News   Apr 23, 2024
 1.2K     4 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 481     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 1.2K     0 

Death of Clubland (aka: Is Adam Vaughan trying to kill the Club District?)

I still say that if you move into a area known for late night entertainment where tens of thousands of people descend upon every night, then you have to accept this reality or move elsewhere.

If you don't mind and have no problem raising kids in this kind of area then fine. I still think Vaughan has a dislike for night clubs and just wants them gone. I don't buy for a minute that he's trying to bring balance to the area. He wants the clubs gone, period and replaced with well behaved citizens.

Accept what "reality"? To what are you referring to? If you mean people behaving badly, nobody has to accept that in any part of the city.

Given the location, there should never have been any doubt that this area was going see greater residential intensification. As for some clubs being there 15 years ago, that was fifteen years ago. Times change, and so does the city.

Funny, but with all this complaining about Vaughan shutting down clubs, no one has pointed to one club that he has closed. The fact is that a city councillor can't close a club with the click of the fingers. Many of the venues that were shut were the ones that continuously broke city or provincial laws, or suffered due to poor business planning. In other instances, some clubs closed because they ceased to be popular enough to draw the necessary patrons to stay open.

There will always be some clubs in the area, but the concentration will diminish. The operators that stay open will be the smart ones who know who their clientele are, and what they like. Those owners will have good security and run their businesses well. At the same time, as more people move in to the area, there will be added pressure to deal with excesses in behaviour on the streets.

Clubbers will have to accept this reality or move elsewhere.
 
Funny, but with all this complaining about Vaughan shutting down clubs, no one has pointed to one club that he has closed. The fact is that a city councillor can't close a club with the click of the fingers.

Not with the flick of their fingers but with a flick or their pen.

I can point out plenty:
Distrikt, ThisIsLondon, Privilege (former Plastique), Cabana, Home (former Tonic), and Embassy are all clubs that will close or are closed and will not reopen because Adam Vaughan lobbied developers and facilitated licenses for condos to be built in their place.

Then there's Fez Batik. It closed due to falling attendance when Cantina Charlie's opened across the street, catering to the same college crowd.

Nonetheless, it was slated to reopen as a restaurant/bar similar to "Montana's" with a patio in front after renovations but the owner of the property was told the city was interested in buying the property for a lot more than it was worth in rent as a restaurant/bar.

Adam Vaughan green lit a $10M homeless shelter with one goal in mind: "This will drive out the clubs". Note that I wrote that in quotes: Adam Vaughan actually said that! I attended a meeting regarding the shelter at which were present several club owners who couldn't believe what they were hearing. Their councillor was declaring war on their businesses.

Surely, the city could have found a property nearby worth less than the $5M they paid for this prime real estate.

Do you need more examples?
 
I didn't realize Tonic changed names/closed already. That was one of the few clubs left from the good old days.
 
Adam Vaughan green lit a $10M homeless shelter with one goal in mind: "This will drive out the clubs". Note that I wrote that in quotes: Adam Vaughan actually said that! I attended a meeting regarding the shelter at which were present several club owners who couldn't believe what they were hearing. Their councillor was declaring war on their businesses.

Sounds like a lot of taxpayers money to add a shelter and get rid of a couple clubs, i swear some of these city politicians live in another planet.:eek:
 
Not with the flick of their fingers but with a flick or their pen.

I can point out plenty:
Distrikt, ThisIsLondon, Privilege (former Plastique), Cabana, Home (former Tonic), and Embassy are all clubs that will close or are closed and will not reopen because Adam Vaughan lobbied developers and facilitated licenses for condos to be built in their place.

You are incorrect. Vaughan did not close down these clubs. If developers optioned to build or redevelop the sites, they go to the councillor to present their plans. A city councillor can't pull a provincial license or force a club to close down if the operators have not broken any city by-laws. So once again I'll repeat it, Vaughan has not closed down a club by virtue of having any special powers to do so. He wants to see clubs close and promotes the evolution of the area as a diverse, mixed-use neighbourhood.

To be more blunt, if the operating licenses are in order and the owners are not breaking any city by-laws, then the club is not going to be closed. If the building or land owner opts to do something with that property, that is not councillors doing. He can either support or oppose a specific development - and Vaughan has opposed a number of new developments in the area.

Some of you fault Vaughan for wanting to reduce the concentration of clubs while at the same time you appear to promote the intensification of these venues - seemingly at the expense of all other businesses or residents. I'm here to tell you that no matter what you think - or like - the area is changing, and it will continue to change. The numbers of clubs will be greatly reduced for a variety of reasons, but not all will vanish.

That a councillor should be lobbying to create a vibrant, mixed-use downtown neighbourhood should be considered a good thing. Only people with limited vested interests would see otherwise.
 
Sorry but....

Not buying the argument for Vaughan wanting the right to turn a night entertainment district known for clubs into something more desirable in line with his preferences. The clubs were there first. Residential came later. I'm talking about the immediate area where the clubs are located.

Hell, I remember going down there 20 yrs ago with some friends and envying the night scene since living in the burbs was so.... dull and boring.

I don't think there was ever any real issues with this area till the condos started showing up and the people moving into the area, then all of a sudden there was a problem. The only real sound argument to having the clubs removed is the concentration of them and behaviour of party goers, which I tend to think is being overblown.

Some of my friends really, have a dislike for him not so much for trying to shut clubland (which they think is just nonsense for many reasons) but rather that his track record as a counsillor leaves something to be desired.

I haven't followed the man's career and so cannot comment on his record. But once again, his attack on a district that was thriving as a night playground for years comes across as someone who is old and grumpy and doesn't want younger people partying.

