Casual Fine Dining in Western Canada

[Andrew Morrison]

I'm with you on all of that, but IIRC, you swoon for the washrooms at the Cactus Club...wink.gif

The things we choose to remember!

Yup, the West Van Cactus Club has perhaps the best washrooms I've ever peed in, but the food is as pre-pubescent as the service. I also gave Earl's Paramounta a positive review because they exceeded my low expectations. Really, CFD is just not my deal. I still go back because the bridge is the bridge and La Regalade doesn't show PPV games.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Andrew Morrison (log)

[Pacific Rim Grille]

Having had a chance to work in a “Cactus style environment” I must say, that I will probably never put my foot through the door of any major chain in the city. Factory produced food is not something I am prepared to pay for through the nose. If I really want some “comfort junk food” I just buy a cup of Kim Chi noodles and that does the job. For just $0.99 per serving.

I must though give kudos to Joey Tomato’s where Chris Mills makes the impossible quite possible. So far I was happy to see innovation, flavours and a decent touch of passion in his creations at Joey. I am sure it is not quite easy to achieve given corporate structure, but if there were awards given for corporate dining in this town it should go there.

Just as a reflection – in the early 90’s Earl’s was somewhat chick and fun to go to. Was it just me being immature about food or was it so much better back then?

[gerald]

I guess I have to chirp in here a little bit.

I think cfd's exceed expectations in a couple of ways

1. The consistency, a restauranteur/chef that I worked for once said be consistenly bad or good, just be consistent, if a guest has to guess what he/she is in for they will go elsewhere. How many great restaurants have gone out of business because of that, ALOT.

2. Training, how many times have you interviewed/worked with somebody who worked in a cfd and thought, wow they can handle the rush, now we just need to teach them how to serve, they are by most accounts workhorses, that need some polish.

3. Lastly, they innovate in terms of design and menu engineering. POS systems would not exist without cfd's, qsr's, std's (okay the last one is a why staff changerooms exist, Okay I jest, or do I , Only the cfd's theft camera's know for sure )

The negative aspect of the "chains" is that the little guys have the tendancy to get coitussed up the caboose, when trying to get pricing that allows them to be profitable, someones gotta pay for the cost plus contract that get signed.

From personal experience, my partner once asked me if it pissed me off that the bigger we got the better pricing we asked for and received? My response was no, thats the way the game is played.

The interesting thing is that cc, earls, milestones et al need to figure out the way to engineer the menu ala noble, bond.... and have the 10.00 cook re-create it EVERYTIME.

Sometimes its just easier to acquiese to the masses and say "caesar with chicken, would you like cajun or teriyaki". Then turn, show off the quarter bouncing caboose and run off for a giggle about the guys that are checking you out.

I can tell you personally we cook one item 80% of the time and my 10.00 flippers still screw it up more than I would like.

My wife is in the clothing business and lamented how difficult it was to buy every season, and be unsure about whether or not the cothes your are buying will sell. I responded with my standard sensitivity, I smirked and said you want difficult, try making 50000 burgers ALL THE SAME, cfds have a much bigger and more complex menu.

enjoying my 3rd glass of red truck, by cline which interestingly enough has imo done a very good job of creating a 15-20 dollar set of wines that are consistent from year to year, alot tougher (especially when mother nature plays tricks with ouy) than cfds and stds (but they stay roughly as long)

cheers

[kurtisk]

The food? No thanks. For the same money, I'd sooner go to Nu, Chambar, Diner. Glowbal, Bin, Lolita's, Feenie's, or Baru Latino. In my humble opinion, witnessing individuality, quirkiness, and honest zeal work a room is worth far more than the few bucks I stand to save on wine poured by someone who needs help opening the damn bottle.

←

Well said, my friend.

Funny how we all have distinctly different opinions on various CFD places, yet tend to be more collective on our thoughts toward indie restaurants. Personally, I've always had horrible Earls experiences, via 6 or 7 different locations, whether I was 22 or 32. However, when popping into Milestone's (sic - and grammar I've never comprehended) over the years, I've rarely been disappointed with the bellinis, pints, spin dip, burgers, etc.

