Urban Vs. Suburban Restaurant Food

[oreganosci]

I think that urban food is better and more adventurous because of the larger number of non-chain restaurants and the need to stand out among them. That may also have something to do with the rent in a suburban mall or popular strip mall, I don't know.

It seems to me that Italian is comfort food these days, and Mexican is getting there. I would think of Asian and Latin/Caribbean as more hip. Spanish tapas too. Maybe even some Mideastern and Indian. Not French, not Northern/Eastern European. Some local or seasonal maybe organic elements. It seems to me that among an hip urban crowd you can get all kinds of special diets from vegan to Atkins.

When I think hip I think pretty presentations, smaller servings than your typical chain restaurant. Some sort of twist to the standards, but not too contrived. Fun drinks, fun apps, different desserts, fun to hang around a while. Really good food, not too expensive.

When I think of suburban food I'm thinking of dated classics, a safe place with convenient parking to take your unadventurous older relatives or fussy kids out for dinner, and also the chain restaurant attempts at fusion as has been mentioned.

[jbonne]

When I think of suburban food I'm thinking of dated classics, a safe place with convenient parking ...

well said. parking lots should be an excellent indicator, though not a universal one.

the Outback Steakhouse/Bonefish Grill near downtown Seattle has valet parking, which pretty well said all it needed to for me. i take great pleasure in cutting off drivers trying to merge across three lanes to the valet station.

on the Chicago point above, i'd agree: some of the best ethnic restaurants aren't necessarily in center city. my five years in Queens provided me access to some of the finest Greek, Colombian, Korean, Indian and Peruvian food on the continent. here in SEA, there's amazing Vietnamese, Chinese and Latin food found in what qualifies as the 'burbs, though some of them are more blue-collar than the usual 'burb.

what's rare, though, are to find these places in what i'll call the gentrified 'burbs. there's an occasional exception -- the South Asian cuisine in Seattle's wealthier outlying areas is allegedly pretty good, though i can't find anyone to give me a top-notch recommendation -- authentic cuisine seems to be interpreted as different, and different seems to be bad.

Italian, Mexican, &c., well described as comfort food. this USA Today piece says it all: they take Marcella Hazan to dinner at Olive Garden.

Third course: Lobster Spaghetti. Lobster and spinach sautéed with olive oil in a creamy broth and served over spaghetti.

Marcella renders judgment in a word.

"No," she says, pushing her bowl away.

[munchymom]

I find myself wondering if "urban vs. suburban" is even a useful axis. It seems like most of the posters on this thread are equating "urban" with "hip, edgy, authentic, young crowd" and "suburban" with "boring, stodgy, chains, families". But is this accurate? I spent 5 years living in the far south suburbs of Chicago (really more like the northern suburbs of Kankakee) and investigated just about every place within an hour's radius that served food. I got Indian food in a strip mall in Orland Park that was every bit as good as what I got on Devon Ave. At the same time, there's a Cheesecake Factory on Michigan Ave. So which is urban food and which is suburban food? It seems like we're dealing with stereotypes instead of reality here. Why not just say you're looking for food that will bring in the young, hip crowd, and leave out the question of where said crowd lives?

[dumplin]

I love hip urban restaurants that have great food. I especially love fabulous appetisers. I've seen some restaurants get more creative with appetisers than they do with the entrees. I personally like appetisers with vegetables. I had one that was artichoke hearts stuffed with lobster. I ate is as my entree. It had a great sauce with it. I get tired of the same dated appetisers on menus. And lettuce wraps, its been done, move on. One of my favorite restaurants, Sweet Lorraines, www.sweetlorraines.com had a great appetiser idea, but when I had them, they were bland. Crab won-tons with a spicy sauce. It was a good idea, and I liked it because it was different. I would love to see appetisers be small samplings of ideas for entrees. I could try new things and see what I like. Its hard to expand out of your comfort zone at a more expensive restaurant, because you don't want to waste $30 if you don't like what you order. It may not be a big deal to some people, but I don't have a ton of money.

