The New Retail Thread

[jl326]

I thought of expressing a similar sentiment yesterday, and then recalled that some folks don't cotton to my brand of social criticism. Methinks "Better Sorts" would be better named "The Douche Chiller."

Nothing wrong if it's all in the name of good light fun. The forum could use some levity once in a while. I personally would suggest "Wankers."

Actually.. I wonder if using a self-deprecating name would actually tend to attract more respectable clientele than a try-hard name like "Better Sorts" would.

 

[Lrfox]

Looks like Townsman is closing for good tomorrow https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-this-week/oBkRV0BjeED0Qrg39OR94O/story.html

 

[Coyote137]

The Intermission Tavern has gotten a couple of extensions, and remains open for now (albeit apparently closed this week).

The Tam, Beacon Hill Pub, Mary Ann's, and Sullivan's have all been sold (as a group/same owners). No word yet on what will become of them.

 

[sm89]

The Intermission Tavern has gotten a couple of extensions, and remains open for now (albeit apparently closed this week).

The Tam, Beacon Hill Pub, Mary Ann's, and Sullivan's have all been sold (as a group/same owners). No word yet on what will become of them.

Did they all have the same owner?

 

[Beton Brut]

The Tam, Beacon Hill Pub, Mary Ann's, and Sullivan's have all been sold (as a group/same owners). No word yet on what will become of them.

In all seriousness, the death of the dive bar appalls me. In my misspent youth, I drank a river in places like the Tam and the Beacon Hill Pub. With Crossroads, T.C. Lounge, and The Other Side all consigned to the dustbin of history, where are proper Bostonians to go for a cold High Life, away from the steely-eyed gaze of hipsters?

 

[Lrfox]

In all seriousness, the death of the dive bar appalls me. In my misspent youth, I drank a river in places like the Tam and the Beacon Hill Pub. With Crossroads, T.C. Lounge, and The Other Side all consigned to the dustbin of history, where are proper Bostonians to go for a cold High Life, away from the steely-eyed gaze of hipsters?

Agreed. It's no mystery as to why they're dying, but it's sad. Both places are still extremely popular (I've never been to Mary Ann's). They just don't bring in the money like a place that serves "elevated cocktails." I know they haven't announced changes, but new owners certainly aren't going to just let these places in these locations stay the same.

At least I still have Sligo. For now.

 

[atlantaden]

In all seriousness, the death of the dive bar appalls me. In my misspent youth, I drank a river in places like the Tam and the Beacon Hill Pub. With Crossroads, T.C. Lounge, and The Other Side all consigned to the dustbin of history, where are proper Bostonians to go for a cold High Life, away from the steely-eyed gaze of hipsters?

What, they don't have cold High Life at Eastern Standard??

 

[Suffolk 83]

These are sad days we live in Boston proper. There's just no cheap watering holes anymore.

 

[JumboBuc]

Blame the cap on liquor licenses. With the laws restricting supply as they are, it makes no sense to use up a license selling cheap beer and liquor. The prudent choice for any dive bar proprietor would be to sell that license to someone else who will use it to sell $10+ drinks.

Under a more generous licensing regime, dive bars and expensive bars could coexist. But under restricted license supply they are forced to compete for existence, and of course the expensive places will be able to outbid the dives.

 

[Suffolk 83]

Maybe partially Jumbo but a big part of it has to be property values/rent. You cant sell $3 Gansets all day and expect to pay the exorbitant rent/mortgage/taxes

 

[JumboBuc]

Maybe partially Jumbo but a big part of it has to be property values/rent. You cant sell $3 Gansets all day and expect to pay the exorbitant rent/mortgage/taxes

Yeah, of course rent is a big factor too. But even $3 Gansets have pretty good margins, compared to lots of other retail goods.

But if you compare bars to, say, coffee shops, an increase in expensive coffee shops doesn't force Dunkin off the market the way an influx in expensive bars forces dive bars out of business. This is because Dunkin and Nero don't have to compete for limited coffee licenses the way bars have to compete for limited liquor licenses.

 

[fattony]

Blame the cap on liquor licenses. With the laws restricting supply as they are, it makes no sense to use up a license selling cheap beer and liquor. The prudent choice for any dive bar proprietor would be to sell that license to someone else who will use it to sell $10+ drinks.

Under a more generous licensing regime, dive bars and expensive bars could coexist. But under restricted license supply they are forced to compete for existence, and of course the expensive places will be able to outbid the dives.

Maybe partially Jumbo but a big part of it has to be property values/rent. You cant sell $3 Gansets all day and expect to pay the exorbitant rent/mortgage/taxes

I think Jumbo makes a good point about liquor licenses compounding the problem for bars. Rent also factors in, of course, but I don't think it is right to describe every rent increase as "exorbitant." Just because (e.g.) The Tam can't pay the rent doesn't mean the rent is unreasonable. It just means The Tam makes less revenue than someone else could make. It is only exorbitant if they can't find anyone willing to pay the rent.

I also lament the closure of dive bars and cheap-eats, but I blame Boston's scarcity of supply more than anything else. New York doesn't have a problem supporting dives and hot dog joints and it obviously isn't because their rents are cheaper than Boston. It is because there is much lower barrier to entry and therefore much higher competition. You can walk into just about any typical watering hole in New York at any time of day or night and grab a seat at the bar. There is hardly a purveyor of beer in downtown Boston or Cambridge that isn't slammed from 5-10pm every day of the week.

We simply need more bars and restaurants.

 

[Shepard]

Not sure if any US cities have done this, but Sydney piloted a "Small Bars" special licensing which allows ultra-small venues to bypass a lot of the cost and bureaucracy of serving alcohol. It created a sudden blossoming of tiny hole-in-the-wall joints across the CBD.

 

[commuter guy]

Boston has taken baby steps to change the situation, but so much needs to be done to help local entrepreneurs without a large amount of capital backing. Increasing the availability of geographically restricted liquor licenses in outlying Boston neighborhoods doesn't help the situation/economic dynamic in central Boston.

 

[Beton Brut]

....so much needs to be done to help local entrepreneurs without a large amount of capital backing.

And our "tribalism" in Boston is the real issue here.

For example, where neighborhood associations are involved, if "Charlie" applies for a license, it sails through approval, but if "Carlos" is the applicant, there's a lot of push-back. I'm sick to death of seeing it in my own neighborhood.

And the inherent racism we see across the region is only a component of our deep mistrust of "outsiders." If the proponent of a new restaurant or bar is new to the community, they're treated with disdain and mistrust.

In too many ways, we're a hick town with skyscrapers.

 

[617]

Croke Park, Murphy’s law in southie among others are still around and they’re a dump...Charlestown still has new sullys cash only.

 

[FenwayResident]

And our "tribalism" in Boston is the real issue here.

For example, where neighborhood associations are involved, if "Charlie" applies for a license, it sails through approval, but if "Carlos" is the applicant, there's a lot of push-back. I'm sick to death of seeing it in my own neighborhood.

And the inherent racism we see across the region is only a component of our deep mistrust of "outsiders." If the proponent of a new restaurant or bar is new to the community, they're treated with disdain and mistrust.

In too many ways, we're a hick town with skyscrapers.

It's over-regulation that allows busy bodies to have this sort of power. If a property is in a commercial/retail zone it shouldn't have to get community approval for a liquor license. It should be a simple health and safety checklist to make sure the establishment can safely serve alcohol. Charge a couple hundred dollars for the inspection and call it a day.

 

[Beton Brut]

^^ Agreed. When residents begin thinking that a bar is a "nightclub" because it has a karaoke night or a jukebox (I believe both currently require an "entertainment license" from the City) we've arrived in Crazytown.

And with better regulations and a more streamlined process, there should also be a better system to hold owners and their patrons to account.

 

[JumboBuc]

Boston has taken baby steps to change the situation, but so much needs to be done to help local entrepreneurs without a large amount of capital backing. Increasing the availability of geographically restricted liquor licenses in outlying Boston neighborhoods doesn't help the situation/economic dynamic in central Boston.

Geographically restricted licenses do help the dynamic in central Boston to the extent that non-geographically-restricted licenses move downtown when geographically-restricted licenses are introduced.

We saw this in the flap over Redd's in Rozzie. The City proposed introducing more geographically-restricted licenses for Roslindale, so Redd's in Rozzie, which had an un-restricted license, cashed out and sold theirs to a downtown establishment before the new restricted licenses could be introduced. Presumably, if and when the new restricted licenses do come out, one of those cheaper ones can replace the expensive one Redd's sold.

If you follow this through, it would make sense for all neighborhoods where restricted licenses are introduced to sell their un-restricted licenses to neighborhoods where restricted licenses don't exist. So supply in neighborhoods without restricted licenses will increase somewhat with the introduction of restricted licenses in other neighborhoods.

It's over-regulation that allows busy bodies to have this sort of power. If a property is in a commercial/retail zone it shouldn't have to get community approval for a liquor license. It should be a simple health and safety checklist to make sure the establishment can safely serve alcohol. Charge a couple hundred dollars for the inspection and call it a day.

^^ Agreed. When residents begin thinking that a bar is a "nightclub" because it has a karaoke night or a jukebox (I believe both currently require an "entertainment license" from the City) we've arrived in Crazytown.

What drives me batty is that you need a special license just to play any sort of music even if you don't serve liquor. Tenoch in Davis got tied up in regulatory approval and community meetings for a bit before they opened because they wanted to play recorded music over the speakers in their taco and torta joint. If neighbors can hold up a restaurant over that, just imagine what would happen if they tried to serve margaritas...

 

[fattony]

So supply in neighborhoods without restricted licenses will increase somewhat with the introduction of restricted licenses in other neighborhoods.

This is true. Given the present state of our screwed up system, even restricted licences effectively increase supply across the city. But it is slow and reactionary. We have a system that guarantees we are always lagging behind demand (in housing, retail, bars, etc) which benefits the long-established at the expense of everyone else.