New dress code

[crusader]

Is it really totally unfair to ask guests to go put on a nicer pair of shorts and collared golf shirt for a restaurant that holds itself out as a fine dining experience and, in doing so, attracts many guests looking for that type of experience?

Not if the experience is truly "fine dining". That implies service. If you want me to wear a collar, provide the service. Don't simply take the sit down resort restaurants with psuedo-better fare offerings - the majority of which don't rate above a B- or C+ in most travel books - and decide a pair of sneakers makes a difference over a pair of flipflops.

Maybe this is a sublimal attempt to convince the guest that "dress shorts" somehow make the food and service better at a restaurant without actually changing a darn thing except increasing the price. (which is the only reason I can even fathom for this stupidity)

 

[crusader]

If the majority of these restaurants were actually providing a true fine dining experience then I'd revisit the issue. They're not. All the ratings are doing is stating the obvious - that the quality of the food and service don't measure up.

And think about it. Disney isn't mandating business casual here for a reason. There's no fine dining involved. Short of a shoes and shirt policy, I see no sound argument as to how flipflops and collarless shirts would adversely affect a guests experience more than sneakers and a hawaiian shirt.

 

[FrozenTundra]

Couple of thoughts.

First, a steak house like Yatchsman attracts a much different clientele then the Ponderosa out on International Drive. I would imagine a family that is used to dining in a restaurant that sells a ribeye for $42.00 is used too and accepts dress codes without giving it a minutes thought. It's common sense or at least common knowledge that you wear different clothing to a fine dining restaurant then you would to a stuff-yo-gut buffet.

Second, since when did teenage girls start ruling the world ? They will wear whatever it is their parents let them get away with wearing - which is one reason I scratch my head a lot and wonder what a father is thinking when his DD leaves the house each day. Mom,Dad.... if she tries to wear Pecos Bill dining cloths to Yatchsman, don't be afraid to tell her to change her cloths. When she starts paying for the meals herself, then she can be the boss.

Third, dining at a place Yatchsman should also be a learning experience for kids. I guess I'm old-fashioned but kids need to know there is a difference between Yatchsman and Chef Mickey. Kids need to learn the social graces that will be required of them as adults and knowing how to dress properly for a special occassions is one of those life lessons.

That said, IMO Disney will not turn anyone away because of how they are dressed. Disney probably has seen a trend of people dressing down for restaurants like Yatchsman and the signage is a gentle reminder of what they'd like it to be.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I disagree with my friend crusader and side with my friend scoop on the issue of quality...Many of the WDW chef's are know throughout the world and the quality at most of these that we're talking about is very high.

Yepsen, I think you just inferred that I'm classes and that isn't appreciated.

Who's the aribitor of what's acceptable dress...Well, of course it'll be the restaurant ultimately, but I see no reason to eliminate shorts, jeans or flip flops (since they are the fashion rage)...I can be swayed on T's but my earlier point about the recently purchased $40.00 Disney T stands...Does Disney really want to exclude this guest?

 

[DisneyKidds]

As a young couple without children who enjoy getting dressed up for a romantic evening while on vacation, we welcome the change... I think WDW needs a few quieter, more upscale options... they certainly have the decor and the food in place... this is the last step.

Ah......what do DINKs like you know . (only kidding.....only kidding)

The only thing I'd disagree with in this whole dress code thread, if it were true, which I'm sure it is not, is 'no shorts'. In the tropical heat and humidity of the central Florida swampland this would be absurd. All the rest is probably just a restatement of what was already in place, but largely unenforced. Will they enforce it more now? Who knows........but it probably won't make much of any difference to very many people.

Scoop....one note on your NYC observations, and how they might correlate to WDW. Yes, there are very many restaurants in NYC that cater to a business clientelle. That is far different from the countless other establishments that cater to the majority. I think that vast majority of people in NYC is more akin to the crowd you'll find occupying 99% of the seats at WDW eating establishments. Oh, and FWIW, when we went out for luch today the ratio of females in tank tops and short skirts to anyone in a sportcoat or suit jacket was 95 to 1......or maybe 100 to 0........well, I actually didn't see any sportcoats or suit jackets.......but maybe all those tank tops had something to do with that.......but I digress.

Really, there is a business/convention contingent at WDW, but hardly a large enough one to fill the establishments we are talking about. So going to a true upscale dress code will never make sense for WDW. Other than V&A you will never see anything more restrictive than 'smart resort casual', and that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

No matter what dress codes Disney institutes I will never, NEVER, pack anything longer than a pair of Bermuda shorts for a summertime vacation.

 

[DancingBear]

Or what about all the social prejudice out there? Isn't this dress code just another form of that?

Nope. You telling me there are folks who can afford to eat at Cali Grill that don't have clothes that meet these minimal requirements? Or maybe the prices at Cali Grill themselves are an example of social prejudice?

 

[DancingBear]

They should leave - not me.

Right. Because it is entirely reasonable for you to inflict your standards on others, but entirely unreasonable for any standards (even minimal ones) to be imposed upon you.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well DB, although I can meet the minimal standards of nice shorts, polo shirt and nice tennis shoes for the majority of these standards I could not pass muster at V&A's...My wallet could get in but my shabby *** clothes will keep me at the rum bar with scoop & gcurling...

