Bathrooms confuse me.

In reply to SVreX:

20cm is about 8". A mop really won't fit under that?

<img src="" />

I've used these. The receptacle under each seat is a cut down oil drum half filled with diesel. The splash back is brutal!!

Ian F wrote: In reply to SVreX: 20cm is about 8". A mop really won't fit under that?

Well, you're right, it can be done, but not easily.

I find it funny with a restaurant or other such space has single occupant bathrooms that are just one toilet and one sink... and then bother to label one as "Men" and the other "Women". How are they not just both "Bathroom"?

I also find it hilarious that whenever you get one of these type of bathrooms, men always put the toilet seat down in the one-toilet Men's room.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Jay: A mop won't fit through a 20 cm gap. In fact, it would make it much worse. There would be a horribly nasty dirty stripe under that 20 cm gap. Regarding pricing: Bathrooms do not produce revenue. Every square foot dedicated to a bathroom is a cost to a business. I just priced bath partitions for a job. It was 5 stalls. The cheapest price was $1400. The good stuff was $4600. That was not exotic, just nice stainless. That's nearly $1000 per stall. If the "extra half meter" increased the price by 30%, that would be $300 per stall. And if "whoever's calling the shots" "cheaped out" and made that business decision, you would NOT question the rest of his business. You'd poo anyway.

Fine, all public restrooms should be built to the same standard as those of a car dealership in Guthrie, Texas, circa 1978. Because god forbid any money be spent on basic human comforts in a commercial building...

I don't know if its code or what (and no, I really don't feel like looking it up on a beautiful saturday morning), but commercial bathrooms in Germany generally have full-height stall walls (sometimes floor-to-ceiling), no see-through gaps around the doors, partitions between the urinals, and another door between where the toilets are and where the sinks & gigantic mirror are. They are approximately 1 000 000 000 times less aggravating to use than your standard cynical North American one. I assume this means it's only a matter of time before every builder over there goes bankrupt.

Jay wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Jay: A mop won't fit through a 20 cm gap. In fact, it would make it much worse. There would be a horribly nasty dirty stripe under that 20 cm gap. Regarding pricing: Bathrooms do not produce revenue. Every square foot dedicated to a bathroom is a cost to a business. I just priced bath partitions for a job. It was 5 stalls. The cheapest price was $1400. The good stuff was $4600. That was not exotic, just nice stainless. That's nearly $1000 per stall. If the "extra half meter" increased the price by 30%, that would be $300 per stall. And if "whoever's calling the shots" "cheaped out" and made that business decision, you would NOT question the rest of his business. You'd poo anyway.

Fine, all public restrooms should be built to the same standard as those of a car dealership in Guthrie, Texas, circa 1978. Because god forbid any *money* be spent on basic human *comforts* in a *commercial building*...

In fifth grade, we went on an overnight class trip to Boston and stayed at a military base.

In reply to Jay:

I'm not arguing with or disagreeing with you. I am answering your questions, in the accordance with the building code. I don't make the rules. I just get to play by them.

It's not builders that make these decisions. It is business owners, in the context of their own business plans (which are designed based on what their customers want). Consumers drive the decisions, not builders.

Owners hire architects to draw stuff. Builders build what is drawn. That is all.

Fancy bathrooms DO exist here (and I have built many). But the VAST majority of owners build to the minimum. The minimum is what the code requires (which is often stupid). And even the minimum is very expensive (the plumbing contract in the building I just finished was $75K, for 4 baths totaling 7 stalls).

I wish I had pictures of the restrooms in Atlantic City's Boardwalk Hall before the renovation. As it was built pre-depression, it was built with opulence in mind. The restrooms were marble. The floors, the stalls, the stall doors, the sinks.. the wall tiles, all marble. What wasn't marble was porcelain (The toilets and urinals) or plaster (the ceilings)

Even the lighting figures were brass with blown glass balls over the lamps. They either destroyed the lot in the renovation, or somebody made a lot of money off of the "trash"

Beer Baron wrote: I find it funny with a restaurant or other such space has single occupant bathrooms that are just one toilet and one sink... and then bother to label one as "Men" and the other "Women". How are they not just both "Bathroom"?

I've wondered this as well, although I have been in some restaurants that do label them as you describe.

I also find it hilarious that whenever you get one of these type of bathrooms, men *always* put the toilet seat down in the one-toilet Men's room.

