Skip to main content


Rethinking the restroom

Big changes to public bathrooms may be on the way. How much will they cost, and will they provide more safety?

Rethinking the restroom

The bathroom at Oval Park Grill in Durham, N.C. (Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

Associated Press/Photo by Howard Lipin

Brandon Wilson, killer of 9-year-old Matthew Cecchi, sits in court during the closing arguments portion of his sanity hearing in 1999 in Vista, Calif.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

A gender neutral bathroom at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

Associated Press/Photo by Elaine Thompson

Ninth-graders Tehya Vining, left, and Christian Jarboe talk after walking for the first time into a gender neutral bathroom at Nathan Hale High School in Seattle.

Carlson Architecture

Three designs for church bathrooms: Concept A: “Gang” restrooms for men and for women, and a restroom for a parent and a child. 774 sq. ft. Serves 20 people. Estimated cost = $180,900

Carlson Architecture

Three designs for church bathrooms: Concept B: Individual restrooms, each with a toilet and sink, that either sex could use. 1,560 sq. ft. Serves 20 people. Estimated cost = $407,000

Carlson Architecture

Three designs for church bathrooms: Concept C: Three separate restrooms (not stalls), each with its own toilet and sink, and seven more rooms just with toilets, across an aisle with communal sinks. 885 sq. ft. Serves 20 people. Estimated cost = $227,700

Three designs for church bathrooms: cost breakdown

In 1998, LSD user Brandon Wilson, saying he had received an “order from God,” stabbed 9-year-old Matthew Cecchi to death at a park in Oceanside, Calif., inside the men’s restroom. The boy’s aunt was only a few feet away, waiting for him outside the door. A judge later called Cecchi’s murder “the most haunting case I’ve ever had.” In 2011 Wilson apparently hanged himself in his San Quentin prison cell.

The murderer was not a transgender person. Cecchi’s death, which led to calls for family restrooms, underscores the fact that transgender people aren’t the only ones asking for changes in bathroom policy and design.

Apart from that issue, the trend is already toward bathroom privacy. One layout in particular may represent the way of the future: the private restroom with a single toilet and a door that locks.

So far the debate over transgender people and their restroom choices surrounds traditional separate-sex group restrooms, like the ones found in schools or stadiums. Architects call these “gang restrooms”: Each typically has two or more toilet fixtures separated by metal partitions that stop a foot or two from the floor. Some gang rooms are co-ed, and in those, building owners sometimes have floor-to-ceiling stall partitions in an effort to provide more privacy.

With private restrooms, though, it doesn’t matter whether the user is male, female, a potty-training child, a person living with paruresis (the social anxiety disorder that upsets 7 percent of Americans using public restrooms), or the rare transgender person (perhaps 3 of every 1,000 Americans). The restrooms might be labeled “all gender” or “gender neutral” with a variety of skirt- or half-skirt-wearing stick figures, but they’re known in construction as “unisex.”

Dave Wilde, a senior architect for the Aspen Group in Frankfort, Ill., said his clients, mainly churches, are adding more “family restrooms” in both old and new facilities. This accommodates dads taking young daughters to the bathroom: “It’s just not a given that both mom and dad are at church,” he said.

Joshua Every, a Detroit-area building consultant, advises charter school, office building, and hospital owners: His clients consistently chose unisex restrooms for their new constructions. When designing a multimillion-dollar project, Every said, the cost difference between the two styles is minimal compared to the total cost of the project. That makes it relatively easy to factor into the budget: “In a new construction, you’re doing it all anyway.”

SO WHAT DOES IT COST TO MOVE from gang restrooms to privacy? The big cost to builders and architects is space: Each additional square foot increases original construction costs and future utility bills. Bruce Pitts, who has worked on heating and air conditioning systems for 17 years, says gang restrooms waste space. They have much more “circulation square footage”—the “milling around” space required in each restroom for people to get around each other.

Pitts says unisex private restrooms can save square footage, but their infrastructure construction costs per square foot—plumbing, water supply, drains, exhaust fans, and even sprinklers—are higher. On the other hand, unisex bathrooms cut down on wait times, because the next available bathroom goes to the next person of either sex waiting in line.

