News   Mar 01, 2024
 1.9K     4 
News   Mar 01, 2024
 3.6K     0 
News   Mar 01, 2024
 916     0 

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

I've got an idea - get Adam Vaughan elected provincially or federally. It worked with Olivia Chow - she's a nice woman, but she also had a terrible habit of interfering too much in the NIMBY issues. She's now in Ottawa - problem solved.

Now to get rid of next-door Joe Pantelone.
 
Note that it's the club district he's picking on. Now, if it were further north around Kensington or so, there might not be the same issues re either clubgoers or residents...
 
I was just about to post a long thread about this... funny to find it already here.

I was speaking to the owner of a prominent club downtown about how Adam Vaughan suggested Fez Batik as a homeless shelter. He told me that at the community meeting on the project, the club owners present confronted him about how a homeless shelter doesn't fit in the club district to which Vaughan replied: "I don't care about you club owners, if you don't like it, you can vote me out in the next election".

hmmmmm.... a good bulk of Vaughan's constituents are club owners..duh

What a disappointment. Like was said here earlier, I expected Adam Vaughan to represent the younger generation and forward thininking with all the good shows on CityTV he put on pushing those values.

He turns out to be a cranky old guy who can't keep up with the times and doesn't realize that the club district brings people into the city who otherwise wouldnt be here... and they're pouring loads of money into the local economy that more than justify the police resources.

If anything, I would also support making it illegal to hold a lineup for the sake of creating buzz.. but if that's policed as badly as the smoking ban (people smoke openly @ Lot332 every single weekend), then forget about it.
In addition, I would tend to agree that clubs should be responsable for maintaining order in front of their buildings and cleaning the sidewalks at the end of the night.
 
hmmmmm.... a good bulk of Vaughan's constituents are club owners..duh
Not really. Maybe 40 votes.

The city needs to revist its own laws and allow clubs to set-up more organically across the city. Single-use zoning is actually very suburban in mindset and I'm not surprised that "clubland" is now viewed by many as a blight on our downtown.
 
My problem is that he doesn't like the "kind of people" that go to clubs. I think that is profoundly dangerous and certainly not a progressive sentiment. What would the reaction be if it were a different identifiable group that was being singled out?
 
Eventhough I don't go clubing...but the clubing district MUST LIVE! Heck, that's the only night life Toronto has! If it's gone...Toronto's going backtrack to a sleepy city!

If people don't like it, JUST DON"T GO! If people hate the noise, MOVE TO MILTON! If people hate the traffice there, DON'T DRIVE THERE! :cool:
 
Eventhough I don't go clubing...but the clubing district MUST LIVE! Heck, that's the only night life Toronto has! If it's gone...Toronto's going backtrack to a sleepy city!

If people don't like it, JUST DON"T GO! If people hate the noise, MOVE TO MILTON! If people hate the traffice there, DON'T DRIVE THERE! :cool:


That's not true. There are lots of places around the city...the club district just has a very high concentration.
 
I was reading the comments on the Star's website, and some people make some interesting points in favour of this. Basically they point out that the ropes sometimes force pedestrians onto the streets, and that street-front stores pay a licence to sell their goods on the street (which are also temporary, displays brought in after opening hours), patios pay for permits, why not bars and clubs for their queues that are well-demarcated and enforced by the owners? It is argued that these lines are a selling tool, and spillover from business that happens on the interior.

It would have to be enforced for all establishments (there are a few each on Church St, Yonge St, Danforth, Bloor in Annex), even though it is clear that Vaughan is targeting clubland specifically.

Just a thought that should be brought into the debate.
 
I was reading the comments on the Star's website, and some people make some interesting points in favour of this. Basically they point out that the ropes sometimes force pedestrians onto the streets, and that street-front stores pay a licence to sell their goods on the street (which are also temporary, displays brought in after opening hours), patios pay for permits, why not bars and clubs for their queues that are well-demarcated and enforced by the owners? It is argued that these lines are a selling tool, and spillover from business that happens on the interior.

