The Ethics of Inclusive Restroom Design: An Architectural Response to HB2

Lucas Flint College of Arts + Architecture Honors Thesis Spring 2017

The Ethics of Inclusive Restroom Design: An Architectural Response to HB2

ABSTRACT The fallout from North Carolina’s controversial HB2 has been vast and damaging both economically and psychologically. It is an overwhelmingly transphobic maneuver that directly opposes a progressive non-discrimination ordinance passed in Charlotte, a portion of which mandated equal access to restrooms, and that people can use their preferred choice based on their gender identification. This single component was enough to provoke a special session by the Republican-led NC General Assembly, which ultimately nullified the ordinance in its entirety and also barred other cities from passing similar nondiscriminatory ordinances in the future.1 However, the political turmoil over restrooms is not exclusive to North Carolina—a similar draconian bathroom bill is currently making its way through the Texas legislature, and even the nation’s highest courts fumble with the issue.2 This thesis will demonstrate that architects have the ethical and aesthetic obligation to design and construct public

1 Michael Gordon, Mark S. Price, Katie Peralta, “Understanding HB2: North Carolina’s Newest Law Solidifies State’s Role in Defining Discrimination,” Charlotte Observer, March 26, 2016.

2 Katy Steinmetz, “Texas Senate Moves Forward with Controversial ‘Bathroom Bill’,” Time.com, March 8, 2017; Bill Chappell, “Supreme Court Won’t Decide Transgender Teen’s Challenge to Bathroom Policy,” NPR, March 6, 2017.

restrooms so that they fulfill the spirit of the original Charlotte ordinance, one that expresses a more just and inclusive idea of the “public.� Unfortunately, the profession has thus far failed to seize the opportunity. This policy of inaction reinforces a heteronormative gender binary which excludes persons of different sexual and gender identities from safely using the space. Continuing to design restrooms as current building codes dictate effectively conditions a population into accepting heteronormative roles and neglects the psychological trauma and the discrimination incurred on users who do not identity with a heteronormative gender binary. It is thus imperative that a new design language is created and building codes are updated in order to incorporate alternative images of gender in shared, public space that are not transphobic and exclusive to cissexuals. This will require parting ways with the current practice of constructing traditional heteronormative and cissexist landscapes.

This thesis utilizes historical, cultural, and theoretical research in order to propose a series of design options for a gender-inclusive restroom. I will focus on designing a gender-inclusive public restroom while considering the social implications regarding its various users. The objective of my design work is a means of working towards creating a safe space accommodating transgender people, deconstructing the historically-constructed and practiced gender binary of restroom culture, and providing safety and privacy for all users.

THE ETHICAL OBLIGATION OF ARCHITECTURE The design of public restrooms has become lackadaisical and insignificant. Interns are frequently the ones tasked with following the clinical procedures of bringing the restroom up to code: grab bars—check; wheelchair radius—check; sink height—check.3 By treating the restroom as a simple technical exercise in detailing for interns, restrooms rarely get much attention from design leads on projects. Regardless, merely meeting the code requirements for a space at its minimum is far below the standard to which architects should hold themselves. If architects only design to meet code requirements (which is sadly what many architects do), then architects are clearly not paragons of superior design, nor are they “champions of the common man” or the stewards of the environment. To meet code minimums requires little creative thought and implements very little regulation in regards to the sustainability of a building or how it affects people. However, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the national body governing the profession, does maintain a Code of Ethics, which has a tripartite structure: Canons, which express broad principles; Ethical Standards, which lay out specific goals all should aspire to; and Rules of Conduct, which are mandatory instructions that have consequences if not followed.

3

Dana Cuff, Architecture: The Story of Practice (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991), 134.

In the very first Canon (titled General Obligations), there is an Ethical Standard as well as a Rule of Conduct that can speak directly to the dilemma of the public restroom, its users, and HB2.4 E.S. 1.4 Human Rights: Members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors.

Rule 1.401 Members shall not discriminate in their professional activities on basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation.