Several architects I talked with liked a middle-of-the-road approach: unisex, private rooms with toilets only, and a communal sink area for both men and women. One variant of that: a heavily used shoreline park “comfort station” in San Diego, just 45 minutes up the coast from where Matthew died in 1998, has unisex private bathrooms and outdoor shower spigots allowing swimmers and scuba divers to rinse off.

Mary Coakley Munk, president of the American Restroom Association, researched and designed the comfort station. She said in the off-season half the stalls are closed. The rest of the time, janitors clean stalls one by one—leaving at least one available for use at all times. “These are cost savings that are not usually calculated into construction costs,” she said. Lt. Brian Ahearn of the San Diego City Police Department likes the comfort station: Individual stalls and exterior sinks discourage criminal activity.

I asked Carlson Architecture, an Illinois firm that has designed several Chicago-area churches, to create and price for WORLD three sample designs for church bathrooms that could serve 20 people and would conform to Americans with Disability Act standards. Concept A: a standard “gang” restroom for men, a “gang” restroom for women, and a restroom for a parent and a small child. Concept B: Twenty individual restrooms, each with a toilet and sink, that either sex could use. Concept C: Three separate restrooms (rooms, not stalls), each with its own bathroom and sink, and seven more rooms just with toilets, across an aisle with communal sinks.

Costs for each design would vary according to finishes and region of the country. Based on estimates from two Chicago-area design firms, the Concept A cost—traditional gang restrooms—would be around $180,900. The Concept B cost, with individual bathrooms, would be 125 percent more: $407,000. The Concept C cost, though, would be only 26 percent more: $227,700. President Todd Carlson also pointed out that either Concept B or C would come in handy for men’s or women’s conferences, when one sex or the other might temporarily crowd the church.

WOULD CHURCH CONGREGANTS—or users of any building that chose Concept C—be ready to mix communally for hand washing? Carlson said, “Although this occurs commonly in an outdoor festival environment, it may take some time for congregants to embrace this layout in a church facility.” WORLD asked 50 people across the country in person and online about the three bathroom designs. Participants ranged in age from 15 to over 70, but most were between 20 and 40 years old.

Seven out of 10 thought Concept B was fine—two participants immediately brought up the cost—and 55 percent said they would be comfortable using Concept C, the “festival” style with communal sinks.

Safety issues topped the list of concerns for both designs, since the circulation space in both concepts would not be visible from, say, the rest of a church lobby. “I wouldn’t want to go into a bathroom when it’s just me and one man—particularly at night,” said Laura Sawyer of Virginia. Christopher David in Illinois suggested lining up the rooms along a hallway instead, pointing out that less seclusion would reduce the potential for harm.

Overall, men had few comments about the designs aside from safety concerns; one discreetly asked if the walls would be soundproof. Women, on the other hand, had conflicting views about the opportunities for “primping” and congregating with other women—or occasionally getting help with a stubborn zipper.

Kelley Griffin in Washington, D.C., said of Concept C’s “festival” sinks, “I wouldn’t feel that I could ‘get myself together’ with enough privacy.” In neighboring Maryland, Nancy Wunderlich said: “Where the sinks are has no impact on my comfort. I am more concerned about the comfort and safety of the minority group—specifically, the transgender community.”

Irena Dragas Jansen grew up in Croatia and still can’t get used to the relative lack of privacy in traditional American restrooms—she described European women’s restrooms with metal partitions stretching from floor to ceiling. Still, she said, she could get used to a variety of designs, since already “I share bathrooms with men in my home, and other homes.”

SOME CITIES ARE ALREADY PUSHING toward unisex private restrooms. Washington, D.C., has a website where the public can report single-stall bathrooms that are not labeled unisex.

The overarching authority on bathroom regulations is the International Building Code (IBC), which provides a complicated labyrinth of requirements for buildings based on occupancy, square footage, and building age. States use the IBC as model code for bathroom regulations almost universally, according to Robert Brubaker of the American Restroom Association.

