plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
16833 stories
·
20 followers

The Enviable Public Toilets of Tokyo in ‘Perfect Days’

1 Share

The restroom designed by Shigeru Ban at Yoyogi Fukamachi Mini Park in Tokyo, as it appears at night. Photo: Yuichi Yamazaki/AFP via Getty Images

Movies are machines for generating envy, but you can keep your mauve sunsets and cinematic peaks, your luscious gowns and roast birds shellacked to implausible perfection. Wim Wenders’s tender and lovely film Perfect Days has fired me up with a new object of desire: public bathrooms as clean and beautiful as those in the Shibuya neighborhood of Tokyo. In the film, Koji Yakusho plays Hirayama, a gently taciturn man who nourishes his craving for order and poise through his profession as a toilet cleaner. Equipped with an arsenal of specialized tools, he performs a daily ritual of precise movements to maintain the gleam of 17 branded Tokyo Toilets scattered around Shibuya. And they exist in real life! They are neighborhood beacons, functional sculptures, mini-resorts for five-minute vacations, and shots of urban color created by an august array of designers and architects (including two Pritzker Prize winners). To a New Yorker who sees these gemlike installations pop up onscreen, and watches them get polished to a mirrored gloss, they seem like science fiction.

Shigeru Ban adorned two small Tokyo parks with glass boxes tinted in citrus hues, which seem at first like a perverse art project: a see-through, candy-colored toilet that takes the word public a bit too literally. Lock the door, though, and the translucent glass instantly frosts over, replacing the safety of being able to see in with the security of not being seen. Those are the most overtly spectacular designs in the Shibuya catalog, but they’re not even the ones most sensitive to their users’ timely needs. Kengo Kuma clustered five freestanding chambers, including one designed specifically for children, into a village sided with cedar planks. Nao Tamura fashioned a wedge of fire-red steel plates to fit on a narrow triangular site and to mirror the user’s “sense of urgency.” Marc Newson tucked a graceful concrete temple with a copper roof beneath a highway overpass, perhaps to communicate that spiritual and bodily needs are intertwined and can assert themselves anywhere. The firm Wonderwall exploded the ancient earthen hut into a mazelike composition of slender partitions. Some of the designs are fanciful, but all begin with an approach to making everyone — old people, toddlers, wheelchair users, tourists, habitués — feel comfortable and relaxed, maybe even a little exhilarated. That’s the point of architecture: to elevate ordinary human activities (and what is more ordinary than a bathroom break?) into experiences full of meaning and satisfaction. Sleeping, eating, staring at a computer screen, commuting, praying, reading — these procedures can, and mostly do, take place in the most basic enclosures. No good architecture is strictly utilitarian; it’s always an optional upgrade.

Scenes from Wim Wenders's Perfect Days, featuring restroom kiosks by Wonderwall (gray), Kengo Kuma (timber), and Shigeru Ban (glass). NEON.

Scenes from Wim Wenders's Perfect Days, featuring restroom kiosks by Wonderwall (gray), Kengo Kuma (timber), and Shigeru Ban (glass). NEON.

Tokyo’s example should make New Yorkers scream in frustration. Finding a public bathroom here is almost always a dispiriting challenge; using one can be worse. We have gotten used to cadging door codes from cashiers, striding into hotel lobbies as if we belong, jiggling the locked metal doors of playground restrooms, or getting inside to find pitted sinks and mysterious sedimentary deposits. (There are books and an excellent Instagram feed devoted to this stressful hunt.) In 2019, the comptroller’s staff heroically inspected every park bathroom in the city and found that many were damaged, dangerous, inaccessible, or unusable. The city has periodically tried to alleviate this desperation, but not so as you’d notice. A hopeful breeze wafted through Manhattan in the early 1990s, when, after years of political bickering, six self-cleaning pay toilets miraculously found their way to the sidewalks of Manhattan, purveyed by the French company JCDecaux. They worked, looked okay, brought relief, and didn’t turn into crack shacks. Four months later, they were gone. The pilot program “worked so well that the city [said it] would move ahead with plans to install more than 100 on busy sidewalks in all five boroughs,” the Times reassured readers in 1992. “If all goes according to plan, the officials said, the toilets would be ready by, say, the spring of 1994.” They were not ready then, or ever. In 2006, the Bloomberg administration made another deal — with Cemusa, later acquired by JCDecaux — to install 20 prefabricated toilets. Most of them have spent the last 18 years sitting in a warehouse in Queens.

