San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by hot_gril » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #348

hot_gril wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. I used to work there. Hated the experience, but I can see why it's like that. SF was always dense. At some point, all these tech companies moved in, and it became what I call a "commuter city" where a huge proportion of people there during the day don't actually live there or necessarily want to be there. It also shifted the culture, probably for the worse. Of course many living there beforehand might n…

> No public restrooms, no chairs in Starbucks, covers on everything in Walgreens, ID requirements to enter stuff, you get the idea. There's no obvious solution to that. Is this seriously the reality of SF? Never been there. If yes, that's pretty bad and degrades the city in some aspects to 3rd world place. But then again I am in Europe, many things like crazy homeless people I saw often in LA are unheard of here. Wha…

I worked there in 2016-2018 and returned several times 2020-21, and yes it's been this way.

It's not very difficult to deal with, just annoying enough that at some point you might get tired of it. I walked everywhere, only avoiding a few streets. You can find the cafés or even public seating areas that are hospitable, but it may require a little trial and error.

The one actually hard thing is finding a bathroom. Many businesses don't have one even for paying customers, unless it's a sit-down restaurant.

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

#402

Post by sschueller » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

calebm wrote: post #370

sschueller wrote: post #154

In contrast the tiny city of Zürich Switzerland has 106 public toilet facilities. [1] Some are staffed, some cost money to use and some are open 247. Does my tax money pay for this, yes, I have used them and I am glad they exist. The maintenance of these 106 facilities cost around 6,895,000 CHF (~USD) per year. Around 40% of that is staffing costs and 23% is rent to 3rd parties. Yearly investment in upgrades etc. is…

I remember finding the Zurich public toilets strange - they use the toilet bowl as the sink as well (notice in the photo how the water to wash your hands falls into the same bowl). It was a strange surprise, but seemed pretty efficient: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3...

Only some are like that.

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

#403

Post by pirate787 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #209

jollyllama wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>not enough laborers Not enough wages. If the free market is good enough for everything else, why not for labor?

There's a non-market, political outcome that's the dominant factor in the labor market -- the degree to which the federal and state governments enforce or incentivize undocumented workers.

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

#404

Post by david_allison » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

mym1990 wrote: post #314

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…

These were the type of public toilets in France, it was actually very interesting to see and a bit confusing as I couldn't figure out why I couldn't go in right after another person... Wonder if it cost Paris 1.7 mil as well?

Rented for about €1200 per month per toilet. 6MM/year for 420 of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette#In_Paris

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

#405

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

glacials wrote: post #137

aliqot wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Born and raised in SF. NIMBYism is indeed a huge problem. It’s the hidden underbelly of a city with otherwise modern and diverse thinking. I’ve since moved to Seattle and it’s crazy to see shit can actually get done here.

[deleted]

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

#406

Post by sgtnoodle » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #348

hot_gril wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. I used to work there. Hated the experience, but I can see why it's like that. SF was always dense. At some point, all these tech companies moved in, and it became what I call a "commuter city" where a huge proportion of people there during the day don't actually live there or necessarily want to be there. It also shifted the culture, probably for the worse. Of course many living there beforehand might n…

> No public restrooms, no chairs in Starbucks, covers on everything in Walgreens, ID requirements to enter stuff, you get the idea. There's no obvious solution to that. Is this seriously the reality of SF? Never been there. If yes, that's pretty bad and degrades the city in some aspects to 3rd world place. But then again I am in Europe, many things like crazy homeless people I saw often in LA are unheard of here. Wha…

Yep, sounds about right. If you're a tourist, though, I would say that restrooms are accessible to a similar extent as any European city I've traveled to. They're perhaps more likely to be disgusting if you're in the worst parts of the city. Decent venues stay on top of it, though, and any place with a counter to order from will have a code you need to ask for to gain access.

If you're a local, there's of course social engineering tricks you can use, like going into a branch of your bank to make a withdrawal, then asking to use their bathroom.

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

#407

Post by nashashmi » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

jollyllama wrote: post #275

hedora wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the construction workers found multiple issues with the plans, and were on the hook for some of the repairs. The profiteers were the engineers that designed the system. Each time they screwed up, they got to bill us more hours. Also, the contract with them stipulates zero liability for their incompetence. The state licensing board should be fired for allowing that. Also, we wanted to put in a more environme…

I think we agree. I would consider the construction workers to be laborers. They're adding value. Profiteering would be collecting profit without adding value i.e. engineers and the licensing board in this case.

> collecting profit without adding value i.e. engineers

Civil Engineers DO NOT have the upper hand in any of their designs. They propose, and upper management comments, and they propose again, and upper management comments again, and back and forth it goes. At the end of the day, all they have done is manage a series of comments, and tried to please the client rep with something like a quick and dirty fix to whatever comments they are getting.

Who has the creativity? The client rep, but he is so incompetent/overloaded/unelated that all he does is either manage from high above, or just look for ways to protect himself and the City, or ask the consultant to propose solutions and makes the smallest comments possible on these solutions, while leaving majority of the comments for other offices.

This leads to designs that hardly get a fight history. And more of a sychophant-driven approach just to get nitpickers out of the way.

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

#408

Post by jwagenet » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:04 PM UTC

aliqot wrote: post #315

hot_gril wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. I used to work there. Hated the experience, but I can see why it's like that. SF was always dense. At some point, all these tech companies moved in, and it became what I call a "commuter city" where a huge proportion of people there during the day don't actually live there or necessarily want to be there. It also shifted the culture, probably for the worse. Of course many living there beforehand might n…

Thank you for this frank breakdown of what's going on. This seems like a good possible explanation for the testimonials I'm reading in this thread. I'm still struggling with what is espoused by those from SFO area and tech culture compared to the reality of what's going on. If anybody is dedicated to 'social justice', to remove/resist facilities to relieve oneself just seems so far off the mark. I'm sure a lot of thi…

I’m not sure I’m getting the full gist of your questions, but to one point: Yes I think people generally avert their gaze to the people and the issues, perhaps because of shame or sheer disinterest. I personally want to financially contribute to make things better, but it’s unclear how to get accountability with my spending. Giving cash on the street seems inefficient and likely to be used for the ‘wrong’ things. Organizations in the city and the city itself don’t appear to be doing much at all due to incompetence or bureaucracy.

To another: The folks living in the street are generally not the same as those in the laboring class. So indeed, those without resources working especially in the service industry are declining, and this is becoming quite an issue with cost and availability of these businesses. The people on the street mostly seem to thrive off the excess wealth the city casts off. But to be clear, although it doesn’t freeze, SF is no balmy paradise.

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

#409

Post by nashashmi » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

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, “…

This arts commission is a thorn. A roadblock. And an energy drainer.

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

#410

Post by mtalantikite » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

knaekhoved wrote: post #104

insanitybit wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost isn't in the toilet itself, it's in all of the politics that will go into it. People will fight against it, there will be scrutiny in its design, etc.

Honestly, I might fight a public toilet near my house too if I knew the end state was that it would mostly attract homeless people who want to shoot up heroin.

I don't know, I'd rather them use a toilet that is self cleaning than do it on the trash bins outside my condo. I've lived in Brooklyn (Williamsburg) for a long time now, and the un-housed people that hang out up the block or sleep in the HSBC aren't happy about having to go to the bathroom in between parked cars on the street. Whenever I've walked by them while they're doing that (which is fairly often), they've always apologized. At least give them a clean, private place to do it.