cawacko
Well-known member
This may be a public toilet but I'm going to use in 2025 when it opens. How many people can say they've sat on a $1.7m throne?
S.F. is spending $1.7 million on one public toilet: ‘What are they making it out of — gold?’
San Francisco politicians will gather at the Noe Valley Town Square Wednesday afternoon to congratulate themselves for securing state money for a long-desired toilet in the northeast corner of the charming plaza.
Another public toilet in a city with far too few of them is excellent. But the details of this particular commode? They’re mind-boggling, maddening and encapsulate so much of what’s wrong with our city government.
The toilet — just one loo in 150 square feet of space — is projected to cost $1.7 million, about the same as a single-family home in this wildly overpriced city. And it won’t be ready for use until 2025.
Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) secured the $1.7 million from the state for the toilet after hearing “loud and clear” from the community that families needed a bathroom. The plumbing is already there, added when the plaza was constructed six years ago, but there was never money for the actual bathroom. Until Haney stepped in.
The former San Francisco supervisor said the Recreation and Parks Department told him the going rate for one public bathroom was $1.7 million so he secured the full amount, not questioning the pricetag.
“They told me $1.7 million, and I got $1.7 million,” Haney explained. “I didn’t have the option of bringing home less of the bacon when it comes to building a toilet. A half a toilet or a toilet-maybe-someday is not much use to anyone.”
True, but instead we have a toilet-maybe-in-more-than-two-years that could have paid to house a family instead. So why is a public bathroom so insanely expensive, and why does it take so long to build? A joint statement from Rec and Park and the Department of Public Works, which will work together to build this extravagant bathroom, pointed to several reasons.
For one thing, the cost to build anything in San Francisco is exorbitant. The city is the most expensive in the world to build in — even topping Tokyo, Hong Kong and New York City. We’re No. 1! Even for places to go No. 1.
Like everywhere, construction costs have risen 20% to 30% in the past couple of years due to global supply chain issues and the rising costs of fuel, labor and materials. But like always, there’s a certain preciousness to the process in San Francisco. (Just look at the years-long, ongoing quest to design and manufacture bespoke city trash cans.)
“It’s important to note that public projects and their overall cost estimates don’t just reflect the price of erecting structures,” the statement said. “They include planning, drawing, permits, reviews and public outreach.”
For a toilet? Apparently so.
An architect will draw plans for the bathroom that the city will share with the community for feedback. It will also head to the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review committee comprised of two architects, a landscape architect and two other design professionals who, under city charter, “conduct a multi-phase review” of all city projects on public land — ranging from buildings to bathrooms to historic plaques, fences and lamps.
The web-page describing that process states the point is to ensure “that each project’s design is appropriate to its context in the urban environment, and that structures of the highest design quality reflect their civic stature.”
Sorry, kid. I know you’ve got to go, but have you considered the context of the urban environment?
The project will then head to the Rec and Park Commission and to the Board of Supervisors. According to the city’s statement, it will also be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Then, the city will put the project up for bid.
“Once we start the project, we’ll have a clearer timeline, but we expect to be able to complete the project in 2025,” the statement read.
The city said the $1.7 million estimate “is extremely rough” and budgets “for the worst-case scenario due to the onerous demands and unpredictable costs levied by PG&E,” the possibility code requirements could change during the project and in case other unexpected circumstances come up.
The city is in a legal battle with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. over the city’s claim that the utility has slowed projects and forced them to be more expensive unless they obtain electricity directly from the utility instead of the city’s Public Utilities Commission.
The bathroom will be built by unions whose workers will “earn a living wage and benefits, including paid sick time, leave and training.”
“While this isn’t the cheapest way to build, it reflects San Francisco’s values,” the statement read.
I’m a union member myself, and of course the majority of our public projects should be union built. But does a $1.7 million single bathroom really reflect San Francisco’s values? I don’t think so.
The supervisors in 2019 approved a Project Labor Agreement between the city and unions that requires union labor for all “covered projects” — but this bathroom isn’t one of them because it’s not worth $10 million and it didn’t come from bond funding.
There are other, much cheaper options. I e-mailed Tom Hardiman, executive director of the Modular Building Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia, and asked him to guess what San Francisco was spending to build one toilet in 150 square feet of space.
“I’m going to guess high, I think, and say $200,000,” he wrote back.
I seemed to nearly give him a heart attack by telling him the actual figure in a subsequent phone call.
“This is to build one public restroom?” he asked incredulously. “What are they making it out of — gold and fine Italian marble? It would be comical if it wasn’t so tragically flawed.”
He then said he’d do some research and found a cheaper option within minutes. He said Chad Kaufman, CEO of Public Restroom Company, just delivered and installed seven modular bathrooms in Los Angeles for the same price San Francisco will spend to build one. These are not Porta Potties, but instead have concrete walls with stucco exteriors and nice fixtures with plumbing.
