There was an ad on television tonight for Subway and they mentioned you could get these new sandwiches at any of the Subway “Restaurants”.
For me, those fast food chains are just that - fast food chains - but I don’t think I would ever refer to them as a restaurant.
For me, a restaurant is where you go, sit down, a person comes to take your order, and later brings the food to your table.
I mean, if you told your significant other you were taking them to a restaurant for dinner, how are they going to react when you pull into Burger King and park the car?
I consider eating at a fast-food place as “eating out”, but definitely not as “a restaurant meal”. Even a “non-fast-food chain restaurant” is not the same as “a restaurant” - even though I do call them restaurants. If someone told me “let’s go have lunch at a restaurant” and brought me to La Mafia I’d say “dude, I thought you’d say a restaurant”.
To me, they’re just takeaway food places with optional table sitting (McD’s) or another kind of café (Starbucks). Anywhere a tired Wolf like me can wander in late in the afternoon bleary-eyed, shouldering a back-pack and covered in book-dust to pick up a quick burger so I can nuke it at home with a wake-me-up cup of coffee is not strictly a restaurant.
I don’t consider them restaurants, they’re not a place I’d consider taking someone for “dinner”! They’re fast-food places, cafés at best, but definitely not what I’d term a restaurant. They’re for snacks, not meals.
Just pointing out that in the industry the likes of Subway et al are often referred to collectively as “quick-serve restaurants,” which may be where the “restaurant” description comes from.
Or maybe they are called restaurants because that is what they are: a place that serves food.
I call the more formal place a “sit-down restaurant.”
And please note, for example, that Carl’s Jr. and its sister chain Hardee’s bring the food to you at your table, albeit after you stood in line to order. At one time, Carl’s Jr. even tried serving a set of dinners similar to what you find in sit-down restaurants. Didn’t last, though: they took too long to prepare.
As for Vomitarium, you’d probably have to include Denny’s in that category, and it’s a sit-down restaurant.
My first thought was ‘no’, fast-food places aren’t restaurants, because they don’t bring the food to your table. But then I realised that that would also exclude Chinese and Indian buffets. And possibly the late lamented Bonanza chain, where you lined up with a tray, collected your drinks and other accessories, ordered your meal, and paid: but then a server brought the main meal to your table. (I loved going there when I was a kid.)
Hmm. Could a useful demarcation be the time of paying? At restaurants you pay after eating, at fast-food places you pay before?
Perhaps the reason these places aren’t regarded as “restaurants” is something to do with the atmosphere? I can’t quite explain what I mean, but what I’m getting at is that Subway, McD’s or whatever are places you get food, eat and leave. It’s not the kind of place you want to linger and it’s not where you go for good company, decent conversation etc.
I call those restaurants. Their exclusive product is prepared food. The quality of food and service shouldn’t disqualify them from the basic definition of “restaurant.” I wouldn’t call Starbucks a restaurant (it’s a cafe), and Subway and Togo’s could also be considerd delis.
I do agree that a promise of eating out at a restaurant does usually imply a sit-down type of place, but on my first date with mrsgnu we ate at Taco Bell.
Here in Australia Subway just serve sandwiches. Obviously you guys have really sensative palates if that kind of thing makes you vomit. What kind of incredibly ritzy food do you folks get at an average takeaway?
Sure, they’re restaurants. You could debate whether they’re good or not – though I, like don’t ask, have to wonder how bad a made-to-order cold sandwich could possibly be – but they are fast food restaurants. Even calling them “fast food chains” – chains of what? Restaurants.