A couple years back, my wife had the opportunity to do a market research project on CFD rooms, and we went to Earls, Milestone's and Cactus Club on three occasions each. We expected Earls to kick ass, Milestone's to be fairly solid, and Cactus Club to be a mildly highbrow Hooters. On every occasion, Earls dropped the ball, whether via food or service, Milestone's provided fairly suberb food and decent enough service, and Cactus Club was erratic in quality all over, hence no strong opinion there.

Being at an indie comparatively-priced place as many CFDs, with many of our local colleagues at the same price point, I'd much sooner grab a glass of wine with Andrew here at Aurora or Cru, Nu, Feenie's, Chambar, Vij's, Baru, Bin941, Bin 942, Lolita's, Parkside, Irish Heather, Fiction, HSG, Hapa Izakaya and so on.

And that, my friend, is my 2 cents.

k

edited to add: But, yes, they're great for training purposes.

Edited February 2, 2006 by kurtisk (log)

[Andrew Morrison]

Perhaps CFD has so many fans because it does other things very well. The newer manifestations of it (Brown's, Earl's Paramount, Watermark, West Van Cactus) are each something to behold. They've poured tons of money into swanky, if stiff, designs (the locations are excellent). Add some fine looking people sweating vitality, all of them working systems designed by pros like Noble et al, and you've got a recipe for a marketable illusion of lifestyle, hipness, and the heat of the moment du jour. Throw in big screen TV's, the duelling perfumes of estrogen and testosterone, and you've got lunar pull.

Edited due to my bottled mistress, Stella.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Andrew Morrison (log)

[fud]

Just keep in mind that people on this forum (especially those that contribute) might just be more into food and eating than the masses. So it is no wonder that these places may not appeal to us. It's not about the food. It's about the "going out". It's about the social aspect and finding a "funky" place to hang out.

I have several friends who would look at a dish that puts pear and pork together and be utterly revolted. They would be revolted and then they would hunker down and eat a chicken(?) strip with some horribly sweet dipping sauce. That's their comfort food. They feel safe with it and they have no intention of trying new things. I wouldn't be surprised if they flew to Belize and tried to order the same thing at a local dive. And yes this annoys me to no end.

I guess the best way to open a space that can cater to the masses and have something for everyone in a group is to cater to the lowest common denominator. This guarantees that you have a "spot" for everyone and people will want to congregate there.

I really do wonder if food is even on the top 3 of these CFD type places.

[gerald]

Perhaps CFD has so many fans because it does other things very well. The newer manifestations of it (Brown's, Earl's Paramount, Watermark, West Van Cactus) are each something to behold. They've poured tons of money into swanky, if stiff, designs (the locations are excellent). Add some fine looking people sweating vitality, all of them working systems designed by pros like Noble et al, and you've got a recipe for a marketable illusion of lifestyle, hipness, and the heat of the moment du jour. Throw in big screen TV's, the duelling perfumes of estrogen and testosterone, and you've got lunar pull.

It's a totally different approach to dining out and to running a restaurant. All this talk of the independents envying CFD for anything other than its money is a crock. They might serve a dual purpose of introducing a broader clientele to new foods while feeding the independents with staff that grow up and move on, but I've worked with many who had their fun and readily admit they never look back.

Edited due to my bottled mistress, Stella.

←

Couldn't agree more, give any independant owner the pockets and buying power of a cfd, and they would be your mistress.

[gerald]

I really do wonder if food is even on the top 3 of these CFD type places.

←

like a casino the food is a component of the experience, they want you to come back for the full package.

[kurtisk]

Yes, the buying power.

A few years back, Earls bought all the Caymus Conundrum in town, stickin' it to those who had carried it for years. Recently, it was an Osoyoos LaRose purchase. An agent issue, sure, but speaks volumes for their regard for the rest of us in the industry. Corporations and money hold the power, and the rest of us are left to deal with what's left in their wake.

k.

