Nightlife Police, New NIMBYs and the Continuing Smoking Struggles

The Nightlife Report
Compiled by Gamal Hennessy

A New Influx of New York NIMBYs (The Wall Street Journal)
More residential skyscrapers are going up, which means more conflict between the nightlife industry and rich NIMBYs

The NYC Police Cabaret Unit (The Wall Street Journal)
The NYPD is reinstating its Cabaret Unit, which could be good news or bad news for New York nightlife.

The Potential of E-Cigarettes (The Wall Street Journal)
Are E-Cigarettes the anwser to the NYC Nightlife Smoking Ban? Probably not. City Hall will most likely ban them too.

Smoking Problems (Guest of a Guest)
Unlucky Strike: Juliet Supper Club In Cigarette-Related Trouble...Maybe they should try e-cigarettes...

New Venues
BlkMarket (Midtown)
Lamb’s Club (Midtown)
Tzigan (Meatpacking)
The Whiskey Brooklyn (Brooklyn)
XIX (Lower East Side)

Has City Hall Turned its Back on the City That Never Sleeps?

By Gamal Hennessy

National think tanks like the Responsible Hospitality Institute and local trade organizations like the New York Nightlife Association agree that the most successful relationship between local government and the nightlife industry is a balanced combination of planning, managing and policing. If one element is over emphasized to the detriment of the others, then the industry and the surrounding community suffers. Unfortunately, the recent relationship between New York nightlife and local government focuses on policing to the detriment of the industry and the overall community.

Attacks or Neglect?
City Hall’s position on nightlife can be inferred by the laws that it chooses to enforce and the way it decides to enforce them. There are four major policies that have a stated objective but wind up hurting the industry far more than they benefit society. While a more beneficial policy exists, for one reason or another, the City has decided to act against our industry.

The Cabaret Law: This anti integration law was allegedly revived to prevent overcrowding and conditions that led to situations like the Happy Land Social Club Fire in 1990. In reality, it became a tool of the Giuliani Administration to close venues that didn’t conform to his quality of life plan. The law forced operators to choose between spending considerable dollars acquiring a license, breaking the law or prohibiting a basic form of social expression without actually increasing the safety of patrons. If patron safety is actually the goal, then an increased emphasis on building safety codes and rolling back the law to avoid uneven benefit to venues that ignored the law can go along way in protecting us and recognizing dance as a form of free speech.

The Smoking Ban: A ban on indoor smoking was put in place with the stated goal of reducing the levels of second hand smoke that operators and patrons were being exposed to. While smoke free bars are a worthy goal, the way that the law is enforced increases tensions between neighbors and venues because compliance with the ban leads to an exponential increase in noise complaints. Public health can be protected without animosity between patrons and neighbors by separating smokers from non smokers with physical barrier inside the venue and requiring hospital grade air filtration systems in bars instead of just forcing everyone outside.

Zoning Policies In an effort to increase the amount of housing available for New York City’s growing population, the City has been re-zoing certain areas to allow for more residential buildings. The effect of this plan on nightlife is significant. Operators have set up in areas that were formerly isolated commercial zones like the Meatpacking District and West Chelsea. Their presence helped transform these areas into viable and attractive locations. Then the City changed the zoning law to allow for residences to be built in these areas. This places residential buildings adjacent to venues and increases friction between new residents and established clubs. Added to this is the fact that many new high rises are built without regards to the potential noise, traffic and pollution issues associated with the venues. If the City includes nightlife venues as a part of its long term zoning plans and required new and existing buildings to be built with this consideration in mind, it would go a long way in reducing the tensions between the groups and bolstering an industry that is vital to the city.

Nuisance Abatement Law: The City has always been interested in reducing illegal activity like drug sales, tax issues and violence found in certain venues. Like the smoking ban, the problem isn’t the goal of the policy, it is in the implementation. Venues have regularly been closed on Friday afternoon under the Nuisance Abatement Law. This means that by the time the case goes before a judge, the venue has lost several major days of revenue since the courts are not open on the weekends and it is the weekend where the club makes most of its money for the week. A simple choice to enforce the law in such a way that does not impose additional economic penalties on the operators can serve the public interest without imposing additional punishments on the operators.

