I used to live on the same block as her restaurant (Tawla) and only went once (despite eating out pretty frequently). The concept - upscale Mediterranean - just didn't resonate. There's a similar restaurant across the street serving upscale Burmese that seems to be doing really well.

That said, a friend who runs one of my favorite places in SF posted this article to Facebook and said it's really spot on. Diners expect food to be cheaper than the labor market permits.

This is part of the reason that “service included” places don’t pass it through to the menu prices. It’s a mistake to be the only ones doing it (the Bauer review I linked to above just quotes the prices directly, “nobody” mentally compares by adding/removing the 20%).

Since you lived nearby, I always felt that the location was unlikely to succeed. Is there actually a lot of foot traffic there?

Orenshi Ramen, Burma Love, and Shizen all opened in the past few years and seem to be doing really well. On the other hand there’s a spot between 14th & 15th on Valencia that went through 3 restaurants in 3 years.

The places that are succeeding are all second or third efforts - maybe experience really pays off?

Agreed, blaming the customer (damn transplants displacing the natives that understand fine food!) was the low-light of the article.

Plenty of restaurants are doing fine; she simply didn't produce what people wanted.

we once wanted to eat there when the place was new. the staff was so unfriendly (we were there 5 minutes prior to opening) that we decided that we'd never eat there. if they were as snobby with other people I'm not surprised they went out of business. we eat out a lot/ have friends who eat out a lot and I never heard anyone rave about that place. if I were a cook I'd try to work at the place that everybody wants to eat at OR the place that pays the best. if you're neither it's just bad luck.

Based on how everyone in here is remarking on how off-putting and patronizing the tone of the article is, I wasn’t surprised to hear what you said.

I didn't read the article yet but what are some responsibilities an average failed restaurant owner should take? Improper location/menu? Bad hiring? Poor ability keeping staff morale up?

> I didn't read the article yet but what are some responsibilities an average failed restaurant owner should take?

Think of a restaurant owner more like the founder of a start-up. They're literally responsible for everything. Or should be, if they have any sense. Outsourcing every single aspect of a start-up isn't a great idea, is it?

Ideally, a restaurant owner creates the concept, menu, picks the location, hires staff, trains staff, sets service standards, cooks or interacts with guests, orders product, sets prices, etc... You can't just hire people and expect success. If you're a first time owner and not in the restaurant at least 70 hours per week, you're probably going to fail.

I've known several people who have started their own restaurant - let me confirm that the hours required are more than any other job or startup I've ever seen. I am 100%, never, ever, going to start a restaurant.

Is that worth it in terms of life/work balance?

It can be. Successful restaurants are very profitable (it's possible to do revenue that's 5x your startup cost in the first year, with a 10-20 percent margin, thus paying off your startup costs in 1-2 years). And if you want time off, just close the restaurant for a few weeks in the winter/summer.

Also, restaurateurs can eventually put in a few less hours. The main point is that it pays off to be there for the startup phase, especially if you actually bring skills and talent to your business.

The biggest problem I've seen in restaurants is owners who aren't restaurant people or don't have the right personality and temperament for it.

Probably depends how much of your life you expect to spend at a restaurant. If it's less than all of it I don't think you can expect much of a work/life balance.