Until recently, regulations required small establishments (like gas stations) to provide one men’s room and one women’s room. These extended even to private, single-fixture restrooms with doors that locked. University of Chicago law professor Mary Anne Case has written that such policies hearken back to a time when legislators sought “potty parity” for women. Women’s restrooms at one time were rare in downtown areas largely populated by men.

One recently announced IBC rule for 2018, though, states that all single-fixture restrooms should be labeled unisex, so either a male or a female can use the next available restroom. Another rule states that in any establishment big enough to require six fixtures (for three men and three women), one of them must be a family/unisex bathroom. States will phase in these rules over a period of about five years, Brubaker said, and the cost may be as little as a couple of cheap plastic signs.

—Laura Finch is a World Journalism Institute mid-career course graduate

Safe haven

Some big numbers: About 324 million people live in the United States, and 300 million of us have no problem with the standard bathrooms found in public buildings. About 7 percent of Americans, though, are paruretics who feel anxious when sitting in a bathroom stall next to a stall also occupied: They would prefer to have separate, individual bathrooms.

Some relatively small numbers: Several hundred thousand males and females identify with the opposite sex. Some have had sex-change operations, but others who retain the male organs with which they were born insist on using bathrooms designated for women, even though that leaves some women fearful and many women annoyed. Meanwhile, some men who say they want to be women fear using men’s rooms.

About half of Americans are pro-physical-fact, thinking everyone should use the bathroom that corresponds with his or her sex organs. Maybe 40 percent are pro-psychological-choice. It’s one sign of our mixed-up politics that a tiny trans tail is wagging a big dog. Nevertheless, that’s where we are, and Christians have to figure out what to do in the strange situation in which God has placed us.

One starting point: Distinguish between where we must stand and where we may negotiate. Freedom not only to worship God but to teach our children and help the poor as the Bible instructs us: essential. Giving unborn children the opportunity to survive and be born: essential. Defending marriage: essential. Maintaining group (rather than individual) bathrooms for men and for women: negotiable, if alternative arrangements can preserve privacy and safety for women.

After all, the Bible does not mandate group restrooms, and in the present cultural climate they may open up businesses and organizations to needless lawsuits. May we discuss bathroom accommodation while upholding the unchangeable nature of maleness and femaleness—and without abandoning laws that allow sex-specific restrooms?

To think through the bathroom issue, we need facts. If we were to start constructing the individual bathrooms that paruretics, transgender people, and transgender supporters would prefer, what’s the price tag? Then we can discuss whether that would be a good or stupid use of money. This article attempts to provide a starting point. —Marvin Olasky

Laura Finch

Laura Finch

Laura is a correspondent for WORLD. She is a World Journalism Institute graduate and previously worked at C-SPAN, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Indiana House, and the Illinoise Senate before joining WORLD. Laura resides near Chicago, Ill., with her husband and two children. Follow her on Twitter @laura_e_finch.


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • Beth
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 01:58 am

    I agree that these bathroom designs may be a good idea to avoid unneeded controversy.

    What about locker rooms, showers and overnight accommodations during school trips?  Those are all included in the Presidential order regarding schools. The locker rooms and showers of all gyms, swimming pools, etc. are included in Washington state's rule.

  • Ben K
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 07:12 am

    Laura, this article provides some very helpful, concrete research.  Thanks!

  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 09:33 am

    good info, and interesting.

    on the Debbie Downer angle, all of this has been brought about by the transgender thing. So in one year we have gay marriage as the (Supreme Court) law of the land ("inherent in the constitution"), and now transgender bathroom issues.

    But the real (distressing) issue is that it denies creation, in every building.

    While this article is good discussion of bathroom design, the left must be laughing because we've already given up on this issue after what, 4-5 months ???

    On the other hand, say that there was a gang restroom on one side of the building and private bathrooms on the other side. Who really is going to choose the gang bathroom ? I wouldn't.

    And when I was in the Army back in the Cold War days, we had two weeks in the barracks where there were 10 commodes, with no privacy whatsoever !!! Kind of like "No Time for Sergeants"

  • treeplanted
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 09:47 am

    You went to the army?


  •  William Peck 1958's picture
    William Peck 1958
    Posted: Mon, 08/08/2016 07:36 am

    @treeplanted - yes, I was in the Army back in the day. 

