Critical Mass?

[herbacidal]

Okay.  It appears that the B&T fork of this discussion has run its useful course insofar as it relates to the topic of this thread.  So let's move on.  Thanks. 

←

I agree with a few different details mentioned as far as B&T goes,

but it is well past time to move back to discussing the critical mass in high-end restaurants.

Yes, the changing nature of the NYC metro population is a factor, but real estate prices (among other things) have increased many of a restaurant's costs so much that I'd guess the room for error financially is significantly slimmer than a decade or two ago.

This is especially true at the high end, because higher end restaurants have higher costs but lower profit margins because of purchasing and upkeep of high end things like candleabras, silverware, etc.

[Mayur]

I have a solution to all of this.  As soon as a restaurant is no longer trendy in NYC, ship it to us here in the hinterlands!  They do this with Broadway Shows -- why not translate it to restaurants.  I love big cities, but it would be nice to get that kind of dining in Topeka or San Diego when I visit.  I'm only half-sarcastic with that comment.  It drives me crazy that extremely talented people open trendy -- and probably financially risky -- restaurants in the city when opening a good restaurant in a mid-sized or small city can provide hungry (figuratively and literally) and ultimately devoted customers.  Heck, here in interior Alaska, we're desperate for a good burger more or less foie gras!  Is it all ego that drives people to open up in NYC versus Topeka????  Customer's income is obviously part of the calculation - but that doesn't seem to be all of it as there are many midsized cities with rich residents.

←

Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way. Even one of the "off-the-radar" restos in Manhattan is still reasonably full on both weeknights and weekends. In smaller cities, OTOH, for whatever reasons (and I'm not an industry expert, so I can't offer any), even excellent restaurants can be barely full (or fully reserved, but without the crush of people they have jamming the doorway in NYC), and less well-known restaurants can be nearly empty even if the quality of the food is high. I've been to places that top the Zagat ratings in cities like Austin, Baltimore, Dallas-FW, Philadelphia, Portland, Minneapolis, Miami, or Houston on less than a day's notice and had no trouble scoring a table; a slightly more restrictive calculus applies to DC, Boston, Seattle, or LA, but not much. By contrast, I have at least *twenty* pretty well-known/well-trafficked restaurants within two or three blocks of me, all of which are jammed on weekends and fully booked most weekdays. You just don't get that volume, at those prices, anywhere else with the possible exception of San Francisco or Chicago (and probably not even there). New York is *the* place to operate.

IMHO, this topic is a bit of a red herring in general. Restaurants anywhere have a poor survival rate; the criteria for haute cuisine are even more grueling than those for neighborhood eats. The restaurants of this era are not for the most part the personal labor or love or family enterprise of France's Michelin-starred establishments, and chefs are quick to move on, and owners to close up shop, when profits go down. I don't think this is an unusual phenomenon or an indication that NYC has too many high-end restaurants. (May I also note that "critical mass" is a bit of a malapropism in this context?)

I think that tastes change *very* fast, that an increasing proportion of the populace defines itself as "foodie" and is therefore quick to seek out new techniques and dining trends, and that the economy is not nearly so solid as some people would like to think. In NYC at least, a large number of high-end restaurants are driven by Wall Street bonuses; the newer crop of restaurants get the bigger share of those proceeds. Bonuses have tended to concentrate among a very small population of financial professionals in the last couple of years; those same people aren't going to keep going to Daniel every month. Incidentally, this isn't really unusual or new; Mimi Sheraton and Bryan Miller's reviews of the Palm and the Four Seasons, respectively, note the unusual nature of their longevity in their reviews. Things probably *do* move faster nowadays, if simply because people track new trends in dining more quickly and with greater assiduousness.

