What a progressive utopia does to outdoor dining(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
What a progressive utopia does to outdoor dining
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/california-san-francisco-outdoor-dining-progressive-utopia/620974/
302 comments
San Francisco is very much not a progressive utopia, they just have bad government. I live in Scandinavia and outdoor dining does just fine here. Not in the winters of course, but in the summer you see it everywhere. Companies just apply for a permit, the government reviews it and quickly comes back with an answer, our cities typically have an SLO of 4-10 weeks after applying to get an answer and that includes dealing with people complaining. San Francisco not being able to do that is just evidence that San Francisco has inefficient government, but that has nothing to do with them trying to be progressive.
I love San Francisco more than most places I don't live, but I really have a hard time even beginning to agree on any description of it or really any part of California as a "progressive utopia".
Certainly it has a lot of open minded people in it, but it has awful housing policy, mediocre transit for a city its size, historically some of the most brutal police behaviour and crackdowns, and an incredibly stark wealth divide. Many of these things get reflected in policies about land use too, to which the things this article is talking about are likely second order effects.
I mean, realistically table stakes for progressive utopia have to include universal health care, which I guess makes Hawaii the only state that's even at the table.
Certainly it has a lot of open minded people in it, but it has awful housing policy, mediocre transit for a city its size, historically some of the most brutal police behaviour and crackdowns, and an incredibly stark wealth divide. Many of these things get reflected in policies about land use too, to which the things this article is talking about are likely second order effects.
I mean, realistically table stakes for progressive utopia have to include universal health care, which I guess makes Hawaii the only state that's even at the table.
> San Francisco–style progressives aren’t the only Californians endangering outdoor dining. In San Clemente, a successful effort to remove some parklets originated with downtown merchants who wanted parking for their customers.
San Clemente is nothing at all like a "progressive utopia" - it's voted solidly Republican for decades including in 2020 [1].
The author then goes on to tip his hat to a progressive politician from San Francisco for authoring a bill to extend outdoor dining:
"State Senator Wiener is correct when he observes, “If a city had come forward before the pandemic and said, ‘Let’s dramatically expand outdoor dining,’ there would have been a lot of pushback. Like, ‘Whoa, what’s going to happen to the neighborhood? We need parking.’ This is not a mysterious unknown now. Not everybody likes it, but most people do. They love it.”"
"Wiener’s bill authorizes the extension of temporary permits for outdoor dining, which are ultimately under the control of a state alcoholic-beverage commission..."
... all of which flat out contradicts the click-baity headline that the issue has something to do with progressivism. It's not about progressivism in the slightest.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Clemente,_California#Gover...
San Clemente is nothing at all like a "progressive utopia" - it's voted solidly Republican for decades including in 2020 [1].
The author then goes on to tip his hat to a progressive politician from San Francisco for authoring a bill to extend outdoor dining:
"State Senator Wiener is correct when he observes, “If a city had come forward before the pandemic and said, ‘Let’s dramatically expand outdoor dining,’ there would have been a lot of pushback. Like, ‘Whoa, what’s going to happen to the neighborhood? We need parking.’ This is not a mysterious unknown now. Not everybody likes it, but most people do. They love it.”"
"Wiener’s bill authorizes the extension of temporary permits for outdoor dining, which are ultimately under the control of a state alcoholic-beverage commission..."
... all of which flat out contradicts the click-baity headline that the issue has something to do with progressivism. It's not about progressivism in the slightest.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Clemente,_California#Gover...
> In San Clemente, a successful effort to remove some parklets originated with downtown merchants who wanted parking for their customers.
The youtube channel, Not Just Bikes, showed that in the 1970s, much of the Netherlands was car centric and claimed there were death threats by store owners who thought that getting rid of the parking spaces would deprive them of their customers. According to the channel the opposite was true. Removing the cars increased the number of people on the streets significantly and business for those stores increased.
I have no idea if that would work for San Clemente. It's not some $800k person city like Amsterdam. It's a 64k person city slightly isolated beach community with a 5-6 block long shopping street lined with parking.
https://goo.gl/maps/H6wyLdguSjcGKMACA
Assuming it could get the foot traffic it would be 10x nicer with no cars and more outdoor seating but they'd still need some place to put the visitors (off the main street parking structures/lots)
The youtube channel, Not Just Bikes, showed that in the 1970s, much of the Netherlands was car centric and claimed there were death threats by store owners who thought that getting rid of the parking spaces would deprive them of their customers. According to the channel the opposite was true. Removing the cars increased the number of people on the streets significantly and business for those stores increased.
I have no idea if that would work for San Clemente. It's not some $800k person city like Amsterdam. It's a 64k person city slightly isolated beach community with a 5-6 block long shopping street lined with parking.
https://goo.gl/maps/H6wyLdguSjcGKMACA
Assuming it could get the foot traffic it would be 10x nicer with no cars and more outdoor seating but they'd still need some place to put the visitors (off the main street parking structures/lots)
> 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?
Yes, like the regulation that sidewalks have to be clear enough for someone in a wheelchair to pass through?
