“Say Goodbye to the BYOB” in Philly Mag

[Mano]

I just received my copy of the March 2006 Philadelphia Magazine, and just read Aliza Green’s “Say Goodbye to the BYOB” on page 187. This is one of the most wrongheaded articles I’ve ever read. Although I’ve never heard of Green, she has written cookbooks, was part of the Philadelphia restaurant renaissance in the 1970s and is a restaurant consultant. She also has a web site.

In her commentary, Green initially notes the proliferation of “small imaginative low-budget storefront BYOB’s” but complains, “They represent the entirely wrong direction for our city’s culinary future.” Green mentions the “obstacles presented by the LCB” but doesn’t say what they are. Indeed, she never acknowledges that Philadelphia liquor licenses are limited in number and rising in cost, nor does she recommend that the PLCB increase number of licenses. I believe BYOBs are the perfect direction for Philadelphia’s culinary future, because they are lower risk opportunities for restaurateurs to develop their business and culinary skills. BYOBs are, in some ways no different than fledgling independent film makers of small low budget movies. Moreover, there are many excellent seasoned restauranteurs who prefer to run smaller BYOBs rather than deal with the hassle of a larger venue. Not all of us aspire to become Steven Starr.

Green then goes on to dictate what she believes the “complete dining experience” should be. While it may be right for her, I don’t necessarily want mine to include a 300% markup on wine. Moreover, her faith in the coveted wine list is not shared by me. Most affordable restaurants don’t have a sommelier and many select their wines based on popularity, not on whether they’re a good match for the food.

Green’s true colors emerge when she admits never going to those very restaurants that epitomize the very best of BYOBs. In fact, other than having worked at some BYOBs in the 1970s, she never indicates having been to one. Instead, she whines about the “hassles of buying wine, what kind to choose, how many bottles to bring, how to transport them and what temperature.” (She’s a restaurant consultant?) Why not call the restaurant and ask when you make the reservation. If not, here are the answers:

1. Choose the wine you like best or call the restaurant for a recommendation, or ask at the State Store

2. Bring as many bottles as you might order if they had a wine list. Then add another bottle just because you can.

3. The same paper bag as the wine came in, or go buy a wine bag/carrier; they’re available at all state stores

4. Same temperature as you bought it. The BYOB will have an ice bucket for whites, and if you’re not sure, ask the BYOB server and use an ice bucket to slightly chill a red (she’s REALLY a restaurant consultant?)

Green then tries to legitimize herself by quoting Aimee Oxely, who stated that a great meal may be compromised by bringing a cheap bottle of wine. I think Oxely’s comment was meant to encourage people to think of bringing better wine to Django. It’s not an endorsement of closing down BYOBs. Green would be better off promoting better wine knowledge.

Just because Green likes to start dinner off with a professionally made cocktail and peruse a wine list, doesn’t mean we all do. I typically prefer no cocktail and the opportunity to bring my own wine. If I want the same dining experience as she, I’ll go to a restaurant with a bar.

Green really shows her ignorance by asserting that “service can be diminished by the lack of a liquor license; waiters depend on wine and cocktail sales for about half their tips, and the most-skilled follow the money.” If that logic were true, some of the best wait-staff should be at Fridays, or similar chain restaurants that serve lots of liquor. Moreover, I’d then be entitled to only poor service if I didn’t order wine or booze. Where does she get her information, or does she believe that just because something makes sense to her, it must be true.

Green asserts that our BYOBs are known only to locals, requiring out-of-towners to search for state stores to buy their wine. Because this may be too daunting a task, these people are then somehow forced to go chain restaurants with liquor licenses. How is this a fault or shortcoming of the BYOBs? Why isn’t Green lobbying Harrisburg to make wine and liquor licenses more plentiful and affordable for the erstwhile BYOB owners?

She then concludes by asking, “Where are all the dynamic chef-owners and restaurateurs of tomorrow, who will bring this town the culinary accolades it deserves? Unfortunately they’re playing it safe by opening BYOBs”

Green should be ashamed of herself, for if she is truly a restaurant professional, she knows full well that anyone who opens a restaurant is taking a huge risk. Opening and running a restaurant is not “playing it safe.”

Whew! That’s my rant.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Mano (log)

[Jeff L]

In her commentary, Green initially notes the proliferation of “small imaginative low-budget storefront BYOB’s” but complains, “They represent the entirely wrong direction for our city’s culinary future.” 

