US citizens need to start feeling embarassed that we can no longer manufacture simple objects cost efficiently. These trash cans should cost $1k max.
I wonder if this cost discrepancy is due to pork or too many middle managers.
Not even sure why the trash can needs a redesign. Will this increased cost ever give an ROI over a long enough enough time span? Or will some other bureaucrat decide they need to make a name for themselves by redesigning the trashcan in 15 years, and these will all end up in the landfill?
> I wonder if this cost discrepancy is due to pork or too many middle managers.
The cost "discrepancy" is due to cheap offshored mass manufacturing for most everything consumers buy, plus social media validating uninformed off-the-cuff opinions. $11,000 is about a month of a welder plus designer. Is it terribly hard to imagine that the process of building a prototype with a few refinements would take $11,000 worth of time? Frankly, based on experience with the cost of engineering time, that seems like a tiny project.
FTA:
> When mass-produced, the cost per can will drop to an estimated $2,000 to $3,000.
Keep in mind this is still likely using small-run domestic labor, which is "costly" (ie economically sustainable). Tractor implements have similar simplicity, similar inputs (metal plus welding), and finished good prices are similar.
If anything, US citizens need to be embarrassed that we've allowed our society to be hollowed out by disposable mass-produced crap and policy-deliberate inflation.
> When mass-produced, the cost per can will drop to an estimated $2,000 to $3,000.
I'm sorry, but that is still embarrassing. If the U.S. still had a strong manufacturing base, these things would be trivial to produce cheaply. To start with, certain aspects of the design would be simplified to allow for easier production. Operations and tooling engineers could help with that process, but we barely have any engineers left with the required speciality. Next you'd find someone that can stamp out the blanks from sheet metal. But of course we don't have many places that deal with a lot of sheet metal and have the ability to retool cost effectively. In China, there are thousands of such places.
> If the U.S. still had a strong manufacturing base
What's this "if?" I've worked my entire 30+ year engineering career for companies that manufactured things. From the 6-person company I started at to the $4bn corporation that owned 80% of their market, they've all been based on making things.
There's nothing wrong with the US manufacturing base. We just don't focus on low-margin consumer goods. Even the company I worked at which also did consumer electronics, farmed that part of their manufacturing to Viet Nam. Higher margin stuff was built here.
> The products we do require really advanced tooling, and the precision that you have to have, the tooling and working with the materials that we do are state of the art. And the tooling skill is very deep here. In the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China, you could fill multiple football fields.
Low-margin things used to be farmed out overseas due to cost. Now things are produced overseas because we lack the expertise locally.
That's not the correct interpretation of his quote.
Tooling engineering is a commodity thing, not a tech leadership thing.
Apple products are designed in the US, because the same problem, you couldn't find 1000 engineers able to design an iPhone all in one place anywhere else. Yes, the Tooling engineers are in the lower cost to manufacture countries we export the manufacturing to, but the designers of the product are in the US, bay area specifically. Often tunes tooling engineers assemble production lines, molding stations, etc. From components and tools designed and built in the US and Europe. I.e a tooling engineer will design an automated work cell with a robot arm and an injection molding machine. The robot and injection molding machine are designed and built by a us, Japanese or European company, and the rest is sourced locally and then assembled together.
This, I'm I the same boat and have the same opinion. The US and Europe are both still top in manufacturing complex new things. Simple commodity stuff that's a race to the bottom like low end consumer tech and objects like trash cans are outsourced because cost.
Sure, I went on to address why that is. US labor is expensive, because our currency has been continually hollowed out by the deliberate government policy that prices must always go up, despite continual technological and economic progress trying to make things less expensive. The real cost of producing consumer goods has dropped through the floor, yet nominal prices are a bit higher than they were. Meanwhile domestic labor, and everything depending on domestic labor, has shot through the roof due to this policy. And as labor gets more expensive, even more manufacturing leaves.
Employing individuals is cost prohibitive for other individuals (eg calling a plumber costs too damn much), which causes further centralization of the economy where only big business is able to stomach the cost of doing business (they're also well connected to the supply of newly printed money).
Also I would be surprised if relatively small runs of long lasting municipal fixtures could be "stamped out from sheet metal". This seems to be a bias towards disposable consumer crap talking.
> Sure, I went on to address exactly why that is. US labor is expensive, because our currency has been continually hollowed out by the deliberate government policy that prices must always go up, despite continual technological and economic progress trying to make things less expensive.
Sorry, what policy is that? Are you talking about how the Federal Reserve targets 2% inflation? Every country does that. It's important that nominal prices increase. Otherwise, people just old on to their money and the economy slows down. If that's not the government policy you're talking about, or if you have an example of a country without inflation targets, I would like to see it.
> Also I would be surprised if relatively small runs of long lasting municipal fixtures could be "stamped out from sheet metal". This seems to be a bias towards disposable consumer crap talking.
