[HN Gopher] What a progressive utopia does to outdoor dining ___________________________________________________________________ What a progressive utopia does to outdoor dining Author : mensetmanusman Score : 24 points Date : 2021-12-13 21:34 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com) | mensetmanusman wrote: | " A given curbside-dining setup might make gaining access to a | nearby building a bit harder for the fire department than it | would be if a car or SUV were parked in the same spot. " | | Imagine thinking this with a straight face. | | How could it be harder to move civilians and a wooden plank | compared to a locked SUV? Aha | tqi wrote: | See for yourself: https://sf.eater.com/2021/7/27/22595233/best- | parklets-san-fr... | BostonEnginerd wrote: | To be fair, many of the outdoor eating spaces are 8-10ft wide, | 20+ feet long and have substantial structure like roofs. An SUV | is probably be easier to tow out of the way. | wolverine876 wrote: | > How could it be harder to move civilians and a wooden plank | compared to a locked SUV? | | A lot of outdoor dining is much larger and more obstructive | than a wooden plank. I see entire structures, planters, | electrical power, heat lamps and fire 'pits', etc. | | > Imagine thinking this with a straight face. | | If we approach unfamiliar ideas curiously, we can imagine part | of factual reality that is outside our conceptions: people know | things we don't and have legitimate motives we haven't | considered. I know almost nothing about outdoor dining; it | would be interesting to hear from a restauranteur and city | planner. | JamesBarney wrote: | Question. We've now had outdoor dining for the past year. | What do you think the chances are that this regulation | significantly moved the amount of fire damage or number of | fire related deaths that occurred? | netizen-936824 wrote: | >If we approach unfamiliar ideas curiously, we can imagine | part of factual reality that is outside our conceptions: | people know things we don't and have legitimate motives we | haven't considered. | | This is an extremely healthy mindset, I'm glad to see it | here. I only hope this way of thinking can spread. | somewhereoutth wrote: | Of course this would be less of a problem if | | a) buildings weren't made of wood, and | | b) people didn't keep setting fire to them. | | (Source: SF resident for a few years - someone even burnt down | my hardware store! As I was going there for a screwdriver!) | starkd wrote: | Frankly, I'm more alarmed about the "alfresco dining". Who | really wants to eat in the nude ??? | dang wrote: | Please don't do this here. | egh wrote: | Have you seen a car? Have you seen a parklet? If you had, you | would understand perfectly well. | jjulius wrote: | >How could it be harder to move civilians and a wooden plank | compared to a locked SUV? Aha | | One is a locked SUV whose windows are designed to be broken | easily and safely in case of emergencies, pop into neutral and | push out of the way sort of quickly (depending on whether or | not there's even enough time to do that, but I digress). This | SUV has wheels whose direction you can adjust in order to to | help maneuver the vehicle easily. | | The other is a structure often built considerably longer than | even a few SUV lengths, weighed down so that guests and weather | don't move it, and made out of material that is considerably | less easy to break through in an emergency situation than the | aforementioned tempered/laminated safety glass. Said structures | may even contain even more hazards - eg, gas-powered heat lamps | - than you would find in a traditional parking space. This | structure is bulky and doesn't have wheels to help change the | direction you want to move it in. | | >Imagine thinking this with a straight face. | | The irony... | julienb_sea wrote: | While disappointing, this is not exactly a surprise. California's | approach to regulation, in general, is onerous and creates | substantial headwind to development or change. This is not a | statement about the legitimacy of the underlying concerns for why | such regulation exists. | | The problem is the patchwork of regulation, multi-stage | enforcement, and ability for competitors and activists to | introduce painful delays and reviews at each stage. Streamlining | is desperately needed, and public review should be more limited | in scope and timeline. | wolverine876 wrote: | If you want to take down a fence, first learn why it was built. I | can guess at reasons but it would be interesting to hear from a | city planner on the reasons and history. My guesses: | | * The sidewalk is public space. Does the public give away free | real estate to the restaurant, to be used to generate revenue by | the square foot? If the restaurant wants outdoor dining, they can | build it on their own property. Perhaps the city should at least | charge rent (in non-pandemic times). | | * Cities don't want loud drunk people on sidewalks, i.e., a bar | scene on the sidewalk. Public alcohol consumption is generally | banned in most places in the US, afaik. | | * It obstructs sidewalks, which have an important purpose and | were built to a certain capacity. Analogously, should we allow | dining in the street, blocking a lane of traffic (structures | could be built