INCLUSIVE RESTROOM DESIGN GUIDE A Comprehensive Analysis of Inclusive & Gender Specific Restrooms in K-12 Schools Thank you to Saint Paul Public Schools for guidance in the design of inclusive restrooms and allowing access to survey students and staff for their opinions, which are critical in shaping the future of school restroom design, particularly: Tom Parent, AIA, LEEP AP, Facilities Director Angela Selb-Sack, Senior Project Manager, SPPS Andrew Crichton, Management Assistant, Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, SPPS Micheal J Thompson, Principal, Paul Schmitz, and students and staff at Johnson High School And Margaret Parsons, AIA, for encouraging me. CONTRIBUTORS CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE, INC. Heidi Neumueller, AIA, LEED AP, Senior Associate Dan DeVeau, Assoc. AIA Principal Investigator Investigator + Cuningham Group Architecture Research Consortium Director of Research Methodology Dustin Schipper Adam Wilbrecht, AIA, Chief Knowledge Officer Investigator + Graphics Cuningham Group Architecture Research Consortium Co-Chair Lali Shupare Paul Hutton, FAIA, Chief Sustainability Officer Graphics + Data Analysis Cuningham Group Architecture Research Consortium Co-Chair Amy Kalar, AIA, LEEP AP BD + C, EDAC Cuningham Group Architecture Research Consortium ©2020 Cuningham Group First Published December 2018 Updated December 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: BACKGROUND • ABSTRACT • HISTORY OF RESTROOMS: The Gender Segregated Issue • KEY DESIGN COMPONENTS OF INCLUSIVE RESTROOMS PART 2: UNDERSTANDING THE CODE • “E” OCCUPANCY • “A” OCCUPANCY • REACHING ALTERNATIVE CODE COMPLIANCE PART 3: POST-OCCUPANCY SURVEY ©2020 Cuningham Group First Published December 2018 Updated December 2020 PART 1 ABSTRACT The design of public restrooms has long been a contested territory for civil rights issues and policy debates of the time. Currently, segregated facilities, which were created to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender, are increasingly coming under scrutiny by the LGBTQ community, as they fail to recognize the non-binary nature of gender and create social difficulties for members of the transgender community. While ongoing conversations and laws continue to evolve at the state and federal levels, very little data regarding the implementation and logistics of inclusive bathrooms, or bathrooms which are non-gender specific, exist at the K-12 level. In much of the United States, school districts recognize the issue but do not have the information readily available to address it. The intent of this research is to provide a brief understanding of the pending 2021 ICC codes, which include both building (IBC) and plumbing (IPC) codes, which allow for inclusive restrooms and the implications for K-12 schools, and serve as a guide to obtaining approval of an alternative code-compliant design, using the key components of the design of inclusive restrooms, prior to the 2021 ICC codes’ adoption. (Note: the intent of the code compliance section of this research is to provide a case study, based on the 2015 Minnesota State Building Code, which incorporates the 2012 IBC and IPC. This research does not guarantee approval of the case study design by any particular building official.) In addition, this study includes a comprehensive analysis of gender specific and inclusive restrooms designed by Cuningham Group Architecture from 2012-2017 as well as enumerates key design components of inclusive restrooms. Lastly, this research includes data taken from a case study at Johnson High School in St. Paul, Minnesota, which includes a survey, administered to the students of Johnson High School who have been “living” with inclusive restrooms for the past two years to understand which elements of the design contribute most to their feelings of safety and security. Access to bathrooms is a basic human right. They matter and their design matters. While the programming and look of schools is dramatically changing, bathroom design has remained largely the same. It is time to rethink the design of bathrooms to be inclusive, for everyone. ©2020 Cuningham Group First Published December 2018 Updated December 2020 o°»ÅÐo°Ú»î°ooîÅîÅÅo°»ÅÐoî !"