Jump to content

No Reservations - No, Really: No Reservations


Bart

Recommended Posts

I notice they updated with two corrections to that story, but I think there must be a third. Black's Bar and Kitchen opened before 2006. I don't know the exact year, but 2006 can't be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they surveyed these restaurants at 6PM or 8:30, the reullts would have been different. Reservations are about traffic control, not convenience.

I was thinking the same thing. Although I did think it interesting that people would happily wait in the traffic jam rather than take the first available exit at Eatonville or Masa 14.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This evening (Saturday night) sat at the bar at Estadio from around 5:30 to 7:00. There were available bar seats and tables most of the time. [bTW, if you are going soon get the soft shell crab w/ salsa verde; also, try the ramps. Did I mention the asparagus?] Stopped by Cork at a little after 7:00pm for one more and cheese and there were maybe 3 or 4 people at the bar and few inside tables in the front room were occupied. On a hot evening, however, all of the outside tables were full. Le Diplomate? Fuhgeddaboudit. Slammed.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one hell of a stretch.  At least you qualified it with the word "most"; otherwise this puts you at about the same as the op, but in the opposite camp.

I'm not saying it's everyone.  Plenty of good people (including many from this forum) would prefer that they have reservations.  I would never make that kind of statement without a qualifier.  I'm a bad writer, but I'm not that bad.  It's just that the most vocal dissenters can't help but let it slip just how cool or important they are.

But I will say this without a qualifier: there is no other town in this country that would respond as comically to actually decent restaurants holding a no reservations policy than DC.  Places like Pasta Mia?  Sure, fine.  But a place that could impress a date or clients not bowing to whims?   Time for 20 think pieces and hot takes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I will say this without a qualifier: there is no other town in this country that would respond as comically to actually decent restaurants holding a no reservations policy than DC.  Places like Pasta Mia?  Sure, fine.  But a place that could impress a date or clients not bowing to whims?   Time for 20 think pieces and hot takes.

I think that is definitely true about DC.  This is not on topic, it can be deleted.  But while DC doesn't have food culture, and are sometimes missing a distinct culture in other things, we have a few cultural differences than the rest of the country in some ways that kind of is our culture.  I think first and foremost we have so many people who work really long hours.  And I mean really long hours.  Then having the amount of traffic we have is also not as common is so many other areas, I think we are still technically the longest commute, even beating out LA, and if not still on top we are close. So if we are going to drive somewhere and waste that time we want to know we have a reason to do it.  We have a lot of people who work on the billable hour system and I think that means we have really tough schedules and understand what our time is worth more than other people.  I know so many people who are almost always on the clock if the need arises and that is expected, even people not well paid are working really long hours and expected to be available, such as many hill staff. I think we schedule things culturally more than a lot of other places do because we have to schedule them to be able to do them.  My husband just had to schedule lunch on his work calendar so people wouldn't block his whole day with meetings and conference calls, seriously if he doesn't put lunch on his calendar, he doesn't get to eat, sad state of affairs. So many dinners in this city are business dinners, and if not "business"dinners they are still dinners where business takes place or are networking.  And we are used to businesses who accommodate that and cater to that. It used to be really almost all of what we had in the high end arena. We aren't a wait around city.  It's a reason we probably don't have as much of a coffee house culture, we don't wait around, we don't sit around, even when it's to enjoy ourselves because we are trained we need to get so much accomplished in a certain time period and it runs into many aspects of our lives.

 Second I think culturally we are a fairly demanding city, maybe it's our work ethic, or our ego in the fact that we have so many people with very high educations and high salaries in this area compared to many other areas, we feel we have a right to be demanding. Isn't Maryland the state with the highest rate of higher education degrees, and NOVA is always in the top incomes.  We are willing to pay the price to be demanding, but we have expectations. And we pay a high premium to live and play in this area.  And in other cities, often greasing a palm will work, although it doesn't seem to be common practice here.  We, although this is silly, because we live in this area tend to think we can effect change.  I think in other big cities like New York, there are so many options it is easy just to not worry about it and move on, or pay your way in, but here we don't have as many top tier restaurants we feel if we speak out we can effectuate change.  I am sure Ray's the Steaks had lot of complaints for years about their system.  LA also has more restaurants and a very different culture and attitude than we do about all things.  I think culturally we are just different than a lot of other cities.  We are certainly more formal than many cities.  We haven't converted well to a more laid back vibe as many other cities have, we still wear our suits.  And this is one think that really rubs us the wrong way culturally.

Then add in trying to manage a home life on top of all of that and you really need a schedule.  There are so many people in this area that due to cost both parents work and that means you have to schedule every moment of every day.  I don't know how many of them do it.  Then many have kids in private school, they are driving out of their way to get them to and from school, activities, all things further away than their public school.  Plus how many people in our area continue to work on some weekends.  Anyway I am not an anthropologist, but it would be an interesting job to be able to look at things like this.    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think culturally we are just different than a lot of other cities.  We are certainly more formal than many cities.  We haven't converted well to a more laid back vibe as many other cities have, we still wear our suits.  And this is one think that really rubs us the wrong way culturally.  

