Tuesday’s headlines

11 comments

1. Yay, a two-tiered public toilet system.

   So those who both happen to have a loonie handy when the “mood” strikes, AND have a loonie to spare can use a fancy new Astral Crapper, while everyone else can continue to a) use the few public facilities available, b) use the bathrooms of local businesses, c) do their business in the bushes, against random walls, and in stairwells. Joy.

   Let me be the first to suggest that this is going to have almost zero impact on our current bathroom shortage problem.

2. “There are fewer ads under this program than currently exist,” Miller said

   …but there will be more square footage of ads overall, if I remember correctly?

3. Well I don’t know Melissa, but I almost always have change in my wallet, including loonies, and many other people do too. These $1 public toilets are a huge improvement to what we have now (which is not much), and I’m looking forward to checking them out.

4. hmmm… maybe this is why the City is not insisting on public washrooms in new commercial developments. Astral would probably feel this would interfere with their business model.

5. Leo>

   I don’t think I expressed my real concern very well up there. Let me try again.

   Sure, there are some people who have loonies to spare, but there are many others who don’t. And the people who don’t have a loonie to spare are often the same people who don’t have the money to be the “paying customers” private establishments like to have using their facilities.

   The Ontario Human Rights Code provides for equal rights and opportunities, and freedom from discrimination. It “recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in Ontario and applies to the areas of employment, housing, facilities and services, contracts, and membership in unions, trade, or professional associations.”

   Washrooms are considered “facilities” under the human rights code. Which is why the issue of providing suitable washroom facilities for both men and women, transgendered people, and those with physical disabilities have (and continue to be) an issue.

   Requiring people to PAY to use washrooms is a blatant human rights violation, as it discriminates against those who can’t afford to pay. It’s even more disgusting that city officials are not only allowing, but celebrating this kind of discrimination in the provision of PUBLIC facilities.

6. The above comments about the washrooms are really an eye-opener about who this city is for. While many of us here have more than a few loonies (and twoonies) to spare. But there are many people who don’t. Why should these folks be denied a basic service like a washroom facility…or even a drink of water. (Anybody notice how few public water fountains seem to be operational in this city…and that the few that do work offer such a low trickle of water that I can’t imagine anybody would want to drink from them.) These are civic responsibilities which other cities seem to handle capably. We should be able to as well. As for Councillor Moscoe’s recent suggestion that businesses should be required to provide these facilities, seems to me this is little more than the city shirking its duties.

7. Folks may want to check out the post I made on the similar pay-public-toilets in San Jose:

   https://spacing.ca/toronto/2006/08/07/street-scat/

   They were clean enough (still a “glad to be a boy” scenario though). They took forever to clean and reset though. With so few of them around, it meant that mostly they either in use or in transition. Not terribly convenient in a big, pedestrian filled city.

8. The Urinetown-esque pay-to-pee idea was actually something the City asked for.

   The Request for Proposals stated that “The public washrooms should… be capable of accepting a nominal fee for use which may be paid by means of cash, debit, credit card, smart card or tokens.” And in its description of the kind of public washroom they were looking for, staff wrote “Typically a nominal fee is applied through a coin-operated mechanism, as a means to regulate use rather than raise revenues.”

   I am not sure, however, whether the precise amount of the fee is set in stone. There is a decent chance that, under pressure from a local councillor and his or her constituents, the City may be able to request that a specific washroom be free to use.

   But it’s all kind of beside the point, anyway, as there will only be a very small handful of these things. One will be installed next year, and then two more in each of the following nine years, and then one more in 2019, for a total of 20. Of course, all 120 ad pillars will be in place by the end of 2009.

   Here’s the rollout schedule of everything.

   Kevin: Yeah, to say there will be fewer ads is to deliberately omit the facts that

   1) the total square footage of ads will increase by about 12% (to 198 199 square feet)

   2) more than twice as many ads as before will be illuminated, at eye level, and perpendicular to the street (as opposed to the current ads on bins and benches)

   and

   3) 200 of the shelters will have mechanisms that will allow a single caisson to scroll through three different advertisements, each of which will be displayed for 6.5-13 seconds at a time (with each transition taking two seconds).

9. So more ads will be illuminated…and timers are in place to increase visibility for a greater number of ads….I wonder how the extra energy used for all this furthers the City’s stated commitment to being “green”.

10. Thanks for that rollout schedule Jonathan. It definitely makes the provision of washrooms trough this deal seem that much more pathetic.

    It also blows my mind that the city put that pay-to-pee provision in the RFP. Whose side is the city on anyway? I mean, as the maintainer of the washroom, doesn’t the contract winner pocket the pee fee?

    Isn’t the role of the city to be more concerned about ensuring the provision of accessible, good-quality, well-maintained, and aesthetically pleasing street furniture, than ensuring that the contract winner can make a decent profit? It’s nice that the city seems to care more about the private sector’s bottom line than the rights of its citizens.

    It’s nice that the washrooms will be self-cleaning, but really, I think that feature would be more beneficial at city hall. Something has to be done about all the crap coming out of there…

    As for the ad thing, does the increase in square footage include the additional ad space that scrolling vs fixed ads provides? Just curious.

11. I mean, as the maintainer of the washroom, doesn’t the contract winner pocket the pee fee?

    Yes.

    Isn’t the role of the city to be more concerned about ensuring the provision of accessible, good-quality, well-maintained, and aesthetically pleasing street furniture, than ensuring that the contract winner can make a decent profit?

    The Mayor honestly believes that a balance has been achieved. At Council last year, he called the Astral deal a “win-win-win-win-win-win-win” proposition.

    As for the ad thing, does the increase in square footage include the additional ad space that scrolling vs fixed ads provides?

    No. As staff wrote in the RFP, “The square footage of the advertising caisson would be the square footage applied.” (A “caisson” is the “enclosed and illuminated casing.”)