Eleven Madison Park

[Nathan]

Or is Per Se discriminating against people like me because I can't get an 8 o'clock reservation and Mort Zuckerman (or whoever) can?

←

well, yes they are. it's your choice whether to give them your business anyway.

(personally, I find the idea of VIP tables and times offensive......though I understand the economic rationale behind star-f__ing. but it still pisses me off...

holding tables and times for regulars I understand).

I, for one, will not be giving DM my business.

[Nathan]

What if EMP instituted a new policy suspending food service at the bar every Saturday?  Would there be anything wrong with that?  How's it different?

←

It's different because clearly the intent would be different (more covers than the kitchen could handle......or more bar business or something). Since those reasons did not apply last night....I do think that it is credible that they were simply holding the restaurant for couples.

more importantly, if that happened I would expect them to make suggestions/accomodations (put me on a list for a cancelled table....call gt or something)...every restaurant does this. EMP did not last night.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

b. one diner doesn't throw that off.  c. they made no effort whatsoever to accomodate me.  that really grates.

←

See, this is where I'm surprised to hear you, of all people, arguing about this. We both usually seem to agree that policies are policies, and just because YOU don't like a policy's effect on YOU, you can't expect them to change it in your case.

They decided to suspend bar service for the night: not for singles, not for solo diners, but for EVERYONE. The dewiest, most snuggly couple in the world, cute as two puppies, would have been denied food service at the bar last night.

Obviously, its effect on you was unfortunate. I can see your not liking it. I just can't see holding it against them as a slight. I mean, how could it be a slight? It was a generally applicable policy. The only group it was aimed at was "people who want to eat at the bar". That hardly raises any flags.

[Sneakeater]

The people you should be pissed at are your parents, for giving birth to you on such an unfortunate day. Couldn't they have induced labor on the 13th?

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Eatmywords]

Bottom line is they determined eating at the bar would pose problems.  It makes sense.  Turnover is much greater on Vday ie pressure on the kitchen.  Plus you (and potentially others) might have obstructed the trickle down from the bar to the tables.  They didn't want to chance it.......that's all.........nothing personal.

Did I ask why you didn't call first? oh yea, I did.

←

You're right I didn't call and ask "Say, I know you're a Danny Meyer restaurant and all but he doesn't like morph into Jeffrey Chodorow just for the day does he? You're not going to refuse to serve me cause I'm like a loser, right?"

As for your first point, it's clear that you're unfamiliar with the layout of EMP. I also highly doubt that their turnover was any greater than a normal friday or saturday. in fact, it would have been less (more tasting menus....longer meals).

oh, and the bar was half empty (as it always is)

←

Because it was your bday (its apparent in your posts how upset you are/were) you're simply incapable of looking at this rationally. Regardless the layout, whether there's enough room for an army they didn't want to risk diners taking up space at the bar for prolonged periods (on this beloved holiday). It was part of the ambience they wanted to create.

Btw, while I've never eaten in EMP I know the layout. (we went for brunch but they weren't open for another half hr. I should've called).

[Nathan]

b. one diner doesn't throw that off.  c. they made no effort whatsoever to accomodate me.  that really grates.

←

See, this is where I'm surprised to hear you, of all people, arguing about this. We both usually seem to agree that policies are policies, and just because YOU don't like a policy's effect on YOU, you can't expect them to change it in your case.

They decided to suspend bar service for the night: not for singles, not for solo diners, but for EVERYONE. The dewiest, most snuggly couple in the world, cute as two puppies, would have been denied food service at the bar last night.

Obviously, its effect on you was unfortunate. I can see your not liking it. I just can't see holding it against them as a slight. I mean, how could it be a slight? It was a generally applicable policy. The only group it was aimed at was "people who want to eat at the bar". That hardly raises any flags.

←

oh come on. like they wouldn't have attempted to accomodate a "snuggly couple" last night! they would have told them to wait for a cancelled table, called GT or something of that nature. and we both know it. (I'm sure that if I'd whined and said "but it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" they would have bent over backwards too....but that's not my nature.)

as for this, "See, this is where I'm surprised to hear you, of all people, arguing about this. We both usually seem to agree that policies are policies, and just because YOU don't like a policy's effect on YOU, you can't expect them to change it in your case." I think we both argued the opposite way on the minor/wine issue.

[Nathan]

Because it was your bday (its apparent in your posts how upset you are/were) you're simply incapable of looking at this rationally.  Regardless the layout, whether there's enough room for an army they didn't want to risk diners taking up space at the bar for prolonged periods (on this beloved holiday).  It was part of the ambience they wanted to create.

