urbanSTL

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2010-09- ... the-blame/

This article seems to capture both sides of the story. Unfortunately, no "Vegas" type club will survive in St. Louis for long due to the culture in and around our city (for example, Home Nightclub). Lure is victim to the neighborhood it resides in. The Lofts surrounding it are filled with middle/upper class white people from outside the city that will never co-exist with a "gangster/hip hop" type setting that Lure generates. Who will win in a case of middle/upper class whites vs. club-going black people? I think thats pretty obvious. Having just moved into Lucas Lofts next to Lure, I have not seen the incidents associated with this case, but from all the evidence and accounts represented, I can clearly see that a place like Lure is in direct contrast to residential growth and development. I admit I moved downtown to be in the middle of the vibrant nightlife of St. Louis, but a club like Lure would be better off in a different area. One example I can give is Morgan Street Brewery. Everytime I've been there it has been jam packed with lines out the door. It is away from the residential area and attracts people from all around St. Louis. They do not promote "hip hop nights" and as far as I know, do not butt heads with local business/residents.

Just my .02

Why do you think 'Vegas' type clubs can't survive here? In my opinion, HOME closed because of it's terrible location more than anything. Ever been in Lure? The place is a DUMP. And why are you trying to make this a black vs white issue? I don't think anyone has a problem with hip-hop fans, they have a problem with the resulting violence they attracted.

I agree that Lure attracted the wrong kind of crowd and I agree that they should be shutdown for the greater good of the community and development, however I think a lot of people are in denial that race didn't play a part in this movement. In the article I posted, they brought up an example that if the "Hells Angels" came in on Thursday nights and incited violence, that the same thing would happen, and I agree, in theory, it would warrant the same uprising of residents. However, do I think because the crowd inciting the violence around Lure were sketchy black people, they were held to a higher level of scrutiny? yes. Maybe some people don't want to admit that they aren't comfortable around the type of entourage that frequented Lure, but I can guarantee you that NOT everyone who signed that petition, signed it for the right or the same reasons. In fact, I know some people who signed the petition and wanted Lure out of there simply because they are used to their protective bubble in the county and just aren't comfortable with the type of atmosphere that Lure attracted. That being said, I want to make it clear again that I am all for Lure being shutdown because I don't want to live next to a place that attracts that crowd and is disruptive and unhealthy for the area. I am simply looking at the situation from a psychological view of how people really are. As long as their is a movement for upscale residential development in an "entertainment" district, there will be battles like this one.

I'll just leave this here:

kebgx6 wrote:I am simply looking at the situation from a psychological view of how people really are.

"Psychological view" as in it is natural to not want to get shot no matter where you are from?

I am not sure where you are going with your posts, but it seems like a lot of personal opinions not based on facts. read the whole thread, it's all been discussed.

Shootings = bad neighborhood
bad neighborhood = low property values
low property values = investor loss
investors loss > 1 small business loss

Weather it is Lure's fault or not, the violence was pin pointed to lure via resident and police testimony at a hearing. This is a pretty standard procedure in our society. The city and residents are proactive in trying to fix the problem because a great deal of what has been invested could be lost if not improved.

kebgx6 wrote:However, do I think because the crowd inciting the violence around Lure were sketchy black people

I think that the key word there is "sketchy" and the key issue here is fights and gunfire. There are several venues downtown that appear to cater to African American clientele, and they are not being targeted. So, loft-dwellers are not targeting all lounges that cater to African-Americans, what is different about Lure? Could it be a) City Hall hates the Trupianos, b) Loft-dwellers hate the Trupianos, and have badgered the city into take them out, or c) that the City and loft-dwellers (and all other rational people) have a strong aversion to violence?

I appreciate the discussion of race in St. Louis... it is certainly worth an honest and deep investigation. But to even discount, let alone ignore, the fact that fights, property damage, and gunfire have Lure as their Ground Zero (and not, say, Me'Shons or Somethin Tasty) is simply disingenuous.

If you go a few pages back, several people debated this with a board member, "Doug." I don't want to speak for him, but I think that you two would see eye to eye on some aspects of this issue.

On a separate note, I do think that it is a little unfair and stereotypical to say that people signed the petition "...simply because they are used to their protective bubble in the county...". I mean, no one has any illusions about dealing with being approached by the homeless, throngs of Cards fans on game days, traffic difficulties, etc.; we know what we are getting into. I just don't think that the residents of the Jack Thompson Square building should be forced to endure harassment and vandalism simply because those are supposedly just part of the urban lifestyle. That's a Post Dispatch-commenter mentality but I do not feel that it reflects reality.

