Can't find a seat ... (North Pond thread)

[Mod edit: This thread originally began after this post].

As another lifelong restaurant person who has worked in such situations as a maitre'd, I can perhaps answer some of your questions.

A restaurant such as this usually plans out its evening by mapping out the tables according to the reservations ahead of time. Only a certain number of reservations are taken at any given time to ensure that the kitchen and the wait staff is not overwhelmed. Although a restaurant may have a certain number of seats available (let's say 100), most of the time it cannot handle having all of those 100 seats taken at the same time. The kitchen just isn't big enough. The maitre'd works with the chef to determine how many people the kitchen can take at one time, and plans the seating along these lines, taking into account customer seating requests and multiple other factors, including the need to have the table back for a later party or the table's ability to flip up to accommodate a larger party, etc. All of this leads certain restaurants to adhere to a policy of only seating complete parties, and only seating parties at their reservation time.

I have known a few people who have worked at North Pond over the years, and from our conversations I have learned about the goal of the chef and the restaurant in general, which is to cook seasonal cuisine, bought daily from local farms in quantities appropriate to the number of reservations. The kitchen is small and the chef chooses not to take large parties when it's busy or many tables at one time to ensure that the food receives the correct attention and preparation. Unfortunately, this kind of reservation system can lead to some misunderstandings, such as the misconception that they are out to gouge the guest by forcing them to have a drink at the bar or in any other way (knowing the sincerity of the people I knew there, I would be truly surprised if this were indeed the case).

I can't speak to specific instances, of course, but I would venture a guess as to why a walk in table of six would be seated immediately when a table of four was made to wait: perhaps there was a slot specifically for six open at that time on the computer, or in a section of the restaurant that was due to be seated (most seating goes on rotation so as not to slam any particular server). North Pond in particular does have to deal with regulations other restaurants do not as well, being in the park: the park closes at 11 pm, and that's why they can only take tables until a certain time as opposed to equivalent upscale restaurants (and if I had a nickel for every time someone has called me to tell me they'd "only be 15 minutes late" and arrived 45 minutes later, I wouldn't be in this business anymore).

Of course individual attitude from hostesses or anyone else is inexcusable, but I'm sure in the above general situations, a hostess probably feels badly enough that she can't seat you immediately. The idea that people in the service industry receive some perverse pleasure from denying customers something is a fallacy, at least at this kind of fine dining restaurant (which is similar to my experience). Making guests happy is why I and many others are in this business, and when that doesn't happen, I do whatever I can to remedy that. In these situations, what I can do is seat you as soon as I can, and be honest with you about it.

More than anything I wanted to speak to the bizarre idea that just because a restaurant has an open table, that that means you can or should be seated. The plan a maitre'd follows is as much for the guests' benefit as his own, to ensure that his food and service is as good as possible. If I were to give you any old table without regard to how busy the kitchen was or how slammed your server was at the time, not only would I not be doing my job properly (by not planning properly), you would most likely have a poor experience. I think even the most ADD among the complainers could understand why a restaurant would not want to have most of its tables seated at the same time. So basically what I would implore upon you all is to try and understand that although you may see an open table, it may not be yours, for many different reasons.

AndrewR wrote:As another lifelong restaurant person who has worked in such situations as a maitre'd, I can perhaps answer some of your questions.

A restaurant such as this usually plans out its evening by mapping out the tables according to the reservations ahead of time. Only a certain number of reservations are taken at any given time to ensure that the kitchen and the wait staff is not overwhelmed....

I think even the most ADD among the complainers could understand why a restaurant would not want to have most of its tables seated at the same time. So basically what I would implore upon you all is to try and understand that although you may see an open table, it may not be yours, for many different reasons.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to characterize some of the complainers as ADD, but I do have a question that has long been in my mind which you seem qualified to answer.

When the reason for seating being delayed (when there are empty tables) is that the kitchen can only handle so many customers at one time, it always occurs to me to wonder: Why does this restaurant have more tables than its kitchen can handle? It seems to me common sense that when you design a restaurant, you make your decisions about how much space to allocate to the kitchen versus how much space to allocate to the seating area based on making the two work in harmony with each other. To have more tables than a kitchen can handle seems like a basic design flaw, and certainly a sub-optimal use of space. At the very least, even if the restaurant's square-footage allocation cannot be reconfigured (and the reasons for this are certainly understandable), just remove some tables! That would easy enough, and would create more space between tables as a side-benefit--along with eliminating the bad feelings that happen when it becomes necessary to tell customers they need to wait when they have arrived for their reservations on time and there are empty tables visible.

Obviously, to be successful, a restaurant must serve as many customers as it can. But when "as many customers as it can" is limited by the kitchen, what is the advantage to the restaurant in having seating that is in excess of this?

Why does this restaurant have more tables than its kitchen can handle?

They don't. They have more tables than any one station could handle. If 40 people sit down at once and all want salads, they do not have the room at the salad station to make 40 salads and deliver them like a caterer (who would have them premade, of course). But if 40 people sit between 6:30 and 8:00 and order salads anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes after being seated, there's space and time to make a few at a time and deliver those salads in what everyone should see as a reasonably timely fashion.