This is exactly the right direction in my opinion.

Green mentions the “obstacles presented by the LCB” but doesn’t say what they are.  Indeed, she never acknowledges that Philadelphia liquor licenses are limited in number and rising in cost, nor does she recommend that the PLCB increase number of licenses. I think this is a good thing for a few reasons, not the least of which is I don't like paying much more for the wine I have at home in a restaurant with a liquor license.

I believe BYOBs are the perfect direction for Philadelphia’s culinary future, because they are lower risk opportunities for restaurateurs to develop their business and culinary skills.  BYOBs are, in some ways no different than fledgling independent film makers of small low budget movies.  Moreover, there are many excellent seasoned restauranteurs who prefer to run smaller BYOBs rather than deal with the hassle of a larger venue.  Not all of us aspire to become Steven Starr. I completely agree!

Green then goes on to dictate what she believes the “complete dining experience” should be.  While it may be right for her, I don’t necessarily want mine to include a 300% markup on wine.  Moreover, her faith in the coveted wine list is not shared by me.  Most affordable restaurants don’t have a sommelier and many select their wines based on popularity, not on whether they’re a good match for the food. Also, most wine lists in those "affordable" places are subpar at best.

Green’s true colors emerge when she admits never going to those very restaurants that epitomize the very best of BYOBs.  In fact, other than having worked at some BYOBs in the 1970s, she never indicates having been to one.  Instead, she whines about the “hassles of buying wine, what kind to choose, how many bottles to bring, how to transport them and what temperature.”  (She’s a restaurant consultant?)  Why not call the restaurant and ask when you make the reservation.  If not, here are the answers:

1. Choose the wine you like best or call the restaurant for a recommendation, or ask at the State Store -

2. Bring as many bottles as you might order if they had a wine list.  Then add another bottle just because you can.

3. The same paper bag as the wine came in, or go buy a wine bag/carrier; they’re available at all state stores

4. Same temperature as you bought it.  The BYOB will have an ice bucket for whites, and if you’re not sure, ask the BYOB server and use an ice bucket to slightly chill a red (she’s REALLY a restaurant consultant?)

Green then tries to legitimize herself by quoting Aimee Oxely, who stated that a great meal may be compromised by bringing a cheap bottle of wine.  I think Oxely’s comment was meant to encourage people to think of bringing better wine to Django.  It’s not an endorsement of closing down BYOBs.  Green would be better off promoting better wine knowledge. 

Just because Green likes to start dinner off with a professionally made cocktail and peruse a wine list, doesn’t mean we all do.  I typically prefer no cocktail and the opportunity to bring my own wine.  If I want the same dining experience as she, I’ll go to a restaurant with a bar.

Green really shows her ignorance by asserting that “service can be diminished by the lack of a liquor license; waiters depend on wine and cocktail sales for about half their tips, and the most-skilled follow the money.”  If that logic were true, some of the best wait-staff should be at Fridays, or similar chain restaurants that serve lots of liquor.  Moreover, I’d then be entitled to only poor service if I didn’t order wine or booze.  Where does she get her information, or does she believe that just because something makes sense to her, it must be true. Many people believe that one shouldn't tip for booze at all!

Green asserts that our BYOBs are known only to locals, requiring out-of-towners to search for state stores to buy their wine.  Because this may be too daunting a task, these people are then somehow forced to go chain restaurants with liquor licenses.  How is this a fault or shortcoming of the BYOBs?  Why isn’t Green lobbying Harrisburg to make wine and liquor licenses more plentiful and affordable for the erstwhile BYOB owners? Now do we really want her to do that? I like it just fine with all the myriad top rate byo's in town.

She then concludes by asking, “Where are all the dynamic chef-owners and restaurateurs of tomorrow, who will bring this town the culinary accolades it deserves?  Unfortunately they’re playing it safe by opening BYOBs”

Green should be ashamed of herself, for if she is truly a restaurant professional, she knows full well that anyone who opens a restaurant is taking a huge risk.  Opening and running a restaurant is not  “playing it safe.”

Whew!  That’s my rant.

←

Not for nothing, but this is one of the reasons I cancelled my subscription many years ago. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but she seems to have completely missed what is undoubtedly one of the most exciting things to happen to the Philadelphia food scene in many years

[Vadouvan]

I just read it too.....

You should direct this rant to the political patronage and greed that keeps the LCB going not Aliza Green. I know her personally and while you may disagree with her, she know's her stuff.

