13 replies to this topic

[robert brown]

As a run-up to Danny Meyer's Q&A, I think it would be interesting to have a discussion here of his profession: the restaurateur. This topic has had little airing on eGullet.

The 20th century has seen famous restaurateurs who created memorable dining experiences even though they themselves were not great professional cooks. Among those who come to mind are:

César Ritz, who engaged Auguste Escoffier as his chef

Claude Terrail, whose restaurant La Tour d'Argent was accorded three Guide Michelin stars from 1951 until 1996 with a succession of essentially anonymous chefs

Jean-Claude Vrinat, owner of Taillevent, which has had three stars since 1973 despite changing chefs several times

Raymond Jamin whose last three chefs were Gerard Besson, Daniel Bouche (who went to La Tour d'Argent and is now at Les Ambassadeurs) and Joel Robuchon who acquired the restaurant

In New York, figures such as Roger Chauveron (Café Chauveron), Paul Kovi and Tom Marrgittai of The Four Seasons, Joe Baum, and, in the present, Sirio Maccioni, Drew Nieporent and Danny Meyer stand out.

And in the UK, Sir Terence Conran, the London design legend.

Until recently, the roles of the restaurateur and chef were almost always more markedly different. The restaurateur brought taste and connoisseurship to bear as he selected chefs, staffed the service arm of his restaurant, stocked the wine cellar and oversaw the restaurant's decor and accoutrements, not to mention its economic management. When chefs doubled as restaurateurs, their managerial responsibilities were often handed to a spouse, manager, or sibling.

Today, while more chefs are taking on restaurateur responsibilities by developing and owning multiple restaurants, a great many established and new restaurants are still owned and managed by those who are not cuisiniers.

Among the questions that this discussion seeks to address:

Can a great restaurateur be as crucial to a great restaurant as a chef?

Can a restaurateur overcome the shortcomings or lack of imagination of his chef with good atmosphere, selection of wines; and polished and friendly service?

Is it possible to have a meal of the highest quality at a restaurant that is not chef-owned? Do you hesitate to choose a top-range restaurant if it is not chef-owned or if the chef owns a string of restaurants and is not likely to be in attendance?

Are there specific restaurateurs, masters of their profession, who did something to provide you a dining experience you have never forgotten or have encouraged you to make his restaurant "your restaurant"?

What signs do you use to tell an accomplished restaurateur from a poor or mediocre one?

[Suzanne F]

On the NYC list, I would add Phil Suarez and his partner(s), the folks behind Jean-Georges Vongerichten and several lesser lights. I believe they must have more input than just money. After all, whoever holds the purse strings can mightily affect the overall production.

In fact, the position most analogous to restaurateur I can think of is the theatrical producer: bringing the entire artistic package together, and making sure that the vision of the playwright and director (= chef) is given the proper physical production (= designers) with the right actors (= FOH and BOH staff), in order to give the audience (= customers) a top-notch experience.

A great restaurateur will know how to get the generators of each other element to compensate if one falls a bit short. Although in this case, the playwright/chef cannot be the weak element. (Or is there a culinary equivalent to Abe Burrows?) So, no, the chef's shortcomings cannot be hidden by even the best of wine lists, service, lighting, restroom amenities, etc.

For the sake of argument, I posit that one might be more likely to have a meal of the highest quality at a restaurant that is NOT chef-owned -- but only if the chef and restaurateur share the same idea of what the food should be. I say this because a chef who is not the owner has the time and energy to concentrate on his/her art and staff, without the distractions of everyday business. In any case, how are we to determine if a restaurant is TRULY "chef-owned" or if the chef is merely the name, propped up by a list of backers?

[lizziee]

A great restaurateur is as crucial to a great restaurant as the chef. First of all, a restaurant is a business and as a business it does want to make money. No restaurant can stay in business and become great if it can't afford to stay open. Little things like payroll, taxes, leases, purchase orders, hiring, firing, evaluations, marketing, positioning, government regulations, maintaining the property, reservations as well as grumpy guests all have to be handled.

Given that a restaurateur is successful in the above, he, to achieve greatness, is the consummate host. He can anticipate a diner's needs from ambiance to menu selection to service. The restaurateur is the leader; he sets the tone for the restaurant. It is his vision. I can't imagine Le Cirque without Sirio, Gramercy Tavern without Danny Meyer or Commander's Palace without the Brennans.

Also, I think that with the rise of the celebrity chef as well as adding two or more restaurants to their "empire", many chefs have morphed into restaurateurs rather than chefs behind the stove. Wolfgang Puck, Emeril, Todd English, Nobu, Roy Yamaguchi, Joachim Splichal, to name a few, are rarely in the kitchen.

