TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- ACC vs BELL CENTER
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
ACC vs BELL CENTER
how come montreal folk can have wicked parties in the bell center and we cant have them in the ACC, is that coz we have venues like the guv, kool haus and the docks??
just wondering?? coz it would be wicked to hold events in the acc or maybe even the sky dome.
sorry if i missed this in a previous discussion.
Same reason they have multiple "true" afterhours clubs and our city can only support one. We simply do not have a large enough clientele to cater to such events like Cream, BEB, etc.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Floorwhore We simply do not have a large enough clientele to cater to such events like Cream, BEB, etc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Special K ps. biggest diff in montreal + toronto...everyone in montreal is on speed...thats why their parties go so late lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Special K sure we do...scene in toronto is ALOT bigger here than it is in montreal... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Floorwhore Same reason they have multiple "true" afterhours clubs and our city can only support one. We simply do not have a large enough clientele to cater to such events like Cream, BEB, etc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Clubs here are empty a lot. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dEsidEL i disagree with this .. we've had large parties before numbering between 10,000 - 15,000 patrons .. i believe the reasons are more political than scene related.. since the bylaws that were enacted back in 2001 the scene has literally secluded into clubs and there have virtually been no more massives in Toronto and the way things are looking right now it's not about to change anytime soon .. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dEsidEL i disagree with this .. we've had large parties before numbering between 10,000 - 15,000 patrons .. i believe the reasons are more political than scene related.. since the bylaws that were enacted back in 2001 the scene has literally secluded into clubs and there have virtually been no more massives in Toronto and the way things are looking right now it's not about to change anytime soon .. |
I agree that the reasons behind the state of parties in Toronto are mainly political, I just think that the scene itself has changed as a result of those laws and a lot of people ignore that. If they got rid of all the by-laws tonight, the scene wouldn't suddenly go back to the way it was in 1999 tomorrow.
Give me a few years......The plans are already in the works
Re: ACC vs BELL CENTER
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancechaos how come montreal folk can have wicked parties in the bell center and we cant have them in the ACC, is that coz we have venues like the guv, kool haus and the docks?? just wondering?? coz it would be wicked to hold events in the acc or maybe even the sky dome. sorry if i missed this in a previous discussion. |
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Bell Centre only allows 2 or 3 all-night parties a year.
I'm sure there would be no problem hosting it in the ACC either as it is a privately-owned building. The by-laws in question only apply to city-owned buildings I believe. The biggest problem would be cost. I seem to recall seeing a rental sheet for the place and the base cost (just rental and minimal staffing) would run you a minimum of $50K.
The bylaws are what killed it. If they dropped tomorrow at least wed have the freedom to build the scene back up.
Gotta love living in a free country eh?
Now im going to go watch some HBO... oh yeah thats illegal too... damn
its called the toronto way of life. remeber, dont drive past the school bus if the lights are flashing.
toronto isnt bad compared to the rest of north america though i will admit.
Montreal and Toronto are great but other than that this continant blows.
Like that song out right now says...
New York...... New York....... Man... WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jayx1 The bylaws are what killed it. If they dropped tomorrow at least wed have the freedom to build the scene back up. Gotta love living in a free country eh? |
I do agree that if they took away those dumb by-laws here then you'd see a resurgence of the PROPER parties here...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RobbyG. As for the ACC...what would the accoustics be like??? I've never been there so I don't know |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut I agree that the reasons behind the state of parties in Toronto are mainly political, I just think that the scene itself has changed as a result of those laws and a lot of people ignore that. If they got rid of all the by-laws tonight, the scene wouldn't suddenly go back to the way it was in 1999 tomorrow. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RobbyG. while Toronto has rammed it into money grubbing club owners like The Guv I do agree that if they took away those dumb by-laws here then you'd see a resurgence of the PROPER parties here... |
Look @ the TRUE EDM venues in this city.
The bookings here are done by a small group of people, who over the years have made pretty close relationships with the majority existing EDM talent.
Do you think the 10,000 people that the promoters could put in the ACC are going to get crammed in there, or the venue they already manage/work for.
Basically, I'd go so far as to say the Guv complex is the reason we don't have those kind of parties.
I am not picking on it, simply stating the logisitcs barrier it represents to the "massives" aspect of the party scene in Toronto.
It's size and capacity could easily pack 5000+, and often does. The talent/lineup you'd have at a massive is in Toronto every holiday, same as the Montreal Bell Centre Parties.
As much as I don't like what the Guv has become, I look at this as a positive to a degree. We frequently have huge parties and lineups in this city @ the Guv, which has bred fierce competition.
Look @ Boa as a great example. They kicked it off with Sander last year, and this years lineup is heads and shoulders above anything in Canada, if not most of North America.