“There will be some onsite labor which absolutely can be union,” Hardiman said, pointing to crane operators, laborers and plumbers.
And, he said, they could be delivered in eight months.
Phil Ginsburg, director of the Recreation and Parks Department, said many park systems around the country use pre-fabricated restrooms, which are much cheaper — and he hopes San Francisco becomes more politically open to them too. The department has occasionally used them in the past — including at the Redwood Grove playground in McLaren Park — and it’s unclear why one seems off the table for Noe Valley.
“Given how much the public values and needs public restrooms, I would hope these could be more common features in our parks that don’t currently have restrooms,” he said. “Our parks continue to need investment and every dollar saved by installing one allows us to make additional improvements elsewhere in our parks.”
Rudy Gonzalez, secretary treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, said that the $1.7 million pricetag sounded just plain unbelievable and asked how the city came up with that figure.
Unions have pushed back on modular housing, and only a few projects in San Francisco have advanced despite being faster and cheaper to build. Gonzalez said he’d want to know more about the pre-fabricated bathrooms and whether workers on those projects would be paid prevailing wages.
Haney, a staunch labor supporter, said he’d be open to modular bathrooms if they didn’t violate the Public Labor Agreement.
He’ll be at Wednesday’s toilet celebration along with State Sen. Scott Wiener and Supervisor Rafael Mandelman. All three seemed to have their enthusiasm for the project somewhat flushed when told of the details. Wiener said it pointed to the city’s “self-inflicted wounds” that make every project take way too long.
Mandelman said he appreciates Haney’s efforts and is glad the plaza will eventually have a bathroom, but he said the price and timeline exemplify how the city’s project management process is broken.
“We seem to be all tied up in knots in a thousand different ways and I don’t know which of those knots is responsible for this particular example,” he said.
An example of one such knot emerged this week when the city’s Human Resources Department acknowledged it takes an average of 255 days to hire one city worker. But, in fairness, city departments are working to tackle the problem. Why haven’t San Francisco leaders addressed the high costs of public projects?
Todd David, a Noe Valley resident who pushed for the creation of the town square, said neighbors are delighted they’ll eventually have a toilet after pushing for one for many years. But he’s getting lots of questions about why it costs so much.
“The pricetag’s a shocking number,” he said. “Oh my god, this s—’s expensive.”
In this case, quite literally.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/million-dollar-toilet-17518443.php
S.F. is spending $1.7 million on one public toilet: ‘What are they making it out of — gold?’
San Francisco politicians will gather at the Noe Valley Town Square Wednesday afternoon to congratulate themselves for securing state money for a long-desired toilet in the northeast corner of the charming plaza.
Another public toilet in a city with far too few of them is excellent. But the details of this particular commode? They’re mind-boggling, maddening and encapsulate so much of what’s wrong with our city government.
The toilet — just one loo in 150 square feet of space — is projected to cost $1.7 million, about the same as a single-family home in this wildly overpriced city. And it won’t be ready for use until 2025.
Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) secured the $1.7 million from the state for the toilet after hearing “loud and clear” from the community that families needed a bathroom. The plumbing is already there, added when the plaza was constructed six years ago, but there was never money for the actual bathroom. Until Haney stepped in.
The former San Francisco supervisor said the Recreation and Parks Department told him the going rate for one public bathroom was $1.7 million so he secured the full amount, not questioning the pricetag.
“They told me $1.7 million, and I got $1.7 million,” Haney explained. “I didn’t have the option of bringing home less of the bacon when it comes to building a toilet. A half a toilet or a toilet-maybe-someday is not much use to anyone.”
True, but instead we have a toilet-maybe-in-more-than-two-years that could have paid to house a family instead. So why is a public bathroom so insanely expensive, and why does it take so long to build? A joint statement from Rec and Park and the Department of Public Works, which will work together to build this extravagant bathroom, pointed to several reasons.
For one thing, the cost to build anything in San Francisco is exorbitant. The city is the most expensive in the world to build in — even topping Tokyo, Hong Kong and New York City. We’re No. 1! Even for places to go No. 1.
Like everywhere, construction costs have risen 20% to 30% in the past couple of years due to global supply chain issues and the rising costs of fuel, labor and materials. But like always, there’s a certain preciousness to the process in San Francisco. (Just look at the years-long, ongoing quest to design and manufacture bespoke city trash cans.)
“It’s important to note that public projects and their overall cost estimates don’t just reflect the price of erecting structures,” the statement said. “They include planning, drawing, permits, reviews and public outreach.”
For a toilet? Apparently so.
