Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Restrooms and Ancillary Spaces (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

52 Airport Restroom of the Future 3.1 Introduction This chapter makes a case for the possibility of creating airport restrooms in the future that are free of barriers for most travelers by • Using small, flexible planning modules • Adding right-sized restrooms easily • Prefabricating major nodes • Minimizing maintenance shutdowns • Accommodating all abilities • Helping to calm the harried traveler 3.2 The Issues Many airports were built with restrooms squeezed into inferior, leftover spaces. Now, especially in the wake of 9/11, it is difficult to enlarge the typical restroom to accommodate travelers’ carry-ons as well as make it accessible for travelers with disabilities without decreas- ing the fixture count (which keeps increasing with larger aircraft). Some of the issues with restrooms for airports are described in the following. 3.2.1 Construction Renovating restrooms in airports is disruptive and expensive because it requires 3RD PAGES varying vintages of layouts, infrastructure, and finishes. With varying space con- straints, it can be difficult to standardize layouts. 3.2.2 Maintenance In a typical restroom layout, containing a men’s and a women’s restroom, the entire men’s side or the entire women’s side becomes unavailable during cleaning or repair. Even when restrooms are designed so that only a part of a men’s or women’s space needs to be closed, it can be difficult for maintenance staff to shut down one side of a restroom without entering the restroom. This can be an issue if the maintenance staff member is a man for a women’s restroom or vice versa. 3.2.3 Accessibility The ADA requires one accessible stall in a typical airport restroom. As travelers with disabilities are a small (but growing) percentage of the public, those in need often find the C H A P T E R 3

Airport Restroom of the Future 53 accessible stall occupied by an able-bodied person. More of these types of stalls would alleviate this issue. 3.2.4 Gender To describe the issue of gender requires a brief history of the public restroom (synopsized from The Bathroom by Alexander Kira and Toilet edited by Harvey Molotch and Laura Norén). The earliest evidence of public restrooms is from approximately 1700 BCE at Knossos on Crete. The then technologically sophisticated facilities were not unlike contemporary rest- rooms, with places for elimination and washing. They were typically available for townsfolk as well as travelers. Most of the great cities of the ancient world up through the time of the Roman Empire had similar accommodations for the public, although it is not known if genders were separated. For the next thousand years, public restrooms fell out of fashion to the point where public dung heaps were the norm. Even during the opulent times of Louis XIV, it was common to use streets, cellars, and yards when the need arose. In his proposals for public housing in new towns, Leonardo da Vinci noted that all stairways should be spiral to prevent sanitary misuse of landings. The nineteenth century saw a renewed interest in public facilities because of disease epidemics like the cholera outbreak during the Civil War in the United States, large public events such as the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London that drew 800,000 visitors, and, more significantly, the rise of rail travel and the new terminals to accommodate the many travelers. Today, public restrooms are generally easy to find in malls, gas stations, parks, and so forth with separate facilities for men and women and even restrooms for families and those traveling with a com- panion for assistance. Separate public restrooms for men and women, however, are a relatively recent provision. The first law in the United States to require restrooms for women in addition to men was enacted in 1887 in Massachusetts and was aimed at factories and workshops. By 1920, only 43 of the 48 states had adopted similar legislation. The reason for such a law in the first place came into being in the early nineteenth century when the Industrial Revolution saw men leaving their homes daily to work at the factories, etc. The rapid growth in technology and industrialization invaded life with new dangers and filth at every turn. This, coupled with the Victorian assumption that females were endowed with greater moral sensibility and religious inclinations than men, effectively made the workplace the domain of men and the home that of women. These intrusions of urban life also increased the desire for personal privacy, which in turn led to increased concerns about modesty, especially regarding the human body and bodily functions. Society’s anxiety about women emerging from the home to work, shop, and socialize led to the notion of creating separate, home-like restroom spaces in public places like libraries, department stores, hotels, restaurants, and railroad cars. But in the industrial workplace, men and women took turns using the meager facilities provided by employers. Women’s “physical vulnerability” to unsanitary conditions was a primary justification behind the creation of separate restrooms as was the protection of their virtue and morality. Also included in the “Ladies Room” was a space for emergencies resulting from dizziness, fainting, and other symptoms of illness. In summary, the first sex-based separation laws for public restrooms were not based on the anatomical differences of men and women but were enacted to vindicate Victorian-era moral ideologies concerning the appropriate role and place for women in society.

