ON A LONG WAY - The journey towards an alternative Autobahn restroom by Samira Müller

ON A LONG WAY

THE JOURNEY TOWARDS AN ALTERNATIVE AUTOBAHN RESTROOM

SAMIRA ISABELLE MÜLLER - 0917880 MASTER INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH AND DESIGN - MIARD SUPERVISOR: MARTA ROY TORRECILLA, FÜSUN TÜRETKEN, MAX BRUINSMA

THANK YOU TO ... ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORTED ME DURING THIS MASTER THESIS. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR INSPIRATIONS, TIME, CARE AND ADVICE.

Imprint ÂŠ On a long Way 2017 All rights reserved No parts of this book may be reproduced or stored in any written, electronic, recording, or photocopying form without a prior written permission of the author. Samira Isabelle MĂźller samira.i.mueller@web.de

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 METHODOLOGY

THE HISTORYOF THE PUBLIC RESTROOM AND HYGIENIC BEHAVIOR

PUBLIC RESTROOMS ON THE A81 IN GERMANY

23 23 25 27 37 49

BALANCING THE COLLECTIVE AND THE INDIVIDUAL DURING A FORMLESS ACT

THE ISSUES WE ENCOUNTER WITHIN AN AUTOBAHN RESTROOM

6.1 SITE ITSELF 6.2 MAINTENANCE 6.3 PRIVACY AND PUBLIC 6.4 GENDER,SYMBOLISM, DISCRIMINATION AND HYRARCHY 6.5 HYGIENE AND HEALTH 6.6 MULTICULTURALISM AND HABITS 6.7 CRIME, VANDALISM AND SAFETY 6.8 DISCIPLINARY DESIGN 6.9 OVERALL SOCIETAL SYSTEM

66 67 69 71 73 75 76 77 79

IMAGINING RESTROOMS THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES

THE ALTERNATIVE RESTROOM

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

THE A81 BUILDING HISTORY PLACEMENTS AND FLOORPLANS CABIN TYPES EXAMPLES OF THE 16 DIFFERENT STOPS

9 CONCLUSION

10 REFERENCES

104

105

REFERENCES OF FIGURES

1 INTRODUCTION

04 Autobahn restrooms are designed only from the public point of view of a non-personal collective – the provider. The configuration of the space already anticipates uncivilized behavior from the individual, which creates a prison like environment. By minimizing its effects, the spaces punish all users. What is meant for prevention however sometimes can have the opposite effect. Further the spaces do not allow for flexibility of needs. I am fascinated by this powerful negative stigma which Kira (1976, p. 100) describes as the ‘absolute fascination and curiosity people have about the subject in spite of their horror of it’.

Interior architects predominantly focus on shops and the like in designing public spaces. This means that attention to design is neglected in other spaces, yet they are important, like public restrooms on the Autobahn - focusing on the A81 in South-West Germany. A small cabin on the side of the highway which everyone driving through Germany will encounter at some point, but due to obvious and unobvious reasons nobody finds appealing. My personal interest in interior architecture has always been the fulfillment of user’s needs. I want to make designs for humans, since for me design exists for people who have needs beyond physical necessities. I argue, that spacial design should reflect individuals and societies in user adapted environments. The urgency of dealing with Autobahn restrooms comes from the disconnect of social realities and physical design. My point of departure therefore is, why such an important place of primordial need, is largely configured so unsuitably, in societal and individual respect? And consequently, how can it be changed? As defecation is crucial to everyone, I argue restrooms should be designed for everyone – not the opposite!

While the appearance of public restrooms has changed; the institution of the public restroom did not. The invisible overall design system consisting of objects and interpersonal relationships needs to be revisited to create a new design (Burckhardt, 1981). This theoretical work is composed of a historical analysis of hygienic behavior and Autobahn restrooms, further an analysis of its spacial configuration today. Thereupon it is an investigation of collective and individual issues. Ultimately, I am proposing an alternative design.

2 METHODOLOGY

My work started with historical research through literature, answering how these spaces came into existence and why they are configurated the way they are today. I then analyzed the spacial issues under different lenses. For this, I firstly did literature research. Secondly, I performed an empirical, qualitative field research along the highway ‘A81’ in Germany. I wrote a road diary, observed and documented places, analyzed and typified them. Beyond that, I conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with users and the institutions, owning and maintaining these restrooms. Further, I conducted an online survey to gain more insight in different perceptions. My research is summarized in a categorized ‘issue analysis’ which is the base for my design. From this analysis, I created a set of exaggerated designs, in which I solely focus on one category of issues in order to make it more evident and to gain inspiration for different points of view. Deriving from these designs I filtered ideas for the final design, an alternative Autobahn restroom for today.

3 THE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC RESTROOM AND HYGIENIC BEHAVIOR There are theories stating that civilization did not begin with the advent of writing, but with the first toilet: waste control allowed stopping nomadism and settling down. Following, the history of the toilet goes back to the times people started building settlements (Hudson, 2008). Each ancient culture had different toilet habits and it would go far beyond the scope of this work to describe all of them. There were those like the Trojans, the Vikings, the German tribes or the Ancient Greeks for whom sanitation was no priority and defecation just took place wherever it pleased them (Horan, 1997). Others like the Hebrews, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Minoans, Etruscans or Romans valued sanitation.

FIGURE 01:

PHOTO OF AN ANCIENT LATRINE IN ROME

Ancient Rome (753 B.C. to 350 A.D.) in this case was quiet progressive as they inherited a sewage system from the Etruscans and public latrines existed all around the city. The spaces could be used by various people at once. Using it was a social act and it was part of the public life. In his book â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Cleanliness and Godlinessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Reynolds (1976, 1946) argues that neglecting sanitation contributed to the fall of the Roman empire and within its decline, civilizing achievement in regards to the toilet were lost for centuries (Furrer, 2004).

09 In medieval times, there was a differentiation of sanitary behavior between the folk, nobles and clergy.In medieval cities private latrines were uncommon, public latrines existed on the side of alleys (Horan, 1997) or on bridges. The latrine cabins consisted of a wooden seating surface with a lid. For cleaning, people used cloth or straw. Excrements either fell on the street, into cesspits or into drinking water (Koolhaas et al., 2014). The muddy streets were home to animal carcasses, rubbish and human excrement. During a series of epidemics during the years 1348 to 1350 and 1417 to 1500, one third of the European population died caused by their unsanitary behavior (Horan, 1997). The nobles within their castles used the so called ‘garderobe’ (resembling a dressing room) located near fireplaces to be warm. They were small alcoves with a chute in the bottom, having a wooden seat but no door (Horan, 1997). They were sociable places, however there was already a decency with sight illustrating the first concept of privacy. Even though Christianity did not allow excessive sanitation as it was seen as a luxury, medieval monasteries were the cleanest places with proper water clearance (Wright, 2000). Further the tight monasticism demanded a sanitary discipline. Abbeys were built beside a stream which ran through their latrines washing away the feces. FIGURE 02:

REPRESENTATION OF A MEDIEVAL LATRINE WITH CESSPIT. UNDER THE CURIOUS GAZE A MAN IS DEFECATING INTO A CESSPIT. ABOVE HIM THE ACTUAL LATRINE.

FIGURE 03: GARDEROBE IN MEDIEVAL CASTLE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR

As roads were paved at the end of the Middle Ages the dung didn’t disappear at all from the streets (Furrer, 2004). People were encouraged to use latrines with cesspits but it stayed unheard. Convenience ruled the day, not health concern (Horan, 1997).

FIGURE 04:

SEWAGE DIAGRAM OF CHRISTCHRUCH MONASTERY, IN CANTERBURY IN 1167

FIGURE 05:

„THE DUTCH PROVERBS“ PAINTING OF PIETER BRUEGEL THE ELDER (1559) ILLUSTRATING RENAISSANCE HYGIENIC CONDITIONS

12 FIGURE 06: „LA TOILETTE INTIME“ PAINTING OF FRANCOIS BOUCHER IN 1760 OF AN ARISTOCRATIC WOMAN USING THE „CHAIR OF AFFAIRS“

The period of enlightenment did not much enlighten the restroom. Even though the ‘garderobe’ still existed, it became mostly replaced by a stool, popular among the rich (Wright, 2000). Among common people chamber pots were the norm. The content was collected and emptied on the streets. It was a filthy unhygienic environment and must have stunk horribly. In absolutistic France the ‘toilette’ of the king was a whole ceremony, a demonstration of power which took place in front of other royals (Horan, 1997).However, as Versailles did not even have one toilet, it became known as the filthiest palace in the world as royals were just urinating behind the tapestry. Nature’s call took place right within receptions, so aristocracy used to move from room to room in consequence of the ‘change of air’ (Furrer, 2004).

FIGURE 07:

CHAMBER POT HIDDEN WITHIN A „PILE OF BOOKS“

13 The precursor of the water closet, ‘the Ajax,’ was invented in 1592, but not taken further due to its malfunction, the scarcity of water systems and the unwillingness of changing habits. In 1775 Cummings designed the first water closet, based on ‘the Ajax’ and the first primitive water closets were installed, becoming an indicator of civility and progress (Horan, 1997). Victorian England (1837-1901) changed the way the toilet was seen: the Queen’s life and morals became a model for the citizens (Horan, 1997). They saw the body as something pure, which completely broke with the natural attitudes (Penner, 2013). A sense of shame towards the bodily functions evolved, demanding absolute privacy during the act. This opened a new market: Toilets were decorated nicely to overcome the feeling of shame and make dirt less visible (Penner, 2013), further the use of porcelain evolved for better cleanability (McMurty, 2012). Simultaneously the effect of the privatization of the act of defecation, combined with the decorated interior, led public toilets to become a popular venue for gays and criminals.

