Why Do American Houses Have So Many Bathrooms?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Problems with a single bathroom which includes the toilet:
If you have kids, everyone is fighting over a scarce resource in the morning. Showering/shaving/etc all takes time and you're all leaving in a narrow window.
If you don't have kids the people buying the house may, and they will care. It makes selling the house so much harder.
The bathroom _must_ be cleaned to be guest ready, and they get to accidentally snoop through everything. I love my ensuite for this reason. (and if you don't care about it being clean, your partner probably does)
If you have the room, why not have an extra bathroom? So much easier to build in new construction than add later.
When I lived in Australia the toilet was in a separate room, so the 4 bedroom house worked ok with only 2 bathrooms. The toilet wasn't blocked/held hostage by someone taking a shower. (washing your hands on the other hand...) But this also helped sell the place, since with 2 full bathrooms you can have kids/house mates/etc.
My current house has 3 baths with 4 bedrooms. One is in the in-law suite, which I airbnb, so we have 2 on the main floor. It makes 2 baths for 3 bedrooms. This feels like a nice "adult" house. We have a spare rooms for house guests, and they have a full bathroom they can use. This means we can host friends/family for days/weeks and we can be annoyed by their personality, instead of annoyed fighting over a bathroom. ;)
Of all the weird things in the US, a house having "too many" bathrooms really doesn't seem like a problem.
I think a decent rule of thumb is one bathroom per floor, plus one. It really sucks having to wait for a bathroom when you need it, and they take up so little space (especially if it doesn't have a bath/shower) that it makes no sense to skimp. We've used all the bathrooms simultaneously, so it's hard for me to consider having fewer.
This tends to be more or less valid for any resource in the house (extra room, closet, etc.). And as it stands bathrooms are on the important side. If you had one bathroom per resident they'd still all be used simply because the people would thoroughly enjoy not having their stuff moved around or bothered by anyone else, or ever risk having to wait for someone to get out first. So you'd just have "assigned" bathrooms.
You could even have an extra one that can come in handy when you are remodeling or simply experiencing technical issues in one of the others.
I don’t think having multiple “full bathrooms” is so important, but “half bath” ie. a toilet and sink takes up very little space, and it’s the kind of thing that, when you need it, you NEED it. So it’s worth it.
A typical Dutch house has a toilet + sink downstairs for guests or for convenience of the owners. Upstairs there is a bathroom with a toilet, shower, sink and shower for the owners of the home to use.
Calling the room a toilet just sounds odd to me, because the toilet is in the room, but I understand why it's used like that.
I've also heard "I'm going to use the [toilet] facilities".
What do you call a room with a toilet, sink, and stand-up shower? That's what one of the full bathrooms in my house is.
But when we started building some without bathing accommodations, the customary terminology didn't go away. Everyone already understood that 'going to the bathroom' really meant using the toilet. So, the term 'bathroom' stuck.
- bathrooms are a scarce resource
- usage is not evenly distributed, greatest usage is 1. in the morning and 2. when you are running late :-)
- queues form at critical moments and hold up the entire pipeline (e.g., getting ready for work, school, etc.)
The best way for you, or your potential buyer to resolve this bottleneck is to have more of the bottle-necked resource.
Going the other way round seems a bit strange, IMHO.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%E2%80%93time_tradeoff
My current house has 3 full bathrooms which is really too many for just my wife and I. But, the extra bathroom has come in handy as we have remodeled over time.
Heck, I shared a house with 8 people in college that only had one bathroom... That was more of a challenge, but it was rare that we were all there at the same time, so it mostly worked.
"I have to pee outside" is going to count as a problem in most people's book.
I am not familiar with what this phrase means nor does a quick Google help. Is it to be read literally - "it got so cold during the winter that ice formed in the bathtub and had to be chipped away before use"? Or is it an idiom for an unspecified location.
My parent's house was old and not heated terribly well - which I didn't notice until I went to university and stayed in a centrally heated halls of residence and returned.
I don't remember it being too bad, probably because only two people in the house had to leave in the mornings, and we left at different times. Also because I didn't know anybody who had more than one bathroom. Our extended neighborhood was all 1940s construction.
"I" is used when it is in subject position. Occasionally, the rule is a little bit obscure ("He does it better than I", where the subject position is implicit ("better than I do it")).
This grammar error is becoming very common even among well-educated writers and speakers, in the US at least. It must be stopped!
Edit: Wait, "for my wife and I" was a grammatical error?! The fuck? Fuck the rules! That's a stupid rule.
I always say "me and my wife", because in the town where I grew up, to say "my wife and I" would be pretentious. But when people say "for my wife and I" it goes through me. It's double reverse grammar pretention.
Thank you for the feedback. Rest assured, I am not a well educated writer, but always trying to improve. This is one I normally catch using the trick to remove the other person and think about what sounds right.
But as a friend from Canada put it - they had gaps between houses in his country compared to over here, they would build a small housing estate in those gaps.
But then, it's fascinating to compare buildings and code over the years, country by country. Things like legacy infrastructure, climate and history all come into play and darn interesting.
[EDIT ADD] Note was house of 4 (2x adults 2x children] and outside toilet sure does cut out any morning queues - based upon my experience. Though 2 bedroom - was late teens when I left home that I got a room to myself.
You might find out how common from this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21698533
Were you born in 1800?
Joking aside, what decade was this? And is this common?
https://goo.gl/maps/dSFy1wx8G5C4UpZ5A
I suppose this is all hip now with off-grid living and van dwelling. Back then it was called poverty.
How times have changed - not all for the better.
[edit add] Oh and we had no central heating until my teens, and frozen ice inside the single window pains during winter(double glazing - luxury item then).
The main thing for me is that I feel like all the "kids" bedrooms having to share 1 bath is a good thing - learning to share is a valuable thing IMO.
Satisfies the "kids bathroom" and "sharing" all at once!
Barring the specifics of rich people's house, you'll generally see this set up in places where the "kid's rooms" are not, in fact, intended for kids. Where I've seen it in urban homes, it was designed so there was definitively a master suite, but then every other bedroom came paired with it's own en-suite. From my understanding talking to builders, it's done this way since a large chunk of owners in that area are young professionals that rely on renting out other rooms in the house (whether to other young professionals or AirBNB-style short term rentals) to afford the home. In college areas, you get similar rational, but because every room tends to be rented out to a student, there's usually not a definite "master suite" and all of them tend to be similarly sized and equipped with amenities.
As you mention, an en suite master bathroom would be incredibly nice, and if we remodel, it's _the_ #1 non-negotiable item on the list. Private bathroom for us, 'clean'/separate bathroom for guests/visitors.
My sister lived in a 4/1 with an odd feature: a toilet on a wooden pedestal in the (full-size) basement. No wall around it, not even a curtain. Just sitting there in a corner.
As she put it "you only need it every once in awhile, but when you need that second toilet, you're REALLY GLAD you have it!
I don't find the proliferation of bathrooms/toilets in large houses surprising at all. If I lived in a 4000-5000sqft mansion, I might not mind a 2-3 minute walk to get to my bedroom at night, but I sure as hell don't want to have to do so every time I have to use the facilities. It simply makes sense to have a toilet and sink, at least, near the rooms you use regularly.