[Nathan]

"(May I also note that "critical mass" is a bit of a malapropism in this context?)"

absolutely true, but we were following the colloquial usage.

you're right that reservations are more difficult to get in NY than anywhere else.

even at Alinea it is possible to get a table less than a month in advance...(and I'm not talking about cancellations).

and bar dining is almost always an option (except for Alinea which doesn't have a bar)...as nowhere else in the U.S. has NY's bar dining culture. (more than once I've bypassed a two hour wait (literally) at Frontera Grill merely by eating at the bar.) while in NY, even the bar is not always an option (see Babbo)

[robyn]

I have a solution to all of this.  As soon as a restaurant is no longer trendy in NYC, ship it to us here in the hinterlands!  They do this with Broadway Shows -- why not translate it to restaurants.  I love big cities, but it would be nice to get that kind of dining in Topeka or San Diego when I visit.  I'm only half-sarcastic with that comment.   It drives me crazy that extremely talented people open trendy -- and probably financially risky -- restaurants in the city when opening a good restaurant in a mid-sized or small city can provide hungry (figuratively and literally) and ultimately devoted customers.  Heck, here in interior Alaska, we're desperate for a good burger more or less foie gras!  Is it all ego that drives people to open up in NYC versus Topeka????  Customer's income is obviously part of the calculation - but that doesn't seem to be all of it as there are many midsized cities with rich residents.

←

Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way. Even one of the "off-the-radar" restos in Manhattan is still reasonably full on both weeknights and weekends. In smaller cities, OTOH, for whatever reasons (and I'm not an industry expert, so I can't offer any), even excellent restaurants can be barely full (or fully reserved, but without the crush of people they have jamming the doorway in NYC), and less well-known restaurants can be nearly empty even if the quality of the food is high. I've been to places that top the Zagat ratings in cities like Austin, Baltimore, Dallas-FW, Philadelphia, Portland, Minneapolis, Miami, or Houston on less than a day's notice and had no trouble scoring a table; a slightly more restrictive calculus applies to DC, Boston, Seattle, or LA, but not much. By contrast, I have at least *twenty* pretty well-known/well-trafficked restaurants within two or three blocks of me, all of which are jammed on weekends and fully booked most weekdays. You just don't get that volume, at those prices, anywhere else with the possible exception of San Francisco or Chicago (and probably not even there). New York is *the* place to operate.

IMHO, this topic is a bit of a red herring in general. Restaurants anywhere have a poor survival rate; the criteria for haute cuisine are even more grueling than those for neighborhood eats. The restaurants of this era are not for the most part the personal labor or love or family enterprise of France's Michelin-starred establishments, and chefs are quick to move on, and owners to close up shop, when profits go down. I don't think this is an unusual phenomenon or an indication that NYC has too many high-end restaurants. (May I also note that "critical mass" is a bit of a malapropism in this context?)

I think that tastes change *very* fast, that an increasing proportion of the populace defines itself as "foodie" and is therefore quick to seek out new techniques and dining trends, and that the economy is not nearly so solid as some people would like to think. In NYC at least, a large number of high-end restaurants are driven by Wall Street bonuses; the newer crop of restaurants get the bigger share of those proceeds. Bonuses have tended to concentrate among a very small population of financial professionals in the last couple of years; those same people aren't going to keep going to Daniel every month. Incidentally, this isn't really unusual or new; Mimi Sheraton and Bryan Miller's reviews of the Palm and the Four Seasons, respectively, note the unusual nature of their longevity in their reviews. Things probably *do* move faster nowadays, if simply because people track new trends in dining more quickly and with greater assiduousness.

←

I think you could probably devise a formula that incorporates both the population of the metropolitan area and the size of the average resident's kitchen that explains it . The New York metro area is the 4th largest in the world (about 18 million) - and the average resident has a kitchen that's tiny (if it isn't in a closet). With younger people - many share apartments - they don't have their own space. And what about dining areas? Many serve double or triple duty (as home offices and the like). So how are you going to cook - much less entertain (whether you're talking about another person - another couple - or a bunch of people)? So you don't do either - you go out to eat. If you're a single or a couple with no kids where both are working (and many people in New York are in that category) - you're talking eating out or take-out both during work and after (who has time to cook? - I know when my husband and I were both working - neither of us ever cooked).