New social reforms matched the intolerance of filth and despite the clean Victorian soul, the streets were filthy. It called the government for a healthier environment, also due to epidemics, sanitation improvements needed to start (Horan, 1997). As a result of this, gender division emerged (McMurty, 2012). Physical differences between genders had just been a matter of folklore, theology and philosophy before. In the 19th century they started to matter. The differentiations were stressed and hierarchies evolved. The segregation between sexes developed to protect from disease and for woman’s interest in privacy and social morality. (Kogan, 2016). Canals were constructed on the riverside which led the sewage into the Thames. Within a decade London became the cleanest city of Europe. At the same time, in 1857 toilet paper was introduced (Furrer, 2004).Ironically water closets were responsible for the pollution of the Thames and made the modern sewer system a necessity: The cleanliness was short, as the polluted stream water led 1858 become the most stinky summer-“The Great Stink” (Koolhaas et al., 2014).While there was a sewer system in upper class neighborhoods and the number of indoor water closets was increasing, the middle class still had their common privy. Within the housings of lower class workers, toilets were not even on the construction plan, so inhabitants were forced to use the backyard or the street (Engels, 2017). Until plumbing was not fully evolved everywhere, further epidemies happened. In 1861 the disease of Prince Albert reinforced the sanitation reform all around London (Horan, 1997). By 1872, London had a proper sewage system. Robert Koch’s discovery of the tuberculosis bacteria confirmed the necessary public health reforms.

FIGURE 08:

EXAMPLE OF A DECORATED VICTORIAN STYLE TOILET

FIGURE 09:

ILLUSTRATION OF ‚THE AJAX‘ INVENTED BY SIR JOHN HARINGTON IN 1592

FIGURE 11:

FIGURE 10:

ILLUSTRATION OF THE FIRST WATER CLOSET DESIGNED BY A.CUMMINGS IN 1775

CARICATURE OF „THE GREAT STINK“ IN WHICH SCIENTIST MICHAEL FARADAY GIVES HIS CARD TO FATHER THAMES IN HOPE TO BE CONSULTED

Through diseases, the improvement of the toilet as functional object, and lower production costs, people were disciplined to hygiene and the public acceptance of the toilet was enforced. (Furrer, 2004) By the end of the century all ingredients of a fully functional toilet were developed and embedded within architecture and urban design. While the toilet was in everyone’s mind, feces were flushed out of sight. Through this, the relationship towards defecation changed again and shame was replaced by disgust.

TOILET + WATERFLUSH + SPACE

FIGURE 12-16: ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE 5 ELEMENTS OF A FULL FUNCTIONING TOILET

+ TOILETPAPER + SEWAGE =

5 ELEMENTS OF A FULL FUNCTIONING TOILET

FIGURE 17:

LAVATORIES AND WORK SINKS FROM ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHIC STANDARDS IN 1955

18 For decades nothing replaced the artful Victorian-toilets, however already in 1863 white surfaces began to denote cleanliness (Penner, 2013). Also, bathroom fittings were used to help articulate modernist values like ‘form follows function’. Muthesius identified the bathroom as the place where ‘Form has evolved exclusively out of purpose’ (Muthesius et al., 2007). He articulated that a ‘truly modern’ bathroom was a piece of scientific apparatus featuring laboratory aesthetic with a non-porous and easily wiped surface (Penner, 2013). The restroom became a subject to tight, external forces and regulations, the design became marginal. Even the Bauhaus school used standard fixtures which were modified in size, material and color (Fuller and Meller, 1972). Restrooms were designed to be cost-effective, space-efficient, cleanable and hard-wearing. Architectural bibles like the ‘Neufert’ and the ‘Measure of Man’ established a standardization of users. A self-fulfilling cycle was set into motion: the more external forces shaped the bathrooms, the less actively architects were engaging, relying instead on regulations and handbooks. Without noticing, architects and designers had gradually ceded control over restrooms (Penner, 2013).

FIGURE 18:

COVER OF THE 1ST EDITION OF „THE NEUFERT - ARCHITECTS DATA“ FROM 1936

FIGURE 19:

COVER OF „THE MEASURE OF MAN“ 1ST EDITION FROM 1959

FIGURE 20:

MAN IN WHEELCHAIR AND YOUNG GIRL USING A SIZE APPROPRIATE SINK (1986)

FIGURE 21:

COVER OF ALEXANDER KIRA‘S CRITICAL BOOK „THE BATHROOM“ (1966)

In the 1960s a liberal attitude towards body and sex was developed, however the toilet remained a taboo. Restroom design was predominantly about efficiency. Alexander Kira published a critical book about this condition. He acknowledged the needs of different users by age, sex and physical abilities and in regards to the civil rights movement, discriminated groups demanding equality. He aimed for the creation of an inclusive bathroom that did not exclude by design. By 1970 needs for people with disabilities gained increased recognition and non-standard users became part of the design at last. However it included a wider range of health conditions and physical abilities and the inclusive bathroom somehow became a universal bathroom (Penner, 2013).

FIGURE 22:

ILLUSTRATIONS FROM KIRAâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;S BOOK ON STUDIES OF DIFFERENT BODY POSTURES DURING DEFECATION

FIGURE 23:

WOMAN EXPLAINING A JAPANESE COMPUTER TOILET

FIGURE 24:

SCREENSHOT OF A ‚POOP CALENDER‘ OF A JAPANESE TOILET IN WHICH THE CONSISTENCY OF THE EXCREMENTS IS DOCUMENTED

The beginning of the 21st century might mark the end of the toilet we are familiar with. Mechanical toilets were introduced in the 1980s in Japan and are standard there today: Automatic lid, different flushes, bidet and music are some of its features. Besides, now that hygiene is less of a problem, there has been a shift of focus from basic hygiene to general health-concern: The toilet becomes an object scrutinizing all body functions. Slowly those computer toilets also arrive in Europe. Further we are aware of individual and collective toilet-issues and the institution of the toilet needs to change (Koolhaas et al., 2014).

4 PUBLIC RESTROOMS ON THE A81 IN GERMANY 4.1 THE A81 The ‘Bundesautobahn 81’ (Federal Highway 81), shortly ‘A81’ in South-West Germany leads through the federal state of Baden-Württemberg and a part of the state of Bavaria. It has a length of 276 km and is divided into three parts: From Würzburg to Heilbronn in the North, Heilbronn to Stuttgart in the center and Stuttgart to Singen in the South. The part between Stuttgart and Heilbronn was the first part, built between 1938 and 1940 while the segment between Heilbronn and Würzburg was realized during the 1970s. The latest part is the one between Stuttgart and Singen through the Black Forest connecting Southern Germany with Switzerland.

FIGURE 25:

MAP OF GERMANY HIGHLIGHTING THE A81

FIGURE 26:

PHOTO OF THE BUILDING OF THE AUTOBAHN (1938)

FIGURE 27:

PHOTO OF THE ‚RASTHAUS AM CHIEMSEE‘ (1938), ILLUSTRATING THE EXTERIOR OF A HISTORIC STOP

FIGURE 28:

PHOTO OF THE ‚RASTHAUS AM CHIEMSEE‘ (1938), ILLUSTRATING THE INTERIOR OF A HISTORIC STOP

4.2 BUILDING HISTORY The history of the public restrooms along the A81 aligns with the history of the Autobahn itself, starting in the 1930s. Undoubtedly the German National Socialist (Nazi) regime enforced the building of the ‘Reichskraftfahrbahn’, using the former democratic government’s plans of the Weimar Republic. Several aspects as the high driving speed, a frictionless traffic flow and direct connection between the economic centers played a role. In sum: the efficiency of the transport-facilities was most important.One of the most publicized presets within the building of the Autobahn was the harmonic inclusion of the highway within the landscape. The aim was to create a seamless merging between technology and nature with the aim of giving the ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ of the Autobahn an enduring cultural character. Drivers should experience the beauty of the German landscape. The visual aesthetics of the Autobahn were part of the Nazi propaganda. Following, it had to be flawless (Noßke, 2008b). Not only the road, but also roadhouses with restrooms were planned under this concept. At the beginning, there were only few roadhouses planned. They were designed to look like farmsteads, representing rural Germany. All of them were resting stops with small restaurants and gas stations. The restrooms were only a necessary part of it, typology wise like every other restroom back then (Johannes and Wölki, 2005). The stops were located at scenic viewpoints, embedded harmonically into the landscape within distances of 150 to 200 km - at the start nobody thought of a high demand. (Noßke, 2008a)

FIGURE 29: PHOTO OF A SEPERATED SMALLER GAS STATION HALT

26 However as more and more people became mobile in the decades after WW II, the greater need for more stops along the highway became evident. In the 1950s a wave of mobility started and stops had to be ten times as big as before. Further smaller stops were erected within smaller distances and a functional separation between gas station, roadhouse and restroom took place. The first separated restroom stops had the same set-up as today. However, in their design they stayed like they were before, within the restaurant. Unfortunately, as there was no constant supervision places became littered, destructed and unpleasant very quickly (Johannes and Wölki, 2005). This lead to a modernization in the 1980s, to prevent vandalism in the future, which led to a change within the design of Autobahn restrooms from a standard contemporary cabin to today’s prison-like cell. Today not much remains of the harmonic merging between nature and technology and people still process their frustration in ruthless behavior within the cabin.

FIGURE 30:

NAZI ADVERTISEMENT POSTER OF THE AUTOBAHN AS A ‚GESAMTKUNSTWERK‘ HIGHLIGHTING THE MERGING BETWEEN NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY

WÜRZBURG HOLZSPITE OST/ WEST 33 KM TYPE A

HEILBRONN KÄLBLING OST/ WEST 59 KM TYPE A

STUTTGART

ENGELBERG/ GERLINGER HÖHE 95 KM TYPE A ZIEGLER/ GEYERN 136 KM TYPE B NECKERBLICK/ HIRTENHAUSEN 147 KM TYPE C HASENRAIN OST/ WEST 165 KM TYPE C ESCHACHTAL OST/ WEST 189 KM TYPE C

SINGEN

FIGURE 31:

MAP OF THE A81 ILLUSTRATING TOILETS IN BEIGE, PARKING STOPS IN BLUE AND GAS-STATIONS WITH RESTAURANTS IN GREEN

RÄTISGRABEN/ UNTERHÖLZER WALD 212 KM TYPE D/E

4.3 PLACEMENTS AND FLOORPLAN In total, there are 34 stops along the A81, always one on each side of the highway. Nineteen of them are parking-stops. Seven are halts including gas-stations and restaurants, where one must pay to go to the toilet. These spaces are owned by the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Sanifairâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; company, a German company. Overall, there are sixteen restroom-stops, always only accessible from one side and surrounded by a metal fence. There is an area where you can park, a picnic area and a restroom cabin within the center of the space. All halts are surrounded by nature, either forest or fields. The distance between these spaces differs between 10 to 40 km. There are two types of floorplans. One layout is represented fourteen times, one twice. The first is parallel to the highway. In the second, one leaves the road driving into a separate area within nature, so that only the curbed sound of cars is perceivable.

FIELDS/ FOREST

FIGURE 32:

FENCE

PARKING

RESTROOM

PICKNICK AREA

AUTOBAHN

LAYOUT OF THE SPACIAL SET-UP WHICH IS REPRESENTED FOURTEEN TIMES

30 FIGURE 33:

FIELDS/ FOREST

RESTROOM

PICKNICK AREA

LAYOUT OF THE SET-UP WHICH IS REPRESENTED TWO TIMES

DRIVE IN/ OUT AUTOBAHN

HILL

PARKING

FENCE

31 FIGURE 34:

PHOTO OF THE STOP ‚SINDELFINGER WALD‘ AS AN EXEMPLATORY GAS-STATION WITH RESTROOM STOP WHERE ONE HAS TO PAY TO USE THE TOILET

33 FIGURE 35:

PHOTO OF THE INTERIOR OF A ‚SANIFAIR TOILET‘ WITHIN THE GAS-STATION AND RESTAURANT

35 FIGURE 36:

PHOTO OF THE PARKING STOP ‚SULZRAIN‘ AS AN EXEMPLATORY PARKING STOP

4.4 CABIN TYPES Along the A81 there are five different types of restroom-cabins, all property of the federal state of Baden-Württemberg. They are designed by the company ‘marbeton GmbH WC Systeme’, that advertises their products as ‘user proof’ and ‘fulfilling all requirements in its function’ (marketing et al., 2015). All restrooms are maintained and cleaned twice a day by the ‘Straßenbauverwaltung Baden-Württemberg’ and by the ‘Gebäudeservice PICOBELLO’. In between the spaces are left to the user.

FIGURE 37:

SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF A STANDARD RESTROOM ON THE A81

39 TYPE A This type is placed six times along the A81. It is a simple cabin with a male restroom on one side, a technology- storage space in the middle and a female restroom space on the other side. The male restroom is divided by one stall. The first section houses two urinals and a sink. The second a toilet and a sink, also suitable for disabled. The womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s restroom is a mirrored version of the menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s however instead of the urinals having another smaller stall. The whole space is designed with brick, white tiles, metal facilities and metal bars as a ceiling. Through the roof the only natural light enters. Having one ventilation system, there is only a visual boundary between users. At night, spaces are illuminated with fluorescent lamps.

FIGURE 38-41: PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF RESTROOM TYPE A

MEN HANDICAPPED TOILET

TECHNOLOGY STORAGE

MEN URNIALS

WOMEN HANDICAPPED TOILET

WOMEN TOILET

WOMEN SINK MEN SINK

FIGURE 42:

FLOORPLAN OF RESTROOM TYPE A

URINALS

TOILET

TECHNOLOGY STORAGE HANDICAPPED TOILET CONTINUOUSLY LOCKED TOILET

FIGURE 43:

FLOORPLAN OF RESTROOM TYPE B

TOILET

TYPE B The second type is the latest type of Autobahn restrooms. So far there are only two of them on the A81. Within the cabin there is a urinal section, a disabled- and three unisex restrooms (two housing a sitting- one a squatting toilet). Materials used are white concrete, grey stone, white and blue tiles and metal facilities. Light and ventilation corresponds with Type A.

FIGURE 44-47: PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF RESTROOM TYPE B

TYPE C Type C corresponds with Type A, however rounded sanitary facilities and colored tiles are used. Alike Type A it appears six times.

FIGURE 48-51: PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF RESTROOM TYPE C

MEN HANDICAPPED TOILET

TECHNOLOGY STORAGE

MEN URNIALS

WOMEN HANDICAPPED TOILET

WOMEN TOILET

WOMEN SINK MEN SINK

FIGURE 52:

FLOORPLAN OF RESTROOM TYPE C

MEN HANDICAPPED TOILET

TECHNOLOGY STORAGE

MEN URNIALS

WOMEN HANDICAPPED TOILET

WOMEN TOILET

WOMEN SINK MEN SINK

FIGURE 53:

FLOORPLAN OF RESTROM TYPE D

TYPE D Type D resembles Type A and C, though with cubical sanitary facilities and a beige, grey color scheme. It appears once on the A81.

FIGURE 54-57: PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF RESTROOM TYPE D

FIGURE 58-59: PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF RESTROOM TYPE E

TYPE E This type is the most progressive only featured once. Under a triangular roof there is a concrete building housing five different spaces. A technology and storage space, two restroom cabins like in Type A. A disabled restroom and an urinal section. Besides the metal facilities, stone and a grey, blue color scheme is used. Distinguishing from the others is the separate ventilation system among cabins.

TECHNOLOGY STORAGE

TOILET

HANDICAPPED TOILET

URNIALS

FIGURE 60:

FLOORPLAN OF RESTROM TYPE E

49 FIGURE 61:

PHOTO OF THE TOILET STOP ‚KÄLBLING OST‘

„If it is too bad, as a man I can still go to the fence, you women are the unlucky ones here“

„I have a special technique to open the door with my sleeve! Do you want to see it?“

4.5 EXAMPLES OF THE 16 DIFFERENT STOPS Here examples of the sixteen different stops are illustrated and combined with quotes from the survey.

„I don ‘t like to talk about it, seeing it and cleaning it is already hard. But somebody has to clean it - and we are the lucky ones. I feel responsible for it, however people are too stupid to see that it is not me who produces this dirt and some people are just too stupid to use a toilet right…The problem is there is not only one human going to this restroom, there are many. The restroom and the space are not the problem, it is the human…“

52 FIGURE 62:

PHOTO OF THE TOILET STOP ‚ZIEGLER‘

53 FIGURE 63:

PHOTO OF THE TOILET STOP ‚HASENRAIN WEST‘

„I do not care about privacy, Everyone does it right? However, society would need to restart their whole thinking…“

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;It is just not MY toilet; it is an alien space with many people who do not know each other..â&#x20AC;&#x153;

„The only good thing was the relieve“

FIGURE 64:

PHOTO OF THE TOILET STOP ‚RÄTISGRABEN‘

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;I go in there, do what I have to do and leave as fast as I canâ&#x20AC;&#x153;

57 FIGURE 65:

PHOTO OF TOILET STOP ‚UNTERHÖLZER WALD‘

„One would need to improve the users - not the space“

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;The restroom as a space cannot change a thing if the people are the ones which are dirty! I would really like to train people to be clean - they have to leave the space as they want it for themselves!â&#x20AC;&#x153;

5 BALANCING THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COLLECTIVE DURING A FORMLESS ACT Defecation is one of the essential functions of our body to get rid of toxins and to be able to continue living. The act of defecation is described by Schweder as a ‘formless’ act, “a process where boundaries dissolve, a process in which the distinction between subjects and objects, as well as that between subjects, loses clarity” (Schweder, 2009, p. 182). When born, we are formless, unshaped by society and only consist of what I call our essence: feeling, breathing, eating and drinking, and defecation. As we are raised by our cultures, social groups and closest circles, i.e. our parents, we are introduced to certain habits, behavioral patterns and societal systems. We are shaped by society in our individual identity, consisting of the private- and public self, composed of our experiences and habits, which is formed around the essence.

When young children defecate, they are proud of their excrements and see it as a kind of creation (Freud, 2006). However toilet training is one of the most significant indicators of the child’s development and the basic attitudes towards defecation and moral hygiene are developed (Kira, 1976). Controlling the body and its natural functions consequently is a ‘learned process’ (Freud, 2006). We are trained by our parents that excrements are disgusting waste, needing to be flushed away and mostly not talked about, therefore need-control is good and lack of control is bad and shameful (Beck, 2014a).

60 FIGURE 66-68:

Like our parents, we develop the same disgust and shame to defecation. Society gradually suppresses the positive pleasure with a feeling of antipathy (Elias et al., 2010). With time, we become the ‘civilized’ human being, with the essential act of defecation ‘formlessly’ within us. Most individuals are always in cultural dependent need for privacy for these ‘disgusting’ activities (Wilson, 2016). Unlike the other essential acts, defecation is a taboo topic in our Western society, and everyone denies that we all share this need.

ILLUSTRATIONS HIGHLIGHTING THE CONCEPT

61 The Autobahn restrooms have been designed functionally from the vantage point of a ‘non-personal’ collective. Given that today’s societies are lacking more and more moral standards, care less and leave spaces dirty, the design criteria, trying to forestall bad behavior, are: easy maintenance for a most hygienic environment, cost-effectiveness and repression of ‘uncivilized’ behavior by installing vandalism proof objects. Restrooms became an instrument of behavioral manipulation, spaces are designed already anticipating uncivilized behavior and by repressing it, punishing everyone and occasionally even stimulating negative behavior. These criteria solely from the collective point of view lead to the disciplinary prison-like cabin we are facing. In this manner, negative associations with defecation are enforced and a vicious cycle is actuated.

