Men’s restrooms in California are interesting. Among multiple urinals, one is almost always placed significantly lower than the others.

At Stanford University’s Y2E2 building, the engineering department’s restroom features a lowered urinal.

D.School, home to Stanford’s designers and creativity thinkers, also incorporates this principle.

In the Mountain View Public Library, the pattern continues.

Even at the Santa Cruz amusement park, this feature can be observed.

Interestingly, California’s attention to height differences goes beyond urinals.

At the Stanford Redwood City’s gym, drinking fountains are installed at two different heights.

Similarly, two hand dryers vary their heights in the Mountain View Public Library.

The Santa Cruz amusement park includes one sink with a footstep among a row of basins.

These height variations comply with accessibility codes to accommodate a broader range of users, including children and individuals with disabilities. They are specified in the California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 11B.

According to Section 11B-605.2 of the CBC, urinals must be either stall-type or wall-hung, with the rim positioned no higher than 17 inches (432 mm) above the finished floor. Additionally, urinals are required to have a minimum depth of 13½ inches (343 mm), measured from the outer face of the urinal rim to the back of the fixture.

In all the cities I have visited including Toronto, Seoul, and Copenhagen, I have never encountered men’s restrooms with urinals at varying heights. It was only after being exposed to this design in California that I became aware of how some individuals might struggle with standard urinals.

Certainly, ideal height for urinals is arguable. However, regardless of the practical effectiveness of the height variations, California’s effort to accommodating different people is psychologically effective. This enforced inclusivity encourages me to be more considerate of others including children or individuals in wheelchairs. Design can reveal aspects of the world we overlook.

***

Reference

Patrick, V. M., & Hollenbeck, C. R. (2021). Designing for all: Consumer response to inclusive design. Journal of consumer psychology, 31(2), 360-381.

Inclusive design considers the needs and capabilities of the whole population to decrease the actual or perceived mismatch between the user and the design object. We review the inclusive design literature across multiple disciplines to conceptualize inclusive design, identify who should be included in the inclusive design process, present an overview of the evolution of design approaches, and summarize best practices on how organizations can facilitate inclusive design. We posit three levels of inclusive design based on the diminishing degree of mismatch between the user and the design object: providing accessibility (Level 1), engaging participation by creating equitable experiences (Level 2), and facilitating empowered success via flow experiences (Level 3). We introduce our Design, Appraisal, Response, Experience (DARE) framework to explain the complex cognitive appraisals and emotional responses that each of these three levels of inclusive design elicits and underscores the notion that inclusive design works best when it’s not intended for a specific need, but rather benefits anyone who uses it. We conclude with a call for future research in this rich and important domain of investigation that seeks both to understand consumer response to inclusive design and to incorporate inclusive design into brand strategy, practice, and policy.