[gerald]

okay okay so after my 5th glass of red truck i hope earls doesn't read this thread, i don't want to have to go there to buy my red truck

okay okay so its a bottle and I'm by myself, does that make me a bad person, but my wife had a sip b-4 she passed out

Edited February 2, 2006 by gerald (log)

[Andrew Morrison]

An agent issue, sure, but speaks volumes for their regard for the rest of us in the industry.

Amandla! True enough to pre-condition the palate for the sourest malice.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Andrew Morrison (log)

[Andrew Morrison]

The great thing is that most CFD places listen to criticism and learn from it. As someone pointed out, it's an ultra-competitive market. Keep it coming. The opinions expressed here might trickle up.

[*Deborah*]

I guess if Earl's is your step up from ...White Spot, it feels pretty swank. Yeah, the Gullet is not the home of the usual Earl's denizen.

(Personally, I have eaten at Earl's three times, none of which was satisfactory, let alone good. Milestone's I used to like and will still go for a "Bellini" now and then but the food went down the drain after the Cara buy in my über-hood. Service is still good, but the food is now less than meh, sadly. Cactus Club...OK but overpriced; I'd always rather go somewhere else. I agree, however, that familiarity can be a mitigating factor when you're somewhere outside your usual dining area.)

ETA: I couldn't understand when the Cactus Club opened up in Yaletown, and had line-ups. I'd as soon line up for a firing squad. I wonder where those queuers came from?

Edited February 2, 2006 by *Deborah* (log)

[jamiemaw]

Member-deleted (my, that sounds uncomfortable) for complete irrelevance.

Edited February 2, 2006 by jamiemaw (log)

[Andrew Morrison]

edited out...

Edited February 2, 2006 by Andrew Morrison (log)

[jamiemaw]

The great thing is that most CFD places listen to criticism and learn from it. As someone pointed out, it's an ultra-competitive market. Keep it coming. The  opinions expressed here might trickle up.

←

Comment Card:

Cleanliness would be a great place to start. In our home it's right next to atheism, er, Godliness; I think many ungodly independents should copy.

Edited February 2, 2006 by jamiemaw (log)

[Ling]

Earl's, Milestone's, and Cactus Club were part of my regular dining rotation back when I was in grade 8-10. After grade 10, I've only been into each of those restaurants a handful of times, always at the suggestion of friends. I've noticed that the menu has become a bit more "upscale" and there are definitely more Asian influences in the dishes. Nonetheless, like many others have noted, I find the menu choices pretty boring. I've had some pretty bad meals at Earl's (e.g. charred chicken and spices dumped on the ribs rendering them inedible.) And if the meal I order is "not bad", then it's not "great" either. I would much rather save my money to spend at a restaurant where I'm quite sure I can get something better.

I'm familiar with the type of training the cooks at Cactus Club go through because my sister's bf is a manager at one of the locations. I'm sure that many of the cooks can produce food that is much better if they were free from time constraints and other restrictions (i.e. if they were given better ingredients, or more interesting recipes to follow). But as it stands, I've yet to have a meal at a chain restaurant that really wowed me, so why would I pay for mediocrity when I can buy better ingredients and make something at home? Cactus Club and restaurants of that ilk are, for me, places to socialize. The food is secondary to company. They are "default" restaurant--there are locations scattered around the city, so my friends and I can always find somewhere to go for a quick bite. (And yes, many of them do like the dry ribs and the chicken fingers...so the food does appeal to some. Just not me.)

The difference between a restaurant like Aurora and Milestone's is that I pore over the menu longer at the former because I have to narrow down my choices--many of the dishes look good, and I want to make the "right" decision. At Milestone's--which I haven't been in 5+ years, because I've never had anything really good there--I take a long time to order because I'm searching for the one item that sounds like it would be remotely interesting. And that's not really a great feeling to have when I know I'm paying about the same that I would for something at Aurora.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Ling (log)

[tarteausucre]

I think it's extremely easy to beat up on the CFD restaurants and laud the indie ones. However, I think the two are a different species altogether, have a different business ethic, and are catering to different market segments.

First of all, CFDs are businesses and I think this is above all, the most important point to keep in mind. When you judge them as businesses and not as works of culinary feat, I think you have to give them the credit that they're due. These businesses do a phenomenal job of positioning themselves on the marketplace as restaurants that offer a dining experience that projects a facade of chic while still being comfortable enough for "the masses" to enjoy. They are selling an image, a brand, and a certain predictability that encourages their diners to return over and over again. Volume requires a certain uniformity both in terms of staff and menu choices - a packaged feel that many of us on this forum understandably reject.

I have always been impressed by the way companies like Cactus Club and Earl's are able to reinvent themselves in order to continue to be novel, yet familiar to their target demographic. Consider the shift in decor at the new Paramount Earl's or the image of Cactus Club before they metamorphosed into an uber-Hooter's experience.

Also, reinvention of the menu is also incredibly difficult. Consider having to appeal to the fickle tastes of diners who come from a marketplace of constant innovation that is obsessed with image and the next item to be consumed. The menu has to be "trendy" yet comfortable, innovative yet not too wild for palates used to burgers and fries, American chain food yet reflective of Westcoast, Asian, and "global" influences.

And all of this has to be achieved by keeping food costs, wages, and overhead expenses low. Whew!

[eugene]

The difference between a restaurant like Aurora and Milestone's is that I pore over the menu longer at the former because I have to narrow down my choices--many of the dishes look good, and I want to make the "right" decision. At Milestone's--which I haven't been in 5+ years, because I've never had anything really good there--I take a long time to order because I'm searching for the one item that sounds like it would be remotely interesting. And that's not really a great feeling to have when I know I'm paying about the same that I would for something at Aurora.

←

I agree. Five years ago, Earls et. al. were much cheaper than they are today. I think it is interesting to note that the prices have steadily increased to match the non-chains (sans perhaps West, Gotham, etc). And so consequently the bang-for-buck value has conversely decreased. I think at this point in time, it is a better option to visit a non-chain restaurant because, as Ling pointed out, the originality and the quality is not always there with Earls et. al.

[jamiemaw]

I think it's extremely easy to beat up on the CFD restaurants and laud the indie ones.  However, I think the two are a different species altogether, have a different business ethic, and are catering to different market segments.

First of all, CFDs are businesses and I think this is above all, the most important point to keep in mind.  When you judge them as businesses and not as works of culinary feat, I think you  have to give them the credit that they're due.  These businesses do a phenomenal job of positioning themselves on the marketplace as restaurants that offer a dining experience that projects a facade of chic while still being comfortable enough for "the masses" to enjoy.  They are selling an image, a brand, and a certain predictability that encourages their diners to return over and over again.  Volume requires a certain uniformity both in terms of staff and menu choices - a packaged feel that many of us on this forum understandably reject.

I have always been impressed by the way companies like Cactus Club and Earl's are able to reinvent themselves in order to continue to be novel, yet familiar to their target demographic.  Consider the shift in decor at the new Paramount Earl's or the image of Cactus Club before they metamorphosed into an uber-Hooter's experience.

Also, reinvention of the menu is also incredibly difficult.  Consider having to appeal to the fickle tastes of diners who come from a marketplace of constant innovation that is obsessed with image and the next item to be consumed.  The menu has to be "trendy" yet comfortable, innovative yet not too wild for palates used to burgers and fries, American chain food yet reflective of Westcoast, Asian, and "global" influences.

And all of this has to be achieved by keeping food costs, wages, and overhead expenses low.  Whew!

←

You make many sound points, TS.

First, I agree that the markets are still somewhat separate, especially in larger centres, but they are converging rapidly and the lines are becoming blurred. That's why, as you point out, CFD's have to reinvent themselves faster than Madonna.

Some observations . . .

While I was compiling this article (plucking wings off guiless chickens), both of my daughters took summer jobs at restaurants. Both were employed as hosts, one by a CFD, the other at a leading FD restaurant. One was trained within an inch of her life, the other was thrown straight into the deep-end during a busy brunch slam. I'm sure you know the rest of the story; it was interesting to hear them compare notes. Both seemed the better for their experiences, but via two completely different approaches. The downside? Getting hit on, especially by "really old guys", sometimes as archaic as 27.

But something more interesting caught my eye: the depth of product knowledge and education of CFD staff about operating costs, specifically the cost of breakage or loss; those costs are harped on in training binders, computed in revenues necessary to make up for the loss. And food costs. In the staircase leading down to the staff changing room at one CFD, a whiteboard prominently displayed the weekly and monthly food and wastage costs for all staff to see. Floor staff in many restaurants (and food media, for that matter), are often oblivious to the sensitivity of food, wastage and shrinkage costs. At the peril of the owner.

Third, I think you're right about the blend of design and familiarity. But I had to ask myself where the competitive pressures come from in CFD, especially when some FD chefs are taking their brands downstream and where there are thousands of interesting (more interesting for most members of this forum) alternatives. I came to the conclusion that it's that unremitting compression (from "below and above") - the reaction of the CFD sector to extraordinarily rigorous competition - that makes the sector here so vigorous, market-responsive, and ultimately, financially successful.

But in order to get there, you have to turn up the volume.

And there's the risk. New CFD rooms cost $3 million ($13,000+ per seat) plus to install; the opening expenses for staff training alone can run as high as $75,000. That compares, for instance, to the $180,000 of hard costs ($3,000 per seat) spent to build Habit.

Not incidentally, I saw much less cynicism in many of the CFD's that I mentioned in the article, and much more honesty, than in some of the so-called burn-and-turn chains such as East Side Mario's, Jack Astor's, Montana's, Fionn Macools and their ilk.

I'm no cheerleader for the CFD industry, but through this article, I thought it important for the reader to understand how it works. Like it (as many consumers clearly do) or not, CFD restaurants are a major and growing factor in how we eat. It's reminiscent of a long feature that we ran some years ago on food distribution in BC, with a specific look at Konings-Sysco during the turnover. The mail we received ("I had no idea . . ." kind of letters) was impressive.

Most restaurant reporting is centred around the newest flavour and the romantic provenance of the independent chef's gastro-creds and his Everyman struggle to be heard. So I'll admit to a slight thrill in reporting on a sector that is (except for trade journals) studiously ignored. Food snobs be damned.

Snobbery does enter into the discussion: CFDs feed a lot of people every day and night, but quietly. In rural and small town Western Canada (where I spend a good deal of time), a CFD may be one of few default alternatives available. Although we're spoilt for choice here in the Lower Mainland, we shouldn't forget that our country cousins might now eat a little better than their parents.

Edited February 2, 2006 by jamiemaw (log)

[barolo]

Snobbery does enter into the discussion: CFDs feed a lot of people every day and night, but quietly.

←

Yes, for sure it does. Whenever something is available to the "masses" (I consider myself one of the masses, by the way) it can hardly be desirable to those who see themselves as the elite.

However, I do think the predominance of chain restaurants, CFD or not, in smaller centres can become rather tiresome. I'm not sure if ultimately they stifle the independents or encourage them as niches open up to serve those who want to move beyond the CFD restaurant.

I think I could make the same argument for Starbucks, as reviled as they are. While it is trendy to despise Starbucks, it seems to me that they opened the door for quality independent coffee houses in Vancouver beyond Commercial Drive and a few other spots.

I am interested in getting more detail on the lessons the indies can take from the CFD's. Cleanliness is a good one, but aren't many of them reliant on economies of scale, which just isn't going to happen for an indie?

[jamiemaw]

I am interested in getting more detail on the lessons the indies can take from the CFD's. Cleanliness is a good one, but aren't many of them reliant on economies of scale, which just isn't going to happen for an indie?

Of the many elements available to independents in order to become more efficient, one key is service training, including absolute familiarity with and confidence in selling the menu, wine list and those ineffable, unwritten parts of the experience.

Where critical mass might most affect profit though (and where independents may lag chains), is in the efficiency and cost of sourcing, storing and distributing supplies, raw product and ingredients. Often independents lack storage and prep space and waste a lot of time monitoring and breaking small deliveries. And that means relatively higher prices at the door (gas, labour etc.) and more in-house labour costs. One of the most impressive things I saw at Earls years ago was how they consolidated their warehousing and deliveries, so that one truck, instead of two dozen, came to the restaurants each day.