The "Pittsburgh toilet"[1] is a relatively common basement feature in older homes of steel and coal industry Appalachia. Often there would be a showerhead nearby as well, and the room was intended for the worker to come home through the basement, clean off the day's grime and 'do their business' rather than dirtying the proper upstairs house. The showers are removed pretty easily but the toilets are not.
Optimally, I'd say a house should have one toilet on each floor, and at least two toilets and bathrooms.
We always had one bathroom for a family of five (5) growing up and, honestly, there was never an issue with it. Since it was always that way we learned from birth (practically) that you can't hog the bathroom, so everyone learned not to, so nobody ever did. I always toweled off, dressed, and did my hair in my bedroom. There was certainly no reading on the toilet or other activities going on in the bathroom. Plus, it was normal, I can't think of a single person I knew growing up that had multiple bathrooms (grew up poor, everyone lived in older construction, mostly smaller apartments). My dad actually grew up in a family of ten (10) with only 1.5 bathrooms.
Even now friends comment on how little time I spend in the bathroom.
Nowadays I have 1.5 baths, which is usual for this area (old construction). The half bath it totally unnecessary (just myself and my spouse here) but it's sometimes nice not having to go upstairs to pee. And of course the half bath isn't original to the house.
"Problem" is a bit dramatic, but it is annoying to me when a house I'm looking at has, say, "3 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms." Who the heck needs that many bathrooms, and ultimately you're paying for all those toilets, and they're taking up square feet from living areas.
Also, hot take: en suites suck. I don't need to be _that_ close to where I take a crap. Feels like a prison-cell layout.
The article misses a major point here which explains much (though not all) of the trend: household sizes have decreased dramatically in the last 50 years, and the number of single-person households has increased dramatically. Single-person households can generally be expected to have at least one bathroom per person, and small households will generally have higher ratios than large households.
In 1960 single-person households were about 13% of all households; they have more than doubled, to about 28% in 2019 [1]. In 1960 the average household size was about 3.3; in 2019 it was 2.5 [2].
[1] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
[2] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
It was booming, and it was richer than it ever had been, but it was very poor by today's standards.
GDP per person in 1950 was 27% of the 2019 level.
And since this always has to be pointed out: That is adjusted for inflation.
Relative: 1950s USA was easily the richest country in the world, and in history.
Absolute: In today's world, that affluence is only average for the world. Other countries around there are Brazil, China, and Algeria.
Both those things are true.
There are people in the US today living in abject poverty. Name the cause, fine, but that doesn't make it less true.
The poverty level 70 years ago would have been even more desperate.
Adjusted for inflation that's about a $35,000 median family income compared to an average of about $55,000 today. Still not great, but other items like homes were cheaper (and smaller), cars, etc. So not quite as bad as the GDP per person, but it does make me think about how that monumental rise of GDP isn't reflected more closely in how much money is being made by the average working person
If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer.
> If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer.
I don't disagree with your core point, but I have to nitpick a bit the last part.
Expenses don't grow linearly with the number of people in a family, especially with the number of wage-earning adults. You will be richer in a couple, and I don't only mean emotionally :-) Rent won't double, all sorts of other living expenses can be shared, etc. Disposable income should definitely be higher than for 2 single people.
I feel that a decent chunk of the issues in modern societies is that many people are single for long periods of time. That makes things really hard financially, plus there's less support in case of issues...
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millenn...
These reports provide reliable information about median weekly earnings for full-time workers, are available online going back to 1996, and include more specific data about different age groups. Let's compare the age range of 25-34 in Q1 1996 (non millennials) to the same range in Q4 2019 (millennials) while adjusting for increases in cost of living using CPI-U. Here are the major spending categories assessed in CPI calculations https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm#Question_1...
For ages 25-34:
Q1 1996 weekly earnings: $419
% change in CPI-U over duration: + ~66%
Q1 1996 weekly earnings in Q4 2019 dollars: $695.54
Q4 2019 weekly earnings: $815
% Increase in real weekly earnings: ~17%
At least from that sentence and a cursory glance at categories collected, it doesn’t appear they’re specifically factoring in mortgages / home ownership aside from rents nor medical insurance aside from one-off clinic visits (which, given CPI is a snapshot of purchasing power at a given time and not a measure of lifetime household wealth, why would they?).
I don’t doubt purchasing power has gone up — private car ride hailing, specialty juices and cleanses, avocado toasts, food delivery, organic foods, wellness products, travel, hotels, all the once-expensive things people love to criticize millenials for buying are truly more accessible than ever.
That doesn’t definitely say anything about how much the cost of long-term financial obligations such as education, insurance, and home ownership costs, however.
As for medical costs, it's more complicated but as an overview:
The CE (consumer expenditures survey) tracks consumer out-of-pocket spending on medical care, which is used to weight the medical care indexes. CE defines out-of-pocket medical spending as:
patient payments made directly to retail establishments for medical goods and services;
health insurance premiums paid for by the consumer, including Medicare Part B; and
health insurance premiums deducted from employee paychecks.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/medical-care.htmBut you're right, there are still plenty of problems. Like I said in my original comment, the problems faced by millennial are different than those faced by previous generations. Often these new problems can be considered more stress inducing due to a higher degree of initial commitments required to even enter many new fields (i.e. student debt) and uncertainty about the future. Whether these new problems are worse than the problems which they largely replaced depends on your definition of "worse".
The huffpo anecdata-based story is "just so", but comparing a single quarter, for a single age-group, based on a single metric known to have short comings, and presenting it without context as "the reality", tickles my "just so" meter, from the other side of the spectrum.
If I'm trying to assess if a typical 25-34 year old is better off now than in 1996 why on Earth would I use a measure which only assesses a specific section of the population which constitutes less than 30% of the U.S. population? CPI-U covers about 90%. Barely anyone uses CPI-W.
>Why not C-CPI-U
I would love to. Unfortunately C-CPI-U figures only go back to December 1999, bit of a problem if I'm trying to work from Q1 1996. Also, C-CPI-U tends to be a bit lower than normal CPI-U meaning that 17% increase would actually be slightly larger if assessed with C-CPI-U.
>How many hours/wk are those people working to get that purchasing power?
Since we're using median earnings I'd need median hours worked for the same age range at the same times in history which is not something I could find. That said, weekly hours worked by employed individuals have been decreasing for decades. That trend shows no signs of reversing. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS85006023
A lot of the rest of the questions are harder to answer given available data but most are also of pretty questionable usefulness when trying to assess the financial well-being of a "typical" millennial relative to the previous generation. If your question is specifically "Does the typical working millennial have a worse material standard of living than their parents?" the answer is no.
If you want a more complete and accurate answer then use the data from primary sources to figure it out yourself. Every person that data has to be filtered through before it gets to you adds an extra layer of bullshit because when dealing with economic stuff you should assume that everyone has an agenda. That's true for Huffington Post articles and for random internet comments, like this one.
I must point out a concern about your out point.
Is this using CPI? PPI? Currency supply? Something else?
Education, housing, and many other expenses have outpaced "inflation" for decades.
I'd also be interested to know the trend in the percentage of floor space given over to bathrooms, which would fuzz both the number of bathrooms and the increased bathroom size. It seems to me like a lot of space wasted, personally, although I admit it does feel nice to walk into a (rare) beautiful full-sized master bathroom.
