3 ms·

Weren't the bathrooms there for a reason? Were they sold just because of inability to maintain them?

by vackosar 7y ago

goldenkey 7y ago
I think there just aren't as many homeless perhaps, and everyone, including most businesses, have restrooms.
- OJFord 7y ago
  I don't think it's underutilisation by homeless people, but the prevalence of businesses with them is a good point. It's required of places serving food/drinks and having seating, which now you say it seems obviously motivated by solving the problem at source rather than leave it to the borough councils to subsidise.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  They weren't for homeless people. It's more that government restrictions on funding any public service or amenity has forced councils to choose between public amenity, libraries and social care. Doesn't change the fact that many people have weaker bladders as they age, and we're in an ageing society. Then there's various conditions and illnesses like Chrons disease, or those who have small children in tow. They may all need unscheduled bathroom breaks at no notice. Now people are expected to "just wait" until they get home or to the office. Cities aren't really made for people any more. The people are secondary, a necessary annoyance.
- pjc50 7y ago
  They weren't built for the homeless, they were built for the public in general. Anyone who might need to go for any reason. It's true that mandatory private provision of toilets in food and drink serving businesses has greatly reduced the need, as has people's tendency to drive everywhere. But really they were closed due to cost-cutting imposed on the councils. (The number of homeless has ebbed and flowed depending on whether there was a Labour or a Conservative government)
bananapear 7y ago
An unfortunate side-effect of laws designed to increase disabled access is that local government bodies are just selling off such facilities rather than pay for the required upgrades - most of these underground bathrooms were only accessible by stairs.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The "obvious" solution would have been to keep the underground facility and add one or two of those self-contained units for disabled folks between the two sets of stairs.
  - ptah 7y ago
    not possible either with cuts made by tory government
- noonespecial 7y ago
  One of my favorite (and most easily explained) unintended consequences of government actions. I call them "perfect or none" rules. They get together and vote in rules they think will force things to be perfect, forgetting that it's entirely possible they will get none instead.

Weren't the bathrooms there for a reason? Were they sold just because of inability to maintain them?

goldenkey 7y ago

I think there just aren't as many homeless perhaps, and everyone, including most businesses, have restrooms.

OJFord 7y ago
I don't think it's underutilisation by homeless people, but the prevalence of businesses with them is a good point. It's required of places serving food/drinks and having seating, which now you say it seems obviously motivated by solving the problem at source rather than leave it to the borough councils to subsidise.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
They weren't for homeless people. It's more that government restrictions on funding any public service or amenity has forced councils to choose between public amenity, libraries and social care. Doesn't change the fact that many people have weaker bladders as they age, and we're in an ageing society. Then there's various conditions and illnesses like Chrons disease, or those who have small children in tow. They may all need unscheduled bathroom breaks at no notice. Now people are expected to "just wait" until they get home or to the office. Cities aren't really made for people any more. The people are secondary, a necessary annoyance.
pjc50 7y ago
They weren't built for the homeless, they were built for the public in general. Anyone who might need to go for any reason. It's true that mandatory private provision of toilets in food and drink serving businesses has greatly reduced the need, as has people's tendency to drive everywhere. But really they were closed due to cost-cutting imposed on the councils. (The number of homeless has ebbed and flowed depending on whether there was a Labour or a Conservative government)

bananapear 7y ago

An unfortunate side-effect of laws designed to increase disabled access is that local government bodies are just selling off such facilities rather than pay for the required upgrades - most of these underground bathrooms were only accessible by stairs.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The "obvious" solution would have been to keep the underground facility and add one or two of those self-contained units for disabled folks between the two sets of stairs.
- ptah 7y ago
  not possible either with cuts made by tory government
noonespecial 7y ago
One of my favorite (and most easily explained) unintended consequences of government actions. I call them "perfect or none" rules. They get together and vote in rules they think will force things to be perfect, forgetting that it's entirely possible they will get none instead.