Starts and Fits has a great comparison of two photographs of the corner of E89th and Lexington-- the first was taken in 1913, the second in 1991. As you can see, the sidewalk decreased in width by about 75%, and the stoops and first-floor entrances of each building were eliminated entirely. The block used to have a wonderful, airey feel-- but with the widening of the street, it's now one of the more congested, dirty corners in the Upper East Side. Sure-- we can speed down Lexington Avenue at 45mph, but now it's hard to walk in anything other than single file down the streets. S&F writes:
The history of the 20th century is one in which every square inch of land that could conceivably be put to use for the movement or storage of automobiles was. Streetcars were removed from the tunnel under Park Avenue south of Grand Central Terminal, at right, so the space could be given over to drivers. Brooklyn's Third Avenue elevated train was replaced with the Gowanus Expressway. Bridges carrying subway and trolley lines were converted to automobile use, even though that led to fewer people to using the bridges. Walkable neighborhoods with three- and four-story buildings were razed for towers surrounded by parking lots or perched atop multi-story concrete garages. Central Park's loop drive was opened up to traffic.
So to those of you working at City Planning, we implore you: please bring back the wide sidewalks of days of yore. Is anything being done about this?





It might just be because of the cramped space during its construction, but the new sidewalk along the Undulating Astor seems massive by today's standards.
It's odd that the sidewalks are an issue when the parks are currently being rented out to connected restauranteurs. In a hundred years people will look at photos of Madison Square and Union Square and wonder how guys like Danny Meyer were allowed to put up hamburger stands on land belonging to the public. Strange how no one seems to object to giving away the parks.
Danny & Co were able to put up a burger stand in Madison Square Park by offering money to the park's conservancy. Not sure if it's rent each month, a cut of the Shack's business, or what. Non-profits, like the park's conservancy, like money. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If the park benefits by having regular people use and enjoy the park, and gets some benjamins in the process so it doesn't become a cesspool again, what's wrong with that? Everyone complains when a park is unsafe or becomes a dump, and then they complain when people help turn it around while also making a profit.
Let's pick the lesser of two evils, grab a Shack Stack and a cold one, and enjoy the fall.
i struggled with "in the upper east side" vs. "on the upper east side"-- but i couldn't figure it out. are you sure that "on" is definitive?
I think it's 'in'. The region is 'on' the upper east side of Manhattan, but that corner is 'in' the region known as the Upper East Side, just as it would be 'in' Hell's Kitchen.
The corner could be 'on' the upper east side of 89th & Lex, I suppose, if traffic had reversed that day.
I agree with burgerboy. It takes money to have nice parks, but taxpayers are not willing to invest in open spaces. That’s when ppl get creative and open concessions and the like.
Transportation Alternatives has a campaign for reclamation of sidewalks.
http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming/sidewalks.html
Definitely ON the Upper East Side. Side is the key word that differentiates this sort of neighborhood name from others.
While scaling the side of a building, you are on the building not in it. A burger with fries on the side, not in the side.
And yes to money for parks and tasty burgers.
grif is correct
Agreed. Any real New Yorker knows it's "on" the Upper East and West Sides and "in" Hell's Kitchen, Midtown, Harlem, Chinatown, etc. To say "in" the Upper East Side is a faux pas akin to saying you work on the Avenue of the Americas.
As for wider sidewalks, I'm all for it. Take back some traffic lanes and charge higher tolls across the bridges. Of course, this won't work on some streets, like the narrow ones downtown that are already one lane wide.
BTW, a great book for this kind of comparison is "New York Then and Now." It's actually from 1976, but the contrast is there from the turn of the century. And it doesn't matter to me. I loved NY back in the '70s, too. Coincidentally, I was actually just leafing through this book last night before bed.
i disagree with you guys-- i've lived in nyc my entire life, and i occasionally do say both "in the upper east side" and "on avenue of the americas." of course, i did grow up in brooklyn and i've only lived in manhattan for 10 years, so what the hell do i know?
You know the "in" vs. "on" argument is an interesting one. When I was reading Herbert Asbury's "The Gangs of New York," Which was written at the beginning of the 20th Century, every time he would mention a location, he would use "in" plus a "the." For example, "in the first avenue." That must have been the style around the turn of the century. Not sure if it also applied to neighborhoods in the same way, but I wonder when that changed. I would never say "in" ... something is "on" first avenue or "on" 42nd street, but that doesn't seem to be the origin.
Just something to make you say hmmm.
Personally, when the neighborhood is geographic I say "on" -- on the Upper West Side, on the Lower East Side -- but everything with a name is in -- in Washington Heights, in Chelsea, etc. But I don't know if that's right.
i can't help it-- sometimes i mix up things-- like the other day i forgot which was greenwich avenue and which was greenwich street-- some poor tourist totally got pointed the wrong way.
Jake, you say "totally" more than a feather-haired valley girl driving a pink corvette. Are you sure you're from Brooklyn?
I once ate a piece of pizza near a green subway station in the Upper East Side.