Secrets of the City

I used to go to the old Molly Quinns a lot, but the new location never felt comfortable. Losing them the first time sucked, a lot, but now I don’t care all that much. The food was still amazing, probably even better than before, but it didn’t bring me back.

I’ve said it on here before that I support the smoking ban. That said, it does suck that places are closing, but I also think that the smoking ban is an easy excuse. IMO, places are closing because they didn’t know how to support their business, they kept waiting for the government to come and save them by removing the ban.

Smoking patios are fine for some places, but maybe not for others. So as a business you need to keep thinking about what you can do to bring in more customers. Those that don’t will fail, but those that can, will move on.

My $.02 on the subject.

Oh, and the ugly building didn’t help either. I sure can’t say that it screamed Irish Pub.

I was at Molly Quinn’s last night and it was amazing how empty it was. They closed early — earlier than their new shortened hours posted on the front door. They’ve also been profiled in some local neighborhood papers as complaining that the smoking ban has directly cost them their business.

Meanwhile at the Lake Street Garage, just a few blocks to the east, cars were lined up around the block and the place was filled with people. Smoking ban doesn’t seem to be hurting them, nor the Longfellow Grill… nor the Nuevo Rodeo… nor the Chatterbox…

Maybe I’m wrong.

-Aaron

You’re not wrong, Aaron. Sales are UP since the ban (you will never hear THAT in the sob stories from the bar bosses), according to Hennepin County’s own economic report — which requested by ban opponents, by the way.

More than 37 new places have opened since the ban began. Any place that goes out of business (which happens all the time in the hospitality industry–just read the paper) now blames the ban.

Whatever.

The bottom line is this: thousands of people are going to quit smoking because of the bans, and everyone will have the same rights to a smokefree workplace that office and retail workers have had for years.

Agreed. It’s not the ban. Word has been for a long time that Molly Quinn’s ownership/ mgmt was not up to par, and other locations in the area are doing alright post-ban.

Here, in Nordeast, the small corner bars, owned by families for generations, are definately suffering from this neo-Puritan movement. Tips are down for the bartenders, and my regular watering hole is noticably less busy. Should I believe the people who work in the place, my own eyes or some report?

I don’t smoke, never started. But I haven’t read anything that says I have a “right” to a smoke-free environment.

I haven’t been to Molly Quinns since it moved. The last time I was there we were totally ignored by the wait staff and made to seem not welcome while they chatted with their regulars. I just assumed it was the poor customer service that would kill their business.

I’ve been to the Molly Quinn’s in the new location probably about 10-15 times since October 2004 when I moved to the neighborhood. Exactly 4 times in the last 6 months (Thanks Dodgeball for keeping track!). Every time I’ve been, the service was really slow unless I was sitting at the bar. Exceptionally slow for breakfast. The last time I was there (Sunday) there were two flies bothering my food – thankfully briefly.

The time before we were sitting on the new smoking patio and our waitress came to check on us about once every 10 minutes. Three times in a row I asked for my drink and it was her 4th visit back that she brought it. Half hour to get a drink. When I joked about it at my table, others shared their Molly Quinn’s poor service stories. This was in the area that was designed to accommodate their smoking clientele. Whoops.

I’ve found the Lake Street Garage to be a better alternative, and it surprisingly has more of a “British Isles” feel than it’s “Irish Pub” neighbour. Staff is friendly, and while it’s not fast service, it’s faster than Molly Quinn’s.

Responding directly to The Rat, everything I’m saying isn’t by the numbers, nor is from any report. Others have sited reports but I’m just reporting what I’m seeing. I know people that don’t go to the Chatterbox Pub because it’s sometimes “too crowded” now, and remember how smoky that place used to be? Another place I frequent is Whitey’s. The place (notably the large female figure above the bar) looks like it’s been coated with years of smoke and every time I’m there they seem to be doing a lot of business. Finally, a lot can happen to a business in 6+ months unrelated to the ordinance. I think the smoking ban correlation to Molly Quinn’s closing is bunk.

I don’t know about Molly Quinn’s, but I agree with The Rat that it seems the small, neighborhood bars are taking the biggest hit. The proponents of the smoking ban may be flocking to restaurants, but I doubt there were many people holding off from a visit to the neighborhood 3.2 bar because they feared smoke.

I have heard, anecdotally, that Minneapolis’s bowling alleys have suffered as some bowling leagues fled to lanes where smoking is legal. No idea whether that is true or not, but it’s the word on the street.

Out of curiosity: Bob from ALAMN, do you get paid to post comments on blogs?

I’m the communications director of the ALAMN, Mike. My job is to support our mission of improving lung health here in Minnesota, and I communicate in all mediums, including blogs. Have you seen our blog? It is in The Aggregator.