Generally, then, no matter how superior the food, if the other elements of fine dining are missing, the experience does not add up to a fine dining experience. I am reminded of Bux's and my experiences re Regis Marcon where we both found the service to be off, but the food remarkable, to have been an initial "spoiler." On the other hand, a great restaurateur can't make a poor meal great, but he can make a good meal great.

Given the above, my own preference is for the small, one seating, chef-owned restaurant that is more the norm in France.

[macrosan]

I am in total agreement with Suzanne and Liziee on this.

A successful restaurateur is in most respects the same as a successful businessman, ore top manager, in any sphere of commerce. There is an important truth in Suzanne's suggestion that the restaurant industry is closely analagous to show business, and that may create some extremes of success and failure, and also render the dividing line between the two very narrow.

The most publicly successful managers and businessman in all spheres of activity have "charisma". They also have a clear perception of what their customers want, and they are hugely motivated to deliver just that. They are open to new ideas, and willing to take risks. All of that was/is just as true of Arnold Weinstock or Richard Branson or Tom Watson or Bill Gates as it is of Terence Conran or Alain Ducasse or (dare I say it?) Colonel Sanders

The transfer from chef to restaurateur should surprise no-one. Most creative managers who rise to the top of the tree are motivated to take total control of their environment, and the use of their skills. Most of the great entrepreneurs rose through the ranks of their business, and then took control or started up their own. Why would chefs be any different ? That is not to say that a high proportion will succeed, but nor do they in other industries. Peter's Principle applies nowhere as strongly as it does in that final leap into the unknown where people start to work for themselves. Indeed, given the importance (especially in fine dining) of the element of show business razzmatazz, I guess that the degree of entrepreneurial risk in the restaurant industry is higher than most.

Shortcomings in one key element of any business can often be overcome by exceptional performance of another. That surely is true of restaurants. Brilliant food may be sufficient to overcome poor service, but not appalling service. Food is obviously the sine qua non of a restaurant, but what is it about the food that generates a successful restaurant ? The answer is that it varies hugely according to the marketplace, time and fashion, and of course the "other" elements that are provided to surround the food.

Chef ownership is, therefore, not related to the success or failure of a restaurant. But equally it is no bar to success. Some chefs will make great restaurateurs, some not. I cannot believe that any chef has become great without the benefit of a great restaurateur, but I can believe the reverse.

[Fat Guy]

May I suggest there are two species of restaurants relevant to this discussion: "chef-driven" and "owner-driven"?

For example, Taillevent in Paris and Le Cirque 2000 in New York City are owner-driven restaurants. When they undergo chef-changes they remain entirely recognizable.

In the other category, Pierre Gagnaire in Paris and Union Pacific in New York City are entirely chef-driven. It is impossible to imagine these restaurants existing in recognizable form in the absence of their chefs. And I do not believe, at least in Union Pacific's case, that Rocco DiSpirito is the owner (the owner is Steve Sher, as far as I know).

Then of course there is the hybrid, a place like New York's Gramercy Tavern, which is clearly a collaboration and roughly equal partnership between chef (Tom Colicchio) and owner (Danny Meyer).

The above examples and categories might help to frame the aforementioned questions.

[Jonathan Day]

There is controversy on this board about Chez Panisse, and whether it still delivers an outstanding dining experience, especially in the main restaurant.

Nonetheless most would say that it is important, as a restaurant. And I think it presents some challenge to FG's chef-driven vs. owner-driven distinction.

On the one hand, Alice Waters has not been the restaurant's principal cook for many years (as she was in the early days), and (at least in her published work) defines herself as a "restauratrice" rather than a chef. CP has had a sequence of chefs, some professionally trained (Moullé, Bertolli, etc.) and others more "self-taught" (Tower). Yet Waters's imprint on the cuisine remains strong, not just in accoutrements, service, but also in the restaurant's fundamental culinary philosophy, menu design, sourcing strategies, etc.

She is an owner, a restauratrice rather than a chef, but she exercises some of a chef's influence on what comes out of the kitchen. So is CP owner-driven or chef-driven?

[Jason Perlow]

Then of course there is the hybrid, a place like New York's Gramercy Tavern, which is clearly a collaboration and roughly equal partnership between chef (Tom Colicchio) and owner (Danny Meyer).

And of course lets not forget the trio of Joe Bastianich, Jason Denton and Mario Batali, who have produced Babbo, Esca, Lupa and now Otto together.

[macrosan]

Just a comment on FatGuy's proposition on a restaurant being either "chef-driven" or "owner-driven".

