Skip to content

Recent Comments



    The rule you describe is anti-homeless.



    I live in the Bronx and the police officers regularly stop people in the parks after dark, giving summons. Even if just commuting through after dusk.



    Keep them all open. A court summons for anyone caught in a park after dark keeps no one safe. If they must, police can question people in the park using probable cause.



    I agree 10000000%

    One of the stupidest rules in NYC. Taking one look at the demographics of those being penalized is disgusting too. Imagine having to take a day off of work to go to court because you decided to relax in the park or cut through at 6 pm in the winter.



    NFC should be the standard at this point.



    City probably does not want to touch those medians.



    He is also against upzoning sections of his district which are underutilized considering their proximity to rail rapid transit.



    Every resident from a community parks on the street. Why own a car? You will be traveling to destinations, the vast majority of which in NYC will not provide parking.

    Parking minimums are useless and only increase ownership of personal automobiles.



    Neighborhoods change, and in the case of NYC they are becoming more dense. Especially these areas targeted.

    By maintaining parking minimums, this does not guarantee legacy residents any place to park. What this does is guarantee some new residents a space off street. Now, these residents will obviously be using these vehicles and have to compete with older residents on street. And those new residents without off street parking? What about visitors?

    There’s already parking problems in NYC, and limited parking is only going to become more so regardless. Eliminating parking minimums only quickens this inevitability while maximizing development.



    Why do these electeds fail to realize that the metropolitan area as a whole is growing, and is largely automobile dependent. The city of New York is also growing and many new residents and visitors will have their cars, not always parking on site. This means that congestion and parking will continue to be issues unless something changes.

    Eliminating parking minimums would discourage ownership within the city. That would provide more political firepower for non automotive policy like improving mass transportation.



    Yes It’s terrible and these people fail to realize that even if we maintain parking minimums, parking and congestion in this city is still going to only get worse regardless.



    Remember that if the city does not eliminate parking minimums in these areas, that does not mean that it will get any easier to park or drive. It’s still only going to get worse as more people move in or visit and park off site. We need to move away from subsidizing automobile ownership.

    The city council should support abolishing parking minimums and require an intensive focus on improving local mass transportation.



    Why is it that these people fail to realize that by providing parking you then encourage more people to own an automobile.

    That means MORE CONGESTION.

    Half a mile from a subway stop is appropriate, in fact I would add areas to the transit zone and make this a requirement for ALL new construction.

    Infurating. Especially coming from the mouths of representatives in mass transportation rich areas.

    BTW, if you think that mass transportation is a problems electeds, how about making it your priority instead of whining. Make suggestions for improved service within your constituency, support MoveNY, SBS, and a residential parking permit system.



    Why can’t adults learn to share? Streets are for everyone, not just motorists. DOT must continue making streets safe while it is funded to do so. The community board should be advocating for this as Corona’s participation in Vision Zero.



    It’s so enraging to suffer through this reign of idiots. Let the actual poor subsidize the cars of the subsidized “poor”. It’s always someone else’s money, no matter how stupid the proposal.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    That is a good point. The prosecutors’ feelings of sympathy and identification with these deadly drivers is probably a factor contributing to their unwillingness to give these cases the effort they deserve.


    Larry Littlefield

    There was a discussion about parking garages.

    While “accessory” parking is required in most parts of NYC, public parking garages are highly restricted. Any one of any size will require a special permit, and they are not allowed in residential or C1 (2/3 of local main streets) zones at all.

    You may recall there was a significant liberalization recently. For post 1961 development, renting out accessory parking to non-residents was illegal. That was widely ignored, except in public and subsidized housing developments (where the empty spaces are) and eventually done away with.


    Al O

    “If DA’s offices don’t apply that same zeal to prosecuting sociopathic
    and/or incompetent drivers, then the only possible reason is that they
    don’t see the same chance of success under the applicable sections of
    the Penal Law and the Vehicle and Traffic Law as written.”

    WRONG. You’ve completely missed the alternative explanation, which is that the DA and the people in the DA’s office are drivers themselves and are thus overly identified with and overly sympathetic to the arguments of drivers over pedestrians. And, until this case came up, I think most people here would have said the same thing about the police.

    There have been far too many cases like this of glaring driver disregard for pedestrians crossing legally in the crosswalk, with deadly consequences, that were under-investigated by the police and in which the DA’s offices refused to act for this not to be a highly probable explanation for their (in)actions.

    “Make the laws that define a driver’s failure to exercise due care tougher”

    I don’t know what more you would have people do. Folks had to yell and scream and lobby like hell, the blood of seniors and children had to be publicly spilled, and huge amounts of media coverage had to be brought to bear to finally get a right of way law passed that (supposedly) called upon a driver to have to make an affirmative case as to why they ran someone over in the crosswalk. The law that was supposed to punish drivers for this is ALREADY IN PLACE. But the DA punted the ball away anyway. Why? Because you really wouldn’t want to start punishing innocent drivers (like me and my co-workers) for running down some little old folks they couldn’t see (without looking extra hard for them).


    Joe R.

    That’s the biggest mistake here, namely failing to push for more transit improvements. Everyone coming out against getting rid of parking minimums complains about “transit deserts”. Fine, but the solution isn’t to put a bandaid over that by indirectly subsidizing more car ownership. It’s to build better transit in these neighborhoods. And better biking facilities. A bike can largely substitute for a car for trips where local transit just doesn’t work.

    NYC worked just fine 75 or 100 years ago when almost nobody had private cars. Either transit filled the gap, or neighborhoods were set up so you could do everything on foot. We can and should return to that model.


    Joe R.

    Suppose you stipulated that new development can’t have any parking and anyone signing a lease can’t have a car as part of the terms of the lease? That would work just as well but a developer wouldn’t be forced to build parking just to preserve spots for existing residents. At that point you start your residential parking system where you gradually transition to paid street parking. New residents would already know what they’re getting into before moving into a new development. If having a car is important to them, they could go elsewhere. My guess is the new buildings will still fill up. Lots of pent up demand nationally for urban dwellings and a car-free lifestyle.


    Anon resident

    Elected officials offices is this area have ignored this issue for years. Robert Jackson, Denny Farrell don’t get it that there is a lot of foot traffic between residents, ppl going to the local hospital to visit patience, and ppl who work for the hospital. What’s even worse is NY Presbyterian staff who are housed in 3 attached brownstones on 170 complain about the bike lane.


    Joe R.

    What you’re failing to understand is that basement parking is hideously expensive to build. Each time you go down another level costs go up by a factor or three. Somebody is paying for those parking spaces—namely the developer. And to make money the developer has to charge for that. Since the people in the building who own cars are unable/unwilling to pay the full extra cost of that parking, the burden is passed on to everyone in the building in the form of higher rents. That’s not even remotely fair. If I expected the other people on my block to pay for a storage room for stuff which doesn’t fit in my house most reasonable people would think I was wrong. Yet when the “stuff” is an automobile it seems to be just fine.

    Tokyo may well have a higher average income level than NYC. Perhaps without the disincentives there to own cars the ratio of cars to people would be much higher than NYC. The point though is if someone wants to own a car in a city where space is scarce, they should be paying the full cost of storing that car. If the end result of that is the 1% have cars but nearly nobody else does, and it bothers you, then there’s a democratic process to fix that, too. Make increasingly larger swaths of the city off-limits to private autos as is done in some European cities. When the majority don’t own cars, just the wealthy, this becomes a lot easier to do politically. The wealthy might still own cars even after you do this, but they’ll have to park them outside city limits, and use them outside the city.


    Brooklyn Bum

    sure, a 1 million square foot ken foods would work too. but apparently no one knows that supermarkets are in a competitive knock out match. Fairway will likely be staring at bankruptcy in the not too distant future, whole foods and fresh direct are taking all the affluent customers away from neighborhood supermarkets. In WT (after screaming and crying like babies) they made a mini version of its former Key Foods and it is pretty decent – unfortunately it isn’t that busy given so many alternatives. That’s right – Amazon, Fresh Direct, Fairway, Whole Foods – plus WT got a new market in the meantime. Its grocerymageddon if you own a supermarket. But, since its convenient to like 200 people, scream away.



    Though it has center islands, Broadway at W. 165th Street, where a driver killed Maria Minchala, is inhospitable to people on foot.

    Then why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars to replicate it on 4th and Atlantic Aves in Brooklyn?



    I don’t think the mayor appreciates that a true transit zone needs transit that serves all trips well. A subway station on a radial line to the CBD and skeletal bus service is nowhere near adequate.

    I live in such a transit zone, and while getting to Manhattan is easy, the nearest crosstown bus only runs once every half hour. That’s transit-as-social-service, not transit-as-transportation. There is a decent bike route to Manhattan, but there are no protected bike lanes in the area and it’s uncomfortable and dangerous to bike from one neighborhood to the next. In fact, it’s such a pain in the neck to get to the next ‘hood over that I never go even though it has much better shopping and dining than where I live.

    I would not like to have a car–been there, done that, an enormous hassle and expense–but I would like much better bus service and much better bike lanes. I think this plan would be more palatable if it offered transit improvements to match the parking reductions.


    another PS architect

    Can they really not provide parking AND adequate retail space if they are required to provide 52k s.f. retail (the existing Key Food is 36k). Does 165 spaces take up the entire footprint? More than one level? Is the choice between an underground supermarket and parking? I would be okay if they provide retail parking for the disabled, as this store actually has a large population of disabled people who come by car. The existing parking lot is never completely filled.
    This part of the North Slope is already being screwed over by the lack of parking at the Barclays Arena. Cars aggressively circle the blocks for hours! Most of the other garages that used to be here have been redeveloped for other uses.



    That is a horrendous excuse.The problem is that they are not prepared to put the required amount of effort into building cases against reckless drivers as they put into other kinds of crimes. In cases of financial fraud, for example, they will literally pore over hundreds of thousands of emails and transactions and computer files in order to build a case, sometimes spending months if not years. But when it comes to killer drivers, they won’t even look for or recover camera footage which could prove guilt, witness accounts are often dismissed or not even taken, and detailed vehicle and road forensics are lightly brushed over.



    I’ve said this before and I will say it again but the New York DA’s will NEVER give a damn about prosecuting reckless killer drivers until a relative of theirs or a relative of the mayor or Bratton or some other top brass gets killed by one of them. Oh My God then we’ll see some action. It all boils down to two things: 1) Prosecutors who cannot be bothered with the effort of building cases against killer drivers in the same way as they would, for example, spend 1000’s of hours building cases against financial fraudsters etc, and 2) officials who are part of this a-hole driving culture themselves and thus identify and sympathize with reckless drivers. They see accidents like this and think “that’s the kind of thing that could happen to me because I’m always taking corners like that.”



    Is this the worst possible outcome of having a hearing about the tradeoffs between requiring parking and affordable housing? ” I certainly think we should provide some incentive to provide parking. I don’t think any of us realized how expensive it is to build parking across our city”



    No one on city council has ever heard of another city. New York is too special.



    This intersection and 168th/Broadway are both totally unacceptable, considering the number of people coming to the NYP/Columbia hospital/clinics on foot who may be moving slowly or have mobility limitations for any number of reasons. It’s in desperate need of a road diet.

    Or do mobility-limited people count the same as short people?



    Also, the F train is a relatively frequent line. To say his district has inadequate transit is laughable.



    The BS express is running in Treyger’s district. Treyger never mentions Cuomo’s name in his complaints about MTA service cuts. The F Express, the X29, the X28? These are all part of MTA. And yet he only complains about De Blasio.


    Doug G.

    Thanks for clarifiying! The process is still absurd.



    It’s the same justification for expanding highways. The masses see a lack of available parking and erroneously believe the demand is fixed, so if you just add more parking spaces the problem is solved. Of course in reality, adding spaces (as with highway lanes) only entices more people to use them.

    Eliminating parking minimums across the entire city (forget just for affordable housing) within a half mile of subway stops should be a slam dunk. Other cities have done it. NYC should be a leader in this, not quibbling over the most modest of reforms.



    I still don’t get it. If there is a rapid influx of new residents who want to have cars but have no place to park them, wouldn’t private industry fill that role by building parking garages?

    No they wouldn’t. Because parking minimums are for existing residents. Not the people who move into the new developments. If you have a car but no garage you park on the street, competing with legacy residents who will then have more trouble finding a place to park. So they oppose new development. You can solve that street parking shortage with pricing, but then existing residents know that development means they have to pay more for parking. So they oppose development. You don’t like the idea of development in your neighborhood unless it’s preceded by transit expansion and reduced space for autos. Other people want control over what happens in their neighborhood too, even if you disagree with their goals or how they wish to reach them. Local support is considered important. Maybe you think it’s overvalued and want a benevolent dictator to overrule them. But that’s not how the city works right now. That means for now getting people to acquiesce to development is important, since that expansion of housing serves the public interest. Hence Larry Littlefield’s solution of a transition to paid street parking that grandfathers in existing residents for free, at least for some lengthy period (ten years?)



    I think a lot of the debate on this topic gets lost in the difference between commutability with Manhattan and the reality of life in the outer boroughs. I recently moved to the Bronx and while commuting to work via public transit is not an issue (especially given the good service during rush hour), however, doing anything else on off hours, like shopping and entertainment is just not easy without a car and with kids in tow. I don’t want to take nearly an hour to get into Manhattan on the weekend to see a movie, verses being able to drive to a theater 15 minutes away. I realize that this is the product of my own choices as to where I live, but this is the reality for many people in these communities and this is why many people are upset by the proposal, because they know that others that move to these locales will feel the same way and want a car. Once they have a car, parking would be an issue on the street and parking garages might be able to charge huge rents, not to mention the traffic. In the end you will probably drive people to move to the suburbs and that can of course open more housing, but I think it is wrong to assume that the difficulty of having a car at that point would persuade people from not getting one because the quality of life in many of these areas would be weak without a car. Yes, there are people who live in these areas without a car, but survey any of them and see how many of them would prefer to have a car if it were possible for them, or how difficult their lives are without a car even though they manage. Personally, I don’t have a big issue with the plan, the city needs housing and these neighborhoods will go through some sort of change. However, I would favor a small map that would have no parking requirements and 30 to 40 story buildings anywhere within a 2 block radius of subway station versus saying that you can now how 8-10 story buildings over a huge area.



    Well yes, if you really want it. Just like you can offer 2x the rent for an apartment and that way live in any neighborhood… By that reasoning we don’t have a housing shortage in NYC, just people not willing to pay enough.



    How about using the western part of the roadway for 2-way traffic and making the eastern part a large bikeway and walking path?


    Ben Fried

    Agree that DOT should have already gotten this done but to clarify, DOT did not present at this meeting.



    What is most infuriating is that other cities that are much less dense and transit-rich than New York have eliminated parking requirements near transit, PERIOD, not just for affordable housing. That there is this much push back on such a modest proposal is insane and embarrassing.


    Alexander Vucelic

    betcha at $300 it would be easy to get a off street spot. The pricing mechanism Works perfectly fine



    I’m not sure that works in this case, at least in the short to medium term.

