By Gus Saltonstall
Closing hours, sound levels, and pedestrian safety were among the topics discussed at a Community Board 7 committee meeting held last week to pen recommendations to the city for its permanent iteration of outdoor dining.
The meeting came as the Department of Transportation (DOT), the agency in charge of the new program, is working to create regulations for “Dining Out NYC,” which Mayor Eric Adams signed into law in August, allowing restaurants to continue serving customers in street dining sheds from April to November.
DOT had previously said it would share its work and hold a public comment period sometime in September, but CB7 decided to convene a joint meeting of its Steering, Transportation, and Business & Consumer Issues committees in advance of receiving the proposed regulations in hopes of influencing them.
Some board members objected, saying they should wait until the public comment period begins to offer a response. “It is just giving them a demand letter when they’re not asking for our feedback at this point, and they’re very clear that there is going to be a comment period,” said Andrew Rigie, who disclosed that he represents the restaurant industry.
In the end, the group agreed to send a letter to DOT, instead of waiting for the full board to approve an official resolution. “Outdoor seating needs to be strongly encouraged,” states the letter, shared exclusively with WSR. “At the same time, outdoor seating is often located in proximity to the residential, commercial and tourism centers it serves. The Regulations must therefore strike a balance among the various interests impacted by a permanent outdoor seating program.”
Addressed to DOT Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez and Manhattan Borough Commissioner Edward Pincar, the letter includes the following main points:
- Outdoor Seating Hours: “While serving patrons until midnight on weekends and in certain locations may be an appropriate balance, we recommend that the Regulations give consideration to a sliding scale of appropriate outdoor service hours on a case-by-case basis taking into account all of the factors and context of the proposed outdoor seating areas.”
- Outreach in the Permit Process: “At a minimum, the Regulations should embrace the pre-pandemic local community outreach and review customarily required for sidewalk seating.”
- Complete Site Plan: “The Regulations should require that the site plan provided by outdoor seating applicants provide measurements and depictions of all sidewalk/street furniture and equipment of all kinds as well as of variations in surfaces, materials, and access/egress to the interior of the host establishment.”
- Bike Lanes and Buffer Zones: “The Regulations should require the site plan to reflect the presence of bike lanes between the outdoor seating area and the curb, and demonstrate that an adequate buffer zone for patrons, servers and cyclists can be accommodated in the proposed plan.”
- Roadbed Enclosure Materials: “We understand that templates for roadbed seating enclosures are being developed. Contextually appropriate materials and configurations are particularly important in the many landmark historic districts on the Upper West Side.”
- Preserve Daylighting: “The Regulations play a key role in protecting pedestrians and other street users, especially the very young, very old, and mobility or sight challenged, from the dangers of not seeing or being seen by motorists and users of all types of micro-mobility equipment. Safety measures such as daylighting of intersections must be preserved for the safety of all.”
- Sound Production: “The Regulations should require consideration on a case-by-case basis of the acceptable levels for Music, TV and radio broadcasts, microphones and other entertainment and sports sound production equipment, with the City’s existing sound code limitations guiding the consideration.”
You can watch the full committee meeting below.
To receive WSR’s free email newsletter, click here.
The outdoor dining sheds create problems such as are outlined in the OP. I realize that we have a law now allowing them during clement months. It’s still not clear to me what present problem the sheds are helping to solve. Is the problem that some people are still afraid to dine indoors because they fear Covid? But they’ll dine indoors during winter (if they go to restaurants at all), when the chance of infection is greater. Or is the problem the lack of public square footage upon which private businesses can encroach? Or is there no problem to solve, the sheds are just a solution to a now-past problem, and some people just like the sheds?
It all makes no sense to me, as do many other things established by the city government we are now stuck with.
You are forgetting that there are many immunocompromised people who live in the neighborhood that are not allowed to eat indoors. The pandemic is over but Covid is here to stay. Have some compassion.
