Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

YoYoMoMa t1_j1a11ho wrote

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

37

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

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

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

SilentRhetoric t1_j1am868 wrote

Replying to ibrahimsafah (#1,013,427)

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

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

bmore t1_j1dm5kp wrote

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

1

TerranceBaggz t1_j1elh63 wrote

Replying to Scrilla_Gorilla_ (#1,016,927)

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

Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j1gjfv3 wrote

Replying to TerranceBaggz (#1,032,146)

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

PleaseBmoreCharming t1_j1gn4ey wrote

Replying to moderndukes (#1,025,693)

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

Replying to PleaseBmoreCharming (#1,034,479)

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

Replying to moderndukes (#1,034,590)

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

TerranceBaggz t1_j1ou2iw wrote

Replying to Scrilla_Gorilla_ (#1,034,099)

  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