Why in the world are we rehashing a discussion about two long-ago incidents, one reported more than 2 years ago, and another from more than a year ago? Does anyone have recent information about North Pond?

Kennyz wrote:Why in the world are we rehashing a discussion about two long-ago incidents, one reported more than 2 years ago, and another from more than a year ago?

Didn't you hear? We don't discuss food here anymore. We just discuss how we discuss food* and the less-than-perfect ways in which it's sometimes served to us.



* - I'm aware that I'm far from innocent on this count

Dmnkly wrote:Didn't you hear? We don't discuss food here anymore. We just discuss how we discuss food* and the less-than-perfect ways in which it's sometimes served to us.

And geographical definitions, can't forget geographical definitions.

Kitchens are usually not designed by chefs. Unless you're lucky. The larger the kitchen, the less customers you can sell your product to. And restaurants by in large are usually run by an owner or a manager in the owners place. Therefore, underdesigned kitchens are common and many owners prefer to maximize $ than take into consideration the limitations of the kitchen both from a realistic workload and sometimes even a health code issue.

More often than not, the chef is expected to have a can do attitude and just make it happen (even if it's unreasonable or unsanitary) regardless of physical or staff limitations (rightfully so but within reason, you don't want a baby crying to you all of the time, but there's only so much you can do before something somewhere is compromised). Remember, most chefs inherit a kitchen and often a menu.

Some would call that poor judgement or greed and you would be correct. It starts at the top though. That's one good reason why the restaurant failure rate is so high. Getting the proper balance is one of the keys to a successful operation... that and a million other things.

I have no insight into North Pond's operation and I'm not accusing them of any of the above, just that this is fairly common in the industry.

I have no insight into North Pond's operation...

Do we need any more evidence that the North Pond thread has gone a little off track?

Kennyz wrote:Why in the world are we rehashing a discussion about two long-ago incidents, one reported more than 2 years ago, and another from more than a year ago? Does anyone have recent information about North Pond?

I agree, it rather surprised me that AndrewR brought up something from so long ago. But I imagine the reason is that he just joined the group (judging from his small number of posts), and is "catching up." Once he did bring it up, his post raised interesting questions that I hoped to learn the answers to.

MikeG wrote:They have more tables than any one station could handle. If 40 people sit down at once and all want salads, they do not have the room at the salad station to make 40 salads and deliver them like a caterer (who would have them premade, of course). But if 40 people sit between 6:30 and 8:00 and order salads anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes after being seated, there's space and time to make a few at a time and deliver those salads in what everyone should see as a reasonably timely fashion.

Jazzfood wrote:Kitchens are usually not designed by chefs. Unless you're lucky. The larger the kitchen, the less customers you can sell your product to. And restaurants by in large are usually run by an owner or a manager in the owners place. Therefore, underdesigned kitchens are common and many owners prefer to maximize $ than take into consideration the limitations of the kitchen both from a realistic workload and sometimes even a health code issue.

More often than not, the chef is expected to have a can do attitude and just make it happen (even if it's unreasonable or unsanitary) regardless of physical or staff limitations (rightfully so but within reason, you don't want a baby crying to you all of the time, but there's only so much you can do before something somewhere is compromised). Remember, most chefs inherit a kitchen and often a menu.

Some would call that poor judgement or greed and you would be correct. It starts at the top though. That's one good reason why the restaurant failure rate is so high. Getting the proper balance is one of the keys to a successful operation...

I find both these answers very informative. Which, to me, is reason enough to have revisited the subject on AndrewR's prompting.

I found yesterday's radio interview with Mark DeRosa of the Cubs informative too. I just don't think it belongs in a thread about North Pond.

Riddlemay is right--I did just join after a long period of lurking and was going through some old threads. I didn't know there was a time limit on posting in them. The ADD comment was a throwaway and meant in general, not just to the people in this thread or even on this site.

Many restaurants are limited to the area they are given when they obtain a space, which many times has been used before, especially as another restaurant, where the kitchen space is already set. I know in North Pond's case, the building they are using is over 100 years old, and has been subject to expansion since the restaurant's opening. I can only guess that the space they had for the kitchen was hampered by the building's previous design. Not many restaurants have the opportunity to build from scratch these days.

In any case, I can think of few restaurants that can cook for all of their seats at the same time outside of banquet halls. Like any business, a restaurant does best with its customers spread out. Mike G was exactly right--a garde manger can only produce so many salads at once, the saute station only has so many burners. I don't know if it's feasible or even desirable to have stations that could accommodate the entire restaurant's seating capacity at once. There are places that can do it, but for the most part, they are not smaller fine dining establishments in a major city.

One more informative answer to add to MikeG's and Jazzfood's. Thanks, Andrew.

I guess I should just be thankful that there are so many restaurant threads on LTH, so that I can bow out of this one in favor of one that actually discusses the restaurant in the title. To each his or her own.

