The Local Chains

[Kibbee Nayee]

I know, we all hate national chains. They are usually atrocious, or at best, indifferent. I was thinking, over a nice glass of libation, that a compilation of local chains would be a nice addition to the dining guide. Perhaps it would be a step in the right direction of sorting out the "multiple locations" category.

After all, local chains are, well, local, so they're ours. And they usually start out as one place with family ownership and a nice following, after which they expand a bit. They are usually of far higher quality than any national chain. So let me take the first representative crack and let's see how it evolves.

On the lower end of the spectrum (by low, I mean inexpensive and somewhat spare in ambiance) we have Ravi Kabob, Tippy's Tacos, Anita's....and many more. Maybe a few BBQ places, like Dixie Bones or Red, Hot and Blue. I'll leave out Five Guys because I think they have gone national.....

In the middle, I would include GAR at the bottom, Clyde's somewhere in the middle of the middle, and Lebanese Taverna at or near the top of the middle group. And a few more.....

At the top, we have the PassionFoods group, along with Jose Andres' empire, and I'm hard-pressed to think of another in that category.....

So, what I am trying to stimulate is the possibility of a third dining guide, after the main one and the brunch guide, for local chains. Then gradually, we can phase out the 'multiple locations' portion of the main dining guide by tossing a few into the 'local chains' and providing distinct entries for others in the main dining guide.

[leleboo]

Multiple Locations serves the purpose of minimizing database monitoring (as it were); it's a bigger issue than you might be aware in terms of tracking and linking. You're not the first to bring it up--it was an issue even in making the Brunch Guide, for example.

We shall have to see what Management thinks...

ETA Five Guys has indeed gone national ... it's so weird to me that friends still living in my hometown have Five Guys now.

[DonRocks]

Multiple Locations serves the purpose of minimizing database monitoring (as it were); it's a bigger issue than you might be aware in terms of tracking and linking. You're not the first to bring it up--it was an issue even in making the Brunch Guide, for example.

We shall have to see what Management thinks...

It's been an issue for years - mktye was the first person to bring it up, and I still think she has the best idea: I choose 10 restaurants (number chosen arbitrarily) that I think are worthy of double-inclusion, and we list them both in Multiple Locations and also in the individual dining guides. Example candidates would be Jaleo downtown, both Matchboxes, both Sunflowers, Heritage India (although I've heard that has taken a downturn of late), Iron Bridge Wine Company Columbia, The Swiss Bakery Springfield, both A&Js, Dukem U Street, both Cavas, Dolcezza Georgetown, both Indiques, both Woodlands, both Sushi-Kos, both Cheogajips, the original Lebanese Taverna, the original Tacqueria Distrito Federal, the original Ravi Kabob, both American Flatbreads, both Pizzeria Paradisos, the original Cafe Pizzaiolo, both Bourbons, all Teaisms, Pho Hot Annandale, etc. Can you see where this might become a problem?

Furthermore, if I ever get around to arranging the dining guides by cuisine (rather than geography), we're going to be talking about triple inclusion (not to mention a whole different set of "rankings.") Maintaining the dining guides is already a ton of work (the DC and VA guides are almost 100% current; the MD guide I can't get around to bringing up-to-the-minute, but I'm trying to get to it). Unfortunately, the only one who can do the rankings is me.