Block club meeting roundup, 8/19
As I posted last week, the Bridge/Carroll/Jay block club met last night to hear the proposal for a new "gay-friendly lounge" in the Rialto building (the old Moda space) at 1871 West 25th St.
I won't reinvent the wheel here; you can read a summary of the meeting at cleveland.com.
A couple of points and impressions, though.
1. With a couple of notable exceptions, the tone of the meeting was much less hostile than the one in January. I had wondered beforehand if this might be the case -- I don't know how else to say this, but I wondered if a gay club might be viewed as more welcome than a club owned by people who might have hip-hop night.
2. I feel that it's safe to say that the community would rather someone else own the Rialto building other than its current owners. (You'll recall that during the January meeting, the Rialto's current owners scolded the crowd with such unendearing classics as "If you don't like noise, you shouldn't live in the slum," and "You shouldn't be raising kids in the city anyway.")
3. I can agree that Cleveland could probably use an "upscale gay lounge." But despite Beudert's promise to "shrink the space by design," the venue's capacity is simply too large for such a residential neighborhood. I might have considered supporting him if he agreed to get the place rezoned (or whatever) from 550 max to 275 max, but he made it clear that he didn't intend to do so.
4. While he seemed like a generally good guy, I felt like he spent more time stroking the community ego than laying out the particulars of his business plan.
Thoughts?
I won't reinvent the wheel here; you can read a summary of the meeting at cleveland.com.
A couple of points and impressions, though.
1. With a couple of notable exceptions, the tone of the meeting was much less hostile than the one in January. I had wondered beforehand if this might be the case -- I don't know how else to say this, but I wondered if a gay club might be viewed as more welcome than a club owned by people who might have hip-hop night.
2. I feel that it's safe to say that the community would rather someone else own the Rialto building other than its current owners. (You'll recall that during the January meeting, the Rialto's current owners scolded the crowd with such unendearing classics as "If you don't like noise, you shouldn't live in the slum," and "You shouldn't be raising kids in the city anyway.")
3. I can agree that Cleveland could probably use an "upscale gay lounge." But despite Beudert's promise to "shrink the space by design," the venue's capacity is simply too large for such a residential neighborhood. I might have considered supporting him if he agreed to get the place rezoned (or whatever) from 550 max to 275 max, but he made it clear that he didn't intend to do so.
4. While he seemed like a generally good guy, I felt like he spent more time stroking the community ego than laying out the particulars of his business plan.
Thoughts?
posted by Christine Borne at 3:52 PM
2 Comments:
I don't even know where to begin. Jason Beudert could only promise to limit the occupancy to 225 or 250. The building has a maximum occupancy of 550. There is nothing to stop him from packing the club if he needs to maximize his income. He was also very vague on his definition of a lounge versus a nightclub. He obviously does not know zoning code, which is odd for someone who professes to be very experienced in what he called the hospitality industry. The City of Cleveland considers a liquor establishment with music and dancing to be a nightclub, regardless of the occupancy. He is not going to be successful in changing the zoning code. I checked this all out today with various officials in the know at City Hall. The bottom line is that he must go before Board of Zoning for the entertainment variance, which will very likely be denied. Cimperman still intends on filing an objection to a liquor license transfer at this site. I predict that this proposal will go down in flames.
I forgot to mention that the tone of the meeting was different for several reasons. This was a much smaller meeting of a block club only, about a third of the size of the January meeting. The dynamics of a smaller meeting of a single entity is much different than a large public meeting of numerous groups with varying interests. Also, the owners of the Rialto Building were not there to insult the attendees. I found numerous red flags in this presentation, including the refusal to name the partners. And there is absolutely no concern about this being a gay nightclub. Numerous members of the gay community are opposed to this proposal. The majority of the community is opposed to any kind of nightclub at the Moda space.
Post a Comment
<< Home