Out Hotel in NYC turning hetero because "Gays are Cheap"

[leeper]

See the post in the link.

http://www.newnownext.com/out-hotel-sold/07/2016/

 

Are we? (Cheap I mean)

[Despardo]

Gays have been boycotting this hotel since the owners hosted a luncheon for Ted Cruz.

 

We are not cheap--neither are we fools. No responsible gay person would patronize this hotel.

[marylander1940]

See the post in the link.

http://www.newnownext.com/out-hotel-sold/07/2016/

 

Are we? (Cheap I mean)

 

 

 

As rudolfhern said on his comment:

 

"Any travel industry professional will tell you the data are there that demonstrate LGBT travelers on average have a higher average trip spend (even double) than the base traveling population.

Seems like a typical Republican...blaming his failures on everyone else but his own inartful PR mistakes."

 

http://logoonline.mtvnimages.com/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:newnownext.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/01-ted-cruz-mati-weiderpass.w750.h560.2x.jpg?quality=0.8&format=jpg&width=1800

 

or as George Washington's motto:

 

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/President/Wash-mid.jpg

 

"the outcome (result) justifies the deed (actions)"

[rvwnsd]

Even before the Ted Cruz fundraiser the hotel was widely panned and got pretty mixed reviews. I believe the recurring theme was noise from the club. Given the co-owner's comments that "gays are cheap" my guess is "hospitality" is not this man's area of expertise. Perhaps his next business venture should be an

franchise.

[+ Topseed]

Rvwnsd, I like your style. But please don't suggest that idiot should be in Chicago. No thanks.

[Tonyko]

Its a shame really Bcause it was a great venue I went to one of the first big same sex weddings there soon after it opened and right after the (NYC) gay marriage law passed, AND attended the private wedding that also took place on the same night in one of the small rooms of ONE OF THE (THEN) OWNERS AND HIS PARTNER. The main venue space beyond the bar was great as was the bar space. (the hotel rooms themselves were soso, modern but small and built around an atrium) I have TWO thoughts:

It's 2016, it's NYC, The Village that I grew up with (bars bars clubs bars every corner five on a block) doesn't exist because it doesn't NEED to anymore, just like the bars and clubs hidden in townhouses along 3rd ave of our grand dad's generation disappeared because we walked out "into the sunlight" of the Village, the "need" for a "Gay" hotel really isn't there. NO business of that size can survive JUST off gay clientele in an era and city where we can go ANYWHERE. So it's no wonder that the bar area of this hotel eventually was filled with a STR8 young club-crowd, and the party space became a rental space used by ALL. Guess my point is, isn't THAT the all-enclusive way we want it???

Re: boycotting, I'm torn. I HATE DETEST LOATHE when the conservative "Christian" right does this to a business who supports US. I always say the DIFFERENCE between us and them is that when, lets say, a themepark that hosts a "Christian" night also hosts a Gay night, WE say great thanks, yeah we think "they're" A-holes and anyone who believes what they believe is a dinosour, but if WE have the right to have that park for a night, so do THEY, so let them. (ours will be way more fun obvs) BUT THEY don't think like that, THEY march picket boycott when homosexchuls are extended the same welcoming hand that they are. And to me THAT has always been the diff tween US and THEM. So I'm torn.

I know I may get flack for this, and believe me I am TOTS in favor of REMOVING our business from any business who discriminates AGAINST us, (like the bakery who wouldn't make the wedding cake lol) but very torn when it comes to a business that simply does "business" with both us AND those who oppose us.

[+ dutchmuch]

If gays are cheap, Republicans are cheaper.

[rvwnsd]

Rvwnsd, I like your style. But please don't suggest that idiot should be in Chicago. No thanks.

I was thinking he could open the first Manhattan location. Or maybe New Jersey. I hear they are less cheap there.

 

Its a shame really Bcause it was a great venue I went to one of the first big same sex weddings there soon after it opened and right after the (NYC) gay marriage law passed, AND attended the private wedding that also took place on the same night in one of the small rooms of ONE OF THE (THEN) OWNERS AND HIS PARTNER. The main venue space beyond the bar was great as was the bar space. (the hotel rooms themselves were soso, modern but small and built around an atrium)...

 

Many of the reviews commented on the IKEA-like furnishings and the tiny rooms. Then again, it is NYC. Hotel rooms are smaller unless you want to pay big $$$s for a large room.

 

...I have TWO thoughts:

It's 2016, it's NYC, The Village that I grew up with (bars bars clubs bars every corner five on a block) doesn't exist because it doesn't NEED to anymore, just like the bars and clubs hidden in townhouses along 3rd ave of our grand dad's generation disappeared because we walked out "into the sunlight" of the Village, the "need" for a "Gay" hotel really isn't there. ...

Agreed. When the place opened I thought "Do we really need this? In New York City, no less?"

 

... NO business of that size can survive JUST off gay clientele in an era and city where we can go ANYWHERE. So it's no wonder that the bar area of this hotel eventually was filled with a STR8 young club-crowd...

Yup. Particularly in a place like New York, Chicago, or LA. I think a hotel of that size could make it in San Francisco if it was located in The Castro. Aside from a handful of B&Bs and Beck's, there is no place in the Castro to stay. However, I'd call it something other than The Out Hotel.

 

... and the party space became a rental space used by ALL. Guess my point is, isn't THAT the all-enclusive way we want it???...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!

 

 

...Re: boycotting, I'm torn. I HATE DETEST LOATHE when the conservative "Christian" right does this to a business who supports US. I always say the DIFFERENCE between us and them is that when, lets say, a themepark that hosts a "Christian" night also hosts a Gay night, WE say great thanks, yeah we think "they're" A-holes and anyone who believes what they believe is a dinosour, but if WE have the right to have that park for a night, so do THEY, so let them. (ours will be way more fun obvs) BUT THEY don't think like that, THEY march picket boycott when homosexchuls are extended the same welcoming hand that they are. And to me THAT has always been the diff tween US and THEM. So I'm torn.

I know I may get flack for this, and believe me I am TOTS in favor of REMOVING our business from any business who discriminates AGAINST us, (like the bakery who wouldn't make the wedding cake lol) but very torn when it comes to a business that simply does "business" with both us AND those who oppose us.

Agree on being torn over this. The distinction I see between hosting a fundraiser for someone who wishes to take away our rights and hosting Christian Days, for example, is Christian Days at Six Flags doesn't limit my right to marry the person of my choosing, take away non-discrimination protection, or re-enact laws making certain sexual practices illegal. Hosting a fundraiser for a candidate who is in favor of those things has potential for making them a reality. Of course, attributing the failure of your business to the notion that "Gays [or anyone else] are Cheap" is a sign of flat-out stupidity and bad business sense. It speaks volumes about why his business failed.

[+ WmClarke]

The distinction I see between hosting a fundraiser for someone who wishes to take away our rights and hosting Christian Days, for example, is Christian Days at Six Flags doesn't limit my right to marry the person of my choosing, take away non-discrimination protection, or re-enact laws making certain sexual practices illegal. Hosting a fundraiser for a candidate who is in favor of those things has potential for making them a reality.

Exactly.

[LADoug1]

I've always felt gays were bigger spenders and bigger tippers. Often more disposable income and internalized homophobia.

[rvwnsd]

A business has to deliver a quality product in order to earn a following. Everything I've read about this place indicates they expected to be successful based on calling the property "The Out Hotel" and having a bar. That simply does not cut it.

[mattr]

Average property..... average location...average pricing.... the only thing that set it apart was that it called itself a "gay" hotel. It might have done better with a sexier vibe/edgier decor. It will be interesting to see what they new owners do with it... all that's needed is to change the name to make it straight.... and perhaps toss XL out.

[Damascene]

When first announced, the hotel was to be six stories high. It was reduced to three when finished. They went through managers like water in the club. The boycott probably hurt. I had a friend who use to stay there when in town. He stopped after Ted Cruz. I don't think the Out was properly planned from the beginning. It was never managed properly, but the owners won't admit it.

[rvwnsd]

When first announced, the hotel was to be six stories high. It was reduced to three when finished. They went through managers like water in the club. The boycott probably hurt. I had a friend who use to stay there when in town. He stopped after Ted Cruz. I don't think the Out was properly planned from the beginning. It was never managed properly, but the owners won't admit it.

 

When it opened I remember thinking it was a converted motel.

[corymonroe]

It's gay-ghetto (aka cheap) concept was doomed from the start, especially in Manhattan, because there isn't a square inch of Manhattan left from the 70's.

 

Calling a business "Out" was seriously shortsighted, on many levels.

 

It's promising to see that someone was willing to invest huge sums in a bad "gay" idea. There's hope for gay men with imaginations.