Vanishing Gay Bars

[rps324]

There was an interesting article on the Boston Globe. The site let me read the article once, then tried to make me register when I went back, so I hope the link works okay.

It is an interesting article that was written about in Boston, but many of the points could easily be applied to a lot of cities.

Link

Edited December 22, 2007 by rps324

[RedScare]

What a depressing article. I am straight, but the article was really not even about the demise of gay bars, so much as the demise of community. In a corporate America, everything must be efficient, profitable, and "highest and best use", as Niche loves to say. As we become ever more efficient, the joys of life are reduced to just another business transaction.

We've complained of these same things in Houston's gentrifying neighborhoods. The less travelled among us grumble and snarl that Houston does it wrong...other cities...like Boston...do it right. Well, here is the Boston Globe telling Houstonians that we are simply victims of the same corporate sameness and efficiency as they are. After all, CVS is headquartered right down the street in Rhode Island.

[TheNiche]

In a corporate America, everything must be efficient, profitable, and "highest and best use", as Niche loves to say. As we become ever more efficient, the joys of life are reduced to just another business transaction.

Ascribing that phrase to me would be as misleading as my ascribing "innocent until proven guilty" to you because you practice law. Each are merely technical concepts signified by words, coined not by us or for us, only as tools of our trade.

What a depressing article. I am straight, but the article was really not even about the demise of gay bars, so much as the demise of community. In a corporate America, everything must be efficient, profitable, and "highest and best use", as Niche loves to say. As we become ever more efficient, the joys of life are reduced to just another business transaction.

We've complained of these same things in Houston's gentrifying neighborhoods. The less travelled among us grumble and snarl that Houston does it wrong...other cities...like Boston...do it right. Well, here is the Boston Globe telling Houstonians that we are simply victims of the same corporate sameness and efficiency as they are. After all, CVS is headquartered right down the street in Rhode Island.

I believe that perhaps a more apt title for the article would've been "Disnification: It Sucks".

A big part of the story, IMO, is generational change. As Gen X and Y have become the dominant influences on culture, they have embraced a notion of urban sterility. Notice on HAIF, for instance, that what is celebrated are yuppie paradises, complete with expensive condos, hotels, and upscale shopping, all arranged in a century-old anachronistic style.

Had there been a popular message forum in Houston in 1990, I'll bet that one of the more frequent and exciting topics to come up would've been pertaining to the Montrose scene. Montrose is now dead, not because it has changed tremendously, but because the world has. It was merely an aging suburb, like so many others then and now, with inexpensive but well-located real estate. There isn't any shortage of places where a kind of Montrose scene could emerge, if only it were justified by a culture subjected to the proper social, political, economic, and technological conditions.

Those conditions have changed. A generation's influence has waned. It is a different world--in most ways, it is a better world. Certainly that gays have become more socially accepted, leading them to become more integrated with the mainstream of society is preferable to a sort of segregation. Wouldn't you agree? And aren't we all, in the act of HAIFing, verifying the technological impact? I for one wouldn't prefer to regress to a pre-HAIF state (most of the time).

Sociological paradigms come and go. There's no use crying over spilled milk...least of all when there's a cow in the pasture.

^And that's a phrase coined by me that you may ascribe to me any time you like.

Edited December 23, 2007 by TheNiche

[editor]

Community is what you make of it. In the old days community was about place. Today it's about people. That's why instead of gathering at the corner watering hole, people stay in touch via IM or text message to exchange the day's gossip.

There's a group of old people (65+) who every morning gather at the Starbucks across the street. Every morning at 7am they fill up the corner of the store just like they would if it was a neighborhood greasy spoon instead of a corporate chain coffee place. Their "community" hasn't changed -- just their location.

If your community is held together by physical accourtiments, then it speaks to the weakness of your community.

[RedScare]

I disagree. Text and IM allow only the written word. Speech, with its many inflections, is lost. Hearing is not used. Sight is not used. As Niche said, it is sterile, and it is not an improvement.

Likewise, most establishments, in an effort to improve efficiency, discourage sitting around. Not that this is necessarily frowned upon by the public. We spend so much time working, then rushing to be entertained, that most people don't have time to sit around and talk anyway. In this sense, technology has not improved the sense of community, though technology has improved many other aspects of life.

It is important to note that community is more than mere communication. It is the sense of belonging, the actual face to face contact with neighbors and friends. Far from nurturing community, the internet and cell text actually contributes to physical isolation, and is often cited as contributing to the increasing rudeness and social immaturity of people today. Certainly, IM and texting contributes to poor grammar and vocabulary skills. In fact, your statement about physical accoutrements contributing to a weak community may be most aptly applied to the IM and text community itself.

[TheNiche]

I disagree. Text and IM allow only the written word. Speech, with its many inflections, is lost. Hearing is not used. Sight is not used. As Niche said, it is sterile, and it is not an improvement.

I did not say that an online environment is sterile. I was refering to generational influences. As a medium, it is far less sterile than just about any other I could imagine. There's some crazy ____ out there that could never have existed within the context of an urban storefront at any point in history. As with the urban streetscape as a sort of gathering place, the level of perceived sterility of the internet has nothing to do with format and everything to do with users.

I cannot speak for you, Red, but I can communicate most anything with text and an occasional smiley, and I can do so with greater accuracy, precision, and artistry than in conversation. An added bonus, a forum like this one or a PM format allow me to communicate with people while sitting at home in my underwear, unshaven, with unwashed greasy hair, on a day like this one, in which I woke up too late to bother making anything of a Saturday. And unless I say something, the state of my physical being is completely mitigated. Age, gender, race, sexual orientation, what kind of car I drive, all are mitigated. The playing field is perfectly level.

