Exclusive Seating in DOT Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets

Online comments: 120

• Yvonne Groseil

  This is outrageous. It is privatization of a public amenity. I refer you to the work of William H. Whyte, “ The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.

  Comment added March 24, 2025 2:52pm

• PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PONZI

  “Under DOT’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs, DOT may enter into a concession agreement with a pedestrian plaza or open streets partner, which authorizes, among other things, revenue-generating activity to occur through the operation of subconcessions”

  The carving out of public space in a kind of gangster turf taking, abetted by an agency -the DOT-which has already done so much damage to neighborhoods, is remarkable in its brazen chutzpah.

  The DOT is proposing to “permit their subconcessionaires to designate areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for EXCLUSIVE USE BY THEIR PATRONS”

  The DOT is going to allow vendors, self-dealing interests, for-profit businesses to co-opt our streets and our public recreational areas for “revenue generation”.

  Are you kidding? FOR SHAME! UNACCEPTABLE!

  Comment added March 24, 2025 8:28pm

• Miggie Warms

  This is a joke, right? Turning public streets into private space for concession customers? That’s not even done in our public PARKS, unless it’s an actual restaurant in a BIG park like Central Park. Yet, you want to exclude residents of a neighborhood from sitting on seating provided on a public street or in a small park that should be FOR THE PUBLIC, regardless of whether they buy anything from a nearby concession. What a horrible idea, especially for elderly and disabled residents that you pretend your “open street” is meant to accommodate (along with non-disabled residents.)

  Comment added March 24, 2025 10:49pm

• Jennifer Kellow

  What can I say that others haven’t already. Outrageous that public spaces will be privatized. No! I pray this doesn’t pass, the people of this city attempt to make their voices heard and it usually falls on deaf ears.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:32am

• Allie Ryan

  This amendment should be voted on in a referendum not sneaked through in this pseudo-public fashion, which is basically marking a box that NYC DOT hosted public engagement, but as with the last NYC DOT public hearing that I attended in the Fall of 2023 about allowing eCargo bikes on the streets of NYC, this is a formality for approval despite public dissent or concern. There is an active lawsuit about the Open Streets program. So I do not understand how this amendment can be proposed at this time. https://www.nycaccessforall.org/

  Comment added March 25, 2025 8:20am

• megan martin

  “Open streets” is a gross mischaracterization of the illegal occupation of our public roads by private lobbyists within the DOT. During their designated hours- we have bumper to bumper traffic where emergency vehicles can not pass, residents are unable to arrive at their destination. The impediment to the flow of traffic is dangerous and destructive.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 8:46am

• Thomas

  Hello,

  Please do not designate areas of pedestrian plazas & Open Streets for EXCLUSIVE USE BY THEIR PATRONS/ PARTNERS.

  New York taxpayers do not support privatizing public space!

  Thank you

  Comment added March 25, 2025 9:30am

• Charlie Eisenbach

  This is bad policy which I am not in favor of.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 10:12am

• Klaus-Peter Statz

  Do not hand our public streets over to private interests!

  Comment added March 25, 2025 10:16am

• Tran

  This amendment confirms what we knew all along – Open Streets is merely a land grab disguised as a pandemic health benefit. New Yorkers will not allow our public streets to be taken over by the hospitality lobby!

  The streets belong to New Yorkers – not bars and restaurants!

  Shame on DOT!

  Comment added March 25, 2025 10:37am

• eli see

  Public spaces should not be restricted to only those patronizing a private establishment. These spaces should be open to all.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 12:55pm

• Katherine O'Sullivan

  These plaza’s are an excuse to privatize the common roadway that belongs to all of us.

  The “public” plazas are not public. I have had less direct access to Dyckman Street since it was barricaded during Covid. The space remains exclusively for the use of Dyckman Gardens Inc (that is the clubs/restaurants). It has become an eyesore, collecting garbage, with mostly police barriers and tattered old holiday decorations to look at
  We, the residents, were promised something else. DOT is not capable of running this program. It should be scrapped.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:11pm

• Catherine Unsino

  This pro business land grab should be put to an open vote, not slipped through via DOT’s sneaky allegiance to money instead of to the people’s wellbeing. In order to protect the safety of people with disabiities, of elderly residents and of everyone else, streets should be for cars and motorized bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. Bus routes should not be altered. Amen. Stop the subterfuge! Make this city safer and more accessible and stop operating it like an empire for the money grabbers. While the whole world repudiates empire, this state and now city embraces it. Shame on DOT and on every elected official who betrays the people’s wellbeing. Let’s vote them out of office.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:35pm

• FLOUTING ADA FEDERAL LAW

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will potentially flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several specific ways, particularly in relation to equal access for individuals with disabilities.
  1. Reduction in Accessible Pathways and Routes

  ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, all public spaces, including sidewalks and streets, must provide clear, unobstructed paths for individuals with disabilities. These paths must allow for safe navigation and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters.

  Violation Potential: The proposed rule allows subconcessionaires to designate up to 33% of the pedestrian plaza or open street for exclusive seating areas (and up to 50% if a major concession is approved). If this seating area is placed in a way that obstructs the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduces the available space for accessible routes, it could violate ADA regulations. The restriction of space for general public use may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate these areas safely.

  For example, if exclusive seating blocks an accessible path or creates narrow, crowded spaces, individuals with mobility impairments may be unable to navigate these public spaces effectively or safely.

  2. Inadequate Access to Drop-Off Zones and Car Access

  ADA Requirement: The ADA mandates that transportation hubs, including street curbs and car drop-off zones, must be accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the provision of clear, wide access for vehicles that transport people with mobility impairments.

  Violation Potential: The proposed amendment could reduce or restrict access to areas traditionally used for car drop-off zones, particularly near residential buildings, businesses, or community spaces. Exclusive seating areas could extend into these zones, effectively blocking drop-off points or creating obstacles for accessible parking. This could make it harder for people with disabilities who rely on private transportation or taxis to access their destinations, violating the ADA’s accessibility guidelines for transportation.

  3. Obstruction of Sidewalks and Public Right of Way

  ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, public sidewalks and pedestrian areas must be clear of physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from moving freely. This includes maintaining a minimum clear width for pathways that can accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices.

  Violation Potential: Designating exclusive seating areas for patrons of subconcessions could narrow the available space for pedestrians, especially if these seating areas encroach on already limited sidewalk space. Such a reduction in the available width for public movement could make it impossible for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers to pass through, violating ADA requirements for accessible pedestrian pathways.

  For example, if a pedestrian plaza or open street is used for exclusive dining areas, individuals with disabilities might find themselves forced to navigate around tightly packed seating, leading to potential safety hazards or difficulty accessing their destinations.

  4. Exclusion of People with Disabilities from Privately Designated Areas

  ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to services, including outdoor dining or seating areas, if those services are offered to the general public.

  Violation Potential: If businesses are granted the ability to reserve exclusive areas for patrons (up to 33% or 50% of the space), individuals with disabilities who are not patrons or who cannot afford to dine at these venues could be excluded from accessing public space.

  This creates a situation where public spaces (i.e., pedestrian plazas and open streets) are privatized and inaccessible to people who may need the space for socializing, resting, or simply passing through. It could be argued that this discriminates against people with disabilities, who might find themselves unable to access these public spaces if they are blocked off for exclusive use by paying customers.

  5. Potential Disruption of Community and Recreational Activities

  ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public spaces be designed to provide equal access to recreational and social opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Public plazas and open streets often serve as spaces for community activities, some of which may be specifically targeted at people with disabilities (e.g., outdoor fitness classes, art displays, or events).

  Violation Potential: By restricting up to half of a public space for exclusive dining or seating areas, the proposed rule could severely limit the available room for community-based recreational activities. People with disabilities who rely on public spaces for recreation might find fewer accessible options, especially if the spaces they depend on are now privatized or used for commercial purposes, violating the ADA’s intent to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in public life.

  6. Failure to Provide Equal Alternatives

  ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that alternative accessible routes or accommodations be provided when public spaces are altered or restricted in a way that limits access.

  Violation Potential: If exclusive seating areas reduce the amount of available space for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, the amended rule does not specify whether adequate alternative routes will be provided. If alternative routes are not clearly marked or are difficult to access, this could violate the ADA, as people with disabilities would have no choice but to navigate spaces that are difficult or impossible to use.

  Summary of ADA Violations:

  Obstruction of accessible pathways and drop-off zones.

  Exclusion from public spaces due to exclusive, commercial seating.

  Inadequate provision of accessible routes for people with disabilities.

  Failure to provide adequate alternatives when public spaces are privatized or reduced.

  The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating the ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:37pm

• Tom Harris

  My name is Tom Harris and I am President of the Times Square Alliance, the business improvement district organization that since 1992, works to improve and promote Times Square – cultivating the creativity, energy and edge that have made the area an icon of entertainment, culture and urban life for over a century.

  Times Square Alliance supports the Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession kiosk customers. As an organization that helps maintain, program, and support various pedestrian plazas, we understand that kiosks are crucial components in curating vibrant public spaces. In addition to providing services to visitors of a space, these concessions are one way for the Alliance to help recoup the expense of maintaining these plazas for the enjoyment of the public at large.

