Jimbo's???

by DeeDubs24 on Aug 31, 2006 10:43 AM CDT Comment 21 comments

I was reading Deadspin and a commentor stated that Jimbo's is closing because the landlord isn't renewing their lease. Does anybody have anymore information about this? Is there some type of gentrification going on?

If it is true, can we start a rally or a petition or a hunger strike? Although it's a dive, Jimbo's is a historical landmark. There are few things better than grabbing a couple of beers after a White Sox victory to avoid the initial "L" rush. Not to mention I love the one bartender's jorts. If you read this site - Mr. Jort-wearing-bartender - I love you. Not in the gay way. But in the You're-a-bartender-at-Jimbo's-and-you'll-wear-jorts-if-you-want type of way. That's an extra dollar tip for you my friend.

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

More info here

Last call threatens Jimbo's

by Ryno on Aug 31, 2006 11:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's ridiculous. In Hyde Park, where I went to

school, I would often go to the storied and historic Woodlawn Tap or "Jimmy's" (on 55th steet) before travelling 20 minutes north to Comiskey. That bar went through this same issue, although I believe it still survives. Taking away famous south side bars is a crime.

by southsidefan on Aug 31, 2006 11:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

no

different issue. what's going on with jimbo's is similar to what happened with cgbg in nyc. area around the bar got nicer, business in said area got better, so the landlord figured that they could get more money out of the lease holders. cgbg got priced out and had to close down, despite the protests of famous people.

what happened with jimmy's was bureaucracy. the original bar owner (jimmy?) died and the bar was sold off (his kids? somebody new? not sure). the liquor license couldn't be grandfathered in to the new owners, so they had to reapply starting from scratch. old jimmy's couldn't pass inspection for shit on a good day, so they had to remodel. after that was done, the city declared it was too close to the church/school across the street and thus violated proximity-to-minors laws. before all hope was lost, the pastor of the church testified that the parking lot was general use, and thus couldn't be used as a border for the school. the school was then deemed far enough away, jimmy's got its license, and the booze flowed. god saved the beer.

whether or not jimbo's is saved is another story. hopefully the land owner decides to not be a dick and doesn't price out the owner of jimbo's.

by thatshortkid on Aug 31, 2006 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the clarification.

It's still sad we have to fight for saving bars when they're one of a kind. Did CBGBs ever re-open in another location?

by southsidefan on Aug 31, 2006 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

one more detail

the city did not bring up the proximity to the school issue on its own. some jackass university of chicago student who chose to live above a bar was bitter about the noise and did all he could to get in the way of jimmy's reopening.

by Ooga on Aug 31, 2006 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

as a former "jackass"

i call bullshit. have you ever stepped foot in hyde park? or even been to jimmy's? those are beautiful second floor apartments, by the way.

do you know any u of c students? trying to close jimmy's could get one expelled.

next time, at least take 5 minutes to google some actual sources.

by thatshortkid on Sep 1, 2006 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, as a undergrad and grad of U of C

that is complete crap. I guess they built luxury townhomes above Jimmy's when we weren't looking.

by southsidefan on Sep 1, 2006 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

born and raised in hyde park

lived there from 1975 to 1993 and my parents are still in the neighborhood. my guess is i know substantially more about this situation (including some of the people directly involved) than either of you.

and yes, i hav met more than my share of of u of c students. a great lot. so great, in fact, that the school actually hired consultants to teach them how to try to make the school more fun. http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9602/9602Fun2.html

i especially like the u of c students who think hyde park is a dangerous place to live even after spending four years in the neighborhood.

you are right about one thing. i mistakenly wrote above, when i meant behind. the dude was crying about noise in the alley.

by Ooga on Sep 2, 2006 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

one more thing

for those of you who haven't been to jimmy's, it's worth a trip. even in it's new, up to code incarnation, it's a special place (and if you never went to the old version, you won't realize that you should miss things like a bathroom the size of a phone booth). a mix of people like i've never seen at another bar in chicago and delicious swissburgers.

by Ooga on Sep 2, 2006 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your understanding of the situation is fine,

but it's disturbing that you've decided to denegrate U of C students. I'm not sure from where your anger is coming. So, the beating of someone outside of Jimmy's coupled with the experience I had with three guys who followed me and my friends out of the bar and threatened to kick our asses and shoot us and then jumped on the hood of our car is just apocryphal?

Also, since you've never been involved directly with the social life of the school, I suggest you lay off that point, too.

I was in Hyde park from 1985 to 1994. I found the social life was more than fine (it's there if you want it and look for it). I also felt generally safe and walked all over the neighborhood at all times of the day.

by southsidefan on Sep 3, 2006 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why so defensive?

