Upzoned – How To Fix Washington DC's New Rules for Outdoor Dining Episode Date: November 26, 2025 Host: Abby Newsham (Strong Towns) Guest: Edward Erfurt (Chief Technical Advisor, Strong Towns)
Episode Overview
In this Upzoned episode, Abby Newsham and Edward Erfurt dig into Washington DC’s controversial shift from a pilot to permanent “streetery” (parklet) program—exploring new rules, costs, and the broader implications for small restaurants, city policy, and public space. Drawing from national examples and personal experience, they challenge whether the city’s well-intentioned regulation actually squashes the vibrant street life DC sought to enable during the pandemic, and imagine what smarter, easier, and fairer approaches could look like for all.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. What are Streeteries and What’s Happening in DC?
(01:28 – 04:11)
- Definition: Streeteries (or parklets) are former street parking spaces converted into outdoor dining, a trend accelerated by COVID-19.
- DC’s Transition: Now five years post-pandemic, DC is ending its pilot and launching a permanent program with costly rules and fees, citing safety, aesthetics, and public resource management.
- Restaurant Concerns: Many restaurants, especially small ones, warn that burdensome fees and strict requirements could force them to close or lay off staff.
Abby: “Some restaurants are really concerned ... saying that they may overshadow the benefit of participation ... actually eliminate jobs and lead to the closure of restaurants that rely on streeteries for survival.” (03:39)
2. Are DC’s Regulations Too Complicated – and for Whom?
(04:11 – 06:21; 12:17 – 16:05; 35:38 – 37:38)
- Top-Down Overload: Edward argues DC’s approach is complex, costly, and creates huge barriers for the small business owners these programs are meant to help.
- The Middle Gets Squeezed: Strict standards either favor “fancy” restaurants who can afford compliance or push low-budget ones into riskier, code-dodging workarounds—leaving little space for the creative, scrappy middle ground that pilots often spark.
- Equity Lens: If only the big restaurants benefit, it’s not equitable.
Edward: “...the amount of turnover on these tables is an enormous amount of revenue for the restaurant and ultimately revenue for Washington D[istrict]. But the barriers ... really make this not just a wash, but a loss for anybody that wants to participate.” (05:14)
Abby: “It’s very unfair ... if you have a standard that basically favors the nicest restaurants that can afford to build to the standards and excludes all of the small business pizza shop. That’s not a fair application of the rules.” (16:06)
3. The Value of Pilots and Creative Experimentation
(06:21 – 10:18)
- “Let it Rip” vs. Safety: Early, lightly regulated pilot projects yielded creative solutions, some of which formal city design might have deemed “too risky.” Yet, pilots also surfaced legitimate accessibility or safety needs.
- Lessons from Experience: Abby shares her experience cataloguing real-world pilot outcomes—ranging from unsafe ramps and loose electrical wires to dangerous heat lamps damaging trees.
Abby: “There’s value to doing a pilot program that way and just letting people do things, because I think when they eventually developed their long term program, there were things that they allowed that ... they would have been too afraid to allow.” (06:46)
4. The Need for Basic, Not Burdensome, Standards
(10:18 – 12:17; 16:06 – 19:06)
- Regulate the Basics: Focus regulations on things that truly impact public safety, accessibility (ADA), fire, utility access, and basic maintenance—not on pushing “architectural grandeur.”
- Cost Matters: As soon as compliance expectations or seasonal requirements drive parklet costs up into five or six figures, participation plummets.
Abby: “There are very basic standards that I think any restaurant could reasonably meet and it doesn’t cost that much ... But it starts to get into ... the issue of seasonality ... which I think is not very reasonable.” (18:25)
5. Incremental Urbanism: From Temporary to Permanent Change
(19:06 – 23:16; 25:16 – 28:54)
- Incrementalism: Both hosts advocate using streeteries as step-one experiments, paving the way to more permanent public-space improvements—like curb extensions and wider sidewalks.
- City Role vs. Business Burden: Instead of just making restaurants jump through hoops, cities should take a proactive role in transforming the street.
- Revenue Justification: Outdoor dining equals more vitality and taxes—so cities can “grow the pie” and fund improvements.
Edward: “What I would be interested in is just reinforcing the idea of increment. ... Let’s actually reclaim the street for a wider sidewalk. That is something lasting ... that today may be outdoor dining, but in the future it might just be public open space.” (22:23)
Abby: “...making this go from a pilot to a permanent program, it ought to involve the city instead of putting it on the business owners ... why don’t we just redesign this street as the next increment and shift the curbs? ... extend the sidewalk, make it a 30 foot sidewalk and let people put tables and chairs out there.” (23:35–24:43)
6. Equity, Simplicity, and Proactivity: What Should Cities Do Instead?
(32:16 – 35:38; 43:09 – 44:59)
- City-Led Site Selection: City staff already know which streets are easy wins—just map, categorize (“green, yellow, red”), and streamline approvals, instead of throwing all the technical burden on restaurateurs.
- Bottom-Up Support: Reduce requirements, guide entrepreneurs, and build so local, non-chain businesses aren’t drowned by red tape.
Edward: “If I really wanted to support my local businesses ... I would simply go with my city engineer and my map ... and identify all the streets ... green as these are the streets I have no question in my mind are low speed ... and it's just like by right ... I can come out eyeball it with some chalk and tell you where to put it and be done.” (33:10)
Abby: “The more of that [red tape] you put in front of somebody ... people won’t participate ... versus if you’re a local government and you proactively come out and make a decision about what this space is going to be ... just building for what people want to do and making it as straightforward as possible to participate.” (36:18)
7. Big Ideas: “Food Hall Streets” and Sharing Success
(28:54 – 32:16; 37:49 – 42:20)
- Inspiration from Miami and Catalonia: Why not go further? Imagine whole blocks with extended curbs and sidewalk cafes—where many restaurants share space, infrastructure, or even kitchens, unlocking huge economic and social value.
- Challenge to Cities: Be the first US city to create a “food hall street”—Strong Towns will cover and champion your innovation!
- Pilot Learnings as a Roadmap: Use existing streetery usage as a guide for public investment, rather than endless paperwork and case-by-case negotiation.
Edward: “Abby’s the person to talk to because she has ideas of how to get you to develop a food truck street or food hall street. That would allow for lots of innovation, lots of excitement on a street. I mean, this would be even more exciting than a farmer's market.” (37:54)
Abby: “First city that builds one of these, Strong Towns will hype you up. We’ll write an article. We will hype you up.” (38:21)
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On DC's Barriers:
Edward: “The amount of turnover on these tables is an enormous amount of revenue ... But the barriers ... make this not just a wash, but a loss for anybody that wants to participate.” (05:14) -
On Design Overkill:
Abby: “If you build the railings strong enough, you don’t have to have jersey barriers everywhere ... Just design a slow street where people want to be and people aren’t speeding and have stronger walls.” (10:27) -
On “Food Hall Street” Potential:
Abby: “It’s an invitation for cities to seriously look at moving where their curb is and building these as extended sidewalk areas ... Just extend the sidewalk, make it a 30 foot sidewalk and let people put tables and chairs out there.” (24:25) -
On Shared Kitchens:
Edward: “If you go to Miami Beach ... all the deco buildings, all that fancy outdoor dining ... I think there is only one kitchen on that entire block. Food is actually prepared two blocks away and they bus it across the street for that outdoor dining.” (25:43) -
On City Proactivity:
Edward: “I can come out eyeball it with some chalk and tell you where to put it and be done.” (33:14)
Timestamps for Important Segments
- [01:28] – Introduction to streeteries and DC’s new permanent rules
- [04:11] – Edward’s immediate critique of the top-down, costly city process
- [06:21] – Abby’s reflections on pilot program experience: creativity vs. safety concerns
- [10:18] – Balancing basic standards with creative experimentation
- [16:05] – Equity issues: who benefits from strict standards?
- [19:06] – The challenge and cost of seasonal/temporary parklet setups
- [22:23] – Incremental buildout: start temporary, move to permanent curb expansions
- [25:43] – The Miami Beach model: shared kitchens and distributed outdoor dining
- [33:14] – Practical city support: mapping streets in green/yellow/red for dining
- [37:54] – Food hall street: a call for innovation and leadership
- [40:44] – Abby’s painting of a successful streetery in Spain as inspiration
- [43:09] – Why municipal planners should lead permanent street redesigns
Tone & Delivery
Conversational, practical, and passionate—both hosts balance real-world anecdotes, technical knowledge, humor, and firm advocacy for cities to be bolder, more open, and less procedural.
Conclusion
Abby and Edward push listeners (and city leaders) to see streeteries not as a problematic temporary fix, but as the first step toward permanent, people-centered public spaces and more dynamic small business growth. Their bottom line: rules matter, but too many kill creativity and equity. If cities step up, start small, and invest smartly—transformative “food hall streets” could become the next beloved feature of urban life.
(Downzone segment and post-show chat skipped as requested: summary covers the main content.)