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

161–170 of 832 posts

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

#161

Post by jollyllama »

hedora wrote: post #135
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…

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…

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

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

#162

Post by eloisius »

insanitybit wrote: post #83
vanillax wrote: post #47

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's shocking that this is a normal opinion. Taipei is a much bigger city than SF. There are public restrooms everywhere. Every single metro station has clean, indoor restrooms. Not just "available" restrooms, I mean clean, like cleaner than most gas station restrooms in the US. Parks also have restrooms. Failing that, you can probably find a private one at 7/11.

I really can't believe how shitty major US cities are, nor can I fathom how they got there and how we think it's normal. It can't be just "public funding" because Taiwan isn't exactly a socialist welfare state either, yet the cities are downright urbane.

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

#163

Post by cjtrowbridge »

aliqot wrote: post #82
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…

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.

[flagged]

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

#164

Post by system16 »

Bilal_io wrote: post #115
323 wrote: post #50

It's actually cheap. 3 years of litigation until all the stakeholders agree on all the aspects of this public toilet are not cheap. And what if the environmental reviews find a bunny family living at the proposed location? Relocating the bunny family will probably cost another million and 2 years of delay.

It's like when an org needs to add a button to their website and it takes 20 meetings to get the okay. It's inefficient, ineffective and definitely not cheap. When many hands, many meetings, and definitely many layers of middleman are involved, it'll cost millions to build a single toilet.

You're not even exaggerating. I worked as a contractor some time back for a major Canadian telecom company that no longer exists. I remember spending hours of meetings on calls with no less than 10 stakeholders (and in some meetings senior management) "circling back" to get a decision on button position. Not a single one of these people were a designer/UX person. I'd imagine it's even worse in the public sector.

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

#165

Post by kolinko »

xwdv wrote: post #140
illuminerdy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. Public toilets are for the public. Anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they need a toilet. A tourist, for example. Or maybe just someone who finds nature calling at an inopportune time. I'm sure we've all been there. Also, even if it WAS for people who have nowhere else, that doesn't mean that it should be covered with shit.

Have you ever taken a shit in a public toilet? It is a disgusting, degrading experience. I’m still traumatized from the one time I had no choice, and I said never again.

It really depends on a place. I used public toilets in Europe without much issue.

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

#166

Post by yardie »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #105
msoad wrote: post #94

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.

I would hope not, considering many major cities are serviced by multiple major airports.

NYC - JFK LGA EGW

PARIS - CDG ORY

London - LGW LHR

Tokyo - NRT HND

SF - SFO SJC

If someone starts refering to a city by the airport code I'd be completely lost because most airports and their codes don't reflect the name of the city they service.

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

#167

Post by abeppu »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #48

One of my jobs is in the public service. This seems like the usual case of public servants doing everything possible to avoid someone being unhappy with them later. Consultations, union workers, tons and tons of approvals, etc. Remember, you can't really win as a government worker. The priority is not to lose. You want every little concern addressed? You want layers and layers of accountability? You want the top conc…

Aside from the cost, the broken thing here is that the process requires so many layers of review and approval, but _everyone_ disapproves of the status quo of feces on the sidewalks. The bathroom needs an environmental review, but sidewalk feces don't, even though they get mixed into storm drains.

You're saying this process arises by trying to not make people unhappy, not leave concerns unaddressed, having layers of accountability. But people are not happy, concerns (ongoing feces) are not addressed, and given that there isn't a person to blame for the ongoing situation there is clearly insufficient accountability.

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

#168

Post by matthewmacleod »

The thing is, you can look at this headline and know immediately that it's hiding information. You can read the opening paragraph and tell that it isn't an article that's actually seeking to inform anyone about anything. It's not news. It's not really hard to figure out why public discourse is so broken when this sort of shit-shovelling churnalism is treated seriously.

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

#170

Post by kolinko »

rumpelstinkin wrote: post #157
knaekhoved wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else. This is an incredibly stockholm-syndrome take. If you live in a place that isn't a total failed state, normal people actually can use the public toilets!

honestly though, public toilets are usually so dirty in my area (unless there are entry fees) that I rather use a shop's toilet instead. This is not about failed states, but a large portion of the populace not giving a shit about others... or giving too much shit perhaps =)

Where do you live?
Post reply on HN