Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Pissing in Public : The Role of Public Washrooms within the Context of a Neoliberal City Scoular, Emily Nadene

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Scoular_Emily_ARCH_549_Pissing_public_2019.pdf [ 75.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378573.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378573-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378573-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378573-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378573-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378573-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378573-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378573-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378573.ris

Full Text

1Pissing in Public: The Role of Public Washrooms within the Context of a Neoliberal CityBy Emily Scoular3Pissing In PublicThe Role of Public Washrooms within the Context of a Neoliberal CitybyEmily Nadene ScoularBachelor of Fine Arts With Distinction, University of Victoria, 2015SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSfor theDEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTUREinTHE FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCESCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE,ARCHITECTURE PROGRAMCommittee:Bill Pechet - Chair & MentorJoseph Watson - InternalGlen Stokes - ExternalWe accept this report as conforming to the required standard,Bill PechetBlair Satterfield, Chair of ArchitectureThe University of British ColumbiaApril 2019 ©Joseph WatsonThe University of British ColumbiaApril 2019 ©5AbstractThe role of public washrooms is excluded from civil discourse on public amenity provision within the City of Vancouver. The public washroom if ever included in a design, is considered an afterthought and its implementation are symptomatic of attitudes towards commercialisation of the city, consumer-as-citizen equivalence, and privatised-public space. This research highlights historical and contemporary conditions and neoliberal tools utilised by the City to establish a clear understanding of how space is created, maintained and how value emerges. The historic Comfort Stations’ current role, within the socially and economically diverse neighbourhood of the Downtown Eastside, is symptomatic of macro ideologies on the public washroom. Neoliberalism and its political rhetoric shape these ideologies to create a consumer-dependent right of access to basic public necessities. The definition of neoliberalism highlights dependence on rhetoric, laws and policies to changing the urban landscape, while critics suggest an active social-democratic process better reflects the right to the city. Local instances of neoliberalism emerge that stifle democratic and capitalist city building. These such instances include Business Improvement Associations, Community Amenity Contributions, Development Contribution Levies, Privately Owned Private Spaces, and Public-Private Partnerships. Contemporary precedents of public washrooms around the city express the shape that neoliberal autonomy of form and practices as detrimental to the public. As the future of public washrooms is contingent on renewal of long-term contracting with a private corporation this Graduate Project proposes that by examining neoliberal policies in the City of Vancouver, designers, developers, and the public can make informed decisions about need-based amenities such as washroom implementations. This proposal will be expressed as a set of guidelines for alley developments in conjunction with the Community Amenity Contribution, and subsequent design responses. By creating a transparent and straightforward guideline for public amenity production in alley spaces a more democratic process will be created that allow various user groups, designers, developers and planners to make economic, policy, and public decisions.Everyone poops, it is just a questions of "Where?"ii7Part III:A Neoliberal City21Part IV:Local Instances of Neoliberalism27Part V:Development Down the Drain37Part I:Publicness and the Washroom1Part VI:Precedents53Part VII:Site Proforma57Part II:Potty Trained869 Part VIII:Pissing In PublicAbstractiivList of FiguresvAcknowledgmentsviiBibliography1039List of FiguresPart I:Figure 1 - Realms Concerned with Toilets. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.Figure 2 - Scales of washroom factors. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.Figure 3 - Range of Public Toilets Users. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.Figure 4 - Temporary Urinal Japan. Source: Google Images.Figure 5 - Victoria Public Urinal. Source: Matthew Soules Architecture.Figure 6 - Manufacturer Urinal Catalogue. Source: Vancouver Archives.Part II:Figure 7 - Timeline of Early Public Washrooms in Vancouver. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 8 - Site Map of Victory Square Park. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 9a - Axonometric of Victory Square Park showing underground comfort station. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 9b - Axonometric of Victory Square Park showing underground comfort station. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 10 - Interior Shot of original design of Victory Square Comfort Station, 1922. Source: Vancouver Archives.Figure 11 - Interior shot of current design of Victory Square Comfort Station, 2015. Source Toilography Online.Figure 12 - Timeline. Source: Rem Koolhaas, AMO Harvard Graduate School of Design. Edits in orange by Emily Scoular.Part IV:Figure 13 - Screenshots of Various WikiHow Articles on the Washroom. Source: WikiHow.com, Emily Scoular.Figure 14 - Macro Expenses of DVBIA. Source: City of Vancouver, Emily Scoular.Figure 15 - Micro Expenses of DVBIA . Source: City of Vancouver, Emily Scoular.Figure 16 - Global examples of Decaux public furniture. Source: Google Image.Figure 17 - Community Amenity Contribution Flow Chart  Source: N.O.P.E., Emily Scoular.Figure 18 - Community Amenity Contribution Expenditures 2017. Source City of Vancouver, Emily Scoular.Figure 19 - Site Diagram of TELUS Garden. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 20 - Photo Collage of Automated Public Toilet Vancouver. Source: Emily Scoular.Table 1- Community Amenity Contributions. Source: City of Vancouver, Emily ScoularPart V:Figure 21 - Butt to Seat Ratio. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 22 - Public and Private Washroom Inventory. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 23 - Screenshot of article by CBC. Source: CBC.Figure 24 - Screenshot of article by Vice Canada. Source: Vice CanadaFigure 25 - Starbutts. Source: ssense.caFigure 26 - Elevations and Plan of JC Decaux Automated Public Toilet. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 27 - Axonometric of North Plaza at Vancouver Art Gallery. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 28 - Automated Public Toilet at Pigeon Park, Vancouver. Source Google Earth, Emily Scoular.Figure 29 - Golden Triangle. Source Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.Figure 30 - District Level Toilet Location Principles. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.Part VI:Figure 31 - Illustration of Victoria Public Urinal. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 32 - Illustration of Portland Loo. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 33 - Illustration of Wreck Beach Toilets. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 34 - Illustration of Pop-Up. Source Emily Scoular.Part VII:Figure 35 - Site Axonometric with existing program. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 36 - Site Redevelopment Prospectives and Targets. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 37 - Total Property Value’s Geographic Relation. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 38 - Regional Retail Lease Prices (Low in black, High outlined). Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 39 - Site Map with Viewcones. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 40 - FSR Distribution. Source: Emily Scoular.Table 2 - Site Redevelopment Prospectives and Targets. Source: Emily Scoular.Table 3 - Cost Estimation of the Site. Source: Emily Scoular.Part VIII:Figure 41 - Exterior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 42 - Isometeric. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 43 - Night Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 44 - Render from Queen Elizabeth Park. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 45 - Diagrammatic Section. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 46 - Spliced Section. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 47 - Site Plan. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 48 - Typical Floor Plan for Public Washrooms. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 49 - Rendered Elevation. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 50 - Interior Lobby Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 51 - Interior Lobby Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 52 - Hallway Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 53 - Hallway Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 54 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 55 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 56 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 57 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 58 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 59 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 60 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 61 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 62 - Exterior Render. Source: Emily Scoularvi11AcknowledgmentsThe completion of this thesis project would not have been possible without the support of so many peers, faculty and friends that make up the SALA community.I want to thank my peers and colleagues for supporting me in this project. Specifically to Genta Ishimura for his morale and humour and to Kathy Oke and Christine Rohrbacher for all their help and support. To Sarah Sako, Azin Etesami, Ian Sandilands, Robin Jones, Tyler Dellebuur for assisting me with my drawings and renderings. To Jacob Darowski for building a beautiful but tedious model. I am thankful to my committee members, Bill Pechet, Joseph Watson and Glen Stokes, for their endless patience, thoughtful critique and for pushing me to defend whatever the hell it is I was doing.Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family. viii13Part I: Publicness and the Washroom Architectural SignificanceThe public washroom is a humble, but fundamental aspect of everyday, contemporary life. In order to better understand its architectural significance, especially within the city, it is necessary to expand upon its two elements; publicness, and the washroom. This section provides a foundational, and reductive, understanding of these two elements. With these foundations in place, the remainder of this paper will focus on the specifics of each, and each together. Famous architectural quotes,1 roman capitalisation,2 or a Venice Biennale do not define the architectural significance of the washroom; instead, it is defined by its banality. The matters of everyday users and its place within the urban context define its architecture. Clara Greed, the most notable authority on the public washroom in urban planning and design, establishes a hierarchy of scale to consider when examining and Cultural and ReligiousEnvironmentalMedical and Health ToiletsSocial Issues Economic and FinancialGovernmental and ManagementArchitectural andVisual AspectsPlanning andUrban DesignFigure 1 - Realms Concerned with Toilets. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoulardesigning a public washroom3. At the macro scale, cultural and political beliefs should be considered. This is a matter of framing the perspective of the broader ideologies within society.  The mesoscale can be considered the regional and local ideologies that are reflected through bylaws, codes, and policies. These are the collective, formal agreements that distill the ideologies presented at the macro scale. The microscale is a localised, specified example of the two proceeding scales, that is manifested in the design. Greed goes on to define the themes that contribute to contextualise of the washroom. It is within this context that this thesis will consider. Specifically, this paper will focus on the architectural, cultural, and economic aspects that contribute to the public washroom.Publicness“There is no seat like my seat”It is first essential to clarify that this paper is discussing the public washroom, rather than the broader non-residential washrooms. Many consider a non-residential washroom as the toilet facility provided by commercial space, such as restaurants, hotels, institutions, and places of employment. Each of these non-residential washroom types is, to a certain degree, chosen by the user, and aligns with their values as an individual. This process of selection provides an added sense of privacy and comfort within the space. There are pre-established knowns and relationships within each non-residential washroom that reassures the user.Conversely, the public washroom distinguishes itself from the non-residential washroom through its publicness. In this case, the lack of reassurance that the space is exclusive to those that are within the same resolution as the users define the publicness. In Alexander Kira’s The Bathroom, publicness is defined by this “strangeness” to its user.4 Kira expresses this strangeness as how it is mediated by privacy. Kira presents two notions of privacy: privacy-from and privacy-for. In the context of the washroom privacy-215from can be thought of as the segregation, of sexes for example, whereas privacy-for is defined as the discretion of public washrooms. Both forms of privacy imply the idea that users should ignore each other to better use the facility. Publicness in the washroom can then be thought of as the sharing of space that none of us wants to share.5The Inclusive Washroom “access to toilets is a prerequisite for full public participation and citizenship.” 