The proposal sounds sensible to me – creates a flexibility that many pedestrianised areas don’t have. And lets face it, we only need it pedestrianised over the weekend. Even London doesn’t have a pedestrianised gay village!
Erecting a psychological barrier between straights and gays? Not a great idea. Liverpool already has an area where nearly all the gay bars are located. Why try and mimic Manchester by calling it a ‘gay village’?
Liverpool is trying to make the most of what it’s got, what’s wrong with that? At present, it is just not viable to hve outside seating in the Stanley Street area, that is why we are pushing for pedestrianisation. For yur information, I don’t now one regular on the Liverpool scene who actually calls this area the ‘gay village’. There’s nothing villagey about it. If anything, it’s a gay quarter, call a spade a spade. Chinatown is Chinatown. And if you’ve spent time in this area you will know that heterosexuals are certainly not excluded, on the contrary. Liverpool has one of the most mixed, liberal gay scenes I’ve ever been to. Manchester’s Gay Village in this sense is introspective.
Liverpool’s ‘GayTown’ – I like it!
I think its a great move forward for liverpool and its scence – i agree with the earlier comment that most people who use the scence refer to it as a gay quarter rather than a village. I think the opportunity to enchance to provisions for the community are emmense – a cafe culture in the area of stanley straight can only move to improve and open up Liverpools gay commnuity and not keep it and us hidden away!