One of our absurdly few New York public toilets, this one in Washington Heights. Photo: Robert K. Chin/Alamy Stock Photo

When New York does erect a bespoke new facility in a park, it can take a dozen years and as much as $6 million, The City reported in 2019. (By contrast, the construction cost of each Tokyo Toilet, fitted out with the latest sensors, heaters, lights, and warm air blowers, comes out to roughly $800,000.) Our City Council recently passed a couple of pro-bathroom laws, including one requiring the Adams administration to come up with a list of potential locations for new ones by December 31, 2023. No word yet on that report — or on a bill compelling the city to actually build anything.

That sanitary paucity embodies the worst of New York’s approach to modernizing the physical city: preposterous costs, litigiousness, indolence, negativity, and a kind of reverse exceptionalism: Just because it works fine in other cities doesn’t mean it will work here. It also reflects the sense that using a bathroom is the definition of a private act, not a pressing public issue. Apartment owners who spend fortunes to remodel their own retreats aren’t necessarily interested in pitching in for a humble sidewalk outhouse. Consequently, the city doesn’t take this business seriously. Instead, it spends years, even decades, weighing objections to good ideas, checking proposals against onerous requirements, and shelving the whole project when it gets too complicated. Developers do only slightly better. The new privately owned public space at 550 Madison Avenue is one of just 13 (out of nearly 600) that have public bathrooms. It’s a nice one, by Snøhetta, though no auteur would make a film about it. Only Bryant Park has managed to earn a spot on the toilet hall of fame, by renovating a 1911 structure and tending it to five-star-hotel standards.

Shigeru Ban’s design by day. Photo: Stefan Boness / VISUM/Redux

Another Tokyo toilet, this one by Nao Tamura. Photo: Stefan Boness / VISUM/Redux

Tokyo got its showcase toilets thanks to a rich man with an idiosyncratic idea of public-spiritedness: Koji Yanai, the son of Uniqlo founder Tadashi Yanai and a senior executive at its parent company, Fast Retailing. The way Yanai tells it, he saw, and was stirred by, a promotional video for the 2016 Paralympics in Rio, with its montage of athletes and musicians overcoming disabilities with astonishing resourcefulness. For the 2020 Paralympic Games in Tokyo, he wanted to find a lasting way to express the Japanese concept of omotenashi, an extreme form of hospitality embodied in the tea ceremony. After a series of false starts, he came up with the idea of using design to ennoble the earthiest of human functions and serve everyone regardless of age, disability, or any other distinction. He didn’t make the Games, but he did use them to prod the city into a lasting civic improvement.

Tokyo already had an abundance of public bathrooms, but they tended to be as off-putting as ours. Yanai saw that the system worked poorly because it depended on selling sponsorships that few companies were interested in. A dingy bathroom doesn’t make a great advertising opportunity. So Yanai turned his fantasy into a personal mission. He hired the designers, recruited the Nippon Foundation to supervise construction, and sweet-talked the Shibuya ward into accepting the gift. Demonstrating the talent for marketing that has helped make Uniqlo ubiquitous in closets around the world, he also recruited Wenders to make what must be the most sublime promotional film in the history of wastewater plumbing.

Another Tokyo design, called “Mori no Komichi,” by Kengo Kuma. Photo: Takaaki Iwabu/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Marc Newson’s design, constructed under a highway overpass in Tokyo. Photo: Christopher Jue/Getty Images

Crucially, Yanai budgeted for the obsessional level of maintenance embodied by the fictional Hirayama. He also insisted that the private company Tokyo Toilets, not a public bureaucracy, be responsible for keeping up standards. Wenders’s movie is really about caring, not design. Hirayama tends to his tiny corner of the world — his body, his snapshots of trees, his Kinks and Lou Reed cassettes, and, of course, his toilets — with a reverence that borders on the religious. That version of omotenashi doesn’t translate well here. The challenge of maintenance keeps coming up in fatalistic explanations for why such a basic public amenity seems out of reach in New York. In our fallen state, finely crafted bathrooms would soon be filthy, covered in graffiti, vandalized, commandeered by junkies, and quickly put out of service. The prevailing philosophy about public facilities of all kinds is that they must be indestructible and require minimal upkeep, since that is what they will get. Fighting the forces of disintegration is too costly and requires too much vigilance. These are the arguments of a society driven by self-disgust. And the result of all these objections, delays, denials, and neglect is indeed disgusting: a city where the best option for some people is the gap between parked cars. This may be the capital of the world, but, let’s face it, it reeks of urine.

