When are the restaurant tables that are on the street...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Outdoor dining here is a joke. It's seasonal and puts you on a roadway next to moving cars or on a sidewalk next to moving pedestrians. Nothing pleasurable or scenic about it. Go to California where restaurants are built to accommodate outdoor dining. Then come back here and realize how awful the DC "al fresco" dining experience truly is.

I agree with this. It is actually very hard to find restaurants in DC with pleasant rooftops or patios. Most are just tacked on as cheaply as possible, which is also true for the vast majority of "streeteries."

The truth is that if you really want a nice outdoor dining experience, you need it be away from all cars altogether, because cars are not conducive to dining (too noisy and polluting, no one wants to shout over the sound of traffic or be able to smell exhaust while eating). Which would mean creating more pedestrian-only areas. I'm not a huge fan of the Wharf, but one thing they get right is that it's mostly a pedestrian zone, so all the patios and roof decks feel like more pleasant places to eat.

I live just off H Street and have never eaten at any of the streeteries that have popped up. A few places have invested well into outdoor patios that are actually quite pleasant (Maketto being the best example, I've heard Copycat's new outdoor space is is nice as well) but most of the outdoor dining on H is pitiful. Like the Biergarten House has a massive outdoor space but it's cheaply furnished and I've seen rats run through it because it sits right on the alley. H Street Country Club's roof deck is small and really more of a bar experience, not so much for dining. There just are not great options and the streeteries don't really change that.

[Anonymous]

Seems like restaurants should be paying the city for use of this space. Not sure why the city is giving this away for free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the streeteries, don't care about your parking problems

Ok, well less parking means fewer customers for restaurants. We’ve found ourselves increasingly going over the border to the suburbs because it’s less hassle. Not good for anyone who runs a business in DC

That's great--drivers can self-segregate to the burbs and those who are not car-bound can walk to outdoor dining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with restaurants being allowed to set up tables in a parking lane provided they pay "rent" to the city. They shouldn't be allowed to take over public spaces for free.

Also agree with the PP re: sidewalks.

Cool, we can charge them the same "rent" that the city charges drivers who take over those public spaces. Currently I believe that's $2.25 an hour between the hours of 7am and 6:30pm, so, roughly $26 per day per parking space. I doubt the restaurants will find that too much of a burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the streeteries, don't care about your parking problems

Ok, well less parking means fewer customers for restaurants. We’ve found ourselves increasingly going over the border to the suburbs because it’s less hassle. Not good for anyone who runs a business in DC

That's great--drivers can self-segregate to the burbs and those who are not car-bound can walk to outdoor dining.

Yeah, awesome then all the restaurants will close because their customer base will be too small

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They seem incredibly unsanitary. They are practically designed to attract rats

Who doesn’t live eating atop rat nests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with restaurants being allowed to set up tables in a parking lane provided they pay "rent" to the city. They shouldn't be allowed to take over public spaces for free.

Also agree with the PP re: sidewalks.

Cool, we can charge them the same "rent" that the city charges drivers who take over those public spaces. Currently I believe that's $2.25 an hour between the hours of 7am and 6:30pm, so, roughly $26 per day per parking space. I doubt the restaurants will find that too much of a burden.

Parking rates use a completely different methodology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem incredibly unsanitary. They are practically designed to attract rats

Who doesn’t live eating atop rat nests?

If you live in the city, you're living on top of a rat nest, so eating atop one isn't all that different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never, I hope. I wish 8th st SE was closed in the restaurant area, and I say this as someone who doesn't live walkable to there (albeit not too far) and drives and parks every time.

8th street se needs a deep clean, and I saw this as someone who is very walkable to there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with restaurants being allowed to set up tables in a parking lane provided they pay "rent" to the city. They shouldn't be allowed to take over public spaces for free.

Also agree with the PP re: sidewalks.

Cool, we can charge them the same "rent" that the city charges drivers who take over those public spaces. Currently I believe that's $2.25 an hour between the hours of 7am and 6:30pm, so, roughly $26 per day per parking space. I doubt the restaurants will find that too much of a burden.

Where do you think the money for roads comes from in the first place? Do you think it falls from the sky? We pay for roads and road maintenance through a combination of gas taxes (paid by drivers), user fees (paid by drivers) and income taxes (paid primarily by drivers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outdoor dining here is a joke. It's seasonal and puts you on a roadway next to moving cars or on a sidewalk next to moving pedestrians. Nothing pleasurable or scenic about it. Go to California where restaurants are built to accommodate outdoor dining. Then come back here and realize how awful the DC "al fresco" dining experience truly is.

I agree with this. It is actually very hard to find restaurants in DC with pleasant rooftops or patios. Most are just tacked on as cheaply as possible, which is also true for the vast majority of "streeteries."

The truth is that if you really want a nice outdoor dining experience, you need it be away from all cars altogether, because cars are not conducive to dining (too noisy and polluting, no one wants to shout over the sound of traffic or be able to smell exhaust while eating). Which would mean creating more pedestrian-only areas. I'm not a huge fan of the Wharf, but one thing they get right is that it's mostly a pedestrian zone, so all the patios and roof decks feel like more pleasant places to eat.

I live just off H Street and have never eaten at any of the streeteries that have popped up. A few places have invested well into outdoor patios that are actually quite pleasant (Maketto being the best example, I've heard Copycat's new outdoor space is is nice as well) but most of the outdoor dining on H is pitiful. Like the Biergarten House has a massive outdoor space but it's cheaply furnished and I've seen rats run through it because it sits right on the alley. H Street Country Club's roof deck is small and really more of a bar experience, not so much for dining. There just are not great options and the streeteries don't really change that.

Only a couple options on that short section of H St., but if you expand your radius just a bit there are lots of good options for outdoor dining nearby. Daru, Indigo, Laos in Town, Taqueria Fresca, Chupacabra, Taqueria Al Lado, Ethiopic, and Cafe Fili all come to mind. And of course that's not including the numerous options around Union Market.

Most of those places benefit from being an end lot facing a quieter side street with a larger setback, or from being 1-2 blocks off of H itself. I agree that it's hard to make a streetery right on H into a pleasant space because of all the traffic. That's probably why all but a couple of them have already been removed.

I'm on board with restaurants being charged a rent that is closer to what the city would make from parking (offset to account for expected sales tax revenue; a typical restaurant probably only needs 1-2 patrons per hour per parking space to make up the cost of foregone parking with sales taxes). Streeteries that sit empty aren't benefitting anyone, and a nominal rent ensures ensures that the space is being used well. The current $100/year fee is too low. But no one has a right to street parking either. If a streetery is being used, then let people enjoy it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should close even more roads and provide more outdoor eating. Great improvement.

+1

I don't understand the complaint. I would rather our public space be used by people out and about, eating, hanging out etc, not for another lane of cars to spew pollution and otherwise post a danger to people not in cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue I have is that many restaurants are encroaching on the sidewalk which makes it difficult for pedestrians to pass. 14th Street is getting terrible. The restaurant tables in some spots essentially make the sidewalk half the width it’s supposed to be. And then you’ve got servers rushing back and forth across the sidewalk to serve the tables in the street. The servers at Le Dip are the worst about that. I’ve lived here a long time and it never used to be so awful trying to navigate through there. Restaurants shouldn’t be allowed to clog up the sidewalks.

The solution is to take space from cars and give it to people.

The solution is not to remove the tables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the streeteries, don't care about your parking problems

Ok, well less parking means fewer customers for restaurants. We’ve found ourselves increasingly going over the border to the suburbs because it’s less hassle. Not good for anyone who runs a business in DC

If restaurants were really losing business because their streeteries were taking away parking for potential customers, restaurants would do away with the streeteries. But they seem to be doing just fine without whiny car people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and causing a lane to be closed going to be removed ??? They came about because of Covid, but now seem to have outlived their usefulness.

I never saw the attraction of eating in a closed lane on the street and inhaling vehicle fumes and loud automobile sounds while dining... not to mention being in a position where a car could kill me.

People enjoy eating outdoors. The change in AdMo from the lane closures and ample extra seating has been great and I hope it is preserved that way indefinitely. I'm Eddie Cano and Rosemary Bistro have a pretty cool setup too.

No, this particular setup is an abomination and dangerous to boot. The concrete barriers starting 1/3 of the way up the block and the covers they have for the seating are so ugly. They also force traffic into fewer lanes just past a major intersection, causing backups and/or people racing through the intersection to get ahead of cars merging in. I ate in the Rosemary Bistro tent there one time and gulped my meal down as quickly as I could because it felt so unsafe. I love eating outdoors and love the concept of streateries, but if we're going to have them, they should not be taking up a lane on a major thoroughfare and there should be at least some aesthetic design standards. Having outdoor dining in the Cleveland Park service lane makes sense if the service lane is closed or allowing restaurants to set up on sidewalks, if there is enough clearance, but randomly taking up a lane on Connecticut should not be allowed.

So what you are basically saying is the people driving cars behavior is so bad that...the patrons of the restaurant and the restaurant itself should be punished.

that makes ZERO sense. Why are you anti- business?

Maybe the people driving cars should operate more safely, not try to rush out in front of the other cars to beat them off the curb, maybe add a minute for the alleged added drive time that the removal of the lane supposedly causes.