  • Joe
    Posted: Mon, 09/05/2016 09:28 am

    Indeed the left is laughing, not only because we are discussing bathroom design but because we are no longer discussing marriage.  Sometimes I think the timing of the decree was simply to take the spotlight off of gay marriage, so it will be relegated to "settled law" instead of a controversial issue going into the election.  Bathroom design is just the latest "shiny object" that we are reacting to while socialism gradually strangles the life out of our country.

  • Librarian Nancy
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 01:59 pm

    Well done, Laura and Marvin! In an effort to not be the kid who takes his marbles and goes home when the others won't play exactly as he wants, I have been thinking about the bathroom issue and what I would be willing to put up with as a single woman who is NOT used to sharing with a man. I decided if the toilet stall partitions were floor to ceiling, and the doors did not have gaps on each side so that I had true privacy while doing my, er, eliminations, I would be able to cope, though soundproof walls would be desirable, too. I don't like sharing the sink area, but I could do it, in a store or concert hall, etc. What comes to mind besides school and fitness center locker rooms is sports stadiums, with 30+ stalls in each bathroom and those swing doors with gaps on both the hinge and latch sides, and mirrors over the sinks for us gals to fix our hair or makeup. Guys just don't do that the way gals do, and guys don't patiently wait their turn to wash their hands, either. I can see "bathroom rage" incidents in the future, when a woman is trying to redo her makeup at a mirror and a man loses his patience waiting to wash his hands...This whole issue is so lacking in plain common sense, it seems amazing to me to be writing and thinking about it, but such is the time we live in. Come soon, Lord!

  •  TonyB66's picture
    Posted: Tue, 08/09/2016 04:13 pm

    I don't think that will be a problem. Either the guy will wait patiently or simply forego washing his hands...

    But seriously, having travelled to various parts of the world, even to fairly conservative Muslim areas, using the private stalls with common sink areas is not that big of a deal for me. Those on the "accomodation" side [no pun intended] seem to want an all or - well all approach where no one should be inconvenienced [again, no pun intended] and be told what restroom they can/cannot use.

  • William Miller
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 02:09 pm


    This article ignores two important issues. (1) Urinals  for men which are much faster to use. (2) Private restrooms encourage homosexual liasons. This has long been a problem is San Franciso. Another alternative would be a row of private stalls before urinals with substantail privacy barriers. Some stalls could be larger for family use.  A sink area would be across from the stalls. This public area would be monitored with recorded video to discourage sexual liasons. Dignified women would avoid the urinal area. I don't know how to address the need for private priming.

  • Bill Taylor
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 02:13 pm

    Would women be willing to primp if there were a mirron in the room with the tpolet?  Perhaps on the inside of the door?

  • Laura W
    Posted: Sat, 08/06/2016 12:44 am

    That sort of thing often requires a sink too, so probably not. And if they're not actually using the toilet, then they're taking up a stall that someone else could be using. (And if they are, they'll want to come out and wash their hands first.) The design where each room has its own sink would probably be fine for that, though.

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 05:55 pm

    Excellent article, Laura and Marvin! And excellent presentation of negotiables/non-negotiables.

    And the great news is--we're having a totally sane and low-key discussion of this issue! No knee-jerking emotionalism. The discussion is among those who recognize that the face of our world has changed.

    The greatest advantage of private, gender-neutral toilet stalls is that all can use them without having to cast a vote of agreement or dissent on the issue of sex change. They are a politically neutral alternative to group bathrooms or other gender labelled facilities.