New York isn't unique. The Tokyo metro area has twice the population - and the apartments are even smaller. I went to a kitchen showroom in Tokyo and the kitchens looked like something you'd put in a kid's playhouse. Tokyo has even more restaurants than New York (about 100,000 by last count) - and they are packed too.

Note that both in New York and Tokyo - it is unusual to be invited to eat at someone's house. In Tokyo - it is even unusual to be invited to meet someone at his/her house - because the places aren't big enough for any socializing (e.g., one couple we dined with in Tokyo had 550 sq. feet for a family of 3). On the other hand - here in the hinterlands - my capacity for entertaining at home is limited only by my lack of desire to do a lot of work . If I want to have people over - I do it - whether it's 1 person or 15 (although the 15 is a very very rare happening - having another couple or two over is more like it).

Also - most of the cities Mayur lists (except for Los Angeles and Houston) are relatively small. And with Los Angeles - Houston - and other smaller "slurby cities" - there's the hassle factor in terms of getting from work/home to many of the restaurants in the metro area. E.g., in Miami - you'd have to be nuts to try to get from south Miami to north Miami (or vice versa) for dinner at a highly rated restaurant because the traffic is the pits. So you tend to eat very locally. And because there is a much lower population density in a city like Miami (or Los Angeles or Houston) as opposed to New York - you have much less to choose from in terms of local places.

Anyway - that's my take on that issue.

BTW - I have never seen a B&T argument before - this is my first - and it comes across as really silly. I'm reminded of some things - like Ruth Reichl's description (in Garlic and Saphhires) of meeting a young (probably in retrospect B&T) couple at a bad restaurant she happened to be reviewing - and telling them where they should go and eat next time - and what they should eat. I personally love teaching people about food things I know - and I also love when people try to teach me about food things I don't know. And I don't judge them on the basis of who I think they are - just on their willingness to learn/teach. I don't even care if they chew gum. I smoke. No one is perfect . Robyn

[JohnL]

I think every restaurant in Manhattan is a "neighborhood" resaurant to one degree or another. Some, for various reasons, draw larger numbers from outside their respective neighborhoods than others. Some of these patrons are tourists or visitors to Manhattan from various places.

No restaurant can survive for long as a "trendy" establishment--it may be a trendiness that launches a restaurant, generating a certain level of PR and thus desirability.

In the end any restaurant, especially one with pretensions of being a high end place must establish itself beyond a trend.

It must draw regulars and satisfy those regulars night after night.

It is about food, service, location, pricing, overhead--finding its crowd so to speak. I would suggest that most succesful restaurants over the longer haul seem to know who/what they are and who their target is.

Every place has a life cycle. Eventually, most succomb to any number of things including an inability to keep up with competition, an inability to reinvent itself as times and dining habits change.

As for the B& T issue--I believe this is a red herring in the discussion here. Funny but years ago there was a place called "Arties Warehouse" (I believe) on the far West Side--midtown. At the time there was practically nothing there save for very trendy discos (talk about trendy--see nightclubs etc). Because of the location--near the clubs which were near the west side highway which is near the Bridges and tunnels--this place was built for the disco crowd--all mirrors and glitz. great steaks and pasta though (I remember the food as being quite good). as a "sophisticated Manhattanite, I used to take dates here who were invariably impressed with this "cool" out of the way place with people right from the Saturday Night Fever set.

I also often took my dates across the river to the real Jersey shore-- some wonderful restaurants with the best view of the Manhattan skyline anywhere.

Sometimes it's " hip to be square"-if ya know what I mean!

[Sneakeater]

And then the Artie's Warehouse location became . . . the B&T dance club Aria.

