Metal Roll-Down Gates, Part of Cityscape for Decades, to Be Phased Out (New York: neighborhood, to buy)

[nightcrawler]

and yet another thing for poor small business trying to make a living, just need another expense.

we had the solid gates for decades, now they want them changed.....

ugh, who thinks this shyt up???

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by nightcrawler

ugh, who thinks this shyt up???

A bureaucrat who hasn't done anything productive in years, and suddenly must justify his or her job!

[citylove101]

first thing off the bat is that yes, see-through gates will be an expense for the landlord/storeowner.

but it is an immensely smart decision and the investment wll pay off. attractive businesses attract customers, even when they're closed. the ability to see what's in a store at night doesn't attract just theives. it can make paying customers come back later. its called window shopping, and its a mark of a stable, middle class nabe instead of a slum. neighborhoods that look like slums tend to stay that way a lot longer than they might, even when they're changing. an avenue full of gated, graffitied stores, like you find in many poorer negihborhoods is just plain ugly and discourages new residents and new businesses alike. it signals that this place isn't safe, which is the wrong signal to send this far after the crime and riots of the 60s and 70s. the fact is that almost all neighborhoods are now safer than they were then, and some by a lot. so there's no reason to do business like you did a generation ago. see through gates may also make some storeowners clean up the shabby, dirty, ugly window displays that i find insulting. (you put crap in the windows, cover it with ugly posters for cigarettes, lottery tickets, and beer, and expect me come and spend my money there? not.)

i only wish that the law sped this up instead of waiting till 2026. lnadlords shouldn't look at it is an burdensome expense, but as a productive investment that will pay off.

[nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by citylove101

first thing off the bat is that yes, see-through gates will be an expense for the landlord/storeowner.

but it is an immensely smart decision and the investment wll pay off. attractive businesses attract customers, even when they're closed. the ability to see what's in a store at night doesn't attract just theives. it can make paying customers come back later. its called window shopping, and its a mark of a stable, middle class nabe instead of a slum. neighborhoods that look like slums tend to stay that way a lot longer than they might, even when they're changing. an avenue full of gated, graffitied stores, like you find in many poorer negihborhoods is just plain ugly and discourages new residents and new businesses alike. it signals that this place isn't safe, which is the wrong signal to send this far after the crime and riots of the 60s and 70s. the fact is that almost all neighborhoods are now safer than they were then, and some by a lot. so there's no reason to do business like you did a generation ago. see through gates may also make some storeowners clean up the shabby, dirty, ugly window displays that i find insulting. (you put crap in the windows, cover it with ugly posters for cigarettes, lottery tickets, and beer, and expect me come and spend my money there? not.)

i only wish that the law sped this up instead of waiting till 2026. lnadlords shouldn't look at it is an burdensome expense, but as a productive investment that will pay off.

Well, if the City feels the new gates are better, then the City should replace them, not the landlords. that is not fair. if there is nothing wrong with the gates, why should the Ll have to replace them.


oh, and yeah, I always window shop at 3 am, because I have nothing better to do with my pathetic boring little life.

[citylove101]

window shopping at 3 am? probably not.
window shopping at 10 or 11 pm? all the time.

and yes, i agree that it would be better for the city to offer some sort of subsidy/loan to make this happen more quickly. but you could just as easily make an argument that if this is good for business too, then business should shoulder a part of the cost.

[anon1]

@ citylove your points definitely make sense but the problem is not the suggestion itself, but rather when these mandatory "suggestions" are coming. We are at a point when there's talk about rationing toilet paper, cutting our police force, firefighter force and a hiring freeze for new teachers... and yet we have the money to pay for unnecessary things like these... It shows what tops our priority list which is now becoming increasingly ridiculous and unnecessary...

[nyfan718718]

They are not being phased out just updated. Having a view into the store from the street does more to deter criminality. The gates are necessary as social unrest is a real threat in NYC. We still have many mini riots under certain conditions, a world class city with many differing opinions.


Alternative.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by nightcrawler

Well, if the City feels the new gates are better, then the City should replace them, not the landlords.

One of those suggestions qualifying as "Way Too Much Common Sense to be Considered."

[nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

One of those suggestions qualifying as "Way Too Much Common Sense to be Considered."

I know. Of course it is easy to say you have to get these gates, the city isn't paying for them.......

NYC has a racket going on.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by citylove101

window shopping at 3 am? probably not.
window shopping at 10 or 11 pm? all the time.

and yes, i agree that it would be better for the city to offer some sort of subsidy/loan to make this happen more quickly. but you could just as easily make an argument that if this is good for business too, then business should shoulder a part of the cost.

Uhm, I think the businesses themselves are in a better position to judge the benefits versus the drawbacks of various security measures. If it were such a smart business move, the city wouldn't need to force the issue.