I criticize the urinals in OMA’s Milstein Hall (at Cornell University) in my book of the same name. The fixtures selected, presumably to match the stainless steel serpentine partitions separating the men’s and women’s rooms, are Willoughby UF-1438 special-order stainless steel single person floor mounted stall urinals, intended mainly “for use in security environments” — i.e., correctional facilities (fig. 1).
They are embedded in the concrete floor slab which is problematic for at least two reasons: first, because it violates the principle of “shearing layers” whereby things that need to change or be replaced periodically should not be embedded in things (like a structural floor slab) that are intended to last for the life of the building; and second, because the concrete floor is in such bad shape that it violates the New York State Building Code requirement that “floor finish materials shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface.” (ICC, “1209.2.1 Floors and Wall Bases,” in the 2020 New York State Building Code.)
These prison-grade urinals are not only dysfunctional in this academic context, but are also incredibly expensive — well over $1,000.00 each. And while it’s hard these days to find a functional urinal as beautiful as the so-called readymade that Duchamp tried to exhibit in 1917 (fig. 2a), except perhaps on eBay (fig. 2b), functional high-efficiency urinals can be found for well under $200 (fig. 2c).
It is possible, at least for individuals whose gender identity aligns with the use of so-called men’s rooms, to see some beautiful urinals at Cornell. But to do this, you need to go to the basement of Barton Hall, which was built in 1917, about the same time as Duchamp’s readymade. I can’t say for sure if these urinals date from the building’s opening, or from some mid-twentieth-century renovation, but their similarity to Duchamp’s “Mutt” makes a trip to Barton Hall well worth the effort (fig. 3).