Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
•What is the difference in perception between areas closer-in, and those further from employment centers with regard to the level of chain restaurant participation in the local food and dining market?
Seems like one big difference is not so much closer-in vs. further out, but planned vs. unplanned/organic growth.
In rural areas, you'll find lots of local places. In urban area, you'll find lots of local places. In planned suburbs, mostly chains. This has a lot do with how the properties are owned and developed.
Take an "unplanned" community like Del Ray- Lots of different property owners, so it would have been difficult for one real estate company to just buy the whole thing and redevelop it. Chains avoided it like the plague before it was considered up-and-coming. One entrepreneur takes a chance, decides to start a place, and it becomes successful. Soon another entrepreneur comes in, and so forth. The area starts to get the up-and-coming reputation, which makes chains interested, BUT the local places have such a head start that there's no danger of chain domination.
Now compare to Reston or Brambleton or any number of towns like them- Not a lot of different property owners-maybe just one or two. The development is totally new. It never goes through the up-and-coming phase- it's transformed overnight from fields to shops. The developer just wants to fill the slots with stable tenants so chains are the first choice. Chains love it because it's all posh and new and they don't have to worry about retrofitting buildings or crime or anything that's associated with a declining inner suburb. (Remember that he property owners in Del Ray couldn't hold out for chains because chains didn't want anything to do with it.)
Quote:
•Would forcing the creation of mom & pop establishments in newer communities, either through business incentives/incubators/tax credits be akin to a false community? How can this be done in an area that has developed in the last few years, without being forced?
The biggest problem isn't the false community. It's "how do you get past the fact that chains are more stable and successful?" As long as this is true, developers will pick chains. Tax credits don't change the fact that new businesses have a much higher failure rate and can't afford higher rents. One big thing you can do is make it easier to start a business- remove some of the red tape one has to go through. Other than that, though, I'm not sure this is that much of a problem. Local businesses will always have a chance to thrive in areas the chains have ignored, but I don't think you can force them into places like Reston.
Quote:
•How can an area, such as Leesburg, that has an established downtown core, complete with independent, fine and casual dining restaurants, coexist with the prevailing attitudes and tastes of more suburban areas that lie immediately to the east? How has this been accomplished in Arlington or Alexandria, or has it been in your opinion?
Once an area has gone from "up-and-coming" to "arrived", it becomes a destination. It changes people's perception of the place. In my area, Springfield is place I go for "dinner", but Old Town/Arlington/DC is the place I go for a "night out". It's not that tastes are different between the suburbs and the swanky towns- it's simply that the occasion is different. The places that are local-dominated can co-exist with the suburbs as long as the local-dominated places are considered part of a destination. By the same token, local places will have a harder time getting into the suburbs because they can't necessarily compete with the chains on convenience and price.
I have a close friend that worked many years for an institutional grocer....he sold food to restaurants. Some of the stuff he told me he witnessed in restaurant kitchens would gag a maggot! He REFUSES to eat in restaurants....any type of restaurant (he said some of the $$$$ places were the grossest).
After hearing those stories, I do not enjoy eating in restaurants, and avoid it whenever possible....basically, only when I'm traveling and have no choice (ie. can't find a grocery store).
I particularly avoid chains or any establishment that employs teenagers....I can't imagine eating something prepared by dummies like the ones that ride my school bus! YUCK!
I'm not so sure I agree with this chef. Children have very strong taste buds. Stuff that's too spicy, too bitter, too sour affects them a lot more than it affects adults. It's not really their fault that they're picky and prefer bland chain food. Bland food tastes a lot less bland to their taste buds. As they grow up, their taste buds dull and they become spice-eaters and coffee-drinkers. I'm a perfect example- couldn't even eat Doritos as a kid but now I'll put hot sauce on anything.
Yes, totally. My 3.5 year old would eat ANYTHING that I put in front of him when he was a baby/toddler. And my husband and I eat almost exclusively vegetarian at home, so trust me that he wasn't getting chicken nuggets.
But somewhere around age 2, the "picky gene" just kicked in, and now he'll happily go to bed hungry rather than eat what his parents eat. And even with our reluctant attempts to accommodate him by making the mac and cheese we swore we would never stoop to, he is still underweight. Our doctor has told us to please just get whatever food in him we can; anything with a strong flavor, including most vegetables, unfortunately, he turns up his nose. And this is despite seeing veggies all over the dinner table for his entire life.
When I was a childless 20-something, I'm sure I glared down my nose at parents who fed their kids "crap" off the kids' meal. But now I'm so relieved to maybe have something on the menu other than the bread that my child might eat.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,782 posts, read 15,840,390 times
Reputation: 10894
Quote:
Originally Posted by athousandlogins
Yes, totally. My 3.5 year old would eat ANYTHING that I put in front of him when he was a baby/toddler. And my husband and I eat almost exclusively vegetarian at home, so trust me that he wasn't getting chicken nuggets.
But somewhere around age 2, the "picky gene" just kicked in, and now he'll happily go to bed hungry rather than eat what his parents eat. And even with our reluctant attempts to accommodate him by making the mac and cheese we swore we would never stoop to, he is still underweight. Our doctor has told us to please just get whatever food in him we can; anything with a strong flavor, including most vegetables, unfortunately, he turns up his nose. And this is despite seeing veggies all over the dinner table for his entire life.
