Analysis of the Nightclub Clusters in Toronto, London, and New York City
Jenny Wu
Abstract:
This research study takes a closer look into
understanding the nightclub clustering situated in 3
distinct cities around the world; Toronto (CAN), London
(UK), and New York City (US). The sample consisted of
20 nightclubs from each city, totaling 60. There were 2
objectives for this research: (1) was to test Chatterton
and Hollands’ hypothesis of “corporatization and
branding ownership” to understand why “alternative”
and “eccentric” nightclubs have become obsolete and
were being replaced by “mainstream” types of urban
nightlife (2) was to test Patterson and Silver’s
hypothesis of “critical mass,” “urbanity,” and “perfect
audience” to understand the clustering patterns present
in each city. The main sources referenced for
information on the nightclubs were: Yelp, Google, and
the club’s own website. Data gathered included:
business hours of operation, if they provided corporate
meeting rooms, if they were corporately owned, spatial
analysis on the clusters, and an analysis distinguishing
who their target market was. Upon review of the data, it
can be concluded that the trend of “mainstream”
nightclubs cannot be attributed to corporatization alone.
Also, it can be concluded that critical mass, urbanity,
and perfect audience do explain some of the clustering
patterns.
Key words: nightclub clustering, corporatization,
branding ownership, mainstream nightlife, critical mass,
urbanity, perfect audience
Introduction
Toronto, London, and New York City are distinct
cities. However, their nightlife may be another
story. Given the data that was collected during this
research study, they may all follow the same
strategical blueprint while aiming for the same
target market.
Culture, Creativity, and Cities Capstone Course | Dept. of Sociology | University of Toronto – Scarborough
1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4 Canada
Background
In Chatterton and Hollands’ “Theorising Urban
Playscapes: Producing, Regulating and Consuming
Youthful Nightlife City Spaces” (2002), they stated
that the nightlife in London has shifted from
“alternative” and “eccentric” to a homogenous
“mainstream” type of nightlife. One of their
hypotheses were that this pattern was due to three
interrelated aspects. The one analyzed in this
research is production, which can be seen in the
corporatization and branding ownership of each
nightclub.
In Patterson and Silver’s “The Place of Art: Local
Area Character” (2015), they stated that clustering
patterns could be explained by 5 factors. The 3
factors analyzed in this research are critical mass,
urbanity, and perfect audience. Critical mass is
when growth occurs in existing established areas.
Urbanity is when growth occurs in cities. Finally,
perfect audience is where the population’s
preferences become vital in the success of the
district.
Methods
The sample of this study included 60 nightclubs
total, with 20 from each city. For each respective
city, the first 20 nightclubs suggested by Google
were selected. A spatial analysis was done by
mapping out all of the nightclubs. To gather the
data required to examine the hypotheses, a coding
sheet was created. The variables included were:
hours open (on Friday), number of days open, price
of admission, if they had a corporate meeting
room, if they were corporately owned, and what
their target audience was.
The data on hours open and number of days
open was taken from Google. The price of
admission was taken from Yelp on a scale from
1 ($) cheap to 4 ($$$$) expensive. Data to
determine if they had a corporate room available
and what type of target audience they were
aiming for were gauged from their marketing on
their social media and websites.
Findings
Based on the spatial analysis done during phase
1 of this study, clusters of nightclubs were
identified in each city. However, they were not
located in the same type of districts. Toronto’s
cluster was in the city’s downtown area, known
as the Entertainment District. London’s cluster
was found in the west end of the city, in Soho,
which was known for its shopping and nightlife.
New York City’s cluster was found mainly in
the Manhattan Borough, the clubs were spread
across Chelsea, which was known for its
LGBTQ population and art district. To
distinguish which areas were more densely
packed with nightclubs, zones were
implemented on the maps. Zones ranged from 1-
4, 4 being on the outer edge of the clusters.
Toronto’s nightclubs were the most densely
populated, with majority of them falling in zone
1. London’s nightclubs were evenly distributed
with majority in zone in 1 and 2 and tapering off
in zones 3 and 4. New York City’s distribution
of nightclubs was the most even across all zones.
One of the findings during the coding stage was
that most of the nightclubs across all three cities
were marketed as dance clubs, then as bars, and
lastly, as lounges. In terms of their hours of
operation and number of days open, it varied
from city to city. The average pricing in the 3
cities were roughly the same. In our sample,
nightclubs that were owned by a corporation
Culture, Creativity, and Cities Capstone Course | Dept. of Sociology | University of Toronto – Scarborough
1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4 Canada
were relatively rare. Out of the 20 clubs sampled
in each city, the most found were 4 in NYC, 3 of
which belonged to the same corporation.
Regarding corporate meeting rooms, more than
half in Toronto had one and were advertising it
on their websites. London and New York City
both only had 5. After examining their websites,
majority of the marketing was aimed at
attracting young adults and young professionals
by showing images of others in that age range at
the events. An important thing to note is that
based on the websites sampled, they generally
gave off the same impression and feel.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The analysis of the data collected clearly
indicates evidence of the shift from “eccentric”
and “alternative” nightclubs to a more
“mainstream” type. However, this pattern cannot
solely be attributed to “corporatization and
branding ownership” as per Chatterton and
Hollands’ article. Patterson and Silver’s “critical
mass” and “urbanity” theories proved to be true
since these clusters are located in high traffic
districts located in the 3 cities. Also, their theory
on “perfect audience” is reflected in the
population in the area in general, as they are
looking for an interesting and entertaining night.
Further research could be done by interviewing
the owners of the nightclubs to have a better
understanding of the reasoning behind their
location and target marketing tactics. Also,
speaking with urban planners and government
officials could help explain why those districts
were not used for other purposes.
References
Chatterton, Paul and Hollands, Robert.
“Theorising Urban Playscapes: Producing,
Regulating, and Consuming Youthful Nightlife
City Spaces.” Urban Studies, Carfax
Publication, 39 (2002): 95–116.

Patterson, Matt and Silver, Daniel. “The Place of

Art: Local Area Character, 2001–2011.” Poetics,
Elsevier, no. 51 (2015): 67–87.

Culture, Creativity, and Cities Capstone Course | Dept. of Sociology | University of Toronto – Scarborough
1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4 Canada