The Death and Life of New York Outdoor Dining
What began as a vibrant, organic solution to a crisis has been stifled by overregulation.

On November 30, one of the COVID-19 pandemic's few positive influences on New York City came to an end. Earlier this year, the City Council voted to end the city's four-year experiment in laissez faire outdoor dining, replacing it with a labyrinth of regulations and fees. Over the past month, thousands of sidewalk dining setups—symbols of entrepreneurial creativity that enlivened city streets—have come down.
Like most great things about the city, the recent outdoor dining renaissance was unplanned. When the pandemic confined New Yorkers indoors, restaurateurs survived by taking business outdoors. Under an emergency program, the city allowed eateries to build makeshift structures on sidewalks and in parking spaces, creating lifelines for businesses and socially distanced spaces for diners.
In some cases, outdoor dining consisted of picnic tables under an awning—a typical scene in cities like Paris or Madrid, though novel in New York. More often, on-street parking spaces became an extension of the restaurant. Plywood sheds turned into elaborate structures, replete with air conditioners, heaters, and other amenities to provide year-round comfort. Diners enjoyed meals in everything from beaux arts birdcages to trolley cars.
It was a period of folk architectural experimentation unmatched in the city's history. Some structures were admittedly unsightly, but they were embraced nonetheless for their New York scrappiness.
Initially, regulators planned to end the program by Labor Day in 2020. Residents balked, and the program was kept in place. Observers thought the program would probably lead to permanent change.
But never underestimate the city's zeal to regulate. In 2021, peeved neighbors sued to end the program, citing the lack of a proper environmental review and violations of zoning laws that strictly separate commercial and residential uses. A small cadre of NIMBYs ("not in my backyard"), concerned about aesthetics, noise, and the loss of on-street parking, eventually won. By 2022, the state Supreme Court forced the city to end the outdoor dining program.
In response, the City Council adopted a new, permanent program in 2023, Dining Out NYC, that would be managed by the city's Department of Transportation (DOT).
"New Yorkers came to enjoy outdoor dining during the pandemic and Dining Out NYC has made it a permanent, vibrant part of our streets," New York City DOT Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez said in a statement. The department has touted it as the "nation's largest permanent outdoor dining program."
While aiming to preserve some of the emergency program's benefits, the new regulations are far more restrictive. The program requires outdoor structures to meet specific size and design criteria, be lightweight and removable, and operate only seasonally. Restaurants wishing to participate had to apply by August of this year. Those that did not meet the deadline were ordered to be dismantled by November 29, under threat of fines up to $1,000.
Restaurants face new fees, including a four-year licensing cost ranging from $1,050 to $2,100, plus annual charges based on the size of structures—all sure to increase over time. Applicants will be subjected to a public hearing, for which they must pay a fee ranging from $100 to $800. Adding to the cost, the seasonal model—running from April 1 to November 29—requires businesses to dismantle and rebuild their sheds each year.
The financial impact on restaurants likely goes beyond classic fees. In the best of cases, some businesses will no longer be allowed to operate outdoors for a third of a year. In the worst of cases, they may not be able to operate outdoor dining at all. The new rules could hit small restaurants hardest, where outdoor dining often doubled seating capacity. For the city as a whole, that means fewer jobs and diminished revenue. One restaurant group owner reported losing 72 employee shifts after removing sheds due to the new regulations.
Of the approximately 13,000 outdoor dining setups that once lined NYC's streets, fewer than 3,000 restaurants have applied for permits for next season. Among them, about 1,400 are for dining sheds, while the rest are for traditional sidewalk cafes. The DOT has yet to announce how many have been approved.
New York City's outdoor dining saga is a cautionary tale for what happens when cities prioritize bureaucratic control over innovation. What began as a creative, organic solution to an economic and social problem has been stifled by overregulation.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Too local.
OH NO !!
They are getting rid of the slums!
(just for the record, no one cares what does or doesn't happen in New York City. Including half of the residents)
Precisely. Whenever I see an article about a local NYC issue in a national / international publication, I know said publication is part of the bubble and shouldn't be trusted.
Hey, New York: Get AIDS, catch on fire, fall into the bay and die. Everyone hates you.
Yep, NY and the DC beltway.
Resentment against success is indeed a powerful motivator of ignorant prejudice.
