Ed Bunzol wrote::( Excellent meal / terrible, indifferent service. Arrived at 6:15 PM for a 6:30 Reservation and was told I could not be seated until 6:30 imagine my surprise when we escorted to out table at the appointed time & noted the dining room was only 20% occupied. I don't understand why we were made to sit in the bar when the restaurant was virtually empty. This unnecessary wait & the service ruined an otherwise excellent meal.
Ed Bunzol wrote::( Excellent meal / terrible, indifferent service. Arrived at 6:15 PM for a 6:30 Reservation and was told I could not be seated until 6:30 imagine my surprise when we escorted to out table at the appointed time & noted the dining room was only 20% occupied. I don't understand why we were made to sit in the bar when the restaurant was virtually empty. This unnecessary wait & the service ruined an otherwise excellent meal.
riddlemay wrote:Well, I think Ed's question is worth pondering, especially as it may have a valid answer that Ed hasn't thought of. Those of you who know more about how restaurants are run than I do: Is there perhaps a good reason North Pond kept him waiting? Like for instance, the kitchen is geared to produce food on a schedule based on that evening's reservations, and if people try to order significantly ahead of when the restaurant has planned, it throws things off? Or is that a stretch?
nr706 wrote:Or maybe they thought he'd order a drink at the bar, which he wouldn't have if he were seated at the table when he arrived?
ViewsAskew wrote:riddlemay wrote:Well, I think Ed's question is worth pondering, especially as it may have a valid answer that Ed hasn't thought of. Those of you who know more about how restaurants are run than I do: Is there perhaps a good reason North Pond kept him waiting? Like for instance, the kitchen is geared to produce food on a schedule based on that evening's reservations, and if people try to order significantly ahead of when the restaurant has planned, it throws things off? Or is that a stretch?
To me, that is a stretch. Then again, I've not worked in a restaurant for many years. . .
The only possibility that I can think of is staffing. They may staff based on history and reservations. It could be that waitstaff was not starting until the time of the reservation, so they didn't want the servers to be overwhelmed and give poor service.
But, as I type that, it's sounds far-fetched to me. Unless they keep late hours, most servers start close to the same time (usually around 5-6 PM). There are some staggered starts, but since waitstaff is paid a lower wage, most places I've worked have not worried too much - so what if they pay a server $3.00 an hour to not have any tables? Of course, someone could have been late - maybe the called in and said they'd be in shortly. Or called in sick, so a replacement had yet to arrive.
I've had a few dreadful service experiences over the years, which have spoiled entire meals.
Mike G wrote:I've had a few dreadful service experiences over the years, which have spoiled entire meals.
One assumes you mean generally, not at North Pond at particular, right?
mkiss wrote:ViewsAskew wrote:riddlemay wrote:Well, I think Ed's question is worth pondering, especially as it may have a valid answer that Ed hasn't thought of.
The only possibility that I can think of is staffing. They may staff based on history and reservations. It could be that waitstaff was not starting until the time of the reservation, so they didn't want the servers to be overwhelmed and give poor service.
Our situation was not due to staffing...in a restaurant like North Pond, the servers are not rolling in right at the start of service.
BryanZ wrote:Last Friday evening I enjoyed a meal at North Pond with my family. Before our meal even began, our experience with the restaurant was marked with a bit of uneasiness. In the end this wouldn’t come to define the meal, but the situation was rather strange.
We had made a reservation for 8:45 and called ahead to let them know we’d be running maybe 15 minutes late. Not laudable but not exactly a travesty either. The hostess, after checking with the dining room manager, informed us that if we were not there by 9:00 they might not be able to seat us, 9:10 at the absolute latest. This wasn’t because they had booked the table to turn but because the restaurant claimed the kitchen starts to break down after 9:10. I realize North Pond is in a park but to have what is effectively a fine-dining kitchen close at 9:00 on a Friday is absurd.
Fast-forward a few minutes to my sister running from taxi to restaurant in heels in order to secure our rather transient table at the hostess table. It would turn out that other parties would come in after us and the kitchen did not in fact start to break down until well after 9:10. I understand they’re probably trying to contend with alcohol regulations in the park, but after we’d told the hostess we were on our way a little bit more flexibility, or even reassurance, would’ve been nice.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:As another data point, I last went to North Pond about a year ago and upon arriving (on time) was a bit confused by the hostess requesting us to sit at the bar for a drink while our table was set up. My confusion was mainly because at that time it was not a fully packed restaurant and looked as if it had capacity to spare.
HOWEVER, the rest of the meal was as terrific as it always is there and it remains one of my favorite restaurants in this city. I look forward to returning soon.
Sounds like they have a hostess/flow issue they need to work on.
Darren72 wrote:If you haven't been to North Pond, please don't let this discussion of front-of-the-house experiences dissuade you from trying it.
riddlemay wrote:If I'm going out for a nice (and relatively expensive) evening, the last thing I want is to start it off being angry. Which I would be, if what happened to several posters here happened to me. BryanZ said much the same thing as you--that despite the "attitude" from the hostess, he'd return to North Pond--so clearly there is more than one way to feel about this, but that is mine.