NYC cocktails are more expensive than ever — here's what makes NYers willing to shell out $30, $50 and $60 a drink
'I've just accepted that drinks in New York are expensive,' the 28-year-old transplant from Virginia told The Post. She said it's become her 'new normal' after living in Manhattan for two and a half years.
9 Despite some grumbling, New Yorkers are willing to pay high prices for their drinks in the city.
Stefano Giovannini
Things in New York — even just living — are worth more because they're likely to be top-tier, Donner said, 'because the expectations in New York are so much higher than anywhere else.'
Employees Only — where cocktails range from about $20 to $23 — has become one of her favorite sipping spots in the city, but she's splurged on a $30 martini at Bemelman's Bar and doesn't regret it.
'I wanted to try out the bar, they have live jazz — and it's a known establishment that's been around forever,' the Kips Bay resident justified.
New Yorkers may complain about high prices, but they're still handing over the cash at the end of the day.
As The Post reported in 2004, New Yorkers complained about paying $14 for a margarita at the time — now they'd be more than happy to see any cocktail under $15.
9 Jennifer Laccarino, 56, felt alright paying $18 for an Aperol Spritz at Lodi in Rockefeller Center because she'd traveled in from Connecticut.
Stefano Giovannini
9 Back in 2004, New Yorkers gawked at $20 cocktails. Now they expect it.
Merrill Sherman / NY Post Design
In 2010, the average price of a drink in the city was $10.78, according to Zagat. The Post reported at the time that prices were realistically a few bucks higher, but even so, they've never been more expensive than they are now.
At the Baccarat Hotel, the Baccarat Old Fashion and the Baccarat Rouge, both over $50, are the top sellers, staffers told The Post. And people constantly order the Polo Bar Lounge's $60 martini, which is served on a silver platter with oysters and caviar in the exclusive room.
Fifty-year-old Marcelo Gigliani appreciates a good cocktail with good company, so he'll splurge when he feels it's right.
'There are moments when it should be really cheap, and then there are moments when I'm willing to pay $20 or $30 for a cocktail in the right situation with the right people in the right environment,' Gigliani, 50, told The Post.
9 Marcelo Gigliani, 50, told The Post, 'There are moments when it should be really cheap, and then there are moments when I'm willing to pay $20 or $30 for a cocktail in the right situation with the right people in the right environment.
Stefano Giovannini
'A cocktail serves different purposes. It depends on what you're after, so it's hard to put a price on it.'
José María Dondé, beverage manager and head mixologist at The Bedford Stone Street, noted some of the nuances of setting prices in New York City.
'Most bars aim to keep drink costs around 20 to 25% of the price. So, if a cocktail costs $3 to make, it's usually priced around $12 to $15. That keeps the lights on and the bar running,' Dondé explained to The Post.
Cocktails at the new-ish spot in the Financial District range from $17 to $20.
'When you buy a cocktail, you're not just paying for what's in the glass, you're paying for the whole experience that comes with it,' Dondé said.
Some people are ready to spill some cash for an inventive drink, at a place with 'clout,' especially if it's something that they can't make at home.
'If it's a craft custom cocktail, I'll pay a premium,' Shannon Tweed, 30, told The Post.
'I'm in it for the experience.'
9 Shannon Tweed, 30, is willing to pay the big bucks 'if it's a craft custom cocktail' and an 'experience.'
Stefano Giovannini
But other customers aren't as ready to splash out on a drink — no matter the circumstances.
'One time in SoHo, I saw an espresso martini for around $30 to $50, and I left the bar immediately. We got seated, I looked at the menu and I immediately said hell no,' Ashley Stewart told The Post.
9 Ashley Stewart (bottom right) once walked out of a bar when she thought prices were too high.
Stefano Giovannini
Nick Smith, 30, agreed that 'if a cocktail [price] starts with a three, it's too expensive.' He and his girlfriend, Caroline Lea, 25, prefer to drink in the Lower East Side, where they think drink prices are a bit more reasonable — they paid $14 and $15 for their cocktails at Little Canal.
All in all, most people in Manhattan are willing to pay about $15 to $20 for a cocktail in the city.
9 As Nick Smith, 30, and Caroline Lea, 25, enjoyed a happy hour date, they noted that they preferred to go out in the Lower East Side, where things are typically cheaper than in Midtown.
