Making the Case for Residential Urinals
tarakbhadwahai
| Posted in General Questions on
So far that’s my plan. It seems like a no brainer. Urinals use massively less water than even Watersense toilets, and keep toilets a lot cleaner. It seems like it should be the default on home construction – it’s not clear why we would have such a basic appliance everywhere but in our homes.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
Well, I think it's a bit of a brainer.
I'd assume it's mostly for space reasons that's it's not common. It's kind of like why we don't, as a standard, have ADA compliant universal bathrooms or seperate men's and women's bathrooms in our homes.
Residential bathrooms are VERY small, and highly economical on usage of space. (It actually drives me nuts because we do spend a lot of time in there). Unless you're doing some fancy mansion, or happen to have unconstrained land to build big, most designers don't design for superfluous space in a bathroom. They'll prioritize a bigger bedroom or a bigger kitchen. Bathrooms are generally designed for function in terms of the space and then we'll try to up the feel by having better materials, bigger mirrors, heated floor, glass shower walls etc. If anything, usually the bathing is prioritised. So like having an independent shower and tub instead of a tub-shower combo (one of my most hated things in houses) You'd be lucky if you even had a space for a bench in the bathroom to sit on while you change or place things like a duffle bag on. A lot of things happen in a bathroom yet they're usually the size of a jail cell.
Since men still have to go number 2, a single toilet is the most practical use of space that serves everyone in one device. This is my theory on why you don't see many urinals in residential applications.
If you had more space, sure throw a urinal in there. Maybe even an altar of your choosing while you're at it.
One thing I think we should go back to is the "water closet". A seperate room within the bathroom that is just the toilet. It's much easier to manage the exhaust air and not stink up the whole bathroom and it allows other people to use the vanity or shower while you take a dump in peace. Just as with your urinals, I make the case for this, but no one is designing and building them, probably for space reasons.
You'll also have to consider the differences in residential vs commercial plumbing to archive the urinal. Most urinals use a flushometer, which generally needs a 1" supply, houses aren't usually plumbed like this, and if you haven't designed for flow requirements all the way from the street, it could be pretty annoying to use it. You might be able to find an old school cistern for a urinal and mount it up high, but to that end, you're using the same amount of water as a toilet would.
If you really care about water preservation, you'd put in a waterless urinal, with the chemical neutralizing pucks. Or better yet, have a rain water collection system, where it collects, filters and stores rainwater in a tank in the attic and supplies water via demand pump to all the urinals and toilets in the house.
Some people bring up the urinal argument on this forum every few years. There is a logic to it. So please throw one in and post photos and a floor layout. I'd love to see how you designed it in terms of space of the bathroom and the adjacent rooms.
Let the forum know more of your details!
Jamie
I have designed them on a couple of projects. Unfortunately neither was built; I also think they make a lot of sense. As does sitting down, if you're not the one who will be cleaning the toilet.
Many/most homes don't have sufficient water delivery ability AT PRESSURE to properly operate a Sloan valve on a urinal. Sometimes if you tap right off at the water meter (in the case of a city water system) you can just barely do it. Remember that a typical house will have a 3/4" water service, maybe 1" coming from the street. A typical commercial building will have a 2"+ line coming in, often 4" or larger if the building has fire sprinklers. Even if the water meter is tapped off of that larger service and only runs a 1" or 1.25" line after the meter, you still have a LOT more deliverable water available from the commercial service.
I'd also say that urinals aren't usually the most attractive things, so they aren't going to fit in with what most would consider an architecturally pleasing bathroom. Urinals are more about function than anything else.
Bill
What Bill said - most residences don't have the pressure to operate a flush valve AND in addition to the same cleaning a toilet needs, urinals need additional maintenance to keep them from smelling.
If you are concerned about water use, no, urinals do not "use massively less water." You can get a toilet with the same low use, which are available to order through Home Depot.
- AFAIK, high efficiency urinals currently use 0.5 gpf
- The Niagara "Original" Dual flush uses 0.5 gpf for liquids (and 0.95 for solids). I can vouch for the Niagara dual flush product, as I have three of an earlier version of the Niagara dual flush and this one is apparently just improved. They are excellent and water saving toilets.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Niagara-Stealth-The-Original-2-piece-0-5-0-95-GPF-Dual-Flush-Elongated-Toilet-in-White-Seat-Not-Included-N7717-N7714-DF/324596700
This is not the first time this has come up
IT is a silly argument
Sorry
https://www.wostman.se/en/lowflushing-toilets
There are dual flush toilets with such low flush ability that the limitation of a urinal, not counting the cost of square footage, is ridiculous.
Put a wildly low flush toilet in your powder room, regular dual elsewhere and you will save money, space and lose almost no water