The Ureddplassen rest area on the Helgelandskysten Norwegian Scenic Route. Photo: Nordic Images/Alamy Stock Photo

A program of free, high-tech, designer toilets for all is the appurtenance of an affluent society. (And not just Japan’s: I once spent an enjoyable week touring some of Norway’s magnificently scenic and dramatically designed rest stops; the world’s most exhilarating public-bathroom experience may be at Ureddplassen, where you can pee with a view of an icy seascape and sharp-pointed peaks.) When Yanai delivered a lecture at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, the Indian architect Rahul Mehrotra pointed out that his country had one toilet seat (public or private) for every 1,400 rear ends. If the government of India could supply millions of its people with an alternative to an open ditch, that alone would be a miraculous achievement. The scale of that inequity should make us appreciate how relatively trivial our challenges in public sanitation are — and how easy and rewarding it would be to overcome them. Surely the metropolis that calls to the world with its ever-expanding museums, multiplying concert halls, thin-air observation decks, and destination parks can manage somewhere decent to pee? The only penury we can legitimately plead is poverty of imagination.

Tokyo’s Public Toilets Will Leave New Yorkers Sobbing

Read the whole story
sarcozona
6 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Nonprofit hospitals posting a profit should lose tax exempt status - STAT

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
6 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Priest among Just Stop Oil climate activists given ankle tags for peaceful protest | openDemocracy

1 Share

A 73-year-old priest accused of helping plan a climate protest on the M25 has been forced to lead church services while wearing a GPS ankle tag for two years.

Tim Hewes, from Oxfordshire, is among at least ten members of Just Stop Oil who were given the tags despite not having been convicted of a crime. Hewes, who previously sewed his lips shut outside a newspaper office, is also barred from going on the M25 or taking part in any actions to oppose the climate crisis.

On one occasion, Hewes said he was thrown into the back of a police van and locked up overnight after being accused of breaking his bail conditions because his ankle monitor failed to charge. He says the tag was faulty and he was released once the court realised.

“Now if there’s a knock at the door, I think, well, it’s either the tag team or the police,” he told openDemocracy.

Get one whole story, direct to your inbox every weekday.

“The difficulty with the GPS is that, although I don’t have a curfew, I’ve still got to sleep at home.

“I asked my solicitor: ‘What if I want to go and see the dawn, or something like that?’ and she said: ‘Well, between 12 and five is probably about your limit.’ So, that would rule out midnight mass… Why should I not be able to do that? You know where I am.

“We’re supposed to be able to protest… The perpetrators of real, serious harm in this country are actually in government. What are we supposed to do?”

Hewes, who was speaking to openDemocracy in December and was in fact able to attend midnight mass without a hitch on Christmas Day, had been arrested in November 2022 and charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. He has worn the tag since January 2023 after being held on remand at Wandsworth Prison for six weeks, and has to keep it on until his trial begins in February 2025. Tags must be worn at all times for as long as the court decides.

While he denies the charge, Hewes’s tag prohibits him from going on the M25 and taking part in or organising climate protests. Following previous action with other climate campaign groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Christian Climate Action, he says he has faced increasingly harsh treatment from the police and justice system.

Hewes was arrested on a Sunday afternoon. He said he had just put his collar on as he prepared to take part in a church service when he looked out of the window and saw his garden “swarming with police”.

“They shouted up: ‘If you don't come down and open the door, we’re going to break it down now.’ And they got what they call a ‘big red key’, which is a euphemism for the battering ram. It was scary.”

He added: “Sunday afternoon was just never the same for me.”