  Currently, however, operating a concession can be a huge risk for businesses. Allowing these establishments to operate small areas tailored specifically towards their clientele is an investment not just in individual businesses, but for public space at large as it enhances the feasibility of such an endeavor and allows for visitors to enjoy a tailored experience while balancing the right of the public to enjoy the remainder of the pedestrian plazas.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 2:17pm

• Rose Halloran

  How can this be legal? Shouldn’t taxpayers vote on such an amendment? As it is 34th Avenue is mostly empty of traffic, pedestrian and otherwise, between 9:00 and 5:00. It is a residential street. Authorizing your concessionaire partners access will result in filth and further encourage rats. I propose doing away with this underutilized travesty that is 34th Ave OS and return our neighborhood to its former beauty.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 3:07pm

• VOICES OF JACKSON HEIGHTS

  THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE ADA AND THE NYC/NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS. STOP THIS NOW BEFORE IT STARTS

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several specific ways, particularly in relation to equal access for individuals with disabilities. Here’s a breakdown of how the amendments may violate ADA requirements:
  1. Reduction in Accessible Pathways and Routes
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, all public spaces, including sidewalks and streets, must provide clear, unobstructed paths for individuals with disabilities. -These paths must allow for safe navigation and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: The proposed rule allows subconcessionaires to designate up to 33% of the pedestrian plaza or open street for exclusive seating areas (and up to 50% if a major concession is approved). If this seating area is placed in a way that obstructs the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduces the available space for accessible routes, it could violate ADA regulations. The restriction of space for general public use may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate these areas safely. For example, if exclusive seating blocks an accessible path or creates narrow, crowded spaces, individuals with mobility impairments may be unable to navigate these public spaces effectively or safely.
  2. Inadequate Access to Drop-Off Zones and Car Access
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA mandates that transportation hubs, including street curbs and car drop-off zones, must be accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the provision of clear, wide access for vehicles that transport people with mobility impairments.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: The proposed amendment could reduce or restrict access to areas traditionally used for car drop-off zones, particularly near residential buildings, businesses, or community spaces. Exclusive seating areas could extend into these zones, effectively blocking drop-off points or creating obstacles for accessible parking. This could make it harder for people with disabilities who rely on private transportation or taxis to access their destinations, violating the ADA’s accessibility guidelines for transportation.
  3. Obstruction of Sidewalks and Public Right of Way
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, public sidewalks and pedestrian areas must be clear of physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from moving freely. This includes maintaining a minimum clear width for pathways that can accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: Designating exclusive seating areas for patrons of subconcessions could narrow the available space for pedestrians, especially if these seating areas encroach on already limited sidewalk space. Such a reduction in the available width for public movement could make it impossible for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers to pass through, violating ADA requirements for accessible pedestrian pathways. For example, if a pedestrian plaza or open street is used for exclusive dining areas, individuals with disabilities might find themselves forced to navigate around tightly packed seating, leading to potential safety hazards or difficulty accessing their destinations.
  4. Exclusion of People with Disabilities from Privately Designated Areas
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to services, including outdoor dining or seating areas, if those services are offered to the general public.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: If businesses are granted the ability to reserve exclusive areas for patrons (up to 33% or 50% of the space), individuals with disabilities who are not patrons or who cannot afford to dine at these venues could be excluded from accessing public space. This creates a situation where public spaces (i.e., pedestrian plazas and open streets) are privatized and inaccessible to people who may need the space for socializing, resting, or simply passing through. It could be argued that this discriminates against people with disabilities, who might find themselves unable to access these public spaces if they are blocked off for exclusive use by paying customers.
  5. Potential Disruption of Community and Recreational Activities
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public spaces be designed to provide equal access to recreational and social opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Public plazas and open streets often serve as spaces for community activities, some of which may be specifically targeted at people with disabilities (e.g., outdoor fitness classes, art displays, or events).
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: By restricting up to half of a public space for exclusive dining or seating areas, the proposed rule could severely limit the available room for community-based recreational activities. People with disabilities who rely on public spaces for recreation might find fewer accessible options, especially if the spaces they depend on are now privatized or used for commercial purposes, violating the ADA’s intent to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in public life.
  6. Failure to Provide Equal Alternatives
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that alternative accessible routes or accommodations be provided when public spaces are altered or restricted in a way that limits access.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: If exclusive seating areas reduce the amount of available space for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, the amended rule does not specify whether adequate alternative routes will be provided. If alternative routes are not clearly marked or are difficult to access, this could violate the ADA, as people with disabilities would have no choice but to navigate spaces that are difficult or impossible to use.
  Summary of ADA Violations:
  🧑‍🦽Obstruction of accessible pathways and drop-off zones.
  🧑‍🦽Exclusion from public spaces due to exclusive, commercial seating.
  🧑‍🦽Inadequate provision of accessible routes for people with disabilities.
  🧑‍🦽Failure to provide adequate alternatives when public spaces are privatized or reduced.
  🧑‍🦽The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating the ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.
  is?

  Comment added March 25, 2025 3:55pm

• I do not support this

  As an NYC resident, I do not support the privatization of our streets. Just say no!

  Eric Olson
  Brooklyn

  Comment added March 25, 2025 3:58pm

• Kathleen Sullivan

  Once again, an example of living in a city that pretends to be democratic. Very often I would hear “Why should people park their private cars on a public street?” So, now it’s OK to have private dining sheds and private concession stands under the watch of the DOT on public streets? There once was a time when voices of the community were respected. Now, it seems that our local officials are learning a lot from right wing republicans……..our way or no way. Is this not jumping on the bandwagon to autocracy?

  Comment added March 25, 2025 5:25pm

• Beverly Carroll

  I am astonished that there is proposed privatization of public space. The entire open street belongs to the community and needs to remain public space.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 6:03pm

• Nathawanya

  I can’t believe that the DOT continues to rob taxpayer’s money for their own gain. Now it is privatizing public space for their own little network friends! The City Council should be ashamed for passing the Open Streets and making it permanent. Covid emergency is long over and so should the Open Streets! The Open Streets closes off access for handicapped cars and emergency vehicles. People’s lives are at stake and all the DOT cares about is their self-serving agenda. I am furious.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 8:23pm

• Neighbors On Canal

  If anyone wants to experience the DOT’s vision for privatized Open Streets and public plazas.. come down to our neighborhood in Chinatown / LES / now called “Dimes Square,” where 100% of Open Streets seating belongs to the bars and restaurants. http://www.neighborsoncanal.com

  Two blocks of Canal Street are closed off to traffic and emergency vehicles so private bars and restaurants can seat 300+ in the roadway, with zero seats for the public. You have to purchase a $16 cocktail to sit on your own street, or else private security hired by the restaurants will move you along.

  DOT also does not enforce its own rules, so our community is left to police these bars and restaurants that are in constant violation of almost every single DOT rule, local law, and common decency.

  Do not let this amendment pass – its is a poorly disguised land grab by the DOT and its lobbyists.

  See attachment for a glimpse of the future of your neighborhood if this amendment passes.

  Comment attachment
  Photos-from-a-Privatized-Open-Streets.pdf

  Comment added March 26, 2025 11:07am

• Jacob White

  Taking public spaces and reappropriating them for private business is a move in the opposite direction of where we should be headed. If we pass legislation reappropriating private spaces such as cafe’s and restaurant seating areas for public unpaid usage, it should equally be met with outrage. Public land is for the public.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 11:41am

• Mitchell A Grubler

  I am opposed to any further privitizing of public streets/plazas. Open streets and pedestrian plazas should be widely open to the general public without any exclusions. It is enough that DOT has privatized countless curb lanes with permitted sheds. Enough is enough.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 12:02pm

• ML

  STOP THE PRIVATE TAKEOVER OF PUBLIC STREETS
  This is a violation of the ADA and NYC/NYS Human Rights Laws.

  The proposed changes to NYC’s pedestrian plazas and open streets will:

  Privatize public space by allowing businesses to take a huge portion of public space for exclusive dining or seating areas

  Block accessible pathways, creating unsafe or impassable routes for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility aids

  Make it harder for people with disabilities to get picked up or dropped off safely

  Exclude those who can’t afford to be paying customers from using public spaces that are supposed to be open to all

  Fail to provide adequate alternatives or accessible routes when space is restricted or altered

  These rule changes don’t promote equity — they promote and profits over people.
  Public streets must remain public, open, and accessible to everyone, not carved up for commercial gain.

  Let’s be clear:

  Public space is not a luxury — it’s a right.

  Accessibility is not optional — it’s the law.

  This isn’t progress — it’s privatization.
  Stop these rule changes now — before they start. This is outrageous!