Driving on the Autobahn, unlike in the domestic space where we have our private restroom, within a car we need to resort to alternatives when the essence ‘wants to go out’ which usually is the restroom cabin along the road. Social ideology follows us even into the spaces we consider separate from the outside world (Zizek, 2015): Unlike in the domestic restroom pleasure is not in the center, but antipathy and fear within the whole encounter, though different for every individual depending on their unique ‘self’. Following the Freudian terminology of ‘the uncanny’ the restroom is the mark of the return of something repressed (Freud and McLintock, 2003, p. 217). Our shaped and conditioned self associates negative past experiences, ergo we fear the complete encounter. Our essential need and the fears we have in regards to the space ‘de-form’ us. Only when we are relieved and clean, back in our car we start to converge back and are simply happy to leave this space behind.

62 FIGURE 69:

ILLUSTRATION HIGHLIGHTING THE CONCEPT

63 FIGURE 70:

ILLUSTRATION HIGHLIGHTING THE CONCEPT

64 The question inevitably arises if there is another design possibility for achieving the collective and individual demands? I argue that there is a clear connection between todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spacial set-up and our different and collective issues: If the space is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;re-formedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and there is a better balance between the individual and collective perspective, a balance of trust and respect with a sound level of insight in human nature, it will lead to a better restroom for everyone

6 THE ISSUES WE ENCOUNTER WITHIN AN AUTOBAHN RESTROOM

6.1 SITE ITSELF What makes Autobahn restrooms different from other locations for the individual is its environment. People can only drive there and access it from one direction and by leaving they think of never coming back. It is literally ‘scheiß egal’ (equivalent to the expression ‘to not give a shit’), how the space looks they leave behind. Through its surrounding fence and the Autobahn, the location is like a parallel world to people, an in-between among nature and urbaneness. Considering the collective public viewpoint however, the space is very civilized. It is an instrument of civilizing behavior through its design. Goffman (1977a) describes these spaces as a ‘total institution’. Places contrasting to the outside world, however coherent within. The major problem of the site yet is its untouched institutional system as well as the typology of spaces and objects that results from this system. Though being highly functional from the commissioner’s standpoint, in using for example metal to counteract destructive behavior, the individual issues are barely tackled. Architects just view the space from the side of the institution, focusing mainly on efficiency for the provider not pleasure for the user (Hudson, 2008). Public health issues have been most significant factors in restroom design and form has exclusively evolved for purpose (Muthesius et al., 2007; Zizek, 2015). Objects like the metal toilet can be seen as what Burckhardt (1981)describes as a ‘böses Objekt’ (‘evil object’). That ‘evil object’ causes a break with the whole invisible system, which then needs to be ‘solved’ with another interference, i.e. another object. In the case of the metal toilet, the prison atmosphere provokes some users to behave like unruly inmates, which is then ‘solved’ by more metal fixtures.

“The metallic machine (apparatus) disciplines its users with its surface and cold shine but also leads to an immediate affective reaction. Users react to the hostile metallic frame, half irritated, half impressed, half imprisoned, and it can be questioned whether they would revolt in a space made of other material in the same way they react to the metal cages provided along the Autobahn. The metal cubes of these restrooms align themselves with the accelerated metallic machines, the cars speeding with over 200km per hour of the German Autobahn. They provide the ambient soundtrack and backdrop during the ‘pit’stops” (Türetken, 2017).The institution of public toilets is also above all an invisible designed system of social relationships. The restroom design therefore reflects back on social relationships and consequently its design reacts upon societies. While the appearance of public restrooms has changed, within the collective prospect of the space there is no interference within the institution. The one-sided glance and reliance on architectural handbooks sets a self-fulfilling cycle into motion. Designers seek for solutions of the problem, but no one does something about changing the institution. The invisible overall design system consisting of objects and interpersonal relationships needs to be revisited creating a new design (Burckhardt, 1981). Also Kira (1976, p. 246) writes “All too often we solve problems by altering a situation so that the obvious symptom disappears but we have not really solved anything”. Further general issues for the collective and individual are the mass of people using the space during the day and simultaneously. For collective security, cabins are centrally located, illustrating its priority however always showcasing the individual walking there. Also, depending on the weather or time of day or year the unroofed space can be uncomfortable. Moreover, the distance of the restroom stops to one another is partly long, followed by people arriving with a greater urgency or seeking other solutions for elimination, then offending others.

6.2 MAINTENANCE Public Maintenance was developed as an institutionalized method of public sanitation. It requires ongoing organization and skilled workers. While maintenance may initially appear less fundamental than for example geometry, it is inextricably tied to the longevity of buildings, redeeming the effects of climate, nature, time and the interaction between architecture and its users. Architecture just cannot exist without an indebtedness to it (Sample, 2016). Even though the public restrooms on the Autobahn are looked after twice a day they just do not appear as maintained as they truly are - rather the opposite. The problem is that in the times in between maintenance, the spaces are left to themselves and people (mis-)using them. The issue here lies in the fact that maintenance is more than labor, it is the â&#x20AC;&#x153;result of work performed by architects in their making of buildingsâ&#x20AC;? (Sample, 2016, p. 1). This does not only mean that spaces need to be configurated out of materials that are easy to clean, but that the whole process of soiling the space needs to be reduced by architecture in advance. Cleaning only solves the issue for a short period but does not solve the institutional problem (Moellring, 2003). Further the individual has little contact with the maintenance worker. Thus, the one who is blamed by users for filthy spaces is not the designer, neither the provider, it is the maintenance workers: The only ones who do visibly take care of the space. As held responsible for something they did not cause in the first place, they are frustrated by the way people treat them and the space. Due to their job, maintenance workers face a low social status, low acceptance and discrimination. Since maintenance workers are the ones working with excrements, some users associate them with waste and treat them the same way. Comprehensibly this reduces their willingness to clean.

6.3 PRIVACY AND PUBLIC Penner (2013, p. 269) writes “[Defecation is] the last taboo topic in our society”. Not talking about it is deeply rooted within our society. We regard this topic as unspeakable in polite society and resort to a socially accepted vocabulary (Kira, 1976). Names describing defecation mostly describe the object, the space or one uses euphemisms to avoid direct reference (Stead, 2009). However, the more ‘vulgar’ the words become to us, the clearer it becomes etymologically what exactly is happening. Language and words are the first layer in which the act is covered. The restroom is a backstage area of our existence, we think of the act as dirty, because we are disgusted by contact with it through our fears of sickness and our own mortality, therefore we are ashamed of it and therefore we seek privacy (Plaskow, 2008). The need for privacy is designed by culture and involves aloneness, and ‘mineness’ of time and space. The taught negative feelings demand the greatest degree of privacy for those ‘disgusting’ activities (Kira, 1976). Further the excrements from the body show its vulnerability and uncontrollability. During the act we naturally lack control so we become even more vulnerable and seek privacy (Haslam, 2012). The problem is that we naturally have negative associations with the unknown and do not know who else is using the facilities how and for what - the space is only a ‘temporary private space’ (Hudson, 2008). The central conflict of the space is between the institution offering a space which is fulfilling basic requirements for the general public, however by doing so it becomes a public space, used by different individuals, who are all plagued by their ‘animal’ needs: The space is a paradoxical space where private and public converge in tension (Lydenberg, 2009), a public space, transforming to a refuge for the individual within the turmoil of the collective living, taking care of one’s private business.

The publicness of a space is defined by the degree of strangeness of other users from oneself, the extent of usage of a facility and the level of cleanliness which relates to our concerns towards territoriality and privacy. While our own defecation process is disagreeable, that of strangers is viewed as horrifying. In this sense, the level of cleanliness and maintenance becomes the critical factor. Described as the “territories of the self” by Goffman (1977b) it is based on the possession of “mineness” of the space. Within a stainless restroom, we can easily pretend to be in a private situation. The cleaner the space, the higher our feeling of privacy. This illusion is immediately destroyed by ‘leftovers of others’. (Kira, 1976). The tension between public and private is also revealed looking at the whole infrastructural system of the restrooms, which are built and maintained by the framework of a municipal corporation. They are part of the public space. The autarchic restroom is linked to a whole public network since the building of sewers for handling private excrements became a public duty. The more private excrements became, the more it became a public responsibility (Moellring, 2003). Public restrooms are the main locations where strangers meet strangers in the context of performing a hyper private act for which they use the same facilities (Gershenson and Penner, 2009). The bodily elimination not only takes place within the same space, due to lacking privacy in the design it is also shared with strangers during the act when spaces are crowded. Partly visual, but completely acoustical and olfactory as there is only one ventilation system (McMurty, 2012).

The whole system of the toilet is designed after this concept of ‘not existing’, the under-earth sewage and the flushing process support that everything relating to the act is hidden. The evidence of the formless act must be kept out of sight (Kristeva, 1982). Therefore the toilet is designed as an apparatus to forget, it is a “nasty but marvelous monster that swallows everything without much trace” (Kira, 1976, p. 103). “It is an interface to a subterranean world of infrastructure that better remains hidden“ (Türetken, 2017). Also the act of washing hands and looking in the mirror is a reassurance of the public-self, away from the formless act (Schweder, 2009), a ritual in which we morph back into our civilized self. Funnily enough, this backstage space, hiding our messy realities is a fundamental zone of intimate interaction between architecture and humans, however architects have the least interest in.

FIGURE 71:

DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE DISCRIPTIONS WE USE FOR ‚GOING TO THE TOILET‘ IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN

6.4 GENDER, SYMBOLISM, DISCRIMINATION AND HIERARCHY On Wednesday the 22nd of February 2017, the Trump administration withdrew Obama-era protections for transgender students in public schools that led them use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity. Excused by the insult of traditional values and social morality (Vogue et al., 2017). The sexed body is established as a ‘natural’ unquestionable fact which is the alibi for the construction of gender (Butler, 2015). Therefore dividing the restroom by gender is felt very natural, it is socially enforced, however there is nothing natural about it (Penner, 2013). Public restrooms are the last gender divided spaces. Segregation is justified with privacy-, and safety excuses, which creates an invisible boundary between spaces and people (McMurty, 2012). Like this, restrooms enforce gender roles and architecture constructs social identity. (Schweder, 2009). Likewise, our anatomical differences enforce this behavior and privileges: Woman naturally need more time within a restroom due to their bodily function (McMurty, 2012). Equal access means the “equal speed of access” (Anthony and Dufresne, 2009, p. 55) which means in the end that divided spaces must be different to be equally accessible. Also there is a different perception of the space among genders, woman see restrooms as a liberating, social zone; for men it is filled with social rules (McMurty, 2012). Opponents of uni-sex restrooms therefore argue that those configurations would endanger women’s safety and ‘women’s issues’ would become marginalized in such a set-up (Jeffreys, 2014). Yet it is arguable that ‘woman issues’ have never been tackled to begin with.

Spaces are divided by signs on the door reflecting social hierarchy (Plaskow, 2008). Whatever their style, these signs always reflect gender roles and differentiations are stressed. The division of the space also does not offer any neutral zones for example for opposite sex caregivers. Also, transgenders do not belong to any space as they are not allowed to use the restroom matching their gender identity, and fear assaults (Herman, 2013). The design of toilets has been done mainly by men and for men, and woman have been rarely contacted about their needs. As the architect Denise Scott Brown (1967, p. 81) writes “the architect’s lack of personal experience and involvement in what he is planning constitutes a real problem here”. Therefore the space influences negatively the way women use it (Herman, 2013): For instance women need to change sanitary equipment. Even having a bin, the space is not adequate to these positions, it is a major but underestimated function of the toilet, with a risk of infection if it cannot take place (Greed, 2009).

Public restrooms do not only discriminate between genders they also discriminate among all users: By having many functions crowded in within a few square meters, spaces are blocked just being used for one function. Also children, disabled or elderly people are discriminated: Spaces lack breastfeeding areas and diaper changing areas. Even when the kids are older, it is still not suited for them. There is no separate restroom for kids and there are serious risks to children’s safety going into the space alone (Anthony and Dufresne, 2009). If they use it, the toilet does not fit their body, children touch everything or insult the privacy of others. Though there is a restroom for aged and disabled people it often fails to provide satisfactory helping tools. Like that, they are positioned in a helpless situation, also causing psychological problems (Kira, 1976). If they have a caregiver to help them, questions arise what happens if the caregiver has the opposite sex? Albeit there is a completely functioning restroom for aged and disabled there have been no thoughts put into the design in the variation of wheelchair- or body sizes, objects like the sink are barely reachable from a sitting position (Kira, 1976). The ‘special’ requirements are not special; they hypocritically represent the attention given to ‘different’ needs by being universal (Penner, 2013).

FIGURE 72-74: GENDER SYMBOLS ON THE RESTROOMS ALONG THE A81

FIGURE 75:

COVERING THE TOILET SEAT WITH TOILET PAPER

FIGURE 76:

PERSON CROUCHING OVER A TOILET

6.5 HYGIENE AND HEALTH Good hygienic toilet conditions are the main interest for the collective and the individual. It is the common denominator for all. We are constantly worried about bad health coming with lacking hygienic conditions. In our society, white is a guarantor of purity, if it is not given and the appearance seems unkempt, the disgust rises (Nightingale, 2015). Everything confounding our opinion of how it should be creates a feeling of horror (Kristeva, 1982). The horrified reaction to feces refers to Kristeva’s (1982) ‘theory of abject’. The abject points out the breakdown in meaning, disturbs identity, system and order, caused by the loss of the distinction between subject and object. The abject feces show, what one permanently thrusts aside. For us excrements and dirt reflect animality and sickness and therefore fear (Haslam, 2012). The concept of dirt has to do with being out of place, just seeing it makes us feel sick (Douglas, 2010). We do not want to cope with it so we flush it away. The toilet is an instrument to forget about our own nature (Beck, 2014a). Travelers on the Autobahn risk bladder problems as they try to avoid the spacial encounter and try to hold it as long as possible (Anthony and Dufresne, 2009). Sometimes they also do not ingest, which results in dehydration or worse. Others go into nature around the cabin. They are exposed, insult others and filthen the environment. As people are afraid of sicknesses they try desperately not to touch the objects in the space. So, all kinds of acrobatics are happening setting another vicious cycle into motion, the more a facility was filthened by predecessors, the less we care and filthen it even more for the next. We have the choice of cleaning it ourselves or using the space awkwardly (Kira, 1976).

The first hygienic problem already arises when we haven’t even entered the space. Handles are places full of bacteria, touched by unwashed hands. Touch-reduced devices are therefore necessary to limit the spread of bacteria. Also, the spaces are designed with one common ventilation system, exposing users to sounds and bad odors of others. Surprising for some, the floor is the dirtiest place within a restroom and one cannot put anything there, without it being contaminated. Still, hooks and shelves are lacking, so we either acrobatically hold everything while defecating or we leave it in the car, with a risk of robbery. The next hygienic concern is the toilet object itself. If we sit we are exposed to all kinds of germs, if we stand or crouch we might filthen it by not hitting the target. Above all, our European sitting habits are unhealthy as they do not empty our bladder completely, the design increases the development of muscular disabilities or damage to organs, the ideal position is a squatting position which the toilet does not allow. The absent lid enables to touch less, however while flushing, dirty water containing tons of potential viruses and bacteria is spread around. Toilet paper is another issue: firstly it is frequently not available, secondly it is located behind the user, necessitating contortions to reach it and thirdly it is an ineffective, unsustainable cleaning tool (Koolhaas et al., 2014). The trash bin is another issue as we must touch it for usage. Lack of hot water and soap causes improper washing of hands and drying can often not take place due to lacking towels or dysfunctional blowing devices. SITTING

SQUATTING

RECTUM MUSCLE

ANAL CANAL

FIGURE 77:

DIAGRAM INDICATING THE CHOKING MSUCLE WITHIN SITTING POSITION

6.6 MULTICULTURALISM AND HABITS Mostly unconsidered by the collective is the given that the restrooms are used throughout the day by many different cultures who have different habits in regards to defecation and therefore use the space differently (Plaskow, 2009). The restrooms did not adapt to a multicultural society, for example migrants from the middle east already sometimes had a problem as they had never seen a ‘Western’ toilet before. Squatting over a ‘Western’ toilet is nearly impossible without staining it (Deacon, 2016). Moreover, there are different rules of handling the cleaning in different cultures. Further even people from the same cultural group are differently educated and have different expectations towards restrooms. The way one uses a public restroom is a very deep habit since our childhood - which is very difficult to change. Taught by our parents, closest circles and experiences we are mostly not using the public toilet like a private one, instead everyone developed their very own acrobatic way of using it.(McMurty, 2012). People would firstly need to unlearn these habits, to relearn and stimulate new behavior. However the unchanging architectural design enforces generalized habits and the enforced habits define the design (Davies and Knox, 2017).

FIGURE 78:

PERSON SQUATTING OVER A ‚WESTERN‘ TOILET

6.7 CRIME, VANDALISM AND SAFETY For the individual, restrooms are temporary private spaces; being a stranger is almost within the prescription of the space. The design has the unintended result that restrooms are the perfect criminal spaces, allowing drug dealing, vandalism or worse, while installing security cameras would insult privacy. Throughout decades, public toilets are an established, popular venue for all kinds of crimes. For this also we fear the space, which is stemming back to our elimination attitudes (Kira, 1976). On the one hand public restrooms endanger social control (Lydenberg, 2009) and on the other they are the only available place where one is safe from observation, not found elsewhere (Kira, 1976). This is why public toilets have also been used since their first appearance as places in which socially unaccepted sexual behavior was possible, away from public scrutiny. The so called ‘cottages’ (how public toilets were called in Victorian times) were amongst the few places where homosexuals could meet before the gay liberation movement without hiding their sexual orientation. Graffiti is the biggest vandalism problem: Humans are social creatures who love communication and thus restrooms give space and time to do it. In contrast to normal bathroom behavior, the graffiti says everything. (Beck, 2014b). Other vandalism problems are flooding or general destruction. All arising from boredom, anger, revenge or a leftover infantile behavior (Rosenzweig, 2005; Kira, 1976). Out of these reasons, the spaces have been designed ‘user proof’ by the institution, this creates the disciplinary atmosphere for everyone and provokes some to do more demolition. Above all, the space is still far from being a safe environment, located in the middle of no-where. Entries, exists and urinal placements are designed insufficiently, as doors are only opening to the inside the invader always is advantaged. Additionally, the fear of contamination makes people leave their valuables in the car, with a risk of robbery.

FIGURE 79-81: PHOTOS ILLUSTRATING VANDALISM ISSUES SUCH AS GRAFFITI, FLOODING AND GENERAL DESTRUCTION

6.8 DISCIPLINARY DESIGN Michel Foucault (2012) explains discipline as a mechanism of power regulating the behavior of individuals in the social body. This is done by controlling the organization of space, time and people‘s behavior and enforced with the aid of complex systems of surveillance. Foucault emphasizes that power is not discipline, rather discipline is simply one way in which power can be exercised – ‚disciplinary‘ does not mean ‚disciplined‘. ‘Disciplinary’ is rather a tool for the aim of being ‘disciplined’. In regards to the toilet it is the child’s first encounter with ‘self- ‘and ‘external-discipline’ as within ‘toilet training’ the basic attitudes regarding defecation are formed. These controls are exercised in response to proper stimuli, like being in the right place and remove clothing (Kira, 1976). Further public toilets are the most regulated spaces, in addition to keeping users apart, they are designed to enable policing. Still restrooms have the potential to be the most liberating space (Penner, 2013).

The problem of the ‘disciplinary design’ within the Autobahn restroom to prevent negative behavior is the lack of atmosphere by for instance using metal all over and creating a prison like ambience. Maybe it inhibits things from happening, however it does not fully mind certain emotional aspects of aesthetics, only functional. This design sometimes even reinforces negative behavior: What is meant for prevention, creates an atmosphere which punishes all users and provokes some (Metclafe, 2012). Referring again to Burckhardt (1981) the space is an ‘evil space’: Whatever is designed with contempt for the user, is used the same way; which again reinforces the need for disciplinary design from the institution. Leading to the reinforcement of negative associations with defecation at last.