To think that this rule applies strictly to hiring practices or even architect-client relationships would be both myopic and naive. These principles should be integral to the entirety of the design process. Architectural education often addresses the discourses of religion, gender, disabilities, etc. It would be foolish to discount the value of those discourses through an exclusionary professional practice or, worse, implying that the discursive and comprehensive education one receives in architecture school is an impracticable idealism in the so-called “real world.”

Continuing to design restrooms that propagate a gender binary creates unsafe environments for those who do not identify with the icon on the door.5 The current standards of design allow for discrimination at the discretion of the client—it is unethical for architects to even anticipate the chance that a client might practice discriminatory policies when it comes to the public

4 5

AIA, National Ethics Council, AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (2017), 1-2.

Sheila L. Cavanagh, Queering Bathrooms, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 5.

restroom. It is entirely within the capacity of the architect to come up with an innovative design solution that shirks the mainstream expectation of what restrooms should be like. In order for that to happen, it is imperative that architects understand the design history of the restroom and dedicate the proper time and care necessary to design a space that meets the criteria prescribed by the AIA Code of Ethics.

HERSTORY Before the argument can be made for gender inclusive restrooms, it is important to first understand why the public restroom even requires two separate rooms. Contrary to popular belief, a difference in genitalia is not the determinate criterion for the two rooms. When America industrialized in the late nineteenth century, the realm of the home was left to women as men went to work in factories. The notion of a “cult of domesticity” was henceforth constructed: women were seen as virtuous caretakers of their children and thought of as easily seduced and susceptible to sin.6 The women’s restroom came into existence when women followed suit and entered the American workforce in greater numbers. Quite condescendingly, women were viewed as weak, vulnerable, and in need of protection. As a result, men constructed a separate room for women to relieve and refresh themselves. The setting inside simulated the feeling of a home, oftentimes containing pieces of furniture to

Terry S. Kogan, “Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety,” in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, ed. Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren (New York: NYU Press, 2010), 146.

6

lounge on and mirrors for women to powder their noses.7 Massachusetts was the first state to legislate mandatory separate restroom facilities for men and women in 1887—and by 1920 over 40 states had followed suit.8 A social anxiety surrounded the idea of women leaving the home, and the alternate restroom was one of man’s ways of making sure women knew their place in society.

Public restrooms have always favored men over women in terms of their utility. If men had to deal with the long queues and lack of services that women do on a daily basis, these problems wouldn’t exist. Firstly, urinals are a device exclusive to men—there has been little effort up to this point to design a similar commodity for women. A resulting issue is the amount of service provided in the same amount of space allocated for both a men and women’s restroom.

In the same square footage, the men’s room can accommodate more fixtures due to the space requirements of the urinal versus the stall, thus minimizing queues and wait times that women are all too familiar with.9 However, bathrooms do have the capacity to change, because they have before in the past. Baby changing stations are an invention of the 1980s. The baby changing station allowed women to bring their young children with them in public venues simply because of the ability to change diapers in the restroom.10 More recently, baby changing stations have been incorporated in men’s restrooms as well, which reflects shifting stances on gender roles

Ibid., 152 Ibid., 145 9 Mary Anne Case, “Why Not Abolish Laws of Urinary Segregation?” in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, ed. Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren (New York: NYU Press, 2010), 214.

10 Dan Mitchell, “Yes, Onion, Koala Dominates the Baby-Changing-Station Market,” Fortune.com, August 13, 2014.

7 8

regarding the caretaking of children. (reference and footnote about men) Family restrooms are another rapidly proliferating version of the public restroom, the benefit of which includes amenability to gender neutrality, handicap accessibility, as well as privacy for assisting young children or elders who cannot use them on their own. Family restrooms are a precedent for gender neutral bathroom spaces, and may be the progenitor for an even more inclusive public restroom design.

