Absolutely beautiful photographs by Dave Sanders, especially the Anable Basin photo and the submerged bike lane. Wow. Thank you NYT for hiring excellent visual artists.
10
I remember an episode from the television series"West Point" in this episode, the academy was unable to find a buried sewer line. So the cadets be of the engineering mind set realized if they flushed every toilet filled every sink etc all of the waste water would flow into the hidden pipe in question. So they followed through and the pipe burst to the surface.
My guess is the people at Google may be even as smart.
1
Amazon "should" follow the examples in Seattle of the kinds of engineering that can make buildings sustainable, including their handling of toilet waste. See Bullitt Center (www.bullittcenter.org) and Living Futures Institute (https://living-future.org/). It's not rocket science any more. Green roofs are only a small part of the solution.
Let's hold them to the new standard for office buildings.
5
The Bullitt building and what it teaches is fabulous. We just need to built like that from now on.
3
The solution is staring at us: DEPENDS
4
"What Happens When 25,000 Amazon Workers Flush Toilets?"
Perhaps this and other questions should have been posed before Scamazon was handed billions of taxpayer dollars.
Now come the additional hidden costs. As usual, socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the rest of us.
12
Is there some reason Amazon, owned by the greediest boy on the planet, can’t pay for their own sewer usage instead of dumping (pun intended) their problems on everyone else?
4
@Randall The reason is that it is how infrastructures work: you pay your bills and/or your taxes, and that pays for infrastructure. This way not every new company needs to build its own pumping stations, water treatment facilities, power plants, public transports…
3
@Bob Robert
...that is how infrastructures work...
You're absolutely correct. In theory.
In practice the accounting is a teensy bit out of kilter though. By $2.8B, of tax incentives, which would normally fund such infrastructure but are never realized, and are ultimately borne on the shoulders of every OTHER taxpaying NYC/NYS resident and business (to vastly oversimplify).
7
Redirect the overflow into the subway tunnels. Problem solved.
4
We must be one of the few cities in the world to complain about growth and the need to invest in new infrastructure to support it. As a child, I was impressed by the complete makeover of the subways and byways in preparation for the 1964 World's Fair, and that event was temporary. I just don't see the problem -- people just complain and complain and complain. i wonder how they would have reacted to building the original subway system, which has saved the city and encouraged its spectacular and special growth.
2
@Frank F the problem is that THE infrastructure is not expanding to keep up with all this growth. And I don't hear of any plans to expand the subway system, electrical grid, etc.
7
@Frank F We could build infrastructures for the decades to come and for our children to enjoy, and we prefer to stick to some crumbling pipes that vomit wastewater onto our rivers on a regular basis, while complaining that a fraction more people coming in make the problem of adapting the infrastructure more urgent. While actually, it doesn’t even make the problem worse, and if anything it helps.
2
"By that math, 25,000 Amazon workers will produce 2.5 million gallons of wastewater per day"
The fact that Amazon will add 25,000 jobs doe not mean that the population of NYC will increase by 25,000. This is presuming that all 25,000 of these people will be moving into NYC from outside. I suspect that a large number of them will be present NYC residents, which means that there will be no increase in water usage. Actually, it might result in a decrease, as people staying home because they have no job are more likely to use water than if they are on the job.
5
Upgrading the water infrastructure in the metropolitan area would be a worthy project. The problem with our country is that when we have the money to spend we give out tax breaks, when we don't we let things go until they deteriorate past the point of being reparable or we raise taxes to the point where people/corporations can't or won't come into the area.
What we should be asking corporations that want to come into any area is how they plan to contribute to the well being of the residents besides giving out jobs. We ought to be asking them to pay for what they are going to be using or stressing beyond its normal capacity. If these corporations truly care about the well being of the area, not just exploiting the area, they will gladly help out. If not, in some ways it's not a loss.
16
@hen3ry Why would the newcomers pay for a larger share of the infrastructure if actually everybody uses it?
How about we all pay for what water and transports and housing actually cost, so we can always welcome people and companies who want or need to come? And so companies can focus on making stuff instead of wondering what would make people happy (which I suspect is “nothing”)?
About Amazon's Queens Building and the sewer problems in NY.
What about waterless urinals ? A typical office building rest-room with 3 urinals and 120 men, each using the urinals three times a day per 220 working days a year, has a consumption of 80,000 gallons of POTABLE water flushed down the drain, because we flush 7 to 10 oz of urine with 1 gallon water every time. This is totally absurd.