  Comment added March 26, 2025 1:55pm

• Michael McFadden

  Open Streets and Public Plaza’s – should remain exactly so.
  Private interests are not public interests.
  So simple.
  For the good of all not the few.
  This must not be allowed to move forward.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 2:40pm

• WW

  I’m beyond disgusted that such a rule would even see the light of day. Keep public spaces PUBLIC! Anything granting exclusivity is ripe for corruption. A public agency funded by taxpayers should never be able to give away public space to private concessionaires! A rule like this is a detriment to the community and open street serves. Please record this writing as a strong opposition to the proposed rule.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 3:06pm

• LaShaun

  Just absolutely disgusting that everything is for sale in this damn city. We, the tax paying residents, have to constantly fight for our space on this city, too many give away to corporations. It’s outrageous.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 5:36pm

• Glenn Dewar

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several specific ways, particularly in relation to equal access for individuals with disabilities. Here’s a breakdown of how the amendments may violate ADA requirements:
  1. Reduction in Accessible Pathways and Routes
  • ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, all public spaces, including sidewalks and streets, must provide clear, unobstructed paths for individuals with disabilities. These paths must allow for safe navigation and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters.
  • Violation Potential: The proposed rule allows subconcessionaires to designate up to 33% of the pedestrian plaza or open street for exclusive seating areas (and up to 50% if a major concession is approved). If this seating area is placed in a way that obstructs the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduces the available space for accessible routes, it could violate ADA regulations. The restriction of space for general public use may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate these areas safely. For example, if exclusive seating blocks an accessible path or creates narrow, crowded spaces, individuals with mobility impairments may be unable to navigate these public spaces effectively or safely.
  2. Inadequate Access to Drop-Off Zones and Car Access
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA mandates that transportation hubs, including street curbs and car drop-off zones, must be accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the provision of clear, wide access for vehicles that transport people with mobility impairments.
  • Violation Potential: The proposed amendment could reduce or restrict access to areas traditionally used for car drop-off zones, particularly near residential buildings, businesses, or community spaces. Exclusive seating areas could extend into these zones, effectively blocking drop-off points or creating obstacles for accessible parking. This could make it harder for people with disabilities who rely on private transportation or taxis to access their destinations, violating the ADA’s accessibility guidelines for transportation.
  3. Obstruction of Sidewalks and Public Right of Way
  • ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, public sidewalks and pedestrian areas must be clear of physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from moving freely. This includes maintaining a minimum clear width for pathways that can accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
  • Violation Potential: Designating exclusive seating areas for patrons of subconcessions could narrow the available space for pedestrians, especially if these seating areas encroach on already limited sidewalk space. Such a reduction in the available width for public movement could make it impossible for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers to pass through, violating ADA requirements for accessible pedestrian pathways. For example, if a pedestrian plaza or open street is used for exclusive dining areas, individuals with disabilities might find themselves forced to navigate around tightly packed seating, leading to potential safety hazards or difficulty accessing their destinations.
  4. Exclusion of People with Disabilities from Privately Designated Areas
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to services, including outdoor dining or seating areas, if those services are offered to the general public.
  • Violation Potential: If businesses are granted the ability to reserve exclusive areas for patrons (up to 33% or 50% of the space), individuals with disabilities who are not patrons or who cannot afford to dine at these venues could be excluded from accessing public space. This creates a situation where public spaces (i.e., pedestrian plazas and open streets) are privatized and inaccessible to people who may need the space for socializing, resting, or simply passing through. It could be argued that this discriminates against people with disabilities, who might find themselves unable to access these public spaces if they are blocked off for exclusive use by paying customers.
  5. Potential Disruption of Community and Recreational Activities
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public spaces be designed to provide equal access to recreational and social opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Public plazas and open streets often serve as spaces for community activities, some of which may be specifically targeted at people with disabilities (e.g., outdoor fitness classes, art displays, or events).
  • Violation Potential: By restricting up to half of a public space for exclusive dining or seating areas, the proposed rule could severely limit the available room for community-based recreational activities. People with disabilities who rely on public spaces for recreation might find fewer accessible options, especially if the spaces they depend on are now privatized or used for commercial purposes, violating the ADA’s intent to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in public life.
  6. Failure to Provide Equal Alternatives
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that alternative accessible routes or accommodations be provided when public spaces are altered or restricted in a way that limits access.
  • Violation Potential: If exclusive seating areas reduce the amount of available space for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, the amended rule does not specify whether adequate alternative routes will be provided. If alternative routes are not clearly marked or are difficult to access, this could violate the ADA, as people with disabilities would have no choice but to navigate spaces that are difficult or impossible to use.
  Summary of ADA Violations:
  • Obstruction of accessible pathways and drop-off zones.
  • Exclusion from public spaces due to exclusive, commercial seating.
  • Inadequate provision of accessible routes for people with disabilities.
  • Failure to provide adequate alternatives when public spaces are privatized or reduced.
  The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating the ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 5:30am

• Rachel Knopf

  This is giving public space to private entities. I do not support this. The space should be shared. Bicyclists and pedestrians should be able to enjoy closed streets / plazas as well as people eating outside. We don’t have enough parks and public plazas as it is. People will respond with anger and the sentiment that this feels like Republicans giving public goods to rich private corporations. Bad look, City Council.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 11:54am

• Steven Rose

  I absolutely disagree with this proposal.

  Our Open Streets is a community need and public service funded by tax payer moneys.

  The argument that this encroachment by private organizations is needed to cover certain organizing and admin costs is a bad faith argument, betraying the original purpose of our efforts to create a new PUBLIC space.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 12:12pm

• Maria Hoffman

  Unbelievable that this is even being considered. This voter does not support any swaths of our public space to be made exclusive for any private entities.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 12:24pm

• Kathy Farren

  I live on an area that is all residential. That is an open street area. How will this work in our area? We don’t allow people to sell stuff in our parks now you want to set up vendors on the closed/open streets. Missy if our plazas are by schools. Why would you want something like this across or in front of a school. Thought open streets was for recreation😡

  Comment added March 27, 2025 4:37pm

• Elizabeth Denys

  I support this rule change. Allowing restaurants and other establishments to use some of an open street or public plaza helps activate the streets. That activation makes them more inviting for all, including for non-commercial activity. It feels safer and invitational to me to use the open street or plaza, whether or not I’m patronizing one of these businesses to use it, when more people are around.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 9:06pm

• Deborah M. Farley

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several ways, particularly concerning equal access for individuals with disabilities. The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 11:38pm

• Deborah M. Farley

  I’m beyond frustrated and enraged that such measures would be considered. Keep public spaces for the public. A public agency funded by taxpayers should never be able to give public space away to private concessionaires; that’s corruption! A ruling like this is a detriment to the community, especially our seniors and disabled. I strongly oppose the proposed rules.

  Comment added March 28, 2025 7:41pm

• Geoffrey Thomas

  I support the proposed rules change.

  Temporarily allowing a small portion of a street to be used as e.g. a seating area for a restaurant is not at all in conflict with the idea that the street is a public space for public benefit. If, say, a church rents out space for a community event or a wedding with an RSVP list, and the revenue goes to the upkeep of the church, nobody would say this conflicts with the mission of the church to be open to all to serve the public. It’s clear that this is a temporary, limited use and it in fact supports the mission to make sure the church has an operating budget. This rule works the same way. I appreciate the requirement that revenue must go towards upkeep of the open street or pedestrian plaza.

  The proposed rules limit the space used in this manner to at most one-third or potentially one-half of the available space on the open street (subject to DOT rules, i.e. quite possibly much less). Most of the streets near where I live have at least half of their space, often two-thirds (on one-way streets), as parking spaces, where once someone parks, that space is now for the exclusive use of that driver until they move their car – a common frustration for anyone trying to find parking. We all understand this is a normal part of actually making use of the street. I do not see why these rules are any different. If the streets were fully rented out so that one could not enter or traverse without being a paying customer, I would of course oppose this rule. But that is not what is being proposed.

  I look forward to this rule being implemented in open streets and pedestrian plazas near me!

  Comment added April 2, 2025 6:48pm

• PRIVATIZE OUR PUBLIC SPACE AT YOUR PERIL

  NO to seizing public space for elite selective exclusive use by a co-opted DOT continuing to take more and more ‘turf’ (to use gangster nomenclature!) for Lobbyists funded by those who buy and own the narrative.

  It brings to mind the enclosure acts in the 18th and 19th centuries in England, in which fields that were considered common property were privatized by the wealthy. And that reminds me of this bit of verse by ANONYMOUS:

  The law locks up the man or woman
  Who steals the goose from off the common
  But leaves the greater villain loose
  Who steals the common from off the goose.

  The law demands that we atone
  When we take things we do not own
  But leaves the lords and ladies fine
  Who take things that are yours and mine.

  The poor and wretched don’t escape
  If they conspire the law to break;
  This must be so but they endure
  Those who conspire to make the law.

  The law locks up the man or woman
  Who steals the goose from off the common
  And geese will still a common lack
  Till they go and steal it back
  — Anonymous, “The Goose and the Common”

  Comment added April 2, 2025 8:04pm

• La Sa

  No! A million times NO! New York City has too few public streets and plazas and those need to remain public!

