Where other mayors have failed, Mamdani can succeed. Here’s how.
Last month, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a $4 million investment in 20 to 30 modular public restrooms. The idea is that installing these units will be faster and cheaper than building traditional public restroom projects — which require more digging, heavier construction and complicated connection to sewer lines.
Many New Yorkers applauded, and I was among them.
I’ve got a small bladder and am a bit of a public toilet aficionado. Over the past few years, I’ve rated each of New York City’s privately owned public toilets, criticized City Council legislation that mandated new public toilets without streamlining any associated costs and written about how neighborhood opposition affects what gets built in New York City and when.
So when the Mamdani administration released the RFP for the new public toilet plan, I was excited to read through and understand what we’d get for the money — and whether this mayor is likely to learn from many failed attempts by his predecessors.
We’ll get to that in a second, but let’s start with an important question. In a city of 8 million people, why are there so few places to pee?
Countless private businesses have toilets, but most of those are for customers only. Parks have bathrooms, sometimes called “comfort stations,” but many of those are in very poor shape. Indeed, a report in The City reveals that 50 park bathrooms sit closed. Underground, where so many of us have long waits and no easy access to a urinal or toilet, there are many bathrooms run by the MTA, a state authority. But too few are open and too few of those are in good shape. An audit earlier this year by the agency’s inspector general spot-checked 32 of the 125 bathrooms in the system and found 85% lacked a basic need like toilet seats and soap.
Add it all up, and New York City ranks 93rd out of the country’s largest 100 cities for public bathrooms per capita. That’s especially problematic given that our city has the most vibrant street life and more visitors than anyplace else. Little wonder that adding public toilets was listed among the top 17 ways the new mayor could improve the city in a recent survey by The New York Times. According to Mamdani, “When you can’t find a restroom, you are made keenly aware of just how few public bathrooms there are and how dependent we have left New Yorkers on either the generosity and kindness of a business owner or a requirement that they pay seven bucks for a coffee.”
But remedying the problem is easier said than done. As a bare minimum, the Parks and MTA bathrooms need to be kept in much better condition. Then, the City should create a network of new, clean, street-level toilets available to whoever needs them by learning from previous efforts that didn’t go the distance.
So what went wrong in the past?
In the early 90s, Mayor David Dinkins piloted a coin-operated, self-cleaning toilet kiosk; it died due to a combination of factors, including procurement problems that caused delays, and neighbors like Steve Stollman, who made a name for himself as the loudest activist voice against the plan (he was mostly mad about ads on the bathrooms). Stollman called his campaign against the public toilet program “The Privy Council,” and the New York Times referred to him as “New York’s leading toilet gadfly.” In the early 2000s, Mayor Bloomberg’s administration bought 20 public toilets, but installation got stymied by neighborhood opposition and engineering concerns.
When previous mayors’ plans hit snags, implementation stalled — or, to use toilet terminology, clogged. For a higher-priority, higher-profile issue like housing or public safety, it’d be worth the attention, effort and political capital to get out the plunger. But there’s not a powerful, organized constituency hounding elected officials for public toilets, so for the last 30 years, bathroom projects have limped through years-long pilots, making slow progress until they die a quiet death.
New Yorkers have called out the red tape that has been holding up public toilet projects for 35 years now. A New York Times headline from 1991 read: “In New York, Few Public Toilets and Many Rules.”
This time, with fresh attention being paid to the legacy of “sewer socialism” that emphasizes effective investment in public works, we shouldn’t settle for procurement problems that cause delays or neighborhood opposition that drives up costs.
Stretching every dollar
Is that $4 million Mamdani price tag realistic? Let’s do some basic math on a toilet-paper square. In 2023, New York City purchased five modular Portland Loo toilets — a fancy prefab model — for $185,000 each. Extrapolating from that price, $4 million could today buy the city 21 Portland Loos.
But that’s just the cost of buying the units — not the full cost of implementation. In 2023, installing each pre-fabricated Portland Loo was $815,000. That’s much higher than in other cities, where it typically costs around $220,000 per unit, attributable to New York City’s red tape and complex public infrastructure. At 2023 building and installation prices, $4 million would only get us four public toilets. That’s basically nothing.