Most of us are well-trained.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Jay: I'm not arguing with or disagreeing with you. I am answering your questions, in the accordance with the building code. I don't make the rules. I just get to play by them. It's not builders that make these decisions. It is business owners, in the context of their own business plans (which are designed based on what their customers want). Consumers drive the decisions, not builders. Owners hire architects to draw stuff. Builders build what is drawn. That is all. Fancy bathrooms DO exist here (and I have built many). But the VAST majority of owners build to the minimum. The minimum is what the code requires (which is often stupid). And even the minimum is very expensive (the plumbing contract in the building I just finished was $75K, for 4 baths totaling 7 stalls).

But wouldn't a lot of bathrooms requiring remodeling be a good thing for your business?

In reply to joey48442:

That is generally not the way code changes work.

I can't think of any time in my life that a code change meant a requirement that existing buildings be upgraded. Code changes mean that NEW work must comply with new codes, but generally does not require changes to existing buildings.

There is an aspect where code changes actually decrease volume of work. When the changes are significant (and add big costs), it makes projects less feasible, and owners often delay doing the work as long as they can, or avoid it entirely. We often see boosts in business BEFORE an anticipated code change, so owners can build to the older code.

But if it did create more work, I never said I would complain about additional business. All I said was the rules related to bathrooms are confusing.

Quite true. I've done designs for a number of projects where scope was limited by either square footage or percentage of square footage in order to avoid needing to bring the building up to current code, which would often be prohibitively expensive.

SVreX wrote: In reply to joey48442: That is generally not the way code changes work. I can't think of any time in my life that a code change meant a requirement that existing buildings be upgraded. Code changes mean that NEW work must comply with new codes, but generally does not require changes to existing buildings. There is an aspect where code changes actually decrease volume of work. When the changes are significant (and add big costs), it makes projects less feasible, and owners often delay doing the work as long as they can, or avoid it entirely. We often see boosts in business BEFORE an anticipated code change, so owners can build to the older code. But if it did create more work, I never said I would complain about additional business. All I said was the rules related to bathrooms are confusing.

That makes sense. I didn't think of it that way.

The amount of refuse in this thread is truly mind boggling.

I'd really like our GRM overlords to tell us how much traffic has declined the last 24 months. I know they won't since they are running a business...........this is just........I don't even know.

SVreX said architect, building for the future, just like engineers that have never held a wench.

SVreX wrote: I can't think of any time in my life that a code change meant a requirement that existing buildings be upgraded.

So either...
The ADA was not a code change
or
The ADA did not require retrofitting, which I believe it did.

Where am I wrong?

In reply to EvanR:

Little bit of both.

The ADA is not the building code, so no, it is not a code change.

But I also don't think any retrofits were ever required. The ADA is a little different. As a Constitutional right, it lead to many lawsuits from people who have rights to equal access. It basically created an incentive for businesses to comply through the courts, but not a required upgrade.

25 years later, most properties have been improved.

Pretty sure I am right on this, but I am not a lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Some ADA stuff is silly. At work, our entire stage moves up and down from ground level to 5 feet up. It does this in three sections, Front, back, and a smaller 15x15 section for loading stuff up and down.

Due to that 15x15 section, we have -never- in the 12 years the building has been open, used the wheelchair elevator we are required to have. The big elevator is faster, quieter, and more reliable.. yet we are required to have a wheel chair accessible elevator that requires anybody going up onto stage that way to go around to the far end of the stage, through two locking doors, and into that deadly looking contraption. Sadly though, we have to not only keep it in working shape, but we are not allowed to store stuff in it. It is simply a waste of much needed space

Never working on public restrooms ever again. It's the typical 'people are pigs' when stuff isn't their own. The ladies rooms had more amenities than the men's rooms but weren't necessarily any cleaner but they were factories so everyone was a little rough around the edges.

KyAllroad wrote: "let's all E36 M3 in a line"

Apexcarver wrote:

That's not what those are for.

Bumboclaat wrote:

KyAllroad wrote: "let's all E36 M3 in a line"

Apexcarver wrote:

That's not what those are for.

Unless you're really drunk at Wrigley Feild.

Government in action ....

Hand dryer nozzle is just above knee hight, when questioned the answer I got is that it was for Ada compliance. Tissues, however are just above direct eye level, and I am 5,11. No way any one in a chair can reach them.

lrrs wrote: Government in action .... Hand dryer nozzle is just above knee hight, when questioned the answer I got is that it was for Ada compliance. Tissues, hover are just above direct eye level, and I am 5,11. No way any one in a chair can reach them.

Nope, just poor enforcement. The operable part of everything is supposed to be between 15" and 48" above the floor, according to the ANSI 117 accessibility standards.

In reply to lrrs:

Maybe its not for drying hands.