I just love this. I'm not sure I have the balls to do it myself, but maybe I can convince Glenn (peakguy) to come do it with me in my 'hood (Greenwich Village, where people will probably gleefully join in) or his (UES, where the police will probably be called).

Which leads me to my proper question: do you know what the NYC regulations mean when they say "storage of vehicles"? Is a bike a vehicle? You'd think, since they have to follow traffic laws. Anyway, if bikes are classified as vehicles, then you wouldn't even be breaking the law if you brought your bike to the squat.

I was too lazy to look up the exact wording. I'll try to find it. I know that the regualtion is pretty specific, however, in only permitting motor vehicles. Bikes and toy cars don't cut it. If the cops wanted, they could have come by and arrested us for doing the parking squat. We were technically breaking the law, I'm pretty sure.

From a lawyer:

One of those seemingly simple questions that's hard to answer.

I looked at Chapter 4 of Title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York ("Traffic Laws," available on the NYC DOT website) and don't see the issue specifically addressed, but others should take a look.

"Parking" is defined in Sec 4-01 as the "standing of a vehicle..." and a "vehicle" excludes "devices moved by human power." Does this mean that only motorized vehicles can park? Or does it mean that parking restrictions only apply to motorized vehicles? If the latter, the City may have to resort to 16-122 or other non-traffic provision to ticket bicycles in parking spaces.

Also see p. 35 of the Traffic Rules, which prohibits cars, wagons, or vehicles or peddlers, etc, only on certain sections of the street. So if wagons can park (with restrictions), why not bicycles?

One way to make this legal would be to put a motorcycle at the end of the parking space.

Aaron: What was the motorist reaction to this? Did you see people driving by perplexed or angry? Were there any harsh words exchanged?

Or even an electric-powered bicycle, if you can find someone who has one.

But I was just looking through the regulations, and I agree that they're vague enough that I don't think they could hold up in any court of law (not that I'm a lawyer). Probably if you just came armed with a print out of the regulations and waved it around the faces of people trying to bother you, they'd back off.

I didn't stay for the whole time but while I was there motorists just sort of drove by and didn't seem to pay any attention at all. They are either driving or looking for empty spaces and our space wasn't empty so they didn't care. A huge number of passersby were interested in what we were doing. A surprising number, to me, at least, were sort of baffled by the whole thing. Apparently, the vast majority of NY'ers never really think to question how our street space is allocated. But when we explained why we were doing the parking squat a really good number were supportive. You might take that as a given in politically progressive Park Slope but, I'll tell ya, for a lot of people, the most valuable commodity in this neighborhood is a parking space. So, the idea that less parking space might be a good thing is totally radical.

Yeah, Aaron is right. People seemed perplexed, even the normally liberal and somewhat radical Slope was a bit confused by it all. But they liked it once they got the gist. It is a good example of how far we have to go to convince those that aren't even in our realm to support things like this. But I like the fact that it seemed as radical to them as it did to people back in the early 90s when even a car-free P'Park wasn't seen as a possible nirvana which today of course is supported by most and some early naysayers are now standing with us.

I got there a couple hours after Jeff, Geoff and David had set up, but they apparently had an exchange with a couple "parking-rights advocates" about the appropriate use of metered spaces.

As far as I know, though, the parking meter considered their two bits just as good as anyone else's.

No offense, but you guys seem a little confused. If you want "space" then what are you doing in Park Slope to begin with, where every house is on top of the other?

One day you're complaining that there's no parking in your neighborhood (short of the $20 parking lots), then the next day you're wasting perfectly good 25-cent spots with your beach chairs trying to make some other point.

Seriously, it's obvious to anyone with two eyes that Park Slope is NOT the neighborhood for people who want "space". What were you thinking when you moved there?

Choosing to live in Park Slope and then complaining about the "space" is like choosing to live on a deserted island and then complaining about no love life.

Clearly, we like space and density, Anon. I'd way rather be in the city than the suburbs. The problem here in the city is that density doesn't work very well when we give the vast majority of our public space to the most costly, destructive and inefficient user -- the private motorist.

4:06
"it's obvious to anyone with two eyes that Park Slope is NOT the neighborhood for people who want "space"."

