urbanSTL

I think it's interesting how Dave is now calling people out on G-Rides, as these images and stereotypes were used to further ingrain the negative image of Lure -- as a basis for its closure. Though he has made statements numerous times that this isn't about race.

Why was Sugar's liquor license not revoked? There was a shooting outside that club after an 18+ night! Only because they hired more security? Because they agreed to some under-the-table agreement? Should Lure be expected to hire security and have them patrol the entire street? If so, as Jeff Rainford seems to imply in a recent River Front Times article, is Sugar's security patrolling the parking lot across the street, where SkyHouse condo was supposed to be built? Are they patrolling the parking lot and metered on-street spots North of Washington on 14th? It sounds like the rule of law isn't being applied equitably. Perhaps because this is more about politics and who owns the street than anything else.

^There was a shooting in the vicinity of Sugar. If Lure was closed because of a shooting in the parking lot across Tucker, then why was Sugar not given the same treatment? If, as CS stated before, we agree both of these criminal acts are in the "immediate vicinity" per the ordinance?

The reason given for unequal treatment was increased security at Sugar, however is this security patrolling the area outside the club in the "immediate vicinity" -- something Lure said they are not responsible for which then Rainford used as justification to proceed with legal action?

This seems to be a completely arbitrary application of the law. There are more clubs in the area compared to Ten14, but if I agree to your interpretation of the ordinance (I don't and believe "immediate vicinity" is entirely too subjective allowing bureaucrats to determine the rules and thus bend them), these criminal acts were close enough to bring the business owners liability. Why then do we have two different outcomes?

Sounds like you're advocating that Sugar also be closed? Why, is it all white people that go there? Looking to even things out perhaps?

RBB wrote:Sugar, Fifteen, and Lure were all targeted by the city due to violence around their clubs. Despite initial protests, Fifteen and Sugar worked with the city as well as making changes on their own to come to an amicable solution. The Trupianos/Lure, on the other hand, simply stamped their feet in protest and called everyone racist. Had they decided to engage in adult discussion, they'd likely have been treated the same as the other two clubs.

-RBB

This is how I've interpreted it. If the city was shutting down clubs based on theme nights, I think there would be a large uproar...but it was my impression that the city was going after the violence aspect. I think Trupianos/Lure/certain voices were trying to paint it with a racial brush to drum up support to avoid additional overhead costs. It's an interesting move that backfired when Sugar and Fifteen decided to side with the city.

If the clubs weren't going to help solve the violence issues, then they were going to be shut down. I like that the city is forcing the clubs to share in the responsibility of trying to wrangle in these problems, but I also would like the city have more of a police presence, in general, for those areas that fall out of the club's jurisdiction.

Now, I think an interesting argument is where that line of responsibility is between the clubs and the city, who is truly at fault when violence breaks out, and should this apply to other businesses as well?

Reading the last couple pages, I have some supportive comments to a couple points brought:

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…

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?

I would also like to see StL have a strong black middle class and progress to be known as a city as welcoming to African Americans as Atlanta is perceived. While I don’t see the “baby thrown out with the bath water” because of everything with Lure, I am very much in favor of the economic vitality of Saint Louisans who happen to be black. Meanwhile, I know of plenty of people going to places like the Loft and EXO, clubs/lounges that happen to have strong black clienteles. I acknowledge that neither venue is in Downtown Proper, but maybe their locating in Midtown has more to do with geographic preference and business opportunities than anything potentially negative. I do not see the closure of Lure having any direct impact towards the attraction and/or retention of middle class African Americans to StL.

As a side note, the restaurant/bar I most prefer to go to in Downtown has a regular black clientele, just to guess I’d say conservatively upwards of 20% of the regulars. I’m not sure if they’d be described middle class or working class (NOT a “club”). I also have friends who are definitely middle class African Americans who live within a quarter mile of Lure, and they’re generally glad to see it gone, not because of any ethnicity, but because they were poor neighbors for attracting violence to our neighborhood.

Doug wrote:The reason given for unequal treatment was increased security at Sugar, however is this security patrolling the area outside the club in the "immediate vicinity" -- something Lure said they are not responsible for which then Rainford used as justification to proceed with legal action?

