1097 replies to this topic

[Nathan]

having just read 15 pages of this thread:

1. the cocktails at Roberta's are pretty good (anyone surprised? though I just had some cocktails the other night at Lambert's in Austin that read very well (good ingredients etc.) at a place with real hipster cred....and they were awful (everything way sweet)...but then Austin isn't really a cocktail town yet...but since they try to imitate Brooklyn in all things...

2. of course restauranteurs describe economically driven decisions as aesthetic or moral choices all the time...got it. that's the way of business (or just human nature).

3. but sometimes the choices really are aesthetic, or rather, are marketing driven....the mason jars, the playlist etc...all that was aimed at the core audience of Roberta's and would have existed even if they had an unlimited budget SO LONG AS THE RESTAURANT WAS LOCATED IN BUSHWICK...if you disagree with that you really don't understand who most of the Roberta's customers are...(they probably mostly live in Williamsburg or Park Slope or the Heights...but they like to pretend they're from Bushwick).

4. Sure sometimes when restauranteurs get the funding they leave all the bullshit from point 2 behind...and sometimes not....you don't think Chang could have afforded to put in seats and so forth at Ko? granted, he always wanted to do something like Ko when he got the money...but the counter seating really is an aesthetic (or at least a marketing) choice....heck, he just replicated it in Sydney...despite having a much larger space and an almost unlimited budget.

5. and sometimes, when they make a place "fancy"....(and this might be very well be what's going on at Roberta's)....it's just because only old people will spend $400 pp on dinner....not cause the restauranteur/chef prefers it.

[Adrian]

you're setting the norm based on what is personally comfortable to Wilfrid, which is fine so long as you recognize that your personal definition of cool/comfortable/stylish isn't some neutral, universal baseline and treating it as such is inaccurate.

That is just the most... well, words fail me.

The idea that there is no reasonable consensus about comfort, but either subjective, personal opinions or iron universal laws. I can't... I mean, really...

It should give you pause when you criticize a place for being "uncomfortable" when it's packed with people who don't find it "uncomfortable" or when those people actually *like* the things that you think are uncomfortable (no table clothes, coat check, "weird" music [okay, you like "weird" music], etc.)

[Nathan]

At $180 even the Bushwick trust fund crowd can't keep you going forever.*

Even before they started charging $180, Roberta's had long ago ceased to be a Bushwick neighborhood place.

huh? I'd say 90% of the diners there are easily hipsters....(or wannabes)

oh, you're just talking about the 1% -- the tasting menu guests.

(btw, was surprised at your Perla review...but it sounds very very good)

[Wilfrid]

There is a hole in the wall storefront restaurant in Norwalk CT called Luncheria Valencia that serves excellent Latin American food. Its all over Yelp and Chowhound and I think Guy Fieri once showed up there too. Always fresh, well prepared food that frankly no place else comes close in quality. The problem is it is tiny, cramped, always a wait with an airplane sized bathroom behind the kitchen. Sometimes the air conditioning works, sometimes it doesn't. None of those things add to the charm. But the food is so good we go all the time.

They have just now moved into a new space that is much more comfortable than the old space. As long as the food is the same I won't miss the other uncomfortable inconveniences that some might consider "charm" or an authentic Venezuelan beach food vibe.

I think I have one more gold star in my bag.

We could equally be discussing Torrisi conversion to a "more comfortable"* space.

*Grub Street, not "my own, personal, exclusive, subjective...blah, blah."

[Adrian]

having just read 15 pages of this thread:

1. the cocktails at Roberta's are pretty good (anyone surprised? though I just had some cocktails the other night at Lambert's in Austin that read very well (good ingredients etc.) at a place with real hipster cred....and they were awful (everything way sweet)...but then Austin isn't really a cocktail town yet...but since they try to imitate Brooklyn in all things...

2. of course restauranteurs describe economically driven decisions as aesthetic or moral choices all the time...got it. that's the way of business (or just human nature).

3. but sometimes the choices really are aesthetic, or rather, are marketing driven....the mason jars, the playlist etc...all that was aimed at the core audience of Roberta's and would have existed even if they had an unlimited budget SO LONG AS THE RESTAURANT WAS LOCATED IN BUSHWICK...if you disagree with that you really don't understand who most of the Roberta's customers are...(they probably mostly live in Williamsburg or Park Slope or the Heights...but they like to pretend they're from Bushwick).

4. Sure sometimes when restauranteurs get the funding they leave all the bullshit from point 2 behind...and sometimes not....you don't think Chang could have afforded to put in seats and so forth at Ko? granted, he always wanted to do something like Ko when he got the money...but the counter seating really is an aesthetic (or at least a marketing) choice....heck, he just replicated it in Sydney...despite having a much larger space and an almost unlimited budget.

5. and sometimes, when they make a place "fancy"....(and this might be very well be what's going on at Roberta's)....it's just because only old people will spend $400 pp on dinner....not cause the restauranteur/chef prefers it.

Thank you.

