We all know the feeling – when you’ve got to go you’ve got to go. Yet while central Governments and urban-based municipalities have promoted agendas relating to enhanced night time economies, the promotion of public transport and healthy lifestyles including supporting walking and cycling, such objectives have largely been undone to some extent by a lack of suitable public toilet provision. Perhaps unsurprisingly the lack of public toilets has been referred to as the “missing link” between agendas aimed at increasing public transit use and active lifestyles in our towns and cities.1
Brainstorming sessions around creating successful public places are rarely informed by issues relating to bodily waste. It’s an embarrassing and unglamorous subject which explains why narratives relating to the provision of public toilets have historically been treated with disgust and disdain, an attitude which continues to contribute to society’s ambivalence toward these facilities today.
As well as the shortage of facilities at the macro level public toilets can commonly be the scene of fear and anxiety relating to their location and design. Not to put too fine a point on it they are fraught environments where we are vulnerable, exposed and quite literally in a public place with our pants around our ankles. These feelings may be augmented by finding an unoccupied cubicle, avoiding touching dirty surfaces, potential interruptions to privacy, a strong and unpleasant stench, anxieties relating to disgust and humiliation, waiting in line and experiencing first-hand the effects of vandalism and graffiti. People occupying cubicles for sex and or drug use are other major concerns for legitimate users. Public toilets have become a contested site between addressing a real pressing public need and social anxieties surrounding their misuse. These factors may earn facilities a “reputation” which can make many people feel uncomfortable about using them.
Facilities are commonly located with little regard for environmental context, meet minimum design standards and little if any consideration is given to their aesthetic value beyond utilitarian necessities. As a result, this disconnect between context and architecture exacerbates uncertainties associated with toilets such as crime, poor access, antisocial behaviour, and hostile environments. When a facility is badly damaged it can create avoidance behaviours leading to underutilisation and the potential for further decay. For the local authority it can be a cheaper option to close the facility altogether yet this does not acknowledge nor diminish its need.
Public toilet closure has been particularly common in the U.K. Recent figures gathered by UNISON the Public Service Union show there has been a 22% drop in the number of public toilets maintained by councils since 2010, with the closure of 979 facilities.2 These figures are on top of previous reports by the Greater London Authority in 2006 which found a 40% decline in the provision of facilities in only six years due to neglect, misuse and underfunding.3 The legacy of savage funding cuts was profoundly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when Councils were left woefully unprepared to provide public facilities for people to wash their hands.
Closures have broader ramifications for other often marginalised groups in society including older people, women and people with disabilities or medical conditions, people who are homeless, as well as people who work in the public domain. A person unable to access public toilets may be at risk of soiling themselves, endangering their health by “holding on” or being fined for relieving themselves in a public place. A lack of provision is an indignity that can substantially interfere with an individual’s ability to participate fully in public life.
Reviews into the paucity of public toilets in the U.K. have found that local municipal Councils have the authority to improve public access to such facilities but that “these powers have not been utilised to their full potential in all areas.” An effect of this has been an unequal patchwork of distribution and variety of public toilets across the country.4
Much of this has been down to a perception that the provision of public toilets is seen as a drain on resources rather than an economic asset. The allocation of public toilets has always been considered a “discretionary service”, rather than a “statutory obligation” Research in the U.K. on the lack of any statutory authority or direct planning powers by Councils to provide public toilets found that there was considerable opposition to continuing toilet provisions and that fragmentation, lack of communication and even competition between responsible departments was common in relation to city centre policy. Studies have shown that the statutory planning system focused more on physical land use rather than the social dimensions of urban development as well as attitudinal and organisational approaches which favoured quantity rather than quality and “efficiency” rather than “equality.”5
Many local authorities do not have public toilet strategies and as such have inherited a hotchpotch of facilities that has inevitably developed over time. Those municipalities which have strategies are generally led by municipal officers who sit who outside the strategic planning process. These are invariably the same officers whose duties involve responding to complaints and vandalism, who lack the resources to refurbish existing facilities or to make decisions in relation to new facilities and who invariably bear the bulk of the blame when they are directed to close amenities. As a result, any progress on public toilet strategy at the local government level is likely to occur at glacial pace.
Public spaces simply cannot be successful where people cannot find toilet facilities in the built environment. The provision of these important amenities requires systemising as part of broader integrated strategic planning policies as well as ongoing community consultation with user perspectives and opinions in order to increase the number of facilities.
Good design in the right location where large numbers of people are about can prevent vandalism, crime and antisocial behaviour as well as urination in public areas. Ultimately, public toilets increase mobility and allow people to move around the city, to stay longer, and go farther and thus integrating these services through a holistic approach is necessary for our urban design to meet the public need.
Successful public places are not only attractive, clean and used by large numbers of people, they must also be hospitable for people to linger in the public realm making for safer environments by virtue of the fact that there are more people inhabiting the space. A lack of quality facilities can mean the difference between public areas being activated with lots of people enjoying themselves or people going elsewhere.
Breaking down the toilet taboo as an unglamorous and embarrassing subject and treating provision as essential infrastructure similar to street lighting, footpaths, streets, roads and waste collection should be strong considerations in terms of the public health and vitality of our urban environments. Toilets should become an integral part of the design of any building, area, town or city, rather than considered as an afterthought.
Where public toilets do not exist or are poorly designed and maintained the value of public spaces can be compromised. Yet public clamour for more toilets remains subdued perhaps because the more politically influential people are those people with the greatest access to public toilets. Nevertheless by choosing suitable locations in areas of activity which are accessible and well maintained and designing aesthetically pleasing facilities which allow for natural ventilation and light, where fixtures are made from robust materials it is quite possible to achieve safe and comfortable public toilets in our towns and cities. Perhaps what we need most of all is for those in authority to acknowledge that the provision of safe, clean, appropriately located and designed public toilets is not an option but a duty.
References
1.Greed C. (2015) Strategic issues in toilet provision, 10.134140/RG.2.1.3762.8641
3.Greater London Authority (2006) London Assembly: Health and Public Services Committee, An Urgent Need, London.
4. House of Commons Communities and Local Government (2008) The Provision of Public Toilets Twelfth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, London, October.
5. Greed C. (2003) Public Toilets in the 24 Hour City
