Public toilet provision for women in Britain

Pergamon

Women’sStudies InternationalForum, Vol. 18. Nos. 5/6, pp. 573-584, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printedin the USA. All rightsreserved 0277-5395/95 $9.50 + .OO

PUBLIC TOILET PROVISION FOR WOMEN IN BRITAIN An Investigation of Discrimination Against Urination CLARA H. GREED Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England, Frenchay, Bristol,

BS16 IQY,UK

Synopsis -

This article investigates the problem of the inadequate and unequal nature of public toilet provision in Britain, where men are required under current statutory to be provided with almost twice more provision than women. The cultural and urological attitudes which legitimate this situation are investigated with reference to medical, sociological, town planning, building, and plumbing literature. It is found that “women’s toilets” are a topic which does not quite tit into the jurisdiction of either medical or municipal authorities, although the issue should be seen as a key component of any preventative, public health programme, as was the case in Victorian and Edwardian times. But the need for better facilities is generally not taken seriously by the predominantly male committees who set provision standards. Recommendations are made for the amelioration of the situation by means of introducing mandatory enlightened standards operated through zoning compliance procedures within the town planning system.

Public toilet provision is essential to make cities more accessible, particularly with an ageing population, the majority of whom are women. Lack of provision also particularly affects women because they are more likely to be the ones who are out more in the daytime in the city. Woman do the shopping and travelling on public transport for essential food gathering, homemaking, and caring-related trips without access to their own central area “base” in an office, for example, which has facilities. In this article, a discussion of the problems of achieving adequate toilet provision for women is preceded by a reflection upon the patriarchal nature of the town planning, and medical, sociological, and cultural perceptions of the issue which condone discriminatory policies and standards. Investigating the topic of women’s toilets uncovers the practical and attitudinal problems which are encountered when pressing for essential goods and services specifically for women, for which there is no “place” or needacknowledgment within patriarchal society. In focusing on Britain, the situation is inevitably set against the background of Anglo-Saxon attitudes to bodily functions, but comparisions are also drawn from other countries such as Japan, a world leader in public toilet provision.

INTRODUCTION In the course of my research on women and planning (Greed, 1993, 1994a) comments along the lines of, “it all comes down to toilets in the final analysis” were frequently made by respondents. Therefore, I have now embarked on researching this issue specifically. Toilet provisiont is an issue which so often features in women and planning discussions not only because women are the ones more likely to be responsible for babies and children, but also because, in Britain, men have approximately two-thirds more public provision than women (Jones, 1994; Women’s Design Service [WDS], 1991). This paper relates specifically to the situation in Britain and is based on research on women’s needs within the city of man, and of town planning’s response - or not.

I would like to thank the following for information utilised in this research: Nigel Ward, Environmental Health Department, Waltham Forest, London; Professor Lesley Doyal, Health Faculty, University of the West of England, Bristol; Sue Cavanagh, Women’s Design Service, London; Gail Waldman. advisor to Centre for Accessible Environments; Susan Cunningham, All Mod Cons, campaign group for better public conveniences; David Adler, architect; and Anne Winder, Continence Specialist, NHS Trust, Bristol. 513

CLARAH. GREED

574

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? Town planning perceptions Although most women planners consider toilet provision to be a relevant town planning issue, I found that, both, the attitudes of individual male town planners and the nature of the decisions emanating from the statutory planning system signalled clearly that it is not a relevant issue for them. Toilets are seen as “not a land use matter” and, therefore, requirements for provision are seen as ultra vines, that is, unenforceable through planning law. I argue that “toilets” is a “land use” matter and, therefore, the valid concern of planners because provision affects the way people “use land” (Greed, 1994b). Traditionally, town planning has been more concerned with the organisation and control of abstract categories of land use and with large scale zoning policy than with how individual human beings use land, that is, how they get around in cities at street level, struggling up and down steps, negotiating hostile public transport systems, fighting their way through the wind and rain, ever vigilent for their personal safety. In contrast, male town planners have tended to look at the city from above, peering down on layouts on the drawing hoard. It has often been said that the best way to educate senior male town planning officers is to give them a baby buggy (pushchair, stroller), plus toddlers, and set them down in the outer suburbs and give them the task of reaching the city centre by public transport (and inevitably finding a toilet too). If toilet provision is not considered a town planning matter where does it belong? I was to find that the various public institutions and government departments which one would imagine would have some responsibility in this field, such as environmental and public health bodies, building control departments, and national and community health bodies, generally appear to ignore or underestimate the need for provision for women, and frequently try to push the responsibility and the funding commitments off on to some other body. Like SO many women-specific policy issues, the topic does not quite “fit” into existing administrative jurisdictions set up to cater to what seem to be primarily male needs and, thus, falls down the gap between the remit of different state agencies. The private sector sees no profit in such provision and is equally unenthusiastic.