I know that I am disagreeing with much of what you say, but I would also like to welcome to the board! I hope that we can discuss and disagree in a civil manner... I always like to learn more about how others interpret issues (and I am not always right, but don't tell my wife that I am admitting that )!

Would anyone in this debate disagree that a major variable in this issue is gentrification of a neighborhood? Some have said it before in this thread: I do believe we're beginning to see the end of Wash Ave as the "entertainment district" in that "clubs" will be substituted for "froufrou bistros", as Krailberg so eloquently explains. There will be growing pains. These issues and their outcomes help to mold and shape our city. I'm pleased with the result, for now.

Question: will Lucas Park Grille be faced with the same issue over time?

^ I don't know that it's the end of the entertainment district. But perhaps locations like the Landing are better suited for rowdy clubs. Anyway, Lucas Park is more of a froufrou bistro. They may sometimes have a DJ but it's not a dance club by any stretch of the imagination.

That's a good question, ttricamo. I lived in the CWE before downtown and I do feel that entertainment and residential can coexist to some extent, as it does there. Certainly, there are more "frou frou bistros" in the CWE, but there are also several lively venues that I could compare to Lucas Park Grille. As you can tell by my Location, I am in the Syndicate, so I don't see/hear nearly as much, but Jack Patrick's has the occasional/frequent drunk screamers and that is just part of life for me. I don't like it, but I don't call the cops or complain about it. As several others have pointed out, if I wanted a more "sanitized" experience I had other better options. Back to the topic at hand, I do not think that the "club-ier" businesses that are on the Landing would be compatible with downtown, but LPG and others that have occasional issues can and should be tolerated, as long as the issues stay "occasional" and they work with their neighbors on ways to reduce the number and impact of said issues.

ptdrake wrote:
If you go a few pages back, several people debated this with a board member, "Doug." I don't want to speak for him, but I think that you two would see eye to eye on some aspects of this issue.

I've read some of Doug's posts as I have been lurking around on this forum since I began searching for a loft downtown. Overall, I think he is wrong way more than he is right, however he makes some good points about how race plays a part in St. Louis culture. I guess I am having trouble expressing my view. I am not some huge anti-racist promoter, but any logical, intelligent person can see the distinct tension between middle/upper class white Americans and the unfavorable crowd that frequents Lure and other clubs like it. This tension would still be there whether there was violence or not, IN MY OPINION (obviously not based in fact). That being said, my goal was not to argue that its a racial issue. I am just as happy as any resident of downtown that the so called "trash" is on their way out.

ptdrake wrote: On a separate note, I do think that it is a little unfair and stereotypical to say that people signed the petition "...simply because they are used to their protective bubble in the county...". I mean, no one has any illusions about dealing with being approached by the homeless, throngs of Cards fans on game days, traffic difficulties, etc.; we know what we are getting into.

I think you misunderstood my statement about this. I actually know, in person, residents of downtown that signed the petition for that very reason. I'm not saying EVERYONE did. I'm saying that some people probably had their own agendas when they signed it.

ptdrake wrote: I know that I am disagreeing with much of what you say, but I would also like to welcome to the board! I hope that we can discuss and disagree in a civil manner... I always like to learn more about how others interpret issues (and I am not always right, but don't tell my wife that I am admitting that )!

Thanks, looking forward to contributing when I can.

TheRemedy wrote:
I am not sure where you are going with your posts, but it seems like a lot of personal opinions not based on facts. read the whole thread, it's all been discussed.

It is my understanding that this isn't a court room and I am entitled to express my opinions on the matter whether they are based in factual information or not. I completely agree with your post and think the same way. I'm was basically being the devil's advocate.

Really hate the use of the word "sketchy" when describing young black people. A hat turned backwards here, a du-rag there, and you're denied entry into Morgan Street Brewery. Meanwhile, collared-shirt white guys, the size of linebackers, are lumbering up and down the landing drunk as hell. So is the stuff society in St. Louis is made of.

Was the closing of lure racially motivated? Yes. Entirely racially motivated? No, but they took out everything they wanted. A family with a checkered past, enablers of the unwanted, and casually dressed young blacks (read: sketchy).

Asked whether the club's clean record until July was indicative of progress, Kraiberg demurs.