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS Gender ambiguity often triggers discomfort and even hostility from cis- or heterosexual parties who feel as though their own sexual identity is at risk of compromise.11 The reaction to the presence of someone simply perceived to be trans in a bathroom setting is oftentimes hostile and threatening, yet ironically the accusers are the ones concerned with their own safety, rights to privacy, and access to public restrooms. Adverse violent responses (both verbal and physical) are an attempt to maintain a hegemonic cissexist and heteronormative composition of the public restroom. A common response to gender ambiguity is to label such a person as perverse or pedophilic, thereby illogically inferring that the impressionability and innocence of children are somehow at stake.12 Having an adverse reaction reinforcing gender intolerance doesn’t “protect� children; instead it only serves to propagate a

11 12

Cavanagh, Queering Bathrooms, 77.

Ibid., 57.

gender-phobic environment. There is a fragile masculine construct that perpetuates a cis- and heterosexual safety narrative as the indisputable social condition of the public restroom.13 This claim to fear is oftentimes a mask for gender panic and misidentification that may lead to verbal aggression towards trans people. While a legitimate fear of assault may be warranted, it is a fear misplaced when simply associated with gender ambiguity, and frequently an excuse for hostile transphobic rhetoric.

The public restroom is intended to be used by the “public,” as its name indicates, yet culture implies that it is ideally experienced as a zone of privacy (as transphobic tales of the restroom reinforce). The ironic hypocrisy that exposes the public restroom as the transphobic epicenter is the male urinal.

Private parts achieve a public status, while more embarrassing functions of the bowels are banished to the partitioned confines of the stall. A hyperawareness is brought to the male gaze when men enter the men’s room; they are worried about how they are looking as well as how their looking may be received.14 Urinals walk a fine line between serving bodily functions and homoerotic voyeurism. That such a heterosexual safe space encourages such blatant homoerotic anxieties exposes the double standard of how cissexual heteronormative spaces propagate gender bending exercises they supposedly decry via their transphobic dispositions. An ordinance that allows people to use

Ibid., 74.

Lee Edelman. “Men’s Room,” In STUD: Architectures of Masculinity, ed. Joel Sanders (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 154.

13 14

the space they are most comfortable with is necessary, yes, but these spaces must also stop reinforcing and propagating transphobia. To invite trans people into spaces hostile towards such occupants is brash and not well-thought out.

NEXT STEPS There have been weak attempts made to improve the conditions of the public restroom, but these efforts have been met with limited success.

Single occupancy gender neutral restrooms work, but become expensive if they are the only option servicing a building. It should also be taken into account that some transgender people who have transitioned may feel strongly about identifying with their adopted gender.15 This is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed head-on by figuring out how the public restroom can be redesigned in such a way so as to accommodate people from all walks of life.

The issue of restroom design encompasses much more than accommodating different genders; it must also address the disparities towards the elderly, youth, and disabled and consider the range of activities that may need accommodating in that environment, from menstruation to breast feeding.16 The fact that these activities are still not considered is a reflection of a maledominated design culture.

Cavanagh, Queering Bathrooms, 47.

Clara Greed. “Creating a Nonsexist Restroom,� in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, ed. Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren (New York: NYU Press, 2010), 118-138.

15 16

Design has the capacity to condition our society to be increasingly tolerant and inclusive. An architecture of healing is something the state of North Carolina desperately needs in the wake of its deeply transphobic electorate. A safe place to shit is a good place to start.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agrest, Diana. “Architecture from Without: Body, Logic, and Sex.” In Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, edited by Kate Nesbit, 541-554. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Betsky, Aaron. Queer Space. (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1997),140-183.

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Inc., 1990.

Butler, Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Cavanagh, Sheila. Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 1-79.

Cuff, Dana. Architecture: The Story of Practice. MIT Press, 1991.

Edelman, Lee. “Men’s Room.” In STUD: Architectures of Masculinity, edited by Joel Sanders, 152-162. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Fillingham, Lydia Alix. Foucault for Beginners. Writers and Readers, Inc., 1993.

Harries, Karsten. The Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.

Kwiatkowski, Mikale Kristi. “Choices: Sex, Desire, and Gender in Architectural Space, Place, and Materiality.” Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2013.

Multiple Authors. Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. Edited by Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren. New York: NYU Press, 2010.

