https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...ding/283-74b0d059-0d32-465f-804a-c3f8dacebd28 The City of Portland is planning a massively wasteful remodel of the seat of the City of Portland government, the Portland Building. This building was pretty controversial when it was first constructed because it was, how to put this delicately, butt heinous ugly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Building The remodel will end up costing an estimated 195 million dollars in a building which was constructed in 1982 for 29 million dollars. The City of Portland is banning urinals from the new building. By the way, banning is a word used by the City Commissioners and not some editorialized term some political opponent dreamed up. The thing is, that urinals are cheaper, greener, more space efficient, use less water, and more time efficient. With urinals it is possible to have fewer men's bathrooms than women's bathrooms. So why ban them? Well, the use of the term ban should give discerning individuals an indication as to what is going on. By the way, all City Commissioners and the Mayor have just flat out told news agencies that they will not discuss the urinals to anyone. This is from the self-proclaimed open and transparent government of the City of Portland.
I love when progressivism conflicts is own agendas. Easy to see their priorities. Clearly LGBTQ is higher on the totem pole than the environment.
*Shrug.* If you read the story, it says that the idea is to have flexibility, so if in the future a gendered bathroom is made unisex or switched to the other gender, they just have to change signage, not plumbing. That seems like good planning ahead, not a waste. Also, urinals don't save much water. -- Modern urinals use about 1 gallon per flush -- modern toilets use about 1.3 gallons -- Dual-flush toilets use less than a gallon for the "pee, not poop" option So the only real argument in favor of urinals is that they take up less space than a stall, and are likely cheaper. I'm not sure if that per-toilet savings is high enough to outweigh the flexibility and cost savings of designing all your bathrooms the same.
Because they hate men. If an action can make men's life just a little bit less convenient, apparently they will do it, EVEN if it costs more water and is therefor less environmentally friendly. These lunatics have jumped the shark. Common sense is now hate speech.
You guys are real real damn anxious to give cross dressing men access to little girls. Care to explain why that is? I mean it isn't like we can't read the stories of it happening already. https://www.kxii.com/content/news/T...ually-assaults-teen-in-walmart-505820451.html https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8647171/transgender-woman-sexually-assaulted-girl-morrisons/ I wish we could hold the lawmakers responsible for every single sexual assault on girls due to these insane laws providing pedophiles easy access to them. Whatever sentence the predator gets should be applied to the lawmaker as well.
Because they're really exclusive to men and the whacky gender climate we live in means everything has to be neutral.
This is no big thing. A lot of single-person bathrooms in medical facilities and restaurants don't have a urinal.
I have always found it a waste of material to have both urinals and sinks, there will be sinks right?
Any toilet is smelly and disgusting if it’s not kept clean. At my work urinals are always clean. I also like it in some bars/restaurants when they put fresh ice in the urinals.
Lol, though it would be somewhat awkward for me utilize. I see the value & benefit (esp. for us females) having a urinal along side the toilet...
Yup, in some countries you squat over them to pee and dump in, then wash your bits down as paper doesn't go down the loo. You can do this with strangers -