What is disciplining us the most is the gaze of others. The gaze establishes an individual’s subjectivity, placing the subject under observation, causing the subject to experience themselves as an object which is judged by its ‘civilized’ behavior (Lacan 1998). We avoid being sensed simply because we do not want to be embarrassed or embarrass others. Therefore toilet etiquette requires to behave as if one would not be there (Beck, 2014a). It is the concept of Sarte (1966) of ‘privacy for’ us to ‘get privacy from’ others, it is our mutual agreement to ignore one another and being ignored. This civil inattention is perhaps the one situation in which most people are as ‘polite’ in their behavior relative to others (Kira, 1976). However, as many different people use the space simultaneously, these unwritten rules create a socially awkward space, resulting in socially awkward moments and potential frictions or clashes.

FIGURE 82:

DISCIPLINARY DESIGN CREATING A PRISON LIKE ATMOSPHERE WITHIN THE RESTROOM

6.9 OVERALL SOCIETAL SYSTEM Toilets are so necessary and so ordinary, that the rituals surrounding them serve as effective, subliminal mechanisms of socialization – it is so deeply embedded in our culture that we do not question anything (Plaskow, 2009). Our Western culture has a weird, taught perception of defecation, it is not seen as natural anymore. There has been a psychological subjection of ‘the natural’ to a temple of privacy in the Victorian Age, then associated with disgust later (Hudson, 2008). It is the outcome of the parents’ authoritarian attempt for the child to control its muscles (Freud, 2006). While food consumption is regarded as a crucial part of us, defecating is in the background. Our body needs to be taken seriously in all its pure and impure aspects (Haslam, 2012): Defecation is totally natural! It is the great leveler of all mankind and we are equal before the overbearing natural demands. Unlike other essential acts there is no enjoyment, it rather is a burden. Guilt, disgust and shame are steering the act - not pleasure. Further, all excrements are regarded as waste, the moment they are defecated. It is part of our civilization to abject feces as filth, however there are quite some uses for it: previous cultures used feces as dung or pottery and urine as soap (Douglas, 2010).

The biggest societal problem of the space however is the number of people who do not care and leave spaces dirty. Today’s societies are more and more dissocialized and indifferent. Further, there are less and less societal norms which are binding, than in previous centuries. All our civilization process is called into question within a public restroom, our feelings about bodily elimination are scrutinized. Public restrooms are “secret spaces” into which we disappear, remaining faceless among strangers (Anthony and Dufresne, 2009). People feel out of civilization within the restroom environment, and they behave like it. From the viewpoint of the commissioner however most restroom issues have been considered and be addressed. Public restroom design aims to provide a culture of cleanliness and stimulate hygienic behavior through disciplinary design. This is done, however, with a deep distrust in the level of civility of users, subsequently punishing them in advance. Today’s restroom design briefing proclaims to address most issues, looking at the actual use, however, one sees that it is insufficient. Trust and respect need to be better balanced with an effectual level of insight in human nature and our ‘civility’. This needs to be executed in an aesthetically pleasing, cost-effective, sustainable and accessible way, resulting in a better restroom provision for everyone. Until now ‘bathroom humor’ is the only, universally accepted disguise for the naked truth. It is time for new era of a more sensitive restroom design (Anthony and Dufresne, 2009).

FIGURE 83: ‚MERDACOTTA‘ PORCELAIN CREATED OUT OF DUNG WHICH WAS EXHIBITED AT THE MILAN DESIGN WEEK 2016

7 IMAGINING RESTROOMS THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES The following abstract of my catalogue of speculative proposals, offers alternatives in regards to each different issue group. Always one at a time. In an exaggerated way, I want to raise awareness and give an overview for the complexity of problems seeing it through different lenses. These designs shall illustrate what could happen, if the design is too focused on some aspects leaving others apart. For instance, people already died in an automatic flush restroom, as too much attention was given to hygiene. The following speculative Autobahn restroom designs illustrate the need of a balance between the different individual and collective needs.

FIGURE 84:

SPECULATIVE SKETCH OF A RESTROOM THAT IS SOLELY DESIGNED FOR PRIVACY

THE PRIVATE RESTROOM This restroom is configurated in a way to allow the most privacy possible. Every cabin has their own entrance on different levels. Windows and openings shall stimulate hygienic behavior that the next user is not insulted by the feces of others. The ventilation system makes sure that the smell goes away fast. A big mirror opposite the toilet stimulates oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own hygienic behavior. Further the mirror and sink ensure the proper recreation of the public self.

THE UNI RESTROOM The design focuses on removing all kinds of discrimination within the restroom. Therefore, the restrooms are located above a circle of parking lots that everyone has the same walking distance to each cabin. To allow equal access, functions are split and there is a cabin for washing, defecating, urinating and so on. Also, restrooms are no longer described by their users, but uses. Further, the spaces provide room for special needs such as diaper changing or woman sanitary change.

FIGURE 85:

SPCULATIVE SKETCH OF A RESTROOM HAVING THE AIM TO BE AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE

88 THE HYGIENIC RESTROOM The hygienic restroom is configured in a circular shape to avoid corners catching dirt. The floor is eliminated to a grid under which water with smell reducing bacteria cultures is placed. The space has a big window enabling the view into an enclosed garden to achieve civilized hygienic behavior through the fear of the gaze. Further the space has a huge ventilation system and cleans itself like a carwash after every usage. There are two sinks situated inside and outside of the cabin allowing the washing of hands right after defecation and before entering the car. Also, the toilet object allows various positions and cleaning possibilities. All devices can be used touchless.

FIGURE 86:

SPECULATIVE SKETCH OF A RESTROOM THAT IS SOLELY DESIGNED TOWARDS HYGIENIC CONCERNS

FIGURE 87:

SPECULATIVE SKETCH OF A RESTROOM THAT IS SOLELY DESIGNED TOWARDS DISCIPLINARY CONCERNS

THE DISCIPLINARY RESTROOM This design is solely focused on the disciplinary character of the restroom. There is only one way to walk and one way each function can be executed. Only after one function is properly executed the user can go to the next. Further, by using glass which is only obscure from the outside but transparent from the inside the user always feels judged. This design literally forces the user to behave hygienic.

91 THE SOCIETAL RESTROOM This design responds to our overall relationship towards defecation. From the parking lot one approaches a cabin which merges with the surrounding nature. Through a window towards the Autobahn, hygienic behavior is stimulated. Depending on the amount we defecate one gets objects made from feces like soap or pottery at a factory on the other side of the stop.

FIGURE 88:

SPECULATVIE SKETCH OF A RESTROOM REACTING TO OUR OVERALL SOCIETAL SYSTEM AND RELATIONSHIP TO DEFECATION

8 THE ALTERNATIVE RESTROOM From making the catalogue I drew my inspirations for the design elements leading to a joint alternative restroom design for today. It is a design balancing the different aspects in regards to the collective and individual issues. Since the environment is in nature, I wanted to reintroduce defecation as part of our nature and merge the space with the landscape. The parking spots are organized within a circle for everyone having the about same way to the entrance - there is only one for security reasons. Within my design functions are split, as crowded functions are blocking spaces and deny equal access. Central to the design is the disciplinary character of the space which it needs to maintain, as the biggest issue is that people feel faceless within a restroom, therefore do not care and leave spaces dirty, setting the vicious cycle into motion. However, the design works against the uncivilized behavior differently than today’s design: As previously mentioned the gaze disciplines the most. It makes us feel as subjects, which are judged. This negative thing is used in a positive way, by using glass which transforms to a mirror activated by sensors upon walking through the cabin. Depending on the spacial function and the level of how privacy insulting this function can be, the glass transforms increasingly fast to a mirror. Giving privacy, meanwhile users literally reflect on their own behavior on the inside of the space. Others outside the space, only see the reflected nature. Also the spacial set-up is switched and the restrooms are placed beside the Autobahn, as it is the only reference to the rest of civilization in this environment. Inspired by shopping-malls, the space is terraced to see the complete space from every position for safety and to intensify the merge with nature.

First is the beauty area – however as it is mostly at last, a cylinder walkway is leading past to the washing area. It is a mandatory walk-through space so that people are reminded to wash hands. As defecation is the main priority, the ‘defecation section’ is directly straight up. To prevent discrimination, spaces are not divided by their user, but by their uses. Within my disciplinary design, choices are possible: There are uni-urinal spaces, uni-toilets, a toilet with aid and a parent child toilet. Also, there is a diaper changing area and a breastfeeding area. Further the design of the space gives no opportunity to defecate into the wild, except for one separate area as this is the only part of the space having bushes. If the uncivilized individual still feels the urge to defecate in nature, the confined space works like a ‘doggy park’ which is maintained as the restroom cabins. Leaving, one walks through the washing area, and the cylinder walkway invites to go to the beauty area, to be reassured in the ‘public self’ after the formless act. Although the spaces are mainly for defecation they are also stops for pick-nicks. While defecation is in the background in our societies, it is the opposite way at today’s halts. My design makes eating and defecation to two equal parts with the same importance, therefore they will exist - as they do - besides each other.