The Basic Problem
The underlying issue here is the perception that officials have of the industry. Nightlife is often characterized as a detriment to the city or a necessary evil. It is natural for politicians to focus on policing if clubs are seen in this light. When politicians and officials see the benefits of the industry to New York, then it will be more natural to create policies that focus on planning and management rather than isolation and aggression. When they understand that nightlife is a necessary element of the city, they can plan for a future of the city that includes a strong nightlife industry.

The best way to change the perception of elected officials is to change the perception of the people who vote for them. Nightlife needs to become a political issue for the millions of eligible voters who can sway an election. There are individual elements of the industry that have the ability to have a wide reach through a combination of events, promotions and celebrity endorsements. Harnessing those elements with the goal of changing the perception of the industry and influencing its politics is the most viable way to change the relationship between local government and the industry.

Have fun.
Gamal

Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Sign up for the Insider Newsletter
Order Seize the Night from Amazon.com

China Club, Copacabana, Double Windsor, Touch, Upstairs and Vander Bar

The Nightlife Report for February 25, 2010

Compiled by Gamal Hennessy

…I hunt down the nightlife news so you don’t have to…

Coming Soon
Copacabana
(Club Planet)
The operators behind the iconic Latin dance spot are trying to grab the China Club space (see Closing below). As midtown grows as a potential nightlife hub, a good dance space with a retractable roof sounds like a great idea. I wonder if they will bring back the Tuesday night buffet dinner and the live salsa bands. Midtown could use that kind of energy to wash away the image that China Club had at the end of its run…

Vander Bar
The Roosevelt Hotel on 45th Street is planning to add a new bar to its amenities. Vander bar bills itself as a hideaway for locals, but considering its location (right next to Grand Central) and its operating hours (12:00-9:00 Monday to Friday) it feels like this will be another upscale Midtown option for the liquid lunch/ corporate Happy Hour/ need to grab a drink before I catch the Metro North set. This is not a bad thing. The foreplay of New York nightlife has to start somewhere. It might as well be upscale.

Opening
Upstairs
(Urban Daddy)
You can add this hotel based venue to the growing list of retractable roof lounges that currently include Hudson Terrace and Provocateur. Maybe every decent rooftop in New York should become some type of venue. That’s one more way to deal with the agonizing smoking issue that is festering in the industry…

Closing
China Club
(Eater)
Earlier this week, Barfly wrote that the troubled midtown spot was undergoing a name change to try and re-brand itself. That gambit appears to have failed and Eater is reporting that the space is now closed. The good news is that new operators are already standing by to take over the venue and make it safe to dance in midtown again.

Touch
(New York Post)
The post reports (and a DJ reader of New York Nights has confirmed) that the SLA suspended the license of the midtown nightclub for a series of infractions that include underage drinking, overcrowding and employment of unlicensed security. The operators are planning to fight the SLA ruling, but since the new chairman is looking to establish a reputation for enforcement, Touch is going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Changes
Double Windsor
(Eater)
Among the young mothers and MILFs of Williamsburg and Park Slope, taking your baby to the bar for an evening of drinks with the ladies has been a regular site for the past few years. Operators and patrons have tried to adjust to the diaper changing in the bathrooms, crying at the bar (from cranky children instead of forlorn adults) and Maclaren strollers parked out front. The Double Windsor is trying to reverse the trend by taking the bold step of banning babies after 5 PM. Time will tell if the anti-baby backlash from drinking mothers will bring down the bar. Maybe if they reserved a special “mom’s only” night they could reduce tensions and make everyone happy…except of course for the cranky crying baby.

Opinion
Smoke Signals
(New York Magazine)
The stated goal in passing the smoking ban was to help operators by protecting them from second hand smoke. Now the city wants to close clubs that have allegedly violated the ban. Matt Harvey asks if putting hundreds of operators out of work will actually help them at all.

Have fun
Gamal

Join us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Solutions to the Smoking Ban

By Gamal Hennessy

One of the most contentious issues in New York nightlife this year, or in the past 7 years, is the ban on smoking. It draws the wrath of local residents down on club owners who follow the law. It generates animosity between smokers and non smokers in venues that don’t throw smokers outside. In extreme cases, venues are having their liquor licenses threatened and might be forced to close based on the actions of their patrons. Seven years under the current regulations have exposed problems in the system. What are the solutions that can serve the interests of everyone involved?

