Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

justlikeyou14 t1_j1a17vy wrote

I am all for this. It feels like the city has life when people are sitting outside and enjoying themselves.

92

incunabula001 t1_j1bgnjb wrote

Make that shit permanent, it's a win win for people who live in the city and the businesses as well.

39

YoYoMoMa t1_j1a11ho wrote

This is great news! Now can you get the weather to cooperate before march?

37

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_j1ajw7u wrote

This is great, after moving here from the south the one thing that stood out to me was the lack of outside dinning made everywhere feel dead. My only concern is if the price is sustainable and wether a restaurant will have to pay it for all year round or just in the warmer months when outdoor dinning is popular.

12

DfcukinLite t1_j1b2ezq wrote

What lack of outdoor dinning? The only places that didn’t have the outdoor dining here are places that didn’t have the traditional space for outdoor seating

−3

YoYoMoMa t1_j1djn3p wrote

We still have so little compared to other cities on the east coast

2

moderndukes t1_j1eaoqi wrote

$10/sqft feels really cheap for this

3

PleaseBmoreCharming t1_j1gn4ey wrote

IMO, given that you already pay taxes to support the infrastructure that makes up the right-of-way (i.e., the roadway, sidewalks, curbs) why should you have to pay that much more to "reserve" some of that PUBLIC area for your private use? I think of it just like reserving a pavilion at a park.

1

moderndukes t1_j1go4h7 wrote

Because it’s public so everyone has right to usage. Thus, if one person wants to monopolize the usage, they should have to reserve it. In this case, you’re profiting off of public land so paying a fee for its usage absolutely makes sense.

(Also, the other usages of right of way you reference are all transportive in nature and all only use those sqft momentarily. This is not the same sort of usage.)

6

PleaseBmoreCharming t1_j1goi1b wrote

I think we are on the same page about this and making the same point in different language. I do think that because they are making profits, they should have to pay a fee, but the significance of that fee at this price point is attainable enough that it can be justified due to the generally tax liability of the public.

Sorry for the confusion. We are saying the same thing! 👍

3

bmore t1_j1dm5kp wrote

Way to make it more expensive than using the same space for valet 🙃

1

TerranceBaggz t1_j1elpf9 wrote

What? Valet should rarely be an option in the city. End encouraging auto centric development.

7

bmore t1_j1eym3l wrote

100% agree, that's why it's stupid as hell this much better use of space costs significantly more for businesses than car centric permitting.

2

Charles_Mendel t1_j1cbbss wrote

Yum; brake dust etc all over my food.

−12

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1a4ywn wrote

If the businesses want to pay for them by all means. I'd just say if you take a stroll down Broadway anytime between now and April you're going to see nothing but empty parklets where parking spaces used to be.

−26

DONNIENARC0 t1_j1a83po wrote

The article mentions a $10/sq foot permitting fee for "leasing the public right of way"

20

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1ac7cb wrote

Correct. I am all for businesses having these as long as they pay for taking the public space. This all seems on the up and up to me.

They are all empty this time of year though.

−9

ibrahimsafah t1_j1afl6l wrote

Public space for storing private vehicles?

18

SilentRhetoric t1_j1am868 wrote

The rightmost lane of a street is not only used for parking cars, but sometimes for driving, or biking, or walking, or athletic events, or parades, or block parties, or enabling construction access. If the restaurant has a (semi)permanent installation blocking other uses of that part of the public road, they have privatized a public asset and should pay to lease the space. Not sure why this would be controversial.

7

ibrahimsafah t1_j1bdk3j wrote

Like the other folks said, let’s be honest, It’s always parking and rarely any of that other stuff you mentioned. Parking is the number one complaint about them.

14

SaveFailsafe t1_j1b6g60 wrote

Like 1 day out of the year its not used for parking...c'mon let's be real. It's parking. Always has been.

9

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1ayqbk wrote

Thank you for saying that in a politer way than I would have.

−3

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1ayxej wrote

What u/silentrhetoric said. Do you disagree?

−1

ibrahimsafah t1_j1bdoe1 wrote

I agree with his points but the argument is disingenuous because it’s ALWAYS about parking

10

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1bllfv wrote

My issue with them is less the parking and more the driving. The ones outside Lee’s Pint and Shell for example extended so far into the road it made driving past an issue.

3

TerranceBaggz t1_j1elh63 wrote

That’s because Lee’s Pint and shell did theirs without permits and they were illegal. I know this because I was with the two women from the city who issue/approve the parklets looking at O’Donnell square. When I mentioned the one at Lees and said it was posing a problem for the busses who use that route, they said they didn’t apply for a parklet and immediately walked up to check it out. Eventually they were forced to take it down.

3

TerranceBaggz t1_j1ekzvj wrote

Parking spaces bring in $0/sqft and make the area less livable for the people that actually live there.

2

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1esecg wrote

You have to pay to park on the spaces on Broadway? And it's a commercial zone.

0

TerranceBaggz t1_j1g1qg0 wrote

What are you trying to argue? Your comment isn’t clear.

1

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1gjfv3 wrote

Sorry I was unclear.

I'm not really trying to argue, my original post was just saying the parklets don't get used this time of year. So now instead of people parking on Broadway in front of the businesses they are going to they park in the narrow neighborhood side streets. Which makes it harder for the people who live in those neighborhoods to find parking by their houses.

My second comment was pointing out that the spots on Broadway are metered, so they do bring in revenue. And that it's a commercial zone, so it's not a place people live. To circle it back around, you now have people parking in neighborhoods instead of in front of the businesses they are going to.

1

TerranceBaggz t1_j1ou2iw wrote

  1. There are city garages in Fells for people who don’t live in the neighborhood and drive everywhere
  2. The metered parking on the south end of Broadway that is currently being used as parklets is extremely below market rate. Probably 1/50th market rate. The proposed price per square foot for the parklets of $10/sqft is still below market rate, but it will still bring in more money than a $2/hr parking spot.
  3. It’s a walkable area that should have very few cars. I’d argue Thames st should be completely closed to auto traffic. Human scale the area.
1

LuckyNumber-Bot t1_j1ou37v wrote

All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!

  1
+ 2
+ 1
+ 50
+ 10
+ 2
+ 3
= 69

^(Click here to have me scan all your future comments.)
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)

1