"Well, they seem cooperative. But that's kind of like saying, 'Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the theater?'"

I've never been to Lure but taking this into account as well as Lure's press release this past july, http://www.delux-mag.com/2010/07/30/can ... get-along/ ,its pretty easy to ascertain that there was a vendetta at play here.

As long as there is alcohol youth and loud people clustered together there's a chance there will be outbreaks of violence. What matters is who's doing it and what they're wearing. Look no further than the recent laws passed in Arizona and you'll see that. Profiling, profiling, profiling. This city still operates like its 1946. If you get to a certain age, dress a certain way, talk a certain way, look a certain way, maybe you'll squeak by.

I hope the violence and vandalism doesn't continue on Washington Avenue, as I'll bank the city's future on taxpayers and homeowners over club goers, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

.02

So, is Lure the only business downtown that caters to a predominantly African-American clientele? If so, then I would have to agree with those that suggest that the targeting of this business is racially-motivated. If not, well, there has to be something else about Lure that caused it to be targeted.

As far as the city still operating like it's 1946, um, hardly, or "of course". Who is not concerned by people threatening other people, firing weapons, stopping traffic, vandalizing property, and littering? I suppose that people felt the same way in 1946; is that what you mean? Or that African Americans are still treated as second-class citizens and racially profiled by every scared straight-from-the-county-middle-class-scared-white-person?

As far as vendettas go, I don't think that anyone has hidden the fact that they were frustrated with the Trupianos when they managed Luckys and are more sensitive with Lure because they see the issues that have been ignored by all for years simply continuing on and on if there is not true closure to this issue.

^Are you denying any existence of profiling? African-Americans aren't monolithic cut and dry. All I'm saying if you fit the mold you're going to have problems. The underlying common denominator is you're black, so yes its racially motivated. The style of dress on a white person would have had a different outcome. Are we forgetting the Wash U students in Chicago? The black guy is denied entry because his pants are deemed "too baggy" but they put the same clothes on a smaller white guy (even baggier) and he's allowed into the club.

Arch_Genesis wrote:^Are you denying any existence of profiling? African-Americans aren't monolithic cut and dry. All I'm saying if you fit the mold you're going to have problems. The underlying common denominator though is you're black, so yes its racially motivated. The style of dress on a white person would have had a different outcome. Are we forgetting the Wash U students in Chicago? The black guy is denied entry because his pants are deemed "too baggy" but they put the same clothes on a smaller white guy (even baggier) and he's allowed into the club.

The above is an example of a red herring -- an expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance. I was at the hearing and don't recall anyone, the prosecutor or defense, saying a word about racial profiling. Perhaps you can read the judge's ruling.

^I'm sorry, I'm not convinced by the Judge's ruling that race wasn't a factor in this and never will be, you can call it a red-herring, I'll call it healthy skepticism. Profiling and a vendetta were at play here IMO.

^ Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Personally, I'll take an abundance of evidence against Lure over a conspiracy theory lacking evidence. And certainly Lure did not help any by alienating themselves from the downtown neighborhood and city. It shows a certain lack of maturity, no?

I am certainly not denying the existence of racial profiling. I am saying that the facts in Lure's case do not support the claim that Lure was targeted because of their clientele.

1) There are other business that cater to a predominantly African-American clientele that are not being targeted.
2) Our sample size is quite limited, but I feel comfortable saying that the behaviors exhibited at/around Lure are done by people of all races (see Mardi Gras and Saint Patrick's day in Saint Louis for examples of white people being drunk and stupid) and are not tolerated in any neighborhood/venue.

Just because racial profiling exists, does not mean that every time it could be profiling, it is.

As far as the Wash U example goes, that was absolutely reprehensible. However, that is a separate issue unrelated to the complaints against Lure.

It is your right to maintain your opinion, Arch_Genesis, but I think that it is easier to move forward with stamping out racism and profiling when we base our opinions on the facts and not on our emotions. I think that plenty of facts have been presented listing the unacceptable behaviors of Lure patrons; what would it take for you to say that, "yes, Lure operated in a reckless manner that endangered the lives of their customers and neighbors"? I feel that you are going to say that the loft-dwellers are profiling African Americans no matter what evidence and logic others produce to the contrary.

St. Louis threw the baby out with the bath water. They're not going to continue hopping around town to clubs in St. Charles one month and Downtown the next. They'll leave all together for other cities. Of course reading through this thread, that's fine and dandy they're all worthless uneducated trash and of no value to St. Louis.

