More Reasons to Love the Sounders, Soccer
Seattlest Pix 09Nov20
Friendly Folk-Pop for the Kids: Hey Marseilles at Vera This Saturday
Excavator Rampage in Stanwood
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition Nov 20-22
Seattle is a town that doesn’t have a lot of love for pastry chefs, and we’re not just saying this out of self pity. Last weekend, Sue McCown announced that she will be closing Coco la ti da, her three-month old dessert lounge on Capitol Hill.
Now a new restaurant closing isn’t exactly something to surprise anyone, nor are the common chef-cum-businessperson problems that McCown cites in the Times article. But, despite its frivolous name, we liked Coco la ti da--a place where we would be happy to spend an evening with a sweet treat and a snazzy martini. So, we are forced to wonder if the fundamental problem with Coco la ti da may simply have been Seattle's lack of enthusiasm for its star: dessert.
The trendy late-night dessert bar is a relatively new concept, but it's working well in other more metropolitan cities. One of the first of the genre, ChickaLicious (again, with the names), opened in the New York's East Village in 2004 and has been dishing out prix-fixe dessert menus (12 for an amuse, a plated dessert and petit fours) ever since. Chicago and Boston also support their own dessert bars, Sugar and Finale, respectively.
So, is Seattle a town that just doesn't embrace extravagences like dessert?
Seattle is now home to great chef-owned restaurants, but the desserts are rarely on par with the rest of the menu. Constrained by the budget of a start-up business, restaurants forgo hiring a pastry chef and make do with a dessert menu that doesn't match their other stellar offerings. When diners fail to be enticed by blasé dessert options, the decision to skimp on pastry is validated by low dessert sales.
What if we strike a deal? You, the diner, will chance ordering dessert if we, the pastry chefs, promise to provide something delicate, interesting and restrained.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Deal!
I think that the main reason behind Coco la ti da closing is probably the gut-wrenchingly high prices rather than larger issues between Seattle and dessert.
I don't usually order dessert with dinner simply because dinner portions offered by nearly all restaurants are *enormous*. I end up needing about an hour to "recover" before I can consider dessert.
So, I'll counter your deal: You start making meal portions reasonably sized and I'll have room for dessert.
Fair point about sub-par desserts in Seattle, but I don't think Seattle is at all blasé about desserts. Coco's problem definately wasn't lack of interest, and I say that because every time I went, there was always a decent wait to get in.
I think the issue was exactly what was pointed out in the Times article: Lack of capital and a shaky business plan. Fabulous restaurants close all the time for lack of solid business plans.
Though you couldn't call me a regular, I went to Coco a few times, and wanted to make a trip back again soon. After speaking with Sue once, it was easy to see that she was exceptionally creative, and was interested in blurring the lines between sweet and savory. In my mind, that is a creative bent on food that should be explored more often.
I will miss Coco not only for the fabulous foods that they served, but for so many unrealized possibilities.
That must have been a horrible business plan. I don't think I've ever seen a Seattle restaurant with so much (free) publicity and instant popularity.
A place like Finale in Boston (I've never been to ChickaLicious in NYC) works because its in a theater district area and can cater to a very specific type of crowd. It's tough to make a dessert restaurant a "destination". I think it's tough for this kind of place to work in a more "neighborhood" type environment.
(I wish I had a chance to check it out before it closed...)
Simply Desserts in Fremont has been there a long time (their website says over 20 years), well before Fremont got yuppified. I don't know how they survived the low-rent past or the what must be ungodly-high rent now.
Their desserts are good though not adventurous, and inexpensive. Um, the last time I went, more than 6 years ago. (And I work in Fremont. How odd - must try it again.)
yeah, simply desserts will do in a pinch, and that also puts you a block away from the gelato place... whose name i can't remember right now.
hiroki has been around for awhile, and the desserts are wonderful, but i rarely hear people mention it. typekey is messing around with url posting, but the name is unique enough for easy googling.
I think our problem is exactly your proposed solution: "delicate, interesting, and restrained." I was so ready to love Coco la ti da, but then they charged me like $13 for a gumdrop of chocolate cake and a thimble of fudge sauce. Yeah, it was delicate, yeah it was interesting, but it was not satisfying. If dessert lounges want to sustain themselves, they need to attract the dessert whores of the world. And to endear themselves to dessert whores like me, they need to serve lavish slices of tasty cakes. Like Kingfish does, for example.
Oh, and refilling my water glass before it sits empty for a half-hour wouldn't hurt either.
Seattle had the Pacific Dessert Company, with three locations, for a decade or more before they decided to call it quits. Dilettantes has been around for over 20 years and shows no signs of going away. Have you looked at the pastry selection at the B&O? And at the lowbrow end, what about the ever-growing Top Pot donut and Cupcake Royale empires? (And note how many of those are within walking distance of Coco la ti da -- there may be no such thing in Seattle as too many coffee shops, but there very likely is a saturation density for desserts).
Seattle is perfectly willing to indulge in dessert, but they're not willing to pay more than $5 or $6 a plate for it. If you want to charge more than that, you either have to have a high-end restaurant serving courses before that, or be willing to run at a loss for quite a while as you woo the deep-pocket diners (and you better be close to something like the McCaw Hall or at least have parking for their Lexuses).
Restaurants fail with appalling frequency, and the number one reason is undercapitalization (which is typically a symptom of the number two reason: bad management). If you open a new place you should be prepared to run at a flat loss for at least 3 months while you build up awareness and reviews, longer if your prices are especially high or your niche especially narrow (and Coco was both). Coco had no nearby parking, so it needed walk-up neighborhood business, but it wasn't the kind of place you go every week for dinner so it wasn't going to get a lot of that. And for people who might buy a small sweet on the run they couldn't compete with a $1 truffle from Dilettante's. From what I've read their cost structure (rent, especially) was too high too. Add all that up and you have a recipe for a disaster.
Let's face it, the desserts weren't all that special. All the good publicity in the world can't save a restaurant serving bland desserts. Next.
I wonder if part of the problem she encountered was labor. As a small business owner (not in food service but the type of labor I hire is probably similar to what Sue would seek in an employee). I've really struggled lately with labor. It seems that nobody wants to work! We start at $12.50+ per hour for basic work (on your feet but not back-breaking). Our employment ads bring very few applications, and those who we do hire often quit after a few weeks or just don't show up for an interview. Labor is our biggest struggle. The Seattle labor scene is rotten. Too many jobs chasing too few eager earners.
Just to clarify, Finale in Boston has been open since the late 1990's, so the "dessert chic" trend has been going on since well before 2004.