Drink Up, You Absolute Heathens: The New York Times Just Discovered a Can of Seltzer on a Tap
So, the Gray Lady—the hallowed institution that brings you deep dives on the decline of the paperclip and 5,000-word treatises on the texture of a single fig—has apparently run out of actual news to report. No, seriously. The New York Times, the newspaper of record, the beacon of journalism, just published a breathless, hand-wringing feature about the most earth-shattering innovation since the wheel: a can of LaCroix being served directly from a bar tap.
I am not making this shit up. You can go check. Someone, somewhere, got paid a salary to write a feature titled “The Can of Seltzer on Tap,” and the internet is having a collective aneurysm, which is honestly the most interesting thing that’s happened in news this week. The piece, which is probably longer than the actual Constitution, explores the profound existential question: “What if… we took the liquid out of a can… and put it… in a glass?”
Groundbreaking. Truly. My 401k is now funding this level of investigative journalism.
Look, I get it. The NYT lifestyle section has to fill a quota of “things that slightly confuse Boomers in Connecticut.” Last week it was “Why your sourdough starter has a name and you don’t.” This week, it’s “The audacity of a bar not handing you a glorified aluminum tube.” The article, which I read so you don’t have to—you’re welcome—takes us on a harrowing journey through the mind of a bartender who decided to, and I quote, “decant” a White Claw into a pint glass before serving it.
Yes, decant. Like it’s a 1982 Château Margaux. But instead of notes of blackcurrant and leather, you get notes of “Oh god, is this just sparkling water with a hint of regret?”
The article’s premise is that this is a “luxury” experience. Apparently, the act of pouring a pre-carbonated, pre-sealed beverage from one container to another elevates it to the status of a craft cocktail. The bar is charging $8 for this. For a can of seltzer that costs $1.29 at the bodega. And the NYT is here to tell you that this is not only acceptable, but *intellectual*.
Let’s break down the sheer audacity of this “innovation,” shall we?
First, the article argues that it’s “more sustainable.” Oh, word? So instead of recycling one aluminum can, you’re now using a glass that requires hot soapy water and industrial dishwashing, plus the energy to transport that glass back and forth, plus the fact that the bar still bought the can in the first place? You’re not eliminating the can, Karen; you’re just making extra work for the dish pit. This is the same logic as buying a Tesla to save the environment while you fly your private jet to a climate summit. It’s performative bullshit that makes you feel fancy while accomplishing exactly jack squat.
Second, the taste. The article genuinely quotes someone saying that pouring a seltzer into a glass “opens up the aroma.” Bro, it’s LaCroix. The aroma is “vague hint of a fruit that died in a field somewhere far away.” You’re not aerating a bold Napa Cabernet; you’re serving me a beverage that tastes like a memory of a lime. If you want to “open up the aroma,” maybe just hold the can closer to my face. I’ll save you the $3 upcharge.
Third, and most importantly, this is a massive betrayal of the American drinking experience. The can is a sacred vessel. It’s the sound of the pop-top on a hot summer day. It’s the satisfying crunch when you crush it against your forehead after chugging it. It’s the way you can hide a Busch Light in a koozie at a barbecue and pretend you’re sophisticated. Taking the liquid out of the can is like taking the bread off a burger. It’s missing the entire point.
This whole thing screams of a bar that ran out of ideas and decided to rebrand “being lazy” as “curated.” It’s the same energy as that restaurant that charges $18 for avocado toast but just puts half an avocado on a piece of bread and calls it “deconstructed.” No, you didn’t deconstruct anything; you just refused to mash it up. Similarly, this bartender didn’t “elevate” my seltzer; he just made me wait an extra 15 seconds for a drink I could have opened myself.
And the NYT eats it up. They frame it as a rebellion against the “humble can.” As if the can is some second-class citizen of the beverage world, begging to be liberated by a hipster with a microplane and a mustache. Newsflash: the can is fine. The can is a miracle of modern engineering. It keeps your drink cold, it’s lightweight, it’s infinitely recyclable, and it doesn’t shatter into a million pieces when you inevitably knock it off the coffee table while watching Love Is Blind. The can is not your enemy.
But no, we have to complicate it. We have to add a step. We have to make it an “experience.” Because God forbid you just sit down, order a seltzer, and drink it like a normal person. No, you must now ponder the “terroir” of the seltzer. You must ask the bartender if it’s a “single-origin” seltzer. You must debate whether the glassware is “appropriate for the effervescence profile.”
This is peak late-stage capitalism. We have commodified the act of opening a can. We have turned a 5-second transaction into a 10-minute performance. And the New York Times is here to validate it. I fully expect next week’s feature to be about a man in Brooklyn who has a subscription service where he comes to your
Final Thoughts
After reading the piece, it’s clear that the "bottle on tap" model is less a gimmick and more a quiet revolution in hospitality: it cuts waste, preserves freshness, and forces restaurants to rethink their relationship with premium packaging. The real takeaway, however, is that this system exposes the weird cognitive dissonance we still have about what makes a drink feel "special"—even as we claim to value sustainability, we remain oddly attached to the ritual of uncorking or popping a cap. Ultimately, if the industry can get past that psychological hurdle, this might be the most pragmatic shift in beverage service we’ve seen in a decade, even if it means surrendering a little romance for a lot less glass in the landfill.