I've never thought about this precise topic until this very moment, so this comment may be off-base, but traditionally, people would live in the suburbs and work in the city. Since this was primarily a federal town, the dress was conservative (even if you weren't). And there was no time to go back to the suburbs after work, change clothes, and come back downtown - thus, the impossibly conservative stereotype of the DC G-man, in a suit, working on his third martini. Once they get home, on weekends, it's cheesy Hawaiian shirts and mowing the lawn.

Now, that has all changed radically in the past ten years. Upper-middle class people are living in the city. Dress rules at work have relaxed. A younger generation is filling up the town. All these things are colliding at once, making the stereotype seem downright 1950s, when, in actuality, it's from the 1990s and beyond. Yes, you still have the stiff-looking interns at Hawk & Dove (I would assume), but this is all changing very rapidly. I believe that DC has changed more in the past 12 years (I'm using 9/11 as a somewhat random benchmark here), than in the 25 years before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this is just a fun topic.  It's interesting people complained about not being able to get into minibar and other places with limited reservations, but they seemed to accept it better, they just didn't have the luck of getting in, than the no reservations at all thing which seems to have gotten more negative traction when it has come up: Little Serow, Rays and Rose's Luxury.  It was definitely talked about even when Estadio opened with no reservations, except policy.  It just seems to me to get a more vehement push back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article on why it's so hard to get a table.

"The Waits Are Too Damn Long: With So Many New Restaurants, Why Is It Still So Hard To Get A Table?" by Jessica Sidman on washingtoncitypaper.com

I predict that sometime in the not-too-distant future (say 5-10 years), restaurants in 14UP will become more-and-more vacant, then begin to close due to rising rents, increased supply, and (at some point) decreased demand (*). What do you think, Tyler Cowen?

Five years ago, Cleveland Park seemed like it was unstoppable, and Columbia Heights was a place that people avoided.

(*) All these young people with disposable income? They're going to hit their mid-late-30s and start having families. :) And no area stays hot forever (or at least I can't think of any).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can live with no reservations as long as it's done fairly.  Estadio, for instance, does have reservations.  They even have a computer that keeps reservations.  Except that it's only for VIPs.  I've been in there and refused a table with 2-3 tables open and no line.  It's the same nonsense at their sister restaurant Doi Moi.  Either have reservations or don't.  You basically take a crap on your customers when only certain people can get reservations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can live with no reservations as long as it's done fairly.  Estadio, for instance, does have reservations.  They even have a computer that keeps reservations.  Except that it's only for VIPs.  I've been in there and refused a table with 2-3 tables open and no line.  It's the same nonsense at their sister restaurant Doi Moi.  Either have reservations or don't.  You basically take a crap on your customers when only certain people can get reservations.

This is a touchy subject, but there are variations of this in every industry, from Platinum Members at Bank of America (*), to Black Label members at Borgata (these things happen automatically, without any pro-active actions on the part of the customer). The key for businesses is to control the media, and not let it out to the general public that this takes place - but it happens everywhere in the name of "customer loyalty," or, in the case of kissing a celebrity's ass, "marketing." No, it's not fair, but that's the way it is in a capitalist economy, alas. A dissertation could be (and possibly has been) written analyzing the social acceptance of various industries engaging in these practices. For example, it's easier for people to stomach a high-roller getting a comp at Borgata than it is a customer walking into Bank of America and getting lavished by the staff, but it's the *exact* same thing. My guess is that it's easier for a company to pull it off if the special treatment isn't displayed within sight of the average customer. For those against such systems in general, I would ask if they're any different than frequent flyer programs, department stores, hotels, or gas stations giving miles, rewards, and rebates (**).

(*) - One day, I envision Bank of America having a "Swipe As You Enter" system that alerts the staff that a VIP (I use this term very loosely) is in the house. Kind of a creepy thought, huh? This is, of course, countered by the rise of internet banking and the fall of actual banks.

Sorry, now *I'm* going off-topic.

(**) - We actually have our own version of this. People rise in rank from shrimp, to grouper and even beyond! (Has anyone noticed what happens at post #666?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can live with no reservations as long as it's done fairly.  Estadio, for instance, does have reservations.  They even have a computer that keeps reservations.  Except that it's only for VIPs.  I've been in there and refused a table with 2-3 tables open and no line.  It's the same nonsense at their sister restaurant Doi Moi.  Either have reservations or don't.  You basically take a crap on your customers when only certain people can get reservations.

Directly from their website:

Reservations for seatings until 6:00 pm may be made on OpenTable for parties of up to 6. In addition, reservations for parties of 6 to 8 throughout the evening may be made by calling the restaurant a 202-319-1404.

I don't doubt for a second that VIPs can play by their own set of reservation rules and (as someone who is far from a VIP and not even much of a regular anywhere these days) that's probably as it should be.

One day, I envision Bank of America having a "Swipe As You Enter" system that alerts the staff that a VIP (I use this term very loosely) is in the house. Kind of a creepy thought, huh? This is, of course, countered by the rise of internet banking and the fall of actual banks.

So... kind of like the Passion Food Loyalty Card?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this is just a fun topic. It's interesting people complained about not being able to get into minibar and other places with limited reservations, but they seemed to accept it better, they just didn't have the luck of getting in, than the no reservations at all thing which seems to have gotten more negative traction when it has come up: Little Serow, Rays and Rose's Luxury. It was definitely talked about even when Estadio opened with no reservations, except policy. It just seems to me to get a more vehement push back.