Restaurants were getting free square footage added to their establishments, They liked all the new free income.
“But they’ll dine indoors during winter….”
Many won’t. I know many people (elderly/immune compromised) who will only eat outside due to Covid. They will not eat inside a restaurant at all. Covid is still with us
The sheds are supposed to be taken down during the winter. So the elderly/immune compromised population you mention won’t be aided by the shed law as it now stands.
That’s why I think it’s CRAZY! But what do I know?
They will be able to dine out outside as long as there is outdoor dining- so maybe not 12 months of the year – but for them, 9 months is better than nothing. Twelve would be better.
Agree. Outdoor dining that does not address the initial need for safe well ventilated spaces- not fully enclosed sheds or 3 walls and a roof- need to still exist. Many only eat outdoors and with rising Covid rates this is needed throughout the winter as well. The lack of attention to safe outdoor dining spaces with good ventilation has always been problematic but this is the time to address!!
I believe you are confusing “option” with “need”. Nobody needs to dine outdoors, at restaurants, in the street. Ever.
They strengthen community. They create more space for public accommodation and gathering. They help small businesses and the jobs they support thrive. And under the new plan, they’ll generate revenue for the city. Parked cars don’t do any of that.
Exactly. Outdoor dining brings a new level of vitality to our streets and neighborhood. It took COVID to show us that we don’t have to travel to Italy, Spain., France…and many other countries to enjoy the urban
There’s a different culture in Europe than in the US and the fact that outdoor dining is disgusting here shows it. But this isn’t ultimately about a European feel, this is giving those who can afford the UWS and have no family or other ties to the tri-state area a European feel at the expense of those who cannot afford to live on the UWS or have ties to areas outside the UWS in our metropolitan region.
The majority of UWS households do not own cars. Of the minority of households that do own cars, a very large portion parks their cars in a garage. Dining sheds have the potential to benefit every single person living on the UWS (plus any visitors). Parking spaces benefit a select few. So while your argument sounds like you are trying to speak for the majority who are being inconvenienced by the minority, you are in fact doing the exact opposite. Owning a car is expensive. And it is a convenience, not a necessity. Theoretically you could get anywhere with a combination of public transportation and some last mile transport, such as an Uber. If you only have a car to visit family in the tristate area, you can save costs by utilizing Zipcar or other car share programs. But while it is more expensive, it is more convenient to own your own car. Believe me, I know – I am a car owner myself.
Most of the parking on the avenues that dining sheds take up are commercial spaces for part of the day. Trucks used to use these spaces for deliveries, now they take up traffic lanes on the street. Parked cars have its benefits as it is transportation MTA is unable to or unwilling to provide. How do you know small businesses and their workers don’t drive. But the urbanists want everyone in their communities to think and act like them. I have friends who are real estate brokers on the UWS and they tell me all the time that their clients assume they live on the UWS or some other trendy neighborhood when in fact they cannot even afford to live on the UWS and have the same mindset even if they wanted to.
Columbus Avenue has gotten ridiculous — five car lanes, and often only one of them can be used to actually drive. Two are for dining sheds or parking, two are used for parked trucks, and we’re lucky if we get one for travel.
And bottlenecks the ambulances and firetrucks. No wonder our city has been much noisier.
And you left out the bike lanes all the way down Columbus! And meanwhile absolutely no attention paid to the bikes going the wrong way on the sidewalks! .. It’s terrifying and very ugly getting around. On the weekends. when people are using chalk to draw all over the streets. The City needs to be better organized to give us back our formally beautiful, neighborhood!
I thought sidewalks were multidirectional and not one way. So how do bikes go the wrong way on the sidewalk?
Actually, since bikes should not be ridden on the sidewalk at all, any bike riding on the sidewalk (except kids) is therefore riding the wrong way.
Bernie,
Please be aware that some – even many – restaurant owners/managers drive in and park. (Some able to park by shed)
What are your thoughts about restaurant owners driving and parking?