BYOB's are good for the city and they should not be closed or "ended", Liquor licenses should just be cheaper. The LCB isnt protecting the public, its money and greed.

I do agree with her that philadelphia is not evolving culinarily. BYOB's are great but we are getting to a point where nothing new is happening in town. We need more mid priced restaurants that arent BYOB's, Starr Restaurants and Old city bars disguised as restaurants,

Amada is the first Salvo and I hope more places like Amada with talented chefs and fair alchohol prices open. I think that is the crux of her argument.

By the way, seems like this month is the attack on BYOB's as evidenced by philly weekly's review of OUT OF THE BLUE .....

[Mano]

Vadouvan, she probably does "know her stuff" but she sure didn't show it in her article. The crux of her argument is not for there to be "more places like Amada with talented chefs and fair alchohol prices." Green obviously didn't do the necessary research, and her premise that BYOBs are somehow responsible for the slow evolution of the restaurant scene has no basis. It was a shoot-from-the-hip commontary written by someone who "knows her stuff." Green shot herself in the foot.

A better angle would've been for her to appeal to those people with the means and inclination to open the restaurants she desires.

I know the difference between the two. Some of the best meals I've eaten have been at BYOBs, but my best dining experiences have been mostly at high-end restaurants that serve wine. I patronize the former more often, as that's what I can afford. I go to the latter on those rare special occassions.

As for the excellent more affordable places with liquor licenses, such as Amada, I still don't see how BYOBs relate to them in any negative fashion. We certainly would benefit from more of them.

If she really knew and cared about the Philly restaurant scene, she'd promote excellent food and service, regardless of whether or not the place was a BYOB.

I'm feelin' ornery tonight.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Mano (log)

[shacke]

Amada is the first Salvo and I hope more places like Amada with talented chefs and fair alchohol prices open.

←

Ansill is another good example of this too.

Evan

[Capaneus]

Amada is the first Salvo and I hope more places like Amada with talented chefs and fair alchohol prices open.

←

Ansill is another good example of this too.

Evan

←

The crux of my problem with Ms. Green's argument, though, is that prior to the BYO explosion I saw no inkling whatever that Philadelphia restaurateurs were interested in operating in this manner. The number of thoughtful, reasonaby-priced wine lists in this city could have been counted on a single-celled critter's fingers (well, maybe two). The fact that they are occurring more and more frequently recently is something I see as another benefit of the BYO culture, not as an indictement. As, for that matter, is the increased sophistication of Philadelphia's wine-drinkers, as they are compelled to navigate the wine purchase unassisted.

To blame BYOs for being relatively unambitious is wrong-headed: most restaurants of every kind are mediocre; as, for that matter, are enterprises of every kind. I don't believe the proportion of above-average unlicensed restaurants is any lower than that of the overall restaurant population.

Ms. Green's problems strike me as being a reflection of the screeds we keep hearing from the disgruntled restaurateurs who see their customer base eroded by, frankly, better choices elsewhere. I wish she focused a bit more on protecting the interest of her readers, and less on the woes of the established restaurant community.

[Rich Pawlak]

I've known Aliza Green professionally for years, but I have no idea why or from where she came to this conclusion. However, it is important to note that she isn't "consulting" any BYOBs.

If nothing else, BYOBs, it seems to me, have liberated both chefs and restaurant patrons, and have given Philly and environs a culinary niche of whcih it can be proud. They allow for more entrepreneurship, and presumably make it more affordable for people to dine out more frequently.

[marinade]

I think BYOB’s are an extention of the same pioneering spirit that kicked off the Restaurant Renaissance in the ‘70’s. Storefront restaurants which opened with very little capital which were some of the same restaurants that Aliza cut her teeth with. If you consider Studio Kitchen a small West Philly BYOB, that pioneering spirit is still intact and the lesser quality of wine argument doesn’t hold up.

[Jeff L]

I've known Aliza Green professionally for years, but I have no idea why or from where she came to this conclusion.  However, it is important to note that she isn't "consulting" any BYOBs.

←

I would really hope from your inference here Rich that Ms. Green isn't panning the byo explosion of late due to the fact that she can't count any among her client base. That would be a shame indeed and I hope is not the case.

