Gender Neutral RR's in lieu of Accessible stalls

[ADAguy]

Can (would you accept) GN RR's to be substituted for accessible stalls and or fixture counts In ganged RR's

 

[mark handler]

Maybe, a case could be made.
But, Unlikely for me to accept, in new projects.
They do not offer the same "experience" as the Ganged restrooms.
Some, do not want to use the same restroom that the "other" sex has used.

 

[tmurray]

We have some provisions about this in our code. The objective as Mark Handler pointed out is to provide "in restroom" facilities for barrier free access. However, there are frequently situations that this could be overly cost prohibitive or technically infeasible, particularly in retrofits. We will generally permit two single user washrooms. Both unisex, one accessible and the other not.

In actual fact, where we see large washroom facilities, it is not uncommon to see both "in washroom" facilities and a separate single user unisex barrier free washroom.

 

[JBI]

I don't believe that arrangement would be consistent with the Code for new construction.

 

[ADAguy]

JBI, please clarify your response further

MH "experience"? The only shared experience would be at the sinks.

 

[JBI]

JBI, please clarify your response further.

The intent of the Code (and the federal legislation) is to create situations where those in need of special accommodations are not segregated from the general population.

 

[mark handler]

The intent of the Code (and the federal legislation) is to create situations where those in need of special accommodations are not segregated from the general population.

"Experience"

 

[ADAguy]

"interesting" so the LBGT community demands their own GN (separate accommodations) and that does not set them apart?
Family restrooms, if provided are not also "separate"?

 

[JPohling]

I think it may be compliant. You essentially have two fully compliant single room occupancy toilet rooms that are accessed from within the multi occupancy restrooms. These are titled mens and womens. so no gender neutral facilities. exterior wash sinks are for the able bodied and possibly accessible as well.

 

[Yikes]

ADAguy, you're in California, right? To clarify: it is not the CBC that specifies the quantity and type of fixtures based on gender - - that is determined by the Plumbing Code.
Also, remember that up until recently in CA, single-user could be specified by gender. Now, single user toilet rooms must be gender-neutral (aka "unisex" or "family").

The CBC does describe how multi-user facilities and single-user facilities relate to each other in 11B-213.2. In general, the default is that EACH [that is, all] of the toilet rooms must be accessible. The exceptions are:
1. Where it is infeasible to modify existing multi-user toilet rooms (MUTR), then one additional single-user toilet room (SUTR) can substitute for the two MUTRs. This exception does not appear to be available for new construction.
2. Reserved.
3. 5% of multiple clustered portable SUTRs must be accessible
4. 50% of multiple clustered (permanent) SUTRs must be accessible

In the diagram you've shown above, it appears to me that the accessible stall + sinks are within, not separate from, the other restrooms.
So, I think your diagram DOES meet code, especially if the toilet partitions are not creating fully separated rooms.

 

[ADAguy]

All that being said Yikes, MH do you concurr too?

 

[JBI]

"interesting" so the LBGT community demands their own GN (separate accommodations) and that does not set them apart?
Family restrooms, if provided are not also "separate"?

The LGBTQ community did not 'demand' anything. They were perfectly content to use the facilities that aligned with their self image. It was others who took issue with transgender people using the facilities that fit their self image.
Perhaps ALL facilities should be gender neutral?
I'm sure that would go over like a ton of bricks with the same folks who fear transgender people.

 

[mark handler]

Assembly Bill (AB) 1732 it requires that all, New and existing, single-occupancy restrooms in California businesses, government buildings, and places of public accommodation be universally accessible to all genders.
Single-User Restrooms
118600. (a) All single-user toilet facilities in any business establishment, place of public accommodation, or state or local government agency shall be identified as all-gender toilet facilities by signage that complies with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and designated for use by no more than one occupant at a time or for family or assisted use.
(b) During any inspection of a business or a place of public accommodation by an inspector, building official, or other local official responsible for code enforcement, the inspector or official may inspect for compliance with this section.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “single-user toilet facility” means a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by the user.
(d) This section shall become operative on March 1, 2017.

I allow, "Restroom" "All Gender" "Gender Neutral" "Toilet" "Family Restroom"

I do not believe Gender Neutral RR's can be substituted for accessible stalls in Ganged or grouped restrooms in new construction, per Original Post Question.

ADAguy, you're in California, right? To clarify: it is not the CBC that specifies the quantity and type of fixtures based on gender - - that is determined by the Plumbing Code.
Also, remember that up until recently in CA, single-user could be specified by gender. Now, single user toilet rooms must be gender-neutral (aka "unisex" or "family").

The CBC does describe how multi-user facilities and single-user facilities relate to each other in 11B-213.2. In general, the default is that EACH [that is, all] of the toilet rooms must be accessible. The exceptions are:
1. Where it is infeasible to modify existing multi-user toilet rooms (MUTR), then one additional single-user toilet room (SUTR) can substitute for the two MUTRs. This exception does not appear to be available for new construction.
2. Reserved.
3. 5% of multiple clustered portable SUTRs must be accessible
4. 50% of multiple clustered (permanent) SUTRs must be accessible

In the diagram you've shown above, it appears to me that the accessible stall + sinks are within, not separate from, the other restrooms.
So, I think your diagram DOES meet code, especially if the toilet partitions are not creating fully separated rooms.

 

[RLGA]

The IBC, as written, requires separate facilities; however, I have seen jurisdictions allowing individual, lockable toilet rooms (not compartments as found in many multiple-fixture restrooms) that can be used by anyone along with shared lavatories. This would require a code modification per Chapter 1. Although shared toilet rooms and lavatories may be permitted by the building official, I haven't seen the total number of fixtures required reduced. In other words, if by calculation per Chapter 29 males are required to have 2 water closets and females are required to have 3 water closets, then 5 water closets in individual toilet rooms are required; the same would apply to lavatories.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The shared lavatory doesn't appear to provide 30" width per person. Also, there might not be enough room to walk behind somebody in a wheelchair using the lavatory. I'm not sure how much people will like facing somebody and sharing a common sink to wash their hands.

 

[Yikes]

I agree with Mark in that you would not put a "gender neutral room" inside a single-gender, multi-user room.
I am saying that you could put an accessible gender-specific compartment, with its own accessible toilet and sink, inside a gender-specific multi-user room as shown in the OP diagram. And I would call that compartment a "stall", not a "toilet room".

However, you could also look at it from another standpoint: You have provided a multi-gender washbasin area, that allows people to wash their hands without having to enter the restrooms at all. Does a person in a wheelchair have that same washbasin convenience?

 

[Builder Bob]

IF you are worried about washing hands with other people or with other genders you may not want to travel to germany.

It was not that unusual to have common lavatories with open urinals with completely enclosed water closets in a group arrangement - Women and men would wash hands, Men could pee in public if they chose, and women would go into the enclosed stall to do their business.

The plan presented borders on that concept, the issue I see is when somebody doesn't unlock all the doors when they (he/she/other) leave thus limiting access to the special (non-special) restroom area. That is the true problem with this design.

 

[ADAguy]

Food for thought, thank you.
Now imagine if you will trying to redesign existing large facilities such as amusement parks and stadiums to accommodate GN's and families as well as you and I?