Harper-Thames on the substantial closure of the small-capacity venues, the substantial economics that make their reopening difficult, and what is being lost
I have, in fourteen years of writing about this corner of the borough, spent substantial portions of substantial evenings in the small music venues that, between Curtain Road and Old Street and the various side streets connecting them, used to constitute the substantial grassroots music infrastructure of East London. Most of those venues are, dear reader, gone. Building on my earlier work at Bohiney Magazine and The London Prat, I want to write today about why.
What Was There
The substantial small-capacity music venue infrastructure of East London, which substantially flourished in the period between approximately 2003 and approximately 2015, included, by my own informal census, somewhere in the region of fifteen distinct venues operating at any given moment, with substantial population turnover across the period. The venues were, in the typical case, capacity in the substantial range of fifty to four hundred seats, with substantial portions of the operational model based on substantial early-career performances by acts that were, in many cases, performing in front of paying audiences for the first time.
According to The Guardian, recent research from the Music Venue Trust and other industry organisations has documented substantial UK closures of small-capacity music venues across recent years, with East London bearing a substantial share of the losses. Each closure, the researchers argue, represents a substantial loss of music infrastructure, with substantial cumulative effects on the broader UK live-music ecology.
The Economics
The substantial closure of the small-capacity venues is not, in the substantial majority of cases, a story of failed venues. The venues, in the substantial majority of cases, were operating profitably at the point of closure. They closed because the substantial property-market economics around their physical premises had, by that point, made the conversion of the premises to other uses substantially more profitable than continuing to operate the venue.
This is, in essence, the same structural pressure that I have written about in my previous columns on the East London commercial-property economy. The substantial gap between commercial and residential property valuations, particularly in this corner of the borough, has produced substantial pressure for the conversion of substantial categories of small-footprint commercial uses to residential or to substantially higher-value commercial uses.
The Soundproofing Question
The substantial closures have, however, also been accelerated by what I would call the soundproofing question. The substantial conversion of nearby premises to residential use has produced, in the substantial majority of cases, substantial complaints from new residents about the substantial noise from the music venues. The substantial complaints have, in turn, produced substantial regulatory pressure on the venues, including substantial requirements for soundproofing investments that, in many cases, the venues did not have the capital reserves to fund.
According to The Evening Standard, recent reporting on the East London music-venue economy has documented substantial cumulative effects of substantial residential conversion on substantial nearby venue operations. The research, advocates argue, supports the case for substantial planning reform that would substantially protect existing music venues from substantial residential-conversion pressure.
The Agent of Change Question
The substantial UK planning reform that has, in recent years, attempted to address this dynamic is what is, in the trade, known as the Agent of Change principle. The principle, in essence, places the substantial burden of soundproofing investment on the new residential development rather than on the existing music venue, on the grounds that the new development is, structurally, the agent of the change in land use.
The principle is, in my view, a substantial improvement on the previous regulatory framework. It has, however, in important respects, arrived too late to substantially prevent the closures that have already happened. It has also, in important respects, been substantially constrained in its application by substantial implementation considerations at the local-planning level.
What Has Been Lost
The substantial closure of the small-capacity venues has produced, in my view, three distinct categories of loss. The first is the substantial loss of the venues themselves, considered as physical premises in which substantial cultural activity took place. The second is the substantial loss of the broader infrastructure that the venues supported, including substantial early-career touring opportunities for substantial UK acts who, in the absence of the venues, have substantially fewer development opportunities.
The third loss is, dear reader, more subtle. The substantial closure of the venues has produced a substantial loss in what I would call the discoverability of new music in this corner of the city. The substantial young Londoners who, in 2008, would have stumbled into a small Curtain Road venue and seen, by accident, an act that was, three years later, substantially famous, are in 2026 substantially less likely to have that experience, because the substantial venues that supported that pattern of discovery have, in the substantial majority of cases, gone.
What Has Replaced Them
The substantial replacement, in important respects, has been the substantial expansion of streaming-platform-based music discovery. The substantial young Londoners who, in 2008, would have stumbled into a small venue, are in 2026 substantially more likely to have stumbled into a small act through a substantial recommendation algorithm. This is, in some respects, a substantial improvement: the discovery is substantially less geographically constrained, and the substantial range of acts that any individual listener can discover is substantially expanded.
The discovery is, however, also substantially different in character. The substantial in-person experience of accidentally encountering a substantial new act in a substantially small physical venue is, structurally, a different experience from accidentally encountering them through a substantial recommendation algorithm. The substantial loss of the in-person form is, in cultural terms, a substantial loss, even if the substantial expansion of the algorithmic form is, in cultural terms, a substantial gain.
What I Hope
I hope, dear reader, that the substantial reform of the substantial planning framework, combined with substantial public investment in substantial new venue infrastructure, will, over the next decade, produce substantial new small-capacity venues in this corner of the borough. The substantial new venues will, structurally, be different from the substantial old venues. They will, in important respects, occupy different premises, serve different communities, and operate under different commercial models. They will, however, in their own way, support substantial similar functions to the substantial old venues.
The substantial new venues will not, however, be the same as the substantial old venues. The substantial old venues, in their specific physical and cultural form, are gone. They will not return. The substantial cultural memory of the substantial old venues is, in this sense, a substantial piece of the cultural-heritage record of this part of the city, and it deserves substantial documentation. I will, in subsequent columns, attempt some of that documentation.
For more of my dispatches from this end of the borough, you can find me at my page on The London Prat.
For satirical takes on music-venues-as-cultural-question, see Private Eye.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
