Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 832 posts

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#371

Post by Phlogistique »

mrits wrote: post #272
lr4444lr wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to pay an attendant hourly just to be sure no one is in there while the self clean runs? Why can't it operate based on a weight sensor?

I think I'd take my chances with the sidewalk than risk a startups new self cleaning censor. Literally a shit storm

All the toilets in Paris self-clean between users. You don't need the sensor to work not to get sprayed, just to exit the toilet when a voice says "EXIT THE TOILET NOW, THE SELF CLEANING PROCESS IS ABOUT TO BEGIN.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#372

Post by antognini »

ChrisBland wrote: post #64

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.

There were critics of the Golden Gate Bridge in the 1930s who complained that it ruined the view.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#373

Post by whimsicalism »

asow92 wrote: post #258
vlovich123 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

City vs rural have different challenges for one. Cities as a whole seem to lean left but it’s unclear if the policies are to blame or if it’s just a problem of unrelated political factors (eg bussing homeless into cities from red areas to “clean up your streets”)

NYC has started bussing people to my rural area in Upstate NY because there isn't enough section 8 housing available and they're on a waiting list.

this is a very a different sort of "bussing", it is state wide allocation of section 8 housing. they're not bussing people if they don't have section 8 already.

Massachusetts does the same thing but from Boston to places like Fall River.

Homeless are being bussed to SF without any housing arrangements.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#374

Post by skeeter2020 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #326
jollyllama wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many bureaucrats and construction profiteers, not enough good laborers.

I sincerely wonder if we have 'democratized' infrastructure and construction too much. >"First, an architect needs to draw plans for the toilet, which will then be presented to the public for feedback. 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. According to the Arts Commission’s website, “…

>> just need to delegate authority and let them act mostly autonomously.

Sounds a lot like the representative democracy that created this mess in the first place.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#375

Post by hot_gril »

_jal wrote: post #194
dmead wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in the bay for a year. the city is for the winners of the startup and stock lottery and those who want to rent to be near them. 100% believe this.

I've lived here off and on since 1993. I work for startups but haven't hit the lottery. There's a lot of San Francisco (and Bay Area) out there that has nothing to do with the startup scene, and many, many people who have no connection to and couldn't care less about it. You should have gotten out more.

I agree, SF area has a lot of non-tech-related people and activities that should be enough to at least enjoy your non-work hours, but same with other areas. Moved to San Diego, and now I'm happier all around.

Running joke between me and the rest of the startup team in SF was that every time we go to an event, people lead conversations by asking what stack I use, which version of Python, and why the heck I'm messing with XMPP. I understood the importance of seeking out non-techies.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#376

Post by jm20 »

stephencoyner wrote: post #340
hot_gril wrote: post #228

I've lived and worked in SF. Thankful that I'll probably never have another work-related reason to go back. SF is marked deprecated in my eyes.

It’s easy to pile onto articles that highlight some of the city’s mismanagement, but San Francisco is one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. If you’re out on the west side by Golden Gate Park, Baker Beach or the Presidio it feels like you’re in a nature movie. Even with all of its problems, I will always love that city.

I agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the city’s management though. SF is a tragedy considering all of its natural gifts.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#377

Post by nathanaldensr »

perfectstorm wrote: post #323
mattnewton wrote: post #206

One of the reasons this toilet is so expensive no doubt, is that the new SF public toilets are self cleaning and will have attendants on duty to try to prevent this. The one on golden gate park and Haight closes after each visitor to spray the inside down like a dishwasher, and has an attendant on duty to make sure no one is inside while it does that (and to generally discourage people from shady stuff). It's not per…

why not have a full time janitor who cleans after each visit? much cheaper than a self cleaning toilet. even if you pay $100k to the janitor in annual salary, it will take 10+yrs to reach 1.7M and who knows what kind of issues these self cleaning toilets will have in that 10yrs.

I was thinking the same thing. We now hire people to watch extremely expensive machines do incredibly menial tasks.

Yes, I clean my own toilets at home.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#378

Post by whimsicalism »

agumonkey wrote: post #278
michaelscott wrote: post #49

> 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…

Society is strange. Last year a Canadian woodworker made cabins for the homeless which was destroyed (probably because of some regulation) by the city.

SROs in SF have a long and storied history and generally one of the good lessons to draw from this history is wood structures are a bad idea for housing homeless people.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#379

Post by jesuscript »

collegeburner wrote: post #268
hedora wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have an access road that was sized for utility trucks. We had to widen it slightly because of obscure California regulations. Widening it didn’t cost $1.7M. However, the cost per linear foot was within a factor of two of buying a line of Tesla Model 3s. This is in an unincorporated (rural) area, on a farm. The work lasted one rainstorm before needing extensive repairs. I’m completely unsurprised that building a hu…

similarly, NYC decided to pay McKinsey $4mm to answer the question of whether large, stinky festering piles of trashbags would be better in containers.

Source, my dear friend. The world is just too weird for me delineate between real and unreal at this point.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#380

Post by uoaei »

cdot2 wrote: post #264
hexator wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing progressive about literally stopping progress on housing affordability.

They could certainly make arguments about "urban beautification", "community involvement", and other "progressive" causes. Unless of course those arent true progressives.

I don't understand what definition of "progressive" you're using here, if you think that putting pretty names on oppressive policies constitutes "progressivism".
Post reply on HN