6There is no need to define what is a washroom as it is a familiar feature within daily life. However, it is essential to establish the significance of accessibility and gender for the public washroom. By defining the washroom concerning both accessibility and gender, one can better create an understanding of their cultural and social importance. The washroom has different implications for many despite Meso: professionaland governmental policy-makingMacro: cultural beliefs,political attitudesMicro: detailedimplementation and provision standardsFigure 2 - Scales of washroom factors. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoular Figure 3 - Range of Public Toilets Users. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoularelimination being of a relatively similar nature. A trip to the washroom for any able-body man is vastly different from those with mobility limitations and physiological complications, and from those who are non-cisgender, and cisgender women.For much of the last seven decades, washroom legislation has changed rapidly in North America to become more inclusive for varied groups of the public. This is predominately expressed in user design legislation such as the ANSI (American National Standards Institution), and American Disability Acts. Within Canada building bylaws and codes for accessible spaces exist at regional and provincial levels, but a federal act is not expected for another six years.7 Even Kira’s The Bathroom was published just two years after the Civil Rights Act overruled Jim Crow Laws, that promoted racial segregation and were still in effect throughout many Southern United States.Today, exclusionary measures still exist within the washroom. These are both material and psychological. Vandals and other criminal elementsTourists and VisitorsPeople with DisabilitiesToiletsElderly PeopleWomen and Men ofall sorts and agesCommuters, users of public and private transportHomeless peopleBabies and SmallChildren417Material exclusion exists in the disparaging lack of physical fixtures for women relative to men, lack of retrofitting to accommodating increased female and non-binary users of a building, and locations that are removed from central spaces within spaces of assembly.89 Material limitations should also be extended to include the lack of public toilets within urban settings, and the lack of critical sanitary fixtures such as showers, private sinks, sanitary counter space and access to power outlets. Psychologically exclusion exists as many communities around North American express anxieties over sharing facilities with transgender persons. This form of exclusion is harmful to the mental health of a person who is denied a necessity, as toilet discrimination is humiliating and ultimately degrades human life. This mode of exclusion is especially toxic as gender-identity is less binary as most washroom facilities suggest.10 However, the inclusive washroom extends beyond gender segregation. Barbara Penner’s Bathroom defines an inclusive washroom as “a space that does not exclude particular user groups either by design or by law… [it] is a necessary component of a socially just society.” 11This socially just society should be concerned with the matter of what it means to be included in public. The public, the washroom, and the city are all elements that address contemporary life. The essential question is what is the relevance of architecture in contemporary life, and as designers of the just society within contemporary life how do we work within history, policy, and contemporary constraints to better support a material reality that is inclusive and supportive to live. As Kira would suggest, the washroom can support the body. Penner suggests the washroom can reflect the history and ideology of place and society. As Greed suggest, the washroom can support the city as a means of infrastructure to support all that the city contains. This formative understanding of the washroom allows a sensible foray into the topic of the public washroom within the neoliberal city.NOTES1 Many Modern architects, Adolf Loos (The Plumber), Le Corbusier(Manuel de l’habitation), Frank Lloyd Wright and more, dedicated much thought to the washroom’s role in architecture.2 Liz Tracey, “The Rise and Fall of Pay Toilets,” JSTOR Daily, December 8, 2016, , https://daily.jstor.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-pay-toilets/. Note: Vespasian was the first to monetize the washroom by producing public toilets for a charge, and then sold the waste as fertilizer and ammonia.3 Rem Koolhaas, Rem Koolhaas: Elements of Architecture (Koln: Taschen, 2018). Note: In Rem Koolhaas’s award-winning exhibition at the 2014 Venice Biennale, 15 architectural elements were analytically displayed for their cultural and architectural importance. The toilet is the eleventh.4 Clara Greed, Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets (London: Routledge, 2016), 19.5 Alexander Kira, The Bathroom (Toronto: Bantam, 1977), 20.6 Kira, The Bathroom, 203-206. Note: “the mutual agreement to ignore on another and our activities.”7 Judith Plaskow, “Embodiment, Elimination, and the Role of Toilets in Struggles for Social Justice,” CrossCurrents 58, no. 1 (2008): 52.8 Michelle McQuigge, “Canada’s First National Accessibility Law Tabled in Ottawa,” CBC, June 18, 2018, , https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/accessibility-act-duncan-1.4715491.9 Plaskow, the Role of Toilets, 53-54. Note: The article illustrates ways in which women in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives travel to use the washroom. Women as political and public figures is a relatively new phenomenon in North America, and so the facilities at institutions and public buildings have been retrofitted. A version of this form of accommodation made international headlines during Hilary Clinton’s campaign for President of the United States. During a commercial break at a debate in 2015, the candidates were given precisely three and a half minutes to go to the washroom, and return. Unlike the men’s washroom, the women’s washroom was not located within proximity to the stage. Further readings: The Everyday Sexism of Women Waiting in Public Toilet Lines, by Soraya Chemaly and Finally, an Explanation of Hilary Clinton’s Long Bathroom Break, by Amy Chozick. Taking a Break: Toilets, Gender, and Disgust, by Judith Plaskow.10 Laura Noren and Harvey Molotch, eds., “Rest Stop: MIT’s Infinite Corridor, Now Shorter for Women,” in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, 165-166. 11 Tobias Armborst et al., The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion (New York, NY: Actar, 2017), 264-265.12 Barbara Penner, Bathroom (London: Reaktion Books, Limited, 2014), 201.619Part II: Potty TrainedA very brief history of Vancouver. Vancouver is and has always been a real-estate city. Since the Canadian Pacific Railway finalised plans for the terminus Waterfront station and the land-parcel settlement that sealed the deal, the city’s population rapidly grew to make it one of the hottest real estate markets in the latter part of the 1890s. The population nearly tripled in the first twenty years, while real estate agents and developers dominated the professional business of Vancouver1. Since these early beginnings, Vancouver’s growth has been instigated by private development and the demand for civic growth. From the West End and Shaughnessy to the British Properties, Vancouver’s early developments and master plans were driven by corporate capital, such as Canadian Pacific Railway and the Guinness Family respectively2. By the 1960s and 1970s, Vancouver reached a period of municipal experimentation in line with Canada’s liberalist hey-day. This experimentation was a reversal of the previous conservative-backed, pro-development local and provincial governments. Projects such as Project 200 (freeway extension) and Maclean Park (mass social-housing) died, while new public projects such as Granville Island, South False Creek, and Robson Square were completed. These mass projects increased local and provincial confidence in the city and by Expo ’86, civic and government pride and spending soared. In the post-Expo Vancouver, however, this experimentation seems to have “degraded into a kind of leveraged buyout, negotiated at the nexus of trans-nationalising real-estate imperatives and the distinctive rhythms of the country’s federal and provincial neoliberalisation.”3Opposite Page Top: Figure 4 - Temporary Urinal Japan. Source: Google Images.Bottom: Figure 5 - Victoria Public Urinal. Source: Matthew Soules Architecture.821Figure 6 - Manufacturer Urinal Catalogue. Source: Vancouver Archives.A Very Brief Beginning of the Public Washroom in Vancouver Though Vancouver’s long reputation as being a place for investment and opportunity, there has been many publicly-funded and locally supported developments. What initially started as a response to taming the frontier-township in anticipation of a booming metropolis quickly slows by wartime and further by postwar-suburban shifts. It is not until recent decades that the public washroom reemerges with equivalent relevancy, especially as the downtown population continues to grow, and inequality with it. To better understand the situation at present one must look to the past.After the founding of the City of Vancouver, in 1886, Vancouver was no longer a frontier town. The budding metropolis began to staple of city government through the design of public-works and government facilities standardto any North American. As Margaret Andrews details in her article Sanitary Conveniences and the Retreat of the Frontier: Vancouver 1886-1926, the behaviour of a natural-resource township would no longer be tolerated.4 This meant dealing with plumbing and sewage infrastructure, as well as providing public facilities for the predominately male population. This was a slow process but one that is of broad interest as historical precedent to the contemporary dilemma of the public toilet. Vancouver’s early sanitary convenience growth was contemporaneous to other North American cities.5 At the turn of the century, Toronto, and Chicago experience similar demands for public facilities as Vancouver. A year after the founding of the City of Vancouver, and its first elected City Council, the council released a by-law stating “Every dwelling-house, hotel, saloon, boarding house, store, “[t]hat urinal in the lane just north of the Chief Post Office is really a standing disgrace to your fair city”  - visitor from Toronto, 19081023shop, foundry, factory, or manufactory…have connected there within a privy or privies,” this was later repealed by property-owners and business-owners.6 It was until a decade later that Alderman, received complaints of fowl toilet behaviour, and the city took action. Since there was such strong opposition to private-ownership providing facilities, the City installed public urinals in the back allies of public buildings, such as the Post Office and City Hall.7 Though the maintenance of these urinals was notably bad, there was little pressure from users to alter the design. By 1912, women had gained the right to vote, and participate in land-ownership independent from men, allowing them to enter the public-realm fully. It was at this point that female suffrage groups focused their attention on their role within city development. In Chicago, where the Woman’s City Club was especially organised, the public toilet fell under their domain as a fight for domesticating the city, but ultimately fighting to allow women, the working-class and children the right to the city. In Vancouver, the Women’s New Era League, along with local business-owners, asked City Council to allocate funds to erect new sanitary conveniences for both genders. In 1922 the Victory Square Sanitary Convenience opened.  