We live in a 3-bedroom 2.5-bath home and I wouldn't want to give any of the bathrooms up. Not having two full bathrooms would be seriously annoying when either my or my wife's parents are in town, which is about 6 weeks a year, and not having the half bath on the ground floor would be mildly annoying all the time (and slightly more annoying when friends are over).
You'd expect that wealth to show up in new construction more than in retrofitting every existing home, so bathrooms as a lagging indicator makes sense to me.
American dwellings are larger than European Union ones for several reasons:
- Most US homes are new: All over Europe, people live in much older housing and apartment stock. Go back to 1940, and the US only had a 130 million population, which typically lived in large families in shared houses. In 1940, the European population (excluding Russia) was already 420 million. Thus, whereas the US population has more than doubled since then, the European population has only increased some 50 percent. This meant construction of far more dwellings in the US in the large 80 years.
- Eastern Europe: Eastern Europe has been much poorer than the US during the last 80 years with people largely living in apartments.
- Space: The US simply has more space per capita. We are 500 million in the European Union (for a few days more) in an area half the size of the US.
- Sprawl: The great US population expansion coincided with the automobile revolution allowing for people to live in suburbs far from city centers, which in turn allowed for larger houses.
- White flight: Europe never had an exodus from city centers comparable to the US.
- Materials: Europeans live in brick and mortar houses or concrete buildings. American houses are made of wood and are cheaper to construct allowing for larger homes.
The 'wood' used in tall buildings is a heavily processed product that is indeed pretty fire-resistant.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri...
Wooden "stick-built" structures are also highly resilient in earthquakes and are, generally speaking, the best and most cost-effective way to build seismically safe buildings in earthquake zones.
I, personally, was always aesthetically offended by "American" 2x4 stick-built construction, as we generally understand it, but it is indeed the case that wooden studs properly sheathed with plywood "shear panels" (and tied to the foundation, etc.) are tremendously strong at a relatively very low cost.
I believe this scales up to at least 4 story mutli-unit structures ...
A steel roof, concrete ("hardi") siding, and "WUI" vents with relatively fine pores, when employed properly, can make the building exterior quite fire resistant, regardless of the flammability of the interior framing.
That being said, I do have steel sprinkler lines running onto the roof ...
Like a 5-8 storey streetwall of wooden multi-unit homes (whether apartments or stacked townhomes or whatever), dense-enough that it can be serviced with higher-order transit but no so dense that concrete construction is required for the buildings.
Is that so? Europe seems to have slightly more than 10 million square kilometers in area and the US slightly less than that. Europe is certainly more fragmented, but looking at thetruesize.com, one can use a better area preserving map projection and it seems that Europe has more space.
(I still agree with your points in general though.)
I can still remember pointing this out to someone on HN who stated that Europe would fit inside Texas.
In Europe (at least in the UK) it's common for houses/apartments to be shared by many flatmates regardless of the number of bathrooms. 4 seems to be roughly the upper limit on 1 bathroom. 5 bedroom places almost always have 2. And many houses with only 1 bathroom will have a second small toilet-only room.
Umm, not sure where you got your info but white flight is present in any major Western European city, they just have much better PR about it.
After the 2015 influx of migrants I noticed the segregation even more through some neighborhoods. Once the migrants were settled in one neighborhood, the natives with means quickly moved out to greener pastures making more room for the new guests and the cycle repeated itself.
Whenever I was renting in the expensive districts in Germany I mostly heard German/English spoken on the streets vs. when I was renting in the cheap districts I mostly heard Turkish/Arabic/various Eastern European languages on the streets/shops/doctor's offices and my German friends would ask why I chose to live in a "bad" neighborhood. Answer: because I don't care about the nationality of my neighbors, I live where it suits me the best.
But I get their way of thinking, we are social creatures and we are still driven by tribalism so most people don't want to live/socialize with strangers from vastly different cultures regardless of what lengths someone goes to convince them otherwise. This is universal for humans and not something country specific.
The postwar flight to more distant suburbs was due to WW2 veterans suddenly having way more wealth than they had pre-WW2 (i.e. during the Great Depression) and deciding they wanted an upgrade from living in a cramped, dirty, noisy city, with the meteoric rise of the automobile and marketing campaigns by developers helping out a lot as well. This flight was almost exclusively white, but it wasn't motivated by a desire to get away from black people, andd the only reason black people didn't join them was because of systematic racism gatekeeping them out of the new developments. Restrictive deed covenants imposed by developers, banks refusing to do businesses with people whose addresses are in black communities (most commonly known as redlining), and just plain old institutional poverty kept black people out of something that all Americans wanted to participate in.
Also keep in mind that suburbs weren't nonexistent pre-WW2 either; these old suburbs were transit-oriented and are now referred to as "streetcar suburbs". Pretty much every city in the US has a number of inner suburbs, just outside the central business district, that consist of single-family homes on an oblong grid of streets with alleyways and the occasional arterial (which originally contained a streetcar line) dividing the neighborhood (if anyone reading this has no idea what I'm talking about, let me know and I'll post Google Maps links). What was different about postwar suburbs is that they were much farther away from the city center and were car-centric in their design.
White flight was a later phenomenon that resulted from the civil rights movement dismantling a lot of racist institutions, causing white people to freak out and leave the suburbs they moved to following WW2 for other suburbs. Restrictive deed covenants and redlining were banned, black people finally being able to both move into any neighborhood and access mortgages, so of course they moved out to the suburbs. And then the white people fled. This is why much of the original postwar suburbs are now considered "the ghetto" (for example, Wynnewood was built as Dallas's version of Levittown, the whitest postwar suburb you could imagine, but is now majority black and Hispanic, and the name of the larger part of town it's located in, Oak Cliff, is almost used as a slur by racist white people). Black people moved in, racist white people moved out. Exploitative race-baiting real-estate agents even deliberately encouraged this phenomenon to buy low and sell high, a practice known as "block busting", which is now also banned. The agents would buy up a house in a white neighborhood and both sell it to a black person and send agents provocateur to talk to all the existing residents and stoke fears of black people moving in en masse. They would even hire black people to push baby carriages throughout the neighborhood! And so all the white people would sell their houses and move away ASAP, and because they decided they wanted to get out right now, they sold cheap. And the block busters bought up the houses and turned around and sold them at exorbitant prices to black people wanting to move to the suburbs for the first time. In Chicago, for example, block busting was so widespread that which suburbs were considered "white" and which suburbs were considered "black" would change every few months, as people would play racial musical chairs to a beat set by unethical salesmen.
Interestingly enough, many cities are now at a point where things have settled into a new mix: inner-ring suburbs are often very diverse, while the exurbs are extremely white. As PoC move farther out, white people build entirely new neighborhoods even farther out. My own experience in Dallas is that as the exurbs grow even farther and farther away from the city, more and more neighborhoods in the inner suburbs are becoming Chinatowns and Koreatowns (and as someone who lives in the inner suburbs and has diverse taste in food, I welcome this phenomenon).
Only thing I'd add is "white flight" is still commonly used to describe both periods of large mostly white exoduses, and you'll often see it used in that manner.
Its just a large number of historians think the term is a bad misnomer because of how it implies the movements were directly motivated by racism even in cases like you documented where the causes were much more complicated.
Well, this depends on _where_ the house is built. Building codes vary wildly across the US. You won't find a new house in South Florida built out of wood.
