6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostNov 15, 2006#46

Matt wrote:When I first moved here in 1990 there was a huge nightclub on Oakland Ave. where the Science Center is now. I think it was last named 64 West. It was a really cool place and had a large pop/rock orchestra that sounded great. I suppose coke was the drug of choice then. The place was large, upscale, and expensive. I remember going there for Christmas parties and the place was really beautiful.


Rupert's/64 West. It died a predictable death.

10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostNov 15, 2006#47

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Matt wrote:When I first moved here in 1990 there was a huge nightclub on Oakland Ave. where the Science Center is now. I think it was last named 64 West. It was a really cool place and had a large pop/rock orchestra that sounded great. I suppose coke was the drug of choice then. The place was large, upscale, and expensive. I remember going there for Christmas parties and the place was really beautiful.


Rupert's/64 West. It died a predictable death.


That place looked like something out of "Less Than Zero." Unfortunately, it replaced Stan Musial's restaurant, which I have vague memories of.

5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostNov 15, 2006#48

^ Musial and Biggie's.



My memories are vague, too, because all I remember are the name, the location, and the many ads for it that I used to see on the front and sides of Bi-State buses. And the garish look of M&B's successor, 64 West, is really hard to forget!

10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostNov 15, 2006#49

I used to have a bunch of autographed photos of Stan the Man from his restaurant - it seemed like whenever someone in my family went there, they always brought me back a pic. I have no idea what happened to them all - they're all MIA!

7,807
Life MemberLife Member
7,807

PostNov 15, 2006#50

Matt wrote:When I first moved here in 1990 there was a huge nightclub on Oakland Ave. where the Science Center is now. I think it was last named 64 West. It was a really cool place and had a large pop/rock orchestra that sounded great. I suppose coke was the drug of choice then. The place was large, upscale, and expensive. I remember going there for Christmas parties and the place was really beautiful.


It was a snowstorm in Ruperts.



So it sounds like you're old enough to remember the club at the opposite end of the spectrum that started it all on Washington Ave: "1227"? If you went to "1227" people thought you were a freak.

2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostNov 15, 2006#51

I used to have a bunch of autographed photos of Stan the Man from his restaurant - it seemed like whenever someone in my family went there, they always brought me back a pic. I have no idea what happened to them all - they're all MIA!


I only had one, but I still have it hanging up in my office (right next to my Bravo Bravo El Birdos pennant).

4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostNov 16, 2006#52

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Having been in the bar business myself, I got pretty good at being able to pick who was potential trouble and who wasn't. If that's what you call "profiling", then that is what I was doing.
If they don't meet dress code, that's one thing. You can't keep people out based on "potential trouble" or how they look. What if your assessment is wrong? That's biased and asking for a lawsuit.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostNov 16, 2006#53

Its your bar and you own it and put up all the money so I feel you can keep anyone out that you want.

1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostNov 16, 2006#54

Yeah, I think as long as one doesn't categorically discriminate against an identifiable group--a specific race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.--I'm pretty sure a business owner can tell whomever he or she wants to leave.

1,768
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,768

PostNov 16, 2006#55

Thats why you have a sign that says "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostNov 16, 2006#56

Yes, businesses do have the right to refuse to service anyone, but they better make sure their ducks are in a row when they refuse service to people.



So, if the owners of Plush had that right, why did they not exercise it? Are you suggesting that they wanted their money to go down the tubes? I don't think so. An owner does have the right to tell a patron or customer they have to leave - IF they are causing problems. In fact, Plush owners did just that before the killing outside of the club. Again, owners cannot refuse people entry just because of the way they look - outside of dress code or being dirty or deshelved.



If it is a "private" entity or club that is certainly different.



If a person is a known troublemaker and has caused problems at a club or facility in the past - that is different, but to prohibit entry based on "potential" is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

1,510
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,510

PostNov 16, 2006#57

Visibly intoxicated or high are other acceptable reasons for denying entry.

1,355
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,355

PostNov 16, 2006#58

Yea, Rupert's was the name. I also used to go to 1227.



I went looking for Spruill's today and found what appears to be a total dive. When the Post was talking about nightclubs, I got a much higher image going in my mind.

766
Super MemberSuper Member
766

PostNov 16, 2006#59

Hmm. I worked the door at a bar in the West End for a while, and my management made it perfectly clear that I should deny entry to anyone who looked like a panhandler. Is that profiling -- or is it just making sure that your customers aren't going to be hassled?



Believe it or not, when you work the door (or the bar, or even in a department store) for a while, you can begin to pretty easily identify who is a legitimate customer or not. It's not a matter of race, or even of class. But how someone carries him/herself, how they are dressed, etc. People who are looking for trouble usually look like they are looking for trouble.

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostNov 17, 2006#60

Isn't this common sense?

1,137
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,137

PostNov 18, 2006#61

I would think so, but I wonder if some bars just do not bother, so as to have the biggest crowd.

7,807
Life MemberLife Member
7,807

PostNov 22, 2006#62

Another followup article from the Post on 11/22/06



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entert ... enDocument


Club Notes





11/22/2006



Violence casts cloud



over urban nightspots



The news surrounding some of St. Louis' urban nightspots is as bad as it gets.



Suddenly, it seems, African-American-oriented clubs are the new danger zones. The facts are depressingly indisputable.



In the past month or so, a man was fatally shot near Plush, 1820 Market Street, after getting kicked out.



A couple of shootings at Spruill's, 1101 North Jefferson Avenue, left several people wounded.



And a bouncer was killed at the Formula, 1204 Washington Boulevard, shortly before it was set to close.



But it hasn't always been this way for these clubs.



Before there was Café Soul, singer Coco Soul's R&B showcase, Plush was home to the rather upscale-oriented Soul Café, a one-of-a-kind concert series early last year. Soul Café, organized by music promoter Reno, brought in the cream of the crop of neo-soul acts, including Bilal, Rahsaan Patterson, Vivian Green, Lyfe Jennings and Jaguar Wright. The events were peaceful, mature and unfortunately short-lived, as the weekly series wasn't too cost-effective.



The Formula, previously known as Isis, was a reliable, trouble-free spot for urban late-night partying. Nelly, Russell Simmons, Erykah Badu, Dru Hill, Jaheim, Floetry and Boris Kodjoe were among the artists who partied or had special, headline-free events at Isis. The shorter-lived Formula had several great parties as well as a couple of successful 1st Friday events and a Boy George DJ Spin.



Spruill's programming is simpler but still doesn't appear to lend itself to the trouble it's seeing now.



Hopefully, all the new drama won't forever taint that scene.

1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostNov 22, 2006#63

That's actually a very level headed assesment.

1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostNov 22, 2006#64

This is a nitpicky point, but it's Washington Avenue. I am pretty sure there are no Washington Boulevard's in St Louis.

1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostNov 22, 2006#65

^I think it is Washington Blvd west of Jefferson. But you are correct that they were wrong to call it Wash Blvd on Formula's block.

1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostNov 22, 2006#66

you're right. :oops:

1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostNov 22, 2006#67

Not as bad as Washington Street. I don't know why, but the hairs on the back of my neck stick up when I hear someone say that. But maybe that's just an indication I need to relax and get a life. :wink:

1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostNov 22, 2006#68

steve wrote:Not as bad as Washington Street. I don't know why, but the hairs on the back of my neck stick up when I hear someone say that. But maybe that's just an indication I need to relax and get a life. :wink:
OMG I absolutely hate when people say that. It immediatly shows that they just have no clue what they are talking about.

Read more posts (18 remaining)