The quote about selfies in toilets was from a young female sales exec, from a big U.K. toilet manufacturer, in an article about what you need to consider when designing toilet blocks. Aesthetics is the biggest selling point in the article. They do do a very nice range of door and hinge colours.
If anyone is interested in how toilet design changed so much recently, I looked through all the government documents available online for the public toilet consultation that mentioned toilet door gaps in the last 2 years and traced it back to the source then researched their reasons:
The ‘evidence’ for recommendations to the U.K. government for private full height cubicles (which was from a commission to look at long term health conditions by a company called ARUP) was derived from an article written by two people involved in an American restroom design company. The company are called Stalled! and the original founders were a male architect and transwoman university lecturer in Gender and Women’s Studies. Their company champions toilet design as a social justice issue for inclusivity and they have a swish website.
The architect has several interesting talks on YouTube where he discusses his life’s work and ideas. (My note: some American toilet doors are minuscule and have side gaps which is relevant). Several decades ago the importance of the gaps in doors and partitions in male public toilets for the male gaze was in an article of a journal that the architect edited called ‘Stud’. The architect talks about how he was influenced by this and used sightlines and gaps as design features, becoming successful for incorporating and expanding this concept into different rooms in upmarket homes. More recently, when looking at needs for a new transgender market he said he went to the transgender lecturer and they decided that an inclusive restroom design for everyone would be completely private toilet cubicles leading into very open to all communal circulation areas. I can see from their background that it makes perfect sense to them that having no gaps is a good solution to inclusive design. And that in trying to make sure no one felt excluded in a venue they designed ‘communal washing stations’ outside the toilets and ‘communal grooming areas’ so everyone has to mix with each other.
In a question and answer session at Harvard university (last year on YouTube) the architect said these designs have not been assessed nor analysed to how they work in situ. They market their designs as good for all including disabled (ambulant) people and women as well which is completely at odds with all the research and experience I have. I believe they have not thought of why the gaps at the bottom of doors are there - safety sightlines and also as hygiene features, which is more obvious to anyone who has different experience of life eg. of being a medically vulnerable woman.
If you listen to them talk about their ‘inclusive’ designs, they don’t mention the realities of dealing with heavy periods with a communal sink, safety aspects of assaults inside private cubicles exacerbated by mixed sex spaces, medical emergencies (hypos, seizures, strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, overdoses, being spiked, self-harm) inside a private cubicle, rescue times for other events eg fire/bomb evacuations. They don’t consider the practicalities of someone being seen if they’ve collapsed, to be rescued in time. Or of cleaning vomit/blood/poo/wee etc off floors and full height doors, or extra lighting and mechanical ventilation needed that could fail in these totally enclosed spaces or that who is behind the next door or your door. All and more of the real situations other women have written about. Add all these situations up and the conclusion can only be that their designs are best for healthy men with no hidden disabilities.
This is the source of where ‘inclusive restrooms’ design ideas are derived from and now have been influential for U.K. public toilets. I wouldn’t be surprised if they directly/indirectly influenced the theatre’s designs.
For all the talk of inclusivity this type of design is not safe for anyone at their most vulnerable. And worse, it actually increases the chance of specific criminal and tragic events occurring, disproportionately to women and children.
Everyone should be considered and needs balanced carefully. Safety must be the most important need.