2
That headline! I thought those Amazon workers will get paid an average $ 150K/year and more for coding and similar tasks. Now we learn that those 25,000 will - flush toilets! All day? Hey, I can do that, especially for $150K/year and up. Jeff (Bezos), call me. I can flush with the best of them.
6
That’s why people pay taxes and/or water bills: 25,000 new people flushing toilets also means 25,000 new people paying water bills and/or taxes. If anything, more density makes infrastructure less expensive, not more. Especially here since as explained, the local pipes are already big enough, and the new developments do more than the average building against stormwater issues.
If the city built the sewers when it was much poorer and with much less technology, I think it should be able to handle it now. It’s like people don’t want to pay the real cost of things.
1
@Bob Robert By your argument, everything will run perfectly in NYC when the 5 borough population hovers near a billion happy souls. See: Alas, absolute numbers matter.
1
@HLB Engineering I think you can answer your own objection with some common sense.
We could double the capacity of the sewer system, but maybe not multiply it by ten or a hundred. Similarly there is a limit to how much people we can physically house in decent conditions, but we are very far from this limit (provided we don’t expect everyone to have a garden).
My point still stands about the cost of infrastructure in dense areas: there is a reason you have good public transports in Manhattan, but you rely on (more expensive) Ubers in many parts of Queens. Or why rural areas rely on more expensive sceptic systems while cities have sewers.
Of course if we offer tax breaks to newcomers the equation changes.
1
More buyer's remorse? Where were these articles before Amazon made its decision?
10
Solutions:
* Build your own sewage treatment plant on site and discharge to the East River.
* Get the city to install a new piping system at their cost.
* Package up the waste in boxes and send it to the rest of us.
* Dump at Starbucks across the street.
3
The water usage estimates are greatly overstated, since it’s unlikely Amazon employees will be showering or doing laundry at the new facility, plus many probably won’t live in Long Island City. This is a tempest in a toilet.
8
I grew up in a small town in Minnesota. In an age before the internet, the local radio station - KLFD in Litchfield Minnesota - would take public opinion polls by 'toilet flushes'. The radio station would call the guy working at the local water works to read the city water pressure gauge. Then the radio announcer would ask a question, and all who agree would flush their commodes. The more votes, the lower the water pressure went. The guy at the water works would tell them the result.
3
@W Yeah, when gramps was a schooler, he would trudge 7 miles through the snow each way to get to the little red school house in Bug Tussle. See: Miss Crabtree is very nice.
2
Surprise: Greatly Improved Situation with new construction.
-NYT article talking to many people forgets to ask a professional engineer familiar with NYC development.
-When new construction is done in NYC, new connections are made to existing combined sewers. The DEP makes the design include rainwater detention tanks inside the buildings (or retention on roofs), so the flow from a big storm is MUCH lower than the old flow that the system was seeing. Often, a site that had an 8" pipe will get a 3" storm pipe going from the tank to the connection that goes to the street (the street connection will still be 8-10" to prevent sanitary wast blockages).
-Even better, when development is next to a river, often a storm sewer is put in that doesn't flow to the waste treatment plants and cause them to overflow. The storm water gets a little treatment on site and discharges into the river via storm system.
-In a separate tank, rain water can be stored for re-use on site, but not the main code-required tank, as they need to start emptying it slowly after a rain to be prepared for next rain.
9
@MykGee It is amazing how few professional engineers (licenses, degrees from ABET accredited schools) are ever asked their informed opinion about infrastructure and monster problems like Global Heating. Signed.. registered in Alaska, Pennsylvania.
4
Why not demand the use of gray water? That way, all the water used for other things is collected to use for flushing toilets. This is the requirement in San Francisco: The city of San Francisco passed an ordinance a few years ago requiring gray-water recycling in all new commercial building developments larger than 250,000 square ft.
1
The fact that big cities like NYC and SF are actually even allowed to have "combined overflow" directly into waterways is outrageous. It is a clear violation of the Clean Water Act, a law that private land owners and businesses outside the protection of a municipality, must follow or face extreme fines and even prosecution.
If these cities were required to bring their sewage systems up to the specs imposed on other entities, it would bankrupt them. So why is new development still allowed at all in these places? Meanwhile the environmentalists that live there focus on problems elsewhere.
1
@Paul
New development is allowed because it improves the situation.
1
@Paul 1) No, it would not bankrupt the city: if the city was able to build the infrastructure back then, then now that it is so much richer it can surely afford to upgrade it. It just means people need to pay the real price for water infrastructure, instead of just hoping people will move elsewhere than where they want/need to move.
2) Developments or not, people can still move wherever they want if they pay the corresponding rent. So how do you think limiting supply would work, apart from raising prices until people can’t move there because it is not affordable? And if limited supply and high prices result in people just cramming themselves in smaller places, what is the actual benefit for the infrastructure? Or if they just move further away, where they will flush their toilets just as often?
1
Glancing at the headline I had to laugh. Very reminiscent of the M-A-S-H royal flush back in 83 I think it was and you survived an extra million flushes so I think you’ll be ok even if 25K workers decide to coordinate a bathroom break.
Instead of Astoria they should move their headquarters to Flushing.
19
@Ronald Flushing even has a huge subterranean waste water holding tank to prevent overflows into waterways during heavy rain. A large athletic field covers this facility off College Point Boulevard.
2
@David Paris used to have the same sewer overflow problem, they built such reservoirs and it solved the issue. If I remember well the design was a couple of giant tunnels under the river Seine.
Even London, with its legendarily bad infrastructure and reliance on old stuff from “the good times” that doesn’t work anymore (their sewer overflows in the river once a week on average), is solving the issue with such a reservoir.
When you run a city, you sometimes have to build infrastructure. Sometimes when you live in a city, you have to pay for infrastructure.
5
@David Hey, lay off the Mets!
1
Had the corporate choice been Brazil, the Amazon workers could have fittingly flushed into the Amazon River. Easy, pee-sy.
2
Not to worry. Someone at Google will create an app for this.
1
Here's the bigger problem: Amazon offices use auto-flush toilets, because employees apparently don't have enough decency or sense to do it themselves. Those dang things flush about 3 times every time you sit down or blink. So they are a -HUGE- waste of water. And annoying. And for a company that prides itself on being "frugal"..... it's just dumb. Think about the cost of all that wasted water.
5
The calculation is rough at best. The 100 gal/capita day is based on 24 hours. This would apply to the area if every employee moved to the sewer shed and lived and worked there. Clearly that is not the case. For those freaking out, the existing peak stormwater flow dramatically exceeds the sanitary flow. This development will likely not exacerbate any existing problems. It might ameliorate them, as the existing property has no Stormwater retention, and the new development will.
3
First step in waste water efficiency is always water conservation. Amazon should install waterless urinals, low flow toilets and sink fittings, maybe composting toilets (Dept of health objections). Better still would be a grey water (less contaminated outflow from sinks, showers) that can be harvested and filtered on site and then reused in Amazon toilets or for site irrigation of plantings. Grey water could be combined with storm water recovered from roofs onsite. This would diminish storm water surge to overtaxed sewer treatment facility. Note too that Amazon has the resources to do onsite tertiary waste treatment. The tech to do so is off the shelf. I would urge the city to make that part of the deal.
10
@Davidson Norris The logic according to which Amazon should pay to be frugal and treats its own water so the rest of the city doesn’t have to (I don’t think you expect residents to use composting toilets) only goes so far.
This is a completely wrong mindset to manage infrastructure: the question is, how much would each solution cost, and THEN, who pays for it. Forcing Amazon to pay 10 million for its own water recycling plant so you don’t have to pay 1 million to upgrade a pipe would make no sense for example. Even upgrading the pipe, then forcing Amazon to pay for all of it would be a better solution for everyone. But then, if Amazon is only a small part of a problem that has been there for decades, why should they pay more for the water issue than the average company that is also attracting workers to the city (or than the other very profitable companies, since I suspect that this is the only reason)?
The whole concept of an infrastructure (or other public services) is that not every company or every household has to deal individually with these issues. You pay, then someone else deals with it.
Composting toilets could be installed in the Amazon Headquarters like those used at the Queens Botanical Garden and at the Bronx zoo. The Bronx Zoo receives 500,000 visitors a year so the compost toilets can handle the volume. These composting toilets use 3 oz of water/foam to flush, compared to a minimum of 1 gallon of water used in conventional ones. The waste stored in tanks, is not sent into the sewage system. A year or so later, 90% of what was "deposited" are evaporated and the left-over can be used as a non-toxic fertilizer. Furthermore, potential human pathogens are eliminated during the composting process or by the long retention time in the system. The buildings could easily be designed to incorporate this type of system. This would be a win win for the land and water.