Scott, Felicity. Architecture or Techno-utopia: Politics after Modernism.

Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.

Whiting, Sarah. “Going Public.” In The Architecture Reader: Essential Writings from Vitruvius to the Present, edited by A. Krista Sykes, 306-315. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 2003.

Wilcox, JoAnn Hindmarsh and Haapala Kurt. “How to Design School Restrooms for Increased Comfort, Safety and Gender-Inclusivity.” ArchDaily. (accessed November 27, 2016).

Stall Layout (1”=1’-0”)

the way the partition is attached to the wall makes for a flimsy barrier

hardware ensuring privacy breaks easily and frequently

spy gaps compromise privacy help gauge occupancy but allows greater noise transmission

Metal Partition Stall: $620

Fully Enclosed Stall: ~$410

pros: • gauge occupancy easily • can see health emergencies • lighter doors more helpful to disabilities • easier to light cons: • awkward visibility • noise transmission • hardware breaks easily and frequently • expensive • door swing can be difficult to navigate

privacy — at what cost?

It is puzzling why it is still the norm to use metal partitions, given how expensive they are to install.

Money isn’t the only downside either; the locks break frequently, you can hear everything, and awkward gaps can make for an uncomfortable experience. It only goes to show the priority placed on visibility rather than privacy. On the upside, it is easy to tell if the stall is in use or if someone is experiencing a health emergency.

entry

Stall Elevation (1”=1’-0”)

OVERHAULING THE STALL

If safety and privacy are genuinely valued, then it makes a lot more sense to build a fully-enclosed stall. Not only is it more sensible—it is also considerably cheaper to build this way. Depending on the point of view, the full opacity of the enclosure may be considered good or bad.

pros: • full enclosure grants greater privacy • pocket doors eliminate door swings • more durable hardware • cheaper to construct • enclosure acts as a sound buffer cons: • requires more lighting • harder to address health emergencies

pocket doors are more convenient for wheelchairs and eliminate issue of door swing

Stall Layout (1”=1’-0”)

7’-0” baby changing stations allow parents to care for their children in a private space small shelf to place personal items near exit to help prevent leaving belongings behind exit 7’-0”

one door closes both

Stall Section (1”=1’-0”)

seat for second occupant or breast feeding mother; faces away from the toilet

RETHINKING RESTROOMS Restroom Plan (1”=3’-0”)

The entry and exit of this proposed restroom layout is entirely suggestive, implying that the intuitive procession would be from the hallway directly into the stall before using the space and then moving through the opposite side into a shared common space complete with sinks and mirrors. A wide door-less opening back into the hall increases visibility, in turn increasing the security of the space without sacrificing crucial privacy. Furniture adorns the center of the space to diffuse tension and create a space for people to wait on others to finish their duties.

Restroom Plan (1”=3’-0”) vending machines

temporary storage (surveiled)

Again, the lack of a formal entryway into the space makes the restroom more of a public space. An informal arrangement of tables and seats combined with amenities such as vending machines and televisions makes the atmosphere more of a lounge that you just happen to also take a shit in sometimes. The mounted televisions help to mask audible gastrointestinal distress and also keep attention focused in the direction of the stall (useful if you’re waiting to use the restroom) rather than the mirrors; ideally minimizing discreet forms of policing via reflection. The goal is to bring high visibility to the space, thus increasing safety, without compromising privacy.

television

This is a more extreme proposal for a public restroom that serves to critique the relationship between safety and privacy. In current restroom layouts, there is a degree of sacrifice of privacy for safety. This design features a row of toilets lining a single wall—there is no room. The hyper-visualization of the space assures safety, but at the expense of any modicum of privacy.

Upon occupying the immediate space of the toilet, a curtain emerges from the floor and is pulled up to shield the user from view while they do their business. The curtain drops when the occupant is ready to exit and they wash their hands at a free-standing wash-bin. With no mirrors, they cannot police the wall behind them while they wash their hands.

occupied

unoccupied

Restroom Plan (1”=3’-0”)