"Independent" is a tricky call. The American Booksellers Association has a similar problem with what an independent bookstore is.

There's three Pita Inns now, three Lao Sze Chuans, I still call those independents.

The most dangerous words you can hear in the food business, or possibly other businesses, when you're a consumer, is "Maximize Shareholder Value." It means the customers are no longer important, it's just the money they're carrying.

JoelF wrote:three Lao Sze Chuans

There are? Chinatown, Downers Grove, and...?

nsxtasy wrote:

JoelF wrote:three Lao Sze Chuans

There are? Chinatown, Downers Grove, and...?

Palatine . . . 321 E. Northwest Highway

=R=

nsxtasy wrote, in an entirely different thread:

Bonefish is primarily a seafood chain. I think it's pretty good (food and service). Maybe not quite as good as the best seafood places around (e.g. Oceanique, Shaw's, Mitchell's, Parker's), but still pretty good. I'm just disappointed that they opened the Skokie location right across the street from Don's Fishmarket, another pretty good seafood restaurant that has been there for many years (single location, not a chain).

This post speaks to the ambivalence in me. I am temperamentally inclined to defend successful chains (even ones that I hate), because the masses deserve to get to decide where they eat without us deciding it for them. But on the other hand, I'll find it a real shame if Bonefish puts Don's out of business. (It's been decades since I've been to Don's, but have good memories of it.) If it does, it won't necessarily be because of unfair competitive practices, but it also won't necessarily be because the masses have decided they prefer Bonefish to Don's. It may simply be that the market for seafood places on that block is big enough to support one pretty good place but not two; so that either one of those places could do well, but not both. And if Don's succumbed, after surviving some thirty years, that would make me sad.

If MGriddles are bioengineered mutant alien spawn of Satan's design, the syrup logically must be a compound mixture of Lucifer's phlegm and bile.
I'm stickin' with sliders for breakfast!

Lucifer's phlegm and bile make a delicious condiment for his culinary spawn. Hell sounds like a tasty place.

And the dining area has a lovely view of the second bolgia in the eighth circle.

McGriddles were feted here: http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=78456#78456

JoelF wrote:"Maximize Shareholder Value." It means the customers are no longer important, it's just the money they're carrying.

You said it, Joel - when I first worked at Starbucks (12 years ago now) it was during this change. The difference was astounding. Even more annoying were people who said "I'm a stockholder" when they ordered.

I'd like to add one thing to this discussion, which also applies to the discussion on other boards about factory farming. Chains and factory farming may offer lower quality, but often (in smaller cities in the Midwest there's not so much authentic inexpensive ethnic food) at a much lower price - and, let's face it, the median income in the US is $46,000, and the median monthly housing payment is $1687. If it's between putting food on the table or not, or between eating out badly or not...

I'll find it a real shame if Bonefish puts Don's out of business. (It's been decades since I've been to Don's, but have good memories of it.)

Unfortunately, this may well become reallity as Don's has, IMHO, declined over the past years. The salad you may have good memories of, nsxtasy, is now a $4.95 extra item, and that's been a nickel-and-dime change that has really hit a nerve with the Brotine family. (And if you do spring for the extra fee, you can now count the baby shrimp sprinkled on top on one hand.) The menu is pretty much locked in a time warp, and methinks it shows from the clientele which, like Myron & Phil's, is probably an average age of 70. We used to really like Don's, but now if I'm on Skokie Blvd. and have to choose, I'm going across the street for fish.

>>Brent

These statistics are a bit outdated but they are pretty close:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/H150-03.pdf
American Housing Survey for the United States: 2003
Issued September 2004


In particular, finances data are in this table:

Table 2..13. Selected Housing Costs--Occupied Units

Median monthly housing costs:

Overall median costs: $684 per month

$718/month for homeowners

$651/month for renters

Those living in relatively new buildings (4 years old or less) have a median cost of $1049 per month.

On the other hand, those living in what are called "manufactured/mobile homes" have median monthly costs of $410.

Though, that figure doesn't include taxes and association fees, which can add $300 - still less than my figure, but still above $1,000.

Still not a lot of wiggle room to pay for food...

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)?

Ah, ffs, I fear we are speaking different languages. The criteria I was referring to are the criteria used by McDonalds to determine what they serve and how they serve it, not your criteria in evaluating it. I am commenting on a process and its goals, and I think you are arguing about whether something tastes good to you or not. Taste is certainly not the only consideration in determining food offerings for a national chain, even if the McDonalds chef is tasked to convey that it is. Cost, consistency, speed to produce are all terribly important, and I am sure there are a few more criteria that are taken into account. If BK could improve the taste of their food, but it would add 3 minutes to the time to fill each customer order, would they? No way. Would LSC? There is at least a chance.

Having worked with industrial processes for most of my life, they go through certain steps - somewhat simplified, you have design, marketing, production engineering, procurement, and actual production. They go through subtle and not so subtle changes at each stage and possibly multiple iterations, resulting in the delivery of a product which may or may not bear much resemblance to what was originally designed. In fact, there usually is a lot of friction between some of these groups in most organizations (design people, in fact, are usually viewed as clueless about anything even vaguely practical and their designs viewed only as the roughest of guidelines). The head chef at McDonalds is the design guy, and his kitchen serves as a design studio.

This does not mean the food in chains tastes bad to you or to me. It just means I discount the credentials of the head chef at McDonalds, because his influence on what I eat there is much less than if it was his restaurant and he controlled all the decisions and oversaw directly all the execution.

Hope this clears that up for you.

But I also disagree that taste is the primary criteria used by "most people" in evaluating food. There are, certainly, different criteria we all use in evaluating restaurants, in addition to taste. And I would argue that familiarity and other preconceptions about the place are terribly important to "most people", at least as important as taste in many cases. If you trust me, and I tell you a place is great, and you have a favorable impression upon arrival, you are much more likely to report that the food tastes good. Cathy2 has reported on the former U of I professor who ran many tests on diners, serving the same food and wine in different contexts and comparing the taste evaluations. My favorite was the wine tasting - serving the same wine with different labels, France, California, Virginia (?), Australia with the same food in an otherwise identical context. The reported scores on taste tracked perfectly to the perceived quality of the source.

Read posts about restaurants on most web sites (Metromix comes to mind as a great example) - most comments are about service first. My reservation was late, it was noisy, the server took forever, the prices were outrageuous. Then they say the food sucked. Rarely do they lead with "The food was really delicious, just excellent, though the service was a bit slow." Price/value and service, or in the case of fast food places, speed, reign supreme most of the time, if one believes that the comments lead with what is most important to the poster. Most will not enjoy the taste if they feel ripped off by the prices, or abused by the staff.

That does not mean this is how you or I evaluate food, ffs. But it seems to me to be how most of the rest of the world evaluates it (with both research and anecdotal evidence to support this) - it is one component of the experience, and not necessarily the most important one. If all else is equal, taste tips the balance, but multiple other factors can, and do, outweigh taste for most.

For me, it is chair comfort, room temperature, decor, and taste. Unfortunately, I find the seats at most chains singularly uncomfortable (by design, of course - they want you to come in, eat, and leave promptly so someone else can take your place), the temperature okay, and the decor disquieting (for the same reason that the seats are not good, btw), so I do not like chains. If I must eat at one, I prefer to do so in my car, but the staff does not maintain it as well as I would like, so that is not the best environment, either.

Mhays wrote:

JoelF wrote:"Maximize Shareholder Value." It means the customers are no longer important, it's just the money they're carrying.

You said it, Joel - when I first worked at Starbucks (12 years ago now) it was during this change. The difference was astounding. Even more annoying were people who said "I'm a stockholder" when they ordered.

I'd like to add one thing to this discussion, which also applies to the discussion on other boards about factory farming. Chains and factory farming may offer lower quality, but often (in smaller cities in the Midwest there's not so much authentic inexpensive ethnic food) at a much lower price - and, let's face it, the median income in the US is $46,000, and the median monthly housing payment is $1687. If it's between putting food on the table or not, or between eating out badly or not...

Two comments - as noted above, price is an important and valid consideration. I think all posters should include how much the meal costs in their posts (at one point I tried to write a guideline for the ideal post). Deliciouness is important, even paramount, but there is some sort of sliding scale of deliciousness - a delicious $5 sandwich should be very noticeably different from a delcious $20 sandwich.

I do not agee that maximizing shareholder value means delivering crap, per se. All companies should be trying to maximize profits, while delivering good quality. There is typically a point that a chain arrives at where growth is no longer sufficient to drive profitability and stock appreciation, so management feels forced to expand margins. By then they also may feel they have a brand that implies quality, so the product is not necessarily the story any more. That is when they feel they can or should make compromises to improve margins at the expense of quality.

There is another danger point for most chains, as well - when they outgrow their original suppliers. There are significant savings to be realized by dealing with fewer, larger suppliers who can service the entire chain. But the quality will often suffer

None of these compromises are bad, they just are points where decisions are made to the benefit of the organization, but not for the quality of the product.

In two related developments: Borders is looking to sublease its two Lincoln Park locations (Clark/Diversey and North/Clybourn) as part of a general retrenchment, meaning it wants to close those stores (along with a bunch of others nationally) as soon as it can find someone to take over the leases. And Tweeter announced today that it is shuttering 1/3 of its electronics stores nationwide. So restaurants aren't the only chain businesses undergoing a going-under. Perhaps it's the canary in the coal mine warning us of the Coming Economic Collapse.

dicksond wrote:

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)?

Ah, ffs, I fear we are speaking different languages. The criteria I was referring to are the criteria used by McDonalds to determine what they serve and how they serve it, not your criteria in evaluating it. I am commenting on a process and its goals, and I think you are arguing about whether something tastes good to you or not. Taste is certainly not the only consideration in determining food offerings for a national chain, even if the McDonalds chef is tasked to convey that it is. Cost, consistency, speed to produce are all terribly important, and I am sure there are a few more criteria that are taken into account. If BK could improve the taste of their food, but it would add 3 minutes to the time to fill each customer order, would they? No way. Would LSC? There is at least a chance.

Ah, I knew I was missing something; thanks for clearing that up. The Tribune article went into those pragmatic factors in determining new menu offerings as well.

dicksond wrote:This does not mean the food in chains tastes bad to you or to me. It just means I discount the credentials of the head chef at McDonalds, because his influence on what I eat there is much less than if it was his restaurant and he controlled all the decisions and oversaw directly all the execution.

Actually, I wasn't quoting him to burnish the culinary qualifications of McDonald's top chefs (at least, not intentionally); I was trying to reference the quality-of-life choice made by Mr. Coudreaut in taking on a more 9-to-5-like position (while positing that tasty/good food is tasty/good wherever it comes from). Cathy's earlier post on the French-restaurant chef's going to work at an Italian Garden (Olive Garden, maybe?) -- to better raise his family and secure a more stable income -- reminded me of the story. Granted, a chef will only have as much influence as his bosses allow, but an executive chef at a chain as ubiquitous as McDonald's will have a huge effect on its suppliers and mainstream acceptance of the brands and ingredients it uses, for better or for worse. The very point of the article was that he now has a greater influence on what millions of people eat every day (in comparison to his previous job at the Four Seasons, where he changed the menu seasonally with fewer restrictions):

The Trib wrote:Coudreaut and his culinary team's decisions can cause seismic shifts in the food industries -- just ask grateful edamame, mandarin orange and almond growers, whose products appear in 13,700 more restaurants today, thanks to an Asian salad Coudreaut developed.

"McDonald's has a lot of power, and we need to use that power for good," says Coudreaut, who joined the company 2 1/2 years ago.

What I'm trying to say here is that his mark on the menu might not be as strong for individual patrons like you or me (compared to if he were designing the dishes for us at his own place), but that his collective mark on mainstream America is far greater than what it could have been had he not joined a chain of McDonald's reach. Sure, he's got creative limitations in his current role, but the potential for good is greater, in my opinion, if the person in charge of design is an accomplished chef (key word here being "potential," considering the previous chef-chain examples cited). I did like his Hot 'n' Spicy McChicken sandwich, by the way, even if it didn't ultimately meet corporate sales expectations. (The McGriddle, which I don't like, was in the pipeline before he arrived; I have mixed feelings about his Snack Wraps.)

dicksond wrote:But I also disagree that taste is the primary criteria used by "most people" in evaluating food. There are, certainly, different criteria we all use in evaluating restaurants, in addition to taste. And I would argue that familiarity and other preconceptions about the place are terribly important to "most people", at least as important as taste in many cases. If you trust me, and I tell you a place is great, and you have a favorable impression upon arrival, you are much more likely to report that the food tastes good.

I agree that there are different criteria we all use in evaluating restaurants. Distance and price legitimately factor into our everyday decisions about what to eat from where. Staying in our comfort zones surely has a big impact as well, but I don't know that preconceived notions about the taste and quality of wine necessarily translate into a much greater likelihood of approving a trusted friend's recommendations. For instance, if I've had many great burgers of a certain style, will a trusted associate's glowing review cause me to change my standards of evaluation? Will such a (subconscious?) influence make me prefer American cheese on beef over Merkt's cheddar? Maybe if I'm not so familiar with good examples of each, perhaps, but I'd like to think my set preferences have more a solid influence on my personal evaluations than that.

Also, what do you mean by "favorable impressions upon arrival"? In my experience, friends tend to politely tell me if they didn't thoroughly enjoy the meal I recommended (due to unfavorable impressions upon actually eating the food), and I appreciate them all the more for it (redoubling my efforts to research a place before putting my reputation on the line again). I do apologize for not qualifying my earlier statement regarding who puts taste as the primary consideration in these evaluations; I should have said "most people here on this forum" (which certainly does change the implications of that statement). In fact, considering my aversion to spending a lot on my meals -- relatively speaking -- I suppose price and value do have a stronger influence on my dining patterns in relation to taste alone than I first surmised, though that still won't get me ordering off a dollar menu very often.

dicksond wrote:Read posts about restaurants on most web sites (Metromix comes to mind as a great example) - most comments are about service first. My reservation was late, it was noisy, the server took forever, the prices were outrageuous. Then they say the food sucked. Rarely do they lead with "The food was really delicious, just excellent, though the service was a bit slow."

I would attribute that more to the greater shock that negative reviewers experienced because they didn't receive even the common level of service expected of all establishments, especially ones they paid a lot of money to patronize. Sure, bad service will stop people from returning to even places with great food, but I also don't believe the converse is true -- that "most" people will patronize a place simply because of great service even though the food stinks. Add excellent service to good food, however, and that can make the meal all the more memorable and review-worthy (perhaps because it's harder to find compared to decent but not praiseworthy food). I just feel that the people compelled to take the time to post a review will do so only when they have strong feelings regarding a place, which become even more intense when they feel personally wronged or mistreated.

dicksond wrote:Price/value and service, or in the case of fast food places, speed, reign supreme most of the time, if one believes that the comments lead with what is most important to the poster. Most will not enjoy the taste if they feel ripped off by the prices, or abused by the staff.

I will admit that factors like bad service can take precedence over taste, but that egregious behavior might be actually be the selling point for certain establishments. (See the Wiener's Circle, as mentioned by others before.) It's true I can't really enjoy a meal if I don't feel it was worth the money, but that just means I won't be back to feel ripped off again. People have different standards of value, of course (and different tastes as well), but only compelling reasons can force someone to pay for an expensive meal that doesn't taste good enough, such as asking someone for their hand in marriage or trying to impress one's boss or relatives (sometimes both).

dicksond wrote:That does not mean this is how you or I evaluate food, ffs. But it seems to me to be how most of the rest of the world evaluates it (with both research and anecdotal evidence to support this) - it is one component of the experience, and not necessarily the most important one. If all else is equal, taste tips the balance, but multiple other factors can, and do, outweigh taste for most.

Ultimately, after all my bluster, I have to agree that other factors can (as a whole) outweigh taste in a lot of dining decisions. If at all possible, I'll refuse to settle for tasteless food, but even I know I can't always have it my way, especially if I don't want to always dine alone. At any rate, thanks for responding with depth in the way that you did -- it's much appreciated.

dicksond wrote:For me, it is chair comfort, room temperature, decor, and taste. Unfortunately, I find the seats at most chains singularly uncomfortable (by design, of course - they want you to come in, eat, and leave promptly so someone else can take your place), the temperature okay, and the decor disquieting (for the same reason that the seats are not good, btw), so I do not like chains. If I must eat at one, I prefer to do so in my car, but the staff does not maintain it as well as I would like, so that is not the best environment, either.

Yes, the car makes a suitable environment for quick eats (especially when I've brought my own drink), but I wish I had a fold-out center console for use as a level table in there. Maybe it'll come standard in the next model I get along with that MP3-player audio jack I so desperately need (but refuse to pay for).

It's all about taste (er, value?),
Dan

dicksond wrote:Two comments - as noted above, price is an important and valid consideration. I think all posters should include how much the meal costs in their posts (at one point I tried to write a guideline for the ideal post). Deliciouness is important, even paramount, but there is some sort of sliding scale of deliciousness - a delicious $5 sandwich should be very noticeably different from a delcious $20 sandwich....

Agreed. While I can attempt to ascertain entree prices from a site like Metromix or look for menus scanned online, knowing how much that hot new dish is gonna cost me would really help tip the scales in trying a new place for me. Deliciousness is indeed high on my priorities list when I eat out (or in, I suppose), but a delicious sandwich will certainly taste a lot better to me -- thanks to that mental boost of finding a great deal -- when it only costs five dollars versus eight. (Just another allusion to the reviled Jimmy John's which I try to enjoy on occasion.)

Gotta delve more into cheap delis,
Dan

brotine wrote:

I'll find it a real shame if Bonefish puts Don's out of business. (It's been decades since I've been to Don's, but have good memories of it.)

Unfortunately, this may well become reallity as Don's has, IMHO, declined over the past years. The salad you may have good memories of, nsxtasy, is now a $4.95 extra item, and that's been a nickel-and-dime change that has really hit a nerve with the Brotine family. (And if you do spring for the extra fee, you can now count the baby shrimp sprinkled on top on one hand.) The menu is pretty much locked in a time warp, and methinks it shows from the clientele which, like Myron & Phil's, is probably an average age of 70. We used to really like Don's, but now if I'm on Skokie Blvd. and have to choose, I'm going across the street for fish.

>>Brent

I couldn't have said it any better--- Don's (IMHO) has been mired in mediocrity for probably the last ten years but it survived because it was the only game in town. Despite my general disdain for chains, I TOO go across the street when I want a decent seafood meal.

(The McGriddle, which I don't like, was in the pipeline before he arrived; I have mixed feelings about his Snack Wraps.)

FWIW in shedding some light on these processes, I tasted something that was a LOT like the snack wrap at the McD's corporate test kitchens... in about 1993.

riddlemay wrote:In two related developments: Borders is looking to sublease its two Lincoln Park locations (Clark/Diversey and North/Clybourn) as part of a general retrenchment, meaning it wants to close those stores

Who buys books?

1) You go to the library and check it out.

2) If not, you order it from one of the libraries that participate in the interlibrary loan.

3) If not, you look at Amazon or Half.com and get it in a couple of days. Buy used at Amazon and you usually get the book for a couple of dollars plus shipping and no sales tax.

Or you head to any of 500 library used book sales in the Chicagoland.

Ditto for movie DVDs and music CDs.

I talked with the owner of a closed video store. Who ran him out of business in his opinion? Not Wal-Mart, not Netflix. The local library where you get everything for FREE.

Go to Borders. You will see people sitting there for HOURS READING the books. When they get done, they leave the books on the table. I would like to see their write-offs for shelfworn inventory.

