Torontoist: Grey Is The New Beige, Part Four: Everything Else

Robin Rix

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:38:31 -0500

The point is that these toilets would be: (a) available in certain locations (e.g. the Entertainment District) for people who might otherwise use public or private property; but (b) out of the way at other times and would not obstruct sidewalks. Out of curiosity, where are people getting the idea that an employee would need to supervise them full-time? All that's needed is someone to visit each location and press a button -- once to raise them at the start of the night, and once to lower them the next morning. Given that they'd be concentrated in certain areas, the marginal expense of doing so would be minimal (and could probably be recouped via advertising), and the benefits would include lower cleanup costs and one fewer social nuisance.

badbhoy

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:03:03 -0500

"Folks, the point of the Urilift system is not that they rise and fall after every single tinkle. Rather, they rise at a certain point in time -- say, 8pm on a Saturday night -- and then sink back down at a later point in time -- say, 5am on a Sunday morning." What's the point then in having a public toilet that is only available to drunks at 4AM and requires a city paid employee to supervise?

torontothegreat

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:46:37 -0500

> Folks, the point of the Urilift system is not that they rise and fall after every single tinkle. Rather, they rise at a certain point in time -- say, 8pm on a Saturday night -- and then sink back down at a later point in time -- say, 5am on a Sunday morning. and due to public safety the city would still HAVE to ensure that the urilift systems fall and rise under supervision. You couldn't do this automatically. Too many things could go wrong and a single lawsuit could render them a huge waste of taxpayer's money. Not to mention they don't clean themselves, so this would be another burden on the tax dollar as opposed to allowing Astral to make the investment.

Robin Rix

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:36:42 -0500

Folks, the point of the Urilift system is not that they rise and fall after every single tinkle. Rather, they rise at a certain point in time -- say, 8pm on a Saturday night -- and then sink back down at a later point in time -- say, 5am on a Sunday morning.

badbhoy

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:58:58 -0500

As neat as the urilift seems in theory, it would be a nightmare in practice if left unattended. "The high-tech toilets would be operational at night in places around the borough to combat late night revellers urinating in the streets." I could just imagine the Entertainment District looking like one of those smack the gopher games on a Friday night. Also, why is the Astral design so enormous for a single occupancy toilet? Do they have a bidet and hot tub in there? Not bad for a buck then.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:59:24 -0500

Do you really think these things rise so quickly and without warning it would cause problems? Or a basic IR detector thing couldn't prevent it from sinking again while someone is still inside? You make it sound like 5 or 6 is a good investment. You know how they solved the public washroom problem in Japan? Convenience store washrooms are the public washrooms. Little signs outside and everything.

Ryan L

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:45:01 -0500

"With the Urilift it would take very little to replace the attendant with a coin-operated remote mounted on the nearest existing post." Until...I don't know, the second day when someone attempts to time the lifting of the unit for when someone walks over it....Or when someone gets trapped inside as it lowers into the ground. You make it sound like they'll be placing these on narrow sidewalks. I doubt they'll have more than 5 or 6 of them in the entire city when all is said and done.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:35:51 -0500

They're smaller and disappear when not in use. The permanent ones are always there and will create people jams and force pedestrians into the street to get around. Think of the street car stop at the northeast corner of Queen West and University. With the Urilift it would take very little to replace the attendant with a coin-operated remote mounted on the nearest existing post.

torontothegreat

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:22:35 -0500

>That's it. With sidewalks already so congested, those would make far more sense than these behemoths. Actually it would make less sense. With the amount of congestion that would cause a public safety issue. "The attendant on duty has a remote control to operate the Urilift. A simple press of the button is all that’s needed to bring it above ground, or to make it disappear underground again. Organisations such as the local sanitation department, the police, security firms or hotels, restaurants and bars could be given the job of carrying out this simple procedure." http://www.urilift.com/products-urilift-solution.php Doesn't sound so practical...

tyrannosaurus_rek

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:57:56 -0500

That's it. With sidewalks already so congested, those would make far more sense than these behemoths.

Robin Rix

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:40:24 -0500

Mathew and T-Rek, you may be thinking of the products made by the good people at Urilift. Although Dutch in origin, they may be coming to Victoria soon.

Mathew Kumar

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:07:59 -0500

Thanks for all the extra information Jonathan!

tyrannosaurus_rek

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:47:36 -0500

They're. Dammit.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:47:24 -0500

I know which public toilets you mean, Mathew, but I'm stumped finding a link to them. Their circular and rise out of the sidewalk on a timer. They also discourage loitering (drugs and sex) by throwing the door open automatically after a few minutes.

