The Nightlife Report for June 11, 2010
Compiled by Gamal Hennessy
…we hunt down the nightlife news so you don’t have to…
Events
World Cup
(Martini Boys)
If you don’t have a favorite spot to drink beer and cheer for your favorite team at 8 in the morning, check out these World Cup Headquarters locations.
Opening
The Blind Barber
(Urban Daddy)
The East Village may not need another barbershop, but this one has a cocktail lounge attached, so we’ll let it slide this time…
Lorely Williamsburg
(Thrillist)
Williamsburg may not need another beer hall, but this one used to be a gas station, so we’ll let it slide this time…
Closed
Imperial
(Club Planet)
The hotspot makes an early exit out of Flatiron.
Nightlife Media
Gamal Hennessy (U.S. Politics Today)
Earlier this week I spoke to a group of politicians and regulators about the importance of nightlife to a city’s economic future.
Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)
New York Burger
(Chelsea Now)
The residents of West Chelsea are trying to close this Burger shop before it even opens, fearing another Pop Burger, because we all know a place that serves burgers and wine is really just a crack house in disguise.
West Chelsea
(Good Night Mr. Lewis)
Eight of the main venues in this area have shut down. A neighborhood that was once abandoned has been replaced by condos and skyscrapers. I wonder how that area got so popular? The answer of course is the very nightclubs that are now being pushed out.
Underage Drinking
(New York Post)
Mainstream media makes money building up the image of nightlife as a detriment to the city. Last week, the Post had an intern try and get drinks at various establishments and found that more than 50% of them were willing to severe at 20 year old liquor. Even if you ignore the fact that only 5 of the 17 places were actually nightlife venues (the others were bodegas and delis) the message to operators is clear: We are looking for reasons to attack you. This will most certainly be used as NIMBY ammunition when these venues come up for liquor license renewal.
Miss Lily
(Daily News)
Anna Wintour, the Queen of Vogue Magazine, rallied the NIMBYs against a new Jamaican themed venue from the operators who brought you The Box. It seems odd that the icon of cosmopolitan living would come out against the very thing that gives the city its energy. Where are all the pro nightlife celebrities out there?
Have fun. Gamal
By Gamal Hennessy
West Chelsea used to be an isolated pocket of Manhattan with nothing but housing projects, warehouses and a post office processing plant. Now it has some of the most expensive condos in the city. This didn’t happen overnight. The area became desirable partially because the nightlife industry injected new life into it. But if nightlife can have such a positive effect on an area, why do the clubs in that area get shut down? More importantly, why would operators want to run a business in a city where they are punished for their success?
In the fields of urban planning and sociology, the nightlife industry in New York suffers from a concept called gentrification. This concept attempts to explain the changing demographic patterns of people who live in a certain area. Under this theory, middle class residents of an urban area begin to relocate to another part of the city or the suburbs. As people move and the price of real estate drops with decreased demand, immigrant and low income groups move into that area. They are followed by students, artists and other young people who want to live in the city, but can’t afford the higher rent districts.
The mixture of cultures and artistic energy sparks a period of creativity. Operators move into the area to capitalize on both the energy of the space and the lack of residential density, which provides opportunities to create environments that might not be attractive to the wider population.
When enough creative and nightlife people establish themselves in an area, it is “discovered” and changes from an unknown art district to “the next big thing.” The area is now ordained a desirable place to go. Using the vocabulary of Malcolm Gladwell in his book the Tipping Point, the area “tips” or, in more basic terms, the area is now “cool”. Younger professionals are drawn there to be close to their artistic peers and the venues they have created. Property values begin to rise. Real estate developers push to build new residences for people to buy and urge changes in the zoning laws to allow for more residences. More affluent groups move in and start families.
At this point, the newest residents who are paying top dollar for their condos, co-ops and brownstones, are unwilling to accept the conditions that artists accepted for the sake of expediency. They are unwilling to trade the quiet or space of living in the suburbs for the convenience of living in the city the way B&T commuters do. They want both. They take steps to change the area by removing the elements that made it desirable in the first place with community boards and other forms of political influence. Prices continue to rise. The low income, artistic and nightlife elements are forced out. The area becomes what some advocates refer to as a "bedroom community,” where little transpires beyond residents going to work and coming back home. The area stagnates. Living there becomes less desirable. The residents of the area begin to migrate and the cycle begins to repeat itself.