I don't see any reason why independent restaurants can't collaborate and bundle purchasing power in order to save costs, especially on staple items.

However, I do think the predominance of chain restaurants, CFD or not, in smaller centres can become rather tiresome. I'm not sure if ultimately they stifle the independents or encourage them as niches open up to serve those who want to move beyond the CFD restaurant.

Watching the explosion on Highway 97 in Kelowna has been interesting. Just about every fast food and CFD concept shows up. But interweaved are Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese and local restaurants. So perhaps there is some credence, at least in a strong growth economy, of the "restaurant row" syndrome, where a cluster of restaurants, instead of competing for a finite amount of sales, will actually synergistically complement each other. Example: New Kelowna Cactus Club opens. Huge line-ups. Traffic at adjacent Joey's diminishes. For about 45 days. Now business has stabilized in both restaurants; Joey's back to pre-CC numbers. Vietnamese restaurant behind Joey's stable, even if my nail-banging, pick-up-driving sub-trade colleaugues won't eat there. The loser: the adjacent East Side Mario's lot looks a little lonely.

Edited February 2, 2006 by jamiemaw (log)

[Junior]

Jamie I haven't seen out our way and we are in the middle of everything in the West. We are the defination of rural.

Chris Mills doing a good job at Joey's ?! Sorry, disagree, knowing what he is capable of and what we ate at one in Edmonton 2 weekends ago. Sorry. Everything was medicore. He needs to spend some more time in his kitchens.

There has been talk of a Joey's coming here but I hope by that time the food gets better.

Saskatoon is blessed with many chain restaurant's, you name it we have one. These places just kill independent restaurant's here.

The last place I was at our owner who is a very talented guy from around Nice had us making new menu's every month, working with local producers and keeping it in season. Good solid food.

The main complant that we received was that we needed to make our portions bigger and have food more like Earl's !!!! Give me a break. I can count on one hand the number of independent's we have in the city. Our Earl's here was one fo the first to be opened so it's been here forever.

Another probelm we have here is the provincial government. If you wanted to open a new restaurant here; their first suggestion is to find a franchise,if you can't do that, buy an existing one, and if all else fails open on your own. The government is more than willing to hand over money to a franschise but as an independent I am at the mercy of the wolves.

Case in point our new Eastside Mario's was given an injection of $3 million to help finish the project from the government's venture capital fund. Does someone who does not need that much money get any money form that fund, nope. To small. Eastside Mario's does not even bring in any economic benefit to the city. While a small independent who is working with local farmers and producers brings about alot more benefit than they do.

Any kind of chain restaurant to me, just plain sucks.

[barolo]

[

I don't see any reason why independent restaurants can't collaborate and bundle purchasing power in order to save costs, especially on staple items.

←

This did occur to me but my experience tells me that these approaches are much easier in a hierarchical, top-down type of organization than in a collaborative multi-organization model. Not that I'm suggesting it isn't worth pursuing, just noting the challenge is probably greater.

Training often has a lot of up front costs that can be justified when you train lots of people but can be tough to swallow for someone who only trains a few, or even one, at a time. Again, not to say that it couldn't be done. Interestingly, I didn't find that my servers at Saltlik were especially comfortable answering questions or "selling" their menu, although they were clearly trained.

[jamiemaw]

[

I don't see any reason why independent restaurants can't collaborate and bundle purchasing power in order to save costs, especially on staple items.

←

This did occur to me but my experience tells me that these approaches are much easier in a hierarchical, top-down type of organization than in a collaborative multi-organization model. Not that I'm suggesting it isn't worth pursuing, just noting the challenge is probably greater.

Training often has a lot of up front costs that can be justified when you train lots of people but can be tough to swallow for someone who only trains a few, or even one, at a time. Again, not to say that it couldn't be done. Interestingly, I didn't find that my servers at Saltlik were especially comfortable answering questions or "selling" their menu, although they were clearly trained.

←

The training challenges are more time-consuming per employee. Writing it down helps.

I think that Saltlik hired a little young; there's more work to do there.