Old Vic toilets

Interesting about the difference that self closing doors makes @Zita60
There's also the V and A members room where I was invited as a guest once - the dreaded mixed sex.
I asked at the desk where the ladies' toilets were - not at all easy to find (but of course a very interesting detour)

It’s because the manufacturers are designing them as fully enclosed - there is a big surge towards privacy at any cost. In the case of school toilets it’s written into policy for secondary schools so that’s what manufacturers offer now.

To quote people ‘at the top’ who make these policies: ‘if it were up to me all toilets would be supervised’ (presumably to override the more problems they have created). To be fair the government did commission a private company to look at designs for people with long term health problems. However that company recommended full height cubicles based on inclusivity on what transactivists liked in trendy American nightclubs - rather than looking at what was safe and needed by people with the most common long term health conditions. I am not making this up - it’s all there it the report but the reason is hidden until you do a quick search. Even periods were only referenced at the back of the report in terms of transmen and their focus on having sanitary bins in the men’s. I think that if they were woman focused had looked at the long term conditions of (heavy) periods for example, they would look at sanitary bin design and placement. I find male designers centre the toilet in the cubicle so the sanitary bin rubs against women’s legs - which is what was designed in the single sex toilets too.

In terms of women’s safety, an argument I have read from influential designers is that they feel that mixed sexed enclosed toilets are safer for women because of the increased footfall - so men would be able to ‘look out’ for any trouble and help us women out. Guess what sex those designers were. Tell that reasoning to everyone that’s come to harm - it’s infuriating.

The design of toilets is only going to be as good as the people in charge of designing them.

Schools have wasted a lot of money having swanky new mixed sex private cubicles and then having so many problems with them. If the Old Vic really was honest, they wouldn’t have had them designed like this either if they had all that fundraised money again.

I was pleasantly surprised when I visited Tate Britain to see that there were separate male and female loos by the basement cafe. What wasn’t so good was that all the cubicles were completely enclosed which made we wonder if they had left their options open regarding mixed sex in future or whether they had been mixed sex in the past.

@Vinculum Oh no, not the National Portrait Gallery too! There definitely used to be female-only toilets on the lower ground floor, but that was before the renovation - I haven't been down there since. Thanks for mentioning the female-only toilets on the 4th floor, but it's typical that they'd be tucked away and most people wouldn't know about them.

On a more general topic of women's toilets design (when we are lucky enough to have them) I'm often surprised at how poorly designed they are. For example, in theatres, they need to allow for a very high throughput during the intervals. And that depends on the people queuing being able to see when a cubicle becomes free.

I used to go to the Proms at the Royal Albert Hall a lot. There are largish Ladies toilets on the ground floor, and although there was always a long queue along the corridor in the intervals, the queue used to move fairly quickly. But in 2019, after they'd been renovated, the queue was moving significantly more slowly. And it was all due to a simple change - the cubicle doors are now self-closing. Previously, once someone left the cubicle, the door would stay open, but now they close themselves within a couple of seconds.

The layout of the toilets is awkward. If you're at the head of the queue, you have to keep looking to your right to spot when someone has exited one of a row of cubicles. And you also have to look straight ahead to see if anyone has exited one of the cubicles on the far side. If you're looking ahead when someone comes out of a cubicle on the right and you don't notice it, when you look back, you used to notice that the cubicle was now empty because the door would be open. But now, the cubicle door shuts within a couple of seconds - by the time you look back to the right, the cubicle door is shut, the woman is at the wash basins, and you can't see the free/engaged indicator on the door. So you don't know the cubicle is now empty.

So what continually happens is that cubicles stay empty and unused for several minutes because no-one noticed the women coming out of them. So the queue is much slower-moving. I've often noticed a cubicle on the right coming free, and as I walk towards it I check the other doors and see a couple of them are empty, but no-one has noticed.

I also remember the Ladies toilets at the Bridge Theatre in London when it opened several years ago. The problem there was that there were a lot of cubicles around the room, but in the middle was a double-sided row of washhand-basins, with mirrors above them. It meant that if you were at the head of the queue by the door, you couldn't see if someone exited one of the cubicles on the far side, because of the mirrors getting in the way. So again, cubicles would often stay empty because no-one had noticed as the women left them.

Small design issues, but they can have big impact on the efficiency of use of toilets in a theatre. Did the designers not think of this?

If toilets are now being converted to mixed sex, with enclosed cubicles containing wash basins, that makes things worse because you spend longer in the cubicle washing your hands. In a busy place like a theatre, that will slow things down.

On the original topic, I've been to many performances at the Old Vic over the years, but I won't go now, simply because of the lack of women's toilets.

