The Cassidy

I’m looking forward to the next crop of Brooklynites complaining that there are no “great” places to eat in our town.

ridski said:

I’m looking forward to the next crop of Brooklynites complaining that there are no “great” places to eat in our town.

We still won't have any places that deliver amazing cheap Laotian food right to your door. 

ml1 said:

Interesting how differently people can use a term like "fine dining."  I wouldn't call Coda or St. James's Gate "fine dining."  To me, that's a place like Lorena.  Places with white tablecloths, and a more formal style and presentation.  Coda is more casual, as would be a bistro, and definitely a pub.  From what I've read, The Cassidy also appears to be aiming at more of a casual than a formal vibe.

Finer Dining?   I think another point needs to be made.  Add all the seating at Coda,  the new Highland Place and Cassidy.    Got a number now double it.Why.  Because every restaurant wants to have an initial seating     followed by later diners filling their tables.  Maybe a third group. Now add in the drawing in of diners by       by  the less expensive competitors........the Mexican ,  Japanese ,   Thai fusion,  Indian and others such as three Pizza parlors.  The dining out dollar can only be spread so thin.  Exemplified by Luke's Kitchen American Fare, the Belmont and a previous Burger place and Wok restaurant on the same site. There were     two previous deli restaurants on  the site of the Colombian restaurant near the movie theater.

Even a  sponge can only absorb so much...........no more

your negativity is tiresome.

I have to actually agree with Author, There actually has never in my 17 years living in the area been as many great restaurants in the area, Maplewood, Millburn, Summit. They are great but unless we all grow another stomach and get another bank account, over capacity is definitely a concern. 

All the money that SOMA folks take to Montclair can stay in town.  And before the places even open, before anyone knows the quality of the food, the prices, the atmosphere, why start bad mouthing their potential?  

As I said, there are already more really good restaurants than ever before. And not that many more people. It is not bad mouthing. It is just wondering. 

there are something like 75000 people in a five mile radius of the village. I think they can support 4-5 good restaurants. 

But the parking. There's no parking. What about parking?  

ml1 said:

your negativity is tiresome.

To deny the practice of realism is banal.  When I reported my passing the Belmont at noon time and seeing no

diners in the place I was criticized for doing so............call that negativity if you will.  I call them as I see

them and I never succumbed to the rose colored glasses theory

ml1 said:

there are something like 75000 people in a five mile radius of the village. I think they can support 4-5 good restaurants. 

You are ignoring the at least 15 other restaurants in town that are competing for the dining dollar.

If what you say us true .......what happened to all those other restaurants that went under?

author said:

ml1 said:

there are something like 75000 people in a five mile radius of the village. I think they can support 4-5 good restaurants. 

You are ignoring the at least 15 other restaurants in town that are competing for the dining dollar.

But not the same dollar. There are out-of-town restaurants that are worth the drive for me. The Cassidy and Altopiano could be destinations worth the drive for out-of-towners.

It's one thing to note that an existing business doesn't have customers. It's another thing to anticipate that a business that hasn't even opened yet is in trouble. 

If you actually care about whether or not these businesses have a chance at success you'd at least wait until they open to start carping at them. 

author said:

ml1 said:

your negativity is tiresome.

To deny the practice of realism is banal.  When I reported my passing the Belmont at noon time and seeing no

diners in the place I was criticized for doing so............call that negativity if you will.  I call them as I see

them and I never succumbed to the rose colored glasses theory

ml1 said:

there are something like 75000 people in a five mile radius of the village. I think they can support 4-5 good restaurants. 

The entire population of Maplewood, South Orange and Millburn is 60K and many of those people are more than five mles from Maplewood village so I think your number is off. But my point is that Millburn and Summit has each added some great restaurants in the last year as has Springfield Avenue. I am not all that familiar with new restaurants in South Orange but Landmark will come some day. Seems to me the region may have more really good restaurants than it can support. 

DaveSchmidt said:

author said:

ml1 said:

there are something like 75000 people in a five mile radius of the village. I think they can support 4-5 good restaurants. 

You are ignoring the at least 15 other restaurants in town that are competing for the dining dollar.

But not the same dollar. There are out-of-town restaurants that are worth the drive for me. The Cassidy and Altopiano could be destinations worth the drive for out-of-towners.

Yes. If you consider the entire Essex County area from Montclair to Millburn, the village is adding 2 restaurants to the dozens that already exist. If these restaurants are good they will be successful. If they aren't they don't really deserve to succeed. 

I was considering Union, Springfield, West Orange and Livingston too. So maybe it's 7 miles. Or 10. But if a restaurant is good it's not a hardship to travel from Livingston to Maplewood. 

ska said:

ml1 said:

there are something like 75000 people in a five mile radius of the village. I think they can support 4-5 good restaurants. 

The entire population of Maplewood, South Orange and Millburn is 60K and many of those people are more than five mles from Maplewood village so I think your number is off. 

ml1 said:

It's one thing to note that an existing business doesn't have customers. It's another thing to anticipate that a business that hasn't even opened yet is in trouble. 




If you actually care about whether or not these businesses have a chance at success you'd at least wait until they open to start carping at them. 

author said:

ml1 said:

your negativity is tiresome.

To deny the practice of realism is banal.  When I reported my passing the Belmont at noon time and seeing no

diners in the place I was criticized for doing so............call that negativity if you will.  I call them as I see

them and I never succumbed to the rose colored glasses theory

mli.............you need to slow down and read for content.   I never made a criticism of the Cassidy.  My comment is and was that we are reaching critical mass .  More and more restaurants dividing the same amount of  dining dollars.  I come from a background of restaurant owners.  One Uncle owned the largest       restaurant in Wilmington Delaware.  Called the New Yorker it was the place to be on the weekends..........   and every other day of the week.  I am absolutely pro restaurant..........but I am also a realist.  Maybe we have not reached that saturation point as yet.......but it is coming

Everyone who starts a business takes a risk. Restaurants seem especially risky but hopefully the couple opening the new one know what they are doing. I wish them good luck. 