In Texas you will find a lot of new houses with internal wooden frames, but the outside walls are made of solid brick, I think this is called "brick veneer".
Interesting, what do they build them from?
> In Texas you will find a lot of new houses with internal wooden frames, but the outside walls are made of solid brick, I think this is called "brick veneer".
Brick veneer is just a decoration. It’s not structural in any way. There is usually an inch wide gap between the veneer and the actual wall for drying purposes.
Interesting note on the brick veneer. Even if they are not structural I think they are more durable than other types of siding.
As for brick veneer, I dunno really about its durability. It definitely is less susceptible to decay than traditional wood siding, but I don’t think it’s any better than cement fiber cladding, or other modern non-wood materials. Additionally, if anything goes wrong with it, I think it’s much harder to fix it in a seamless way, unlike other most types of siding, where you can just repaint them after repair. I have it on half of my house, and I can’t say I’m a huge fan.
https://blog.icihomes.com/2010/03/19/concrete-block-vs-engin...
This is a minor statement within the article but one which hints at shallow research in some sections. This makes me less confident in the rest of the conclusions.
Bathing was very common and encouraged during the “Dark Ages”. A few articles which do a better job than I can covering the hows and whys:
https://www.medievalists.net/2013/04/did-people-in-the-middl...
https://www.medievalists.net/2013/04/did-people-in-the-middl...
http://unusualhistoricals.blogspot.com/2013/01/myths-misconc...
Relevant quotes are toward the end:
"Well, until the mid-19th century, bathrooms were a rarity. Indeed, for 600 years most people didn't wash, or even get wet, if they could help it.
'Wash your hands often, your feet seldom, and your head never' was a common English proverb. In 1653, John Evelyn, the diarist, noted a tentative decision to wash his hair annually.
Robert Hooke, the scientist, washed his feet often (because he found it soothing), but appears not to have spent much time damp above the ankles. So most people fought dirt and odour by either covering it with cosmetics and perfumes or by just ignoring it.
Where everyone stinks, no one stinks. But, then, in the 18th century, suddenly water became fashionable, though only in a medicinal sense. Spa towns cropped up all over the country, and people started adjusting to the idea that they might now safely get wet from time to time.
Washing for the sake merely of being clean was remarkably slow in coming, however. When John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, coined the phrase 'Cleanliness is next to Godliness' in 1778, he meant clean clothes. With respect to bodily cleanliness, he recommended only 'frequent shaving and foot washing'.
What really got the Victorians to turn to bathing, however, was the realisation that it could be gloriously punishing.
Many diaries record how people had to break the ice in their washbasins in order to ablute in the morning. Rev Francis Kilvert noted with pleasure how jagged ice clung to the side of his bath and pricked his skin as he merrily bathed on Christmas morning in 1870.
Showers, too, offered great scope for punishment, and were often designed to be as powerful as possible. One early type was so ferocious that users had to don protective headgear before stepping in lest they be beaten senseless by their own plumbing.
Increasingly, bathrooms - albeit shared and down the corridor - became standard in hotels, and hoteliers who failed to heed this trend paid a hefty price. Nowhere was that more memorably demonstrated than at the vast Midland Hotel at St Pancras Station in London. Designed by the great George Gilbert Scott, the Midland cost the equivalent of £300 million when it opened in 1873, and was a wonder in almost every way.
Unfortunately, Scott provided just four bathrooms to be shared among 600 bedrooms. Almost from the day of its opening, the hotel was a failure.
In private homes the provision of bathrooms was hit and miss. The rich proved unexpectedly reluctant to bring them into their lives.
' Bathrooms are for servants,' sniffed one English aristocrat. In existing houses, bathrooms usually took the place of a bedroom, but sometimes were jemmied into alcoves or corners. Baths tended to be of exceedingly variable sizes.
A bath at Lanhydrock House in Cornwall was so big that a stepladder was needed to climb into it. Others, with showers built in, looked as if they were designed to wash a horse. Moreover, baths were still extremely expensive. A bath alone could easily cost more than £100 in 1910 - a price well beyond most households.
The British journalist, Katharine Whitehorn, recalled that, as recently as the late 1950s, she and her colleagues on the magazine Woman's Own were not allowed to do features on bathrooms. Why? Because not enough British homes had them - and such articles, it was felt, would only promote envy."
Another reason might be the accessibility of traveling. More people are used to staying in a hotel compared to 50 years ago, so when you have a guest you would want to offer them a comparable experience. That includes a private bathroom as you said.
Both of these trends are common to most parts of the developed world, but people in other countries don't have as much space to actually go ahead and build more bathrooms.
Downside though is I end up spending more time in the bathroom since no one else is waiting to use it and it’s a bit of a quiet space.
And as you say, when we have guests staying we do share and let them have free reign of one bathroom. Makes things much easier to handle. We'd easily sacrifice bedroom space for an en-suite.
Why three toilets:
The "half bathroom" is by the kitchen, living room, ect. It's just a sink and toilet. This is the one that, by courtesy, guests use. Because there's no bath, guests don't see our towels, toothbrushes, and other mess that accumulates. (No toothpaste stuck in the sink!) We also put prettier fixtures in there, because it's the one we go in most often.
Then there's a normal bathroom (toilet, sink, and tub) that the kids and overnight guests can use.
Then we have our master bathroom, attached to the master bedroom, which has a toilet, shower, and two sinks. (Useful when my wife and I brush our teeth at the same time.) The point of keeping it attached to the master bedroom is basically so we don't have to walk around the house in "bedclothes" when we have to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night.
Another thing that this article misses: A lot of people like to loose track of time reading on the toilet. There's nothing wrong with that when you have extra toilets in your house.
"If it's urgent, and all the bathrooms are occupied, turn off the wifi"
I’ve heard that might not be so good for hemorrhoids or hernias or whatever else could be caused by excessive strain placed in that region. I kind of want a raised South or East Asian style squatting toilet since I feel like squatting is better for the body.
The first result for 'anal fissure toilet' appears to back this up
>The following are tips for preventing an anal fissure:
>Straining - avoid straining and sitting on the toilet for a long time.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/186514.php#prevent...
We're probably just city folks who don't know what we're missing, but my wife and I rather like being shoulder-to-shoulder at one sink...
That being said, the "guest room" is really because we're not done having kids.
Eyeballing the "bathrooms" file, the "bedrooms" file, and the "bathrooms by bedrooms" file, it looks to me like most of the growth in bathrooms matches the growth in bedrooms, so maybe the question should be "why do American houses have so many bedrooms?".
One reason number of bathrooms per person may have gone up on average is because people have children later. Over the past 50 years average maternal age at first birth has risen from the low 20s to the high 20s.
So 50 years ago, a young couple would buy a house, and quickly start a family, lowering the bathrooms per person ratio. Now that couple might by a house, sized for the family they plan to start, but not start that family for almost 10 years. So for 10 years they are living with a higher bathroom per person ratio, helping bring up the average.
The only thing that took long to fix, was when it loaded the water slowly. But that only meant longer waiting between flushing; merely an inconvenience.
Source: Moved into a house that was once owned by wealthy people. The upstairs toilet was clearly top of the line circa 1940s and is awesome. The downstairs toilet was clearly subject to some serious compromises for packaging reasons and is nothing special.
edit: any explanation for downvotes?