The 10,000 + parties COULD happen, but sure as hell isn't financially viable for anyone entrenched in the scene here to throw.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by VERTiG0 Can you please outline these bylaws? I can't find anything about them anywhere. |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Klubmasta Will Originally posted by Evil Dynovac The second one was a joke. The legislation was already passed and in full effect. The scene was already in pieces and was hiding out in the clubs. The energy wasn't there. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that nothing would change as a result. hey darryl, you know i respect you, but that is a very mis-informed statement. with the first iDance, we were fighting something very concrete and easy to see. there was a municpal by-law that prohibited raves on city-owned properties and we wanted to abolish the by-law (not only because of the by-law itself, but because it potentially opened the floodgates to other, harsher legislation). iDance 2000 was a success as it resulted in the by-law being overturned by an overwhelming majority vote of 50-3. many toronto news reporters called it one of the biggest city council "flip-flops" of all time. with the second iDance, it was harder to see what we were fighting unless you really took the time to watch our media interviews and to read our statements leading up to the event. in the year leading up to iDance 2001, the 'powers that be' (i.e. the police and certain city officials) decided that, since they could not legally stop these events from happening (i.e. because they tried and failed), they would stop the events by other means. they tried pricing promoters out of business by requiring absolutely ridiculous numbers of pay-duty police officers. they put improper pressure on venue owners, at times threatening to revoke liquor licences, causing some owners to cancel events (eg. the docks, the liquid adrenaline at the water park, etc.). they showed up at WEMF 2001 with an injunction based entirely on "profile-type" evidence in an attempt to stop the event from happening. they even waited until the very last minute to get the injunction, claiming exigent circumstances, so that the promoters would be unable to properly dispute the injunction. ultimately, they failed to stop WEMF 2001, but certainty not for lack of trying. these are all examples of things that the authorities were doing to stop events. the actions were unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights. they did it because they thought no one would ever notice or care. THAT is what iDance 2001 was fighting. by drawing the attention of the media, the public and certain *good* politicians to the civil rights violations being committed, we hoped to change policy. if the police knew that their actions would end up in large numbers of harsh newspaper articles, maybe they would think long and hard before doing something improper. did we succeed? it's hard to say because, like i said, there is no concrete way to measure the success like there was in 2000. but you know what? the police never tried to get an injunction like that again. and i have not heard of a single incident of the police threatening to revoke any venue owner's liquor licence since then. so you decide. Last edited by Klubmasta Will on 07-31-2003 at 01:04 PM ps. we did not do another iDance because of lack of money. with the recession, companies are not throwing around big sponsorship dollars like they were before. also, as a result of 9-11, the insurance quote for the event went through the roof. (rising insurance costs almost killed gay pride; the politicians had to step in to resolve the insurance difficulties.) Originally posted by Evil Dynovac I stand by what I said originally because most of it is personal opinion. Said again, the second iDance was a shadow of its former self - not by virtue of the event itself - but because the pay duty proviso was already in full effect and the rally wasn't going to stop it. Everyone there knew it. With its spirit and purpose rendered impotent, iDance became a social event and not a protest. Actually, in retrospect it wasn't only a social event, it was also a wake. i disagree with almost everything you wrote. it is absolutely ridiculous to say that an event like this was a failure or, as you called it, "a joke", because it did not single-handedly fix the police problem. by that standard, the first gay pride parade must have been a joke to you because it did not single-handedly erase all prejudice against gays. sorry, darryl, but give me a fucking break. the purpose of the iDance events was to raise awareness of improper things that were being done by the authorities. true, the event did not single-handedly cure the police problem but it was a big step in the right direction (see previous post about the threats and injunctions that stopped) and, perhaps more importantly, it was a demonstration of political/media strength. the only distateful thing i remember about iDance 2001 was having to deal with emails and complaints from people who had tons of criticisms but did not have the conviction to actually do some of the things they thought should be done. Last edited by Klubmasta Will on 07-31-2003 at 03:06 PM quote:Originally posted by Evil Dynovac Will, the difference between Gay Pride and iDance is that Pride somehow found a way to carry on year after year while iDance has gone the way of the rave scene it sought to create awareness for. well, it's easier to get sponsorship dollars when (i) you've got politicians and big business in your corner, (ii) you have full-time *paid* organizers instead of volunteers doing all the work in their spare time and (iii) the issue is gay/lesbian rights (which is, of course, a more important and media-sexy issue than the right to party). that being said, the skyrocketing insurance rates that killed iDance almost killed gay pride this last year. according to the papers, the insurance issues *would* have killed pride if it wasn't for the intervention of city and provincial politicians. quote:From what I understand the administration of the second iDance became very political what with the Party People Project and TRIP and all. we had a difference of opinion with a few members of the PPP - which someone dragged onto the cover of now magazine (who also had a bone to pick because we chose EYE as a sponsor). i will not go into details because, frankly, it's not worth it, but it got downright ridiculous at one point. (if you ever want to hear our side, i'll tell you over a beer some time.) it is probably worth mentioning that victoria shen (PPP founder) was our stage manager, so she obviously did not have an issue with us, and that, after the event, we received a number of apology emails from some of the PPP members that were involved, including (if memory serves) the person who was behind the now magazine cover story that bashed us. we never had any problem with TRIP. sandy watters spoke at both iDance events. |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Very interesting read
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dEsidEL wells things aren't always what they seem .. i hav a strong feeling that if some of the bylaws didn't exist here some of the people responsible for the Guv wouldn't just be doing the Guv .. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dEsidEL wells things aren't always what they seem .. i hav a strong feeling that if some of the bylaws didn't exist here some of the people responsible for the Guv wouldn't just be doing the Guv .. [/color] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RobbyG. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Very interesting read Well with all due respect...When u say the "people" responsible I assume you mean the owner and I know that he does NOT give a rats ass about the patrons goin to the Guv because he rams that club to WAY over capacity sometimes & gets away with it so I would REALLY hope that he would NEVER do a good ol' Trance party at a huge venue (i.e. the Automotive Building) if it was allowed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut [COLOR=#99CCEE]Haha, that might be true but I doubt it's the "biggest" difference. It's not just about the numbers, EDM in general is more mainstream there so you get more of a mainstream crowd at all kinds of events. COLOR] |
| quote: |
| ps. biggest diff in montreal + toronto...everyone in montreal is on speed...thats why their parties go so late lol |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.