They can take transit or utilize a car service. They don’t need to drive a personal vehicle and park it. This is climate week. Let’s remember how problematic personal vehicles are.
…but they certainly could, if permit parking was instituted.
Permit parking is a way to say that one can park in their own neighborhood but not anyone else’s. 10 years from now another talking point will get floated down the line that people who have parking permits are privileged and there should be no curbside parking at all. Who gains from this? Car apps.
Yes, they have benefits, but saying parked cars don’t have benefits is incorrect. Having parking makes it easier for people from outside Manhattan to come to the neighborhood and shop at stores (or visit friends and family) – not everyone lives near public transportation and/or is capable of using it. Parking is used by many small business owners who get around the city via car for various reasons. Parking is used by employees of these very restaurants. And many parking spots are metered so they also generate revenue.
Should we bend over backwards to create parking for everyone? No. But should we constantly demonize vehicles and make no accommodations at all for them? No. The world is not black and white.
“ should we constantly demonize vehicles and make no accommodations at all for them?”
There are thousands of parking spaces still available in the UWS, many of them are free. So I don’t really understand your point.
The NYT recently reported that while 220,000 people live in the upper west side, only 12,000 own cars. 90% of people who commute to Manhattan don’t drive. So why should a handful of privileged car owners get to dictate how the rest of us use shared public space?
12,000 people is not 12 people. Your point may be more plausible if its 12 people, but 12,000 people is the average weekday ridership of the M86 crosstown bus but pretty much all of these 12,000 people are going between the UES and UWS, on the other hand the 12,000 car owners are people have different needs, different destinations that transit cannot and probably does not want to accommodate. On top of the 12,000 who own cars, you have those who work, visit and have other needs and don’t have the privilege of living on the UWS. The other thing is that 90% who don’t drive to work in Manhattan is likely mostly comprised of people who commute to Midtown and Downtown, the UWS isn’t Midtown or Downtown. The more I see things, the more I believe that the people who hate cars want the UWS to themselves and people who are like them or who can fit their narrative.
My point was that even with the sheds there is ample parking. Those of us who don’t have cars have a right to space along the curbs as well — especially since there are 20 of us for every car owner!
There is less parking today in 2023 than there was 10-15 years ago. Even if there are 20 people on the UWS for every car owner, most of those 20 people aren’t agitating to make life more difficult for those who own cars whether they live, work or visit this neighborhood. It’s a tiny minority that is agitating to make life difficult for those who don’t think and act like them. I bet you if Citibike was gone and bike activists didn’t exist, many people will take it in stride and deal with it and yes Citibike isn’t too hot right now financially.
I don’t understand your point. Aren’t there thousands of mostly free parking spaces and multiple garages available? I’m not “agitating” to make life more difficult for car owners. I’m humbly suggesting that non car owners should get to enjoy space along the curb as well. You really don’t agree?
You are agitating to make life difficult for car owners. The streets are a public utility and moving people from point A to point B in a way that the transit system cannot or doesn’t want to and helping to facilitate that takes precedence over Manhattanites who spend a lot of money because they don’t want to give up the lifestyle of their college years.
I don’t think people who drive cars are privileged. I think those who can afford the UWS at market rate prices either renting or owning are more privileged.
Privileged? I pay market and I work incredibly hard to do so
There are people who work incredibly hard and can’t afford the UWS…
“many parking spots are metered” – 97% of parking spots in New York are unmetered.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-24/how-parking-benefit-districts-could-transform-new-york-city
New York City has 5 boroughs. There’s plenty of unmetered spots on Staten Island and a lot less here.
Who drives in from NJ or Long Island to shop in == Staten Island?? SI is part of NYC only technically, legally. With many, many single-family dwellings, it is a suburb in terms of culture and commerce.
But the bike folks love to include Staten Island’s free parking spaces when saying there’s X amount of free parking spots in NYC.
Drive your car to LIRR, NJ Transit, or Metro North parking lot. Take train, transfer to subway, and return the same way. There are also many garages that are cheaper than street parking in the long run.
I work in this neighborhood and let’s face the reality that LIRR service is WORSE since Grand Central opened. Metro-North doesn’t directly serve the UWS, NJ Transit isn’t the greatest either. A two, three or even four leg trip once you include driving to a suburban parking lot gets tiring real fast. The same people who hate cars are the same people who want more housing to be built. How many Upper West Siders are willing to sacrifice historic district landmarking so that the area workers can afford the UWS? The demand for the UWS is so much that you cannot have historic district landmarking and have enough housing for everyone who wants the UWS at the same time. That is the leverage us who live outside the UWS have over this community.
Metro North to 125th, catch the m60. Boom, you’re on the UWS
It takes my parents two hours via public transit to come from Bergen county here, versus 30 minutes by car. Oh, my mother in law who lives in Staten Island is disabled, so should she take a bus and a car from Staten Island for two hours?
The area around the Metro North station at 125th and Park is not particularly welcoming late at night and for older travelers.
That’s laughable, the M60 only brings you as far as 106th Street. Headed to the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, tough luck. You guys see more than parked cars, cars or vehicles as the problem, you guys see US as the problem. You want us all to scuttle in like a rat and use transit on your terms, while you get to use Uber/Lyft/Citibike to your hearts desire while living a lifestyle that I couldn’t afford even if I wanted to. The urbanists here make me wish that the UWS of the 1970s came back. Too many people are taking gentrification and the sanitization of this neighborhood for granted.
That’s not a practical solution for many. They just won’t come to NY as often when they can drive to local places where they live.
Clearly you have never lived outside the five boroughs nor have you like spent much time there.
This is not as easy as you suggest. Many suburbs are a long way from mass transit. Especially on weekends when there is a lot less service. And evenings. Taking a subway to a train at 10 pm is just not very realistic for many people.
But so many of our neighbors who are so concerned about being “welcoming” to
migrants, the homeless, etc. don’t care about making things slightly easier for their neighbors and suburbanites with cars who are trying to support local businesses and/or visit family.
Excited to see what mental gymnastics people will go through next in their efforts to declare that cars are evil. And please note that I don’t own a car.
This is the tension that exists with gentrification. The gentrifiers ONLY want the city to themselves and people who think like them and have THEIR culture, not the culture of those who were born, raised here or immigrated here to make NYC their new home. Most of the people wanting cars to be banned will either move cities or live an upper class lifestyle where its easy to say what’s being said on this site.
This is a very insightful response. Well said!
Lots of generalizations here to fit a particular perspective, but let’s face it: majority rules. A handful of free parking spaces versus the enjoyment of thousands of diners per week? A handful of free parking spaces versus keeping restaurants in business, feeding people, and keeping New Yorkers employed? There is walking, public transportation, and private parking. Parking is like anything else — if one cannot afford it, don’t have a car in the City. Rent one. Get a monthly space. But don’t ask the tax payers to give you free parking so that your car can spew toxic transmissions at them.
Sam,
I don’t drive – but am really opposed to the continuation of street dining.
Many issues especially trash-rat-shantytown aspect
But also must be acknowledged:
Not all restaurants can do street dining so it is an unequal benefit even among restaurants.
There is a glut of restaurants throughout Manhattan – not everything can be a restaurant.
It is unfair for the City to be benefiting one industry.
Majority rules? There are more people living in suburban communities and in parts of the 5 boroughs where the subway doesn’t run than there are Upper West Siders or Manhattanites. Walking is a privilege those who can afford the Upper West Side have. Parking isn’t like anything else when there’s a concentrated effort to remove parking and not only that a concentrated effort to remove private parking too by a push for ending parking minimums and even having parking maximums. If it isn’t curbside parking, you all will complain about the high subsidy of commuter rail service, the high subsidy of express bus service. Let’s face it, Manhattanites complained about outer borough residents using express buses when subway crime was much higher in the 1970s and 80s. Manhattan is the economic center of a 4 state metropolitan area and the country. It isn’t a defacto gated community.