54 Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Restrooms and Ancillary Spaces So how is this history relevant to today’s public restrooms, particularly restrooms in airports? For many people, it seems that the commonly found equality in the number of restroom fixtures for males and females has functioned just fine for decades. But the “toilet laws” have impacts that remain quite influential and detrimental. For starters, the typical 50/50 ratio of fixtures in men’s and women’s restrooms has created a barrier for women in terms of time. Most building codes allow urinals to substitute for up to two-thirds of the toilets in a men’s restroom. The quick-zip design of men’s clothing and the ease of maneuvering at urinals shorten men’s restroom visits dramatically compared to women’s. Women also have needs due to pregnancy, menstruation, and higher levels of incontinence in old age. Women are more likely to be traveling with babies, small children, or elderly relatives who need to use the restroom often, take longer, and require more space within the stall to allow for the number of persons and appurtenances. Last, women make up a larger proportion of people with dis- abilities, which adds to the need for more fixtures. Even though current building codes have been revised to provide more fixtures for females in certain building types, the ratio of fixtures in men’s and women’s restrooms remains 50/50 in airport terminals as specified in the current International Building Code. Another issue with restrooms at airports that affects both women and men is the constantly varying gender mix of travelers throughout the day. At any point in time, there may be a line at either a men’s or a women’s restroom, for example, if a sports team of men or women flies in. Gender segregation also creates difficulties for parents with opposite-sex children or traveling companions in need of assistance such as an elderly relative or someone with a physical disability. 3.2.5 Wayfinding A more subtle side effect that persists is the symbolic message in restroom signage that there are only two sexes, which impedes the acceptance of those persons who are trans- sexual, transgender, or intersexual. Modern society has taken steps to remedy some of these discriminations with the provision of a unisex restroom. However, the common names of “family room,” “companion care room,” and “assisted care room” have their own exclusionary connotations. As attitudes have evolved about restrooms and gender, so have ways of identifying them. Care must be taken to develop signing that does not reflect an unconscious bias. A new sign would focus on function rather than persons. The toilet symbol shown in Figure 3-1 is becoming common in Europe and is slowly gaining acceptance elsewhere for its functionality and its blatant neutrality. The wheelchair graphic remains a predominant building code requirement to indicate that a restroom is accessible. Ideally, all restrooms, particularly in airports, where diverse peoples gather, would be accessible. Thus, the simple toilet symbol would be universal and suffice. 3.3 The Restroom of the Future Prototype The next step in the evolution of public restrooms is to provide a private space with provisions for personal hygiene that works equally well regardless of gender and needs—the restroom of the future. The restroom of the future prototype layout shown in Figure 3-2 utilizes private, accessible compartments along a common corridor. This would provide gender flexibility and, as will be seen, a variety of accessibility options that would also accommodate traveling families.

Airport Restroom of the Future 55 In addition, there is a companion care/changing table restroom, a diaper changing alcove, and a waiting area near the entrance to minimize traffic congestion in the corridors. At one end of the corridor is a janitor’s closet/storage room for cleaning and paper supplies. This would allow the cleaners and maintenance staff to access the restrooms without pushing their carts through the main entry area. An important feature of this layout is that pipe chases would not be needed, saving a significant amount of space. Maintenance could be done within each compartment via cleanouts and access panels, allowing the remaining compartments to stay open. Similarly, cleaning could be done one compartment at a time, ultimately providing cleaner restrooms. Each typical compartment (see Figure 3-3) has a toilet node, urinal node, and sink node. It would be accessible per the current ANSI A117.1 because there is space for the 30-inch by 52-inch clear space (recently increased from 30 inches by 48 inches to accommodate the battery on electric wheelchairs) within the room without overlapping the door swing. There is an “L” grab bar layout in both left- and right-hand versions. The accessible urinal is stra- tegically placed so it would not be directly visible upon walking into the compartment or when sitting on the toilet. Two ambulatory stalls are also provided in the prototype layout (see Figure 3-4) with parallel grab bars in the toilet node. Here, too, a sink node is provided, and an accessible urinal node is also located out of direct view. Additional signage is recommended in the plan for the restroom of the future. With the corridor lined on both sides with a series of identical doors, how would a user know what type of restroom is behind the door? Is it ambulatory with parallel grab bars? Or the traditional model with a left-handed, L-shaped grab bar configuration? A right-handed version? There would be a need for a new type of sign to prevent people from having to open door after door in search of the accessibility configuration that they need. Figure 3-5 shows a concept that takes the accessible symbol one step further by adding the grab bar configuration. This sign would also help identify in existing restrooms ambulatory stall locations within the mix of standard stalls. This could be a small sign applied to or etched into the outward face of the stall door. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) could develop and adopt a sign such as this. Figure 3-1. Prototype signage for the airport restroom of the future.