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:22am

• Sharon F Katz

  Nope. Streets must by law be open to all and handicap accessible. We are witnessing enough land grab by the 1% in this City.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:45am

• Judi Polson

  NO to privatizing even portions of “Open Streets”. It’s in the name: “open”. New York City streets are not, and should not ever be, for anyone’s “exclusive use”. They are public spaces, built and maintained by public funds, and the public must be able to use *what *they* have paid for* at any time.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 10:25am

• Susan Rose

  I never thought I’d live to see the day when the city would to this degree barter away the public realm to private corporations in order to profiteer at the expense of the tax-paying citizens of New York. The DOT instead of filling potholes and repairing streets to keep the public safe, as well as protect that public from the reckless, unregulated e-bike riders they promote on behalf of delivery and bike share companies has instead become a broker for private enterprise and their lobbyists. The question is “who benefits?” This is just one more example of the conflict of interest of this “government” agency. Increasingly they seem too enjoy policies to shut the public out!
  This is a terrible idea that I believe sits at the core of why pedestrian plazas were created in the first place. The long game was to privatize them removing from the public the very streets beneath their feet. If this is to be the future then why pay the incredibly high taxes New Yorkers pay? We should demand a reduction in our property taxes as our streets, our parks, our sidewalks are sold to the highest bidder. And in fact it has already been discussed.
  That’s one of the reasons why we need a new Mayor and Administration in the upcoming election. The DOT needs to stop working for private interests
  over the citizens of NY.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 11:23am

• Born in NYC

  NO, NOBODY WANTS PEDESTIAN PLAZAS, PRIVITIZED PUBLIC STREETS, OR OPEN STREETS. GOT TO A PARK. LET THE PEOPLE OF NYC VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, GUARANTEED THE MAJORITY WANTS NONE OF THIS.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 11:52am

• DCC

  As a long-time NYC resident, I am strongly opposed to the privatization of our streets. I’m appalled that such a rule would even be proposed. This is a violation of the ADA and the NYC/NYS human rights.
  laws. No, no, and no, again.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 4:50pm

• Mary Taylor

  How extraordinary this is. The citizens’ public space has been usurped since open restaurants came about and now this irresponsible agency wants an amendment to establish the absolute take over by private business. Completely undemocratic.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 5:01pm

• Robert Lee

  No

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:07pm

• Nicole Parcher

  I am opposed to this amendment. Public spaces should not be restricted to only those patronizing a private establishment. These spaces should be open to all. New York taxpayers do not support privatizing public space!

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:08pm

• Shannon Phipps

  No to privatizing public property. BIDS, coalitions, lobbyist adjacent groups, non-profits and DOT partners have not demonstrated an ability to respect or observe residential quality of life issues. They have laughed at and harassed our disabled neighbors. NO MORE PRIVATIZING PUBLIC SPACE – PEOPLE OVER PROFITS. This will create more environmental pollution and waste in addition to an increase in quality of life issues that arise from having entertainment and crowds of people outside ones windows.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:23pm

• Danny

  As a NYC resident and public land owner I join the voices of my fellow public land owners and reject this proposal. DOT is a public servant, you work for the public, not private entities. We refuse to give our public land to self-dealing interests and for-profit businesses for revenue generation.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:59pm

• Dylan Yen

  Absolutely not. NYC DOT’s proposal to amend Title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York—allowing plaza and Open Streets partners to designate areas of public space for *exclusive* use by private entities—is betrayal of the very principles of public property.

  Pedestrian Plazas and *publically owned streets* are meant to be shared—places where anyone, regardless of background or means, can sit, gather, or simply pass through without being excluded. Allowing sections of these public spaces to become “pay-to-play” zones fundamentally undermines their purpose and violates the public trust.

  This act of stealth privitization enables corporate actors and thier lobbyists to fence off seats, tables, or prime street frontage for paying customers only, while pushing out the people these spaces were meant to serve––the general public. New York’s public streets and plazas must not become the food courts for the highest bidder. Allowing privatized “exclusive use” zones creates a two-tiered system—where the rich dine behind velvet ropes and snap instagram pictures while others are shuffled to the margins or denied access entirely to a public street. This will exacerbate existing inequities in public space access and contribute to further gentrification of public infrastructure.

  Additionally, this amendment relies on DOT “review and approval”. However, recent DOT “pilots” (i.e. Canal St, East Village) show that once privatization is permitted, oversight is lax, and enforcement is inconsistent at best. How will DOT ensure that these exclusive zones are clearly marked and not allowed to monopolize high-traffic areas? How will it ensure that public access is not denied or blocked? The risks are too high, and the DOT’s track record too spotty, to rely on vague promises of oversight while serving thier lobbyist masters.

  If allowed, this amendment sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s a few tables in a plaza. Tomorrow, it’s entire sections of streets, parks, or sidewalks being claimed for exclusive commercial use. This incremental privatization threatens to transform New York’s public spaces––owned by the public––into private enclaves reserved for the exclusive use of the rich.

  The streets belong to everyone, not just those who can afford a latte or a reservation. This proposal is an affront to the spirit of equity that our public spaces are supposed to embody. DOT must withdraw this proposed amendment of subletting public streets for the “exclusive” use for anyone.

  The city deserves better, and I will not stand for it.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:07pm

• Chris Dorado

  Please do not fill open streets with more business, as the amount of noise and disturbance to local traffic is already too much to bear. Thank you

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:13pm

• Ramona Rivera

  This is out of hand. Enough is Enough already. Noooooo

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:34pm

• John Bigolski

  This is a violation of the public commons to give private for-profit entities access to public streets in such a brazenly unchecked way. Do not turn NYC into a resort hybrid of Disney World/Las Vegas/Dubai. New Yorkers that live, work, and raise families here DO NOT WANT THIS! NO!

  Comment added April 3, 2025 10:28pm

• Chris

  I am against any proposal to privatize any part of open streets to subconcessionaries for their exclusive use and monetary benefit.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 11:19am

• Nancy Barsamian

  This cannot be allowed to move forward as it is
  yet another means by which our streets will be
  made into tourist venues.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 2:24pm

• Kellan Stanner

  I support this rule and expect that, as with everything else, citizens will be able to provide feedback to DOT implementation vis-a-vis their elected officials. Doing so will allow concessionaires to activate city streets, support the local economy, and add to tax revenues, in something closer to the invigorated streets we saw during COVID. It is unfortunate this has become the latest NIMBY obsession.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 8:05pm

• PLC

  Overall, plaza concessions are a welcome amenity that make NYC open spaces active and welcoming. Outdoor dining, which the City sadly squashed along curbs, was popular and enjoyable. I hope that DOT will focus this rule on truly local, small business concessions. You should also consider adding non-reserved seating wherever you reserve for businesses. And I implore you to explore building public restroom amenities to large plazas and open spaces as well.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 10:17pm

• Nancy Preston

  NO!

  Comment added April 5, 2025 11:00am

• Matthew Berman

  This program stinks and should be ended. The “open streets” are dirty, noisey nuisances that impede traffic flow, destroy businesses and jobs, and limit everyone’s ingress and egress via throughstreets, which is especially disruptive to the disabled and to those who are dependent upon emergency vehicles.

  Comment added April 5, 2025 3:35pm

• Deborah M. Farley

  Why do people object to this?
  You obstruct the accessibility to pathways and drop-off zones.
  You actually exclude people from public spaces while granting exclusive access and special considerations to commercial interests
  Failure to provide/make adequate provisions for accessibility to routes for people with disabilities and first responders.

  Comment added April 5, 2025 3:56pm

• Lydia korchow

  DOT should not allow special interests to close streets and be at the will of lobbyists! I am a senior citizen who was almost hit twice recently by an e-bike while carefully walking on Berry St in Brooklyn! The open street concept is dangerous and violates ADA!

  Comment added April 5, 2025 4:33pm

• Esther Blount

  Private business non-profits or any one should never be allowed to closed down streets. When streets are closed traffic studies should be done. If this is allowed any politically connected entity would have more of a say then the community.

  Comment added April 5, 2025 6:53pm

• Bill Bruno

  I’ll start by saying that I absolutely support Open Streets. We need more of them. Our 34th Avenue Open Street (aka “Paseo Park”) is one of the crown jewels of the program. I am also a huge admirer of the work that is being done on Broadway and would like to see the entire length of it from Columbus Circle to Union Square to be bikes/pedestrians only.

  However much I want to encourage concessionaires (local eateries, etc) and street vendors to have space to set up as part of a balanced allocation of space, I am opposed to the idea of allowing them to fence off space that would be exclusive to their customers. This cuts against the idea of open streets being a truly public space and raises the real possibility of private actors buying off space intended for pedestrians.

  This is different from allowing roadside restaurants, which are also paid for. The curb lane is dominated by free storage for personal vehicles, so it’s already being permitted to be privatized by the user-of-the-moment, and there is no injustice in some of the curb lane being shared with uses other than car storage.

  There is, however, not such an abundance of pedestrian-friendly space that we can allow a similar scheme with open streets/plazas.

  Comment added April 6, 2025 10:27am

• Joe Essig

  Are you kidding? FOR SHAME! UNACCEPTABLE!
  Turning public streets into private space for concession customers? That’s not even done in our public PARKS.
  The history is disturbing coming right out of previous mayoral emergency powers misused during covid, including shameless rhetoric of “giving the streets back to the people”. The interests of original residents of Berry St – for example- against the rights of whom exactly? During the last open street celebration which closed Berry St adjacent school yards and parks with ample space and restrooms lay empty!
  Emily Gallagher and Transportation Alternatives are railroading seniors and the disabled out of their rights to: street cleaning, emergency services of all kinds including access-a-ride and opposing Priscilla’s Law that attempts to reduce rather obvious danger of ebikes roaming the streets unlicensed and uninsured and unregulated by NYPD. Their sneaky underhanded rhetoric is fooling no one. They say traffic stops form ebikes would be used to harass minorities. Give me a break!!!
  Signed voting, taxpaying, property owner b. 1952

  Comment added April 6, 2025 10:53am

• elizabeth crawford

  With its defiance of ADA law and ageist and ableist practices, the DOT is attempting to take more public sidewalks and streets for designated exclusive seating; this is currently underway. We need to say NO! I am writing to express my support for the other communities facing this disastrous, dangerous, disruptive, and illegal takeover of our streets. Please stop this takeover immediately. I am against further structures and outside businesses in my neighborhood on any streets. And certainly not closing streets or redesigning new access areas that prevent reidents from safe deleivery of goods or repair persons or timely exit in emergencies.and add more crowded sidewalks .
  Elizabeth Crawford

  Comment added April 6, 2025 7:23pm

• Mary Caulfield Davis

  Taking streets away from the public so private enterprise can profit is a dreadful idea that should be beneath anyone in your organization. People have very few places to congregate anyway, giving it over to profit makers is a betrayal of disgusting proportions.

