types of families, and people who may need assistance from a helper of another gender. - modations today. Some options include: Allowing access to M/F restrooms per gender identify: This solution is no doubt practiced in many venues. It is an important step in the process, but is not considered a complete solution for all. Multiple, single-user restrooms in addition to M/F re- strooms: This solution may be considered “safe” and secure for all, but it can lead to a separation and ghettoization of those who choose gender-neutral washrooms. People may re- ceive unwelcome scrutiny at the single-use rooms, particularly if they must wait in line to use them. This is perhaps our most typical current solution (see Figure 1). All gender-neutral restrooms: This solution represents a cultural change from most current practice. One solution relies on well-separated water closets in a single room. A central lav- atory serves all. It requires approval (or acquiescence) from the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. (see Figure 2). Committing to a policy for gender identity access will certainly aid audiences. Backstage workers (cast, crew and managers) also deserve equal opportunity in buildings. Perhaps the most present challenge lies in our backstage dressing rooms, where performers of all gender iden- As designers we often receive user requests to provide enhanced pri-
vacy in group dressing rooms. This addresses the needs of performers who may be in gender transition, struggling with a physical issue, or who are simply more modest than their peers. One solution provides for simple changing rooms within the group dressing room suite, al-
Figure 2
It is clear that gender-accommodating design solutions are available to planners and operators in the performing arts. Our panel challenged designers to seize the opportunity before them. As noted by Antonio Pacheco in The Architect’s Newspaper: “As this form of inequality gains a wider understanding, architects and designers must decide whether they wish to perpetuate inequality through their designs or advocate for change.” Performing arts designers and operators will be watching the Su-
preme Court closely for its Virginia decision. But, regardless of their we have the foresight to advance our designs to meet the needs of a changing society? FM
Todd Hensley, ASTC, is a Partner with Schuler Shook Theatre Planners/Lighting
Figure 3
IAVM 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52