Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

311–320 of 832 posts

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

#311
I'm kind of surprised that new plans were drawn up when a perfectly serviceable toilet design[1] has been done and in production for much less[2].

This doesn't get rid of the permitting process, but it has been debugged and is already working in multiple cities.

1. https://portlandloo.com

2. https://pffcdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Portland-Loo-P... - $90,000 + estimated install costs of $4000

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

#312
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.

From my experience doing so is a good way of coming across as a douche tech-bro (“yeah, I’m so cool I use code names”). Particularly when the comprehensible way would be to write SF rather than SFO.

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

#313
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In what ways is SFO right wing? I don't see much representation of that type as far as elected officials. Is this a term used in spirit or something I'm overlooking?

People who are left wing w.r.t. the organization of the economy view democrats as right wing i.e. upholding the entrenched power structure. SF dems will happily support spending money on the homeless in principle, but they are still deeply conservative when it comes to how policies will affect them or their capital. They are pretty much the poster child of NIMBYism:

"I know X is something the community needs and I'm all for building it, just Not In My Back Yard"

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

#314

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?

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

#315
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.

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 this is due to me not being in a city as dense as SFO, that undoubtedly has to change the dynamic. How much is this a "this is just a great place to live" issue, and how much is this a "this is a great place for easy resources if you're disadvantaged" issue?

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but in a chicken and egg way, I'm curious if a city with this much "not-here" going on, do people give money to initiatives and charities and people who ask for money/food on the street, or is it typically a city where people avert their gaze? I ask this because if resources were hard to be secured without effort, and if the city is generally expensive to reside in, the amount of those without resources should decline, right?

Where my hypothesis / thought-experiment falls apart is from what I can tell, most of California has amazing weather, so even sleeping on a sidewalk it's got to be quite hospitable and paradise-like (as odd as it feels to say)

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

#316
post #241
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.

If you read the article, the main reason why it cost so much is not because of the cost of the toilet and the installation per-se, but because there is many, many red tape around doing anything in SF. So it is not necessarily a "grift" ( although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is ) but the result of decades of laws to regulate public work and spending…

> although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is

This is the "grift" part of it; those "many [...] profiting from it" are often times friends or acquaintances of the officials regulating them

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

#317
post #194
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.

its hard to appreciate anything else when you are bleeding through the ears due to expenses.

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

#318
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.

These were a life saver for me a couple weeks back!

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

#319
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.

I think we as a society have collectively forgotten that to be a stakeholder in something means you have something at stake. You make people ante up to keep a discussion open (doesn't have to be money, just something that requires non-trivial effort on their part) and you'll very quickly separate out those who have legitimate concerns from those who are just bikeshedding. Require people who want to attend a public comment meeting to do 4 hours of community service, make the default vote an abstention and require anyone who wants to vote yea or nay to write a 500 word essay explaining why, have someone who wants to add new requirements late in the process to put a percentage of their income in escrow until the project is complete, etc. It should be something anyone can do, but only those who really care would be willing to do.

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

#320

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.

I can see why you were downvoted. You are correct about the submitted article, and these types of posts attract a different audience - newer, lower karma accounts that tend to focus on non-technical subjects.

Yahoo doesn't produce much content, they distribute it. This is from the National Review, which is a partisan editorial magazine. It is not bias or incorrect to say it is not journalism. It is a subsidiary of the NRI, which is a dedicated to advancing conservative ideas and politicians (that is in their words - https://www.flipsnack.com/nrinst/2022-my-newsletter.html)

This type of content is fairly well crafted to appeal to certain worst impulses, and manipulate people. There is a US political movement based on creating a long standing state of aggrievement and thrive on this sort of cortisol raising material. It's is a shame to see it getting a foothold here.

Post reply on HN