[gruez]

Your article doesn't say anything about cost, only that it got built fast. Every time the toilet example gets cited, the punchline is the cost, not how long it took, although that was appalling as well.

From the wikipedia article:

>The toilet's original proposed cost of $1.7 million inspired media coverage and criticism of the San Francisco government.

[h3lp]

From the wikipedia article:

   Site preparation began in February, 2024;[12] the prefabricated restroom was placed by a crane in March;[2] and installation was completed on April 22, 2024, costing about $200,000 to the city.

so maybe government did the right thing, after trying all the other possibilities.

[b112]

Plus, the cost of building includes a lot of permits, inspections, studies, and money to sldo so. Taxes too.

Was all this waived?

[ceejayoz]

I'm a firm believer that part of progressivism needs to be reining in these sorts of NIMBY obstacles.

[b112]

Environmental assessments are NIMBY? Well regardless, the point is it should be the same for everyone.

[ceejayoz]

> Environmental assessments are NIMBY?

It's a kiosk being added to a concrete sidewalk in the middle of Manhattan, by the city itself.

There must be a way to do projects of this small scale without spending years on paperwork.

[asdff]

The whole point is in principle these things are good ideas but in practice they are tools weaponized by NIMBYs. This is the fig leaf that keeps them around. "But why would you do away with environmental review???" As if you were to stab 55 gal drums of toxic waste and dump them into a river. But really you were trying to build an apartment as large as many other existing apartments in the middle of the city. Or in this case, install something on the sidewalk.

[ceejayoz]

Sure... because it was a prefab and still took two years at that cost.