[Yannii]

i, personally, really love our byob scene and hope it continues to thrive. a great example is the juxtaposition of Lolita and El Vez. Lolita has more of an opportunity for creative cooking (lower volume, no corporate structure) and a more intimate atmosphere, where as El Vez is more festive or whatever. Both are good restaurants (well El Vez is getting better lately) and both certainly have loyal audiences and success.

anyway, i just wanted to respond to what vadouvan (and many others) said earlier,

"BYOB's are great but we are getting to a point where nothing new is happening in town. We need more mid priced restaurants that aren't BYOB's, Starr Restaurants and Old city bars disguised as restaurants"

basically, that is simply false. in the last few months, my neighborhood alone, has seen the opening of Ansil, Gayle, and Horizons. all creative, interesting, liquor serving, mid priced restaurants. now what about Raw, Estia (not mid priced i guess), Duece, or slightly older places like Sovalo, Southwark, Meritage, etc... I could make an equally compelling list of recent BYOB openings. honestly, Philly's restaurant scene is hardly stagnant (BYOB or otherwise). there are tons of new restaurants in the works as well.

Variety is spice of life, I say, live it up. bring some interesting wine and go to a byob (maybe the truffle lobster mac n' cheese at Mandoline) tuesday night, go to watch flamenco at Amada (not really mid priced BTW) on wednesday night, go to a local gastro-pub thursday (Royal Tavern's country ribs), get all dressed up in your striped shirt and greasy hair for friday night Stephen Starr style madness (roof deck at Continental Midtown, followed by chesesteaks at Pat/Geno's @ 3:AM of course), maybe a romantic budget buster at Lacroix on saturday night, brunch at Sabrinas on sunday, happy hour wine and cheese at Tria on monday. blah, blah, blah.... you get it. Aliza Green was WAY off Base. Philly's restaurant scene, including it's amazing BYOBs, is alive and kicking.....

the pclb kinda stinks, but honestly, they get better every year. the "chairman's selection" program rocks, and helps BYOBs exist. we now have decent (not great) store hours and improving prices and selection. and now, laws are changing and we can start shipping good wine right to your doorstep. liquor licenses are expensive, but that is, at least in part, a result of neighborhoods not wanting too many bars destroying the fabric of their community (IE what happened to south street over the last few decades). BYOB's don't attract quite as many problems for a community. anyway thanks for reading this very long rant. peace...

Edited February 26, 2006 by Yannii (log)

[Rich Pawlak]

I've known Aliza Green professionally for years, but I have no idea why or from where she came to this conclusion.  However, it is important to note that she isn't "consulting" any BYOBs.

←

I would really hope from your inference here Rich that Ms. Green isn't panning the byo explosion of late due to the fact that she can't count any among her client base. That would be a shame indeed and I hope is not the case.

←

That's exactly what I'm saying. BYOBs don't need "consulting" chefs.

[KatieLoeb]

I haven't read the article in question, but I think we've gotten enough of a flavor of the sort of opinions Ms. Green is putting forth from Mano's original post. We're entitled to agree or disagree with her premise. I think she makes several valid points.

Having worked in enough restaurants around this town, her assertion that:

service can be diminished by the lack of a liquor license; waiters depend on wine and cocktail sales for about half their tips, and the most-skilled follow the money..."

This isn't entirely off base. The best and most skilled waitstaff I have come across definitely want to work in places that have a liquor license. But not only for the mercenary reasons the increase in their check average implies. There's a sense of professional pride in being able to suggest wine pairings, etc. or bring a cocktail that mixed just to the diner's preferences to the table. The waitrons at Fridays are choosing to stay in that niche because they have neither the knowledge or skills to handle a more complex menu and more sophisticated beverage program. Perhaps the waiter's themselves aren't "foodies" and have no interest in that for themselves either. I've seen many waiters that are passionate about food and wine educate themselves first and then get a job in a better restaurant both to persue their own passion and to be able to put that new knowledge to use with their guests. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's a win-win for everyone.

Green mentions the “obstacles presented by the LCB” but doesn’t say what they are.  Indeed, she never acknowledges that Philadelphia liquor licenses are limited in number and rising in cost, nor does she recommend that the PLCB increase number of licenses.

