- 1 In 2009, the City of Antwerp decided to close its historic public shower facilities in Rue des Pala (...)
1Access to water for hygiene purposes in European cities faces several major challenges today [Bony et al., 2021]. The first relates to the emergence of new forms of vulnerability, in particular linked to the migrant reception crisis [Lendaro et al., 2019], which has increased the number of people living in public spaces for whom access to water is a daily concern. This phenomenon is exacerbated by more widespread precariousness, which deprives many housed people of the ability to cover energy costs and access hot water at home [Devalière, 2009; March et Sauri, 2017; Van Vooren, 2019; May et al., 2021]. The second challenge concerns the redefinition of public action in a wider context of the decline of the welfare state and even the emergence of a post-welfare state [Leibfried, 2001]. Finally, the third challenge relates to the consolidation of a right to safe drinking water and water for hygiene purposes [Nivard, 2021], following the UN General Assembly resolution of 28 July 2010 [UN, 2010], reinforced by that of 18 December 2013 [UN, 2013], recognising access to drinking water and sanitation as a fundamental right. The 2024 European directive aimed at “guaranteeing access to sanitary facilities […] particularly for vulnerable and marginalised groups” [European Union, 2024, p. 37 and art. 19, p. 112] moves in the same direction. However, the implementation of these texts is encountering difficulties and resistance, resulting in very different situations from one city to another. While some cities, such as Antwerp, have decided to close their public shower facilities1, others have opted instead to maintain, renovate or expand them in response to these challenges.
- 2 The French terms “sans-chez-soirisme” and “sans-chez-soi” reflect the diversity of situations of pe (...)
- 3 See the online document from the City of Ghent: https://stad.gent/sites/default/files/page/document (...)
2Examples include the introduction in 2000 of free access to the sixteen public shower facilities in Paris, in 2013 to the two public facilities in Milan (one of which has just been renovated), and the lobbying initiative launched by City Shower in the Netherlands, which aims to ensure access to showers for all people experiencing homelessness2. This also involves building and opening new infrastructures: in Nantes in 2020, Marseille in 2021, Saint-Denis (Paris region) in 2024, and Lyon and Villeurbanne in 2025. In Belgium, the cities of Tournai and Liège reopened public shower facilities in 2019 and 2024 respectively to meet growing demand, while Ghent has implemented a policy of access to public showers and toilets through its “was- en plasplan”3.
3In this article, we examine access to water for hygiene purposes outside the home in the Brussels Region. Based on this assessment, we shall outline recommendations for better addressing this issue, which concerns both public health and human dignity.
- 4 For more information on the cities studied in France and Italy as part of this research: https://th (...)
4Our article is at the crossroads of three research projects carried out between 2018 and 2025. The project “Bains publics, se laver en ville” (2018–2022), funded by FNRS, examined the history of public baths in several Belgian cities between 1850 and 2000. The project “Hygiène Personnelle” (2018–2022), funded by Innoviris, explored the current difficulties in accessing water for people who are unhoused, poorly housed or living outside conventional housing in Brussels today. Finally, the project “Thermapolis” (2021–2025), funded by ANR in France, examined the past and future of public bath and shower facilities in France and western Europe4. The three research teams worked together closely and addressed the situation in Brussels from different angles.
- 5 It is not possible to update this figure as the water distribution company, Vivaqua, experienced ma (...)
5In 2021, the number of people in Brussels who were considered “water vulnerable”, i.e. without access to water of sufficient quantity or quality, was estimated at over 100,000, or around 8.2 % of the 1,220,000 inhabitants at that time [May et al., 2021]. This figure includes people whose homes are poorly equipped or unfit for habitation, who ration their water consumption, or who struggle to pay their bills – a phenomenon on the rise in Brussels, as evidenced by the 78 % increase in the number of unpaid bills between 2011 and 2018 [May et al., 2021]5. Water prices have continued to rise: 15 % in 2022, 14.5 % in 2023 and 4 % in 2024 [Brugel, 2022; Brugel, 2023]. This estimate of 100,000 people also includes those living in transitional housing or “on the street”.
