City says steps will cost at least $65,000; man builds them for $550

City says steps will cost at least $65,000; man builds them for $550(edition.cnn.com)

17 points by supremesaboteur 8 years ago | 14 comments

james_pm 8 years ago |

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.

duskwuff 8 years ago | |

Here's a "review" of the steps from a Twitter user:

https://twitter.com/zchamu/status/888076067168301056

mcv 8 years ago | |

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 8 years ago | | |

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.

brianwawok 8 years ago | |

In other news, man builds paper mache airplane for $5,000 after being flabbergasted that Boeing quoted a price of $10,000,000 for a new jet.

iamjdg 8 years ago |

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 8 years ago | |

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 8 years ago | | |

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.

mcv 8 years ago | |

But in this case, they lead to a less safe situation. I'm all for regulations and bylaws that actually make cities safer and more liveable, but here the city put extra effort into making the city less safe because the safety wasn't done according to their regulations. And it sounds like they're still not doing it the way it should be done.

That is of course assuming that this is a place where people walk, but it sounds like it is, and people did apparently get hurt in the stairless situation.

SpikeDad 8 years ago | |

Exactly. And Bureaucracy doesn't necessarily suck on it's own. When it's used properly it protects people who are unable to protect themselves due to funding or ignorance.

mSparks43 8 years ago | |

and when no one can do what they please you know you live in America.

Now, get back to flipping bits.

lttlrck 8 years ago |

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 8 years ago | |

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

The price comparison in the title is indeed unfair.

slededit 8 years ago |

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...