In the streets of Hamburg, Germany, a new form of urban deterrent is turning public urination into an instant lesson in cause and effect. Known as “anti-pee paint,” this specialized nano-coating creates a superhydrophobic surface, repelling liquids so completely that anything touching it slides off with remarkable force. The result? Anyone attempting to relieve themselves on a treated wall experiences an immediate and unforgettable splash-back. The technology borrows from nature, mimicking the microscopic structure of a lotus leaf. Tiny ridges and air pockets prevent any liquid from adhering, meaning walls remain clean while offenders get an eye-opening consequence — all without the need for confrontation, fines, or patrols. It’s an ingenious blend of physics and human psychology: the paint doesn’t punish with authority, it punishes with instant feedback. First popularized in Hamburg’s St. Pauli district in 2015, this approach has since been trialed in other cities like London and San Francisco. While the coating is costly, city authorities note significant savings on cleaning and maintenance, and a marked decrease in repeat offenses. Beyond hygiene, it’s a striking example of how urban design and material science can work together to shape behavior. For engineers, urban planners, and city residents, anti-pee paint is both a marvel of nano-engineering and a lesson in poetic justice. The streets stay cleaner, the message is immediate, and the offender leaves with a story they won’t soon forget.
So to you it is axiomatic that the problem is insufficient toilets. You cannot understand that there are people - usually drunk - who will not use a toilet unless they are already inside it. It is not feasible to blanket a city in toilets sufficiently to eliminate public urination, so maybe a multi-pronged approach including discouraging people from doing so is more sensible.
We’ve already been doing the later. And how has that been working out?
You are correct, that I cannot understand something that I’ve never seen, or even heard of. I’ve seen shitfaced people stumble into restrooms pretty frequently. I’ve never seen someone say “I know there is a toilet less than a block from here, but I’d rather piss on the wall!”. But I hear the opposite all the time: “Man, I wish I didn’t have to piss out here, but the nearest toilet is a mile away”.
Citation needed.
I have been walking home with someone who pissed in the street less than a block (I don’t live in the US, we don’t have blocks, but it was a couple of minutes) away from home.
Cmon, use that imagination of yours to go beyond what you have directly experienced.
Remember too that all drunk people have come from somewhere with a working toilet, because places that serve alcohol have toilets.
Maybe the place was closing. Maybe they didn’t need to go at the time. Maybe the toilet didn’t work. Maybe they just pee a lot. Guilty as charged.
Maybe.
All of this means that your proposed method requires toilets every couple of hundred metres between city centres and suburbs. That sounds like a ridiculous waste of resources.