Is Closing Laurel Street Still a Good Idea?
August 13, 2026
Over the course of our history, there have been countless ideas that looked great on paper, but for variety of reasons, were utter flops when they were realized. Here are just a few notable examples:
- The Ford Edsel
- Coke's New Recipe
- The Apple Newton
- Segway Scooter
- Colgate Kitchen Entrees (would you buy frozen meals from the people that make your toothpaste?)
For very different reasons, these products, which at the time seemed like great ideas, turned out to be complete failures.
The City of San Carlos' plan to permanently close the 700 block of Laurel Street seems like it may belong on this list, too. And unfortunately, it's probably too late to save it.
The Background
For those of you not familiar with the history of the street closure, the initial decision to temporarily close the 700 block of Laurel Street came in June of 2020, in order to assist businesses with outdoor seating options during the COVID pandemic restrictions. But an amazing revelation came out of this unfortunate situation — we discovered that people ABSOLUTELY LOVED eating outdoors in San Carlos, pandemic or not. This is key, as we'll discuss later.
Sensing this suddenly popular use of the downtown, the City of San Carlos undertook studies and public outreach on how to make this change permanent. Here's the timeline of that, according to the city's website:
“During its study session on April 24, 2023, to discuss the Downtown Specific Plan + Streetscape Master Plan project, the Council directed city staff to move forward with a bold vision to transform the 700 block of Laurel Street into a public plaza, thereby paving the way for a more vibrant and pedestrian-friendly downtown.
Four months later, at its regular meeting on August 28, the Council adopted Resolution 2023-108 declaring its intention to permanently close the 700 block of Laurel Street. On November 17, 2023, the Council held a public hearing and determined the permanent closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street would be established by adoption of an Ordinance. Approximately one month later, on December 11, Ordinance No. 1605, permanently closing the 700 block of Laurel Street, was adopted by the City Council.”
To be fair to the City, they did conduct a variety of public outreach sessions to solicit input on what should be done with Laurel, including leasing the open space next to the now-defunct Paxti's restaurant to showcase various ideas and to garner feedback.
But when I think about why good ideas end up as bad outcomes, there are (at least) three major mistakes that decision-makers tend to trip over:
- Not listening to the right stakeholders (Coke).
- Trying to please too many and not prioritizing the feedback (Edsel)
- Not realizing that the goalposts have moved (Newton).
It's just my opinion, but I think the grand plan for Laurel Street suffers from a little bit of all three. Let's talk about those.
Key Stakeholder Input?
It's important to recognize that while the public's input is important in a decision like this, it seems that the opinion of the key stakeholders — the actual business owners on the 700 Block of Laurel– was largely ignored, or at least severely discounted. There's not a single business owner that I'm aware of that is in favor of permanently closing the street to vehicular traffic. And they are even LESS enthused about the City's renderings for what the block will look like when it's done, let alone how much it will cost.
Business owners along this stretch, especially those that are not restaurants, have experienced a significant drop in foot traffic since the block was closed in 2020, and they have made that very clear to the City Council. There are already casualties, as you'll see below.
Jack of All Trades, Master of None.
Whether it's the result of trying to please too many people, or just not prioritizing their ideas and feedback properly, the City made some peculiar decisions in the redesign of the 700 block of Laurel, some of which are being implemented right now:
- Harrington Park: $6M in taxpayer money is being spent to renovate Harrington Park. Don't feel bad if you don't have a clue where Harrington Park is – it's the space between Faith & Spirits and Mama Coco Cocina Mexicana that was named in honor of Frank Harrington, the best crossing guard San Carlos has ever had, and an all-around great human. Construction is already underway, which included removing two beautiful, mature shade trees. It's not a highly utilized park, and a simple refresh for a fraction of the $6M tab would have easily sufficed.
