Are they better than new ones? Take some of the really old ones: “Union Oyster House” (Boston)-ca 1814, or ‘ANTOINES” (new Orleans-ca 1840), “Delmonico’s” (NYC-1860). Realize that these places have probably gone through several changes of ownership-but is there something special about a very old establishment that makes the food taste better
Not necessarily. What makes a restaurant “old”? Age of the building? Length of ownership by one person (or one family)? Tenure of the head chef? Too many variables here to makes a definitive judgement, and many of them will change in a restaurant over more than a few years.
Well, the fact that people have been eating there for over 100 years can be a small indication that the cuisine has something going for it. Seeing as how many restaurants go out of business within 3 years, longevity can be a recommendation.
Really old restaurants are better because:
[ul]
[li]They have established, refined recipes.[/li][li]They are familiar, and familiar food often tastes better.[/li][li]They have an established, refined atmosphere.[/li][li]They usually aren’t difficult to get a table at unless they are renowned.[/li][/ul]
They are worse because:
[ul]
[li]They have established clientel and reputation, and thus they can persist even if they have bad food and/or service.[/li][li]They may not actually have established, refined recipes and atmosphere if they have recently changed management.[/li][li]They often have no motivation to innovate or improve.[/li][/ul]
I used to live in New Orleans. They have the old restaurants like Antoines and Galatoires’. Those are great because the service is unparalled and some of the dishes were actually invented there. However, many top restaurants aren’t that old. Commander’s Palace was listed as one of the best restaurants in the country several times and it only dates back to the 70’s. Emerils (that Emeril) only took off in the 1990’s.
Most of Boston’s top restaurants like Figs and Olives are pretty new. Old restaurants have things that they can capitalize on like social traditions but that doesn’t make the food better. They still have to work at that like any start up.
It depends, I’m sure, on the chef and how much the kitchen is allowed to slide. I went to Union Oyster House after my graduation in 1973, and it was wonderful. I went back 10 years ago, and it was so - so. In NewOrleans, about 1980, Antoines and Galatoires seemed to me to be as wonderful as their reputations. Brennan’s, on the other hand, slipped between 1977 when I first went and 1980 the last time. There were some places that were very old that were considered tourist traps, so I never went to them.
On the other hand, we used to go to Richard’s in Abbeville Louisiana all the time when we lived in Lafayette in the late '70s. We went back with our kids six years ago, and it was as good or even better than we remembered it. They had added to the menu (nothing fancy) but their base dish of crawfish was still great.
You have to wonder how a place that keeps the same menu over the decades attracts really good chefs. On the other hand, a new place following a fad is likely going to be blah.
Moderator’s Note: I think this topic would be better served in IMHO.
One of my jobs is as a subcontractor for restaurant remodel contractor. Man, what gross things we pull out of even the nicest of places! Gross enough to make a perverted maggot vomit. So… age isn’t always a good thing.
However, I like seeing a well oiled team work together, as you often see in the main staff of established businesses, restaurants included.
So the most accurate answer is…: Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I think the one area in which old restaurants are definitely not where you want to go are old fast food restaurants. I once ate at a McDonalds that had the old original design. It dated back to the fifties, and evidently hadn’t been cleaned since then either.
Well, it is rumored that the Union Oyster House has a pot of stew bubbling away on the stove…it’s been made for two centuries. As the stew is served, the cooks add fresh ingredients…so a few atomes of the stew you are served may date to Daniel Webster’s dinner there in 1814!!
Now THAT’s history! :smack:
Um, I kind of doubt that…
But having eaten there several times over the years, I have always enjoyed it.
The Stage Deli, in my opinion, has eclipsed the Carnegie Deli as “the” big deli in Manhattan.
Is there anyone of importance anywhere who’s claiming that old restaurants are generally better than new ones? Take a look through any restaurant guide to any big American city published in the past five years. The clear majority of the top restaurants listed will be less than twenty-five years old. Some of them will be less than five years old. There may have once been a time when old restaurants were considered the classiest places to go, but that was back in the 1960’s and earlier. Somewhere in the 1970’s or the 1980’s at the latest it became a big thing to discover new restaurants and older ones began to be looked at as slightly outmoded.
This very good restaurant changed owners, consequently, the good went from good to blahh and the new restaurant opened by the old chef was excellent.