For years I felt this way. But with a 3 year old child you go into lots of public toilets all over the city. Nearly all toilets near playgrounds for children have been fine. Basic but fine.

Thinking through this more. SF Parks and Recs managed toilets have all been fine from a sample size of about 20 uniques and maybe 80 visits. About 75% of those visits are weekend days in the mornings.

Yes Rec and Parks bathrooms are plenty good for the job, even with kids. Maybe they should take over the other ones!

I was blown away by how nice the bathrooms at dolores park were. I was really avoiding going in because I had very very low expectations.

You probably don’t want to step in SF ever. FTFY.

I used to live in the South Bay and go up to San Francisco and Oakland every other weekend. It was bad, but it seems to have completely gone to hell in the last decade.

I would not set foot there unless all of human existence depended on it.

I’ve wanted to leave SF for a few years as I don’t connect as well after having kids. It has slid but it is very easy to avoid the big problem areas and you get desensitized. But there is still lots to love about the city. It soul isn’t crushed yet.

hear hear! San Francisco is still a beautiful place, leagues ahead of the south bay strip mall.

I had Paris syndrome for SF real bad because of how it was described by people and portrayed in movies and when I finally went there it was uhh.. not somewhere I would live forever. I'm sure it's amazing if you live in the rich areas but I got an apartment in the mission which was sold to me by some of my native friends as one of the good semi-affordable areas for young professionals and it was culture shock.

All the novels and biographies I've read that make SF out as a cool bohemian wonderland were all written in the 60s/70s and even then they were lamenting about the good old days being gone. It's remarkable to see a city living so long off a reputation it earned generations ago.

I feel like there are two SF's - the one that other people write about on 6th Street and the tenderloin, and then the one I visit west of that which is one of the most beautiful and vibrant American cities I have ever spent time in.

I think you need to be a bit desensitized to problems that are visible all over the city (e.g. trash under and along freeways etc) for that to not be the memory that sticks rather than the beauty.

It is like SF needs a “clean up the city volunteer day” once a month that is broadly attended.

Hmm, having just visited SF and then spent a week in New Haven and Hartford in CT, I can't agree. What American city doesn't have trash? I can't think of a city I have visited in the world that meets that standard. I haven't been, but maybe Singapore?

The homeless problem is very bad in California and SF in particular, and it is very concentrated in a small area to the east that looks positively dystopian. But that doesn't represent the whole city. If there is a next time you visit, I recommend spending some time in the panhandle, the Haight, the sunset, basically anywhere bordering golden gate park.

I lived in New Haven for 4 years. The difference in the amount of trash between American cities is vast, compare NYC with Chicago. Or really any city on the east coast with Chicago for that matter.

I'm not sure if you mean that Chicago is clean or dirty? I saw a lot of both last time I visited, it's hard to say. It certainly seemed a lot cleaner than, say, Rochester NY or Philadelphia when I visited, but not sure if that was just the areas I was in.

Of course the difference is vast, I think you could compare one part of NYC with NYC even and end up with vastly different ideas of trash. And that's kinda what I am going on about; the trash under highways in some part of the city is a meaningless metric.

Chicago is a much cleaner city. No comparison with New Haven, NYC (where I used to live), Philly (where I live now) or really anywhere else on the east coast. The culture of throwing trash on the ground is endemic on the east coast.

I was flying from NYC to Denver a few months ago and a Denverite and I struck up a conversation on this very topic after observing multiple people throwing trash on the floor in LGA. Speaking of which, Denver, another city that is much cleaner than anywhere on the east coast.

It's because Chicago has alleyways to hide their trash and NYC doesn't. It's not that Chicagoans are any cleaner or have cleaner habits

Chicago also uses cans instead of throwing trash onto the streets. In conjunction with using alleyways I think we have planned structural differences between the two populations. Surely the beginning of an argument for the "cleaner" and "cleaner habits" between the two.

FWIW, I visit golden gate twice a week in average.

I guess I’m saying something a bit different. When people visit SF from SFO they get on the 101 and within 2 hours they have a feeling of things are broken and that memory sticks. I’m desensitized to those problems so I mostly see the beauty.