Here’s where the new administration is changing it up. In the past, New York City public toilets had to connect to water, sewer and electrical lines. This RFP aims to save on installation costs by requiring that each bathroom unit be self-sufficient without requiring connection to any utility lines. That could yield many more toilets, since companies selling fancy portapotties have lower capital costs.
Also helpfully, the $4 million budget doesn’t just include development and installation, it also includes one year of maintenance.
That’s essential — because the only thing worse than no public bathroom is a dirty bathroom with no toilet paper or soap. The RFP specifies that maintenance not only includes making sure toilet paper is refreshed and toilets are clean, but also that graffiti and debris are removed up to five feet around the toilet (i.e., snow, ice, trash, leaves). And that a vendor arrives on site to respond to emergencies within two hours and non-emergencies within 24 hours. In its RFP, the City also makes clear that it prefers that the vendor manually clean each unit, as opposed to self-cleaning models.
What can $4 million cover, once we take lower installation costs and ongoing maintenance costs into consideration? One fancy portapotty company that services D.C., Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, Throne, charges about $90,000 per toilet per year for hosting and maintenance. At $90,000 per toilet, $4 million would cover 44 bathrooms, higher than the goal of 20-30 bathrooms.
All of which is to say, the RFP points in the right direction. But in these preliminary stages, what else can be learned from previous failures? And where are the likely places that costs could overrun, potentially leading to fewer units installed or ballooning costs down the line?
Flush “everything bagel liberalism”
One way costs can balloon in toilet development, like in so many realms, is when government piles on expensive, well-intentioned mandates, rather than sticking to the core purpose at hand. That’s what Ezra Klein termed “everything-bagel liberalism.”
One requirement that increased New York City’s costs for the 2023 toilet project was related to the fabricator’s location. In that case, the City required that if a fabricator is outside the five boroughs, they need to be approved by the Department of Buildings or have the products inspected by a registered special inspector. None of the pre-approved manufacturers were willing to take on the project, so the company had to go through the process of getting certification — a step that added delays and costs.
Mamdani’s current RFP gets the balance right. Overall, I found the stipulations for the units very reasonable. Here’s a snapshot of what the current RFP requires each modular bathroom unit to include: one toilet fixture; one sink fixture; receptacles for trash and menstrual products; a mirror; a hand-dryer; dispensers for toilet paper, liquid soap, and menstrual products; at least one hook (to hang clothing, bags, etc.); a fold-down babychanging station; an exterior ramp leading to the entrance; signage; ventilation; exterior lighting adequate for public safety, particularly at the entry, as well as a safety mirror for exterior corners; and an emergency call button and non-emergency customer service button.
I don’t see many extraneous things there. Though it is worth at least thinking about innovative models like that in Paris — where, in addition to fully fledged public toilets, they tried installing open-air urinals (which made some people upset). The point is not that those are suited for New York, simply that there’s nothing wrong with a mix of facilities that serve different people, rather than ensuring that every single one must be suited to every single person.
Overall, the RFP does a good job of requiring the need-to-haves, outlining possible nice-to-haves and aligning incentives between the City and the vendor.
Siting and installation pitfalls
The risks don’t end with the requirements delineated in the RFP — far from it. Another hoop that can trip up a project like this is commission approvals. Most of these modular units will end up in parks, plazas and sidewalks. That means they’ll need to get approved by the Public Design Commission (PDC), the 11-member design review board with jurisdiction over permanent structures proposed on public property.
If the proposed bathroom is in a landmarked area, it will also require approval from the 11-member Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The LPC protects historically significant buildings and neighborhoods; they’re the gatekeeper of the city’s historical fabric.
Both commissions have their own multi-month process for publishing information about projects, soliciting community feedback and providing a decision. For example, the LPC process requires applicants to present their proposal to the local Community Board at one of its monthly meetings, which must be scheduled well in advance. When I served on Manhattan Community Board 5’s Landmarks Committee, it was common for applicants’ presentations to include multiple staff, presenting detailed slide decks that clearly took many hours to put together. Applicants must also submit their completed application at least four weeks before presenting to the LPC at one of its monthly hearings. Prior to the public hearing, applicants meet with their assigned LPC staff preservationist to review the proposal, confirm presentation requirements and submit all required materials.