- Bandstand: From the renderings that I viewed, there are plans to construct a concrete, Romanesque-style bandstand smack in the middle of the street, presumably to host live music. I have been told that the price tag for this bandstand is $1M. The problem is that we already have a bandstand at Burton Park that gets used maybe a dozen times over the entire year. Unless there is an intentional plan to schedule live music at the new bandstand, it runs the risk of becoming an excellent place to practice skateboard tricks.
- Removal of Dining Parklets: This one is a doozy, and will drastically change the physical and possibly the financial landscape of Laurel Street. The renderings that I was shown call for the removal of all of the current restaurant “parklets” where people dine outside in order to expand the walking plaza concept all the way to the sidewalk. The only remaining outdoor dining will be at a select few tables on the sidewalk. I totally agree that the current configuration of disparate parklets makes the downtown look more like a shanty town, but the solution is not to just remove them all. The design that Town implemented is very appealing, and if it were to become the standard design for all parklets, the visual appeal would be dramatically better. There's also the argument that not every restaurant on Laurel is doing enough business to justify a parklet in the first place — especially with parking being at such a premium.
- Parallel Parking: As part of the “beautification” of Laurel Street, some of the existing diagonal parking on the adjacent blocks will be replaced with parallel spaces, further reducing the number of parking spots in an area that's already difficult to find parking.
The Goalposts Have Moved.
When we were all locked down at home during the pandemic, the idea of a safe, public gathering place downtown was very appealing in principle. An outdoor “walking plaza” would provide residents with a much-needed outdoor space to gather. But we're not in the same situation now, and the needs of the downtown have changed — especially for those businesses that are impacted by these plans.
What are those goalposts now? Well, it's abundantly clear that outdoor dining in San Carlos is still a huge hit, especially during the balmy fall months when the wind from Belmont is not howling down the street. (What post would be complete without a shot at Belmont??) But restaurants only make up a portion of the shopping district in San Carlos, and the boutique, family-owned businesses that provide the charm of downtown San Carlos are suffering. The casual shopper is not going to walk three or four blocks to patronize a store that they are not a loyal customer of.
Even though the construction is only starting, the effects of the street being closed for 6 years and the proposed changes are already having a negative impact.
The Casualties.
As I mentioned above, many of the family-owned businesses that comprise Laurel Street have been suffering ever since the street was closed, and some are only hanging on by a thread. Dona's Hallmark, a landmark of downtown San Carlos for nearly 50 years, is closing its doors, citing a downturn in their business.
Even more daunting is the future of Town Restaurant, arguably the anchor of the 700 block of Laurel Street, if not all of downtown. They certainly rank in the top five of sales tax revenue generators for the city. The proposed removal of Town's parklets will cost Town $2,000,000 annually in dining revenue, according to their owners. At a minimum, this will result in significant layoffs in staffing. But more likely, Town will simply pull up stakes in San Carlos and relocate their extremely successful concept in another city. That's not me hypothesizing — that's straight from the mouth of the owner.
The bottom line is this — people will not be drawn to downtown Laurel Street because it's a pedestrian plaza. They'll be drawn there, as they always have, because of our unique and valued businesses. And if those start to fail, the fun zone is going to become a dead zone.
The Solution?
You can't complain about a problem without at least offering a solution. The facts clearly show that blocking off business areas entirely to business traffic does not work. Palo Alto tried it and has since reopened most of their streets. Menlo Park has one block still closed on Santa Cruz Avenue, and its biggest restaurant, Left Bank, just closed its doors. Downtown Mountain View has a long stretch along Castro Street that is fully closed, and according to sources that I spoke with, businesses are hurting along that stretch as well.
If a city is trying to create a unique urban feel where there's more outdoor activity, the Santana Row concept seems to be thriving. Encouraging outdoor dining and shopping, and carefully integrating it with one-way traffic that offers at least some level of parking seems to be the magic mix.
Unfortunately, San Carlos seems to be headed down another path entirely, and only time will tell if it's a successful one.
What are your thoughts? Let's start a discussion in the comments below. I'd especially love to hear from business owners along Laurel Street.