Outside vs. Inside
The smoking ban adds to the tension between club owners and local residents because when smokers are pushed outside it sets off a cycle of disruption and noise. You might think that a few people standing outside a venue will not substantially increase the level of street noise, but that concept only considers the smokers themselves. Smokers, especially attractive female smokers, provide a powerful incentive for groups of male fanatics to hang out in front of a club (especially if they couldn’t get in or got thrown out.) In a twisted effort to get noticed and prove their sexual superiority, these individuals will shout, get into fights, honk their horns if they are in their cars, or try to talk to girls from their cars and back up traffic behind them, which causes other cars to blow their horns. Fortunately for residents who live near the club, this mating cacophony will die down when the girls finish smoking and go back inside, but it will begin again when the next group of girls comes out of the club to take their place. If you change the law so smokers are not smoking out on the street in front of a bar, you reduce the negative impact the venue has on local residents.

Smokers vs. Non Smokers
Once you bring the smoking issue back within the four walls of the venue, accommodations need to be made to separate the smokers from the non-smokers. Published reports and anecdotal evidence suggest that a substantial number of non smoking nightlife patrons do not want to mix with active smokers indoors. To create physical separation, venues with separate rooms can designate the room furthest in the back as a smoking area. This will prevent non-smokers from having to travel through a nicotine cloud to get to their part of the club. Venues without separate rooms could have pressurized walls put in to create mini rooms inside the venue. As long as these rooms were properly ventilated and otherwise conformed to local building codes, smokers could smoke indoors and still be separated from the rest of the patrons and operators.

Clear the Air
Even if smokers were brought back inside and separated from the general population of patrons, something would have to be done with the smoke coming out of the smoking room in order for second hand smoke to be eliminated as a health and odor concern. Technology can provide the best solution here. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals to clean the air. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier and one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60% of the people are smoking inside. If the law was modified and operators created separate spaces for smokers and installed air filtration units in the club, smokers could smoke without creating unnecessary noise for residents or an additional health hazard for patrons.

Targets the Actors, Not the Scene
There is only so much that an operator can do to stop smoking in their venue. Whether or not the city decides to allow for a more reasonable approach to the ban, one thing that needs to change is the parties that are punished for ignoring the ban. Under the current system, the patron ignores the ban and the operator is punished. There is no real disincentive for the patron to either continue smoking or to go to another venue to smoke. If the onus was placed on the smoker, if the Department of Health or some other organization that has enforcement powers fined the smoker instead of the bar, then the smokers might think twice before lighting up. I am not advocating DOH monitors in every venue. I am pointing out that any group that can act and know that someone else will be punished for their action has little reason to change their behavior.

Closing
Cities around the world are coming to the conclusion that open smoking in venues is no longer acceptable. But protecting public health does not have to lead to detrimental effects on nightlife. There are solutions that the current ban does not utilize. Failing to modify the law to take these options into account hurts everyone both inside the clubs and outside of them. It is time to move past the entrenched positions of City Hall to develop a plan that addresses the reality of the situation.

Have fun.
Gamal

China Club, Poor Service, West New York and the Nightlife Town Hall Meeting

The New York Nights Club Report for January 27, 2010
Compiled by Gamal Hennessy

…I hunt down the nightlife news so you don’t have to…

Politics
Nightlife Town Hall Meeting
(New York Nights)
Community Board 3 on the Lower East Side is scheduling a Nightlife Town Hall meeting at P.S. 20 (Essex and Stanton) on Thursday, February 4 at 6:30 pm. The agenda of the meeting is unclear, but natives and operators who work at or patronize any venue in the Lower East Side or the East Village should attend and make your voice heard. Don’t let the anti-nightlife minority speak for you.

Clubs Could Be Closed for Violating the Smoking Ban
(Daily News)
Two weeks ago we ran a story about the increase in smoking violations inside some clubs and lounges. The Department of Health has started cracking down on alleged offenders, but instead of forcing clubs to pay fines, they are taking the aggressive stance of trying to revoke the liquor licenses of M2, the Box and other high profile venues. Is the city trying to make an example of these spots, or are governed by an administration with an unspoken anti-nightlife stance that would rather see clubs close than thrive?