My pre-whole food plant based diet bowel movements would also leave considerable residue, often requiring 4-5 different wads of toilet paper AND 2-3 wet wipes to wipe clear. Now 1-2 wads of toilet paper leave me rarely even needing a wet wipe.
Honestly it's the biggest difference I've noticed since switching to whole food plant based. Frequency of bowel movements and just how easy/clean they are, I used to regularly have to clean part of the toilet bowl where clay-poo would stick and I've not had to do it once since switching my diet. Then mu grocery bill as the bulk of my kcals come from oats/bananas/potatoes now.
You forget how advanced we've become with disposable toliet paper.
But the best thing about a bidet attachment is one or more toilet users can choose to not use it and it's not any different from a bidet-less toilet. It doesn't get in the way or anything, so it's there if you want it but not any inconvenience if you don't. My husband didn't use ours for the first year we owned it but after he eventually gave it a try he's now a regular user.
Plus it's so ridiculously cheap ($40) that it's worth trying out.
These SinkShroom's have greatly improved my life. I put one each in my SO's tub and sink. They catch an impressive amount of hair.
I never really appreciated how advanced we are at plumbing. Perhaps it's a product of having to take water management more seriously.
I had one guy who kept putting kitty litter down the toilet, even after I started charging him to get it snaked out.
Another one that I have seen too often is people dumping paint down the drains...
The acceptable amount of time for a toilet in a 1 bath rental to be useless is zero, at least from the perspective of the tenant. It is true that toilets are pretty reliable, though. I've had one problem with a toilet, but that was somewhat of a freak accident.
Cross section : https://www.maven.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/toilets-00.j...
This is because they use a siphon mechanism, which also results in a narrow diameter pipe. Old style ones use an enormous 14L of water per flush and still jam.
Other countries use gravity flush which has lower water usage and less blockages, but forces you to periodically clean the toilet bowl. Personally I would rather clean than plunge.
This article has a rather biased overview: https://toiletfound.com/siphonic-vs-washdown-toilet-which-is...
Personally I find US toilets need to be flushed repeatedly because you don't want to risk a blockage.
I’ve also seen my kids managed to do amazing things to the innards of the flush mechanism- break the chain, tangle the chain, move the plug out of position, and in one notable instance get the toilet to start “auto-flushing." All fairly easy fixes, but you have to be willing to get in the (clean water!) reservoir and jiggle parts around.
Older houses, especially those on septic, have additional issues with the plumbing becoming overloaded (my dad TWICE backed up our entire house by trying to send an half a fridges worth of food down the garbage disposal) but that will often take out multiple bathrooms.
[1] https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/06/08/new-california-wa...
Or it could be use of liquid detergents, which seem to be more common in the US. My washing machine's manual specifically warns not to use liquid or pod detergents, and they lead to internal buildup.
Washing machines are in a weird place where they are expensive to replace, but parts and labor to fix them when they break is almost, if not more expensive.
Top loaders were popular in the US for a long time, and they generally fill all the way up.
I have a top loader (a Whirlpool from 2011) and it most definitely doesn't fill "all the way up". It uses as little water as a modern front loader and also adjusts the water level based on fill level.
Now the modern washers don't trust you to make the proper selection, and often don't get your clothes completely wet.
I've never had an issue with modern front loaders not getting my clothes wet. They are much better at spinning them dry at the end, though.
I think the big thing that is different in the current top loaders, vs the old ones, are some don't have an agitator -- instead they use a low profile impeller at the bottom to force water vertically. And the ones with an agitator have the impeller shape at the bottom, so there is still vertical water movement.
The front loaders started to go out of style, partly because people complain about an oder build up in them. Not sure what that is about. And worries about the seal in the door leaking (if the float gets stuck and it puts too much water in it -- my brother has that issue periodically).
I would think that a good top-loader design would be something that has a pump at the bottom (under the basket), and circulates water to the top and sprays it down on the clothes. But I haven't seen any like that though.
I am afraid that is physically impossible, unless you are washing a single pair of socks.
* Top loader - 4.4 cubic feet, IWF 6-1/100
* Front loader - 5.0 cubic feet, IWF 3-1/5
Not knowing what those meant, I looked it up. The "water factor" represents how much water a machine uses, in gallons per cubic foot of capacity. In other words, the front loader uses about half the water that the top loader uses.
As another commenter said, top loaders are different in the EU - in North America, the whole drum is turned on its side and water must fill as far up as the clothes go - there's no tumbling action to shift clothes in and out of the water at the bottom of the sideways drum in a front loader (and a European style top loader)
This also typically allows for a larger drum.
Your source does not call this the average, but the upper limit. Washing machines have a range of sizes you can set them at ranging from small to "super-max". Also a range of durations depending on how many cycles and how much washing is needed.
You'd need to relate it to how much laundry gets washed per gallon.
Also, some parts of the US are semi-tropical and even swamp. Not every state is as worried about conserving water.
As soon as you have >1 persons, you are going to find the bathroom to be a bottleneck at some point.
Toilets are a bit trickier, but if you're spending enough time on the toilet for it to be a bottleneck in your hosuehold, you may want to consider adding more fibre to your diet.
Need in the sense that, it improves the quality of life, and it's a worthy expense.
Additionally in the very large houses the bed/bath ration doesn't capture the setting of the bathrooms. There is a house not to far from me that has a connected indoor pool and that has 3 bathrooms for changing/shower.
(edited)
These aren't small houses.
I have a very wealthy relative who lives in the USA, and I visited when my younger brother was just 6 years old. It took him several complete tries of running round the house to count all the bathrooms (and not lose count).
There was one per bedroom, then one on the ground floor, one by the garage and one which was easy to get to from the beach.
The neighbour's house's guest room's bathroom was also the general bathroom; it had two doors with appropriate locks. This seemed like an efficient design.
I don't want to shower and brush my teeth just a meter away from the toilets.
https://q-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/max1024x768/214/214010...
No one wants to hold it while the other person is having a nice relaxing poop.
Dual toilets have rescued us twice now from inevitable accidents.
From what I understand many in the UK, European countries have separate rooms for toilet and bath.
Extra bathrooms are absolutely worth the cost.
I imagine it's because 1-2 of those would be ensuite to one or more of the bigger bedrooms and/or that one or more aren't full baths.
I've lived in most different types of place now (rurally, in the suburbs, in inner city suburbs, in the middle of metro areas) etc and the idea of having to decorate a massive house is something I really can't be bothered with. If I had children I'd want enough space for them, sure, but that's about it.
It's not even about the cost but just the mental overhead of it all, cleaning, all the stuff you accumulate, etc.
I figure I can always grow into it, and I occasionally buy something to go into it if I find a very good deal. Total cost of ownership is more than a rental property, but I also find my total quality of life has increased due to extra space for pets and decreased noise.
I figure at that point I'd have more of an idea about where I'd want my theoretical family (that I'm not even planning at the moment) to live, plus a partner with you know, desires and opinions and stuff ;)
Or turn the argument around: would one rather have 2 bathrooms with an average age of 7.5 (15 years interval for renovation) or 4 bathrooms with an average age of 15 (30 years lifespan)?
The house with the 4 bathrooms in worse condition would be a worth a lot less money on the market than one with two bathrooms in better condition.