Jonathan Goldsbie

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:52:26 -0500

Also, how many public toilets are there currently in Toronto (on the sidewalk, as you imply these wouldn't replace those in parks and stuff)? None. And unlike toilets in parks and other public places, these will be standalone units. the bigger question I think is not how much it costs, but how well cleaned and maintained they'd be. The units, customized Danfo MAPTs, will be self-cleaning. I much prefer those awesome urinals that come out of the ground at night, I did not know such a thing existed, but I am very intrigued. It sounds like the sort of installation one would find at the Sculpture Garden.

Jonathan Goldsbie

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:41:11 -0500

I do have to ask -- are there not currently licensing fees for boxes? Indeed there are. Check out page 13 of the PDF of the bylaw. I can't quite tell from the wording how papers who "can't afford the licensing fees to have a box outside of the structures." could currently afford to do so, unless the fees are going up significantly. I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been. The fees did go up significantly a couple of years ago, and, as per the Eye article to which I linked, smaller papers can't afford to absorb that increase as well as the majors. From my reading of the Astral contract, I believe the company is not allowed to charge publications for hosting them in their megaboxes, meaning that whoever dibses a compartment first can avoid paying the fees associated with maintaining their own boxes. This puts anyone late to the game at a financial disadvantage, because the costs associated with distributing their paper will be much higher. Of course, there are advantages to having one's own box, but in my opinion this framework may limit a new publication's ability to weigh those advantages and disadvantages for itself. My larger concern, however, is that this sets up a situation wherein Council may institute a bylaw restricting all sidewalk newspaper vending to the multi-publication structures, effectively shutting out new voices altogether. wouldn't these boxes mostly be placed where there were already 12-odd boxes cluttering up the street? That's the idea. But if the back panels do end up getting used for advertising, you can expect them to start showing up elsewhere; a loophole in the contract would allow Astral to use the structures to place ads in areas they otherwise couldn't, such as along Bloor, where there is no TTC surface route and as such are no shelters on which to sell ads. What do you mean by ad pillars? The link doesn't use the same (arguably rather loaded) terminology. I used the term "ad pillars" in the same sense I'd been using it throughout this series (including at the top of this post), which is to refer to the INFOTOGO structures. I did, however, forget that the rollout schedule I linked to uses the term "Information / Way-finding Structures," because that's how that sort of item had been identified in the original RFP. (A proposed rollout schedule was included in the RFP, but no one bothered to reclassify the items for the version appended to the final contract.) you don't link to the rules that community posters would have to follow to post on utility poles I chose to not link directly to the new bylaw because I'm not aware of there yet being a consolidated version. That is, a draft bylaw [PDF] went to Council in the summer of 2006 and councillors then made some tweaks [pages 106-112 of this PDF], but — as the bylaw has yet to be added to the Municipal Code — I haven't seen a version that incorporates those changes.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:44:28 -0500

I can't imagine where there'd be space for those washrooms. The newspaper boxes are a good idea though, they've had them in Chicago for years.

Mathew Kumar

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:40:25 -0500

I've got to say, I rather like the large newspaper box. Like one of the linked article says, a mess of newspaper boxes the same size is visual pollution, and one ad (not even the full length of the back of the box)is so much easier to stand than what would otherwise be essentially 12. I do have to ask -- are there not currently licensing fees for boxes? I can't quite tell from the wording how papers who "can't afford the licensing fees to have a box outside of the structures." could currently afford to do so, unless the fees are going up significantly. And for example, wouldn't these boxes mostly be placed where there were already 12-odd boxes cluttering up the street? A few other things: What do you mean by ad pillars? The link doesn't use the same (arguably rather loaded) terminology. If you mean the kiosks that you refer next, you don't link to the rules that community posters would have to follow to post on utility poles. Posting on utility poles is one of my absolute least favourite things (so ugly! So messy!) so I'm interested, as I'd rather see all posting in a place set aside for them (commercial or non.) I don't know how I feel about those arm rests on that bench! They do look like they wouldn't really work. Also, how many public toilets are there currently in Toronto (on the sidewalk, as you imply these wouldn't replace those in parks and stuff)? I never remember seeing one, but then I suppose I've never searched one out. I'm mostly used to pay-to-pee public toilets from living in the UK, the bigger question I think is not how much it costs, but how well cleaned and maintained they'd be. I much prefer those awesome urinals that come out of the ground at night, though they're not really the same thing at all, so forget I mentioned them, heh!

Svend

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:34:42 -0500

I like the newspaper structure, a huge improvement over the multiple chained rusty boxes that are often in the way of the pedestrian crossing button. They'd be even better if they were against a wall instead of being a sight barrier to traffic.