6The latest census of homeless people (in emergency or temporary accommodation, in squats, staying with others or on the street) is striking: on the night of 6 November 2024, 9,977 people in this situation were counted in Brussels – four times more than in 2008 [Bruss'help, 2025]. Men are overwhelmingly predominant, and the number of minors is alarming (4,760 men, 1,190 women, 1,678 minors and 1,310 “undetermined”). Among them, 992 people are “on the street” (compared to 209 in 2008), and their geographical distribution in the public space shows a concentration around train stations and in the city centre (Pentagon) – although somewhat less so than in 2008, perhaps due to eviction policies in these areas [AMA et al., 2023].
7As we shall show, the public provision of water for hygiene purposes outside the home does not meet needs, with only 100 showers accessible to the public, unevenly distributed across the territory. This provision consists of both “residual” public facilities inherited from the past, and more recent structures operated mainly by the non-profit sector.
8The history of public baths in Belgium and Europe dates back to the second half of the 19th century, a period marked by the rise of hygienic concerns. In Brussels, the Bains et Lavoirs économiques, opened in 1854 in Rue des Tanneurs in the working-class Marolles neighbourhood, were the first of their kind. Similar facilities opened the same year in Liège and a few decades later in Ghent [Richelle, 2023]. These early facilities were often created through partnerships – more or less favourable to public finances – between cities and philanthropic shareholder companies. From 1901 onwards, the decision to grant subsidies to municipalities for the construction of public baths enabled the establishment of a true public service. The City of Brussels and several Brussels municipalities (Saint-Gilles, Schaerbeek, Ixelles, Anderlecht, Molenbeek, etc.) built infrastructures which allowed residents to wash outside the home [Richelle, 2023].
9This expansion of public service provision is closely tied to the history of domestic amenities. In Belgium, bathrooms only became widespread in homes between the 1950s and 1970s. Until the 1980s, not having a bathroom was still relatively common, as was washing at the tap or with a basin [Richelle, 2023; Deligne, 2023]. The last municipal facility to be built in Brussels was in Laeken. Opened in 1972, it provided 20 bathtubs in a wing of the municipal swimming pool. Yet it proved to be the swan song of this public policy, as closures of other public baths had already begun in the 1950s.
10From the 1990s, in the wake of the economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s, associations began to recognise the urgency of health and social needs and the shortage of public provision. They opened new facilities. La Fontaine, located in Rue Haute, opened a shower service in 1990 with the support of the Order of Malta, a Christian charitable organisation. Today, it offers six shower cubicles and provides around fifty showers per day (five days a week). More recent initiatives include DoucheFLUX, near the South Station, opened in 2017 as part of an activist project; it is now the largest provider of showers in the Brussels Region (20 cubicles: 12 for men, 7 for women and 1 cubicle to people with reduced mobility). Between 70 and 110 showers are provided each day (six days a week). The Humanitarian Hub – a collaboration between seven NGOs including the Red Cross – also opened in 2017 in the north of Brussels to respond to the needs of people in migratory transit. Its six cubicles provide around fifty showers per day (four days a week). Most other associations run much smaller facilities, with one to three cubicles. One exception is Rolling Douches, created in 2019, which operates a mobile shower service offering a single cubicle in a converted motorhome stationed three days a week at three different sites (South Station, Central Station and Place Flagey). In total, around fifteen associations currently offer shower services, usually alongside front-line social assistance (Figure 1).
11Public provision, by contrast, has declined in recent years, with COVID-19 prompting the closure of two of the three remaining public services in 2020 – those at the Laeken swimming pool and those in Rue Ransfort (Molenbeek). Only one fully public shower service remains at regional level: Bains du Centre (City of Brussels, Marolles neighbourhood), which has 30 shower cubicles and receives around forty individuals or families per day. Here and there, swimming pools and sports centres offer informal access to existing showers. Rarely, some prevention services provide access to showers at winter shelters [Bacquaert et al., 2022].
12As evidenced by the queues forming daily outside their doors, many shower facilities are saturated. This results primarily from the insufficient number of cubicles, but other factors also play a role. The specialisation of services for specific groups is one: some facilities are reserved for drug users, others for migrants, homeless people, women and minors. While such tailored provision is justified, it fragments the supply and restricts access, compounded by the limited opening hours – generally weekdays between 9.30 a.m. and 2.30 pm. These material and time constraints heighten tensions and difficulties for coexisting facilities. Saturation has led operators to impose rationing measures (ticket distribution, entry limits), which have serious consequences for users, who are forced to organise their day around the uncertain quest for a shower.