When someone is shot and killed at the doorstep of 15 and it remains open, closing Lure doesn't sound like "Stop The Violence" it sounds more like "Stop Them". That's how this is going to come across. Insular, xenophobic, racist etc. "15 stayed open because they're going to change their format" i.e. "they're not going to cater to us any longer."

Where's St. Louis' young black middle class? When did it last have one? What cities are young black professionals attracted to in large numbers? People tire of going to clubs and settle down eventually, where will they settle down?

Pat yourselves on the back you've solved your problem? There was no other choice but to close Lure.

Arch_Genesis wrote:St. Louis threw the baby out with the bath water. They're not going to continue hopping around town to clubs in St. Charles one month and Downtown the next. They'll leave all together for other cities. Of course reading through this thread, that's fine and dandy they're all worthless uneducated trash and of no value to St. Louis.

When someone is shot and killed at the doorstep of 15 and it remains open, closing Lure doesn't sound like "Stop The Violence" it sounds more like "Stop Them". That's how this is going to come across. Insular, xenophobic, racist etc. "15 stayed open because they're going to change their format" i.e. "they're not going to cater to us any longer."

Club 15 & Sugar chose to work with the city and beef-up security. Did it help that in the Lure incident, the assailant shot at two cops? I mean, would you condone violence and murder in your own neighborhood? Probably not, eh.

And can you explain any of the following, Arch_Genesis? Murder at Plush and Formula. Shootings outside Dolce, Ten14, Lucky's, Lure, etc. Put simply, clubs that bring violence don't belong in neighborhoods that value the sanctity of human life. We do. Do you have a problem with that?

http://outtown.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

Hogans, 22, was shot several times about 2:30 a.m. in a parking lot off 20th Street behind Plush, police said. Just before he was killed, Hogans and another man fought in the crowded club, and Plush security guards made them leave, police said. Moments later, shots rang out, and Hogans was found wounded. He apparently was on his way to his car when he was shot Homicide detectives assume that the killer was the man with whom Hogans had fought. Police say they got only a sketchy description of the man and could find no witnesses to the shooting as of this writing.

As a result, Club Plush surrendered its liquor license the day after a patron was shot and killed and is now is closed. This is the latest black club causality in the STL. The last was Club Formula, on Washington AVE, closing its doors last month from a killing of a bouncer.(Side note. This club was going to close regardless of the violent incident due to my source that said the club was planning on closing before the end of this year.)

Ten14

Arch_Genesis wrote: There was no other choice but to close Lure.

Exactly. Time and time again Lure failed to comply.

ARchGenesis: "They'll leave all together for other cities."

Yes, and EVERYONE did. whites and blacks flew out of the city in droves.. I've been to the Loft, and there were ZERO problems there, all black people. I've been to Twilight Tuesdays, a healthy example of St. Louis' middle and upper class blacks- no problems. Lure is run by the Tripianos family, which has never run a club successfully. They always go down the drain and are out of control. Save the woe-is-me everyone in ST. Louis is racist. Yes, some idiots on STLTODAY from Jeffco post that crap, but the MAJORITY of downtown residents aren't racist, they just don't want the crap that Lure brought downtown. I think Flamingo is pretty racially diverse, and correct me if i'm wrong, but I have never seen problems there, when i've been. what kind of trashy person black or white actually went to Lure anyway.. send those people back to Wentzville or Wellston. either way...

innov8ion - plush, forumla etc. all that should tell you is that you haven't solved any of your problems simply by closing Lure, but I guess its alright if they're not in your neighborhood?

JCity - never said the downtown was racist, all I said is what the reaction would be, the two signs in front of lure are only going to fuel that. If you want to turn a blind eye to race relations in this city go right ahead.

Moorlander - I read a press release from Lure detailing the measurements they were taking in July to curb violence. I guess they didn't take them? Maybe I'm misinformed here but I thought there weren't any incidents after the shooting at cops.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you guys any longer the conversation is getting a bit too hostile for me. Cheers.

Arch Genesis...I respect your opinion and love your commentary on this board. However can you please answer these questions truthfully...

1. Have you ever been to or close to one of these clubs during hip hop night?
2. Have you ever owned property where the value may be impacted by such actions that are publically known auch as gunfire, fights, etc?

no on both, I'm hoping to drive down your property values and then make my move.