  Comment added April 6, 2025 9:43pm

• Ryan

  We do not support this proposal — DOT’s pedestrian plaza and open streets partners, through their concession agreements with DOT, to permit their subconcessionaires to designate areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for exclusive use by their patrons

  Public space is for public.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 8:25am

• Jee Park

  I think it’s awful that those private businesses have used public space for their own benefit. I would rather they pay

  Comment added April 7, 2025 9:45am

• Inwood Owners Coalition

  Our group represents over 500 Inwood residents. We have concerns over this rule change that must be addressed in order for it to have the positive impact that the city intends.

  Our neighborhood is home to Quisqueya Plaza, one of the very few DOT pedestrian plazas in the entire city that is within a residential area. The overlay commercial zoning near the plaza is limited to ground floor low-intensity retail only (i.e. stores, bars and restaurants); thousands of apartments are above the plaza and nearby.

  For many years our neighborhood dealt with the massive negative impacts of La Marina, a city concession on public parkland that despite having a very clear concession agreement managed to grossly violate it year after year with outrageous illegal acts. La Marina was only a few blocks west of Quisqueya Plaza. The fact that the new private dining use relies on the concession process therefore does not give us much comfort.

  The commercial zoning along Quisqueya Plaza has also been regularly ignored over the years, with many Use Group 6 restaurants turning into Use Group 12 nightclubs on weekends. Again the city has ignored its own rules, allowing a nightlife use to occur in a residential area and causing enormous tension with residents.

  The plaza itself has also been a problem with dozens of permitted events using intolerably loud sound systems that pounded nearby apartments with music practically every weekend and often on weeknights. Local NYPD do not bother to enforce sound permits or the noise code, again causing tensions with residents.

  For this rule change to have a positive impact it must be understood what hours and rules will apply to concessionaires and subconcessionaires and how those agreements will be enforced. It cannot be an act of legalizing a nuisance that makes life miserable for residents because of noise and disturbance. Hours must be limited, no amplified music should be allowed and violations for exceeding square footage or any other issue should be enforceable without interference from the politically-connected plaza operator or local politicians.

  Inwood has long been a neighborhood where the city’s rules are often ignored. The development of new rules such as this can be helpful, but only if the rules make sense for everyone and are actually enforced.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 10:02am

• Howard Borst

  This area has become a problem for the neighborhood residents. Extremely loud music and PA systems at all hours have destroyed the peace of the neighborhood. Sometimes events as early as 8am and sometimes as late as midnight. So loud that it makes it difficult to feel comfortable in our own apartments. Even with our windows closed. Also extra traffic with cars blowing horns and also playing loud music and motor cycles reving their engines are a common occurrence and the police do nothing. This is a family oriented neighborhood with elderly people and families with small children. This plaza is ruining the peace and quiet of this community. It should be turned back into parking spaces. If people need these types of events in our neighborhood The western end of dyckman street down by the Hudson River is the perfect spot for these loud affairs far from the homes of the residents.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 11:09am

• Melissa S.

  Hello!
  I am a resident of inwood and oppose the proposal to allow concession use of Quisqueya Plaza. There are very few open spaces where one can go sit to just exist without having to purchase anything or worry about being run over by bikes or mopeds.
  The restaurants and bars have plenty of seating indoors and even on our sidewalks! They don’t need the extra space of our plaza as well.
  Please keep Quisqueya plaza available as an open street for the neighborhood to enjoy. We love the events and food strolls that are able to take place here. These would be hindered if papasitos or mamasushi had tables in the area.

  Thank you for your time and attention.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 11:17am

• Eugene Murphy

  I don’t believe public plazas should be able to be leased to private businesses. Already, too many businesses in my neighborhood, Inwood, block off massive parts of public plazas (especially Quisqueya plaza) with massive metal police barricades, despite this currently being illegal. If it gets legalized, this will only encourage them to go further and will take away any recourse of the community to use this public space at all. Public plazas should be able to be used in their entirety for free, anything else robs the public of the right to public space without paying, which would be a travesty. Keep public space usable by all! Don’t restrict our freedom of movement in the public realm. Thank you

  Comment added April 7, 2025 12:01pm

• Darren Lucas

  The Inwood plaza is a disaster zone. The business owners DO NOT CARE about the well being of the neighborhood. The are hooked up with Yandis. Its all drug money FYI. they are all criminals

  Comment added April 7, 2025 1:51pm

• Ian Valerio

  We do not agree to the privatization of public spaces. They come at the cost of displacing the citizens for whom these spaces are designated. Further privatization does not supply the necessary bathrooms, parking spaces and proper infrastructure to support their customer base and the free public. Simply put neighborhoods such not me further inconvenienced as their is no real net financial benefit to this failed experiment. See the Chinatown situation circle summer 2024.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 4:15pm

• Ben Epstein

  This is an absurdly blatant move to steal free public space for private companies and reeks of corruption by anyone at the DOT who would put this forward. This plan does not serve the general public, but instead only benefits private businesses. More importantly, it is not at all the intent of these spaces, or public resources in general. It is antithetical to the description of these spaces on the DOT website:
  “Pedestrian plazas are reclaimed streets transformed into vibrant, social public spaces for all to enjoy. Plazas enhance safety, walkability, and access to public transit while supporting community.”

  Comment added April 7, 2025 4:17pm

• NYC Born & Raised

  Re Rules Title 34: Giving PUBLIC space on Plazas and Open Streets to private concerns is a terrible idea. Open Streets that have “hosted” vendors see a drop in quality of life. Ask the residents of Tompkins/ Lewis Ave in Bed Stuy Brooklyn who had to contend with visitors not just littering but even defecating and urinating in front of their homes. Events bring noise and trash. A DJ set up his professional equipment on Fowler Square in Fort Greene BK every Sunday for years in the warm weather. (I hope he won’t return now.)The noise levels were deafening and could be heard for blocks. People live here. Babies nap. Children do homework. Many now work remotely not just Monday – Friday. Many elderly neighbors are virtually trapped in their apartments and are subjected to relentless noise. This is a land-grab putting business over residents. Public space is for the public.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 7:00pm

• Erica Medrano

  This would be great if the parks department was in charge of this area, the police barricades were completely removed (what an eye sore), and have open seating benches/picnic tables for the public regardless of where they get their food from.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 7:50pm

• Ramona M Candy

  Is DOT actually proposing privatization/apartheid/gated public streets in NYC? What ever happened to their “public” plazas? Some of us never wanted the (so-called) workshopped-named (who did you think you were kidding?) “open streets.” We are New Yorkers and very accustomed to walking on sideWALKS all these donkey years – and at least for me, my whole life. Now, to add insult to injury, DOT is proposing that private businesses may set up customer-only seating on OUR streets??? Are you all kidding???? No, seriously? Are you kidding?? Even some of the advocates of so-called open streets are not happy (boo hoo). I live by a (so-called) open street in the vicinity of one beautiful, large park and several open sidewalk areas yet I have to bother with a (so-called) open street 8 blocks long. The closure causes ridiculous traffic on local streets. Who is DOT trying to fool? Again, we are New Yorkers. We are not stupid! We want our streets back!!!! Next thing you know walls will be built around these streets to simulate and create elitist gated communities and we will move just that much closer to apartheid in New York City. No money. No access!! New York City — going to the rats and the rich!

  Comment added April 7, 2025 10:41pm

• R Candy

  Is DOT actually proposing privatization/apartheid/gated public streets in NYC? What ever happened to public plazas? Some of us never wanted the (so-called) workshopped-named (who did you think you were kidding?) “open streets.” We were so accustomed to walking on sideWALKS all these donkey years – at least for me, my whole life. Now, to add insult to injury, DOT is proposing that private businesses may set up customer-only seating on OUR streets??? Are you all kidding???? No, seriously? Are you kidding?? Even some of the advocates of so-called open streets are not happy (boo hoo). I live by a (so-called) open street in the vicinity of one beautiful, large park and several open sidewalk areas yet I have to bother with a (so-called) open street 8 blocks long. Who is DOT trying to fool? We are New Yorkers. We are not stupid! We demand our streets back!!!! Next thing you know walls will be built around these streets to simulate and create elitist gated communities and we will move just that much closer to apartheid in New York City. No money. No access!! New York City — going to the rats and the rich!

  Comment added April 7, 2025 10:41pm

• A. Gerver

  Overall, I am in favor of Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets welcoming sub-concessions. I am glad that they will be limited to 33% of the available area in most cases. That’s a good rule.

  Why am I in favor? Because outdoor dining is an important part of city living throughout the world and it should be more available year-round here in NYC. I hope that that DOT focuses this rule on truly local, small business concessions, rather than large chains.

  You should also: (1) consider adding non-reserved seating wherever you reserve seats and tables for businesses (there aren’t enough places for people to sit down and rest in this city); (2) make sure that containerized trash receptacles are in place and used to reduce littering and rat feasts; (3) PLEASE explore adding public restroom amenities to large plazas and open spaces as well; and (4) use some of the money raised to plant more trees (in large pots) and other greenery in the Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets. Some of them are in areas mostly devoid of trees and it would be nice to get more greenery around, both to cool down the concrete jungle and to clean the air a bit.

  I also expect, of course, that ADA rules and access for all will be maintained when sub-concessions set up their areas.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 11:40pm

• JEANETTE E BECK-HARRELL

  This is another poorly thought out idea DOT has decided for the “public” NO! to giving already scarce public spaces to private business. Most of these so-called open spaces are in densely populated communities who never asked for our roadways to be shut down or turned into rodent infested, noise polluted, shanty towns. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
  This voter will remember.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 12:53am

• Ivy

  This is outrageous.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 6:52am

• Anna Pakman

  As someone disabled and high risk for COVID, I can only eat at restaurants outdoors. In addition, so many interiors are severely lacking in wheelchair accessibility so outdoor dining is more accessible all around. I’m in favor of anything that makes it easier for restaurants to offer outdoor dining as I need it as an ADA accommodation.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 8:55am

• Deborah Farley

  This program should be ended. The open streets program results in dirty, littered streets, noisy crowds and street vendors that impede traffic flow and delay first responders. The program negatively impacts local businesses and their employees. The barriers limit or eliminate
  accessibility for the handicapped and seniors which is especially disruptive creating hardships.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 10:22pm

• Flatiron NoMad Partnership

  Since our founding in 2006, the Flatiron NoMad Partnership has helped transform our bustling and diverse neighborhood into vibrant and shared places for residents, commuters, visitors, and an ever-growing business network. Part of our daily work includes the management, maintenance, and programming of not only the Flatiron Public Plazas at the iconic intersection of 23rd Street, Broadway, and Fifth Avenue since their inception in 2008, but also public spaces and seating areas from 19th Street to 31st Street in support of the City’s Broadway Vision initiative.

  The Flatiron NoMad Partnership supports the NYC Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession customers. Concession revenue assists the Partnership in recouping a small portion the ongoing expenses of maintaining plazas and seating areas to a high standard which includes daily deployment of public tables, chairs, and shade umbrellas along with delivering seasonal cultural programming and curating public art installations.

  The proposed rule changes also support local businesses through potential concession opportunities. All monies raised through concessions are reinvested back into the plazas to help ensure that all who visit, live, or work in Flatiron and NoMad can enjoy clean, safe, engaging, and inviting public spaces.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Comment added April 9, 2025 4:48pm

• Ron Wisniski

  More public space given up for private profit? Hell no! I’d like to know who is getting paid off to continue selling our public space to the highest bidder. DOT HAS WRECKED OUR STREETS. ITS A CHAOTIC NIGHTMARE. NO NO NO MORE!

  Comment added April 11, 2025 12:39pm

• DOT CREDIBILITY IS UNDER A MICROSCOPE

  Interesting… in reviewing the number of comments submitted-it seems that an overwhelming number has expressed outrage by the DOT’s scheme to amend Title 34 and seize publicly owned space to give for ‘exclusive’ use to subconcessionaires. It seems by contrast, the handful -strikingly few-who’re ‘all for it’- are either BIDs (aka businesses looking for profit-natch) or paid Lobbyists whose job it is to sanctimoniously rip off the public for their bosses-while telling us it’s perfectly fine for us to be screwed on the blocks where we live, pay rent, pay taxes and have been deprived of any pretext of quality of life.

  Now the DOT-whose credibility under this Commissioner- has long been under intense suspicion and dismay, will be tested further as the results of this public “Rules” weigh-in are decided after this hearing.

  Your credibility and deference to the majority who pay your salary, after all…are on the line and now under an intense microscope. We are watching.

  Comment added April 12, 2025 3:43pm

• Colin Adams

  Strongly disagree with this modification. We should avoid this privatization creep on public spaces as much as possible. There is an overwhelming lack of public seating in our city, and this change can only stand to further set us back in that respect.

  Comment added April 12, 2025 9:28pm

• Lisa O

  First – An absolute No to this proposal.
  An absolute No to private or “non-profit” interests or entities or organizations having any designated use or control of streets and/or space.

  Second – This proposal is truly unbelievable. Sounds like something that the GOP would seek!

  Third- Noise and trash are the biggest complaints from NYC residents.
  It is inconceivable that the City would seek to make things worse for residents!
  Residents who live by outdoor restaurants and open streets already have problems not being able to sleep at night (amplified music, noise etc) and dealing with trash and rats which result from outdoor dining and street events.
  As for noise, the NYPD which is already overburdened with these QOL responsibilities, would have no ability to address private entities who would have the “control.”

  Fourth – Open Streets and pedestrian areas are hurting local stores that pay rent and employ people and contribute to the neighborhood. Open Streets means more street vendors, more competition for local stores.

  Fifth – No one knows about this proposal. I only heard from a neighborhood acquaintance. The City must be aware that only people connected to community boards etc would be aware. And how about elderly who likely would not find it easy to access technology to comment?
  It is unacceptable for the City to be doing business this way.
  Again – sounds like GOP methodology.

  Comment added April 13, 2025 3:14pm

• Matthew Kebbekus

  I’d like to register my support for the proposed rule. Open Streets is a program that has proven vital to the cultural well-being of the city, helping to make streets more accessible to pedestrians consistent with the great global cities with which it competes. This rule helps to assert the rights of people over car traffic, which has the effect of making the city safer for pedestrians, less polluted by traffic and exhaust, and more accessible to people who don’t have the benefit of owning or affording private vehicle transport. Please vote in favor of the proposed rule!

  Comment added April 16, 2025 4:06pm

• Pete Sarat

  This seems fine. Many objections bear no relation whatsoever to the actual language of the proposal. The real theft of public space is the one carried out every day by NYC’s large minority of entitled private vehicle owners.

  I also think it’s obvious that some “anti” commenters are using generative AI to generate giant blocks of text. Sad that this is the world we live in now.

  Comment added April 16, 2025 10:16pm

• emily johnson

  As the parent of a young child, Open Streets presents an opportunity for me to visit local restaurants without worrying whether my kid will sit still or bother other patrons. I also am far more likely to travel to another neighborhood for an Open Street than I would if the street were open to traffic. Open Streets is a joy. Please support this rule. Thank you.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 4:43am

• Pedro Rodriguez

  Given how open streets are still being ran by volunteers, it makes sense to give other entities an incentive to active them.

  I will say though that we should be careful up not create a situation where having an open street becomes yet another Clearview Fairs situation. Where local orgs use said fairs as a way to fundraiser money at the expense of local businesses.

  This rule should simply ensure that Open Street businesses and local orgs can use the space for themselves.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:06am

• Daniel B Miller

  This seems pretty reasonable to me. Thanks for your hard work on this rule.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:23am

• Alana

  This is not the best idea for this. The idea is for it to be open for all to enjoy. If allowed to start privatizing sections, this goes against what the open street stands for. It is a place, a third place, where you do not have to spend money to be there and can jive with your community. To allow a business to take up some of that space and require purchases to sit in their section doesn’t make sense.

  If they want to set up chairs outside of thier businesses that is fine but it can’t be both part of the open street space for the public and exclusionary to folks who haven’t bought anything from the business. They can only be allowed to be exclusionary with the spaces, both indoor and outdoor, that they own or rent.

  Spaces that are publicly owned and set aside for the pedestrian plaza and open street must not be allowed to be privatized at all.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:50am

• Pedro Suarez

  My name is Pedro Suarez and I am Executive Director of the Third Avenue Business Improvement District in the South Bronx, since 1988, we have worked to improve and promote “The HUB” – the oldest and busiest commercial district in the Bronx.

  Third Avenue BID supports the Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession kiosk customers. As an organization that helps maintain, program, and support Roberto Clemente Plaza, we understand that kiosks are crucial components in curating vibrant public spaces. In addition to providing services to visitors of a space, these concessions are one way for the BID to help recoup the expense of maintaining these plazas for the enjoyment of the public at large.

  Currently, however, operating a concession can be a huge risk for businesses. Allowing these establishments to operate small areas tailored specifically towards their clientele is an investment not just in individual businesses, but for public space at large as it enhances the feasibility of such an endeavor and allows for visitors to enjoy a tailored experience while balancing the right of the public to enjoy the remainder of the pedestrian plaza. Additionally, Roberto Clemente Plaza and the local community would heavily benefit from allowing small businesses to use the space productively, as we struggle with severe quality of life concerns in the plaza.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:09am

• Peter W. Beadle

  I am a bit hesitant to support this. I get the justification behind it – encourage outdoor dining options and perhaps through that make public spaces more alive and used adding positively to the streetscape and community – but I think a lot of the negative comments I am seeing to this proposal raise valid concerns. One specific weakness in this proposed rule is that it does not specify that the seating is to be provided by the vendor. Under this rule a vendor can set up next to several existing benches or the seating (little round tables and folding chairs) we see on some Open Streets and claim that seating for their business, depriving the public of what had previously been public seating. I do not think that is right. Any exclusive seating should be in addition to what is already present and available to the public and that cost should be borne by the vendors.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:19am

• Taina Prado

  My name is Taina Prado. I am the Chief of Staff for the Alliance for Downtown New York, the business improvement district organization for the area south of the Brooklyn Bridge to the Battery.