13Moreover, facilities are poorly distributed: almost all are located in the central-western part of the Region, especially in and around the Pentagon (the historic centre). In contrast, there is no provision in the municipalities of the outer ring, nor even in some inner-ring municipalities to the east of the Pentagon (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Shower facilities accessible to the public in the 19 municipalities of the Brussels Region
*Rolling douche is located in Ixelles, where the association is present on Mondays, but its mobile shower service is also available at Central Station and South Station once a week.
14This overview illustrates the mismatch between available facilities in Brussels and the number of people potentially needing them. However, in order to envisage how demand and supply might better align, it is not enough to think in terms of infrastructure. The issues of opening hours, target groups, territorial distribution, specific facilities (for families or women), circulation within spaces, fees and complementarity of locations are equally important. Field studies make this especially clear.
15In October 2022, we extended to Brussels a questionnaire survey initially carried out in Paris in 2017 [Lévy-Vroelant et al., 2019]. In Brussels, the two largest facilities providing showers were studied: Bains du Centre, a municipal structure charging €2.50 at the time, and DoucheFLUX, a day centre charging €1 and offering additional services (laundry, nursing care, social support, cultural activities, etc.). Both locations are mixed gender, except for Wednesdays at DoucheFLUX, which are reserved for women. We collected 335 questionnaires during two weeks of continuous field presence, in addition to interviews, observations and numerous exchanges with staff and users [Bony and Chabrol, 2024]. The survey provided insights into who uses these facilities, why, and how frequently, allowing a broader reflection.
16Among the people we met at the two facilities, half were living on the street or in squats, and the other half were housed or temporarily accommodated (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Residential situations of DoucheFLUX and Bains du Centre users (2022)
Source: Thermapolis survey (2022)
Scope: Users of DoucheFLUX and Bains du Centre in Brussels
Interpretation: 49.7 % of DoucheFLUX users reported living on the street, in public spaces or in makeshift shelters; 9.2 % in a squat.
17Unsurprisingly, given the realities of homelessness, men make up the vast majority (80 %), as do people born outside Belgium (80 %) (Figure 3). Their life trajectories and the amount of time they have been in Brussels reflect both the city’s migration history and the working-class character of the central municipalities. Most users experience economic precariousness, ranging from no income at all (half of DoucheFLUX users, compared to 16 % at Bains du Centre) to receiving benefits, pensions or formal/informal income from work or begging.
Figure 3. Portrait of public shower users according to key indicators
|
Proportion of people interviewed (en %)
|
Bains du Centre
|
DoucheFLUX
|
|
Women
|
19
|
15
|
|
Under age 30
|
18
|
41
|
|
Born abroad
|
84
|
89
|
|
Residential situation: street, public space or makeshift shelter
|
27
|
50
|
|
Lack of financial resources
|
16
|
48
|
|
No work, looking for work
|
33
|
59
|
Source: Thermapolis survey (2022)
Scope: Users of DoucheFLUX and Bains du Centre in Brussels
Interpretation: 19 % of Bains du Centre users are women.
18The two facilities complement each other, as they are not used by quite the same populations: Bains du Centre caters to older people who have been living in Brussels for longer and are slightly less precarious than those at DoucheFLUX, which functions as a first-line entry point for newcomers to Brussels.
19Most users do not have access to a shower at home, which is the main reason for using the facilities (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Reasons for using Bains du Centre and DoucheFLUX
Source: Thermapolis survey (2022)
Scope: Users of DoucheFLUX and Bains du Centre in Brussels
Interpretation: 82 % of DoucheFLUX users do not have access to a shower at home.
20Living conditions largely determine the need to use these shower facilities, but needs are also linked to economic resources, lifestyle, work patterns and mobility. Some of the people interviewed travel long distances – for example, a 43-year-old man staying with acquaintances in Molenbeek needs two hours for a shower due to travel time.