This seems like a pretty thoughtful response. Hopefully we can come up with a compromise on this (what a shocking idea in 2023 UWS!). I am OK with this within reason. There need to be very specific rules governing these structures and this is a step forward.
I know it is not in their jurisdiction but I would be a lot happier about it if the restaurants were being required to pay a few for the space. It should not be exorbitant, but they are getting space for free when there are many empty storefronts who could use someone paying rent, and the space could be used for parking (metered or otherwise). These fees would help cover the cost of monitoring the structural integrity of the dining structures. And it would make them have some skin in the game so that they don’t leave the structures up just for the sake of having them there.
No more freeloading. Restaurants should be paying rent to the city for ALL t he outdoor space they occupy. How much should that rent be? The same per-foot rent they are paying for their indoor space., which is essentially the market rate.
Can someone investigate how Jacob’s Pickle is allowed to take over half a block with their dining shed, including outdoor seating on the sidewalk?
How is this possible even under the current rules?
Because their shed extends in front of public property. If a restaurant wanted to extend their shed in front of another store, they would need written permission from the other store to do so. Not so with public property.
I can’t stand walking along that block in the evening. Between the seating and the people waiting, it is impossible to get through. I really feel for someone trying to get through in a wheel chair. They met the legal requirements of space between structure/tables, but those requirements don’t take into account loitering of customers waiting for a table.
Are you sure about this (i.e., is this documented somewhere) or are you speculating? I doubt a restaurant is allowed to take up space like you are suggesting. My guess is that they took over the space because they know that it will not be monitored and/or they have some good connections.
I think based on the new permanent regulations, they will need to reduce their frontage to the area in front of the restaurant.
I sure hope so!
@Sam, they were in a relatively unique situation because the restaurant was next to a playground that did not have an opening on that side, therefore they were not impeding the use of the public space. So based on the rules of the dining sheds, they were allowed to use the public space.
I tend to cross the street to walk on the west side of Amsterdam on that block so I don’t have to walk through the space. Technically, their structures are within the law, but the people standing around on the sidewalk effectively block the entire sidewalk since there is nowhere to go around them.
There was a time when the CB7 took a strong stand against the land grab that is outdoor seating at restaurants. We were willing to adjust in deference to the pandemic but now it’s time to stop. Restaurants will now have access to tax free space on city side walks and streets. Pedestrians will be forced to share the sidewalks with outdoor dining as well as the new bike trucks the DOT Is hoping to allow on our sidewalks to serve delivery companies. Residents don’t don’t matter. Did you get a tax break on your property taxes during the pandemic? As the sidewalks and streets are given over to commercial interests and cyclists ., Will pedestrians be compensation for the increased risk of less and less space for them to walk?
There was a time when the CB7 was an advocate for residents but it has become timid in the fantasy belief Thant if they are nice to the Mayor of Sag he will be nice to the. It’s a fantasy.
Under the NYC Charter (section 2800), the community boards are appointed by the borough president, with new members appointed every two years. The community board therefore reflects the personal priorities of the borough president. The current Manhattan Borough President is Mark Levine.
If you are dissatisfied with the actions or views of the current community board, please keep in mind at the next election (or primary) that, at least in that respect, the position of borough president is not entirely ceremonial. You can influence the make-up of the community board by electing a borough president who will appoint members reflecting your views.
Of course there is always change…
My impression is that CB 7’s orientation has changed over the years – and especially with members more reflective of the restaurant lobby and bicycling lobby (which seeks to reduce parking spots so supports sheds).
Respectfully….
Andrew Rigie is the head of the restaurant lobbying group Hospitality Alliance.
It should be noted that the City worked closely with HA to develop the original Covid Emergency outdoor dining, rules etc.
Since that time, the City has continued to work closely with HA to create permanent outdoor dining.
(BTW the last City Council public hearing on this was in 2022 – most NYC residents had no idea it was looming)
IMO Mr. Rigie should be detailing that background.
IMO Mr. Rigie should not be voting here.
I would like more information on what will happen with these spaces from November to April.
Groups that opposed permanent dining sheds like Cue-Up were very vocal about the fact that they didn’t want to see dining sheds automatically revert to parking spots.
“ Consider genuine, non-commercial community needs — loading zones used by all businesses and residents, bike parking for non-rental bikes, new solutions for trash removal, and residential and visitor parking permits. And while we’re at it, let’s add more trees-our streets can use the shade and the beauty of more trees.” https://www.cueupny.com/communityblueprint
The community board needs to discuss the winter month uses for this public space. Adding a large number of parking spots to the neighborhood without any discussion of what that means for residents or consideration of alternate uses is not what we were promised when Cue-Up lobbied to end permanent street dining. How much revenue will it generate, how will it impact safety, how will they impact air quality in our neighborhood?
A lot of the new loading zones that were created to decrease double parking are used by vehicles with placards which entitles them to free street parking.
Placards do not permit holders to park in loading zones. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/10/good-news-dot-moves-to-get-placard-perps-out-of-loading-zones
I see the same cars in the same loading zones daily so they’re not enforcing.
Good grief those dining shacks are so ugly. I can’t stand how they clutter up the street.
Lots of them are absolutely beautiful.
Few of them are absolutely beautiful.
If the street “dining sheds” are now to be there permanently, why not move the bike lanes to the street side of the sheds? The sheds were added as a temporary measure *after* the bike lanes were installed permanently. But there’s nothing to prevent moving them now that the City has decided to keep the arrangement permanently.
If this is to be a permanent set-up, why is the City continuing to allow the very dangerous bike lanes to remain between the sidewalk and the patrons dining in a shed?
It’s ridiculous to pretend to address this hazardous situation by calling for “Regulations [to] require the site plan to reflect the presence of bike lanes between the outdoor seating area and the curb, and demonstrate that an adequate buffer zone for patrons, servers and cyclists can be accommodated in the proposed plan.” JUST MOVE THE BIKE LANES TO WHERE THEY OUGHT TO BE, where the bikers (often coming at high speed and from either direction) won’t run into customers.
Your solution negates the point of having protected bike lanes.
The bike lanes would be as protected as they were before the dining sheds were put up. The dining sheds were not put up for the purpose of protecting the bike lanes.
The dining sheds took the place of parked cars which provided a buffer from moving traffic. Putting the bike lanes on the other side of the sheds would put them next to traffic.
This is the first comment I can 100% agree with, it’ll be work but it will spare pedestrians injuries, if not lives
It would also help prevent injuries to the wait staffs of the restaurants who must scuttle back and forth a hundred times a day across the bike lanes (which are now also e-bike and scooter lanes) to serve their outdoor customers.
I am in total support of this as a cyclist who uses the bike lanes. To Boris’s issue of protection, since there would be no parking then the bike lanes should be protected by strong infrastructure – concrete curbs and a metal fence or bollards (NOT plastic flex posts that provide only theoretical protection).
Please get rid of the disgusting rat-infested dining sheds, and free up sidewalks, streets, and parking spaces.
I generally support these but the Plant Shed? That’s not a restaurant and they have a half-block long shed that interferes with a 24-hour supermarket and a very busy turn lane. And they use the shed to mostly store plants.
Thank you Mark! I was wondering why Plant Shed has been getting away with that. Highway robbery.
Restaurant owners should know better than anyone that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. NYC should be increasing the property taxes on buildings which rent to restaurants that have dining sheds, increases that of course get passed directly to the restaurant tenants. I think that landlords might also increase the rents to reflect the additional square footage that the dining sheds provide. Maybe this is already happening to some extent.