If people land at SFO and took 380 onto 280 thn straight to golden gate perhaps their impressions would be different.

They might have also taken Bart to the cheapest hotel they could find near Union Square.

In my experience, empathy is a much better solution for these kinds of emotional reactions than desensitization.

So basically any big city. The tourist trap where one wrong turn can lead you to homeless encampments, and the actual city that people live in.

Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.

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.

No one is saying it should be covered in shit. I'm just explaining that projects like this in SF are targeting a very specific issue - a large homeless population.

Yes, but San Francisco also has a large tourist population.

Speaking of targeted, this public project almost feels like it was designed to piss off conservatives. Which is a shame, because older tourists are a big segment of the market there. And foreign toursts. And just like climate change and summer homes on the coast, I hate that there will be ironic endings to this for conservatives.

Obviously, the homeless population and climate challenged have it worse. But we didn't need to make others suffer.

Such a shitty situation. Pin sanitation worker pay to software engineering rates or higher and build some fucking toilets.

It just makes life more difficult. It's work in a way, dodging all this.

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.

All of the public toilets I used as a tourist in Europe cost a euro, bathroom operators have an incentive to keep their bathrooms clean. San Francisco (lived there for 4 years) does not adequately maintain their toilets, echoing other comments in this thread, they're literally the worst I've seen. Even the NYC MTA (i.e. subway) bathrooms were better, bathrooms which tend to be portrayed as being especially dirty

All the more reason to not dismiss them as for "people with nowhere else to go" and simply make sure that they are well maintained and people aren't using them as their personal poop graffiti space.

Ideally, public toilets are for everyone - for the public...

And ideally people wouldn't be homeless, but here we are in reality.

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.

I'm not saying "every public bathroom is for homeless people". I'm saying in San Francisco that is the problem being addressed. I have traveled to many countries with public toilets that do not have these issues, I am aware of what is possible.

A tiny minority of people ruin things like this for everyone, and the US doesn’t have the political will to deal with them (they likely need involuntary commitment to mental institutions).

When I lived in SF, I couldn’t believe the amount of trash on the street. How can so many people litter so much? Then one day, I happened to witness a homeless guy taking all the trash out of every trash can on the street and just dumping them.

That one guy was undoing a week of effort by thousands of people to keep things clean of litter. That kind of behavior should be considered a serious offense, but no one cares, about either the guy or the trash. Have a paper straw! That will fix it.

This may be true in San Francisco and certainly is in many other parts of the U.S.

It is not true in places with functioning government.

Yes, obviously. We're talking about San Francisco where this toilet is being built with a very explicit purpose.

I responded to the blanket assertion. I wouldn't want people in civilized places to think that public toilets should only be "for the people who have nowhere else".

What's different between a traditional public toilet that anyone can use and a homeless toilet? You seem to imply there's a difference that affords extra explanation and justification.

I'm not implying any difference at all. I'm not saying the public can't use the toilet, I'm saying that the main problem that the government is trying to address is one with the homeless population.

Your arguing an ideal and they are making a point about practice and fact. The practice on the ground and public policy is that certain "public toilets" are for the homeless. This informs government decisions about how they are designed, who has to maintain them, where they are placed, and who uses them.

A public toilet in the tenderloin is a homeless toilet in all but name. A public toilet in Golden Gate Park is actually a public toilet in the sense that you are talking about.

Then they should rebrand from public toilets. Maybe a sign that says "poopy poopy homeless toilet" would clear up the confusion.

At that point we should just give up and make a pit latrine and ask the homeless to defecate openly into that.

In any normal city, public toilets are for everyone.

> 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?

Japan has excellent toilets. They have that by doubling down on cleaning, not on expecting their people to care more (they don't).

this mindset is why you have terrible public services.

> shit all over the floor and toliet and walls

Sounds like someone made it their home

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 perfect but they have been clean every time I used it.

They have to pay an attendant hourly just to be sure no one is in there while the self clean runs? Why can't it operate based on a weight sensor?

Because somebody will step on the sink or somehow else avoid the sensor and then sue for a round sum.

