Watermark

[seanw]

Winegeek, with all due respect they have everyday to prove themselves! Do they reduce their prices at the moment ? I guess they are busy so that should be taken into account, WTF excuse is that. Gill gave her impression of her experience, i'm sure Watermark will have numerous opportunities to rectify the situation concerning the press, should the dining public be protected from a negative opinion? Also the comment pertaining to West is somewhat ridiculous dont you think.

I sense the press & the public are more critically aware, the nature of competition no? So it will be interesting to see the response of Watermark to the criticism, will they react as Chambar who seem very adept at resolving issues encountered by patrons or...

Daddy-A considering the barbs of wisdom from say an AA Gill or Jonathan Meades 'crap' is positively kind by comparison & not as funny I prefer to hear opinions, negative or positive, surely that is more relevant to the public than a re-hash or verbatim rendition of PR, whom is serving whom here????

[winegeek]

Winegeek :

I will cut them some slack. My issue is how does someone like Alex Gill gets in and out twice without anyone spotting her or at least noticing her.

My issue is not entirely with what was written by Alex Gill, or the fact that they she was in twice unnoticed (which is a sin in this industry). My issue is that so many people are getting down on a restaurant that is just getting started. It seems as though just becuase so much money was spent on this business that it is supposed to come out of the gates running like a place that's been is business for 5 years. I do think it's entirely unfair to review a restarant in it's first 3 months in business. No new business opens up and operates flawlessly from day one. I was just talking with a fellow server the other day about how incredibly difficult it would be to run a restaurant that does the volume that Joe Fortes does with a entirely new staff. Despite the amazing talents of all management, I dought they could pull it off without some major difficulty.

[jamiemaw]

Winegeek :

I will cut them some slack. My issue is how does someone like Alex Gill gets in and out twice without anyone spotting her or at least noticing her.

My issue is not entirely with what was written by Alex Gill, or the fact that they she was in twice unnoticed (which is a sin in this industry). My issue is that so many people are getting down on a restaurant that is just getting started. It seems as though just becuase so much money was spent on this business that it is supposed to come out of the gates running like a place that's been is business for 5 years. I do think it's entirely unfair to review a restarant in it's first 3 months in business. No new business opens up and operates flawlessly from day one. I was just talking with a fellow server the other day about how incredibly difficult it would be to run a restaurant that does the volume that Joe Fortes does with a entirely new staff. Despite the amazing talents of all management, I dought they could pull it off without some major difficulty.

←

I couldn't disagree more. They're charging money ("$15,000 nights" as a couple of Watermark servers bragged in a Yaletown boozer after service one night), they had something to prove and, perhaps most importantly, oceanside restaurants, which are too few, might be the only Vancouver culinary impression left upon visitors. In other words: City lease equals civic responsibility too.

That last statement might be the most important. We own this restaurant. It belongs to the citizens of Vancouver and we should care mightily as to its quality and the impression it leaves on outsiders.

Alex Gill has adopted an (I think, admirably) consumerist cant to her restaurant reviews. She dosen't pretend to be a food geek. She's also fast out of the blocks, which a weekly deadline allows for. In re-reading her review "When Gorgeous Looks Are Deceiving", and despite her use of the 'C' word early on, I thought it a balanced look in the genre of "Should I Spend My Money Here?"

She did, after all, heap praise on the decor ("fabulous job"), was "impressed with the wine menu" and seemingly had no fault with the service. Left unsaid: GM David Richards is one of the very best destination restaurant managers (The Prow et al) in the province.

Gill even partially excuses the executive chef, in some part, stating that Lynda Larouche "is either way out of her league or [is] being forced to keep costs down and cut corners." In other words, the tenor of her article essentially puts the blame at the feet of the operators (leaseholders), whose culinary provenance is rooted in the deep fryers of the Elephant and Castle chain.

Gill says "It seems no detail has been overlooked. Until we get to dinner, that is." And therein lies the problem. The menu was late to be tested thoroughly (within 48 hours of opening), the kitchen was late being delivered to Larouche for de-bugging (pots and pans were still being seasoned shortly before opening) and the "All things to all people all the time" menu, at least to her sensibility, seemingly spelt a failed opportunity. My take on what Gill said is that what might have looked good on paper proved a series of disasters in execution.

Also left unsaid is the obvious: After many delays (an arduous public hearing process, construction labour shortages etc.) the owners were in a rush to capture primetime summer traffic and generate some cash flow. Unfortunately that rush

became most obvious in the shortcomings of the kitchen, although the construction mess left in the park is also inexcusable. I don't think Peter Barnett's swagger on the many TV spots did them any favours either.

I see no reason at all why a restaurant shouldn't be reviewed soon after opening. The fact that we've had a string of duds in Vancouver lately (especially on the waterfront) is unfortunate, but true, and I applaud Gill for her candor. Concierges, please copy.

Next, the fact that she wasn't recognized is an absolute non-issue. What were they going to do, make her portion-cut steak bigger? No. Make her albacore tuna tartare less "mushy"? No. Less "oozy" tempura smelts? Doubt it. The only things they could have "improved" (or as Neil says, made "extra special") would have been service-related and that, she said, was just fine. I agree.

On one of our four visits to Watermark, we dined with the GM of a major downtown hotel. He was annoyed with the poor quality of our meal. But he was absolutely infuriated by the enormous gap between the admirable view, decor and service versus the lamentable glop on one plate in particular. City Hall, please copy.

All of this being said, I did a series of exit interviews with Watermark patrons at the foot of its staircase. Many were glowing with praise, enraptured with the view, the sleek lines of the room and, yes, even the food. Proof positive, as Ms. Gill might also have said, that you can fool some of the people, some of the time.

Edited August 14, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[the g-man]

You would hope that people, including critics, would cut a new restaurant a small amount of slack if it has just opened and there are still some kinks to be ironed out. For example, I recall some recent writing on the newly-opened Stella's on Commercial discussing uneven service issues and the just-opened factor but otherwise endorsing what was coming out of the kitchen and the overall experience. I think Ms. Gill herself wrote a piece on Stella's along those lines.

There comes a point, though, when the overall experience is so distasteful that the just-opened factor does not save the missteps.

[Andrew Morrison]

But there's a dividing line of expectations between places like Stella's and multi-million dollar bohemoths that can (shudder) go far in defining our city (and it's food, unfortunately) for tourists.

In a sense, we all need Watermark to be excellent, and if it's bad it does a broader disservice to the city and its reputation as a foodie destination. Their responsibilities, whether they like it or not, go beyond taking care of their immediate customers.

[winegeek]

Winegeek :

I will cut them some slack. My issue is how does someone like Alex Gill gets in and out twice without anyone spotting her or at least noticing her.

My issue is not entirely with what was written by Alex Gill, or the fact that they she was in twice unnoticed (which is a sin in this industry). My issue is that so many people are getting down on a restaurant that is just getting started. It seems as though just becuase so much money was spent on this business that it is supposed to come out of the gates running like a place that's been is business for 5 years. I do think it's entirely unfair to review a restarant in it's first 3 months in business. No new business opens up and operates flawlessly from day one. I was just talking with a fellow server the other day about how incredibly difficult it would be to run a restaurant that does the volume that Joe Fortes does with a entirely new staff. Despite the amazing talents of all management, I dought they could pull it off without some major difficulty.

←

I couldn't disagree more. They're charging money ("$15,000 nights" as we heard several Watermark servers bragging in a Yaletown boozer after service one night), they had something to prove and, perhaps most importantly, oceanside restaurants, which are too few, might be the only Vancouver culinary impression left upon visitors. In other words: City lease equals civic responsibility too.

That last statement might be the most important. We own this restaurant. It belongs to the citizens of Vancouver and we should care mightily as to its quality and the impression it leaves on outsiders.

←

I'm sorry for my ignorance but could you elaborate on the your statement "We own this restaurant"? Is Watermark publicly owned? I don't ask this to ruffle any feathers but I thought it was privately owned? Regardless, Watermark,in my opinion, does not and should not be responsible to define Vancouvers cuisine. Is this because of the location? The cost? The people involved? We have alot of great restaurants in this city. Why is it soooo important that this one be so great? Will tourism in Vancouver drop by 5% because Watermark serves sub-par food? I have such an issue with one restaurant having so much pressure to succeed.

Jamie, where as I do value your opinion on the Vancouver culinary scene, I disagree that

might be the only Vancouver culinary impression left upon visitors

.

Are you saying that if visitors go to Watermark and have a sub par meal that their impression will be that our food in Vancouver sucks? What if they go to West? Does that mean that all our restaurants are great? What if they visit the "Peak of Vancouver"? I can not belive that ONE restaurant can make or break our city's culinary reputation, in spite of the location.

[Andrew Morrison]

I've seen some international visitors checking out this thread, and they must be rubbing their heads as to what we're on about. Here is the link to Watermark's updated site.

See for yourselves what the fuss is all about.

Edited August 14, 2005 by editor@waiterblog (log)

[jamiemaw]

But there's a dividing line of expectations between places like Stella's and multi-million dollar bohemoths that can (shudder) go far in defining our city (and it's food, unfortunately) for tourists.

In a sense, we all need Watermark to be excellent, and if it's bad it does a broader disservice to the city and its reputation as a foodie destination. Their responsibilities, whether they like it or not, go beyond taking care of their immediate customers.

←

Agreed. The City of Vancouver has leased this important real estate to a private operator. Tourist-heavy restaurants do have an additional responsibility, in my opinion, especially this one. Unfortunately though our waterfront restaurants are largely MOR and, consequently, less. Much less.

winegeek    Are you saying that if visitors go to Watermark and have a sub par meal that their impression will be that our food in Vancouver sucks? What if they go to West? Does that mean that all our restaurants are great? What if they visit the "Peak of Vancouver"? I can not belive that ONE restaurant can make or break our city's culinary reputation, in spite of the location.

I certainly am saying that a relatively expensive but poor dining experience can absolutely sour impressions, especially for cruise tourists with but one night to spend. At least that's what the cruise tourists sitting beside us at Watermark had to tell us.

After accomodation, dining out is the next largest expenditure that many tourists make. In many tourist trap restaurants there is a 'burn and turn' mentality--i.e. burn the mahi mahi and turn the table. I'm sure that you and other conscientious servers go to extra lengths to ensure dining pleasure for visitors. That was certainly my impression of the service at Watermark. But even a cheerful, well-trained and professional server couldn't redeem the kitchen's shortcomings.

It has a ripple effect up and down the food chain. You can well imagine what the hotel GM whom we dined with had to say--he immediately called his concierge desk. "Drinks Only" recommendation he said. Because it would reflect poorly on his own operation, he can ill afford to recommend restaurant experiences that might be sub-par. And so on.

I believe that if they (hypothetical tourists) were to go to West that they would likely leave with a more favourable impression. But the same holds true for Phnom Penh, Go Fish, The Banana Leaf, Hapa, C, The Kolachy Shop and a thousand others at various price points.

I just hope that they don't shoot the messengers. As I stated upthread, David Richards is a terrific manager and Lynda Larouche an accomplished chef used to high volume. But the kitchen opened before it was fully set and the menu realistically appraised. Some of the menu items are already back in for re-engineering--good on them for revisiting the drawing board. That shaken beef, it seems, was definitely not stirring.

Edited August 14, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[seanw]

Jamie,

Who devised the menu? The potential for the location is incredible, for year round dining.Maybe the owners would be sage to leave the menu up to chef Larouche & Go Fish can set up in the concession below.....sod the kids!

[jamiemaw]

Jamie,

             Who devised the menu? The potential for the location is incredible . . . EDIT

←

Accountants?

Edited August 14, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[jamiemaw]

Watermark Anecdote: As you may know, the restaurant is totally non-smoking, including outside on the lengthy balcony. But during our last visit, we couldn't help but notice the strong smell of cigar. "Maybe they've changed their policy already," someone in our party said.

Upon leaving, we found the culprits and they were standing right under the balcony: two plainclothes cops on their break smoking nickel stinkys.

Edited August 14, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[nwyles]

Jamie,

             Who devised the menu? The potential for the location is incredible . . . EDIT

←

Accountants?

←

Perhaps this is the classic case of the pencil stirring the soup. Too bad. So much potential. It is not too late for a retool.

[jamiemaw]

Jamie,

             Who devised the menu? The potential for the location is incredible . . . EDIT

←

Accountants?

←

Perhaps this is the classic case of the pencil stirring the soup. Too bad. So much potential. It is not too late for a retool.

←

Agrred on all counts, Neil--let's hope for the very best.

[Sam Salmon]

we've had a string of duds in Vancouver lately (especially on the waterfront)

←

hmmm....

[Daddy-A]

we've had a string of duds in Vancouver lately (especially on the waterfront)

←

hmmm....

Come on Sam! Surely someone with your vocabulary can elaborate more than this!

A.

[bigdaddy]

No new business opens up and operates flawlessly from day one. I was just talking with a fellow server the other day about how incredibly difficult it would be to run a restaurant that does the volume that Joe Fortes does with a entirely new staff.

Edited August 15, 2005 by bigdaddy (log)

[barolo]

But there's a dividing line of expectations between places like Stella's and multi-million dollar bohemoths that can (shudder) go far in defining our city (and it's food, unfortunately) for tourists.

In a sense, we all need Watermark to be excellent, and if it's bad it does a broader disservice to the city and its reputation as a foodie destination. Their responsibilities, whether they like it or not, go beyond taking care of their immediate customers.

←

Agreed. The City of Vancouver has leased this important real estate to a private operator. Tourist-heavy restaurants do have an additional responsibility, in my opinion, especially this one. Unfortunately though our waterfront restaurants are largely MOR and, consequently, less. Much less.

winegeek    Are you saying that if visitors go to Watermark and have a sub par meal that their impression will be that our food in Vancouver sucks? What if they go to West? Does that mean that all our restaurants are great? What if they visit the "Peak of Vancouver"? I can not belive that ONE restaurant can make or break our city's culinary reputation, in spite of the location.

I certainly am saying that a relatively expensive but poor dining experience can absolutely sour impressions, especially for cruise tourists with but one night to spend. At least that's what the cruise tourists sitting beside us at Watermark had to tell us.

After accomodation, dining out is the next largest expenditure that many tourists make. In many tourist trap restaurants there is a 'burn and turn' mentality--i.e. burn the mahi mahi and turn the table. I'm sure that you and other conscientious servers go to extra lengths to ensure dining pleasure for visitors. That was certainly my impression of the service at Watermark. But even a cheerful, well-trained and professional server couldn't redeem the kitchen's shortcomings.

It has a ripple effect up and down the food chain. You can well imagine what the hotel GM whom we dined with had to say--he immediately called his concierge desk. "Drinks Only" recommendation he said. Because it would reflect poorly on his own operation, he can ill afford to recommend restaurant experiences that might be sub-par. And so on.

I believe that if they (hypothetical tourists) were to go to West that they would likely leave with a more favourable impression. But the same holds true for Phnom Penh, Go Fish, The Banana Leaf, Hapa, C, The Kolachy Shop and a thousand others at various price points.

I just hope that they don't shoot the messengers. As I stated upthread, David Richards is a terrific manager and Lynda Larouche an accomplished chef used to high volume. But the kitchen opened before it was fully set and the menu realistically appraised. Some of the menu items are already back in for re-engineering--good on them for revisiting the drawing board. That shaken beef, it seems, was definitely not stirring.

←

1. We "need" it to be excellent? More excellent than the Stanley Park restaurants or Bridges Bistro or the restaurants at the corner of Davie and Denman or the one on the top of Grouse Mountain? There's a ton of tourist-oriented view restaurants in Vancouver, I can't see Watermark as the one that makes or breaks our reputation. Yes, they are all sub-par, but does anyone seriously look at the menu at Watermark, Bridges or any of those places and expect anything more than middle of the road food. A person seriously interested in food isn't going to go to one of these places in the first place unless he or she hasn't done homework.

2. Cruise ship food isn't exactly stellar, somehow I think it will be pretty easy to tweak the Watermark menu to please the average cruise ship passenger. Based on my admittedly limited experience on cruise ships, I don't see the average passenger as being overly food oriented. As far as I could see, they appreciate steaks, ceasar salads and other menu "standards" and large portions.

Edited August 16, 2005 by barolo (log)

[Andrew Morrison]

We "need" it to be excellent? More excellent than the Stanley Park restaurants or Bridges Bisto or the restaurants at the corner of Davie and Denman or the one on the top of Grouse Mountain? There's a ton of tourist-oriented view restaurants in Vancouver, I can't see Watermark as the one that makes or breaks our reputation. Yes, they are all sub-par, but does anyone seriously look at the menu at Watermark, Bridges or any of those places and expect anything more than middle of the road food. A person seriously interested in food isn't going to go to one of these places in the first place unless he or she hasn't done homework.

