Is New York City Changing? 17 Proposals for the Future Chosen by Citizens

1) "What do you want the mayor to do?" An era of asking through "voting"

Political discussions tend to drift into abstraction.
"Safety," "growth," "fairness," "reform"—the words are big, but life doesn't change easily.

In response, the NYT launched a voting project that broke down "urban inconveniences" into specific menus, allowing readers to choose "priorities." The theme was "17 proposals to improve the city" that the new mayor Mamdani could tackle. Topics ranged from housing, transportation, public spaces, logistics, climate disasters, to government inefficiencies—essentially the "blueprints" that make up everyday life in New York.

The reason this format resonates is simple.
There is no single correct policy, but everyone has pain points in their lives. Rent, commuting, sidewalks, toilets, traffic jams, noise, emergency support. People want to vote on "what's bothering them today."

2) The 17 proposals highlight a "list of New York's weaknesses"

The proposals shared on social media and forums often focus more on "urban resilience" than flashy redevelopment.

• Increase housing (delving into "how" to increase it)

• Increase clean and safe public toilets (addressing the high-cost issue)

• Reconsider logistics (large trucks and deliveries)

• Invest more in parks and libraries

• Do not neglect aging infrastructure (like the BQE)

• Increase mental health crisis response centers

• Revamp government construction and procurement processes

• Prepare for climate disasters through "design" like utilizing coastlines and wetlands

• Expand plazas and pedestrian spaces, change street usage

• Organize e-bike/scooter routes to reduce accidents

• Bold park development (such as covering the Cross Bronx Expressway)

• Revamp main streets (widen sidewalks, add street trees)

• And the most contentious proposal: changing the "handling of parking"

In other words, this is not a "catalog of improvements for New York," but rather a "list of New York's weaknesses."
Moreover, all these weaknesses are directly linked to "the cost of living." Time spent commuting, accident risks, climate disasters, health, household budgets, business, trust in public services.

3) The SNS buzz was about the "parking reform, ranked 12th" commotion

When voting projects go viral on SNS, it's not just the top proposals that get attention. It often ignites when "your issue is ranked low."

A symbolic example is the post by the group Transportation Alternatives, advocating for traffic and safe city development. They were surprised to see parking reform ranked "12th" and urged people to vote.

This sentence encapsulates the reality of urban politics. Parking is not just a traffic issue. It's a "minefield" involving the allocation of public space, consideration for those who need cars, fairness in enforcement, commercial delivery routes, and even police and political interests.

That's why when parking reform ranks low, some feel "New York can't change." Conversely, the low ranking itself is a sign of "strong resistance" or "dependency of the residents."

4) Reddit's reactions are more about "reality checks" than "agreement"

SNS reactions are passionate. But passion alone doesn't run a city.
The comment sections of forum-type communities highlight this reality.

On Reddit, while some praised the voting project as "unusually good content," strong reality checks emerged against proposals like reducing logistics trucks. A representative comment pointed out, "New York imports most of what it consumes. Reducing trucks will raise prices." Additionally, alternative proposals like "removing parking spaces in front of supermarkets to facilitate unloading" and "different handling for delivery trucks" were also discussed.

This is important.
"Improving the city" is both a competition of ideals and a design of operations. If the top votes are filled with "feel-good justice," the implementation phase can collapse. Conversely, the comment sections help visualize the "pain of implementation" in advance.

5) Why are "public toilets" and "housing" always strong?

In the world of urban policy, toilets have long been a theme often "overlooked."
However, for residents, toilets are a crucial infrastructure for families with children, the elderly, tourists, commuters, and even the homeless. Moreover, the moment you feel "there aren't enough," it leaves a strong impression. It's natural for them to be strong in voting.

Housing is the same. Rent and living conditions form the foundation of all city discussions.
Even if transportation improves or libraries increase, if you can't live there, it's over. Housing has become a "pre-political life issue" in New York.

6) Voting results are not "commands" but "thermometers"—misusing them is dangerous

Such online voting is not a panacea for democracy.
Those who vote are participants by choice and not a microcosm of the entire city. Furthermore, when interim results are visible, it triggers psychology like "jumping on the bandwagon" or "saving the underdog." The call by Transportation Alternatives is a prime example of "rankings driving actions."

So, is voting meaningless? Quite the opposite.
Voting serves as a thermometer that visualizes the "accumulation of interest and dissatisfaction," not a "representative statistic."

What is wise for city governance is not to convert the top and bottom of the voting directly into policy order.
Instead, it should be broken down into the following three uses.

1. Mix in "lifestyle improvements" that yield immediate results to build trust

2. Divide "priority maps" by region and attribute (don't flatten by average)

3. For contentious themes, design phased introductions with support measures(such as parking and logistics)

Voting is the starting point.
It should be material for explaining "why this is done first" and part of the blueprint for consensus building.

7) Ultimately, this project highlights that "cities are evaluated by 'UX'"

It's symbolic that the NYT treats this type of project in the context of "design."

Cities are governed by laws and budgets, but they are also enormous life products. Walking, waiting, riding, transporting, resting, escaping (during disasters). The accumulation of these experiences determines whether "this city is easy to live in or difficult."

The voting project and SNS enthusiasm indicate that urban politics is shifting from a "battle of ideals" to a "battle of experiences."
What the Mamdani administration will be judged on is not the ideal words, but how quickly it can change the tangible aspects of life. Voting can serve as a report card for this.