You’re complicating a simple situation. Charge restaurants for outdoor dining permits and the street space they use for dining sheds.
“Toxic transmissions” someone wrote… That is exactly why we won’t sit outside in the street with a dining hut or covered or otherwise. .Remove the darn things from neighborhoods all together! Aside from the vehicle fumes diners inhale sitting out there, it will give pedestrians back safer sidewalks, and maybe keep the bicycles and food delivery e-bikes off the sidewalks and put them back on the streets where they belong .If you are immune compromised, stay home and cook, or have food delivered. And what about those residents next to or above those outdoor dining huts? Aren’t they entitled to some quiet in the evenings?
The sheds are useless because there are too many fumes from cars, so we should remove them and make more room for cars that add toxic fumes to the neighborhood!
I would love for our neighborhood to have one pedestrian first street with no cars or parking. I’m NOT saying ban all cars and drivers from the neighborhood – just a few blocks where people would come first. If people want a solution to the vacant storefront problem, why don’t we try making the neighborhood a more pleasant place for shoppers to spend their time?
Wondering….why are sheds like Cafe Luxembourg permitted to block building entrances?
People who are elderly, have mobility challenges, medical issues who need uber/taxi/access a ride to go to doctor, can’t access in front of building. Several times have seen people having great difficulty….
Eating in NYC is not a problem. It does not need a solution. Mobility in NYC, on the other hand, is a huge problem. Always has been. Even when 6-lane wide avenues were unobstructed by restaurants in the road, bike lanes, CitiBike parking, Covid-induced excessive delivery trucks… Have any of you driven or taken a cab in the last 3+ years? It doesn’t matter how many traffic lanes are painted on the ground.
On any given block, only one has moving traffic. Yes, the sheds provide more space for income so more restaurants can afford their rent. But if they can’t afford the rent with their indoor space full, the problem is the insane rent, not lack of patrons. And don’t even get me started on how an enclosed structure built in the street is somehow interpreted as safer than the original enclosed structure. This whole continued ‘restaurant shed’ concept is nothing but a misguided band-aid that creates more problems than the imaginary one it attempts to address.
The temporary program said NO amplified sound of any kind outside — now they are caving in to “acceptable levels”? WTF does that mean?
How do we go from sheds to parking to gentrification? Let’s stay focused on the the issue at hand please. Dining sheds were a reaction to COVID. With the benefit of time and an increasing understanding of the problem we are developing a play book to deal with the virus. That playbook does not include dining sheds. Today, dining sheds have nothing to do with COVID. They are simply a land grab and a dangerous eye sore for the UWS and the rest of the city.
Thanks for your coverage, West Side Rag. One request: please regularly post dates, times, locations for upcoming government meetings? Cheers.
Two points about dining sheds. Sheds must not be a haven for rats! Also, most sheds look terrible–there needs to be a standard for construction and maintenance.
I’m very glad that there’s outdoor dining available because I, for one, would not go into a restaurant with covid lurking. It’s just not worth the rest. However, I think it’s unfair to people who live right above the outdoor structures because they must be very troubled by noise, music, etc. Shouldn’t there be some ordinance that that outdoor dining not be allowed outside residential buildings?
The outdoor dining sheds are an abomination the sole purpose is to increase revenue for private businesses at the expense of all those who live or visit the UWS rat infested eyesores. They increase congestion on the sidewalks and turn the streets into layers of double parked vehicles. I resent having to walk along Amsterdam and weave my way past the outdoor seating, ugly sheds, bikes on sidewalks, street repairs, etc to argue sheds help seniors who ate immunicompromised is a joke. I’m 80, immunocompromised. These sheds are simply another revenue stream for restaurants at my e
Xpense. If restaurants can’t make it with their interior space, outdoor space then they should close I don’t my my quality of life to suffer so restaurants can squeeze every lazy expense at my e penze
They are so ugly and unnecessary. Get rid of them.