The big drain

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

This beauty here is the famous Turf tavern in Oxford. But be warned, you probably wouldn't be able to just stumble upon it if you're browsing the streets of the famous Medieval university town. You'd need someone more familiar with the place to direct you, because this awesome pub can only be accessed through a very narrow passage between two old buildings that could be easily missed. And inside, as it always happens on Friday evenings, it's crammed with people who've come to have a drink or two and have a wee chat with other folks. Students from the Oxford University sit ass to ass with tattooed dudes and yuppies in suits with loosened ties and the straps of their laptop bags thrown across their shoulders. Beer is the standard beverage there, and it comes in pints (about half a liter). Some visitors have come to check out the traditional local cuisine. Stuffed potatoes with beans and bacon, or the famous "fish & chips", lavishly spiced with vinegar. They're showing a soccer game from the Premiership on the "telly". Everything is so typically English!

The interior of this public house couldn't be more "traditional": low ceiling, a simple bar table, and a sense of warm cosiness and quaint oldness. The Turf is famous for two things: lots of history dating back to the 13th century, and a curious note at the entrance where many tourists pause to take photos. The note says that this is the place where Bill Clinton smoked pot in the 60s (and then clarifies that he'd always instantly breathe the smoke out). LOL.

The friend who brought me there when I was visiting once, said she liked the place so much because it's where she could just have a pint of lager and have a chat with a stranger without them necessarily flirting with you. "It's a place where you're not just a customer, you're a pal", she said. Or as they say, a "bloke". It's where one could just sit back, relax, and listen to some dude casually playing some Oasis tune on his guitar. Or yelling at the ref' for failing to award an obvious penalty to Liverpool FC. You know, taking it easy.

Except now the pubs, one of the symbols of British culture, are threatened with extinction. The recent statistic shows that an average of one-score-and-a-quarter of these enterprises get shut down every week, some of them older than the US of A and Canada combined. And this year they're selling about a billion pints less than in 2008.

The reasons for this are many, but the number one reason that's being cited most often is the high excise on beer, which leads to a shrinking consumption and a massive customer exodus. The beer excise in UK is currently the 2nd highest in Europe, and it's believed to severely affect the industry. Another reason for the decline of these awesome pubs, at least according to the owners, is the increased regulations that have gone way out of hand, and the ban on indoors smoking that has led to the closing of many smaller pubs, particularly those that don't offer food, or have more expensive alcohol.

Until very recently the excise on beer used to be subject to a law that was passed 5 years ago, which says that the excise should be automatically raised by 2% above the annual inflation rate, until 2015. In result, the beer consumption has dropped by 23% since 2004. A month ago the British government reconsidered their policy and the minister of finance George Osborne put an end to this practice by freezing the excise levels and decreasing the cost per pint, although only by 1p (the planned increase for wine and spirits remained, however). The British Beer & Pub Association welcomed the news and announced that this would increase the revenue, expand the clientele and preserve thousands of jobs in the industry, and possibly even create new jobs. And that would ultimately bring more revenue to the national budget.

It's true that pubs are a fundamental part of the British way of life. They're much more than just a place where one could have a drink. They're practically the heart of the local communities. People are very aware that when you lose a pub, you lose something important. That's why there's such a huge pressure on the politicians to take action.

But the excise is not the only reason for the dire situation the pubs have found themselves in. Its effect is combined with the crisis and the overall stagnation of the economy, and the low prices of alcohol in the supermarkets. The various attractive promotion offers and the super large packages of beer and cyder are often even cheaper than bottled water, and sometimes their prices are 5-6 times lower compared to the pub. That's why many Britons prefer to drink at home rather than going out. Many are even taking the ridiculously low prices of alcohol in some tourist destinations in consideration, when planning their vacations - which is why entire countries (particularly in East Europe and South-East Asia) have developed an entire "alcohol tourism" niche that heavily relies on the British tourist segment. Because the price of drinks is really such a significant factor for the Britons that they'd rather take a flight to Sofia or Bangkok and fill themselves to oblivion for a week, than stay home and buy watered-down beer at their "local". ;)

