141–150 of 832 posts
> San Francisco, which is struggling with a troubling homelessness and public-defecation crisis, needs more public toilets. The irony in this statement, given the reasons why this toilet costs so much, is absolutely unreal. I had to check the date on this article to make sure it wasn't an old April's Fools skit or something, but it seems red tape and NIMBYism have escalated to such a degree in SF that (a) securing bu…
> San Francisco, which is struggling with a troubling homelessness and public-defecation crisis, needs more public toilets. The irony in this statement, given the reasons why this toilet costs so much, is absolutely unreal. I had to check the date on this article to make sure it wasn't an old April's Fools skit or something, but it seems red tape and NIMBYism have escalated to such a degree in SF that (a) securing bu…
Red tape and nimbyism is hard to imagine from what I see of SFO in books, it seems like the most anti-diversity thing you can do. Can anybody from SFO relate their experience? Hard to tell these days what is editorial bias or sensationalism and what is true.
It sounds like your books are giving you an inaccurate view of San Francisco, because almost nothing is more on-brand for the city than red tape and NIMBYism.
I thought San Francisco was a public toilet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SFO is the airport. I'm very confused by this comment. We're not all working at Google right now. MTV, SFO, MPK and all of this lingo is not familiar to all
People sometimes use major airport codes as shorthand for a city or the metropolitan region the airport serves.
The airport is actually a couple of cities away (there are a lot of cities in the Bay Area).
If you think about some of the really interesting architecture of San Francisco, do you think they could be built now? Imagine trying to get the golden gate bridge built today. At some point you have to accept that not everyone is going to like every aspect of your plan and tell them to go pound sound or nothing will ever get done.
If you can't build things in the cheaper areas, all that's left are the expensive ones.
I would never step foot into a public SF toliet. Last time I went in there the homeless shit all over the floor and toliet and walls. I went in and nearly threw up. A homeless person pointed and laughed at me. Fuck that.
Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.
It performs pretty badly on public transport, safety, affordability & sanitation. All its pros seem to exist despite the management, and not because of it. (Universities, Jobs, Weather, Nature)
I thought Greater Seattle was badly managed, but it has been funding light rail, missing middle-housing and recently started reversing the crime problem bit-by-bit. Bangalore might get a shoutout, but they did see unprecedented population explosion in a decade and are at least (badly) trying to build their way out of it now.
I'll take a moment to mention one of my favorite comments on HN
"I call them PINO NOIRs: Progressive In Name Only, NIMBY-Only In Reality"The Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review committee will be responsible for conducting a “multi-phase review” of the project, like it does for all projects on public lands. Before the project is put out for bid, it will be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act, according to the Chronicle. The public toilet will be built by union workers who will “earn a living wage and benefits,” according…
this part stands out to me, they have no incentive to say "yes" to anything (apart from a bribe) and every incentive to say "no". if they say "yes" that means projects can actually go ahead and the arts council has nothing left to do[1]. and they can say "no" for any reason they like since the standards are subjective.
liquidate the whole thing.