The cheapest option is of course having 2 bathrooms but staying with long intervals for remodeling. That's where I am now, but as both are pushing 13 yers now it's kind of stressing as they'll both "come up for renewal" at the same time soon.
But yes, living without 80's tiles is something I very much imagine paying a lot of money for.
A home with 4 bathrooms is going to see half the traffic of a home with 2 bathrooms so they might last 2x. Or is as the case a lot of times, the bathroom in the common areas of the home gets renovated as does the master.
> living without 80's tiles is something I very much imagine paying a lot of money for.
A lot of European bathrooms I've experienced were very trendy for their time and while that occurs in America I would say it's the exception and not the norm. In general our bathrooms are relatively bland and the materials are "timeless" in the sense that they're not very stylish ever, even new, but also never look that dated either. The last 3 bathroom renovations I did all involved using subway tiles, which while currently trendy, have been used consistently over the last 100 years. The houses I grew up in all used a similarly bland while tile that was 3x3" while squares.
The fixtures and finishes I've seen in European bathrooms also don't tend to stand up either. Pedestal sinks with exposed metal pipes and those detachable shower wands on sliding poles. Apart from the master bathrooms, most American bathrooms are boring with simple sturdy faucets and fixed shower heads. The sinks use vanities which hide/protect the plumbing which is usually plastic and much less vulnerable to corrosion.
Spider Robinson wrote about it. An alien looking at human bathrooms, would have to conclude we are masochistic, stupid, or have some cultural blind spot.
In many parts of the world you squat on the ground, which actually better for you than sitting. Most toilets in the last 30 years are taller to accommodate ADA requirements and you can get even taller ones for a slight cost.
> The sink that splashes
I've really only experienced that in those awful flat bottom or angular sinks. The traditional hemisphere or egg shaped sinks don't splash.
> you have to spend 40 seconds every time to get the water temperature right.
I'm assuming you're talking about showering? Most American bathrooms are not located near the hot water heater and the water in the pipes between the spigot and the heater generally cools because it's not well insulated. As such, most Americans don't hop in the shower immediately when they turn it on but instead let it warm up for a minute or two.
> The cabinet that's 2 inches deep and things fall out each time its opened.
Are you talking about medicine cabinets? Sounds like the one you used wasn't pitched properly. There's two screws inside you can remove on the inside walls to loosen it, you can then shim the bottom edge and replace the screws. This will pitch the cabinet back so things fall to the back and not out the front.
Generally medicine cabinets fell out of fashion as the size of bathrooms grew and are usually only found in pre80s homes. Fun fact, most of them have a slot in the back to let you dispose of straight razors and if you remove them from the wall you'll find a stack of rust old razors in the wall cavity.
> The mirror that fogs up.
Hmm... so fancy heated mirror that will fail or a bottle of defogger you apply once or twice a year? * Better yet just turn the ventilation fan on before you start your shower.
> The slippery tub.
The only time I've ever fallen in a shower was in Italy in one of those shower coffins. So... yeah that's not a problem unique to America.
> The moldy curtain.
You know you can change those right? And if you spend more than $2 you can buy one that's mold resistant?
> Noisy flush.
That sounds like those jet flush toilets used in commercial property, most residential toilets are gravity flush tanks like their European counterparts.
> Soap gunk by the sink.
I'm guessing by this and your mold curtain comment that you're not one to clean your bathroom?
> Plumbing that leaks and clogs under normal use.
That's not normal.
Remember those two faucets that used to be on sinks, one hot and one cold? Got replaced by the lever-valve that you push right or left to adjust temp? Took a generation to switch, though the benefits were obvious the first day.
Well, those two faucets go back even further. Watch any old cowboy movies? In the rooming house, the wash stand with the enamel basin and two pitchers? One pitcher hot water; one cold. Mix in the basin, then wash and shave.
When plumbing happened, the basin got set into the wash stand, a drain put in the bottom, the two pitchers replaced by two faucets.
Then, for about 100 years, nothing. No progress. Just that old familiar setup without modification.
Finally the kids were like "hey! I'm not filling that dirty old basin with water and washing in there! I'm just washing under the running water." The basin became simply a drain. So thus the impetus to combine hot and cold. So you didn't alternately scald and freeze your hands.
The 'modern' bathroom sink took 100 years to come about. Not because to took that long to invent. It took only a moment to see the advantages. What it took was, 100 years for the old, hidebound folks to pass away and let the kids take over.
I'm convinced our bathrooms are the way they are (weak explanations notwithstanding), because people are slow to change.
No one is agreeing or disagreeing with what you're saying because no one understands where you're coming from. You've basically said "Green is stupid because we're still using cars!"
Design aesthetic is different from 'stuff that doesn't work'. I'm reminded of design students that create something that looks like a bicycle out of cardboard layers, and say "See! I've improved the bicycle! It'll change the world!" And what they have is a useless sculpture of a bicycle.
It's plain to most folks, using ordinary bathrooms in ordinary houses that the stuff is laughably awkward, dangerous and hard to clean. Try to explain it away all you like.
Again, we were speaking about durability and aesthetics, not functionality.
Since you want to discuss functionality...
> laughably awkward
For example? Do you have any better real world alternatives.
> dangerous
What and how?
> hard to clean
Compared to?
> Try to explain it away all you like.
No one is trying to explain away anything. We're not talking about the same thing. You're interjecting your thoughts on functionality as if they're in opposition to our discussion about reliability and design.
To put it another way, we're talking about reality and you're arguing hypothetical. It's like showing us how your air guitar is better than our actual guitars.
Renovate for yourself and your own use, not the next owner.
Obviously there are still expensive parts, but we don't rebuild the entire bathroom every 15 years and we don't have to do that rebuild all at once.
And bathtubs, toilets, and sinks last 20+ years easy (it’s porcelain and/or cast iron, what can go wrong?) Replacing the toilet innards is a 1 hour job at most with a $30 repair kit from the hardware store in case the seals wear out or something.
Up to date breakdown for a cheap one ($12k) (Google translate it if curious) https://www.byggahus.se/badrum/kostnad-bygga-nytt-badrum
labor $6.8k (carpenter 40h, electrician 16h, tiling 60-70h, plumber 1-2days) material: $5.2k fixtures: $3.5k
I also suppose there is a difference with wear. If you have e.g. one or two baths instead of 3 or four for a large family, then it might be in worse condition after 15 years.
Maybe the author of the article should write about how many bathrooms Swedes have, installed in series every 10 years rather than in parallel when the house is built. A one bathroom house where the bathroom has been replaced 4 times in 40 years counts as 4 bathrooms.
Our last home, in the southern US, was build in 1980 and two of the 3 bathrooms (all full which is odd) were original and about 35 years old. While the appearance was dated, structurally and mechanically they were sound with no mold, water damage, or other issues. A steam clean of the tile and porcelain, along with a re-caulk and re-grout would have been sufficient to keep them going for quite some time. Our house before that was from 1965 with both bathrooms being original. The metal plumbing had started to fail and there was some rot to the sub-flooring around a toilet but otherwise fully functional and clean. In both cases the bathrooms were like most homes in the US with ceramic tile floors, steel tubs, and tiled shower stalls.