3
That only applies to one restroom in the zoo and it is not the primary restroom in the park. The other bathroom facilities connect to the sewer lines. It would be a bit disingenuous to suggest that the Bx Zoo is as eco-friendly as it claims.
4
@Kirsten magnani
No, the building can't be designed to accommodate a composting toilet system and should not be. There is insufficient leaching area and the occupancy is far greater than Bronx Zoo in terms of hours people spend there, etc. I have designed buildings with composting toilets, but this is not an appropriate application. Bad application of good product gives it a bad reputation that carries over to all applications, even correct ones.
6
@Kirsten magnani Pathogens are not eliminated during the composting process and you would be very ill-advised to use the resulting “compost” (which is more like dry human waste) in your garden, especially on vegetables. Composting toilets mostly dry the stuff, because the actually composting conditions need more humidity and more time. To actually compost it you need to let it rest (in different conditions) for much longer.
Besides, since Amazon would have nowhere enough green area to use this compost, you just end up using trucks to transport the stuff around town… While you could just flush it down to the treatment plant!
Composting toilets are great if you have a lot of space to store the stuff (and don’t mind buckets of said stuff laying around…), if you have a large garden to use the end-product locally, or if you are constrained in water. In a city they don’t make much sense.
3
The combined sewer overflow problem is a huge issue. Never, ever go near the river after a rain storm. The water treatment plants are not designed to hold the water properly, and raw sewage goes into the river. It always makes me cringe to see people actually in the river. This has nothing to do with Amazon- what they will contribute or not is a small amount of what will happen regardless.
4
Not to worry. In addition to the billions in incentives handed to Amazon, taxpayers will be glad to foot the bill for an entirely new sewage system. After all, no ultra-wealthy sports team owners appear to be asking for their customary stadium construction subsidies this year, so there’s a little bit of a break in the action when it comes to draining our wallets for corporate welfare.
9
New York City
Where everything is broken, filthy, or inadequate.
9
As opposed to Arizona, where there’s no water at all to worry about. And where life would cease without air-conditioning.
6
Further proof that NYC isn't world class.
5
@Max Brockmeier It is if you take off the "cl".
1
Nah! No, problem at all. The waste water will either be routed to the Amazon cloud or Bezos will encourage the workers to report co-workers who go to the bathroom at the same time. Problem solved!
8
Ah, infrastructure. Cambridge just replaced pipes put in during the civil war. Earlier fixes replaced wooden pipes from the 1700s. Traffic joy. The older East Coast cities face inevitable upgrades minus federal money.
Still a few baby wipes flushed near Manhattan's Trump Tower is a thought if it could be targeted.
6
This is a disaster in the making. Queens has historically been prone to flooding which is getting worse because of climate change. Let them build their office towers and de luxe condos. Let them take the consequences. Let Amazon and real estate developers eat the massive losses that are coming.
3
@Maureen
Just like the improvement to the sewer situation with new construction that has new limits on storm flow rates, flood impacts are improved with new construction. The NYC code requires construction to be flood proofed (wet type or dry type) and accounts for SLR (Sea Level Rise). It replaces construction that was not suited for flood risk area. The code requiring flood protected construction has been in effect for about 15-years (as appendix to 1968 code) and developers who followed it were largely OK in Sandy. Keep in mind that, realistically, NYC only started really enforcing most codes about 10-12-years ago, in terms of plan reviews. Before that, the plan reviews only focused on zoning and some fire-rating issues, not to mention making sure that the exact quantity of plumbing fixtures on each floor is accurately listed on a form. They are still obsessed with that Schedule B fixture count form, for no obvious reason!
2
What is the elevation of this planned building(s), and is it consistent with the expected sea level rise?
3
@TomTom
Yes. It will have to be to get approved and permitted.
3
The article makes the assumption that there will be a brand new community of 25,000 people who did not previously exist. And if you use a hundred gallons a day, and most of that is for showering and doing laundry, then what makes the writer come to the conclusion that they will use 2.5 million gallons a day at work? It seems highly unlikely that most of them will live in Long Island City so most of their water use will be elsewhere. And if they work at Google they will likely be paid enough to live as far from Long Island City as possible. The writer needs a lesson in economics 101.
24
@Andrew Thats the flaw with the whole story. And in the end it says it wont really make anything worse. Too bad most posters didn't not actually read the story.: )
2
Unlike wiser nations, the US always builds first and then thinks about the consequences in lack of roads, waste water treatment, and other public utility needs later. We could learn so much from places like Singapore -- but will not.