The obstacles presented by the PLCB to restaurateurs have to do with the astronomical cost and scarcity of liquor licenses and the non-existence of any sort of discounting for bars and restaurants that are purchasing huge wholesale quantities of wine and spirits. In fact, the Chairman's Selection products aren't available to restaurants at the PLCB warehouses. We'd have to go make a special trip to a "Specialty" store and purchase the items like a regular consumer. I don't want to buy just a case - I want to buy enough to have around for a little while. When you get into time and costs involved with reprinting wine lists, informing the staff about the new product, and coordinating the purchase of potentially tens of thousands of dollars of product every week, that special trip looks less and less appealing, no matter how badly I'd like to have that wine on my list and pass those savings on to my customers. If I order that very same wine from my purveyor that's carrying it, then it has a different code number and a different and higher price. So I'm back to where I started, trying to find products that offer good value for both the customer and the restaurant, and try and offer enough of a range of products and prices that will translate into pleasing the guests and making money for the restaurant. It's a tightrope walk, but I haven't needed a net yet.

If the PLCB would institute case discounts or some other purchasing incentive for wholesale purchasers of product (as opposed to the 6% Licensee discount that is currently completely obliterated by the 7% taxes) then perhaps things would be more like they are in other states, where free enterprise and competitive pricing make it possible to have lower margins.

BYOB's are a great option for a restaurateur that doesn't want to be saddled with the startup costs associated with purchase of a liquor license and the increased liability insurance costs, stemware, breakage and other costs that go along with it. They are also forgoing a valuable revenue stream. It's a tradeoff.

Some folks actually don't want to bring their own wine to a restaurant. That's fine too. That's why there's chocolate and vanilla, and places with and without liquor licenses. To make a value judgement about which sort of place is "better" or what direction this is taking the culinary world in Philadelphia sounds like the wrongheaded idea to me.

[Greg Salisbury]

As someone with feet in both publishing and restaurants, allow me to add:

You guys are missing one of the central appeals of this article to Lipson et al@Metrocorp: it's a mite controversial, and will therefore lead to more eyeballs viewing pages. Hands up - how many of you bought a copy just to see the article?

Next, how much safer could a topic be for these guys? Their bread and butter is advertising, specifically advertising by restaurants. More specifically, advertising by restaurants with liquor licenses. No one else can afford the usurious rates they charge. So the article might offend BYOB owners (a tiny, tiny minority) and their proponents, but it will delight other restaurateurs who are advertisers and have probably been complaining for a very long time to the Metrocorp business director that all that positive BYOB editorial the magazine keeps running is not only hurting their business, but is making them rethink their advertising strategy. Hence, a mollifying article is commissioned.

Call me a cynic.

Anyway, I am a big believer (these days I have to be) that any publicity is good publicity, so until I am proven wrong, I will continue to have faith that the dining public will vote with their palates.

And Ms. Green has consulted for a BYOB: when I was in the planning stages for Rx, I hired her, and she did a really good job with the initial concept, which was combo sit-down service and prepared foods. Unfortunately, as word spread of how good the sit-down segment was, fewer people came in for take-out, and I wound up ripping out the whole prepared foods section after six months.

[serpentine]

What Greg said. Exactly what I was thinking, and well said.

(Um, except for the part about the author of the article working for Rx. I didn't think that part.)

[herbacidal]

This isn't entirely off base.  The best and most skilled waitstaff I have come across definitely want to work in places that have a liquor license.  But not only for the mercenary reasons the increase in their check average implies.  There's a sense of professional pride in being able to suggest wine pairings, etc. or bring a cocktail that mixed just to the diner's preferences to the table.  The waitrons at Fridays are choosing to stay in that niche because they have neither the knowledge or skills to handle a more complex menu and more sophisticated beverage program.  Perhaps the waiter's themselves aren't "foodies" and have no interest in that for themselves either.  I've seen many waiters that are passionate about food and wine educate themselves first and then get a job in a better restaurant both to persue their own passion and to be able to put that new knowledge to use with their guests.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's a win-win for everyone.

I'll agree entirely.

The economics of it are entirely valid, and reflect my own past experiences.

I can't say I've met nearly as many waitstaff as passionate about food and wine as Katie has, but I have no doubt they're around.

The obstacles presented by the PLCB to restaurateurs have to do with the astronomical cost and scarcity of liquor licenses and the non-existence of any sort of discounting for bars and restaurants that are purchasing huge wholesale quantities of wine and spirits. 

If the PLCB would institute case discounts or some other purchasing incentive for wholesale purchasers of product (as opposed to the 6% Licensee discount that is currently completely obliterated by the 7% taxes) then perhaps things would be more like they are in other states, where free enterprise and competitive pricing make it possible to have lower margins.

This I'll also agree with, although I'd say that I wouldn't doubt that this might be next on the agenda.