When I think about all the bathrooms I've used while in Europe, most were much newer and all felt like they needed to be redone. The finishes were unlike what's typically done in American bathrooms, some where plastic or vinyl covered while others used wood. They were all small and poorly ventilated, and they all had issues with mold and rot. I'm thinking poor ventilation and choosing materials for style over longevity might be why you feel the need to redo your bathrooms so frequently.
So you move into a new house with a grotty, worn out (and possibly only 4 or 8 year old) bathroom, with mould and maybe a tile or two falling off. Now you need to remodel, and most of what's out there is shoddy "replace every 5-10 years" quality, so the cycle repeats. New build homes are happy to install the cheapest shite available so long as it looks OK. Every time someone moves it's just about certain the mouldy, grotty bathroom and kitchen will need a makeover (or a divorce). If they got suckered in to a fitted bedroom you'll need to budget to rip that out too (also built from kitchen units with ideas above their station). :)
The parts of Europe I visit seem caught in a similar game.
Up until the seventies most houses were built with lifetime bathrooms -- one 50s house we lived in still had the tiling and fittings from when the house was built, still looked clean, nothing broken. All we ever needed to do was change taps as they had started to wear, and fit a better shower. A couple of tiles were lifted doing that -- that was revealing. No tile adhesive, all the tiles were mortared directly onto the brick, no wonder none had been lost since new. Not only that, tiles were better and the edges and corners were in the tiles -- none of the awful, easily broken, plastic corner things that appear to encourage mould.
The nicest house bathroom I ever saw was a house that had managed to keep its turn of the century bathroom, with high gloss tiling, original bath, radiator and polished pipes, with the modern additions carefully picked to appear like they were there from new.
Never quite understood how so many got so completely suckered in to such wasteful and expensive short-termism.
There are plenty of renovators that will be happy to install floating floor systems and other garbage but the traditional materials and installers still exist and don't charge that much of a premium. Many times the newer methods require subfloor modifications or other added costs that usually bring them in parity with the traditional products but the end result is much lower quality.
I mean, in my 37 years of life in Europe I haven't ever clogged a toilet, I don't think it's even a thing, at least if you don't throw anything that doesn't belong in there. But in my trips to America... I'm not going to be specific, but let's just say that some experiences have made me very cautious when I use the toilet there.
In my 40 years of life in the US the only time I have experienced a clogged toilet is because someone put something down it that did not belong (or the entire plumbing system was backed up do to tree roots or other issue unrelated to toilet design)
Apparently the extraordinary demand for plungers resulted in better plungers, not in someone asking "why the heck are we so reliant on plungers?" and possibly making better toilets ;-)
Really it should be impossible to clog a toilet with poops alone.
And if you find yourself excreting an unusual amount in one sitting, or need to use an unusual quantity of paper, just do an intermediate flush.
I've needed a plunger once in the last 2 years of apartments (didn't even get around go buying one at my last one before I left)
I need that toilet brush every other day, it's a really gross problem, and I hate the idea of having guests and them having to choose between leaving a dirty bowl and whipping out my toilet brush...
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChR8ubSW4AEeDcV?format=jpg&name=... from https://twitter.com/hashtag/toilettenb%C3%BCrstenbenutzungsa...
I replaced the first one in 2015 and haven’t had any issues yet.
Pro-tip: the actual first thing I do when any family members or myself move into a new home or apartment is install a kitchen side spray in the bathroom as a hand-held “point and shoot” bidet. Those can be used to quickly clean in a contact-free way.
Just on the general topic of the number of bathrooms increasing surely it could be related to the obesity epidemic. They do seem correlated. People getting fatter and fatter every year, they need to relieve themselves more often and of more material, this all takes time so it goes without saying they would spend more time in bathrooms.
Another really, really backwards thing seems to be shower fixtures. If you aren't lucky and find a modern mixing valve, you are likely doomed to experiment with various push, pull, turn-while-pull, push-while-turn-then-pull, turn-until-searing-hot-then-go-on-because-warm-comes-after-hot-on-the-scale moves to get a decent water temperature. And not only is this totally unintuitive, it also differs between every single shower in every single hotel or motel room (especially motels seem to have these weird fixtures).
You also have to figure out if electric or gas for the water heater.
This site has some good starting figures though https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/waterheaters-figures....
>Groundwater 47°F, Heater set to 110°F: 63° rise x 8.33 Btu x 40 gallons = 20,992 Btus
>Groundwater 47°F, Heater set to 120°F: 73° rise x 8.33 Btu x 40 gallons = 24,324 Btus
>Groundwater 47°F, Heater set to 140°F: 93° rise x 8.33 Btu x 40 gallons = 30,988 Btus
Average of 25,435 Btus.
0.000293 kWh/Btu for electric so something like 0.19 kWh per gallon for electric.
Looks like 1lb of coal makes about 1kWh (wow!)[1].
1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide.
So roughly 0.7 pounds or 0.32 kilograms of CO2 per gallon of water in an electric water heater?
The average American shower uses 17.2 gallons [2], so if you showered daily and only used hot water your CO2 from showers alone would very roughly be something like 2000kg annually.
Either way, this thread reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/oCDW_TSZjVg
This is only possible in the low-water European toilets, obviously, US-style toilets where the water is already filling the bowl can't do this.
Genuinely curious, do I need to keep soap on my body for a minimum amount of time for it to be effective?
Especially during winter the effects can be quite harsh.
For a house built in the 60s, it can be a mid-four-figure job all-in just to change the shower valve type. For several grand, I can manually change the valve and adjust it when someone flushes a toilet or runs the hot tap somewhere else.
Eg the knobs are on the inside wall of the shower facing the entrance. So to turn on the water you have to reach your arm and sometimes half the body across the shower. Then you have to turn the bloody thing past cold full blast, with the cold water coming down on you. And to add to it, you can’t really tell where you set the temperature to unless you feel the water. If the temperature is wrong you have to reach through the water stream again to change it. Annoying if you set it too cold, good luck if you set it too hot.
Who designs these things?
That's wildly exaggerating it. Normally the brush isn't really dirty and you can soak it in soapy water every couple of weeks/months and you are fine. The water pressure seems higher in Europe (or at least in Germany, where I lived before moving to the US). After you cleaned the toilet, you would normally still be able to clean the brush off with the water of the current flush (should that be needed).
In fact, I find it bewildering that there is normally no brush in the US. It is unavoidable for almost all toilet types to get dirty and I find it frustrating if I can't leave the toilet how I would like to find it (clean), because there are still traces clearly visible in the toilet and no brush is available. Especially when I am visiting somewhere or we rent a vacation house with friends. Really awkward to see traces in the toilet of people who were in there before you (or the other way around).
I’ve never seen pressurized tanks in Europe. They flush from a tank that isn’t directly connected to the water mains, so water pressure in the water mains doesn’t play a role. The water just falls down from the cistern to the bowl, a height difference of about half a meter for modern designs and up to 2 meters for more traditional designs.
Wikipedia says “it has been found by ceramic engineers that improved waterway design is a more effective way to enhance the bowl's flushing action than high tank mounting.“ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Flush_tanks)
> The Dutch philosopher Erasmus, writing in 1526, notes the fall of the public bathhouse. “Twenty-five years ago, nothing was more fashionable in Brabant than the public baths,” he remarked. “Today there are none, the new plague has taught us to avoid them.”