Sheet metal is an amazing material. It lets a company focus on producing a high quality steel without worrying about how every consumer downstream will consume it. It also allows for highly efficient shape forming and stamping. The fins on the garbage can almost certain come from sheet metal. Airplanes and cars are made with sheet metal. It's probably one of the most important materials in modern manufacturing.
> Are you talking about how the Federal Reserve targets 2% inflation?
Specifically 2% inflation defined in terms of a consumer price index where the cost to produce manufactured goods is continually dropping. Draw a diagram of the feedback loop, and you'll see that the only way to make that target happen is for the cost of non-offshore-manufactured goods to increase much quicker than 2% to compensate.
Put another way, manufacturing was offshored with the idea it would lead to cheap prices, and then the Federal Reserve went and deliberately stopped those cheaper prices from happening. This left Americans with fewer jobs but also no increased economic power to make up for it.
> It's important that nominal prices increase. Otherwise, people just old on to their money and the economy slows down
I understand the orthodoxy, but the computing industry has had four decades of overwhelming deflation and has been quite vibrant the entire time.
Re: sheet metal, how much is the tooling cost to create a die for 1/4 inch steel? I don't have much experience, but at the relatively low quantity a municipality wants CNC plasma might still make more sense. That seems to be the case for tractor implements.
> I understand the orthodoxy, but the computing industry has had four decades of overwhelming deflation and has been quite vibrant the entire time.
This is an interesting point I haven't thought of. Perhaps the reason it happens with the computer industry is that the utility of digitization is so high that the impetus to do the work now usually outweighs waiting for a cheaper price. Thanks for the insight, though. It has changed how I view this issue.
That's a good point, but the same thing can be said about food, or even discretionary leisure spending. It's a scalar result rather than a binary one. So to me, the real question is do we need more or less manufacturing/consumption in the world today?
It didn't cost $11K to design and build a prototype. According to the article:
"The city’s Department of Public Works famously decided no city in the world had ever placed a trash can on its sidewalks that would meet San Francisco’s exacting standards and designed three bespoke, wildly expensive prototypes just for us. It took nearly four years and $550,000 to get this far, but now they need our help."
I'm not sure if the article clarified, but I was under the impression the $11-20k was the incremental cost per unit. They said the whole project has spent $550,000. Hopefully they got more than 3 trashcan prototypes and a QR code to an online survey for that.
I don't know if the garbage can is good, but I found the last picture with the new garbage can in the foreground and a ton of garbage behind the can on the ground funny.
This article is not very good, because it doesn't say what they are trying to do with the garbage cans. Is it making them harder to be damaged? To make it so people use the cans instead of throwing the garbage on the ground? To make it easy to service?
I would guess, the primary purpose is so they aren't damaged, but who knows.
These designs are all bad. The recycling space is uselessly small. The middle one won't accept an empty takeout container. The one on the right has moving parts that people need to touch to use. Most people don't want to touch a damned trashcan downtown, what are you even thinking?!
People are focused on the price, but that's the least of my concerns. All three prioritize form over function. But yeah, the bar & slat designs are needlessly many pieces that require a lot of damned work.
It looks like the one on the right is foot-operated, which is cool for people of average height and two feet. I smell an ADA lawsuit, but at least most people wouldn't need to touch it with their hands. But it will encourage people to throw out their returnables, which leads to the question "why do so many people rifle the trash?"
In the Vancouver area, trash cans have a little ledge where you're supposed to put returnables. From what I can tell, there's a pretty high rate of participation. It keeps the valuables out of the trash, and it simplifies collection. I guess it flies in the face of the American culture of security and authority, but it's a simple fix that takes people's actual motivation into account and addresses it there. Because, unless those cans are guarded 24/7, somebody is going to figure out how to quickly jimmy them open and that knowledge will disseminate quickly.
With the assumption that there are smart people involved who thought this was a good idea --
The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considered.
I think this is a really interesting topic because there's a surprising amount of consideration that needs to go into something like this. Most people think "oh, a trashcan, how hard can it be to design one?".
- Durable: they can't be easily damaged due to physical force, rain, UV exposure, or even fire (if someone throws out a lit cigarette). These cans are expected to last 15-20 years
- They also shouldn't be easy to tip over
- They must be difficult for people and animals to get into
- They must be easy for public works to empty. The inner can can't be too heavy or not robust enough to contain the trash (32 gallons)
- The opening can't be too big to prevent people dumping large items into it
- They should look somewhat appealing (they're designed in Oakland).
- They must meet certain size restrictions due to the various widths of sidewalks in SF
- It must also have a recycling container on top that meets most of the above requirements of "people can't reach inside here"
In terms of "why are they so expensive": these cans are one-off prototypes. When they're mass produced, they will only be a bit more than the existing green cans ($1,218 vs $2,000) but with the goal of being much more durable and robust. Additionally, they're much less expensive than the "Bigbelly" cans that the city supervisors wanted to use. Fun fact: the city doesn't actually own those cans and they cost $3,000 per year to lease (!!!).