 

[DisneyKidds]

Believe it or not, there is a small but still significant type of guest that brings dress up clothes to WDW for that "one special evening". Also, many of the patrons at Disney's signature category restaurants are locals out for a dressed-up evening.

Oh, I believe it and I agree. That being said, there will never be enough of them to fill the restaurants we are talking about from the original post. So for the types of places listed in the original post I just don't see it happening.

Does WDW need another Empress Room type experience once again to go along with V&A? Sure, I can see them adding another dining experience like this, but it won't be at one of the existing restaurants as configured. Maybe they take one, close it and remodel and give another place to have that quiet expensive meal. I have no problem with that.

 

[DancingBear]

Not if the experience is truly "fine dining". That implies service. If you want me to wear a collar, provide the service. Don't simply take the sit down resort restaurants with psuedo-better fare offerings - the majority of which don't rate above a B- or C+ in most travel books - and decide a pair of sneakers makes a difference over a pair of flipflops.

Three Disney restaurants have been named among the top 5 restaurants in Orlando according to the most recent edition of the Zagat Survey of Best American Restaurants. The three Disney restaurants awarded this culinary distinction are Victoria & Albert's at Disney's Grand Floridian Resort & Spa, the California Grill atop Disney's Contemporary Resort, and The Flying Fish Café at Disney's BoardWalk Resort.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/dwm/info/pressRelease/detail?name=WhatsNewPRDetailPage

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well, this has been an enjoyable discussion, quite unlike the old days despite the familiar names!

I'm off to WDW now, where I'll be dining at The California Grill at 9:00 this evening...In my speedo and half shirt...Hope nobody minds.

 

[FrozenTundra]

Just be sure to shave your naval first.

 

[crusader]

Yeah my standards are the end all. Comeon! Context please, counselor if nothing else!!!!

If this code has been in effect all along and simply relaxed to allow t-shirts, tanks etc. then why bring it up now?

Frozen Tundra's point is pretty valid - an expensive dinner only resort restaurant will for the most part automatically have patrons wearing their better casual clothing It shouldn't matter if someone is let in with some "illegal" attire that doesn't look any worse than the rest of the clientele otherwise.

Oh and you're right Mr. Pirate. I should have elaborated. It's not that the quality is bad, it's that the ratings take into account all factors compared to the prices being charged. Disney is inflated in pricing on many menu items yet doesn't always provide the upscale service we would receive in a similar priced dining setting and this hurts them overall.

Nope. You telling me there are folks who can afford to eat at Cali Grill that don't have clothes that meet these minimal requirements? Or maybe the prices at Cali Grill themselves are an example of social prejudice?

.

I'm saying you can't convince me a flip flop looks worse than a worn sneaker. For women, it's a pretty big part of today's summer fashion footwear. How is making her put on a certain type of shoe not discriminatory? It's really a ratio of 90 to 10 here in terms of who'd be wearing this particular item so it's hard to argue that you're not targeting them for the most part in this example. Tank tops can also be equally weighted against women who love to wear them with a skirt and show off their feet in a pair of flip flops.

So Joe Blo gets in with his sneaks he cuts the grass with and a pair of magnum PI shorts and a hawaiian shirt with a bikini babe on it, but Suzy has to wear a sandal with a slight heel and a church lady blouse with her skirt. That's not discriminatory?

 

[raidermatt]

I've never understood the idea that having somebody at the next table who isn't dressed as nice as you somehow detracts from your "experience". If they are well-groomed, clean, and well-behaved, and somehow that means you can't have a romantic meal with your spouse, well, all I can say is that's a shame.

Beyond that, I can't buy into the discriminatory thing either, though I agree in concept that if there is any kind of material change going on here, its a bad idea.

500 options? Ok, so we're counting churro carts and I really don't think a churro is a viable alternative to a sit-down dinner. As good as the Nestle Tollhouse Chocolate Chip Cookie Ice Cream Sandwiches are, even I can't approve of having that for dinner.

So let's be realistic and just included sit-down and counter service, and that's why the 2% isn't a practical number to use. And if we want to really be accurate, we're only talking about sit-down dining options, and now this really is becoming a significant percentage.

Again, this isn't likely to affect me personally in anyway, because I've never gone to any of the restaurants on that list, or any other comparable place on property, in less than walking shorts, non-flip flop sandals, and a collared shirt (usually an Aloha shirt, btw, frequently quite loud). So this isn't coming from any personal aversion to meeting that kind of dress code.

Its just that WDW is not the place for it. Its a bad, and yes, exclusionary move to expand it. The people who want to dress up are going and dressing up anyway. Those who might want to wear flip flops or a clean t-shirt will now likely not go, and also feel like this isn't quite the type of resort they thought it was.

And again, on the subject of t-shirts and tank tops, I think some need to take a quick trip to the ladies' department at Macy's, Nordstrom, or another upscale department store and see what falls into this category.

Kids need to learn the social graces that will be required of them as adults and knowing how to dress properly for a special occassions is one of those life lessons.