  • SE
    Posted: Fri, 08/05/2016 11:34 pm

    As a school board member of a private Christian school, I unfortunately think this article, and all of the discussion of this issue, miss the point. The problem is not bathroom design or unisex vs. gang bathrooms. First, the bigger practical problem for us comes, as "Beth" so correctly states, with locker rooms, showers, athletic teams and overnight accommodations during school trips. We are a small and small-budget Christian school, trying to provide an excellent academic education with a Christian worldview for an affordable price, for the kingdom and the glory of God. We do not have the funds to redesign our bathrooms, much less our locker rooms and shower facilities. Yet, at a minimum, we may be faced with having to accommodate transgender athletes from opposing teams. What do we do? How is this a situation where we can or even should negotiate? Second, your article seems solely focussed on the effect of this issue on "men" and "women." The biggest losers here are the children. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as our school is concerned, it should be an "essential" not a "negotiable" that children should not be encouraged to make the "pro-psychological" choice with regard to their gender. Giving bathroom choices and other gender-specfic choices other than those determined by the chlid's sex given by God through DNA at birth encourages this confusion. One's sex is determined by his or her God-given DNA. If an adult chooses a different psychological sex, I would suggest he or she has a mental disorder. However, it would be that adult's own decision whether to view that "mental sex" as normal or disordered. We as a Christian school, however, will not encourage CHILDREN to embrace a mental gender other than that which God has designed. Essential, not negotiable. At worst, if discrimination laws continue to evolve as they are currently, we may be forced to close our doors rather than allow homosexual and transgender accommodations on our campus. I am disappointed that WORLD News seems to have accepted so easily that transgenders are people who need to be accommodated rather than lost, mentally disordered souls who need help and prayer. I'm disappointed that there has been no acknowledgement about the fact that children are the primary victims of Mr. Obama's changes to Title XI. And I am disappointed that Mr. Olasky characterizes "pro-physical" fact Americans as those who believe one's sex is determined by one's sex organs. No, Mr. Olasky, one's sex is determined by, is hard-wired into, one's DNA. It's so much more than one's sex organ. This is an important point that ought to be made in any discussion of this issue. 

  • Laura W
    Posted: Sat, 08/06/2016 12:59 am

    You say, "I am disappointed that WORLD News seems to have accepted so easily that transgenders are people who need to be accommodated rather than lost, mentally disordered souls who need help and prayer." Must we see them as only one or the other? As much as I think they are wrong in their perception of reality, I don't think it would be very loving to ask someone to use the restroom where they are convinced they don't belong, if I had any reasonable way to provide other options. I also can't see how it could be loving to expose children in particular to any additional risks in the process, so no men in the women's room and vice versa. As far as I can tell, this means providing at least one private room for the use of either gender where at all possible. And yes, locker rooms and school trips open up a whole new can of worms. I hope you can come up with a good way to deal with those issues as they arise. Stay strong.

  •  Paul B. Taylor's picture
    Paul B. Taylor
    Posted: Sun, 08/07/2016 03:26 pm

    Clearly, gender identity confusion has taken the left and has become a doctrine of the "all-inclusive" political machine.  As a college student, I learned that part of the thinking of the liberal lifestyle is that we work and that then we have our reward.  The conservatives also believed this, but not in the same spirit.  The conservatives saw working as a very important part of life as we would build families, buy houses and cars, save money for the future (and hopefully to send our kids to college) and enjoy family traditions like Thanksgiving and Christmas. We would also attend church and joyfully tithe.  These were all the rewards of hard work. (If you doubt me, just watch old episodes of The Brady Bunch.)  However, as the left, which has now become terribly socialist, glorifies the individual, something frightening happens.  Here, we see that no longer is our sex life reserved for the marriage bed.  Because of their emphasis on the freedom on the individual, the reward for work and accomplishment  becomes sex outside marriage.  This is largely the practice of the socialist.  My point at this moment is to expose the problem of gender identity confusion.  When a young women goes into the men's restroom and says that she identifies as a man, she is doing something that for me would cause great shame.   She is inviting the males in the bathroom to sexual temptation.  Because the socialist believes in sexual freedom so that it is culturally approved, I will not believe that she is not intending to cause such temptation.  This is obviously an assault on marriage as the marriage bed is defiled by the liberal practice of casual sex and as the foundation for American culture and economy is being reduced in such a way as to demonstrate the depravity of the socialist revolution. 

  •  Neil Evans's picture
    Neil Evans
    Posted: Mon, 08/08/2016 10:43 am

    Have we come to the time when we must accommodate every individuals comfort, safety and needs; in that order?   We are "straining out gnats and swallowing camels," to use the phrase of a Man Who understands us Perfectly.

  • ER
    Posted: Thu, 08/11/2016 11:21 am

      The point should also be made that it is positively a bad thing to encourage people to pretend to be of the opposite sex. That they are bothered by  separate men's and women's rooms is a feature, not a bug:    it reminds them of who they really are. 

  • SS
    Posted: Fri, 08/12/2016 07:57 pm

    To me restrooms should stay seperate for men and women. This should not be a compromisable.  

  •  bwsmith's picture
    Posted: Sat, 08/13/2016 08:51 am

    Good read: I am glad for the information . . . somewhat taken aback after reading polio is making a comeback in Nigeria, and other headlines from WORLD ... "It’s one sign of our mixed-up politics that a tiny trans tail is wagging a big dog. Nevertheless, that’s where we are, and Christians have to figure out what to do in the strange situation in which God has placed us."

  • LizzieAnn
    Posted: Sat, 08/13/2016 11:29 am

    Already solved/accommodated. I see this arrangement already in public buildings.

     A traditional men's room.

    And a women's restroom.

    And a single/family restroom.

    Save your (our) money. Please don't encourage constructing new, expensive, immoral open bathrooms.

    Remember: a men's room, a women's restroom, and a single room.

  • socialworker
    Posted: Tue, 08/16/2016 09:28 am

    That's what makes this issue so strange Lizzieann.  That would be the common sense solution of most anyone...Christian or not.  But the trans community says that's diiscrimination also and the president seems to back them up.  Unexplainable.

  • Elaine
    Posted: Wed, 08/17/2016 09:07 pm

    I recently returned from a trip to Russia.  Several buildings and the church where we worshipped had the type C style restrooms for both men and women.  I felt quite comfortable and secure using them and think this is a great architecural design for buildings of every sort.  It solves the LGBT complaint, and meets the needs of families very nicely.

  • Tim Sutphen
    Posted: Wed, 08/17/2016 09:57 pm

    I think it would be wise for us as we think about these issues to make a distinction between accomodations made for people personally and those we legislate as a society. It is one thing to think of adjusting our restroom practices in terms of inconvenience to ourselves and our privacy. It is another thing altogether to realize that Chrstians are to act in society in such a way that righteous is exalted. Remember the scriptural declaration that "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." If we don't carry the water, who will?

    There are several issues at play, and restroom design is NOT among them. The issue is first and foremost about the image of God on display in human society. We cannot stand for legislation that would further destroy God's image in human beings by removing the distinction between male and female; even if the change is subtle. This is not unkind to folks who have gender identity issues (I reject the term transgender). It is unkind to not uphold standards which God has set. We have the truth, so let us minister to people who need truth more than anything else!

    The next issue has to do with the purpose of government in the legislature. Suddenly restroom usage has become the next fulcrum for waging a moral war and launching a political agenda. Government should be concerned about the safety and welfare of it's citizenry. The argument from the numbers is a solid point that government is failing to consider and defend the cause of the extremely vast majority.

    Third we should consider the effect this will have on future generations. If we allow the battleline to move on this, however small, we cede ground to the work of the prince of this world. Our children will see mirrored in the church what is true in the world and for what--to avoid offense? The truth is often offensive, but it is also always good!...for all homo sapiens.

    Fourth we also must consider the stewardship of resources. Is it really practical to spend the money and space on revamping restroom facilities throughout our nation? Even if the legislation only alters requirements for future structures we are still leaving sound logic behind. Should we have seperate swimming and workout facilities too? Where does it stop? When do we turn on the rational side of our brains and say, "enough!" 

    Today's American (Christian or not) has been indoctrinated to accomodate any individual belief or preference. We need to zoom out for minute and evaluate what is wise and just, and decide to support those things. The goal shouldn't be to accomodate or discriminate. It should be to uphold righteousness in law, in belief, and in practice throughout our land.

  •  jrmbasso's picture
    Posted: Tue, 08/23/2016 12:22 pm

    Thank you Laura Finch and Marvin Olasky. The cover title "The Price of Privacy" brought to mind the SCOTUS invention of a 'consitutional right to privacy' which gave us the 1973 Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion. The price you calculated for private bathrooms in public places is miniscule in comparison to the cost of that decision.