If I were fixing the PLCB, I would most definitely fix the consumer end first.

Sales may or may not have a greater chance of increasing through changes in the business & restaurant area than the consumer end, but the changes in the consumer end are worth far far more in terms of positive public relations, and possibly political capital as well.

Let's hope that Mr. Newman and others know that this is the next area ripe for improvement, and I wouldn't doubt increased sales as well.

Ot

Some folks actually don't want to bring their own wine to a restaurant.  That's fine too.  That's why there's chocolate and vanilla, and places with and without liquor licenses.  To make a value judgement about which sort of place is "better" or what direction this is taking the culinary world in Philadelphia sounds like the wrongheaded idea to me.

I feel the same way. Currently, I prefer BYOBs, primarily because of cost considerations. Down the road, I may change (much like young Democrats often change into older Republicans, so the joke goes.)

That's also why I think the number of restaurants and bars that allow smoking in any given geographic area should be equal to the number that do not.

Or perhaps the percentages should be based on the percentage of the national population that smokes vs. those that do not.

In the long run, the market should decide.

But that's just my opinion and an entirely different issue.

[Rich Pawlak]

Well I'll be damned, Greg (many already figure that I am).

I forgot to consider the controversial publicity angle. And I agree with you; the only bad publicity is evidence.

[herbacidal]

I knew I left something out.

I fourth you, Greg.

[KatieLoeb]

As someone with feet in both publishing and restaurants, allow me to add:

You guys are missing one of the central appeals of this article to Lipson et al@Metrocorp: it's a mite controversial, and will therefore lead to more eyeballs viewing pages. Hands up - how many of you bought a copy just to see the article?

Next, how much safer could a topic be for these guys? Their bread and butter is advertising, specifically advertising by restaurants. More specifically, advertising by restaurants with liquor licenses. No one else can afford the usurious rates they charge. So the article might offend BYOB owners (a tiny, tiny minority) and their proponents, but it will delight other restaurateurs who are advertisers and have probably been complaining for a very long time to the Metrocorp business director that all that positive BYOB editorial the magazine keeps running is not only hurting their business, but is making them rethink their advertising strategy. Hence, a mollifying article is commissioned.

Wow. That was an impressive and very compact rant. Bravo Greg!

Call me a cynic

You're a cynic.

Anyway, I am a big believer (these days I have to be) that any publicity is good publicity, so until I am proven wrong, I will continue to have faith that the dining public will vote with their palates.

←

I like Rich's comment about the only bad publicity being evidence. I suppose after the bell demotion debacle your feelings are well earned. But I know you're right about the dining public. It's just a shame about that "Lemmings effect" that a review can have.

I'm your fifth.

[JohnL]

First let me say, I live in NYC and have relatives in Philadelphia (I also have spent a lot of time in Philly on business).

After reading through this thread I have a few points.

One can attack the messenger here (I am not familiar with Aliza Green) or come up with some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom-- but I find it more productive to deal with the points and issues she raises.

A restaurant exists IMOP, to provide a dining experience. That includes food and beverages. (alcoholic or not alcoholic).

In most every major city in the world--the majority of restaurants provide both food and drink.

Thus, Philadelphia is basically "out of step." In and of itself not necessarily a bad thing. But most diners would prefer to have the restaurant provide the beverages for their meal. BYOB can be a nice novelty but it just should not be a "way of life."

I do not (and I would guess that most visitors to Philadelphia would join me) like to have to arrange to buy wine somewhere prior to my entering the restaurant.

Why?

One--one usually has no idea of what one will be ordering to eat--so what wine to select?--also one needs to purchase a "safe" quantity of wine for he/she and their guests etc-- and most often should one feel like an after dinner drink or an aperitif

--well then it is mostly tough luck!

One also may only want a glass of white to start and then a bottle etc.

Two--my guess is it is somewhat uncomfortable for a visitor not familiar with a city to have to locate a wine shop that is open at night etc.

What I am getting at is:

BYOB's severely limit a customer's choices and options and present an element of inconvenience.

I would also add that I have "discovered" many wonderful wines on restaurant wine lists.

I believe that Ms Green is making a point that while BYOB's have some of their own charm and may be a "good deal" for the locals (I would debate this), Philadelphia is holding itself back from becoming a world class dining destination --the BYOB situation is hindering the restaurant scene from becoming what it can be.

I also believe that the government (state or local) has no business being "involved" in any consumer business. With all due respect to Katie, "regulate" does not mean "take over and run the business in question."

