Barbican Centre plans to remove 18 women-only toilets as part of its Renewal project

[Imnobody4]

Saw this last night - info is a bit difficult to extract. Consultation end 2nd June.
Theresa Steele has written a thread. Sorry if you're not on X.

'The Barbican Centre plans to remove 18 women-only toilets as part of its Renewal project, replacing them with mixed-sex “universal” cubicles. This is not inclusion, it is erasure. There is still time to object (1/10)'

https://x.com/XXFemaleOnly/status/1927075027901399495?t=RMLBCTAHdWyeKkZlHoDayg&s=19

https://x.com/XXFemaleOnly/status/1927297439746179240?t=RMLBCTAHdWyeKkZlHoDayg&s=19

This is what
I finally find on Barbican site.
www.barbican.org.uk/exhibition-guides/barbican-renewal-may-2025-public-consultation
Inclusive design is non-negotiable: participants highlighted barriers in toilets, seating, lighting, signage and booking systems.
Suggestion: Non-gendered, family and accessible toilets were top priorities. Neurodiversity was thoughtfully raised with design suggestions for low-stimulation zones, choice-based environments and clear sensory cues.

My other real concern is if there was a building evacuation like a fire or bomb alert.

We had to do fire drills as teachers and the aim was to get everyone out of the building in 5 minutes. I could do a ‘sweep’ of the toilets in seconds because you just bent down and looked for feet.
Now they will have all these fully enclosed toilets, do the staff or rescuers check every one, risking their own lives?

I am surprised the risk assessments don’t pick up on these kind of practicalities for a building so big.

If only @Conxis

In terms of the Hall there’s a capacity of 1948 people
According to research stats women visit events/ theatres at a capacity of 62%
Again according to stats women spend 90 seconds using a toilet ( not allowing for hand washing, periods etc ) Men take 60 seconds.
If everyone uses the toilet in a 30 minute interval ( I’m aware some are 20 minutes and also not everyone uses the toilet but apparently most do, just in case ) that means
Women need 110 toilets and
Men need a combined 34 toilets / urinals (both allowing for time to get to toilets )

That brings the level to just over 13 conveniences / head.
Interestingly this is approximately the same % that the National Theatre and Royal Court provide which are regarded as one of the better provisions in the country

If the Barbican use the BS standards for provision those numbers would nearly half which is one of the reasons why there’s always a queue for the ladies!

So that’s 144 conveniences in total ( based on usage capacity and time ) plus accessible toilets for the hall. If provided this would be sufficient for the adjacent theatre as well as the capacity is smaller and assuming both venues don’t have an interval at the same time.

So clearly the Barbican is under providing

They will say they can’t provide enough because the building is listed. However it’s Grade II listed, not I or II star, so they can in fact provide for single sex toilets without compromising the integrity of the building.

Of note Single sex and accessible toilets come first as a priority in the building regs with provision for Unisex after.

Any venue providing facilities in accordance with the British Standards is complying and couldn’t be taken to court, even though the standards are woefully lacking. We would therefore have to challenge the Standards

I was at the Barbican recently and used the ladies loos outside the hall on the upper floor, I couldn't find any other ladies toilets anywhere!
It was a row of about 10 fully enclosed toilet, washbasin, dryer and mirror, outside was a narrow corridor so it appeared they have already converted the configuration. There was a short queue, the event I was at was pretty male dominated though.

I know where you mean. The queues are long there usually and you have to go on a toilet hunt usually for the other ladies toilets. It’s a bit of a maze and you wouldn’t want to be desperate
tap to read

Of note

If anyone from Allies and Morrison is on this thread
You are a big enough firm with plenty of women Architects….time to speak up!

They have ARUP doing inclusion.

Formula
Women = 101 / 121 seconds
90seconds to use the loo + 6 seconds to wash hands ( although 15/20 secs is required for a proper wash but most take 6 ) + 5 seconds to dry hands with a cloth and 20 under a dryer.

Men = 60 seconds to use the loo ( I won’t bother with the stats for hand washing 🤣

Of course the whole process for women in Unisex toilets is far more as we need to avoid wee on the floor and on the WC so
we have to hitch our skirts up around our waste
and straddle the pan to avoid wee on our legs

Wearing trousers is even more difficult as we have to
take them down but hold the bottoms up to stop them getting wee on our trousers whilst also straddling the bowl.

I find Yoga helps

Clearly they still have single sex toilets in some places, but the irritating thing is that they have deliberately downgraded the existing provision of toilets for women as required by building regs, to provide unisex toilets which are optional - so much for trans rights not being at the expense of women's rights eh?🙄

That’s interesting!

Well, time they stood by their own design policies !
this from Arups

And this
they aren’t exactly the shining example they would us believe

There seems to have been a big Barney back in 2017 when they did the first lot. So they know women hate it, but they’re doing it anyway…

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/barbican-to-review-genderneutral-toilets-after-furious-row-over-long-queues-for-women-a3509136.html

It is important we look progressive so suck it up women!

Yes I was faced with that nonsense.
They basically made all the toilets ( bar a few) available to men. So women obviously weren’t going to use the urinal ones and ended up sharing theirs with men as well.
All this did was provide far more toilets for men
There were women like me wondering around aimlessly wondering how long we could hold it all in.

A word that keeps popping into my head post the SC-ruling is spite.
Things are being said and done that seem to have no rationale except to be spiteful to women because the SC ruled in our favour, somewhat.

Actually removing women's toilets to replace them with #bekind ones has a whiff of spitefulness about it it..