I work in the cultural sector (in an advisory role) and have quite a lot to do with arts buildings that are being redeveloped or sometimes new-builds. Architects and indeed those running these venues often believe that they're doing the 'right' and inclusive thing by going for gender-neutral toilets. But they can often be persuaded to modify their views if there's enough advocacy from some of the communities they serve or want to serve. So, for example, pointing out that they also have a large muslim community who won't attend if all the loos are mixed often works. As well as that, pointing out safety issues - is it safe to have a large gender-neutral facility in the basement where it won't be easy to supervise it? Also referring to building regulations (building regs) which still divide toilets into male and female and have different requirements for each - is quite useful. I've noticed a bit of a shift in that most larger venues coming onstream now have a choice between gender-netural and single sex, which is better - but there quite clearly needs to be better signposting/prominence, and an ongoing campaign to advise people running those venues that single-sex is great and mixed isn't...

I went to the National Portrait Gallery today, first time I've been since its redesign and reopening. The main toilets are situated downstairs on the lower ground floor and are mixed sex. All the cubicles are full-length (floor-to-ceiling), self-contained with individual small sinks and hand-dryers. It felt pretty uncomfortable, to be honest. A lot of people looked rather awkward to find themselves encountering members of the opposite sex as they walked in.

I went into one empty cubicle and backed out very quickly at the sight of excrement on the floor. A lot of it. I wasn’t impressed at all.

Previously they had single-sex loos there, I’m sure. Looking at the floor-plans later, I think there might be single-sex toilets right up on the 4th floor, restaurant, level, but all the others are now mixed-sex: it’s been very firmly decided.

Quick PS: I just googled to see if anyone had mentioned this online and found this on Tripadvisor from last year, which completely tallies with my experience:

the gender neutral toilets were awful. Most people were of a certain age, the men looked very uncomfortable with all the loos being cubicles, many left immediately without waiting. The women looked uncomfortable having men in what has always been their space. It felt abusive mixing the sexes in what should be a single sex space. No women added a bit of lipstick or make up, everyone just wanted to get out.

There's a reply from the NPG saying they’re 'committed to encouraging a safe and welcoming environment' (!) and mentioning the 4th floor loos but tbh most visitors wouldn’t notice them as they’re right at the very top of the building and you’re not given any indication that a single-sex alternative is available.

Yes sorry that one was on the tube carriage (no toilet). The others in the last few years are incidents from all over the UK on train carriages. But googling are only the ones that were publicised. Nightclubs and pubs are a big concern. And schools.

@Keeptoiletssafe that's awful, I had no idea about the train toilets (though I saw reports the incident in the (tube?) carriage, if it's the same one).

Train carriage toilet incidents are high for rapes and sexual assaults. Usually lone men targeting girls or young women who are ill (drunk or medically ill). Almost always in the train toilets though there was one horrendous case in the carriage last year where people did not intervene.
In the stations there’s been some horrid cases in the disabled toilets.
It’s really depressingly common. I started compiling data of public toilet assault locations as evidence to show the government (who told me they don’t hold data) but decided to stop as it’s so soul destroying. I found the serious assaults happen in enclosed (private) toilets.

Of course it’s daft to say ‘what do you all do’ if you need the toilet. Of course I go. But if I thought something odd was happening in an enclosed toilet cubicle now I am not politely ignoring it.

@StMarie4me

What do all of you do in small cafes that have 1 toilet? Coaches? Trains? Airplanes?

Well it could be icky in there, but I'd say the chance of sexual assault in an airplane/coach toilet are nil, and on a train probably fairly low too. And there will be no man in the next cubicle wanking, or peeing with the door open, or peering under the gap, or reaching under the gap with a phone (though I know they could leave a phone in there and try to retrieve it later).

What do all of you do in small cafes that have 1 toilet? Coaches? Trains? Airplanes?

Hold my nose, wipe the seat, try not to think too closely about how near the soap, loo roll or handtowel is to the splash zone and basically wish men weren't so grim and selfish. If it's a long flight or train journey, try to pee early before the men have fouled it.

Women's toilets can be grim as well of course, but I'm pretty sure for any given context (motorway service station, office, factory, pub, theatre....) the men's will always be more grim than the women's.

@NecessaryScene
Thank you for understanding and putting that so clearly. When I have been talking to civil servants and NGO’s some have this ‘oh’ moment and others say ‘yeah but privacy’.

When I reiterated about assaults in schools (I pointed out in 2016 the government discussed a BBC investigation where 1 rape per school day was reported inside a British school with the assault example being an enclosed broom cupboard) the DfE response was:

• All staff have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn.
• All staff should receive safeguarding training.
• All staff should know what to do if they have a concern about a child.
• All schools and colleges should have an effective child protection policy that also reflects the approach to child-on-child abuse, including: procedures to minimise the risk of it occurring; how allegations will be recorded, investigated and dealt with; clear process on victim and perpetrator support, clear statement that child on child abuse should never be tolerated or passed off as just part of growing up; and the different forms on child on child abuse can take.