In my experience, most businesses are broadly either "marketing-driven" or "finance-driven". Over time, there seems to be a repetitive cycle, lasting maybe six to eight years, during which a business moves from orientation towards one of those disciplines to the other, then back again in the next cycle. I have always believed that this cycle is essential to the long-term health of a company, since each different discipline is refreshed and re-motivated at stages in the cycle, rather like plants through the seasons.

In the restaurant context, an owner will generally don the "finance" hat and the chef will don the "marketing" hat. I would expect a restaurant to follow my hypothetical cycle. Now perhaps many restaurants don't survive the ten years it might take for the cycle to become evident, but I wonder if anyone has observed such changes in the "engine" of long-established restaurants.

[robert brown]

Just to add another ingredient to the mix, and one I should have addressed at the beginning since I have thought about quite often, let us consider the role of hotels and hotel chains.

I can recall the 1970s and 1980s in France when a promising young chef who had finished his apprenticeships at two and three-star restaurants would open a small, middle-range restaurant that would garner a 15/20 or 16/20 right away from Gault-Millau. With the severe and long recession in France in the 1990s, this way of entering restaurant proprietorship became increasingly rare. Instead, hotels saw the opportunity, if not the need, to add distinctive dining to their properties, with the result that young, talented chefs would begin their "solo" careers in hotels. In the context of the restaurateur, the faceless corporate entity of a hotel takes over the that role. In essence there is no restaurateur in the classic sense, only manager types who oversee dining rooms. In what could be another new, seperate thread topic, do you think hotels are a Godsend to fine dining or do they come at a cost? I also wonder about so-called luxury chain restaurants such as Fours Seasons or the Ritz-Carlton where a kind of chain-wide formula and standards are laid across a whole slew of hotel restaurants.

[lizziee]

"do you think hotels are a Godsend to fine dining or do they come at a cost?"

I am emphatic on this particular topic. I think it comes at a huge cost, particularly in the States where there is more than one seating, the HR department reigns supreme, the chef has no proprietary role, the management and staff are recruited, hired and fired by the hotel, the menu is not chef-driven exclusively and on and on.

This is not to say that there are fine dining establishments in the States that happen to be in hotels, but, in the main, those "major" chefs have managed to negotiate a contract on their terms. There are restaurants that have been able to succeed in spite of their affiliation with a hotel, but the question is, "Do they succeed because of that association?"

[Nick]

From my very limited experience in dining -

I think that the restaurateur can be as crucial as the chef to the success of the restaurant and to the customers' dining enjoyment. All things being equal.

The restaurateur can overcome the shortcomings and lack of imagination of the chef so long as the food is at least very good and the dining experience one that is truly enjoyable and one that will be remembered.

I'd much rather go out to eat where a good restaurateur is seeing that the dining experience is all that it can be, while the chef stays in the kitchen seeing that the food is all that it can be.

When the chef starts making the rounds out front I always have the feeling that he/she should be back in the kitchen taking care of business rather than talking with (for instance) me. On the other hand, it's almost always been a great pleasure when the restaurateur sits down at the table and we've had a great and wandering conversation covering topics ranging far from food and how well the place is doing.

[Jonathan Day]

This is not to say that there are fine dining establishments in the States that happen to be in hotels, but, in the main, those "major" chefs have managed to negotiate a contract on their terms. There are restaurants that have been able to succeed in spite of their affiliation with a hotel, but the question is, "Do they succeed because of that association?"

What about the Ritz-Carlton chain? Their restaurants (which are often called something like "The Restaurant" or "The Dining Room") can deliver surprisingly fine food -- I think of the one in San Francisco, for example, or in Chicago. My impression is that this is a hotel chain that is obsessive about the quality of its restaurants -- a corporate "restaurateur". Is this an accurate reading? Are there other hotel chains that break away from the HR-driven, corporate mentality that Lizziee describes? What about the Hotel du Vin group in the UK?

[lizziee]

Jonathan,

In using the Ritz as an example that is actually what I meant by a chef negotiating a contract on his terms in the hotel setting. In San Francisco, the Ritz Carlton Dining Room, headed by Sylvan Portney, is a completely separate entity, run as a separate restaurant with its own hours, staff, sommelier, kitchen etc. The "main" dining room is headed by the executive chef who is also responsible for room service, banquet service, the club level etc.

[ngatti]

Just to add another ingredient to the mix, and one I should have addressed at the beginning since I have thought about quite often, let us consider the role of hotels and hotel chains.

My apologies for being terse and for perhaps belaboring the obvious;
HR (Human Resources) issues aside (based on my experience, they do play a role), one mustn't lose sight of the fact that a restaurant is in the business of selling food and a hotel is in the *primary* business of selling rooms.
The F&B (Food & Beverage) function in many cases being quite ancillary to the overall operation.

Nick