Download the White Paper PDF Here

 

Executive Summary

On February 4, 2026, Council Speaker Julie Menin announced plans to restore year-round outdoor dining in New York City, reversing the seasonal restrictions enacted under the Adams administration in 2023. This proposal, advancing legislation introduced by Council Member Lincoln Restler, would remove the December through March prohibition on roadway dining that has contributed to a sharp decline in program participation from approximately 8,000 roadway setups at the program's pandemic-era peak to just 350 to 400 fully permitted locations today. A further 2,000 to 2,500 establishments hold conditional approvals allowing them to operate while their applications are reviewed, but the program's slow permitting pipeline means most have not yet completed the full licensing process.

This whitepaper draws on five years of hands-on experience designing, manufacturing, and servicing more than 100 outdoor dining structures for around 80 New York City businesses. It argues that year-round outdoor dining delivers genuine economic benefits, that the pandemic-era problems of structural deterioration, rodent harborage, and aesthetic degradation were real but solvable, and that clear design standards can address each of these failures while keeping the program accessible to smaller operators.

 

This paper does not propose changes to the existing seasonal program. Instead, it proposes a voluntary ‘year‑round certification’ pathway for operators who choose to invest in higher‑standard structures. The following pages outline the specific design standards that policymakers should require for the year-round tier and explain why higher design standards need not mean higher barriers to entry.

 

1. The Case for Year-Round Outdoor Dining

1.1 The Cost Burden of Seasonal Removal

The single most significant barrier to outdoor dining participation under the current seasonal program is the cost and logistical burden of the annual removal cycle. Under the 2023 legislation, roadway structures must be taken down by November 29 and may not be reinstalled until April 1. For each restaurant, this mandates a sequence of costly operations:

Seasonal Operation	Estimated Cost
End-of-season de-installation (Labor, equipment)	$1,500 – $3,000
Transport to and from storage	$1,000 – $3,000
Winter storage (4 months, warehouse space)	$1,500 – $4,000
Refurbishment and re-painting after storage	$1,000 – $2,500
Re-installation (Labor, equipment)	$1,500 – $3,000
Total annual seasonal cycle cost	$6,500 – $15,500

Table 1: Estimated annual costs of the seasonal removal cycle for a typical two-parking-space roadway structure.

These costs are in addition to the initial construction outlay, which Streetsblog has estimated at upwards of $35,000 for a typical roadway setup including city fees, construction, and insurance. For a restaurant operating on typical hospitality margins of 3 to 5%, the seasonal cycle cost alone can absorb the equivalent profit from $130,000–$500,000 in additional revenue. Beyond the direct financial burden, the logistical demands of the annual cycle (coordinating contractors, managing permits, absorbing the inevitable handling damage) consume management time and attention that small operators can ill afford.

1.2 The Equity Dimension

The seasonal removal requirement is not cost-neutral across the restaurant industry. It creates a structural bias toward wealthier operators and neighborhoods. As Open Plans research has documented, just 2.2% of curbside dining is currently located in neighborhoods with a median income of $60,000 or less. The seasonal logistics burden is a significant contributor to this inequity.

Larger restaurant groups can absorb seasonal costs across multiple locations, negotiate volume rates with contractors, and may even have access to their own storage. An independent operator in the Bronx or eastern Brooklyn faces the same absolute cost burden with far less financial cushion. Eliminating the seasonal cycle for operators who choose the year-round tier removes a barrier that disproportionately excludes the very communities the program should serve, and that the Mamdani administration has specifically identified as a priority.

1.3 The Revenue Opportunity

Beyond cost avoidance, year-round outdoor dining unlocks revenue during months that are currently off-limits. While December through March are not peak outdoor dining months, New York’s winters are trending to be more mild, and heated outdoor structures can generate meaningful revenue, particularly during the holiday season in December and the early spring shoulder months.