56 Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Restrooms and Ancillary Spaces ACCESSIBLE STALLS BABY CHANGING/ HANDWASHING AMBULATORY STALLS COMPANION CARE/ CHANGING TABLE RESTROOM JANITOR’S CLOSET/ STORAGE ART DISPLAY WAITING DRINKING FOUNTAIN C O N C O U R S E Figure 3-2. Prototype airport restroom of the future layout.

Airport Restroom of the Future 57 URINAL NODE SINK NODE ACCESSIBLE TOILET NODE 9’ 4” 8’ 6 ” Figure 3-3. Accessible compartment layout. 14’ 6” AMBULATORY TOILET NODE SINK NODE URINAL NODE 8’ 6 ” Figure 3-4. Ambulatory compartment layout. Figure 3-5. Stall sign types—accessible left hand, accessible right hand, and ambulatory.

58 Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Restrooms and Ancillary Spaces 3.4 What Would Be Solved The restroom of the future prototype would solve issues in the following areas: • Planning. The compact module would maximize the number of fixtures by being able to fit the compartments around obstructions (such as utility shafts) and would be more flexible to layout in odd-shaped spaces. • Construction. The modules are ideal for prefabricated assemblies. The entire module or certain nodes, like the sink node, could be built offsite and then be brought in and fit together with other modules. This would speed up construction and minimize disruption from reno- vations within the airport. • Maintenance. One restroom space could be cleaned or repaired at a time, taking only one fixture out of service instead of an entire restroom. • Barrier free. With the prototype shown in Figure 3-2, every fixture would be accessible to all genders and most people with disabilities. • Personal space. The compartment would provide privacy and room enough to change clothes, shave, put on make-up, and so forth. 3.5 What Would Remain to Be Solved What would remain to be solved by the restroom of the future prototype are issues in the following areas: • Security. Airport police would likely have concerns about illicit behavior (such as drug use and sex) and discouraged behavior (such as airport staff napping) in the closed rooms. These rooms, however, would be no different from current companion care restrooms. In addition, having more people circulating in the restroom area would likely deter undesired behaviors. • Gender separation. People expect privacy when they go to a restroom, which includes separation from people of other genders. There may be discomfort about commingling in the common corridor and likely also about using a restroom space right after someone of a different gender has used it. There is a precedent for sharing restrooms, however, with companion care restrooms, airplane restrooms, and porta-potties, although the latter two are universally considered to be unpleasant experiences. • Cleanliness. Probably the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of this restroom concept is the perception of differing cleanliness practices among men and women. It’s easy to say that people just need to “shape up and be considerate,” but changing behavior is difficult, especially as it relates to a transient public space in which users have no vested interest. • Multiple accessibility accommodations. Some disabilities require getting onto the toilet seat from a front approach while others require a side transfer, which may require that the side bar be on the left for some and the right for others. Some disabilities require a side and rear grab bar; others need parallel side grab bars. These two configurations conflict, which is why the current concept plan has left and right as well as ambulatory versions. Ideally, a grab bar system would be created that could accommodate both scenarios. There are swing-down grab bars available that are allowed in housing and public restrooms in some other countries. Swing-down grab bars are not allowed in U.S. public restrooms because this product conflicts with the location of the rear grab bar in an accessible stall. Until these two configurations can be combined, two types of restrooms will be required, and therefore the module will not be completely equitable. • Companion care restroom privacy. Ideally, a companion care restroom would be configured to provide visual privacy from anyone else in the space for the person using the toilet. The

Airport Restroom of the Future 59 accessible compartment in this concept is purposefully compact for efficiency. However, with the required clearances for accessibility, there is no privacy from another person. • Perception of cleanliness. It was noted by some of the airport restroom case study partici- pants that having a full-time cleaner in a restroom creates the perception that the space is clean because a person is seen to be cleaning. Even if some part is dirty or a toilet paper dispenser is empty, people tend to be more forgiving because they see the cleaner will get to it soon. The configuration of the airport restroom of the future concept is ideal for being staffed by a full-time cleaner who can move continuously from one unoccupied room to the next. Developing technologies such as motion detectors used to monitor the number of users in each module could also inform cleaners which rooms need to be cleaned. This person could also be available to help people who need assistance. • Building code requirements. Current building codes require separate restrooms for men and women. Unisex restrooms, such as companion care restrooms, are an optional extra that the latest International Building Code does allow to be counted in the fixture count, but not for the entire count. A significant change in thinking and legislation would be required to universally allow the airport restroom of the future concept. 3.6 What Next? Ideally, the restroom of the future prototype will lead to discussion within restroom and amenities teams and inspire airports and their designers to test the waters with one or more aspects. Current society and culture may not be ready yet for such a drastic change. Yet, among air travelers, who have become increasingly vocal about their expectations, there is a strong demand for improvement.