Today, the Victory Square Park Comfort Station and the Hasting and Main Comfort Station are the only two remaining from the 1922 washroom expansion. Both are still operational and heavily depended upon for the Downtown Figure 7 - Timeline of Early Public Washrooms in Vancouver. Source: Emily ScoularEastside’s washroom supply.Comfort Station Victory Square Park This public washroom has served the public for nearly a century, though over the last three decades its users have gradually decreased, and its facility is in a state of disrepair. It consists of two separate entrances for male and female, two attendants for both sexes who share a party wall, with a window between the two rooms. Each side has four stalls, and the men’s side has a few urinals. Access to the washroom is located on the northwest corner of the park and is only accessible via stairs as the washroom is completely undergrounds.Though this site might be of a cultural significance, its design and location have contributed to its fall in practical use-value. The concerns of this comfort station are as follows: safety, cleanliness, and accessibility. These concerns are predominately due to the nature of the comfort station as it is full subterranean as well as its siting. Many external factors have shaped the neighbourhood of Victory Square, and the washroom is not immune to the changes and challenges that have faced this area. By understanding the neighbourhood, this section will establish a critique of the public washroom’s current role in the city. 1886 - City Council Formed1887 - Public Health Law“every dwelling-house, hotel, saloon, boarding house, store, shop, foundry, factory, or manufactory… have connected there with a privy or privies” Repealed later that year. 1896 - Public ComplaintsCouncil receives first complaints from business owners as storefronts are usedas urinals.1898 - Public UrinalsUrinals are installed in alleys and market sheds.1899 - Sanitary BylawsNew Bylaws require maintenance of water-closetsand plumbing at the property owner’s expense.1904 - Public ComplaintsCouncil inspector reports thatsaloons and hotels are still inbad conditions.1912 - Public ComplaintsWomen request Council to constructinclusive washrooms in the City.1910 - Gendered washroomsWith the exception of English Bay Bath House,there are no public facilities for women.1922 - Victory Square ParkVictory Square Park opens.1893 - “filthy” frontier citySanitation census conducted after Aldermenraise concerns over the remnants of “filthy”frontier city.1913 - Funds allocatedCouncil allocate $50,000 for newgender inclusive washrooms.1920 - FundsWomen’s New Era League asks city council tofollow through on the “erection of Public Comfort Stations for women and children.”1225When initially constructed in 1922, the sanitary convenience was serving clientele from Vancouver’s central shopping district of West Hastings and Gastown, and those that frequented the numerous public buildings adjacent the park. This was a consumer-oriented and heavily trafficked area, of what was considered to be of great importance.8 By the 1970s, with the construction of Pacific Centre and Bentall Centre, businesses had moved towards the Burrard-Georgia axis, and the commercial success of the East Hastings and Victory Square neighbourhoods began to decline. It was not until the 1990s, when the Woodward’s Department store closed, that the neighbourhood hit its lowest point with increasing numbers of homeless coming to the area. Figure 8 - Site Map of Victory Square Park. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 9a - Axonometric of Victory Square Park showing underground comfort station. Source: Emily Scoular.1427Figure 9b - Axonometric of Victory Square Park showing underground comfort station. Source: Emily Scoular.At this time, a class of creative professionals began to enter the neighbourhood. Directly across from the Victory Square Park, the AIBC moved into its location at Cambie Street, and the Vancouver Film School moved into its West Hastings Street location. Despite the new creative industries’ initial moves into the neighbourhood, the value of the area was negatively affected by the gradual increase of the homeless population. This gradual increase continued even as the Woodward’s site was redeveloped into a mix-use development, and creative industry continued to redevelop the historic buildings surrounding the park by post-Olympics.Despite this fluctuation in the area’s demographics, these washrooms exemplify the current social divide of the neighbourhood and the disconnect between access and provisions of public space in Vancouver at large. This disconnect exists from the architectural significance to the larger area. The sanitary convenience is heritage. Its rights to heritage designation extend farther than any historical facade in the neighbourhood as it hits four out of the five themes for heritage designation.9 It is a cultural artifact, a rare architectural and public infrastructure typology, and extends into numerous sub-themes of city governance, community building. That said many local bloggers draw comparisons to ruins, due to its lack of funding for architectural and cosmetic upgrades.10 This is especially ironic in a neighbourhood which values the heritage aesthetics and gritty public life. The use-value of the washroom is vastly different between those who live in this neighbourhood and those that patronise and work in the neighbourhood. For the latter, the trip to this facility is ghastly and avoided at all cost.11 This is in part due to the facilities as being unnerving, due to their dark location and association with the unusual quality of dankness,12 as well as for the notion of disgust with the unknown and dissimilarities between user-groups. Judith Plaskow identifies this disgust as symptomatic of social hierarchies and the subconscious association with the “socially inferior” as a form of contaminate to the space, 1629Top: Figure 10 - Interior Shot of original design of Victory Square Comfort Station, 1922. Source: Vancouver Archives.Bottom: Figure 11 - Interior shot of current design of Victory Square Comfort Station, 2015. Source Toilography Online.themselves and those around them.13 While the those who live in this neighbourhood, especially women of the Downtown Eastside, it is a rare sanctuary. 14 Marginalised women in this area can find refuge and access without discrimination. This necessity and right to the city, found within the comfort station, represent the fundamental values that the women of Vancouver had in mind a century ago.NOTES1 Noted to the author by Andy Yan.2 Lance Berelowitz, “For Sale The (Abridged) Story of Vancouver’s Development Community,” in Dream City (Vancouver, B.C.: Douglas & McIntyre, 2005), 96.3 Jamie Peck, Elliot Siemiatycki, and Elvin Wyly, “Vancouver’s Suburban Involution,” City 18, no. 4-5 (2014): 390.4 Andrews, Margaret. “Sanitary Conveniences and the Retreat of the Frontier: Vancouver 1886-1926.” BC Studies 87 (August 1990): 3-22.5 Flanagan, Maureen. “Private Needs, Public Space: Public Toilets Provision in the Anglo-Atlantic Patriarchal City: London, Dublin, Toronto and Chicago.” Urban History 41, no. 02 (2013): 265-90.6 Andrews, Sanitary Convenience. Page 4.7 In the city archives there are only textual accounts of these public urinals, and a catalogue of urinal models. 8 Harland Bartholomew, The Major Street Plan and Civic Centre. (Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver, 1947). Note: Hastings and Granville street are considered the two most frequented streets in the city. They are both considered a civic focal point at the time, it was recommended that the entirety of the downtown business district be designed to maintain the order and importance of these two streets. 9 Vancouver, City Of. “Nominate a Site to the Heritage Register.” (City of Vancouver, July 25, 2018). Accessed December 8, 2018. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/nominate-a-site-to-the-heritage-register.aspx.10 It is often noted in City Council Meetings and third party reports that the cost of attendants and maintenance to the space are expensive. 11 Michael Harris. Skip to the Loo, The Walrus. October 6, 2018. https://thewalrus.ca/skip-to-the-loo/ Note: “The general, moneyed citizenry does not notice this dearth of toilets, because our notion of private and public space has become so muddled that we consider a Starbucks to be the same thing as a public loo. My mother, for one, arranges her downtown shopping itinerary so she only ever uses the facilities at Holt Renfrew, thereby avoiding sticky floors, unflattering lighting, and whatever germs are carried by people who shop at Winners. But those atrocities are nothing compared with the reality of the nearby underground toilets at Victory Square. Open from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., they reportedly cost $100,000 each year, and still manage to feel like an ancient burial chamber—the type of place people dares each other to walk into.” 12 David Gissen, Subnature: Architecture’s Other Environments, 1st ed. (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), 030-84.13 Judith Plaskow, “Taking a Break: Toilets, Gender, and Disgust”, in South Atlantic Quarterly.October 2016,752-75314 Ben Phillips, Vancouver’s Most Marginalized Women Face Inequality with Washroom Access. (Vancouver: BCIT News. December 17, 2017).1831BATHINGSEWAGE SYSTEMS FINAL TOILETstand-alonetoiletsdomestic spasPublic bathingSwimming Pool1885 Frederick Humpherson’sone-piece Beaufort Toilet The outhouse19th C Abtrittanbieter(Privy Provider)3600 BC HabubaKabira’s sewers1000 BC Essene“dung” Gate, Jeru-salem1700 BC Toiletat the Palace ofMinos Knossos2450 BC GreatBath at Mohenjo-Daro3rd C AD Bathsof Caracalla1167 ChristchurchMonastery and Cathe-dral, Cantebury1596 John Harrington’s water closet1858 TheGreat Stink of London1838 thebain a domicile1885 GeorgeVanderdbilt’s bathrooms1888 Wet Wall1877 Sanitas Toilet,private rooms1880s Toilet Paper1908 “Bed and Bathfor a Dollar and a Half”at the Statler Hotel,Buffalo1938 BuckminsterFuller’s Dymaxion pre-fabricated Bathroom1976 AlexanderKIra The Bath-room1974 Jim CrowLaws repelled1920s Genderinclusive publicwashrooms1898 Vancouver’sfirst public urinal1995 China’s“public toilet revolution”1990 ADAct1992 EPAct2013 INAX Satis2000s Dharavi, Mumbai2012 Zimbabwe’ssynchronized toilet flush2018 Starbucks’ Public Toilets2008 Gates FoundatiionReinvent the Toilet Challenge2008 “Is it time to killoff the flush toilet?”2010 NASA’s water recovery system2014 PM Modi’s“Clean India” Act 1935 Basic Dimensionsfor the Bathroom byAmerican Architect1850s Public bathhouses erectedin France in reaction to Cholera1883 Doctor Lassar’s People’s bath1775 AlexanderCummings invents the S-trap1857 Napoleon’sCabinet d’Aisances1851 Crystal Palacedebuts public washroom1517 Da Vinci’sRomorantinsanitary city13th-14th C garderobe1340 Toilet towerat Kwidzyn Castle120 AD Romancommunal latrineat Hadrian’s Wall70s AD Vespasian“Urine Tax”211-224 AD Roman chariottoilet1910 HookwormTOILET1967 Charlotte Perriand’spre-fabricated bathroom and kitchen for Les Arcs1917 Duchamp’sThe Fountain2016 Maurizio CattelanAmerica1992 Ilya Kabakov’sThe Toilet1998 Adrian Blackwell’sPublic Water Closet2007 Slavoj Zizek on toilets1985 Peter Greenway’s26 Bathrooms1980 David Hammon’sPissed Off1974 Francis Coopola’sThe Conversation1933 Jun'ichirō Tanizaki’sIn Praise of Shadows1959 SheboyganArts FoundationFigure 12 - Timeline. Source: Rem Koolhaas, AMO Harvard Graduate School of Design. Edits in orange by Emily Scoular.2033Part III: A neoliberal CityAs the previous chapter laid out, the small-scale public space of the comfort station reflect the direct needs and concerns of the public working class. The comfort stations were a result of direct financing by the City. Today, financing models are more nuanced, based on several formalised models of financing that capitalises on a third party; one that is inclusive in that it shares the costs by both public and private sources. This vital mode of production gives precedence to the last 30 years of development within Vancouver, where a formalised strategic policy has dominated.To further understand the contemporary City, it is critical to understand the market consequences further.1 The current state of Vancouver’s civic building strategies consists of policies that generate vast amounts of funds for public use through negotiations with private and public developments.2 This mode of spatial production is characteristic of neoliberal governance. The following chapter will outline the definition of neoliberalism, its strategies and implementation, and how these strategies and rhetorical implementations manifest within the built environment of Vancouver.  