I think of suburban food as bland, large portions, campbell's soup casseroles type food.

[cakewench]

My two cents:

Yes, they are dealing in stereotypes.

In my (20-something, living in a European city, means nothing but I'm giving my demographic anyway) opinion, which I will state as fact, 'urban' is the new word for 'hip'. No one in my age group, or looking to entertain people in my age group, would say "we need to draw in the hip, young crowd." You might as well say you want the place to be the bee's knees or something.

Even the word 'hipster' (could still be possible to say that you want to attract the 'hipster crowd', and not have too many eyes rolled behind your back) is on the decline.

'Urban' conveys trendiness, infers either youth, or people who still want to have fun and spend loads of money they have because they are still single and don't have kids. key phrase there, lots of money.

It is the word of the moment. Give it a few more years, and there will be a new one. Alas, 'suburban' and 'suburbanite' have never had a good connotation that I can remember, so that might be here to stay. Especially as long as 20-something Urbanites are making the marketing decisions.

Does anyone remember what the YUP in yuppie stood for? Yes, I think making that key 'urban' designation has been around longer than just my generation.

*MASSIVE DISCLAIMER* because I feel like I'm going to be landed upon by lots of suburbanites with children: I'm just the messenger here. I am not complaining about the 'burbs. I am not anti-children. And I will even confess to enjoying a nice bloomin' onion now and again, when I'm back in the States. I'm merely speaking as someone with lots of experience with young 'new media professionals' in NYC. (read: marketing.)

[Fat Guy]

One needn't agree or care about the differences between urban and suburban dining in order to understand what a person who says "not too suburban" means.

When a person uses "suburban" in its pejorative sense it means unexciting, lowest common denominator, bourgeois and conventional.

So it's not hard to figure out what David's client means on the level of vocabulary. The challenge is translating that desire to avoid boring sameness into a menu that isn't driven by a desire to avoid boring sameness (in other words a menu that's defined by what it isn't) but is, rather, driven by a real sense of creativity and excitement (in other words a menu that's defined by what it is).

Chefette is right on the money here, as far as I'm concerned. I'd also suggest bearing in mind that a menu is a whole document, not just a collection of dishes, and that the food itself is served in a context. Chicken wings served at TGI Friday's present one context; chicken wings at Spice Market present another. There is always room for departures. And sometimes small alterations to presentation or even just description can do more to further a menu's mission than 40 ingredients from around the world. You can serve short ribs with "mashed potatoes" on a plate, or you can serve short rib meat layered with "potato puree" in a cocktail glass.

[hjshorter]

suburban food? well ... Cheesecake Factory. big portions of either uninspired fare or food that has a soupcon of ethnic flavoring without in any way being authentic.

This is a huge generalization. Immigrant demographics are changing, with more people gravitating to the suburbs. Have you been to the DC 'burbs? Many of the suburbs here are hubs for immigrants and it's where most of the authentic ethnic food is. Yes, CF and the like are represented. However, most of the authentic Chinese, Latino, African, Thai, Indian, etc., restaurants are in the the suburbs.

[Kevin72]

Another great topic, lots of interesting thoughts generated here.

I have three cities to draw from in my adult experience: Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas.

Houston to me truly represents the old model of cities with suburbs around an urban core--inside the loop vs. outside the loop. My parents live in NW Houston in a relatively booming area, but there seems a lack of cutting edge or destination restaurants. In fact whenever an inside the loop restaurant has opened an offshoot out there to capitalize on the population it founders or has to drastically alter its menu to survive. It's still what I think of when I hear the term suburban. This is no slight on Houston and there are notable exceptions, i.e., the Woodlands and the Heights areas come to mind.

Dallas and Atlanta seem to be following the trend of more self-contained communities that provide a mix of urban appeal with suburban comforts. I currently live in Plano, which while it has a healthy dose of suburban-friendly chains also does have its share of hipper restaurants nearby, particularly just up the road in Frisco. What this means to me is that suburban and urban are blending in concept and hopefully the terms will lose their stark contrasts.

[chefdavidrusso]

One needn't agree or care about the differences between urban and suburban dining in order to understand what a person who says "not too suburban" means.

When a person uses "suburban" in its pejorative sense it means unexciting, lowest common denominator, bourgeois and conventional.

So it's not hard to figure out what David's client means on the level of vocabulary. The challenge is translating that desire to avoid boring sameness into a menu that isn't driven by a desire to avoid boring sameness (in other words a menu that's defined by what it isn't) but is, rather, driven by a real sense of creativity and excitement (in other words a menu that's defined by what it is).

Chefette is right on the money here, as far as I'm concerned. I'd also suggest bearing in mind that a menu is a whole document, not just a collection of dishes, and that the food itself is served in a context. Chicken wings served at TGI Friday's present one context; chicken wings at Spice Market present another. There is always room for departures. And sometimes small alterations to presentation or even just description can do more to further a menu's mission than 40 ingredients from around the world. You can serve short ribs with "mashed potatoes" on a plate, or you can serve short rib meat layered with "potato puree" in a cocktail glass.

Once again, Fat Guy, you have exibited the clarity and wisdom to get right to the meat of the question.

You've gotten it exactly...how do you translate those sentiments into the food. Because really, everyone has access to the same ingredients, so it's not about that. It's what you do with them, how you bring them together on a plate in a way that is creative and interesting. It is stretching an ingredient's boundries while at the same time respecting it's history.

Like you said....chicken wings are neither inherently urban nor inherently suburban. It's how you come to them that gives or takes away their banality.

[cakewench]

QUOTE (jbonne @ Aug 24 2004, 04:17 PM)

suburban food? well ... Cheesecake Factory. big portions of either uninspired fare or food that has a soupcon of ethnic flavoring without in any way being authentic.

This is a huge generalization. Immigrant demographics are changing, with more people gravitating to the suburbs. Have you been to the DC 'burbs? Many of the suburbs here are hubs for immigrants and it's where most of the authentic ethnic food is. Yes, CF and the like are represented. However, most of the authentic Chinese, Latino, African, Thai, Indian, etc., restaurants are in the the suburbs.

[woe, my quoting skills are lacking]

I totally agree. Annandale, of all places, is THE place for authentic Korean food in the DC area.

Shame that it isn't Urban enough.

Unfortunately, I don't think quality really plays into the equation, as it was initially laid out in this thread. And I think I've already blah-blah'd enough on the subject in my previous post.

[Hest88]

I haven't been, but yeah Bauer sure seemed to love it. I think it's funny that it's where Red Tractor used to be!

Yeah, my husband hates gentrified comfort food, so he was really happy to see Red Tractor go--especially when we heard it would be replaced by an oyster bar. After our two experiences at Pearl, though, he's not really raring to go back. Both times he got iffy oysters, which we've never had at Cafe Rouge, or Grasshopper, or anyplace else that routinely serves oysters in the area. Eh, maybe they just don't like us!

[jbonne]

This is a huge generalization. Immigrant demographics are changing, with more people gravitating to the suburbs. Have you been to the DC 'burbs?

if you read my subsequent posts, you'll note that i pointed out the very thing you mention. i've been to the DC burbs (and had great Afghan food in Arlington) and burbs all over, and there's most certainly legitimate ethnic cuisine to be found.

but they're standouts amid the blandness of most suburban dining, which is more often than not corporate chains. assuredly, i'd love it if the suburbs were suddenly filled with wonderful Latin and South Asian and Chinese and so on cuisine, and i'd love it even more if we very pale folk flocked to those places regularly -- not only for the food but to support small, local businesses run by first-generation Americans -- but i acknowledge that's a heady dream.

[tisch]

Interesting thoughts on this subject.

I am certainly no food expert, but perhaps you could take some cues from the realm of urban design, meaning to design food that espouses the urban ideas of functionality, sustainability, walkability and equitability. New Urbanism promotes the concepts of an enviroment focused on the "human scale". Its hard to promote urban food if the setting does not conform to these concepts, which is to say that hopefully the location of the restaurant is pedestrian-friendly and with parking in the rear. When I think "suburban" the first thing I think of is a parking lot.

Viewing the issue through this prism, an "urban" eating experience, to me, is leaving the car at home, eating non-jumbo portions of carefully prepared food chosen from local, sustainable, organic farms. And I would want to feel welcome regardless of my degree of personal trendiness. And if we could draw the analogy one step further, New Urbanism tries to demonstrate that new design concepts are superior to revitalizing old cities and towns - so perhaps no rehashing of old classic dishes?

[Squeat Mungry]

Does anyone remember what the YUP in yuppie stood for?  Yes, I think making that key 'urban' designation has been around longer than just my generation.

Actually, though you're to young to remember, when that phrase was coined in the early eighties, it referred to "young upwardly-mobile professionals". Though acronymfinder.com does say "urban", American Heritage (dictionary.com) has this:

A young city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle.

At least for the early part of the life of the term, at least as many if not more 'yuppies' lived in the suburbs as in the city. I know. I remember!

Cheers,

Squeat

[cakewench]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll respect my elders on this issue.

At least webster.com agrees with me.

I think the 'urban' makes a whole lot more sense, possibly why they changed it? Otherwise, they would be 'yumpies'.

[Fat Guy]

On the larger issue of suburban versus urban styles of dining, I think there are both actual and perceived differences. The actual differences, being part of the fabric of reality, are not exactly subject to debate based on whether or not they insult or upset anyone. For example, that it's harder to find qualified servers for high-end restaurants in the suburbs than in the large cities is simply a factual, documentable statement. The perceived differences between urban and suburban dining, however, tend to be personal and heavily colored by whether one is a partisan of suburbs or cities.

As a lifelong urban dweller and partisan of Manhattan, my perceptions of suburban dining are just that. All I can say is that I try to maintain an open mind about all restaurants, and I try to judge them on their own terms not based on where they happen to be located. I have a car and do more reverse-commuting for suburban dining than probably 99% of New York City residents -- that would be true even if you only counted my visits to China 46 in New Jersey. That being said, my perception is that there is indeed a significant difference between the urban and suburban restaurant scenes beyond that which can simply be documented by looking at menus, balance sheets, etc. There are exceptions to those rules -- certainly the Asian food scene in Northern New Jersey is second to none -- but the exceptions are just that.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have chosen the suburbs for reasons of economics, liveability, and especially family life (schools, safety of children, manageability, etc.). However, I would say if one chooses the suburbs for culinary reasons one is probably quite mad. Perhaps if you have the means to dine at the French Laundry every day, and you would enjoy doing that, you could make a case for living in Yountville instead of San Francisco. But really, come on, trying to argue that a given suburb, or even all the suburbs taken together, offers the level and range of dining options of the major cities like New York, San Francisco, DC, et al., is just an exercise in sophistry.

There is no urban or suburban cuisine as such. But I do think it's safe to say that the urban/suburban dichotomy in the culinary arts is similar to the urban/suburban dichotomy in most any other sphere of creative arts-type endeavor: the large cities are the focal points for a million reasons.

Is it possible to eat well in the suburbs? Yes, just as it is possible to see excellent arts performances in the suburbs. Do the suburbs offer the range and depth of dining experiences that the major cities offer? Of course not, just as no suburb has five opera companies or opera performances most every night.

Unlike opera, however, which is something one can make do without, everybody has to have food. So into the suburban depth/breadth gap flow the chains. Not that all the chains are bad. I say it not as a value judgment but as a statement of the general suburban dining reality. There are better and worse chains, and some suburbs have a lot of good ones.

The problem of drinking and driving is also a major issue with respect to suburbs, where most every restaurant must be accessed by car. This creates an economic issue that limits the ability of fine-dining restaurants to thrive in areas without good walkability and public transportation. There are workarounds, but designated driver situations can impede festivity (especially insofar as couples are concerned) and most suburbanites are more likely not to drink, or to drink just one glass of wine, than to use a taxi service.

Perhaps the most interesting perceptual issue, to me, is that of the self-hating suburbanite. It seems to me that there are many suburban dwellers who dine out all the time in high style, spend tremendous amounts of money on wine, etc., but do so only in the cities. They would never spend that kind of money in the suburbs. They see the local restaurants as the places where they take their kids, ask for sauce on the side, and dine in 45 minutes. The celebrations, the business entertaining, the date nights . . . these all occur in the city while the kids are home with a babysitter. There are I think many suburban dwellers who see living in the suburbs as a sacrifice they made for family-oriented reasons. I think if they looked around more carefully and had a bit of an attitude adjustment, they'd find some interesting food closer to home -- or they'd create the demand for it, as is happening more and more these days.

[tryska]

also i don't think it's fair to judge on the Tristate Area or Chicagoland either. Those cities are just too large to see the dichotomy between urban and suburban dining, like say Atlanta, or Houston, or Orlando.

[Carrot Top]

Interesting thoughts on this subject.

I am certainly no food expert, but perhaps you could take some cues from the realm of urban design, meaning to design food that espouses the urban ideas of functionality, sustainability, walkability and equitability. New Urbanism promotes the concepts of an enviroment focused on the "human scale". Its hard to promote urban food if the setting does not conform to these concepts, which is to say that hopefully the location of the restaurant is pedestrian-friendly and with parking in the rear. When I think "suburban" the first thing I think of is a parking lot.

Viewing the issue through this prism, an "urban" eating experience, to me, is leaving the car at home, eating non-jumbo portions of carefully prepared food chosen from local, sustainable, organic farms. And I would want to feel welcome regardless of my degree of personal trendiness. And if we could draw the analogy one step further, New Urbanism tries to demonstrate that new design concepts are superior to revitalizing old cities and towns - so perhaps no rehashing of old classic dishes?

This is an interesting comment, as arts do tend to draw from each other and grow.

Can you give some examples of specific areas that are good examples of the 'New Urbanism'?

Are there any major names of architects/designers that create solely within this paradigm? (And if so, are any of them associated with 'name' restaurants?)

What is coming to my mind at the moment in terms of this is that place they built right outside Miami...naturally right now I can not remember the name of it...the copycat 'New York'. Would this place be considered New Urban or simply still a mall of sorts...

Just curious.

Edited August 25, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

[Fat Guy]

There are also more and less urban cities. If there is no downtown to speak of, or if the downtown is not the focus of the dining scene, the better restaurants will of necessity position themselves in suburbs or parts of the city that are nearly indistinguishable from suburbs. Los Angeles and New York, the two largest urban areas in the US, are quite different in their layouts. Los Angeles has many of the features one would typically assign to suburbs, such as general lack of walkability and limited public transportation. Nonetheless, Los Angeles has, to me, a tangibly urban dining scene. I think the critical mass and concentration of population may have more to do with the dining scene than the way an area is organized. I don't think it's a coincidence that if you look at urban-area population statistics the five largest cities in America are also the five that would most commnly be held out as the nation's top five dining cities: New York, LA, Chicago, DC, San Francisco. And if you look down any top-50 cities list by population, it correlates pretty well to a list that gourmets would make, though there are exceptions like New Orleans and Las Vegas, both of which are smaller cities that have managed to occupy unique culinary niches.

[Mabelline]

If you ain't downtown, you will not net the guidos, right?

[slkinsey]

And if you look down any top-50 cities list by population, it correlates pretty well to a list that gourmets would make, though there are exceptions like New Orleans and Las Vegas, both of which are smaller cities that have managed to occupy unique culinary niches.

Interesting idea. Here is a list of the top 50 cities in the US by population in 1990. I'll give the top 20.

