3 ms·

One problem is that restaurants have no incentive to serve modestly sized, affordable meals. No one raves about a restaurant because it served "just enough to f

by prawn 10y ago

One problem is that restaurants have no incentive to serve modestly sized, affordable meals. No one raves about a restaurant because it served "just enough to fill me up". No restaurant would ever advertise "reasonably sized plates". Restaurants with small servings are focusing on quality and charging accordingly, or pushing 5+ courses. Even if a restaurant charged two-thirds the price for appropriately sized meals, they still have the same transactional costs (staffing, equipment, production, etc).

PeterWhittaker 10y ago
I disagree. I tend to eschew restaurants that serve too much, especially those that advertise the size of their portions. I know the quality of the food will be meh. When I eat out, I want as good or better than what I can make.
foobarian 10y ago
I would love to find a restaurant with "reasonably sized plates." Most places serve ridiculous two-person portions, and out of some Catholic guilt-laden upbringing (kids are starving in Africa etc.) I feel compelled to not leave anything on the plate and have a bad time as a result. I would rave about a place that kept portion sizes down. Another bonus is it would be more practical to also have dessert after the main course. In practice I usually just end up ordering an appetizer as the main course at the cost of some awkwardness with the server.
- prawn 10y ago
  Another idea is that you order your meal and one option is to have 3/5ths on the plate and 2/5ths packaged to takeaway. No awkward "can I have a doggy bag?" for a container of the scraps you favoured least. Even though many desserts are made ahead of time, in Australia they're often very expensive ($15-18) and so something I almost never order.
lifeformed 10y ago
There's a restaurant in Portland called Little Big Burger. It has $4 burgers that are fairly small, but are made of high quality ingredients you'd find in a fancier restaurant's big $10 burgers. And it's still enough food for a serving if you get fries with it. It's be cool to see more places like that: small portions but using the extra cost savings for higher quality food.

by prawn 10y ago

PeterWhittaker 10y ago

I disagree. I tend to eschew restaurants that serve too much, especially those that advertise the size of their portions. I know the quality of the food will be meh. When I eat out, I want as good or better than what I can make.

foobarian 10y ago

I would love to find a restaurant with "reasonably sized plates." Most places serve ridiculous two-person portions, and out of some Catholic guilt-laden upbringing (kids are starving in Africa etc.) I feel compelled to not leave anything on the plate and have a bad time as a result. I would rave about a place that kept portion sizes down. Another bonus is it would be more practical to also have dessert after the main course. In practice I usually just end up ordering an appetizer as the main course at the cost of some awkwardness with the server.

prawn 10y ago
Another idea is that you order your meal and one option is to have 3/5ths on the plate and 2/5ths packaged to takeaway. No awkward "can I have a doggy bag?" for a container of the scraps you favoured least. Even though many desserts are made ahead of time, in Australia they're often very expensive ($15-18) and so something I almost never order.

lifeformed 10y ago

There's a restaurant in Portland called Little Big Burger. It has $4 burgers that are fairly small, but are made of high quality ingredients you'd find in a fancier restaurant's big $10 burgers. And it's still enough food for a serving if you get fries with it. It's be cool to see more places like that: small portions but using the extra cost savings for higher quality food.