West New York Could Skip Liquor Licenses
(NJ.com)
Local leaders just across the Hudson River are considering a plan to let venues serve wine and beer without applying for a liquor license. Considering how many people come into the city from across the river to party on the weekends, a move like this could siphon away revenue from local nightlife. If things continue to be problematic for operators here, we could lose some of venues to the Garden State as well…

Crime
China Club
(Daily News)
Three men allegedly got into a fight outside of the midtown venue. Two of them went to the hospital. One of them died. This crime seems to follow a major trend in nightlife violence because the assault seems to have occurred just outside the venue and it occurred close to the end of the night, when many questionable decisions are made. The pattern suggests the need for increased police foot patrols as venues close, which would discourage crime and decrease noise in nightlife concentrated areas.

Opinion
Why Do Patrons Put Up With Bad Service?
(Club Planet)
JRL asks why so many people are willing to pay for top dollar bottle service only to be treated like they just ordered off the value meal and paid with coupons?


Have fun
G

2010: The Year of the Smoker?

By Gamal Hennessy

The ban on smoking in New York clubs was one of the key nightlife policy changes of the last decade. But news stories at the end of 2009 reveal that more and more venues allow smoking and run the risk of fines and possible closure by city authorities. Where does this defiance come from and how will it impact New York nightlife in 2010?

A Shift in Stance
The smoking ban took effect in 2003 and while most venues complied, there were always a few spots that wouldn’t stop you from lighting up, even if they did incur the occasional fine. Early in 2008 there were growing public instances of venues that did not rope off areas out front or create special outdoor sections for smokers. Some operators, both openly and privately, came to the conclusion that it is easier and more cost effective to simply allow people to smoke.

At the end of 2009 smoking in clubs was again reported to be on the rise in New York City. This may be because enforcement has dropped off or because the fines are low enough that paying them costs less than complying with the law, receiving noise complaints from neighbors or alienating influential natives.

Motivation
Patrons might do choose to remain indoors to smoke for convenience when it’s time to satisfy their cravings, but the reasons for non compliance from the operators’ perspective are largely economic.

One of the problems that nightlife advocates predicted before the ban took effect was an increase of street noise that is a natural by-product of the law. When patrons go into a bar, they grab a drink and begin interacting with each other. The volume of the music played in the venue and the increased levels of intoxication raises the volume of the patrons when they are inside. They are screaming, laughing and shouting at each other. Then a few of them go outside to grab a smoke.

As they open the door, noise from the dance floor and the DJ booth spill out into the street. When the patrons get outside, they are still intoxicated. Some of them, especially the amateurs and fanatics, are still screaming, laughing and shouting at each other. The only difference is now they are yelling beneath the window of the preppy couple who just bought a four million dollar condo across the street from the venue because they thought the neighborhood was trendy. The couple can’t sleep. Their expensive purebred dog is stressed out. They get frustrated. They call 311. The club is fined and their liquor license is threatened because they conformed to the smoking ban.

The operator is now caught on the horns of a dilemma; enforce the smoking ban and risk losing their liquor license because of noise complaints or control the noise by allowing people to smoke inside and risk losing their liquor license because of DOH violations. Neither choice is satisfactory.

Alternatives
There was (and still is) an alternative that protects the health of patrons and operators, keeps noise levels down outside of venues and allows patrons to smoke all at the same time. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier, one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60 % of the people inside are smoking. Nightlife advocates proposed that if a venue was primarily a bar, lounge or club and not a restaurant, then they could have one filter installed for every 1,250 square feet of interior space to become exempt from the ban. This alternative was not included in the final version of the law.

The Year to Come
It remains to be seen how Bloomberg will react to this defiance during his third term. The smoking ban was largely his brainchild and he might feel the need to crackdown on wayward operators. If there is a new round of anti-nightlife sentiment from City Hall, the ban could be used to shut venues down in the same way Giuliani used the cabaret law to shut down spots he didn’t like. It might be a better long term plan for the industry to come together to help change the law instead of ignoring it.

Have fun.

G