Medical perceptions From a preventative policy, public health perspective, it may be argued that it is essential to provide adequate facilities for those with a range of gastro, intestinal, reproductive, and urological problems, but also in order to accommodate the needs of healthy women, including those who are menstruating or pregnant, and thus to help prevent others developing the above conditions. In the past “public convenience” provision was a key element of Victorian and Edwardian public health policy, aimed at providing high quality urban services for all citizens (albeit to a lesser extent for women). In contrast with today, sanitary engineering was seen as a high status scientific calling (McKie & Edwards, 1995). Nowadays “public health” has been renamed “environmental health” and, in the process, the “people” element and consideration of women’s needs receives less priority than “green” issues. I must stress at the outset that adequate toilet provision is still vital for all healthy “normal” women, because there is tendency in the town planning literature to see it as only being of relevance to the incontinent or disabled and, therefore, only for what is perceived as a special and very small minority, thus, creating false, unproductive abled/disabled policy dichotomies. In practice, many women are rendered “disabled” by medical attitudes, by lack of provision, and by narrow doorways and steps. Much of the medical literature is full of “blame” for women, and of condemnatory, minimum standards as to how often the “normal” person should visit the toilet and of disapproval for those who apparently lack “control.” The solution is presented as one of medical intervention, through drugs, pelvic floor exercises, psychiatry, or surgery (Kursh & McGuire, 1994) and not by provision of adequate public toilets. Particular condemnation is reserved in self-help books for those who “go7’* when they see a toilet “just in case there’s not another one later” (Millard, 1988). In Britain and much of Europe, it is very likely there will not be another one at the prescribed time. Queen Victoria said (it is rumoured, to the effect, concerning toilets), “one should always avail oneself of the opportunity if it presents itself.” Many women quoted this maxim to me as their guiding principle regardless of what the experts say. After all, urological literature is not based on women-specific research, rather, find-

Women’s Toilets

ings are generalised to cover women too, without taking into account women’s “different” plumbing and interrelationships with gynaecological factors (such as changing urination demands within the monthly cycle) (Office of Research on Women’s Health [ORWH], 1991). In total contrast, I find in popular women’s magazines’ “friendly doctor’s advice page” suggestions that women go every couple of hours to flush out the system and discourage the lingering of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and “germs,” to reduce acidic build up, to help with cystisis, and to prevent toxic shock from leaving tampons in too long. Women may visit the toilet, in reality, for a whole range of reasons, including those caused by actual bowel and bladder malfunction, but also for “normal” urination, the need to move the bowels more frequently because of increased roughage in healthy diets (half the nation is probably constipated!); the effects of diuretic canned drinks of the cola variety; pregnancy, periods, and cystitis; to check on worries about vaginal discharge (or to check “constantly” on one’s “whites” if one is using natural birth control to determine fertile days), simply to check if one’s knickers (pants) or tights are about to fall down, or if one’s period has actually started; to pray, or to escape from the city of man; or for childcare and breast feeding purposes. (Childcare guru, Dr. Hugh Jolly, no less, recommended the unhygienic practice of feeding babies inside public toilets [1977, p. 3591, and it is rumoured Dr. Speck thought likewise.) Breast feeding is effectively illegal in public in Britain (and totally illegal in some American states). A woman may be charged with “disturbing the peace” or even with “loitering” if she performs this natural function in public. In an ideal world, breastfeeding would take place anywhere as it does in some, so-called, “backward” countries. As the baby boom generation reaches menopause, it is important to mention that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) increases the desire to urinate, which is not suprising when a key constituent of the medication is fertile mare’s urine (see, Klein & Dumble, 1994). In other centuries and cultures drinking one’s own urine was seen as a cure-all. Likewise, an ability to “read urine” (and stools and other excretions) to interpret a person’s state of health and state of fertility was an honourable and fine art practised by women before the professionalisation of

515

medicine. For example, Gueraula de Codines in the 14th century was a famous urologist and practitioner of uroscopy. Her diagnosis work was so successful that she incurred investigation by the Church (McVaugh, 1994). Modem toilet bowl trap systems make the practice of “visual analysis” before flushing material “round the bend” more difficult. This is especially so in the case of the design of North American toilet bowls in which everything vanishes straightaway. Modem “sit up” toilets may alienate pea ple from their waste products and encourage them to see the evacuation process as dirty and shameful, and the excreta itself as worthless. The feminist principle of having control over one’s own body, and having a healthly life, should include having control and choice over all aspects of one’s urination and defaecation. Devotees of Cloacina, the Roman goddess of the sewer (and sewerage), would be mystified by negative modern attitudes toward “the sable streams which below the city glide” (Gay, 1716). Sociological

dimensions

Nowadays I visit every public convenience I come across (not necessarily to go) but to inspect the premises, to watch how the users tackle the challenge of the building design, and, if there is one, to chat to the attendant “as all human life is there.” Looking for background material, I stumbled into an alien world of sociological literature centred around the “goings on” in male public toilets. I found an obsession with covert, ethnographic research by male sociologists to observe “cottaging”: that is male homosexual activity, which takes place in “tearooms” (male toilets) (Warwick, 1982). This choice of topic reflects a tendency I found in a range of literature on “toilet provision,” namely for men researchers to be incapable, in their minds, of separating toilet provision from sexual activity. This is also expressed in the world of the built environment professions in a schoolboyish, smutty mentality with much sexual innuendo when the topic of toilets is raised, but also in genuine embarrassment, especially when discussing women’s requirements. Even my mature postgraduate male students went bright red when I sought to discuss public convenience provision with them last term. I found little material on whether a female version of cottaging occurred in women’s toilets, except in erotic S/M lesbian literature by