Having dinner at the hotel restaurant in WDW isn't all that special an occasion. We're talking about families that are on vacation and probably spent most of their day in a theme park in hot and humid conditions. For most, this isn't the type of "special occasion" to which you are referring. Besides, having a dress code like the one listed isn't going to accomplish anything in this area anyway. If the parents aren't teaching their kids the proper way to behave in restaurants, its folly to think this will actually change that. That rampaging 3-year old will now just be doing it in their sneakers instead of flip flops.

You aren't going to significantly change the culture at WDW or its restaurants just by posting this rather minimal, but still more restrictive dress code. I'm sure Disney knows that. If they don't, then they really are clueless.

 

[raidermatt]

So Joe Blo gets in with his sneaks he cuts the grass with and a pair of magnum PI shorts and a hawaiian shirt with a bikini babe on it, but Suzy has to wear a sandal with a slight heel and a church lady blouse with her skirt. That's not discriminatory?

Well said, though I'm still not sure discriminatory is the right word. Regardless, the example highlights the absurdity in thinking this policy is actually going to make your experience "finer", and that it will actually materially change what people are wearing to these restaurants.

 

[DancingBear]

In practice, no 16 yo girl wearing a fashionable tank top or flip-flops going to CA Grill with her well-groomed and well-behaved family is going to be denied service at any of these places.

Disney is using a very common practice of having a stated dress code to create some marginal upgrading of the atmosphere in these particular restaurants. Whether you personally understand it or not, the experience of others in the restaurants are affected, at least somewhat, by your dressing choices.

There is nothing wrong with Disney adopting a minimally more stringent dress code to attempt to make the atmosphere more pleasant for these other guests.

You can always pick apart any dress code at the margins. An office dress code might say no denim, but of course my secretary might have a denim skirt that in fact is much nicer than my worn out khakis. That's where reasonable enforcement of the code comes in. But at least there is some guideline for folks.

I'm sure at least part of the motivation is to stem the downward trend, which is something not limited to Disney. Many restaurants are facing this issue, because they have at least some guests who are negatively affected by the dressing habits of others.

Probably it also gives Disney an excuse to selectively enforce and point to an "objective standard" to turn away folks who might actually be objectionable more for their behavior. It's easier to say "I'm sorry, but we don't allow flip-flops here" than "I'm sorry, but we don't approve of your cursing at the top of your lungs at your children who are swinging from the chandeliers."

 

[DancingBear]

- an expensive dinner only resort restaurant will for the most part automatically have patrons wearing their better casual clothing

I think the "problem" is that while this assumption may have been true at some point in the past, it is becoming less and less valid.

 

[FrozenTundra]

Having dinner at the hotel restaurant in WDW isn't all that special an occasion. We're talking about families that are on vacation and probably spent most of their day in a theme park in hot and humid conditions. For most, this isn't the type of "special occasion" to which you are referring. Besides, having a dress code like the one listed isn't going to accomplish anything in this area anyway. If the parents aren't teaching their kids the proper way to behave in restaurants, its folly to think this will actually change that. That rampaging 3-year old will now just be doing it in their sneakers instead of flip flops.

I disagree. After spending days and nights in theme parks eating churos, turkey legs & sliders, wearing tee shirts & swim trunks, a night out in an upscale restaurant is a special occassion. IMO the fact that it's in WDW makes it more special. When DS & DD start to whine because that can't wear the same cloths they've had on for a week, Mom and Dad need to explain why it is proper to dress appropriately.

 

[FrozenTundra]

As good as the Nestle Tollhouse Chocolate Chip Cookie Ice Cream Sandwiches are, even I can't approve of having that for dinner.

You can if you pay $18.95 for it and have a glass of chardonnay with it.

 

[raidermatt]

After spending days and nights in theme parks eating churos, turkey legs & sliders, wearing tee shirts & swim trunks, a night out in an upscale restaurant is a special occassion.

For some, sure. For many its not. At least not a "dress-up" special occasion.

DB, the problem with selective enforcement is that invariably, somebody being turned away for a t-shirt will spot somebody in a t-shirt not turned away. Now, you are open to accusations of discrimination, even if that wasn't the intent. Not to mention the "fun" position the CM has been put into.

Whether you personally understand it or not, the experience of others in the restaurants are affected, at least somewhat, by your dressing choices.

I misstated. I understand it perfectly. I was semi-politely pointing out how shallow that kind of thinking is, but since you called me on it, there it is. There are places where it makes good business sense to cater to this kind of thinking, and if that's what a business chooses to do, that's their right. It's just that WDW isn't one of those places.

And again, if those who are truly concerned about the borderline offenders really think this is going to fix that, I'm afraid they're going to have to go right on having their experience negatively affected. Turning away swimsuits and such has always been an option, and from comments posted on other threads, its always happened. Disney simply isn't going to turn away somebody who is otherwise well-groomed but wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt or flip flops.

You can if you pay $18.95 for it and have a glass of chardonnay with it.

Well, if somehow this really is a material change in policy on Disney's part, I'm afraid you might be much closer to the intent than many would like to believe.