But the city's arguments about sturdiness have begun to crack. Allan Rosen writes:
Concrete apparently is not as durable as the city claimed it would be because the hairline cracks will only get worse with age and eventually will have to patched—unless, of course, the city wants to be faced with huge lawsuits, since falls on concrete are much more severe than falls on wood. Concrete is also criticized because it is more difficult to walk or run on than wood and that it is hotter than wood to walk on with bare feet.
He points out that recycled plastic lumber has its flaws—it's way too slippery—and that real wood is environmentally destructively harvested from rainforests. But he worries that the city won't genuinely try to find a way to make that material effective: that it'll stack the deck in favor of concrete, turning one of the area's last attractions into nothing but a sidewalk.