Keep 'em open

Five reasons why it's a good idea to extend
the hours of operation in Boston nightclubs

by Jason Gay

1) It's good business. The no-duh, capitalist-pig reason. More hours, more people, more money. More tourism, more commerce, more conventions. This is what attracts a self-professed early bird like Menino, who never saw a thick-walleted out-of-towner he didn't like.

2) It won't just change the bars. Keeping bars and clubs open later will have an impact on other businesses, which will want to remain open later too. Consider restaurants. Even people who can't imagine themselves at Avalon at 3:49 a.m. may be frustrated by the fact that they can't get a steak after 10 p.m. at most places in town. "Boston has a reputation for being a city where it's virtually impossible to eat after 11 p.m. or midnight," says Mark Merente, a South End attorney and activist.

Indeed, instituting later hours could be a kind of rising-tide-lifts-all-boats scenario. If the bars are open later, then area restaurants will be open later, and if the restaurants are open later, then area retailers will be open later. This, in turn, might make museums, galleries, and other artistic venues more receptive to keeping their lights on. All of this would have to be kept in reasonable check, of course -- not everything needs to stay open as late as possible -- but the result could be a broadening of nightlife beyond the booze-related.

---

What local officials and businessmen have to say
Boston's after-hours scene
A no-BS guide to extending the city's hours of operation

---

3) It could (believe it or not) improve public safety. One of the maxims of law enforcement is that a well-traveled area is a safe area. Much of Boston's downtown (especially the Financial District) is deserted after dark; expanding hours will attract more people to the area, potentially making it safer.

Later hours would also keep customers from flooding out of the clubs en masse at 2 a.m. This is a headache for the city's already overstressed cab system, as well as for police. It's a good bet that if bars and clubs were kept open later, the final crowd would be substantially smaller, since people would trickle out bit by bit over the course of the longer evening.

Of course, alcohol is the wild card. There will be more drinking, and the problems likely to attend that will have to be addressed with a beefed-up law-enforcement presence and increased security at bars and nightclubs. There should also be a stringent policy in place to revoke the licenses of any establishments that are found to be chronic trouble spots.

Another option is allowing bars and clubs to stay open later, but keeping last call at 2 a.m. This idea was suggested last week in a Globe op-ed by Patrick Lyons, head of the Lyons Group, the city's largest club owner. Doing this would allow bar and club patrons to wind down their evenings gradually, easing the strain on transit and police.

4) It will encourage creativity. This is a little harder to put a finger on, but it's important. Right now, Boston's nightlife establishments suffer from a startling lack of originality. (If Boston gets one more frickin' brewpub with pool tables and a big-screen TV . . . ) Some of this has to do with the clientele -- Boston's nightlife crowd is a fairly white-bread, conservative bunch -- but if expanding hours promoted the nightlife industry as a whole, some bars and clubs might feel compelled to cater to different kinds of people, especially groups that have been underserved over the years.

"Why does a city as diverse as Boston have no place that caters to blacks or Latinos?" asks Ken Reeves. "In my opinion, that's pathetic for a city wanting to call itself significant."

5) It's just more fun. Menino told the Globe that extended hours would help make Boston "more fun."

Damn skippy it would.

Jason Gay can be reached at jgay[a]phx.com.