LOST said:

Everyone who starts a business takes a risk. Restaurants seem especially risky but hopefully the couple opening the new one know what they are doing. I wish them good luck. 

I think we all do

You speak about the risk as if there's going to be an earthquake that swallows us all up when we hit the ominous "saturation" point.  Some restaurants will close.  It's a willing risk for the people who own restaurants, and every other kind of business for that matter.  Restaurants open and close all the time.  Do you have some alternative method in mind that will ensure that a town has perfect unchanging stability in the number and type of retail establishments?

bub said:

You speak about the risk as if there's going to be an earthquake that swallows us all up when we hit the ominous "saturation" point.  Some restaurants will close.  It's a willing risk for the people who own restaurants, and every other kind of business for that matter.  Restaurants open and close all the time.  Do you have some alternative method in mind that will ensure that a town has perfect unchanging stability in the number and type of retail establishments?

Again I speak from the experience of one that was that was raised in a culture where young males were practically 

expected to enter the restaurant business.  During the Depression my Grandfather owned a successful restaurant.  His primary customers were from one particular factory nearby.  His was the only eatery within a mile and he served a nice lunch for about ..40 cents.   Business was fine till the factory opened up their own subsidized cafeteria.  They served lunches for .20 and put my grandfather out of business.

Conditions change  and at some point do not favor some entities.  No the ground will not sink but at the rate we are going more restaurants will sink because of over saturation.  I suppose it a risk all owners keep in mind...........but again..........every new competitor entering the market divides the dining dollar further.

And who gets hurt.

author said:

And who gets hurt.

Assuming this is supposed to be a question... Perhaps you should tell us.

If I told you 40 or 50 years ago how popular and plentiful restaurants now are, generally, in this country, you'd laugh it off as science fiction.  When I was a kid, if we ate out 4 or 5 times in a year, its was a lot.  And not at fancy places either.   Things change and change is often cyclical.  An activity becomes popular, it becomes a mania for a while and people over invest in it, then the tide pulls back or maybe the activity  gets replaced by some other popular fancy.   

As for dividing the dollar, while I have no ill will towards any particular restaurant owner, my interest as a consumer is having choices and ensuring competition to keep prices down and service quality up.  I have no interest in protecting any particular restauranteur from competition.      

author said:

bub said:

You speak about the risk as if there's going to be an earthquake that swallows us all up when we hit the ominous "saturation" point.  Some restaurants will close.  It's a willing risk for the people who own restaurants, and every other kind of business for that matter.  Restaurants open and close all the time.  Do you have some alternative method in mind that will ensure that a town has perfect unchanging stability in the number and type of retail establishments?

Again I speak from the experience of one that was that was raised in a culture where young males were practically 

expected to enter the restaurant business.  During the Depression my Grandfather owned a successful restaurant.  His primary customers were from one particular factory nearby.  His was the only eatery within a mile and he served a nice lunch for about ..40 cents.   Business was fine till the factory opened up their own subsidized cafeteria.  They served lunches for .20 and put my grandfather out of business.

Conditions change  and at some point do not favor some entities.  No the ground will not sink but at the rate we are going more restaurants will sink because of over saturation.  I suppose it a risk all owners keep in mind...........but again..........every new competitor entering the market divides the dining dollar further.

And who gets hurt.

ridski said:

author said:

And who gets hurt.

Assuming this is supposed to be a question... Perhaps you should tell us.

I think it is usually the guys wearing black hats.  The white hat guys have two six shooters, court successfully  the richest gal in town and ride off into the sunset.  Except for me.  I need a Hagstrom map to find my place anywhere.  And you know how hard it is to unfold a map while you are riding on a horse.

Then there is the matter of riding on the horse........but that is a tale of a tail best left for another thread

The Hasids?

.
I think it is usually the guys wearing black hats. 

Huh?

the village is adding one restaurant to the total it had before Highland Place closed. And HP closed for a multitude of reasons, none of which were over saturation of restaurants in the village 

ml1 said:

the village is adding one restaurant to the total it had before Highland Place closed. And HP closed for a multitude of reasons, none of which were over saturation of restaurants in the village 

Highland Place closed for a number of reasons............having too much revenue was not one of them

author said:

ml1 said:

the village is adding one restaurant to the total it had before Highland Place closed. And HP closed for a multitude of reasons, none of which were over saturation of restaurants in the village 

Highland Place closed for a number of reasons............having too much revenue was not one of them

the lack of revenue was the result of bad food and poor service.  I went to the bar at HP at least a couple of nights a week.  But I wouldn't have dinner there.  And getting a drink at the bar took forever.  A recipe for failure.

Most of the reasons why restaurants don't do well is because they're inconsistent in terms of either food, service or both.  The owner of South Mountain Tavern (formerly Ricalton's) reached out to Facebook SOMA Lounge for customer input and most of the complaints were poor service, inconsistent meals and a high price point at that. However, I really admire that he would ask for input and he seemed to take it very seriously.  The Belmont always had issues because the food was either hit or miss.  HP was also inconsistent and the ambiance with the 80s design left something to be desired.

Places like the Gate or Arturos are still in business because the service is friendly and the food is consistent.  If The Cassidy and new Lorena's (sorry I can't remember the name off the top of my head) provide consistent service and food, they will do very well.  And I feel pretty confident they will provide both given that both owners run other very successful restaurants.  For better or worse, M/SO has grown increasingly affluent and I see a need for something that's in between casual like Cactus Charley's and formal like Lorena's.