Why the hell not, I ask? Look across from Bridges to "C" and Nu, sitting pretty like a perfect set of lovelies, challenging Bridges to a duel across the water with food, wine, and service. It's no contest, right? But unfortunately, it's the deep-fried, unadventurous palates of the Gap masses that matter. That their culinary resumes move forward in steady, blinkered, fart-propelled inches doesn't. Burger and fries. Burger and fries. Burger and fries. What a pretty view, Norman. Now rub my belly and pay the bill.

I've spent my first years in Vancouver witnessing a scene evolve at an accelerated pace. The dining public are getting better educated and more adventurous, trying new and exotic flavours that were formerly milkbones for the rich and dainty. Some restaurants have captialised on this broad advance, either by driving the engine of progress or sitting in the caboose. Look at Noble and Earl's! Even the so-called sub-par restaurants you mention haven't escaped the quickening. Waterfront or not, those that suck in the tourists like Disney pimps are milking the same teat of West Coast rapture, of love and affection for the local, the new, and the imaginative (for the record, the Fish House is excellent, as is the Cannery. The Sequoia is OK, or at least puts forward the pretense of effort, while other waterfront places such as Lift (there last night - packed!) have vastly improved since their weak-kneed start back in January).

I so very badly wanted to enjoy the food at Watermark because I think its an ambassador of our town, and far more so than say...Sandbar. From the moment construction began it became, like it or not, emblematic. And what it is telling visitors right now is that Vancouverites have the culinary maturity of Chef Boyardee dressed in Abercromibe and Fitch.

All that being said, bad beginnings can inspire changes for the better and I presume (given the buckets of venomous vitriol) that their menus will be changed at some point. People in the restaurant world are in the business of listening, so let's hope they have ears.

Edited August 16, 2005 by editor@waiterblog (log)

[barolo]

We "need" it to be excellent? More excellent than the Stanley Park restaurants or Bridges Bisto or the restaurants at the corner of Davie and Denman or the one on the top of Grouse Mountain? There's a ton of tourist-oriented view restaurants in Vancouver, I can't see Watermark as the one that makes or breaks our reputation. Yes, they are all sub-par, but does anyone seriously look at the menu at Watermark, Bridges or any of those places and expect anything more than middle of the road food. A person seriously interested in food isn't going to go to one of these places in the first place unless he or she hasn't done homework.

Why the hell not, I ask? Look across from Bridges to "C" and Nu, sitting pretty like a perfect set of lovelies, challenging Bridges to a duel across the water with food, wine, and service. It's no contest, right? But unfortunately, it's the deep-fried, unadventurous palates of the Gap masses that matter. That their culinary resumes move forward in steady, blinkered, fart-propelled inches doesn't. Burger and fries. Burger and fries. Burger and fries. What a pretty view, Norman. Now rub my belly and pay the bill.

I've spent my first years in Vancouver witnessing a scene evolve at an accelerated pace. The dining public are getting better educated and more adventurous, trying new and exotic flavours that were formerly milkbones for the rich and dainty. Some restaurants have captialised on this broad advance, either by driving the engine of progress or sitting in the caboose. Look at Noble and Earl's! Even the so-called sub-par restaurants you mention haven't escaped the quickening. Waterfront or not, those that suck in the tourists like Disney pimps are milking the same teat of West Coast rapture, of love and affection for the local, the new, and the imaginative (for the record, the Fish House is excellent, as is the Cannery. The Sequoia is OK, or at least puts forward the pretense of effort, while other waterfront places such as Lift (there last night - packed!) have vastly improved since their weak-kneed start back in January).

I so very badly wanted to enjoy the food at Watermark because I think its an ambassador of our town, and far more so than say...Sandbar. From the moment construction began it became, like it or not, emblematic. And what it is telling visitors right now is that Vancouverites have the culinary maturity of Chef Boyardee dressed in Abercrombie and Kitsch.

←

If you look at Watermark's menu (I haven't had the food) it seems to me they are running in Bridges Bistro territory (only Bridges doesn't really even go Asian), so why be surprised that they are not C or Nu or Lift - they aren't trying to be. I'm not as sure that they will be that different from Sequoia Grill and Fish House in a few months (I can't agree that Fish House is excellent - but that is a quibble - same old menu year after year). So you are saying it is more than the food, it is the menu and the feed-the-masses concept that is wrong?