To be fair, I think this has been in the pipeline a while. There’s still time to object though by email (“consultation” closes 2 June), by writing to [email protected]

This is going to gross you all out Ladies

Considering Unisex facilities with integral wash hand basins

We use the loo and wash our hands then need to open the door to get out

Recent research states 31% of men ( or at least those that would admit to it ) don’t wash their hands after using the toilet. Of course that will be higher I assume as no one’s watching what you’re up to in a self contained loo.
Those men will have had their hands on their penises and then use the door handle to get out of the toilet.

In comes the women who then washes her hands ( 20% don’t ) and puts her hand on the door handle to get out.

On average a person touches their face between 16 and 23 times an hour

🤢 Now there’s a nice thought for next time we are forced to use a Unisex loo.

So many good points on here especially about additional risks for venue staff, as much as for women.
Nobidy wants to be cleaning men’s piss off the seats and floor before they can use the toilets. Just fucking no. Men also think it’s absolutely fine not to lock the door when they have a piss, so that women think the cubicle is free and then walk in on them with their dick on their hand. This has happened to me a handful of times. it’s embarrassing for everyone.

Who does the Barbican think they are, to try to force this on women? Also see this thread for more comments. It’s all about how a women-only toilet space is vital, as a shared space in the absence of men. Single cubicles obviously don’t allow for this: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3203454-What-do-you-use-the-womens-toilets-for

This really annoys me - even Glyndebourne have gone down this route of re labelling a ladies loo as unisex. The mess with loo paper on the floor and water splashed all over the washbasins - and again it wasn't a proper unisex loo it had gaps under the doors and communal washbasins. If someone can point me to the bit of the regs that states the requirments for a unisex loo I'll see if they can reinstate the ladies for 2025....

Hi, thanks to everyone who responded to my thread on X (formerly Twitter) by registering an objection to the consultation. The email address for objections is [email protected]

I am trying to get hold of an Equality Impact Assessment. I originally requested this in February. In any event, the plan appears to be in breach of Document T of the 2010 building regs which came into force in October 2024.

I am working alone on this and would value constructive input from the Mumsnet community, thanks.

oh blimey i was there a few months ago in that awful set of unisex portaloo set up things. Some bloke opened the door on me and i was mortified it was really open.

According to the renewals site www.barbican.org.uk/exhibition-guides/barbican-renewal-may-2025-public-consultation they only consulted “future audiences” age 18-30 about design, which led to the following :

Inclusive design is non-negotiable: participants highlighted barriers in toilets, seating, lighting, signage and booking systems.
Suggestion: Non-gendered, family and accessible toilets were top priorities. Neurodiversity was thoughtfully raised with design suggestions for low-stimulation zones, choice-based environments and clear sensory cues.

This is very ageist. Why have older people’s interests (in safety, dignity, privacy and hygiene) been deliberately ignored in favour of youth’s obsession with gender neutral? One might almost think they invited the group that would give them the answer they wanted.

Agree, this is ageist. I am going to do an FOI for a complete list of stakeholders participating in the consultation.

It's not clear to me if they ONLY invited people between 18 and 30; the way I read it, it could mean that they invited that group in for some specific design workshops, but the wider consultation, which I assume includes the design aspect (?), sounds like it was open to all.

It’s in the Building regs Part T

I raise you this: https://consult.communities.gov.uk/energy-performance-of-buildings/toilet-provision-in-buildings-other-than-dwellings/supportingdocuments/Annex%20D%20research%20on%20toilets.pdf

It is the report the government commissioned in the consultation lead up for Document T.
Arup had been appointed by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC, previously Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) to carry out research into the requirements of the population of England in the built environment, in particular disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

Have a look whether you can find the following long term health conditions in the 171 page document because I cannot:
Diabetes
Endometriosis
Menorrhagia
Epilepsy
Asthma
COPD
Heart Conditions

Stroke is there in terms on handrails! But not in terms of someone having a stroke.

Periods are referenced at the back in terms of trans men. Non binary crotch heights are discussed for urinals.

But worst of all, designs don’t look at a door gap in case someone collapses and needs urgent assistance. Vital and life-saving for anyone but more necessary for those with long term health conditions.

The only advice they give about it is to enclose toilets. When you look at the ‘evidence’ for this it is it by an American journal Article from Joel Saunders and Professor Susan Stryker, who have set up StalledOnline for trans inclusive toilets. This is the specific quote in the ‘evidence’: ‘A better solution, supported by many transactivists, and increasingly found in trendy nightclubs and restaurants, is to eliminate gender-segregated facilities entirely and treat the public restroom as one single open space with fully enclosed stalls.’

Further on it’s a reference from Jenny Slater who is now Tig Slater and Charlotte Jones from the U.K. who together also wrote this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038026120934697 .

By the way, Arup were Stonewall champions and won an award the year after their toilet document was published.

I now expect every toilet publication I come across about women to then focus on trans ideology. They have said long term health conditions but then focus on trans ideology.

No one has looked at toilets and focused on the woman’s experience and also those with medical conditions.

‘Inclusive’ is shorthand for ‘we’ll be prioritising gender’ - it’s not for women and not for people with health conditions. It’s certainly not for safety.

I did not expect this - I was just trying to find out why door gaps had disappeared. I am not political, I just want to make sure toilets are safe. All toilet design in the last 10 years gets rid of the health and safety aspects of providing door gaps for us all at our most vulnerable. This is the origins of rise of the ‘inclusive’ universal design.

Door gaps prevent assaults and can save lives of everyone. I know from experience! It’s incredibly frustrating.