It is worth distinguishing that this paper is concerned with neoliberalism as an institutional and local scale, rather than the broader global terminology, especially, as this paper is focused on the spatial manifestations.For many neoliberalism functions as a catch-all phrase to discuss capitalism, neo-capitalism, post-capitalism, post-industrial economies, globalism, corporate domination, managerial practices and bureaucratic governance. Due to the phrase’s widened definition many attributes of contemporary anxiety to it. Its ambiguity shapes critical discourse on topics of wealth inequality and affordability, private-public partnerships (P3), de-investment of public services by governments, deregulation of corporate entities, and the vast global economy. This overflowing term is one that defines the political discourse of the twentieth and twenty-first century. It is generally understood that the rise of neoliberalism began in the late seventies as Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, and Den Xiaoping introduced new economic policies to stimulate growth and to establish a broader idea of the global free market. Though this is the popularised beginning, its emergence in political theory dates back to the post-World War II era of nineteen-thirties to fifties with the deployment of Keynesian.3 During this post-war era political theorists, notably the Mount Pelerin Society, aligned themselves to the eighteenth-century Liberal thought of personal freedom and the aim to protect the “position of the individual and the voluntary groups progressively undermined by extensions of arbitrary power.”4Contemporary neoliberalism has moved away from the aspirational idea of protection for the private individual as the definition of a private individual has evolved to include private entities of unprecedented scales. David Harvey characterises contemporary neoliberal as a set of two fundamental strategies. The first strategy is as “a theory of political, economic practices that proposed that human well-being can be best advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.” The second strategy is by the state to limit interventions in the market, guarantee the success of the market (even if aided), and provide structures (such as legal and military) to secure private property rights.5 Language as a Neoliberal ToolThese strategies can be found in the way in which institutions (be they public or private), utilise a universal language. Much of what makes something neoliberal is found in its use of law, policy and societal discourse. The rhetoric of neoliberalism is one of simplicity and non-specification that penetrates all manner of discourse. In Neoliberalism: The 2235Key Concepts, Matthew Eagleton-Pierce argues that by understanding keywords and concepts that are frequently used in policy and government, since the nineteen-eighties, we can begin to understand how neoliberalism is not only a political theory but a broader cultural language. Through analysing language, Eagleton-Pierce illustrates “how neoliberal practice will always be hybridised creations and how, paradoxically despite failures, doubts and cynicism, the vocabulary often refreshes itself or, at the very least, becomes so normalised that users struggle to imagine what an alternative discourse could look like.”6 The pervasive quality of neoliberalism rhetoric presented by Eagleton-Pierce echo Harvey’s critique as a “conceptual apparatus [that] becomes so embedded in common sense as to be taken for granted and not open to question.”7, 8The keyword concepts presented by Eagleton-Pierce include common phrases such as challenge, community, growth, responsibility, and vision. Each one of the forty-four concepts presents an alternative meaning to the historical or conventional use of the word. An example of this is a challenge, which is present in nearly all formal rhetoric. From Obama’s speeches to press releases from Coca-Cola, a challenge is always ready to be defined. Its appeal is that it is vague enough for optimistic commitment and the aspiration that we all might “contribute to dealing with the problem and find rewards.”9 By using language as common as this, neoliberalism has penetrated Western thought. Its message is that there is no alternative to the status quo.10Though this seems digressive, the importance of how policy and language are structured broadens understanding of how these ideas structure the built environment. The written documents, policy, guidelines, and in the City of Vancouver’s Financing Growth, two of Eagleton-Pierce’s identified terms of neoliberalism, the document outlines how the City expects to manage densification by development, and an influx of population. The purpose of the document is to express, through policy, the need for mediation between new development, residents and property tax generated by the private-landholding population. The issues laid out are inherently urban, architectural, and publicly oriented, but the initial impression of the document is vague as to the meaning of growth; specifically, whether it refers to the population growth or economic growth. What matters is the distinction as to which growth the City sets out to serve. Population growth would inherently imply mandates that support and foster the current population while demanding additions to the public realm that support the population in anticipation of growth. Economic growth conversely implies that the City would seek to maximise the land for not the support of a growing population but for the private interests and profits those that own land, and for the city itself.Growth has been a continuous, global issue as the cost of living has increased, and wages have stagnated. The document lays out strategies in which the City is prepared to create partnerships or accept contributions from the private realm. Vancouver’s urban development is contingent on this constant growth in real estate supply. Regulatory mandate stipulates contributions be made by private development in anticipation of growth to a neighbourhood. The result is a supply of public facilities amended to new construction. The conclusion to this mode of production within the City is one that prizes significant developments capable of affording regulatory fees that supply the City with new public amenity through continuous production while prioritising redevelopment that is instigated by the private realm.The ambiguity of the language of these documents, which are intended to stipulate the future production of the City, aids the private realm through the flexibility of its understanding and goals. Without a clear plan for how we finance the City, and why we finance it in this manner the policies in place are a form of obscurity to all manners of residents to the City.  Through this obscurity, a disjunction is created between the privately held production of the City and public production of the City.2437NOTES1 Raewyn Connell, “Understanding Neoliberalism” Neoliberalism and Everyday Life. (Montreal: MQUP, 2014), 222  Note: See Financing Growth, 2004 City of Vancouver. As well as numerous redevelopment applications where Community Amenity Contributions, Public Art Contributions, and Public Space Contributions are negotiated.3 David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Brantford, Ontario: W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2014), 1-10.4 “Statement of Aims,” MPS, , accessed 2018, https://www.montpelerin.org/statement-of-aims/.5 Harvey, Brief History, 2.6 Matthew Eagleton-Pierce, Neoliberalism: The Key Concepts (Routledge, 2016), xviii7 Harvey, Brief History, 58 “But even as the recession fluctuates, neoliberalism remains the common sense of our era. The debate is about how to get the market working better, not about what should replace the market. Neoliberalism is now the ground from which labour parties, conservative parties, and liberal parties all proceed.” “Understanding Neoliberalism,” Neoliberalism and Everydaylife. Raewyn Connell. Page 229 Eagleton-Pierce, Key Concepts, 17 10 Noam Chomsky and Robert W. McChesney, Profit over People: Neoliberalism and the Global Order (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011), 15.Opposite Page: Figure 13 - Screenshots of Various WikiHow Articles on the Washroom. Source: WikiHow.com, Emily Scoular.2639Part IV: Local Instances of NeoliberalismIt is also crucial to the vitality of public life in the urban-built environment to understand the immaterial structure of the city. The right of the city, defined as not only access to property but the right to affect change is obscured by opaque neoliberal policies and partnerships that shape our city. The right to active democratic practices within a city, as designers and citizens, are contingent on educating ourselves on the mechanism that exists within local and provincial governments.1 The following sections are the major Neoliberal structures that exist within the City of Vancouver. These structures are either created to forge a relationship between the public realm and the private realm or establish a relationship that did not formally exist before their establishment. $.3M(9%)$.7M(22%)$1.28M(37%)$1.15M(33%)Community SafetyGovernance and AdministrationPlace-makingPromotionFigure 14 - Macro Expenses of DVBIA. Source: City of Vancouver, Emily Scoular.Business Improvement Areas and Associations.Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) are established areas that collect a specific property tax within a business district.2 The funds collected through this tax are then managed by a not-for-profit group, Business Improvement Association, which represents the property owners and business tenants of the area. The primary goals of such groups are to promote business, tourism, safety and street beautification. In Interboro’s The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion, the BIA (Business Improvement District in the book), is considered a policy response to post-industrialisation of the city. It is exclusionary in that the changes made in the interest of the BIA is privatised and specialised to means of consumption rather than a citizen-based experience of the city.3 The BIAs favour economic growth of commercial corridors over aspects of public life. The privileging of economic growth creates an equation of citizen as consumer. This equivalent is important as urban place-making under BIAs is an expression of private LivabilityOrganizational EffectivenessEnhanced ExperienceVibrant EconomySustainability$1.28M(55%)$.2M(9%)$.25M(10%)$.32M(14%)$44K(2%)$45K(2%)$.1M(4%)Downtown AmbassadorsMembership RelationsMembership Events$31K(1%)$30K(1%)ResearchPolicy Developmentand Advocacy$14K(1%)Economic DevelopmentCommunicationsPublic Space/Place-makingSponsorshipsRetail District PromotionsFigure 15 - Micro Expenses of DVBIA . Source: City of Vancouver, Emily Scoular.2841property and business owners in the public realm, rather than residents of an area. The mechanism used by the BIA focuses on improving the safety and order of the urban realm while blurring the line between the utility and function of space and the right to the city by all citizens, not just those who are consumers in the area. For example, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association (DVBIA) collects three-million annually on a 1.25% tax from the Downtown Area’s businesses.4 This is redistributed throughout a large area of the business district and civic center of Vancouver. The most recent public-making project is the alley rehabilitation, designed by HCMA. By painting the alley with fun colours, and the addition of light installations, the focus is on appropriating the alley as a pedestrian thoroughfare and an Instagram-ready space, while actively prescribing new users to what was a “crime risk”.Figure 17 and 18 show the expenditure breakdown for the DVBIA for the 2017-2018 fiscal year. Figure 17 is the thematic cost breakdown, while Figure 18 is the specific break down. Between these two figures, the focus is not on the improvement of the physical interface between the public realm and the private businesses but rather on the promotion and governance of the not-for-profit body. Public-Private Partnerships Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) is a neoliberal mechanism that offers a mutually beneficial exchange of goods, services and profits between public and private entities. These partnerships exist as fixed, long-term agreements between the City and a private corporation. In many cases, the goods and services provided include new buildings and infrastructure, and management of sites. This form of agreement eliminates risk for the City of Vancouver while supporting innovation and private competition.5 In some cases, the City’s benefit is guaranteed annual revenues, such as the case of the Parking Corporation of Figure 16 - Global examples of Decaux public furniture. Source: Google Image.3043Vancouver, otherwise known as EasyPark. EasyPark offers private management and operation services to the City of Vancouver and other third-party parking facilities in exchange for a council budget. In other cases, the revenue generated goes to the private entity in exchange for their services. For example, CBS Decaux, the French urban furniture company, offers furniture and urban equipment for free in exchange for the ad revenue collected. Another form of Public-Private Partnership is the Community Amenity Contribution.Community Amenity Contributions.6Community Amenity Contributions is an incentive program for that exchanges increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for community amenities or cash-in-lieu. This is only applicable for projects that are asking the city to sell density or developments require rezoning of the whole land parcel, or a portion. Unlike the mandatory development cost levies (DCLs), which provides improvements to infrastructure such as sewage, electrical, and roads for each new development and adjacent work upgrades, the CAC is not protected under law as it asks for non-necessities to support urban growth and thus can be a negotiated agreement between the developer and the city. The agreement that is settled can become problematic as preference can be given to those developers that can offer more capital for amenities IndependentAt MainRize AllianceRezoningCity ofVancouverCity ofVancouverCommunityAmenity Contribution$$$Figure 17 - Community Amenity Contribution Flow Chart  Source: N.O.P.E., Emily Scoular.in exchange for density.Since the 1990s much of our public realm is created through Community Amenity Contributions. Notable early examples include Concord Pacific’s Downtown South development and Marathon Reality’s Coal Harbour development. Each contributed community centers, seawall expansions, and park spaces in exchange for FSR and rezoning. Many of the spaces contribute to a network of public infrastructure that is celebrated, such as the seawall. Despite the early success the architectural significance of this tool is problematic. The public spaces are both a product of capital growth and a product of the developer rather than 2017 58 4.63.12.36.52.6 $68$51$67$98$148 $186 $334$122$103$234$134$183$24$36$66514350452016201520142013YearNumber ofApprovalsAdditionalDensity(Millions sq ft)Total SecuredCash Contributions($ Millions)Total SecuredIn-kind Contributions($ Millions)Total Cash &In-kind Secured Contributions($ Millions)Comparison of Secured Public Benefits$159M(49%)$30M(9%)$37M(11%)$49M(15%)HousingChildcare FacilitiesHeritageCommunity FacilitiesParks, Open Space,Public Art & Transportations$52M(16%)Table 1- Community Amenity Contributions. Source: City of Vancouver, Emily ScoularFigure 18 - Community Amenity Contribution Expenditures 2017. Source City of Vancouver, Emily Scoular.3245elected governance for the public. The maintenance and ownership of CAC remain open. In some cases, the CAC is gifted back to the City of Vancouver or the Parks Board, and in other cases, operation and ownership are retained by the private entity. Privately Owned Public Space.Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS), can be defined as public space required by the local government that remains owned and operated by the land owned. In most Vancouver cases, POPS are a byproduct of Community Amenity Contributions. POPS fulfill CAC public space requirements while still allowing the land-owner control over their assets. This can become problematic as the regulation and maintenance of real public access to the Public Space fall short. The erosion of public access exists in small forms, such as security guards, decreased hours, and leasing of plaza space to private leaseholders. An example of a Privately-Owned Public Space is TELUS Garden, owned by Westbank. The TELUS Garden project benefited from CACs and in exchange for extra density and site rezoning, Westbank contributed public art, space, and alleyway remediation to the project. Figure 19 illustrates the privately-own-public space and how these spaces are controlled, ultimately reducing the public aspects of the spaces initially required by the City.  Each of these structures is tools used by the City to create new additions to the public realm. Though noble their efforts may be, they create opportunities for success in the private realm over the specific and considered needs of the City they are meant to serve. Figure 19 - Site Diagram of TELUS Garden. Source: Emily Scoular.3447NOTES1 David Harvey, “The Right to the City,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 4 (December 2003): 941. 2 City Of Vancouver, “Business Improvement Areas (BIAs),” City of Vancouver, February 22, 2017, https://vancouver.ca/doing-business/business-improvement-areas-bias.aspx.3 Tobias Armborst et al., The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion (New York, NY: Actar, 2017), 78-80.4 Comparative BIA Levies and Levy Rates 2018-2019, report, City of Vancouver (Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2018).5 N.O.P.E., “Art Worker’s Guide to Post-Olympic Chinatown and Downton Eastside,” The Capilano Review 3, no. 35 (June 2018):..6 Rezoning & Community Amenity Contributions: Negotiating for a More Livable City, report, City of Vancouver (Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver, 2011). Note:“CACs are negotiated contributions from developers who recognize that when a property is rezoned to a higher density, the increased population can create the need for more community amenities and services. By sharing the benefits made possible by increased development rights and land value, property developers, through CACs, can help make sure that Vancouver remains a great place to live.”Figure 20 - Photo Collage of Automated Public Toilet Vancouver. Source: Emily Scoular.3649Part V: Development Down the DrainIn the previous chapter, the various definitions illustrate the way in which neoliberal policy affects the material production of the city. In this chapter, the Downtown Peninsula of Vancouver will be examined in three specific ways. First, the city will be examined through the inventory of existing publicly owned washrooms, second, will be through unsanctioned private-public-partnerships of private washrooms, and the third will be through the sanctioned public-private-partnership of public washrooms. Throughout this section, the local issues and responses will be highlighted and critiqued. This thesis is concerned with the public washroom as it is defined by the rights of access to the entirety of the public. For that reason, the inventory of public washrooms omits malls, cafes, and other privately-owned public space. Many of these spaces negatively affect marginalised persons as they deny access through bylaws and private security as they privilege consumers over citizens.1Public Washroom Inventory throughout the CityThe number of public washrooms in downtown Vancouver is relatively low for the density of the surrounding population. This can be seen in the seat to butt ratio diagram, the City of Vancouver is relatively high compared to cities globally. Zürich and Portland being the two most similar regarding population and city area have a much lower seat-to-butt-ratio (public toilet per capita), while the Downtown Business Improvement Area has an outrageously high ratio relative to both local and global standards. Of the public washrooms on the downtown peninsula, the ownership and availability define the spaces and their functionality within their surrounding neighbourhoods.VancouverDVBIAZürichPortlandTokyoParis1435771427310614735642000400060008000Above: Figure 21 - Butt to Seat Ratio. Source Emily Scoular.Following Page: Figure 22 - Public and Private Washroom Inventory. Source Emily Scoular.3851English Bay BeachBarclay Heritage SquareSunset Beach ParkBute at DavieNelson ParkNelson at HoweEmery Barnes ParkWheelchair AccessibleStarbucksOpen 24 hours Parks BoardCity of VancouverRobson at RichardsVictory Square ParkPigeon ParkMain at HastingsPowell at MainMain at TerminalRobson at GranvilleNorth Plaza at V.A.G.David Lam ParkCRAB Park at PortsideAndy Livingstone ParkHarbour Green ParkTim Hortons4053Ownership The ownership of the purely public washrooms in the city is divided between the Parks Board and the City of Vancouver. The Parks Board holds the majority of public washrooms, and their inventory consists of Heritage buildings, community centres, and field houses. These buildings are architecturally unique and vary in their design, completion date and initial funding. Their common feature is that few are mono-programmatic, meaning each facility is shared within a broader structure. Even the Harbour Green Park and English Bay Bathhouse buildings, though they provide separated toilet entrances, are shared with a privately-owned restaurant. The public washrooms provided by the City of Vancouver differ in that they are purpose-built, uniform and mono-programmatic. Two City of Vancouver facilities are the previously mentioned underground comfort stations. The majority are JC Decaux Automated Public Toilets (APTs) and are the product of a Public-Private Partnership between the city and CBS Decaux. This agreement stipulates that Vancouver will receive seventeen APTs by the end of 2023 in exchange for ad revenue.1 This commitment is problematic as it guarantees a monopoly stock for nearly two decades, whether or not the APTs are appropriate for the City of Vancouver’s growing toilet troubles. As was the case in Seattle, APTs are notorious for their unpleasant odour and uncleanliness despite them being self-cleaning and are subject to misuse as places of crime and drug use.23 AvailabilityThe availability of public washrooms concerns two matters; the hours of operation and the accessibility. The Park Board’s public washrooms are limited to hours of operation of that which share the facilities, whether it is a specific building’s operational hours or that of the park it is located. The APTs, on the other hand, operate 24 hours a day. The Thornton Park APT is the expectation, as its operational hours are between 8 am and 3 pm. To limit misuse on site, the APTs are in high-traffic areas to increase “eyes on the street,” and include a maximum 12 minutes limit before the doors automatically open. In recent months, the APTs have been retrofitted to play classical music overnight and into the early morning.4The Starbucks EffectWithin the City of Vancouver, there are limited public toilets-- that much is clear. However, many in the public do not see the issue of public washroom needs, as privately operated toilets service the majority of the public. This majority often take these space, and their access to, for granted. The current trend for many citizens is to equate themselves with consumers. By the right of selection and purchase, they can access a private realm of washrooms. This public delusion became volatile as the same narrative Figure 23 - Screenshot of article by CBC. Source: CBC.Figure 24 - Screenshot of article by Vice Canada. Source: Vice CanadaFigure 25 - Starbutts. Source: ssense.ca4255Figure 26 - Elevations and Plan of JC Decaux Automated Public Toilet. Source Emily Scoular.occurred twice in North America in the same month: The Tim Hortons Pooper, and the racially motivated arrests of two men in a Philadelphia Starbucks. In both instances, the denial of the washroom is a catalyst for unjustifiable reactions. In the Tim Hortons case, the woman, who was denied the washroom, reacted by defecating and throwing her excrement at the cashier. At Starbucks, the two men were waiting for their business associate and asked to use the washroom while they waited after being denied and their instance on not vacating the premise, the cashier called the police. The latter reaction is within Starbuck’s legal right as a private business. Ultimately, the reality of privately-owned businesses and their right to deny facilities to non-customers eliminates this washroom typology as a reliable alternative to the publicly-owned washroom.JC Decaux – radically different micro, socio-climates with autonomous facilities.The JC Decaux APTs are fascinating in that they are widely used in cities across the Pacific coast (San Francisco, previously Seattle) and throughout Canada (Toronto and Montreal) despite being far from successful. The use a vast amount of water for every use, warranted or not, require maintenance, provide no toilet paper, and lack natural ventilation. The City of Vancouver’s provision of Automated Public Toilets is contractually exclusive to CBS Decaux.5 As they are contractually obligated to use the APT supply exclusively, it is worth examining their effectiveness within the communities in the downtown of Vancouver. This section will look at the effects of the APT on two specific sites, and their use.  North Plaza at the Vancouver Art GalleryHistorically the North Plaza at the Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG), is a gathering spot for protest and celebration. It is, in a city that focuses the edge condition, the closet 4457Vancouver has to a civic centre. In 2017, HAPA Collective, and Matthew Soules completed the long-awaited redevelopment of the site. Its main feature is the removal of the divisive spatial fountain. The new design allows for sanctioned groups to gather uninhibited. That is with the exception of washroom facilities. On the site, that has the capacity for 1500 people; there is a single-user APT. The single-user APT can at maximum service four people an hour with 12-minute-occupation–2-minute-cleaning cycle. A health and hydrated person should be urinating once every hour, minimum. When it comes to the right to the city and the right for the public to gather and protest, one has to question the effectiveness of a single toilet. This is especially suspect as the City of Vancouver even states the inadequacy of placing an APT at busy SkyTrain stations (Broadway-Commercial) as it would have little effect on the need generated by the accumulation of pedestrians. This gesture indicates two possibilities: either the City of Vancouver needed to roll a new APT in schedule with their contract to CBS Decaux, or the APT is not for public gatherings but rather everyday life. The latter would indicate the City’s emphasis on “sanctioned” gatherings as those that can avoid the lawful lease of the plaza, and the rental of portable-toilets to facility their guests. This diminishes the impact of the North Plaza as a genuinely public gathering point for the public at large, not just those groups and organisation that can afford the cost and time of the permitting and organising process in the city.As for the detailed implementation and provisional standards of the actual APTs, the performance of the interior space is substandard. The APT as the North Plaza is the largest JC Decaux model, which achieves British Columbia’s accessibility code requirements, making it technically wheel-chair accessible. However, the time limitation alienates many wheelchair users who are prescribed bowel management programs, which can take anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour, the blind who would not be able to see signage while the pre-recorded audio instructions Figure 27 - Axonometric of North Plaza at Vancouver Art Gallery. Source Emily Scoular.4659are obscured by classical music and those with Irritable Bowel Disease and Crohn’s, who may suffer flare-ups of unknown lengths. In addition to alienating user-groups, APTs