576

CLARA

Califia (1989, p. 223) concerning “diddling your girlfriend in the public john” (sic) in Macho Sluts. (Macho Sluts was criticised for inappropriately portraying lesbians as aping gay male behaviour by Jeffries, 1994, p. 159). But, there are many assumptions made about the heterosexual use of toilets, as they are not seen as exclusively women’s private territory where no man ever enters. I found considerable concern being expressed by local resident groups and the police about leaving public toilets open all night as it “encouraged” young people to have intercourse in them. I was told by male local government officials and private security firm representatives that women’s public toilets should not be open in the evenings as it “encouraged” prostitutes and the homeless to use them! In fact, many public toilets close at 6:00 p.m. nowadays. Concern was also expressed by women customers and station managers at women prostitutes using motorway (freeway) service station toilets (not about male commercial travellers loitering around entrances), and about toilets in shopping malls “encouraging” shoplifting. Fears of prostitution, theft, underage sex, drug trafficking, graffiti, and vandalism were quite enough excuse for some operators to feel justified in permanently closing or reducing facilities for women (thus, saving operation and maintenance costs in the process; Jones, 1994). Male toilets used for cottaging, or for drug trafficking, would be more likely to get police surveillance than be closed. “Discouragement of use” seems to be the main policy basis which providers operate upon in dealing with imagined “problems” in women’s toilets. The omnipresent concerns of women about the state of public toilets and the problems with using them were not reflected in sociological literature, nor in municipal plumbing manuals, but were to be found in a range of “women and the built environment” sources both written and recounted (Centre for Accessible Environments [CAE], 1992; Cunningham & Norton, 1993; WDS, 1991). Many women are uneasy about the fact that many public conveniences are located in pairs with Ladies and Gents facilities directly alongside, typically with badly lit entrances, hidden by trees and bushes which block visibility. Concern about safety was expressed because some such toilets were believed to be used by “perverts” and “dirty old men” (terms which I do not find generally disaggregated into straight/gay categories in popu-

H.GREED

lar speech). Many women were concerned about the dirtiness of the facilities,3 the steps, the narrowness of the cubicles, lack of lighting and signage, the queues, and the lack of running water for washing in some facilities. Many carried their own toilet paper with them anticipating nonprovision. Surveys suggest a majority of women would prefer to “hover” than sit on a public toilet seat (see Cunningham & Norton, 1993), mothers warned daughters before entering, “Don’t sit on anything, don’t touch anything.” The problems women expressed about using public toilets contradicted the images of lazy ladies dawdling in luxurious surroundings which accompany the myth that women take so long because they are doing their hair or powdering their nose; when in reality they are queuing for the one stinking bog (john, cubicle) available which is not out of order, out of the few provided. Facilities for children were also highlighted by women and men too, both in respect of the design and scale of facilities (and fear of them getting locked in the cubicle and unable to reach the bolt); and about whether to send a young boy or girl into the “other” toilet on their own. Some young men I spoke with seemed more concerned about the lack of changing facilities for babies in the Gents, and the problems of whether to take their small daughters in with them or to find a kindly lady to take them into the Ladies room for them; than with the potential for exciting sexual acts in the loos. Some men also felt uneasy about using men’s public toilets. They expressed concern about using public urinals and wished there were more cubicles. Older men expressed fears of violence from “lager louts” once their back was turned, whilst others were concerned with a humiliating lack of disposal facilities for their incontinence pads, or were worried about slipping over on wet floors. Did the male toilet-based, sociologists of yesteryear never “see” any of these problems experienced by incontinent, elderly, and disabled men, as well as those with childcare responsibilities, whilst spending hours in public conveniences? Cultural context

There may be a deeper sexual reason why there is underprovision, even disapproval, of providing adequate toilets for women. Women who move around outside the home, out in the

Women’s Toilets

city, have traditionally been seen as “out of control,” a phrase also used of the prostitute, and both the urologically and morally incontinent (a word with many meanings). Their very presence may be a threat to the maintenance of pub lit/private boundaries of social life within urban space (Greed, 1994a, p. 80-81). Culturally, men have far more freedom of movement and public space and facilities are built around their needs. It is more acceptable for a man to relieve himself in public. Just like male dogs, any tree or wall will do for male humans (especially walls belonging to pubs (public houses, bars, inns, closed public conveniences, car parks, and football grounds), regardless of the legality of the situation. Such attitudes start young. Recently, I was walking up Park Street, a main shopping street in Bristol, and observed a mother directing her small bursting son of around 5 years-old to a convenient buddleia bush between buildings. As the boy peed, I heard his little sister cry out, “Mummy, Mummy, I want to go too,” a plea which met with no response whatsoever from the mother. There is an entrenched attitude in the professional world of municipal plumbing that women do not “need” to go as often as men, or that they would not choose to go in public. Because of a greater cultural acceptance of the natural right of men to urinate, fewer men are diagnosed as incontinent. It is not a problem they will be aware of as they are less likely to be “caught short” because of the greater number of male toilets. The classic novel first published in 1936, Clochemerle by Chevalier (1993), is the “hilarious” (= misogynist) story of the installation of a pissoir (male public urinal) in the village of Clochemerle in the Beaujolais region of Southern France. Chevalier writes, “only males are privileged to overflow on the public highway” (p. 97). The pissoirs of France, although now being phased out, have been notorious in making (very public) provision for men and not for women. Many “nice” women still consider it rather “uncouth” or possibly “unhygienic” to use public facilities, and believe that it is a sign of virtue to go very infrequently, resulting in distended bladders, pain, and a masochistic mentality. I find the work of Helen Chadwick far more healthy (Cullis, 1993, p. 23-24). In 1991, she produced a series of sculptures entitled, “Piss Flowers.” These consisted of bronze casts of the fantastic shapes created by her pissing in the snow in

511

Canada, and were intended to be both beautiful and a way of breaking down taboos about it being dirty or naughty for women to urinate in public (or indeed urinate at all!). STATUTORY

TOILET

PROVISION

Inequality and inadequacy The statutory guidance documents British Standard BS6465 (Part I), and the Linked Approved Document G of the Building Regulations have provided the national guideline standards for toilet provision since 1985 (British Standards Institute [BSI], 1985; Department of the Environment [DOE], 1992). These documents make it a legal requirement for men to be provided with approximately twice the provision per set of toilets than women. This is because men are given about the same number of cubicles as in the “Ladies” plus urinal provision. Men have more facilities overall. In some localities and premises, only a “Gents” is provided. But the problem also affects men in areas where there is underprovision for both sexes. Forty-two percent of local authorities have only one public convenience per 5-10,000 people, and facilities are closing down because of vandalism and related lack of funding for maintenance and supervision. Attempts to overturn this inequality of statutory provision through equality legislation have so far failed, as has the introduction of a private members bill in Parliament (Jones, 1994). Many would argue that women need more provision, not just equal provision. Women, on average, take twice as long to urinate (from entering the closet to exiting) compared with the average man’s 2 minutes (according to Professor Kim (1975) of Cornell who has dedicated much of his life to the study of the bathroom and urination). It is a noteworthy example to the world that the Massachusetts State Plumbers Board has recently decided that a 2 to 1 toilet ratio for women to men in heavily used facilities be introduced (Ms. Magazine, July/August 1994, p. 95). Likewise, in Japan the 2: 1 provision is now common, and the Japan Toilet Association is pressing for a 3: 1 provision (as explained by, Junk0 Kobayashi [ 19951, one of their leading women campaigners). Women may need facilities in different locations from men (Little, 1994). If one walks around a shopping centre in Britain and does a mental count, women are likely to outnumber

578

CLARA H. GREED

men 80:20. Yet, the level of provision of toilets for women in town centres at “best” (in rare instances) is likely to be on “equal” 50~50 levels, and more typically, on a 70:30 ratio in favour of men. The situation varies regionally, much being dependent on the political will of the local authorities responsible for implementation (Greed, 1995). No doubt readers will find parallels with the ways in which other countries’ legal systems discriminate against women. In Britain, until recently there has been no requirement that local authorities must provide public toilets, legislation has only stipulated that they may, and if they do, then, the standards outlined above come into play. A brief history will help explain how this situation arose. On-Street provision

The provision of public conveniences can take two forms: (a) on street provision by the local authority, or (b) private off-street provision by the developer or owner of a shopping centre or other private building to which the public has access (such as a bus station). This public/private distinction should be born in mind as it has implications for what one can or cannot enforce. The 1848 Public Health Act first gave general powers of provision, updated by the 1875 Public Health Act. The Victorians should be commended as builders of palatial public lavatories and proponents of improved urban standards. They were driven variously by civic pride, gas and water socialism, and a concept of citizenship for both women and men, although the former were considered not to require as much provision. Nevertheless, they would insist on putting toilets underground partly out of propriety, but also because the legislation of the time allowed the area of the subsoil beneath the public highway readily to be used for such facilities and for sewer routing (WDS, 1991). The practical aspects of plumbing rather than the user considerations of accessibility predominated. Generations have had to struggle down steps to the toilet, creating problems for the disabled, elderly, and semiambulent, as well as people with luggage, shopping bags, push chairs, and small children. The 1936 Public Health Act, Section 87, Subsection 3 gave local authorities the right to build and run on street public conveniences and to charge such fees as they think fit other

than for urinals. This meant effectively that women could be charged and men not, and condoned a lower level of provision for women which was viewed as an additional expense. A long campaign ensued for adequate, free provision for women equal to that for men. But a survey in 1928 of public conveniences in London (WDS, 1991, p. 16) found that men had more than two-thirds the public provision than women, and had the benefit of many pub toilets whose entrance was straight off the street. Recent surveys found the situation has got worse not better (Jones, 1994). To add insult to injury, as recepients of lesser provision, women were likely to find their access to public toilets further blocked by pay-turnstiles at the entrance. After a heated campaign, tumstiles were eventually outlawed under the 1963 Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act. The rules outlawing turnstiles never did apply to private conveniences, only public ones, and they never applied to railway stations. Also, the question of getting wheelchairs through turnstiles apparently never occurred to councils in those days. Of-Street provision The requirements are minimal. Private developers and retailers have not been required to pro vide toilets for shoppers, only shop workers (Cunningham & Norton, 1993, p. 1). Employee provision in offices and shops is not equal either under the 1963 Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, but this is currently being replaced and improved, to some extent, by the provisions of the EU Work Place Directive. I was informed by one developer that he did not like providing public conveniences for women beside food courts as they generated queues, but he did not seem able to grasp the obvious remedy to this problem - more, not less, provision. However many department stores provide facilities to attract family shoppers. If a shop sells food and drink which is consumed on the premises, or if the premises is a betting shop (which few women use), both male and female toilets must be provided currently under Section 20 of the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. It is only possible to enforce these regulations at the time a new premises is built or an existing one undergoes major alteration, thus, many facilities are never upgraded. Provision need only be “sufficient” [as they think fit]. The words “sufficent” and “adequate” and