21A large majority of those interviewed (57 %) use the facilities intensively, one to several times per week, with no significant difference between men and women. This is primarily due to residential situations: nearly half of regular Bains du Centre users live on the street or in squats, rising to 60 % at DoucheFLUX. This is the case of a 48-year-old man who sleeps in a shack set up near a square in Anderlecht and who comes to Bains du Centre every week, or the young regulars at DoucheFLUX who sleep in squats near the South Station. Among the regular users are Roma families who go to Bains du Centre on Sundays to wash and then do their laundry in laundrettes in the Marolles neighbourhood.
22Conversely, the 7 % who come roughly once a month do have access to a shower at home or where they stay. They come seeking additional comfort: hot water, privacy and security. One example is a woman in her eighties who has a bathtub at home but is “afraid of slipping in the bathroom”, or a woman staying with relatives who goes to Bains du Centre “to leave the shower for [her] family and to have a moment to [her]self”.
2390 % of those interviewed said they were satisfied with the facilities, praising the warm welcome by staff and the cleanliness. However, women reported more mixed experiences. Our direct observations during the two-week survey revealed tensions linked to overcrowding (waiting times, noise, improper behaviour, dirtiness and unpleasant smells). At DoucheFLUX, reception staff had to intervene several times to break up fights in the common room. At Bains du Centre, a security guard from a private company joined the reception staff in 2023.
24Half of those interviewed wash exclusively at Bains du Centre or DoucheFLUX. The other half combines the use of these services with other solutions. First of all, it may be a question of where they live. Some people use public showers for advantages such as hotter water, better pressure or being able to stay longer without worrying about water bills, etc. These combined uses of showers at home and in public facilities show that public showers fulfil broader needs beyond basic hygiene. Some of the people interviewed also go to relatives' homes occasionally to wash, although these solutions are often uncertain.
25Some respondents switch from one facility to another depending on opening days. In other words, they move between locations according to various criteria (proximity, opening hours, additional services, staff, building quality, cleanliness, social relations, atmosphere and feelings of safety). The facilities thus complement each other on an individual level.
26Others avoid or are unaware of certain non-profit facilities (there is a very low level of awareness of what is available, especially among newcomers to Brussels). Fear of being close to “drug users”, “Roma” or “young people” shapes avoidance strategies. Users sometimes report bad experiences in certain places, as in the case of a 63-year-old respondent from Bains du Centre, who says she stopped going to DoucheFLUX for safety reasons related to her gender and especially her age. Finally, some people improvise using collective showers in sports centres, gyms, swimming pools or campsites even though they are not intended for this purpose, or wash themselves partially in public toilets or fountains [Bacquaert et al., 2022].
27While it is often the case that people in a situation of water insecurity have difficulty finding a shower facility which meets their needs, the reverse is also true: despite high demand, some facilities fail to reach their intended users. This seemingly paradoxical finding is worth investigating. The recent histories of the public showers in Rue Ransfort (Molenbeek) and those at the swimming pools in Laeken (Brussels-City) and Schaerbeek provide insight.
28Open almost continuously since 1910, the municipal shower facilities adjoining School No. 10 in Rue Ransfort closed quietly in 2020 following the second COVID lockdown, with no prospect of reopening [Bacquaert and Richelle, 2023]. As in many cases, one of the reasons given by the authorities to justify the closure was the structural decline in the number of users [Richelle, 2023]. In Rue Ransfort, the number of users had fallen sharply well before the COVID crisis, from 4,232 in 2008 to 1,096 ten years later.
Figure 5. Number of users of Molenbeek shower facilities according to gender, 2007-2019
Source: Municipality of Molenbeek, annual reports of the college on the administration and the situation in the municipality, 2012-2020, [online]. Available at: https://www.molenbeek.irisnet.be/fr/vie-politique/rapports-annuels-du-college-sur-ladministration-et-la-situation-de-la-commune (accessed on 06/11/25)
29However, it is worth examining the causes of this decline, as changes in the organisation of shower facilities are sometimes decisive.
30In Molenbeek, temporary closures in 2011 and 2016 forced users to find alternatives; some returned, others did not (Figure 5). In addition to these closures, opening hours were changed in 2014. Wednesday afternoons were replaced by Wednesday mornings for women with children, while Friday afternoons were replaced by Saturday mornings for women alone. However, on Wednesday mornings children are at school, preventing mothers from taking them to the shower facilities, and Saturday mornings are typically devoted to domestic duties, making it difficult for them to go to the shower facilities alone. Until 2014, the facilities in Rue Ransfort were used mainly by women (unlike all other facilities in Brussels). Figure 5 shows the immediate impact: there was once again a decline in numbers, and male users became the majority in 2014. Added to these factors was the lack of communication regarding these facilities, which are managed by the municipal waste collection service. In front of the entrance door, an old sign indicated the previous opening hours, and over it there was a small, weathered sheet of paper with the new hours (Figure 6).
31This was less a case of declining need than the slow demise of a facility whose ageing identity alienated residents, who turned to other options. Political will to maintain the service was lacking, despite its usefulness in a working-class neighbourhood with no alternative provision (Figure 1).
Figure 6. Barely legible information on the Rue Ransfort shower facilities
The old sign indicates the previous opening hours, and a weathered sheet of paper shows the new ones.
Photo: Pauline Bacquaert, 2020
32Closed since the health crisis, the Laeken shower facilities were not criticised for their ageing infrastructure, as they had been completely renovated between 2012 and 2015. When they reopened, they had 4 showers for men and 4 for women. Despite this modernisation effort, the number of users plummeted from 2,400 in 2011 to 209 in 2018 (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Number of users of the Laeken shower facilities between 1979 and 2019
Source: ASBL Bains de Bruxelles, data provided by management in 2019
33Aside from the fact that the closure forced people to find other places to wash (as in Molenbeek), several hypotheses may help explain this drop in the number of users. First of all, the replacement of bathtubs with showers during the renovation works carried out between 2012 and 2015, intended to reduce water and energy consumption, must be taken into account. As the staff member on duty in 2019 suggested, one might wonder whether this specific feature – which was removed without consulting users – was in fact central to the service offered. Secondly, as in Molenbeek, there was no publicity during the reopening of the service or afterwards, and no collaboration with municipal services or neighbourhood associations, which could have acted as intermediaries between the service and potential users.
34Yet such intermediaries are essential in helping people experiencing water insecurity to find their way. While shower facilities run by associations benefit from a certain visibility – thanks to the variety of services they offer and their place within solidarity networks – municipal shower facilities struggle to establish themselves within the urban landscape. The case of the Schaerbeek swimming pool showers is a telling example.
- 6 Figures provided in 2019 by the management of the paramunicipal non-profit association “Sport 1030”
35The shower facilities in Schaerbeek were located at the Neptunium municipal swimming pool, which opened in 1957. Moved from the first floor to the basement at the end of the 1990s, this service – separate from the swimming pool itself – was gradually neglected over time [Bacquaert and Richelle, 2022]. It had, however, seen a sharp rise in the number of users around 2015, on the occasion of the migration crisis and the influx of migrants to Maximilian Park [Vertongen, 2018]. That year, usage doubled, increasing from 2,123 to 4,337 showers6. These new users were directed there by various associations as well as by the CPAS (Centre Public d'Action Sociale) of the municipality of Schaerbeek.
36Shortly afterwards, in 2017, the Neptunium (swimming pool and public showers) closed for major renovation works. While some municipal officials were optimistic that the shower facilities would be renovated, this ultimately did not happen: when the building reopened in September 2023, the 12 showers previously available had been replaced by a single shower accessible to people with reduced mobility. The “know-how” was not passed on between former and new members of staff. Several incidents of vandalism quickly discouraged the ill-prepared team. As a result, the shower was soon no longer functional.
37These three examples clearly show that a decrease in the number of users should not be confused with a decrease in demand. When provision deteriorates – due to failing infrastructure, unsuitable opening hours, or a lack of visibility – and a service is left to wither away or is temporarily withdrawn, people experiencing water insecurity simply have no choice but to seek or invent other solutions which meet their needs. A decline in the number of users is no indication of the extent of demand.
38Drawing on archival work and field research, our investigations shed light on the concrete realities of access to water for hygiene purposes in Brussels and offer useful lessons for the future.
39Firstly, access to water for hygiene purposes in the public space became an unthought-of public policy issue from the 1980s onwards, when bathrooms became standard features in Brussels homes, and public swimming pools – which often included shower services – became above all places for leisure, wellness and sports [Le Bas, 2000; Bocquet et al., 2005; Richelle, 2023; Hachet, 2023; Deligne 2025].
