Casual Fine Dining

[oakapple]

Whether he's for it or against it, he's certainly correct about the trend. Even the fanciest restaurants in town are now casual by historical standards.

←

Whether he's correct depends on the "trend" he purports to have identified. Society in general, and not just dining, has been getting more casual for a long, long time. The fact that Bruni keeps writing about it in the restaurant context suggests that, in his mind, there is a very specific and recent trend that he thinks is worth spilling so much ink about.

I think there are significant counter-arguments to this purported trend. Major restauranteurs continue to open big-budget "white table cloth" restaurants. In roughly the last three years, we've had Asiate, Per Se, Alto, Gordon Ramsay, Country, The Modern, Cru, Del Posto, and Gilt — a rate of about two or three a year. About half of these were instant successes, which anyone will tell you is a pretty good batting average in the restaurant industry. The other half have made various adjustments, and as far as I know, have no plans to close or "Nishify" themselves.

How many restaurants in that genre have closed during the same time period? A handful come to mind (Biltmore Room, Atelier, Ducasse, Le Caravelle), but certainly fewer than the number that have opened — and supposedly Ducasse is going to re-open. This certainly suggests that the demand for traditional luxury restaurants hasn't abated — even if that "tradition" is adapted to contemporary sensibilities.

Edited March 14, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

But if you're putting the Biltmore Room in that "genre", you're proving Fat Guy's point. That restaurant was much more casual than any "fine dining" spot would have been in the past. The same is true (although perhaps, concededly, to a lesser extent) of Cru. I have a feeling that the same might also be true of Asiate and some other places you've named that I haven't been to.

Note that the "fanciest" of the places you mention -- Del Posto, the main dining room at Country, even the original Gilt -- are almost self-conciously fancy. As if "fanciness" is now a style element that a high-end restaurant might choose to incorporate, instead of the sine qua non of fine dining.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

But if you're putting the Biltmore Room in that "genre", you're proving Fat Guy's point.  That restaurant was much more casual than any "fine dining" spot would have been in the past.  The same is true (although perhaps, concededly, to a lesser extent) of Cru.  I have a feeling that the same might also be true of Asiate and some other places you've named that I haven't been to.

Note that the "fanciest" of the places you mention -- Del Posto, the main dining room at Country, even the original Gilt -- are almost self-conciously fancy.  As if "fanciness" is now a style element that a high-end restaurant will choose to incorporate, instead of the sine qua non of fine dining.

←

All I meant is that they're fancier than Nish has now become. I do agree, as I indicated, with the fact that there's a decades-long trend of decreasing formality in just about everything we do. It's a little surprising that Bruni is only just now noticing this.

[oakapple]

These days, people rarely want to spend four hours eating dinner. Fewer customers will sit still for long tasting-menus.

←

However, I think there are more NYC restaurants that offer tasting menus than there were 10 years ago.

[robyn]

One thing I don't understand. If dining is entertainment (and - at least for me - if it's not fun - then it's not worthwhile) - why the rush? I can understand the deal at Ruby Tuesday's here on a Tuesday - lots of families who come and go in an hour because mom and dad have to wake up early (sometimes both work - but if even if only one works - there is plenty to do early in the morning) - and the kids have to go to school (and be at the bus stop by 7). I can understand the deal if you're having a meal before going to a show or a concert.

But what's the story for everyone else? Granted - those are those very new Sex in the City couples who can't wait to get home to hit the sack for a few hours. But what about everyone else? What do you do if you start eating at 8 and are finished by 9:10? Even if you're a club person - well there's not much action in those before 11 or so.

The way I look at it - if I'm spending a couple of hundred or dollars or so - and getting in and out in an hour or so - I'm getting the bum's rush.

So why do those of you who like to eat in 70 minutes like to eat in 70 minutes? Robyn

[Fat Guy]

I can understand the deal at Ruby Tuesday's here on a Tuesday - lots of families who come and go in an hour because mom and dad have to wake up early (sometimes both work - but if even if only one works - there is plenty to do early in the morning) - and the kids have to go to school (and be at the bus stop by 7). 

