Anti-solo diner policies in New York

[Wilfrid]

I mentioned a while back that Ilo have an express policy of never accepting table reservations for solo diners.  Go sit at the bar, you loser, is the message.  Last week, it was brought to my attention that dB Bistro Moderne have the same approach.  This surprised me, as Cafe Boulud certainly do not seem to have such a policy (I have never tried to dine alone at Daniel).

I am happy to accept that many busy restaurants, when juggling their reservations, will hold back on giving tables to solo diners when they still think they might be able to seat two (or more).  Of course that happens, and it's quite understandable.  What I resent - and I am concerned we may be seeing the beginning of a trend - is a policy, which tells you, in effect, that whether they have tables open or not you are never going to be seated on your own.

Economics?  I guess, on average, two customers will spend more than one.  It's not inevitable by any means.  Solo diners have little to do except stuff themselves silly, and many solo diners are travelling on business with someone else picking up the check.  In any case, an empty table doesn't spend anything.  And then there is the simple question of goodwill and hospitality.  I wouldn't rule out eating at Ilo or dB again - I like the food - but they now each have a black mark in my book.

I have not yet come across this policy at upscale restaurants:  Jean-Georges, Le Cirque, Gramercy Tavern, Craft, March, Cello - they'll give up a table for one if they have the space; I'm not suggesting it's first come, first served, but at least it's doable.

I find this trend insidious, and I'd be pleased to see other offenders named here!      

[Bux]

db has an area between the two main dining rooms, that they call the "bar," but it's not a bar. There's long bar height table (or maybe two) with stools on all sides. As far as I know it's reserved for those without reservations, particularly singles. As the stools are arranged on both sides of the "bar," (high table) it is more like a communual table than a bar.

Wilfrid, do you know if seating policy has changed here? Will they take reservations at the "bar." How do you feel about communal tables in general and in particular with seating singles only at a communal table in a restaurant with other tables.

By the way, I may be misrepresenting db's policies or intentions. These are my assumptions and I'll be happy if Wilfrid can correct them if they're wrong.

[Wilfrid]

Your description is flawless, Bux, and I have eaten at the dB "bar" which is not a bar - as a walk-in.  And you are right; reviewing what I was told I find they were offering the "bar" on a first come-first served basis.  In any case, my grouch is not being able to reserve a table.

I have nothing against communal tables in principle, although - common to popular perception - I am far too grumpy and ill-natured to sit at one myself   What I am kicking up a fuss about is the notion that, as a solo diner, there are no circumstances in which I can reserve a normal table, whether one is open or not.

[Robert Schonfeld]

Wilfrid, I don't blame you for black-marking restaurants that won't take a reservation for one, although I can understand not doing so at peak hours when the house knows its deuces will all be taken. When I travel alone for business, I like to go out to eat, and I like to sit at a table. It's worked best for me when I reserve early. That way I can watch the place fill up, and give them back their table in time for their crowd. As you say, a table with no one at it produces no income at all.

[Wilfrid]

Robert, I have always done well at the other end of the evening; hitting a restaurant when the second sitting is underway means they will usually give up whatever's left.  This is why I suspected, correctly, that there'd be a niche for me at Fleur de Sel on Saturday night.   Conceivably, dB has a very high frequency of walk-in couples in comparison with Cafe Boulud - that's the only reason I can think of for a difference in policy.

[Robert Schonfeld]

Wilfrid, Once, when my wife and I walked out of Cello before even sitting down due to the amazing arrogance they exhibited in failing to honor my request not to be seated looking at the swinging kitchen door ("But sir, this is our best table."), and tried to seat us in the bar, where dirty dishes were being piled up beneath the floral arrangement, we dashed around the corner to Payard and snagged a late table, where we had a wonderful time.

A very long sentence to say that your two current threads have something in common for me. I think early and late can both work in favor of the solo diner, or the diners who don't have a reservation.

[Mao]

Places I have requested single person reservations and been rebuffed: Babbo and March and Artisinal.

The places that have taken me with rsv as a single diner is too long to list, but they do include Daniel.

Its funny while I have experienced extreme annoyance at the rebuff and share your anger, I will confess that in the end when I am dining alone I much prefer to eat at the bar anyway.  There are a number of reasons.  One, I find that I learn a great deal about the restuarant, the food and everything else about the place by eating at the bar from talking to whoever is serving drinks.  With a few exceptions, like places where the bar is really a destination in itself, bar tenders are usually bored out of their minds and more than happy to converse about the food etc. Two, I don't feel at all self-conscious eating at a bar alone, and I do a bit more sitting alone in the middle of a room surrounded by amorous couples.  Three, the bar has the enormous benefit of trial and comp. Most bartenders are willing to let you taste 2 wines before you settle upon a glass, and I have had more after dinner drinks comped than I can remember at several places.