8
@Penseur
They just built half of that city recently, and tore down an old city to do so. Great example...
2
I must admit, from everything I've read I didn't think Amazon workers were allowed to go to the toilet... No problem then!
39
So after all the hoopla about finding the perfect place to locate, Amazon failed to consider the need to potty? Hilarious.
10
Really? Is this your main concern? What’s next: will be there enough air in LIC with 25,000 more people coming in?
8
Only a New Yorker could feel bad about success but I wonder when did we become anti-everything. I was shocked when the Mayor and Governor had to defend bring 25000 good jobs to Queens while only using existing tax breaks. Now there is concern that underinvestment in the infrastructure will create sewage issues for Queens residences. Do people really think the City would fix your sewers without Amazon coming to town? If they have not yet, then you know the answer.
Wake up NY! Wall Street, which most love to hate is shrinking and as such so will the tax base. NY needs well paying jobs to replace those. City has never been better and we should rejoice that it has been able to evolve and win jobs in the future market place.
Book a session with your therapist to about your angst but spare the rest of us.
14
@greg piccininno While I agree with most of your message, and with the fact that it is a very worrying trend that even new high-paying jobs coming to town has become a NIMBY issue, one complain that sticks about the whole Amazon case is that they got a lot of extra discretionary tax breaks for coming to New York.
Infrastructure (together with public services) are one reason why companies should pay the normal amount of taxes: we need to be able to upsize them when growth comes. The race to the bottom in which Cuomo and Giuliani took part is one of the reasons why there is no money for infrastructure (and public services).
3
Great Questions and a very good and informative article. Winnie Hu should be running something important. I wonder if DeBlasio & Cuomo ever thought about this.
3
@Doctor Woo
the NYT should not be just about asking questions, it should be about getting accurate responses, not just opinions. See my explanation comment of why there is no issue re sewers and storm.
2
Then Queens has to spend money on a better sewer system.
They can't use the tax money from Amazon because Amazon got huge tax breaks.
It's always this way. Corporations get a free pass and the little man can bail them out.
10
It would be a far better use of our tax dollars to rebuild infrastructure than to bomb Syria or go off on other imperialistic ventures. It would be far fairer if taxes were assessed to business and residents instead of offering tax breaks to lure industry or because of "bribes" called campaign contributions.
18
It bothers me when the premise of an article is inaccurate. If the average New Yorker uses 100 gallons a day...that is a 24 hour period in which the person is showering, doing laundry and using the toilet. An Amazon worker is not at work 24 hours a day and is likely not showering or doing laundry. So the estimate of additional water in the sewers is off. It is not based on a work day use. Will the additional workers add more waste water to the sewer system? Certainly! However, if they already live in Long Island City or a neighborhood that uses the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant, their water would be there anyway...so that's not adding. If they commute from another sewer treatment plant, that plant get a break from their usage the the Bowery Bay is now handling for the hours they are at work. Let's hope that the city's environmental and infrastructure people handling this issue are more up on the actual amount of additional waste water/sewage the new HQ will create.
13
@jcs** these are good points you bring out, but workers may very well be there 24 hours a day. And I think it's best to use conservative numbers & estimates in matters like this
6
So the big question is really this one:
How much would an overhaul of the NYC sewer system cost in both time and money that would eliminate the combined system that seems to be the problem? The waste of millions of New Yorkers being dumped into the waterways surrounding it is simply unacceptable in 2018.
The next question is how long before the existing system will have to be replaced?
The final question is this: is anyone in NYC government planning for the day that the system gets modernized?
4
The answer is quite simple: Have Amazon pay for upgrades. Through taxation, of course
36
@Twill So clear...so obvious. Which means there's no chance it will pass.
9
Cute. However, the Times seems to be assuming that all of those 25k workers will be new residents, i.e., more people on top of the current locals. Didn't NYC & other places make a pitch for Amazon based on the idea that it would bring JOBS to the area, not jobs and the workers who will do them? Isn't the idea more jobs for New Yorkers? If not, what's all the fuss and what have you all 'won'?
23
@Anne-Marie Hislop That story doesn't sell papers. Same rhetoric in the DC area. 25k employees are not landing on a plane from Seattle tomorrow, with spouses and kids, all shopping for a house and putting kids into school at the same time.
4