Relative to what?

Perhaps some people in Park Slope would enjoy more space (they did move a block away from a gigantic park afterall) but as it happens the Great Plains don't provide a convenient commute to jobs in Manhattan. Are we required to be denied greenspace and public space simply because we live in a city? The people of Amsterdam or Copenhagen or dozens of other cities would be surprised to learn that.

Motor? A Human driven vehicle can be propelled by a human motor.Where is it said that a motor must be driven by fuel?

Or that "fuel" has to be gasoline or any other hydrocarbon.

To the person who said "we like space and density" -- make up your mind. One is inversely proportional to the other; the more dense it is, the less space you have, and vice versa.

To the person who said "some people *would* enjoy more space (they did move a block away from a gigantic park after all)", I just have one thing to say: the city gave you a GIGANTIC park FREE of "destructive and inefficient" cars -- and you're complaining about one little parking space?!?! Your GIGANTIC park is more than most people have - even in the suburbs.

This is just another example of people with too much time on their hands and not enough REAL problems to complain about, so they have to look long and hard for the silliest thing to take on as their "cause".

If you spent half as much time working hard on a business venture as you do on this nonsense, you'd be able to BUY prospect park for your backyard (although something tells me that still wouldn't be enough "space" for you).

Wow, I was out there with my kid having a coffee when they set up. I guess you could say I was one of those "normally liberal" somewaht "confused" park slopers that one of the posters condesendingly describes. I'm all for promoting AT issues, but I have a car too, and I need it to live a normal life.

Can't we all just get along?

park slope mom-

The parking spot squat is not about elminiating *all* parking spots, it's about illustrating how spatially ineffiencient (not to mention dangerous to our health) automobiles are, and to propose alternate uses for some of that space. It also brings up the possibility of charging a parking fee that is a fair price (much higher than the current fee). Market-rate parking fees would free up space for people like yourself, who may actually need to use a car.

How can you make a comparison between renting apartments and "renting" parking spots? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and use your numbers (studios in the village that are actually about the size of a parking lot go for no more than half of the $2500 figure you give): Your hypothetical apartment costs about $3.50 an hour. How much is a roof over your head, running hot and cold water, a bathroom, a kitchen, and -- oh yeah -- personal security worth? You make no attempt at showing that parking spots are "spatially inefficient" other than that. Got any legitimate arguments?

I hope protesting makes you feel good, because you're using all heart and no brain.

Anon,

It's a very simple and straightforward economic argument:

The market rate price for a private parking space in Park Slope runs between $500 and $1,200 per month. People pay a lot of money for a parking space in New York City. On-street parking on the vast majority of the streets in Park Slope, on the residential blocks, is totally, completely, 100% free. On the commercial avenues parking costs about $1/hour for about eight hours of the day. That is $8/day or about $250/month. But people looking for long-term storage of their cars aren't using the metered avenues. They are either paying a huge monthly fee for private space or they are trolling the streets looking for a free spot.

So, there is a huge discrepency between the market rate price of parking and the on-street price of parking in most of New York City. This inefficiency in the market for automobile storage space creates a lot of irrational and destructive behavior. For example, many motorists clog the city's streets (especially during AM rush hour when street cleaning takes place) spending countless hours, gallons of gas and pounds of carbon emissions circling their neighborhood searching for free parking space. This uniquely New York behavior was even memorialized in Calvin Trillin's hilarious novel, "Tepper Isn't Going Out."

The obvious bottom line is that space is one of the most precious commodities in New York City. Yet, we give away automobile storage space nearly for free.

Particuarly in neighborhoods where a fair number of residents have personal wealth, traffic congestion is a major problem, transit and biking into the Manhattan business district is a viable option, and where the public would benefit from more space being dedicated to bus lanes and even cafe tables, it doesn't seem to make sense to give away vast tracts of public space for the free storage of personal motor vehicles.

Likewise, as New York City grows, develops and densifies -- a necessity for New York's economic survival -- many people are seeing that there are better, more efficient and more socially and economically productive uses of our public space than automobile storage.