that would shield patrons from the street). | Possibly, there was less foot traffic during the pandemic so the | problem wasn't as noticeable. | | * Laws that apply to one person apply to every restaurant in the | city. Maybe the temporary pandemic situation limited how many and | how did it, and we don't want every restaurant building outdoor | dining on the sidewalk. | | The title is inflammatory: Assuming 'progressives' are bad, | caused the issue, the issue is somehow bad. I expect more from | the Atlantic than joining the lynch-the-progressives mob. | Afforess wrote: | I realize you are not defending these ideas, just stating them. | However, they are absurd.... objections In order: | | 1. Charging rent would cost more administratively than giving | the space for free, in 99.9% of cases. Yes, the city should | allow the restaurants to "borrow" public space for free. People | want this! It's in the public interest! | | 2. This is false. Public "outdoor" alcohol consumption is | generally acceptable and if put on the ballot would win in most | places. It's legal where I live, in Austin TX. | | 3. Sidewalks were built to encourage pedestrian foot traffic in | cities. Outdoor dining also increases foot traffic. The two | concepts aren't opposed, they are mutually beneficial. | | 4. ...Okay? Laws shouldn't discriminate between businesses of | the same class, this is a good thing. | | Sure, there might be reasons a fence was built. But there might | not be! We shouldn't become a veto-ocracy. | tschwimmer wrote: | You're on to something with Chesterton's fence, but don't | mention a few key reasons for these rules. Safety is a major | driver in the changes I see being reported. Some parklets go to | the corner, which can make it be hard to see oncoming cars when | you're trying to cross the street. The wall height thing is | about accessibility for emergency responders, as is the roof | height thing. The max parking spot coverage thing is probably | about parking capacity. | | Ultimately, it's a bad situation. It's not being handled well, | but I don't really think there's a good outcome that doesn't | compromise on either safety, parking or screwing over the | restaurant operators. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Another important question you could ask about the fence is: | how come those people over there manage to do just fine without | the fence? (and going deeper, do they, in fact do just fine?) | | The obvious point of comparison are most southern (and some | northern) european countries that have lots of outdoor (often | on-street) dining, apparently without much deleterious effect. | | What would be so different in the USA as to create a different | outcome? | | Sometimes, that asshole Chesterton put up a fence without a | good reason at all. | wolverine876 wrote: | Agreed. It would be interesting to see how those European | cities do it. I don't recall feeling obstructed by it, the | way I do in US cities recently (I don't mind it, but I notice | it). | | IME, in Europe, the outdoor dining is usually directly | adjascent the restaurant (in the US, it's often on the curb | side of the sidewalk), though that is really speculation | based on limited experience. Perhaps that is actually on | restaurant property, and they set back the indoor structure. | Or perhaps European sidewalks were built with that capacity | in mind. | | Also, perhaps the US, usually more restrictive with alchohol, | has been less accepting of drinking in public. It doesn't | seem like a problem to me, but then I hardly ever see anyone | drinking in public. A city block with lots of restaurants and | drinkers? | | > Sometimes, that asshole Chesterton put up a fence without a | good reason at all. | | I find that is very rarely the case, especially for rules | widespread across the country. Usually 'no good reason' means | 'no reason I know' or 'not a reason I care about'. | bobcostas55 wrote: | Somehow none of those issues are a problem in Europe. | jjulius wrote: | Perhaps cities were initially planned with them in mind as | opposed to in the US? | bowmessage wrote: | Ah, yes, all of those carefully-planned-out European cities | that have been fully thought through before the first brick | was laid... | Afforess wrote: | > _City staff said they don't see any way around putting | restaurateurs through a more intensive process to make their | outdoor structures permanent_ | | What? Make the current rule changes permanent? How come this is | not considered as "a way" and dismissed out of hand? I'm | genuinely amazed at the lack of imagination here. 5th graders | could solve this problem. | notJim wrote: | To be fair, there are legitimate things to consider like | accessibility and fire safety that were waived temporarily. The | whole thing that makes fixing this hard is that there are good | reasons some of these rules exist. | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | > For decades, it turns out, needlessly onerous regulations had | deprived Californians of both the pleasure of eating outdoors and | the convivial streetscapes that curbside dining creates | | Yes, like the regulation that sidewalks have to be clear enough | for someone in a wheelchair to pass through? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-13 23:00 UTC)