Autolykos wrote:Why hasn't anybody proposed the obvious solution yet? Have one room with urinals, labeled "Urinals". Have another room with stalls, labeled "Stalls". Since the stalls are already separate, urinals only used by one sex, and nobody minds being watched while washing their hands, further segregation becomes a non-issue. Even the queue problem is solved in a fair and efficient way.
This is already how high-flow buildings (airports, sports arenas, etc.) do it for men's bathrooms, although the rooms still have a passageway to each other past the door.
But for looking at costs in the short term - a relatively small men's bathroom might have two stalls and three or four urinals, but then you're likely to have a women's room with similar floor space, meaning ... like three stalls instead of two.
Our "women's" bathroom is three stalls. Our "men's" bathroom is two stalls and two urinals. With three as the max number of stalls, there is no room for improving on the stall/urinal ratio
For a small office, a "bathroom with both stalls and urinals" would be identical to the existing men's bathroom. A "bathroom with only stalls" would be identical to the existing women's bathroom. All that would need to be changed is the sign on the door.
But...they don't. That was my point. They look like a bathroom with urinals, and maybe a stall or two just in case. And since...that's sort of a problem.
Only if we've stopped responding to the canard about "exorbitant costs in renovating bathrooms in existing buildings", which is what came before that
and maybe a stall or two just in case.
I honestly did not know it was possible to have a multi-person bathroom with no
. Is this common outside of America? It seems to me like it would put a fair damper on anyone needing to shit.
EDIT: no stalls. No stalls.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.