But the very pub system itself also has a lot of flaws that are partially to blame for its own demise. In many cases the pubs are property of the so called "pub companies", or "pubcos". Sometimes such a company would own hundreds of pubs and lease them out to many small entrepreneurs who then manage them with relative autonomy, but are still obliged to buy the alcohol from that particular pubco, rather than the free market. And the price of beer in those cases is sometimes 50% higher. Those pubs are called "tied pubs", and they're about half of all the 51 thousand pubs across UK. This leads to a number of complications, because the pubcos, now pressured by the crisis, often demand unreasonably high rentals and they force the small entrepreneurs to sell their beer at artificially inflated prices.

There's hardly any other type of business in the world where you rent some property and you're then forced to buy their product and no one else's. Sometimes the demands of such pubcos could reach hundreds of thousands of pounds per year, and when we add the rent on the drinks you're selling, there's hardly anything left for your staff salaries.

That's why the opposition Labour now want the government to put new regulations on the sector that would put an end to this exploitation. In response, Cameron's cabinet has announced that they're planning to introduce additional rules, and an arbiter authority which will investigate about violations in the tenant/pubco relations.

But the Beer & Pub association counters that more regulation is the last thing the industry needs right now. They argue that more rules is exactly what is not necessary, and self-regulation in the industry is a far more efficient way of tackling the problems. They believe that what could really help is the government continuing the previously announced policy of excise reduction, which would make the pubs competitive once more.

In the meantime, facing the real threat of going bust, some pubs have come up with rather curious complimentary activities like selling clothes, used books, fruits and vegetables, and even offering post services and fitness lessons. Something that may not correspond to the famed century-old traditions that the British cherish so much, but at least goes well along with the "adapt or die" mindset that's become so urgently needed these days.

Comments

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The system you describe sounds like a franchise. I suspect some other economic factor at play behind the decline of pub clientele.

BTW, it is better to order an ale at a British pub than a lager.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Don't know, lager is nice too.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Lager will suffice when ale is unavailable.

[comeonyouspurs.livejournal.com]

I'll have a large white wine, please!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

White wine will suffice when red wine is not available.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Ah, historical preservation. This reminds me of some of the things I've observed here in the U.S, mainly the misguided "updating" of historical homes that destroys the house and follows trends that are gone within a few year's time. If the building is commercial it's even worse and it's treated with even more apathy.

One area I see this a lot in involves one of my favorite architecture styles: Googie. It's often tacky I admit, but I love it's playfulness in contrast to the stuffiness architecture tends to be - especially in the modernist/international style era. It also alludes to a positive and daring look towards the future, vs the cynical distopian view people tend to have. But most people see it as dated, and because it's usually applied to commercial buildings, it's usually treated with a wrecking ball instead of historical preservation.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Historic preservationist here (personally and professionally)

Wow. I do believe that you're the first person I've ever heard say Googie is your favorite architectural style (I'm partial to Richardsonian, Second Empire, and Italianate, myself). I have to admire you just for liking a style that is not generally liked. You get points for originality, no doubt.

This, as everything in the U.S. does, varies from one state to another. Here in Texas, for example, us historic preservationists face an interesting hypocrisy: Texans are immensely proud of their history (the San Jacinto monument is twelve feet taller than the Washington monument), but they seem to think history happened without a backdrop. So you have a general population and a state government that is proud of their heritage, but to Hell with the places that heritage occurred at (especially if said places are more valuable as a strip mall or tract housing).

True story: the Daughters of the Republic of Texas- the state's version of the DAR- formed in the 1890s specifically to restore the Alamo. At the time, there were some proposals floating around to demolish the whole thing.

It is extremely frustrating to me, but down here unless a building is proven to have hosted a very important historical person or event, even at a local level, it will not be preserved unless it has some commercial value. Sort of like those historic houses you mentioned- I am all for turning a 1890s Victoria mansion into a law office if it keeps the building from demolition. I think the phenomenon you're referring to is adaptive re-use, wherein historic preservation only goes as far as what it needed to keep the historic appeal intact. otherwise, do what you will. The renovation of the Pearl Brewery in San Antonio is a great example of successful adaptive re-use, as is LoDo and some of the projects in the Cass Park area of Detroit. I am actually a huge proponent of AR simply out of pragmatism- sometimes, it's all we can do.