A "progressive utopia", I think not - even from the other side of the planet the inequality and huge amount of homeless is obvious.
It's barely progressive, the fact it's labeled as that is an indictment on the author or on America if that's what passes for one.
It's barely progressive, the fact it's labeled as that is an indictment on the author or on America if that's what passes for one.
I wish there were more of a science to implementing regulations. We might all agree that X is desirable, but there are tons of ways of trying to achieve X, and finding a good one doesn't seem to happen that often. Debate about it turns into accusations that because you don't like how the X regulation was implemented, you must be against X, therefore you must be evil scum. Systems get written in stone and duct taped together in a forever additive way. Nothing gets AB tested. Nothing gets refactored.
I don't know how this can be laid at the feet of progressives. It's mainly NIMBYs who oppose outdoor dining. Here in Portland, progressivism and anti-car, pro-biking/walking dogma has been hitched to the expansion if outdoor dining that in some cases shuts down whole streets, as another way of intentionally making it hard on us evil people who insist on owning cars. As a neighbor of one of the proposed streets to be shut down, who already deals with a lack of parking and a lot of drunk kids staggering around at 2am on Saturdays, I opposed the total street shutdown because while I'd love to live in Paris, I don't particularly want to live in Amsterdam. But the "parklets" in Portland have taken their place beside the many (wonderful) food cart pods, and definitely seem here to stay. Which is great. It absolutely saved a lot of struggling restaurants during the pandemic, and it adds another layer of life to the streets.
Could commenters read the article before commenting about how San Francisco isn't a progressive utopia?
The author knows this.
The author's argument is that San Francisco's progressive ideals often look past reality and end up undermining its own goals.
The author knows this.
The author's argument is that San Francisco's progressive ideals often look past reality and end up undermining its own goals.
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.
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.
Candyland meets Kafka indeed. This a great article for all, not as a political piece, but as a teachable moment about process, stakeholders, requirements , over-optimization and compromise. We many not be able to fix California, but we can at least try to fix our own projects.
Compared to European cities (except parts of London or Frankfurt etc.), US cities have always felt dead to me. Even Chicago and New York. There's previous few places in these cities where one can sit outside somewhere interesting. Specifically, they exist in such a low concentration that no real public "life" happens, rather, life happens beyond closed doors of establishments.
Contrast this with cities in Europe where people just hang out, like for free, all around the town at rivers, parks, bridges and have a good time. It always feels like European cities place a premium on such public places, on the idea that a good time could be had without going to a commercial venue.
I guess this is why US cities feel weird to me... somehow compartmentalized and commercialized, even oppressive. I realize you are not supposed to walk "around town" in the US. Rather, you pick a target (Bar, Restaurant) and then go drive there. And that's fine. I also know public consumption is frowned upon. But look at people sitting at the Seine or Canal St. Martin in Paris on a summer evening... sharing spaces between open-air restaurants, sidewalks and just public spots. It's a far cry from "rowdy drunkenness" that US Americans frequently imagine, and (to me), something is just missing without this public life.
And even more extreme version of the US model can be seen in newer parts of rapidly growing cities like Dubai and many new developments in Istanbul and the like: Here, the city amounts to a system of isolated complexes, separated by highways or roads and with little walkability. Residential areas are also often physically shut off from the public. The closest you get to a normal space is a Mall. I find just being there makes me depressed. Other's don't mind at all. Weird.
Edit: More of what I mean in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbxQHjcctZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbxQHjcctZk
Contrast this with cities in Europe where people just hang out, like for free, all around the town at rivers, parks, bridges and have a good time. It always feels like European cities place a premium on such public places, on the idea that a good time could be had without going to a commercial venue.
I guess this is why US cities feel weird to me... somehow compartmentalized and commercialized, even oppressive. I realize you are not supposed to walk "around town" in the US. Rather, you pick a target (Bar, Restaurant) and then go drive there. And that's fine. I also know public consumption is frowned upon. But look at people sitting at the Seine or Canal St. Martin in Paris on a summer evening... sharing spaces between open-air restaurants, sidewalks and just public spots. It's a far cry from "rowdy drunkenness" that US Americans frequently imagine, and (to me), something is just missing without this public life.
And even more extreme version of the US model can be seen in newer parts of rapidly growing cities like Dubai and many new developments in Istanbul and the like: Here, the city amounts to a system of isolated complexes, separated by highways or roads and with little walkability. Residential areas are also often physically shut off from the public. The closest you get to a normal space is a Mall. I find just being there makes me depressed. Other's don't mind at all. Weird.
Edit: More of what I mean in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbxQHjcctZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbxQHjcctZk
Go skim the San Francisco Parklet Manual: http://groundplaysf.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Francisco-Par...
I see a well-designed, clear, and not-very-dense set of guidelines for building and maintaining an outdoor dining space. You could probably squeeze everything in this document into 10 pages of terse prose, but that would be far less intelligible. Friedersdorf is just being his typical contrarian self in order to get contrarian clickthroughs.
