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

411–420 of 832 posts

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

#411

Post by jquery »

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…

Replying to the top comment for visibility… the entire article is clickbait

Buried in the article is this:

> In an email to National Review Wednesday, the Recreation and Parks Department said it will consider various options for constructing the toilet, including installing a pre-fabricated restroom. The department said it budgets for the worst-case scenario, so it estimates high. “In the end, the project may well be delivered for far less [than $1.7 million], with leftover funding put toward further improvements or maintenance,” the email stated.

$1.7m is the going rate for an entire public restroom. $1.7m is not what was spent on a single commode. It is merely what is set-aside for the project while in the planning stages.

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

#412

Post by mattnewton »

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.

Because a human who can afford to live in San Francisco almost certainly costs more than this machine over 10 years (the 1.7 million is for the whole project, not just the self cleaning portion), and drugged out crazies can make a mess that would be a very hard and unpleasant job to give a human.

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

#414

Post by jquery »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #297
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…

Is this the real SF experience? Or is it media hype? I’m completely unfamiliar with the city. My only experience of America is staying in Atlanta for 6 months during an exchange program, but that was years back. Some of the stories of bureaucratic meddling and political corruption sound like something I’d see back home in India. Always had this impression that America was above that.

Absolutely media hype. Read the article. Nowhere will you find $1.7m spent on a single commode. It’s just a budgetary set-aside for a future public restroom at the going rate. Leftover funds will go back to the general fund or can be put towards long term maintenance of the public restroom.

I don’t know why people are so willing to spread right wing FUD about Sf, maybe it brings in the clicks I guess.

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

#415

Post by firefoxkekw »

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…

Probably one of the best choices of my live was moving out of S.F to Switzerland five years ago, the culture here is a lot less focused on virtue signaling and way more focused on working, being respectful about no making a lot of noise on your house and public transport, actually having good incentives and culture about recycling and the washing machine, ultra safe place in general.

It only took me about a year of about 2 hours per day learning german as my third language to feel confident enough to apply for a job that was similar enough to what I got in S.F, I was hired in about a week at a financial institution as an applied data scientist in the fraud deparment. Could probably have tried earlier but wanted to be able to integrated decently into the swiss society without feeling I was leeching too much.

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

#416

Post by antiterra »

tristor wrote: post #53

Paris has automatically self-cleaning public toilets all around and they cost around $200k each to build and install. There’s no way this is a remotely reasonable cost and is clearly a grift.

SF tried those toilets and they were a failure in nearly all categories. They charged $250k in 2019, the wouldn’t be surprised if the full cost to set up is double now.

https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-san-francisco-flushed-a...

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

#417

Post by didibus »

ericmay wrote: post #359
didibus wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only visited San Francisco, but I think one thing to consider is actually that it's a really small city with just too much going for its size. It's only 46 square mile and has over 800k inhabitants. It's the second densest city after New York. The surrounding Bay area adds 6.7 million more people, a large amount of who regularly go into the city for entertainment or work. I think it's an estimated 160k additiona…

Be careful as the city square mileage can be misleading. The other problem facing cities such as San Francisco is that despite its density it does a piss poor job at public transit and is still focused on car-first infrastructure. To your point, the surrounding area is ~7 million. It’s physically impossible for all of them or even most of them to drive everywhere without gigantic infrastructure problems. It will simp…

> Be careful as the city square mileage can be misleading

As in exaggerating it's livable land size? Or the other way around?

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

#418

Post by asow92 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #368
asow92 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my personal experience of living in both rural New York and Pennsylvania and NYC for decades, the ratio seems to skew more towards the city. But I can't say as much for the west. A $2k car is a lot less than higher average taxes and housing costs.

Try the rural south. Lots of rural NY is just a play place for richer people.

I totally agree with you and don't want to discount the plight of the south.

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

#419

Post by rootusrootus »

whimsicalism wrote: post #353
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…

> a far better option than actually trying to provide housing or attack more of the root causes. I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless? Already, the Bay Area & LA are major draws to homeless populations throughout the country. [0] [0]: Yes, there are some studies that s…

> I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless?

This is an interesting point, but would it not apply more generally to creating more housing for everyone, rather than just when creating housing for homeless? The population of homeless people is just a tiny fraction of the total number of people in the housing market.

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

#420

Post by mardifoufs »

awestroke wrote: post #158
newsclues wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

But it's being used by hardcore capitalists in this case? In fact, it seems to be in the republican handbook

There are republicans in the san francisco administration?
Post reply on HN