One of my friends of Prague posted this slideshow about how pubs have changed in Prague since the Velvet Revolution and it got me thinking about how pubs changed in the 10 years I lived there. One of the first pubs in the city that I went to regularly is called Planeta Žižkov. Back in 1999 Planeta served Lobkowiz beer, but today it is just another Staropramen pub. I guess these pictures are fairly recent, and it still looks pretty similar to the days when the manager of the language school I worked for would get drunk and sack everyone. A very good reason not to go to Planeta these days is the minor fact that right opposite it is the venerable U Slovanské Lípy, a proper boozer with awesome beer at insanely low prices.
Of course the slideshow and accompanying commentary by and large lament the changes in pub culture brought about by the free market, whilst ignoring the advances that the free market have bought to the Prague beer scene. Without the free market, would a place like Zlý Časy be able to offer beers from around the world, including Left Hand's magnificent imperial stout? Perhaps I am going out on a limb here, but without the free market would consumers be able to choose to go to a non-smoking pub like Pivovarský klub? Let me clarify that though by saying I do not, never have and never will support a blanket ban on smoking in pubs (and I say that as a non-smoker). Sure it is nice to go home from the pub reeking of only booze instead of booze and smoke, but I have always held the opinion that I know when I go to the pub that people are likely to smoke, and so I make an informed decision whether or not to go.
As much as I hate to see pubs shut, and during a decade of drinking Czech lager I saw many of my favourite watering holes disappear or change under new management, I come to the conclusion that if the pub is to survive then it needs to adapt to the market place. One of the curses, for want of a better word, of the craft beer movement, at least here in the States, is that craft beer is more expensive that macrobrew. A pint of Pabst Blue Ribbon costs about $2.50 here in Charlottesville, whereas something from Samuel Adams usually runs to double that, and very "exotic" beers can cost as much as $15 a pint. In effect craft beer, at least in the US context, becomes a niche product only available to those sufficiently well off to pay for it, and runs against the grain of beer as the everyman drink.
The economics of beer drinking in the US is viciously slanted against pub culture, especially when the economy isn't doing so well. People will still drink, sure, but I wonder how many people are abandoning the pub simply because a 6 pack is a cheaper option than a couple of pints? Perhaps this explains why many people here brew their own beer?
An average batch of homebrew for me costs about $1.75 a bottle, and even my recent barleywine will stretch that out to only about $2.50 a bottle. Thus it was with interest that I read on James' blog about North Dakota possibly allowing home brewers the possibility of getting a license to sell their beer at trade shows. I think this kind of legislation is an excellent idea, and of course it promotes the free market (so no doubt the big brewers would be horrified at all the extra competition). Given the possibility of selling their wares, homebrewers would be encouraged to improve their procedures and recipes. If I could sell my beers for just $0.75 more than cost then I am making a little cash out of my hobby, and hopefully giving people something reasonably priced and good to drink. Now imagine you could get a license to sell your beer on draught from your kegerator, in your garage or basement, suddenly we are seeing a return of the public house.
Perhaps, and this is just romantic surmising I am sure, the future of the pub is a return of beer as a cottage industry?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they way I see it, the reason why there isn't a proper pub culture in the US is that many, if not most, affluent people do not live in the cities, but in residential only areas, few cities have a decent public transportation network and people live far from their working places.
ReplyDeleteHere in Europe, or at least in much of the continent, you can see pubs (or the local equivalent) in pretty much every village, cities usually have good public transportation and more people live closer to their workplaces (most of the cities I know do not have a "Downtown" area in the American sense).
PS: I'm not as opposed to a blanket ban on smoking as I'm opposed to the selfish twats that most loudly campaign for it. They are always saying that THEY don't want to be forced to breath second hand smoke when they dine or drink out, as if going to a restaurant/pub/café was mandatory, but I don't think I have ever heard or read any of them mentioning the staff at those places, who don't have that much of a choice.
I think public transport plays a role in the absence of pub culture in many parts of the US, especially outside the major cities. However, I am not convinced it is the defining reason. Not sure about other states, but here in VA you must serve food if you want to sell alcohol, thus increasing the initial investment required to open a business.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the long term survival of a Pub is really the connection to the people it serves. The barkeep can't solve Joe's problems, but at least he knows what his favorites are and has time for a quick story when business gets slow. The barkeep has been there for years, not suddenly changed each school semester.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteSpot on. The staff are key to creating a pub where people want to go back time and again. I have written before that the position of bar staff needs to be more valued than it currently is.