I'm for more money or public transportation. — Heide Fasnacht on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

How dare these people use self-driving cars on our streets! These computers, they will never be smart enough to drive as well as I do, cell phone in one hand, soy-latte in the other! These self-driving cars will scare my horse, which I also ride to work sometimes! Go back in your holes, aging hippies that bought downtown in the 70's (it was so much better then, I'm so smart for buying, I was here first!), and also you private school Triburbia bizatches with your private drivers.... — Real Person on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

eek...not much fun for the Port Authority staff working inside. — Will Meyerhofer on Nosy Neighbor: What’s Happening to This Building on Vestry?

yes it was the best place in NYC. I loved to go there and I wish to go in edgewater to the new place, I belive the address there is 163 old river road. edge water. NJ, and the phone number is 201 840 0163 — me on Acappella Is Moving After 23 Years

Thank you (and Untapped Cities!) for the lowdown on this landmark. The building was mentioned (but without its address) in E. B. White's classic book, Here Is New York. White said, of his early NYC years, that "I would hang around the corner of Chambers Street and Broadway), thinking: "Somewhere in that building is the typewriter that archy the cockroach jumps on at night." The "archy" White was referring to was the creation of New York Sun columnist Don Marquis, one of White's early journalistic heroes. — GBD on Seen & Heard: Café Temporarily Closed

What happened at the meeting? — James on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats

Try "virtue signaling" or "selfish" as examples of that new "thing" — James on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

Don't be offended by the diss. I think the new "thing" is when someone disagrees with your point-of-view, they accuse you of being an industry flack, a racist or some other perjorative. — Makes You Go Hmmm.... on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

No financial or occupational upside for me in this. I'm not even remotely tied to the automotive industry. I'm just someone who's been waiting for this technology to arrive, and watching it very closely. As my parents are aging, with a mother that doesn't drive, the idea of providing fully autonomous safe mobility for them is something that can't come soon enough. Yes, I'd rather buy a self-driving car for them than get them a driver or teach them how to use Uber. Fear of this is tech is normal, but if you take the time to understand what it is, and what it isn't, I think the "my kids aren't safe" theory is really not realistic. If anything, even if the autonomous driving aspect was garbage, anti-collision radar in these cars is super impressive, and that's on even more cars than the dozen or so autonomous capable ones. Even your run-of-the-mill Honda can be had with autobrake when the driver isn't paying attention. It's probably not long before it's a NHTSA mandate like anti-lock brakes and airbags. But the point is more that it's already all around you with billions of proven miles behind it. Nobody in Tribeca has ever said "that Tesla almost ran over my kids today". To me the tech works... the only real concerns around autonomous cars are around the ethics of it. That's a much longer conversation, and one where I do think there's a fair amount of room for debate over. — alee on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

I don't think it's transparent at all. — Erik Torkells on Nosy Neighbor: What’s Happening to This Building on Vestry?

Is that metal opaque when viewed from the inside looking out? Or is it like those bus decals where it looks opaque from outside but from the inside looking out its not as opaque as one would think. — en_b on Nosy Neighbor: What’s Happening to This Building on Vestry?

I wonder if some of these posts are from people engaged in this industry. — Heide Fasnacht on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

Do you work or promote for this industry? — Heide Fasnacht on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

SW, We are so please to know that you are happy with the result of your motorized shades. We are delighted to be future on TriBeCa Citizen. Thank you! Innovation Team. — Tom on A New Shade Showroom on Hudson Street

Yuck! Gotta take exception to the recommendation of Thailicious. I had better Thai food in my Midwest home town more than 30 years ago. And that's saying something. The food had no flavor, no energy and no quality. It was either greasy or bland, and it did not taste remotely healthy. How do you take all the flavor out of the ubiquitous Pad Thai? If I were blind-tasting this food, I wouldn't even know it is Thai. Spend your money somewhere else. Eat a carrot and some hummus. Or order in from Shake Shack. Anything! — tribecard on Where to Order Thai Food in Tribeca

Laughing Man is one of the most friendly and welcoming businesses in the neighborhood. David S., the proprietor, and long time resident of Tribeca only wants the best for the neighborhood. The opposition is few and far between and each has their own agenda. Madeline Lanciani of Duane Park Patisserie opposes it because she did not come up with the idea first. Another man who lives on the street, Paul Sipos, actually said "we don't need another park." http://tribecatrib.com/content/laughing-man-coffee-denied-again-bid-expand-its-street-seats Unbelievable. The community board needs to wake up and actually listen to the community as a whole, not the very finite amount of people who oppose this WONDERFUL neighborhood amenity. — Michael on In the News: Burger Chain Opening on Hudson

To get to this point in order to test requires significant levels of product maturity, far beyond what the word "testing" implies. And the parameters around the test far exceed the safety parameters taken by any NYC TLC licensed car today. I challenge you to find a taxi today that doesn't have a brake warning, check engine warning or some other egregious safety related issue today. GM will have a full safety check of everything including tire pressure before leaving their test facility and have 2 people in the front seat monitoring the system for every ride. I walked by at least 4 autonomous capable cars today in the span of 5 min walking around the block the morning. They're already out there... and they've been out there and cruising our neighborhood since 2014. — alee on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

It's not the driverless cars I object to. It's the testing on our streets full of adults, children and animals. — Heide Fasnacht on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

I personally can’t wait for driverless cars. The are are way too many terrible human drivers around here. My husband recently witnessed an older man crossing the street in Tribeca who was hit by a turning car. He said the driver was in a hurry and flew around the corner. Computers don’t feel rushed or become distracted. I envision a day when human drivers are not allowed to drive in big cities because they cause traffic and honk their horns. I agree with the comment above. Statistically, 90% of accidents are due to human error. We will have a lot less accidents, traffic and noise if we automate! — JVZ on Self-Driving Cars Are Coming to Lower Manhattan

Your public spiritedness is likewise beside the point, this time. This Street Seats, redundantly opposite a public park, is no less for the promotion of Laughing Man than a sidewalk cafe would be, a sidewalk cafe that may not be allowed under DOT and CB1 rules. Even DOT says on its website, "DOT seeks applications from restaurants for its curbside seating platforms program. The platforms provide outdoor public seating in the curb lane during the warm months and promote local businesses." (Why DOT would spend limited public resources here, to build another park across from an existing park, is another story.) You might as well have skipped the "virtue signaling" bit and instead called the "foes" of the parking spot park disingenuous in their opposition (aside from Duane Park Patisserie who strikes me as the most straightforward and least smug of the interested parties here.) Why not just put forth the merits of your idea analyzing policy without psychoanalyzing your opponents? This decision has nothing to do with parking placards which will be abused with or without these Street Seats. Perhaps the problem of placard abuse would be better resisted if the Street Seats were granted by DOT on a block with NO parks but with a parking lane now abused by counterfeit placards and genuine agency parking permits. Even the over-issuance by DOT and the Mayor of authentic placards (whether to desk-bound "public servants" who use their agency cars merely to commute or otherwise) is just as much placard abuse as (city government's tolerance for) the use of counterfeit placards. — James on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats

Your erudition is beside the point, this time. A sidewalk cafe would be for patrons only. What Laughing Man has made is for anyone and everyone. For the record, it was a comment, not I in my piece, who called the objectors "selfish." — Komanoff on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats

I don't think that the seating is a problem per se, but the people that sit or chat there and let their dogs and strollers take up the entire sidewalk are. It is hard to find a way through. As a resident of the street, I would prefer a clear sidewalk. — Elizabeth on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats

agreed. it's obvious that this is really a sidewalk cafe and it deserves to be regulated as one. — safe as milk on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats

First, I do not think that attacking the motives of people opposed to one's idea ("virtue signaling"; "selfish") is all that admirable. Second, Laughing Man could obtain a sidewalk cafe permit if it could comply with DOT rules regarding sidewalk width and CB1 rules about sidewalk cafes on east-west side streets. Instead of appropriating sidewalk space, and since it may not comply with those rules, it would like to take (even more) parking space. Certainly no restaurant would be granted a sidewalk cafe on a portion of the sidewalk not adjacent to the store's frontage, or in front of a residential entrance. Further, DOT's website is clear: "Any type of business or institution that owns or operates the frontage at the ground floor of a building may be eligible to install and maintain a Street Seat. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and non-profit organizations without frontage can also be eligible, if they work in partnership with a local business that does have frontage." http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/streetseats.shtml Third, if the operator of Laughing Man wants to apply for Street Seats in his capacity as building owner, that should be made clear. In that case, why not let him apply to build a Street Seats adjacent to the entire frontage of the building? Finally, there are indeed some limits here that, because the "majority" likes the idea and the store operator has a city agency will arbitrarily and capriciously throw its rules out the window to expand its pet program "Street Seats", some say we should all apparently ignore. — James on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats

I do think it's a larger placard abuse issue. Beyond Duane Street, city cars park where they want and when they want -- often not moving for a week. As a result the street cleaners only make a half attempt and the streets are a mess. — Brian on In the News: “Virtue Signaling” and Street Seats