Women’s Toilets

“may” frequently appear in toilet legislation. In the case of inns and public houses, the standard which is considered to be both adequate and sufficent is based on a 75% ratio in favour of men. In general, sport-related provision - for men at least - is generous. Sports stadia standards are based on advice from the Sports Council. Facilities have been typically provided on a 9O:lO ratio in favour of men, notwithstanding the sentiments of “Sport for All,” and the likely use of such facilities as venues for entertainment events. A new Sports Council consultative document improves on this ratio, suggesting 85:15, but recommends that clubs should research their own ratio as appropriate to local demand, but does not take a proactive role in initiating higher provision to create the conditions to attract more women (Inglis, 1994). There is also a lack of awareness of the need to provide additional facilities in urban areas hosting major sporting events, particularly for accompanying families and tourists. The problem is epitomised by the fact that Manchester closed over two-thirds of its public toilets during the period that it was promoting itself as the ideal European city to hold the next Olympic Games. Perhaps a cutback in toilet provision was one of the many prices to pay for the diversion of vast sums of public money into the reconstructing the city’s sports facilities for the Olympics. The licensing laws governing places of entertainment, dancing, and where alcohol is consumed also affect toilet accessibility. This is minefield of inconsistency and confusion, a field strewn with explosive relics of Victorian values upon which an unwary woman planner might step! When the lack of public conveniences for women and children is raised, someone is bound to say “well they could always go into a pub.” Under the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act, it was made illegal for children under 14 to be in a bar. This restriction was incorporated into Section 168 of the 1964 Licensing Act. The Act effectively limited the mobility of women with small children, barring them (literally) from the public house, and from the “service station role” of the inn. This act and the 1936 Public Health Act reduced women’s freedom of movement by restricting their access to toilet provision. However, in 1995 some concessions were made in the issuing of “children’s licences” to allow some pubs to admit children, particularly in tourist areas where there is a “family area” provided,

519

but regulations on toilet provision have not been amended. There are no requirements to show toilet facilities in any town planning documents (except country parks), and there are no standards for distribution, frequency, and location of toilets. But the need is probably greater than ever before. Car ownership and demand for public transport has increased as cities have spread, urban uses have been decentralised, and tourism has grown. People are away from home for longer periods of time, whether it be to visit out of town centres, to travel to work, or to visit out of town shopping facilities at a considerable driving distance from home. However, in 1995, mainly thanks to the fact that there is now, for the first time, a woman member sitting on the British Standards committee (BS6465) on toilets, it was made mandatory that in retail developments, at least some toilets must be provided, but only in large new developments (starting at provision of two women’s toilets per 100%2000 square metres and so forth): it is not retrospective. Toilet design Even if some provision is achieved, internal design may leave much to be desired. The details of toilet design are enshrined in BS6465, Part I, and the linked Building Regulation Approved Document G. Section 5 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970 requires provision for the disabled as embodied in linked Document M of the Building Regulations (DOE, 1992b), and British Standard BS5810 (BSI, 1992). Particular emphasis is put on wheelchair accessible toilets, but some have criticised the design details which seem to favour male (front facing) users. Again the controls do not necessarily cover older buildings. Whilst it is good that disabled people should have “special” pro vision, if the “normal” provision was not so bad in the first place, this might have been unnecessary. Everyone is likely to be effectively disabled at certain times in their lives in a built environment planned around an able bodied, unencumbered, young male standard. Everyone will grow old and less mobile, most women will be pregnant at some point in their lives, most parents will (as one of my male students put it in an essay) “be disabled by children,” whilst others are hampered by shopping, luggage, illness, and temporary injuries. However, it would seem

580

CLARA H. GREED

that it has been easier to gain better provision under the banner of “disability” than say gender, age, children, or ethnicity. There are no statutory requirements on provision of children’s toilets or facilities for babies, although design guidelines exist for such provision in a range of sources (WDS, 1991). An entirely new BS6465 Part II is currently being prepared which may include standards on childcare and baby provision. As to ethnicity, some groups are unhappy with the lack of choice of alternative toilet design from the Anglo-Saxon sit down version, preferring the squatting position and the eastern “hole in the ground” design, and may prefer to use water rather than toilet paper. These variations are popular in France too, and probably more natural and efftcent. (The “sit or squat” debate is a major issue in the world of sanitary engineering.) Most women have complaints about the small size of cubicles. In some cases the inward opening doors virtually touches the toilet bowl when opened leaving no space for the occupant. Other solutions include the development of t he APCs (Automatic Public Conveniences), that is the Superloo originally pioneered by the French. This can be installed “anywhere,” although some versions have an extravagant cleaning cycle, which is seen as unecological and creates queues. The public generally do not like APCs. Disabled groups, especially in New York, have campaigned against the dimensions of the standard APC and demanded wheel chair accessible provision. Women’s groups have campaigned that APCs are impractical for mothers with children and pushchairs, having similar problems to the “turnstile syndrome” associated with restricted individual user access. APC policy has all the marks of a piecemeal, compensatory measure, based on selective privatised provision, which solves some problems partially and creates many others. Other negative trends to watch include “CADisation” of design. Some CAD (Computer Aided Design) computer programmes for architects and designers have incorporated a “toilet block module” which is far too small to be practical and it would seem that no-one has challenged this. There are also some quite nightmarish new plumbing contraptions around, such as the “urinette” which is meant to provide a female equivalent of the urinal. Urinettes are a cheap, embarrassing, inappropriate alternative to traditional toilet bowls. If we have to forego

