
City says steps will cost at least $65,000; man builds them for $550 - supremesaboteur
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/20/americas/man-steps-trouble-trnd/index.html
======
james_pm
Already torn out because his steps were not even close to being to code and
were dangerous. No footings, wood right on dirt. No landings, trip hazards,
poor railing.

There's a reason that the steps cost $10,000 (the real cost to the city) to
install. They need to be durable, safe and installed properly.

~~~
mcv
But did they build proper stairs? Because crappy stairs may still be better
than no stairs at all. Depending on how crappy, of course. If they look safe
but collapse, the crappy stairs might lure people in who wouldn't otherwise
try to walk there. Still, I wonder if it wouldn't have made more sense to only
remove the cheap stairs when they're going to build the proper stairs.

~~~
duskwuff
Check out the pictures in the Twitter thread I linked. The "stairs" were
literally just a bunch of wood nailed together, sitting on the slope -- the
structure didn't even appear to be anchored to the ground. If someone slipped
and fell on the (untreated wood) steps, they could easily have knocked the
entire structure on its side.

------
iamjdg
I know this makes for good press and beauracy does suck. But bylaws and
regulation result in safe and livable cities. If everyone just did as they
pleased, it would be chaos. But it is a good reminder to always bring
practicality into situations and try to minimize wasted money and time.

~~~
bko
I see two approaches to general government contracting. One is the proactive
approach which would require some government agency to find "approved" vendors
and micromanage the project. The other would be a liability approach, which
would essentially mean that the overall goal of a project is provided and the
lowest bid is taken across a large pool of contractors. However, if it is
built very poorly and someone gets hurt, the contractor would be liable in
court. The proactive approach has its appeal, but often results in higher
costs and not necessarily better quality since the vendors and requirements
are set by politicians and unaccountable, unelected committees.

I believe we are closer to the first in most cities, but I would much rather
prefer the second.

~~~
evgen
The second falls victim to fly-by-night contracting companies that are created
for a specific project and then disappear in a puff of smoke once it is done
and their check clears. The liability approach fails constantly because the
vendor is able to easily shield themselves from the liability and then the
public is left holding the bag. If the public is going to end up being the
only available deep pockets for such torts then it has the responsibility to
make sure that the project is built to a sufficient standard to not endanger
the public and to meet the specified goals.

------
lttlrck
I appreciate what he was trying to do but his installation didn’t look safe,
with apparently no attempt to do it to code. He wouldn’t feel too clever if
they led to injury. Slipping on steps hurts a lot more than slipping on a
muddy slope.

~~~
mcv
The lack of stairs had already lead to injury, though.

The price comparison in the title is indeed unfair.

------
slededit
These stairs were poorly executed and will need to be removed for safety
reasons. However when done to the correct standards this sort of guerrilla
infrastructure can last and make a difference.

[https://www.good.is/articles/the-fake-freeway-sign-that-
beca...](https://www.good.is/articles/the-fake-freeway-sign-that-became-a-
real-public-service)