[herbacidal]

I think you could probably devise a formula that incorporates both the population of the metropolitan area and the size of the average resident's kitchen that explains it  .  The New York metro area is the 4th largest in the world (about 18 million) - and the average resident has a kitchen that's tiny (if it isn't in a closet).  With younger people - many share apartments - they don't have their own space.  And what about dining areas?  Many serve double or triple duty (as home offices and the like).  So how are you going to cook - much less entertain (whether you're talking about another person - another couple - or a bunch of people)?  So you don't do either - you go out to eat.  If you're a single or a couple with no kids where both are working (and many people in New York are in that category) - you're talking eating out or take-out both during work and after (who has time to cook? - I know when my husband and I were both working - neither of us ever cooked).

New York isn't unique.  The Tokyo metro area has twice the population - and the apartments are even smaller.  I went to a kitchen showroom in Tokyo and the kitchens looked like something you'd put in a kid's playhouse.  Tokyo has even more restaurants than New York (about 100,000 by last count) - and they are packed too.

←

This has long been my explanation and commentary about NYCers being more into food than the average American.

But I'm not sure how it applies to the critical mass of high end restaurants and both their existence and failures.

I would bet that one difference between Tokyo, Hong Kong, and other cities in Asia and NYC is that the other cities have a greater percentage of their households being couples with children (if not grandparents/aunts and uncles as well) than NYC. NYC has to have more households with single people/roommates/couples without children than the other cities.

I'd say the latter are more likely to dine out more often. I doubt this applies to high-end restaurants though.

NYC does have more of a "showman" mentality than any city in the world I know or know of, with people doing certain things just to show off, and some of the financiers backing restaurants have that as their reasoning, and I suspect that's even more true at the high end, especially with the huge bonuses, salaries, etc. being thrown around.

Edited December 28, 2006 by herbacidal (log)

[Fat Guy]

New York City also had 44 million visitors in 2006, and they spent USD $22.8 billion here.

[Sneakeater]

What's amazing is, that's 43,999,996 of them spending USD $10 billion, and the other four going to dinner together at Kuruma Zushi.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

Funny  but years ago there was a place called "Arties Warehouse" (I believe) on the far West Side--midtown. At the time there was practically nothing there save for very trendy discos (talk about trendy--see nightclubs etc). Because of the location--near the clubs which were near the west side highway which is near the Bridges and tunnels--this place was built for the disco crowd--all mirrors and glitz. great steaks and pasta though (I remember the food as being quite good). as a "sophisticated Manhattanite, I used to take dates here who were invariably impressed with this "cool" out of the way place with people right from the Saturday Night Fever set.

I also often took my dates across the river to the real Jersey shore-- some wonderful restaurants with the best view of the Manhattan skyline anywhere.

Sometimes it's " hip to be square"-if ya know what I mean!

←

Wow John, I thought I was the only one who remembered Arties! You must be as old as me! The food was good and the out of the way location certainly impressed people.

I think Steve mentioned 44 million visitors to NYC this year and the mayor is hoping for 50 million next year. Well since this is about critical mass, I think that averages out to one Japanese restaurant for every two visitors.

[Nathan]

"No restaurant can survive for long as a "trendy" establishment--it may be a trendiness that launches a restaurant, generating a certain level of PR and thus desirability.

In the end any restaurant, especially one with pretensions of being a high end place must establish itself beyond a trend.

It must draw regulars and satisfy those regulars night after night."

except for Balthazar. (don't get me wrong, Balthazar has its regulars -- I lived in the neighborhood for years and was one of them....but it doesn't need them.) but then, Balthazar is an absolutely unique entity.

actually, there are plenty of midtown restaurants that survive without regulars as well. you know, the cookie cutter Italian and French places right by the hotels. but then, those are aimed directly at tourist traffic alone.

[robyn]

I think you could probably devise a formula that incorporates both the population of the metropolitan area and the size of the average resident's kitchen that explains it  .  The New York metro area is the 4th largest in the world (about 18 million) - and the average resident has a kitchen that's tiny (if it isn't in a closet).  With younger people - many share apartments - they don't have their own space.  And what about dining areas?  Many serve double or triple duty (as home offices and the like).  So how are you going to cook - much less entertain (whether you're talking about another person - another couple - or a bunch of people)?  So you don't do either - you go out to eat.  If you're a single or a couple with no kids where both are working (and many people in New York are in that category) - you're talking eating out or take-out both during work and after (who has time to cook? - I know when my husband and I were both working - neither of us ever cooked).

New York isn't unique.  The Tokyo metro area has twice the population - and the apartments are even smaller.  I went to a kitchen showroom in Tokyo and the kitchens looked like something you'd put in a kid's playhouse.  Tokyo has even more restaurants than New York (about 100,000 by last count) - and they are packed too.

←

This has long been my explanation and commentary about NYCers being more into food than the average American.

But I'm not sure how it applies to the critical mass of high end restaurants and both their existence and failures.

I would bet that one difference between Tokyo, Hong Kong, and other cities in Asia and NYC is that the other cities have a greater percentage of their households being couples with children (if not grandparents/aunts and uncles as well) than NYC. NYC has to have more households with single people/roommates/couples without children than the other cities.

I'd say the latter are more likely to dine out more often. I doubt this applies to high-end restaurants though.

NYC does have more of a "showman" mentality than any city in the world I know or know of, with people doing certain things just to show off, and some of the financiers backing restaurants have that as their reasoning, and I suspect that's even more true at the high end, especially with the huge bonuses, salaries, etc. being thrown around.

←

My impression in Tokyo - and I certainly didn't learn the city in any depth - is that once people had children - many moved out of the "center city" area. A large % of the people who frequent the restaurants "in town" are businessmen entertaining people for various reasons after work. And I do emphasize the word men. I hardly saw any women at any place where there was business entertaining going on (from the bar at the Four Seasons where I was staying to the little places under the train tracks).

In many US cities built after the automobile (and perhaps cities outside the US) - whether you're talking about Los Angeles or Miami - there is no urban center to live in - or move out of - whether or not you have children. Everyone lives in the suburbs. Robyn

[rich]

In many US cities built after the automobile (and perhaps cities outside the US) - whether you're talking about Los Angeles or Miami - there is no urban center to live in - or move out of - whether or not you have children.  Everyone lives in the suburbs.  Robyn

←

Not if you live in Nutley, NJ.

[oakapple]

I have a solution to all of this.  As soon as a restaurant is no longer trendy in NYC, ship it to us here in the hinterlands!

←

Actually, what we have now is more like the reverse. Per Se, Masa, Buddakan, Morimoto, Lonseome Dove, Gordon Ramsay, Craftsteak, L'Atelier Joel Rubuchon --- all clones of concepts first developed successfully somewhere else. Edited January 2, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

Not saying I endorce this, but it seemed worth posting:

http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/new-york...s-on-226273.php

[rich]

Not saying I endorce this, but it seemed worth posting:

http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/new-york...s-on-226273.php

←

As Yogi Berra said - no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

[rich]

Seriously, are any of those places on the food list? I thought they were supposed to be for viewers.

[Sneakeater]

Adrienne's is good. Dressler seems OK (never been). I may be in a minority, but I think the food at the Spotted Pig is reasonably good. Freeman's is good for what it is.

[robyn]

In many US cities built after the automobile (and perhaps cities outside the US) - whether you're talking about Los Angeles or Miami - there is no urban center to live in - or move out of - whether or not you have children.  Everyone lives in the suburbs.  Robyn

←

Not if you live in Nutley, NJ.

←

Which means...?

My husband grew up in Montvale - but he didn't know what you were talking about either. FWIW - neither of us has ever been to Nutley. Robyn

[robyn]

Not saying I endorce this, but it seemed worth posting:

http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/new-york...s-on-226273.php

←

Don't any of these places mentioned in the article take (and honor) reservations? I'm at a point in my life where I can't standing waiting for anything - even a doctor's appointment. Robyn

[Nathan]

Buddakan is supposedly quite good. but the scene makes the thought of going there almost unbearable...which is the point.

yes, they take reservations.

the food at the Spotted Pig is actually more than good. but it's not worth aggravation....unless you're eating very late (1 a.m. or later) -- then it's an excellent option to Blue Ribbon or Mas.

some of the food at the Stanton Social is also quite good.