Ooga clearly used the term jackass to describe one U of C person and not the entire university. I'd say that someone who moves in next door to a bar and then complains about the noise is a jackass too.

by defensive indifference on Sep 3, 2006 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, read what he said more carefully...

He was ripping the U of C students in three different ways.

The closest building to the bar is a well-constructed, quite solid three-flat, I believe. There is also an alley between this building and Jimmy's and the kitchen door is likely where some of the noise was coming from (if it's open when the weather is warm). I've been outside Jimmy's many times and have heard little, if any noise coming from the bar, especially from the rear of the building.

Yes, if this story is true, it is inane for someone to bitch. But I have my doubts about its veracity. As to the other points, he has some issues with the U of C. If people bad mouthed your alma mater would you say, "Oh, o.k., no problem"? By the way, I thought your alias was defensive indifference, so why get involved?

by southsidefan on Sep 3, 2006 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

settle down

the thing about the POed student is true. and he didn't bash UC students in his first post. that's obvious to anyone who knows english. as to the other stuff he wrote, seems like it was pretty tongue in cheek to me.

by larry on Sep 3, 2006 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do you care? And why do you always

give me crap. And why do you think you're always right? I don't think it was tongue in cheek; there was no need for him to make an attack. I appreciate your finding hilarity in the reaction to Dirk's post. It's really funny to mock someone who's first language isn't English. Go bait someone else, dude. I've never given you shit. Just because you don't like my perspective doesn't mean you need to be a bully. Of course, you do it with others, too, so I guess there's some consolation in that.

by southsidefan on Sep 3, 2006 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

seriously relax

no one's giving you crap. don't take everything written here as an attack. it can be difficult to figure out what tone someone is writing in, stuff is written quickly, humor gets missed, etc. look up attributional bias. it might be helpful.

by larry on Sep 4, 2006 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for you help.

I'm well familiar with attributional bias. I don't take everything here as an attack. Look at the two comments you just made to me as well as some others, however, more carefully. You may find a reason for my perceptions.

For example, you could have ended the paragraph above without "Look up attributional bias. It might be helpful". Then your reply would have been an acceptable response and may have been construed as helpful. However, by including these two commennts, your tone comes off as snarky and patronizing.

Maybe you don't realize that the tone of your comments is unpleasant, then again, maybe you do. I don't really care to investigate your motives. Of course, feel free to have the last word. I suspect it might be helpful for you.

by southsidefan on Sep 4, 2006 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also went to UofC

While Jimmy's is OK, I get the feeling that if there were more than the Cove, Falcon, and Tiki Bar that it might not be so crowded. It's the best of a weak bunch. Even so, I was glad it was renovated and the issue with it being too close to the church/school was resolved. Hyde Park would have been less fun without it. I've only been to Jimbo's a few times, but it's my impression that there aren't many good bars in Bridgeport either. Hope they can swing a deal.

sue me, i like joe crede
Like pizza? Me too.

by FAQ on Sep 2, 2006 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heard about this yesterday

sounds like a power play by the landlord. i don't think this guy is going to have the balls to shut jimbo's. he'll just end up sticking them up for more rent money or profit sharing or something.

by larry on Aug 31, 2006 11:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That was the same issue with Jimmy's and they

survived it.

by southsidefan on Aug 31, 2006 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

While the owner is entitled to do

whatever he wants with the property, he is inviting some serious early opposition if he actually thinks his own restaurant/establishment will work. He must be serious too. He's been "unavailable for comment" for awhile. He knew there'd be Sox-related backlash. Then again, and just to be contrairian, even if he does boot Jimbo's, in 3 years no one will care. Outta sight, outta mind.

The landlord is kinda savvy though. From what I understand (and at the beginning of the year this was discussed at length by BridgeportJoe) the area is growing in value, and people live there all-year round not just during the Sox season. The landlord just betting on the trend.

I'm not saying it's right to kick out Jimbo's, I'm just saying...

Free Ross Gload

by james@lifeinthecell on Aug 31, 2006 12:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

we're not privy to the negotiations, of course

but it's hard to fault the landlord. i'm sure the property taxes have gone up. we all know what the neighborhood is becoming. anyone who has been to jimbo's knows how well they're doing (lots of people and that outdoor section is adding serious value) and can expect to keep doing. the landlord should get a cut of the increase. i'm betting what you have here is simply the landlord saying he wants the rent to increase one amount and jimbo's saying another lower value. it's not like this letter came out of the blue. no business begins negotiating their lease renewal a month before it expires. this will get settled before too long.

by larry on Aug 31, 2006 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs