Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

You took up a stall in the design of your restroom that would otherwise have had a toilet. I've yet to see an existing functional restroom in any business that had extra floor space available to put another non-toilet stall. Have you? That would be "wasted space", and that means "wasted money". No one does this. You cram as many stalls into the restrooms as can fit. So no, if you are retrofitting an existing restroom, the only way to do this is to decrease the total number of usable toilets in that restroom by one. Again, unless the original design was so inefficient with floor space that it actually had an entire extra stalls worth of space that was not being used.



They designated a stall which could have contained a toilet and chose not to put one there. No matter how you slice it, in order to make room for this you will have one fewer functional toilets in the restroom. I'm not sure how you can think otherwise.




Granted. But that's worse IMO. The extra expense of running the pipes for a toilet in that stall is much cheaper to do when doing the initial build, when the floor is already opened up and you're already running plumbing than it will be when the women working there demand that they have a clean environment to do this, and you end up allocating a small empty office for this anyway, only now your restroom is one toilet shy, and you'll have to rip up the floors to fix the initial dumb design choice you made.

I honestly can't imagine anyone wanting to operate a breast pump in a public restroom. Removing the toilet from the stall still leaves you sitting in a stall in a public restroom. It's kind of an insulting "concession" to the women IMO. You fight to get a private space for breast pumping and they give you a space inside the restroom? Um...

Edited, Mar 7th 2017 5:25pm by gbaji

gbaji wrote:

That would be "wasted space", and that means "wasted money".

Unless you are charging people to use the bathroom, there is no "Wasted Money", because you are saving money by not having to plumb the stall, you are saving money by not having to purchase the toilet, you won't have the water usage of a toilet to pay for, and the paper product usage will be less, so actually you are could actually be saving money.


ETA: I should finish reading posts before I respond!

Edited, Mar 7th 2017 4:51pm by stupidmonkey

Edited, Mar 7th 2017 4:51pm by stupidmonkey

I don't think anyone's expecting a bowl of tampons free for the taking, but a vending machine makes all kinds of sense. Beats taking a half hour or more to get to a pharmacy.

Yeah, I'm not actually going to argue bathroom planning with Gbaji.

It seems rather socialist that most people expect free tissue and soap to be given to them in a bathroom. It's not terribly hard to carry your own.

Well, that's why a separate, non-toilet, stall would be a logical thing if you're going to put your milking area in the bathroom to begin with.

I thought the Chinese were the commies.

Quint post.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 2:44pm by Kavekkk

Well.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 2:43pm by Kavekkk

Russian Hackers.

Christ on a cracker, Demea, learn to link.

Christ on a cracker, Demea, learn to quote!

Unlike Joph, I am not above bathroom humor.

Of which tissue and soap are not. It's certainly more sanitary than walking around with gunk on your behind, but the same can be said for walking around with gunk in you front.

I'm not demanding every bathroom have tampons, I don't even got me one of them fancy vaginas, but I also don't demand that every bathroom have tissue and soap. If you did any sort of traveling you'd know that many don't. It's nice for bathrooms to have tampons for the exact same reason it's nice for them to have tissue and soap. All of them are convenient for bathroom related sanitary needs. I'm happy to pay the cost that is passed on to me for that convenience. I just don't think my bathroom needs belong to some higher tier than the other half of the population.