[Todd36]

Two comments:

1. To me, high end restaurant means I have to spend in excess of $200 a person for food and modest drink. That is a short list of restaurants, less than 50 in Manhattan and perhaps less than 25. Assuming $50 pp for drink and $40 for tax and tip, that leaves around $110 pp for food. Not many prix fixes in town reach that point. Heck, Daniel didn't reach that high last time I was there, unless you start ordering the 6 course menu. There might be 10 sushi places in town where you can crack that level without doing something stupid, like ordering 10 pieces of toro. I think the wrong question is being asked. What should be asked is: why is it so hard to spend over $200 pp on food in NYC? It's easier in Paris or Tokyo and my one London steak house experience made Sparks look as cheap as McDonald's. NB I'm not talking about finding ways to run up the check, I'm talking about a normal order.

2. People with high disposable incomes often may not look like they have one. Without going into gory details, I work at an investment bank. I'm a lawyer, so my comp is not like a multi-million trader. I know someone who on Fridays wears chinos and a polo shirt, looks very ordinary, and probably makes well over $10 million a year, he heads a very large business. Many people at my employer who make a great deal of money and are Ivy league do not look like the TV version of a banker.

[Pan]

Two comments:

1.  To me, high end restaurant means I have to spend in excess of $200 a person for food and modest drink.[...]

←

I'd put that in a different category: Very expensive. I don't consider $100/person "mid-priced." So we differ on this. But we can still get along.

[Todd36]

Two comments:

1.  To me, high end restaurant means I have to spend in excess of $200 a person for food and modest drink.[...]

←

I'd put that in a different category: Very expensive. I don't consider $100/person "mid-priced." So we differ on this. But we can still get along.

←

There is a bit of compresion going on. If I go to a local place, All State Cafe near where I live, a full dinner is $7 for app, $15 for main, $7 for dessert and say $10 for beverage. Add in tax and tip, and we're around $50 pp. In an ordinary local place. It's tough to get a decent real three course meal with drinks, tax and tip for under $50 a pp. I can get three courses plus two glasses of wine plus tax and tip at Daniel for under $200 pp. Strange isn't it? Probably a 5:1 ratio between the price of a full meal at a modest place, say $40 all inclusive and $200 at a four star. That's the amazing thing to me, small range of restaurant prices as comapred to say apaprtment prices, which operate in something more like a 100:1 ratio.

[oakapple]

1.  To me, high end restaurant means I have to spend in excess of $200 a person for food and modest drink. That is a short list of restaurants, less than 50 in Manhattan and perhaps less than 25.

By that definition, Per Se is the only non-Japanese high-end restaurant in New York. I think you've simply set the bar too high. The right figure is more like $125-150.

I think the wrong question is being asked.  What should be asked is: why is it so hard to spend over $200 pp on food in NYC?  It's easier in Paris or Tokyo and my one London steak house experience made Sparks look as cheap as McDonald's.

Tokyo and London are simply more expensive, and have been for a long time. (I haven't been to Paris recently, so won't comment.)

I can get three courses plus two glasses of wine plus tax and tip at Daniel for under $200 pp.  Strange isn't it?  Probably a 5:1 ratio between the price of a full meal at a modest place, say $40 all inclusive and $200 at a four star.  That's the amazing thing to me, small range of restaurant prices as comapred to say apaprtment prices, which operate in something more like a 100:1 ratio.

←

Aparments are scarce, but restaurants are plentiful. Indeed, New York has far more restaurants than it needs, which is partly why so many fail. Even at successful restaurants, you can generally get a table at reasonably short notice, which certainly isn't true about successful apartment buildings.

You also need to consider that an apartment is something you possess, while a restaurant meal is a transitory experience. I think the price ratios (most to least expensive) for other transitory experiences, like professional theatre and sporting events, are closer to 5:1 than 100:1.

Edited January 10, 2007 by oakapple (log)