Sometimes (often) I find mistakes in the newsletter the minute I send it out. When I do, I edit it, so the best way to read the most updated version of the newsletter is by clicking this link. Kind of defeats the purpose of a newsletter, I know. I’m trying!
Last week, TAP – The Ale Project, which basically birthed the idea of a true Hong Kong-style craft beer bar, announced that they’ll be closing their doors early next month. Their landlord has insisted on a 50% increase in rent. A few days ago, the South China Morning Post reported that Wharf, which owns the giant luxury Tsim Sha Tsui mall Harbour City, has begun to sue its tenants for unpaid rent.
I knew on some level that it wasn’t because landlords were heartless (well, they could be, lol) and that there had to be something in the financial or legal system that made reducing rent hurt more than just lowered income. My initial thought was that it had something to do with having a lower rent on official record, which might affect what future renters would pay, or being able to repay their mortgage. But I hadn’t thought about it enough – I found the real answer (or perhaps one of them) in this episode of Eater’s Digest (H/T this edition of Family Meal) in which they interview a hospitality lawyer, who says, “the minute you lower the rent, you lower the ability to borrow money or to get any kind of liquidity from a bank. And so people are very reluctant to do that. So they would rather, versus lowering the value of their building and reducing the rent, they would rather leave it empty”. It’s so simple – I feel a bit stupid for not realising this earlier.
This credit (ie. debt)-fuelled system puts everyone on edge because it relies on the unrealistic assumption of continuous economic growth and has no margin for errors such as months of civil unrest and a global pandemic.
This is just another example of how everything is connected – how this economy has been designed to extract everything of value from 99.9% of people, with no negative consequences for the 0.1% – it plays out in everything from industrial food systems to fast fashion. There won’t be equity in this system because it wasn’t designed to be equitable. The only logical way forward is to check out of it. Okay, I’ll stop here. I just wanted to share what I found insightful about rents not coming down; I didn’t mean for this to be my manifesto for a new financial system, but when your beat is restaurants, and restaurants pay rent…
It’s this extractive economy and late capitalism that I felt Ryan Sutton’s controversial Eater post-mortem about TAK Room, an American chophouse by Thomas Keller in New York’s newish Hudson Yards mall, was really about. More than a critique of TAK itself, it was a critique of the plutocracy that allowed a “self-financed” project burn a US$2.2 billion hole in the taxpayer’s pocket, and allowed the kind of restaurant where half the main courses were over US$95 to exist in a zone considered to be poverty stricken.
As I wrote a few newsletters ago (Restaurant Reviews Are Dead. Long Live Restaurant Reviews), today’s food writing must have context, and I would argue that Sutton’s piece is as contextual as they come. It’s knee-deep in the world now, about how a restaurant fits (or doesn’t) into what’s going on in that city, and as Sutton writes, a “lesson” probably worth learning from. Is it a restaurant review in the sense that it will tell people where to spend their dollars? No, of course not, it’s a closed restaurant. Why is that the part that’s confusing?
The first three paragraphs say quite plainly that the critique is cultural, about the thoughtless gentrification of the area, and serving overpriced unimaginative food. The critique itself has been widely criticised in the F&B world for being insensitive to the current situation, the most prominent (in my social feeds anyway) being Corey Lee’s Instagram Post, in which he calls the piece “an asshole move”.
As I understand it, the outrage has a lot to do with what’s being seen as a lack of respect for a prominent, long-running business, a well-loved chef, and, quite fairly, the people who have lost their jobs (although Sutton makes it abundantly clear from the outset that he is fully aware of the economic realities – “Scores of hardworking people are losing their livelihoods…”).
I don’t know Sutton, I don’t have deep feelings about New York beyond that of a visitor, I’ve never eaten at a Thomas Keller restaurant, although I appreciate that they are revered and generally accepted as being the epitome of dining – so I’m not going to die on the Hill of TAK, but I would for my belief that critique is a necessary part of public discourse. People assume that critique necessarily comes from a bad place, but why would someone invest deep thought into something they don’t care about? [1]
I’ve been seeing a ton of virtue signalling [2] around this (and basically any article or social media post with a hint of criticism about F&B businesses) about how, in a time like this, that we should “be kind” to businesses, and only “constructive criticism” should be published. “Constructive” is entirely tautological here, because all critique is constructive. Philosopher Michel Foucault says it much better than I ever could:
“A critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest.”
When the tip of the pen is pointed at you, or someone you identify with, it hurts, understandably. It forces you to question your very purpose, and to act on things you never thought was your responsibility. So of course you’re going to defend your past decisions, squirm and wiggle your way out of it. But I’m of the school that teaches that discomfort is necessary for growth. If you care about the long term (of a business, of a city, of humanity, goshdarnit!), you’ll understand that putting a cute bandaid over a crumbling building is not only useless, but irresponsible. The bandaid of kind words might be soothing, but if I had to choose between truth and social niceties, the truth (with all the messiness that comes with it) would win every time. (Oh dear, what trolls have I invited into the house?)
There’s a lot of bad writing (and practices) posing as critique out there, and please, go and bag the heck out of all those, but I don’t think Sutton’s piece belongs in the “bad” pile. It might have been a bitter pill to swallow, but as the Chinese saying goes, medicine that does the most good is always bitter.
Epilogue: I’m reminded of this other widely-shared post-mortem about Prune, also in New York (again 😑I thought the whole point of this newsletter was to stop Americans dictating my reading habits), but written by the restaurateur herself. It read to me like a beautifully written list of excuses. But autobiographical stories are hard – if it’s hard to have a pen pointed at you, try pointing it at yourself.
[1] Unless they’re a nihilist, in which case, fair point. Sorry, I’ve been brushing up on philosophy lately.
[2] Fully aware that commenting on virtue signalling can also be construed as virtue signalling, thanks!
Announcement!
If you follow me on social (it’s @e_ting, hi!) you would have noticed me posting a lot about Add Oil, a book produced by Charmaine Mok, Victoria Chow and myself, featuring recipes from over 30 Hong Kong bars and restaurants. It’s a fundraising cookbook, where all earnings will go back to the contributors. We opened for pre-orders earlier this week and have already sold over 250 copies! It’s incredibly exciting but also a little nerve-racking, especially as I’ve just pissed everyone off about what I think critique is. (Breathes deeply)
Great read
I loved this piece by Sharanya Deepak in Vittles that weaves COVID business realities in a community of Northeastern Indians in New Delhi with knowledge about the region’s diversity of eating habits, ingredients, as well as the prejudices and misunderstandings Northeastern Indians face in their own country, not to mention outside of it.
Podcasts
I was on one! Grateful to have been the back-up (D-listers forever!) when another guest dropped out of Melbourne-based food journo Dani Valent’s podcast, Dirty Linen. It was pretty free-wheeling – I didn’t really properly consider or plan any of the things I said, which probably isn’t a great idea in retrospect.
How the Supermarket Helped America Win the Cold War on Freakonomics illuminates the fascinating connection between Big Ag, supermarkets and soft power that became hard, economic power. Also, I like how nonchalantly Dubner explains why grains were on the bottom of the food pyramid, like it’s common knowledge (it’s not – plenty of people still like to argue that we need to eat a ton of wheat and refuse to consider that the food pyramid is the result of corrupt policy).
Gastropod’s Shatter-Proof: How Glass Took Over the Kitchen—And Ended Child Labor follows the history of glass, from Burano to Pyrex, and also, I now know why old Ball glasses are collectors items.
Thank you for reading! If you liked this, why not share?
Or subscribe!