It’s in the Water: An Eccentric Polemic on Washroom Propriety and Corporeal Hedonism

It’s in the Water:
An Eccentric Polemic on Washroom Propriety and Corporeal Hedonism

Abstract:
This paper explores the role of the washroom and it’s associated electrical technologies as a gateway into architectural hedonism. Automated sensor technology in this location passively exploits our bodily function and corporeal discomforts, presenting itself as a solution to a problem. This is the one of the first steps in enabling people to accept the increase in computer-automated systems within our built environment. While they may not be architectural, they are corporeal hedonisms calling into question the relationship between our bodies and the materials we use to maintain them.

Hedonism! It’s becoming more and more common in built environment these days. Buildings are being designed to take the ethical discomfort out of the being in the physical comfort zone. Mechanical systems are being made more efficient, so you are putting the energy you put into the system to better use. VAV boxes allow spaces to be environmentally customized to suite the needs of the occupant. Lamps are being reengineered to use the latest light emitting diodes, reducing heat loads, increasing lamp efficacy and giving you a longer lamp life. Lighting systems can be controlled remotely to shutdown until someone arrives to use the space. Computers control entire buildings, reading them as dendritic systems that can be selectively placed in dormant states, so long as it can be connected to an electrical sensor.

Systems and services have become such a driver in design methodology we find ourselves in a position where we are providing clients with solutions and strategies that allow for both a level of relative luxury in matter and conservation of material. As a result, contemporary architectural practice is increasingly based on “both/and” scenarios with respect to project delivery. Within practice we are to both provide low impact solutions and high tech systems. This is not to say that these approaches are invalid, because they aren’t. Material conservation is a real concern and should be a part of practice. Standards of excellence in conservation such as LEED should be recognized for what they bring to the table with respect to bringing our attention to construction waste streams. Further to that, the visualization of architectural performance on larger electronic displays has done a lot to make operational (in)efficiencies a tangible part of occupation and management.

This is the basis for the architectural hedonism that is being heralded by some as the next age of building. Scarcity is no longer a concern when the performance of a system can be calibrated against another resource such as money or time. The ability to model performance in the computer enables the designer with the ability to predict the impact of usage patterns. More importantly, the occupants or the operational analyst are able to make real time decisions based on real time data. As promised, all that data- small, medium and otherwise- is being used to save us from ourselves almost immediately after we have sinned.

Given the amount of control being ceded to computational systems, it is interesting that the level of discomfort among people is so low. The cold fact of binary code is replacing rationalization and fears of the individual with what appears to be little or no complaint, despite decades of cautionary tales about the dangerous authority of computers and their ability to render decisions that were not in name of the common good. We’ve seen robots violating prime directives, computers in control of spaceships, robot chasing children and eventually other robots. We’ve even seen how smart computing and big data can make a potently dangerous mix. Still, we stand by our machines and let them make systemic decisions for us.

There are a number of reasons for this. The first is that we love technology. Specifically we love gadgets that allow us to do other things like parking our cars and decision-making based on large amounts of information. We like them for the capacity to do things for us, the opportunity to show off new gadgets, “I got the latest phone,” along with technologies make us appear more efficient, “hey, check out this app I got.” It’s no wonder that we need to behave in a similar manner with our constructed environment. All of this appeals to our higher, cognitive functions. It’s brain candy.

Immediate access to technology isn’t the only enticer. This is only one part of a more complex set of situations. After all, the digital feeds the mind, not the body. A physical counterpart was needed that encouraged us to accept the presence of smart technology- one that engaged every body at a fundamental level. So the material counterpart to the computer was based on water. By this I am not suggesting that bottled water was the counterpart. That would too easy and too superficial. Bottled water follows a pattern of consumption, being selected for it’s mineral content whether it is for the subtle flavor, carbonation or for enhanced performance. Added to that bottled water is still a luxury good that is in decline. Not everyone buys bottled water off the shelf, and the increased popularity of taps designed to be thermos accessible has only helped in this decrease. The taps are sophisticated enough to estimate the number of plastic bottles being kept out of the environment based, reassuring those who use that station are doing a good deed in a bright digital display. Bottle water is too conspicuous. Instead, the counterpart to digital hedonism had to cut across classes, culture, and creed. It had been a shared experience. It had to be based on bodily fluids.

Why bodily fluids? There are two key reasons. First, we all have them. Show me a body devoid of fluids and I’ll look at the museum placard stating how old the desiccated remains are. Secondly, our relationships with water are intrinsically tied to our need to be hydrated. It’s connected to our need to replace and replenish fluids, meaning depleted or excess fluid needs to be evacuated. If there is anything that ties us together is our need to use a washroom now and then, making it the perfect unifier. It’s a place of habit, or ritual for some. It’s also a very private experience and compromising experience. Also consider how mentally occupy the space of a washroom, especially one you are not familiar with. Your first goal is to avoid all other fluids to avoid and potential transfer of bacteria or any other water borne ailments. In this room you confront your bodily limitations directly, and it is all based on rituals related to water.

This makes the washroom the perfect counterpart to the positive feedback provided given to the brain by digital technology, and in some respects better. This is one of the most vulnerable moments in any person’s day. Anything that can be done to expedite this process is becomes welcome, as it allows you to get back to the really important part of your day- thinking. This is a prime location to introduce a little luxury. The clincher is that anything that is placed in a washroom that is more conducive to cleanliness is not seen as a luxury but as progress.

So what is this simple piece of luxury? The infrared sensor, an electric device connected to solenoid motor, complete with a plastic shield over a flashing “eye” reminiscent of yet another set of robots bent on destroying humanity. Typically there are as many as three sensors you encounter in a washroom. Two of these deal directly with the application of water and the third deal wit the removal. In each case, if the eye is visible, it implicitly promises to make your experience in that washroom more a more pleasurable experience.
You place immediate faith in that light, hoping that it does work; otherwise you will need to spend even more time trying to determine where the button to manually trigger the motor is located. If the sensor is located in a sink you hope it works because there are no taps to control the water, or wet hands.

What is not as clear is what sensor automated washroom fixtures offers to “both/and” scenarios. Consider that the sensor gives you both a means to manage water in a potentially contaminated environment and the security of remote control. It provides us this interface with the luxury of electronics gadgets (so it must be a good thing), and it appeals to some of our basic fears with a technological solution. Even more exciting is that it pairs both water and electricity and guarantees life safety. Access to this technology is available to anyone who needs to use a washroom in a high traffic location. It’s this passive experience that makes the automated sensor technology the other gateway into architectural hedonism. It’s hard to say no to technology that work in such a direct manner, even as they are scaled up to address larger issues and complexity. While they may not sell products they sell the idea, which is a far more effective marketing campaign.

But as a hedonistic matter, automated sensor technology looses luster. Consider that a great deal of the sensor systems out there operate on battery power. The battery of choice these days is made using lithium ion, a resource gather from brine pools. Suddenly the technology both provides water on demands and uses it at a disassociated location. More significantly, it makes a strange pairing between two very different states, water and energy. We’re often taught that water and electricity don’t mix and for good reason. Water is finite material, whereas electricity or energy is matter of abundance. The association, or assumption that the production of one can be used to manage the application of another is a potentially dangerous one, encouraging best practices at an unrealized cost. Until such time that the computer model is capable of evaluating the total impact of the system, it is incumbent upon people to watch the robots.