--------------------------------------------------------------- 
      |                          |          |       |  Density
      |                          |          |   Land| (average
      |                          |          |   area|  popula-
      |                          |          |   (sq.| tion per
 Rank | Place                    |Population| miles)|sq. mile)
--------------------------------------------------------------- 
    1   New York city, NY *......  7,322,564   308.9    23,705
    2   Los Angeles city, CA.....  3,485,398   469.3     7,427
    3   Chicago city, IL.........  2,783,726   227.2    12,252
    4   Houston city, TX.........  1,630,553   539.9     3,020
    5   Philadelphia city, PA....  1,585,577   135.1    11,736
    6   San Diego city, CA *.....  1,110,549   324.0     3,428
    7   Detroit city, MI.........  1,027,974   138.7     7,411
    8   Dallas city, TX..........  1,006,877   342.4     2,941
    9   Phoenix city, AZ *.......    983,403   419.9     2,342
   10   San Antonio city, TX.....    935,933   333.0     2,811

   11   San Jose city, CA........    782,248   171.3     4,567
   12   Baltimore city, MD.......    736,014    80.8     9,109
   13   Indianapolis city, IN *..    731,327   361.7     2,022
   14   San Francisco city, CA...    723,959    46.7    15,502
   15   Jacksonville city, FL *..    635,230   758.7       837
   16   Columbus city, OH........    632,910   190.9     3,315
   17   Milwaukee city, WI.......    628,088    96.1     6,536
   18   Memphis city, TN *.......    610,337   256.0     2,384
   19   Washington city, DC......    606,900    61.4     9,884
   20   Boston city, MA..........    574,283    48.4    11,865

It's interesting to me in that I would never put the likes of San Diego, Phoenix and San Antonio above Washington, DC in terms of food. Would be interesting to look at the list by population density. The only cities that come even close to NYC are San Francisco and Jersey City, all at ~9,000 less per square mile.

[Fat Guy]

You'll get a list that conforms more to your expectations if you use urban-area population, not city population as such. If you just look at city population, you give a major promotion to a city like Houston, which has defined so many of its suburbs as part of the city, and you demote DC and San Francisco, which have smaller city populations but are actually two of the five largest urban areas in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U...tropolitan-area

[slkinsey]

Hmmm... some of these urban areas strike me as pretty far out. Washington-Baltimore? Maybe. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City? Eh, probably not. Boston-Worcester-Lawrence? Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint? Miami-Ft. Lauderdale? I don't think there is any meaningful way, in terms of culture as it might relate to resaurants, that these places hang together as single units.

[Fat Guy]

Countless commuters live in Baltimore and travel to DC every day by car, MARC, etc. People traveling to DC often fly into the Baltimore airport. Although I'm not a regular follower of urban planning literature, I have seen many references to Baltimore and Washington as being one urban area, and a so-called "consolidated urban commuting market." Although Baltimore is certainly a city in its own right, there is also a part of its character that pegs it as a DC suburb. Baltimore and Washington are 35 miles apart, roughly the distance between New York City and suburbs like Greenwich, CT.

I don't have familiarity with all the units, but they weren't just invented randomly. Having been to Miami plenty of times, though, I'm confident that the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale designation is correct. Driving along that stretch, you'd be forgiven for thinking you never left one city and entered another.

Of course the important question is do the people in these metro area circles support the restaurants at the core. I think in terms of business commuters, the answer is usually yes for quite a few of them. We have some Washington, DC, restaurant people on eGullet who could probably tell us what kind of business they do with Baltimore residents. I assume enough to make Baltimore pretty important to high-end DC restaurants' business plans. Or maybe not.

[Jason Perlow]

You'll get a list that conforms more to your expectations if you use urban-area population, not city population as such. If you just look at city population, you give a major promotion to a city like Houston, which has defined so many of its suburbs as part of the city, and you demote DC and San Francisco, which have smaller city populations but are actually two of the five largest urban areas in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U...tropolitan-area

Yeah, Washington/Baltimore and Boston get serious elevations when you consider the entire metro areas as opposed to city center.