Those claiming that BYOB's are beneficial from a financial standpoint should be taking a stand against a system that prevents/limits competition.

In the end--a restaurant should determine for themselves whether or not they want to serve alcohol. Consumers should have benefit of choice. Restaurateurs also have a choice--they can opt for a a service that can provide them with a healthy profit center to offer them more flexibility in the food quality and options and the opportunity to advertise more often as well as pay better wages etc.

More restaurateurs could compete with the Starr's of the world and the chains like Capitol grill etc.

As for the benefits of BYOB's--even for one who has an extensive cellar--I find them quite limited.

Yes a meal can be "cheaper" in some cases. Too many restaurants do mark up wine too much but there is a trend (consumer driven to a degree) toward more reasonable wine pricing and more flexibility (wines by the glass etc).

And if I want to bring a special bottle from my own cellar--there are many restaurants with reasonable corkage fees--that way I can bring a great red from home and still have a glass of white from the restaurant list as an aperitif (or with my fish course) or I can bring a red and a white--see it's all about choice and options.

Factor in the inconveniences I noted and the BYOB is maybe not such a great deal especially if that is what you are limited to.

I do believe that most supporters of the BYOB fall back on the money thing--I also believe that for locals who have their favorite BYOB it can be a nice benefit--they "know" the menu and can tailor their wine selections and then buy the wine at a shop with which they are familiar--a routine that is anything but for a visitor to the city or a resident who just doesn't want the bother.

In the end--the PA liquor laws are arcane and limit growth for businesses and choice for consumers.

That is really what this is about--BYOB's and corkage fees will have their place. Restaurant wine list prices will moderate with competition.

[wkl]

"After reading through this thread I have a few points.

One can attack the messenger here (I am not familiar with Aliza Green) or come up with some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom-- but I find it more productive to deal with the points and issues she raises."

I thought Greg S's point was well explained and very clear. If her views are slanted because of her advertisers complaints, then the messenger deserves to be attacked.

I love Byo's , not so much for the obvious bargain they represent with respects to savings on wine, but because I get so tired of poorly chosen wine lists, bad storage, uninformed staff, excessive pricing, etc. Let me just bring my own. Yes, there are exceptions and I do not mind paying reasonable mark up to try some different wines I may not come across.

If you feel severly restricted at byo's, then don't go to them.

To make the claim that the byo culture is holding philly back as a serious restaurant town is absurd. So, the food would be better at D'Jango, Marigold, Piff, etc. if they had a wine list? Ridiculous.

Vive le BYO!!!!!!!!!

[menton1]

Well, all is not lost, you will ALWAYS find a plethora of BYOBs in New Jersey...

[wkl]

"Those claiming that BYOB's are beneficial from a financial standpoint should be taking a stand against a system that prevents/limits competition."

People have been railing against this system for years. Apparantly to deaf ears, that's part of the reason there are so many byo's.

[Gruzia]

i just got the mag yesterday and my first thought upon completion of the article was that it needed to be posted up on eGullet! I'm glad someone beat me to the punch.

Personally, as a grad student on a limited budget with foodie aspirations, Philly's BYOB scene is a huge plus in its favor. True, you might not know ahead of time what you'll be ordering, but you can always check out the menu and website (when available) to give you some idea of what to bring. And, you can bring your favorite wines that are not featured on wine lists! Really, is it that hard to make a detour to the liquor store before going to dinner? In most places they are open untill at least nine pm and on sundays, too. And if you are a visitor and find it hard to find a liquor store, is it so terrible to just focus on the food? And, while the state run liquor store is a bit of a hamper in terms of diversity of offerings, the Chairman's Selections program is an incredible boon for those wanting to check out wines that are normally out of their price range.

As for the food side of it....why should bringing forth Budakkan-type places be the ultimate goal of the Philly restaurant scene? The flourishing BYOB scene enables talented chefs to put forth their creations easier, thereby contributing ideas, inspirations and motivation to others who are considering getting into the business. The multitude of BYOBs is precisely why I think of Philly as very "foodie-friendly".

[JohnL]

"After reading through this thread I have a few points.

One can attack the messenger here (I am not familiar with Aliza Green) or come up with some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom-- but I find it more productive to deal with the points and issues she raises."

I thought Greg S's point was well explained and very clear. If her views are slanted because of her advertisers complaints, then the messenger deserves to be attacked.