Based on re-ply’s experience, a well-designed, weather-protected outdoor structure can generate roughly 30–60% of its peak-season weekly revenue during the winter months, depending on location, cuisine type, and the quality of the enclosure system. For a structure generating $3,000–$5,000 per week in summer, this represents $900–$3,000 per week in winter, a meaningful contribution to a restaurant’s ability to cover fixed costs during traditionally lean months. Over a four-month winter season, that represents $15,000–$50,000 in revenue that the current seasonal prohibition forecloses entirely.

1.4 Alignment with City Policy Objectives

Year-round outdoor dining is consistent with multiple stated priorities of the Mamdani administration and the new City Council, including: small business affordability, neighborhood economic vitality, public realm activation, and equitable access to city programs. Speaker Menin’s stated intention to lower costs and reduce bureaucratic barriers further supports a year-round model that eliminates an entire annual compliance cycle.

 

2. Lessons from the Pandemic Era: What Went Wrong

Proponents of year-round outdoor dining must confront honestly the problems that emerged when structures were left in place through winter during the pandemic’s Open Restaurants program (2020–2023). The backlash against those structures reflected genuine failures of design, construction, and maintenance that eroded public trust.

The program did experience real weather. The winters of 2020–21 and 2021–22 recorded roughly average snowfall, and structures showed significant deterioration and structural failure under those conditions. These were not exceptional winters; they were routine ones. Had structures been exposed to a winter like 2025–26, with sustained cold and heavy single-storm accumulation, failures would have been far more widespread and more dangerous. Any year-round framework must be designed for the full range of New York winters, not just the mild ones.

Fig. 1:  Pandemic-Era Shed vs. Dining Out NYC (Current Rules)

The current seasonal program fixed critical problems (drainage, lifting floors, water-filled barriers, screening limits) but gaps remain for year-round use: inaccessible barrier voids and materials with no rodent resistance.

2.1 Structural Deterioration

The majority of pandemic-era dining structures were built quickly, cheaply, and without any expectation of year-round use. Plywood, pine dimensional lumber, and improvised framing were standard materials. These structures were never engineered to withstand winter conditions, and the results were predictable:

Snow and ice damage: Flat or near-flat roofs accumulated snow loads they were never designed to bear. NYC’s building code specifies a ground snow load of 25 pounds per square foot (psf). A typical two-parking-space structure with a 160-square-foot roof can accumulate over 4,000 pounds of snow in a single storm, roughly the weight of a small car. Pandemic-era structures routinely showed sagging roofs, buckled framing, and in some cases partial collapse.

Water infiltration: Plywood and MDF materials, when exposed to freeze-thaw cycles, delaminate and rot. Unsealed joints became water traps. By the second winter, many structures showed visible decay: warped panels, peeling paint, mold growth, and exposed fasteners.

Wind damage: Lightweight structures without adequate anchoring were vulnerable to winter storms. Loose panels, displaced roofing, and damaged signage became commonplace, particularly in exposed locations.

Fig. 2:  Understanding the 25 psf Standard

A typical two-parking-space roof can accumulate 4,000 lbs of snow in a single storm, roughly the weight of a small car. Standard NYC building code, not an exceptional requirement.

 

2.2 Rodent Harborage

The rodent problem associated with outdoor dining structures became one of the most politically potent criticisms of the pandemic-era program. While pest management experts have noted that outdoor dining was not the primary driver of NYC's rat population (trash management, sanitation funding cuts, and pre-existing conditions played larger roles), poorly designed structures undeniably created new harborage opportunities.

Sandbags were likely the single biggest contributor. Pandemic-era structures were typically anchored with sandbags piled along the perimeter, and the sand itself became prime nesting material for rats: warm, easy to burrow into, and directly adjacent to a food source. The current program's switch to water-filled barriers was a meaningful response, and it helped.

With the sandbags eliminated, the secondary harborage concern became the gap between raised dining platforms and the street surface. This space, typically 4 to 8 inches, created a warm, protected, dark void that was ideal rodent habitat. When platforms were built with inaccessible undersides, this space could not be cleaned, inspected, or treated. Food debris filtering through gaps in the flooring provided a consistent food source. In some locations, unregulated structures caused fissures in pavement, creating new underground transit routes. The combination of harborage, food access, and inaccessible voids made some outdoor dining locations genuine pest hotspots, a situation that was entirely predictable from the design and entirely preventable with different design choices.