There's some really great content in this document: pages 29-30 explain in very clear terms how to attach your parklet to an existing street, and include clear, helpful diagrams. Pages 37-39 explain in great detail how to make your parklet accessible to people using wheelchairs, and even include helpful architectural diagrams and photographs.
If the original PDF had been submitted instead of Conor's contrarian clickbait, I imagine that most of the comments would've been about the terrific guidance around best practices.
I see a well-designed, clear, and not-very-dense set of guidelines for building and maintaining an outdoor dining space. You could probably squeeze everything in this document into 10 pages of terse prose, but that would be far less intelligible. Friedersdorf is just being his typical contrarian self in order to get contrarian clickthroughs.
There's some really great content in this document: pages 29-30 explain in very clear terms how to attach your parklet to an existing street, and include clear, helpful diagrams. Pages 37-39 explain in great detail how to make your parklet accessible to people using wheelchairs, and even include helpful architectural diagrams and photographs.
If the original PDF had been submitted instead of Conor's contrarian clickbait, I imagine that most of the comments would've been about the terrific guidance around best practices.
How is a mecca for wealthy tech workers supposed to be a progressive utopia. Theres really not any such thing in the USA. Not that I'm aware of.
"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."
I have to think that any restrictions on that are local, not statewide. Personally, I can't think of many places in LA where I'd want to sit right next to the street, and even less a parking spot on one. The city just wasn't built to accommodate that and it's silly to think public parking should be converted for that purpose.
Honestly, this sounds more than just a bit snobbish to me.
I have to think that any restrictions on that are local, not statewide. Personally, I can't think of many places in LA where I'd want to sit right next to the street, and even less a parking spot on one. The city just wasn't built to accommodate that and it's silly to think public parking should be converted for that purpose.
Honestly, this sounds more than just a bit snobbish to me.
I was told once by a long San Diego resident, that the city starting limiting outdoor seating decades ago to discourage Italians moving in at the time, from opening restaurants.
What is this segment about?
> Aaron Peskin, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, compared parklets to beaches, “arguing that anyone should be free to sit down in a parklet and enjoy a cup of coffee,” Eater’s Becky Duffett reported. “But, in practice,” she continued, “countless restaurant and bar owners have called into these hearings and shared complaints with their supervisors, saying they are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on parklets, and are having to clean out urine, feces, and needles every morning.” A theoretical comparison to public beaches is one way to see the issue. But isn’t buying a coffee as a condition of occupying a section of asphalt a lower barrier to entry than having to own a car and feed a meter?
It seems totally disconnected from the rest? Are they having to give up these due to pointless red tape or are they just fighting to exclude non-paying customers from using this part of the street? Is "you can't just act like you own part of the street when you don't" the red tape they want to get rid of?
> Aaron Peskin, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, compared parklets to beaches, “arguing that anyone should be free to sit down in a parklet and enjoy a cup of coffee,” Eater’s Becky Duffett reported. “But, in practice,” she continued, “countless restaurant and bar owners have called into these hearings and shared complaints with their supervisors, saying they are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on parklets, and are having to clean out urine, feces, and needles every morning.” A theoretical comparison to public beaches is one way to see the issue. But isn’t buying a coffee as a condition of occupying a section of asphalt a lower barrier to entry than having to own a car and feed a meter?
It seems totally disconnected from the rest? Are they having to give up these due to pointless red tape or are they just fighting to exclude non-paying customers from using this part of the street? Is "you can't just act like you own part of the street when you don't" the red tape they want to get rid of?
I didn't get too far into the article, but it seems the main answer is America's fear of alcohol.
One of the coolest spots in Prague is a little snack bar stand near the giant metronome. Serving mostly beer. With only a few outdoor seats most people would take their beer upstairs and watch kids skate... This couldn't happen in America, and that is sad.
An important note about this as well is that when people become intoxicated they tend to become more flagrant about wearing masks and maintaining social distancing. This is generally true whether the person means to be that way or simply starts losing their ability to pay attention. Yes, you are not supposed to serve a person who is visibly intoxicated- but even a single alcoholic drink effects the way that we as humans relate to our environment However I would also argue that even under those circumstances outdoor seating will still remain safer as we continue to live in the pandemic. I think that rushing to remove many of the changes we have made to our society to help mitigate the effects of the corona virus is a mistake. We are not through the woods yet.
You have to appreciate logical leap it takes to argue that because a policy was implemented during a pandemic, the policy obviously scales to routine traffic and zoning.
I'm all for taking back the street but this argument isn't going to convince anyone who wasn't convinced already.
Also this has to do with progressive policies exactly how?
I'm all for taking back the street but this argument isn't going to convince anyone who wasn't convinced already.
Also this has to do with progressive policies exactly how?
Archived: https://archive.ph/boYg6
> hurdles to converting parking spaces into outdoor seating areas
Stuff like this makes me realize how alien USA is.
Stuff like this makes me realize how alien USA is.
Ahh, I thought this was going to be about the “people experiencing homelessness” making it miserable to dine outdoors. Turns out there’s a whole other problem too!
>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.
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.
“ 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
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
* 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.