I to e zero shits what those democrat morons do. Other than the fact their democrat votes hurt the rest of us.
The best depiction I saw of life in NY was in the classic film ‘Escape From New York’.
Meh. Call us when the unhappy people of New York stop voting for the same authoritarian politicians.
SF has offered use of the street for "parklets" where food can be served, since the state and city forbid the restaurants from serving indoors:
1) The parking has disappeared, to the point of driving other businesses out of business.
2) Since you really can't clean under those decks, the rats are having a field day
3) Moving the furniture out of them in the evenings means moving the bums out of them in the morning and cleaning up what they have left.
They are HORRIBLE, regardless of regulation.
Why have the state and city forbidden indoor dining? Is this a matter of exceeding fire dept occupancy, a hangover from COVID, or ...?
Newsom and Breed, during the Wu-flu 'pandemic'.
You mean the COVID rules are still in effect, banning indoor dining? Even for SF, that sounds crazy.
Google search for "indoor dining" and "francisco" in the past year gives no such indication.
"You mean the COVID rules are still in effect, banning indoor dining? Even for SF, that sounds crazy."
No, but the city, in its wisdom, is allowing the restaurants extra square footage of out-door dining, yielding those results.
No, typically bigoted ignorant MAGA fool. There have been no COVID restrictions on NYC for two years.
He's talking about SF. Good readin' comprenshun, Chaz!
Local story.
Who enjoys dining next to street traffic, gawking pedestrians, bums, flies, nasty smells? Al fresco dining should be gardens, vistas, quiet.
>A small cadre of NIMBYs ("not in my backyard"), concerned about aesthetics, noise, and the loss of on-street parking, eventually won. By 2022, the state Supreme Court forced the city to end the outdoor dining program.
OK, this is stupid as fuck.
Let's get this straight - on-street eating was not an unalloyed good. There were tradeoffs involved, the article admits this. Noise and loss of on-street parking, for example. Plywood shantytowns blocking the sidewalk as another.
That you are opposed to what you perceive as paying the costs of a negative externality IS NOT NIMBY. That you may prefer on-street parking and not having to listen to loud diners at 11PM through your thin walls IS NOT NIMBY.
Neither side here is 'right' or 'wrong' - its a fight for a view of the form the city will take, that is all, and those who oppose on-street dining in its current form (which sounds a lot like 'in-restaurant dining' with extra steps) are just as 'right' as those that want this.
Libertarians have been known to take sides like this from a facile take that one use of government facilities is more libertarian than another. When a Schoharie River flood washed out a bridge on the NY State Thruway, that necessitated a detour, and the state chose to close to local traffic the pre-existing bridge the Thruway was detoured over. We had a great article about it in Free New York, then the Libertarian Party's newsletter, focusing on the apparent injustice to the locals. It was temporarily convincing...until you realized the local roads weren't a fact of nature, they'd been built by government too, and the locals had just been used to having them at their disposal. So it was a choice over how to deploy state government's resources, not the government vs. the people. Like government schools, etc. whose use we could argue about.
I agree with you on this. The outdoor dining was great but it took up all the parking spaces, so who is right? And it's hard to tell if the city's regulation is reasonable or unreasonable on its face. While we presume that the city overburdens everyone, clearly there is a conflict of interests here.
How about this compromise:
I park my "car" in the parking space, and keep the meter fed at the standard rate and observe any maximum time limits. The "car" is made out of treated lumber and looks very much like a picnic table.
What if the car is made of HO2?
"stupid as fuck"
No, accurate.
This whole article illustrates the concept of 'seen and unseen' - it lists the stuff that these restaurants have had to deal with and the benefits they get while ignoring what costs they impose on others.
^+1
Sounds very ‘New York’ to me.
There is no such thing as "socially distanced dining". They author is a regime bot.
On November 30, one of the COVID-19 pandemic's few positive influences on New York City came to an end. Earlier this year, the City Council voted to end the city's four-year experiment in laissez faire outdoor dining, replacing it with a labyrinth of regulations and fees. Over the past month, thousands of sidewalk dining setups—symbols of entrepreneurial creativity that enlivened city streets—have come down.
How do I put this to our libertarians at Reason...
*thinks*
When you are allowed some perceived hip-swiveling freedom by a regime that has declared for itself unprecedented emergency powers under the auspices of some [medical pandemic] that it had likely created in the first place, that 'freedom' you have is not really a freedom, but simply an aberration among a grab bag of totalitarian diktats that self-same regime has declared.
When a regime has the power to say:
Don't go out, don't get within 6' of other people, you can't have that job as it's non-essential, wear a mask, you may eat outside at approved dining facilities until further notice, inject yourself with this experimental vaccine, don't visit loved ones, you can't go in there... choosing one of those at random and declaring "libertarian moment" is utterly missing the forest for the trees.
All of this was based on a 14-year-=old girl's science fair project!
Without those restrictions tens of thousands more, possibly hundreds of thousands more, would have died. Hospitals were at capacity. Every indoor gathering spread the disease.
The so called libertarians who object to these necessary life saving restrictions are cavalier about human life. Activity restrictions have been msde mandatory in pandemics for civilians since at least 1793. And had George Washington not forced the entire Continental Army to be innoculated against smallpox we would all still be singing "God Save the King".
And the mRNA vaccines were not experimental after December 2020. They had both been proven safe and effective -- in fact, remarkably safe abd effective -- in huge randomized clinical trials. Only junk science advocates like RFK Jr. who want to kill and maim millions of Americans propagandize against them.
That is the opposite of outdoor dining, and probably one of the main reasons for the regulation backlash.
There are homeless camps in Seattle with all that and more.
Heads up: Commenting privileges now require a subscription to Reason Plus. As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis. To ensure your continued ability to comment and enjoy numerous additional benefits, subscribe to Reason Plus now.
Well, guess my Reason commenting days are coming to an end after well over 20 years. I only come here to point and laugh anymore, anyway.
Kind of reminds me of when Taki's Magazine restricted its comment section. Now nobody cares about Taki's anymore.
Enjoy your self-imposed ghettoization, Reason.
The warning has been up for almost a year now. Empty threat.
I don't think so. They will dump us eventually; they're just reluctant for some reason. Maybe they actually believed at first that we would pay.
I assume that they are waiting till Koch dies. Then the money will, literally, stop.
Those who don't read the articles likely have the most page views. Imagine total views of a JS articles without comments.
My best guess is that their internal reporting shows that a significant number of clicks are related to page refreshes from comments. And that it would cut into their ad revenue if they actually cut comments off.
They’re likely trying to change that dynamic so they can get rid of us. It obviously hasn’t worked yet.
When my account tripped their spammer detection and I couldn't comment for two weeks, it took less than a week to just skimming the LATEST links, skimming only a few articles for their content, and skimming comments for interesting news links.
The problem with their articles is that they have no principles of individualism or personal responsibility. Aside from JS's TDS, Emma Camp's FAFSA and Britches' housing articles are prime examples. You will find only prescriptions for making government more "efficient" at minding everybody's business. Not a single indication that perhaps government should not be doing something, only how to do it more efficiently.
Without principles, they're just another news site, and with too small a staff to b significant. If I ever disappear from here again, or if other commenters get disappeared, the articles themselves will be of no use. Movie reviews? No use; imdb, amazon, and a hundred other sites have a more varied set of reviews, and Reason's movie reviews are unrelated to anything liibertarianish. Tuccille still has some individualism slant, Robby does too, but the rest have TDS or nothing.
Because except for Liz, Nancy and Robby, the rest are establishmentarians auditioning for their next gig.
I think they're in a situation where the only people commenting are us assholes - no one who bought a subscription is interested in hanging out in this sewer.
But if they drain this swamp . . . the subsribers probably aren't coming here anyway and its gonna look real empty in the parking lot.
In other slow news, the longshoremen's union boss met with the future president.
I must say that I am impressed that Trump killed a potential strike that was intended to be killed by Kamala (or otherwise occur if he won).
Too bad he thought it appropriate for politicians to have any say in a purely private matter. Especially any union; the government already has its thumb on the scales on their sides, just by legitimizing the concept of "We're all going to quit but you can't hire replacements", plus allowing unions to be monopolies but not corporations.
All the ports are owned by the US (as they are public property), so I don't see why he couldn't or shouldn't be involved.
You don't have much use for individualism if you think that's just fine.
I have zero expectations that ports will cease being public property. Therefore, the president's involvement on what is essentially federally leased property is not exactly crazy.
"You don't have much use for individualism if you think that's just fine."
You seem to be confused; individualism has zero effect in this case. This is taxpayer-owned property, and any labor issues are pub-sec union claims.
Are you confused or stupid?
Usually owned and operated by public authorities of states or local governments not the federal government. A real libertarian would call for their privatization.
"Trump calls for ending daylight saving time. It’s ‘inconvenient,’ he says."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-for-ending-daylight-saving-time-it-s-inconvenient-he-says/ar-AA1vPuWZ?ocid=BingNewsSerp
YES!
Inconvenient? I think he means fking stupid.
The reality is that if people wanted DST to end they'd just ignore it. What is Congress going to do?
We in AZ ignore it and they're not charging us with federal time crimes.
"The reality is that if people wanted DST to end they'd just ignore it..."
Not really possible in most places. 'Installed Base' of businesses operate on that idiocy, and when I was making a ton of money selling to IT and then .com clients, it would have cost me a ton of money explaining I was an hour off since I didn't 'agree' with what all of them didn't like either.
It was instituted by the feds; it needs to be removed by the feds, PERIOD. And if Trump does so, he's bought cheap votes (not a penny of taxpayer money!) for his successor.
GO TRUMP!
He will flipflop as soon as he realized that it will mean a lot less revenue for his golf properties.
Oh, and:
"Only 3 in 10 Americans highly confident in Trump on Cabinet, spending or military, AP-NORC poll says"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/only-3-in-10-americans-highly-confident-in-trump-on-cabinet-spending-or-military-ap-norc-poll-says
Swamp scum doesn't like Trump, finds a new poll which probably had Harris winning; the pre-pubescent asshole shill Harry Shitbag is probably still getting $0.50.
Oh, and DEFUND ALL TAXPAYER MONEY FOR SWAMP SLIMEBAG'S PROPAGANDA! Pravda-west is no better than Pravda-USSR.
Fucking Republicans!
Oh wait…
Crisis?
so the karens managed to ruin yet another venture but the click bait title blames the politicians.
It is too bad this is happening. Please note, as the article points out this started with a NIMBY group. Most, if not all, regulations start out this way with public complaints. The lesson here is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and NIMBY groups are usually the squeakiest.
Fuck off and die, you pathetic pile of steaming lefty shit.
Libertarians now supporting NIMBY grifters in using Big Government to grift some more. The lefty shit is from people like you who are in that category.
This is a big victory for NIMBY grifters and the beneficiaries of free or low cost parking on public property. A real libertarian would say that the gas guzzler operators should be paying market rste for parking and that NIMBYs have no business using Big Government to grift.
But this alliance just suffered a much bigger defeat. The New York City Council approved s huge change to zoning laws. Densities are relaxed, much more can be built without the endless rounds of permitting and payoffs to "stakeholders", and the majority of the city has relaxed or even no parking mandated for new development.
And in case you were wondering which political party is the Grifter party, the vote was 31 in favor, 20 against. Democrats in the City Council voted 31 to 14 in favor and the Democratic Mayor also is a supporter. All six Republicans voted with the Big Government Grifters.
Yes, in New York, the Republicans have long been the Big Government Party.
If every bridge and tunnel into that hellhole were bombed tomorrow, I would consider it a net positive for the world.
I am beyond the capacity for empathy when it comes to their "overregulation." THEY LITERALLY ASKED FOR IT. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
FNYC.
I'm not going to make the case for NYC overregulation. But, this article sounds a little stilted. NY had "outdoor dining" pre-Covid. It just came with an exorbitant fee (north of $10k per year, if I recall). The new setup, although a far cry from ideal, is still very much liberalized from the pre-Covid situation. Also, brushing aside any and all objections as just mindless "NIMBYism" is a little dishonest. I left NYC in 2020. But, I pretty clearly recall some restaurants acting like the street and sidewalks were their private property. Trying to walk from point A to point B and being told you have to walk across the street, or in the middle of the street, so as not to be a disruption to customers, isn't exactly "enlivening".
That said, not my city, not my problem.
Outdoor dining in New York City. Right. Air pollution, garbage, congestion, random stabbings, rats, blaring horns, homeless druggies, obnoxious pedestrians -- three Michelin stars all the way. Look at those people with their feet literally in the gutter -- how sad to believe that that makes you a cool hipster.