Like bars, online forums tend to attract differentiated populations, so I can pick the general character of who I'd prefer to be around, but the cherry on top to a forum is that to the extent that knuckleheads exist, anyone is free to ignore them without consequences. Same goes for e-mail, PMing, or texting.

Fact is, that if it weren't for the internet, I'd be no more inclined to go hang out at a coffee shop, a book store, or a bar. Such places aren't worth the hassle--to me. But it gives rise to a question: is there really a substituion effect between e-communications and physical establishments like bars, or is it just that the individuals comprising Gen X and especially Gen Y are just more neurotic that way, irrespective of technology?

Edited December 23, 2007 by TheNiche

[crunchtastic]

Age, gender, race, sexual orientation, what kind of car I drive, all are mitigated. The playing field is perfectly level.

Like bars, online forums tend to attract differentiated populations, so I can pick the general character of who I'd prefer to be around, but the cherry on top to a forum is that to the extent that knuckleheads exist, anyone is free to ignore them without consequences. Same goes for e-mail, PMing, or texting.

Fact is, that if it weren't for the internet, I'd be no more inclined to go hang out at a coffee shop, a book store, or a bar. Such places aren't worth the hassle--to me. But it gives rise to a question: is there really a substituion effect between e-communications and physical establishments like bars, or is it just that the individuals comprising Gen X and especially Gen Y are just more neurotic that way, irrespective of technology?

I will say this, as one of those people people in-between gen x and boomer, and the old analog ways of things. Gen Y : learn some social skills, would you?

Not picking on you, Niche----but a larger thing: I am not impressed by one's ability to communicate via keyboard. I don't talk much to men who text me. Can you say the same thing outloud? I write more or less the way I talk; it's not dependent on me stopping to wiki something before I can type a response. My idea of conversation consists of more than wanking and 'debate'.

And yes, there's a personality thing going on. People, and community, to me are tactile. I relate to a physical environment. I also tend to be the voice for people who are just the opposite.

Edited December 24, 2007 by crunchtastic

[jb4647]

I will say this, as one of those people people in-between gen x and boomer, and the old analog ways of things. Gen Y : learn some social skills, would you?

I'm one of those aging gen-xers (just turned 35!), and I have found that the only way to communicate with the Gen Yers is by IM/txting and such...that's the way to reach them. It IS their social skills circa 2007. As they grow up they will continue to communcate in this way and the next gen will be worse...probably telepathy!

Time marches on...it's the way of the world....us old fogeys in our 30's!

[TheNiche]

I will say this, as one of those people people in-between gen x and boomer, and the old analog ways of things. Gen Y : learn some social skills, would you?

I think jb4647 has a point. Whose social skills? You may perceive many of Gen Y to be short on conversation or on niceties, but they may take offense if you come across as so thin-skinned, or hyperreactive, in any case intolerant of their preferences. If you can relate to a boomer hippie from when they were young, it shouldn't be all that difficult to relate to a Gen Yer.

They're unique from their parents' generation, and they don't like being told that it's improper.

Not picking on you, Niche----but a larger thing: I am not impressed by one's ability to communicate via keyboard. I don't talk much to men who text me. Can you say the same thing outloud? I write more or less the way I talk; it's not dependent on me stopping to wiki something before I can type a response. My idea of conversation consists of more than wanking and 'debate'.

And yes, there's a personality thing going on. People, and community, to me are tactile. I relate to a physical environment. I also tend to be the voice for people who are just the opposite.

Frankly, I really don't care whether someone is better at a keyboard, with a pen and paper, on a Blackberry, with the spoken word, or whatever other instrument is available to them, so long as they're intelligible. In every other respect, I'm not impressed or unimpressed. I'm indifferent.

And I don't just write the way I talk. I talk the way I write. Stylistically, anyway. I've drawn a lot of professional criticism for that in the past for some reason that can't seem to be made adequately clear to me, and I honestly don't understand the basis for the criticism. But no, it's not possible to plan for every contingency in a conversation, even though if I know the other person, I can usually anticipate their reaction well enough to speak to it preemptively. In writing, I can cover all my bases and practice greater consistency. That's the only real difference between what comes from my mouth and what comes from my fingers.

I know that a lot of people use wikis to beef up their knowledge on forums, but I think that its fewer than you may suspect. I've only ever used them for HAIF if I'm about to use an idiom that I think fits but am not sure of, or if I'm using technical language in a serious post and want to provide a link for someone to follow up on if they need to.

[KinkaidAlum]

As a South End resident for the last ten years, I can attest to the fact that much of what made the neighborhood unique is gone.

Much of it is due to gentrification and rising prices for real estate. Heck, my house has TRIPLED in value since I bought it in 1999.

In 2002, there were absolutely no chain stores in the entire neighborhood outside of Dunkin Donuts and just ONE bank. Now, you can find a CVS, a Walgreens, a Starbucks, a Bank of America, WaMu, Citizen's Bank, Citi Bank, Mercantile Bank, Hingham Savings, 7-11, and more.

With the rising prices the South End has also seen a rise in the average age of the residents. It is pretty simple. 25 year olds cannot afford 1 bedroom apartments (about 690 square ft) starting at $500,000! It is this factor that I think has led to the demise of gay bars in the city more than any other. I am gay and open about it. I am also 37. I don't go to gay bars anymore. I think I've been to 1 this entire year! However, I still meet up in public with my gay and straight friends. We're just meeting at smaller restaurants and bars that on any given night can be at least half gay.

Also, I know of many of my gay friends that have gladly cashed out. One couple in particular sold their Union Park house they purchased for $256,000 in 1991 for $4.8 MILLION! They are both semi-retired now and living half the year in Buenos Aires and the other half in a small Boston hi-rise downtown. I can't really blame them.