  The Alliance supports the NYC Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive seating of concession kiosk customers. As the non-profit organization that manages the Lower Manhattan Business Improvement District, we maintain and beautify several public spaces and understand the value these spaces can have in creating a vibrant streetscape for those who live, work, and visit.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:36am

• Kevin Burns

  I support this! Anything to make our city more friendly and accessible for the people!
  This will make the streets more attractive for consumers and the businesses will have to clean up setup by the end of day.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 10:06am

• M N

  I support the intent, but not the wording, of the rule. DOT has failed thus far to secure sufficient funding for seating on open streets. This ruling is an adequate remedy for that issue for now – it will provide open street partners with the flexibility to work with businesses to secure seating that otherwise would not have been fundable.

  However, DOT needs to commit wholeheartedly to the due diligence needed to ensure that permit requests are rejected in situations where seating will be limited, not improved. And to bolster this commitment, the rule’s wording should be amended to include a requirement for permitting that the seating must either be newly established for private use or additional public seating must be provided elsewhere in the area to compensate for the reduction of previously public seating.

  Privately owned pedestrian plazas should also be excluded from this ruling. Establishments maintaining public plazas accept the costs associated with them because they are afforded the privilege of taking up public space via zoning bonuses and increased property value & branding/goodwill. Any necessary additional benefits should be negotiated without reducing public space.

  If DOT mitigates risks to public space with some additive amendments, this ruling would be really worthy of rallying support behind it.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 1:11pm

• Jay Cullen

  I’m glad to see the City of New York considering new ways to use our streets. Open Streets has been a massive success in my Brooklyn neighborhood and so I support this expansion. For our neighborhood, it’s been a blessing to have safe spaces to walk our dogs, strollers, and children. We used to have some unlicensed vendors who would sell things during the farmer’s market, which was lovely, but I understand why the City could not continue to allow it. But it sounds like this would be a way to make the practice legal, which sounds great to me.

  I’m looking forward to living a more human-centered community as I raise my family here.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 3:55pm

• Liz Krueger

  My name is Liz Krueger and I represent the 28th State Senate District, which includes the Upper East Side, Midtown, and Roosevelt Island neighborhoods in Manhattan. Parts of my district contain some of the lowest ratio of public park space per capita in Manhattan, and there is no question that many of my constituents suffer from a serious deficiency of open space, a problem that many New Yorkers face across the five boroughs.

  I am writing to express my concern regarding NYC DOT’s proposal to amend title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York. This rule change would allow a significant portion of our Open Streets and pedestrian plazas, between 33% and 50% of the total square footage of a specific location, to be leased to private subconcessionaires for exclusive use as seating for their customers. I am opposed to the privatization of New York City’s extremely limited public spaces, and believe that this would allow businesses to take a disproportionate amount of land for their own use at the expense of the public.

  If this proposal were amended so that seating is not reserved for the exclusive use of patrons of private businesses, and is open to non-customers as well, as is the case with Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS), perhaps a case could be made for such a rule change. However, handing over a disproportionate share of our Open Streets and pedestrian plazas for exclusive use by the patrons of a private business is an infringement on the ability of all New Yorkers to fully enjoy their public spaces.

  It is my understanding that the money raised through this privatization would go into the maintenance of the pedestrian plaza or Open Street where it is located. While I appreciate that funding for Open Streets was paid for with federal pandemic aid which will soon run out, I believe that instead of rushing to privatize it, NYC DOT should look for sustainable, public revenue sources to fund this program. DOT Chief of Staff Ryan Lynch said in a recent news interview that the agency could run Open Streets with $5 million a year. This seems like a realistic amount of money to be negotiated for out of New York City’s almost $112 billion budget.

  I should also add that the requirement to reinvest the funds raised back into pedestrian plazas and Open Streets is not explicitly included in the language of the proposed rule change, which leads me to believe that it will be difficult to enforce and could potentially result a worst-case scenario where we get lower than expected revenue, while sacrificing significant public space. This could lead to a long-term lack of proper maintenance and a degradation of pedestrian plazas and Open Streets, which would have a deleterious effect on their usage and ultimately harm both the public and businesses which operate within their boundaries.

  I again want to reiterate my opposition to this ill-considered privatization scheme and urge NYC DOT to instead work with the Mayor and the City Council to find a stable, long-term alternative funding source for Open Streets and pedestrian plazas.

  Comment attachment
  Senator-Krueger-comment-re-proposed-DOT-rule-change-for-pedestrian-plazas-and-Open-Streets.pdf

  Comment added April 17, 2025 4:40pm

• Kevin Qiu

  To everyone who is opposed to this proposal because of the “privatization” of public space. I ask you, will you let streets become pedestrianized 24/7, aka given over to the public realm if there is a corresponding ban on commercial activity on the street? If so, I would like to hear your proposal for which streets you recommend, distributed equally among all neighborhoods. I don’t suppose Neighbors on Canal or any of the other astroturfing groups would agree to pedestrianization without commercial activity. They simply oppose pedestrianization in any form, with or without commercial activity. The fact that restaurants and bars use them is an easy attack but they have no problem letting “private” vehicles use these streets (most of the time for free). At least I can pay 16$ for a drink to sit at a restaurant. I have no way to use the Land Rover that’s parked there 100% of time

  So I say to anyone opposed because of the privatization aspect, I’d like to see you advocate for public use of these streets (not by cars) in a non commercial way, I’m 100% with you.

  To everyone opposed because it takes away precious car space. You are wrong, a minority of people in NYC own cars, it is the most blatant privatization of private space in the history of urbanism. The majority of space being dedicated to cars is a sin we will slowly rectify. If you want to continue living in 1950 feel free to complain all you want or just leave. I hear Florida is real friendly to cars

  Comment added April 17, 2025 5:44pm

• Doug Beube

  Keep the streets open. If you want them to be more friendly, make more parks and stop squeezing the pedestrians into the streets.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:23pm

• Nialls Fallon

  I support the Open Streets program. As a resident and user of the Open Streets programs across the city, it has been a wonderful amenity to our neighborhoods, provided a car-free environment for pedestrians, cyclists and families, allowed for al fresco dining as many of the world’s greatest cities provide and allows for larger areas of public space for the community to gather in. Please vote in support of this new rule. I am also the Director of the Canal Street Merchants Association and can attest to how the Open Streets has improved our business district with trash cleanup, increased foot traffic and job creation. Please vote yes.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:05pm

• Mia S

  Definitely No for this proposal!
  Truly speechless that the City of NY would even consider such a thing!

  Related to “Open Streets” in general, it is absolutely unacceptable that the City has permitted “Open Streets” on bus routes, thereby forcing bus detours. It is one thing to have “Open Streets” on one block of a side street, but “Open Streets” should never ever have been permitted on an avenue.

  Should also be noted that since “Open Streets” was allowed due to Covid, there have been some days when there were parallel “Open Streets” and another event like a street fair – and so there was ZERO bus access.

  The City needs to end any “Open Streets” on a bus route/avenue.

  Public transit is supposed to be the priority.
  People need and are entitled to full regular MTA bus service.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:19pm

• Douglas McGrath

  This is outrageous. What’s next? City government turns streets and sidewalks into dirty, noisy, rat-infested dining shacks? Oh wait…! Our city is in a CODE RED crisis- overrun with greed, and thoughtlessness. SHAME on the DOT and legislators who think it’s a great idea privatizing our ever-dwindling public spaces. Follow the money. These decisions aren’t what’s best for New Yorkers, they are what’s best for those who continue to control the city with money for their own interests.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:39pm

• Mary McGuckin

  These amendments on Open Streets are not necessary. This was forced on our neighborhoods without the majority of those included in the decision, planning and implementation. Now you want to further disrupt the lives of those who live on open streets . We already live with chaos , congestion, noise, filth, illegal venders, e-bikes, families riding on one scooter, mopeds all zooming up and down the street, running red lights, ignoring safety rules. Now you want to add more to all this craziness, Enough! Every day people are put in peril. This has to stop! It is inhuman to subject the people who live with Open Streets out side their homes, to more of ones crazy radical ideas because they think it feels good! Why don’t you take the time and really hear those who are saying, NO! Listen to us! We live with this every day! Stop the Privatization of our Streets for the Trans Alt Biker Bros.
  DOT go back to representing all transportation.
  STOP BEING PUPPETS!
  STOP THIS MADNESS!

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:53pm

• Dm

  Love open streets love to see it

  Comment added April 17, 2025 10:52pm

• Maxine Lois DeSeta

  Public spaces maintained by NYC resident taxpayer dollars should not be used for private for-profit businesses. This included vendors, restaurants, citibikes and any corporate businesses. The Open Street program should be cancelled immediately. It closes streets and endangers our residents when emergeny vehicles, fire trucks and buses have to be rerouted.

  Comment added April 18, 2025 7:02am

• Dennis P Farley

  The “Open Streets” project is only acceptable to “Ableist” individuals that are willing to make life more difficult for the Disabled and Elderly residents that will have to make more difficult arrangements for their Doctors Visits or even shopping. People in Adult Day Care scenarios can’t be picked op or returned to their actual residences by Senior Services from Senior Centers, or even “Access a Ride” carriers because of the (really closed) “Open Streets”. Only selfish people appreciate “Open Streets” without regard nor respect of us Seniors.

  Comment added April 18, 2025 9:09am

• Proposed Rule Change Will Slow EMT/FDNY Access Even More

  Referring you to this just published article exposing the dangerous delays and statistics to timely EMT/FDNY access when everyone should and must agree that every second counts to save a life.

  To enable so-called “subconcessionaires” to privatize public pathways, and roadways with exclusive seating-to serve their own for-profit remunerative interests and then expect the DOT which has been deleterious in managing the 5 years of outdoor dining -as cited in lawsuits-to permit ANY further interference with quick rescue of all New Yorkers would be in and of itself flagrant malfeasance. Whose apartment is on fire and FDNY is diverted because of it? Whose loved one is having a heart attack and has to wait extra minutes to be taken to a hospital? Your apartment? Your loved one?

  Congregate seating on the street-overseen by a restaurant-3rd party ‘volunteer’ org-a BID (aka BUSINESS INTEREST) or the AWOL DOT are the LAST FOLKS I TRUST to worry about saving my life…how about you?

  AM NY Headline: “Critical condition: Why are NYC ambulance response times getting longer every day?”

  https://www.amny.com/nyc-transit/nyc-ambulance-response-times-slow/

  “Response times for NYC’s emergency medical services increased significantly so far in 2025, according to the city’s most recent data, with various possible reasons for the delays at play.

  The average FDNY ambulance response time for life-threatening medical emergencies this year is 12.35 minutes, alarmingly up from 11.87 minutes in 2024.

  The statistics get more chilling as the data is broken down month by month. The average emergency response time was 11.93 last month, up from 11.44 in March 2024.”

  Where is the line that is drawn when bureaucratic shenanigans take second place to genuine public good concerns?

  Comment added April 18, 2025 3:32pm

• M. HARI

  Well, my first comment is yet to be posted. Too much? Too bad! This privatization of publoc space is ludicrous and a spend of taxpayer money for PRIVATE BUSINESS PROFIT! Unless the businesses are planning to cut the public in on tjese profits? Just as with the ENORMOUS OPPOSITION to cargo bikes, 2023 Fall Zoom DOT meeting, where the dangerous idea was met with overwhelming opposition, Yda is and the mucdot STILL PUSHED THEIR CORRUPT AGENDA through. They ignore public majority on MOST ISSUES, CAUSES AND CONCERNS. Why? Who is on the take? Seriously!? Enough! This page if FULL OF OPPOSITION! CANT HAPPEN, RODRIGUEZ. YOU HEAR US?!

  Comment added April 18, 2025 11:38pm

• Jeremy S

  Like many others, I am shocked that the City would seek giving use or control of public space to specific organizations or private businesses.

  I am a life-long New Yorker (Bronx and Manhattan) and definitely against this.
  There are so many reasons and problems that it would not be possible to list all. Here are some:

  Obviously public space should not be run or controlled by a private organization. It is just wrong.

  Giving an entity this use is clearly unfair. For example, giving use to one restaurant gives special benefit to that one restaurant- no other restaurant gets such a perk.

  Again using restaurants as example. Outside dining is not an “entitlement “. In fact many people can’t afford to eat at any restaurant (inside or outside) – should we give those people discounts or funds so they can eat at restaurants?
  Make eating at restaurants an “entitlement “?

  The City already has major problems in addressing and controlling noise and garbage which seriously impact daily life. Given the City’s inability to manage noise and garbage so far, it is mind-boggling that the City seeks to make this situation even worse.

  BTW there are similar problems if the use is given to an “orgization”. Again, totally unfair in all ways. And no way that the City would ensure accountability, ensure there is no noise and no garbage.

  My family uses bus and subway.
  I am against pedestrian plazas and open streets generally but especially in Manhattan. Besides resulting in garbage , they make bus transit worse. The bus situation is bad enough when there are closures for street fairs or parades but even worse due to plazas and open streets.
  The City is supposed to be ensuring mass transit- not space for brunch for wealthy people.

  Comment added April 19, 2025 11:05am

• Darwin Yip

  I support this idea because it would revitalize areas that have been deserted due to the proliferation of cars, highways, and related infrastructures. By reclaiming land for people-centric activities instead of car use, we can bring back ‘third places’ where communities can gather. This would encourage social interaction, reduce crime, and help counter the rise of extremist ideologies, which often stem from social segregation and the toxic influence of social media. Think back to when we were kids— we could go out at dawn and return home at dusk. That’s no longer possible because of the dominance of cars and the disappearance of communal spaces. Today, children have fewer places to simply be kids and make lasting friendships. That’s why we need open streets and pedestrian plazas.

  Comment added April 19, 2025 8:43pm

• Nan

  I live on an open street (Avenue) in Queens and am appalled at your callous attempt to profit by selling off more of the limited peace we now have at home. We already suffer from this ill-conceived program smack in the middle of our residential-only (HA!) Avenue. Without additional permissions, we have to deal with special interest groups co-opting the street for activities one block from a playground and a school yard because they “need it”. We deal with music and noise incurred by activities in the middle of the street, side street shops running craft markets that spill onto the open street, and make it impossible to pass to get home, food vendors setting up illegally, parents throwing parties in the middle of the streets, day camp in the middle of the streets, bikes and e bikes with a high percentage of scary riders, and people sit for hours smoking right across from our windows. You would ticket this in any real green space. We need less, not more. I’ve watched the fire trucks and ambulances lose time, seen disabled and elderly neighbors struggle, and watched family investments drop. Do not sacrifice our sanity; listen to the people who live on these streets. Would you want to live in this hell that you’ve created? Should we all party outside your windows every week? Want to see a closed street that’s privately used with or without permission- I don’t know. Look at Diversity Plaza in Jackson Heights- it’s an embarrassment to all decent shop owners nearby who suffer from the stigma of it.

  Comment added April 19, 2025 11:34pm

• Mary

  The area is Jackson heights which was initially set up as a reprieve from the pandemic for those that needed FRESH air and space has now become so overcrowded. Messy chairs, street painting and vendors will make more congestion and noise pollution. Those with disabilities already have problems with mobility along the avenue.
  Those on 35th Ave have suffered with the 5 years xtra traffic polluting their buildings. Do not trust others to keep 34th Ave clean in exchange for business. It is a PUBLIC space. If city wants to keep area opened and car free , be responsible and be in charge of it! NO to proposing to amend title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York to authorize DOT’s pedestrian plaza and open streets partners, through their concession agreements with DOT, to permit their subconcessionaires to designate areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for exclusive use by their patrons subject to certain restrictions and the review and approval of DOT

  Comment added April 20, 2025 8:33am

• Jeremy S

  Hoping to be permitted to make another comment.

  Having read through comments again, there are some comments (understandably) from restaurants and BIDs.

  There is mention of the pedestrian plazas
  at 23rd Street, Broadway, Fifth Avenue and open streets on Broadway 23-31st St.
  There is some history/context that should be remembered.
  First, there used to be an MTA bus route on Broadway but this bus was eliminated due to the pedestrian plaza plan.
  Second, it is clear that pedestrian plaza and open streets have benefited expensive restaurants and hotels. But older shops have lost business and have been unable to stay due to high rent.
  So this is an example of how these street closures and specific usage benefit the wealthy and tourists.
  In contrast Bus riders and store owners did not benefit.

  “Dimes Square” is another example of how wealthy people have benefited from the space allocation and so much that it is now an Instagram and influencer destination.
  In contrast, regular NYC residents including older low income residents of Chinatown, are hurt by this.

  Various open streets in Brooklyn also demonstrate that the benefit is to the wealthy residents there. They have the time and money to enjoy dining etc.

  NYC government and elected officials constantly message about the need to be progressive.
  But in so many actions, NYC demonstrates that it is not progressive at all, that the desires of the wealthy get prioritized above all else.

  Again – no to this and shocking that it was even proposed.

  Comment added April 20, 2025 7:13pm

• cee m

  First of all, DOT can’t do the jobs it already oversees. So get this Open Streets plan- aka “Restaurant City” – away from DOT hands.
  Then, really contemplate that you will destroy the very neighborhoods that people live in, by turning their streets into privately-run businesses. I guess if you want people who live here to move out, you are well on your way to succeeding. We do not need downtown NY [Manhattan] to be “Times Square South.” Why do you want to destroy our city further????

  Comment added April 20, 2025 10:55pm

• Thomas Hughes

  Pedestrian plazas should be reserved for public, pedestrian use, not turned over to private businesses. Open Street spaces — where cars drive or park — are much better used for businesses, especially hospitality businesses like restaurants and cafes. The first priority for Open Street setups is, of course, school areas and neighborhoods where children have limited outdoor space; but in many neighborhoods, we have enough parks and playgrounds, and space reserved for cars — especially parked cars — should be put to better use.

  Comment added April 21, 2025 10:21am