FIGURE 89:

FLOORPLAN OF THE OVERALL SPACIAL SET-UP OF THE RESTROOM STOP

Considering the cabins, they are rounded, for better cleanability and to provide a clear circulation. Due to security and disciplinary reasons the cabins are also made of glass. Through sensors, upon entry the glass becomes reflective from the inside and outside. It reflects the ‘natural act’ going on inside of the cabin to the outside, by the mirror surface reflecting the nature around the cabin. While on the inside the users reflect on their own hygienic behavior. As the importance of hygienic behavior is most important near the toilet object, as the privacy of others can be insulted there the most through feces of others, the glass opposite the toilet is a one-sided mirror that always remains transparent from the inside but stays reflective from the outside. The objects required for the proper ‘toilet execution’ like the hangers, the toilet object, the toilet paper, the sanitary bin, the trash bin, the sink and the dryer are combined within one monolith object in the center, highlighting its togetherness meanwhile leading to a disciplinary, touchless step by step execution. Facilities are designed in a turquoise-blue color inspired by hospital uniforms moderating dirty surfaces as well as the natural blue lights of the Black Forest, the environment of the A81 restroom cabins. The materiality used for the objects is a mineral steel, having the same aesthetics as porcelain and the same persistency as metal. The toilet allows different positions and cleaning possibilities. The sink is suited for different body heights and washing habits, by being on different levels with height adjustable tabs. Further the floor has a pattern of holes, minimizing the dirty surface. Devices like the door and the bin can be used touchless.

For better acoustics the sound of the highway is dimmed through acoustic boards on the ceiling as well as sound masking with natural sounds. To prevent bad odors, the spaces’ aeration is inspired by natural ventilation allowing a constant air exchange as well as using the refreshing scent of plants on top of the monolith and bacteria cultures below the floor. According to brightness and daytime the light of the space always adapts. The light system works like the system of the gaze being intensified wherever users are. Also within the cabin a sensor light system encourages a disciplinary step by step execution.

FIGURE 90:

WOMAN APPROACHING THE TOILET

FIGURE 91:

PEOPLE USING THE WASHING AREA

FIGURE 92:

PEOPLE SITTING AND SOCIALZING IN THE PICKNICK AREA

FIGURE 93:

MAN APPROACHING AN URINAL

FIGURE 94:

WOMAN USING THE BEAUTY AREA WHILE A MAN LOOKS FOR THINGS TO PUT IN THE TRASH BIN

100

9 CONCLUSION Notwithstanding that public Autobahn restrooms are already changing; this work evidently illustrates that more aspects need to be considered than solely the functional aspects from a public point of view. An effectual level of insight in our â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;civilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and human nature needs to be better balanced with trust and respect towards the user. My design is only one out of various ways how it could be executed. It attempts to react to every issue found within the research, however always balancing the needs of different individuals and the collective. Certainly there are other ways to reply to the issues. This however is another aim of my work: illustrating the variety of existential issues this small space is dealing with and the fact that a mediation between myriad different perspectives is taking place there. Further, the proposal expresses how it could be if the space would not be neglected and more architects and designers would consider it as an inspiring and interesting architectural element. This would finally result in a better Autobahn restroom provision for everyone, since only the dead can do without it. (Plaskow, 2008)

101

10 REFERENCES Anthony, K. and Dufresne, M. (2009), “Potty Privileging in Perspektive. Gender and Family Issues in Toilet Design”, in Gershenson, O. and Penner, B. (Eds.), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp. 48–62. Beck, J. (2014a), “The Private Lives of Public Bathrooms. How psychology, gender roles, and design explain the distinctive way we behave in the world‘s stalls”, available at: https://www.theat lantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/the-private-lives-of-public-bathrooms/360497/ (accessed 22 February 2017). Beck, J. (2014b), “Behind the Writing on the Stalls. Why do people scribble on bathroom walls? Other than, you know, for fun.”, available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/ behind-the-writing-on-the-stalls/383016/ (accessed 27 February 2017). Burckhardt, L. (1981), “Design ist unsichtbar”, in Gsöllpointner, H. (Ed.), Design ist unsichtbar: [Die Arbeit an diesem Buch wurde anläßlich der Ausstellung Forum Design 27. Juni bis 5. Oktober 1980 in Linz aufgenommen und im Februar 1981 abgeschlossen], Löcker, Wien, pp. 13–20. Butler, J. (2015), Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity, Routledge classics, Routledge, New York, London. Davies, C. and Knox, E. (2017), “Disturbing the Dialectics of the Public Toilet: With the Water Closet”, available at: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-175876522/disturbing-the-dia lectics-of-the-public-toilet-with (accessed 3 November 2016). Deacon, L. (2016), “‚Multicultural Toilets‘ for ‚Global Defectaion‘. Seek to stop migrants from pooping on the floor”, available at: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/04/germany-develops-multi cultural-toilets-to-stop-migrants-defecating-on-floor/ (accessed 27 February 2017). Douglas, M. (2010), Purity and Danger: An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo, Routledge clas sics, Repr, Routledge, London. Elias, N., Jephcott, E. and Dunning, E. (2010), The civilizing process: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations, Rev. ed., Blackwell, Malden, Mass. Engels, F. (2017), Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England, 1. Auflage, Contumax; Hofenberg, Berlin. Foucault, M. and Sheridan, A. (2012), Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Vintage, New York. Freud, S. (2006), “Kleine Schriften I. Kapitel 34: Über infantile Sexualtheorien (1908)”, available at: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/kleine-schriften-i-7123/12 (accessed 10 March 2017). Freud, S. and McLintock, D. (2003), The uncanny, Penguin classics, Penguin, London.

102

Fuller, R.B. and Meller, J. (1972), The Buckminster Fuller reader, Penguin, Middlesex. Furrer, D. (2004), Wasserthron und Donnerbalken: Eine kleine Kulturgeschichte des stillen Örtchens, Primus Verlag, Darmstadt. Gershenson, O. and Penner, B. (Eds.) (2009), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Goffman, E. (1977a), Asyle: Über die soziale Situation psychiatrischer Patienten und anderer Insassen, Edition Suhrkamp, Vol. 678, 2. Aufl., Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Goffman, E. (1977b), Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order, Harper Colophon books, Vol. 276, 4. pr, Harper & Row, New York. Greed, C. (2009), “The Role of the Public Toilet im Civic Life”, in Gershenson, O. and Penner, B. (Eds.), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp. 35–48. Haslam, N. (2012), Psychology in the bathroom, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Herman, J.L. (2013), “Gendered Restrooms and Minority Stress. The Public Regulation of Gender and its Impact on Transgender People‘s Lives”, The Williams Institute UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, 2013. Horan, J.L. (1997), The porcelain god: A social history of the toilet, Carol Publishing Group, Secaucus, NJ. Hudson, J. (2008), Restroom: Zeitgenössisches Toilettendesign, av-ed, Ludwigsburg. Jeffreys, S. (2014), “The politics of the toilet. A feminist response to the campaign to ‘degender’ a women‘s space”, available at: http://www.sheilajeffreys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ toilet-article.pdfpublished-version.pdf (accessed 22 February 2017). Johannes, R. and Wölki, G. (2005), Die Autobahn und ihre Rastanlagen: Geschichte und Architektur, Imhof, Petersberg. Kira, A. (1976), The Bathroom, 2. ed. New and expanded ed., Viking Pr, New York, N.Y. Kogan, T.S., “Sex-Separation in Public Restrooms. Law,Architecture, and Gender”, Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 2007 No. 14, p. 8. Kogan, T.S. (2016), “How did public bathrooms get to be seperated by sex in the first place?”, available at: http://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the- first-place-59575 (accessed 7 December 2016).

103

Koolhaas, R., Westcott, J. and Boom, I. (Eds.) (2014), Elements of architecture: 14. International Archi tecture Exhibition, la Biennale di Venezia ; [a series of 15 books accompanying the exhibition Elements of Architecture at the 2014 Venice Architecture Biennale], Marsilio, Venezia. Kristeva, J. (1982), Powers of horror: An essay on abjection, European perspectives, Columbia Univ. Press, New York NY u.a. Lacan, J., Miller, J.-A. and Sheridan, A. (1998), The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, The seminar of Jaques Lacan, / Jacques Lacan. Transl. with notes by Bruce Fink ; Book 11, Reiss, Norton, New York, NY. Lydenberg, R. (2009), “Marcel Duchamp‘s Legacy. Aethetics, Gender, and National Identity in the Toilet”, in Gershenson, O. and Penner, B. (Eds.), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp. 151–167. marketing, p., 6, T., Memmingen, D.-8. and de, E.i.-m. (2015), “Sanitärgebäude - marbeton GmbH Fer tigteilbau”, available at: http://www.marbeton.de/infrastruktur/sonderbau-infrastruktur/sani taergebaeude/ (accessed 11 March 2017). McMurty, M.E. (2012), “Exploring public toilet design in western culture. Challenges and responses for the twenty-first century”, Master Thesis, Department of Interior Design - Faculty of Architec ture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 2012. Metclafe, J. (2012), “Why Portland‘s Public Toilets Succeed Where Others Failed. The Portland Loo‘s defense-first design has freed it from becoming a beaten-down haven for illegal activity”, available at: http://www.citylab.com/design/2012/01/why-portlands-public-toilets-succee ded-where-others-failed/1020/ (accessed 27 February 2017). Moellring, B. (2003), “Toiletten und Urinale für Frauen und Männer. Die Gestaltung von Sanitärobjekten und ihre Verwendung in öffentlichen und privaten Bereichen”, Dissertation, Fakultät Bildende Kunstr, Universität der Künste, Berlin, 1 August. Muthesius, H., Sharp, D., Seligman, J. and Spencer, S. (2007), The English house: In three volumes, 1st compl. English ed., Published by Frances Lincoln, London. Nightingale, F. (2015), Notes on Hospitals, Dover Publications, Newburyport. Noßke, T. (2008a), “Autobahn Rastanlagen”, available at: http://web.hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/Epo cheII/va/e2v_rab7.html (accessed 27 February 2017). Noßke, T. (2008b), “Bau der Autobahnen”, available at: http://web.hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/ va/e2v_rab1.html (accessed 27 February 2017). Penner, B. (2013), Bathroom, RB-Objekt, Reaktion Books, London.