Hewes said he was initially embarrassed to lead services with his tag on, and believes climate activists are being heavily criminalised in order to silence and discredit them.

Suella Braverman talked about Just Stop Oil in the same breath as terrorists,” he told openDemocracy. “That’s outrageous. We’re peaceful protesters. The climate crisis is an existential threat.”

Braverman, the former home secretary who was forced out after inciting a far-right mob to storm the Cenotaph in November, referred to the activist group as “extremists” in 2022 and said they were “out of control” following a series of protests on the M25.

Marcin Wawrzyn, 42 – who was arrested after 20 minutes of ‘slow marching’ with Just Stop Oil in November – told openDemocracy that being given a tag felt “unfair” and “disproportionate”.

“It felt like a punishment and for what?” he said. “I was marching in the road – where else would you protest? The judges of ECHR say roads are the most appropriate places for protests and anything under 90 minutes cannot be seen as disruptive.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Guest post: Who gets to live in techno-utopia? Disability rights, eugenics, and effective altruism

1 Share

This is a guest post by Victor Zhenyi Wang. Victor worked as a data scientist in global health and development at IDinsight India. He is currently a Masters student at the Blum Center for Developing Economies at UC Berkeley. He is interested in technology policy, participatory approaches to AI, and digital public infrastructure. He studied mathematics at the Australian National University where he developed a passion for long distance running. Victor also writes a blog about technology, ethics, and disabilities.

In September, I attended Manifest, a forecasting and prediction markets conference. This conference attracted a unique combination of speakers: Nate Silver, Robin Hanson, Destiny, Aella, to name a few. Other prominent guests included Richard Hanania, author of the recent “The Origins of Woke” and Jonathan Anomaly, an academic who writes on the ethics of eugenics, among other things. This conference, in Berkeley, also attracted a typically rationalist and effective altruism crowd.

Before the conference, there was a fair bit of contention around Richard Hanania’s attendance. A HuffPost article had just come out which revealed that under a different name, he wrote a number of hateful diatribes on race, gender, among other things. Since this is a prediction markets conference, a market was formed around whether he deserves to attend as a speaker. Austin Chen, the founder of Manifold (the forecasting app behind the conference), published a statement on his views on why he chose to invite Hanania; Hanania’s talk was withdrawn although he did attend the conference to promote his new book. A related post is on how many people protested by not coming.

Meanwhile, another speaker, the philosopher Jonathan Anomaly, spoke on “liberal eugenics”. “Liberal” eugenics concerns genetic enhancement at the group level through manipulation via technology. This is “liberal” in that no existing people are harmed and there is no obvious coercion. Instead, voluntary genetic selection and enhancement¹ is mediated via technological advancements. This is analogous to existing practices in genetic screenings of embryos. For instance, parents today have the choice to abort a fetus if certain genetic conditions such as Down syndrome are detected. This is legal in some countries, such as Australia.

If we believe that this is permissible, then why not allow parents to do this for other traits? As genome sequencing and predictive medicine evolve, we will likely have the technology to predict traits of embryos in vitro. It may even be possible for us to estimate probabilities for various genetic illnesses, mental illnesses or even addiction. One trait Anomaly stressed at the conference was intelligence and more broadly, whether society at large should select for children that are more intelligent or otherwise gifted.

At the end of his talk, the audience did not challenge his premises or core arguments. A common idea for why you invite or even platform someone with different, sometimes radical, opinions to your own is so you can challenge them publicly. If so, then does this mean everyone at the talk agreed with the speaker?

Walking out of the talk, I overheard a young attendee casually mention “wow I had no idea technology was so advanced now”. As someone who lives with a disability (and likely candidate for embryonic annihilation), it is a surreal experience to be in a room full of people who believe that they would like to do good in the world and at the same time be a person who they would prefer not to exist at all. I wish I had the capacity in that moment to have said something — anything — but I didn’t. I only hoped that others in the audience felt the discomfort that I did and that they did not de facto agree with the speaker.

But I think that if you find utilitarianism somewhat plausible, it is actually consistent to believe that the world in which liberal eugenics is widespread and permissible results in better outcomes for its denizens. Since, after all, if we focus on the elimination of disabilities, people with disabilities live “worse off” lives than those without, all else being equal, so surely this would be a much better world? If we focus on maximizing propensities for beneficial traits in future persons, surely they would all live better lives?

In this short essay, I want to challenge the idea that disabilities result in lives which are worse and discuss why cost benefit analysis (and therefore cost-effectiveness) is not a reasonable framework for thinking about disabilities.

I think what many utilitarians get wrong about disabilities is that most disabled people actually do believe that our lives are worth living but also valuable and ought to be valued. In fact, it is challenged whether disabled lives are “worse”. There is a New York Times magazine article from 2003 by Harriet McBride Johnson, a prominent disability rights activist, detailing her meeting with Peter Singer.

“Are we ‘’worse off’’? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful sense. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy, and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.”

We fall in loveOur capabilities are different but not necessarily diminished. Advocacy by those much braver and much more determined than myself have changed history so that today, we are able to attain the capabilities that we wish to.

Obviously, people living with disabilities face a range of challenges in accessibility. Yet these challenges are not inherent to disabilities. For example, shortsightedness in the neolithic period would result in serious difficulties yet in today’s society, with both technology (glasses) and changes in the structure of society, in the configuration of people’s lives, shortsightedness does not really represent a diminishment in someone’s capabilities. What Johnson is claiming is that it is really a property of society that disabilities constrains the ability for one to attain the capabilities they wish for.

This becomes a problem in making policy decisions. Common metrics of wellbeing like Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) or its equivalent Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) may feel neutral and objective but are based on surveys that rely on subjective accounts of participants’ (who are typically without disabilities) ratings of quality of life with and without counterfactual disabilities or illnesses. So this metric is going to inherit all the biases society already has against disabled people.

If you imagine a utopia with this kind of metric at its core, what kind of society would this create? Since people with disabilities are a minority and we typically have both lower baseline utility and less utility to gain, this is a group that should be de-prioritized in order to maximize the total amount of good we can do since resources are limited and need rationing. As Nick Beckstead and Toby Ord have previously written, if we try to avoid disability discrimination in healthcare rationing, other worse outcomes might arise. In trying to smooth some air bubbles under wallpaper, we might create other ones. Better then, to not have to make this decision altogether, and eliminate the possibility that such individuals might exist at all. Liberal eugenics fits in perfectly with this idea.

This is however, not a new idea. In fact, historically, cost effectiveness analysis or cost benefit analysis have always been used to deny accommodations and basic dignities for disabled people. For example, in 1981 President Reagan signed an executive order which put Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at risk. In this executive order, he mandated that regulation should “maximize the net-benefits to society” as well as choosing between alternative approaches that incur the “least net cost to society”. In other words, disability accommodations only help the disabled, do not benefit most of society, and tend to be terribly expensive (adding in elevators to a subway system tend to be much more expensive than just designing the subway with elevators in mind) — these concerns should be weighed against the interests of broader society. Accessibility and equity needs to be squared against cost justifications.

Since then, the language of cost benefit analysis has become an ubiquitous excuse to deny all sorts of basic rights in American politics. But this is really quite absurd. In 2012, the Department of Justice conducted a cost benefit analysis on whether prisons should prevent rape.

In the words of the disability rights activist Judith Heumann, that this is even being discussed “is so intolerable, I can’t quite put it into words.” The history of disability rights in this country was fought with disabled bodies thrown against callous institutions. This reveals the true nature of the threat -that it is tempting and beyond that terribly easy to use the language of cost effectiveness as an instrument of dispossession.

Techno-optimists will tell us that technology, through liberal eugenics, will create a world in which everyone is better off by design. But there will always be people with disabilities even if we were selecting ‘optimal’ embryos with predictive genetic selection. In that world, which seems not so far off, we will be marked as lesser, our dignities and rights denied to us. It would be a return to a world in which the expendable members of society are systematically institutionalized and recast as abject figures, confined. The air bubbles under the wallpaper vanished at last.

Footnotes

  1. Some draw a distinction between enhancement and treatment. I lean towards the side that this line is likely blurry and also I do not consider this to be an interesting question in this context


Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

No ‘Hippie Ape’: Bonobos Are Often Aggressive, Study Finds

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Battle for the American West

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories