Has Formal Dining Finally Jumped the Shark?

[docsconz]

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.

←

I can't think of one restaurant that I go to in the Saratoga/Lake George/Capitol Region where I feel obligated to wear a jacket and/or a tie. Of course, most of the region I mentioned is pretty touristy and resort-like except for the Albany area, but then I dine there only rarely. BTW, we do have some very good food. I prefer to have my haute cuisine in a more relaxed, less formal ambiance, though I still like elegant. I think part of the trend is that diners want to feel more relaxed and comfortable and it is easier to do that dressing down even if it may not be quite as romantic. The epitome of a restaurant that is very much haute, elegant but still informal in a dressy way is elBulli.

[Nathan]

well, there are regional/demographic issues that come into play once you leave the cities.

I've been in places where (to put it less politely, were in the "sticks") diners would dress up to go to Red Lobster and seemed to look down at us jean and t-shirt wearing urbanites. meanwhile, in Manhattan the number of places where I would feel out of place not wearing a jacket is probably at 5 or less.

[BigboyDan]

If formal dining is passing, it's only passing for the middle class...

[docsconz]

well, there are regional/demographic issues that come into play once you leave the cities.

I've been in places where (to put it less politely, were in the "sticks") diners would dress up to go to Red Lobster and seemed to look down at us jean and t-shirt wearing urbanites.  meanwhile, in Manhattan the number of places where I would feel out of place not wearing a jacket is probably at 5 or less.

←

The trend is the same towards less formality. I can think of at least a few restaurants up here ten years or so ago where jackets at least were expected if not required. Regional/demographic issues may play a role, but as a native of NYC, in this case I think the role is minimal.

[Nathan]

oh, I agree the trend is everywhere.

[Nathan]

If formal dining is passing, it's only passing for the middle class...

←

that's simply not true if you're talking about NYC or Chicago. people regularly spending $400 on a meal in a t-shirt and jeans are hardly middle class. (what's actually happening here is young affluence....and the restaurant industry market analysts agree)...entry level salaries in law and finance are so much higher than they used to be (job security is also much less than it used to be in those fields. even accounting for inflation, a big law firm first year associate made far less in the 70's, 80's or early 90's...but they almost all made partner. today, the number making partner is much smaller but the first year salaries are much higher (as are the hours worked)

[Fat Guy]

Three observations on the formality-in-dress point.

First, the trend towards less formal dress is nothing new. It has been occurring since around World War I. Prior to then, if you went to a baseball game, you wore a coat and tie. Women's dress, too, has become steadily less formal. The 1960s and 1970s were the major hot zone in the decline of formality in dress especially for women -- perhaps more significant than the 1990s.

Second, the trend can and does occasionally reverse itself. For example, the Reagan/Thatcher era ushered in a resurgence of formality in dress: black tie events, power ties and suits, etc. It's certainly possible that, in 2010, we'll have a cultural shift in favor of formal dress that will reverse some older trends at least temporarily, and that all of a sudden a few restaurants will require neckties for gentlemen because that's what trendy young people expect.

Third, structure and hierarchy have the ability to reassert themselves in new ways, no matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of the old ways. California has been out ahead on this phenomenon for awhile. In the mid-1990s, when us New York lawyers would go out to California on business, our local counterparts weren't wearing suits (except in court). But you could still figure out the social pecking order, and not just based on age. The more successful, powerful people were dressed like slobs, but expensive slobs. Their casual clothes were made from luxuriant fabrics, they had expensive haircuts, their watches cost tens of thousands of dollars -- and their shoes, forget about it. That was always the giveaway. So while formality in dress can disappear, hierarchy in dress is hard to suppress -- it's like the "nature will find a way" aphorism ala Jurassic Park.

[Nathan]

Three observations on the formality-in-dress point.

First, the trend towards less formal dress is nothing new. It has been occurring since around World War I. Prior to then, if you went to a baseball game, you wore a coat and tie. Women's dress, too, has become steadily less formal. The 1960s and 1970s were the major hot zone in the decline of formality in dress especially for women -- perhaps more significant than the 1990s.

Second, the trend can and does occasionally reverse itself. For example, the Reagan/Thatcher era ushered in a resurgence of formality in dress: black tie events, power ties and suits, etc. It's certainly possible that, in 2010, we'll have a cultural shift in favor of formal dress that will reverse some older trends at least temporarily, and that all of a sudden a few restaurants will require neckties for gentlemen because that's what trendy young people expect.

Third, structure and hierarchy have the ability to reassert themselves in new ways, no matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of the old ways. California has been out ahead on this phenomenon for awhile. In the mid-1990s, when us New York lawyers would go out to California on business, our local counterparts weren't wearing suits (except in court). But you could still figure out the social pecking order, and not just based on age. The more successful, powerful people were dressed like slobs, but expensive slobs. Their casual clothes were made from luxuriant fabrics, they had expensive haircuts, their watches cost tens of thousands of dollars -- and their shoes, forget about it. That was always the giveaway. So while formality in dress can disappear, hierarchy in dress is hard to suppress -- it's like the "nature will find a way" aphorism ala Jurassic Park.

←

oh...all of that's very very true.

[docsconz]

I agree that the decrease in formality across Society has been going on for awhile, though it didn't really start picking up steam until the 60's and even then that was quite limited by age and social status. Not being dressed up would have been considered as "counter-culture" and not the norm. It would have been quite rare to go to a fancy restaurant not dressed up. Even in baseball if one looks at replays of the Mets-Orioles World Series of 1969 essentially all the men in the stands were wearing jackets and ties. I don't think the trend really caught firein the US at least until the late 80's and early 90's when it became de rigeur in Silicon Valley and spread outwardly from there. Now its pretty standard everywhere.

[Fat Guy]

Well, I'm no fashion historian, but I do think this goes back to the 1920s. The controversial steps in the decline of formality from those days seem quaint to us now, but they were big news then. For example, in the 1920s and 1930s there was plenty of controversy over the declining use of corsets. Women started wearing pants around the time of World War II -- that was a big one. I'm pretty sure it was the 1950s when school uniforms started to be ditched in earnest, but don't quote me. There are still some fashion taboos for women today, for example the debate over the requirement of pantyhose in various contexts is currently raging, or at least that's what my observations are while glancing at what's on the magazine rack at the supermarket checkout line. I'm sure someone with superior knowledge could develop a more accurate and complete historical outline for men and women.

[Nathan]

oh..there are all sorts of micro-trends to go along with the macro ones....and this period is "dressier" than some periods in the past.

(example of a more formal micro-trend: in the last couple years many young men in Italy have been wearing hats (I'm not talking baseball caps). that trend hit NY over the last year or so....first among the very "hip" and now it's becoming more mainstream (expect to see lots of young dudes wearing hats this winter)...if it really takes off in NY you will see it eventually spread across the country...if it doesn't take off in NY, it won't. but this is the kind of thing that fashion industry folks keep a very close eye on...since buying decisions are made six months to a year out.

[BigboyDan]

Formal dining, it's about the service?

Uh, right?

[Fat Guy]

I think formal service is about service, whereas formal dining is about a variety of factors including service, atmosphere, clientele, tableware, price and, most of all, the cuisine itself.

[Nathan]

so...what happens if Chang consistently puts out four-star dishes at Ko? (we know it won't be that formal in terms of service and decor)

[BigboyDan]

But it's not about what patrons wear, right?

[oakapple]

I think formal service is about service, whereas formal dining is about a variety of factors including service, atmosphere, clientele, tableware, price and, most of all, the cuisine itself.

←

That's right...I think we're placing too much emphasis on dress code. There are certainly at least several dozen restaurants in NYC that we would all agree offer a "formal dining" experience in some sense of the word, but there are only a few that actually claim to have a jacket-and-tie rule (and fewer that will truly enforce it).

By the way, I agree with FG that the trend towards informality started much more like the 1920s, and not merely in the 1960s.

so...what happens if Chang consistently puts out four-star dishes at Ko?  (we know it won't be that formal in terms of service and decor)

←

Whatever Chang may do, it's not a trend unless a few other places start doing it. Edited September 6, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

But it's not about what patrons wear, right?

←

I think, in the traditional sense of formal and semi-formal dress, no, it can't still be about that because there aren't any restaurants left that require it. So if it is about formal and semi-formal dress, formal dining no longer exists and that's the end of that. If we think formal dining does still exist -- and I think it does -- then it has to be defined some other way.

I think it's more telling, by the way, to look at female behavior than at male behavior in this regard. Men are slobs, at least your average heterosexual middle class man is. Most of them will dress down to the bare minimum acceptable level if allowed to do so. Especially at the expensive restaurants, where the clientele is older and married, the men often just don't care how they look. The women, however, usually care very much about their own appearance. So even today, you can still tell a lot about the state of mind of the customers -- the perceived formality of an establishment -- by how the women are dressed.

Of the fake casual restaurants of the past few years, the one I had the most experience with was Mix in New York. I went there quite a lot -- probably once a month or more for the duration of its pre-meltdown run. The notion that Mix was a casual restaurant was always absurd, and the best way to tell that was by looking at the women. For the benefit of my readers and the enterprise of restaurant criticism, I examined the female customers at Mix with great care on every visit. I also, again because I am a thorough researcher, pay close attention to the women at Momofuku Ssam Bar whenever I go there. And I can say with confidence that, when it comes time to get dressed to go out, the women at Momofuku Ssam Bar think of Momofuku Ssam Bar in an entirely different way than the women at Mix in New York thought of Mix in New York.

[Nathan]

But it's not about what patrons wear, right?

←

I think, in the traditional sense of formal and semi-formal dress, no, it can't still be about that because there aren't any restaurants left that require it. So if it is about formal and semi-formal dress, formal dining no longer exists and that's the end of that. If we think formal dining does still exist -- and I think it does -- then it has to be defined some other way.

I think it's more telling, by the way, to look at female behavior than at male behavior in this regard. Men are slobs, at least your average heterosexual middle class man is. Most of them will dress down to the bare minimum acceptable level if allowed to do so. Especially at the expensive restaurants, where the clientele is older and married, the men often just don't care how they look. The women, however, usually care very much about their own appearance. So even today, you can still tell a lot about the state of mind of the customers -- the perceived formality of an establishment -- by how the women are dressed.

Of the fake casual restaurants of the past few years, the one I had the most experience with was Mix in New York. I went there quite a lot -- probably once a month or more for the duration of its pre-meltdown run. The notion that Mix was a casual restaurant was always absurd, and the best way to tell that was by looking at the women. For the benefit of my readers and the enterprise of restaurant criticism, I examined the female customers at Mix with great care on every visit. I also, again because I am a thorough researcher, pay close attention to the women at Momofuku Ssam Bar whenever I go there. And I can say with confidence that, when it comes time to get dressed to go out, the women at Momofuku Ssam Bar think of Momofuku Ssam Bar in an entirely different way than the women at Mix in New York thought of Mix in New York.

←

I'm going to completely disagree with your last paragraph (I agree with the first two).

the women who went to Mix were different women than the women who go to Ssam Bar....but the women who went to Mix viewed Mix in the same way that women who go to Ssam Bar view Ssam Bar (well, the NY'ers anyway...Mix did also have a monied B&T weekend date crowd that Ssam Bar doesn't get). I'm completely serious.

the difference isn't in how they viewed the restaurants....the difference is in uptown/midtown/tourist/B&T v. downtown (and most men would be flabbergasted at how similar in cost some of the clothing would be).....very, very different fashion styles.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Fat Guy]

I really don't think so, Nathan. Mix in New York was a night out on the town. People approached it as they'd approach a supper club. Momofuku Ssam Bar is quick casual -- plenty of people just roll out of bed, hail a cab and grab a bite there -- but with a mixed-haute menu.

I understand the claim about the two restaurants serving different populations, but as usual with this sort of claim I think you go to far, following a notion of dialectical materialism whereby neighborhood is destiny, age is destiny, people fall into tightly categorized homogeneous predictable groups, etc. While there are certainly people out there who conform to stereotypes (lots of stereotypes are based on something in reality), New York is also full of people who are much harder to pin down.

Take me, for example. I've eaten at Mix and at Momofuku. A lot. My wife -- she happens to be a girl -- she has dined at both places too. You can be sure that, while jeans are just fine for her at Momofuku, she always wore the best stuff to Mix. Sure, we live uptown, but we dine downtown all the time -- just like plenty of other people uptown. Momofuku is most certainly not a neighborhood restaurant. It's in the category of places where people come from all over the city and the country. Not just foodies. Momofuku is out there, the tourists are there, every group is there. They don't all like it or get it, but they're there and they're not dressed for Mix. No way.

[Nathan]

I really don't think so, Nathan. Mix in New York was a night out on the town. People approached it as they'd approach a supper club. Momofuku Ssam Bar is quick casual -- plenty of people just roll out of bed, hail a cab and grab a bite there -- but with a mixed-haute menu.

I understand the claim about the two restaurants serving different populations, but as usual with this sort of claim I think you go to far, following a notion of dialectical materialism whereby neighborhood is destiny, age is destiny, people fall into tightly categorized homogeneous predictable groups, etc. While there are certainly people out there who conform to stereotypes (lots of stereotypes are based on something in reality), New York is also full of people who are much harder to pin down.

Take me, for example. I've eaten at Mix and at Momofuku. A lot. My wife -- she happens to be a girl -- she has dined at both places too. You can be sure that, while jeans are just fine for her at Momofuku, she always wore the best stuff to Mix. Sure, we live uptown, but we dine downtown all the time -- just like plenty of other people uptown. Momofuku is most certainly not a neighborhood restaurant. It's in the category of places where people come from all over the city and the country. Not just foodies. Momofuku is out there, the tourists are there, every group is there. They don't all like it or get it, but they're there and they're not dressed for Mix. No way.

←

no, they're not dressed for Mix but a lot of people who go to Ssam Bar would never go to Mix.

stereotypes are simply statistical generalizations. many are valid (in a statistical sense), some are not. it's fair to say that most people at Ssam Bar are downtowners. it's fair to say that few downtowners went to Mix. it's fair to say that Mix had a lot more tourist and B&T patrons than Ssam Bar. and for the few downtowners who went to both....well a pair of $500 jeans will make you feel comfortable in a lot of different contexts.

[BigboyDan]

Dean Fearing seems to agree:

http://www.rimag.com/web-exclusives/articl...ings-dallas.asp

[ulterior epicure]

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.

I have to agree with Nathan on this one, I wouldn't consider Babbo fine dining. The fact that its tables are among the hardest to book, the volume (moreso the "soundtrack"), the bar, nay sardine can, at the FOH, and the dresscode (or lack thereof) puts it squarely in the category of the "newer less-formal" restaurants that Fabricant writes about. In this respect, I suppose Babbo was ahead of its time... either that, or Babbo was never intended to be a fine dining restaurant, in the sense of per se, Daniel, Le Bernardin, etc..., which I think is closer to reality.

As for Robuchon, I would also disagree.

First, as Fabricant notes, hotel restaurants are shedding their gilded silverware and tuxedoed-service for something more familiar and accessible. This is the case with L'AdJR.

Second, price wasn't a main factor in Fabricant's assessment/definition of formality. Yes, L'AdJR is expensive. My companion and my lunches cost us well over $100 - each. That still doesn't make it formal to me.

Third, L'AdJR's clientele certainly don't treat it as a formal restaurant. The couple next to us (presumably outgoing guests of the hotel) were on their way to the airport - and they looked like it. The family on the other side of the were clearly (wealthy Japanese) OOTers; the daughter had on jeans. The father had on a short sleeve polo, as did the mother.

Lastly, any place where the "bar" is the main attraction (with the exception of perhaps Masa), in my book, can't be fine dining.

Edited September 7, 2007 by ulterior epicure (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Oh, one more thing on L'AdJR - small plate focused. Another indicator o "less formal" dining, according Fabricant.

[Dave H]

I'm not sure L'Atelier is a good basis for discussion because it's not a New York restaurant, but a Paris restaurant with copies stamped out across the world. L'Atelier as renegade for informality actually makes sense in the context of Paris, a city with 1/4 the population and one or two dozen restaurants whose price and formality levels are matched in NY only by Per Se if at all. Whereas in the context of NY, L'Atelier is a weird mishmash that makes no sense whatsoever, but people still go because it's Robuchon and after all it isn't like there aren't tons of New Yorkers who can afford it.

Of course a similar argument could be applied to all of Ducasse's NY ventures, past and future.

[Fat Guy]

Atelier isn't a New York restaurant, but the factors that caused Robuchon to open Atelier in Paris are the same factors under discussion on this topic. For example, this part of an article that appeared last year in Business Week, about Robuchon, could just as easily have been written about New York City:

Haute cuisine has fallen on hard times in France. Corporate belt-tightening has put a big dent in expense-account dining at Paris restaurants and increased their reliance on foreign tourists. Overhead is high because of the large staffs required to prepare and serve complicated meals. "In France, a gastronomique restaurant is hard to make profitable," says Robuchon in an interview at his spartan Paris office.

That's why many chefs are opening less formal dining venues.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...07/b3971077.htm

Per Se isn't a New York restaurant either, but these sorts of designations make less and less sense in the modern era. In the case of Per Se, for example, Thomas Keller was a chef in New York, then set up shop in Yountville, then had a triumphant return. The French Laundry couldn't have existed without New York, likewise Per Se couldn't have existed without the French Laundry. Atelier, for its part, isn't exactly a Paris restaurant. It's a global restaurant, inspired as much by Japanese and New World restaurants and dining culture as by Paris. When it opened, I imagine Atelier seemed more foreign to Paris than it would have seemed to New York, where haute-cuisine bar dining, open kitchens, sushi bars, tapas bars, small-plates restaurants -- all the elements of Atelier -- have been around for ages.

That said, I do agree that Atelier, and Mix in New York, and (it seems) the forthcoming Adour venture, have been tone-deaf to the personality of New York. I think this is more subtle than the basic model being flawed. Rather, the implementations have been weirdly clueless. I think this has to do with the way these global businesses delegate and manage their openings. Eventually, they should take some lessons from the New World about that as well.