Of course, to make things even more complex, different communities even in the same state have different attitudes toward historic preservation: my hometown of Victoria, Texas has always been very interested in historic preservation, and now other cities who want to restore their downtowns and original neighborhoods come to Victoria to see how they do things. Contrast that with Brownwood, Texas, which has a 70% vacancy rate in its downtown and has since the 1950s.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I don't know, that might be better than "willy nilly" declaring the houses on one block historical while the same style houses on the next block are not. Of course it really only matters if you actually need to fix something major, like a roof. It can cost literally thousands of dollars in "red tape" to get the waivers needed to be able to replace something that no longer works with something the city will allow you to (codes being what they are you can't use the same material, but the status says you have to). In L.A. this isn't so bad for commercial buildings since it must be disclosed, but if you already live in a house and one day the "historical society" convinces the city you should receive "historical status" you are screwed.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

That may be true in some places, but again- varies widely from one state to another, even from one city to another. That's another advantage of adaptive re-use over true historic preservation- property owners have more leeway in what they can do (although in my experience the 'red tape' bugaboo is grossly overstated). In fact, those cities who want to encourage historic preservation and downtown revitalization do things like waive application fees, expedite building permits for historic properties, even use special tax districts (TIFs / TIRZ) to help property owners with some remediation costs like accessibility and asbestos removal. In other words, they relax regulations; they don't add more. These things are exactly what Brownwood is doing now to try to revive their downtown- and strategies that cities like Bryan, Texas have done successfully to really turn around their downtowns.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Detroit I know has that tragically vacant Beaux-Arts central station, that seems to be ever threatened with demolition.

And yeah, what can I say, I like whimsy in architecture, my three other favorites are art deco and art nouveau. Also mid-century design in general, including the golden age of animation, has been very inspiring.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I do like me some art deco.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

If I ever get a chance to visit the UK, you can bet a stop at the most authentic (really authentic, not tourist trap authentic) pubs I can find is going to happen for sure. Numerous times, most likely :)

As for this post, it seems to me that both Big Government and Big Taxes (in the form of over-regulation and high excises) are doing as much damage as Big Business (in the form of pubcos) are. There has to be a happy medium between the Nanny State and the Corporate Plutocracy.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Happy medium!? You're talking CENTRISM?!??!11!1 That's so un-American!!!

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Well, since the 1950s, perhaps. But once upon a time Moderates roamed the land in great herds of pragmatism, making the few little Conservatives and Liberals scurry in panic for cover.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Those were the times, eh?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to do the Good Ole Days thing, but things did get done back then. As I like to say, if there was the same level of polarized, partisan BS around during FDR's time as now, we would probably still be in the Great Depression. And possibly speaking German (well, except for California. They would be speaking Japanese).

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Smoking ban, beer tax, cheap supermarket booze, and the pubco tied-houses have been killing the pubs for almost a decade. It is a disaster.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It's worth noting that banning smoking had no noticeable impact on pub and club patronage when it happened here (this has been found by the government, the industry and independent researchers).

And Britons drinking less isn't necessarily a bad thing, they have one of the worst binge cultures on Earth (Oz does too).

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

"It's worth noting that banning smoking had no noticeable impact "

The gov't ordered the ban itself first and a research 'showing it has no noticeable effect', etc. - second.
Why aint' I surprised?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

As someone who is not particularly pleased by the physiological effects of alcohol (tho I will, from time to time indulge anyway) I am not moved by this.

Now, how's that legalizing of pot coming along?

Virtually everyone who has studied it will tell you alcohol is more dangerous than pot, and yet....

I have very little sympathy for drinkers.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Good thing, then, that sympathies do not define policies.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

hahahahhahhahaa. yes they do.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. ;)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

what else would policy be based on? rational thought? ....if only