[macrosan]

Yes, I absolutely go along with Mao here. It's interesting that my very first post at eGullet asked the question "Where are good restaurants in NYC for solo diners?" since I do a fair amount of business travel, and I dislike eating alone. The replies I got pointed me to those restaurants with good bars, particularly Babbo and GT.

I find the dining experience at a bar is far preferable to sitting alone at a table. It's less 'isolated', you have the choice of chatting to a neighbor or the bartender (or not), and the service is definitely better !

Having said that, I absolutely agree with Wilfrid that those who choose to dine alone at a table, if their reservation is accepted, should receive exactly the same quality of service and attention as a group. I don't have a problem with restaurants declining to accept solo diners. That's their commercial choice, and they will stand or fall by such choices.

[tony h]

Wilfred - I sympathise as I have been refused a booking when dining alone.  I now always make the booking for 2 and say that my guest had to cancel last moment when I arrive at the restaurant.

[mogsob]

Perhaps we have a constitutional claim here.  Solo diners are, as far as I can tell, a discrete and insular (seemingly by definition alone) minority denied rights afforded to others.

Perhaps a class actions suit against some of the more high profile offenders would shake things up.

BTW, the excuse that solo diners generate no income is pure BS.  I often travel for business alone, and have racked up some huge tabs from wine alone -- a restaurant's profit center.  And, if Wilfid's posts are any indication, no restaurant would lose money there either.

Hey Shaw, how about dusting off those law books and representing us?

[Wilfrid]

Mao, you make me wonder whether these policies are consistently applied:  I have dined alone at March at least twice.

I have no problem eating at the bar if I am a casual walk-in.  I prefer a table mainly because dinner can take a long time, and it's more comfortable.  Usually, it gives you more space.  I am also terribly unfriendly and hate talking to strangers   I also agree that I can easily outspend some canoodling couple who order salad and cheap wine and then share a dessert.

[yvonne johnson]

mogsob has a good point.  I've seen Wilfrid drink his wine, and no restaurant is going to lose money having him dine at their establishment.

I see no women have contributed so far. For me, the bar option leaves me a bit cold. I'm not against sitting at a bar, drinking and/or eating by myself, but I don't want that decison made for me simply because I am on my own. Added to which, sitting alone at a bar may give the impression that one wishes to socialize when in fact she (even in today's progressive times, men and women alone are probably seen differently) does not. I want a table with a tablecloth just like everyone else in the restaurant.

Ironic that in this society that values individualism, being alone is associated with having a personality defect.

[tommy]

Added to which, sitting alone at a bar may give the impression that one wishes to socialize when in fact she (even in today's progressive times, men and women alone are probably seen differently) does not.

wait a minute.  you mean to tell me that all of those pretty young ladies at the bars all through the years actually didn't want to talk to me?  damn.  i had always assumed they were there for the taking.

actually, many times i've witnessed a guy starting to chat up a woman who would obviously prefer to be enjoying her meal.  don't guys take hints?  are we all that stupid? on and on and on they'll go.  cringe-worthy.

"Soooo, do ya come here often...?"

[yvonne johnson]

Funny. And how do you get those images so quickly?

Another point. Sometimes smoking is allowed in the bar area, and I don't want smoke in my face when I eat. All of this gathering evidence supports the view that solo diners are treated like second class diners.

[Bux]

I can easily outspend some canoodling couple

I think that kind of prejudicial group disparagement has no place on eGullet. I've known a couple or two to canoodle over a fairly pricey bottle of wine.

[Wilfrid]

You're right Bux.  I have been known to canoodle over a fine Burgundy myself.

[yvonne johnson]

Oh, no: Those who canoodle in restaurants. They should be told to get a room or delegated to the "balcony". The solo diners should be given their tables.

This is a scene from my fantasy restaurant:

Telephone receptionist for 4 star restaurant: "Table for two, 9PM, let me see. Do you intend to canoodle?"

Customer: "Well, maybe..me and my date...."

Receptionist: "Sorry, we have a policy prohibiting that kind of behavior in the main restaurant. We can seat you at the bar or in the balcony at 6 or 11. How's that?"

[Liza]

I only canoodle with noodles in public.

[tommy]

I only canoodle with noodles in public.

oddly enough, my noodle was canoodled in a restaurant years back.  that was interesting.  but that's for another thread.  since we're on the solo diner thread, i will say that i've never solo-canoodled in a restaurant though.

[Liza]

And we're all grateful.

I'm with you, Yvonne. If I want to dine, I want to dine - not eat at the bar. Though, there's nothing wrong with eating at the bar sometimes. If I'm dining alone, I like to read and find that pretty difficult at the bar.

[markabauman]

I wanted to relate a dining experience recently during a trip to Chicago. I know the discussion pertains to New York, but this was related to solo dining. I made a reservation at Topolobampo, upscale Mexican, for one. They indicated no problem for one. As it turned out, plans changed and  I dined with an associate that night. Out of curiousity, I asked whether or not I'd have been seated at the same table for one as two and they indicated (if you could believe them, which I did), that the reservation was for a specific table, regardless of number of diners. Had the tasting menu with wine, which was excellent, by the way. Granted this was not prime time Saturday night, but it appears some places are solo-friendly

[Wilfrid]

That sounds like a very sensible approach, Mark.  By the way, I did think about putting this topic on the General board, as the issues are clearly not confined to New York.  In the end I put it here because I was selfishly interesting in finding out which other places in this town only love me and my money if we're accompanied.

[vengroff]

I thought I'd pipe up with a quick note about an enjoyable solo dining experience I just had.

Earlier today I spent a lovely ninety minutes sharing a table with a newspaper at City Hall.  I ordered the old reliables--half a dozen Kumomoto oysters followed by a burger, medium-rare.

I was pleasantly suprised when I was presented with a cup of split pea soup, compliments of the chef.  None of the tables in my immediate viewing area were so treated, but none of them were solos.  The soup itself was well-balanced.  The taste was fresh and the texture was creamy without straying into the thick porridgy consistency that split pea soup too often does.  Bonus points both for taste and service.

Next up, the oysters.  Six icy tidbits, each full of the clean cripsness of the Pacific.  Three sauces were presented.  The first two were the traditional horseradish cocktail sauce and mignonette of vinegar and shallots.  The third was a cool fruity green puree.  Turns out it was made with cucumbers and, although it did not taste spicy, Absolut pepar.  I enjoyed one oyster with each of the sauces, and three with just a few drops of lemon.  Every bit as excellent as I expected.  Like a day trip to the ocean right in the heart of Tribeca.

With the seafood out of the way, it was time for the meat of the matter.  It was every bit as good as others have described it here on eGullet.  Tender, and a perfect warm-centered medium rare.  The real feature of this burger is the intensely beefy juiciness locked inside.  It's more like what you expect from a glutinous cut that's been braised for hours.  After the beef, each bite had a bold finish of black pepper.  If you like steak of poivre, this is the burger for you.  The french fries were of the 3/8" square-cut skin-on variety.  Tender and lightly crispy, they would probably stand up well next to almost any burger.  But this isn't any burger; it stands on its own.

Finally, I decided to close out with a classic creme brulle.  The surface was like an amber stained glass window.  Unfortunately, the custard itself, while of excellent smooth texture, was a bit on the chilled side for my tastes.  The three soft almond cookies that came on the side proved to be the winners of the dessert course.

Service was friendly and attentive, from the moment I walked in and and was given a choice of three tables to the moment I left with with well wishes and an invitation to return.

I've had dinner at City Hall on a number of the occasions, but this was both my first lunch and my first solo visit.  I had never had the burger before, but certainly will again.  The next time I have the rare pleasure of this much free time for lunch, I'll be back.

[rockefeller666]

Wilfrid--

I think it's great that you've totally broached this subject and have brought it out into the open.  This was something that I had hinted at in an earlier post sometime ago in the "Montrachet" thread.  That you had dined alone at times was something that I had inferred from some of your posts, but it certainly wasn't something that you'd openly complained about (getting rebuked as a solo diner, that is).  

But as I had stated earlier, I think it's great to eat alone.  In many ways, not wanting to eat alone has prevented me from certain dining experiences which I wish I could have had.  The reasons I think dining alone is preferable are:

1) So many people don't want to spend so much money on food.  I'll easily drop $30-$45 for lunch at JoJo, Nougatine, or Bouley (and I'm NOT rich) whereas most of my friends wouldn't dream of spending more than a couple of bucks for chinese takeout or pizza.  Most people won't go to Daniel for dinner when they can go to the local pasta joint.  

2) The only way to get these aforementioned people to go to these places is to have them save up for a "special" occasion.  Then, of course, the whole time, they're complaining about the money they're spending.  They say it's such a waste and they could have spend $10 on linguine instead.  Of course, that totally ruins your meal.  It's so painful.

3) Finance the other people's food.  Of course, I can't afford to do this very much, but once in a while it's okay. But for the most part, you're paying double for what you'd generally eat as a single person.

So for the above reasons, I think that dining alone is just better sometimes.  Sure, it's nice to be with a big group in a festive family style restaurant, but sometimes it's also nice to have a great meal by yourself and really enjoy the money that you're spending.

Good for you Wilfrid!

[ajay]

Perhaps we have a constitutional claim here.  Solo diners are, as far as I can tell, a discrete and insular (seemingly by definition alone) minority denied rights afforded to others.

Hey Shaw, how about dusting off those law books and representing us?

Mogsob,

Lol  

The Supreme Court has already perverted and distorted equal protection doctrine well beyond its intended shape in the Bush v Gore case--I see no reason left not to push the envelope.

There I had to mention Bush and Gore It feels good to get that off my chest    

[Wow the use of these emoticons is kind of amusing :wow: (and addictive )]