Or you browse at the book store and buy over the internet.

jlawrence01 wrote:

riddlemay wrote:In two related developments: Borders is looking to sublease its two Lincoln Park locations (Clark/Diversey and North/Clybourn) as part of a general retrenchment, meaning it wants to close those stores

Who buys books?

1) You go to the library and check it out.

2) If not, you order it from one of the libraries that participate in the interlibrary loan.

3) If not, you look at Amazon or Half.com and get it in a couple of days. Buy used at Amazon and you usually get the book for a couple of dollars plus shipping and no sales tax.

Or you head to any of 500 library used book sales in the Chicagoland.

Ditto for movie DVDs and music CDs.

I talked with the owner of a closed video store. Who ran him out of business in his opinion? Not Wal-Mart, not Netflix. The local library where you get everything for FREE.

Go to Borders. You will see people sitting there for HOURS READING the books. When they get done, they leave the books on the table. I would like to see their write-offs for shelfworn inventory.

Or you browse at the book store and buy over the internet.

People who go to bookstores to read are a pain in the ass, but that's for a different forum...and what I'm about to type is definitely *not about food* unless cookbooks count.

I learned of the possible Clybourne Corridor Borders closing last night and I'm all just wtf? It's always been packed when I've been in...not as packed as the Boule Mich one, but still...

Borders(while I mainly do Amazon...well...actually I mainly do obscure rural used bookstores where I rape and pillage my way through o.o.p titles and assorted printings) isn't bad for it's ilk...it's always seemed more erudite(or perhaps merely more diverse) than others...Barnes and Noble, specifically(at least the Chicago version is execrable...man, I could tell you stories of the illiterate helpstaff...). So how is it that an apparently successful commercial media store can't hack it in Bucktown?

I guess the hordes grab their Pizza-Ria(ugh...urgh...that name!) slice then trundle over to the Circus Titty or Best Buy...bypassing a decent bookstore altogether. It's the loose gut rumbles I get the rare occasion I find myself in a mall and...there's not a bookstore in sight. As a pre-teen I used to go to malls *for* the bookstores.

I dunno.

Christopher Gordon wrote:I learned of the possible Clybourne Corridor Borders closing last night and I'm all just wtf? It's always been packed when I've been in...not as packed as the Boule Mich one, but still...

Apparently everybody's just doing the research for their internet purchasing

(For the record, I'm of the opinion that taking advantage of one store's resources to guide your purchase elsewhere is kinda tacky.)

Dmnkly wrote:(For the record, I'm of the opinion that taking advantage of one store's resources to guide your purchase elsewhere is kinda tacky.)

I agree completely, but I bet this happens much less in really inspiring, independent bookstores (like Unabridged) than it does in Borders. Borders, in "genericizing" the book business (I think I just invented a word), is reaping what it sowed. When you're in Unabridged, and you come across a book you never knew about and are excited to discover, you really want to buy it there. The idea of saving a few bucks on it at Amazon never occurs to you. Somehow that book and Unabridged are one. But going on Amazon does occur to you at Borders, because you don't really connect Borders to the book. They're just a place that sells it. (Although I do like them better than B&N.)

Dmnkly wrote:

Christopher Gordon wrote:I learned of the possible Clybourne Corridor Borders closing last night and I'm all just wtf? It's always been packed when I've been in...not as packed as the Boule Mich one, but still...

Apparently everybody's just doing the research for their internet purchasing

(For the record, I'm of the opinion that taking advantage of one store's resources to guide your purchase elsewhere is kinda tacky.)

my sentiments exactly

riddlemay wrote:[I agree completely, but I bet this happens much less in really inspiring, independent bookstores (like Unabridged) than it does in Borders.

Would it be rude of me to point out that the "why buy here when I can look here and get it cheaper elsewhere" mantra was probably one of the larger contributing factors in the demise of many really inspiring independent bookstores when the super chains went big?

Dmnkly wrote:Would it be rude of me to point out that the "why buy here when I can look here and get it cheaper elsewhere" mantra was probably one of the larger contributing factors in the demise of many really inspiring independent bookstores when the super chains went big? :-)

There is a difference. Ignoring the service and personal attention one can get at an independent bookstore that you can't get at a Borders and Nobles (sic), they're still selling mostly the same books. Yes, some independents will carry deeper selections, especially specialty stores (I dearly miss "The Stars Our Destination"), but the "Harry Potter and the Bloated Sequel" you buy at a little bookstore has exactly the same quality as the one you bought for 55% off at Costco.

OK, SYSCO supplies aside, the burger I get at Beinlich's is NOT the same as one at Burger King; and although the Salmon Alfredo at Red Lobster may be indistinguishable from the one at Olive Garden, the bread and salad is still different.

What's been burning my shorts is the fact that you roll into any town within 10 miles of an interstate (and when you're on a driving vacation, it can taken a significant effort to find one that isn't) has a selection of a half-dozen corporants (=corporate+restaurant): the Grill, the Lobster, the Garden, Chili's, TGIFriday's, etc.

Big hint: Go downtown in a small town. At the very least, you'll probably find an independent deli or pizza joint. Will you always be happy? No. The corporants, while seldom serving something you regret, will probably never thrill you.

Dmnkly wrote:Would it be rude of me to point out that the "why buy here when I can look here and get it cheaper elsewhere" mantra was probably one of the larger contributing factors in the demise of many really inspiring independent bookstores when the super chains went big?

Why would that be rude? I find this latest point you're making interesting, and see nothing to disagree with in it. Could be I'm too stupid to get why I should take offense (or perceive you as rude), but I don't. But maybe I shouldn't go looking too hard for an explanation!

If I advocated looking at Borders and buying cheaper elsewhere (which I didn't--to the contrary, I said in my last post that "I agree completely" that doing so is tacky), I suppose I could see why you thought you might be rude. But I didn't advocate that. I merely said I could understand why some people (who would never feel OK about doing that at Unabridged) feel OK about doing that at Borders, since Borders has turned books from prized objects into commodities, and when you do that, you reap what you sow.

(Unless the person you think you were being rude to was someone other than me. In which case, never mind. )

I've been reading through these four pages as to characteristics for choosing one eaterie over another, but I don't think that distance (and its by-product, traffic) has been mentioned as something to be factored in.

Example--we moved from Skokie to Mundelein 10 years ago, and with the housing developments up north, the infrastructures simply cannot handle the increased traffic, unless one wants to dine at seven or eight o'clock, which is not my cup of tea. Vernon Hills, about 6 miles south of Mundelein, has some pretty fair restaurants, but at the dinner hour, figure on a 30-40 minute drive. Lincolnshire...Northbrook...Evanston? Take a sack lunch at that time of day. More often than not, I say fuggetaboutit.

So...path of least resistance prevails. Ordinarily, I wouldn't step foot into an Applebee's if my life depended upon it, because growing up, between Skokie & the North Side I had an ethnic panacea and great mom-and-pop restaurants besides.

But because an Applebee's opened up down the street in an outlot of a new mega-strip mall, we end up eating there more than I'd like because we can be in & out and back to the house in an hour to 75 minutes. I've focused on their Weight Watchers onion soup and their flat-pressed rosemary chicken over a warm spinach salad, and it's not bad at all. Admittedly, I've been a-skeered to try much else. But at least they have a few healthy alternatives, and they fill that niche for me.

jnm123 wrote:Example--we moved from Skokie to Mundelein 10 years ago, and with the housing developments up north, the infrastructures simply cannot handle the increased traffic, unless one wants to dine at seven or eight o'clock, which is not my cup of tea. Vernon Hills, about 6 miles south of Mundelein, has some pretty fair restaurants, but at the dinner hour, figure on a 30-40 minute drive. Lincolnshire...Northbrook...Evanston? Take a sack lunch at that time of day. More often than not, I say fuggetaboutit.

Add in the cost of gas, too.

Slightly off topic, but this is driving me crazy: does anyone remember the name of the Mexican chain restaurant that used to be (in th 1980s) on the north side of Lake-Cook Road in Deerfield, right near Shaw's Blue Crab and (when it was there), the diner place (the name of which I also can't remember at the moment)?