‘Just Pack Whatever - It’s SF’
I can’t count the number of times I’ve said that to friends coming in for the day or the week who ask what to bring. Aside from warnings about unpredictable, schizophrenic weather, the dress code seldom comes up. I can’t think of a neighborhood where you can’t get away with jeans. The main differences are at the bodily extremes: how blingy should my earrings be? How expensive my shoes?
Not everyone loves the demise of the dress code, however, as this Chronicle article addresses.
Chefs at some of San Francisco’s starriest restaurants have given up on enforcing jacket-and-tie policies, allowing patrons to dine unless they “show up in T-shirts and shorts:”
San Francisco, of course, isn’t the only city where sartorial standards have slipped. Charlie Trotter, the Chicago chef whose namesake restaurant is considered one of the finest in the nation, says it’s a trend that is vexing upscale restaurants from coast to coast.
“I call it the casualization of America, and it’s a grim scene,” says Trotter. “In New York and Chicago people still dress. As you move westward, it gets looser and more casual.” Trotter’s restaurant doesn’t have a strict dress code, but “gentlemen are encouraged to wear jackets,” he says.
David Shaw, who writes the “Matters of Taste” column for the Los Angeles Times, says he has seen a marked decline in the standard of dress at top restaurants in his city. “Los Angeles is a more casual city than New York and San Francisco, but even so, people have gotten sloppy and careless,” says Shaw. “Most restaurants don’t want to talk about it because they’re afraid of offending their customers.”
Balancing older diners preferences and younger diners inability to dress themselves properly (oh yeah, that’s my view too, not just the article’s. My momma raised me right) confounds many of the city’s finer establishments. Some blame the economic downturn, others the generally falling standards nation-wide.
I know I appreciate the jeans-friendly demeanor of 99% of San Francisco’s restaurants. Lord knows when I’m at home in LA or visiting friends in NYC I panic regularly about what to wear since people there actually, like, care and sh*t. At the same time, when I’m lucky enough to be going to Boulevard, I think it’s nice to dress like I can afford to eat there. Plus special food is a special occasion, and a special occasion always means party clothes, right?
Oh - and party clothes used to mean a nice dress, ladies, not your 7 jeans. Just because they cost $150 doesn’t make them dressy.
Heading for a North Beach night out last weekend, on the same night as the Black & White Ball, I was amazed at how many tux-clad men, cocktail dressed and formal gowned women littered the streets - gloves and top hats in tow. It was a notable difference from the average crew out-bound for evening activities.
Not everything is a ball, but even the symphony, ballet, and opera, don’t encourage the same kind of primping as they used to. So relaxed dress codes may make clubbing and bar-hopping more fun - but they can ruin your $300 dinner. It would be nice if San Franciscans could differentiate between venues and dress accordingly.
Related posts:
The article makes some fair points, but as a recent SF transplant from DC my opinion differs. In DC nearly everything is deathly formal: the workplace, restaurants, bars, etc. One is expected to be at least business casual most everywhere. So what do most people do? They buy middling, dull-looking, affordable dress clothes because they have to live in them day and night. The end result is a sea of blue blazers, khakis, and Ann Taylor dresses without a hint of panache or style in sight.
So by contrast, the “casual” look presented by San Franciscans is a breath of fresh air. Jeans may abound, but they’re often combined with interesting tops, shoes, and accessories. Were I trying to create a stylish atmosphere for my venue I’d much rather have that than a dull, staid DCer.
There’s no apologizing for jeans at the opera, though. That’s the line.
I lived in DC for awhile and worked on the Hill - yeah, people can get way boring. But that’s just because they lack imagination. Cute tops, shoes, etc, still go with work clothes too. And dress clothes needn’t cost an arm and a leg either. That’s the thing here: if I thought people had really spent any less on their jeans/top combo than they could’ve on an actually appropriate outfit, then fine. But they probably haven’t.
Those DCers are lazy. As as SFers. Each in their own way.
DC is the most boring-dressing place on planet earth. How many times did I go out to a “trendy” place on Saturday night to find a room full of guys in ironed oxford shirts and khakis, and women in department store skirts. It’s like everyone’s always networking, never socializing. I used to work hard to find places that Hill people didn’t go to.
Christiana, I think you do need to toughen up, however. I agree that people should dress appropriately, but if the chick at the next table has the power to “ruin your $300 dinner,” not by talking too loud or slurping her soup or blathering with her girlfriends on her cell phone, but simply by wearing blue jeans, then I wonder how you survive the daily indignities on display in the Big City.
Let’s see . . . ironed shirts and khakis. If we swapped the khakis for jeans, or hell, even kept them, I think we’d just be in the Marina: where stripped shirts rule! Don’t be so hard on DC - there are just as many fashion drones here, perhaps just sorted by neighborhood (oh, dred locks! how original! wow, nice flowy skirt. oh, check out your skinny jeans! wow, did you pick out that prada-esque button down on your own?). That’s just how life and fashion work. Nice elitism on the “department store skirt” comment. Where would you have these women shop instead? If it’s not Dior, out with ‘em?
