Hard to understand why art venders in Union Square are bad but the annual Christmas Village is good.

I think you’re being too critical of the Parks Dept. on this issue. I’m all for streetlife but sometimes the vendors do cause congestion. I see no problem with the Parks Dept. wanting to regulate the number of vendors in what is public space.

Streetsblog is always making an issue of how free on-street parking is a total public give-a-way. No argument from me on that issue but the reality is that vendors that pay nothing to set up shop in parks are doing exactly the same thing.

Want to see real congestion in NYC parks? Look no further than the the holiday season peddlers’ villages that Parks Department erects at Union Square and Columbus Circle. Parks couldn’t give a damn about congestion, it’s revenue that’s driving this. Are they going to reduce these peddlers’ villages by 80%?

Kristen – Since when do distasteful, distracting comments that are clearly unenlightened, reflect poorly on the person who wrote them, considered – appropriate for an otherwise cordial, honest and sincere blog? Unless I missed something your (commentary?) on art nor its racist implications are welcome.

The vendors are gigantic f’n nuisance… They are clearly the cause of considerable pedestrian congestion and make navigating the edge of union square even more unpleasant than it used to be (when you had to elbow your way past the hookers and junkies). I wouldn’t complain if these parasites they were selling something useful, like drugs, but they are mostly selling knick-knacks and laser printed “art” to tourists and NYU undergrads (two classes of people who should be banished off the Island). I wouldn’t mind seeing those christmas chazarai “villages” carted off to the east river either. Send the carnies back to jersey.

While we’re at it, could Parks and the city please do something about the gauntlet of “bicycle rental” and “pedicab tour” sales reps who turn the SE corner of central park and 59th street at 6th and 7th avenues into pedestrian clusterfuck the second temperatures climb above 60degrees?

I think what the city is REALLY trying to say, or should have actually said is this:

“A lot of people sell the same crap in really touristy areas and we’re just trying to consolidate that crap. This is not about the ‘expressive’ types, its about the million people selling the same ‘Gay Street’ sign picture to faux-trendy Europeans.”

You know it’s true. It’s the sentiment that really could help save New York from becoming like everywhere else. Instead, they raised the ire of a bunch of aging hippies. Inevitably the city wins in the end, but their choice of words could have made their mission a lot more sensible to the commoner.

I’m sure the Street Vendors Project “survey” is completely scientific. They claim that 94% of the people who live in the neighborhood are for the illegal vendors. I absolutely sure that must be a correct number.

To destroy a new park like the High Line with this crap (which is only sold to tourists) is disgusting.

Good for them for banning vendors on the High Line. That entire park is one giant choke point. You can’t stop your ice cream truck in the middle of the Gowanus and start selling. Likewise, you should be able to set up a 10-foot table in the middle of a pedestrian thoroughfare and start selling ugly, tacky stuff to tourists.

Also, Robert Lederman lives for this sort of controversy. Take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

Listen – I go to the park to seek respite from the commercialization of the city streets. But in many parks, all I get is more people trying to sell me more stuff. That’s what I DON’T want.

These vendors can sell almost anywhere, on thousands of miles of city streets. Or, I can suggest hundreds of vacant storefronts in my neighborhood alone where they might conduct their commercial activities. Can’t they leave the park for those who seek enjoyment of nature or leisure activities with fellow residents and visitors?

I’ll accept limited commercial activity in a park as long as it supports the park or serves a public good. Shake Shack generates revenue without which the park would suffer (or we could all just pay more taxes). That’s an acceptable tradeoff to me, as is the Greenmarket which serves an important public good. Artists markets might also serve a similar good, but the current state of individuals raking in profits at the expense of the enjoyment of park-goers? Not for me.

I sometimes think that if the Parks Department really wanted vendors out of the parks, they would be doing more plantings and benches rather than the stone walks we see here and in small parks. What they’ve been putting in place are particularly conducive to vendors and people just passing through. It would be really great if, in addition to trying to control the number of non-recreation-related activity (such as vending) that impedes on the purpose of our parks, they realized the need for more green as well.

Can we spread ’em around a bit? I’d suggest allowing a limited number of art vendors on the Broadway Boulevard north and south of Times Square, where a lane has been reclaimed from cars. The Times Square and Herald Square sections are already congested, but between 59th and 47th, and from 41st to 35th, there’s some often-vacant space where allowing two or three vendors per block wouldn’t hurt a thing. Then if we can get some more pedestrianized streets, perhaps 41st between 6th and 8th Aves, or 32nd between 6th and 7th, there’d be more space in touristy areas for sellers of art & schlock.

I do favor some reasonable limits. Current zoning regs specify how close together you can plant trees along the sidewalks. Surely we can space out the vendors as well. And on the High Line, zero.