104

Pheasant-Kelly, F. (2009), “In the Men‘s Room. Death and Derision in Cinematic Toilets”, in Gershen son, O. and Penner, B. (Eds.), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple Univer sity Press, Philadelphia, pp. 195–208. Plaskow, J. (2008), “Embodiment, elimination, and the role of toilets in struggles for social justice”, Cross Currents - Association for Religion and Intellectual Life, No. 58. Plaskow, J. (2009), “Foreword”, in Gershenson, O. and Penner, B. (Eds.), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp. VII–XI. Reynolds, R. (1976, ©1946), Cleanliness and godliness: Or, The further metamorphosis a discussion of the problems of sanitation raised by Sir John Harington, A Harvest book, HB 335, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York. Rosenzweig, S.H. (2005), “Vandalism. What to do when vandals strike restrooms”, available at: http:// www.cleanlink.com/cp/article/Vandalism-What-To-Do-When-Vandals-Strike-Restrooms--3123 (accessed 27 February 2017). Sample, H. (2016), Maintenance architecture, 1st ed., MIT Press, Cambridge. Sartre, J.-P. and Barnes, H.E. (1966), Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology, Pocket books, New York. Schweder, A. (2009), “Stalls between Walls. Segregated Sexed Spaces”, in Gershenson, O. and Pen ner, B. (Eds.), Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender, Temple University Press, Phila delphia, pp. 182–189. Scott Brown, D. (1967), “Planning the Powder Room”, AIA JOURNAL, No. 4, pp. 81–83. Stead, N. (2009), “Avoidance. On Some Euphemisms for the „Smallest Room“”, in Gershenson, O. Türetken, F. (2017), The metallic machine, Personal Statement, Rotterdam. Vogue, A.d., Mary Kay Mallonee and Emanuella Grinberg and CNN (2017), “Trump administration withDraws federal protections for transgender students”, available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/doj-withdraws-federal-protections-on-transgen der-bathrooms-in-schools/ (accessed 26 May 2017). Wilson, A. (2016), “The Infrastructure of Intimacy”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 247–280. Wright, L. (2000), Clean and decent: The fascinating history of the bathroom and WC, Classic history, Penguin Books, London. Zizek, S. (2015), “The Plague of Fantasies. Toilets and Ideology”, available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fS6kYp3pk08 (accessed 27 February 2017)

105

11 REFERENCES OF FIGURES Figure 01: Photo of an ancient latrine in Rome. The Conversation [online] Available at: https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/102339/width1356x668/image-20151118-14191- 5yzen5.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 02: Representation of a medieval latrine with cesspit.under the curious gaze a man is defecating into a cesspit. above him the actual latrine. From: Furrer, D. (2004), Wasserthron und Donnerbalken: Eine kleine Kulturgeschichte des stillen Örtchens,Primus Verlag, Darmstadt, pg. 45. Figure 03: Garderobe in medieval castle exterior and interior. Photobucket [online] Available at: http:// s1334.photobucket.com/user/Walter_Hinteler/media/b_zps28de9931.jpg.html [accessed 20/04/2017]Wikimedia Commons [online] Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Schloss_Hoensbroek_Aborterker.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 04: Sewage diagram of christchurch monastery, in Canterbury in 1167. Smithsonianmag [online] Available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/turrets-toilets-partial-histo ry-throne-room-180951788/ [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 05: „The Dutchproverbs“ painting of Pieter Bruegel the elder (1559) illustraiting Renaissance hy gienic conditions. Wikipedia [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlan dish_Proverbs#/media/File:Pieter_Brueghel_the_Elder_-_The_Dutch_Proverbs_-_Goog le_Art_Project.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 06: „La Toilette intime“ painting of Francois Boucher in 1760 of an aristocratic woman using the chair of affairs. Blogspot [online] Available at:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VGMsZBdykrk/SRCB bxqfU2I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/6NUewqJDciI/s1600/Boucher2.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 07: Chamber pot hidden within a ‚pile of books‘. VCMedia [online] Available at: http://k14. vcmedia.vn/thumb_w/600/A3YmnWqkHeph7OwGyu6TwbX57tgTw/Image/2014/04/bai- 0h/8-b2927.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 08: Example of a decorated victorian style toilet.LiveMint [online] Available at: http://www.live mint.com/Leisure/49cTc1tONJZDV31GIWdrCL/Tales-from-your-toilet.html [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 09: Illustration of ‚the Ajax‘ inveted by Sir John Harington in 1592. From: Horan, J.L. (1997), The porcelain god: A social history of the toilet, Carol Publishing Group, Secaucus,NJ, pg. 51. Figure 10: Illustration of the first water closet designed by A.Cummings in 1775. From: Furrer, D. (2004), Wasserthron und Donnerbalken: Eine kleine Kulturgeschichte des stillen Örtchens,Primus Verlag, Darmstadt, pg. 71. Figure 11: Caricature of „The Great Stink“ in which scientist Michael Faraday gives his card to father Thams in hope to be consulted. Today I found out [online] Available at: http://www.todayi foundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/faraday.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017]

106

Figure 12: Illustration of the 5 elements of a full functioning toilet. PictureCabinet [online] Available at: http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/43/main/50/129343.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 13: Illustration of the 5 elements of a full functioning toilet. Googleapis [online] Available at: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US465588-0.png [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 14: Illustration of the 5 elements of a full functioning toilet. PiniMG [online] Available at: https://s- media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/e0/6a/afe06a9aef8237b2ba0f564ea4ad5647.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 15: Illustration of the 5 elements of a full functioning toilet. Blogspot [online] Available at: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X8w_oVHco3Y/USigwmOzgUI/AAAAAAACxj8/IKByr NYhKqg/s1600/58357_1.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 16: Illustration of the 5 elements of a full functioning toilet. Chest of Books [online] Available at: http://chestofbooks.com/home-improvement/construction/plumbing/Principles-Practice/ images/Fig-112-Showing-a-Stack-of-Soil-Pipe-with-Main-and-Mino.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 17: Lavatories and work sinks from architectural graphic standards in 1955. From: Penner, B. (2013), Bathroom, RB-Objekt, Reaktion Books, London, pg. 204. Figure 18: Cover of the 1st edition of „The Neufert - Architects Data“ from 1936. Abebooks [online] Available at: https://pictures.abebooks.com/JRFAIR3/md/md21988292586.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 19: Cover of „The measure of man“ 1st edition from 1959. Ebay [online] Available at: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/iF0AAOSwk5FUwEHQ/s-l300.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 20: Man in wheelchair and young girl using a size appropriate sink (1986). From: Penner, B. (2013), Bathroom, RB-Objekt, Reaktion Books, London, pg. 235. Figure 21: Cover of Alexander Kira‘s critical book „The bathroom“ (1966). From: Kira, A. (1976), The Bathroom, 2. ed. New and expanded ed., Viking Pr, New York, N.Y., pg. Frontpage. Figure 22: Illustrations from Kira‘s book on studies of different body postures during defecation. From: Kira, A. (1976), The Bathroom, 2. ed. New and expanded ed., Viking Pr, New York, N.Y., pg. 121. Figure 23: Woman explaining a japanese Computer toilet. Blogspot [online] Available at: http://1. bp.blogspot.com/-u3SUmmRDAPM/TsJHELVI7yI/AAAAAAAABiU/crjG3QoK6sY/ s1600/Toto.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017]

107

Figure 24: Screenshot of a ‚poop calender‘ of a japanese toilet in which the consistency of the excrements is documented. Rocket News 24 [online] Available at: http://en.rocketnews24. com/2013/08/06/toilet-terror-thousands-of-luxury-latrines-hackable/ [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 26: Photo of the building of the Autobahn (1938). Bigthink [online] Available at: http://as sets1.bigthink.com/system/idea_thumbnails/60343/size_1024/Autobahn_construction_ger many.jpg?1452181795 [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 27: Photo of the ‚Rasthaus am Chiemsee‘ (1938) illustrating the exterior of a historic stop. HS Merseburg [online] Available at: http://web.hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/va/ e2v_rab7.html [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 28: Photo of the ‚Rasthaus am Chiemsee‘ (1938), illustrating the interior of a historic stop. HS Merseburg [online] Available at: http://web.hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/va/ e2v_rab7.html [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 29: Photo of a seperated smaller gas-station halt. HS Merseburg [online] Available at: http://web. hs-merseburg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/va/e2v_rab7.html [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 30: Nazi advertisement Poster of the Autobahn as a ‚Gesamtkunstwerk‘ highlighting the merging between nature and technlogoy. HS Merseburg [online] Available at: http://web.hs-merse burg.de/~nosske/EpocheII/va/e2v_rab1.html [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 35: Photo of the interior of a ‚sanifair toilet‘ within the gas-station and restaurant. The Local [online] Available at: https://www.thelocal.de/20130617/50341 [accessed 20/04/2017] Figure 75: Covering the toilet seat with toilet paper. From: Martin Rissler in Moellring, B. (2003), “Toiletten und Urinale für Frauen und Männer. Die Gestaltung von Sanitärobjektenund ihre Verwendung in öffentlichen und privaten Bereichen”, Dissertation, Fakultät Bildende Kunstr, Universität der Künste, Berlin, 1 August, pg. 90. Figure 76: Person crouching over a toilet. From: Martin Rissler in Moellring, B. (2003), “Toiletten und Urinale für Frauen und Männer. Die Gestaltung von Sanitärobjektenund ihre Verwendung in öffentlichen und privaten Bereichen”, Dissertation, Fakultät Bildende Kunstr, Universität der Künste, Berlin, 1 August, pg. 90. Figure 78: Person squatting over a ‚western‘ toilet. From: Martin Rissler in Moellring, B. (2003), “Toiletten und Urinale für Frauen und Männer. Die Gestaltung von Sanitärobjektenund ihre Verwendung in öffentlichen und privaten Bereichen”, Dissertation, Fakultät Bildende Kunstr, Universität der Künste, Berlin, 1 August, pg. 90. Figure 83: ‚Merdacotta‘ porcelain created out of dung which was exhibited at the Milan design week 2016. Dezeen [online] Available at: https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2016/04/shit-mu seum-museo-della-merda-massimo-torrigiani-primordial-products-design-milan-2016_de zeen_1568_5.jpg [accessed 20/04/2017]

108

All figures not referenced here, originate with the author of this work.