privacy, a simpler, and more hygienic, solution would be a long trough to stand astride such as I found constituted “the Ladies” in a certain university in Northern China. But why should we have lesser, not better, provision? There am also rumours of the European Union developing a Directive on the Euro-loo, to harmonise provision across Europe. Transport tennini The situation continues to deteriorate because of the lack of planning control on internal access and design criteria. Particular problems are found in relation to railway and bus stations, domains ruled by other agencies over which the planners have little control. British Rail appeared to be oblivious to all the good design guides on accessibility produced by women planners, architects, and disability groups. Mainline railway termini stations in London such as Paddington, Euston, and King’s Cross now have turnstiles at the entrances to female (and some male) toilets, all of which are located downstairs, with a charge of 20p being made. It is not apparently a lack of money which prevents moving facilities to ground level, or which has caused them to charge 2Op, as it is reported fl,OOO,OOO was spent on the refit (Edwards-Jones, 1994). The turnstile entrance at Paddington, installed in early 1994, is 15 and a half inches (40 cm) across, hardly enough room for luggage, and the average pushchair is at least 18” (46cm) across. On phoning up British Rail’s public relations department about the turnstiles, the man on the other end clearly saw it all as a joke and told me I could always go behind a hedge (in London?), and proceeded pruriently to explain to me in detail how he did so. As other buildings or facilities become privatised and thus, move out of the control of legislation covering public buildings to those covering private premises, further controls will be difficult. Toilet turnstiles are being intnxluced into a range of privatised public facilities, including shopping malls and bus stations. Similarly, several prestige transportation projects built in recent years, for example, the Washington DC subway system, the London Docklands Light Railway, and the extension of the Paris Metro to La Defense, all lack any toilet provision. Currently in Britain in the wake of rail privatisation, measures are being intmduced to remove the requirement to provide any public toilets at railway station termini and interchanges!

Women’s Toilets

These are all town planning matters because they restrict the way in which people use land and their access to vital transportation systems. These matters force people to use cars, or not travel at all, because of the impossibility of using public transport. Also, fire evacuation problems are increased with turnstile installation. But because of the division of regulatory powers, planners can do nothing about all this, indeed some may not even see it as planning matter. Any realistic integrated land use-transportation planning strategy would incorporate these issues and improve the provision for the disabled and babies in railway and bus stations, and on board trains, particularly if the govemment is serious about reducing dependence on the motorcar (DOE, 1994). More lifts/elevators, wider step escalators, and more concourse level toilets would be installed for people with pushchairs, luggage (which travellers are bound to be carrying), and for the disabled. As the Consumers Association commented (Which Magazine, January 1991, pp. 52-53), British Rail seemed to assume the average passenger will be carrying nothing more than a rolled up newspaper. Indeed, such is the culture of transportation planning that attempts to convey the message that passengers need toilets. This issue has received little response, with conferences organised to discuss these issues attracting only women planners (Little, 1994, chapter 6). Unless town planning control is extended to the insides as well as outsides of buildings, effective implementation of good planning policy will always be limited. With enormous covered shopping malls, transport termini concourses, and covered all-weather sports and leisure facilities being built, the insides/outsides, private/public divisions of urban space seem inappropriate particularly when the insides of such building structures may comprise a large component of town’s public space. It is unrealistic to separate the insides of the built environment from the outsides when dealing with access matters which require a “clear run” for user groups traversing both outside and inside buildings. It only takes one little step, or one badly designed doorway, to stop people in their tracks and prevent them from using the built environment to which they are entitled. Representatives of continence groups across the country have commented to me that some people are so discouraged by all these problems, they simply do not venture out.

581

PROFESSIONAL

CULTURES

One of the key reasons why the provision of toilet provision has been so gender unbalanced and inappropriate to large sectors of the population, and overall taken as a low priority issue is, undoubtedly, because of the nature and gender of the decision makers. Firstly, there were the 19th century, patriarchal, sanitary engineers whose influence still hobbles the system to this day. The situation would be much worse today were it not for the ceaseless efforts of such “sewers and drains feminists” (Greed, 1987) as the Ladies Lavatory Association, who campaigned for public lavatory provision and sought to change the discourse from one of “plumbing” and “disease,” to that of “amenity” and “health.” Nowadays, of the 2 million people in the construction industry (at all levels) less than 5% are women (most of whom are in nondecision making levels), and the whole professional discourse is relatively technological, and peopleless (Construction Industry Standing Conference [CISC], 1992). The worlds of plumbing, services engineering, civil engineering, and building technology are particularly male dominated, especially at senior levels (Greed, 1994, p. 194). Toilet policymakers come from male dominated professional subcultural groups which still harbour outdated and unrealistic images of women. Indeed they may seldom come across women in their working lives except as secretaries, wives, or sex objects, and have no concept of the numbers and range of types of women en masse using shopping centres. Also, many key “toilet” decision makers have limited experience of travelling on buses, few have young families, whilst ethnic minority contact and representation is virtually nil. (Information gathered from conversations and experiences of others in seeking to talk reason to these people.) It is significant that both the BSI and Building Regulations committees responsible have consisted entirely of men, mainly engineers and architects. Although there is some consultation (mainly with other committees like their own), there is no open compulsory public participation to enable people to scrutinize and question the standards proposed. Right at the height of the “women and planning” wave in 19854 these committees were rewriting the toilets standards without any reference to all the good design guides produced by women architects and planners, and were