Dmnkly wrote:
Didn't you hear? We don't discuss food here anymore. We just discuss how we discuss food* and the less-than-perfect ways in which it's sometimes served to us.

And geographical definitions, can't forget geographical definitions.

Can't leave out making arch, snarky, and completely unnecessary and unelated-to-the-topic posts, evidently, even by the moderators.

sundevilpeg wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:
Didn't you hear? We don't discuss food here anymore. We just discuss how we discuss food* and the less-than-perfect ways in which it's sometimes served to us.

And geographical definitions, can't forget geographical definitions.

Can't leave out making arch, snarky, and completely unnecessary and unelated-to-the-topic posts, evidently, even by the moderators.

Good point. I'll start a new thread to discuss how we only discuss how we discuss food instead. That'll be much more effective.

So much crankiness, and it's not even winter!

jesteinf wrote:So much crankiness, and it's not even winter!

and hours away from a long holiday weekend promising good weather to boot.

riddlemay wrote:But when "as many customers as it can" is limited by the kitchen, what is the advantage to the restaurant in having seating that is in excess of this?

Another issue is staffing. The restaurant is designed for peak situations -- busy Friday and Saturday nights. But on any given night, they may not have the staff on hand to handle a peak crowd. Typically, restaurant managers will judge by reservations and past experience how many cooks and servers are needed on, say, a Tuesday. If they get an unexpected surge of business, they may not be able to handle that crowd.

I admit I have always wondered, though, why, when they have empty tables in that situation, restaurants will leave people waiting uncomfortably in cramped lobbies instead of saying, "Look, we're a little shorthanded right now, but I can put you at table and get you a menu, as long as you understand it will be a while before we can take your order."

I admit I have always wondered, though, why, when they have empty tables in that situation, restaurants will leave people waiting uncomfortably in cramped lobbies instead of saying, "Look, we're a little shorthanded right now, but I can put you at table and get you a menu, as long as you understand it will be a while before we can take your order."

I had this situation last night, who knew everyone on the North Shore doesn't barbecue on Labor Day? Short staffed with a line out the door. I held tables empty while people waited for a few reasons-

1. To keep my servers calm. To see another table sitting in their already larger then normal section would of rattled them. Instead I just checked in with them every few minutes. "Are you ready for another table." "Yes." "There's another family of seven going to 514."

2. Time perception. Once a customer is sat at the table they lose all perspective, even if you tell them things are going to be slow. Also, you tell them things are going to be slow it's going to be magnified, they're expecting it. Three minutes at a table waiting for a server feels like 20. If you're by the host stand I have written down what time you walked in, how long I told you you'd wait, and when you check to see where you are on that list by looking over my host's shoulder, you see all that.

3. To keep everyone involved from front to back out of "the weeds". Busboys, cooks, bartender, dishwasher, benefited by slowing things down a bit. Myself included.

I haven't been as close to a trainwreck as last night since our opening few weeks. We would of trainwrecked if I had really pushed things by seating everything that opened up and not knowing the limitations of the staff I had.

pizano345 wrote:2. Time perception. Once a customer is sat at the table they lose all perspective, even if you tell them things are going to be slow...Three minutes at a table waiting for a server feels like 20.

That is so true! I wonder why that is. You'd think it should be possible to enjoy the companion(s) you're with and be oblivious to the time it takes the server to show up, but in fact, once a customer's internal parameter of how long this should take is exceeded, a state of anxiety takes hold that can only be dissipated by the server's attention.

My own pet theory is that restaurants return us to an infantile state in which we demand to be fed by mommy, and now. I've expressed that here before, a long time ago. Your post (a helpful one, by the way) gives me occasion to revisit that theory.

That is so true! I wonder why that is. You'd think it should be possible to enjoy the companion(s) you're with and be oblivious to the time it takes the server to show up, but in fact, once a customer's internal parameter of how long this should take is exceeded, a state of anxiety takes hold that can only be dissipated by the server's attention.

My own pet theory is that restaurants return us to an infantile state in which we demand to be fed by mommy, and now. I've expressed that here before, a long time ago. Your post (a helpful one, by the way) gives me occasion to revisit that theory.

It's the same with anything in life, it has to do with the lack of sensory stimulation. Same as sitting in a waiting room at the doctor (hence they have magazines). Sitting at a table with no food or drink to play with seems longer then actually is. That's why you notice it more in a restaurant without tv's then one that has anything playing in your eye sight.

pizano345 wrote:It's the same with anything in life, it has to do with the lack of sensory stimulation. Same as sitting in a waiting room at the doctor (hence they have magazines). Sitting at a table with no food or drink to play with seems longer then actually is.

I have exactly the opposite reaction in these two situations, in each case opposed to what normally happens.

In a restaurant, I'd prefer to wait at a table with the menu to read. Water and bread would be nice, but even without them, I'd still rather be at the table than in the waiting area or the bar.

At the doctor's office, I'd much rather sit in the waiting room until the doctor's ready to see me than wait around half naked in a paper gown in an examination room.

Great thread, IMO. It has been quite informative reading the view from both the customer's and the restaurant employees' perspective.