Btw, while I've never eaten in EMP I know the layout. (we went for brunch but they weren't open for another half hr.  I should've called).

←

You tried to eat brunch at 11 a.m.? This isn't Naples (Fla).

of course it was about the ambience...that's my point. the vast majority of bar dining is solo....a couple they would have attempted to find a solution for. we both know that.

[Sneakeater]

as for this, "See, this is where I'm surprised to hear you, of all people, arguing about this.  We both usually seem to agree that policies are policies, and just because YOU don't like a policy's effect on YOU, you can't expect them to change it in your case."  I think we both argued the opposite way on the minor/wine issue.

←

I thought we both agreed that the clear policy in NYC "fine dining" restaurants is and has been at all times within memory to serve wine to accompanied minors. (Not to continue that debate, but that point's been reconfirmed to me a few times since that discussion.)

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Eatmywords]

....a couple they would have attempted to find a solution for. we both know that.

←

no we don't.......its a gross assumption based on a temper tantrum

[Nathan]

show of hands?

who, other than Eatmywords, thinks that the staff at a Danny Meyer restaurant on Valentine's Day would not attempt to find a solution for a couple who arrived expecting to eat at the bar?

anyone?

[Sneakeater]

From what you've said, not this Danny Meyer restaurant on this night.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

(I'm sure that if I'd whined and said "but it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" they would have bent over backwards too....but that's not my nature.)

←

Nathan, obviously you found the experience frustrating. But I think if you give your reaction some consideration, you might reconsider your approach.

We know that it's not in your nature to say it's your birthday and you'd like to be accommodated. You've also said it's not in your nature to write a letter of complaint. Apparently, on the night of the incident, it also wasn't in your nature to speak to a manager.

But it seems it is in your nature to pursue a public attack and boycott of all Danny Meyer establishments, including claims of discrimination, because one employee wasn't prepared to give you your way on a holiday. That puzzles me. It almost seems like you're choosing to complain rather than do anything then or now to give anyone a chance to address the problem.

It sounds like the bartender had been told by the kitchen, "No food orders at the bar tonight." That just doesn't seem so bad. I'm sure nobody meant you any harm.

To the extent there's anything to be upset about, I think you should really be trying to resolve it with the restaurant directly. I'd be interested to hear what the management has to say, and whether they're willing to do anything to accommodate you.

[Sneakeater]

From the "Amateur Night" thread:

Valentine's Day is more of a problem because every table is two people.  Which means the server has to give the same speech etc that they ordinarliy give to a mix of 2, 3 4,5 and 6 people.  It takes a great deal of time, taxes the kitchen etc.  Add to that the unrealistic expectations of the day, the number of "once a year" diners and you get an idea of why it is such a mess.

Its one of the few days in the year when restaurant professionals question why they went into the business.

←

[Nathan]

(I'm sure that if I'd whined and said "but it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" they would have bent over backwards too....but that's not my nature.)

←

Nathan, obviously you found the experience frustrating. But I think if you give your reaction some consideration, you might reconsider your approach.

We know that it's not in your nature to say it's your birthday and you'd like to be accommodated. You've also said it's not in your nature to write a letter of complaint. Apparently, on the night of the incident, it also wasn't in your nature to speak to a manager.

But it seems it is in your nature to pursue a public attack and boycott of all Danny Meyer establishments, including claims of discrimination, because one employee wasn't prepared to give you your way on a holiday. That puzzles me. It almost seems like you're choosing to complain rather than do anything then or now to give anyone a chance to address the problem.

It sounds like the bartender had been told by the kitchen, "No food orders at the bar tonight." That just doesn't seem so bad. I'm sure nobody meant you any harm.

To the extent there's anything to be upset about, I think you should really be trying to resolve it with the restaurant directly. I'd be interested to hear what the management has to say, and whether they're willing to do anything to accommodate you.

←

they were given a chance. I told them that I was trying to eat dinner. they made no attempt to help me with that goal.

Danny Meyer's internal employee manual specifies (at least it once did) that "if a customer asks you for directions to the bathroom, this means they probably have not been to the restaurant before. You will walk them to the bathroom instead of merely giving directions." That's the customer service ethos he purportedly aspires to. I'm sure there's probably also a section of the manual that says "If a customer makes a request that cannot be accomodated, you will attempt to suggest alternatives." Apparently this doesn't apply to solo diners on hallmark holidays.

edit: but I've made my point...I'll shut up now.

a. they instituted a sucky policy last night.

b. they didn't feel like they had to accomodate me. I'm certain that they would handled it differently with a couple.....especially on V-day. I think that blows.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[robert40]

If the dining room was full to capacity and they were already pushing the limit of quality control then I could very well believe they would turn the couple down.

Look at the numbers. One couple ordering the tasting menu is what 16-18 courses?

And that's assuming the holiday menu was not even more courses. Then of course all it takes is one more couple asking why they can't order the same.

Like I said up thread, it won't take much to tax a kitchen when your talking multiple tasting menus.

[Nathan]

ok, I lied..one quick response to robert40:

I'm not claiming that the couple would get to eat at EMP (though considering the weather last night they almost certainly would have)...but I am claiming that the staff would try. someone would check the seating book. someone might ask the kitchen. someone would offer to check GT...etc.

edit: to reemphasize the weather point, people were cancelling all over the place: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_045145934.html

Edited February 15, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

I'm not claiming that the couple would get to eat at EMP (though considering the weather last night they almost certainly would have)...but I am claiming that the staff would try.  someone would check the seating book.  someone might ask the kitchen.  someone would offer to check GT...etc.

←

You think they had vacancies at GT? As Frank Bruni reminded us in his review, GT is perennially near the top of the Zagat popularity list. It's precisely the kind of place that couples on a once-a-year splurge—those who don't do this all the time—would tend to choose. They were probably more full than EMP.

[robert40]

Also more often then not many lesser chefs would condone filling every seat regardless of the consequences. In these restaurants we often hear the duck skin was not crispy or the salmon was over cooked etc. etc. And many are curious why.

[robert40]

ok, I lied..one quick response to robert40:

I'm not claiming that the couple would get to eat at EMP (though considering the weather last night they almost certainly would have)...but I am claiming that the staff would try.  someone would check the seating book.  someone might ask the kitchen.  someone would offer to check GT...etc.

←

I understand that and see your point.

[Fat Guy]

It certainly sounds like the bartender Nathan dealt with (not "they" or "someone" but a single employee) wasn't particularly creative about finding ways to effect customer satisfaction on the evening in question. That's too bad, but it is what it is, and given the day in question -- Valentine's Day -- it's hardly a shocker. But that seems to be the only part of Nathan's complaint that holds much water. The policy itself -- no food at the bar tonight -- seems innocuous.

To move this away from Nathan and make a more general point, when something like this scenario unfolds, the thing you want to do is ask to speak to a manager. Especially at a good restaurant, the managers are likely to be relatively creative about helping you get what you want. So, rule number one, asking to speak to a manager is the basic move you make if you want to try to address the issue on the spot. A follow-up letter is another approach, maybe leading to an apology, redress, or at least an explanation, but you can never truly unscramble the eggs -- it's always a second-best move.

[JohnL]

I agree with FG--the place to go with a complaint or a problem is the manager.

However, as I see this particular case, the restaurant acted well within acceptable professional bounds. they politely explained that the tasting menu was no longer being served as of a specific time and that on this night food was not being served at the bar.

At this point it is understandable that the patron would be disappointed but beyond that?

If the patron wanted help with finding a place for dinner then why not simply ask? The problem for me is the assumption that the restaurant was somehow slighting the patron when all they did was explain the situation they were in that night. Or that the restaurant personnel were not doing enough to anticipate the patron's needs--how far should this go? Should the bar tender have offered to get a cab?

Sounds to me like a simple case of "tough noogies" as we used to say in the Bronx!

Also a lesson to never assume anything-- always call ahead in New York City!--saves a lot of disappointment. Too many times I --with great anticipation--tried a place as a walk in only to find it closed for a wedding or private party!

[Sneakeater]

Also a lesson to never assume anything-- always call ahead in New York City!--saves a lot of disappointment. Too many times I --with great anticipation--tried a place as a walk in only to find it closed for a wedding or private party!

←

This is excellent advice that I follow too rarely.

[flinflon28]

By this point this thread has grown so much that it will be on Eater or Gawker by the end of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant or a representative from USHG doesn't reach out to Nathan by the end of the week. Justified or not it will make for good PR.

Edited February 15, 2007 by flinflon28 (log)

[Eatmywords]

By this point this thread has grown so much that it will be on Eater or Gawker by the end of the day.  I wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant or a representative from USHG doesn't reach out to Nathan by the end of the week.  Justified or not it will make for good PR.

←

do you think they'll ask him why he didn't call first?

[Sneakeater]

Hasn't somebody asked him that already?