Posted in:
Your article is very interesting. I don’t see this as an easy decision. I do enjoy the street closure, although I still walk on the sidewalk when I’m downtown I also like the outdoor dining, but have always been disappointed in the design of most. They were built cheaply……Specific design options built as the Town outdoor dining would improve the appearance of Laurel and still provide the outdoor dining.
A thought that you mentioned would be a one lane one way street, with wider sidewalks and parking only in front non food establishments although I’m not sure how that could be limited to those specifics stores.
One last thought. Several years ago I submitted a detailed proposal to our City Counsel. The idea was to implement a shuttle service along Laurel from Eaton to Holly Sts. The shuttles would be multi seat Golf cart style electric vehicles. It would be a free service from one end of the City to the other. My proposal mimicked the system Palm Desert has had in place for many years. I believe this would be a unique asset to our downtown community.
Chuck , I think your missive is fair and objective. And I do think your comparison to the Edsel is accurate, excellent in theory, failure in practice. Wrong car at the wrong time, as is the 700 block of Laurel. It appears that too little consideration was given to the businesses and too much consideration given to the restaurants. It is easy to theorize that customers will walk extra distances to shop but the reality is they will not. I won’t repeat all the non-restaurant businesses that have gone out like Donna’s Hallmark but the list is considerable. Next on the cutting floor may be the mid-block Pow Wow & Meow.
I recommend returning to square one and develop an alternative plan that that is businesses friendly, returns at least some of the parking and addresses the 700 block alley which has become a narrow and shabby Laurel Street alternative.
Thanks for your comments, John. I agree with you on the overall look of the street with the disparate styles of parklets. If they could standardize on one or two approved designs, that would make a significant difference. Town obviously spent a great deal of money making their outdoor dining setup look permanent and classy, while others look very cheap. To make matters worse, quite a few of these outdoor dining parklets seem to be empty most of the time. I think it would be very fair for the City to a) require restaurants to prove that they have enough business to justify outdoor dining that extends into the street, b) restrict the look to a few pre-approved designs, and c) charge a fee for the privilege.
Thanks for your input. You bring up a great point about the outdoor dining and how it essentially dominates the street currently. Not every restaurant on Laurel needs an extensive parklet that extends into the street. There are quite a few now that seem to be empty most of the time. Town is one of the exceptions — the quality of the materials is good, and it’s aesthetically pleasing. Most others currently there are not. If you have a great local business like Town that draws people to downtown, and more importantly, pays a significant sales tax bill to the City, what is the logic behind forcing them to remove nearly all of their outdoor dining? It makes zero sense. Thanks again for taking the time to comment!
There’s more to this story. We need to dive deeper as the initial analysis misses the mark. I’m sure an influential and responsible blogger like Chuck will do a deeper dive at some point.
We need to think about how we want downtown as opposed to poor execution or the changing face of retail. We also need to look deeper at the other downtowns.
Poor execution:
1. The parklets should stay. There’s no question! There should be design considerations.
2. Some odd choices by the city but none of them are dealbreakers.
Changing face of retail.
Correlation is not causation! Retail everywhere has shifted. Many of these stores would have gone out of business anyway. Shopping online is too convenient these days. Also, many of the failed businesses have not attracted younger customers with rising incomes. Look at shopping malls everywhere. The only shopping malls doing well are ones targeted like Stonestown on Asian shops.
I am very empathetic to the business owners that have experienced a downturn but the economy has shifted. We should look for ways to help these businesses refocus or get more foot traffic.
Also, the proof point of other downtowns provided by Chuck misses the mark. I spend a lot of time in San Mateo, RWC, MV, and Palo Alto downtowns in addition to San Carlos. If you count the closed businesses, the ones with no street closure are doing worse. San Mateo is probably doing the best and they have a street closure. San Mateo also is considerably targeted Asian shops.
Businesses moving into Laurel should figure out how to complement the existing businesses. San Carlos has some remarkable family-forward businesses. Perhaps, we can become a destination for family-forward businesses. There may be better options though!