←

Some of those people like to eat a bit better than Ruby Tuesday's allows.

[robyn]

I can understand the deal at Ruby Tuesday's here on a Tuesday - lots of families who come and go in an hour because mom and dad have to wake up early (sometimes both work - but if even if only one works - there is plenty to do early in the morning) - and the kids have to go to school (and be at the bus stop by 7). 

←

Some of those people like to eat a bit better than Ruby Tuesday's allows.

←

So you're telling me that mom and dad and the 2.3 kids are going to drop $200-300 at a nice place for a 70 minute meal (assuming mom and dad drink)? Maybe. Has anyone here done that? Which of these "new wave" restaurants in New York would be suitable for that endeavor? Robyn

P.S. Somehow I doubt this kind of dining group (mom/dad/kids) is even a visible blip on Bruni's radar screen (wrong demographics).

Edited March 15, 2007 by robyn (log)

[tommy]

So why do those of you who like to eat in 70 minutes like to eat in 70 minutes?  Robyn

←

because sometimes i want good food and good service and a good experience (none of which need to take more than 70 minutes), and i don't have 2 or 3 hours. i've got other stuff to do. i guess i don't understand the question or confusion. or maybe i'm just too busy to understand other peoples' priorities. nah.

[Fat Guy]

Robyn, we do that all the time. At least once a week, we take our son (now about a year and a half old) to a restaurant, and often it's the Bar Room at the Modern, or the Bread Bar at Tabla. They have high chairs at those restaurants for a reason. We see other kids at these places all the time. I'm with Mr. Tommy -- I have no idea what you're confused about. I think it's unequivocally great that it's possible to get great food without dedicating a whole evening to it. Why would anybody oppose that or even question it?

[rich]

Why 70 minutes? It only takes three minutes to be seated and order, five minutes to prepare, ten minutes to eat, four minutes to pay and leave - 22 minutes. What could you possibly do for the next 48 minutes? I know - attempt to read the entire menu at Del Posto.

[robyn]

We still make a ritual of meals - particularly dinner - a lot of the time - whether we're cooking and eating in - or dining out. It's a time to eat good food - talk about things we're thinking about - either with friends - or just the two of us - and relax and linger. A nice way to end a day. Robyn

[robyn]

Why 70 minutes? It only takes three minutes to be seated and order, five minutes to prepare, ten minutes to eat, four minutes to pay and leave - 22 minutes. What could you possibly do for the next 48 minutes? I know - attempt to read the entire menu at Del Posto.

←

I don't think you can get out of Waffle House in 22 minutes. Robyn

[oakapple]

I've no objection to the notion that, sometimes, we want serious food, and we want it quickly. I was in just such a mood last night. I went to Bouley Upstairs, and was out of there in about 45 minutes.

What I do object to is the suggestion by some critics that today's diners, categorically and collectively, are no longer interested the kind of leisurely meal that the better restaurants offer. Not necessarily a 5-hour extravaganza, but not 45 minutes either.

[rich]

Why 70 minutes? It only takes three minutes to be seated and order, five minutes to prepare, ten minutes to eat, four minutes to pay and leave - 22 minutes. What could you possibly do for the next 48 minutes? I know - attempt to read the entire menu at Del Posto.

←

I don't think you can get out of Waffle House in 22 minutes. Robyn

←

I've gotten out of many houses in much less than 22 minutes - especially when I didn't belong there.

[Sneakeater]

When you (meaning I) want quick meals.

1. On weeknights when you don't want to be out too late.

2. On weeknights when you're grabbing a late after-work meal.

3. On any night when you have something else you want to do besides eat dinner.

[Sneakeater]

I've no objection to the notion that, sometimes, we want serious food, and we want it quickly. I was in just such a mood last night. I went to Bouley Upstairs, and was out of there in about 45 minutes.

What I do object to is the suggestion by some critics that today's diners, categorically and collectively, are no longer interested the kind of leisurely meal that the better restaurants offer. Not necessarily a 5-hour extravaganza, but not 45 minutes either.

←

Again, where I think we disagree on this is:

1. Nobody (I think) is claiming that "today's diners" no longer want leisurely meals ever, but rather that they very frequently want high-quality non-leisurely meals.

2. Your remark that "leisurely meals" are offered by the "better restaurants" is telling. I think the whole point of this "new" thing is non-leisurely meals offered by restaurants that are almost as good as, and perhaps in some ways as good as, the top of the heap. So that these non-leisurely places are among "the better restaurants."

Edited March 15, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

I agree with oakapple's basic point, which seems to me to be that fine dining and casual dining are not mutually exclusive. There's no need for Bruni to go to war against fancy restaurants. Fancy restaurants and non-fancy restaurants can coexist. Likewise, we can celebrate excellent non-fancy restaurants without insulting fancy restaurants. And, indeed, there is still much demand for fancy meals, though even the fanciest restaurants have, in keeping with general social trends, become more casual than their predecessors.

I've got to say, I'm guilty of the same thing to a lesser extent. It's hard, when writing about the rise of excellent casual dining, and facing tight word-count constraints, to keep the contrasts from sounding like you're ragging on fine dining. I have a piece coming out soon that commits that exact sin in one place.

I don't think this is really anything new, either. Bruni has been the worst offender, but Grimes had his inverse snob tendencies too (before we had eG Forums, I criticized him for this in an article), and earlier critics made various judgmental-sounding "death of fine dining" statements too (insert Leonard Kim citations here).

[Sneakeater]

I also think you have to separate two separate things.

1. Relative "speed" v. "leisure".

2. "Fanciness" v. "casualness".

A place like DavidBurke & Donatella, for example, is much less "fancy" than Le Grenuoille, for example. But it's not going to take you much less time to get out of there if you have a full meal.

[oakapple]

I also think you have to separate two separate things.

1.  Relative "speed" v. "leisure".

2.  "Fanciness" v. "casualness".

The distinction is this:

The fancy restaurants that serve slow, leisurely meals, are nearly always aspiring to serve very upscale, high-end cuisine. Whether they succeed is a matter of critical judgment, but you're just not going to find a burgers-and-fries five-hour tasting menu.

At the other extreme, however, the fast/casual restaurants are usually not aspiring to serve upscale, haute cuisine. The whole alleged "new paradigm" seems to be about the fact that, nowadays, there are a few who do. But it is still a comparative rarity.

A place like DavidBurke & Donatella, for example, is much less "fancy" than Le Grenuoille, for example.  But it's not going to take you much less time to get out of there if you have a full meal.

←

Even places like La Grenouille have pre-theatre menus. We had dinner at Daniel over the weekend, and the server asked if we needed to get out in time for a show. Picholine, with its Lincoln Center proximity, does it all the time. Edited March 15, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

Sure, but the fact that you have to ask for it (or that they ask you about it) shows that it's an exception to general expectations.

(How many times have you heard it said how remarkable it is that Picholine is able to get so many people out in such a short time? Doesn't that indicate that it's considered out-of-the-ordinary for a place like that?)

[Sneakeater]

At the other extreme, however, the fast/casual restaurants are usually not aspiring to serve upscale, haute cuisine. The whole alleged "new paradigm" seems to be about the fact that, nowadays, there are a few who do. But it is still a comparative rarity.

←

That's certainly true.

[Sneakeater]

This isn't a new trend. As oakapple said above, it's an old trend. It's been going on for years.

There's something "new" going on now -- http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=99740 -- but it isn't this.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

This discusssion reminds me of one of the great marketing phrases in food history - "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."

[docsconz]

New or not, I personally like the trend towards more casual dining, though I do not necessarily equate that with less duration. Meals at places like Alinea and elBulli, though not formal by dress standards still take a full evening and happily so.

[Sneakeater]

I agree. Although there are posters on eG who appear to take it as some kind of affront. I like it a lot, myself.