CLARA H. GREED

582

actually creating standards which reduced the level of provision for women (CAE, 1992). More positively, voluntary pressure groups, self-help groups, and networking groups are also “actors” in the decision making process. As a result of campaigning, and the cooption of a woman onto the British Standards committee, namely Susan Cunningham of All Mod Cons, the campaign group for better public conveniences, BS6465 has now been revised and improved with better (but by no means ideal) standards, which were agreed in Spring 1994. Judging from the opposition and negative reactions encountered by women campaigning over toilets, including myself, wanting to go to the loo has become a highly politicised activity. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES Various strategies are being tried to get around the problems of existing legislation and achieve good toilet provision. Some local authorities have sought to get facilities provided through planning gain. “Planning gain” is a form of bargaining whereby the private developer offers better facilities for community use (such as landscaping, road construction, sports facilities, creches, even toilets) in exchange for a better planning permission, allowing, for example, higher densities. But some planning inspectors (government planning “judges” who arbitrate appeals against planning conditions), have ruled that provision of facilities such as toilets, creches, and buggy parking counts as imposing “quotas” on developers and this is frowned upon and is something that is not said about car parking spaces (Southampton Directorate of Strategy and Development, 1991; Birmingham City Planning Department, 1991, 1994). There are also differences in attitude among developers. Some are keen to comply to get a better planning permission and to please their customers, whereas others object to paying for toilet provision. Many would argue there is a need for mandatory provision, as such an important issue as toilet provision cannot be left to base bartering with developers in negotiating the terms of planning permission. For example, in North America, where the enclosed shopping mall came from in the first place,5 apparently, the planning position is significantly different, and controls are greater on this matter. North American planning is based on meeting certain criteria as to each type of land use, which are

enforced by zoning regulations. The owner has considerably less control over internal, as well as external layout than in Britain, and developers are required to provide high quality public conveniences, and wider range of amenity provision overall than in Britain (Cullingworth & Nadin, 1994, pp. 251,272; and see Cullingworth, 1993, chapter 6). This is what is expected as “normal” provision. However, additional provision can also be made through “zoning bonusing” (Cullingworth, 1993, pp. 92-93). Undoubtedly, there are problems with the North American system too, in particular the lack of toilet provision once shopping malls have closed and also the lack of extensive public facilities, so necessary in a continent crisscrossed by a motorised travelling public (as discussed in Toronto Star [July 30, 1993, p. El], “Why don’t travel guides list the best restrooms?“). American colleagues inform me people buy MacDonalds hamburgers on long journeys as the price of using the restroom. In the long-term in Britain, there is a need for harmonisation of existing regulatory controls, and a greater representation of user groups, especially so-called minorities at decision making levels, both as fellow professionals, and as members of the general public. Some of the design control powers currently held by plumbing groups should be brought into the fold of planning in order to influence the design of the built environment. All this would assist the breaking down of false dichotomies between insides and outsides, private and public facilities, and abled and disabled people. To avoid vandalism public conveniences could be located alongside or in existing public buildings such as libraries, railway stations, and council offices. Alternatively they could be provided in association with private premises but open to all the general public in return for tax concessions or on a franchise basis. Ideally all public toilets should have attendants and be open 24 hours a day, which would represent a serious investment in provision. To achieve all this, one needs to change the culture of the decision makers, particularly those responsible for transportation policy and retail development. Unfortunately, designing toilets is still seen by architects and planners as the equivalent of being asked to do latrine duty in the army. Rather, the development of a positive “toilet culture” should be seen as an entirely honourable enterprise as evidenced in Japan

Women’s Toilets

(Japan Toilet Association [JTA], 1992, p. 5), which is a world leader in the field. I would be very grateful if readers interested in this topic who would like to communicate with me in order to build up a picture of the situation world-wide with a long-term view of developing global toilet standards for all women, be they residents, workers, or tourists. ENDNOTES 1.

I use

the word toilets because it is internationally understood, whereas I would normally call a toilet a lavatory or lav, but I realise in North America that word means a wash basin! In Britain it is common to say one is going to the Ladies or Gents because these are the words the Victorians put on the signs. I also use the American words, bathroom, restmom, john. in the article, and the English words loo, lav, bog, and public

convenience. 2.

I have used the slang word go to include all trips to the toilet for whatever reason, but acknowledge this is a particularly British term. American euphemisms such as “visit the bathroom” or “wash up” cause confusion, as in “I’ll help you wash up.” “I’m going to wash up in the kitchen,” means in British English “I am going to do the dishes after the meal.” 3. The word dirty has two linked meanings, namely unhygienic and sexual and although it is a word frequently used by respondents in describing public toilets one cannot specify exactly what percentage of each meaning is included in each use. 4. In Britain, the women and planning movement was at its most productive in the mid 1980s. evidenced by a range of important publications produced by the Greater London Council (I 985, 1986). 5. Victor Gruen, the architect, is generally attributed with inventing the shopping mall, the first one he designed being “Southdale” in Minneapolis in 1956. There are now over 30,000 shopping malls in the United States, but in Britain they are far rarer and still have novelty value. The traditional shopping “high street” survives, albeit undermined by “out of town” development, traffic congestion, and blatant municipal neglect.

REFERENCES City Planning Department. (1991). Caught short in Brum. Birmingham: Birmingham for People Women’s Group, in association with Author. Birmingham City Planning Department. (1994). Positive planning [video with accompanying notes]. Birmingham: Birmingham for People, Women’s Group, in association with Author. British Standards Institute (BSI). (1985, republished 1990, and revised 1995). BS 6465: Sanitary installations. Part I. London: Author. British Standards Institute (BSI). (1992). BS 58/O: Access for disabled people. London: Author in association with the Department of the Environment. Centre for Accessible Environments (CAE). (1992). WC Birmingham

facilities for women in public report. London: Author.

buildings:

Seminar

583

Calitia, Pat. (1989). Macho slurs. Boston: Alyson. Chevalier, Gabriel. (1993). Clochemerle. London: Mandarin. Construction Industry Standing Conference (CISC). (I 992). Occupational standards for technicaL manage-

rial, and professional roles in the construction industry. London: Author. Cullingworth, J. Barry. (1993). The political culture of planning: American land use planning in comparitive perspective. New York: Routledge. Cullingworth, J. Barry, & Nadin, Vincent. (1994). Town and country planning in Britain. London: Routledge. Cullis, Ann. (1993, May/June). Nice women don’t play dirty: Helen Chadwick’s controversial Piss flowers.

Women’s Art, 52.23-24. Cunningham,

Public improvements.

Susan, & Norton, Christine. (1993).

inconveniences:

Suggestions

for

London: All Mcd Cons and the Continence Foundation. Department of the Environment (DOE). (I 992a). Approved

document

G: Hygiene

in the building

regulations

(amended version). London: HMSO. Department of the Environment (DOE). (1992b). Approved

document M: Access and facilities for disabled people in the building regulations. London: HMSO. Department of the Environment (DOE). (1994). Planning practice guidance note 13: Transport. London: HMSO. Edwards-Jones, Imogen. (1994, May 25). Taking a toll of the ladies. Sunday Times (Style and travel supplement), p. 6. Gay, John. (1716). Trivia, Part II. London: Collins. Greater London Council (GLC). (1985). Women on the move: Women and transport. London: Author. Greater London Council (GLC). (I 986). Changing places, women and planning. London: Greater London Council. Greed, Clara. (1987). Drains feminism. Town and Country Planning (special edition: A Place for Women in Planning?), 56(10), 279. Greed, Clara. (1993). Is more better? Mark II: with reference to the position of women town planners in Britain.

Women 5 Studies International Forum, 16(3), 255-270. Greed, Clara. (I 994a). Women and planning: Creating gendered realities. London: Routledge. Greed, Clara. (l994b. August 4). Public inconveniences. Planning Wee&, 2(31), 18-19. Greed, Clara (Ed.). (1995). implementing town planning: The planning process and product.Harlow: Longman. Inglis, Simon. (1994). Toilet provision in stadia planning, design and types of installation. London: Sports Council Consultative Document. Jeffries, Sheila (I 994). The lesbian heresy: a feminist perspective on the lesbian sexual revolution. London: Women’s Press. Japan Toilet Association (JTA). (1992). The restmom revolution of Japan. Tokyo: Author. Jolly, Hugh. (1977). Book of childcare: The complete guide for today S parents. London: Sphere. Jones, John Owen. (1994). Not at your convenience: A sur-

vey of local authority

public convenience

provision.

London: House of Commons. Kira, Alexander. (I 975). The bathroom. Harmondsworth: Penguin and Cornell University Press. Kursch, Elroy, & McGuire, Edward @is.). (1994). Female urology. Philadelphia: Lippencott. Klein, Rena@ & Dumble, Lynette. (1994). Disempoweting midlife women: The science and politics of hormone replacement theory (HRT). Women’s Studies lntemational Forum, I7(4), p. 3271-344.

584

CLARA

Kobayashi, Junko. (1995, May 25-27). The Japanese standard of public toilets and problems to be solved. International Symposium on Public Toilets, Portfolio of Proceedings (pp. 72-73). Hong Kong: Urban Council. Little, Jo. (I 994). Gender; planning and the policy process. Oxford: Elsevier. McKie, Linda, & Edwards, Julia. (1995, April). The “Roll” of the toilet in the engendered city. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Conference, Leicester University. McVaugh, Michael. (1994). Medicine before the plague: Practitioners and their patients in the crown of Aragon 1285-1345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millard, Richard. (I 988). Overcoming urinary inconti-

H.

GREED

nence. London: Thorsons.

Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH). (1991). Opportunities for research on women’s health. In National Institutes of Health: Report of Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Southampton Directorate of Strategy and Development. (1991). Women and the planned environment: Design guide. Southampton: Author. Warwick, Donald. (1982). Tearoom trade: Means and ends in social research. In Martin Bulmer (Ed.), Social reseamh methodr (pp. 38-58). London: Macmillan. Women’s Design Service (WDS). (1991). At women’s convenience: A handbook on the design of women’s public toilets. London: Author.