That is, water does spread disease, and public baths went out of fashion during the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages.
To be fair, sewer gas is indeed gross and can be toxic. So modern plumbing carefully vents the sewer gas out the roof and has traps that prevent sewer gas from entering the room.
(The P trap under your sink isn’t to catch valuables that go down the drain. It’s there to hold water so that gasses and critters can’t come through.)
Yeah, I have a P-trap in the kitchen space of my single-room flat, in theory for the dishwater; but since I don't have a dishwasher, there's no water and I got sewer smells until it was plugged by rags.
I’ve never heard of this pressure control
Pressure-balanced valve - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-balanced_valve
> A pressure-balanced valve provides water at nearly constant temperature to a shower or bathtub, despite pressure fluctuations in either the hot or cold supply lines.
thermostatic showers - https://www.steamshowerparts.co.uk/how-to/thermostatic-showe...
> A thermostatic shower seems like a regular shower, but it has something very unique inside; a thermostatic valve. Thermostatic valves mix both hot and cold water together to a consistent predetermined temperature, preventing scalding and thermic shock.
left-right controls the temperature, up-down controls the flux
The smaller knob controls if the water goes to the showerhead or just out the faucet
https://www.kludirak.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/b3b...
Just picture a one-handle kitchen faucet with a long hose attached. At the end of the hose is the shower head.
It’s much easier to convert an old tub faucet to a shower this way, than by opening up the wall to run a pipe up to a fixed shower head.
Bathrooms make entertaining people easier, both by having them conveniently located and by reducing the privacy infringement of making your master bath available (everyone's an asshole and goes through everyone else's medicine cabinet)
It's not wasteful since having more bathrooms doesn't mean you go to the bathroom more.
To the extent that the claim that American houses have so many bathrooms is true, I'm not sure you can think about American real estate in such a homogenized fashion to assume it is universally true. I think it applies in certain particular circumstances, but is not universal.
Yeah, a house built in the eighties or the nineties is pretty new in Journal Square of Jersey City. However, the city (Manhattan mostly) has it worse. I saw an ad for a tiny room that explicitly said no access to kitchen or the bathroom. I don't think it is even lawful to say that.
Imagine someone living in that room comes across this article...
Your anecdote seems hardly enough to refute the article. How much do you know about newer suburban developments outside Atlanta, or Dallas, or Phoenix?
In all cases, we could have done without 1 of the full baths, or the half-bath, without problem. The extra was purely convenience (but appreciated growing up with a sister who could take some time getting ready).
Another trend that I think is poor design is the "open-floor" trend for newer homes.
... and it's just been a fantastic place to start and end the day in. The universal response people have when they walk into it is "wow". It's a significant quality-of-life improvement IMHO.
The delta between two and three and higher is quite small.
I don’t get these houses with like six bathrooms. What’s going on there?
Just a little anecdote that fits my worldly philosophy of the more things you own, the more things that can break.
Sites like Zillow don't even let you put an upper limit when searching. Agents can't believe you don't want a bigger place. I don't mean cheaper, I mean I don't want all those rooms and stairs. In my area, you perversely have to go to the ultra-luxe range of the market to get a high quality 2-3 bedroom single family home, while 5 bedroom new constructions are a dime a dozen. That makes no sense.
Same in the Boston area...you're either getting an older, reasonably sized home, a new-build condo/apartment, or a new-build McMansion / cookie-cutter development. These new-builds are often much larger than millenials want, bigger than boomers need, and too expensive for their blandness.
My guess is homebuilders simply make a better profit on these huge homes...for now...while the market is upheld...
When we found one, they were pretty disgusting. Even places like Starbucks didn't even have a toilet. I mean what the hell? How can you serve people coffee which makes stomachs rumble without having a single customer toilet?
From a European perspective, this was very uncomfortable and I also have a condition which makes my stomach untrustworthy.
Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, these all have restrooms and are open to the public. Sometimes they might require a small purchase (like a water bottle). Heck, I was in NYC not too long ago and was surprised to find that all Starbucks have open restrooms (in other cities I've visited sometimes you needed to ask for the key).
More toilets than bedrooms - e.g., the 20:8 ratio mentioned in the article - makes perfect sense for a house that might see large numbers of guests at once.
One bath per person surely can't hurt, if you can afford it, though averaged out this is probably going to mean a bath:bedroom ratio of around 1:1.
Perhaps that is why I sought mainly single bedrooms in college and grad school.
I think all of the next generation were nver more than six in house and every child with personal bedroom.
Stephen Colbert said it best: "One for dinner-guests and one you poop in".
The same way I've often read silly threads on reddit mentioning those fecal problems (like after mexican food, it seems like a ritual for us folks to crush the toilet bowl) which don't seem as common or popular in europe.
The question is: what happens when you have few bathrooms (maybe only one). It's a constrained resource that is usually used by people at around the same time frames.
Sharing one bathroom across a family of 4 is not easy. Two or three make more sense.
This gets worse if it's 4 unrelated people
Most people who grew up in the past half-century grew up in a household with several siblings and appreciate the luxury of not waiting in line to use the toilet ^_^
I don't mean this lewdly, but: I would imagine parents everywhere appreciate the ability to clean up after sex without having to first walk though the house's public areas.
...
and it's not even nice pavement, it's just concrete, like a big airport.
it's especially bad in CA because the lots are so small making the pavement look even bigger proportionaly.
I.E in a 4 bedroom, 4 bath home, there are likely 4 people living there, each person cleans their own bathroom,
Usually in high-bathroom-count houses, there are the “main” bathroom(s) and some bathrooms are mainly just used in the instance that the primary choice is occupied. Like when you really gotta take a leak but people are getting ready in the morning and bathrooms are in high demand.
Like forcing longer-running processes onto a different CPU when congestion occurs.
#1s are usually quicker and more time-sensitive. Nobody wants to piss in the backyard because someone else is pooping. And that has only happened while visiting a 2 bed/1 bath place. Fine for one, but five people overloads the resource, and the scheduler can't pre-empt the running process.
Really, the problem is that the bath or shower and the toilet are in the same room. Occupying the bath or shower should not exclude others from using the toilet. It's bad design that has propagated via real estate marketing.
Middle class Americans (petit bourgeois) might, but probably contract out for at least some of it; middle income Americans probably can't afford to contract out and probably do their own cleaning. But Americans often say the former when they mean the latter, so it's not usually clear what is being discussed.
every Midwestern American
the puritan does not hate pooing because it is stinky, but because it gives pleasure to the pooer.
My current house has 4 people and 4 bathrooms.
Oftentimes homes with many small rooms each having private bathrooms were actually designed specifically for the purpose of room rentals, think elderly shared housing type places.
Such homes are actually fairly common in California, I've rented such a room on two occasions.
My understanding is there are quotas requiring housing be built for low income tenants in a regulated proportion to other residential developments. The way classy SF bay area neighborhoods prefer to fulfill this requirement is to build shared housing units for the elderly, for obvious reasons.
The two I personally experienced were indistinguishable from regular residential homes from the outside, but once inside there were some telltales like exceptionally robust fire suppression/alarm systems, and a high density of small bedrooms each having a full bath.
It was actually illegal to rent the rooms to people like me, but enforcement is lax and with CA rents so high, apparently worth the risk for the owner.