Historic Stonewall Closes . . . Again

The second incarnation of Stonewall has closed:

Seventy-six years after the first bar of the same name was opened at 53 Christopher Street, the prospect looms that the historic site of the 1969 riot widely credited as the birth of the gay-rights movement might disappear.

And the neighborhood surrounding the block of Christopher Street just east of Sheridan Square (which has been ceremonially named Stonewall Place) is raising a glass to the Stonewall’s demise.

Born in infamy on a sultry summer night when a ragtag group of drag queens and gay hipsters started hurling bottles at the police who were raiding the bar, the Stonewall, neighbors say, remains riotous — at least for the now ultra-gentrified Greenwich Village.

“They promote these urban youth parties,” said Bill Morgan, the owner of the Duplex, a popular gay nightspot at the end of the block where Stonewall is situated. “They pushed out the regular gay clientele in favor of this new, urban, hip-hop, gangster clientele. Then you bring a bunch of 18-to-20-year-olds in the area who have no place to go and start goofing off and being loud. It’s disruptive to the neighborhood and brings in the wrong element in the neighborhood.”[*]

Others say that the bar’s owners co-opted the site’s history and ran the business into the ground:

Dominick Desimone took over the lease on the historic location, which hadn’t been a bar for nearly 20 years, in 1989, amid promises to return the bar to its former glory and create a fitting commemoration of its original character.

Many were dubious.

David Carter, the author of Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution, told the story of how he pointed out to the owner that the original flagstones of the bar’s most popular dance floor remained intact even 20 years after the bar had closed. The next time he walked by, the flagstones had been covered in what he described as “bathroom tile.”

“They were interested in exploiting the Stonewall name to make money,” Mr. Carter said. “They had no appreciation for the site itself. I think it was a purely money-making venture done under the guise of preserving and honoring history. This was a total fraud from the beginning.”

. . .

Mr. DeSimone, who is straight and was interviewed from a hotel in St. Lucia on Monday, defended himself and said that tight finances are just a reality.

“Think how many $6 drinks you have to sell to make up for $20,000 a month in rent,” he said.

But ask anyone at the bar, and they point fingers directly his way.

“There’s been terrible mismanagement,” said a bartender who goes only by “Tree” and who also served at the original Stonewall in the 60’s. “Dominick doesn’t know how to run a gay bar.”

*Update — Bill Morgan emails (8/30):

I want to set the record straight regarding the Stonewall Bar. I am in no way thrilled at the prospect of losing such an incredible landmark for both the West Village and the Gay community. I have nothing but empathy for any fellow businesses especially one of Stonewall’s stature. Losing Stonewall will actually hurt my business as Stonewall brings people to the neighborhood. The “reporter” from the observer not only paraphrased my sentiments from the 20 minute telephone interview he edited them together in a way that has very little in common with what I actually said. It’s as if
he had a bias in mind for the article and decided to tailor or fabricate statements to bolster his case. When he asked why I thought the Stonewall was failing I stated that I felt the owners had forsaken the history of the place and the hardcore regular clientele by bringing in the 18-20 year olds for the “detention parties” and the like. I did say that the crowds can be disruptive late at night as once they leave the Stonewall they have no other bar to go to because they are underage. So they hang out and make noise. That’s the nature of 18 year olds. I never said that the kids were “the wrong element” and I never said anything even remotely close to being happy at the prospect of losing such a historical establishment. The article this person wrote is not only misrepresentative of me but of the attitude of the community toward Stonewall. I hope Stonewall survives and prospers for years to come. As far as the Duplex is concerned – We are very proud of the diversity of our patrons and the diversity of our staff as well. As you may imagine I am sickened by the bigoted quotes that were attributed to me. I have written the reporter from the Observer, pointed out the inaccuracy of his article and requested that he set the record straight on his end.