Stefano Giovannini
9 Nick Smith, 30, agreed that 'if a cocktail [price] starts with a three, it's too expensive.'
Stefano Giovannini
'A normal standard cocktail should cost $15,' Chris Morales declared to The Post. He shelled out $21 for his after-work drink at the Bryant Park Grill this spring and thought the price was 'a bit high.'
He confessed to once having paid $50 for an old-fashioned made from Bulleit or Baker's brand rye but said it was a 'dumb move.'
'I shouldn't have done that,' Morales said, shaking his head.
Some who are older and wiser have learned their lesson.
9 Darrell Maupin, a former NYC restaurateur, said he 'rarely' eats and drinks out and would prefer to spend his money on a bottle at home than a glass out.
Stefano Giovannini
Former restaurateur Darrell Maupin says he's been priced out of the city. 'I don't want to have a subhuman life,' he told The Post.
'I rarely go out to restaurants because I can't afford them. I'd rather buy a bottle for $30 than spend $30 on one drink.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
10 hours ago
NY attorney general sues Zelle's parent company
NEW YORK -- New York's attorney general on Wednesday sued the parent company of the Zelle payment platform, months after the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau abandoned a similar case as the Trump administration was gutting the agency. Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, sued Early Warning Services in New York state court, alleging that the company, which is owned by a group of U.S. banks, had failed to protect users from fraud by not including critical safety features in Zelle's design. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this year dropped a similar case after President Donald Trump fired the agency's leader and his administration halted nearly all the bureau's work, closed its headquarters and moved to fire many of its workers. In a statement, James' office noted that its suit was filed after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau abandoned its lawsuit following a 'change in the federal administration.' 'No one should be left to fend for themselves after falling victim to a scam,' James said in a statement. 'I look forward to getting justice for the New Yorkers who suffered because of Zelle's security failures.' James has been a leading antagonist of Trump, a Republican, and has sued him dozens of times. Last week, The Associated Press and other news outlets reported that the Justice Department has subpoenaed James as part of an investigation into whether she violated Trump's civil rights, according to people familiar with the matter. James' case against Early Warning Services alleged that Zelle, which allows users to send and receive near-instant money transfers, failed to include adequate verification processes. Her office said scammers were able to access peoples' accounts or trick users into sending money to bogus accounts that posed as official businesses. In one instance cited by the attorney general's office, a Zelle user got a call from someone posing as an employee of the utility company Con Edison who told the user that his electricity was going to be shut off unless he sent them money through Zelle. The user then transferred about $1,500 to a Zelle account named 'Coned Billing" and then realized he had been scammed but was told by his bank that he could not get his money back, James' office said. In a statement issued through a spokesperson, Zelle called James' lawsuit 'a political stunt to generate press, not progress.' 'The Attorney General should focus on the hard facts, stopping criminal activity and adherence to the law, not overreach and meritless claims,' the statement said.
New York Post
11 hours ago
- New York Post
Zohran's rent-stabilized digs: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 14, 2025
The Issue: Andrew Cuomo's proposal for 'Zohran's Law' to stop the wealthy from exploiting rent control. Will New Yorkers finally wake up and elect someone who cares about crime, the cleanliness of the city and its taxpayers ('Cuo: 'Zohran's Law' to save apt. for needy,' Aug. 11)? Zohran Mamdani, who talks tough about taxing the millionaires and billionaires, is the son of millionaires and also makes $142,000 as a state assemblyman while living in a rent-stabilized apartment. He's nothing but a hypocrite, who will break the backs of New York's hard-working taxpayers. Advertisement Michael Greaney Massapequa As a tenant in a rent-regulated apartment, I agree with Andrew Cuomo's proposal to impose a means-test for occupants of these dwellings. Advertisement Many tenants of New York City's million rent-regulated units have low or moderate incomes. But some are privileged people in power who abuse the system, like Mamdani. No one who earns more than $100,000 a year (about twice the city median income) should qualify for a rent-regulated apartment. Those units belong to the needy, not the greedy. It is time to reform New York's rancid rent laws. Richard Reif Kew Gardens Hills Advertisement While Cuomo is right to criticize socialist Mamdani for gaming the rent-stabilization system, he's guilty of a staggering hypocrisy in calling for means-testing renters. As governor, Cuomo signed the notorious 2019 law preventing landlords from raising rents in exchange for Major Capital Improvements. As a result, over 20,000 apartments are left vacant, while the city faces a growing housing shortage. Robert Spitalnick Great Neck Advertisement Wow. The Post is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault with Mamdani. It's not like he's paying $150 a month for a five-room rent-controlled apartment. If someone bought a house at a low price and then property values suddenly went up, why would they think: 'I'd better move. It's not fair that I was so lucky'? Carol Puttre-Czyz East Village The Post reports that Mamdani has a nice subsidized one-bedroom apartment. As a socialist — likely even a communist — I'm sure Mamdani would welcome a few new roommates to share his largesse. Don Phelan Avon, Conn. The Issue: Mahmoud Khalil's attempt to justify Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks in a New York Times interview. How did terrorist mouthpiece Mahmoud Khalil get legal US residency ('Cries to boot bum Khalil,' Aug. 8)? Advertisement This moral degenerate thinks that Hamas' rape, beheading and burning of children, women and men was necessary to derail a Saudi-Israeli peace deal. He's now free to spew his demented hatred for Jews all over the media, igniting fantasies of murdering Jews. Someone should tell Khalil that a guest doesn't attack the values of those who have invited him into their homes. Steve Heitner Middle Island Advertisement I just don't understand how anyone can support Hamas, which engaged in these egregious and nefarious acts against innocent men, women and children who only wanted to live in peace. In my opinion, people like Khalil, whose only objective is to promote antisemitism and harming our Jewish friends and neighbors, should be deported. Frederick Bedell Jr. Advertisement Bellerose Khalil's justification for the savagery of Oct. 7 is only the tip of the iceberg. Those who applauded the rape and beheadings of innocents on Oct. 7 would also have proudly raised their fists in victory on 9/11. David Bryant Palm Desert, Calif. Advertisement Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
New York Post
11 hours ago
- New York Post
Eric Adams vetoes controversial grocery bills, citing affordability crisis for New Yorkers
Mayor Eric Adams vetoed a pair of controversial grocery bills that would have forced delivery companies in NYC to pay drivers more, which critics said would result in higher costs at the supermarket. Adams said Wednesday he issued the vetoes because he feared the increase in prices would burden struggling New Yorkers already facing an affordability crisis. 'Grocery prices are already too high, so now is not the right time to do anything to drive these prices even higher,' the mayor said. 4 Adams used his veto power to swat down a pair of bills he said would make grocery deliveries more expensive. James Messerschmidt Progressive City Council members who supported the legislation said the new laws would increase wages to more than $21 per hour for delivery drivers. But Adams argued the app delivery companies would pass the cost of the increased wages onto 'vulnerable' customers. 4 The mayor said New Yorkers can't afford higher grocery prices. Xinhua/Shutterstock 'Grocery delivery is fundamental for many New Yorkers, including some of our most vulnerable residents,' Adams said. 'We must always work to strike the right balance between delivering fair wages and making our city affordable for everyone and for that reason, I am vetoing both of these bills at this time.' Two-thirds of council members could vote to override Adams' vetoes. Council member Sandy Nurse, who sponsored Intro 1135-A and leads the council's progressive caucus, did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. When her bill was passed in July it received 36 votes, two more than a veto-proof majority. Intro 1133-A, the other bill Adams vetoed Wednesday, was also passed with a veto-proof majority, with 38 council members voting 'aye' in July. Council member Jennifer Gutiérrez, who sponsored 1133-A did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. A spokesperson for city council, Julia Agos, said the mayor was being hypocritical and the council was 'considering next steps.' 'Mayor Adams is once again displaying hypocrisy – this time, by opposing common-sense minimum pay standards and protections for grocery delivery workers that his own administration negotiated with us to match existing ones for food delivery workers,' Agos said. 'This veto demonstrates that the mayor's claims to care about working-class New Yorkers and a sustainable delivery industry for New York City are hollow, because he is undermining the workers who make the sector possible,' she added. 4 Progressive city council members argued struggling food delivery workers are underpaid. Stephen Yang The mayor was swayed in part by an op-ed written by Rev. Al Sharpton and published in AMNY, according to a source in City Hall. Sharpton argued food insecure New Yorkers, who are already facing cuts from the Trump administration to federal food programs, such as SNAP, couldn't stomach higher grocery prices. 4 A majority of council members could still vote to override the mayor's veto. Matthew McDermott The mayor's decision was also affected by a petition signed by 11,000 grocery delivery customers asking for the bills to be vetoed, according to a source. 'We cannot risk making groceries even more expensive for the families who can least afford them. Our administration will always fight for a fairer, more affordable future for all New Yorkers, full stop,' Adams said.
