Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Opinion: Queens’ 34th Avenue Shows What Open Streets Can Do for People

5 Comments

  • No Thanks
    Posted April 14, 2023 at 3:26 pm

    State sponsored gentrification. Enjoy turning people’s neighborhoods into parks though.

  • JQ LLC
    Posted April 15, 2023 at 5:24 am

    This post is filled with inaccuracies and embellishments, from the popularity of these open plans streets to the dubious polls taken from residents wanting them.

    If they are so popular, how come every other “open” street in the city got immediately suspended except in a few gentrified and gentrifying enclaves where other big lobbyist Transportation Alternatives capos like Jim Burke happen to dominate?

    And Burke has a record of being an outstanding liar to get what he and his false advocacy agency and their very connected alliance and other collective of lobbyist liars Open Plans wants. Like when he accused a neighbor (and community leader) of his of homophobia who was against the open streets because of the trouble emergency, sanitation and ADA vehicles had trying to get through (something this article deliberately never mentions). And he turned out to be a gay man like him

    https://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2022/09/open-street-organizer-and-creator.html

    And the revelation on how nobody showed up to open streets because cops in patrol cars were blocking them instead of the barricades reveals that the city basically deputized a lobbyist agency to take over streets without consideration for the rest of the community. And for Burke’s disdain for cops back then, he sure loves using them as his personal bodyguards because of the power he has now as an agent of the city.

    https://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2022/11/transportation-alternatives-jim-burke.html

  • Lynn
    Posted April 15, 2023 at 4:19 pm

    While the idea of Open Streets is a good one, the implementation of the 34th Avenue Open Street has been done very poorly, and the super-advocates have refused to listen to concerns about emergency vehicle access, speeding mopeds which are allowed free reign, and noise (Jim Burke thinks screaming right outside someone’s apartment window is fine.)

    The language used by the Open Street uber-proponents shows their disdain for people who use cars – it is not a question of “people vs. cars,” unless those cars are sentient beings who drive themselves. Using such language dehumanizes people who drive or own cars, many of whom have good reasons for doing so. In an era when we are encouraged to use people-oriented language (e.g., “people with disabilities”), it seems strange that it is ok for activists and journalists to remove the human being completely when talking about people who drive or own cars. It is intentional, and allows for dismissal and disparagement.

    There are design flaws in the Open Street that are not addressed, because officials and activists won’t listen to anyone who has a concern. One example is that in certain areas if you are walking, you then cross the street into an oncoming bike lane if you don’t notice the bike lane and walk to the side. Another, as mentioned, are mopeds with are by law required to follow the same rules as cars, but don’t and are given a free pass by our elected officials.

    It would also be helpful to hear statistics on accidents specificaly for 34th Ave. Our elected officials regularly make speeches where they speak about 34th Ave. and then quote statistics about deaths that mostly have occurred on Northern, not 34th. Of course, traffic accidents and fatalities are terrible. But the deliberate conflating of accident figures for one street while talking about the closure of another is meant to mislead.

    Finally, the playbook of the uber-proponents is to make sure the Open Street is used for any community activity, even if a noisy activity could be moved to a local park which does not border residents’ apartments. Zumba classes and performances are a great example. These should be held in Travers Park or a schoolyard. Again, this tactic is a way to prove the Open Street is being used by XX number of people, rather than a thoughtful decision to be as considerate as possible to neighbors that live on 34th Avenue.

    I am not opposed to the idea of an Open Street, and some aspects of the street are great. But the way it has been planned and implemented has caused a permanent rift in what used to be a pretty cohesive neighborhood.

    p.s. I don’t own a car or drive. And I walk about five miles a day, often on the Open Street.

  • jala
    Posted April 17, 2023 at 10:33 pm

    1. The City Council implemented “Open Streets” during Covid, without constituent knowledge, understanding or input – basically Democrats acting like the GOP.
    2. The survey/polling results cited here and similar data often cited by DOT is misleading on so many levels – such as wording of survey questions; questions that force a certain kind of response; that most DOT surveys have been on-line (some very complicated to access) so only a certain demographic is aware and answer etc.
    3. It is one thing to close a side street, but completely another to close an avenue.
    4. It is outrageous, inexcusable and hypocritical for the City to close avenues where there are buses, forcing bus diversion. The City insists on mass transit use – then sabotages essential bus mass transit service! (As a followup, Alison Sant should explain why it is OK to impact essential bus service and why it is OK for restaurants to have street space but not buses? Especially buses needed by elderly, people with health/medical/mobility issues, women etc)

  • Nan
    Posted April 21, 2023 at 7:07 pm

    I am a resident of Jackson Heights and support Open Street as I write this comment. I voted in favor of it in the initial survey that was circulated in regards to it. However, many aspects of what the open street has become now wasn’t mentioned in that survey or conveyed later. So the process was not transparent and continues to be so. I could discuss particulars but this is probably not a place for it e.g. Plans for 78th street between 35th and 34th ave, adding concrete blocks to already concrete streets.

    The proponents of open streets are aggressive and unempathetic, I say this having experienced the wrath of one of the members because I wasn’t able to follow the confusing street signs (which btw needs a lot of work). What’s the point of activism if one has such harsh attitude towards your fellow humans when they are in disagreement. We can all be generous and welcoming towards people who tend to agree with us! I resonate a lot with Lynn’s comments.

    It’s rather disappointing to see one sided reporting of this article–as if the writer started out having made up her mind.

    I would like to thank her though for creating this space so we can write comments.

Leave a comment

0/5

To better help City Limits know and serve our community, please select all that apply: