Has Formal Dining Finally Jumped the Shark?

[oakapple]

Florence Fabricant says it all in her annual fall preview article for the Times:

Yet the most striking feature of the new season may be not what it offers, but what it doesn’t: Formality.

Imagine a crop of new restaurants without even one that strives for the high-gloss grandeur represented by Gordon Ramsay at the London last year, Del Posto the year before, or Per Se the year before that. Instead, plans are afoot to eventually bring burgers with Daniel Boulud’s brand to the Bowery.

All around town, bare tables have shed snowy linen, customers’ shirttails are hanging out as ties and jackets are left in the closet, flip-flops replace Ferragamo, and an assortment of small plates of food, often shared, fills in for traditional three-course dinners.

The death of formal dining has long been forecast. One finds reviews by Bryan Miller in the 1980s that proclaim the end of the fine-dining era. Yet, while it has surely evolved, it certainly hasn't become extinct. Many restaurants at the four-star and "high three" level are among the town's toughest tables to book, including the most expensive of them all, Per Se. Indeed, Daniel, Jean Georges, Le Bernardin, Gramercy Tavern, The Modern, Country, Eleven Madison Park, Veritas, Cru, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, Babbo, Felidia, Del Posto, L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon, JoJo, Cafe Boulud, and even that grande dame La Grenouille, seem to fill their dining rooms most of the time. To my mind, this suggests that the demand for that kind of experience is far from exhausted.

The one opening that might arguably fall in this category is Adour. Fabricant says that, whereas "[Ducasse's] restaurant in the Essex House was gilded, the décor at Adour, which will open in late fall, is merely silver." She adds, "Elaborate plasterwork on moldings and cornices will gleam with silver leaf, and the room’s cloverleaf shape will lend itself to private alcoves. Tony Esnault, who was the last chef at Mr. Ducasse’s Essex House restaurant, will be back." That doesn't sound like a casual restaurant by any measure, even if it doesn't quite match the over-the-top elegance of ADNY. But if Frank Bruni slams it—as I think there is a very good chance he will—there will be another nail in fine dining's coffin. If it is a success, it will perhaps be a reminder that traditional formality isn't dead.

The other wild card is Paul Liebrandt, whose plans were too murky to earn a mention from Fabricant, but who is said to be planning a restaurant in that style.

[Nathan]

Florence Fabricant says it all in her annual fall preview article for the Times:

Yet the most striking feature of the new season may be not what it offers, but what it doesn’t: Formality.

Imagine a crop of new restaurants without even one that strives for the high-gloss grandeur represented by Gordon Ramsay at the London last year, Del Posto the year before, or Per Se the year before that. Instead, plans are afoot to eventually bring burgers with Daniel Boulud’s brand to the Bowery.

All around town, bare tables have shed snowy linen, customers’ shirttails are hanging out as ties and jackets are left in the closet, flip-flops replace Ferragamo, and an assortment of small plates of food, often shared, fills in for traditional three-course dinners.

The death of formal dining has long been forecast. One finds reviews by Bryan Miller in the 1980s that proclaim the end of the fine-dining era. Yet, while it has surely evolved, it certainly hasn't become extinct. Many restaurants at the four-star and "high three" level are among the town's toughest tables to book, including the most expensive of them all, Per Se. Indeed, Daniel, Jean Georges, Le Bernardin, Gramercy Tavern, The Modern, Country, Eleven Madison Park, Veritas, Cru, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, Babbo, Felidia, Del Posto, L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon, JoJo, Cafe Boulud, and even that grande dame La Grenouille, seem to fill their dining rooms most of the time. To my mind, this suggests that the demand for that kind of experience is far from exhausted.

The one opening that might arguably fall in this category is Adour. Fabricant says that, whereas "[Ducasse's] restaurant in the Essex House was gilded, the décor at Adour, which will open in late fall, is merely silver." She adds, "Elaborate plasterwork on moldings and cornices will gleam with silver leaf, and the room’s cloverleaf shape will lend itself to private alcoves. Tony Esnault, who was the last chef at Mr. Ducasse’s Essex House restaurant, will be back." That doesn't sound like a casual restaurant by any measure, even if it doesn't quite match the over-the-top elegance of ADNY. But if Frank Bruni slams it—as I think there is a very good chance he will—there will be another nail in fine dining's coffin. If it is a success, it will perhaps be a reminder that traditional formality isn't dead.

The other wild card is Paul Liebrandt, whose plans were too murky to earn a mention from Fabricant, but who is said to be planning a restaurant in that style.

←

1. no, "formal dining" isn't dead...and it never will be.

2. but it's certainly becoming less of a player...and much of it seems to depend upon tourism for survival.

3. I disagree with some of your examples. Robuchon isn't formal. neither is Babbo (especially for the 30% of its diners who aren't in the dining room), Adour will have a lounge and a wine bar as well (but I grant that overall it still sounds formal), Gramercy Tavern, The Modern, Country and Del Posto all have informal (and busy...sometimes more so than the formal dining area) dining areas. at quite a few of these restaurants one can forgo a jacket and wear jeans...I suggest that strongly bends the definition of "formal".

4. you forgot Chanterelle, Picholine, Cafe des Artistes and Tocqueville.

[Fat Guy]

Conceptually, it makes the most sense to separate two phenomena: 1- the decline in formality of all high-end restaurants (for example, few or no fine-dining restaurants now require neckties, and most don't even require jackets; in addition, service is more casual pretty much across the board), and 2- the number of high-end restaurants in business or opening.

If you conflate those two things, then of course it looks like fine-dining is dying. If you look at them together, it's a bit more complex. In addition, the time frame of one season, which is relevant to newspapers but limits their perspective, is not relevant to historical trends. The past decade is more relevant as a time frame, and the past decade has seen the bar raised for fine dining, with the openings of Ducasse and Per Se. Per Se is getting $250 for dinner and it's a tough table to get. Likewise, the last chapter on Ducasse has not been written. He has two "casual" restaurants coming soon in New York, yes, but the organization also, according to every insider I've asked, has plans for another Michelin three-star-type place in New York down the road. These things move in cycles. There were a lot of fancy restaurant openings in the early 2000s (after the death of fine dining was confidently predicted in the 1990s), but not a lot in 2006-2007. Big deal. And, amazingly, the world exists outside New York as well. Go to Las Vegas and tell me fine dining is dead. Go to Chicago.

The rise of restaurants at lower levels of price and formality that serve haute-cuisine-level food using great ingredients is not an indication of the death of fine dining. Rather, it shows that more and more people are demanding that kind of cuisine not just when they go out for formal dinners once in awhile, but also every time they go out. So there has been some dilution of the concept of fine dining, because that kind of formal restaurant is no longer the exclusive owner of fine cuisine. There are too many good chefs, too many good ingredients now available for any one set of restaurants to have a monopoly on them.

[Fat Guy]

P.S. Oakapple, I'm not sure Bryan Miller ever declared the death of fine dining. I recall he referred to other people who did so, and disagreed with them. What reference are you thinking of?

[oakapple]

2.  but it's certainly becoming less of a player...and much of it seems to depend upon tourism for survival.

I'm not sure it depends any more on tourism than it ever did, or that it's peculiar to the high end. I mean, Bubba Gump in Times Square is chock-full of tourists too—on a percentage basis, perhaps even more so.

3.  I disagree with some of your examples.  Robuchon isn't formal.  neither is Babbo

Some of the examples are definitely borderline, but Babbo has tablecloths and many of the traditional trappings, even if the sound track reminds you not to take it too seriously. I felt that any restaurant in Robuchon's price league simply has to be rated in that category.

....(especially for the 30% of its diners who aren't in the dining room), Adour will have a lounge and a wine bar as well (but I grant that overall it still sounds formal), Gramercy Tavern, The Modern, Country and Del Posto all have informal (and busy...sometimes more so than the formal dining area) dining areas.

Those informal dining areas (most of them, except for Babbo, with a different menu) can be thought of as separate restaurants that happen to be attached. In a few cases, they're either separately reservable, or indeed non-reservable. At The Modern, of course, that separate restaurant actually carries its own rating.

....at quite a few of these restaurants one can forgo a jacket and wear jeans...I suggest that strongly bends the definition of "formal".

Well, I do agree that the jacket-and-tie requirement is approaching extinction, with no more than a half-dozen places left that claim to require it. (As Frank Bruni reported not long ago, most of those places will still seat you if you show up without the tie.)

4.  you forgot Chanterelle, Picholine, Cafe des Artistes and Tocqueville.

←

I put CdA into more of the Tavern on the Green/One if By Land category. Chanterelle and Picholine definitely count, Tocqueville perhaps more marginally. Edited September 6, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

P.S. Oakapple, I'm not sure Bryan Miller ever declared the death of fine dining. I recall he referred to other people who did so, and disagreed with them.

←

You're correct. I meant to suggest that the supposed death of fine dining was forecast as long ago as Miller's tenure, not that he himself had been in that camp.

[Fat Guy]

"any restaurant in Robuchon's price league simply has to be rated in that category."

I think it's a different category. This hybrid of willfully casual, yet failing actually to be casual, yet very expensive, yet serving advanced cuisine doesn't really fit into the old categories. It's a new market segment created in Europe by Ducasse and Robuchon with Spoon and Atelier.

[Nathan]

I'm not sure it depends any more on tourism than it ever did, or that it's peculiar to the high end. I mean, Bubba Gump in Times Square is chock-full of tourists too—on a percentage basis, perhaps even more so.

I felt that any restaurant in Robuchon's price league simply has to be rated in that category.

well, GR, by all accounts, has a primarily British clientele. European tourists in general seem to fill up a a lot of the high end these days (although the current currency exchange certainly has something to do with that).

the Robuchon thing makes no sense to me. expensive dining is by no means the same thing as formal dining. there are well over a hundred restaurants in this city where it would be relatively easy to spend over $400 a person and easily over a thousand where it's easy to spend $150 a person. expensive dining is growing, formal dining is not.

heck, one can wander into Robuchon without a reservation wearing a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers, be seated at a kitchen counter and have a meal. on what planet is that formal dining? that's absurd.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Fat Guy]

A better definition of formal is probably needed. One of the problems with these discussions is that everybody has a different definition, but nobody says what his or her definition is. Oakapple thinks Robuchon is formal because it's expensive, and also probably because of a general atmosphere of seriousness, exquisite platings, etc. -- a lot of the trappings of formal restaurants are there, just reimagined a bit. Nathan thinks Robuchon is informal because you can wear a tee-shirt and sit at the bar. Those arguments are two ships passing in the night -- do they even really disagree about anything? I think if we brought the definitions and assumptions to the surface, and challenged them, we'd get a lot closer to an understanding of what the changes on the restaurant scene mean.

[oakapple]

well, GR, by all accounts, has a primarily British clientele.  European tourists in general seem to fill up a a lot of the high end these days (although the current currency exchange certainly has something to do with that).

I deliberately didn't list GR, because by most accounts it has failed to catch on with New Yorkers—even that small subset of New Yorkers who regularly patronize restaurants in that price range.

the Robuchon thing makes no sense to me.  expensive dining is by no means the same thing as formal dining.  there are well over a hundred restaurants in this city where it would be relatively easy to spend over $400 a person and easily over a thousand where it's easy to spend $150 a person.  expensive dining is growing, formal dining is not. 

heck, one can wander into Robuchon without a reservation wearing a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers, be seated at a kitchen counter and have a meal.  on what planet is that formal dining?  that's absurd.

←

Well, I don't think it's absurd (or else I wouldn't have said it ), but in any event, one restaurant either way doesn't make much difference.

Expensive dining is not growing in NYC, aside from the effects of inflation (mostly due to rents). The restaurants Fabricant listed aren't just less formal than Per Se, Del Posto, and Gordon Ramsay. They are also less expensive.

Excluding alcohol, there are very few NYC restaurants where it is "relatively easy" to spend over $400 a person, and there certainly are not a thousand where it's "easy" to spend $150 a person. You have to exclude alcohol, or otherwise you start including places like Otto, where you can have a $400 bottle of wine with a $8 pizza.

Having said that, my view of Robuchon is the following:

At the moment, there are no other NYC restaurants combining Robuchon's informality at anything near its level of expense. Perhaps there'll eventually be more of them, but for now it's all by itself. As far as industry trends go, you can't do much with a restaurant that has no peer. So you either have to "analogize" it to something more familiar, or you have to just take it out of the analysis altogether.

On the basis of its food cost, 99.9% of NYC restaurants are less expensive than Robuchon. While you can walk into Robuchon on the spur of the moment in beach togs, I doubt that that is the norm. I suspect that it is drawing most of its clientele from people who would generally consider the other three and four-star restaurants to be comparable alternatives. While it hardly matters to the analysis, that's the reason why I listed it with all of those others.

[Nathan]

well, I'd laugh at anyone who asserted that Ssam Bar is "formal dining" but it can be relatively expensive, uses high end ingredients, on some dishes has complex platings...and produces food that ranges between two and four stars all in the same meal. other than the volume level, the median age of the clientele and the expense (though it's possible to spend more at a meal at Ssam Bar than at Robuchon (it'd take some work))...they're not conceptually different.

[Nathan]

"Expensive dining is not growing in NYC, aside from the effects of inflation (mostly due to rents). The restaurants Fabricant listed aren't just less formal than Per Se, Del Posto, and Gordon Ramsay. They are also less expensive."

well, "very expensive"...probably not.

but compared to other places...there are an awful lot of restaurants now with entrees averaging in the 30's...my perception is that this isn't just inflation. the fact that we don't even think of that as "expensive" sort of proves my point. (try doing that with a straight face five years ago).

the tasting menu at Robuchon is now $190, without wine and service. there are exactly two more expensive restaurants in NY (in terms of a tasting menu...and Per Se is barely so). so, in that sense, it's unique. but it's still not formal. (and people do eat there in t-shirts and jeans...something which one just doesn't do at its price-point peers)

obviously I was counting alcohol. but if we just went with entrees $30 and above we'd come up with hundreds of restaurants.

[oakapple]

well, I'd laugh at anyone who asserted that Ssam Bar is "formal dining" but it can be relatively expensive, uses high end ingredients, on some dishes has complex platings...and produces food that ranges between two and four stars all in the same meal.  other than the volume level, the median age of the clientele and the expense (though it's possible to spend more at a meal at Ssam Bar than at Robuchon (it'd take some work))...they're not conceptually different.

←

You could definitely argue that Ssam Bar and Robuchon are two peas in a pod, but as you point out, they are appealing to different clienteles, and the bills for typical meals are in very different zip codes.

[Nathan]

well, I'd laugh at anyone who asserted that Ssam Bar is "formal dining" but it can be relatively expensive, uses high end ingredients, on some dishes has complex platings...and produces food that ranges between two and four stars all in the same meal.  other than the volume level, the median age of the clientele and the expense (though it's possible to spend more at a meal at Ssam Bar than at Robuchon (it'd take some work))...they're not conceptually different.

←

You could definitely argue that Ssam Bar and Robuchon are two peas in a pod, but as you point out, they are appealing to different clienteles, and the bills for typical meals are in very different zip codes.

←

sure, but what does that have to do with formality?

Alinea is very formal (by my definition: it requires jackets, has teams of servers, a very high server to patron ratio, is very quiet, tables spaced widely apart, no loud music...etc.) but no one on staff looks like they're over 30 and the clientele is very mixed in age.

edit: or are you just saying that "very expensive" (which Alinea is) = "formality"? in which case, if I was willing to open a money-losing restaurant I could open one which was relatively cheap but required jackets and had elaborate platings and service (actually, I can think of a number of restaurants fitting that description in various small towns...like the one French restaurant in Tallahassee, etc.)....and I guess it would still be informal.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Fat Guy]

It's no coincidence that the word "formal" contains the word "form." And for ages people have argued that formality is a case of form over substance. But I think there's also substance to formality, similar to the notion of substantive due process in law. I think the new informality is about stripping away the form of formality and getting at that substance. The food itself at Atelier is formal. The approach is fundamentally formal. No amount of bar seating and tee-shirt-wearing can change that. Those things are just atmospherics. It's still a formal restaurant.

[docsconz]

One of the key elements in Fabricant's article is that cost is one reason that informality is increasing in restaurants with high culinary standards. These restaurants due largely to high rents and food costs need to save money somewhere and that is often in removing the trappings of formality like tablecloths, etc. It is the rare restaurant that can get away with charging the prices of Per Se, L'Atelier (formal or not), Guy Savoy and Masa.

[raji]

How would you characterize Masa, which is by far the most expensive meal available in the city? I don't know of any dress code, but what's their formality quotient?

Every restaurant you listed is European or American, which is what I would associate with formal dining... maybe formal dining has jumped the shark because there are other continent's cuisines are vying for diner's attentions, and those others are more popular than your traditional French, Italian, New American fine dining establishments?

Has formal dining jumped the shark, or will it be a victim to "globalization"...

On the contrary, I think formal dining hasn't jumped the shark, but we need to redefine "formal dining"...

Edited September 6, 2007 by raji (log)

[oakapple]

edit: or are you just saying that "very expensive" (which Alinea is) = "formality"?  in which case, if I was willing to open a money-losing restaurant I could open one which was relatively cheap but required jackets and had elaborate platings and service (actually, I can think of a number of restaurants fitting that description in various small towns...like the one French restaurant in Tallahassee, etc.)....and I guess it would still be informal.

←

I doubt that the Tallahassee restaurant you're talking about is "relatively cheap" by local standards. Obviously it would be cheap if those prices were replicated in NYC...but they couldn't be. Anyhow, I suggest we confine ourselves to NYC at the moment, as it's the only locale we can all talk about with some personal knowledge of the situation.

I'm not saying that "very expensive" necessarily = "formality." But those attributes are very highly correlated. To be sure, Eric Ripert could serve Le Bernardin's cuisine at a restaurant with Red Lobster's atmospherics. It would certainly be cheaper, but it still wouldn't be "cheap" in the absolute sense. People seeking that type of experience generally don't want to have it in a place like Red Lobster, which is why chefs and restauranteurs generally don't offer it that way.

I agree with FG that Robuchon is "formal" in most senses of the word, even if not in all of them. I would say the same about Masa. The lack of a dress code is only one factor. And in any event, I don't think you don't have many people walking in there in jeans and sandals, even if the restaurant would permit it.

[oakapple]

obviously I was counting alcohol.  but if we just went with entrees $30 and above we'd come up with hundreds of restaurants.

←

Yeah, but $30 is the new $20.

[Fat Guy]

There's a piece in Time Out New York that came out the same time as the Fabricant piece, by JJ Goode (I was also interviewed for the piece), where Pichet Ong is quoted as saying:

“The young chefs are like independent filmmakers,” he says. “There are always going to be Spielberg films, but we’ve come up with the original plotlines.”

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/article/623...0/four-coursing

This analogy strikes me as a good starting point for an explanation of how Momofuku differs from Atelier. There are similarities, but they come at the phenomenon from different directions: ground-up and top-down. When someone like Robuchon or Ducasse opens Atelier, Spoon, Mix, Adour, Benoit, or any of the other second brands, with multi-million-dollar budgets, backed by hotels or other major investors, and an international marketing machine, it's just not the same as when David Chang opens Momofuku with scraped-together money. The informality of Momofuku is genuine: it is a true lack of formality. The informality of Atelier and its ilk is studied: it's part of a business plan, programmed, researched, invented, artificial, imposed. Soft-core informality for people who want to pretend to be informal but who wouldn't actually want to face the Momofuku experience head on.

[Nathan]

There's a piece in Time Out New York that came out the same time as the Fabricant piece, by JJ Goode (I was also interviewed for the piece), where Pichet Ong is quoted as saying:

“The young chefs are like independent filmmakers,” he says. “There are always going to be Spielberg films, but we’ve come up with the original plotlines.”

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/article/623...0/four-coursing

This analogy strikes me as a good starting point for an explanation of how Momofuku differs from Atelier. There are similarities, but they come at the phenomenon from different directions: ground-up and top-down. When someone like Robuchon or Ducasse opens Atelier, Spoon, Mix, Adour, Benoit, or any of the other second brands, with multi-million-dollar budgets, backed by hotels or other major investors, and an international marketing machine, it's just not the same as when David Chang opens Momofuku with scraped-together money. The informality of Momofuku is genuine: it is a true lack of formality. The informality of Atelier and its ilk is studied: it's part of a business plan, programmed, researched, invented, artificial, imposed. Soft-core informality for people who want to pretend to be informal but who wouldn't actually want to face the Momofuku experience head on.

←

that's an excellent point.

[Fat Guy]

I guess I'd also suggest that Atelier is a less formal version of a formal restaurant, whereas Momofuku is an haute version of a dive.

[oakapple]

There are similarities, but they come at the phenomenon from different directions: ground-up and top-down. When someone like Robuchon or Ducasse opens Atelier, Spoon, Mix, Adour, Benoit, or any of the other second brands, with multi-million-dollar budgets, backed by hotels or other major investors, and an international marketing machine, it's just not the same as when David Chang opens Momofuku with scraped-together money. The informality of Momofuku is genuine: it is a true lack of formality. The informality of Atelier and its ilk is studied: it's part of a business plan, programmed, researched, invented, artificial, imposed. Soft-core informality for people who want to pretend to be informal but who wouldn't actually want to face the Momofuku experience head on.

←

I think that's exactly it, although there are probably quite a few foodies who've tried (and been happy with) both.

[oakapple]

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/article/623...0/four-coursing

←

I love this quote from the article, in which FG captures my sentiment exactly—but with much more panache:

On the whole, Shaw sees this fall’s crop of high-profile-chef-driven vehicles as hedged bets destined for dullness. There’s no gamble in Boulud-approved terrines—who wouldn’t want a taste?—and Adour’s more casual concept will probably insulate Ducasse from another round of rotten tomatoes.

The article talks about four specific openings in which big-name chefs go downmarket: Ducasse, Boulud, Marcus Samuelsson, and Gray Kunz. FG suggests that if Gray Kunz wants to re-establish himself as a top-name chef, he needs to go upscale, not down. Shaw says, "“Who out there could say, ‘Ooh, I can’t wait until Grayz opens’?"

Kunz strikes me as a slightly different case, though. Ducasse already has his constellation of Michelin 3-star restaurants; Boulud has Daniel and Cafe Boulud; and Samuelsson has Aquavit. It could be argued that Kunz already went downmarket with Cafe Gray. He doesn't have the same kind of flagship that the other guys do. From the description, Ducasse's Adour sounds more upscale than Cafe Gray, to say nothing of Grayz.

Edited September 6, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[phaelon56]

People (tourists or not) will never tire of "getting dressed up to go out for a nice dinner". But I agree that the number of people interested in doing this and the frequency with which they go to such trouble is already on the wane and will continue to decline.

I'm in New York - the state not the city. And in this state, outside of Manhattan, any given small to medium metro area (Capitol District, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo et al) will typically have only one or two restaurants where people feel obligated to get dressed up to the coat and tie level. ten to twenty years ago there were 2x to 3x the number of places where people got "dressed up".

But shorts, flip flops and untucked shirts? Not out here in the sticks. Even at the more upscale places where coat and tie is not the rule you may see jeans, a nice shirt and casual shoes but it's the rare exception where people dress down more than that.

I, on the other hand, have standardized on black jeans, black T-shirt and black clogs no matter where I go but add a black jacket when necessary.