provide poor conditions for changing a baby’s diaper or one’s colostomy bag which requires a hot water supply, surface space and proper lighting.Pigeon ParkPigeon Park is one of two parks in the Downtown Eastside, and despite it being owned and operated by the Parks Board, the City of Vancouver has installed an APT on the site. This site is diverse as it is a local gathering spot for many residents of the neighbourhood, those who dwell in SROs, informally housed, and those who frequent nearby shelters. The APT’s installation is a direct response to the growing public safety and health concern of the area, one of the utmost importance in discussing the lack of public toilets in the urban context of Vancouver. Within proximity to Pigeon Park, there are only two 24-hour APTs that service twenty-two-hundred homeless in Vancouver with an increase to nearly five-thousand at peak hours.6 Compared to the North Plaza, the daily limitations of a single, or even two, APT is insufficient. Figure 28 - Automated Public Toilet at Pigeon Park, Vancouver. Source Google Earth, Emily Scoular.Urine and Fecal-Matter in AlleysInsufficiencies are noted by Vancouver Coastal Health in their 2016 report, Washroom Design and Monitoring7 and by the City of Vancouver in their action plan for the Downtown Eastside.8 They are not dissimilar to those that were mentioned in the case of the North Plaza, though the issues are specific to the homeless demographic in the failure of providing APTs in lieu of larger public facilities. Predominately the size of the APTs provided at in the DTES are smaller and are non-wheelchair accessible. As the two comfort stations in the DTES are underground, they are also non-wheelchair accessible. In both the reports by the Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority neglect to mention the abundant need for immediately accessible wheelchair washrooms in this area. This is especially the case as roughly thirty-three percent of the homeless population have a physical disability, while eighty-two percent of the homeless population have at least one health condition, which includes, addiction, 9 mental illness, physical disability, or a medical condition.  A growing public health concern in the DTES is the amount Hardware DesignEducation MaintenanceFigure 29 - Golden Triangle. Source Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.4861of fecal matter in alleyways. Human waste, fecal matter and urine, improperly disposed risks public safety at an infrastructural level by contaminating storm drainage, and immediate risk of contracting fecal-oral transmitted diseases, such as Hepatitis A.10 The risks posed by exposed human waste is not dissimilar to conditions that contributed to cholera at the beginning of the nineteenth century.11 Vancouver Coast Health promotes several strategies to promote better washroom health in the DTES, which are echoed by the city. Ultimately these can be summed up by what Clara Greed describes as the Golden Triangle of Toilet Provision. This includes Maintenance, regularly performed and checked by hired staff, Education; of the facility operators and maintenance crew and the public, and Hardware Design to ensure that the washroom is accessible and adequate for the full range of users.12Concluding PrinciplesEstablish a clean, well maintained, visible washroom that encourages use from all socio-economic statuses. This will alter the cultural belief held that washrooms are unsafe and nefarious. The following principles should ultimately redefine public opinion. Incentives should be in place for developments to include publicly-owned and operated washrooms throughout the downtown district, especially as CBS Decaux’s exclusive rights to APTs in Vancouver are up for renegotiation in five years, 2023. New policies should begin to be implemented, that incentify developers to work with community groups, designers and health authorities to design sensitive and sensible public washrooms. Funding models should be included in the policy, as maintenance funding in addition to the cost of construction is crucial for the success of public washrooms. Funding models should include optional revenue from BIAs and CACs as the inclusion of public washrooms is an asset to its surroundings. Site public washrooms should also be considered in District Level Toilet Location PrinciplesToilets in every market place, town square and centre.Toilets needed along main shopping streets.Toilets in every carpark over 50 parkingspaces.Toilets in every bus station and major district bus stops.Toilets in every parkprominently placedfacing on to main road.Figure 30 - District Level Toilet Location Principles. Source: Clara Greed, Emily Scoular.5063policy guidelines. Figure 30 is an example of Clara Greed’s inclusive urban design strategy. At the microscale the design features should include lighting and street visibility, bold and legible signage, open-air ground planes and adequate ventilation, wheelchair accessibility, ease of cleaning and maintenance, and gender inclusion. The overarching strategies of the public washroom as holistic, and humanising in nature. The above are best practices gleaned throughout contemporary literature on the subject and best established to move forward in design. The strategies would be best paired with community-based architectureNOTES1 Pavel Pospech, “Caution, Control and Consumption,” in Order and Conflict in Public Space, 1st ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), 102.2 Installation of 8 Automated Public Toilets, report, City of Vancouver, August 29, 2016, , https://council.vancouver.ca/20060912/documents/a10.pdf.3 John Mahoney, “Seattle’s Filthy, Prostitute-Ridden Automated Public Toilets Now Available on EBay,” Gizmodo, June 18, 2013, , accessed November 2018, https://gizmodo.com/5026332/seattles-filthy-prostitute-ridden-automated-public-toilets-now-available-on-ebay.4 Installation, report, City of Vancouver. Note:“Experience in San Francisco, and to a lesser extent in Seattle, indicates that in areas with social issues, the units are subject to misuse with regard to drugs/prostitution, and particularly with regard to vandalism.”5 11 Tobias Armborst et al., The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion (New York, NY: Actar, 2017).6 CITY OF VANCOUVER STREET FURNITURE AGREEMENT RFP NO. PS02004, report, City of Vancouver, July 20, 2016, , http://dtes.vch.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/VCH-DTES-Safe-Inclusive-Washrooms-Recommendations-Oct-2016.pdf.7 B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association and M. Thomson Consulting, 2017 Homeless Count in Metro Vancouver, (Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver, 2017),8 Washroom Design and Monitoring, report, Vancouver Coastal Health, October 2016, , http://dtes.vch.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/VCH-DTES-Safe-Inclusive-Washrooms-Recommendations-Oct-2016.pdf.9 Vancouver, City Of. “Toilet Accessibility in the Downtown Eastside (DTES).” City of Vancouver. July 30, 2012. Accessed September 2018. https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/toilet-accessibility-in-the-dtes.aspx.10 Not only does this concern the prevention of “misuse” and drug overdose but the digestive regularity of any addict as well. All opioids cause bowel irregularities, and Opioid Induced Constipation is extremely common. The availability of public washrooms eases pressure on the bowels of those who are constipated, who if stressed could cause further damage to anal cavity.11 Solving Public Urination: The Open Washroom Program, report, Langara College (2018), 6. Note: “Representatives of the City of Vancouver have acknowledged that they are concerned that a Hepatitis A outbreak could occur in Vancouver.”12 Clara Greed, Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets (London: Routledge, 2016), 37-39.13 “C. Greed, “The Role of the Public Toilet: Pathogen Transmitter or Health Facilitator?” Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 27, no. 2 (2006): 136.5265Part VI: PrecedentsPortland Loo (Victoria)Design Response to the Automated Public ToiletLocation: Portland, Oregon (Original), Victoria, British ColumbiaThe Portland Loo is a successful design response to the Automated Public Toilet. It features fixed-louvres for cross-ventilation, stainless steel interior and exterior finishes, automated cleaning that drains to the street, and an exterior hand wash station. The Portland Loo has been featured throughout North America; the Victoria installation won Toilet of the Year in a Canadian competition.Victoria Public Urinal Design Response to Public Urination in Nightlife District Designer: Matthew SoulesLocation: Victoria, British ColumbiaThe Victoria Public Urinal is a design response to a business district’s public urination problem. The 24-hour open-air urinal is situated in Victoria’s downtown night-life district. The design features an open powder-coated steel structure that’s centrifugal shape removes the necessity of a door while providing enough clearance from the ground level to know when it is occupied.   Whyte Street Public Washroom, Edmonton  Design Response to “Eyes on The Street”Designer: Shelterbelt ArchitectureLocation: Edmonton, AlbertaThis public washroom facility provides spaces for both genders that is open and increases the user visibility, increasing the safety of the building. This works as a literal reversal of the “eyes on the street” mentality that many public washrooms guidelines suggest. It also features two male urinals on the exterior of the building for men, eliminating the need to enter the building.  Wreck Beach Bathroom Facilities Design Response to Gatherings and Waste ManagementDesigner: Carscadden ArchitectsLocation: Vancouver, British ColumbiaThe facilities at Wreck Beach provide much needed public washrooms to the remote site. These washrooms combine Figure 31 - Illustration of Victoria Public Urinal. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 32 - Illustration of Portland Loo. Source Emily Scoular.5467ease of access, open-air ventilation and ground-plane, and pit-toilet technology. The pit-toilet technology provides an ecologically-friendly facility while eliminating the risk of human contaminants in a crowded gather space.Pop-UpDesign for Downtown Business Association of WinnipegDesigner: Bridgman Collaborative ArchitectureYear: 2017Location: Winnipeg, ManitobaCreated in partnership with Downtown Biz Winnipeg, this is a response to the city’s, and local businesses need for public washrooms. The program is shared with a kiosk selling water bottles and newspapers. As Canadian Architect notes, “Such a people-centred approach is distinct from automated self-cleaning washrooms and technically-driven tactics.”1432 Park AvenueDesigner: Rafael VinolyYear: 2015Location: New York City, NYThis luxury tower typology, the pencil tower, is a New York City speciality as it is unrestricted by building height regulations and community consultation. It was one of the slenderest buildings in the world at its construction date with a building height-to-width ratio of 15:1. The regularity of the architecture is simplified, yet the structure, marketing, and ambition are at the forefront of the tower typology.2 This pencil tower signifies a shift for the private market, as the form maximises a site’s building area while conceding for unprecedented views and grandeur, allowing for the units to be sold from $25m to $90m, original asking price.1 Bridgman, Win, and Rae St. Clair Bridgman. "A Public Calling." Canadian Architect. September 14, 2018. https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/a-public-toilets-calling/.2 Klaassen, Christiaan. “Positioning and Marketing a Skyscraper—432 Park Avenue.” Autodesk University. https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/Positioning-and-Marketing-Skyscraper-432-Park-Avenue-2016  Opposite Page from top to bottom:Figure 33 - Illustration of Wreck Beach Toilets. Source Emily Scoular.Figure 34 - Illustration of Pop-Up. Source Emily Scoular.POP-UPWINNIPEGPUBLIC TOILET5669Part VII - Site Proforma Taking what was learned throughout Part I to VI, I propose to establish a guideline and policy principles that would incorporate public washroom and other programmatic elements into the redevelopment process. The subsequent design will actively engage with neoliberal policies and factors, specifically the Community Amenity Contributions, DCLs (for street remediation), and Downtown Vancouver Business Association. By engaging these factors, a clearer and hopefully more democratic means of spatial production can occur, while financing remains within the realm of the private sector. By co-opting a bastardised variation of Vancouver’s current real estate model, one that exchanges rights to the limited production of architecture for public amenity, this project provides access to public space through the inclusive understanding of what it means for all to occupy otherwise privileged space within the City.SiteThe chosen site is the 1000 block of Granville and Seymour, Figure 35. Located within the Downtown District, and DVBIA, 1000 block of Granville and Seymour is the perfect mix of cultural and commercial activity and a vibrant socio-economic residential mix. It is at the south end of the Granville Street nightlife sector, within proximity to the Vogue Theatre, Venue, and the Orpheum, and borders Yaletown, a dense residential neighbourhood. 