40In this context, as in France, the closure of public baths and showers in Brussels generally occurred “quietly” [Chabrol, 2025], without any formal decision ever being taken to close them. Renovation works lasting years, temporary closures after technical failures or exceptional circumstances (such as COVID-19 measures in 2020), combined with poorly thought-out reorganisations, disinterest, gradual abandonment and insufficient funding, often signalled the definitive end of a service whose demise could conveniently be justified by an apparent “decline in the number of users”.
41Any closure of a public facility providing access to water for hygiene purposes should therefore be thought through at multiple levels (facility, neighbourhood, municipality and Region), with clear communication about the closure and the alternatives available, and strong publicity when the service reopens, as facilities otherwise struggle to regain their users after periods of closure.
42In the early 2000s, the Brussels Region still had 7 public bath/shower services (Ixelles, Laeken, Saint-Gilles, Schaerbeek, Brussels, Molenbeek and Evere). Today, only one remains: Bains du Centre, to which we may add the possibilities available at the swimming pools in Berchem Saint-Agathe and Evere. The non-profit sector, for its part, has seen its offer grow since the 1990s, with some fifteen organisations today.
43Yet their combined offer is vastly insufficient: there are only about a hundred publicly accessible showers in the Brussels Region, unevenly distributed, with opening hours poorly organised throughout the day, and with different user groups only partially taken into account. Associations do “what they can”, but their resources are limited.
44However, our surveys show that the users of Bains du Centre are not the same as those of DoucheFLUX, even though they share certain experiences and characteristics. In this respect, it is vital to ensure complementarity between more specialised community services for specific target groups, and a public, municipal, universally accessible service open all day.
45Finally, our surveys reveal another fundamental aspect: these facilities are sustainable only because people take care of them and are dedicated to them. The showers at Bains du Centre, for example, are run by an employee who has been with the service for some thirty years, assisted by others who joined more recently. At DoucheFLUX, both salaried staff and volunteers run the shower service. Whether volunteers or professionals, the work they do providing reception, care and maintenance is both essential and demanding.
“I always say that you need a heart and lungs at the facilities. Lungs to withstand the smell. A heart to listen to the stories.” (Bains du Centre maintenance worker, May 2022).
46Work in public shower services is thus a form of care: it attends to people's bodies as well as their vulnerability, and provides essential benefits to society through hygiene [Molinier, 2013; Ibos, 2019]. Yet this work, which involves an element of “dirty work”, is little known and little valued [Hugues, 1970].
47Our research argues in favour of expanding access to water for hygiene purposes in public spaces, without waiting for a regional policy: municipalities can act immediately by making better use of their existing infrastructure (swimming pools, sports centres, schools). However, as noted above, infrastructure is only a small part of the service. Most of it depends on the people who keep it running, and who must be recognised for the care they provide.
48Admittedly, this comes at a cost – but the cost will be lower if municipalities work to identify existing sites and develop partnerships with associations able to support them in their day-to-day management. Support for the non-profit sector must be maintained and ideally strengthened – in addition to municipal services – as it allows a more tailored provision for specific groups.
49From this point of view, opening hours deserve special attention, as they have a direct influence on who can access the service: opening a facility for families with children during school hours, for example, makes little sense. Scheduling should also be discussed jointly by facility managers, as at present, taking a shower in Brussels outside one’s home after 2.30 p.m. is next to impossible.
- 7 A complete list of existing regional shower services, updated at the beginning of 2025, is availabl (...)
50Finally, our research reveals a glaring lack of simple, easy-to-read information for users and associations. The only comprehensive tool – a map showing fountains and places to wash, once produced by the association Infirmiers de Rue – has not been updated since 2018, and the Bruss’Help website is currently incomplete7. Public signage is just as scarce. Who, upon arriving at the South Station, knows where to find a shower?
51This summary, both a diagnosis and a proposal, aims to make visible this issue – largely unknown to the public and the authorities – and provide insights for developing a policy guaranteeing access to water for hygiene purposes, recognised as a fundamental right yet still failing today.
We would like to thank all of the project teams and especially Xavier May for his cartographic contribution. We would also like to thank the facility users who agreed to speak with us.