Rubenstein from Public Works explained that in 2018, the department could not find a trash can that fulfilled an exacting list of features: a rolling inside can for easy emptying, a sensor to alert workers when a can is full, durability to withstand street life, and be tamper-proof.
And “obviously,” she added, “they needed to be aesthetic.”
It also hints at fraud, but I’m not sure that plays a big role in the eventual costs of these trash cans. As you mention, those “Bigbelly” cans aren’t cheaper ($3,900 a piece, according to that link, so about what these will end up costing)
Other cities have functional trash cans, but every city is unique and the set of problems they solve will be different. In SF the biggest issue is that people are constantly getting into the trash and creating a huge mess, so the cans that NYC or Seattle use won't work because they have an open top design. Many of the cans in London are the BigBelly or bomb-proof variety, but we already ruled that out because of the $3k per year lease fee.
From what I can tell most cities don't have a custom design: they just use whatever commercially available thing is available. SF is hoping this design will be better than those, and that they will be able to sell the design to other cities. I'd love to see how other cities address this issue though... I know that Amsterdam has a fancy underground trash system!
OT, but has anyone ever studied what motivates graffiti producers? I assume it is a mix of teenage boredom / rebelliousness and gang territory signifiers, but I would be interested in reading more about it. I'm more interested learning about the motivation for the "scribbles" form, rather than the more artist versions.
The fins are actually kind of brilliant. Looks like it will hamper both paint markers and knife scratchers. The spray painters will just have to be painted over, though. Two out of three ain't bad!
These are not $20k trash cans. The program is designing and producing prototypes. This is because various designs tried so far have had significant problems. How much mass produced final designs might cost is not yet known.
Those "problems" are not real problems worth wasting money on. Regular trash cans used in other cities are cheap and work fine. SF city leadership is just dysfunctional and over complicating things as usual.
SF has huge problems with street people emptying out garbage cans in search for food and tradable goods. The Big Belly options that were tried turned out to be targets for vandals and when they did work out the compacted trash ended up being too heavy for haulers to handle without specialized equipment.
The reason you think this is overcomplicating things is that you haven't bothered to actually investigate the problem or attempts that have been made to solve it.
Those are not serious or widespread problems. Other cities manage to make do with cheaper options. This is just another case of lazy, overpaid government employees trying to justify their jobs.
This is filthy, wretched, evil garbage. San Francisco is very much unlike most cities. Instead of being satisfied with overflowing and consistently pillaged bins people are trying to better. You are against this because you are not observing the situation, because you are not capable of understanding how complex human systems like our biggest cities function, because you have contempt for everything outside your experience. Instead of trying to understand what is going on you just project. You rely on government employees and their works, but see all of them and lazy and useless. This is just another case of lazy critics trying to justify their ennui.
The main competitor for these trash cans is the BigBelly, which cost $3,000 a year to lease. They've already been deployed in some parts of SF and surrounding cities.
You could have looked at some commercial supply catalogs and seen that trash cans used by businesses cost significantly more. You could have searched around and found that businesses and other institutions have significant costs for installation, maintenance, tracking, abuse, environmental factors, etc that require more substantial solutions to mitigate.
Instead, I'll summarize that into this rebuttal comment, and I may even convince you that a $10 trash can that goes next to your toilet [0] won't work as a city trash can. But it won't stop the next person from posting the exact same type of anti-enlightening comment and thinking it's insightful.
[0] These days it's $50 for a 44 gallon Brute, which will still get stolen or tip over in the wind.
Simple trash cans like this do not endure long in dense city environments. The most common designs currently found have lasted for decades and cost way more than $50 when put in place. Have you ever done trash hauling in a city or are you just a reactionary?
I've designed a lot of street furniture for companies like Cemusa, Jcd, etc.
Even nice fancy stainless steel things that are built better to withstand a city are very inexpensive when ordered in quantity from overseas. A good example is a shipping container. They cost about $2k to manufacture in China.
So, yes, I think a trash can should cost less to manufacture than a shipping container.
Berlin also had a trash problem. But it got better when they decided to standardise on a really cheap bright orange trashcan and really flooded the town with those. You see them everywhere in the city, and especially in inner city you might see 15, so whatever you have in your hand the easiest is to just step to the bright orange thing and throw it inside.
Before usually they had also metal ones that needed construction to mount in the ground, those current ones the trash workers can just metal ziptie to lampposts and if one breaks they have a new one in their car.
> US citizens need to start feeling embarassed that we can no longer manufacture simple objects cost efficiently
UK citizens need to start feeling embarrassed that we can no longer manufacture simple objects. Period. We buy all our crap from China. I'm so ashamed.
I wonder if this cost discrepancy is due to pork or too many middle managers.
Not even sure why the trash can needs a redesign. Will this increased cost ever give an ROI over a long enough enough time span? Or will some other bureaucrat decide they need to make a name for themselves by redesigning the trashcan in 15 years, and these will all end up in the landfill?