How come more houses aren't built with urinals as standard fixtures?

Question

Is it considered a waste of money or not attractive? I'm thinking it would save on the consumption of water and would be very convenient.

Answer 1

It seems to be a combination of both factors. I consider it an extra expense, not a waste of money. There are benefits to be gained.

The obvious extra expense comes from the fixture and extra plumbing, but there is also an expense factor to the extra space required in the bathroom. Together they add up quickly, the extra cost is generally well over $1000.

Water savings is an obvious benefit, but it would take considerable time to recover the initial additional cost. Most Americans are not as water conscious as we probably should be, so the simple fact that water is saved is not enough to prompt the investment.

The overlooked benefit is cleanliness. A urinal tends to not get as messy, especially with younger boys. Easier to clean as well. I have decided my next renovation will include a urinal because of this, even though there will be extra expense.

The appearance of a urinal is not readily accepted, in the few projects where I have seen one included it has been screened from the rest of the facility which adds to the expense. I think this will become less of an issue if they see more widespread use in residential projects.

Answer 2

It would save on water. If done right it wouldn't be that unattractive either. I've thought about one for my house as well. Most of the time I just have to pee.

Answer 3

Expensive, take up space, and will only be used by the male members of the family.

There is already a device that will be used by both sexes, so why put in anything else?

Answer 4

most likely because they are not visually attractive.
it would make sense in a household with lots of guys.

Answer 5

lift the toilet seat and you might just as well call it a urinal.