When unmonitored public toilets have had issues with people camping out while partaking illicit substances and other X-rated activities.

I think I'd take my chances with the sidewalk than risk a startups new self cleaning censor. Literally a shit storm

It's not some startups self cleaning sensor, this is old technology that is in several other cities without attendants, and is basically idiot proof. The attendant hopefully makes it american-idiot proof too.

I think the problem isn't making it idiot proof, but making it malicious user who really wants to do heroin in there proof

All the toilets in Paris self-clean between users. You don't need the sensor to work not to get sprayed, just to exit the toilet when a voice says "EXIT THE TOILET NOW, THE SELF CLEANING PROCESS IS ABOUT TO BEGIN.

I used one of these and the self clean cycle started without warning while I was washing my hands. I couldn’t have been in there more than 4-5 minutes. Luckily the door didn’t lock so I was able to escape before getting “cleaned”.

Heck, I cover up the self-flushing mechanism on toilets every time then remove it after. Not a pleasant surprise when it miscalculates.

Even self flushing toilets are often broken. A certain building I worked at I had to jump off quickly and out of the way so it didn't spray up with a trigger happy mega flush.

Kinda hard to do when you’re nodding out on the floor.

Because no startup has made an AI for that purpose yet?

All you need is a PIR sensor

It's cheaper to pay someone $20 an hour 24 hours a day for 20 years than it is to pay out the $4mil lawsuit for when that sensor fails.

I'm not an American, but can/would people sue for getting washed in a self-cleaning toilet? Surely some signs and disclosures would be sufficient?

They’d be injecting hard drugs, especially fentanyl, constantly in this toilet, so signs and disclosures won’t mean much. SF is a rather “special” place, you can’t easily compare to other international cities.

Spoken like someone who has not spent more than a week in SF, probably entirely in hotels or restaurants.

I’ve lived in SF for more than a decade and if I opened the door to a public toilet I’d be surprised if someone wasn’t shooting up inside.

You don't spend much time outside of your house, then.

Are people really shooting up on the streets in Noe Valley? I kept hearing it’s the one nice part of the city.

People in America will sue because the "crunchberries" in breakfast cereals aren't real berries.

That doesn't mean they'll win, but even a bogus lawsuit is expensive and time-consuming.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_tosses_suit_cl...

They'd sue for you suggesting they shouldn't!

Easily defeated with a masking tape.

There's an AI, but there's no blockchain or AR, and that's really the important part.

Have you been to SF?

Valid point, public bathrooms in France do this without an attendant

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?

Rented for about €1200 per month per toilet. 6MM/year for 420 of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette#In_Paris

6 million million?

6 million. Slipped my mind that MM is industry specific.

M is ambiguous between the Roman (M = 1,000), the SI prefix (M = 1,000,000), and metres (screen readers).

$1MM (capitalized) or $1mn (more recent) reduces the ambiguity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MM#Units_of_measurement

M is not ambiguous at all it stands for mega which is 1e6 (which happens to be a million).

Meters is lowercase m. And nobody uses Roman numerals as a suffix. MM is just unnecessary.

Well you're gonna be really disappointed to find out lots of people do use "mm" particularly in finance, and that Roman numerals have been used far longer than the SI system has existed.

Just because you don't use them, or aren't aware they are used, does not make it unnecessary.

By unnecessary I meant the second M in MM is redundant (since M = Mega = 1e6 is enough). And yes I am disappointed, probably just as much as people's use of imperial units :)

Edit:...

>Roman numerals have been used far longer than the SI system has existed

Indeed it has. But has its use as a suffix existed for just as long? BTW I am also disappointed that the people still use Roman numerals :) (also completely unnecessary, the Indo-Arabic number system is "better").

> An expense of $60,000 could be written as $60M. Internet advertisers are familiar with CPM which is the cost per thousand impressions.

> The letter k is also used represent one thousand. For example, an annual salary of $60,000 might appear as $60k instead of $60M. [0]

k and MM are unambiguous. You don't want to stop & think, and you definitely don't want to be off by a factor of 1000. So it makes sense to avoid typing 'M' if you have any risk of being misinterpreted.