So when pupil is brave enough to report an assault, because it is obvious from the 2016 data that serious incidents will always happen in schools, there’s systems in place and clearer guidance on how to deal with reports (!).

How about trying to create the safest environment so they don’t happen in the first place? How about doing that in public toilets too? Save on all that investigation and recording paperwork.

Women are high-reward targets for men. We can't really control that.

But we can easily control whether they're high-risk or low-risk targets, affecting how often men will try their luck, and get away with attempts to try again and again. Shifting the risk-reward balance is a great way to make things happen often or rarely.

Particularly for 'scouting'. The main preventative measure is to make it hard, not easy, for men to watch and wait for the opportunity to trap women in private, enclosed spaces.

Public toilet design has that very firmly in mind, or did until recently.

Including single cubicles, where they exist, opening onto busy public areas, and shared toilets not having excessive privacy.

Some of the 'designs' we've seen recently are the antithesis of that - enclosed cubicles in low traffic areas where men are permitted to lurk. Worse on every factor.

Do you want a man to face consequences for lurking in the women's - before he's ever managed to physically harm anyone - or do you want to let him stay there as many times as he needs for the perfect opportunity, because he 'might just want to pee' and/or 'a man will attack a woman anyway, whether or not we let him lurk in the women's'?

Yes, exactly. It’s the fact that any man can go into women’s toilets now and we can’t challenge them that is so dangerous.

Exactly this. It's a good analogy.

Most people who pass your house or car will just want to mind their own business. A minority will be hell-bent on theft and it will be impossible to stop them. In between these two categories is a much larger minority of chancers who are well up for being light-fingered, but only if it doesn't involve too much effort or risk. They'll try a door or a window, but won't risk smashing it.

Giving men an excuse for being in women's spaces doesn't affect the decent majority of men, who won't particularly want to go there anyway, or the sex-maniac minority, who will go in regardless. But it hands the (unfortunately fairly numerous) sexual chancers their chance on a plate and stacks the odds against any woman they target.

Going in is no risk because nobody will dare to challenge them simply for being there, or enlist help to eject them before they get up to mischief. If conditions aren't favourable they can bail out safely; if they are (e.g. one woman or girl is in there by herself), they can make a pest of themself. Then the victim will have to prove - probably without the help of witnesses - that they actually did something.

Mixed sex toilets are designed with full height doors and partitions.

Toilets with full height doors and partitions are less safe and less hygienic for everyone, but particularly when people are at their most vulnerable.

The number of spaces that are private and witness-free need to be reduced as much as possible in public areas.

This will prevent crime and give as much chance of rescue as possible to those who come to harm in a toilet cubicle.

Are you still able to get action if you find someone is in your house? Maybe he just wants to pee.

A MAN WILL NOT DRESS AS A WOMAN TO ATTACK A WOMAN. HE'LL DO IT REGARDLESS. A SIGN WON'T CHANGE THAT.

Oh come on. It's only in the last few years that it's been acceptable (to some people) for men to use the ladies, and that women are not supported if we complain about it. That's a massive change.

But isn't it a question of reducing opportunity?

According to your argument, when you leave your car it would be pointless to lock it as if somebody wants to steal it they will do so, regardless of whether it's locked or not.

Same argument applies to the locks on your flat or house. Do you not bother to shut doors and windows and lock them when you go out because you believe that if someone wants to break in they will do so regardless?

What do all of you do in small cafes that have 1 toilet? Coaches? Trains? Airplanes?

And I'll say it again, in case those in the back couldn't hear me when I've said it before.

A MAN WILL NOT DRESS AS A WOMAN TO ATTACK A WOMAN. HE'LL DO IT REGARDLESS. A SIGN WON'T CHANGE THAT.

I wish my DH had been able to do this.

I hate the Old Vic toilets. They really put me off going there.

I went to the National Theatre recently, I saw Importance of Being Earnest omg its so good that I did think about booking to go again. The woman who plays Lady Bracknall Sharon D Clarke is absolutely awesome.
I mention this because I love their toilets, there are loads and many are hidden with poor signage in very poorly lit areas. I don't go to the National enough to remember where they hide them but if you just try any door with no sign and have a torch you will usually find a empty set of toilets! That's my toilets news. I think they are just male and female toilets, it's hard to say in the darkness.
Also watch Ellis on channel 5 it stars Sharon D Clarke.

..

@meloncotton thank you, that's really kind. It was a long time ago but it's still quite painful x