(I'll reiterate again that Monis moving the exact opposite way from Komi with Little Serow should be illustrative)

[Anthony Bonner]

4. Sure sometimes when restauranteurs get the funding they leave all the bullshit from point 2 behind...and sometimes not....you don't think Chang could have afforded to put in seats and so forth at Ko? granted, he always wanted to do something like Ko when he got the money...but the counter seating really is an aesthetic (or at least a marketing) choice....heck, he just replicated it in Sydney...despite having a much larger space and an almost unlimited budget.

I think Ko is part of step 4. He could have done whatever he wanted at that point. You want to complain about the seats there - go ahead.

[Stone]

I think Wilfrid's premise is that most of the people at Roberta's do find the benches uncomfortable, but that they like sitting on uncomfortable benches because it's the cool thing.

[Nathan]

you're setting the norm based on what is personally comfortable to Wilfrid, which is fine so long as you recognize that your personal definition of cool/comfortable/stylish isn't some neutral, universal baseline and treating it as such is inaccurate.

That is just the most... well, words fail me.

The idea that there is no reasonable consensus about comfort, but either subjective, personal opinions or iron universal laws. I can't... I mean, really...

It should give you pause when you criticize a place for being "uncomfortable" when it's packed with people who don't find it "uncomfortable" or when those people actually *like* the things that you think are uncomfortable (no table clothes, coat check, "weird" music [okay, you like "weird" music], etc.)

I think part of the problem is that most MF regulars do not go to NY restaurants with the primary purpose of getting laid...which is the primary motivation for most NY diners in NY restaurants. far apart seating, boundaries between people, long, evenly paced dinners etc....all get in the way of the NY restaurant's primary function...to introduce people to each other...

[Wilfrid]

At $180 even the Bushwick trust fund crowd can't keep you going forever.*

Even before they started charging $180, Roberta's had long ago ceased to be a Bushwick neighborhood place.

Yes and no. It was attracting visitors from overseas, but still had a huge, core local following going for pizza (and ordering pizza take-out). The first time I tried Roberta's food was a pizza a Bushwick bartender ordered and shared with me.

[Anthony Bonner]

At $180 even the Bushwick trust fund crowd can't keep you going forever.*

Even before they started charging $180, Roberta's had long ago ceased to be a Bushwick neighborhood place.

huh? I'd say 90% of the diners there are easily hipsters....(or wannabes)

Sure - but most of them aren't from Bushwick.

[Adrian]

I think Wilfrid's premise is that most of the people at Roberta's do find the benches uncomfortable, but that they like sitting on uncomfortable benches because it's the cool thing.

If so, then they're happier eating on benches in that environment and social situation than they would be if Roberta's gave everyone 1 million thread count recliners. In fact, I would wager that they would find eating on said recliners weird and uncomfortable in such a context, even if Wilfrid wouldn't. No one is asking anyone to dine on fire hydrants.

[Nathan]

At $180 even the Bushwick trust fund crowd can't keep you going forever.*

Even before they started charging $180, Roberta's had long ago ceased to be a Bushwick neighborhood place.

huh? I'd say 90% of the diners there are easily hipsters....(or wannabes)

Sure - but most of them aren't from Bushwick.

See above: I noted that most of them are from other parts of Brooklyn or even the city...but they essentially pretend to be from Bushwick....heck, all the dudes have beards -- no matter how scragly.

[Wilfrid]

1, Roberta's and "not real restaurants" have had a tremendously positive effect on the dining scene in town - will you agree to that? Ssam, Roberta's, Brooklyn Fare, etc,

2. Often the downside of our "not real restaurants" is that they are undercapitalized and/or potentially not purely profit motivated - this means they are often in weird nabes, have weird hours, weird ways to make bookings, very limited seating, poorly furnished dining rooms and sometimes questionable service quality. Can we agree to that?

3. The reason why they are often undercapitalized is because they either don't have enough of a name in the kitchen or have a concept that is sui generis - at least in NYC. Or some of them just don't want to have to deal with ROI needs.

4. Once these "not real restaurants" have established themselves as being capable of running a kitchen some of them will attract outside capital and they will transform themselves into "real restaurants" Or some of them won't because they don't care about making money beyond what it takes to survive.

So my question is why not fully embrace those places in 2 and people thinking about doing 2 in the hopes that they eventually make it to step 4, or if they don't want to make to step 4 that at least they can get themselves to a survivable steady-state?

The difficulty is that the "not real restaurants" thing is a pure invention by Orik, if you dig far enough back. I never said it. I explained that I wasn't saying it. It's an artifact of the disucssion.

I praised Chang for being a restaurateur-by-stealth back in 2008. This concept isn't new to me. I fully embrace it. It's great. What do you want me to say?

I am deriding, as I said, those people who imagine that restaurateurs generally don't want to get to step 4 - in fact are rejecting it as stylistically outmoded. The Roberta's team, like the Torrisi team - like David Chang - wanted to run nice restaurants. They got there by interesting and unconventional routes.

Terrific. I am gloating - not merely attempting to gloat - because this is constantly confirmed.

[Wilfrid]

Ah, the term I'm looking for is "sell out." There will be people - there are already - who will regard something like Blance as "selling out" Roberta's ideals.

[Stone]

Maybe they want to do both? A comfortable, casual restaurant; and a higher end differently-comfortable and less casual restaurant.