Making parking free helps to encourage automobile use. And automobile use in a crowded city is costly and destructive in many ways. On the micro level our car dependency produces an inefficient, gridlocked transportation system, horn-honking, car alarms and diminished quality of life, third world level asthma rates, and enormous personal expense in the form of gas, insurance and maintenance. On the macro level our car dependency is helping to produce global climate change, resource war in oil-producing regions, and a lack of funding for other more efficient modes of transportation like a national rail system or our local bus systems, for example.

So, while, on one level this parking squat is inherently a little bit silly, it is also a great way for people on the super-micro local level to challenge some ingrained assumptions about how we run our city and to take action on some of the most pressing local and global challenges that we face. Clearly, the event touched a nerve for you and others.

I would not, however call this parking squat a "protest." It really didn't look like that to me. No one was angry or holding signs or chanting for powers-that-be to take some specific action. Rather, the parking squat seemed a lot more like a "celebration" or a "reclamation." The event was just a bunch of people parking their bodies and their bikes in a space that the city has, without a whole lot of thought, discussion or analysis, handed over to a very minority of New Yorkers to store their gas-guzzling, air-polluting, space-hogging private property.

Dear Mike and others, What exactly are you proposing? Do you want to eliminate parking spots? What would you do with the space? Or if you want to charge more money for parking, how much? What would you propose doing with the money? And what about all the people who can't negotiate public transportation to get arround, the disabled, frail seniors, children too small to walk?

Aaron, you seem to think you speak for most New Yorkers. I question your assumption. I would hazzard to guess most New Yorkers favor a city that permits private car ownership and on-street parking. Some of your other assumptions are also questionsable. Consider your claim that people "trolling" for parking waste alot of gas. I suggest that the scarcity or parking deters driving, so much so that people who own cars only use them when absolutely necessary. As far as bus lanes etc., have you driven in Manhattan lately? The city already has lots of tolls and driving and parking restrictions that work to deter private car use in congested areas. Though I am most sympathetic to promoting pedestrian and cycling use of the city spaces, I find you arguments unpersuasive.

PSM,

In "The High Cost of Free Parking" Donald Shoup and his army of grad students detailed in very specific and exact quantities how many miles are traveled in various urban areas by motorists "cruising" for parking. I don't have time this second to dig through his book or the notes I took when I heard him speak to find the numbers but they are pretty staggering. A significant amount of travel on NYC neighborhood streets is simply just people looking for parking, especially in this part of Bklyn.

Anyway... I'd be curious to know how your sympathetic feelings towards pedestrians and cyclists translate to policy, facts on the ground or a more bikeable, walkable city. What do you think should be done? What are you willing to do?

Again, Proof that some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

nyuguy-

Should we then sit at home and watch TV instead? Or sit in our cars in traffic?

Why is that when people try to take specific, concrete steps to improve their community, we are told that we have too much time on our hands? What alternative do you suggest? Whining and sitting on one's ass, hoping things will change?

It's a fair point--why, exactly, is the city giving away free (or near-free) parking spaces? Roads are for transportation, not storage.

As a NYC resident who owns a car, I think it would be great to get rid of free on-street parking. Would make it a heck of a lot easier and faster to take the bus, or to bike, or to walk, or to drive.

and it might even make it easier to find a parking space if parking space wasn't free!

But Aaron you ignore PSM's point that the trolling is only one side - after you get the spot, you avoid driving to lose it - personal observation shows that people who live in 'easy parking' areas drive much more than those of us in tough parking areas.
Second, street parking serves the pedestrians - good urban design actually recommends it so as to serve as a buffer between traffic and the pedestrians - unless you are recommending demapping streets all together??

While I'm all for the chuptza, pedestrian-dedicated streetscapes can be really boring urban spaces (with the exception of a few of course) and tend to totally shut down at night.

I hate to say it (because I too am for the reduction of car travel), but the presence of cars on city streets lends the type of hustle and bustle that most of us actually want from cities.

What is the law's take on holding spots for a car as yet not arrived? I once got into a near fisticuffs because a doorman was trying to hold a spot for a car way up the street. I was poised to take the spot and was going to respect his holding it until I saw the car he was helping was only just starting up and would have to go around a few blocks to come back to it. My view: I was there, first at the opening and I felt I would be a sucker to yield. So I pulled in over his shouted Spanish epithets. I checked the car regularly for keying or cut brake lines. He must've realized he was wrong as we went chest to chest and it didn't go to violence. I checked with the cops and they said I was in the right. Insights?

To anonymous chuptza - your argument is nonsense. Cars do not make for lively streets, they make for car traffic which is quite different. Look at any highway and see if you would call them lively, they are full of cars after all.

Pedestrian dedicated streetscapes - do you mean plazas, or street corners? - are boring when people don't use them, and people don't use them when they are disconnected from other places, have no uses in them, no places to sit, are at the wrong spot, and so on. It is very easy to create a place that people won't use.

An extended sidewalk with some seating on a street is Park Slope will not be a "boring urban space" any more than a parking spot is.

Yuck who would let a baby play on the ground next to the curb - basically in the gutter. Ewwww.

Re space vs. density: it's not a contradiction at all. I live in Park Slope as opposed to Manhattan because I have more space here -- both in my own home, and in the neighborhood in general (due to low-rise townhouses instead of high-rise apartment buildings, the park, my own little garden, etc.). But I live in Park Slope instead of the suburbs, or the Great Plains (as someone else quipped) because I like the hustle and bustle, the amenities, the diversity and the culture that urban density engenders. So, in fact, space + density is EXACTLY what a neighborhood like Park Slope is all about.

As for cities providing free parking, I agree it may not make sense on some kind of macroeconomic level, but honestly, where are people supposed to park? Mind you, I don't own a car, so I'm not necessarily advocating personal car ownership in this type of urban environment. But people have the right to own a car (and I have owned a car in the city in past years, when I had young children, and when I was spending more time leaving the city by car on the weekends), and until we are in a position to provide reasonably-priced options (and $500 to $1,200 a month for a garage space -- if you can even find one -- is not a viable option), simply banning parking on public streets just isn't reasonable.

Clearly the only solution is to condemn one square block of the central Slope via eminent domain and build a large, reasonably-priced parking facility on it for all the remaining residents.

5:55: i haven't heard anyone talking about "simply banning parking on public streets?" these guys took over a grand total of two parking spaces. if anything, they're talking about properly pricing on-street parking. and, sure, you have a right to own a car but the public doesn't necessarily owe you the right to store it on-street for free. since the car costs so much to society, it seems fair that parking should be priced accordingly and the revenues should be used to make it easier for people not to have to have cars in the city.

I love it when car owners assert their right to car ownership but then ask, "Where am I supposed to park my car?" as if this was somebody else's problem.

Whether you own a car or not is YOUR BUSINESS, not mine. And where you park it is your problem, not mine.

"Whether you own a car or not is YOUR BUSINESS, not mine. And where you park it is your problem, not mine."

Bingo. I have a right to own a horse, but I don't expect the city to set aside free land for me to stable it.

As to the "traffic calming"--that's a good point, and I'd back you if parked cars were the only way to achieve this. They're not--speed bumps, lights, extended curbs, there's a million other things that could be used which would net a much bigger benefit.

MIKE:
My opinion, being an owner of two cars and living in the city is that parking on the street is perfectly priced. If those people want to come out every hour to put quarters in their meter then the cost has to be significantly less than that of parking in a lot. It is such a pain in the a$$ to do that. As far as the free parking goes, that is why people move to brooklyn!! BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO LIVE THERE. I mean please, don't get into the argument that it is better than the city. And you certainly need a car to get there. Ever try to get a cab to go to BROOKLYN at 3am. Good luck.


AARON: The space these dorks took over was a metered space! Not free parking.

you guys are all commies that come from freaking Seattle with you hippie mentality.

Yeah, efficient use and market-rate pricing of on-street parking space -- that sounds real "commie."

I put a link to this posting on a "bikies" mailing list to which I subscribe, and Chuck, another member of this list, commented:

Note that the blog says"New York City regulations say that metered, curbside parking spaces are only to be used for the storage of vehicles. This kid made sure the rules were being followed." (in reference to the kid's TOY auto).

But bicycles are defined as legal vehicles in all 50 states (last I
checked), so this would be perfectly legal (anywhere), and no matter who interpreted the ordinance...as long as they had at least one bicycle in the
space.

Apparently, the parking squatters didn't read the law this way, but could it be that he was right? If he is, any bicyclist could park in the street in Park Slope for $.50/hour, which opens all sorts of possibilities.

Not that I'm suggesting anything...

I took a look upthread and found that "a lawyer" had already addressed the issue covered in my previous comment.

So, never mind...

The energetically negative comments made me chuckle, especially "if you were looking for space why di you move to Park Slope?"

Such folks are obviously not PS material, and I hope they stay away from our lovely (but getting more crowded) hamlet. You need only to live here and spend your weekends here to appreciate the humor in the subject. If you don't, well, move along. Posting diatribes complaining about something you don't understand only makes you look foolish.

Look, I appreciate the thought behind this, but who exactly is being targeted? Me? As a car owner who lives in Park slope, 1) I wish I didn't need a car, but I bought a small fuel-efficient vehicle to shave 2 hours off my daily commute to my job outside the city; 2) I love living in the city and wouldn't trade it for anything-- in fact, my biggest frustration is trying to find a parking space, because I can't afford to buy one. Frankly, I find the sit-in a bit sanctimonious -- agitating for better mass transit and smaller cars would mean a lot more, and be a lot less jerkish. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could all take the subway? Wouldn't it be lovely if parking was so expensive that only rich assholes with yellow-ribboned Hummers could afford them? So I'll just keep driving around looking for a space instead of spending time with my family or shopping at local businesses, and you folks have a grand old time feeling superior because...you have the (moral) luxury of not needing a car.

You seem to feel guilty and defensive about owning a car. I don't think the message of this parking squat action is: You are a jerk if you own a car. I think the micro message is: We can and should make better use of our public space (today, in front of this muffin shop). The broader message is: We should make it easier for people in NYC, like yourself, to not have to own a car.

But most important, if on-street parking were priced more rationally (and, say, if the revenues generated went directly towards improving transit, bike and ped facilities), you probably wouldn't have to spend so much time circling the block. You could have more time with you family. You wouldn't have to be so angry about all this. Maybe $250/year for parking would be worth it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that nobody needs cars. Certainly there will always be some need for personal, long-distant transportation. If you live in Brooklyn but work some place no train or bus goes, you probably need a car.

I would suggest putting some effort into getting a rail line or bus service to go to wherever it is you work, but you can't build train and bus lines going everywhere; at some point somebody's going to need a car.

But the idea is that, due to inefficient, inadequate planning over the years, coupled with outright subsidies/deference to automobiles, more people than should be necessary end up driving cars out of need.

It's not saying that no one should need a car, it's saying that there should be better transportation infrastructure so that people who otherwise wouldn't need cars could make that choice. This would make the city better for everyone. Fewer car drivers means more public space for bikers, pedestrians, shoppers, etc., and conversely, less traffic and more parking space for those who genuinely need cars.

I appreciate the responses. I agree in principle with what is being said and done -- what I don't agree with is the micro-phenomenon of someone making my life more difficult in order to make the statement. I stand by the point that sitting in a hard-to-find parking space is something you do when you're not really thinking about who might be affected by your protest. Good use of public space, rational decision-making, even economic incentives and restrictions, no problem. Someone sitting in a parking space -- can't buy into that. It's what you do when you think you know, or think you don't know, who is driving the car.

anon, appreciating the civilized discourse. here's my take:

these people took over exactly two parking spaces. and they paid quarters for the parking spaces just like anyone in a car would have (though, yeah, it's illegal to use the space for more than one hour at a time technically). there are many thousands of parking spaces available in park slope. these people were using just two of them. is that really making your life harder?

meanwhile... not necessarily your individual car but ALL of the cars and traffic on the street are definitely making my life noticably harder every single day. the honking, car alarms, dangerous walking and biking, the immobilized nearly useless buses, nasty exhaust being spewed into my kid's face, the increasingly extreme and erratic weather caused by the burning of fossil fuels, resource wars over oil... these are the very real impacts of your car, my car and everyone else's car. there is no question that all of these cars are making my life a whole lot harder.

if taking over two little parking spaces can generate a discussion about that and maybe begin to help new yorkers see that our current car-dominated transpo and land-use system is really a little bit crazy then i'm happy to hand the two parking spaces to these guys for the day.

i really think a solid case can be made that an innocent car trip to the new fairway grocery store in red hook causes a whole lot more problems than this parking squat, no?

