Communal dining at Purple Pig [and elsewhere]

Thus far I have actively avoided communal dining restaurants. I'm extremely shy, and being forced to chat with dining neighbors puts a serious damper on a meal for me. But my hubby and I are going to be downtown for his bday celebration, and I think he'd really like the Purple Pig. I might try to put aside my distaste for the seating for his sake.

So my questions probably seem silly to some, but help a newbie communal diner out! What is the etiquette about communal dining, at PP or anywhere else? Is it common and acceptable to only talk to your date rather than the neighbors? (Yes I know you can do whatever you want, but is that what people normally do?) Are you seated next to the person you came with? Or across? What is the likelihood that the restaurant would be willing to seat us at one of the non-communal tables (plan to go around 5:30 on a Saturday night, so prime time)?

Thanks!

Three trips to PP, zero interaction from those around me. I don't think in general people interact with those around them at communal dining spaces. Now later in the evening (more booze has flowed), all bets are off. But at 5:30, you should be fine.

Or eat at the bar.

Hi,

The one time I went, I was seated at a two-top with a friend. The noise level was such, I had a hard time tracking the conversation one-to-one. I could not imagine having any interaction with other tables.

Regards,

I haven't been to the Purple Pig. Do they have communal dining, where you're seated at a table next to people you don't know? Or is it possible that the Purple Pig is being confused with the Publican, which definitely has that option for about half of its seating?

I know that at the Publican, you can specify a preference for either the communal seating or your own table (for up to 6) when making your reservation, and they will try to accommodate your preference. (Their is no such option at Avec, where the entire restaurant consists of communal eight-tops and the bar.)

The menu at the Publican is similar to the Purple Pig, with their emphasis on pork, organ meats, cheese, and charcuterie. I would never, ever go on a Saturday night to a place that doesn't take reservations where the wait is likely to be well in excess of an hour. So if I had the choice in those circumstances, I would easily make plans to go to the Publican with an advance reservation, rather than get stuck waiting around forever at the Purple Pig. And that's even though I'm not all that fond of the Publican. Oh yeah, don't plan on being able to hear anyone else at the Publican, either. $.02

jll, you have a shot at a non-communal table at 5:30 on Saturday. It may be a small shot, but it is possible.

I love communal dining. In fact, I'm dining this week with two different friends I made at the communal tables of restaurants last year. I think etiquette is that you only talk to the people you want to talk to. So, it's perfectly acceptable to talk only to your companion. Whether you're seated next to or across from your husband will depend on the configuration of other diners.

I've never been to the Purple Pig, but I don't like communal dining because other people seated nearby *always* seem to start talking to me. It then becomes awkward to extricate yourself from the conversation and focus only on my dining companion. Maybe I've had a lot of bad luck, but that's been my experience.

So at Avec I try to sit at the bar. At the Publican I always request a booth or sit at the bar.

We did Avec last year around 5:30 pm on a Saturday for my birthday, then the Goodman. We were 7. So you could always take a smallish group for dinner that should be big enough for the communal table. Note: You need your punctual friends for this to work.

Good Luck!

I've been seated at one of the non-communal tables on off-hours during the week and the weekend (usually later rather than earlier). At 5:30 on a Saturday I definitely think it's possible.

Also, Purple Pig is really only superficially similar to Publican so it's not a perfect substitute (the more I've eaten at both the more different I think they are). I've had friends go to PP on the weekends and have run into shorter waits than you might expect (some have also had longer waits). For longer waits, I believe you can go across the street to the Intercontinental for a drink and a snack and you'll be called when your table is ready. But again, at 5:30 I don't think you'll have much of a wait.

My husband and I were just discussing the merits and demerits of communal dining.

It never works with an odd number of people - someone gets stuck on the end and basically is put into another dining party. This is especially true with groups of 5 or 7.

A perk is the ability to see/smell the food BEFORE you order. Was recently swayed to get the squash arancini at PP due to my neighbor's recommendation. Wow, that was good.

This is really getting specific - but I prefer communal dining when I'm seated at a standard-sized chair - not a bench or bar-stool height chair. Feel like I'm on a crowded 146 bus if it's a bench. Feel like I'm at a

No kids - I have a 2yr old and a 1yr old and there is no way I'd do a communal dining situation in respect to my neighbors. Unless it was invited or expected.

Man, it's loud. If you have to actually discuss something important, I wouldn't sign up for a communal dining situation. Like a business meeting or a serious relationship discussion.

Any other thoughts?

Felicevita wrote:It never works with an odd number of people

With a solo diner being an obvious exception.

Felicevita wrote:Man, it's loud. If you have to actually discuss something important, I wouldn't sign up for a communal dining situation. Like a business meeting or a serious relationship discussion.

That may be more a function of the room and decor of the restaurants that have communal dining, rather than the feature itself. Avec and the Publican are two of the loudest restaurants in the city, and the comment above about Purple Pig appears to follow.

How much of Purple Pig's seating is communal? IOW, is it almost all communal (like Avec), about half (like the Publican), or less?

I'd say about PP is about half communal, half tables. Granted, the tables are so close together - they may as well be communal. Maybe we can make up new vernacular here - "quasi-communal"? "may-as-well-be-communal"? "semi-communal"?

jfibro wrote:I don't think in general people interact with those around them at communal dining spaces.

