What we have instead is a gross public urination problem (or worse on some streets). Which the city oddly aimed to solve with street-level urinals; acknowledging the problem and providing a solution which still manages to leave the city smelling like urine.
No criticism of the bars and cafes; most of these public facilities have gone abandoned (like the ones outside of Liverpool St. Station). But I do wish the city were more livable and accessible.
Also the lack of trash cans (because terrorists, people tell me) was something that annoyed me to no end while I lived in London.
Here is some actually helpful advice, though:
All of these decisions are to protect against bombs to my knowledge.
I think it's the fact that it's referring to something Victorian that I expect them to be talking about something that actually houses a bath.
When I first saw the headline I thought this was literally about old bathhouses that used to exist. As seen in the cult film Quadrophenia.
Oh well, language changes. I guess in couple of hundred years we'll be referring to the actual lavatory porcelain itself as a "bath".
Also, people usually talk/write in their own dialect. "Bathroom" is how you say it in American English. If the article were about Victorian French bathrooms, would you find it weird if it didn't use "salle de bains" ("room of baths")?
The difference is that of those three words, one consists of 2 fully-semantic unbound morphemes: "bath" and "room"; it literally means a room with a bath in it. Whereas "toilet" and "lavatory" as single-morpheme words.
...but now that you mention it, none of these place include bath tubs. They do, however, include sinks where you can wash your hands, so maybe "lavatory" - "washing place" is a better fit. If that doesn't float your boat perhaps the simple, down to earth and unpretentious "bog" is the winner. :P
They get together and vote in rules they think will force things to be perfect, forgetting that it's entirely possible they will get none instead.
Doesn't change the fact that many people have weaker bladders as they age, and we're in an ageing society. Then there's various conditions and illnesses like Chrons disease, or those who have small children in tow. They may all need unscheduled bathroom breaks at no notice. Now people are expected to "just wait" until they get home or to the office.
Cities aren't really made for people any more. The people are secondary, a necessary annoyance.
It's true that mandatory private provision of toilets in food and drink serving businesses has greatly reduced the need, as has people's tendency to drive everywhere. But really they were closed due to cost-cutting imposed on the councils.
(The number of homeless has ebbed and flowed depending on whether there was a Labour or a Conservative government)
It's required of places serving food/drinks and having seating, which now you say it seems obviously motivated by solving the problem at source rather than leave it to the borough councils to subsidise.
Both are well worth a visit for anyone visiting London!
I used to live around the corner from the one in Fitzrovia. Never saw the appeal. Chacun a son gout.