As for networking over socializing, as a former part of that crowd - sometimes - to them it IS socializing, just sometimes with a better payoff. Networking is a sport in DC as much as any community softball league.
And perhaps “ruin” is a strong word (or perhaps you just need to let me run with the rhetoric a bit). All those other things you list are much more intrusive, that’s true. I just think it’s a bit sad to have nothing worth dressing up for anymore. I’ll eat my food fine regardless of what you’re wearing - hell - regardless of what I’m wearing.
As a northern californian, permanently in a casual mode, DC is a bizarre place. I get dressed up work, perma-press pants, nice shoes, but usually only a polo. I hate all the pricks that show up in their three piece suits that cost as much as a condo payment, thinking that somehow because they managed to shop at Brooks Brothers that they’re better than I am.
I guess I’m a Pretty-People-Hater. I don’t think there’s a ton of shame in that, especially with the untucked Polo Lauren oxford and worn Cocks hat that many hill staffers consider to be weekend attire.
Dude, where’s your shorts? Your sandals? Your t-shirts? Have you not noticed it’s 90 degrees out and you’re wearing pants? Dude, if you want to “look good” and roast, fine, but I’m gonna be quite comfy in shorts and a nice t-shirt in my Tevas.
>So relaxed dress codes may make clubbing and bar-hopping more fun -
>but they can ruin your $300 dinner.
Personally, I think if a relaxed dress code is ruining your $300 dinner, you have some strange priorities. If somebody wants to dress up to eat, then nobody’s stopping them. It seems like you’re trying to make the argument that because you want to, everybody else should as well. Unfortunately, I don’t see any logical argument for HAVING to dress up to go to a nice restaurant. You’re talking about social agreements and understandings that evolve and change over time. As with most of these kinds of debates, it sounds to me more like some people are uncomforatable with change.
2 points:
1) as far as my meals being “ruined” - see previous response on that. and at most $300 dinners, i’ve had enough cocktails/wine not to even see what other people are wearing, let alone care. but i bet you it bugs the chef. and i think bugging the guy who’s tucked away unseen holding your food is generally a bad idea. read the damn article - people are divided. not like i just made this issue up, guys.
2) no, it’s not the end of the world, per se. but sad trends are sad trends and only change with social pressure. i’d lose that fight in this city, and as i’ve said, i enjoy the lack of dress-pressure tremendously. but i think it’s sad too for a restaurant to go to the trouble of making a fabulously ritzy setting and spend time and energy on presentation for people who don’t care about their personal presentation. but a free market is a free market so everyone is going to survive.
i never said i wanted to dress up or that everyone should have to. i said i like to dress up and eventually when no one does anymore, that will be sad. to me. of course i’m still free to think that those who don’t dress up lack the proper upbringing to tell them how to behave in certain social situations. those situations, as you correctly state, are changing all the time - and perhaps nowhere faster than in this city.
CD, I think you misinterpreted my comment. I wrote nothing disparaging about what any of those people (the men in khakis or the women in department store skirts) wore; just that they all dressed for work all the time, because many people there saw their whole lives as work, even Saturday nights at the bar. If you wanted Saturday night to *not* be about work, you had to try hard to find that venue. That’s all.
Yes, many people socialize in worlds where everyone dresses the same. You seem to be craving such a uniformity when you eat at expensive restaurants. My point is that compared to most other things I see in this town, I don’t find a woman wearing blue jeans to a pricey restaurant entirely offensive, certainly not enough to ruin my meal.
Anyway, you have an interesting perspective. Thanks for clarifying. :)
>i never said i wanted to dress up or that everyone should have to.
No, you didn’t. I’m sorry if I misprepresented you. But the implication seems to be there. For example, your conclusion, “It would be nice if San Franciscans could differentiate between venues and dress accordingly,” can certainly be read that way.
>of course i’m still free to think that those who don’t dress up lack the proper
>upbringing to tell them how to behave in certain social situations.
Absolutely. Just as other people are free to think differently, which is all I’m doing. I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I certainly not accusing you of making up any issues. I’m just voicing another opinion regarding the situation. I’m sorry if I came off as argumentatively, as you seem to think. It wasn’t my intention, but my writing online seems to be read that way frequently.
oh you kids and your apologies - don’t worry about it. this is healthy discourse, and i guarantee we’ll all think about it next time we’re making reservations somewhere.
it never ceases to amuse me which posts draw the most commentary, either. and this one turned on one word, too: “ruin.” i’m glad we all take clothes so seriously, through - or we take our right to not take them seriously seriously. it’s all quite serious sounding . . . .