And his insistance on developers building 3 bed room units in future condos isn't going to work. From what many tell me, if they have a choice between raising kids in a house over a condo unit, they opt for the house and usually move further out.

Every single one of my co-workers that are raising a family or planning to, are either living in houses or planning to buy a house. Not one single person I know will live in a condo with their kids unless they have no choice.

One last point.

If you want people to move into a supposedly vibrant area with plenty of entertainment but attempt to force out most of this and replace it with condos, haven't you really in the end just hollowed out what was the original selling point of the area that was attracting people there to begin with.

A vibrant night scene.

I'm really beginning to think that the city should just zone part of the docks into a new night entertainment district but this would probably drive the island residents into a mad rage, screaming that their bubble world was coming to a end.
 
Last edited:
Hell, I remember going down there 20 yrs ago with some friends and envying the night scene since living in the burbs was so.... dull and boring.

And maybe downtowners viewed you as one of those suburban twerps and rubes that was part of the problem. So there:p
 
Oh, yes...

Very mature retort.

Referring to me as being some type of suburban terp for coming down from Scaraborough to enjoy the night scene. Yup, I must really have had this coming for making a comment about coming down to where the clubs are 2 decades ago and enjoying the area.

You completely overlooked my point regarding that the clubs were there first and everything was fine till the condos came and people then screamed about their presence. It's sheer hypocrisy.
 
I have to point out that the clubs weren't there "first". Those clubs replaced earlier warehouses and other light industry that moved out when the railyards were shifted to Vaughan and Scarborough about thirty years ago. It was *then* that nightclubs started moving in, taking advantage of large, available, cheap spaces. Fast forward to 1995, the "Kings" policy of Barbara Hall is implemented, and you start to see new industries combined with mixed-uses (including residential) being encouraged for the area. So if anyone is to be "blamed" here, I would actually start with Hall, not Vaughan. Vaughan is just simply inheriting the conditions that Hall implemented, and seeing them through to their logical conclusion.

Yes, it's clear he hates clubs, but a lot of the condos that are being completed now were actually first approved when Olivia Chow was councillor for the area. The first Cityplace towers, the Morgan, the Hudson, the Charlotte, the Modern, the condos along John south of King and along Wellington, these were all approved and in most cases completed when Vaughan still worked for CityTV. I don't see any reason to believe that if Chow was still councillor for that area, she wouldn't be doing the exact same thing that Vaughan is doing now. With less strident rhetoric, perhaps, but I see no reason why Chow wouldn't have been encouraging residential and office intensification in the same manner that Vaughan is. I think the difference is of tone, not of objectives.

The point is that since about the mid-1980s, that entire area (beginning with the removal of the railyards, the construction of the Skydome, the emergence of CityPlace, and the increased value of the lands south of Queen for residential and commercial development) has been in constant flux and will continue to be so until it is fully built out. We know the proposals that are in the pipe for the area. By and large, they will get built, and it really won't matter if Vaughan or somebody else is councillor for the area. This process (economic, demographic) is beyond one person. And so all the clubs Metroman mentioned as soon to be closing (including Circa, not that I care, but still) will close, the buildings they're in will be redeveloped, and in about five years this conversation will be irrelevant. In a strange way, those of you who live down there in a condo that is ten years old or less are contributing to the very process of change you are objecting to, like it or not.
 
Well said, fiendish - you should definitely post more often (and yes, your York U Library piece is a hoot!)

I should add that no one on UT seems to be complaining when yet another lovely condo proposal pop up in the Kings area...in fact, the general consensus on here seems to be rather positive towards the overall transformation in the area.

AoD
 
Last edited:
To me, the Ex grounds are perfect for a new entertainemnt district, but it seems like there's no inertia for it to happen and I can't figure out why. How did Muzik wind up there?

I know a hotel complex is in developemnt, but why nothing else? The area is probably the best possible and I don't see what else it could be used for.
 
And his insistance on developers building 3 bed room units in future condos isn't going to work. From what many tell me, if they have a choice between raising kids in a house over a condo unit, they opt for the house and usually move further out.

Every single one of my co-workers that are raising a family or planning to, are either living in houses or planning to buy a house. Not one single person I know will live in a condo with their kids unless they have no choice.

What happens when all of the 20-somethings who like the convenience of condo life want to move out of their 1b+d into a 3 bedroom so that they can raise their kids there?

This is about building a better city by having the foresight to create a diverse housing stock.
 
And so all the clubs Metroman mentioned as soon to be closing (including Circa, not that I care, but still) will close, the buildings they're in will be redeveloped, and in about five years this conversation will be irrelevant. In a strange way, those of you who live down there in a condo that is ten years old or less are contributing to the very process of change you are objecting to, like it or not.

Circa is closing? I do go there from time to time, but never heard this. Do we know whats taking its place?
 
Guess it's unavoidable...

That change will happen but I really don't like this effort to demonize and replace the clubs with condos with a vision that could have included both. And yes, if you live in a condo built in the past decade you are indirectly contributing to the disappeance of the clubs in this area.
 
I have to point out that the clubs weren't there "first". Those clubs replaced earlier warehouses and other light industry that moved out when the railyards were shifted to Vaughan and Scarborough about thirty years ago. It was *then* that nightclubs started moving in, taking advantage of large, available, cheap spaces.

And remember, too, that in the interrim, gallery and studio space was here. (And in a case like 401 Richmond, the legacy remains.)

Let's get aside from the condos for a second. What's a more positive urban contributor around these parts: the clubs, or 401 Richmond?
 

Back
Top