Sneakeater

This was all great. Really great: one of the most fun foodboard threads ever. The only question I have is why you'd order a beer in a cocktail lounge.

One big problem with the F&F was pacing. The courses came too fast. I didn't comment on that, and hoped they'd take care of it upon opening. Seems like they haven't yet.

But FG, if Ko expands this whole discussion becomes moot. This discussion is about what's appropriate at a 12-seat restaurant. A 40-seat restaurant would be a whole other story. Also, given that this is a 12-seat restaurant, you're talking about A LOT of favoritism, not "a little." If all the people who are given special treatment as regulars at the other Momorestos get preferred seating at Ko, Ko is effectively closed to the pubic. (I'm not denying that there may be SOME people who are given preferred reservations at Ko. Only that as the number of seats in a place goes down, the number of people who can "expect" such treatment goes down also. It's no longer part of the standard set of perks you can expect as a regular.)

But there's a difference between "a little bit of favoritism" and effectively closing the doors of your restaurant to the general public. If Chang doesn't want Ko to turn into the EV Rao's -- a place you simply can't get into if you don't have connections -- I think that's only to be applauded.

Anthony A is exactly right. There was some suggestion that Chang is being hypocritical because he had a "Friends & Family" before opening with the purported "no preference" system. But the point is, if Chang gave preferences the way "normal" restaurants do, the people at F&F (and a few others) would be the ONLY people who EVER get to eat at Ko. Now I'm not arguing that there are NO people who are EVER going to get seating preferences at Ko. I'm not that naive. I'm sure there are super-regulars, visiting chefs, family, and others who may be squeezed in. I'm only arguing that Chang's refusal to extend such privileges to the usual extent makes sense AT THIS PARTICULAR RESTAURANT. And is nothing Chang's regulars should take umbrage to.

I mean, FG, what it sounds like is that you're pissed off because David Chang is trying to interfere with your paradigm. But I thought that's what Momo is all about.

But again, that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether a tiny restaurant can justifiably withhold ONE PERK from its regulars.

If you assume it takes some number of visits to become a regular, then obviously you've established a habit of patronizing a place for at least a little while before you start getting special treatment as a regular. Presumably because you like the place. FG seems to be saying that, once he's been to a place that magic number of times, he'll stop going if the special treatment doesn't commence. Even though he clearly likes the place, or else he wouldn't have established the habit of patronizing it. This makes so little sense to me that I can't believe it's what he's really saying. What I THINK he's really saying is, if he were a sufficiently longstanding patron of a place, he'd get pissed enough to stop going if he asked them for a reasonable favor and they refused. And I can sort of understand that (although I might disagree with him about what favors are reasonable). What I can't understand is saying he wouldn't patronize a place if they had an announced policy, communicated to all from the start, of withholding ONE type of favor from EVERYBODY.

Thanks!

I think they're pretty explicit about that.

Flavored wine aperitif (like vermouth) from Bordeaux.

Why would you object to being limited to choosing a wine from the pairing list? (The same limitation applied to those getting pairings.) I think the more interesting question is whether they'll sell you individual glasses of wine. As of now, the stated choice is between pairings and nothing. There are no per-glass or per-bottle prices stated anywhere.

Because in this case it's zero sum game. When I get comped dishes at Ssam Bar, or moved up a bit on the wait list at [unnamed Brooklyn restaurant], I'm not depriving somebody else of an incredibly scarce commodity. Here, we're talking about seats at a 12-seat restaurant. As ue said, if it operated the way you're proposing, it would become a Momofan supper club. You'd halve the number of other people who could get in. I don't see how that's desirable in any way.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.Every restaurant that survives eventually attracts significant support from regulars. And restaurants generally offer perks to give regulars the incentive to stay that way. I think Steven is simply expressing skepticism that Ko can be successful without doing this. On one level, he is right. Successful restaurants do the things he says they do. But Steven has often said that Momofuku Ssam Bar "shattered" the traditional restaurant paradigm. So it's a little inconsistent to praise them for shattering something, while at the same time complaining that they shattered too much. ← I see and agree with your point.

Right. It's like, they're publically adopting a "no entitlement" policy, and you're saying that people are so selfish that they won't allow it to work.

So why are Noodle Bar and Ssam Bar regulars invited to previews at Ko? There's obviously a connection. ← Obviously, there is. But you're talking about ENTITLEMENT.

QUOTE(Fat Guy @ Mar 12 2008, 05:24 PM"I obviously go more frequently to places that treat me well" but "I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER [i) stop going to a place just because they didn't give me special treatment as a regular."Given that you visit a finite number of restaurants per year, how can both statements be true? ← A finite number can be very big.

We don't "expect" it. We appreciate it. The idea that I wouldn't have continued to patronize Ssam Bar if they didn't throw me comps is risible.

And of course ue is right. Ko is a separate restaurant from Ssam Bar and Noodle Bar. I eat a lot at Esca, and get treated very well there -- but I don't expect it to translate into tables at Babbo.

I obviously go more frequently to places that treat me well, but I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER stop going to a place just because they didn't give me special treatment as a regular. I guess I really am not pushy and entitled enough to live in New York. (Maybe that's why I moved to Brooklyn all those years ago.)

I'm sure it was a necessary retrenchment, but I can't say I think it's "perfect" or even "better." More like "not as bad as it could be."

Oakapple is right: it's another example of the "New Paradigm". Is it possible to run a restaurant in a way that isn't, in some fundamental sense, corrupt? (And yes, I view unpublicized preferential treatment for VIPs as in some sense corrupt -- even though I'm a frequent beneficiary of such treatment.) Maybe it is possible and maybe it isn't. But I don't see why anyone would criticize a place for trying it. To me, that's just as hidebound and narrowminded as criticizing a place for not having backs on its chairs, or silverware, or a clear ordering sequence, or a consistently "haute" menu.

So they're fed up. I don't think that I'm willing to go through the Ko cybergauntlet either. So it'll be another place -- like Per Se -- that I don't go, even though I'd like to. Happily, there's another Chang place, which in some ways I like even better than Ko (based on one Ko meal, to be sure), that I can still go to just as I always have. I'm incredibly grateful to have been included in Ko's F&F. Why should I feel "alienated" that they won't do even more for me -- especially when it would be contrary to a business model that I have great respect for?

I don't get this. Why will I ever feel badly about not being able to get into Ko, if I get treated well at Ssam Bar? Is my sense of entitlement as a New Yorker supposed to be so great that I'm supposed to abandon a place if it doesn't do me every single favor it conceivably could, but rather only a lot of them? I think that people who EXPECT special treatment should go fuck themselves.

I would want to commune with chefs why?