1000 Granville is home to two SROs, a boutique hotel, a hostel, and a social housing project for AIDs patients. The 1000 and 1100 block of Seymour has a mix of affordable and market rate high-rise housing. The existing buildings on the site are programmatic diverse and include heritage buildings, parking lots and buildings that have the potential for redevelopment. The existing site is also identified in Downtown District zoning as a site for potential live-work housing on Seymour Street. Figure 35 - Site Axonometric with existing program. Source: Emily Scoular.Comfort InnSamesum HostelFor LeaseA&WRegal HotelThe Granville StripVogue HotelNext!Rock ShopFor LeaseEasyParkFor LeaseFor LeaseImparkPenthouseStrip ClubImparkHelmcken HouseCity Owned Housing5871The 1000 Granville block is zoned for commercial, except for existing heritage SROs and affordable housing. Heritage designation protects these buildings. Several single and two-storey commercial buildings are vacant, which increases the potential for redevelopment. However, Granville street has strict zoning protecting the building heights, to protect the character of the street, making a redevelopment application less likely to be approved. This can be a potential for density-bonusing in exchange for amenities, whether that is vertical density, or extending storefronts to the alley, doubling potential leaseable commercial space on Granville Street. That said, the alley has a variety of existing setbacks and staggered building heights which allow for laneway-infill design opportunities. The 1000 block of Seymour, except for the City-owned apartment building, is below the current zoning, non-heritage, and reasonably valued, making it a candidate for redevelopment. The 900 Seymour block has already gone through a redevelopment stage, making the 1000 block’s transformation all the more inevitable. The Downtown District zoning identifies this section of Seymour as a site for potential live-work housing, meaning the potential for alley activation to include live-work studios enriches the site’s potential. Overall the likelihood of redevelopment and infill design will be beneficial to densify the block with public programs. Table 2 shows the cost of redevelopment (with DCLs included) in comparison with the necessary profits to be left as an investment holding for all sites with the potential for redevelopment. The minimum $/Sq. Ft. is the total necessary lease for each land parcel in order to maintain business in the current building. The overall cost per sq.ft. out paces the current retail standards across Vancouver, Figure 38. The most promising sites for redevelopment proposal are 1001-1055 Seymour Street.In Figure 39, the site the Granville Street side is restricted by the Granville Bridge viewcone, and the Seymour 12534Figure 36 - Site Redevelopment Prospectives and Targets. Source: Emily Scoular.6073Robson St. (Bute to Denman)Granville St. (Downtown)Alberni and Burrard South Granville St.Denman St.Davie St.West 4thWest 41stWest BroadwayMain St.Robson St. (Cambie to Howe)Robson St. (Hornby to Bute)100200300400500600North GranvilleSouth GranvilleSouth SeymourNorth Seymour$30,000,000$5,000,000$10,000,000$15,000,000$25,000,000$20,000,000Figure 37 - Total Property Value’s Geographic Relation. Source: Emily Scoular.Figure 38 - Regional Retail Lease Prices (Low in black, High outlined). Source: Emily Scoular.1082 Granville Street K2 3.5 3840 5450 13440 $333.95 $2,016,000.00 $1,764,000.00 $1,820,044.80Land Parcel Zoning FSRBuildableAreaLeasableArea Max Sq.Ft.Min.$/Sq.FtInvestment PropertyMinimum ProfitResidual Land ValueAfter DCL (mixed)Residual Land ValueAfter DCL (commercial)1076 Granville Street K2 3.5 6000 6000 21000 $473.97 $3,150,000.00 $2,756,250.00 $2,843,820.001068 Granville Street K2 3.5 3000 1925 10500 $738.65 $1,575,000.00 $1,378,125.00 $1,421,910.001050 Granville Street K2 3.5 6000 6001 21000 $473.89 $3,150,000.00 $2,756,250.00 $2,843,820.001026 Granville Street K2 3.5 5995.7 5189 20984.95 $547.66 $3,147,742.50 $2,754,274.69 $2,841,781.931020 Granville Street K2 3.5 3000 1900 10500 $748.37 $1,575,000.00 $1,378,125.00 $1,421,910.001018 Granville Street K2 3.5 6000 5000 21000 $568.76 $3,150,000.00 $2,756,250.00 $2,843,820.00654 Nelson Street K2 3.5 6000 8860 21000 $320.97 $3,150,000.00 $2,756,250.00 $2,843,820.001001 Seymour Street L1 3 12000 12000 36000 $406.26 $5,400,000.00 $4,725,000.00 $4,875,120.001019 Seymour Street L1 3 5995 10996 17985 $221.49 $2,697,750.00 $2,360,531.25 $2,435,528.701033 Seymour Street L1 3 3000 4239 9000 $287.52 $1,350,000.00 $1,181,250.00 $1,218,780.001035 Seymour Street L1 3 6000 6000 18000 $406.26 $2,700,000.00 $2,362,500.00 $2,437,560.001055 Seymour Street L1 3 3000 2689 9000 $453.25 $1,350,000.00 $1,181,250.00 $1,218,780.00Table 2 - Site Redevelopment Prospectives and Targets. Source: Emily Scoular.Street side is restricted only by the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone. This allows the Seymour Street side of the site the potential for higher buildings. The FSR for Granville Street is FSR 3.0 with a building height restriction of 90ft., while Seymour street is FSR 5. In Figure 40, the site proforma is tested as to what building form might make the best use of the site parameters. Taking the FSR and gross square footage, a financial model begins to develop, Table 3. This cost estimation is borrowed from Jay Wollenberg of Coriolis Consulting Corp. It takes into account the land value, developer fee, soft and hard costs, and levies to the city and region. The building form begins to be manipulated into a profitable form of architecture. Mimicking the financial modeling of typical developments, the outcome is situational to this project as one that still maximizes profit to cover costs but ultimately focuses on only a percentage of the gross square footage to be sold. This proforma produces a 312 metre tower, with 12 marketable parcels while providing 68 floors of accessible public washrooms.6275Figure 39 - Site Map with Viewcones. Source: Emily Scoular.6477Figure 40 - FSR Distribution. Source: Emily Scoular.6679Site Size 18,000 sq.ft.FSR 3.5Gross Building Area 138,000 sq.ft.Unit SizeTotal Units 12Unit Sale Price $10,000 per sq.ft.Commission Rate 5%Hard Costs $1,100 per sq.ft.per sq.ft of Gross Building AreaSoft Costs 15%of Hard Costs per unit on avg. of 50% of hard costs, soft costs and DCC's for first yearDCC's $10,000Interim Financing Rate 10%Profit Target 12.00%Gross Revenue $360,000,000less commission $18,000,000Net $342,000,000Hard Costs $224,400,000Soft Costs $33,660,000DCC's $120,000Subtotal $258,180,000Interim Financing $12,909,000Total Costs $342,000,000Land and Carry Cost $27,711,000SITE LAND COSTSFinance ModelingProfit $43,200,000$26,501,200.003,000 sq.ft.Table 3 - Cost Estimation of the Site. Source: Emily Scoular.6881Part VII: Pissing in PublicTaking what was learnt throughout my research, the design-phase shifted from focusing on the public washroom as a systematic solution-based design to an approach that exemplifies the reality of the existing systematic policy that hinders the production of an appropriate public realm. The resultant design is, as stated, no longer systematic nor solution-based but rather a direct result of the City of Vancouver’s own systematic solution-based policy around the public amenity’s that include the public washroom. The proposal’s original parameters are still in consideration as the site remains the same and the public washroom remains the primary focus. However, the public washroom’s role shifted from the site-specific, holistic form, to the maximised form of a pencil tower.The pencil tower typology is the most novel contemporary form of architecture within North American cities. It originates from New York City, as development sites are unprohibited by design councils and building regulations. Though this is not necessarily the case in Vancouver, the mentality of the unregulated building is not unfamiliar.  This project follows the natural line of production within Vancouver and is a critic of how amenity spaces are produced in singularity and without broader frameworks to contextualize the amendment. It is monstrous in conclusion, and exemplary of the City’s obsessions with growth, maximisation, and privately-funded public space. On that note, a variation of this project is a provocation of how we consider the role of the public realm with private development throughout the city, and that is treating the public in general inclusively and addressing local and specific needs of an area. A choreography of inclusion should be integrated into a design. So while this is monstrous in ambition, it still looks to address the needs of the public washroom through the lens of accessibility and inclusion.Figure 41 - Exterior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.7083The role of the public washroom exists as a byproduct of expansive yet latent neoliberal agendas: consumption-based citizenship, privatisation of public institutions, not limited to that of the health authorities, housing, and education, and fueled by an obsession with growth. Because of this, Citizenship within the city is reduced to a temporal occupation of the space within its boundaries, understood as a citizen’s claim to a variation of the city’s addresses. The power of such citizenship is limited to the power of productive participation. The result of which is a hybridised understanding of not only the role and right to public washrooms but the role and right to the city, and the collectives’ limited access to public-private space.By co-opting a bastardised variation of Vancouver’s current real estate model, one that exchanges rights to the limited production of architecture for public amenity, this project provides access to public space through the inclusive understanding of what it means for all to occupy otherwise privileged space within the City. The City of Vancouver’s history of public washrooms dates back to its founding. What initially started as a response to taming the frontier-township in anticipation of a booming metropolis quickly slows by wartime and further by postwar-suburban shifts. It is not until recent decades that the public washroom reemerges with equivalent relevancy, especially as the downtown population continues to grow, and inequality with it.Figure 42 - Isometeric. Source: Emily Scoular.7285Figure 43 - Night Render. Source: Emily Scoular.7487Figure 44 - Render from Queen Elizabeth Park. Source: Emily Scoular.7689L1P1P2P3P4L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13L14L15L16L17L18L19L20L21L22L23L24L25L26L27L28L29L30L31L32L33L34L35L36L37L38L39L40L41L42L43L44L45L46L47L48L49L50L51L52L53L54L55L56L57L58L59L60L61PH1PH2PH3PH4PH5PH6PH7PH8PH9PH10PH11PH12PrivateMech.PublicStaffThe right to the washroom has become even more volatile in recent years as the push for access has taken the forefront of political, institutional and even commercial debate. Specific to Metro Vancouver, the health concerns of our region have increased to a point where fecal-mouth diseases, such as diarrhea, and hepatitis are at a level not seen since the gilded age. When a quarter of our population will need some level of assistance as they reach advanced ages, and when the homeless population has increased steadily for nearly a decade, by a third in just the last three years.That said the City of Vancouver is in the most significant building boom of its history, and growth with it. It is at a stage of its evolution where the material makeup of the city is influenced by private-public partnerships, contractual agreements, and the financialisation of everyday life to provide a controlled supply of public amenity, and the public washroom is not excluded from this. The product of a contractual agreement with CBS Decaux, the public washroom is now disseminated throughout the city as silos of advertising, which react to their surroundings through exclusion and denial. In recent installations, the facilities inadequately provide for public gatherings, sanctioned or otherwise, ultimately leaving the facilities underutilised, unnoticed or underattended. This form of production mimics the broader mechanics of the city and its public realm as it interfaces with the private. Vancouver’s urban development is contingent on constant growth in real estate supply. Regulatory mandate stipulates contributions be made by private development in anticipation of growth to a neighbourhood. The result is a supply of public facilities amended to new construction.Figure 45 - Diagramatic Section. Source: Emily Scoular.7891Section across Robson StreetCommunity Amenity Contributions, as it is known, set out to exchange amenity space for rezoning of a site, increasing height restrictions or increasing Floor Space Ratio. It establishes the land of Vancouver and its zoning in an intrinsic system of exchange, rather than the typical use value associated with a more traditional occupant of properties, leaving the city and its planning always in flux. The result is an attempt to maximise land for the public, with focused efforts on providing an ever-narrowing field of public amenities, such as heritage conservation, affordable housing, and childcare facilities. Though noble these efforts are, they make little impact on the mounting insufficiencies that are symptomatic of this continual growth.The proposal is to reevaluate the Community Amenity Contribution to radically maximise the potential of the site for the public through the manipulation of traditional development practices. We began at the scale of the block. This sits at the literal intersections between the business and retail district of downtown, Granville Street North-West, and the residential neighbourhood of Yaletown, Seymour Street and South-East. It is unencumbered by restrictive view cones allowing for a height that is dictated by the North Shore Mountains. Figure 46 - Spliced Section. Source: Emily Scoular.8093Figure 47 - Site Plan. Source: Emily Scoular.8295Figure 48 - Typical Floor Plan for Public Washrooms. Source: Emily Scoular.Section across Robson Street8497The site block is dotted with heritage buildings and affordable housing eliminating them as redevelopment sites but which adds significant value as they have the potential for density transfers. This leaves us with five potential land parcels. As this intersecting of neighbours is present, a decision was made to remain dominant on the site and to create a central axis through the block. After examining the zoning and FSR of the site, the maximisation of the building form is tested. The forms range from the conventional to the more iconic. The final form, one that is suited for a narrow footprint while again maximising restrictions of the site, is the tower. This allows for the floor space ratio to be distributed to Seymour Street, which is unprohibited by view cones, and envelope restrictions while leaving the Granville street parcel to become an open plaza-- a rarity in the city. Taking the FSR and gross square footage, a financial model begins to develop. This takes into account the land value, developer fee, soft and hard costs, and levies to the city and region. The building form begins to be manipulated into a profitable form of architecture. Mimicking the financial modelling of typical developments, the outcome is situational to this project as one that still maximises profit to cover costs but ultimately focuses on only a percentage of the gross square footage to be sold. Figure 49 - Rendered Elevation. Source: Emily Scoular.8699This proforma produces a 312-metre tower, with 12 marketable parcels while providing 68 floors of accessible public washrooms. In total the structure supports 300 public toilets showers and unprohibited free space. Each washroom is equipped with a shower, a toilet, ample counter space and seating, power outlets, and two switchable windows which provide spectacular views of the city, free to and for the public. The space is designed in a way that produces a unique opportunity. The individual rooms follow the British Columbia Accessibility Guidelines to ensure that no person is excluded while taking into account local practitioner recommendations of fixtures that are usually excluded from the public washroom program. Joining the skyline as the tallest skyscraper in Canada, and the most slender in the world, it, is the world’s first true monument to contemporary life. With a height-to-width ratio of 26:1, the 312-metre tower rises to meet the divine North Shore Mountains, while a liberated public plaza in the heart of downtown Vancouver grounds the form within the vibrant, eclectic and existing public realm of the City. Figure 50 - Interior Lobby Render. Source: Emily Scoular.88101Figure 51 - Interior Lobby Render. Source: Emily Scoular.90103Figure 52 - Hallway Render. Source: Emily Scoular. Figure 53 - Hallway Render. Source: Emily Scoular.92105Figure 54 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.94The opportunity is finally here; to foster and to support a quality of life that draws on a past embedded in natural beauty to represent a future of social, environmental and cultural abundance. The design of any building should be a function of the particular constraints and characteristics of their city and its people, and n the case of this tower, the solution that we have arrived at is very much a direct response Vancouver’s challenges. The net result is a unique building typology that undoubtedly creates a more breathtaking skyline, inclusive public realm and is the most advanced form of real estate.107Figure 55 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular. Figure 56 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.96109Figure 57 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular. Figure 58 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.98111Figure 59 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular. Figure 60 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.00113Figure 62 - Exterior Render. Source: Emily ScoularFigure 61 - Interior Render. Source: Emily Scoular.02115Works Cited. Andrews, Margaret. “Sanitary Conveniences and the Retreat of the Frontier: Vancouver 1886-1926.” BC Studies 87 (August 1990): 3-22.Armborst, Tobias, Daniel D. Oca, Georgeen Theodore, and Riley Gold. The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion. New York, NY: Actar, 2017.Berelowitz, Lance. “For Sale The (Abridged) Story of Vancouver’s Development Community.” In Dream City, 95-125. Vancouver, B.C.: Douglas & McIntyre, 2005.Braedley, Susan, and Meg Luxton. Neoliberalism and Everyday Life. Montreal: MQUP, 2014.Bridgman, Win, and Rae St. Clair Bridgman. “A Public Calling.” Canadian Architect. September 14, 2018. Accessed December 8, 2018. https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/a-public-toilets-calling/.Chomsky, Noam, and Robert W. McChesney. Profit over People: Neoliberalism and the Global Order. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011.CITY OF VANCOUVER STREET FURNITURE AGREEMENT RFP NO. PS02004. Report. City of Vancouver. July 20, 2016. http://dtes.vch.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/VCH-DTES-Safe-Inclusive-Washrooms-Recommendations-Oct-2016.pdf. Comparative BIA Levies and Levy Rates 2018-2019. Report. City of Vancouver. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2018. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/bia-comparative-levies-and-rates.pdfEagleton-Pierce, Matthew. Neoliberalism: The Key Concepts. Routledge, 2016.Flanagan, Maureen. “Private Needs, Public Space: Public Toilets Provision in the Anglo-Atlantic Patriarchal City: London, Dublin, Toronto and Chicago.” Urban History 41, no. 02 (2013): 265-90.Gissen, David. Subnature: Architecture’s Other Environments. 1st ed. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009.Greed, C. “The Role of the Public Toilet: Pathogen Transmitter or Health Facilitator?” Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 27, no. 2 (2006): 127-39. doi:10.1191/0143624406bt151oa.Greed, Clara. Inclusive Urban Design: Public Toilets. London: Routledge, 2016.Harvey, David. “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 4 (December 2003): 939-41.Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Brantford, Ontario: W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2014.Installation of 8 Automated Public Toilets. Report. City of Vancouver. August 29, 2016. https://council.vancouver.ca/20060912/documents/a10.pdf.Kira, Alexander. The Bathroom. Toronto: 04117Bantam, 1977.Koolhaas, Rem. Rem Koolhaas: Elements of Architecture / Rem Koolhaas. Koln: Taschen, 2018.Mahoney, John. “Seattle’s Filthy, Prostitute-Ridden Automated Public Toilets Now Available on EBay.” Gizmodo. June 18, 2013. Accessed November 2018. https://gizmodo.com/5026332/seattles-filthy-prostitute-ridden-automated-public-toilets-now-available-on-ebay.McQuigge, Michelle. “Canada’s First National Accessibility Law Tabled in Ottawa.” CBC, June 18, 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/accessibility-act-duncan-1.4715491.N.O.P.E. “Art Worker’s Guide to Post-Olympic Chinatown and Downton Eastside.” The Capilano Review 3, no. 35 (June 2018): 73-82.Noren, Laura, and Harvey Molotch, eds. “Rest Stop: MIT’s Infinite Corridor, Now Shorter for Women.” In Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, 165-66.Peck, Jamie, Elliot Siemiatycki, and Elvin Wyly. “Vancouvers Suburban Involution.” City 18, no. 4-5 (2014): 386-415. doi:10.1080/13604813.2014.939464.Penner, Barbara. Bathroom. London: Reaktion Books, Limited, 2014.Plaskow, Judith. “Embodiment, Elimination, and the Role of Toilets in Struggles for Social Justice.” CrossCurrents 58, no. 1 (2008): 51-64. doi:10.1111/j.1939-3881.2008.00004.x.Pospech, Pavel. “Caution, Control and Consumption.” In Order and Conflict in Public Space. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.Rezoning & Community Amenity Contributions: Negotiating for a More Livable City. Report. City of Vancouver. Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver, 2011.Solving Public Urination: The Open Washroom Program. Report. Langara College. 2018.“Statement of Aims.” MPS. Accessed 2018. https://www.montpelerin.org/statement-of-aims/.Tracey, Liz. “The Rise and Fall of Pay Toilets.” JSTOR Daily. December 8, 2016. https://daily.jstor.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-pay-toilets/.Vancouver, City Of. “Toilet Accessibility in the Downtown Eastside (DTES).” City of Vancouver. July 30, 2012. Accessed September 2018. https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/toilet-accessibility-in-the-dtes.aspx.Vancouver, City Of. “Business Improvement Areas (BIAs).” City of Vancouver. February 22, 2017. Accessed 2018. https://vancouver.ca/doing-business/business-improvement-areas-bias.aspx.Vancouver, City Of. “Nominate a Site to the Heritage Register.” City of Vancouver. 06119July 25, 2018. Accessed December 8, 2018. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/nominate-a-site-to-the-heritage-register.aspx.Washroom Design and Monitoring. Report. Vancouver Coastal Health. October 2016. http://dtes.vch.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/VCH-DTES-Safe-Inclusive-Washrooms-Recommendations-Oct-2016.pdf.Additional Readings. Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The Human Condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Asen, Robert. 2017. “Neoliberalism, the Public Sphere, and a Public Good.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 103(4): 329-349.Aureli, Pier Vittorio. 2013a. The City as a Project. Berlin: Ruby Press.———. 2011. The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Aureli, Pier Vittorio and Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture. 2008. ---. The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and Against Capitalism. 1st ed. New York: Temple Hoyne BuellCenter for the Study of American Architecture.Bliska, Tom. “On Grounding: Between Public Utility and Public Space.” Lunch 12 (2017): 101-08.Boudreau, Julie-Anne, Roger Keil, and Douglas Young. 2009. Changing Toronto: Governing Urban Neoliberal-ism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Felber, Christian, Susan Nurmi, and Eric Maskin. 2015. Change Everything: Creating an Economy for the Common Good. London: Zed Books.Gregory, Derek and John Urry. 1985. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Harvey, David. 1992. “Capitalism: The Factory of Fragmentation.” New Perspectives Quarterly 9 (2): 42.———. 2018. “Realization Crises and the Transformation of Daily Life.” Space and Culture: 120633121878666.———. 1981. “The Spatial Fix - Hegel, Von Thunen, and Marx.” Antipode 13 (3): 1-12Haslam, Nick and Palgrave Social Sciences Collection. 2012. Psychology in the Bathroom. New York; Hound-mills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Hoagland, Alison K. 2018. The Bathroom: A Social History of Cleanliness and the Body. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood, An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC.Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley.Koolhaas, Rem. 2014. Fundamentals: 14th International Architecture Exhibition. First ed. Venice: Marsilio.Koolhaas, Rem, James Westcott, Ben Davis, Tom Avermaete, Rebecca Bego, Harvard University. GraduateSchool of Design, and AMO Izdatel skai a gruppa. 2014. Elements. Venice: Marsilio Editori Spa.Larson, Scott. 2009. “Vancouverism: Actualizing the Livable City Paradox.” Berkeley Planning Journal 22 (1):42-57.Lefebvre, Henri, Łukasz Stanek, Robert Bononno, and Project Muse University Press eBooks. 2014. Toward an Architecture of Enjoyment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Luis L M Aguiar. 2004. “Resisting Neoliberalism in Vancouver: An Uphill Struggle for Cleaners.” Social Justice 31 (3): 105-129.Montgomery, Charles. 2013. Happy City: Transforming our Lives through Urban Design. First ed. New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Punter, John. 2002. “Urban Design as Public Policy: Evaluating the Design Dimension of Vancouver’s Planning System.” International Planning Studies 7 (4): 265-282.Punter, John Vincent. 2004. The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Planning and Design. Vancouver: UBC Press.Sandercock, Leonie. 2005. “An Anatomy of Civic Ambition in Vancouver.” Harvard Design Magazine (22):36-43.Scott, James C. and JSTOR (Organization). 2005. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Self, Jack and Shumi Bose. 2014. Real Estates: Life without Debt. London: Bedford Press.Tirole, Jean, Steven Rendall, and EBSCOhost. 2017. Economics for the Common Good. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.Warner, Michael. 2002. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.Weinstein, Owen. “Civic Hydrants: A New Urban Water System.” Lunch 12 (2017): 101-08.08

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378573/manifest

Comment

Related Items