A single-toilet public restroom planned for San Francisco’s Noe Valley Town Square is expected to take two years to build, but it’s already causing a stink. The reason: its $1.7 million price tag. — Los Angeles Times
The proposed restroom would sit within a 150-square-foot enclosure within the town square, located in central San Francisco. While there are no designs for the project available, it is expected to be delivered by 2025. According to the city, the high price tag is meant to account for unexpected costs, including the rise of construction costs due to the pandemic, inflation, and global supply chain issues. This is in addition to being located in the most expensive city in the world to build in. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco is also wary of costs from utility company PG&E, which owns the power lines used by the city’s public utility. The company has a history of stalling projects, forcing customers to buy specialized equipment to handle large amounts of electricity.
The project's massive cost and the lengthy timeline were met with outcry, which led California Assemblyman Matt Haney, who secured state funding for the project, to cancel a planned ceremony for the toilet. The proposed undertaking still needs to undergo community feedback before heading to the city’s Recreation and Park Commission and then to the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors.
15 Comments
of course it is. It’s in SF. The permitting process is ridiculously bureaucratic and slow. Everything is overpriced. equity! they bark as overpaid government do nothings ensure their jobs with labyrinths of red tape. But definitely Not the fault of the government. No way. They are solving problems. Pay them more taxes or you are bad.
It better have the super-cushy toilet paper is all I'm saying.
I'm always a little skeptical of jumping on the cost criticism train. I've been on the opposite side with projects being criticized publicly over costs, but usually with wildly misguided information. That said, It's an LA times article, so I'm guessing they did better research... I'd be really curious to see a breakdown on this. Maybe there is some logical reason but with a building that size maybe they should just rethink it. Wouldn't be at all surprised if 80% of the cost was just utilities...
So why isn't this called out as toilet gentrification? Let's go adaptive reuse. It might be more logical to pay 861 businesses $1,000 a month ($8,613 is the interest payment on $1.7 million for 30 years at 4.5%) for the general public to use their "customers only" toilets.
might want to check your multiplication there, alberto.
oops, just the nearest 8 restaurants
It will pay for itself. Also Noe Valley will become the limbo capital of the world.
That's almost 7 million quarters.
(I'd spend a third of that in a typical week if I'm hydrated.)
Go to plan B.
Does a number two cost more ?
Out of 1.7 million, the cost of the toilet will be a max of 100k. Rest will go to the fatcats that work at the city
99% of govt bureaucrats should be fired. The entire thing is a big scam. This is where your taxes go. Keep voting for democrats and it will keep getting worse. Soon you’ll need to spend 500$ For an electrical permit to change a lightbulb. In the name of climate change energy review or some bull shit.
The amount of time and energy waste for someone who knows nothing about something to approve that thing that’s being built by someone who knows alot about that thing…absolutely useless waste of time and money
It’s just a glorified toll booth. End of rant***
Time to completely deregulate the building industry, including architecture. This is a result of degrees that now cost upwards of $500,000
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.