[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)