I’m a fan of Nordeast bars, too, but I know the neighborhood well enough to understand that it has been changing for some time, long before the ordinance began. Places that changed with the neighborhood (331 Bar, Sample Room, Pyscho Suzies) have fared well. The bar bosses of the Nordeast need to stop wasting their time fighting a battle they are not going to win, and focus on providing a great entertainment venue to thirsty and hungry patrons.

Bob:

“I’m a fan of Nordeast bars, too, but I know the neighborhood well enough to understand that it has been changing for some time, long before the ordinance began.”

And this ordinance pounded several more nails in the coffin to a unique neighborhood filled with working class guys who wanted to have a cigarette and beer and be left alone. One more for the neo-Puritans. In Shakespeare’s day, your type closed down the theaters in London.

“Places that changed with the neighborhood (331 Bar, Sample Room, Pyscho Suzies) have fared well.”

I have nothing against those places, but at least two of them I know of are sufficiently Yuppiefied

I normally vote liberal Democrat, but I don’t hold well with busybodies.

I live near Molly Quinn’s, but NEVER go there because the place has zero atmosphere. In fact, last night I had a drink at The Craftsman, formerly Molly Quinn’s. It’s too expensive to eat there very often, but it wasn’t crowded and swarming with kids (like the Longfellow Grill) and my drink was fantastic. The new Molly’s Quinn’s has never gotten rid of that Embers feel…

NE is somewhat unique when it comes to neighborhood bars. With so many on corners within residential neighborhoods, many have carved out niches as ash trays for people who’ve been banished them from smoking in their own homes by spouses.

In a sense, they’re in the ash tray business with drinks on the side. Will ash tray businesses survive without ashes? Not without a new draw like great service, food, etc.

“ashtray businesses”, like their patrons, will die sooner than non-ashtray businesses.

Agreed moe & Katie, the old spot had a lot of happein’ charm, and an excellent patio. With the new spot, it lost all that — it’s too big and has no character (but good food). Personally, I went to the old one about three times as much as the new one, smoking ban or not.

Thought what I said about theaters was a little over the top?

Well, check this out:

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17251246-5001028,00.html

Actor forced to stop smoking

A STUNNED Italian actor had to stub out the cigarette he had lit up on stage after a spectator complained, forcing the theatre to change the script of an Arthur Miller play to make it smoke-free.

“This had never happened to me in more than 300 performances,” the actor, Sebastiano Lo Monaco, said.

Italy has banned lighting up in all enclosed public places since January this year.

Lo Monaco was smoking, in line with the script, while playing the main character in Miller’s A View from the Bridge at a theatre in the northeastern city of Mestre, when a woman from the audience shouted “Put out that cigarette”.

After a 15-minute suspension, the performance resumed with a modified script and a non-smoking protagonist.

Wow, great story The Rat. Bravo and Kudos to the people of Italy for stepping up.

Stepping up to what? — It was one person. They shut down the whole production for this prude.

What’s prudish about not wanting to inhale smoke? I’m always surprised when stage actors light up–I assume someone will make a fuss (for either a good or bad reason). A theatre is a public place like a movie theatre is a public place. If someone in the front row of a cinema started smoking, no one would tolerate that.

Like someone else said, some places are doing FINE. Like the Chatterbox. The CC Club seems to be busy, too. These were both big smoker’s places.

Maybe this Molly Quinns place I’ve never heard of didn’t make the par. People move on to other places. A new place becomes trendy. Old place gets crappy. That’s just the way it goes.

As long as there is proof that some places are doing fine and/or better since the ban, the ban will remain.

What if it’s in the script that the actor smokes?

The actor’s probably 100 feet away. You could go to the performance every day, and the smoke from that one scene would not hurt you.

Why should the production be stopped and the script changed because some prude is offended?

Refund her ticket.

hooha…I don’t think you can confuse an audience member smoking and someone on stage performing art. To say those things are the same is…hmm…I don’t think a word has been invented to discribe ignorance like that.

That new location sucks. It still feels like an Embers to me. And how can you blame the smoking ban for a MILLION DOLLARS in debt. 80k I could believe, but a MILLION? No way…

Okay – I have to speak up on this one. I certainly agree with your point, The Rat, about the absurdity of one woman’s complaint forcing the re-write of a script.

I cannot agree with you however, about the sanctity of smoking onstage if it is in a script. Think about it: theater is entirely based on illusion – every moment it is requiring people to suspend their disbelief; ignore that they are sitting in a room full of people watching other people act.

If there is a scene where someone is killed with a gun, they use a fake gun and good sound effects. If there is a scene where someone has an alcohol problem, they use water or highly concentrated tea to match the color of their drink of choice. There are plenty of alternatives that don’t break the indoor smoking laws and any propmaster worth his salt would probably enjoy the challenge of creating an alternative because it’s what they do.

And yes, I am a Democrat. And no, I don’t like government telling me what to do. And yes, I am pro-ban. All I can say about lost business is that the gov. needs to step up to the plate already and institute a state-wide ban. That way, bars aren’t losing business to other bars in neighboring areas. I strongly believe that the only thing Minnesotans like to do more than smoke is drink. If a state-wide ban is put in place, people will adapt instead of boycott and the bars will be just fine.

“And yes, I am a Democrat. And no, I don’t like government telling me what to do.”

Well, you’re weaving a peculiar defense.

What is is about a governmental ban that is NOT about telling someone what to do? Banning something is the ultimate expression of telling someone what to do.

Why do you want the government to come and save your ass The Rat? Let’s let businesses figure this out for themselves.

Good point Leigha. State wide is the way to go.

“Why do you want the government to come and save your ass The Rat?”

What the Sam Hill are you talking about?

“Let’s let businesses figure this out for themselves.”

That is convoluted as hell. How is banning something statewide letting businesses a business figure something out for itself? That’s dictating what it can and cannot do. Letting a business figure it out for itself would be akin to letting a bar owner decide whether or not he wants his establishment to be smoke free.

but what if said ban is for the sake of other people’s health?

When can we put the smoking-ban debate behind us and start discussing the regulation of loud music in bars and night clubs? Is it fair for people to suffer hearing loss because the profiteers in the entertainment and hospitality industries put their pecuniary interests before the health and well being of their patrons and employees? There should be a law limiting amplification of music to no more than 65 decibels.

If today’s bars and bands can’t draw crowds with anywhere from 1 decibel of music to 65 decibels of music — and this is a logarithmic measure, after all — they clearly need to examine why they are unable to compete in a free market.

Life is fraught with hazards. Personally, secondhand smoke doesn’t scare me. Niether does loud music. They’re both slightly annoying.

That’s what earplugs are for. Besides, plenty of bars don’t have loud music, whereas going out pre-ban meant you had no choice but to breathe smoke. As someone whose job involves spending time in bars, I can absolutely say the ban has had a positive impact on my health. I haven’t needed to use my inhaler as much.

“That’s what earplugs are for.”

Good advice – but that’s what aqualungs are for too.

Lindsey, before the smoking ban there was no law requiring smoking in Twin Cities bars. There were, in fact, bars and restaurants that completely prohibited smoking — much like there are bars and restaurants today that choose to respect the health of their employees and patrons. The problem is that there are always people who want to make a buck by patronizing to the lowest common denominator, regardless of the irrefutable deleterious effects.

It isn’t fair to tell people who are concerned about their hearing to go to venues that do not play loud music. It isn’t fair to make employees choose between hearing their customers and sacrificing their hearing. I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s acceptable for young Minnesotans to be deafened so a few people can get rich.

Besides, the earplug idea is a smoke screen. We heard it before with all the chitter-chatter about HVAC ventilation systems, and it quickly became clear that these halfway measures can’t have the same effect as bright-line regulation with strong civil and criminal sanctions.

If you want to listen to loud music at home, that’s fine — provided you don’t disturb your neighbors or expose your children to that noise. But don’t think it’s okay to force it on people in public.

One more thing, Lindsey — imagine how much better people would feel if regulations on loud music were imposed: No more tinnitus, no more aging hipsters who can’t make out conversations if there’s any background noise, and no more “loud talkers” leaving bars and waking up the neighbors. Just as you’ve recognized how your health has improved because of the smoking ban, I think you would also wind up recognizing how your hearing — and just possibly, civil society — would improve with noise regulations.

Mike S, for a second there, I thought you said “no more aging hipsters.” I was ready to sign up.

Sounds like Molly Quinn’s screwed themselves into the ground. I’ve never been there, but I know where it is — east Lake Street right? The neighborhood is dreadful and the place just looks dismal.

I agree that there should be a statewide ban. But that isn’t going to happen until at least 2007 because next year is an election year. And it’ll get shot down in some lame commerce committee before it ever reaches either house of the legislature.

If the Democrats can take control of the house next year, Minnesota might just get a ban. I think we’ll be the first state not attached to an ocean to have a ban.

“If today’s bars and bands can’t draw crowds with anywhere from 1 decibel of music to 65 decibels of music — they clearly need to examine why they are unable to compete in a free market.”

This is funny. It reminds me of a show I helped promote in Morris, MN – the opening band was awesome, the following band was even better – the final band knew that they had to step it up so they just cranked it up. It was painfully loud.

Disco notes that if Minnesota goes smokefree — and it will — it will be the first noncostal state to adopt a comprehensive indoor smoking law.

Well, yes and no. This year Montana banned smoking in restaurants – bars will be exempt till 2009. Think of it, fellow Minnesotans. Marlboro Country voted to go smokefree before we did!

The news from Saint Paul sounds good. Regardless of what Hennepin County does, the smokefree movement rolls on.

Yes, Bob, the ban is good for people’s health, we get it. (This is in response to your entire body of worke here on MNSpeak, not just this post.) But you sunnily pretend that there are NO negative ramifications, when there clearly are. Stop prending it’s black and white.

I wish Bob was a registered MNspeak user so I could count how many pro-ban comments he’s posted.

A few restaurants here and few bars there are collateral damage in the war fought by the anti-smoking neo-Puritans.

RE: Bob from ALAMN.

He is all over the blogsphere trying desperately to influence public opinion. He is paid to do this by the American Lung Association. While his action are not in any way illegal, they certainly feel smarmy.

To Mike S:
Your wit and sarcasm seem to be lost here. The bottom line is, and I’m not kidding, I think most people who actually go to bars are happy that their clothes don’t stink. There are also alot of people weighing in who don’t go to bars very much, if at all. This ban will probably continue because it is supported by the “fresh clothes” & the “I suck anyway, so I’ll drag you down too” lobby.

(Yes, if you don’t go to bars, but are in favor of a ban, you do suck. You are like the old lady on your block who calls the cops on loud parties. Yes, you. That’s you. You are probably old too, or getting there. Sorry. You suck.)

Dan Savage makes a great point in his columns. Basically, he is saying that the religous right is going after gays, les, and TG now, but straight non-evangelicals are next. I think Dan has a good point. I would rather help out the GLBTG folks fight the religous right today, than run for cover myself in a few years. Yeah, that’s selfish, but it’s also pragmatic.

It’s the same thing with smoking bans. Why can’t you choose to stay out of a smoking bar? Why can’t you put up your own money/time and open a non-smoking bar? This smoking ban won’t be the end of bar culture, but it’s going to go a long way to end it, and this is just the first battle. Alcohol companies will come under attack soon enough.

As Jim stated, there are ramifications to this smoking ban. It is harming individuals, who invested money & time never expecting that the government would/could change the rules. If your attitude is, “Well, another bar will just open up. Only the strong will survive,” the I’ll join up with that douche CEO from Delphi, Robert “Steve” Miller.

(I would link to the full article, but Fortune makes you pay for it)

Basically he said, A mexican worker will work for $9000 a year, and Delphi pays $65 an hour with health care costs in the US. He wants to pay $20 an hour in the US, including healthcare.

He said if you are a manual laborer in the US, you’d better be ready to accept a lower standard of living.

This smoking ban constitues “taking” by the government, just like a condmnation of property via emminent domain. There should be compensation.

Thought this may be of interest to some.

Bob from ALAMN lays out his organizations “blogging strategy.”

“We will not allow (as many blogs do) unedited comments to be posted on our blog. While this decision may seem to run counter to what a blog is supposed to be, I felt it was important not to allow our new site to be highjacked by critics of Minnesota smoking bans.”

That made me laugh. Good find JJ Bean

It’s entertaining to see how the pro-ban people try to spin the 58 bar & restaurants out of business since the ban……suddenly these owners after 5, 15, 50 years “don’t know how to run a business that’s why they went belly up” so says the iced tea & ice water pro-smoking ban crowd.

58 out of business and per the Pio Press it’s only 17 new places Bob.

By the way Bob I’m curious how your ilk will deal with the overturn of the smoking bans…….weren’t they passed on the argument that SHS is harmful? This proves the argument false….therefore the bans null & void:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/osha-and-environmental-health.html

Okay, but how many restaurants and bars have closed in the Twin Cities metro in a typical year, pre-ban? I’m not exactly shooting down your statistic (yet), but it’s a useless number without something to compare to. It’s pretty common knowledge that restaurants fail and close all the time. And there are lots and lots of restaurants in the Twin Cities metro. Lots and lots.

So give us the numbers from 2004 (okay, and multiply it by some percentage since the ban hasn’t been around a full year yet), and maybe you’ll have a good point then.

Smoking should be banned from all public places worldwide by law. Smoking should have never been invented at all and smoking kills including secondary smoke and smoking should not be allowed anywhere closer than 50 feet from any public building. I don’t even care if it is pouring down rain outside and that it is raining very hard. If people want to smoke, they still even on days that is pouring down rain, should not be allowed to smoke indoors in public places and I don’t care if they have to get soaking wet in order to smoke even if it is very cold outside but people’s safety should come before a smoker’s comfort to their smoking needs. Even if it is very cold and even if it is pouring down rain, if people want to smoke, they should still walk at least 50 feet away from the building even if they have to freeze or get wet in order to smoke.