Aaron Deacon wrote:We're not talking about denying people choices here, are we? If the chains have closed, it's because market conditions weren't right for them to succeed. I see nothing untoward about celebrating a market that supports independents and discourages chains.

Haven't people made their choice?

You don't add the component of simple mismanagement, which crosses all economic boundaries from corporations to Mom & Pop.

In Highland Park during the late 70's/early 80-'s, there was a seemingly successful restaurant that closed. A friend met the owner commenting how surprised she was it was closed especially since it was always full. She learned while it was full of people the turnover per table was poor. He had problems with the lunch set who would share meals. He had problems with people lingering after their meals.

There are many, many reasons why restaurants close.

***

You have to wonder how Smoque's success is having on the Mom and Pop's in the local area. Are they unaffected? Or is it the great Hoover sucking away their customers.

Regards,

Dmnkly wrote:Apologies for the postscript, but I should probably note that I'm not trying to bash chains. Chain or independent is totally immaterial to me. Quality is all that matters.

Agreed.

Okay, I think we're back to here now.

Frankly, I have to think even the hardship argument is overrated-- a lumber mill closing puts people out of work forever, a Macaroni Grill closing puts good servers out of work long enough to have a party, I suspect. In any case, Antonius' point is exactly right: technically, you can say the opening of a single chain restaurant increases choice in an area, but practically, the opening of a whole strip of them will tend to crowd out other choices in that area and kill off all but the hardiest locally-owned places, for reasons that have less to do with whether anybody has a genuine food preference than with marketing muscle and supply chain efficiencies.

But to each his own, at least until all the restaurants are Taco Bells, like in Demolition Man.

Cathy2 wrote:You have to wonder how Smoque's success is having on the Mom and Pop's in the local area.

Okay... now I'm confused. Last time I checked, Smoque WAS the Mom and Pop

Dmnkly wrote:Speaking at least for myself, the joy is not in seeing a mediocre restaurant fail (I'm speaking generally... never eaten at a Macaroni Grill), but rather in what the failure of that restaurant might indicate about the changing tastes of those who frequent it.

Well, that's just it. I'm not sure this particular closing (or the Applebee's ones) says anything about the changing tastes of the American public. Restaurants can close for all kinds of reasons -- for example, this could signal a downturn in the economy (resulting in less disposable personal income), which would certainly not be good news for independents. I guess I take the pessimistic view on this -- I tend to agree with the above point that this closing probably means that people are eating out less altogether. To make an analogy, as much as I might wish that movies like 300 didn't exist, I'd be fooling myself if I thought that crowds would then flock to The Lives of Others instead.

Mike G wrote:But to each his own, at least until all the restaurants are Fuddruckers, like in Idiocracy.

Fixed.

cilantro wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Speaking at least for myself, the joy is not in seeing a mediocre restaurant fail (I'm speaking generally... never eaten at a Macaroni Grill), but rather in what the failure of that restaurant might indicate about the changing tastes of those who frequent it.

Well, that's just it. I'm not sure this particular closing (or the Applebee's ones) says anything about the changing tastes of the American public. Restaurants can close for all kinds of reasons -- for example, this could signal a downturn in the economy (resulting in less disposable personal income), which would certainly not be good news for independents. I guess I take the pessimistic view on this -- I tend to agree with the above point that this closing probably means that people are eating out less altogether. To make an analogy, as much as I might wish that movies like 300 didn't exist, I'd be fooling myself if I thought that crowds would then flock to The Lives of Others instead.

Yes. The initial satisfaction I described upthread assumed that we had "thrown off" the mediocre food that the chains purvey in favor of something better. I wasn't happy about the residual aspects. At the time, I believed that the closings constituted consumer statements about quality. However, now that a few years have passed and those spaces remain vacant, it's pretty clear that other factors were at work.

=R=

Dmnkly wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:You have to wonder how Smoque's success is having on the Mom and Pop's in the local area.

Okay... now I'm confused. Last time I checked, Smoque WAS the Mom and Pop

My bad phrasing: You have to wonder how Smoque's success is having on the other Mom and Pop's in the local area.

I have heard of lines in front of Noon O Kebab, while Semarini's and Salam have tables open. I was at Sticky Rice which was totally loaded and left for Spoon Thai that was tranquil and full of empty tables. In these cases one Mom & Pop is impacting another Mom & Pop operation.

Regards,

It's easy to debate this issue from the ivory galley of NY/LA/CHI/SF. We actually have more hot dog stands and taquerias than we have chains.

Without making any normative judgments, but based on my own selfish desires, it sucked to travel throughout the US among the medium and smaller cities and larger small towns to discover that local restautants, and with them local cuisine (at least available to me) largely ceased to exist.

This is not an isue in the really large or the really tiny burgs, where different but related factors lead to the collective corporate conclusion that a certain business model works less-well in such markets. There are exceptions to this, of course, among the vast middle belt of towns that are neither cosmopolitan nor without a stoplight. I found a few, usually where there was a strong and recent (or recently renewed) ethnic presence.

Wow, this is a pretty controversial topic, even for a fast-food snob like me! I'm working my way through the other threads mentioned so I know what's been said in the past, but I will say that people (obviously) have different tastes and will thus have different opinions of chains and their ilk. Me? I love fast food -- just not bad fast food (which will sound somewhat obscene to those who don't believe good fast food's possible, especially as offered from a restaurant chain). While I have a pretty low opinion of McDonald's as a whole, I will go there for the menu items I enjoy, just as I do for Taco Bell, Burger King, and Popeyes (that triumvirate of chains in the Devon/Lincoln/McCormick triangle).

It's like what the Director of Culinary Innovation at McDonald's U.S.A. had to say about food in the Tribune the other day (he left a job with the Four Seasons in Dallas so he wouldn't have to work 70 hours a week anymore): "Good food is good food, no matter if you're in a white-table-cloth restaurant or a quick-serve restaurant." (Source)

A biased statement, I know, but it rings true for this fast-food fan. If you don't enjoy what chains have to offer (fast food or otherwise), then it's clear to me that I'm not gonna change your mind about the matter, at least in any short amount of time on an online forum. We might not agree on what we like, but I'm okay with that. I've eaten at a Macaroni Grill -- just not the one formerly at Village Crossing -- and there are dishes there that I considered tasty, as well as others that weren't. I just hope that the best restaurants win. Interpret that as you may.

Sincerely,
Dan

P.S.

Cathy2 wrote:...You have to wonder how Smoque's success is having on the other Mom and Pop's in the local area.

I have heard of lines in front of Noon O Kebab, while Semarini's and Salam have tables open. I was at Sticky Rice which was totally loaded and left for Spoon Thai that was tranquil and full of empty tables. In these cases one Mom & Pop is impacting another Mom & Pop operation.

Cathy, did you mean Semiramis (when you mentioned Semarini's)? They've got some great sandwiches.

fastfoodsnob wrote:P.S.

Cathy2 wrote:...You have to wonder how Smoque's success is having on the other Mom and Pop's in the local area.

I have heard of lines in front of Noon O Kebab, while Semarini's and Salam have tables open. I was at Sticky Rice which was totally loaded and left for Spoon Thai that was tranquil and full of empty tables. In these cases one Mom & Pop is impacting another Mom & Pop operation.

Cathy, did you mean Semiramis (when you mentioned Semarini's)? They've got some great sandwiches.

Yeah, you got me.

So much to reply to:

I am still curious as to which thread where you dirty bustards attacked a poor newbie Griz was referring to. For I always enjoy perusing evidence of others' sins, particularly during Lent.

jlawrence, I am not sure whether I can agree that Macaroni Grill is in fact better than the places in Cleveland's Little Italy - I admit to having sampled the former three times and the latter only once, and I suppose I would have to choose death by gunshot over stabbing if I must choose. But I would rather live. The darned thing is that I do remember clearly your post about that jerk place.

And ffs, I did scan that article about the chef de cuisine at McDonalds. I also am aware that the guys I like at Schmaltz played a key role in formulating much of the (godawful) menu at Noodles & Co. So I think good chefs with good taste can design bad food. I use the word "design" quite intentionally, though, since that is what one does in that role, design something that can be easily reproduced in gigundonormous volumes by low paid McJob'ites. Which has nothing to do with good food, though I suppose he could aspire to assure it is not bad food. But it is primarily an industrial product, which can taste good, but there are so many other criteria to be met, that taste can become beside the point.

As to the closing of a chain outlet, I would be more symapthetic if the unemployment situation was not fairly rosy, so I do think the employees will find comparable jobs pretty quickly. But, in general, I would not give it much more thought than chain headquarters do - "oh the revenue per square foot at location 2573 is below our corporate target, let's close it and replace it with a concept that is generating better numbers..." But it is never a good thing when a business fails for it perforce implies at least some level of personal failure and sadness.

One other related note, having struck out with Merriam Webster in 2003, I am pleased to hear McDonalds is now taking on Oxford to get McJob eliminated from the new edition of their dictionary. It is mean to those working there, of course.

But Hammy or someone, can you help me with what conceivable purpose this Quixotic tilt might achieve? Because I like to think there is some logic to most behavior.

dicksond wrote:I also am aware that the guys I like at Schmaltz played a key role in formulating much of the (godawful) menu at Noodles & Co. So I think good chefs with good taste can design bad food. I use the word "design" quite intentionally, though, since that is what one does in that role, design something that can be easily reproduced in gigundonormous volumes by low paid McJob'ites.

Didn't Jaques Pepin put in many years at Howard Johnson's corporate kitchen before he went out on his own?

stevez wrote:

dicksond wrote:I also am aware that the guys I like at Schmaltz played a key role in formulating much of the (godawful) menu at Noodles & Co. So I think good chefs with good taste can design bad food. I use the word "design" quite intentionally, though, since that is what one does in that role, design something that can be easily reproduced in gigundonormous volumes by low paid McJob'ites.

Didn't Jaques Pepin put in many years at Howard Johnson's corporate kitchen before he went out on his own?

Yes. It's fairly well detailed in his autobiography, The Apprentice. I thought that section of the book was really interesting. And while he who writes the history controls it, I did get the feeling that back in that era, producing quality food meant a lot more than it means today.

=R=

Hi,

Not only was it Jacques Pepin, it was his friend Pierre Franey, too.

I read an article where dishes were developed to Mr. Johnson's satisfaction, then it was their job to multiply the recipes to taste the same but at a commercial level. They would make progressively larger batches over time, which were then sold frozen in the outlets.

I remember the plain Jane packaging with rubber stamped packaging at Howard Johnson's frozen food bins. If Jacque Pepin's story held true, then you could have bought meals made by their hands during this period.

Wikipedia comments on this as well:

By 1961, the year the Howard Johnson Company went public, there were 88 franchised Howard Johnson's Motor Lodges in 33 states and in the Bahamas. That year, there were also 605 restaurants, 265 of them company-operated and 340 franchisee-operated. Johnson hired famed New York chefs Pierre Franey and Jacques Pepin to oversee food development at the company's main commissary in Brockton, Massachusetts. Franey and Pepin developed recipes for Howard Johnson's signature dishes that could be flash-frozen and delivered across the country, guaranteeing a consistent product.

There is this great meal involving Pierre Franey, which I found a mention on wikipedia:

The $4000 Meal
One of the most famous episodes in Claiborne's career occurred in 1975 when he placed a $300 winning bid at a charity auction for a no price-limit dinner for two at any restaurant of the winner's choice, sponsored by the American Express company. Selecting his friend Pierre Franey as his dining companion, the two settled on the prestigious Parisian restaurant Chez Denis where they racked up a $4,000 tab on a five-hour, 31-course meal of foie gras, truffles, lobster, caviar and rare wines. When Claiborne later wrote about the experience in his Times column, the paper received a deluge of reader mail expressing outrage at such an extravagance at a time when so many in the world went without. Even the Vatican and Pope Paul VI criticized it, calling it "scandalous" [1]. Despite its scale and expense, Claiborne gave the meal a mixed review, noting that several dishes fell short in terms of conception, presentation or quality.

Now we have something new to sink our teeth into!

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:Now we have something new to sink our teeth into!

Regards,

We've already got them beat in the length of meal department. Only 5 hours? They're pikers.

stevez wrote:

dicksond wrote:I also am aware that the guys I like at Schmaltz played a key role in formulating much of the (godawful) menu at Noodles & Co. So I think good chefs with good taste can design bad food. I use the word "design" quite intentionally, though, since that is what one does in that role, design something that can be easily reproduced in gigundonormous volumes by low paid McJob'ites.

Didn't Jaques Pepin put in many years at Howard Johnson's corporate kitchen before he went out on his own?

And the reason he left HJ's was because, after the old man passed away, the new era of corporate cost-cutting was introduced, sapping all of his ability to produce products to his standard.

dicksond wrote:And ffs, I did scan that article about the chef de cuisine at McDonalds. I also am aware that the guys I like at Schmaltz played a key role in formulating much of the (godawful) menu at Noodles & Co. So I think good chefs with good taste can design bad food. I use the word "design" quite intentionally, though, since that is what one does in that role, design something that can be easily reproduced in gigundonormous volumes by low paid McJob'ites. Which has nothing to do with good food, though I suppose he could aspire to assure it is not bad food. But it is primarily an industrial product, which can taste good, but there are so many other criteria to be met, that taste can become beside the point. [Emphasis mine]

As noted by c8w and others earlier in this thread and others, taste is the primary criteria used to evaluate restaurants for a whole lotta people. Of course there are other considerations in evaluating eating establishments on the priority list such as cleanliness, service, and price (which I put a lot of stock in as I value, well... value), but bottom line, it would take certainly a lot in my book for taste to ever become "beside the point." Taste is completely the point to me.

The most relevant conflict for me in this thread is the distinction between "industrial products" and those which are primarily produced locally by independent operators. The tension -- as I see it -- results from the fact that some people choose to eat industrial product so long as it tastes good (subjectively, of course). The "good" product might be completely surrounded by lesser or worthless menu options, but that doesn't change the fact that it tastes good to those people's palates.

Personally, I feel that we're dancing in circles around this issue because we're not willing to agree to disagree on what we like. I brought up the McDonald's chef's quote because it reminded me of one concerning music by Louis Armstrong: "There is two kinds of music, the good and bad. I play the good kind." (Source) And another variation on the same theme: "There's only two ways to sum up music; either it's good or it's bad. If it's good you don't mess about it, you just enjoy it." (Source)

I simply want to enjoy what I enjoy. If you don't enjoy what I do, that's perfectly fine. But to say that taste can be objectively accounted for (with criteria other than taste, no less)? That seems like reaching to me, regardless of who or how many people agree. Am I misunderstanding you? I imagine that we might be working with different definitions of good and bad food, so there might be fewer differences between us than I imagine. Sorry in advance if any of this post comes off harsher than I intended.

With all due respect,
Dan

fastfoodsnob wrote:I simply want to enjoy what I enjoy. If you don't enjoy what I do, that's perfectly fine.

Exactly. That's why The Penguin makes 8 flavors!

Another issue, regarding chains, is that there are several different ideas connoted by that term.

For example, most people use it to refer to many dozens or hundreds of locations of a restaurant with the same or similar decor, menu, concept, etc. McDonald's is, of course, the largest and most commonly cited example of such a chain, but Romano's Macaroni Grill certainly fits the model.

Now... if the number of locations is smaller, is it still a "chain", and does it still merit derision from those who hate chains? When an entrepreneur like Bob Chinn opens a second location of his namesake restaurant in Kenosha, or Tony opens a second location of Lao Sze Chuan in Downers Grove, is that not a chain? I ask the question, not to debate semantics - we can define a word however we like - but what's the difference, if the locations share the same ownership and the same basic decor, menu, and concept? Is that not merely a difference of scale and numbers, but otherwise the same idea (and subject to the same complaints about "cookie cutter places" and lack of originality)?

What about cases of common ownership, with different decor, menu, and concept? These abound, whether it's an individual like Shawn McClain running Custom House, Spring, and Green Zebra, or a corporation like Levy Restaurants running one-of-a-kind places like Bistro 110, Fulton's on the River, Spiaggia, and Cafe Spiaggia (in addition to many other restaurants, particularly at entertainment venues). Again, not to debate semantics, but these, too, are instances in which multiple locations are run by the same company; while the concepts of the individual locations may be different, the organizational and financial structures and incentives may be shared (as can economies of scale in administration and marketing, which also seem to be subject to negative comments).

Furthermore, it's also worth noting that most chains originated as single locations of restaurants, usually started by a single entrepreneur, whether it's Ray Kroc starting/popularizing McDonald's, or a young Rich Melman opening R.J. Grunt's, or Arnie Morton starting with a single steakhouse in downtown Chicago. Those were originally the sole proprietor, "mom and pop" model that is often extolled. The founders presumably opened their original restaurant to make money, to provide a job to their employees, and to provide good food to the general public. When that location succeeded, they found that they could achieve the same objectives even better by opening additional locations, and the rest is history. The ability to open additional locations is one of the incentives for entrepreneurs who open their first restaurant, and absent that incentive, there might not be as many independent restaurants opening to begin with. Do we not see value in offering them this opportunity, as an incentive for independent restaurants? Do we not see benefits, not only to them and their employees, but also to the general dining public, when additional locations for good food are available?

Is this really the oversimplified, black and white issue ("single location good, chains bad") that it is sometimes portrayed as?

Discuss among yourselves.

nsxtasy wrote:Now... if the number of locations is smaller, is it still a "chain", and does it still merit derision from those who hate chains? When an entrepreneur like Bob Chinn opens a second location of his namesake restaurant in Kenosha, or Tony opens a second location of Lao Sze Chuan in Downers Grove, is that not a chain? I ask the question, not to debate semantics - we can define a word however we like - but what's the difference, if the locations share the same ownership and the same basic decor, menu, and concept? Is that not merely a difference of scale and numbers, but otherwise the same idea (and subject to the same complaints about "cookie cutter places" and lack of originality)?

When it comes to food preparation, differences of scale and numbers very often correlate to differences in quality.

nsxtasy wrote:Now... if the number of locations is smaller, is it still a "chain", and does it still merit derision from those who hate chains?

Well, Ba Le and Udupi Palace are two national chains I'm very happy to patronize. Las Islas Marias is local, but still a chain. Hell, Ambala Sweets and Julius Meinl are multinational.

As when we had this same discussion just a few months ago... it is possible to run a chain to high standards. The more you expand the definition of "chain" (e.g., to include a single* coffee house opened by a member of the family who's moved to America, using the original name from Austria), the more you can come up with examples of multiple-location chains that are good (though Las Islas Marias, which varies wildly by all reports, doesn't entirely bolster that case). This is not exactly news, I don't think. But in any case some people are splitting hairs over the merits of one and two-store operations as if it reflected anything about a company with 5000 units, and it doesn't. The big boys are in a whole different business and I mostly don't like that food (save, of course, Long John Silver's, which is sublime) not because I have an irrational or snobby prejudice toward chains, but because from my own professional exposure to the industry I know how things get tarted up, sweetened and cheesed and salted up (people think food tastes good when it merely satisfies some of these basic cravings in the bluntest way), engineered for production efficiencies and a low-skill workforce, blandardized down for mass appeal at those places-- and then marketed to sell like hotcakes, or, more to the point, McGriddles.

But it's a free country. If you like chain food, enjoy it. It's certainly widely available.

* Yes, I know a second one is about to open.

To split that hair even further, I don't think you have it completely correct about Meinl. It certainly is a branch of the main company and the coffee is roasted in Europe and shipped here.

McGriddles are delicious

nsxtasy wrote: When an entrepreneur like Bob Chinn opens a second location of his namesake restaurant in Kenosha, or Tony opens a second location of Lao Sze Chuan in Downers Grove, is that not a chain?

In cases like these, the food is still prepared to order in the kitchen by cooks/chefs. In the case of a mega chain, ingredients are often delivered to the restaurant from a central commissary and assembled by the kitchen workers using a pre-determined formula. The "recipes" are often geared to the lowest common denominator. The workers there are more like assembly line workers than cooks.

I didn't say Meinl wasn't a branch. Thomas Meinl came here to open a branch in America. If I made it sound like he fled with the family silver and stole the name, that's not what I meant. Anyway, one store, soon to be two, hardly indicative of life at, say, Quizno's.

McGriddles are alien spawn, that M seared into their flesh the result of some hideous mutant bioengineering. By the way, when I worked at McDonald's (as opposed to for McDonald's, or one of its vendors) I used to pour an M in batter onto the griddle and let it brown a little before pouring the rest of the batter around here. I am glad to know that my little effort to make one of the realer things at McDonald's (hotcakes) a little more prefab has now become a worldwide product.

McGriddles are delicious

McGriddles were invented by Satan in the executive kitchens on the seventh level of Hell.

Mike G wrote:McGriddles were invented by Satan in the executive kitchens on the seventh level of Hell.

As a Satanist, I am deeply offended by these false allegations.



Respectfully,
666