$%&&'()0 ° 1 23 4 5 67 8 695 3 9A 6B C 7 A 9D 5 EF9A 7 68 4 5 2G8 FB 6H 8 92I 5 P 562B4QRB9A 5 4 C S 8 92B 3 8 EET 8 3 4 GB S 28 EETUV E8 6H 23 7 ETQB C 6G9C 4 T GABD 54RB9A ¢ P A T G2S 8 E8 3 4 5 H B 92B 3 8 E4 8 H 8 7 5 4 B 3 5 9B G9C 4 5 3 9G23 9A5G576845GU W3 9A 2GG5 S 92B 3 QD 5 X 6G95 Y 8 H 23 5 5 Y P 5 625 3 S 5 GB FA 8 68GGH 53 983 4 8 GG8 C E923 7 5 3 5 68 EU` 8 95 6D 5 EB B a H B 65 S EB G5 ET 8 9A 868GGH 539834 8 GG8 C E9S B H H 2995 4 R T b cd e fhci p e q chI 5 6GC G9A 8 9S B H H 2995 4 R T ce r sd e fhUt 29A 23 5 8 S A B F9A 5 G5 G5 9GQD 5 D 2EEFC 69A 5 6GC R 4 2I 24 5 B C 6 ¡ X 3 4 23 7 GR T u v A 8 68 GGH 5 3 98 3 4 R C EET 23 7 Qw v P A T G2S 8 E8GG8CE9Q834 x v G5 Y C 8 E8 GG8 C E9Uy A 6B C 7 A B C 9D 5 D 2EE65 P B 69B 3 9A 5 G55YP56253S5G 9A 6B C 7 A 9A 5 E5 3 G5 GB F68 S 5 Q7 5 3 4 5 624 5 3 929TQ8 3 4 65 7 2B 3 U PART 1 HISTORY OF RESTROOMS: THE GENDER SEGREGATED ISSUE £¤¥¤¦¦§¨ ©ª«¦¬­¤®¯¦¦¤°®±§¨ ²§³°¤®¯¦¦¤°®±§¨ ´³µ§®®§¨ 5 I 5 3 9T 5 27 A 9P 5 6S 5 3 9 d e f v B F9A 5 u Qe d g 65 GP B 3 4 5 3 9GD A B 5YP65GG5489683G7534562453929TB67534563B3SB3FB 6H 29T 23 The design of public restrooms has long been a contested territory for civil rights issues and policy debates of the time. A century 7 68 4 5 G1 u w 65 P B 695 4 A 8 68 GGH 5 3 9R T G9C 4 5 3 9GQ95 8 S A 5 6GB 6G98 h U and a half ago, only the wealthy had access to private in-home toilets (Transgender Law Center 2005). The rest of the population i 83TBF9A5G9C4539G5YP56253S54I2BE53S5239A5FB6H B FP A T G2S 8 E relied primarily on chamber °¶·î pots and unhygienic public restrooms. After a cholera epidemic during the Civil War, people began to 8 GG8 C E9R T 5 29A 5 68 P 5 5 6B 695 8 S A 5 6j G98 h H 5 H R 5 6 x k f v B 6G5 Y C 8 E re-evaluate public sanitation policies, and the provision of public restrooms became commonplace (Ball 2015). Perhaps the most vivid restroom civil rights battle in the United States’ cultural consciousness is that of the Jim Crow era in response to separation of 8 GG8 C E9 u w f v U 2Y P 5 6S 5 3 9 g f v 65 P B 695 4 5 Y P C EG2B 3 4 C 5 9B 9A 5 26 ÂÀÀ facilities¿À by race. Another prominent civil rights victory impacting¹½º restroom accessibility was the Americans with Disabilities Act. 7534562453929Tj5YP65GG2B3U However,¸¹º the civil rights victory that has the most impact¹Àº on this study can be traced back to 1887 Massachusetts state law that ¹À went into place mandating¸¼º sex-segregated public¸¼º restroom facilities. This was viewed as a progressive measure at the time, as women¸À were beginning to enter the workforce and often faced discrimination in workplace restroom availability (Miller 2016). l mnm00o %(& ½¹º ÃÀ ¾¿º yA565D5656572B38EI862892B3Gp These½À gender segregated facilities, which were created to prevent¾½º discrimination on the basis of gender, are increasingly being d bfc r cefsr e Á¹º scrutinizedÁ½º by the LGBTQ community, as they fail to recognize the non-binary nature of gender and create social difficulties for G9C 4 5 3 9G23 9A 5 B C 9A 3 B 95 4 ¾À ÁÁº Á¾º members of the transgender community.¼¹º ¼¿º b i cq d dhsdbb ÁÀ ¼¾º A 27 A 5 6E5 I 5 EGB FA 8 68 GGH 5 3 9 ¹º ¸º ½º er q fe se ! qcd fer ch ¼À ¼º 8 3 4 I 2B E5 3 S 5 Uq 5 3 4 5 6 Population studies estimate that between 0.5%¹º and 2%ÂÀº of the population have strong feelings of being transgender, and 2453 929Tj5YP 65GG2B3 D 8G8EGB qbs"ef#$deihir thatÂÀ at least 0.5% of the population has taken some steps toward transitioning their gender (Gates 2011). In one of the most S E5 8 6ET 8 F8 S 9B 6p9A B G5 D A B comprehensiveÀ surveys of the United States’ transgender population, a notably high rate of discrimination was reported in a hb fcb pbs%&' rq variety ofÄ Å Æsettings ÇÈ ÉÉ ÍË ÆÇÎÏÈÐand forms.ÍÓÎÈÐ 78% ÔÉÈÏÕof transgender ÖÈ×ÎÐØÙÈ people Ú ÛÎ×Æ reported Ü ÝÉ×ÎÇÈÏÎÈÉ being harassed at school by students, teachers or staff, while 8659683G753456H 539B48T 35% reportedÊÈË ÌÉÆ beingÑÐÒÎÈÐ physically assaulted and 41% reported attempting suicide at some point in their life (Figure 1). 65 P B 695 4 8 S B 3 G24 5 68 R ET A 27 A 5 6 p"eq b b q e (r q chbi ÞÈÇÈÓÓÆÒ ßÛàÓ ÎÏ È ÉÍ Ó Ó È Ý É×Æ Ò ÊÆáÝÈÉÍÓÓÈÝÉ×ÆÒ F65 r C 5 3 S T B FA 8 68 GGH 5 3 98 3 4 d efe)b f&0 is"qr #)1 R C EET 23 7 9A 8 3 9A B G5 D A B 8 65 Additionally, “Respondents in all educational settings also reported denial of access to essential gender-appropriate facilities, such 968 3 G7 5 3 4 5 6D B H 5 3 9B 4 8 TU as bathrooms (26%)” (Grant, et al.