It's mostly about the reduction of risk, it's VERY rare to see M used in this way.

[0] https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-does-m-and-mm-stan...

> An expense of $60,000 could be written as $60M

This is unfortunate. $60,000 is $60K (capital K not k) using SI suffixes. Please reject M=1000 today.

> Please reject M=1000 today.

This is infeasible, and what does it mean to reject something in a written document?

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here: you're arguing against an established convention in a sector of the market which you don't have experience with.

The upside if you're successful is that I don't need to type an additional 'M'.

The downside is that it requires enforcing a blanket standard on an industry, rather than letting it converge over time to an unambiguous standard.

Help the convergence along by objecting to the use of M=1000 wherever you see it. We already have an unambiguous standard (it is the SI system of units and suffixes if you are unsure). People should be using it.

As a European, I have never seen suffix M = 1000. It’s always a million. Is this one of those things America does different?

It's inconsistent worldwide

https://old.reddit.com/r/FinancialCareers/comments/usdr2d/le...

If M is roman, wouldnt MM equal 2000? As in this year, MMXXII.

Thanks for the explanation though. Next we'll get into how a european billion is 1000 times more than a US billion.

Absolutely, but you're reducing the risk of communicating with people who may be using the roman suffix without writing in Roman numerals. In that situation, you'd see 2M rather than MM.

The British billion went out in 1974/5 (Wilson/Healy). One billion is 1,000,000,000 and you shouldn't expect ambiguity there.

In practical terms, it doesn't matter. It'd be extremely unusual to be at the scale of the old billion (1,000,000,000,000)

----

This is similar to a justification of using `i` as the variable for an iterator, or `x` and `xs` for head & tail. There are logical reasons, but it's mostly convention.

MM = "mille mille" = "thousand thousand". You will be seeing this in many places.

I'd rather not. The second M is redundant. M stands for mega (SI suffix) which is equal to 1e6.

M stands for 1000 in money. Finance isn't a natural science.

Don’t the ones in Paris cost money?

they should be free. You can find paying toilets in some train stations, but in those, there are people taking care of them

They’re free i used one today. Some of the bathrooms in the malls are paid though. But not the outdoor self cleaning ones.

why not have a full time janitor who cleans after each visit? much cheaper than a self cleaning toilet. even if you pay $100k to the janitor in annual salary, it will take 10+yrs to reach 1.7M and who knows what kind of issues these self cleaning toilets will have in that 10yrs.

I was thinking the same thing. We now hire people to watch extremely expensive machines do incredibly menial tasks.

Yes, I clean my own toilets at home.

Because a human who can afford to live in San Francisco almost certainly costs more than this machine over 10 years (the 1.7 million is for the whole project, not just the self cleaning portion), and drugged out crazies can make a mess that would be a very hard and unpleasant job to give a human.

A large number of City employees live outside the City. According to this article, only 40% of the City employees live in SF. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/remote-work-17510522....

So why is residence a requirement for the janitor??

Sure, substitute live in San Francisco with live in commuting distance of San Francisco. It's not like Daly city or Oakland are cheap either.

Even when we focus on the fiscal aspect of it, I don't think a machine is a bad idea compared to a plan of "find some willing to clean up after addicts and the mentally ill at all hours" - how much would you need to be paid to take that job and show up to outcompete the toilet-dishwasher-machine every day? California has tons of other jobs and generous social programs.

And that's ignoring the angle that we're allocating a human life to this extremely unpleasant and automatable task.

They're already hiring an attendant to ensure it doesn't run when someone is in it.

How does it work? I mean in France I saw many self-cleaning toilets (you can find some in Paris) and they don't need an attendant to function; they just wait for people to leave before the cleaning start and if you get sprayed it's just on you.

At the last office I worked at, there was someone who did that to our bathroom. Not a homeless person, either, but one of the employees. They never figured out who.

In a public bathroom, I wonder how much of that happens because of mental issues, and how much is a byproduct of the bathroom not getting cleaned often enough.

I wouldn't either, but that's only cause I've literally never found one.