I love Byo's , not so much for the obvious bargain they represent with respects to savings on wine, but because I get so tired of poorly chosen wine lists, bad storage, uninformed staff, excessive pricing, etc. Let me just bring my own. Yes, there are exceptions and I do not mind paying reasonable mark up to try some different wines I may not come across.

If you feel severly restricted at byo's, then don't go to them.

To make the claim that the byo culture is holding philly back as a serious restaurant town is absurd. So, the food would be better at D'Jango, Marigold, Piff, etc. if they had a wine list? Ridiculous.

Vive le BYO!!!!!!!!!

←

First regarding Ms Green. The points she was making deserve to be addressed at face value. Attempting to construct a possible conspiracy to slander her motives is dubious at best and with a lack of any evidence futile. Really, all you would be creating is a moot point for use as a red herring. So really, who cares about her or her magazine's motives--it makes sense to debate the content of what she says.

Second, I agree that wine service in many restaurants is poor and that there are many instances of high markups. I also am seeing many diverse and well priced lists as well as good service (glasses etc). The current trend for many places is in the positive direction.

Third, my whole argument here is not that BYO's are necessarily bad nor that restaurant's with wine service are necessarily good. My point is restaurateurs in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) are limited by wine laws. Would you argue that because of economic factors, say, the owners of Marigold should be denied the choice to serve wine in their establishment .

Would you argue that only a select handful of well heeled and well connected people should be able to own restaurants that serve wine?

Again, I am arguing for choice.

If a restaurant owner wants to operate as a BYOB that's fine with me.

Finally, a BYOB "culture" is fine as long as it is a result of a free marketplace. I can see much benefit to a BYOB near ,say, Penn or Temple.

Also, would not some increased competition possibly create a healthier situation wherein wine lists around town would moderate somewhat?

So, if you are making a case for BYOB's that is fine. If you are making a case for a situation where a chef/owner, restaurateur has his or her hands tied by restrictive liquor laws, preventing them from offering their customers a wine or alcoholic beverage service, then I would love to hear your case!

[MarketStEl]

Do I need to serve up another History, Geography and Politics lesson?

It looks as if I do.

When the 18th Amendment was repealed, the 21st Amendment -- which repealed it -- allowed the states to do whatever they saw fit to regulate or restrict the sale and transport of alcoholic beverages within their borders. Keep in mind that while nationwide Prohibition was a colossal failure, there were--and are still--forces that regard alcohol as an evil that must be controlled, and the failure of Prohibition did not convince them otherwise.

Some states--Pennsylvania among them--decided that they still wanted to make it difficult to purchase alcohol within their borders. Others--New Jersey, for one--were not as concerned about purchases of alcohol for private use as they were about an "oversupply" of public places where it could be consumed.

Both states have liquor licensing systems that allocate a fixed number of licenses based on a population formula, with some sort of grandfather clause that allows jurisdictions where the population falls to keep the same number of licenses as they had at the time the laws setting up the systems were passed.

As demand for these licenses rises, their price will rise, and some places will find themselves priced out of the market. For them, it may be easier to simply dispense with the attempt to obtain a license altogether.

Hence the high number of BYOB restaurants in both states.

However, in Pennsylvania, most of those BYOBs can be found in the five counties that make up the state's southeast. There is little clamor in the other 62 counties--not even the six that make up Greater Pittsburgh--for dramatic change in the way the Commonwealth controls the sale of alcohol.

Perhaps if the folks in Southwestern Pennsylvania were as concerned about the matter as we are, there might be some changes in our state's liquor laws (is it just a coincidence that the improvements in the way the PLCB runs its consumer business, such as they are, have come with the ascension of a Southeastern Pennsylvanian to the agency chairmanship?). But as far as I can tell, folks in the other 62 counties see no reason to scrap a system that serves them adequately, which is why even Republican governors have found getting rid of the liquor control regime tough sledding.

That said, it still might be worthwhile to launch a campaign targeted at legislators from the Southeast, Lehigh Valley and South Central (Lancaster/Lebanon/Harrisburg) regions arguing for something that Pennsylvania government doesn't do as often as Missouri government does: pass legislation that allows for different rules in different regions of the state.

(I cite Missouri because, besides being the state I grew up in, it has a similar geographic and political dynamic, and the Kansas Citians [in terms of nightlife, they play the role of Philadelphians to St Louis' Pittsburghers] have managed to make carefully tailored local-option laws a specialty.)