A few years ago, while Lure was in existence, there was a shooting at Tucker & Washington that resulted in a few shots into the NE corner of the intersection, into the building now called the Bogen. If memory serves, there was also a car crash involved in this. It was a Sunday night. I have heard no mention of this in relation to Lure recently for the obvious reasoning that it had nothing to do with the club’s operations, even as the location happens to be in the “immediate vicinity”. This is especially true because the shooters were in cars at the time. Likewise, the Sugar Shooting (kind of catchy) was a block and a half away, although I would say that was much more immediate as those involved (i.e. shot) were at Sugar immediately prior. I'd say Sugar got off easy, and they're lucky to be in cooperative good standings.
Eh, hope that contributes a bit.

Otherwise:

- I was one of the early posters here who made mention of the crowd I saw standing in line for a Thursday night at Lure, and I was one who called a few of those people standing in the line for dressing, in my humble opinion, like crap. As a reminder: I saw guys dressed in undershirts walking into a venue, and I saw large gals wearing clothes that would be appropriate in smaller gals’ wardrobes. For me it had nothing to do with the ethnicities of those wearing them; I would make the same comments for attendees at any public venue. If I saw the same fashion mess at a country line dancing bar, I’d say the same thing. If it was a bunch of ICP Juggalos going into an ICP bar, I’d tear them a new one. As I said before, I never intended to relate fashion to ethnicity here. Should my words be interpreted by some (or one) as racially motivated, I hope you recognize my point of view. If my words offended you, then I apologize for not conveying my thoughts in a more coherent or simplistic statement, but I do not apologize for commenting that I saw people dressed in a way that I would describe as “like crap”.

- I also made mention of the g-rides on Washington, and I did so as an acknowledged fan of them, not derisive.
Moorlander: I think the thing with the McDonald’s car, ridiculous as it is, is that it's not a photo taken on Wash Ave, is it?

- Sugar and Fifteen are still around because their managers decided to cooperate with the City. Lure preferred a “scorched earth” strategy, and it failed. That’s just business and management.

Focus: Is the “club” history on Wash Ave? I’ve thought so ever since Velvet closed for a women’s fashion boutique. Galaxy and Lo are gone, too. The only one from back when is Rue 13, and that’s really a lounge. (The lone exception: Sugar is now in the spot that used to house Tangerine)

I guess there’s always the Landing, but that didn’t fare well for the Trupiano’s previous clubs there, does it?
Side thought: Lucky’s used to be on the Landing before 1204 Washington. Was the move itself a proactive action for business opportunities, or reactive to other bad times for the Trupianos’ then-flagship club?

Anyways, regarding Wash Ave as a “club” destination: perhaps this is in some ways all part the natural evolution of the club world, moving through different neighborhoods as the potential harbinger of real estate development, with ancillary retail and eventual residential coming afterwards. While Midtown has some cool places like EXO, Downtown now has the expanded restaurant lola. Maybe that’s just economic evolution for districts, where a new venue makes a scene, others can move in proximate to it because of low prices, and then move on when the next opportunity arrives & either selling the bar a major profit or being shut down by the property owner who’s attracted a newer, more profitable tenant. Any sociologists or real estate speculators out there, please chime in if you can speak to this. If this is true, then it’s time to buy land along Locust.

So the new occupant is going to have a great brunch menu. (Pardon my sarcastic dry humor.)

Nothing will change. I'll just have to give the 911 operator a new name.

Sounds like just another rebranding campaign, keeping the same inferior product but under the guise of a new name. Like Philip Morris became Altria but remained the same cigarette company, or how Worldcom reverted back to MCI in the wake of their accounting scandal, this may just be a parallel to the Lure we know and gripe about.

The root of the business' problems is in the poor quality of its management, including that of its owners. How many times has this "family" f'ed up a nightclub business? I would've thought they reached their quota on failures by now.

Hoping good things for the new incarnation, but I'm not holding out much hope for that brunch menu.

innov8ion wrote:^ The license hasn't changed, so there couldn't have been a fundamental change in the club's governance. For all intents and purposes, it's the same group.

IIRC, you can't add people without going though the whole process again. Although, that may have changed in the last 15 years.