, lack of accessible public toilets means
being “placed in a situation where you are unable to relieve yourself” without
violating the cultural and social practices that “surround the act” (Kitchin
and Law, 2001, p.290). By creating a well-informed
public toilet provision strategy that incorporates design principles such as
those suggested by PHLUSH, cities will go a long way towards establishing comfortable, safe,
accessible, and inclusive public toilets.