I own buildings on the 800 block of Laurel and have lived in SC for over 30 years and I agree with Chuck’s perspectives. The 700 block has been destroyed by the street closure and now it looks like a shanty town with mostly failed or marginal businesses hanging on. I can say first hand that the city has completely ignored the biggest stakeholders for Laurel Street, that is the business owners and just as importantly the building owners that make our downtown even possible. None of us were ever specifically consulted on this plan beyond the general community outreach that the city attempted. And worse, when provided contrarian viewpoints, we were ignored. I am strongly opposed to spending more money on this ill-conceived plan and raising our sales taxes and likely other tax increases to pay for it. We need to stop this plan before it goes any further and start over with an updated plan, with strong inputs from the property and business owners that make a vibrant downtown possible. Our city council has completely missed the mark here. All you have to do is walk on Laurel Steet during the mid-afternoon on any day of the week to see how much it has declined since its glory days ten years ago even before the pandemic. If you’re interested, an amazing contrast is to visit downtown Burlingame any afternoon and then go to Laurel Street. Burlingame Ave isn’t perfect, but its a vibrant atmosphere almost all the time with successful shops (including larger so-called “formula businesses” which are strongly discouraged through oppressive regulations in San Carlos, the only peninsula city with such ordinances) and restaurants feeding off of each other for the success of all. We need to stop this plan and vote out the council members that have promoted it in a vacuum, and we need to relax the barriers to successful larger “formula businesses” coming to our city before it’s too late to save our downtown.
Anyone who suggests that brick-and-mortar retail is on a downswing, largely due to online shopping, is not keeping up with the trends. Gen Z and Gen Y are back with touch-and-feel. Ever been to HomeGoods? Just count the young couples there looking for knick knacks. And whoever thought that in the world of music vinyl would come roaring back in popularity? But it has! Music to our ears! And another new trend: A return to cars of the 1990s, including those venerable station wagons. The young ones are loving these. Bottom line is that we need to give our local businesses the best access to both foot traffic and vehicle traffic. And Laurel Street is not Santana Row. Businesses here on the 700 block were apparently not asked their opinion on a permanent closure before our city council slammed the door shut at the end of 2023. If anyone in San Carlos would like to see how another city our size — Burlingame — chose to reinvigorate its downtown, just go visit Burlingame Avenue and the brand new Burlingame Town Square. It’s a lively spot with a large one-acre pedestrian plaza featuring benches, tables, restrooms, a stage and a play area for kids. And this was done as an alternative to closing the middle of Burlingame Avenue to vehicle traffic. This city has exactly the same population (30,000+) as San Carlos, but its decision-makers are responsive and not out to lunch with impossible dreams. Simple message to our council: Stop any further wasteful spending. Reopen the 700 block of Laurel Street!
I just posted a Change.org petition, directed at the San Carlos City Council, to reopen the 700 block of Laurel Street to vehicle traffic and parking. Here is the link:
https://www.change.org/p/save-downtown-san-carlos-by-reopening-laurel-street
Please, folks, click and add your name to the petition.
I am originally from SF ( 3rd generation) when I moved to San Carlos 26 years ago I loved the charm of downtown. I have spoken to many of the businesses that are both restaurants and none restaurants and they want the street open on the 700 block. I was very sad to hear about Hallmark closing. I used to go there weekly but with the street closure I actually stopped. As an advocate for older adults I would love to see the block open back up. With Hillsdale eventually going through its remodeling I hope retain as much retail we can in San Carlos. I have been to many San Carlos city council meetings and voiced my concerns and frustrations especially over the park remodel. They don’t care. And anyone running against them I will help them.
Especially considering we are going to probably have a large portion of $200 million to find for our schools with vehicle license fee issue. But they thought we needed a 15 foot bathroom and $1 million fountain.
We will never know how many businesses decide not to come to San Carlos because of their addition rules of what colors they can use which is so ridiculous. I heard one of the city council women say well I want us to look like Santana Row…well she should move to San Jose.
We aren’t Santana Row or some resort town.