The original Ray's did have reservations. It was just very hard to get them. That's what annoyed some people, but to me it was part of the small business aspect of it. You had to call certain days between certain times and often couldn't get through.

When I was young, my parents and I often went out on Friday nights to an Italian-American restaurant in a neighboring town. When I was older, I realized that the food was really not all that good, but I loved it when I was a kid. Not just the spaghetti and meatballs, but the plain iceberg lettuce salad with onion and infrequent bits of tomato. That salad was super heavy on vinegar. That's when I discovered I loved vinegar and kind of liked onions.

In any case, it was basically a walk-in-and-wait-for-a-table place, but my dad would call ahead and ask Marge (of the family who owned it) to reserve us a table. My dad had known the family and done business with them for years. We would get there and walk past a line of people (sometimes out onto the sidewalk) and go to our table. Sometimes I'd feel bad that people were waiting and we got a table, but Marge was really nice.

Other times, our neighbors would decide they wanted to go, last minute kind of thing, and we'd all head over there and wait and wait for a table. Somehow that seemed more fair, but it wasn't as good as walking straight to a table with a "reserved" sign. The reservation makes you feel special. People like that, especially if they're used to getting their way on a day-to-day basis.

Funniest part of that was that our neighbor had much more clout than my father in a general sense, but he didn't really know anybody there who would put that reservation sign out for him. So, when we tagged along with them, we waited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean this as any sort of aspersion on anyone in DR, but I do wonder about the intersection of people who would complain vehemently (far beyond "I wish there were a reservation system to make it easier for me to eat here") and people who complain about no tipping policies. Some of the angrier comments about Rose's Luxury, talking about disrepect and wishing them failure, reminds me of Jay Porter's account of his adventures in a fixed service charge model. Porter had concluded that although he found the flat service charge model lead to better service and good servers are not motivated by tips by individual tables, a vocal minority of people really hated losing the perceived control of the tip.

Porter's conclusion is supported by my experience. Every so often, we'll be seated next to a table where one guy (or one woman, but that's much less common) who monopolizes the server's time - correcting them, asking tons of questions, forcing them to listen to long monologues (never ever as interesting as speaker thinks they are) that have nothing to do with the server's job of facilitating a good dining experience. I think that for these people, dining out is a power trip, so anything that robs them of that power, such as waiting in line like a prole, makes them feel angry and disrespected.

As someone else has said earlier in the Rose's Luxury thread - I'm rather glad that Rose's Luxury's egalitarian system probably excludes more of these folks. They're really annoying to be seated next to and they degrade the overall dining experience for everyone by interrupting the normal flow of a restaurant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this is just a fun topic. It's interesting people complained about not being able to get into minibar and other places with limited reservations, but they seemed to accept it better, they just didn't have the luck of getting in, than the no reservations at all thing which seems to have gotten more negative traction when it has come up: Little Serow, Rays and Rose's Luxury. It was definitely talked about even when Estadio opened with no reservations, except policy. It just seems to me to get a more vehement push back.

I think this goes directly to your point about everyone's time being over scheduled and free time being in short supply. Someone might be able to handle a 10, 20, 30 minute wait on hold every day until you get a minibar reservation. The up front work guarantees them a seat at the table which can be scheduled and blocked off. But the same person might not be able to risk a 3 hour wait on the chance they get into the hot, new, no reservations place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be going to the Red Hen tomorrow night. My plan is to Uber over,  with a fat knot of $100's, a t-shirt that boldly states "Do You Know Who I AM?", and my DonRockwell.com Dining Card.

I have no doubt the combination of these four things will move me to the front of the line, and I am sure Mr. Friedman and Mr. Zutant will be overjoyed, if not outright exuberant, to have me.

The rest of you can dine at 9.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the article on Washington Post?

I'm definitely in the camp of some reservations. I may be missing out on some great food, but at the end of day I am really looking forward to good food and great company.  The sooner I can sit down with my date, friends, or family the better. I don't want to wait 60+ minutes or cut out of work early to avoid the wait.  I am just glad there are still restaurants out there taking reservations.  I don't really see them failing because of no shows like the super tiny Makoto or Kaz.  I don't doubt these new restaurants will succeed without my support.  It's just not for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What goes around comes around. When Erik Bruner-Yang, the chef of the no-reservations Toki Underground, visited a like-minded peer, his verbal review of the production began: "I waited two hours for Rose's."

Toki offers reservations from 5-6:30 on weekdays. Kind of like "some reservations" Momofuku (which only offers reservations for the $125 family fried chicken dinner. $125 group meal reservation, hey that rings a bell!) People need to calm their tits over this stuff, including ole fuddy duddy Sietsema. He should stick to worrying about decibel levels, not weakly carving out meta-narratives in "trend pieces."

But hospitality takes a holiday at establishments that don't book.

Seems to me one of the most expressed praises for Rose's is the gracious service.

The shift is surprising for a city where power brokers like to be recognized and, better yet, to show off their standing.

Are you lobbying for the dull expense account crowd who made this city a culinary backwater for decades? Fuck them.

I need a cup of coffee. :)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spent days trying to get a reservation at The French Laundry (I finally got in as a walk-in), I used to enjoy the democratic opportunity offered by Little Serow.  But the trend is getting a little absurd.  Not taking reservations at a ramen place is one thing, a restaurant with pretenses of fine dining (Rose's Luxery) ought to strive to make the customer experience as pleasant as possible from beginning to end.

One can't help but wonder if the no reservation trend relates to the "egotarian" trend that aroused some ire on this forum.  The masters are at the mercy of the servants, because the servants are now artists.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comfortable with the idea of dining out as a master-servant experience.  I'm not particularly comfortable with any sort of service interaction as a master-servant experience.  Seems very degrading for everyone involved when one side is overtly trying to expert power over the other side, and deriving value from that power.  I would much prefer to go to a place where everyone (chefs, waiters, diners, other diners) do the best they can to provide the best experience for everyone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rules that Rose's Luxury put into place makes a lot of sense for them and is quite reasonable for enough of the people who actually patronizes them.

The only place where I feel like the restaurant has been unreasonably restrictive to their diners is Little Serow - how hard is it to reduce the heat level on some of their dishes, to make it a more comfortable experience for their diners?  But they're the ones with lines so I guess enough people are okay with submitting to what I consider a really capricious and unkind restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only place where I feel like the restaurant has been unreasonably restrictive to their diners is Little Serow - how hard is it to reduce the heat level on some of their dishes, to make it a more comfortable experience for their diners?  But they're the ones with lines so I guess enough people are okay with submitting to what I consider a really capricious and unkind restriction.

Given the size of the kitchen and the type of food they are preparing, I can completely understand why they can't adjust the heat levels for each individual serving. It's not a question of sprinkling some chilli on at the end. Many of these dishes incorporate chillies early on in the prep, and the final dish must have all the flavors balanced against one another i.e. hot, salty, sour, bitter, umami, and sometimes sweet. To make the dish taste right the cook would need to readjust all the flavors if less chilli were added and this might not be possible when making each dish in quantity, as opposed to made-to-order, where theoretically each dish can be made to the desired taste of the individual diner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't help but wonder if the no reservation trend relates to the "egotarian" trend that aroused some ire on this forum.  The masters are at the mercy of the servants, because the servants are now artists.

That seems to be one of the points the article is making.  A point that isn't made is that there are many wonderful restaurants in the area that do take reservations, and there's no reason why you can't have a great meal when you want to.  All you have to do is refuse to buy into the marketing strategy of the deliberately elusive.  Seriously.  Search for "scarcity principle" in marketing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine one of the reasons the no-reservations policy irks Sietsema has to do with having a job where he eats out (according to him) an average of 13 times a week, which requires a lot of planning, especially when writing a restaurant guide. No reservations complicates his job, which he can then imagine as also a complication for people with kids, seniors, and others who don't eat for a living but may have particular needs.

It's curious, however, to think of how much Open Table (and, to a lesser degree, City Eats and other online reservations systems) has likely changed our ideas about table reservations: it puts that task so much more under the control of the diner, and less the host/hostess who commandeers the reservations book. I know for myself that I am much more likely to try to dine at places that offer online reservations than if I have to call and speak to a person (damn my introversion!). Not only that, I often forget about places that aren't on Open Table when I think about places I might want to eat. Add in that OT doesn't just serve the fine-dining industry but also restaurants that at least I would never even think about reserving a table (and, needless to say, the definition of "fine dining" is in flux). OT has only been around for 15 years, yet it seems to have had as profound an enculturating effect on diners as it has changed restaurant practices.

I'd be curious to know some of the social history of table reservations in America. Were they once mainly the province of the well-to-do and the "fine-dining" industry? When did they become more a middle-class phenomenon? It's also curious to me how all this is biased not just to the young or the powerful, but to the technologically connected: these systems favor those who live and die by their smartphones, and exclude those (like me) who thus far have chosen not to do that, for whatever reason. I get the frustrations/concerns on both sides, but sometimes it helps to examine critically the norms that we have come to accept for ourselves before projecting motives/attitudes on those who resist those norms, diners and restaurateurs alike.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another point here and that is when Rose's Luxury opens what amounts to a private club on its roof with a minimum guarantee of $1,000 for up to ten people who sit at two tops which are pushed together.  These tables could have been used for reservations.  But no, whatever the size of your group, they are your's.  For a thousand dollars.

I applaud Red Hen who have a limited number of tables available for early reservations.  Rose's could have addressed this but elected the private club.

Appaulse to Tom for an excellent and timely essay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1980 Paul Prudhomme opened K Paul's on Chartres street in New Orleans.  Mimi Sheraton raved about him and the restaurant in the New York Times and it took off.  We ate there a few weeks before the article as well as afterwards.  K Paul's didn't take reservations and lines built on the street which oftened involved 2-3 hour waits to get in.

At some point locals stopped going.  They didn't want to to stand in line.  Meanwhile K Paul's prices started going up.  They went up a lot.

At some point K Paul's started accepting reservations.  It took them a number of years to do this, but they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I applaud Red Hen who have a limited number of tables available for early reservations.  Rose's could have addressed this but elected the private club.

Appaulse to Tom for an excellent and timely essay.

In every way I can think of, Red Hen is to be applauded as a restaurant that gets it right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comfortable with the idea of dining out as a master-servant experience.  I'm not particularly comfortable with any sort of service interaction as a master-servant experience.  Seems very degrading for everyone involved when one side is overtly trying to expert power over the other side, and deriving value from that power.  I would much prefer to go to a place where everyone (chefs, waiters, diners, other diners) do the best they can to provide the best experience for everyone.

Something of an exaggeration -- God knows the phrase "the customer is king" no longer resonates -- but when one is hiring someone to perform a task for them there is generally the expectation that the hired hand goes the extra mile, not the person paying the bills. And, broad egalitarian principles aside, if someone's not in charge, nothing is going to get done.  When dropping $200 on dinner, I prefer that the person in charge (politely, respectfully) be me.

I think the rules that Rose's Luxury put into place makes a lot of sense for them and is quite reasonable for enough of the people who actually patronizes them.

The only place where I feel like the restaurant has been unreasonably restrictive to their diners is Little Serow - how hard is it to reduce the heat level on some of their dishes, to make it a more comfortable experience for their diners?  But they're the ones with lines so I guess enough people are okay with submitting to what I consider a really capricious and unkind restriction.

As someone who "actually patronizes" Rose's Luxury, I don't see how their policy makes sense from my point of view.  It disregards my preferences and schedules entirely.  I mean, they can do what they want, but let's not call it 'reasnable.'

I wonder why you think restaurants should cater you your preferences regarding their cooking, which could be construed as their "art" and thus be a little sancrosact, but you're supportive of them calling the shots without regard to their customers when it comes to the more mundane task of seating people.

There's another point here and that is when Rose's Luxury opens what amounts to a private club on its roof with a minimum guarantee of $1,000 for up to ten people who sit at two tops which are pushed together.  These tables could have been used for reservations.  But no, whatever the size of your group, they are your's.  For a thousand dollars.

I applaud Red Hen who have a limited number of tables available for early reservations.  Rose's could have addressed this but elected the private club.

Appaulse to Tom for an excellent and timely essay.

The Red Hen does strike a nice balance and I appreciate it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only place where I feel like the restaurant has been unreasonably restrictive to their diners is Little Serow - how hard is it to reduce the heat level on some of their dishes, to make it a more comfortable experience for their diners?  

I have no problem with chefs insisting that I should eat a dish without any change to it:  I want to taste what is envisioned with the spice or heat that is intended.  At least for my first bite.  Over the years there have been countless tastes that I have had which were extraordinary and I never thought that I would even like them.

Where I react is when a restaurant will only accept reservations through e-mail, does not publish a phone # and, as Waitman noted above, when a restaurant "with pretenses of fine dining" does not accept even limited reserations.

It doesn't matter if once you get in the door the service is outstanding.  Sometimes it's what the restaurant insists on putting you through that you never even get to the door.  Or return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's what the restaurant insists on putting you through that you never even get to the door.

This is another thing I find funny -- how is a restaurant "putting you through that?" Seems to me that the quarrel should be with the marketplace, not the supplier. A restaurant opens, allows people through its doors whenever they'd like during their posted hours, but you can't get in because the crowd has spoken. The restaurant did nothing but serve food during open hours, it's their customers who are blocking the door -- not the staff. And, has been documented by others (including Sietsema in the article above), a no reservation policy actually leads to more diners being served in an evening.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another thing I find funny -- how is a restaurant "putting you through that?" Seems to me that the quarrel should be with the marketplace, not the supplier. A restaurant opens, allows people through its doors whenever they'd like during their posted hours, but you can't get in because the crowd has spoken. The restaurant did nothing but serve food during open hours, it's their customers who are blocking the door -- not the staff. And, has been documented by others (including Sietsema in the article above), a no reservation policy actually leads to more diners being served in an evening.

This is a bit off as it assumes that the restaurant -- like an illiterate peasant subject to the merciless whims of the global potato market -- has no control over its policies and could not make it simpler for you to get a seat.

If we're going to get all Mr. Economist ;) about it, I'd just like to point out that if you assign any value at all to your own time, every minute spent queuing or listlessly wandering waiting for that goddam text that tell you your table is ready (or worried that you missed the text) adds to the cost of the meal, so that the restaurant can earn better profits.  The cost can be minimized, but it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bit off as it assumes that the restaurant -- like an illiterate peasant subject to the merciless whims of the global potato market -- has no control over its policies and could not make it simpler for you to get a seat. 

They're under no obligation to make anything simpler because the market is under no obligation to go there. If the market revolts against these terms, then it will have spoken. I'd also argue that going to a no reservations restaurant is "simpler" than a hot place that takes reservations, because the people who fuck up the reservation schema by booking tables they never bother to cancel.

People act as if these restaurants are the DMV, a public institution that one has to do business with to lead their life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'd also argue that going to a no reservations restaurant is "simpler" than a hot place that takes reservations, because the people who fuck up the reservation schema by booking tables they never bother to cancel.

No shows are the least of the problems that restaurants who take reservations suffer. Every single person who calls for a reservation wants to come at 7:00. This is not possible for obvious reasons ( go to Outback Steak House to see what I mean). The table times have to be jockeyed so that there is time to turn the tables at least once in the night. Every night I see people with 8:30 reservations show up at 7:00. Then there are the "campers" who think the table is theirs for the entire evening. And the people who call to say they're running a half hour late. And the last minute cancellations after you've turned 20 people away on the phone. Taking reservations is like gambling that people will be honest with you.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're under no obligation to make anything simpler because the market is under no obligation to go there. If the market revolts against these terms, then it will have spoken. I'd also argue that going to a no reservations restaurant is "simpler" than a hot place that takes reservations, because the people who fuck up the reservation schema by booking tables they never bother to cancel.

People act as if these restaurants are the DMV, a public institution that one has to do business with to lead their life.

I'm more worried about restaurants who treat customers as though the restaurant is the DMV, unconcerned with the fact that customers have lives to lead.

You are correct, restaurants are under no obligation to make anything simpler.  Nor are they under any obligation to cook good food, have flattering lighting, treat you with courtesy, refill your wine when you knock the glass over or any number of things.  And, as long as they're popular, why should they worry about their customers?  People have every right not to put themselves through the queue.  However, in a forum like this it's certainly fair to point out that the restaurants are shifting the equation in their favor and lament the lack of alternative approaches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People act as if these restaurants are the DMV, a public institution that one has to do business with to lead their life. 

Hey, my recent trip to the DMV to get my Real ID/driver's license renewal was terrific--in and out in under a half-hour, and friendly service to boot!

This is a bit off as it assumes that the restaurant -- like an illiterate peasant subject to the merciless whims of the global potato market -- has no control over its policies and could not make it simpler for you to get a seat. 

That word "control" comes up quite a bit here and seems to be what sets many people off: yes, the restaurant does have control over its policies and chooses not to use that power as some would prefer; thus, Red Hen "gets it right" and Rose's doesn't. It's insinuated that the latter is somehow inhospitable or arrogant or cynical, which is really more perception than reality: I experience their no-reservations policy as inhospitable--it's reality only to the person who experiences it, since others don't necessarily experience that way. So basically, this feels like a matter of resentment that some businesses choose to fuck with the norm and sense of control that people have come to expect, and some even feel entitled to (and I'm accusing no one there). But sometimes we need a few norm-breakers to help us see the world differently, to ask how something became a norm in the first place, and put things in perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No shows are the least of the problems that restaurants who take reservations suffer. Every single person who calls for a reservation wants to come at 7:00. This is not possible for obvious reasons ( go to Outback Steak House to see what I mean). The table times have to be jockeyed so that there is time to turn the tables at least once in the night. Every night I see people with 8:30 reservations show up at 7:00. Then there are the "campers" who think the table is theirs for the entire evening. And the people who call to say they're running a half hour late. And the last minute cancellations after you've turned 20 people away on the phone. Taking reservations is like gambling that people will be honest with you.

Well said, Sir. And you will find people are even "less" honest then usually with the preconceived "master-servant experience" perception already in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Notice how all quoted text is neatly double-spaced with a clean, consistent look to the entire thread. This is the toil and perspiration off of one man's weary brow.]

We recently had a discussion about a generational shift here in Washington, DC, and I suspect that younger people are, in general, more tolerant of a "walk-ins only" policy than crusty old shits like me. (I actually don't mind it, but I'm not going to lie and say it hasn't kept me away from Little Serow and Rose's Luxury more than I'd like (actually, it's not the policy so much as the lines at opening time)). Not to wish any ill-will on either of these restaurants, but I selfishly look forward to these lines dying down in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I'd love to go to Rose's Luxury. My +1, however, categorically refuses to go anywhere that a wait is involved. This severely limits my options, unless I want to go out to eat alone. Once, when he was out of town, I managed to get into Toki Underground with only a 45 minute wait. I never did get into Little Serow under similar circumstances. Twice. A two-hour wait was more than I could deal with on 17th Street by myself -- heading home and coming back would mean another long search for a parking place. Gah! So, we go to places that take reservations, or more often to places that aren't that popular, since going out is often an impulsive, last minute decision.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the most interesting threads in the nine (?) years of this board. I come back to my point about the $125 prix fixe price x eight people plus beverage, tax and tip (I.e. $1000 food minimum) which is a response to all those who ask for the possibility of a reservation. Rose's is pushing two top tables together to accomplish this. Why couldn't these same two tops be used for individuals rather than what amounts to corporate space or a small private party? For me this move only reinforces what Alan Richman wrote about in his excellent piece referenced in another thread.

Waitman's comment about the value of one 's time standing in line is worth emphasizing. A several hour wait can add to the cost of a meal. As Tom mentioned it lessons the cost for the restaurant but it places another cost/demand on who eats there. The reference to ageism is interesting, too. Demands like this go after a younger crowd.

I would also like to know who in the neighborhood has the time to stand in line enough to be a regular? But this comes full circle: this is much more than a neighborhood restaurant. They know how good they are. They know the publicity they receive from their rigid no reservations (unless you guarantee a $1000 food minimum) policy. Fortunately for them they have been discovered nationally. Unfortunately for them they are doing a poor job of managing their popularity.

Mark's comment is well taken. But I have no problem with guaranteeing a minimum on my credit card if I reserve and don 't show up. Which, by the way, is exactly what they are doing for their private club.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reference to ageism is interesting, too. Demands like this go after a younger crowd.

I don't agree with the ageism argument.  I'm in my late 50's, which isn't exactly a senior citizen (at least I don't think it is) but I obviously don't qualify as the "younger crowd."  I like knowing that if I feel like dining at Rose's tomorrow night, I have the option to do so.  For me this means trekking in from the suburbs to get in line for the first seating.  I've done it at Rose's three times and at Little Serow twice.  While I don't love eating dinner at 5:30, at least I didn't have a wait that is hours long.  I have a number of friends in my AARP-qualified age group who have done the same, and agree that the plus-side of these dining experiences make it worth the effort.

Don't get me wrong- I would be ecstatic if Rose's took reservations- at least on a limited basis.  The downside of that- I'm sure they would be impossible to snag.

I am not particularly enthralled by the rooftop situation at Rose's.  They only release a few dates at a time, and you have to go online at a specific hour to book the one table available.  I haven't tried it, but I'm guessing at some point I will make an attempt. I do love Rose's.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another point here and that is when Rose's Luxury opens what amounts to a private club on its roof with a minimum guarantee of $1,000 for up to ten people who sit at two tops which are pushed together.  These tables could have been used for reservations.  But no, whatever the size of your group, they are your's.  For a thousand dollars.

This is beside the point, but Rose's Luxury posted pictures of their rooftop table, and it's not two tops pushed together but one picnic table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is beside the point, but Rose's Luxury posted pictures of their rooftop table, and it's not two tops pushed together but one picnic table.

There was a different photo that showed two tops side by side. Your link notes that the photo is of their "inaugural group."  Originally the photo showed different tables. Regardless the point is that there is a $1,000 food minimum whether it is a large picnic table or three or four individual tables that could have been used to address the reservation issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the ageism argument.  I'm in my late 50's, which isn't exactly a senior citizen (at least I don't think it is) but I obviously don't qualify as the "younger crowd."  I like knowing that if I feel like dining at Rose's tomorrow night, I have the option to do so.  For me this means trekking in from the suburbs to get in line for the first seating.  I've done it at Rose's three times and at Little Serow twice.  While I don't love eating dinner at 5:30, at least I didn't have a wait that is hours long.  I have a number of friends in my AARP-qualified age group who have done the same, and agree that the plus-side of these dining experiences make it worth the effort.

Don't get me wrong- I would be ecstatic if Rose's took reservations- at least on a limited basis.  The downside of that- I'm sure they would be impossible to snag.

I am not particularly enthralled by the rooftop situation at Rose's.  They only release a few dates at a time, and you have to go online at a specific hour to book the one table available.  I haven't tried it, but I'm guessing at some point I will make an attempt. I do love Rose's.....

I have raved about Rose's on here.  I've had one criticism and that is the no reservations policy.  For myself the rooftop table (s) is a response on their part to mine and others' comments.  As for the ageism, Tom mentioned this in a tweet earlier today:  "I smell ageism."

If it were not for the $1,000 food minimum and the rooftop table (s) I would accept that they are just stubborn and live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the ageism argument.  

I don't either. There might be an indirect effect on older people, making them stand there, but you could also say the same about the young and wounded, or the sick. This policy may indeed tend to affect older people more than younger people, but I don't think for a moment that it's "ageist" or discriminatory; it's just part of a business plan.

I'd like to hear other opinions on this - I just don't see it. At the absolute minimum, does anyone really think Johnny Monis or Aaron Silverman are biased against the elderly? Yes, these two restaurants tend to be tailored towards a younger crowd, but so what? Does anyone think Claude Amsellem was discriminatory against the young at Tragara? He is somewhat on the older end of the age spectrum, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have embraced younger diners in his restaurant. Yes, they'd have to play by his rules, but I think he would have been perfectly willing to reach out halfway as best he could. The Prime Rib? L'Auberge Chez Franí§ois? Same. We have restaurants tailored for a younger crowd, and restaurants tailored for an older crowd, and that's what makes the world go around. I don't ask for a knife and fork when I dine Ethiopian, and they probably wouldn't offer me one unless they saw I was struggling. The day they serve a knife and fork is the day we complain that they're dumbed down. There are so many examples of this, and I love the variety in today's day-and-age of dining.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why couldn't these same two tops be used for individuals rather than what amounts to corporate space or a small private party?

Because they're playing with a different business and service model than the rest of the space? What's wrong with that?

I don't agree with the ageism argument.  I'm in my late 50's, which isn't exactly a senior citizen (at least I don't think it is) but I obviously don't qualify as the "younger crowd."  I like knowing that if I feel like dining at Rose's tomorrow night, I have the option to do so.  For me this means trekking in from the suburbs to get in line for the first seating.  I've done it at Rose's three times and at Little Serow twice.  While I don't love eating dinner at 5:30, at least I didn't have a wait that is hours long.  I have a number of friends in my AARP-qualified age group who have done the same, and agree that the plus-side of these dining experiences make it worth the effort.

Don't get me wrong- I would be ecstatic if Rose's took reservations- at least on a limited basis.  The downside of that- I'm sure they would be impossible to snag.

I am not particularly enthralled by the rooftop situation at Rose's.  They only release a few dates at a time, and you have to go online at a specific hour to book the one table available.  I haven't tried it, but I'm guessing at some point I will make an attempt. I do love Rose's.....

Late 50s here also, and I also don't agree with the ageism issue, outside of the "technology first" question I raised above. And I don't really see what a "limited reservations" policy would achieve since it would probably only apply to the times when it's already easy enough to snag a table.

Let's face it: Rose's has chosen to fuck with our accepted norms of doing business, and that is going to drive some people nuts. Period. That doesn't make them arrogant, cynical, inhospitable, or whatever label you want to put on them. Their signature sign (that too many people feel compelled to steal) says "Fuck perfect," and they actually live into that. Deal with it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they're playing with a different business and service model than the rest of the space? What's wrong with that?

Late 50s here also, and I also don't agree with the ageism issue, outside of the "technology first" question I raised above. And I don't really see what a "limited reservations" policy would achieve since it would probably only apply to the times when it's already easy enough to snag a table.

Let's face it: Rose's has chosen to fuck with our accepted norms of doing business, and that is going to drive some people nuts. Period. That doesn't make them arrogant, cynical, inhospitable, or whatever label you want to put on them. Their signature sign (that too many people feel compelled to steal) says "Fuck perfect," and they actually live into that. Deal with it.

This is the paragraph from Tom's essay which is linked in the first post in this thread.

But hospitality takes a holiday at establishments that don't book. In effect, these restaurants are saying, "It's more important for us to fill every seat than to treat diners like guests." Think about it. Who invites people to dinner and then makes them wait until the cook is good and ready to let you in, much less eat? By not guaranteeing tables, restaurants dismiss whole groups of would-be patrons. The masses include senior citizens who might not be able to stand for long or don't go out after dark, parents who may be reluctant to shell out $20 an hour for child care for a meal that may or may not happen, and suburbanites reluctant to drive in for the chance to be turned away. ("Maybe that's the point?" an acquaintance snarked.) I smell ageism. Sure enough, a scan of the dining rooms that don't book tables could be a casting call for a J. Crew catalogue.

Let me bring up Red Hen's policy one more time:  they accept a limited number of reservations for the first 30 or 60 minutes that they are open.  After a certain time it is only first come first serve.  Still, when Red Hen opens, there are tables available for walk ins of which they get a lot.  And a line just like Rose's after a certain time.  If someone doesn't show for a reservation then someone from the line takes it.  I am not sure how long they hold it but my guess is that it is probably less than 15 minutes considering that others are waiting.  But, at the end of the day, Red Hen loses little if anything by allowing a limited first seating which has several or more reserved tables.

My first visit in October was with a principle of my old company.  He wanted to go to the Capital Grille.  I suggested he trust me and convinced him to meet me at 5:00 for a 5:30 reservation.  He humored me and went along.  By 5:45 Red Hen was full with severall people already waiting.  My friend had a great time and a great memory.  Afterwards he much preferred it to the Capital Grille, both for the food and for the experience.

I could not have done this "business dinner" at Rose's.  I returned to Red Hen two weeks later with my wife with another 5:30 reservation.  She loved Red Hen, also.  

I didn't feel that I had asked for much.  Red Hen also has valet parking on weekends which Rose's Luxury does not.  For me, another small touch that makes a difference and shows consideration of the diner before he or she is inside the restaurant.  Red Hen, for me, is accessible.  Rose's is not.  On my last visit I drove for almost twenty minutes in the rain through several neighborhoods looking for a parking space.  A valet would have been nice.

I can also enter Alba, Al Dente and Luca into these discussions-all which have parking, all have reservations and all are very friendly to diners.  Alan Richman called Luca one of America's 25 best new restaurants for 2014, Esquire named Roberto chef of the year for the U. S. for Al Dente in 2013 (Joe Biden ate there last night, unannounced) and Alba is one of the hottest openings of the past six months.  All three of these have excellent, imaginative menus at fair prices which attract large crowds.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, you sound like just the kind of guy I would love to do business with, if I was in your line of business. Your point is well taken; those few early reservations do you give you some security for doing a business dinner. But let's face it; most of these places in question are not catering to a business crowd. You in some ways are an exception of being a food lover who seems to want to give your clients the best that DC can offer. I admire that.

This is becoming sort of a Rose's vs. Red Hen debate, which is unfortunate, and I've contributed to that. They're two different places in two very different neighborhoods (and I don't see Red Hen as particularly accessible since I don't own a car and it's not particularly close to a Metro station--obviously, we live very different lives!). The point I see here is that things like reservations (limited or more open), valet parking, etc. certainly do convey a sense of courtesy and hospitality; but I don't think it follows that not offering those thereby necessarily renders a place discourteous or inhospitable, which even SIetsema seems to imply. It alters the experience, obviously, but does not in and of itself mean they're doing things "wrong" (though some may well do wrong, particularly if they have incompetent staff or other weak policies/practices in the business). As I was trying to say above re: Open Table, online reservations contributed to a shift in some power between restaurant and diner, and as some who have screamed about the abuse of the system have suggested, that has not necessarily been for the better; there are lots of cultural shifts going on here, and it's not just generational. I would hope that some places taking back some of the control that has been ceded to the diner may somehow ultimately redound to the benefit of many places who have struggled with these abuses, in which case everyone benefits.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible to get a table without any wait at every single restaurant in DC that doesn't take reservations by picking your dining time carefully. Late dinners early in the week usually work best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...