Which I think is strange. I think it's odd that communal dining tables have become such a big thing, but given the choice, most people will interact as little as they can with their tablemates. I often see hosts/hostesses seating groups with a buffer of empty seats between parties - defeating the point completely. Partially due to my personality, partially due to a southern upbringing, but I like talking with strangers.

They're treated not as communal tables, but as a flexible table configuration where the restaurant doesn't have to decide how many 2-tops vs. 4-tops to have.

-Dan

Ah, you guys are awesome. Very useful info everyone, thanks!

I may put my communal-dining aversion aside and just suck it up. Thanks!

Over on the thread about Elizabeth people were talking about dining at communal tables, which seems like it warrants its own thread (if there is already one feel free to move this post)

In general I enjoy communal dining for events where everyone starts at the same time. I don't mind it at some places I have been to where people don't start at the same time, maybe places that are more casual or have more of an emphasis on wine? - Avec, Purple Pig. I never liked it at The Bristol, and was glad they got rid of the communal tables. Not sure why - maybe more people go there in larger groups? So when you sat at the communal tables it was like you were horning in on someone else's party or date night?

It seems to be one of those issues that divides. On one had it exposes you to people who you might not otherwise socialize with. You might even make new friends. On the other hand, there might be reasons you might not want to socialize with said people. Back when I was single some girlfriends and I had an experience while communal dining in which a boisterous group of men made us very uncomfortable. I also was on the edge of a group of friends at another communal table once and the man next to me kept trying to hit on me, even though I tried to make it clear I was only interested in making friends. It made the dining experience a lot less fun to say the least.

There was another time at the Publican where the family next to us started screaming and shouting at each other before angrily huffing out the door. There have been many instances in which people were annoying or disruptive. In the end you have to consider the cost-benefit ratio. For something like fine dining, the potential losses are high if your companions ruin the dinner. For a gastropub, not so much. I like meeting new people, but there are many ways to do so that do not involve potentially spending hundreds of dollars to be miserable.

At Elizabeth I almost always buy up entire tables with friends. I think they could probably charge a premium for the two-top. If I were on a date, I would certainly pay more.

Hi,

I was at New England Seafood over the weekend. At 3:00 pm on Sunday, there was a 20-25 minute wait for a two-top. I don't particularly like waiting for tables. To sweeten and possibly advance our move up the list, I offered to share a table with another pair or a onesy. Our willingness to share was pleasing to the check-in girl.

To kill time, we went over to Dinkels. When we returned she kept a window two-top for us, because she knew we would be back soon.

I like to think my spirit of cooperation helped us, though we ended up with our own good company anyway.

Regards,

Never again--
The one (and only) time that I experienced communal dining was enough to turn me off to it forever more. Many years ago, as early twenties newlyweds, my wife and I went to a Benihana in Ft. Lauderdale. We were joined up at a table by 3 fortysomething Atlanta businessmen with their (obvious) "rent-a-dates". All 6 of these clowns proceeded to get very loud and very schnockered. The management asked ALL of us to leave, even though my wife and I were innocent bystanders.

At Avec, we enjoyed the communal seating, although not so much the backless chairs. The couple next to us said we had to try some of their taleggio pizza, we chatted with them, but they left shortly after not giving us the chance to share something back. Very friendly environment, but i am sure it was a lucky situation and could be worse.

I'll tolerate communal dining if that's what a place I want to visit offers but I'd never, ever seek it out. For me, it's a check in the negative column when deciding where to eat. Sharing a table with people I don't know is of very limited -- or even negative -- value to me. And being the relatively anti-social person that I am, I find it pretty awkward, too. It requires additional levels of effort and social interaction on my part. It's an artificial situation created mainly for the eatery's financial benefit. If, at 99% of places offering communal dining, more net revenue would be gained via non-communal dining, you can bet that's what would be offered instead. But more diners, faster turns and fewer staffers required all make communal dining an alluring choice for operators.

Some places have big tables at which the separate parties who share them are not really synched up in any way. For me, this is the most tolerable form of communal dining. At these places, folks come and go on their own schedules. Diners can order what they want, eat at their own pace and share the dining experience with their neighbors only if they choose to do so. This is as good as communal dining gets but it's still not a particularly desirable experience.

Other places synch up communal tables from beginning to end, including everyone at the table being served the same menu. For me, this is the hardest form to deal with. What if I'm late (as has happened)? What if my tablemates are late (as I've also experienced)? What if they start talking about politics? What if they're loud or obnoxious? What if they get pissed because I slow the meal down taking pictures? What if I just don't like them? What if, over the course of my meal, I want to chat with the companions I've actually chosen about personal stuff? At a synched up communal table, all these issues are in play -- and for no good reason. This form of communal dining artificially forces the experience to be mostly about the experience itself, and not much else -- and I say this as someone who is fairly food-centric. The bottom line is that when the food's truly great, no such manipulations are required to keep diners engaged and focused. I'm just not a big fan of The Dining Table as a petri dish.

As for benches and picnic table-style seating (which may or may not be a part of communal dining), don't even get me started!

=R=

Portlandia skewers communal dining
http://eater.com/archives/2013/02/25/wa ... dining.php

ronnie_suburban wrote:I'll tolerate communal dining if that's what a place I want to visit offers but I'd never, ever seek it out. For me, it's a check in the negative column when deciding where to eat. Sharing a table with people I don't know is of very limited -- or even negative -- value to me.

Plus one.