598 replies to this topic

[Wilfrid1]

I agree with all of that, but with a few additional nuances: Bruni's preference for casual dining predates the current recession. "The Way We Eat Now" is the way Bruni always wanted to eat, and he projected that preference onto many who didn't share it—or at least, who didn't share it to the same degree.

If you assume a 2-year lead time for a high-end restaurant, any such place opening today would have been informed by three years of Bruni reviews, and the realization that he probably won't appreciate what you're doing. Looking back on his tenure, I can find only three European-style non-Italian luxury restaurants that opened during his tenure and received three stars: Adour, Corton, and Country. (I am not counting transfers to new locations, like Bouley and Le Cirque.) Gilt, The Modern, Gordon Ramsay, and Café Gray all received two stars, so it's basically a 50-50 proposition.

I agree with all of that too. Except to say that the economic obstacles to opening even mid-scale, let alone upscale, restaurants trump the preferences of the Times critic. If Craig Claibourne was the critic today, it would still be extraordinarily difficult to open and fill formal restaurants.

[Wilfrid1]

It would be wonderful if good food was available everywhere. I think someone covering the beat is obliged to acknowledge the real reason good food is being made available in casual settings (rather than reversing the order of explanation). I'd like to see an article, for example, acknowledging the remarkable success chefs have had in maintaining profit margins by making things like belly, gizzards, tripe and blade steaks truly appealing.

As for the star system, and I have deja vu going back five years, I still don't see how it can be wrested completely free of the formal dining model from which it is derived.

[Lex]

It would be wonderful if good food was available everywhere. I think someone covering the beat is obliged to acknowledge the real reason good food is being made available in casual settings (rather than reversing the order of explanation).

I know you've covered this at length but my memory fails me. There's an obvious trend towards casual restaurants. To what extent is it driven by economics as opposed to customer preferences? My own guess would be that both play a part.

[Wilfrid1]

It would be wonderful if good food was available everywhere. I think someone covering the beat is obliged to acknowledge the real reason good food is being made available in casual settings (rather than reversing the order of explanation).

I know you've covered this at length but my memory fails me. There's an obvious trend towards casual restaurants. To what extent is it driven by economics as opposed to customer preferences? My own guess would be that both play a part.

I have posted supporting quotes before, but the bottom line is that you can raise money to open a bar serving small plates easier than you can raise money to open a full service restaurant - er, because it's less money... Smaller premises, fewer staff, lower food cost, higher emphasis on alcohol (which is actually profitable), and no bills for flowers and laundry.

I don't deny that this may suit the younger dining demographic perfectly well. But the economy is an entirely sufficient cause of what's happening; if younger diners preferred to eat four courses of foie and filet mignon in formal luxury, such places would still not be opening. And - shocking though this may be - I really don't believe mainstream chefs would be serving gizzards and tripe and blade steaks if we were in a prolonged boom.

[Wilfrid1]

Something I started doing last night, and then got distracted. Thinking of those chefs who I'd guess would rather be doing something a little more upscale if they could.

We have Andrew Carmellini - surely one of the most gifted chefs in the city - serving pasta and meatball sliders.

We have Scott Bryan running a sort of small, neighborhood bistro.

We had Christian Delouvrier working in a sort of Bouley brasserie.

We had Gray Kunz doing small plates and private catering at what originally was Grayz.

I am sure there are plenty more examples.

[Lex]

I have posted supporting quotes before, but the bottom line is that you can raise money to open a bar serving small plates easier than you can raise money to open a full service restaurant - er, because it's less money... Smaller premises, fewer staff, lower food cost, higher emphasis on alcohol (which is actually profitable), and no bills for flowers and laundry.

I don't deny that this may suit the younger dining demographic perfectly well. But the economy is an entirely sufficient cause of what's happening; if younger diners preferred to eat four courses of foie and filet mignon in formal luxury, such places would still not be opening. And - shocking though this may be - I really don't believe mainstream chefs would be serving gizzards and tripe and blade steaks if we were in a prolonged boom.

All of that makes sense but didn't the trend towards more casual places predate the recession? For example, we've been talking about "small plates" for about 3 or 4 years.

I know you have legitimate concerns about the future of fine dining. If the root issue with upscale places is economic, then it's a temporary phenomenon. If it's more of a generational issue where twenty and thirty-somethings decide that it's stuffy and irrelevant then you've got a real problem.

[Anthony Bonner]

All of that makes sense but didn't the trend towards more casual places predate the recession?

Commercial Rents took off during the upturn. I think that was the real driver - well that and a few undercapitalized people who launched bar like places back in '03-'04 out of necessity that proved the concept.

[Sneakeater]

I have posted supporting quotes before, but the bottom line is that you can raise money to open a bar serving small plates easier than you can raise money to open a full service restaurant - er, because it's less money... Smaller premises, fewer staff, lower food cost, higher emphasis on alcohol (which is actually profitable), and no bills for flowers and laundry.

I don't deny that this may suit the younger dining demographic perfectly well. But the economy is an entirely sufficient cause of what's happening; if younger diners preferred to eat four courses of foie and filet mignon in formal luxury, such places would still not be opening. And - shocking though this may be - I really don't believe mainstream chefs would be serving gizzards and tripe and blade steaks if we were in a prolonged boom.