    The current situation is: there’s a demand for garage space. Some people have it as part of their coop/condo (apartments with parking go for more than those without). Many of those people use it for themselves. Those that don’t, rent it out (empty spots in building garages are rare). Presumably, those that already use their spot for themselves arent going to change their behavior if they were offered more than 150/month, since, theyd have to find another spot for their car too…

    New above ground private garages won’t be profitable compared to housing in many parts of NY because of the ever present housing shortage, so don’t expect any to be built even at 600+ prices. Garages in basements however, can work, since you can’t put apartments there anyway (and outside of really dense neighborhoods, retail doesn’t like those areas either). Reserving garage space for parking makes sense in a lot of places via parking minimums.

    Of course, that would also mean lots of people who might want cars either couldn’t afford them, or just won’t want to pay that much for parking. I’m not seeing why that would be an issue.

    Well, cars aren’t important to you, and that’s great, but simply making things expensive in an already expensive city like NY either separates the 1% from the rest even further, or just adds financial burden. E.g. Tokyo where the cars/person ratio is the same, despite the costs being far higher, the licensing requirements being far stricter, and old cheaper cars being de facto outlawed.


    Doug G.

    This is the third time DOT has come before this board and there’s at least one more appearance left. Plus they’ve done multiple community workshops and two traffic studies.

    The opportunity cost of this process is huge. How many other projects could DOT get off the ground – and how many more lives could be saved – if DOT wasn’t being held hostage to know-nothing community board members?


    Eric McClure

    That’s correct, Ben. One spot for every two housing units, plus a like amount based on 52,000 sf of retail. Thank goodness most of the neighborhood was built pre-parking minimums – try to imagine what Park Slope would look like if every 700 sf of retail space required an off-street parking space.



    I wrote him one when ZQA was before the city planning commission. He is better than many council members.



    This is what happens when we use magnetic stripe cards and pieces of paper instead of smart cards like everyone else in the world.



    There’s a vicious cycle rolling on:

    There’s no good transit
    Driving is made easy
    More people drive
    More people move into the neighborhood
    Even more people drive
    Transit gets worse
    Even more people drive
    Road congestion

    Somehow we have to break the cycle.


    Joe R.

    I think you hit on the reason why nobody is building garages—namely the “going” rate of $150/month. This isn’t enough for a private garage to make money. The going rate is too low as evidenced by the fact demand exceeds supply. The idea here is to keep raising the price until demand equals supply. The cost of supply is dictated by whatever it costs over there to build and operate a garage. I really have no idea of the number. It’s evidently higher than $150/month. Let’s say it turns out to be $600/month. At that point you’ll find people willing to build garages, provided NYC doesn’t undercut them by offering free curbside parking, or developers don’t undercut them by building parking but offering it to residents at less than cost. Of course, lots of car owners will balk at paying $600/month. Many will get rid of their cars. At that point the number of cars will match the available parking, all of which would be the market rate of $600/month. This is how supply and demand works for virtually every good or service. The chronic parking shortages which exist in lots of NYC neighborhoods wouldn’t exist with market-priced parking. Of course, that would also mean lots of people who might want cars either couldn’t afford them, or just won’t want to pay that much for parking. I’m not seeing why that would be an issue. NYC has abundant public transit. If you’re going somewhere not amenable to public transit, you have the option to take a car service, or rent a car. It’s not like not being able to own a car will prevent you from going places public transit can’t easily reach.

    I have a friend there who lives in an apartment complex which offers parking to residents at $50/month. He says lots of people complain about the years-long waiting list to get a spot. I told him the answer is easy. Keep raising the price until there is no waiting list. As the price goes up, more and more people will take their name off the list, or give up their spot if they have one, until the number of spots matches the number of people will to pay. The issue here is NYC by definition has a shortage of space. In Nebraska everyone can park as many cars as they want for free. NYC isn’t Nebraska. We charge plenty for the space people occupy in apartments. It should be exactly the same for their vehicles.



    Reynoso is my councilman, and I’ve generally been pleased with him. He’ll get a letter about this one though 😉