When I was a childless 20-something, I'm sure I glared down my nose at parents who fed their kids "crap" off the kids' meal. But now I'm so relieved to maybe have something on the menu other than the bread that my child might eat.
That's funny - same thing here. My baby/toddler who would eat anything including every green vegetable known to man has become a picky eater as an 8-year old. My baby/toddler who would not eat anything that resembled fruits or vegetables now tries everything as a 5-year old!
And while I agree with the idea of having children try different foods - doing so in restaurants where you want them to sit nicely is not the place to do it. Just like adults like the familiar, so do children.
Another interesting thing is that it seems like trendy eateries are expanding into "comfort food". I've seen macaroni and cheese in more and more places it seems. So while chains still have the kids market wrapped up, more local places are becoming a little more kid-friendly with their menus.
I have found that (in general) the local places are happy to have children in their restaurants and are flexible in their menu offerings. Of course we follow the unsaid but defacto dining rule of early dining (dinner at 5:30 p.m.) and good tipping.
The more and more posts I read here, it cracks me up how people constantly point to an area's population of chain restaurants as such a negative. By definition, a chain of restaurants typically starts off as a local, neighborhood establishment but has become so successful (due to food quality, service, abiance, etc.) that they're able to keep expanding. Many mom and pop establishments are plenty underwhelming and aside from a few local places that simply choose not to expand, most of them can't even if they wanted to because their food doesn't warrant it. I can think of only a handful of mom-and-pop places that I ever bother giving repeat business to.
At least with a chain, I know what kind of food I'm going to get and can be reasonably certain of the quality of food I'll be served no matter which location I visit. Most larger chains only add something to their menu because they've thoroughly tested it in test kitchens BEFORE it hits their menus whereas a lot of local joints just throw things on their menu and pray that people will like them.
Which brings me to my next point: I'm sorry we don't all live in Arlington. Some of us would much rather buy or rent places for half the price with twice the space to forgo your definition of great "nightlife" which basically consists of bar-hopping. I'm sorry you can't entertain yourself or meet people in "fake" areas like Reston or Ashburn.
-Squirrel
Exactly! There is a great South Park episode concerning people and their attitudes toward chain stores. Everyone thinks it's all right to patronize the mom and pop until it becomes successful enough to have multiple locations. Then it's an evil corporation that is ruining local character and needs to be destroyed. Ludicrous. Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a mom and pop that happened to grow exponentially due, at first, to a reliable customer base and then to a savvy business plan. I guess as long as mom and pop's stay small and struggling they're all right.
Nine times out of ten mom and pop's are more expensive than chains. That cost often comes with widely varying amounts of quality and a lot of attitude. Why am I going to waste my money and time there when I can go to a chain, know exactly what to expect and exactly how much something is going to cost?
Nine times out of ten mom and pop's are more expensive than chains. That cost often comes with widely varying amounts of quality and a lot of attitude. Why am I going to waste my money and time there when I can go to a chain, know exactly what to expect and exactly how much something is going to cost?
That's what I've noticed, too. When comparing sandwich shops, for example, the mom and pops tend to be more expensive and lately they've been cutting corners more than the chains. I've also noticed more mom-and-pop shops end up on the health department lists. I think it's because there are lots of local sandwich shops that were opened a decade ago by people who thought it was a way to make a quick buck. Some of those places aren't that great.
OTOH, there are some mom and pop restaurants that are great, especially in the mid to upper $$$ range. That's why I choose my restaurants on a case by case basis. Sometimes I like the chain, sometimes I like the mom-and-pop. It all depends on the particular restaurant.
BTW, there's a mom-and-pop "beach" restaurant next to the State Theater in Falls Church that I've always wondered about. Has anyone eaten there and would you recommend it?
I spent most of my business career with chain restaurants. That said, many of the chains are owned locally by franchisees and should be supported on their own merits. They spend an inordinate amount of their profits maintaining national standards at local rents. An independant, who doesn't have to pay franchise and advertising fees keeps a significant percent of those sales without the oversight of QSC inspections, awareness of allergen issues, food cost planning etc. If the rent goes up substantially (which it will), everything else is sacrificed .. service, quality .. because it's a fixed cost. I love independants, but they've always been a dying breed. All the other economic indicators predict their doom, and customers are fickle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium
That's what I've noticed, too. When comparing sandwich shops, for example, the mom and pops tend to be more expensive and lately they've been cutting corners more than the chains. I've also noticed more mom-and-pop shops end up on the health department lists. I think it's because there are lots of local sandwich shops that were opened a decade ago by people who thought it was a way to make a quick buck. Some of those places aren't that great.
OTOH, there are some mom and pop restaurants that are great, especially in the mid to upper $$$ range. That's why I choose my restaurants on a case by case basis. Sometimes I like the chain, sometimes I like the mom-and-pop. It all depends on the particular restaurant.
BTW, there's a mom-and-pop "beach" restaurant next to the State Theater in Falls Church that I've always wondered about. Has anyone eaten there and would you recommend it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a mom and pop that happened to grow exponentially due, at first, to a reliable customer base and then to a savvy business plan. I guess as long as mom and pop's stay small and struggling they're all right. 