This is undoubtedly true. But as oakapple has pointed out, this trend predates the recession. Momofuku thrived during the bubble.

[oakapple]

It would be wonderful if good food was available everywhere. I think someone covering the beat is obliged to acknowledge the real reason good food is being made available in casual settings (rather than reversing the order of explanation).

I know you've covered this at length but my memory fails me. There's an obvious trend towards casual restaurants. To what extent is it driven by economics as opposed to customer preferences? My own guess would be that both play a part.

The trend isn't so much the extinction of luxury dining, as the creation of a new segment that formerly didn't exist — haute cuisine in highly casual surroundings.

In the current economic moment, fewer investors are willing or able to take big risks. But recessions are temporary, so the more interesting question is: When the economy rebounds, what will we be left with?

Clearly there is a new generation of chefs who actually prefer more casual settings, which can be opened more quickly and cheaply. David Chang built the Momofuku empire because he wanted to, not because he had to. He'll still be doing it after the recession ends, and there will be others who choose the same path. Carmellini, on the other hand, would probably rather be on a grander stage, and I suspect we'll eventually see him there.

I do think the current crop of critics has a lot to do with it. When the city's two most influential critics (Bruni & Platt) have a clear preference for casual dining, it cannot help but influence the kinds of places that get built.

[Sneakeater]

Commercial Rents took off during the upturn. I think that was the real driver - well that and a few undercapitalized people who launched bar like places back in '03-'04 out of necessity that proved the concept.

Oh. That makes sense.

[Wilfrid1]

All of that makes sense but didn't the trend towards more casual places predate the recession?

Commercial Rents took off during the upturn. I think that was the real driver - well that and a few undercapitalized people who launched bar like places back in '03-'04 out of necessity that proved the concept.

Of course casual places pre-dated the recession, and I believe tapas even predated Franco. Expressed more precisely, the recession is an entirely sufficient cause of the near exclusive focus of restaurateurs/chefs on casual places - especially those who might otherwise be opening actual restaurants.

It's quite possible that Andrew Carmellini finds meatball sliders and family-style bowls of pasta to be a more satisfying expression of his skills than running four distinct upscale menus at Cafe Boulud. (Seriously, it is quite possible.) But as a general phenomenon I believe this to be economy driven, not market driven.

As to the "generational" thing, open a dive playing death metal and serving baby food, and they will come. Equally, open somewhere serving grown-ups and they will come too. Right now, people are opening the former. I eat at Ssam Bar, and I hate to think of myself as a decrepit old fart, but I do expect a server to call me grandad at any moment.

[Wilfrid1]

I do think the current crop of critics has a lot to do with it. When the city's two most influential critics (Bruni & Platt) have a clear preference for casual dining, it cannot help but influence the kinds of places that get built.

But you surely can't believe that the reverse is true: that if Bruni and Platt preferred luxury dining, that's what would be booming. That's why I largely discount their influence. They are encouraging a phenomenon they don't control. It is as if they sat, Canute-like, on the shore and demonstrated their command over the ocean by instructing waves to come in and go out.

...haute cuisine in highly casual surroundings.

At best a highly edited version of haute cuisine. Certainly Chang will serve you some very expensive beef, and some foie gras. And when he serves modest cuts like blade steak, he sources them from "craft" vendors. But the main theme of the "casual dining" phenomenon has been a rush to less expensive ingredients, labor-saving menus, modest techniques, and comfort food. Even a "reinvented" burger is not something which challenges a kitchen.

Chang is a little bit of an exception. Redhead and Back Forty, for example, are not serving anything remotely like haute cuisine. Nor is Terroir. Nor are the Fatty Crabs or Little Owl or ... where else?

[Lex]

All of that makes sense but didn't the trend towards more casual places predate the recession?

Commercial Rents took off during the upturn. I think that was the real driver - well that and a few undercapitalized people who launched bar like places back in '03-'04 out of necessity that proved the concept.

That's a great theory because it explains both sides of situation. If rents are high then people open cheaper places. If the economy is bad then people open cheaper places.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I think more than economics is in play.

In the current economic moment, fewer investors are willing or able to take big risks. But recessions are temporary, so the more interesting question is: When the economy rebounds, what will we be left with?

Clearly there is a new generation of chefs who actually prefer more casual settings, which can be opened more quickly and cheaply. David Chang built the Momofuku empire because he wanted to, not because he had to. He'll still be doing it after the recession ends, and there will be others who choose the same path. Carmellini, on the other hand, would probably rather be on a grander stage, and I suspect we'll eventually see him there.

I do think the current crop of critics has a lot to do with it. When the city's two most influential critics (Bruni & Platt) have a clear preference for casual dining, it cannot help but influence the kinds of places that get built.

Notwithstanding Wilf's colorful language, I like your explanation better.

[Sneakeater]

In the end, I think I do, too.

[Wilfrid1]

You are resistant to argument, then.

Of course more than economics is "in play," but economics is (are?) the determining factor. Restaurateurs and critics should be congratulated on presenting the inevitable to diners as if it was something they had actively chosen. The triumph in getting young Americans to eat offal is alone worthy of admiration.