It would have to be enforced for all establishments (there are a few each on Church St, Yonge St, Danforth, Bloor in Annex), even though it is clear that Vaughan is targeting clubland specifically.

Just a thought that should be brought into the debate.


I can see the merit in this idea, and I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented.

That said, Vaughn's desire to see the entire area shut down and the stereotypes he employs when making his argument are insane.
 
Not really. Maybe 40 votes.

The city needs to revist its own laws and allow clubs to set-up more organically across the city. Single-use zoning is actually very suburban in mindset and I'm not surprised that "clubland" is now viewed by many as a blight on our downtown.

Sorry, you're right. What I intended to say is that the club industry represents a large bulk of his constituents.

Many businesses in the club district owe their livelihoods to its prosperity. By attacking the club district, Adam Vaughan is attacking the restaurants - both sit down and takeout - the street vendors, the promoters and all their employees, the bouncers, the bartenders, the go-go girls... I could go on...

... and then there are of course the club goers themselves. While many come from the 905, I know many who live in Adam Vaughan's ward.

He's in serious shit next time an election hits. His Dad is shifting in his grave somewhere. Bad Adam! Bad!
 
a few years ago in clubland, i remember walking down richmond and this hot gal all of a sudden decides to go in the intersection, take off her top, jumps on the hood of a car and rubs her bare breasts on some guys windshield for minutes! :D


does that sort of stuff still happen?


and what's with "freaking"? it's very immoral and wrong. you can't have intercourse with your clothes on! it's a gene pool, not a jean pool. sperm can't swim through denim. where did these people get their sex ed' from? hip hop videos? :p
 
Prometheus it's now mostly yelling, screaming, breaking things, staggering into traffic, vomitting, some fighting and the occaisonal shooting. So things have not changed that much.
 
Many businesses in the club district owe their livelihoods to its prosperity. By attacking the club district, Adam Vaughan is attacking the restaurants - both sit down and takeout - the street vendors, the promoters and all their employees, the bouncers, the bartenders, the go-go girls... I could go on...
Please don't. That has to be about the lamest, silliest argument I've ever seen on this board or the old one. Oh the poor bouncers! The poor go-go girls! Whatever will they do? Like you don't think that in a city the size of Toronto, other businesses will not take the place of the clubs that go? It's not an all-or-nothing situation. If the clubs shut down, *something* will take their place. Cities are organic, they grow, they change. It's like arguing in 1970 that the gentrification of Yorkville will put masses of coffee-house waitresses and folk singers out on the street, and chaos and economic depression will ensue. It didn't then, it won't now. New jobs will spring up, *better* jobs will spring up. I'm curious why the defense of these lower-tier service industry jobs whose existence is entirely artificial and based on nothing more than a fluke of demographics and zoning?

That area as it exists now is a sheer waste of resources, land, and space. Rezoning it to allow more residential and more office (as is beginning to be seen with RBC and Ritz) is where the city should steer that area, not as a playground for drunken suburban creeps that sucks police, cleaning and other resources away from other areas that need it. The club area, when it goes, will not be missed and the city will be better off for it.
 
I have waited years for the opportunity to wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Librarian here on a social issue. At last.

Speaking as the proprietor of one (1) vote in Adam Vaughan's ward, I can safely say that he's only bolstered his claim on it with this move.

That neighborhood is a blight. I have not been shot, but I have been threatened and nearly run over by young club-going drivers who may or may not have been drunk. Sure, clubs are part of the urban mystique. But setting aside a whole neighborhood as a clubbing theme park? Concentration like that ruins the area, creating a no-go zone for the rest of us.

The children of the 905 can drink elsewhere. It's Vaughan vs. Vaughan, and I'll take mine over theirs.
 
When pockets of excess, vulgarity and anarchy occasionally break out in our well-mannered and over-regulated burg, it provides a rare kind of spectator sport. Doomed clubland is a fine example. It doesn't get much better than when things go haywire and horrified left-brainers in positions of power and authority like Vaughan try to rein it in.

Demographics + capitalism + sleepyheads at City Hall = Clubland

NIMBY residents + vote-hungry politicians + 905 rowdies = Showtime!
 

Back
Top