2.3 Aesthetic Degradation and Public Perception

Perhaps the most damaging legacy of the pandemic-era program was the visual impact. The absence of design standards meant that structures varied wildly in quality, from architect-designed installations to improvised constructions built from salvaged materials. After one or two winters, even well-intentioned structures deteriorated visibly.

Public comments during the 2023 rulemaking process repeatedly used terms like “shantytown,” “rat shacks,” and “eyesore” to describe the streetscape. A civil lawsuit filed by 35 New Yorkers described the program as having created a “gritty, shanty streetscape.” This perception, even where it overstated the problem, provided political ammunition for the seasonal restrictions that ultimately gutted the program.

The lesson is clear: a year-round program that does not mandate adequate design and construction standards will inevitably produce the same backlash. The policy question is not simply whether to permit year-round dining, but how to ensure the structures can withstand year-round conditions.

 

3. Design Considerations for Year-Round Structures

A structure that will remain in the public right-of-way indefinitely is fundamentally different from one designed for an eight-month season. The current Dining Out NYC seasonal program already establishes important baseline requirements: water-filled barriers, weekly floor lifting for cleaning, non-opaque screening, and removable construction. The following design considerations identify where year-round use demands standards beyond this existing baseline. They are drawn from practical experience across more than 100 restaurant installations in NYC, combined with extensive architectural knowledge. They are offered not as a complete regulatory specification (that work belongs to DOT and its technical advisors) but as a contribution from practitioners with direct experience of what works and what fails in New York’s conditions.

One lesson from the current program is worth stating at the outset: the success of any new rule will depend not just on what it requires, but on how clearly it communicates those requirements. Restaurant operators are not architects or engineers. Design standards that seem straightforward to professionals can be genuinely confusing to a small business owner trying to comply. Simplicity, clarity, and accessible communication should be design principles for the regulation itself, not just for the structures it governs.

Fig. 4:  Proposed Year-Round Certified Structure

Every element addresses a specific failure mode: engineered roof for snow loads, sealed rat barrier with no entry points, lifting floor over rodent-proof chassis, durable exterior cladding, transparent winter enclosure in the 42”–84” visibility zone, and modular bolted construction for temporary removal.

3.1 Structural Integrity: Engineering for Winter Loads

This is the single most important design consideration for year-round structures. NYC’s building code specifies a ground snow load of 25 pounds per square foot (Section 1608.2, NYC Building Code Chapter 16). A properly engineered outdoor dining structure must be designed to bear this load, plus wind loads, plus the dead load of the structure itself, with appropriate safety factors.

Key structural requirements:

Roof design. Flat or draping roofs are unsuitable for year-round use. Any roofing element must incorporate sufficient pitch to shed snow and water, with adequate overhang to direct rain and meltwater away from the dining area and sidewalk. Gutters should be avoided as they can create ice dams, concentrating load at the eave and backing water under roofing material. Polycarbonate or similar rigid roofing materials should be specified. A meaningful roof pitch is achievable within the practical constraints of a 10’ maximum height and a 7’ minimum underside clearance: this geometry yields approximately a 4.5:12 slope (~21°), which is sufficient to drain water and reduce ponding but is generally not steep enough for reliable natural snow sliding. Year-round structures must therefore pair their roof design with a documented snow clearance protocol: roofs should be cleared within 24 hours of any snowfall event exceeding six inches.

Framing material. Steel or aluminum framing is essential for year-round structures. Powder-coated, exterior painted or galvanized steel provides the necessary strength-to-weight ratio and corrosion resistance. However, the material palette is broader than steel alone. Sustainable hardwoods (such as Cumaru or Black Locust) are also acceptable for structural and cladding applications; their dense cell structure limits moisture absorption and makes them significantly more resistant to freeze-thaw degradation than softwoods. Heavy timber framing, properly detailed to drain and dry, has a long history of performing well in cold climates. Materials such as pine dimensional lumber, standard interior plywood, and MDF perform poorly under freeze‑thaw cycles and should be avoided in structural applications.

Connection design. Joints and connections are the most vulnerable points. Bolted steel connections with appropriate corrosion protection are preferred over screwed or nailed wood joints, which loosen over time as materials expand and contract. Connection design is often the point of failure in improvised structures, and should be subject to engineering review.

Anchoring. The current seasonal program already requires water-filled barriers at a minimum of 150 lbs per linear foot. Year-round structures need sufficiently heavy ballast to resist winter wind loads, remaining removable without permanent modification to the roadway. Water-filled barriers require freeze protection during winter: adding calcium chloride to the fill water lowers the freezing point and prevents the expansion damage that can crack barrier walls during freeze-thaw cycles. This approach meets DOT requirements for non-permanent installation while providing adequate resistance to wind uplift and lateral forces under winter storm conditions.

Design Element	Current Seasonal Standard	Year-Round Certified Standard
Roof	Fabric, retractable fabric, or rigid sheet (polycarbonate, metal) permitted; 7’–10’ height; no snow load requirement	Rigid polycarbonate or metal roofing with pitched drainage; engineered for 25 psf snow load; documented snow clearance protocol within 24 hrs of 6”+ accumulation
Framing	No specific material standard; must be easily removable and wind-resistant	Steel, aluminum, hardwood, or properly detailed heavy timber; engineered connections with corrosion protection
Cladding	Lightweight, removable cladding on barriers for aesthetics; no material specification for structure	Exterior/marine-grade plywood, recycled steel, or marine-grade panels; water-sealed; no interior plywood, standard MDF, or pine lumber
Anchoring	Water-filled barriers required; min 150 lbs/linear foot; interconnected; no affixing to roadway	Water-filled barriers; min 150 lbs/linear foot, or engineered ballast system; no roadway penetrations; designed for winter wind loads
Flooring	Optional; if used, must be elevated for drainage with 6” covered channel; weekly lifting required for cleaning	Required; modular lifting panels with sealed perimeter; rodent-proof chassis (steel, aluminum, or HDPE); sub-floor accessible for daily inspection
Enclosure	Screening on roadway side only; max 6’ above floor; must maintain clear visibility; cannot be opaque	Permanent visibility zone 42”–84” on all elevations; full height screen on roadway side; transparent removable panels or blinds permitted in winter on end elevations; no opaque enclosure in any season.

Table 2: Comparison of seasonal vs. year-round design standards for key structural elements.

 

3.2 Rodent Mitigation: An Engineered Approach

Effective rodent management in outdoor dining structures requires designing out harborage opportunities rather than relying solely on pest control treatment. The following principles should be embedded in any year-round design standard:

Accessible floors. The space beneath raised dining platforms is the primary rodent concern. The current seasonal program already requires that flooring be lifted at least weekly for cleaning, a meaningful improvement over the pandemic era, when fixed plywood decking created permanent, inaccessible voids. Year-round structures should go further: a modular, lifting floor system. Individually removable panels can be raised by restaurant staff or maintenance crews for inspection, cleaning, and pest treatment on a daily basis if necessary. The difference is not the principle (which the current rules already establish) but the frequency, the engineering of the panels for repeated use over years rather than a single season, and the rodent-proof chassis beneath them. Floor panels should be sized for handling by one or two people without specialized equipment.

Fig. 3:  A re-ply lifting floor panel in operation, early 2024.

This innovation allows operators to easily clean and pest-control the void below the floor. Panels are sized for handling by one person without specialized equipment.

Rodent-proof materials and construction. Rats can gnaw through wood, plastic, and even thin, soft metals. The barrier and chassis system of a year-round structure should use materials that resist rodent penetration, specifically aluminum, steel, or thick high-density polyethylene (HDPE) for the structural core. These materials cannot be gnawed through, do not absorb moisture or food odors, and do not deteriorate in ways that create entry points.  Pest management research establishes that rats can pass through any gap slightly larger than ½ inch (University of Nebraska Extension / USDA Wildlife Damage Management). The junction between the structure and the street surface must be continuously sealed.

Maintenance protocols. Design alone is insufficient without maintenance standards. Year-round legislation should require documented pest management plans as a condition of the permit, including a minimum schedule for sub-floor inspection and cleaning, documented pest control service at regular intervals, and prompt reporting and remediation of any rodent activity. These requirements need not be onerous, but they must be enforceable and tied to permit renewal.

3.3 Transparency, Enclosure, and Winter Comfort

One recurring complaint about pandemic-era structures was that they created opaque walls along the street, blocking sightlines for pedestrians and drivers and creating concealed spaces. The current seasonal rules already address this: vertical screening must maintain clear visibility and cannot be opaque. Year-round structures should build on this principle with more specific standards, while also addressing a tension that the seasonal program does not face: the need for winter enclosure to make year-round dining economically viable.

During summer months, open or lightly screened structures are ideal. They maximize the al fresco character that makes outdoor dining attractive and minimize the visual barrier effect. During winter, the calculus changes. A more enclosed structure allows heating systems to operate significantly more efficiently: the same energy input produces a much warmer interior environment when convective heat loss through open sides is reduced. For operators running electric heaters, this is a meaningful operating cost consideration, while reducing energy waste and environmental impact. It also directly affects occupant comfort - a well-enclosed, heated structure in February can feel genuinely inviting in a way that an open-sided one cannot.

The design response to this tension is seasonal adaptability rather than a fixed enclosure standard. The current seasonal rules permit vertical screening only on the roadway-facing side of the cafe, at a maximum of 6’ above the floor. Year-round structures need a broader but still controlled enclosure regime: full-height clear screening along the entire street-facing side, extending up to the 84” line; drop-down blinds or operable shutters on the end walls that can be deployed for weather protection when the restaurant is operating but must remain open when it is not; and no full four-wall solid enclosure using opaque materials in any season. All enclosure elements must be transparent, or have a high degree of transparency. This approach allows a single structure to behave appropriately across the full year: open and visually permeable in summer, warm and energy-efficient in winter.

3.4 Modularity and Temporary Removal

New York's roads and sidewalks sit atop a dense network of water mains, gas lines, electrical conduit, steam pipes, telecommunications infrastructure, and subway tunnels. Utility repairs, emergency works, and capital improvement projects regularly require access to the roadway surface. Any year-round outdoor dining framework must preserve the city's ability to access and maintain this critical infrastructure.

This creates a genuine design tension. A fully permanent structure would be the simplest engineering response to snow loads and wind forces, but would make temporary removal prohibitively expensive. A lightweight structure that is trivially easy to move would struggle to meet year-round structural requirements. The challenge is to thread this needle: robust enough to withstand winter conditions year after year, yet capable of disassembly and reinstallation at reasonable cost when roadworks demand it.

Several design principles are critical:

No permanent modification to the roadway. Structures should achieve stability through ballast and self-weight rather than bolts, anchors, or foundations set into the road surface.

Modular disassembly. A kit-of-parts design with bolted (not welded) connections allows a trained crew to break the structure down into transportable modules within a single day. The same components can be reinstalled after roadworks are complete.

Flat-pack storage. Components designed to stack efficiently during temporary removal significantly reduce storage volume and cost.

Standardized connection systems. Engineered bolted joints, pin systems, or interlocking mechanisms that maintain structural integrity through multiple assembly cycles without loosening or fatiguing. This is a non-trivial engineering requirement and one of the reasons year-round structures demand professional design.

Keeping temporary removal affordable is also a policy question. If these costs fall entirely on the restaurant each time a utility needs access, they become a significant deterrent to participation. The permit framework should guarantee operators a minimum of three weeks' advance notice for any planned removal. Leasing and "as a Service" models inherently address this issue, as the service provider bears the operational risk and cost of temporary removal as part of the ongoing agreement.

"Year-round" does not mean "immovable." Well-designed modular structures can deliver the durability of permanent construction while retaining the capacity for temporary removal when the city's infrastructure needs demand it.

 

4. Cost of Ownership: The Long-Term Case

A year-round outdoor dining program fundamentally changes the expected lifespan of structures in the public right-of-way. Under the current seasonal model, structures are designed for roughly eight months of active use, punctuated by the physical stress of annual removal, transport, storage, and reinstallation. Under a year-round model, structures become quasi-permanent fixtures, expected to remain in place for multiple years without significant degradation. This shift has important implications for both cost and design.

A structure engineered for year-round conditions, with steel or aluminum framing, snow-rated roofing, rodent-resistant materials, and durable finishes, will cost more to build than a lightweight seasonal setup. Initial construction costs for a year-round-capable roadway structure may be 30 to 50% higher than a seasonal equivalent. However, this comparison misses the full economic picture.

A seasonal structure that costs $35,000 to build incurs $6,500–$15,500 in annual removal and re-installation costs (see Table 1), plus accelerated wear from the handling cycle itself. Components that are loaded, transported, stored, and re-installed every year experience stress that stationary structures do not. Over a five-year period, the total cost of ownership for a seasonal structure (including initial build, five annual cycles, and periodic repairs to handling damage) can reach $70,000–$115,000. A year-round structure that costs $45,000–$55,000 upfront but eliminates the seasonal cycle, requires only routine maintenance, and is designed to last five or more years without major refurbishment may have a total cost of ownership of $55,000–$70,000 over the same period. The higher upfront cost delivers a materially lower long-term cost, and provides the opportunity for more thoughtful, higher-quality design.

Fig. 5:  4-Year Cost Comparison: Seasonal vs. Year-Round Certified (20’ structure)

By year 4, the year-round certified structure saves ~$16,000 cumulative – a gap that widens in subsequent years. This calculation does not include the additional winter revenue available under year-round operation.

 

4.1 Financing to Address the Upfront Barrier

The principal equity concern with higher-quality structures is the upfront capital requirement. A $45,000–$55,000 outlay is beyond the immediate reach of many independent operators, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods where the program most needs to grow. Policymakers should recognize that innovative financing mechanisms already exist in the market and can be encouraged through program design.

Installment payment plans. Some outdoor dining providers now offer structured installment plans that allow restaurants to spread the cost of a structure over the contract term, with manageable monthly or seasonal payments. This converts a large capital expenditure into a predictable operating expense, which is far more manageable for small businesses operating on tight cash flows.

“Outdoor Dining as a Service” leasing models. Under a leasing approach, a specialist provider retains ownership of the structure and the restaurant pays a periodic fee that covers the structure, installation, ongoing maintenance, and any required lifecycle management. The restaurant avoids any capital outlay, and the provider’s scale enables more efficient procurement, maintenance, and (where necessary) temporary removal and re-installation. This model is analogous to equipment leasing in other industries and has already been adopted by dozens of NYC restaurants.

The policy implication is that the Council need not choose between high design standards and accessibility. With appropriate financing structures, higher-quality year-round structures can be made available to restaurants across the income spectrum.

 

5. Policy Recommendations

Based on the analysis above, this paper offers the following recommendations for the Council’s consideration as it drafts year-round outdoor dining legislation:

1	Remove the seasonal prohibition on roadway dining, providing an option of year-round operation for structures that meet enhanced design standards, while leaving the existing seasonal program unchanged for operators who prefer it.
2	Establish a “Year-Round Certification” category within the Dining Out NYC permit framework, with specific structural, material, and maintenance requirements that exceed the seasonal standard. Year-round certification should be a voluntary pathway, not a mandate.
3	Ensure that year-round certification requirements are communicated in plain language, with visual guides and worked examples, so that restaurant operators without technical backgrounds can understand and comply with the standards.
4	Require roof systems engineered for NYC’s 25 psf ground snow load as a condition of year-round certification, paired with a mandatory operator snow clearance protocol. Roofs must be cleared within 24 hours of any accumulation event exceeding 6 inches.
5	Mandate material standards that exclude pine dimensional lumber, standard interior plywood, and MDF for structural applications. Acceptable materials include steel, aluminum, tropical hardwoods, heavy timber, and exterior or marine-grade sheet goods.
6	Strengthen enforcement of the existing requirement for accessible (lifting) floor systems and rodent-resistant materials as standard requirements, with documented pest management plans tied to permit renewal.
7	Establish minimum enclosure standards for year-round structures: full-height visually transparent screening permitted on the street-facing side up to 84”; operable transparent blinds or shutters on end walls, open when not in service; no full four-wall opaque enclosure in any season.
8	Coordinate with the Department of Sanitation on set-back and clearance requirements to ensure compatibility with winter snow removal operations.
9	Require that year-round structures be designed for temporary removal without permanent modification to the road surface. Design standards should mandate modular, bolted construction capable of disassembly and reassembly by a trained crew within a single day.
10	Establish a coordination protocol between utility companies, DOT, and dining permit holders requiring a minimum of three weeks’ advance notice for any planned removal due to roadworks. Explore cost-sharing mechanisms so that removal and re-installation expenses do not fall entirely on restaurant operators.
11	Recognize that year-round design standards will increase upfront costs but reduce total cost of ownership over the structure’s lifetime. Encourage financing mechanisms, including installment payment plans, “Outdoor Dining as a Service” leasing models, and multi-year permits, that amortize upfront costs and improve accessibility for smaller operators who cannot fund a large capital outlay.

Table 3: Summary policy recommendations.

 

Conclusion

Well‑designed year‑round outdoor dining is good policy. It reduces costs for restaurants, generates additional revenue during previously prohibited months, improves equity of access, and activates the public realm throughout the year. Speaker Menin and Council Member Restler are right to pursue this reform.

But the Council should learn from the pandemic era. The backlash that led to the 2023 seasonal restrictions was driven by real problems: deteriorating structures, rodent concerns, and visual blight. These were the predictable result of allowing structures into the public right-of-way without adequate design standards, and they emerged under routine winter conditions, not exceptional ones. The case for proper engineering standards is not hypothetical.

The answer is not to prohibit year-round dining, but to require that year-round structures are designed and built to year-round standards. An engineered structure with proper snow load capacity, rodent-resistant materials, accessible floors, seasonally adaptable transparent enclosure, and modular construction designed for temporary removal will not deteriorate into a “shantytown.” It will be an asset to its neighborhood in every season.

Higher design standards need not mean higher barriers to entry. Innovative financing models, including installment plans, leasing arrangements, and multi-year permits, can make year-round structures accessible to restaurants across the income spectrum. The total cost of ownership for a well-built year-round structure is lower than the cumulative expense of seasonal removal cycles, and the additional winter revenue further improves the economic case.

The outdoor dining industry stands ready to work with the Council, the DOT, and the restaurant community to develop standards that make year-round outdoor dining a lasting success for New York City.

 

About re-ply

Since 2020, re-ply has designed, manufactured, and serviced more than 100 outdoor dining structures for around 80 businesses across New York City. The company’s “Outdoor Dining as a Service” model provides restaurants with a complete turnkey solution, from design and permitting assistance through installation, maintenance, and lifecycle management, reducing the complexity and financial burden of outdoor dining participation. re-ply is a subsidiary of BVN, one of Australia’s largest and most respected architecture firms.

re-ply’s structures are designed by architects and engineers, manufactured using precision CNC fabrication and sustainable materials including recycled aluminum and recycled steel, and built to meet or exceed all NYC DOT requirements. The company’s modular kit-of-parts system incorporates rodent-resistant construction, accessible lifting floors, ADA-compliant ramps, and durable powder-coated and galvanized finishes.

 

WHITE PAPER

Year-Round Outdoor Dining in New York City

Design Considerations for a Sustainable, Year-Round Program

 

Authors

Nick Flutter, Co-CEO

Nikita Notowidigdo, Co-CEO

David Burgess, CFO

 

Prepared by

re-ply  |  re-ply.org

 

© 2026 re-ply with heart LLC. All rights reserved.