I have never eaten at Trotter's (I am way too cheap). Long ago, I did go to a celebration event there for an employee, which was obviously not a typical CT experience. Anyhow, the agrument about being "frozen in time" intrigues me. I understand what an important role Trotter's played in the evolution of fine dining in Chicago (and elsewhere). If it did not exist, there would literally be a missing link. So the question is, does preserving such landmark establishments as they once were, both in decor and product, provide an important historical reference point? If I wanted to understand the progress of Chicago dining from Le Francais to Alinea, wouldn't Trotter's be the record of a transitional era essential to fully comprehending the historical and cultural timeline? When Lucas decided to "update" Star Wars, everybody was up in arms because it amounted to rewriting history. Sure the CGI was pretty crappy back then, but it was what it was, and everbody understands those limitations. Nobody would think of "updating" Forbidden Planet, which is now considered a classic (visible wires and all). Is it because Forbidden planet is 20 years older than Star Wars, that protects it from being "updated"? Usually the approach to such classics has been to do an updated "remake" using the same storyline, but with newer techniques Many of those attempts, however, were unsuccessful, because of the desire to turn a campy but serious classic into a comedy (a la Dragnet, or more recently 21 Jump Street). At any rate, I am strectching the metaphor way too thin, but doesn't the same continuity of a cultural timeline apply to restaurants? Would we really want a Trotter's that was not "pickled"in 1990, but was instead indistinguishable from a myriad of more contemporary restaurants? At what point does it become an iconic "classic", representing an important point in culinary history?