Keep in mind that the process of gentrification is not necessarily rapid nor does it apply to everyone who lives in a particular area or every neighborhood in a particular city. It might take decades for a particular neighborhood to gentrify and revert, but the process of gentrification has manifested itself - to one extent or another - in Greenwich Village, the Meatpacking District, and West Chelsea. It has even started in Williamsburg with the announcement of a new luxury condo building. Gentrification causes the “cool” neighborhoods to shift, which has a direct impact on nightlife in that area.
I’m not trying to imply that the process of gentrification is purely negative in relation to nightlife. A certain level of gentrification is desirable, and even required, for nightlife to grow since some operators and natives need a certain comfort level in an area before they move in. But using nightlife to build up and area and then re-zoning it to force the operators out is short sighted and detrimental to the city as a whole. New York City needs to have a healthy mixture of nightlife and residential buildings and both groups need to exist together. Operators won’t continue to dump millions into a blighted area if the reward for their efforts is constructive eviction. And if one group is sacrificed for the sake of another, the area will stagnate again and the cycle of loss will repeat itself.
Have fun.
Gamal
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Sign up for the free Insider Newsletter
Order our new book Seize the Night from Amazon.com
by Gamal Hennessy
New York Magazine reported earlier this week that Ohm, one of the newer buildings on 11th Avenue and the Highline is going to open part of the space for live music acts, rotating DJ parties and open mic nights. While some might see this as a desperate move by the real estate developers, it could be the start of an innovative strategy that aligns the interests of developers and operators in tough economic times.
Several groups face challenges after the real estate boom ended. Operators are trying to discover ways to stay in New York and keep their venues profitable amid rising costs. Developers are trying to discover ways to recover from the economic downturn and turn their expensive buildings into places that attract people and make money. The city has a vested interest in both seeing the buildings succeed and retaining nightlife venues. This convergence of interests could create a situation in which the three groups work together instead of separately as they have in the past.
Two Great Tastes That Taste Great Together
It is standard business practice in Las Vegas, Miami and on Caribbean resorts to place nightlife venues inside hotel properties. While these venues are often described as additional amenities for hotel guests, clubs and lounges inside these properties attract thousands of patrons who are guests of other hotels or residents of the city. The situation allows the hotel to draw a substantial stream of revenue which wouldn’t be tapped into if they only served their own guests. The combination is so common in Las Vegas that it is difficult to find a club that isn’t in a hotel. This marriage of convenience benefits the hotel owners, the club owners and the city itself.
Venues inside hotels are not uncommon in New York City. Times Square, Columbus Circle, the Meatpacking District, SoHo and other parts of the city all boast hotels that include at least one nightlife venue. The SoHo and TriBeCa Grands, Above Allen, The Standard, the Gansevoort, the Maritime Hotel and the Empire Hotel come to mind instantly. The clubs generate revenue and marketing buzz for the hotel, making it a more attractive place for tourists to stay and a destination of choice for residents. While it is much more common to find independent nightlife venues in New York City, the hotel club or lounge is not a new phenomenon in the city.
Obstacles
Can Ohm take that idea to another level? What prevents a real estate developer sitting on an overpriced, vacant West Chelsea condo building from converting part of it into a lounge? Why can’t she generate a small stream of revenue while the real estate market is soft, using the club as a way to attract potential buyers to see the location, moving the name of the building out into the public, providing an “exclusive” perk to new buyers and becoming the first place that young professionals want to live when the market picks up again? If the hotel lounge can work, then what prevents the condo lounge from working as well?
There are several conditions that may prevent this idea from working. A building that is already planned or completed might not have the proper space to retrofit a lounge or it might not have the proper sound proofing to serve the lounge and the adjacent units. Obtaining a liquor license for a condo building might be difficult, especially if hostile community boards see the condo lounge as a tactic for operators to sneak back into the neighborhood. Families with children might avoid a building that is known for club activity. The wear and tear on a building increases in area where patrons congregate. The property value of the units might decrease sharply if fanatic activity rises. There could be existing laws that prevent a building owner from offering this type of service. By nature, hotel guests are transient so they might be willing to accept what permanent residents won’t. The condo lounge is not an idea without risks, but a developer sitting on a mostly abandoned building who knows a savvy operator might be able to create a mutually beneficial situation for the building owner and the operator.
Nightlife is not the natural enemy of real estate development. The ability of the two groups to work together is contingent upon politics and economics. Any law or political situation that prevents venues and buildings from prospering together can be changed if the perceptions of the people are changed. The ability to retain jobs, and tax revenue and spending in the city is a product of the two groups working together. A dialogue that includes nightlife as part of the solution - instead of the problem - has the potential to benefit the developers, the operators and the city.
Have fun.
Gamal
