I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#2US citizens need to start feeling embarassed that we can no longer manufacture simple objects cost efficiently. These trash cans should cost $1k max.
I wonder if this cost discrepancy is due to pork or too many middle managers.
Not even sure why the trash can needs a redesign. Will this increased cost ever give an ROI over a long enough enough time span? Or will some other bureaucrat decide they need to make a name for themselves by redesigning the trashcan in 15 years, and these will all end up in the landfill?
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#3With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea --
The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considered.
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#4With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea -- The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considere…
I don't know if I'd call it graffiti proof. It looks more as if, when graffiti gets onto the fins it will be impossible to remove.
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#5US citizens need to start feeling embarassed that we can no longer manufacture simple objects cost efficiently. These trash cans should cost $1k max. I wonder if this cost discrepancy is due to pork or too many middle managers. Not even sure why the trash can needs a redesign. Will this increased cost ever give an ROI over a long enough enough time span? Or will some other bureaucrat decide they need to make a name f…
> I wonder if this cost discrepancy is due to pork or too many middle managers.
The cost "discrepancy" is due to cheap offshored mass manufacturing for most everything consumers buy, plus social media validating uninformed off-the-cuff opinions. $11,000 is about a month of a welder plus designer. Is it terribly hard to imagine that the process of building a prototype with a few refinements would take $11,000 worth of time? Frankly, based on experience with the cost of engineering time, that seems like a tiny project.
FTA:
> When mass-produced, the cost per can will drop to an estimated $2,000 to $3,000.
Keep in mind this is still likely using small-run domestic labor, which is "costly" (ie economically sustainable). Tractor implements have similar simplicity, similar inputs (metal plus welding), and finished good prices are similar.
If anything, US citizens need to be embarrassed that we've allowed our society to be hollowed out by disposable mass-produced crap and policy-deliberate inflation.
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#6With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea -- The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considere…
I don't know if I'd call it graffiti proof. It looks more as if, when graffiti gets onto the fins it will be impossible to remove.
Looks like an opportunity for some abstract graffiti that looks different depending on your angle.
This is stupid. The people of San Fran should be reimbursed the million dollars this cost. By who, I don't know.
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#7With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea -- The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considere…
I don't know if I'd call it graffiti proof. It looks more as if, when graffiti gets onto the fins it will be impossible to remove.
The fins are actually kind of brilliant. Looks like it will hamper both paint markers and knife scratchers. The spray painters will just have to be painted over, though. Two out of three ain't bad!
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#8These are not $20k trash cans. The program is designing and producing prototypes. This is because various designs tried so far have had significant problems. How much mass produced final designs might cost is not yet known.
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#9With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea -- The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considere…
I don't know if I'd call it graffiti proof. It looks more as if, when graffiti gets onto the fins it will be impossible to remove.
OT, but has anyone ever studied what motivates graffiti producers? I assume it is a mix of teenage boredom / rebelliousness and gang territory signifiers, but I would be interested in reading more about it. I'm more interested learning about the motivation for the "scribbles" form, rather than the more artist versions.
Re: I reviewed the $20k trash cans SF is testing. Here’s what I found
#10With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea -- The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considere…
I think this is a really interesting topic because there's a surprising amount of consideration that needs to go into something like this. Most people think "oh, a trashcan, how hard can it be to design one?".
Here's a list of the requirements of these trashcans, mostly taken from here (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-trash-c...):
- Durable: they can't be easily damaged due to physical force, rain, UV exposure, or even fire (if someone throws out a lit cigarette). These cans are expected to last 15-20 years
- They also shouldn't be easy to tip over
- They must be difficult for people and animals to get into
- They must be easy for public works to empty. The inner can can't be too heavy or not robust enough to contain the trash (32 gallons)
- The opening can't be too big to prevent people dumping large items into it
- These cans will also indicate when they're full via optical sensor (https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/27/san-franciscos-trash-...)
- They should look somewhat appealing (they're designed in Oakland).
- They must meet certain size restrictions due to the various widths of sidewalks in SF
- It must also have a recycling container on top that meets most of the above requirements of "people can't reach inside here"
In terms of "why are they so expensive": these cans are one-off prototypes. When they're mass produced, they will only be a bit more than the existing green cans ($1,218 vs $2,000) but with the goal of being much more durable and robust. Additionally, they're much less expensive than the "Bigbelly" cans that the city supervisors wanted to use. Fun fact: the city doesn't actually own those cans and they cost $3,000 per year to lease (!!!).