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.

For those sending emails only
because the Barbican form only recognises gender and forces women to oblige in answering what gender they are

Please read the following attached article
The City of Londons consultation in 2019 ignored all those who did not respond to the gender questions. Thus shutting out the voice of women !! and so assuming the majority were in favour of mixed sex facilities 😯

Lets not let this happen again
Ive sent an email but also filled out the form and ticked ‘prefer not to say’, friends have ticked ‘women’ which im now wondering would probably be better, who knows.

tap to read if it doesn’t fully load

Sounds like a court case waiting to happen.

Historically toilets public were always full height.
Then it was accessible toilets but of course they now have emergency call cords in case they need help

In 2006 BS 6465-1 was introduced and notes gaps should be kept small and were only really needed for cleaning purposes as the priority was maintaining dignity and therefore should be as small as possible
Of course before then we were designing banked cubicles with gaps and only the disabled toilets were floor to ceiling
but the point really is that the gap issue was always about protecting a persons dignity and never about safety first and foremost.

^^

I disagree! When you look at designing banks of cubicles for single sex use, safety has always been mentioned as a reason.

They are only in single sex toilets though.

Safety isn’t the primary reason though.
Thats why Unisex toilets have so easily got away with having no gaps, it ticks the box re dignity

It’s worth noting it’s a cheap ventilation method too (not a primary reason though ) and we all know how owners and developers like to keep costs down.

Has somebody already answered this? sorry if I'm cross-posting.
This is the Building Regs definition of a unisex toilet, or 'universal' toilet as they call it.
Universal toilet Toilet facilities provided in a fully enclosed room which contains a water-closet and washbasin and hand-drying facilities, and is intended for individual use by persons of either sex.
Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T

Note that you can't just 'rebadge' an existing single-sex toilet, because it won't meet the requirements of the regs.
And as far as I can tell, it's also not OK to fully enclose existing single-sex toilets by putting floor to ceiling doors on them, and having mixed access to existing shared washbasins - they should be contained within the space.

In other words, a 'universal' toilet is something specific detailed in the building regs, not a tweaked single-sex toilet with a new badge.

So it is a big big job to actually remove existing women's toilets and replace them with - presumably 18? - unisex toilets i.e. 'a fully enclosed room which contains a water-closet and washbasin and hand-drying facilities'.

Leaving the 18 women's toilets and finding somewhere else for a small number [smaller number of potential users] of unisex toilets would seem more straightforward, and possibly cheaper, but that's just guesswork.

Ventilation is about safety too. And yes I agree about the reason unisex toilets are private because of no one wanting to go to the loo with door gaps when there’s strangers of the opposite sex around you.

Thats why we need single sex toilets, with door gaps, inside a single sex area that contains sinks. It is the safest and quickest way to get people in and out.

Manufacturers like unisex toilets because you need more mechanical ventilation, the doors will be more costly, you need visual and sound alarms for each cubicle, more plumbing with sinks etc. Doors and cubicle contents are more likely to need maintenance.

To be honest, the last time I went there (2 years ago) the toilet provision was dire, the ladies was disgusting due to a leak and stank, the disabled (gender neutral) loo (different floor) was also one of the worst I’ve seen. 4 hours there and at the end I said we need to go because no way was I venturing to the toilet a third time!!! Anything is better

Also ‘dignity’ going to the toilet is an interesting concept. Women go in the corner of a tent rather than use an enclosed mixed sex toilet with men hanging around it at refugee camps. Safety first.

Thank you to those who pointed me in the direction of the relevant bit of the Building Regs. I've dropped them a line (as inevitably it was a ladies' loo that was converted to unisex despite the fact there are usually queues for those and not for the gents) and asked them to confirm that they won't be doing this again.... Apart from anything else no one wants their long skirts sweeping along the floors of cubicles where men may not have been that careful or to put their evening bags on a sopping wet counter next to the wash basins. The drop in hygiene standards when the loos were made unisex rather than female was quite noticeable.

Yes if you are making a substantial change, then it needs to go through building regs and unisex means a sink inside.

Agree
although there is currently no requirement for unisex toilets to have
alarms
or mechanical ventilation when there’s a bank of them ( as the door would be frequently opened and ventilation can be within corridors outside )

The installation of them would definitely suit manufacturers but not developers because of the cost and space allocation

Visual and sounded alarms as in fire alarms would be needed for fire regs surely?

Not in an individual cubicle. They can be in the corridors outside.

This is because
bathroom facilities are not a fire hazard and
they are not habitable rooms

And ventilation is required under building regs? You have to pass certain standards?

Great for deaf people. The universal designs have to ‘resist the passage of sound’.

I am not sure this is correct.

Not in an individual cubicle if it’s in a bank of others.
If it’s a stand alone then yes

They do have to resist the passage of sound but an alarm in the corridor outside is sufficient to meet requirements as people don’t spend long in toilets.
Plus the alarm is set at a level to be heard within rooms with closed doors.

Cubicles have to be ventilated.

Cubicle definition Document T attached.

Not individually @Keeptoiletssafe
If they are floor to ceiling height in a bank of others the corridor can suffice.
If they are on their own then yes, they do.

Obviously the fittings need vents

Just picked up your above attachment
A ventilated compartment does not necessarily mean mechanical ventilation. A normal gap under a door and the fact the door opens into a ventilated space will suffice. There is no need for mech ventilation in each individual cubicle.

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

@DrPrunesqualer this sort of thing plays on my mind! I hate using so-called 'unisex' loos but as I do go to art galleries etc where they’ve become an absolute plague, I now always, always carry a tiny bottle of hand sanitiser, and I have been known to use a square of loo paper to touch the door-handle to get out for precisely this reason. It’s absolutely crazy that we have to do this.

I do the same with the toilet paper
Good idea with the hand sanitizer, Think I’ll be doing that too now 👏

Some full height cubicles have the doors return to the closed position. Surely they need mechanical ventilation? No wonder they stink if there are no door gaps.

Re alarms. This was in my files from the fire industry association:

‘Where it is deemed necessary by way of a risk assessment, specification or legislation, to install VAD's within the sanitary accommodation of a premises, then the light output should be sufficient to cover the whole area.
Where there are floor to ceiling height cubicles, in order to conform to clause 17.2b) of BS 5839-1:2017, VADs should be installed within each cubicle. To not install VADs in these situations would be subject to an agreed and justified variation to the Standard.’

So a couple of years after it specifically became illegal to have sex in a public toilet (clause 67 now 71) we, as a nation, became much more interested in dignity (whatever that means) and you get that BS. I don’t have access to the standards but that date didn’t surprise me.