That is pretty lame compared to this
http://www.rebargroup.org/projects/parking/

what's interesting is that in Park Slope, the majority of parking lots (or any large spaces) were all gotten rid of to put in more apartment buildings, since it is such a "hot" neighborhood. The people who owned the lots made more selling the land than they could have running a parking lot. Realtors would put luxury condos in parking spaces if they could.

It's interesting that in this cars vs bikes/pedestrians debate, no one has addressed the issue of insurance. Motor vehicles owners in NY state must have insurance with no-fault insurance coverage. Bikers and pedestrians are not required to have any coverage. Thus, in the case of an accident which is caused in whole or in part by a biker or pedestrian not complying with the law, the bikers and pedestrians do not pay any of the medical, property damage or legal costs of their own non-compliance. That cost is borne soley by the drivers who pay extremely high insurance rates in Brooklyn. It seems to me if you want the city to spend more money on bike parking spaces and streets that are blocked to traffic, then you have to accept your own duty to comply with the law. There is no legal right to run a red light just because you are on a bike or cross in the middle of block just because it saves you time.

Being born in Park Slope and seeing all the changes the area has gone through it makes me laugh to hear people talk about the price of an apartment and public space. I mean are you people serious? If you are dumb enough to pay 3k for an apartment rental instead of buying and paying a mortgage that is your problem. Personally I thank you guys for moving in and paying us these insane prices for rent. Parking is not free and for those of us who can afford a car or two and pay city taxes we have a right to park our vehicle in the street.
Furthermore, how sad is it that you can take time out of your day to stage a silly protest over such an issue when there is a war going and genocide occuring that your time would be better served drawing attention to. Also like the previous person stated that is pretty nasty letting that child play on the dirty street like that.

Idiotic and moronic. Buy a car and you'll change you mind you stupid freaks. By the way, the next time I'm coming, you had better yield to me. Afterall I can kill a pedestrian with what I park, you can only park your ass.

Those interested in permanent conversions of parking spaces and streetscapes into carfree areas might want to submit their designs to Carbusters magazine's Street Conversion Design Competition. Details are here: http://www.carbusters.org/street-conversion.php

The principle is that street space used to be for both transportation and human interaction, but with the arrival of the automobile, it has become monopolized by cars and our sense of community has suffered because of it.

- Randy Ghent, in Prague

Wow, these freakin' idiots. PROSPECT PARK IS TWO BLOCKS AWAY. 500 PLUS ACRES OF PUBLIC SPACE.

Retards.

They have everything one needs in life, but no, they need "urban space". Fuckin idiots.

Sigh.

great job park(ers)! fascinating to read your posts from here in san francisco, where we of course have very similar issues (fewer people, but also much less space).

i saw a lot of posts mentioned 'macro' and 'micro' influences and just thought i'd point out that by reclaiming the space in front of your muffin shop and discussing it in this public forum you reach way beyond your neighborhood, and even new york. your example is being widely discussed in san francisco as we prepare for our own park(ing) day.

public space belongs to all of us... whether or not we choose to drive. in most u.s. cities way more than 50% of all public space is allocated to private automobile storage.

can you hear that car alarm?

someone could be:
eating
talking
playing
knitting
biking
typing
reading
skateboarding
making sushi

where that car is parked right now.

What a great idea! I love it. I hate parking in the Slope. There's never enough room anywhere for a Hummer and a big Dodge pick-up truck. I hope that Aaron prevails. Since I don't have to worry about money, I could easily pay to park the vehicles on the street. Also, I think that esthetically the beat-up cars that poor people drive are quite an eye-sore in our pretty neighborhood. Aaron's plan will price them out. Two birds with one rock, imagine that! Our streets would be full of shiny BMWs and other expensive and tasteful looking cars that only us, the moneyed set, can afford and pay for to park. I say, go Aaron!