This is one of those elemental questions that in the end may well lead to not that much. It may be a personality test. It may speak to your experience or innate preferences. It arose from the article in today's New York Times that started with the very attractive photo taken by Piotr Redlinski at DBGB Kitchen and Bar and ends with this tidbit in the summary of the restaurant's vital statistics:
WINE LIST Totally acceptable selection, but much better to experiment among the 23 beers on tap and large selection of bottled beers that have traveled here from Britain, from Brooklyn, from Germany, from France.
Now, this is not all an excuse to post that wonderful photo but to point out a few things. First, that photo is wonderful, like a painting by Toulouse-Lautrec. If there were a concerted effort was really being made to promote craft beer, then more photographers like this should be employed in the task. Seeing good beer in a wonderful setting is - perhaps oddly - compelling in itself. This photograph may tell us more about this place than the text does. Second, isn't it wonderful how subtly beer has inveigled its way into the story. I don't agree with Andy on this point: the beer is not absent from the review. It is implied and even infused throughout through the bookends of the photo and the final recommendation. My thought of the year is that we need less of the "that saison goes with this scallop mousse" stuff and more of the message that good beer is normal and one should normally sit right there next to you. The article assumes that or at least tells you it is OK to operate on that assumption.
Those are two good things to take from the article. But the last third is more important in my mind. When Stan noted the story on Twitter, my reaction was this:
Better to have 23 good taps at one restaurant or one good beer tap at 23 restaurants?
I don't know if I know the answer to that but I know that I would rather have three good and interesting and different beers at 7 and 2/3s more places in my town. I, yes, may also settle for four at five with one actually having eight if you know who to ask. See, I will very likely never get to the place reviewed in the New York Times today but I should have a sense that the bit of beer culture found there should reside somehow in other places, too. Because, in addition to good beer being compelling and normal, the messaging should also be that it is pervasive... just as the ads once told us.
Comments
KB - October 14, 2009 9:17 pm
I agree - better many watering holes with some good beer than one spot with lots.
I was at a local taproom the other day. Dozens of taps. Lots of great beers. But in the end it left me underwhelmed. I was expecting something magical, but even though there were so many taps, there was nothing new, and I felt a little let down by the whole thing.
I'd much rather have every restaurant have one beer that I'd be interested in drinking, instead of one bar having so many beers that I'd like to drink.
Steve - October 15, 2009 2:35 am
I agree with your sentiments in the post, but I don't know about the question you pose. I don't think it has to be an either/or. Yes, it's a hypothetical "would you rather," but in the real world, I think restaurants with several [good] taps raise the tide for all.
And you answer your question, I would opt for the one restaurant with 23 taps... I just hope they have really great food, or the other 22 restaurants have a good bottle selection ;)
Pivní Filosof - October 15, 2009 2:39 am
"we need less of the "that saison goes with this scallop mousse" stuff and more of the message that good beer is normal"...
Totally agree (unless you're specifically speaking about beer and food pairings, he!). If a reader doesn't know what, in this case, a Saison is little sense a praise like that will make to them.
As for the main topic. Also agree. I prefer to have more places with fewer good beers than one with a lot. Besides, having so much to choose from (provided that most taps don't have the same sort of beer, as it often happens) can intimidate many people ending up on them choosing "just something they know", also it can be a problem for the staff to properly know what they are serving.
Knut Albert Solem - October 15, 2009 8:53 am
Remember that the first dozen beers on tap tend to be boring macros, it's the next 11 who will be interesting!
Knut Albert Solem - October 15, 2009 9:02 am
But after reading the review, I would be happy to go there even with a more limited beer selection!
Shamas - October 15, 2009 10:16 am
The closest bar to my house with decent beers has probably 14 or more taps. 2 of them are Guinness. 2 of them are HARP, 2 of them are Smithwicks. Bass, Stella, Coors Light, Blue Moon, and (sometimes 2) Sam Adams round out the list until you get to the 2 or 3 micro taps. Seems like a waste, especially considering the redundancy in their selection.
Thomas Cizauskas - October 15, 2009 10:17 am
Well stated, Alan.
Here's for more neighborhood bars with good beer options. More of those = fewer temptations to drive somewhere for beer. Social benefit and lower-carbon (ugh) footprint.
Jo - October 15, 2009 10:44 am
I surely think it's better to have one bar with 23 good taps, does anyone agree?! It's comforting to be in a place and know you have a variety, and I guess you will just always go back to that one bar? I think you are more likely to get bored of one beer in many different bars than of one bar with a selection of great beers.. or is that just greedy?!
Alan - October 15, 2009 11:00 am
Just to restate the ground rules seeing as so many are commenting, I was thinking taps would be "good and interesting and different beers" across my hypothetical town. If, for example, I want Greek or Indian food I should have good beer there, too.