During recent
walks in various parts of London, it has come to my notice that this city suffers
from a distinct shortage of public toilets. On top of that, where these
essential facilities happen to be present, such as in the central parks and
major train stations, they almost always charge a significant entry fee. Many
also lack stair-free access, while others still are dilapidated or closed
altogether from obvious lack of maintenance.
Perhaps
my attention is all the more drawn to this problem after five years in Tokyo, a
city which for all its flaws is quite respectable on the question of free and
accessible public latrines. Almost every station on the city’s rail and metro
network has one in at least decent condition, as do the public parks, or if all
else fails there is usually a department store or konbini nearby whose facilities you can use without fear or shame.
The train station toilets are usually inside the ticket barrier, but even that
is preferable to the situation in London where most stations have none at
all, and thus the possibility that you will be able to pee after a long London
Underground journey is a matter of hit and miss (usually miss).
Typical condition of a public toilet in a major London train station: locked behind a toll gate, wheelchair-inaccessible, and out of order so no-one can use it anyway. |
The Politics of the Disappearance of
Public Toilets
On
further investigation this deficiency is not a coincidence. Last year (2016)
the BBC reported that over 1,782 public
toilets had been closed across the UK over the preceding decade. With no
legal requirement for local authorities to provide them, they have apparently been
one of the first things to go as the austerity movement eats into councils’
budgets.
It
is an easy issue to joke about or trivialize – from a place of privilege, say
if you travel by car or have private access to toilets in your place of work,
and thus take regular relief of your bodily fluids for granted. But as with
much of austerity, the greater your level of vulnerability or distance from
mainstream norms and expectations, the less of a position you are in to treat
this as a laughing matter. Consider for example women, who in general use the
facilities to deal with more complex sanitary needs; people with bowel or
bladder problems or other physical or mental health concerns which require more
frequent recourse to the loo; people
in wheelchairs or with otherwise limited mobility, who are often forgotten
in the design of the facilities’ spaces; small children and elderly people;
transgender people, who face discrimination concerning toilets that recent
events in the US have made internationally notorious; and unemployed or
homeless people, for whom 50p per use might not be an insignificant blow.
Thus
it seems difficult to summarily dismiss the cynical view: that the collapse in
public toilet provision in London, and in the UK more widely, is but one more
component of the established
belief system and political agenda of the day: that society should not
exist, that the public sphere should be ruined for private profit, and that
life should be made as miserable as possible for those who are vulnerable or
seen as different.
Can
we imagine a strike directed more perfectly (and literally) below the belt?
Perhaps there is no topic on which the distance between privilege and
oppression more starkly divides between reflexive, comfortable amusement on the
part of those least affected by this problem, and the distress and utter
collapse of dignity suffered by those it impacts the most.
Public Toilets as a Human Right and
Public Interest
Who
could dispute the case for free, accessible and clean public toilets? In the
first instance, because our nature as human beings carries with it the frequent
imperative to relieve both the greater and lesser calls of nature, the safe and
hygienic means to do so should be considered a basic human right, and was as
much as recognized
as such by the UN General Assembly in 2010.
But
even supposing we come at this issue from perspectives that for whatever reason
reject human rights, we would be hard-pressed to deny that having this means
available is much in the public interest. The thing about the
aforementioned imperative to release our waste products is that it is
ultimately going to happen anyway whether there is a safe and hygienic place to
do it or not, and certain cities around the world whose embarrassment we shall
spare here are well familiar with the consequences of failing to cater for it.
However,
the prospect of monied, international London joining their ranks might be quite
shocking to some. Many of its most overcrowded tourist destinations lack any
toilets at all, including Underground stations such as Tower Hill, serving the
single most popular attraction in the country, where one
account has it that ‘visitors to the Tower brave a filthy concrete tunnel
that reeks of urine at night’. Not only does this suggest how we all pay the
cost of inadequate latrines in the form of a deeply unhealthy and unpleasant common environment (excepting perhaps those individuals who take a rare prurient
interest in the substances in question), but it also perhaps ought to lead
Londoners to wonder how many thousands of those visitors later return to, say,
Paris or Beijing, to regale friends and families with stories of their
experiences whose effect is that the very mention of London is from then on
linked in their minds with the stains and odours of human excreta.
To
avoid conflicts about whose responsibility it is to resolve this, perhaps we
should all take on a share of it. On the surface it appears simple. On the one
hand, a legal requirement should be introduced for local authorities to provide
a bare minimum of free, accessible and hygienic public toilets, and the
necessary resources be allocated them to do so. On the other, there should also be
some manner of legal obligation on businesses and private organizations –
restaurants, cafés, pubs, department stores – to offer the facilities, and
these should be usable without shame or cost by anyone, regardless of whether
or not they be paying customers.
As
ever, the real challenge is the politics of this: it is hard to imagine
responsibility being accepted either by a government which disdains human
rights and the public interest in principle and is ideologically committed to
their destruction, or by those businesses which operate to the same belief
systems and insist that as businesses they have no obligations whatsoever other
than to their own profit. We might predict then that the international image of
London will become ever more drenched in urine until a substantial shift away
from free-market capitalist culture is achieved, towards more socially responsible
paradigms of what it means to be either a government or a business.
In
the meantime there seem numerous efforts emerging as frustrated
citizens go out of their way to pick up the burdens of these structural
failings. Among them, the British Toilet
Association has been campaigning for more and better public loos for almost
twenty years, while researchers at the Royal College of Art have published both
a design guide
for publicly accessible toilets (very clear and illustrated, well worth a
look) and a ‘Great
British Public Toilet Map’, an open-data project which attempts to chart
locations and information about public toilets in the UK. Also commendable are
those local authorities and businesses which really have been making an effort:
certain train stations which used to charge a fee for using the toilet, such as
Victoria and Fenchurch Street, have now scrapped it and allow free access for
anyone, while councils and businesses in some areas together operate Community
Toilet Schemes by which the public can use the toilets on the premises of any
of their participants.
This
still falls short of the standard expectable of a global centre like London of
course, but perhaps not all is lost. Once the more general free-market abolition
of society has been reversed, these existing civic movements could become a
valuable launchpad for the restoration of a public toilet network worthy of a
respectable city.
No comments:
Post a Comment