The process involves multiple sequential steps, each of which adds time and coordination requirements. If a commission rejects a project, the project needs to edit their proposal and re-apply if they want to keep moving.
Fortunately, there’s an asterisk. Both commissions have staff that can issue approvals on a rolling basis to move projects along faster. For example, the Landmarks Preservation Commission decided a couple of years ago that bus shelter infrastructure could be approved by staff going forward — no need to go to the full commission for a formal vote anymore. Their reasoning: Bus shelters are critical infrastructure that provide protection from rain, wind and sun. This is a reasonable approach to take for public toilets as well, since they’re also critical infrastructure that would be best designed for function rather than historic relevance. The Commission voted to change the Landmarks Preservation Commission Rules in order to streamline the process.
The Public Design Commission also has categories of projects that can be approved at the staff level, instead of going through the full vote. Mamdani should use both expedited processes.
Team Mamdani can also learn from how previous administrations’ attempts broke down at the siting and design stage. In the past, many holdups with public toilets in New York City have stemmed from communities' inability to agree on the details. For example, in 2006, the City asked community boards to propose locations for new public bathrooms, but many of the sites put forward weren’t feasible. Brooklyn Community Board 2 in Prospect Heights proposed two sites, but one wasn’t perfect because the Public Design Commission was concerned that the modern design clashed with the existing “Victorian stylings” and the other proposed site wasn’t great either because the area was being redeveloped. When agencies and electeds couldn’t reconcile all the tradeoffs, nothing got built.
City agencies should propose the most optimal sites, solicit public input to highlight any significant unforeseen challenges and move the projects forward.
Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance
Every piece of public infrastructure needs to be maintained, but for obvious reasons, toilets especially so.
The City’s goal is for the units to be accessible 24/7, 365 days a year. That means they need to withstand manmade challenges like vandalism, as well as weather ranging from extreme heat to snow and ice. The City ought to plan for ways to pay for and save on maintenance from the start, lest ballooning maintenance costs lead to dirty facilities, or even worse, facilities falling into disrepair and becoming unusable.
Here, I worry the administration is making it difficult for vendors to get creative to save on costs. The RFP specifies that the vendor must employ a minimum of three full-time service technicians to keep all the toilets in good working order. While the language doesn’t rule out self-cleaning toilets, it does state a preference for manual cleaning, which is a recurring labor cost. Historically, self-cleaning toilets haven’t been that reliable in this city — but technology is always advancing. They shouldn’t be ruled out.
Nor is the City allowing for ads to recoup costs, at least at first. The RFP states that “Advertising on or inside these units will not be allowed for the full Contract Term [of one year plus any extensions].” That’s a mistake.
Yes, historically some of the loudest complaints from neighbors about toilets have centered on ads. But again, if we’re prioritizing function and usability as the most important goal, we need a way to fund ongoing maintenance. Why not let advertisers make paid appeals at least to passersby, if not to the captive audience inside the restrooms themselves? LinkNYC wi-fi kiosks put many more ads in many more places for an arguably less important reason.
A good maintenance plan must think through ways to discourage use by people who might not treat the bathrooms properly. We may never have a population as respectful of public toilets as Tokyo’s, but that doesn’t mean we should surrender them to a future of terrible treatment. It’s not uncommon for other cities to charge for public toilet use, or require a smartphone or a touch card. For example, Throne requires a smartphone or tap card for users to enter, implements a 10-minute time limit, and bars future use if there’s evidence of vandalization or misuse. Portland Loos also employ multiple methods to deter inappropriate activity in their bathrooms: open grating that preserves privacy while allowing law enforcement to observe how many people are inside, hand-washing station on the exterior of the unit and blue lights to deter intravenous drug use (yes, that makes it difficult for people to find their veins).
All of those steps technically make restrooms less accessible — but they’re worth the tradeoff to ensure they remain operational for most people most of the time. Optimizing for safe bathrooms up front not only eases community members’ fears about crime, but also holds down maintenance costs and extends the life of the unit.
New York City may be sharply divided on the wisdom of opening public grocery stores. But a network of sparkling new public bathrooms could be in the city’s near future. We just have to make some smart decisions.
