Old Vic toilets

[adulthumanfemalemum]

Went to the Old Vic yesterday. Christmas Carol, amazing show. Fucking annoying toilet labelling.
'12 cubicles", 'Urinals, 1 cubicle'

I saw an elderly woman emerge from the one labelled urinals looking a bit confused and worried and went into the other one, obviously had not understood that was the mens. Also the cubicles in the ladies (or the 12 cubicles) were not floor to ceiling so I felt quite uncomfortable that there was actually a man standing in there while I was in the toilet. He appeared to be holding his wife's coat, rather than any nefarious reason but I still would have felt happier if he was outside.

The Old Vic sent me a survey to complete so I took the opportunity to complain about their toilet labelling. In case anyone else wants to do the same here's the link. https://uk.surveymonkey.com/r/OVpostvisit?promo=36317

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.

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...

@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 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.

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.

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)

I was in the V&A members room toilets at the same time as a male stranger. He was even more uncomfortable than I about it.

That's an interesting post about the design of toilets and the impact of self-closing doors.

they made that change fairly recently - perhaps just before COVID and there was no consultation with V&A members at all. No accountability to the people using those toilets. Glyndebourne just as bad.

I imagine one benefit for venues doing this is that their toilets probably get less use, reducing cleaning work. Many people will presumably avoid using them, and go elsewhere if they possibly can.

Having toilets that people avoid using is kind of ideal for a venue.

I can report a bit of good news - the King's Gallery (which was still the Queen's Gallery - just - when I saw the Holbein exhibition there a few months ago) does have single sex toilets, with a proper sink area with mirrors.

Glyndebourne too??

I haven't been there for a few years, but I loved the fact that the symbol on the door to the Ladies had a figure in a long dress, rather than the short dress in the standard symbol for Ladies. 😀

Manufacturers and designers have the self closing toilet door as a selling point to ‘high-end’ to customers as it looks smarter to have a streamlined appearance. Aesthetics are a big selling point as who doesn’t ’love a selfie in the toilets while we’re out with our friends’ (direct quote from a manufacturer’s website).

I suppose it stops seeing bare arses if the doors don’t self close. In new mixed sex toilets there have been retrospective signs fitted to ask men to close the door as many aren’t bothered or forget.

These self-closing, full-height cubicles are not good for queues, hygiene, emergency building evacuations, medical rescue times and preventing assaults…….

But apparently a great go-to destination for a group photo.

Aesthetics are a big selling point as who doesn’t ’love a selfie in the toilets while we’re out with our friends’

Er. Me. Or anyone I know.

Indeed there's only 1 demographic I can think of that does love a selfie in the loos ... and they're the ones who shouldn't be in there.

Ye gods, they seriously think women take selfies in toilets? Surely a man must have written that (or a transwoman, because they seem to like taking selfies in women’s toilets).

I was just thinking before I read your post that perhaps the justification was that it looks neater. But as well as the issue I mentioned, it must also be a problem for those with poor sight, who can more easily tell from a distance that a cubicle is empty if the door is open.

I'm feeling frustrated on your behalf, so God only knows how you feel with all this.

The constant reinvention of the wheel must be absolutely infuriating

These are bloody toilets, it shouldn't be that hard, should it.

Thank you for doing this.

Your posts are very helpful @keeptoiletssafe. I learn so much like this from the collective mumsnet expertise (not all of it is good or welcome, but mostly necessary).

I make a choice to avoid cultural and retail places where toilet facilities have been modernised inappropriately. They lose my custom and my money, and I can bear the loss where alternative options exist. I appreciate others may want/need to make different choices. But with your help, I am equipped to make my decisions and tell them why. Thanks💐

Unfortunately young women do take selfies in the loo, but specially women under 20

Someone needs to ask The Old Vic how the ‘urinals and 1 cubicle’ toilets are fit for purpose as mixed sex toilets.
I would like to see their response

Yep after going to a few Christmas parties in fancy/trendy venues last year can confirm this is definitely a thing.

I am writing to a venue after my experience of using mixed sex toilets. I am trying to explain why I felt nervous only realizing after I entered that they were mixed sex. It was just me and one man in there and the toilets were down a quiet corridor in a basement. The man was fine and actually looked awkward but how do I explain that I also felt nervous and on high alert as soon as I realized?

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.

some American toilet doors are minuscule and have side gaps which is relevant

US doors are hideous. The bottom of the door is often at practically the same level as the loo seat, and the top is below the top of my head (I'm taller than the average woman, but shorter than the average man). No privacy whatsoever.

So I can certainly see a reaction to that pushing things too far the other way.

https://www.oswestry-tc.gov.uk/2024/04/all-cisterns-go-for-revamped-town-centre-loos/

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/oswestry/2023/04/21/council-agreed-350k-public-toilet-re-fit/

I hate these new toilets and I now avoid going to this town if I can.

I am glad that there is a 'changing places' toilet (more of these are needed). Due to my disability having a cubicle where both the sink and toilet are included is a good thing. In theory, I should be pleased with the updated design because of this. However, the lock mechanism on the door is a sensor. Of course there is no gap due to the doors opening out towards the carpark so they are fully enclosed. If anyone had a problem and couldn't pull the cord (or pulled it and had no response) you could be stuck in there for who knows how long with no-one knowing.

Even the idea of the sensor failing to open the door fills me with worry. It is a very claustrophobic space.

@Keeptoiletssafe was the architect you mention Joel Sanders? He seems to have a mission to impose his theories on museums and galleries worldwide and unfortunately they seem all too keen to go along with it. I see he teaches a class on 'inclusivity beyond code compliance'……🙄

I had noisy liquid diarrhoea on holiday last year, and had to use a squat toilet with partitions only up to about shoulder height. I was glad there was noone else in there, woman or man, or I would have felt pretty embarrassed.

Incidentally, in that country public toilets all have an attendant at the door, who takes a fee. I sometimes wonder if they ever get transwomen trying to use the women's toilets, and if so what happens.