An architect will draw plans for the bathroom that the city will share with the community for feedback. It will also head to the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review committee comprised of two architects, a landscape architect and two other design professionals who, under city charter, “conduct a multi-phase review” of all city projects on public land — ranging from buildings to bathrooms to historic plaques, fences and lamps.
The web-page describing that process states the point is to ensure “that each project’s design is appropriate to its context in the urban environment, and that structures of the highest design quality reflect their civic stature.”
Sorry, kid. I know you’ve got to go, but have you considered the context of the urban environment?
The project will then head to the Rec and Park Commission and to the Board of Supervisors. According to the city’s statement, it will also be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Then, the city will put the project up for bid.
“Once we start the project, we’ll have a clearer timeline, but we expect to be able to complete the project in 2025,” the statement read.
The city said the $1.7 million estimate “is extremely rough” and budgets “for the worst-case scenario due to the onerous demands and unpredictable costs levied by PG&E,” the possibility code requirements could change during the project and in case other unexpected circumstances come up.
The city is in a legal battle with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. over the city’s claim that the utility has slowed projects and forced them to be more expensive unless they obtain electricity directly from the utility instead of the city’s Public Utilities Commission.
The bathroom will be built by unions whose workers will “earn a living wage and benefits, including paid sick time, leave and training.”
“While this isn’t the cheapest way to build, it reflects San Francisco’s values,” the statement read.
I’m a union member myself, and of course the majority of our public projects should be union built. But does a $1.7 million single bathroom really reflect San Francisco’s values? I don’t think so.
The supervisors in 2019 approved a Project Labor Agreement between the city and unions that requires union labor for all “covered projects” — but this bathroom isn’t one of them because it’s not worth $10 million and it didn’t come from bond funding.
There are other, much cheaper options. I e-mailed Tom Hardiman, executive director of the Modular Building Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia, and asked him to guess what San Francisco was spending to build one toilet in 150 square feet of space.
“I’m going to guess high, I think, and say $200,000,” he wrote back.
I seemed to nearly give him a heart attack by telling him the actual figure in a subsequent phone call.
“This is to build one public restroom?” he asked incredulously. “What are they making it out of — gold and fine Italian marble? It would be comical if it wasn’t so tragically flawed.”
He then said he’d do some research and found a cheaper option within minutes. He said Chad Kaufman, CEO of Public Restroom Company, just delivered and installed seven modular bathrooms in Los Angeles for the same price San Francisco will spend to build one. These are not Porta Potties, but instead have concrete walls with stucco exteriors and nice fixtures with plumbing.
“There will be some onsite labor which absolutely can be union,” Hardiman said, pointing to crane operators, laborers and plumbers.
And, he said, they could be delivered in eight months.
Phil Ginsburg, director of the Recreation and Parks Department, said many park systems around the country use pre-fabricated restrooms, which are much cheaper — and he hopes San Francisco becomes more politically open to them too. The department has occasionally used them in the past — including at the Redwood Grove playground in McLaren Park — and it’s unclear why one seems off the table for Noe Valley.
“Given how much the public values and needs public restrooms, I would hope these could be more common features in our parks that don’t currently have restrooms,” he said. “Our parks continue to need investment and every dollar saved by installing one allows us to make additional improvements elsewhere in our parks.”
Rudy Gonzalez, secretary treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, said that the $1.7 million pricetag sounded just plain unbelievable and asked how the city came up with that figure.
Unions have pushed back on modular housing, and only a few projects in San Francisco have advanced despite being faster and cheaper to build. Gonzalez said he’d want to know more about the pre-fabricated bathrooms and whether workers on those projects would be paid prevailing wages.
Haney, a staunch labor supporter, said he’d be open to modular bathrooms if they didn’t violate the Public Labor Agreement.
He’ll be at Wednesday’s toilet celebration along with State Sen. Scott Wiener and Supervisor Rafael Mandelman. All three seemed to have their enthusiasm for the project somewhat flushed when told of the details. Wiener said it pointed to the city’s “self-inflicted wounds” that make every project take way too long.
Mandelman said he appreciates Haney’s efforts and is glad the plaza will eventually have a bathroom, but he said the price and timeline exemplify how the city’s project management process is broken.
“We seem to be all tied up in knots in a thousand different ways and I don’t know which of those knots is responsible for this particular example,” he said.
An example of one such knot emerged this week when the city’s Human Resources Department acknowledged it takes an average of 255 days to hire one city worker. But, in fairness, city departments are working to tackle the problem. Why haven’t San Francisco leaders addressed the high costs of public projects?
Todd David, a Noe Valley resident who pushed for the creation of the town square, said neighbors are delighted they’ll eventually have a toilet after pushing for one for many years. But he’s getting lots of questions about why it costs so much.
“The pricetag’s a shocking number,” he said. “Oh my god, this s—’s expensive.”
In this case, quite literally.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/million-dollar-toilet-17518443.php