Right from the beginning I had fewer expectations from Watermark than many here did, and I don't see it being so crucial to Vancouver's reputation, so all the fuss about its start up troubles seems a litte hyperbolic to me. Makes for entertaining reading though.

[Ducky]

Right from the beginning I had fewer expectations from Watermark than many here did, and I don't see it being so crucial to Vancouver's reputation, so all the fuss about its start up troubles seems a litte hyperbolic to me.  .

←

I have to agree with this. As any seasoned traveller will tell you, when you find a perfect location the food is often mediocre. Nine time out of ten. If you go to the Cote d'Azur and find a restaurant with the location and views of the Watermark you had better not go in unless you want to be very seriously fleeced.

In other words there's an expectation of mediocrity (or worse) that comes with a location such as this. So the fact that Watermark meets that expectation will not harm Vancouver's image one whit.

I think the secret to enjoying the Watermark is to go there for the sunset - and that alone. Look at the menu and ask yourself "what is the most difficult thing for these guys to really f___ up?"... and then order accordingly and enjoy the view. Worked for us.

[Andrew Morrison]

In other words there's an expectation of mediocrity (or worse) that comes with a location such as this.

This doesn't have to be the case. If you spend upwards of $7mil on a sweet set of digs, and Watermark is a sweet set of digs, then c'mon...make it something amazing. Make it something that will blow the socks off of everyone that walks in the door. From top to bottom, the place should be brimming with excellence.

With the location, they've been dealt four aces and a king, but they're betting as if they've got a 3-7 off-suit.

[makanmakan]

In other words there's an expectation of mediocrity (or worse) that comes with a location such as this.

This doesn't have to be the case. If you spend upwards of $7mil on a sweet set of digs, and Watermark is a sweet set of digs, then c'mon...make it something amazing. Make it something that will blow the socks off of everyone that walks in the door. From top to bottom, the place should be brimming with excellence.

←

i agree. i have to admit, i have no urge to check out watermark since reading all the reviews of it. for me, it can have walls that are falling down, but if the food, service and atmosphere are amazing, then i'll be there with bells on. such is also the case for lift. gorgeous restaurant, gorgeous location but everything else is mediocrity. i only went because a friend was in town and we went for lunch. maybe i was too nitpicky, but when the $$ is apparent in everything around me, i want everything to be perfect....and not just the "perfect looking" people around me, either! anyways, i might check out watermark when the rainy season comes around.....i'm in no hurry to stand in line and bump shoulders with the bikinis my .02

[nwyles]

This topic has certainly gone round and round.

Do they have a responsibility to be better or is that we just want them to be better. Can a restaurant open and get it right in every aspect or do some things not quite measure up. ( There is an opening coming up this week that should help answer this question )

Look at the pedigrees of the people involved.

Lynda Larouche : very good chef, high volume restaurants, should be a winner.

The Elephant and Castle group : Fish and chip, Hot oil immersion method cooking, Shepherd's pie, cookie cutter mall restaurants.

They were the highest bidder on the location. It does not mean they were the best, just had the best package. Maybe this is the best they can do.

I know we all want them to be better, to represent our city better, to represent the food scene in Vancouver better. That's what we want. Just by reading this board you have an interest in the food scene in Vancouver and want it to be great.

As stated upthread, most waterfront restaurants are mediocre. " C " would be the exception to that rule and a few others.

I doubt this restaurant will be what we want it to be. It will be a CFD that probably will never measure up to what an Earl's can do. Accept it.

Let's look to the next new restaurant and hope for the best.

[jamiemaw]

This thread is in peril in veering off topic, so to properly respond to Barolo's remarks, I've begun a new topic called Culinary Tourism in British Columbia

Edited August 16, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[winegeek]

Did anyone else read Mia Stainsby's review in todays Sun? While it was not overflowing with praise, it was certainly better than what I've been reading on this thread. Her main complaint revolved around the "friendly but minimal service". She also has received several complaints from readers regarding the fact that they do not take reservations after 6:30. Her ratings were 4/5 overall, food 3.5/5,

ambience 5/5, and service 3/5.