Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why the CIty would even consider to provide permits for residences over the top of loud night clubs does not make sense. They whole purpose of planning and permits it to make sure that different uses do not conflict. DUH.....
I would give the tell the clubs to quiet down. I can't say I go down there a whole lot, but the homes where there first in most cases right?
I think bass and music so loud you can't carry on a conversation is annoying. People who wanna enjoy that atmosphere need to do it where it doesn't disturb others. They need to make the accommodations cause it's definitely not the majority.
I agree that it's different to buy a condo above a bar as opposed to a house many blocks away in a quiet residential area, but how long ago did you buy there? I've lived in this area for a long time, and while there's been growth along the southern portion of Glenwood to be sure, that area has always been known for bars and loud music.
If I were you, assuming you're unhappy, I would just sell. There are a lot of people who want to live close to the noise and busy goings on. Plenty of other options available. To stay and just tolerate it (or worse complain) makes little sense.
Yes, that's what I was saying. The news articles are about bar noise and have nothing to do with any of the other behavior the previous poster was complaining about, nor did it necessarily have anything to do with excessive drinking. The music from bars and clubs would be noisy even if no people showed up.
That's so weird. I don't remember saying anything about being unhappy about where we live or being even remotely interested in selling. In fact, we couldn't love it more - been here 8+ years now. I also didn't say anything about living close to GS - used to many years ago, but actually live closer to the CBD now. That being said, I acknowledged the fact that things can get intensely crazy noisy and you can only mitigate that so much. I recognize that's part of living in an urban area, and I certainly appreciate the many more pluses of living where we do than the negatives. That being said, just because someone is coming downtown to enjoy all the wonderful amenities downtown has to offer does not give one free license to be a total DB - I lump certain intensely disrespectful individuals and the "ootz-ootz" bars/clubs in this category.
I also didn't say anything about people living in houses "many blocks away". Most of the places I'm referring to are the 80-100 year old houses literally just around the corner...not to mention the seniors who live in the nearly 300 units on Glenwood, some of whom have been there much earlier than GS's resurgence.
I'm not sure all the development post-late 90's (and that's being generous) really qualifies as "...that area has always been known for bars and loud music", again - IMHO.
You asked a fair question which I (and many others) acknowledged in our early response. Here, I quoted it for you in case your memory failed...
People have given you their logic, and their sensible explanations, and you've been pretty combative in response. What did you expect?
People are agreeing with you that you can't expect Ward Cleaver's house if you buy on Glennwood South, but they are also saying that it only goes so far, and that at some point, a complaint may be justified. They are further helping you to see that your question is partially flawed, because it assumes everyone who is complaining "bought" in the party zone, but some have pointed out that the party zone came to where their house was. (I know you will question my comprehension skills and point out that you didn't actually say that. Should that happen, I will point out that if we are to discuss comprehension, you may wish to look up the meaning of the word "assumes".) ;-)
Would it be any less fair to ask why any business would locate in a residential area and then be shocked that people don't like the noise?
If you as a question, just try to be a little bit open minded to the response, and don't beat the messengers, especially when you are the one who asked.
Good post.
I now kind of regret even participating in what might have been a measured discussion in urban use and planning rather than real estate schadenfreude.
If there's any consolation, this morning I received a couple of nice emails from prominent city leaders who thanked me for what I would consider a minor contribution to how other communities have come to terms with this issue. We should be happy that thoughtful people are engaged in working through a solution in a serious way.
Just as an aside, and not to provoke any more discussion on my part (because frankly for the most part I'm done with this thread) a couple of folks I was on the elevators with were talking about noise in the building and I offhandedly mentioned the clubs only to get told that "They were here first". I could only think to myself what a very different country we'd be living in if 'first dibs' were the all encompassing framework of dispute resolution.
You asked a fair question which I (and many others) acknowledged in our early response. Here, I quoted it for you in case your memory failed...
People have given you their logic, and their sensible explanations, and you've been pretty combative in response. What did you expect?
People are agreeing with you that you can't expect Ward Cleaver's house if you buy on Glennwood South, but they are also saying that it only goes so far, and that at some point, a complaint may be justified. They are further helping you to see that your question is partially flawed, because it assumes everyone who is complaining "bought" in the party zone, but some have pointed out that the party zone came to where their house was. (I know you will question my comprehension skills and point out that you didn't actually say that. Should that happen, I will point out that if we are to discuss comprehension, you may wish to look up the meaning of the word "assumes".) ;-)
Would it be any less fair to ask why any business would locate in a residential area and then be shocked that people don't like the noise?
If you as a question, just try to be a little bit open minded to the response, and don't beat the messengers, especially when you are the one who asked.
Nothing about my responses would be considered "combative" where I'm from, but that's another topic. They might seem combative by the perspectives of some folks that have cultivated an expectation for warm fuzzies locally, but I see that as something they'll need to cope with individually. My responses have been about trying to keep the thread on track and prevent it from spiraling off into other directions that deal with things like obnoxious drunken behavior and whether or not nightclub owners have a responsibility to make sure people are not over-served alcohol, yada yada. I'm not going to sit here and say "hey buddy pal would you mind kindly not hijacking the thread and here let me rub your bum a bit so that my comments don't sting", even if some folks have gotten used to happy bunny treatment at home.
I am also even less motivated to be a babysitter for reader emotions when silly assumptions come randomly flying in, and yes you seem quite determined to bring those into almost every thread you interact with me on. I don't know why, maybe you are the type that always feels the need to bring a counterpoint to the table in every situation... i.e. "but you know to be fair, yes he's a serial killer but he's also a product of a bad upbringing so let's consider that during trial sentencing". Unfortunately there's always one.
Earlier in the thread, someone posted about how they do experience the noise, they took all the right steps prior to buying their property including touring it during a noisy time of night, they've found ways of coping with the noise such that they are still pleased with their purchase. That, to me, was a very reasonable response to the question this thread posed.
If someone else wants to tell me they purchased their condo over the nightclub before there were nightclubs then, I'd be interested in the timelines, because I've lived here a very long time, and those clubs did not just magically materialize in the last ten years, but I will certainly listen to this sort of case with an open mind.
But I think by and large the whiners bought a condo right dead center in the middle of the action because they wanted to be in the middle of the action, and now they're complaining about the action, and so far what I've seen here supports that idea.
Why the CIty would even consider to provide permits for residences over the top of loud night clubs does not make sense. They whole purpose of planning and permits it to make sure that different uses do not conflict. DUH.....
I would give the tell the clubs to quiet down. I can't say I go down there a whole lot, but the homes where there first in most cases right?
I think bass and music so loud you can't carry on a conversation is annoying. People who wanna enjoy that atmosphere need to do it where it doesn't disturb others. They need to make the accommodations cause it's definitely not the majority.
The only issue is that in dense, mixed use areas, like downtown or Glenwood South, the uses are not separated like in the suburbs. Also, a club might go into a space that used to be a standard restaurant. I have not followed this issue closely enough to know if the complaints are from nearby, long time residents or from people living in buildings above these places.
Another part of the equation is that there is new construction of living space going up downtown. If they hope to attract new residents, it is in their best interest to make living downtown comfortable.
I don't know why, maybe you are the type that always feels the need to bring a counterpoint to the table in every situation...
This is very true (not every situation, but often). I think the purpose of an open forum discussion is to look at all points of view. As an open minded person, I find it absolutely indisposable for me to consider the argument of the opposing view, and even more valuable to try to argue for that side. It is why you will often see me argue both sides of an issue in some of the more heated threads.
As for my comments above:
I agreed with your original premise, I think you are correct.
I agreed with your further premise that we can't really police the few idiotic drunks.
Where I proposed another view is:
-that there is the perspective of long time residents
-that while some noise is expected, it's not a black and white issue, and at some point it's a justified concern. (more on that later, where does one draw the line?)
IN MY OPINION, you seemed to dismiss the many people that bring these points of view to the table, hence my response.
Further:
Quote:
My responses have been about trying to keep the thread on track and prevent it from spiraling off into other directions that deal with things like obnoxious drunken behavior and whether or not nightclub owners have a responsibility to make sure people are not over-served alcohol, yada yada.
I think that what I am saying (and maybe others) is that your idea of "on track" may not agree with others. If you bring up a topic and ASK others for their opinion, then at least be willing to listen. While YOU may feel that the drunks are off topic, others obviously don't feel that way. Instead of preventing them from going off of what YOU think is on topic, why not try to understand their POV. It is not spelled out, but I think what some are saying is 1) the noise is at times loud enough to travel beyond an apartment right above a club, and 2)if the bars are producing enough obnoxious drunks that people that live a block (or two blocks, or three) are being effected, then maybe they have a right to complain too.
So where do you draw the line? Is it an apartment above a dance club? (I agree, they have very little rights in this discussion), someone accross the street? A block off? two blocks off? Somewhere, it becomes relevant, and since that is quite subjective, people will have differing opinions. IMO, you can't say that someone is wrong, you can only try to understand their point of view, and offer a counter-point if you feel one is needed.
And FWIW, I have very thick skin, and I don't take this personally. That being said, if someone asks my opinion, and then shuts it out, or otherwise nullifies it, then I have two choices: Ignore, or keep trying to get through. On any given occasion, I may choose one of the other.
I think that what I am saying (and maybe others) is that your idea of "on track" may not agree with others. If you bring up a topic and ASK others for their opinion, then at least be willing to listen. While YOU may feel that the drunks are off topic, others obviously don't feel that way. Instead of preventing them from going off of what YOU think is on topic,
Oh come on. I'm the one that started the thread topic, so I think I'm probably in the best position to understand the topic I brought forth for discussion and what it entails.
I'm reading, and with an open mind, the various cases put forth here. I'm just reserving the right to separate the sensible ones from the stupid ones.
Another part of the equation is that there is new construction of living space going up downtown. If they hope to attract new residents, it is in their best interest to make living downtown comfortable.
Hopefully someone is sensible enough to attract residents to the area that like that type of area, rather than try to transform the area to meet the impossible goal of satisfying all residents.
This entire area needs nightlife growth more than it needs more places for people to live. There are endless, spanning suburbs where people can buy a house if they want space, quiet, etc.
Right now there is a vacuum of young people in this area, they come here to get their degree and then they get out as soon as they can to move to a bigger city with better nightlife and dating. It hinders growth for many industries and it's frustrating to see so much talent head to places like Austin or Boston or wherever as soon as they graduate and deem the Raleigh-Durham area to be way too boring and soccer-mommish.
I'm not saying turn the area into Las Vegas, I'm saying when we have one tiny oasis of nightlife trying to bloom, it does not bode well to see people buying condos right on top of nightclubs then bitching about the nightclub noise as if there are no other living options.
From a sheer economic growth standpoint, we should be looking to bolster nightlife, not subdue it.
Oh come on. I'm the one that started the thread topic, so I think I'm probably in the best position to understand the topic I brought forth for discussion and what it entails.
I'm reading, and with an open mind, the various cases put forth here. I'm just reserving the right to separate the sensible ones from the stupid ones.
That is exactly the point. You ask an open question, and then discredit (as "stupid", in this case) any answer that does not fit into your current range of acceptability. What is open minded about that?
One might say that I'm spending WAY too much effort responding to you, and that if I don't like the arbitrary rules that you put on discussions that you start, that I should feel free not to participate.
The thing is that you typically ask good questions, and you often have a lot of good insight into many discussions. I feel invested in this community, and value participating in discussions. It's why I'm here. So rather than be put off, I'm trying to make the environment more conducive to being a true forum.
You can't say that you have an open mind and then in the VERY next sentence say that people's responses are stupid. It is incredibly offensive. If I was had cultivated an environment of warm and fuzzy, as you have suggested, then I might just not reply, but that's not me, and I am not interested in having my solicited answer be dismissed as stupid. (unless you are just trolling, which I don't believe that you are.)
So again, which is it:
Do people have cart blanc to be loud and act crazy within a certain range of the clubs, or is there further discussion to be had on such reasonable concepts such as striking a balance between freedom to unabridged party vs right to peace and quiet in one's own home? (I still think there's a balance to be had, and feel that is at the heart of the question you originally posted.
Respectfully...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
