Hey, there! Log in / Register
Do you like piña coladas?
By adamg on Thu, 10/07/2021 - 10:28am
The Boston Licensing Board today gave restaurants in East Boston and on Beacon Hill permission to expand their beer and wine offerings to include liqueurs and the mixed drinks that can be made with them.
Carlos Cespedes, owner of Melodias, which serves Colombian food at 1045 Saratoga St. in East Boston, said he hoped to offer patrons drinks such as piña coladas and mojitos while they wait for their food. He said that on busy nights in his small restaurant, it can take 20 to 25 minutes for food to come out and patrons are more likely to feel like a mixed drink than a beer - and that some people have actually left when told they couldn't get a cocktail while waiting.
Also getting approval to add liqueurs: Bin 26 Enoteca at 26 Charles St. on Beacon Hill, where co-owner Babak Bina said customers had been asking for the chance to try different drinks beyond the extensive wine list already on offer.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
By definition, liqueurs are high-sugar spirits,
so making cocktails that aren't icky-sweet with them is difficult. It's hard to imagine how you'd make a piña colada with a true liqueur that isn't disgusting.
Many places with cordial licenses push their limits of the rules by pouring straight spirits with added flavors, e.g., citrus vodka: those aren't really cordials. Given how stupid our liquor licensing laws are, and how they push indie chef/operators to the suburbs in favor of execrable chain outlets, I say more power to them. But I'd rather see the laws changed.
Yep
There are places that manage to make it work though. One of the places in Allston at one point even managed a decent margarita by using a tequila that met the sugar requirements (Sauza?) and upping the lime juice.
Article on the whole liqueur/cordial license thing:
https://www.bostonchefs.com/news/2015/10/22/keeping-it-cordial/
It can work, but it's rare. One place that stands
out in my mind on that score is Parla in the North End.
I recall some place in Allston with only a cordial license doing a margarita knockoff using crema de mezcal, which is highly sweetened with agave honey. It wasn't terrible.
The Butcher Shop is on a
The Butcher Shop is on a cordials license and does a great job with their cocktail menu.
I presume that's why they are
I presume that's why they are chosen as being allowed though? They are difficult to drink in large quantities, better suited to a subtle addition.
I could personally create a whole bar menu around ameretto.
Kind of?
You're right about the sugar content. But the question of whether or not a drink with cordials is sweet or not is really just up to having a good bar program. Anyone familiar with amaro can tell you that, while they certainly fit into the cordials category, they definitely don't have to be sweet. If you run a crappy bar and only buy crappy ingredients then yeah, you're going to make drinks that taste like rubbish.
Also, as others point out there seems to be very little clarity as to what defines cordials in our fine city, where natural sugars in pure spirits ( certain brands of tequila, rum, etc etc etc) can qualify them as "cordials". The real take away is that the cordial license is joke that, if I recall correctly was made to satisfy certain restaurants in a certain part of this city that couldn't obtain a full license but had enough sway that they could serve after-dinner digestives. They should really just make all cordial licenses into full licenses (and should by proxy reconfigure the whole licensing process to make it less, you know, fucked up).
It is defined
Must be greater than or equal to 2.5% sugar by weight.
Of course
Of course it's defined but when you can take a bottle of 90 proof tequila and a bottle of 30 proof rumchata and say they are the same "cordial" category but prohibit the sale of, say, a whiskey that has the same proof as the tequila all because it lacks, of all things, sugar you may as well just do away with the whole thing. The license was instituted as a work around for whiny North End jabronies and has become a childish "I'm-not-touching-you" (or more accurately "well-it-HAS-sugar") loophole for jabronies all over the city.
Oh for sure
Yes, not saying it isn't ridiculous.
I'm not much into health food
I am into champagne.
If you have half a brain
Are we sure this song wasn't written by a Bostonian? (it's not, not even close, Holmes was from the UK)
"If you like makin' love at midnight
In the dunes on the cape"
Only locals would know where's best :P
and..
I've got to meet you by tomorrow noon
And cut through all this red tape
At a bar called O'Malley's
Where we'll plan our escape
(In Brookline)
What a stupid law. Sugar is
What a stupid law. Sugar is unhealthy, and a lot of people try to or need to avoid it.
Not you again
Food moralizing is unhealthy. People all need carbohydrates, and some of them can be refined. Most people can drink alcohol in moderation. Going out with people and enjoying some good food, good drink, and good company is great for one's health. This clinician recommends your cranky ass go have a piña colada.
Me again? I’ve never commented on this issue before.
You call it food moralizing, I call it a request to remove a useless law that encourages consuming a substance that’s causing a major health epidemic. Diabetes is out of control in this country.
In the end it’s an individual choice. But government policy shouldn’t push people towards the less healthy option.
Yes, attention to public health is definitely needed
Diabetes is largely genetic, and also heavily influenced by cortisol levels caused by chronic stress. It is not caused by sugar consumption.
Food moralizing and bad science around size and health also have negative effects on public health -- it leads to disordered eating, weight stigma, poor medical care for both folks in larger and in smaller bodies, and trauma from unnecessary child welfare involvement.
A universal basic income is the best thing we can do for public health. It's possible, and our country is certainly wealthy enough to do it.
Another completely free thing that would do wonders for public health would be to eliminate all types of bigotry and marginalization, starting with ourselves. We can stop doing things that are shown to harm people, such as making internet comments that "sugar is bad for you" and claiming it's about caring for people's health.
https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/sugar-doesnt-cause-diabetes
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/publications/health-matters/myth-bus...
https://medium.com/@ashleybroadwater346/your-comments-that-moralize-food-are-deeply-harmful-and-heres-why-f85db00dddc6
https://danceswithfat.org/2014/09/13/the-food-morality-thing/
https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/teach-kids-food-choices-arent-moral/
https://haescurriculum.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/developing-a-health-r...
Hear hear
The absolute worst control freaks and snobs on the planet are the ones who think themselves morally superior, and nothing is good enough for them unless they try to control and police others. In their minds, they're so morally pure and enlightened, their mission is to eliminate those who aren't. They are pathologically desperate to control others, and use manipulation and patronization tactics to reach that goal. They don't care one whit about you - they just want to preach from their soapbox on subjects they know little about.
Control freaks must be challenged and confronted early and often. They may react violently and try to ruin you, but stand up to them often enough, and eventually it will dawn on them that repeated attempts to police your words and actions have no effect, and they'll finally back off.
If Baileys Irish Cream qualifies...
...somebody should open a bakery, or a chocolatier, or an ice cream shop with a boozy twist!
Do these places have
outdoor seating, without canopies?